»jV,'. 'Iv/V .',.■,.,"' Y*/
^^^•li^Hlr"'''
V'.v;'ii';7V'y.
' >.»'C', \r ■
'^^ V*'
.^^
^«-.
■^^- -'%:
.#' .'".:''"/'b.
^ .#' ,.<
.-> '/-v
.^ -%. ^*-
« I "V * \\
^*^
.aO-
// ^
c^
^ * , -^ * 8 > A
xX^' o^
v-iv'
%^^-
:/%"'^-"/\^:4^^.'%'^"\o-
y^ v^
rl -^ :fc .- = N^^
^^/'
'V/^
^^%^
.^ %
^■^•.^
,-{s^
- A^^"^^
V'
'*A V*'
■S^^.
.^"
.0^^
A^
,-^^ .^
mrK.—/.af.Sm,/,- 0/ .1 />,),■//»» ,,/ „ M,,/, „j / ■„^.„„„ „„,/
by AMjyHshH HrrriuaH, Nim its ,rii, ,1/
mhamr to Dilawar, liav, h (i f ,.„,/,.„
'fflV-''- -^'JA'i^s^
PHOTO. UTH. BYAHOENaCO.BALT/MORE MO
d Charles Lord Baltimore
' ^Um^
SoutU Bounds of M.viyUnd
/■'•I, -SI nil/,- of Ihf .\[af> rHfrr(d to in tlif agn
igrcnitnt h.lw.cH tli, />,,
in rrlation to Ihf Boundary U„(,
ilunl.s I,.,, I /.■a/In.
V
,'■ ■■
!|
THE LORDS BALTIMORE
AND THE
MARYLAND PALATINATE
SIX LECTURES ON
MARYLAND COLONIAL HISTORY
DELIVERED BEFORE
The Johns Hopkins University
IN THE YEAR 1902
BY
CLAYTON COLMAN HALL, LL. B., A. M.
BALTIMORE
JOHN MUKPHY COMPANY
1902
THE LIBRARY OF
CONGRESS,
Two OOP.E8 RECEfVED
DEC. 24 1902
f^COPVfMQHT eHTBY
'5 ^ i^ V if
C©PY A.
Copyright, 1902,
BY
Clayton Colman Hall.
All rights reserved.
TO
MY WIFE
WITHOUT WHOSE ENCOURAGEMENT
THESE LECTURES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN
THIS BOOK IS DEDICATED
PREFACE.
The following lectures upon Maryland Colonial
History, delivered before the Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, in McCoy Hall, during the months of February
and March, 1902, were provided for by the Mary-
land Society of the Colonial Dames of America, while
the particular subject was selected, and the lecturer
appointed, by the Faculty of the University. The
lectures were open to the public.
They are six in number, and the time for the
delivery of each lecture was limited to one hour. The
time, — six hours in all, — did not admit of the pre-
sentation of a complete history of the colonial period
of Maryland. All that has been attempted is to present
a brief sketch of the lives and characters of the
several Barons of Baltimore, Lords Proprietary of
Maryland, together with a review of the salient facts
connected with the history of the Province of Mary-
land, and the relations of the Proprietaries thereto.
Maryland was not the only one of the English colonies
in America which had a proprietary government ; but
its peculiar constitution as a Palatinate Province,
presents many special features of interest to the stu-
dent of political institutions; and the establishment
in the Province of Religious Toleration, in an age of
intolerance, gives special lustre to the story. While
the limitations of time were such as to require brevity
vii
Viii PREFACE.
and condensation in treatment, it is hoped that in
these lectures no material facts, necessary for a true
and intelligible presentation of the subject, have
escaped mention.
In offering them, through the press, to a larger
audience than that which was from week to week
assembled in McCoy Hall, it has been thought better
to adhere to the original form in which they were
prepared for oral delivery, rather than to recast them
in a form that would be appropriate, if the object were
to present a complete historical narrative of the period
under consideration.
Interest in the colonial history of Maryland, and
facilities for its study have both been greatly extended
within the last quarter of a century.
Thirty years ago the principal books which had
been published relating specially to this subject were
Bozman's History of Maryland, in two volumes, and
McMahon's Historical View of the Government of Mary-
land, of which one volume only was ever published.
Of these, the former covers only the period from the
settlement of the Province until the year 1660. This
history was written by John Leeds Bozman of Talbot
County, and the first volume, comprising the intro-
duction, was published in 1811 ; but the entire work
was not printed until 1837. Its compilation evinces
learning and judgment, and derived as the material
was, from manuscript records scattered through various
public offices, ill-arranged and almost wholly without
index, it gives evidence of a most laborious and inde-
fatigable industry.
The second book mentioned, Volume I., of an His-
PREFACE. IX
torical View of the Government of Maryland, by John
V. L. McMahon, appeared in 1831. This book is well
worthy of the distinguished name and fame of its
author.
It was not until 1879 that Scharf 's History of Mary-
land (in three volumes) was published. It contains
a great amount of valuable material, which has not,
however, been always judiciously selected or scientifi-
cally arranged. The index to this work is a curiosity of
confusion. The value of this history would be greatly
enhanced by the addition of an index rationally
constructed.
But it is within still more recent years that the
material for the study of Maryland's colonial history
has been made more easily available, and interest in
the subject has been awakened, partly through the
influence of the various patriotic societies, and partly
by reason of the greater attention which it has received
at the hands of students.
A great advance was made in 1882, when an Act
was passed by the Legislature of Maryland making
the Maryland Historical Society the depository and
custodian of all the State Archives belonging to the
period prior to the acknowledgment by Great Britain
of the independence of the United States; and at
the same time providing for the arrangement and
cataloguing of the papers by the Society, for the publi-
cation of such as should be found of historical interest,
and for keeping the records in such manner that
they should be accessible to citizens of the State.
Twenty-one volumes of the Archives have now been
printed, all of them under the editorial supervision of
k
X PREFACE.
Dr. William Hand Browne, with the exception of
Volume XVIII, which contains the muster rolls of
the Maryland troops in the revolutionary army. Of
the portion thus far published, the volumes to which
reference has specially been made in the preparation
of these lectures, are
Council Proceedings, 1636-1697, six volumes.
Assembly Proceedings, 1637/8-1697, five volumes.
Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, three volumes.
In 1888, the Maryland Historical Society acquired
by purchase from a descendant of the last Lord Balti-
more, a large and valuable collection of documents
and correspondence relating to and illustrative of the
history of the Calvert family, the settlement of Mary-
land, and the relations between the Lords Baltimore
and the Province. Subsequently additional papers of
similar character were acquired from another source.
A number of these papers have been published by
the Society in three separate volumes, designated as
Calvert Papers, No. 1 , No. 2, and No. 3, respectively ;
but many of them are still in manuscript only.
In the collection of Archives belonging to the
State, — notwithstanding the loss and waste to which
they have, from time to time, been exposed, — and, the
collections of Calvert papers belonging to the Maryland
Historical Society, are probably contained records
relating to the colonial period of Maryland's history,
more comprehensive than the existing records of any
other of the original thirteen colonies. The great
seal of the Lord Proprietary mentioned on page 141,
which is preserved in the Land Office at Annapolis,
was cut in silver in 1648, by order of Cecilius, Lord
PREFACE. XI
Baltimore, to replace one lost or stolen during the
Ingle rebellion. It is believed to be the oldest relic
of the kind in this country.
With a portion of these early records already pub-
lished, and all of them placed within the reach of
students, great encouragement has been given to the
study of Maryland's colonial history within the last
twenty years, and many facts previously unknown to
students of history, have been brought to light.
Of comparatively recent publications, mention should
be made of two, quite small, but admirable, books by
Dr. William Hand Browne, Professor of English
Literature in the Johns Hopkins University. They
are, Maryland, the History of a Palatinate, published
in 1884, in the American Commonwealth series ; and
George and Cecilius Calvert, Lords Baltimore, pub-
lished in 1890, in the Makers of America series.
In 1901, a very excellent book appeared, — Maryland
as a Proprietary Province, — by Dr. N. D. Mereness of
Columbia University. This book is very accurate and
is written in an impartial and philosophical spirit. It
contains a very good bibliography.
In Fiske's Old Virginia and her Neighbors, there
are several interesting chapters devoted to Maryland ;
but this distinguished historian, singularly enough, fell
into several errors as to matters of fact.
Among the occasional publications of the Maryland
Historical Society, and the Johns Hopkins University
(Studies in Historical and Political Science), there
have been a number of monographs upon special sub-
jects connected with the colonial history of Maryland,
which have been found valuable in the preparation of
xii PREFACE.
these lectures. Those entitled to special mention are
the following numbers of the Fund Publications of
the Historical Society: —
^ No. 8. The Lords Baltimore, by Rev. John G.
Morris, D. D.
No. 15. A Character of the Province of Maryland,
by George Alsop. (Reprint.)
No. 18. The Foundation of Maryland, and the Ori-
gin of the Act concerning Religion, by General Bradley
T. Johnson.
No. 20. Sir George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore,
by L. W. Wilhelm, Ph. D.
No. 30. The Dismemberment of Maryland, by G. W.
Archer, M. D.
No. 36. Early Maryland Poetry, edited by Bernard
C, Steiner, Ph. D.
Among the publications of the Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity (Studies in Historical and Political Science),
special mention should be made of Old Maryland
Manors, by John Hemsley Johnson, A. B., and of the
Life arid Administration of Sir Robert Eden, by
Bernard C. Steiner, Ph. D.
It has not seemed worth while to enumerate here
the various other sources which have been availed
of, unpublished manuscripts, and casual references in
various works, such as Walpole's Letters, Carlyle's
History of Frederick the Great, etc. ; but it ha& been
sought to give, wherever occasion demanded, proper
reference to authority, by means of footnotes printed
with the text.
The material for the personal sketches of the several
Lords Baltimore, has been gathered from widely scattered
PREFACE. xiii
Sources, including correspondence and other unpub-
lished manuscripts among the Calvert papers in the
possession of the Maryland Historical Society.
Permission to make use of those manuscripts in
the preparation of these lectures, and to reproduce in
this publication the maps illustrative of the boundary
dispute between the Lords Baltimore and the Penns,
which were printed in Calvert Papers, No. 2, was
courteously given by that Society.
CONTEl^TS.
LECTUKE I.
George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, 1580-1632.
Secretary to the Privy Council ; Member of Parlia-
ment ; One of the principal Secretaries of State ;
Member of the Privy Council ; Advocate of the
Spanish match ; Converted to the Eoman Catholic
Faith ; Proprietary of Avalon ; Projector of the
Maryland Colony 1
LECTURE II.
Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore and first Pro-
prietary OF Maryland, 1606-1675.
Charter of Maryland ; Instructions to Colonists ;
Opposition of Claiborne ; Conflict with Jesuits ;
Ingle's Rebellion ; Attitude in respect to Relig-
ion ; Intervention of Commissioners of Parliament ;
Fendair s treachery ; Appointment of son and heir
apparent as Governor 28
LECTURE III.
Religious Toleration in Maryland.
Toleration the policy of Cecilius from the begin-
ning ; Draft of laws sent out by the Proprietary ;
Action of the Assembly thereon ; The Act con-
cerning Religion, 1649 ; Various opinions as to
its origin ; Influence of Cecilius, Lord Baltimore ;
I Sentiment in New England and Virginia in respect
i XV
XVI CONTENTS.
to religious differences ; The Maryland Act compared
with the views expressed by Sir Thomas More in
Utopia; Explanation of the motives of Cecilius by
his son ; Another Act concerning Keligion, 1654 ;
Subsequent legislation on this subject 66
LECTUEE IV.
Charles, third Lord Baltimore and second Pro-
prietary OF Maryland, 1630-1714/5 (Feb-
. RUARY 20).
Administers government in person ; Indian outbreak ;
Insurrection under Davis and Pate ; Boundary dis-
pute with William Penn ; Return to England ; So-
called Protestant Revolution ; Deprived of Govern-
ment ; Wrongfully attainted of treason in Ireland.
Royal Governors.
Administration of Province under Governors ap-
pointed by the Crown, 1692-1715 ; Establishment of
the Church of England 99
LECTURE V.
Benedict Leonard, fourth Lord Baltimore and
third Proprietary of Maryland, 1678-1715
(April 5).
Conformed to the Church of England ; Held title
but six weeks.
Charles, fifth Lord Baltimore and fourth Pro-
prietary OF Maryland, 1699-1751.
Restoration of the Proprietary Government in
Maryland ; Friend of Frederick, Prince of Wales ;
Travels on the Continent ; Visit to Frederick (the
Great), Crown Prince of Prussia ; Visit to Mary-
land ; Conflicts with Assembly ; Remarkable agree-
ment with the Penns.
CONTENTS. xvu
Frederick, sixth Lord Baltimore and fifth Pro-
prietary OF Maryland, 1732-1771.
Travels abroad ; Literary essays ; Trial upon a
criminal charge ; Final settlement of the boundary
dispute ; Mason and Dixon's Line ; Devise of Pro-
vince to Henry Harford ; Portents of American
Kevolution 138
LECTURE VI.
Manners and Customs, Social and Economic Con-
ditions IN Maryland during the Colonial
Period.
Early conditions those of a pioneer settlement ; .
Effect of tobacco culture ; Various accounts of the
character of the Province ; Currency and taxation ;
Labor conditions — Indented servants, convicts,
and African slaves ; German settlements in West-
ern Maryland ; Effect upon agriculture ; Frontier
rangers ; Border strife ; Development of social
and political life ; Education ; Annapolis a place
of luxury and gaiety ; Cradle of the theatre in
y America 174
THE LORDS BALTIMORE
AND THE
MARYLAND PALATINATE
LECTURE I.
George Calvert, First Lord Baltimore.
THE special subject proposed for the present
course of lectures upon Maryland colonial
history in the rnvitation for their delivery, was
" The Lords Baltimore/' with wide latitude of
choice left to the lecturer as to the manner in which
the subject should be treated, — whether to attempt
to present some biographical account of the several
Barons of Baltimore, or to consider chiefly the
history of their actions as Lords Proprietary of
Maryland.
What is known or is now ascertainable in relation
to what may be called the personal history of the
six persons who successively bore the title of Baron
of Baltimore differs very widely both in amount and
interest in the case of the several individuals. The
lives of some of them were much more conspicuous
1
2 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
and eventful than those of others ; and while the
facts that can now be gathered in respect to some
are reasonably full, in respect to others the records
are very meagre. Some are known, and their char-
acters are to be judged, chiefly through their relations
with the Maryland Province, and the record which
has been preserved of their public acts in its found-
ing, upbuilding and government ; in communications
to the provincial Governors, their messages to the
houses of Assembly, and their general attitude to-
wards legislation in the Province, and the policy to
be pursued in its administration. Such being the
case, any account of the Lords Baltimore would
necessarily involve frequent reference to the course
of events in the Province.
Recognizing then the fact that the subject for
these lectures Avas selected on account of the intimate
association of the Lords Proprietary with the colonial
history of Maryland, and that the illustration of the
latter was the object sought, quite as much as an
account of the lives of the Barons of Baltimore, it
has seemed that the purpose would be better ex-
pressed by adopting the title " The Lords Baltimore
and the Maryland Palatinate ^' as the designation of
the subject.
It may be well to note that the title Baron of
Baltimore in the Kingdom of Ireland was created
in 1625, and conferred by James I. on George
Calvert, first Baron. This was seven years before
the grant of the Maryland charter, and some years
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 6
before the arrival hither of the first colonists. The
title became extinct in 1771, upon the death of
Frederick, sixth Baron, five years before the declar-
ation of the independence of the United States.
It was in existence therefore for a little less than
one hundred and fifty years, and its duration was
nearly coincident with that of the colonial period of
this commonwealth.
Our subject leads us first to the career of George
Calvert, first Baron, the projector, though not the
founder, of the Maryland Province.
George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, whose
life will be the subject of our consideration this
afternoon, was born at or near Kiplin in Yorkshire,
England, about 1580. The exact date of his birth
has not been ascertained. His father was Leonard
Calvert, a country gentleman, who lived in the
valley of the Swale in Yorkshire, and whose wife,
the mother of George Calvert, was Alicia Crossland,
a lady of gentle birth, belonging to a family of the
same neighborhood.
The origin of the Calvert family has never been
successfully traced. There were Calverts in York-
shire as early as the fourteenth century, and it has
been generally assumed that the family was of
Flemish origin. In the exemplification of arms
issued in 1622 by Kichard St. George, Norroy King
of Arms, the original of which is now preserved in
th(e collection of the Maryland Historical Society,
itf is stated on the authority of Yerstegan, antiquary
4 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
and philologist^ that " Sir George is descended of a
noble and ancient family of that surname in the
earldom of Flanders, where they have lived long in
great honor." The fact of the Flemish origin is
probably true, but the date of the migration of
Calvert's ancestors to England is unknown, and the
means of tracing the genealogy to the Flemish
family apparently did not exist ; for instead of con-
firming to Sir George the coat of arms belonging to
that family, as would probably have been the case if
the identity had been satisfactorily established, the
bearing of another coat, of diiferent device, but
composed of the same tinctures, was approved, Avith
the crest pertaining to the Flemish family added.^
At the early age of fourteen George Calvert en-
tered Trinity College, Oxford, where he received his
bachelor's degree in 1597.
At the University, Calvert acquired a thorough
knowledge of the Latin tongue, and it is prob-
able that there also he obtained a familiarity with
the French, Italian and Spanish languages, which
proved especially valuable to him in the political
^ The coat of arms borne by Sir George Calvert is described
in the exemplification referred to as ''paley of six pieces or
and sable, a bend coimterchanged," with this crest: — "the
upper part of two half lances or, with bandrolls thereto ap-
pending, the one or, the other sable, standing in a ducal
crown gules," which is declared to be "the ancient crest
descended unto him from his ancestors." The arms of the
Flemish family are described as "or, three martlets sable."
Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 38.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 5
and diplomatic offices which he was, in later life,
called to fill. After his graduation, following
the fashion which prevailed then, as now, for the
completion of a well-rounded education, he trav-
elled upon the continent of Europe, and it is
likely that he then made the acquaintance of Sir
Robert Cecil, who had been sent by Queen Eliza-
beth on a special embassy to the Court of Henry
IV., and who afterwards became the stanch friend
of Calvert and the founder of his political fortunes.
Shortly after the accession of King James, Calvert
obtained a seat in Parliament as representative of a
Cornish borough, and not long after he married
Anne, daughter of John Mynne, a gentleman of
Hertfordshire.
In 1605, upon the occasion of the King's visit to
Oxford, the master's degree was conferred upon
Calvert, among many distinguished candidates, in-
cluding the Duke of Lennox, the Earls of Oxford
and Northumberland, and Sir Robert Cecil.
About this time Calvert became private secretary
to Cecil, and was appointed by the King clerk of
the Crown and Assizes in County Clare, Ireland.
Thus began his connection with that kingdom, to
the peerage of which he was afterward to be eleva-
ted. The death of his powerful friend and patron
Cecil occurred in 1612, but he had already acquired
the special confidence and favor of the King and
his political fortunes continued steadily to advance.
In 1613 he was appointed clerk to the Privy
6 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Council, and also a member of an important com-
mission sent to Ireland to enquire into the discon-
tents which had arisen there as a consequence of
King James's policy in endeavoring to bring tlie
people into conformity with the religion, and obedi-
ence to the law, of England.
Calvert was appointed on two such commissions
to investigate the affairs of Ireland, and though his
associates included men much more distinguished
than himself, it is not improbable that his facile pen,
— for he held the pen of a ready writer, — was useful
in preparing their reports. It is evident that at
this time he was not in sympathy with the Roman
Catliolic Church, of which in later life he became a
member ; for tlie reports speak with emphasis of the
powerful influence of the Jesuits in fomenting the
existing discontents, and stimulating resistance on
the part of the Irish. This fact is of interest in
connection with the antagonisms, which we shall
hereafter consider, which arose between his son
Cecilius and the Jesuit missionaries in Maryland.
In 1610, on the occasion of the accession of
Louis XIII., Calvert was sent by elames upon a
special mission to France, and from this time on he
seems to have enjoyed the distinguished favor of the
King. He was the King's colaborator in his theo-
logical dispute with the Dutch Arminian Vorstius,
— but whether as assisting in the composition of
the royal theologian's thesis, or merely as translator
of it into the Latin tongue is uncertain. It is
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 7
more than probable that he was in part, at least,
author.
In 1617, upon the occasion of the celebration of
the marriage of the brother of the Duke of Buck-
I ingham, the order of knighthood was conferred
upon Calvert ; and the death of the wise and faith-
ful counsellor, Cecil, having rendered it necessary to
the Crown to gain, in his place, the services of a
minister possessing similar sterling and painstaking
qualities, Calvert, who had been trained by Cecil,
was, in 1619, upon the dismissal of Sir Thomas
Lake upon the charge that State secrets leaked out
through the loquacity of the latter's wife, advanced
to the responsible office of principal Secretary of
State.
This office, although it made him a member of
the Privy Council, diifered widely from the modern
office of Prime Minister, to Avhich it has sometimes
been supposed to be equivalent. There were at
that time two principal Secretaries, Calvert's col-
league being Sir Robert Naunton ; and the office
had been held by men of great political power and
influence, including Sir Robert Cecil himself. But
the functions of the office seem to have been rather
those of business administrator and recorder than
of leadership in the proceedings or policy of the
Council. The influence of the Secretary depended
more upon his personal qualities than upon his office.
Sir Robert Naunton, Calvert's associate in office,
was a studious man of quiet tastes, without political
8 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
ambition. Calvert was industrious and business-
like, an accomplished linguist, and possessed great
familiarity with the domestic and international poli-
tics of Europe. The value of his services, and
therefore his influence in the proceedings of the
Council, were consequently great.
Buckingham, the King's favorite, had sought the
office for Carleton, at that time Ambassador to the
Netherlands, but fliiling to secure it, he made a
virtue of necessity and himself communicated the
fact of his appointment to Calvert. The latter
accepted the office with great reluctance, modestly
describing himself as unqualified to fill a position
that had been held by his late distinguished patron,
Cecil. He no doubt also had a perfectly practical
perception of the difficulties to be confronted at the
Court of James I. by every one concerned in affairs
of State. Calvert had been useful to the King, and
the latter depended upon him ; but James was fickle
and capricious, and any tenure of office that de-
pended upon his favor was precarious.
The condition of public affairs, too, was anything
but reassuring. In England there was a constantly
increasing feeling of unrest, and on the continent
of Europe there was turmoil and warfare from
Bohemia to the Rhenish provinces. In fact, it was
the first year of that prolonged strife, partly dynastic
and partly religious, that has passed down into his-
tory with the direfully significant designation of
'' The Thirty Years War.''
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE \)
Upon the occasion of his appointment, James
questioned Calvert ch)sely concerning his wife, and
warned him of the example of his predecessor Lake,
whose wife and daughter he compared respectively
to Eve and the serpent. Calvert bore aifectionate
testimony to the distinguished virtues of Lady
Calvert, and relieved the King's mind of anxiety as
to any mischief arising through indiscretion in speech
on her part.
At this time Spain and France were rivals for
the friendship of England ; and those in England
who favored alliance with the former, strongly advo-
cated, as a means of closely uniting the interests of
the two countries, the marriage of the Prince
Charles to the Infanta Maria. This match was
favored by the King, and, though the proposal was
not approved by the majority in Parliament, it was
strongly advocated by Calvert, who, while his utter-
ances in Parliament were listened to with respect on
account of the recognized sincerity of his personal
character, suffered from being the representative and
mouth-piece of the King, to whose policy the popu-
lar judgment was opposed.
Mercenary or venal motives have been attributed
to Calvert on account of his advocacy of the Spanish
match, and he has even been accused of having been
influenced by Gondomar, the Spanish Ambassador,
by pecuniary considerations. It is sufficient to say
that such charges were not seriously entertained
against him during his lifetime. The accusation
10 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
was given currency by a note of Tindal, an editor
of Rapin's History. It is not due to the historian
himself^ On the other hand, there is such contem-
porary testimony as that of Tillieres, the French
Ambassador at tlie English Court, who, though the
representative of the power that was the chief polit-
ical rival of Spain, described Calvert as " an honor-
able, sensible, well-minded man, courteous towards
strangers, full of respect towards ambassadors, zeal-
ously intent upon the welfare of England ; but by
reason of all these good qualities, entirely without
consideration or importance." If by this he meant
the consideration and importance which at a notor-
iously corrupt and profligate court could only be
obtained by corruption and time-serving, he was
right. But all contemporary testimony goes to
show that the real opinion entertained of Calvert's
sincerity of character was in accordance with that
expressed by the French Ambassador.
Notwithstanding the widening breach between
' History of England, by M. Rapin de Tlioyras : 3d edition,
translated by Kevd. N. Tindal, 1743 ; vol. ii, p. 200. M. Kapin
(16G1-1725) was a French Huguenot who rendered military
service under William of Orange. {Nouvelle Biographie Gene-
rale. ) He wrote in sweeping terms that ' ' Count Gondemar
had bribed with presents and pensions all those who had the
King's ear, and who took care to cherish him in this vain
project." Tindal adds in a foot-note the names of a number
of persons supposed to have been bribed, and among them is
included that of Sir George Calvert ; but Tindal wrote more
than a century after the event.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 11
King and Parliament, the gross scandals attached
to the Court, and the prevailing corruption and
favoritism, Calvert, both as a member of Parliament
and a minister of the Crown, remained a loyal sup-
porter of the royal authority. But is it necessary to
impute to him, therefore, unworthy motives? A
struggle between royal prerogative and parliament-
ary government was inevitable. The immediate
results of that struggle, the strife and bloodshed
that must ensue, could be foreseen, even without
forecasting that the triumph of the parliamentary
party would cost James's son and successor both his
crown and his head. But Calvert knew of the
violence and license practised under the name of
liberty by the Anabaptists and others on the conti-
nent of Europe. Is it wonderful that a man of
conservative temperament, trained in t]ie political
school of tlie Tudors, recognizing the dangers of an
immediate triumph of the popular will, but unable
to look a century ahead and perceive the ultimate
result in a monarchy limited by constitutional
restraints, and a government controlled by a legisla-
tive body truly representative of the will of the
nation, should shrink from the prospect of an as-
sault upon the royal power? To such a man the
possibility of an orderly popular government must
have seemed remote, and the resistance of Parliament
must have been viewed by him much like the begin-
ning of anarchy, or of horrors such as were actually
witnessed a century and a half later in France. It
12 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
is not surprising that such a man should think it
better for the common weal that the people should
be governed by a King, though luiworthy, than that
the King should be governed by a turbulent people.
And in respect to the Spanish marriage, of which,
though distasteful to the majority of the people Cal-
vert was an advocate, it was a subject upon which
men and statesmen might reasonably differ. With
all Germany involved in war, England was in need
of a powerful ally, and Spain was to all outward
appearance the most powerful, as well as the richest,
nation in the world. That the seeds of decay had
already taken root was not apparent. The glories
and the triumphs of the reign of Charles V. were
not so remote but that their memory lingered. And
the conquests of Cortes and Pizarro in the new^
world had apparently opened to Spain inexhaustible
sources of wealth. Witli England's treasury empty,
the prospect of the rich dowry which the Spanish
Princess was to bring, was no small consideration in
the eyes of the spendthrift James. Gondomar, the
Spanish Ambassador to England, was an accom-
plished diplomat, and no doubt did acquire a consid-
erable influence with Calvert and other advisers of
the King. Negotiations were kept pending, but
the conclusion of a treaty was skilfully postponed.
Meanwhile, contrary to the inclination of the people,
James was kept from interfering on behalf of the
Protestant Princes in Germany, or on behalf of his
son-in-law, Frederick the Elector Palatine, who, in
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 13
accepting the crown of Bohemia, had not only failed
to secure that kingdom, but had imperilled his claim
to his hereditary principality as Avell. At last came
the visit of Prince Charles and Buckingham to
Madrid with a view of conducting negotiations in
person, an expedition which resulted in the disclosure
of Spain's insincerity in the negotiations, and their
final rupture.
In the Parliament of 1624 Calvert, having lost
the seat which he had held for Yorkshire, was
returned as one of the members for the University
of Oxford. But, disheartened by the failure of the
Spanish alliance, in the success of which he had been
deeply interested, recognizing the increasing difficul-
ties which beset the throne, dominated by the influ-
ence of favorites, opposed in policy by the Commons,
and regarded with hostility on account of abuse of
the royal prerogative and the multiplication of impo-
sitions, Calvert became anxious to retire from official
position. He had moreover become a convert to
the Roman Catholic Church, and his action in
resigning may have been precipitated by his appoint-
ment, in January, 1625, upon a new commission to
try recusants. At all events, in the following
month, he resigned his Secretaryship and openly
avowed his adherence to the Church of Rome.
According to the fashion of the times his successor.
Sir Albert Morton, paid Calvert £6000 for the suc-
cession to the office, or about the equivalent of its
emoluments for three years. The King accepted
14 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
his resignation with regret, and as a mark of his
special favor retained him as a member of the Privy
Council, and created him Baron of Baltimore, in
the Kingdom of Ireland. Calvert had previously
received other marks of the royal favor. In 1621
the King granted him a manor of 2300 acres in
County Longford in Ireland, and in 1623 a charter
for what was erected into the Province of Avalon in
Newfoundland in the })arts of America.
Calvert had for some time been deeply interested
in the ventures for colonizing the new world, and as
early as 1609, had been a member of the Virginia
Company. He was subsequently a member of the
provisional council for the management of the Vir-
ginia colony, and in 1622 was one of the eighteen
councillors of the New England Company. In 1620^
before the grant of his charter, he had purchased a
plantation called Avalon upon the island of New:-
foundland.
His release from the cares of official position gave
Calvert the opportunity to devote his attention to
his schemes for colonization. The charter of Avalon
was exceedingly liberal in its terms and in the powers
conferred upon the proprietary. The province Avas
erected into a county palatine, held of the Crown by
strictly feudal tenure in capite by knight's service.
But the affairs of the Avalon colony did not
prosper, and Calvert determined upon visiting it in
person, to investigate its conditions and retrieve its
fortunes, if possible. He sailed for Newfoundland
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 15
in the summer of 1627. The settlers then numbered
about sixty persons, and though the season of the year
was favorable, Calvert Avas evidently disappointed
both in the character and condition of his colony.
He found an inhospitable climate, land little sus-
ceptible of cultivation, with fisheries the most valu-
able industry. Returning, after a brief sojourn, to
England for the winter, Calvert again set sail for
Avalon in the summer of 1628, taking with him
Lady Baltimore, his second wife ' (his first wife hav-
ing died in 1622) and all of his family, — except his
eldest son Cecilius, who remained to look after the
estates in Ireland, — together with about forty colo-
nists.
The results of this second voyage were such as to
lead Calvert to determine upon abandoning the
Avalon colony as hopeless. He went upon an
errand of peace, but war between England and
France having been precijDitated by Buckingham's
policy, certain French ships, cruising in the North
Atlantic, attacked the Newfoundland settlements and
captured two English vessels. Calvert promptly
sent two vessels, manned and armed as fully as
practicable, to the rescue, and succeeded in driving
off the invaders and recovering their captures.
Sixty-seven prisoners were also taken, which to a
colony which apparently did not number much more
than one hundred persons must have rendered the
' Her given name, as mentioned in legal papers, was Joan ;
her family name the writer has not ascertained.
16 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
victory both expensive and inconvenient. It is wor-
thy of note that the vessels which were engaged
upon this expedition were the Ark and the Dove,
the former described as of three hundred and sixty-
two tons burthen, and the latter a pinnace of sixty
tons, vessels which were destined a few years late/r
to have their names inscribed forever on the pages
of Maryland's history, for in them were conveyed
the first colonists of the Province of Maryland.
Shortly after, an English man-of-war, the Unicorn,
appeared, and in company with Calvert's ships a
search was made for the Frenchmen in the different
harbors of the Island. This cruise resulted in the
capture of six French ships. These were sent as
prizes to England.
Calvert appears to have felt some concern as to
his own part in this warfare, lest he should be held
accountable for violation of the laws of war in
engaging in a naval battle without being licensed by
letters of marque ; for in writing to Buckingham,
giving an account of these occurrences, he expressed
the hope that he Would ^^ pardon all errors of for-
mality in the proceedings." The death of Buck-
ingham had occurred two days before this letter
was written.
Lord Baltimore's son, Leonard, who returned to
England with the prizes, petitioned the King,
Charles, for letters of marque to be issued to his
father, antedated, so that he should be legally en-
titled to a share in the prize money ; and a petition
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 17
was also addressed to the Admiralty by AVilliam
Peasely, Baltimore's son-in-law, asking that one of
the captured ships might be lent for the defence of
the colony at Newfoundland. The ship Saint
Claude was thereupon loaned to Baltimore for a
year and taken back to the colony by Leonard
Calvert.
The rigors of the climate had convinced Lord
Baltimore that for a successful colonization a more
southern location must be sought. Lady Baltimore
sailed for Virginia before the close of the year, and
remained some time at Jamestown. Lord Baltimore
himself remained during the winter at Avalon, and
in a letter to the King, written in August, 1629,
stated that he had learned by dear-bought experience
facts which had hitherto been concealed from him,
among others that " from the midst of October to
the midst of May there is a sad face of winter upon
all this land ; both sea and land so frozen for the
greatest part of the time, as they are not penetrable ;
no plant or vegetable thmg appearing out of the
earth until it be about the beginning of May, nor
fish in the sea ; besides the air so intolerable cold as
it is hardly to be endured. By means whereof, and
of much salt water, [meat ?] my house hath been an
hospital all this winter ; of a hundred persons, fifty
sick at a time, myself being one; and nine or ten
of them died.''^ He therefore asked the King to
1 Md. Archives. Proc. of Council 1636-1667, p. 16.
2
18 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
grant him some precinct of land in the dominion
of Virginia, with such privileges as the King, his
father, had been j)leased to grant to him at Avalon.
Charles replied to this letter discouraging Lord
Baltimore from further attempts at colonization.
After expressing appreciation of his efforts in that
direction, he said : " Seeing that your plantation in
Newfoundland (as we understand by your letter)
hath not answered your expectation, which Ave are
informed you take so much to heart (having therein
spent a great part of your means) as that you are
now in pursuit of new countries, we out of our
princely care of you, well weighing that men of
your condition and breeding are fitted for other
employments than the framing of new plantations,
which commonly have rugged and laborious begin-
nings, and require much greater means in managing
them than usually the power of one private subject
can reach unto, have thought fit hereby to advise
you to desist from further prosecuting your designs
that way, and w^ith your first conveniency to return
back to your native country, where you shall be
sure to enjoy the liberty of a subject and such
respect from us as your former services and late
endeavors do so justly deserve.''
This letter of advice, coming from the King,
would no doubt have been regarded by Lord Balti-
more as tantamount to a command for his prompt
return to England ; but before its receipt he had
sailed for Virginia, where he arrived in October,
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 19
1629. There he was but coldly received. The
charter of the Virginia Company had been annulled,
and the Governor and Council of Virginia, knowing
or suspecting Lord Baltimore's designs to establish a
southern colony, recognized that it was within the
bounds of possibility for the King to grant him a new
charter for the whole dominion of Virginia, excepting
only such portions as had become private property.
They determined therefore to be rid of him. A
means was easily found. Notwithstanding the fact
that he had lately been a member of the Privy
Council, and also of the provisional council for the
government of the Virginia colony, they demanded
of him not only the oath of allegiance, but the oath
of supremacy as well, which they knew he could not
conscientiously take. In doing so they apparently
exceeded their authority, though Lord Baltimore
offered to take the oath in a modified form. This
they refused to accept, and declared that the matter
would have to be referred to England. The ques-
tion does not appear to have been further pressed,
but the departure of Lord Baltimore was hastened.
That his presence at Jamestown was resented by
some of the populace is shown by a record that one
Thomas Tindall was pilloried '^ for giving my Lord
Baltimore the lie and threatening to knock him
down.'' But the action of this ruffian, in offering
personal violence, did not indicate the general dispo-
sition, or at least that of the ruling class ; for Lord
Baltimore was content to leave his wife and family
20 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
at Jamestown under the protection of the govern-
ment there, while he returned to England to seek a
grant or charter for a new colony in southerly
latitudes.
Being detained in England on this business much
longer than he had anticipated, he procured a letter
from the Lords of the Council to the Governor of
Virginia, instructing the latter to afford to Lady
Baltimore and her family his best assistance for her
return to England. The Saint Claude was again
loaned to Lord Baltimore by the government, this
time for the conveyance of his family home. The
vessel had a prosperous voyage to America, but upon
its return was wrecked upon the coast of England,
and though the lives of the passengers were saved,
all the valuable property and personal effects with
which the vessel was freighted were lost.
Baltimore, notwithstanding the dissuasion of the
King and his implied promise to recompense him
for his losses by an increase of royal favor, steadily
adhered to his cherished plan of establishing a col-
ony in the new world. At length the King yielded
and gave him a grant of territory extending from
the James River, southward to the Chowan, and
westward to the mountains. This grant was bit-
terly opposed by members of the dissolved Virginia
Company, who still sought and hoped for a revi-
val of the charter of that company. Not wishing
to embark upon his enterprise with the powerful
hostility of those interested in the Virginia Company
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 21
confronting him, Lord Baltimore asked the King to
reconsider this grant. This was accordingly done,
and the grant of Carolana, as the territory just
described was called, was surrendered, and in lieu
thereof a grant was promised of territory lying
immediately to the noi-th of Virginia, and on both
sides of the Chesapeake Bay, including the whole
of the peninsula on the eastern shore, and extending
on the western shore, from the 40th degree of north
latitude, (which was the southern boundary of New
England) down to the mouth of the Potomac River,
and taking for the southern boundary the south
bank of that river, westwardly to the longitude of
its first source. This territory, though within the
limits of the original grant to the Virginia Company,
lay between the New England and Virginia colonies,
without infringing upon either, and it was believed
that no settlement had been made by Englishmen
within its limits. It was subsequently ascertained
that settlements had been made by Virginia colonists
upon the lower portion of the eastern shore penin-
sula, and that portion was consequently excluded
from the grant.
The charter for this new colony, to be established
under the name of Maryland, did not pass the seal
until after the death of George, the first Lord Bal-
timore, to whom it had been promised, and was
therefore issued to his son and heir, Cecilius, second
Lord Baltimore, who thus became the first Proprie-
tary of Maryland.
22 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
George, Lord Baltimore, had for some time been
in declining health, and on the 15th day of April,
1632, Avith the members of his family about him, he
passed away. He was but fifty-two years old at the
time of his death. His life, though comparatively
brief, had been singularly eventful. Sprung from
a family previously unknown, his ability was early
recognized and his political preferment was rapid.
He became, successively, member of Parliament,
clerk to the Privy Council, one of the principal
Secretaries of State, and member of the Council.
He was entrusted with missions abroad, and with
the most important negotiations with foreign powers.
He enjoyed the confidence of the King, and as a
member of Parliament was entrusted with the diffi-
cult task of defending, against a powerful and
hostile majority, the King's unpopular policy and
measures. Meanwhile, he was actively interested in
plans of colonization in the new world ; and when at
last, — wearied with the strife of political life, and
finding himself unable, from changed religious con-
victions, conscientiously to discharge duties that were
required of him, — he resigned his office and its
emoluments, it was only to devote himself with vigor
to founding a new province in the wilderness. For
this purpose he made two voyages to America, and
though he did not live to see the fruition of his
labors, he visited and saw for himself the region which
was secured by grant to his son. So much for the ex-
ternal events of the life of the first Lord Baltimore.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 23
It is fitting to add a word as to the man. He
did not perhaps possess the qualities that constitute
greatness, but he did possess in the highest degree
those that constitute usefulness and true worth.
He was judicious, prudent, tactful, possessed of the
most untiring industry, and above all, living in the
midst of a most scandalously corrupt court, and at
a time when a newly forming public opinion was
beginning to demand a higher standard of public
morals, even though the downfall of a Lord Chan-
cellor were the result, his integrity was never ques-
tioned during his lifetime. It was not until after his
death that any one ventured to attribute his advocacy
of the Spanisli match to the influence of Spanish gold,
while in Goodman's History of the Court of King
James it is ascribed to religious zeal. It does not
appear that either of these theories is sustained by
evidence. Lord Baltimore's whole course in this
matter was that of a man following the lead of his
convictions. His course was uniformly consistent.
He believed that the alliance with Spain was for the
best interests of England, and whether his judgment
was right or wrong, he steadfastly acted in accord-
ance with its dictates.
In respect to his change of faith, this also was
attributed by some to the influence of Gondomar,
the Spanish Ambassador, and Baltimore was accused
of concealing for motives of policy his conversion
to the faith of the Church of Rome. There appears
to be no ground for either assertion. After Gondo-
24 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
mar's departure from England, Baltimore was still
serving on commissions against the seminary and
recusant clergy, and urging the King to extend aid
to the Protestants in Germany. There is no appar-
ent reason to doubt that his previous attachment to
the Church of England, in which he had been reared,
was as sincere as his subsequent conversion to the
Church of Rome. When, after his change of faith,
already weary of political life, he was appointed
upon a new commission against Papists, he seized
the opportunity to announce his inability to serve, and
resigned his office. Shortly after, lie left London for
the home of his childhood in Yorkshire, in company
with an old schoolmate. Sir Toby Mathews, who,
though a son of the Protestant Bishop of Durham,
had become a Jesuit. It is perhaps more reason-
able to ascribe Lord Baltimore's change of faith
to the influence of Sir Toby than to proselyting
zeal on the part of Gondomar. The carelessness
with which assertions are sometimes made and
inferences drawn without warrant of facts, even
by persons who write in the character of histo-
rian, is shown by the statement of Bishop Goodman,
who wrote that one ^^ who was thought to gain by
the Spanish match was Secretary Calvert, and as he
was the only Secretary employed in the Spanish
match, so undoubtedly he did what good offices he
could therein for religion's sake, being infinitely
addicted to the Roman Catholic faith, having been
converted thereunto by Count Gondomar and Count
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 25
Arundel, whose daughter Secretary Calvert's son
had married." ' Had married, the historian says.
The negotiations concerning the Spanish match were
terminated in 1623; Lord Baltimore announced his
conversion to the Roman Catholic faith and resigned
office in 1625 ; but the marriage of his son Cecilius
to the daughter of Lord Arundel, — who Avas not
the Count or Earl of Arundel, whose family
name was Howard, but Lord Arundel of Wardour,
whose rank was that of Baron, — did not take place
until 1629. In 1623 Cecilius was but seventeen
years of age. So it is found sometimes in histories
to which the reader should feel justified in turning
for facts, that there is confusion of dates, the sub-
stitution of inference for evidence, and a consequent
confusion of cause and effect.
As an illustration of the inner spirit of the man,
a letter written by Lord Baltimore to Lord Went-
worth, his old colleague as member of Parliament
for Yorkshire, upon the occasion of the death of the
latter's wife, is of special interest. He wrote : —
" Were not my occasions such as necessarily keep
^ Court of King James the First : London, 1839, by Dr. God-
frey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester (1583-1655), Vol. r,
p. 376. This writer was appointed Bishop of Gloucester in
1625 : suspected of Popish sentiments and imprisoned in the
Gate House in 1640 upon refusing to subscribe to the canons
and regulations prescribed by Archbishop Laud. Subse-
quently he gave his allegiance to the Church of Rome.
{Nouvelle Biographie Generate ; Fuller's Church History, B. iii,
p. 408.)
26 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
me here at the time, I would not send letters, but
fly to you myself with all the speed I could to express
my own grief, and to take part of yours, which I
know is exceeding great, for the loss of so noble a
lady, so virtuous and so loving a wife. There are
few, perhaps, can judge of it better than I, who
have been a long time myself a man of sorrows.
But all things, my lord, in this world, pass away :
statidum est; wife, children, honour, wealth, friends,
and what else is dear to flesh and blood. They are
but lent us till God please to call for them back
again, that we may not esteem anything our own,
or set our hearts upon anything but Him alone, who
only remains forever. I beseech His almighty good-
ness to grant that your Lordship may, for His sake,
bear this great cross with meekness and patience,
whose only Son, our dear Lord and Saviour, bore a
greater for you ; and to consider that these humilia-
tions, though they be very bitter, yet are they sover-
eign medicines ministered unto us by our heavenly
Physician, to cure the sickness of our souls.''
This letter was written from London and dated
October 11, 1631, at a time when Baltimore himself
had much cause for depression. His venture in
Newfoundland had recently proved a foilure, he had
been practically expelled from Virginia, and more
recently the shij) conveying his Avife thence had been
wrecked and much of his property lost. Himself
" not ignorant of evil, he had learned to comfort the
distressed." This letter was addressed to Went-
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 27
worth, afterwards to become the ambitious, the im-
perious, the relentless Earl of Strafford. Written
by one who had long been his friend, it throws a
softer and gentler light than the page of history is
wont to shed, upon both the sender and him to
whom it was sent.
In Mr. Wilhelm's monograph, entitled Sir George
Calvert, Lord Baltimore, published by the Mary-
land Historical Society, and also in Dr. Browne's
George and Cecilius Calvert, Barons of Baltimore,
in the " Makers of America '' series, both of which
publications have been freely consulted in the prep-
aration of this sketch, it is stated that since the
church, St. Dunstan's, Fleet Street, in which the
first Lord Baltimore was buried, was destroyed
during the great fire of London, no statue, bust or
monument, on either side of the Atlantic, perpet-
uates his memory. To this statement one exception
must now^ be made. At the corner of Cathedral
and Mulberry streets, in this city, there is a school
conducted by the Christian Brothers in a building
known as Calvert Hall. Upon the northeast angle of
that building, and facing toward the Roman Catholic
Cathedral, there has been erected, beneath a stone
canopy, a statue. It is the statue of George Calvert,
the first Lord Baltimore.
^
LECTURE II.
Cecilius, Second Lord Baltimore.
OF the early life of Cecilius, the second Lord
Baltimore, but little is known, beyond the
facts that he was baptized and confirmed in the
Church of England. His father Avas conspicuous
in the public and political life of England, and
hence some of the principal events of his life can be
gathered from the histories of his times. Cecilius
on the contrary never held any public office, and
appears to have avoided rather than sought notoriety.
His energies during many years were directed chiefly
to the affairs, — often troubled affairs, — of his Prov-
ince in the new world, and in his acts and correspon-
dence in relation to them, are to be found the chief
indications of the life and character of the man.
Cecilius was born in 1606, and named after Sir
Robert Cecil, the warm friend of his father, to whom
the latter owed his introduction to, and advance-
ment in, public life. In 1621, at the age of fifteen,
he entered Trinity College, Oxford, but no record of
his graduation has been found. He married Lady
Anne Arundel, daughter of Lord Arundel of War-
dour, a lady who appears, from a portrait of her now
in existence, to have been possessed of remarkable
28
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 29
beauty. According to Bishop Goodman, who found
in this marriage one of the causes for his father's
conversion to the Church of Rome, avowed in 1625,
Cecilius could have been but eighteen years of age
at the date thus ascribed for his marriage. As a
matter of fact, it is plain from MS. evidence, now
in the possession of the Maryland Historical So-
ciety,' that this marriage did not take place until
1629, when Cecilius was twenty-three years of age ;
but Bishop Goodman's careless inaccuracy has led
to the assertion by nearly every one who has written
upon this subject that he was married at the age
of eighteen. JlL
In June, 1632, the charter for the Province of
Maryland, which had been promised to his father,
but whose death occurred in April of that year, was
issued to the son, who thus at the age of twenty-six,
became the first Lord Proprietary of Maryland.
The charter of Maryland was modelled after
that of Avalon and was probably framed by the
first Lord Baltimore. It has been pronounced by
McMahon to be more ample in its terms than any
similar charter ever granted by an English Kmg ; ^
and in fact the constitution of the Province of
1 On March 20, 1628/9, Sir George Calvert, Lord Baltimore,
conveyed certain land in trust for the benefit of Cecilius upon
his marriage, the conveyance to be void if he should not marry
within a year from that date. Maryland Hist. Soc, Coll. Cal-
vert 3fSS., Doc. 39. See reference to Goodman's History on
page 25, Lecture I.
^ Historical View of the Govt, of Md. Vol. I., p. 155.
30 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Maryland differed materially from those of the
English colonies previously established upon the
American continent, the one in Virginia, and the
other in New England.
By the terms of the letters patent granted to Lord
Baltimore, it was declared that Maryland, in order
that it might be eminently distinguished above all
other regions in that territory and decorated with
more ample titles, was erected into a Province; and
of this Province the Baron of Baltimore and his
heirs were constituted the true and absolute Lords
and Proprietaries, with all the powers, prerogatives,
immunities and royal rights which any Bishop of
Durham, in the bishopric or county palatine of
Durham ever had used or enjoyed or of right could
have held and enjoyed.
The proprietaries were given the patronage and
advowsons of churches with authority to have them
consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of
England. They were given power to enact laws
with the advice and assent of the freemen or their
representatives, and to enforce the same through
courts of their own creation ; to punish violations
of law, whether committed in the Province or on
the high seas, even to the taking of life or limb,
and when the freemen could not conveniently be
convened, to make ordinances which should have
the force of law, except that under such ordinances
no one could be deprived of life, limb or property.
They were given authority to confer dignities and
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 31
titles, to raise and maintain a military force, to
wage war, to pursue enemies beyond the borders of
the Province, and in the event of sedition or rebel-
lion to proclaim martial law ; to establish ports of
entry, and upon occasion, to impose taxes and sub-
sidies upon merchandise ; to alienate land in fee,
fee-tail, or upon lease ; to constitute manors and
establish courts-baron. It was in the charter pro-
vided that all subjects of the Crown going to Mary-
land, and their descendants born there, should be
esteemed to be natives of England, have all the
rights and liberties of Englishmen, with power to
own land and other estates of inheritance in Eng-
land. They were given authority to trade not
only with the mother country, but also with foreign
nations, with which England was at peace. The
power of the Crown to impose any customs, taxa-
tions or contributions within the Province was dis-
tinctly renounced (though the payment of the cus-
tomary duties on wares and merchandise brought
into England or exported therefrom was reserved) ;
and it was finally declared that the territory des-
cribed should not thereafter be considered a part of
Virginia, and that in case of doubt as to the mean-
ing of any word, clause or sentence in the charter
it should always be interpreted in the manner most
beneficial, profitable and favorable to Lord Balti-
more, his heirs and assigns. There was reserved to
the Crown, and to all the King's subjects of Eng-
land and Ireland the liberty of fishing for sea fish in
32 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
the waters of the Province, with the privilege of
landing for salting and drying the same, and for
that purpose to cut hedge-wood and twigs for build-
ing huts, so that the same were done without notable
injury to the Proprietary or the residents.
This province was granted to Lord Baltimore and
his heirs to be held by feudal tenure in free and
common socage only, the tribute reserved being two
Indian arrows to be delivered yearly in Easter
week at Windsor Castle, and the fifth part of the
gold and silver ore to be found within the Province.^
As no precious metals were discovered, this last was
a barren provision. Numbers of receipts for the
Indian arrows delivered from year to year at AVind-
sor are among the Calvert papers in the possession
of the Maryland Historical Society.
From this brief review it will be seen that the
Lords Baltimore were endowed by the terms of the
charter with an hereditary sovereignty over their
province, which differed only from independent rule
in that the inhabitants were reckoned subjects of the
Crown as well as of the Proprietary, and the over-
lordship of the King, and allegiance to him, were
acknowledged by the yearly tribute of Indian ar-
rows. The rank of the province was that of a
^ Tenure in free and common socage differs from that in capite
by knight's service, in that the uncertain military service re-
quired by the latter is commuted for a fixed tribute, which in
the case of the Maryland Province consisted merely of the res-
ervations mentioned in the text.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 33
county palatine. There were several instances on
the continent of Europe of feudal lords holding
the rank of count palatine. It was conferred upon
those holding border positions, who were clothed
with special powers, in order that as wardens of
the frontier, — lords of the marches, — they might
the more readily and efficiently act for defence
in case of sudden invasion. Following this ex-
ample, William the Conqueror, while seeking to
provide against the acquisition of too great power
by the peers of the realm in England, which
might become a menace to the Crown, recognized
the importance of granting exceptional authority
to the lords of the marches or border counties.
Hence the earldom of Chester on the borders
of Wales,^ and the bishopric of Durham to the
north, to which was united the earldom of North-
umberland, were made counties palatine. The earl-
dom of Chester was united to the Crown by Henry
III., and the duchy of Lancaster, which had been
made a palatinate by Edward III., attached to the
Crown upon the Duke of Lancaster's accession to
the throne as Henry IV. At the date of the Mary-
land charter Durham alone remained of the ancient
palatinates, and therefore served as the model and
^ The earldom was united to the bishopric of Chester, so
that, as in the case of Durham, the palatinate authority was
bestowed upon an ecclesiastic. Thus William of Normandy
shrewdly avoided the possibility of the extraordinary powers
conferred becoming hereditary in any one family.
3
34 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
standard of reference in the definition of the palati-
nate jurisdiction of the Lords Proprietary of Mary-
land. The authority of a count palatine was little
short of royal. On account of the military necessi-
ties of his frontier position, he had authority to
summon his feudal forces to resist invasion without
waiting to communicate with the king. In this
manner the Bishops of Durham exercised authority
from their ancient and beautiful seat and strong-
hold near the Scottish border, a site well chosen
on account of its capability for defence by the
monks of Lindisforne, when about the close of
the tenth century they carried thither the remains
of St. Cuthbert.
The authority of the Bishops of Durham extended
not only to military matters ; it included civil juris-
diction as well. Judges were appointed by them,
and justice was administered and crmies punished,
not in the name of the Crown, but of the Bishop.
These extraordinary privileges, anomalous as they
may now seem, were retained by the Bishops of
Durham until the nineteenth century, and were not
finally abolished until 1836, one year before the
accession of Queen Victoria.
All the conditions which originally led to the
creation of counties palatine applied to colonies
planted in the new world. They were essentially
frontier settlements, removed from the seat of
government by a much greater distance than any
border county of the kingdom, with much greater
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 35
difficulties of communication. They were near to
the colonies of France in Canada and Louisiana,
and to those of Spain in Florida, — countries between
which and England a state of war might, and did
from time to time, exist ; and they were surrounded
by Indian tribes with which hostilities might at
any time arise. The orderly government of the
colony required the establishment of courts by which
the laws could be enforced and wrongs redressed.
Ample authority for the exercise of all the powers of
government within the Province of Maryland, inde-
pendent of any interference or control on the part
of the Crown, was conferred upon Lord Baltimore
by the terms of his charter.
Cecilius promptly set about to fit out an expedi-
tion for the settlement of the colony, and he as
promptly met with the most persistent hostility and
antagonism. Not only were the members of the
old Virginia Company, who were seeking to have
its charter revived, with the original boundaries
intact, hostile to the new colony, but William
Claiborne, one of their number, was especially
bitter. Claiborne had established a trading post
on Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay, and he
resented the grant of proprietary rights to Lord
Baltimore, with authority to regulate trade in a
region where he proposed to secure the entire
benefits to himself. The enmity of Claiborne to
Lord Baltimore's enterprise continued unabated
during a long life, and he found many opj)ortu-
36 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
nities of maiiifestiiig it. The actual settlers in
Virginia did not favor the restoration of the old
Company, and from them Lord Baltimore had
nothing to apprehend. But his enemies were active
in London. There was no charge or complaint
too frivolous to be urged so it would serve to
impede his plans. His charter was objected to on
the ground that the ample powers bestowed upon
the Proprietary would be subversive of the liberties
of the people; and at the same time, almost in
the same breath, that the liberties secured to the
Maryland colonists were so great that they would
make the settlers in Virginia discontented.^ The
expedition being fitted out by Lord Baltimore was
said to be for the purpose of conveying nuns to Spain,
and also for carrying troops for that country. With
these and other contradictory tales, the departure of
the Maryland pioneers was greatly delayed, and it was
not until November, 1633, that they finally set sail
from the Isle of Wight for the capes of the Chesa-
peake. The vessels were the Ark, of about three
hundred tons, and the Dove, a pinnace of about fifty
tons, both of which had belonged to Baltimore's
fatlier. The former sailed from Gravesend on
October 18th, but had no sooner departed, than
information was laid before the Star Chamber that
the oath of allegiance had not been administered
to the crew, and that the vessel " was without a
^ Md. Archives. Proceedings of Council, 1636-1667, pp. 18, 19.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 37
clearance from the custom-house. Orders were
accordingly sent post-haste to the admiral com-
manding at the Straits to intercept the ships and
send them back.^ Lord Baltimore, in a letter to
Earl Straiford, denounced these charges as "most
notoriously and maliciously false.'' At all events
the ships proceeded on their way after the oath
had been admmistered to one hundred and twenty-
eight persons. At the Isle of Wight two Jesuit
priests were taken on board, and the Company
which sailed finally numbered over three hundred
persons. Possibly some others, beside the priests,
came on board after the visit of the King's
officers. There were doubtless numbers who
could not conscientiously take the oath of supre-
macy ; but what proportion of this first company
of pilgrims to Maryland Avere of the Roman
Catholic faith, it is now impossible to determine.
\ A large proportion of the company was composed
of men bound to service, and these apparently
were mostly Protestants. Of the actual settlers,
men of fortune, who went to take up lands and
immediately become freemen of the Province, it is
probable that the majority were Roman Catholics ;
but it is also likely that they constituted but a
minority of the entire number of colonists.
yQ Lord Baltimore fully intended to accompany this
expedition in person, but the activity and malignity
^ Md. Archives. Proceedings of Council, 163G-1667, p. 23.
38 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
of Claiborne and those associated with him were
such that he found it necessary to remain in London
to watch and resist their machinations. The leader-
ship of the venture was therefore entrusted to his
brothers, Leonard and George Calvert, of whom the
former was commissioned Deputy Governor.
Among the Calvert papers, acquired a few years
ago by the Maryland Historical Society, is a very
interesting document, being an autograph letter of
instructions addressed by Lord Baltimore to his
brother Leonard, Jerome Hawley and Thomas
Cornwaleys, whom he had nominated as commis-
sioners for the government of the Province, touching
their conduct during the voyage and after their
arrival in Maryland.^ This letter is particularly
valuable in revealing the mind and character of
the second Lord Baltimore, as it is plainly his
own work even to its manual execution. It is in
his own handwriting with his own corrections and
interlineations.
In the very first paragraph he directed that in order
to preserve peace and unity among the passengers,
and to avoid all occasion of scandal or offence, they
cause all acts of the Roman Catholic religion to be
performed as privately as possible, and that the
Roman Catholics be instructed upon all occasions
of religious discussion to remain silent, and that
they treat the Protestants Avith as much favor as
^ Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 131.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 39
justice would permit. This to be done on land as
well as at sea.
The commissioners were also instructed to seek
tactfully to find out what efforts his enemies had
made in England to create disaffection among the
adventurers and to collect evidence upon this point.
They were to cultivate friendly relations with the
Virginians, and at the same time, he cautiously
added, to avoid anchoring under the guns of the
fort at Point Comfort, but lie over toward the
eastern shore, about Accomac. A letter from the
King, and one from his Lordship, to Sir John Harvie,
the Governor of Virginia, were to be delivered with
great respect by the hands of a messenger who Avas
conformable to the Church of England, and along
with the letters, expressions of friendship and a butt
of sack, shipped for the purpose, were to be pre-
sented. Captain Claiborne was to be notified, also
by a messenger attached to the Church of England,
of the arrival of the expedition and invited to confer
about future business arrangements for trading within
the boundaries of Maryland.
As soon as landed the people were to be assembled,
the letters patent publicly read, also his Lordship's
letter of commission, and then the oath of allegiance
to the King was to be taken, first by the commis-
sioners and afterwards by all and every one of them.
And it was to be distinctly declared that none should
enjoy the benefit of the Maryland grant but such as
should give public assurance of their fidelity and
40 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
allegiance to the King. The commissioners were to
inform themselves of the condition of the Virginia
colony, and of the disposition of the leading men
towards the colony in Maryland ; and, without
sacrifice of rights, take occasion to oblige any of
the Council of Virginia. Directions were given as
to the apportionments of land, the building of a
fort, and, near by, a house and church for his Lord-
ship's seat. In laying out a town, the houses were
to be built in as decent and uniform a manner as
possible, and adjoining one to the other, and for this
purpose streets were to be laid out. In apportioning
land, a tract was to be set out for his Lordship's
own proper use and inheritance, as in this first
venture he proposed to place himself along with
these first settlers, to whom he ^' conceives himself
more bound in honor." Of all the apportionments
of land, plats were to be prepared, as also of the
soundings of the rivers and bays. Instructions
were to be given for the planting by each one of
a sufficient quantity of corn ; a military organiza-
tion was to be effected, and discipline preserved.
Enquiry was to be made as to the existence of
material for making salt or saltpetre, and search
instituted for iron-ore or other minerals.
Finally, the commissioners were charged that they
be careful to do justice to every man witliout par-
tiality, and that they avoid any occasion of diflPerence
with those of Virginia, but to have as little to do
with them as they can, — for the first year.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 41
This letter gives evidence of a wise, just and
statesmanlike attitude on the part of the first Pro-
prietary of Maryland, who, a young man, but twenty-
seven years of age, surrounded and harassed at every
move by those who sought to place obstacles in
his way, embarked bravely upon the undertaking
of founding and organizing a community and a
government in a far off land which his eyes had
never beheld, and which they were destined never
to behold. In his careful instructions as to avoid-
ing all ground of offence on account of religious
differences, we can recognize the liberal spirit which
was afterwards to lead to the famous Act of Reli-
gious Toleration in Maryland, enacted at a period
when most men held that to assent to a difference
in religious opinion, or to permit one who differed
to go unpunished, was to be accessory to a crime,
while those in authority acted upon that theory.
Lord Baltimore's administration of his Province
was beset with difficulties from the beginning.
With the neighboring Indian tribes, the relations
of the Maryland colonists, it is to be noted, were
uniformly friendly. The country was occupied
by the Pascataways, a peaceable people, who had
evidently made some strides in civilization, for
they had not only erected villages, but had also
made progress in agriculture, and therefore were not
wholly dependent, like the more warlike and nomadic
tribes to the northward, upon the chase. These
Indians gave friendly reception to the Maryland
42 TIIE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
colonists upon their arrival in the Potomac River,
in March, 1634, and readily ceded to them, in
exchange for iron tools and pieces of cloth, not only
ground for a settlement, yielding for their occu-
pancy some of their own houses — one of which was
converted into a chapel by the Jesuit Fathers — but
also lands for planting, reserving only the right to
gather the crops which they had themselves already
planted. Their action was uniformly generous, in
bringing and giving to the newcomers the results
of the chase, and assisting them in hunting and
fishing. Important articles of diet among them were
dishes which they called " pone ^' and '' hominy,^^
names which have in this State become familiar in
household economy.^ The local Indian tribes were
all the more ready to enter into friendly relations
with the colonists for the reason that they recog-
nized in them powerful allies against the more
warlike tribes to the north, the Susquehannoughs
and the Iroquois, from whom they suffered frequent
inroads. It is a pleasant fact to note that through-
out the colonial history of Maryland the friendly
relations with these Pascataway Indians were never
interrupted. The settlers and the Indians were
alike loyal to each other.
But disturbances enough came from other quarters.
The hostility of Claiborne, who claimed a settlement
^ Voyage to Maryland. Md. Hist Soc. , Calvert Papers, No. 3,
pp. 41, 43.
THE MAUYLAND PALATINATE 43
on Kent Island, was unabated. He refused to render
allegiance to Lord Baltimore, or to accept title to
land from him. His claim to priority of title to
Kent Island had been disallowed in England by
the Lords Commissioners of Plantations, but, not-
withstanding, he continued to disregard the authority
of Lord Baltimore, either as proprietor of the soil,
or as entitled to regulate trade. Early in 1635,
Governor Calvert having waited a full year in
accordance with his brother's instructions, for com-
pliance on Claiborne's part, caused a pumace sail-
ing under Claiborne's orders to be seized in the
Patuxent River for trading in Maryland without a
license from the Lord Proprietary ; and the master,
Thomas Smith, was arrested. He was released, but
the vessel was detained. Reprisals quickly followed.
Claiborne fitted out an armed sloop with instruc-
tions to its commander to attack any Maryland
vessels. Governor Calvert sent two pinnaces, under
command of Thomas Cornwaleys, in pursuit of this
invader. The vessels met at the mouth of the
Pocomoke, and Claiborne's vessel was captured after
its captain and two of the crew had been killed.
A few days later there was another skirmish ; this
time with a vessel commanded by the same Thomas
Smith who had been captured shortly before. The
intercepting and capture of Claiborne's vessels
reduced the settlers at Kent Island to sore straits
for food, a fact which in itself suggests that this
settlement was not, as Claiborne pretended, an
44 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
established plantation^ but rather a trading post,
dependent for supplies from without.
Claiborne's principals in England, Messrs. Clo-
berry & Company, merchants of London, utterly
disapproved of his attitude towards Lord Baltimore,
and applied to the latter for a grant of the land
at Kent Island, to which they did not pretend to
have title ; and upon hearing of the turn matters
had taken, they sent out George Evelyn as their
representative and attorney with authority to super-
sede Claiborne. To him Claiborne was obliged to
yield, and shortly after returned to England where
he became involved in litigation with Cloberry &
Company.
After examining the terms of Lord Baltimore's
charter, Evelyn promptly recognized that the Kent
Island station could not be maintained without
liis authority and permission. He therefore offered
his submission to Governor Calvert and obtained
from him an appointment as Commander of Kent
Island. He endeavored to induce the settlers to
recognize the Proprietary's authority and apply to
him for grants of the land which they occupied. This
they refused to do, being instigated to resistance
by representatives of Claiborne, who remained in
the island ; whereupon Evelyn invited Governor
Calvert to undertake the forcible reduction of the
settlement. This was not finally accomplished until
two armed expeditions had been sent for the pur-
pose. The second, in February, 1637/8, was under
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 45
the personal command of Governor Calvert, who
returned bringing with him as prisoner that Thomas
Smith, who had taken part in the naval encounters
two years before, and who had begun to fortify
Palmer's Island near the head of the Chesapeake.
Smith was tried by the Assembly and condemned
to death for piracy. A bill of attainder was brought
against Claiborne and all his possessions within the
Province declared forfeited. The people of Kent
Island now cheerfully acquiesced in the new order,
accepted deeds for their lands, and selected a dele-
gate to represent them in the Assembly.^
Lord Baltimore's next difficulty came from an
unexpected quarter. At the time of the planting of
the colony it had been arranged that the sj^iritual
oversight of the settlers, as well as the conversion of
the savages to the Christian faith, should be confided
to members of the Society of Jesus. Accordingly
three Jesuits, Fathers Andrew White and John
Altham, and Thomas Copley, accompanied the first
voyagers. Whether the last named was at that
time in Holy Orders, or a lay member of tlie
Society, is not now perfectly clear. These mission-
aries addressed themselves with heroic zeal to the
work before them, the cure of souls and the con-
version of the heathen ; but they did not stop there.
^ Governor Calvert estimated the number of men on the island
capable of bearing arms at the time of his expedition at one
hmidred and twenty, besides some women and children. — Md.
Hist. Soc.y Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 186.
46 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Notwithstanding the fact that Lord Baltimore claimed
title to all the land in Maryland by virtue of his
grant from the King of England, these ecclesiastics
proceeded to obtain cessions of large tracts from
the Indians among whom their ministrations were
conducted, which lands they proposed to hold
independent of the Proprietary ; and they further
claimed that the canon law had full force in this
newly planted colony, and that under the provisions
of the Papal Bull In Coena Domini, ecclesiastics,
and ecclesiastical property were exempt from tlie
jurisdiction of the civil authority. Lord Baltimore,
though himself sincerely attached to the Poman
Catholic Church, was prompt to resent these pre-
tensions, and to take alarm at the prospect of the
acquisition of large tracts of land by ecclesiastical
bodies. He went so far as to apply to the Propaganda
at Pome for the recall of the Jesuit missionaries,
and the sending in their stead of secular priests.
The dispute lasted several years. In a letter
dated in April, 1638, from Father Copley to Lord
Baltimore the demands of the clergy are set forth.
Among other things it was asked that the church
and the priests' houses should be sanctuary ; that
they themselves, their domestic servants and half
the planting servants be free from public taxes ;
and that the rest of their servants and their tenants
have exemption by private understanding ; that
they and their attendants should go freely among
the Indians and trade with them without requiring
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 47
license from the government ; and that the relin-
qnishment of any ecclesiastical privilege should be
voluntary on their part, they to be the judges of
the occasion/
In November, 1642, Lord Baltimore wrote with
great emphasis to his brother, Governor Leonard
Calvert, upon the subject of the position assumed
by the clergy. He mentioned that another member
of those of the lull (by which term the Jesuits
were designated) had by slight gone on board a
shiji about to depart for Maryland, which action
he, for divers reasons, resented as a high aifront
to himself; and directed that this priest, if he
were to be found m the Province, should be
apprehended and sent back. He went on to
express his firm conviction that they plotted his
destruction, and declared that " if the greatest
saint upon earth should intrude himself into my
house against my will and in despite of me, with
intention to save the souls of all my family, but
withal give me just cause to suspect that he like-
wise designs my temporal destruction, or that
beiug already in my house doth actually practise it,
although withal he do perhaps many spiritual goods,
yet certainly I may and ought to preserve myself
by the expulsion of such an enemy, and by providing
others to perform the spiritual good he did, who shall
not have any intention of mischief towards me.^^ ^
^Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 166.
^Ibicl, pp. 216, 217.
48 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
The matters m dispute were fortunately referred
to a man of great wisdom and discretion, Rev.
Father Henry More, Provincial of the Jesuit Society
in England. He decided against the claims of his
subordinates, upheld the title of Lord Baltimore to
the land, and directed that all grants to the Church
or for church uses must be obtained from the Pro-
prietary, and that those claimed from the Indians
sliould be surrendered. He further renounced all
claim to immunity from the operation of the laws
of tlie land, and agreed that no priest should be
sent to Maryland without the consent and approval
of Lord Baltimore. The priests Avho had proved
troublesome were recalled and others sent in their
places. This difficulty was thus amicably ended,
and the missions in Maryland continued to be served
by the Jesuits.
But Lord Baltimore was careful to guard against
the recurrence of similar difficulties in the future, by
withdrawing from his Deputy Governor in Maryland
the power to grant any land whatever to ecclesias-
tical bodies. That power he concluded to reserve
to himself He shortly thereafter prepared new
conditions of plantation. By these conditions the
provisions of the English statutes of mortmain were
practically extended to Maryland, and the taking
up of land by any society or corporation, temporal
or spiritual, was prohibited. It is interesting to
note the permanent influence of this conflict between
Lord Baltimore and the Jesuits upon legislation in
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 49
Maryland. In this State alone no religious body
can acquire land by purchase, gift or devise, except
a small tract for a church building, without the
sanction of the Legislature, no bequest or devise
to a minister of religion as such is valid without
similar sanction, and no minister of religion is
permitted to be a member of the Legislature.
At a session of the Assembly begun in January,
1638, the first of which any record exists, a body
of laws transmitted by the Lord Proprietary to be
adopted by the Assembly for the government of the
Province was presented, and rejected by that body,
the only votes in their favor being cast by the
Governor and Secretary with their proxies. The
Assembly then proceeded to adopt laws of their
own framing, which were sent to the Proprietary
for his approval, and in turn, rejected by him.
Here was a struggle immediately precipitated as
to the right to initiate legislation. By the terms of
the charter of Maryland, laws for the government
of the Province were to be enacted by the Lord
Proprietary, with the assent of the freemen of the
province or a majority of them or their delegates.
The enacting power was not with the legislative
body, but with the Proprietary. But the former
promptly claimed the right to propose or originate
legislation. This claim Lord Baltimore at first
resisted, resting upon the express terms of his
charter ; but perceiving that the prolongation of a
dispute upon this subject would leave the Province
4
50 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
without any laws at all during its continuance, he,
with that singular good judgment which he mani-
fested on other occasions as well as this, and which
enabled him, firm and resolute as he was in asserting
and defending his rights, to recognize the occasions
when a reasonable concession could be wisely made,
yielded the point, and in the following August
commissioned the Governor, his brother, Leonard
Calvert, to give assent in his name to such laws
as he should think fit, which should be consented
to and approved by the freemen of the province, or
their deputies in Assembly. Such laws, so approved,
should continue in force in the Province until they
should subsequently be finally disapproved by the
Lord Proprietary by an instrument under his hand
and the great seal of the Province ; but if confirmed
by the Proprietary, they should thereafter be irrevo-
cable by him.
At this session of the Assembly the three Jesuit
priests, being freemen of the province, were sum-
moned as members. On the first day Mr. Robert
Gierke, of St. Mary's, answered for them and asked
that they be excused by reason of sickness. At roll
call on the second day he asked that they be excused
altogether from attendance, which was allowed. That
the sickness referred to would more properly be
described as an indisjyositioii, is apparent from the
letter of Father Copley to Lord Baltimore in relation
to this session and its proceedings in which he says :
" It was not fit we should be there in person, and
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 51
our proxies would not be admitted in that manner as
we could send them ;^^ and so they were ^^ excluded."
It was not to be expected that the political strife in
England, which was soon to result in the temporary
overthrow of the royal power and the death of
the King, would be without its echo in Maryland.
Though far removed from the scene of conflict, there
were partisans here both of King and Parliament.
Early in the year 1644, Governor Calvert having
gone to England to confer with his brother about
the affairs of the Province, there came to St. Mary^s
a sea captain named Richard Ingle, commanding
a vessel called the Reformation. He was arrested
by the authorities on the charge of using violent
and treasonable language concerning the King, and
committed to the custody of the sheriff, but Captain
Cornwaleys and Mr. Neale, two members of the
Council, restored him to his vessel. He thereupon
sailed without waiting for the formality of a clear-
ance, but he soon returned, and after committing a
number of violences, again departed, this time taking
with him his friend Cornwaleys as a passenger for
England.
Governor Calvert upon his arrival in Septem-
ber of the same year, found the colony in much
disquiet. Claiborne, who has been described as the
arch-enemy of Maryland, had been making secret
visits to Kent Island seeking to stir up sedition
^Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 158 (already
referred to on p. 47).
52 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
among the settlers at that place. Ingle meanwhile
returned, this time Avith an armed vessel and some
sort of a commission from Parliament ; — letters of
marque, he claimed. He seized possession of St.
Mary's, the seat of government of the Province,
and for about two years kept up a state of anarchy.
He appears to have been little else than a pirate
and marauder, — equipped with sufficient force to
overthrow the existing government, but without
either ability or disposition to establish another in
its place. He pillaged plantations, despoiled dwell-
ings of everything valuable, even to the locks and
hinges on the doors, stole the great seal of the
Province, — it being made of silver, — and wrought
havoc generally. No records were kept of proceed-
ings during his sway, and many of the records of
earlier date were lost or destroyed.
Ingle's depredations appear to have been entirely
impartial, for he did not spare even the plantation
of Cornwaleys, to whose intervention he owed his
own escape from justice the year before, and from
whom he appears besides to have embezzled mer-
chandise to the value of about £200, entrusted to
him for sale. But then Cornwaleys was a Roman
Catholic ; and when he sought redress at law in
England for the injuries done him. Ingle addressed
a whining petition to the House of Lords in which
he declared that he had only taken goods from
wicked papists and malignants in Maryland, and
represented that " it would be of a dangerous
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 53
example to permit papists and maliguants to bring
actions of trespass or otherwise against the well
affected for fighting and standing for Parliament." ^
Leonard Calvert promptly applied to Governor
Berkely, of Virginia^ for assistance, and with a
small force composed of recrnits drawn from that
colony, and of Marylanders who had sought refuge
there, he recovered possession of St. Mary's and
restored order to the Province. A general pardon
was proclaimed to all insurgents who would take
the oath of fidelity, with the exception of Claiborne,
Ingle, and one Durford, who was an associate and
accomplice of Ingle in the insurrection.
The authority of the Proprietary was thus for
the time being restored, but Leonard Calvert, the
Governor, did not live long to enjoy the fruits of
his efforts, as he died in June, 1 647, having first
named Thomas Greene, one of the Council, as his
successor. It was at the ensuing session of the
Assembly, in January, 1648, that Mistress Margaret
Brent made her famous demand for a seat in that
body and a vote both in her own right and as
attorney for Lord Baltimore.^
Meanwhile, events had marched with rapid strides
in England. The battles of Marston Moor and
Naseby had been fought, and the King of England
was a prisoner in the hands of the Parliament.
Recognizing the necessity under this condition of
^ Md. Archives. Proceedings of Council^ 1636-1667, p. 166.
^ Md. Archives. Proceedings of Assembly, 1637/8-1664, p. 215. *
y
54 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
affairs, of so ordering the government of the Province,
if he were to retain possession of it, as to refute
the charge which his untiring enemies, Ckiiborne
and his associates, Avere continually bringing, that
it was a hotbed of popery. Lord Baltimore, in
1648, appointed William Stone, a Protestant and
friend of the Parliament, as Governor, in the room
of Greene, and reorganized the Council so that one-
half the members were Protestants. In order to
preserve the principles of religious liberty, which he
had maintained in the Province from its foundation,
principles which had been faithfully observed during
the governorship of his brother. Lord Baltimore
embodied in the oath of office to be taken by the
newly appointed Governor and the members of the
Council a provision that they would molest or
disturb no inhabitant of the Province on account of
his religion. And in the following year the famous
Act concerning religion, generally referred to as the
Maryland Act of Toleration, was, at the instance of
Lord Baltimore, adopted by the Assembly. The
importance of this Act, and the interest which has
attached to it, make it worthy of a somewhat fuller
examination than can be undertaken at this hour ;
its consideration will therefore be deferred until
another afternoon.
Virginia was, as to religion, essentially under the
influence of the Church of England ; but in 1642, the
number of Puritans in that Colony had become suffi-
ciently large to lead to the sending thither from New
THE 3IABYLAND PALATINATE 55
England of three ministers to take spiritual oversight
of these settlers. In the following year the Virginia
Assembly passed an act reqniring all ministers to
conform to the Church of England, and directing
the Governor and Council to compel all non-con-
formistSj upon notice, to leave the Province "with
all conveniency." ^ Five years later two of the
Puritan ministers were ordered to go, and they
sought refuge in Maryland, where liberty of con-
science was assured. They were cordially received
by Governor Stone, and soon a large number of
Puritans from Virginia followed, who established a
settlement on the banks of the Severn, to which
they gave the name of Providence. Glad as these
immigrants were to avail of the freedom which
Maryland offered, and to accept the established
conditions of plantation, which were the same as
those prescribed for all settlers, their restless spirits
were not long content with such a tranquil condition
as complete toleration afforded. As the laws did
not disturb them, there seemed to be no course left
to them but to disturb the laws. It seemed to them
a wicked thing that Roman Catholics should enjoy
the same liberty as was accorded to them, and
in fact peace and quiet did not agree with them.
First, they objected to taking the oath of fidelity
required of all settlers, alleging scruples of con-
science ; but, as Dr. Browne remarks in his history
^ Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, p. 21.
56 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
of George and Cecilius Calvert, ^Hliat seems an
overniceness, since no sciniple apparently intervened
to prevent their breaking it when taken.'' ^ When
called upon to select their delegates for the Assembly,
they refused to do so, explaining afterwards that
they anticipated a speedy overthrow of the Pro-
prietary's authority. Tlioir anticipations, partly
through their own co-operation, proved prophetic.
King Charles I. had expiated his faults and his
blunders upon the scaifold. Virginia, with enthu-
siastic loyalty, promptly proclaimed Charles II.
King, and made it treason to utter anything against
the House of Stuart, or in favor of a Puritan
Parliament. Governor Stone having occasion to
be absent from Maryland temporarily, designated
as deputy during his absence, his own predecessor,
Thomas Greene, who seized upon the moment of
his brief authority to follow the example of Virginia
and proclaim Charles II. with public rejoicings and
a general pardon. Stone promptly returned and
removed Greene from office ; but the mischief had
been done. Claiborne, the watchful and untiring
enemy of Lord Baltimore, saw his opportunity. He
had lately been an ardent royalist and President of
the Council of Virginia ; but no politician, ancient or
modern, could change face quicker than he. He
immediately espoused the side of Parliament, and
secured the designation of himself as one of the com-
^ Georye and Cecilius Calvert, Barons of Baltimore, p. 139.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 57
missioners appointed for the reductiou of Virginia
to submission. He wished the commission to read
Virginia and Maryland, but upon Lord Baltimore's
representation that the proclamation of Charles II.
was made without either his authority or knowledge,
it wias agreed that Maryland should be omitted.
Claiborne then, with characteristic duplicity, had the
commission framed to apply to all the plantations
within the bay of Chesapeake, relying successfully
upon English ignorance of American geography.
Maryland, therefore, while not mentioned by name,
was included by geographical description.
Two of the commissioners appointed were lost
at sea, so that the office devolved upon the survi-
vors, Richard Bennett, one of the Puritans who
had sought and found asylum under the liberal
laws of Maryland ; Edmund Curtis, who does not
figure conspicuously in subsequent transactions ;
and William Claiborne himself, whose covetous
eye was never removed from Kent Island, the
possession of which he sought.
These commissioners, acting under the authority
vested in them by the English Parliament, proceeded
to remove the Governor and Council appointed by
Lord Baltimore, and confided the government to
a council composed of William Fuller, one of the
settlers at Providence, and others, to be conducted
in the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of
England. Governor Stone and Thomas Hatton,
the Secretary, were, however, reinstated upon con-
58 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
seiiting to accept appointments at the hands of
the commissioners^ though reserving and saving to
themselves the oath taken to the Lord Proprietary
until the pleasure of the State of England could
be known. Writs for elections to a General Assembly
'vere issued Avith the provision that no Roman
Catholics should be eligible as delegates or per-
mitted to vote. A new Act concerning religion
was passed, expressly excluding from toleration any
persons adhering to papacy or prelacy.
Meanwhile, Lord Baltimore was not idle in
England. After Cromwell had dissolved the Parlia-
ment and caused himself to be declared Protector,
the authority claimed by the commissioners expired,
and Lord Baltimore directed Governor Stone to
reassert the authority of the Proprietary. Stone
gathered a force and marched upon Providence.
Fuller assembled his forces and with the assist-
ance of two armed merchantmen, then in port,
defeated the force under command of Governor
Stone, who surrendered upon promise of quarter.
In spite of his promise, Fuller, immediately after
the surrender, proceeded to hold a court-martial,
and condemned Stone and nine others to death.
In execution of the sentence four of the pris-
oners were murdered, and the lives of the
remainder were saved only by the refusal of
Fuller's own soldiers to be the instruments of his
treachery, and by the intercession of some humane
women. Stone, who was wounded, was cast into
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 59
prison, and the Puritan influence Avas for tlie time
triumphant.
The claims of Lord Baltimore for restoration to
his rights under his charter, were finally recognized
in Enf^land, and a decision rendered in his favor.
Meanwhile, Governor Stone being in prison. Lord
Baltimore commissioned one Josias Fendall as his
successor ; and upon articles of agreement being
entered into in England between Lord Baltimore
and Richard Bennett, one of the commissioners,
for the restoration of the Province to the Pro-
prietary, the government was eventually, in 1658,
surrendered to Fendall as his representative. The
very same year Fendall proved traitor to his chief,
and joined with the Assembly in a new effort
to overthrow the authority of the Proprietary.
Cromwell, who had finally proved the powerful
supporter of the validity of Lord Baltimore's
claims, — in spite of the efforts of the commissioners
to have Maryland wiped off the face of the map,
by the restoration of the boundaries of Virginia
to what they were before the dissolution of the
A-^irginia Company, — was no longer living. The
title of Protector had passed to his son ; but the
power of the office had expired with its creator.
In Maryland the delegates to the Assembly took
the initiative in revolt by informing the Gover-
nor, Fendall, that they, the Assembly, claimed
to be vested with the supreme authority in the
Province. The latter responded that it was his
60 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
belief that the intent of the charter granted by
Charles I. was to give the freemen full power
to make laws without the assent of the Pro-
prietary. How he reached this conclusion^ when
the charter expressly provided that the Proprie-
tary should make the laws^ with the assent of the
freemen, it is difficult to imagine. At all events
his logic served his own purpose, and he surrendered
his commission as Goveruor appointed by Lord
Baltimore, and accepted the same office at the
hands of the Assembly. This rebellion was of brief
duration. Charles II. acceded to the throne. Lord
Baltimore appointed his youngest brother, Philip
Calvert, Governor in the place of Fendall, and the
latter's brief sway was terminated.
For the remaining fifteen years of Cecilius' life-
time the affairs of the Province were unmarked by
any special disturbance. In 1661, shortly after the
events just referred to. Lord Baltimore appointed
his son and heir, Charles Calvert, Governor, with
Philip Calvert as Secretary, and once more the
Proprietary was brought into as close touch with
the Province as he had been while the governor-
ship was held by his brother, Leonard, who came
out with the first settlers. Upon the death of
Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, in 1675, Charles succeeded
to his title and estates, and as Lord Proprietary
continued for some years, with brief interruptions,
to reside in the Province and exercise the govern-
ment in person.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 61
The proprietaryship of Cecilius extended over a
period of more than forty years. During that time
he expended large sums of money and impaired his
private fortune in the development of his American
Province^ but did not live to reap the reward of
his labors. From the beginning he was beset with
difficulties, which continued almost to the end. He
had to face the active and persistent hostility of
Claiborne and those of the Virginia Company who
held with him, and who missed no occasion for
seeking his overthrow. He early had a conflict
with the Jesuits, both in respect to land tenures
and questions of jurisdiction. His authority was
interrupted by the Ingle rebellion, and temporarily
overthrown by the commissioners of Parliament
and the Puritan party. Fendall, his own appointee,
proved a traitor to his trust. But, throughout,
Cecilius seems never to have lost courage, and under
all circumstances he bore himself with wisdom,
patience, forbearance and tact, and by these quali-
ties he triumphed in the end. His own interests
and his own authority he carefully guarded ; but
at the same time he as carefully sought the welfare
of the Province and of the people who were in a
sense his subjects ; and when concessions seemed
reasonably demanded he knew how and when to
yield, and so exercised a much less autocratic power
than was conferred by the terms of the charter
from which his authority was derived.
Efforts have sometimes been made to belittle
62 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
the character of CeciliuS; the first Proprietary of
Maryland, and to ascribe his acts, even the wisest
and the most liberal, to a narrow selfishness.
The assertion has been made that Cecilius lay
under such suspicion that he was detained in Eng-
land as a hostage for the good behavior of his
representatives in America, as well as by the'
necessity, imposed by the terms of his charter, of
personally presenting two Indian arrows annually
at Windsor.'
As a matter of fact he remained in England
solely for the purpose of watching and resisting
the eiforts that were being constantly made by
interested persons to secure the annulment of his
charter. He found, with regret, that he could best
serve the interests of the colonists by remaining
at home, and therefore sacrificed his inclination to
take personal part in the planting of the colony.
On one occasion, during the Commonwealth, Lord
Baltimore, writing to refute charges of disloyalty
brought against him by those who coveted the
Province, and therefore sought to deprive him of
it, referred to the fact that his estates and residence
in England were security for him. But the refer-
ence was clearly to his landed estate, which would
be subject to confiscation for treason, and not to
any obligation as to his personal residence in the
^ Religion under the Barons of Baltimore, by Rev. C. E.
Smith, D. D., p. 121.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE b6
kingdom.^ And it is true that upon one occasion
when he was thought to be contemplating a voyage
to America a writ ne exeat was sued out to prevent
his leaving the kingdom ; but this grew out of
private litigation and was absolutely without public
or political significance.
The suggestion about the personal delivery of
the arrows at Windsor is hardly worthy of com-
ment. The immediate successor of Cecil ius lived
a number of years in Maryland, and two at least
of his successors spent a good deal of time on
the continent of Europe ; but the regular delivery
of arrows went on. The receipts for these arrows
preserved among the Calvert papers in the posses-
sion of the Maryland Historical Society range
in date from 1633 down to 1765.2 They were
signed by the Governor or Constable of Windsor
Castle, or by some official as his representative, and
generally recite that they were delivered by the
hands of a servant or messenger. The receipts were
signed in the name of the King, except that for
several years, beginning with 1655, they were signed
on behalf of the Lord Protector, and the one for
the year 1660, just before the restoration of Charles
II., in the name of Lord General Munck, (sic) for the
Commonwealth of England. On one occasion only,
and that was in 1661, does it appear that Cecilius
1 Md. Archives. Proceedings of Council, 1636-1667, p. 280.
''Md. Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert 3ISS., Docs. 842-879.
64 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
presented them in person. On April IGtli of that
year, it appears from the form of receipt that he
did personally deliver the arrows into the hands
of the King himself, whose restoration to the throne
had but recently occurred.
Historians of the highest rank, who have studied
the acts and character of Cecilius, have expressed
their conclusions invariably in terms of praise.
McMahon wrote: "The character of Cecilius,
the founder of Maryland, has come down to us,
identified in his acts, and in the language of his-
torians, with religious liberty and respect for the
rights of the people.^' " Never '^ (said Dr. Ramsay)
"did a people enjoy more happiness than the people
of Maryland under Cecilius, the father of the
Province.'^ And on his tombstone (said the care-
ful annalist Chalmers) ought to be engraven, "That
while fanaticism deluged the empire, he refused his
assent to the repeal of a law, which in the true spirit
of Christianity, gave liberty of conscience to all.^^ ^
Fiske's conclusion was that " There is no doubt
as to the lofty personal qualities of the second Lord
Baltimore, his courage and sagacity, his disinterested
public spirit, his devotion to the noble ideal which
he had inherited.'^ ^
Dr. Wm. Hand Browne writes : " Every engine
had been brought to bear against him : fraud, mis-
Histoncal View of the Govt, of Mel, p. 221.
^Old Virginia and her Neighbors, Vol. II, p. 150.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 65
representation, religious animosities, and force; and
each for a time had succeeded. He owed his
triumph to neither violence, fraud nor intrigue,
but to the justice of his cause, and his wisdom,
constancy and patience.'^ ^
Such testimony, uniformly borne by all who have
studied the subject impartially and written upon
it in the judicial spirit of historical investigation,
may be accepted as conclusive evidence of the high
character of Cecilius Calvert, second Lord Baltimore
and first Proprietary of Maryland.
The subject of religious toleration in Maryland,
with which his name is closely identified, will be
considered in the next lecture.
^ Maryland ; the History of a Palatinate, p. 88.
5
LECTURE III.
Religious Toleration in Maryland.
THERE is probably no one piece of legislation,
enacted during the colonial period of this
country, that has given rise to so much contro-
versy as to its merits as the Act concerning religion,
passed by the Assembly of Maryland, on April 21,
1649. It has' been described by the distinguished
jurist and historian McMahon, as " one of the
proudest memorials of our colonial history ; '^ ^ and
many others have written of it in similar *terms.
On the other hand there have been those to decry
it — and a recent writer has gone so far as to denounce
this same Act as " really a most disgraceful piece
of intolerance,^' and to impugn the motives of all
that were concerned in its enactment.^ With views
so divergent, or rather contradictory, held and
expressed in relation to this Act, it is worth while
to consider somewhat carefully its actual provisions
and the circumstances under which it became a
law.
That there should be liberty of conscience and
freedom in the exercise of religion, had been the
^Historical View of the Govt, of Md., p. 227.
^ Smith, Religion under' the Barons of Baltimore, p. 319.
6Q
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 67
settled policy of Lord Baltimore from the founda-
tion of the colony. We have seen how, in the
instructions given to the first colonists upon setting
sail, it was specially enjoined that the Governor
and commissioners were to be very careful to pre-
serve unity and peace amongst all the passengers,
that no oifence be given to any of the Protestants,
and that Roman Catholics were to be instructed to
be silent upon all occasions of discourse concerning
matters of religion. This rule of conduct was
strictly observed in the colony before any Act
concerning religion was passed. DiiHhg the early
years of the Province, the government, except
when temporarily overthrown by the rebellion of
Claiborne and Ingle, was in the control of the
Proprietary. The lower house of Assembly soon
became a popular rep-esentative body, and a large
majority of the freemen were at an early date
Protestants; but the Governor and Council who
constituted the upper house were appointees of
the Proprietary. He sought to select those upon
whom he could depend to guard his interests and
carry out his policy, and the first Governor, who was
the Proprietary's brother, as well as a majority of
the Council, were Roman Catholics.
Soon after the founding of the Province a pro-
clamation was issued prohibiting disputes tending
to cause factions in religion. No record of this
proclamation has been discovered, but it is referred
to and quoted in a case which arose in 1638.
68 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
It is worthy of note, that the records show but
two cases of violation of the Proprietary's instruc-
tions, by which this subject appears to have been
governed prior to the passage of the law of 1649 ;
and in both cases the offenders were Roman Catholics
who were arraigned and promptly punished for
molesting Protestants upon religious matters. The
first was the one just referred to, in 1638. One
William Lewis, a Roman Catholic in the employ-
ment of Thomas Cornwaleys, came into a room in
which two servants of his master who were lodged
with him, wer^eading aloud a book of sermons by a
Protestant minister. Lewis denounced the author,
Protestant ministers in general, and forbade the
men to read such books in his house. For this
he was tried before the Governor, Secretary Lewger
and Thomas Cornwaleys, all Roman Catholics,
condemned, and sentenced to pay a fine of 500
lbs. of tobacco and required to give security for
his future good behavior.^
The second case arose in 1642, when Thomas
Gerrard, also a Roman Catholic, carried off some
books and the key from a chapel at St. Mary's
under claim of some property rights therein. The
Protestants, who apparently worshipped in the
chapel, appealed to the Assembly for redress. That
body ordered the return of the articles removed, the
relinquishment by Gerrard of all claim to the
1 Md. Archives : Provincial Court, 1637-1650, p. 38.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 69
chapel, and imposed upon him a fine of 500 lbs.
of tobacco to be applied toward the support of
the first Protestant minister who should come to
the Province.^
It is clear therefore that the principle of religious
toleration prescribed by Lord Baltunore was fully
recognized, and was enforced, before the enactment
in the Province of any statute upon the subject.
When, upon the overthrow of the royal power
in England and the triumph of a Puritan Parlia-
ment, Lord Baltimore recognized the necessity of
reorganizing the government of the Province by
the appointment of a Protestant Governor, he
required that Governor to see that the same liberty
of conscience should be secured to the Koman
Catholics as his predecessors had accorded to the
Protestants. He therefore introduced into the oath
of office 2 to be taken by him a special provision
that he would not himself or by any person, directly
or indirectly, trouble, molest or discountenance any
person whatsoever m the Province professmg to
believe in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman
Catholic, for or in respect of his or her religion,
nor in his or her free exercise thereof within the
said Province so as they be not unfaithful to his
Lordship or molest or conspire agamst the civil
government established here under hkn ; nor would
he make any difference of persons in conferring
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1637/8-1664, p. 119.
*Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1636-1667, p. 210.
70 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
of offices, rewards or favors in respect of their
religion, but merely as he should find them faithful
and well deserving. The Governor was further
sworn that if any officer or other person should,
during the time of his being Governor, without his
consent or privity, molest or disturb any person
within the Province professing to believe in Jesus
Christ, merely for or in respect of his or her religion
or the free exercise thereof he would upon notice
or complaint use his power and authority to relieve
and protect any person so molested or troubled so
that they should have right done them, and to the
utmost of his power would cause any such disturbers
to be punished.
Together with the commission to the new Gover-
nor and the form of oath prescribed for him. Lord
Baltimore transmitted to the Governor and Council
a body of sixteen laws to each of which he affixed
his hand and seal in advance, with instructions
that if the whole were assented to by the General
Assembly without alteration or amendment, they
should be considered as enacted, and in that event
all previous laws should be held as repealed,
excepting any acts of attainder or condemnation
against Claiborne.
These sixteen laws were evidently to constitute
a complete code for the colony. In his commission
accompanying them. Lord Baltimore stated that
they " were proposed unto us for the good and quiet
settlement of our colony and people in our said
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 71
Province, and we finding them very fit to be enacted
as laws there, do hereby consent " ^ for them to be
presented to the Assembly.
When these laws were proposed to the Assembly
all was not smooth sailing. Instead of assenting
without alteration or amendment to the sixteen laws
submitted to them, the Assembly at a session held
in April 1649 adopted twelve laws and ordinances
of which a portion only were of the number of
those proposed by the Proprietary ; and apparently
these did not escape amendment. Some of the laws
passed related to hogs, the marking of cattle and
planting of corn, subjects which though important
matters of regulation in an agricultural community,
would hardly have been dealt with in what was
evidently intended to form a code or fundamental
body of laws for the government of the Province.
There is, besides, internal evidence of a difference
in authorship, as some of the laws passed at this
session were drawn by much less scholarly hands
than were engaged in framing those which both
from substance and form may reasonably be ascribed
to the number prepared for and sent out by Lord
Baltimore.
Of the laws passed by this Assembly, the first
one was the now famous Act concerning religion.^
That this Act was substantially in accord with a law
proposed by Lord Baltimore is evident ; but the late
1 Md. Archives : Proc. of Council, 1636-1667, p. 220.
^3Id. Archives: Proc. of AssetiMy, 1637/8-1664, p. 244.
72 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Mr. Fiske was apparently in error when he wrote ^
that it "was drawn up by Cecilius himself and
passed the Assembly exactly as it came from him
without amendment." That it was prepared by his
order and his direction is certain ; but the laws
which he submitted were described as having been
proposed to, and approved by him. The determina-
tion of their form had evidently been entrusted to
some one learned in the law and familiar with legal
phraseology and forms.
What debate occurred in the Assembly in relation
to the draft of laws sent over, we do not know.
The session lasted from April 2 to April 21, but
the record of the last day^s proceedings only has
been preserved. Possibly some of those who took
part in the discussions had reason to wish that the
records should not be preserved, and their wishes
were respected.
The attitude of the Assembly is however fully
shown in a letter ^ addressed by that body to Lord
Baltimore explanatory of their action. It is plain
that some portions of the laws were regarded with
suspicion by the delegates. In view of the drift of
events in England, Lord Baltimore had sought to
secure from the Assembly a formal recognition and
acknowledgment of the absolute authority and royal
rights and prerogatives which had been conferred
upon him by his charter from the King, who was
^ Old Virginia and her Neighbors, Vol. I, p. 309.
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1637/8-1664, p. 238.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 73
a captive in the hands of his subjects at the time
these laws were prepared, and had been put to death
before the action of the Maryland Assembly. In
fact it is evident from Lord Baltimore's letter of
August 6, 1650, addressed to the Governor and
Assembly, tnat the recognition of his title as " Lord
Proprietary '^ was one of the stumbling blocks,
some suspecting, or pretending to suspect, that the
acknowledgment of his rights as ^^Proprietary''
might impair the title to lands already granted/
The spirit of democracy was already awakened
and there was no disposition to confirm such ample
powers as were granted by the royal charter.
The delegates pleaded their inability from alleged
illiteracy and slowness of understanding to give
a mature and wise discussion of such a body
of laws as was now proposed, and protested that
though they had with much solicitude and earnest
endeavor, according to their weak understanding,
read over, perused and debated upon all the said body
of laws, in real desire for compliance in receiving
them as laws, they had found them so long and
tedious, with so many branches and clauses as to
require a much more serious and longer discussion
of them than could then be given. As it was a
condition imposed that the laws should be enacted
as a whole without amendment, they had thought
it "most prudential" not to meddle at all with
1 Md. Archives : Proc. of Assembly, 1637/ 8-1664, i\ 316.
74 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
them as a body, but to take action only upon such
matters as they conceived his Lordship to hold most
urgent ; the first of which they understood to be that
the country be preserved with peace, and defended
and governed with justice. To that end they had
selected out of all his Lordship's laws such as
seemed to them most conducing to confirm a long
desired and settled peace among them, and had
added such others of their own, as they conceived
to be most necessary. The delegates clearly wished
to have a finger in the drafting of laws, and did not
want any more sent out cut and dried, signed and
sealed in advance ; for they included in their letter
a request to his Lordship thereafter to send them no
more such bodies of laws, which, as they said, " serve
to little other end than to fill our heads with suspi-
cions, jealousies and dislikes of that which verily we
understand not. Rather we shall desire your Lord-
ship to send some short heads of what is desired
and then we do assure your Lordship of a most
forward willingness in us to give your Governor
all just satisfaction that can be thought reasonable
by us.'' The charter of Maryland provided that
laws were to be enacted by the Proprietary with
the assent of the freemen. The Assembly proposed
to reverse this order of procedure and finally suc-
ceeded in doing so.
In the Act concerning religion, as adopted, it
was declared in the preamble that in a Christian
commonwealth matters concerning religion and the
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 75
honor of God ought in the first place to be taken
into serious consideration and settled.
The Act then proceeded to provide that whoever
should blaspheme God, deny that the Savior Jesus
Christ was the Son of God, or deny the divinity of
either person of the Holy Trinity, should be pun-
ished with death and confiscation of lands and
goods ; that reproachful words concerning the
Blessed Virgin Mary or any of the Apostles or
Evangelists, should be punished by fine, and in
default thereof by whipping and imprisonment,
with increased punishment for a second offence,
and banishment and forfeiture for a third; that
the using of reproachful names towards any per-
son, whether inhabitants, or persons trading in
the Province, on account of religion, such as
calling one a heretic, schismatic, idolator, Puritan,
Presbyterian, popish priest, Jesuit, papist, Lutheran,
Calvinist, etc., or any other name or term relating
to religion in a reproachful manner should be
punished by fine, and in default thereof by whip-
ping and imprisonment until the offender should
ask forgiveness publicly of the person aggrieved ;
that profaning of the Sabbath or Lord's Day, called
Sunday, by frequent swearing, drunkenness, or
uncivil or disorderly recreation, or by labor, except
in case of necessity, should be punished by fine,
increasing in amount with repetition of the offence ;
and in default of fine, by imprisonment for the first
and second offences, until acknowledgment of the
76 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
fault before a magistrate, with whipping for each
subsequent offence.
The Act then continued with a second preamble,
and recited that "Whereas the enforcing of the
conscience in matters of religion hath frequently
fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in those
commonwealths in which it hath been practised,
and for the more quiet and peaceable government
of this Province, and the better to preserve mutual
love and amity amongst the inhabitants^ thereof,"
it was further enacted by the Lord Proprietary with
the advice and consent of the Assembly, that no
person or persons whatsoever within the Province,
professing to believe in Jesus Christ, should from
henceforth be any ways troubled, molested or dis-
countenanced, for or in respect of his or her religion,
nor in the free exercise thereof within this Province
or the Islands thereunto belonging, nor any way
compelled to the belief or exercise of any other
religion against his or her consent so as they be
not unfaithful to the Lord Proprietary, or molest
or conspire against the civil government. Punish-
ment was provided for violations of this provision
by fine, and damages to the person wronged.
The construction of this Act with its two pre-
ambles, the second one occurring in the body of
the law, suggests the possibility that it was framed
from two proposed Acts. The phraseology in the
second division, in which the principle of religious
liberty is clearly enounced, is identical in part with
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 77
the oath prescribed by Lord Baltimore to be taken
by the newly appointed Governor.
The earlier portion of the Act in which the
t punishment of death was provided for any one
jl^ho should deny the divinity of either person of the
i Holy Trinity, can hardly be considered an ideal
establishment of religious liberty as that subject
is viewed at the present day. But it is in the
light of the seventeenth century and not that of
the twentieth that the measure must be judged.
There is moreover no evidence that there were any
settlers then in the colony to whom this penalty
would apply, and it is very certain that this clause
of the law was never at any time invoked against
any person.
The provision prohibiting the use of terms denoting
religious beliefs or affiliations, as terms of reproach
and opprobrium, indicated a Avise appreciation of
the importance of avoiding the most likely causes
of ill-feeling, which might quickly develop into
quarrels and strife.
The form of the provision in respect to the
profanation of the Sabbath, or Lord's Day, called
Sunday, suggests that it was the subject of amend-
ment by the Puritan freemen, if the entire clause
were not inserted by the Assembly. It is extremely
unlikely that Lord Baltimore, or his counsellors,
would have used the word Sabbath as synonymous
with the Lord's Day or Sunday. The designation
of Sunday as the Sabbath was adopted by the
78 THJE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Puritans with their fondness for Hebrew names
and nomenclature, and such use gradually became
more general. But at the time of this Act the
word Sabbath was still very generally, and properly,
applied to the seventh day of the week. Father
White, in the Latin version of his narrative of the
Voyage to Maryland, speaks of certain events as
occurring on the Sabbath (Sabbatum), and refers
to the next day as the Lord's Day (Dominica)}
And in the proceedings of the Maryland Assembly
itself, one year later than the date of this Act, we
find in one place the journal of the House dated on
the Sabbath, April 6th, 1650, while the proceedings
two days later are dated Monday, the 8th, showing
that the older use of the word Sabbath as a name
for the last day of the week still remained.
A comparison of the different features of this Act
leads almost irresistibly to the conclusion that in its
form it was the result of a compromise between
somewhat divergent views upon the subject of tolera-
tion ; but the last portion, in which freedom of
religious liberty is broadly proclaimed and secured,
for the avowed purpose of promoting love and
amity among the inhabitants, and the dangerous
consequences to the welfare of commonwealths of
a contrary practice are clearly recognized, plainly
appears, from the identity of language with that
prescribed for the form of oath for the Governor,
'^ Md. Hist. Soc, Belaiio Itineris in Marylandiam^ pp. 12, 13.
Cf. Calvert Papers, No. 3, p. 27.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 79
which accompanied the body of laws sent out by
the Proprietary, to have been a part at least of
the draft prescribed by Lord Baltimore. In the
letter of the Assembly already quoted, it was stated
that they recognized that one of the first desires
of the Proprietary was that the country might be
preserved in peace. This was the first Act passed
at that session, and its avowed purpose was the
promotion of love and amity among the inhabitants.
Although displeased that the body of laws which
had been prepared with much care did not receive
the assent of the freemen, Lord Baltimore, with
that well balanced wisdom which he manifested in
all the various difficulties which he encountered,
concluded to accept the Act in the form in which
it had been passed, and on August 6th, 1650,
confirmed this Act among others by an instrument
under his hand and seal. That it was not passed
in its original form is clearly indicated in Lord
Baltimore's letter to the Governor and Assembly
dated August 26th, 1651, in which he refers to
the fact that he had assented to the laws which
were passed, with such alterations as they them-
selves desired.^
When we compare the scope and purpose of this
Act with the contemporary views upon the subject
of religious differences, not only in England but in
the American colonies, and the intolerance practised
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1637/8-1664, pp. 322, 327.
80 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
in the other colonies^ we can recognize how greatly
Lord Baltimore, in causing freedom of religious
belief to be established by law in Maryland, was
in advance of his age.
At this period religious affiliation and political
faction were closely identified, and the animosities
resulting from religious and political differences
were consequently greatly intensified. Men were,
or professed to be, ardent adherents to this or that
religious faith, however little by their lives and
conversation they might be such as to adorn or do
credit to any religion ; and those who differed from
them upon questions of theology or ecclesiastical
polity, were regarded as enemies to society.
In New England men like John Winthrop and
John Cotton, neither of whom, as Mr. Fiske remarks,
had the temperament which persecutes, believed in
the principle of persecution. Cotton admitted that
it was wicked for falsehood to persecute truth, but
declared it to be the sacred duty of truth to
persecute falsehood.^ Such naive expressions from
one as learned and logical as- Cotton really was,
call to memory Pilate's cynical query, "What is
truth?''
In Massachusetts worship according to the forms
and usage of the Church of England was prohibited,
and later, laws were passed banishing Quakers from
the colony, with punishments prescribed for return-
^ Fiske, The Beginnings of N&w England (1889), p. 178.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 81
ing : for the first offence flogging and imprisonment
at hard labor ; for the second offence the ears were
to be cut off; and for a third the tongue was to be
bored with a hot iron. At length, in 1658, capital
punishment was decreed, and in October, 1659,
members of that society were actually hanged on
Boston Common for persisting in returning to the
colony. The bodies of the victims were denied
Christian burial and cast, uncovered, into a pit.^
Such was the narrow interpretation placed in the
seventeenth century upon the glorious words adopted
as the motto of this University : Veritas vos libera-
bit — "The truth shall make you free.^'
In Virginia, on the other hand, where the Church
of England was dominant, scant hospitality was
extended to Puritans. In 1643 an Act was passed
requiring all ministers residhig in that colony to
be conformed to the orders and constitution of the
Church of England, and making it the duty of
the Governor and Council to take care that all
non-conformists be compelled to depart the colony
with all convenience. The New England pastors
of Puritan congregations were banished from the
colony and their flocks harassed — a policy which
led large numbers of dissenters to abandon their
homes in Virginia and seek refuge in Maryland,
where, under the benign sway of Lord Baltimore,
it was a punishable offense to "disturb or molest"
^Fiske, The Beginnings of New England (1889), p. 189.
82 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
them on account of religious belief, or even to call
them ^' Calvinists ^^ in a reproachful manner.
It is with conditions such as these prevailing
to the north and to the south, that we have to
compare the religious toleration of Maryland.
That Lord Baltimore was the inventor of the idea
of toleration is not claimed. Roger Williams had
proclaimed it in Rhode Island before the Maryland
Act of Toleration was passed, but not before its
policy had been established in this colony.
On the 27th of October, 1645, an order had been
passed by the House of Commons, upon petition
of the inhabitants of the Summer Islands (the
Bermudas), that the inhabitants of these islands
and such as should join themselves to them, should,
without molestation or trouble, have and enjoy
liberty of conscience in matters of God's worship ;
but this order does not seem to have gone any
further, and without adoption by the House of Lords
it could not have had any binding effect in law.^
Mr. Gladstone, in the preface to his book entitled
"Rome, and the Newest Fashions in Religion,"
wrote that the (Maryland) Colonial Act seems to
have been an echo of this order of the House
of Commons in respect to the inhabitants of the
Summer Islands ; and of a British Ordinance of 1647.
His conclusion is, that " the picture of Maryland
legislation is a gratifying one; but the historic
' Johnson ; The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of the
Act concerning Religion. Md. Hist. Sac, 1883, p. 126, note.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 83
theory which assigns the credit of it to the Roman
Catholic Church has little foundation in fact."
It is not necessary to assign the credit of this
Act to the Roman Catholic Church, or to any other
religious body, or to the Protestant majority in the
Maryland Assembly. The simple fact of history
is that the Act was passed at the instance, or rather
upon the insistence, of Lord Baltimore himself; and
he was, at the time of its passage, a Roman Catholic.
It does not appear to have been passed in the exact
form which he desired, and fell short of assuring
the broad liberty upon religious matters which was
expressed in the language of the oath prescribed
for the Governor, which we know can be attributed
to Lord Baltimore, and a part of which was em-
bodied in the Act. The credit for establishing the
policy of religious toleration in Maryland, and the
chief credit for the passage of the Act, are simply
due to one man, the broad-minded Proprietary, and
not to any religious body.
As to Mr. Gladstone's comment, it ha^ already
been observed, that the order of the House of Com-
mons, in respect to the Summer Islands, which was
adopted at the instance of the Rev. Patrick Cop-
land, a clergyman of the Church of England,
never passed beyond that body and consequently
never had the force of law. The ordinance of
1647 which he referred to, embodied certain condi-
tions to be offered to Roman Catholics if they
desired to enjoy general liberty of conscience. Its
84 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
provisions were to extend only to native subjects,
and by it Roman Catholics were to be prohibited
from bearing arms, from holding office or from the
exercise of their religion otherwise than privately in
their own houses. It was an overture made by the
Independents, apparently to secure the co-operation
of the Roman Catholics in making common cause
with them against the Presbyterians; but when,
shortly after, the Independents obtained control of
Parliament and felt no longer in need of allies,
the matter was dropped.^
Mr. Gladstone described the Maryland Act as " an
echo" of these two ordinances, neither of which
ever acquired legal force so far as the records show.
They were projects, while the Maryland Act was
a formal fact. It gave no uncertain sound, and was
not an echo. It was the substance and the others
were the shadows, even though like those of coming
events, they were projected before.
It is well known that the Rev. Father Henry
More, Provincial of the Society of Jesus in England,
was the friend and adviser of Lord Baltimore, and
that in the controversy between the latter and the
Jesuit missionaries in Maryland, Father More took
sides Avith Lord Baltimore, and compelled his own
subordinates to recede from the position which they
had assumed in relation to the acquisition of lands
by gift from the Indians, irrespective of the title of
' Ibid.f p. 108 et seq.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 85
the Lord Proprietary derived under his charter from
the King of England^ and in their effort to assert
the supremacy of the canon law in respect to eccle-
siastical persons. Father More was not unfamiliar
with the principles of religious liberty ; and the
probability that he was the adviser of Lord Balti-
more in preparing his draft of laws for the Prov-
ince, has been ably argued by General Bradley
T. Johnson ii^. " The Foundation of Maryland/'
published by the Maryland Historical Society in
1883. His great grandfather, Sir Thomas More,
Lord High Chancellor of England, who more than
a century before had paid with his life's blood for
his unswerving adherence to principle, beheld a
vision afar off of a place, an island which he
called " Nowhere," in which absolute freedom of
religious belief prevailed.
In this mythical region, of which the very
name indicated that it was without location, it
was declared to be ^^one of the ancientest laws
among them, that no man shall be blamed for
reasoning in the maintenance of his own religion.
For King Utopus, even at the first beginning,
hearing that the inhabitants of the land were before
his coming thither, at continual dissension and
strife among themselves for their religions. . . .
First of all he made a decree that it should be
lawful for every man to favor and follow what
religion he would, and that he might do the best
he could to bring other to his opinion, so that
86 THB LORDS BALTIMORE AND
he did it peaceably, gently, quietly and soberly,
without hasty and contentious rebuking and inveigh-
ing against other. . . .
" This law did King Utopus make not only for
the maintenance of peace which he saw through
continual contention and mutual hatred utterly ex-
tinguished ; but also because he thought the decree
would make for the furtherance of religion." ^
In this Utopian dream of perfect religious liberty,
and the avoidance of religious contention, we seem
to hear the ring of that statute passed in Maryland
in which the use of religious designations as terms
of reproach was forbidden, and in the latter part
of which, — the part that plainly emanated from
Lord Baltimore, — the purpose was declared to
be the promotion of "love and amity among the
people.'^
Sir Thomas More saw the vision of such a blessed
state of affairs in an island — Nowhere. A century
later it became an accomplished fact in Maryland,
and the principles of the decree of King Utopus
were enacted into law and entered upon the statute
book of the Province.
Bancroft, the historian, makes this comment : —
" Thus did the star of religious freedom harbinger
the day ; though as it first gleamed above the horizon,
its light was colored and obscured by the mists and
exhalations of the morning." ^ And in another
^ Utopia, Book 2.
^ History of the United States, Vol. I, p. 68.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 87
place he says : — " The admiuistration of Maryland
was marked by conciliation and humanity. To
foster industry, to promote union, to cherish relig-
ious peace, — these were the honest purposes of Lord
Baltimore during his long supremacy/' ^
As to the motives which actuated Cecilius, Lord
Baltimore, in adopting the principle of religious
liberty in the government of his Province, we
have an explanation in the answer of his son
and successor, Charles, to certain enquiries about
Maryland addressed to him by the Lords of the
Committee of Trade and Plantations. This answer
was made in March, 1678 — three years only after
the death of Cecilius. It was in reply to queries
as to the number of clergymen of the Church of
England then in Maryland, and for an account of
all the Protestant families there, and the feasibility
of gathering them into congregations, with an
account of the dissenters from the Church of
England, and the number of ministers they had ;
and in general, an account of the number of
planters in Maryland, of what persuasion they
were in matters of religion, and the number of
each persuasion respectively. In fact it was a
religious census that was asked for.
To this Charles, Lord Baltimore, replied that the
making of such^ scrutinies would certainly either
endanger insurrections or a general dispeopling of
1 Ibkl., p. 438.
88 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
the Province, which was at present in great peace
and quiet, all persons there being secured, to their
content, for a quiet enjoyment of everything that
they could reasonably desire. The reason why such
scrutinies would be thus dangerous he stated as
follows: ^^At the first planting of this Province
by my father albeit he had an absolute liberty
given to him and his heirs to carry thither any
persons out of any of the dominions that belonged
to the Crown of England who should be found
willing to go thither, yet when he came to make
use of this liberty, he found very few who were
inclined to go and seat themselves in those parts,
but such as for some reason or other could not
live with ease in other places ; and of these a great
part were such as could not conform in all par-
ticulars to the several laws of England relating
to religion. Many there were of this sort of
people who declared their willingness to go and
plant themselves in this Province so they might
have a general toleration settled there by a law
by which all sorts who professed Christianity in
general might be at liberty to worship God in
such manner as was most agreeable with their
respective judgments and consciences, without being
subject to any penalties whatsoever for their so
doing, provided the civil peace were preserved ; and
that for the securing the civil peace and preventing
all heats and feuds which were generally observed
to happen amongst such as differ in opinions, upon
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 89
occasion of reproachful nicknames and reflecting
upon each others opinions, it might by the same
law be made penal to give any offence in that
kind. These were the conditions proposed by such
as were willing to go and be the first planters of
this Province, and without complying with these
conditions in all probability this Province had never
been planted. To these conditions my father agreed,
and accordingly soon after the first planting of this
Province these conditions by the unanimous con-
sent of all who were concerned were passed into
a law ; and the inhabitants of this Province have
found such effects from this law and from the
strict observance of it, as well in relation to their
quiet, as in relation to the further peopling of this
Province, that they look upon it as that whereon
alone depends the preservation of their peace, their
properties and their liberties. This being the true
state of the case of this Province, it is easy to
judge what consequences might ensue upon any
scrutinies which should be made in order to the
satisfying these particular enquiries." ^
The writer of this letter, Charles, Lord Baltimore,
was the son and heir of Cecilius, who had died in
1675. During the last fourteen years of his father's
life he had held from him the office of Governor of
Maryland and resided in the Province. No one knew
better than he his father's views and aims, or w^as more
familiar with the conditions existing in Maryland.
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, pp. 267, 268.
90 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
In this plain statement of the circumstances which
led to the establishment of religious toleration in
Maryland we do not find Cecilius represented as
having been influenced solely by a lofty perception
of the eternal justice of permitting liberty of con-
science, and neither do we find him described as a
religious enthusiast leading a band of his co-relig-
ionists into the wilderness of the new world for
conscience sake. But we do find that when he
offered to those who had been harassed and harried by
the enforcement of laws which made the observance
of certain forms of religious worship a punishable
offence, an opportunity of migration, and they
demanded assurances that they would not be con-
fronted in the new world with similar oppressions,
he recognized, in a spirit of broad liberality, the
reasonableness of the demand, and perceiving that
in asking liberty, they must, in obedience to a law
long before promulgated, but often forgotten, do as
they would be done by, he adopted the principle,
already known in theory but not in practice, of
absolute freedom of conscience for all who professed
and called themselves Christians. We see in this the
act, not of an apostle of truth, or of one who stood
as the exponent of a principle hitherto unthought
of, but rather that of a man who was governed by
a broad spirit of fairness and liberality, by a far-
sighted statesmanship, and who, as the record of
his life and his dealings with his Province amply
show, having accepted and adopted a principle far
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 91
in advance of the spirit of his age, adhered to it
unswervingly, enforced it impartially, and, as his
son testified, secured thereby to the inhabitants of
the Province, over the destinies of which he was
the arbiter, such effects that they regarded its
preservation, that upon which "their peace, their
properties and their liberties'' depended.
It is to be added that the principle of religious
fiberty adopted by the first Proprietary of Maryland
was essentially adhered to by his heirs and successors
in title, even by those of them who in subsequent
generations lacked both the ability and the virtues
of their progenitor. In after years we find attempts
at its infringement more than once resisted by those
whose dealings with the colony in other respects
fell far short of the standard set by its founder.
It is true that at one time there were certain orders
of Council adopted which bore hardly upon the
Quakers ; but these had no reference whatever to
religious questions. The facts were simply these.
The law required that every settler should take
an oath of fidelity to the Lord Proprietary and
of allegiance to the King. It further required, as
was natural in a frontier settlement, that every
man capable of bearing arms should be enrolled
in the militia, and be provided with arms and
ammunition. The Quakers refused to take the
oath, or enter into other engagement of fidelity,
alleging conscientious scruples, and also refused to
bear arms, — leaving the defence of the colony to
92 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
others. They were besides accused of trying to
dissuade others from bearing arms. As allegiance
to the government^ and preparation for defence
were deemed essential qualities in good citizens, it
was not unnatural that the government resented
the attitude of the Quakers. The objection was not
to their religious views, but to their demeanor as
subjects. However orderly the lives and behavior of
these peaceable people might be, they deliberately
defied laws the observance of which was deemed
most important ; and for this reason alone were
regarded with disfavor. An order was adopted
requiring that they should either comply with the
law or depart from the Province. If any one
having been thus banished should return he was
to be whipped from constable to constable until he
was again out of the Province. This order of
Council was not a statute of the Province, and it was
continued in force for little more than a year ; — it
was during FendalPs brief administration. In
the only case of record in which an attempt was
made to enforce the prescribed penalty, the accused
ingeniously and successfully pleaded that as he was
within the Province when the order was adopted
and had remained there in spite of it, he should
not be punished for returning} As a matter of fact
Quakers settled in the Province in large numbers,
were unmolested, and prospered.
' Proceedings of the Coumil, 1636-1667, pp. 362, 364.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 93
What was the temper of the freemen of the
Province upon the subject of religious liberty, when
once the firm hand of the Lord Proprietary was
removed, is shown by an Act of the Assembly
adopted in 1654, when the authority of Lord
Baltimore had been temporarily overthrown, and
dominion over the Province was exercised by
William Fuller and others, commissioners under
•the Commonwealth which had been established in
England. At this Assembly another Act concern-
ing religion was passed. Its principal provision
was ^'that none who profess and exercise the popish
religion, commonly known by the name of the
Roman Catholic religion, can be protected in
this Province by the laws of England formerly
established and yet unrepealed, nor by the Govern-
ment of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland
and Ireland, and the Dominions thereunto belong-
ing, published by his Highness the Lord Protector,
but are to be restrained from the exercise therof ;
therefore all and every person or persons concerned
in the law aforesaid are required to take notice.^^
Then follows this delicious parody upon the law
providing for religious toleration adopted five years
before :
"Such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ,
though differing in judgment from the doctrine,
worship and discipline publicly held forth, shall
not be restrained from, but shall be protected in
the profession of the faith and exercise of their
94 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
religioD, so they abuse not this liberty to the injury
of others or the disturbance of the public peace
on their part ; provided that this liberty be not
extended to popery or prelacy nor to such as under
the profession of Christ hold forth and practise
licentiousness." ^
This was religious liberty as the Puritans under-
stood it. There should be abundance of liberty ;
but K-oman Catholics and Episcopalians should
have no part in it. By the same Assembly the
former Act concerning religion was repealed.
When, in 1658, the government of the Province
was restored to the Lord Proprietary, the Acts
which had been passed by the Assembly since the
overthrow of his authority, and to none of which
his assent had been given, were treated as nullities ;
and so the old law of 1649 revived. And eighteen
years later, at an Assembly held in 1676, the first
one after the death of Cecilius, in order to clear
up the records and give certainty as to what laws
were in force in the Province, an Act was passed
enumerating all previous laws which had been
repealed, as well as all laws which remained in
force. Among the latter is found the Act of 1649
concerning religion. The Act of 1654 is not
mentioned in either category. It was recognized
only during the sway of the commissioners of
Parliament.^
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1637/8-1664, p. 340.
2 Md. Archives : Proc. of Assembly, 1666-1676, p. 548.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 95
Although somewhat anticipating the march of
events, it may not be out of place to note what was
the course of subsequent legislation in Maryland con-
cerning religion. When upon the accession of William
and Mary the authority of the Proprietary was again
overthrown, and the rule of the Province placed in
the hands of a Governor appointed by the Crown,
legislation soon followed, prescribing, for the first
time in Maryland, an Established Church. In
1692 an Act for the service of Almighty God and
the establishment of the Protestant religion was
passed. It provided for the establishment of the
Church of England ; for the proper observance
of the Lord's Day or Sunday (which in this Act
is not designated as the Sabbath) ; ^ prohibited
the sale of strong liquors on the Lord's Day,
and then proceeded to provide for the division of
counties into parishes, the choice of vestrymen and
the building of churches or chapels. Last but
not least a yearly tax of forty pounds of tobacco
per poll was levied upon all the taxables of the
parish, and the vestries were especially empowered
to accept any gifts or bequests whether of money,
goods, chattels, lands or tenements, whether for
the use of the minister or of the poor ; any law,
statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.^
It seemed to be difficult to get this legislation
^ As to use of the word Sabbath, see p. 78, supra.
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1684-1692, p. 425. Cf.
also conditions of plantation quoted on p. 48, sujyra.
96 THE LORDS BALTIMOBE AND
into an acceptable form ; the Act was amended in
1695, and in 1696 an entirely new Act was passed
by which the Acts of 1692 and 1695 were repealed,
but with their principal provisions re-enacted in
greater detail. The new law which was also
entitled "An Act for the Service of Almighty God
and the Establishment of the Protestant Eeligion
within this Province/^ contained two curious features.
It provided that the Book of Common Prayer of
the Church of England should be used in every
church or other place of public worship within the
Province; and that his Majesty's subjects of this
Province should enjoy all their rights and liberties
according to the laws and statutes of the Kingdom
of England in all matters and causes where the laws
of this Province were silent.^ The first of these
provisions naturally aroused the active opposition
of the Eoman Catholics, Quakers, and dissenters
from the Church of England of every name ; and
the second was in point of law fatal to the Act,
as it contained matter irrelevant to its purpose as
set forth in the title. This Act therefore came to
nought. In 1702, still another Act was passed of
similar scope, but under the guiding hand of Kev.
Thomas Bray, who had been appointed Commissary
of the Bishop of London, most of the blunders of the
former Acts were avoided. By it toleration was given
to Quakers and other Protestant dissenters. This law
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1693-1697, p. 426.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 97
with the exception of some minor amendments
remained the law of the Province nntil the Eevo-
lution.^ Its revenue feature, the tax of forty pounds
of tobacco per poll upon all taxables for the support
of a clergyman, and a Church, whether they were
attached thereto or not, was a constant source of
irritation and discontent. And the lives of numbers
of the clergy inducted into livings or benefices in the
Province were far from being such as to commend
either them, their office, or their teaching.
Religious toleration, though not to the mind of
all the inhabitants, had become so deeply implanted
in the policy of the Province, that, as a result of
the wise action of its first Proprietary, and also as
a result of the more liberal spirit of the eighteenth
century, as compared with that of the seventeenth, it
continued to prevail, in the sense at least of absence
of persecution, though the guaranties of the law of
1702 in this respect fell far short of those contained
in the Act of 1649 which it superseded. During
the sw^ay of the royal governors, the statutes of
England in restriction of the open exercise of the
Roman Catholic religion were deemed to be in force
in Maryland, and certain disabilities were conse-
quently imposed. Lawyers of that faith were for a
time prohibited from practising in the courts ; Roman
Catholics were by an Act of 1704 prohibited from
instructing the young, and encouragement was given
^ Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, p. 439.
7
98 THE LORDS BALTIMORE
for the placing of the children of Roman Catholics
under Protestant teachers ; certain minor annoyances
were also occasionally imposed upon persons attached
to the Roman Catholic faith, and other discrimina-
tions made against them.
In 1718, the English statutes ^^ for preventing
the growth of Popery '^ (11 and 12 Wm. III.)
were formally adopted by the Assembly as the
law of the Province. The adoption of these harsh
measures marked a long fall from the liberal policy
of toleration established in the earlier days of the
colony, but the actual practice appears to have
been far more liberal than the letter of the law ;
and consequently the restrictive measures were not
assiduously enforced. Of actual persecution for
conscience sake there appears to have been none.
Maryland has the proud record, in contrast with
that of sister colonies, and with the contemporaneous
conditions in other lands, that within her borders
religious liberty was from the foundation of the
colony established ; and though the lustre of this
fame was eventually somewhat dimmed by the
character of subsequent legislation, yet, at no time
in her history did "the temperament which perse-
cutes " here find an abiding place ; it does not appear
that any one was ever excluded from her territory,
and it is certain that no one was ever put to death
within her boundaries or under her laws, for or on
account of religious belief.
LECTURE ly.
Chaeles, Third Lord Baltimore.
The Royal Governors.
CHARLES, the third Lord Baltimore and
second Proprietary of Maryland, succeeded
to the title upon the death of his father, in
November, 1675. It may be well to note that there V
were but six Barons of Baltimore. In Burke's
"Extinct, Dormant and Abeyant Peerages'' there
is a list of seveuj and to the third the name of John
is ascribed. That person is altogether mythical ;
he never existed. Charles was the only son and heir
of his father, Cecilius ; was repeatedly referred to as
such in his father's letters ; and for fourteen years
before succeeding to the title and estates acted
as Governor, and representative of his father in
Maryland. It will hence be seen that even gene-
alogies that are supported by the authority of Burke,
cannot always be accepted as infallibly true.
As this curious error in respect to the so-called
John, third Baron of Baltimore, has been often
repeated, and has even found its way into the
National Dictionary of Biography, it may be worth
while to consider for a moment its probable origin.
99
LofC.
100 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
The late Rev. Dr. John G. Morris, in his paper
entitled "The Lords Baltimore/^ printed by the
Maryland Historical Society in 1874, fell into the
error of believing that there were seven Barons
of Baltimore, although he refuted his own error
by stating correctly that Charles, whom he calls
the fourth Baron, became Governor of Maryland
in 1661, and that upon the death, in 1675, of his
father, Cecilius, who was the second Baron, succeeded
to the title. These dates do not leave room for
the intervention of a third Baron between the
second and the one erroneously described as fourth.^
It is stated in Lodge's Peerage of Ireland, that
Johij, Lord Baltimore, was a member of the Irish
Parliament of the fugitive King, James II., in
1689. In that same year Charles, the third
Baron, who had succeeded to the title in 1675,
was outlawed for high treason in Ireland, upon
accusation of being in rebellion against the estab-
lished government. He successfully represented,
however, to King William, that he never was
in Ireland in his life, and that at the very time
when he was accused of being in rebellion in that
country he was present in England, appearing
before the King and Council on other business,
and loyally paid his taxes for carrying on the war
against James. Whereupon in January, 1693, the
^ Md. Hist. Soc: The Lords Baltimore, 1874, pp. 36 and note,
42 and note.
The MARYLAND PALATINATE lOl
King issued his warrant for reversing the outlawry.
But Lord Baltimore never appeared before the
Court of King's Bench in Ireland to secure its
reversal, and later in life, declaring himself to be
then very infirm, and advised by his physicians
that his health and life would be imperilled by
a journey to Ireland and back, he petitioned the
English Parliament to pass a bill reversing the
outlawry, pointing out the hardship of being out-
lawed in a country where he had never been/
It seems to be a not unnatural conclusion that
Lord Baltimore, being an Irish Peer and a Roman
Catholic, was in fact summoned to the Parliament
of James, and being summoned, it was hastily con-
cluded, even by the Judges of the King's Bench,
that he responded to the summons and took his
seat. But as it was clear that Charles, the successor
of Cecilius, was neither in that Parliament nor
in Ireland, an intervening Baron was apparently
invented by the genealogists, — the one who figures
in Burke's and Lodge's Peerages as John. The
name ascribed to him may have resulted from an
error of a copyist, or, in the summons itself, which
presumably was intended to be issued for the actual
Baron of Baltimore.
But to return to the narrative of events ; Charles,
upon his accession to the Proprietorship, continued
to exercise the government in person. In 1676, the
^Md. Hist. SocColl. Calvert MSS„ Doc. 247.
102 THE LORDS BALTIMORE ANl)
year after his accession, he convened the Assembly
for the purpose of revising the laws of the Province,
and at this session an Act was passed which was
practically a codification of the existing laws, as it
enumerated all previous laws which remained in
force. The same year Lord Baltimore went to
England, having appointed his infant son, Cecilius,
Governor, with Jesse Wharton, Deputy. The latter
was apparently in ill health at the time of his
appointment. He died shortly after, having first
designated Thomas Notley as his successor in accord-
ance with power and instructions given to him by
Lord Baltimore before his departure.
The troubles which the second Proprietary had
to encounter in the administration of his Province
were no less than those by which his father had
been beset. He had scarcely left the Province
before there arose a rebellion which threatened
for a while the complete overthrow of his power.
The year before, in 1675, the Susquehannough
Indians, whose hunting grounds were to the north
of Maryland, and who had by treaties been taken to
a certain extent under the protection of the Prov-
ince, had become greatly reduced in power, and their
numbers diminished, by the ravages of smallpox.
At this time a fierce descent was made upon them
by their ancient enemies, the warlike Senecas, and
the Susquehannoughs fled in dismay across Maryland
to the old camping grounds of the Pascataways,
by the banks of the Potomac. Shortly after, several
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 10^
murders were committed by Indians on both sides
of the Potomac. Of these the Susquehannoughs
were accused, and a number of them were killed
in reprisals in Virginia. A force was raised, — of
Virginians, commanded by Col. John Washington,
and of Marylanders, commanded by Major Thomas
Truman, who was a member of the Council. A
party of Indians was besieged in a blockhouse
near the Potomac, in which they had taken refuge.
They insisted that they were innocent of the
murders, and five of their chiefs came to a parley,
offering to prove that, though numbers of their
own people had been killed, the murders of the
white settlers had been committed not by them
but by the Senecas. Their protestations failed to
convince Colonel Washington, and it came about
that these five men, who, though savages, had
come as envoys on an errand of peace, were put
to death with the consent and by the authority
of Major Truman. For this act of treachery he
was impeached by the Maryland Assembly, but
escaped punishment by that body on account of a
disagreement between the two houses as to the
character of his crime. The lower house provided
in the bill of attainder for his punishment upon
conviction, by a pecuniary fine only, while the
upper house (of which, as one of the Council, he
was a member) insisted that that was no adequate
punishment for so grave an offense ; that for murder,
and a treacherous and atrocious murder at that, the
104 THt: LOBBS BALTIMORE AND
penalty should be death, else the administration
of justice would be brought into contempt. The
lower house assigned as a reason for urging a
light sentence, that there was evidence going to
show that the killing of the envoys was insisted
upon by the Virginians, and that it was done to
prevent a mutiny among the soldiers. The upper
house did not apparently regard the evidence upon
these points as conclusive, and argued that even
if true, they afforded no sufficient excuse for a
horrible crime against the laws of God and of
nations. In consequence of this disagreement the
upper house refused to proceed with the trial upon
the bill of attainder; but Truman was expelled
from the Council.^
The event proved disastrous enough to Virginia.
The infuriated Indians started southward, laying
waste the plantations with fire and murder. Sir
William Berkeley, the Governor of Virginia, refused
to raise a force to resist the Indian marauders,
declaring that the county authorities could deal
with them in their respective bailiwicks. Mean-
while the outrages went on unchecked, with daily
murders of men, women and children. The indigna-
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1666-1676, p. 500. Lord
Baltimore appears to have used his prerogative to impose
a more adequate punishment, in spite of the failure of the
Assembly to act. See p. 108 infra. It is interesting to note
that in the seventeenth century the colonists of Maryland
deemed savages entitled to the protection of the laws of
nations.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 105
tion against the Governor was intense, and in view
of the mutinous spirit of the people he probably
did not dare to raise a military force, lest, after
quelling the Indians, it should follow the example
set in England twenty-five years before and turn
its attention to the overthrow of the government.
Affairs were in this condition when the overseer
on a plantation belonging to Nathaniel Bacon was
murdered. Bacon was not one to sit idly by. He
offered to go against the Indians, and demanded a
commission from the Governor; which being refused,
he raised a force and proceeded to make war upon
the Indians upon his own account. He was success-
ful in defeating the Indians, and was rewarded by
being proclaimed a rebel by Governor Berkeley.
This was the beginning of what is known as Bacon's
rebellion, which filled Virginia with violence for
several months. The spirit of unrest is contagious,
and since the intervention of the commissioners of
Parliament, daring the time of the Commonwealth,
there had been a plenty of restless spirits in Maryland.
That there were some grounds of complaint is prob-
ably true — but they were greatly exaggerated, and
the embers of discontent were being continually
fanned by those who were in chronic hostility to
any authority, unless they could wield it themselves.
The situation was this. The Assembly then
consisted of two houses. The upper house was
composed of the members of the Council, all of
whom were appointed by the Lord Proprietary,
106 . THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
and its devotion to his interests could be counted
upon. It did not represent a class or estate, like
the House of Lords, and therefore was looked upon
with the greater jealousy. But the lower house,
representative of the freemen, had finally become
persuaded that it was a House of Commons, and its
members knew what a House of Commons had done
in England. Disagreements between the two houses
were inevitable. In 1669 they had become so
violent that, at the next election, Charles Calvert,
who was then Governor, probably acting by direction
of his father, Cecilius, exercised the discretion given
to the Proprietary as to the manner of summoning
the delegates, by restricting the suffrage, — limiting
the franchise to freemen owning at least fifty acres
of land or personal property to the value of £40.
In this he followed an example that had been set
by Governor Berkeley in Virginia. A more tractable
house having thus been secured, it was perpetuated
for several years, and the risk of another election
avoided, by successive adjournments from year to
year. The Proprietary discovered that there could
be such a thing as a Long Assembly as well as a
Long Parliament.
The Protestants now formed a large majority of
the population. Charles, Lord Baltimore, declared
that the Roman Catholics and the adherents of
the Church of England together, formed less than
a fourth of the whole number, and that the latter
outnumbered the former. The Council, however,
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 107
and therefore the upper house, was largely com-
posed of kinsmen of the Lord Proprietary, and of '
Roman Catholics, who were thus accorded a weight /
in the government entirely out of proportion to
their numbers. But the chief real grievance of \
the Protestants appears to have been that the
appointments to lucrative office did not seem to
come their way ; and it is true that the lower house
as then constituted, with a restricted suffrage, had
ceased to be fully representative of the freemen.
There were, however, not only certain real grounds
of discontent ; the imaginary ones were much more
potent. In England the shameful foreign policy of
Charles II. kept up a constant suspicion and dread
of a " Popish Plot,'' and the feelings in the mother
country found their echo in America. In 1676, there
appeared a curious document called a "Complaint
from Heaven with a Hue and Cry, and a petition
out of Virginia and Maryland.'' It is addressed to
King Charles II. and his Parliament, but endorsed
" For the Right Honorable the Lord Mayor and
Aldermen with the Honorable Citizens and Mer-
chants in London." A copy of it, preserved among
the colonial papers in the Public Record Office
in London, has been reprinted in the Maryland
Archives.' This document is quite lengthy and is
couched in language somewhat similar to that in
^3Id. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, p. 134 et seq.
In the extracts given in the text, modern spelling has been
adopted, as that of the original is rather lawless.
108 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
which Master Dogberry's charge to the watch at
Messina was framed.
It enumerates a number of grievances, such as
the manner in which elections were conducted, the
rate of taxation and other things, and mentions
incidentally that although the Assembly cleared
Major Truman for allowing the Indian peace
envoys to be killed, (which was not true,) Gover-
nor Baltimore, '^to cloak his policy," arbitrarily
condemned him in a fine of 10,000 lbs. of
tobacco and imprisonment during his pleasure.^
The petitioners seemed to think that instead of
being punished for treacherously murdering five
Indians he should have been held responsible for
allowing any to escape. It was complained that " the
Proprietary with his familiars holds forth that he
is an absolute prince in Maryland, with as absolute
prerogative, royal right and power, as our gracious
Sovereign in England, and according to that they
set their compass to steer by and govern by." " The
grandees about St. Mary's " came in for their share
of attention, and Lord Baltimore was accused of
having a custom of exchanging the King's Majesty's
subjects for fur. The particular gem of this com-
position appears, however, when religious subjects
come to be touched upon. This is a sample :
"As yet we must be Nicodemuses or else the
inquisition Avill make some say black is white and
therefore break off with a discovery of our priests
^ See p. 104 supra, note.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 109
and Jesuits in Maryland, which wander up and
down in England apparelled as tradesmen and some
otherwise, and so are sent over, but as soon as they
come out from the ships surefooted appear in their
plus ultra in their chapels. These black spirits
disperse themselves all over the country in America,
and as is saith, have £5 sterling for every turn coat
they convert, good reason they make all the haste
they can to set the Protestants at odds, to propagate
the Pope^s interest and supremacy in America ; but
will not this in time overturn the Protestants ? for
it is decreed to bring them first into a confusion
and ruinated nothing, and then out of the ashes
the Pope shall spring aloft, and my Lord Baltimore
will be canonized at Kome/^
Canonization as a reward for his efforts in the
administration of his Province was probably far
beyond Lord Baltimore's fondest dreams ; and the
alleged plan of stimulating the zeal of missionaries,
as though they were travelling salesmen, by paying
a handsome commission upon conversions, reckoned
per poll (or per soul,) is a businesslike arrangement,
the possibilities of which are probably as completely
overlooked by modern missionary societies as they
were in the days of the apostles.
The remedies proposed for all the terrible evils
set forth in this petition were chiefly : —
That the government should be assumed directly
by the Crown.
That a royal governor be appointed, and the
110 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Lord Proprietary be reduced to the rank of land-
lord only.
That Protestant ministers and free schools and
glebe lands be erected and established in every
county, notwithstanding liberty of conscience^ and
maintained by the people.
Andj incidentally, that six or seven hundred
good resolute Scotch Highlanders be sent over to
do the fighting.
The appointment of a Viceroy or Governor
Generalissimo over all the American colonies was
also recommended.
With such fantastic allegations as are contained
in this paper, its gross exaggerations, manifest false-
hoods and absurdities, it is difficult to determine the
precise boundary of truth ; but with a spirit abroad,
such as is here revealed, and with the example of
Bacon successfully defying the Governor's authority
in Virginia, it is not surprising that an attempt at
revolt was stirred up in Maryland. Insurgents,
under the leadership of William Davis and John Pate,
assembled in arms in Calvert County, demanding of
the Governor and Council a redress of grievances.
The Governor ordered them to disperse, promising
to bring their complaints before the Assembly. This
they refused to do, denying that the Assembly was
a lawful one. Apparently energetic measures for the
restoration of order promptly followed ; for Thomas
Notley, the Deputy Governor, in writing to Lord
Baltimore an account of the matter, briefly stated
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 111
that " since Davis and Pate were hanged, the rout
hath been much amazed and appalled, but, God
be thanked, we now enjoy peace among ourselves,
though never a body was more replete with malig-
nancy than our people were about August last.'' ^
Governor Notley attributed the collapse of this
revolt in Maryland not only to the execution of the
leaders, but also to the moral effect of the termination
of Bacon's rebellion in Virginia, which followed
promptly upon the death of its leader, from an attack
of malarial fever.
There soon loomed upon the horizon of Mary-
land an event which involved a more serious menace
to the Province than aught that had previously
befallen, — one which was to give rise to disputes
and controversies extending over more than half
a century.
In 1681,. Charles II. made a grant of a large
territory lying to the north of Maryland, and to
which the name of Pennsylvania was given, to
William Penn. Charles was indebted to the estate
of Penn's father. Admiral Penn, in a matter of
£16,000, and this grant of land, made in settlement
of that debt, was no doubt very satisfactory to both
parties. Charles paid a large debt with that which
cost him nothing, and Penn obtained an immensely
valuable province in exchange for a desperate claim.
The northern limit of Maryland, it must be remem-
1 Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, p. 153.
112 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
bered, was placed by the charter at the fortieth
degree of north latitude. A copy of the petition
for the grant to Penn was submitted to Lord
Baltimore's agents in London and they asked the
Committee of Trade and Plantations that a clause
be inserted specifying that the southern boundary
of the new Province should run north of a certain
fort or blockhouse which the Marylanders had built
for the Susquehannough Indians, just within the
northern boundary of Maryland. With this con-
dition Penn expressed himself as perfectly satisfied.^
But when the grant was made, it was discovered that
the southern boundary of Pennsylvania was to be
defined by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance
from New Castle northward and westward to the
beginning of the fortieth degree of north latitude,
and thence by a straight line westward. No mention
was made of the Susquehannough fort by which
Lord Baltimore's boundary was already marked.
Penn appointed his kinsman, William Markham,
as his deputy in America, and gave him a letter
to Lord Baltimore, containing smooth expressions
of friendship, and in which he expressed an earnest
desire to come to an agreement about the location of
the boundary. Shortly after, he wrote another letter
from London jointly to several prominent Mary-
landers seated at and near the head of the bay,
upon lands which they held by grants from Lord
1 Jfd Archives: Froc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, p. 272.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 113
Baltimore, included among them being the distin-
guished Bohemian settler, Augustin Herman, whose
plantation was the well-known Bohemia Manor in
Cecil County. In this letter, Penn admonishes them
that in being his friend, they will best befriend
themselves ; and presuming that their places of
residence fell within his patent, he advises them
to pay no more taxes or assessments by any order
or law of Maryland, as it would be greatly to
their 'own wrong as well as his prejudice. He
then inserts a subtle threat of his power with his
superiors in England, which would enable him to
weather the difficulty in case of non-compliance on
their part. He adds the pious hope that " we shall all
do the thing that is just and honest^' with the prac-
tical reflection that it " is always wise ^^ so to do.^
This effort to stir up doubts in the minds of
Lord Baltimore's tenants as to the validity of their
titles having been made, Markham proceeded to
make some astronomical observations ; and soon
discovered that New Castle was twenty miles south
of the fortieth degree of north latitude, and that
therefore, the northern limit of a circle with a radius
of twelve miles about that place, from which Penn's
southern boundary was to run, would fall eight miles
^This letter was promptly sent by the loyal Herman to
Lord Baltimore. The original is now in the possession of
the Maryland Historical Society. It was published in Calvert
Papers, No. 1, p. 324, together with some other characteristic
letters from Penn.
8
114 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
south of Lord Baltimore's northern boundary. This
fact having been discovered, Markham took every
means of avoiding a meeting with Lord Baltimore's
representatives for the purpose of settling the
boundary, which at first he had seemed anxious
to determine. A postponement of the survey was
first made on account of Markham pleading sick-
ness, and subsequently, when the Maryland com-
missioners went repeatedly to^ New Castle by
appointment, it was only to find Markham absent
in New York or elsewhere. Finally, when he was
surprised into an interview with Lord Baltimore,
upon returning home under the belief that the
Marylanders, who were waiting for him, had
departed, it was found that some of the glasses
had been mysteriously removed from his surveying
instrument. Another instrument was, however, pro-
cured, and the fact, which Markham had previously
ascertained as to the location of the fortieth parallel,
was quickly established. Markham then became
arrogant, and asked if it were proposed to limit the
royal authority.^
1 3Id. Archives : Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/ 8, pp. 377, 378.
At this conference one of Lord Baltimore's surveyors flippantly
and irreverently remarked that if the King could make a radius
of 12 miles from the centre of New Castle, extend 20 miles to
the 40th degree of north latitude, " his Majesty must have long
compasses." To this Markham replied, with becoming
dignity, that "he hoped they would not limit his Majesty's
compasses." Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8,
p. 431.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 316
It appears that Penn had persuaded himself,
and assured his colonists, that his grant included
the upper portion of the Chesapeake Bay, whereas
in fact the fortieth parallel, at which the northern
boundary of Maryland was fixed by the charter,
passes a little to the north of the present site of
Philadelphia. Markham continued to contrive all
sorts of delays to avoid the determination of the
boundary until he could communicate the facts
to Penn and obtain fresh instructions. At last
Penn came himself to look after his interests, and
had several conferences with Lord Baltimore, at
which some extraordinary propositions were made.
He finally agreed to join Baltimore in a determi-
nation of the latitude of the head of the Chesapeake,
upon condition that Lord Baltimore would name a
"gentleman's price'' per mile, at which he would
sell the territory necessary to give Penn an outlet on
the bay, if the survey should show that it lay south
of the limits of his grant. And so the real ground of
contention was revealed. Penn was determined upon
possession of the head of the Chesapeake. If his
charter did not give it to him, he would have it
some other way. Meanwhile he admonished Lord
Baltimore of the expediency of prudence, and of
his duty to his Prince, with whom Penn claimed,
and in fact possessed, great influence. As one
means of shrinking the proportions of Maryland,
Penn suggested, — and he was fortified with a letter
from the King upon the subject, — that in order to
116 THE LORDS BALTIMORE ANt)
determine his northern boundary, Lord Baltimore
should begin at the extreme southern boundary of
Maryland and measure two degrees northward,
allowing but sixty miles to the degree. Penn
thought that by short measure Maryland's north
boundary could be moved far enough south to
suit his purpose. Baltimore rejected this round-
about method of ascertaining the location of the
fortieth degree, and declined to accept a letter
from the King as modifying the plain terms of
his charter passed under the great seal. He
bluntly said the King had been misinformed.
Penn then made the extraordinary proposition
that Baltimore should surrender to him the strip
of land which he coveted on the north of Mary-
land, and compensate himself by moving his
southern boundary on the eastern shore, thirty
miles to the southward, seizing upon the inter-
vening territory which belonged to Virginia. This
proposition Lord Baltimore also rejected ; but the
suggestion sadly shows how vain was the hope
Penn had expressed in his letter to Herman and
others, that ^' we should all do the thing that is
just and honest. '^ ^
In order to make sure of a port and harbor
with access to the high seas, Penn had procured
from his friend, the Duke of York, afterwards
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, pp. 379, 382,
397. It is curious to note that the reports of these conferences
were taken down in short hand, p. 380.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 117
James II., — to whom his brother, King Charles II.,
had made a grant of New Amsterdam, the name of
which was now changed to New York, and all of
which lay to the east of the Delaware, — a deed for
certain land upon the west side of that river, including
nearly the whole of what is now the State of Dela-
ware. All of this land lay within the tract described
in Baltimore's charter, and the Duke of York had
not a shadow of title to any of it ; but a trifling
defect like this did not trouble the conscience of
either the grantor or grantee. Hence a new cause
of dispute arose.
The settlement of the contest over the boundary
was not reached until many years after, when
the original disputants had long been dead. Its
further history belongs to the time of the grandson
and great grandson of Charles, the third Lord
Baltimore. It only remains now to say that in
1684, the latter found it necessary again to return
to England to counteract Penn's machinations at
the Court, and before the Council, to work his
ruin. After the accession of James to the throne,
Penn, confident of the power of his influence with
his superiors, at which he was fond of hinting,
instituted quo warranto proceedings with a view
of clearing the ground, so to speak, for his
own schemes, by securing the revocation of the
Maryland charter itself. With his complaisant
and unscrupulous patron on the throne of England
there is little doubt as to what the outcome would
118 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
have been ; but before a decree could be obtained,
the English people had demanded with no uncertain
voice by what warrant James II. continued to sit
upon the throne while he subverted the laws of
the land ; and that monarch was a fugitive from
his kingdom.
It was unfortunate for Lord Baltimore that at
a time when his presence was urgently required in
England, it was no less needed in Maryland.
Upon his departure, his eldest son, Cecilius,
having died a few years before, he appointed his
infant son, Benedict Leonard, Governor, with a
board of Deputy Governors, of which George
Talbot, an Irishman and a kinsman of Lord
Baltimore's cousin. Sir William Talbot, was named
as first, or President. Talbot had been Surveyor
General of the Province, a member of the Council,
and was a zealous friend of the Proprietary ; but
as the sequel shows his discretion was not equal
to his zeal.
Much friction had been caused by the behavior
of the (collectors of the royal revenues from customs,
and charges and counter charges of misconduct were
made. The collectors were accused of being violent,
arbitrary and extortionate, while they claimed that
the King's revenues were defrauded by smuggling,
which the proprietary government took no adequate
means to suppress. That there was smuggling is
no doubt true, but the Lord Proprietary's revenues,
a part of which was derived from imposts, suffered
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 119
from that as well as those of the Crown. Disputes
and antagonisms naturally arose, and upon the
representations of the collectors, Lord Baltimore
was required to pay a fine of £2500 for losses to
the royal revenues alleged to have resulted from
his negligence in suppressing smuggling and failing
to render assistance to the collectors.^
In November, 1684, not long after Baltimore's
departure, George Talbot went on board a small
war vessel, which had just arrived from England,
where he found Christopher Kousby, a collector of the
royal customs, carousing with the captain. Rousby
appears to have been an arrogant ruffian, and his
high handed behavior had already been the subject of
complaint on the part of Lord Baltimore. Talbot's
own temperament was sufficiently excitable, and
when these two met a violent altercation quickly
ensued, in which Talbot stabbed Rousby, killing him
instantly. As soon as this was known, a warrant
for his arrest on the charge of murder was issued ;
but the captain of the vessel, who had detained him
a prisoner on board, refused to respect the warrant,
and carrying him off to Virginia, delivered him to the
authorities in that colony. The Governor and Council
of Virginia in turn refused to accede to Maryland's
demand for the surrender of the prisoner, and placed
him in jail at Gloucester. Lord Baltimore succeeded
in obtaining from the Privy Council an order for
^Md. Archives : Froc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, p. 343.
120 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
his transference to England for trial; but mean-
while, in the midst of winter, Talbot's wife, with
two faithful Irish servants, sailing in a small skiff
down the bay and up the Rappahannock, rescued
him from jail and carried him back to his manor in
Maryland, where he for some time lay in conceal-
ment. But in a little while he surrendered himself
to the authorities, who, relying upon the order of
Council for his trial in England, delivered him to
the Governor of Virginia. The latter, in spite of
that order, brought him to trial at Jamestown, where
he was sentenced to death ; but this time Lord
Baltimore succeeded in procuring a pardon from the
King, which came just in time to save his life.
Shortly after this another officer of the customs
was killed, under circumstances however, which had
no relation to his duties as an officer of the Crown ;
but these events were easily availed of by restless
intriguers, who continually sought the overthrow
of the Proprietary government, to make it appear
that that government was persistently disloyal to
the Crown.
Upon the accession of William and Mary, Lord
Baltimore at once despatched a special messenger
from England with an order to the Council to
proclaim the new Sovereigns. The messenger died
on the voyage and the order was not delivered.
Consequently, William and Mary were proclaimed
in Virginia and New England while Maryland
reraained silent. A second messenger was despatched,
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 121
but the mischief caused by the delay had been
wrought. The malcontents seized upon it as evi-
dence of Lord Baltimore's adherence to the cause
of the dethroned monarch. It was just at this
time, it will be remembered, that he was outlawed
in Trelandj — a country in which he declared he had
never been, — upon the charge of treason committed
there.^ How little reason he had to be attached
to the cause of James, and how unlikely he would
be to render him assistance, will be appreciated when
it is considered that that same James, when Duke
of York, had given Penn a deed for a portion of
Lord Baltimore's territory, and that Lord Baltimore
was at that time in England for the express purpose
of resisting proceedings by which it was sought to
deprive him of the whole of his American Province,
for the benefit of James's friend and protege, Penn.
The only evidence of any support having been
given by Lord Baltimore to the cause of James is
in a letter ^ to him from the government of Mary-
land, in which he is congratulated upon his heroic
action in raising a troop for his Majesty's service.
That he really did so, seems extremely improbable,
though it is quite possible that some of his Irish
tenantry may have joined the standard of James.
^ See p. 100 supra.
^ This is a long letter giving an account of public affairs in
the Province. The concluding paragraph contains the allusion
to the troop. Md. Archives: Proc. of Council, 1687/8-1693,
p. 65.
122 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
The expression in the letter that this act would
tend ^' to the greater glory of God/' — those words,
or rather their Latin equivalent, Ad majorem Dei
gloriam, being the motto of the Society of Jesus, —
suggests the probability that the w^^iter was one of
its members or disciples, whose sympathies would
naturally be with the exiled king.
In addition to the charges brought against him
in relation to the customs revenues. Lord Balti-
more had been accused of treating the Protestants
unfairly ; and now the time to strike was ripe.
A rumor was started that the Roman Catholics
had entered into a conspiracy with the Indians
to murder all the Protestants in the Province,
and that large bodies of the savages were actu-
ally moving on the settlements. Means of com-
munication Avere slow, and it took time for posi-
tive information to be obtained. It was reported
at the lower settlements that massacres were being
perpetrated in the uplands, and at the uplands that
they were in progress below. Messengers, that were
sent hither and thither, found the people arming to
go to the rescue of the settlers at places which they
had themselves just quitted, leaving all at peace.
The matter being investigated, some of the leading
people, most of them Protestants, and among them
Kenelm Cheseldyn, the speaker of the lower house,
put forth a declaration to the effect that all this alarm
was ^^ but a sleeveless fear and imagination, fomented
by the artifice of some ill minded persons who are
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 123
studious and ready to take all occasions of raising
disturbances for their own private and malicious
interest.'^
The excitement, however, was not stayed. John
Coode, who had been associated with Fendall in
sedition and an attempted insurrection ten years
before, was the chief instigator. Coode had been
a Roman Catholic and then a Protestant; once a
clergyman, and now a blatant and blasphemous
atheist. He gathered an armed force, and with his
associates put forth a declaration replete with the
well-worn cries of ^^ popery '^ and '' Jesuit,^' and in
which the tyrannical character of the popish gov-
ernment of Lord Baltimore was duly dilated upon.
This declaration, incredible as it may seem, bore the
signatures, or at least, the names of some of the
men who but a little while before had denounced as
false the malicious rumors upon which the declara-
tion was based.
The force led by Coode besieged the members of the
Council in a fort at Mattapony, in which they had
taken refuge, and obtained their surrender. These
insurgents then organized themselves under the title
of Associators, and for a while carried things with a
high hand, imprisoning not only Roman Catholics,
but also any Protestants who resisted their law-
less proceedings. Plunderings, and threateniugs of
death, were their means of coercing remonstrants.
Addresses were sent to King William, urging him
to take possession of the Province and appoint a
124 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
governor to administer its affairs in the name of
the Crown. William of Orange did not feel himself
particularly bound by the promises and grants of
his predecessors, the Stuarts, and recognized the
advantage of attaching more closely to the Crown
the growing value and power of the American
colonies. He was not slow therefore to heed these
complaints, and, in 1691, asserted the royal authority
over the Province, by the apj)ointment of Sir Lionel
Copley as Governor for the Crown, who arrived in
the Province during the following year. This action
was taken after the rendering of an extraordinary
opinion by Lord Chief Justice Holt, which was in
substance, that though it would be better that some
inquisition were held and a forfeiture of the charter
found, yet as the case was pressing the King might
act, and let the investigation follow. The action
was evidently determined upon in advance, and legal
or constitutional difficulties could not be allowed to
stand in the way.^
From this time, that is, from 1692 until 1715,
a period of twenty-three years, the administration
of the Province was in the hands of governors
appointed by the Crown. The authority of the
Lords Baltimore was in abeyance. They were no
longer Absolute Lords as prescribed in the charter
^ For a criticism of this opinion, see McMahon, Hist. View
of the Govt, of Md., p. 242, note. Arguments similar to those
of the Chief Justice, might be urged in justification of lynch-
law.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 125
of Maryland, but they remained Proprietaries, in
the sense that they were lords of the soil. They
were deprived of the right of government, but their
territorial rights were not infringed.
From the time of the assumption of the govern-
ment of the Province by the Crown, Charles, Lord
Baltimore, seems to have disappeared from public
life. He was reduced from the rank of a count
palatine, with princely authority, to that of a mere
landlord, entitled only to the rents of his estates,
the quit-rents from tenants, and the impost duties on
tobacco. His right to the latter, though disputed by
the Assembly, was confirmed by the royal authority.
Before his accession to the title, Charles had many
years' experience in the government of Maryland
under the guiding hand of his father, Cecilius ;
and, residing in the Province, he had a more inti-
mate knowledge than the latter could possibly have,
of the conditions, the needs, and the character-
istics of the people. He seems to have inherited
his father's strict sense of justice and fairness, but
to have fallen very far short of him in breadth
of mind and in the spirit of liberality. At the same
time it must be remembered that he had changed
conditions with which to deal. Cecilius had his
conflicts with the members of a religious society,
who disputed the extent of his jurisdiction, and
even his territorial rights ; with persistent attacks
from Claiborne and others of the Virginia Company ;
with open rebellion ; and with the overthrow of his
126 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
authority, by commissioners acting under authority
of Parliament. The freemen, however, those who
were entitled to vote, and to a voice in legislation,
remained in large proportion of the same class as the
original settlers, those who came out prepared to
take up lands and become freeholders. But with the
first colonists, and after them, came a large number
of indentured servants, and, at a later date, some less
desirable persons, convicts bound over to masters
for a term of years in lieu of confinement in jail.
All these persons, indentured servants and convicts
alike, were entitled, when their terms of service were
ended, to acquire lands and become freemen, with the
right to vote, and to representation in the Assembly.
In fact in the paper issued at the time of the insur-
rection headed by Davis and Pate, it was admitted
by the petitioners that '' a great many of us came in
as servants to others,^' but, as offsetting this, a fling
was added, " and so was my Lord Baltimore but an
inferior Irish Lord, and as is saith, one of the Pope's
privy agents in England."
With the acquisition of the franchise by persons
of this class, the character of the representation was
materially changed. The Assembly had become
more democratic and was strongly imbued with
the lessons taught by the actions of the House of
Commons during the Commonwealth in England.
Lord Baltimore met the changed conditions by limit-
ing the suffrage with a property qualification, and still
further, — falling back upon the strict letter of his
THE MABYLANB PALATINATE 127
charter, — by summoning to the Assembly only a
portion of the delegates elected. It may be assumed
that he exercised a prudent caution in the selection
of those to whom the summons was issued, and so
secured a more manageable legislature than would
otherwise have been possible. His method of deal-
ing with the representatives of the people was
somewhat high handed. Upon occasion of differ-
ence it was his practice, during his residence in
Maryland, to call the delegates to meet him in
the upper house, where he presided, and by the
weight of his personal authority, enforce his views
upon them. He was disposed to be autocratic, but
at the same time, no act of his can be pointed to
as actually indicative of unfairness or injustice. He
was scrupulous in maintaining the principles of
religious toleration established by his father, and
on one occasion when a grant of one hundred
thousand pounds of tobacco was voted to him by
the Assembly, as an expression of gratitude, and
appreciation of his benign administration, he declined
the gift on the ground that it would impose too
heavy a burden on the tax payers, ^'considering the
great charge the country hath already been at." ^
We recognize in him a fair and just man, but
one lacking in many respects the largeness of view
and conciliatory disposition by which his father
was distinguished. His administration of the affairs
^Md. Archives: Proc. of Assembly, 1678-1683, p. 516.
128 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
of the Province, though sometimes arbitrary, was
eminently humane, and those who sought a panacea
for all ills by the overthrow of his government,
and the establishment of that of the Crown, had
yet to learn, like the malcontents of old who
demanded a king to rule over them, that a royal
yoke is not always easy.
The first wife of Charles, Lord Baltimore, was
Jane, the widow of Henry Sewall, who had been
Secretary of the Province. She was the daughter of
Vincent Lowe. After Lord Baltimore's return to
England in 1684, he continued to reside in that
country until his death on February 20, 1714/5.
He was eighty-five years of age at the time of his
death, and, it has been stated, was thrice married.^
His death occurred but shortly before the restoration
of the government in Maryland to the administration
of the Proprietary.
In order to complete the chain of events in the
development of the story of the Maryland Palatinate,
it will be necessary to review briefly the changes
which occurred in the period of twenty-three years,
from 1692 to 1715, during which the Palatinate
government was suspended, and the affairs of the
Province administered under governors appointed
by the Crown.
It has already been mentioned that acting under
advice of the Privy Council, and fortified by the
^Morris: The Lords Baltimore; Md. Hist. Soc, p. 43.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 129
opinion of Lord Chief Justice Holt, King William
decided to assume control of the Province for the
Crown, and appointed as Governor, Sir Lionel
Copley, the first royal governor of Maryland.
Upon arriving in the colony, Sir Lionel immedi-
ately terminated the provisional government which
had been set up and conducted as a sort of dragonade
by the Associators, and convened an Assembly. To
this body he made a very wise address, counselling
the laying aside of all heats and animosities, and
the observance of moderation in their acts. This,
however, was not what the delegates wanted. The
first Act of the Assembly was naturally one of recog-
nition of the authority of William and Mary, and
to this was added an address expressing gratitude
to their Majesties for taking the Province under the
protection of the royal authority, and delivering
it from the "tyrannical Popish government under
which they had long groaned.'^
The second law passed was one for the establish-
ment of the Church of England, and the imposition
of a tax of forty pounds of tobacco per poll for
the support of the clergy of that Church. The
principal features of this bill under which there
was, for the first time, an established Church in
Maryland, have already been noted in the preceding
lecture.
While the government of the Lord Proprietary
had been overthrown, the Crown respected his
rights as Proprietor ; the Maryland Assembly now
9
130 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
proceeded to attack these. The King had distinctly
recognized the right of Lord Baltimore to collect
and receive one-half of the duty on tobacco exported,
which had by law been appropriated for his private
use, and also a tonnage duty of 14d. per ton upon
vessels clearing from any port of the Province.
The Maryland Assembly undertook to dispute these
rights, and to harass Lord Baltimore's agents in their
attempts to collect his private revenues. He had
again to appeal to the King, who specially instructed
Sir Lionel Copley to take care that the agents of Lord
Baltimore should be permitted to live peaceably and
quietly, and to act as formerly in receiving his Lord-
ship's dues and revenues in the Province, and that no
vessels should be cleared from it until they had paid
their shipping dues. Notwithstanding the mandate
of the King, the lower house was slow to relinquish
its grasp on a source of revenue which it thought
could be successfully confiscated for the use of the
commonwealth. Mr. Henry Darnall, who had been
Receiver General, and was now Lord Baltimore's
agent, petitioned the Governor and Council, in 1692,
that the records and accounts belonging to the Pro-
prietary be delivered to him, that he be allowed
possession of his Lordship's houses and plantations,
and that ports be designated at which the tonnage
duty should be paid. The matter was referred to
the lower house, which assented to the surrender of
the accounts, with the exception of the land records,
but denied the Proprietary's right to the tonnage
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 131
duty, asserting that it was levied for the defence
of the colony. The matters in dispute were at
length appealed to the King in Council, when the
action of the Maryland Assembly was disallowed
and the claim of the Proprietary to the tonnage
dues, to one-half of the export duty of 2s. per hhd.
on tobacco, and free access to the land records was
confirmed.
The City of St. Mary's, where the first settlers
had established themselves, where a State House
had been erected, and which was still the seat of
government, was the next victim of the changed
influences at work. It is true that it was situated
at a remote corner of the Province and was incon-
venient of access to settlers established along the
upper portion of the bay, and at the heads of the
rivers. A more central location, near the old Puritan
settlement on the banks of the Severn, was selected
as the future seat of the government and thither
it was removed in 1694. To this place was given
the name of Ann Arundel Town, afterwards changed
to Annapolis. The " Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen,
Common Councilmen and Freemen '^ of St. Mary's
presented a humble petition/ against the removal
of the seat of government, pleading ancient usage,
and pointing out how the value of property at that
place would be destroyed and themselves ruined by
such action ; but all the associations with St. Mary's
' Md. Archives: Proc.lqf Assembly, 1693-1697, p. 71 et seq.
132 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
were connected with the Proprietary government,
and for such associations, those now in authority
entertained no sentiment.
The address was referred to the lower house, and
by that body the petition of St. Mary's was rejected
in terms of contempt and brutal insolence. The
language of the Assembly's reply marks a distinct
fall from the amenities which had prevailed under the
sway of the Proprietaries, when, whatever differences
and animosities may at times have arisen, in mutual
intercourse, the forms of courtesy were ordinarily
observed.
Sir Lionel Copley died in 1693, and Francis
Nicholson, who had been commissioned Lieutenant-
Governor, was absent in England. Sir Edmund
Andros, who was then serving as Governor of
Virginia, thereupon assumed the Governorship of
Maryland, claiming authority under a commission
authorizing him to do so in the event of Nicholson's
death. Nicholson was not dead, but liberal inter-
pretation of his powers was not unusual with Sir
Edmund. The Assembly, however, objected to this
ante mortem administration of the office of a living
man, and Sir Edmund retired, leaving the govern-
ment to be administered by the President of the
Council until Nicholson's arrival.
As illustrating the character of one of the principal
leaders in the movement which led to what has been
called the Maryland revolution, it may be mentioned
that the ex-priest Coode, the chief agitator at that
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 133
time, was returned as a member of the Assembly of
1696 ; but Governor Nicholson, knowing him to be a
chronic promoter of sedition, and that he had boasted
" that he had pulled down one government and could
pull down another/' refused to administer the oath,
basing his refusal upon the ground that he was in
Holy Orders and therefore ineligible; ^^once a priest,
always a priest,'' the Governor maintained. This
worthy was shortly afterwards indicted for blas-
phemy, among other charges, and fled to Virginia.
The royal governors appear to have been, for the
most part, judicious men, who sought to discharge the
duties of their office faithfully. Of Sir Lionel Copley,
and the brief episode of Sir Edmund Andros, men-
tion has already been made. Francis Nicholson had
had experience in colonial government, both in New
York and Virginia. He was a man of force and
statesmanlike views, and conducted his adminis-
tration with ability. His vanity, however, was
inordinate, his temper was irascible, and his private
life appears not to have been above reproach. He
was an earnest supporter of the royal authority
and active in promoting the cause of the established
Church. His chief claim to consideration is, per-
haps, due to the fact that he zealously advocated the
cause of education and sought earnestly to secure
the establishment of a college in Maryland. He
had secured the foundation of William and Mary
College in Virginia, and his efforts in Maryland
resulted, in 1696, in the establishment of King
134 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
William School at Annapolis, to the support of
which he was himself a generous contributor.
He was succeeded in 1698 by Nathaniel Black-
istone, who retired in 1701, on account of enfeebled
health. It is an indication of the esteem in which
he was held in the colony that, upon his departure
for England, he was requested by the Assembly
to act as its agent, to look after the interests of
the Province with Crown and Parliament. The
next royal governor was John Seymour, who was
appointed in 1704, the office having been, mean-
while, administered by Edward Lloyd, President
of the Council. That Seymour was a staunch, or
rather a strenuous Protestant, is shown by the char-
acter of an harangue^ he made on September 11,
1 704, to two Roman Catholic priests brought before
him on the charge of saying Mass in public. In this
truculent screed he uttered several direful threats,
and closed by admonishing them that he was an
" English Protestant gentleman, and could never
equivocate.^'
In 1708, Governor Seymour came into collision
with the Assembly. He had sought to have
Annapolis incorporated as a city, but failing in
his efforts with the Assembly, he granted a muni-
cipal charter himself The Assembly was at once
upon enquiry. The Lords Proprietary had power
under the charter of Maryland to erect towns,
^ Printed in Scharf s History of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 368.
TEE MARYLAND PALATINATE 135
cities, establish ports, etc., but did a royal governor
have similar authority? The Assembly demanded
to see the Governor's commission; whereupon it
was discovered that he had exceeded his authority.
After some bickering the charter of Annapolis was
finally granted by the Assembly.
In 1709, Governor Seymour died, and the Gov-
ernorship again devolved upon Edward Lloyd,
President of the Council, and so remained until
the appointment of John Hart, the last of the
royal governors, in 1714, one year before the
restoration of the Proprietary government.
The period of the royal governors witnessed a
marked change in the constitutional character of
the government of the Province. The lower house
of the Assembly acquired larger powers as a co-
ordinate branch of the legislative body, and sought
continually to extend those powers. It called in
question the powers of the governors, as in the case
of Governor Seymour's attempt to grant a charter
to Annapolis, and held them to the letter of their
commissions. The proceedings of the Assembly
at times may seem much like those of a college
debating society ; but it was the school in which the
assertion of liberty found expression, and wherein
was obtained the training which, two generations
later, showed the freemen of the American colonies
qualified to take their part as the legislators of
an infant nation.
The various grievances alleged by the Associators
136 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
in 1689, in the petition to the King, inviting him
to assume the government of the Province, have
already been noted. The petition served its purpose.
But, it is worthy of note that, in 1701, when a
bill was introduced in Parliament looking to the
destruction of the charters of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, East and
West Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland and the
Bahama Islands, and their conversion into royal
governments, a letter was addressed by the Lords
Commissioners of Trade to the government of
Maryland, enquiring particularly as to " the ill-
conduct of Proprietary governments, especially of
Maryland when under that government." Now
was the chance to substantiate the complaints of
1689. The letter was laid before the Council,
which was no longer composed of appointees of the
Proprietary. The members were able to think of
but five grievances : — these were, that there had been
no oath of allegiance to the Crown required, but
only the oaths of office and fidelity to the Proprie-
tary, (which was in accordance with the charter) ;
that the laws of the Province were not transmitted
to the King for allowance, (which was also strictly
in conformity with the charter) ; that there were
no appeals to England from the decisions of the
courts, and that the judgment of the upper house
was final in all causes, (also charter rights) ; that
two collectors of customs had been murdered in
the execution of their office, (which was not true,)
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 137
though they added that this was not chargeable
against the government ; and, finally, that the
tonnage duty of 14d. per ton on tobacco belonged
to the Province, (in respect to which the Privy
Council had, nine years before, after examination
of the subject, decided otherwise). Not one single
charge of tyranny, oppression, abuse of power, or
official misconduct, was laid against the Proprietary
or the Proprietary government as such, now when
the opportunity for complaint was given, and a
report upon the subject was not only encouraged
but especially demanded by the Crown.
LECTURE V.
Benedict Leonard, Fourth Lord Baltimore.
Charles, Fifth Lord Baltimore.
Frederick, Sixth Lord Baltimore.
UPON the death of Charles, third Baron, which
occurred on February 20, 1714/5, his son,
Benedict Leonard, succeeded to the title, which he
held, however, for a few weeks only, as his own
death followed on April 5, of the same year (1715).
Benedict Leonard had, in 1713, publicly renounced
the Roman Catholic faith and attached himself to the
Church of England. The immediate effect of this
change of religious faith or allegiance was twofold.
In the first place it excited the wrath of his father,
who had adhered to his Church regardless of the
effect upon his temporal fortunes, and in the second
place it paved the way for the restoration of the
Proprietary government in Maryland.
The old Lord Baltimore manifested his displeasure
by withdrawing an allowance of £450 yearly which
he had made to his son, and the latter was conse-
quently obliged to depend upon his wife's portion for
the means of living, and for the education of his chil-
dren, who had been at Roman Catholic seminaries
138
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 139
on the continent of Europe at their grandfather^s
charge, but were now placed at Protestant schools
in England. Under these circumstances Benedict
applied for relief to Queen Anne, who granted him
a pension of £300 during his father's lifetime, and
at his instance appointed John Hart Governor of
Maryland, who agreed to allow Benedict an addi-
tional sum of £500 yearly out of the revenues of
his office. Upon the accession of George I., Benedict
laid the state of the case before him, and obtained
a continuance of the pension allowed by Queen
Anne, and the renewal of Hart's commission as
Governor.
Charles, Lord Baltimore, lived but a short time after
these events, and the news of Benedict Leonard's
succession as Proprietary had hardly been received
in Maryland before it was followed by the announce-
ment of his death. There is therefore no record of
acts of his as Proprietary.
In 1684 when he was a child, not more than five or
six years of age, he had been appointed by his father
titular Governor of Maryland, during the latter's
absence in England, with the actual administration
vested in a board of deputies. No record of the
birth of Benedict Leonard has been found, but from
a letter written by his father, dated July 9, 1679,^
in which the circumstance is referred to, that the
young gentleman had not yet cut his teeth, it may
^ Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 1, p. 307.
140 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
reasonably be assumed that his birth occurred not
very many months prior to that date.
On January 2, 1698/9, he was married to Lady
Charlotte Lee, from whom he is said to have been
divorced in 1705/ six years after his marriage, she
having in the meanwhile borne him seven children.
She was the daughter of the Earl of Litchfield, and
granddaughter of Charles II. and Barbara Palmer,
whom Charles created Duchess of Cleveland, and
who is described by Macaulay as the " superb and
voluptuous. ^^ Having become a Protestant, Bene-
dict was elected, during the last year of his life,
member of Parliament for Harwich in Essex.
V Charles, the fifth Baron, succeeded to the title upon
the death of his father, on April 5, 1715. He was
then but sixteen years of age, and his guardian. Lord
Guilford, lost no time in representing to the King,
George I., the fact that his ward was a Protestant,
and that therefore no political reason existed for
delaying the restoration to him of the government
of the Maryland Province. The King was equally
prompt to act, and in May, 1715, the Palatinate
authority was restored to the infant Lord Baltimore
under the terms of the original charter granted
eighty-three years before.
We have seen with what excitement, with what
denunciations and violence, certain agitators had
taken advantage of the political disturbances in
^Morris, The Lords Baltimore; Md. Hist. Soc; p. 43.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 141
England to secure the overthrow of the Proprie-
tary government in 1689. Twenty-six years later
the restoration of that government did not cause
a ripple or a whisper of discontent. A proclamation
was issued announcing that the thing had been
done. John Hart, the royal governor, was recom-
missioned as governor for the Proprietary, writs
which had been issued in the name of the Crown
for the election of delegates to the Assembly were
recalled, and new writs issued to which the old
great seal of the Lord Proprietary was affixed,^
and that was all. An address was adopted by
the Assembly expressing satisfaction that with the
restored government they were ^^put on a wholly
Protestant establishment,^' but there seems to have
been some suspicion lurking that the ncAV Proprie-
tary might have inherited some of the prejudices of
his ancestors in favor of religious toleration, for
they hastened to add the assurance that " Papists
are secure while they remain good subjects."^
Two years later, an address signed by the speaker
and fifty-two members of the lower house, applauds
his Lordship's ^^ compassion for truly scrupulous
consciences," and assures him that the writers
" feel the same for those that are inoffensive to
the government and do not pervert Protestants to
^For a history and description of this seal, see the author's
monograph, entitled The Great Seal of Maryland. Md. Hist.
Soc, Fund Publication, No. 23, (1885),
2 TIM Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert 3fSS., Doc. 257.
142 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
the superstitions of the Church of Rome/' His
Lordship is warned against heeding complaints
from any such. He is cautioned "not to listen
to them/'i
Charles, Lord Baltimore, was married in July,
1730, to Mary, daughter of Sir Thomas Jannsen
of Surrey, from whom he afterwards obtained a
partial divorce.^ She bore him three children,
Frederick, who succeeded to the title, Louisa, who
afterwards became Mrs. Browning, and Caroline,
who was the wife of Governor Eden of Maryland.
In both character and ability Charles fell very far
short of his grandfather and namesake. Some of
his letters, addressed to the governors of Maryland,
exhibit a querulous temper in marked contrast to
the dignified tone in which his ancestors conveyed
instructions, or if need were, expressed disapproval
of what had been done. He was nevertheless not
without accomplishments, and during his travels
abroad, upon the continent of Europe, made a very
favorable impression upon Frederick the Great, of
Prussia, then Crown Prince.^ It was in 1739 that,
returning from Russia, he visited the Prince at
Reinsberg, where he remained five days. Frederick
wrote of him to Voltaire : " This milord is a very
^Md. Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert 3ISS., Doc. 262.
•'3Id. Hist. Sac, Coll. Calvert MSS., Doe. 432.
3 Carlyle, History of Frederick the Great, 1858, Vol. ii, p. 665 ;
and Morris, The Lords Baltimore, pp. 45-52, where several
references to authorities are given.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 143
sensible man, who possesses a great deal of knowl-
edge and thinks like us that sciences can be no
disparagement to nobility nor degrade an illustrious
rank. I admire the genius of this Anglais as one
does a fine face through a crape veil. He speaks
French very ill, and yet one likes to hear him speak
it ; and as for his English, he pronounces it so
quick there is no possibility of following him.''
Indeed, Frederick was so pleased with the lofty
discourse he held with his visitor that he addressed
him a rhymed epistle on the subject of liberty of
thought in England which began with the words :
'^ L^ esprit libre, Milord, qui regne en Angleterre.''^
To another correspondent Frederick wrote touch-
ing Lord Baltimore's visit, that ^^ we talked much
of philosophy, of art, of science, in short of all that
can be included in the taste of cultivated people."
Carlyle, in his History of Frederick the Great,
remarks that "for the sake of this small transit
over the sun's disc, I have made some enquiry about
Baltimore, but found very little, perhaps enough."
Walpole's estimate of him was less flattering than
that of Frederick; he describes him as "a very
good-natured, weak, honest man," and credits him
with the possession of " a good deal of jumbled
knowledge." ^ Lord Hervey bluntly puts it, in
one of his letters to Horace Mann, "there is my
Lord Baltimore, who thinks he understands every-
1 Walpole's Letters to Mann, Vol. ii, 176 (1843).
144 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
thing and understands nothing; who wants to be
well with both courts, and is well at neither, and
entre nous is a little mad."
Such were the somewhat conflicting opinions enter-
tained by his contemporaries of the man to whom
was restored the Proprietary government of Mary-
land. In truth, his reputation in England suffered
not a little from his intimacy with the disreputable
and dissolute Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales. In
1731 he was appointed Gentleman of the Bedchamber
to that Prince, and seems to have been employed
by the latter upon certain missions, and in intrigues,
that were sufficiently discreditable to both. His
reputation for an interest in science secured his
election as a Fellow of the Royal Society, and he
was member of Parliament, first for St. Germain^s
in Cornwall, and afterwards from the County of
Surrey. In 1741 he was appointed Lord of the
Admiralty and six years later Cofferer to the Prince
of Wales and Surveyor General of his lands in
Cornwall.^ He died in 1751, a year before the
Prince, whose favor he had continued to retain.
The Maryland Province, the government of which
was restored to Charles, was a very different one
from that over which his grandfather had exercised
authority twenty-six years before. The charter was
unaltered; Lord Baltimore was, on parchment at
least, as his ancestors had been in fact. Absolute
il/cL Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert 3ISS., Docs. 96, 97.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 145
Lord and Proprietary. But all vestige of auto-
cratic authority had been swept away. The lower
house of Assembly no longer regarded its powers
as limited by the charter, but adopted as its model
the House of Commons. The latter had acquired
great increase of power since the time of the Tudors
and the Stuarts ; why should they not also ? More-
over they had been trained to resistance. The royal
authority had been sought as a relief from that of
the Proprietary, but when it was found to bear
heavily, the means of resistance was found, a more
active political life had been awakened, and the
lesson of resistance once learned was not likely to
be forgotten.
There was one clause in the charter which
admirably served the purpose. In the tenth section
of that instrument, it was provided as a special
grace and privilege, that the settlers in the Province,
and their children and descendants born there,
should be regarded as natives of the Kingdom of
England and Ireland, should be treated as such,
with power to inherit or purchase lands in England,
and likewise should possess all the privileges, fran-
chises and liberties of the Kingdom of England,
and enjoy the same in the same manner as the
liegemen of the Crown born within the Kingdom
of England.
These provisions were now seen in a new light.
Upon the accession of William and Mary the
English Parliament had embodied the constitutional
10
146 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
rights which they asserted, in a Bill of Rights, to
remove forever the danger of the liberties of the
people being invaded as they had been by the
Stuarts. Divine right, or any right to the throne,
other than that which is derived from Act of Par-
liament, was swept away. The Maryland colonists
were not slow to see that if under the charter of
Maryland they were entitled to all the liberties and
franchises of native-born Englishmen, an enlarge-
ment of the constitutional liberties of the people in
England worked an enlargement of their own as
well. But years were to elapse before these doc-
trines, although already at work, found expression
in resolutions of the Assembly.
During the royal government the population of
Maryland had but slightly increased. Some of
the motives for immigration had been destroyed.
Under the Proprietary government the Province
had been a sort of haven of refuge for all who
were oppressed upon religious grounds, — whether
Roman Catholics or Protestant non-conformists.
But upon the establishment of the Church of
England the laws in relation to religious non-
conformity became practically the same as those
that prevailed in the mother country, though, as
a matter of fact, the enforcement of the penal
statutes upon this subject, as a result probably
of long established custom in favor of religious
liberty, was of rare occurrence.
In 1722, the disposition to extend to Maryland
!rs:E Maryland palatinate 14?
the English commoD law and the statutes of that
country, except those that were of obvious local
application, found expression in a resolution of the
lower house of Assembly extending to Maryland
the operation of an English statute, contrary to the
decision of the Provincial Court upon the subject.
This action was dissented from by the upper house
and disallowed by the Governor ; but it marks the
increasing tendency to ignore the strict provisions
of the charter and fall back upon the law of
England, a natural result of a quarter of a century
of royal domination.
The most important subject of interest at this
period, as affecting not only the rights of the
Lord Proprietary, but the interests of the Province
itself, and those of the future State which was to
arise upon the final termination of the Provincial
government, was the boundary dispute with the
Penns — the sons and heirs of William Penn, the
original grantee of Pennsylvania. The condition
of that controversy upon the accession of William
and Mary, and the probable escape of the charter
of Maryland from abrogation, by the flight of
James II., have been already referred to.
Mention has also been made of the unsuccessful
efforts of William Penn to persuade the elder
Charles, Lord Baltimore, to surrender a portion
of Maryland so as to enable the former to gain a
broad strip of fertile land, together with an outlet
to navigable water at the head of the Chesapeake
148 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Bay, and of the persistent refusal of Penn and
his agents to join in an astronomical determination
of the true location of the boundary by observa-
tions made on the spot. The grant to Penn of
Delaware, or the three lower counties, as the region
on the west shore of the Delaware Bay was called,
was made by the Duke of York, who himself had
no title to convey. But it was uphill work for
Lord Baltimore to attack a grant made by the
brother of the King and heir apparent to the
throne, although the entire tract was included in
Lord Baltimore's original patent from Charles I.
The question was referred at Penn's instance to
the Lords of Trade. The grantor had then become
King, and Lord Baltimore's chances of success
were even less than before.
In the preamble to the charter of Maryland
it was declared that the purpose Avas to establish
an English colony in a region hactenus inculta, —
hitherto uncultivated, — and partly occupied by
savages. Then followed the grant in which the
limits of the territory were defined. It was urged
on Penn's behalf that the words hactenus inGulta^
although they in fact formed no part of a condi-
tion of Lord Baltimore's charter, excluded from its
operation any lands occupied by civilized colonists,
and that there were Dutch settlements on the
western shore of the Delaware. It does not seem
likely, even if the words quoted could be regarded
as words of limitation, which they were not, that
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 149
it was any part of the intention of Charles I.,
who claimed for the British Crown the continent
of North America by virtue of Cabot^s discoveries,
to include in the grant to Lord Baltimore a pro-
vision for respecting or confirming the title of
Dutch settlers in any part of this domain. His
subsequent grant of New Amsterdam to the Duke
of York clearly shows that he had no such purpose.
As a matter of fact, at the time the charter of
Maryland was granted there were no such settle-
ments upon the west shore of the Delaware Bay.
There had been a small settlement made by the
Dutch in 1630, but the colonists were all killed
the following year by the Indians ; and the next
to settle upon that region were Swedes, and not
Dutch, who came in 1638, six years after the
date of Lord Baltimore's charter. But neither
facts, nor arguments, could overcome the more
powerful considerations that Penn stood high in the
favor of the King and that he earnestly desired
an outlet and water way for his Province of Penn-
sylvania. The decision was made therefore that a
line should be run due west from Cape Henlopen
on the Delaware, to the Chesapeake, and from the
middle point of this line, one should be run north to
the fortieth parallel and so divide the region in two,
giving the eastern half on the Delaware to Penn,
and leaving the western half on the Chesapeake
still a part of Maryland.
After the proceedings instituted by Penn for the
150 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
purpose of annulling the charter of Maryland had
come to an end upon the accession of William and
Mary and the appointment of a royal governor
for Maryland, some years elapsed before anything
further was heard of the boundary dispute; but
after the restoration of the Proprietary govern-
ment it was revived, the disputants being then
Charles, fifth Lord Baltimore, and Thomas and
Eichard Penn, sons of William Penn.
The disputed title, and doubt as to the location
of the boundary, led to a condition of border law-
lessness throughout the debatable ground. Tenants
refused to pay rents or taxes, alleging doubt as to
who was the lawful Proprietary and under what
government they lived. Sheriffs took with them
armed posses to enforce the payment of public dues,
and occasionally the aid of the militia was invoked.
The natural results ensued ; — arrests, bloodshed and
the burning of homesteads, reprisals, and all the
incidents of border warfare. One of the sturdiest
of the Maryland borderers was Thomas Cresap.
He was a brave frontiersman and loyal tenant of
Lord Baltimore. He built a blockhouse near the
Susquehanna river, directly at the fortieth degree
of north latitude, the limit claimed by Lord Balti-
more for his northern boundary. It was an outpost
of the Province.
This stout fighter aroused the special animosity
of the Pennsylvanians. They invaded his house
at one time and threatened to hang him. Upon
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 151
another occasion a large party surrounded it, set
it on fire, and attacking the inmates as they fled
from the flames, an affray followed in which one
man was killed and several wounded, among the
latter bemg Cresap, himself; and four persons, of
whom he was one, were carried prisoners to Phila-
delphia.^ The Pennsylvanians alleged that Cresap
was seized for killing one of their men ; while
in Maryland it was claimed that he shot only in
self-defense when his house was attacked and his
life threatened. Samuel Ogle,^ then Governor of
Maryland, sought to obtain Cresap^s release; and
failing in this, directed the seizure of a number
of the ring-leaders in the raid ; which was accom-
plished by a posse of Mary landers. And so the
strife went on, with violence on both sides, until
in 1 736 appeal was finally made to the Crown by
the Maryland government, and an order in Council
was issued commanding both sides to keep the
peace, and that no further grants of lands should
be made in the disputed territory until the location
of the boundary should be fixed.
'Md. Hist Soc, Coll. Calvert MSS., Docs. 320, 321.
^The Governors of Maryland after the restoration of the
Proprietary authority were : — John Hart, 1715 to 1720 ;
Charles Calvert (cousin of Lord Baltimore), 1720 to 1727 ;
Benedict Leonard Calvert (brother of Lord Baltimore), 1727
to 1731 ; Samuel Ogle, 1731 to 1732 ; 1733 to 1742 ; 1747 to
1752 ; Thomas Bladen, 1742 to 1747 ; Horatio Sharpe, 1753
to 1769 ; and Kobert Eden (brother-in-law of Frederick, Lord
Baltimore), 1769 to 1776.
152 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
On May 10, 1732, Charles, Lord Baltimore,
entered into an agreement with John, Thomas and
Richard Penn, sons of William Penn, as to the
manner in which the boundary between Maryland
and Pennsylvania should be determined.^ By
this agreement, which was executed in England,
he practically surrendered all for which, in the
boundary dispute, his ancestors had contended,
and conceded to the Penns all that they had
sought.
Nearly fifty years before, the Lords of Trade
had directed that for determining the boundary
of the three lower counties (or Delaware), a line
should be run westward from Cape Henlopen to
the middle of the peninsula lying between the Dela-
ware and Chesapeake Bays, and thence northerly.
The agreement purported to provide for just such a
boundary; but material deviations were introduced.
Attached to the agreement was a map, referred to
and made a part of it, and admitted to be a true copy
of those which had been sent over from America
to the parties, by their respective agents in those
parts, for their assistance and guidance.
The agreement then proceeded to define the
boundary, and provided that the east and west line
(constituting the southern boundary of Delaware)
should begin at the place in the said map called
Cape Henlopen, which lies south of Cape Cornelius ;
' Md. Hist. Soc, Coll Calvert 3ISS., Doc. 298,
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 153
thence to run to the exact middle point of the
peninsula ; thence northerly until it became tangent
on the west to the periphery of a circle drawn at a
distance of twelve miles from the town of Newcastle ;
thence a line to be run due north until it comes
into the same latitude as fifteen miles due south of
the most southern part of the City of Philadelphia ;
and thence due west ; this last course to constitute
the boundary between Maryland and Pennsylvania.
Of the map referred to, there are two printed
copies in the possession of the Maryland Historical
Society, and one, done in water colors, which is
in all probability an original.^
Upon this map the cape at the mouth of the
Delaware Bay, then, as now, well known as Cape
Henlopen, is labeled Cape Cornelius, and about
twenty miles down the coast on the Atlantic sea-
board, a place which is appropriately known as
False Cape, is falsely marked Cape Henlopen.
From this map all such standards of measurement
as lines of latitude and longitude, which might
have arrested the attention of Lord Baltimore, were
carefully omitted, but the lines proposed for the
demarcation of the boundaries between Maryland
on the one side, and the three lower counties (or
Delaware) and Pennsylvania on the other, were
distinctly drawn in red ink. These red lines,
^ One of the printed copies has an endorsement showing that
it was used as an exhibit in the examination of witnesses under
commission at Philadelphia.
154 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
beginning on the east at the point ^' called on the
map^' Cape Henlopen, and which are specially
referred to in the agreement, are those which in 1732
Lord Baltimore assented to as defining the bound-
aries of Maryland. Sixty years earlier a map of
Maryland had been prepared by Augustin Herman,
whose services in the making of it had been accepted
by Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, in payment for the
grant to him of Bohemia Manor. Herman's map
was engraved and published in London in 1673, by
Faithorne, an engraver of high reputation. This map
was well known, and its accuracy is remarkable.
Modern surveys have made but small corrections
upon the portions which relate to the coast, the
bay, and the tidewater region. Upon this map the
location of Cape Henlopen, then as now situated
directly at the entrance to Delaware Bay, and the
position of the Susquehanna Fort already mentioned
as marking the northern boundary of Maryland at
the fortieth degree of north latitude, were distinctly
given. In addition to this many other maps of
the Province had been printed and published.^
It is to be observed that by the terms of this
agreement Lord Baltimore consented that the line
^ For convenience of reference and comparison, there are
printed with this volume, a facsimile of the map above
described upon which Cape Henlopen is falsely marked, and
also one of a portion of Herman's map, showing the eastern
part of the Province. These maps are reproduced by per-
mission of the Maryland Historical Society from its publication
designated as Calvert Papers, No. 2.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 155
should be run, not from Cape Henlopen, as the
Lords of Trade had directed, but from " the place
on said map called Cape Henlopen which lies south
of Cape Cornelius," thus admitting the existence of
a cape known by the latter name. After the map
had served its purpose, Cape Henlopen returned to
its proper place, the same which it had previously,
and has subsequently occupied, and the mythical
"Cape Cornelius" vanished from the face of the
earth, and from the maps thereof.
The northern boundary of the Province of Mary-
land was by the charter distinctly fixed at the
fortieth degree of north latitude, which passes north
of Philadelphia ; so that that city is situated within
the territory originally granted to Cecilius, Lord
Baltimore. The fortieth degree had all along been
insisted upon, and the motive of the Penns in
persistently refusing to unite in the determination
of its location by astronomical observation is suffi-
ciently plain.
How Charles, Lord Baltimore, could have been
so ignorant of the geography of his Province, or
so misled as to the location of its boundaries,
the position of such a well known point as Cape
Henlopen, and of other conspicuous physical
features, such as rivers '*and headlands that were
misplaced upon the map, and hence to sign an
agreement by which the southern boundaries of
both Delaware and Pennsylvania were moved about
twenty miles to the southward, thus reducing the
156 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
area of Maryland by a strip of that width along
its entire northern border, is a mystery which
cannot now be solved. His grandfather had been
asked by the elder Penn to name a "gentleman's
price'' for a concession much less in extent than
the one which was now made without considera-
tion to the younger Penns.^
In the agreement, the map attached to it was
described as a true copy of those sent over from
America to the parties to the agreement by their
respective agents. That it, or one like it, was sent
or approved by any agent of Lord Baltimore in
Maryland is incredible. There was a Surveyor
General of the Province ; the location of the fortieth
degree of north latitude, the northern boundary as
defined by the charter, had been ascertained and
was well known ; while Cresap and others had settled
along the northern frontier for the express purpose
of maintaining possession in the name of the Pro-
^ Maryland also lost a large tract of territory to Virginia,
through ignorance of geographical features on the part of the
first settlers. Maryland's western boundary was to be fixed at
the first fountain of the Potomac, the southern boundary to
follow the south bank of that river. The north fork was
adopted as the boundary, but later it was ascertained that the
south fork was the longer, and that therefore Maryland was
entitled not only to a boundary further west, but also to all
the fertile land lying between the two branches of the river.
The questions in relation to this territory were not finally
settled until 1852, when Maryland relinquished her claims
in favor of Virginia.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 157
prietary of Maryland, and had been bravely fighting
to that end.
After the death of Charles, Lord Baltimore, his
brother, Cecilius Calvert, was appointed Secretary
of Maryland to reside in England and act for the
heir, Frederick, during his minority. He wrote in
1752 to Edmund Jennings, the Deputy Secretary
resident in Maryland, that the map attached to
the agreement had been prepared by the Penns,
and that the late Lord Baltimore had been
greatly deceived and imposed upon therein.^ It
is certainly inconceivable that he should have
knowingly accepted a map so palpably inaccurate,
and the adoption of which was so prejudicial to
his own interests.
Within less than a year after signing the agree-
ment with the Penns, Lord Baltimore visited
Maryland for the purpose of adjusting various
questions affecting the Province. He was reason-
ably successful in composing for the time the dis-
putes that had arisen between the upper and
lower houses of the Assembly, and it was not
long before he discovered, or had pointed out to
him, the blunder that he had made in signing the
agreement with the Penns. When he recognized
how great a sacrifice of territory he had assented to,
Lord Baltimore refused to carry out the terms of
the agreement, and in 1735 the Penns instituted
^Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 2, p. 135.
158 THE LOBDS BALTIMORE AND
proceedings against him to compel performance on
his part ; but the case dragged along. By reason of
the death of one of the Penns, and the delays inci-
dent to chancery proceedings, a final decision was not
reached until 1750. It was at last rendered by Lord
Chancellor Hardwicke, by whom the contention of
the Penns was sustained in every particular. The
reasoning of the decision was in substance that Lord
Baltimore, having entered into an agreement for the
purpose of settling a disputed question would have
to abide by its terms ; that he was presumed to
know the bounds of his Province ; and as to the
fraudulent location of Cape Henlopen on the map,
the Chancellor calmly ignored all evidence, and
decided that for the purposes of this case, it must
be deemed and taken to be where the parties to
the agreement had said it was. The decree pro-
vided that commissioners should be appointed and
the boundary surveyed.^
Upon the death of Charles, Lord Baltimore, on
April 24, 1751, shortly after this decision was
rendered, the title and estates devolved upon his
son Frederick, who was then a minor.
The minority of Frederick prevented further
action for the time, and more than ten years
elapsed before measures were taken for the actual
determination of the boundary as prescribed. Then
two distinguished astronomers and mathematicians,
^Md. Hist Soc, Coll. Calvert MSS., Docs. 444, 446.
1:HE MABYLANi) PALATINATE 159
Charles Mason and Jeremiah Dixon, of England,
were engaged to survey and mark the boundary.
They began the survey in 1763, and continued
their work until 1767, when, as they proceeded
westward, they were stopped by the activity of
hostile Indians. In the meantime, they had com-
pleted the location of the line on the peninsula,
and projected the east and west line, which marked
the northern boundary of Maryland, two hundred
and forty-four miles west from the Delaware. As
directed by the decree in chancery, this line was
substantially marked by hewn stones, set up at
every mile, and at the end of every fifth mile
larger stones were placed having sculptured on the
one side the arms of Lord Baltimore, and on the
other the arms of the Penns ; ^ except that in steep
places and on mountain sides, mounds of stone
were substituted. Many of these boundary stones
are still in position, and the trees having been
felled for a broad strip, — right and left of the
line, — the location of the boundary is to-day still
further indicated through the western and forest
portions, by the colors of the foliage upon the
younger growth of timber that has come up, con-
trasting with that of the primeval forest by which
it is bordered.
Such was the origin of Mason and Dixon^s
line — run nearly a century and a half ago to
^ One of these stones, which had been thrown down, is now
preserved at the rooms of the Maryland Historical Society.
160 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
settle a dispute then nearly a century old, between
two proprietaries whose respective domains were
destined to pass forever from their control in
less than a decade from the completion of the
survey; — a line Avhich a century after its estab-
lishment became famous, and its name familiar
throughout the land, as the assumed boundary
between the States in which African slavery was
lawful, and those in which it was prohibited.
During the lifetime of Charles, Lord Baltimore,
the requisitions of the Crown upon the American
colonies for troops and money were frequent, and
the lower house of the Assembly in Maryland
persisted in finding means for withholding the
supplies, by coupling to the appropriation bills con-
ditions which the upper house would not accept.
They were generally framed so that the duties
levied for the use of the Proprietary should be
reduced by an amount sufficient to offset the levy
made for the Crown. There was also manifested
an indisposition to furnish men to fight the French
and Indians on the Canadian frontier, the brunt
of whose attacks fell upon the New England
colonies, when hostilities nearer home might at
any time be apprehended.
The people of Maryland were not, however,
altogether unmindful of the royal mandates. It
was during this period that what has since become
known as the imperial policy of England first
began to take shape, and a call was made upon
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE l61
her AmericaD colonies for troops to serve in foreign
war beyond the limits of the North American
continent. Troops were demanded for service in
the tropics in the war with Spain. In 1740
Maryland furnished three companies of infantry
for this purpose, which were sent to the siege of
Cartagena, a city and port in what is now the
Republic of Colombia, close to the Isthmus of
Panama. The sad, the pitiful, story of that cam-
paign, in which the tropical fevers and the imbe-
cility and jealousies of rival commanders combined
to waste brave lives, is apart from our subject.
The survivors from that expedition were few in
number.
On one occasion when troops from Maryland
had been sent to Albany, the Maryland Assembly
emphatically refused to vote an appropriation to
provide for their maintenance, claiming that having
furnished the men, equipped them, and provided
for their transportation, they had done all that
could be required of them. The troops, they con-
tended, were in the service of the Crown, and the
royal government would have to provide for them.
This illustrates the temper which was developing,
and which in later years found expression in more
pronounced resistance to the demands of the Crown,
as these came to be more keenly felt as encroach-
ments upon the rights of the colonies, while the
colonies became stronger either to help or to defy.
Frederick the sixth and last Lord Baltimore was
11
162 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
born February 6, 1731/2. His guardians, during
the brief period of his minority which remained after
his succession to the title, were John Sharpe, Esq., a
barrister, and the Right Honorable Arthur Onslow,
speaker of the House of Commons.
History records little, if anything, concerning
Frederick, that is to his credit. He travelled
extensively upon the continent of Europe and
also visited Constantinople and the Orient. He
was infinitely conceited, and, — ambitious of being
esteemed a man of letters, — he wrote a ridiculous
book of travels, and several still more ridiculous
volumes of verses. The book of travels was
reviewed in the Gentleman's Magazine for 1767.
The reviewer made merry with his subject and after
quoting a number of absurd and ungrammatical
passages, closed his criticism with the observation
that "it is to be regretted that in this book there
is not one event, description or remark worth
recording.^' Frederick also apparently essayed
science; for we learn from the correspondence
between him and his uncle, Cecilius Calvert, that
in 1764 he wrote for his globes and telescopes to
be shipped to him at Smyrna.^
His travels on the continent happened to be
coincident in date with those of Laurence Sterne,
who found in Lord Baltimore subject for comment in
" A Sentimental Journey.'^ Sentiment formed no part
^Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 2, p. 217.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 163
of Frederick's composition, and he is thus char-
acterized by Sterne : — ^^ Mundungus/' he says, —
(that being a name for one of the lowest grades of
Maryland's staple product, tobacco, which Sterne
adopted as a designation for his Lordship,) — " Mun-
dungus, with an immense fortune, made the whole
tour, going from Rome to Naples, from ^Naples
to Venice, from Venice to Vienna, to Dresden, to
Berlin — without one generous connection, or pleasur-
able anecdote to tell of; but he had travelled
straight on, looking neither to his right hand nor
his left, less Love or Pity should seduce him out
of his road. . . . Peace be to him if it is to be
found, but were the happiest mansion in Heaven
to be allotted, he would be so far from being happy,
that his soul would do penance there for all eter-
nity."^ Such is the sketch drawn of him by a
contemporary who was not lacking in powers of
observation, discrimination and description.
Frederick was married in 1753 to Lady Diana
Egerton, daughter of the Duke of Bridgewater.
There are among the Calvert Papers now in the
possession of the Maryland Historical Society a
number of letters which passed between her and
Frederick, both before and after marriage.^ In this
correspondence her Ladyship appears to much the
greater advantage, not only in form and manner of
expression, but also in handwriting and spelling.
^Sterne : A Sentimental Journey ; In the Street, — Calais.
^Md. Bist. Soc, Coll. Calvert MSS., Docs. 1153 et seq.
164 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
His epistles are slovenly productions, full of blots,
alterations and erasures. The affection which he
effusively expressed was not of long duration.
They were separated by agreement, in May, 1756,
the cause assigned being what is now loiown as
" incompatibility of temper.^' Lady Baltimore died
in August, 1758, having for some time been an
invalid from a disorder in her back, resulting, it
is said, from being thrown from a carriage while
driving, — taking an airing, the account has it, —
with her husband.^
It is pleasant to note that at the time of her
death, her step-father. Sir Eichard Lyttleton, who
had married the Dowager Duchess of Bridgewater,
wrote to Lord Baltimore, testifying to the affec-
tion of Lady Baltimore for him, which had been
particularly shown throughout her final illness.^
It was after the death of Lady Baltimore that
Frederick made the tour of the continent of Europe
and the Levant, during which he aroused the scorn
of the author of " A Sentimental Journey."
During the war with France, Maryland gave
but little assistance to the Crown or the sister
colonies in the conduct of the campaign. This
was due, partly, to the fact that the territory of
Maryland being strictly limited to a definite area,
^Scharfs History of Maryland, Vol. u, p. 137. Md. Hist.
Soc, Coll. Calvert MSS., Doc. 1207. (Letter of Earl of Essex,
August 25,1758.)
2 Jfd Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert MSS., Doc. 1203.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 165
there was nothing to be gamed for the Province,
by pushing the frontier of the English possessions
westward beyond the Ohio and to the French
settlements on the Mississippi; but chiefly, to the
constant disagreements between the upper and
lower houses of Assembly and the disaffection of
the latter to the Proprietary. When Colonel George
Washington was despatched from Virginia in 1753
to march upon the French at Fort DuQuesne, the
Maryland Assembly in spite of the urgent appeals
of Horatio Sharpe, the Governor, refused to con-
tribute either troops or money. Later, when bills
were passed by the lower house for raising money
for defence, they were coupled with conditions
which it was known the upper house would have
to reject, such as the appropriation of the money
paid for licenses of ordinaries (which was one of
the Proprietary's personal sources of revenue), the
levying of taxes on vacant lands, — which w^ould
result in a direct tax on the Proprietary's unpro-
ductive property, — and a double tax on Roman
Catholics. Measure after measure of this nature
was passed by the lower house and rejected by
the upper. Finally, after Braddock's defeat, and
with the western part of the Province in a state
of terror from the raids and murders committed
by the Indian allies of the French, Governor
Sharpe consented to an act appropriating money
for fortifications, and for rangers to be maintained
on the western frontier, in which the objectionable
166 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
provisions in respect to the levying of a tax on
the Proprietary's manor lands, and the appropria-
tion of the money from licenses were contained.
The exigencies of the occasion were certainly such
as to justify a voluntary concession and contribu-
tion to the defence of the Province on the part of
Frederick, Lord Baltimore ; but he was not so
minded. His father had assented to the appro-
priation of the revenue from licenses of ordinaries
for military expenses in 1740, upon the occasion
of the expedition against Cartagena ; and again,
in 1746, for the expedition against Canada; but
Governor Sharpe's action in consenting to a con-
tinuance of this appropriation under circumstances
infinitely more urgent, excited Frederick's wrath.
Governor Sharpe explained and defended his action
in a long letter^ to his brother, John Sharpe, of
London, who had been Lord Baltimore's guardian
and was then his counsel.
A century before, Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, had
expended a fortune in the planting of Maryland,
from which he himself receive no corresponding
returns whatever. His descendant,^ Frederick, it
was admitted, enjoyed from this heritage at the
time of his marriage in 1753, a yearly revenue
of £9,500,2 ^^^ ^^ ^l^g ^-j^g q£ j^ig ^^^^^ -j^ -^^^i^
the amount had increased to £12,000. He was,
'^Archives of Maryland: Correspondence of Governor Sharpe,
Vol. I, p. 424.
^Md. Hist. Soc, Coll. Calvert 3ISS., X>oc. 953.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 167
however, selfish and extravagant, cared nothmg
for Maryland except as a source of revenue, and
nothmg would he concede, either to relieve the
burdens of his tenants, or to defend his own
interests.
^ He never visited Maryland, though he travelled
widely elsewhere ; and his correspondence with
Governor Sharpe related to but few themes. He
constantly urged that the collection of rents be
pushed, and manifested a suspicion that he was
not getting all that was due to him, or that had
been collected by his agents. At the same time
he made frequent demands for the appointment
of kinsmen and favorites to lucrative offices, and
curiously enough, for benefices for clergymen
whom he sent out; and his acquaintance seems
to have included some of the most disreputable
members of that profession, reverend gentlemen
whose departure from England was apparently
the one thing that was in that country urgently
required of them. Frederick's dispensation of
church livings did not tend materially to promote
the cause of religion, or to increase, through its
representatives, respect for the Church of England.
It is not impossible that in the sale of church
livings this thrifty spendthrift discovered a new
source of revenue.
In 1768, Frederick was tried at the Kingston
Assizes for an infamous crime, his accuser being
a young London milliner. He was acquitted, not,
168 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
however, as Mr. Fiske says/ upon a technicality,
but because the evidence, however damaging, was
in some respects inconsistent, and under the strict
rules of evidence applicable in criminal cases, and
with rather lenient instructions from the court, the
jury found it not sufficiently conclusive to sustain
a conviction of felony. It is to be observed that
the trial was held in the County of Surrey, where
Lord Baltimore had large landed estates and there-
fore a numerous tenantry, and that an acceptable
jury was not obtained until after his right of
challenge had been very freely exercised.^ Though
acquitted in court, he was convicted at the bar of
public opinion ; and the testimony elicited at the
trial would have been quite sufficient to destroy
his reputation, if he had had any to lose. The
news of the charge against him, and of the trial,
extinguished in the Maryland Province whatever
vestige of regard or loyalty remained for the Pro-
prietary, whom the people had never seen, and
whose exactions had been long resented.
Y His death occurred in Naples, September 14,
1771. A contemporary account of his funeral
says ^' the remains of the late Lord Frederick
Baltimore, who died abroad, were carried from
Exeter Exchange in the Strand, where they had
lain in state, in order to be interred in the family
vault at Epsom. His Lordship had injured his
^ Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors, Vol. ir, p. 172.
^Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. xxxviii, pp. 142, 180,
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 169
character in his life, by seduction, so that the
populace paid no regard to his memory when
dead, but plundered the room where the body
lay the moment it was removed." ^
Frederick, Lord Baltimore, left no legitimate
offspring ; and in anticipation of this event, he had
been assiduous in his efforts to break the entail
created by his father's will. Under that instru-
ment, upon the death of Frederick without heir,
the title of Baron of Baltimore being then extinct,
the Proprietorship of Maryland w^as to pass to
Frederick's eldest sister, the Honorable Louisa
Browning, Avife of John Browning, Esq. In his
efforts to defeat this reversion, Frederick devised
the Province to his natural son, Henry Harford,
whom he described in his will as "a certain youth
called or known by the name of Henry Harford,
the son of Hester Wheland, of the Kingdom of
Ireland, born in Bond Street, and now of the
age of nine years or more.'' ^
Proceedings in chancery were instituted against
the executors of Frederick's will, in order to assert
the rights of Mrs. Browning under the will of
her father; and the executors thereupon, — one of
whom, Robert Eden, the husband of Caroline,
Frederick's younger sister, had succeeded Horatio
Sharpe as Governor of Maryland, — immediately
caused the young Henry Harford to be proclaimed
^Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. xlii, p. 44.
^Sdiarf s History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 137.
170 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
as Proprietary, and secured his recognition by the
Assembly of Maryland.
But it was not for long. The history of the
remaining years of the colonial period is filled
with the story of the various attempts of the
British Government to exact revenue from the
colonies, the stamp act, the duty on tea, and the
resolute attitude of the colonies in resistance of
those attempts ; not least in the spirit of determi-
nation, though perhaps the least proclaimed, are to
be noted the actions in Maryland — the proceedings
of the courts without stamped paper, when stamped
paper was by act of Parliament required, and the
burning at Annapolis in open daylight, without
attempt at disguise on the part of the actors, of
the brig Peggy Stewart with her cargo of tea.
But these events belong to the history of the
revolutionary, rather than of the colonial period.
Estranged from the proprietary government, and
now aroused to resistance to royal authority by
the encroachments and exactions of Parliament,
Maryland was ready to take part, — a distinguished
and gallant part it proved, — in the American
Ke volution. The proprietary Governor, Eden,
withdrew from the Province, peaceably, and per-
sonally esteemed ; and the formation of an inde-
pendent state began.
Eventually, the case of Mrs. Browning against
the executors of the will of Frederick came on for
a hearing before the High Court of Chancery ; but
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 171
in the meanwhile the United States of America had
declared themselves independent; and the Lord
Chancellor declined to go on with the hearing,
on the ground that it would be only a waste of
time, as let the Province belong to which it
would, he had no power to give the rightful
owner possession.
We have briefly reviewed during the past four
weeks the characters and careers of the six Barons
of Baltimore.
S/ In George, the first Baron, was recognized a man
of wisdom, character, and indomitable industry, who,
from a comparatively modest station, arose to one
of prominence and influence, and boldly projected
the foundation of a new colony in the new world.
Cecilius, the second Baron, evinced a broad-
minded liberality and statesmanlike ability ; and
therewith, infinite patience and tact, besides un-
failing courage, amidst constant difficulties and
discouragements. His character was such as to
command admiration.
Charles, third Baron, sought to walk in his
father's footsteps, but fell very far short of him
in ability and liberality of mind. He also was
beset with difficulties, but he was less skillful
than his father m meeting and overcoming them.
Of Benedict Leonard, fourth Baron, we know
little except that his change of religious faith
resulted in the restoration of dominion over the
Province to his son.
172 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Charles, fifth Baron, was characterized by weak-
ness and vanity, manifested alike, in his career as
a conrtier, his relations with the Province, and his
dealings in connection with the boundary disputes.
Of Frederick, sixth and last Baron, a selfish, dis-
reputable and dissolute degenerate, neither ability
nor character was even respectable.
It is to be observed with respect to the six
Calverts who successively held the title of Baron
of Baltimore, as it was transmitted from father to
son, that the first three appear, so far as records
can indicate, to have been happy in their domestic
lives ; while the last three were each of them
either separated from their wives, or divorced.
It is perhaps noteworthy, that the earlier Barons,
sprung from the country gentry, or perhaps the
sturdy yeomanry, were distinguished both for ability
and elevation of character. The distinct degen-
eration of the line, whether resulting therefrom,
or merely coincident therewith, is to be recognized
from the time of the infusion of the royal blood
of the Stuarts, derived through the granddaughter
of Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland and
mistress of Charles II.
"Xe sang le plus vieie^ le plus epuise, le plus
pauvre . . .,'' these are the significant words used
by Daudet in Les Rois en Exil, to describe the
physical condition of a young prince, the last of
a royal line. The student of vital statistics would
note one fact which is to be gathered from the
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 173
dates of the birth and death of the several Lords
Baltimore. The duration of the lives of the first
three Barons was fifty-two, sixty-nine and eighty-
five years, respectively, an average of nearly
sixty-nine, — almost the three score years and ten
allotted to man. The ages at death of the last
three were thirty-seven, fifty-two and thirty-nine, —
an average of forty-three years. The degeneracy
was apparently physical, as well as moral and
mental.
LECTURE yi.
Mannees and Customs, Social and Economic
Conditions in Maryland During the
Colonial Period.
WHEN in March, 1634, the first colonists
of Maryland, in the Ark and the
Dove, ascended the Potomac River, and made
their landing at Heron Island, upon which the
name of St. Clement's was bestowed, they were
about to make the first permanent settlement of
Anglo-Saxons within what are now the borders
of Maryland. Traders from Virginia had visited
the region before, and a trading post had been
established at Kent Island in the Chesapeake ;
but of permanent settlements or plantations there
appear to have been none. The cession of a site
for a town upon the mainland having been obtained
from the Indians, who yielded some of their own
houses for the occupancy of the colonists, there
were then laid out and established the limits of
a town,^ upon which was bestowed the name of
St. Mary's, a city now faded from the map, but
which was for sixty years the seat of government
of the Province.
^Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers, No. 3, p. 41.
174
THE MABYLAND PALATINATE 175
These first settlers had the primeval forest with
which to deal, wherein, as w^e learn from Father
White's Relation of the Voyage to Maryland, " all
was high woods except where the Indians had
cleared for corne.^' ^ Of roads there were none,
though, as the same narrator tells, along by the
borders of the river (and his knowledge at the time
of writing extended no farther) "the woode was
not choaked up with undershrubs, but commonly
so farre distant from each other as a coach and
fower horses may travale without molestation."
But for a long time, in fact for nearly a century,
the need for roads as a means of communication
and transportation was not felt : the settlements,
the plantations, were established along the bay
shores, or upon the banks of the numerous rivers
tributary thereto, and communication from one
end of the settled portion of the Province to the
other was swift and easy by means of the barges,
pinnaces, skiffs and canoes, — forerunners of the
pungies, bugeyes and skipjacks of to-day, — which
sped from landing to landing, and from shore to
shore. The colony was like a new world Venice,
laid out upon a magnificent scale as to distance,
though wholly lacking in the other forms of mag-
nificence, and beauty of architecture, by which
the old world Republic was distinguished.
The conditions of life were naturally, or rather
necessarily, those of a colony in the wilderness.
^Ibid., p. 45.
176 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
The earlier habitations were rude structures of logs
and boards. It was not until nearly a century
had elapsed from the foundation of the colony
that manor houses of fine proportions and with
distinct beauty of design, — in a style of architec-
ture which, from the period of the erection of these
mansions, has come to be known in this country
as ^^ Colonial/' — began to find place. Meanwhile,
though the settlers had nature to struggle with, they
found it nature in a kindly and responsive mood.
The land was fertile, while the woods abounded
with game, and the water with fish, ready to the
hand of the huntsman or the fisherman. The
woods were filled with deer, and other, smaller,
animals fit for food, — while beavers, otters, musk-
rats and wild cats, of which the fur was greatly
valued, were plentiful. Bears and wolves appear
also to have been near neighbors, though not highly
esteemed as such. On the bay were swan, geese
and ducks innumerable ; the latter we are told
by an enthusiastic writer, in "millionous multi-
tudes,' ' — an alliterative expression which does not
seem like an exaggeration to any one who has
seen the myriads of wild ducks which but a few
years ago swarmed in the Chesapeake and the
neighboring rivers, even after the construction of
telegraph lines across British North America had
led to the invasion of the breeding haunts of the
ducks, and in spite of the frequent whistle of the
many steamboats plying the waters of the bay,
THE MARYLAND PALA.TINATE 177
and the multiplication of shooting clubs upon every
available point, which contributed to make the
wild fowl, during their annual winter flight to the
south, yet wilder and more rare.
The industry of the colony was from an early
date applied to the cultivation of tobacco ; a product
which became the staple, the source of wealth, the
measure of value, the medium of exchange, and
ultimately, the bane of the Province. The lower
or river portion of the colony, and the regions
bordering upon the waters of the bay on both the
eastern and western shores soon became devoted
to tobacco culture. At first, as it began to take
its place in commerce as an actual agricultural
product of the soil, succeeding to the traffic in pelts
and furs which were the first articles of export
from the colony, the raising of tobacco proved a
profitable venture ; but the natural result, of over-
production and consequent deterioration in quality,
soon followed. It was required by law, that all
planters should raise a certain amount of corn,
according to the numbers in their households ; but
legal requirements upon this subject were of no
avail. Tobacco, for lack of a better currency, came
to be used as the medium of exchange in the
Province. Values were expressed at so many
pounds of tobacco ; taxes were lervied and paid
in tobacco; fines were made payable in the same
manner, as were also the fees for the support
of the public officers of the Province. Except
12
178 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
for a small amount of coins, of various nation-
alities, and generally more or less debased by
clipping, tobacco formed the standard currency
of the Province. The inconvenience resulting
from a lack of current money was strongly felt.
At one time Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, attempted
to supply this lack by the issue of a coinage of
his own, exercising therein the right of coining
money or establishing a mint, which he claimed
under his charter as the prerogative of a Count
Palatine possessing all the powers that had ever
been held or exercised by any Bishop of Durham.
Lord Baltimore sent samples of the coins, a
shilling piece, a sixpence and a groat, to the
Governor (Josias Fendall) and Council, with a
letter dated September 29, 1659, in which he
recommended that this money be made current
by proclamation, for payments upon contracts or
causes arising after a certain date to be specified;
and that an Act of the Assembly be procured pro-
viding for the punishment of counterfeiters of the
coins. He also asked the advice of the Council
concerning the use of the coin, and the encour-
agement given to it.
With characteristic fairness, Cecilius wrote a
few days later, October 12, 1659, to his brother,
Philip Calvert, who was Secretary of the Province,
informing him that the samples of coins had been
forwarded, and explaining that he had taken this
course because he had been assured that the coins
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 179
would be acceptable. But he added, that though
the adoption of this currency would in his judgment
be a very great advantage to the colony, yet it
must not be imposed upon the people but by a
law there made, by their consent, in a General
Assembly. And he asked that this letter be shown
to the Governor and Council.^ But little of this
coinage seems to have been issued, and specimens
of it even are rare. There are a few pieces pre-
served in the collection of the Maryland Historical
Society. These coins were struck in England,
where question was promptly raised as to Lord
Baltimore's authority to coin and export money.
But the matter does not seem to have been pressed.
In 1661 the Assembly of Maryland passed an Act
praying the Lord Proprietary to set up a mint in the
Province and providing for the acceptance of the coin
and the punishment of counterfeiting and clipping.
It was not until 1733 that an issue of paper
currency was made. The amount was £90,000. It
is interesting to note that in this period of general
ignorance upon financial questions, more than ade-
quate provision was made for the redemption of
this currency, and, though it was at times depressed
in exchange value, its ultimate redemption, with a
surplus left in the sinking fund of £35,000, placed
the financial credit of Maryland pre-eminent among
the American colonies.^
' Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, pp. 383-385.
^ Sharpens Correspondence, Vol. iii, p. 251.
180 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
But the old craze^ old as well as new, in respect
to the issue of paper money, and the increase of
currency, was as malignant a disease two hundred
years ago as it has lately proved to be. The theory
of this economic heresy was the same then as
now. Tobacco served as currency, and therefore
as money. Currency, it was believed, represented
Avealth ; therefore the more tobacco the more wealth.
That the quality of the currency, or its quantity
and value, as measured against the commodities or
ventures against which it was to be exchanged, had
anything to do with the matter, was no better
appreciated then, by the planters of Maryland, than
it has been in some modern schools of financial
and economic science, falsely so called.
The effect, the result, was natural. Every one
rushed to planting tobacco. Complaint was made
that artisans who had come to the Province, instead
of ^^ practising their mysteries,'' had devoted them-
selves to tobacco planting, and hence articles which
were produced by handicraft, — notably the useful
and indispensable item of leather,^ that is, cured
and dressed hides, had become scarce and costly ; —
and meanwhile the price of Maryland tobacco, as
a result both of over-production and deterioration
in quality, steadily declined.
Eepeated efforts were made to restrict the pro-
1 Proceedings of the Council, 1667-1687/ 8, p. 457.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 181
duction and impose a standard of quality to be
determined by official inspection, as was the case
in Virginia. But several difficulties stood in the
way. With the exception of St. Mary's, the seat
of government, which was a city in name only,
there were no cities, and no marts of trade. Ports
of entry there were, but they were mere landings
or places for the lading of vessels. Some of the
old landings, still so designated, have, through the
gradual filling up of the river channels, been now
left far from navigable water.
There were no warehouses in which tobacco
sufficient for a cargo could be accumulated, and
consequently the shipments of tobacco were most
easily and most cheaply made by rich planters,
who had estates bordering upon navigable waters
with landing places of their own. Planters seated
back from the water had to have their products
conveyed to places of shipment, and this was
ordinarily done by the simple process of inserting
a pole, as an axle, through the tobacco hogshead,
which, serving itself as a roller, was tediously
hauled in this manner by oxen to the nearest
landing. Hence the name of "rolling roads,'' — once
familiar in Maryland as a designation of the roads
over which this primitive system of transporta-
tion was conducted, but now being fast superseded
by titles which indicate an utter indifference to
historical association. Not far from this city, a
182 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
highway across a portion of Baltimore County,
and terminating at Elkridge Landing, which from
its ancient use was for two centuries known as the
Rolling Road, has lately, in accordance with
modern fashion, been renamed with the more
pretentious title of Catonsville Avenue. By such
processes, old things pass away and all things are
made new.
The abundance of unoccupied or vacant land
in Maryland, and its cheapness, led to a thriftless
mode of cultivation, the effects of which have
left their mark to this day upon the lower or
river counties of the State. As land became
exhausted, fields which had ceased to be profitable
were merely abandoned and fresh land brought
under cultivation.
The earlier attempts to restore the value of the
staple took shape only in efforts to limit production.
But this was recognized as useless without the
co-operation of Virginia, where the crop ripened
earlier, and conditions acceptable to both colonies
were difficult to arrange. The plan was moreover
bitterly opposed by the lower house of Assembly
for the reason that it would impose a hardship
on the smaller planters who could not forego their
sole means of livelihood, reduced as it was in
value. And when an Act was eventually passed
upon the insistence of the upper house, forbidding
tobacco planting for a year. Lord Baltimore him-
self (it was Charles, third Baron) disallowed the
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 183
Act upon the very ground that had been urged by
the delegates, — that it would impose an excessive
hardship upon the smaller landholders.^ Mean-
while the merchants began to complain of the
lack of shipping facilities, the detention of their
ships while the cargoes were gotten together by
the slow process of rolling, and the exhausting
labor imposed on the sailors, who were required
to help in the process.
Another and serious difficulty attending every
effort to secure the raising of the standard of
tobacco was the fact that the fees of public officers,
and later, the tax for the support of the clergy
of the Church of England, were payable in tobacco.
The Assembly, to avoid a gratuitous increase in
the compensation of these gentlemen and officials,
not unnaturally insisted that if the quality, and
consequently the money value, of tobacco were
raised, there should be a corresponding reduction
in the amounts to be paid for fees and taxes. This
was strenuously opposed by those whose incomes
would be afffected, and it was not until 1747 that,
a compromise having been affected, a law was
passed fixing the standard of tobacco, providing
for official inspection, and imposing heavy penalties
for false packing, and the mixing of trash leaves
among the finer grades.^ The result was a prompt
^Md. Archives; Proc. of Council, 1667-1687/8, pp. 5-9, 15-20.
*Mereness ; Maryland as a Proprietary Province, p. 117.
Maryland Gazette, July 14, 1747.
184 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
advance of fifty per cent, in the price of Maryland
tobacco.
Among the institutions which obtained in Mary-
land during the earlier colonial period, there was
one that is worthy of note on account of its
direct relation with a very ancient form of com-
munal or political organization : — perhaps one of
the earliest Anglo-Saxon institutions of which we
have knowledge.
By the terms of the charter the Lord Proprietary
and his heirs were empowered to constitute courts,
appoint judges and do all things necessary for the
administration of justice and preservation of the
peace, and they were also specially authorized to
erect any parcels of land into manors, and therein
to hold a court baron ; and to have and keep
view of frank pledge for the conservation of the
peace and better government of the colony.
The judicial system of the Province was gradu-
ally developed, beginning with the Provincial Court,
and eventually, as counties were successively erected,
county courts were established. But the peculiarly
interesting feature in the evolution of institutions
is the manorial court or court baron. Under the
conditions of plantation prescribed by Cecilius, any
settler who should take up as much as 2000 acres
of land with an adequate number of tenants
or servants, was entitled to rank as lord of a
manor, with all the rights belonging to that rank,
chief among which was the privilege of having
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 185
matters of dispute arising within the precincts of the
manor decided by the manorial court or court baron.
According to Blackstone, manors, with the appur-
tenant authority to hokl a domestic court called a
court baron for settling disputes, and redressing mis-
demeanors and nuisances within the manor, are
as ancient as the Saxon constitution. Closely
connected with the courts baron in ancient insti-
tutions, but still more ancient, was the court leet.
This latter was composed of the assembly of the
whole community, the residents of the district,
and was not limited to the tenants of the
manor. The principal matters dealt with were the
view of frank pledge, that is, the production and
inspection of sureties given for keeping the peace,
and the presentment and punishment of offences.
This court came eventually to be styled merely
the view of frank pledge,^ as expressed in the
Maryland charter.
' The jurisdiction of the court baron, the court of the
landlord, extended only to tenants of the manor. The
court leet was the popular court, the court of the people.
Cf . the German Leute. The rather meaningless name ' ' view
of frank pledge ' ' by which the court came eventually to be
known, is supposed to be due to an error in translation by the
Norman lawyers when struggling with the names of Saxon
institutions. It is presumed that they confounded the Saxon
words for ''peace" and ''free," corresponding to the German
Friede and /re i, and hence mistranslated "peace pledge" as
"free," or "frank pledge." Blackstone, Commentaries, Bk.
II, p. 90 ; Bk. Ill, p. 33, et seq. Digby, History of the Law of
Heal Property, p. 54, note.
186 t:se lords Baltimore and
The advantage to an agricultural people of the
manorial courts, where disputes could be settled
promptly and on the spot, without the expense of
going from home, is obvious. The records of some
of these courts in Maryland have been preserved,
so that we have a clear view of the working of
this ancient Saxon institution in the new world.
The court was organized with all due formality,
with constable, a jury composed of freeholders and
leaseholders, officers, and the steward of the manor
presiding.
It is recorded that at a court baron held March 7,
1656, at St. GabriePs Manor, by the steward of
the lady of the manor (Mistress Mary Brent), one
Martin Kirke took of the lady of the manor, in
full court, by delivery of the steward by the rod,
according to the custom of the manor, a certain
tenement. This delivery of possession by the rod, —
a ceremony in which the steward holding one end,
and the tenant the other, the relation of landlord
and tenant was established in the presence of wit-
nesses, and the rod being then broken, the steward
and tenant each retained, as evidence of the trans-
action, a piece of the rod, — is very ancient, long
antedating a general knowledge of reading and
writing and the consequent use of written contracts
of lease. It is similar to the ancient custom of
" livery of seizen " whereby possession was given
on the premises by the delivery of a piece of the
sod or turf.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 187
Interesting records of a court leet and court
baron, held at St. Clement's Manor, at intervals
from 1659 to 1672, preserved in the collection of
the Maryland Historical Society, which show the
nature of the cases disposed of, and the amounts
of fines imposed, were printed with Mr. John
Hemsley Johnson's paper on " Old Maryland
Manors,'' published in 1883 among the Johns
Hopkins University Studies in Historical and
Political Science.^
As the country became more thickly populated,
and many of the old manors were destroyed by
partition and sale of the land, the manorial courts
were gradually discontinued, and all matters of
dispute were brought within the jurisdiction of
the magistrates or the county courts.
The labor in Maryland was from the begin-
ning of the colony supplied by what were called
"indented servants," who later come to be known
as " redemptioners." These were persons who,
desiring to go to the new world, bound themselves,
in consideration of their passage money being paid
for them, to serve the person by whom it was
advanced, or some one else as his assignee, for a
term of years, generally four or five. At the end
of that period, the servant became a freeman, and
was entitled to receive from his former master fifty
acres of land, besides clothing, and tools for farming.
^ Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political
Science, Series I, No. 7, p. 31.
188 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
The persons who came out in this manner included
all sorts and conditions of men, — mere laborers,
who never could be anything else under the most
favorable conditions, and also some men of educa-
tion and refinement, who found in this arrangement
the only way open to them for seeking their fortunes
in the new world, and who afterwards attained to
places of importance and influence in the Province.
Women also came to Maryland in this manner, —
many of them with a past that were best not enquired
into ; but others with reputations free from reproach.
Among them was a niece of Daniel Defoe, said to
have fled from the prospect of a distasteful marriage
that had been arranged for her. This explanation
on the part of women, for their emigration, was not
unusual ; but sometimes it was true ; and in this
case there seems no cause to doubt its truth. She
married the son of the farmer to whom she was
bound as a servant. The principal incident in
Miss Johnston's novel, " To Have and to Hold,'' is
therefore not without precedent in actual fact.
In a pamphlet entitled "A Character of the
Province of Maryland," ^ published in 1666, the
author, George Alsop, who was himself an indented
servant in Maryland, gives an account of his experi-
ence which would indicate that the lot of persons so
placed was not a severe one. The labor exacted
was not excessive, the maintenance sufficiently com-
^3fd. Hist. Soc, Fund Pub., No. 15. (Eeprint, 1880.)
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 189
fortable, and in winter, when planting operations
were interrupted, abundance of leisure for hunting
was allowed. It is true the position was still that
of a servant, and the bondsman could not go and
come as he pleased. In going abroad he was
required to have a written pass from his master, and
absence without leave was punished by prolongation
of the term of servitude.
Before long a less desirable class of labor was
introduced into the colony. It was perceived in
England that by sending convicts to the colonies
and selling them for terms of servitude, in lieu of
sentence to jail, the expense of their maintenance
would be saved. As a consequence of this policy
large numbers of this class were transported to the
American colonies during the eighteenth century.
One writer, in the Maryland Gazette of July 30,
1767, puts the number sent to Maryland as high
as six hundred a year during the preceding thirty
years, which would make a total of eighteen
thousand during that period ; but these figures
are probably exaggerated.^ The importation of
this class was strongly resented in the Province,
and efforts were made to restrain it by the impo-
^ It is not to be supposed that this large number of convicts
became absorbed in the population of Maryland. A large pro-
portion of them, Avhen their term of transportation was ended,
returned to England ; and of those who elected to remain in
the new world, many sought homes in other colonies where
they would not be known as ex-convicts.
190 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
sition of duty and special taxes upon convicts, and
in addition, purchasers of convict servants were
required to give security for their good behavior ; ^
but these efforts to restrict the shipments failed
in effect for the reason that the convicts were
sent out under authority of Acts of Parliament
which the Province was powerless to defeat. It
must not be imagined that these persons were the
worst of felons. They were mostly convicted for
lesser crimes, larceny and forgery being among the
worst. In fact, it is said that after Culloden, large
numbers were transported as convicts whose only
offense was that they had espoused the forlorn
cause of the house of Stuart. Under the san-
guinary criminal code of the time, a much larger
number of crimes were punishable by death than
under present laws, and those convicted of capital
crimes were not often transported. It was cheaper
to hang them.
It was not until after the beginning of the
eighteenth century, when by the treaty of Utrecht
the traffic in African slaves passed under English
control, that there was any great number of negro
slaves in Maryland. But from that time the
increase was rapid. The trade was stimulated
from England, and Lord Baltimore (Charles, fifth
Baron,) encouraged it. The effect upon the white
servants was damaging. The negroes were slaves
ijfd Archives: Proc. of Council, 1671-1681, p. 136.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 191
for life, and their children after them ; while the
white servant was a bondsman for but a few years
at best, and therefore, as having the less permanent
value, received the less consideration. At this period
the condition of the indented servant, brought into
competition with slave labor, was described as miser-
able indeed.
In 1708 there was published in London by
Ebenezer Cook, a satire in burlesque verse, entitled
the " Sot-weed Factor ^^ ^ giving an account of a visit
to Maryland and Annapolis. By sot-weed, tobacco
is meant. This writer^s report both of the place
and of the people is very far from flattering. Upon
landing at Pascataway he declares there
" soon repair' d a numerous Crew,
In Shirts and Drawers of Scotch-cloth Blue.
With neither Stockings, Hat nor Shooe.
These Sot-weed Planters Crowd the Shoar,
In Hue as tawny as a Moor."
According to this traveller, upon crossing to the
opposite side of the river, he was soon accosted by
a youth driving home some cattle who asks " from
whom he'd run away ? '^ To be taken for a runaway
servant was more than he could stand with equan-
imity, and he forthwith brandished his sword. But a
soft answer turned away wrath, and he was presently
conducted to the house of the planter, nearby, where
^ Early Maryland Poetry. Md. Hist. Soc. , Fund Publication,
No. 36. (Keprint, 1900.)
192 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
hospitable eutertainment was offered, his host con-
siderately refraining from asking whether he came
from jail or college, and generously assuring him
that he was welcome in either case. Then follows
an account of various vicissitudes that befell him
during the night, including the invasion of his bed
chamber by a wild fox in pursuit of some poultry
which had previously been his room mates.
He was next entertained at the house of a man
of prominence, and learned that though methods
might be primitive, good cheer and abundance of it,
were to be had, and were most liberally dispensed.
Eventually this chronicler arrives at Annapolis
which he describes as
'* A City Situate on a Plain,
Where Scarce a House will keep out Kain ;
The Buildings f ram' d with Cyprus rare,
Eesembles much our Southwark Fair :
But Stranger here will scarcely meet
With Market-place, Exchange, or Street ;
And if the Truth I may report,
'Tis not so large as Tottenham Court."
This account, with all its extravagancies of expres-
sion, was written, it is to be observed, but shortly
after the seat of government had been removed from
St. Mary's to Annapolis. The former is said never to
have contained more than sixty houses, and the latter
had scarcely begun to be a town ; not many years
were to elapse however before a very different report
of its appearance and character was to be made by
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 193
travellers from the old world. Unfavorable as were
Mr. Cook's first impressions, he appears afterwards
to have become a resident of Annapolis.
Toward the middle of the eighteenth century a
marked change was effected in the agricultural, and
therefore in the commercial, conditions of Maryland,
by the introduction of a new class of settlers.
Hitherto the colonists, or inhabitants, with the
exception of the negro slaves, had been for the most
part of English or Irish descent. But now there
began to arrive a few, and soon after, considerable
numbers, of Germans from the Rhenish Palatinate,
settlers who hence came to be called ^' Palatines."
They were a sturdy, industrious people, and in
view of the border disturbances resulting from the
boundary disputes, and the exposure of the western
portion of the Province to attack in the event of
war with the French, Lord Baltimore (Charles, fifth
Baron,) offered every encouragement to secure their
settlement west of the mountains, upon the fertile
lands of what are now Frederick and Washington
counties. Special inducements in the way of exemp-
tion from quit-rents for a term of years, and other
concessions, were made to lead them to settle inland.^
These Germans soon found that it was not only on
the borders of the Rhine, where nearly every vine-'
clad hill is crowned with a ruined castle, — witness
' Proceedings of the Council ; Liber M, folio 68. Md. Hist.
Sac. Coll., portfolio 8, No. 14. Md. Hist. Soc, Calvert Papers,
No. 2, p. 162.
13
194 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
to the historic struggles between French and Ger-
mans for the possession of that river, — that border
warfare was to be encountered. They not only bore
the brunt of the strife between Baltimore and the
Penns about the disputed boundary line, but when,
after Braddock's defeat, the Province was exposed
to raids by the savage allies of the French, these
western settlers were the greatest sufferers. It was
not merely as defenders of the frontier that the
Germans proved valuable acquisitions to Maryland.
In the broad valleys in which they settled, to this
day remarkable for productiveness, they quickly
cleared away the forest, and introduced the thrifty
husbandry of the German Fatherland.^ Maryland,
— of which the agriculture had languished under an
exclusive culture of tobacco, — now took on a fresh
life, as its valleys were converted into teeming fields
of wheat, a product which soon became an important
item of export from the Province.^
Until the settlement of the Palatines in the valley
between the Blue Ridge and the Alleghanies, the
rivers and the bay had afforded the chief means of
communication between the colonists, whether the
trips were made for business or for pleasure. Of
wagon roads or highways there were practically
none. In the absence of cities, or even of any con-
1 Many interesting facts concerning these German immi-
grants are contained in First Settlements of Germans in Maryland,
by E. T. Schultz. (Frederick, 1896.)
* Mereness ; Maryland as a Proprietary Province, pp. 123-125.
TME MARYLAND PALATINATE 195
siderable town, what social intercourse there was,
consisted chiefly of interchanges of visits between
the families of planters ; and a liberal hospitality
prevailed. The advent of visitors, whose arrival
was announced merely by the approach of the skiff
or bateau in which they came, to the private landing
of the plantation, caused neither surprise nor incon-
venience. With abundance of game at command,
the larder of the well-to-do planter was always well-
stocked. Alsop, already quoted, records that he
had seen fourscore venison in the storehouse of his
master, — and this for a family of seven persons.
The guest was always welcome and provision for
his entertainment was ample.
There were, it is true, the rolling roads over
which tobacco was brought to the nearest landing,
and there were bridle paths in abundance ; but with
the development of the farmlands beyond the
mountains, a train of pack horses walking in single
file would no longer serve to convey the country
produce to market. The building of roads began,
and was rapidly prosecuted; and before long the
huge Conestoga wagon, with its team of four, six or
eight horses, the housings of their collars surmounted
by rows of tinkling bells to give notice of approach
through the narrower and mountainous portions of
the road, became the familiar vehicle for the convey-
ance to market of the abundant products of the field.
These wagons came in great numbers to Balti-
more ; for the many abortive attempts of the As-
196 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
sembly to establish a city in the Province, at last
found their successful outcome when in 1730 the
town of Baltimore was established at the head of
tidewater on the Patapsco Eiver. Many cities had
been incorporated before that time, several of them
with the name of Baltimore ; but it was not until
this date, that the efforts to found a city destined to
become a commercial metropolis, and a port for
foreign trade, resulted in achievement.
To this city the produce of the country naturally
came for distribution and reshipment; and but a
few years ago there remained as vestiges of the old
times and methods, a number of inns in this city to
which were attached great court-yards with ample
stabling for the teams and wagons which a century
ago brought to Baltimore a large part of the
material for its domestic trade and foreign commerce.
These old inns and court-yards are fast disappear-
ing, — probably not more than three or four now
remain, — deserted, and gradually falling to decay.
Beside the planters and the farmers, the unsettled
state of the border gave rise to another class of
colonists, men to whom a life devoted to hunting
and adventure proved more attractive than one en-
gaged in the regular industry of agriculture. These
were the frontier rangers. The rangers were main-
tained as a sort of constabulary. They constituted
the warders of the border, and acted as scouts to
watch for and report the approach of hostile Indians,
to maintain the boundaries claimed by the Pro-
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 197
prietary, and incidentally, to take up runaway ser-
vants and stray cattle. The mode of life which this
occupation involved had its fascinations, and there
naturally developed a class of backwoodsmen, — men
who lived by the rifle, adopted the wild life and
even the dress of the Indians, — whom they often
surpassed in keenness of vision, unerring marksman-
ship and knowledge of woodcraft, — with the accom-
panying accomplishments of tracking and tracing
quarry, whether it were game or foe. These back-
woodsmen when they made their rare visits to
Annapolis for the purchase of ammunition or other
supplies, clad in their hunting costumes of deer skin,
with fringed leggings, with faces browned by expos-
ure, and not infrequently decorated with paint, after
the fashion in personal adornment which prevailed
among the Indians, had their vanity particularly
gratified when, as sometimes occurred, they were
themselves mistaken for savages.
The lack of towns and marts, — the places where
men do congregate, — greatly retarded the growth of
any social or political life in Maryland. The social
life was that of the home, almost domestic in its
character, as friends visited, and were received and
entertained by friends, in their widely scattered
manor houses. There was no centre of reunion.
Political life for the same reason was slow in
developing. In fact, under the Proprietary gov-
ernment during the earlier period, there was small
scope for politics. Political strife is apt to be
198 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
engendered by the burdens of taxation ; but these
were comparatively light, and mostly indirect.
There were the quit-rents reserved upon grants of
land, but these were not excessive and were matters
of contract. The impost duties incidental to the
export of tobacco or other produce were not onerous,
although there were disputes as to the proper
application of the resulting revenue, whether it
belonged to the Province for public purposes, or
was merely a source of private income of the
Proprietary. Complaints there were in plenty about
the fees exacted by, and paid to, public officers,
appointees of the Proprietary, but these arose chiefly
when it became evident that the holders of public
places were becoming rich from the emoluments of
their offices. Discontent on account of the tax
imposed for the support of the clergy of the Church
of England naturally resulted on the part of those
who did not belong to that church, and the scanda-
lous lives of some of the clergy were calculated to
aggravate the discontent. Direct taxes, except the
poll-tax, were few and rare, until they were imposed
for purposes of defence or for meeting the requisitions
of the crown. Then there appeared a disposition to
tax everything upon which a tax could be imposed,
from carriage-wheels to bachelors.^ It was not
until taxes became burdensome, and at the same
time a town with municipal activity had developed
^Proceedings of the Assembly. L. H. J., July 20, 1754.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 199
at Annapolis, that a definite political life took
shape.
Educational opportunities in the Province were
few and small. Among a widely scattered popula-
tion, such as existed in the earlier days of the
Province, the establishment of public schools was
impossible. Nowhere was there sufficient density
of population to provide within a convenient radius
the number of pupils necessary for the support of
such a school. The various efforts made for the
establishment of a college or high school for a long
time proved abortive on account of religious differ-
ences. It was proposed at one time to form such a
school with two head masters — one Protestant and
the other Roman Catholic, but such an impracticable
plan as that was sufficient to defeat the project. The
rivalries between the eastern and western shores
also operated to retard the execution of any scheme
for higher education. This led to a proposition to
establish two schools, one on each shore, the master
of one to be a graduate of Oxford, and the master
of the other, of Cambridge. But this scheme
naturally fell to the ground. The efforts of Gov-
ernor Francis Nicholson eventually resulted in the
establishment of King William School at Annapolis,
but it did not greatly flourish. After the Revolution
it was merged with St. John^s College in that city.
Meanwhile the people of Maryland did not go
unlettered. Large numbers of the youth of the
colony, the sons of wealthy parents, were sent
200 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
abroad for their education ; the Protestants to the
great universities of England, those of Koman
Catholic parentage to universities or seminaries upon
the continent of Europe. Many others attended
William and Mary College in Virginia, and still
larger numbers the Academy, in Philadelphia. The
educated men for the most part adopted the law as
their profession. This fact tended somewhat to
promote litigation ; but at the same time it supplied
a class of men trained to discuss questions of public
policy and of constitutional law, and to take their
part with credit in the disputes that subsequently
arose between the colonies and the mother country.
The fame of some of the Maryland lawyers both
for learning and ability extended not only to the
other colonies, but to England as well. Included
among their number were such men as Daniel
Dulany, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, William
Paca, Samuel Chase, and others of distinguished
reputation.^
With the increase of wealth, and the growth of
Annapolis, a mode of life very different from that
which had prevailed at the middle of the seventeenth
century was developed by the middle of the eigh-
teenth. We hear ao more of the dwellings described
by Ebenezer Cook, — "where scarce a house will
^ An eloquent tribute to the distinguished abilities of Daniel
Dulany (the younger), may be found in McMahon's Historical
View of the Government of Maryland, Vol. i, pp. 354-355, notes
18, 19.
TME MARYLAND PALATINATE 201
keep out rain/^ In their place were stately man-
sions, built of brick, of fine architectural design, with
spacious halls and wide extending wings. Many of
them stand to-day and give to Annapolis its marked
character as a typical colonial town. The Harwood,
the Brice, the Carroll, the Paca, and the Chase
mansions, the last named originally built by one of
the Lloyds, are, among others, noteworthy examples
and illustrations of the architecture of that period.
In this town of Annapolis there was not only
wealth ; there were also culture, and refinement and
gaiety, and no little extravagance and dissipation.
The favorite pastimes of the young gentry, the
gilded youth of the time, were cock-fighting, card-
playing, fox-hunting and horse-racing. There were
several social clubs, and, for the encouragement
of the breeding of race horses, a jockey club was
formed. William Eddis, who, in 1769 and for
several years thereafter, was surveyor of customs at
Annapolis, wrote entertaining letters describing the
social conditions; in one dated Nov. 2, 1771, he
said : — " Our races which are just concluded, con-
tinued four days and aiforded excellent amusement
to those who are attached to the pleasures of the
turf; and surprising as it may appear, I assure
you that there are few meetings in England better
attended or where more capital horses are exhibited.'^ ^
The Abbe Robin, a chaplain with the French
^ Eddis, Letters from America, p. 106.
202 TEE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
troops serving in the Revolutionary Army, wrote :
" As we advance toward the south we find percep-
tible differences, both in customs and manners. The
houses are no longer placed, as in Connecticut, at
the road-side, at short intervals, limited to a space
sufficient for the accommodation of a single family,
and furnished with the merest necessaries ; they are
spacious habitations, widely separated, composed of
a number of buildings and surrounded by planta-
tions extending farther than the eye can reach,
cultivated, not by free labor, but by black men
whom European avarice brings hither for gain from
the burning coasts of Africa. Their furniture is of
the most costly wood, and rarest marbles, enriched
by skillful and artistic work. Their elegant and
light carriages are drawn by finely bred horses, and
driven by richly apparelled slaves. We especially
observe this opulence in Annapolis. This very
small town, situated at the mouth of the river
Severn, where it empties into the bay, consists for
three-fourths of fine buildings. The luxury of the
women here surpasses that in our own provinces ;
a French hair-dresser is a man of importance ; one
of these ladies pays a salary of one thousand crowns
to her coiffeur. There is already here a theatre, and
the State House is of the greatest beauty, handsomer
than any other in America. The portico is adorned
with columns, and the edifice surmounted by a dome.^' ^
^L'Abbd Robin, Nouveau Voyage dans V Amerique Septentrion-
ale, etc., p. 51.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 203
Eddis, already referred to, wrote in 1770 : — "I
am persuaded there is not a town in England of the
same size as Annapolis which can boast a greater
number of fashionable and handsome women, and
were I not satisfied to the contrary, I should suppose
that the majority of our belles possessed every
advantage of a long and familiar intercourse with
the manners and habits of London. During the
winter, there are assemblies every fortnight; the
room for dancing is large ; the construction elegant,
and the hall illuminated to great advantage. At
each extremity are apartments for the card tables." ^
In another letter, dated in December 1771, he
wrote, " The quick importation of fashions from the
mother country is really astonishing. I am almost
inclined to believe that a new fashion is adopted
earlier by the polished and affluent Americans, than
by many opulent persons in the great metropolis ;
nor are opportunities wanting to display superior
elegance ; we have varied amusements and numerous
parties. It is but justice to confess, that the
American ladies possess a natural ease and elegance
in the whole of their deportment ; and that while
they assiduously cultivate external accomplishments,
they are still anxiously attentive to the more
important embellishments of the mind. In con-
versation they are generally animated and enter-
taining, and deliver their sentiments with affability
and propriety."^
^Eddis, Letters from America, p. 31.
^Ibid., pp. 112-113.
204 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
It will be seen from these accounts, that this
polished society did not lack for gaiety. There
were public balls, both at Annapolis, and at Upper
Marlboro,^ in Prince George's County, whither the
guests from Annapolis drove in their coaches. Of
these, and of elegant chariots and sedan chairs, there
was abundance. Fifty coaches would be drawn up
about the race course near Annapolis, at a time when
it was said that there were not more than ten or
twelve four-wheeled carriages owned in the City of
Philadelphia.^
At Annapolis, too, was established the first theatre
in America. It stood apparently on Church Circle,
on land provided by the Vestry of St. Anne's
Parish,^ and was opened in 1752 by a performance
given by Hallam and Henry's troupe. This com-
pany, which was brought over from England,
contained a number of good actors, and presented
an excellent selection of tragedies and comedies. It
continued to play at Annapolis and Upper Marlboro
for more than twenty years, and Miss Hallam, the
leading lady of the company, seems, — to judge from
the odes and verses dedicated to her, and extolling
her charms, which appeared in the Maryland Gaz-
ette, — to have been much admired by the youth of
the period. Maryland was not only the cradle, but
it continued for some time to be the nursery of the
^Scharfs History of Maryland. Vol. ii, p. 86.
2JZ)td, p. 96. 3 77,^-^,^ pp, 85, 98.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 205
theatre in America. In McMaster's History, there
is an interesting account of the patronage given to
the drama in Baltimore, at a time subsequent to
the Revolution, when the theatre was discounte-
nanced, if not prohibited, in New York, Philadelphia
and Boston.^ It appears however from an allusion
in one of Eddis's letters that there was a theatre
in Philadelphia in 1773.'
The pictures of life at Annapolis drawn in the
pages of a recent work of fiction are evidently not
exaggerated ; and unhappily, the picture presented in
the same book of a certain type of clergyman, is like-
wise not overdrawn. Mention has been made of the
class of men upon whom Frederick, Lord Baltimore,
conferred church livings in Maryland. There was
no adequate ecclesiastical authority in the Province
to maintain and administer discipline; and while
there were here and there earnest and devout
rectors, who sought to do their whole duty, and
deplored the existing evils which they were power-
less to correct, they formed a minority. The
notorious Bennett Allen, who is introduced as one
of the characters in ^' Richard Carvel,^' was inducted,
in 1768, in compliance with the insistent demands
of Lord Baltimore for his promotion, to the bene-
fice of All Saints' Parish in Frederick County,
as successor to the learned and greatly esteemed
^McMaster's History of the People of the United States, Vol. I,
p. 83. "^ Eddis, Letters from America, p. 154.
206 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
Reverend Thomas Bacon. This was the richest
parish in the Province. Allen had previously
struggled hard, in defiance of the law against
pluralities, to hold on to both the livings of St.
Anne's and St. James' in Anne Arundel County.
Upon the occasion of his attempting to take pos-
session of All Saints', some of the congregation,
indignant that so disreputable a rector should be
forced upon them, attempted to expel him from
the church during the progress of divine service ;
whereupon this minister of the gospel of peace
suspended the sacred office long enough to draw a
pistol, and placing it to the head of the foremost,
declared, with an oath, that he would shoot him.^
Some years later Allen killed one of the Dulanys
in a duel, the latter having challenged him on
account of a newspaper article grossly attacking
the character of his distinguished brother, Daniel
Dulany, to whose enmity Allen blindly attributed
the persistent hostility which he encountered in
Maryland.^ Another inducted rector spent the
greater part of the twenty years of his incum-
bency in jail. These are examples. There were
others, of little, if any, better character.
Several reports sent from the Province to the
Bishop of London indicate that with such laxity on
the part of the shepherds, many sheep went astray ;
^ Md. Archives : Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, Vol. in,
p. 502.
^ Dictionary of National Biography. Article, Bennett Allen.
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 207
and that in many places the prevailing standard of
morality was not high. It is probable that this
charge was in part, at least, justified by the facts.
The brilliant and extravagant society at Annapo-
lis at the middle of the eighteenth century presents
a strong contrast to the frontier, or rather pioneer,
conditions which existed a century before. The
advertisements in the contemporary papers show
that there were no fabrics, or articles of luxury,
too fine or too costly, to find a market there.
Wealth had increased; bnt all had not grown
rich. As in many such instances, the rich had grown
richer and the poor had grown poorer. It is not until
after the beginning of the eighteenth century that
the necessity for the establishment of county alms-
houses appears to have arisen. Moreover the rapid
acquisition of wealth had chiefly taken place among
those who were connected more or less nearly with
the family of the Proprietary, or were holders of
public offices, paid by fees, which in course of time
had become very lucrative to those who received
them and correspondingly irritating to those by
whom they were paid. It was in contemplation
of such wealth, and the display of it, that the
lower house of Assembly so bitterly and stubbornly
resisted the imposition of taxes for the support of
military operations unless they were accompanied
by a diversion to the same purpose of a portion
of the Proprietary's revenues, and a reduction of
the fees of public officers. The people who paid
208 THE LORDS BALTIMORE AND
the taxes resented the prosperity of those that
thrived upon them, and this condition was another
element contributing to the accumulation of causes
of discontent against Proprietary government and
Crown alike.
Such was the state of society in Maryland when
the curtain at last falls upon the colonial period of
her history.
Events had been rapidly shaping themselves
for the rupture with England ; a convention had
been called, a Council of Safety and committees
of observation appointed ; but the Proprietary
government of Maryland came to an end without
violence. Certain correspondence between Gover-
nor Eden and the British Ministry having been
captured by one of the vessels cruising under
authority of the Continental Congress, that body
directed Governor Eden's arrest. The Maryland
Convention replied that the matter belonged to
their own jurisdiction, and instead of arresting the
Governor, notified him that he was at liberty to
leave the Province with all his personal effects.
A remonstrance from Virginia upon this course
was sharply rebuked.
It is to be noted as indicative of the deliberate
and moderate action in Maryland, that when at last,
an Act was passed to confiscate the property of
absentee sympathizers with the royal cause, an
exception was made in favor of Horatio Sharpe, the
former Governor. He was allowed two years' time
THE MARYLAND PALATINATE 209
in which, either to sell his property, or become a
citizen of Maryland and retain it.
On June 26, 1776, Governor Eden sailed, unmo-
lested, on a British ship, the Fowey, which came to
Annapolis under flag of truce to take the Governor
on board ; ^ and with his departure the last semblance
even of the Proprietary government vanished.
On July 3, 1776, one day before the adoption
by the Continental Congress of the Declaration of
the Independence of the United States, the delegates
assembled in the Maryland Convention adopted
their own declaration, in which, after reciting the
encroachments upon the liberties of the people made
by both King and Parliament, they announced
their determination "to join with a majority of
the united colonies in declaring them free and
independent states.''
This act marked the close of the colonial period
and of the old regime.
The dawn of a new era began.
^An account of the incidents attending Governor Eden's
departure from Maryland is given in the Life and Administra-
tion of Sir Robert Eden, by Bernard C. Steiner, Ph. D., Johns
Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science,
Series xvi, Nos. 7, 8, 9, pp. 130-138. Also in Maryland
Archives, Corr. of the Council of Safety, 1775-1776, pp. 511-521.
14
INDEX.
Act concerning Religion, see Reli-
' gious Toleration; Puritan legislation
concerning religion in 1654, 93.
Allen, Reverend Bennett, his disre-
putable character, 205 ; violence
attending his induction to All
Saints' Parish, 206 ; kills the
brother of Daniel Dulany in a
duel, 206.
Alsop, George, account of conditions
in Maryland, 188, 195.
Altham, Father John, Jesuit priest
and missionary, 45.
Andros, Sir Edmund, assumes gov-
ernorship but retires, 132.
Annapolis, made seat of government
in 1694, 131 ; change in character
of buildings, 200 ; iutroduction of
beauty in architecture, 201; gaiety
of the social life, 201 ; wealth and
extravagance, 207.
Ark, the, and the Dove, at Newfound-
land, 16; departure from Isle of
Wight with the Maryland colon-
ists, 36 ; arrival in ttie Potomac,
42, 174.
Arundel, LadyAnne, wife of Cccilius,
Lord Baltimore, 28.
Arundel of Wardour, Lord, father
of Lady Anne Arundel, wife of
Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, 25.
Assembly of Maryland, dispute with
proprietary as to initiative, 49 ;
attitude in respect to laws sub-
mitted by the Proprietary, 70, 72;
attempts to deprive Lord Balti-
more of his revenues from duties
and tonnage, 130 ; reply of lower
house to petition from St. Mary's,
132 ; changes in character during
period of royal governors, 135; fail-
ure of the council in 1701 to sub-
stantiate charges made in 1689
against proprietary government,
136 ; resistance to demands of
Crown for troops and money, 160;
three companies furnished for ex-
pedition against Cartagena, 161 ;
• refusal to maintain troops after
they had passed into service of the
Crown, 161; reasons for refusing
appropriations for expeditions
against the French, 164.
Associators, insurgents assumed
government, 123; invoked royal
intervention, 124.
Avalon, Colony at, character of its
charter, 14 ; disappointing results,
17.
Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, causes
of, 105.
Baltimore, Baron of, title created,
2, 14.
Baltimore Town, its successful
founding, 196; early became a
mart of trade, 196.
Bancroft, George, tributes to Mary-
land legislation upon religion,
86-87.
Bennett, Richard, one of the com-
mi.^sioners for the reduction of
the plantations within the Bay
of Chesapeake, 57.
Blackistone, Nathaniel, royal gov-
ernor, 1698, 134 ; requested to act
as agent for the Assembly in
England, 1-34.
Boundary disputes ; conflict of
boundaries between Maryland and
Pennsylvania as defined, 112; as-
tronomical observations as to loca-
tion of boundary, 113 ; disputes
revived after restoration of pro-
prietary authority, 147; points in
controversy, 148, 152 ; violi nee
along the border, 150 ; extraordi-
nary agreement, 152 ; Maryland's
loss of territory, 155 ; agreement
repudiated by Lord Baltimore, 157 ;
Penns institute chancery proceed-
ings, 157 ; final decision in 1750 ;
argument of the Chancellor, 158.
Bray, Reverend Thomas, Commis-
sary of the Bishop of London, 96.
Brent, Mistress Margaret, claims
seat in Assembly, 53.
Browning, Mrs. Louisa, sister of
Frederick, Lord Baltimore, 142,
169 ; institutes proceedings in
chancery to assert her title to
Maryland, 169 ; when case comes
on for hearing, the Lord Chancel-
lor refuses to proceed on account
of existence of Eevolutionary
War, 170.
211
212
INDEX.
Buckingham, Duke of, not favorable
to Calvert as Secretary, 8 ; visit
to Madrid, 13 ; his policy, 15 ; his
death, 16.
Calvert, Benedict Leonard, fourth
Lord Baltimore, announces ad-
herence to the Church of Eng-
land, 138; applies to Queen for
pension, 139 ; secures appointment
of John Hart as governor, 139 ;
death, 139 ; titular governor in
1684 when but five years old, 118,
139 ; married Lady Charlotte Lee,
1699, 140; separated from her,
1705, 140 ; member of Parliament,
140 ; summary of character, 171.
Calvert, Cecilius, second Lord Balti-
more, grantee of charter of Mary-
land,21, 29 ; date of birth and entry
at Oxford, 28 ; date of marriage to
Lady Anne Arundel, 29 ; expedi-
tion for settlement of Maryland,
85 ; Claiborne's hostility, 36 ; de-
parture of the Ark and the Dove,
36-37; letter of instructions to the
colonists, 38 ; letter ia respect to
claims of Jesuit missionaries, 47 ;
review of life and character, 61 ;
testimony of historians as to his
character, 64 ; draft of laws pro-
posed to Assembly, 70 ; attitude of
Assembly, 72 ; entitled to credit
for establishment of religious
toleration, 83; his motives in
so doing. 87 ; summary of charac-
ter, 171. ■
Calvert, Charles, third Lord Balti-
more, appointed governor, 60 ;
statement of the motives of his
father, Cecilius, in establishing
religious liberty, 87; accession to
title, 1675, 99 ; outlawed for high
treason in Ireland, 100 ; King's
warrant for reversal of outlawry,
101 ; visits England in 1676, 102 ; re-
turns to England in 1684, 117 ; lives
in retirement, 125 ; review of char-
acter, 125 ; first wife, Jane, widow
of Henry Sewall, 128; thrice mar-
ried, 128 ; death, 128, 138 ; his right
to the revenues recognized and
confirmed by the Crown, 130; with-
draws son's allowance, 138 ; sum-
mary of character, 171.
Calvert, Charles, fifth Lord Balti-
more, succeeds to title, 140 ; pro-
prietary government restored to
him, 140 ; married Mary, daughter
of Sir Thomas Jannsen, 142; di-
vorced, 142; visit to Frederick,
Crown Prince of Prussia, 142 ;
association with Frederick Lewis,
Prince of Wales, 144 ; held vari-
ous offices from him, 144; mem-
ber of Parliament, 144 ; Fellow
of the Eoyal Society, 144 ; Lord
of the Admiralty, 144 ; makes
extraordinary agreement with the
younger Penns, 152; after visit to
Maryland repudiates agreement,
157 ; Penns institute chancery pro-
ceedings, 157 ; final decision in
1750 ; reasoning of the Chancel-
lor, 158; summary of character,
172.
Calvert Coat of Arms, exemplifica-
tion issued by Richard St. George,
Norroy King of Arms, 3,
Calvert, Frederick, sixth Lord Balti-
more, succeeds to title, 158 ; birth ;
guardians, 162; travels, and ven-
tures in literature and science,
162 ; comments of Laurence Sterne
upon his character, 163 ; marriage,
163; separation Irom his wife, 164;
death of Lady Baltimore, 164 ;
selfishness of his policy toward
Maryland, 166 ; patron of disre-
putable clergymen, 167; tried at
Kingston upon charge of felony,
167; acquitted on account of
inconsistency in testimony, 168 ;
but convicted by public opinion,
168 ; death, 168 ; contempt for him
shown at his funeral, 168 ; devises
Maryland to his natural son,
Henry Harford, to the exclusion of
his sister, Mrs. Louisa Browning,
169 ; summary of character, 172.
Calvert, George, first Lord Balti-
more, place and date of nativity,
3 ; origin of ancestors, 4 ; entered
Oxford, 4 ; member of Parliament,
5 ; marriage, 5 ; clerk to the Privy
Council, 5; knighted, 7; one of
the two Secretaries of State, 7; his
apparent sincerity in advocating
the Spanish match, 11 ; conversion
to Roman Catholic Church and
resignation as Secretary of State,
13 ; interest in American coloniza-
tion, 14; venture in Newfound-
land, 14; naval battle with French
cruisers, 16 ; disappointing condi-
tions at Avalon, 17; application
for grant of country to the south,
18 ; dissuaded by the King, Charles
I., 18 ; visit to Jamestown, and re-
ception there, 19 ; charter for Mary-
land promised, 21; death, and
review of character, 22 ; letter of
sympathy to Wentworth, 25; sum-
mary of character, 171.
INDEX.
213
Calvert, John, Lord Baltimore,
shown to be mythical, 99.
Calvert, Leonard, father of George
Calvert, 3.
Calvert Leonard, son of George, Lord
Baltimore, returns to England
with prizes captured in Newfound-
land, 16; appointed governor of
Maryland, 38 ; suppressed Ingle's
rebellion, 53 ; death, 53,
Calvert, Philip, brother of Cecilius,
Lord Baltimore, appointed gover-
nor, and afterwards secretary, 60.
Carlyle, Thomas, History of Fred-
erick the Great ; mention of
Charles, fifth Lord Baltimore, 143.
Cartagena, expedition against. See
Assembly of Maryland.
Cecil, Sir Robert, patron of George
Calvert, 5.
Charles I., King of England, dis-
courages George, Lord Baltimore,
from plans of colonization, 18;
grants charter of Maryland, 29.
Charles IL, King of England, trib-
ute of Indian arrows delivered to
him in person, 1661, 64 ; eff"ect of
his foreign policy, 107.
Charter of Maryland, synopsis of its
provisions, ^ comments upon its
scope and character, 32.
Church of England, established by
law, 1692, 95, 129 ; clergy supported
by taxation, 95, 129 ; act amended,
1695, 1696, 1702, 96; character of
the clergy, 97, 205.
Claiborne, William, contest about
possession of Kent Island, 43 ; at-
tainted of treason, 45; stirs up
sedition at Kent Island, 51 ;
changes his political creed, 56;
secures appointment as commis-
sioner for the reduction of the
plantations within the Bay of
Chesapeake, 57.
Clergy of the Church of England,
scandalous character of some of
those sent to Maryland, 205.
Cloberry & Co., Claiborne's princi-
pals in London, 44.
Coinage, attempt of Cecilius, Lord
Baltimore, to supply the lack of
current money, 178.
Collectors of Royal Customs, dis-
putes with, 118.
Complaint from Heaven, with a Hue
and Cry, and a petition out of Vi?'-
qinia and Maryland, quotations
■from, 107.
Conestoga wagons, the usual vehicle
for transportation, 195; old inns,
and court-yards built for their
accommodation, now disappear-
ing, 196.
Convicts, transported from England
to America, 126, 189.
Convict labor, policy of England in
sending convicts to the colonies,
189 ; opposition on the part of pro-
vincial government, 190.
Coode, John, character, 122 ; leader
of insurrection, 123 ; denied seat
in Legislature, 132 ; flees to Vir-
ginia under indictment, 133.
Cook, Ebenezer, author of Sot-iveed
Factor, 191, 193.
Copley, Sir Lionel, royal governor,
124 ; his administration, 129 ;
death, 132.
Copley, Thomas, Jesuit missionary,
45 ; letter to Cecilius, Lord Balti-
more, 46, 50.
Cornwaleys, Thomas, commissioner
for government of Province, 38;
commander of vessel sent against
Claiborne, 43 ; assists Richard
Ingle in escaping from arrest, 51 ;
departs with him for England, 51.
Cotton, John, views as to religious
toleration, 80.
Counties Palatine, on the continent
of Europe, 32 ; policy of William
the Conquerer in relation thex'eto,
33; palatinate authority of the
Bishop of Durham, the measure of
that of the Lords Proprietory of
Maryland, 30, 34.
Courts Baron, authorized by charter,
184; ancient origin, 185; proceed-
ings of Court at St. Gabriel's
Manor, 186 ; proceedings of Court
at St. Clement's Manor, 187.
Courts Leet, origin and jurisdiction,
185 ; record of proceedings at St.
Clement's Manor, 187.
Cresap, Thomas, stout borderer, 150
taken prisoner to Philadelphia, 151.
Crossland, Alicia, mother of George
Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, 3.
Currency, first issue of paper money
in the Province, 179. See Coinage
and Tobacco.
Davis, William, and Pate, John, lead-
ers of insurrection, 110; hanged, 111.
Dove, the (pinnace). See A7-k and
Dove.
Eddis, William, surveyor of customs
at Annapolis, 201 ; letters from
America, 201 ; describes gaiety of
Annapolis society, 203.
Eden, Robert, married Caroline,
younger sister of Frederick, Lord
214
INDEX.
Baltimore, 169 ; appointed gover-
nor of Maryland, 169 ; retires from
Province, 170 ; departure for Eng-
land, 209.
Education, conditions during earlier
period, 199 ; efforts to establish a
high school and their failure, 199;
King William School, 199; Mary-
land youth educated at European
universities, and in neighboring
colonies, 200.
Egerton, Lady Diana, daughter of
the Duke of Bridgewater, 163 ;
married to Frederick, Lord Balti-
more, 163 ; separated from her
husband, 164; death, 164.
Evelyn, George, attorney for Clo-
berry & Co., supersedes Claiborne,
as their agent, 44 ; Commander of
Kent Island, 44.
Fendall, Josias, appointed governor
and proves a traitor, 59.
Fraudulent Map, with Cape Hen-
lopen falsely located, 153.
Frederick, Crown, Prince of Prussia,
estimate of Charles, fifth Lord
Baltimore, 142, 143.
Frederick, the Elector Palatine, ac-
cepts crown of Bohemia, and risks
his hereditary domain, 12.
Frederick Lewis, Prince of Wales,
friend and patron of Charles, fifth
Lord Baltimore, 144.
Fuller, William, Puritan settler at
Providence, 57 ; one of the Council
of Government under commission
of Parliament, 57 ; treacherously
kills prisoners of war, 58.
General Assembly. See Assembly of
Maryland.
German settlers, established west
of the Blue Pddge Mountains, 193 ;
encountered border warfare, 193 ;
introduced new system of agricul-
ture, 194; established roads and
highways, 195.
Gladstone, William E., views ex-
pressed as to toleration in Mary-
land, 82, 83, 84.
Gondomar, Count, Spanish Ambas-
sador, 9 ; accused of bribing
Sir George Calvert, 9, 10 ; his skill
and influence, 11 ; said to have
convened Calvert to the Roman
Catholic faith, 23,
Goodman, Godfrey, Bishop of Glou-
cester, reference to his History of
the Court of King James I. , 23, 29.
Great Seal of Maryland, 141.
Greene, Thomas, governor, 53 ; pro-
claims Charles IL, King, and is
removed from office, 56.
Harford, Henry, natural son of
Frederick, Lord Baltimore, 169 ;
devisee of the Province of Mary-
land, 169 ; proclaimed proprietary,
169.
Hart, John, royal governor, 1714,
135 ; recommissioned governor for
the proprietary, 1715, 141.
Hatton, Thomas, secretary of the
Province : accepts otfice under the
commissioners of Parliament, 57.
Hawley, Thomas, commissioner for
government of Province, 38.
Herman's map, made in 1670, pub-
lished in 1673, 154.
Hervey, Lord, estimate of Charles,
fifth Lord Baltimore, 143.
Holt, Lord Chief Justice, remark-
able opinion rendered by, 124, 129.
Indented servants, 126 ; terms of
contract, 187 ; condition of such
servants in 17th century, 188.
Indians, friendly negotiations with
Pascataways, 42 ; outbreak of
northern Indians in 1676, 102.
Indian Arrows, yearly tribute for the
Maryland Province, 32; receipts
for their delivery at Windsor
Castle, 63.
Ingle, Hichard, arrested at St.Mary's
and escapes, 51 ; invasion and
rebellion, 5:?.
Insurrection in Maryland, led by
Davis and Pate, 110.
James I., King of England, favor-
able to George Calvert, 6; capri-
cious character, 8.
James II., King of England, as
Duke of York gives William Penn
deed for Delaware, 117, 148 ; quo
ivarranto proceedings instituted to
annul charter of Maryland, 117;
defeated by downfall of James, 118.
Jannsen, Mary, daughter of Sir
Thomas Jannsen, 142 ; married to
Charles, fifth Lord Baltimore, 142 ;
divorced, 142.
Jesuits, controversies with Cecilius,
Lord Baltimore, 45 ; claim as to
supremacy of canon law. 46; re-
fusal to take part in legislation, 51.
Johnson, Geu'l Bradley T., opinion
as to origin of act concerning re-
ligion, 85.
Kent Island, inhabitants dependent
upon supplies from without, 43;
INDEX.
215
trading post established there
prior to the settlement of Mary-
land, 174.
Lake, Sir Tbomas, George Calvert's
predecessor as one of the princi-
pal Secretaries of State, 7.
Landing of Colonists, 42, 174; nature
of country, 175 ; modes of com-
munication, 175; abundance of
game, 176.
Lee, Lady Charlotte, wife of Bene-
dict Leonard, Lord Baltimore, 140 ;
divorced, 1-10; daughter of Earl of
Litchfield, 140; grand-daughter of
Charles II. and Barbara Palmer,
Duchess of Cleveland, 140.
Lloyd, Edward, President of the
Council, and acting governor, 1701
and 1709, 134, 135.
McMahon, John V. L., opinion of the
Maryland charter, 29.
Markham, William, Penn's deputy,
112; avoids determination of boun-
dary, 114.
Mason and Dixon, final survey of
boundary between Maryland and
Pennsylvania, 159.
Mathews, Sir Toby, schoolmate of
George, Lord Baltimore, became a
Jesuit, 24.
More, Father Henry, Provincial of
Jesuit Society in England ; influ-
ence in settling disputes between
Lord Baltimore and the mission-
aries, 48 ; adviser of Cecilius, Lord
Baltimore, 84.
More, Sir Thomas, views upon
religious liberty expressed in
Utopia, 85.
Morton, Sir Albert, successor of
George Calvert as principal Sec-
retary of State, 13.
Mynne, Anne, daughter of John
Mynne, married George Calvert,
first Lord Baltimore, 5 ; death, 15.
Naunton, Sir Robert, George Cal-
vert's colleague as principal Sec-
retary of State, 7.
Nicholson, Francis, royal governor,
1693, 132; character, 133 ; interest
in education, 133, 134.
Notley, Thomas, deputy governor,
102, 110.
Palatines. See German settlers.
Pate, John. See Davis and Pate.
Penn, William, grant of Pennsyl-
vania, 111 ; conflict of boundaries,
112 ; correspondence with Lord
Baltimore, 112 ; correspondence
with Maryland settlers, 112 ; astro-
nomical observations as to bound-
ary, 113; eagerness for outlet on
the Chesapeake,115 ; extraordinary
proposals made to Lord Baltimore,
115-116 ; acquires deed to Delaware,
117 ; procures institution of quo
ivarranfo jsroceedings to annul
the Maryland charter, 117; efforts
defeated by downfall of James II.,
118.
Political changes ; result of a quarter
of a century of the suspension of
the proprietary authority, 145;
privileges guaranteed in charter,
145 ; eftect of constitutional change
in England seen in new light,
146 ; disposition to extend opera-
tion of English law to Maryland,
147.
Political life, growth retarded by
absence of towns, 197; developed
by increase in taxation, 198; and
the rise of a municipal organiza-
tion, 199.
Puritans, in Virginia, 54-55; settle-
ment in iSlaryland, 55 ; dissatisfied
with religious liberty, 56,
Quakers, restrictive orders concern-
ing, 91,
Rangers, maintained as constabu-
lary, 196; emulated savages in
costume and appearance, 197.
Rapin de Thoyras, reference to his
History of England, 10.
Redemptioners. See Indented ser-
vants.
Religious Toleration, policy of Ce-
cilius, Lord Baltimore, 66 ; procla-
mation on the subject, 67 ; punish-
ment for violations, 68 ; oath pre-
scribed for Governor Stone, 69 ;
act concerning religion, 1649, 71 ;
its principal features, 74 ; its prob-
able authorship, 78 ; approved by
Lord Baltimore as amended, 79 ;
comparison with contemporary
practice, 79 ; policy in Massachu-
setts, 80 ; policy in Virginia, 81 ;
order in respect to Summer Is-
lands, 82 ; ordinance of 1647, 82 ;
restrictions during sway of royal
governors, 97.
Restriction of suffrage, 106.
Revolution, The American, prepara-
tion for rupture with England and
for war, 208 ; deliberate and moder-
ate action in Maryland, 208; close
of colonial period, 209.
Revolution of 1689. See Associators.
216
INDEX.
Eo bin, L' Abbe, chaplain with French
troops in the revohitionary army,
202 ; description of Annapolis, 202.
Roman Catholics, prohibited from
voting by commissioners of Par-
liament, 58; restrictions upon, 97 ;
rumors as to conspiracy, 122.
Rolling roads, their origin and use,
181.
Rousby, Christopher, collector of
customs, killed by George Talbot,
119.
St. Claude (ship), loaned to George,
Lord Baltimore, 17, 20.
St. Mary's, City of petition against
removal of seat of government, 131.
Sewall, Jane, widow of Henry Sewall,
daughter of Vincent Lowe, married
Charles, third Lord Baltimore, 128.
Seymour, John, royal governor, 1704,
134 ; his addriess to Roman Catholic
priests brought before him, 134 ;
attempts to grant charter to An-
napolis, 134 ; finally secures one
from the Assembly, 135 ; death, 135.
Slaves,— African, importation of
African slaves to the American
colonies insignificant until after
treaty of Utrecht, 190 ; effect upon
white labor, 191.
Smith, Thomas, commander under
Claiborne, arrested, 43 ; con-
demned to death for piracy, 45.
Sot-weed Factor, (in verse), descrip-
tion of social conditions, 191 ;
description of Annapolis, 192,
Spanish Match, negotiations con-
cerning, 9 ; Calvert's advocacy, 9;
termination of negotiations, 13.
Stone, William, first Protestant
governor of Maryland, 54 ; oath
of office required of him, 54;
accepts ofl&ce from the commission-
ers of Parliament, 57 ; reasserts
authority of the proprietary, 58 ;
defeated by Fuller and cast into
prison, 58.
Talbot, George, president of board
of deputy governors, 118 ; kills
Christopher Rousby, a collector of
royal revenues, 119; delivered to
Virginia authorities, 119 ; re-
manded to England for trial, 120 ;
escapes from jail, 120 ; condemned
to death at Jamestown, 120 ; par-
doned, 120.
Theatre, first in America established
at Annapolis, 204; patronage of
the drama in Maryland, 205.
Tilliferes, French Ambassador, trib-
ute to George Calvert's integrity
of character, 10.
Tobacco, early became a staple pro-
duct, 177 ; its use as currency, 177 ;
.' 3rproduction, 177, 180; lack of
ports for shipment, 181 ; method of
rolling hogsheads to landings, 181 ;
efforts to restrain production, 182 ;
opposition to restriction, 182 ; con-
tention on account of fees of public
officers, 183; compromise effected,
183.
Truman, Major Thomas, treacher-
ously kills Indian envoys, 103 ;
impeached by the Assembly, 103 ;
but escapes panishment by that
body, 104 ; punished by Lord Bal-
timore, 104, note.
Utopia, described as a place of relig-
ious liberty, 85.
View of Frank Pledge, probable
origin of term, 185.
Vital statistics, comparison of the
duration of life of the several
Lords Baltimore, 172, 173.
Walpole, Horace, estimate of Charles,
fifth Lord-Baltimore, 143.
Wentworth,Lord,letter from George,
Lord Baltimore, to, 25.
Wharton, Jesse, deputy governor,
102.
White, Father Andrew, Jesuit priest
and missionary, 45; account of
voyage to Maryland, 42, 175.
William and Mary, accession to the
throne, 120 ; delayed proclamation
in Maryland, 120 ; royal governor
appointed, 124 ; recognition of, in
Maryland, 129.
Winthrop, Johu,views as to religious
toleration, 80.
Women, immigrants to America,
causes assigned for leaving Eng-
land, 188 ; their fate not always
adverse, 188.
LB 78
^
-^ V'
A^' '/-v.
^^.^
r. ^ ' " ^
^ jO
\^^ '^
H^/^oTo^' V^#*
% .-'
^■^' .
-^^^ /
A^'^'.^
0-' 9.
:\
\
^ .0^'
^"^ -^
^^
* .(V
s"^^-
■^c^
%
oo^
:,/- -e^ .'^■^ -^^^^^fe^". -^^
\%^-
<.
,0 o. ■> ^
*""^0'^ o'/^>o'^'-'v^^'
^ "
'-'^.P
f
,/
%
'^'^ .<^^^
\ ^'^yi^^ ^> ^'
v^r;T:^v
' ' o
"^^ .#
->- * 8 M
,'^'
^V\
ct-^ * t. ^ A «>
H '7^
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
009 842 514 7
• •' .".' '»•.»,
.v,';:Av'';»>i^V>V. -