P 184 
 ■ S8S 
 Copy 2 
 
 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
 STUDIES IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY 
 
 Vol. II. 
 
 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 COMMISSIONER AND COUNSELLOR 
 
 OF MARYLAND 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE BONIFACE STRATEMEIER 
 
 OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic Univer- 
 sity OF America in Partial Fulfillment of the require- 
 ments FOR the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 1922 
 
THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
NIHIL OBSTAT: 
 
 Fr. Augustinus Waldron, O. P., S. T. M. 
 Fr. Dominicus McShane, O. P., S. T. Lr. 
 
 IMPRIMATUR: 
 
 Fr. Raymundus Meagher, O. P., S. T. Lr., LL. D. 
 Prior Provincialis. 
 
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA 
 STUDIES IN AMERICAN CHURCH HISTORY 
 
 Vol. II. 
 
 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 COMMISSIONER AND COUNSELLOR 
 
 OF MARYLAND 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE BONIFACE SJRATEMEIER 
 
 OF THE ORDER OF PREACHERS 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 Submitted to the Faculty of Philosophy of the Catholic Univer- 
 sity OF America in Partial Fulfillment of the require- 
 ments FOR THE Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
 1922 
 
 t^' 
 
 %■ 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 American Catholic history is as old as the history of the 
 New World. From the very first, Catholics were among the 
 discoverers, explorers and settlers. The record of Catholic 
 achievement is not sufficiently known. The deeds of many 
 heroic children of the Church, both lay and clerical, have not 
 been treasured up in the records as they deserve. 
 
 Happily, of late years serious endeavors have been made 
 on the part of Catholics to remedy this state of affairs. 
 About two score years ago, there was established in Phila- 
 delphia a society having for its object the cultivation of 
 historical research. The initiative of these scholars en- 
 couraged others in various parts of the United States to 
 undertake similar work, some limiting their endeavors to 
 their respective localities; while others looked further and 
 considered the Church's history in all parts of America. 
 
 Today the greatest asset for promoting interest in the 
 study of American Catholic history is the American Catholic 
 Historical Association. The Catholic Historical Review 
 brings to the attention of scholars historical desiderata, 
 archival materials and aids in the diffusion of historical 
 knowledge in general. 
 
 The future without presumption may be said to promise 
 even greater things. The American Church History Seminar, 
 under the efficient guidance of Doctor Peter Guilday, at the 
 Catholic University, is seeking to train scholars who hope to 
 contribute their share toward the furtherance of historical 
 study and research. The writer of this dissertation has 
 experienced the benefits accruing from several years' work 
 with Doctor Guilday. 
 
 A few years hence will occur the tercentenary of the 
 arrival of the Maryland colonists. Since this event means 
 so much to religious liberty, of which Catholics are the 
 founders, it is most fitting that a more thorough knowledge 
 of the early history of Maryland, ''the Land of Sanctuary," 
 should be provided for Catholics throughout the land. 
 
X THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Thomas Cornwaleys was one of the leading figures in this 
 enterprise. As that event draws near, it is hoped that 
 George, Cecilius and Leonard Calvert, together with Corn- 
 waleys and Hawley and other leading men of early Maryland, 
 shall live again on the pages of our historical publications. 
 
 The writer wishes to acknowledge his great indebtedness 
 to Doctor Guilday, under whose guidance this dissertation 
 was written. To Doctors P. W. Browne, Stock, and 
 Purcell, he owes a debt of gratitude for many valuable sug- 
 gestions, but even greater is his indebtedness to his esteemed 
 confrere, the Very Rev. V. F. O'Daniel for much help in 
 bringing this work to completion. A word of appreciation 
 is also due to Miss McShane of the library of the Catholic 
 University. Finally his thanks are due to all who have in 
 any way given him assistance. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 Introduction 
 
 From the day that Henry VIII broke away from the 
 Cathohc Church and set up a rehgion to suit his hking, the 
 adherents of the ancient rehgion had to reckon with perse- 
 cution. Loss of property, banishment and death were the 
 lot of those who remained loyal to the faith of their fathers. 
 In the first days of the Church, the Christians had to seek 
 localities unknown to mankind at large where they might 
 serve God unmolested. In fact in every place that perse- 
 cution raged the same plan had to be adopted. So also in 
 England, when the time of trial came for every true believer, 
 Cathohcs had to worship God in secret as the Christians of 
 old. 
 
 When the time of trial lengthened and persecution wore on 
 without prospect of relief, other means were adopted. Men 
 of property saw their fortunes dwindle away under the stern 
 exactions of penal laws. When the fury of the persecutors 
 abated somewhat, legal restrictions were still placed upon 
 them. Their rights of citizenship were curtailed. In fact, 
 many hardships continued for years even though several 
 rulers arose who were somewhat more lenient. To escape 
 these difficulties, to regain their lost rights, to stand on an 
 equal footing with their fellow-men in the social and political 
 order. Catholics, as well as the proscribed of other religions, 
 decided upon self-imposed banishment, first to the continent 
 of Europe and then to a home beyond the seas. 
 
 The foundation of Maryland was an outcome of this move- 
 ment. Its founders, Calvert and his associates, decided to 
 leave their homes in their native land to found in the land of 
 America an asylum for the persecuted of all creeds. Among 
 the first colonists of this ''Land of Sanctuary," the name of 
 Thomas Cornwaleys stands out prominently. Resolving to 
 sacrifice his fortune and his all if need be, he decided to cast 
 his lot with the colonial venture to achieve the boon of 
 freely worshipping his God. A lover of Uberty and an enemy 
 
 1 
 
Z THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 of proscription, he decided to traverse the ocean to secure 
 that which at home he was unable to obtain. 
 
 In sending out his colony into the New World, Cecilius 
 Calvert appointed as trusted adviser to Leonard Calvert, the 
 governor, a man who was to render his name illustrious in 
 the early annals of Maryland's history. It was most fortu- 
 nate for him to obtain the services of Cornwaleys. Self- 
 confident, cool in the hour of danger, firm, frank and deter- 
 mined, he would become, without conscious effort on his part, 
 a former of public opinion and a centre to which all eyes might 
 turn in cases of emergency and doubt. ^ In all the activities, 
 whether legislative, judicial or military with which his name 
 will be linked, he will stand out as fearless and undaunted in 
 expressing his views and as a brave defender of the rights of 
 proprietor as well as settler. In debates of the Assembly 
 he will be found a leader and in every military expedition, 
 he will be found the ablest commander. 
 
 In the scattered records of this interesting personage, his 
 name assumes a variety of forms. It is spelled in at least 
 four different ways : Cornwaleys, Cornwallis, Cornewallis and 
 Cornwallys. All these forms are to be found in the Archives 
 of Maryland.^ Brown's Genesis of the United States notes two 
 variations, Cornewallis and Cornwallis.^ We have adopted 
 the form ''Cornwaleys," because it is so written by himself.^ 
 
 The ancestry of the sturdy Maryland colonist cannot be 
 estabhshed with certainty. We will give the genealogy 
 generally accepted and then assign our reasons for throwing 
 doubt on the same. Neill derives his ancestry from the 
 genealogical tree sketched in The Private Correspondence of 
 Jane Lady Cornwallis. The authors of The Genesis of the 
 United States and The Cyclopedia of American Biography 
 accept these sources.^ According to these, Cornwaleys' 
 lineage is traced to the year 1519, when his greatgrandfather, 
 
 ^ Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 125. 
 ^ I — Archives of Maryland, Index, p. 552. 
 ^ Brown, Genesis of the United States, Vol. ii, p. 1085. 
 * Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 181. 
 
 ^ Neill, Founders of Maryland, p. 69; Brown, op. cit., p. 863; Cyclopedia of 
 American Biography. 
 
INTRODUCTION 6 
 
 Sir Thomas Cornwaleys was born.® This nobleman was the 
 husband of Anne, daughter of Sir John Jerningham. He was 
 knighted on December 1, 1548. He was comptroller of the 
 household of Queen Mary and a member of the Privy 
 Council. Due to the fact that he was a Catholic, he was 
 removed from both these offices on the accession of Elizabeth. 
 He died on December 24, 1604, leaving two sons and three 
 daughters. Ahce, the second daughter, married Richard 
 Southwell, eldest brother of Ven. Robert Southwell, S. J., 
 who was martyred at Tyburn, February 21, 1595.'^ 
 
 Sir Charles Cornwaleys was the second son of Sir Thomas. 
 Nothing is known of his early life. He received the honor of 
 knighthood on July 11, 1603. From the year 1605 until 
 1610, he was ambassador to Spain. In 1610, he became 
 treasurer of the household of Henry, Prince of Wales. His 
 death occurred on December 21, 1629. Sir Charles Corn- 
 waleys was married thrice. His first wife was Elizabeth, 
 daughter of Thomas Farnham of Fincham, Norfolk.^ 
 
 Sir William Cornwaleys, the father of the Commissioner of 
 Maryland, according to Neill, was a son of Sir Charles Corn- 
 waleys by his first marriage. On August 26, 1595, he married 
 Catherine, daughter of Sir Philip Parker, of Erwarton, 
 Suffolk. The date of his death is not certain, some writers 
 placing it as early as 1614 and others as late as 1631. Thomas 
 Cornwaleys was his second son.^ 
 
 The writer's reasons for doubting the identity of the Mary- 
 land Commissioner and the Thomas Cornwaleys of Neill are 
 derived from two sources. Streeter says that the only basis 
 for supposing that Sir Thomas Cornwaleys was the great- 
 grandfather of the subject of our biography is that they were 
 of the same name and creed. ^° We do not regard this as 
 conclusive evidence. Furthermore, a careful scrutiny of the 
 genealogy of the Cornwaleys family, found in Lady Corn- 
 
 ^ Dictionary of National Biography, Vol. xii, p. 234. 
 
 ^ Catholic Record Society, Miscellanea, Vol. viii, p. 94. 
 ■ 8 D. N. B., loc. dt. 
 
 ' Brown, op. cit., p. 863. 
 *" Streeter, op. cit., p. 124. 
 
4 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 wallis' Correspondence, reveals the fact that there is only one 
 Thomas Cornwaleys that could have been the Maryland 
 Commissioner. His wife is Penelope, daughter of John 
 Wiseman of Middle Temple and Tyrrels, in county Essex. 
 From a letter written by Thomas Cornwaleys in 1638, he 
 speaks of his wife." At that time, Penelope Wiseman was 
 but three years old. Lady Corn wallis carefully notes when- 
 ever any of the persons recorded in her genealogy were 
 married more than once. In the case of Thomas Corn- 
 waleys there is no such fact noted. And there is no indication 
 in any of the records to lead us to suppose that Thomas 
 Cornwaleys was married more than once. Consequently we 
 feel inclined to adopt the conclusion that the Thomas Corn- 
 waleys of this genealogy is not the colonist of this biography. 
 
 The details of the life of Cornwaleys previous to coming to 
 Maryland are meagre. Neill claims that he was born in 
 1603.^^ The same author asserts that in his youth he was a 
 merchant.^^ When his marriage occurred cannot be stated. 
 There are only two references to his wife in the available 
 records. The first, as noted previously, is contained in a 
 letter dated April 6, 1638, to Lord Baltimore. Therein he 
 refers to her being indisposed so that she could not very 
 efficiently manage his affairs in England. ^^ The other will be 
 noted when we speak of Cornwaleys' final departure from the 
 colony. This is all the information recorded in the career of 
 Cornwaleys previous to his becoming a Commissioner of the 
 Maryland Province. 
 
 Thomas Cornwaleys, in a document dated November 15, 
 1633, containing Lord Baltimore's Instructions to the col- 
 onists, is designated under the title of Commissioner.^^ On 
 the first organization of the government, Jerome Hawley and 
 Thomas Cornwaleys assumed the offices of Commissioner to 
 advise and assist the Governor. They occupy the most im- 
 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 
 
 12 Neill, op. cit., p. 70. Throughout this dissertation, the old style of dates 
 is used unless otherwise indicated. O. S. indicates old style; N. S., new style. 
 
 13 Neill, Thomas Cornwallis and Early Maryland Colonists, p. 4. ^ 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 
 
 ^^ Ibidem, p. 131. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 portant posts in the early development of the history of Lord 
 Baltimore's palatinate. This form of administration lasted 
 mitil the arrival of the commission of November 28, 1637, 
 when the Government was reorganized. The office of 
 Lieutenant General or Governor remained with Leonard 
 Calvert; the duties of Secretary, Registrar of the Land 
 Office, Collector of the Customs and Receiver of the quit 
 rents, were united in the person of Mr. Lewger, and the 
 latter, together with Hawley and Cornwaleys, the former 
 Commissioners, were made members of the Council of the 
 Province, which superseded the original commission. ^"^ 
 
 It is strange that among the writers of the early history of 
 Maryland, Thomas Cornwaleys has received Uttle attention. 
 The longest account concerning him is that by Streeter in his 
 work. Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland. 
 Neill wrote two articles on Thomas Cornwaleys' hfe. The 
 first is entitled Thomas Cornwallis and Early Maryland 
 Colonists; the other, Thomas Cornwallis, Commissioner, 
 written in his book. The Founders of Maryland. Streeter' s 
 work, though it contains few references has been found 
 reliable. Neill, however, is frequently biased. He affirms 
 that Cornwaleys was a Protestant, though all authorities are 
 agreed that he was a Catholic. In fact, whenever there is a 
 question of religion entering into any of Cornwaleys' acts, 
 Neill forms an a priori conclusion that his religion was 
 Protestant. Since the publication of Streeter's work several 
 valuable contributions to Maryland's early history have 
 thrown light upon many phases of Cornwaleys' career. 
 
 As one of the founders of Maryland, Thomas Cornwaleys 
 should be better known. As a legislator in the Assembly, he 
 upholds the rights of Lord Baltimore against the machina- 
 tions of Claiborne and others. As an advocate of the rights 
 of the people he is always found a ready and an able champion 
 of their cause. As an upholder of religious toleration, he 
 stands ready to condemn any infraction of his Lordship's 
 orders to obtain this end. In his capacity as Captain General 
 
 1* Streeter, op. cit., p. 104. 
 
 / 
 
6 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 of the military forces of the colony he is always prepared to 
 defend the colony against the hostile Indians as well as 
 against the incursions of Claiborne. His relations with the 
 Jesuits in Maryland were most cordial. In his dealings 
 with his fellow-men he was always trustworthy, faithful and 
 honorable. As a Cathohc, he deserves the reputation of a 
 staunch adherent of the ancient faith. Russell says of him: 
 "He enjoys the singular distinction of having been the trusted 
 friend of the Proprietary, of the colonists and of the mis- 
 sionaries; and of being the only man in the colony who has 
 been universally praised by Protestant and Cathohc writers 
 alike." '' 
 
 " Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 104. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 The Maryland Charter 
 
 The Maryland Charter was granted to Cecilius Calvert, 
 second Lord Baltimore, on June 20, 1632. This document 
 was the bill of rights that was to regulate all the dealings 
 of the Proprietary with his subjects. It was to form the 
 norm according to which all the functions of the Government 
 whatever character these might assume, were to be deter- 
 mined. As Thomas Cornwaleys was to become one of the 
 leaders in the legislative, judicial and military life of the 
 Maryland colony, it is necessary to have an idea as to what 
 were the privileges and rights as well as the limitations of 
 those who stood in a position to direct the destines of the 
 infant colony. A brief analysis of this interesting document 
 will therefore be given in this chapter.^ 
 
 The boundaries of the new province were as fol- 
 lows: "All that part of the Peninsula, or Chersonese, 
 lying in the parts of America, between the ocean on 
 the east, and the bay of Chesapeake on the west, 
 divided from the residue thereof by a right line drawn 
 from the promontory, or head-land, called Watkin's 
 Point, situate upon the bay aforesaid, near the river 
 Wighco, on the west, unto the main ocean on the 
 east; and between that boundary on the south, unto 
 that part of the bay Delaware on the north, which 
 lieth under the fortieth degree of north latitude from 
 the equinoctial, where New England is terminated: 
 and all the tract of that land within the metes under- 
 written (that is to say) passing from the said bay, 
 called Delaware bay, in a right line, by the degree 
 aforesaid, unto the true meridian of the first fountain 
 of the river Potomac, thence verging toward the 
 south, unto a certain place called Cinquack, situate 
 near the mouth of the said river, where it disem- 
 bogues into the aforesaid bay of Chesapeake, and 
 thence by the shortest line unto the aforesaid 
 promontory or place, called Watkin's Point; so that 
 
 ^ For the text of the Maryland Charter, see: Bozman, History of Maryland, 
 Vol II, pp. 9 et seq.; Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, pp. 507 
 €t seq. 
 
 7 
 
8 THOMAS CORN WA LEYS 
 
 the whole tract of land, divided by the line afore- 
 said, between the main ocean and Watkin's Point, 
 unto the promontory called Cape Charles, and every 
 the appendages thereof " ^ 
 
 The colony received its name in this manner. The charter 
 was drawn up with a blank where the name of the territory 
 was to be inserted. Calvert wished it to be called Cres- 
 centia, or the land of Cresence, but he left it to the option of 
 the king to designate the title of the colony. The king put 
 the question to Lord Baltimore, who said that he would call 
 it something in honor of his Majesty, but that he was de- 
 prived of this happiness owing to the fact that a province had 
 already been named for him, namely, Carolina. Charles 
 then suggested that the name be given in honor of the queen 
 and proposed Terra Mariae, or Maryland, which was then 
 agreed upon and inserted in the document. Thus the pro- 
 proposed palatinate was named after Henrietta Maria, 
 daughter of Henry IV, King of France and Navarre, and 
 sister of Louis XHL^ 
 
 The origin of the term "palatine" is usually ascribed to the 
 Merovingian Kings of France, who delegated a quasi-royal 
 power in judicial matters to an official known as "count of 
 the palace," comes palatii or palatinus. The feudal lord 
 could annex to the lands which he granted to his vassals such 
 a portion of the jura regalia as he deemed fit, reserving to 
 himself the suzerainty.^ 
 
 The territory granted to Cecilius Calvert was to be a 
 palatinate as of the old bishopric of Durham in England. 
 The Lord Proprietor of Maryland was to have "as ample 
 rights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, royalties, liber- 
 ties, immunities, and royal rights, and temporal franchises 
 whatsoever, as well as 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, 
 
 2 Mereness, op. cit., pp. 507-8. 
 
 3 Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, pp. 51-2. 
 * Ibid., p. 60. 
 
THE MARYLAND CHARTER 9 
 
 ever heretofore hath had, held, used, or enjoyed, or of right 
 could, or ought to have, hold, use, or enjoy." ^ Lord Balti- 
 more's grant was to be held in free and common socage,^ 
 obliging him to deliver annually at the Castle of Windsor, 
 unto the king, his heirs and successors, two Indian arrows on 
 the Tuesday in Easter Week, as well as the fifth part of all 
 gold and silver found. 
 
 Under the stipulations of the charter, the Proprietor of the 
 Province was the owner of its soil. It empowered him, as 
 well as his heirs and assigns, to make feudal grants of any 
 estate or interest in the land, to be held directly of them by 
 the same tenure under which they themselves held it of the 
 sovereign. This rendered the Proprietor the sole tenant of 
 the crown, and exclusive manorial lord of Maryland. The 
 tenure of free and common socage was common to the pro- 
 prietor as well as to those holding sub-grants. The serv- 
 ices rendered under it by the tenant to the landlord, in 
 acknowledgment or consideration of the grant, were fixed and 
 determinate, so that the tenant was above the reach of 
 exaction. They were of so free a character as not to degrade 
 the tenant, and were pacific in their nature, in contradis- 
 tinction of the military services which might be required 
 under the tenure by knight's service.^ Conformably to this 
 tenure, the manner and terms of the Proprietary's grants 
 were left exclusively to his own determination, and he re- 
 tained exclusive control over them throughout the whole 
 epoch of the proprietary government. His conditions of 
 plantation, proclamations and instructions always delineated 
 the conditions under which the lands were granted, as well as 
 the manner and terms of the grant. ^ All officers who received 
 delegated power in territorial jurisdiction from the Pro- 
 prietary were appointed by him and were subject to his 
 removal at pleasure.^ 
 
 ' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, Note, p. 19. 
 ^ McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, Vol. i (the 
 only volume published), p. 168. 
 ' Ibid., pp. 168-9. 
 s Ibid. 
 s Ibid., p. 50. 
 
10 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 In regard to the legislative powers of the Proprietary, the 
 Charter conferred on him included generally all the objects 
 of legislation within the province with the proviso that the 
 laws be consonant to reason, and not repugnant or contrary, 
 but agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs, and rights of the 
 kingdom of England. The document furthermore enjoined 
 that the enactment of laws be effected with the advice, assent, 
 and approbation of the freemen of the same province, or of 
 the greater part of them, or of their delegates or deputies. 
 These were to be called together for the framing of laws 
 when, and as often as need should require. The right to 
 determine the form and manner of calling the Assembly was 
 expressly vested in the Lord Proprietor of the Palatinate. ^° 
 Such a government of laws, administered by freemen, was 
 the nursery of our free principles and institutions. In 
 contrast with all the colonial governments of that day, we 
 may truly say of it, that it was full of power and privilege to 
 the subject.^^ 
 
 Just as the Charter conferred extensive legislative powers 
 so also did it empower the executive to enforce these laws 
 by the imposition of fines, imprisonment or of any punish- 
 ment in accordance with the law of England. In fact, 
 it even gave him the authority to punish crimes to the 
 extent of privation of member or Hfe. It gave the Baron 
 of Baltimore the authority to constitute and ordain judges, 
 justices, magistrates and officers as he deemed fit. In 
 short, he was authorized "to do all and singular other 
 things belonging to the completion of justice ... to award 
 process, hold pleas, and determine in those courts, praetorian 
 judicatories, and tribunals, in all actions, suits, cases and 
 matters whatseover, as well criminal as personal, real mixed, 
 and praetorian."^- In the execution of justice the usages 
 and customs of the mother country had an important 
 influence. Just as in the palatinate of Durham, so also in 
 Maryland, the freemen met in the capacity of a law court as 
 
 1° Mereness, oj). cit., p. 195. 
 " McMahon, op. cit., p. 183. 
 12 Cf . Charter, Section vii. 
 
THE MARYLAND CHARTER 11 
 
 well as in that of a legislative assembly and thus we find that 
 body occasionally trying offenders accused of crimes from 
 that of a simple misdemeanor to that of piracy, murder, or 
 treason. ^^ 
 
 The fourteenth section of the Charter provides for the 
 proper recognition of merit, and empowers Baltimore to 
 grant favors, rewards and honors by conferring titles and 
 dignities. This prerogative, however, was subject to the 
 restriction "that they be not such as are now used 
 in England" a restriction, as McMahon observes, ^^ that 
 rendered the power a mere nullity. The same historian 
 states ^^ that the first proprietary in some of his early in- 
 structions cherished the idea of conferring dignities as endur- 
 ing personal distinctions, but fortunately for the colony, the 
 design was never carried into effect as the existence of a 
 titled gentry would have proved a dangerous obstacle to the 
 growth of liberty in the colony. This same section invested 
 the Proprietary with the faculty of erecting and incorporating 
 towns, boroughs and cities, ''with suitable privileges and im- 
 munities, according to the merits of the inhabitants, and 
 convenience of the places; and to do all and singular other 
 things in the premises, which to him or them (his successors) 
 shall seem fitting and convenient; even although they shall 
 be such as, in their own nature, require a more special com- 
 mandment and warrant than in these presents may be ex- 
 pressed." These prerogatives may be placed under the 
 caption of regal rights vested in the Proprietary. To these 
 are added the pardoning power whereby this personage was 
 enabled to remit and pardon all crimes and offenses against 
 the laws of the province whether before or after the pro- 
 nouncement of judgment.^^ This faculty extended even 
 beyond the royal grant so that the Proprietary had the power 
 of pardoning all offenses committed in his domain, even if 
 
 13 Mereness, op. cit., p. 228. 
 " McMahon, op. cit., p. 158. 
 1^ Ibid. 
 1* Scharf, op. ct7., p. 61. 
 
12 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 they arose under English statutes operating in the palatinate, 
 as well as the laws peculiar to the province. ^^ 
 
 Ecclesiastical rights were vested in Lord Baltimore by the 
 grant of "the patronages and advowsons of all churches which 
 (with the increasing worship and religion of Christ) within the 
 said region . . . shall happen to be built, together with 
 license and faculty of erecting and founding churches, chapels, 
 and places of worship . . . , and of causing the same to be 
 dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical 
 laws of our kingdom of England ... as any bishop of 
 Durham, within the bishopric or county palatine of Durham, 
 in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore hath had, held, 
 used or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought to have, hold, use 
 or enjoy." ^^ Much has been said, and much written regard- 
 ing the definition of the terms of the fourth section of the 
 Maryland Charter, by those who assume and endeavor to 
 prove that it was a provision for the establishment of the 
 Church of England in the colony. That this was the king's 
 intention in granting the patent which was issued to Lord 
 Baltimore under a misconception of the latter's religious 
 attitude and subsequent plans, is one view. Another opin- 
 ion has it that the King and Calvert joined in false representa- 
 tion and in hoodwinking the English people. The terms of 
 this part of the patent have been twisted and tortured into a 
 variety of significations, and have been viewed at whatever 
 parallax best served the purpose of the writers. ^^ 
 
 The wording of the section of the Charter deahng with the 
 rehgious prerogatives of the Maryland Proprietary does not 
 clear up the difficulty. Considering, however, the attitude of 
 the English Ruler toward Lord Baltimore and other Catholic 
 peers, as well as the future acts of Calvert and his colonial 
 government it becomes clear what religious power he actu- 
 ally possessed. Though the words of the Charter seem to 
 indicate that the Church of England was the only one with a 
 right to existence in Maryland, nevertheless it allowed 
 
 1' McMahon, o-p. cit., p. 159. 
 '* Mereness, op. cit., p. 509. 
 '^ Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, pp. 56-7. 
 
THE MARYLAND CHARTER 13 
 
 latitude to found other churches. The Charters of Virginia 
 and Georgia set forth in no ambiguous terms the perixiission 
 to erect churches, chapels and oratories and of causing them 
 to be dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical 
 laws of England, but it did not bind him to do so. As a 
 matter of fact one of the first things done in the colony was 
 to dedicate a Roman Catholic Chapel. ^° Furthermore, the 
 King knew full well the religious convictions of Cecilius 
 Calvert and his intentions of establishing religious toleration 
 and he was aware that Calvert would not accede to the obliga- 
 tion of fostering the religion of the Church of England to the 
 prejudice of his project.^^ 
 
 Mihtary powers vested in the Proprietary according to 
 the provisions of the Charter as well as those of the palatinate 
 government seem to have been granted for defensive pur- 
 poses only. The Proprietor was captain general of the 
 colonial army and could summon the inhabitants for the 
 defense of the province. He could declare and exercise 
 martial law, in all cases of rebellion, sudden tumult or sedi- 
 tion. None of these rights were to conflict with the military 
 establishment of the mother country. The unhmited 
 rights of war and peace are the peculiar privileges of the 
 supreme power. Consequently the military rights of the 
 colonials were a part of the sovereign dominion of the 
 crown. The military |power in the colony was accordingly 
 very properly limited to the protection of the province and 
 was given merely to meet a state of actual hostility to it, 
 arising either from rebellion, invasion or warlike array 
 against it.^- 
 
 One more aspect of the Charter remains to be considered, 
 namely, the financial or commercial. The Charter of Mary- 
 land was such that it was exalted above every other by its 
 commercial privileges and exemptions.^^ The colonists were 
 
 2" Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, Note, pp. 36-7. 
 2' The religious rights of the Proptietary are discussed with clearness and 
 abihty by Bishop Russell, op. cit., pp. 56 et seq. 
 22 McMahon, op. cit., p. 160. 
 *3 Ibid., p. 162. 
 
14 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 enabled by it to export all articles grown or produced within 
 the province to any of the ports of England or Ireland, sub- 
 ject only to the customs and impositions paid in similar 
 cases by the inhabitants of England. The proprietary 
 possessed full and absolute power of establishing the ports 
 of entry and discharge for the commerce of the colony, and 
 to invest them with any rights and privileges that he deemed 
 expedient. Contributions from the people were made in the 
 form of taxes, license money, fines and forfeitures. These 
 were to be levied for military protection, for the pay of civil 
 officers, for the erection of public buildings, for the making 
 of pubhc improvements, etc.-^ The King by the Charter 
 bound himself and his successors to lay no taxes, customs, 
 subsidies, or contributions whatever upon the colonists.^^ 
 The Proprietary also had the power of alienating, selling or 
 renting the land granted to him and his descendants by the 
 Charter. 
 
 Under the financial aspect of the Charter arises the question 
 as to whether Lord Baltimore had the right to coin money, a 
 prerogative of sovereignty. Though this is not expressly 
 mentioned in the document, he had this right as Proprietor 
 of a palatinate.^^ Whether Calvert used it is not certain. 
 M. F. Howley, in his Ecclesiastical History of Newfoundland, "^"^ 
 gives an interesting account of the discovery of a coin at 
 Waterville, Me., in June, 1880. He ascribes the Waterville 
 Penny to Lord Baltimore's colony of Avalon, though he 
 admits that the coin may belong to the Avalon of Somerset- 
 shire, England. Browne affirms that Baltimore in 1659 had 
 dies cut for various denominations of currency. It is most 
 probable, however, that coins were never used and that 
 tobacco, from the first, remained almost the sole currency 
 of the Province.^^ 
 
 2^ Mereness, op. cit., p. 339. 
 
 "^ Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 20. 
 ^^ Osgood, The Proprietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government, 
 article in American Historical Review, Vol. ii, pp. 644 et seq. 
 '^ Howley, Ecclesiastical History of N ewfoundland, pp. 87-9. 
 2* Browne, op. cit., p. 114. 
 
THE MARYLAND CHARTER 15 
 
 Such then is the Maryland Charter in brief outline. It 
 gave the Proprietary extraordinary powers that might have 
 proved oppressive to the colonists in the hands of a man less 
 wise, just, and humane than Cecihus Calvert, who knew how 
 to use them in the manner best fitted to attain the pur- 
 poses for which the province was founded, "Though often 
 attacked," remarks Browne, ^^ "and at times held in abey- 
 ance, the charter was never revoked, and was only cast off 
 when the arbitrary power of England had violated its 
 pledges, and the people of Maryland, having outgrown their 
 minority, were ready to take the sovereignty into their own 
 hands." 
 
 29 Ibid., p. 20. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 Preparations for the Voyage to Maryland 
 
 Since Lord Baltimore's colonization project was chiefly to 
 secure religious toleration for the oppressed of every faith, 
 it is necessary to have a knowledge of the religious state of 
 affairs in England which led to the formation of his plan to 
 secure this end. George Calvert, the First Lord Baltimore, 
 to whom is due the credit of conceiving this idea, was born 
 in 1580, and became a Catholic in 1624. At the time of his 
 conversion, James I, the first of the Stuart line, still occupied 
 the throne. 
 
 On his accession, this monarch had been incUned to grant 
 partial indulgence to his Catholic subjects. He owed it to 
 their sufferings in the cause of his unfortunate mother, 
 Mary Queen of Scots, and he had bound himself by promises 
 to their envoys. But his secret wishes were opposed by his 
 advisers, and, if he was ashamed to violate his word, he 
 dreaded offending his Protestant subjects. At last, he com- 
 promised by drawing a distinction between their creed and 
 the persons of the petitioners. To every prayer for the 
 exercise of that worship, he returned a prompt and definite 
 refusal. However, he invited Catholics to frequent his 
 court and conferred on several the honors of knighthood. 
 He even promised to shield them from the penalties of 
 recusancy, as long as by their loyal and peaceable conduct 
 they should deserve the royal favor. ^ 
 
 The Puritans relied with equal confidence on the good-will 
 of their sovereign. Their first petitions were couched in 
 submissive language. But they gradually assumed a bolder 
 attitude and demanded a thorough "reformation" both of the 
 clergy and the liturgy. The king was irritated, perhaps 
 alarmed; but he preferred conciliation to severity, and invited 
 four of the leading clergymen of their persuasion to a con- 
 ference at Hampton Court. 
 
 * Lingard, History of England, Vol. vii, p. 15. 
 
 16 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 17 
 
 Though the result of this conference disappointed the 
 expectations of the non-conformists, they did not despair 
 of bettering their condition; but the king, on the presentation 
 of a petition in their favor, spoke of them with bitterness, 
 which showed how httle they had to hope for. It was, he 
 said, to a similar petition that the rebellion in the Nether- 
 lands owed its origin: both his mother and he had been 
 haunted by ^'Puritan devils" from their cradles; but he 
 would hazard his very crown to suppress such malicious 
 spirits; and not Puritans only, but also Papists, whom he 
 hated so cordially that, if he thought it possible for his son 
 and heir to grant them toleration in the time to come, he 
 should fairly wish to see the young prince at that moment 
 lying in his grave.^ It was decided in the Star-Chamb.er that 
 attempts to move the sovereign in matters of religion were to 
 be construed as acts tending to sedition and rebellion. Orders 
 were consequently is ued to the judges and magistrates to 
 enforce to the utmost the penal laws against non-conformists 
 and recusants. 
 
 A law was passed in the first year of the reign of James L 
 confirming the statutes of Elizabeth, and enacting, "that the 
 two-thirds of the estates seized should be retained after the 
 convict's death, until all arreats of the penalties are paid, and 
 then delivered over to the heir, provided he be no recusant. 
 The one-third, however, left for his support, is not to be 
 liable to seizure for the penalties. Persons going beyond the 
 sea, to any Jesuit seminary, or not returning within one year 
 after the end of the next session of parliament, were rendered 
 as it respects themselves, incapable of purchasing or enjoying 
 any lands or goods, etc. Women also and children under 
 twenty-one, are restrained from passing over the seas 
 without license from the king, or six of his Privy Council. 
 The penalty of one hundred pounds, levied by 27 Eliz. c. 2. 
 on those who send any child, or other person under their 
 obedience, out of the realm, during her life, is here made 
 
 'Ibid., pp. 17-8. 
 
18 THOMAS CORN WALE YS 
 
 perpetual. Persons likewise, who keep school, otherwise 
 than in some university, pubHc grammar-school, or in the 
 houses of noblemen or gentlemen, not being recusant, without 
 leave from the bishop, together with those who retain or 
 maintain them, forfeit forty shillings for every day they so 
 wittingly offend. The one half of these fines is for the king, 
 the other for the informer." ^ 
 
 In 1605, the ''discovery" of the Gunpowder Plot involved 
 the CathoHcs in fresh troubles. "To a thinking mind," 
 says Lingard, "the late conspiracy must have proved the 
 danger and impolicy of driving men to desperation by the 
 punishment of religious opinion. But the warning was lost; 
 the existing enactments, oppressive and sanguinary as they 
 were, appeared too indulgent; and though justice had been 
 satisfied by the death and execution of the guilty, revenge 
 and fanaticism sought out additional victims among the 
 innocent." ^ A new code of laws was accordingly drawn up. 
 It repealed none of the laws in force but added to their 
 severity by two new bills containing more than seventy 
 articles inflicting penalties on the CathoHcs. 
 
 Lingard gives us a digest of this legislation as follows: 
 "1. Cathohc recusants were forbidden, under particular 
 penalties, to appear at court, to dwell within the boundaries, 
 or ten miles of the boundaries, of the city of London, or to 
 remove on any occasion more than five miles from their 
 homes, without a special license under the signatures of four 
 neighboring magistrates. 2. They were made incapable of 
 practicing in surgery or physic, or in the common or civil 
 law; of acting as judges, clerks, or officers in any court or 
 corporation ; of presenting to the livings, schools, or hospitals 
 in their gift; or of performing the offices of administrators, 
 executors, or guardians. 3. Husbands and wives, unless 
 they had been married by a Protestant minister, were made 
 to forfeit every benefit to which he or she might otherwise 
 be entitled from the property of the other; unless their 
 
 ' Madden, The History of the Penal Laws enacted against Roman Catholics 
 pp. 169-170. 
 
 * Lingard, op. cit., p. 45. 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 19 
 
 children were baptized by a Protestant minister within a 
 month after the birth, each omission subjected them to a 
 fine of one hundred pounds; and, if after death they were not 
 buried in a Protestant cemetery, their executors were hable 
 to pay for each corpse the sum of twenty pounds. 4. Every 
 child sent for education beyond the sea, was from that 
 moment debarred from taking any benefit by devise, descent, 
 or gift, until he should return and conform to the established 
 church, all such benefit being assigned by law to the Protes- 
 tant next of kin. 5. Every recusant was placed in the same 
 situation as if he had been excommunicated by name; his 
 house might be searched, his books and furniture, having or 
 thought to have any relation to his worship or religion, might 
 be burnt, and his horses and arms might be taken from him at 
 any time by order of the neighboring magistrates. 6. All 
 the existing penalties for absence from church were con- 
 tinued, but with two improvements : (a) It was made optional 
 in the king, whether he would take the fine of twenty pounds 
 per lunar month, or in heu of it, all the personal, and two- 
 thirds of the real estate; and (5) Every householder, of what- 
 ever religon, receiving Catholic visitors, or keeping Catholic 
 servants, was liable to pay for each individual ten pounds per 
 lunar month." ^ 
 
 Throughout the reign of James I, the condition of Catholics 
 was deplorable. The king himself might have bettered it 
 had he the courage and the power to do so. In every political 
 crisis and in any public excitement. Parliament was con- 
 stantly clamoring for new edicts against the Catholics.^ 
 
 The penal enactments during his reign were five : 
 
 An Act for the due execution of the statutes against 
 Jesuits, seminary priests, recusants, &c. 
 
 An Act for the better discovering and repressing of 
 popish recusants. 
 
 An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may 
 grow by popish recusants. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 46. 
 
 * Madden, op. cit., p. 180. 
 
20 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 An Act to cause persons to be naturalized or 
 restored in blood, to conform and take the oath of 
 allegiance and supremacy. 
 
 An Act for the reformation of married recusant 
 women, and administration of the oath of allegiance 
 to all civil, military, ecclesiastical and professional 
 persons.^ 
 
 Charles I succeeded James in 1625. Had he been left to 
 follow the dictates of his naturally easy-going temperament, 
 he would have been averse to persecution. Moreover, his 
 marriage to Henrietta Maria, a Catholic, would have 
 induced him to measures of justice towards those of her 
 communion. But the increasing insolence of the Puritan 
 fanatics, their constant accusations against him of favoring 
 Catholics, induced him to make at least a pretense of enforc- 
 ing the penal laws.^ 
 
 ''There is one thing," says Madden, ''that ought to be 
 borne in mind, in considering the persecution of the Cathohcs 
 in those times — all the Stuarts were averse to the furious 
 measures of their Parliaments against Catholics. They 
 thought, as Charles the First especially did, according to 
 Hume, 'that a little humanity was due by the nation to the 
 religion of their ancestors.' Extreme rage against Roman 
 Catholics was, from the first to last, the true characteristic 
 of Puritanism, we are told by the same historian, and that 
 rage was the only public interest that could be said to be 
 truly represented in any Parliament of James, his son, or his 
 grand-children." ^ 
 
 Such were the religious conditions about the time that 
 Lord Baltimore decided to found an entirely new colony 
 which should be a refuge for those of his own faith, which he 
 should build up from the foundations, and where his quasi- 
 royal rule would shelter Catholics from the operations of the 
 penal statutes and the persecutions of fanaticism.*" Nor did 
 he confine his plan of toleration to those of his own creed, for 
 
 ' Ibid. 
 
 ^ Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 19. 
 9 Madden, op. cit., p. 186. 
 *" Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 28. 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 21 
 
 Calvert brought over settlers without regard to their religious 
 opinions, making Maryland a home for all, a refuge to men 
 .who fled from the persecution alike of those who upheld the 
 Church of England and those who while fugitives from that 
 very persecution, were re-enacting it with fearful severity. ^^ 
 Aside from the fact that Maryland was the first of the pro- 
 prietary governments, the colony is especially remembered in 
 American history as the first in which religious toleration 
 had a place. 
 
 The Maryland Charter had been granted to CeciUus 
 Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, on June 20, 1632, and 
 he had at once taken measures to send an expedition to occupy 
 his newly acquired territory. To assemble sufficient men 
 for the project of colonization and to equip them with all 
 necessaries for the voyage and for habitation in so distant a 
 country as yet a wilderness occupied much time. Added to 
 this, the Virginians caused further delay by their opposition 
 to the Charter. The planters of Virginia were led to suppose 
 that the soil upon which they trod was to be transferred to 
 others. Accordingly a petition was drawn up in the name 
 of the planters, and in May, 1633, laid before the king, in 
 which they remonstrated ''that some Grants have lately been 
 obtained of a great proportion of Lands and Territorys 
 within the lymitts of the Colonic there being the places of 
 their Traffique, and so near to their habitations, as will give 
 a generall disheartning to the Planters if they be divided 
 into severall Governments, and a Barre to that Trade, which 
 they have long exercised towards their Supportation and 
 relief e under the confidence of his Majesty's royall and 
 gracious intentions towards them." ^^ 
 
 The king referred the consideration of this matter to the 
 Privy Council. On June 4, of the same year, the council 
 framed an order, in which they appointed the 28th of that 
 month, when the business should be heard and interested 
 persons might attend. This being done, it was ordered that 
 Lord Baltimore and those who championed the cause of the 
 
 " Shea, Maryland and the Controversies as to her Early History, in American 
 Catholic Quarterly Review, Vol. x, p. 658. 
 
 1^ /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 21. 
 
22 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 planters should meet and settle their controversy in a 
 friendly manner. Their propositions were to be committed 
 to writing and presented to their lordships on July 3, 1633. 
 This order was complied with and it was finally ruled that it 
 was fit 'Ho leave the Lord Baltimore to his Patent and the 
 other Partie to the course of Lawe according to their desire; 
 but for the preventing of further questions their Lordshipps 
 did also think fit and order that things standing as they doe, 
 the Planters on either side shall have free trafiique and com- 
 merce each with other, and that neither parte shall receive 
 any fugitive persons belonging to the other, nor doe any Act 
 which may drawe a warre from the Natives upon either of 
 them; and lastly that they shall sincerely enterteine all good 
 correspondence and assist each other on all occasions, in such 
 manner as becometh fellow-subjects and members of the 
 same state." ^^ However, this did by no means put an end 
 to the annoyance from Virginia which was destined to last for 
 many years and which was to reach its acute stage through the 
 action of William Clayborne, a name that fills a conspicuous 
 page in the early annals of the Maryland colony. The part 
 played by Thomas Cornwaleys in helping to settle difficulties 
 will be recounted in a subsequent chapter. 
 
 The summer and autumn of 1633 were spent in prepara- 
 tions on the part of Lord Baltimore for his new plantation. 
 Finding that his presence was required in England to look 
 after important business connected with his plantation, 
 Cecilius Calvert reluctantly gave up the leadership of the 
 enterprise, trusting "by the grace of God" to be in Maryland 
 in the following year.^^ It was imperative that he remain in 
 England since it was ever necessary to guard the privileges 
 of his Charter in the troubled years that en ued; and the 
 Proprietary of Maryland never saw his distant province. 
 He accordingly appointed his brother, Leonard Calvert, 
 to the governorship of Maryland, a younger brother, George 
 Calvert, accompanying the expedition. ^^ 
 
 13 Ibid. ; also Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 24. 
 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 134. 
 
 1^ Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 16. 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 23 
 
 Enemies of the colonial project were ever on the alert to 
 hinder Lord Baltimore's plans. Rumors were carried to the 
 Privy Council that he intended to carry nuns over into Spain 
 and also soldiers to serve the Spanish sovereign. When the 
 Council laughed at these stories, the Attorney-General was 
 induced "to make an information in the Star Chamber" that 
 the vessels carrying the colonists had departed without 
 proper custom house papers and in contempt of all authority, 
 the emigrants abusing the king's officers and refusing to take 
 the Oath of Allegiance. ^^ 
 
 On October 19, 1633, Lord Coke, the British Secretary of 
 State, informed Admiral Pennington that the Ark of which 
 Richard Lowe was master, carrying men for Lord Baltimore 
 to his new plantation, had sailed contrary to orders, the com- 
 pany not having taken the oath of allegiance. He was 
 accordingly instructed to have the Ark and the Dove brought 
 back. After the vessels were anchored near Gravesend, 
 they were visited by Edward Watkins, the London Searcher, 
 who administered the Oath of Allegiance to all whom he 
 found on board. 
 
 Upon his return from this duty Watkins made the fol- 
 lowing report to the Privy Council : 
 
 According to your Lordship's order of the 25th 
 day of this instant month of October, I have been 
 at Tillbury Hope where I found a ship and pinnace 
 belonging to the Right Honorable Cecil Lord Balti- 
 more, where I offered the oath of allegiance to all and 
 every the persons aboard, to the number of 128, who 
 took the same, and inquiring of the master of the ship 
 whether any more persons were to go the said voy- 
 age, he answered that some few others were shipped 
 who had forsaken the ship and given over the voyage, 
 by reason of the stay of said ships.^^ 
 
 That Thomas Cornwaleys took the oath of allegiance 
 seems beyond doubt. He was one of the most prominent 
 men of the expedition and in all probability on the Ark when 
 the oath was tendered. Whether it was lawful for a Catholic 
 
 ^* Browne, op. cit., p. 41; also Steiner, op. cil., p. 19. 
 ^' Scharf, History of Maryland, pp. 67-8. 
 
24 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 to take the Oath was a much mooted question at the time. 
 Those who held that the Oath contained matter objectionable 
 to Catholic belief had the better of the argument. However, 
 since the question was not finally decided, we cannot censure 
 Cornwaleys for taking the Oath when asked to do so.^^ 
 
 Whilst the ships were still lying in Cowes harbor at the 
 Isle of Wight, Lord Baltimore, on November 13, 1633, sent 
 a list of Instructions to Leonard Calvert, Jerome Hawley 
 and Thomas Cornwaleys, for the government of the expedi- 
 tion during the voyage and upon their arrival at their destina- 
 tion.^^ The letter reveals the wisdom of Cecihus Calvert. 
 That religious toleration was uppermost in his mind is 
 evident from the opening paragraph. The first "Instruc- 
 tion" is couched in this language: 
 
 I. Inpri: His Lopp requires his said Governor and 
 Commissioners that in their voyage to Mary Land 
 they be very careful to preserve unity and peace 
 amongst all the passengers on Shipp-board, and that 
 they suffer no scandall nor offence to be given to any 
 of the Protestants, whereby any just Complaint may 
 heereafter be made by them, in Virginea or in Eng- 
 land, and that for that end they Cause all Acts of 
 Romane Catholique Religion to be done as privately 
 as may be, and that they instruct all the Romane 
 Catholiques to be silent upon all occasions of dis- 
 course concerning matters of Religion; and that the 
 said Governor and Commissioners treate the 
 Protestants wth as much mildness and favor as 
 Justice will permit. And thi^ to be observed at 
 Land as well as at Sea. 
 
 The instructions that followed are not without interest. 
 Diligent inquiry was to be made among the sailors and pas- 
 sengers to ascertain what they knew concerning the plots of 
 his Lordship's adversaries to overthrow his voyage. They 
 should find out the names and actions of any concerned in 
 the plots together with all the circumstances. Any infor- 
 mation gotten on the voyage or after their arrival in the colony 
 
 1* For the text of the Oath of Allegiance, cf. Russell, op. cit., pp. 529-30. 
 For an account of the controversy on the Oath, cf. Dodd, Church History of 
 England, Vol. iv; also Catholic Encyclopedia, article "Oath of Allegiance," pp. 
 177 et seq. 
 
 '^ The complete letter is to be found in the Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 131 
 et seq. 
 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYLAND 25 
 
 was to be sent in writing to the Proprietary by a trusty 
 messenger ''in the next shipps that returne for England." 
 
 Upon their arrival at the coast of Virginia, they are not to 
 go to Jamestown or to Point Comfort ''unless they should be 
 forct unto it by some extremity of weather (which God 
 forbidd) for the preservation of their lives and goodes, and 
 that they find it altogether impossible otherwise to preserve 
 themselves." They were to inquire upon arrival if anyone 
 could guide them to the "Bay of Chesapeacke" and "Patta- 
 womeck River" in order to find a proper place for their 
 settlement. 
 
 Whilst engaged in looking for an appropriate location, they 
 were directed to send a trustworthy messenger, who should 
 be a member of the Church of England to carry the royal 
 instructions to the Governor and Council of Virginia. This 
 messenger was also to take a personal letter from Baltimore 
 to Sir John Harvey in which he expressed his regret that he 
 could not come personally to Maryland till the next year. 
 He desired a "good correspondency" with him and the Plan- 
 tation of Virginia. He furthermore assures Harvey of his 
 particular affection to his person by reason of the reports 
 of his worth, and for the kind letters Harvey sent the Pro- 
 prietary since he heard of Baltimore's intention to become his 
 neighbor. 
 
 With respect to Claiborne, Baltimore's policy was shrewd 
 and peaceable. As soon as convenient, a man of the Church 
 of England was to take a letter to him, notifying him of the 
 arrival of the colonists, and of the authority over the province 
 committed to Leonard Calvert, Hawley and Cornwaleys, and 
 inviting him to speak with them on business of importance. 
 If Claiborne agrees to meet the Maryland authorities he is 
 to be courteously received and to be assured of Baltimore's 
 willingness to give all the encouragement he can to proceed in 
 the plantation that he had settled within his Lordship's 
 precincts. In case Claiborne does not accept the invitation, 
 he is not to be disturbed for the first year, until the Pro- 
 prietary can give further instructions. Meanwhile the colon- 
 ists are to keep informed as to the progress of his plantation 
 and his designs, and furthermore his strength and his cor- 
 
26 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 respondence with Virginia. They are also to keep posted 
 as to the manner in which the Virginians view the Maryland 
 Charter. 
 
 The other portions of the letter concern the colonists them- 
 selves. Upon their choice of a plantation his Majesty's 
 letters patent are to be publicly read before the people, after 
 which, his Lordship's Commission was to be laid before them. 
 Either the Governor or one of the Commissioners is to declare 
 his Lordship's intentions which are: The honor of God to be 
 secured by the conversion of the savages to Christianity, the 
 extension of his Majesty's domains, to provide for the success 
 and comfort of those who have made great sacrifices to plant 
 the colony. Finally an oath of allegiance is to be adminis- 
 tered to all to give public assurance of their fidelity and 
 allegiance to his Majesty. 
 
 The colonists are to provide a suitable place for a fort. 
 Near this is to be built a house for the Governor or other 
 Commissioners with a church or chapel adjacent. The 
 planters are to receive a proper allotment of land whereon to 
 build their homes. These are to be built uniformly and as 
 near to the others as possible. Streets are to be marked off. 
 An account of this is to be sent to Lord Baltimore so that he 
 may be satisfied that justice had been done to every man. 
 Military protection is provided for by the training and 
 drilling of men at stated times. 
 
 *'In this interesting document," says Browne, -° ''we see 
 the principles of Baltimore's policy, and the germs of the 
 polity of Maryland. Religious toleration, 'unity and peace' 
 between members of different faiths, began on the Ark and 
 Dove. Whether we attribute it to wise pohcy, to the cogency 
 of circumstances, or to a liberal and tolerant spirit, in ad- 
 vance of his age, on the part of the proprietary, the fact 
 remains the same that equal justice and Christian charity to 
 both Catholic and Protestant was the key-note of his rule 
 . . . No one, we think, can read these instructions without 
 seeing that they proceed from a wise, just and generous 
 man." 
 
 *o Browne, op. cii., p. 57. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 The Settlement of Maryland 
 
 After the colonists left Gravesend, where they seem to 
 have been detained for several weeks, the Ark and the Dove 
 took on board among others two Jesuit Fathers, Andrew 
 White and John Altham. The personnel of the party being 
 complete with the arrival of these, we can now consider the 
 number of the passengers on the two ships. And this can- 
 not be stated with any estimate approaching exactitude. 
 Lord Baltimore wrote to Lord Wentworth before the depar- 
 ture that besides his two brothers, "very near twenty other 
 gentlemen of very good fashion" had accompanied the 
 expedition.^ 
 
 Cecilius Calvert in the "Conditions of Plantation" pub- 
 hshed in a work entitled A Relation of Maryland,'^ gives 
 a hst containing "The names of the Gentlemen adventurers 
 that are gone in person to this Plantation " : Leonard Calvert, 
 the Governor; George Calvert, his Lordship's brothers; 
 Jerome Hawley, Esq., Thomas Cornwaleys, Esq., the Com- 
 missioners; Richard Gerard, son to Sir Thomas Gerard, 
 Knight and Baronet; Edward Win tour, Frederick Wintour, 
 sonnes of the Lady Anne Wintour; Henry Wiseman, son to 
 Sir Thomas Wiseman, Knight; John Saunders, Edward 
 Cranfield, Henry Greene, Nicholas Ferfax, John Baxter, 
 Thomas Dorrell, Captaine John Hill, John Madcalfe, 
 William Saire." 
 
 Besides these gentlemen many others went along as is 
 evident. The London Searcher mentioned in the last 
 chapter reported that about one hundred and twenty-eight 
 had taken the Oath of Allegiance. This number was added 
 
 1 Radcliffe, Letters and Dispatches of Thomas Wentworth Strafford, Vol. i, 
 pp. 178-9. 
 
 2 A Relation of Maryland, edited by Francis L. Hawks, p. 65. This work 
 must not be confounded with Father White's Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, 
 nor with A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland {Calvert Papers, No. 
 III). In our notes, when referring to Father White's work, the word "Relatio " 
 is used, while in referring to the other, "A Brief Relation" is used. 
 
 27 
 
28 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 to when they left Gravesend so that it was brought up to 
 three hundred.^ 
 
 Richardson, in Side-Lights on Maryland History,"^ mentions 
 some of the party that travelled on the Ark, and others that 
 went on the Dove. On the former were the following: 
 Leonard Calvert; the Commissioners, Hawley and Corn- 
 waleys; Richard Lowe, Master of the Ark, John Bowlter, 
 Purser; Richard Edwards, Surgeon; on the latter: Captain 
 Wintour, commander of the Dove; Richard Orchard, Master 
 of the Dove; Samuel Lawson, mate; John Games, gunner; 
 Richard Kenton, boatswain; John Curke and Nicholas 
 Parrie, of the crew. 
 
 There are two accounts of the voyage of the ships to Mary- 
 land. One of these is the Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam 
 of Father White, written towards the end of April, 1634, to 
 the General of the Society of Jesus, Mutius Vitellesetis ; the 
 other is entitled A Brief e Relation of the Voyage unto Mary- 
 land authenticated by Leonard Calvert himself, and sent 
 to England on the return of the Ark.^ 
 
 On the twenty-second of the month of November, 
 in the year 1633, being St. Cecilia's Day (Friday), we 
 set sail from Cowes, in the Isle of Wight . . . after 
 committing the principal parts of the ship to the 
 protection of God especially, and of his most Holy 
 Mother, and St. Ignatius, and all the guardian angels 
 of Maryland.^ 
 
 The voyagers soon encountered stormy weather in which 
 the Dove was driven from her sister-ship and was not seen 
 again for six weeks, the crew of the Ark thinking all the while 
 that "shee had assuredly beene foundered and lost in those 
 huge seas," Sweeping around by the Barbadoes and other 
 West India Islands, the two vessels which had joined com- 
 pany, glided peacefully at last between the capes into the 
 bay which Spanish navigators named in honor of the Mother 
 
 ' Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 72; also Browne, George and 
 Cecilius Calvert, p. 45. 
 
 * Pages 8-9. 
 
 * The Calvert Papers, No. iii, pp. 26 et seq. 
 
 * A Brief Relation, p. 28. 
 
THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 29 
 
 of God, but which was to bear the Indian name of Chesa- 
 peake.^ 
 
 Leonard Calvert, writing to Sir Richard Lechford,^ states 
 that they arrived in Virginia on February 27, where they 
 remained for eight or nine days to land some passengers and 
 to deliver the King's letters to Governor Harvey. The 
 Relation^ confesses that the landing was ''much contrary" 
 to the Lord Proprietary's instructions. The reason for so 
 doing is not apparent unless it be that they had some presage 
 that the attitude of the Virginians was not so hostile as 
 anticipated by Cecilius Calvert. Harvey received them 
 very courteously though against the will of his council. 
 The Relation also states that Captain Claiborne was there 
 from whom they understood that the Indians were prepared 
 to resist the colonists, having heard that six Spanish ships 
 were coming to destroy them. The author then remarks 
 that ''the rumour was most like to have begunne from 
 himselfe." '"> 
 
 Calvert now proceeded up the bay to the territory em- 
 braced within his Charter. Near the Island of St. Clement 
 they came to anchor. "On the day of the Annunciation of 
 the Most Holy Virgin Mary in the year 1634," writes 
 Father White, "we celebrated the mass for the first time, on 
 this island. This had never been done before in this part of 
 the world. After we had completed the sacrifice, we took 
 upon our shoulders a great cross, which we had hewn out of a 
 tree, and advancing in order to the appointed place, with the 
 assistance of the Governor and his associates and the other 
 Catholics, we erected a trophy to Christ the Saviour, humbly 
 reciting on our bended knees, the Litanies of the Sacred 
 Cross, with great emotion." ^^ 
 
 With what fervor Cornwaleys and his associates must 
 have assisted at the celebration of the holy Sacrifice ! Many 
 
 ^ Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States, Vol. i, p. 41. 
 
 * Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 20. 
 
 ^ A Brief Relation, p. 38. 
 1" Ibid. 
 
 " Relatio, p. 33. The Litany of the Holy Cross is to be found in The 
 Catholic World, Vol. 39, p. 4L 
 
30 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 a prayer went up to heaven for the success of their colonial 
 project. With enthusiasm they erected the sign of salvation 
 to declare to the bystanders and to posterity as well, in this 
 act, that Christ was to reign in Maryland. It was to remain 
 a sign of good will towards all. Religious toleration was to 
 find a realization. The oppressed in conscience were here to 
 find a refuge. Here was erected the first altar to religious 
 liberty on this continent; and the fires first kindled on it 
 ascended to heaven amid the blessings of the savage. ^^ 
 
 With the rehgious rites just mentioned began the acts 
 of the settlers in their own land. The Governor's next step 
 was to establish friendly relations with the tribes of the 
 locality. Hearing that the chief of Piscataway had a sort of 
 suzerainty over the other Indians, he resolved to meet him 
 to declare to him the objects of his expedition. Sailing up 
 the Potomac he first came to a town, where a werowance, or 
 king, lived. This chief was but a child, and his uncle Archichu 
 acted as regent. Archichu received them with marks of 
 kindness, and at their departure invited them to visit him 
 again. ^3 
 
 Leaving these hospitable Indians, Leonard Calvert pro- 
 ceeded to Piscataway, the seat of the emperor, where five 
 hundred bowmen came to meet them at the water side. The 
 chieftain came on board the ship, where he was kindly 
 received. Being assured of the friendly intentions of the 
 colonists, he gave them leave to settle wherever they 
 pleased. ^'' On this occasion, Captain Henry Fleete, an Eng- 
 lishman, who lived among the Indians and was conversant 
 with their language, acted as Calvert's interpreter.^^ 
 
 The Indians gradually lost their fear and awe of the 
 colonists once they were convinced of their friendly attitude 
 
 ^^ McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of Maryland, p. 198. 
 
 " A Brief Relation, p. 40. 
 
 » Ibid. 
 
 *^ Captain Fleete came to Virginia at an early age in life. He was captured 
 by the Indians on the Potomac in 1623; remained a captive until 1627, during 
 which time he became familiar with the Indian tongue. Later he became an 
 interpreter, trader and legislator in Maryland. He finally settled at Fleet's 
 Bay in Lancaster County, Virginia, and represented the County in the House of 
 Burgesses, 1652. The date of his death is not recorded. Cf. Brown, Genesis 
 of the United States, Vol. ii, p. 892. 
 
THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 31 
 
 towards them. In the quaint language of the period, the 
 Relation chronicles that "the Indians began to lose their 
 feare and come . . . sometimes aboard our shipp, wonder- 
 ing where that tree should grow, out of which so great a 
 canow should be hewen, supposing it all of one piece, as 
 their canows used to be, they trembled to heare our ordinance 
 thinking them fearefuller then any thunder they had ever 
 heard." ^"^ 
 
 Calvert, not finding a suitable location for a town, decided, 
 upon his return to St. Clement's, to follow Fleete's advice 
 and drop some nine leagues further down the Potomac to 
 look for a site. Fleete was a very capable guide owing to his 
 knowledge of the place and on account of his favor with the 
 aborigines. The Governor had some apprehensions as to 
 Fleete's attitude toward his colonial scheme, consequently he 
 offered him a portion of the beaver trade in order to win his 
 good- will. Accepting the offer, Fleete led Calvert's party to 
 ''a most convenient harbour, and pleasant Countrey lyinge 
 on each side of it, with many large fields of excellent land 
 cleared from all wood." ^^ This place was on a river now 
 known as the St. Mary's, four or five leagues from the mouth 
 of the Potomac, and was known as the town of Yoacomico. 
 
 Calvert was greatly pleased with the place and resolved 
 upon an interview with the Indian chief. The "king of 
 Yoacomaco" was accordingly offered "axes, hoes, cloth and 
 hatchets" for the place. Accepting these, it was agreed that 
 the colonists might live on one part of the town, the Indians 
 surrendering to them their houses and some corn which they 
 had planted. At the end of the harvest the savages were to 
 give over the other portion of the village. The two parties 
 also entered into a treaty to live together in peace and 
 harmony as long as they were neighbors. ^^ 
 
 Thirty miles of ground were secured from the Indians at 
 this time, and the high-sounding name of Augusta Carolina 
 
 16 Page 41. 
 
 1' Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 21. 
 
 1* A Brief Relation, p. 41. 
 
32 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 was given to it. This name was not much used however, and 
 was soon superseded by the name of St. Mary's County. The 
 town itself was given the name of St. Mary's. ^^ 
 
 After the landing at St. Mary's fortifications were soon 
 erected ''sufficient to defend against any such weake enemies 
 as we have reason to expect here. ' ' ^° Streeter is of the opinion 
 that this work was entrusted to Thomas Cornwaleys, the 
 "Captain." In fact, the intrepidity and military skill of 
 Cornwaleys was such that he was at once made the leader of 
 the armed forces of the colony, and his individuality was so 
 distinctly established that, though there were others in the 
 province who bore the same military title, it was only in 
 alluding to him in particular that the title ''the Captain" was 
 used.-^ 
 
 Mindful of Cecihus Calvert's Instructions that they 
 received before their departure from England, a ceremony 
 was arranged in which the Charter was read, together with 
 the Proprietary's commission. Then was also announced the 
 intention of Calvert in founding the province, the conversion 
 of the savages to Christianity, to extend the King's domin- 
 ions, and to do all that can be done for the good of those who 
 had given themselves and their fortunes to the project. The 
 colonists also pledged their allegiance to the crown on this 
 occasion. 22 
 
 The settlers now set about building their houses. First 
 in order was the building of a suitable abode for the Governor. 
 Father White was not content to wait till a chapel was built, 
 but immediately converted an Indian's habitation into a 
 chapel which he dedicated to the service of God as the first 
 chapel in Maryland.^^ The planters built their houses close 
 to one another, on regular streets, with gardens back of 
 them. In accordance with the conditions of plantation 
 which provided "that any Englishman who transported 
 
 '^ Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 35. 
 
 2" Calvert Papers, No. in, p. 21. 
 
 21 Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, pp. 125-6. 
 
 « Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 136. 
 
 23 Relatio, p. 39. 
 
THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 33 
 
 himself, properly equipped, which equipment was duly 
 itemized and with transportation charges estimated at 
 twenty pounds, should receive for himself in freehold estate 
 one hundred acres, with the same amount for his wife, fifty 
 acres for each child above sixteen years of age, and fifty 
 acres for each woman servant under the age of forty years, 
 paying a quit-rent of twelve pence in the commodities of the 
 country for every fifty acres. For each male servant be- 
 tween the ages of sixteen and fifty years so transported, one 
 hundred acres should be given on like conditions, while for 
 every five men transported, the adventurer received not five 
 hundred, but one thousand acres, to be erected into a manor 
 with all the privileges of the Enghsh ones." -^ 
 
 In the meantime the colonists hved on the most friendly 
 terms with the Indians. They hunted together and enjoyed 
 the fruit of the chase. The Indian women instructed the 
 wives of the planters in the methods of cooking products of 
 the soil with which the English were not familiar. The 
 Indians cooperated with the colonists since both had to fear 
 the incursions of the northern tribes who were not so well 
 disposed and who were to give the colonists trouble of which 
 we shall speak in a later chapter. 
 
 ^* Steiner, op. cit., pp. 40-1. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 CORNWALEYS AND KeNT IsLAND 
 
 Affairs in the infant colony seemed to have reached a stage 
 when the colonists could set about undisturbed to carry out 
 the lofty purposes for which they had left the shores of their 
 native land. They were free from Indian hostilities and, 
 under the wise leadership of Leonard Calvert, success in their 
 colonial enterprise was assured. Serious trouble, however, 
 was to arise in a quarter from which they might have looked 
 for nothing else than friendship and cooperation. 
 
 The animosity of the Virginians seemed to increase as the 
 prosperity of the Maryland colony became more assured. 
 The causes of Virginia's irritation were three — they were 
 exasperated that the Maryland Charter comprised land that 
 had once been included in their own; they looked with dis- 
 trust and dislike on what they were pleased to call a popish 
 settlement; and they were aggrieved that the Marylanders 
 had the privilege of trade in foreign markets, which they did 
 not enjoy. ^ 
 
 To lodge a complaint on any of these scores seemed futile 
 to them at the time. Should they be able to find a flaw in 
 the Charter of Lord Baltimore, they thought that something 
 might be done. We have seen how they registered an 
 objection with the Privy Council against the Charter, but 
 with no success. Despite this fact, they did not lose heart. 
 Claiborne's claim to Kent Island was to become the bone of 
 contention. As Browne remarks, ''The trivial question 
 whether a small and unprofitable trading-post should be held 
 mediately or immediately under the King, served as the 
 rallying-point for all the animosities of a generation ; and the 
 territorial quarrel of Virginia and Maryland, the religious 
 quarrel of Puritan and Catholic, and the political quarrel of 
 Royalist and Roundhead, all gathered around the claim of 
 Claiborne." ^ 
 
 ^ Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 27. 
 2 Ibid., p. 28. 
 
 34 
 
CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 35 
 
 Claiborne had established his trading-post on Kent Island 
 in the Chesapeake, but did not receive any grant of land or 
 attempt to cultivate the soil. The undertaking was un- 
 prosperous and a quarrel arose between him and Cloberry & 
 Company, merchants of London, who financed Claiborne's 
 trading venture, each casting the blame on the other. The 
 Londoners asked Lord Baltimore for a grant of the land, 
 intending to oust Claiborne. Calvert did not grant this 
 request as he was desirous of gaining the good will of Clai- 
 borne, if possible, to make a friend of one who might become 
 a valuable member of his infant colony.^ 
 
 Governor Calvert was soon to find out that Claiborne was 
 not to be conciliated. According to his instruction, the 
 Governor informed Claiborne that Kent Island was in Mary- 
 land territory. The latter (who did not reside on the Island 
 but in Virginia) rose up in the council and asked what he was 
 to do. The assembly informed him that they saw no reason 
 why the island should be given up. They advised him to do 
 nothing for the present and recommended that a good under- 
 standing should be kept up with the Maryland colonists. 
 Governor Harvey tried to do all in his power to preserve 
 friendly relations and even received orders to this effect from 
 the King, But Harvey could do httle since a majority in 
 council were ready to thwart every attempt to carry out these 
 orders.^ 
 
 On the 4th of September, 1634, Lord Baltimore directed a 
 set of new instructions ''to his brother, Leonard Calvert, and 
 others, his Lordship's Commissioners for the Government of 
 Mariland," of which, the eighth article alone is extant. It 
 reads as follows: 
 
 That if possibly they can, without notable prejudice 
 to their owne Collony, for want of sufficient strength 
 to defend themselves, and that Capt. William 
 Claiborne, at the arrivall of these Instructions, con- 
 tinue his unlawfull courses and have not submitted 
 
 ^ Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 63, 
 * Ibid., p. 64. 
 
36 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 himself unto his Lordship's Patent, they seize upon 
 his person and detaine him close prisoner at St. 
 Maries, upon that accusation against him in Capt. 
 Fleete's examination, and that other they have since 
 found against him; for which, his Lordship con- 
 ceiveth by his former behaviors there will not be 
 wanting cause enough on his parte. That they like- 
 wise take possession if they can, of his Plantation, 
 in the Isle of Kent, till upon notice given thereof, to 
 his Lordship, they have further directions what to 
 do with him.^ 
 
 Before these instructions reached the colony, the Governor 
 and Commissioners of Maryland lodged a complaint with the 
 Governor and Council of Virginia charging Claiborne ''with 
 evil practises with the Indians, to the subversion of both 
 colonies." On December 8th, the Commissioners were 
 prepared to substantiate their charges. Their witnesses 
 being examined at James City, the findings were transmitted 
 to England. Claiborne could not be dealt with according to 
 Baltimore's instructions owing to the strong sentiment in his 
 favor in Virginia and that same colony's opposition to Mary- 
 land.^ 
 
 "Good correspondency" between the two colonies of 
 Maryland and Virginia could not last long when one of the 
 parties was bent on making trouble. The planters of 
 Baltimore's palatinate soon found that the Indians were not 
 as hospitable and friendly as was their wont. The cause was 
 laid by Fleete at Claiborne's door. He accused the latter of 
 trying to persuade the Indians that the Marylanders were not 
 Englishmen but Spaniards bent upon the destruction of the 
 English. One hesitates to believe that Claiborne would have 
 instigated the Indians against men of his own race; and in 
 justice to him it must be stated that when the Indians were 
 questioned on the matter, it was imputed to Fleete that he 
 had prevaricated. The affair was, however, reported to Lord 
 Baltimore. Calvert sent out instructions that Claiborne was 
 to be taken prisoner in case he continued hostilities, and 
 possession was to be taken of Kent Island.^ 
 
 * Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 111. 
 
 6/Wd., pp. 111-2. 
 
 ' Browne, Maryland, etc., p. 32. 
 
COENWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 37 
 
 Meanwhile the first session of the Assembly of Maryland 
 was held on February 26, 1635, at which Thomas Corn- 
 waleys was no doubt present. The acts of this Assembly 
 with the exception of one have not come down to us. But, 
 either as a result of action taken at its sessions or owing to the 
 deliberation of the Commissioners, it was decided to have 
 recourse to stringent measures to stop the unlicensed trading 
 with the Indians within Maryland territory without a permit 
 from the Governor. 
 
 On March 26, 1635, Claiborne sent Thomas Smith in the 
 pinnace Longtail to trade for corn and furs. Smith alleged 
 that he had letters patent from the King for Claiborne to 
 trade in the colonies of America. On the 4th of April he 
 arrived at Mattapany, on the Patuxent River, to trade in the 
 neighborhood of St. Mary's. The next day he was met by 
 Capt. Fleete and Capt. Humber who demanded his license to 
 trade. On presenting his papers, Fleete examined the same 
 and said that they did not permit Claiborne to trade further 
 than the Isle of Kent. Humber asserted that the permit was 
 false. The two Captains thereupon took Smith and brought 
 him to St. Mary's before Cornwaleys who was acting as 
 deputy in the absence of Leonard Calvert. When Smith 
 complained that his ship was seized, Cornwaleys told him 
 that Fleete and Humber had done no more than they were 
 ordered to do, namely, to stop all vessels they should find 
 trading in the Province. Cornwaleys further stated that 
 Smith's credentials were mere forgeries and at any rate 
 covered merely Kent Island. After two days, Calvert 
 returned and sent for Smith and his party at Cornwaley's 
 house. The Governor decided to keep the vessel. He 
 refused to allow the men to return to Kent Island though they 
 might go to Virginia or to England. Smith refused the 
 permission and said that the Kent Islanders were in need of 
 corn. Calvert answered that this could not be. After 
 waiting for four or five days without prospect of the release 
 of the pinnace. Smith asked for a boat with which to return 
 home. This request was denied but Calvert allowed him to 
 
38 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 arrange with the Indians for transportation and the Islanders 
 were sent away with only one gun, the property of Smith, and 
 without victuals.^ 
 
 To retaliate for the loss of the Longtail, Claiborne im- 
 mediately granted a warrant to Lieutenant Ratcliffe Warren 
 to seize and capture any of the pinnaces or other vessels 
 belonging to the government of St. Mary's. An armed boat 
 was fitted out, manned with about thirty men from Kent 
 Island under Warren's command. When Calvert heard of 
 this, he equipped two vessels and sent them out under com- 
 mand of Captain Thomas Cornwaleys. The two pinnaces 
 were known as the St. Margaret and the St. Helen. Corn- 
 waleys was ordered to proceed to Kent to put down the rising 
 rebellion. During a cruise in the bay some of Claiborne's 
 vessels were found trading without license. They were 
 accordingly seized as lawful prizes. 
 
 On the 23rd of April, 1635, an encounter took place 
 between Warren's vessel, the Cockatrice and Cornwaleys' 
 ships. The hostile craft met in the Pocomoke River. Here 
 was fought the first naval battle upon the inland waters of 
 America.^ In the combat that followed, both sides suffered 
 the loss of life. The casualty list comprises the following 
 who were killed: William Ashmore, of Cornwaleys' party; 
 Lieutenant Warren, John Belson, William Dawson and three 
 others, of Claiborne's company.^" 
 
 In the Proceedings of the Assembly, ^^ we find the following 
 account of this event. 
 
 then was the house moved by the Attorney to 
 enquire of the death of william Ashmore, Ratcliffe 
 warren, John Bellson, & william dawson, and the 
 house having heard the evidence of Cyprian Through- 
 good, John nevill, Cuthbert ffenwich & Edward ffleete 
 did find that the said Ratcliffe warren, John Bellson, 
 william dawson with divers others did assault the 
 vessells of Capt. Thomas Cornwaleys & his company 
 feloniously and as pyrates & robbers to take the said 
 
 * Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 141 et seq. 
 
 ^ Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 109. 
 '" Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 58. 
 " / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 17. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 39 
 
 vessels; and did discharge divers peices charged with 
 bulletts & shott against the said Thomas Corn- 
 waleys & his company; wherevpon & after such as- 
 sault made the said Thomas Cornwaleys and his 
 company in defence of themselved & safegard of their 
 lives not being able to flie further from them after 
 warning given to the assailants to desist from 
 assaulting them at their owne perill, did discharge 
 some gunnes vpon the said Ratcliffe warren and his 
 company; of wch. shotts the said Ratcliff warren 
 John Bellson, and william dawson died; and so they 
 find that the said Tho: Cornwaleys & his company 
 did lawfully & in their owne necessary defence kill 
 the said Ratcliff warren John Bellson and william 
 dawson; and doe acquitt the said Thomas Corn- 
 waleys & his company of the death of the said 
 Ratcliff warren John Bellson and william dawson. 
 
 and they further find that the said Ratcliff warren, 
 and his company did discharge their gunnes against 
 the said Thomas Cornwaleys and his company and 
 did kill the said william Ashmore being one of the 
 company of the said Thomas Cornwaleys; as felons 
 pyrates, and murthers. 
 
 It does not appear that the surviving comrades of Warren 
 were taken prisoners by Cornwaleys; — they probably re- 
 turned with their wounded and dead to the Island of Kent, 
 while he and his party continued their cruise down the bay.^^ 
 
 On May 10, the Captain encountered, in the Great 
 Wicomoco River, which was, in fact, within the boundaries of 
 Virginia, another boat belonging to Kent Island, commanded 
 by Smith, with which there was some collision, though no 
 bloodshed ensued. After this, Cornwaleys' expedition re- 
 turned to St. Mary's. 13 
 
 The attempt against Kent Island on the part of Corn- 
 waleys was only partially successful. Claiborne succeeded 
 in obtaining assistance in Virginia, where Harvey's govern- 
 ment had been superseded by another, and, though much 
 crippled by the action of the Marylanders, by his personal 
 influence and effort, without aid from his partners in London, 
 he succeeded for nearly three years in maintaining himself 
 
 ^^ Streeter, op. cit., p. 129. 
 " Ibid. 
 
40 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 upon the Island, and in prosecuting an uncertain traffic with 
 the natives, who were, in general, friendly towards him.^^ 
 
 In May, 1637, a letter was directed by the King to the 
 Commissioners for Foreign Plantations and all other royal 
 officers. In this document were reviewed the grants of 
 Avalon, in Newfoundland, and Maryland to the Lords 
 Baltimore and the transportation of colonies to each province. 
 Owing to the danger that some patents may be issued pre- 
 judicial to Lord Baltimore's patents, Charles I, strictly 
 orders that all applications for grants of land near either 
 province be delayed, until the Proprietary should be notified. 
 The King also announces his intention not to issue any writ 
 for the overthrow of either the Charters of Avalon or Mary- 
 land.i-^ 
 
 Late in the year 1636, Captain George Evelin arrived at 
 Kent Island as agent and commander of the island. Evelin 
 soon became a convert to the justice of Lord Baltimore's 
 claims in regard to that place. The favorable disposition of 
 the King, the complaisance of Evelin and the determination 
 of the Proprietary to press matters soon determined the 
 Governor to take decisive steps to subdue Kent Island and to 
 put an end to the long-standing trouble that disturbed the 
 peace and prosperity of his colonial domains. 
 
 In November 1637, Governor Calvert wrote a letter to the. 
 inhabitants of Kent Island in which he promised a general 
 pardon for past offenses if they would cease their opposition 
 and submit to his government. He furthermore told them 
 that he would appoint as their commander any one whom 
 they would choose from among their number. Due to the 
 influence of a brother-in-law of Claiborne, John Butler, and 
 Thomas Smith, the islanders refused the offer. Hereupon 
 Calvert appointed Evelin. Leonard Calvert now took twenty 
 musketeers from St. Mary's under command of Capt. Corn- 
 waleys. They intended to seize Butler and Smith and bring 
 the rest to a better state of mind. Owing to adverse 
 
 "/bid., p. 131. 
 
 16 HI — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 55; also Steiner, op. cit., p. 71. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 41 
 
 weather conditions, Calvert was forced to abandon the 
 expedition after remaining out a week.^*^ Cornwaleys does 
 not seem to have been in full harmony with Calvert on this 
 occasion. This conclusion may be drawn from the opening 
 lines of a letter of Cornwaleys to Cecihus Calvert, on April 
 16, 1638. The Captain writes: 
 
 I receaued yr. Letr. dated the 25: of May last for 
 wch. and yr therein nobly proffered favoures, I should 
 before this time haue retourned humble thanks, had 
 I not hoped in person toe haue kist yr. hands this 
 yeere in England. But yr. Lops. Service and the 
 pretended Good of Maryland, would not permit mee 
 toe provide for my Journy, nor yet toe follow my 
 owne affayres when my best diligence had beene 
 most vrgently needefull for the Accomodating of 
 them toe my best Ad vantage. ^^ 
 
 In virtue of a commission dated December 30, 1637, 
 directed to him at Kent Island, Captain Evehn was appointed 
 Commander of the Island and its inhabitants, an office he 
 held before from Cloberry & Co. He was constituted with 
 authority to choose six or more efficient men of the place as 
 his counsel. He was empowered to call a Court as often as 
 occasion demanded and to determine any civil case in which 
 not more than ten pounds sterling was involved in damages 
 or demands, criminal cases to be decided to the extent of the 
 jurisdiction of any justice of the peace in England, not 
 extending to life and member. For the execution of justice 
 and the conservation of the peace, he could appoint all 
 necessary officers who were to receive the same fee as the 
 officers of the same standing in Virginia. ^^ 
 
 After Evelin had received this commission, he came to 
 Kent Island in company with Zachary Mottershead of Mary- 
 land, who brought with him the Patent of Maryland which 
 was to be read to them. John Butler then demanded if 
 Evelin were an agent for Cloberry & Co., or for the Mary- 
 landers. Evehn answered that he was agent for both. He 
 
 i« Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 182. 
 
 1' Steiner, op. cit., p. 71 (note). This letter is to be found in Calvert Papers, 
 No. I, p. 169. 
 
 18 III — Archives of Maryland, p. 59. 
 
42 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 further stated that he himself had spoken against the Mary- 
 land Charter and held Claiborne's commission ''firm and 
 good against the same, and that the Marylanders had nothing 
 to doe with the He of Kent." He also declared that he had 
 seen the Patent of Lord Baltimore and recognized his rights 
 "that he was formerly mistaken and overseene as he per- 
 ceived now they were, but he himselfe now understood it 
 better." ^^ He then told them that it was better to live under 
 Lord Baltimore's government and enjoy the advantages of 
 trade which they could not enjoy under Virginia. Clai- 
 borne's patent, he assured them, gave him hcense to trade in 
 Nova Scotia and New England but not in the Chesapeake.-" 
 The same day that Leonard Calvert issued his commission 
 to Evehn, Thomas Cornwaleys was given the following 
 license to trade: 
 
 Know all persons whom it concerneth, that I have 
 & hereby give free Liberty and License to Thomas 
 Cornwallis Esqr: and one of the Council of this 
 Province to trade with any the Indians of this 
 Province for corne or Roanoke or peake, and the 
 same to utter and SeU to any of the Inhabitants of 
 this Province, and no further or otherwise, this 
 License to endure until I shall signifie the Contrary. 
 In Witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and 
 Seal this 30th of December 1637. 
 
 Leonard Calvert.^^ 
 
 On February 17, 1637, a proclamation was issued signed 
 by Leonard Calvert, Jerome Hawley and John Lewger for an 
 expedition to the Isle of Kent. In the document it is stated 
 that the inhabitants had committed many piracies, in- 
 solences, mutinies and contempts against the government. 
 Warrants were issued against malefactors which were dis- 
 regarded. Even prisoners were forcibly rescued from the 
 hands of the law by the people. Worst of all, they were 
 
 19 V— Archives of Maryland, Council, pp. 185, 203, 209, 218. 
 
 2" Ibid., pp. 196, 203, 218. Calvert's commission is dated in the month of 
 December. The Archives state that this event took place in November. 
 Furthermore the commission is also referred to as having been given in 
 November. Cf. Letter of Leonard Calvert to his brother, in Calvert Papers, 
 No. I, p. 182. 
 
 21 /// — Archives, p. 57. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND KENT ISLAND 43 
 
 conspiring with the Indians against the Marylanders. It was 
 therefore decided that the Governor sail against them with a 
 sufficient number of armed men under the leadership of 
 Captain Cornwaleys to reduce the inhabitants to subjection 
 by martial law and even to punish the offenders by death if 
 need be.^^ 
 
 A letter of Leonard Calvert to the Proprietary dated April 
 25, 1638, describes the taking of Kent Island.^^ He states 
 that thirty choice musketeers formed the mihtary party. 
 Smith and Boteler were taken prisoner. Calvert then 
 issued a proclamation of a general amnesty for all the in- 
 habitants provided they submitted to the Maryland govern- 
 ment within twenty-four hours. This the prople consented 
 to do. Calvert thereupon assured them of his intention to 
 do all that he could for their well-being, provided they 
 deserved such treatment. Whilst at the Island, the 
 Governor held court and heard divers cases between the 
 settlers. At the end of its session, he assembled the inhabi- 
 tants to make choice of their delegates to the Assembly 
 which was to be held at St. Mary's for the making of laws- 
 Before Calvert departed he told the islanders that any man 
 that held or wished to acquire land should take out a patent 
 for the same under the seal of the Province. He promised 
 to come the next summer with Mr. Lewger who was to 
 survey the land and give them the grants reserving only such 
 rents and services to the Proprietary as the law of the 
 province should appoint. 
 
 At a session of the Assembly on March 14, 1637, an Act 
 of Attainder against Wilham Claiborne was introduced. 
 The bill for the same w^as read a second time on the follow- 
 ing day, and on March 16 [the bill] was passed.-"* As a 
 result, all the property of Claiborne within the Province 
 became forfeited to the Lord Proprietor.-^ 
 
 On March 14, 1637, began the trial of Thomas Smith. He 
 was indicted on a charge of piracy. After hearing the evi- 
 
 22 Ibid., p. 64. 
 
 23 Calvert Papers, No. I, pp. 182 et seq. 
 2< I— Archives, pp. 16, 18, 21. 
 
 25 Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 64. 
 
44 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 dence in the case, he was found guilty. The President then 
 pronounced sentence in the name of all the freemen. It 
 read: 
 
 Thomas Smith you have been indicted of felony 
 and pyracie, to your indictmt. you have pleaded not 
 guilty, and you have beene tried by the ffreemen in 
 this general! Assembly, who have found you guilty, 
 and pronounce this sentence upon you, that you 
 shall be carried from hence to the place from whence 
 you came, and thence to the place of exequution, and 
 shalbe there hanged by the neck till you be dead; and 
 that all your lands goods & chattels shalbe forfeited 
 to the Lord Proprietr., saving that your wife shall 
 have her dower. And so God have mercy vpon your 
 soule.^^ 
 
 Then the prisoner demanded his clergy. Since the assist- 
 ance of ministers of religion to attend the condemned was 
 denied in certain crimes, the President answered that this 
 could not be allowed in this case, and if it might, yet it was 
 now too late after judgment.-^ Since no record appears after 
 this transaction in regard to Smith, it is not certain what his 
 final fate was though it is probable that he was executed in 
 accordance with the sentence.-^ With regard to Boteler, he 
 was not tried, as Calvert hoped, by showing him favor, to 
 win him and to make of him, if possible, a good member of 
 his colony and, if his good disposition toward the Proprietary 
 warranted it, to give him the command of the Isle of Kent.^^ 
 Boteler seems to have come up to the expectations of Calvert 
 as he was later appointed to the command of the militia of 
 the Island. This confidence was not misplaced. He remained 
 faithful to the government, and held various offices of trust 
 in the province until his death in 1642.^" 
 
 The Kent islanders, who were a peaceful folk, accepted the 
 situation very cheerfully, had their lands, to which they had 
 as yet no title, confirmed to them, and in all ways deported 
 themselves as good citizens.^^ 
 
 ^^ / — Archives, pp. 16 and 17. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 17. 
 
 ^* Boziman, op. cit., p. 65 (note). 
 
 23 Calverl Papers, No. i, p. 186. 
 
 ^^ Browne, G. and C. Calvert, p. 82. 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 
 
 From the events related in the preceding chapter in which 
 Captain Cornwaleys played so conspicuous a part, one is led 
 to believe that his services to the Maryland colony were 
 chiefly of a military nature. Were the records of those early 
 days still in existence, they would, no doubt, tell us many 
 interesting facts relating to Cornwaleys' career as a Com- 
 missioner. In this capacity, he must often have been called 
 upon to aid and counsel Governor Calvert in his projects 
 for the prosperity of the Palatinate. Cornwaleys' whole- 
 hearted zeal for the welfare of the colonists that was brought 
 into play in subsequent days, must surely have been in 
 evidence in the first years of Maryland when the services of ^ 
 
 just such a man were so valuable and indispensable. 
 
 Cornwaleys' expedition to Kent Island was the last public 
 service performed by him in his capacity of Commissioner. 
 Before the opening of the General Assembly of 1638, a new 
 commission was brought by Secretary Lewger. Captain 
 Cornwaleys was retained as an adviser of the executive, but 
 under the title of Councillor, in conjunction with Hawley and 
 Lewger.^ 
 
 The General Assembly of 1638 is the first of which we have 
 any record. However, this was not the first Assembly held. 
 An Assembly was held on February 26, 1635, just eleven 
 months after the colonists had taken possession of their new 
 territory. Its proceedings would without doubt form a most 
 interesting chapter in the early annals of Maryland, but 
 unfortunately no account remains to tell the story. The 
 very fact of its being held would have been lost to us had it 
 not been for a casual reference to one of its acts in the pro- 
 ceedings of the Assembly held on March 24, 1637: "whereas 
 by an Act of General Assembhe held at St Maries on the six 
 and twentieth day of Febry 1634 among other wholesome 
 
 ^ Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. ii, p. 46. 
 
 45 
 
46 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 lawes and ordinances then made and provided for the welfare 
 of this Province, it was enacted, that the Offenders in all 
 murthers and felonies should suffer such paines, losses and 
 forfeitures as they should or ought to have suffered in the like 
 crimes in England." ^ 
 
 The Second General Assembly of Maryland was held at St. 
 Mary's and opened on the 25th of January, 1637. The free- 
 men of the Province had received due notice to repair to the 
 Assembly, either personally or through their representatives. 
 According to Streeter,^ some attempts at civil division had 
 already been made in the colony. All the settlements were 
 regarded as forming the County of St. Mary's; and different 
 localities, as they became sufficiently populous, were desig- 
 nated hundreds. St. Mary's Hundred included the dwellings 
 and plantations within the vicinity of the town of that name; 
 St. George's Hundred, embraced the settlers that resided on 
 the west bank of the river of the same name; Mattapanient 
 was the name of a settlement, not yet numerous, on the 
 Patuxent River, and not yet dignified by the designation of a 
 Hundred. Kent Island was also represented.^ 
 
 There does not seem to have been any inclination on the 
 part of the people to delegate any one individual to act for 
 them through a public election, but many of the freemen, 
 not finding it convenient to attend, gave a proxy to some 
 member to act for them, so that one person in fact represented 
 a considerable number of freemen, and the result was the 
 same as though all in whose name he acted had united to 
 choose him their burgess.^ "During the sessions of this 
 Assembly," says Steiner,^ "sixty-four different persons were 
 present and twenty-six more freemen are mentioned, who 
 did not appear." The sessions were presided over by 
 Leonard Calvert, who is designated as "The Lieutenant 
 General" or as "The President." The name of Captain 
 
 ^ / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 23. 
 
 ^ Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, pp. 10-11. 
 
 < Ibid. 
 
 «■ Ibid., p. 13. 
 
 * Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 76. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 47 
 
 Thomas Cornwaleys usually appears in the records of the '^ 
 
 proceedings immediately after that of the President. 
 
 After the members had assembled on the first day, certain 
 orders were established by general consent to be observed 
 during the sessions of the Assembly. These orders were as 
 follows : 
 
 Imprmis, the Lieutent Grail as President of the 
 Assembly, shall appoint and direct all things that 
 concerne forme and decency to be observed in the 
 same; and shall command the observance thereof as 
 he shall see cause upon paine of imprisonmt or fine 
 as the house shall adjudge. 
 
 Item every one that is to speak to any matter, 
 shall stand up, and be uncovered and direct his 
 speech to the Lieutenant Generall as President of the 
 Assembly. And if two or more stand up to speake 
 together, the Lieutent Grail shall appoint which shall 
 speak. 
 
 Item no man shall stand up to speak to any matter 
 until the partie that spake last before, have sate 
 downe, nor shall any one speake above once to one 
 bill or matter at one reading nor shall refute the 
 speech of any other with any uncivil or contentious 
 termes, nor shall name him but by some circumlo- 
 quution. And if any one offend to the contrary, the 
 Lieutenant Generall shall command him to silence. 
 
 Item the house shall sitt every day at eight of the t. 
 
 clock in the morning, and at two of the clock in the 
 afternoone. 
 
 Item the freemen assembled at any time to any 
 number above ten persons, at the houres aforesaid, 
 or within one houre after, shalbe a house to all 
 purposes. 
 
 Item every one propounding any matter to the 
 house shall digest it first into writing and deliver it 
 to the Secretary to be read unto the house 
 
 And it was ordered by the house that these Orders 
 should be sett up in some publique place of the house, 
 to the end all men might take notice of them.^ 
 
 During the course of this session of the Assembly Corn- 
 waleys appeared as proxy for various members holding the 
 right to vote in their stead. On the first day, he held one; \^ 
 
 during the remainder of the sittings he held twelve others, 
 
 ' / — Archives, pp. 4-5. 
 
48 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 besides two, which were offered to him on one occasion, but 
 which, by a vote of the house, he was not allowed to accept.^ 
 
 On the second day it was ordered that any member of the 
 house who did not put in an appearance at the appointed 
 time should be amerced twenty pounds of tobacco for every 
 offense. Twelve of the first Acts of the draught of laws 
 transmitted by the Proprietary were read and debated. In 
 the afternoon session the debate continued.^ The Assembly 
 then adjourned till January 29th. 
 
 The third day of the Assembly is worthy of particular 
 attention. It was the first occasion on which we find Corn- 
 waleys voicing his opinion. The question under discussion 
 regarded the "Privilege of Parhament" which exempted the 
 legislators from arrest during the Assembly and it was 
 mooted whether freemen having made proxies during the 
 Assembly could be apprehended before the dissolution of the 
 same. Cornwaleys maintained that by delegating their vote 
 to another, they deprived themselves of this right to exemp- 
 tion. Cornwaleys' object was to curtail the extent of official 
 privilege. But the majority of the members held that no 
 man who had a right to sit in the Assembly could be arrested 
 until, after the close of its sessions, he had sufficient time to 
 travel to his place of residence.^" 
 
 Then the question arose whether the body of laws sent 
 over by Cecilius Calvert for their acceptance, and which were 
 read and discussed the day previous, should be read again, or 
 at once put to the vote. The Captain was of the opinion 
 "that they should expect a more frequent house," while 
 Captain Fleete advocated reading them again; but the 
 majority, including Calvert and Lewger, favored imme- 
 diate action. However, when the question actually arose 
 whether the laws should be accepted or rejected, it was found 
 that Calvert and Lewger who controlled fourteen "voices" 
 were on the affirmative side, while the remainder, holding 
 thirty-seven votes, were on the negative. 
 
 Then the discussion arose as to what laws should govern 
 
 * Streeter, op. cit., p. 133. 
 ' / — Archives, pp. 6-7. 
 10 Ibid., p. 8. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISI^TOR 49 
 
 the Province. Some held that certain temporary enact- 
 ments should be made to hold until they heard again from 
 England. Then the President emphatically denied any power 
 to the house to originate any laws. Cornwaleys suggested 
 the laws of England, to which the Governor replied, that his 
 commission gave him power to act in civil cases by the laws 
 of England, in criminal cases also "not extending to life or 
 member." In the latter, he was hmited to the laws of the 
 Province which gave him no power to inflict punishment ' ' on 
 any enormous offenders." However, the suggestion was 
 offered that since offenses calling for such punishment could 
 hardly be committed without mutiny, the offenders could be 
 punished by process of martial law. This suggestion seems 
 to have settled the difficulty for the time as the discussion 
 then ended. ^^ 
 
 During the afternoon session of the same day, January 
 29th, a proposition was laid before the House to consider laws 
 to be sent to the Proprietary. Leonard Calvert advised 
 that a committee should be selected to prepare a draft and 
 report to the House when they were ready, the members in 
 the interim to have time to attend to their private concerns. 
 The proposal was favorably received and a committee of five 
 was chosen out of a candidature of ten members. It is 
 worthy of note as it gives evidence of the high esteem in which 
 Captain Cornwaleys was held in the House, that he received 
 fifty-four votes — the highest number cast for any of the 
 successful candidates. Captain Evelin received forty- 
 eight; Captain Wintour, forty-five; Governor Calvert, thirty- 
 eight; and Mr. Justinian Snow, thirty-one. ^^ The House then 
 voted to adjourn, to meet again on the 8th of February. As 
 the Court was to meet in the interval, the Privilege of 
 Parliament was suspended so that there might be no ob- 
 struction to the course of justice. 
 
 When the Assembly reconvened, the committee reported 
 that the laws prepared by the proprietor should be again 
 propounded since there appeared to be a general misunder- 
 standing among the freemen regarding their import. The 
 
 " Ibid., p. 9. 
 12 Ibid., p. 10. 
 
50 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 House agreed to the decision, first adopting an order that all 
 bills brought up should be read three times on as many 
 different days before being voted upon. Then the draft of 
 laws was read through the second time as well as twenty 
 bills proposed by the committee, which were read the first 
 time. Cornwaleys then asked that it be put to vote whether 
 these laws at the third reading should be voted upon singly 
 or the whole body together. It was decided by a vote of 
 thirty-seven to thirty-two in favor of voting upon them 
 separately. ^^ This vote seems to have disposed of his Lord- 
 ship's code, for no attempt appears to have been made to 
 bring it to a third reading.^^ 
 
 In the afternoon, when the members had assembled, the 
 Preside/ut announced that he thought fit to adjourn the 
 Assembly again, for a longer time, till the laws which they 
 would propound to the Lord Proprietary were ready, which 
 some of the members could take care of, while the others 
 would have leisure to attend to their own concerns. 
 
 Cornwaleys immediately made answer that they could not 
 spend their time in any business better than in that which 
 concerned the good of the colony. Another member de- 
 manded to know the reason for the adjournment and declared 
 that the members were willing to leave their various occupa- 
 tions to attend to public business. Governor Calvert then 
 replied that he was accountable to no one for his resolution to 
 adjourn the session. 
 
 Then Thomas Cornwaleys made a motion that at least a 
 committee should be appointed to take charge of the prepa- 
 ration of the laws, till the House met again. To this, the 
 body agreed and fixed upon a committee of three. Six 
 candidates were proposed. The result of the choice of the 
 members showed that Captain Cornwaleys received fifty-six 
 votes; Governor Calvert, forty-six; and Captain Evelin, 
 forty-four. After this action, the President adjourned the 
 House till February 26th, after the privilege of parliament 
 was again revoked. 
 
 "/Wd., p. 11. 
 
 ^* Streeter, op. cit., p. 137. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 51 
 
 Governor Calvert's decision to adjourn the Assembly on 
 this occasion without assigning any reason seemed rather 
 abrupt and ill-timed. But the Governor had excellent 
 reasons that prompted him to take such action. The state 
 of things in Kent Island at the time demanded his presence 
 there to settle matters. He deemed it wise to keep his 
 intention secret to assure the better success of his expedition, 
 the account of which has been related in the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 In the absence of Leonard Calvert, the Assembly had been 
 convened on schedule by Secretary Lewger, acting for the 
 Governor. But it merely met to adjourn to meet again on 
 March 5th. Owing to the Governor's being still absent, 
 adjournment was ordered till the 12th of March. On that 
 day, the President again occupied the chair. Cornwaleys 
 was also at his post of duty as the faithful aid and counsellor 
 of the Governor. 
 
 The main business of this session of the Assembly was 
 rapidly pushed forward. Various measures were brought 
 before the legislative body and passed. Among them might 
 be mentioned in particular an act "for capitall felonies," 
 from one part of which Cornwaleys dissented; the other, an 
 act "for support of the Lord Proprietor" was passed but ^ 
 
 "denied by the Captain and three others." ^^ 
 
 On March 24th, the last day of the civil year according to 
 reckoning in use at the time, the members assembled. "The 
 laws as they were faire ingrossed were read in the house." 
 This procedure consumed the time of the morning and after- 
 noon sessions. After the laws had been read they were 
 signed by the Governor and the rest of the House. The 
 Assembly came to a close with this meeting. ^'^ 
 
 The year 1638 proved, in many particulars, one of great 
 trial for the Maryland colonists. Not the least of these was ^ 
 
 the prevalence of disease which raged in the Province around 
 that time.^^ During the course of the epidemic, the mis- 
 
 1* / — Archives, p. 22. 
 
 16 Ibid., p. 23. 
 
 1^ Streeter, op. cit., p. 146. ^^ 
 
52 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 sionaries, of whom there were four, all of the Society of 
 Jesus, worked indefatigably to bring to the stricken the 
 consolations of religion. Among those who died during 
 the scourge, were Jerome Hawley, the friend and fellow- 
 Councillor of Cornwaleys, of whom we shall speak later; 
 Father Knowles and Brother Gervase of the Society of 
 Jesus. ^^ 
 
 During this eventful year, Cornwaleys' ability and faith- 
 fulness to duty were eminently proven in the varied offices 
 he was called upon to perform for the good of the Province. 
 The confidence of the Proprietor in appointing him adviser 
 to his brother was not misplaced. The reliance of the people 
 on his integrity and business tact was manifested in his 
 selection on numerous occasions for arbitrations and the 
 settlement of estates. The estates administered by the 
 Captain were those of John Saunders, ^^ Jerome Hawley -^ 
 and Thomas Cullamore.-^ The Governor's appreciation of 
 Cornwaleys' military skill was evidenced by requiring his 
 services in the expedition to Kent Island. The confidence 
 of Calvert was shown in the Captain's administrative ability 
 when he was appointed on May 27, 1638, Deputy Governor 
 of the Province during Calvert's absence in Virginia.^^ "As 
 a legislator," says Streeter, "he had proved his firmness, and 
 Ms single purpose to act only for the public good, in the 
 course of the session (of the Assembly) which ended in 
 March; and his impartiality and superiority to mere religious 
 prejudices were admirably displayed in his investigations into 
 the case of the Protestant servants of William Lewis, in 
 July of the same year." ^^ 
 
 The result of the trial here referred to was this. Two 
 Protestant servants of William Lewis were accused by him 
 before Cornwaleys of having drawn up a paper to band the 
 
 1* Cf. Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vol. i, 
 p. 109, Documents; Vol. i, p. 336, Text; Foley, Records of the English Province of 
 the Society of Jesus, Vol. in, pp. 367-8; Streeter, op. cit., p. 146. 
 
 " IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 14. 
 
 *" The administration of Hawley 's estate will be dealt with in the chapter on 
 Hawley and Cornwaleys. 
 
 21 IV — Archives, pp. 39, 74 et seq., and 102. 
 
 22 /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 74. 
 
 23 Streeter, op. cit., p. 147. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 53 
 
 Protestants together for the purpose of petitioning Governor 
 Harvey and the Council of Virginia, to send to St. Mary's, 
 and demand the surrender of Lewis to be proceeded against 
 as a traitor to England, on the charge of having spoken 
 disrespectfully of the clergy of the Established Church, and 
 that he had forbidden his servants to read the authorized 
 publications of divines of the same Church. The Captain 
 took up the affair at once and the subsequent proceedings of 
 the case proved that the Protestants could get redress in 
 Maryland without having recourse to any tribunal beyond 
 her confines. 
 
 When Cornwaleys had heard this part of the story, he 
 sent for Secretary Lewger, and called in Robert Sedgrave 
 and Francis Gray, the parties principally compromised in 
 Lewis' charge. Sedgrave admitted that he had a paper 
 which he had prepared and given to Gray who, even then, 
 had it with him. This was turned over to Captain Corn- 
 waleys. The document was an appeal to persons not named, 
 accusing Lewis of reproaches against the ministers of their 
 religion, of forbidding his servants to read any book relative 
 to their religion and of trying to win over ignorant persons 
 by craft to the Cathohc rehgion. They therefore besought 
 those who had the power to stop these abuses on the part of 
 Lewis. It was found that the object of the paper was to 
 induce some of the freemen to petition the Governor and 
 Council for redress of their grievances. 
 
 On Tuesday, July 3, 1638, the parties concerned with their 
 witnesses, were summoned before Governor Calvert, Captain 
 Cornwaleys and Secretary Lewger, sitting as a Court. 
 Sedgrave admitted that he had drawn up the paper and 
 given it to Gray. Thy were on their way to the chapel on 
 the preceding Sunday when Cornwaleys called them and 
 interrogated them on the matter. Gray admitted his intent 
 of giving it to certain freemen for presentation to the 
 Governor. 
 
 Examination of the witnesses proved that the two servants 
 had been reading a book in which the Pope was termed anti- 
 Christ, and the Jesuits, anti-Christian ministers. Lewis had 
 come upon them whilst thus engaged. Irritated at these 
 
54 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 harsh words, Lewis retorted that the accusations were false, 
 that the Protestant clergymen were ministers of the devil, 
 and that he would not have that book read in his house. 
 Lewis offered to prove that the purpose of the paper was to 
 combine the Protestants and to petition Harvey for aid, but, 
 not being able to prove his contention since his witness was 
 absent on a trading expedition, the Governor deferred the 
 trial of Sedgrave and his associates on that charge till the 
 witness could be produced in Court,'^^ and thereupon called 
 upon the Secretary to give his opinion in the case. 
 
 Lewger pronounced the accused guilty of an offensive 
 and indiscreet speech in calling the author of the book in 
 question a minister of satan; of very offensive speech in 
 calling Protestant clergymen the ministers of the devil; and 
 to have gone to excess in forbidding what was allowed to be 
 read by the State of England, but he acquitted him of the 
 accusation to have or use Protestant books in his house. 
 Since these offensive speeches and his other unseasonable 
 disputations on religious topics tended to the disturbance of 
 the public peace and were in violation of a public procla- 
 mation put forth to prohibit such disputes, he sentenced 
 Lewis to pay a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco to the 
 Proprietary, and to remain in the sheriff's custody until he 
 found security for his good behaviour in these matters for the 
 future. The Captain concurred substantially with this 
 opinion and the Governor entirely. Thereupon the security 
 was given.2^ 
 
 The incident of the trial of William Lewis and its outcome 
 is indeed very insignificant in itself, nevertheless it shows that 
 liberty of conscience in the colony of Maryland was not a 
 dead letter in the legislation of the Province. When the law 
 was enacted forbidding religious disputes cannot be definitely 
 stated. Browne is of the opinion that it was enacted in the 
 First Assembly, the records of which, as stated before, have 
 been lost.^^ 
 
 2^ Whether the trial of Sedgrave and his associates ever took place cannot be 
 stated as no record of it is to be found in the Proceedings oj the Provincial Court. 
 
 ^^ IV — Archives, pp. 35-9; Streeter, op. cif., p. 232; Russell, Maryland the 
 Land of Sanctuary, pp. 126-7. 
 
 26 Cf. V — Archives of Maryland, Council, Preface, p. 1. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 CORNWALEYS AND THE JeSUITS 
 
 Shortly after the dissolution of the Second Assembly, 
 three letters were sent to Cecilius 'Calvert. The first of 
 these is from Father Thomas Copley, and is dated April 3, 
 1638; the second is from Captain Thomas Cornwaleys, and 
 is dated April 6; and the third from Governor Leonard 
 Calvert, dated April 25. ^ These letters probably reached the 
 Lord Proprietary at the same time that the revised code of 
 laws sent over after the sessions of the Assembly. The 
 Archives of Maryland give only the titles of the laws passed 
 at the Second Assembly. However, from these letters, much 
 information is to be had of the content of the code. 
 
 In the letters of the missionary, the Captain and the 
 Governor, different opinions are expressed on the code, in 
 accordance with the views the different parties concerned, 
 took of the same. Calvert writes: "The body of lawes you 
 sent over by Mr. Lewger I endeavored to have had passed 
 by the assembly at Maryland but could not effect it, there 
 was so many things unsuteable to the peoples good and no 
 way conduceing to your proffitt that being they could not 
 be exempted from others which they willingly would have 
 passed they were desireous to suspend them all, the particlar 
 exceptions which were made against them Mr. Lewger hath 
 given you an account of in his dispatches to you: others 
 have been passed in the same assembly and now sent unto 
 you which I am perswaded will appear unto you to provide 
 both for your honor and proffitt as much as those you sent us 
 
 did." 2 
 
 Father Copley's sentiments are couched in the following 
 language: ''Touching the lawes which your lordshipe sent, I 
 am told that they would not be excepted and, even the 
 Governor, and Mr. Lugar said once to me, that they were 
 not fitt for this Colonye. for myne owne parte, seeing noe 
 
 1 The letters referred to are to be found in The Calvert Papers, No. i, follow- 
 ing each other in order on pp. 157, 169 and 182 respectively. 
 
 2 Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 189-190. 
 
 55 
 
56 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 service that I could doe your lordshipe therein and many 
 inconvenices that I might runne into by intermedlinge, I 
 never soe much as rede them nether doe I yet know what they 
 contained; for the temporall providence I left my selfe to 
 your lordshipe and for matter of conscience, I supposed that 
 your lordshipe had taken good advise what occasion then 
 could I have to intermeddle about them? The lawes which 
 now are sent to your lordshipe I never knew nor saw till 
 even now, that they weare ready to be sent to your lordshipe. 
 And there being hast to send them, I only goot a hasty vew of 
 them. Yet diverse things even in that hasty reeding occured 
 to me, which I conceaved requisite to acquanite you with 
 all, leaving them to your lordships more serious con- 
 sideration." ^ 
 
 Cornwaley's letter also voices criticism of both codes. He 
 writes: ''Nor were it difficult out of the Lawes sent over by 
 your Lordship, or these that are from hence proposed toe you, 
 toe finde Just grounds for toe feare the Introdusement of 
 Lawes prejuditiall toe oure honors and freedome witnes 
 that on[e] Act whereby wee are exposde to A remediles 
 SufTering of all Disgraces and Insolensyes that eyther the 
 Pastion or Mallis [passion or malice] of Suckseedeing 
 Governors shall please toe put upon us, with out beeing 
 permitted soe much as A Lawfull defence for the secureing 
 of Life or reputation though never soe unjustly Attempted 
 toe be taken from us, with out forfeyteing the same and all 
 wee have to boote. This and many other Absurdetyes I 
 doubt not but your Lordship will finde and Correct upon the 
 peruseall of oure learned Lawes." ^ 
 
 The body of laws sent over to Lord Baltimore after the 
 Second Assembly were subjected to criticism by a clergyman 
 and a layman. In the case of the layman. Captain Corn- 
 waleys, the objection to the code received all the more 
 weight since it emanated from such an important personage as 
 one of the Governor's Councillors. The laws were criticised 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 158-9. It is to be noted that the missionaries were excused 
 from attending sessions of the Assembly, cf . I— Archives of Maryland, Assembly, 
 p. 5. 
 
 * Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 173. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 57 
 
 under a double aspect as touching lay affairs as well as 
 spiritual.^ 
 
 As has been stated above, much of the content of this code 
 submitted by the Second Assembly must be gleaned from 
 these letters. The titles of the various acts as recorded in 
 the minutes of this Assembly help us to identify the separate 
 topics spoken of in the letters, and give us a clearer under- 
 standing of the laws in question. 
 
 Father Hughes has summed up the code in the briefest 
 possible way. He tells us that ''of the two score laws and 
 more, eight are about manors. They regulate the assigning 
 of manors, the peopling and supporting of them; and, strange 
 to say, they contain a prohibition to alienate or part with a 
 manor. There is a law that a glebe shall be settled, or, as 
 we learn from Father Copley, that every manor shall pro- 
 vide one hundred acres for the support of a pastor. There 
 are laws about building a town, erecting a fort, planting corn, 
 and about securing the titles to lands. There are mihtary 
 duties and services laid to the charge of manors and free- 
 holds: as well as an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign . . . 
 There are laws about the descent of land, the succession to the 
 goods of intestates, and the probate of wills. Besides, there 
 are criminal laws regarding capital offenses; the privilege of 
 clergy for some capital crimes; the arbitrary punishment of 
 enormous offenses; and a bill for the support of the Lord 
 Proprietary." ^ 
 
 From the letters referred to we will be able to get a better 
 understanding of the laws in themselves as well as to form 
 an estimate of the Hght in which they were regarded by the 
 writers of the same. 
 
 Father Copley intimates to the Lord Proprietor that 
 "some here reflecting on what they have done say plainly 
 that if they canne not live here, they canne live else where, 
 and therfor that they care not much." He then states that 
 others have been complaining that the Governor and Mr. 
 
 * Hughes, The History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vol. i, 
 Text, p. 390. 
 
 « Ibid., pp. 390-1. 
 
58 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Luger "and there instruments" had secured so many proxies 
 that they did just as they pleased without restraint. Again 
 others questioned the vahdity of the laws saying that they 
 could prove that the laws were never read thrice in the same 
 tenor. The missionary then asks if the mere apprehension of 
 future consequences affrights them, what will the conse- 
 quences themselves do. He is of the opinion that even in 
 the most flourishing countries Lords of manors would find 
 laws of that stamp as he refers to in his letter burdensome.^ 
 
 Captain Cornwaleys tells the Proprietor that he desires 
 to see him "at peace with the first Adventurers, whoe are I 
 perceave noe whit satisfyed with theyre Last Conditions for 
 the Trade. Theyre harts haveing not seconded theyre hands 
 in the agreement, but some for love some for feare some by 
 Importunety and the rest for Company consented toe what 
 they now repine toe stand toe, nor can I blame them for 
 tis impossible they can be savers by it. Which made mee 
 refuse to beare them Company, and therefore am I now the 
 only Supposed Enemy toe your Lordships Proffitt, which I 
 disclayme from unless there bee an Antipothy betwixt that 
 and my Subcistance on this Place." ^ 
 
 Father White, in a letter dated February 20, 1638, speaks 
 of a class of individuals whom he terms "relinquishers," 
 "men who understand little of truck or trade" who were 
 willing to sign away anything by a concordat.^ This con- 
 cordat, in the opinion of Father Hughes, "seems to have 
 been a subsidiary manoeuvre for handing over all rights of 
 trade to his lordship." ^^ 
 
 The Captain writes of the difficult conditions of trade and 
 of the unprofitableness of raising tobacco in the following 
 words: "I was this yeere determined toe have waighted 
 upon your Lordship in England, and on[e] way or other toe 
 have concluded this fateall difference about the Trade, for 
 my Lord I may properly use the words of the Ghospell, I 
 
 ' Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 160-1. 
 8 Ibid., pp. 173-4. 
 Ubid., p. 209. 
 10 Hughes, op. cit., p. 393. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 59 
 
 cannot Digg and to Begg I am Ashamed, if therefor your 
 Lordship nor your Country will afford me noe other way toe 
 support the great Expenses that I have beene and dayly am 
 at for my Subcistans heere, but what I must fetch out of the 
 Grounde by Planting this Stincking weede of America, I 
 must desert the Place and busynes, which I confes I shall bee 
 loth toe doe, soe Cordiall A lover am I of them both, yet if I 
 am forst toe it by discourteous Injuries I shall not weepe at 
 parting nor despayre toe find heaven as neere toe other parts 
 as Maryland. But I will first doe my Endeavor toe Com- 
 pose things soe as non shall say heereafter that I lost A right 
 I bought soe deere through negligens or Ignorans. Other 
 mens Imaginations are noe infalUble presidents toe mee, nor 
 will the multitude of names nor Seales, move mee toe bee a 
 foole for Company, for what in them was only Inadvertens, 
 non would tearm less then follery in mee, whoe might or 
 ought toe know by experiens, that it is impossible toe Comply 
 with the Conditions mentioned in the Lease and bee a Saver 
 by them." '' 
 
 Having considered the objections of the missionary and 
 the Captain with regard to trade, we now turn to examine 
 the complaints of the former to certain laws passed by the 
 late Assembly, 
 
 ''First" says Father Copley, ''there is not any care at all 
 taken, to promote the conversion of the Indians, to provide 
 or to shew any favor to Ecclesiastical persons, or to preserve 
 for the church the Inmiunitye and priveledges, which she 
 enjoyeth every where else." ^^ jvij. Lewger is accused of 
 defending the opinion that the Church has no privileges by 
 divine right. The Secretary, together with others that adhere 
 to him, seem to be resolved to bind the clergy to all laws and 
 to make the same exactions of them as they do of other men. 
 This official has even demanded of Father Copley, before the 
 confirmation of the law, fifteen hundred weight of tobacco 
 towards the building of a fort, "Whereas" writes the priest, 
 "I dare boldly say that the whole Colony together never 
 bestowed on me the worth of five hundred weight one would 
 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 176. 
 12 Ibid., p. 162. 
 
60 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 thinke that even out of Gratitude, they might free us from 
 such kinde of taxation especially seing, we put noe taxe 
 upon them, but healpe them gratis, and healpe them also in 
 such a manner, that I am sure they canne not complaine." ^^ 
 
 ''Secondly by the new lawe we should relinquish what we 
 have, and then cast lotts in what place we shall choose, and if 
 our lott proove ill, what we have already may be chosen from 
 us and soe we may beginne the world anew, and then ether 
 we must loose all our buildinge, all our cleering, all our 
 enclosures, and all our tennants, or else be forced to sitt 
 freeholders, and to pay for every hundred acres one barrell of 
 come whereas we are not yet in a little care to gitt bread." ^* 
 The result of this procedure would be that though the mis- 
 sionaries should choose "Metapanian" first, they would lose 
 Mr. Gerard's manor despite the fact that they bought it at 
 great expense. Furthermore, should this be permitted, then 
 the Assembly can so alter their rights that no man would be 
 sure what really was his. Besides he who could secure the 
 most proxies could dispose of the property of others as he 
 deemed fit.^^ 
 
 The next point raised by Father Copley regards military 
 service under the provisions of which they must be trained 
 as soldiers and provide munitions. They must have in 
 every manor fifteen men available for service whom, during 
 the time of service, they must maintain. ''Other things we 
 should be subjecte to by these lawes, which would be very 
 unfitt for us." 
 
 Under the law it is expected that every "head" plant two 
 acres of corn. The fathers have not sufficient men to employ 
 in planting. If they wish to comply with this law they must 
 either turn planters themselves or else "trench" upon the 
 statute. Under the new regime, they would not only lose 
 their trade in beaver and corn but in the case of the latter 
 they must ask leave to buy the corn necessary for the making 
 of bread. And should those who have a monopoly in this 
 
 '3 lUd., p. 163. 
 
 " Ihid. 
 
 " Ihid., p. 164. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 61 
 
 commodity or be otherwise indisposed they would be put to 
 the embarassment of being ''at the courtesy of other men." ^^ 
 
 With regard to the missionaries receiving lands from con- 
 verted Indians, Father Copley states that, though he is 
 resolved not to take up land except under his Lordship's 
 title, yet the time might come when, such an offer being made 
 toward building a house or church for the fathers, no small 
 inconvenience might arise. With regard to this possible 
 event, he inquires ''whether any one that should goe aboute 
 to restraine ecclesiasticall libertys in this point encurre not 
 the excommunications of Bulla Coenae." 
 
 Under the new statutes, in every manor one hundred 
 acres must be laid out for glebe land. Should the intention 
 of this law be to bind them who enjoy it to be pastors, then 
 the fathers must either become pastors themselves or in their 
 own manor maintain pastors, both of which arrangements 
 would be very inconvenient. 
 
 The next portion of Father Copley's letter, we prefer to 
 give entirely in his own words. It runs as follows : ' ' That it 
 may be prevented that noe woman here vow chastety in the 
 world, unless she marry within seven yeers after land fall to 
 hir, she must ether dispose away of hir land, or else she shall 
 forfeite it to the nexte of kinne and if she have but one 
 Mannor, whereas she canne not alienaite it, it is gonne 
 unlesse she git a husband. To what purpose this ole law is 
 maid your lordshipe perhaps will see better than I for my 
 parte I see greate difiicultyes in it, but to what purpose I 
 well see not." ^^ 
 
 In the order set down for the payment of debts, the Pro- 
 prietary is cautioned to ponder it well. Though Father 
 Copley confesses he has not examined it very carefully he 
 doubts not that "it runneth not right with that which is 
 ordinarily prescribed by Casuits as just." 
 
 "In the thirty-fourth law amonge the Enormous Crime 
 One is Exercisinge jurisdiction and authoritye, without 
 lawfull power and commission dirived from the lord pro- 
 
 is Ibid. 
 
 " Ibid., 165. 
 
62 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 prietarie." Hereby, according to the missionary, even by 
 Catholics a law is provided to hang any Catholic bishop that 
 should come to Maryland as well as any priest, if the exercise 
 of his functions be interpreted as jurisdiction or authority.^^ 
 
 Father Copley then cautions Lord Baltimore that before 
 he does anything in the matter of these laws, he ponder well 
 the Bulla Coenae; secondly, that in things concerning the 
 Church, he should take good advice from church authorities 
 and finally, that he be careful not to "trench upon the church 
 and where any thinge may seem to trench, to use fitt pre- 
 vention against the bad consequence."^^ 
 
 Thomas Cornwaleys also writes a word of warning. He 
 says: "I beseeche your Lordship for his Sake whose honor 
 you and wee doe heere pretend, and whoe at Last must 
 Judg with what Sincerety wee have discharged it, That you 
 from whose Consent they must receave the bindeing fors of 
 Lawes, will not permit the least Clawes toe pas that shall not 
 first bee thoroughly Scand and resolved by wise Laerned and 
 Rehgious Divines toe bee noe waise prejuditiall toe the 
 Immunettyes and Priveledges of that Church which is the 
 only true Guide toe all Eternall Happines, of which wee shall 
 shew oureselves the most ungratefull members that ever 
 shee nourished, if in requiteall of those many favors and 
 Blessings that shee and her devoute Servants have obtayned 
 for us, wee attempt toe deprive her of them, with out paying 
 such A Price as hee that Buyes it will repent his Bargayne. 
 What are her Greevances, and how toe bee remedyed, you 
 will I doubt not understand at Large from those whoe are 
 more knowing in her rights and Consequently more sensyble 
 of her Injuryes then such an Ignorant Creature as I am. 
 Wherefore now all that belongs toe mee, is only toe importune 
 your Lordship in whose powre t'is yet toe mend what we have 
 done Amis, toe bee most Carefull in preserveing his Honor 
 whoe must Preserve both you and Maryland. Perhaps this 
 fault hath beene permitted in us as a favoure toe your Lord- 
 ly Ibid. Father Copley's fears as to Lord Baltimore's usurping ecclesiastical 
 jurisdiction are unfounded as no attempt was made by either himself or the 
 Assembly to control the jurisdiction of the clergy. 
 " Ibid., p. 166. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 63 
 
 ship whereby you may declare the Sincerety of your first 
 pyouse pretence for the Planting of this Province, which will 
 bee toe much doubted of if you should take Advantage of 
 oure Ignorant and uncontionable proceedeings toe Assume 
 more than wee can Justly give you. And for A Little 
 Imaginary Honor, throw your self us and your Country out 
 of that protection which hath hithertoe preserved and Pros- 
 pered that and us beyound Humaine Expectation; which noe 
 doubt will bee continued if wee Continue as we ought, toe 
 bee, I never yet heard of any that Lost by beeing bountyfull 
 toe God or his Church, then let not your Lordship heare toe 
 bee the first. Give untoe God what doth belong toe him, and 
 doubt not but Cesar shall receave his due. If your Lordship 
 thinks mee toe teadious in A discourse not proper toe the 
 Part that I doe Act, my Interest in the whole Action must 
 excuse mee, Sylence would perhaps make mee Supposed 
 Accessary toe these dangerous Positions, which is soe far 
 from my Intention, that as I now declare toe youre Lord- 
 ship and shall not feare toe doe the like toe all the world if it 
 bee necessary, I will rather Sacrifice myself and all I have in 
 the defence of Gods Honor and his churches right, then 
 willingly Consent toe anything that may not stand with the 
 Good Contiens of A Real Catholick. Which resolution if 
 your Lordship doe not allsoe make good by A Religious Care 
 of what you send over Authorised by your Consent, I shall 
 with as much Convenient speede as I can with draw myself, 
 and what is Left of that which I brought with mee, out of 
 the Danger of beeing involved in the ruein which I shall 
 infallibly expect. Your Lordship knowes my securety of 
 Contiens was the first Condition that I expected from this 
 Government, which then you thought soe Inocent as you 
 Conceaved the Proposition alltogether impertinent, But now 
 I hope you will perceave the Contrary." "" 
 
 From this appeal of Captain Cornwaleys to the Proprietor, 
 we learn that he was very solicitous about the laws passed 
 by the last Assembly. In the last chapter several instances 
 
 20 /bid., pp. 171-3. 
 
64 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 were recorded where he objected to certain enactments. 
 Since the minutes of that Assembly have not come down to 
 us we are unable to know just what opposition he raised to 
 the legislation of the Assembly. On March 16, there were 
 many of the laws passed which met with no opposition and 
 the Captain was present at the session.^^ Again on the last 
 day of the Second Assembly, it is recorded that the Governor 
 signed the laws as well as the rest of the House, Corn- 
 waleys being present on that occasion as well. But the 
 dissatisfaction, as has been seen, was by no means confined to 
 Cornwaleys. Father Copley has told us, as before stated, 
 that many complained about the proxies of Calvert and 
 Lewger and of the manner in which the laws varied at each 
 reading. We are led to believe that the Captain, realizing 
 this state of affairs, was content to leave the matter as it then 
 stood, resolving to write a letter to the Proprietary voicing 
 his condemnation of the laws to which he objected and trusting 
 to Lord Baltimore's good judgment and honesty in the case 
 for redress. That the Captain was not always of one mind 
 with Governor Calvert is also evident from the words of a 
 letter written by Leonard Calvert to his brother. He says 
 that ''it hath been his fortune and myne to have had some 
 differences formerly yet in many things I have had his faith- 
 full assistance for your service and in nothing more then 
 in the expedicion to Kent this last winter." " These dif- 
 ferences of which Calvert speaks may have been with regard 
 to the laws. 
 
 After Father Copley had addressed his warning to the Lord 
 Proprietor, he asked for certain privileges to be granted to 
 him by a private order as long as the government remained 
 Catholic. They are as follows: "The first that the church 
 and our houses may be Sanctuarie. The second that our 
 selves and our domestique servants, and halfe at least of our 
 planting servants, may be free from publique taxes and 
 services, And the rest of our servants and our tennants, 
 
 ^1 / — Archives, p. 20. 
 
 22 Letter of Leonard Calvert to the Proprietary, dated April 25, 1638, Calvert 
 Papers, No. i, p. 190. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 65 
 
 though exteriorly the doe as others in the Colony, Yet that in 
 the mannet- of exacting or doing it, privatly the custome of 
 other catholiques countrye may be observed as much as may 
 be that catholiques out of bad practice cumme not to forgit 
 those due respects which they owe to god and his church.^^ 
 The third is that though in publique we suffer our cause to be 
 heard and tryed by the publique magestrats, yet that in 
 private they know, that they doe it but as arbitrators and 
 defendors of the church because Ecclesiasticall jurisdiction 
 is not yet here setled. The fourth. That in our owne 
 persons and with such as are needfull to assiste us, we may 
 freely goe, abide and hve amonge the Savages, with out any 
 licence to be had here from the Governor, or any other, 
 lastly, that though we relinquish the use of many ecclesiasti- 
 call priviledge when we judge it convenient for satisfaction of 
 the state at home, yet that it be left to our discretion to 
 determine when this is requisite; and that we be suffered to 
 enjoy such other priviledges as we may with out note."^^ And 
 touching our temporal tyes. first I beseech your lordshipe that 
 we may take up and keepe soe much lande, as in my former 
 letters I acquainted your lordshipe to be requisite for our 
 present occasions, according to the first conditions which we 
 maid with your lordshipe ... In the trade I shall requeste 
 that your lordshipe performe soe much, as that we may 
 employ one bote whensoever we shall not otherwyse use it 
 ... I desire lykwyse from your lordshipe a free Grante to 
 buy corn of the Indians without asking leave here, for endeed 
 It will be a greate pressure to eate our bread at there curtesye, 
 who as yet I have found but very little curtous." -^ At the 
 beginning of Father Copley's letter, Lord Baltimore wrote 
 "heerein are demands of very extravagant priviledges." 
 
 Whatever opinion one may form as to the justice of the 
 claim of the missionaries, or of the rights of Lord Baltimore, 
 two considerations must not be lost sight of. In the first 
 
 '^ Lord Baltimore here notes in his own handwriting on the margin of the 
 letter: "All their tenants as well as servants he intimates heere aought to be 
 exempted from the temporall government." Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 166. 
 
 2* Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 166-7. 
 
 25 Ibid., pp. 166-8. 
 
66 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 place, the generous, self-sacrificing conduct of the Jesuit 
 missionaries, precludes the conclusion that the Fathers were 
 actuated by mere mercenary motives. Their one object was 
 to enable them more effectively to further their Apostolic 
 work in extending the kingdom of Christ. Davis, an 
 Episcopahan, writing of them, says: ''Their pathway was 
 through the desert; and their first chapel, the wigwam of an 
 Indian. Two of them were here, at the dawn of our history : 
 they came to St. Mary's with the original emigrants; they 
 assisted, by pious rites, in laying the corner-stone of a State; 
 they kindled the torch of civilization in the wilderness; they 
 gave consolation to the grief-stricken pilgrim; they taught 
 the rehgion of Christ to the simple sons of the forest. The 
 history of Maryland presents no better, no purer, no more 
 sublime lesson than the story of the toils, sacrifices, and 
 successes of her early missionaries." ^^ 
 
 ''The impartial observer of events will, in the second 
 place," says Russell, "remember that Lord Baltimore was a 
 Catholic whose sincerity cannot be questioned. Had he, 
 like his grandson, renounced his faith, most, if not all, the 
 difficulties and dangers which menaced his colony would have 
 disappeared, and his success in every worldly way would have 
 been assured. He held fast to his Church at the cost of 
 enormous sacrifices, and such sacrifices are proof sufficient 
 of the genuineness of his belief." -'' 
 
 We have stated in the beginning of this chapter that these 
 letters touched spiritual matters and lay or temporal af- 
 fairs. What the fate of the code was will be seen in a subse- 
 quent chapter. We can therefore touch briefly upon the 
 relations of Lord Baltimore and the missionaries. This 
 matter forms a part of the biography of Thomas Corn- 
 waleys in so far as he was on the side of the fathers as is 
 abundantly proven by his letter. It must be remembered 
 that no matter what differences may have arisen between the 
 Proprietary and the Jesuits, this in no wise weakened his 
 
 2^ Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom, pp. 159-60. 
 *' Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 151. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 67 
 
 faith in the Church for which he was ever prepared to make 
 heroic sacrifices.-^ 
 
 Under date of April 4, 1634, shortly after the arrival of 
 the colonists in Maryland, a decree of Propaganda states, to 
 use the words of Father Hughes, "that, at the instance of the 
 'English clergy,' whomsoever that term may designate, the 
 Sacred Congregation judged the proposal of sending a 
 mission to Maryland, in the premises, as a measure highly 
 opportune; and it ordered 'the agent of the same clergy' to 
 name a prefect and missionaries, or to have them named by 
 the French Nuncio, who in all cases was to report on the 
 fitness of the men designated." ^^ For some years nothing 
 seems to have been done in the matter. However, in 1641, 
 in accordance with the wishes of Lord Baltimore, Mgr. 
 Rosetti, Nuncio in Belgium, was instructed by Propaganda 
 to send "information about the said island (Maryland), the 
 Catholics there, secular priests in England fitted for the 
 mission, and especially one more prominent and learned, who 
 might be appointed prefect." ^° 
 
 Monsignor Rosetti, afterwards Archbishop of Tarsus, 
 after a visit to England in 1641, sent his report to the Sacred 
 Congregation, together with the names of fourteen priests 
 who were deemed fit to be sent to the mission field of Mary- 
 land. The first name on the Hst is that of Rev. Dr. Britton, 
 who might be made Prefect. ^^ After faculties had been 
 dispatched for the new missionaries to Father Philips, the 
 Queen's confessor, a memorial on behalf of the Jesuits was 
 addressed to the Holy Office complaining against the attitude 
 of Lord Baltimore and protesting against the sending of the 
 Secular clergy to Maryland.^'- 
 
 In February, 1642, having received the Memorial, the 
 Congregation of the Holy Office ordered the faculties of the 
 Secular clergy suspended and the mission put off "until such 
 time as this Sacred Congregation shall have examined some 
 
 28 Ibid., p. 156. 
 
 2' Hughes, op. cit., p. 333. 
 
 '" Ibid., Hughes quoting Propaganda Archives, p. 495. 
 
 31 Ibid., pp. 493-8. 
 
 32 Ibid., pp. 506-15; also Russell, op. cit., pp. 152-3. 
 
68 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 points, and determined that which is best to do for the greater 
 service of God ever blessed, and for the propagation of the 
 holy faith." ^^ In the meantime the clergy appointed to go 
 to the colony were impatiently awaiting their faculties. Not 
 knowing entirely the causes of the delay, they were minded 
 to proceed at first in virtue of their ordinary faculties for 
 the royal dominions of Great Britain. However, Rosetti 
 dissuaded them from proceeding in this manner.^"* Mean- 
 while Lord Baltimore, finding his purpose of sending Secular 
 iTiissionaries thwarted, decided that the Jesuits also should 
 not go, while at the same time, Leonard Calvert endeavored 
 to prevent the missionaries actually in the colony from 
 leaving.^^ A deadlock resulted. To overcome the difficulty 
 the General of the Jesuits wrote to Father Edward Knott, the 
 Provincial of the Society of Jesus in England on November 
 22, 1642: ''I myself will see that faculties are asked for them 
 from the (Cardinal) Protector, to buy off vexation. If they 
 are obtained I will let your Reverence know." ^^ 
 
 Whether this arrangement of the General was agreeable or 
 whether the suspended faculties were granted to the Secular 
 Fathers, we cannot say. However, two Secular priests, 
 Fathers Gilmett and Territt, set sail sometime about 
 November, 1642, on different vessels.^^ The Proprietary, 
 in a letter dated November 21, 1642, commends the Fathers 
 to the Governor's care; in another letter written from Bristol, 
 on November 18, 1643,^^ further instructions are given to look 
 after the welfare of these priests.^* 
 
 In writing of Father Copley's relations with Lord Balti- 
 more, Russell considers the characters of this missionary and 
 Secretary Lewger. He says: "Copley|,and Lewger were men 
 of strong individuality, powerful will and extraordinary 
 tenacity of purpose, and their clash of temperaments 
 probably resulted from the manifest similarity of their 
 
 33 Hughes, op. cit., citing Vatican Archives, p. 520. 
 
 3* Ibid., p. 524. 
 
 3* Russell, op. cit., p. 154. 
 
 3^ Hughes, op. cit., p. 532. 
 
 3' Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 212. 
 
 3« Ibid. 
 
 3" /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 143. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 69 
 
 natures." ^^ Again he says: "A meeting of these two indomit- 
 able natures could hardly make for 'peace and good will,' 
 yet we cannot doubt of their sincerity and self-sacrificing 
 zeal." '' 
 
 Regarding the champions of either side, whether of the 
 Proprietary or the Jesuits, much can be said. The mis- 
 sionaries asked at most, special privileges, but we cannot say 
 that they begrudged freedom of conscience to other religion- 
 ists. Moreover the privileges they asked for, were such as 
 the clergy enjoyed in Catholic England under Magna Charta 
 until the time of the Protestant separation. "The world 
 at large," says the author of Maryland the Land of Sanctuary^ 
 ''had hardly at that time conceived an idea of such a state 
 of affairs as obtains now in the United States. We, today, 
 are accustomed to the present relations of Church and State ; 
 we can see its practicability, and we can appreciate its 
 advantages. It was then an untried novelty in civil govern- 
 ment. To most people there appeared no middle way 
 between favoring one church or another. The devoted, 
 self-sacrificing priests, zealous for the salvation of souls, 
 . . . shut out from the rest of the world, were quite naturally 
 in no position to take such a view of the situation as pre- 
 sented itself to Lord Baltimore. It was clear to him as to 
 many other far-seeing statesmen that the time was come 
 when the religious and political conditions of the world 
 demanded religious freedom. In this respect, he and the 
 other colonists who upheld his policy were far in advance of 
 their times." ^^ 
 
 ^" Russell, op. cit., p. 158. 
 « Ibid., p. 159. 
 « Ibid., pp. 172-3. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwaleys 
 
 Among the first colonists who arrived in Maryland, was 
 the fellow Commissioner of Thomas Cornwaleys, Jerome 
 Hawley, a friend of the Captain. Hawley was a man of 
 education and refinement. In appointing him as one of the 
 Commissioners, Lord Baltimore proved that he placed 
 confidence in his talents and good judgment. "He embarked 
 with the Governor," says Streeter, ''participated in the 
 dangers and trials of the voyage, aided in the first recon- 
 noisance of the country on the Potomac, and was one of 
 those who, with appropriate civil and religious ceremonies, 
 united in taking possession of the ground selected as the site 
 of the first settlement, and christening it by the name of St. 
 Mary's." ' 
 
 Hawley became treasurer of Virginia early in 1637.^ 
 While performing the duties incumbent on him in virtue of 
 this office, he continued to act as Commissioner and Counsel- 
 lor of Maryland. In the administration of his duties in 
 Virginia, Hawley drew upon himself the criticism of Secretary 
 Kemp, who wrote a letter of complaint against him to the 
 Proprietary of Maryland. Governor Calvert also wrote to 
 his brother relative to the same matter. Cornwaleys was 
 cognizant of the disfavor into which Hawley had fallen and 
 wrote a defense of his friend to Cecilius Calvert. 
 
 Kemp wrote on April 25, 1638, to acquaint Lord Baltimore 
 of how matters stood upon the arrival of Hawley in Virginia 
 as Treasurer. He states that such was the general dislike of 
 the inhabitants of Virginia against Hawley that they would 
 have removed him from office by an act of Assembly had not 
 the Governor and Counsel curbed their proceedings. When 
 Hawley assumed his office, he gave them no further account 
 of the extent of his powers than those expressed in his com- 
 mission. He alleges that he enjoyed the same powers 
 
 1 Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 109. 
 
 2 Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 16 (note). 
 
 70 
 
JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 71 
 
 which former Treasurers had, and these were expressly vested 
 in him for receiving quit rents. After the Assembly, the new 
 Treasurer produced his ''Instructions" wherein fines and 
 all other perquisites to the King were expressly 'Svithin the 
 Lymitts of his commission, as allso all Grants of Land were 
 first to passe his appbation, [approbation], and allowance and 
 upon what tearmes they were to passe was left to his dis- 
 cretion." "In which particulars," Kemp remarked, "the 
 Governor and Counsell had just cause to doubt what his 
 Intendments were." ^ 
 
 The Secretary furthermore complained that the Governor's 
 main subsistence was taken away. All Governors would 
 therefore be obliged to demand means from the people since 
 the pension of the King would suffice to maintain that official 
 in a manner proper to his dignity. With regard to grants of 
 land, he says that the terms have always been certain as given 
 by the "Antient Charter" and have been successively con-' 
 firmed to the Governor and Council. The sudden change, 
 consequently is a cause of distraction to the people as well as a 
 source of discouragement to those "who serve his matie here 
 in the places of Governor and Counsell." ^ 
 
 Kemp then lays before Lord Baltimore some of his own 
 grievances. "The Office and benefit of the Invoices" which 
 formerly belong to the Secretary now pertain to the Treas- 
 urer. He then states that he is informed that Hawley's 
 purposes are to gain the profits of the "Pattents," and to 
 have the keeping of the seals. What fees are left to the 
 Secretary will accordingly not clothe and pay one clerk 
 yearly. He then voices his grievance that though his labor 
 is doubled, he does not receive the same allowance as former 
 Secretaries.^ 
 
 The question logically arises as to the reasons why 
 Secretary Kemp addressed this complaint to Lord Baltimore. 
 The reason is found in the conclusion of his letter. "Why 
 I have taken the boldness to trouble yor Lorpp wth this 
 
 ' Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 153. 
 4 Ibid., pp. 153-4. 
 8 Ibid., p. 154. 
 
72 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Relation, without the Least Intimation heerein to any other, 
 with favor I am thus induced. Because I receive from un- 
 doubted Information that the effect of Mr. Hawlye his busi- 
 ness proceeded from yor Lorpps favour in his behalf. I am 
 from my owne assurance as confident that yor Lorpps intents 
 had noe aime eyther of publiq greivance, or lessening those 
 whose service you may please in any tryall to command. All 
 wch therefore I humbly tender to yor Lorpps consideration."^ 
 Writing to his brother, on April 25, 1638, Governor Leonard 
 Calvert makes certain accusations against Jerome Hawley. 
 '*I am informed," he says, "tht upon occasion of discourse 
 given before Sr Jhon Harvey Mr. Jemp and Mr. Hawley by 
 Mr. Boteler whether Palmers He were within the Province 
 of Maryland or no Mr. Hawley did so weackly defend your 
 title to it that Boteler grew more confident of proceeding in 
 planting it for his Brother Cleyborne and I have some reason 
 • to thinck that Mr. Hawley did willingly let your title fall for 
 some designe sake of his owne upon trade wth the Sasqua- 
 hannoughs wch he might conceive better hopes to advance 
 by its depenice on Virginia then on Maryland." ^ 
 
 The Governor then goes on to say that when he held a 
 Council meeting at St. Mary's concerning the expedition to 
 Kent Island with the purpose of putting a stop to the planting 
 of the Island by Boteler and Smith, Hawley ''earnestly 
 diswaded it" by bringing up every reason in his power to 
 make Lord Baltimore's title doubtful and to show that it 
 would be unlawful to hinder these men from planting there. 
 Hawley did all this despite the fact that the argument was 
 brought forth that their being there would be most dangerous 
 to the Marylanders since Boteler and Smith would incite the 
 Indians against them and might even furnish the savages 
 with weapons against them. If the expedition were given 
 up, all hope of a treaty with the Indians would be set at 
 naught. 
 
 The letter then proceeds as follows: ''I beleeve the faire 
 promises wch he made you in England when you procured 
 
 « Ibid., pp. 154-5. 
 ' Ibid., pp. 187-8. 
 
JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 73 
 
 the prefermt he hath in Virginia how usefull he would prove 
 to your Colony by it, will never be performed by him for 
 nothing moveth him but his owne ends and those he intend- 
 eth wholly to remove from Maryland and place them in 
 Virginia, and intendeth shortly to remove his wife and family 
 thither, I am sorry it was your ill fortune to be a meanes of so 
 much good to him who is to ingrateful for it." ^ 
 
 Calvert then informs his brother that Hawley disclaims 
 that he ever sought the aid of Lord Baltimore or that he 
 ever had any designs of procuring the Proprietary's influence 
 toward securing this position for him. This information, 
 the Governor tells Cecilius Calvert, was communicated to 
 him by Cornwaleys.^ 
 
 Captain Cornwaleys was fully aware of the disfavor into 
 which his friend had fallen with Governor Calvert. That 
 the Captain did not believe all the accusation against Mr. 
 Hawley is apparent from his letter written on April 6, 1638. ^'^ 
 In it he utters a strong defence on behalf of his fellow Coun- 
 cillor, as follows : 
 
 "Newes I know yr Lop lookes for non but what concernes 
 the Commonwealth of Maryland in wch what I am defective 
 I doubt not but yr Secretary will Supply whoe is as quick as 
 I am Slow in writeing, and therefore in that part A verry fit 
 Subject for the place hee bears. And if hee proves not tooe 
 StifT A maintayner of his owne opinions, and Somewhat tooe 
 forward in Sugiesting new businesses for his owne imploy- 
 ment, hee may perhaps doe God and yr Lop good Service 
 heere I should be Sorry toe Change Mr. Hawley for him 
 whoe I perceave stands not soe perfect in yr Lops favoure as 
 I could wish him wch perhaps some takeing Advantage at, 
 and willing for toe fish in trobled waters, may by discourteous 
 proceedeings towards him make him weary of unproffitable 
 Maryland, And fors him toe A Change more for his peace 
 and Proffit. As Doubtles Virginia would bee toe him if he 
 
 8 Ibid., pp. 188-9. 
 
 » Ibid., p. 189. 
 
 '" This letter of Thomas Cornwaleys is the same one quoted extensively in 
 the preceding chapter. Owing to the diversity of the topics, it was deemed 
 best not to consider the document in any one chapter, but rather to use the 
 information as demanded by the various events described in different chapters. 
 
74 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 make good what hee hath undertaken, of wch I see no other 
 Likelihood if hee have not left his worst Enemies behinde 
 him, Among wch number I am Sorry toe see such probabillety 
 of yr Lops beeing on as I perceave there is. What reasons 
 you have for it is unknowne toe mee, nor doe I presume toe 
 Judg where the fault is. All that I wish as A Poore friende of 
 his, is that yr Lop rightly understood him for from thens I 
 verrely beleeve doth flow those Jealosyes that I preceave are 
 risen betwixt you, wch beeing increast by misapprehentions of 
 Contentious Spirits must certaynely if not in time prevented 
 by some Charitable reconsiliation breake forth with such 
 vyolens as will endanger the noe little prejudice of on or both 
 of you. I Assure yr Lop did I know any Just Cause toe 
 Suspect his Sincerety toe Maryland, or the designe wee came 
 upon, I should not bee soe Confydent of his Innosence in 
 deserving toe ill from you or this Place. I cannot my Lord 
 Suppose A httle verball vehemensy uttered in the defens 
 of A mans owne Supposed right, SufRtient toe Conclude him 
 guilty of looseing all former respects toe greater obligations, 
 wch if it bee soe greate A Crime I am toe seeke where I 
 should finde on that would bee free when he Supposeth his 
 right unjustly questioned. I must confes I cannot pleade 
 not guilty, and yet I doubt not but my greatest Enemies doe 
 really beleeve mee for toe bee as I am A most unfayned 
 friende toe Maryland. And soe I am confident will Mr. 
 Hawley Apeere if you will give him time and ocation for toe 
 manifest it, and not by vyolent discourtesyes upon uncertain 
 suppositions fors him toe Change his good intentions yr Lop 
 knowes how many difficultyes hee past in England, nor hath 
 hee beene exempt from the like in these parts, and therefore 
 hee is not too bee blamed for laying howld of some probable 
 way toe repayre his many misfortunes, there beeing noe 
 Antipothy betwixt that and the continueing of his respects 
 untoe yr. Lop. Well may the dischargeing of the office hee 
 hath undertaken invite him sometimes toe Looke towards 
 Virginia, but certaynely not with prejudice toe Maryland, 
 from whens hee receaves the greatest Comforts that the 
 
JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 75 
 
 World affords him both for Sowle and body the on from the 
 Church the other from his wife, whoe by her comportment in 
 these difficult affayrs of her husbands, hath manifested as 
 much virtue and discrestion as can bee expected from the 
 Sex she owes, whose Industrious huswifery hath soe Adorned 
 this Desert, that should his discouragements fors him toe 
 withdraw himself and her, it would not A Little Eclips the 
 Glory of Maryland." '' 
 
 Jerome Hawley also expresses a word in self-defence in a 
 letter written from Virginia on May 8, 1638, to Sir Francis 
 Windebanke. At the close of his letter he writes: ''Since my 
 coming to the place of Treasurer, I have decerned some under- 
 hand oppositions made against me, but littell hathe appeared 
 in pubhck, therefore I can not particularly laye it to any 
 man's charge. And because I finde that it chiefly aims at the 
 hindering me in making any benefitte of my place (whereof I 
 assure your Honour I have not yet made the value of five 
 pound towards my charges) I doe therefore make it my 
 humble sute unto your Honour that you wilbe pleased to move 
 the King in my behalf e and procure His Majesties warrant 
 for my fees, to the effect of this I send enclosed, which being 
 added to your former favours, will much encrease my 
 obligations to your Honour." ^^ 
 
 From the letters of Kemp and Calvert on the one hand, and 
 of Cornwaleys and Hawley on the other, we realize that there 
 are two sides to the question as in every discussion. To us, 
 it seems that the arguments redounded to Hawlej^'s favour. 
 Whether he was vindicated, we cannot tell. Streeter, in the 
 brief biography of Hawley contained in his Papers relating 
 to the Early History of Maryland, writes in reference to 
 Hawley's letter to Windebanke: "Within this despatch in 
 the State Paper Office, was enclosed the form of a warrant 
 from the king, granting to Jerome Hawley, Treasurer of 
 Virginia, power to appoint deputies for viewing tobacco, and 
 to receive as his lawful fee, one pound of tobacco for every 
 hundred weight of the same, viewed by him or his deputies, 
 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 179-81. 
 12 Streeter, op. cit., p. 120. 
 
76 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 but whether this was a form transmitted by the petitioner or 
 a warrant drawn by authority of the king, in comphance with 
 his petition, we cannot say." ^^ 
 
 Whatever may have been the result of Cornwaleys' appeal 
 in his friend's behalf or of the petition addressed to Sir 
 Francis Windebank, Jerome Hawley was soon to be beyond 
 the harm of vituperation where the good or evil report of 
 men matters naught. In a previous chapter, we have alluded 
 to the sickness that prevailed during the year 1638. The 
 fellow Councillor and friend of Cornwaleys died early in 
 August of that year, probably a victim to the disease. ^^ 
 
 Among the Annual Letters of the English Province of the 
 Society of Jesus, in the one for that year regarding the 
 Mission of Maryland, we read of the death of a man who 
 was the beneficiary of the ministrations of the Fathers, and 
 whom Father Hughes believes to have been Jerome Hawley.^'' 
 The account reads: "Several of the chief men have, through 
 the use of the Spiritual Exercises, been formed by us to 
 piety; a fruit by no means to be despised. In one especial 
 case we adore the wonderful providence and mercy of God, 
 which brought a man encompassed in the world with many 
 difficulties, and obliged to live in Virginia constantly deprived 
 of all spiritual aid, to promise, not long before his death, that 
 he whould undertake these Exercises. This intention was 
 prevented by a severe sickness which he bore with the 
 greatest patience, fixing his mind firmly on God; and at 
 length, having duly received all the sacraments, in a state 
 of most unusual peace he gave back his soul to God, which 
 had been so full of troubles and disquietudes." ^^ 
 
 In Hawley' s will, made at the time of leaving England 
 with the first colonists, he had appointed residents of the 
 mother country as his executors. Thomas Cornwaleys was, 
 however, appointed administrator of his estate for reasons 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
 ^* Ibid., p. 121. 
 
 '^ Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Vol. i, Text, p. 337. 
 
 '^ Foley, Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, Vol. iii, p. 
 371. This work contains the English version of the letter quoted. The 
 Latin version is to be found in Hughes, op. cit.. Documents, Vol. i, Part i, p. 112. 
 
JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 77 
 
 which shall be seen below. In the records of the Provincial 
 Court, we find the following entry: 
 
 administration of mr Hawleys estate granted to the 
 Captaine, mr Tho: Cornwaleys Esq &. the Inventary 
 to be brought in within a moneth, and the Accompt 
 within a twelve moneth. date 2. August 1638.^'' 
 
 The records contain a document from the Proprietor appoint- 
 ing him to this office. From it, we find that Hawley's will 
 was dated October 20, 1633. Owing to the distance at which 
 the three original executors mentioned in the will lived, it 
 was deemed expedient by Cecilius Calvert to appoint Corn- 
 waleys administrator ''of the goods and chattells" of Jerome 
 Hawley, on August 14, 1638. The Captain was ordered to 
 exhibit to Secretary Lewger "a, true and perfect Inventary of 
 all the said goods & chattells within one moneth after the 
 date hereof." The full account of his administration was to 
 be made to the same official whenever he was called upon to 
 do so.^^ 
 
 A memorandum was then filed ''that this day came 
 Thomas Cornwaleys Esq &c and acknowledgeth himselfe to 
 owe unto the Lord Proprietarie of this Province and his 
 heires one thousand pound sterhng, to be levied upon the 
 lands goods and chattells of the said Thomas Cornwaleys &c 
 The condition of ths Recognizance is that if the said Thomas 
 Cornwaleys shall well and truely performe the Commission of 
 Administration of the goods and chattells of Jerome Hawley 
 late Esq deceased, bearing date the day of August 1638 in 
 all the severall contents thereof, wherewith the said Thomas 
 Cornwaleys is charged in the said Commission, then this 
 Recognizance to be void, or els to stand in full force." ^^ 
 
 On April 20, 1639, Thomas Cornwaleys dehvered to the 
 Court the account of his administration of the goods of 
 "Jerome Hawley late of St. Maries Esq deceased." We take 
 the liberty of giving this account in full as found in the records 
 of the Provincial Court. It will not be without interest as 
 
 ^' IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 39. 
 18/feiVi., p. 41. 
 " Ibid. 
 
78 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 showing the amount of Mr. Hawley's estate and containing 
 the names of some of the earUest colonists of Maryland. 
 Furthermore it will show the financial status of some, whose 
 debts it was deemed necessary to mark down as " desperate." 
 
 Thomas Cornwaleys debitor to the estate of Jerome Hawley 
 as followeth ^ 
 
 1 s d 
 
 to goods received, as p Inventary 849 06 9 
 
 to a debt received of Thomas Hebden 003 12 6 
 
 to a debt received of John dandie 003 13 3 
 
 to a debt received of John Wyatt 000 17 
 
 to a bill from Cyprian Throughgood 005 07 
 
 to a bill from Anthony Cotton 008 17 6 
 
 to rec of Capt : Evelin & Company, a debt of 1824 1 tob : 022 16 
 
 894 06 
 
 to desperate debts upon bills as followeth 
 
 1 s d 
 from Thomas Bradnock & Richard Purlivant; 1500 1 
 
 tob 
 from william medcalfe 500 1 tob: 
 from Ed: Comins & Tho: Pett, 800 1 tob: 
 from Robt Philpott, and Laurence MoUock; 777 1 tob. 
 from will: Coxe and John Smith, 450 1 
 
 totall 
 
 p contra Credr 
 
 by expended for funerall charges 
 
 by paid the tailor for mourning clothes 
 
 by paid in Surgeons bills 
 
 by housekeeping defrayed 40. daies 
 
 by paid the praisers for their paines 
 
 by paid mr Lewger for a debt due to Tho : CuUamore 002 
 
 by paid ditto for a debt due to himselfe 
 
 by paid Leonard Calvert Esq for a debt due to him 
 
 by paid Robt Percy for wages 
 
 by paid John halfehead for work done 
 
 by paid RandoU Revell for worke 
 
 by paid An Smithson for wages 
 
 by 3. bbrels come paid to will: Lewis 
 
 by paid my selfe for a debt due upon specialtie and 
 
 Accompt 
 by paid to the Lord Baltemore upon judgement 
 
 018 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 006 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 010 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 009 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 005 
 
 12 
 
 6 
 
 050 
 
 07 
 
 
 
 944 
 
 13 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 d 
 
 005 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 003 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 005 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 005 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 004 
 
 04 
 
 
 
 002 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 001 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 001 
 
 06 
 
 
 
 001 
 
 05 
 
 
 
 002 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 000 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 001 
 
 04 
 
 
 
 001 
 1 
 
 04 
 
 
 
 410 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 234 
 
 04 
 
 4 
 
 20 Ibid., pp. 100-1. 
 
JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 79 
 
 by paid Andrew Cli^ppell upon judgemt 
 
 by paid Edward Brent for wages 
 
 by paid Xpofer Plunkett for wages 
 
 by paid John Cook for wages 
 
 by paid Richard Hill for wages 
 
 by paid Cyprian Throughgood upon judgement 
 
 by paid Anthony Cotton upon judgemt 
 
 by paid Richard Gardner upon judgemt 
 
 by expended in suits and Court fees 
 
 by so much allowed for my paines 
 
 by paid Capt : Evelin & company for wages of Edmond 
 
 deering 002 02 
 
 by paid Thomas Capley. Esq in part of a debt recovered 
 
 by judgemt 087 09 8 
 
 by bills of desperate debts delivered to the said mr 
 
 Coply toward further satisfaction of his debt 050 07 
 
 I 
 
 s 
 
 d 
 
 012 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 015 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 005 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 009 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 014 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 005 
 
 07 
 
 
 
 015 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 012 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 008 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 010 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 944 13 
 
 This account is followed by a letter from the Proprietary 
 approving of the manner in which the Captain discharged 
 his duties as administrator. It runs as follows: 
 
 ^'Cecilius Lord &c. to all xtian people to whom these 
 pnts shall come, greeting. Whereas by or Ires of Admraon 
 bearing date at St. Maries 14th August 1638 we did ordeine 
 & appoint Capt : Thomas Cornwaleys Esq & one of or Counsell 
 of or Province of Maryland to be Admrator of the goods & 
 chattells within or said Province wch were Jerome Hawley's 
 late of St Maries Esq deceased at the time of his death, and 
 bound & charged him as well by his corporall Oath as by a 
 Recognisance of 1000 pounds sterling, to make a full and 
 perfect Inventary of all the said goods and chattells, & to 
 render a faithful and true Accompt thereof when he should 
 be thereunto called by or Secretary or had otherwise fully 
 administred the same According whereunto the said Tho: 
 Cornwaleys on 13th September following made & delivered 
 to or Secretary an Inventary of the said goods & chattells 
 amounting to the value of 944 pounds 13 shillings . . . and 
 afterward that is to say on 20th Aprill 1639. brought in his 
 Accompt of the said estate to or said Secretary who hath 
 diligently perused & examined the same & findeth the f unerall 
 expences & other charges reasonably defrayed and the just 
 
80 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 debts orderly & rightfully discharged by the said Thomas 
 Cornwaleys on the behalfe of the said Jerome Hawley to 
 amount to the full summe of the estate received, that is to 
 say to the summe of 944 pounds 13 shillings sterling. Know 
 ye therefore that we well approving the faithfulness and 
 diligence of the said Thomas Cornwaleys, doe hereby admit 
 & approve of his said Accompt, and signifie & declare tht the 
 said Tho. Cornwaleys hath fully administered the goods & 
 chattells of the said Jerome Hawley; And therefore doe 
 hereby quite claime & discharge him of his aforesaid Recog- 
 nisance, & of all further Accompt and question touching the 
 said Admraon. Witnesse or deare brother Leonard Calvert 
 Esq, Leiutent grail of or said Province of maryland. Given 
 at St. maries this 29th Aprill 1639." ^i 
 
 " Ibid., pp. 101-2. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR 
 
 (Continued) 
 
 Toward the close of the eventful year 1638, Lord Baltimore 
 sent word to the Governor of his Province to prepare for 
 the Third Assembly of Maryland, which was to meet at St. 
 Mary's on February 25, 1638. The following summons was 
 directed to Captain Cornwaleys:^ 
 
 Cecilius Lord Proprietary &ca to our dear Friend 
 & Councillor Thomas Cornwaleys Esqr Greeting 
 whereas we have appointed to hold a General 
 Assembly of the Freemen of our Province at our Fort 
 of St. Marys on the five and twentieth day of 
 February next we do therefore hereby will and 
 require you that all excuses and delays sett apart you 
 repair in Person to the said Assembly at the time and 
 Place prefixed there to advise and Consult with us 
 touching the important affairs of our Province. 
 
 Given at St. Marys the 18th January 1638. 
 
 The same announcement was made to Mr. Giles Brent, 
 Councillor, Mr. Fulk Brent, Mr. Thomas Greene and Mr. 
 John Boteler. Notification was furthermore sent to the 
 freemen of the various Hundreds, St. Marys, St. Georges, St. 
 Michaels ; to Mattapanient and to Kent Island, to elect their 
 Burgesses or Representatives for the coming session of the 
 Assembly which was done as directed.^ 
 
 The following were the members of the Assembly that met 
 at the Fort at St. Mary's, on February 25, 1638: The Lieu- 
 tenant General, Leonard Calvert, Captain Thomas Corn- 
 waleys, Messrs Fulk Brent, Giles Brent, Secretary Lewger 
 and Thomas Greene.^ The Delegates were: Messrs Gerard 
 and Gray, for St. Mary's; Wickliff and Rebell, for St. 
 
 ^ / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 27. 
 
 2 /bid., pp. 27-31. 
 
 ^ Note the absence of Boteler though invited by special summons. This 
 was the gentleman referred to in connection with the Kent Island disturbance. 
 Streeter remarks that his former hostility had been tempered and the Governor 
 was desirous of gaining his good will (Streeter, Papers, etc., p. 149). 
 
 81 
 
82 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Georges; Cauther and Price, for St. Michaels; Bishop, for 
 Mattapanient; and Thomas and Brown, for Kent.^ 
 
 Immediately after assembhng, "they removed the As- 
 sembly to be held at Saint Johns." '" St. John's was probably 
 the mansion house of the manor of St. John's near the town 
 of St. Mary's, reserved for the Governor.^ When the session 
 had convened at this place, the letter of the Proprietary was 
 read. It was addressed to Leonard Calvert and gave him 
 ''full Power and Authority" in the Assembly to assent to 
 such legislation which he thought good and necessary for 
 the government of the Province after it had passed with the 
 approval of the freemen of the Province or of the majority 
 of them. These laws were to be, in as far as possible, 
 conformable to the laws of the mother country and were to 
 hold till Lord Baltimore or his heirs should set them aside. ^ 
 The Proprietary was led to this resolution of allowing the 
 governed to originate their laws because he saw that to 
 insist on his right to suggest the laws would only lead to 
 difficulties that would retard the progress of the colony. 
 Consequently he decided to waive his claim to the initiative 
 and to concede to the Marylanders the right to legislate for 
 themselves. Futhermore, the code already prepared was 
 not given his approval for this very reason.^ 
 
 On the first day of the Assembly, Cuthbert Fenwick and 
 Robert Gierke claimed a voice as not having assented to the 
 election of the Burgesses from St. Mary's and they were 
 admitted to membership in the law-making body. It seems 
 that the two men rested content with having established their 
 right for their presence is not noted in the subsequent acts 
 of this session.^ The Orders to be observed during the 
 sessions were substantially the same as those in force during 
 the Second Assembly with several new ones. Thus any late 
 arrival was to be amerced twenty pounds of tobacco which 
 
 * I — Archives, p. 32. 
 6 Ibid. 
 
 * Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 131. 
 ^ 7 — Archives, pp. 31-2. 
 
 * Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 148. 
 ' I — Archives, p. 32; also Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 105. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 83 
 
 was to be "paid to the use of the house." Another ran as 
 follows: "After any Bill hath been once read in the house the 
 Bill shall be read ingrossed or utterly rejected and upon any 
 day or day [sic] appointed for a Session all Bills engrossed 
 shall be put to the question and such as are assented to by 
 the Greater part of the house and if the Votes be equal that 
 shall be judged the Greater part which hath the Consent of 
 the Lieutenant General shall be undersigned by the Secretary 
 in these words the freemen have assented and after that the 
 President shall be demanded his assent in the name of the 
 Lord proprietary and if his assent be to the Bill, the Bill shall 
 be undersigned by the said Secretary in these words the 
 Lord Proprietary willeth that this be a Law." ^^ 
 
 The action of this Assembly was varied and important. 
 However, since no detailed account is given as to the opinions 
 of the members on the laws as they were discussed, it will 
 suffice to give briefly the import of the legislation effected 
 which laid the foundation of the religious, civil and social 
 organization of the Province. The most important laws 
 framed were of this tenor, that "Holy Church within this 
 province shall have all her rights and priviliges," ^^ "The 
 Lord Proprietarie shall have all his rights and prerogatives," 
 "The Inhabitants of this Province shall have all their rights 
 and liberties according to the great Charter of England." 
 Crimes and misdemeanors were defined, and their penalties 
 fixed, courts were estabhshed and their jurisdiction deter- 
 mined, inferior officers provided for and their oaths of 
 office set down, a military establishment was ordered; in 
 short, to use the words of Streeter, "the whole machinery of 
 government planned and prepared to be set in motion." ^- 
 The sessions came to a close on March 19, 1638. 
 
 This Assembly, like the preceding, was not confined merely 
 to legislation. Sometimes it assumed the functions of a 
 
 '" I — Archives, p. 33. 
 
 11 Much has been written to show that was meant by the phrase "Holy 
 Church." Briefly, it meant in this case, no particular church provided it was 
 a church that professed a behef in Christ. 
 
 " Streeter, op. cit., p. 151. 
 
84 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Court to try both civil and criminal cases. An instance of 
 the latter will not be without interest as it shows the dif- 
 ferent temperaments of the men who formed the Assembly. 
 The proceedings of the trial itself are not recorded. We 
 only have the account of the opinions of the members as 
 to what punishment was meted out to the culprit. The 
 record of the event reads as follows: ''Then was caUed John 
 Richardson & charged with flight & Carrying away the Goods 
 unlawfully from his Master & found Guilty by the whole 
 house and adjudged by the house to be whipped three 
 several times." Five were in favor of inflicting the penalty 
 just mentioned. Mr. Greene thought that he should be 
 hanged. The two Brents voted for whipping him ''very 
 severely"; the Captain, that he should "be whipped pro- 
 vided that he be Sorrowful for his fault"; and the Governor, 
 that he "be laid in Irons and whipped three several times 
 very severely." ^^ 
 
 On two occasions, namely, on March 1st and March 7th, 
 Captain Thomas Cornwaleys "was amerced for tardie," 
 twenty pounds of tobacco. ^^ 
 
 On the day following the close of the Assembly, the Court 
 was opened at St. Mary's. At the first session, the various 
 officers of the Province who formed part of the same took the 
 oaths prescribed, namely, the Oath of Allegiance to the King 
 and the oath which each man was obliged to take in virtue 
 of the office he held in the Province. The oath to the King 
 was defined at the last Assembly. ^^ Thomas Cornwaleys 
 took, besides the Oath of Allegiance, the one appointed for a 
 Counsellor. ^^ 
 
 On April 25, 1639, Governor Calvert issued instructions to 
 Secretary Lewger to draw up the following document: ^^ 
 
 These are to will and Require you to draw a Com- 
 mission to Captain Thomas Cornwaleys Esqr &ca 
 for the hearing and determining of any Civil Causes 
 
 " I — Archives, p. 37. 
 
 1^ Ibid., pp. 36-7. 
 
 >^ /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 85. 
 
 i« For the Oath of a Counsellor, see / — Archives, p. 45. 
 
 1^ III — Archives, p. 85. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 85 
 
 hapning during my Absence from St. Marys in the 
 same manner as I my Self might do by the Law of 
 the Province. 
 
 Just how long this commission of the Captain lasted can- 
 not be stated with certainty. One month is the longest 
 period during which it could have held force since we find in 
 the records of the Council that the Governor was again at 
 his post on May 28th. When Calvert returned, Cornwaleys 
 carried out his long desired plan of going to England. Just 
 when he set sail is a matter of conjecture. On May 29th, 
 the Lieutenant General issued an appointment to Giles 
 Brent as Captain of the military forces of the colony since 
 the militia was ''destitute of a Captain to lead and Command 
 them and to exercise them in the discipline Military." ^^ 
 
 Just what took the Captain to his native land has not come 
 down to us. Various opinions may be formed however, as 
 to his intention. Most probably he wished to see his wife 
 who was there. In his letter of the previous year, he referred 
 to her condition being such as to indispose her to manage 
 his affairs. ^^ And we have no reference to her having come to 
 Maryland in the interim. Streeter supposes that the man- 
 agement of Hawley's estate took him to England.^" In the 
 letter of the Captain referred to, he also expressed the wish 
 to have an interview with Cecilius Calvert. Whatever may 
 have been his design, his stay there was not protracted 
 beyond a year and a half. 
 
 During Cornwaleys' absence from the Province, a session 
 of the Legislature convened at St. John's on October 12, 
 1640. Previous to its opening, on September 19, 1640, the 
 following summons was issued by the Governor in the name 
 of the Proprietary to Cuthbert Fenwick, Attorney of Corn- 
 waleys : 
 
 Caecilius &ca to our trusty Cuthbert Fennick Gent 
 Atty within this Province of our right trusty &ca 
 Greeting whereas we have appointed to hold a 
 General Assembly at St. Marys on monday the 
 
 18 lUd., p. 86. 
 
 " Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170. 
 
 "Streeter, op. ci<., p. 152. 
 
86 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 twelfth October next at which we could much have 
 wished to have had the presence and advice of our 
 trusty Counsellor Thomas Cornwaleys which being 
 not to be presumed upon by reason of his absence 
 nevertheless for the respect we bear unto him and out 
 of our care that so great a member of our province 
 may have his Attorney there to take care of such 
 things as may concern him therefore we do hereby 
 authorise you to repair personally to the said 
 Assembly there to have place voice & seat as our 
 said Councillors Proctor or Attorney during his 
 absence.2^ 
 
 In this Assembly, we find two new "Hundreds" repre- 
 sented, St. Clement's and St. Margaret's. Furthermore, 
 Mattapanient had risen in numbers as to warrant its repre- 
 sentation as a Hundred and was known as Conception 
 Hundred.^- It is not necessary to dwell on the acts of this 
 Assembly since the Captain was not present at its sessions. 
 However, two acts are worthy of notice. The first was of the 
 same import as one passed at the preceding Assembly, that 
 *'Holy Church within this Province shall have and enjoy all 
 her Rights liberties and Franchises wholy and without 
 Blemish." The other decides who is to be chief executive 
 in the colony in case the Governor should die or be absent 
 from the Province without having nominated another to act 
 for him. In this case the vacant office was to be occupied by 
 the first Councillor, who would then hold office until the 
 return of the Lieutenant General or the appointment of 
 another by the Proprietary.^^ 
 
 During the next Assembly which sat during the early part 
 of the month of August, 1641, Cuthbert Fenwick was still 
 acting as Attorney for Cornwaleys. At the next session, 
 
 21 1— Archives, pp. 88-9, Cuthbert Fenwick was the progenitor of two 
 American Bishops, Rt. Rev. Edward D. Fenwick, O. P., founder of the 
 Dominicans in the United States, pioneer missionary in Kentucky, "Apostle of 
 Ohio" and first Bishop of Cincinnati; and of Rt. Rev. Benedict J. Fenwick, 
 S. J. , second Bishop of Boston. For a biographical sketch of Cuthbert Fenwick, 
 cf. O'Daniel, The Right Rev. Edward Dominic Fenurick, O. P. (Chapter I); 
 O'Daniel, Cuthbert Fenwick — Pioneer Catholic and Legislator of Maryland, in 
 The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. v, pp. 156 et seq.; Davis, The Day-Star 
 of American Freedom., pp. 207 et seq. 
 
 22 1— Archives, pp. 88-9. 
 
 23 Ibid., p. 96. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 87 
 
 which opened on March 21, 1641, we again find the Maryland 
 Counsellor at his post of duty. All the freemen were invited 
 to take part. The reason for calling all the freemen and not 
 only the Burgesses was because most of the laws then in force 
 had expired, having been enacted only temporarily.-^ The 
 very first act of the House was a declaration that it could not 
 be adjourned or prorogued without its own consent.-^ The 
 power of dissolution was not denied.^^ 
 
 The next day a bill for an expedition against the Indians 
 was introduced. The text of this legislation is not given. 
 Opposition was raised to the same, the objection being, 
 that it was not to be left to the discretion of the Governor and 
 Counsel.'^ ^ A petition was presented in the afternoon of the 
 same day by David WicklifT "in the name of the Protestant 
 CathoUcks of Maryland." Action was postponed till the 
 next morning. The offended parties complained that Mr. 
 Thomas Gerard had taken away the key to the chapel and 
 carried away several books from the same. They asked 
 that the offense be dealt with as justice demanded. What 
 Gerard said in his defense is not recorded. Whatever it was, 
 it did not satisfy the House and he was found guilty of a 
 misdemeanor. The penalty meted out to him was to restore 
 the key and the books and to relinquish all title to them or to 
 the house. A fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco was 
 imposed to be used for the maintenance of the first minister 
 that should arrive.-^ 
 
 The only new enactment of this session was "An Act for 
 Granting of one Subsedye." It provided for the contribution 
 to the Proprietor of fifteen pounds of tobacco by every in- 
 habitant of the Province, children under the age of tw^elve 
 years being excepted. The act was unanimously passed and 
 was designed as a token of gratitude to Lord Baltimore and 
 as a remuneration for the expenses incurred in their behalf.^^ 
 
 ^* Ibid., pp. 114-5. 
 
 ^^Ibid., p. 117. 
 
 2^ Streeter, op. cit., p. 166. 
 
 2' 7 — Archives, p. 118. 
 
 ^« Ibid., p. 119. 
 
 29 Ibid., p. 123. 
 
88 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 The laws framed at this session were pubhshed under the 
 Great Seal on March 26, 1642. 
 
 The next session of the legislature opened on July 18, 1642. 
 The body consisted of the Burgesses and others called by 
 special writs. At the opening of the same, Robert Vaughn, a 
 member from Kent Island, proposed to separate the House; 
 one part to be made up of the Burgesses. This the Governor 
 refused to sanction. The separation of the House into two 
 chambers later became the law of the Province.^" The 
 essential business brought to the attention of the legislators, 
 was an expedition against the Indians which met with decided 
 opposition. The Governor then informed them that it 
 was not his purpose to ask their advice or consent in the 
 matter. The power of making war rested, in virtue of the 
 Charter, with the chief executive. He merely wanted to 
 know what assistance they could render in case he decided 
 to proceed against the savages. The Secretary then pro- 
 posed that twenty pounds of tobacco be levied upon each 
 man to defray the expenses of such an expedition. The 
 action on the bill was postponed and was not again brought 
 up during the sessions.^^ Other legislation dealt chiefly with 
 judicial matters and the Assembly came to a close on August 
 1st. Calvert's intentions with regard to punishing the 
 hostile Indians were not frustrated by the opposition of the 
 Assembly. What action he took in this difficulty will be 
 the subject of a succeeding chapter. 
 
 We now come to the important Assembly which began its 
 business on September 5, 1642. During the sessions, Thomas 
 Cornwaleys held a great number of proxies, on one day 
 having as high as eleven, and on another, as many as nine- 
 teen.^' No other member had as many proxies on any day 
 of the sessions. This Assembly was composed of all the 
 freemen of the Province. 
 
 On the first day, the Governor, Captain Cornwaleys, Mr. 
 Brent, the Secretary, the Surveyor, Mr. Weston and Mr. 
 
 30 Ihid., p. 130. 
 
 "/bid., pp. 130-1. 
 
 32 Ihid., pp. 167, 172, 173, 174, 176, 180. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 89 
 
 Greene were appointed a Committee to draw up a bill 
 touching a war to be made on the Indians and other matters 
 pertaining to the safety of the colony.^^ This group of men 
 reported the bill in the afternoon session. The Governor 
 demanded exemption from the levy of men provided for in 
 the document submitted. His request was refused by a vote 
 of one hundred to thirty-eight. 
 
 On September 6th, the Governor offered a measure for 
 the repeal of all laws enacted at the preceding Assembly. The 
 same committee mentioned above was appointed, with the 
 exception that Mr. Weston's seat was to be occupied by 
 Mr. Whitcliff , to draw up other suggestions for the safety of 
 the colony. In the afternoon of the same day, the Captain 
 was named as one of a committee of eight to consider bills 
 to be propounded on the next day that the body met.^^ 
 
 The committee, at the time appointed, submitted several 
 bills among which was one providing for officers. This had 
 been construed as giving the Governor power to compel a 
 freeman to serve in such offices as that official was pleased 
 to bestow, provided a reasonable fee was allowed. Corn- 
 waleys and Brent offered a determined opposition to the 
 passage of this law, on the ground that it was unnecessary. 
 Besides it gave away their liberties and was unUmited in 
 giving the Governor a right to force men to the office of 
 Sheriff, as well as others, thus "against common right and 
 decency compelling men to be hangmen." Calvert was 
 willing to make a concession with regard to compelling 
 anyone to become an executioner.^^ The bill was, however, 
 defeated.^® 
 
 On the morning of September 12, the report of the com- 
 mittee was read before the assembled freemen. Twenty-five 
 bills were proposed. A provision was made by the Com- 
 mittee that the laws should last for three years. To this 
 Calvert objected. When the question was submitted to 
 discussion, it was found that twenty-six "voices" were in 
 
 ^^ Ibid., p. 17L 
 34 Ibid., pp. 174-5. 
 ^'=' Ibid., p. 175. 
 " IMd., p. 179. 
 
90 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 favor of the legislation enduring till the first meeting of the 
 next Assembly. Among the voters were the Governor, who 
 held three votes and the Secretary, with four. Forty-six 
 were in favor of the laws having their force till the first 
 meeting of the next Assembly with the proviso that, in case 
 none were called before the lapse of three years, they were 
 to hold for that period of time. Captain Cornwaleys and 
 Mr. Brent, with their proxies, voted that they should have 
 their vigor for three years. In the afternoon the question 
 was again discussed. The voting resolved itself to two 
 opinions. That they should endure for three years or else 
 to the next meeting of the Assembly in case one was called 
 within that time, was favored by the Governor, Mr. Secretary, 
 Mr. Surveyor, Mr. Binks, Thomas Hebden and Mr. Weston, 
 for themselves and their proxies. That they should last 
 "for three years certain" was championed by Captain 
 Cornwaleys, Mr. Brent, Mr. Greene, Nicholas Hervey, 
 Randoll Rebell, John Medley, Francis Posie and Nicholas 
 Cosin, for themselves and their proxies, who carried their 
 point.^^ 
 
 On September 13th, the last day of this Assembly, the Bill 
 for an Expedition against the Indians again came before the 
 House. It was passed by all, except that Captain Corn- 
 waleys with "fifteen of his Proxies of St. Michaels hundred" 
 voted against it by reason of the clause exempting the ser- 
 vants of the Governor.^ ^ Twenty-five Acts were published 
 after this Assembly "at St. Maries under the Great Scale, 
 the fifteenth day of September 1642." It is worthy to note 
 that after each is added ' ' This Act to endure for three years 
 from this present day." ^^ 
 
 During the session of the Assembly which had just closed, 
 Cornwaleys and Brent had stirred up considerable opposition 
 to various measures. This fact did not prevent the Governor 
 from bestowing upon both men responsible public appoint- 
 ments. When called upon they were ever ready to give 
 
 " Ibid., pp. 177-9. 
 
 38 Ibid., p. 182. 
 
 39 Ibid., pp. 182-198. 
 
CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (CONTINUED) 91 
 
 their services to the Colony unselfishly. An exception must 
 be made to this last statement in the case of the Captain. 
 On the records of the Provincial Court we find the following 
 entry for September 16, 1642, the day following the pubhca- 
 tion of the Acts of the Assembly: "Captaine Thomas Corn- 
 waleys Esq being demanded to take the Oath of a Counsellor 
 absolutely refused to be in Commission or to take the 
 Oath." The reasons for this unexpected procedure are 
 not given. Taken in connection with the course he followed 
 in the Assembly, it affords strong ground for the inference 
 that the friendly relations between Calvert and Cornwaleys 
 were disturbed. Since the Captain, however, was ever 
 willing to render every service in his power to the colony in 
 other capacities, we think that his refusal to ''be in Com- 
 mission" was due to dissatisfaction with the legislative 
 proceedings. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 Indian Disturbances 
 
 From the foundation of the town of St. Mary's, the 
 Maryland settlers strove to live on friendly terms with the 
 aboriginal inhabitants. Amicable relations were the order 
 of the day. The object of Lord Baltimore in using every 
 means in his power to conciliate the tribes was chiefly to 
 civilize them and to bring to the benighted children of the 
 forest the light of the Gospel. From the annual letters of 
 the Jesuits we receive glowing accounts of the success of the 
 missionaries. Several chieftains were won over from false 
 worship to the cult of the one true God. Following the 
 example of their leaders many of the savages embraced the 
 true faith. In fact, the early days of the colony were 
 singularly free from hostile demonstration on the part of 
 the Indians. 
 
 There were other tribes living on the frontiers of the 
 Province who were inimical not only to the colonists but to 
 the Indians who were the friends of the settlers. With 
 these. Governor Calvert had to reckon. The cause of their 
 hostility was chiefly due to the intrusion of the colonists. 
 The Piscatoway and Patuxent tribes were the friends of the 
 Marylanders. The Susquehanocks were the enemies of 
 both the Indian and English inhabitants of Maryland. They 
 were the principal enemies with which the colonists had to 
 deal. Some eastern shore Indians also acted in a manner as 
 to render it necessary to adopt measures to repel them. 
 
 As early as May 28, 1639, the Governor and Council saw 
 fit to arm the colonists for repelling any attack on the part of 
 the Indians of the eastern shore. ^ The Susquehanocks were 
 also mentioned in this proclamation. For further protection, 
 it was thought wise to arm the colonists, particularly those 
 living about St. Mary's, for purposes of defence. Mr, Giles 
 Brent was appointed on May 29, 1639, Captain of the 
 
 ' /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 85. 
 92 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 93 
 
 military forces, next in rank to the Governor, and was 
 ordered to train the inhabitants in martial exercises.- He 
 was also directed to provide for arms and ammunition. In 
 this commission to Brent, Leonard Calvert refers to the 
 absence of Captain Cornwaleys. From the Governor's 
 words, it is evident that, had Cornwaleys been available, he 
 would undoubtedly have been his choice for the post. The 
 reason of Cornwaleys not being able to assume the charge was 
 due to his preparations for his visit to England described in a 
 previous chapter. Up to this time, he had been looked to as 
 the main reliance of the colonists in their encounters with the 
 natives or other enemies. 
 
 Strict injunctions were issued to the settlers that no 
 weapons were to be sold to the savages. Parties were sent 
 to punish the marauding Maquantequats.^ The old friends 
 of the colony, the Patuxents, were, by a pubUc proclamation 
 on January 24, 1639, declared under the protection of the 
 English, and all persons were forbidden to do them violence.'* 
 When the Susquehanocks on the north, and the Wicomeses 
 and Nanticokes on the east, made inroads on the territory 
 of the Marylanders, Calvert found it necessary to issue 
 another proclamation, on July 10, 1641.^ In it, he obhged 
 the settlers to be on their guard against the Indians. Any 
 person who harbored a savage was amenable to martial law. 
 Besides, he authorized the people of Kent to shoot any Indian 
 that should make his appearance on the island.^ 
 
 Since the Indians about Maryland continued their hos- 
 tilities, probably with increased violence, it was deemed 
 advisable to introduce a rigorous military discipline among the 
 inhabitants than had hitherto been practised. Accordingly, 
 certain orders were promulgated, on June 23, 1642, ''upon 
 pain of death or other penalties, as by Severity of Martiall 
 Law may be inflicted": 
 
 2 Ibid., p. 86. 
 
 3 Ibid., p. 87. 
 * Ibid. 
 
 ' Ibid. 
 
 « Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 102: also III— 
 Archives, p. 98. 
 
94 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 That noe Inhabitant or housekeeper entertain any 
 Indian upon any colour of License, nor doe permit 
 to any Indian any Gunn powder and Shott. 
 
 That all housekeepers provide fixed gunn and 
 Sufficient powder and Shott for each person able to 
 bear arms. 
 
 Noe man to discharge three Gunns within the space 
 of one quarter of an hour nor concurr to the discharge- 
 ing Soe many, except to give or Answer alarm. 
 
 Upon the hearing of an Alarum every housekeeper 
 to answer and continue it Soe far as he may. 
 
 Noe man able to bear arms to goe to church or 
 Chappell or any considerable distance from home 
 without fixed gunn and one Charge at least of powder 
 and Shott. 
 
 Of these every one required to take notice upon 
 pain of Content, for better execution, the Serjt to 
 inform the Lieutent Governor or Captaine.^ 
 
 On August 18, 1642, Captain Cornwaleys was again placed 
 in charge of military operations in the colony. His com- 
 mission made him Captain General of the army. The same 
 was issued ''to leavie men and Command them, and use all 
 power and means conduceing in his discretion to the 
 resistance and Castigacon of the enemies and vanquishing 
 of them in as full and ample manner as any Capt General of 
 any army may, and requiring all officers and soldiers &c to 
 be obedient and asssitant to him upon paines as may be 
 Inflicted by Martiall Law." « 
 
 At this juncture, one of the settlements at Piscataway was 
 attacked, the inhabitants murdered, and a large amount of 
 plunder carried away. Even the Jesuit missionaries, devoted 
 and fearless as they were, began seriously to think of aban- 
 doning their station, and establishing themselves at Potu- 
 paco (Port Tobacco), which was less exposed to the ravages 
 of the cruel and ever active Susquehanocks. On the east also, 
 the savages had begun their bloody work. Even the peace- 
 ful Patuxents, so long the friends of the Marylanders, showed 
 signs of an aggressive and hostile spirit.^ This action seems 
 
 ' /// — Archives, p. 103. 
 
 « Ibid., p. 106. 
 
 * Streeter, op. cit., pp. 167-8. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 95 
 
 to have been the result of the Governor's determination 
 despite the opposition of the Assembly to undertake an 
 expedition against the Indians.^" 
 
 Five days after Cornwaleys' appointment, Calvert ad- 
 dressed a letter to Governor Berkeley of Virginia. The 
 message recounts the aggressions of the savages. Five 
 Virginians and eight Marylanders had been barbarously 
 massacred. For the vindication of the "Honour of our 
 Nation" and to avenge the murder of the colonists, he asks 
 Berkeley to furnish one hundred men, well armed, to meet 
 the same number of the Maryland forces. On October 1st, 
 they are to meet at Kent Island and together to inflict 
 condign chastisement on their insolent and merciless ene- 
 mies. ^^ As a measure of precaution, Henry Bishop was 
 authorized to take command of the fort at Patuxent, which 
 was to be a place of rendezvous of the inhabitants of the 
 vicinity in case of danger. ^^ Furthermore, notice was 
 issued on August 28th, providing for the safety of the 
 settlers in case of any sudden attack, and indicating the 
 strongholds within prescribed districts, to which women and 
 children could fly for protection. ^^ Finally the following 
 was published: 
 
 Proclamation By the Lieutent Generall 
 
 These are to publish and declare that the Sesqui- 
 hanowes, Wicomeses, and Nantacoque Indians, are 
 enemies of this Province, and as such are to be 
 reputed & proceeded against by all persons. Given 
 at St Maries Sept 13th 1642 
 
 Leonard Calvert ^* 
 
 On September 13, 1642, the bill was passed for an expedi- 
 tion against the Indians. This act empowered the Governor, 
 or any Captain or Captains under him, to organize an expe- 
 dition against the Susquehanocks, or any Indians who had 
 participated in the late ravages in the colony. It authorized 
 
 ^° / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 1.30. 
 '^ III — Archives, p. 106. 
 12 Ibid., p. 107. 
 " Ibid. 
 "/bid., p. 116. 
 
96 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 him to take out of every county or hundred, every third man 
 able to bear arms. The Governor and his servants were 
 exempted from being reckoned in any hundred ''to any 
 purpose of this Act." It was this phrase to which, as we 
 have seen in the previous chapter, Cornwaleys offered an 
 objection. The various hundreds were to defray the 
 expenses of arming and otherwise equipping the men. 
 Provisions were to be supphed in the same way. The 
 freemen of the hundreds were to judge the number of men 
 and the amount of ammunition, food, etc., to be contributed 
 by them.^^ 
 
 Though Governor Calvert was convinced of the grave 
 necessity of an expedition against the Indian marauders for 
 the welfare and even the existence of the Colony, and 
 pressed his designs with dogged earnestness, various cir- 
 cumstances arose to thwart his plans. The letter addressed 
 by him to the Governor of Virginia in the latter part of 
 August, did not reach James City until October 5th, when 
 it was at once put before the Council. That body, on con- 
 sideration, decided to send an answer to Calvert, stating 
 that it was "impossible to comply with his request, as many 
 of the inhabitants were about to remove to new plantations, 
 and were hardly able to get arms and ammunition to defend 
 themselves; and those remaining upon the old plantations, 
 not having a supply of military provisions, besides the heavy 
 hand of God's visitation upon the plantations generally, of 
 which few have recovered." ^^ 
 
 The resources of the Marylanders were so scanty that it 
 seemed almost an act of folly to attempt to organize an 
 expedition against such powerful foes, with means so limited. 
 The people, moreover, were not minded to undergo the 
 hazard and exposure consequent upon a winter's campaign. 
 Besides, they were filled with dismay at the prospect of a 
 great debt accumulating, in case of a protracted Indian war 
 and they were more strongly disposed to bear their hard lot 
 
 '* / — Archives, pp. 196-7. 
 
 " Streeter, op. cit., quoting Virginia Records, p. 178. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 97 
 
 than to risk the possibihty of being subjected to evils that 
 would eventuate from such an undertaking.^^ Calvert, 
 nevertheless, issued a proclamation on January 17, 1642, 
 announcing his purpose of providing by all possible care and 
 diligence to provide for the safety of the Province, not only 
 from all danger of the Indians, but "from feare of any." 
 The colonists were authorized to kill any Indian, who should 
 show himself, by land or water, without a white flag, within 
 a district about the Patuxent River. ^^ The Indians were to 
 be forewarned of the Governor's intent, by sending a mes- 
 senger to the neighboring tribes to warn them not to ap- 
 proach that territory without showing the prescribed flag. 
 On December 16, 1642, the Governor sent out notice of 
 his intention of holding an Assembly on February 3rd, but on 
 February 1st, he decided that the session could not take 
 place. ^^ One reason for this was Calvert's earnest wish to 
 strike a blow at the savages, and his conviction that a meet- 
 ing of the legislature would interfere with his intent. -° He 
 had no doubt been in consultation with Captain Cornwaleys 
 on the subject. The Captain had decided to undertake an 
 expedition and on January 23rd, he received a formal 
 commission to this effect.-^ The settlers were by no means 
 as keen as the Governor on this matter, and had shown 
 themselves disinclined to enlist in such an undertaking. 
 The name of Cornwaleys was, however, a tower of strength, 
 and with a view of gaining the good-will of the people and of 
 urging them forward, Calvert, after issuing the Captain's 
 commission, pubhshed the following proclamation: 
 
 By the Leiutent Generall. 
 whereas I understand of divers jealousies and 
 feares abroad in the colony touching the Indians, and 
 the expectation of a great charge & hindrance this 
 yeare either in making a march upon them, or in 
 guard against them, to the disanimation of the 
 people, and foreslowing their usuall diligence & 
 alacrity in proceeding in their labours for the next 
 
 " Ibid., p. 178. 
 *' /// — Archives, p. 126. 
 ^U— Archives, p. 201. 
 20Streeter, op. cil., p. 180. 
 2' III— Archives, p. 127. 
 
98 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 cropp, for remedie whereof and to assure them of 
 what consideration is had of their safeties & ease, I 
 thought fitt to pubhsh & declare hereby that all 
 possible diligence is & shalbe used for the furnishing 
 the country with ammunition, and that (as soon as 
 conveniently may be) there shalbe an expedition 
 sett forth against the Indian enemies of this Province, 
 at the sole charge of his Lop (excepting the psons 
 of the souldiers to make the expedition withall, for 
 whose service only the country shalbe charged) and 
 that Capt. Cornwaleys Esq is appointed & hath 
 undertaken to goe as Generall of the said expedition, 
 to whom I have given all purchase plunder that 
 shalbe made upon the enemy during the said 
 expedition, to be by him disposed of for the encour- 
 agemt of voluntiers, that will sett themselves forth 
 & serve at their owne charge, and for the reward of 
 his souldiers as he shall find them to deserve. And 
 further for the greater encouragemt and reliefe of 
 those that shall goe upon this service, I will use all 
 circumspection that may be that the said expedition 
 shalbe so made, and (by God's helpe) performed that 
 it shalbe no considerable hindrance to any ones 
 cropp : and that the debts of those whose pnt abilities 
 will not reach to the satisfying of their credrs, with- 
 out greivous pressure and disabling them for their 
 necessary subsistence for the future, I will use 
 meanes with their Credrs (if they be inhabitants of 
 this Prov:) to forbeare untill the next yeare, wch I 
 have already assurance of from some of the chiefest. 
 Given at St maries 23. Jan: ^^ 
 
 Three days after the promulgation of the above, the 
 license given on January 17th, to kill any Indian coming 
 within certain limits of the colony, was revoked, except with 
 regard to such Indians known to belong either to the 
 Susquehanocks or Wicomeses. Pubhc notice was also 
 given that a treaty of peace with the Nanticokes was in 
 negotiation. In order to arrange the details of the pact, a 
 truce of six weeks was declared, during which these Indians 
 were under his Lordship's protection.-^ In regard to the 
 excepted tribes, every effort was to be brought into play to 
 subdue them. But there were great obstacles to be sur- 
 
 22 Ibid. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 128. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 99 
 
 mounted. The inhabitants were not in sympathy with the 
 movement. There was a great scarcity of arms and ammu- 
 nition. Besides, the expenses necessary for the undertaking 
 were not forthcoming. By the 8th of April, 1643, Leonard 
 Calvert decided to abandon his plans for the punishment of 
 the savages and announced his intention in the following 
 notice : 
 
 Whereas by a Proclamation bearing date at St. 
 Maries the 23. January last upon certaine hopes 
 then presumed upon of meanes to goe a march upon 
 the Sesquihanowes I did declare to the colony that 
 there should be an expedition sett forth at his Lops 
 charge, with other things therein conteined; wch 
 meanes being not yet found answerable to my hopes 
 I doe think fitt to advise further of the intended 
 expedition; & therefore doe hereby annull & revoke 
 the said pclamation, & the obligations therein under- 
 taken on his Lops behalf e; & all powers and Commis- 
 sions therein given touching or concerning the said 
 expedition untill I have further considered there- 
 • upon .2* 
 
 Aside from the reasons assigned in this proclamation, the 
 principal motive seems to have been the sudden determination 
 of the Governor to sail for England. In fact, three days 
 after, he appointed Giles Brent to act with full powers as 
 Governor during his absence.-^ 
 
 After the departure of the Governor, the Council deter- 
 mined to organize a company of ten good marksmen, and 
 post them, as a garrison, fully armed and equipped, on 
 Palmer's Island. They were to keep close watch on the 
 movements of the Susquehanocks, whose fort was a few miles 
 above the mouth of the Susquehanna River. They were to 
 prevent these savages from proceeding down the bay to 
 make an attack upon the unprotected frontiers of the colony.-® 
 
 Governor Brent then issued a commission to Captain 
 Cornwaleys as Captain General of the army. He was 
 empowered to take charge of all military operations on land U 
 
 and water within the County of St. Mary's. He was to use 
 
 « Ibid., p. 130. 
 
 25 Ibid. 
 
 2« Ibid., p. 134. 
 
100 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 all means possible for levying soldiers. Mutinies were to 
 be punished. Any enemies were to be dealt with as occasion 
 demanded. In a word, he was to use his discretion toward 
 the protection of the inhabitants to the fullest extent of 
 power vested in a Captain General." 
 
 Ever since the Marylanders landed at St. Mary's and took 
 under their protection the Yaocomeses, the Patuxents and 
 the Piscataways, and other neighboring tribes, they reassured 
 the disheartened children of the forest by offering such pro- 
 tection as they could afford against the conquests and 
 plunderings of the fierce Susquehanocks. These Indians, as 
 well as the colonists from time to time, had to fear the sudden 
 inroads and murders of those savages. At one time, rein- 
 forced by some of the Wicomeses, they came in canoes down 
 the bay, and landing at Kent, robbed or murdered the 
 most exposed inhabitants. Again, moving swiftly up the 
 Patuxent, they made deadly attacks upon the planters 
 scattered along the neck formed by that river and the 
 Potomac. At another time, their fierce war parties, prepared 
 for deeds of blood, followed their course in a southwest 
 direction over the upper waters of Patapsco, and, suddenly 
 emerging from the forest, fell upon the defenceless settlers 
 who inhabited the region at the head of the Piscataway. No 
 place was secure from their attack. No mercy was to be 
 expected when they appeared on the scene.^^ 
 
 No wonder then, that a man of strong sympathies and of 
 public spirit, like Captain Cornwaleys, should have his 
 sympathy moved and his wrath aroused at the tales of 
 cruelty and wrong inflicted by these murderers. Little 
 wonder then, that he was determined to retaliate and to 
 inflict punishment on these savages, to teach them, if such a 
 thing were possible, to respect the lives and the homes of the 
 innocent colonists. Accordingly he made the strong resolve 
 to throw the weight of his own popularity into the balance. 
 Casting aside all reliance on the law to force enlistment of 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
 2* Streeter, op. cit., p. 186-7. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 101 
 
 men, he determined to count entirely upon a sufficient 
 number of volunteers who were willing to go with him on such 
 an expedition as he had planned, relying on his courage and 
 capacity to carry his designs to success. In order to proceed, 
 he sought and obtained the consent of Governor Brent, who 
 gave his approval by the following authorization: 
 
 Whereas we are informed of your propenseness to 
 go a march upon the Sesquihanowes, and that 
 several volunteers, to a considerable number, are 
 willing and desirous to be led out by you upon such a 
 march upon certain conditions treated and agreed 
 between you and them, We, approving very well of 
 such your and their forwardness for the vindication 
 of the honour of God and the Christian and the 
 English name, upon these barbarous and inhuman 
 Pagans, do hereby authorize you to levy all such men 
 as shall be willing to go upon the said march, and to 
 lead and conduct them against the Sesquihanowes or 
 other Indian enemies of the Province, in such time 
 and manner as you shall think fit.^^ 
 
 Just when and how the Captain carried out his plan of 
 warfare with the Indians, the scant records of the time do 
 not inform us. From a work published a few years after the 
 events here chronicled, on an entirely different subject, we 
 can arrive at a few facts, which throw some light on this 
 interesting affair.^" 
 
 The author of this book states that the Swedes, then 
 settled on the Delaware, and by no means favorably dis- 
 posed toward the English settlements, had sold arms and 
 ammunition to the savages. Besides, they had hired out 
 three of their men to the Susquehanocks, who trained the 
 tribes in the methods of European warfare. They had, 
 moreover, led the savage band into Maryland and Virginia, 
 and assisted them to take the chief of the Potomacs prisoner 
 and to subdue eight Indian tribes in Maryland, who had 
 been civilized and won over to the English rule. According 
 to the writer, the Susquehanocks with their auxiharies, the 
 
 29 Ibid., p. 188. 
 
 '" Plantagenet, A Description of the Province of New Albion, American 
 Colonial Tracts, Vol. ii, No. 6, p. 17. 
 
102 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Ihonadoes and Wicomeses, to the number of two hundred 
 and fifty, sprang upon the colonists of Maryland. Three 
 Englishmen were killed and one Indian. Captain Corn- 
 waleys, "that noble, right valiant and politic soldier," 
 losing but one more man, killed, with fifty-three raw and tired 
 Marylanders, twenty-nine savages. ^^ Yet this severe chas- 
 tisement did not seem to suffice. According to Streeter, the 
 Captain made one or more expeditions subsequent to this, 
 which must have ended in disaster.^^ 
 
 On June 18, 1644, a commission was issued to Captain 
 Henry Fleete, who was to go to the fort at Piscataway, to 
 negotiate with a deputation from the Susquehanocks. In 
 the instructions given to Fleete, one article especially directed 
 him to obtain the restitution of "as much as you can gett of 
 the armes & other goods lost or left in our last march upon 
 them, at least the two feild pieces." He was furthermore 
 authorized to conclude peace with these Indians to the 
 honor, safety and advantage of the English. ^^ 
 
 Before Leonard Calvert sailed for England, relations be- 
 tween him and Captain Cornwaleys were not as cordial as 
 could have been desired. The reason was likely due to the 
 conduct of the late Assembly and the subsequent resigna- 
 tion of the Captain from his Counsel. Another event that 
 transpired about this time did not by any means serve to 
 better matters in this regard. 
 
 On April 12, 1642, a commission was appointed by Lord 
 Baltimore, consisting of Leonard Calvert, John Lewger and 
 John Langford, to buy from Father Copley a certain house 
 and some land connected with it. This house is referred to 
 as the "Chappell House." ^^ Thomas Cornwaleys was the 
 representative whom Father Copley appointed to act for 
 him.^'' The details of this negotiation are given in the records 
 of the Provincial Court. 
 
 51 Streeter, op. cit., p. 188-9. 
 
 32 Ibid. 
 
 33 /// — Archives, pp. 148-9. 
 
 ^^ IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, 
 35 Ibid., p. 266. 
 
 p. 292. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 103 
 
 At the instance of Capt Tho: Cornwaleys Esq, the 
 Leiutent Grail interrogated Mr Secretary, upon oath 
 whether he together with L. G. [sic] & J. L. were 
 appointed by instruction from the right noble 
 honorable the Lord Baltemore &c to purchase for 
 his Lop of mr Copley a certaine house & land 
 appteining called the Chappell house; And whether 
 did he purchase it or no in his Lops name & for his 
 Lops use for the price of 200 1 sterling payable in 
 Engl: by bill of exchange, & whether he were not 
 ordered to charge bills of Exchange upon his Lop for 
 the purchase. And to this Interrogatory mr 
 Secretary saith upon his oath, that to the best of his 
 remembrance he this deponent and Leonard Calvert 
 & John Langford Esqrs, were appointed by In- 
 struction from his said Lop to purchase for his Lop 
 the chappell house at reasonable price; but whether 
 the land appteining to it he remembreth not; & that 
 they had order from his Lop (in default of other 
 wayes to raise meanes for the purchase) to charge 
 bill of exchange for it upon his Lop in England; and 
 that they did purchase to the use of his Lop the said 
 house & land appteining to it, & some other land 
 adjoining, of the said mr Copley (or of the said 
 Thomas Cornwaleys or of Cutbert ffennick [Fenwick] 
 in the right & to the benefitt of the said mr Copley) 
 for the price of 200 1 sterling, certifie under great 
 Seale 28. March 1644.''« 
 
 On various occasions, as the accounts of the proceedings in 
 the Court inform us, several attempts were made by Corn- 
 waleys or Fenwick, acting as his attorney, to obtain payment 
 of the two hundred pounds. With what result we shall see 
 presently. The Captain appeared, on January 2, 1643. The 
 case was examined by Giles Brent, John Lewger and James 
 Neale. When Brent asked the opinion of the others, Neale 
 held that the acting Governor, Giles Brent, could not proceed 
 in the case since his powers were restricted. Brent and 
 Lewger thought otherwise. After reviewing the oath of 
 Lieutenant General, Brent delared ''that according to his 
 cunning & skill he found himselfe bound to grant processe in 
 the said cause, notwithstanding the mandate to the con- 
 trary, the Law of the Province nor the office of Lieutenancy 
 
 36 Ibid. 
 
104 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 being either of them abrogated or restraind, & therefore 
 
 judged the process should be granted to the plf."" He then 
 
 gave Cornwaleys an opportunity of bringing his case before 
 
 the court on February 1st. 
 
 When Cornwaleys appeared to prosecute Calvert, Levvger 
 
 and Langford, as directed by Brent, Lewger testified as 
 
 follows: 
 
 That he hath received no satisfaction nor any 
 thing in value for wch he charged the said bill, al- 
 thoughe he acknowledged it upon the bill, for the 
 forme of it; but only took a house to his Lops use at 
 the price of the 200 pounds charged in the Bill, wch 
 house his Lop refuseth as not valuably bought, & the 
 house relinquished to the plf. in the state as then it 
 was, & therefore prayeth in equity that he be not 
 compelled to pay the said mony, in regard the party 
 for whom he bought it will not receive the house, nor 
 is any thing yet received for that mony : & if the bill 
 be recovered, he denieth the damage demanded.*^ 
 
 The Lieutenant General then "demanded whether there 
 was any reservation upon the bargaine to relinquish it if 
 disliked." The defendant was not able to prove any such 
 reservation. The plaintiff was then required to make "oath 
 of his damage." Cornwaleys asked a respite. "And the 
 Enquest not agreeing upon the Bill give in charge prayed at 
 5 cl night to be discharged." The attorney for Lord Balti- 
 more not gainsaying, the Lieutenant General discharged 
 them.^^ 
 
 While Cornwaleys was absent in England, as we shall see 
 in the following chapter, Cuthbert Fenwick, his attorney, on 
 January 9, 1644, brought the following petition before the 
 
 Court : 
 
 The petition of Tho: Cornwaleys Esq, by his 
 attorny Cutbert ffenick 
 Sheweth 
 
 that whereas the horle [honorablel Governor to- 
 gether with John Lewger & John Langford Esqres 
 did on the 12th Aprill 1642. deliver to your petr 
 
 " Ibid., p. 218. 
 
 38 Ibid., p. 244. 
 
 39 Ibid. 
 
INDIAN DISTURBANCES 105 
 
 [petitioner] a bill of exchange of 200 pounds sterl : 
 upon the right horle the Lord Proprietary of this 
 Prov: The said bill of exchange was refused by his 
 said Lop and protested; and thereby the petr hath 
 suffered damage to the value of 100000 pounds tob 
 & cask; & therefore prayeth the said damage, of the 
 said parties, according to justice.*" 
 
 Giles Brent communicated this petition to the Governor 
 and asked him to appoint a day whereon he might give his 
 reasons to the Counsel why he should not pay Cornwaleys 
 his demands. Calvert promptly informed Brent that he was 
 not bound to any such procedure and consequently would not 
 appoint any time for the hearing of the case.*^ On January 
 13, 1644, Fenwick appeared before Giles Brent and com- 
 plained that the Governor refused to give satisfaction for the 
 damages and also refused to give his reasons on the appointed 
 day. Brent then ordered the sheriff, Edward Packer, to 
 serve "an attachment" against the goods of the honorable 
 Governor. Packer refused. On the next day, Brent issued 
 another writ of the same tenor to Thomas Mathewes.^- This 
 is the last reference to this affair recorded, an affair in which 
 Cornwaleys did not receive justice. Consequently another 
 link was added to the chain of misunderstandings between 
 Calvert and the Captain. 
 
 *o Ibid., p. 293. 
 
 « Ibid. 
 
 « Ibid., pp. 293 and 294. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 CORNWALEYS AND InGLE 
 
 During Governor Calvert's absence in England, another 
 menace to the peace and welfare of the Maryland colony 
 arose. As the whole affair was an echo of what was trans- 
 piring in the mother-country, a brief survey of events in 
 England at this time is necessary. Hostilities between the 
 King and Parliament were soon coming to an issue. Charles 
 I summoned all his loving subjects north of the Trent, and 
 within twenty miles to the south of that river to meet him in 
 arms at Nottingham on the twenty-second of August, 1642. 
 On that day the royal standard was set up. Parliament's 
 answer to this challenge was that all who gave assistance to 
 the King were to be regarded as traitors. Civil war was to 
 ensue. ^ 
 
 The influence of this state of things was bound to be felt in 
 Maryland. That Lord Baltimore had any political relations 
 with the royal party, there is no evidence and little prob- 
 ability. The obligations of his charter compelled him to 
 have some relations with the King. His colony was, as we 
 have seen, dependent on the sovereign only, and entirely 
 independent of ParUament. Communications with the mon- 
 arch on matters outside of the subjects of the contro- 
 versy could hardly have been considered an ofTense, so long as 
 Charles was not held to have forfeited his crown.^ It seems 
 as though Baltimore, about this time, was entertaining 
 thoughts of taking refuge from the storm in Maryland; for 
 in March, 1643, he was cited before the Lords and placed 
 under bond not to leave the country.^ 
 
 About this time, Richard Ingle, master of a trading vessel 
 from London, came to the colony. He had previously been 
 in Maryland. The first time his name appears in the colonial 
 
 1 Lingard, History of England, Vol. vii, pp. 267 et seq.\ Browne, George and 
 Cecilius Calvert, p. 127. 
 
 2 Browne, op. cit., pp. 127-8. 
 
 3 Ibid. 
 
 106 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 107 
 
 records is under date of March 23, 1641, when he petitioned 
 the Assembly against Giles Brent "touching a direction to 
 the Sheriff from his serving an execution." ^ Captain Ingle 
 was a rampant parliamentarian given to treasonable out- 
 bursts on his own quarter-deck. Sworn information was 
 laid before acting Governor Brent that he had used language 
 such as "the King is no King"; that he was "a captain for 
 the Parliament against the King": and other expressions of 
 the same kind. Ingle was a braggadocio, but a serious issue 
 was thrust upon the Maryland authorities by his conduct. 
 To allow him to go his way, was to commit the colony to the 
 side of the parliamentary party; to arrest him as a traitor 
 was to place it on the side of the King. As Browne remarks, 
 the somewhat singular proceedings that followed look very 
 much like an ingenious device to slip between the horns of 
 the dilemma.'^ 
 
 In January, 1643, a warrant was issued by Brent to William 
 Hardige, to arrest Ingle upon a charge of high treason. A 
 similar order was sent to Captain Cornwaleys. He was to 
 aid Hardige and to use all means possible to apprehend 
 Ingle. The whole matter was to be done secretly.'' Ingle 
 was thereupon arrested and given into the custody of the 
 sheriff, Edward Packer. The Lieutenant General, Giles 
 Brent, ordered the ship of Ingle seized together with his 
 goods, until he should clear himself of the accusations against 
 him. A guard was put on the ship, under John Hampton, 
 who was to allow no one to come on board without a warrant 
 from the Lieutenant General. '^ 
 
 Ingle escaped in the following manner. Packer had no 
 prison, and consequently had to keep personal guard over 
 his prisoner. He supposed, from "certaine words spoken 
 by the Secretary" that Brent and the Council had agreed to 
 let Ingle go on board his vessel. When Cornwaleys and Neale 
 
 * I — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 120. 
 ^ Brown, op. cit., pp. 128-9. 
 
 * IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 231. 
 ' Ibid., pp. 245-6. 
 
108 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 came forth from Brent's house bringing Ingle with them to 
 the ship, on January 18, 1643, Packer accompanied them. ^ 
 Arriving on the ship, Cornwaleys said "All is Peace." He 
 then persuaded Hampton to bid his guard lay down their 
 arms and disperse. Ingle and his crew regained possession 
 of their vessel. Under such circumstances Packer could not 
 prevent the escape of Ingle since Councillor Neale and 
 Captain Cornwaleys had assisted him by their acts and 
 presence.^ 
 
 A few days later, the following warrant was issued by 
 Brent : 
 
 I doe hereby require (in his Maties name) Richard 
 Ingle mariner to yield his body to Robt Ellyson 
 Sheriff of this County, before the first day of ffebr. 
 next to answere to such crimes of treason as on his 
 Maties behalfe shall be objected agst him upon his 
 utmost pill [peril] of the Law in that behalfe. And I 
 doe further require all psons that can say or disclose 
 any matter of treason agst the said Richard Ingle, to 
 inform his Lops Attorny of it at some time before 
 the said Court to the end it may be then & there 
 prosequuted.^" 
 
 Ingle, however, was not rearrested, though he still re- 
 mained in the neighborhood of St. Mary's. ^^ For some time 
 following the Ingle question was agitated. For the sake of 
 clearness, an account should be given of the acts concerning 
 him as well as the persons connected with the affair, in the 
 order of their occurrence. . 
 
 After the warrant issued by Brent just referred to, "The 
 Lieutent Grail appointed & commanded his Lops Attorney 
 Grail to prosequute agst mr Neale, Capt Cornwaleys, Edward 
 Packer, & John hampton for their rescuous & escape of mr 
 Ingle, according to justice and equity." ^^ 
 
 The accusations against the persons concerned were 
 accordingly brought forth by the Attorney of the Proprietary 
 in the following words: 
 
 * Ibid., p. 258; Ingle, Captain Richard Ingle, p. 10. 
 
 ^ IV— Archives, pp. 242 and 246. 
 
 i« Ibid., p. 233. 
 
 " Ingle, op. cit., p. 11. 
 
 12 IV— Archives, p. 232. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 109 
 
 The Charge of John Lewger Esq his Lops Attorny 
 Grail agst James Neale Esq one of his Lops Counsel!, 
 Capt Thomas Cornwaleys Esq, Edward Packer late 
 sheriff, and John hampton planter. 
 
 That whereas on the 18th of this instant month, 
 one Richard Ingle (mr of the good ship called the 
 Reformation, now riding at anchor in St. Georges 
 river) was by the Leiutent Grail committed to the 
 custody of the said sheriff, for certaine matters of 
 high-Treason informed agst him by one William 
 Hardige tailor, and the said ship & goods seised into 
 his Lops hands, & a guard putt upon the ship by the 
 said Lieut Grail under the comand of the said 
 John hampton, wth expresse charge not to pmitt the 
 said Rich: Ligle to come aboard, without warrant 
 of him the Lieut Grail Nevertheless he the said 
 Sheriff on the day aforesaid without any order or 
 consent of the said Leiut Gen: carried the said 
 Richard Ingle aboard this said ship, and they the said 
 Thomas Cornwaleys & James Neale, did consent, 
 accompany, advise, & aid him therein; and further 
 did pswade the said John hamton to discharge & 
 disarme the said guard, saying All is Peace: where- 
 upon and upon other his owne motion, the said John 
 hamton did will the said Rich: Ingle & his seamen 
 whereby the said Rich: Ingle possessed himselfe 
 againe of his said shipp, & hath escaped out of the 
 said Sheriffs custody. And this rescuous of the said 
 ship, and escape of the said Rich: Ingle in maner 
 aforesaid, was done & caused by the said parties, 
 after their knowledge that he was accused & arrested 
 of Highe Treason, to the great contempt of his Lops 
 authority in the Leiut. gen: The ill example of others, 
 and contrary to the peace of or Soveraigne Lord the 
 king, his crowne & dignity. 
 
 And of this Rescuous and Escape of an offendor 
 imprisond for highe Treason, the said Attorny im- 
 peacheth the said severall pties respectively, and 
 prayeth that such pceedings & judgmt agst them 
 be done therein as justice requireth.^^ 
 
 On January 21, Brent sent a summons to these men to 
 answer to this charge within three days at the latest under 
 pain of contempt and any further penalties that the law might 
 inflict. 
 
 " Ibid., pp. 232-3. 
 
110 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Information touching these matters were forthcoming from 
 various persons. The first information contained in the 
 suit was that of Hardige, who stated that at various times 
 he heard Ingle say that ''he was Captaine of Gravesend for 
 the Parlamt agst the [King"; that sometime in February, 
 1642, at Accomack, Ingle, having been commanded in the 
 King's name to come ashore, refused to do so in the name of 
 Parliament. Standing on board his ship he drew his cutlass 
 threatening to cut off the head of any who should try to force 
 him to do so. Hardige told the Attorney that one Richard 
 Pinner could testify that Ingle had said in the presence of 
 others that King Charles was no king or words to that effect.^^ 
 
 On January 29, information was communicated to Lewger 
 by Daniel Duffill, regarding Cornwaleys' part in the escape 
 of Ingle. He stated "that the said Captaine [Cornwaleys] 
 coming aboard mr Ingle's ship, said to Jo. hamton All is 
 Peace, & willed him that all was quiett & peace & willed the 
 said Jo : hamton to goe out to the rest of the gard & will them 
 to deliver up their armes to the gonner of the ship." ^^ 
 
 The trial of the accused parties began on February 5, 1643. 
 A jury was sworn in and the accusations against Ingle 
 brought forth. The jurors could not agree on the various 
 accusations of Hardige and toward evening prayed to be 
 discharged. Their request was granted.^*' 
 
 On February 8th, Lewger brought forth his charge against 
 Neale and Cornwaleys in practically the same form as given 
 above. The Captain replied to the charge against him 
 "that he did well understand the matters charged agst the 
 said Rich: Ingle to be of no importance but suggested of 
 meere mahce of the accuser william hardige, as hath ap- 
 peared since in that grand Enquest found not so much 
 probability in the accusations as that it was fitt to putt him 
 to his triall." Cornwaleys, according to his defence "sup- 
 posed and understood" that Ingle went on board the ship 
 with the consent of the Lieutenant General and his Counsel 
 
 " Ibid., pp. 233-4. 
 " Ibid., p. 234. 
 »« Ibid., p. 245. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 111 
 
 and of the officer in whose custody he was. He then denied 
 that he was guilty of allowing the escape of Ingle in the way 
 charged to him. He therefore prayed to be dismissed. ^^ 
 
 From this evidence, it is clear that the Captain did not 
 consider Ingle culpable with regard to the treasonable 
 utterance alleged against him. His argument was substan- 
 tiated by the fact to which he refers as the grand Inquest, 
 that the jury could not agree for a whole day on these very 
 charges against Ingle, and consequently the members, on 
 their own request, were dismissed. With regard to Corn- 
 waleys' impression that Ingle went on board his ship with the 
 permission of the Lieutenant General and Counsel and of the 
 Sheriff, it is quite possible that he took it for granted that 
 Neale and Packer were acting under approval of the 
 authorities. On the other hand, Packer later excused him- 
 self on the plea that Cornwaleys and Neale were sufficient 
 guarantee to him of Ingle's license to board his ship. Russell 
 inchnes to the view that the Captain was hoodwinked by 
 Ingle, who made use of Cornwaleys' Idnd offices to effect his 
 release and escape. ^^ 
 
 On the following day we find the following entry upon the 
 records of the Provincial Court: 
 
 1643 
 
 Febr: 9. upon instance of Capt Tho. Cornwaleys, 
 to be dismissed the Cort without further delay the 
 L. G. demanded of his Lops attorny, his opinion in 
 point of law, whether accessary to rescue of one im- 
 prisond for suspition of highe treason, were to be 
 proceeded agst in this Prov: according to the rule 
 expressed in or Lawes, in bar implied to the Law of 
 England; or according to the law of Engl, and the 
 Attorny delivered his opinion that the Court is 
 bound to proceed according to the Lawes of this 
 Province, both by his Lops Commission, & by their 
 oath; (so far as the Attorny doth judge or under- 
 stand :) althoughe they have a bar implied to the law 
 of England.i9 
 
 1' Ibid., p. 248. 
 
 '* Russell, Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, p. 177. 
 
 ^^ IV— Archives, p. 249. 
 
112 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 After considering the case as presented before the Court, 
 the Lieutenant General pronounced sentence upon Captain 
 Cornwaleys. He was found '' to be accessary to the rescuous 
 & escape charged; & adjudged ... to lose to the Lord 
 Proprietary one thousand pounds of tobacco."-'' Corn- 
 waleys then requested that the levying of the fine be post- 
 poned. This was granted and his Lordship's Receiver was 
 commissioned to ''respite the levying of the fine till further 
 order." ^^ 
 
 On February 29th, the Sheriff of St. Mary's was ordered to 
 
 collect the fine imposed. The order reads: 
 
 Levie one thousand pounds of tobacco on any the 
 goods or debts of Capt Tho. Cornwaleys for so much 
 adjudged by way of fine unto the Lord Proprietr agst 
 him at the Court held on the 9th febr last, & deliver 
 it so leavied into the hands of the Attorny of mr 
 John wyatt Comder of Kent in discompt of so much 
 due to the said Comder from the Lo: Proprietr and 
 for so doing this shalbe yor warrt And this writt 
 exequuted returne it into the Court at St maries. 
 
 Giles Brent.^^ 
 
 The fine of the Captain is reported ''paid" in the account 
 of Lewger for the year 1643.^^ 
 
 We will now ascertain what happened to the other actors in 
 the Ingle episode. Neale, in answering to the accusations 
 against him, affirmed that he never took Richard Ingle into 
 his charge, nor did he aid him in his escape. The Court 
 thereupon reinstated him in his office as Councillor.^'* 
 Packer, the sheriff, alleged that when he saw Cornwaleys and 
 Neale bringing Ingle with them from the house of Brent, he 
 concluded that their action was done with official approval. 
 Furthermore, he alleged that Ingle escaped from his custody 
 against his will. He too was exonerated.^^ Hampton 
 escaped prosecution, presumably, for there is no further 
 record of any action taken against him.^^ Thus Cornwaleys 
 
 2« Ibid. 
 
 21 Ibid. 
 
 ^^Ibid., p. 255. 
 
 23/fcid., p. 275. 
 
 ^*Ibid., p. 258. 
 
 25 Ibid. 
 
 2« Ingle, op. cit., p. 19. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 113 
 
 was made to bear the brunt of the prosecution. It is 
 singularly strange that the Captain was obliged to pay a 
 heavy fine while the others were allowed to go free. The 
 feeling in the colony was so strong against him that he was ^ 
 
 compelled to embark with Ingle for England." 
 
 Governor Calvert returned to Maryland in September, 
 1644. In February of the same year Ingle again appeared 
 with an armed ship, the Reformation, having goods entrusted 
 to him by Cornwaleys, valued at two hundred pounds. He 
 also carried a commission from Parliament for carrying food, 
 clothing and ammunition to the colonists in sympathy with 
 the Parliamentary party.^^ St. Mary's was then taken. 
 Governor Calvert was forced to flee to Virginia. For two 
 years, Ingle and his band, with such lawless persons as they 
 could get to join them, had possession of the southern part 
 of the Province. 29 According to statements made in the 
 Assembly of 1649, during this invasion, those who remained 
 loyal to Lord Baltimore, "were spoiled of their whole Estate 
 and sent away as banished persons out of the Province; those 
 few that remained were plundered and deprived in a manner 
 of all Livelyhood and subsistence only Breathing under that 
 intolerable Yoke which they were forced to bear under those 
 Rebells." ^o xhe people were tendered an oath of sub- 
 mission, which all the CathoHcs refused to take.^'^ In con- 
 sequence of this refusal, they were severely treated, some 
 being banished and others voluntarily leaving the colony. 
 The two Jesuits, Fathers White and Copley, were sent in 
 chains to England.^^ 
 
 " Ibid. 
 
 ^^Ibid., p. 20. 
 
 2» Browne, op. cit., p. 130. 
 
 ^^ I— Archives, p. 238. 
 
 3' Streeter, Pa-pers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 267. 
 
 32 Winsor, History of America, Vol. iii, p. 532. Fathers White and Copley, 
 upon their arrival in England, were indicted under the penal laws, for having 
 been ordained priests abroad and coming into England and remaining there 
 as such, contrary to the statute, a crime punishable with death. When 
 brought to trial, they pleaded that they had been brought violently into 
 England, and had not come of their own will, but against it. The judges 
 directed an acquittal. They were not, it would seem, liberated at once, but 
 were detained in prison and finally sent out of England under an order of 
 perpetual banishment. Father White never returned to his beloved Mary- 
 land; Father Copley returned in 1648. (Cf. Shea, History of the Catholic 
 Church m the United States, Vol. i, pp. 63 et seq. and 69.) 
 
114 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Towards the close of 1646, Governor Calvert, who had 
 been watching the progress of events from Virginia, deemed 
 that the time was ripe for a counter revolution. He appeared 
 at St. Mary's at the head of a small force levied in Virginia, 
 and regained possession of his government without resistance. 
 Ingle left Maryland, and the people returned to their alle- 
 giance with marked alacrity. The most lasting evil caused by 
 Ingle's rebellion was the destruction of the greater part of 
 the then existing records. Due to this fact, much of this 
 whole episode remains involved in obscurity.^^ 
 
 Ingle's baseness is best shown in his treatment of Captain 
 Cornwaleys who had befriended him. The record of this 
 perfidy is preserved for the historian in the Archives of 
 Maryland, which contain the account as given in the House 
 of Lords Journal. The account also reveals the fact that 
 religion entered into the uprising of Ingle in Maryland and 
 that it was not merely a political move in favor of Parlia- 
 ment against the King. It serves also to show that Corn- 
 waleys' allowing Ingle to escape from the hands of the law was 
 caused by the Captain having an inadequate comprehension 
 of Ingle's machinations as he testified before the Provincial 
 Court. 
 
 On February 24, 1645, Richard Ingle presented a petition 
 "To the Right Honorable the Lords nowe in Parlyament 
 assembled." In it he alleges that when he arrived in Mary- 
 land he found that the Governor there had received a com- 
 mission to seize all the ships and goods of those friendly to 
 Parliament, to force an oath upon them and to secure their 
 extirpation. The petitioner avers that he deemed himself 
 bound in fidelity to ParUament to risk all to come to the aid 
 of the 'Svell affected Protestants, against the said Tyran- 
 nicall Governor and the Papists ... to anable him to take 
 divers places from them and to make him a supporte to the 
 said well affected." The petition contains the following 
 relative to Cornwaleys: 
 
 But since his Ingle's Retorne into England the said 
 Papists and Malignants conspiring togeather have 
 
 ^^ Winsor, op. cit., pp. 532-3. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 115 
 
 brought fictitious Actions against him att the Comon 
 Lawe in the name of Thomas CornwalHs and others 
 for pretended Trespasses.^* 
 
 Ingle concludes by affirming that ''it would be of dangerous 
 example to pmitt Papists and Malignants, to bring Action of 
 Trespasse, or otherwise against the well afTected for fighting 
 and standing for the Parlyament."^^ The whole burden of 
 the petition is to request the Lords to hold a hearing of the 
 case or to refer it to a Committee to report on the true state 
 of things and to order that the suits against the petitioner be 
 stayed and no further proceeded in.^'' 
 
 On March 2, 1645, we find the following entry relative to 
 the case of Cornwaleys versus Ingle: 
 
 Thomas Cornwallis pit [plaintiff] 
 
 agst 
 Richard Ingle defte [defendant] 
 Cornwallis planted himselfe divers yeares since in the 
 Pvince of Maryland in America, And about two 
 yeares since Ingle came thither as Mr of a London 
 Shipp to trade in those parts wth the English who 
 had planted there and was there accused of high 
 Treason for wordes wch he had spoken agst the King 
 upon some Comunicacon of the differences here 
 between the King and Parliament upon wch ac- 
 cusacon Ingle was arrested and his Shipp and goods 
 seised by the then Governor but Cornwallis to declare 
 his affeccon to the Parliament found meanes within 
 8 howers space to free Ingle and to restore him to his 
 Shipp and all his goods againe, for wch fact the 
 greatest fine that by ye Lawes of that Country there 
 imposed uppon Cornwallis and hee compelled to pay t/^ 
 
 the same And then for the safety of his person 
 enforct to trust his whole estate there wth a Servant 
 and flie hither wth Ingle in the same Shipp And when 
 Cornwallis came into England Ingle gave Testimony 
 before a Comittee of his good affeccion to ye Parlai- 
 ment and of his great sufferings for that Cause. 
 
 Afterwards Ingle goeing into those pts againe 
 Cornwallis entrusted him here in London by way of 
 Trade wth diverse Comodities to the value of about 
 200 pounds but Ingle kept the Commodities, and 
 takeing advantage of Cornwallis his absence landed 
 
 3< III—Archh'esofMaryland,Council,p..l65;Lords'Journal,\ni,pp. 183, 186.. 
 3s Ibid., p. 1G6. 
 3« Ibid. 
 
116 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 some men nere his howse and rifled him to the value 
 of 2500 pounds att the least And then returning 
 into England complained before the Comittee of 
 Examinacons agst Cornwallis as an enimy to the 
 State vainely hopeing by that meanes to shelter 
 himselfe from the Law, but upon full debate of 
 the businesse before that Comittee Cornwallis was 
 referred to his remedy att Law, and hath brought an 
 aceon att La we agst Ingle for the Comodities delivered 
 here, and pcured a Comission out of the Chancery 
 to examyne witnesses of the value of the goods taken 
 in Maryland. 
 
 To stay these pceedings Ingle caused Cornwallis 
 to be laid in prison uppon 2 faigned accons of 15000 
 pounds but Cornwallis by the helpe of his friendes 
 gott out of prison And that piect [project] faileing 
 Ingle prferrd a peticon agst Cornwallis before the 
 Lordes in Parliamt And upon fayned allegacons 
 hath pcured an Order to stopp Cornwallis his 
 pceedings att the Lawe till the matter conteuned in 
 the peticon be determined And nowe Ingle absents 
 himselfe and psecutes noe further upon his peticon. 
 And now Cornwallis hath peticoned the Lords that in 
 regard hee hath attended severall dayes wth Councell 
 and is noe longer able to beare that charge, that the 
 businesse may be speedily heard and determined by 
 their Lopps or that hee may be left att Liberty to try 
 his accon att Lawe for the goods delivered to Ingle 
 here.^^ 
 
 This account speaks for itself. It contains the recitation 
 of the wrongs Ingle perpetrated against the Captain. It was 
 thus that he was repaid for his kindness. And Ingle to clear 
 himself poses as a champion of Parliament, as a liberator of 
 the^colonists from a tyrannical Governor, as a warrior for the 
 Protestant cause against the oppressions of the "Papists and 
 Mahgnants." All this was done by Ingle to set at naught 
 the charges which Thomas Cornwaleys brought against him. 
 The^state to which the Captain was reduced by the ingrate 
 was^such that he was "spoyld of all his goods and ruyn'd by 
 the said Ingle." ^^ 
 
 At the same time that these affairs were transpiring, a 
 petition was also addressed to the Lords in Parliament by 
 
 37 IHd., pp. 166-7. 
 
 38 Ibid., p. 170. 
 
CORNWALEYS AND INGLE 117 
 
 one Mary Ford, on behalf of the Protestant inhabitants of 
 Maryland and Virginia. In it Cornwaleys is accused of 
 being the chief actor in a design for the settling of a "Popish 
 faction in Maryland." Several trumped up charges are 
 brought against him that are so absurd that it is not neces- 
 sary to recount them. In fact the Captain is even accused 
 of the seizure of Ingle's ship when he was really the man 
 judged responsible by the Maryland authorities for allowing 
 that individual to escape.^^ 
 
 How this matter between Ingle and Cornwaleys was settled 
 does not appear.^" On September 8, 1647, however, Richard 
 Ingle transferred to Cornwaleys "for divers good and valu- 
 able causes" the debts, bills, etc., belonging to him, and made 
 him his attorney to collect the same.^^ 
 
 Much might be said in extenuation of Cornwaleys' act in 
 allowing the escape of Ingle from the hands of the Maryland 
 authorities. According to his own testimony he certainly 
 must be acquitted of much of the blame for this act. In the 
 
 33/6id., pp. 168-9 and 171. 
 
 " Further references to the Cornwaleys-Ingle case are the following: 
 
 Cause of Ingle and Ford vs. Cornwaleys, set for Mar. 14, 1645-6. L. J., 
 
 Vol. VIII, p. 206. 
 Mar. 31, 1646. Petition of Cornwaleys to Lords, mss. of the House of 
 
 Lords; calendared in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Sixth Report, 
 
 appendix, p. 109; /// — Archives, pp. 170-1. 
 Mar. 31, 1646. Cause postponed two weeks. L. J., viii, 247. 
 Apr. 14, 1646. Hearing again postponed. Cornwaleys being ready, 
 
 damages will be given him if it shall be thought fit at the trial. 
 Apr. 25. Petition of Mary Ford vs. Cornwaleys. mss. of House of Lords; 
 
 calendared Hist. Mss. Comm., 6th Kept., app. p. 113; III— Archives, p. 
 
 171. 
 Apr. 25. Cause to be heard Tuesday next. L. J., viii, 283. 
 Apr. 28. Again postponed to May 15. L. J., viii, 288. 
 May 15. Postponed "Wednesday come sevennight." Ibid., p. 315. 
 May 22. Petition of Cornwaleys to Lords. Hearing havmg been set for 
 
 May 27, which being fast day (monthly fast appointed to be kept on 
 
 last Wednesday of every month; L. J. v., 320), asks that some other 
 
 day be appointed. Complains of delays and the expense to him. mss. 
 
 of House of Lords; calendared as above, p. 117. 
 May 22. Trial to be had Wednesday next. L. J., win, 324. 
 
 Further postponements to June 11, July 2, 9, Oct. 16. L. J., viii, 336, 
 
 369, 406, 424. , ^ ^ ^^ 
 
 All papers relating to the Ingle-Cornwaleys controversy before the House 
 
 of Lords will be published in full in the first volume of Dr. Leo F. 
 
 Stock's forthcoming work. Parliamentary Proceedings and Debates 
 
 relating to America. 
 ^^ Ingle, op. cit., p. 33. 
 
118 THOMAS COKNWALEYS 
 
 first place he did not believe that the accusations were so well 
 founded with regard to the treasonable utterances of Ingle. 
 Again, he acted under the impression that Ingle was allowed 
 to depart by Brent and his Counsel. Whatever be the 
 merits of this defense of Cornwaleys, this much is certain, 
 that he got more than his deserts from the authorities in the 
 colony. Furthermore, he was subjected to being made the 
 proxy of all Ingel's vengeance against the Maryland 
 authorities by being held responsible by that man for all 
 the alleged crimes which Ingle brought against them. 
 Though he may have been vindicated, which is by no means 
 certain, nevertheless, he was forced to undergo imprisonment 
 and the ordeal of a lawsuit to clear himself. 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 Final Services to the Colony 
 
 The Ingle disturbance having ended, the colony settled 
 down to peaceful pursuits. The Governor, Leonard Cal- 
 vert, was not to enjoy the fruit of his successful effort to 
 restore tranquility. He died on June 9, 1647, at the little 
 capital of St. Mary's which he had founded, and where he had 
 exercised with wisdom and moderation, the highest executive 
 and judicial offices. On his death-bed, he appointed Thomas 
 Greene, a Catholic and a royalist, his successor. The new 
 executive proclaimed a general pardon to those in the 
 Province who had a share in the late rebellion and also to 
 all those who had fled from the colony, except Richard 
 Ingle. ^ 
 
 The monarchical cause was now prostrate in England. 
 With Parhament supreme, Cecilius Calvert saw a great 
 danger threatening his colonial domains. He deemed it 
 prudent to make it impossible for his enemies to allege that 
 Maryland was a Catholic colony. At the same time he felt 
 it his duty to protect those of his own faith. He accordingly 
 adopted a policy that was one of conciliation to the Puritans 
 as well as of protection to the Catholics. In August, 1648, 
 he removed Governor Greene, and appointed William Stone 
 to the post. The new official was a Virginian, a zealous 
 Protestant and a Parliamentarian. At the same time the 
 Proprietor issued a new commission for the Council of the 
 Province, appointing five men to form that body, three of 
 whom were Protestants. A Protestant Secretary was also 
 nominated.*^ 
 
 The Governor and Counsellors were required to swear that 
 they would not molest any person in the Province professing, 
 to beUeve in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman 
 Catholic.^^ In the year 1649, the Assembly of Maryland 
 
 1 Winsor, History of America, Vol. iii, p. 533. 
 
 2 Ibid. 
 
 3 Ibid., pp. 533-4. 
 
 119 
 
120 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 passed the Act concerning Religion, or "Act of Toleration" 
 as it is often called, which enforced by statute what had been 
 the policy of the Proprietary from the beginning. Penalties 
 are prescribed for ''whatsoever person or persons within this 
 Province . . . shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is 
 curse him, or deny our Saviour Jesus Christ to be the sonne 
 of God, or shall deny the holy Trinity the ffather sonne and 
 holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said Three persons 
 of the Trinity or the Unity of the Godhead, or shall use or 
 utter any reproachful Speeches, words, or language concern- 
 ing the Holy Trinity; . . . whatsoever person or persons 
 shall . . . utter any reproachfull words or Speeches con- 
 cerning the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Saviour 
 or the holy Apostles or Evangelists." It also punishes all 
 who shall call others by reviling names on account of religious 
 differences. Profanation of the Sabbath became a penal 
 offence. Furthermore no person was to be molested who 
 professed a belief in Jesus Christ. The free exercise of 
 religion was provided for. Any infringements on these 
 provisions of the statutes were to be punished in proportion 
 to the offence as provided by law."* 
 
 Just when Captain Cornwaleys returned to Maryland 
 after his long absence cannot be definitely stated. About the 
 latter part of the year 1652, he appeared in Court to seek 
 redress for injury done his servants and property during the 
 Ingle uprising. Accordingly he addressed a complaint to the 
 Governor and Council of the Province touching this matter. 
 We will give the account in full as recorded in the records of 
 the Court as it throws much light on the possessions of the 
 Captain. 
 
 The Humble Complaint of Thomas Cornwallis 
 Esq against Thomas Sturman & John Sturman 
 Coopers & William Hardwich Taylor. 
 Sheweth. 
 
 That Whereas it is well knowne that the Complt 
 was one of the Chiefe and first Adventurers for the 
 
 / — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, pp. 244-7. 
 
FINAL SERVICES. TO THE COLONY 121 
 
 planting of this Province, and therein besides the 
 danger and hazard of his Life and health, Exhausted 
 a Great part of his Estate not only in the first Ex- 
 pedition, but alsoe in yearly Supplyes of Servants 
 and Goods for the Support of himself and this then 
 Infant Collony by which and Gods Blessing upon his 
 Endeavours, he had acquired a Settled & Com- 
 fortable Subsistance haveing a Competent Dwelling 
 house, furnished with plate Linnen hangings beding, 
 brass, pewter and all manner of Houshold Stuff 
 worth at the least a thousand pounds ; about twenty 
 Servants, at least a hundred Neat Cattell a Great 
 Stock of Swine and Goats Some Sheep and horses, a 
 new pinnace about twenty Tunn well rigged and 
 fitted besides a New Shallop and other Small boates, 
 with divers debts for Goods Sold to the quantity of 
 neare A Hundred thousand weight of Tobacco, all of 
 which at his going for England in or about Aprill 
 1644 he left and deposited in the Care and Custody of 
 his Attorney Cuthbert ffenwick Gent, who in or 
 about ffebruary following comeing from the Ship of 
 Richard Ingle Marriner was as Soon as he Came 
 ashore. Treacherously and Illegally Surprized by 
 the Said John Sturman and others, and Carryed 
 prisoner aboard the said Ingles Ship, and there 
 detained and Compelled to deliver the Complts 
 house, and the rest of the premissess into the pos- 
 session of Divers ill disposed persons whereof the 
 Said Tho: and John Sturman and Wm Hardwich 
 were three of the Chiefe, who being Soe unlawfully 
 possest of the Said house, and the premisses plundered 
 and Carryed away all things in It, pulled downe and 
 burnt the pales about it, killed and destroyed all the 
 Swine and Goates, and killed or mismarked almost 
 all the Cattle, tooke or dispersed all the Servants, 
 Carryed away a Great quantity of Sawn Boards from 
 the pitts, and ript up Some floors of the house. And 
 having by these Violent and unlawfull Courses, forst 
 away my Said Attorney, the said Thomas and John 
 Sturman possest themselves of the Complts house 
 as their owne dwelt in it Soe long as they please and 
 at their departing tooke the locks from the doors, 
 and the Glass from the windowes, and in fine ruined 
 his whole Estate to the damage of the Complt at 
 least two or three thousand pounds, for which he 
 humbly Craves the Justice of this Court against the 
 said Tho: and John Sturman and Willm Hardwich 
 towards the repaires of his Great Damage and loss 
 wherein they have been no Small Shares.^ 
 
 * A' — Archives of Maryland, Court, pp. 253-4. 
 
122 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Both parties in this law suit agreed to postpone the hearing 
 of this case until the next General Assembly.^ What the 
 further developments of the case were cannot be well deter- 
 mined as the records do not contain much reference to the 
 same. However, an entry on the Court records dated March 
 6, 1653, tells us that two arbitrators, William Stone and 
 Thomas Hatton, decided that several payments in tobacco 
 were to be made by John Sturman on his own behalf and 
 that of his father to the Captain. This was done to satisfy 
 for all differences between them and Cornwaleys ''heretofore 
 depending in Court or referred to Assembly." '' 
 
 About this time Cornwaleys presented a petition to the 
 authorities to secure the land due to him for transportation 
 of servants at various times. The document states: "It is 
 well known, he Cornwaleys hath at his great cost and charges, 
 from the first planting of this Province for the space of 
 twenty-eight years, been one of the greatest propagators and 
 increasers thereof, by the yearly transportation of servants, 
 whereof divers have been of very good rank and quality, 
 towards whom and the rest he hath always been so careful to 
 discharge a good conscience, in the true performance of his 
 promise and obligations, that he was never taxed with any 
 breach thereof, though it is also well known and he doth 
 truly aver it, that the charge of so great a family, as he hath 
 always maintained was never defrayed by their labor" ^ 
 
 The hst of the Captain's servants will not prove uninterest- 
 ing to the reader. The same was compiled from the accounts 
 in Richardson's Side-lights on Maryland History and Neill's 
 Founders of Maryland. Both these authors make their 
 citations from the Annapolis Records.^ 
 
 Regarding the first servants of the Captain to arrive in the 
 colony, we find the following entry on the records, made in 
 February, 1652: ''A list of persons brought into the Province 
 
 6 Ibid., p. 234. 
 ' Ibid., p. 348. 
 
 « Neill, Founders of Maryland, pp. 80-1. 
 
 » Richardson, Side-Lights on Maryland History, pp. 8-15; Neill, op. cit., 
 pp. 77-9. 
 
FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 123 
 
 of Maryland at the cost and charges of me, Thomas Corn- 
 walleys, Esq., since the first seating in Anno 1634 [new 
 style], to this year, 1652, for which I demand land accord- 
 ing to the conditions of Plantations from time to time ; Anno 
 1634, transported in the Ark myself and 12 servants. By 
 my partner, Mr. John Sanders, who dying gave me that 
 year, 5 servants. Brought the same year from Virginia, four 
 servants, viz: Cuthbert Fenwick, Christopher Martin, John 
 Norton, Senior, John Norton, Junior, so in all that year, 2 
 and 20 persons." ^^ 
 
 Who the twelve men were does not appear. The five 
 servants of Sanders referred to are: Benjamin Hodges, John 
 Elkin, Richard Cole, Richard Nevill, John Marlburgh.^^ 
 
 The following were brought over to the colony in various 
 years as indicated : 
 
 1633. (O. S.) John Hollowes, John Holdern, Roger 
 Walter, Roger Morgan, Josias . . ., Thomas Beckworth, 
 Matthew Burro wes, Samuel . . ., Cuthbert Fenwick, Rich- 
 ard Loe, WiUiam Fitter, John Robinson, WiUiam Browne, 
 Stephen Gore, Stephen Jammison and Stephen Sammon.^^ 
 
 As Richardson was only concerned with the first settlers, we 
 complete our hst from Neill's account. It is to be noted that 
 this author uses the new-style date. 
 
 1635. Zachary Mottershead, John Gage, Walter Water- 
 hng, Francis Van Eyden, WiUiam Penshoot, Richard Cole, 
 John Medley, Richard Brown and Richard Brock. 
 
 1636. John Cook, Thomas York, Daniel Clocker, Richard 
 Hill and Restitutia Tue. 
 
 1637. Charles Maynard, Stephen Gray, Francis Shirley, 
 Ann Wiggin and Alice Moreman. 
 
 1639. Nicholas Gwyther, Edmund Jaques, Richard 
 Farmer, Edmund Deering, George . . ., William Freak, 
 Morris Freeman, Jeremiah Coote and Martha Jackson. 
 
 1" Richardson, op. cit., pp. 14-5; O'Daniel, The Right Rev. Edward Dominic 
 Fenwick, O. P., inclines to the opinion that Cuthbert Fenwick came to Mary- 
 land on the Ark. He substantiates his arg\/ment by two records to this effect 
 against one record that he was brought from Virginia. For the three records, 
 see Richardson, op. cit., pp. 12, 14, 15. 
 
 " Richardson, op. cit., pp. 11-2. 
 
 1^ Ibid., pp. 12 and 14. Stephen Sammon and Stephen Jammison are 
 probably the same person. The two entries list ten names which are identical 
 except the last. In one entry it gives Sammon and in the other Jammison. 
 
124 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 1640. William Durford, Henry Brooke, George . . ., 
 Edward Matthews and Hannah Ford. 
 
 1641. Francis Anthill, Richard Harvey, Charles Rawlin- 
 son, Richard Harris, Thomas Harrison, Edward Ward, 
 Robert King, Mary Phillips, John Wheatley and his wife. 
 
 1642. Thomas Rockwood, John Rockwood and Elizabeth 
 Batte. 
 
 1646. Magdalene Wittle. 
 
 1651. Robert Curtis, William Sinckleare, Thomas Frisell, 
 William Wells, John Maylande, John Eston and Sarah 
 Lindle. 
 
 Besides the lists of the servants of Captain Cornwaleys, 
 we are also able, from various sources, to give a list of the 
 different tracts of land acquired by him during the years of 
 his sojourn in Maryland. His estates will appear in the 
 order of their acquisition. 
 
 Cornwaleys Cross, a tract of two thousand acres surveyed 
 on September 19, 1639, and located near St. Mary's. Corn- 
 waleys usually resided at the Cross. ^^ 
 
 St. Elizabeth's, a tract of the same extent as the Cross, 
 surveyed at the same time. 
 
 West St. Mary's Mannour, a tract of two thousand acres, 
 surveyed September 20, 1640. 
 
 Resurrection Mannour, a tract of four thousand acres, 
 surveyed March 24, 1650. 
 
 Nuthall, a tract of two hundred acres, surveyed July 28, 
 1654. 
 
 Cornwaleys' Choice, a tract of one thousand acres, surveyed 
 August 16, 1658. 
 
 Verina, a tract of one thousand acres, surveyed August 
 21, 1658, for Captain Cornwaleys. Possessed by Daniel 
 Pierce, WiUiam Freeman, Samuel Bostic, James Wilson, 
 William Smith and John Wilson.^'* 
 
 Cornwaleys also possessed a tract known as Cornwaleys^ 
 Neck, lo cated in St. Mary's County. What the extent of 
 
 " Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom, p. 209. 
 
 i< Richardson, op. cit., pp. 288, 290, 291, 292, 294; also Streeter, Papers 
 relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 203; Kilty, The Land-Holders 
 Assistant, p. 70. 
 
FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 125 
 
 this tract was, we have been unable to find. On March 7, 
 1642, the colonial surveyor w^as ordered to lay out four 
 thousand acres " in any part of Patowmack river, upward of 
 Port Tobacco Creek." This may have been the tract known 
 as Cornwaleys' Neck}^ 
 
 Having digressed at some length to examine the possessions 
 of Captain Cornwaleys, we now continue our narrative. 
 
 During Governor Stone's incumbency, several Indian 
 tribes again became troublesome. The incursions were of 
 such a nature as to cause the inhabitants of the colony to 
 petition the Governor to take measures for the adequate 
 protection of their lives and property. Stone at once re- 
 sponded to their request. Not content with consulting his 
 Counsel, he decided to call upon several men whose sound 
 judgment and experience in Indian warfare particularly 
 qualified them to give advice in such an emergency. Among 
 these, after a long disappearance from the stage, Thomas 
 Cornwaleys again comes forward in his old character of 
 trusted adviser, and one of the firm bulwarks of the colony.^*' 
 
 At a Court session held at St. Mary's, on November 25, 
 1652, the Governor and Council, together with Cornwaleys 
 and others whose advice and assistance was desired, deliber- 
 ated on an expedition against the Indians. As a result of 
 this meeting, it was decided that sufficient forces be levied for 
 a march against the eastern shore Indians. For this pur- 
 pose, every seventh man throughout the Province was to be 
 called into the service, councillors and other public officers 
 being excepted. The six persons not drafted, were to supply 
 the seventh with provisions, arms, and ammunition. All 
 were to rendezvous at Kent Island by December 30th, where 
 they were to be commanded by Captain William Fuller. 
 This gentleman was the principal military man among the 
 Parliamentarians of the Province. He came over from 
 Virginia with the Puritan settlers in 1649.^^ 
 
 1* Streeter, op. cit., pp. 166 and 190. 
 
 16 Ihid., p. 194. 
 
 " /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 282; also Streeter, op. cit., pp. 194-5. 
 
126 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Just why the veteran Cornwaleys was not chosen for the 
 leadership of this movement is not known. Streeter thinks 
 that the reason was due to previous hard service, ill health, 
 or wounds received in previous expeditions. He also con- 
 siders it hkely that the appointment of Fuller was more 
 opportune since he resided nearer the scene of the proposed 
 operations. He was popular in that quarter where a con- 
 siderable part of the force was to be drawn, and consequently 
 was better fitted than an inhabitant of another part of the 
 colony.'^ 
 
 This Indian expedition was destined to fall through as so 
 many previous ones. Divers obstacles arose, rendering it 
 impossible to collect a sufficient force for the project. 
 Fuller was very willing to undertake the commission 
 entrusted to him. The principal objection on the part of 
 the settlers was the season of the year. During the winter 
 it was hard to obtain provisions and they thought that they 
 would suffer more from climatic hardships than from the 
 assaults of the savages. Besides, some of the Indians had 
 become aware of the design and were ready to meet the 
 colonists in an engagement. Stone decided to abandon the 
 scheme for the time being and, on December 18, 1652, 
 directed those who had assembled to return to their homes. ^^ 
 
 According to Neill, Cornwaleys visited England in 1654. 
 He stated that while there, probably in 1657, he married a 
 young maiden, Penelope, daughter of John Wiseman of 
 Middle Temple, and Tyrrels, in County Essex. She was 
 then twenty-one years of age. We are of the opinion that 
 Neill is mistaken with regard to the marriage of Cornwaleys 
 as shown in the first chapter of this biography. 
 
 Matters about this time looked ominous for the Maryland 
 province. Ingle was besieging Parliament with petitions, 
 complaints and charges. Claiborne again was active and 
 even boasted that the Maryland Charter would be annulled 
 and he would have Kent Island, Indian disturbances were 
 
 ^* Streeter, op. cit., p. 195. 
 ^Ubid., pp. 195-6. 
 
FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 127 
 
 threatening, while the enemies of Maryland in Virginia were 
 full of hope. These troubles were due to the disturbed con- 
 dition of affairs in the mother country. The charge that 
 Maryland was groaning under Popish tyranny was again 
 brought forward. To answer this last charge, the Maryland 
 Governor as well as many prominent Protestants in the 
 Legislature and other citizens, all Protestant, drew up a 
 declaration that they were in no wise molested on account of 
 their religion, in which they were protected by both the law 
 of the land as well as by the strict injunctions of the Pro- 
 prietary.^" 
 
 When Cromwell took upon himself the title of Lord Protec- 
 tor of the Commonwealth, Governor Stone, early in May, 
 1654, proclaimed him with the firing of cannon, a proclamation 
 of pardons and other manifestations of joy. Dissatisfaction, 
 however, at some of the Proprietary's laws were felt in some 
 quarters. The people of the Patuxent and Severn Rivers, 
 and of Kent, strongly objected to the terms of an oath of 
 fidelity to Lord Baltimore, required of those who held lands. 
 Some, acting under orders from the Proprietor, insisted that 
 they take the oath or forfeit their lands. Furthermore, the 
 Governor refused to issue writs in any other name than that 
 of Lord Baltimore. Petitions were sent to Bennett and 
 Claiborne, two leaders in a movement to have Lord Baltimore 
 removed from jurisdiction of his Province, and to have the 
 old Charter of Virginia renewed. Finding Stone determined 
 in his course, these two men came into Maryland in July 
 1654, and compelled him to resign. They then placed the 
 Government in the hands of ten commissioners, at the head 
 of whom was Captain Fuller. After this they returned to 
 Virginia. Bennett went to England to assist in furthering 
 the Virginia cause before the Lord Protector.-^ 
 
 Thus matters stood until March, 1655, when a cutting 
 reprimand from the Proprietary aroused Stone. He resumed 
 his title and official functions, as Governor, and gathered an 
 armed force to proceed against the malcontents. A fight 
 
 2" Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, pp. 140-1. 
 " Streeter, op. cit., pp. 198-9. 
 
128 THOMAS CORN WALE YS 
 
 ensued in which Stone was utterly defeated, many of his men 
 slain, and several afterwards executed by the victors. 
 
 The Province after this remained for some time under 
 the control of Fuller and his party, though occasionally dis- 
 turbed by Captain Josias Fendall, in behalf of the Pro- 
 prietary. Fendall on July 10, 1656, was appointed Governor 
 with Philip Calvert, brother of CeciUus Calvert, who was 
 sent over, as Secretary. Thus the Province was under a 
 divided rule, some recognizing Fuller and others, Fendall.-' 
 
 In June, 1657, Fendall sailed for England, leaving the 
 control of affairs at St. Mary's in the hands of Dr. Luke 
 Barber. Whilst there. Lord Baltimore and the agents of 
 Virginia in England discussed a compromise. As a result of 
 this meeting, Calvert promised the party of opposition in the 
 colony that, in case they recognized his officers and laid 
 aside all claims to authority, and promised to surrender the 
 records and the great seal, and forget past controversies, he 
 would modify the oath of fidelity for those wishing to take 
 up lands and would never consent to a repeal of the Act of 
 Toleration.-^ 
 
 Upon Fendall's return, he called a meeting of the Counsel 
 of the Province at St. Leonard's, on March 18, 1657, at which 
 Captain Cornwaleys, who had returned to Maryland in the 
 meantime, was present as Assistant to Governor Fendall 
 and Secretary Calvert. At this meeting Fendall made known 
 the terms of the agreement with the Proprietary that resulted 
 from the meeting in England.-^ Among the instructions 
 brought back by Fendall was one in which he was ordered in 
 the performance of his duties as Governor, always to proceed 
 with the advice of his Secretary, Philip Calvert. In case 
 the Secretary was absent from Maryland; or in case he fell 
 ill, or was otherwise prevented from acting, then the Governor 
 should act with the advice and approbation of Captain 
 Thomas Cornwaleys. Furthermore, in case of attestations 
 of grants, the Captain and two others of the Council should 
 
 22 /bid., pp. 199-200. 
 
 ^^lUd., pp. 200-1. 
 
 2'' /// — Archives, p. 334. 
 
FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 129 
 
 sign them. The effect of this order was to make Cornwaleys, 
 in the absence of Calvert, Secretary of the Province. ^^ As a 
 result of the meeting of March 18th, peace was again 
 restored. Fuller recognized the authority of Fendall as 
 Baltimore's only true and authorized representative, on the 
 last day of the year 1657. Thus Captain Cornwaleys, after 
 many years of varied experience in the toils, hardships and 
 vicissitudes of colonial life, had the satisfaction of crowning 
 his active and useful labors, by a participation in the nego- 
 tiations that brought about this happy result, and of receiving 
 from Lord Baltimore a recognition of his claims to his 
 gratitude and respect, in his appointment, in case of neces- 
 sity, to discharge the offices of the second official in the 
 Province.^" 
 
 Few memoranda remain on the records of the Province 
 from now on regarding Captain Cornwaleys. In fact, with 
 the last mentioned episode, ends the story of his personal 
 connection with the colony. Streeter says of him: ''After 
 twenty-five years of persevering labor, which had been 
 rewarded by the accumulation of a handsome estate, of 
 honesty and promptitude in his private dealings, and firm- 
 ness and courage in his public services, which had won for 
 him the favor and respect of the people, he prepared, with 
 the general regret of the colonists to return to England." 
 There, in the land of his birth, he was to take up his residence 
 and to spend his declining years.^^ Leaving his ample 
 estate under the control of Richard Hotchkeys, empowered 
 to act as his sole attorney for its management, the Captain, 
 with his wife, sailed for England, on June 2, 1659.^^ 
 
 A few entries on the colonial records tell us that the man- 
 agement of his estates was not unattended by inconveniences. 
 In fact, in one case at least, he had sufficient reason to com- 
 plain of the ingratitude of one whom he had befriended. At 
 a meeting of the Council held at Resurrection Manor, on 
 
 25 Ibid., p. 338. 
 
 ^^ Streeter, op. cit., pp. 202-3. 
 
 " Ibid., p. 203. 
 
 " III— Archives, p. 381. 
 
130 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 December 12, 1659, John Abington appeared as a petitioner 
 on behalf of the Captain. This man became Cornwaleys' 
 attorney on the death of Hotchkeys by designation of Corn- 
 waleys. He had been appointed as agent to receive pay- 
 ments of tobacco for him. When his debtors refused to pay 
 him, he asked for authority from the officials of the Province 
 to confirm the appointment made by the Captain. The 
 Council at once acceded to his request.'^ 
 
 A few months before leaving Maryland, Captain Corn- 
 waleys purchased a plantation belonging to John Nicholls, 
 whom he had frequently befriended. This man had become 
 involved in debt. At the same time, at Nicholls' earnest 
 solicitation and as an act of kindness, he consented, though 
 he had no need for her services, to take as a servant, Nicholls' 
 daughter, because he was so poor that he could not support 
 his family, Nicholls later complained that his daughter had 
 entered the service of the Captain at the latter' s earnest 
 entreaty, that she had been hired to wait upon his wife and 
 to be treated like his own child. Instead, he alleged, when 
 Cornwaleys departed with his wife, the girl was left behind, 
 and treated as a slave. On February 11, 1662, Nicholls 
 laid these complaints before the Council of the Province. 
 As no witness was called on the Captain's behalf, it was 
 decided that Nicholls' charges were true and it was ordered 
 that the girl be restored.^" 
 
 When Cornwaleys received information of these proceed- 
 ings, he was too tenacious of his rights, and too jealous for 
 the honor of his character to let this matter pass unnoticed. 
 At the session of the Assembly which convened at St. Mary's, 
 in September, 1663, under the Presidency of Charles Calvert, 
 the eldest son of the Proprietor, William Calvert and Thomas 
 Notley presented a petition on behalf of the Captain (Sep- 
 tember 18th). In it Cornwaleys set forth the true state 
 of affairs. He told the Assembly just how Nicholls' daughter 
 had come into his service and expressed his dissatisfaction 
 at the action of the law in giving a verdict against him in 
 
 29 lUd. 
 
 2" Streeter, op. cit., p. 206. 
 
FINAL SERVICES TO THE COLONY 131 
 
 Nicholls' favor.^^ After the petition was read, it was ordered 
 to be indorsed with the words ''Let justice be done" and 
 sent to the Governor for his signature.^- When the hearing 
 of the case was to take place, Nicholls did not appear. It was 
 then ordered that the whole case be brought up again before 
 the Provincial Court on December 8th, 1663. Whether the 
 case came up at that time, or how it was decided, the re- 
 maining records do not inform us. However, if the trans- 
 action was fairly investigated, the verdict was such that the 
 well-earned reputation of the Captain for fairness and honor 
 was completely vindicated. 
 
 Further, trace of Cornwaleys' career, as far as we have 
 been able to ascertain, is not recorded. Neill states that he 
 died in 1676 at the age of seventy-two. Even this is un- 
 certain since it hinges on the question as to whether the 
 Thomas Cornwaleys of the genealogical tree furnished by the 
 work, The Private Correspondence of Jane Lady Cornwallis is 
 the same individual as Captain Thomas Cornwaleys, Com- 
 missioner and Counsellor of Maryland.^^ 
 
 Two records, one of St. Mary's County, the other of 
 Baltimore County, tell us of one William Cornwaleys. The 
 first is a will dated April 24, 1678; the second a record of a 
 surveyor for laying out a tract for Wilham Cornwallis, dated 
 November 29, 1679.^* Whether he was a son of the Captain 
 cannot be definitely settled. Streeter thinks that this is not 
 improbable.^^ The same author writes: "So disappear the 
 generations, and so are dispersed the worldly goods of those 
 who, in their day, have done their fellows good service. But 
 their good deeds survive them. The remembrance of their 
 virtues will not die out. In the present case, ^ stet nominis 
 umhra.' As the men of the past had reason to respect the 
 man himself, so those of the present, on a recapitulation of 
 the deeds of his active and useful hfe . . . will pay a merited 
 tribute of honor to the name of cornwaleys." ^^ 
 
 " / — Archives, p. 463 
 32 Ibid., p. 466 
 
 "" loia., p. *DD. 
 
 33 Neill, op. d<., p. 81. 
 
 34 Streeter, op. cit., p. 211; Richardson, op. cit., p. 333. 
 3* Streeter, op. cit., p. 211. 
 
 3* Streeter, op. cit., p 
 ^Ibid 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 Conclusion 
 
 The planting of a colony, amid the dangers and privations 
 of a wilderness, from the most ancient times, assumed a 
 high rank among the heroic works of man. To the credit 
 due to the Maryland colonists as founders of a great State, 
 undying honor belongs to them as the founders of religious 
 liberty in America. Among the little band that began the 
 provincial history of Maryland on the feast of the Annuncia- 
 tion, March 25, 1634, Thomas Cornwaleys stands out as one 
 of the noblest. 
 
 His career has been described in these pages. Though his 
 ancestry cannot be ascertained with certainty, yet Captain 
 Thomas Cornwaleys needed not the factitious blazonry of a 
 noble lineage to support his fame. Whether we consider 
 him as a Commissioner or Councillor, whether we study his 
 acts in the colonial army as its commander, in the Assembly 
 as legislator, or in the Provincial Court as judge, we are 
 struck with the achievements of this man. 
 
 As Commissioner and later as Councillor, he was the trusted 
 friend of the Proprietary and the able adviser of the Governor. 
 How much Lord Baltimore relied upon him in this capacity 
 may be gathered from the occasion when he was appointed 
 to act as Deputy Governor, and as adviser to Governors 
 Calvert and Fendall. His relations with Cecihus Calvert 
 seem to have always been of a friendly nature. In his letter 
 to him in 1638, he speaks frankly and fearlessly — the manner 
 of procedure between friends. His connections with Leonard 
 Calvert, too, were generally of an amicable nature, though 
 at times he had his differences with this official. 
 
 As Captain General of the army of the colony, we find Corn- 
 waleys an undaunted leader. In the quarrel with Claiborne, 
 he successfully vindicated the rights of the Proprietary. In 
 the suppression of Indian hostilities, he must be regarded as 
 the most courageous man in the whole colony. In fact, 
 
 132 
 
CONCLUSION . 133 
 
 when the cauee of the colonists' safety and protection seemed 
 to be utterly lost due to hesitancy and indifference on the 
 part of the colonists themselves, then it is that we find the 
 Captain levying an army of volunteers to make a desperate 
 attempt to end once and for all the Indian hostilities that 
 were the bane of the settlers and the friendly tribes alike. 
 
 In the Assembly, Cornwaleys' one object was to secure 
 lasting benefits of just and wise legislation for the good of 
 the colony. He considered nothing so important as an 
 assiduous devotion on the part of the members of the 
 Assembly to carry on the business for which they met. He 
 was a popular leader, championing the rights of the colonists 
 on all occasions. He ever worked for the curtailing of official 
 privilege. Above all, he strove for the securing of the right 
 of the people to legislate for themselves. This they did 
 achieve. 
 
 His career in the Provincial Court is marked with justice 
 in the vindication of the laws of the Province. Though 
 he was ever on the side of justice, he was not so stern a judge 
 as not to feel commiseration for the guilty. Thus we find 
 him in his letter referred to so frequently in these pages, 
 writing to Lord Baltimore telling him of his sorrow for the 
 fate of Thomas Smith, who was condemned to death for his 
 part in the Kent uprising. He also tells the Proprietor of 
 his sympathy for the wife of the doomed man. His impar- j^ 
 
 tiality was evidenced on all occasions, notably when he was 
 called upon to sit in judgment on the acts of some few who 
 disturbed the peaceful relations existing between the Protes- 
 tants and the Catholics. 
 
 Cornwaleys' religion meant much to him. It was to 
 secure freedom of worship that he left his native land. His 
 zeal for the prosperity of the Church in Maryland has been 
 described in the chapter on the relations between himself 
 and the missionaries. In the annual letter of the Jesuits of 
 1638, cited in the chapter on Hawley and Cornwaleys, men- 
 tion was made of the fact that during that year many of 
 the prominent men in the colony performed the spiritual 
 
 v/ 
 
 / 
 
134 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 exercises conducted by the Fathers. In all probability, 
 Cornwaleys was one of their number. 
 
 We might go on at length to discuss the merits of Thomas 
 Cornwaleys as exhibited during his career in Maryland. 
 Enough has been said in this work to bring into bold relief 
 the sterling character of the Captain. Though no monu- 
 ment has been erected to remind us of his services to Mary- 
 land, his memory should not be allowed to pass. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 Critical Essay on Authorities 
 general works 
 
 Since no account of any length has yet appeared on 
 Thomas Cornwaleys, a variety of sources was consulted in the 
 preparation of this dissertation ranging from works dealing 
 with the history of America, the United States and England, 
 to histories of various episodes and personages. The work 
 of Justin Winsor, History of America, Vol. Ill, Boston and 
 New York, 1884, contains a splendid account on the History 
 of Maryland. To the study of the writer on Maryland in 
 this critical work, Mr. Winsor has added the fruit of his own 
 researches. In the work entitled The American Nation, 
 edited by Albert Bushnell Hart, LL. D., the volume (Vol. IV) 
 by Lyon Gardiner Tyler, LL. D., England in America, New 
 York and London, 1904, a succinct account of Maryland with 
 a very good bibliography is to be found. Henry William 
 Elson's History of the United States of America (Vol. I), New 
 York, 1905, also embraces a brief account of the period with 
 which we dealt. Enghsh histories employed were: John 
 Lingard, D. D., The History of England (Vols. VII and VIII), 
 London, 1855; and Dodd-Tierney, Church History of Eng- 
 land, Vols. IV and V, London, 1841 and 1843. The latter 
 is a highly annotated work. 
 
 GENERAL WORKS ON MARYLAND 
 
 Standard authorities for the history of Maryland are John 
 V. L. McMahon, An Historical View of the Government of 
 Maryland, Baltimore, 1831, of which only the first volume 
 appeared; John Leeds Bozman, The History of Maryland (2 
 Vols, Baltimore, 1837, covering the period of 1634 to 1658) ; 
 J. Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland (3 Vols., Baltimore, 
 1879) ; James McSherry, A History of Maryland, Baltimore, 
 1852. Of these McMahon's work was found of the greatest 
 value in considering the Maryland Charter. Bozman has 
 written a highly documented work that is very thorough. 
 
 135 
 
136 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 William T. Russell, now Bishop of Charleston, S. C, in 
 Maryland the Land of Sanctuary, Baltimore, 1907, has dealt 
 principally with the story of religious toleration in Maryland 
 history. His book is enriched with copious references. 
 Newton D. Mereness has contributed a valuable work on 
 the government of Maryland in his work, Maryland as a 
 Proprietary Province, New York, 1901. Other works dealing 
 with this subject are Herbert L. Osgood's article in the 
 American Historical Review (Vol. II, 1896-97), The Pro- 
 prietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government ; 
 William Hand Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate , 
 Boston, 1888. 
 
 SPECIAL WORKS ON THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 Sebastian F. Streeter, in his Papers relating to the Early 
 History of Maryland, Baltimore, 1876, gives a very good 
 account of Thomas Cornwaleys. The chapter contains few 
 references. However, the author has been found most 
 reliable. A distinct feature of the Streeter Papers is the brief 
 biographical notice he gives of the members who composed 
 the first Assembly of Maryland of which a record has come 
 down to us. Rev. Edward D. Neill, in a work entitled. The 
 Founders of Maryland, Albany, 1876, devotes a chapter to 
 Thomas Cornwaleys. He also wrote an article under the 
 caption Thomas Cornwaleys and Early Maryland Colonists, 
 Boston, 1889 (reprinted from the A^. E. Historical and 
 Genealogical Register for April, 1889). In both these pro- 
 ductions, Neill contrary to all authorities asserts that Corn- 
 waleys was a Protestant. The author is not free from bias 
 and has not been used in this dissertation except in a few 
 instances and then only with reservation and when he had 
 other authorities to support his statements. 
 
 DOCUMENTARY MATERIAL FOR THIS BIOGRAPHY 
 
 The printed Archives of Maryland, published by the Mary- 
 land Historical Society, have furnished the best source 
 material in the preparation of this dissertation. Five 
 volumes of these colonial records contain material dealing 
 
CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 137 
 
 with Thomas Cornwaleys. They are the following: Vol. I, 
 Proceedings of the Assembly, Jan. 1637-8 — Sept. 1664, Balti- 
 more, 1883; Vol. Ill, Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, 
 Baltimore, 1885; Vol. IV, Provincial Court, 1637-1650, 
 Baltimore, 1887; Vol. V, Proceedings of the Council, 1667- 
 1687/8, Baltimore, 1887; and Vol. X, Provincial Court, 
 1649/50-1657, Baltimore, 1891. It is to be regretted that 
 these volumes are not enriched with more copious indices. 
 
 Clayton C. Hall, Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684, 
 in J. F. Jameson's Original Narratives of Early American 
 History, New York, 1910. 
 
 Two numbers of The Calvert Papers have been most 
 serviceable. Number 1, Baltimore, 1889, contains letters of 
 such persons as Thomas Cornwaleys, Cecilius Calvert, 
 Governor Calvert, Father Copley and others; Number 3, 
 Baltimore, 1889, gives A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto 
 Maryland. 
 
 A manuscript of the Public Record Office dealing with an 
 episode in the Ingle affair, labeled Admiralty High Court, 
 Libel Bundle, 108, No. 21, is to be found in the Library of 
 Congress Transcripts. 
 
 Other sources that have been valuable aids in studying the 
 Ingle-Corn waleys case are Lords' Journal, Vol. VIII, 1645- 
 1646; Manuscripts of the House of Lords, calendared in 
 Historical Manuscripts Commission, Sixth Report, London, 
 1877. 
 
 Besides the Relation referred to above, there are two other 
 accounts dealing with the coming of the Maryland colonists, 
 the Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, by Father Andrew 
 White, S. J., pubhshed with an Enghsh translation and edited 
 by Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, S. T. D., in Baltimore, 1874; and 
 A Relation of Maryland, reprinted from the London edition of 
 1635, and edited with notes and an appendix by Francis L. 
 Hawks, New York, 1865. 
 
 HISTORIES OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS 
 
 In several histories dealing with the Jesuit Order, material 
 on Cornwaleys was found available. Of these, the best is 
 
138 THOMAS CORNWALEYS 
 
 that of Thomas Hughes, S. J., History of the Society of Jesus 
 in North America Colonial and Federal (2 volumes of Text 
 and 2 volumes of Documents), New York, 1907-1917. Other 
 works under this category are: Henry Foley, S. J., Records 
 of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (Vol. Ill), 
 London, 1878, and Rev. William P. Treacy, Old Catholic 
 Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missionaries, Swedesboro, 
 N. J., 1889. 
 
 BIOGRAPHIES 
 
 In studying the extant genealogies of Thomas Cornwaleys, 
 the following works were consulted: Alexander Brown, The 
 Genesis of the United States, Boston and New York, 1890; 
 The Private Correspondence of Jane Lady Cornwallis, London, 
 1842; The Cyclopedia of American Biography, New York, 
 1915; and Dictionary of National Biography (Vol. XII), 
 edited by Leslie Stephen, New York, 1887. As noted in the 
 first chapter of this dissertation, the genealogical notices of 
 Thomas Cornwaleys do not appear to us as conclusive. 
 
 GENERAL WORKS CONSULTED 
 
 George Alsop, A Character of the Province of Maryland, 
 reprinted from the original edition of 1666, with introduction 
 and notes by Newton D. Mereness, Cleveland, 1902. — Wil- 
 liam Hand Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert Lords 
 Baltimore, New York, 1890. — Catholic Record Society, Vol. 
 VIII, Miscellanea, London, 1913. — R. H. Clarke, LL. D., 
 Bancroft's History of the United States, in The Catholic World 
 (Vols. 38 and 39). — Sanford Cobb, The Rise of Religious 
 Liberty in America, New York, 1902. — George Lynn- 
 Lachlan Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom or The 
 Birth and Early Growth of Toleration in the Province of 
 Maryland, New York, 1855. — M. F. Howley, Ecclesiastical 
 History of Newfoundland, Boston, 1887. — Edward Ingle, 
 Captain Richard Ingle, the Maryland Pirate and Rebel, Balti- 
 more, 1884. — John Johnson, Old Maryland Manors, Balti- 
 more, 1883. — John Kilty, The Land-Holder's Assistant and 
 Land-Office Guide, Baltimore, 1808. — John H. Latane, The 
 
CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 139 
 
 Early Relations between Maryland and Virginia (Johns 
 Hopkins University Studies), Baltimore, March and April, 
 1895. — R. R. Madden, The History of the Penal Laws 
 enacted against Roman Catholics, London, 1847. — Very Rev. 
 V. F. O'Daniel, 0. P., S. T. M., Cuthbert Fenwick— Pioneer 
 Catholic and Legislator of Maryland, in The Catholic 
 Historical Review, Vol. V; and The Right Rev. Edward 
 Dominic Fenwick, 0. P., Washington, D. C, 1920. — 
 Beauchamp Plantagenet, A Description of the Province of 
 New Albion (printed in 1648), American Colonial Tracts, Vol. 
 II, No. 6, Rochester, 1898.— Thomas Wentworth Strafford, 
 Letters and Dispatches, edited by Sir George Radchffe (2 
 Vols.), London, 1739. — Hester Dorsey Richardson, Side- 
 Lights on Maryland History, Baltimore, 1913. — John Gil- 
 mary Shea, History of the Catholic Church in the United States 
 (Vol. I), New York, 1886; and Maryland and the Contro- 
 versies as to her Early History, in American Catholic Quarterly 
 Review (Vol. X), Philadelphia, 1885. — Bernard C. Steiner, 
 Ph. D., Beginnings of Maryland 1631-1639, Baltimore, 1903; 
 and Maryland during English Civil Wars, Baltimore, 1903. 
 
VITA 
 
 George Boniface Stratemeier was born in Pittsburgh, Pa., 
 April 21, 1895. He received his elementary education in St. 
 Joseph's School, Pittsburgh, and his classical course in St. 
 Vincent College, Beatty, Pa. He entered the novitiate of 
 the Order of Preachers at St. Joseph's Convent, Somerset, 
 Ohio, in 1914, and in the following year the Dominican House 
 of Studies, Washington, D. C. Here were completed his 
 studies in Philosophy and Theology. He was ordained to 
 the priesthood on June 12, 1921. From 1915 until 1922, he 
 followed courses at the Catholic University in American 
 Church History, the English Counter-Reformation and 
 English Institutions, under Rev. Peter Guilday, Ph. D.; in 
 American Church History, under Rev. Patrick W. Browne, 
 S. T. D.; in Medieval Institutions, under Rev. Paschal 
 Robinson, O. F. M., S. T. D.; in Medieval German Legends 
 and Indo-Germanic Philology, under Paul Gleis, Ph. D.; 
 and in Homiletics, under Rt. Rev. Hugh T. Henry, Litt. D., 
 LL. D. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 310 072 84