/ 
 
 /// 
 
F 184 
 .B873 
 Copy 1 
 
 ^siJ^B 
 
 !^ LJJ 
 
 ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF CIVIL LIBERTY IN MARYLAND. 
 
 A D I S C U R S E 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 GEO. WM. BROWN, 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 iltarylanir i^istoiical Socictii, 
 
 BEING THE 
 
 FIFTH xVNNUAL ADDRESS TO THAT ASSOCIATION. 
 
 ^uia- 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 PRINTED BY JOHN D. TOY, 
 
 Corner of Market and St. Paul-t^ts. 
 
 18..0. 
 
 -2V& 
 
 _ J 
 
THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH OF CIVIL IIBERTY IN MARYLAND. 
 
 F 184 
 .B873 
 Copy 1 
 
 A DISCOURSE 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 GEO. WM. BROWN, 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 iltarulanir i^^^toncal 0onetg, 
 
 BEING THE 
 
 FIFTH ANNUAL ADDRESS TO THAT ASSOCIATION. 
 
 BALTIMORE: 
 PRINTED BY JOHN D. TOY, 
 
 Corner of Market anil St. I'aul-sts. 
 
 1850. 
 

DISCOURSE. 
 
 Mr. President and 
 
 Gentlemen of the Historical Society: 
 
 In this age and country we do not much love to contemplate the past. 
 The legends and time-honored traditions which form so large a part of 
 the intellectual store of many nations have no place in our literature. 
 Society is so constituted that most of us seek and therefore find little 
 leisure for rest or recreation, and still less for looking backward. Every 
 hour brings with it so much engrossing labor, or such a variety of pur- 
 suits and cares, and the age is so crowded with startling events, that the 
 transactions of the present time only, seem to be worthy of our serious 
 attention, and, contrasted with them, those of the past fade hito insignifi- 
 cance as if they were mere shadows and unrealities. 
 
 Twice a day the never resting press spreads before our eyes the cur- 
 rent history of the whole civilized world. Not a battle is fought, nor 
 a dynasty subverted, nor does any other event of real or supposed im- 
 portance happen any where within the outermost boundaries of civiliza- 
 tion, but the account speeds back to us faster than the winds can waft 
 it, borne aloft over land and ocean by the mighty arm of steam, or shot 
 through the wires of the telegraph with a rapidity so great that it defies 
 calculation. As the sun in the short cycle of twenty-four hours looks 
 down upon the inhabitants of the whole earth, making one and the 
 same solar day for all, so we, by the wonderful agency of steam and 
 magnetism, may be almost said to live on the same actual day in the 
 midst of events which occur among other people and in distant lands. 
 A happy effect of this wonderful circulation of thought and intelligence 
 is, doubtless, to expand our views beyond the narrow confines of our 
 own homes and country, and to enlarge our sympathies so as to enable 
 us to embrace within them the interests of the whole liuman family, 
 
but its effect also is, to concentrate our tlioughts still more intensely 
 upon the occurrences of the present time to the exclusion of the past. 
 
 The existence of this Society and of associations of a similar kind, 
 which have recently been established in many of the States, and the 
 encouragement which they have received, amounting to something more 
 than a permission to live, may be regarded as a favorable omen. They 
 not only embody in themselves a protest against the practical and utilita- 
 rian spirit of the times, but are an evidence of a reverent desire on the 
 part of their members to do justice to the memory of our forefathers 
 who have left us so largely their debtors. 
 
 No people are connected with the past by stronger and more en- 
 dearing ties than ourselves, although, at first sight, it might seem to be 
 otherwise. We justly attribute to the free institutions of our country 
 the extraordinary prosperity which as a nation we have always en- 
 joyed ; — but whence came those institutions.^ The distinctive character 
 which they possess was impressed upon tliem at a recent period, but their 
 origin lies hid in the distant past, and they were developed slowly and 
 gradually by the events of many centuries. It may be said of them as 
 has been said with reference to the intellectual treasures which we pos- 
 sess, that we who now live, 
 
 " Are the heirs of all the ages, 
 In the foremost ranks of time." 
 
 All history shows that few things are of slower growth than civil 
 liberty, and that it is easier either for individuals or nations to submit 
 to be ruled by others, than to learn to control themselves. In some 
 measure we, as a people, have learned the duties of self-government, and 
 to practice tliem, under the favorable circumstances in which we are 
 placed, seems to be so easy, that we can hardly comprehend that the 
 habit was acquired by slow degrees and a transmitted experience. If 
 we had attempted the experiment for ourselves, without the benefit of 
 the instruction which we have derived from those who preceded us, 
 we should have failed signally as others have done. 
 
 In order to establish a republic, much more is required than to set 
 men free from the bonds of despotism, and to put the reins of authority 
 in their own hands. Nor is it enough that the true interest of all re- 
 quires that law and order should be the unvarying rule, nor even that 
 a liberal and wise written constitution should be solemnly adopted. 
 Our sister republics on this continent, if indeed such travesties of free 
 
governments can be called republics, furnish an instructive lesson on 
 this subject. Spain, while they remained her colonies, endeavored to 
 trample out every spark of freedom, and, now that they have thrown off 
 her yoke, they are not fitted for the new duties which they have 
 assumed. 
 
 Nor is the case much better in enlightened Europe. Within a short 
 space of time the old dynasties there have been shaken to their founda- 
 tions. A veil has fallen from the eyes of men. The divine right of 
 kings to govern, and the heaven-appointed duty of the people to sub- 
 irit to be governed without reference to the general welfare, have come 
 to be regarded as impostures too gross to be seriously maintained out 
 of Russia and Turkey. Even fortifications and standing armies, with 
 which monarchs have been accustomed to hedge themselves round, 
 have, in times of trial, proved, like the rest, a delusion. Late events 
 have shown that in most of the countries of Europe there are destruc- 
 tive agencies at work, quite sufficient to subvert the old governments 
 which have so long elevated the few at the expense of the many. They 
 are permitted to stand, not through their own strength, but because there 
 is not sufficient constructive power in the people to rebuild after a revo- 
 lution. Men must learn self-control, self-government, before they are 
 prepared to be republicans. True liberty is the farthest thing possible 
 from anarchy and licentiousness. Those who have grown up in bond- 
 age can hardly be made to assume the port, and practice the moderation 
 of men educated in the habits of regulated freedom. 
 
 Only two of all the men of Israel, who, in Egypt, had been hewers 
 of wood and drawers of water for their tyrannical task-masters, were 
 permitted to assist in laying the foundations of the Jewish common- 
 wealth. Slaves they had been, and had been taught to submit and obey, 
 but self-control, self-denial they could not learn, even from the teaching 
 of their inspired lawgiver. The privations which their new freedom 
 imposed, soon made them pine for their former slavery, and it was not 
 until the old generation had died completely out, and a new and brave 
 race, composed of those who had left Egypt in their youth and those 
 who were born and nurtured in the free air of the desert, had taken its 
 place, that the chosen people were permitted to enter and take posses- 
 sion of the promised land. 
 
 The men who laid the foundations of civil liberty, broad and deep, in 
 this their land of promise, were the early colonists and their imme(hate 
 successors, and they are worthy of all honor from us who have entered 
 
into their labors. Tliey were not I'lilly aware of the consequences des- 
 tined to result from the work in which they were engaged, but our 
 o-ratilude is not the less due to them on that account. The real benefits 
 which mankind were to derive from the discovery of a new continent, 
 were not, as was at first supposed, in a large increase of wealth, nor 
 even in finding an outlet for the crowded population of Europe. They 
 were to spring from the new order of things, socially and politically, 
 which has here been developed, aud which is fast modifying the civili- 
 zation of the world. More precious seeds were never sown in the fal- 
 low field of time than the English colonies which, in the seventeenth 
 century, were planted along the eastern coast of North America. As 
 the child is the father of the man, as the acorn enfolds within its shell 
 the future oak, as the bubbling fountain gives birth and direction to the 
 mighty river, so those insignificant colonies, the work mainly of indi- 
 vidual enterprise, feeble in numbers, neglected in their infancy, strug- 
 gling for existence against Indian foes, diseases, hardships and priva- 
 tions, contained within themselves principles of liberty, which in their 
 development, naturally produced the free institutions under which we 
 live and which we justly prize as the most valuable of our possessions. 
 
 But I pass from these general considerations to the subject to which 
 I desire more especially to call your attention, the origin and growth of 
 civil liberty in Maryland. It is a theme which I cannot hope to make 
 generally interesting, for it will necessarily carry me into somewhat 
 minute details, and, unfortunately, the early records of our State are not 
 only fevtr and scanty in themselves, but are barren of striking and ro- 
 mantic incidents, which are essential to render the pages of history ani- 
 mated and attractive. 
 
 The charter of Maryland bears date on the 20th of June, 1632. It 
 was drawn in the lifetime of George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, 
 for whose benefit it was designed, but he having died about two months 
 before its execution, it was granted by Charles the First to Cecilius, the 
 eldest son of George Calvert, to whom the title and fortune of his father 
 had descended. Very difTerent views have been taken and earnestly 
 maintained of the true meaning of this instrument. It has been de- 
 scribed by some as embodying a scheme of the strongest government 
 known throughout the American Colonies, and has been praised by 
 others as being not only liberal but even democratic in its character, 
 and as making ample provision for the rights of the settlers. This dif- 
 ference of opinion has arisen from the ambiguity of some of its provi- 
 
£> 
 
 sions, but I think that it is not difficult to shew that the charter was 
 designed to establish a government resembling that of England in the 
 days of James the First, in which still more extensive powers were 
 vested in the rulers than were claimed by the English executive, and 
 fewer rights were secured to the people, than were then enjoyed in 
 the parent country; and, indeed, it would be strange if it were other- 
 wise, if we consider the source from which it originated. It is gene- 
 rally admitted either to have been the work, of the first Lord Balti- 
 more himself, or to have been prepared under his immediate direc- 
 tion, and it bears, in all its parts, the strongest intrinsic evidence that 
 such was its origin. He was first knighted, and afterwards created 
 Baron of Baltimore, by James the First, for about six years was one of 
 his secretaries of state, and, through the life of that arbitrary and capri- 
 cious monarch, continued to be a favorite. He was twice returned to 
 parliament, in which body he was known as a supporter of the royal 
 prerogative, and as a member of the court party as opposed to the 
 dountry party. He is universally conceded to have been an able and 
 conscientious man, but it is no reproach to him to say, that his sym- 
 pathies and opinions, so far as they are known to us, all inclined him to 
 favor a strong rather than a popular government. 
 
 The charter conveys, according to specified boundaries, which after- 
 wards and for a long time were the source of much trouble and litiga- 
 tion, " a certain region," " in a country hitherto uncultivated in the parts 
 of America." It was a compact between the sovereign and the proprie- 
 tary, in which the latter undoubtedly had the best of the bargain, but 
 as the former voluntarily parted with that which to him M'as of little 
 value, and to which, at best, he had but small right, he certainly had no 
 cause to complain. The grantee and his heirs were made true and ab- 
 solute lords and proprietaries of the soil, and all that the sovereign re- 
 served to himself was two Indian arrows of the country, to be deliv- 
 ered at the castle of Windsor every year, on Tuesday of Easter week, 
 in token of allegiance, and the fifth part of the gold and silver — the 
 latter, as it proved, a barren right. 
 
 The laws and institutions of the province were not required to be 
 submitted to the crown for its approbation, and the right of taxation by 
 it was expressly and forever abandoned. This last was a remarkable 
 provision, and greatly strengthened the popular cause in the subsequent 
 controversy with England, growing out of the right which it asserted of 
 taxing the colonies. 
 
8 
 
 Thus a government almost independent of the parent country, was 
 created by the charter itself. 
 
 Maryland was, in the quaint language of the instrument, to be " emi- 
 nently distinguished above all regions of that territory, and decorated 
 with more ample titles." And to carry out this purpose, the proprietary 
 was clothed with powers almost royal in their character and extent. He 
 was to be the fountain of honor, and was permitted to adorn well de- 
 serving subjects inhabiting within the province, with whatsoever titles 
 and dignities he should appoint, provided only that they were not to be 
 such as were then used in England. There doubtless glittered before 
 the imagination of the proprietary a long line of transatlantic nobility, 
 of which he was to be the acknowledged head and founder. Their func- 
 tions are not designated in the charter, but we must suppose that they were 
 designed to be appropriate to elevated rank. The proprietary, if he so 
 willed, had the power of establishing the feudal system perfect in all its 
 parts. Express provision was made for manors, lords of manors and 
 manorial-courts. Various manors were in fact granted, and in one or 
 two cases, manor-courts appear to have been held, but this is the extent 
 to which this feature of the charter was in practice preserved. It is, 
 however, doing no injustice to the proprietary to suppose that he de- 
 signed to create a new and vigorous aristocracy, who would sit as an 
 upper house in the future parliaments which he intended to assemble, 
 would fdl the most important offices of the State, and by their wealth, 
 power and dignity would form the surest support and brightest orna- 
 ment of the vice-royal court, which he and his descendants were au- 
 thorized to hold in the fair province of Maryland. 
 
 The proprietary had the power of creating ports of entry, of erect- 
 ing towns into boroughs, and boroughs into cities, with such privileges 
 and immunities as he might deem expedient, of pardoning offences, of 
 taking command in chief of the forces, with as full and unrestrained 
 power as any captain general of any army ever had, of declaring mar- 
 tial law, and of granting lands on such terms and tenure, as he thought 
 proper. 
 
 He was the source of justice. He had the power of establishing 
 courts, of abolishing them at will, and of determining their jurisdiction 
 and manner of proceeding ; and all process from them ran in his name 
 and not in that of the king. 
 
 He was not only the head of the executive branch of the govern- 
 ment, but he had the power of appointing officers of every description, 
 and of creating and abolishing the offices themselves at his own pleasure. 
 
He was the head of the church. That is, he had the power of erect- 
 ing and founding churches, and was entitled to the patronage and 
 advowsoiis appertaining to them. 
 
 He had also in certain cases and to a limited extent, the dangerous 
 power of promulgating ordinances which were to have the force of 
 laws; and he also claimed as a part of his prerogative, and occa- 
 sionally practised, the equally dangerous power of dispensing with 
 laws actually existing. 
 
 He was invested with all the royal rights which the Bishop of Durham 
 enjoyed within the County Palatine of Durham, and this among other 
 things gave him the right to all the game within the province. 
 
 In the end of the instrument, there is a sweeping clause, that in case 
 any doubt shall arise as lo tlie true meaning of any word of the char- 
 ter, an interpretation was to be put upon it most heneficial, profitable 
 and favorable to Lord Baltimore, his heirs and assigns. 
 
 Amid this imposing array of powers conferred on the proprietary, 
 those granted to the people were neither numerous nor explicit. The 
 most important right secured to them, was that the laws were to be 
 enacted by the proprietary, witli the advice and approbation of the free- 
 men, or more properly freeholders of llie province, or of their deputies.* 
 The proprietary understood this clause to mean that he had the right 
 of originating all laws, and that the people had nothing to do but accept 
 or reject, those which he might choose to propose. 
 
 But whatever may be the true meaning of the charter in this respect, 
 it is clear that the legislative assemblies were to be called together at 
 such times only as the proprietary might prescribe and in such form as 
 he might think best, and he had the power of adjourning and dissolving 
 them at pleasure. Thus their organization was left as indefinite as their 
 functions. 
 
 It is a fact worthy of notice, as illustrative of the character of those 
 
 *The charter is in Latin, and it has been a matter of doubt whether the expres- 
 sions " Liberi Homines " and " Liberi tenentes," which are therein used to indi- 
 cate the same class persons, should be translated Free-men or Freeholders. As, 
 however, the proprietary, by his ordinance of 1C81, restricted the elective franchise 
 to persons who were either freeholders or had a given amount of visible personal 
 estate, and as this ordinance was always acquiesced in and became the settled policy 
 of Maryland, it would seem to have been the established construction that all free- 
 men were not as such entitled, by virtue of the charter, to vote for delegates to the 
 General Assembly. If they had been so entitled, none could have been excluded 
 for want of property. — Charter of Maryland, §§ 7 and 8; 2 Bozmun's Hist, of 
 Md. 47 note; McMahon's Hist, of Md. 443, note 1. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 times in which political rights were comparatively little discussed, that 
 uraid all the various and tempting allurements, held out by Lord Balti- 
 more to induce the adventurous to enlist in the enterprise of planting 
 the colony of Maryland, not a word is said of the form of govern- 
 ment intended to be established. The conversion of the Indians was 
 presented as a primary object. The land was described as being white 
 unto the harvest, prepared to receive into its fruitful bosom the seed of 
 the Gospel. The air was represented as mild and serene, of a medium 
 temperature between the cold of New England and the burning heat of 
 Florida. The bays and rivers were extolled as abounding in delicious 
 fish, innumerable, the forests as swarming with game, the swine and 
 deer as so abundant that they were troublesome rather than advantage- 
 ous, and the soil so fertile that it afforded three harvests of Indian corn, 
 or King's corn, as it was then called, in one year. But whether those 
 who were invited to occupy this Western Paradise were to participate 
 in the affairs of government, or to be ruled wholly by others, it was not 
 considered material to communicate.* 
 
 If the view of the charter which I have given be correct, the people 
 of Maryland are not mainly indebted to it for the freedom which they 
 have always enjoyed. 
 
 We must look elsewhere for an explanation of the fact, and we find 
 it in the character of the men who planted the colony, and the circum- 
 stances by which they were surrounded. The colonists consisted of 
 some two hundred, for the most part Roman Catholics. They brought 
 with them stout English hearts, in which were cherished fundamental 
 principles of liberty, learned in a land where four hundred years before, 
 magna charta had been extorted by the sturdy barons from the fears 
 of King John, where parliaments met, and where trial by jury was es- 
 tablished. They spoke the language in which Shakspeare had written. 
 They belonged to the same period which produced a John Milton, 
 whose " Speech for the liberty of unlicensed printing," rings even now 
 in our ears like the voice of a trumpet. They were part of the same 
 generation which a few years afterwards, appalled all Europe by a 
 spectacle never before seen, the trial, condemnation and execution of an 
 anointed king, for a violation of the rights of his subjects. It mattered 
 little to such men whether their rights were more or less definitely 
 settled by the parchment title under which the land was acquired. The 
 
 * See the Report of Maryland prefixed to Father White's narrative. 
 
11 
 
 very ambiguity of the instrument operated in their favor, for it opened 
 wide the door to a construction which became more and more liberal, 
 as their strength and numbers increased. All the circumstances by 
 which they were surrounded, favored the growth of free principles. 
 They had settled themselves in a wilderness, where the artificial dis- 
 tinctions of life, must, to a great extent, be laid aside. The best man 
 was he who was the bravest, the most useful, the most enterprising. 
 All had to labor for subsistence, and nearly all with their own hands. 
 The charter provided for nobles, but none were to be found, for nobles 
 cannot live in a wilderness. There, stars and garters are out of place, 
 and a coat of frieze is worth more than a coat of arms. The inhabitants 
 consisted chiefly of planters, small farmers, mechanics, redemptioners, 
 (or persons who were bound to render personal service for a term of 
 years, to those who had paid the expenses of their emigration,) 
 and a few official personages sent out by the proprietary. Some 
 of them were persons of education and gentle birth, but the majority 
 were doubtless such as usually compose the materials of which 
 colonies are formed, men of little or no means, who go abroad 
 in the hope of bettering their condition. They could not be called 
 poor, for they had the means of comfortable subsistence in abundance 
 around them, but their wealth consisted mainly in their capacity for 
 labor.* The tendency of such men so situated was necessarily and 
 inevitably towards the establishment of freer institutions than were 
 contemplated by the charter. All that they needed was to be left free 
 to work out their own destiny without foreign molestation, and this was 
 secured to them for a considerable time, by the fact that the political 
 and religious contest waged between the contending parties at home, 
 
 * The act of 1638, ch. 16, furnishes an illustration of the scanty means of the colo- 
 nists. A water-mill having become necessary for the use of the people instead of 
 the hand-mills which had previously sufficed to grind their corn, the Governor and 
 Council were authorized to contract for its erection, provided the cost should not 
 exceed 20,000 pounds of tobacco, or $333 33^ cents, which was to be raised by gen- 
 eral taxation in two years. McShcrry's Hist, of Md. 5(i. 2 Bozma7i, 156. Education 
 was not very extensively diffused among the settlers. The return of the election of a 
 burgess for Mattajjanient hundred, dated 14th of February, 1638, was signed by 
 seven persons, of whom only one could write his name, the rest affixed their marks; 
 and out of fifteen persons whose names were subscribed to the return for St. Mary's 
 htmdred, seven made their marks. On this Mr. Bozman remarks: "This gross 
 deficiency in literature among our colonists is not however to be imputed to their 
 colonial state. These persons, for the most part, were born and bred in England, 
 and had left their country after the common period of acquiring literary attainment.s. 
 It was the defect of the ag(! in which they lived." 2 Bozman, 9i). 
 
12 
 
 left the British government little leisure to look after its remote and 
 insignificant colonies. 
 
 For about a year after the colony was planted, the settlers were too 
 busily occupied with building, planting, reaping, and the various other 
 labors incident to their new situation, to find leisure for any thing else, 
 but on the 26th of February, 1635, they were called together by the 
 Governor for the purpose of making laws. Various bills were passed, 
 but unfortunately no memorial of them remains, as most of the early- 
 records of the colony were seized and carried off to Virginia, in the 
 outbreak known as Clayborne and Ingle's rebellion, where they were 
 either lost or destroyed. But the bills passed never became laws, as 
 the Proprietary refused his assent to them, for the reason, as is supposed, 
 that they did not originate with himself. 
 
 The important business of legislation was thus put off for two years 
 longer. In the year 1637 the second legislative assembly was sum- 
 moned by the Governor, to meet at the little town of St. Mary's. It 
 was a strangely constituted body. It met in one chamber. Governor 
 Leonard Calvert, the brother of the Proprietary, presided, and his three 
 councillors took their seats as members. All the freemen of the pro- 
 vince, who chose to do so, were invited to attend in person, or to send 
 delegates in their place, or to give their proxies to any individual of 
 their own selection, authorizing him to vote for them. Thus was as 
 near an approach made to a purely democratic body, as could well exist, 
 and indeed from the condition of the colony it would not have been 
 easy to form one of a different character. Some of the entries on the 
 journal of the house sound strangely to us at this day. On the first 
 day of their meeting, proclamation was made " that all freemen omitted 
 in the writs of summons, that would claim a voice in the general 
 assembly, should come and make their claim." Whereupon we read 
 that" claim was made by John Robinson, carpenter, and was admitted." 
 On the next day, "came Edward Bateman, of St. Mary's hundred, ship 
 carpenter, and claimed a voice as a freeman, and made Mr. John Lewger, 
 secretary, his proxy." "Also came John Langford, of the Isle of Kent, 
 gentleman, high constable of the said island, who had given a voice in 
 the choice of Robert Philpot, gentleman, to be one of the burgesses for 
 the freemen of that island, and desired to revoke his voice, and to be 
 personally put in the assembly, and was admitted." And so, by this 
 simple process, Edward Bateman, the ship carpenter, by his proxy, 
 John Robinson, the carpenter, and John Langford, the high constable, 
 
13 
 
 were admitted to their seats as legislators, although the last had already 
 voted for a regularly appointed delegate. 
 
 It is fortunate, perhaps, that political aspirants, even at this en- 
 lightened day, find it not quite so easy to obtain seats in the legislature 
 of the State, either for tiiemselves or their favorite candidates. 
 
 The house being at length organized, proceeded to business, and 
 most pressing business it had on hand. For three years the colony had 
 been struggling on in the midst of difliculties. Clayborne, who has been 
 called the evil genius of Maryland, had not only set up a claim to the 
 Isle of Kent, but is charged with having instigated the Indians to hos- 
 tilities. The colonists were increasing in number, and were gradually 
 extending themselves beyond the settlement at St. Mary's. There was 
 urgent need of laws. They were surrounded by new circumstances, a 
 new social relation, that of slavery unfortunately had, probably even 
 then, sprung up among them, their dangerous Indian neighbors seemed 
 to threaten them, their infant agriculture, commerce and institutions 
 were all sadly in want of laws adapted to their situation. And a greater 
 want in a community cannot well exist. Those w'no live under a sys- 
 tem of just laws duly enforced do not, until deprived of them, appre- 
 ciate the benefits which they confer. Like the common blessings of 
 water and sunshine, they come to be regarded as things of course, for 
 which no gratitude is due. But if they were suspended for a sin- 
 gle day, we should then learn to estimate, more correctly, their im- 
 portance. The laws, in truth, surround us I'ke the atmosphere, they 
 attend our steps when we walk abroad, and shield our homes from 
 harm when we are absent; by a thousand unseen and unfelt influences, 
 tliey minister to our comfort, protection and happiness. They are the 
 embodied wisdom of the age which enacts them, its sense of justice 
 speaking in enduring words. 
 
 But a serious difficulty stood in the way of the colonists. They had 
 already, two years before, passed a series of laws which in mass had 
 been rejected by the proprietary, and now, in his turn, he had prepared 
 in England, a Code for their government, which they were assembled to 
 ratify and adopt. The question was, would they do it, and important 
 consequences for many years hung upon their decision. It does not 
 appear that the laws proposed were, in themselves, objectionable. The 
 proprietary had at heart the good of the colony, on which he had lav- 
 ished large sums of money, and it was, doubtless, his desire to pro- 
 mote the welfare of the inhabitants while he protected what he deemed 
 
14 
 
 his own lights.* The colonists, on their part, manifested for him, on 
 various occasions, a high degree of respect and afTection. But an im- 
 portant principle was involved. If they yielded to him the privilege of 
 originating all laws, and reserved to themselves a mere negative on such 
 as he might choose to propose, they surrendered, so long as the charter 
 should endure, the dearest and most important right of freemen. 
 
 If, on the other hand, they rejected the Code, they must be prepared 
 not only to engage in a serious controversy with their beneficent patron, 
 but to forego the advantages of all legislation for an indefinite period. 
 The matter is very briefly stated, but it is clear frpm the record, that the 
 sturdy Marylanders did not hesitate for a moment. They could endure, 
 if need were, to go without laws, but not to have laws made for them 
 by another. When the question was taken, the Code of the proprie- 
 tary was promptly rejected, but two of the members present voting for 
 it, and those two were Governor Calvert himself, and Mr. Lewger, his 
 Secretary. It is true that the two increased their vote by the proxies 
 which they held ; but I speak of the votes of the members present. 
 Thus early was fought and won, the first battle for civil liberty in Ma- 
 ryland. The head of the popular movement appears to have been Cap- 
 tain Thomas Cornwaleys, one of the Governor's Council, and for a 
 long time a man of note in the colony, and its military leader. It is to 
 be lamented that a more full memorial of this brave soldier and patriot 
 has not come down to us. 
 
 The house soon afterwards proceeded to pass laws for itself, but as 
 the bills had not been matured in committee, the Governor proposed an 
 adjournment, in order that the members might attend to their other bu- 
 siness, while the bills were preparing. This was opposed by Corn- 
 waleys, who replied significantly, that, " they could not spend their 
 time in any business, better than in this for the country's good." 
 
 The bills were at length got ready and passed, forty-two in all, but, 
 as the colonists probably anticipated, they shared the fate of their pre- 
 decessors, and were in a body rejected by the proprietary. Their titles, 
 however, have come down to us, and show that the fathers of Maryland 
 set themselves in earnest to the great work of legislation. There is a bill 
 providing for the probate of wills, another regulating the descent of 
 land, another in restraint of liquors, and another for the liberties of the 
 
 * During the first two or three years of the colony, Cccilius Calvert, the proprie- 
 tary, expended upon it upwards of £40,000 sterling. — McMahon, 197. 
 
15 
 
 people. The colonists being thus deprived of the power of making 
 laws for themselves, neither gave up in despair, nor had recourse to 
 lynch-law, but resorted to abetter expedient than either. They claimed 
 that they brought with them, and were to be governed by, all the laws 
 of England which were applicable to their situation, and this claim they 
 never relinquished although the proprietary opposed it, on the ground 
 that a wholesale adoption of the laws of England would interfere with 
 his legislative rights. From this difference of opinion, a controversy 
 arose long afterwards, in the year 1722, which lasted for ten years. As 
 the courts only could decide what laws of England were applicable and 
 what were not, the people of Maryland were advocating a principle, 
 the establishment of which would give a large and somewhat dangerous 
 discretion to the judges, especially, as their appointment and tenure of 
 office rested entirely with the proprietary, but the people greatly pre- 
 ferred to encounter this danger and inconvenience rather than risk the 
 liberties which were enjoyed in the mother country, by surrendering the 
 protection of the laws under which those liberties had grown up. It is 
 a note-worthy circumstance that the most serious controversy which 
 ever arose between the proprietaiy and the people of Maryland, origi- 
 nated in the assertion by them of their right as English subjects, to be 
 governed by the laws of England. The fact is a high practical testi- 
 monial to the substantial character of English liberty, which is the 
 parent stock of our own. 
 
 At last both of these questions were determined in favor of the peo- 
 ple. It was soon settled* that all legislation should originate in the le- 
 gislature of the province, and not with the proprietary, but it was not 
 settled until the year 1732, that in cases not otherwise provided for, 
 " the rule of judicature was to be according to the laws, statutes, and 
 reasonable customs of England as used and practised within the pro- 
 
 Some time necessarily elapsed before the various departments of gov- 
 ernment became fully organized, as is singularly illustrated by an anec- 
 dote which is related of an early period of the colony. In 1648, a 
 Miss Margaret Brent, on the death of Governor Leonard Calvert, was 
 
 • In 1639. 
 
 t McMahon, 127. From this period until the revolution, the courts continued to 
 exercise the power of adoplinj;; and giving elFect to such of tlie English Statutes as 
 were accommodated to the condition of tiic province, without regard to tlic inquiry 
 whether they had been practised upon, or enacted previously to 1732. lb. 128. 
 
16 
 
 appointed his administrator, and as the Governor had been the agent of 
 his brother, tlie proprietary, under a power of attorney from him, it was 
 judicially decided that Miss Brent was dtdy authorized to act as attorney 
 in fact for the absent proprietary. She is described as having been pos- 
 sessed of a "mascnline understanding," and at least appears to have been 
 addicted to masculine pursuits; as she is said " to have been very ac- 
 tively employed in taking up lands, and in affairs of all kinds relating to 
 property." To her great credit it is related, that by her personal influ- 
 ence and by a timely appropriation of a small sum from the estates of 
 the proprietary, of which she had the management, she, on several oc- 
 casions, pacified the soldiers in garrison at St. Inigoe's fort, who were 
 ready to mutiny on account of the non-payment of their wages. Armed 
 thus with a double right. Miss Brent presented herself before the legis- 
 lature of the province, which was then in session, and made her appli- 
 cation to have two votes in the house, one for herself and another as 
 his lordship's attorney. But although the merit of this remarkable lady 
 and her public services, were on a subsequent occasion handsomely 
 acknowledged by the legislature, yet they probably thought that by 
 granting the request they would establish a precedent, dangerous even 
 at that early day, in favor of female rights, for we are told that the appli- 
 cation "was refused peremptorily by the Governor Greene, and that the 
 lady protested in form against all the proceedings of that assembly, 
 unless she might be present and vote as aforesaid." Mr. Bozman, the 
 learned historian of Maryland, endeavors to justify this proceeding on 
 the part of the legislature, but whether successfully or not, I shall not 
 stop to consider. Our Maryland lady, he thinks, may in character be 
 aptly compared to Queen Elizabeth ; if this be so, that fact may pro- 
 bably have weighed as strongly with the assembly and governor in the 
 peremptory refusal with which they met her request, as the reasons on 
 which the historian relies in vindication of the ungallant decision.* 
 
 I shall not weary you by a detail of the various difficulties which 
 beset the founders of our State, or of the intestine commotions by 
 which they were harassed. The controversies in England between 
 Charles I. and his people, and Cromwell and the parliament, were not 
 without effect on the affairs of the colony, and although strife and com- 
 motion were the immediate result, the progress of free principles in 
 England undoubtedly gave an additional impulse to them here. 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 323. 
 
17 
 
 It is every where iu this country recognized as a fundamental principle 
 of government, that the legislative, executive and judicial functions 
 should be kept separate and distinct, but this wholesome rule was 
 wholly disregarded in the proprietary government of Maryland. 
 
 The governor was at first in the habit of summoning by special writs 
 such persons as he thought proper, to sit in the legislative assembly. 
 This was an arbitrary power, liable to great abuse, and it happened that 
 in the session of 1642, the number thus summoned gave the governor 
 a majority over the regularly elected burgesses, thus taking the whole 
 legislation out of the hands of the people. To remedy this incon- 
 venience, the burgesses demanded that the assembly should be divided 
 into two bodies, of which they should constitute the lower house. 
 This reasonable request was at first refused, but about the year 1659, 
 the division was permanently eflected. Subsequently to this, the lower 
 house was composed of delegates regularly elected by the people, and 
 the upper house of the governor and his council, and the right of each 
 individual to appear in person or by proxy, wholly ceased. In 1681, 
 the proprietary, by a positive ordinance, restricted the elective franchise 
 to freemen having a small property qualification, and this restriction was 
 continued down to the adoption of the State Constitution, and was 
 incorporated in it.* 
 
 The judiciary was strangely blended with the executive, and never 
 became properly independent of it. The governor and his council 
 sat as the High Court of Appeals of the province, and the inferior 
 judges who were appointed by the proprietary, were removable at 
 his pleasure. Still they could on occasions act with firmness and 
 independence, for, in 1765, we find Frederick County Court deciding 
 the British stamp act to be unconstitutional and void, and proceeding in 
 the transaction of business without paying the least regard to its pro- 
 visions. 
 
 The governor was the chancellor of the province, although his pre- 
 vious occupation might have been such, as, according to our notions, to 
 have furnished a very unsuitable preparation for the performance of 
 the responsible duties appertaining to the ofilce. The last colonial 
 governor, Robert Eden, a brother-in-law of the then Lord Baltimore, had 
 previously been a lieutenant in the Coldstream Guards. f 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 216, 297 note ; McMahon, 419, note S. 
 t I Bland's Rep., 625, note. 
 
18 
 
 The main security for the liberties of the people was in the house of 
 delegates, who alone of the public servants were elected by the people, 
 and who took care so to exercise their powers, as constantly to 
 strengthen the popular cause. They claimed the right of originating all 
 money bills, and an equal rank in point of privilege with the English 
 house of commons. One of the expedients to which they resorted to 
 increase their power, was to pass important laws with a proviso that 
 they were to continue only for short and limited periods, which made 
 frequent sessions of the general assembly, and a constant resort to it for 
 the enactment of indispensable laws, absolutely necessary. 
 
 The intention of the charter to establish in Maryland a mixed form 
 of government, of which a hereditary nobility was to be a prominent 
 feature, was overruled by circumstances. Such a class can be sus- 
 tained only in a country where the ownership of the soil is mainly 
 vested in them, and where the masses are reduced to the condition of 
 tenants, dependent on the landholders for support.* But in Maryland 
 there were vast uncultivated tracts of land, lying in their primitive state, 
 which the proprietary was more anxious to sell than the people were 
 to purchase. Every man who chose, became a landholder, a pro- 
 prietor in his own right. He had no occasion to look up to any other 
 man for patronage, and still less for support or protection. Labor was 
 the passport to independence and wealth. There was no place then 
 for an aristocracy, for there was nothing to support it. Aristocracy is 
 a plant which flourishes only in the sunshine of courts, here it was an 
 exotic, and it died at once in the shade of our vast forests. So we find 
 that the manors which were actually granted, subsisted only in name, and 
 the lords of manors had, only for a short time, even that unsubstantial 
 existence. The aristocratic provisions of the charter being thus inca- 
 pable of being carried out in practice, were soon lost sight of by the 
 proprietary, and excited no opposition on the part of the people ; but 
 in them the proprietary lost what would have been of material assist- 
 tance in sustaining him in the exercise of the royal prerogatives with 
 which he was clothed. 
 
 The proprietary government established by the charter, lasted, with 
 slight interruptions, down to the American revolution; but long before 
 that event the proprietaries, one after another, had silently relinquished 
 the exercise of those powers which, as set forth in the charter, seemed 
 
 * This subject is more fully discussed in Burnap's Life of Leonard Calvert, 
 Chapter X. 
 
19 
 
 to threaten the liberties of the inhabitants. They usually resided in 
 England, and in Maryland had no other means of enforcing their au- 
 thority than through the agency of civil officers, who, although ap- 
 pointed by them, were generally selected from among the people, and 
 shared their feelings and opinions. The charter itself soon became an 
 object of jealousy to the British government, in consequence of the 
 extensive privileges which it lavished on a subject; so that the proprie- 
 taries frequently encountered opposition, and seldom received support 
 from that quarter, while, in Maryland, the people opposed a steady re- 
 sistance to the exercise of every thing approaching arbitrary power. 
 They were uniformly quick in perceiving, and prompt and tenacious in 
 resisting, the slightest infringement of what they considered their 
 rights — which they claimed to be not only those which were conferred 
 by the charter and laws of the province, but all those, in addition, 
 which were enjoyed by English subjects at home. No right or privi- 
 lege once acquired by them was ever relinquished, but, on the contrary, 
 became a means of increasing their power in all future controversies. 
 The consequence was, that although Maryland continued to have a 
 hereditary executive, it became, in essential matters, republican, and 
 instead oi' being subjected to an arbitrary government, enjoyed one of 
 mild and equal laws. The people were protected in their persons and 
 property, and the latter was so distributed, that few were found who 
 were either very rich or very poor — a condition of things most favor- 
 able to the growth and maintenance of civil liberty. 
 
 The discipline which they had undergone during the colonial period, 
 was of incalculable service in the revolutionary struggle in which they 
 were about to engage. They approached that great crisis not with the 
 timid and hesitating steps of novices in public affair;?, but with the reso- 
 lute tread of men who from long experience in matters of government, 
 and by the habit which they had acquired of resisting oppression fioni 
 whatever quarter it came, and of weighing and judging of their rights, 
 were fully prepared to engage in the fearful strife which awaited them, 
 and, in the event of success, to lay wisely and well the foundations of 
 a free commonwealth. No better proof can be adduced of the progress 
 which the principles of true freedom had made among them, than the 
 wisdom and moderation which they tiien exhibited. 
 
 In illustration of this, I shall for a short time ask your attention to a 
 few of the events which occurred in the town of Bullimore previously 
 to, and in tlie early part of, the revolutionary war. Although they are 
 
20 
 
 not in themselves of much magnitude or importance, they possess some 
 degree of interest for us, both on account of the local associations con- 
 nected with them, and because they carry us into the heart, as it were, 
 of a great movement, and show, by the manner in which it was con- 
 ducted, tlie reason of the wide difierence which exists between the 
 American revolution and every similar occurrence of modern times. 
 The time to which I refer embraces the critical and important period 
 extending over rather more than two years, during which the commit- 
 tee of observation for the town and county of Baltimore sat here, and 
 performed many important functions which, in a regularly constituted 
 government, devolve upon the tribunals and officers of the law.* The 
 province was then in a transition state; for the colonial government had 
 virtually ceased to exist, and another had not yet been established in 
 its place. Society was therefore, in a great measure, resolved into its 
 original elements, and temporary expedients had to be resorted to, until 
 a permanent constitution could be adopted. At the commencement of 
 this period, when, in the face of domestic disorganization, every energy 
 of the people had to be called forth to meet the impending war with 
 Great Britain, the committees of observation came into existence. They 
 were regularly elected by the qualified voters of the province who as- 
 sembled for the purpose at the different county towns, and were sus- 
 tained throughout in all their proceedings by the force of public 
 opinion."!" 
 
 They were, in fact, revolutionary tribunals, acting with vast force 
 and efficiency, and for a time were the main spring of the popular 
 movement. 
 
 In common with most of the public servants at that day, they were 
 clothed with large discretionary powers, but they acted under the pres- 
 sure of a responsibility, which was relied on as a sufficient guarantee 
 against the abuse of the confidence reposed in them. The exigency of 
 the crisis demanded that confidence should be freely bestowed, although 
 in some cases it was withheld, or very reluctantly given. When, for 
 instance, the assembly of South Carolina resolved to appoint deputies 
 to attend the Continental Congress, a proposition was made to instruct 
 heir delegates as to the point to which they might pledge the colony. 
 
 * I have had the advantage of consulting the original records kept by the com- 
 mittee, which have been kindly lent to me for the present occasion by their owner, 
 Peter Force, Esq., of Washington. 
 
 t See Appendix, note 1. 
 
21 \ 
 
 John Rutledge, the eminent patriot and orator of South Carolina, 
 warmly opposed the proposition. But what shall we do, asked its ad- 
 vocates, if these delegates make a bad use of their power ? Hang them ! 
 was his decided and impetuous reply. * John Rutledge was right, and 
 it was somewhat in the spirit in which he spoke, that the people of 
 Maryland acted, in the authority willi which they invested the commit- 
 tees of observation. 
 
 These committees originated in a resolve of the Continental Congress, 
 which met at Philadelphia, in September, 1774, in pursuance of which 
 the delegates acting for themselves and the inhabitants of the several 
 colonies which they represented, entered into an association, the object 
 of which, among other things, was to put a stop to all trade with Great 
 Britain and its possessions, to discontinue the purchase and use of East 
 India tea, to encourage frugality, agriculture, arts and manufactures, and 
 to discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, and espe- 
 cially all kinds of gaming and expensive diversions and entertainments. 
 As part of the plan to carry out this agreement, committees were to be 
 chosen by the qualified voters in every county, city and town, whose 
 business it was attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching 
 the association, and the names of all persons who violated its articles 
 were to be published in the newspapers, to the end that all such foes 
 to the rights of British America might be publicly and universally con- 
 temned as the enemies of American liberty, and that all dealings with 
 such persons might be broken off. 
 
 Previously to this,| however, on the 27lh of May, 1774, a public 
 meeting had been called in Baltimore, at which the inhabitants had agreed 
 to unite in an association of non-intercourse with Great Britain, had 
 elected a committee to attend a general meeting of delegates from all 
 parts of the province, to be held at Annapolis, and had appointed a 
 committee of correspondence for the city and county of Baltimore. 
 
 But the resolve of Congress was intended to create a concert of 
 action throughout the colonies, and the committees of observation thus 
 established were, in Maryland, from time to lime, clothed with such 
 additional powers by the Provincial Convention at Annapolis, as were 
 necessary to meet the emergency of the times.J 
 
 * 4 Graham's History of the United States, p. 370. 
 
 t See Purviance's Narrative, pp. 12 and 13. 
 
 I See the Proceedings of the Convention, published in IS.lfi. 
 
m 
 
 They not only exercised all the authority requisite to carry out the 
 measures agreed on by the articles of association established by Con- 
 gress, but their permission was necessary in many cases before suits could 
 be brought or executions issued. They were empowered to purchase 
 arms and ammunition, and to raise money for tliat purpose, and others 
 which were specified, by subscription, or in any other voluntary manner. 
 They were authorized to enroll and equip troops, to impose fines not ex- 
 ceeding ten pounds on all disaffected persons who refused to enlist, to 
 disarm such persons, as well as all those who refused to subscribe 
 certain articles of association of the Freemen of Maryland, promulgated 
 by the Proviucial Convention, and to exact from non-associators, as 
 they were called, security for their good behavior. 
 
 They were required to see that traders did not monopolize goods, or 
 exact unreasonable prices for them ; to hold up to public censure and 
 odium those who, by acts or words, manifested hostility to the country, 
 and to arrest, imprison and hand over to the council of safety, those who 
 were guilty of offences calculated to disunite the inhabitants, or danger- 
 ous to their liberties. 
 
 A part of their duty, was to appoint sub-committees of correspon- 
 dence, by means of which, at a period when neither the press nor the 
 mails circulated information as rapidly as they now do, intelligence was 
 communicated to every part of the country. When, for example, the 
 harbor of Boston was closed by the arbitrary edict of the British Parlia- 
 ment, the committee of Philadelphia sent the news by express to Balti- 
 more. It excited a determined spirit of resistance here, and the Baltimore 
 committee of correspondence sped the alarming tidings onward to 
 Annapolis, Alexandria, Norfolk, Portsmouth and Charleston.* It 
 passed through the length and breadth of the land, like the fiery 
 cross by which, on a sudden outbreak of war, the Scottish clans were 
 in former times rallied around the banner of their chief; and with simi- 
 lar results. A thrill of indignation and resentment pervaded the whole 
 people, and thus gradually were their hearts prepared for the impending 
 war. 
 
 Immediately on the arrival of a vessel at the port of Baltimore, the 
 
 *This committee, however, was not appointed by the committee of observation, 
 but at the public meeting, before mentioned, held in Baltimore previously to the 
 election of the latter. — See Purviance's Narrative, p. 1.3. The incident is referred 
 to here only as an instance of the efficient action of the revolutionary committees of 
 correspondence. 
 
23 
 
 master was required to appear before the committee, and state, on oath, 
 whether or not he had imported goods contrary to the resolve of Con- 
 gress, which prohibited all trade with Great Britain. If such goods 
 were discovered, as they sometimes were, they were taken possession 
 of by the committee and sold. Tiie cost of the goods and charges, 
 were, out of the proceeds of sale, paid to tlie importer, and the profits, 
 if any there were, were, in conformity with the recommendation of 
 Congress, remitted to Boston, for the benefit of the poor of that town, 
 who were suffering under the oppression of the Boston port bill. Bal- 
 timore, although then a small town containing only about five thousand 
 inhabitants, was engaged in a large and profitable commerce, the inter- 
 ruption of which inflicted a heavy blow on her growing prosperity ; but 
 such was the patriotism of her citizens that they cheerfully submitted to 
 it, and fairly carried it out. It is to the credit especially of the mercan- 
 tile part of the community, who were the greatest sufferers, that they 
 were among the most prominent supporters of the measure: but their 
 sacrifices have not received from posterity the gratitude to which they are 
 justly entitled. The merchant princes of Tyre and of Florence, are 
 inseparably associated in the memories of all, with the former glories 
 of those cities, but the merchant patriots of Baltimore are already 
 almost forgotten in the city where their ashes repose, and by whose 
 fortunes they stood so steadfastly in the hour of her greatest need. 
 
 ]f it was reported that a trader had taken advantage of the necessities 
 of the times to demand exorbitant prices for his goods, he was 
 summoned to appear before the committee, and the matter was inves- 
 tigated. If the charge was proved, and a satisfactory atonement was 
 not at once made, the offender was liable to be published to the world 
 as an enemy of his country; and this was no trivial punishment, for 
 it was equivalent to civil and social excommunication. No good 
 citizen would associate or deal with one who in the time of trial had 
 deserted the cause of American liberty. 
 
 The colonies were engaging with fearful odds against them, in a war 
 with the leading power of the world, and it seemed to many here, as 
 well as in Great Britain, that they would be annihilated at a single 
 blow. They had more than a foreign enemy to contend with. In 
 every part of the country there were intelligent and conscientious men, 
 occupying the highest places in society and public office, who could not 
 sympathize with the popular movement, and who held it to be their 
 duty to oppose it as far as they dared. Many were bound to the parent 
 
24 
 
 country by the closest ties of relationship and affection, and there was 
 then, moreover, as there always is in every community, a strong con- 
 servative force which upholds the established order of things whatever 
 it may be, because it is established. To this class belong the timid, 
 the prudent, the selfish and unenterprising, and not a few of those 
 who have much to lose and little to gain by change. There is always 
 beside a baser crew, which on the first outbreak joins the popular side, 
 but in the hour of danger can only be kept in the ranks by the fear of 
 the fate which awaits deserters. Some, but not many of all these 
 classes there were in Baltimore, and with them the committee had to 
 deal. In a war like that of the revolution, whoever is not for it is 
 against it, and the most dangerous enemies are those, who while they 
 take no active part in the strife, occupy themselves in sowing seeds 
 of disaffection and discontent, and by their influence and example, 
 operate on the fears and scruples of the timid and vacillating. An un- 
 published letter of General Washington, which has been placed in my 
 hands by a gentleman of this city,* contains some pointed remarks on 
 this subject. It is dated on the 6th of June, 1777, from his head quar- 
 ters at Middlebrook, and is addressed to Major Apollos Morris, of Phila- 
 delphia, who appears to have been what was called in the language of 
 that day, a neutral character, but which was generally understood to 
 mean an enemy in disguise. " I must," says General Washington, 
 " tell you in plain terms, that at this time a neutral character is looked 
 upon as a suspicious one ; and I would therefore advise you to leave a 
 country, with the majority of whom you cannot agree in sentiment, 
 and who are determined to assert their liberties by the ways and means 
 which necessity, and not the love of war, has obliged them to adopt." 
 As in times of public commotion, martial law may rightfully super- 
 cede the office of the civil magistrate, so, on occasions of extreme peril, 
 even liberty of speech may have to yield to the exigency of public 
 safety. The Baltimore committee did not hesitate to act on this prin- 
 ciple, and for the first application of it they selected a man who occupied 
 a prominent position in the community. Information was given to them 
 that the Rev. Mr. Edmistont had publicly approved of the Quebec bill, 
 and had also publicly asserted that all persons who mustered were 
 guilty of treason, and that such of them as had taken the oath of alle- 
 
 * Brantz Mayer, Esq. 
 
 f Mr. Edmiston was the pastor of St. Thomas' Parish, in Garrison Forest, Bal- 
 timore county. 
 
25 
 
 glance to the king of Great Britain, and afterwards took up arms, were 
 guilty of perjury. The committee decided that such declarations had 
 a tendency to defeat the measures recommended for the preservation of 
 America, and that it was their duty to take notice of persons guilty of 
 such offences. Whereupon, a copy of the charge was sent to Mr. Edmis- 
 ton, and he was summoned to appear before them, which he accordingly 
 did. After taking two hours to consider the matter, he admitted that he 
 had spoken the words, but excused himself by alleging that they were 
 uttered in the heat of political excitement. He explained away, as well 
 as he could, the offensive charge contained in them, and solemnly prom- 
 ised in writing, to avoid, for the future, all similar cause of offence. 
 The committee were satisfied with the apology and promise, and Mr. 
 Edmiston was effectually silenced. 
 
 Soon afterwards the case of a man named James Dalgleish was 
 brought before the committee. He had, on different occasions, mani- 
 fested, in offensive language, his hostility to the country, and expressed 
 an intention of joining the British forces. The committee "resolved 
 that he had discovered an incurable enmity to his country, and that it 
 was dangerous to the common cause to encourage a person of such 
 principles ;" and they accordingly " published him to the world, as an 
 enemy of the liberties of Americans." After this we hear no more of 
 James Dalgleish. A man thus stigmatized, was stripped of the power 
 to harm. Further punishment was unnecessary. A stain was im- 
 printed on his name which he carried with him wherever he might go. 
 
 But the committee did not rely wholly on moral suasion, or the force 
 of public opinion, though it was seldom that any thing more efficient 
 was required. If other means became necessary, it was not difficult to 
 obtain a file of soldiers to enforce their decisions. And the name of a 
 young officer, on whom special reliance seems to have been placed, ap- 
 pears more than once on the records of the committee. When its bold 
 and able chairman, Mr. Samuel Purviance, undertook, on his own re- 
 sponsibility, and rather irregularly it must be confessed, to seize the 
 person and papers of Governor Eden, the last proprietary governor of 
 Maryland who was still living at Annapolis, though no longer in the 
 exercise of his office, this young officer was selected to take charge of 
 the enterprise. It failed through no fault of his, but because the zeal of 
 the chairman of the Baltimore committee, overran the limits of pru- 
 dence marked out by the authorities at Annapolis. They suffered the 
 governor to depart in peace. The officer to whom I allude, was then 
 4 
 
26 
 
 Captawi Samuel Smith. Subsequently, he earned for himself an honor- 
 able place in his country's history, and his name is inseparably con- 
 nected with the annals of this city, which he defended in 1814, as com- 
 mander-in-chief against the British forces, and of which he was suDse- 
 quently elected chief-magistrate. Those among us who marked the 
 courage and fire which, at the advanced age of eighty-three, the veteran 
 General Smith, then a private citizen, displayed, when in 1835 he was 
 summoned in haste from Montebello, his country residence, to quell 
 a frightful mob which had well nigh obtained possession of the city of 
 Baltimore,* will know that in the youthful Captain Smith, the Baltimore 
 committee had one to rely on who could not be turned aside from his 
 purpose by fear or favor, while he was engaged in the service of his 
 country. 
 
 The committee felt it especially incumbent on them to denounce the 
 use of tea, but to banish this article was a work on which they required 
 the co-operation of those against whom neither their best soldiers, nor 
 public denunciation could avail. As wise and experienced men they 
 knew that conciliation will often prevail where a command would only 
 offend, and, therefore, they mildly and persuasively address the ladies 
 of Baltimore, as follows : " However difficult," say the committee, 
 " may be tlie disuse of any article which custom has rendered familiar 
 and almost necessary, yet they are induced to hope that the ladies will 
 cheerfully acquiesce in this self-denial, and thereby evince to the world 
 a love to their friends, their posterity and their country." It is to be 
 feared, however, that this advice was not always followed, for there is a 
 tradition, which I have often heard, current in the family of a sturdy 
 patriot, an ancestor of my own, who was a member of the committee, 
 that the forbidden beverage frequently made its appearance even at his 
 table, but, as it was always served in the coffee pot and poured out 
 under the name of coffee, which he did not drink, and as he took instead 
 of tea a cup of milk and water which was provided for him, neither the 
 committee man, nor the community was the wiser, and his daughters 
 thought that no great harm was done. It must not be supposed, how- 
 ever, that these ladies were deficient in patriotism. On' the contrary, 
 they cheerfully bore their share of the hardships and privations of the 
 war, and, in common with the rest of the ladies of Baltimore, helped 
 
 * See Appendix, Note 2. 
 
27 
 
 with their own hands to clothe the destitute soldiers whom, in 1781, 
 La Fayette was leading to take part in the Virginia campaign.* 
 
 Xhe committee sat, as I have said, for more than two years, during 
 which period they exercised a large and somewhat indefinite power 
 over the persons and property of the people, encountered and overcame 
 domestic opposition, gave a powerful impulse to the war, and, when the 
 town was threatened by the enemy, were mainly instrumental in putting 
 it in a state of defence. Their records are not stained by a single act 
 of violence or oppression. The highest fine which they inflicted, did 
 not exceed £10 and seldom reached that amount, and only in a few in- 
 stances did they exercise their power of making arrests, or of publish- 
 ing in the newspapers the names of those who had manifested hostility 
 to the cause of the country. Their proceedings, when contrasted with 
 the bloody atrocities which characterized the revolutionary tribunals of 
 France in the last century, demonstrate, as forcibly as any thing can, the 
 wide difference between the people of the two countries, in their fitness 
 for the enjoyment of civil liberty.! 
 
 The citizens of Baltimore, on their part, submitted with alacrity and 
 cheerfulness to the control exercised by the committee, and, throughout 
 the war, were honorably distinguished for their devotion to the cause of 
 their country. They performed their full share in achieving its inde- 
 pendence and in the establishment of the free institutions, state and na- 
 tional, under which we live. 
 
 * La Fayette, on his way to Virginia, passed through Baltimore, where he was hos- 
 pitably entertained. The incident alluded to is thus related in McSherry's History 
 of Maryland, p. 299. " Being invited to a ball, he was there remarked to be grave 
 and sad. On being questioned by the ladies, as to the cause of his gloom, he replied, 
 that he could not enjoy the gaiety of the scene, whilst his poor soldiers were with- 
 out shirts and destitute of the necessaries of a campaign. ' We will supply them,' 
 exclaimed these patriotic women. The pleasures of the ball-room were exchanged 
 for the needle, and, on the next day, they assembled in great numbers to make up 
 clothing for the soldiers out of materials advanced by their fathers and husbands." 
 
 General La Fayette preserved through life a grateful sense of the assistance thus 
 generously rendered. On his visit to Baltimore in 1S24, when the surviving officers 
 and soldiers of the revolution were introduced to him, he remarked to a gentleman 
 near him, " I have not seen among these, my friendly and patriotic commissary, 
 Mr. David Poe, who resided in Baltimore wlien I was here, and out of his own very 
 limited means supplied me with five hundred dollars to aid in clothing my troops, 
 and whose wife, with her own hands, cut out five hundred pairs of pantaloons and 
 superintended the making of them for the use of my men." On being informed 
 that Mr. Poe was dead, but that his widow was still living, the General expressed an 
 anxious desire to see her. The venerable lady heard this with tears of joy, and, on 
 the next day, an interesting and touching interview took place between them. — Niles^ 
 Register of 2m October, 1824. 
 
 t See Appendix, Note 3. 
 
28 
 
 We, of this generation, have received those institutions by direct inher- 
 itance, but like ungrateful heirs we too often forget the source from which 
 they were derived. Towards such institutions the human race, through 
 centuries of toil, has been gradually struggling upward and onward 
 against oppressions, discouragements and disappointments innumerable. 
 Every inch of ground has been won by hard contest against steady op- 
 position, and whole generations have passed away without perceptible 
 progress having been made. In vain efforts to hasten their advent, thou- 
 sands of brave hearts have shed their blood in battle, or, less fortunate, 
 have broken in dungeons in despair. To us they have descended by 
 the accident of birth, not as our own property which we may waste or 
 destroy, but as a sacred trust which posterity will demand at our hands, 
 in all their integrity as we have received them. 
 
 They are not perfect, because they are the work of imperfect men 
 and by such are administered ; but it is one of their chief excellences 
 that they are not cast in an unalterable mould, and that they embody no 
 evils which time may not remedy. Time, according to Lord Bacon, is 
 the greatest of all innovators, and he who would innovate wisely, must 
 imitate time. The Creator himself deals thus with evil, an enemy and 
 intruder though it be in his universe, patiently he bears with it, and is 
 content to banish it at last by slow degrees and by the beneficent agency 
 of good. But fanaticism will not wait a single day nor hour. Driven 
 onward by the suggestions of its own ungoverned passions, which it 
 mistakes for the whisperings of a divine voice, it engages in a fierce 
 crusade against some one evil which it is determined to exterminate, 
 although to do so it may first be necessary to perpetrate a crime. Thus 
 a faction at the North would rend asunder the sacred ties which bind 
 this people together for a senseless Wilmot Proviso, and a faction at 
 the South would do the same thing for an equally senseless Slavery 
 Proviso. 
 
 We have studied the lessons of the past in vain, if they do not teach 
 us that civil liberty and all that is most valuable in the institutions under 
 which we live, rest for their surest support and protection on the pre- 
 servation of the Union. But for it, this country would have continued 
 to this day a remote and feeble dependency of the British empire. The 
 thirteen disunited colonies have grown to be thirty united States. If 
 union was necessary once as a defence against the oppression of the 
 mother country, it is incalculably more necessary now as a protection 
 against domestic commotion and fraternal strife. There are, happily, 
 
29 
 
 some things which are felt to be degraded by an attempt to subject tlieir 
 worth to the cold process of calculation, and among these should be 
 numbered all that pertains to the honor and welfare of our common 
 country. Unless we have some standard by which we can estimate the 
 loveliness of peace and the wretchedness of war, the glory of national 
 honor and the shame of national disgrace, the gain of progress and the 
 loss of decline, it is in vain for us to attempt to calculate the value of 
 the Union. 
 
 With us, here, the effort has never yet been made, and we may hope 
 that it never will be. Even although the love of others should grow 
 cold, it is natural and fitting that Maryland, which has been called the 
 Heart State, because her place is in the very bosom of the Union, 
 should cherish in her heart of hearts a loyal devotion and an unchang- 
 ing affection for that Union which has been to her the source of count- 
 less blessings, by which the great achievements of the past have been 
 accomplished, and through which alone the auspicious promises of the 
 present can be fulfilled. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 NOTE 1 TO PAGE 20. 
 
 A MEETING of the qualified voters of Baltimore county and town was 
 assembled, after public notice, at the Court House, on Saturday the 12th of 
 November^ 1774, 
 
 Andrew Buchanan was chosen Chairman, and Robert Alexanderj Clerk. 
 The following persons were chosen the Committee of Observation : 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE TOWN. 
 
 Andrew Buchanan, Robert Alexander, William Lux, John Moale, John 
 Merryraan, Richard Moale, Jeremiah Townley Chase, Thomas Harrison, 
 Archibald Buchanan, William Smith, James Calhoun, Benjamin Griffith, 
 Gerard Hopkins, William Spear, John Smith, Barnet Eichelberger, George 
 Woolsey, Hercules Courtenay, Isaac Griest, Mark Alexander, Samuel Pur- 
 viance, Jun'r, Francis Sanderson, John Boyd, George Lindenberger, Isaac 
 Vanbibber, Philip Rogers, David McMechen, Mordecai Gist, and John 
 Deaver. 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY. 
 
 Hundreds. 
 
 Patapsco, Lower — Charles Ridgely and Thomas Sollers. 
 
 Patapsco, Upper— Zachariah McCubbin, Charles Ridgely, son of William, 
 
 and Thomas Lloyd. 
 Back River, Upper — Samuel Worthington, Benjamin Nicholson, T. C. Deye, 
 
 John Cradock, Darby Lux and Wilham Randall. 
 Back River, Lower — John Mercer and Job Garretson. 
 Middle River, Upper — Nicholas Merryman and William \Yorthington. 
 Middle River, Lower— H. D. Gough and Walter Tolley, Sen'r. 
 Soldier's Dehght — George Risteau, John Howard, Thomas Gist, Sen'r, 
 
 Thomas Worthington, Nathan Cromwell and Nicholas Jones. 
 Middlesex — Thomas Johnson and Maybury Helm. 
 Delaware — John Welsh, Rezin Hammond and John Elder. 
 North — Jeremiah Johnson and Elisha Dorsey. 
 
 Pipe Creek — Richard Richards, Frederick Decker and Mordecai Hammond. 
 Gunpowder, Upper — Walter Tolley, Jun'r, Jas. Gittings and Thos. Franklin. 
 Mine Run — Dixon Stansbury, Jun'r, and Josiah Slade. 
 
32 
 
 And the following resolutions were passed ; 
 
 Resolved, That the same, or any seven of them, have power to act in mat- 
 ters within the town of Baltimore, and that any five may act in matters, without 
 the said town, in the said county. 
 
 Resolved, That T. C. Deye, Capt. Charles Ridgely, Walter Tolley, Jun'r, 
 Benjamin Nicholson, Samuel Worthington, John Moale, Doctor John Boyd, 
 and William Buchanan, or any three of them, be a committee to attend the 
 General Meeting at Annapohs, on Monday, the 24th of this month. 
 W Resolved, That Robert Alexander, Samuel Purviance, Jun'r, Andrew 
 Buchanan, Doctor John Boyd, John Moale, Jeremiah Townley Chase, Wil- 
 liam Buchanan and William Lux, be a CommiUee of Correspondence for 
 Baltimore county and Baltimore town, and that any four of them have power 
 to act. 
 
 At a subsequent meeting of the voters of Baltimore county and town, held 
 at the Court House on the 16th of January, 1775, the following persons were 
 added to the Committee of Observation : 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE TOWN. 
 
 James Sterett, Charles "Ridgely, Jun'r, William Goodwin, Dr. Charles 
 Weisenthal and Thomas Ewing. 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY. 
 
 Hundreds. 
 
 Patapsco, Lower — Charles Rogers, John Gorsuch, William McCubbin, Wil- 
 liam Wilkinson, Thomas Todd. 
 
 Patapsco, Upper — James Croxall, John Ellicot, Edward Norwood. 
 
 Back River, Upper — John Cockey, Edward Talbot, Joshua Stevenson, 
 Edward Cockey and Ezekiel Towson. 
 
 Middle River, Upper — Benjamin Rogers, Robert Cummings, Benjamin Buck, 
 Joshua Hall, Gist Vaughan, Benjamin Merryman. 
 
 Back River, Lower — George Mathews, John Buck. 
 
 Middle River, Lower— Moses Galloway, George Goldsmith Presbury, Abra- 
 ham Britton and Nicholas Britton. 
 
 Soldier's Delight— Thomas Cradock, Charles Walker, Samuel O wings, Jr. 
 Christopher Randall, Jr. Benjamin Wells. 
 
 Middlesex — Jacob Myers, Richard Cromwell, Thomas Rutter. 
 
 Delaware — Christopher Owings, Benjamin Lawrence, Nicholas Dorsey, Jr. 
 
 North— John Half, Stephen Gill, Jr. 
 
 Pipe Creek — John Showers, George Everhart. 
 
 Gunpowder, Upper — Samuel Young, Jesse Bussey, Thomas Gassaway 
 Howard, James Bosley, Wilham Cromwell, Zaccheus Bar- 
 ret Onion. 
 
 Mine Run — Edmund Stansbury, John Stevenson, Daniel Shaw, William 
 Slade, Jr. Joseph Sutton, John Stewart. 
 
 At a subsequent meeting, held on the 18th of May, 1775, the following per- 
 sons were added to the CommiUee : 
 
33 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE TOWN. 
 
 Daniel Bowley. 
 
 FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY. 
 
 Hundreds. 
 Middle River, Lower — John German, William Andrews, Edward Day, 
 
 William Allender. 
 Patapsco, Upper — Zachariah McCubbin. 
 Soldier's Delight — Doctor William Lyon. 
 
 This Committee served until the month of September in the following year, 
 at which time a new election for Committees of Observation was held in 
 the several counties throughout the Province, in pursuance of a resolution of 
 the Provincial Convention, at Annapolis, which limited the number of the 
 Baltimore Committee to thirty -seven. 
 
 The following is an extract from the records of the Committee: 
 
 "Saturday, 23 September, 1775. 
 
 "The poll for electing a Committee of Observation for this county, (Messrs. 
 Robert Alexander, Jere. T. Chase, Thomas Harrison, John Moale and Wm. 
 Buchanan, five of the delegates for this county in the late Provincial Con- 
 vention, being judges of the election,) was this day closed, and the following 
 gentlemen declared duly elected, viz : 
 
 1. John Moale, 20. John Smith, 
 
 2. Jeremiah Townley Chase, 21. Zachariah McCubbin, Jun'r. 
 
 3. James Calhoun, 22. Capt. Charles Ridgely, 
 
 4. Benjamin Nicholson, 23. Thomas Harrison, 
 
 5. Andrew Buchanan, 24. Benjamin Griffith, 
 
 6. Thomas Sollers, 25. William Randall, 
 
 7. John Cradock, 26. Thomas Gist, Sen'r. 
 
 8. James Gittings, 27. Stephen Cromwell, 
 
 9. Robert Alexander, 28. Isaac Griest, 
 
 10. Samuel Purviance, Jun'r, 29. Thomas Cockey Deye, 
 
 11. William Wilkinson, 30. Mordecai Gist, 
 
 12. Charles Ridgely, son of Wm. 31. John Stevenson, 
 
 13. Walter Tolley, Jun'r, 32. Ezekiel Towson, 
 
 14. Darby Lux, 33. Jeremiah Johnson, 
 
 15. John Cockey, 34. William Asquith, 
 
 16. William Smith, 35. John Eager Howard, 
 
 17. William Buchanan, 36. George Risteau, 
 
 18. William Lux, 37. Abraham Britton. 
 
 19. John Boyd, 
 
 " And the following gentlemen were chosen Provincial Delegates, to continue 
 for one year, viz : 
 
 Robert Alexander, Walter Tolley, Jun'r, 
 
 Benjamin Nicholson, Jeremiah Townley Chase. 
 
 John Moale, 
 
34 
 
 " N. B.— The poll was kept open eleven clays to give every freeholder and 
 freeman full and sufficient lime to vote." | 
 
 The following persons of those elected as above, declined to serve : 
 
 Thomas Cockey Deye, William Smith, Ezekiel Towson, William Randall, 
 Stephen Cromwell and Jeremiah Johnson. Mordecai Gist became disqualified 
 by the acceptance of a commission as Major in the regular forces, raised by 
 order of the Convention. 
 
 The Committee, therefore, on the 4th of March, 1776, filled up the vacan- 
 cies by electing the following persons : 
 
 John Gillis, Frederick Decker, John Merryman, Jr. John Sterrett, Gist 
 Vaughan, Thomas Rutter, Samuel Worthington. 
 
 Capt. Charles Ridgely also resigned, but it does not appear that the vacancy 
 thus created was filled by the appointment of another person in his place. 
 
 The last meeting of the Commiittee, elected on the 23d of September, 1775, 
 so far as appears from the minutes, was held on the 12th of Oct., 1776. 
 
 The Bill of Rights and Constitution of the State of Maryland were completed 
 and adopted by the Provincial Convention on the 3d of November, 1776, but 
 as some time must necessarily elapse before the Government thus organized 
 could go into full operation, the Convention, on the 11th of November, 1776, 
 directed that new Committees of Observation should be elected for the different 
 counties, with the same powers which they previously possessed, and that they 
 should continue to act until the 10th of March next ensuing. 
 
 The records to which I have had access, contain no reference to the election 
 of a Committee under this resolution, or of their proceedings. 
 
 NOTE 2 TO PAGE 2 6. 
 
 A more striking instance than the one referred to, could hardly be found, of 
 the influence which, in a time of danger, may be exerted by an individual of 
 strong will and of known conduct and courage. The Bank of Maryland 
 had failed disgracefully, inflicting heavy and widely diffused losses on the 
 people of Baltimore. A deep and just indignation was felt throughout the 
 community, which was artfully directed against certain individuals who had 
 been connected with the bank as directors or otherwise, and who were wrong- 
 fully suspected of a participation in the fraudulent conduct by which it had 
 been ruined. Encouraged and sustained by this feeling, a mob threatened to 
 destroy the houses of the obnoxious individuals. The city authorities had 
 ample notice, but they made the fatal mistake of attempting to quell the out- 
 break by a show of force, without the reality. Citizens who were called on 
 to defend the threatened houses, had wooden batons placed in their hands, and 
 the use of arms was strictly forbidden. But the rioters were not to be thus 
 overawed, and the defenders, of course, had the worst of the conflict which 
 ensued. Bricks and stones were showered upon them and many were seri- 
 
35 
 
 ously injured, until, at last, recourse was had to fire-arnas, by which a number 
 was killed and wounded, and the mob was subdued for a single night. But, 
 on the next day, the use which had been made of weapons was denounced 
 by those who should have sustained it, and the rioters became bolder and 
 intent on greater mischief. Various houses were destroyed, the hves of many 
 individuals were threatened, and for twenty-four hours civil authority was 
 completely at an end in Baltimore. No one could tell what acts of violence 
 would next be perpetrated, but the city was filled with rumors of meditated 
 outrage. At this crisis, a few individuals called a meeting of the citizens 
 at the Exchange, but when they came together they had no leader, and 
 "were uncertain how to act. A proposition was made and adopted to send for 
 Gen. Smith, who was then at his country seat, two miles from the city, and the 
 meeting waited with anxiety for his arrival. He came with alacrity, and his 
 presence wrought an instantaneous change in the state of affairs. There was 
 no longer any doubt, fear or uncertainty. He would allow no time to be lost 
 in framing resolutions, and making speeches, and would hear of no tem- 
 porizing with those who were setting all law at defiance. A leader had been 
 found, who, aged as he was, at once took the direction into his own hands. 
 la a few energetic words he insisted that an armed force should at once be 
 organized, and that the rioters should be put down by force if necessary ; but, 
 he maintained, that they would not dare to attempt resistance. His plan was 
 adopted by acclamation, and the meeting marched at once in a column with 
 him at its head, to the neighborhood of the Washington monument, where it 
 was organized into companies, who chose their own leaders. Arms were 
 brought out from every receptacle where they could be found, and were in 
 many instances placed in hands which had never used them before. Hun- 
 dreds flocked to the rescue, and in a few hours, and for many nights after- 
 wards, the whole city was patrolled by armed defenders ready to put down the 
 mob, and anxious to find one. But none appeared. It vanished out of exis- 
 tence the moment that a competent force with a courageous leader was pre- 
 pared to oppose it. 
 
 NOTE 3 TO PAGE 27. 
 
 The following extracts from the Minutes are given to illustrate more fully 
 the manner in which the committee performed some of the various duties as- 
 signed to them. 
 
 The committee were watchful to protect the morals of the people, so far as 
 lay in their power. 
 
 At a meeting on the 10th of April, 1775, the following resolution was 
 passed : 
 
 "Resolved, As the fairs usually held at Baltimore town are hurtful to the 
 morals of the people and are a species of extravagance and dissipation which 
 are forbid by the Continental Congress, that the committee of correspondence 
 be directed to give public notice to the inhabitants of the town and county, 
 that the committee advise them not to erect any booths, or be in any manner 
 
36 
 
 concerned in countenancing the holding said fair during the continuance of our 
 pubhc distractions." 
 
 Complaint having been made to the committee, that a certain John Burns 
 kept a billiard table, and that shuffle-boards are kept at John Smith's and at 
 Abraham Gorman's, at all of which houses encouragement was given to 
 gaming, and great disorders committed to the injury of the militia and the 
 sailors and mariners employed in the public service as well as others, and the 
 same being contrary to the regulations and resolves of the honorable, the Conti- 
 nental Congress, it was on the 17th of June, 1776, 
 
 "Resolved, That the chairman issue his summons for the said persons to at- 
 tend the committee on the following day to answer the complaints alleged 
 against them." 
 
 This summons probably had the desired effect of abating the nuisances in 
 question, as no further action appears to have been taken by the committee in 
 the matter. 
 
 A night watch for the town of Baltimore being found necessary, it was sup- 
 plied by the public spirit of the inhabitants and the organization thereof was 
 made by the committee, as appears by the following extract from their minutes. 
 
 " At a meeting of the committee on the 26th June, 1775, present Mr. Sam- 
 uel PuRviANCE, Chairman, and forty-two members. William Lux, Sec'y. 
 
 " The inhabitants of Bahimore town having found it absolutely necessary 
 to establish a nightly watch in the said town, for the preservation of their pro- 
 perty from robbery or fire, as well as to prevent any hostile attempts in this 
 time of public confusion, and having had several meetings to digest a proper 
 plan for the purpose, they unanimously agreed to recommend the same to the 
 committee for their approbation and superintendence, which being done the 
 committee highly approved of the measure. And a subscription being signed 
 by every inhabitant, wherein he obliges himself to conform lo the regulations 
 adopted, and to attend personally, or provide a sufficient man in his room, 
 which said man, so provided, to be a subscriber, or to pay seven shillings and 
 six pence. The committee received the said subscription, and divided the sub- 
 scribers into six companies for the Town, and one company for the Point, and 
 then directed a general meeting of the subscribers to elect a captain for each 
 company, which being done, the following gentlemen were returned, viz. 
 James Calhoun, 1st, Barnet Eichelberger, 4lh, 
 
 George Woolsey, 2nd, George Lindenberger, 5th, 
 Benj'n Griffith, 3rd, William Goodwin, 6th, 
 
 for Baltimore Town, and Isaac Vanbibber for the Point. But his district 
 being thought rather too extensive, the committee thought it necessary to ap- 
 point Jesse Hollingsworth and George Patten to assist him in the ar- 
 rangement of the watch. 
 
 "The committee then determined that the said watch shall consist of sixteen 
 persons under the direction of a captain, to be appointed for the night, and that 
 they shall patrol the streets from 10 o'clock at night until day-light nextmorn- 
 ino-, and that the companies take it in rotation." 
 
 The following is a specimen of the manner of proceeding of the committee 
 when complaint was made that goods were sold at exorbitant prices. 
 
37 
 
 " Cornelius Garritson lodged an information before the committee against 
 Messrs. Usher & Roe, charging them with having sold to him, the said Gar- 
 ritson, certain goods at a higher price than he had usually paid for them, and 
 that they had sold the same kind of goods to himself and others some time ago 
 at a much lower rate than he had now paid. Mr. Roe appeared to answer 
 this charge, and said that Mr. Garritson had asked him for certain buttons 
 which he confesses he had formerly sold to Mr. Garritson and others, at 
 2s. GcL per dozen, but for which he now asked 3s. Gt/. not being Avilling to sell 
 the buttons, without, at tlie same time, selling some cloth to which they 
 matched, but that he did at length agree to let Mr. Garritson have them at the 
 price he formerly sold them. Mr. Garritson departed, and soon after returned 
 and took the buttons from a young man who attended in Messrs. Usher & 
 Roe's store, who insisted on having 3s. 6d. for them per dozen, which said 
 Garritson paid. But as soon as Mr. Roe understood what his clerk had done, 
 he called after Mr. Garritson with an intention to return him his money, but 
 Mr. Garritson refused to return. Mr. Roe afterwards sent the money to said 
 Garritson but he declined accepting it, choosing rather to lodge a com- 
 plaint to the committee for the imposition. From the above representation it 
 appeared to the committee that the same kind of goods have been incau- 
 tiously sold at Messrs. Usher & Roe's store at different prices, and, in this in- 
 stance, above the limitations ascertained by the Provincial Congress — but as it 
 appears to have happened by mistake of their clerk, and as Mr. Roe offered 
 immediately to rectify the mistake, the committee thought proper to dismiss the 
 complaint, with a caution to Messrs. Usher & Roe that they be more careful 
 in future in giving cause for the like complaints." 
 
 The committee endeavored to sustain the paper currency issued by the Pro- 
 vince. Information having been lodged against Mr. James Moore, of Gun- 
 powder, for refusing to take money issued by the Provincial Convention, ten- 
 dered to him by Mr. Nathaniel Britain, the committee on the 29th of January, 
 1776, "resolved, that Messrs. Moore and Britain be summoned to attend on 
 Monday next." 
 
 " On the 12th of February, 1776, Mr. James Moore appeared according to 
 sumftions, and Messrs. Nathaniel Britain, Tunis Titus, and Jesse Bussy, ap- 
 peared as evidences against him, all and each of whom being sworn, deposed. 
 That Mr. Jas. Moore had refused to take bills of credit emitted by the Provincial 
 Convention, when tendered to him, alleging that he was afraid they would not 
 pass, else he should have no objection, and that the said James Moore had 
 asserted, that he would not pay any tax towards the support of American 
 measures, and that he thought all those who had taken the oaths of allegiance 
 and mustered, when holding a place under government, guilty of perjury and 
 rebellion. It being represented by Mr. Gittings, that Jesse Williams was a 
 material witness on the occasion, it was resolved, that the further examination 
 of this affair be postponed until Monday next, Mr. WiUiam Lux being secu- 
 rity for Mr. Moore's attendance." 
 
 " Mr. James Moore, agreeable to promise, appeared again before the com- 
 mittee on the 19th of February, and, (after admhting the veracity of the 
 charges exhibited against him in the depositions of Messrs. Nathaniel Britain, 
 Jesse Bussy and Tunis Titus, taken before the committee,) voluntarily signed 
 the following recantation : 
 
38 
 
 " Whereas, I the subscriber, have unfortunately and inadvertently been 
 guilty of actions tending to depreciate the currency emitted by the Convention 
 of this Province, for the express purpose of defending those inestimable privi- 
 leges transmitted to us by our ancestors, and expressed an aversion to pay any 
 taxes for sinking said currency, and other ways discouraged people from mus- 
 tering, enrolling and associating, but am now satisfied and convinced that 
 such conduct is highly unbecoming the duty of an American, and tends im- 
 mediately to obstruct the measures calculated to preserve the liberties of this 
 country from the cruel and unrelenting oppressions of the British ministry, do 
 most sincerely acknowledge the heinousness of such offence, beg pardon 
 of ray countrymen, and do hereby solemnly engage and promise not to be 
 guiUy of a like offence in future, but to conform to such measures as shall be 
 adjudged necessary by the Continental Congress, or Conventions of this Pro- 
 vince, for the preservation of the rights of America. As a further atonement 
 for my misconduct, I request this acknowledgment to be published, in hopes 
 it may deter others from committing the like offence. Witness my hand this 
 19lh of February, 1776. James Moore." 
 
 Whereupon it was " resolved that the above is satisfactory." 
 
 The following energetic proceedings were taken against Mr. Francis San- 
 derson, who had been elected a member of the first committee of observation, 
 but who afterwards gave great offence by the manifestation of tory principles, 
 and by accepting an appointment from the Proprietary government to the 
 office of a justice of the peace, after those who had been previously in the 
 commission had been summarily dismissed from office on account, it would 
 seem, of their taking sides with the popular movement. 
 
 "May 8th, 1775. Mr. Francis Sanderson, once a member of this com- 
 mittee, but who, for some time past, had neglected his duty, by refusing or 
 declining giving attendance at their meetings and other exceptionable conduct, 
 did this day again unexpectedly appear among them. The committee reflect- 
 ing on his late conduct, and uncertain as to the design of his coming among 
 them at so critical a juncture, plainly informed Mr. Sanderson of their senti- 
 ments, that they could not but suspect a man of so variable principles and 
 questionable conduct — that as matters of great moment frequently wereftagi- 
 tated among them, they did not think it prudent or safe for them to sit in coun- 
 cil with a person in whom they could have no confidence, and that therefore 
 they would wish him to withdraw himself from the committee, till the sense 
 of the county should be known concerning him at a future election. 
 
 "Mr. Sanderson declared that he was sensible of the impropriety and mistakes 
 of his late conduct, but was now heartily disposed to concur in every mea- 
 sure that his countrymen should adopt for the preservation of their rights — 
 that in the meantime he acquiesced in the intimation of the committee, and 
 would, for the future, so conduct himself as, if possible, to recover the good 
 opinion of his countrymen, and convince them of the sincerity of his present 
 declarations." 
 
 The voters of the town and county were assembled on the 18th of May, 
 1775, "when the proceedings of the committee on the 8th of May, respecting 
 Mr. Francis Sanderson, were read to the freemen of the county now convened, 
 and their sentiments taken on the propriety of the committee's request to Mr. 
 
39 
 
 Sanderson to decline acting as a committee man, till the sense of their con- 
 stituents should be known on the matter; the freemen having heard what Mr. 
 Sanderson had to offer, unanimously approved of the committee's prudent 
 conduct, and do further resolve that until Mr. Sanderson shall give unequivo- 
 cal evidence of his sincere attachment to the cause of his injured country, by 
 a steady and uniform acquiescence in every measure which has or may be 
 generally adopted for her preservation, they cannot approve of him as a man 
 to act for them in committee, leaving it to the committee to determine how far 
 he is otherwise entitled to public favor. The committee accordingly, (the bu- 
 siness of the county having been finished,) fifty-two members being present, 
 proceeded to consider and judge of Mr. Sanderson's case ; and were of opinion, 
 that as he had already acknowledged to the committee his error and late mis- 
 conduct, and was sincerely sorry for the same, and was now willing to satisfy 
 his countrymenby a public declaration of his present political opinion, as con- 
 tained in a paper which he handed in, Mr. Sanderson be restored to the good 
 opinion of his countrymen." 
 
 The paper handed in by Mr. Sanderson, was as follows : 
 
 "I hereby declare that I have resigned the office of a Justice of the Peace 
 for Bahimore county, being now sensible that my appointment to that office, 
 with others, in the manner, and at the time the same was done, was disagree- 
 ble to my friends, and tended to injure the cause of ray distressed country. I 
 further declare my readiness to engage heartily in the measures now carrying 
 on for the preservation of American liberty, and for that purpose I have con- 
 tributed to the purchase of arms and ammunition, and also to the poor of Bos- 
 ton and enrolled myself a soldier in a company of militia ; and I trust my 
 future conduct will evince the sincerity of my present declarations, and restore 
 me to the favor and esteem of my countrymen, an event most ardently wished 
 for by Francis Sanderson." 
 
 But Mr. Sanderson, encouraged probably by the success of the British 
 forces in New York, sometime afterwards again brought himself into trouble, 
 as appears by the following extract from the minutes of the committee : 
 
 "*At a special meeting of the committee on Saturday, 12th October, 1776 — 
 Present: Samuel Purviance, Chairman, William Lux, Vice-Chairman — W. 
 Buchanan, B. Nicholson, T. Rutter, W. Asquith, J. Calhoun. 
 
 " Information being given to the committee, on oath, by Mr. David Evans, 
 that Francis Sanderson had, in a conversation with him, spoken words ' tend- 
 ing to disunite the good people of this State, in the present opposition to Great 
 Britain,' by order of the committee, 12th October, 1776, Francis Sanderson 
 is required to attend this committee at Mr. Purviance's immediately, to an- 
 swer a complaint exhibited against him for several words spoken by him, and 
 tending to disunite the people of this State in their present opposition to Great 
 Britain, and, in case he don't attend. Captain Cox is directed to bring him by 
 force. 
 
 Per order W. L., V. Chr'n. 
 
 "The said Francis Sanderson appeared in consequence of the warrant, 
 and having nothing to offer in vindication of the charge, he was committed to 
 
40 
 
 the custody of the guard for this night, in order to be sent to the Council of 
 Safety, agreeably to the resolves of the Convention, in July, 1775. 
 
 Attested, Geo. Lux, Sec'y." 
 
 The Council of Safety appear to have referred the case to the Provincial 
 Convention, then in session at Annapolis, by which body the follov^ing pro- 
 ceedings were had : 
 
 " October 16, 1776. The Convention met. 
 
 " On reading a letter from Samuel Purviance, Jr., chairman of the committee 
 of observation, from Baltimore county, respecting the conduct of Francis 
 Sanderson, the same was taken into consideration, and the said Francis San- 
 derson called before the Convention, and on the examination of several wit- 
 nesses, and hearing him in his defence, 
 
 " On motion of Mr. Paca, the question was put. That the said Francis 
 Sanderson is guihy of delivering sentiments tending to discourage the Ameri- 
 can opposition to the hostile attempts of Great Britain ; that therefore he be 
 reprimanded at the bar of this house by the president; that he give bond in 
 the penalty of one thousand pounds, with good security, to be approved of 
 by the committee of Baltimore county, to the president, conditioned, that he 
 will not hereafter speak or do any matter or thing in prejudice or discourage- 
 ment of the present opposition ; that he pay all the expenses incurred on ac- 
 count of his being apprehended, guarded, and brought to this Convention, and 
 that thereupon he be discharged. Resolved in the affirmative." 
 
 " Francis Sanderson was then called to the bar of the house, and repri- 
 manded accordingly." 
 
 The Committee manifested great energy and judgment in all their proceed- 
 ings, and especially in enrolling and arming troops, accumulating munitions 
 of war, and in placing the town of Baltimore in a condition of defence when 
 in March, 1776, it was threatened with an attack from the enemy; but a 
 further selection from the minutes would swell this Appendix to an unreason- 
 able size. The object of the insertion of the extracts which have been given, 
 has been to gratify a reasonable curiosity, which has been expressed, to see in 
 print the names of those in Baltimore who were prominent in the early revolu- 
 tionary movement, and to exhibit the calm, determined and business-like man- 
 ner in which a committee — chosen indiscriminately from the various walks of 
 life, and responsible for all their proceedings to the people whose sentiments and 
 feelings they represented — deliberated and acted in the very dangerous and 
 difficult emergency in which they were placed, and the moderation and abihty 
 with which they exercised the large and somewhat indefinite powers with 
 which they were clothed. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 368 146 4