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 89
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
* The governor, in whose name the writ issued, as chief justice of the provin- cial court.
494
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. him likewise before the governor and council "to answer unto VI. such things as shall be objected against him by the said Mr.
1654. Hatton either as attorney general for his lordship or on his own behalf."* As the purpose of Luke Gardiner's detention of the young lady was, as alleged in the record, "to train her up in the Roman Catholic religion," we must suppose this to have been the meaning of the above expressions,-"a great affront to the government, and of very dangerous and destructive consequence in relation to the peace and welfare of the province." It must be acknowledged, that this goes far in demonstrating, that the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the province had now lost all their former influence in the government of the province, which they themselves had founded. Although there had been some English statutes made before this, in the reigns of James and Charles the first,t which imposed heavy penalties against train- ing up children in the Roman Catholic religion, as well as dis- abilities on the children themselves, yet we should have supposed, that the province of Maryland, founded as it was by Roman Ca- tholics, would have been considered as exempt from the opera- tion of those statutes. But, as they were notoriously made, in their origin, principally to please those very Puritans, who were now at this period of time, wielding the government of England, it is probable, that the severe penalties contained in them were now more strictly enforced than ever in that country, and that the go- vernment of Maryland, now in the hands of the Protestants, (though they were probably of the old church of England,) had no hesi- tation in the case of this sort, to avail themselves of the legis- lative authority of the mother country. We cannot but entertain ideas and sentiments of great injustice done to any number of the human family, who having carved out to themselves a retreat and an asylum for those of their own way of thinking in religion, where they hoped to enjoy their peculiar tenets in that religion after their own manner and direction, are yet, contrary to their most sanguine expectations, in the course of a few revolving years unexpectedly deprived of the supreme direction of that asylum, which they had thus fondly secured, as they thought, to themselves. The lord proprietary, and his adherents in Maryland, without doubt, enter- tained at this time sentiments of that nature. But his lordship, as well as his advisers, ought to have been sensible, that they had
* " Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 297.
Į 1 Jac.1, c. 4 ;- 3 Jac. 1, c. 5 ;- and 3 Car. 1, c. 2.
495
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
some cause to reproach themselves, with having brought on CHAPT. themselves, by their own conduct, this state of things. Had the VI. Roman Catholics of Maryland followed the example of the Pu- 1654. ritans of New England, in obstinately and pertinaciously re- fusing any access whatever into their colony to any person who would not agree to live under their platform of religion, as they called it, the Roman Catholic religion might have been at this day the established religion of Maryland. The English govern- ment, through all its own vicissitudes as well as those of the New England colonies, from their first planting to their declara- tion of independence, tolerated the Congregational or Indepen- dent sect, as the established religion of New England, and by connivance permitted them to persecute and exclude from their civil government as well as hierarchy every presumptuous intru- ding heretic. It is probable, that the English government would have acted in the same manner by the Roman Catholics of Ma- ryland. But lord Baltimore imprudently, at the very outset or commencement of his colony, adopted the sentiment and resolu- tion of universal toleration .* The admission of the Puritans into Maryland, after they had been ferreted out of Virginia by Sir William Berkeley, as has been herein before stated, together with the unfortunate coincidence of events in England, where these Puritans had seized on the supreme power, gave a death blow to the Roman Catholic interest in Maryland. From this period they never afterwards could regain their just and due in- fluence in the province, although for many subsequent years they continued to form the majority of the inhabitants thereof.
We have herein before deduced the affars of the mother coun- Cromwell try to the surrender by the little parliament, (Barebones',) of all proclaimed their powers back again into the hands of Cromwell, on the land as lord in Mary- twelfth of December, 1653. It has been very justly observed protector. by several different historians,t that this surrender of the little parliament must have been in consequence of a preconcerted scheme of"Cromwell, his military officers, and such members of the parliament as were devoted to them; for, within four days afterwards, on the sixteenth of the same month, (within which interval there was not time to have prepared the subsequent pro- ceedings, particularly the form of government produced by them,)
* This appears from the proceedings in Lewis's case, and the proclamation therein alluded to, as stated in the first chapter of this work.
t Lord Clarendon, Rapin, and Tindal in his Appendix to Rapin.
496
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. the commissioners of the great seal, and the lord mayor and al- VI. dermen of London, were sent for to attend Cromwell and his 1654. council of officers at Westminster hall, where, in the presence of the commissioners sitting upon their usual seat, (in the court of chancery,) the declaration of the council of officers was read, by which it was declared,-"That the government of the common- wealth should reside in a single person, that that person should be Oliver Cromwell, captain general of all the forces in England, Scotland and Ireland, and that his title should be lord protector of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of the dominions and territories thereunto belonging." Immediately after which, an instrument of writing on parchment was read, entitled- " The government of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging." In the 33d article of this form of government, Oliver Cromwell was de- clared Lord Protector, &c., "for his life." The administration of the government was thereby vested in the lord protector, "as- sisted with a council, the number whereof should not exceed 21, nor be less than 13." All writs, process, commissions, patents, grants, and other things, which had before run in the name and style of "the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of parliament," should for the future run in the name and style of "the lord protector;" and provision was therein made for the call- ing a parliament in the September following, and triennially ever afterwards. Whilst this form of government was reading, Oli- ver stood, in the court of chancery, uncovered and with his hand on the bible, and, when the reading of it was over, took the oath prescribed for the faithful observance of it .* This ceremony being over, Cromwell was conducted to the palace of Whitehall in great pomp; Lambert carrying the sword of State before him ; and from that time the title of highness and lord protector
" * See this form of government at large in Tindal's Appendix to Rapin's Hist. Eng. It is said by Hume, that this instrument of government was drawn up by general Lambert. It is also said, by lord Clarendon, (in his folio edit. 711,) "that Lambert had helped to make Cromwell protector upon his" (Cromwell's) "promise, that he should succeed him." Thus are the secret causes of revolu- tions to be traced. Whoever will take the trouble of reading this form of go- verment, now introduced for England, will perceive a remarkable resemblance in it to many of those subsequently made for the different States of Ame- rica. It might be conjectured, that Franklin copied that injudicious first con- stitution, which he drew up for Pennsylvania, consisting of a single legislative assembly, with an executive council and a president thereof, principally from this of Lambert.
497
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
was given him. Immediately after, he was proclaimed as CHAPT. such at London, and with all possible expedition by the sheriffs VI. and other officers throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland. 1654. We shall see also that "the dominions thereunto belonging," across the Atlantic, were ready to submit to this all-overwhelm- ing military power in England. When we consider, that, in the early settlements of British America, voyages across the Atlan- tic to their colonies in that quarter of the globe were not gene- rally undertaken in the midst of winter, about which time Crom- well's inauguration had taken place, we must allow a somewhat longer time for the conveyance of intelligence to America than it usually requires in modern times. It appears therefore, that go- vernor Stone, in Maryland, did not receive information of this remarkable revolution in England until about the last of April or the first of May, 1654. With all proper expedition, as it seems, he hastened to comply with the requisite ceremonies on this important occasion. Without any apparent hesitation, he issued the following proclamation in relation to that great event.
" By the lieutenant and governor of Maryland.
"A PROCLAMATION .- Whereas I have lately received certain intelligence, that the government of the commonwealth of En- gland, Scotland, and Ireland, by a lord protector and successive triennial parliaments, is already there established, and that Oli- ver Cromwell, captain general of all the forces of that common- wealth, is declared lord protector of the said commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging for his life, and whereas the government established here under the lord proprietary of this province according to his patent thereof is subordinate unto and dependant upon the afore- said government of the commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland in chief under God as one of the domains thereunto belonging, I have therefore with the advice of the council for this province thought it necessary, and do hereby in the lord proprietary's name make publication of the premises strictly charging and commanding all and every person or persons of what quality or condition soever inhabiting, residing or being within this province to take notice thereof and to conform and submit themselves with all due obedience and subjection to the government so established as aforesaid in chief under God, and all sheriffs and other public ministers and officers whom it may concern, are required to cause this proclamation to be forthwith
VOL. II .-- 63
498
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. published in their respective counties and other usual places for VI. that purpose within this province, to the end that none may have
1654. cause to pretend ignorance in this behalf. Given at St. Mary's the sixth day of May, anno dom. 1654.
WILLIAM STONE.
" Further likewise the inhabitants of this province and others whom it may concern are required to take notice, that in com- memoration of this present solemnity I have thought fit to grant a general pardon of all offences committed in this province since the last general pardon with such exceptions and in such man- ner as shall at the publication thereof the next court be made apparent. Given at St. Mary's the day and year abovesaid.
WILLIAM STONE."*
Agreeably to the notice expressed in the supplementary part of the preceding proclamation, another proclamation appears on the records, dated May 23d, 1654, (the time of holding the next provincial court, as we may suppose,) purporting to be a "ge- neral pardon," with the following "exceptions," to wit,-"ex- cept for murther, treason, or forfeitures incurred but not yet sat- isfied, and except also such persons and offences as the lord pro- prietary hath heretofore excepted from pardon,t and except like- wise all rebellion, conspiracy, combination or endeavour used at any time heretofore by any person against the lord proprietary's right and dominion over this province .- William Stone."} These. exceptions demonstrate, that governor Stone had now formed his fixed resolution of renouncing the "reducement" of the province, as before settled by the commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne, and of reassuming his powers under the lord proprietary of the province.
Calvert county erected.
It will be recollected, that in the year 1649, an agreement had been entered into between lord Baltimore himself and Mr. Ro- bert Brooke, both then in England, concerning the transporta- tion of the latter, together with his numerous family, into Ma- ryland, for the purpose of settling there; and that, in conse- quence thereof, a new county, called Charles county, had been
* "Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 302.
t The "persons," whom the lord proprietary had heretofore excepted from par- don, were "William Clayborne, Richard Ingle, and John Durford, mariner." --- These exceptions were contained in his commission to governor Stone of Au- gust 6th, 1648. See the commission at large, as before referred to, in note (LXII.) at the end of this volume.
# "Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 303.
499
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
erected, of which Mr. Brooke had been made, by a special com- CHAPT. mission or directions from his lordship, commander, with all the VI. honours, privileges, profits, &c., as were then belonging to the 1654. place and office of commander of a county .* In pursuance thereof a special "order or constitution," as it is called, had been made by the governor and council, on the 21st of Novem- ber, 1650, (probably soon after the arrival of Mr. Brooke and his family into the province,) "touching the erecting some part of the south side of Patuxent river into a county by the name of Charles county."t It has been seen, that Mr. Brooke exhibited a remarkable promptness in coinciding with Bennett and Clayborne on the "reducement" of the province in 1652, and was on that occasion, in consequence thereof, without doubt, constituted by them president of the council, formed by them for the govern- ment of the province, on the displacing of governer Stone and his council. This conduct of Mr. Brooke had been, most pro- bably, soon communicated to lord Baltimore, and appears to have given him some displeasure; for, by his instructions to the go- vernor and council, bearing date the 28th of September, 1653, he "discharged Robert Brooke, esqr., late commander of Charles county, from being one of the council, conservator or justice of the peace, or commander of any county within this province."} In conformity to these instructions, as it would seem, governor Stone "thought fit, for divers reasons relating to the public good, and did, this day," (July 3d, 1654,) "with the advice of the council, make void and nullify the order or constitution," just mentioned, touching the erecting of Charles county, and instead thereof, as it is expressed in the record, "did now erect, make, and appoint both sides of Patuxent river into one county by the name of Calvert county, bounded on the south side with Pyne- hill river or creek to the head thereof, and from thence through the woods to the head of Patuxent, being the northerly bound of St. Mary's county, and bounded on the north side with the creek upon the western side of Chesapeake bay called the Her- ring creek, and from thence through the woods to the head of
* See before, p. 376.
t 1 have not found this order of November 1650 on our records, but it is stated as above in the document now on record, from whence these facts were taken, purporting to be a record of the proceedings of the governor and council, bearing date, "Fertio die July, 1654,"-in the book entitled, "Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 302.
¿ These " Instructions" do not now appear on record, but it is stated, as above, in the document last referred to.
500
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. Patuxent river, being the southerly bound of Ann Arundel coun- VI. ty,* and the governor this day likewise appointed Mr. Richard 1654. Collet to be high sheriff of Calvert county aforesaid."}
The pro- vince is again re- duced.
This removal of Mr. Brooke, and perhaps others inclined to Puritanism, from all offices in the province, together with go- vernor Stone's renunciation of the "reducement," as settled by the commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne, in 1652, and the before mentioned procedure, relative to the enforcement of the oath of fidelity to lord Baltimore, had, as might indeed have been expected from the temper of the Puritans of Ann Arun- del, afforded them ample pretences for their opposition to and revolt against all lawful authority under the lord proprietary ex- ercised by his government at St. Mary's. It seems also, that governor Stone had, on the fourth of July, the day after the last mentioned proceeding relative to Calvert county, issued and published a proclamation, (not now extant,) in which he charg- ed the commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne, and indeed the whole puritanic party, mostly of Ann Arundel, with "drawing away the people, and leading them into faction, sedition, and rebellion against the lord Baltimore."} Induced by this pro-
* It is difficult at this day to ascertain with precision, what river or creek is here meant by Pyne hill river. A creek called Piney creek, emptying from the eastward into the eastern branch of the Potowmack, near Washington city, is the only creek or river denoted on Griffith's map of Maryland, (the last and best,) which could answer to the above description. But a line drawn from "the head thereof to the head of Patuxent," would run nearly north-west, about forty miles, to the north-west extremity of Ann Arundel county, quite wide of what could have been made as the northern bounds of St. Mary's county. It rather appears, therefore, to have been intended to run from the head of Piney creek eastwardly to what is called the western branch of the Patuxent, which branch, possibly, in the unexplored state of the province, might have been then deemed the main branch of the river, and the head thereof-the head of the Patuxent. So that this line, stretching across the peninsula of St. Mary's was to form a division line between the northern parts of St. Mary's county and that part of the new erected county of Calvert lying on the western side of the Patuxent, comprehending what is at present the northern half of Prince George's county, and indefinite- as to its north-western extent. Immediately on the north and on the bay shore, how- ever, Calvert county seems to have been now bounded by the southern extent of the elder county of Ann Arundel, to wit, by a line drawn from Herring bay "to the head of the Patuxent" again, evidently intending to the head of what is now deemed the western branch thereof, as before mentioned. But, by an order of the session of assembly of 1654, the inhabitants of Herring creek and the Cliffs were "to pay levy in Ann Arundel county ;" which may probably have been the cause, why Calvert county does not now extend quite to Herring creek. t " Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 302.
Mr. Leonard Strong, then one of the leading Puritans of Providence on the Severn, has, in relation to this proclamation of the 4th of July, thus expressed himself in his pamphlet entitled, "Babylon's Fall in Maryland," &c. "In the
f a
p st
ela in un B as pl ef of
501
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
clamation of governor Stone, as well as by his general conduct CHAPT. in reassuming the powers of government within the province, VI. under the name and authority of the lord proprietary, the com- 1654. missioners-Bennett and Clayborne, about this time, (in July, as it would appear,) returned to Maryland, probably in the first place to Providence, (now Ann Arundel,) with intentions of effecting another "reducement" of the proprietary government of the province. For this, it was alleged by them, that they had "authority derived to them from his highness the lord protector." But, on the contrary, there is strong evidence to shew, that this "authority" assumed by them, could be at most only an implied and not an express authority .* This may be fairly inferred from the manner, in which Mr. Strong, the active agent of the Puritans, has stated this fact. "The commission- ers for the commonwealth of England," he says, (to wit, Ben- nett and Clayborne,) "hearing, that new orders and instructions were come to Maryland from lord Baltimore, and that one Scar- borough, a mischievous instrument of the lord Baltimore,t was
year 1654, upon some instructions and relations from the lord Baltimore out of England, captain William Stone and Mr. Thomas Hatton, and the Popish coun- cellors, rose up against the reducement, displacing those whom the state's com- missioners had placed, and introducing the old Popish councel ; calling that which was done by commission from the councel of state in England, rebellion against the lord Baltimore; and those, that were actors in it, factious and seditious per- sons : which was done by a proclamation full of railing terms, published at Pro- vidence in the church meeting." These terms,-"Popish councel and coun- cellors," were evidently introduced here by Mr. Strong for the purpose of inflaming the people of England withi prejudice against lord Baltimore's govern- ment of Maryland. The charge moreover, was false; for, it is certain, that governor Stone and the majority of his council, were Protestants, though per- haps not Puritans.
* It is extraordinary, that most writers relative to Maryland, and even histo- rians of Virginia, constantly fall into the error of imputing all the transactions of the commonwealth of England, in relation to the English colonies, to Oliver Cromwell. In Mr. Kilty's useful work entitled, "The Landholder's Assistant," he, on several occasions, speaks of Cromwell's seizure of the government of Maryland. The commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne, in their "reduce- ment" of Maryland in 1654, certainly acted only under their former commis- sion from the council of state and parliament in 1651, and had no express com- mission from the lord protector. It is certain, that the lord protector, (Cromwell,) during the whole of his protectorate, paid so little attention either to Maryland or Virginia, that he never would take the time to decide any of their disputes ; as will herein afterwards appear.
t It is possible, that this might be the same "Edward Scarborough, of Acco- mack in Virginia," before mentioned, (see p. 417,) whom Sir William Berkeley had sent, in 1651, to fix a settlement on Palmer's island, at the mouth of the Susquehanah. He must have been at that time greatly hostile to lord Baltimore.
502
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. gone up to Maryland, resolved to come and see in what condi- VI. tion their affairs stood." This seems to leave a strong inference, 1654. that these commissioners acted on the present occasion (the se- cond "reducement,") altogether under their former authority- the commonwealth of England, and not under the protector; for, if new orders had come to them from his highness the lord pro- tector, Mr. Strong, their zealous partizan, would not have failed to have stated, in his pamphlet, so important a circumstance to- wards the vindication of these commissioners On the contrary, he has expressly stated, in his pamphlet, a circumstance further corroborating the supposition, that the commissioners,) Bennett and Clayborne) acted, on this second "reducement" of Mary- land, under no other authority than their first commission from the council of state and parliament for the "reducement" of Virginia, and of Maryland also, as they construed it; in which commission captain Curtis was also a commissioner. He says, that "at the assembly of October 1654, there was a full and law- ful representative of the whole province, where the act of re- ducement of this province by commission from the councel of state in England to Richard Bennett, esqr., colonel William Clayborne, and Edmund Curtis, was freely and fully acknow- ledged by the whole assembly; the burgesses of every respec- tive county and limit confirming the same, and submitting thereunto." The acknowledgment of the act of "reducement" of Maryland by the assembly of October, 1654, here referred to by Mr. Strong, seems to be the act of that assembly, entitled, "The act of recognition," (herein after more fully stated,) in which, although the names of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Clayborne are mentioned as commissioners, without that of Mr. Curtis, as is done by Mr. Strong, yet Mr. Strong's comment on that act, (he himself having been at that session of assembly a sitting member,) serves to demonstrate, that the first commission, which included captain Curtis as well as Bennett and Clayborne, was the only commission intended by the said act, and under which the two last mentioned commissioners, (Mr. Curtis being either absent or deceased,) acted on the occasion of this second "re- ducement." But Mr. Langford, in his "refutation" of Mr. Strong's pamphlet, has positively denied, that they had any such authority from the lord protector. He says, "and yet notwith- standing, after the said dismission," (of Mr. Matthews's petition to the parliament, which began in July, 1653, before mentioned,)
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.