The history of Maryland : from its first settlement, in 1633, to the restoration, in 1660 ; with a copious introduction, and notes and illustrations, Part 93

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 93

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).

CHAPT. VI. Notwithstanding the prosperous tide of fortune, which seem- ed now to attend the Puritans of Maryland in their expectations 1655. of retaining the powers conferred on them in July of the pre- Proceed- ings in England relative to these disputes. ceding year, by the commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne, yet, whether through the influence of doctor Barber or other friends, whose interference lord Baltimore had procured, it seems provincial certain, that the lord protector was very far from gratifying the desires of lord Baltimore's opponents at this time to the utmost extent of their wishes. Indeed, it seems to be a point settled by historians, that Cromwell, soon after he had attained to his highest exaltation by being installed protector of the common- wealth, paid a greater degree of court, even to his old enemies, the Roman Catholics, than was agreeable to many of his former adherents. He knew, that the majority of this sect, especially those of Ireland, (and lord Baltimore was an Irish peer,) were not very zealously attached to a restoration of Charles the se- cond; for, on his restoration protestantism would be still on the throne. He had also to encounter the secret enmity of the poli- tical, (or, as some called them, the deistical,) republicans, as well as some few of the religious fanatics. To counterbalance this, it was a policy embraced by him, to indicate a disposition to- wards a general toleration of all the different sects of religion then existing under his rule and government, except perhaps the Old Church of England, the members of which, he without doubt deemed to be incorrigible advocates for a restoration of the Stuart family .* He had written some "letters," or instruc- tions, on the 12th of January, 1654-5, on the intercession, as it would appear, of lord Baltimore or some of his lordship's friends, in relation "to the proceedings of those commissioners, who were authorized to settle the civil government of Maryland;" which "letters," though it is not expressly so stated, yet appear to have been addressed to those same commissioners, who were Bennett and Clayborne, both then resident in Virginia. There had long existed some disputes between the government of Vir- ginia and that of Maryland relative to the bounds of the two provinces ; which disputes seem to have been confined at that

* This policy in Oliver's conduct at this time is mentioned by Leland, in his history of Ireland, (vol. iii. p. 399) as one of the grounds of the enmity towards him entertained by Ludlow, the inflexible republican ; and according to Rapin, (Hist. Eng. Tindal's edit. vol. 11, p. 92,) Oliver considered the republicans at this time as his greatest enemies ; and according to lord Clarendon, (p. 677,) he now courted the nobility and spoke favourably of the order of bishop.

531

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

time to the division line between the two provinces, on the east- CHAPT. ern shore of the Chesapeake, separating the county of Acco- VI. mack in Virginia from those of Worcester and Somerset in Ma- 1655. ryland. These disputes arose, as has been herein before men- tioned, from the supposed difficulty of ascertaining what point of land it was, which was alluded to in lord Baltimore's charter, under the denomination of Watkin's Point. It was with a view to this subject, that lord Baltimore gave instructions to his go- vernors, a year or two back, as has been before stated, that en- deavours should be used to cause the lands of his province bordering on that division line to be granted and settled as soon as possible, even at half the price of lands in the other parts of the province. The commissioners-Bennett and Clayborne seem to have artfully availed themselves of these differences about bounds, in order to cherish an animosity between the peo- ple of the two provinces ; and, as appears from the several pa- pers or documents drawn up by Bennett and Matthews, agents for Virginia in England, in the year 1656, they attempted to re- vive the old dormant claim of Virginia to the whole province of Maryland as being part of the original territories of that ancient dominion. Of the exact contents of these letters from the lord protector, "of the 12th of January last," we are not informed, as they do not appear to be now in existence; (at least on the Maryland records ;) but, as the lord protector himself has ex- plained them in his subsequent order, of September 26th, 1655, "they were only to prevent and forbid any force or violence to be offered, by either of the plantations of Virginia or Maryland from one to the other upon the differences concerning their bounds, the said differences being then under the consideration of our- self and council here." This letter of the lord protector, "of the 12th of January," being considerably prior in date to the battle of the 25th of March, before stated, could have no rela- tion to that subject. The occurrence of that unfortunate event animated both parties in Maryland to a speedy recurrence to the supreme power-the lord protector. The commissioners-Ben- nett and Clayborne, having received in the mean time the aforesaid letter of his highness, "of the 12th of January," had mistaken, as it appears, the meaning thereof; supposing, that the lord protector "would have a stop put to their proceedings, not only as to the bounds, but also as to settling the civil govern- ment of Maryland," It is possible, that the expression quoted

532

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. by an eminent annalist from a letter written by the protector to VI. these commissioners,-"commanding them, not to busy them- 1655. selves about religion, but to settle the civil government," was a part of this letter, "of the 12th of January."* For the more full explanation of both these important subjects, as also, without doubt, to give an account of the late battle, with all its causes and consequences, the commissioners (Bennett and Clayborne) drew up a letter, or representation thereof, dated the 29th of June, to be presented to the lord protector, of which Bennett himself was to be the bearer, as well as general agent in Eng- land for the colony of Virginia. Mr. Bennett appears, there- fore, about this time, (in June, 1655,) to have abdicated his office of governor of Virginia, and to have embarked for Eng- land for the aforesaid purposes. On his arrival in England, he had audience of his highness; when, without doubt, he "relat- ed" all about the late battle and contests in Maryland, as much in the favour of the Puritanic party there, as he could. His representation of the Maryland disputes does not appear, how- ever, to have had so much effect with his highness, as might have been expected. This may be fairly inferred, not only from the tenor of his highness's explanatory order, of the 26th of September, written perhaps soon after Mr. Bennett's audience, but evidently from his (Cromwell's) subsequent neglect and in- attention to the whole of the Maryland contests ; for, although the business came finally before him and his council, yet he never during his life made any decision upon the subject. It appears from a subsequent document, that, on the complaint of lord Baltimore to his highness the lord protector, against those people in Maryland, who were in opposition to the proprietary government, the protector referred these "controversies" to "the lords commissioners Whitlocke and Widdrington ;t whose report thereof was afterwards referred by the councell to the com- missioners for trade ; who made their report also, dated the 16th of September, 1656, to his highness and councell; but they," (his highness and council, "by reason of their great affaires, not having leisure to consider of the said report, the same re-

* No letter containing this quotation appears to be now remaining among the records of Maryland, as stated by Mr. Chalmers. See his Annals, p. 236.

t They were lords commissioners of the great seal. It appears, that ever since the revolution in 1648-9, the office of chancellor had been committed to commissioners, of whom Sir Thomas Widdrington, knight, and Bulstrode Whit- lock, esqr., were two,

533

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

mained undetermined;" until an agreement took place between CHAPT. lord Baltimore and Bennett and Matthews, on the 30th of No- VI. vember, 1657, as will hereafter be more fully stated. It was 1655. during the pendency of some one of these references, that the protector wrote his order of the 26th of September, 1655, to the commissioners of Maryland, explanatory of his former let- ters or orders relative to the disputes between Maryland and Virginia .* Although Mr. Bennett appears to have been then, (September, 1655,) in England, acting as agent for Virginia and the Maryland Puritans, and the other commissioner of Ma- ryland-Clayborne, was probably then in Virginia, yet, as the document wears more the appearance of an order than a fami- liar letter to these commissioners, there is no impropriety in sup- posing it to have been delivered by Mr. Secretary Thurloe to Mr. Bennett himself, personally attending at Whitehall for that purpose. It was to confirm the lord protector's orders, forbid- ding either of the colonies-Virginia or Maryland, to resort to force in order to settle their disputes about their bounds. Mr. Bennett being then agent for Virginia, as well as one of the commissioners for Maryland, the order might have been with propriety delivered to him. In further suppression of any re- sort to force by either of these two colonies in the settlement of their disputes, about either the civil government of Maryland or their respective bounds, the protector wrote another order or let- ter, as it is called, to the governor of Virginia, dated the 8th of October, 1655, in which, as is stated, "he declared his pleasure, that no obstructions be made to what had been acted concern- ing the civil government in Maryland by the commissioners of the late council of state in pursuance of their instructions."" After the late contest and battle, on the 25th of March, 1655, it was, perhaps, a proper determination in the protector to for- bid the late officers of the proprietary government to make any insurrection or disturbance against the government of Mary- land under captain Fuller and his council, who had been invest- ed with their powers by the commissioners of the late council of state-Bennett and Clayborne. What was the rest of the contents of this letter from the protector to the governor of Vir-

* See this letter or order of "the protector to the commissioners of Maryland," at large in note (LXXXVI.) at the end of this volume.

t See the two documents-one entitled, "objections against lord Baltimore's patent," &c., and the other-"a paper relating to Maryland," in note LXXXVIII. at the end of this volume.

534

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. VI. ginia, the agents, Bennett and Matthews, do not inform us in the documents just referred to. The confusion of the times seems 1655. to have created a perfect blank in our historical materials, as to any subsequent transactions within the province during the re- mainder of the year 1655. The hopes and fears of both parties appear to have hung with anxious suspense upon the before men- tioned references .*

Fendall appointed governor.

Among the most active partizans, under governor Stone, in support of the lord Baltimore's government and proprietaryship of the province, during the preceding contests, was captain Jo- sias Fendall; a man, who had rendered his name conspicuous in our records for his subsequent transactions. He had command- ed the military party sent by governor Stone to the Patuxent for the seizure of some arms and ammunition, as herein before stated; which he performed with a truly cavalier incivility, if not, as was alleged by the Puritans, with some severity and op- pression. He was in the subsequent battle of the 26th of March, and, as it would seem, was among those, who had been taken prisoners. This manifestation of zeal on his part seems to have attracted the attention of the lord proprietary towards him. Af- ter a long pause in the affairs of Maryland ensuing on the pre- ceding storm, the first incident relative thereto, afforded by our historical materials, is the grant of a commission by lord Balti- more to captain Josias Fendall, to be governor of Maryland, bearing date the tenth day of July, 1656. The tenure of his commission was,-"To have and .to hold the same during our pleasure in as ample and large manner to all intents and pur- poses as was formerly granted by us unto captain William Stone our late lieutenant there." In the body of same commission his lordship nominated and appointed five gentlemen, viz. "cap- tain William Stone, Mr. Thomas Gerard, colonel John Price, Mr. Job Chandler, and Mr. Luke Barber, and such other per- son or persons not exceeding three in number, as the said Josias Fendall should nominate, to be of his lordship's counsell in the

* It may be proper to mention here, that some time in this last year, 1655, another pamphlet, besides those two herein before mentioned, was published in England, relative to the Provincial disputes in Maryland. It is entitled, in the Bibliotheca Americana,-"Strange Proceedings in Maryland, 4to London." But, as we have not been so fortunate as to procure a copy of this work, we are un- informed as to its contents, or in which side of the disputes it was written. The rancour of the two parties against each other would easily enable either of them to denominate the conduct of their opponents. "Strange Proceedings,"

.535

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

said province .* " What motives lord Baltimore had for substi- CHAPT. tuting Fendall as governor of his province, instead of captain VI Stone, we are not informed. From the circumstance of nomi- 1655. nating the latter first among the council, it might be inferred that it was done for no great displeasure entertained by his lord- ship towards governor Stone, but was dictated by some policy not easily now to be discovered. We are to hail this commis- sion, however, as an earnest promulgation of the high hopes and expectations, which his lordship began now to entertain, that the ruling powers in England were not his enemies, and that, although he might not be completely restored to all his rights in Maryland, yet that his enemies, Bennett and Matthews, now la- bouring against him in England, were not likely to succeed in depriving him of his province. Whether Fendall was now in England with lord Baltimore, when this commission was grant- ed to him, or had remained in Maryland and his lordship had dispatched the same to him, is not now to be ascertained. It seems certain, that he had now, during the summer of 1656, be- gun to put in practice some rebellious proceedings against the Puritan government of the province; and in this conduct, it seems, that he professed to act, as the record expresses it, "un- der a pretended power from captain William Stone." From whence it may be inferred, that his movements in relation thereto were with the assent and approbation of governor Stone, and that his lordship, with the privity, and at the request, of the go- vernor, had been induced to clothe him with the powers men- tioned in the preceding commission. The Puritan rulers of the province appear, however, to have been too vigilant for Fen- dall. They had caused him to be arrested upon "suspicion" only, and he was brought before the provincial court to answer the charge exhibited against him, to wit, "of his dangerousness to the public peace;"-and upon this charge he was committed to prison. As the record of this transaction strongly developes the ideas of law and liberty prevalent in those times, especially with those who most affected a regard for them, it may be here inserted.

"At a provincial court holden the 13th of August, 1656 :- He is ar- Present, captain William Fuller, Mr. Edward Lloyd, Mr. Rich- rested and ard Wells, captain Richard Ewen, Mr. Thomas Marsh, and Mr. by the Pu- Thomas Meers. ritans.

* See this commission at large, in note (LXXXVII.) at the end of this volume.

imprisoned

536

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. VI. "Whereas Josias Fendall, gent., hath been charged, in the be- half of many of the commons, inhabitants of Maryland, by their 1655. declaration exhibited in court, that he the said Josias Fendall, con- trary to his oath taken to the present government of the said pro- vince, hath openly acted to the disturbance of the public peace and government of the said province, for that end assuming a pretend- ed power from captain William Stone, to the great hindrance of the public affairs, and to the distraction and damage of the people; to which charge the said Josias Fendall, having full and free liberty to answer, hath made no sufficient plea to traverse or make void the said charge, but rather disowning the power of the court; It is therefore ordered by this present court, that, in regard the said Josias Fendall hath and still doth give just ground of sus- picion of his dangerousness to the public peace of this pro- vince, if he should enjoy his liberty, he the said Josias Fendall shall go to the place from whence he came a prisoner, and there abide in safe custody until the matters of government in the pro- vince of Maryland shall be further settled and fully determined by his highness the lord protector of England and council of State upon a legal hearing, to which also the said Josias Fendall doth consent in court."

It appears, that on a subsequent day he was either brought or came himself, into the provincial court, and took an oath to the following purport:

"September, 24th, 1656 .- Captain Josias Fendall hath this day in open court taken oath, in the presence of God and before the face of the whole court, he will neither directly nor indirect- ly be any disturber to this present government till there be a full determination ended in England of all matters relating to this government."* We must suppose, that on the taking this oath he was discharged from his imprisonment, although it is not ex- pressly so stated on the record. The indefinite period of his im- prisonment, according to the foregoing commitment, to wit, "un- til the matters of government in Maryland should be settled by the protector," (an event that never did take place, ) might have impressed the court with the impropriety of such a commit- ment, especially when the law was, even then, that a commit- ment should be only until he should be discharged by due course of law. We shall see Mr. Fendall, however, again exercising

* These proceedings of the provincial court are taken from the record book in the council chamber, entitled, "Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657," p. 314.

537

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

his talents for rebellion and insurrection against even the go- CHAPT. vernment, whose cause he now espoused. VI.

In the mean time, while these proceedings were had in Mary- 1656.

The go- land against Fendall, the affairs of lord Baltimore in England, vernment with respect to his proprietary rights in his province, were going of England favourable to lord Bal-

on most prosperously. The lords commissioners Whitlocke and Widdrington, to whom the business had been first referred by timore. the protector, had, some considerable time before this, made their report upon it to Cromwell's council of state ; but, for some reason not now to be ascertained, the council, by the direction of Cromwell as we may suppose, caused the report of the said lords commissioners to be again referred to certain persons, entitled, "The Commissioners for Trade."* These last mentioned com- missioners, ("for trade,") made and returned their report on the subject "to his highness and council," on the 16th of Septem- ber, 1656. Posterity have been unfortunate in respect to both these reports. The former does not appear to be now extant ; at least, not on the records of Maryland .. The latter was sent into the province by lord Baltimore at the same time and toge- ther with his instructions of the 23d of October, 1656, to his lieutenant general of the province; which instructions were, without doubt, predicated upon this last mentioned report of "the commissioners for trade." A copy of this report, together with the instructions, appears to have been regularly recorded in one of the record books of the council chamber of the province, but, through mischief, or carelessness, the first leaf of the book is torn out, in which that report, together with a part of the in- structions, had evidently been recorded.t This report of the "commissioners of trade" must have been highly favourable to lord Baltimore ; inasmuch as it is stated to have been the basis of the treaty or agreement, which subsequently in 1657 took place between lord Baltimore and Bennett and Matthews, the agents in England for the Puritans of Maryland as well as for the colony of Virginia. It is highly probable, that this "com- mittee for trade" thought, that the lord proprietary's government

* Whether these " Commissioners for Trade" were a committee formed out of the council of state, to whom all subjects relative to the trade of the common- wealth were referred, or whether certain persons, distinct from the council, form- ed a board of trade, erected by commission from Cromwell himself, does not clearly appear.

t In the book entitled "Council HH. 1656 to 1668," still remaining in the council chamber ; but the greatest part of the first leaf thereof has been torn out, and some of the other leaves much defaced, so as not to be entirely legible.

VOL. II .--- 68

538

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. of the province, according to his patent for the same, was not VI. incompatible with the then form of government in the mother. 1656. country, and that, as his lordship had been at great expense in the settlement of his province, which expense could not as yet have been reimbursed to him, there would have been great in- justice in depriving him of his profits and emoluments therein .. They therefore awarded, that his lordship should be restored to his government of the province, under certain restrictions as to- the enacting of laws affecting religious liberty. If such was the substance of the report of the "commissioners for trade," of the 16th of September, as we may fairly infer from the subsequent agreement mentioned to be founded thereon, it must now have afforded matter of high triumph to lord Baltimore, as also to his friends in Maryland, when they came to be informed thereof. A petition, it seems, had been sent from Virginia, probably. from the assembly thereof, after their "reducement," and presented to the government of England, relative not only to the bounds be- tween the two provinces, but also to their claim of the whole province of Maryland as "belonging to Virginia."* Among other circumstances attending this report, mortifying to the agents-Bennett and Matthews, one was, (of which they griev- ously complained,) that "nothing was either said or done by the commissioners concerning the Virginia petition, which related very materially to the business of Maryland, especially in that particular of the bounds by them claimed." It is probable, that, as to the subject of the bounds of the two provinces, Cromwell claimed the settlement thereof, as of his own special preroga- tive, "to himself and council," as he expressed himself in his order of the 26th of September, 1655, before mentioned, and had referred only the disputes, "that had happened between the men of Severn and lord Baltimore's officers," to the commission- ers for trade. This supposition is not inconsistent with or re- pugnant to the orders, which are said to have been previously given by Cromwell to the governor and council of Virginia,- "not to meddle in the business that hath happened between the

* That this claim had been made by Virginia, is evident from what is mention- ed of " the Virginia petition," in the joint letter of Bennett and Matthews to secretary Thurloe, dated October 10th, 1656, herein after stated ; particularly from the expression therein,-" in case it belong not to Virginia ;" and from.a variety of passages in those " Papers" drawn up by Bennett and Matthews in the year 1656, as they appear in Hazard's Collections, vol. i. pp. 621,-630, taken from Thurloe's State Papers.

539

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

men of Severn and lord Baltimore's officers,"-(meaning with- CHAPT. out doubt the late battle of the 25th of March, 1655,)-"but to VI. leave that affair to be settled by the commissioners of the parlia- 1656. ment ;"-for although this prohibitary order to the governor and council of Virginia amounted to a recognition by the protector of what had been previously done by Bennett and Clayborne, as "commissioners of the parliament," in their "reducement"' of Maryland in 1654, yet it is evident, that this " business between the men of Severn and lord Baltimore's officers," to wit, the re- sort to force and battle in 1655, was subsequently referred to the "commissioners for trade." Not having cognizance of the dis- pute between the two provinces as to their bounds, these com- missioners could else have had nothing to determine, if they had not the disputes "between the men of Severn and lord Balti- more's officers" to settle ; which disputes related to the civil go- vernment of the province. This order of Cromwell to the go- vernor and council of Virginia is so stated by an eminent annal- ist,* without mentioning any date to it. It is probable, that it was issued by Cromwell soon after he had received intelligence of the battle in Maryland of the 25th of March, 1655, perhaps about midsummer of that year. The commissioners of parlia- ment, therein mentioned, must have been Bennett and Clayborne; who had acted in the ""'reducement" both of Virginia and Mary- land, in 1652 and 1654, as commissioners under the council of state appointed by the old long parliament, and in common par- lance appear to have been spoken of as commissioners of the parliament, and are mentioned under that denomination in the articles of the surrender of Virginia, of March 12th, 1651-2. But this subsequent recognition of what had been done by Ben- nett and Clayborne in the reducement of Maryland in 1654, by no means proves, that in so doing they were then authorised by the lord protector, as they then alleged, to settle the government of Maryland. A recognition of the validity of a transaction when done is different from an original power or authority for so doing. And the lord protector might have, subsequently to this recognition, with great propriety thought, that the settlement of the civil government of a province was too much to be entrusted to such men as Bennett and Clayborne; the latter of whom was evidently too much interested as to property, which he claimed in Maryland, to be a fit person on such an occasion, and the

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 93

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