Chapter XIII: The English in Maryland, 1632-1691 (2)

Lord Baltimore’s trimming at this crisis aroused the displeasure of Charles II. Although a powerless exile, he deposed the Proprietary, and appointed Sir William Davenant royal governor of Maryland, on the ground that Baltimore “did visibly adhere to the rebels in England, and admitted all kinds of sectaries and schismatics and ill affected persons into the plantation.” Baltimore afterwards used this assertion to prove his fidelity to Parliament. Sir William collected a force of French and sailed for Maryland, but was captured in the channel.

Lord Baltimore was soon after threatened from a much more formidable quarter. The revolt of the island of Barbadoes called the attention of Parliament to the necessity of subjecting the colonies to its power, and by an act passed Oct. 3, 1650, for reducing Barbadoes, Antigua, “and other islands and places in America” to their due obedience, the Council of State was authorized to send ships to any of the plantations, and to commission officers “to enforce all such to obedience as do or shall stand in opposition to Parliament.” When the news of this act reached Maryland, the Puritans of Providence thought that the days of the Proprietary dominion were numbered, and they consequently refused to send burgesses to the Assembly which met in March, 1651. Upon information of their conduct and of the perturbed state of the Province being transmitted to Lord Baltimore, he sent in August, 1651, a long message to the governor and Assembly. He declared that the reports concerning the dissolution of his government were unfounded, and directed that in case any of the inhabitants should persist in their refusal to send burgesses to the Assembly, they should be proceeded against as rebels. He also requested the governor and council to use their best endeavors to suppress such false rumors, and suggested that a law be made punishing those spreading false news.

But they who asserted that the Proprietary dominion was about to fall, did not “spread false news.” That steps were not immediately taken to execute the Act of 1650 was probably owing to the fact that Scotland was now in arms under the banner of Charles II. But after the “crowning mercy” of the battle of Worcester, the Council of State, Sept. 20, 1651, appointed two officers of the navy, and Richard Bennett and William Clayborne of Virginia, commissioners under the act. They were directed to use their “best endeavors to reduce all the plantations within the Bay of Chesapeake to their due obedience to the Parliament and the Commonwealth of England.” Maryland was at first expressly named in these instructions; but before they were issued, Baltimore went before the committee of the Council and showed that Governor Stone had always been well affected to Parliament; proved by merchants, who traded to Maryland, that it was not in opposition, and declared that when the friends of the Commonwealth had been compelled to leave Virginia he had caused them to be well received in his province. The name of Maryland was thereupon stricken out of the instructions; but when they were finally issued, a term was used under which the Province might be included.

Clayborne and Bennett were in Virginia; the other commissioners soon after sailed with a fleet carrying a regiment of men, and one hundred and fifty Scotch prisoners who were to be sold as servants in Virginia. A part of the fleet finally reached Jamestown in March, 1652. The commissioners speedily came to terms with Sir William Berkeley, and then turned their attention to Maryland. They appeared at St. Mary’s toward the last of March, and demanded submission in two particulars: first, that all writs and proclamations should be issued in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, and not in that of the Proprietary; and second, that all the inhabitants should subscribe the test, called “the engagement,” which was an oath of allegiance to Parliament. The instructions of the commissioners expressly authorized them to insist upon these terms. The governor and council acceded to the second demand, but refused the first on the ground that process in Maryland had never run in the name of the king, and that it was not the intention of Parliament to deprive Lord Baltimore of his rights in the Province. The commissioners immediately removed Stone and appointed a council of six to govern the Province independently of the Proprietary. Bennett and Clayborne then returned to Virginia, where they appointed themselves respectively governor and secretary of that colony. A few months later Stone, deeming that he could best subserve the interests of the Proprietary by temporizing, submitted to the terms of the commissioners, who, finding that Stone was too popular a man to be disregarded, reinstated him in his office June 28, 1652.

Now that Virginia and Maryland were both under the authority of the same commissioners, the Virginians thought that the time had arrived when an attempt to regain their lost territory was likely to prosper. In August, 1652, a petition was presented to Parliament praying that Virginia might have its ancient limits as granted by the charters of former kings, and that Parliament would grant a new charter in opposition to those intrenching upon these limits. This petition was referred to the committee of the navy with directions to consider what patent was proper to be granted to Virginia. The committee reported Dec. 31, 1652. They found that Kent Island had been settled three years before the settlement of Maryland; that Clayborne had been unlawfully dispossessed of it; that Baltimore had exacted oaths of fealty to himself; that several laws of Maryland were repugnant to the statutes of England, such as the one protecting Papists; that persons of Dutch, French, and Italian descent enjoyed equal privileges with the English in Maryland; and that in March, 1652, the governor and council of Maryland had refused to issue writs in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England. No action was taken upon this report. Baltimore had previously presented a paper containing reasons of state why it would be more advantageous for the Commonwealth to keep Maryland under a separate government than to join it to Virginia. These reasons were adapted to the existing condition of affairs, and are sufficiently ingenious.

The Province seems to have been quiet during the year 1653. In England, Cromwell turned Parliament out of doors, and the whole strength of the nation was devoted to the Dutch War. Lord Baltimore thought the time propitious for an attempt to recover his colony. Accordingly, in the latter part of the year, he directed Stone to cause all persons who had failed to sue out patents for their land, or had not taken the amended oath of fidelity to the Proprietary, to do so within three months upon pain of forfeiture of their land. Stone was also directed to issue all writs and processes in the name of the Proprietary. In pursuance of these instructions Stone issued a proclamation in February, 1654, requiring those seated upon lands to obtain patents, and swear allegiance to Lord Baltimore. A few weeks later he commanded all officers of justice to issue their writs in the name of the Proprietary, and showed that this change would not infringe their “engagement” to the Commonwealth. In May he proclaimed Cromwell Lord Protector. But the Puritans were not mollified by this act. Before the proclamation of February had been issued, information as to Baltimore’s instructions had reached the Puritans on the Severn and Patuxent; and they had sent petitions to Bennett and Clayborne, in which they complained that the oath of fidelity to be required of them was “a very real grievance, and such an oppression as we are not able to bear,” and prayed for relief according to the cause and power wherewith the commissioners were intrusted. The open disaffection of the Puritans caused Stone in July, 1654, to issue a proclamation in which he charged Bennett and Clayborne, and the whole Puritan party, with leading the people into “faction, sedition, and rebellion against the Lord Baltimore.” The commissioners, still acting under their old authority, resolved again to reduce Maryland. They put themselves at the head of the Providence party, and advanced against St. Mary’s. At the same time a force levied in Virginia, threatened an invasion from the south. Stone, deeming resistance hopeless, submitted. The commissioners deposed him, and by an order dated Aug. 1, 1654, committed the government of the Province to Captain Fuller and a Puritan council. An Assembly was called to meet in the ensuing October for which Roman Catholics were disabled from voting or being elected members. And thus the fugitives from oppression proceeded to oppress those who had given them an asylum. “Ingratitude to benefactors is the first of revolutionary virtues.” The new Assembly met at the house of an adherent on the Patuxent River. Its first act was one denying the right of Lord Baltimore to interfere in the affairs of the Province. An act concerning religion was passed, declaring that none who professed the Popish religion could be protected in the Province, “but to be restrained from the exercise thereof.”

When the news of the deposition of his officers reached Lord Baltimore he despatched a special messenger with letters to Stone, upbraiding him for having yielded the Province without striking a blow, and directing him to make every effort to re-establish the proprietary government. Stone, thus commanded, resolved to dispute the possession of the government with the Puritans. He armed the population of St. Mary’s, and caused the records, which had been removed to the Patuxent, and a quantity of ammunition to be seized. In March, 1655, he advanced against Providence with about two hundred men and a small fleet of bay craft. He sent ahead of him envoys with a demand for submission which was rejected. The Puritans obtained the aid of Roger Heamans, master of the “Golden Lion,” an armed merchantman lying in the port, and prepared for resistance. Stone landed his men near the town on the evening of the 24th of March, and on the next morning the hostile forces advanced against each other. The battle-cry of the Puritans was, “In the name of God fall on!” that of their opponents, “Hey for St. Mary’s!” The fight was short and decisive. The Puritans were completely victorious. About fifty of Stone’s men were killed or wounded, and nearly all the rest, including Stone himself, who was wounded, were taken prisoners. The loss of the Puritans was trifling, but they did not use their victory with moderation. A drum-head court-martial condemned ten prisoners to death, upon four of whom the sentence was executed. Among those thus tried and condemned was Governor Stone, but the soldiers themselves refused to take his life. It is said that the intercessions of the women caused the lives of the others to be spared. They were however kept in confinement, and the estates of the “delinquents” were confiscated.

Each party was now anxious to find favor in the sight of the Protector. Lord Baltimore presented the affidavit of certain Protestants in the Province as to the high-handed proceedings of the Puritans; while the commissioners transmitted documents to prove that he was hostile to the Protector. In the course of the year several pamphlets were published on either side of the controversy. Cromwell, however, does not appear to have concerned himself about the dispute, since both parties acknowledged his supremacy. In January, 1655, Baltimore had obtained from him a letter to Bennett, directing the latter to forbear disturbing the Proprietary or his people in Maryland. Soon after the receipt of this letter Bennett abandoned the governorship of Virginia and went to England. He there made such representations to the Protector, that, in September, 1655, Cromwell wrote to the “Commissioners of Maryland,” explaining that his former letter related only to the boundary disputes between Maryland and Virginia. After the battle of Providence, Cromwell referred the matter to the Commissioners of the Great Seal, and declared his pleasure that in the mean time the government of Maryland should remain as settled by Clayborne. The Commissioners of the Great Seal reported to the council of state in the following year. This report was not acted upon, but was itself referred to the Commissioners for Trade. It was probably favorable to Lord Baltimore, for he made another effort to wrest his Province from the hands of the Puritans. In July, 1656, he appointed Josias Fendall governor of the Province, with all the powers formerly exercised by Stone. Fendall was in reality only a persistent and unscrupulous revolutionist, but his activity had hitherto been exercised on behalf of the Proprietary. Even before his appointment his conduct had excited the suspicions of the Puritan council. He was arrested by them on the charge of “dangerousness to the public peace,” and kept in confinement till September, 1656, when he was released upon taking an oath not to disturb the existing government until the matter was determined in England.

On the 16th of September, 1656, the Commissioners of Trade reported to the Lord Protector entirely in favor of Baltimore. The report was not acted upon, and Bennett and Matthews, the agents of the Puritans, continued the contest. In October they sent to the Protector a paper entitled, _Objections against Lord Baltimore’s patent, and reasons why the government of Maryland should not be put into his hands_. These objections merely recite the old grievances. Baltimore did not wait for the report to be confirmed, but, confident that his province would be restored to him, directed Fendall to assume the administration of affairs. He also directed large grants of land to be made to those who had been conspicuous for their fidelity to him, and instructed the Council to make provision, out of his own rents, for the widows of those who had lost their lives in his service. Towards the close of the year the Proprietary sent his brother, Philip Calvert, to Maryland as a member of the Council and secretary of the Province. Maryland was now divided between the rival governments. The Puritans held undisputed sway over Anne Arundel, Kent Island, and most of the settlements, while Fendall’s authority seems to have been confined to St. Mary’s County. But there were no acts of hostility between the opposing factions. In September, 1657, the Puritans held another Assembly at Patuxent, at which they again passed an act in recognition of their own authority, and imposed taxes for the payment of the public charges.

Such was the posture of affairs when an agreement was reached by Lord Baltimore and the Puritan agents in England. The favor with which the Protector regarded the old nobility, and his failure to notice the remonstrances which the Puritan agents had addressed to him, caused the latter to despair of setting aside the adverse report of the Commissioners of Trade. The new agent of Virginia, Digges, acted as the intermediary between Baltimore and Bennett and Matthews, and the articles of agreement were signed on the 30th of November, 1657. After reciting the controversies and the “very sad, distracted, and unsettled condition” of the Province, they provide for the submission of those in opposition to the Proprietary and their surrender of the records and great seal. Lord Baltimore, on his part, promised “upon his honor” that he would punish no offenders, but would grant land to all having claims under the conditions of plantation, and that any persons desiring to leave the Province should have liberty to do so. The Puritans now desired the protection of the Toleration Act, and Lord Baltimore therefore stipulated that he would never assent to its repeal. Fendall, who had gone to England for the purpose of consulting the Proprietary, immediately returned to Maryland with a copy of this agreement. At the same time Bennett wrote to Captain Fuller, apprising him of the engagement which had been made on behalf of his party. Fendall arrived in the Province in February, 1658; and the Providence council were requested to meet the officers of Lord Baltimore in order to treat for the performance of the agreement. A meeting of the rival councillors accordingly took place in March. The Puritans, fatigued by the long struggle, were not unwilling to submit, but insisted upon making some changes in the articles of surrender. Fendall accepted their terms, and the new agreement was signed on the 24th of March, 1658. It was stipulated that the oath of fidelity should not be pressed upon the people then resident in the Province, but that, in its place, each person should subscribe an engagement to submit to Lord Baltimore, according to his patent, and not to obey any in opposition to him. It was further agreed that no persons should be disarmed; that there should be a general indemnity for all acts done since December, 1649, and that the proceedings of the Puritan assemblies and courts, in cases relating to property rights, should not be annulled. Proclamation was then made of this agreement and of the governor’s commission, and writs were issued for an Assembly to be held in the ensuing April. At this Assembly the articles of surrender were confirmed. And thus, after six years of civil broils, the Proprietary sway was re-established.

But the spirit of that revolutionary epoch was not yet extinct in Maryland. Another attempt to subvert the authority of Lord Baltimore was made in the following year. This time the leader was Fendall himself, who, after having broken faith with the Puritans, now broke faith with the Proprietary. Upon the confusion which followed the death of Cromwell, Fendall thought that the opportune moment had come for shaking off the rule of his feudal lord. At a session of the Assembly held in March, 1660, the burgesses, in pursuance of Fendall’s scheme, sent to the upper house a message, in which they claimed to be a lawful assembly, without dependence on any other power, and the highest court of judicature. “If any objection can be made to the contrary,” the message concluded, “we desire to hear it.” A conference between the houses was held, at which Fendall stated that he was only commissioned to confirm laws till the Proprietary should declare his dissent, but that in his opinion the true meaning of the charter was that the laws made by the freemen and published by them in his lordship’s name should at once be of full force. On the same day the lower house came in a body to the upper, and declared that they would not permit the latter to continue its sittings, but that its members might take seats among them. Fendall then dissolved the upper house, and, surrendering the powers he had received from the Proprietary, accepted a new commission from the burgesses. Philip Calvert protested against the proceedings, and left the house. The burgesses sought to fortify their authority by making it a felony to disturb the government as established by them.

Lord Baltimore made short work of these treacherous proceedings. As soon as the tidings reached him, in the following June, he appointed Philip Calvert governor. Soon after he obtained from Charles II. a letter commanding all the inhabitants of the Province to submit to his authority. Philip Calvert was sworn in at the Provincial Court held at Patuxent in December, 1660, and had no difficulty in obtaining control of the Province. No one ventured to disobey the commands of a monarch who had just been restored to the throne amid universal enthusiasm. Fendall, indeed, attempted to excite an insurrection, but, failing in this, surrendered himself voluntarily. Lord Baltimore had instructed his deputy not to permit Fendall to escape with his life; and subsequently, while proclaiming a general amnesty, he excepted Hatch and “that perfidious and perjured fellow Fendall, whom we lately entrusted to be our lieutenant of Maryland.” Notwithstanding these instructions, Fendall was punished only by a fine and disfranchisement.

Charles II. was duly proclaimed, and the power of King and Proprietary permanently revived. The tranquillity which now came to the exhausted colony was destined to last, without interruption, till the mighty wave of another revolution in England proved fatal to the lord paramount of Maryland. Clayborne, who has been called the evil genius of the Province, now disappears from its history. His courage and energy have won the admiration of some writers; but, according to the settled principles of public law, his claim upon Kent Island was entirely without foundation. Towards the close of 1661 Charles Calvert, the eldest son of the Proprietary, was appointed governor, and remained in that office till the death of his father. The history of the Province becomes the record of peaceful progress under his wise and just administration. The population, which in 1660 was 12,000, had increased, five years later, to 16,000. In 1676 Lord Baltimore wrote to the Privy Council that the population was 20,000. The provincial assemblies continued to be held at St. Mary’s, and new counties were from time to time erected.

[See a “Sketch of the Early Currency of Maryland and Virginia,” by S. F. Streeter, in _Historical Magazine_, February, 1858, vol. ii. p. 42; and Crosby’s _Early Coins of America_, from which we have been permitted to borrow our cuts. Specimens of the coins were given by the late George Peabody to the Maryland Historical Society; but they have been surreptitiously removed. Other originals are in the cabinet of William S. Appleton, Esq., of Boston.—ED.]]

The cultivation of tobacco was, from the earliest period, the main occupation of the colonists. Indeed, the prosperity of all the middle colonies reposed chiefly upon this foundation. It was almost the sole export of Maryland. There were no manufactures and no large towns in the Province. It was an agricultural community, scattered along the shores of the noble bay, and of the Potomac and other tributary streams which intersected the country in every direction. The abundance of these natural highways relieved the infant State from a large part of the burden of maintaining roads. Every large planter had at his own door a boat-landing, where he received his supplies, and from which his tobacco was taken to be shipped upon foreign-bound vessels. The high price of tobacco in the second quarter of the seventeenth century (ten times its present value), and the large demand for it by Dutch traders, led the colonists to devote themselves so exclusively to its cultivation, that, on more than one occasion, they suffered from a scarcity of food. Beginning in 1639, numerous acts were passed to enforce the planting of cereals. In order to maintain the excellence of the tobacco exported, the Assembly in 1640 enacted the first tobacco-inspection law,—and thus began a system which has, in some form, been maintained down to the present day. According to the Act of 1640, no tobacco could be exported till scaled by a sworn viewer; and when a hogshead was found bad for the greater part, it was to be burned.

Tobacco was not only the great staple of the Province, but also its chief currency. Taxes were assessed, fines imposed, and salaries paid in tobacco. After the Restoration the restrictive measures, to which we shall refer, and the overproduction of tobacco caused great depreciation in the value of the article. The consequent inconvenience was such that in 1661 the Assembly prayed the Proprietary to establish a mint for the coining of money. Lord Baltimore, by a doubtful stretch of his palatinate prerogatives, caused a large quantity of shillings, sixpences, and groats to be coined for the Province. These coins were put into circulation under an act, passed in 1662, requiring every freeman to take up ten shillings’ worth of them per poll for every taxable person in his custody, and to pay for the same in tobacco at the rate of two pence per pound. But their introduction did not give permanent relief, and tobacco continued to be the chief medium of exchange. Its value decreased so much, that, early in 1663, commissioners were appointed by Virginia and Maryland to consider the evil and its remedy. They could only suggest a diminution of the quantity raised. In the following year the Virginia agents represented to the Privy Council the necessity of lessening the cultivation of tobacco in Virginia and Maryland, and offered proposals for effecting it. These proposals did not meet the approval of Lord Baltimore. The Privy Council ordered that there should be no cessation of the planting of tobacco; but, in order to encourage the planters in cultivating other articles, directed that pitch, tar, and hemp, of the production of those colonies, should be imported into England free of duty for five years. In 1666 an agreement was made between delegates from Virginia, Maryland, and Carolina, providing for a total cessation in the planting of tobacco for one year. The legislatures of these colonies passed acts to enforce this agreement; but the Maryland act was vetoed by Lord Baltimore, upon the ground that it would work great injury to the poorer sort of planters, as well as cause a loss of revenue to the Crown. For various reasons these efforts to control the market by limiting the supply never succeeded.

The colonists did not then fully perceive where the root of the evil lay. There was not too much tobacco but too few buyers; and the number of buyers had been artificially lessened. The real cause of this colonial distress was the famous Navigation Act and the statutes which had been made in pursuance of the policy then begun. The Navigation Act, passed by the Long Parliament in October, 1651, provided that no goods should be imported from Asia, Africa, or America but in English vessels, under the penalty of the forfeiture of both goods and ship. Originally designed as a blow at the commercial supremacy of the Dutch, this Act became, to use the language of Burke, the corner-stone of the policy of England with regard to the colonies. This Act was supplemented by still more restrictive statutes passed in 1660 and in 1663 (15 Car. II. c. 7). The result of these regulations was that the colonists could buy nothing except from English merchants, and could sell nothing except to English merchants. They were not even permitted to export their own goods in their own vessels. They suffered from a triple monopoly of sale, of purchase, and of transportation. They bought in the dearest and sold in the cheapest market.

The chief source of the revenue derived by the Proprietary from the Province arose from the quit-rents which, from the earliest period, had been charged on all grants of land. These rents were at first payable in wheat. In later grants they were made payable in money or the commodities of the country, at the option of the Proprietary, until 1671, when an export duty of two shillings per hogshead was imposed on all tobacco, one half of which went to the support of the government, and the other half was granted to the Proprietary in consideration of his commuting his money quit-rents and alienation fines for tobacco, at the rate of two pence per pound. After 1658 another source of Proprietary revenue was an alienation fine of one year’s rent, which was made a condition precedent to the validity of every conveyance. In 1661 there was given to the Proprietary a port and anchorage duty of half a pound of powder and three pounds of shot on all foreign vessels trading to the Province. The fines and forfeitures imposed in courts of justice inured to the Proprietary as the fountain of justice and standing _in loco regis_. The royal nature of the Proprietary dominion was also shown in the use of his name in all writs and processes, as the name of the king was used in England. Provincial laws were enacted in his name, by and with the advice and consent of the upper and lower houses. Indictments, including those upon the penal statutes of England, charged the offences to be against his peace, good rule, and government.

The first mention of negro slaves occurs in an act passed in 1664; but they had probably been previously introduced into the Province from Virginia, where slavery existed before the settlement of Maryland. In 1671 an act was passed to encourage their importation, and slavery was thenceforth established. It was long, however, before slaves took the place of indented servants, who formed a large part of the population down to the time of the Revolution. They at first consisted of those who had signed an indenture of service for a limited number of years and were brought into the Province by the masters themselves. Subsequently the traffic in servants was taken up by shipowners and others, who sold them for the remainder of their term to the highest bidders. The term of service, which was at first five years, was reduced by the Act of 1638 to four years. Upon the expiration of his indenture a servant was entitled to fifty acres of land and a year’s supply of necessaries. These servants were called “Redemptioners,” and many of them became valuable citizens. After the Restoration the practice of kidnapping men in English seaports and selling them as servants in the colonies became very common. Among the Maryland papers is the petition of one Mrs. Beale to the king, complaining that the master of a ship had taken her brother as his apprentice on a voyage to Maryland, and there sold him as a servant. The lord mayor and aldermen of London complained to the Council that “certain persons, called spirits, do inveigle, and, by lewd subtilities, entice away” youth to be sold as servants in the plantations. Owing to its equable climate, Maryland had more of these indented servants than any other colony, and the statute book contains many acts relating to them. The practice of sending convicts to America, however, was warmly resisted, and in 1676 an act was passed to prevent it.

A temporary exception to the universal religious toleration, which was a capital principle of government in Maryland, occurred in the case of the Quakers. The first Quaker missionaries appeared in Maryland in 1657. Two years later other preachers of that sect visited the Province and caused “considerable convincement.” Their refusal to bear arms, or to subscribe the engagement of fidelity, or to give testimony, or to serve as jurors, was mistaken for sedition.

[See the Critical Essay for an account of this picture.—ED.]]

On July 23, 1659, under Fendall’s administration, an order was passed directing that if “any of the vagabonds and idle persons known by the name of Quakers” should again come into the Province, the justices of the peace should arrest them and cause them to be whipped from constable to constable out of the Province. There is no evidence that this penalty was ever enforced. The most active Quaker missionary simply received a sentence of banishment; and after the suppression of Fendall’s rebellion there was no persecution of the Quakers. They found a refuge in Maryland from the intolerance of New England and Virginia. In 1672 George Fox arrived in the Province and attended two “general meetings for all Maryland Friends,” which he describes in his journal as having been largely attended, not only by Quakers but by “other people, divers of whom were of considerable quality in the world’s account.” Maryland was also sought by many French, Bohemian, and Dutch families. In 1666 the first act of naturalization was passed admitting certain French and Bohemians to the rights of citizenship, and from that time forward numerous similar acts were passed.

On the 30th of November, 1675, died Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, after having inscribed his name upon one of the fairest pages in the history of America. The magnificent heritage left him by his father was beset with difficulties; but his courage, perseverance, and skill had triumphed over the hostility of Virginia and the intrigues of Clayborne, over domestic insurrection and Puritan hatred. The first ruler who established and maintained religious toleration is entitled to enduring honor in the eyes of posterity. His name is that of one of the most enlightened and magnanimous statesmen who ever founded a commonwealth.

In the year following his death, Governor Charles Calvert, now the Lord Proprietary, called an assembly at which a thorough revision of the laws of the Province was made. Among the laws continued in force was the Toleration Act of 1649. In the same year Lord Baltimore appointed Thomas Notley deputy-governor, and then sailed for England, where he remained three years. Upon his arrival he found that a clergyman of the Church of England, named Yeo, residing in Maryland, had written to the Archbishop of Canterbury, under the date of 25th May, 1676, begging him to solicit from Lord Baltimore an established support for the Protestant ministry. “Here are ten or twelve counties,” he writes, “and in them at least twenty thousand souls, and but three Protestant ministers of the Church of England. The priests are provided for, and the Quakers take care of those that are speakers, but no care is taken to build up churches in the Protestant religion. The Lord’s day is profaned. Religion is despised, and all notorious vices are committed, so that it is become a Sodom of uncleanness and a pest-house of iniquity.” There is reason to believe that this letter was an exaggerated libel. At any rate the writer considered it easy to cure the evil. It would be sufficient to impose an established church upon the Province. The Archbishop referred the letter to the Bishop of London, who asked the Privy Council to “prevail with Baltimore to settle a revenue for the ministry in his province.” The Privy Council wrote to Baltimore communicating the unfavorable information with regard to the dissolute life of the inhabitants of his province, and desiring an account of the number of Established and Dissenting ministers there. Lord Baltimore replied that in every county of the Province there were a sufficient number of churches which were supported by the voluntary contributions of those attending them, and that there were, to his knowledge, four clergymen of the Church of England in the Province. He also urged that at least three fourths of the inhabitants were Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and Quakers, the members both of the Church of England and of the Church of Rome being the fewest, “so that it will be a most difficult task to draw such persons to consent unto a law which shall compel them to maintain ministers of a contrary persuasion to themselves, they having already assurance by an Act for Religion that they shall have all freedom in point of religion and divine worship, and no penalties imposed upon them in that particular.” The Council, however, directed that some provision should be made for the ministry of the Church of England, and that the laws against vice should be enforced. Baltimore returned to Maryland in 1680, but nothing was done to carry out the orders of the Council.

Soon after his return the restless Fendall, in conjunction with John Coode, attempted to stir up an insurrection of the Protestants against the Proprietary. Baltimore, having early notice of the proceedings, arrested Fendall. He was punished by fine and banishment, and the enterprise ended almost as soon as it began. The great preponderance of the Protestant population, and the course of affairs in England were fast making the position of a Catholic Proprietary untenable. Complaints of the favor shown to Catholics were constantly sent to England. In October, 1681, the Privy Council wrote to Baltimore that impartiality must be shown in admitting Catholics and Protestants to the council and in the distribution of arms. In reply to these complaints a declaration was issued in May, 1682, signed by twenty-five Protestants of the Church of England residing in the Province. This declaration certified that places of honor, trust, and profit were conferred on the most qualified, without any regard to the religion of the participants, and that in point of fact most of the offices were filled with Protestants, one half of the council, and by far the greater part of the justices of the peace and militia officers, being Protestants. The subscribers published to the world the general freedom and privilege which all the inhabitants of the Province enjoyed in their lives, liberties, and estates, and in the free and public exercise of their religion.

The first Proprietary had finally come off successful in the long contest for his territory with Virginia and Clayborne. The second Proprietary was now called upon to begin a longer and less successful struggle with William Penn. The charter limits of Maryland included the present State of Delaware and a large part of Pennsylvania. In 1638 a settlement of Swedes was made on the Delaware, which was brought under subjection to the government of the States General in 1655.[872] In 1659 the governor and council, in pursuance of Lord Baltimore’s instructions, ordered Colonel Utie to “repair to the pretended governor of a people seated on the Delaware Bay, within his lordship’s province, and to require them to depart the province.” Utie had an interview with the authorities of New Amstel, and threatened them with war in case of a refusal to leave. They replied that the matter must be left to their principals in England and Holland. Towards the close of the year the Dutch sent Augustine Hermann and Resolved Waldron as ambassadors to Maryland. They had an interview with the governor and council in which the claim of Holland to the territory in question was formally presented. The governor asserted the title of Lord Baltimore and demanded the submission of the settlements. This demand was rejected and the interview terminated. The Dutch power in America was soon after brought to an end by the Duke of York, to whom Charles II. in 1664 granted all the territory between the Connecticut and Delaware rivers.[873] In 1680 Penn asked for a grant of the territory west of the Delaware and north of Maryland. In his patent, which passed the seals in March, 1681, the southern boundary of his province was a “circle of twelve miles drawn around New Castle to the beginning of the forty degrees of latitude,”—a description which it was impossible to gratify. In April, 1681, the King wrote to Baltimore notifying him of Penn’s grant, and directing him to aid Penn in seating himself, and to appoint some persons to make a division between the provinces, in conjunction with Penn’s agents.[874] Lord Baltimore met Penn’s deputy, in September, 1682, at Upland (now Chester), when it was found, by a precise observation, that the fortieth degree of latitude was beyond Upland itself. The knowledge of this fact caused Penn to be anxious to obtain a grant of Delaware. Though the Duke of York’s grant did not extend south of the Delaware, Penn, by dint of importunity, obtained from him in August, 1682, a grant of the territory twelve miles around New Castle, and southward, along the river, to Cape Henlopen. Penn asked for that which he knew to be within the boundaries of Maryland, and beyond the power of the Duke to grant. He also received a release of the Duke’s claim to the territory of Pennsylvania, and soon afterwards sailed for his province.

On August 19, 1682, he had procured from the King a letter to Baltimore directing the latter to hasten the adjustment of the boundaries. An interview between the two Proprietaries took place in December, when Penn handed to Lord Baltimore the King’s letter. Baltimore insisted upon the fortieth degree as his northern boundary, and the conference was fruitless. They had another interview, at New Castle, in the following year, which also made it apparent that no agreement between the rival Proprietaries was possible. Penn now raised against the Maryland charter an objection similar to that which had been urged by Virginia and Clayborne,—that Delaware had been settled by the Dutch before the grant of the charter, and that, if this were not the case, Baltimore had forfeited his rights by failure to extend his settlements there.

Both Penn and Lord Baltimore now resolved to go to England to contest the matter before the King and Council. Baltimore called an assembly—the last over which he presided in person—in April, 1684. He acquainted them with the necessity he was under of going to England, and assured them that his stay would be no longer than requisite for the decision of the differences between Penn and himself. The Assembly then proceeded to revise the laws of the Province; after which the Proprietary appointed a council of nine, under the presidency of William Joseph, to govern the Province during his absence, and sailed for England. Baltimore found that he was no match in court influence for Penn. In November, 1685, the Board of Trade decided that the Maryland charter included only “lands uncultivated and inhabited by savages, and that the territory along the Delaware had been settled by Christians antecedently to his grant, and was therefore not included in it;” and they directed that the peninsula between the two bays should be divided equally by a line drawn from the latitude of Cape Henlopen to the fortieth degree, and that the western portion was Baltimore’s and the eastern Penn’s. The Revolution, however, came in time to prevent the execution of this decision, and the vexed question was not finally settled till the middle of the following century.

The accession of James II. brought increased danger to Lord Baltimore. To a king who designed the subversion of the liberties of the colonies as well as of England, the liberal charter of Maryland was especially odious. In April, 1687, an order in Council was made directing the prosecution of a writ of _quo warranto_ against the Maryland charter. In that age the issuing of such a writ seldom failed to achieve its object; but before judgment could be obtained against Baltimore the Revolution of 1688 had occurred, and the Stuart dynasty was at an end. The tidings that a writ had been issued against Baltimore’s charter alarmed the imaginations of the provincials. When the Assembly met in November, 1688, President Joseph sought to counteract this state of feeling in a manner which only served to increase the anxiety. In his opening speech he claimed his right to rule _jure divino_, tracing it from God to the King, from the King to the Proprietary, and from the Proprietary to himself. He then took the unprecedented step of demanding an oath of fidelity from the Houses. The burgesses at first refused, and were with difficulty persuaded to yield. The Assembly showed its loyalty to the monarch, who was then a fugitive from his kingdom, by passing an act for a perpetual thanksgiving for the birth of the prince, and fixed a commemoration of it each succeeding tenth day of June.

Upon the accession of William and Mary the Privy Council directed Lord Baltimore to cause their majesties to be proclaimed in Maryland. He immediately despatched a messenger with orders to his council to proclaim the king and queen with the usual ceremonies. This messenger unfortunately died at Plymouth, and, although William and Mary had been acknowledged in the other colonies, the Maryland council shrank from acting without orders from the Proprietary, while they alarmed the inhabitants by collecting arms and ammunition. Information of this delay was sent to the Board of Trade from Virginia. Baltimore was consequently summoned before it, when he explained that he had sent the required directions to Maryland, but that they had failed to arrive. He was ordered to despatch duplicate instructions, but before they reached the Province the Proprietary’s power was overthrown. The absence of all colonial records from the close of the session of 1688 to the year 1692 makes it difficult to understand the exact cause of this revolution. Enough appears from other sources, however, to show that it was a rebellion fostered by falsehood and intimidation,—“a provincial Popish plot.” In April, 1689, John Coode and other disaffected persons formed “An Association in arms for the defence of the Protestant religion, and for asserting the right of King William and Queen Mary to the Province of Maryland and all the English dominions.” Early in July they began to gather in large numbers on the Potomac. They alleged that the Catholics had invited the northern Indians to join them in a general massacre of the Protestants in the following month, and that they had taken arms to defeat this conspiracy. When a similar rumor had been set on foot, in the preceding March, a declaration had been published, signed by several of those who were now Associators, asserting that the subscribers had examined into all the circumstances of the pretended design, and “found it to be nothing but a sleveless fear and imagination fomented by the artifice of some ill-minded persons.” But in July the Association availed itself of this baseless rumor to obtain the adherence of those who were foolish enough to believe it; while to others they asserted that their purpose was only to proclaim William and Mary.

By these means the neutrality or support of the greater part of the population was secured, and the Associators moved upon St. Mary’s. The council prepared for resistance, but, upon the approach of Coode with greatly superior forces, they surrendered the State House and the provincial records. The Association then published a “Declaration of the reasons and motives for the present appearing in arms of their Majesties’ Protestant subjects in the Province of Maryland.” This Declaration, dated July 25, 1689, signed by Coode and many others, was printed at St. Mary’s.[875] It is an ingenious and able paper, but certainly an audacious calumny, which could only have found credence in England. It set forth that, by the contrivances of Lord Baltimore and his officers, “the tyranny under which we groan is palliated,” and “our grievances shrouded from the eye of observation and the hand of redress.” These grievances were then stated in general terms. In the mean time Joseph and his council retired to a fort on the Patuxent. When Coode marched against them with several hundred men they were again compelled to surrender, and the Associators became masters of the situation. On the third of August, 1689, they sent an address to the king and queen congratulating them upon having restored the laws and liberties of England to their “ancient lustre, purity, and splendor,” and declaring that, without the expense of a drop of blood, they had rescued the government of Maryland from the hands of their enemies, and would hold it securely till a settlement thereof should be made. A convention was called to meet on the 23d of August, to which however several counties refused to send delegates. The convention sent an address to the King asking that their rights and religion might be secured under a Protestant government. The matter was now to be determined in England, and addresses from all the counties and from both parties poured in to the King. Many Protestants favored the Proprietary, and, in their addresses, denounced the falsehoods of the Associators. A number of the Protestants of Kent County declared in their address that “we have here enjoyed many halcyon days under the immediate government of Charles, Lord Baron of Baltimore, and his honorable father, ... by charter of your royal progenitors, wherein our rights and freedoms are so interwoven with his Lordship’s prerogative that we have always had the same liberties and privileges secured to us as other of your Majesty’s subjects in the Kingdom of England.” The greater number of signers, however, sided with the revolutionists. A friend of Lord Baltimore wrote that “people in debt think it the bravest time that ever was. No courts open nor no law proceedings, which they pray may continue as long as they live.” The same writer asserted that the best men and the best Protestants stood stiffly up for the Proprietary’s interest.

Those who had benefited by a Protestant Revolution in England were naturally disposed to look with favor upon a similar Revolution in America. And thus it came to pass that the Proprietary government “fell without a crime.”

King William on Feb. 1, 1690, in pursuance of the recommendation of the committee of the Council for Trade and Plantations, wrote to those in the administration of Maryland, acknowledging the receipt of their addresses and approving their motives for taking up arms. He authorized them to continue in the administration, and in the mean time to preserve the public peace. Lord Baltimore struggled hard to retain his province, although his chance of obtaining justice was desperate. He presented to the King and Council various affidavits and narratives showing the falsity of the charges against his government. In January, 1690, he petitioned the Board of Trade to grant a hearing to such inhabitants and merchants as had lived in and dealt with Maryland for upwards of twenty-five years, at the same time forwarding a list of their names. A few days later he requested the Board to hear his account of the disturbances, to the end that the government might be restored to him. In August, however, the Council directed the attorney-general to proceed by _scire facias_ against Baltimore’s charter. Chief-Justice Holt had previously given an opinion that the King could appoint a governor of Maryland whose authority would be legal; and the attorney-general and solicitor-general were directed to draft a commission of governor.

On the 12th of March, 1691, Queen Mary wrote to the Grand Committee of Maryland that the Province was taken under the King’s immediate superintendence, that Copley would be governor, and, until his arrival, they were to administer the government in the names of their Majesties. In the following August Sir Lionel Copley was commissioned by the king and queen. He reached Maryland early in 1692, and the Province became a royal colony for a quarter of a century. The Proprietary was still allowed to receive his quit-rents and export duty, but all his other prerogatives were at an end.

CRITICAL ESSAY ON THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION.

THE earliest publication relating to Maryland was a pamphlet which appeared in London in 1634. It is entitled _A Relation of the Successful Beginnings of the Lord Baltemore’s Plantation in Maryland: being an extract of certaine Letters written from thence by some of the Adventurers to their friends in England_.[876] The similarity of the language of this relation with Father White’s _Relatio Itineris_ would seem to show that he was its author. The relation describes the first settlement and the products of the soil, and narrates the naïve wonder of the Indians at the big ships and the thunder of the guns. It is dated “From Saint Marie’s in Maryland, 27 May, 1634.”

The next publication was, _A Relation of Maryland_, London, Sept. 8, 1635,—a work of great value to the student. It was evidently prepared under the direction of Lord Baltimore, and is an extensive colonizing programme. It recounts the planting of the colony and their intercourse with the Indians, and describes the commodities which the country naturally afforded and those that might be procured by industry. It also contains the “conditions propounded by the Lord Baltemore to such as shall goe or adventure into Maryland,” and gives elaborate instructions as to what the adventurers should take with them, together with an estimate of the cost of transporting servants and providing them with necessaries.[877]

A very full account of the voyage of the “Ark and Dove” to Maryland is contained in a letter written by Father Andrew White, S. J., to the General of the Order. The originals of this letter, as well as of different letters from the Jesuit missionaries in Maryland from 1635 to 1677, were discovered, about fifty years ago, by the Rev. W. M. Sherry, who was afterwards Provincial of the Jesuits in Maryland, in the archives of the Society in Rome. The copy he then made of these manuscripts is now in the possession of Loyola College, Baltimore. In 1874 and 1877 the Maryland Historical Society published this _Relatio Itineris_, and extracts from the annual letters, in the original Mediæval Latin, with a translation by Mr. Josiah Holmes Converse. This publication also contains an account of the colony in which the character of the country and its numerous sources of wealth are set forth in the glowing colors of anticipation. The original of this _Declaratio Coloniæ_ was also found at Rome. It was probably written by Lord Baltimore soon after the grant of his patent, and sent to the General of the Society at the time of his request that priests might be sent out to the colony. These publications are enriched with the notes of the late Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, S. T. D.[878] then Corresponding Secretary of the Maryland Historical Society. The letters, which have been frequently used in the preceding narrative, throw much light upon the early days of the Province, and give a vivid picture of the activity of the missionaries.[879]