Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

XV.

misunderstandings had occurred with the Indians, but CHAPTER they were quieted without much difficulty. Meanwhile the settlements gradually extended. New Netherland 1664. having been taken possession of by the English, Lord Baltimore claimed, under his charter, to carry his jurisdiction to the shores of the Delaware; but he found the Duke of York's officers no less obstinate upon that point than their Dutch predecessors. The navigation act having cut off the revenue formerly derived from the impost on tobacco exported in Dutch vessels, to supply this deficiency, the example of Virginia was presently imitated, 1671. by the imposition of two shillings per hogshead upon all tobacco exported, one half toward the colonial expenses, and the other half as a personal revenue to the proprietary, who agreed, on his part, to accept his quit-rents and all fines due on the transfer of estates in tobacco at twopence per pound-a price somewhat beyond the cur rent rates. In Maryland as in Virginia, tobacco constituted the only staple, and both provinces felt alike the inconvenience of over-production. Yet the Maryland planters, not content with white servants, were anxious to stock their plantations with slaves. An act was passed, and subsequently renewed, for encouraging the importation of negroes, which had almost ceased since the cessation of trade with the Dutch.

Prudence, caution, and moderation had made Lord Baltimore by far the most successful of all those adventurers who had attempted proprietary colonies in America. In return for his heavy outlays, he began, in his old age, to receive a considerable income, including fines, quitrents, the tonnage duty, and half the export duty. At his death the province had ten counties, five on either 1676. shore of the Chesapeake, with perhaps sixteen thousand inhabitants, of whom far the larger part were Protest

XV.

1676.

CHAPTER ants. No considerable number of Catholic immigrants appears to have arrived subsequently to the first migration. As one consequence of the system introduced by Lord Baltimore, and of the act of toleration still in force, Maryland had no religious establishment, and no division into parishes. There were three or four Episcopal clergymen, who lived on their own plantations, and received the voluntary contributions of those who attended their services; but they had no glebes, no parsonages, no tithes; and their discontent was plaintively expressed in a letter from one of their number to the Archbishop of Canterbury."The priests are provided for; the Quakers take care of those who are speakers; but no care is taken to build up churches in the Protestant religion!" The colony is represented, in consequence, as a "Sodom of uncleanness and a pest-house of iniquity." The testimony of those who magnify the necessity for their own services is always to be received with some caution. There is no reason, in fact, to suppose that the morals of Maryland were at all worse than those of Virginia, though that latter colony did enjoy the advantage of a Church of England establishment.

The new proprietary of Maryland, shortly after his father's death, leaving Thomas Notley as his deputy 1678. governor, went to England to look after his property there. Soon after his arrival, he was called to account, on the score of the ecclesiastical destitution of his province, by the Bishop of London, to whose diocese the oversight of the colonies was deemed a sort of appendage. The bishop was seconded by the king and his ministers, anxious to compound for lives of utter and notorious profligacy by professing a great devotion to the established religion. Lord Baltimore alleged the impossibility of any public ecclesiastical establishment in a province

of such various religious creeds; but this explanation was CHAPTER hardly deemed satisfactory.

XV.

At the period of Baltimore's visit to England, that 1678. country was violently agitated by a struggle to exclude the Duke of York from succession to the throne, on the ground that he was a professed papist. This exclusion was zealously advocated by the representatives of the old Parliamentarians, who had begun again to act, under Shaftesbury's lead, as an organized party, and whom the popular delusion of the famous popish plot had greatly strengthened. On the other hand, the representatives of the old Royalists supported the claims of the duke, though they disavowed popery almost as strongly as their rivals. It was now that the party names of Whig and Tory first came into use. Whig, the Scotch for sour milk, and the appellation of the rebel Covenanters of the west of Scotland, was applied, by way of ridicule, to the enemies of the duke; while his friends, in their turn, were stigmatized as Tories, the name originally of certain wild bands of Irish popish robbers.

This great party struggle in England, coupled with the recent insurrectionary movements in Virginia under Bacon and others, was not without influence on the ultra-Protestants of Maryland. Headed by Fendal, the former governor, a man well experienced in civil commotions, they began to call in question the authority of a papal proprietor. Lord Baltimore hastened his return to the province, and was able to triumph over this old agitator. Fendal was arrested, tried, found guilty of 1681. sedition, and banished.

Charles II., after a most violent struggle, triumphed also, by the help of the Tory, or High Church party, over the enemies of the Duke of York. Shaftesbury, their leader, found himself obliged to retire to Holland.

XV.

CHAPTER Anxious to establish his own Protestantism in the eyes of the nation-for it was very much doubted, and not 1681. without reason-the king sent orders to Lord Baltimore to allow none but Protestants to hold office in Maryland. But the proprietary did not see fit to comply with orders for which there was no warrant in the Maryland charter. He allowed, however, to his Protestant subjects, as, indeed, he always had done, what he considered their fair share of public trusts.

The attempt in Maryland to prevent the intermarriage of whites and blacks seems not to have proved very successful. The preamble to a new act on this subject recites that such matches were often brought about by the "instigation, procurement, or connivance of the master or mistress," who thus availed themselves of the provisions of the former law to prolong the servitude of their female servants, and, at the same time, to raise up a new brood of slaves. To remedy this evil, all white female servants intermarrying with negro slaves were declared free at once, and their children also; but the minister celebrating the marriage, and the master or mistress promoting or conniving at it, were subjected to a fine of ten thousand pounds of tobacco. This law is said to have been passed by the procurement of Lord Baltimore, and for the special benefit of one Eleanor Butler, known as "Irish Nell," who had returned with him from England, and had intermarried with a negro slave. But how bootless are laws for the protection of the ignorant and helpless! The children of this very Irish Nell were held as slaves; and when, near a century afterward, in 1770, her grandchildren sued for their liberty, the provincial court held that, although Nell's children had all been born after the act was repealed, yet, as her marriage preceded that repeal,

XV.

her issue and their descendants remained subject to the CHAPTER penalties of the act, and were rightly held as slaves. (See Butler v. Boardman, 1 Harris and M'Henry's 1681. Maryland Reports, 371.) The great-grandchildren tried again in 1787 with better success, being all set free by the Court of Appeals (2 Harris and M'Henry, 214), on the ground that so heavy a penalty as the servitude of one's children could never attach except the facts on which it was founded had first been established in a court of record; and as no conviction, in the case of Irish Nell, of intermarriage with a negro could be produced, therefore her posterity were entitled to freedom.

Lord Baltimore, while governor during his father's life, and his deputies since, had acted as collector of the parliamentary intercolonial customs upon "enumerated articles." A new collector, appointed from England, was perhaps more strict than his predecessors. At all events, Baltimore soon quarreled with him, and complained to the king. But the collector was sustained in England, and Charles II. claimed of Lord Baltimore a 1682. considerable sum for alleged obstructions to his revenue. The collector, who was very obnoxious in the province, was presently killed in a quarrel with one of the coun- 1684. selors. His successor, four or five years after, died also a violent death. Neither Lord Baltimore nor the Maryland planters were at all zealous to assist in carrying the acts of trade into effect, or scrupulous about evading impositions which they considered oppressive and unjust.

The policy of Virginia was imitated by Maryland in the enactment of laws for establishing towns, all of which, however, proved failures, except one on the Severn, afterward called Annapolis, and subsequently the seat of government. Attempts were also made to encourage domestic manufactures, but they had little suc

« ПредишнаНапред »