CHAP. forty-three years, leaving a reputation for temperate XIV. wisdom, which the dissensions in his colony and the 1676. various revolutions of England could not tarnish. He did not leave the impress of his mind on the political character of Maryland, and, therefore, failed of obtaining the brightest glory of a legislator. Of the elements of which he was primarily the author, nothing endured but the rights of property reserved for his family. The death of Cecilius recalled to England the heir of the province, who had now administered its government for fourteen years with a moderation which had been rewarded by the increasing prosperity of his patrimony. Previous to his departure, the whole code of laws received a thorough revision; the memorable act of toleration was confirmed. Virginia had, six 1670. years before, prohibited the importation of felons until April 20. the king or privy council should reverse the order. In Maryland, "the importation of convicted persons was absolutely prohibited without regard to the will of the king or the English parliament, and in 1692 the prohibition was renewed.1 The established revenues of the proprietary were continued. As Lord Baltimore sailed for England, the seeds of discontent were already germinating. The office of proprietary, a feudal principality, with extensive manors in every county, was an anomaly; the sole hereditary legislator in the province, his power was not in harmony with the political predilections of the colonists, or the habits of the New World. The doctrine of the paramount authority of an hereditary sovereign was at war with the spirit which emigration fostered, and the principles of civil equality naturally 1 Hening, ii. 509, 510. Bacon, 1676, c. xvi. XIV. June grew up in all the British settlements. The insurrec- CHAP. tion of Bacon found friends north of the Potomac, and a rising was checked only by the prompt energy of the government. But the vague and undefined cravings after change, the tendency toward more popular forms of administration, could not be repressed. The assembly which was convened during the absence of 1678. the proprietary shared in this spirit; and the right of suffrage was established on a corresponding basis. The party of "Baconists" had obtained great influence on the public mind. Differences between the proprietary and the people became apparent. On his return to the province, he himself, by proclamation, 1681. annulled the rule which the representatives of Mary- 27 land had established respecting the elective franchise, and, by an arbitrary ordinance, limited the right of Sept. suffrage to freemen possessing a freehold of fifty acres, or having a visible personal estate of forty pounds. No difference was made with respect to color. In Virginia, the negro, the mulatto, and the Indian, were first disfranchised in 1723; in Maryland, they retained by law the right of suffrage till the time when the poor- 1802est white man recovered his equal franchise. These restrictions, which, for one hundred and twenty-one years, successfully resisted the principle of universal suffrage among freemen of the Caucasian race, were introduced in the midst of scenes of civil commotion. Fendall, the old republican, was again planning schemes of insurrection, and even of independence. The state was not only troubled with poverty, but 3 XIV. CHAP. was in danger of falling to pieces; for it was said, "The maxims of the old Lord Baltimore will not do in the present age."1 1676. The insurrection was for the time repressed; but its symptoms were the more alarming from the religious fanaticism with which the principle of popular power was combined. The discontents were increased by hostility toward the creed of Papists; and, as Protestantism became a political sect, the proprietary government was in the issue easily subverted; for it had struck no deep roots either in the religious tenets, the political faith, or the social condition of the colony. It had rested only on a grateful deference, which was rapidly wearing away. Immediately on the death of the first feudal sovereign of Maryland, the powerful influence of the archbishop of Canterbury had been solicited to secure an establishment of the Anglican church, which clamored for favor in the province where it enjoyed equality. Misrepresentations were not spared. 2 Maryland," said a clergyman of the church, "is a pest-house of iniquity." The cure for all evil was to be "an established support of a Protestant ministry." The prelates demanded, not freedom, but privilege; an establishment to be maintained at the common expense of the province. Lord Baltimore resisted; the Roman Catholic was inflexible in his regard for freedom of worship. The opposition to Lord Baltimore as a feudal sovereign easily united with Protestant bigotry; and 1681. when the insurrection was suppressed by methods of clemency and forbearance, the government was 1 Culpepper, in Chalmers, 357. 2 Rev. J. Yeo, in Chalmers, 373. XIV. vehemently accused of favor towards Papists. The CHAP. opportunity was too favorable to be neglected; the English ministry soon issued an order, that offices of government in Maryland should be intrusted exclusively to Protestants. Roman Catholics were disfranchised in the province which they had planted. With the colonists Lord Baltimore was at issue for his hereditary authority, with the English church for his religious faith; attempts to modify the unhappy effects of the navigation acts on colonial industry, involved him in opposition to the commercial policy of England. His rights of jurisdiction had been disregarded; the custom-house officer of Maryland had been placed under the superintendence of the governor of Virginia; and the unwelcome relations, resisted by the officers of Lord Baltimore, had led to quarrels and bloodshed, which were followed by a controversy with Virginia.1 The accession of James II. seemed an 1685. auspicious event for a Roman Catholic proprietary; but the first result from parliament was an increased burden on the industry of the colony, by means of a new tax on the consumption of its produce in England; while the king, who meditated the subversion of British freedom, resolved, with impartial injustice, to reduce all the colonies to a direct dependence on the crown. The proprietary, hastening to England, vainly pleaded his irreproachable administration. Re- 1687 monstrance was disregarded, and chartered rights despised; and a writ of quo warranto was ordered against the patent of Lord Baltimore. But before the legal forms could be brought to an issue, the people of England had sat in judgment on their king. 1 Communicated from Maryland Records. CHAP. The approach of the revolution effected no immediate benefit to Lord Baltimore. What though 1688. mutinous speeches and practices against the proprietary government were punishable by whipping, boring the tongue, imprisonment, exile, death itself? The spirit of popular liberty, allied to Protestant bigotry and the clamor of a pretended popish plot, was too powerful an adversary for his colonial government. William Joseph, the president to whom he had intrusted the administration, convened an assembly. The address on opening it, explains the character of the proprietary, and of the insurrection which followed. "Divine Providence," said the representative of Lord Baltimore, “hath ordered us to meet. The power by which we are assembled here, is undoubtedly derived from God to the king, and from the king to his excellency, the lord proprietary, and from his said lordship to us. The power, therefore, whereof I speak, being, as said, firstly, in God and from God; secondly, in the king and from the king; thirdly, in his lordship; fourthly, in us; the end and duty of, and for which this assembly is now called and met, is that from these four heads, to wit: from God, the king, our lord, and Nov. selves." Having thus established the divine right of the proprietary, he endeavored to confirm it by invading the privileges of the assembly, and exacting a special oath of fidelity to his dominion. The assembly resisted the attempt, and was prorogued.1 Is it strange that excitements increased; that they were heightened by tidings of the invasion of England; that they were kindled into a flame by a delay in proclaiming the new sovereign? An organized insur 1 McMahon, 235. The chapters most accurate of them all. Chal of Chalmers on Maryland are the mers had resided in Maryland. |