Vj.-' .,■■ 
 
 
 .^ 
 
Class.: 
 
 Book- 
 
 it 
 
 ry 
 
 
XI-XII 
 
 Causes of the Maryland Revolution of i689 
 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 HiSTOEICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 HERBERT B. ADAMS, Editor 
 
 History is past Politics and Politics are present History.— i^reeman 
 
 FOURTEENTH SERIES. 
 XI-XII 
 
 Causes of the Maryland Revolution of i689 
 
 By Francis Edgar Sparks, A. B. 
 
 baltimore 
 The Johns Hopkins Press 
 
 PUBLISHED MONTHLY 
 
 November-December. 1896 
 
 
 Mon« 
 
 (Tfllpfc 
 
.3/ 
 
 
 Copyright, 1896, by The Johns Hopkins Pkess. 
 
 By tranafei 
 
 OJT 22 1915 
 
 THE FEIEDENWALD CO.. PRINTEKS, 
 BALTIMORE. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Chapter I. Introduction 7 
 
 Chapter II. The Constitution of Maryland, 1658 .... 10 
 
 Introductory 10 
 
 The Proprietor 11 
 
 The Governor 12 
 
 The Council _ 14 
 
 The Assembly 15 
 
 The Judicial System 17 
 
 Land 18 
 
 Taxation 21 
 
 The Currency 23 
 
 The Militia 23 
 
 Religion 24 
 
 The Secretary 24 
 
 The Surveyor General 25 
 
 The Muster Master General 25 
 
 The Sheriff 25 
 
 The Constable 26 
 
 The Coroner 26 
 
 Chapter III. The Maryland Palatinate. 27 
 
 Chapter IV. Constitutional History of Maryland, 
 
 1658-1689 30 
 
 The Restoration of the Proprietary Government and Fenu^iirs 
 
 Rebellion 30 
 
 The Period of Resistance, 1660-1670 35 
 
 The Period of Submission, 1670-1676 50 
 
 The Rebellion of 1676 64 
 
 The Struggle between the Proprietor and the Assemblies, 
 
 1676-1684 75 
 
 The Calm before the Storm, 1684-1689 93 
 
 The Revolution of 1689 .• 99 
 
 Bibliography 109 
 
CAUSES OF THE MARYLAND REVOLUTION OF 
 
 1689. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 The Maryland Revolution of 1689 has always been the 
 source of much trouble to Maryland historians. They are 
 at a loss to explain how it was possible for a few men to 
 upset the Proprietary government with such ease when, as 
 they maintain, that government was universally beloved by 
 the people. With (according to their statements) no serious 
 disorders for thirty years, good and efificient administration, 
 a popular Proprietor, religious liberty and good laws, it is 
 puzzling to see why Maryland should have rebelled against 
 the Proprietary government. But it is not true that such a 
 happy condition of affairs existed either in 1689 or in the 
 thirty years preceding. It is the truth of this statement that 
 it is our intention to prove. 
 
 What then were the causes of the revolution? It is usu- 
 ally said that the people were deceived by a few men into 
 a belief of a plot by the Catholics to massacre the Prot- 
 estants by means of a pre-arranged Indian invasion. The 
 alarm caused by this rumor occasioned an armed uprising 
 under these men, and they used the power thus acquired to 
 overthrow the Proprietary government that they might aid 
 their personal ambitions and interests. 
 
 The fault of this explanation is that it does not explain. If 
 the great mass of the people were devotedly attached to the 
 Proprietor, and that Proprietor's government was so pros- 
 perous and happy, it is difficult to beHeve that a handful of 
 men of no reputation could overthrow that government 
 bv an Indian scare and with but little resistance. 
 
8 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [478 
 
 The real causes of the revolution lie deeper than this. 
 They are the outgrowth of the thirty years preceding 1689, 
 and are to be traced in the history of that period, which has 
 never been given the proper amount of attention; its con- 
 stitutional side has been almost entirely neglected. The 
 whole interval has been disposed of in a very few pages. 
 This is the happiest period of Maryland's colonial history, 
 it is said, and as " those nations are happiest that have the 
 least history," the uneventful nature of the period is sup- 
 posed to be fully explained. 
 
 The Proprietor's residence in the colony during much of 
 this period is cited as a reason of the colony's tranquillity and 
 happiness. The actual residence of the Proprietor in the 
 province was indeed a test of the Palatinate organization of 
 the government. That it was such a successful test is quite 
 another matter and cannot be so freely affirmed. This 
 period was that of the most thorough organization of the 
 Palatinate system ever attempted in America, and here, as 
 in the Carolinas and New Jersey, the system seems not to 
 have been what the people desired. Indeed it is this system 
 that is attacked by the revolution more than anything else. 
 
 The Palatinate form of government — taxation, the inter- 
 ference of the Proprietor in the election of the Assembly and 
 his forcing legislation and disregard of the same, the filling 
 of administrative, judicial and legislative offices by the same 
 persons, the favoritism shown to relatives of the Proprietor, 
 his attempts to regulate fees, and harsh treatment of those in 
 opposition — were complained of by the colonists, as will be 
 shown. That the immediate cause alleged, namely, the op- 
 position of the Proprietary government to the claims of 
 William of Orange and its support of James II., was true, 
 there can scarcely be a doubt. 
 
 The attempt will also be made to show that Maryland 
 has been greatly influenced by the events occurring in Vir- 
 ginia and England, The influence of Virginia is especially 
 marked. Bacon's Rebellion, the arbitrary government in 
 Virginia, the rumors of Papist plots, the resistance to 
 
479] Iniroduction. 9 
 
 the introduction of Roman Catholicism in both England 
 and Virginia, the famous English Popish Plot, and the Eng- 
 lish Revolution of 1688, all affected the course of events 
 in Mar^'land. 
 
 The period extending from 1658 to 1689 is the object 
 of our consideration. It is necessary to inquire first what 
 was the constitution of Maryland in 1658 before proceeding 
 further. 
 
CHAPTER 11. 
 
 The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 
 
 Introductory. — The era of Maryland histoty extending 
 from its settlement to 1658 was one of continual change and 
 experiment. The constitution of the Assembly and Council, 
 the powers of the Governor and other officers, were never 
 fixed, and the constitutional structure varied continually. 
 The colony had fallen on evil days. The great contest of 
 Crown and Parliament was on the eve of breaking out in 
 England when the foundations of the Maryland colony 
 were laid. Until 1658 this contest was the cause of frequent 
 disturbances in Maryland. The disturbances caused by 
 Claiborne and Ingle, the jealousy of Virginia, the weakness 
 of the colony, and its disputed title, had all been disturbing 
 factors. In 1650 the Virginia Puritans migrated to Mary- 
 land, and a few years later they overthrew the Proprietary' 
 government and established a government similar to the 
 then existing English Commonwealth. This revolutionary 
 government lasted, however, but a few years, Lord Balti^ 
 more having gained the good-will of Cromwell. In 1658 
 the government of Maryland was firmly established by 
 Cromwell's directions, and the constitutional structure at 
 last attained a point of stable equilibrium. 
 
 At the beginning of the colony the Proprietor had pro- 
 posed a series of laws to be passed by the Assembly.^ The 
 Assembly refused to accept these as laws;"* but, from the 
 character of the laws it did consent to pass, we may believe 
 them to have embodied practically the ideas of the Pro- 
 prietor. The system of government established was that 
 of the County Palatinate, having all that is characteristic of 
 that system. Many of the provisions were never put into 
 
 * I. Assem. 6. * I. Assem. 9. 
 
481] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 11 
 
 effect, especially those creating dififerences in rank and priv- 
 ilege. Twenty years of actual existence caused many modi- 
 fications. A certain governmental system gradually evolved. 
 What was the constitution of the colony in 1658? 
 
 The Proprietor. — By the terms of the charter granted to 
 Lord Baltimore, the Proprietor was to hold the grant in free 
 and common socage and with all the rights and privileges 
 "as any Bishop of Durham in our kingdom of England 
 ever heretofore had held, used or enjoyed, or of right ought 
 or could have, use or enjoy." This made the Proprietor a 
 Palatine — a subject to be treated later. The powers of the 
 Proprietor at this period were the same as given him in the 
 charter, with but few modifications. The most important 
 of these was the resignation by the Proprietor of his right 
 to initiate all legislation, but through the Council, or more 
 directly, he presented the laws he wished to have passed. 
 The veto right was retained by him, and it could be exer- 
 cised at any time after the passage of a law. He had also 
 the control of elections and representation. He fixed the 
 time and place of meeting, the time of adjourning and pro- 
 roguing the Assembly.' He could make ordinances not 
 affecting the rights of " freeholds, goods or chattels." No 
 laws, however, could be contrary to reason, and all were 
 to be as near as possible to the laws of England. 
 
 The Proprietor could create and fill oliices, incorporate 
 towns and ports of entry, hold courts of justice, inflict pun- 
 ishment of life and limb, pardon offenses, set off counties and 
 local divisions, collect customs duties if laid with consent of 
 the Assembly, make war against Indians or other internal 
 enemies by land or sea, raise and maintain troops, appoint 
 officers for the militia, fortify his possessions, and declare 
 martial law whenever he thought it necessary. The Pro- 
 prietor could grant land in fee-simple, fee-tail, for life, lives, 
 or years, to be held by such customs, rents or services as he 
 chose. The statute of Quia Emptores,^ which forbade sub- 
 infeudation in England, was not to apply in Maryland. 
 
 * I. Assem. 259, 243, 369, etc. ' 18 Edward I. 
 
12 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [482 
 
 All writs, mandates and proclamations were issued in the 
 Proprietor's name. Everything was the Proprietor's, He 
 was more a sovereign in Maryland than the king was in 
 England. Such privileges as granting " titles of honor not 
 used in England " were not exercised, and attempts to create 
 a class of Lords of Manors were only fairly successful. The 
 Proprietor transmitted most of these powers, except his veto, 
 to officers in the colony, but he always maintained an over- 
 sight of all that was done. 
 
 The Governor. — The Governor was appointed by the Pro- 
 prietor and was his deputy, as shown by the title '' Lieuten- 
 ant-General," by which the Governor was usually called.^ 
 As deputy he had the general powers of the Proprietor, 
 having full executive powers in peace or war. Possessing 
 such great powers, the Governor was generally a member 
 of the Calvert family, as indeed were many other high offi- 
 cers of the colony, although occasionally some prominent 
 resident of the colony was chosen Governor, as in the case 
 of 1658. 
 
 Up to this period the Proprietor had not, for any con- 
 siderable time, played the role of absolute Governor. The 
 earlier commissions to the Governors stated in the fullest 
 manner their powers and duties.'' It was now stated that 
 the appointed Lieutenant General was to have all the 
 powers and privileges that the Lieutenant General preced- 
 ing him had enjoyed.^ The commission was read in the 
 Council and recorded by the Secretary, who then took the 
 Governor's oath of allegiance to the Proprietor.' 
 
 The commission created him Lieutenant General, Chief 
 Governor, Admiral, Chief Captain and Commander on land 
 and sea, Chancellor, Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate." 
 He could veto any law, and his assent was necessary to make 
 a law valid.* He could not assent to any law repealing a 
 law already, or to be enacted by the Assembly and to which 
 
 ^ I. Council, 49, 109, 152, 160, 202, ^22. 
 
 ^ I. Council, 49, 151, 201 'I. Council, 323. ^ I. Council, 209, 330. 
 
 " I. Council, 202, 203. "^ I. Council, 203. 
 
483] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 13 
 
 the Proprietor had assented, nor to any law estabhshing or 
 changing any officer.' He could not give his assent to any 
 law imposing fines, forfeitures or confiscations to be paid 
 to any but the Proprietor, nor to any law concerning 
 religion, the establishment of parishes, payment of tithes, 
 oaths to be taken by the people, treasons, matters of judi- 
 cature, or anything which mig'ht infringe upon or prejudice 
 the rights or prerogatives of the Proprietor/ Any such 
 laws required a special warrant from the Proprietor/ 
 
 The Governor presided as Chief Justice over the Pro- 
 vincial Court and could grant pardon for any oflfense except 
 treason/ He was empowered by his commission to pro- 
 pound and prepare wholesome laws and ordinances for the 
 Assembly, and also to issue in the Proprietor's name " ordi- 
 nances, edicts and proclamations," with penalties not ex- 
 tending to loss of life, limb or property/ He also pub- 
 lished all laws/ He designated the public ports and the 
 officers there to be employed, as also the places and dates 
 for the holding of markets and fairs/ He was keeper of 
 the Great Seal, and granted all writs, processes and com- 
 missions for the execution of justice, the dividing and 
 bounding of lands, licenses, and all public deeds and acts 
 whatsoever/ He could nominate two or three councillors, 
 subject, however, to the confirmation of the Proprietor/ 
 Nearly all of the subordinate officials were appointed directly 
 by him. He was commander-in-chief of the militia, and as 
 such appointed all subordinate military officers. The Gov- 
 ernor held his office at the pleasure of the Proprietor and 
 could be superseded by another appointee at any time.'" He 
 could appoint an acting Governor whenever he was absent 
 or dying. Such appointments often occurred." If the Gov- 
 ernor died or withdrew from the colony without naming an 
 
 ^ I. Council, 203. ' I. Council, 203, 204. ^ I. Council, 204. 
 
 * I. Council, 203, 205, 206, 207. ° I. Council, 203, 205. 
 
 ' I. Council, 204. ' I. Council, 205. * I. Council, 205. 
 
 ' I. Council, 208, 323. " I. Council, 202, 323. 
 
 " I. Council, 160, 207, 241, 255, and many others. 
 
14 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [484 
 
 acting Governor, the Council could elect such an officer, 
 but he must be a member of the Council and reside in 
 Maryland/ This point had once been the cause of some 
 contention.^ The salary of the Governor appears to have 
 been paid by the Proprietor.^ The amount cannot be 
 stated, nor do we know just how it was paid. Sometimes 
 the Assembly made an especial gift or grant to the Gov- 
 ernor.* Usually in this early period he was given a large 
 grant of land by the Proprietor. 
 
 The Council. — The members of the Council were ap- 
 pointed by the Proprietor and held office at his pleasure." 
 The Secretary was a member ex officio, and so was the Gov- 
 ernor, who presided. The Surveyor General was usually a 
 member. The number of the Council at this date (1658) 
 was about ten, although previously it varied from six to ten 
 and was never fixed. 
 
 New commissions to councillors were generally issued 
 whenever a new commission was issued to a Governor. 
 The oath of allegiance to the Proprietor was administered 
 to the Council by the Governor in a formal meeting.' All 
 meetings were subject to the call of the Governor. The 
 Council was advisory, legislative and judicial. As an ad- 
 visory body it assisted the Governor in the execution of the 
 laws, the appointment of officers, and on questions of war 
 and peace. It was virtually the cabinet of the Governor. 
 As a legislative body it acted from this time as an Upper 
 House, and its consent was necessary to every law. 
 Prior to 1650 the members of the Council had been also 
 members of the Assembly, which, with the exception of the 
 session of 1646, had only one house. The united opposi- 
 tion of the Council to any bill might not prevent its pas- 
 sage nor insure the veto of the Governor. The Puritans 
 had only one house during their term of power, but the 
 Assembly in 1658 returned to the division into two houses, 
 which has never since been changed. 
 
 ' I. Council, 207. ' I. Council, i88. * I. Assem. 416. 
 
 * I. Assem. 296. "I. Council, 211, 212. "1. Council, 213. 
 
485] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 15 
 
 With the Governor, the Council, without the assent of the 
 Assembly, could pass ordinances not affecting the life, lib- 
 erty or property of freemen. By this power the Council 
 established counties^ and hundreds, imposed embargoes 
 and remodeled public offices. 
 
 As a judicial body the Council at first dealt with all legal 
 questions, but by this time it considered, in the first instance, 
 only the more important cases, as the Provincial Court, 
 of which the Governor was ex officio chancellor. It also 
 sat as a Court of Appeals, where all cases of importance 
 were sure to come. It also sat as a Court of Chancery and 
 as a Court of Admiralty. The Council, with the Governor, 
 levied assessments on the colonists in accordance with 
 acts passed by the Assembly. 
 
 The Assembly. — The Assembly until 1650 had been uni- 
 cameral, although an Upper House is mentioned in 1646.* 
 Except during this session, the Governor, the Council, and 
 the freemen, or their representatives, had sat in one house 
 until 1650, when the Assembly was divided into two houses.* 
 Under the rule of the Puritan Commissioners, the Assembly 
 had been composed solely of the representatives of the free- 
 men, for there was neither Proprietor nor a Proprietor's 
 Council during this period. When the Proprietor regained 
 his power, his Council was restored and resumed its position 
 as the Upper House of the Assembly. The division of the 
 Assembly may, therefore, in one sense be regarded as con- 
 tinuous from 1650, although it was not fully established 
 until 1658. The Assembly had three branches — the Gov- 
 ernor, the Council, and the representatives of the freemen. 
 
 The Governor summoned the Assembly whenever he 
 thought fit, although triennial Assemblies had early been 
 desired,* and the Puritans had passed a law to that efifect." 
 Writs for the election of members were issued by the Gov- 
 ernor " by the advice and consent of the Council." ' These 
 
 ^ I. Council, 308. ' I. Assem. 209. ' I. Assem. 272. 
 
 * I. Assem. 75. ° I. Assem. 341. ' I. Assem. 381. 
 
16 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [486 
 
 writs were addressed to the sheriffs of the different counties/ 
 directing them to assemble their respective freemen and 
 elect burgesses for the Assembly, and by a fixed time make 
 return of writs to the Secretary's office.' The Governor then 
 issued a proclamation summoning the Assembly to meet at 
 a certain time and place. The members of the Upper House 
 were summoned by special writs addressed to each member. 
 
 When the Assembly met and organized, a Speaker was 
 chosen by the Lower House,^ and he was approved by the 
 Governor. The Clerk and other officers of the Lower 
 House were appointed by the Governor. The Secretary 
 was the Clerk of the Upper House. 
 
 In the early Assemblies (for example those of 1638, 1640, 
 1642) the quorum had been fixed at ten members,* but now 
 it was a majority of the members chosen. Any member 
 absenting himself without giving sufficient reasons for so 
 doing was fined.' As far as possible the procedure and 
 customs of the English House of Commons were followed 
 by the Lower House in Maryland. In the Upper House 
 the Governor presided. It was composed of the Secretary, 
 the Surveyor General, and the councillors summoned by 
 special writ.° 
 
 The Proprietor had relinquished his claim to initiate all 
 legislation, but he still presented laws to the Assembly for 
 its approval,^ and they were often passed. The Proprietor 
 could withhold his assent from an act indefinitely, or he 
 could veto any act. He was thus able to nullify legislation 
 whenever it pleased him. The Governor could prorogue 
 and dissolve the Assembly, though it had once declared 
 that it should only be prorogued or adjourned by its own 
 consent,' and on another occasion had protested against the 
 exercise of these powers by the Governor.' When the Pro- 
 prietor was present he exercised all the powders of the Gov- 
 ernor. He presided in the Upper House, and forced the 
 
 * I. Assem. 260, 369. " I. Assem. 381. ^ I. Assem. 261. 
 
 * I. Assem. 91. ° I. Assem. 274. ' I. Assem. 202, 381. 
 ^ I. Assem. 275, 278. ^ I. Assem. 117. * I. Assem. 180. 
 
487] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 17 
 
 passage of such legislation as he wished, or defeated any 
 measure displeasing to him. The Upper House was com- 
 posed of the Proprietor's creatures and did whatever he 
 wished. The Governor disputed the right of the Lower 
 House to expel any of its members.' The expenses of the 
 delegates were generally levied upon their respective coun- 
 ties.'' St. Mary's City was the usual place of meeting. 
 
 The Judicial System. — This comprised the Provincial 
 Court, the Court of Chancery, the Admiralty Court, the 
 Council as a Court of Appeals, and the County Courts. 
 These courts, with the exception of the County Courts, 
 which had small powers, were composed of nearly the same 
 members. The Provincial Court, sitting also sometimes as 
 a Court of Chancery and sometimes as an Admiralty Court, 
 is the court here to be considered. The members belonged 
 to the Council, which included all the chief officials of the 
 provincial government. Thus the Council, itself the crea- 
 tion of the Proprietor, combined the executive, judicial and 
 a large part of the legislative functions. The Governor pre- 
 sided over this court as chief justice, chancellor, or admiral. 
 In his absence the councillor next in commission presided. 
 Before this court nearly all cases came, either in the first 
 instance or on appeal from the county courts. For the 
 county and city of St. Mary's, it was the court of first instance 
 for all causes, civil, criminal and testamentary; and for the 
 rest of the province for all causes testamentary, all the more 
 serious criminal offenses, and all civil actions involving 
 property to the value of 1200 pounds of tobacco. All other 
 causes could be appealed to it from the county courts. The 
 judges were sworn to give judgment according to the laws 
 of the province. Where these were silent, the laws of Eng- 
 land were supposed to be followed. From this court, appeals 
 could be taken to the Council, sitting as the Upper House 
 of Assembly, upon writs of error. This was often done. It 
 often heard charges against citizens for sedition and bound 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 271. * I. Assem. 284. 
 
18 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [^%S 
 
 them over to the Provincial Court. Charges of misconduct 
 of officials were heard, and a great number of cases, especi- 
 ally those concerning land, came before it in the form of 
 petitions for final settlement. 
 
 The county courts had very limited powers. Civil 
 causes not amounting in value to 1200 pounds of tobacco, 
 and criminal causes not extending to life or member, were 
 tried by them, but appeals could be always taken to the 
 Provincial Court. The County Justices, or County Com- 
 missioners, as they were often called, were appointed by the 
 Governor. The County Commissioners still exist, but they 
 have lost nearly all their judicial power, while retaining the 
 numerous administrative duties with which the county 
 courts were burdened at this early period. A distinction 
 was made between justices of the quorum and the other 
 justices, in the commission appointing them, some of the 
 quorum justices being obliged to be present at a meeting 
 of the court to make it a legal session. The sittings of these 
 courts were regulated by acts of Assembly.^ Each had a 
 clerk,^ and all were courts of record. The Attorney General 
 was appointed by the Governor and sometimes acted as 
 Receiver General.' From this time on the covmty courts 
 were used more and more for administrative purposes, thus 
 depriving the sherifif of much of his importance. 
 
 Land. — The land question was always important. Al- 
 though granted to Lord Baltimore, the original rights 
 to the land had belonged to the Indians. The Proprietor 
 recognized this in at least a few instances.* Indeed, the set- 
 tlers made many purchases from the Indians until forbidden 
 by an act of Assembly, which declared that such purchases 
 infringed upon the rights of the Proprietor.' 
 
 The Proprietor granted the land to the adventurers 
 according to so-called Conditions of Plantation, several of 
 which had been issued by this time. By these conditions 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 149, 184, 232. ' I. Assem. 148, 149, 157, 162. 
 
 ^ I. Council, 261. 266. ^ Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 14. 
 
 ° Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 15; I. Assem. 248. 
 
489] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 19 
 
 the fee remained to the Proprietor, while the use was granted 
 in consideration of a small yearly quit-rent. The method of 
 granting the land was simple. The settlers entitled to land 
 by the Conditions of Plantation, or by special warrant of 
 the Proprietor, first had these rights recorded at the office of 
 the Secretary. Warrants of survey were then demanded for 
 the quantity of land to which applicants were entitled, and 
 were issued by the Governor, or the Secretary under his 
 direction. These warrants, signed by the Governor, were 
 directed to the Surveyor General, who, after making the 
 survey himself or by his deputies, returned certificates of 
 survey to the Secretary's office addressed to the " Lieuten- 
 ant General." Grants or patents were then issued under 
 the Great Seal, signed by the Governor, and endorsed by 
 the Secretary and Surveyor General.^ The quit-rent was 
 one shilling sterling for each fifty acres granted, and could 
 be paid in tobacco if the Proprietor was pleased to accept 
 it in lieu of money," The Proprietor had the right to estab- 
 lish whatever rents he chose. No land could be held con- 
 trary to the English statutes of mortmain,' and Maryland 
 still follows this good old rule. 
 
 Besides the ordinary grants, many manorial grants were 
 made. Lord Baltimore being freed by the charter from the 
 action of the statute Quia Emptores (i8 Edw. L). These 
 grants carried with them the rights to hold Court Baron and 
 Court Leet, with view of the Frankpledge, and these rights 
 were actually exercised.* The quit-rent for the manors was 
 the same as for other grants, though at one time previous to 
 this it had been twice as large. The lords of the manors 
 had other rights, for example, to stray cattle ' and escheats 
 of tenants' land upon non-payment of rent. Occasionally 
 land was forfeited by tenants for rebellion.* Perhaps fines 
 for alienation of manorial lands fell, during this early period, 
 
 ^ Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 65, 66. 
 
 ^ I. Council, 223, 233. ^ I. Council 227, 236. 
 
 ^Johnson's Old Maryland Manors. ° I. Assem. 271. 
 
 * Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 28, 92, 103, 104. 
 
20 Tlie Maryland Revolution of 1689. [490 
 
 to the lords of the manors, for Httle is heard of alienation 
 fines due the Proprietor previous to 1658/ A large number 
 of manors were surveyed for the Proprietor. These Pro- 
 prietary manors were divided into leaseholds of terms of 
 years at a small rent." 
 
 A great quantity of land escheated to the Proprietor. The 
 laws and rules of escheat were not those in use in England, 
 but rested on the construction and pleasure of the Proprie- 
 tor. The term escheat was applied in a most sweeping way 
 and embraced nearly all methods by which land might revert 
 to the Proprietor. Want of legal owners, forfeiture by trea- 
 son or suicide, failure to pay the rent, seem to have been 
 sufficient causes for escheat. The want of legal heirs was 
 construed very broadly, so that the land of a man dying 
 without heirs of the whole blood, in the direct descending 
 line, was liable to escheat. The want of heirs was the most 
 general cause of escheat. All these rules were very favor- 
 able to the Proprietor. The escheats were found by juries 
 of the neighborhood upon a mandamus issued from the 
 Court of Chancery to the sheriff of the county in which the 
 land was situated, and ordering the sitting of such a jury 
 upon the land in question." 
 
 The inhabited portions of the province were divided into 
 hundreds. The bounds of the hundreds were appointed by 
 the Governor, and in the early period they were not only 
 election districts, but also the bases of representation.* The 
 militia was organized by these hundreds," and they were the 
 bases of the collection of revenue. As soon as the amount 
 of the population justified it, counties were established by 
 the Governor, each embracing several hundreds. 
 
 Each county had a sheriiT and a county court. The 
 assessments were levied upon the counties, and they were 
 the bases of representation in the Assembly.' The county 
 
 ^ McMahon's Maryland, 175. 
 
 ' Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 219, 220. 
 
 * Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 173, 174, 175, 176. 
 
 * I. Assem. 260. ' I. Assem. 159, 193, 253. ° I. Assem. 284. 
 
491] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 21 
 
 was also the basis of the poor relief/ At this time the coun- 
 ties were just beginning to come into prominence. 
 
 Taxation. — The expenses of the province were small. 
 Almost all the officials were paid with fees. The expenses 
 of the Assembly and the cost of wars with the Indians or 
 internal dissensions were the main items of expenditure. 
 In 1647 the Proprietor undertook to defray the whole charge 
 of the government in consideration of an " act for cus- 
 toms " passed by the Assembly. This act granted the Pro- 
 prietor a duty of ten shillings on each hogshead of tobacco 
 exported from the province.^ But in 1650 an act was passed 
 relating to the levying of war within the province. By this 
 act all the expenses of any such war were to be levied upon 
 the inhabitants of the province.^ The " whole charge of the 
 government " meant, evidently, the payment of the officials 
 of the Proprietor and the costs of any wars or disturbances, 
 for we find the expenses of the Assembly and other minor 
 expenses levied upon the inhabitants.* 
 
 The act of 1647 had caused much complaint ° and had 
 been the cause of an animated correspondence between the 
 colonists and the Proprietor.' The Assembly of 1648 de- 
 clared that the previous Assembly was not a legal one and 
 protested against all the laws passed by it.^ The Assembly 
 of 1649 passed an act limiting the ten shillings export duty 
 to tobacco shipped on Dutch ships to other than British 
 ports, provided that one-half of the duty should be used in 
 satisfying claims arising from the defense of the Proprietor's 
 rights in the recent rebellion (of Ingle).' 
 
 The Assembly of 1650 passed an act that no subsidies, 
 aids, customs, taxes or impositions should thereafter be laid, 
 assessed, levied or imposed upon the freemen of the prov- 
 ince, or their goods or chattels, without the consent and ap- 
 probation of the freemen obtained in a General Assembly.* 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 296. ' I. Assem. 416. ° I. Assem. 302, 416. 
 
 * I. Assem. 231. ** I. Assem. 220, 221. ' I. Assem. 238, 262. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 220. * I. Assem. 252. * I. Assem. 302. 
 
22 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [492 
 
 In another act it was declared that the freemen could not be 
 compelled to serve in any war without the province unless 
 the General Assembly had approved such war, nor should 
 martial law be exercised in any place except in camps and 
 garrisons/ 
 
 The expenses of the Assembly and the other provincial 
 expenses were levied by a direct poll tax. This was equally 
 assessed upon the freemen of the county, hundred or prov- 
 ince, according as the expense was for the benefit of county, 
 hundred or province. The Puritans, by an act of 1654, 
 taxed property, the law directing that not only freemen, 
 but also all servants (except women not negro or Indian) 
 should be taxed) also land, cattle and horses.' This act was 
 of course not regarded after 1657. These taxes were levied 
 by act of Assembly, which specified every appropriation.* 
 The poor rate was assessed upon the counties.* 
 
 Common law fines and amerciaments and forfeitures 
 formed another source of proprietary revenue. They were 
 due the Proprietor as head of the State. Amerciaments were 
 fines imposed by acts of Assembly and were granted by them 
 wholly or in part to the Proprietor.'' 
 
 Other sources of revenue for the Proprietor were the quit- 
 rents and alienation fines. The quit-rents were the charges 
 to be perpetually and annually paid to the Proprietor by 
 those to whom he had granted land. The amount of the 
 rent depended upon the Conditions of Plantation, and so it 
 was never uniformly fixed. Rents at this period were pay- 
 able either in money or commodities, as the Proprietor de- 
 sired,' though at the beginning they were payable in wheat.^ 
 
 Alienation fines had been little noticed, but in the year 
 1658 the new Conditions of Plantation declared that one 
 year's rent should be reserved for fines for any alienations. 
 These fines must be recorded in the provincial, or in a county 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 302. ' I. Assem. 342. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 142, 143, 144, 238, 284. * I. Assem. 296. 
 
 ° I. Assem. 108, 161, 193, 251, 286, 294, 295 are instances. 
 
 ' I. Council, 223, 233. ' I. Council, 47- 
 
493] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 23 
 
 court, and the fine paid before alienation, otherwise the 
 alienation was invalid. 
 
 Besides all these revenues, the licenses for trade with 
 Indians, for keeping ordinaries, etc., yielded something.* 
 The Proprietary manors afiforded revenue. Subsidies were 
 occasionally granted to the Proprietor." Moreover, debts 
 due him were to be paid before any other debts.' 
 
 The fees due to officials of the province were regulated 
 by acts of Assembly, which was never content to have them 
 regulated by the Proprietor. Sometimes a Receiver Gen- 
 eral was appointed;' sometimes the Attorney General or 
 the Secretary was also Receiver General.'* By this time the 
 offices of Secretary and Receiver General seem to have been 
 considered as united in one person.' 
 
 TJic Currency. — There was but little money in colonial 
 IMaryland. Some coin had been acquired from the Spanish 
 colonies and was of varying value. The actual currency in 
 use was tobacco. Taxes were levied and collected in to- 
 bacco. Officials' fees were estimated and paid in tobacco, 
 as were all debts, fines and contracts. This commodity was 
 a legal tender by act of Assembly.' The Proprietor's rents 
 were paid in tobacco. In fact, tobacco was money. 
 
 The Militia. — The Maryland militia was organized on the 
 basis of divisions of the province called hundreds — a rever- 
 sion to old Teutonic custom. All men in each hundred 
 between sixteen and sixty years of age and able to bear arms 
 met, chose a commander and arranged whatever they 
 thought necessary for the common defense.* The Puritans 
 enacted that each county should have a captain and other 
 officers to see that the inhabitants were properly supplied 
 with arms.' Afterwards the Proprietary government ap- 
 pointed colonels for each county. These colonels were usu- 
 ally members of the Council. The Governor was, by his 
 
 'I. Assem. 307; I. Council, 300, 303. 'I. Assem. 123. 
 ^ I. Assem. 304. 
 
 'I. Council, 263. "I. Council, 116, 261. 'I. Council, 323. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 162. * I. Assem. 253. * I. Assem. 347. 
 
24 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [494 
 
 commission, commander-in-chief, and led the troops in 
 person. The " muster master-general," while the office 
 lasted, had also a certain power over all the militia. The 
 troop of the hundred was called a trained band, and had a 
 sergeant to train it, whose fees were sometimes regulated by 
 the Assembly. Systems of alarm upon signs of danger were 
 carefully arranged and were rigorously enforced.' 
 
 Religion. — The facts of the Act of Toleration in 1649, i^s 
 repeal in 1654, and re-establishment in 1658,'' are well known. 
 There was no original connection between the Church and 
 the Government. No church could hold land contrary to 
 the English statutes of mortmain.^ By early statutes it had 
 been declared that Holy Church should have all its rights 
 and liberties within the province,* and by this term the 
 Roman Catholic Church was most probably meant. By this 
 time (1658) the Protestant part of the population outnum- 
 bered the Catholics. 
 
 The Secretary. — In point of importance the Secretary was 
 the second officer in the province. He recorded all grants 
 of land or offices, and was empowered to probate and record 
 all wills and inventories and grant letters of administration. 
 He w^as the secretary of the Council and recorded all the 
 ordinances and proclamations of the Governor as well as 
 any instructions." The Secretary was the clerk of the 
 Assembly until it divided into two houses." After this divi- 
 sion he remained the clerk of the Upper House.^ He ad- 
 ministered the oath of office to the Governor and the coun- 
 cillors. His income was drawn from fees, which the 
 Assembly regulated by acts.* The Secretary at this time 
 was the brother of the Proprietor and was given larger pow- 
 ers than any other previous Secretary," but it is only neces- 
 sary to state that these were intended as checks upon the 
 
 'I. Assem. 159, 193, 253, 347. 
 
 'I. Assem. 244, 340, 351; I. Council, 334. 
 
 * I. Council, 227, 235, 237. ' I. Assem. 83, 96. 
 
 " I. Council, 218, 328. • I. Assem. 247. 
 
 'I. Assem. 286, 371. 'I. Assem. 289, 311. * I. Council, 335. 
 
495] The Constitution of Maryland, 1658. 25 
 
 power of the Governor. The Secretary sometimes col- 
 lected the rents and other Proprietary dues/ and after 1658 
 is generally the Receiver General. Occasionally the Secre- 
 tary was also the Attorney General.' 
 
 The Surveyor General. — This officer was first appointed in 
 1641.' He held office at the pleasure of the Proprietor/ and 
 had the power to appoint deputies to assist him.^ These 
 deputies received such fees as he allowed, and he was held 
 responsible for their conduct.' His pay was derived from 
 fees, which, like those of the other officials, were regulated 
 by act of Assembly.' All warrants of survey were directed 
 to him by the Governor, and he executed them himself, or 
 by his deputies, and then returned certificates of survey to 
 the Secretary's office addressed to the Lieutenant General. 
 He seldom executed these warrants himself, and in many re- 
 spects resembles the steward of the old English manor. He 
 was the counterpart of the seneschal of the Palatinate of 
 Durham. 
 
 The Muster Master-General. — This officer was appointed 
 in 1648. He was paid by fees ' and held office at the Pro- 
 prietor's pleasure. He seems to have been a kind of com- 
 mander-in-chief, subordinate, of course, to the Governor, 
 and saw to it that the military regulations of the govern- 
 ment were carried out and the drills duly held. He per- 
 haps exercised martial law when needed and carried out the 
 penalties for disobedience. 
 
 The Sheriff. — The sheriff was appointed by the Governor. 
 He was a county officer and served all writs and warrants.* 
 He inflicted all required punishments upon criminals. He 
 was the collector of all taxes laid by assessment upon the 
 taxables. He kept criminals imprisoned and took bail from 
 accused persons.'" He held inquests in the absence of any 
 
 'I. Council, 116. 'I. Council, 158. 'I. Council, loi. 
 
 * The first Surveyor General held durante vita. 
 ' I. Council, 219. ° Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 271. 
 
 'I. Assem. 163, 312. * I. Council, 215; I. Assem. 283, 292. 
 
 'I. Council, 117, 229. '° I. Assem. 360. 
 
26 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [496 
 
 coroner, and indeed was often appointed coroner as well as 
 sheriff. To him the writs of election were issued. He held 
 the elections and made the returns.^ His pay was by fees, 
 which were duly regulated by acts of Assembly." The 
 sheriff was the representative of the Proprietor's power in 
 the counties and was responsible to the Proprietor alone. 
 He was the possessor of large functions, and was in no way 
 subordinated to the county courts. The only power the 
 people had over him was the power to regulate his fees. 
 
 The Constable. — The constable was appointed by the Gov- 
 ernor for each hundred. Every lord of a manor also ap- 
 pointed a constable.^ His office was often connected with 
 that of coroner,* and until the counties were organized, writs 
 were directed to him to hold elections. The constable, dur- 
 ing this earlier period, executed all writs and warrants. In 
 a word, he exercised all the functions of a sheriff. At this 
 time (1658) his duties are well summed up in the oath for 
 constables enacted several years later." He raised the hue 
 and cry, arrested all law-breakers, and presented to the 
 county courts all breaches of the laws of the province, and 
 executed all warrants directed to him. 
 
 The Coroner. — This office was held either by the sheriff or 
 the constable," and did not become a distinct office until 
 several years after 1658. 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 260, 369. * I. Assem. 289, 308, 360. ' I. Assem. 412. 
 ^ I. Council, 91. ° I. Assem. 410. 'I. Council, 85, 91, etc. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 The Maryland Palatinate. 
 
 Maryland was a Palatinate. Its charter gave Lord Bal- 
 timore, " all and singular, such and as ample rights, jurisdic- 
 tions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities, 
 and royal rights and temporal franchises whatsoever, as well 
 by sea as by land, within the region, islands, islets and limits 
 aforesaid, to be had, exercised, used, and enjoyed, as any 
 Bishop of Durham within the bishopric or County Palatine 
 of Durham in our kingdom of England ever heretofore hath 
 held, used, or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have 
 held, used or enjoyed." 
 
 The nature of the Palatinate of Durham has been fully 
 discussed elsewhere.^ The Proprietor had even more power 
 than any Bishop of Durham ever had. Within the province 
 of Maryland the Proprietor had regal power. It was his 
 justice that was administered in the courts, and all writs and 
 warrants were issued in his name. These courts were ap- 
 pointed by him, and he determined their jurisdiction and 
 manner of proceeding. In them he had the laws executed, 
 and passed sentences amounting even to confiscation and 
 death. He likewise had the royal power of pardon and had 
 admiralty jurisdiction. The Proprietor could erect towns, 
 boroughs, cities, and ports of entry and departure. 
 
 From the Proprietor all land was held. He received all 
 escheats and fines for alienations, and had sovereign title to 
 all mines, wastes, forests and chases. He could erect 
 manors with court leet and court baron. The Proprietor 
 
 ^ A most excellent description of the constitution of the Palat- 
 inate of Durham may be found in J. S. Bassett's Constitutional 
 Beginnings of North Carolina. In Surtees' History of the County 
 Palatine of Durham and the Publications of the Surtees Society, 
 more detailed information may be found. 
 
28 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [498 
 
 could raise troops and levy defensive warfare, even pursuing 
 enemies without the limits of the province. He could exer- 
 cise martial law. He could impose duties upon ships and 
 merchandise. He could establish churches and chapels and 
 have them consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws 
 of England. He held their patronage and advowsons. Only 
 through the Proprietor could the king do anything in the 
 province. All these powers belonged to the Palatine of 
 Durham, and all except the ecclesiastical ^ were exercised by 
 the Proprietor of Maryland. 
 
 In the matter of legislation there is a difiference. There 
 was no provision in Durham for the assembling of the people 
 to make laws. If the Palatine wanted any new laws they 
 were passed by his Council, which was composed of the chief 
 men of the county. The Proprietor, however, had the right 
 to call assemblies of the freemen and enact laws with their 
 assent. But the colonists insisted on their right to propose 
 and enact laws with the assent of the Proprietor. This right 
 was obtained. The Proprietor retained his right to initiate 
 some legislation but not all. Maryland laws, like those of 
 Durham, were published in the courts. The Proprietor was 
 not obliged to submit these laws to the Crown for approval. 
 In addition, the Proprietor could publish ordinances not 
 extending to life, member or property. This has been aptly 
 designated as a police power. Again, the Proprietor pos- 
 sessed an adrantage over the Bishop of Durham, in that 
 cases between the Bishop and his subjects could be appealed 
 to the Court of Exchequer in London, whereas cases be- 
 tween the Proprietor and his subjects were finally settled 
 in the Proprietor's courts, from which there was no appeal 
 to the king. Parliament levied taxes on the Bishop of 
 Durham, and these were collected by his officers, as taxes 
 were collected in Maryland by the Proprietor's officers, but 
 Parliament had no power to tax the Proprietor of Mary- 
 land, and the charter exempted him from royal taxation. 
 
 ' This power was exercised by the Proprietor after 1715. 
 
499] The Maryland Palatinate. 29 
 
 The administrative machinery of the Proprietary govern- 
 ment bears some Hkeness to that of the Durham Palatinate. 
 The Governor of Maryland was its administrative head. He 
 had the highest judicial jurisdiction and presided over the 
 Court of Chancery. Thus he resembled the Chancellor of 
 Temporalities of the Bishopric of Durham. In both gov- 
 ernments are seen the Receiver General. In both the sheriff 
 was the executive officer of the Palatine, collected the rev- 
 enue and was responsible to the Palatine alone. The Sen- 
 eschal of Durham bore some resemblance to the Surveyor 
 General of Maryland, and the bailiff to the constable. The 
 Bishop's Council had its counterpart in the Proprietor's 
 Council, which, while it had less legislative, had more judi- 
 cial power and also retained great influence in legislation. 
 
 The division of the courts into County Courts and Hal- 
 mote Courts was followed in the powers given to the Pro- 
 vincial, Chancery, Admiralty and Council, and to the County 
 Courts. While allegiance to the king was reserved, the 
 oath of fidelity was taken to the Proprietor, and all writs ran 
 " in the year of our dominion." In the period now to be 
 considered it will be seen that the Proprietor had vastly 
 more power in Maryland than the king had in England, and 
 freely exercised his power. In no other American colony 
 was there such despotic authority. In none was such abso- 
 lute government ever established as existed in Maryland in 
 this period. 
 
 The people had, by the charter, the rights of Englishmen 
 and the right to consent to impositions. It was the constant 
 assertion of these ancient rights that enabled the freemen of 
 Maryland to resist successfully the demands of the Pro- 
 prietor and to obtain a high degree of independence. But 
 this was not accomplished without many struggles, some of 
 which it is now intended to sketch for the purpose of throw- 
 ing new light on Maryland constitutional history in a com- 
 paratively unknown period. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 Constitutional History of Maryland, 1658-1689. 
 
 It is intended to sketch the constitutional history of Mary- 
 land from 1658 to 1689. While the point of view of the 
 people is taken, it is attempted to do justice to the Pro- 
 prietor, who hitherto has received exclusive attention. The 
 first division of the period may be entitled: 
 
 The Restoration of the Proprietary Government and Fendall's 
 Rebellion. — In 1657 the Proprietary government was once 
 more restored, but only in St. Mary's County. Not until 
 the latter part of March, 1658, did the newly appointed 
 Governor rule over the whole province, the six Puritans of 
 Providence signing the articles March 26.^ 
 
 Fendall, by his commission dated July 10, 1656, had been 
 given greater powers than any Governor had exercised for 
 a long time, but a check was soon placed upon Fendall by 
 the appointment of Philip Calvert, youngest brother of the 
 Proprietor, as Secretary.^ The presence of a Calvert in the 
 province was sure to keep prominent the privileges of the 
 Proprietor, and also assured a lucrative position to a mem- 
 ber of the family. The office given to Philip Calvert was 
 that of Secretary and Receiver General, ranking next to the 
 Governor. Almost the first thing the Council did was to 
 ask the Assembly to free the Councillors from paying taxes 
 for themselves and ten poll in addition, as was done in Vir- 
 ginia; ' but it does not seem to have favorably impressed the 
 Assembly, as no such law appears to have passed. The 
 enactments of the Puritan Assemblies were torn from the 
 records.* 
 
 The next thing to be noted is the persecution of the 
 Quakers," in direct violation of the law declaring all persons 
 
 ^ I. Council, 340. ^ I. Council, 327. ' I. Council, 341. 
 
 *McMahon's Maryland, 210. ° I. Assem. 351, 358. 
 
501] Coiistitutional History of Maryland. 31 
 
 who profess to believe in Jesus Christ, to have Hberty of con- 
 science and free exercise of their rehgion. The Quakers 
 had made many converts, especially in the Puritan settle- 
 ments." 
 
 Baltimore and Charles counties were established at this 
 time, thus increasing the number of counties to six. 
 
 Fendall's Rebellion was now in preparation. As early as 
 October, 1658, Thomas Gerrard had been prosecuted by the 
 Attorney General for having said, as it was alleged, that the 
 Governor would yield to anything requested by the people of 
 Anne Arundel, although it is doubtful whether Fendall had 
 any idea of rebellion at that time. Gerrard was a friend of 
 the Governor and does not seem to have suffered from this 
 charge. 
 
 The real causes of the disturbance that now arose are 
 scarcely explained by Maryland historians. Governor Fen- 
 dall is charged with being the chief cause of rebellion. It 
 is true that Fendall tried to keep in favor with the party of 
 resistance, and that he was intimately connected with Ger- 
 rard, whose party was destined to triumph in 1689; but it 
 was really the question of taxation that caused the so-called 
 Fendall's Rebellion. It is sometimes said it was a Puritan 
 movement, and so it was in one sense; but Gerrard, who 
 seemed to be the real leader, was a Catholic who had been 
 and was then a member of the Council. In 1647 ^^ ^■ct was 
 passed by the Assembly granting the Proprietor a duty of 
 ten shillings on every hogshead of tobacco exported from 
 the province. This act, by the admission of the Proprietor, 
 was the cause of complaints.' In 1649 ^^ act was passed, 
 granting the Proprietor for seven years a duty of ten 
 shillings on every hogshead of tobacco exported on any 
 Dutch vessel, not bound to an English port. This act im- 
 plies the repeal of the act of 1647, although not expressly 
 declaring it so repealed.^ The Puritans did not enter Marv- 
 land until 1649, ^"^1 soon afterward overthrew the Proprie- 
 
 ' I. Council, 362. ' I. Assem. 420. ^ I. Assem. 252. 
 
32 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [502 
 
 tary government. They could not have been seriously 
 affected by this act. 
 
 The Proprietor in 1659 sent instructions to Fendall to 
 have the act of 1647 repealed upon condition that another 
 be enacted, imposing a duty of two shillings on every hogs- 
 head of tobacco exported to Great Britain or Ireland, and 
 ten shillings on every hogshead exported to any other coun- 
 try.' The act of 1647 ^^so provided that the expenses of any 
 war should be borne by the Proprietor, but an act of 1650 
 declared that the expenses of any war should be levied upon 
 the taxables.^ The determination of the Proprietor to have 
 an export duty levied upon the province aroused an opposi- 
 tion that successfully resisted the demand until 1671. 
 
 Cromwell was now dead, and his son had resigned the 
 Protectorship after a few months of power. It now seemed 
 to the colonists that everything was at sea; whoever seized 
 the government would keep it. This was the idea of Ger- 
 rard and Fendall. 
 
 An Assembly was called, to which the demands of the 
 Proprietor were submitted. The writs for the election 
 of four burgesses from each county were issued,' and on 
 February 28, 1660, the Assembly met. The membership of 
 the Lower House is noteworthy. In the first place, Anne 
 Arundel County, the center of Puritanism, sent seven dele- 
 gates,* headed by Fuller, the head of the late Puritan gov- 
 ernment. This representation was a violation of the writs, 
 which called for only four delegates from each county. Of 
 the twenty-seven delegates chosen, at least twenty had been 
 connected with the former Puritan government," or their 
 Puritanism can easily be proved.' Some also held office by 
 Fendall's appointment.' Anne Arundel and Calvert coun- 
 ties had eleven delegates. Baltimore County was repre- 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 420. * I. Assem. 302. 
 
 * I. Assem. 381. * I. Assem. 382. 
 
 ° Compare I. Assem. 382 with I. Assem. 339, 340, 359, I. Council, 
 317, 318. 
 
 ' I. Council, 351, 352, 358. ^ I. Council, 348. 
 
503] Constitutional History of Maryland. 33 
 
 sented for the first time, and its delegates, after some hesi- 
 tation, joined Fendall's party. 
 
 On the side of the Proprietor there were assured only 
 three delegates of St. Mary's County, and of these we can 
 only be entirely certain of one named Barton, who had been 
 especially commended to Fendall by the Proprietor for 
 preferment.' The Lower House promptly contested the 
 election of these three delegates ' — the first instance of a 
 contested election in Maryland. Fendall ordered a new 
 election, but the only man defeated was Barton, who was 
 replaced by Gardner, certainly an adherent of the Calvert 
 party. The Governor had power to influence the elections 
 through his appointees, the sheriffs. This Assembly illus- 
 trates the fact. In the Upper House, Fendall had Gerrard 
 and Utye. Lloyd, who was sick at this time, was absent. 
 For the Proprietor there were Philip Calvert the Secretary, 
 John Price the commander of the militia, Clarke the Sur- 
 veyor General, ex-Governor Stone (who died about this 
 time). Baker Brooke, who was devoted to Lord Baltimore, 
 and Luke Barber, an ardent Catholic. 
 
 The Lower House demanded that the instructions of the 
 Proprietor for the repeal of the act of 1647 be sent down." 
 The commission for the repeal of this act, together with a 
 " bill for customs to be propounded to the Assembly," was 
 read in the Upper House and sent down to the Lower House. 
 Nothing more is heard of this commission, nor, indeed, was 
 such an act ever passed. The act of 1647 was repealed the 
 following year.* The duty, when it did pass in 1671, was 
 made a uniform one of two shillings per hogshead of 
 tobacco. Part of the duty even then was applied to the 
 expenses of the province.^ 
 
 The Lower House sent the following declaration to the 
 Upper House, that " this Assembly of Burgesses judging 
 themselves to be a lawful Assembly without dependence on 
 
 ' I. Council, 326. ^ I. Assem. 383. ' I. Assem. 383. 
 
 * I. Assem. 416. " II. Assem. 284. 
 
34 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [504 
 
 any other Power in the Province now in being is the highest 
 Court of Judicature. And if any Objection can be made to 
 the Contrary, Wee desire to heare it."\ This declaration 
 will not seem so strange if compared with that made by the 
 Virginia Assembly at this time, that " the supreame power of 
 the Government of this country shall be resident in the 
 Assembly " and that " all writs issue in the name of the 
 Grand Assembly of Virginia." ' 
 
 The Upper House asked: (i) If this paper was addressed 
 to the Governor and Council, or to the Governor and those 
 of the Council present by virtue of special writs received for 
 the Assembly; (2) if they judged themselves a complete As- 
 sembly without the Governor and the members of the Upper 
 House; and (3) if they judged that they were wholly inde- 
 pendent of the Lord Proprietor. The Lower House then 
 requested a conference, which was held the next day. In 
 this conference Fendall, Gerrard and Utye declared in favor 
 of the Lower House, while Philip Calvert, Baker Brooke 
 and Price opposed it. The Lower House informed the 
 Upper that they could not allow it to be an Upper House, 
 but that they might come and sit in the Lower House, to 
 which Philip Calvert replied that in that case the Governor 
 was President of the Assembly and the Speaker must yield 
 his place to him. 
 
 Another conference was held, in which it was agreed that 
 the Governor should preside and have a casting vote, but 
 the Speaker was retained, with the power of adjourning or 
 dissolving the Assembly. Philip Calvert refused to agree 
 to these terms, " it being a manifest breach of his lops Right 
 Royall Jurisdiction and Seigniory," and wished to have his 
 reasons entered on the journal of the Lower House, but 
 this was refused by the Governor; "Whereupon hee and 
 Mr. Baker Brooke departed the House (after leave asked) 
 and given in these words or to this effect (vizt) you may if 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 388. 
 
 'Campbell's Virginia, 242; Cooke's Virginia, 219. 
 
505] Constitutional History of Maryland. 35 
 
 you please, wee shall not force you to goe or stay, uttered 
 by the Governor." 
 
 The Upper House had now been virtually dissolved and 
 the Lower House ruled supreme. Fendall received a com- 
 mission from the burgesses, as they called themselves, and 
 Gerrard, Utye, and Slye, the Speaker of the House and the 
 son-in-law of Gerrard, were appointed to the Council.^ 
 
 Fendall and the Puritans were now in control, but their 
 reign was short. The following May, Charles H. returned 
 to England as king. This event meant, among other things, 
 Baltimore's restoration. Philip Calvert was commissioned 
 Governor, and the King ordered Virginia to aid Lord Bal- 
 timore in regaining Maryland. As soon as all these things 
 became known in Maryland, men saw that resistance was 
 useless and none was attempted. The uncertainty of the 
 English Government had been the immediate cause of the 
 rebellion; the firm determination of that Government caused 
 its immediate collapse." By the last of October the news 
 had arrived and the new Governor began to take rigorous 
 measures against the rebellion. A new Council was ap- 
 pointed and an armed force collected.* Fendall, seeing 
 resistance was useless, surrendered and was speedily tried. 
 Thus ended his rebellion. 
 
 The Period of Resistance, 1660- 1670. — This decade was 
 marked by the resistance of the Assemblies to the demands 
 of the Proprietor, and was ended in 1670 by the disenfran- 
 chisement of the poorer classes of the province. 
 
 Lord Baltimore wrote to the Governor on no account to 
 spare Fendall's life, " nor if yow can doe it (without hazard- 
 ing the regaineing of the Province) to pardon so much as 
 for life any of those that sate in the Council of warr at Ann 
 Arundel and consurred to the Sentence of death gainst Mr 
 Eltonhead, or other of my friends then and there murthered, 
 and haue now againe engaged against me in this Second 
 
 * Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 20. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 389. * I. Council, 394. 
 
36 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [506 
 
 Rebellion, but to doe Justice upon them and I shall iustify 
 you in it." The estates of Gerrard and Hatch, who was Fen- 
 dall's father-in-law,' were to be confiscated. The Governor 
 might use martial law if he so desired. 
 
 Lord Baltimore's reference to the Anne Arundel court- 
 martial shows the Puritan basis of this rebellion, and reveals 
 the long-continued resentment of the Proprietor. As a 
 matter of fact, William Fuller suffered more severely than 
 any other. He had to flee from the province and lost his 
 estate. An attempt was made by certain informers to in- 
 volve his wife and friends in a plot for his return in 1664.* 
 Fendall, Gerrard and Hatch were sentenced to banishment 
 and their estates were confiscated; but these sentences were 
 remitted, and only inability to hold or elect to office was 
 imposed, with security for good conduct. Upon Hatch 
 was laid a heavy fine and banishment.^ 
 
 Why was any leniency shown? Partly, we may conjec- 
 ture, because of the reluctance of the Council to go too far 
 and thus irritate the Puritans, and partly because neither 
 Fendall nor Gerrard was a Puritan; Gerrard was indeed a 
 Catholic. The temper of the people was still ugly toward 
 the Proprietary government, for an insurrection was raised 
 in Charles County the very month of the trial, by one John 
 Jenkins, who had been a member of Fendall's Assembly." 
 Several men concerned in this affair were tried by jury and 
 acquitted, a fact complained of by the Governor to the As- 
 sembly as contrary to law. He asked that a law be passed 
 to provide for such cases.' The Lower House, however, 
 voted that the persons indicted for " mutiny and sedition " 
 be cleared. 
 
 In 1657, in his instructions to Fendall, Baltimore had 
 authorized him, with the consent of the Secretary and two 
 others of the Council, to make any foreigner capable of the 
 
 ^ Council Book, 1677- 1683, 337. ' I. Assem. 494. 
 
 ^ This banishment was remitted by Charles Calvert, I. Council, 
 442. 
 
 * I. Council, 382, 445. " I. Assem. 402. 
 
507] Constitutional History of Maryland. 37 
 
 Conditions of Plantation, but no action seems to have been 
 taken on this until 1661, when letters of denization were 
 issued to Augustine Herman, and soon afterwards to many 
 others. The " Conditions " were sometimes evaded, for we 
 find a certain foreigner named as county commissioner 
 before letters of denization were issued to him.' 
 
 An Assembly was now called by the Governor in 1660. 
 The Lower House immediately complained about the writs 
 of election sent to the sheriffs and asked an explanation. 
 These writs directed the sheriffs to " cause to be elected such 
 and so many discreete men as you shall thinke fitt to serve 
 as Burgesses in the said Assembly." The Governor and 
 Council replied that the sheriff could reject only those dis- 
 quahfied by crime, and the choice of the number of bur- 
 gesses was given to him only as representing the county; 
 the freemen could really choose as many as they desired. 
 This explanation seemed to be satisfactory, but it can easily 
 be seen how great an influence the sheriffs, the appointees of 
 the Governor, could exert in the elections. The Lower 
 House, evidently mindful of the last Assembly, now asked 
 that an act be passed granting freedom of speech to its mem- 
 bers, to which request the Governor responded that there 
 was no necessity for such an act and that they would have 
 as much freedom of speech as any burgess in Parliament. 
 
 The Assembly thereupon passed several important acts — 
 first of all, an act establishing a mint. This measure had 
 been urged by Lord Baltimore in 1659. He had coined 
 some money at that time," and an " Act for setting up of a 
 Mint" had been considered in the previous Assembly.' 
 After some opposition the act was now passed. The oppo- 
 sition was due to the doubts of some members whether the 
 Palatine of Durham had the power to coin money.* This is 
 another example of the royal power exercised by Lord Bal- 
 timore. The act further provided that counterfeiting and 
 
 ^ I. Council, 424, 429. 
 
 ' I. Council, 365, 383, 385. ° I. Assem. 387. * I. Assem. 400. 
 
38 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [508 
 
 all like offenses should be punishable by death; and that the 
 Proprietor should accept this coined money for all debts 
 due him from the colonists/ 
 
 A Pension Act was also passed.' By an act for the ap- 
 pointment of certain officers, the Assembly took new power 
 into its hands. Three persons were to be yearly rec- 
 ommended by each county court to the Governor as suit- 
 able persons to be appointed sheriffs. The Governor was 
 to name one of the three, sheriff, and this appointee was to 
 serve one year.^ The same restriction of the terms of the 
 sheriffs in England had been made by Parliament as early as 
 1444.* Each county court was likewise to name the con- 
 stables of the hundreds, who should hold no other office. 
 The lords of the manors named their own constables.' 
 
 This noteworthy attempt to curb the appointing power 
 shows the importance of the sheriff. The act, however, was 
 only observed for a few years by the Governor and then 
 disregarded, as " infringing the prerogative " of the Pro- 
 prietor. Of course the county courts were appointed by 
 the Governor, but it was Hkely that the court would have 
 named good men. The limitation of the sheriff's term to 
 one year made him responsible to the people. 
 
 As regards the customs duties, which had caused such a 
 stir in the preceding Assembly, they were repealed and a tax 
 of twelve pounds of tobacco was levied on each taxable per- 
 son in the province, to be paid to the Proprietor for the sup- 
 port of the government.* The Assembly declared that when 
 the duty of ten shillings per hogshead was granted in 1647, 
 the Proprietor assumed all the charges of the government 
 both in war and peace, but that, by an act of 1650, the 
 charge for any war within the province was to be borne by 
 equal assessment on the inhabitants; therefore they now 
 repealed the act of 1647.^ For recompense the Assembly 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 414. ^ I. Assem. 408. * I. Assem. 412. 
 
 ^ Taswell-Langmead's English Constitutional History, 331. 
 
 ° I. Assem. 410. ° I. Assem. 417. ' I. Assem. 416. 
 
509] Constitutional History of Maryland. 39 
 
 passed a port and anchorage duty of one-half pound of 
 powder and three pounds of shot, or their value, for every 
 ton of burden m the case of all vessels having- a deck flush 
 fore and aft, and trading to the province but not owned in it.^ 
 To this act the Proprietor had already given his assent in a 
 long letter, in which he abused Fendall while actually justi- 
 fying him/ Thus the rebellion of the preceding year was 
 successful in one of its main objects. The taxes were not 
 raised. The Upper House refused to assent to an act for 
 the maintenance of clergymen, a refusal which was repeated 
 many times before 1689.° The Upper House also declared 
 that the transcription of the old laws was a perquisite of the 
 Secretary and could not be taken away from him. Talbot 
 County was at this time set ofif by the Governor. 
 
 During all this time Philip Calvert was Governor, Chan- 
 cellor, Secretary, and Treasurer. In fact, he centered all the 
 chief offices in himself. But now there was a change. 
 Toward the end of 1661, Charles Calvert, the son of Lord 
 Baltimore, arrived with the commission of Governor." Philip 
 Calvert was to remain Chancellor and Keeper of the Great 
 Seal. To Henry Sewall, who came wdth Charles Calvert and 
 was his intimate friend, was given the office of Secretary." 
 This was the beginning of the system of appointing mem- 
 bers or close friends of the Calvert family to all the important 
 offices. From this time on the government of the province 
 became more and more a family affair. Just at this time, 
 however, there was one member of the Calvert family who 
 was not at all pleased; Philip Calvert had been shorn of most 
 of his power and, what was more grievous, of most of his 
 fees. That there was no love lost between uncle and nephew 
 may be seen from a letter written by Charles Calvert to his 
 father.^ In the same letter is seen the Chancellor's dislike 
 for the Secretary and his opposition to him.' Charles Cal- 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 418. * I. Assem. 420. ' I. Assem. 406. 
 
 * I. Council, 439. ° I. Council, 439. 
 
 " Calvert Papers, 241, 242, 246, 251. ' I. Assem. 524. 
 
40 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [510 
 
 vert was a firm friend of Sewall's and frequently granted him 
 extra powers,' 
 
 A curious passage may be quoted, showing the light in 
 which the Cal verts viewed Maryland. " Your lopps bearing 
 date as p Margent I receiu'd & the several Bills of lading 
 & inuoyce & other papers being duplicats of those I had 
 receiu'd by Tully, & att the same time my Cozen Wms. 
 sister arriued here & is now att my house, & has the care of 
 my household afifaires, as yett noe good Match does prsent, 
 but I hope in a short time she may find one to her owne 
 content & yor. Lopps desire I shall further what I can 
 towards it" ' A match was soon found for her, for she was 
 married to Baker Brooke the following year. The natural 
 consequence of this alliance was that Brooke was imme- 
 diately created a member of the Council. A few years later 
 he was appointed Surveyor General. For convenience, 
 Charles Calvert granted to Sewall the right to sign warrants 
 for land.' With Philip Calvert sided Henry Coursey, who 
 seemed one of his most intimate friends. 
 
 An Assembly was called by the Governor. The writ 
 required " one, two, three or foure discreete Burgesses," 
 instead of the obnoxious " such and soe many discreete men 
 as you shall think fitt to serve as Burgesses." This con- 
 tinued to be the form for a long time.^ The first thing con- 
 sidered was a declaration of several inhabitants of Anne 
 Arundel County, which the Upper House declared seditious. 
 They desired the Lower House to find out the authors of it. 
 The Lower House desired that if any member abuse his 
 freedom of speech he be tried by the Assembly and not by 
 any court, to which point the Upper House agreed. The 
 Lower House then acknowledged that one of its members 
 was connected with the seditious paper and wished to try 
 him, but at a conference the " Upper House did satisfye the 
 lower that Robert Burle is not to be tryed by an Assembly, 
 
 * I. Council, 444. ^ Calvert Papers, 244. 
 
 ' I. Council, 444. * I. Assem. 425. 
 
511] Constitutional History of Maryland. 41 
 
 but at a Provincial Court regularly."^ Burle, however, 
 saved himself by humble submission. 
 
 About this time some ten men, including Fendall, were 
 arrested as dangerous characters. The mutinous spirit was 
 evidently still alive.^ The Upper House refused to pass an 
 " Act prescribing how to give Evidence to those of tender 
 Consciences," ' an act evidently intended for the benefit of 
 Quakers, who suffered from an act passed in the previous 
 Assembly.* The Assembly declared, in regard to sherififs, 
 that the three persons nominated by the county court must 
 give bond to the same and that the county would be answer- 
 able to the Proprietor. Sheriffs must execute all warrants, 
 writs and proclamations directed to them by the Governor 
 and Secretary, and relating only to the public, without fees. 
 A statute of limitations was passed which has lasted, prac- 
 tically in the same shape, until to-day.^ 
 
 An act defining taxable persons was passed and a fee was 
 imposed on marriages.^ In an act concerning the Secre- 
 tary's fees, the Secretary was directed to send a copy of the 
 laws to each county court, at a charge of looo pounds of 
 tobacco.' The Governor's salary was fixed at 25 pounds of 
 tobacco per poll." In the beginning of 1663 a commission 
 was issued to Elzey, Horsey, Thorne and Odbur to grant 
 land warrants on the Eastern Shore in any part below the 
 Choptank river.' This was the beginning of the Eastern 
 Shore Land Office.'" All fees from such warrants were to 
 go to the Secretary, 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 430. - 1. Council, 445, 449- ' I- Assem. 436. 
 
 * I. Assem. 411. 
 
 St. Mary's County complained of having the Provincial Court 
 Grand Jury, to which it was answered that every county ought and 
 must have a Quarterly Grand Jury. I. Assem. 438. 
 
 " I. Assem. 449. ° I. Assem. 449, 450. 
 
 The purchase of a State House and prison was authorized (the 
 prison was ordered to be built by the Governor and Council). I. 
 Council, 460. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 454. * I. Assem. 452. ' I. Assem. 462. 
 
 '" In 1661 such a power had been given for six months only to 
 Scarburgh, Revel and Elzey. I. Council, 435. 
 
42 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [512 
 
 The next Assembly was called in the September of this 
 year. Jerome White, the Surveyor General, had been made 
 councillor by the Proprietor. It is worth noting that 
 Thomas Notley now first appears. The first naturalization 
 act was passed.' The Assembly ordered that a pillory, stocks 
 and a ducking stool be set up in each county, and irons for 
 the burning of malefactors. The sheriffs were to take bail 
 from all persons arrested. The Governor's pay w^as con- 
 tinued at twenty-five pounds of tobacco per poll, and the 
 Secretary was created a notary public." 
 
 Three important acts were passed concerning land. First, 
 that all conveyances of land or houses must be in writing; 
 " noe Manners Lands Tenemts or other hereditamts shall 
 pass alter or change from one to another within this Pvince 
 whereby an Estate of Inheritance or Freehold shall be made 
 or take Effect in any Pson or Psons," unless made in writing, 
 indented, sealed, and enrolled in the Provincial Court or the 
 county court. The clerk of the court was to enroll these 
 deeds and, at the end of the year, send the roll to the Sec- 
 retary." Second, any person holding quiet possession of 
 land for five years should be considered as holding sufficient 
 title.* Third, servants should no longer receive any land at 
 the expiration of their term of service." 
 
 In September, 1664, a new Assembly met. It passed acts 
 providing for ferries and a magazine, but is chiefly interest- 
 ing as showing the animosity of Philip Calvert and Henry 
 Coursey to Henry Sewall, the Secretary,' and for the passage 
 of an " Act concerning Negroes & other Slaves." By this 
 act all negroes and slaves were to serve during their life- 
 time. Any freeman marrying a slave should be a slave to 
 the same master during the slave's life-time. Any issue of 
 such women should be slaves, except the issue of women 
 already married, who should serve until thirty years of age.' 
 
 ^ I. Assem. 462. ^ I. Assem. 490, 491. 492, 498. ' I. Assem. 488. 
 * I. Assem. 501. ° I. Assem. 496. " I. Assem. 524. 
 
 ' I. Assem. 527, 533. 
 
513] Constitutional History of Maryland. 43 
 
 In 1666 the Governor received a new commission, and, 
 with the Chancellor, was sworn in, as was also Richard 
 Boughton, the new Secretary. Somerset County was soon 
 after established/ 
 
 The Assembly that met this year held an interesting ses- 
 sion. The Speaker chosen was Thomas Notley," a man of 
 whom we shall hear further. There is an account of a Bal- 
 timore County election in the proceedings of this session, 
 showing the power of the sheriff in elections. It seems this 
 sheriff was also clerk of the court, and, while at one of the 
 court sessions, received a writ for the election of delegates 
 to the Assembly. He immediately held an election, 
 although, of course, only a few of the inhabitants were 
 present.' 
 
 The Lower did not always agree with the Upper House. 
 The chief cause of dispute was over the " Cessation of To- 
 bacco," as it was called. It was an agreement not to plant 
 any tobacco for a year. This cessation was greatly desired 
 by the Governor and the Council, whose fees, paid in to- 
 bacco, were diminishing in value. The Lower House op- 
 posed the measure.^ The contest was quite lively, the Lower 
 House refusing to go into conference with the Upper or to 
 debate the matter, saying it would infringe upon their 
 rights. An appeal to English customs was then made by 
 the Upper House. It was urged that the House of Lords 
 used to sit and vote with the Commons, and that the Pro- 
 prietor had absolute right to do as he pleased in the prov- 
 ince. But for his command to the contrary, they would 
 come and vote with the Lower House." 
 
 The Lower House did not go into conference with the 
 Upper, but nevertheless consented to the proposed cessation 
 if Virginia and the Carolinas should do likewise. The objec- 
 tions of the Lower House had been most skillfully answered 
 
 ' I. Council, 553. ^ II. Assem. 10. * II. Assem. 74. 
 
 * II. Assem. 2^, 27, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 66, 97, 98. 
 100, loi, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 113. 
 ^ II. Assem. 42. 
 
44 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [514 
 
 by the Upper.' The Speaker and other members of the 
 Assembly wrote to the Proprietor asking him to veto the 
 act, which he did.' Tlie conflicting interests are well shown 
 in Lord Baltimore's answer to the remonstrance of Virginia 
 to the king on account of this veto.' The Lower House was 
 inclined to assert itself and its rights." It called itself a 
 House of Commons," This fact was perhaps due to a pre- 
 ponderance of the old Puritanical influence, for quite a num- 
 ber of the members had been members of Fendall's Assem- 
 bly and were in sympathy with it." 
 
 The Chancellor was a figure of importance. He informed 
 the Assembly of the reasons for calling the session and was 
 quite prominent at various times.' The Lower House was 
 very careful of its records, and an act was passed to make 
 sure of their preservation.^ As usual, the limitation of fees 
 was an important matter, and something was done toward 
 it " in the case of the Muster Master-General as well as for 
 the clerks of the county courts. The Governor was empow- 
 ered to carry on war without the province for two years."* 
 This Assembly, like others, had the danger of an Indian war 
 to consider. 
 
 The beginning of Maryland road laws is seen in an act 
 providing for highways and making the heads of rivers, 
 creeks, branches and swamps passable for horse and foot. 
 The roads were to be selected by the county commis- 
 sioners, who were to appoint overseers and levy tobacco or 
 labor upon the taxables of the county. The law has re- 
 mained in force until to-day with scarcely any change.^* 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 45, lOQ- ' 11. Council, 18. ' II. Council, 15. 
 
 * II. Assem. 24, 89, 91. ° II. Assem. 64. 
 
 * Slye, Preston, Burle, Besson, Utye, Howell, Wade, Gerrard, 
 Fowke and others. 
 
 ' II. Assem. 10, 49, 109. " II. Assem. 76, 133. 
 
 " II. Assem. 135, 137. " II. Assem. 136. 
 
 " II. Assem. 134. In the discussion of the bill it was decided that 
 roads should be fifteen feet wide, but this seems to have been aban- 
 doned with other things later on. II. Assem. 68, 77. 
 
515] Constitutional History of Maryland. 45 
 
 Among other important acts passed this session were those 
 forbidding that any person should be sheriff and clerk at the 
 same time/ or that a county justice, sheriff or county clerk 
 should plead any case as attorney in his own court/ both 
 of which abuses were serious. A coroner was to be ap- 
 pointed in each county/ and a copy of the laws of the prov- 
 ince was to be sent to each court, for which copy the Chan- 
 cellor got a handsome fee.* A bill was introduced for set- 
 tling clergymen in every county. It failed to pass, but 
 caused some disturbance.^ The introducer of the measure 
 was called a " ffactious fellow " by the clerk of the House, 
 who was a Roman CathoHc." 
 
 Of the next few years we know but little. The chief 
 measure was the erection, by ordinance of the Governor, 
 of certain ports or towns where all loading or unloading of 
 ships must take place. The ordinance was re-enacted 
 almost yearly, and was evidently not obeyed, despite the 
 inducements offered.' Dorsett, later called Dorchester 
 County, was set off during this period. The Assembly that 
 met in 1669 was resolved to remedy affairs. The Gov- 
 ernor communicated to the Assembly the Proprietor's veto 
 of nine laws passed in 1664.' The Lower House immedi- 
 ately asked for a copy of Lord Baltimore's charter, which 
 was given, and then demanded to know if there was any 
 person in the province who could confirm bills passed by this 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 132. * II. Assem. 132. 
 
 ' II. Assem. 130. " II. Assem. 133. 
 
 An appropriation was made for building a prison, and innkeepers 
 were regulated. II. Assem. 139, 148. 
 
 All persons in the future who wished to leave the province were 
 required to post their names three months before in the Secretary's 
 office, and if no objection at the end of this time, the Governor 
 issued passes to them. I. Assem. 145. 
 
 This law gave rise to an interesting dispute later. 
 
 ° II. Assem. 86. ' Davis' Day Star, 137, 225. 
 
 That this Assembly enjoyed life is shown by their expenses, which 
 included wine, brandy, beer, rum, " Limeade," and " Beverage with 
 sugar in it." 
 
 ^ II. Council, 31, 35, 47. ' II. Assem. 157. 
 
46 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [516 
 
 Assembly so that they could not be repealed except by con- 
 sent of the Assembly. The Upper House answered that 
 this power belonged to the Proprietor alone." This power 
 of the Proprietor to repeal laws whenever he wished was 
 always considered a great grievance by the colonists. The 
 Upper House was now composed of Charles Calvert, Philip 
 Calvert, William Calvert, Baker Brooke, who had married 
 William Calvert's sister, Jerome White, the Surveyor Gen- 
 eral, William Evans, commander of all the military of the 
 province, Henry Coursey, the close friend of Philip Calvert, 
 and Thomas Trueman. The Calvert family had the ma- 
 jority, and from this time on continued to have it. 
 
 The Upper House took up the case of a clergyman, 
 Charles Nicholett, who had preached a sermon to the mem- 
 bers of the Lower House. He had urged them to keep before 
 them the example of the last House of Commons in Eng- 
 land. He said they had the same power and liberty as the 
 people of England, and if they did not pass laws agreeable 
 to their conscience they possessed no real liberty. The 
 people expected much, and the Assembly should consider 
 especially the heavy taxes of the preceding year. All this 
 was considered " seditious " by the Upper House. When 
 summoned before it, Nicholett said he had been urged by 
 members of the Lower House to stir it up to do its duty, but 
 upon being asked their names he denied that he had said any 
 such thing. He was then fined and ordered to acknowledge 
 in the Lower House his error in meddling in governmental 
 affairs, and had to ask the pardon of the Proprietor, Gov- 
 ernor and Assembly.^ 
 
 Another cause of complaint was the taxes. The Lower 
 House asked by what law the last levy was raised. The 
 Upper House said it was by the perpetual law called an 
 " Act concerning the levying of war within the Province." ' 
 The Lower House now prepared a statement of the public 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 159, 161. 
 
 * II. Assem. 159, 162, 163. ' II. Assem. i6r. 
 
517] Constitutional History of Maryland. 47 
 
 grievances, seven in number: (i) That there was no one 
 authorized by the Proprietor to confirm the laws. (2) That 
 laws in the law-book signed " his Lordship willeth these to 
 be laws," should be repealed only with consent of the As- 
 sembly, and yet they were annulled without the consent of 
 the Assembly. (3) That the raising of the last levy was con- 
 trary to the Proprietor's charter and the laws of the province, 
 and without the consent of the freemen. (4) That privileged 
 attorneys were a grievance. (5) That the sheriffs seized 
 tobacco upon pretence of public debt (6) That officers took 
 illegal and excessive fees. (7) That vexatious informers 
 were a grievance.' 
 
 As far as the first two charges are concerned they were 
 doubtless grievances, but perfectly justified by the charter. 
 Nevertheless it was hard to have a law annulled after years 
 of enforcement; everything done under the law was thus 
 made illegal. The other charges are without doubt justi- 
 fied. As early as 1650 the Assembly had declared that 
 without its consent no money should be raised.* This was 
 an attempt to raise money as the Council pleased, or, in a 
 word, to govern without a representative Assembly, as had 
 been tried in England years before. The Upper House 
 made an elaborate answer to the grievances, declaring that 
 they v/ere all prerogatives of the Proprietor and demanding 
 that the Lower House raze the paper from its journal.' Then 
 came quite a contest, during which the Upper House in- 
 formed the Lower that they were not like the English Com- 
 mons, but their powers were only such as the Common 
 Council of London, and that their only power to meet was 
 by virtue of Lord Baltimore's charter. No charter, no As- 
 sembly; no Assembly, no privileges.^ 
 
 This doctrine made the Assembly of small moment and 
 the prerogatives of the charter everything. By logical de- 
 duction the Governor and Council had all power. The 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 168. " I. Assem. 302. 
 
 ' II. Assem. 173, 177. * II. Assem. 178. 
 
48 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [518 
 
 Council was nothing but a family ring. The result was to 
 give all offices to the Calverts or their relatives, who got 
 what they could and did what they pleased. In a word, the 
 field of Maryland was to be worked by them for the sake of 
 offices and fees. The colony was to be governed absolutely 
 by means of the Proprietor's prerogative. The Lower 
 House finally agreed to raze the first three charges. The 
 Upper House agreed to join in asking the Proprietor to 
 remedy the other grievances.' One of the privileged attor- 
 neys was impeached, but to no purpose,^ for he was evidently 
 a favorite of the Governor.' The Upper House acted with 
 great arrogance toward the Lower and asked it why it did 
 not pass certain laws.* Among other things the Lower 
 House was told that the appointment of sherififs belonged 
 to the royal power of the Proprietor, and no act should be 
 passed concerning it."^ The slight check that the Assembly 
 had striven to place on sheriffs was thus done away with. 
 The act had not been observed by the Governor for several 
 years." The fees of officers had been complained of and the 
 sheriff's fees were regulated. The Chancellor showed his 
 desire for fees,^ and, although a source of complaint,* his 
 fees were not regulated. The Governor's pay, however, was 
 changed from a poll tax of 25 pounds of tobacco to six 
 pence per hogshead of exported tobacco." Among the most 
 important laws passed was one making tobacco a legal 
 tender at the rate of three halfpence per pound for payment 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 179, 180, 181, 182, 183. 
 
 "11. Assem. 163, 167, 168, 169, 172. 
 
 " I. Calvert Papers, 264. * II. Assem. 190, 193, 194. 
 
 " II. Assem. 197. 
 
 * The sheriff's arbitrary exercise of power is shown in the election 
 in Somerset County to this Assembly. II. Assem. 187. 
 
 ' II. Assem. 186, 189. * II. Assem. 176. ^ II. Assem. 217. 
 
 The Lower House rejected one bill for the Governor's support 
 and refused to confer with the Upper House as to the reason of 
 their dissent, as it would be a breach of their privileges. II. Assem. 
 189, 190. 
 
519] Constitutional Historij of Maryland. 49 
 
 of money debts, with no refusal allowed,' The Proprietor 
 having repealed the act appointing a public notary, the Gov- 
 ernor, by ordinance, created the chief clerk of the Secretary 
 a public notary.' 
 
 Charles Calvert now paid a short visit to England. He 
 named Philip and William Calvert as Deputy Governors. 
 His jealous fears of Philip Calvert had been calmed by the 
 Proprietors declaration that Charles Calvert, but not his 
 deputies, could suspend members of the Council or add new 
 members.^ At the same time the quit-rents were raised to 
 two shillings for every fifty acres." During Charles Cal- 
 vert's absence in England he raised the number of Deputy 
 Governors to four, Philip and William Calvert, Baker 
 Brooke and Jerome White formed a government by a kind 
 of family council.^ Ofifice-holding in Maryland henceforth 
 became more and more a family affair. 
 
 William Talbot, the nephew of Lord Baltimore, was ap- 
 pointed Secretary and Probate Judge of the province and 
 also Public Notary for Maryland." He was instructed to 
 look carefully after escheated and forfeited lands. Proprie- 
 tary manors and quit-rents, alienation and other fines.^ The 
 law and rules for escheats did not follow English practice, 
 but were whatever the Proprietor pleased,* 
 
 Inducements were offered to settlers in the disputed lands 
 on the Eastern Shore." Again we find the separation of 
 the Land Office in the appointment of William Stevens and 
 James Weedon to grant, under restrictions, land warrants 
 for the Eastern Shore." A customs collector for the Eastern 
 Shore was also appointed." This year the sheriff's return of 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 220. 
 
 Like the preceding Assembly, this one took care of its records 
 by act, Assem. 209. 
 
 * II. Council, 49. ' II. Council, 55. * II. Council, 54. 
 
 "IT. Council, m. *II. Council, 70. 'II. Council, 72. 
 
 ' Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, 176. * II. Council, 63, 78. 
 
 " II. Council, 79, 124. " II. Council, 83, 104. 
 
50 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [520 
 
 tithables was not accepted, and it was ordered that the con- 
 stables make lists of the tithables of their hundreds and 
 deliver them to the Council/ For the first time the Gov- 
 ernor appointed a Deputy Surveyor." The most important 
 constitutional change of the year was the restriction of suf- 
 frage. 
 
 The Period of Submission, 1670-1676. — During these 
 years the Proprietor gained almost all he demanded from 
 the province, especially in regard to the export duty of two 
 shillings per hogshead. The Assemblies offered some resist- 
 ance, although in the main they were very submissive. 
 The last one before this period had been very unruly. In 
 Virginia suffrage had just been restricted on account of 
 alleged unruly proceedings and disturbances at elections." 
 Virginia influence was always marked in the action of Mary- 
 land. Restriction of suffrage may have been decided 
 upon in the conference of Lord Baltimore with Charles 
 Calvert in England about this time. In later years the 
 example of England was cited as well as that of Virginia.* 
 Charles Calvert can always be found in opposition to the 
 poorer classes, and deserves not the respect which was 
 accorded to his father. All we know of this restriction of 
 suffrage is from the election writs issued to the sheriff in 
 this year, which required the summons of all the freemen 
 having " within said County Visible seated Plantations of 
 fifty acres of Land at the least or Visible personal Estates 
 to the value of forty Pounds Sterling at the least," to the 
 county court, there to elect delegates of similar property 
 qualifications to the Assembly. The poorer classes no 
 longer had any representation in the Assembly. The 
 Assembly now contained very few of the members who 
 served in 1669. This Assembly was continued by proroga- 
 tion until 1676, and almost the same members reappeared in 
 that year. It is significant that these Assemblies gave the 
 Governor but little trouble. 
 
 ' II. Council, 76. ' II. Council, 80. 
 
 ' Burk's Virginia. * Lib. R. R. 106. 
 
521] Constitutional History of Maryland. 51 
 
 The Assembly of 1671, while passing nearly everything 
 demanded by the Governor, still maintained some of the 
 independence of the other Assemblies. The Lower House 
 immediately demanded of the Governor why all the mem- 
 bers elected had not been summoned to attend. The Gov- 
 ernor answered that the sheriffs of Kent, Dorchester and 
 Somerset counties had asked him, in the name of their 
 " poor counties," to summon only as many delegates as 
 formerly, which he did.^ This explanation satisfied the 
 Lower House, and so a way was left open for the future 
 summoning of such and as many members as the Governor 
 pleased, a right that was to be fiercely disputed in future 
 Assemblies and to be a constant source of irritation. 
 
 The time of the Assembly was largely devoted to passing 
 the act giving to the Proprietor two shillings per hogshead 
 of exported tobacco. The Lower House wished to make 
 the tax twelve pence and to limit the operation of the act 
 to three years, but the Upper House, by several concessions, 
 induced the Lower to pass the act making the tax 
 two shillings and extending the operation " dureing the 
 Natureall life of the Right Honble Cecilius now Lord & 
 Proprietary of this Province and for one Cropp more next 
 after his decease." " This important act provided that one- 
 half of the tax was to be expended in maintaining arms and 
 ammunition for the defense of the province and in defraying 
 other " necessary charges of the Government." 
 
 By the wording of the act it can be seen that the Gov- 
 ernor and councillors were paid from this fund. The act 
 also provided that no public levy should be laid without the 
 consent of the representatives of the freemen in the Assem- 
 bly; that tobacco was to be receivable for quit-rents and 
 alienation fines at two pence per pound, which was quite a 
 concession; also that the act granting the Muster Master- 
 General a fee be repealed, and that the clause which made 
 all the charges of such a war assessable on the inhabitants, 
 
 * Assem. 240, 241. ^ II. Assem. 249, 255, 256, 257, 258, 260, 284. 
 
52 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [522 
 
 be suspended in the act for levying war within the 
 province. All of these provisions were concessions of the 
 Upper House to the Lower. What the preceding Assembly 
 had striven to accomplish was obtained by this Assembly 
 in exchange for the continuation of the tobacco tax. In an 
 act establishing the value in Maryland of foreign coins it 
 was especially provided by the Upper House that the two 
 shillings per hogshead were to be paid in English money 
 sterling. The exportation of money was strictly forbidden.^ 
 
 An act was also passed against " divulgers of fake news," 
 which was extended so as to mean any reports about the 
 justices of the Provincial or the county courts.^ This act 
 was bound to prove of great service to the Proprietary 
 government in suppressing any kind of disorder, and, with 
 such a government, would certainly be used in a manner 
 to awaken resentment. 
 
 An act was read for the " founding & Erecting of a 
 School or College within this Province for the Education of 
 Youth in Learning & Virtue," but the Lower House de- 
 manded that the teachers should belong to the Church of 
 England, or else one should be a Catholic and another a 
 Protestant, and the Protestants should have liberty to 
 choose their teacher.' This was a moderate request, since 
 Protestants were known to be the more numerous party, 
 but the project was abandoned. 
 
 A naturalization act was proposed, but that also seems 
 to have failed.* As usual, fees were considered. Those 
 of the county. Provincial Court clerks, the county seal, the 
 Coroner and the Chancellor, who always looked out for 
 
 * II. Assem. 264, 286. ' II. Assem. 258, 260, 273. 
 
 'II. Assem. 262, 263. * II. Assem. 249. 
 
 The eflfort of the Lower House to have the sheriff of Talbot 
 County deprived of his office took up most of the session and is 
 interesting. It shows how the county justices were often members 
 of Assembly who would not if they had not been justices. II. 
 Assem. 244, 246, 250, 251, 254, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269. This case 
 again came up in the Assembly of 1674 (H. Assem. 258, 357), and 
 again the sheriff is almost self-condemned. 
 
523] Constitutional History of Maryland. 53 
 
 himself, were regulated/ The powers of the County Com- 
 missioners were extended. They were empowered to levy 
 tobacco for the payment of the county charges by an 
 " Equall Assessment of the goods and chattels of the free- 
 men and inhabitants " of the county." This is the beginning 
 of the present taxing power of the County Commissioners, 
 by which all county taxation is levied/ 
 
 At the second session of this Assembly of 1671 the city 
 of St. Mary's was for the first time represented. It had two 
 members — John Morecroft, who had been so bitterly at- 
 tacked by the Assembly of 1669, and Thomas Notley, who 
 was a stickler for the Proprietor's privileges,* Notley was 
 chosen Speaker.' The reasons are seen in a letter written 
 by Charles Calvert to his father: " Mr. Notley is now 
 Speaker of our Assembly; hee and Mr. John Morecroft 
 beinge Chosen Burgesses for the Citty of St. Maries, And 
 by that Meanes I gott him into the Assembly, Though 
 Doctor Wharton bee a good understandinge Man yett Dr. 
 Morecroft is much more for our purpose, being the best 
 Lawyer in the Country, and has always been (upon other 
 Assemblies) a great Assertor of yor. Lopps Charter and the 
 Rights & Privilidges thereof, I durst not putt itt to an Elec- 
 tion in the Countyes Butt tooke this way which I knew 
 would certainly doe what I desired And now I haue gott 
 Mr. Nottley into the Chaire, I haue Assured him, That with 
 yor. Lordships Leaue, I am resolued to Keepe him there as 
 longe as hee and I Hue together, It is most Certaine that 
 some of the Catholiques in the Assembly Did not behaue 
 themselues as was Expected, hereafter they will I hope En- 
 deauour to understand themselues Better And their owne 
 Interest."" 
 
 * II. Assem. 263, 292, 294. ° II. Assem. 273. 
 
 *The importation of slaves was encouraged (II. Assem. 272); 
 standard weights and measures ordered for each county (II. Assem. 
 279); and practically the same land laws were re-enacted (II. 
 Assem. 276, 305) as those of 1663, which had been vetoed by the 
 Proprietor as announced in 1669. 
 
 *ll. Assem. 311. ° II. Assem. 312. 'I. Calvert Papers, 264. 
 
54 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [524 
 
 It is easy to see why St. Mary's City, as it was called, 
 obtained representation in the Assembly. It is easy to see 
 that the prerogatives of the Proprietor and the interests of 
 the Catholic inhabitants of the province were the chief 
 objects of the solicitude of the Proprietor and his son the 
 Governor. That the Catholics did not always act with 
 moderation is apparent. In all the following Assembhes 
 we find the Lower House, whenever it did not pass what the 
 Governor wished, called to conferences by the Upper House, 
 its reasons demanded for rejecting an act, and in certain 
 cases the Governor made angry addresses to them. The 
 Lower House was tampered with continually. 
 
 When assembled, the Lower House petitioned that the 
 Governor should issue a writ for the election of a member 
 from Dorchester County in place of a sitting member, a 
 right which it soon declared belonged to the Speaker.' The 
 Lower House wished to limit appeals from the county to 
 the Provincial Court, in actions of debt and trespass, to 
 cases exceeding six hundred pounds of tobacco, but the 
 Upper House would not agree " in prohibitting Appeals 
 from the County Court to the Provincial Court in any 
 action whatsoever." ^ These small cases were very vexa- 
 tious, but the Upper House was practically the Provincial 
 Court, which fact explains everything.' 
 
 Baker Brooke was now appointed Surveyor General,* and 
 in the instructions sent him he was ordered to hold courts of 
 " Enquiry and Survey " once a year in each county to ex- 
 amine the right and title of any one's claim to land, whether 
 any one held more land than he should, and what rents and 
 services he should pay to the Proprietor. A yearly report 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 313. ° II. Assem. 314. 
 
 ' About all this session did was to strengthen the act forbidding 
 clerks and sheriffs to plead as attorneys in their own courts, by 
 including all sub-clerks and deputy sheriffs and enlarging the 
 penalty. II. Assem. 322. 
 
 * II. Council, 85, 94. 
 
525] Constitutional History of Maryland. 55 
 
 of the proceedings was to be made to the Proprietor and 
 the Receiver General/ 
 
 At about the same time the sheriffs, each for his own 
 county, were directed to make a perfect rent roll and de- 
 liver it to the Governor/ William Talbot, the nephew of 
 the Proprietor and Secretary of the province, appointed 
 Robert Ridgely chief clerk of the Provincial Court (a place 
 evidently well worth having),^ and Register and Examiner 
 of the High Court of Chancery and Keeper of the Lesser 
 Seal/ The Council, on one occasion at least, ordered letters 
 of administration issued/ It is therefore likely that Ridgely 
 did not have powers of judge of probate, but that these went 
 to the Council/ When Talbot's commission was revoked, 
 the Chancellor was made probate judge and grantor of let- 
 ters of administration. 
 
 Fendall was sued for the thirds of a vessel seized in 1659,^ 
 a charge trumped up on the basis of a rumor/ It was but 
 a few days later (Dec. 6-15) that a certain Lewis was bound 
 over to the Provincial Court for uttering seditious words/ 
 At the same time action was taken against Gerrard, who 
 •now lived in Virginia, for taking an Indian from the prov- 
 ince without the consent of the Governor." An ordinance 
 was issued erecting Worcester County," and a high con- 
 
 ^ II. Council, 95. 
 
 The Proprietor's manors are to be looked after, and for every 
 50 acres only 15 pole are to be surveyed on any creek or river. 
 II. Council, 94. 
 
 * II. Council, 91. " II. Council, 23. 
 
 * II. Council, 88. ' Lib. R. R. 14. 
 
 * A curious order of the Governor's reveals the fact that while 
 Talbot deputized Ridgely as chief clerk, Ridgely employed a white 
 slave to do all his work, thus showing that modern methods of 
 holding clerkships were thoroughly understood at that time. Lib. 
 R. R. 16. 
 
 ^I. Council, 361. 
 
 * II. Council, 103. Morecroft was the Attorney General in this 
 suit. 
 
 •Lib. R. R. 13. ^"Lib. R. R. 15. "II. Council, 108. 
 
56 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [526 
 
 stable was appointed for it until a sheriff was named/ 
 There was a disturbance in this county at that time.' 
 
 The sheriffs were directed to make lists of all escheated 
 lands in their counties, with the quality of the land and the 
 improvements upon it, and return them to the Governor.* 
 In the next Assembly the Lower House objected to escheats 
 being made after three years' non-payment of rent, and 
 asked that all instructions to the Governor concerning land 
 be published within six months after receipt by the Gov- 
 ernor, and that the Proprietor take no advantage in the 
 future from the act for deserted plantations." Promise of 
 the publication of land instructions was all that was ob- 
 tained.° William Calvert was now appointed Secretary.* 
 Grants of land were made to him, and he had the power of 
 appointment of all the clerks of the county courts, except 
 that Henry Darnall was to remain clerk of the Calvert 
 County Court. Darnall was a relative of the Proprietor. 
 Calvert County being the largest county in population, its 
 clerkship was the most lucrative. Darnall was also elected 
 to the next Assembly.' Baker Brooke's interests were 
 looked after by the Governor, who increased his fees by a 
 proclamation, afterward ratified by act of Assembly.* The 
 Governor, however, was authorized by the Proprietor to 
 name deputy surveyors, and he also appointed the Attorney 
 General.^ 
 
 The same Assembly again met in 1674, Notley being con- 
 tinued Speaker." The Upper House proposed an act for 
 the levying of war without the province, the expenses of 
 such war to be levied upon the freemen of .the province." 
 This was in direct violation of the act of 1671 for the sup- 
 
 ^11. Council, 107. ^11. Council, III. II. Council, 122. 
 
 ' Ordinances forbidding the export of certain commodities now 
 began to reappear (Lib. R. R. 34; II. Council, 105), and another 
 ordinance established a public ferry. II. Council, 118. 
 
 * II. Assem. 356. ° II. Assem. 372. ' Lib. R. R. 23. 
 
 ^11. Assem. 345. 'Lib. R. R. 21; II. Assem. 372, 392. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 23, 35. " II. Assem. 346. " II. Assem. 378, 380. 
 
527] Constitutional History of Maryland. 57 
 
 port of the government ^ and it was rejected by the Lower 
 House.' The Lower House, doubtless knowing what was 
 wanted by the Governor, proposed instead, that the act of 
 1671 be extended so that the two shilhngs per hogshead be 
 paid not only to the then Proprietor during his life, but 
 also to Charles Calvert during his life. The Proprietor," 
 Charles Calvert, wanted even more favors, but the Lower 
 House refused to yield." 
 
 The Lower House wished to know what laws had been 
 assented to by the Proprietor since 1659, to which query 
 the Governor made the unsatisfactory response, that he 
 knew " no Laws assented to by the Proprietor but what are 
 mentioned and can be found in the body of the Laws." " 
 This was a direct evasion of the question. The Governor 
 signed all laws, the " Lord Proprietor willeth these to be 
 Laws," but this was not the Proprietor's assent. If the 
 Proprietor assented the law could only be repealed by act 
 of Assembly, whereas if he did not, a veto could be pro- 
 duced at any time, as was done in 1669. Thus there 
 remained the large element of uncertainty as to the laws. 
 But this strengthened the Proprietor's government. In 
 1674 the Lower House knew of only thirty laws assented to 
 by the Proprietor. 
 
 The Quakers at this time presented a petition to the 
 Assembly that they might be relieved from taking oaths, as 
 was the case in the Carolinas, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
 and Jamaica, but obtained no relief." The same subject was 
 considered in the Assembly of 1675 in regard to the grant- 
 ing of letters of administration without oath, but no conces- 
 sion was obtained. In 1676 the Quakers again vainlj- asked 
 relief.^ The usual excuse, that the Proprietor's ideas on the 
 
 '11. Assem. 284. 'II. Assem. 381. 'II. Assem. 381, 386. 
 
 *II. Assem. 382, 384. 
 
 The Lower House having repealed some laws, the Upper House 
 demanded the reasons, which were given them. II. Assem. 358, 
 359, 361. 
 
 'II. Assem. 374. ° II. Assem. 355, 356. 'II. Assem. 492. 
 
58 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [528 
 
 subject were not known, did not satisfy, for the Proprietor, 
 the same Charles Calvert who had ofifered all the excuses, 
 was actually in the province. 
 
 The Assembly of 1674 decided that members of the 
 county grand juries should pay their own expenses and that 
 none but freeholders should be summoned/ A poor man 
 was not allowed to sit on the grand juries, nor could he have 
 afforded to do so if allowed. Taxable persons were defined 
 as all freemen above sixteen years of age, except ministers 
 and priests, all native-born male children of sixteen years 
 of age, all imported male servants of ten years of age, and 
 all slaves, both male and female, of ten years of age. Sheriffs 
 were to take bail ^ and to execute warrants and writs from 
 public officers without fees." The building of a State House 
 and prison was resolved.* During the discussion as to this 
 building, Charles Calvert demanded that the province erect 
 him a brick house at public charge." He also named St. 
 Mary's as the proper location of the State House, refusing 
 to consider a plan to have it erected in Anne Arundel 
 County.* In passing an act for mending roads ^ the Gov- 
 ernor tried to get a road past his own house.* 
 
 Another act was entitled " An Act to Reforme the Attor- 
 neys Councellors & Solicitors at Law of this Province to 
 avoyde unnecessary Suites and Charges att Law." By this 
 act only those attorneys named by the Governor could plead 
 in the Provincial Court, and in the county courts only those 
 
 ^11. Assem. 392. "11. Assem. 411. 'II. Assem. 399. 
 
 * II. Assem. 404. " II. Assem. 371. ' II. Assem. 277, 378, 379. 
 The ' Assembly also empowered the county commissioners to 
 
 erect county courthouses at county expense. II. Assem. 413. 
 ^ II. Assem. 408. 
 
 * And this at a time when roads were scarce. II. Assem. 369. 
 Besides the usual act to revive certain laws (II. Assem. 412), this 
 Assembly passed an act to repeal certain laws, a new thing. II. 
 Assem. 408. The act for court days was extended to embrace all 
 the counties. II. Assem. 397. 
 
529] Constitutional History of Maryland. 59 
 
 named by the County Commissioners. The fees were also 
 strictly regulated, with heavy penalities for overcharges/ 
 
 The Assembly of 1671 and 1674 met again in 1675. Not- 
 ley was, of course, continued Speaker." This Assembly did 
 little but add another burden of taxation upon the people, 
 and gave up in doing so what had been wrested from the 
 Governor by the Assembly of 1671 and maintained by the 
 Assembly of 1674, namely, that all charges of government 
 should be borne by the Proprietor despite any law for levy- 
 ing war.* The expenses of a war were to be levied by an 
 assessment per poll upon the taxables. Fifty thousand 
 pounds of tobacco were to be levied by the Assembly during 
 the year, whether for making war or peace. If the expenses 
 should be more, they would be paid by the next Assembly.* 
 The Governor and Council could levy war charges for the 
 entire ensuing year from February to February." 
 
 The Lower House had tried to fix this charge at twenty- 
 five pounds of tobacco per poll," but the Governor rejected 
 this, saying he did not wish to be tied to any fixed 
 sum.^ The Governor was also given thirty thousand pounds 
 of tobacco for entertaining the Council, of which nearly 
 all were members of the Calvert family, during the twelve 
 days of this session,' or, as a member of the Lower House 
 put it, for keeping open house to all persons," a method of 
 gaining votes that is still known. The efforts of the Lower 
 House to relieve the Quakers were of no avail, the Gov- 
 ernor being adverse." Cecil County was set ofif by the 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 409. 
 
 About the time, we may notice in passing, Utye was made a 
 councillor; he was not, however, summoned to the next Assembly. 
 II. Assem. 382. 
 
 ' II. Assem. 422. ' II. Assem. 284, 386. * II. Assem. 462. 
 
 " II. Assem. 463. ' II. Assem. 424, 446. 
 
 Even 15 lbs. was suggested. II. Assem. 444. 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 446. * II. Assem. 432, 455. " II. Assem. 454. 
 
 " II. Assem. 424, 427, 432, 444, 447, 448, 450, 455, 456. 
 
 The Lower House asked the Governor to have the Secretary 
 
60 The Maryland Revolution of 16S9. [530 
 
 Governor, June 6, 1674/ but it had no delegates in this 
 Assembly. 
 
 Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, died Novem- 
 ber 30, 1675. Charles Calvert became the third Lord Bal- 
 timore, Sole and Absolute Proprietor of Maryland. On the 
 4th of March, 1676, when the news reached him, he issued a 
 proclamation declaring that his father was dead and that all 
 sheriffs should proclaim Charles Calvert as Absolute Lord 
 and Proprietor of Maryland.^ All commissions, writs and 
 processes were to continue as before. Baker Brooke was 
 commissioned Surveyor General, Philip Calvert, Chancellor, 
 and William Calvert, Secretary.' In fact, there was no 
 official change, the appointments before this time having 
 been what Charles wished. A new Assembly was called. 
 The old one had been prorogued to this year.* Of this new 
 Assembly we have only the journal of the Upper House. 
 Of the six members of the Upper House five were members 
 of the Calvert family, and the sixth was a great supporter of 
 the Proprietor's privileges. The Proprietor was the pre- 
 siding officer. Among the members of the Lower House 
 were John Coode and Kenelm Cheseldine, who were to 
 become better known." 
 
 The Lower House presented as an humble petition for 
 the future what in subsequent Assemblies was demanded as 
 
 enter the laws made at the session of the Assembly in the book of 
 laws (II. Assem. 440), being careful, as usual, of their records. 
 
 The usual attempt at regulation of fees was made. The fees of 
 the county clerks were protected by the Upper House against 
 the Lower House (II. Assem. 430, 448, 452), but the fees of the 
 attorneys were again restricted. II. Assem. 432, 452, 467. 
 
 The sheriffs were relieved from taking bail (II. Assem. 434, 
 454, 458), and were ordered to seize tobacco for the quit-rents 
 and public debts before seizing them for private debts. Lib. R. R, 
 50. The members of the provincial grand juries were to receive 
 hereafter 2500 lbs. of tobacco for their expenses. II. Assem. 462. It 
 may be noticed that the Lower House called itself a House of 
 Commons (II. Assem. 440), and that the members refused to pay 
 their own expenses. II. Assem. 458. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 29. ' Lib. R. R. 50. " Lib. R. R. 58. 
 
 * II. Assem. 435. ° II. Assem. 481, 485. 
 
531] Constitutional History of Maryland. 61 
 
 an immediate right, namely, that four delegates having been 
 elected by each county and but two of them summoned by 
 writ to sit in this Assembly, " by which meanes," they say, 
 " Some of the Inhabitants of this your Lordsps. Province 
 Seem dissatisfied and that they have not theire free vote," 
 in the future all who should be elected be summoned to 
 sit, and if any die or are removed, new writs should be 
 issued to fill the vacancies/ They distinctly acknowledged 
 that it was the Proprietor's right to summon as many from 
 each county as he pleased, and only begged the above favor. 
 The Proprietor granted the petition. How well he kept his 
 promise we shall see. But he declared that it was contrary 
 to the late Proprietor's declaration for the settlement of 
 Assemblies. He also declared that in the future every 
 member of the Assembly should, at his entrance in the 
 House and before the election of the Speaker, take an oath 
 of fidelity to the Proprietor and to his heirs and successors." 
 From this Assembly, as from preceding ones, Charles 
 Calvert obtained concessions. First, all the tobacco then 
 in his hands, for whatever purpose raised, was given to him.° 
 The act granting the duty of two shillings per hogshead 
 during his life was extended throughout the life of Cecilius 
 Calvert, his eldest son,* This, it was said, was upon Not- 
 ley's motion.'' Thus the duty was made hereditary. An 
 act " for the Security and Defence of this Province " " pro- 
 vided that all the expense of any war was to be raised by an 
 equal assessment upon the persons and estates of the inhab- 
 itants of the province.' Persons enlisted in the trained 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 507. * II. Assem. 508. * II. Assem. 510. 
 
 *II. Assem. 510, 515. ''II. Council, 141. "II. Assem. 557. 
 
 ^ Provision was also made for pensions for disabled soldiers and 
 the widows and children of soldiers, which were to be paid 
 yearly from the public levy. When the levy was laid by the Gov- 
 ernor and Council one delegate from each county was to be 
 present to see that the tobacco was defrayed for the necessary 
 charge of the province, a provision resisted by the Proprietor 
 until the Lower House declared that these delegates would have 
 no power to refuse any part of the levy. II. Assem. 492, 497, 498. 
 
62 The Martjland Revolution of 1689. [532 
 
 bands, who neglected to appear at the training place when 
 summoned, were fined fifty pounds of tobacco, which went 
 to the Proprietor. It was proposed at first to give these 
 fines to the County Commissioners, but they were finally 
 given to the Proprietor. The Proprietor wanted the fine to 
 be one hundred pounds of tobacco for the first offense and 
 two hundred pounds for every subsequent one, and that the 
 fines be given to the " Lord proprietary or his Chiefe Gov- 
 ernr. and Councell and Not to the Commissioners of any 
 County, it being inconsistent With his Lordships Honor." ^ 
 
 The Quakers received scant consideration in this Assem- 
 bly.'' A large part of the session was taken up by the im- 
 peachment of Trueman for killing several Indians who had 
 come into his camp under a flag of truce.' He was found 
 guilty, but was protected by the Lower House, which 
 wished to impose a fine only and claimed to be the judge 
 of his punishment in drawing up the bill of attainder, a view 
 disputed by the Upper House.* 
 
 The question of fees was again discussed. The Lower 
 House decided that a committee, together with the Chan- 
 cellor and Secretary, should draw up a law for the fees of all 
 officers whatsoever, so that it might be confirmed while the 
 Proprietor was still in the province." Both the Chancellor 
 and Secretary claimed fees between them.' The act as 
 passed limited the fees of the Chancellor and Secretary, the 
 Surveyor General and his deputies, the sheriffs, the coro- 
 ners, and the criers of the county courts.^ 
 
 * II. Assem. 491. * II. Assem. 492. 
 Another act enjoined the constables to take the list of taxables 
 
 in their hundreds during the last part of June. Taxables were all 
 males of sixteen years of age, except ministers, priests, and paupers,, 
 and all female slaves over 16 years of age. II. Assem. 538. 
 
 * II. Assem. 474, 475, 476, 481, 482, 485, 493, 494- 
 
 *II. Assem. 500, 501, 503, 511, 512. ° II. Assem. 477. 
 
 * II. Assem. 489, 499. ' II. Assem. 532. 
 It will be noticed that the act is practically taken up with the 
 
 Chancellor's and Secretary's fees. At this time one man could be 
 sheriff, coroner, and deputy surveyor. II. Assem. 499. An act 
 
533] Constitutional History of Maryland. 63 
 
 The property of a certain Robert Cager had been left by 
 him for the maintenance of a Protestant minister in St. 
 George's and Poplar Hill hundreds, but it was settled upon 
 the mayor, recorder, aldermen and common council of St. 
 Mary's City and their successors. The Proprietor declared 
 he knew no other way, St. Mary's being a corporation and 
 capable of receiving the grant for the intended uses.^ 
 
 The whole body of the laws was reviewed from at least 
 1640, and an act was passed, one part of which repealed a 
 great number of laws and another part absolutely confirmed 
 many others, in all one hundred and twenty-seven acts being 
 repealed and seventy acts were confirmed." An act was 
 passed, as usual, reviving certain temporary laws.' The Pro- 
 prietor refused to assent to the laws of this session as per- 
 petual but only as temporary laws.* Of the perpetual laws, 
 many were for the benefit of the Proprietor ° and confirmed 
 
 was passed prohibiting the importation of convicts into the prov- 
 ince (II. Assem. 540), and another act limited suits for debt in 
 the Provincial Court to sums over 1500 lbs. tobacco, except upon 
 appeal from a county court. II. Assem. 537. Appeal at the com- 
 mon law was declared unusual and not according to the laws and 
 practice of England, but since convenient and necessary in the 
 province, and admitted by the justices of the Provincial Court to 
 be in the nature of a habeas corpus to remove the case from an 
 inferior to a superior court, it is so recognized. II. Assem. 562. 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 498, 530. 
 
 The city was to see that the profits of the property were de- 
 voted to the uses specified. It may be seen by the wording of the 
 act that a clergyman was already there. The Lower House desired 
 that the delegates' charges be assessed upon the whole province, 
 and not for each county to pay for its own delegates, since some 
 counties contained many more taxables than others, and the num- 
 ber of delegates from each county was the same. This was 
 agreed, with the exception of traveling expenses, which were still 
 to be borne by the counties. II. Assem. 509, 511, 514, 554. 
 
 ^ II. Assem. 542. ' II. Assem. 555. * II. Assem. 512. 
 
 ^ Act touching judicature, act of recognition, act for the punish- 
 ment of certain ofifenses, act concerning the levying of war within 
 the province, act for the speedy payment of debts due the Pro- 
 prietor, act concerning deserted plantations, act for the taking 
 the oath of fidelity to the Lord Proprietary, the oath of fidelity to 
 the Lord Proprietary. 
 
64 The Martjland Revolution of 1689. [534 
 
 his privileges. The oath of fidehty seemed especially hard 
 to certain portions of the people, as we shall further see. 
 The act for church liberties, passed in 1640, was confirmed. 
 This, we may feel assured, was not very pleasing to the 
 Protestants at a time when the Catholics in England were 
 being restricted in various ways. The Act of Toleration 
 was also confirmed. This again was more beneficial to the 
 Catholics than Protestants. 
 
 The Rebellion of 1676. — Of the disturbance in Maryland 
 during this year no mention is made, even by McMahon.^ 
 There seems to be an entire ignorance of the fact that there 
 was a rebellion. Maryland is congratulated by her histo- 
 rians on having escaped the troubles that distracted Vir- 
 ginia. But there was a rebellion, nevertheless. Bacon's 
 rebellion in Virginia had a profound influence upon Mary- 
 land, where much the same causes for popular discontent 
 existed. That the Maryland rebellion was not as formid- 
 able as that in Virginia was due to the absence of any such 
 a leader as Bacon, whose death was the knell of rebel hopes 
 in both provinces. The use of the poll tax, the restriction 
 of the suffrage in 1670, the heavy taxation, and the common 
 idea that the provinces were but poorly protected against 
 the Indians by the Governors, — all these causes of discon- 
 tent existed in both provinces, and in both they caused a 
 rebellion. 
 
 At this point the family connections of the Proprietor 
 should be examined for a proper understanding of the situ- 
 ation. Upon the death of Henry Sewall, Secretary of Mary- 
 land, Charles Calvert married his widow, who was a 
 daughter of Vincent Lowe. By Henry Sewall she had five 
 children — Nicholas, Elizabeth, Anne, Mary and Jane. Nich- 
 olas married a daughter of William Burgess, Elizabeth 
 married Dr. Jesse Wharton, Anne married Colonel Ben- 
 
 ^ It is but just, however, to state that McMahon never saw Libers 
 RR, RRR, and Council Book 1677-1683 of the Council Pro- 
 ceedings, all of which were in the possession of John P. Kennedy, 
 who never put them to any use. They were recovered in 1895. 
 
535] Constitutional History of Maryland. 65 
 
 jamin Rozier, Mary married Col. William Chandler, and 
 Jane married Philip Calvert. The dates of these marriages 
 are known only approximately. These various unions are 
 really of great significance, as every one w^ho became related 
 to the family soon obtained an office. The family being of 
 moderately large proportions, the government of the prov- 
 ince became a family affair in more vv^ays than one, to the 
 great discontent of outsiders. Elizabeth had been married 
 to Dr. Jesse Wharton; accordingly Wharton was appointed 
 Deputy Governor when the Proprietor went to England. 
 The appointed Governor was Cecilius Calvert, the Proprie- 
 tor's eldest son, who was only nine or ten years of age. He 
 exercised no power, but simply drew a certain amount of 
 fees. Philip Calvert, William Calvert and Baker Brooke, 
 all close relatives of the Proprietor, were continued in their 
 offices of Chancellor, Secretary and Surveyor General, 
 Wharton was the Chief Justice.^ Samuel Chew, Vincent 
 Lowe, the Proprietor's brother-in-law, Thomas Notley and 
 Thomas Taylor, favorites of the Proprietor and strong up- 
 holders of his privileges,^ were appointed councillors. The 
 changes from this time until 1689 put even more members 
 of the family into office, and created more offices into which 
 to put relatives. 
 
 Leaving the government thus established, the Proprietor 
 sailed for England in the spring of 1676. He had been 
 gone but a few days when the Indian war broke out that 
 was the immediate cause of Bacon's rebellion in Virginia. 
 The Five Nations, especially the Senecas, had often before 
 made inroads upon the province. Having received a severe 
 check in their Canadian forays,^ they turned their attention 
 to the English. The war in Virginia was fought mainly 
 against nearer tribes of Indians. In Maryland the Senecas 
 seem to have been the chief enemies,* Before the first of 
 
 ^Lib. R. R. 84. * Calvert Papers, 264; II. Council, 141. 
 
 ' Parkman's Ancien Regime. 
 
 * Rewards were offered to friendly Indians of five match-coats 
 for every Indian prisoner they should deliver to the English, and 
 
66 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [536 
 
 August Wharton died, and by his will named Notley Dep- 
 uty Governor/ as his instructions ordered him to do." The 
 Susquehanna Indians asked for peace, and it was resolved to 
 treat with them, but their relations with Virginia were first 
 to be ascertained/ Here we begin to see indications of 
 Bacon's rebellion, in Notley's expressed doubt as to what 
 really was the government of Virginia/ A letter signed by 
 Notley, Philip Calvert, William Calvert and Baker Brooke 
 was sent to the Proprietor, in which they stated that they 
 suspected Col. Bacon would pursue the Pascattoway In- 
 dians into Maryland, as a pretext to enter the province and 
 " uphold young Giles Brent's vain title to his mother's 
 crown and scepter of Pascattoway," thus putting " that 
 Brute savage " at the head of all the needy and desperate 
 persons in those parts, to the great disquietude of the prov- 
 ince/ An early supply of arms and ammunition was accord- 
 ingly asked/ 
 
 The head men of the Pascattoway and Mattawoman In- 
 dians having been sent for, the Council told them that a man 
 named Bacon might come into the province to annoy them, 
 but that he had no license to do this, and as he had no 
 license, they could defend themselves against him without 
 blame. The Indians were also told not to go into Virginia, 
 
 three match-coats for every scalp. Lib. R. R. 6i. The Indian 
 scare is also shown by the fact that despite the general contempt 
 entertained for Indians, orders were given that if any private 
 soldier should strike a friendly Indian he should ride the wooden 
 horse, run the gauntlet, or endure some similar punishment as a 
 court-martial might direct. Lib. R. R. 77. An order was passed 
 for the people to fortify their houses, but the number of men in 
 such houses was limited to ten. A council of war was ordered. 
 Lib. R. R. 77. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 87. ' Lib. R. R. 86. =■ Lib. R. R. 95. 
 
 * Lib. R. R. 96. 
 
 ^ Young Brent's mother was Empress of the Pascattoways. 
 Brent's motive in marrying her was perhaps the expectation of 
 controlling the large tract of land set apart for these Indians by 
 the Proprietor. 
 
 ° Lib. R. R. 98. 
 
537] Constitutional History of Maryland. 67 
 
 as that would give Bacon a pretext to attack them. They 
 were urged, if they had murderers among them, as the Vir- 
 ginians said, to hand them over/ 
 
 It has been seen that the Council feared an invasion by 
 Bacon in support of Brent, who would put himself at the 
 head of all needy and desperate persons. On the fourth of 
 September, less than three weeks after the talk with the 
 Indians, the Governor issued a proclamation against Davyes, 
 Gent, Hasleham, Pate (perhaps a relative of that Major Pate 
 at whose house Bacon died) and others, for having contrived 
 a seditious paper' threatening the subversion of the Lord 
 Proprietary's government, as well as of the constitution of 
 the Assembly, the true preserver of liberties. All this, it was 
 claimed, tended to the ruin of the freeholders and house- 
 keepers, and the taking away of liberty and true property 
 in lands and goods. The proclamation went on to state 
 that they had gathered together sixty armed men in Calvert 
 County to extort certain grants and immunities from the 
 Governor and Council which were not in the power of the 
 Governor and Council to grant.^ These demands, the Gov- 
 ernor announced, he would place before the next Assembly, 
 and he ordered the mutineers to disperse. This ofifer was 
 rejected by Davyes and the others, the Assembly being 
 packed in the interest of the Proprietor. 
 
 Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia was now (September) at 
 its height, and it seemed as if the popular party would gain 
 everything. In Maryland also the popular party expected 
 to make great gains. The Governor ordered the arrest of 
 Davyes, Gent, Hasleham and Pate, who, according to Vir- 
 ginia testimony, were men of most reputable character,* 
 and offered pardon to the others if they promptly submitted. 
 
 ^ Lib. R. R. 99, 100. 
 
 The Council offered to include them in the treaty with the 
 Susquehannas, but the Indians refused, and on being asked if they 
 would march against the Susquehannas, expressed entire readiness. 
 Lib. R. R. 100. 
 
 ° Certainly issued before September i. Lib. R. R. 105. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 102. •" Force's Tracts, Vol. i. 
 
68 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [538 
 
 In a proclamation by the Governor as early as the first of 
 September, it was stated that the seditious paper just n"oticed 
 had been read to the troops under Henry Jowles by force 
 of arms.^ This statement shows the sympathy of the troops 
 for the movement, and perhaps the sympathy of Jowles, if 
 we consider the part he played in 1689. 
 
 But suddenly the whole aspect of things was changed by 
 the death of Bacon. The Virginia rebellion, deprived of 
 its leader, immediately collapsed, and the Maryland rebellion 
 was also at an end. The Governor appointed a special 
 court to inquire into the late mutinies and seditions.' A 
 remonstrance of the Governor and Council to the people 
 was published, which shows the causes of complaint and 
 silently refuses relief.* The heavy taxes were declared to be 
 due to the Indian wars, the building of the State House and 
 the Davyes rebellion. As to freemen of no property hav- 
 ing no vote in electing delegates to the Assembly, the same 
 was true at this time in Virginia and Barbadoes, and in 
 England, where it was also true of women with land, or any 
 one owning personal property and not within a corporation. 
 The Governor and Council promised, however, to ask the 
 Proprietor to let all freemen vote in the election of delegates 
 to the next Assembly, the Proprietor alone having the 
 power to allow this. In regard to the complaint that the 
 poor paid as heavy taxes as the rich, the Governor and 
 Council replied that they each paid for their head and the 
 rich paid also for their servants' heads. That the same system 
 of taxation was used in Virginia and the West Indies, but 
 if it was wrong it could not be changed by the Proprietor 
 nor by the Governor and Council, but only by an act of 
 Assembly, and no doubt the Proprietor would joyfully con- 
 sent to an act changing the system of taxation, and would 
 be glad to see permanent and not transitory riches. These 
 complaints were much the same as those in Virginia, where 
 heavy taxes for the benefit of officials and for Indian wars 
 
 * Lib. R. R. 105. ' Lib. R. R. 103. ' Lib. R. R. io6. 
 
539] Constitutional History of Maryland. 69 
 
 not meant to hurt the Indians, the restricted franchise and 
 the poll tax, were popular grievances. It was also de- 
 manded that all those born in Virginia be considered free- 
 born subjects of England. This same demand was repeat- 
 edly made in Alaryland. Laws had been made in Maryland 
 as early as 1663 that the possession of property be con- 
 firmed in the occupants. It was further demanded in Vir- 
 ginia that the export duty of four shillings per hogshead 
 tobacco be applied to defraying the expenses of the govern- 
 ment and not appropriated by the Governor. In Maryland, 
 as has been seen, this same duty was levied, and it was 
 charged that very little of it went to pay the expenses of the 
 government." The poll tax, which imposed the same bur- 
 den upon the poor and the laborer as upon the rich, was felt 
 severely and by the same persons who had lost the right of 
 suffrage. It is this tax that the Maryland Bill of Rights, 
 one hundred years later, declared to be " grievous and op- 
 pressive "; its imposition was prohibited.* To refer the tax- 
 ation of wealth and the widening of the elective franchise 
 to the Assembly, composed as it was of the wealthier 
 classes, was clearly the destruction of both projects of 
 reform. 
 
 The causes of dissatisfaction in Maryland may be learned 
 from a paper that has received hitherto but scant attention, 
 the famous " Complaint from Heaven with a Huy and Crye 
 and a petition out of Virginia and Maryland." * This is an 
 extraordinary document, full of hatred for Papacy and the 
 Papists, but containing more truth in its charges than is 
 usually supposed. The writer or writers of this paper show 
 
 * Burk's Virginia, Vol. II., 162. 
 
 ^ Burk's Virginia, 242; Virginia Historical Magazine, II., 2. 
 
 ' Not only are poll taxes forbidden, but the famous Art. 15, Md. 
 Bill of Rights, declared that every one shall be taxed according to 
 his real worth in real or personal property. The unpopularity of 
 the poll tax in 1776 was due largely to its application to the sup- 
 port of the Established Church. 
 
 * II. Council, 134. 
 
70 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [540 
 
 their Puritanical leaning in urging that New England was 
 a good example of the way in which Maryland should have 
 been settled/ Heavy taxation is complained of again and 
 again. Great bitterness is shown over the taxes for the In- 
 dian wars. The Proprietor was charged with waging war 
 simply for his own benefit and with having a desire to pro- 
 tect the Indians. Tlie names of the members of the Pro- 
 vincial Court (identical with the Council) were given and 
 the charge of nepotism (a charge entirely true) was made. 
 The Governor (the Proprietor's son), the Deputy Governor, 
 the Secretary, the Surveyor General, were all kinsmen. 
 What seemed even worse, they were all Catholics. Other 
 members of the Council, for example, Lowe, the Proprie- 
 tor's brother-in-law, were inclined to Catholicism and not 
 apt to oppose the Proprietor in anything. This was sure 
 to be considered a grievance in a country where the Prot- 
 estants outnumbered the Catholics. 
 
 The Assembly was then attacked. The charge was made 
 that of the four delegates elected from each county, but two, 
 selected for their pliancy to the wishes of the Proprietor, 
 were summoned to the Assembly. This charge was true, 
 and it was to be a fruitful source of contention in subse- 
 quent years. Another charge was the manner in which the 
 Upper House, having the same members as the Provincial 
 Court, ordered laws to be passed; and the pressure used, if 
 the Lower House showed any resistance to the wishes of 
 the Proprietor, was another true charge. Tlie temporary 
 nature of the laws, in consequence of the Proprietor's veto, 
 was complained of, also the constant creation of new and 
 heavy fees. 
 
 The corruption of members of the Lower House by offices 
 was alleged. The charge was made that Taylor, while 
 Speaker, was made a Councillor and Major General for hav- 
 ing urged the export duty of two shillings per hogshead of 
 tobacco. Notley, for having urged, while Speaker, that 
 
 ^ II. Council, 140. 
 
541] Constitutional History of Maryland. 71 
 
 this duty be made hereditary, was made Deputy Governor 
 upon Wharton's death. The charges were undoubtedly 
 true. The entire history of this export duty was discussed, 
 from the act of 1647 to that of 1676, though not with accu- 
 racy. The paper declares that no complaint was madle 
 against real and necessary taxes, but only against those " to 
 maintain my Lord and his Champions in their prince-ship." 
 The export duty, quit-rents, port duties, fines, escheats, 
 entering and clearing of ships, licenses and fees, were named 
 as sources of revenue for the Proprietor, besides a large 
 number of Proprietary manors, so that to the poor man the 
 taxes were unbearable. Yet there was no protection against 
 the Indians. 
 
 The Proprietor was charged with open violation of sev- 
 eral laws, such as the one whereby sheriffs were to be ap- 
 pointed from certain nominees suggested by the County 
 Commissioners, to serve for only one year. This act was 
 certainly disregarded. The establishment of the towns by 
 the Proprietor was denounced. They had been erected on 
 " 50 or 100 acres without comons or possibility for poore 
 people to live in," That a great many settlers came as 
 servants to others was confessed, but it was claimed they 
 were entitled to equal consideration. 
 
 The question of taking the oath of allegiance to the Pro- 
 prietor was given much attention. The Proprietor was 
 forcing all to take this oath, contrary to the agreement made 
 between the Proprietor and the Puritans in 1658, whereby 
 the oath of fidelity was not to be pressed upon the people, 
 but an agreement to submit to and aid the Proprietor. All 
 they owed to the Proprietor, men claimed, was fealty as 
 tenants, while allegiance and fidelity were due only to the 
 King. But the Proprietor arrogated to himself royal 
 power. He set up his coat-of-arms in all the courts. He 
 administered justice in his own name and denied all appeals 
 to the King. And yet for refusal to take the oath of 
 fidelity " they begin to hang and fine people." In a remon- 
 strance issued to the people the public grievances were 
 
72 The Mart/land Revolution of 1689. [542 
 
 acknowledged and promises were made that all the elected 
 burgesses should be summoned to the Assembly. Refer- 
 ence was also made to the proclamation ^ during the Indian 
 war, by which only ten men were allowed to fortify them- 
 selves in any house, under penalty of being treated as rebels, 
 an order no doubt due to the threatening attitude of the 
 common people. 
 
 Maryland priests were accused of communicating with 
 French priests living among the Five Nations, who were 
 making forays into the province. The fear that in a war 
 with France the Protestants might be attacked was dis- 
 tinctly expressed — a foolish fear, it seems to us now, but 
 at that time it was very natural. In view of any such war 
 the paper made an extraordinary proposal: that a Governor^ 
 " a Vice Roye or Governor Generallissimo from his Maj- 
 esty," be appointed over all the colonies. Thus Maryland 
 can claim the historic honor of suggesting military unity 
 for America at this early date. 
 
 Besides all this, some immediate measures of relief were 
 asked: (i) That the King take the government of Maryland 
 and appoint Governors, from whom the oath of allegiance 
 and supremacy should be required. (2) That all disputes 
 between the Proprietor and the people of the province 
 should be decided by the King and Parliament. (3) That 
 the two shillings per hogshead of tobacco, or any future 
 duty, should be employed in supporting the Governor and 
 defraying public expenses, such as the building of forts and 
 the maintenance of troops. (4) That the Proprietor should 
 not be allowed to oppress his tenants, but receive his quit- 
 rents in tobacco at two pence per pound, as there was no 
 other money in the province. (5) That Protestant ministers, 
 free schools and glebe lands, should be established in every 
 county and maintained by the people. Also that the elec- 
 tion of delegates to the Assembly should be by the freemen, 
 and that those delegates should have free votes in the Assem- 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 77- 
 
543] Constitutional History of Maryland. 73 
 
 bly and not be forced to pass acts by " respect, persuasion 
 or compulsion." (6) That, in case of any emergency, the 
 freemen should have free appeal to the King/ The act for 
 taking the oath of fidelity to the Proprietor, and the oath 
 itself, were then given in full, together with the punishments 
 for mutinous speeches and attempts, with and without force, 
 against the right and title of the Proprietor. 
 
 This petition, addressed to the King, was of no avail. 
 It revealed sympathy with the movement in Virginia, to 
 which the King was opposed. Measures hostile to Catho- 
 lics could not gain the favor of a king who was himself a 
 Catholic. The document was most probably written by 
 members of Fendall's party. Gerrard's residence in Vir- 
 ginia ' was, perhaps, a connecting link between the Virginia 
 and Maryland movements. Perhaps Fendall himself as- 
 sisted. Its intimate acquaintance with the proceedings 
 during his term of office as Governor makes it probable. 
 Certain it is that most of the complaints were true and in 
 themselves sufficient causes for dissatisfaction. They were 
 destined to overthrow the Proprietor's government when 
 the favorable opportunity came in 1689. 
 
 In a letter of the Governor to the Proprietor, dated Jan- 
 uary, 1677, ^^3.r was expressed lest a rebellion should break 
 out during the coming summer. The heavy taxes of 1676 
 and 1675 had " given occasion for malignant spirits to 
 mutter." The Governor declared the hanging of Davis anci 
 Pate had terrified the people. There was now peace, 
 " though never Body was more repleat with Malignancy 
 and Frenzy then our people were about August last, and 
 they wanted but a monstrous head to their monstrous 
 body." " The prospects for peace, however, seemed bright 
 since Bacon's rebellion had been crushed. He further de- 
 
 * The King was asked to send over six or seven hundred Scotch- 
 men, to be settled at the head of the bay as a bulwark against the 
 French and Indians. 
 
 ^ William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IV., i, p. 36. 
 
 ° II. Council, 153. 
 
74 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [544 
 
 clared that new men must be placed in power in Virginia, 
 since the old ones would never agree with the common 
 people,^ He did not see the truth, that the same condi- 
 tion of things prevailed in Maryland. It was but a few 
 days later that the Governor ordered the arrest of all per- 
 sons fleeing from Virginia.' Nevertheless some Virginians 
 received protection in Maryland. Among them was 
 Nathaniel Bacon, Sr.' 
 
 The letter of John Yeo, a minister in Maryland, to the 
 Archbishop of Canterbur}% asking that Lord Baltimore 
 make provision for the maintenance of ministers of the Es- 
 tablished Church, is worth noting. The Committee for 
 Trade and Plantations, considering that no provisions had 
 been made for the maintenance of ministers in Maryland, 
 called for a conference with Lord Baltimore. A short time 
 after this. Lord Baltimore was asked to give an account of 
 all the Protestants in the province, for example, how many 
 congregations they would make and how much each parish 
 would pay to support a minister.* The number of Dis- 
 senting preachers in Maryland was also asked. Lord Bal- 
 timore answered that the greater portion of the inhabitants 
 of the province were Dissenters, the members of the Church 
 of England being few in number, so that .it would be very 
 difificult to pass a law for establishment.^ This was an ex- 
 traordinary statement in view of the fact that such a law 
 had already been passed by the Lower House at one time 
 and discussed at another time, although in both cases de- 
 feated by his opposition. The Governors of Maryland had 
 been expressly forbidden to assent to any such law. Such 
 legislation was easily passed in 1692 when the Proprietor 
 had no longer power to prevent it.^ The committee decided 
 that provision should be made for ministers of the Estab- 
 lished Church, " to which," the account says, " my Lord 
 
 'II. Council, 154. =Lib. R. R. 109. 'III. Council, 168. 
 
 * II. Council, 252. ° II. Council, 133. 
 
 * It should be remembered, however, that no Catholics were 
 allowed to vote or sit in this Assembly. 
 
545] Constitutional History of Maryland. 75 
 
 Baltemore seemed to consent." It is to be observed, how- 
 ever, that he did nothing. 
 
 In 1676 the Committee of Trade and Plantations had 
 sent inquiries concerning Maryland to Lord Baltimore, 
 of the most comprehensive kind,^ to which he made answer 
 in 1678,' carefully avoiding any mention of the export duty, 
 declining to give an account of the revenues touching his 
 own property, and insisting that there were scarcely any 
 members of the Church of England in the province. He 
 even tried to lead the committee to believe that the Act of 
 Toleration was passed as soon as the colony was founded, 
 instead of fifteen years later, as was actually the case. The 
 outcome of all this agitation amounted to nothing. Lord 
 Baltimore remained bitterly opposed to any act establishing 
 the Church of England. 
 
 The Struggle hctiveen the Proprietor and the Assemblies, 
 1 676- 1 684. — During this period the regulation of the elec- 
 tion of the delegates to the Assembly was the chief, though 
 not the only cause of dispute. Evidences of the state of 
 unrest then existing in Maryland and Virginia are clearly 
 seen. Several matters of minor importance may be 
 noticed. The declaration of the Governor, that an act of 
 Parliament of 1677 ^ was in full force in Maryland, shows 
 how legislation could be made for the province by such dec- 
 laration without consent of the Assembly.* The county jus- 
 tices were ordered to make out the list of tithables,' the his- 
 toric beginning of the power still exercised by the County 
 Commissioners to sit as an Appeal Tax Court. A law of 
 trespass, that is still in force, was then ordered.^ 
 
 ' II. Council, 128. • = II. Council, 264. 
 
 ^ Against nuncupative wills. * Lib. R. R. 158. ° Lib. R. R. 124. 
 
 ' Hunting without a license was forbidden, nor was a license to 
 be of any force on any man's land without his permission. Lib. 
 R. R. 125. 
 
 Philip Calvert, although Chancellor, was empowered by the 
 Proprietor to issue writs in the Court of Chancery in his own 
 cases (Lib. R. R. 145), and the sending in of the alienations of 
 land was pushed. Lib. R. R. 147. 
 
76 The Maryland Revohition of 1689. [546 
 
 An Assembly was called in 1678, to which all four of the 
 elected delegates of each county were summoned.' To this 
 Assembly Fendall was elected by Charles County in place 
 of a certain Allen, deceased. This caused Notley to order 
 the sheriff to announce to the electors that if they obsti- 
 nately insist on electing Fendall to the Assembly they would 
 lose a member, for, as had happened once before, he would 
 not be allowed to take his seat.^ This election shows the 
 continued popularity of Fendall. 
 
 A Committee of Privileges and Elections was appointed 
 to examine into the election returns and anything done 
 against the privileges of the Lower House.* The defective 
 records do not allow the proceedings of this committee to 
 be followed very closely. The opinion of the House was 
 asked by the committee, whether it was contrary to its priv- 
 ileges that any freeman, no matter of what estate, should be 
 deprived of his vote. It is impossible to say what the 
 answer of the House was to this question,* but an act passed 
 by this Assembly continued the property qualifications. The 
 committee asked if it was against the privileges of the House 
 for a sheriff to sit in it during his term of office. To this 
 the House must have answered it was against its privileges, 
 for the committee subsequently reported that a sheriff was 
 sitting in the House, contrary to its privileges." The com- 
 mittee also asked whether the Attorney General could sit 
 in the Lower House; whether its privileges were not in- 
 fringed by the non-calling of all elected members to the last 
 Assembly, and if it was not against its privileges that no one 
 had been elected in place of a member who had died. To 
 the first of these questions the Lower House seems to have 
 answered that the Attorney General could sit; to the second 
 it declared that its privileges were infringed, and to the third 
 it answered that the Governor be asked to have another 
 
 ^ Council Book, 1647-1683, 41. ^ Council Book, 1677-1683, 44. 
 ^ III. Assem. 6, 10. * III. Assem. 12. ° III. Assem. 17, 19, 31. 
 
547] Constitutional History of Maryland. 77 
 
 member elected/ These things illustrate the temper of the 
 Lower House. 
 
 An act directing the election and summoning of dele- 
 gates to the Assembly was passed," the Upper House taking 
 care to preserve the representation of St. Mary's City, but 
 yielding to the resistance of the Lower House to a more 
 stringent property qualification.^ This act simply recog- 
 nized existing custom. The property qualification was 
 made the same as that provided by the writ of 1670, viz. a 
 freehold of fifty acres of land or a visible personal estate of 
 forty pounds.* The delegates from St. Mary's City were to 
 be chosen as before, by the Mayor, Recorder, Aldermen and 
 Common Council of the city. No sherifif, deputy, or 
 ordinary-keeper was to be elected. Four delegates were to 
 be elected by each county, and they were bound to appear 
 at the meeting of the Assembly without further summons. 
 Neglected or illegal returns made by sheriffs were to be pun- 
 ished by a heavy fine. The Proprietor refused to assent to 
 the provision of this law that four delegates be summoned 
 from each county, and declared that, in the future, there 
 should only be two delegates from each county." This 
 caused a contest with the Assembly of the year 1681, the 
 same Assembly that made the law. As usual, the Lower 
 House insisted on its privileges.* 
 
 The Proprietor having asked for an act of recognition 
 of the Proprietor's power, so that soldiers might be better 
 regulated, the Lower House demanded a copy of the charter 
 and insisted that the Upper House sign it as a true copy. 
 This the Upper House refused to do. The Lower House 
 finding that an act for milita was all that was desired, 
 consented to this, but expressed the desire that a true copy 
 of the charter be made and placed in the Secretary's office.'^ 
 
 ^III. Assem. 17. * III. Assem. 60. 'III. Assem. 24, 25, 31. 
 * Bancroft, Vol. I., 439, totally misapprehends this act. It is im- 
 possible to see where he obtained such a view of it as he presents. 
 ' Lib. R. R. 184. ' III. Assem. 33, 34. 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. 
 
78 The Maryland Rccohdion of 1G89. [548 
 
 The act for militia was then taken up and discussed/ There 
 was but httle change from a previous act of 1676. Priests, 
 delegates, magistrates and constables were exempted from 
 service. Booty was to be equally divided among the sol- 
 diers. Provisions were made against exaction by press- 
 masters, and the expenses of any war are to be levied by 
 equal assessment upon the taxables by the Assembly. To 
 prevent the expense of too frequent meetings of the As- 
 sembly, however, the Governor and Council were empow- 
 ered to levy the necessary charges, not exceeding 50,000 
 pounds of tobacco yearly. 
 
 The Lower House also passed an act that no sheriff 
 should hold office longer than one year, according to the 
 customs of England, but the Lower was induced by the 
 Upper House to allow a longer term if the sheriff produced 
 a certificate from the county court of just execution of his 
 office, and provided no just causes of removal existed." The 
 Upper House tried to exempt Charles County from this law. 
 That men were long-continued in this ofifice and also as 
 County Commissioners was true before this and afterward, 
 and it was a great cause of complaint. The county courts 
 were empowered to make rules, with fines on their non- 
 observance, such fines to be used in the maintenance of 
 the poor, but the proposal of the Lower House to give 
 them power to hear and determine all civil causes what- 
 soever was defeated by the Upper House.' An act for 
 the administration of estates without taking oath was de- 
 feated by the Upper House as usual.^ 
 
 The following year Notley died," but the Proprietor being 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 18, 29, 34. " III. Assem. 36, 39, 40, 68. 
 
 ' III. Assem. 14, 23, 28, 70. 
 
 Fees were discussed as usual (III. Assem. 19. 49, 50), and an 
 act passed limiting the fees of the clerks of the county courts. III. 
 Assem. 73. 
 
 * III. Assem. 48. 
 
 It is hard to say whether the delegates' expenses were paid by 
 their respective counties or by the province. III. Assem. 13, 46. 
 
 ° Calvert Papers, 311. 
 
549] Constitutional Ilistonj of Maryland 79 
 
 in the province, no new Governor was named. During this 
 year there was a quarrel of some kind between the Pro- 
 prietor and Christopher Rousby.' Vincent Lowe, the Pro- 
 prietor's brother-in-law, was named Surveyor General." 
 
 Fendall was now again found in trouble. It was charged 
 that he had made several seditious speeches. The evidence 
 against him was that he had said he had been in much 
 trouble and had suffered greatly in his estate but he hoped 
 the time was coming for him to right himself. Also in 
 talking of the troubles in England and the rumor that a 
 frigate was coming after Lord Baltimore, he said it was use- 
 less, for if but three words were sent from England he could 
 easily send Lord Baltimore to England. Another testified 
 Fendall had said that he had been a great sufferer by the 
 Chancellor, and that he believed the late poisoning of the 
 people in St. Mary's was done by the Papists. Still another 
 testified that Fendall said he had been a great sufferer 
 through the Proprietor, the Chancellor and Wharton, and 
 that he would have risen against Wharton if he had lived 
 longer, but that he, Fendall, by threatening speeches had 
 scared Wharton to death. About all that can be said with 
 certainty from this evidence is that Fendall had said he had 
 been a great sufferer, but it was sufficient to cause an order 
 for his arrest. He fled, however, and the matter must have 
 been patched up some way, as he soon afterward returned to 
 the province.^ 
 
 Another interesting matter was the trial of Dr. Barree for 
 saying, as was proved by many witnesses, that a troop of 
 one hundred Catholics had been formed to cut off all the 
 Protestants.* The point to be noted is that he was him- 
 self a Catholic, and so the spread of such rumors by Protes- 
 tants cannot be very surprising. Such rumors did arise, 
 that the Proprietor furnished shot and powder to the In- 
 
 ' Council Book, 1677-1683, 68. " Lib. R. R. 167. 
 
 ' Council Book, 1677-1683, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84. 
 * Council Book, 1677-1683, 97, 98, 99, 100, loi. 
 
80 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [550 
 
 dians to kill the Protestants, that he sent letters to the Sen- 
 ecas and the French, that the forty Irish families coming 
 would be forty thousand Irish Papists to cut the Protes- 
 tants' throats/ 
 
 A special court, consisting- of Philip Calvert the Chan- 
 cellor, William Calvert the Secretary, Henry Darnall and 
 William Diggs, was appointed by the Proprietor to try all 
 murders, insurrections, rebellions, mutinies, seditions, bur- 
 glaries, unlawful meetings, and speaking of words against 
 " Us or our dominion," ^ but there is no evidence to show 
 that such a court ever sat. 
 
 The proclamation now issued for the holding of an Assem- 
 bly contained the Proprietor's dissent to the election law 
 of 1678, two delegates from each county being declared 
 sufificient,^ which fact caused considerable discontent, the 
 people holding that the law of 1678 could not be thus over- 
 ridden.^ The complaint was also made that anything said 
 by a Protestant was immediately carried to the Proprietor. 
 Undoubtedly the so-called Papist Plot in England created 
 much excitement in Maryland, as did likewise the bill to 
 exclude the Duke of York (James II.) from the succession 
 to the crown. 
 
 It will be seen that occasion was soon contrived to have 
 Fendall again arrested. The Assembly was not called until 
 August, 1 681, when the Proprietor made his declaration that 
 there should be only two delegates from each county. He 
 also issued a proclamation about the same time for the en- 
 forcement of the laws against divulgers of false news." The 
 cause of this proclamation, as stated by the Proprietor, was 
 the attempt of certain evil-disposed persons to stir up the 
 inhabitants of Maryland and Northern Virginia to mutiny." 
 Fendall and Coode he had ordered to be arrested as "two 
 
 ^ Council Book, 1677-1683, 175, 207, 226, 237. 
 
 * Council Book, 1677-1683, 181. * Council Book, 1677-1683, 201. 
 
 * Council Book, 1677-1683, 225. ° Lib. R. R. 186. 
 ' II. Council, 280. 
 
551] Constitutional History of Maryland. 81 
 
 Rank Baconists," and he declared that the people of Vir- 
 ginia were as ready as ever to rebel. Fendall, who had 
 great influence over the " Rascales of the North parts of 
 Virginia," would have joined Bacon but for Notley's vigi- 
 lance. The trials of Fendall and Coode will be noticed 
 later. Much of the disturbance in Virginia was due to the 
 attempt to establish towns. The Proprietor himself wished 
 to do the same in Maryland.' 
 
 When the Assembly met the Proprietor asked for a severe 
 act against " those wicked and Malicious persons who 
 spread lies and false stories to the disquiet of good people, 
 and the disturbance of the Government." The reason he 
 had not called the Assembly earlier, he declared, was be- 
 cause the expenses caused complaint and that was the cause 
 of Davis' rebellion in 1676." He also declared that he had 
 just nipped in the bud another rebellion. This address 
 shows the unrest still prevailing in the province. An act 
 was prepared against divulgers of false news by the Lower 
 House, but it was rejected by the Upper as not providing 
 sufificient punishment. 
 
 The Proprietor asked the Lower House not to allow 
 Coode, who was accused of mutinous and seditious speeches 
 tending to breach of the peace, to sit as one of its members. 
 The Lower House said it would consider the matter and 
 asked for the charges, which the Upper House refused to 
 give, simply insisting that Coode, being accused of breach 
 of the peace, was incapable of sitting as a member of the 
 Lower House." 
 
 The Lower House did not further consider the matter at 
 that time, but insisted on the election of new members to 
 fill the vacancies caused by death or otherwise. It was de- 
 cided that the Speaker should issue the warrants according 
 to the precedent of the Lower House of Parliament in Eng- 
 land, and the Proprietor was asked to name some officer to 
 
 ^ Burk's Virginia, 229. ' III. Assem. no. 
 
 'III. Assem. 112, 113, 115, 116. 
 
82 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [552 
 
 whom the Speaker could issue out the warrants.^ The 
 Lower House declared that all they wished was that the 
 Assembly, having begun with four members from each 
 county, should end with four. To this the Proprietor 
 answered that the act for election of burgesses, with four 
 delegates from each county, was to apply only to future 
 Assemblies (this was still the Assembly of 1676), and he 
 had, moreover, disapproved of that clause. The Lower 
 House, he said, was a sufficiently full house." 
 
 The Lower House now drew up an act for the election 
 of delegates, in which they yielded to the reduction of two 
 from each county, but provided that in case of any vacancy 
 by death or otherwise the Speaker should direct a warrant 
 to the Secretary, who should then issue a writ for a new 
 election. With this the Upper House refused to concur, 
 but insisted on the rights of the Proprietor. The Lower 
 House insisted that it was the privilege of the House that 
 the Speaker should issue such warrants.^ The Proprietor 
 expressed his surprise that the Lower House should claim 
 a power that was not practiced in Virginia or in any other 
 of his Majesty's colonies. It was impracticable; the King 
 had power to dispose of his conquests as he pleased, and in 
 granting the Proprietor his charter had given him the 
 power to enact laws. Accordingly he had propounded a 
 way for the settlement of future Assemblies, but would issue 
 writs, this time only, for the filling of the Lower House 
 with four delegates from each county.^ 
 
 The Lower House now expressed its grief that the Pro- 
 prietor should wonder that its members asserted their rights 
 and privileges as coming from England rather than from 
 imperfectly constituted colonies; it was their birthright by 
 the words of the charter. If the word " conquest " meant 
 that they were subject to arbitrary laws and impositions, 
 they took leave to believe that they were not his lordship's 
 
 'III. Assem. 114. ^ III. Assem. 118, 119. 
 
 "III. Assem. 119, 120, 121, 122, 123. * III. Assem. 124. 
 
553] Constitutional History of Maryland. 83 
 
 words, but the result of strange, if not evil, counsel. By 
 the charter his lordship had sufficient rights and preroga- 
 tives, and the King had reserved to the people the rights 
 and privileges of Englishmen, and this was all they insisted 
 upon. If the Proprietor would issue the writs as he had 
 said, the Lower House would proceed to business.^ 
 
 The Upper House disclaimed any idea of likening the 
 freemen of the province to a conquered people. It seemed 
 for a time as if nothing would result, the Upper House try- 
 ing to kill the afifair by messages and disputes. The Lower 
 House, however, refused to transact any business until the 
 writs were actually issued, and showed considerable distrust 
 of the good faith of the Proprietor. In the end they gained 
 their point.^ At the close of the session, however, the Pro- 
 prietor declared his dissent to the election law of 1678. 
 
 Coode's case was again taken up, the Lower House 
 refusing to unseat him for mere accusation of breach of 
 peace, saying that only treason, felony and refusing to give 
 security for breach of peace could unseat a member. The 
 Upper House insisted that Coode had refused to give 
 security, upon which the Lower House demanded the evi- 
 dence. The Upper House declared that he could only be 
 tried at the Provincial Court, but sent the evidence, which 
 the Lower House refused to consider sufficient. Coode 
 retained his seat.' 
 
 The act now passed for the regulation of the militia for 
 the better defense and security of the province differs but 
 little from previous ones. It occupied much of the Assem- 
 bly's time. The Lower House talked much of its privileges, 
 and failed to raise as much money for the Indian war as 
 the Proprietor wanted.^ This made the Proprietor angry. 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 125. 
 
 ' III. Assem. 126, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134. 
 ' III. Assem. 135, 136, 137, 138, 139. 
 
 The Lower House requested the Proprietor to appoint a ser- 
 geant-at-arms for them. III. Assem. 115. 
 * III. Assem. 163, 170, 172, 175, 178, 180, 188. 
 
84 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [554 
 
 The Lower House tried, but without success, to get an 
 act passed for the confirmation of the laws. The Upper 
 House declared useless the first part of the act, by which 
 laws passed by the Assembly and assented to by the Pro- 
 prietor could only be repealed by consent of the Assembly. 
 The latter part of the act, by which the Governor's assent 
 to a law was made binding- on the Proprietor, was declared 
 dangerous for the rights of the Proprietor. Neither the Gov- 
 ernor of Virginia, nor William Penn in Pennsylvania, nor 
 yet the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, had any such power.* 
 The Lower House answered that by the first part of the act 
 it desired that the laws made at the last session (1678), 
 which they held still to be in force, might not be repealed 
 or disassented to without its consent. It denied that the 
 latter part of the act was dangerous for the Proprietor or 
 that the precedents quoted held good for Maryland. It also 
 declared that " Nothing can or ought to be Satisfactory to 
 us, or the Freemen of this Province (whom we Represent) 
 unless we are Ascertained of the Validity force and Contin- 
 uance of the Laws of this Province under which we live, 
 and from whence we Expect protection and Safety and to 
 the Enacting of which we have been and Still are Lyable 
 to So much Trouble & Expence." " The Lower House tried 
 in vain to get the consent of the Upper House to this act, 
 nor did a petition addressed to the Proprietor have any 
 better result. The Proprietor promised, however, that in 
 the future, during his absence from the province, he would 
 have his assent or dissent published in the province within 
 eighteen months after the passage of any laws." 
 
 Another eflfort was made by the Lower House to have 
 an act passed for the relief of the Quakers, but it was again 
 defeated by the opposition of the Proprietor.* An attempt 
 of the Lower House to relieve ships built in the province 
 from the payment of port duties was likewise defeated.* An 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 152. 
 
 * III, Assem. 160. ' III. Assem. 175, 178, i8i, 182. 
 
 * III. Assem. 174, 179, 184. " III. Assem. 144, 145. 
 
 ii ^•'"■ 
 
555] Constitutional History of Maryland. 85 
 
 act was passed by which any white woman servant who 
 should intermarry with a negro should become free im- 
 mediately, and all the issue of such marriage should be 
 free; but the priest or magistrate who performed the mar- 
 riage was to be fined 10,000 pounds of tobacco. Through 
 the efforts of the Upper House' it was added that the master 
 or mistress of the woman should be fined 10,000 pounds of 
 tobacco/ This act shows that such marriages were con- 
 trived by the masters, who then, by a former act, retained 
 the woman in service during life, as also her issue. 
 
 Another important act, extending the powers of the 
 county courts, was passed this session.' All cases of lar- 
 ceny not exceeding 1000 pounds of tobacco in amount were 
 to be judged in the county courts by a jury trial if the case 
 was a first or second offense. The punishment to be 
 fourfold the value to the person injured, with whipping or 
 pillorying, or both, as the judges thought fit. The punish- 
 ments inflicted by the laws of England, and followed in 
 Maryland, were declared to be too severe for the province. 
 
 Before the Assembly had been prorogued the Proprietor 
 issued an ordinance concerning elections. It was the ordi- 
 nance of September 6, 1681, which is often mentioned 
 afterwards.* By this ordinance election writs were to be 
 issued from the Court of Chancery to the sheriffs, directing 
 the election of two delegates from each county or chartered 
 city. In case of a vacancy by death, application was to be 
 made to the Secretary to have an election writ issued from 
 the Chancery Court. No sheriff was to be elected. Hav- 
 ing settled this matter, the Proprietor next made a " Decla- 
 ration in relation to his proceedings in defense of the Prov- 
 ince," which was nothing but a complaint of the last 
 Assembly and its demand for " imaginary privileges " and 
 a denunciation of its proceedings." He intended perhaps to 
 influence the next session of the Assembly. 
 
 The November session accompHshed but little. The act of 
 
 'III. Assem. 177. 'III. Assem. 203. 'III. Assem. 201. 
 
 * Council Book, 1677-1683, 247. " Council Book, 1677-1683, 247. 
 
86 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [556 
 
 1676 establishing the perpetual laws had itself been made a 
 temporary law by the reviving act of 1678. The Proprietor, 
 after a struggle with the Lower House, now procured its 
 repeal/ This session revived ' the act against divulgers of 
 false news. The Proprietor declared that in the future he 
 was resolved to publish the proceedings of all Assemblies, 
 for the satisfaction of the people of the province/ 
 
 Fendall, Coode and Godfrey were now tried/ In Fendall's 
 trial it was evident that the judges did all they could to ob- 
 tain a verdict of guilty, but the jury only found*him guilty of 
 speaking several seditious words, without force or practice, 
 and " if the Court thought him guilty of breach of the Act of 
 Assembly, it did; and if not, it did not/' Of course the 
 court thought him guilty, and he was fined 40,000 pounds 
 of tobacco and banished forever from the province. 
 
 The English law of treason was appHed in this case. The 
 accused was not told of what he was accused, the Attorney- 
 General informing Fendall that every man accused is pre- 
 sumed to know what he had done. To the most serious 
 charge made against him, Fendall pointed out that, contrary 
 to both English and Maryland law, there was only one wit- 
 ness/ 
 
 Coode was acquitted by the jury, but Godfrey was found 
 guilty of trying to take Fendall from prison and was sen- 
 tenced to be hanged. The sentence was, however, com- 
 muted to life imprisonment. Coode was a justice of St. 
 Mary's County Court and Godfrey a justice of Charles 
 County Court. In the Council Proceedings- the evidence 
 against Fendall, Coode and Godfrey may be found." God- 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 226, 227, 228, 233, 235, 237, 238, 247. 
 
 Fees as usual were considered and limited (III. Assem. 244, 
 255), but an act relating to the Land Office was rejected by the 
 Proprietor. III. Assem. 234, 240, 243. 
 
 "III. Assem. 245. * III. Assem. 221. * III. Assem. 313, 330, 332. 
 
 " The jury was told by the Chancellor that it was judge of the 
 facts and not of the law. 
 
 'Council Book, 1677-1683, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 218, 219, 220, 
 221, 222, 226, 262, 263, 278, 284, 292. 
 
557] Constitutional History of Maryland. 87 
 
 frev is seen to have done but little, and the popularity of 
 Fendall and of Coode is manifest.' Godfrey was placed in 
 irons.' The arrest of Fendall's brother Samuel was ordered, 
 but it cannot be said that he was arrested.' 
 
 Arrests for seditious speeches continued for some time. 
 A plot was reported by which the Proprietor, the Chancellor 
 and the Secretary were to be killed, but it does not seem 
 to have been attempted.* Fendall went to Virginia, and the 
 Proprietor wrote that Fendall was the most likely person 
 there to stir up a rebellion of the discontented party, and if 
 he had caused a rising in Maryland, Virginia would not 
 have remained quiet.'' 
 
 The Proprietor had been accused in England of giving 
 most of the offices to the Catholics. He now sent a hst 
 of the officers of the province with a statement of their 
 religion.' This Avas followed by a declaration signed by 
 twenty-five Protestants, nearly all office-holders, that they 
 had observed " his Lordshipp's favours impartially distri- 
 buted, and Places of Honor, trust and profit conferred on 
 the most qualified for that purpose & service without any 
 respect or regard had to the religion of the participants." ^ 
 
 The manner in which these signatures were obtained was 
 as follows. When the Assembly of April, 1682, was ready 
 to dissolve, the Proprietor presented to the members of the 
 Assembly a declaration in vindication of himself and his 
 government. He himself had prepared the paper and he 
 asked those present to sign it. To have refused to do so 
 would have been difficult, embarrassing and dangerous.^ 
 Signatures were thus obtained. Many of them were of 
 office-holders and really had little weight. As a matter of 
 fact, nearly all the important offices were held by members 
 
 ^ Council Book, 1677-1683, 222, 224, 226, 274, 275, 277. 
 
 ^ Council Book, 1677-1683, 293. 
 
 ' Council Book, 1677-1683, 275, 276, 277. 
 
 * Council Book, 1677-1683, 279, 280, 282, 296, 305, 3o6, 33^, 348. 
 
 ^11. Council, 351. ^11. Council, 300, 309- ' H- Council, 353 
 
 ' III. Assem. 314. 
 
88 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [55S 
 
 of the Proprietor's family, who were for the most part 
 Catholics, In the province the Protestants far outnum- 
 bered the Catholics, and if only half of the officers were 
 Catholics, it seemed monstrous to the Protestants at a time 
 when the Popish plots were agitating all England. 
 
 Lord Baltimore now began his quarrels with the king's 
 collectors of customs. He charged Rousby, who had called 
 him a traitor, and Babcock with insolence, fraud against 
 the king's customs, and breach of the laws. The collectors, 
 on their side, charged Lord Baltimore with obstructing 
 them in performance of their duties, and urged that he only 
 wished to replace them with Diggs, his wife's son-in-law, or 
 with Philip Calvert, who had married Jane Sewall. Indeed 
 Lord Baltimore did make application on their behalf. 
 Rousby was accused of treason, of lewdness and debauch- 
 ery. He was said to have left the province contrary to the 
 law regulating departures from the province. This last 
 charge seems abundantly disproved.* Babcock died early 
 in the dispute, but Rousby was to die by the hand of a 
 cousin of the Proprietor, and by his death Rousby aided in 
 the overthrow of the Proprietor's government. Through 
 the whole dispute the Proprietor seems to have been in the 
 wrong. The impression is left upon us that he wilfully mis- 
 represents facts. At the end of this first stage of the dispute 
 he was fined £2500 by the king.^ 
 
 The Assembly met again in April, 1682. It was mainly 
 concerned in passing several acts placing bounties on the 
 production of hemp and flax and the manufacture of linen 
 and woolen cloths within the province.' An act was passed 
 to encourage tillage; corn, wheat, oats, barley, rye, peas, 
 pork, beef and bacon were made legal tender for all debts, 
 except the Proprietor's rents and the public levies.* The 
 reason for these laws is found in the disturbance which 
 
 ^ II. Council, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299. 
 
 ° II. Council, 274, 276, 278, 280, 286. 288, 296, 301, 302, 303, 305, 
 306, 308, 309, 334, 343, 361, 363, 364, 368, 369, 370. 
 ^ III. Assem. 274, 276, 296, 300, 324, 325. * III. Assem. 321. 
 
559] Constitutional History of Mart/land. 89 
 
 arose in Virginia about this time, when a great deal of 
 tobacco was cut. There was popular discontent with the 
 low price, but a cessation in the planting of tobacco was 
 desired neither by the king nor the Governor of Virginia 
 nor the Proprietor, for all of their revenues were increased 
 by increased exports.' The Lower House procured the pas- 
 sage of an act relieving ships owned in the province from 
 the port and anchorage duty.' 
 
 An election was held and a new Assembly met in October, 
 1682. By the writs issued, only two delegates were elected 
 from each county. The Proprietor declared to the Assem- 
 bly that this was " according to the Undoubted rights, Erivi- 
 ledges, and Powers of my Charter,"* The Lower House said 
 it had been instructed by the freemen to make provision 
 that they be restored to their former right of electing the 
 accustomed number of delegates from each county, and 
 asked the Proprietor that a bill might be passed directing 
 that all writs for the future should require the election of 
 two, three or four delegates for each county, at the choice 
 of the freemen.* This request the Proprietor refused."* The 
 Lower House, however, passed such a bill and sent it to 
 the Upper House, which refused to do anything with it 
 until the act establishing towns was passed by the Lower 
 House. As the Lower House would not pass that measure, 
 the bill died.' The act for the establishment of towns, called 
 an " act for the advancement of trade," was not passed by 
 the Lower House, though the Upper House repeatedly 
 
 ^ II. Council, 355, 356, 357. The power of the county courts to 
 levy their expenses upon the counties was limited to looo lbs. 
 tobacco for the larger, and 600 lbs. tobacco for the smaller coun- 
 ties for each sitting of the county court. III. Assem. 322. 
 
 'III. Assem. 273, 274, 276, 291, 297, 323. 
 
 The desire of the Lower House was to have the act for the 
 killing of wolves made a temporary law, which was the cause of 
 much trouble later. III. Assem. 296, 297, 298. The expenses of 
 the delegates were to be borne by the province, and not by their 
 respective counties. III. Assem. 318. 
 
 * III. Assem. 334- * HI. Assem. 345, 407- ° HI- Assem. 416, 455- 
 
 • III. Assem. 460, 465, 480, 418, 485, 430, 434- 
 
90 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [560 
 
 urged its passage/ The Lower House voted that its mem- 
 bers alone were representatives of the freemen and that the 
 expenses of the Upper House should not be paid by the 
 public levy." The impeachment of Jacob Young, which was 
 not finished, occupied much of the Assembly's time. 
 
 In 1683, Henry Darnall, a cousin of the Proprietor, and 
 William Diggs, who had married Elizabeth Sewall, step- 
 daughter of the Proprietor, were commissioned Judges of 
 the Probate Court and Keepers of the Great Seal. Appeals 
 to the Governor were allowed from their decisions.' Thus 
 a separate and distinct Probate Court was established. At 
 the same time Nicholas Sewall, the stepson, and John Dar- 
 nall, a cousin of the Proprietor, were commissioned Secre- 
 taries of the Province, dividing this office for the first time.* 
 
 The Assembly met again in 1683. The Lower House 
 immediately protested against a sherifif sitting as a member, 
 and obtained the election of a new member in his place." 
 The Secretaries had refused to issue the writ for the election 
 upon a warrant signed by the Speaker, and only complied 
 upon receiving an order from the Proprietor. The Lower 
 House now prepared a bill for the election of burgesses 
 similar to the measure presented to the Upper House at 
 the previous session. The Upper House refused to con- 
 sider the bill, saying the matter had been settled by the 
 Proprietor's ordinance of September 6, 1681.' The Lower 
 House, however, insisted on having the bill, which had been 
 sent to the Upper House, acted upon. The latter in turn 
 insisted that the bill establishing towns should be passed 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 350, 352, 358, 372, 379, 385, 410, 412, 419, 422, 424, 
 426. 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 273, 4i9- The Lower House was also very tena- 
 cious of its privileges and refused admission to members of the 
 Upper House wearing their swords. III. Assem. 356, 358, 409, 
 414, 416. The Proprietor settled the fees of the clerk of the 
 Council, a thing the Lower House wished to do itself, as it had 
 always insisted on doing. III. Assem. 401, 475. 
 
 'Lib. R. R. 188. *Lib. R. R. 189. 
 
 "III. Assem. 451, 527, 529, 531. * III. Assem. 452, 530. 
 
561] Constitutional History of Maryland. 91 
 
 by the Lower House. A long struggle ensued. The 
 Upper House passed an election bill that was rejected by 
 the Lower House, which in its turn prepared a new bill. 
 Conferences were held and amendments proposed. The 
 Proprietor insisted upon his prerogatives. The Lower 
 House declared it did not wish to infringe upon them, but 
 only wanted to have the manner of electing burgesses made 
 certain and fixed. At the same time the House claimed 
 that the right of assembly belonged to the freemen, not 
 through any grant in the charter, but as the privilege of 
 free-born Englishmen. The bad faith of the Upper House 
 is apparent in its refusal to pass the bill after promising to 
 do so as soon as the Lower House passed the bill for towns. 
 Thus the election act failed. The Proprietor had conquered 
 in his struggle to reduce the membership of the Lower 
 House. Not until after the overthrow of the Proprietary 
 government was the old number of four delegates from 
 each county restored.^ 
 
 The Proprietor wished above all things the act establish- 
 ing towns to be passed. To understand the opposition to 
 this act it must be remembered that any man with a water- 
 front could have a landing of his own and load his tobacco 
 directly from his plantation upon ships. By the act for 
 towns no tobacco could be shipped except at these towns. 
 Storage-houses were to be provided, and town officers of 
 course received fees. To these towns the tobacco due from 
 the tax-payers must be brought. The act was never fully 
 enforced. The Lower House wished to name the places 
 for these towns, but the Proprietor claimed that as his pre- 
 rogative, and with entire justice, for it was especially men- 
 tioned in the charter. The Lower House got the provision 
 attached that no one of these towns should have represen- 
 tatives in the Assembly until it had sufficient inhabitants 
 to pay the expenses of such representation. In the attempt 
 to obtain concessions from the Proprietor, such as the pas- 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 458, 460, 462, 470. 474. 478, 486, 491. 493. 496, 505, 
 513, 533, S4I, 545, 548, 558, 563, 580, 583, 597- 
 
92 TJie Maryland Revolution of 1689. [562 
 
 sage of the bills for elections, and for levying war, by holding 
 back this act for towns, the Lower House failed. The Pro- 
 prietor called the members of the Lower House into the 
 Upper House and made an angry speech, which produced 
 the desired effect. The act for towns passed.^ As regards 
 legislation for bringing money into the province the Pro- 
 prietor was not so fortunate. This act was taken up, but, 
 as the Assembly wished the Proprietor's duty of two shil- 
 lings per hogshead and port duties to be paid in the cheap- 
 ened money, and gave the Proprietor nothing to offset his 
 loss, the proposed measure was quietly dropped." 
 
 The Assembly had met for this session at the Ridge, in 
 Anne Arundel County. This was more convenient than St. 
 Mary's, and the Lower House was much pleased. It tried 
 to have not only the Assembly but the Provincial Court, the 
 Secretaries and other provincial officers permanently estab- 
 lished in Anne Arundel County. The Proprietor seemed to 
 assent, on condition that fitting buildings should be erected, 
 to which proposal the Lower House agreed.'' A gift of 
 100,000 pounds of tobacco to the Proprietor by the Lower 
 House was refused by him, for he perhaps thought it would 
 make the change binding upon him.* 
 
 The Upper House sent an act to the Lower for the 
 settling of the two shillings per hogshead duty upon the 
 Proprietor and the heirs of his blood forever. To this the 
 Lower House would not consent, but settled it on Benedict 
 Calvert, the son of the Proprietor, during his life. The 
 Proprietor, however, refused to assent to the act, which 
 seems to have been changed in other respects also." An act 
 
 ^ III. Assem. 459, 460, 465, 466, 468, 469, 479, 480, 488, 490, 491, 
 493, 496, 503, 539, 540, 541, 544, 545, 547, 548, 5Si, 552, 553, 554, 557, 
 563, 565, 578, 579, 580. 
 
 * III. Assem. 448, 474, 532, 544. The Lower House failed to pass 
 an act for levying war. III. Assem. 480, 491, 496, 513, 575, 580, 597. 
 
 ' III. Assem. 483, 495, 505, 506, 517, 587, 590, 594, 600, 602. 
 
 * III. Assem. 495, 515, 516, 582, 599. 
 
 " III. Assem. 512, 513, 519, 589, 590, 603. The common fear of 
 the French is seen in a false rumor that twenty Frenchmen had 
 
563] Constitutional History of Maryland. 93 
 
 to " ascertain the validity of laws passed during the absence 
 of the Proprietor " was rejected by the Upper House.^ 
 George Talbot, a cousin of the Proprietor, was at this time 
 commissioned Surveyor General/ 
 
 The Calm before the Storm, 1684- 1689. — The period next 
 to be considered was one of comparative quiet. The 
 Assembly gave way to the wishes of the Proprietor in most 
 matters, but still showed its independence by its presenta- 
 tions of grievances and attempted passage of bills to remedy 
 them. The government of the province, during this period, 
 was in the hands of the members of the Council, who were 
 called Deputy Governors. Nearly every one of them was 
 a relative of the Proprietor. Every office of importance, 
 with one apparent exception, was occupied by one of his 
 relatives. James II. ascended the English throne early in 
 this period, and without doubt his example influenced the 
 Proprietor. The Proprietor's right to exercise the dispens- 
 ing and suspending powers was openly maintained. Favor 
 towards the Roman Catholic Church was more openly 
 shown than ever before. Attempts to introduce Catholicism 
 into Virginia were made by James II.' 
 
 In April, 1684, the Assembly met again. The Lower 
 House passed an act for ascertaining the validity of the laws 
 passed in the absence of the Proprietor, as it had done in 
 previous Asseniblies. By this act the Proprietor had to 
 
 attacked an inhabitant of the province. III. Assem. 486, 487. An 
 act of the Lower House to prohibit sheriffs or deputy sheriffs 
 from being also deputy surveyors failed. III. Assem. 573. 
 
 ' III. Assem. 508, 509, 510, 512, 589, 590, 594, 595, 596. The ses- 
 sion ended with the Proprietor's refusal to confirm the act reviv- 
 ing the temporary laws because it included in the temporary laws 
 the act for killing wolves, which had been made a perpetual act, 
 and the Lower House would not omit it from the reviving act. 
 III. Assem. 519, 520, 603, 604. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. 192. 
 
 Several provisions concerning land were made (Lib. R. R. i; 
 II. Council, 394), and the alienations of land were to be examined. 
 Lib. R. R. 59. 
 
 ^ Burk's Virginia, Vol. II., 299; Cooke's Virginia, 300. 
 
94 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [564 
 
 declare his disassent to a law within twenty months after 
 its passage; a later veto had no force. The Upper House 
 wished to extend this period to three years, whereupon the 
 Lower House expressed its astonishment, for in i68i the 
 period of eighteen months was agreed upon, not only by 
 the Upper House, but by the Proprietor also. The Pro- 
 prietor settled the matter by declaring that he would not 
 consent to any such an act.^ 
 
 The " act for levying war " the Proprietor refused to 
 consider, declaring he had suspended the law then in force, 
 perhaps for his life; accordingly any new act was useless.'' 
 The attempts of the Lower House to pass a new " act for 
 the punishment of certain offenses," by which the severe 
 punishments prescribed by the old act were to be mitigated 
 or abolished, were likewise defeated by the Proprietor."* A 
 new act for taking the oath of fidelity and a new oath of 
 fidelity were discussed. The Lower House amended the 
 oath by adding the clause " Saving of our Allegiance to his 
 Sacred Majesty," but finally rejected both measures, the 
 other changes being objectionable.^ The Proprietor de- 
 clared that the members of the Assembly must take the oath 
 of fidelity at the next meeting of the Assembly." Thus it 
 was the Proprietor, and not President Joseph, who origi- 
 nated the dispute of i688 concerning the taking of the oath 
 of fidelity. « 
 
 The perpetual laws were carefully examined by the 
 Assembly, which wished to make some alterations; but the 
 Proprietor announced just what alterations he would con- 
 sent to, and thus prevented any action." He would not con- 
 
 ' Lib. F. F. 708, 710; Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 102, 106, 
 108. 
 ^ Lib. F. F. 701; Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 95, 107. 
 
 * Lib. F. F. 708, 709; Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 80, ?5, 
 86, 103, 107. 
 
 * Lib. F. F. 718; Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 80, 102. 
 "Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 116; Lib. F. F. 719. 
 
 ° Lib. F. F. 709; Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 107. 
 
565] Constitutional History of Maryland. 95 
 
 sent to the re-enactment of the law of 1678, by which the 
 laws of England were to apply when the laws of the province 
 were silent, unless the Governor and Chief Justice should be 
 allowed to decide whether those laws ought to be applied.^ 
 To this procedure the Lower House would not consent. 
 The Lower House also declared the repealing act of 1678 
 to be in full force. These things caused the Proprietor to 
 again declare his disassent to all laws passed in 1678.' The 
 temporary laws were revived, which was the chief reason 
 for the calling of this session by the Proprietor.^ 
 
 The trial of a certain Carvil at this time for disrespect of 
 the Proprietor is worth noting. Carvil was accused of say- 
 ing that the Proprietor and his rogues had caused the death 
 of Mrs. Coode; that the Council was composed of mere 
 boys; that the Proprietor had promised the land for Chop- 
 ticotown (which was located on a Proprietary manor); and 
 other similar things.* It is well to remember that Mrs. 
 Coode was the daughter of Thomas Gerrard, a former rebel 
 against the Proprietor. If any action of the Proprietary 
 government really hastened Mrs. Coode's death, it is easy 
 to see that it would embitter Coode against that govern- 
 ment.^ Fendall, who had been banished, was reported to 
 be seen, afterwards, in a ship in the Potomac. A search 
 warrant was issued, but he could not be found." 
 
 The Proprietor again declared in the Council his dis- 
 assent to the laws of 1678.^ He now prepared to go to 
 
 ^ Lib. F. F. 709. ^ Lower House Journal, 1676-1702, 81, 115. 
 
 * The act establishing towns was supplemented and an act passed 
 against excessive usury. The Lower House declared that persons 
 obtaining naturalization must in the future pay the Speaker 1200 
 pounds of tobacco. Lib. F. F. 713; Lower House Journal, 1676- 
 1702, no. It may be noticed that the Lower House complained 
 that the Secretaries took double fees. Lower House Journal, 1676- 
 1702, 82. 
 
 * Lib. R. R. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. 
 
 ° Carvil was tried upon another charge soon after this. Lib. 
 R. R. R. 77, 78, 79. 
 ' Lib. R. R. R. 112, 114. ' H. Council, 405. 
 
96 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [566 
 
 England. Benedict Calvert, his son, was appointed Gov- 
 ernor, but as he was too young to govern, Deputy Gov- 
 ernors were appointed. These were nine in number, seven 
 of whom were relations of the Proprietor, including indeed 
 the entire Council.^ Coursey was named Chief Justice and 
 Chancellor; the Council is called a Council of State." 
 
 The Proprietor now resolved to establish a Land Office. 
 Henry Darnall, William Diggs, Nicholas Sewall and John 
 Damall were named a Land Council.' As early as i68o 
 there had been a nominal Land Office, with John LlewelUn 
 in charge as Register,* but now the office was definitely 
 established. Complete instructions were given to the Land 
 Council. Henry Darnall and Diggs were to sign all war- 
 rants to which the Great Seal was necessary." They were 
 to have one-third the forfeitures of all vessels seized for 
 breach of acts of Parliament,^ and were to sign all acts of 
 the Assembly as Keepers of the Great Seal.' They were 
 appointed keepers of the forest and chief rangers, and em- 
 powered to seize all wild cattle and horses and sell them for 
 personal benefit.' This Henry Darnall was also made 
 Receiver General for the province.* The two Damalls, 
 Sewall and Diggs, seem to have had most of the powers of 
 the government.^" 
 
 The king's Collector of Customs, Christopher Rousby, 
 was murdered in the autumn of 1684, by George Talbot, 
 the Surveyor General of Maryland, and a cousin of the Pro- 
 prietor. The murder was committed on board a king's 
 man-of-war, and the captain took Talbot to Virginia to be 
 tried and refused to deliver him to the Proprietary govern- 
 ment. How such a trial by his relatives would have resulted 
 is not hard to see, nor can the captain be blamed for refus- 
 ing to surrender Talbot to be tried by such a court. Tal- 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. R. 87. ' Lib. R. R. R. 90, 91. ' Lib. R. R. R. 93- 
 
 * Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, lo8. 
 
 "Lib. R. R. R. 99; Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, iis, Ii6. 
 
 " IL Council, 406; Lib. R. R. R. loi. ' Lib. R. R. R. 102. 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. R. 81. ' Lib. R. R. R. 103. '" Lib. R. R. R. 108. 
 
567] Constitutional History of Maryland. 97 
 
 bot's wife went to Virginia and procured his escape. The 
 Council then issued orders for Talbot's arrest, but the 
 search was not vigorously pushed. Talbot lived for some 
 time, quietly, and unarrested, in his own house. Finally he 
 surrendered and was ordered to be sent to England, but 
 Lord Baltimore procured his pardon from King James.* 
 The Council appointed Diggs and Sewall King's Collectors 
 of Customs, but this was bitterly opposed by Nehemiah 
 Blackiston, the other King's Collector of Customs, who 
 complained that they treated him with contempt and de- 
 frauded the king's customs. A new collector was soon 
 appointed in Rousby's place and Blackiston was sustained.' 
 During all the trouble the Council vigorously supported the 
 prerogatives of the Proprietor, refused to try Talbot in any 
 court held in the king's name, arrested any one who advo- 
 cated that procedure, and refused to surrender him to the 
 Governor of Virginia. This incident gave a more than 
 seeming basis to charges of resistance to the English gov- 
 ernment which were made later against the Proprietary. 
 
 A new election was held, the writs being issued in the 
 form prescribed by the Proprietor's ordinance of September 
 6, i68i.* When the Assembly met, the Deputy Governors 
 tried to get the members of the Lower House to take the 
 oath of fidelity, as the Proprietor declared should be done, 
 but they refused.* Little was done at this session. An act 
 was passed for the advancement of coins, but this act was 
 not to affect the Proprietor's export duty of two shilHngs 
 per hogshead of tobacco nor his quit-rents.° Vincent Lowe, 
 brother-in-law of the Proprietor, had been appointed Sur- 
 
 ^11. Council, 428, 436, 439, 453; Lib. R. R. R. 138, 142, 163, 177, 
 180, 181, 185, 187, 189, 197, 199, 201, 202, 214, 221, 222, 232, 239, 
 253, 255, 271. 
 
 ■ II. Council, 436, 520, 526. 
 
 * Lib. R. R. R. 244. ■* III. Council, 62. 
 
 ' The act for towns was amended and the temporary laws were 
 revived. Many proclamations were made concerning the towns 
 by the Council during this period, there being great discontent 
 about them. II. Council, 449, 500, 502, 563; Lib. R. R. 207, 245. 
 
98 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [568 
 
 veyor General/ and Henry Lowe, a nephew of the Proprie- 
 tor, had been appointed Collector of Customs under Henry 
 Darnall, the Receiver General/ William Joseph was ap- 
 pointed in 1 688 a Deputy Governor and was to preside in 
 the Council and Provincial Court/ The Assembly met 
 again in November, i688. President Joseph, perhaps by 
 instructions of the Proprietor and certainly in accordance 
 with the Proprietor's declaration of 1684, asked the mem- 
 bers of the Assembly to take the oath of fidelity to the 
 Proprietor/ The Upper House promptly took the oath, 
 but the Lower House refused, as it had done in 1686/ It 
 claimed it was a breach of its privileges and that it had 
 never refused to take an oath such as put to the House of 
 Commons in England, nor would its members take the oath 
 until the Assembly had been prorogued, when they took it 
 as private individuals and not as composing the Lower 
 House/ 
 
 At President Joseph's request, the Assembly, urged on 
 by the Upper House,' passed an " act for a perpetual com- 
 memoration and thanksgiving every loth day of June for 
 the birth of the Prince/' ' 
 
 The Lower House presented a list of grievances to the 
 Upper: (i) That the collectors refused to take tobacco for 
 the Proprietor's quit-rents and fines for alienations, as they 
 were required to do by the act of 1671. (2) The Secretaries 
 took fees not due them by law. (4) Laws passed by the 
 Assembly and assented to by the Proprietor were dispensed 
 with, whereas they should only be repealed by the consent 
 of the Assembly. The Lower House asked in this complaint 
 if the Proprietor was going to dispense with a certain law 
 without an act of repeal. In Virginia there was great op- 
 position to the veto power of the Governor/ (5) The 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. R. 283. - Lib. R. R. R. 243. ' IIL Council, 41. 
 
 ' Lib. F. F. 551. ' in. Council, 62. 
 
 * Lib. F. F. 557. McMahon is wrong in saying that the oath 
 was taken at the end of the session. McMahon's Maryland, 234. 
 ' Lib. F. F. 574. ' Lib. F. F. 550, 574. ° Campbell's Virginia, 339. 
 
569] Constitutional History of Maryland. 99 
 
 Attorney General issued writs to the sheriffs by which per- 
 sons were brought to the Provincial Court not knowing of 
 what they were accused. (6) Press-Masters used their 
 powers in time of peace. 
 
 The Upper House answered these grievances as follows: 
 (i) The collectors should in the future take tobacco for the 
 rents and fines for alienations. (2) An act should be passed 
 explaining the law. (4) The Proprietor would only dis- 
 pense with this clause for the present. (5) The cause of 
 arrest should be known. (6) The government did not en- 
 courage such exercise of the powers of the Press-Masters. 
 The Proprietor's dispensing power was upheld.' The 
 Lower House passed an act regulating the Secretaries' fees, 
 but Diggs and Sewall, the Secretaries, went to the Lower 
 House and asked that the matter be dropped. They said 
 that in the future they would not charge for the recording 
 of proceedings until the following Assembly.^ The Lower 
 House asserted its rights in election affairs and asked that 
 writs and returns be presented to it.' Among the members 
 of the Lower House were Coode and Hawkins. The 
 L'pper House tried to keep them out of their seats, but was 
 forced by the Lower to allow them the privilege.* It is not 
 clear whether Clark, another elected member of the Lower 
 House, was allowed by the Upper House to take his seat. 
 Cheseldine was the Speaker."* 
 
 The Revolution of 1689. — Family interests had become too 
 prominent. Nicholas Sewall, Henry Darnall, Vincent Lowe 
 and Henry Lowe, all relatives of the Proprietor, were pro- 
 vided with offices and were Deputy Governors. Elizabeth 
 Sewall first married Dr. Jesse Wharton, and after his death 
 she married William Diggs, who accordingly was made a 
 
 ' Lib. F. F. 564, 588. ^ Lib. F. F. 593. 
 
 ' Lib. F. F. 551, 553, 557, 559- * Lib. F. F. 559- 
 
 ° The Upper House desired to make money the standard and 
 
 measure of all trade, and resolved on a per diem payment for its 
 
 members. Lib. F. F. 564, 571. The Assembly supplemented the 
 
 act establishing towns. 
 
100 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [570 
 
 Deputy Governor. Anne Sewall's second husband was 
 Colonel Edward Pye, who, like her first husband Rozer, 
 became a member of the Council and a Deputy Governor. 
 Mary Sewall's second husband was a Virginian, and so did 
 not hold office like her first. Jane Sewall had married 
 Philip Calvert, who was now dead. Others who held office, 
 through their family connections with the Proprietor or 
 others, were Henry Brent, who was Examiner General,^ by 
 his marriage with Anne Calvert, the widow of Baker 
 Brooke; Richard Smith, who had married a sister of Baker 
 Brooke; Clement Hill, who had married the niece of Hatton, 
 widow of Luke Gardiner, both of whom were much liked 
 by the Proprietor; and Peter Sayers, whose wife was the 
 sister of Richard Smith's wife. It is likely that most of 
 the public offices were held by reason of family ties, but 
 these cases are all the writer has knowledge of at present. 
 The list includes all the larger offices, except that of Chan- 
 cellor, to which Joseph was appointed on account of his 
 knowledge of law. 
 
 On the other hand it should be noticed that Coode had 
 married Susanna Geprard, daughter of Thomas Gerrard,' 
 and that Nehemiah Blackiston had married Elisabeth, an- 
 other daughter of Gerrard.' Gerrard Slye, another rela- 
 tive (Coode's stepson indeed), was their agent in England. 
 The struggle that was soon to occur is, in a certain sense, 
 a family struggle. 
 
 Rumors of the invasion of England by William of Orange 
 reached Maryland early in the year. The Council immedi- 
 ately ordered all the public arms to be prepared. A letter to 
 the Proprietor required these arms to be distributed into 
 " such hands as shall faithfully serve the King your Lordsp 
 and the Country." * In the same letter Lord Baltimore was 
 
 ^ II. Council, 542. " Chancery Lib. P. L., Fol. 755, 1093. 
 
 * Land Records, Lib. 3, Fol. 24. 
 
 It is interesting also to note that Henry Jowles and Kenelm 
 Cheseldine were related. 
 
 * III. Council, 56, 65. 
 
571] Constitutional History of Maryland. 101 
 
 congratulated on having raised a troop of horse for King 
 James. There can be but little doubt that there was a large 
 party in Maryland favorable to William of Orange. The 
 express declaration of the Council above-made shows that 
 arms were not to be intrusted to members of this party. 
 The English revolution of 1688 is sometimes thought to 
 have been accomplished at one blow, but this is a mistake. 
 Ireland was not conquered by William until 1691. Richard 
 Talbot, Duke of Tyrconnel, who held the government of 
 Ireland in 1688, held out for James II. In Scotland there 
 was a long struggle made by James's adherents. Nor did 
 the Tories in England remain quiet. Risings were repeat- 
 edly planned, but they came to grief. James, who fled to 
 France, obtained aid from Louis XIV. and landed with 
 French troops in Ireland in May, 1689. 
 
 That France, then the most powerful country in the world 
 and the champion of Catholicism, would attack the English 
 colonies by way of Canada was not only probable but it 
 actually happened. Nor could it be supposed that the ad- 
 herents of James in the colonies would offer much resistance 
 to their allies the French. Lord Baltimore was an Irish 
 lord and a Catholic. He was, moreover, related to the 
 Talbots, and was intimate with the Tyrconnel Talbots.^ It 
 was but a few years previous to this that the Edict of Nantes 
 had been revoked by Louis XIV. and the terrible dragon- 
 nades instituted. These facts were fresh in the minds of the 
 colonists. In Maryland things had begun to approach a 
 crisis. A treaty with the Indians had been renewed,^ and 
 this, in connection with the preparations for defense, began 
 to excite suspicion. Rumors became rife of a plot between 
 the Catholics and Indians to destroy the Protestants. It 
 was said that large numbers of Indians had been actually 
 seen attacking parts of the province. The public mind be- 
 came highly excited. Arrests of divulgers of false news 
 were frequent. These rumors were shown to be false by 
 
 ' III. Council, 20, 22. ' McMahon, 236. 
 
102 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [572 
 
 men who soon afterwards joined the movement against the 
 Proprietor. Nor were these rumors confined to Maryland. 
 In Virginia it was said that the Papists had alHed themselves 
 with the Indians to massacre the Protestants. Massacres 
 were reported, and John Waugh, a minister of the Estab- 
 lished Church, spread these reports over Stafford County, 
 which was very much excited. Many armed bands were 
 formed." 
 
 In April, 1689, was formed " An Association in arms for 
 the defense of the Protestant Religion, and for Asserting 
 the Right of King William and Queen Mary to the Prov- 
 ince of Maryland and all the EngHsh dominions." * John 
 Coode, son-in-law of Thomas Gerrard, was the head.' As 
 time went on and the colonists learned of the state of afifairs 
 in England and saw the unwillingness of the Council to 
 proclaim William and Mary,^ men who had hitherto sup- 
 ported the government joined the Association. The old 
 rumors of threatened invasion of French and Indians in 
 league with the Catholics were renewed." The Association, 
 with scarcely any resistance, overthrew the Proprietary gov- 
 ernment, August I, 1689. The Council was able to raise 
 but few troops, and these, the officers excepted, were not 
 willing to fight. On July 25, 1689, the Association issued 
 a declaration, stating the reasons for its armed uprising." 
 It has been said that these complaints had never been made 
 before, but in the light of our review of the history of the 
 province it is seen that the charges are abundantly justified. 
 
 The complaints were as follows: That in 1676, although 
 
 ^ Campbell's Virginia, 341 ; Burk's Virginia, 304. 
 
 ^ Chalmers' Political Annals, 373. 
 
 ' McMahon erroneously states that Coode had been convicted of 
 treason and pardoned by the Proprietor. He was acquitted by the 
 jury in his trial, as has been seen. 
 
 * Is it not a little doubtful that Lord Baltimore really wished the 
 proclamation made? 
 
 " The French and Indians did begin to attack the English 
 colonies this year. 
 
 "HI. Council, lOl. 
 
573] Constitutional History of Maryland. 103 
 
 four delegates from each county were elected to the Assem- 
 bly, as had been the custom, only two were summoned to 
 the Assembly by the Proprietor. All four were summoned 
 to the Assembly of 1678, when many good laws were made; 
 but the Proprietor pronounced many of these null and void, 
 though they had been assented to in his name by the Gov- 
 ernor and he himself had been governed by them. For the 
 election of delegates to the next Assembly the writs issued 
 directed the election of only two from each county, contrary 
 to the act of Assembly for election of delegates. The most 
 important law passed in that Assembly was dispensed with 
 by the Proprietor, with the exception of the duty of three 
 pence per hogshead imposed by it. The courts accordingly 
 interpreted the laws to suit the pleasures and desires of the 
 Proprietor. All laws might be dispensed with or suspended, 
 thus placing the liberties and property of the inhabitants at 
 the arbitrary disposition of the Proprietor. It must be ad- 
 mitted that these grievances were real and had often been 
 complained of before. The exercise of the dispensing and 
 suspending power by the King of England was declared 
 illegal by the English Bill of Rights of this same year, as 
 was also the interference with elections.^ The imposition 
 of excessive fees, and contrary to law, was another com- 
 plaint, and for this there was no redress, since the judges 
 were the very officers who exacted the fees. It has been 
 noticed that the Provincial Court was composed of all the 
 chief officials. 
 
 Other grievances were: 
 
 The imposition of illegal fees, contrary to the charter, 
 which provided that no taxes should be levied without the 
 consent of the freemen. 
 
 The imposition of the like fees upon vessels owned in the 
 province, contrary to an act of Assembly. 
 
 The seizure of Protestants by armed forces of Papists 
 without warrant or cause of commitment. Of this nothing 
 
 ^ Taswell-Langmead's English Constitutional History, 682. 
 
104 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [574 
 
 is further known, but perhaps it refers to certain alleged 
 divulgers of false news and the writs issued by the Attorney 
 General. 
 
 The frequent pressing of men, houses, boats, provisions 
 and other necessaries by press-masters in time of peace. 
 This complaint was made, as were others, in the Assembly 
 of i688. 
 
 The perpetration of not only private but public murders 
 of Protestants by Papists, crimes connived at and tolerated 
 by the chief authority. This charge refers, perhaps, to the 
 murder of Rousby by Talbot, for it is mentioned in a later 
 charge.^ 
 
 The bad treatment given to the King's Collectors of Cus- 
 toms, as in the case of Rousby and Babcock, was mentioned 
 to show how little regard was paid to the English Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Any one upholding the sovereign power of the Crown 
 was looked upon as a traitor and incurred the ill-will of the 
 government. This charge was undoubtedly true.' Allegi- 
 ance to the Crown was little thought of, but allegiance to 
 the Proprietor was everything. The Jus regale was con- 
 stantly exercised by the Proprietor and was severely felt. 
 
 Churches and chapels, which, by the charter, should be 
 consecrated to the Church of England, were devoted to the 
 use of the Roman Catholic Church. President Joseph and 
 the councillors were Catholics. It was charged that the 
 Catholics were trying to get possession of children in order 
 to proselyte them.^ Henry Coursey, years before, had ac- 
 cused Charles Calvert of trying to proselyte a boy.* 
 
 The declaration stated that the Deputy Governors not 
 only prevented the proclamation of William and Mary, but 
 prayers were said for the success of the Popish forces in Ire- 
 land and for the French designs against England, while the 
 right of their Majesties to the crown of England was pub- 
 
 * III. Council, 2i8. = Lib. R. R. R. 147. 
 
 'Lib. F. F. 592; in. Council, 32. *I Calvert Papers, 383. 
 
575] Constitutional History of Maryland. 105 
 
 licly disowned. This charge was, in all probability, well 
 grounded. The same things were done in England at this 
 very time by many persons not Catholics. 
 
 The declaration th©n stated the danger impending over 
 the province from the French and Indians, who were in 
 league with the Papists. This danger seemed very real to 
 men in those times. 
 
 The whole declaration was sent to the King. It can 
 hardly be doubted that many grievances were not expressed 
 at all. The hopes of the lower classes were most likely to 
 have been aroused by the leaders of the movement, but, if 
 so, found no sympathy or fulfillment afterward. The things 
 complained of in the declaration were nearly all remedied. 
 These charges were subsequently amplified* and repeated: 
 
 " Appointing none but Irish Papists and his owne rela- 
 cons for the most part to have the Chiefe Governing 
 authority." 
 
 Encouraging the Roman Catholics". The priests claimed 
 ecclesiastic liberties and privileges of the Church of Rome 
 by act of the first Assembly. 
 
 Non-provision of support for a Protestant clergy. 
 
 Violating the freedom of elections. 
 
 Prevention of the sitting of elected delegates by sum- 
 moning only a select number. 
 
 Making laws without consent of the Assembly, and ex- 
 tending them to the estates of the inhabitants. 
 
 Assuming a power to assent or disassent when, and to 
 what laws he pleased, that are made in his absence from the 
 province. 
 
 Assuming a power to repeal laws by proclamation. 
 
 Assuming a power to dispense with laws made that had 
 received his own personal assent. 
 
 Assuming the " royall stile dignity authority and prerog- 
 ative." 
 
 Allowing the Attorney General upon his own authority to 
 
 ^ III. Council, 215, 217, 219. 
 
106 The Marijland Revolution of 1689. [576 
 
 issue writs to the sheriffs for the arrest of certain persons, 
 who were left in ignorance of what they were charged. 
 
 Allowing the exaction of illegal fees from masters of ships. 
 
 Allowing the exaction of an illegal export duty of three 
 pence per hogshead of tobacco. 
 
 Allowing the Secretaries to take illegal fees. 
 
 Allowing press-masters to exercise their powers in time 
 of peace. 
 
 Assuming to be judges of matters of fact. 
 
 Imposing upon the Lower House of Assembly in i688, 
 against their privileges, the oath of fidelity to the Pro- 
 prietor, in which there was no reservation of allegiance. 
 
 Deputy Governors were accused of allowing the Receiver- 
 General to exact money for quit-rents and alienation fines 
 contrary to law. 
 
 Other well-grounded complaints against the Proprietary 
 and his deputies were as follows: 
 
 The erection of new offices and officers, with unreasonable 
 and excessive fees, without act of Assembly; for example, 
 the Examiner General and Attorney General for the prov- 
 ince and those for the counties, and the Clerk of the Council. 
 The regulation of fees was a right always claimed by the 
 Assembly. 
 
 The granting and giving away of lands as escheats before 
 they were found to be such by inquisition. 
 
 The disposing and arbitrary selling, for money or other- 
 wise, of places and offices of trust to persons incapable of 
 managing the same, whereby offices are unduly managed 
 and illegal and excessive fees extorted. That such charges 
 were literally true is seen in a sale of the Deputy Surveyor- 
 ship of Calvert county for 500 pounds of tobacco,^ and in 
 the admitted incompetence of certain appointees for sheriff.^ 
 
 Nor can there be dispute as to the justice of the fol- 
 lowing complaints, which are the last we shall consider: 
 
 That all the Judges at Common Law, Chancer\% Probate 
 
 ' Lib. R. R. R. 237. ■ II. Council, 566; III. Council, 16. 
 
577] Constitutional History of Maryland. 107 
 
 of Wills, and of the Upper House of Assembly, erected by- 
 Lord Baltimore, were one and the self-same persons and 
 nearly allied. Little justice, therefore, was to be expected 
 when any of them are sued, and as little redress upon any 
 just appeal from them in one capacity to the same persons 
 in another capacity. 
 
 And for the same reason the penal laws made against 
 officers for extorting unjust and illegal fees can take little 
 or no efifect, for the said persons actually possessed them- 
 selves, or by their deputies, of all offices of profit within the 
 province and they themselves were the judges therein. 
 
 That many of these grievances really existed has already 
 been shown. That in the very year when liberty made such 
 a great advance in England, the free-born Englishmen of 
 Maryland should attempt to redress their own grievances 
 is not passing strange. To attribute this revolution in Mary- 
 land to opposition to Catholicism or to the ambition and 
 revenge of Coode and a few others is to attribute it to insuf- 
 ficient causes, although they doubtless were factors in the 
 movement. 
 
 After the Association had taken all power into its hands, 
 many addresses were made to the King by the inhabitants. 
 It can be easily ascertained by examining the commissions 
 issued in 1688 that a large part of the signatures to the ad- 
 dresses made on behalf of the Proprietor were those of office- 
 holders under the Proprietor who had now lost their offices. 
 The addresses on behalf of the Association had many more 
 signatures. One of Coode's answers mentions the rebel- 
 lion of 1676 and other disturbances to show that continual 
 peace and concord had not existed previous to 1689.^ 
 
 The statements that are generally used to condemn the 
 Association are those of Henry Darnall, Taney, Charles 
 Carroll, Peter Saver and Richard Smith. Henry Darnall 
 was a cousin of the Proprietor, and his religion and posi- 
 tion in the government have already been seen. Taney had 
 
 ' III. Council, 225. 
 
108 The Maryland Revolution of 1689. [578 
 
 been sheriff of Calvert County since 1685. Charles Carroll 
 was a Catholic. He had only arrived in Maryland in 1688, 
 and had been appointed Attorney General at a salary of 
 12,000 pounds of tobacco. Peter Sayer had been sheriff of 
 Talbot County. He was related to Richard Smith, and was 
 a strong adherent of James H. for years after this time.* 
 Richard Smith was another beneficiary of the Proprietary 
 government and a relative of the Calverts. 
 
 The leaders of the Association have been abused as rogues 
 and law-breakers, but they were really patriots. Nearly 
 all had been county justices. Cheseldine had been Speaker 
 of the Lower House of Assembly. Jowles had held a high 
 military command. Blackiston ^was King's Collector of 
 Customs. Warren, Beal and Addison were all men of 
 some note. Indeed, even Coode, who had been justice of 
 St. Mary's and delegate to the Assembly, can scarcely have 
 been such an abandoned wretch as he has been described. 
 The charge of irreligion is about the only one made against 
 him that will bear examination. That he incurred the dislike 
 of Nicholson, a man universally hated, is not at all strange. 
 Many of these very men sat in the Assembly for years after 
 this time. They held ofifice both before and after 1689. 
 They cannot have been a set of rascals and profligates. 
 
 The actual causes of the revolution in 1689 have now been 
 for the first time shown. Their existence during a long 
 period anterior to the revolution has been demonstrated, 
 together with their growth, the previous disturbances caused 
 by them, and their resistless force when the favorable mo- 
 ment came for the people to overthrow the Proprietary 
 government. 
 
 ^ III. Council, 560, 562. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Archives of Maryland. William Hand Browne, Editor. 3 vols. 
 Assembly, and 3 vols. Council Proceedings. Baltimore. 
 
 Manuscript Archives of Maryland. Liber F. F. and Lower House 
 Journal 1676-1702 of the Assembly Proceedings, and Libers 
 R, R., R. R. R. and Council Books 1677-1683 of the Council 
 Proceedings. Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore. 
 
 Land Office Records and Chancery Proceedings until 1706. An- 
 napolis. 
 
 Bacon. Laws of Maryland. 
 
 Bozman. History of Maryland. 2 vols. Baltimore, 1837. 
 
 Burk. History of Virginia. 4 vols. Petersburg, 1804-16. 
 
 Browne. History of Maryland (American Commonwealths). 
 
 Calvert Papers. Fund Publication No. 28, Maryland Historical 
 Society. 
 
 Campbell. History of Virginia. Philadelphia, i860. 
 
 Chalmers. Political Annals. London, 1780. 
 
 Cooke. Virginia (American Commonwealths). 
 
 Davis. Day Star of American Freedom. New York, 1855. 
 
 Force. Tracts. 4 vols. Washington, 1836-46. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political 
 Science. Herbert B. Adams, Editor. Baltimore: Bassett, 
 Constitutional Beginnings of North Carolina; Latane, Early 
 Relations of Maryland and Virginia; Randall, The Puritan 
 Colony at Annapolis, Maryland; Wilhelm, Maryland Local 
 Institutions; Johnson, Old Maryland Manors. 
 
 Kilty. Landholder's Assistant. Baltimore, 1808. 
 
 McMahon. Maryland. Vol. L Baltimore, 1831. 
 
 Ranke. History of England, principally in the Seventeenth Cen- 
 tury. 6 vols. Oxford, 1875. 
 
INDEX TO THE FOURTEENTH VOLUME 
 
 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 Abatement, of taxes, 389. 
 Abolition societies, 433-435, 434 
 
 note. 
 Amendments, in Hawaii, 15, 32; 
 
 in Virginia, 273, 279 note. 
 Andros, taxation under, 348 
 
 note. 360, 369 note, 371, 378, 
 
 386, 388, 391-397; right to tax, 
 
 376, 377 note. 
 Annexation, of Hawaii, 29-31, 
 
 33, 38; in Baltimore, 49, 63, 73. 
 Anti-slavery sentiment, in 
 
 North Carolina, 187, 219-223; 
 
 in New Jersey, 428-440, 468. 
 Appeal, to king, 498, 542-543- 
 Appeal Tax Court, 70, 81, 523, 
 
 545- 
 Appointment, power of, 59, 63. 
 
 87-89, 
 Apportionments, in Virginia, 
 
 1619-1776, 268-271; 1776, 272- 
 
 273; 1816, 280; 1830, 294-297; 
 
 1852, 322-324; 1869, 330-332; 
 
 1 87 1, 334; 1878, 335; 189 1, 336. 
 Apprenticeship, in New Jersey, 
 
 440-441. 
 Assemblage, of slaves, in North 
 
 Carolina, 207-208, 218; in New 
 
 Jersey, 446. 
 Assembly, assent to money- 
 bills, 491, 521, 573; packed, 
 
 520-521, 524, 531, 540. 
 
 Association, of Protestants, 572- 
 578. 
 
 B 
 
 Bacon's Rebellion, 478, 534-539, 
 543, 551- 
 
 Balance of powers. See Sepa- 
 ration of functions. 
 
 Baltimore, city government of, 
 45-91; establishment, 47-49; 
 1730-1797, 49-57; 1797-1833, 
 58-66; 1833-1867, 66-69; 1867- 
 1894, 70-73; present organiza- 
 tion, 73-84; defects, 84-91. 
 
 Baltimore, trade with the West, 
 299 note, 300 and note, 317; 
 representation of, 337. 
 
 Bassett, Dr. J. S., on " Slavery 
 and Servitude in the Colony 
 of North Carolina," 171-254. 
 
 Bicameral system, in New Eng- 
 land, no, 129, 138, 157 and 
 note, 159, 162, 164; in Vir- 
 ginia, 268, 272; in Maryland, 
 484-485, 494, 504-505, 513- 
 See Joint ballot. 
 
 Bill of Rights, Hawaiian, 12, 17, 
 
 2i 34- 
 Bills of credit, in Connecticut, 
 381-383 and note; in Massa- 
 chusetts and Rhode Island, 
 382 and note. 
 
582 
 
 Index. 
 
 Board, of Health, 64, 66 note, 
 83; Water, 67, 82; of Super- 
 visors of Elections, 69, 71, 77- 
 78; Harbor, 82. 5"^^ Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 Borough representation, 268- 
 269, 272. 
 
 Bounties, 558. 
 
 Brooke, Baker, 524, 526, 536. 
 
 Cabinet, in Hawaii, 9, 11, 18, 
 
 26, 32, 35-36. 
 Castration, in North Carolina, 
 
 199-200. 
 Catholic plots, 477-479, 549-550, 
 
 558, 571-575- 
 Catholics, in Maryland, 522, 524, 
 
 534, 540, 543, 557, 563, 577; 
 officeholders, 557-55?, 575, 578- 
 
 Certificate, slave's, in North 
 Carolina, 201, 205; in New 
 Jersey, 442 note, 443. 
 
 Chambers, H. E., on the " Con- 
 stitutional History of Ha- 
 waii," 3-40. 
 
 Chandler, J. A. C, on " Rep- 
 resentation in Virginia," 257- 
 
 337- 
 
 Christianity, slaves and, 213-216. 
 
 Church establishment, in Con- 
 necticut, 398-402 and note; in 
 Maryland, 494, 515, 544*545, 
 574-575- 
 
 City Council, 59-60, 62-63, 67, 
 
 73-74- 
 City government, 45-91. See 
 
 Baltimore. 
 Civil service, 89-91. 
 Code of Laws, 352-354, 359-36i, 
 
 363, 366-368, 371-372, 385, 399- 
 
 400, 403, 406-407. 
 Coinage, in Maryland, 507-508. 
 College representation, 271-272 
 
 and note. 
 Commissioners, of Baltimore 
 
 Town, 49-51; Special, 52-54; 
 
 City, 61, 63, 66 note, 80-81; 
 
 of the Watch, 61; of Health, 
 
 61, 63, 66 note; of Finance, 
 
 64, 72, 83-84; School, 64, 78- 
 
 80; Police, 68-70, 75-77; Fire, 
 
 68, 82; Park, 69. 72, 84; Li- 
 quor License, 78; for Open- 
 ing Streets, 80; of Street 
 Cleaning, 81; the system, 84- 
 87. See Board. 
 
 Commodity payments, 492. 
 
 Compensation, for slaves, 199- 
 200, 449-450. 
 
 Connecticut, Council of, 120- 
 
 131, 365, 366 and note. See 
 Council. 
 
 Connecticut, taxation in, 343- 
 409. See Taxation. 
 
 Constable, in Connecticut, 368, 
 372, 384-389, 384 note. 385 
 note, 408. 
 
 Convention, attempts for, 275- 
 285, 302-313; Richmond, 284- 
 298; Reform, 314-324; Un- 
 derwood, 328-332. 
 
 Coode, John, 550-5SI, 553, 556, 
 565. 572. 
 
 Cooley, H. S., on "A Study of 
 Slavery in New Jersey," 413- 
 470. 
 
 Corruption, in Hawaii, 23-24, 27. 
 
 Council, in Massachusetts, loi- 
 119; in Connecticut, 120-131, 
 365-366 and note; in New 
 Hampshire, 132-145; in Rhode 
 Island, 146-160; in Maryland, 
 481, 484-485, 499, 504-505, 563, 
 576-577. 
 
 Council, origin of, 101-103, 120, 
 
 132, 146-148, 146 note, 162; 
 choice, 104, 106, 116, 118 and 
 note, 120-121, 133, 141, 145, 
 149, 163; limitation of num- 
 bers, 104 and note, 121, 122 
 note, 133 note, 149-150 and 
 note, 164. See Executive, Ju- 
 dicial, and Legislative func- 
 tion. 
 
 Council of Chiefs, in Hawaii, 9, 
 II. 
 
 Counties, in Virginia, 269-277, 
 283-285 and note, 330-335; in 
 Connecticut, 408; in Mary- 
 land, 485, 490-491. 
 
 Cumulative vote, in Hawaii, 37. 
 
 Currency, in Connecticut, 378 
 note, 381-383; in Maryland, 
 493. S07-508, 513, 521-522, 558, 
 567. 
 
Index. 
 
 583 
 
 Davis' Rebellion, 534-545, 55i- 
 Debt, of Baltimore, 63-65, 67, 
 
 70-72. 
 Denization, in Hawaii, 35; in 
 
 Maryland, 507. 
 Discount, on taxes, 389-390. 
 Disqualification, of councillors, 
 
 126-127, 143, 154, 162. 
 Distress, in Connecticut, 387 
 
 and note, 388 note, 407-408. 
 Doddridge, Philip, 279, 285, 293 
 
 note, 294 note, 295 note. 
 Dole, Sanford B., 29, 38. 
 
 E 
 
 Education, public, in Baltimore, 
 64, 78-80; in North Carolina, 
 227; in Connecticut, 402-405, 
 403 note; in New Jersey, 461. 
 
 Election, of Delegates, 481, 485, 
 502, 507, 510, 542, 545-547, 
 550-555, 559-562, 567, 569, 573, 
 575- 
 
 Electoral system, 53, 59-60, 62, 
 66. 
 
 Emancipation, in North Caro- 
 lina, 221-222, 233-234; in New 
 Jersey, 427, 432, 455-460. 
 
 Escheats, 490, 497, 519, 526, 576. 
 
 Executive function, of Council, 
 103-107, 123-124, 133-134, 142, 
 151-152, 164-165, 484, 563; gov- 
 ernor as member, 104, 113- 
 114, 116, 122-131, 133-134, 151, 
 158 note, 160, 163 note, 484; 
 establishment of courts, 106 
 and note, 118, 134 and note, 
 152; and the militia, 106-117- 
 118, 151. 
 
 Exemption, from taxation, 354 
 note, 360 note, 362 note, 363 
 note, 380-381, 380 note. 
 
 Export duties, in Connecticut, 
 394; in Maryland. 491, 501- 
 503, 508, 518. 520-521, 531, 
 539-542, 545, 562-567, 573, 576. 
 
 Farming out taxes, 394 and note. 
 Federal numbers, 284, 285 note, 
 290-295. 
 
 Fendall, 500-506, 525, 543, 546, 
 
 549-551, 556-557, 565. 
 
 Fidelity, oath of, 499, 531, 534, 
 .541, 543. 564, 567-568, 576. 
 
 Finance, in Baltimore, 64, 72- 
 75, 83-84. 
 
 Fire regulations, 50 note, 68, 82. 
 
 Forfeiture, 370 note, 371 note, 
 2,72 note, 374. 
 
 Fourfolding, in Connecticut, 
 474 and note. 
 
 Free negroes, in New Jersey, 
 443-444, 462-465; travel, 443; 
 presumption of slavery, 444, 
 462; privileges, 462-465. 
 
 Free negroes, in North Caro- 
 lina, 233-239; emancipation, 
 233-234; privileges, 235-236; 
 duties, 236-238; suit for free- 
 dom, 238-239. 
 
 Free speech, 507, 510. 
 
 Fundamental Constitutions, 185, 
 195, 247. 
 
 Fundamental Laws, 420. 
 
 Fundamental Orders, 121, 123, 
 128 and note, 349-350, 366 
 note. 
 
 Gas, in Baltimore, 6^. 
 
 Gerrald, 501, 525, 543. 
 
 Gerrymanders, 328, 331, 334, 
 336. 
 
 Governor, member of Council, 
 104, 113 and note, 114 note, 
 116, 122-131, 133-134, 151, 158 
 note, 160, 163 note, 484; veto 
 of, 113 note, 129, 131, 138 and 
 note, 140, 156, 158 note, 160, 
 482, 484. 
 
 Grand List, 347, 356, 359, 364, 
 
 367-374, 378-379, 409- 
 Grievances, of Maryland, 501, 
 507, 513-518, 526, 534-543, 546- 
 547, 551-553, 563, 568-569, 572- 
 577- 
 
 H 
 
 Hawaii, constitutional history 
 of, 5-40; early history, 7-11; 
 constitution of 1840, 11-15; 
 organic acts of 1845, 16; 
 constitution of 1852, 17-20; of 
 1864, 20-22; revolution of 1887, 
 
584 
 
 Index. 
 
 22-25 ; constitution of 1887, 25- 
 27; of 1893, 27-33; of Liliuo- 
 kaulani, 31-32; of 1894, 34-38; 
 bibliography, 39-40. Sec Con- 
 tents, 5-6. 
 
 Healtli, public, 61, 63, 66 note, 
 83. 
 
 House of Lords, 161-163. 
 
 House of Nobles, 13, 15, 18-19, 
 21, 26, 32, 36. 
 
 House of Representatives, Ha- 
 waiian, 13, 15, 19, 21, 26, 36. 
 
 Hundreds, in Maryland, 485 
 490, 493- 
 
 I 
 
 Impeachments, 116, 119, 145, 
 160, 163 note. 
 
 Import duties, 394. 
 
 Indian slaves, in North Caro- 
 lina, 239-242; in New Jersey, 
 421-423. 
 
 Indian title, 488. 
 
 Internal improvements, 65-66, 
 287-291, 299-301, 305, 317-319- 
 
 Jefferson, 274-275, 280-281, 285, 
 318 note. 
 
 Joint ballot, 113 note, T29, 159. 
 
 Jones, F. R., on the " History 
 of Taxation in Connecticut," 
 341-409. 
 
 Judicial function, of Council, 
 108-109, 122, 125-127, 135-138, 
 141-143, 153-155, 164-165, 485, 
 487, 540, 576-577; power dele- 
 gated, 109, 125-127, 137, 154, 
 165; councillors disqualified, 
 126-127, 143, 154-155 and note, 
 162; impeachments, 116, 119, 
 145, 160, 163 note. 
 
 Judicial reforms, 309 note, 310, 
 314 note. 
 
 Judiciary, in Hawaii, 14-16, 19, 
 22, 27, 32, 27', in Maryland, 
 
 K 
 
 Kalakaua, 22-27. 
 Kamehameha I, 9-10. 
 King, in Hawaii, 14. 17-18, 25, 
 32. 
 
 Land grants, 488-490, 507, 511- 
 512, 519, 524, 566. 
 
 Legal tender, in Connecticut, 
 383 note; in Maryland, 493, 
 518. 558. 
 
 Legislative function, of Coun- 
 cil, 110-115, 122, 128-131, 138- 
 145, 150, 156-165, 484-487, 504- 
 505, 540; money-bills, 107 and 
 note, 110-119, 129, 139-145, 
 157-159, 163 note, 167; nega- 
 tive voice, 112-113, 119, 121, 
 128-129, 144, 157-158, 162, 164; 
 bicameral system, 113, 129, 
 138, 157-159, 162-164; joint 
 ballot, 113 note, 129, 159; 
 veto of governor, 113 note, 
 129, 131, 138 and note, 140, 
 156, 158 note, 160. 
 
 Legislature, Hawaiian, 14, 18, 
 21, 26, 32, 34. 
 
 Licenses, in Baltimore, 78; in 
 Connecticut, 391-394; in 
 Maryland, 493. 
 
 Lighting, street, 54, 63. 
 
 Liliuokaulani, 27-29, 31. 
 
 Limitations, statute of, 511. 
 
 Listing, at base, 347, 362 and 
 note, 378, 380 and note, 406. 
 
 Lord Proprietor, of Maryland, 
 481-483, 486, 497-499, 547; 
 veto, 481, 483, 486, 516, 527, 
 540, 554, 564, 568-569, 573, 
 575; initiative, 481, 486, 498; 
 dispensing power. 569, 573, 
 575- 
 
 Lord Proprietors, of North 
 Carolina, 185, 210; of New 
 Jersey, 419-420. 
 
 Lottery, 27, 34. 
 
 M 
 
 Madison, 275, 286, 290-296. 
 
 Manors, in Maryland, 489. 
 
 Manumission, in North Caro- 
 lina, 221-222, 233-234; in New 
 Jersey. 427, 432, 455-460. 
 
 Marshall, C. /., 286, 291, 293 
 note. 
 
 Maryland, revolution of 1689, 
 475-579; usual explanation, 
 477-479; government in 1658, 
 480-499; proprietor, 481-482; 
 
Index. 
 
 585 
 
 governor, 482-484; council, 
 484-485; assembly, 485-487; 
 judiciary, 487-488; land, 488- 
 491; taxes, 491-493; currency, 
 493; militia, 493-494; religion, 
 494; secretary, 494-495; other 
 officials, 495-496; a Palatinate, 
 497-499; history, 1658-1689, 
 500-578; Fendall's rebellion, 
 501-505, 509; resistance, 505- 
 520; submission, 520-534; 
 Davis' rebellion, 534-545; 
 struggle, 545-563; calm, 563- 
 569; revolution of 1689, 569- 
 578; bibliography, 579. See 
 Contents, 475. 
 
 Massachusetts, Council of, loi- 
 119. 
 
 Massachusetts, influence on 
 Connecticut, 347-349. 348 note, 
 358-359, 361. 367 and note, 365, 
 380, 382 note, 403. 
 
 Mayor, 59-60, 63, 66, 70, 73-74. 
 
 Militia, in Maryland, 493-494, 
 547-548, 553. 
 
 Ministerial responsibility, 16-17, 
 25, 26, 32. 
 
 Missionaries, in Hawaii, 10-12. 
 
 Mixed basis, 278, 284, 287-292, 
 303 note, 306, 310-317, 320 
 note, 322. 
 
 Money, in Connecticut, 378 
 note, 381-383, 382 note; in 
 Maryland, 493, 507-508, 513, 
 521-522, 558, 567. 
 
 Money bills, in Massachusetts, 
 107 and note, no and note, 
 114, 116, 118-119, 167, 375; in 
 Connecticut, 129, 375-376 and 
 note; in New Hampshire, 139, 
 142-143, 145; in Rhode Island, 
 157-158, 157 note, 163 note; 
 in Maryland, 491, 521, 573. 
 
 Mortmain, 489, 494. 
 
 N 
 
 Naturalization, in Hawaii, 37-38; 
 
 in Maryland, 512, 522, 565 
 
 note. 
 Negative voice, 112 and note, 
 
 113 note, 119, 121, 128-129, 144, 
 
 157-158, 162, 164. 
 Negro domination, 328-333, 328 
 
 note, 333 notes. 
 
 Nepotism, 482, 509-510, 516-519. 
 
 524, 526, 529-530, 534-535, 540. 
 
 558, 560, 563, 566-570, 575-578. 
 New Hampshire. Council of, 
 
 132-145. 
 New Haven, taxation in. See 
 
 Taxation. 
 New Jersey, slavery in, 415- 
 
 470; Lords Proprietors, 419- 
 
 420. See Slavery. 
 New Plymouth, Council of, 
 
 115 note. 
 North Carolina, slavery in, 173- 
 
 254; Lords Proprietors, 185; 
 
 Concessions of 1665, 185; 
 
 Fundamental Constitutions, 
 
 185; immigration into, 185- 
 
 187; anti-slavery sentiment in, 
 
 187; white labor, 192-193. See 
 
 Slavery. 
 Notley, Gov. Thos., 512-513, 523, 
 
 526, 529, 536, 540, 547. 
 
 O 
 
 Opium, in Hawaii, 24, 27. 
 Outlawry, 200, 204, 210-21 1. 
 
 Palatinate, 478-481, 497-499. 
 
 Parish, in Connecticut, 398. 
 
 Parish representation, 269-270, 
 272. 
 
 Park tax, 72, 84. 
 
 Patrole, of slaves, 206, 229. 
 
 Payment in kind, in Connecti- 
 cut, 378 and note, 382 and 
 note; in Maryland, 492. 
 
 Pillory, 198, 209. 
 
 Plantations, representation by, 
 268-269, ~7^- 
 
 Police system, 54, 61, 68. 
 
 Poll tax, in Connecticut, 361- 
 363, 361 note; in Maryland, 
 492, 508, 511, 5 18, 528-529, 534, 
 538-539- 
 
 Poor relief, 405, 464-465, 490, 
 492. 
 
 Popular initiative, 149 note. 
 
 Population basis, 271, 292 and 
 note, 330-332, 336-337. 
 
 Ports of entry, 396 note, 481, 
 483, 497, 515. 561. 
 
586 
 
 Index. 
 
 Premier, of Hawaii, lo, 13-14, 
 18, 21. 
 
 President, of Hawaii, 35. 
 
 Privileges, of Assembly, 507, 
 510, 551, 553. 
 
 Privy Council, in Hawaii, 16, 
 18, 22, 26. 32. 
 
 Property qualification, 59-62, 
 73-74, 520, 538, 546-547. 
 
 Property tax, in Virginia, 291 
 note, 306, 317 note; in Con- 
 necticut, 358-360; in Mary- 
 land, 492. 
 
 Provincial Court, 485, 487-488, 
 524, 540. 
 
 Puritans, in Maryland, 480, 492, 
 500-506, 572-578. 
 
 Q 
 
 Quakers, and slavery, in North 
 Carolina, 219-223; in New 
 Jersey, 425 note, 428, 430- 
 432, 441, 468. 
 
 Quakers, and the oath, 500-501, 
 511, 527, 548, 554- 
 
 Quia Emptores, 481, 489. 
 
 Quit-rents, 489, 492, 519, 542, 
 567, 576. 
 
 R 
 
 Recognition, of Hawaii, 15-16, 
 
 29. 
 Representation, in Virginia, 
 
 259-337. Sec Virginia. 
 Revolution, of 1688, 470-474, 
 
 477. 
 Rhode Island, Council of, 146- 
 
 160. 
 Riley, F. L.. on the " Colonial 
 
 Origins of New England 
 
 Senates," 95-168. 
 Roads, 514 and note, 528. 
 Royal African Company, 191, 
 
 244, 420, 423. 
 Royal veto, 15, 17, 25, 32. 
 
 School system, 64, 78-80. 
 Sectional jealousy, 277-296, 301- 
 304. 
 
 Senate, in Hawaii, 36. See 
 House of Nobles. 
 
 Senates, New England, 97-168, 
 37S-27^; origin of, 99, 116- 
 117, 130, 143-145, 148, 158; 
 and the Executive Council, 
 117-118; and the House of 
 Lords, 161-163; developing 
 forces, 164-167; common char- 
 acteristics, 167-168. See Coun- 
 cil, and Contents, 97-98. 
 
 Senatorial districts, 280, 285. 
 
 Separation of functions, in Ha- 
 waii, 17, 21, 26; in Massachu- 
 setts, 117; in Connecticut, 
 130; in New Hampshire, 143- 
 144 and note; in Rhode Is- 
 land, 154, 158; theory of, 162, 
 165-166 and note. 
 
 Servitude, white, 243-254. 
 
 Settlements, representation by, 
 268. 
 
 Sheriff, in Maryland, 495-496, 
 499, 508, 511, 513. 546, 548, 
 560. 
 
 Slavery, and representation, 280 
 note, 281 note, 288-289, 298, 
 305 note, 317-318, 323 note, 
 
 325, 329. 
 
 Slavery, in Maryland, 512, 555. 
 
 Slavery, in New Jersey, 415- 
 470; Indian slavery, 421-423; 
 slave trade, 424-432; anti- 
 slavery sentiment, 428-440; 
 numbers, 440-441 and notes; 
 abolition, 436-439; fugitives, 
 442-445; larceny, 445-446; 
 hunting, 446; assembly, 446; 
 travel, 447; punishment, 447; 
 procedure, 447-452; testi- 
 mony, 449, 462; plots, 452- 
 454; manumission, 455-460; 
 maintenance, 460-461 ; educa- 
 tion, 461; color presumption, 
 462; enlistment, 463; condi- 
 tion of slaves, 465-468; bibli- 
 ography, 469-470. See Con- 
 tents, 415. 
 
 Slavery, in North Carolina, 
 173-254; economic causes of, 
 179-182; obstacles to, 182- 
 183; spread of, 184-187; esti- 
 mate of numbers, 187-190, 
 193-194; importation, 190-192; 
 distribution, 192-194; laws 
 
Index. 
 
 587 
 
 concerning, 195-212; trial, 
 196-197; testimony, 197-198; 
 penalties, 199-200; runaways, 
 200-204; outlawry, 204; hunt- 
 ing, 204-207; travel, 207-208; 
 property, 208-210; life, 210- 
 212; and the Established 
 Church, 213-218; and the 
 Quakers, 219-223; and the 
 Baptists, 223-224; social life, 
 224-228; marriage, 225-226; 
 conspiracy, 22g-222; free ne- 
 groes, 233-239; Indian slav- 
 ery, 239-242; white servitude, 
 243-254; bibliography, 173. 
 See Contents, 177. 
 
 Slaves, special court for, 196- 
 197, 447-448; conversion of, 
 213-224, 423. 
 
 Slave trade, 190-192, 420, 424- 
 432, 440. 
 
 South, economic condition of, 
 181-183. 
 
 Sparks, F. E., on the " Causes 
 of the Maryland Revolution 
 of 1689," 473-579- 
 
 Specie, in Maryland, 522, 562; 
 exportation of, 522. 
 
 State appointment, 49, 56-57, 
 68. 70, 76-77. 
 
 Staunton Convention, of 1816, 
 279; of 1825, 281-282 and 
 note; of 1846, 308. 
 
 Streets, care for, 80-81. 
 
 Suffrage, extension of, 274 note, 
 279 note, 282 and note, 297 
 note, 309 note, 314 note, 322 
 note, 324 note; basis, 302, 
 313-315, 318-328; restriction 
 of, 505, 520, 534, 538-539, 546- 
 547- 
 
 Suffrage, in Hawaii, 19-21, 26- 
 28, 27- 
 
 Taxation, in Baltimore, 49, 52, 
 54. 60, 63, 70-73, 81, 84. 
 
 Taxation, in Connecticut, 343- 
 409; influence of Massachu- 
 setts, 347-349. 348 note, 358- 
 359, 361, 367 and note, 382 
 note, 403; germs of taxation, 
 349-352; land tax, 353-357; 
 
 exemptions, 354 note, 360 
 note, 362 note, 363 note, 380- 
 381, 380 note; property tax, 
 358-360; poll tax, 361-363, 361 
 note; income tax, 363-365; 
 apportionment, 366 and note, 
 2,77; Grand List, 367-374; 
 officers, 368-374, 384-389; for- 
 feiture, 370 note, 371 note, 
 374; appeal, 372; "will and 
 doom," 373-374; fourfolding, 
 374 and note; power to levy, 
 37S-2,77; reduplication, :i77- 
 380; bills of credit, 381-383; 
 collection, 384-389; abate- 
 ment, 389; discount, 389-390; 
 indirect taxes, 391-397; local 
 taxes, 398-408; poor rates, 
 405; appendix, 409. See Con- 
 tents, 343. 
 
 Taxation, in Maryland, 491- 
 493- 
 
 Taxation, in New Haven, 348 
 note, 349-355, 358-359, 363, 
 368, 370, 377, 385 note, 387 
 note, 391 note, 394, 395 note. 
 
 Taxation basis, 291 note, 303 
 note, 306, 320 note, 322. 
 
 Testimony, of slaves, 197-199, 
 449, 462; of free negroes, 236, 
 462. 
 
 Thomas, Dr. T. P., on "The 
 City Government of Balti- 
 more," 43-91. 
 
 Tobacco, as money, 493, 518, 
 521, 542, 568-569; cessation 
 of, 513-514, 559- 
 
 Toleration, in Connecticut, 398- 
 402 and note; in Maryland, 
 494, 500-501, 534, 542, 545. 
 
 Tonnage duties, in Baltimore, 
 54; in Connecticut, 397; in 
 Maryland, 509, 554, 573, 576. 
 
 Towns, establishment of, 481, 
 497, 551, 559-562, 565 note, 
 567 note. 
 
 Towns, representation of, 271- 
 272 and note, 2'i7. 
 
 u 
 
 Unicameral legislature, 
 485, 494, 504-505. 
 
 484, 
 
588 
 
 Index. 
 
 V 
 
 Valuation, of property, 354-357, 
 354 notes, 359-360, 364-365, 
 373, 379- 
 
 Veto, of governor, in Massa- 
 chusetts, 113 note; in Con- 
 necticut, 129, 131; in New 
 Hampshire, 138 and note, 
 140; in Rhode Island, 156, 
 158 note, 160; in Maryland, 
 482, 484. 
 
 Veto, of king, 15, 17, 25, 32. 
 
 Veto, of Proprietor, 481, 483, 
 486, 516, 527, 540, 554, 564, 
 568-569, 573, 575- 
 
 Virginia, influence on Mary- 
 land, 478, 480, 504, 520, 534, 
 543-544, 551, 572. 
 
 Virginia, representation in, 259- 
 32,7 ; early government, 263- 
 267; borough representation, 
 268-269; representation by 
 county, 269, 271; by parish, 
 269-270; by town, 271; under 
 constitution of 1776, 272-273; 
 inequalities, 1776- 1829, 274- 
 285; reapportionment of Sen- 
 ate, 280; Richmond Conven- 
 tion, 285-298; agitation, 299- 
 313; Reform Convention, 310- 
 325; separation of West Vir- 
 
 ginia, 326; reconstruction, 
 327-328; Underwood Conven- 
 tion, 328-333; reapportion- 
 ment of 1871, 334; of 1878, 
 335; of 1891, 336; the basis, 
 336-337; synopsis, 259-260; 
 sources, 260, 315 note. See 
 Contents, 261. 
 
 W 
 
 Wardens of the Port, 54, 62- 
 63, 67 note. 
 
 Water supply, 61, 67, 71-72, 82. 
 
 Watertown incident, 375 note. 
 
 West Virginia, separation of, 
 326-327. 
 
 Wliite basis, 2781-297, 301-306, 
 318, 323, 326. 
 
 White labor, in North Carolina, 
 192-193, 253. 
 
 White servitude, in North Car- 
 olina, 243-254; obstacles, 243- 
 245; inducements, 246; runa- 
 ways, 247-248; treatment, 248- 
 250; sexual relations, 250-252; 
 freedom dues, 252-253; va- 
 grants, 253-254. 
 
 " Will and doom," 373-375. 
 
 Woolman, John, 431. 
 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 IN 
 
 Historical and Political Science 
 
 HERBERT B, ADAMS, Editor 
 
 History is past Politics and Politics are present History.— Freeman 
 
 VOLUME XIV 
 
 BALTIMORE, SLAVERY, 
 
 AND 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY 
 
 baltimore 
 The Johns Hopkins Press 
 
 1896 
 
Copyright, 1896, bt The Johns Hopkins Press. 
 
 THE FRIEDKNWALD CO., PRINTERS, 
 BALTIMORE. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS, 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 I. Constitutional History of Hawaii. Bj' Henry E. 
 
 Chambers 7 
 
 II. City Government of Baltimore. By Thaddeus P. 
 
 Thomas 47 
 
 III. Colonial Origins of New England Senates. By F. 
 
 L. Riley 101 
 
 IV-V. Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina. By John 
 
 S. Bassett 179 
 
 VI-VII. Representation in Virginia. By J. A. C. Chandler. 263 
 
 VIII. The History of Taxation in Connecticut (1636-1776). 
 
 By F. R. Jones 345 
 
 IX-X. Slavery in New Jersey. By H. S. Cooley 419 
 
 XI-XII. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. By 
 
 F. E. Sparks 477 
 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS 
 OF BALTIMORE. 
 
 I. American Journal of Mathematics. T. Ceaig, Editor, with the co-oper- 
 
 atiou of S. Newcomb. Quarterly. 4to. Volume XIX in progress. 
 $5 per voluirie. 
 
 II. American Chemical Journal. I. Remsen, Editor. Ten nos. yearly. 8vo. 
 Volume XVIII in progress. $4 per volume. 
 
 III. American Journal of Philology. B. L. Gildersleeve, Editor. 
 Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVII in progress. $3 per volume. 
 
 IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. 8vo. Volume V complete. 
 
 $5 per volume. 
 
 V. Studies in History and Politics. H. B. Adams, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. 
 Vol. XV in progress ; $3 per volume. Fourteen extra volumes of this series 
 are also ready. 
 
 VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars. 4to. Monthly. Volume XVI in 
 progress. $1 per year. 
 
 VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VII in 
 progress. $1 per year. 
 
 VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume VI in progress. $5 
 ()er volume. 
 
 IX. Contributions to Assyriology, etc. Volume III in progress. 
 
 X. Selected Morphological Monographs. W. K. Brooks, Editor. Volume 
 III complete. 
 
 XI. Annual Report of the Johns Hopkins University. Presented by the 
 President to the Board of Trustees. 
 
 XII. Annual Register of the Johns Hopkins University. Giving the list of 
 officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc. 
 
 A New Critical Edition op the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. 
 
 Edited by Professor Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application. 
 Rowland's Photograph of the Normal Solar Spectrum. Ten plates. $20. 
 Description of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J. S. Billings, Editor. 116 pp., 
 
 56 plates. 4to. Cloth, $7.50. 
 The Teaching of the Apostles (complete facsimile edition). J. Rendel 
 
 Harris, Editor. 110 pp. and 10 plates. 4to. Cloth, $5.00. 
 Reproduction in Photottpe of a Syriac MS. with the Antilegombna 
 
 Epistles. I. H. Hall, Editor. Cloth, $4.00. 
 The Constitution of Japan. 48 pp. 16mo. 50 cents. 
 
 The Oyster. By William K. Brooks. 340 pp., 12 plates. 12mo. Cloth, $1. 
 Essays and Studies. By B. L. Gildersleeve. 520 pp. 4to. Cloth, $3.50. 
 Studies in Logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S. 
 
 Peirce, Editor. 123 pp. 12mo. Cloth, $2.00. 
 Geological and Topographical Maps of Baltimore and Vicinity. $1.00 
 
 each. 
 Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States. J. Franklin 
 
 Jameson. Editor. Cloth, $2.25. 
 The Genus Salpa. By W. K. Brooks. 396 pp. 4to. 57 plates. $7.50. 
 Geology and Physical Features of Maryland. By G. H. Williams and 
 
 W. B. Clark. $1.00. 
 Selections from the Early Scottish Poets. By Wm. Hand Browne. 240 
 
 pp. 16mo. $1.25. 
 
 A full list of publications will be sent on application. 
 Business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hopkins 
 Press. 
 
The Friedenwald Go. 
 
 PRINTING, 
 LITHOGRAPHING, 
 WOOD ENGRAVING, 
 BOOK BINDING. 
 
 Baltimore, Eutaw 
 
 and German Sts, 
 
 Baltimore, fid. 
 
 The Leading House of the Art Preservative in Baltimore. 
 
 Printers of The American JouRNAii^pp Philology, American 
 Journal of Mathematics, Memoirs from the Bio- 
 logical Laboratory, Studies in Historical and 
 Political Science, issued by the Johns 
 Hopkins University. 
 
 ESTIMATES CHEERFULLY SUBiVIITTED. 
 
Modern Language Notes. 
 
 A MONTHLY PUBLICATION 
 
 With intermission from July to October inclusive. 
 DEVOTED TO THE INTERESTS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ACADEMIC STUDY OF ENGLISH, GERMAN, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 ROMANCE LANGUAGES. 
 
 A. Makshall Elliott, Managing Editor. 
 
 James W. Bright, H, C. G. von Jagbmann, Henry Alfred Todd, 
 
 Associate Editors. 
 
 This Is a successful and widely-known periodical, managed by a corps of professors and 
 Instructors In the Johns Hopkins University, with the co-operation of many of the leading 
 college professors. In the department of modern languages, throughout the country. 
 While undertaking to maintain a high critical and scientific standard, the new journal 
 will endeavor to engage the Interest and meet the wants of the entire class of serious 
 and progressive modern-language teachers, of whatever grade. Since Its establishment 
 In January, 1886, the Journal has been repeatedly enlarged, and has met with constantly 
 Increasing encouragement and success. The wide range of Its articles, original, critical, 
 literary and pedagogical, by a number of the foremost American (and European) scholars, 
 has well represented and recorded the recent progress of modern language studies, both 
 at home and abroad. 
 
 The list of contributors to MoDEBK LANGUAGE Notes, In addition to the Editors, 
 includes the following names : 
 
 Anderson, Melville B., state University of Iowa; Banoboft, T. 'Whiting, Brown 
 University, R. I. ; Baskekvill, W. M., VanderblU University, Tenn. ; BooHEB, Ferdinand, 
 Harvard University, Mass. ; Bradley, C. B., University of California, Cal. ; Beandt, H. C. 
 G., Hamilton College, N. Y. ; Bbowne, WM. Hand, Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; BUBN- 
 HAM, WM. H., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; Carpenter, WM. H., Columbia College, 
 N. T. ; Cledat, L., Facultfi des Lettres, Lyons, France ; COHN, Adolphe, Harvard Univer- 
 sity, Mass. ; Cook, a. S., Yale University; CosiJN, P. J., University of Leyden, Holland; 
 CRANE, T. F., Cornell University, N. Y. ; DAVIDSON, Thomas, Orange, N. J. ; Egge, Albert 
 E., St. Olaf's College, Minn.; FAY, E. A., National Deaf-Mute College, Washington, D. C. ; 
 Fortier, Aloee, Tulane University, La.; Garner, Samuel, U. S. Naval Academy; 
 Gerber, a., Earlham College, lud. ; Gbandgent, Charles, Harvard University, Mass. ; 
 Gummere, F. B., The Swain Free School, Mass.; Hart, J. M., University of Cincinnati, 
 Ohio; Hempl, Geo., University of Michigan; Huss, H. C. O., Princeton College, N. J. ; 
 von Jagemann, H. C. G., Harvard University; Kaesten, GusTAF, University of Indiana, 
 Ind. ; Lang, Henry R., The Swain Free School, Mays. ; ^.earned, M. D., Johns Hopkins 
 University, Md. ; Leyh, Edw. F., Baltimore, Md. ; Lodeman, A., State Normal School, 
 Mich. ; MOEFILL, W. R., Oxford, Er^'and ; McCabe, T., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; 
 McELBOY, JOHN G. R., University oi .'ennsylvauia, Pa. ; O'CONNOB, B. F., Columbia Col- 
 lege, N. Y. ; PRIMER, Sylvestee, Providence, R. I.; Schele De Vebe, M., University of 
 Virginia, Va.; SCHILLING, HUGO, Wittenberg College, Ohio; Sheldon, Edw. S., Harvard 
 University, Mass.; Shepherd, H. E., College of Charleston, 8. C. ; Schmidt, H., Univer- 
 sity of Deseret, Salt Lake City, Utah; Sievebs, Eduard, University of TUbingen, Ger- 
 many ; SMYTH, A. H., High School of Phlladephia, Pa. ; Stoddabd, Fbancis H., University 
 of City of New York; Si(!r7.i.\ er, J. J., Bryn Mawr College, Pa.; THOMAS, Calvin, 
 University of Michigan, Mich. ; Walter, E. L., University of Michigan, Mich. ; Wabren, 
 F. M., Johns Hopkins University, Md. ; White, H. S., Cornell University, N. Y. 
 
 Subscription Price $1.50 per Annum, Payable in Advance. 
 
 F •"■'"gn Countries $1.75 per Annum. 
 
 Single Copies Twent, ents. Specimen Pages sent on Application. 
 
 Subscriptions, advertisements and all business communications should be addressed 
 to the 
 
 MANAGING EDITOR OF MODERN LANGUAGE NOTES, 
 
 JOHNS Hopkins univebsity, Baltimore, Md. 
 
The American Journal of ARCHiiOLOGY 
 
 AND OF THE 
 
 HISTORY OF THE FINE ARTS. 
 
 The American Journal op Archeology is the organ of the Archaeological Institute of 
 America. It contains original articles by archaeologists of established reputation both in Europe 
 and America, also the Papers of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, Corres- 
 pondence, Book Reviews, and News of excavations and discoveries in all countries. 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. X., No. 4, OCT.-DEC, 1895. 
 
 J. P. Peters. — The Court of Columns at Nippur. 
 
 T. D. GooDi iND T. W. Heermance. — Grave Monuments from Athens. 
 
 J. C. HoppiN. — A Kylix by the artist Paiax. 
 
 Book Reviews. 
 
 Archaeological News. 
 
 CONTENTS OF VOL. XL, No. i, JAN.-MARCH, 1896. 
 
 R. Norton. — Andokides. 
 
 V. J. Emery. — The Great Fire in Rome in the Time of Nero. 
 R. B. Richardson. — Inscriptions from the Argive Heraeum. 
 Archaeological Notes, 
 
 Published Quarterly. Annual Subscription, $5.00. 
 
 Address for Literary Communications 
 
 A. L. FROTHINGUAM, Jr. 
 
 For Business Communications 
 
 ALLAN MARQIJAND. 
 
 PRINCETON. NEW JERSEY. 
 
American Economic Association. 
 
 LATE PUBLICATIONS OF SPECIAL INTEEEST. 
 
 MONOGRAPHS. 
 
 VOLUME XI. 
 
 Nos. I, 2 and 3. RACE TRAITS AND TENDENCIES OF THE 
 AMERICAN NEGRO. By F. L. Hoffman, F. S. S., Statistician to the 
 Prudential Insurance Company of America. Price $1.25; Cloth, $2.00. 
 
 No. 4. APPRECIATION AND INTEREST. By Irving Fisher, Ph. D., 
 Yale University. Price 75 cents. 
 
 ECONOMIC STUDIES. 
 
 VOLUME I. 
 
 1. THE THEORY OF ECONOMIC PROGRESS, by John B. 
 Clark, Ph. D. THE RELATION OF CHANGES IN THE VOL- 
 UME OF THE CURRENCY TO PROSPERITY ' Francis A. 
 Walker, LL. D. Price 50 cents. 
 
 2. THE ADJUSTMENT OF WAGES TO EFFICIENCY. Three 
 papers: GAIN SHARING, by H. R. Tovi^ne ; THE PREMIUM 
 PLAN, by F. A. Halsey ; A PIECE-RATE SYSTEM, by F. W. 
 Taylor. Price 50 cents. 
 
 3. THE POPULIST MOVEMENT. By F. L. McVey, Ph. D. 
 Price 50 cents. 
 
 4. THE PRESENT MONETARY SITUATION: an address by 
 Professor W. Lexis, University of Gottingen ; translated by John Cum- 
 MINGS, Ph. D. Price 50 cents. 
 
 Price of the several volumes, unl mnd, $4.00 each. Bound in cloth, $5.00 
 each for single volumes, $4.00 for each additional volume. The set of ten 
 volumes, $41.00, sent prepaid. Any bound volume will be sent post-paid to 
 members for 75 cents in exchange for the unbound numbers, if returned pre- 
 paid in good condition. Copies can also be furnished, in half morocco, at 50 
 cents per volume additional to the price in cloth. 
 
 Separate subscriptions by non-members, libraries, etc., for the Studies, $2.50 
 per year ; or $4.00 for all the publications. Any single monograph may be 
 obtained at the price given in the list. 
 
 One-sixth Discount to Members and Subscribers on all Orders. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 No. 
 
 Address applications for member- 
 ship and inquiries to 
 
 JEREMIAH W. JENKS, 
 
 Secretary American Economic Association, 
 Cornell University, 
 
 Ithaca, N. Y. 
 
 Address Subscriptions and orders 
 for Studies and Monographs, to 
 the publishers, 
 
 MACMILLAN & CO., 
 
 66 Fifth Avenue, 
 
 New York. 
 
Pnllicaliois of tie Americap Jeiisli Historical Society. 
 
 No. I, 1893. 
 
 Contains the following papers : Address of the President, Hon. Oscar S. 
 Straus. — TheSettlement of the Jews in Georgia, Chas. C. Jones, Jr., LL. D. — 
 Mickve Israel Congregation of Philadelphia, Kev. Sabato Morais, LL. U. — 
 Some unpublished material relating to Dr. Jacob Lumbrozo of Maryland, Dr. J. 
 H. Hollander. — Beginnings of New York Jewish History, Max J. Kohler. — 
 Notes on the Jews of Philadelphia, from published annals : The first publica- 
 tion of a Jewish character printed in Philadelphia, Prof. Mokris Jastrow, 
 Jr. — Jews mentioned in the Journals of the Continental Congress, Dr. Her- 
 bert Friedenwald. — A Landmark, N. Taylor Phillips. — Ai\ Act allowing 
 naturalization of Jews in the Colonies ; A Document concerning the Franks 
 family, Hon. Simon W. Kosendale. — Jewish beginnings in Kentucky, Lewis 
 N. Dembii'Z. — Jews in the American Plantations between 1600-1700; Amer- 
 cans at the Anglo-Jewish exhibition; A Political Document of the year 1800, 
 Dr. Cyrus Adler. — The Settlement of the Jews in Canada, Andrew C. 
 Joseph. • 8vo. 143 pp. $1.50. 
 
 No. 2, 1894. 
 
 Coiitains the following papers: Address of the President, Hon. Oscar S. 
 Straus. — A sketch of Haym Salomon, Prof. H. B. Adams. — History of the 
 Jews of Chicago ; The Jewish Congregation in Surinam ; A Sermon by Moses 
 Mendelssohn printed in Philadelphia 130 years ago, Dr. B. Felsenthal. — 
 The Civil Status of the Jews in Maryland, 1634-1776, Dr. J. H. Hollander. — 
 Rev. David Mendez Machado, N. Taylor Phillips. — Note concerning David 
 Hays, Solomon Solis-Cohen. — The Colonization of America by the Jews, 
 Dr. M. Kayserling. — Phases of Jewish Life in New York before iSco; The 
 Lopez and Rivera families of Newport, Max J. Kohler. — Letter of Jonas 
 Phillips to the Federal Convention ; Jacob Isaacs and his method of convert- 
 ing salt water into fresh water ; Memorials presented to the Continental Con- 
 gress, Dr. Herbert Friedenwald, — Columbus in Jewish Literature, Prof. 
 Richard Gottheil. — Settlement of the Jews in Texas, Rev. Henry Cohen. — 
 Aaron Levy, Mrs. J. H, Rosenbach and A. S. W. Rosenbach. — Documents 
 from the Public Record Office (London), Dr. Charles Gross. — Memoir of John 
 Moss, LuciEN Moss. 8vo. 207 pp. $1.50. 
 
 No. 3, 1895. 
 
 Contains the following papers : Address of the President, Hon. Oscar S. 
 Straus. — Some further references relating to Haym Salomon, Dr. J. H. Hol- 
 lander. — The earliest Rabbis and Jewish writers of America, Dr. M. Kay- 
 serling. — The American Jew as Soldier and Patriot, Hon. Simon Wolf. — 
 Points in the first chapter of New York Jewish History, A. M. Dyer. — An 
 early ownership of Real Estate in Albany, N. Y., by a Jewish trader, Hon. 
 Simon Rosendale. — Phases of Jewish Life in New York before 1800, II, 
 Max J. Kohler. — Correspondence between Washington and Jewish citizens ; 
 The relation of Jews to our national monuments, Lewis Abraham — Early 
 Jewish literature in America, G. A. Kohut. 8vo. 173 pp. $1.50. 
 
 No. 4, 1896. 
 
 Contains the following papers : Chronological sketch of the history of the 
 Jews in Surinam, Dr. B. Felsenthal and Prof, Richard Gottheil. — The 
 Jews in Texas, Rev. Henry Cohen. — The Jews of Richmond, Jacob 
 EzEKiEL. — The trial of Jorge de Almeida by the Inquisition in Mexico (with 
 an illustration), Dr. Cyrus Adler. — Incidents illustrative of American Jewish 
 Patriotism, Max J. Kohler. — Jewish Martyrs of the Inquisition in South 
 America, G. A. Kohut. — The Levy and Seixas families of Newport and New 
 York, N. T. Phillips. — A biographical account of Ephraim Hart, G, N. 
 Hart, Svo. 243 pp. $2.00. 
 
 A.11 communications should be addressed to the Corresponding Secretary, 
 Dr. CYRUS ADLER, 943 K St., N. W., Washington, D. C. 
 
STUOI[S in HISTOfil ECONOMICS AND POBLIC LAW, 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE 
 OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE. 
 
 VOLUME I.— Bound, $2.50 ; unbound, $2.00. 
 
 I. The Divorce Problem : a Study in Statistics.* 
 
 By Walter F. Willcox, Ph. D.— Price, 50 cts. 
 II. History of Tariff Administration in the United States, from Colonial 
 Times to the McKinley Administration Bill.* 
 
 By John Dean Goss, Ph.D. — Price, 50 cts. 
 
 III. History of Municipal Land Ownership on Manhattan Island.* 
 
 By George Ashton Black, Ph. D Price, 50 cts. 
 
 IV. Financial History of Massachusetts. 
 
 By Charles H. J. Douglas, Ph. D.— Price, $1.00. 
 
 VOLUME II.— Bound, $2.50; unbound, $2.00. 
 
 I. The Economics of the Russian Village. 
 
 By Isaac A. Hourwich, Ph, D — Price, $1.00. 
 II. Bankruptcy : A Study in Comparative Legislation. 
 
 By Samuel W. Dunscomb, Jr., Ph. D. — Price, 75 cts. 
 III. Special Assessments : A Study in Municipal Finance.* 
 
 By Victor Rosewater. — Price, 75 cts. 
 
 VOLUME III. — Bound, $2.50 ; unbound, $2.00. 
 
 I. History of Elections in the American Colonies. 
 
 By Courtlandt F. Bishop, Ph. D Price, $1.50 ; bound, $2.00. 
 
 II. The Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies. 
 
 By George L. Beer, A. M. — Price, $1.00. 
 
 VOLUME IV — Bound, $2.50 ; unbound, $2.00. 
 
 I. Financial History of Virginia. 
 
 By W. Z. Ripley, Ph. D.— Price, 75 cts. 
 II. The Inheritance Tax. By Max West, Ph. D. — Price, 75 cts. 
 
 III. History of Taxation in Vermont. 
 
 By Frederick A. Wood, Ph. D. — Price, 75 cts. 
 
 VOLUME V. 
 
 I. Double Taxation in the United States. 
 
 By Francis Walker, Ph. D. — Price, 75 cts. 
 
 Numbers marked * are not sold separately. 
 
 For further particulars apply to 
 
 Prof. EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, 
 
 Columbia College, 
 OR TO MACMILLAN & CO., New York. 
 
NOTES SUPPLEMENTARY TO THE STUDIES. 
 
 MCIVICIPAI, GOVERNMEIVT IN ENGLiAND. By Dr. ALBERT SHAW. 
 SOCIAL "WORK IIV AUSTRALIA AND LONDON. By WILLIAM GRET. 
 KNCOUKAGKMKNT OF HIGHKK KDCCATION. By Professor Herbert B. 
 
 ADAMS. 
 THE PROBLEM OP CITY GOVERNMENT. By Hon. 8ETH Low. 
 THK LIBRARIES OP BALTIMORE. By Dr. P. R. UHLER. 
 WORK AMONG THE WORK.1NGVVOMEN IN BALTIMORE. By Professor 
 
 H. B. ADAMS. 
 
 CflARITIKS: THE RELATION OP THK STATE, THE CITY, AND THB 
 INDIVIDUAL TO MODERN PMILANTHROPIC WORK. By Dr. A. G. WARNER. 
 
 LAW AND HISTORY. By Dr. WALTER B. SCAIFE. 
 
 THE NKEDS OP SELF-SUPPORTING WOMEN. By Miss CLARE DB GUAr- 
 
 FENUEID. 
 
 THK ENOCH PRATT FREE LIBRARY. By Dr. LEWIS H. Steiner. 
 
 EAKLY PKESBYTEKIANISM IN MARYLAND. By Rev. .J. W. MclLVAIN. 
 
 THE EDUCATIONAL ASPECT OF THE U. S. NATIONAL MUSEUM. By 
 Professor O. T. Mason. 
 
 UNIVERSITY EXTENSION AND THE UNIVERSITY OF THE FUTUBK. 
 By Richard G. moulton. 
 
 THE PHILOSOPHY OP EDUCATION. By Dr. William T. Harris. 
 
 POPULAR ELECTION OP U. S. SENATORS. By JOHN HATNE8. 
 
 A MEMORIAL OF LUCIUS S. MERRIAM. By J. H. HOLLANDER aad others. 
 
 IS HISTORY PAST POUTICSl By Professor HERBERT B. Adams. 
 
 ANNUAL SERIES, 1883-1895. 
 
 SERIES I.— LOCAL INSTITUTIONS. 479 pp. $4.00. 
 
 SERIES II.— INSTITUTIONS AND ECONOMICS. 629 pp. $4.00. 
 
 SEKIES IH.— MARYLAND, VIRGINIA, AN1> AVASHINGTON. 695 pp. $4.00- 
 
 SERIES IV.— MUNICIPALGOVERNMENTANDLANDTENUKE. 600pp. $3.60. 
 
 SERIES v.— MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT, HISTORY AND POLITICS. 669 
 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES VI.— THE HISTORY OP CO-OPERATION IN THB UNITED 
 STATES. 540 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES VII.— SOCIAL SCIENCE, MUNICIPAL AND FEDERAL GOVERN- 
 MENT. 628 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES VIII.— HISTORY, POLITICS, AND EDUCATION. 625 pp. $3.50. 
 
 SERIES IX.— EDUCATION, POLITICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE. «40 pp. 
 $3.50. 
 
 SERIES X.— CHURCH AND STATE, COLUMBUS AND AMERICA. 630pp. 
 $3.50. 
 
 SERIES XI.— LABOR, SLAVERY, AND SELF-GOVERNMENT. 574 pp. 
 $3.50. 
 
 SERIES XII.— INSTITUTIONAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY. 626 pp. $3.60. 
 
 SERIES Xllf.— SOUTH CAROLINA, MARYLAND, AND VIRGINIA. 606 pp. 
 
 $3.50. 
 SERIES XIV.— BALTIMORE. NORTH AND SOUTH. $3.50. 
 
 Ttie set of fourteen itries is now offered, uniformly bound in cloth, for library use, for $42.00. rk« 
 fourteen series, with fourteen extra volumes, twenty-eight volumes in cloth, for $60.00. 
 
 All business communications should be addressed to The Johns Hop- 
 kins Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Subscriptions will also be received, 
 or single copies furnished by any of the following 
 
 American Agents: 
 
 tieTT York.— G. P. Putnam's Sons. Cincinnati.— Robert Clarke & Co. 
 
 Boston.— Damrell & Upham ; W. B. Clarke Indianapolis.— Bowen-MerrlU Oo. 
 
 & Co. dilcago.— A. C. McClurg & Co. 
 
 Providence.— Preston & Rounds. LoulBville.— Flexner Brothers. 
 
 Phlladelplila.— Porter & Coates ; J. B. New^ Orleans.— George F. Wharton. 
 
 Llpplncott Co. Toronto.- Carswell Co. (Limited). 
 
 Washington.- W. H. Lowdermllk fc Co.; Montreal.- WlUlam Foster Brown & Oo. 
 
 Brentano's. _ . 
 
 European Agents : 
 
 Pari*.- A. Hermann; Em. Terquem. London.— Eegan Paul, Trench, Trttbner 
 
 Berlin. — Puttkammer * MUhlbrecht ; 4 Co.; G. P. Putnam's Sons. 
 
 Mayer & MUUer. Tnrin, Florence, and Rome.— R IiO«- 
 
 Lelpdg.— F. A. Brockhaus. Bcher. 
 
Extra Volumes of Studies 
 
 -IN- 
 
 HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCE. 
 
 The Republic of Xew Haven. By Charles H. Lbvermore, 
 
 Ph. D. 342 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 Philadelphia, 168l-l887. By Edward P. Allinson, A. M., and 
 
 Boies Penrose, A. B. 444 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. 
 Baltimore and the Nineteenth of April, isei. By George 
 
 William Brown, Chief Judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore, and 
 
 Mayor of the City in 1861. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.00. 
 
 liOcal Constitutional History of the United States. By 
 
 George B. Howard, Ph. D. "Volume 1. — Development of the Township, 
 
 Hundred and Shire. 542 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $3.00. Volume II.— In 
 
 preparation. 
 The Xegro in Maryland. By Jeffrey R. Brackett, Ph. D. 270 
 
 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 The Supreme Court of the United States. By W. W. 
 
 WiLLOUGHBY, Ph. D. 124 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. 
 
 The Intercourse between the U. S. and Japan. By Inazo 
 (Ota) Nitobb, Ph. D. 198 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.25. 
 
 State and Federal OoTernment in Switzerland. By John 
 Martin Vincent, Ph. D. 225 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 Spanish Institutions of the Southwest. By Frank W. Black- 
 mar, Ph. D. 380 pages. 8to. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 An Introduction to the Study of the Constitution. By 
 Morris M. Cohn. 250 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 The Old ^English Manor. By C. M. Andrews, Ph. D. 280 pages. 
 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 
 America : Its Geographical History, 1492-1892. By Waltee 
 B. ScAiFE, Ph. D. 176 pages. 8vo. Cloth. SI. 50. 
 
 Florentine liife during the Renaissance. By Walter B. 
 
 ScAiFE, Ph. D. 256 pages. 8vo. Cloth. $1.50. 
 The Southern Quakers and Slavery. By Stephen B. Weeks. 
 
 8vo. Cloth. $2.00. 
 
 The extra volumes are sold at reduced rates to regular subscribers to the 
 "Studies." 
 
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. 
 
 Studies in History and Politics. 
 
 Edited by Herbert B. Adams. 
 
 Fifteenth Series, 1897. Subscription, |3.00. 
 
 AMERICAN ECONOMIC HISTORY. 
 
 I. The Street Railway System of Philadelphia. By 
 
 F. W. Speies. 
 
 II. The Financial History of Baltimore. By J. H. Hol- 
 lander. 
 
 III. The American School of Political Economy. By 
 
 Sidney Sheewood. 
 
 IV. History and Theory of Trusts. By H. L. Mooee. 
 V. State Banking in Maryland. By A. C. Beyan. 
 
 Yl. State Tax Commissions in the United States. By 
 
 J. W. Chapman. 
 
 VII. The Tohacco Industry in Virginia since 1860. By 
 
 B. W. Aenold. 
 
 VIII. The Economic History of the Baltimore and Ohio 
 Railroad (1837-53). By Milton Reizenstein. 
 
 IX. The South American Trade of Baltimore. By F. R. 
 
 Ruttee. 
 
 X. Irrigation in Utah. By C. H. Brough. 
 Other papers will be from time to time announced. 
 
•v.. ','■'■'•::■ (X. 
 
 '.[•'/ 
 
 ... '/ 
 
 ''.V ,.■,