en® 
 
 
 
 ^ ^ 
 
 
 
 ^oV^ 
 
 jPvs 
 
 
 
 
 •u^.^%^ 
 
 
 
 
 '^^ •*' A^ ,, V. ''«*«^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^*^»\i;^' "o^*^-'/ ^^^**^'\^^" ^o^ 
 
 
 
 V •'■' ^^° .. ^^ 
 

 
 ^^''^ % # .^^ 
 
 
 .0, 
 
 -- a ^ * 
 
 m 
 
 jp-^fe 
 
 
 
 3^ o«"** '^C 
 
 
 
 
 
 >*-, O 
 
 ^o1 
 
 ^0, 
 
 ♦TXT* A <» '•.»• A&* ^ •^^'' A<^ <*. '°' 
 
 
 \.*'^^^*\y 
 
 
 
 >^ ft«J^*» 
 
 ^^ ^O.*^f*\0^ V*^^\/ ^0.-^5*0^ 
 
William Claiborne 
 
 of Virginia 
 
 With Some Account of his Pedigree 
 
 By 
 John Herbert Claiborne, m.d.,f.a.C.S. 
 
 Member of the Society of the Cincinnati, State of Virginia 
 
 Member of the Society of Colonial Wars 
 
 Member of the Society of Foreign Wars 
 
 Late Captain 12th Regiment Infantry N.Y.V., etc. 
 
 With an Introduction by 
 John D. Lindsay , 
 
 Of the New York Bar 
 
 Illustrated 
 
 G. P. Putnam's Sons 
 
 New York and London 
 
 Zbe Iftnicfterbocftec ©rcss 
 
 1917 
 

 Copyright, 1917 
 
 BY 
 
 •JOHN HERBERT CLAIBORNE 
 
 y 
 
 FEB 19!9I8 / 
 
 Ube Itnicliecbocftei; ptees, t^ew IQorfi 
 
 ©CI.A481758 ^ 
 
 /v^' 
 
 n 'V 
 
ENGLAND 
 
 THE FAIR MOTHER OF THE VIRILE MEN 
 
 WHO LAID THE FOUNDATIONS OF 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN THE NEW WORLD 
 
Justum tenacem propositi vlrum 
 Non civium ardor prava jubentlum, 
 Non voltus instantis tyranni 
 Mente quatit solida, neque Auster. 
 
 Hor., Carm., lib. iii., 3. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 UNTIL now the biography of William Clai- 
 borne, the foremost genius of early Virginia, 
 has never been fully written. Religious, 
 political, and even family prejudices have tended 
 hitherto to give us distorted pictures of his life 
 and public services. Dr. Claiborne's account of 
 his distinguished ancestor's career shuns fable and 
 corrects tradition. It is much more than a well- 
 told story. It is a loyal acknowledgment of the 
 qualities of a man who figured in many strong 
 and pathetic episodes during a period of dramatic 
 unrest. 
 
 If not the most conspicuous, Claiborne was 
 beyond question the most powerful and influen- 
 tial, character in the days when the Old Dominion 
 began its development, and throughout'the stormy 
 times which followed. His biographer makes his 
 presentation with fidelity to a high ideal — the 
 desire to offer no homage less pure or noble than 
 the truth. 
 
viii Introduction 
 
 Mr. Claiborne, Captain, Colonel, Secretary, and 
 eventually Parliamentary Commissioner, was a 
 typical man of an age of universal curiosity and 
 romantic aspiration. It may be that his appoint- 
 ment as Royal Surveyor was due to the interces- 
 sion of his titled kinswoman, but he was already 
 a man of proven talents when, at the age of thirty- 
 four, he was selected to accompany Sir Francis 
 Wyatt to Virginia in that capacity. 
 
 George Calvert, who had been one of the origi- 
 nal associates of the London Company, and later 
 of the governing council, and who four years sub- 
 sequently was elevated to the Irish peerage with 
 the title of Baron Baltimore, was then Secretary of 
 State and one of James's most intimate favourites, 
 owing doubtless to his Spanish leanings. While 
 Claiborne was Protestant, Calvert was Catholic — 
 a Catholic convert. Calvert well reflects the 
 attitude of his period. It was a ruder and rougher 
 age than our own, with hardly any perceptible 
 advantages and much that gave life a gloomier 
 tinge. 
 
 It is not imaginable to those who have not 
 tried, to what labours an historian who would be 
 exact is condemned. He must read all, good and 
 bad, and remove a pile of rubbish before he can 
 lay the foundation. Dr. Claiborne can never be 
 
Introduction ix 
 
 accused of failure to perform this duty, nor of 
 undue dependence upon others, nor of writing up 
 to a purpose. His object is to exhibit as faith- 
 fully as words can portray, the exact character of 
 his ancestor, the circumstances which surrounded 
 him, and the motives external and internal by 
 which he was impelled in the drama in which he 
 played so conspicuous a part. 
 
 The affections of a people for a locality depend 
 upon the sense in which it is really and truly their 
 home. Men will fight for their homes because 
 without a home they and their families are turned 
 shelterless adrift. But the idea of home is in- 
 separably connected with the possession or 
 permanent occupation of land. The fortunes of 
 the owners of the soil of any country are bound 
 up in the fortunes of the country to which they 
 belong, and thus those nations have always been 
 the most stable in which the land is most widely 
 divided or where the largest number of people 
 have a personal concern in it. Interest and 
 natural feeling alike coincide to produce this effect. 
 
 The sovereigns of England are the head of the 
 kingdom, and so by ancient prescription were the 
 head and root from which all land tenures sprang. 
 All undistributed land within the realm including 
 confiscated and forfeited estates, as well as all 
 
X Introduction 
 
 territory abroad acquired by conquest or discovery, 
 were held of the Crown, by which is meant the 
 sovereign in his poHtical capacity. 
 
 The first EngHsh colonial charter was that granted 
 in 1578 by Elizabeth to Sir Walter Raleigh's half- 
 brother, Sir Humphrey Gilbert. Many of the arti- 
 cles of this remarkable instrument merit attention, 
 unfolding as they do the ideas of that age with 
 respect to the nature of such enterprises, but those 
 only which deal with the property and political 
 rights which were promised to the colonists are 
 of present importance. 
 
 After authorizing Gilbert to discover and take 
 possession of all remote and barbarous lands, 
 unoccupied by any Christian prince or people, 
 Elizabeth vested in Gilbert, his heirs and assigns 
 forever, the full rights of property in the soil of 
 those countries of which he might take possession, 
 to be held of the Crown of England "by homage," ' 
 on the payment of the fifth part of the gold or 
 silver ore found there, with power to convey to 
 settlers such portions of the lands as Gilbert might 
 judge meet, according to the laws of England. 
 She declared further that the settlers should have 
 and enjoy all the privileges of free denizens and 
 
 ^ In feudal law an admission or acknowledgment to the lord of 
 tenure under him. 
 
Introduction xi 
 
 natives of England. It will be noted that while 
 Gilbert's patent was limitless as to the range of his 
 explorations, provided he did not invade places 
 already occupied by Christian nations, he acquired 
 the ownership only of the places of which he 
 actually took possession. The charter granted 
 to Raleigh in 1584 still more distinctly specified 
 lands "not actually possessed of any Christian 
 prince, nor inhabited by Christian people. " 
 
 Meanwhile, Elizabeth, formally protesting 
 against the all-embracing claims asserted by Spain 
 when that nation demanded the return of the 
 treasures captured by Drake, held it to be a 
 doctrine of public law that neither first dis- 
 covery nor a mere assertion of right could prevail 
 against occupation in fact. The Spaniards, she 
 declared, had no right to regions which they had 
 merely discovered or touched upon; the naming 
 of rivers and capes or the building of huts was not 
 enough. The same principle was recognized by 
 James in the instructions given to the Virginia 
 patentees in 1606, and fifteen years later Parlia- 
 ment, in denying the rights of Spain in America 
 based on the gift of Pope Alexander VI., declared 
 that possession and occupancy only, and not the 
 mere fact of discovery, confer a good title. In 
 1604 James concluded a treaty with Spain which, 
 
xii Introduction 
 
 excluding English subjects from the Spanish West 
 Indies and thus putting a damper on their buc- 
 caneering ardour, helped to spread the growing 
 interest in American colonization. The original 
 charter by which James conveyed to the London 
 Company the vast territory then known as South 
 Virginia provided for the conveyance of lands to 
 the settlers by tenures as liberal as those prescribed 
 in the Gilbert and Raleigh patents; and the later 
 charters were equally explicit as well in this regard 
 as in confirming the political rights and liberties 
 of the settlers. But these were paper guarantees. 
 No right of private property in land was in fact 
 established in the colony until 1616. Up to that 
 time the settlers were treated as vassals of the 
 Company. The fields that were cleared were 
 cultivated by their joint labour, the product being 
 carried to common storehouses, whence it was 
 distributed at appointed times. The houses in 
 which they lived belonged to the Company. A 
 community conducted on such a plan was not 
 destined to prosper. There was no inducement 
 to labour when there was no prospect of securing 
 a permanent habitation and nothing to acquire 
 except what was bestowed on all alike. The idle 
 and incompetent shared equally with the prudent 
 and attentive. The Company receiving the sole 
 
Introduction xiii 
 
 benefit of labour, the exertions of even the most 
 industrious settlers relaxed, and eventually matters 
 came to such a pitch that the united industry of 
 the colony did not accomplish in a week as much as 
 might have been performed in a single day if each 
 individual had laboured on his own account. At 
 last Governor Dale, realizing the folly and stu- 
 pidity of such a policy, divided a considerable 
 portion of the land into parcels, one of which was 
 given to each individual in full property. From 
 that moment the colony began to advance. A dif- 
 ferent and better class of immigrants was attracted 
 and a new spirit was at work in the Company. In 
 1 619 the control of its affairs passed into the hands 
 of men of wide social and political interest such as 
 the Earl of Southampton, Nicholas Ferrar, and 
 the unfortunate Sandys who was later committed 
 to the Tower for no other reason than that his 
 behaviour in Parliament was displeasing to the 
 King, notwithstanding which Calvert brazenly 
 declared that he had not been committed "for 
 any parliamentary matter. " Under them a con- 
 stitution was granted in 1621 which became the 
 model of all subsequent governments in the Ameri- 
 can colonies. Through their influence Sir Francis 
 Wyatt was appointed Governor. Claiborne, bear- 
 ing his commission as Royal Surveyor, was a 
 
xiv Introduction 
 
 member of Wyatt's expedition which brought the 
 constitution to Virginia, The same year Calvert 
 established his settlement of Avalon in New- 
 foundland for which two years later James gave 
 him a proprietary charter. 
 
 Under the new control the affairs of the colony 
 were administered with great energy with a view 
 to its ultimate prosperity, rather than an imme- 
 diate profit, but just when the prospects seemed 
 brightest the Spanish party, of which Calvert 
 was always the ready instrument, prevailed. The 
 government of Spain had watched the progress 
 of the colony with jealous vigilance and deter- 
 mined to destroy it. A clique was formed against 
 Southampton and Sandys. The former was in 
 disgrace and Sandys had never been in favour. 
 But unpopular as they were at court, they had 
 friends in .Parliament, so that on James's de- 
 mand for the surrender of the Company's charter 
 the Commons decided to inquire into the merits of 
 the controversy, and the projected investigation 
 was only abandoned when Calvert communicated 
 to the House the King's pronouncement that the 
 matter was one with which only his council was 
 concerned. Although the Company was torn 
 asunder by internal dissensions, Southampton and 
 his supporters were still in control, so that James's 
 
Introduction xv 
 
 demand for the surrender of the charter was met 
 by a refusal. Then followed the quo warranto 
 proceedings and the extinction of the Company's 
 political rights. 
 
 Broad-minded and public-spirited though the 
 policy of the Company had been in its later days 
 and little justice as there was in the judgment of 
 the King's Bench, yet in all likelihood the colony 
 was the gainer by its overthrow. The proclama- 
 tion suspending the powers of the Company was 
 dated July 15, 1624. Virginia thereupon became 
 a royal province and Wyatt was continued as 
 Governor under the King's commission instead of 
 under that of the Company. On March 27th of 
 the following year James closed by death his in- 
 glorious and oppressive reign. Calvert remained 
 in office less than a year after Charles's accession. 
 In 1627, finding his Newfoundland settlement not 
 to his taste or expectations, he petitioned the King 
 for a grant of land in Virginia. Despite Charles's 
 admonition to give up his venture and return to 
 England, he emigrated to that colony with his 
 family. There the colonial government demanded 
 that he take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance 
 whereby he would have had to renounce the 
 spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Pope. 
 Calvert, now Lord Baltimore, as a peerwas exempt 
 
xvi Introduction 
 
 from the second of these oaths, and it is doubtful 
 whether any authority resident in Virginia had 
 a right to administer either. Baltimore, instead 
 of putting the question to a test, retired to 
 England. 
 
 In 1 63 1 Claiborne, having enlisted the requisite 
 financial backing and doubtless suspecting Balti- 
 more's intentions, obtained from Charles a license 
 under the privy seal of Scotland empowering him 
 and his associates "freely and without interruption 
 to trade and trafBc in or near those parts of 
 America for which there is not already a patent 
 granted to others for trade." By this time the 
 trading post on Kent Island had become the 
 nucleus of a flourishing settlement which in 1632 
 sent a Burgess to the General Assembly of Virginia. 
 Claiborne had purchased it from the Indians and 
 it had been highly cultivated. That these facts 
 were fully known to Charles is made clear by the 
 language of the Maryland charter which conveyed 
 to Baltimore "a certain region in parts of America 
 not yet cultivated and in possession of savages or 
 barbarians having no knowledge of the Divine 
 Being." Moreover while Baltimore was author- 
 ized as Lord Proprietor to make ordinances agree- 
 able to reason and the laws of England, he was 
 forbidden to extend them to the life or estate of 
 
Introduction xvii 
 
 any emigrant. The Cal verts, despite their in- 
 timacy with Sir Francis Windebank the new 
 Secretary of State and with the Earl of Portland 
 and Lord Cottington, were not to be permitted 
 to despoil the Virginians of any of the territory 
 they had settled. Kent Island seemed safe until 
 the Virginians were undeceived by Calvert's 
 open avowal of his claim to it. Claiborne and 
 the whole colony were naturally incensed at this, 
 and their rage was increased when Claiborne's 
 second protest and that of the London Company 
 were referred to the Star Chamber of which 
 Windebank and his friends in the Council were 
 members. The decision of that ever-to-be-ab- 
 horred tribunal was that Baltimore should be left 
 to his charter and the Virginians to the course 
 of the law. Thus matters rested until Calvert 
 arrived at Point Comfort in 1634. 
 
 From this point on Dr. Claiborne takes the 
 narrative in hand still more vigorously and presents 
 the facts in quick and dramatic succession. He 
 refers in just and condemnatory terms to the 
 treachery of George Evelin through which Kent 
 Island was surrendered to Baltimore's rufBans, 
 and his treatment of the void Bill of Attainder 
 shows it to have been a piece of contemptible 
 revenge. Within two weeks after the passage of 
 
xviii Introduction 
 
 the bill the Lords Commissioners rendered their 
 decision in favour of Baltimore. Charles, whose 
 every act had so far indicated his sympathy with 
 Claiborne and who showed his displeasure at the 
 unjust decision of the Commissioners, abandoned 
 Claiborne to his enemies after Baltimore had 
 waited on him and had given him, as Baltimore 
 said he would, "perfect satisfaction." It would 
 be interesting to know what the nature of this 
 "perfect satisfaction" was. 
 
 Virginia has been described as a cavalier colony 
 connected by origin with the class of great land 
 owners. As a matter of fact the settlers mostly came 
 from the upper middle class and the smaller landed 
 gentry, with a mixture of well-to-do tradesmen. 
 This being so, it was fairly certain that in the Civil 
 War there would be nothing like unanimity of 
 sympathy amongst the inhabitants; and so it 
 proved. But though men differed, few held their 
 opinions with tenacity; Claiborne and a few 
 others were the exceptions. 
 
 The action of Virginia at the outset of the war 
 was determined by Governor Berkeley, a frank, 
 strenuous, blustering Cavalier. An act was 
 passed declaring that all commissions given by 
 Charles were valid and making it penal to express 
 sympathy with the Parliament or disapproval of 
 
Introduction xix 
 
 the crown; but the Royalist party collapsed at 
 the first show of force and Claiborne and his 
 followers who were vastly in the majority took 
 matters in hand. 
 
 Dr. Claiborne gives the just value to the 
 Ingle- Claiborne invasion of Maryland. He 
 points out that authorities agree that Claiborne 
 simply made use of Ingle to further his ends, that 
 the association was incidental, and that there was 
 no collusion between the two men. Many have 
 described Claiborne's part in this affair as that of 
 a beaten man seeking revenge. There is no support 
 for any such theory. Claiborne was a Parliament 
 man and had he done less he would have failed to 
 perform his full duty to his government. Dr. 
 Claiborne points out also that the easy terms given 
 to the Virginia Colony on its surrender to the par- 
 liamentary commissioners were largely the result, 
 probably, of Claiborne's influence, and he demon- 
 strates with clearness that Claiborne's part in 
 the reduction of Maryland was not inspired by 
 personal revenge or malice. In support of his 
 convictions, it is worthy of note that all the acts 
 of the commissioners in the reduction of that 
 province were approved by the Commonwealth. 
 He cites Latane and Fiske to support his views. 
 
 In conclusion it is well to refer at some length 
 
XX Introduction 
 
 to Claiborne's petition to Charles 11. for the res- 
 toration of Kent Island, inasmuch as that final 
 petition, particularly the wording of it, has been 
 used by a recent writer as the text for much ani- 
 madversion and unintelligent criticism. 
 
 Claiborne's petition to Charles II. for the res- 
 toration of Kent Island has been called a servile 
 paper by those ignorant of the forms and cere- 
 monies then prevalent. It was in truth a pathetic 
 document. But let us remember that Claiborne 
 was at the time a very old man and that the spolia- 
 tion of the property he cherished more highly 
 than anything he had ever possessed had been 
 rankling in his bosom for many years. Small 
 wonder he worded his petition in plaintive lan- 
 guage. But that was merely the custom of the 
 age. Let us compare it with the remonstrance 
 of the City of London against Charles's levy of 
 ship-money. 
 
 Your petitioners [said the infuriated corporation] 
 do in all submissive humbleness and with acknow- 
 ledgement of your sacred Majesty's many favours 
 unto your said city inform your Majesty that they 
 conceive that by ancient privileges, grants, and acts 
 of parliament (which they are ready humbly to show 
 forth) they are exempt and are to be freed from that 
 charge, and do most htmibly pray that your Majesty 
 will be graciously pleased, that the petitioners, with 
 
Introduction xxi 
 
 your princely grace and favour, may enjoy the said 
 privileges and exemptions, and be freed from provid- 
 ing the said ships and provisions. And they shall 
 pray, etc. 
 
 Was there more spirit in this document than 
 in Claiborne's bold assertion that Charles's father 
 had deliberately condoned, if indeed he had not 
 in the end connived at it, the illegal expulsion of 
 Claiborne from his estate? 
 
 Though the faithless monarch turned a deaf ear 
 to his appeal, Claiborne's countrymen were not 
 remiss in making substantial acknowledgment 
 of his long and faithful services in their interest, 
 and in undoing, so far as they could, the great 
 wrong that had been done him. The grants by 
 which he was compensated by Virginia comprised 
 over twenty thousand acres of the richest lands 
 in the province. 
 
 In view of the facts as set forth by the author 
 of this narrative, it is difficult to understand the 
 abuse and condemnation which have been visited 
 upon Claiborne by historians. A man who was 
 honoured by all the sovereigns under whom he 
 lived, by the Commonwealth, even by his ancient 
 enemy Berkeley himself and by his fellow Vir- 
 ginians, who received the highest gift of state 
 except that of the governorship and held it for 
 
xxii Introduction 
 
 years, who waged the first successful war against 
 the Indians in the early days of the colony, and 
 who was later appointed General-in-Chief of all the 
 colonial forces, cannot have merited such obloquy. 
 The narrative should conclusively settle the 
 opinion of posterity concerning the character, 
 deeds, and achievements of William Claiborne. 
 
 John D. Lindsay. 
 
 New York, October, 191 7. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 THE incidents with which this book deals are 
 well known in the history of the early rela- 
 tions between Virginia and Maryland. The 
 literature touching on the subject is voluminous. 
 The two main actors in the drama are Lord Balti- 
 more and William Claiborne of Virginia. Until 
 i860, practically one opinion was held concerning 
 William Claiborne and the contention between 
 him and Lord Baltimore for the possession of 
 Kent Island, and the sweeping condemnation 
 which was heaped upon Claiborne by reason of 
 his acts and attitude toward Baltimore and the 
 Maryland Government remained unchallenged 
 until about that date. Since then and more 
 recently, several writers have laid aside prejudice 
 and rendered him some measure of justice. It is 
 the author's purpose to show that Yv^illiam Clai- 
 borne's claim to the possession of Kent Island was 
 just and unequivocal ; that at no time was he sub- 
 ject to Lord Baltimore's jurisdiction; that Kent 
 Island itself, up to the time of the decision of the 
 
XXIV 
 
 Preface 
 
 Lords Commissioners in 1638, was an integral 
 part of Virginia under the dominion of the King 
 and not under the sovereignty of Baltimore; 
 that the first act of aggression between the two 
 protagonists was committed by the accredited 
 agents of Baltimore in the seizure of Claiborne's 
 ship The Long Tail in April, 1635; that since 
 Claiborne's right to trade in those waters (with- 
 out molestation or stoppage) , in which the seizure 
 occurred, had been given expressly and emphatic- 
 ally by the King in a Royal letter and that since 
 at that time the King's word was law, the act of 
 seizure of The Long Tail by Baltimore's agents 
 was unlawful and must be classed as piracy; that 
 the subsequent engagement between Claiborne's 
 ship and those of Baltimore was an act of reprisal 
 in what may be described as civil war between 
 Maryland and Virginia; that therefore, the onus 
 of this condition of affairs lay upon Baltimore and 
 not upon Claiborne; that the Bill of Attainder 
 passed by the Maryland Assembly in 1637 was 
 iniquitous, illegal, ineffective, and incompetent; 
 that the right to pass a Bill of Attainder was vested 
 in the English Parliament alone and could not 
 under any circumstances be transmitted to or 
 assumed by any colonial legislative body such as 
 the Assembly of Maryland which passed it; that 
 
Preface 
 
 XXV 
 
 the seizure and confiscation of all of Claiborne's 
 property by reason of that Act was contrary to 
 law and was a high-handed outrage against English 
 rights; that by reason of this he was denounced 
 as rebel, pirate, and murderer; that William Clai- 
 borne was at no time a rebel to Lord Baltimore; 
 that in the Claibome-Ingle invasion of Maryland, 
 he was simply an invading enemy and that in the 
 reduction of Maryland as one of the Parliamentary 
 Commissioners, he was the accredited agent of the 
 de facto Government of England. 
 
 Considerable space has been given to analysis 
 of Claiborne's character and acts, and the refuta- 
 tion of the accusations and epithets heaped upon 
 him. 
 
 The author is indebted to his friend Mr. John 
 D. Lindsay for his masterly definition of the mean- 
 ing and character of the Act in Parliamentary 
 law known as the Bill of Attainder whereby the 
 total incompetency and ineffectiveness of the 
 one passed by the Maryland Assembly is demon- 
 strated, likewise for the introduction which he has 
 written, and for many other suggestions in the 
 preparation of this work. He feels himself also 
 indebted to Mr. DeCourcy Thom of Maryland, a 
 personal friend of his boyhood, for encouragement, 
 sympathy, and assistance. 
 
XXVI 
 
 Preface 
 
 A certain philosopher has said "a man is but 
 the sum of his ancestors." Perhaps it may more 
 properly be said, a man is the sum of his ancestors 
 plus his environment plus his intellectual processes 
 plus his impulses plus his power of inhibition. 
 For this reason in part, this sketch of William 
 Claiborne has been preceded by some account of 
 his pedigree to show what manner of men went 
 before him, while his own acts are set forth in the 
 succeeding pages. 
 
 Although it is not strictly speaking within the 
 author's purpose to compare the ultimate per- 
 sonal equations of Baltimore and Claiborne, 
 he feels called upon to point out that a certain 
 amount of historical justice has been rendered by 
 the great leveller— Time ; that whereas, the name 
 of Claiborne has persisted throughout the history of 
 Virginia and has been and is still borne by men of 
 honour and ability who have rendered service in the 
 upbuilding of the republic, Baltimore's line has 
 passed forever from the earth, unhappily in poverty 
 and shame, and his patronymic from amongst 
 those who are still adorning the fair name of 
 Maryland. The author is not unaware that he is 
 setting forth bold and radical views in contraven- 
 tion of those who have written before him, but he 
 is compelled to do so from a study of the facts, 
 
Preface 
 
 XXVll 
 
 and he feels that the truth, as he sees it, should 
 be made known to those who bear the name 
 and inherit the blood of William Claiborne. 
 
 While many authorities have been consulted in 
 the preparation of these pages the author has fol- 
 lowed in the main Latane and also Fiske. He has 
 attempted to arrange the sequence of events with 
 continuity so that the thread of the narrative 
 may be more easily held in the mind. He believes 
 that brevity is an element in clarity. 
 
 The account of the pedigree of William Claiborne 
 
 is taken almost bodily from Irish Pedigrees by 
 
 John O'Hart, fourth edition, volume ii., Benziger 
 
 Bros., New York, 1888, likewise to a large extent, 
 
 the description of Cliburn Hall and the Manor. 
 
 The descent of William Claiborne from Duncan 
 
 and Ethelred is taken from Americans of Royal 
 
 Descent by Charles H. Browning; his descent, 
 
 from Bardolph, from Fitz Randolph Traditions — A 
 
 Story of a Thousand Years by L. V. F. Randolph, 
 
 life member of the New Jersey Historical Society, 
 
 1907, under the auspices of which the book was 
 
 published. 
 
 J. H. C. 
 
 New York, August, 1917. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction . . . . . . vii 
 
 Preface xxiii 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. — The Descent of William Claiborne 
 
 FROM BaRDOLPH .. . . . I 
 
 II. — Cleborne or Cleburne, of Cliburn, 
 County Westmoreland; Hayclose, 
 County Cumberland ; Killerby, 
 County York; St. John's Manor, 
 County Wexford; and of Bally- 
 cullitan-Castle, County Tipper- 
 ARY; Virginia .... 24 
 
 III. — Cliburn Chapel, or Church, and 
 
 Cliburn Hall • • • • 33 
 IV. — Dramatis Persons ... 43 
 
 V. — First Signs of Hostility towards 
 
 Claiborne ..... 72 
 
 VI. — The Treachery of George Evelin 
 
 AND THE Seizure of Kent Island . 86 
 
 VII. — The Bill of Attainder . . 97 
 
XXX Contents 
 
 CHAPTER PAGE 
 
 VIII. — The Claiborne-Ingle Invasion of 
 
 Maryland ..... 109 
 
 IX. — The Reduction of Virginia and 
 Maryland by Claiborne and Ben- 
 nett, and the Compromise of 1657 115 
 
 X. — A Recapitulation . . , .129 
 
 XL — The Court of Admiralty Proceedings 138 
 
 XII. — An Analysis of Claiborne's Acts 
 
 AND Character .... 160 
 
 XIII. — Conclusion . . . . .195 
 
 Appendix . 203 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 William Claiborne of Virginia . Frontispiece 
 
 Thomas Cliburne of Cliburn Hall . . 20 
 
 Claiborne Arms ...... 24 
 
 Cliburn Church ..... 34 
 
 Cliburn Hall — View from the Courtyard 38 
 
 Cliburn Hall from the Rear . . ■ . 40 
 
 William Claiborne of Virginia . . . 222 
 
 W. C. C. Claiborne, Governor of Louisi- 
 ana ....... 224 
 
 Pat Cleburne, Major General in C. S. A. . 226 
 
 Map At End 
 
 xxxx 
 
William Claiborne of Virginia 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 THE DESCENT OF WILLIAM CLAIBORNE FROM 
 BARDOLPH^ 
 
 COMMENCING with Bardolph, the com- 
 mon progenitor of several noble families 
 of the north, the descent is as follows: 
 I. Bardolph,^ Lord of Ravenswath and other 
 manors in Richmondshire, was a great landowner 
 in Yorkshire, who gave a carucate of land and the 
 churches of Patrick Brampton and Ravenswath 
 in pure alms to the Abbey of St. Mary's at York. 
 
 » Quoted from O 'Hart's Irish Pedigrees. 
 
 ^ Bardolph: Harrison (see the History of Yorkshire) deduces 
 Bardolph and his brother Bodin from Thorfin, fil. Cospatric -de 
 Ravenswet et Dal ton in Yorkshire, temp. Canute; while Watson 
 makes Bardolph the son-in-law, and not the son of Thorfin. 
 Bardolph is "said to be of the family of the Earls of Richmond." 
 See Gale's Honoris de Richmond, and Whittaker's Richmondshire. 
 Burke acknowledges that "the earlier generations of the Earls 
 of Richmond are very conflicting." The families of Craw- 
 
 I 
 
2 William Claiborne 
 
 In his old age, when weary of the world and its 
 trouble, he became a monk, and retired to the 
 Abbey, of which he had been a benefactor. (See 
 Dugdale's and Burke's Extinct Peerage.) He was 
 succeeded by his son and heir: 
 
 2. Akaris, or Acarius FitzBardolph, who 
 founded the Abbey of Fors (5 Stephen, a.d. 1140) 
 and granted the original site of Jervaulx to the 
 Suvignian monks at York. He also gave a char- 
 ter to the Priory of St. Andrews, and lands and 
 tenths in Rafenswad (Ravenswath), to which 
 gifts "Hen. fit. Hervei," and Conan d'Ask were 
 witnesses. (Marrig. Charters, Coll. Top. et Gen- 
 ealogy, iii., 114.) He died, a.d. 1161, leaving two 
 sons: 
 
 I. Herveus, of whom presently. 
 II. Walter. 
 
 3. Hervey FitzAkaris (a.d. 1165, ob. 1182), 
 "a noble and good knight," who consented that 
 
 ford, L'Estrange, and FitzAUan of Bedale also derive from 
 Bretin Earls; and the FitzHughes, Askews, and others, from 
 Bardolph. Whittaker says, "Askew, Lincolnshire, was granted 
 after 1086 by Alan, Earl of Richmond, to Bardolph, his brother, 
 father of Askaris, ancestor of the Barons FitzHugh of Ravens- 
 worth. Henry FitzAskew granted tithes of Askew to IVIarrig, 
 (Burton, Monast. Ebor., 269.) Randolph FitzHenry had Henry 
 and Adam, between whom Askew was divided. Adam assumed 
 the name of Askew." Hist. Richmond; and The Norman People, 
 144. 
 
Descent 3 
 
 Conan, Earl of Richmond, should translate the 
 abbey of charity to East Wilton, and place it on 
 the banks of the river Jore, from which it was 
 called Jorevaulx. He was a witness with his 
 brother Walter to a charter of Conan IV., Duke 
 of Brittany and Earl of Richmond (ii Hen. H., 
 A.D. 1 1 65); and about the same time he "gave 
 his ninth sheaf of com which grew on his lands in 
 Askew, Brompton, Lemingford, and Ravenswet 
 to the Priory of Maryke in the Deanery of Rich- 
 mond " (Burton, Monast., Ehor., p. 357). He 
 died, A.D. 1 182, leaving three sons: 
 
 I. Henry FitzHervey (ob. 1201), who mar. Alice, 
 daughter of Randolph FitzWalter de Grey- 
 stocke (ob. 12 John, 121 1), from whom de- 
 scended the Barons FitzHugh. He witnessed 
 a charter of Duke Conan, in 1165, one of 
 Conan de Asch, in 1196; and was a witness, 
 with his brother Alan, to the charters of Peter 
 FitzThornfinn, and Gilbert FitzAlan, 1 196-8. 
 n. Richard. 
 IH. Alan, of whom presently. 
 
 4. Alan, dictus "Cleburne" (Le Neve MSS., 
 iii., 114), youngest son of Hervey FitzAkaris, son 
 of Bardolph, "was a witness with his brother 
 Henry ('Henrico fit. Hervei, Alan fre. ei, Conan 
 d'Aske,' and others) to charters of Gilbert Fitz- 
 
4 William Claiborne 
 
 Alan, Alan FitzAdam, and Peter FitzThorfinn, 
 to Marrig Abbey, co. York," c. 1188-98 {Coll. 
 Top. et Genealogy, iii., 114). Richard Hervei, 
 who witnessed a charter of Ada of Kirby Sleeth 
 (c. 1 196), and "Rich, de Hervei, whose daughter 
 Galiene gave lands in Blencogo to Abbey of 
 Holm Cultram, for maintenance of infirm poor" 
 (N. and B., Hist. West., i., 172-89; Hutch., 
 Hist. Cumb., ii., 331), are probably identical 
 with Richard the second son of this Hervey. 
 Alan, the third and youngest son, received 
 (temp. John) a moiety of the manor of Cliburn, 
 CO. Westmoreland; and a fine was paid for 
 the alienation of lands there in 12 15: "Fin. 
 16 Joan. m.d. de Terras in Cleburn," S. V. 
 Lanercost. (See Tanner's Notitia; Hutchinson's 
 Hist. Cumb., i., 58.) This manor gave to 
 Alan FitzHervey "a local habitation and a 
 name," but "when a man takes his surname from 
 his possessions or residences, it is very hard to say 
 at which particular point the personal designation 
 passes into the hereditary surname" (Freeman, 
 Norm. Conq., v., 379). Prior to the Domesday 
 and for nearly two centuries after, there were no 
 fixed surnames; the eldest son took the Chris- 
 tian name of the father, while the youngest as- 
 sumed the name of his own manor; hence "Alan" 
 
Descent 5 
 
 is found in the charters^ of that period, although 
 the surname must also have been used, for Pal- 
 grave states that "Idonea, daughter of Allen 
 Clibburne, married Walter, the fourth son of 
 William Tankard, the Steward of Knaresborough, 
 and had issue George Tankard, who died Sine 
 prole, temp. Henry III." (1216-72). (See Baro- 
 netage, iii., 387; English Baronage, 1741.) 
 
 5. Hervey (in Bas Breton, "Haerve" or 
 "Hoerve," from old German "Hervey," means 
 strong in war) held lands and tenements in Cli- 
 burne, Clifton, and Milkanthorpe, by knight 
 service, tempore. Hen. HI., and Edw. I. (1216-72). 
 
 There was also a Roland FitzHervy (temp. 
 Hen. HI.) who married Alice de Lexington and 
 held "Sutton upon Trent." 
 
 Hervey de Clibume was succeeded by his son 
 and heir Geoffrey (Inq. P. M. 8 Edw. H., 1315). 
 
 6. Geoffrey'' FitzHervey (de Cleburne), whose 
 heir with Gilbert d'Engayne of Cliburne-Clifton, 
 
 ' Charters: Lord Lindsey says: " In the eleventh and twelfth 
 centuries the Charters are the only evidence to be depended 
 upon, as history or pedigrees are unsatisfactory or wanting. 
 After this we have the Inquisitions Post Mortem and other 
 authentic records." See Lives of the Lindsey s. 
 
 ^Geoffrey: This Geoffrey had a brother Nicholas de Clibume, 
 who was Sheriff of Westmoreland, 26, 28, 31, 32, and 33 Edw. I. 
 (1295-1309). Deputy Keeper's Roll, at the Record Office, 
 London; also Cumh. Westm. Transactions, vol. iv., p. 294. 
 
6 William Claiborne 
 
 and others, "held divers tenements in Chbume, 
 Louther, Clifton, and Milkanthorpe, by service" 
 (Escheats, 7 Edw. II., 131 5). At another inquisi- 
 tion, temp. Edw. II., "Walter de Tylin, John de 
 Staffel, and Robert de Sowerley [as trustees, prob- 
 ably, in a settlement] held a moiety of Clibume 
 by comage" (CoUins's Peerage, p. 428). The 
 heirs of Geoffrey, son of Hervey, held by these 
 trustees (by knight service of the king), until 
 Robert de Cleburne, one of the said heirs, became 
 of age, and succeeded to the moiety of Cliburn- 
 Hervey. 
 
 7. Sir Robert,^ lord of the manor of Cliburn- 
 Hervey, was a person of some distinction, temp. 
 Edw, III., and was knight of the Shire of West- 
 moreland, 7 and 10 Rich. II., 1384-7 {Hist. 
 West., App. i., 459). In 1336 (9 Edw. III.), he 
 was "a witness with Sir Hugh de Louther to settle- 
 ment by Sir Walter Strickland, of the manor of 
 Hackthorp, upon his sons, Thomas, John, and 
 Ralf Strickland" {Hist. West., ii., 92). In 1356 
 "he held lands in Ireland," but he apparently 
 made no settlement there. In right of his wife, 
 Margaret, he held the lands and was lord of the 
 
 » Sir Robert: The knighthood of the age of chivalry was a very 
 different honour from this modem dignity; for in the thirteenth 
 and fifteenth centuries it had precedence of Peerage. 
 
Descent 7 
 
 manors of Bampton, of Cundale, Bampton Pat- 
 ryke, and Knipe Patric, in Westmoreland. (Inq. 
 Post Mort., 43 Edw. III.; 15 Rich. II., 1370- 
 92.) 
 
 He married Margaret, daughter and co-heir of 
 Henry de Cundale^ and Kyne, one of the Drengi 
 of Westmoreland, who held their lands before the 
 Conquest, and were permitted to retain them. 
 This Henry de Cundale was in descent from that 
 Henry, lord of Cundale, who, temp. Hen. II. (i 154), 
 among other principal men of note, was a witness 
 to a compromise between the Abbot of Byland 
 concerning the manor of Bleaton, and in 13 John 
 (12 12) was a witness to a grant of Robert de Vipont 
 to Shapp Abbey; and who in 1201 (Oblata Roll, 
 2 John) made a fine with the king not to go with 
 him to Normandy. Sir Robert had issue one son, 
 John, who, dying at an early age, was succeeded 
 by his second son, John de Clybourne. 
 
 I Cundale: Bampton Hall (temp. Hen. IH., 1216-72) was the 
 seat of Henry de Cundale (name derived from "Cundale," in 
 York), a family of great consideration, who continued here till 
 Edw. II. (1307-27), when their property went to the Clebums. 
 
 Thomthwaite Hall was the mansion house of Bampton 
 Patric, called after Patric de Culwen, temp. Hen. II., 1154. 
 
 "Ralf de Cundale was fined 40 marks. " Fines in Exchequer, 
 22 Hen. II., 1 176. The battle of Otterbum was fought 1383. 
 
 Alice, dau. of Thomas Cleburne, temp. Edw. III., married 
 Jno. Wray, from whom the Wrays of Richmond are descended. 
 
8 William Claiborne 
 
 8. John de Cleburne (who died vita patris) 
 left two sons : 
 
 I. Roland; 
 II. John. 
 
 His widow, Margaret (who married for her second 
 husband John de Wathecoppe of Warcupp), 
 "held the manor of Cliburn-Hervey for Rowland, 
 son and heir of the said John Cleburne and Mar- 
 garet" (Inq. P. M., 15 Rich. II., 1392; Hist. 
 West., i., 459). Rowland dying young, his lands 
 passed to his brother John. 
 
 9. John, second son of John de Clyborne and 
 Margaret, his wife, held Cleburn-Hervy in 1422, 
 
 9 Hen. v.: "Johannes Cliburne pro manerio de 
 Cleburn-Hervy, xvi. s. ixd. (Har. I.) MS. 628, ff. 
 228b). In 1423, he was lord of the manors of 
 Cliburn-Hervey and Clibum-Tailbois (the two 
 moieties having been united after the death of 
 John, only son and heir of Robert de Franceys of 
 Cleburne, who married Elizabeth, daughter and 
 heir of the last Walter de Tailbois: Dugd. MS.); 
 and also "held the manors of Bampton Patrick, 
 Bampton Cundale, and Knype Patric, by cornage" 
 (Inq. P. M. 10 Hen. V., 1423; Hist. West., 257, I., 
 466). He was succeeded by his son and heir: 
 
Descent 9 
 
 10. Rowland, son and heir of John de Cleburn, 
 was "lord of the manors of Cliburn-Hervey and 
 Tailbois, and held Hampton-Cundale and Knipe, 
 by homage, fealty and comage" (Inq. P. M. 
 31, Hen. VI., 1452). He is scarcely mentioned in 
 the local records, though he was probably with 
 Clifford at Towton on that fatal Palm Sunday, 
 24th March, 1461. He was just and considerate 
 of his tenants, remitted their "gressums"; and 
 by him the last of his "Villeins in gross" was sold 
 free. In 1456 he was appointed "one of the 
 jurors upon the Inquisition, after the death of 
 Thomas Lord Clifford" (34 Hen. VI.; Hist. West., 
 i., 459), and also "held the same which heretofore, 
 as the Inquisition set forth, were held by Ralph 
 de Cundale {Hist. West., {., 466-70). He was 
 succeded by his son and heir: 
 
 11. John, son of Rowland Cleburne, married 
 Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Thos. Curwen of Work- 
 ington Hall. This was considered a great alliance, 
 for Elizabeth's blood was "darkly, deeply, beauti- 
 fully blue"; her ancestor Orme having married 
 Gunilda, daughter of "Cospatric the Great," first 
 Earl of Dunbar and Northumberland, whose 
 father Maldred was younger brother of the ' ' Gra- 
 cious Duncan, murdered by Macbeth, whose 
 grandmother was Elgira, daughter of the Saxon 
 
10 William Claiborne 
 
 King Ethelred 11. , called the "unready." (Jack- 
 son's Curwens of Workington; Symeon of Durham, 
 ii., 307; Freeman's Norm. Conq., iv., 89.) This 
 John was lord of the manors of Cleburn, and held 
 Bampton-Cundale, of Henry Lord Clifford, by 
 homage, fealty, and scutage, when "scutage" 
 runs at £10 los. ; when more, more; when less, 
 less; and the cornage of 15s. 3d. (Inq. Post Mort. 
 19 Hen. VII.). Having escaped the bloody fields 
 of Barnet, Tewksbury, and Bosworth, he died (from 
 injuries received in a skirmish at Kirtlemore, on 
 St. Magdalen's day, 226. July, 1484), on the 8th 
 Aug., 1489 (Inq. P. M. 4 Hen. VII.), and was 
 succeeded by his son and heir: 
 
 12. Thomas, of Cliburne Hall, bom 1467, for 
 at an Inquisition held, 19 Hen. VII. (1504), it 
 was found that "John Clybourne, his father, died 
 8th August, 1489, and that Thomas Clyborne, 
 his son and heir, was then 22 years of age" {Hist. 
 West., i., 467). He held his manor of Bampton, 
 of Henry Lord Clifford, by homage, fealty, and 
 scutage (Inq. Post Mort., 18 Hen. VIII., 1527), 
 and was assessed for non-payment of his dues on 
 this manor, due the Diocese of Carlisle, 5 Hen. 
 VIII. {Valor Ecdesiasticus, p. 294). He neglected 
 his estate, engaged in many visionary schemes, 
 and became so wild, reckless, and extravagant 
 
Descent ii 
 
 that in Nov., 1512, "he, with Henry Lord Clifford 
 and others, were proceeded against for debts due 
 by them to the king" (Letters and Papers, Hen. 
 VHL, vol. i., p. 435). He was succeeded by his 
 son and heir: 
 
 13. Robert, of Cliburne, co. Westmoreland, 
 and of Killerby, near Catterick, co. York, married 
 Emma, dau. and co-heiress of George Kirkbride 
 of Kirkbride (8th in descent from Adam, son of 
 Odard de Logis, second Baron of Wigton, who 
 granted Kirkbride to his second son Adam, temp. 
 John (11 99-1 2 1 6). He was of a languid disposi- 
 tion and feeble body, which unfitted him for active 
 exertion in the field. Though an advocate of the 
 Catholic party, he did not join in "The Pilgrimage 
 of Grace," in 1536, nor did he take much part in 
 county affairs. In 1531-53 (22-24 Hen. VHL) 
 he was chosen "an arbitrator in a case between 
 Guy and Hugh Machell of Crackenthorpe " 
 {Hist. West., i., 358-359); and, in 1543, when 
 called upon by the Warden of the West Marches, 
 he supplied from his own retainers "six horse 
 and ten foot soldiers for service on the Bord- 
 ers" (List of principal Gentlemen subject to 
 Border Service, Hist. West., i., 41). By his wife 
 Emma (living, A.D, 1482), he left one son and a 
 daughter : 
 
12 William Claiborne 
 
 I. Edmond, of whom presently. 
 
 II. Eleanor, married to Richard Kirkbride, of Eller- 
 
 ton in Hesket, co. Cumberland, whose great- 
 ■ grandson "Bernard Kirkbride died s. p. in 
 1677." 
 
 14. Edmund or Edward, son and heir of Robert 
 of Killerby and Cliburne, married Ann, daughter 
 of Layton of Dalmaine (of an ancient family in 
 Cumberlandshire), and had issue: 
 
 I. Richard, of whom presently. 
 
 II. Thomas, of Hay-Close, co. Cumberland, who 
 
 married Elizabeth Thwaites, 25th Sept., 1594. 
 He was of a hot and peppery disposition, and 
 in 1589 became involved in a tedious lawsuit 
 with "Sir Wymond Cary, the Queen's 
 Lessee, about certain lands, messuages, and 
 Courts-Baron in Snettisham manor, co. 
 Norfolk" (Cal. Ducat. Lancaster, 31 Eliz.); 
 and had another suit in Chancery with 
 "Arthur Clarke about the manor of Hemyng- 
 ford-Grey, county Huntingdon" (Chan. Prove. 
 Eliz., pp. 159-62). 
 
 III. John. 
 
 IV. William (Quaere, Vicar of Nidd, and Dean 
 
 of Kildare, 1626). 
 V. Elizabeth, married to John Thwaite of Marston. 
 
 15. Richard, "the martyr," of Killerby, co. 
 York, and of Cliburne, co. Westmoreland; son 
 and heir of Edmund; was a proud, imperious, 
 
Descent 13 
 
 passionate man, regarded by some as an "intoler- 
 ant bigot." Right royally proud he well might 
 be, for through his great-great-grandmother Eliz- 
 abeth Curwen, he was descended from that great 
 Cospatric "who sprang," says Freeman, "from 
 the noblest blood of Northumberland, and even 
 of the kingly blood of Wessex" {Norm. Conq., 
 iv., 89). 
 
 He was a devoted adherent of the Church of 
 Rome, spent much of his early life in travel; and 
 was probably engaged in some secret negotiations 
 with the French Coiirt, as Lord Gray in his letter 
 to the Privy Council, dated 7th May, 1555, says: 
 "Mr. Clyburn has been a long time in France, 
 and brings important information " (State Papers, 
 1553-8). Though warned by his kinsman Sir 
 Henry Curwen (who in 1568 received and hospit- 
 ably entertained his fifth cousin, the unfortunate 
 Queen Mary, when she arrived at Workington in 
 her flight from Scotland) to * ' avoid the numerous 
 plots" at this period, Cleburne engaged in the 
 scheme to release the Scottish Queen, and place 
 her at the head of the "Rising of the North." 
 How much he was involved in this plot will never 
 be known ; but no doubt he and the Lowthers were 
 "up to the very hilt in treason." His brother 
 Thomas, a page in the service of his kinsman. Sir 
 
14 William Claiborne 
 
 Richard Lowther (the custodian of Mary) , doubtless 
 kept him well informed of the secret machinations 
 of the gentry of the north, and he was deep in the 
 counsels of the shrewd and long-headed Gerald 
 Lowther, whom he concealed at Cliburn when 
 pursued by the Warden of the West Marches. 
 Among the State Papers in London is a letter from 
 Richard Lowther, dated 13th Nov., 1569, ad- 
 dressed to the Earl of Westmoreland, alluding to 
 this wily Gerard, and indicating how deeply they 
 were in the plot. "Appoint me one day," he 
 says, "and I will meet you with four good horses 
 either at Derby, Burton, or Tutbury, there to 
 perform with the foremost man, or die. To the 
 furtherance thereof. Lord Wharton and my brother 
 will join." On the 14th of May, the Earls made 
 their famous entry into Durham, and, on the 23d 
 of the same month, Mary was removed further 
 south, out of reach of the plotters. On the 28th 
 January following. Sir Francis Leeke wrote to 
 Cecil: "Before receipt of yours for apprehension 
 of Gerald Lowther and Richard Clybume of 
 Clyburne, gentlemen, we had examined some of 
 their servants, John Craggs, and Thomas Clyburne 
 (who had come to town with three geldings of 
 Lowther), about the said Gerard's movements"; 
 and winds up by saying, "I send this letter for 
 
Descent 15 
 
 LIFE, that order may be taken for Lowther before 
 he has fled far, as he is not well horsed." Amid 
 all these troubles, Richard Cleburne was engaged 
 in rebuilding his Hall in the Tudor style. Over 
 the arched doorway he inserted an armorial slab 
 with a curious rhyming inscription in old English 
 characters, now so weatherworn as to be scarcely 
 decipherable (Taylor's Halls of West., p. 256; 
 Hist. West., i., 460) : 
 
 "Rychard . Clebur . thus . they me . cawl . 
 Wch . in my . tyme . hath . bealded . ys . hall . 
 The . yeare . of . our . Lord . God . who . lyst . 
 For . to , never . 1567." 
 
 On each side of this Tudor archway are two heater- 
 shaped shields containing the arms of Cleburne 
 and Kirkbride, and immediately over the inscrip- 
 tion a quartered shield; ist and 4th, arg. 3 chev- 
 ronels braced a chief sable (for Cleborne); 2d 
 and 3d, arg. a cross engrailed vert (for Kirkbride). 
 The extravagance entailed by the rebuilding of 
 the Hall and other improvements led to the mort- 
 gage and sale of Bampton-Cundale (in which 
 parish is the beautiful Haweswater Lake) and 
 of other fair manors which sadly impoverished the 
 Cliburns. 
 
 In 1 57 1 he was again mixed up with the Low- 
 
i6 William Claiborne 
 
 thers in a plot in which the Diike of Norfolk was a 
 principal, and in which the latter lost his head, 
 when all these ambitious schemes came to an un- 
 timely end. Full of intemperate zeal for his religion, 
 Cleburne continued to make himself obnoxious to 
 Rokeby Walsingham, and Leicester, "who thought 
 it pious merit to betray and ensnare those eminent 
 persons who were not yet quite weaned from the 
 Church of Rome" {Hist. Cumh., i., 387). By 
 them he was closely watched and persecuted, and 
 was several times indicted and imprisoned in the 
 "Fleet." Accused by Rokeby^ of being a "Re- 
 cusant," and of being "carried away with blind 
 zeal to favour and hold with the Romish Church" 
 (State Papers, 1581-90, vol. clxxxiii., 207); and 
 harassed by his affairs, his health gave way, and 
 in 1577 he was obliged to spend six months at 
 Bath. In October, 1584, he was so completely 
 broken down that Rokeby declared him to be 
 "aged, infirm, and sickly," and again "he had 
 permission to repair to Bath, where he remained 
 from 30th January to the ist May, 1586, on ac- 
 count of his health" (State Papers, p. 207-303). 
 By his wife Eleanor, granddaughter of Nicholas 
 Harrington, of Enbarry Hall, and daughter of 
 
 ^Rokeby: Anthony Rokeby the "spy" (in 1568) was set to 
 watch his movements. 
 
Descent 17 
 
 Launcelot Lancaster, of Sockbridge and Barton 
 (eighth in descent from Roger of Barton, ob. 1290, 
 who Nicholas says was "a brother of the half 
 blood to William de Lancaster, last Baron of 
 Kendal, ob. 1246, to whom the said William gave 
 Barton and Patterdale, styling him in his charter 
 'Rogero fratre meo'" — MSS., Denton and Lan- 
 caster Pedigree), he had issue two sons and seven 
 daughters: 
 
 I. Edmund, of whom presently.^ 
 
 ' Some confusion exists in regard to the title of Edmvind 
 Clibume, the father of William Claiborne. He has been re- 
 ferred to as Sir Edmund Cliburne by a number of writers. The 
 only knight who bore the title of Sir in the entire family, accord- 
 ing to O'Hart, was Sir Robert de Clibum, the seventh from 
 Bardolph, in the time of Edward III.; he was known as "Knight 
 of the Shire of Westmoreland." That title of Sir was not an 
 hereditary one, and could not be transmitted. It was won on 
 the field of battle or through service to the Crown, and may 
 truthfully be said to have been the greatest honour a gentleman 
 could win. Sir Robert, like all the rest of the family who held 
 Clibvun-Hervey, and the other possessions of the family, was 
 known as Lord of the Manors of CUbume, etc., but this title 
 was not one of knighthood; it was one of cotutesy by reason of 
 possessions. 
 
 The transmitted title of knighthood arose much later. Ed- 
 mund Clibume, the father of William, was simply known as 
 heir of Richard Clibume and Lord of the Manors of Clibume 
 and Killerby. 
 
 Admiral C. J. Clebome was accustomed to tell the writer that 
 the family of Clibume belonged simply to the landed gentry, and 
 was classed amongst the Barones minores, as opposed to the 
 Bar ones major es, amongst whom were the Earls and Dukes; 
 in short, they were simply Gentlemen. 
 
i8 William Claiborne 
 
 II. 
 
 Gerard, b. 5th Feb., 1566. 
 
 III. 
 
 Agnes, b. 4th July, 1570. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Agnes, born 6th May, 1571 ; married Humphry 
 
 
 Wharton, of Gilling, co. York. 
 
 V. 
 
 Eleanor. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Barbara, mar. Thomas Banks, of Whixley, co. 
 
 
 York. 
 
 VII. 
 
 Jane, b. 14th Oct., 1568. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Ann. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Emma. 
 
 16. Edmund: eldest son and heir of Richard, 
 lord of the manors of Clibume and Killerby, 
 married ist Sept., 1576, Grace, second dau. of 
 Sir Alan Bellingham, of Helsington and Levins, 
 the famous Treasurer of Berwick and Deputy 
 Warden of the Marches, who was rewarded by 
 Henry VIII. with a grant of the Barony of Kendal, 
 called the "Lumley Fee." This Sir Alan married 
 Dorothy, dau. of Thomas Sandford of Askam, 
 cousin of Anne, Countess of Pembroke and Dorset, 
 through whose influence with her husband — a 
 prominent member of the Virginia Company — 
 William Cleborne was made Surveyor, and Secre- 
 
 It will be remembered that the Black Prince, for example, won 
 the golden spurs of knighthood at the battle of Poitiers. Neither 
 King nor Prince could wear them imtil they were won. Knight- 
 hood was an institution which marked the noblest democracy of 
 all time — the democracy of self-sacrifice, courage, and service. 
 (J. H. C.) 
 
Descent 19 
 
 tary of State for that Colony, in 1626. Edmund 
 was devoted to the pleasures of the chase and 
 passed most of his time at Killerby, preferring 
 the Yorkshire dales to the cooler breezes of West- 
 moreland. He had a grant from the Crown, of 
 the Rectory and Parsonage of Bampton, West- 
 moreland, and also had some interest in the Rec- 
 tories of Barton and Shelston. There seems to 
 have been some trouble about Bampton, for he 
 had a suit-at-law with Sir Rowland Hunter (clerk), 
 defendant, about a claim on that Rectory which 
 had been granted to Cleburne by letters patent 
 (see Chancery Proceedings, Eliz., i., 151). By 
 his wife Grace Bellingham (bom 1558, ob, 1594), 
 who had for her second husband, Gerard, second 
 son of Sir Richard Lowther, he had: 
 
 1. Thomas, of whom presently. 
 n. William, Secretary of Virginia. 
 
 This pedigree has been carried only as far as 
 Col. William Claiborne, but it seems fitting that 
 these notes should make some reference to the 
 successors of the father of Colonel William at 
 Cliburn Hall. 
 
 William Claiborne was the second son of 
 Edmund; his younger brother was Robert; he 
 
20 William Claiborne 
 
 likewise had two sisters, Agnes and Dorothy, 
 the latter "somewhat of a shrew." 
 
 Thomas, who succeeded Edmund, was bom 
 1580 and died 1640. He was the seventeenth in 
 line from Bardolph, but the fourteenth Lord of 
 the Manor, counting from Alan, the first. 
 
 He is said to have been indolent, shy, and 
 melancholy. He found his estates much en- 
 cumbered and was forced to mortgage his lands. 
 Thomas lived a retired and quiet life at Clibum 
 and Killerby, cultivating and improving his lands. 
 He took but little interest in affairs of state, and 
 lived in contentment with his loving wife, Frances, 
 the daughter of Sir Richard Lowther, already 
 referred to. 
 
 Thomas had three sons, Edmund, Richard, and 
 William. William settled in Ireland and became 
 the founder of the BallycuUitan Castle Cliburns. 
 He was known as "Wise William of Ciallmahr." 
 He went to Ireland with his uncle. Sir Gerard 
 Lowther, where he became known far and wide 
 for his humanitarian qualities, as the arbitrator 
 of the disputes of his neighbours and as the friend 
 and adviser of the poor. He purchased his 
 possessions to wit: "From Capt. Solomon Cambie, 
 the castles, towns, and lands of BallycuUitan, the 
 villadge and lands of Bunnadubber and of Killinbog 
 
>5C5^"K®n£pCS:ifi<afeM^i4<^£^sSa^ 
 
 THOMAS CLIBURNE, OF CLIBURN HALL, WESTMORELAND, AND 
 KILLERBY, YORK. ELDEST BROTHER OF WILLIAM CLAIBORNE 
 
 From a painting in possession of Major W. C. C. Claiborne. Original said 
 to have been in possession of Sir John Lowther 
 
Descent 21 
 
 or Knock, Ballycullitan; also that part of Annagh 
 from the Castle of Annagh to the ditch of Kil- 
 bulloir, together with all the profits and emolu- 
 ments from the said castles, towns, villadges, and 
 lands" (Public Record Office, Dublin, July 20, 
 1677). 
 
 Thomas was succeeded by Edmund of Killerby, 
 who was born in 1605. He likewise found his 
 estates much involved and was unable to extricate 
 them. He, like his father, avoided politics, but, 
 having spent his remaining fortime in support of 
 his King, was "finally swept into the vortex and 
 ruined. " 
 
 The fair Lordships of Cliburne had fallen away 
 one by one, till the owner of Killerby was reduced 
 to the position of a country squire. Edmund 
 married the second daughter of Sir Timothy 
 Hutton of Marske, County York, and had 
 Timothy (of whom presently), who succeeded 
 him, two other sons, and three daughters. 
 
 Timothy, nineteenth from Bardolph and six- 
 teenth from Alan, was the last Lord of the Manor 
 of Clibiurne. He found himself in such strait- 
 ened circumstances after the Civil War, that he 
 sold the Hall to "Mr. Collingwood, a Bishoprick 
 gentleman, who sold it to Mr. Roger Loray, who 
 yet lives at Broughton Tower in Cumberland, who 
 
22 William Claiborne 
 
 exchanged it with Mr. Edward Lee of Broughton, 
 for Broughton Tower. Mr. Lee {circa 1664) 
 mortgaged it to old Sir John Lowther, whose 
 grandchild now enjoys it." (Machell MSS., iii., 
 117.) 
 
 Timothy retired to Yorkshire, where he married 
 Mary, fourth daughter of John Talbot, of Thorn- 
 ton le Street, colonel on the part of Charles I. 
 He failed of issue, and the representation of a 
 family which flourished for six hundred years on 
 the Border, passed to his cousin, William Cleburne, 
 of BaUycuUitan Castle, Ireland, whose descendant 
 in the sixth generation, William Cleburne, Esq., 
 of Omaha, Nebraska, eldest brother of the late 
 General Pat. Cleburne (C. S. A.), is the present 
 representative of the elder branch of Cliburne. 
 (O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees.) 
 
 O'Hart, from whom so much has been drawn 
 in these notes, while knowing only the Irish 
 branch of the family apparently, has written, in 
 the following words, a description of their charac- 
 teristics, which the writer has found amongst all 
 of the name he knows, and which others likewise 
 will doubtless recognize: 
 
 After the sale of the Hall and Manor, the few 
 members of the family that remained became humble 
 
Descent 23 
 
 tillers of the soil their fathers had owned as Lords; 
 thus the lowest and the highest were very near 
 together and so have been since the world began. 
 The Wars of the Roses and the great Civil War had so 
 utterly ruined them, that, like many another ancient 
 house, scarcely one of its members emerged from that 
 soothing obscurity which overshadows the country 
 squire. Preferring the green woods with peace and 
 mediocrity, to vaulting ambition or the gaieties of a 
 court, their pride was that of home and peace, ex- 
 pressed in the French distich : 
 
 " Je suis ni Due ni Prince Aussi 
 Je suis le Sire de Couci." 
 
 Content with this spirit of self-importance, they 
 wrapped themselves up in a m^antle of exclusiveness, 
 caring so little for politics or the interests of their 
 country, that, while they seldom descended to the 
 level of the masses they rarely rose to the highest 
 positions in the state, and so sank into merited 
 oblivion. 
 
 Thus ended the race of Cleburne at Clibume ! 
 Let those of the blood to whom these pres- 
 ents may come, read, mark, inwardly digest, 
 and beware. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 CLEBORNE OR CLEBURNE, OF CLIBURN, COUNTY 
 WESTMORELAND; HAYCLOSE, COUNTY CUMBER- 
 LAND; KILLERBY, COUNTY YORK; ST. JOHN's 
 MANOR, COUNTY WEXFORD; AND OF BALLY- 
 CULLITAN-CASTLE, COUNTY TIPPERARY; VIR- 
 GINIA 
 
 A 
 
 RMS: On a field argent, three chevronels 
 braced in base sable, a chief of the last. 
 According to O'Hart: 
 
 This ancient and knightly family may be traced 
 in the male line to the early part of the nth 
 century; and, on the "spindle" side (through the 
 Curwens) to the Scoto-Pictish and West-Saxon Kings. 
 It derived its surname from the Lordship of Cliburne, 
 in Westmoreland, but the early descent of the manor is 
 involved in obscurity, owing to the destruction of 
 northern records in the border wars and feuds of the 
 1 2th and 13th centuries. The first record of the name 
 appears in the Domesday or Great Siirvey of Eng- 
 land, A.D. 1086, vol. i., p. 234. (See Jackson's 
 Curwens of Workington Hall; Symon of Durham; and 
 Freeman's Norman Conq., iv., 89.) 
 
 24 
 
4 
 
 V (i 
 
 
 
 ''M'h' 
 
ckson's 
 
11/. /[aiovntf/ J^^ 
 
 
 V*^r^ 
 
 titbofnf 
 
 .11 uTUrvv. nvaa 
 
Cleborne of Cliburn 25 
 
 Cliborne is pronounced "Clebburn." The name 
 is spelled in over thirty different ways, and is often 
 confounded with Glyborne, Clabon, Clay bough, Clay- 
 burgh, Giberne, Caborne, and other entirely distinct 
 families of diverse origin. 
 
 The word Cliborne is derived from the Anglo- 
 Saxon " Claeg " : sticky earth, and " borne " : a stream. 
 Danish, " Klaeg " : clammy or sticky mud. Ferguson 
 derives it from A-S "clif ": a hill, and "burne": a 
 stream. And Picton, from Norse or Danish, " Klif- 
 brunnr": the Cliff stream (compare "Klifsdabr"; 
 Cliff dale). 
 
 In the time of Edward the Confessor, Cliburn con- 
 tained but ten carucates or 1200 acres. At the Survey 
 there were 1440 acres; and by modern measurement 
 it embraces 1360 acres, or ten miles in circumference. 
 It is situated on an eminence on the Leith riviilet, 
 about six miles from Penrith, and is bounded, E.-S.-W. 
 by the Parish of Morland, and north by Louther, 
 Clifton, and Bingham. 
 
 Ridpath and others state that the greatest part 
 of Carlisle perished, and the records of the North 
 suffered by fire in 1173; and again in 1292, when the 
 principal records and charters of the North were 
 destroyed. 
 
 Nicholson, the historian of Westmoreland, says : 
 "The Manor of Cliburne was early divided into 
 two moieties or halves, Cliburn-Tailbois and 
 Cliburne-Hervey ; the first half derived its name 
 from the Tailbois, the Barons of Kendal; Cliburn- 
 Hervey in like manner." 
 
26 William Claiborne 
 
 As has been seen in the pedigree of Colonel Wm. 
 Claiborne, the third in descent from Bardolph was 
 Hervey or Herveus FitzAcaris, and the natural 
 deduction would be that the moiety of Clibum- 
 Hervey derived the latter half of its hyphenated 
 name from Herveus, the son of Acaris and grand- 
 son of Bardolph. But it seems that the matter is 
 not so simple after all, for O'Hart discusses it at 
 some length. He says: "Though the antecessors 
 of Hervey in Cliborne are not known, Cliborne, 
 as a man's name, occurs as a donor of houses in 
 York to the Priory of Nastel, a.d. i 120." He says 
 further, "The founder of the family was, undoubt- 
 edly, a Norman or Breton Hervey, after whom a 
 moiety of Cliburn was named," but he is in doubt 
 whether this Herveus was a cadet of the great 
 Feudal Baron of Vesci, or of the equally powerful 
 house of Acarius of Ravensworth. (Senhouse, 
 Somerville MSS.) 
 
 That he was of the latter, that is, the house of 
 Bardolph of Ravensworth, it is my purpose to 
 set forth presently proofs which appear convincing. 
 Both families held lands in the immediate vicinity 
 of Englewood, and in both the Christian names 
 of Hervey, Geoffrey, Robert, and William occur. 
 By reference to the pedigree of William Claiborne 
 in descent from Bardolph, it will be seen that 
 
Cleborne of Cliburn 2^ 
 
 Hervey de Clibume was the son of Alan, that 
 Geoffrey de CHburne was son of this Hervey, but 
 that the name WilHam does not appear in the 
 pedigree, as set forth by O'Hart, till William 
 Cliburne, foxirth son of Edmund, fourteenth Lord 
 of Cliburn, was born; and then not again till the 
 birth of William Claiborne, the subject of this 
 sketch, in 1587. 
 
 This is only presumptive evidence in favour of 
 the descent of the family from Bardolph. But it 
 appears to the writer that there is still more 
 evidence, conclusive, in fact, and that evidence 
 lies in the sameness, with "differences," in the 
 arms of Cliburn and other families deriving from 
 the same source. 
 
 According to O'Hart, the families of FitzHugh, 
 Askew, and others derive from Bardolph, and 
 Whittaker says: "Askew, Lincolnshire, was 
 granted after 1086 by Alan, Earl of Richmond, to 
 Bardolph, his brother, father of Acaris, ancestor 
 of the Barons of FitzHugh of Ravensworth" 
 (History of Richmond and the Norman People). 
 It has been noted that Henry FitzHervey, the 
 eldest son of Hervey FitzAcaris, was the eldest 
 brother of Alan de Cliburne, and that this Henry 
 FitzAcaris was the ancestor from whom the Barons 
 FitzHugh descended. Moreover, the arms of 
 
28 William Claiborne 
 
 Cleborne are clearly FitzHugh, and Ravensworth, 
 the seat of the latter family, is within twenty 
 miles of Cliburn. In ancient times, "arms" 
 could not lie and sameness in arms in families 
 indicated a sameness in origin. The arms of 
 Cleburne, as stated, are: 
 
 On a field argent, three chevronels interlaced 
 in base sable, a chief of the last, and those of 
 FitzHugh: on a field azure, three chevronels 
 interlaced in base, or, a chief of the last. 
 
 The so-called differences are simply modifica- 
 tions in arms and are created by the College of 
 Heraldry. It is obvious even to one not learned 
 in Heraldry, that the arms of Cleburne and Fitz- 
 Hugh are the same in origin. Hence they must 
 have been borne by men of a common ancestry. 
 
 There is still more proof, however, which may 
 be described as contributory, in the matter of 
 Christian names. In the period to which reference 
 is made, there were no surnames as there are to- 
 day, but a son was given a Christian name, and 
 Fitz (meaning, son), followed by the name of his 
 father, was added, to show his descent ; for example : 
 Akaris FitzBardolph was the son of Bardolph, in 
 like manner, Hervey FitzAcaris was the son of 
 Acaris. 
 
 The Christian name of a son was generally that 
 
Cleborne of Cliburn 29 
 
 of his father, another direct ancestor, or a collat- 
 eral one, and we observe in the name of Alan de 
 Cleburne, for example, a reversion on the part of 
 his father, Hervey, to Bardolph's brothers, Alan 
 Niger or Alan Riifus (or Black Alan and Red 
 Alan). These two, as has been seen, were the 
 second and third sons of Eudo, and elder brothers 
 of Bardolph. Alan continues the custom by- 
 naming his son Hervey, in honour of his father, 
 Hervey FitzAcaris; Hervey, in like manner, 
 names his son Geoffrey, in honour of the fourth 
 son of Eudo, Geoffrey, another elder brother of 
 Bardolph. 
 
 This custom has continued to the present day, 
 and is not restricted to those of English descent. 
 All these things furnish conclusive proof that the 
 family is descended from Bardolph, the last and 
 seventh son of Eudo, the youngest brother of 
 Alan, first Duke of Richmond. O'Hart finally 
 arrives at the same conclusion, since he derives the 
 descent of the family from Bardolph. 
 
 The way in which the manor of Cliburn-Hervey 
 came to Alan is a matter of some speculation. 
 Watson Holland (Somerville MSS.) says a moiety 
 of Clibume came to Hervey in marriage through 
 the Viponts, who in turn derived it from the 
 hereditary Foresters of Englewood. O'Hart thinks 
 
30 William Claiborne 
 
 this a more reasonable explanation than that it 
 descended through Alice, granddaughter of Walter 
 Fitzlvo, who married Henry FitzHervey of 
 Ravensworth, who in turn may have enfeoffed 
 Alan de Cleburne. It appears to the writer that 
 the latter explanation is more reasonable than the 
 former, if this Henry FitzHervy of Ravensworth 
 was, as it appears, the elder brother of Alan de 
 Cleburne, 
 
 Again, O'Hart suggests that "Meaburn Regis," 
 the property of Sir Hugh de Morville, together 
 with all his other possessions, fell into the King's 
 hands by reason of the complicity of Sir Hugh 
 in the murder of Becket; the King granted these 
 forfeited lands to Robert de Vetinpont, who may 
 have enfeoffed Alan FitzHervey (Alan de Cle- 
 burne). Again O'Hart suggests that, while the 
 forfeited estates of Sir Hugh de Morville were in 
 the hands of King John, the Crown may have 
 enfeoffed Alan, or he may have been enfeoffed 
 by De Morville before his lands passed to the 
 Vetinponts. 
 
 Of all these explanations, the most reasonable 
 to the writer is, that Henry FitzHervey of Ravens- 
 worth, eldest brother of Alan, enfeoffed Alan with 
 Cleburne from his large possessions in the North, 
 brought him by Alice, granddaughter of Walter 
 
Cleborne of Cliburn 31 
 
 Fitzlvo, in marriage. However all this may be, 
 Hervey and his descendants held the Manor of 
 CHbum-Hervey by ' ' Knight service of the Crown " 
 (CoUins's Peerage, p. 426) and by "Cornage" only 
 of the Viponts and Cliffords, and Alan dictus 
 Cleburne (Le Neve MSS., iii., 114) certainly re- 
 ceived (tempore John) a moiety of the manor of 
 Cliburn, County Westmoreland, thus acquiring "a 
 local habitation and a name," but as Freeman 
 {Norman Conquest, v., 379) says, "when a man 
 takes his surname from his possessions or residence, 
 it is very hard to say at what particular point the 
 personal designation passes into the hereditary 
 surname. " 
 
 Alan, being the youngest son of Hervey Fitz- 
 Acaris, was probably, after the manner of younger 
 sons in England even to this day, lacking in this 
 world's goods, and having been enfeoffed by some- 
 one, was thereafter known as Alan de Cleburne. 
 This Alan was the first who bore the name of 
 Cleburne, The use of the prefix de in the name 
 persisted for centuries, but was finally lost and 
 certainly was not used by Col. William Claiborne, 
 the first representative of the family in America. 
 
 The name of the parish in England today is 
 spelled Cliburn, likewise that of the old Hall. In 
 Ireland, the name is spelled by the family of Moate 
 
32 William Claiborne 
 
 Castle, Clihhorn, by the descendants of William 
 of BallycuUitan, Cleborne, and sometimes Cleburne, 
 by others Clibburn, and by the Virginia branch, 
 the descendants of Col. William, of Jamestown, 
 Claiborne. 
 
 The patronymic of the father of William Clai- 
 borne was spelled Cliburne, according to O'Hart, 
 and why Col. William should have changed the 
 spelling to Claiborne is not shown. His signature 
 in the records in Virginia, and on his petitions to 
 Charles the First, is spelled, Claiborne, and all his 
 descendants in this country have retained it as 
 he wrote it. It is the same name however spelled 
 and all the people who bear it are doubtless of the 
 same origin. It is a name hoary with age and 
 has ever been noble and honourable. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 CLIBURN CHAPEL, OR CHURCH, AND CLIBURN HALL 
 
 CLIBURN CHURCH is Norman in structure 
 and is situated within a stone's throw of 
 the Hall. It is mentioned by Grose 
 amongst the antiquities worthy of notice in West- 
 moreland. It was dedicated to St. Cuthbert of 
 Lindisfarne, and marks one of the resting places 
 of the Saint's body as the remains were borne by 
 monks on their shoulders in their flight from Holy 
 Island, to escape from the Danes in 873. 
 
 Singular to relate, there is no mention of the 
 church in Domesday, but, as has been remarked, 
 this is no evidence or proof that it did not exist, 
 when the Survey of the North was compiled by 
 William's command. O'Hart thinks it was pro- 
 bably built by Orme, or a Baron of Kendal, in the 
 early part of the eleventh century', and was granted 
 to St. Mary's at York. 
 
 Owing to the care, interest, and generosity of 
 its former and deceased Rector, the Rev. Mr. 
 
 2 33 
 
34 William Claiborne 
 
 Clarke Watkins Burton, M.A., it is, or was several 
 years ago, in excellent preservation. There is, 
 in the chancel, a handsome mural tablet to 
 the memory of Sophia Portia Burton, daughter 
 of Sir William Pilkington, of York, first wife of 
 the Rev. Mr. Burton. On the north side is a 
 small Norman window, one of those curious "leper 
 windows," through which lepers used to look on 
 the blessed sacrament, in the ancient days of the 
 Roman Church in England. This window is now 
 filled with stained glass in memory of Cuthbert 
 Lowther Cleborne, a son of Admiral Christopher 
 J. Cleborne, U. S. Navy. 
 
 The writer has twice visited Cliburne, once in 
 1886, as he was returning home from his medical 
 studies in Europe, and again several years ago, 
 after his marriage, in company with his wife, 
 likewise a descendant of William Claiborne, 
 through her father. Major W. C. C. Claiborne of 
 New Orleans. 
 
 The church is more nearly what we in America 
 would denominate a chapel, and has from time to 
 time, through the ages, been repaired, till pre- 
 sumably not one stone of the original structure 
 remains. The floor of the church at present 
 consists of a single very large flagstone, taken 
 from a quarry in the north of England. It has 
 
Cliburn Chapel arid Hall 35 
 
 been presumed that the remains of all the Cli- 
 bumes lie underneath the flooring of the church or 
 did lie there, for, though the family lived at Cli- 
 burn from the days of Alan, approximately 1188, 
 to the days of Timothy, the last of the name 
 in England, 1 630-1 660, there is no stone or 
 monument or inscription to mark the place 
 where any one of the name of CHbume was laid 
 to rest. 
 
 Admiral C. J. Clebome, U. S. Navy, now 
 deceased, to whom the writer owes many things 
 and whose memory is held in affectionate re- 
 membrance, wrote and told him personally there 
 was a tradition in the family, that the Bishop of 
 Knype, circa time Henry VIII., a relative of the 
 Cliburnes, ciu"sed them by bell, book, and candle, 
 for their apostasy from the Church, in a doggerel 
 verse in Old English, which he sent him, but 
 which, by unhappy chance, has been lost from 
 amongst his papers. The writer remembers the 
 curse ran that for the ' ' apostacie and heresie with 
 which they were accurst, " their race should perish 
 forever from Clibume, and not a stone should 
 be left to mark the place where they and their 
 ancestors had lived. It is singular and worthy of 
 remark also that no one by the name of Cliburne 
 has lived at the manor or on the demesne since 
 
36 William Claiborne 
 
 the death of Timothy, the last of the direct Hne. 
 The curse seems to have come true. 
 
 The place Cliburn can only be described as a 
 hamlet, composed of fifty or sixty cottages, 
 mostly thatched, and located on a road, which 
 runs through it and from the railway station. 
 They seem to be of great antiquity in general. 
 Just before one arrives at the hamlet, on the way 
 from the station, one finds on the right of the road, 
 the Rectory, formerly occupied by the Rev. Mr. 
 Burton, already referred to, and his family. 
 
 The writer cannot forget the ready and cordial 
 hospitality which he received at the hands of 
 this reverend gentleman, his charming wife, and 
 daughters. When the writer presented himself 
 at the door, it was opened by Mr. Burton, who was 
 a picture of an English squire and country gentle- 
 man. On the visitor's stating who he was and his 
 object in visiting Cliburne, namely, to see the 
 home of his ancestors, the Rector thrust out his 
 hand, saying, "Welcome, my boy, come in," and 
 leading him into the drawing-room, presented him 
 to his wife, who was on her knees on the floor 
 playing with her youngest daughter, a type of an 
 English child. She received him as if she had 
 known him always, with a cordiality and simplicity 
 which up to that date he had seen only in his 
 
Cliburn Chapel and Hall 37 
 
 Virginia home. In fact, it was Virginian hospital- 
 ity, because it was English hospitality. He thinks 
 this incident worthy of mention in these notes, 
 and he was surprised and flattered to know 
 that these strangers accepted him on his own 
 recognizances as the individual he professed 
 to be. 
 
 The Hall, at present, with the surrounding 
 ground, is the property of the Earl of Lonsdale, 
 whose family name is Lowther. Lord Lowther is 
 related to the family of Cleburne, by reason of the 
 marriage, in 1574, of Frances, the daughter of Sir 
 Richard Lowther, the Sheriff of Cumberland, to 
 Thomas Cliburne, the eldest brother of Col. 
 William Claiborne of Jamestown, Va., and son of 
 Edmund Cleburne, Lord of the Manors of Cliburne 
 and Killerby. The manor was built by Richard 
 Cleburne in the Tudor style in 1567, on the site 
 of an earlier structure or on the foundations of the 
 ancient fortalice, or "pele of Cliburn." 
 
 When the writer was there in 1886, the donjon 
 or keep was still in a state of preservation, and 
 the winding stone stairs that led from it up to the 
 " battlemented parapet" were open; but, on his 
 last visit, several years ago, he was surprised 
 and mortified to find that the stairway had been 
 blocked with brick and mortar. The battlements 
 
38 William Claiborne 
 
 had already been removed at the time of his 
 first visit. 
 
 Taylor, in his Manorial Halls of Westmoreland, 
 says, it must, in the time of Richard Cleburne, 
 have been a place of very considerable importance, 
 but the writer can affirm without fear of contradic- 
 tion, that, whatever it may have been, its glory is 
 departed now. 
 
 As it is approached from the road, one enters 
 the courtyard, which is in the form of a parallelo- 
 gram, with the Hall at one of the smaller sides. 
 Surrounding or flanking the yard are a number of 
 lofts or stalls, which must at one time have been 
 capable of storing much provender and furnishing 
 accommodation for a large number of horses. 
 The yard is paved with stones, and over the door- 
 way of the Hall, cut in red sandstone, are the 
 arms of Clebtune, quartered, with those of Kirk- 
 bride; underneath these is written, in Old English 
 characters, the rhyming inscription, now fast 
 wearing away, referred to in the pedigree, under 
 the caption of "Richard the Martyr." 
 
 In a field, to the rear of the Hall, stand two old 
 oaks, gnarled, twisted, and decaying. Admiral 
 Cleborne told the writer they were the sole re- 
 maining giants of the ancient Forest of Engle- 
 wood. They are of interest, since they suggest 
 
^^ 
 
 #^ 
 
 >s. 
 
 ^---^ 
 
 CLIBURN HALL. VIEW FROM THE COURT-YARD 
 
Cliburn Chapel and Hall 39 
 
 the story told by the Admiral touching a tradition 
 about the Cleburne crest. He said, in very ancient 
 times, when the Forest of Englewood was thick 
 and flourishing, one of the Lords of the Manor, 
 returning home late one evening, was caught in a 
 thunderstorm in the Forest. As he was riding 
 fast through the Forest, a thunderbolt struck a 
 tree, and a limb of it, in falling, was on the point 
 of knocking him from his horse, but, at that 
 moment, a wolf ran out of the brush and, fright- 
 ening the horse, caused him to shy, so that the 
 limb fell short, and the horseman was unhurt. 
 
 From this incident the Wolf is said to have been 
 taken as the family crest, and it has so remained to 
 this day; at least, it is the crest used by Colonel 
 William and that which most of the branches of 
 the family in Virginia have used. Since Colonel 
 William was the second son of Edmund, his crest 
 is a demi-wolj, and is described as rampant re- 
 guardant, ppr., which latter abbreviation signifies 
 proper or natirral colour. 
 
 Mr. William Cleburne of Omaha, if alive, alone 
 is entitled to the whole wolf. Another tradition 
 claims the Wolf was derived from "Hugh Lupus, " 
 Lord Paramount of Cleburne and other lands, but 
 the incident related furnishes the more interesting 
 explanation. 
 
40 William Claiborne 
 
 Like the crest, the motto is a variable thing, and 
 can be modified or changed. Colonel William used 
 the Saxon words, "Lofe Clibbor na scaeme, " 
 which means, "tenacious of what is honourable 
 and praiseworthy, and not of what is shameful." 
 Admiral Cleborne thought Colonel William proba- 
 bly adopted this motto in America to indicate his 
 attitude in his contention with Lord Baltimore, 
 in the matter of the possession of Kent Island. 
 
 The Hall viewed from the side of the two oaks 
 is, to the writer's mind, more attractive than when 
 viewed from the courtyard. At the rear is a terrace 
 with steps, and from this vantage point a good 
 view of the surrounding country can be obtained, 
 particularly of the rivulet, brook, or run, called 
 the Leith. This small stream runs over a bed of 
 clay — hence the name Clibum, or Claystream. 
 Just below and to the right of the terrace is the 
 doorway to the kitchen. Over the doorway the 
 arms, unquartered, are cut. A horse could easily 
 enter through it. The kitchen is very large, and 
 the fireplace, now occupied in part by a modem 
 range, is the largest the writer has ever seen. It 
 appeared to be out of all proportion to the possible 
 needs of the household. The walls are exceedingly 
 thick; they were found, on measurement, to be of 
 the thickness of the length of an umbrella the 
 
1 9 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 lKi> M 
 
 
 » " 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 ^i«» j 
 
 UJ 
 
 
 LI 
 
 I 
 
 
 E 
 
 , 
 
 O 
 
 
Cliburn Chapel and Hall 41 
 
 writer had in his hand. The measurement was 
 made at the embrasure of one of the windows. 
 This has some bearing on the originally defensive 
 character of the structiu-e, as O'Hart has sug- 
 gested that the present Hall was built on the 
 foundations of the ancient pele of Cliburn. 
 
 A pele was a round turreted structure, rather 
 peculiar to the North Country and was both a 
 dwelling and a place of defence. One of these 
 towers still stands at Clifford, not far from Cli- 
 bume Hall. It consists of a single tower, and is 
 entered below by a door flush with the ground. 
 
 These peles were used by the North Country 
 gentry to repel and defend themselves against 
 the inroads and attacks of the cattle-stealing, 
 aggressive Scots, who lived just over the Border, 
 called the Marches. 
 
 It is said the Cliburnes were constantly engaged 
 in the Border warfare and were required to furnish 
 men, like all families on the Border, to this end. 
 This tradition is likewise consistent with the pre- 
 existing turrets on the manor, the donjon keep, and 
 the winding stairs leading from it to the turrets on 
 the roof. 
 
 The country around Clibume reminds one of 
 the Valley of Virginia, especially the region of 
 Clarke County. The stone fences are constructed 
 
42 William Claiborne 
 
 like those in the valley; the ground is in the same 
 high state of cultivation, the country is rolling, 
 and if one were transplanted suddenly from one 
 place to the other, it would be difficult to recognize 
 the difference between the two. The view from 
 Cliburne Hill, as one goes up from the station, 
 and looks back toward the distant hills is indeed 
 peaceful, tranquil, and sweet. The writer felt as 
 much at home there, as he does in the Valley of 
 Virginia. Even the country people resemble 
 those in Virginia, down to the broad osier hats 
 trimmed under the brim with green, and the 
 trousers stuffed in the boots. 
 
 The respect that homogeneous English people 
 have for traditions and blood kinship, guaranteed 
 to the writer, as he does not doubt it would 
 guarantee to others of the blood, a cordial and 
 friendly reception in the houses of both the gentle 
 and humble of the parish. The glory of the old 
 place is departed and only ghostly memories haunt 
 it, but Cliburn Hall, Cliburn Church, and the 
 hamlet of Cliburne are well worth a visit. 
 
 It is regrettable that no one of the family is 
 willing or able to purchase the Hall and preserve 
 it from the destruction into which it is fast falling. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 DRAMATIS PERSONS 
 
 IN 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh founded the Colony 
 of Croatan in North Carolina. Bartholomew 
 Gosnold, who was a member of that expedi- 
 tion, on his return to England, induced the fitting 
 out of another to America. 
 
 Sailing down the northern coast of the country 
 which is now New England, he came to Virginia. 
 Being moved by the character of the land and its 
 approaches, he brought about, on his return to 
 England, the founding of the original London 
 Company in 1606. The Company was formed 
 under a charter granted by James I., to settle 
 and develop by trade English America along the 
 Atlantic Coast, running one hundred miles inland 
 and extending between latitudes 34°-4i °, which is to 
 say, from the Hudson River to the southern limits of 
 North Carolina. He, likewise, induced the forma- 
 tion of the Plymouth Colony, north of this region — 
 a matter with which this sketch is not concerned. 
 
 43 
 
44 William Claiborne 
 
 In 1609, the original London Company was re- 
 chartered under the name of the Virginia Com- 
 pany. It embraced territory which extended 
 two hundred miles north and two hundred miles 
 south of Old Point Comfort, at the mouth of the 
 James River, and to reach "up into the land from 
 sea to sea." But, in 1612, the colonists begged 
 and secured a new charter, which included the 
 Bermudas. 
 
 Up to this time the London Council had 
 governed Virginia, but by this charter the control 
 of the Colony was put into the hands of the stock- 
 holders of the Company, who numbered about 
 nine hundred important and wealthy citizens of 
 England, amongst whom were some fifty noble- 
 men and one hundred and fifty baronets, or 
 knights. 
 
 The period at which this last company was 
 formed marked the beginning of the long struggle 
 of the English people for government by a free 
 Parliament, as opposed to the absolute rule of 
 kings. 
 
 The stockholders were divided into the Country 
 Party and the Court Party. The former were 
 independents, free and bold thinkers who sought 
 for free things for the government of Virginia, 
 and were decidedly in the majority. The minority, 
 
Dramatis Personae 45 
 
 or Court Party, held for absolute government by 
 the King. 
 
 On the 30th of June, 1619, the first session of a 
 legislative body in America was held — that of the 
 Virginia House of Burgesses. 
 
 On July 24, 1 62 1, the Virginia Colony was 
 granted a written Charter by the Virginia Com- 
 pany, whereby free government was conferred 
 upon them {Claiborne and Kent Island in 
 American History, by DeCoiu-cy W. Thorn, 
 Eastern Shore Society of Baltimore City, 
 
 1913)- 
 
 Such was the Colony of Virginia, such its area, 
 and such its character of government when 
 William Claiborne, a member of the Country Party ^ 
 sailed from England for the New World. 
 
 William Claiborne was bom in 1587; it is not 
 known with certainty whether at Cliburn in 
 Westmoreland or at Killerby, another estate and 
 hunting seat of the family in York. 
 
 His boyhood and young manhood were passed 
 between these two places. When about thirty- 
 three or thirty-four years of age he went up to 
 London, to seek some means of future livelihood, 
 and made the acquaintance of Capt. John Smith, 
 the Virginia pioneer. It would appear that he and 
 Smith became good friends, for later on John 
 
46 William Claiborne 
 
 Smith named a group of islands, outside of Boston, 
 "the Claiborne Isles." 
 
 It is not unlikely he received from Smith the 
 inspiration to seek his fortunes in Virginia. 
 
 It seems quite certain he came to Virginia in the 
 ship George, with Sir Francis Wyatt, in 1621-22. 
 Being the second son of Edmund Cliburn, Lord 
 of the Manor of Cliburn and Killerby, and 
 doubtless being, like most younger sons of English 
 gentlemen, not possessed of much of this world's 
 goods, he must needs win his own fortune. As 
 subsequent events amply show, he possessed 
 qualities that are worth more than inheritance and 
 broad acres. He appears, therefore, in that year 
 of grace 1621, to have taken heart and girded on 
 his sword for conquests in the New World, in the 
 Colony of Jamestown, in the "Kingdom of 
 Virginia." He is found possessed, on sailing, of 
 the post of Royal Surveyor for the Colony. It 
 has been a matter of some speculation to several 
 writers how Claiborne obtained this post. As 
 O'Hart remarks, his position in the Colony in the 
 above-mentioned capacity was obtained, prob- 
 ably, through the influence of Anne, Duchess of 
 Pembroke and Dorset, whose husband was one 
 of the London Company, and who was a connec- 
 tion of his mother, Grace Bellingham, second 
 
Dramatis Personas 47 
 
 daughter of Sir Alan Bellingham. Doubtless, 
 much of the personal influence he had with the 
 King in after years was obtained through this 
 source likewise. 
 
 Armed with such credentials, his education, 
 superior to that of most of his contemporaries in 
 Jamestown, according to several writers, his 
 intelligence, capacity, and persistence, it is not 
 surprising to know that, as Fiske says, he pros- 
 pered greatly, acquiring large estates and winning 
 the respect and confidence of his fellow-planters. 
 
 About 1627, five or six years after his arrival, 
 he started trading with the Indians, on the shores 
 of the Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac and Sus- 
 quehanna rivers. Such barter and exchange must 
 naturally have been very profitable, since with 
 such trifles as beads, hatchets, etc., one could 
 purchase furs from the natives, ship them to 
 England, and fetch high prices. 
 
 These seem to have been the first acts that led 
 to his remarkable career. But his broad mind and 
 ambition took in greater territory still ; indeed, the 
 Delaware and Hudson rivers, New England, and 
 even Nova Scotia itself. 
 
 To this end he directed the attention of William 
 Cloberry, a wealthy London merchant, to the ad- 
 vantages to be derived from such trade with the 
 
48 William Claiborne 
 
 Indians. This Cloberry had already traded with 
 Canada, and with other merchants had had a 
 patent to trade with Guinea in Africa. It seems 
 that Claiborne was in England at the time he 
 called Cloberry's attention to the profits to be 
 obtained from traffic with the Virginia Indians, 
 for we find that a company was forthwith formed 
 there, composed of Wm. Cloberry, Maurice 
 Thompson, Simon Turgis, John Delabarr, and 
 Wm. Claiborne, six shares in all, Cloberry holding 
 two and the others one each. 
 
 Probably through the above-mentioned court 
 influence Wm. Claiborne obtained from Kjng 
 Charles I. a royal license to trade and make 
 discoveries "in any and all parts of North America 
 not already pre-empted by monopolies" (Fiske). 
 It is well to cite the wording of this license, as it 
 bears importantly on the contention that existed 
 for many years between the actors in the drama 
 that is to follow : 
 
 Charles, by the grace of God King of England, 
 Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, 
 etc. 
 
 Whereas our trusty and well-beloved William 
 Cleboume, one of our councell and Secretary of State 
 from our Colony of Virginia, and some other adven- 
 turers with him have condescended, with our trusty 
 
Dramatis Personae 49 
 
 and well-beloved councellor of both kingdoms, Sir 
 William Alexander, our principal secretary for our 
 Kingdome of Scotland, and others of our lovinge 
 subjects, who have charge over our colonies of New 
 Scotland and New England to keepe a course for 
 interchange of trade amongst them as they shall have 
 occasion. As also to make discoveries for increase of 
 trade in those parts, and because wee do very much 
 approve of all such worthy intentions, and desirous 
 to give good encouragement to these proceedings 
 therein, being for the relief and comfort of those our 
 subjects and enlargement of our dominions, these are 
 to license and authorize the said William Cleburne, 
 his associates and company freely and without 
 interruption from time to time to trade and traffic 
 of corne, furs or any other commodities whatsoever 
 with their shipps, men, boates and merchandise in all 
 sea-coasts, rivers, creeks, harbors, land and terri- 
 tories in or neare those parts of America for which 
 there is not already a patent granted to others for 
 trade. 
 
 There are several points to be made in the 
 consideration of this license. First: It was 
 granted as a special license to William Claiborne 
 and not to Cloberry & Co. ; second : it was granted 
 May 16, 1 63 1 {Maryland Archives, Council Pro- 
 ceedings, {., 19); third: it was not a grant of land 
 but a license to trade, to "keepe a course for 
 interchange of trade," and to "make discoveries 
 for increase of trade" "in or neare those parts of 
 4 
 
50 William Claiborne 
 
 America for which there is not already a patent 
 to others for trade"; fourth: it was drawn up by 
 Sir William Alexander, the Scottish Secretary, 
 under the privy seal of Scotland, and was ob- 
 tained with a special view to carrying on trade 
 with Nova Scotia. 
 
 Nova Scotia had been granted to Sir William 
 Alexander several years antecedently, under the 
 Scottish seal, to be held for the Crown of Scotland. 
 As Latane says, this paper to Claiborne was 
 certainly equally as valid as the grant to Sir Wm. 
 Alexander under the seal of Scotland, and the 
 latter was never called into question. 
 
 Having secured the license, Wm. Claiborne, on 
 the 28th May, 1631, set sail from Deal, England, 
 on the ship Africa, with a cargo of goods valued 
 at £1,318. 9s. 8d. and twenty men servants, "one 
 mayde to wash our linnen, " named Joan Young, 
 some passengers for Virginia, and one Henry 
 Pincke, "to read prayers," who "breake his 
 legge and was unserviceable." 
 
 After a voyage of two months, the Africa 
 arrived at Kecoughtan, Va., where she landed the 
 passengers for Virginia and then proceeded to the 
 Isle of Kent. In 1631, Kent Island was "stocked 
 and planted" by Claiborne and his partners. 
 The trading post was converted into a regular 
 
Dramatis Personse 51 
 
 plantation. In the words of Claiborne him- 
 self: 
 
 Entered upon the Isle of Kent, unplanted by any 
 man, but possessed of the natives of that country, 
 with about one hundred men and there contracted 
 with the natives and bought their right, to hold of 
 the Crown of England, to him and his Company and 
 their heirs, and by force and virtue thereof William Clai- 
 borne and his Company stood seized of the said Island. 
 
 It will be observed that Claiborne made no 
 claim in these words that a grant had been made 
 him ; that he based his claims solely on occupancy, 
 and purchase from the Indians. Fiske, quoting 
 Latane, remarks that Claiborne built dwellings 
 and mills for grinding com, laid out gardens, 
 planted orchards, and stocked the farms with 
 cattle. The statements of these two historians 
 are undoubtedly based upon the testimony, to 
 some extent at least, of certain of Claiborne's men 
 as set forth in the Maryland Archives, Council 
 Proceedings, ii., 187, 196, 199, etc., in the deposi- 
 tions taken in Virginia in May, 1640, in the case 
 of Claiborne versus Cloberry et al. It seems that 
 there were women resident upon the island too, a 
 fact which has been denied, and reference is also 
 made in the above-mentioned archives to a child 
 who was killed by Indians. 
 
52 William Claiborne 
 
 In 1632, Capt. Nicholas Martian (Hening, i., 
 154), an ancestor of George Washington {Va. 
 Mag. of Hist, and Biography, April, 1894), repre- 
 sented the island in the Virginia Assembly or 
 House of Burgesses, and a certain Rev, Richard 
 James (Dr. Ethan Allen, MS. Sketch of Old Kent 
 Parish in Whittingham Library) , a clergyman of 
 the Established Church, was in charge of the 
 settlement, to which he gave ghostly counsel and 
 service. 
 
 The two main objections that have been raised 
 against Claiborne's title to Kent Island are: 
 
 (i) that the Virginia Colony had no right to the 
 land in question at the time of settlement since this 
 charter had been taken away several years before; 
 (2) granted that Virginia had jurisdiction over the 
 disputed land Claiborne had no grant of land from 
 the government of that Colony and that, therefore, 
 the settlement was merely a trading post. 
 
 As Latane, from whom this is quoted, con- 
 tinues, the first objection is clearly untenable, 
 for the Colony of Virginia had as much right to 
 Kent Island at the time it was settled by Claiborne, 
 as they had to the land on which Jamestown itself 
 stood; for that they had no charter either, but 
 their rights to it had been repeatedly confirmed 
 by the King, and this was binding and legal since 
 
Dramatis Personae 53 
 
 at that time all rights in all colonies depended 
 absolutely on his word. The fact that the charter 
 of the London Company had been annulled did 
 not affect the rights of the Colony to settle lands 
 within the territory originally included in the 
 grants to the Company, in case such lands had not 
 already been granted to other parties. 
 
 There was precedent for this principle in the 
 commission given by James I. to Gov. Wyatt 
 just after the dissolution of the London Company 
 in 1624 (Hazard, Collection of State Papers, {., 189), 
 and, moreover, in a proclamation from Charles I. 
 in 1625, in explanation of the quo warranto pro- 
 ceedings {Hist. ,Vin., 203). What is more, the King's 
 Council by special letter to the Governor and 
 Council of Virginia confirmed this principle, 
 under date of July 22, 1634, as follows: 
 
 "We do hereby authorize you to dispose of such 
 proportions of lands to all those planters, being free- 
 men, as you had power to do before the year 1625." 
 
 As to the second objection, Latane maintains 
 that though there was no record of a grant to 
 Claiborne, the Virginia Council recognized the 
 validity of his title to Kent Island throughout the 
 controversy between him and Lord Baltimore. 
 The contention that Claiborne had made no 
 settlement on Kent Island has conclusively been 
 
54 William Claiborne 
 
 disposed of above. Gen. Bradley T. Johnson, in 
 an address delivered before the Catholic Club in 
 Baltimore in 1895, referred to Claiborne as having 
 squatted on Kent Island and as objecting loudly 
 to Baltimore's grant. 
 
 Mr. R. R. Howison, in the Richmond Dispatch, 
 April 14, 1895, points out the error of General 
 Johnson in so describing Claiborne's possession of 
 the island. Mr. Howison remarks that 
 
 Claiborne was a claimant in good faith and by a 
 letter older and better than that of Baltimore him- 
 self; that the original charter of Virginia embraced 
 the whole of what is now the State of Maryland, and 
 many years before the unjust and tyrannical act by 
 which the London Company was dissolved John 
 Smith had explored the upper part of Chesapeake 
 Bay and made a map of all that region; and in 1621 
 Porey, Secretary of the Colony, had explored the bay 
 as far as the River Patuxent, which he ascended, 
 and a settlement of a hundred men from the Colony 
 of Virginia had taken place in that region, while 
 other settlements soon followed (Purchase, iv., 1784; 
 Smith, ii., 61-64; Bancroft, i., 236). What is more, 
 in 1627, Claiborne had obtained his license from the 
 Governor of the Colony to explore the head of Chesa- 
 peake Bay and any part of Virginia from latitude 
 34° to 41°, It is therefore erroneous to say that 
 Claiborne had "squatted" on Kent Island." 
 
 He was acting, first, under the license of the 
 Governor and within Virginia territory ; there were 
 
Dramatis Personae 55 
 
 numerous precedents which he was following in 
 establishing a settlement ; and finally the license of 
 the King could only reasonably be construed as 
 giving permission to trade by the establishment of 
 trading posts or settlements. He had the sanction 
 of the Colony; his island was represented in the 
 House of Burgesses and hence was recognized 
 as an integral part of the Colony. 
 
 Referring to the charter of 1609, Fiske remarks 
 that 
 
 by that charter Virginia extended 200 miles north 
 of Old Point Comfort, or about as far north as the 
 site of Chester, Penn., which would leave no room 
 for Maryland or Delaware, for that matter. It is true, 
 the charter had been annulled in 1624, but both James 
 and Charles I. had declared with emphasis that the 
 annulling of the Charter simply abolished the sover- 
 eignty of the Virginia Company, but did not diminish 
 the territorial rights of the Company. 
 
 As Mr. Howison fiu"ther remarks: 
 
 the mere technical form, obtained by wrong and op- 
 pression, of entering a judgment of the King's Bench, 
 dissolving the Virginia Company, did not deprive 
 Virginia of her colonial rights in granted territory ; did 
 not divest vested rights and did not authorize English 
 kings to impair the obligation of a sacred contract. 
 
 In view of the express declaration of both James 
 and Charles I., it would appear that these last 
 
56 William Claiborne 
 
 words of Mr. Howison are unjust to both their 
 majesties. 
 
 Fiske, after making the matter so clear and 
 defining beyond a cavil the right of the Virginia 
 Colony to establish settlements in parts subse- 
 quently known as Maryland, weakens his position 
 by saying that, undoubtedly, the grant to the 
 Calverts was one of the numerous instances in 
 early American history in which the Stuart kings 
 gave away the same thing to different parties. 
 
 It is the writer's intention in this sketch to 
 show that this was not true, and he ventures to 
 believe that the arguments he has just advanced 
 demonstrate Claiborne's right to the possession of 
 Kent Island, and the arguments he will presently 
 advance will demonstrate the unjustifiableness of 
 the claims of Baltimore to the disputed land. 
 
 On June 20, 1632, the charter of Maryland 
 was granted to Lord Baltimore. It is well now 
 to set forth the claims of Lord Baltimore — but 
 before doing so, it is just and meet to review his 
 career, to some extent at least, show what manner 
 of man he, the other protagonist in the drama, 
 was, the charapter and meaning of his grant, the 
 date of his arrival on the terrain, and the attitude 
 of the Virginia Colony and that of Wm. Claiborne 
 toward his claims. 
 
Dramatis Personas 57 
 
 George Calvert was the son of a wealthy York- 
 shire farmer of Flemish origin and was bom circa 
 1580. After having taken his degree at Oxford 
 and travelled extensively on the Continent, he 
 was made Under-Secretary in the Department of 
 State by Sir Robert Cecil. It was after this 
 nobleman his eldest son Cecilius was named. 
 He evidently was popular at court, and his ad- 
 vocacy of the Spanish marriage of James I. made 
 him the King's favourite, so that in 161 7 James 
 knighted him and he was appointed Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 It is not certain that he was a Catholic at that 
 time, but, at any rate, he was known to have a 
 strong leaning toward the Church, and about 
 1624 he resigned his ofhce of Secretary, and in the 
 following year was raised by James to the Irish 
 Peerage, as Lord Baltimore. 
 
 It is interesting to note that the name Baltimore, 
 in Gaelic, signifies "large town lands." The 
 name was singularly appropriate in view of the 
 events that transpired in Virginia and Nova 
 Scotia by reason of this nobleman's ambitions. 
 
 In 1623 James had granted to George Calvert 
 a large tract of land in Newfoundland, between 
 Trinity and Placentia bays, to be held by him and 
 his heirs for ever. The government was to be a 
 
58 William Claiborne 
 
 palatinate, and some explanation of this word is 
 apposite just here, since in the meaning of it is 
 found the crux of the contention between Lord 
 Baltimore and Claiborne for the possession of 
 Kent Island. 
 
 William the Conqueror, after the battle of 
 Hastings, made it a rule never to grant large 
 contiguous estates to any one lord, for fear of 
 giving the lords too much power, and for fear of the 
 evils that sometimes arose from their imperfect 
 subordination to his authority — a lesson which he 
 had learned from the Capetian Monarchy in France. 
 
 He, however, made one class of exceptions to 
 this rule and that was in border counties, which 
 were never quite free of the likelihood of invasion, 
 and where lawlessness prevailed more or less all 
 the time. In accordance with this principle 
 William granted exceptional powers to three 
 counties, Durham on the Scotch border, Chester 
 on the border of Wales, and Kent in the south, 
 where an invader from the Continent might most 
 easily land. All local administration in these 
 counties was put absolutely in the hands of the 
 county ruler, and they were called palatinates or 
 counties palatine, by which was meant that within 
 their boundaries the rulers had quasi-regal rights 
 as complete as those the King had in his own 
 
Dramatis Personae 59 
 
 palace. This title harked back to the Merovingian 
 kings of Gaul, to a personage high in the royal 
 household who took judicial cognizance of all 
 pleas of the crown (Fiske). Illustrations of this 
 are to be found in the palatinates of the Rhine 
 and Bavaria. 
 
 . Therefore, when it was decided to entrust to an 
 English nobleman the work of founding an Ameri- 
 can colony, far from home and on the confines or 
 beyond those of the then existing civilization, an 
 example was furnished by these English palati- 
 nates, particularly that of Durham. Calvert's 
 province in Newfoundland was to be modelled 
 after the palatinate of Durham and received the 
 name of Avalon. 
 
 A party of colonists sailed for Newfoundland in 
 1623, but Baltimore and family did not arrive 
 there till 1627. The climate of the new palati- 
 nate proved anything but salubrious, which was 
 contrary to expectations, as a certain Captain 
 Whitboume had published a book extolling its 
 virtues, and giving glowing accounts of the soft 
 air, red and white roses, wild berries and cherries, 
 and the woods vocal with the song of birds; in 
 St. John's harbour he "once saw a mermaid." 
 
 But Lord Baltimore had a rude awakening 
 from his dream of Avalon, for, in 1629, he wrote 
 
6o William Claiborne 
 
 to Charles I that he had met many difficulties 
 and encumbrances, that could no longer be resisted 
 and that would force him presently to quit his 
 residence and "shift to some warmer climate in 
 the New World where the winters be short and less 
 rigorous," and 
 
 not knowing how better to employ the remainder of my 
 days than ... to further, the best I may, the enlarg- 
 ing Your Majesty's empire in this part of the world, 
 I am determined to commit this place to fishermen 
 that are able to encounter storms and hard weather, 
 and to remove myself with some forty persons to 
 Your Majesties Dominion in Virginia; where if Your 
 Majesty will please grant me a precinct of land, with 
 such privileges as the King your father . . . was 
 pleased to grant me here, I shall endeavor to the 
 utmost of my power, to deserve it. 
 
 Charles replied in a gracious letter, wherein he 
 advised Baltimore to give up such arduous kind 
 of work and return to England. Before, however, 
 the King's letter reached Avalon, Lord Baltimore 
 with his wife, children, and retinue had sailed for 
 Virginia. He wished to see that country himself, 
 and decide whether it was really fit for his purpose. 
 He had been deceived once, he would trust no one 
 but himself in the future. 
 
 He arrived at Jamestown, October, 1629, and 
 found the Assembly in session and Dr. Potts 
 
Dramatis Personae 6i 
 
 acting Governor. His reception was not cordial. 
 The Virginians had already commenced to suspect 
 he had ulterior motives in his visit. He was a 
 Papist and all good Virginians hated Papists. They 
 suspected he was trying to get Charles to turn 
 over the Colony into his keeping, but Baltimore 
 had no such intention, he merely wished to found 
 a colony of his own and in accordance with his 
 own ideas. 
 
 He was welcome as a transient guest at James- 
 town but in no other capacity; to get rid of him 
 they offered him the oath of supremacy, which 
 declared the sovereign the only supreme authority, 
 in British possessions, in all matters ecclesiastical 
 and spiritual. Baltimore of course refused to 
 take it, being a Catholic. 
 
 Divergence of religious opinion between the 
 Virginians and Baltimore led later, as usual, to an 
 unpleasant contretemps, as we read from the 
 March records of the Assembly, 1630: "Thomas 
 Tindall to be pilloried two hours for giving my 
 Lord Baltimore the lie and threatening to knock 
 him down." Doubtless such treatment to a 
 distinguished guest did not meet with universal 
 approval in Jamestown, since Lord Baltimore 
 subsequently sailed for England, leaving his wife 
 and children there. 
 
62 William Claiborne 
 
 The incident demonstrates a number of things, 
 and one of them is that the Virginians were not 
 snobs and were not overcome by Baltimore's 
 position and prestige. They doubtless expected 
 Baltimore to return and reopen the subject, for 
 the Secretary of State, William Claiborne, was 
 despatched to London, to keep an eye on the wily 
 nobleman and thwart his purposes and schemes. 
 We can understand that the undertaking was 
 agreeable to Claiborne, as he probably had in mind 
 at that time his intention to obtain a license to 
 trade and make discoveries in the Chesapeake. 
 But Lord Baltimore found so many hindrances 
 put in his way that he gave up the idea of return- 
 ing to Virginia and sent for his wife and children 
 to come back to England. 
 
 Baltimore's first request to the Eng was for a 
 tract of land lying south of the James and extend- 
 ing to Albemarle Sound; the province was to be 
 called Carolina, doubtless in honour of Charles. 
 This charter had already been made out when 
 Claiborne appeared with his objections. While 
 the matter was being discussed in Privy Council 
 it was pointed out to Baltimore that the Dutch 
 were seizing the country between the Hudson and 
 the Delaware, and it was suggested to him it 
 would be good to squeeze them into as narrow a 
 
Dramatis Personae 63 
 
 space as possible (Fiske). The idea seemed good 
 to Baltimore and another charter was substituted 
 for the first, granting to him, as Lord Proprietor, 
 the province which received the name of Mary- 
 land, after Charles's Queen, Henriette Marie — 
 commonly called Queen Mary. 
 
 The charter was drawn by Baltimore in his own 
 hand and was, in the main, a copy of that of 
 Avalon, but before the royal seal was put upon it 
 he died in April, 1632. The following June, the 
 charter was issued to his eldest son, Cecilius 
 Calvert, second Lord Baltimore. It was drawn 
 in Latin of the period. A complete translation is 
 not necessary to the furtherance of this argument 
 — indeed, the value of it, from the standpoint of 
 the contention between Lord Baltimore and 
 Claiborne, lies practically in two words, and at 
 most in a line. Here they are : 
 
 ^ "Ad certam quandam Regionem inferius de- 
 
 ' It is proper to quote here in English, at least the preamble 
 of Baltimore's Charter wherein these words occur: 
 CHARTER OF MARYLAND 
 
 Charles, by the grace of God, of England, Scotland, France, 
 and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. To all to whom 
 these presents shall come, greeting. 
 
 II. Whereas our well beloved and right trusty subject Ce- 
 cilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, in our kingdom of Ireland, 
 son and heir of George Calvert, knight, late Baron of Baltimore, 
 in our said kingdom of Ireland, treading in the steps of his father. 
 
64 William Claiborne 
 
 scribendam in terra quadam in partibus Americe 
 hactenus incuUa et harharis nullam divini Numinis 
 noticiam habentibus'' — accurately but not literally 
 translated, "a certain region, in parts of America 
 not yet cultivated (hactenus inculta) and in posses- 
 sion of savages or barbarians who have no know- 
 ledge of the Divine Being" (italics the author's). 
 The Charter is divided under XXIII and is 
 taken from Bacon's Laws, as quoted by Russell. 
 If it is true, as Fiske says, that Baltimore's Charter 
 
 being animated with a laudable and pious zeal for extending the 
 Christian religion, and also the territories of our empire, hath 
 humbly besought leave of us, that he may transport, by his own 
 industry and expense, a numerous colony of the English nation, 
 to a certain region, herein after described, in a country hitherto 
 uncultivated, in the parts of America, and partly occupied by savages, 
 having no knowledge of the Divine Beifig [italics the author's], 
 and that all that region, with some certain privileges and juris- 
 dictions appertaining unto the wholesome government and state 
 of his colony and region aforesaid, may by our royal highness 
 be given, granted, and confirmed unto him and his heirs. ..." 
 
 Further, under Heading V., which is not so designated in the 
 Latin : 
 
 V. And WE do by these presents, for us, our heirs and suc- 
 cessors, make, create, and constitute him, the now Baron of 
 Baltimore, and his heirs, the true and absolute Lords and Proprie- 
 taries of the region aforesaid, and of all other the premises (except 
 the before excepted — exceptis pre exceptis) [italics the author's], 
 saving always the faith and allegiance and sovereign dominion 
 due to US, our heirs and successors; to have, hold, possess, and 
 enjoy the aforesaid region, islands, islets, and other the premises, 
 unto the aforesaid now Baron of Baltimore, and to his heirs and 
 assigns, to the sole and proper behoof and use of him, the now 
 Baron of Baltimore, his heirs and assigns for ever. . . . 
 
Dramatis Personse 65 
 
 was written by his own hand, it is clear that he 
 himself put the limitations to his own grant and 
 so hoisted himself with his own petard. 
 
 There can not be two opinions as to the meaning 
 of these words. Baltimore's Charter applied 
 to certain regions not cultivated and still in 
 possession of savages having no knowledge of 
 God. Per contra^ the charter, did not apply to 
 regions which were cultivated and not in posses- 
 sion of the Indians. We have seen and shown 
 on indubitable authority that the license of Clai- 
 borne was obtained in May, 1631, that in July, 
 1 63 1, two months after sailing from Deale, and 
 after having discharged her passengers for Vir- 
 ginia, the ship Africa, with Claiborne and his 
 Company on board, proceeded to Kent Island, and 
 that then the island was planted and stocked, 
 in the manner shown in the depositions taken in 
 the trial of Claiborne versus Cloberry & Co. 
 Let us note again that Claiborne, however, did 
 not base his claim, though with good reason he 
 might have done so, on the obvious meaning of 
 Charles's license, but solely on the occupancy 
 and purchase of the island from the Indians. 
 
 And let it not be forgotten that the Charter of 
 Cecilius Calvert was not granted until June, 1632, 
 practically one year after Claiborne had pur- 
 
66 William Claiborne 
 
 chased and stocked the island. Finally Claiborne 
 had antecedent possession of it, which are nine 
 points in the law. 
 
 Though many other sound and irrefutable 
 reasons have been given to substantiate the just- 
 ness of Claiborne's claim to the disputed land, the 
 wording of Baltimore's Charter, and Claibornes's 
 act in occupying and purchasing uncultivated land 
 from the savages, and cultivating it, are sufficient 
 evidence on which to rest his case. 
 
 Cecilius Calvert himself did not come to 
 America to enforce his claims, but sent his younger 
 brothers Leonard and George in his stead. He 
 appointed Leonard Governor of his Palatinate. 
 *_ Leonard Calvert arrived in English America 
 on the 27th of Feb., 1634, and touched first at 
 Point Comfort, where he found a courteous letter 
 from Gov. Harvey awaiting him. The following 
 month he sailed up Chesapeake Bay and into 
 the Potomac River where, on a small island at 
 that time called St. Clement's, mass was cele- 
 brated for the first time in English America, 
 Mar. 25, 1634. 
 
 Leonard Calvert's ships consisted of the Ark 
 and the Dove, the former of 300 tons burden, 
 the latter, 250; his Company was made up of 
 twenty gentlemen adventurers and three hundred 
 
Dramatis Personae ^'j 
 
 labourers. This expedition on setting out from 
 England caused considerable excitement. The 
 people thought the expedition was in league with 
 Spain and had some inimical intentions against 
 the English Colony in Virginia; so the ships were 
 stopped at Dover • and the oath of supremacy 
 was administered to a great number of the Com- 
 pany. It is safe to say, however, that the leaders, 
 who were nearly all Catholics, amongst whom was 
 Father White, did not take it. The Company, on 
 setting out, had received from Lord Baltimore 
 certain instructions by which they were to be 
 governed in settling the Colony. Amongst these, 
 were instructions of a special nature as to the 
 manner in which they should handle William 
 Claiborne. Lord Baltimore seemed to recognize 
 the advisability of conciliating Claiborne, and 
 he directed Leonard to write to Claiborne, arrange 
 an interview, and tell him that his Lordship, 
 hearing he had "settled a plantation there within 
 the precincts of his Lordship's Patent," was "will- 
 ing to give him all the encouragement he could to 
 proceed," that Cloberry & Company had asked 
 for a grant of the island to them, "making some- 
 what light of Claiborne's interest," that his Lord- 
 ship "had deferred the matter until he could 
 come to an understanding with Capt. Claiborne." 
 
68 William Claiborne 
 
 Finally he instructed his brother, in case Clai- 
 borne refused to come to the interview, to let 
 him alone for the space of a year (Calvert Papers, 
 131). It appears that these instructions were 
 not carried out in their entirety. In other words, 
 as Fiske says, Claiborne was welcome to the pro- 
 perty, only he must hold it as a tenant of the 
 Lord Proprietor of Maryland and not as a tenant 
 of the King, in Virginia. So far as the grant to 
 Lord Baltimore was concerned, a protest from the 
 Virginia Colony was natural and inevitable. They 
 protested against the dismemberment of their 
 Colony and the division of their territory. And 
 they set forth in effect the argument which has 
 already been advanced, that the dissolution of 
 the London Company did not infringe the rights 
 of the Colony to land within the former grants of 
 the Company. Let it be noted that this protest 
 came from the Colony as a whole and not from 
 Claiborne, as has been erroneously stated (Latane). 
 
 Finally, as already pointed out, the matter was 
 discussed and answered in the Star Chamber, 
 July 3, 1633. And it was decided to "leave Lord 
 Baltimore to his Charter and the other parties 
 to the course of the law." 
 
 This can not be interpreted as a decision against 
 Claiborne's claim to Kent Island, but against the 
 
Dramatis Personae 69 
 
 wholesale claim of the Colony of Virginia to all 
 lands, whether vacant or settled, within their 
 former grant (Latane). 
 
 When Claiborne and his associates found that 
 not only were the protests of the Colony not 
 heeded, but that the above decision had been 
 rendered, they decided to petition the King and 
 Council on behalf of their interests. 
 
 In the autumn of 1633, Claiborne petitioned 
 the King to protect his interests and those of the 
 Colony in Kent Island, and he set forth the con- 
 tention upon which so much stress has been laid, 
 that Baltimore's Charter gave jiuisdiction only 
 over territory which was unsettled and unculti- 
 vated — hactenus inculta — whereas Kent Island 
 had been settled as a part of Virginia before Bal- 
 timore's Charter had been granted. 
 
 The message of Baltimore was communicated 
 to Claiborne while Calvert was at Old Point 
 Comfort discussing matters with Governor Harvey. 
 Latan6 states Baltimore had a personal interview 
 with Claiborne. 
 
 At the next meeting of the Council, on March 14, 
 1634, "Claiborne requested the opinion of the Board 
 how he should demean himself in respect of Lord 
 Baltimore's patent and his deputies now seated in 
 the Bay." It was answered by the Board, that they 
 
70 William Claiborne 
 
 wondered why there should be any such question 
 made. That they knew no reason why they should 
 render up the rights of that place of the Isle of Kent 
 more than any other formerly given to the Colony by 
 His Majesty's Patent; that, the right of my Lord's 
 grant being yet undetermined in England, we are 
 bound in duty and by our oaths to maintain the rights 
 and privileges of this Colony. Nevertheless, in all 
 submission to his Majesty's pleasure, we resolve to 
 keep and observe all good correspondence with them, 
 no way doubting that they on their parts will not 
 intrench on the interests of this his Majesties planta- 
 tion (Maryland Archives, Council Proceeding, II., 164). 
 
 Since he was backed by the Governor and Coun- 
 cil of Virginia, Claiborne refused to consider or 
 confess himself a member of the Maryland Colony 
 and to yield his right to trade and traffic in the 
 Chesapeake without the license of the Lord Pro- 
 prietor. It is not difficult to imagine the haughty 
 manner in which Claiborne conveyed his refusal 
 to Leonard Calvert. 
 
 To expect him under the circumstances to yield 
 to such a command or demand would be unreason- 
 able, in the face of the facts and the evidence. 
 It would certainly not have been like the hard- 
 hitting tenacious Englishman that he was, whose 
 ancestors had fought in all the wars of England 
 and for centuries had been in constant contention 
 with the rapacious Scots on the border. 
 
Dramatis Personam 71 
 
 That his attitude was just we believe we have 
 amply proved. 
 
 All these things brought about the quarrel 
 between '*The Two Fruitfull Sisters," Leah and 
 Rachel, or Virginia and Maryland, as Hammond 
 has described them. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 FIRST SIGNS OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS CLAIBORNE 
 
 IT is well to look for a few moments at the rival 
 Colony in Maryland, called St. Mary's. 
 When the Lord Baltimore settlers were look- 
 ing for a place on which to found their Colony, 
 they settled on a picturesque blufiE overlooking 
 the deep and broad St, Mary's River. This 
 they bought from the Indians with steel hatchets, 
 hoes, and cloth. The Indians from whom they 
 bought it were a tribe of the Algonquins, who had 
 been so persecuted by their neighbours, the Iro- 
 quois, that they were already on the point of 
 moving away to some safer region ; so the propo- 
 sition of the white man was agreeable to them. 
 The settlers at St. Mary's themselves were pro- 
 tected from the Susquehannocks by the pressure 
 exerted upon that tribe by their hostile relatives 
 of the Five Nations; hence they, on their part, 
 were glad to get on peaceably with the settlers 
 in Maryland. The Colony thrived and was with- 
 
 72 
 
First Signs of Hostility 73 
 
 out misfortunes. Cattle and swine were obtained 
 from Virginia, and the country around St. Mary's 
 was soon covered with thrifty farms. The first 
 Assembly was convened and the first laws were 
 enacted in 1635, When Lord Baltimore died 
 about 1675, his Maryland Colony had grown to 
 twenty thousand souls. In addition to the ab- 
 sence of troubles with the Indians such as the 
 settlers suffered in Virginia and New England, 
 there never was a Starving Time as in Virginia. 
 
 But trouble was brewing for Claiborne and the 
 Virginia Colony there, and a serious complication 
 arose. The settlers at St. Mary's began to observe 
 signs of distrust and hostility on the part of the 
 Algonquin tribe known as the Patuxents, so they 
 appealed to a certain Captain Henry Fleete, who, 
 report says, was much learned in the Algonquin 
 tongue, and he told them the Indians had been 
 informed that the Marylanders were not English- 
 men but Spaniards, and that the Colony was 
 inimical to them. He accused Claiborne of 
 inciting the Indians to acts of hostility against the 
 settlers. 
 
 Forthwith, the Maryland Colony made com- 
 plaint to the Governor of Virginia, who put Clai- 
 borne under bond not to leave Jamestown until 
 the charges were thoroughly investigated. Com- 
 
74 William Claiborne 
 
 missioners were appointed by both governments, 
 who met at Patuxent on the 20th of June, 1634, 
 and proceeded to examine the King of the Pa- 
 tuxents as to the truth of Fleete's charges. The 
 commissioners from Virginia were Samuel Ma- 
 thews, John Utie, WiUiam Pierce, and Thomas 
 Hinton. Those for Maryland were George Cal- 
 vert and Frederick Winter. Claiborne was pres- 
 ent, and likewise a number of others. As Latane 
 says: "The result was a complete vindication of 
 Claiborne"; and Fiske says there was no reason 
 for casting such atrocious imputations upon Clai- 
 borne, who was completely exonerated by the 
 joint Commission of Virginia and Maryland. 
 
 Fleete had been a rival of Claiborne's in the fur 
 trade and, pursuing an exactly opposite policy 
 to that of Claiborne, had cast his lot in with 
 the Maryland Government. Claiborne's greater 
 success and superior personality had rendered 
 Fleete jealous, and being of a naturally unscrupu- 
 lous and mendacious character he attempted to 
 prejudice the minds of the St. Mary's settlers 
 against Claiborne. 
 
 It is interesting to glance at the examination 
 of the King of the Patuxents before the above 
 Commission, as shown in the Maryland Archives, 
 V, p. 164. A number of questions were asked 
 
First Signs of Hostility 75 
 
 the King — the fourth and fifth interest us most. 
 The fourth demanded to know whether the In- 
 dians had ever heard Captain Claiborne say that 
 the EngHsh of St. Mary's were Waspaines (Span- 
 iards) ; the answer was that * ' Clayborne did never 
 speak anything to him of them." The fifth 
 question was "whether Captain Clayburne at 
 any time hath consulted or practised with them 
 or any other Indians to fall out with or destroy 
 the inhabitants of Maryland. Or whether he 
 knowes of any other English that hath or doth 
 practise the same." The King said: "I am 
 very angry that Captaine Fleete should belye 
 mee thus," and setting up a sticke before him 
 often said, "I would Captaine Fleete were sitting 
 there, and Wingatonkah by him and hee should 
 heare, I would tell him hee lyed." Then all the 
 Councillors and Indians present said, when they 
 came to speake with Captain Fleete, " all the lyes 
 would redound upon him and lye upon him as high 
 as his necke, and at last breake his necke." The 
 King further added, he wondered they should 
 take any notice at all of what Fleete said: and 
 the Virginia Commissioners, joining in, said the 
 Marylanders "did not know" Captaine Fleete 
 so well "as we of Virginia, because they were 
 lately come." Fleete subsequently admitted his 
 
76 William Claiborne 
 
 charges to be false and apologetically stated he 
 had not made them under oath. 
 
 This matter having been settled, doubtless to 
 the satisfaction of even prejudiced minds, we will 
 proceed further. 
 
 The charges against Claiborne, however, with- 
 out their refutation, presumably, reached the 
 ears of Lord Baltimore in September, 1634; 
 thereupon he ordered his brother Leonard to 
 seize Kent Island, arrest Claiborne, and hold him 
 prisoner at St. Mary's until he should send further 
 instructions. 
 
 At this point enters Governor Harvey of Virginia 
 who came to Jamestown in March, 1630, follow- 
 ing Dr. John Pott as Governor. Harvey was 
 evidently imperious and intolerant of the rights 
 of others; he thought highly of himself, and 
 treated the members of the Council as if they 
 were scullions. By his own admission, he once 
 assaulted one of the Councillors and knocked out 
 one of his teeth "with a cudgel"; bad as these 
 faults were, they were not the worst he had. He 
 was too fond of money and not very particular 
 as to how it came into his hands, as Fiske says. 
 Likewise, he would draw up laws and proclaim 
 them on his own authority, without submitting 
 them to the Assembly. He refused to render 
 
First Signs of Hostility ^^ 
 
 accounts of public money spent, and multiplied 
 the number of fines beyond reason, appropriat- 
 ing all or parts of them to his own use. Five 
 years of behaviour like this drove the Virginians 
 to the last ditch, and when Harvey finally de- 
 cided against Claiborne and the Colony, and pro- 
 claimed himself in favour of the Maryland settlers, 
 the anger of the Virginians got beyond bounds. 
 
 As Fiske says: "The Kent Island Matter caused 
 quarrells in families, separated friends, and sowed 
 distrust far and wide." The Scarlet Woman was 
 approaching too near. Upon a certain occasion. 
 Captain Samuel Mathews, a pious Puritan, on 
 reading a letter from England, threw his hat on 
 the ground and shouted furiously, "A pox upon 
 Maryland!" We have stated Governor Harvey 
 took the side of the Marylanders, but he seems to 
 have done this only after finding out that Balti- 
 more's influence would probably prevail against 
 all opposition to his charter. 
 
 All this led to practically an insurrection in 
 Virginia, and the climax was reached when Gover- 
 nor Harvey removed from office "The able and 
 popular Secretary of State, William Claiborne" 
 and appointed Richard Kemp in his stead. In 
 December, 1634, Lord Baltimore sent to Secretary 
 Windebank, asking for a letter of thanks from the 
 
78 William Claiborne 
 
 King to Sir John Harvey, for the assistance he 
 had given the Maryland Colony against Clai- 
 borne's malicious behaviour and unlawful proceed- 
 ings. Subsequently, Secretary Windebank sent 
 a letter thanking Governor Harvey and desiring 
 him to continue his assistance against Claiborne's 
 "malicious practices." About ten days later 
 the King wrote to Governor Harvey, giving his 
 reasons for the Grant to Lord Baltimore, and 
 requested a continuance of his assistance to the 
 Marylanders. But, as Latane observes, Charles 
 made no mention of Claiborne's "malicious prac- 
 tices," and throughout the whole controversy 
 seemed to be on the side of Claiborne, never writ- 
 ing a word against his claims to Kent Island. 
 Latane also observes, that it is difficult to under- 
 stand the cause of Claiborne's influence with the 
 King. Outside of his strong and attractive per- 
 sonality, a certain Court influence has been 
 mentioned in explanation of the King's friendship 
 for him. 
 
 In the fall of 1634, news of the message of Lord 
 Baltimore to Leonard, to seize Kent Island and 
 arrest Claiborne, came to Cloberry & Co. in 
 London. Whereupon they petitioned the King 
 for protection of their possessions in Kent Island. 
 This petition drew from the King a remarkable 
 
First Signs of Hostility 79 
 
 letter, which ought to settle conclusively the mean- 
 ing and intention of the license granted William 
 Claiborne, to trade and make settlement on Kent 
 Island. His letter dated October 8, 1634, says 
 
 that Baltimore's interference with the Planters on 
 Kent Island is contrary to justice and to the true in- 
 tention of our grant to said Lord: we do therefore 
 hereby declare our express pleasure to be that the 
 said Planters be in no sort interrupted in their trade 
 or plantations by him or any other in his right . . . 
 and we prohibit as well the Lord Baltimore as all 
 other pretenders under him or likewise to plantations 
 in those parts to do them any violence, or to disturb 
 or hinder them in their honest proceedings and trade 
 there. 
 
 As Latane says, relying upon this letter and 
 other assurances from the King, as well as from 
 the Council in Virginia, Claiborne continued to 
 trade in the Chesapeake Bay and contiguous 
 waters. On the fifth of April, 1635, a pinnace of 
 Claiborne's, called the Long Tail, was seized 
 by Captain Fleete and Captain Humber, for 
 trading in the Maryland Waters without a license 
 from the Lord Proprietor. The Long Tail was 
 commanded by Thomas Smith, one of Claiborne's 
 men. On being asked for a license. Smith 
 showed copies of his Majesty's Commission 
 and the letter just referred to confirming it; 
 
8o William Claiborne 
 
 but the Marylanders refused to accept these, 
 affirming that they were false copies (Calvert 
 Papers, 141), and so both goods and vessel were 
 confiscated. This was high-handed, unjust, and 
 intolerable, and since the Long Tail had not been 
 armed, Claiborne took the precaution afterwards 
 of arming his vessels to prevent them from being 
 seized by the Maryland authorities. He was to 
 have his revenge and it came soon, but only after 
 another misfortune. Claiborne sent out an armed 
 sloop, called the Cockatrice, to make reprisals 
 upon the Maryland vessels. On this occasion his 
 ship was under the command of Lieut. Ratcliff 
 Warren; Calvert, however, was wide awake, and 
 sent two vessels instead of one to meet him, the 
 St. Helen and St. Margaret, commanded by Cap- 
 tain Cornwalleys. In this fight the Marylanders 
 were successful. One man on the Maryland ship 
 was killed, while Warren and two of his men were 
 killed, and the Cockatrice surrendered. But the 
 revenge of Claiborne, though delayed, was inevit- 
 able. He sent out another ship again under the 
 command of Captain Thomas Smith, and there 
 was a battle fought in the harbour of the Great 
 Wigh Cocomoco at the mouth of the Pokomoke, 
 May loth. In this fight Claiborne's men were 
 successful, and for two years thereafter Claiborne 
 
First Signs of Hostility 8i 
 
 maintained himself on Kent Island, and continued 
 to trade as it pleased him. 
 
 It is important to point out just here that the 
 fight of April 23, 1635, in the waters of the 
 Pokomoke, between Claiborne's vessel, the Cocka- 
 trice, commanded by Lieut. Ratcliff Warren, and 
 the two vessels from St. Mary's, under Captain 
 Cornwalleys, was the first naval engagement that 
 had ever been fought in the New World. (Fur- 
 ther reference is made to this incident in the appen- 
 dix to this sketch.) 
 
 The ball was now fairly opened — Claiborne's 
 ship had been seized in the face of the King's 
 expressed letter, the assurance of the Council of 
 Virginia, his own interpretations of his rights, 
 and the clear meaning of Baltimore's Charter. 
 The times were those of force, and aggressions 
 were met with reprisals. These incidents may 
 be said to have actively initiated the bitter fight 
 between Claiborne and Baltimore, that was to 
 be settled fidaUy only by the Compromise of 1657. 
 
 In order to introduce the next act in the drama, 
 it is pertinent to refer again to the attitude of the 
 Virginia Colony toward Governor Harvey. We 
 have seen how impopular he had made himself 
 by his insolent manners and his questionable 
 acts in the matter of moneys. There was, how- 
 
82 William Claiborne 
 
 ever, another cause of complaint against him, 
 and that was the tobacco monopoly, an issue that 
 was to find its culmination later in Bacon's Re- 
 bellion. Harvey refused to send the protest of 
 the Assembly against this monopoly to England ; 
 therefore, a petition to the Council for the redress 
 of grievances was circulated and the people as- 
 sembled to sign it. Our pious but characterful 
 Puritan Mathews comes to the front again, and 
 amongst other things remarks that "the inhabit- 
 ants also understood, with indignation, that the 
 Marylanders had taken Captain Claiborne's pin- 
 naces and men, with the goods in them, whereof 
 they had made prize and shared the goods amongst 
 them, which action of theirs Sir John Harvey 
 upheld contrary to his Majesty's express com- 
 mands" (Letters from Mathews to Sir John Wol- 
 stenholme, May 25, 1635). The reference clearly 
 is to the pinnace, commanded by Thomas Smith, 
 in the Patuxent, April 5th. The news of the 
 fight in the Pokomoke, April 23d, evidently had 
 not yet reached the Virginians. 
 
 From this it will be seen that the Virginians 
 were still championing the cause of Claiborne — 
 his cause was the cause of the Colony. As Latane 
 remarks in this connection, ' ' Claiborne was a man 
 of great influence in Virginia, and the charges 
 
First Signs of Hostility St, 
 
 brought against him and the order to seize his 
 person had caused considerable indignation in that 
 Colony. Nearly all the Councillors were his 
 staunch personal friends." The feeling of the 
 Virginians toward the neighbouring Colony had 
 become extremely bitter. 
 
 Nothing short of an insurrection arose. Charges 
 were preferred by the people against Harvey, 
 personal violence by our good Puritan Captain 
 Mathews was used against him, and Mathews 
 told the Governor that the people's anger would 
 be beyond control unless he agreed to go to Eng- 
 land and answer the charges made against him. 
 At first Harvey would not agree to this, but finally 
 yielded, and subsequently was sent to England 
 in charge of Francis Pott, his former prisoner, 
 after Captain John West, brother of Lord Dela- 
 ware, had been elected Acting Governor, by the 
 Council, May 7, 1635. 
 
 Charles at first was furious, but finally over- 
 looked the incident, and in 1639, Sir Francis 
 Wyatt was made Governor for the second time. 
 
 The new Government did not undertake to 
 reduce Maryland, but they did uphold Claiborne's 
 claim to Kent Island. West, writing the Com- 
 missioners of Plantations in March, 1637, said: 
 " , . . As we find those of Maryland in our limits, 
 
84 William Claiborne 
 
 we bind them in deep bonds, to keep the King's 
 peace toward those of the Isle of Kent, and also 
 Capt. Claiborne, the commander of the Isle of 
 Kent, towards those of Maryland." 
 
 According to Latan6, in 1637, Baltimore, in- 
 directly through his friend. Secretary Windebank 
 attempted to have his Majesty appoint him Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia, offering at the same time to 
 increase nis Majesty's income by eight thousand 
 pounds yearly. But it is recorded that he did 
 not receive the appointment, and there is no 
 reason to believe that Charles ever even considered 
 the matter {Maryland Archives, Council Proceed- 
 ings, I., 40). The original suspicions held by 
 the Virginians concerning the intentions of Balti- 
 more seem to find some justification in this incident. 
 
 It has been stated that Claiborne, after his 
 successful fight in the Pokomoke, May loth, had 
 possession of Kent Island, unmolested, for two 
 years, and there was no serious trouble between 
 the Kent Islanders and Marylanders until Decem- 
 ber, 1637, when the island was surrendered to the 
 Maryland authorities through the contemptible 
 treachery of George Evelin, the attorney, agent, 
 and stool-pigeon of Cloberry & Co. Claiborne's 
 partners in England had become discontented 
 because furs were not coming in in sufficient 
 
First Signs of Hostility 85 
 
 quantity to suit them, and sent over Evelin to 
 Virginia to look after their interests. This matter 
 with its serious results to Claiborne will be dis- 
 cussed in the following chapter. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE TREACHERY OF GEORGE EVELIN AND THE 
 SEIZURE OF KENT ISLAND 
 
 BEFORE the arrival of Evelin, Cloberry & 
 Co. had ceased to send over any remit- 
 tances to Claiborne for expenditures, and 
 he was forced to carry on the trade as well as 
 he could with his own resources and servants, 
 thereby incurring loss for which he was never 
 remunerated, according to a statement made by 
 him later. It is not unnatural that the disturb- 
 ances between him and the Marylanders should 
 have curtailed the fur trade — war generally inter- 
 feres with the exchange of commodities between 
 belligerent parties. 
 
 Evelin arrived on Kent Island in December, 
 1636. At first he pretended to be an ardent sup- 
 porter of Claiborne's claims and asserted in the 
 presence of the inhabitants of the island that the 
 "King's commission and his subsequent letter 
 
 86 
 
Treachery of George Evelin 87 
 
 in confirmation thereof were firm and strong 
 against the Maryland Patent." 
 
 He is said to have made derogatory remarks 
 on the Calvert family, affirming that the first 
 Lord Baltimore was a farmer and a grazier, and 
 that Leonard himself was a blockhead and fool 
 at school (Latane). In this way he probably 
 won the confidence of the islanders and deceived 
 Claiborne himself somewhat. But the villain 
 was soon to be unmasked. 
 
 In the following year, February, 1637, goods 
 and servants arrived from England, and they were 
 consigned to George Evelin and not to Clai- 
 borne. With them came the power of attorney to 
 Evelin and instructions to Claiborne to turn over 
 to Evelin all the goods, servants, and property 
 belonging to Cloberry & Co., to come to England 
 to explain his proceedings and adjust his accounts. 
 Furthermore, he was ordered "to make an in- 
 ventory of their property and to demand of Evelin 
 a bond for its safe-keeping." It is not difficult to 
 imagine the irritation this peremptory order caused 
 in a man of Claiborne's nature. But he seems to 
 have made an effort to bear himself with patience 
 and prudence, and prepared to leave for England. 
 
 A few days before his departure for England, 
 in May, 1637, in the presence of the freemen and 
 
88 William Claiborne 
 
 servants of the island, he offered to surrender 
 entire possession of all the goods and properties 
 of Cloberry & Co. to Evelin on condition that 
 the latter would give him a bond of three thou- 
 sand pounds, not to "alienate the island to the 
 Marylanders and not to carry away any of the 
 servants." 
 
 Subsequent events show that Claiborne had 
 already commenced to suspect Evelin 's intentions. 
 Evelin told Claiborne he would take no assign- 
 ment from him, would give no bond, and would 
 take possession of the island "whether he would 
 or not." Again Claiborne tried to get a bond 
 from Evelin but failed, and finally sailed for 
 England, leaving Evelin in full possession of the 
 settlement. 
 
 Now that the strong man was gone, Evelin 's 
 truculence grew apace and he brought his plans 
 to rapid fruition. Whether it had been his origi- 
 nal intention or not, he now decided to throw in 
 his lot with the Baltimore party, and reduce the 
 island to the authority of the Protectorate. The 
 interests of Cloberry & Co. were neglected, he 
 opened negotiations with Leonard Calvert, and 
 paid frequent visits to St. Mary's. As a means to 
 this end, he thought it necessary to win over to 
 himself the Kent Islanders, but there he found a 
 
Treachery of George Evelin 89 
 
 hard nut to crack; he tried in vain to prejudice 
 them against Claiborne and in favour of Baltimore. 
 They were obdurate — they would none of him. 
 
 The only resource left to Evelin was force, and 
 he endeavoured to induce Leonard Calvert to em- 
 ploy it. Calvert seemed to have some conscien- 
 tious scruples in the matter and objected at first, 
 but, finally, yielded to the importunities of Evelin, 
 as Latane says. Let us read the particulars of the 
 attack from the pen of DeCourcy Thom: 
 
 About February 25th, 1638, Governor Leonard 
 Calvert leaving the Assembly in Session, doubtless the 
 better to surprise the enemy who would believe him 
 held by his Legislative duties, sailed for Kent Island 
 with thirty choice musketeers and is said "to have 
 encouraged other men to accompany him and pillage, 
 and even to have contracted to buy the plunder a 
 certain man might make." The ascriptions as to 
 each side in these ancient quarrels seem to be largely 
 inaccurate. Calvert and his 30 choice musketeers 
 and other followers landed at Kent Point on the Is- 
 land shortly before sunrise on or about February 26th, 
 1638, and went at once to Claiborne's house, which 
 was situated just back of Kent Point. It was built 
 within a small palisaded fort. One of the party — 
 I wonder if it was George Evelin, he who held the 
 "attorney" for Cloberry & Co., — "who knew the 
 place, entered it, unbarred the gate of the palisades 
 towards the sea and the St. Mary's men entered 
 without notice." Butler and Smith were absent. 
 
90 William Claiborne 
 
 All in the fort were brought to Governor Calvert. 
 Calvert then marched five miles to Butler's planta- 
 tion, "The Great Thicket," and sent his prisoners to 
 "Craford," Evelin's place situated about the middle 
 of the Island, and named in honor of his wife who had 
 been a Miss Craney. When within one-half mile of 
 Butler's dwelling the Governor sent Ensign Clarke 
 with 10 musketeers to Butler to order him to come to 
 Craf ord with Clarke. That was accomplished. Then 
 Sergeant Robert Vaughan with six musketeers was 
 sent to Thomas Smith's house "Beaver Neck," on 
 the opposite side of the Creek from Butler's planta- 
 tion, and Calvert displaying the banner of the Lord 
 Proprietary marched to Craford whither Vaughan 
 brought Smith. The Governor proclaimed a general 
 pardon to all who made submission within twenty- 
 four hours. All the inhabitants came in. Where- 
 upon the Governor stated that they must accept 
 from Lord Baltimore patents for their lands, and that 
 in the Spring he would return with a surveyor to make 
 out their boundaries. On that second expedition to 
 the Island, Calvert took 50 musketeers with him and 
 left two cannon for use at Kent Fort, Claiborne's old 
 palisaded house. All of Cloberry & Co.'s goods and 
 indentured servants were then removed from the 
 Island, doubtless under agreement with Evelin, who 
 disposed of them later. 
 
 Even at this late date, it would be interesting 
 to know by what code of ethics Leonard Calvert 
 committed this act of unjustifiable force. But 
 the traitor Evelin got his mess of pottage and was 
 appointed Commander of Kent Island. Thus the 
 
Treachery of George Evelin 91 
 
 devil took care of his own (see First Commander 
 of Kent Island, Maryland Hist. Society, S. F. 
 Streeter, 1868). 
 
 Forthwith, Thomas Smith, who had commanded 
 two of Claiborne's ships, and John Boteler, an 
 important man on the island apparently, were 
 arrested and taken prisoners to St. Mary's. Not 
 only these two, but numerous others on the island 
 were arrested, either on the pretext of answering 
 a suit of Cloberry & Co., for debt, or on charges 
 of sedition, piracy, and murder (Latane). 
 
 Not content with having already given the devil 
 his due, Leonard Calvert rewarded George Evelin 
 still further by making him "Lord of the Manor 
 of Evelinton." 
 
 Having attained his object, with the price of 
 his infamy represented by honours {sic) and broad 
 acres, Evelin, whose name ought to be pilloried 
 to infamy in the archives of Maryland, no longer 
 concerned himself with Kent Island, but, taking 
 with him some of the servants and other property 
 of Cloberry and Claiborne, "even digging up the 
 fruit trees in Claiborne's garden," retired to his 
 manor, and thus there was an end to him so far 
 as this history is concerned. 
 
 But Cloberry & Co, reckoned without their 
 host when they gave Evelin their power of at- 
 
92 William Claiborne 
 
 torney; they had in no way authorized him 
 to have the island reduced. One cannot fail to 
 see just retribution inflicted upon Claiborne's 
 partners by the final denouement of this act. 
 
 After Calvert had returned from Kent Island, 
 Thomas Smith, who had formerly commanded 
 Claiborne's ship, on May loth, in the fight in the 
 Pokomoke, was indicted and tried for murder and 
 piracy, by the Maryland Assembly. There were 
 at that time "no legally organized courts," inas- 
 much as the Proprietary had vetoed all previous 
 acts of the Assembly, and so Smith was tried 
 before the Bar of the House, Secretary Lewger 
 being prosecuting attorney. He was found guilty, 
 with only one dissenting voice. 
 
 It has been stated he was never hanged, but 
 in Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, ii., 
 287, it is written he was hanged along with Edward 
 Beckler, another of Claiborne's men. This re- 
 cord seemed to settle the matter and put the climax 
 upon the whole disgraceful affair. 
 
 But the final and crushing blow was dealt to 
 Claiborne's hopes by the Board of Commission- 
 ers for the Plantations, to whom the dispute over 
 the possession of Kent Island had been referred 
 by the King. The decision was rendered in April, 
 1638; the claims of Virginia to Kent Island were 
 
Treachery of George Evelin 93 
 
 ignored; the whole affair was regarded as a per- 
 sonal quarrel between Claiborne and Baltimore, 
 and Claiborne's plea that he was a member of 
 the Virginia Colony was also ignored. The deci- 
 sion was unequivocally in favour of Lord Balti- 
 more; the right and title to Kent Island were his 
 and not Claiborne's. 
 
 The Lords Commissioners set forth the argu- 
 ments, so ably combated by Latane, and others, 
 that Baltimore had a grant of sovereignty under 
 the Seal of England, whereas Claiborne had only 
 a trading license imder the Seal of Scotland 
 
 It is interesting to note that the Lords Commis- 
 sioners of Plantations reversed themselves and 
 went back on the principle of the decision of 1638, 
 in a dispute between Lord Baltimore and William 
 Penn in regard to a part of the Delaware Penin- 
 sula, in 1685. They adjudged half of the Dela- 
 ware Peninsula to Penn, on the ground "that 
 the land intended to be granted by Lord Balti- 
 more's Patent was only land uncultivated and 
 inhabited by savages, and this tract of land now in 
 dispute was inhabited and planted by Christians 
 at and before the date of the Lord Baltimore 
 Patent." The suspicion that political influence 
 inspired the decision against Claiborne is entirely 
 justifiable in view of this decision of the Lords Com- 
 
94 William Claiborne 
 
 missioners. In their second decision, they ruled 
 by the clear meaning of the Baltimore Patent — 
 the argument advanced by Claiborne and the 
 Virginians. 
 
 Within three months after the decision of the 
 Lords Commissioners (April, 1638), Claiborne, 
 assisted by Sir William Alexander, obtained from 
 Charles a letter or order commanding Baltimore 
 to allow Claiborne, his agents or partners, full 
 possession of the Isle of Kent, with safety to their 
 persons and goods, till the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners of Plantations should be made 
 known. 
 
 It is well to quote this letter of Charles's in order 
 to show his attitude toward the question, ante- 
 cedent to his knowledge of the decision of the 
 Commission. The wording of this his second 
 letter accentuates the meaning and spirit of the 
 first. 
 
 Letter of Charles given under his Signet, at the 
 Manor of Greenwich, July 14, 1638: 
 
 Whereas formerly by our royal letters to our Gov- 
 ernor and Council of Virginia and to others, our officers 
 and subjects, in these parts, we signified our pleasure 
 that William Claiborne, David Morehead, in the 
 Island near Virginia which they have nominated 
 Kentish Island, should in no sort be interrupted in 
 their trade or plantation by you, or any other 
 
Treachery of George Evelin 95 
 
 in your right, but rather be encouraged cheerfully in 
 so good a work; we do now understand that though 
 your agents had notice of our said pleasure, signified 
 by our letters, yet contrary thereto they have slain 
 3 of our subjects there, and by force possessed them- 
 selves by right of that Island, and seized and carried 
 away both the persons and estates of the said planters. 
 Now, out of our royal care to prevent such disorders, 
 we have referred to our Commissioners of Plantations 
 the examination of the truth of these complaints, 
 and required them to procede therein according to 
 justice ; so now by these particular letters to yourself, 
 we strictly require you and command you to perform 
 what our former general letter did enjoin, and that 
 the above named planters and their agents may enjoy 
 in the mean time their possessions, and be safe in their 
 persons and goods there, without disturbance or farther 
 trouble by you, or any of you, till that cause be de- 
 cided. And herein we expect your ready conformity, 
 that we may have no cause of any farther mistake. 
 
 Scharf remarks this letter must have been 
 written before Charles knew what the decision of 
 the Commissioners was, and this seems certain, 
 but Scharf observes also, quoting Chalmers, that, 
 Claiborne obtained his letter from the King not 
 only through the influence of Sir William Alexan- 
 der, but "partly by misrepresentation." 
 
 Latane, p. 29 : "On receipt of his Majesty's letter 
 Baltimore replied he would shortly wait upon his 
 Majesty and give him 'perfect satisfaction.' " 
 
96 William Claiborne 
 
 There is reason to believe that Baltimore pre- 
 vailed and the King was satisfied. For we read, 
 that, pursuant to the decision of the Lords Com- 
 raissioners, ^ the Governor and Council of Virginia, 
 issued a proclamation, October 4, 1638, forbidding 
 any one belonging to their jurisdiction from trad- 
 ing within the limits of Lord Baltimore's Charter 
 without^license from him or his agents (Scharf's 
 Maryland, i., p. 118). 
 
 ' Tilghman, History of Talbot County, Maryland, vol. i., p. 509: 
 "It is proper to say, too, there is some doubt in the minds of 
 historians whether the Commissioners ever gave any opinion 
 whatever upon the matters in controversy, as the original docu- 
 ments of such decision could never be found, and a mutilated 
 copy, of the authenticity of which there is uncertainty, is all 
 upon which writers of the present day have to depend." 
 
 Notwithstanding this reasonable doubt thrown upon the 
 decision of the Commissioners, their decision, as generally recog- 
 nized, has been accepted in this argument, and has been com- 
 bated. Nevertheless, it is well to cite the remarks of Tilghman. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE BILL OF ATTAINDER 
 
 ACCORDING to Latane, the same Assembly 
 of March, 1638, which tried and sentenced 
 Thomas Smith, also passed a Bill of At- 
 tainder against William Claiborne, declaring him 
 guilty of piracy and murder, and that he "forfeit 
 to the Lord Proprietor all his lands and tenements 
 which he was seized of on the 23d day of April, 
 1635." And in pursuance of this act the property 
 of Claiborne on Kent Island and Palmer's Island, 
 which he had likewise purchased from the Indians, 
 was attached and appropriated to the use of the 
 Lord Proprietor. The following is the text of the 
 bill, quoted from Scharf 's History of Maryland: 
 
 St. Maries — In the House of General Assembly, on the 
 24th March, Anno Domini, 1637, was read the fourth time, 
 a Bill of the tenor and effects following, viz.: 
 An act for the attainder of William Cleyborne, Gent. 
 
 Whereas, William Cleyborne, gent., is notoriously 
 known to have committed sundry contempts, insol- 
 ences and seditious acts against the dignity, govern- 
 7 . 97 
 
98 William Claiborne 
 
 ment and domination of the Lord Proprietarie of this 
 Province, and to have conspired and contrived sundry 
 mischievous machinations and practices with the 
 Indians of these parts, to the subversion and destruc- 
 tion of this Colony and the people thereof: and to 
 have used and exequuted sondry magistratical and 
 regall powers and jurisdictions within this province 
 and upon the inhabitants of the same, by levying of 
 souldiers, appointing Lieutenants and other Officers 
 imprisoning and otherwise punishing of offenders, 
 and by granting letters of reprisall and commissions, 
 for the execution of justice upon the vessells and goods 
 of the Lieutenant General of this Province or from 
 any other Province or state whatsoever : and Whereas, 
 by an act of Generall Assemblie met at St. Mary's on 
 the six and twentieth day of February, 1634, (1635, 
 N.S.) among other wholesome lawes and ordinances 
 then made and provided for the welfare of this pro- 
 vince, it was enacted, that the offenders in all murthers 
 and felonies should suffer such paines, losses and for- 
 feitures in the like crimes in England. Since the 
 making of which act, that is to say, on the three and 
 twentieth day of April, 1635, the said William Cley- 
 borne hath not onely continued his said violences, 
 mutinies and contempts against the Lord Proprietor 
 and the government of this place, but hath instigated 
 and commanded sundry persons to committ the 
 grievous crimes of pyracie and murther which — 
 pyracie and murther is lawfully indicted by a grand 
 Enquest of f oure and twenty freemen of this Province : 
 and since and after committing of the same pyracie 
 and murther, hath fled, and withdrawn himself out 
 of the Province, whereby he cannot be attainted of 
 the said crimes by an ordinary Court of Justice: — 
 
The Bill of Attainder 99 
 
 We the freemen assembled in this present General! 
 Assembly, considering the premises and necessity of 
 exemplary justice to be inflicted on such notorious 
 and insolent rebells and disturbers of the peace and 
 safety of the inhabitants of this Province, and for 
 the terror of like offenders in time to come, we request 
 your Lordship that it may be enacted by the Lord 
 Proprietor with the advice of the Freemen of this 
 present Generall Assembly, that the said William 
 Cleyborne be attainted of the crimes aforesaid, and 
 that he forfeit to the Lord Proprietarie all his lands 
 and tenements which he was seized of on the said 
 three and twentieth day of April in the year 1635. 
 And that he forfeite to the said Lord Proprietary all 
 his goods and chattells which he hath within this 
 Province at this present. 
 
 And the aforesaid Bill being engrossed in parchment 
 was approved and signed by the Lieutenant Generall 
 and all the freemen assembled. 
 
 As has been observed above, Latane gives the 
 date of the Assembly, March, 1638, whereas the 
 Bill of Attainder is dated March, 1637. The main 
 point is, however, that the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners of Plantations followed the Bill 
 of Attainder, and upon this sequence a point in 
 equity and law seems to rest. It has already been 
 stated that, as there were no legally organized 
 courts at that time, the Proprietary having vetoed 
 all previous acts of the Assembly, Smith was tried 
 before the bar of the House, and we have seen that 
 
100 William Claiborne 
 
 the same Assembly passed the Act of Attainder 
 against Claiborne. Latane inquires, referring 
 to the latter incident, by what legal right Clai- 
 borne's property was confiscated in view of this 
 veto. It appears there are sounder reasons still 
 than these for questioning the legality and vali- 
 dity of the proceedings of this Assembly in the 
 matter of the confiscation of Claiborne's property 
 and the declaring of him outlawed. 
 
 The counts against Claiborne may be classed 
 under five heads : 
 
 First, that he conspired and contrived sundry 
 mischievous machinations and practices with the 
 Indians of these parts to the subversion and de- 
 struction of the colony and the people thereof; 
 
 Second, to have used and executed sundry 
 magistratical and regal powers and jurisdictions 
 within this province and upon the inhabitants of 
 the same, by the levying of soldiers, appointing 
 lieutenants and other officers, imprisoning and 
 punishing offenders; 
 
 Third, by granting letters of reprisal and com- 
 missions for the execution of justice upon the 
 vessels and goods of the lieutenant general of 
 Maryland ; 
 
 Fourth, that on a certain occasion after having 
 continued said violences, mutinies, and contempts, 
 
The Bill of Attainder loi 
 
 he instigated and commanded sundry persons to 
 commit the grievous crimes of piracy and murder; 
 
 Fifth, that he had withdrawn himself out of the 
 province whereby he could not be attainted of the 
 said crimes by the ordinary court of justice. 
 
 We will discuss these counts. As to the first 
 one, it has been shown that he was tried by a 
 commission composed of Virginians and Mary- 
 landers, and was completely acquitted and exo- 
 nerated. This fact, therefore, negatives and 
 estops the first count. The second, third, and 
 fourth may be answered under one head. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the rightful owner- 
 ship of Kent Island antecedent to the decision of 
 the Lords Commissioners was at least suh judice, 
 for we find Claiborne and the Virginians main- 
 taining that Kent Island was a part of Virginia, 
 Claiborne claiming it as his own property, and 
 Baltimore claiming it as a part of Maryland and 
 his own property, for reasons that both had set 
 forth. Charles's attitude towards the ownership 
 of said property is unequivocally shown in his 
 first letter and emphasized by his second. The 
 King himself, therefore, while he favoured one side, 
 namely Claiborne's, impliedly admitted that the 
 matter was not settled, and concluded by appoint- 
 ing the Lords Commissioners as a final court of 
 
102 William Claiborne 
 
 appeal for the settlement of the dispute. Inas- 
 much, therefore, as the Bill of Attainder antedated 
 the decision of the Lords Commissioners, it ap- 
 pears sound that the said Assembly had no juris- 
 diction over the disputed territory nor over the 
 question of possession at that time. These three 
 counts are, therefore, negatived and rendered 
 invalid, and may be said to be incompetent, 
 immaterial, and irrelevant. 
 
 The fifth count, that he withdrew himself from 
 the jurisdiction of the Lord Proprietor, is by reason 
 of the preceding showing a Jelo de se. As a matter 
 of fact, at that time he was in England, but on 
 his return he did not present himself within the 
 disputed territory for reasons of common sense 
 and prudence. This count, therefore, is hardly 
 to be taken seriously from a legal or any other 
 standpoint. When, then, the authorities of the 
 Lord Proprietor seized Claiborne's lands and 
 tenements, it appears they were guilty of high- 
 handed outrage and unlawful force. 
 
 As to Claiborne's rights of ownership to the 
 island after the decision of the Lords Commis- 
 sioners, it can only be noted that the Colony of 
 Virginia accepted the decision of the Lords Com- 
 missioners and forbade all persons within their 
 jurisdiction from trading or trafficking within 
 
The Bill of Attainder 103 
 
 the limits of Maryland without license from Lord 
 Baltimore or his agents. This act of the Virginia 
 Council and Governor seems to show that Virginia 
 no longer considered Kent Island a part of her 
 domain, and it appears quite certain Kent Island 
 was no longer represented in the Virginia House of 
 Burgesses. Apart from the attitude of the Vir- 
 ginia Colony in this matter, the question may be 
 raised as to whether the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners was just and sound law, in view 
 of the original grant of the London Company, 
 and the express declaration of both James the 
 First and Charles the First that the annulling of 
 the original charter simply abolished the sover- 
 eignty that had been accorded to the Virginia 
 Company and did not infringe or diminish the 
 territorial rights of the Colony (Fiske, Old Vir- 
 ginia and Neighbours, p. 288). 
 
 At this point it is vital to point out the meaning 
 of the so-called Bill of Attainder, its legal value, 
 and to make some historical reference to the history 
 of the Act under English Kings. 
 
 Mr. Lindsay furnishes the following notes upon 
 this subject: 
 
 A Bill of Attainder was an Act of Parliament for 
 putting a man to death or for otherwise punishing 
 him without trial in the usual form. It is hard to 
 
104 William Claiborne 
 
 say when the first act of this kind was passed by a 
 British Parliament, but the first that can be referred 
 to with certainty is the Attainder of the Duke of 
 Clarence, in 1477 (17 Edw. 4; 6 Rot. Par. 193). It 
 was a very extended document and filled with elo- 
 quent language. After setting forth the offences 
 imputed to the noble victim, it enacted that: "The 
 said George Duke of Clarence be convicted and 
 attaynted of high treason," and this was followed by 
 the appointment of the Duke of Buckingham as Lord 
 High Steward for that occasion to do execution. Such 
 bills were employed more particularly during the reign 
 of the Tudor Kings for the direct punishment 
 of political offences. Dispensing with the ordinary 
 judicial procedure, they took away from the accused 
 whatever advantages he might have gained in the 
 ordinary courts of law. Such evidence only was 
 admitted, if at all, as might be necessary to secure 
 conviction. Indeed, in some cases Bills of Attainder 
 were passed without the introduction of any evidence. 
 In the reign of Henry VIIL, Bills of Attainder were 
 much used through his subservient Parliament to 
 punish those who had incurred the King's displeasure, 
 and many distinguished victims who could not have 
 been convicted of any offence in the law courts were 
 disposed of in this manner, as witness the cases of 
 Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas Cromwell, Queen Cathe- 
 rine Howard, the Duke of Norfolk, and the Earl of 
 Surrey. In the seventeenth century during the dis- 
 putes with Charles I., the Long Parliament made 
 effective use of the Procedure, forcing the King to 
 give his consent — the most memorable case being 
 that of Lord Strafford, who was beheaded on Tower 
 Hill, May 12, 1641. Other instances are those of 
 
The Bill of Attainder 105 
 
 the Duke of Monmouth, 1683, and that of Sir John 
 Fenwick. 
 
 A bill for reversing an Attainder took a form con- 
 trary to the usual rules. It was first signed by the 
 King and presented by a Peer to the House of Lords, 
 by the King's command. It then passed through the 
 several stages and on to the Commons, to whom the 
 King's assent was communicated before the first 
 reading of the bill; otherwise the entire proceeding 
 was null and void. After the Restoration resort to 
 these measures became less frequent, though the 
 Jacobite movement in Scotland produced several 
 instances. The last Bill of Attainder passed in Eng- 
 land was in the case of Lord Fitzgerald, one of the 
 Irish rebel leaders of 1798. 
 
 In the period when the bishops, the lords and the 
 knights and burgesses met in one body, they consti- 
 tuted, when so assembled, the High Court of Parlia- 
 ment, and exercised the highest functions of a court 
 of judicature, representing in that aspect the judicial 
 authority of the King. While this body enacted laws 
 it also rendered judgments in matters of private right 
 which, when approved by the King, were final and 
 conclusive. Upon the separation of the Lords and 
 Commons into two separate bodies, holding their 
 sessions in different chambers, and hence called the 
 House of Lords and the House of Commons, the 
 judicial function of reviewing by appeal the decisions 
 of the courts of Westminster Hall passed to the House 
 of Lords. To the House of Commons was left the 
 power of impeachment and perhaps others of a 
 judicial character. Jointly the two houses exercised, 
 among other powers, that of passing bills of attainder 
 for treason and other high crimes. 
 
io6 William Claiborne 
 
 The word "attainder" is derived from the Latin 
 attincta and attinctura, and means the stain or corrup- 
 tion of the blood of a criminal capitally condemned, 
 which, by the common law, was the immediate in- 
 separable consequence of the sentence of death. The 
 effect of this corruption of the blood in the case of an 
 individual convicted in the ordinary courts of justice 
 was that he lost all inheritable capacity, and could 
 neither receive nor transmit any property or other 
 rights. The same consequences followed the passage 
 of a bill of attainder, which was equally a judicial, 
 not a legislative act. In addition to this, the feature 
 which made bills of attainder so obnoxious to the 
 statesmen who organized our government, was that 
 the proceedings attending their enactment were 
 governed by no fixed rule. 
 
 The law of the High Court of Parliament was 
 distinct from the law of Westminster Hall, paramount 
 to it, superseding and controlling it. Its authority 
 was absolutely unrestrained. In the passage of bills 
 of attainder, as in the trial of impeachments, it was 
 privileged to ignore, or at least to cast aside, the com- 
 mon municipal law, or any other judicial system and 
 to act, as Burke expressed it on the trial of Warren 
 Hastings, "upon the evident principles of common 
 sense." The investigation into the guilt of the 
 accused, if any were made, was not necessarily, or 
 generally, conducted in his presence. He had no 
 right to counsel. In short. Parliament held itself 
 bound by none of the forms or customs of the inferior 
 tribunals, or by any general or inflexible rules of 
 evidence, but, in its omnipotence, created a law and 
 usage of its own. 
 
 Bills of attainder were most usually passed in times 
 
The Bill of Attainder 107 
 
 of rebellion, of violent political excitement, or of gross 
 subserviency to the crown, periods in which all na- 
 tions are most liable to forget their duties and to 
 trample upon the rights and liberties of others. These 
 legislative judgments were pronounced, as we have 
 seen, in the exercise of the judicial power of Parlia- 
 ment, though without a hearing, and in disregard of 
 the first principles of natural justice. But the power 
 existed not because the Parliament of England was 
 a representative body like the Maryland Assembly, 
 with legislative functions, but by virtue of ancient 
 usage and prescription, the lex et consuetudo parlia- 
 menti, which formed a part of the law of the land. 
 // rested upon principles which had no application to 
 colonial legislative bodies, and certainly could have none 
 to the Maryland Assembly {March, i6j8) which was 
 in no sense a court, which exercised no functions derived 
 from its once having been a part of the highest court of 
 the realm, and whose functions, so far as they partook in 
 any degree of a judicial character, were limited to such 
 acts as were necessary to enable it to perform its legis- 
 lative duties. The right of the Maryland Assembly 
 to pass a bill of attainder could, therefore, derive no sup- 
 port from the precedents and practices of the English 
 Parliament. 
 
 This places the Bill of Attainder passed by the 
 Maryland Assembly in its proper light before 
 the reader and furnishes conclusive reasons for 
 declaring it invalid as a legal document and 
 judicial pronouncement. 
 
 There is reason to know that Claiborne stood 
 
io8 William Claiborne 
 
 alone after the decision of the Lords Commission- 
 ers, that, though a single individual, he stood up 
 against Lord Baltimore and the entire Proprie- 
 tary of Maryland, contending the matter, practi- 
 cally, until the Compromise of 1657. As Fiske 
 remarks: "The sturdy Claiborne, after the de- 
 cision of the Lords Commissioners, crestfallen 
 though not yet conquered, returned to Virginia 
 to await the turn of Fortune's wheel." 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE CLAIBORNE-INGLE INVASION OF MARYLAND 
 
 WE have seen that the Bill of Attainder was 
 passed and the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners was rendered while Clai- 
 borne was in England. After that decision, 
 Claiborne, having given up all hope of redress of 
 his grievances in England, repaired to Virginia, 
 where, as Fiske has said "he awaited the turn of 
 Fortune's wheel." 
 
 But he did not sit down in idleness to wait. 
 He had too much sense to put his head in the 
 lion's mouth, and no one can find it in his heart 
 to blame him. So he sent one George Scovell, 
 to whom he had given power of attorney, on 
 August 21, 1640, with a petition to the Governor 
 of the Council of Maryland, as follows: 
 
 That Capt. Wm. Claiborne, at his departure from 
 the Isle of Kent, left an estate within your province, 
 as your petitioner is informed, amounting to a good 
 value; since which time divers inhabitants within 
 
 109 
 
no William Claiborne 
 
 your province are possessed of the said estate, but 
 by what right your petitioner knoweth not; your 
 petitioner's humble request, therefore, is, the premises 
 considered, that your Worship would be pleased not 
 only to allow of your petitioner's letter of Attorney, 
 but also to grant unto him free power and liberty, 
 together with your Worship's furtherance therein, 
 for the recovery of the aforesaid estate, in the hands 
 of any in whom it shall be found 
 
 The Governor and Council pithily replied to 
 Scovell's petition that whatever property Clai- 
 borne had left in the province on his departure 
 in March, 1637, was possessed, by right of for- 
 feiture, to the Lord Proprietary, by reason of his 
 crimes of piracy and murder, and that if he 
 possessed any other property he would do well 
 to inform his Lordship's attorney of it that it 
 might be appropriated to his Lordship's use. 
 
 But the march of events was tending in Clai- 
 borne's favour. As Fiske remarks: "The year 
 of Marston Moor was an inauspicious year for 
 the Cavaliers, but a hopeful one for that tenacious 
 and patient waiter, William Claiborne." 
 
 In 1642, about four years after the decision of 
 the Lords Commissioners, Charles the First ap- 
 pointed Claiborne Treasurer of Virginia for life. 
 This may have been an attempt to conciliate him 
 for the losses he had suffered in Maryland, but 
 
The Claiborne-Ingle Invasion iii 
 
 it may more properly be regarded as a belated 
 and renewed expression of his view of Claiborne's 
 rights to possession of Kent Island. During the 
 fateful year of Marston Moor, the Governor of 
 Maryland as well as the Governor of Virginia 
 went to England. And, as Fiske remarks : "When 
 the cats were away, the mice did play." About 
 the year 1644, while the Civil War was on in Eng- 
 land, Claiborne appeared to determine to cast in 
 his lot with the Parliamentary party and renew 
 his claims to Kent Island, in hope that he might 
 be recognized by the new government. The King 
 in the meantime had ordered that any Parliament 
 ships which were in Maryland waters should be 
 seized. 
 
 Giles Brent, the Deputy Governor of St. Mary's 
 in casting about to fulfill the royal commands, 
 seized upon the ship of a certain Richard Ingle, 
 inasmuch as there were no others around. Said 
 Richard Ingle was a tobacco trader, was thought 
 to be a Puritan (save the mark!), was strongly 
 suspected of being a pirate, and was certainly a 
 swashbuckler. Taking advantage of this inci- 
 dent, Claiborne attempted to profit by it to obtain 
 his revenge and regain his possessions. 
 
 We read in Brownes's Maryland that he tried 
 to dispel the doubts of the inhabitants of Kent 
 
112 William Claiborne 
 
 Island by assuring them that he had a commission 
 from the King. As Fiske remarks : "He may have 
 referred to the license given him by Charles the 
 First before the decision of 1638, and may have 
 attempted to justify his statements by 'some 
 private logic of his own.' " The private logic 
 of his own more likely was the logic of events, to 
 which ample reference has been made, and, doubt- 
 less, he laid emphasis upon the memorable declara- 
 tion of both Charles and James already referred to. 
 
 When Calvert returned from England to Mary- 
 land, he was surprised to learn that Claiborne 
 was preparing to invade his dominions, along with 
 Richard Ingle, which was, in fact, a singular alli- 
 ance, for Claiborne professed to have a royal 
 commission, while Ingle claimed he had a commis- 
 sion from Parliament. As Fiske remarks, how- 
 ever, "This inconsistency did not make the 
 alliance a weak one." 
 
 Authorities agree that there is no evidence to 
 believe there was any agreement between Claiborne 
 and Ingle, though, doubtless, Claiborne was glad 
 to have the aid of Ingle in attempting to re- 
 establish himself in Kent Island. But it seems 
 quite certain that the invasion of Maryland by 
 Claiborne and Ingle was altogether successful, 
 and that they had control of Maryland for about 
 
The Claiborne-Ingle Invasion 113 
 
 two years. Claiborne recovered Kent Island, 
 Ingle captured St. Mary's, and Leonard Calvert 
 had to take refuge in Virginia for personal safety. 
 
 This period was referred to in Maryland as the 
 "plundering time," and consisted of two years 
 of more or less anarchy. Ingle and his men 
 roamed about stealing corn, tobacco, cattle, and 
 furniture, and carrying off large quantities of 
 plunder in their ships. The estates of Comwal- 
 leys, who, we have seen, commanded Baltimore's 
 pinnaces, St. Margaret and St. Agnes, in the 
 Pokomoke River fight, were especially plundered, 
 and the pious and good Father White was sent 
 to England in chains on a silly charge of treason, 
 but was promptly acquitted. 
 
 There is no specific statement extant, as far 
 as can be found, that Claiborne himself, person- 
 ally, was concerned in the plundering of Mary- 
 land along with Ingle and his men, but when we 
 read that the estates of Cornwalleys had especial 
 attention paid to them, it is not difficult to suspect 
 that this particular act was inspired by Claiborne. 
 He was certainly capable of revenge. 
 
 But the next year, Calvert received very effec- 
 tive aid and sympathy from Berkley, and in 1646 
 he was able to make an expedition against Clai- 
 borne and Ingle in Maryland, defeat, expel them, 
 i 
 
114 William Claiborne 
 
 and fully re-establish Baltimore's authority in 
 the Palatinate. The following year, 1647, Leon- 
 ard Calvert died, and in 1648 Lord Baltimore 
 appointed William Stone, a Protestant and a 
 supporter of Parliament, as Governor of Maryland 
 in the place of Leonard. 
 
 Though it is not, strictly speaking, pertinent to 
 the matter of this sketch, it is well to note that 
 the following year, 1649, was the year in which 
 the famous statute known as the Toleration Act 
 was passed by the Maryland Assembly, as drawn 
 by Cecilius himself, without amendment. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 THE REDUCTION OF VIRGINIA AND MARYLAND BY 
 
 CLAIBORNE AND BENNETT, AND THE 
 
 COMPROMISE OF 1 657 
 
 ABOUT the end of the year 1650, when the 
 English ParHament found itself sufficiently 
 free from its domestic affairs, it turned its 
 attention to those of the Colonies, and in October 
 of that year an act was passed prohibiting all 
 trade or intercourse with Virginia or the West 
 Indies, for their diverse acts of rebellion, and the 
 Council of State was "given power to send ships 
 to any of said plantations and to enforce all 
 such to obedience as stand in opposition to the 
 Parliament." 
 
 As is well known, the term Virginia was a very 
 broad one and covered any of the American Colo- 
 nies of that time: for example, Maryland in Vir- 
 ginia is frequently found in documents of the 
 period. The above mentioned Act seems to 
 have been called forth in some part at least, by 
 
 "5 
 
ii6 William Claiborne 
 
 reason of that Act passed in Virginia in October, 
 1649, under the Berkley administration, whereby 
 the execution of Charles I. was condemned and 
 it was declared that any who undertook to defend 
 the proceedings against Charles should be ad- 
 judged accessory post factum to his death. 
 
 It is interesting to note, likewise, that after 
 this decision many Puritans left the Virginia 
 Colony and fled to Maryland, where they were 
 received kindly, given tracts of land, and were 
 permitted local government and religious freedom. 
 
 Naturally, Lord Baltimore was aroused by the 
 power given to the Council of State, and he set 
 about to save his Colony and, if possible, retain 
 it in its original form. He had no intention of 
 allowing it to pass out of his hands without a 
 struggle. He used all his influence upon the Council 
 of State to prevent the name of Maryland being 
 used in the Act for the reduction of the Colonies. 
 Nevertheless, the wording of that instrument was 
 reasonably construed to include Maryland. 
 
 He exhibited a very high degree of political 
 cleverness and wisdom in reorganizing his province 
 on a Protestant basis, and by recognizing the 
 principle of religious toleration and freedom just 
 at the time when the Puritan element was in the 
 ascendency. 
 
The Reduction 117 
 
 The Commissioners named by the Council of 
 State to carry out their instructions were: 
 Captain Robert Denis, a naval officer, who was 
 put in command of the fleet, consisting of two 
 ships; Thomas Stagg, Richard Bennett, and Wil- 
 liam Claiborne. The Council made the wise 
 proviso that in the case of the death or absence 
 of Captain Denis, Captain Edmund Curtis, the 
 commander of the second ship, named the Guinea, 
 was to act as Commissioner and take charge of 
 the expedition. Claiborne and Bennett were in 
 Virginia at the time, therefore there is no reason 
 to suppose that their appointment was through 
 their influence or request. 
 
 On the voyage, the ship that bore Denis and 
 Stagg was lost, and so the command of the expe- 
 dition fell to Curtis, commanding the Guinea. 
 After the reduction of the Barbadoes, Curtis 
 sailed for Virginia and dropped anchor before 
 Jamestown in March, 1652. News had been 
 brought to Berkeley that the frigate was in port, 
 and he set about to organize a resistance, dis- 
 tributing muskets to the inhabitants of the 
 town, and manning several Dutch ships which 
 happened to be in the harbour, but, before any 
 acts of hostility were committed, the Assembly 
 was called together and decided to submit 
 
ii8 William Claiborne 
 
 itself to the authority of the Commonwealth of 
 England. 
 
 The articles of surrender for the Assembly of 
 Virginia were most generous, and in them one can 
 not fail to see the influence of both Bennett and 
 Claiborne. It was signed by Bennett, Claiborne, 
 and Curtis. The 4th article is especially inter- 
 esting, to wit: "That Virginia shall have and 
 enjoy the ancient bounds and limits granted by 
 the charters of the former kings and that we shall 
 seek a new charter under Parliament to that pur- 
 pose against any that have intrenched upon the 
 rights thereof." This article, of course, refers 
 more particularly to Kent Island, the original 
 grant to the London Company, and the express 
 declaration of both James and Charles with 
 reference to original territorial rights, repeatedly 
 mentioned herein. 
 
 Considerable comment has been made upon the 
 conduct of Governor Berkeley, in surrendering the 
 Jamestown Colony to a single frigate, without 
 resistance, and this has been thought to be all 
 the more remarkable, seeing that there were a 
 large number of Cavaliers in Virginia at the time, 
 but Latane says, "there is no mystery in the 
 matter, that it was due entirely to the strong 
 Puritan element in the Colony." 
 
The Reduction 119 
 
 It is true that many of the radical dissenters 
 had been driven out by Berkeley, but it must not 
 be forgotten that a large element of them still 
 remained and, in view of the fact that Bennett 
 and Claiborne were both there, their influence is 
 not to be overlooked — that of Mathews likewise, 
 for that matter. Mathews was at least a Pro- 
 testant if not a Puritan, and we have seen him 
 already lay violent hands on the King's own Gover- 
 nor, Harvey. As for Claiborne, he was a Church 
 of England man, and affiliated himself with the 
 Puritans, as we have reason to believe, solely for 
 political reasons and reasons of personal advance- 
 ment. It has been shown that he was a Cavalier 
 of Cavaliers, in pedigree, and it is probable that 
 the matter of religion played no part in his career 
 except as an incident. At any rate, it seems quite 
 sure that Claiborne and Mathews declared them- 
 selves in favour of Parliament, in 1644. 
 
 After the settlement of Virginia affairs, Mary- 
 land came next in order, and though the name 
 Maryland was not mentioned in the instructions 
 of the Council of State, the words, "All the plan- 
 tations within the Bay of Chesapeake" were 
 sufficient and just guarantee for the reduction of 
 the Maryland Colony likewise. Inasmuch as 
 Denis and Stagg had been lost along with their 
 
120 William Claiborne 
 
 ship, the reduction of the Maryland Colony fell 
 to Curtis, Bennett, and Claiborne, who proceeded 
 along the lines of the written instructions given 
 to Curtis as well as to Denis. Prejudiced histori- 
 ans have maintained that Bennett and Clai- 
 borne took advantage of the loosely-defined 
 instructions they had received to take control of 
 the Maryland Government, in order that Clai- 
 borne might have a chance to settle his long- 
 standing account with Lord Baltimore. As 
 Latane remarks, just here, "there seems to be no 
 justification whatsoever for such an opinion." 
 For Bennett and Claiborne proceeded to Mary- 
 land under the command of Captain Curtis, the 
 commander of the expedition, who had neither 
 interest nor connection with the Colonies. 
 
 What is more, their action was subsequently 
 confirmed by the Parliamentary authorities in 
 England, and while Claiborne had politically 
 associated himself with the Puritan dissenters, 
 he had no hope of attaining anything through the 
 Puritans, for an Act had been passed by the Mary- 
 land Assembly of 1650, prohibiting all compliance 
 with Claiborne "under penalty of death and 
 confiscation of property." This Act had followed 
 some correspondence between Claiborne and Stone 
 in regard to Kent Island. All the facts, therefore, 
 
The Reduction 121 
 
 are against any undue use of authority on the 
 part of the three Commissioners by reason of 
 prejudice in Claiborne's favotu*. 
 
 Arrived at St. Mary's, the Commissioners 
 simply demanded that the Mary landers be "true 
 and faithful to the Commonwealth of England 
 as now established without King or House of 
 Lords." To this demand the Government and 
 Council were perfectly agreeable, but the demand 
 that all writs and warrants be issued in the name 
 of the Keepers of the Liberty of England was 
 strongly objected to. As Stone persisted in his 
 refusal to accept the second demand, he was 
 deprived of his commission, by a proclamation 
 issued March 29th, and the Government of the 
 Maryland province was put into the hands of a 
 Council consisting of six. 
 
 These matters having been arranged, the Com- 
 missioners returned to Virginia, when the As- 
 sembly of April 30, 1652, elected Bennett Governor 
 and Claiborne Secretary of State, a post which he 
 retained throughout the whole regime of the 
 Commonwealth. When the affairs of both the 
 Colonies had been settled satisfactorily, Curtis 
 sailed for England in his frigate, and Bennett and 
 Claiborne were left in command of both Colo- 
 nies — Bennett, the Governor of a colony from 
 
122 William Claiborne 
 
 which he had been recently expelled as a dissenter, 
 and Claiborne, Governor of the province in which 
 he had been proscribed and from which he had 
 been banished as a pirate and murderer. Both 
 Fiske and Latane agree that, under these cir- 
 cumstances, "they both acted with singular 
 moderation." Fiske, in particular, speaking of 
 Claiborne, says, that in "this, his hour of triumph, 
 he behaved without violence. Nor do we find 
 him again laying hands upon Kent Island." 
 From a careful examination of the records, it 
 appears that Claiborne was in Maryland only 
 twice after the reduction of that province, and 
 that on both occasions he was in company with 
 Bennett in the proper discharge of his duties as 
 Commissioner (Latane). In Virginia he was 
 attending to his affairs as Secretary, and his 
 plantation on the Pomunkey River. 
 
 We have stated that Governor Stone was de- 
 posed from office because he refused to issue writs 
 in the name of the Keepers of the Liberty of 
 England, but subsequently he changed his mind, 
 acceded to the demands of the Commissioners in 
 this respect likewise, and was forthwith reinstated 
 in his office. But the Puritans commenced to 
 kick against the pricks again, and in January, 
 1654, they addressed the Commissioners, stating 
 
The Reduction 123 
 
 that Stone had imposed upon them, on his re- 
 appointment, oaths that were not agreeable to 
 the terms on which they came there, "nor to their 
 Hberty of conscience, nor as free subjects of 
 the Commonwealth." Bennett and Claiborne re- 
 plied telling them to remain faithful to the Com- 
 monwealth of England, whereupon the Puritans 
 presented another petition to the Commissioners, 
 to which they made a similar reply, and Stone, 
 in violation of the agreement with them, under 
 the direction of Lord Baltimore, issued a proclama- 
 tion July 4th that henceforth all writs should 
 be issued in the name of the Proprietary as 
 before. Under a demonstration of force, by 
 the Commissioners and a party of Puritans, 
 Stone resigned and the Government of the 
 province was again vested in a Council, with 
 William Fuller as head, and the Commissioners 
 ordered an Assembly to be convened for October 
 20th. 
 
 This was the last act of the Commissioners, and 
 Cromwell approved their conduct by sending a 
 letter of approval in 1655. The Puritan Assembly 
 in October, 1654, passed an act, called an Act 
 "Concerning Religion," which was, in effect, 
 anything else, whereby the toleration of the 
 Catholic religion was prohibited. This "Act" 
 
124 William Claiborne 
 
 furnished a striking contrast to the gentle and 
 Christian document of Calvert. 
 
 When Baltimore heard that Stone had again 
 given up the province, he wrote him a letter com- 
 manding him to take control, whereupon Stone 
 got together a force of 130 men and marched 
 against the settlement of Providence, flying the flag 
 of black and gold — Baltimore's flag. But Captain 
 Fuller was ready for him with a force somewhat 
 in excess of his and a couple of armed merchant 
 ships, one British, the other from New England, 
 anchored in the river. On March, 1655, there was 
 a fight on the banks of the river Severn between 
 the two forces, wherein Fuller, by reason of his 
 superior force and the assistance rendered by the 
 two ships, completely defeated Stone, who lost 
 about one-third of his men in killed and wounded. 
 The standard of black and gold was dragged in 
 the dust, and the Puritans with characteristic 
 inconsistency held a court-martial, at which Stone 
 and a nimiber of others were sentenced to death ; 
 four were executed while Stone and the rest were 
 pardoned through the intervention of women. 
 This seemed to establish the supremacy of the 
 Puritans in Maryland, but it was of short duration. 
 
 Meanwhile the Virginians, through Samuel 
 Mathews, who was in England, were doing their 
 
The Reduction 125 
 
 best to prevent the government of Maryland 
 being again placed in the hands of Baltimore. 
 They even went so far as to attempt to have his 
 charter revoked, and a bit of warfare of an aca- 
 demic type was waged between Lord Baltimore on 
 the one hand and the agents of the Virginia Colony 
 on the other. Lord Baltimore prepared a paper, 
 wherein he attempted to show that it was to the 
 advantage of the Commonwealth that Maryland 
 should continue separate from Virginia, while, 
 on the other hand, the Virginia agents claimed 
 and set forth in their argument: (i) that the 
 Maryland Charter was in infringement of the 
 rights of the Colony of Virginia; (2) that it com- 
 prehended only unsettled lands, whereas Kent 
 Island had been settled under the Virginia Govern- 
 ment before the name of Maryland was ever 
 heard of; (3) that Lord Baltimore was a Catholic 
 and a Royalist. 
 
 Finally the controversy was concluded by the 
 compromise of November, 1657, and Lord Balti- 
 more was allowed to assume control of the pro- 
 vince once more and for all time. A paper was 
 drawn up and signed by Baltimore on one side, 
 Bennett and Mathews on the other, in the pre- 
 sence of Edward Diggs. The terms of the settle- 
 ment were as follows: 
 
126 William Claiborne 
 
 (i) Lord Baltimore was not to call in question 
 any act committed since the disturbances of the 
 province began ; 
 
 (2) The people in opposition were to have 
 patents for such land as they could claim under 
 Lord Baltimore's conditions of plantations; 
 
 (3) Lord Baltimore promised never to give his 
 consent to the repeal of the Toleration Act of 
 1649, whereby all persons professing belief in 
 Jesus Christ were allowed freedom of conscience. 
 {Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, i., 332.) 
 
 In January, 1660, Governor Mathews died, 
 and as Richard Cromwell had already resigned the 
 Protectorate several months before, there was no 
 ruler in England nor any Governor in Virginia. 
 But Virginia seemed to have become reconciled 
 to the loss of her territory when once the settle- 
 ment with Lord Baltimore had been concluded. 
 The differences of the two were adjusted and the 
 relationship between the two colonies became 
 quite friendly, never to this day to be interrupted 
 in any serious way. From time to time, Clai- 
 borne was compensated for his loss in the matter 
 of Kent and Palmer's islands, by land grants 
 from the Virginia government aggregating some- 
 thing more than twenty thousand acres. 
 
 By the terms of the above settlement, it can 
 
The Reduction 127 
 
 be seen that, in the first count, Claiborne was 
 personally protected from any act of aggression 
 on the part of Lord Baltimore, and in the brief 
 of Virginia's agents against Lord Baltimore's 
 patent, it will be seen that the Virginians were 
 still true to their original faith and to Claiborne, 
 who not only represented his own claims but the 
 claims of Virginia. But the persistent Claiborne 
 was to make one more and the final attempt to 
 get back his fair isle, and it came about in this 
 way: 
 
 In January, 1677, certain Commissioners had 
 been sent over to Virginia to adjust the political 
 conditions and disturbances growing out of Bacon's 
 Rebellion. These Commissioners wrote to His 
 Majesty Charles II. that the provinces of Maryland 
 and North Carolina were prejudicial to his Maj- 
 esty's interests in Virginia, and suggested that the 
 government of these provinces might be assumed 
 by his Majesty. Claiborne, who had now come 
 almost to the end of his life, grasped at this recom- 
 mendation as a drowning man grasps at a straw, 
 for he laid before the Commissioners his claim to 
 Kent Island, with many of the papers relating 
 to the old controversy, and addressed a letter to 
 Charles II.; and the Virginia Assembly in addi- 
 tion urged the cause of Claiborne's petition, 
 
128 William Claiborne 
 
 showing that "the Island of Kent in Maryland, 
 granted to, settled and planted by Colonel Clai- 
 borne, Sen., formerly a limb and member of 
 Virginia (as may appear by our records, they 
 having sent delegates to this Assembly, and divers 
 others Indian proofs and evidence) , is since lopped 
 off and detained by Lord Baltimore." The Com- 
 missioners referred Claiborne's petition to the 
 King, but history has mentioned nothing further 
 of it. 
 
 Exit Claiborne from the drama. As Fiske says, 
 "peace reigned on the shores of Chesapeake Bay. 
 The claims of Leah and Rachel were adjusted, 
 and the fair sisters quarrelled no more." 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 A RECAPITULATION 
 
 ALTHOUGH the justness of the claim of 
 William Claiborne to the possession of 
 Kent Island has been amply demonstrated 
 in the preceding pages, it seems proper for the 
 sake of this argument and greater emphasis to 
 recapitulate in categorical order the principles 
 and facts upon which his claim rests: 
 
 (i) The grant to the Virginia Company in 1612 
 embraced territory extending two hundred miles 
 north and two hundred miles south of Old Point 
 Comfort, at the mouth of the James, "and to 
 reach 'up into the land from sea to sea.'" This 
 would extend as far north as Chester, Pa., and 
 would leave no room for Maryland and 
 Delaware. 
 
 While this charter had been annulled in 1624, 
 
 both James and Charles I. had expressly declared 
 
 that the annulling of the charter simply abolished 
 
 the sovereignty of the Virginia Company, "but did 
 
 9 129 
 
130 William Claiborne 
 
 not infringe or diminish the territorial rights of 
 the Colony." 
 
 The Colony of Virginia had as much right to 
 Kent Island at the time it was settled by Clai- 
 borne as it had to the land upon which Jamestown 
 itself stood; for that they had no charter either, 
 but their rights to it had been repeatedly con- 
 firmed by the King, and this was binding and 
 legal since at that time all rights in all colonies 
 depended absolutely on his word (Latane). The 
 fact that the charter of the London Company 
 had been annulled did not affect the rights of the 
 Colony to settle lands other than those within the 
 territory originally included in the grants to 
 the Company, in case such lands had not already 
 been granted to other parties. 
 
 There was precedent for this principle in the 
 commission given by James I. to Governor 
 Wyatt just after the dissolution of the London 
 Company in 1624 (Hazard, Collection of State 
 Papers, i., 189), and, moreover, in the proclama- 
 tion of Charles I. in 1625, in explanation of the 
 Quo Warranto proceedings {ibid., i., 203). Fur- 
 thermore, the King's counsel by special letter to 
 the Governor and Council of Virginia confirmed 
 the principle, under date of July 22, 1624, as 
 follows : 
 
A Recapitulation 131 
 
 "We do hereby authorize you to dispose of 
 such proportions of lands to all those planters 
 being freemen, as you had power to do, before the 
 year 1625." 
 
 (2) Claiborne was (a) commissioned by Gover- 
 nor Yeardly in 1627 to explore the head of the 
 Chesapeake Bay and any part of Virginia from 
 latitude 34°-4i° and to trade in those regions; 
 
 (b) Similarly commissioned by Governor Pott 
 in 1628; 
 
 (c) Commissioned to trade for Cloberry & 
 Company in 1627-29. 
 
 (3) The royal license to trade obtained from 
 Charles I. through Sir William Alexander, the 
 Scottish Secretary, in 1631. While this license to 
 trade did not include or bestow a grant of land, it 
 could only reasonably be construed as permitting 
 the establishment of permanent posts for forward- 
 ing trade, and was certainly as valid as that grant 
 to Sir William Alexander under the seal of Scot- 
 land, which was never called into question. 
 
 (4) Precedent: John Smith had explored the 
 upper part of Chesapeake Bay, and had made a 
 map of the region. In 1621 Porey, Secretary of 
 the Colony, had explored the Bay as far as the 
 River Patuxent, which he ascended, and a settle- 
 ment of one hundred men from the Colony of 
 
132 William Claiborne 
 
 Virginia had taken place in that region. Other 
 settlements followed. 
 
 (5) The argument of pith and moment ad- 
 vanced by Mr. R. R. Howison, that the mere 
 technical form obtained by wrong and oppression 
 of entering a judgment of King's Bench, and dis- 
 solving the Virginia Company, did not deprive 
 Virginia of her colonial rights in granted terri- 
 tory; did not divest vested rights, and did not 
 authorize the English kings to impair the obliga- 
 tion of a sacred contract. 
 
 (6) Claiborne's occupancy and purchase of Kent 
 Island from the Indians, 1631. 
 
 (7) Settlement and cultivation of the island in 
 1631. 
 
 (8) The date of Baltimore's charter, June, 1632. 
 
 (9) The arrival of Lord Baltimore's party at 
 Old Point Comfort, February, 1633, two years 
 after the settlement and cultivation of Kent Island. 
 
 (10) The attitude of Claiborne's fellow coun- 
 cillors in Virginia, and their expressed views when 
 Baltimore sent Claiborne word he might hold 
 Kent Island as his property, but only as a tenant 
 of the Proprietary, and not as a tenant of the 
 King in Virginia. 
 
 (11) Recognition by the Virginia Colony of 
 Kent Island as an integral part of Virginia, as 
 
A Recapitulation 133 
 
 evidenced by its representation in the Virginia 
 House of Burgesses by Nicholas Martian in 1632, 
 and Robert Philpott about 1634. 
 
 (12) The moral and legal support conferred 
 by the first letter of King Charles and the accen- 
 tuation of the spirit and meaning of the first 
 letter by the second letter of the King. 
 
 (13) The wording of Lord Baltimore's charter 
 in part: "Ad certam quandam Regionem inferius 
 discribendam in terra quadam in partihus Americe 
 
 HACTENUS INCULTA ET BARBARIS NULLAM DIVINI 
 NUMINIS NOTICIAM HABENTIBUS." 
 
 Free translation: "In a certain region to be 
 described below in parts of America not yet 
 cultivated and in possession of savages who have no 
 knowledge of the Divine Being^ 
 
 (14) Antecedent possession — which is held to 
 be nine points in the law. 
 
 While it might have been inexpedient and in- 
 convenient for the Virginia Colony to have juris- 
 diction over a piece of land within the longitude 
 and latitude of the grant of Baltimore, after 
 the establishment of the Maryland government, 
 expediency and convenience have no bearing 
 upon the moral and legal right involved in such 
 jurisdiction and possession. 
 
 It is small wonder that Claiborne, with this 
 
134 William Claiborne 
 
 array of facts, precedents, and principles behind 
 him, held on to Kent Island as long as possible, 
 and tried with indomitable tenacity, by all means 
 within his power, to regain possession of the fair 
 island that had been so unjustly and forcibly 
 wrested from him. 
 
 While we must not forget the element of religion, 
 which has ever played so important a part in the 
 affairs of man, and, undoubtedly, played some 
 part in the contention between Virgmia and Mary- 
 land, Claiborne and Baltimore, for the possession 
 of Kent Island, there is reason to believe that the 
 desire of possession, perversity, malice, and con- 
 tentiousness actuated all the protagonists more 
 than religion, in the twenty-four year quarrel 
 which was opened when Baltimore's party cast 
 anchor at Old Point Comfort, in February, 1633. 
 
 We have seen that in Leonard Calvert's party, 
 which arrived at Old Point Comfort, the majority 
 were Protestants; while the leaders were nearly 
 all Catholics including the noble Father White 
 and Father Altham. It is only necessary to 
 review the preceding pages, and, more particu- 
 larly, the pages of other writers on this subject, 
 to note that, while the Catholics were dominant 
 in dictating the form and policy of government 
 in Maryland, and in instituting religious liberty 
 
A Recapitulation 135 
 
 and freedom, Puritans and Protestants played 
 an important role and frequently had the power 
 in their hands; particularly, after the reduction 
 of Maryland by Claiborne and Bennett, and after 
 the battle of the Severn, But the leaven of 
 Catholic faith and spirit was siifficient to keep 
 the divine spark alive, and inspire that most 
 remarkable document, the "Act of Toleration," 
 which was to the greater glory of God, the exal- 
 tation of Mother Church, and was a Christian 
 example that formed a striking contrast to that 
 ignoble proclamation by the ten Maryland Com- 
 missioners appointed by Bennett and Cromwell, 
 entitled an "Act Concerning Religion" (Scharf, 
 i., p. 214). 
 
 These arguments seemed to put Claiborne's 
 claim to the possession of Kent Island, antecedent 
 to the decision of the Lords Commissioners, upon 
 an unassailable basis. Nevertheless, with the ex- 
 ception of Campbell, Latane, DeCourcy Thorn, 
 Fiske, and Cooke, few historians have failed to 
 record the reverse opinion, either by direct state- 
 ment or by implication. 
 
 Certainly, these arguments hold good up to the 
 date of the decision of the Lords Commissioners 
 given at Whitehall, April 4, 1638. If it is sound 
 law as applicable to that time and the conditions 
 
136 William Claiborne 
 
 under which the Colonies were founded, that all 
 rights in all colonies depended absolutely on the 
 word of the King, it would appear, when Charles 
 referred the matter of the possession of Kent 
 Island to the Lords Commissioners for decision, 
 that the decision of that body as a royally con- 
 stituted supreme court must be accepted as the 
 King's word and as final. 
 
 Nevertheless, to repeat, the argument advanced 
 by Mr. Howison seems to be likewise applicable 
 in this case also : 
 
 "If the mere technical form obtained by enter- 
 ing a judgment of King's Bench and dissolving 
 the Virginia Company did not deprive Virginia 
 of her colonial rights in granted territory and 
 did not divest vested rights" neither should the 
 judgment of the Lords Commissioners in the 
 matter of the Kent Island controversy be valid 
 and binding. The point is certainly debatable. 
 
 In support of this contention, the attitude of 
 the Virginia Colony toward Claiborne's rights, 
 likewise, is worthy of being noted again. While 
 the proclamation of the Governor and Council 
 of Virginia, October 4, 1638, following the judg- 
 ment of the Lords Commissioners, formally ac- 
 knowledged the decision of that body as legal 
 and binding, and forbade any one belonging to 
 
A Recapitulation i37 
 
 their jurisdiction from trading within the hmits 
 indicated by Lord Baltimore's charter, without 
 Hcense from him or his agents, nevertheless, 
 the Virginians stood by Claiborne to the very end, 
 for we find them after the battle of the Severn, 
 when the Puritans were in power in Maryland, 
 through Samuel Mathews, who was in England 
 at the time, doing their best to prevent the govern- 
 ment of Maryland from being again placed in the 
 hands of Lord Baltimore. They tried to have 
 his charter revoked and waged the academic 
 warfare already referred to. 
 
 Again, in 1677, twenty years after the compro- 
 mise, when Claiborne, for the last time, laid his 
 claims before the Commissioners sent over to 
 adjust matters after Bacon's Rebellion, and ad- 
 dressed his last letter to Charles II., the Virginia 
 Assembly in their petition to King Charles II., 
 stating their wrongs, supported him in the following 
 words, already quoted: 
 
 The Island of Kent in Maryland, granted to, settled, 
 and planted by Colonel William Claiborne, Senior, 
 formerly a limb and member of Virginia (as may ap- 
 pear by our records, they having sent delegates to 
 this Assembly and divers other Indian proofs and 
 evidence), is since lopped off and detained from us by 
 Lord Baltimore. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS 
 
 BEFORE summing up the life and character 
 of WiUiam Claiborne, we will refer at 
 some length to the "Transcripts of docu- 
 ments amongst the records of the High Court of 
 Admiralty at the Public Record Office in London, 
 A.D. 1638-45," by R. T. Marsden, London, 
 England, November, 1902. Excerpts of those 
 Transcripts have been furnished by Mr. Francis 
 B. Culver, of Baltimore, Md. The transcripts can 
 be found in the archives of the Maryland His- 
 torical Society of that city. The excerpts consist 
 in part of : 
 
 Examinations of Pirates: 
 B'dle id. 
 16 Apl. 1638. 
 
 William Claiborne of Virginia, Esquire, examined 
 before the right worshipfull Sir Henry Marten, the 
 Judge of his Majesties High Court of the Admiralty, 
 and examined upon certain interrogatories ministered 
 on behalf of his Majesty. 
 
 138 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 139 
 
 The answers of the second, third, fourth, and 
 sixth questions alone are of interest. 
 To the second, he (Claiborne) sayeth: 
 
 That he did send one Lieutenant Ratcliffe 'Warren 
 in a little boat like a wherry with some menn, having 
 some of them some pieces to defend them from the 
 Indians in Maryland, but noe other arms, to demande 
 some pinnaces that the Marylanders had taken from 
 him, and gave the said Warren a letter under his 
 hand to demand the said pinnaces and goods, but 
 the other particulars of that letter he doth not well 
 remember. . . . 
 
 To the third, "he sayeth that he doth not per- 
 fectly remember the particulars of the said letter." 
 
 To the fourth: 
 
 Whereas the interrogatory mentioneth that he 
 should induce the said Lieutenant Warren to believe 
 his commission, he sayeth that the said Lieutenant 
 Warren and all the inhabitants of the Isle of Kent 
 suffering extreme want of corn came to the examin- 
 ate claiming that the Marylanders contrary to his 
 Majesties express commands had taken their pin- 
 naces from them, soe that they had no possible meanes 
 to relieve themselves and therefore urged the examin- 
 ate to give them leave to goe to redemande the said 
 pinnaces. 
 
 To the sixth, 
 
 he sayeth that the said Lieutenant Warren did bringe 
 a boate with some trucking stuffe belonging to Mary- 
 
140 William Claiborne 
 
 land to the Isle of Kent which this examinate did 
 wholly leave to the Custody and Possession of the 
 Governor of Maryland's men and sent the Governor 
 of Maryland worde that he might fetch the same 
 away. 
 
 Reference is evidently made in the second 
 answer to the fight in the Pokomoke River on 
 April 23, 1635, between Claiborne's sloop the 
 Cockatrice, commanded by Warren, and the 
 two ships of Baltimore, commanded by Com- 
 wallys. 
 
 In the fourth answer, Claiborne gives his reason 
 for the reprisal, namely, that his pinnace or pin- 
 naces, doubtless referring to the Long Tail, which 
 had been captured and confiscated by Fleete and 
 Humber on April 5th, had been taken from him, 
 so that his dependents had no means to relieve 
 themselves and obtain corn. 
 
 Claiborne, in this answer, makes lighter of the 
 incident than historians. It is not unlikely that 
 the latter have exaggerated it. 
 
 One commentator has attempted, referring to 
 the sixth answer, to lay the onus of blame for the 
 action in the Pokomoke on Claiborne, basing the 
 reason for doing so on the admission that Warren 
 had brought a boat with some trucking stuff 
 belonging to Maryland to Kent Island, which 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 141 
 
 boat, as noted, Claiborne says he turned over to 
 the men of the Governor of Maryland. 
 
 Neither Fiske nor Latane, nor any other histo- 
 rian with whose account of these incidents we 
 are acquainted, has made any mention of this; 
 on the contrary, all historians agree in saying that 
 the seizure of the Long Tail was the first act of 
 aggression, and that the next was the fight in the 
 Pokomoke, which followed as a reprisal on the 
 part of Claiborne. The two incidents have, 
 evidently, been confused by the commentator. 
 The incident referred to in the sixth answer must 
 have occurred between the seizure of the Long 
 Tail and the fight in the Pokomoke, and this 
 probability is accentuated by the reference to it 
 in the sixth answer. 
 
 An unjust attempt has thus been made to try 
 to make the action an attack on Claiborne by 
 Baltimore, as a reprisal for the seizure of said 
 trucking vessel, whereas all historians admit that 
 the action was the result of an attack by Clai- 
 borne on Baltimore in reprisal for the seizure of his 
 vessel, the Long Tail. This, without doubt, is the 
 sequence of events, and throws the weight of re- 
 sponsibility upon Baltimore, where it justly belongs. 
 
 These answers of Claiborne are signed, "W. 
 Claiborne." 
 
142 William Claiborne 
 
 The next document is in Latin, is very short, 
 consists mainly of the formal accusation of piracy 
 and murder before the Lord Judge, and demands 
 that Claiborne should appear before the next 
 session of the Court to be held in the township 
 of South Warck in the City of London {Apud 
 proximam sessionem gaole deliherationis in Burgo 
 de South Warck vel civitate Londoni tenendam). 
 
 The next document is marked : 
 
 II 
 
 Libels 
 98 
 
 No. 278 
 
 After the invocation to the Deity, in the pre- 
 sence of the worshipful and distinguished Lord 
 Henry Marten, Cloberry tabulates his complaints 
 against Claiborne under forty-six items. It is 
 wearisome reading by reason of much repetition, 
 bad Latin, and involved English diction. But, 
 it suffices to say, under the forty-six items, he 
 sets forth in sequence, the history, from his own 
 standpoint, of the formation of the Company of 
 Cloberry and Company, the shares possessed by 
 each member, of which Claiborne had one-sixth, 
 the object of the company, the fitting out of the 
 ship Africa^ other ships with their cargoes, later» 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 143 
 
 the settlement of Kent Island and the main inci- 
 dents in the story that has been unfolded in the 
 preceding. 
 
 It would be impossible within the scope of this 
 sketch to do more than refer to the complaints 
 of Cloberry against Claiborne in a general way, 
 except in several instances. They may be summed 
 up, generally, under the heads of mismanagement, 
 appropriation of monies and goods belonging to 
 the company, to his own use, setting fire to the 
 storehouses on Kent Island, and refusal to give 
 proper account to said company of goods bartered 
 with the Indians, and those received in exchange, 
 as furs, skins, tobacco, etc. 
 
 In Item 25, for example, it is affirmed "that 
 the saiede Cloberrye, Moorheade and Companie 
 have suffered and sustained losse and damadge 
 to the summe or valine or 10,000, 8,000, 6,000, 
 5,000 or at least 4,000 lbs., legalis monete 
 Anglie." 
 
 The thirty-seventh Item in particular, while 
 it does not refer to merchandise, is of interest, 
 because it affirms that Claiborne took away from 
 Cloberry nine several books of accounts, and kept 
 them. We will quote this item in its entirety, 
 since the answer of Claiborne will also be quoted 
 in full. 
 
144 William Claiborne 
 
 That the said Cloberry [inadvertent transposition 
 — evidently meaning Claiborne] lately cominge into 
 the house and lodgeinge of the said William Cleborne 
 [Cloberry being meant] in London, under collour and 
 pretence of seeing an account did take and carrye 
 awaye, without the saied Cloberrye's privity or con- 
 sent nine severall bookes of account or thereaboutes 
 which concerned or contained the proceedings pas- 
 sages and occurances of the saide traide, discovery 
 and plantations, or part thereof, which saied bookes 
 of accompts together with divers and sundrie letters, 
 other books of accompts and papers concerninge the 
 saied trade, discovery and Plantacions and passages 
 concerninge the same, the said Cleborne still keepeth 
 and possesseth or some other by his privity and con- 
 sent, Ac ponit ut supra. 
 
 From this statement, one would conclude if one 
 did not hear the other side, that Claiborne had 
 been guilty of a reprehensible act of stealthy 
 larceny. But the answer of Claiborne, presently 
 to be quoted, puts a very different interpretation 
 upon the incident. 
 
 Under Item forty, Cloberry alleges that Clai- 
 borne 
 
 hath had some treaty with the said Lord Baltimore 
 and made some arrangement with him either by word 
 of mouth, or under his hand in writeinge that all our 
 estates there are forfeited under his Lordshipp and 
 that the right to the saied Isle of Kent and other 
 Islands aforesaied and trade are in his saied Lordshipp 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 145 
 
 and doth belong unto him. . . . "the said Cloberry 
 and partners damnified 10,000 or at least 5,000 lbs 
 legalis monete Anglie." 
 
 The absurdity of this charge must be obvious 
 to any one who has read the preceding pages. 
 That William Claiborne played into the hands 
 of Baltimore, and purposefully, by compact, de- 
 livered over to him the islands and goods, is abso- 
 lutely contrary to historical facts, and is negatived 
 by every incident heretofore related. 
 
 Cloberry must have been referring to the decree 
 of the Assembly of Virginia, which, after the 
 decision of the Lords Commissioners, publicly 
 recognized Baltimore as the owner of Kent Island, 
 in conformity with said decision. Claiborne replies 
 to this allegation in his answer. Cloberry and Com- 
 pany dealt in large figures even for those days. 
 
 The last four items are in Latin and unim- 
 portant. The forty-sixth is very short — in fact, 
 is an emphatic declaration that all the preceding 
 allegations are true. 
 
 To this libel Claiborne replies by a counter one 
 under twenty-eight Items: 
 
 III 
 
 High Court of Admiralty Libels 98 No. 318. 
 15th February, 1 638-1 639, Cleborne C. Cloberry 
 Libel 
 
146 William Claiborne 
 
 With the usual invocation to the Deity and 
 "in the presence of Lord Henry Marten, Supreme 
 Doctor of Laws in His Majesty's Court — the 
 side of the upright and discreet man WilHam Clai- 
 borne against William Cloberry, David Moore- 
 head and George Evelyn, and against and opposed 
 to any other persons concerned," as the preamble, 
 the Libel runs as a general denial of all the allega- 
 tions made in Cloberry 's Libel against Claiborne. 
 All of the items can not be discussed, but reference 
 to several should be made : 
 
 The sixth refers to the accusation that he (Clai- 
 borne) had set fire to the storehouses on Kent 
 Island with other houses adjoining, whereby the 
 goods belonging to the joint stocke as well as 
 "such as were brought hither in the shippe Africa 
 . . . were consumed and burnt in the absence of 
 the said Cleborne who was absent upon the 
 affaires of the said plantacion." 
 
 Nevertheless, Cloberry accuses Claiborne of 
 having committed this act of arson even though 
 he himself suffered by it. Except they carry 
 insurance, men do not burn their own prop- 
 erty. There were no insurance companies in 
 those days. The accusation appears to be 
 unbelievable. 
 
 In Items 8, 9, and 1 1, Claiborne accuses Cloberry 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 147 
 
 & Co. of not sending him supplies for the space 
 of five years; to wit: 
 
 Item 8: But contrary to their said promises of 
 further supplyes the said Cloberry during the said 
 Cleborne's stay there after the said first supply e 
 beinge by the space of five yeares never but one yeare 
 sent any supplye thither. 
 
 Item 9: The said Claiborne expected goods from 
 the said Cloberry and Companie and by reason of 
 the premises in this article mencioned the said planta- 
 tion and joynte stocke are damnified to the value of 
 8000'', 7000, 6000 or at least 5000^^ legalis monete 
 Anglie. 
 
 Item 1 1 : That the said William Claiborne duringe 
 the time of his abode in the said Island did yearly 
 send unto the said Cloberry and Companie severall 
 quantities of beaver skins amountinge all to the 
 quantity of five thousand and ten pounds or there- 
 abouts which the said Cloberry and Companie have 
 received and sould for the somme of 4000^' or at least 
 3500'* and have not as yett given the said Claiborne 
 any part or account thereof, whereas the greatest 
 part of the said beaver as will appear uppon examina- 
 cion of the proceedings on both partes concerninge 
 the saide plantacion were bought with the proceeds 
 of the said Claiborne's own estate and not of the 
 joint stocke and that the said Claiborne was allwaies 
 more out of purse than all the rest of the said partners. 
 
 Item 12 refers to the great loss Claiborne suffered 
 by being compelled to remain on Kent Island to 
 look after the affairs of the Company while his 
 
148 William Claiborne 
 
 offices in Virginia as "his Majesties Secretary of 
 State and Councell and Surveyor Generall" were 
 neglected and by reason of these things he "had 
 bine otherwise ruined and forsaken soe that by 
 his absence he hath lost his said offices beinge 
 worth at the least 1000^' Sterling per annum." 
 
 Item 13: Claiborne accuses Cloberry of dupli- 
 city in the matter of his suit against his Lordship : 
 
 when he most urged the said^ suite with the said Lord 
 Baltimore in or about the months of February and 
 March 1637 (Cloberry) did at the same seeke and 
 offer to compound all differences with his Lordship 
 and to exclude the said Claiborne. 
 
 Item 14 alleges that Claiborne because of the 
 necessity of remaining on the Island for sixe years 
 to protect the Company's interests has wasted and 
 spent his own estates and become much indebted, 
 sick in body, endured many wants and miseries; 
 been shipwrecked, captured by the Indians, "like 
 to be slayed by them and hath lost the use of his 
 right arm"; by reason of the premises "the said 
 Claiborne is damnified to the value of 1000'' 
 legalis monete Anglie." 
 
 Item 15 refers to the loss suffered by Claiborne 
 through Cloberry & Company sending over 
 George Evelin to take over the Company's goods. 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 149 
 
 contrary to their covenant and agreement with the . 
 said Claiborne by reason of which the said plantation / 
 lyeth voyde and is come to mine whereby the said 
 Claiborne is damnified in his own sixth part to the 
 value of I200^S looo^i or at least 800^1 legalis monete 
 Anglie. 
 
 In Item 17, Claiborne claims that Cloberry 
 & Company owed him 160^' at the least for 
 milk for the space of sixe years furnished by his 
 own "caves and neat cattle" which was his own 
 property and no part of the Company's possessions, 
 to sustain the plantation, because Cloberry & 
 Company did not send provisions, after the fire. 
 
 Item 18: After Claiborne's arrival in England, 
 to answer charges made against him by Cloberry, 
 
 The aforesaid Claiborne showing some accompts and 
 other writings concerning the said plantacion unto 
 the said William Cloberry and David Murhead or 
 one of them, he the said Cloberry snatched away 
 some of them and the said Cloberye and Murhead or 
 one of them still keepe and detayne the said accompts 
 (and) writinges whereby the same Claiborne is much 
 damnified and cannot present the accompt concerninge 
 the said joynte stocke. 
 
 It will be remembered Cloberry accused Claiborne 
 of filching "nine several bookes" — any comment 
 on the above childish and petulant act and the 
 author of it is unnecessary. 
 
150 William Claiborne 
 
 Item 19 alleges that Cloberry and Murhead 
 or one of them falsely slandered and accused 
 Claiborne of burning the houses upon the planta- 
 tion in order that he might not give an account, 
 and, being in debt to Cloberry & Company, 
 of running away out of England "by which scan- 
 dalous reportes the said Claiborne is damnified 
 in his estates and good name to the value of 1000'* 
 or at least 500^ V 
 
 Items 20, 21, 22, 23, describe various moneys 
 or disbursements which Claiborne made in the 
 interest of the Company of which the firm had 
 not paid their share. 
 
 The remaining items are in Latin and are of no 
 particular interest. 
 
 This Libel is concluded with this endorsement: 
 
 f Libelus per 
 Cleborne con. Cloberrie J ^^^^-^ ^^^^^ 
 
 Marten Smith 1 Crastino Valentin 
 
 ^ 1638 
 
 Claiborne's personal answer to Cloberry Libel 
 f ollow;s : 
 
 High Court of Admiralty, Miscellaneous Books 
 
 853, 15th of March 1638- 1639 
 
 Personal Answer of Cleborne to Cloberry's 
 
 Libel. 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 151 
 
 Cloberry maintained that Claiborne did not 
 and was not willing to render the proper account 
 of his barters and sales, during the management 
 of the affairs of the Company in Virginia. Clai- 
 borne in his answer, referring to Item thirty-six 
 of Cloberry' s Libel: 
 
 Whereupon this respondent told him the said 
 Cloberry, that there was much more due him from the 
 said Cloberry and Company, for disbursements made 
 by him for the said plantacion as he could make justly 
 appeare by his accountes and that he had spend and 
 layd out the proceeds of the said Beaver, in other 
 skinns upon other occasions but nevertheless to avoyd 
 suite of lawe and upon condition that the saied Clo- 
 berry and Company would refer the differences 
 between them to bee arbitrated and determined by 
 indifferent men to be mutually chosen, hee this re- 
 spondent, was contented and promised either to 
 deposite soe much money as the shares of the saide 
 Cloberry & Company came to for the Beaver and 
 other goods sould by him in Ireland, as aforesaid or 
 in defect thereof to make over unto the saied Cloberry 
 & Company any bondes, specialty or cattle, which 
 hee this respondent, had belonging to him, here in 
 England or in Virginia. 
 
 This is quoted merely to show the fairness of 
 Claiborne in proposing arbitration by disinterested 
 parties for settlement of differences. Claiborne, 
 evidently, had no fear of investigation. 
 
152 William Claiborne 
 
 In reference to Cloberry's accusation, that 
 Claiborne had played into the hands of Baltimore 
 and by agreement by word, or in writing, had 
 turned the Island of Kent over to said nobleman, 
 Claiborne points to the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners whereby the Island was declared 
 to be the property of Baltimore, and in view of the 
 decision of this Board appointed by his Majesty, 
 "Hee, this respondent, hath refused to joine with 
 the saied Cloberry & Company in complayninge 
 against or opposing the saied Lord Baltimore's 
 Grannte or Patent articulate." In other words, 
 Claiborne refused to be made a cat's paw of by 
 Cloberry & Company to attack and oppose 
 Baltimore at their instigation. He was not a man 
 to be used. He would fight Baltimore, when it 
 seemed good to him, but not at another's insistence 
 or wish. 
 
 But the most interesting reply he makes to 
 Cloberry's Libel, is to the accusation of taking 
 "nine several books." Replying to that item he 
 says, 
 
 That uppon the desire of the saied Cloberrye to 
 see the accomptes concerninge the plantacion and 
 joynte stocke, this respondent several times carried 
 the saied book of accomptes into the saied Cloberrye's 
 House, in Coleman Streete and Buttolph Lane, 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 153 
 
 London, and left them there with him, and afterwardes 
 haveinge occasion to make use of his said bookes, 
 came to the said Cloberrye's House and there seeing 
 them lyeing in his chamber took them away with him 
 and still keepeth and lawfully possesseth the same as 
 he believeth. Et Aliter etc. 
 
 The mystery of the books is cleared. Clai- 
 borne had no objection to Cloberry examining 
 his books and several times carried them to him. 
 But, finally, having occasion to consult them him- 
 self, he repaired to Cloberry' s House, and finding 
 them lying around in his chamber, took them 
 away without saying "by your leave " to Cloberry, 
 and kept them, which was his right. This changes 
 the complexion of a very serious accusation, 
 which, like all the rest of them against Claiborne, 
 is modified or negatived by Claiborne's answers. 
 
 To the personal answer of Claiborne, Cloberry 
 filed his personal answer : 
 
 vn 
 
 High Court of Admiralty, Misc. Books 
 
 854 Personal Answer of Cloberry 
 
 2d Oct. 1639 to Cleborne 
 
 This paper, Cloberry's answer to Claiborne's 
 twenty-eight "pretended positions," is more or 
 less a repetition of his preceding libel, a general 
 
154 William Claiborne 
 
 and specific denial of Claiborne's statements, 
 contains some new unimportant matter, one or 
 two statements that are contrary to the accepted 
 historical facts, and a good deal that is irrelevant 
 and immaterial. It fails to strengthen Cloberry's 
 position. 
 
 We will note some of his answers: Replying 
 to the "fourth pretended position" of Claiborne, 
 Cloberry 
 
 answereth and believeth that through the neglected 
 error and remissness of the said Cleborne in not give- 
 ing timely and quick advice to this respondent of 
 his the said Cleborne's proceedings in the discovery 
 trade and plantacions and where he had settled, the 
 said Baltimore had notice thereof and got a patent 
 under the broad seal of England for certain landes, 
 etc., comprehending the said Island, wherein the 
 said Cleborne had planted within the limitts of the said 
 Lordship's Patent before such time as this respond- 
 ent had notice thereof or knew the said Cleborne's 
 intentions ; 
 
 Soe the said fault and neglect is whollye in the said 
 Cleborne, which otherwise might have been prevented. 
 
 The absurdity of the complaint is obvious to 
 all who have followed the sequence of events. 
 Kent Island was planted and stocked in 1631, 
 and the charter of Maryland was granted to Lord 
 Baltimore in June, 1632. Cloberry pretends that 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 155 
 
 if Claiborne had informed him of his intentions 
 he could have prevented the compHcations which 
 ensued. Claiborne sailed from Deal, England, 
 as we have seen, in the ship Africa, May 28, 1631, 
 and after touching at Kecoughton (Hampton) 
 to land some passengers, proceeded directly to 
 Kent Island, where the process of stocking and 
 planting the Island was begun. Baltimore re- 
 ceived his grant June, 1632, — about a year 
 afterwards. 
 
 Cloberry, had he known where Claiborne was 
 going to establish his post, being, evidently, a 
 man of humble position, in all probability could 
 not have influenced Charles to modify his grant 
 to Baltimore, to suit his (Cloberry's) interest. 
 It is unthinkable that he could have done so. 
 As for regulating Claiborne's choice of location 
 in the New World, while he remained in England, 
 that is likewise unthinkable. He knew nothing 
 of the parts by experience. Moreover, since the 
 Africa sailed directly to Kent Island from Deal, 
 it is not improbable that Cloberry knew when 
 Claiborne left England and what his destination 
 and choice of location were. The whole accusa- 
 tion and blame falls before the test of reason. 
 
 "And further this Respondent hath bine in- 
 formed that the agents of the said Lord did offer 
 
156 William Claiborne 
 
 to have agreed and joyned with the said Cleborne 
 in the said trade but the said Cleborne did abso- 
 lutely refuse the same." This is the truth, as 
 has been shown, and it is refreshing to meet it. 
 It is well known that Baltimore offered to let him 
 retain his Island and proceed with his trade, as 
 a tenant of him, Baltimore, but not as a Virginian 
 and tenant of the King. Claiborne, after asking 
 instructions of the Virginia Assembly haughtily 
 refused. The decision in such matters lay in his 
 own hands, not in those of his partners. He was 
 on the terrain; they were in England. 
 
 In regard to Claiborne's statement that he 
 advanced and expended his own means to supply 
 the plantation, Cloberry, replying in part to 
 Claiborne's 7th, 8th, 9th, and loth positions, says: 
 
 he further saieth and believeth that the said Claiborne 
 did not nor was able to supply the said plantation 
 with goodes out of his own estate for that (to this 
 respondent's knowledge) he had not any money or 
 estate here to supply and pay for his owne sixth part 
 of the goodes sent him from hence. 
 
 Here is a difference of opinion as to what Clai- 
 borne possessed. Cloberry affirms he knew better 
 than Claiborne — or it is a question of veracity. 
 Replying to Claiborne's 12th position, Cloberry 
 
 says: 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 157 
 
 "Neither doth he believe the saied Claiborne 
 lost his places in Virginia by stayeing on the 
 plantacion." 
 
 To the 13th and 14th, Cloberry denies that he 
 sought to compound all differences with Lord 
 Baltimore, but "that he would not conclude any 
 thinge with the said Lord without holdinge the 
 said Claiborne therein." Another matter of 
 veracity. 
 
 Furthermore, Cloberry says he did not believe 
 that the said Claiborne had wasted his body or 
 estate in said employment, since he had no estate 
 to lose and that if he lost the use of his right arm 
 ("which this respondent believes not"), it was 
 through his own carelessness. 
 
 Referring to the sending of Evelin to take 
 charge of the estate, Cloberry affirms it was 
 Claiborne who requested it, refers to Evelin as 
 one "who was recommended to them to bee a 
 very honest and understanding man in such 
 affairs, and does not believe that the said Evelyn 
 sold or alienated any part of the said plantacion," 
 etc. 
 
 Evelyn certainly proved himself to be a very 
 "understanding" man both to Cloberry and 
 Claiborne. As to his "alienating" any part of 
 the plantation, history has affirmed what he did. 
 
158 William Claiborne 
 
 To the 1 8th position he denies he ever snatched 
 away any accounts from Claiborne as pretended, 
 and proceeds to reiterate the old story about the 
 "nine severall bookes." 
 
 Each litigant ends his personal answer with the 
 Latin formula: 
 
 "Ad Ultimum respondet Quod Credit Credita, 
 et Negat Negata," which sounds very much like 
 "scissors." 
 
 It would require the judgment of a Solomon to 
 render a decision in the case. While the discus- 
 sion can not be said to reflect credit on either 
 litigant, it also can not be said that either one has 
 been judicially discredited by the proceedings. 
 It needs but little knowledge of human nature to 
 see how, under the circumstances, each one may 
 have had a right to the view he took, and the 
 divergence of the two litigants in the matter of 
 facts, is not so much a question of veracity as 
 point of view. 
 
 The whole record consists of mutual crimination 
 and recrimination, accusation and counter accusa- 
 tion, affirmation and denial after the manner of 
 two angry litigants, but Claiborne's statements 
 are clearer, more direct and to the point, and the 
 figures of valuation he quotes are lower than those 
 of Cloberry and, for that reason, probably more 
 
Court of Admiralty Proceedings 159 
 
 nearly correct. All of which is consistent with 
 Claiborne's intelligence and education. In short, 
 Claiborne makes a stronger case against Cloberry 
 than the latter against him. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 AN ANALYSIS OF CLAIBORNE* S ACTS AND CHARACTER 
 
 THIS sketch would be incomplete if it did not 
 review the accusations, epithets, and abuse 
 heaped upon William Claiborne by those 
 who have come after him. He must, indeed, 
 have been a remarkable character, who could 
 make such staunch friends, and such bitter and 
 implacable enemies; for no man has been able 
 to refer to him either in the past or present, who 
 does not speak of him either with the bitterest 
 condemnation or decided praise; but those who 
 condemn him are many — and those who praise 
 him are few. 
 
 Yet it has remained for two hundred and twenty- 
 nine years to pass, for his severest critic to arise 
 and pour upon him a condemnation which smacks 
 of that of his old antagonists of Maryland. It 
 might have emanated from the pen of Baltimore 
 himself, or some member of the Assembly which 
 passed ^he Bill of Attainder. 
 
 1 60 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character i6i 
 
 This latest writer is Father W. T. Russell, 
 author of Maryland the Land of Sanctuary (1908). 
 He introduces his criticism of Claiborne by re- 
 ferring to him as one of the earliest enemies of the 
 Maryland Colony, His attitude toward Claiborne 
 and his claims are best set forth by quotations 
 from his work. 
 
 On page 181: 
 
 Claiborne, who was "born to be the bane of Mary- 
 land," after having experienced the King's favour 
 by receiving the appointment as the King's Treasurer 
 from Virginia (1642), probably found in the ordinance 
 of the Parliamentary Party for the sequestration of 
 the property of the King's adherents (1643), an oppor- 
 tunity to make good his claims to Kent Island. So 
 sudden a change of politics was of little concern to 
 him. Episcopalian, abettor of Puritans, Royalist, or 
 Parliamentarian, he was capable of being almost any- 
 thing but a friend of Lord Baltimore's and an honest 
 man. 
 
 Again, page 180: 
 
 This rebellion has been called Claiborne's and 
 Ingle's, and although association with Claiborne 
 would not have been dishonorable to one such as 
 Ingle, historical accuracy seems to call for distinction. 
 It is probable, in the absence of evidence to the 
 contrary, "Ingle and Claiborne never planned any 
 concerted action, but that each took advantage of 
 the other's deeds to fiuther his own interest." 
 
i62 William Claiborne 
 
 Page 217: 
 
 As early as 1647, at least we can follow the trail 
 of this conspiracy, in which Claiborne, playing on 
 the scruples of the Puritans in Maryland, contrived 
 to form a partnership with them for the overthrow of 
 the Government. 
 
 Page 218: 
 
 Claiborne and Mathews, although not identified 
 with the Puritans in religion, had all along been 
 the leaders of the popular party in Virginia, hav- 
 ing brought about the insurrection under Governor 
 Harvey and deposed him from office. The careful 
 observer should not find it difficult, in the policy 
 directing the events of this period, to see the hand of 
 Virginia reaching out for the absorption of Maryland, 
 and the itching palm of William Claiborne waiting 
 to grasp Kent Island ; both feeding the fires of Puritan 
 arrogance and desire. 
 
 Page 222 : 
 
 Under his bluff soldierly exterior and his veneer of 
 ruffling bravado he concealed an infinite depth of 
 subtlety, cunning, and craft. A matchless finesse and 
 policy lurked beneath his cavalier manner. Not 
 only could he trim his sails to catch each and every 
 wind that might carry him to the Fortunate Isle of 
 his heart's desire, but he could so arrange circum- 
 stances that the event transpired apparently without 
 any agency of his own; he could so inspire that the 
 paternity of the suggestion could not be traced to 
 himself. 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 163 
 
 Page 332 : 
 
 Claiborne the indomitable, unsubdued by the years, 
 and untamed by the repeated balking of his vengeance, 
 made at this period his final effort to reclaim Kent 
 Island. To that end, in 1677, he addresses a letter 
 to the King, a letter pitiful in its whining and grovel- 
 ling, in its asstunption of the character of an unre- 
 warded partisan of his Majesty's father of glorious 
 memory, in its utter lack of the common decencies of 
 self-respect. He alludes to himself as a poor old 
 servant of "your Majesty's father and grandfather"; 
 holds up his old age and losses for commiseration, and 
 finally concludes with humbly prostrating himself 
 at his Majesty's feet for speedy justice in so lamentable' 
 a case. 
 
 These are excerpts from the letter written to 
 the King by Claiborne, at the time the Virginia 
 Assembly addressed their last letter to the King 
 urging Claiborne's cause, 1677, and have already 
 been referred to. Proceeding further, Father 
 Russell quotes Browne's Maryland: 
 
 Royalist who turned Parliamentarian; Church- 
 man who turned Puritan; King's Officer who became 
 Cromwell's Commissioner. . . . While doing justice to 
 his readiness of resource and indomitable tenacity 
 of purpose, one cannot but wish he had used directer 
 methods; that he had sailed under fewer flags, and 
 that when hard knocks were going he had stayed and 
 taken his share, instead of slipping off to Virginia 
 and leaving others to do the fighting. 
 
164 William Claiborne 
 
 Burke refers to Claiborne as "an unprincipled 
 incendiar}^, and an execrable villain"; others have 
 called him "The Bane of Maryland"; others, 
 "The Evil Genius of Maryland," and in all his- 
 tories he is known as "Claiborne the Rebel." It 
 would be possible to quote from other historians 
 who wrote of his period and day, who have varied 
 these epithets, colouring them by their individual 
 prejudices and convictions, but it is unnecessary 
 to go into this matter any further, except to re- 
 mark that the members of the Maryland Assembly 
 reached the climax of injustice in attainting him 
 of the crimes of piracy and murder. 
 
 It is well to discuss some of these criticisms. 
 
 It is not our purpose to attempt to justify all 
 the acts of William Claiborne. They are, without 
 question, capable of various interpretations, differ- 
 ing according to the prejudice or mental processes 
 of each individual critic, but the scathing, unmerci- 
 ful condemnation bestowed on him by the critic 
 just mentioned, and others of like exaggerated 
 character, would appear to a dispassionate ob- 
 server prejudiced, unfair, and partisan. 
 
 There was no crime in Claiborne's being an 
 Episcopalian, which he certainly was by admission 
 of authority, or Puritan, which he certainly was 
 not. When we read from Father Russell, that Clai- 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 165 
 
 borne was capable of being anything but a friend 
 of Lord Baltimore's and an honest man, we con- 
 fess that we receive something of a shock. It was 
 doubtless the desire of Lord Baltimore and all 
 the Marylanders, both Catholic and Protestant, 
 that Claiborne should, on bended knee, have 
 placed his hand betw^een those of Baltimore, and 
 declared himself Baltimore's man; that he should 
 have received with submission the patronizing 
 condescension of Baltimore, in offering him his 
 own property, which he had carved out of the 
 virgin wilderness by his own courage, ability, 
 and enterprise ; for which he had the endorsement 
 of King, Virginia Council, and the Virginia Colony, 
 was backed by precedent, sound principles of law, 
 and the clear meaning and letter of Lord Balti- 
 more's Grant. 
 
 If he had done so, he would have been unlike 
 all the other Englishmen of his time, unlike his 
 own forebears, and unlike any of his descendants, 
 who have fought at all times for constitutional 
 liberty, to do what they would with their own ; who 
 have shed their blood freely, and without regret, to 
 cement the foundations of English Government 
 in the New World, have rebelled against kings 
 when they threatened the liberty of the people, 
 and opposed armed oppression at all times, when 
 
i66 William Claiborne 
 
 their constitutional and personal rights were 
 menaced. 
 
 No ! He was incapable of being a friend of Lord 
 Baltimore under such circumstances, nor could any 
 other man with self-respect, under like circum- 
 stances, have been so. But a man might be inca- 
 pable of all these things, and still not be an honest 
 man. There are many contradictions in human 
 nature, and men have been brave, tenacious, 
 fearless, and yet dishonourable. But we can find 
 no reason to accept the statement that Claiborne 
 was anything but an honest man. We find him 
 holding on to his own property, for sound reasons, 
 and the first act of aggression in the drama was 
 performed by Baltimore's men when they seized 
 his ship and goods, at a time when the right to 
 possession of Kent Island had not been legally 
 established — i. e., before the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners. His ship was taken and his 
 goods confiscated, and they were never returned. 
 This was an act of unjustifiable force, of robbery, 
 of piracy — not the result of due legal process. 
 
 In proof of which, note the instructions of 
 Charles in Claiborne's License to Trade: 
 
 These are to license and authorize the said William 
 Cliburne and his associates and company without 
 interruption from time to time to trade and traffique, 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 167 
 
 . . . boats, merchandise, cattle, mariners, servants 
 and such as shall willingly accompany or be employed 
 by them from time to time freely to repair and trade 
 to and again in all the foresaid parts and places as 
 they shall think fitt and their occasion shall require, 
 without any stop arrest search hindrance or molestation 
 whatsoever as you and every one of you will answer to 
 the contrary to your peril. [Italics are the author's.] 
 
 Since the King's word was law at that time, 
 and on this particular occasion it was not Clai- 
 borne who was guilty of piracy, but Baltimore's 
 men who were under instruction from Baltimore 
 or his accredited representatives. 
 
 Law, however, at that time was not clearly 
 defined, nice distinctions were not indulged in, 
 aggression was met by aggression, and reprisal 
 by reprisal. When Claiborne retaliated by arm- 
 ing his vessels, it appears he exercised the right 
 which a man has to defend his castle and his goods. 
 In the two subsequent engagements, in which 
 his two ships fought Baltimore's, whether either 
 sought the other, or the meetings were mutually 
 intentional or accidental, matters not; Claiborne 
 fought his enemy and his enemy fought him. It 
 is only just to believe that each was convinced in 
 his own mind as to the rectitude of his course ; but, 
 let it be observed, that Claiborne took nobody's 
 property by force, nor filched anybody's goods. 
 
i68 William Claiborne 
 
 As to his acts subsequent to the decision of the 
 Lords, there is reason to beHeve he was convinced 
 of the rectitude of his course in attempting to 
 regain his property, despite the Lords' decision, 
 and the probable reasons for his convictions have 
 been abundantly set forth. We find that, after 
 he had left Kent Island for England, to answer 
 the charges made against him, Leonard Calvert, 
 by night, with a party of forty, attacked and 
 seized his settlement, with Evelin, taking posses- 
 sion of all his goods. 
 
 No euphemisms can possibly gloss over the 
 duplicity and rascality of George Evelin; it is 
 some satisfaction to read, however, that Calvert 
 was persuaded by Evelin to this contemptible 
 act, but not without some misgivings as to the 
 justness of it. This occurred in February, 1638, 
 whereas the decision of the Lords was in April, 
 1638. 
 
 In regard to Claiborne's association with Ingle, 
 Father Russell quotes from another writer a 
 statement which seems to be consistent with 
 that of all the historians: that Claiborne and Ingle 
 never planned any concerted action; that each 
 took advantage of the other to further his own 
 interest. Claiborne was after his property; he 
 used Ingle to further his ends, and, probably, 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 169 
 
 dropped him when he attained them. While 
 such an act is not admirable, it lies within the 
 limits of pardonable human weakness. We can 
 find no statement to the effect that Claiborne, 
 personally, took part in the plundering of Mary- 
 land; it seems he was satisfied to take his island 
 again and hold on to his own property. 
 
 As to his behaviour, in the reduction of Mary- 
 land along with Bennett, both Fiske and Latane 
 as also others, affirm that he acted with modera- 
 tion, and that he did not make any attempt to 
 get back the island by force. Latane says: 
 "Both Bennett and Claiborne acted with singular 
 moderation," and Fiske, that Claiborne "in this 
 the hour of his triumph, behaved without violence, 
 nor do we find him again laying hands upon 
 Kent Island." Neither Bennett, who had good 
 reason to hate Berkeley, nor Claiborne, who had 
 greater, — both by reason of the help Berkeley had 
 given Calvert, when the latter with Berkeley's 
 aid drove Claiborne out of Maryland after the 
 Claiborne-Ingle invasion, and of the fact that 
 Berkeley had turned over Palmer's Island, a pos- 
 session of Claiborne's purchased from the Indians, 
 into the hands of Edward Yarborough, of Ac- 
 comac County, — attempted any violence toward 
 Berkeley; he was unmolested by either and 
 
170 William Claiborne 
 
 was allowed to return to his plantation, where he 
 remained during the entire period of the provi- 
 sional government. 
 
 Latane says that Claiborne, "in spite of all 
 the civil disturbances which occurred at that time 
 between Catholics and Protestants, and which 
 have been fastened upon Claiborne, had very- 
 little to do with the affairs of the Maryland 
 province." He affirms that, after careful search 
 of the records, Claiborne was only found to have 
 been, twice in Maryland after the reduction, and 
 on each occasion he was in company with Bennett, 
 upon legitimate business as Commissioners. 
 
 These are not the views of Father Russell: 
 
 If, indeed, Claiborne's intentions regarding Mary- 
 land were so benevolent and magnanimous, and no 
 hope of the recovery of Kent burned within him, what 
 is the meaning of the Fourth and Fifth Sections of 
 the Virginia Articles of Surrender, arranged by him- 
 self and Bennett, that "Virginia shall have and enjoy 
 the ancient bounds and limits granted by the charters 
 of former Kings, etc."? 
 
 The meaning is, that he wanted his island back 
 again, and he proceeded to get it through due 
 process of authority, and not by force. The 
 answer is too evident. But, what must surprise 
 any reader is that, when he had the province in 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 171 
 
 his hand, he did not take the island by force and 
 crush all resistance with a mailed fist. This is 
 the one inconsistent act of Claiborne's career, 
 and is not to be squared with his obvious character 
 and antecedent performances. 
 
 There are few men who would have acted with 
 such moderation or failed to take ruthless revenge 
 against the enemies who had despoiled them, but, 
 maybe, in that "infinite depth of subtlety, cun- 
 ning, and craft," which Father Russell attributes 
 to him, there lay a "matchless finesse and policy" 
 which has been suspected, but not discovered at 
 the end of two hundred and twenty-nine years. 
 A review of the facts seems to justify the opinion 
 of Latane and Fiske. 
 
 As to his inciting the Indians against the Mary- 
 landers, that matter has been disposed of conclu- 
 sively. 
 
 Claiborne was ever regarded by the Catholics 
 of Maryland as their arch enemy, and he is re- 
 ferred to in Catholic school books as a heretic. 
 The quotations from Father Russell show him to 
 share those prejudices, and it is not unnatural. 
 
 Scharf's History of Maryland, quoting Davis, 
 says: "Claiborne, undoubtedly, was an Episco- 
 palian"; it is certain that he affiliated with the 
 democratic party in Jamestown, to use an ana- 
 
172 William Claiborne 
 
 chronism, but that is practically what the 
 "Country Party" was; and we find him amongst 
 that group of insurrectionists who deposed Gov- 
 ernor Harvey. He was, apparently, an intimate 
 friend of Mathews, who used personal violence 
 toward Governor Harvey, and in 1644, we see him 
 declaring in favour of the Parliamentary Party. 
 In those days, religion and politics were very 
 generally united. Political groups were generally 
 composed of people of the same religious faith. 
 
 But a careful perusal of Claiborne's attitude 
 toward the Catholics of Maryland fails to justify 
 the conviction that any act of his was directed 
 against them, as Catholics. Lord Baltimore was 
 his arch-enemy, and he was a Catholic, and that 
 fact probably tinctured his attitude towards the 
 whole Colony, but to repeat, there is no reason 
 to believe that any act of aggression on his part 
 was inspired solely or primarily by hatred of the 
 Catholics. They stood in the way of the achieve- 
 ment of his desire, and the possession of his prop- 
 erty. No one could expect him to be their friend ; 
 they were certainly his enemies. 
 
 No one can read the heart of man except God, 
 yet there are not lacking those who attempt to 
 read the heart of Claiborne, and attribute to him 
 impulses and purposes which events do not justify. 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 173 
 
 Excerpts from his letter to Sir John Coke, in 
 the matter of the naval engagement between his 
 vessel and Baltimore's on May 10, 1635, seem to 
 show he was a man who could call upon God in a 
 reverent manner, for deliverance from his enemies. 
 In this he followed the illustrious example of one 
 of the great kings of Israel, a man honoured for 
 wisdom, justice, and piety. The letter runs, in 
 part : 
 
 Ever Honored Sir: 
 
 . . . And behold more tumults and broyles, wrongs 
 and oppressions perpetrated with a high hand and not 
 without undue courses in alteration of Government 
 and much violence acted as hath showed itself in the 
 effusion of native bloud. Undoubtedly God will 
 make a way for his glory through the injustice of men 
 ... in which I shall possess patience untill it shall 
 please God to move his Maj*^^^ Royal heart and the 
 Lords' minds to relieve and support as men wronged 
 with as grievous oppressions as ever Englishmen 
 endured at the hands of their countrymen. . . . 
 In the interim we put up a supplication to the King 
 of Kings to deliver us from them. I humbly take 
 my leave and remain, 
 
 Your most humble servant, 
 
 William Clayborne. 
 
 Eliz. City, May 23rd, 1635. 
 {Virginia Carolorun Neill) 
 
 This letter has the ring of sincerity. 
 
174 William Claiborne 
 
 The remarks of Browne are worthy of some 
 notice. Browne affirms he was a Churchman who 
 turned Puritan. He never became a Puritan; 
 he apparently was never in favour of the expulsion 
 of the Puritans from the Colony and his political 
 affiliations were Puritan, but he remained an 
 Episcopalian. 
 
 Under Charles I. all Englishmen were, primarily, 
 Royalists; some later became Parliamentarians. 
 Amongst the latter was Claiborne, who, though 
 an aristocrat of aristocrats and a Cavalier, had, 
 from the time of his association with the Virginia 
 Company, been a member of the Country Party, 
 as we have seen, and was inclined toward inde- 
 pendence of thought and deed. As repeatedly 
 stated, he openly declared in favour of the Par- 
 liamentary Party, in 1644, and in that respect was 
 like many other Englishmen of Jamestown and 
 England, who have not been branded as turncoats. 
 The necessity of making his own way, and some 
 experience with the favour of princes, may have 
 coloured his Cavalier views or altered them. It 
 is fair to give him credit for sincerity. 
 
 Father Russell argues that, though Claiborne 
 was in Virginia at the time he was commissioned 
 by Parliament to reduce Virginia and Maryland, 
 he remained there with malice prepense, since 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 175 
 
 it was wiser to proclaim his change in poHtical 
 faith there than in the presence of Parliament, 
 where he would meet with neither sympathy nor 
 credence. He would leave the matter to Bennett, 
 who Father Russell implies was in England at 
 the time, though Latane {loc. cit., p. 51) affirms, 
 "Bennett and Claiborne, who were in Virginia 
 at the time, probably knew nothing of their ap- 
 pointment until the expedition arrived there," 
 If Latane is correct, Father Russell's remarks on 
 the point lose their interest. 
 
 Browne is correct, in saying he held office under 
 the King, also subsequently under Cromwell, 
 though the imputations as to undue influence in 
 getting himself appointed under Cromwell are 
 not supported, unless Latane is incorrect. 
 
 Browne regrets "that Claiborne had not used 
 directer methods; that he had not sailed under 
 fewer flags, and that, when hard knocks were 
 going, he had not stayed and taken his share, 
 instead of running off to Virginia and leaving 
 others to do the fighting." 
 
 Claiborne's methods were direct enough; he 
 fought Baltimore openly on the seas; he invaded 
 Maryland openly enough with Ingle; he reduced 
 Maryland without subterfuge and without loss 
 of time, in company with Bennett and Curtis; 
 
176 William Claiborne 
 
 anything more direct or open than these acts it is 
 hard to comprehend — unless Browne refers to his 
 sending his Heutenants to command his vessels. 
 To accuse him of avoiding danger or undertaking 
 on that score would be as reasonable as to impugn 
 the courage of a superior officer who details a 
 lieutenant to accomplish an act of military 
 strategy. 
 
 This implied imputation against his courage or 
 willingness to avoid "knocks" is the only one of 
 this nature brought forward by any of his critics, 
 as far as we know, and is completely negatived 
 and offset; first, by its unreasonableness, and, 
 secondly, by the historical facts well recorded that 
 he led a force against the Indians at Candyak, 
 now West Point, on the York and Pomunky 
 rivers, in 1624, and defeated them, and again by 
 the following excerpt from the Virginia Magazine 
 of History and Biography, July, 1915, pp. 229-230: 
 
 To that end we have made choice of Capt. W™. 
 Claiborne, Esq"", to be Generall and Chief Com- 
 mander in this expedition. And that the Governor 
 be pleased to give him Commission whereby he may 
 be enabled to order all things belonging to this license 
 according as he shall receive Instructions and direc- 
 tions from tyme to tyme from the Governor and 
 Council during his employm* therein. 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 177 
 
 The remark of Browne is hardly worth confut- 
 ing, but though Claiborne's military services to the 
 Colony are well-known to all historians, it is well 
 to cite them in this connection. 
 
 Father Russell's condemnation of Claiborne 
 reaches its climax when he speaks of the letter 
 of Claiborne addressed to Charles II., in 1677, 
 just before his death. He refers to it as pitiful 
 in its whining and grovelling, in its assumption of 
 the character of an unrewarded partisan of His 
 Majesty's father "of glorious memory," and as 
 lacking utterly in the common decencies of self- 
 respect, alluding to himself as a poor old servant 
 of His Majesty's father and grandfather, holding 
 up his old age for commiseration, and finally 
 concluding with "humbly prostrating himself at 
 His Majesty's feet for speedy justice in so lament- 
 able a case." 
 
 Excerpts from Claiborne's letter, as quoted 
 above, might produce a wrong impression, but, 
 when the letter is read in its entirety (see below), 
 it is fair to say that most of those who read it 
 will recognize that it is written, in general, in the 
 formulas ordinarily used in addressing majesties 
 at that period. But what Father Russell appears 
 to particularly condemn is Claiborne's assump- 
 tion of partisanship in favour of His Majesty's 
 
178 William Claiborne 
 
 father and grandfather. He had, indeed, been 
 a loyal subject of the two kings and served them, 
 but it is also true that, subsequently, he openly 
 declared in favour of Parliament, He stated no 
 more than what was true in his life, and his 
 career was, doubtless, known to the King, since 
 he had been Cromwell's commissioner. 
 
 The letter fails to impress us as it does Father 
 Russell. Possibly it may impress others as it 
 does him, but we doubt it. We see nothing 
 hypocritical — whining — or grovelling in it. 
 
 Claiborne's letter to Charles H. in its entirety: 
 
 To THE King's Most Excellent Majesty: 
 
 The humble Petition of Coll: W"^ Claiborne, 
 a Poor old servant of Your Majesty's Father and 
 Grandfather, 
 Most humbly showeth. 
 
 That your Petitioner being one of the Counsell of 
 State to Your Majesties Grandfather: and after 
 also Secretary of State to your Father of Glorious 
 Memory: by these Speciall Commands under the 
 broad Seale of England unto the Governour of Virginia 
 By whome he was sent out to discover & gaine a great 
 trade of Beavers & furs which the Duch Nation then 
 usurped to themselves : And accordingly the Petitioner 
 att his owne charge and in his owne person per- 
 formed & to that purpose discovered and planted the 
 Isle of Kent: & the Bay of Chesapeack when then 
 well succeeding: the old Lord Baltimore takeing 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 179 
 
 notice thereof: Provided a Patent for the same; 
 Pretending it was unplanted and since by force of 
 armes in a hostile manner though forbidden by the 
 then King : Expelled the Petitioner and takeing away 
 his Estate to the value of about Ten Thousand 
 pounds Sterling in Goods Cattle Servants & Many 
 Plantations thereon which the Grand Assembly of 
 Virginia hath lately instanced & presented to Your 
 Majestic as a great grievance of the Country: and 
 hath been neare the utter undoeing of your Petitioner 
 & family now in his old age: His younger years being 
 spent in his discoveries & wars against the Indians as 
 Chiefe Commander. 
 
 Wherefore your Petitioner Himibly prostrates 
 himself at Your Majesties feet for speedy justice 
 in so lamentable a case and he shall ever Pray. 
 
 W. Claiborne Snic. 
 
 We find one note characteristic of him in his 
 last sentence, though it was formulary at that 
 time: "and shall ever pray" — there spoke the 
 tenacious Claiborne. He was nigh on to ninety 
 years and if his love of fight had deserted him, 
 his tenacity was still there. It would not be 
 surprising if age had tempered his spirit and 
 lessened his aggressiveness — age, the great creator 
 of paradox ! 
 
 In life's last scenes what prodigies arise — 
 Fears of the brave, follies of the wise; 
 In Marlborough's eyes the tears of dotage flow, 
 And Swift expires a driveller and a show. 
 
i8o William Claiborne 
 
 After all these quotations, it seems only fair to 
 cite the views of a few of those who have thought 
 and written favourably of Claiborne. 
 
 We have seen that he did not lack friends. He 
 had all the Virginians back of him, Berkeley 
 excepted, the Council and Assembly, James I., 
 Charles L, and the Commonwealth. In fact, all 
 were his friends save Baltimore, the Marylanders, 
 and a few Puritans. 
 
 Let us read the words of some critics who have 
 looked with favour upon him and found him 
 honest, brave, and tenacious of his rights. It 
 appears to have remained for Campbell {History 
 oj Virginia) in i860, about 183 years after his 
 death, to write the first favourable opinion of him. 
 
 Referring to Burke's denunciation of Claiborne, 
 as an unprincipled incendiary and an execrable 
 villain, Campbell combats this view of Claiborne's 
 character strongly, and proclaims Claiborne, in 
 his opinion, the Champion and Defender of the 
 territorial rights of Virginia. 
 
 John Esten Cooke, in A History of the People, 
 p. 178, says: 
 
 A certain gentleman named William Claiborne, a 
 man of resolute temper and great ability. That is 
 the true portrait of the famous Rebel who now grew 
 so prominent. . . . This William Claiborne was a 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character i8i 
 
 gentleman of position, a man of energy, with strong 
 passions, thought himself wronged, and never rested in 
 harassing his enemies. 
 
 Page 215: 
 
 He was a man of strong will; haughty, implacable, 
 "faithful to his friends and faithful to his enemies." 
 
 Whether Puritan or not, he had the acumen to see 
 the political importance of that element at the time, 
 and the skill to use it as a weapon. By the aid of it 
 he aimed to achieve his ends, the redress of his per- 
 sonal grievances, the overthrow of his adversaries, and 
 the control of the Province of Maryland. 
 
 Page 216: "Among the tall figures of the epoch 
 in which he lived, he is one of the tallest and 
 haughtiest." 
 
 Latane in 1895 {loc. cit., p. 63): 
 
 Whereas it was ordained that the interest of one 
 man should be sacrificed to the future of a great and 
 prosperous commonwealth, we cannot help recogniz- 
 ing the strength of Claiborne's claims and admiring 
 the resolution and persistency with which he defended 
 them. He was thoroughly convinced of the justice of 
 his cause, and received for a long time the encourage- 
 ment of his King and always the hearty approval of 
 the Virginians. 
 
 In spite of the abusive epithets that have been 
 heaped upon him, there is no reason why the slightest 
 stigma should attach to his personal character. 
 
1 82 Wiiliam Claiborne 
 
 Fiske {Old Virginia and Her Neighbours), 
 p. 286: "This William Claiborne, younger son of 
 an ancient and honourable family in Westmore- 
 land, had come to Virginia in 1621, and prospered 
 greatly, acquiring large estates and winning the 
 respect and confidence of his fellow planters." 
 P. 295: "... The able and popular Secretary of 
 State William Claiborne." 
 
 Again Latane {loc. cit., p. 19): "Claiborne was 
 a man of great influence in Virginia, and the 
 charges brought against him and the order to 
 seize his person had caused considerable indigna- 
 tion in that Colony, Nearly all the Councillors 
 were his staunch personal friends." 
 
 Hester Dorsey Richardson, Baltimore Sun, Jan- 
 uary 21, 1903, says: 
 
 Personally he was the most picturesque figure of 
 his times, and has left a deeper impress upon the 
 early history of Maryland than any of his contem- 
 poraries. He was a man of marked ability, and from 
 the way in which he swayed those in power by force 
 of his personal influence, we cannot fail to think of 
 him but as a man of much charm of manner and 
 grace of mind. 
 
 It is particularly interesting to quote these 
 few words, since they are those of a woman — 
 perhaps his sole critic of the gentle sex. They 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 183 
 
 form a striking contrast to others in point of view 
 and expression. 
 
 Even some of the words of Father Russell 
 quoted antecedently are a marked tribute to the 
 man's mental and psychic powers. 
 
 Every man has his friends as well as enemies. 
 Claiborne had many of both; his friends were of 
 Virginia — his enemies of Maryland. 
 
 Rev. S. F. Streeter of Baltimore says: 
 
 the hand of prejudice, prompted by personal subser- 
 vience, traced on the tablet of history an inscription 
 as unjust to the character and actions of the deceased, 
 as unbecoming the dignity of the historic muse. It 
 has been reserved for a humble inquirer, and a lover 
 of truth, to erect a new cenotaph, which displays the 
 name of Claiborne as worthy of honour and respect; 
 and which ranks him who planted it in this country 
 as a man of whom his descendants have every reason 
 to be proud — one of the earliest pioneers of civil- 
 ization; the first actual settler of the territory of 
 Maryland, and among the most active and prom- 
 inent citizens in the early days of Virginia, and one 
 of the most remarkable men of his time. 
 
 De Courcey Thom {loc. cit.) : 
 
 Claiborne is of sturdy mould. His countenance 
 is oval and open, and dominated by a bold, broad 
 brow, brave eyes, firm mouth, and a somewhat broad 
 and aquiline nose, as, indeed, his portrait shows. . . . 
 A strong-willed, wily, courageous, pertinacious, 
 
184 William Claiborne 
 
 haughty and implacable man, he was "faithful to his 
 friends, and faithful to his enemies." 
 
 Again: 
 
 That Claiborne achieved what he did, marks him 
 as one of that great group of Englishmen who have 
 adventured undauntedly, and have achieved many 
 successes by their own great powers. 
 
 History of Talbot County, Maryland, i66i~i86i, 
 by Oswald Tilghman, Easton, Md., Williams & 
 Wilkins Co., publishers: 
 
 It would be almost impossible to compile a bio- 
 graphy of this worthy which should be altogether 
 satisfactory. I have collected, however, some in- 
 formation of the man who made the first European 
 settlement within the bounds of what is now 
 Maryland — of the first white man of whom we 
 have any knowledge who set his foot in this our own 
 county of Talbot. From it you will find that you are 
 fully justified in your declaration that William Clai- 
 borne has been hardly dealt with, not only by the 
 early provincial authorities, but by the annalists and 
 historians of Virginia and Maryland. Those authori- 
 ties deprived him of his rights and property; these 
 annalists and historians have attempted to deprive 
 him of his good name. Mr. McMahon, who seems 
 to have been at a loss what estimate to put upon him, 
 and to have wavered between those opinions he him- 
 self had formed from his researches, and those which 
 he derived from his predecessors, says: 
 
 "Of the character and temper of this man, it is 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 185 
 
 difficult for us at this day to form any just concep- 
 tions. The accounts which we have of him have been 
 transmitted to us by writers who seem to have no 
 end in view but to lavish upon him the most oppro- 
 brious epithets. The name of Machiavel has never 
 been more shocking to moralists and politicians of 
 affected purity, than was that of William Claiborne, 
 to the first colonists of Maryland. Even historians 
 call him the evil genius of the colony, and he unques- 
 tionabl}'' was if his unceasing efforts by courage and 
 address to maintain^ the territory which his enter- 
 prise had discovered and planted entitle him to the 
 name. . . ." 
 
 His defence has been taken up more seriously 
 by recent writers, of whom may be mentioned the 
 Rev. Dr. Ethan Allen and the late Sebastian F. 
 Streeter. These authors have attempted, and 
 successfully, to relieve the memory of Claiborne of 
 the aspersions cast upon it. 
 
 These are some of the pen pictures of William 
 Claiborne by artists who see the reverse of the 
 shield. 
 
 Let us recapitulate the more important offices 
 and commissions he held during his long life of 
 eighty-nine or ninety years : 
 
 Royal Surveyor under James I. ; 
 
 Successful commander in the Indian campaign 
 of the Colonies in 1624; 
 
i86 William Claiborne 
 
 Secretary of State of Virginia and ex-officio 
 member of the Council, 162 5-1 638; 
 
 Commissioned by Governors Harvey, Yeardley, 
 and Pott to trade and explore; 
 
 Commissioned to trade for Cloberry & Co., of 
 London, 162 7- 162 9; 
 
 Commissioned by King Charles I. to trade in 
 the waters of the Chesapeake and contiguous 
 waters through Sir William Alexander, in 1621 ; 
 
 Appointed Treasurer for life by Charles L, in 
 1642; 
 
 Commander-in-General of all the colonial forces 
 in the campaign against the Indians, 1 644-1 645; 
 
 With Richard Ingle ruled Maryland 1 644-1 645; 
 
 Ruler of Maryland as Parliamentary Commis- 
 sioner with Bennett, 1652; 
 
 Secretary of State under the Commonwealth 
 throughout its duration, 1 652-1 658; 
 
 " During the summer of 1659, when it was known 
 in Virginia that Richard Cromwell had given up 
 the office of Protector, the Virginia Assembly, 
 finding that there was no fixed and certain govern- 
 ment in England elected Sir William Berkeley 
 Governor of the Colony, and at his nomination 
 confirmed Colonel William Claiborne Secretary 
 of State"; 
 
 ''After the restoration of Charles II., was again 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 187 
 
 honoured with the Secretaryship of Virginia,^ 
 which he had first held about forty years before, 
 and in 1666 was chosen a member of the Legisla- 
 ture." {Founders of Maryland, Neill, p. 57-58.) 
 
 This is the man upon whose head so much vi- 
 tuperation, abuse, and calumny have been heaped. 
 Truly there are two sides to every question, and 
 it matters not how judicial may be the mind and 
 nature of a man, his views are more or less coloured 
 by prejudice and self-interest. 
 
 To alter a noble quotation to fit this philosophy : 
 
 "There is a prejudice that shapes our views, 
 rough hew them how we may." 
 
 It is high time that modern historians should, 
 in writing of this virile personality, present both 
 views of his character at once and leave judgment 
 to impartial posterity. 
 
 While, in general, a man's character may be 
 judged by his acts, it cannot always be so judged, 
 any more than a man's character can always be 
 
 'Campbell {History of Virginia, p. 254) says: "Colonel 
 William Claiborne, Secretary of State, was displaced by Thomas 
 Ludwell, commissioned by the King " (Charles 11.) . There seems 
 to be a discrepancy between this statement and that of Neill. 
 A number of writers make the same statement as Campbell, 
 whereas Neill seems to be the sole writer to say that Claiborne 
 was again honoured with the Secretaryship of Virginia after the 
 Restoration of Charles II. Doubtless both are correct, but 
 which event antedated or followed the other does not appear 
 clear. 
 
i88 William Claiborne 
 
 judged by his face. A man's reputation, likewise, 
 should be handled with gloved hands and not 
 lightly and carelessly treated, even when he has 
 been dead two hundred and thirty odd years, 
 De mortuis ac viventibus nil nisi verum should be 
 the motto of historians. 
 
 But there is one epithet which has been laid upon 
 William Claiborne, which will, probably, persist for 
 all time, it matters not what future historians may 
 say in his defence, and that is the one of Rebel. ^ 
 
 Let us first define the term "rebel," and see, 
 whether on analysis of the facts, Claiborne falls 
 under that definition. A recognized lexicographer 
 defines a rebel thus: "One who revolts from the 
 government to which he owes allegiance either by 
 openly renouncing the authority of that govern- 
 ment, or by taking arms and openly opposing it. 
 A rebel differs from an enemy, as the latter is one 
 who does not owe allegiance to the government 
 which he attacks." 
 
 * Tilghman, History of Talbot County, Maryland, vol. i., p. 520: 
 "In the history of Virginia in the seventeenth century two 
 great episodes are the most prominent and important — the great 
 rebellion led by Bacon against Sir William Berkeley and Charles 
 II., and this civil war in Maryland under Claiborne against Lord 
 Baltimore and Charles I. Bacon's character and career have 
 secured the renown to which they are entitled, while Claiborne's 
 have been caricatured by political opponents and their modern 
 echoes." 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 189 
 
 We maintain that Claiborne was never at any 
 time a rebel to Baltimore, since at no time was 
 he subject to Lord Baltimore's jurisdiction. But 
 he was an enemy to Baltimore, since he owed no 
 allegiance to the Maryland government which 
 he attacked. 
 
 There were three acts of Claiborne upon which 
 his enemies may have based the accusation of 
 rebellion. The first was his retaliation in arming 
 his vessels after the capture and confiscation of 
 the Longtail and her cargo, and fighting the ships 
 of Baltimore on April 23, 1635, and May 10, 1635. 
 Sound reasons have been advanced to prove that 
 Claiborne was not under the jurisdiction of Balti- 
 more at the time of these engagements. 
 
 We have shown that Kent Island was an inte- 
 gral part of Virginia, was so admitted and claimed 
 by the Assembly, and was represented in the House 
 of Burgesses antecedent to these engagements; 
 that Claiborne had a royal license to trade and 
 that the King's commands to all men not to inter- 
 fere with, arrest, or molest him or his associates 
 or dependents were peremptory and clear. The 
 King's word was law. Charles had clearly defined 
 his attitude toward the contention that existed 
 between Claiborne and Baltimore, and, finally, 
 by referring the decision of the case to the Lords 
 
190 William Claiborne 
 
 Commissioners, had therefore impliedly ad- 
 mitted that, until that decision, Claiborne right- 
 fully occupied and held Kent Island. Since the 
 acts of aggression against the ships of Baltimore, 
 in 1635, antedated that decision, which was not 
 rendered until 1638, it is obvious that Claiborne 
 could not on those occasions have committed 
 rebellious acts against the Maryland govern- 
 ment. He was, therefore, no rebel in this respect, 
 but an enemy. 
 
 The next is his invasion of Maryland with Ingle. 
 This took place after the decision of the Lords 
 Commissioners. At the first blush it would 
 appear his enemies had him on the hip there, 
 but in very fact they did not. By the decision 
 of the Lords Commissioners, Kent Island was 
 adjudicated to the jurisdiction of Baltimore, and 
 Claiborne no longer had any legal claim to it, for 
 that was the decision of the final Court appointed 
 by the King. When Claiborne then invaded 
 Maryland with Ingle, he acted as an enemy and 
 an invader, but not as a rebel against Baltimore, 
 because he lived in Virginia and was under the 
 jurisdiction of the King. He could not, therefore, 
 have been guilty of rebellion against Baltimore in 
 this case. 
 
 The third is the reduction of Maryland as Par- 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 191 
 
 liamentary Commissioner with Bennett. On that 
 occasion he was the accredited representative 
 of the recognized legal English Government, 
 and as such, by no stretch of imagination 
 or technicality could be considered a rebel to 
 Baltimore. 
 
 By this name — Rebel — he is known in all 
 histories; it is a catchy phrase and falls easily 
 from the tongue and drops lightly from the pen. 
 It appears to us unjust, but it is worthy of histori- 
 cal mention that many of his descendants have 
 been allied with causes that have been deemed 
 rebellions. Many of his descendants, in 1776, 
 resisted the oppression of a King who attempted 
 to tax his subjects without granting representa- 
 tion and undermine the foundations of constitu- 
 tional liberty and rights. The war that resulted 
 is now named in all histories a Revolution, but 
 was, in fact, a Rebellion of the rankest type, and 
 all those who took part in it verily deserve, from 
 a technical and legal point of view, the Rebel's 
 fate. 
 
 Yet the great Captain of that Rebellion is 
 honoured of all men as the exponent of just 
 resistance against injustice, oppression, and 
 wrong, and is called by men the Father of his 
 Country. 
 
192 William Claiborne 
 
 Amongst those who fought in that war were 
 many of Claiborne's descendants, and two of 
 them today wear the Button of the Society of 
 the Cincinnati of the State of Virginia, in com- 
 memoration of the rebellion of their ancestors. 
 
 Again, in 1861, many of them, in pursuance of 
 the same principle, laid down their lives, shed 
 their blood, and gave their all for the great prin- 
 ciple of Constitutional Liberty: the right to do 
 what they would with their own, the right to life, 
 liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — those rights 
 which the English people first wrested from a 
 tyrannical king at Runnymede, and which were 
 subsequently crystallized in the words of that 
 marvellous instrument from the pen of another 
 great Virginian, the Declaration of Independence. 
 This latter event has been called a Rebellion, and 
 not a Revolution, because it was unsuccessful. 
 
 The matter of the Libel of Cloberry against 
 Claiborne, of which a review has been made herein, 
 in so far as it touches the character, and, more 
 particularly, the reputation of Claiborne, may be 
 dismissed with a few more words. 
 
 Until 1903, no mention of the Libel or Trial 
 had been made in any of the histories that deal 
 with the Claiborne-Baltimore controversy. It 
 
Analysis of his Acts and Character 193 
 
 seems attention was first called to it in the Sunday 
 issue of a Baltimore daily, to wit, the Baltimore 
 Sun, and it was heralded as new matter of great 
 importance, throwing light upon the real character 
 of Claiborne, which, as plainly implied by the 
 historian {sic), was disclosed for the first time. 
 
 The reader can judge for himself the value of 
 this "newly discovered" evidence, as set forth 
 herein, or personally read it as transcribed by Mr. 
 Marsden, in the Archives of the Maryland Historical 
 Society, Baltimore, Md. (already suggested). It is 
 pertinent, however, to emphasize the point that 
 not even Claiborne's most vicious enemies m the 
 past or present have ever made any reference to 
 the matter, as bearing on his character, and that 
 if it had been of much value, it would, most prob- 
 ably, have been unearthed before 1903. 
 
 Moreover, let it be remarked that, whereas, 
 the proceedings before Judge Marten were held 
 for the "King against Claiborne" in 1638-39, 
 Charles either had never heard of them, or must 
 have dismissed them as unworthy of consideration, 
 since shortly thereafter, in 1642, he conferred a 
 great honour on Claiborne, by appointing him 
 Treasur*jr of the Colony for life. 
 
 Subsequent to this, honours were conferred on 
 him by his fellow Virginians, even by Berkeley, 
 
194 William Claiborne 
 
 by Cromwell, and after the Restoration. Thus, 
 this attempt, also, to besmirch Claiborne's reputa- 
 tion and name falls before the test of history — 
 and time. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 TO the axiom that "where there is smoke 
 there must be fire" it is hard to give denial. 
 Nevertheless, glittering generalities should 
 not be indulged in in science; they are essentially 
 antagonistic to it. Yet there must have been 
 sound reasons why the subject of this sketch should 
 have inspired such animosity and such devotion 
 as he did — the one quality in his enemies, the 
 other in his friends. The main reason appears 
 to have been a remarkably strong personality, 
 which to his enemies was exasperating and irri- 
 tating, and to his friends equally attractive and 
 compelling. 
 
 A certain court influence has several times been 
 mentioned in these pages as explanation, in part, 
 of the appointment of Claiborne as Royal Sur- 
 veyor to the Colony. But when we look to the 
 spirit and wording of the first and second letters 
 of Charles I., touching the rights of Claiborne and 
 
 19^ 
 
196 William Claiborne 
 
 his Colony to the possession of Kentish Island, 
 as Charles called it, and the stern and peremptory 
 demand in his second letter to Baltimore, "to 
 leave Claiborne alone in peace until the decision 
 of the Lords Commissioners," not to mention 
 the angry reference to Baltimore's disregard of 
 the orders and commands contained in the first 
 letter, we read between the lines more than court 
 influence. 
 
 We read a firm conviction of the rectitude of 
 Claiborne's course and the justness of his claims, 
 as well as a personal bias in his favour. And then, 
 finally, when after the passage of the Bill of At- 
 tainder, and the decision of the Lords Commission- 
 ers, Charles appoints Claiborne Treasurer for 
 life, the question no longer seems open to doubt. 
 Either he twisted this King like a cord around his 
 finger, or Charles was bound to him by considera- 
 tions of affection. In either case, a tribute was 
 paid to his personality. 
 
 But our surprise is again excited when we read 
 that Cromwell, the Man of Iron, after the death 
 of Charles, appoints this courtier as Commissioner 
 to reduce the principality from which he had been 
 expelled as a pirate and a murderer. 
 
 There is a tradition that Cromwell was a per- 
 sonal friend of Claiborne's, but it does not appear 
 
Conclusion 197 
 
 so from written history. He inust, however, 
 have known of him and been acquainted with his 
 force of character, for Cromwell knew men as 
 few men know them. It is unlikely that Crom- 
 well would appoint as one of his representatives 
 a man who would turn his coat at the dictation 
 of influence, under pressure, or to suit his private 
 ends. Thus the Man of Iron fell before his charm 
 like the fickle and pampered King. And then 
 see how he was honoured again by election to 1' ' 
 old office of Secretary, on the establish^ 
 the Commonwealth, and how he held 
 to its end. 
 
 Claiborne has been likewise accur 
 a trimmer, of using everyone to his i 
 out being faithful to any but hin 
 passionate analysis of the facts 
 accusation highly improbable. If, 
 is true, then he deceived James I., 
 Cromwell, the Virginia Assembly, ar 
 veterate personal enemy Berkeley. Tx 
 is inconceivable. It seems more likely, 
 highly probable, that his ability, singleness 
 purpose, unswerving directness, and tenacity 
 commended him to friend and foe alike. T 
 these qualities, fairness and honesty of purr 
 must be added, for so many men wo^-''' 
 
198 William Claiborne 
 
 select one who was lacking in probity and up- 
 rightness to handle matters of State and promote 
 the welfare of a people. All of these men were 
 not fools, and probably none were. They knew 
 an able, fearless, and upright man when they saw 
 one, and all picked the same one to do their work. 
 The reader must agree that this is no man for 
 prejudiced historians to dismiss incontinently 
 with the epithets of rebel, pirate, and murderer. 
 '■*■ while every other epithet in the calendar has 
 "oed upon him, it has never yet been 
 '.at any man has ever called him a fool. 
 1 the end Claiborne lost — lost his 
 s heart's desire — he, nevertheless, was 
 y extensive land grants by Virginia 
 of his services and for the loss of 
 aggregating more than the acreage 
 u Isle." From having been, in the 
 ent of his career, an inconspicuous 
 itleman with no means save "his good 
 rd," intelligence, vigour, and a noble 
 he rounded his career wealthy in acres, 
 ..lOured by King, rulers, and his own fellow 
 Irginians, and played a conspicuous role amongst 
 ^. tall and haughty figures in the drama of 
 h he was part. His name will never die 
 '^. records of the pioneer history of Virginia 
 
Conclusion 199 
 
 and Maryland. It is safe to say he outstripped 
 all the Claibornes — both those who went before 
 and those who have come after him. 
 
 Living in troublous times, in an age when the 
 lex talionis was the code of action if not of ethics, 
 amongst governments and individuals, he accepted 
 the gage of battle thrown him, fought his enemies 
 to the death with their own weapons, and lived 
 and died under that code. 
 
 It is regrettable that no point or township on 
 Kent Island has ever been named after Claiborne, 
 to perpetuate his name locally; but, in recent 
 years, a town has arisen, as by "the stroke of an 
 enchanter's wand," on Eastern Bay, and directly 
 across from Kent Island, and its name is Claiborne. 
 It is the terminus of the Baltimore & Eastern 
 Shore Railroad, and it was named and chartered 
 by General Joseph B. Seth, in 1886 (see Appendix, 
 note 9). It appears on the maps of Maryland 
 published subsequently to that date. 
 
 Shortly after Claiborne's last appeal to Charles 
 II. for the recovery of his island, which met with 
 no response, he died, according to several writers, 
 in New Kent County, in 1677, in the fear of God 
 and in favour with some men, mostly Virginians 
 (see Appendix). He had organized and settled 
 Kent County twenty years before and had named 
 
200 William Claiborne 
 
 it in remembrance of his old settlement on the 
 Chesapeake. It seems certain, however, that he 
 was laid to rest at Romancoke, the family seat 
 near West Point on the York River, which was 
 part of the grant given him by the Virginia As- 
 sembly in recognition of his military services 
 against the Indians, in 1624. His total land 
 holdings were forty-five thousand acres (De 
 Courcy Thom). 
 
 Over his grave a slab was erected bearing his 
 name, titles, and the Claiborne arms: on a field 
 argent three chevronels interlaced in base sable; 
 a chief of the last. 
 
 His descendants in men and women have been 
 estimated at many thousands. Amongst them 
 have been those who have served their country 
 in the halls of Legislature, as governors, as 
 orators, soldiers, sailors, in the law, in medicine, 
 and in the ministry. The names of many are 
 written on the imperishable records of American 
 manhood, achievement, and valour, and though 
 he has been villified and defamed unjustly by 
 enemies dead and alive, not one of his descendants 
 should take aught to himself but honour from the 
 fact that the blood of that virile Englishman runs 
 in his veins. 
 
 He was the avatar of that self-centred indi- 
 
Conclusion 201 
 
 vidualism which marked the men of his epoch in 
 the New World, and, more particularly, those of 
 the region where he lived — the South — the indi- 
 vidualism which produced democracy and which, 
 by agglutination, later formed self-governing 
 municipalities and, ultimately, states— the indi- 
 vidualism which created the idea of States' Rights, 
 whereby this country was once disrupted, and 
 which seems still to persist. 
 
 He was a clever and resourceful politician, an 
 accomplished courtier who knew how to wear the 
 silken glove over the iron hand ; a man of powerful, 
 magnetic, and compelling personality, who bound 
 his friends to him with hooks of steel, harassed 
 and exasperated his enemies with undying perti- 
 nacity, and met aggression with aggression, re- 
 prisal with reprisal. He was proud, imperious, 
 persistent, indomitable; he loved Virginia with 
 a burning love that still lives in the hearts of his 
 descendants. He was the champion and defender 
 of her territorial rights, of constitutional and 
 personal liberty, and, finally, was essentially and 
 altogether human. 
 
 The Knight is dust — 
 
 His sword is rust — 
 
 His soul is with the Saints we trust. 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 (i) "William Claiborne, at one time, as already 
 mentioned. Secretary of Virginia, a Commissioner 
 of Parliament, and prominent in many ways, had a 
 brother, who occupied a shop on Ludgate Hill, in 
 London, where he was a dealer in clothing. 
 
 "As the Claiborne or Cleburne family from which 
 these two brothers were directly sprung was one of 
 the most ancient in the English County of Westmore- 
 land, the adoption of a trade by one of them as a 
 pursuit in life, thus imitating the example of Nicholas 
 Ferrar and so many other young men of gentle descent, 
 serves to show . . . the greater social dignity of the 
 ordinary crafts in the England of that day than in 
 the England of this. . . . 
 
 "In preferring to emigrate to Virginia rather than 
 follow in the footsteps of his brother in London, 
 William Claiborne discloses how powerful was the 
 influence leading so many young Englishmen in those 
 times to seek their fortunes in the Colony." ^ 
 
 The reference here must be to Robert, the younger 
 brother of William and Thomas. We have seen that 
 the latter, the eldest son, succeeded Edmund. If 
 there were any other brothers, they are not mentioned 
 by O'Hart. 
 
 ^ Social Life in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, Phillip 
 A. Bruce, pp. 87-88. 
 
 203 
 
204 Appendix 
 
 Bruce speaks of William preferring to emigrate to 
 Virginia rather than follow the example of his brother 
 who went into trade. What is surprising is not that 
 William, the elder, preferred to try the New World 
 for the exploitation of his energies, but that Robert, 
 the younger, did not follow the example of his elder 
 brother. 
 
 The law of primogeniture, while it has preserved 
 the aristocracy of England, has wrought much havoc 
 amongst noble families. Robert could not have 
 inherited the vigour, ambition, and restlessness of 
 his brother. His descendants, if he had any, have 
 been lost in the mists of years. Weakness passes 
 and strength perpetuates itself. 
 
 Apropos of this matter, Bruce remarks in a foot- 
 note {loc. cit.) that Governor Harvey in a letter to 
 Lord Dorchester, dated May 29, 1630, described 
 Robert Cleburne as a "stocking-seller"; "As Harvey 
 was an enemy of Claiborne on account of a violent 
 difference of opinion as to Baltimore's right to colonize 
 Maryland, this term applied to Claiborne's brother 
 was used contemptuously, without, perhaps, express- 
 ing the exact truth." Harvey had not forgotten the 
 time when Mathews, Claiborne, et alii deposed him 
 and sent him to England to answer charges of mal- 
 feasance of office. 
 
 (2) "In 1 63 1, William Claiborne transferred to 
 Kent Island, in the Chesapeake Bay, a small herd 
 which had been ranging at Kecoughton."^ 
 
 (3) The love and desire of William Claiborne for 
 Kent Island can only be described as pathetic. As 
 has been shown, the year before his death he made 
 
 ^ Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, vol. i., p. 298, 
 
Appendix 205 
 
 one last appeal, supported still by the Colony, for 
 its possession, and it is significant that soon after 
 this final failure he was gathered to his fathers. 
 
 Truly he might have said, as Queen Mary did of 
 Calais, Kent Island would be found written on his 
 heart when he was dead. 
 
 His intense desire for the island has been explained 
 in the traditions of the family by his love for his 
 daughter Jane, whom he wished to make mistress of 
 a great estate where she could reign like a queen. 
 But there is no other reason for this than shadowy 
 tradition. 
 
 John Esten Cooke, who may be described as either 
 a romantic historian or an historical romancer, has 
 explained the great animosity between Claiborne and 
 Baltimore by the ri^^alry which existed between 
 Thomas Claiborne, the first son of Edmund (brother 
 of William) and Lord Baltimore for the hand of 
 Frances Lowther, daughter of Sir Gerard Lowther. 
 Thomas Claiborne was successful and Baltimore, the 
 "young Lochinvar who came out of the west," lost. 
 The Baltimores, from that time forth, swore enmity to 
 the clan of Claiborne. For this there seems no better 
 ground than the imagination and mental trend of 
 Cooke. De Courcy Thorn asks in discussing this 
 incident, "whether he hears the rustle of a skirt" 
 in the drama. It is a curious fact, and against this 
 fancy, that William Claiborne gave one of his 
 sons, the third, Leonard, the name of his deadly 
 enemy. 
 
 (4) "Edmundson, a Quaker preacher, in 1673, 
 met him [William Claiborne] at a religious meeting 
 and was invited to call at his house. 
 
 "The preacher in his journal says: 'He was a solid 
 
2o6 Appendix 
 
 wise man, received the truth and died in the same, 
 leaving two Friends his executors.'"' 
 
 In Cliburn Church there is a brass memorial 
 tablet dedicated to the memory of William Claiborne. 
 It was placed there by the late Admiral C. J. Cleborne 
 of the U. S. N. The inscription runs as follows: 
 
 "In super et in memoriam Gulielmi de Cleyborne 
 sen Claiborne primi et Secretis Coloniae Virginiensis 
 qui anno vixit MDCXXVII." 
 
 (5) Authorities differ as to the identity of the wife 
 of William Claiborne. According to O'Hart, she 
 was Jane Buller of London, and his daughter was 
 named Jane, according to the same authority. But 
 Hester Dorsay Richardson, in the Baltimore Sun 
 of June 20, 1903, points out the possibility of Clai- 
 borne's having been twice married. For it is certain 
 that in November, 1647, there was a grant of seven 
 hundred acres of land made to "Elizabeth Claiborne, 
 the wife of Capt. William Claiborne, Esq., his Ma- 
 jesty's Treasurer of this Colony of Virginia." 
 
 It seems highly probable he was married twice, 
 for he must have been at least sixty years of age at 
 the time of the above grant, since he was born in 
 1587. If he had any children by this second marriage, 
 granting it occurred, no mention of them has appeared. 
 
 It is true that Leonard Calvert, in a letter to his 
 brother Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, 1638, speaks of 
 John Boteler, or Butler, as brother-in-law to William 
 Claiborne. But when one notes the similarity be- 
 tween Boteler or Butler and Buller, it seems very 
 probable Leonard Calvert confused the two names. 
 Furthermore, spelling was more or less phonetic in 
 
 ^ The Virginia Company of London, p. 225, Neill. 
 
Appendix 207 
 
 those days — even the spelling of proper names: 
 compare the variety of ways in which the name of 
 Cleborne was spelt. The name Buller has come 
 down in the family, as instanced in Major Buller 
 Claiborne, who was on General Lincoln's staff during 
 the Revolution, through whom the writer, collaterally, 
 wears the Button of the Society of the Cincinnati of 
 the State of Virginia. It seems quite certain that 
 Wm. Claiborne's descendants, mentioned in the 
 family records, are descended from Jane Buller — 
 in further proof, his daughter was named Jane. 
 
 (6) First Naval Fight. 
 
 On May 3, 1904, the New York Evening Sun pub- 
 lished a clipping from the Cecil (Md.) Star of April 
 23, 1904, in which attention was called to the fact 
 that on April 23, 1635, 269 years antecedently, the 
 first naval engagement, fought on the inland waters 
 of America, took place. The writer of the Star made 
 a nimnber of statements in that article which the 
 present writer attempted to combat. Those state- 
 ments concerned the contention between Lord Balti- 
 more and William Claiborne for the possession of 
 Kent Island. The point of view of the writer of the 
 Star was, approximately, that of most writers on this 
 subject. 
 
 It seems to the writer of the present sketch to be 
 worth recording in the official circles of the Depart- 
 ment of the Navy that that fight was the first naval 
 fight occurring in the waters of the North American 
 Continent, between English-speaking people. 
 
 The writer replied to the publication of the Sun, 
 by a letter in the issue of May 23, 1904, in which he 
 set forth in part the views expressed in this sketch 
 and concluded with these words: 
 
2o8 Appendix 
 
 "The first naval fight, therefore, that took place 
 in the inland waters or any other waters of North 
 America was between William Claiborne's forces and 
 those of Lord Baltimore, in which William Claiborne 
 upheld the right, fought for constitutional liberty 
 and the privilege of doing what he would with his 
 own." 
 
 (7) Clibborn. 
 
 "In these troublous times it was said 'that a Cle- 
 burne might ride in safety from one end of the County 
 to the other. '"^ 
 
 Some amusing stories are told of their popularity 
 with the peasantry and with the Raparee Chief, 
 "Galloping Hogan," and his band. Armstead tells 
 the following of John Clibborn of Moate Castle, who 
 was such a friend and champion of the Quakers that 
 he built them a meeting-house (still standing) within 
 his castle grounds. His life was constantly endan- 
 gered by succouring these people : ' ' On one occasion he 
 was dragged by the hair of his head to the place of 
 execution by some Tories, when fortunately another 
 party of Tyr Council 's men arrived, and inquiring 
 ' who have you got there ? ' were answered, ' Clibborn ! ' 
 ' Clibborn ! ' echoed they, ' a hair of his head shall not 
 be touched, ' and they bore him off in triumph."^ 
 
 "The Cleburnes are not found amongst the adven- 
 turers for land in Ireland; they purchased all their 
 estates and were so free from * Land Hunger, ' that 
 the Irish felt kindly toward them. " 
 
 The above incident is likewise mentioned in Six 
 Generations in Ireland, by Jane M. Richardson, 
 
 ' O'Hart, loc. ciL, p. 114. 
 ^ Select. MisceL, vol. i., 197. 
 
Appendix 209 
 
 London, Edward Hicks, Jan., 1894, 14 Bishop's 
 Gate Without. 
 
 (8) The Village of Claiborne. 
 
 The Village of Claiborne is situated on Eastern Bay, 
 Maryland, directly across from Kent Island, and the 
 adjoining property, known as Wade's Point, is the 
 terminus of the Baltimore & Eastern Shore Railroad, 
 charter for which was obtained by General Joseph 
 B. Seth, 1886. 
 
 The station, which subsequently grew into a vil- 
 lage, was named Claiborne by General Seth, as shown 
 by excerpts from letters from him and Colonel Oswald 
 Tilghman, appended below, wherein the reason for 
 the choice of the name is given. The State of Mary- 
 land owes a debt of gratitude to General Seth for 
 his fidelity to the truth, and history will proclaim him 
 her fearless champion. 
 
 (Copy of letter from General Joseph B. Seth, pub- 
 lished by permission.) 
 
 Baltimore, Oct. 4, 1916. 
 Mr. DeCourcy W. Thom, 
 
 Baltimore, Maryland. 
 My dear Sir: 
 
 I obtained charter for the Baltimore and Eastern 
 Shore Railroad to run from Broad Cove on Eastern 
 Bay to Ocean City in 1886, and was President of the, 
 Company for six years. I was not only President 
 but I had upon me the arranging the entire financing 
 and a general supervision of the route and construc- 
 tion. 
 
 I have long been an admirer of William Claiborne 
 and have felt that he was unjustly treated by the 
 Maryland Colony. He had a perfectly legal grant 
 14 
 
2IO Appendix 
 
 from the Virginia Colony and made his settlement 
 on Kent Island, I think in 1627, (1631-De C. T.) 
 seven years before Lord Baltimore arrived, and he 
 ought not to have been disturbed. Maryland has 
 made no effort to commemorate his name. 
 
 This terminus of the road on Eastern Bay was 
 directly across from Kent Island and the adjoining 
 property known as Wade's Point, was patented by 
 one of his followers, Zacchariah Wade, so I concluded 
 to name that station, which I was sure would grow 
 into a Town, as it has, Claiborne. I also named the 
 first steamer we had William Claiborne. The respon- 
 sibility of naming it was with me and I did it out of 
 admiration for the man that I thought had been un- 
 justly treated and who, from his whole record, showed 
 that he was a man of force and strong character. 
 
 {Signed) Joseph B. Seth. 
 
 (Copy of letter from Colonel Oswald Tilghman.) 
 
 Baltimore, Oct. 5, 1916. 
 DeCourcy W. Thom. Esq.: 
 
 . . . Replying to your inquiries regarding the 
 village of Claiborne, I beg to say, that it was named 
 by Gen'l Joseph B. Seth of Easton, the first President 
 of the Baltimore, Chesapeake and Atlantic Railway, 
 when the western terminus of that road was estab- 
 lished at this point, upon the shores of Eastern Bay, 
 in 1890. Gen'l Seth was a great admirer of the 
 character of William Claiborne and thought that he 
 had been hardly dealt with by Lord Baltimore. 
 
 {Signed) Oswald Tilghman. 
 
 (9) Kent Island Fort. "■ 
 
 ^ Johns Hopkins University, Hist, and Political Studies, 
 xxi., 364. 
 
Appendix 
 
 211 
 
 "Claiborne did not spend all his time on Kent Island, 
 though he had a private plantation there called 
 Craford, but continued to possess his Virginia resid- 
 ence at Hampton or Kecoughton, and to sit in the 
 Virginia Council." 
 
 (10) Davis's Day Star, p. 44: 
 
 "Claiborne's settlement was at Kent Point; 
 nearby were the mill and fort. Baltimore gave the 
 manor to Leonard Calvert for his services in the 
 conquest of the island and the latter assigned it to 
 Captain Giles Brent, 7 September, 1640, in whose 
 family it remained for some generations. Craford 
 stood near Craney Creek, now a pond, and is fre- 
 quently mentioned in old land records. 
 
 "Bozman suggests that the Fort was probably 
 situated on the first navigable creek lying on the left 
 hand in ascending the Eastern Bay passing Kent Point. 
 The local tradition agrees with this and bits of glazed 
 bricks can be picked up on the supposed site."^ 
 
 (11) Kent Fort Manor. ^ 
 
 7th January, 1639-40 — "I would have you to lay 
 out for Giles Brent, gent., Treasurer of the Council 
 of the Province, 07ie thousand acres of land lyeing near- 
 est together about Kent Fort and one thousand acres 
 more where he shall desire it, and to certifie Mr. 
 Secretary what you shall doe therein" — 
 
 To Robert Clark, Deputy Surveyor. 
 
 ist September, 1640: — "Laid out for Giles Brent, 
 gent., one neck of Land lyeing nearest together about 
 Kent Fort, bounding on the East, West and South 
 
 'Johns Hopkins University, Hist, and Political Studies, xxi., 
 p. 364. 
 
 ^ Annapolis, Md., La^id Office Records, Liber i., folios 46-47. 
 
212 Appendix 
 
 with Chesapeake bay: on the North with a Line 
 drawn through the woods Streight East beginning 
 at the Northeastermost branch of the Creek called 
 North West Creek and ending in a swamp on the 
 East Side of the said Neck in Chesapeake bay and 
 contains on the whole looo acres or thereabouts." 
 
 5th September, 1640: — "I would have you draw a 
 Patent to Mr. Giles Brent of the Manor of Kent Fort 
 bounding it as in the Survey is certified — to draw it 
 according to the usual president of a manor for the 
 yearly rent of two barrels of corne to be paid at Kent 
 Mill and this shall be your warrant." 
 
 (12) Kent Fort Manor. 
 
 (St. Mary's County Rent Rolls, etc.) 
 Isle of Kent County. 
 
 "The Forte Hundred contains the Manor of Kent 
 Forte." 
 
 This Manor appears recorded in the later Rent 
 Rolls of Talbot and Queen Anne's County, Maryland. 
 
 It adjoined a tract called "Little Thicket," and 
 derived its name from old Kent Fort, where Clai- 
 borne erected his old palisade fort (probably near 
 what is now called "Kent Point"). 
 
 (13) Baltimore Professor and Friend Discover the 
 Place where Claiborne Lived. 
 
 "An event of interest to all students of Colonial 
 Maryland is the positive identification of Captain 
 William Claiborne's settlement on Kent Island, by 
 Dr. Bernard C. Steiner, associate in history at Johns 
 Hopkins University, and De Courcy W. Thom of 
 Baltimore and Blakeford. 
 
 "Few chapters of Colonial history present more 
 vividly the struggles of early settlers against untoward 
 conditions than the career of William Claiborne, a 
 
Appendix 213 
 
 persistent and successful contestant with Lord Balti- 
 more for the right of governing on Kent Island. 
 
 "Messrs. Thorn and Steiner, in the summer of 
 1904, drove along the main road of the Island, trying 
 to identify the site of Kent Fort. The island is 
 somewhat less than twenty miles in length from Love 
 Point, the railway terminus to Kent Point, and its 
 greatest width may be ten to twelve miles. The 
 southern part, however, is only about a mile wide. 
 
 "They went to the house of J. Frank Legg and 
 found that they were in Kent Fort Manor. Mr. Legg 
 went with them to show the point which tradition 
 marked as the site of Claiborne's settlement. They 
 found it on a slight elevation back of an old landing 
 on the bend of a navigable creek about Kent Point. 
 To the north of the site, now known as Chew's Gardens 
 and cultivated as a field, in a valley which was prob- 
 ably once an inlet, so that the site was surrounded 
 on three sides by water, they found several fragments, 
 of glazed bricks about seventy yards from the shore, 
 which may have been part of the Brent Manor house." ^ 
 
 (14) Claiborne of Kent 
 By the Bentztown Bard 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! Blow, bugles of Kent ! 
 Of all the fine gentlemen heav'n ever sent, 
 Here's ruddy, swart Claiborne, the finest and best. 
 With lace at his wristbands and war in his breast — 
 
 ^History of Talbot County, Maryland, 1661-1861, by Oswald 
 Tilghman, Easton, Md., Williams and Wilkins Company, 
 publishers. 
 
214 Appendix 
 
 A faithful Anglican, when kings were in vogue, 
 
 Who prayed like a Roundhead and fought like a rogue ! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! Blow softly, ring clear ! 
 The barges are ready and Claiborne is here. 
 Away to the battle, with broadsword a-swing, 
 A dapper, fine fellow for Kent and for King, 
 With oath on the crimson dawn flushing the skies : 
 "For each stroke of this saber a Cavalier dies!" 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! Hurray for the day 
 That walks like a glory across the blue bay! 
 What leaping of hearts when the blunderbus roars ! 
 What bending of backs to the stroke of the oars! 
 Blow, bugles of battle, the morning is sweet. 
 Though the sun may set red in the blood of defeat ! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando! They've fought; they have 
 
 lost! 
 With Claiborne afar, and the slow barges tost 
 On tides that will never return them with those 
 Who kissed in the dawn the red lips of each rose 
 That leaned in her love, with: "Good-by, and come 
 
 home 
 From the rain of the battle, the roar of the foam!" 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! With Kent for his zone. 
 
 He'll make the King's Maryland the King's and his 
 
 own! 
 Though lost be the battle, the chief will survive 
 To argue and parley and scheme and connive. 
 And win a brief triumph, to fade through the years, 
 With the Calverts deposed and sweet Maryland in 
 
 tears ! 
 
Appendix 215 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! The barges have gone 
 
 Like phantoms of mist on the ripples of dawn, 
 
 And sweethearts and daughters who bade them adieu 
 
 And under the roses, sweet Kentland, of you! 
 
 The logs of your cabins, old settlers, are strewn 
 
 In the mold of the forest from which they were hewn! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando! Swart men of the time 
 When swords rang together in valour's rude chime; 
 Brave leaders, stanch liegemen, have gone in their glee 
 From the councils of courage beneath the oak tree — 
 But Kent blooms in glory all down her sweet length 
 Because of their high-hearted spirit and strength! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! No sound in the morn 
 
 Of bugles, except the glad ring of the horn 
 
 The hunters sound gayly across the fair glen 
 
 To summon the hounds and the merry young men, 
 
 And waken the shadows with notes that have fled 
 
 With the songs of the bargemen on lips that are dead ! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando ! Wake, Kentland, and sing ! 
 He found you, and lost you; but, oh, when the spring 
 Sweeps sweet through your orchards, in gladness we call 
 Because, in your beauty, he found you at all, 
 And named you, and loved you, and left you to lie 
 A garden of glory full ripe to the sky ! 
 
 Hi-dando, di-dando! His dust is afar 
 
 On the hills of the dawn and the vales of the star; 
 
 The battles are over, the bugles at rest, 
 
 The dream of sweet peace folds its wings o'er his breast : 
 
 For the Church, and the King, and the good that he 
 
 meant 
 Let the red roses blossom for Claiborne of Kent ! 
 
2i6 Appendix 
 
 (15) Kent Island. 
 
 By reference to the map to be found on page i, 
 Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay, is seen to lie 
 just opposite Annapolis. It is comprised in Queen 
 Ann County, and is recorded as being on the eastern 
 shore of the Bay. A letter from the State Board of 
 Labour and Statistics of Maryland, describes Queen 
 Ann County as a "beautiful and desirable land to 
 live in, healthy, accessible to market, the soil fertile, 
 easy to cultivate, farms well improved, roads good, 
 schools and churches convenient for all the people, 
 and taxes low." From Love Point, which is the 
 northern extremity of the island, it is connected by 
 steamboats with Baltimore. The area of Kent Island 
 is about six square miles and its population fifteen 
 hundred. Its physical characteristics were possibly 
 appreciated by William Claiborne and this may 
 account, to some extent, for his intense desire for it. 
 
 (16) Lord Baltimore. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the first Lord Baltimore 
 was no ordinary man and he should be honoured as the 
 first founder of Maryland. His face as shown in the 
 portrait in the State House at Annapolis, exhibits 
 a high degree of refinement and intelligence and speaks 
 the honesty for which he was well known. He seems 
 to have been respected and honoured as well by his 
 opponents as his friends. That he had the respect 
 and affection of his king is clear. His religious feel- 
 ings were evidently sincere for no man even at that 
 date could lay aside the Protestant religion and accept 
 the stern and more rigorous Catholic, without being 
 convinced of its truth and without being willing to 
 make sacrifices for it. In a letter to his friend, Earl 
 Strafford, he says: "All things, My Lord, in this 
 
Appendix 217 
 
 world pass away. Wife, children, honours, wealth, 
 friends, and what else is dear to fiesh and blood. They 
 are but lent us until 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." 
 
 As to his son Cecilius Calvert, his reputation for 
 Godliness and greatness appears to rest mainly upon 
 his famous statute commonly known as "The Tolera- 
 tion Act " which was drawn by himself and was passed 
 by the Assembly without amendment. The wording 
 of that act shows him a God-fearing man, broad in 
 intelligence, tmiversal in sympathy, and mindful of 
 the rights and convictions of others, but no thing in 
 this world is perfect. We feel compelled to agree 
 with Fiske that a statute which threatens Unitarians 
 with death leaves something to be desired in the 
 matter of toleration. In other respects, it appears 
 that Cecilius Calvert was as wily a politician and 
 clever a diplomat as any one could wish. His endeav- 
 ours to placate the Puritans in Maryland, his invita- 
 tion to them to come there and settle, particularly 
 about the time when he feared that his Province 
 would be taken away from him by the Commonwealth, 
 shows that he was quite capable of acting with worldly 
 wisdom. One writer has gone so far as to state that 
 he even contemplated changing his religion, but any 
 weakness which he may have shown along these 
 lines is more than balanced by his great mind and 
 human sympathy. He and Claiborne were well 
 matched in tenacity of purpose, persistence, clever- 
 ness and resource, but he was a Prince of a Principal- 
 ity with power behind him and Claiborne was a 
 simple gentleman with only his ability, his courage. 
 
2i8 Appendix 
 
 and the friends he himself had made. That Balti- 
 more won and Claiborne lost may be explained partly 
 on geographical lines and partly on the difference in 
 their status. In the nature of things, Kent Island 
 had to fall to Baltimore by reason of its geographical 
 position but that does not influence the question of 
 the moral and abstract right involved. 
 
 But this noble line of Baltimore was destined to 
 extinction and to shame. In Burke's Dormant and 
 Extinct Peerages it is stated that "Frederick, Seventh 
 Baron Baltimore, born February 6, 1731-2, married 
 1753, Lady Diana Egerton, daughter of the Duke of 
 Bridgewater, died without issue at Naples, Fourth 
 September, 1771, when the title became extinct." 
 "His Lordship had sold his estates before going 
 abroad to Mr. John Trotter of Soho, London," but 
 unhappily the last chapter in the life of the Seventh 
 Baron did not close before dishonour had fallen upon 
 a noble house. 
 
 4 Burrows' Reports, 2179, state: 
 
 "Friday, February 12, 1768, Lord Baltimore, 
 Anne Darby (spinster), and Elizabeth Grieffenburgh 
 (a married woman) , were brought up by habeas corpus 
 before Lord Mansfield in the Court of Kings Bench, 
 having been previously committed, as being charged 
 upon the oath of Sarah Woodcock, Lord Baltimore, 
 with having feloniously ravished and carnally known 
 her against her will and consent, and the two women 
 with having feloniously assisted, aided, and abetted 
 him in the rape. But," says the report, "the women 
 were not charged either by the oath (of the prosecu- 
 trix) or (by the) warrant of commitment with being 
 present: and therefore they were agreed to be only 
 accessory before the fact. 
 
Appendix 219 
 
 "The counsel for the prosecutrix, declaring 'that 
 the prosecution was carried on merely for the sake of 
 public justice, and that they had no other wish than 
 to obtain it' declined either to consent to or oppose 
 Lord Baltimore being bailed, but left it entirely to 
 the discretion of the court, to act as they should 
 think proper, as their sole point in view was that his 
 Lordship should be, at all events, amenable to justice. 
 
 "Lord Mansfield approved of their conduct. At 
 the same time, he observed that Lord Baltimore's 
 voluntary surrender was a strong indication that he 
 had no intention of absconding from justice; the 
 probability whereof was greatly heightened by the 
 large property which he was known to possess of 
 which he would incur a forfeiture by running away. 
 Therefore let him be bailed by four mancupators in 
 one thousand pounds a piece and himself in four 
 thousand pounds to appear at the next Assizes and 
 general Gaol-delivery for the County of Surrey. 
 The women were bailed in four hundred pounds a 
 piece." 
 
 In the above Records it is not stated that the Lord 
 Baltimore referred to was Frederick the Seventh 
 Baron, but it must have been he, as shown by the 
 dates. 
 
 The following excerpt from Russell {Maryland the 
 Land of Sanctuary) is apropos in this connection : 
 
 In the meantime Frederick, Lord Baltimore, had died (1771). 
 He was the last of the Lords Baltimore. Having no legitimate 
 heirs, his proprietary rights he bequeathed to Henry Harford, 
 his illegitimate son. Of Frederick Calvert Morris says: "A 
 fast young man and did not live to be an old one. His memory 
 is not precious, and his deeds were anything but meritorious. . . . 
 A man universally known to be one of the most licentious of his 
 
220 Appendix 
 
 times." "He was," says Browne, "a degenerate scion of a noble 
 stock, a selfish and grasping voluptuary, who cared only for his 
 Province, which he never visited, as a source of revenue for his 
 pleasure. He added his name to the list of noble authors by 
 an indifferent book of travels, and came near adding it also to 
 the list of noble criminals, by figuring as the traverser in a dis- 
 creditable trial for felony, of which, however, he was acquitted." 
 Hall says of him, that he was "a selfish, disreputable, dissolute 
 degenerate, neither ability nor character was even respectable." 
 
 In Harpers' Encyclopedia of United States History, 
 V"ol. i., p. 263, an historical sketch of the Baltimore 
 family ends thus: "The last representative of the 
 Baltimore family was found in a debtors' prison in 
 England in i860 by Colonel Angus McDonald of 
 Virginia, where he had been confined for twenty 
 years." Unhappily, the account does not state the 
 identity of this unfortunate. It could not, however, 
 have been one of the Lords Baltimore, because the 
 title became extinct, as has been seen, in 1771. 
 
 The Bill of Attainder was passed by the Maryland 
 Assembly in 1638, and the last Baltimore died in 1771. 
 Just 133 years after the iniquitous, illegal, and unjust 
 proclamation instigated by Calvert and passed by 
 the Assembly against William Claiborne, whereb}^ 
 he was impoverished and outlawed, the last Baltimore 
 died in poverty and his name passed forever from 
 history. But the name of Claiborne still lives with 
 honour in the records of American history; the men 
 who have borne it have helped to lay the foundations 
 of the American Republic, and cement them with 
 their blood. There is reason to believe that some of 
 the descendants of Leonard Calvert are still living 
 but the name as a factor in American institutions 
 has disappeared from the face of the earth. In these 
 facts we read the revenge of history. As Byron says: 
 
Appendix 221 
 
 "Time at last sets all things even; 
 And, if we do but watch the hour, 
 There never yet was human power 
 Which could evade if unforgiven 
 The patient search and vigil long 
 Of him who treasures up a wrong." 
 
 Which is a pagan but true saying. 
 
 As is known, Cecilius Calvert was never in America 
 himself, but ruled his province through his brother 
 Leonard. Leonard was a faithful agent of his brother 
 and showed himself to be a man of ability and though 
 his character is not entitled to any extensive investiga- 
 tion in these notes, let it not be forgotten, as quoted 
 from De Courcy Thom, that when on February 26, 
 1638, he sailed for Kent Island with thirty mus- 
 keteers, "he is said to have encouraged other men to 
 accompany him and pillage and even to have con- 
 tracted to btiy the plunder a certain man might make." 
 It has already been pointed out that he balked at 
 the first suggestions of Evelin to make this foray 
 but subsequently yielded to the latter's eloquence, 
 whether through weakness or viciousness, deponent 
 sayeth not. It is regrettable to have to record these 
 facts after so long a time; but it must not be forgot- 
 ten that through men bearing the name of Calvert 
 Claiborne was vilified, abused, and outlawed during 
 his life and his name besmirched in history. 
 
 Let justice be done, if the Heavens fall. 
 
 (17) The photographs of Cliburn Hall and Cliburn 
 Church are reproductions of picture post-cards. The 
 author endeavored to have some taken specially by 
 a photographer in Penrith, a town in the vicinity of 
 Cliburn, but the only photographer in the town at 
 
222 Appendix 
 
 the time he wrote, stated he was unable to take any; 
 first, because the weather was very cloudy and would 
 probably remain so for several months and secondly, 
 because he momentarily expected to be called into 
 military service ; but the pictures shown are an excel- 
 lent reproduction of the Hall and the Church. The 
 one of the rear view of the Hall shows at the same 
 time the two ancient oaks which are supposed to be 
 the remnants of Englewood Forest. A modern out- 
 house stands just in the way of the entrance to the base- 
 ment or kitchen, so that the arms cut over the door 
 cannot be seen. The picture of the front of the house 
 shows one of the towers to the left wherein there is a 
 room which by reason of its smallness, may be sup- 
 posed to have been the room of William Claiborne, 
 seeing he was the second son. Just over the head of 
 the woman seen standing at the door, is the square of 
 sandstone whereon the arms are cut, together with the 
 inscription which has been quoted. They cannot be 
 deciphered in the picture but can be deciphered from 
 the courtyard though they are fast fading away. The 
 modern roof which has been put upon the building de- 
 stroys completely the castellar character which accord- 
 ing to authorities, the building formerly possessed. 
 
 Of the two pictures of William Claiborne, one is 
 a photograph of the life-size painting hanging in 
 the library of the Capitol at Richmond. This 
 portrait was exhibited at the Jamestown exhibition 
 in 1907, and was presented to the State Library 
 by some of the descendants of William Claiborne. 
 It was painted by Miss Mary R. Gilmer, a talented 
 young Virginian. She regards it as her masterpiece. 
 According to her, it is as near as possible, a reproduc- 
 tion of a woodcut of the miniature in London, show- 
 
WILLIAM CLAIBORNE OF VIRGINIA. SECRETARY OF STATE 
 
 Photographed from a painting in the Library of the State Capitol, 
 Richmond, Va. 
 
Appendix 223 
 
 ing only the head and a little of the shoulders. She 
 sought long for a model whose body would suit the 
 head and shoulders but the suit which the figures 
 wear is historically accurate in every detail. The 
 table-box and candle-stick are likewise historically 
 accurate. The author desires to express his thanks 
 to Miss Gilmer and Mr. H. R. Mcllwaine, Virginian 
 State Librarian, for their assistance and courtesy in 
 the acquisition of these facts. The other picture is a 
 photograph of a portrait in the possession of Major 
 W. C. C. Claiborne, of New Orleans, La., and is said 
 to be a reproduction of the one in London already 
 referred to. The portrait of Edmund Claiborne is a 
 copy of the orginal in possession of Sir John Lowther, 
 a relative of the family, done by a famous Dutch artist. 
 
 (18) Viking.^ 
 
 "The word viking in the sense in which it is used 
 to-day is derived from the Icelandic (old Norse) 
 Vikingr (m.) signifying simply, a sea rover or pirate. 
 
 "During the Saga Age (900-1050) in the beginning 
 of Norse literature Vikingr is not as a rule used to 
 designate any class of men. Almost every young 
 Icelander of sufficient means and position and a very 
 large number of young Norsem^en made one or more 
 viking expeditions. We read of such a one that he 
 went a-viking. The procedure was almost a re- 
 cognized part of education and was analogous to the 
 grand tour made by our great-grandfathers in the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 "The exact etymology of vikingr itself is not cer- 
 tain, for we do not know whether vik is used in a 
 general sense (bay, harbour) or in a particular sense 
 
 ^ British EncyclopcBdia, nth edition. 
 
224 Appendix 
 
 as the Vik, the Skaggerack, etc. ... At the same 
 time the significance which the word viking has had 
 in our language is due in part to a false etymology 
 connecting the word with 'king,' the effect of which 
 still remains in the customar}^ pronunciation vi-king 
 instead of vik-ing." 
 
 In the true sense of the word William Claiborne was 
 a viking for he had spent a large portion of his life, 
 after he came to the New World, sailing about in the 
 bays and harbours of the Chesapeake. According 
 to his detractors, he was a viking likewise in the usual 
 significance of the word, for he was called a pirate. 
 It appears that there is more than coincidence in the 
 fact that this man who came from England along with 
 contemporaries selected this manner of life as opposed 
 to the quiet life of Jamestown. We see in his nature 
 a decided roving instinct, and to some extent, a pre- 
 datory one. It is not improbable that he was the 
 creature of an atavistic impulse inherited from his 
 forebear Rolf the Norman. He must have loved the 
 salt breezes of the Chesapeake and in his nostrils 
 was the breath of the north winds. 
 
 (19) William Charles Cole Claiborne.^ 
 "William Charles Cole Claiborne was born in Sussex 
 County, Virginia, in 1775, son of Colonel William 
 Claiborne, of King William County, Virginia, and 
 Mary Leigh his wife, daughter of Ferdinand Leigh. 
 His education was a liberal one and he was well pre- 
 pared for entrance to the legal profession. Having 
 been duly admitted to the bar, he took up his resi- 
 dence in Nashville, Tennessee, where he followed 
 his profession with an extraordinary amount of suc- 
 
 ' Virginia Biography, vol. ii. 
 
GOVERNOR W. C. C. CLAIBORNE OF LOUISIANA 
 
 Photographed from a painting in possession of Major W. C. C. Claiborne 
 
Appendix 225 
 
 cess. He was soon appointed territorial judge, and 
 assisted in the framing of the State constitution in 
 1796. As a representative of the Republican party 
 he was elected to Congress in 1797, serving from March 
 23, 1797, to March 3, 1801. He was appointed 
 Governor of Mississippi in 1802, and in the following 
 year, in association with General James Wilkinson, 
 became a commissioner to take possession of Louisi- 
 ana when it was purchased from the French. After 
 the new government had been well established he was 
 made Governor in 1804, and when the province be- 
 came a State he was elected to the same office by the 
 people. The Republican party of the new State 
 chose him as their representative in the United States 
 Senate, but he died in New Orleans, Louisiana, 
 November 23, 1817, before taking his seat in this 
 body. He was brother of General Ferdinand Leigh 
 Claiborne." 
 
 The photograph of William Claiborne shows a 
 face of rare intelligence, refinement, and spirituality. 
 His achievem.ents before his death were remarkable 
 and places him as a public man high in the roll of 
 distinguished citizens of America. His life is en- 
 titled to mention to which justice cannot be done in 
 these pages. Without a doubt he stands head and 
 shoulders above all the other men of his name. While 
 there was nothing dramatic about his career person- 
 ally, as there was in the case of Pat. Cleburne, he 
 lived in dramatic times and helped to fashion the 
 history of his country. He married twice amongst 
 the Creole families of New Orleans, and from these 
 marriages a number bearing his name have descended. 
 Major W. C. C. Claiborne of New Orleans is his 
 grandson, inheriting his name. Although the Gover- 
 
226 Appendix 
 
 nor was essentially English himself, his descendants 
 in New Orleans are distinctly of the French type. 
 The writer had the fortune to marry his great-grand- 
 daughter (the daughter of Major W. C. C. Claiborne) 
 and takes pride in the fact that his son likewise is 
 descended from that distinguished representative of 
 the family. 
 (20) General Patrick Ronayne Cleburne. 
 
 ' ' General Patrick Ronayne Cleburne was the second 
 son of Dr. Joseph Cleburne, a prominent physician 
 and philanthropist of Cork, by Mary Anne, daughter of 
 Patrick Ronayne, Esq., of 'Annebrook' and 'Great 
 Island,' in the same county, and was born at his 
 father's country place 'The Grange,' Ballincollig, 
 on St. Patrick's day, the 17th of March, 1828. His 
 mother's family (the Ronaynes) settled in Ireland 
 in the beginning of the twelfth century. Maurice 
 Rouan, or Ronayne, the ancestor of the Ronaynes 
 d'Laughtane, Doughdoyne, and Annebrook, obtained 
 from Edward IV. a 'grant of the rights of English- 
 men,' the original of which is still preserved in the 
 family. From this genial race of fox-hunting country 
 'squires Cleburne derived a dash of wit and humour 
 and that impulsive valour which made him the idol 
 of his troops. 
 
 "Physically, General Cleburne was six feet in height, 
 straight of figure, broad of shoulder, and of slender 
 build, but, despite all these favourable impressions, 
 was rather ungainly than gracefid in general appear- 
 ance. There was a directness and angularity about 
 him that was the foe of grace and seemed oftener to 
 be akin to awkwardness. His face was pale and 
 sometimes stern, but in his large grey eyes there was 
 always a gentle, musing light; and as they flashed in 
 
?^^.ss«,^5M«s«^,^fc^'3^Ste2Sj;sa?^s&^vi-^^ 
 
 MAJOR-GENERAL PAT. CLEBURNE, C.S.A, 
 
 Photographed from a painting in possession of Major W. C. C. Claiborne 
 
Appendix 227 
 
 humour or grow dark in passion they clothed the 
 whole man with a beauty of their own. . . . 
 
 "Modest and reserved in his manners and bearing, 
 he gained the respect and good-will of his comrades, 
 and the confidence and esteem of his officers. He 
 entered thoroughly into the spirit of his work, and 
 in this practical and invaluable school of the soldier 
 he mastered the minutiae of the profession, and gained 
 experience that stood him in good stead in the crucial 
 ordeals of our Civil War. In the ranks of H. M. 
 Forty-first Regiment he learned the wholesome rules 
 of regularity and prompt obedience." 
 
 In speaking of H. M. Forty-first (in India), he said: 
 '"I was prouder of my corporal's commission than 
 that of a major-general.' 
 
 "While in the Confederate army, in a conversation 
 with Colonel Freemantle, of the British army, he 
 alluded to the useful lessons he had learned, and 
 pointed, with a laugh, to the white facings of his 
 general's uniform, which, he said, his Forty-first 
 experience enabled him to keep cleaner than any other 
 Confederate general. The Forty-first Regiment wore 
 white facings, and so did the generals in the Con- 
 federate army. 
 
 "An incident lost, for a while, Cleburne's newly 
 acquired honour of a corporal's commission. His 
 regiment was ordered out for drill with knapsacks, 
 and as he had been unwell for several days and did 
 not feel equal to the task of carrying through the 
 tiresome drill a knapsack weighing between thirty 
 and forty pounds, he substituted a pillow for the 
 several contents, and thus went on parade. His 
 consternation may be conceived when he heard the 
 command given, 'Inspection knapsacks!' But there 
 
228 Appendix 
 
 was no help for it, the pillow was discovered and he 
 was reduced to the ranks. This reverse, instead of 
 depressing, stimulated his energies, and he quickly 
 regained the promotion lost by his luckless mishap. 
 His health, which had greatly improved under a 
 regular course of drills and exercises, began to give 
 way under excessive devotion to duty, and from 
 exposure on guard he became afflicted with acute 
 rheumatism." 
 
 Subsequently, Cleburne quit the English army 
 although his Captain remonstrated with him strongly 
 and assured him that if he remained he would cer- 
 tainly win a commission. Nevertheless, he left and 
 at the age of twenty-one he sailed from Queenstown 
 in 1849 on the bark Bridgetown for the New World. 
 After casting about for some time, he finall}'- settled 
 in Helena, Ark., where he first was engaged in the 
 drug business, but ultimately giving that up, studied 
 law and in 1856 formed a partnership under the name 
 of Alexander & Cleburne. According to Buck 
 {Cleburne and His Command): "At no time in his 
 life did he display more heroism than in 1855, when 
 Helena was visited with a scourge of Yellow Fever. 
 The public generally fled in panic, but Cleburne re- 
 mained, going on daily rounds among the sick, nursing 
 them, and soothing as far as possible the grief of the 
 living and the last hours of the dying. His unself- 
 ish devotion at this time endeared him to many 
 hearts." 
 
 In 1 86 1, Pat. Cleburne was amongst the first citizens 
 to tender his services to the Governor of Arkansas to 
 capture the United States arsenal at Little Rock. 
 He was serving at that time as a private in a company 
 called "The Yell Rifles" and later he was made Cap- 
 
Appendix 229 
 
 tain in the State service. From this humble begin- 
 ning, he became a Major-General in the Confederate 
 States army where he served with distinction and his 
 name has gone down to deathless glory in the records 
 of the Confederate army in the Cause which the 
 southern people loved and lost in the land where 
 they were dreaming. To those who desire a full 
 knowledge of his life and his military career, the book 
 just referred to is commended. There have been a 
 number of fanciful stories written about the manner 
 of his death at the battle of Franklin but Captain Buck 
 of his Division has taken particular pains to discover 
 the real facts. The following excerpt from a communi- 
 cation of General Govan describes his death as follows : 
 "General Cleburne was not killed while attempting 
 to leap his horse over the Federal entrenchments, as 
 some have said. The manner in which he met his 
 death was about as follows, and from personal ob- 
 servation and credible statements of others I believe 
 these to be about the facts of the matter: General 
 Cleburne had two horses killed under him in the 
 attack on Franklin. I was very near him when his 
 first horse was killed. The impetus at which he was 
 moving carried the horse forward after his death 
 wound, and he fell almost in the ditch on the outside 
 of the entrenchments. One of the couriers dismounted 
 and gave him his horse, and while in the act of mount- 
 ing, this second horse was killed by a cannon ball 
 fired as well as I remember from the gin-house. 
 General Cleburne then moved forward on foot, 
 waving his cap, and I lost sight of him in the smoke 
 and din of battle, and he must have met his death 
 in a few seconds afterwards. All of this occurred in 
 the intersection of the pike, and his body was found 
 
230 Appendix 
 
 within twenty yards of where I saw him last waving 
 his cap and urging his command forward. Never in 
 any attack during the war did troops display greater 
 gallantry — not Pickett's division at Gettysburg, nor 
 the Old Guard at Waterloo — than when the heroic 
 commander of the Arkansas division fell, sword in 
 hand, near the entrenchments in that desperate and 
 ill-fated attack on Franklin." 
 
 As Buck says further: "A lanciful story gained 
 credence and a poem was written based upon it, that 
 Cleburne on the morning of the battle, noticing that 
 one of his officers was barefooted, pulled off his boots, 
 and insisted that the captain should put them on, 
 remarking that 'no Confederate soldier shall walk 
 with naked feet while I ride fully shod.' This story 
 is pure fiction and absurd on its face. No doubt his 
 generous impulses would have prompted him to this, 
 but his sense of duty would have forbidden his so 
 disqualifying himself for its performance. The only 
 foundation for the alleged incident was that Cleburne's 
 body was found in stocking feet, it having, as before 
 stated, been robbed of boots." 
 
 Intrepid courage and cold nerve were amongst his 
 most marked attributes. He was the idol of his 
 soldiers and as one writer says of him, the men in his 
 regiment "seemed to be afraid to be afraid where he 
 was." Illustrative of his cold nerve the following is 
 written by Buck: 
 
 "Of firm convictions, strong personality, and un- 
 swerving loj^alty and devotion to his friends, this 
 last trait came near causing an early termination of 
 Cleburne's career. One of his associates became 
 engaged in a controversy with a man bearing the 
 reputation of a 'dangerous man.' Cleburne had no 
 
Appendix 231 
 
 interest at stake, but, Irishman-like, espoused the 
 cause of his friend ' in a quarrel not his own, ' drawing 
 upon himself the wrath of the desperado, who publicly 
 swore vengeance against Cleburne. Cleburne was 
 well known to be quick and expert with the pistol 
 and it was equally well recognized that a front attack 
 upon him would be extremely dangerous. While 
 Cleburne was walking the street of Helena, without 
 warning a dastardly attempt to assassinate him was 
 made. A shot was fired from a doorway he was 
 passing, the bullet entering his back and going en- 
 tirely through his body. Desperately wounded as he 
 was, his will power enabled him to draw his pistol and 
 kill his assailant before he himself fell to the side-walk. 
 His recovery was despaired of, but his indomitable will 
 to live greatly, if not entirely, tended to his recovery." 
 
 He was known as the "Stonewall of the West" and 
 his name is honoured and revered throughout the South 
 and West. In Arkansas a day is set apart known as 
 Cleburne's Memorial Day. It appears that he and 
 General Ferdinand Leigh Claiborne were the only two 
 of the name who ever wore the general's star. He and 
 William Claiborne evidently derived their courage, 
 tenacity, and aggressiveness from the same source. 
 
 The first interment of Cleburne's body was at Rose 
 Hill near Franklin. Years afterwards the remains 
 were claimed by the State of Arkansas and removed to 
 Helena, where a monument was erected over them by 
 the Ladies' Memorial Association. (Buck.) 
 
H ' 100 89 
 
Origin 
 Presen 
 Charte 
 
 -J 
 
 By peri 
 
By Permission of Houghton Mifflin Co. 
 

 
 
 
 
 - I^^^^.^"^ 
 * # >. « 
 
 
 
 ^-^^"^ '^^V^^**^©^^ \**^^\y^ ''V^'^^*\o'5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 006 748 949 4