477

CHAPTER XVI

THE COLLAPSE OF PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT IN MARYLAND

Political movements in England, in the seventeenth century, were reflected more accurately by changes in Maryland than by those in any other American colony. This may be attributed to the existence of Catholics, as well as Anglicans and Independents, in that province, and to the fact that its proprietor was a Catholic. The three religious parties which existed in England were thus reproduced in Maryland. It was largely for this reason that the peace of the province was so disturbed during the Civil War and Interregnum. At that time, too, the authority of the proprietor collapsed.

During the two decades and more which followed the Restoration constant effort was made by Charles Calvert to consolidate his power. But he built on a narrow foundation. He followed a pseudo-dynastic policy, and sought by concentrating all the important offices in the hands of his relatives to so establish his authority that it could not be shaken. The profits of power, as well as its exercise, would thus be united in the hands of the proprietor and of those who were closely connected with him. The executive at last would be a unit and would act as one. This policy, together with the fact that by reason of it the higher offices were monopolized by Catholics, goes far to explain protests which both people and lower house aimed at the proprietor after 1670. These protests at times became so emphatic as to create some alarm. They were directed against many features of government and policy. The outline of their history, as reflected mainly in the doings of the lower house, will go far to explain the uprising of 1689.

The constitutional struggle within the colony was continuous for some years after 1676. An assembly was then

478

elected¹ which was continued in existence by successive prorogations for several years. When elected it contained four delegates from each county. In 1678 an act was passed which not only continued the property qualification for electors, as prescribed by an act of 1670, but provide that the number of delegates from each county should b four. The law required that in the issue of writs of election English practice should be followed. The two representatives from Saint Mary’s, the only city in the province, should be chosen, as heretofore, by the mayor, recorder, aldermen and common council of that municipality. The proprietor, however, refused to assent to the provision for four representatives, and therefore the number by executive action was limited to two.

The announcement that the proprietor had failed to approve this provision was made in the proclamation by which the assembly was called together in August,² 1681 The reason given for a veto was the cost which the payment of four members would impose on their respective counties Only two members from each county were summoned to the assembly of 1681. This act occasioned some discontent. When the assembly met it became necessary to fill several vacancies in the lower house which had been caused³ by deaths or by the acceptance of offices which precluded the retention of seats in the assembly. The lower house, in pursuance of English custom, resolved that its speake should issue warrants for the election of persons to fill these vacancies. In England such writs from the speaker of the Commons were directed to the clerk of the crown, and as no officer corresponding to him existed in Maryland, the lower house requested the proprietor to designate some one to act in that capacity. Calvert, in accordance with established custom in the province, insisted that the secretary was the proper officer to issue the writs, and that it should be done under the proprietor’s order. Against this the lower house held out and coupled with it the former

479

demand that four members should be summoned from each county. The latter claim was soon abandoned by the lower house, but in an act which it drew it insisted that the warrant of election should be issued by the speaker and directed to the secretary. To this the upper house objected. The lower house insisted on it as a privilege. The proprietor denied that such was the practice in Virginia or in any of the other colonies, and added that the king might dispose of his conquests as he pleased without being bound by the precedents of parliament. But in the same sentence he appealed to English precedent to justify the limitation of the number of representatives from each county to two. These are good illustrations of the way in which both colonists and officials played fast and loose with English law and custom. They show at the same time the strong influence which in a general way it had over them both.

In its reply the lower house insisted that it should draw its rights and privileges from England rather than from the “imperfect proceedings” of other colonies. English rules were by the words of the royal charter their birthright, though they were born in Maryland. They took it “heavily” that the proprietor likened them to a conquered people, and wondered that the upper house should have let such an expression pass. If the word meant that they were subject to arbitrary laws and impositions, they would believe that it was not his lordship’s own expression, but the result of strange, if not evil, counsel.

To this the upper house replied that many of the customs and privileges of parliament were not convenient or practicable for the colonies, though they did not show that the one in dispute fell under this class. They did not insist that the practice of other colonies should serve as precedents, but simply that some of them had borrowed more wisely from English custom than the lower house was proposing to do. They deprecated all thought that the proprietor had governed Maryland, or intended to govern it, according to arbitrary principles.

After a somewhat prolonged correspondence over formalities, the lower house, at the instance of the upper house,

480

agreed that the writs for filling the vacancies should be issued by the proprietor. During the existing assembly four members should continue to sit for each of the counties, but after its dissolution the number should be reduced to two. The question was set at rest by the issue of a proclamation, on September 6, 1681, embodying this agreement and prescribing that the writs should issue from the chancery.¹

John Goode was at this time a member of the lower house. As soon as the session began the proprietor and upper house insisted that he had no right to sit there because he was accused of seditious speeches, breaches of the peace, and an attempt to subvert the government, and had not purged himself of these charges. The lower house diligently searched the records which bore on the subject, and after the controversy over the issue of writs of election had ended, reported in a message to the upper house. They correctly stated that, so far as they could ascertain, only felony, treason, and refusal to give security for breach of the peace could divest a member of the right to sit in the house. Simple breach of the peace, much less a charge that such an offence had been committed, would not be sufficient.²

In this claim the lower house was going too far, for it was never the intention of the English law to protect crime in any form. The upper house now charged Coode with having conducted himself so “debauchedly and profanely”³ in the court of Saint Mary’s county that “the said court made an Order that he should find Sureties for the Peace . . . which Order the said Coode, Contemptuously tore and Disobeyed.” For that offence Coode had been required to answer before the justices at the next session of the provincial court, and because of it he had already been removed from the commission of the peace. Coode also had long been uttering seditious speeches and threatening to raise a

481

large force for the subversion of the government. For this also he was bound over to appear before the provincial court. But notwithstanding these evidences of Coode’s guilt, the lower house continued firm, and Coode retained his seat.

In view of the expected absence of the proprietor from the province the lower house introduced a bill for the confirmation of the laws. By this measure it was proposed that after an act which had passed the houses had been assented to by the proprietor it could be repealed only with the consent of the two houses; also that in the absence of the proprietor the assent given by the governor to a bill should be binding on the proprietor. The upper house rightly considered the first provision useless, because the consent of the houses was already necessary to the repeal of a law which the proprietor had approved. The second provision they declared to be inconsistent with practice alike in Ireland and the colonies, and dangerous to the rights of the proprietor. They also cited the fact that neither the governor of Virginia—a typical royal province—nor of Pennsylvania—a proprietary province in which a greater than the usual degree of self government existed—had such authority. The lower house replied that its immediate object in the first proposition was to secure the laws made at the last session—that of 1678—from repeal. It desired that they might stand unless repealed with the assent of the two houses. In this it is possible that the lower house may have referred to the election law and the extent to which its provisions had already been changed. Referring to the second proposition, the lower house denied that the precedents named were binding on Maryland, and also that the bestowment of the proposed power on the governor would be dangerous to the proprietor. In their first contention they were doubtless correct, but had the practice of the other colonies told in their favor, they would doubtless have cited it as readily as did the council in this case. The bestowment of such authority on the governor as was suggested would certainly have cut off one very important line of connection between the proprietor and the province during his absences. For these reasons it is not strange that the upper house declined

482

to further the proposition. After some delay, however, and as the result of a special appeal to the proprietor, a promise was obtained from him that during¹ his absence his assent or dissent should not be delayed beyond eighteen months.

Upon a bill for the regulation of the militia some discussion arose between the two houses. A bill for the relief of Quakers from taking oaths which was passed by the lower house was defeated in the upper house through the influence of the proprietor. A bill of the same origin to relieve ships built in the province from the payment of port dues met with a similar fate. The jurisdiction² of the county courts was also extended, an act which was welcomed by the people who lived at some distance from the seat of the provincial government. With this the business of a session was concluded which had been distinguished by an unusual amount of debate between the two houses.

During a brief session in November, with the cordial cooperation of the two houses, an act was passed reviving the temporary laws of the province. Among these was the act against divulgers of false news. A bill for the establishment of a land office was rejected by the proprietor and that office was established by ordinance. The session of April and May, 1682, was chiefly occupied with Indian affairs and with legislation affecting the tobacco industry. The former was the result of the raids of the northern Indians, and the latter of the low price of tobacco occasioned by overproduction. Efforts were made to introduce other staple products and also to facilitate export, and trade generally, by the establishment of port towns. Over these questions no conflict or controversy at that time occurred. But at the close of the session the proprietor issued a declaration vindicating himself against certain evil and false reports concerning himself which had been circulated by disaffected persons.³ With this the assembly, which had been in existence since 1676, came to an end.

483

An election was now held and a new assembly met in October, 1682. In obedience to the writs only two members were returned from each county. In his speech at the opening of the assembly the proprietor defended his course in the matter as in agreement with the rights which he undoubtedly possessed under the charter. Because of the reduction in expense which it involved, he also considered it a beneficial measure. The lower house, however, asked that the suffrage be again extended to all freemen, as it had been originally, and that in the future writs be issued to two, three, or four representatives from each county, as the freemen should prefer. The request was denied by the proprietor, and a bill providing for the change which was passed by the lower house received no attention from the upper house.¹ The lower house then voted that the expenses of the upper house should not be paid out of the public levy,² because it was not a representative body. The act for the establishment of towns, a measure in which the proprietor was much interested and on which much time was spent, also failed of passage in the lower house. This measure, in the view of the proprietor, was an important one because it would facilitate the regulation of the tobacco trade and the collection of revenue from it. It was opposed by the planters because it would compel them to abandon the private wharves on their own plantations and to carry their products to the towns for shipment. The proprietor also claimed the right to determine the location of the towns.

Because of the urgency of the proprietor that a measure for the establishment of towns should be passed, the legislature was called together again in October, 1683. Since the last session one of the members of the lower house had been appointed sheriff. The house protested against his sitting, and after some difficulty about the issue of the writ, procured the election of another in his place.³ Immediately the lower house began again to urge its demands that by law, instead of ordinance, suffrage should extend to freemen, and elections in general should be regulated.⁴ A bill on the subject

484

was introduced and sent to the upper house, but it was rejected. That house, on its part, sent down a bill for the establishment of towns and the regulation of the tobacco trade, to which the colonies were generally opposed. Over these measures a long struggle followed. The upper house passed a bill to regulate elections, which in turn was rejected by the lower house. The proprietor addressed both on the urgency for the passage of the bill concerning towns, and complained that the lower house was trying to limit his prerogatives. This intention that body disclaimed, but urged its desire that elections of burgesses might be regulated by law instead of ordinance. On the strength of a promise of the upper house that it would petition the proprietor for his assent to the elections bill, if the lower house would pass the bill for towns, the latter, after a speech by the proprietor, was allowed to go through and become law. But the upper house failed to keep its promise, and the bill concerning elections never reached the hands of the proprietor.¹

In the discussion of the bill relating to towns the lower house sought to secure the right to fix their location, but that being a power given to the proprietor by charter, he had no thought of surrendering it. But the lower house secured the insertion of a clause providing that the new towns should not elect representatives until they had inhabitants enough to pay their wages and the cost of their election. The act remained to a large extent a dead letter, because it was not in harmony with the immediate interests of the planters and was too elaborate for the needs of the province. It was during this session that the revenue from the duty of 2s. per hogshead on tobacco was settled on Benedict Calvert, the son of the proprietor, for life.

The last session of the assembly before the return of Charles Calvert to England was held in April, 1684. The houses were largely occupied with the amendment and confirmation of the laws, a form of business which recurred at every session. The perpetual laws were also reviewed and amended where they seemed to need it.² The work was

485

done chiefly by a joint committee of the houses. Because of the need of haste, however, the proprietor, when the bills relating to the perpetual laws came before the upper house, objected to clauses in three of them. In the case of the judicature act he considered it not safe, without the consent of the governor and the judges of the provincial court, to rely exclusively on the laws of England when the laws of the province were silent. The laws of England should be followed only when the governor and his justices found them consistent with conditions in the province. To provisions in the act for the punishment of offences he objected. He also wholly rejected a bill relating to the levy of war and defraying its charges, saying that the act which it was intended to revive had been suspended and would perhaps remain so during his life. When the need arose he would call an assembly to provide for the expense. As to his promise—made in 1681 and already referred to—that during his absence he would not delay action beyond eighteen months in the case of laws which were presented to him, the proprietor admitted that he was still bound, but¹ he would not undertake to bind his heirs even to this limitation. For some reason—probably the opposition of the proprietor—none of the bills relating to permanent laws were enacted.

From this account it appears that the relations between Charles Calvert and his assemblies had certainly not been friendly. He himself, though professing kindly intentions, jealously guarded his prerogative and sought by skilful, calculating management to extend it. The upper house, consisting as it did chiefly of his relatives and dependents, echoed the proprietor’s opinions and in its numerous controversies with the lower house served as his mouthpiece. The restriction of membership in the lower house made it easier to influence or coerce it into submission when it was called before the proprietor in the upper house. Shortly before he left the province the land office was created, and it furnished new places for his relatives. His methods of government were dynastic, and chiefly upon that narrow basis

486

his control over the province rested. Though the great majority of the inhabitants were Protestants, the important offices were in all, or nearly all, cases held by Catholics. Thus in regard to office-holding a condition already existed in Maryland which James II was soon to attempt to bring about in England. Had Lord Baltimore remained in his province the crisis which was approaching in England might have passed without any reflex agitation in Maryland. But that the intensified Protestant spirit which now manifested itself in the mother country would long have permitted the continuance of a government of Maryland in the hands of a Catholic proprietor is not probable. In 1684, however, Calvert was compelled to visit England in order to defend his colonies in the boundary controversy with William Penn, and, as events proved, he was destined never to return to America. His prolonged absence weakened at its very centre the governmental machine which he had carefully constructed in the province, and left the ground comparatively free for the movements of his opponents. The government was left in charge of his council, with the title of deputy governors. In the fall of 1688 one William Joseph¹ arrived from England under special appointment from the proprietor to act as president of the council and of the provincial court. Of his previous career we know nothing; but he had impressed Baltimore with a special fitness for the place which, when installed in office, he wholly failed to make good.

In England Baltimore was occupied before the plantation boards with his boundary suit, while he, as well as Penn, had to face the danger to their proprietary rights which was involved in the policy of consolidation to which James II had committed himself. In 1686 quo warranto proceedings against the Maryland charter were suggested, but it was not until the spring of the following year that the drawing and execution of the writ was ordered.² But even then such

487

delays ensued that James was overtaken by the catastrophe of the revolution before the case had been brought to trial. As the serving of the writ upon Baltimore and the bringing of the case to an issue would have been perfectly easy, when we compare the treatment of this proprietor with that which with much effort was visited upon the New England colonies the inference is strong that Baltimore’s religion stood him in good stead with the last Stuart.

The views of Baltimore concerning government, as well as his diplomatic tact, were also brought into good service to promote his cause. It is at this time and in this connection that we meet with some of the strongest expressions of loyalty to the royal family and to its jure divino theories of government which appear in the entire course of colonial history. One of the occasions on which this appeared was the birth of the heir to the throne, June 10, 1688. Lord Baltimore transmitted to the province the order of the privy council that this event, which of course it was hoped would result in the establishment of Catholicism in the realm and dominions, should be solemnly celebrated in Maryland. The deputy governors confirmed this act by specifying the date for that observance in the different counties, and when the assembly met in November, on the initiation of these same governors who were organized as the upper house, the date of June 10 was by statute set apart as a day of perpetual thanksgiving for the event.¹ This act was passed without apparent opposition at the time, though the procedure was without parallel in other colonies.

Another manifestation of the same spirit appears in connection with the advent of William Joseph as president of Maryland and the consequent discussion of the oath of fidelity in the same legislature of 1688. Since the departure of the proprietor a general calm had prevailed in the province. The assembly had met in 1686, but of its proceedings we have no knowledge except what may be reached by inference from the few unimportant acts which it passed. After the

488

arrival of President Joseph, in 1688, came an order from the privy council, transmitted through the proprietor, that the assembly should be called together to pass an act prohibiting the exportation of tobacco in bulk.¹ The act itself, because of opposition both in Maryland and in Virginia, was not passed, and the interest of the session centres about quite different issues.

President Joseph, in his opening speech, enlarged in the spirit of a mediaeval ecclesiastic on the transmission of political power from God through the king and proprietor to the representatives of the people of the province who were there gathered before him.² This he made the basis of a long exhortation to the assembly to pass laws for the observance of the Sabbath and the suppression of various forms of immorality. He closed his speech with the express demand that each of the members should take the oath of fidelity to the proprietor. It is impossible to suppose that this address was directly inspired by Baltimore, though its fundamental ideas were probably in harmony with the proprietor’s views of the origin of his authority. The Catholic members of the council, and Baltimore himself, were aware that their hold on office was precarious, and that they were likely to need all the support which an appeal to loyalty could elicit in the province. The appeal was now made in the form of a demand for the recognition of the heir to the throne and for the taking of the oath, and it was prefaced by the ultra-monarchical sermonizing of President Joseph.

As this was not a newly elected assembly, its members had already taken the oath of fidelity. Therefore the lower house refused to repeat the ceremony, though the four members of the council took the oath as required. As the councillors supported the demands of the president, a controversy immediately arose between the two houses.³ The upper house, or council, insisted that the oath should be taken whenever the governor appointed. The lower house, among whose members were Jowles, Coode, and Cheseldyne,

489

who were soon to be leaders of a revolt against the proprietor, refused under the circumstances to take the oath unless statutory authority for the act could be found. The upper house thereupon refused to proceed to business, and in a conference of the houses President Joseph lectured them on the obligation, telling them that in the province the oath of fidelity was the equivalent of the oath of allegiance in the kingdom, and that by the laws of England the oath of allegiance might be proposed to the House of Commons when in session and members who should refuse to take it were liable to expulsion. The refusal to take it, he added, was a form of rebellion, and in Maryland the offence might be visited with fine, imprisonment, or banishment. So irritated was the lower house by this utterance, that they filed a protest against the conduct of the president and the council as unjust and troublesome. As to the oath taken by the Commons in England, it had never been administered to them, while the oaths of allegiance and fidelity, though unlike, they were always ready to take as prescribed by law. Rebellion, they continued, ought not to be mentioned in a message from one house to the other unless it was accompanied by an impeachment of the guilty parties. They claimed the benefit of the laws of England, and of these only, and insisted that their requirements had been satisfied. It was now evident that by raising this somewhat artificial issue the president and councillors were imperilling the business of the session and were in danger of causing a breach between the two houses which could not easily be closed. But the worst results were avoided by a compromise. The members of the lower house had never expressed themselves as opposed to taking the oath individually. Therefore, on the proposal of the upper house, the legislature was prorogued for two days, during which time the oath was administered to the assemblymen. Then the session was resumed and the customary amount of legislative work was done.

As was customary, a committee of grievances was appointed by the lower house. The list of complaints¹ which it presented

490

related to fees, to the form in which payment of the export duty on tobacco should be made, to the need of naval officers, to the arrest of parties without cause being shown, and to a few other minor infringements by the executive of what was considered fair dealing. The government was not charged with any high crimes or serious violations of popular liberty. To such complaints as were made the upper house promised due attention, to be followed by their redress. Early in December the assembly was prorogued to the following April, and the council reported to the proprietor that “all things are peaceable and quiet,” and they were perplexed only by rumors of stirring events in England.¹

In fact by the time the session of the assembly closed, William of Orange had already effected his landing in England, the army had gone over to his cause and the time had almost come when James II must seek safety in flight. The plan of restoring the old religion and founding a Catholic dynasty in England had already fallen into ruin. It would no longer be necessary for Charles Calvert to show cause why, under the quo warranto which was preparing against him, his grant should not be restored to the crown. But he must now face a danger which menaced, not simply his personal rule in Maryland, but such dominance of his faith there as, through the furtive exercise of patronage, he had sought to secure. When, in February, 1689, the Revolution had been effected in England, Lord Baltimore was ordered by the privy council to have William and Mary proclaimed in his province, and to have the new oaths of allegiance and supremacy duly administered there. A week later, on February 27, he sent the necessary papers to the council in Maryland, with an order to have the monarchs proclaimed. But the messenger died at Plymouth,² and it was not until the following September that, under renewed orders from the home government, proclamation was sent which actually reached the province. As it was, whether or not it was in any measure due to Lord Baltimore’s neglect, the news of the revolution reached Maryland after much delay

491

and through other than official channels. With it came also the report that war would follow, or was already declared, with France. This would result in hostilities with Canada and would bring the Indian question again prominently to the front. In fact the activity of the Indians had already begun in the north. Owing to the lack of official information in Maryland respecting the attitude which the proprietor and his deputies were going to assume toward these events, the way was left open for the circulation by his enemies of sinister rumors and their wide acceptance by the Protestant part of the population. As the event proved, Lord Baltimore’s carelessness, if such there was, about the fate of his messenger was most unfortunate for his cause. Perhaps, in any case, he had nothing to expect; but the least that he could have done was to quiet the fears of his colonists at the earliest moment as to his attitude toward the exiled monarch and the French.

The earliest manifestation of the feeling of uncertainty in Maryland was an Indian panic, which bore a relation to the later revolt analogous to that sustained by the anti-Catholic frenzy to the revolution in England. About the middle of March, 1689, the cry was raised that certain of the Catholic leaders, notably Henry Darnall and Edward Pye, both members of the council, were about to coöperate with the Indians in a general attack on the province, the object of which would be plunder and the massacre of the Protestant population. The most prominent centre whence the rumor first came was Stafford county, in Virginia, where its beginnings were later traced, in part at least, to a runaway¹ Indian. On March 24 Henry Jowles wrote² from Patuxent to William Digges, a member of the council, that the region where he dwelt was in great uproar because of reports that Darnall had hired the Indians to attack the English. The only evidence, however, to which he could refer was the statements of some drunken Indians, the purport of which they contradicted when sober. But with this were combined the reports which came from Virginia, and the recollections of earlier raids by the Iroquois from the north and of occasional

492

outrages by the Maryland Indians, all for the moment indicating to many minds a serious danger. It was said that numbers of Indians ranging from three thousand to ten thousand had gathered on the border. Charles and Calvert counties were especially disturbed. Settlers in large numbers flocked in from the outlying farms. The anxiety spread to Ann Arundel county and to all the settlements which by location were exposed.

Jowles afterward became a leader of the uprising against Lord Baltimore, though nothing appears in the records which connects him with earlier opposition movements. The proprietary party later charged him with conspiring to invent the rumor to which he now helped to give circulation. His letters, written at the time, indicate that he believed in the substantial truth of the reports, notwithstanding the flimsy character of the evidence upon which they rested. He, however, did not express belief in the guilt of Darnall and Eye, and declared that he would obey them if they showed themselves ready to defend the country. He wrote to Digges as apparently the one member of the council whom he could trust. But he did not stop there. As colonel and a justice of the peace of Calvert county, Jowles ordered Major Beale to go with a part of his company to the alleged gathering place of the Indians and learn the facts. The rest of the militia of the county was ordered to hold itself in readiness. Jowles wrote also directly to the council, asking that they would send arms and ammunition to the imperilled district and commission some one to raise men for defence.

To this letter the council replied, stating that they had sent the arms and ammunition in the care of Digges, expressing their confidence in Jowles and their full resolution to stand by him and the English people of the province, and ordering him, by virtue of his commission as colonel, to punish the Indians and their supporters if found in hostile array. With this letter went Darnall himself, with instruction to inquire into the situation and to proceed against the foe, if he should find one, as in his discretion he should think best. To Major Beale, who was already scouting

493

among the border settlements, the council wrote the next day that Darnall had gone “to Justify his Innocency from that base and scandalous expression that is cast upon him by exposing his life and his fortunes in the defence of the people and their Interests. . . .” Papists as well as others, if found in arms, would be proceeded against as enemies. This statement, opposed as it is by no evidence or probability to the contrary, must be taken as effectually disposing of the charge that the Catholics of Maryland were in a league with the savages to destroy their Protestant neighbors.

Darnall found the statements of Jowles respecting the excitement at Patuxent to be true. Help had even been sought from Virginia, and the arrival of a force from that quarter, it was expected, would add to the excitement. But he, with Digges, set about allaying the fears of the people. The call for help from Virginia was countermanded. The magistrates from Virginia themselves aided in discountenancing the rumors. Jowles, Richard Smith, Jr., Digges, Kenelm Cheseldyne, and twelve others joined in a public written statement to the effect that, after “Exact scrutiny and Examination into all circumstances of this pretended design,” they had proved it to be nothing but a “slevelesse fear and imagination fomented by the artifice of some ill minded persons. . . .” Edward Pye, who with Darnall was the other chief object of the first charge, sought out the Indians of the neighborhood and obtained from them a statement fully exonerating¹ him. This was confirmed by a formal expression of confidence from his neighbors. From other points also came similar assurances of safety, and they were all used by the council to so allay the excitement that by the beginning of April it had passed away. If it really involved a plot to overthrow the government of the Catholic proprietary, this also for the time had failed. But the event, especially when compared with contemporaneous occurrences in New England and New York, shows how easy at that time it was to associate in the popular mind the idea of Catholic conspiracy and Indian massacre. The latter was

494

in Maryland a rather remote possibility, but the former bug-bear was purely a reflection of fears which had their origin in European conditions, and those too which, even there, were steadily passing away.

The proprietary rule in Maryland in recent years had not been oppressive or destructive of such liberties as English colonists in the seventeenth century commonly enjoyed. Charges against it which run to that effect are gross exaggerations. But at the same time it was a government toward which English Protestants could not feel any great degree of loyalty. Besides being a proprietary system, it was dominated by the spirit of clique and family influence. By various petty arts, well known under the Stuart regime in England, the proprietor and his officials had long sought to strengthen and perpetuate their power. These had occasioned some dissatisfaction, which from time to time found utterance in protests from the assembly. With the accession of James to the English throne and the arrival of William Joseph, the Catholic element in the system received increased emphasis through the persistent efforts which were made to secure the recognition of the Stuart heir. In the interest of the proprietor a strong appeal was at the same time made to the spirit of loyalty. But a government in the hands of Catholics was quite as much an anomaly in the colonies as it had become in England. Joseph, the proprietor’s agent, did nothing in any way to strengthen or recommend it. It was therefore scarcely possible that Catholic rule in Maryland could survive the failure of James’s experiment in England. This was the controlling fact of the situation. If Baltimore’s rule had not fallen before an uprising of the inhabitants of Maryland, it must have yielded to action on the part of the home government; in fact it fell before assault from the two centres, and it is not necessary to seek instances of misgovernment on the one side or the existence of a spirit of anarchy or disloyalty on the other in order to explain the event. As is generally the case, the explanations which after the event were given of its origin by participants were partial or misleading, and at best only suggest the real causes.

495

After the Indian panic of March had subsided about four months of quiet followed. Before the end of April the accession of William and Mary had been proclaimed in Virginia, but no official word concerning the event reached Maryland. As the time passed people began to be anxious and to suspect that orders for the proclamation had come, but that they had been suppressed by Joseph and his fellow councillors. About the middle of June we are¹ told that some had almost resolved to proclaim their majesties without the order of the government. It seems strange that during all this time the president and council gave no sign, that they did not even attempt to deny the charge which was circulating against them.

Finally, about the middle of July, Henry Darnall was informed that John Coode was raising men in the settlements along the Potomac. A messenger who was sent by the council to ascertain the facts was seized by Coode as a spy.² Two days later the council learned that Coode had also been joined by men from Charles and Saint Mary’s counties and that the combined force was marching toward the town of Saint Mary’s. Colonel Digges, the Protestant member of the council, instead of joining the insurgents, took the lead in defending the existing government. With about one hundred men he took possession of the state house. But on the approach of Coode and Major Campbell with a much larger force, his men refused to fight, and Digges had to surrender. The public records and seat of government thus passed without a struggle into the hands of Coode.

Sewall and Darnall now went up the Patuxent river to raise men. Most of the officers they found ready to support them, but the people were persuaded that Coode was their protector against Indians and papists and that he was the true exponent of loyalty. The council then offered the command of their force, such as it might be, to Jowles, though he was known to be an insurgent leader. Jowles disdained the offer. Then the council issued a proclamation

495

After the Indian panic of March had subsided about four months of quiet followed. Before the end of April the accession of William and Mary had been proclaimed in Virginia, but no official word concerning the event reached Maryland. As the time passed people began to be anxious and to suspect that orders for the proclamation had come, but that they had been suppressed by Joseph and his fellow councillors. About the middle of June we are¹ told that some had almost resolved to proclaim their majesties without the order of the government. It seems strange that during all this time the president and council gave no sign, that they did not even attempt to deny the charge which was circulating against them.

Finally, about the middle of July, Henry Darnall was informed that John Coode was raising men in the settlements along the Potomac. A messenger who was sent by the council to ascertain the facts was seized by Coode as a spy.² Two days later the council learned that Coode had also been joined by men from Charles and Saint Mary’s counties and that the combined force was marching toward the town of Saint Mary’s. Colonel Digges, the Protestant member of the council, instead of joining the insurgents, took the lead in defending the existing government. With about one hundred men he took possession of the state house. But on the approach of Coode and Major Campbell with a much larger force, his men refused to fight, and Digges had to surrender. The public records and seat of government thus passed without a struggle into the hands of Coode.

Sewall and Darnall now went up the Patuxent river to raise men. Most of the officers they found ready to support them, but the people were persuaded that Coode was their protector against Indians and papists and that he was the true exponent of loyalty. The council then offered the command of their force, such as it might be, to Jowles, though be was known to be an insurgent leader. Jowles disdained the offer. Then the council issued a proclamation

496

of pardon to those who had taken up arms against them on condition that they would return to their homes. This paralleled the weakness which the proprietary officials had shown during the period of the Commonwealth, and it proved to be quite as useless.

Lord Baltimore’s residence, now occupied by Sewall, his stepson, where at this stage of the crisis Joseph and the proprietary leaders had taken refuge, was at Mattapony, eight miles from Saint Mary’s. Thither Goode and his followers marched from the capital, taking with them two small cannon from an English merchant ship which lay in port. When they reached the house, Goode, through a trumpeter, demanded its surrender. In return a request was sent to him for a parley, this being done in the belief that the councillors would be able to clear themselves from blame. But the time for that had passed. No alternative to surrender was offered.¹ Its terms, however, were liberal—safe-conduct of the members of the proprietary party to their homes, guaranty of their just rights, with the sole requirement that all papists should be excluded from office.² These terms were accepted and Maryland again passed under Protestant control. Joseph, Sewall, and a few of the other proprietary officials retired to Virginia.

The leaders of this revolt, besides Goode and Campbell, were Jowles, Cheseldyne, Blakiston, Warren, Clouds, and Purling. Cheseldyne had been speaker of the last assembly. To Blakiston, as collector of the royal customs, reference has been made in a previous chapter. Jowles we have already met as justice of the peace and as colonel of the militia. Goode, who was nominally, though not really, the leader of the movement, had formerly been a clergyman, but long since had forsaken his profession for the life of a planter. In earlier years he had been connected with Fendall in opposition to the proprietor, but in no connection had he shown any brilliant or commanding qualities. He seems to have been habituated to the use of violent language, while his views and policies were likely to be as

497

extreme as his speech. There is evidence that some time before the outbreak he was concerned in an intrigue for the overthrow of the proprietary government. Jowles had been more prominent, in a non-committal way, in connection with the Indian panic than had any other insurgent leader. Blakiston doubtless shared the feelings which royal officials always entertained toward proprietary government, while Cheseldyne was prominently identified with the opposition in the assembly. Circumstances would indicate that Jowles, Blakiston, and Cheseldyne were the real leaders of the revolt.

The population who supported these men lived chiefly in the southern part of the province, in Saint Mary’s, Charles, and Calvert counties. All the leaders came from that region, the larger number of them from Saint Mary’s county.¹ And yet the Protestants in all, or nearly all, of the counties rallied sufficiently to the cause to control their local governments. But there was, at least in most parts of the province, a considerable body of Protestants who did not sympathize with the uprising because they thought it unnecessary. They had enjoyed liberty and security under Baltimore’s government; they felt that the Catholics, as well as the Protestants, of Maryland would quietly and loyally fall in with any arrangement concerning the disposition of the crown which might be reached in England. They did not believe in the reality of any Catholic plot in Maryland. They regarded Coode as a person of low character and aims and refused to give him their confidence. In all this there was abundant truth, and this component of the population showed a large degree of common sense. It is interesting to note that the stronghold of this sentiment was Anne Arundel county,² where in earlier and more revolutionary times had centred the spirit of opposition to the Calverts. When, later, the associators’ assembly was called, Anne Arundel county

498

refused to send representatives. For this decisive act, well as for earlier expressions of disapproval, Coode and his friends held Richard Hill to a large extent responsible. In a proclamation the assembly denounced him and his supporters as traducers of the insurgent government and traitors to the crown. Hill was later driven out of the province, and escaping through Virginia, went to England, where, with other fugitives, Catholic and Protestant, he presented charges against the party of Coode and affirmed the loyalty of their opponents. Darnall was the chief representative of the Catholics in this enterprise. It speaks well for the government of the Calverts that in the hours of its trial it found so much support among the Protestants of Maryland.¹

At the beginning of the revolt Coode and his followers issued a declaration giving the reasons for their action.² In this paper they went back over all the controversies of the past decade—that relating to the number of representatives from each county, to the exercise of the suspending power by the proprietor, to the oath of fidelity, to the alleged ill usage of royal customs officers by the proprietor. Certain also of the grievances which had been submitted by the committee of the assembly in 1688 were repeated. Reference was made to many acts of gross oppression which were alleged to have been committed in the interest of Catholics, all culminating in intrigues with French and Indians for the destruction of the loyal provincials. With this went the intentional suppression of the royal proclamation. These, taken together, it was charged, proved not only a systematic violation of the charter, but misgovernment of the worst and most oppressive character. It was in order to rescue the province and its inhabitants from this intolerable condition, to defend the Protestants and assert the sovereign rights of the crown, that, according to the declaration, the revolt was undertaken. The same sentiments were expressed in the formal address which the insurgent leaders³ sent to the king and queen. They were also repeated in great detail in the

499

papers¹ which in 1690 were submitted by Coode and Cheseldyne to the king and council in defence of their course and in answer to petitions of Lord Baltimore, and of Hill, Coursey, and other colonists who had gone to England to support his cause. Each party charged its opponent with being the aggressor. But it is certain that, unless a large body of evidence has been suppressed, or has not yet been brought to light, many of the charges of the Coode faction were exaggerated or baseless. The charter had not been violated, as they claimed; neither had a tyrannical system been maintained. Coode was the aggressor, in that he hastened by violence a change which otherwise would in all likelihood have peacefully come about.

On August 22 there met at Saint Mary’s a convention² which had just been elected under orders from the insurgent leaders. All the counties were represented except Anne Arundel and Somerset, and representatives from the latter came on the last day of the session and presented excuses. The elections were held on brief notice, and according to accounts which have been preserved of doings in Charles and Talbot counties, opposition there among the people was widespread. By summary procedure what passed for a representation was secured and the convention met. To this body Coode and his councillors nominally surrendered the authority which they had assumed; but they continued to control the assembly, which was packed in their interest. It appointed a committee of secrecy, of which Blakiston and Jowles were members, to report on the charge that the Catholics of Maryland had been intriguing with the French of Canada and the northern Indians. A few days later it reported that the charge was proven and that the meeting of the last assembly had been prevented in order to conceal the wicked design. Letters were then sent to the neighboring colonies stating that the conspiracy had been discovered, that the guilty parties had fled, and that, as William and Mary had now been proclaimed in Maryland, cooperation in

500

the arrest of the fugitives was solicited. Attention was the directed to the reduction or pacification of Anne Arundel, county. Lower taxes than had ever before been imposed were promised. Pardon was promised to the followers of Richard Hill, and it was announced that no arrests were intended unless opposition should be persisted in. No expression of submission on the part of Anne Arundel has been preserved, but it was included in the ordinance for the regulation of the militia and the preservation of the peace in the counties, which the convention issued as its final work. Provision was also made in this ordinance for the appointment of naval officers, for the probate of wills and the administration of justice, together with the enforcement of the existing laws of the province. Coode, Cheseldyne, and their chief associates were also appointed a committee to assess a public levy. Coode had at first proposed a standing council for the province, but this was disapproved, and the convention adjourned without expressly creating or recognizing any authority in Maryland higher than that of the county officers.

This continued to be the status of government until April, 1690. Then the convention met again, though of its proceedings we have no record. We, however, know¹ that it created a committee of twenty members from the counties, and empowered it to send and receive such orders and communications as might be necessary until the assembly should again meet or some other and lawful power should be established. It was as head of this committee, and with a title of commander-in-chief, that Coode carried on the correspondence of the province until, in August, he and Cheseldyne sailed for England. After that time Blakiston and Jowles became the nominal as well as real leaders in Maryland.

In January, 1690, affairs were further complicated by an affray on the Patuxent river which resulted in the death² of John Payne, the royal collector of customs for that district. The occasion was this. Nicholas Sewall, who, with President Joseph, John Woodcock, and two Catholic priests, had

501

taken refuge in Virginia, had returned in a vessel to Maryland to visit his family and to procure provisions. Payne, learning of this, came in the night with two boats to seize Sewall’s vessel. As Payne was prominently connected with Coode, the claim made by the associators that he was acting solely in his capacity as customs officer cannot be substantiated. Sewall was absent, but his men, probably divining his true purpose, refused to permit Payne to come aboard. Shots were exchanged which resulted in the death of Payne and the wounding of two of Sewall’s men. They then fled back into Virginia, where the two wounded men were arrested and warrants were issued for two others. Coode in letters to the Virginia authorities at once represented this as wilful murder committed upon an officer of the king while in the lawful discharge of his duty. The same representation he also made to the home government. Coode therefore demanded from Virginia the surrender of the accused for trial and punishment. But Nathaniel Bacon and the council of Virginia, and afterward Governor Nicholson, were scarcely disposed to recognize the government in Maryland as legal, and refused to deliver them up except under command from the king.

In August, 1689, the home government became aware that the king and queen had not been proclaimed in Maryland. Lord Baltimore was then called before the plantation committee and, after he had explained the reason for the delay, was commanded to send duplicate orders for the proclamation.¹ This he obeyed. As the autumn progressed news of the uprising, with the statements of the convention and the letters of Coode, reached the English authorities. These revealed the fact that the authority of the proprietary had been overthrown and the party in control were offering the government to the king. Baltimore was also informed of events in Maryland by Sayer, Carroll, and other supporters. Darnall reached England, where he was detained as a prisoner, and Mrs. Barbara Smith carried thither the story of the arbitrary arrest of her husband. The addresses and

502

counter addresses of the counties also arrived in England late in 1689 or early in 1690. In these and other ways the condition of Maryland was forced on the attention of all parties concerned.

Early in January¹ the plantation committee consulted the attorney general for advice concerning Baltimore’s charter and what settlement would be best for the king’s interest; but as a temporary measure they recommended that a royal letter should be sent to those who were in control in the province, approving of their action and ordering them to preserve the peace and maintain things as they were. Baltimore, however, asked for a hearing and submitted a list of merchants and former residents of Maryland whom he desired to have called. He was put off from day to day until January 11. Then he proposed that those who were in charge of affairs in Maryland should be removed and a Protestant governor and council should be commissioned, who, with the confidence of both parties, should investigate the truth of the statements made by the associators. Coode and his supporters should meantime be granted full amnesty for what had already occurred. Henry Coursey was recommended by Baltimore for the position of governor. No notice seems to have been taken of this proposal, and the royal letter was sent to the associators as suggested by² the plantation committee.

In April came the news of the death of Collector Payne; and his brother, who was resident in England, petitioned the committee of trade and plantations that justice might be done to the guilty parties. This petition was passed on³ to the privy council, with the recommendation that the accused should be brought to speedy trial, either in Virginia or Maryland, according to the locality where the outrage should appear to have been committed. An order was sent accordingly. The impression which Coode sought to make on the minds of officials in England was that this was a repetition of the murder of Rousby, and that both gave proof of the disloyal attitude of the proprietor and his friends to the

503

crown. The refusal of the Virginia authorities to accept Goode at his face value and the evidence that the Protestants of Maryland were by no means a unit in his support doubtless weakened the impression which he made. But the policy of Coode was so clearly in harmony with the interests of the home government, that an event like the death of Payne must add to the hopelessness of Baltimore’s case.

In the royal letter to the associators an indication was given of the course which the home government ultimately took. While the associators were ordered to care for the administration of the government, they were told to suffer the proprietor or his agents to collect the revenue which arose in the province and were to take for public uses only that which in the past had been used for that purpose. This implied that the proprietor was to be left at least with his private estate. Encouraged by this, he sent over one James Heath as an agent for the collection of his revenue. Heath, on his arrival, demanded the papers of the office and all other papers which related to his lordship’s private estate, the delivery of the house and plantation at Mattapony, and an account of all shipping which had entered and cleared since the suspension of legal¹ government. To these demands, so far as they related to the proprietor’s private estate and his moiety of the export duty on tobacco, Heath received a favorable reply; but the associators refused to surrender the house at Mattapony, on the ground that it was fortified, and declared that the remaining customs duties would be collected by the naval officers. Against this Heath protested, and as a result of the dispute which almost necessarily arose, the associators made over to the king’s receiver general the entire customs revenue of the province except so much as was necessary to meet the cost of the government. This formed an additional item in Baltimore’s later complaints to the English authorities, but it was used without effect.

There is no indication that at any time the English authorities undertook seriously to investigate the justice of Baltimore’s case. The oft-quoted opinion of Chief Justice

504

Holt, which was given early in June, 1690, like the royal letter which had been sent four months earlier, clearly indicates the policy of the government and the result toward which events were drifting. The chief justice declared that it would have been better if the offences of Lord Baltimore, amounting to forfeiture, had been judicially ascertained before the appointment of a royal governor; but, as this had not been done and since it was a case of necessity, the constituting of a governor direct by the king would be legal; but that official must be responsible to the proprietor¹ for the profits.

After some further hesitating action, at the beginning of autumn Attorney General Treby, at the special request of the plantation committee, reported² upon the proper draft of a commission to Lionel Copley to be royal governor of Maryland. In this statement the ideas expressed by the party of Coode were reëchoed, to the effect that the only way to save the province from being lost to the enemy was to appoint a governor for its defence and for the care of its revenue. Further delay then followed until the beginning of October, when Lord Baltimore promised to submit for the guidance of the law officers copies of the commissions and instructions which he was in the³ habit of issuing.

But before further steps were taken Coode and Cheseldyne landed in England. Baltimore at once petitioned that they might be called before the council. This request was granted, and on November 20 they appeared. At subsequent hearings which were attended by counsel the case of each party was presented.⁴ Darnall petitioned for release, and his request was granted. The release of Hill was also ordered. But although the arguments to which reference has already been made were heard, no decision which was more conclusive than that to which the king and officials had already come was reached. The lords of trade recommended that a governor be sent to Maryland who should inquire into the situation of affairs and report. Meantime a new commission for Copley was prepared and submitted to Lord Baltimore. He

505

objected to its general principle, namely, that it was intended to take from him the powers of government which had been bestowed in his charter. But the continuance of his territorial rights was conceded, as well as his right to the tonnage duty and to one half the revenue from the export duty on tobacco under the law of 1679. With this, as it was useless for him, a Catholic, to contest the will of the crown, he had to be content.

The commission passed the great seal on June 27, 1691. After some delay a council of eleven was selected, which contained representatives from the Protestant association and from the Puritans of Anne Arundel county, and included among its number two whose names had been proposed by Lord Baltimore.¹ Blakiston and Jowles, but not Coode or Cheseldyne, were among the councillors. Sir Thomas Lawrence, an Englishman, was appointed secretary. The commission and instruction² which were issued to Copley, as to form and contents, were based fundamentally on those which had been granted to the governors of Virginia, New York, New Hampshire, and New England before the English Revolution. Some modifications had been necessitated by that event, as the substitution of the oaths required in the Bill of Rights for the former oath of allegiance and the test. Full provision had now to be made for an assembly in each province. In the Maryland instructions also it was necessary to direct the governor to see that the territorial and fiscal rights of the proprietor were fully secured. Special instructions for the encouragement of the Church of England, for protection against the Indians, and for the establishment of ports and harbors were also included. In general the powers and directions were the same as those which, a few months earlier, were given to Governor Sloughter of New York, and which were to characterize all similar documents throughout the eighteenth century. The possibility of a closer connection with Virginia was indicated by the provision that, in case of Copley’s death, Governor Nicholson of that province should be lieutenant governor of Maryland, and, in case of the failure of both

506

these, Sir Edmund Andros should succeed. After a period longer even than the accustomed delays on such occasions, Copley arrived in his province in March, 1692, and royal government was inaugurated. For purposes of government another proprietary province had ceased to exist, and for the next twenty-three years—so long as the Calvert family continued to adhere to the Catholic faith—Maryland occupied a place within the system of royal provinces.

Meantime another session of the convention had been held in Maryland, in April, 1691, and by it a provincial¹. court of justice was created for the trial of those who were charged with the murder of Payne and the hearing of other cases. Those who were directly concerned had now been surrendered by Virginia to Maryland. Of this court Blakiston was made chief justice, while the large majority of its members were selected from the grand committee which conducted the regular executive business of the province. The chief justice and five of the judges were commissioned to try Sewall, Woodcock, and the others who lay under the charge of Payne’s murder. After what was represented by the proprietary party as a very partial trial, in which the prisoners were denied their papers and the help of counsel, Woodcock and three others were found guilty of murder. Woodcock was executed. Sewall was not in the custody of the court at the time, and, as he was not present when the alleged murder was committed, was later allowed to return to Maryland, where he escaped further trial.