and each, though eager to return, was detained there at a time when his presence was greatly needed in his colony to uphold his prerogatives. Baltimore's presence in England was needed because he was already out of favor with the Lords of Trade on account of his quarrel with the royal collector. Until 1676 Calvert acted as his own collector of customs, but in that year he recommended the appointment of Christopher Rousby, with whom and with Badcock, the king's surveyor of customs, he was soon in controversy. Rousby appealed to the Lords of Trade. Badcock accused Baltimore of interfering with him in the performance of his duty. The Lords of Trade in 1681 decided in favor of the officers; reprehended Lord Baltimore; bade him refund £2500, of which they claimed he had defrauded the customs by his interference; and threatened him with the loss of his charter if he did not obey the acts of trade.1

Rousby returned to Maryland, and, while Baltimore was in England, became involved in a quarrel with George Talbot, Baltimore's hot-headed relative and head of the council, and was murdered. This unfortunate incident led to the issue of a writ of quo warranto against the charter, and though the writ was never executed, Baltimore's standing in the eyes of the home authorities was very much impaired.

If the trouble with Rousby pointed to the proprietary's neglect of the acts of trade, a new trouble 1 Journal of the Lords of Trade, III., 319, 320.

with Fendall, who for twenty years had been a leader among the Protestant enemies of the proprietary, seemed to indicate unrest and discontent within the province that Baltimore was unable to control. In 1681, taking advantage of the quarrel in England between Charles II. and the parliament of that year, Fendall endeavored to stir up the people of Charles and St. Mary's counties, and to tamper with some of the proprietary's officers. With a fellow-agitator, John Coode, he planned the overthrow of Baltimore's government and the expulsion of all Roman Catholics from Maryland.' But with Coode and another malcontent, Godfrey, he was arrested and imprisoned; and in November, 1681, was tried for "mutinous and seditious speeches, practices, and attempts" against the proprietary, "to the subversion of the state and government of the province." Coode was acquitted, Fendall fined 40,000 pounds of tobacco and banished, and Godfrey sentenced to be hanged, though the penalty in the latter's case was afterwards remitted." evidence brought forward at the trial discloses an unsettled condition of public opinion in the province, and shows how ready were the enemies of Baltimore and the Roman Catholics to take advantage of every changing fortune in English affairs to effect their overthrow.

1 Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 351.

The

'Md. Archives, V., 313-328; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 16811685, § 391.

Baltimore planned to return to Maryland in September, 1686, but was compelled to remain in order to thwart Penn's attempt to obtain the disputed territory below the fortieth parallel and to meet the king's attack on the charter; he therefore sent over William Joseph as his deputy. News of the birth of a son to King James in 1688 led to excessive demonstrations of loyalty in Maryland that did not serve to allay popular fears regarding the Roman Catholic and monarchical tendencies of the government.1 But the governor's speeches and the proclamations regarding the young prince, ridiculous though the phrases were in which they were couched, did not arouse any special excitement at the time; and a list of grievances which the assembly handed in to the governor shortly afterwards was so moderate in character as to show that certainly the deputies, and probably the greater part of the people, had no thought of revolution.

When contrasted with Virginia, Maryland shows no such combination of circumstances leading to revolution as prevailed below the Potomac at the time of Bacon's rebellion. Indian difficulties were less acute; the policy of the proprietary party, though similar in character to that of the ring in Virginia, was less offensive and less burdensome than in that colony; the people at large, widely scattered and divided by a broad expanse of water into two parts, were less competent to act efficiently

1 Md. Archives, VIII., 15; XIII., 184, 185, 210.

against the proprietor even had they been inclined; while there were present no leaders on either side in Maryland like Berkeley with his spleen and Bacon with his commanding personal magnetism. The revolution that finally took place in Maryland was, as the sequel will show, not a popular movement nor one which would have succeeded independently of influences from England. It was but a phase of the general uprising in the colonies which followed the revolution of 1688 in England.

CHAPTER XVI

DIFFICULTIES IN NEW ENGLAND

WHAT

(1675-1686)

HAT was going on in New England during these years of turmoil in the south? For a long time after 1668, the enemies of Massachusetts waited their time. The early complaints sent in to the Lords of Trade were largely personal in character, affecting individuals and not the crown. These complaints and the report of the commissioners, who had so unfortunate an experience in 1665 in Boston, gave the colony a bad name in England, where she was charged with the possession of a peevish and touchy humor; but they did not offer a sufficient basis for an attack on the charter. When, however, new complaints began to come in, showing that the king's revenue and the king's prerogatives were threatened by the colony, the Lords of Trade began to consider in earnest a policy of coercion.1

In 1675, when Massachusetts was involved in King Philip's War, her enemies renewed the attack;

1 Evelyn, Diary, II., 66; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, § 1059; Hutchinson Papers, II., 174, 175, 204.