Thomas Cornwaleys, commissioner and counsellor of Maryland

u

^m

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

ibncrtph

THOMAS CORNWALEYS

F7^4

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 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

CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

Foreword ix

I Introduction 1

II The Maryland Charter 7

III Preparations for the Voyage to Maryland 16

IV The Settlement of Maryland 27

V Cornwaleys and Kent Island 34

VI Cornwaleys as Legislator 45

VII Cornwaleys and the Jesuits 55

VIII Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwaleys 70

IX Cornwaleys as Legislator (Continued) 81

X Indian Disturbances 92

XI Cornwaleys and Ingle 106

XII Final Services to the Colony 119

XIII Conclusion 132

XIV Critical Essay on Authorities 135

y

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 CathoHc 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 wliich 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, Cecihus 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 hbrary 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 religion to suit his hking, the
adherents of the ancient religion 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,
Catholics had to worship God in secret as the Christians of
old.

\Mien 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 rehgions,
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 liberty and an enemy

2 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, CornwaUis, 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 CornwaUis.' We have adopted
the form "Cornwaleys," because it is so written by liimself.^

The ancestry of the sturdy Maryland colonist cannot be
established 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 CornwaUis. The authors of The Geyiesis 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 Stales, 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. Mice, 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 Ehzabeth,
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 PhiUp 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. cit.
' 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 Cornwallis 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 pre\aously, 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 liis 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.

" 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.
'•■' Neill, Thomas CoriiwaUis and Early Afarylnnd Colonists, p. 4.
" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170.
^'•Ibidem, p. 131.

INTRODUCTION 5

portant posts in the early development of the history of Lord
Baltimore's palatinate. This form of administration lasted
until the arrival of the conunission 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
Conmiissioners, 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 httle 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' Ufe. 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 Ught 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

"Streeter, op. cit., p. 104.

b THOMAS CORN W A LEYS

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 Catholic, 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 Cecihus 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 Umitations 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 el seq.; Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, pp. 507
et seq.

7

8 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

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 IVIaria,
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," C07nes palatii or palatinus. The feudal lord
could annex to the lands which he granted to liis 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
lights, jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, roj^alties, 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. cil., pp. 507-8.

3 Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, pp. 51-2.

4 ZhiW n fiO.

* Ibid., p. 60

THE MARYLAND CHARTER U

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 dehver 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.
' lUd., pp. 168-9.
8 Ibid.
» 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 pro\'ince, 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 life. 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

'" Mereness, op. ciL, p. 195.
" McMahon, op. cit., p. 183.
'^ 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

" Mereness, op. cit., p. 228.
" McMahon, op. cit., p. 158.
IS Ibid.
" Scharf, op. cit., 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 wliich 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 Enghsh 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 dealing with the
religious prerogatives of the Maryland Proprietary does not
clear up the difficulty. Considering, however, the attitude of
the English Ruler toward Lord Baltimore and other Cathofic
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

" McMahon, op. 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 permission
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.-'

Military 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 sunmion 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 mihtary
establishment of the mother country. The unlimited
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 mihtary 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

'" Browne, George and Cecilius Calvert, Note, pp. 36-7.
"The religious rights of the Proptietary are discussed with clearness and
abihty by Bishop Russell, op. cil., pp. 56 et seq.
-2 McMahon, op. cil., p. 160.
» 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, selUng 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.^*

^ Mereness, op. cil., p. 339.

2' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 20.
'" Osgood, The Proprietary Province as a Form oj Colonial Government,
article in American Historical Review, Vol. ii, pp. 644 el seq.
=' Howley, Ecclesiastical History oJ Newfouiidland, pp. 87-9.
" 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 Cecilius 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."

" IHd., 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 Cathohc 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 inclined 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 oj 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 little they had to hope for. It was, he
said, to a similar petition that the rebelHon 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-Chamber that
attempts to move the sovereign in matters of religion were to
be construed as acts tending to sedition and rebelUon. 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 Ehzabeth, and enacting, "that the
two-thirds of the estates seized should be retained after the
convict's death, until all arrea; s of the penalties are paid, and
then dehvered 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 bej'ond 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 cliild, or other person under their
obedience, out of the realm, during her life, is here made

'Ibid., pp. 17-8.

18 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

perpetual. Persons likewise, who keep school, otherwise
than in some university, public 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 Catholics in fresh troubles. "To a thinking mind,"
says Lingard, "the late conspiracy must have proved the
danger and impohcy 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 Catholics.

Lingard gives us a digest of this legislation as follows:
"1. Catholic 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 liable
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 lieu of it, all the personal, and two-
thirds of the real estate ; and (6) Every householder, of what-
ever relig'on, 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 pubUc 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. cil., 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
conmiunion. 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 Catholics
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 httle humanity was due by the nation to the
rehgion 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.
' 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 reUgious
opinions, making Maryland a home for all, a refuge to men
who fled from the persecution aUke 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 Cecilius
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 Colonie 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
rehefe 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 wliich 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.
'* /// — 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 "to 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 traffique 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
thein; 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.'^

" Ihid. ; also Bozman, History of Maryland, Vol. Ii, p. 24.

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 134.

" 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. cil., 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 CathoHc behef 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, 1G33, sent
a list of Instructions to Leonard Calvert, Jei'ome 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 Cecilius 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 this to be observed at
Land as well as at Sea.

The instructions that followed are not without interest.
Dihgent 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

" For the text of the Oath of Allegiance, ef. 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 AUegiance," pp.
177 el seq.

" The complete letter is to be found in the Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 131
et seq.

PREPARATIONS FOR THE VOYAGE TO MARYU^ND

2.T

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 Che.sapeacke " 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 tliis 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.

"Li this interesting document," says Browne,-" "we see
the principles of Baltimore's policy, and the germs of the
polity of Maryland. Rehgious toleration, 'unity and peace'
between members of different faiths, began on the Ark and
Dove. Whether we attribute it to wise policy, to the cogency
of circumstances, or to a hberal 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."

2» Browne, op. cil., 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 fasliion" had accompanied the
expedition.'

Cecilius Calvert in the "Conditions of Plantation" pub-
hshed in a work entitled A Relation of Maryland,- gives
a list 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 Win tour,
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

' Radcliffe, Letters and Dispatches of Thomas Wentworth Strafford, Vol. i,
pp. 178-9.

^ A Relation of Maryland, edited by Francis L. Hawks, p. 65. This work
must not be confounded with Father White's Relalio 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
Win tour, conunander 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, gUded 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. in, pp. 26 el 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 liis 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 Hke 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 16.34," 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
Cathohcs, 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.
'» Ibid.

" Relatio, p. 33. The Litany of the Holy Cross is to be found in The
Catholic World, Vol. 39, p. 41.

30 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

a prayer went up to heaven for the success of their colonial
project. With enthusiasm thej^ 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 reUgious
liberty on this continent; and the fires first kindled on it
ascended to heaven an^d 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. Saihng 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."

Leaving these hospitable IncUans, 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 hved 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 famihar 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 sliipp, 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 hve 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

"Page 41.

" Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 21.

" A Brief Relalion, 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 mihtary skill of
Cornwalej's 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.2i

Mindful of Cecilius 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. --

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.

^"Calvert Papers, No. iii, p. 21.

-' Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, pp. 125-6.

'" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 136.

" Relatio, p. 39.

THE SETTLEMENT OF MARYLAND 33

f

himself, properly equipped, which equipment was duly
itemized and with transportation charges estimated at
twenty pounds, should receiv^e 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 English ones." -^

In the meantime the colonists lived 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-L

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 INIaryland 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 CathoUc, and the poUtical quarrel of
Royalist and Roundhead, all gathered around the claim of
Claiborne." ^

' Browne, Maryland the History of a Palatinate, p. 27.
' 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 ad\ased 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 Uttle 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 CoUony, for want of sufficient strength
to defend themselves, and that Capt. William
Claiborne, at the arrivall of these Instructions, con-
tinue his unlawful! 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 Alary-
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 relaling to the Early History of Maryland, p. 111.

s/fctd., pp. 111-2.

' Browne, Maryland, etc., p. 32.

CORNWALEYS 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
froni 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 liis 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 \'ictuals.*

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 2.3rd 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 water.s of
America.^ In the combat that followed, both sides suffered
the loss of life. The casualty Ust 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 el seq.

' Scharf, Hislory 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. '='

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, friendlj^ towards him."

In May, 1637, a letter was directed by the Iving 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.'"'

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

» Ibid., p. 131.

'5 /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 5.5; also Steincr, op. cil., 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 Cecilius Calvert, on April
16, 1638. The Captain writes:

I receaned yr. Letr. dated the 25: of May last for
wch. and yr therein noblj' 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 Advantage.''

In virtue of a commission dated December 30, 1637,
directed to him at Kent Island, Captain Evelin 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 Marj—
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. Evelin answered that he was agent for both. He

'^ Calverl Papers, No. i, p. 182.

" Steiner, op. cit., p. 71 (note). This letter is to be found in Calvert Papers,
No. I, p. 169.

'* /// — 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 lie 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 liimselfe 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 Ucense to trade in
Nova Scotia and New England but not in the Chesapeake.-"
The same day that Leonard Calvert issued his commission
to Evelin, 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 Sell 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

" V— Archives of Maryland, CounHl, pp. 185, 20.3, 209, 218.

2" Ihid., 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 miUtary party.
Smith and Boteler were taken prisoner. Calvert then
issued a proclamation of a general anuiesty 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
pro\'ince 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 was 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.

2' Calvert Papers, No. I, pp. 182 et seq.

^ I— Archives, pp. 16, 18, 21.

2* Boznian, 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 indictint. 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 nught, 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 colonj' 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.

^* Bozman, op. cit., p. 65 (note).

2' Calrerl 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 AssembUe 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 di\'ision 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 Juindrcds. 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

' I — Archives of Maryland, Assembly, p. 23.

^ Streeter, Papers relalmg 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 Grall 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 ohservance 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 Grall shall appoint which shall
speak.

Item no man shall stand up to speak to anj' matter
untO 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
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 Parliament" 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 Cecihus 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.
' / — Archires, pp. 6-7.
^"Ibid., p. 8.

CORNWALEYS AS LEGISL.\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
conomission 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 Umited 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

" ]Ud., p. 9.
" 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 \\'ell 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
Presidejit 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.

"Ibid., 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 tliis 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.

"Ibid., p. 23.

" 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' abihty 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 rehance 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 abihty
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
his 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 Jesu^, Vol. m, pp. 367-8; Streeter, op. cit., p. 146.

i« IV — Archives of Maryland, Court, p. 14.

2" The administration of Hawley's estate will be dealt with in the chapter on
Hawley and Cornwaleys.

21 IV~Archii'es, pp. 39, 74 et seq., and 102.

22 /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 74.
" 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
pubUcations 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 tribimal 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
rehgion, of forbidding his servants to read any book relative
to their religion and of trying to win over ignorant persons
by craft to the Catholic religion. 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 calhng 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 secm'ity for liis good behaviour in these matters for the
future. The Captain concurred substantiaUy with this
opinion and the Governor entirely. Thereupon the security
was given.-*

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.^*

" WTiether 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 of the Provincial Court.

'^ IV — Archives, pp. 35-9; Streeter, op. cit., p. 232; Russell, Maryland the
Land of Sanctuary, pp. 126-7.

'^ 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 Cecihus 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 assembl}^ 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 profRtt 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

' The letters referred to are to be found in The Calvert Papers, No. i, follow-
ing each other in order on pp. 1.57, 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 intermedUnge, 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
Suffering of all Disgraces and Insolensyes that eyther the
Pastion or Mallis [passion or mahce] of Suckseedeing
Governors shall please toe put upon us, with out beeing
permitted soe much as A LawfuU 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

'Ibid., pp. 158-9. It is to be noted that the missionaries were excused
from attending sessions of the Assembly, cf. / — Archives oj 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 military
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 light 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 Hve 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 Jestm 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 apprehensi'^>n 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 thejTe 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 ^VMte, 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.

^Ibid., pp. 173-4.

"Ibid., p. 209.

'" 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 despajTe 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 foUery 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 Immunitye and priveledges, which she
enjoyeth every where else." ^^ Mr. 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.
" 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
corne 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 tho.se who have a monopoly in this

" Ibid., p. 163.
" Ibid.
'^Ibid., 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 exconmiunications 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 difficultyes 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
lawfuU power and commission dirived from the lord pro-
's 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
Religious 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 ungratefuU 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 Careful! 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-

'* Ihid. 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.

"/fcirf., p. 166.

CORNWALEYS AND THE JESUITS 63

ship whereby you may declare the Sincerely 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 proceedings 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 usbeyound 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 up toe 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 Cathofick. 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 altogether 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

'Ibid., 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 afTairs, 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,

^' / — Archives, p. 20.

'' 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 manner 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 pubhque 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 live 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 j udge 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 temporaltyes. 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.

" Calvert Papers, No. i, pp. 166-7.

^^ 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 civihzation in the wilderness; they
gave consolation to the grief-stricken pilgrim; they taught
the religion 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 waj' 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 beUef." -'

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

25 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
'Enghsh 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 Ust is that of Rev. Dr. Britton,
who might be made Prefect.^^ After faculties had been
dispatched for the new irdssionaries 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

^»Ibid., p. 156.

25 Hughes, op. cil., p. 333.

'» Ihid., Hughes quoting Propaganda Archives, p. 495.

2' Ibid., pp. 493-8.

^2 Ibid., pp. 506-15; also Russell, op. cit., pp. 152-3.

68 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

points, and determined that whicli 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
missionaries 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

'' Hughes, op. cil., citing Vatican Archives, p. 520.

" Ibid., p. 524.

'^ Russell, op. cil., p. 154.

'^ Hughes, op. cil., p. 532.

" CalveH Papers, No. i, p. 212.

»» Ibid.

™ /// — 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 rehgion-
ists. Moreover the privileges they asked for, were such as
the clergy enjoyed in CathoUc 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 coriceived 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 practicabihty, 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 rehgious freedom. In this respect, he and the
other colonists who upheld his policy were far in advance of
their times." ^-

" Russell, op. cil., p. 158.
" Ilml., p. 159.
« Ibid., pp. 172-3.

CIL\PTER VIII
Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwalevs

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

' Streeter, Papers relating lo the Early History of Maryland, p. 109.
* 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 ' ' within 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 " Patten ts," 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.
' Ibid., pp. 153-4.
' 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 efTect 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 conmiand. All
wch therefore I humbly tender to yor Lorpps consideration."*

Writing to his brother, on April 25, 1638, GovernorLeonard
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
Stiff 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 ProfRt. As Doubtles Virginia would bee toe him if he

' Ihid., pp. 188-9.

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
LikeUhood 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. Wliat 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, Suffitient 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 Iris
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 diflficultyes 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 publick, 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 behalfe 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 Hawley'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.
" 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." "

WTiatever 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. m, p.
371. This work contains the Enghsh 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 li

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 The: 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, 1G33. 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 Conmiission 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 delivered 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.
"Ibid., p. 41.
" Ibid.

78 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

showing the amount of Mr. Hawley's estate and containing
the names of some of the earhest 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 foUoweth *•

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 0

to a bill from Cyprian Throughgood 005 07 0

to a bill from Anthony Cotton 008 17 6

to rec of Capt : Evelin & Company, a debt of 1824 1 tob : 022 16 0

894 06 0

to desperate debts upon bills as followeth

from Thomas Bradnock & Richard Purlivant; 1500 1

tob
from wiUiam medcalfe 500 1 tob:
from Ed: Comins & Tho: Pett, 800 1 tob:
from Robt Philpott, and Laurence Mollock ; 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 defraj^ed 40. dales

by paid the praisers for their paines

by paid mr Lewger for a debt due to Tho : Cullamore 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 corne 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

0

006

05

0

010

00

0

009

14

6

005

12

6

050

07

0

944

13

-

1

s

d

005

00

0

003

00

0

005

00

0

005

00

0

004

04

0

002

00

0

001

00

0

001

06

0

001

05

0

002

15

0

000

15

0

001

04

0

001
J

04

0

410

00

0

234

04

4

^0 Ibid., pp. 100-1.

1

s

d

012

00

0

015

00

0

005

00

0

009

00

0

014

00

0

005

07

0

015

10

0

012

10

0

008

10

0

010

00

0

JEROME HAWLEY AND THOMAS CORNWALEYS 79

by paid Andrew Chappell upon judgemt

by paid Edward Brent for wages

by paid Xpofer Plunkett for wages

by paid John Cook for wages

b}' paid Richard Hill for wages

bj' 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 0

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 0

944 13

This account is followed by a letter from the Proprietary
approving of the manner in wliich the Captain discharged
his duties as administrator. It runs as follows:

"Cecilius Lord &c. to all xtian people to whom these
puts 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 Aecompt thereof when he shoidd
be theremito called by or Secretary or had otherwise fully
administred the same According whereunto the said Tho:
Cornwaleys on 13th September following made & deUvered
to or Secretary an Inventary of the said goods & chattells
amounting to the value of 944 pounds 13 shiUings . . . and
afterward that is to say on 20th Aprill 1639. brought in his
Aecompt 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 simmie of 944 pounds 13 shillings sterling. Know
ye therefore that we well appro\ang the faithfulness and
dihgence 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." ^^

" Ihid., 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.

Ubid., 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 assembling, "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.^ WTien 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

< / — Archives, p. 32.

* Ibid.

^ Scharf, History of Maryland, Vol. i, p. 131.

' / — Archives, pp. 31-2.

' Streeter, Papers relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 148.

' / — Archives, p. 32; also Steiner, Beginnings of Maryland, p. 105.

CORNWALEYS AS LEGISLATOR (COXTINXJEd) 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
wliich 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 hberties 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 estabhshment 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, 16.38.

This Assembly, hke the preceding, was not confined merely
to legislation. Sometimes it assumed the functions of a

"7 — Archives, p. .33.

" 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 Ijelief in Christ.

'2 Streeter, op. cil., 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

" / — Archives, p. 37.
'I /bid., pp. 36-7.

''■^JII — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 85.
' '« For the Oath of a Counsellor, see / — Archives, p. 45.
" /// — 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
thejrecords 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
whenihe set sail is a matter of conjecture. On May 29th,
the Lieutenant General issued an appointment to Giles
Brent as Captain of the mihtary forces of the colony since
the militia was ' ' destitute of a Captain to lead and Command
them and to exercise them in the discipline Mihtary." '^

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 Cecihus 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

i« Ibid., p. 86.

" Calvert Papers, No. i, p. 170.

" Streeter, op. cit., p. 152.

88 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

The laws framed at this session were published 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.

3" Ibid., p. 130.

'i/6id., pp. 130-1.

'= Ibid., 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 aUowed. 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 hberties and was unlimited 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 compelhng
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 submittea to
discussion, it was found that twenty-six "voices" were in

^^Ibid., p. 171.
M Ibid., pp. 174-5.
35 Ibid., p. 175.
» Ibid., 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 Seale,
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.

=« Ibid., p. 182.

» 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 publica-
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
civihze 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 repeUing 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 public 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 obliged
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-
tihties, 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.
2 Ibid., p. 87.
< Ibid.
' Ibid.

" Streeter, Papen relating to the Early History of Maryland, p. 102; also Ill-
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 anj' 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 nailitary operations in the colony. His com-
mission made him Captain General of the army. The same
was issued "to lea vie 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

' 1 1 I—Archives, p. 103.

« Ibid., p. 106.

' Streeter, op. cil., 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, Wicome.ses, and Nantacoque Indian.s, 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. 130.
" /// — Archives, p. 106.
■2 Jbid., p. 107.
" Jbid.
"Ibid., 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 tliis Act." It was this phrase to which, as we
have seen in the previous chapter, Cornwaleys offered an
objection. The various hundi-eds were to defray the
expenses of arming and otherwise equipping the men.
Provisions were to be supplied 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
dihgence to provide foi' 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 Ian 1 or water, without a white flag, within
a district about the Patuxent River.'* The Indians were to
be forewarned of th? 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 1(1, 1(342, 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 eiTect.-' The settlers were by no means
as keen as the Governor on this matter, and had shown
themselves disinclined to enhst 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, published 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.

^^ in— Archives, p. 126.

^^ I— Archives, p. 201.

2" Streeter, op. ciL, p. 180.

" Ill—Archives, p. 127.

98 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

cropp, for reraedie 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 bj' 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. Public 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 Jbi^i.

" 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 & i-evoke
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.^^

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 mihtary operations on land
and water within the County of St. Mary's. He was to use

" Ibid., p. 130.

^Ihid.

" 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, Uke Captain Cornwaleys, should have his
S5anpathy 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. 18&-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 auxiliaries, the

» Ihid., 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 pohtic 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 conamission 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
then^ 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.

^' Streeter, op. dl., p. 188-9.

'2 lUd.

" III — Archives, pp. 148-9.

" IV — Archives oj Maryland, Cowl, p. 292.

3s Ibid., p. 266.

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
Scale 28. March 1644.^6

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

"/bid.

104 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

being either of them abrogated or restraint!, & therefore

judged the process should be granted to the plf."'" He then

gave Cornwalej's an opportunity of bringing his case before

the court on February 1st.

^^^len Cornwaleys appeared to prosecute Calvert, Lewger

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 rehnquish 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 el night to be cUscharged." The attorney for Lord Balti-
more not gainsajdng, the Lieutenant General discharged
them.'^

WTiile 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 [honorable] Governor to-
gether with John Lewger & John Langford Esqres
did on the 12th AprUl 1642. dehver to your petr

" Ibid., p. 218.
3S 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.

"> 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 Parliament. Communications with the mon-
arch on matters outside of the subjects of the contro-
versy could hardly have been considered an offense, 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

' Lingard, History of England, Vol. vii, pp. 267 et seq.; Browne, George and
Cedlius Calvert, p. 127.

2 Browne, op. cit., pp. 127-8.
» 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 parhamentarian 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. 24.5-6.

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.

» / V— Archives, pp. 242 and 246.

'» Ibid., p. 233.

" Ingle, op. cit., p. 11.

" IV— Archives, p. 232.

COENWALEYS AND INGLE 109

The Charge of John Lewger Esq his Lops Attorny
Grail agst James Neale Esq one of his Lops Counsell,
Capt Thomas Cornwaleys Esq, Edward Packer late
sheriff, and John hampton planter.

That whereas on the 18th of this mstant 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: Ingle to come aboard, without warrant
of him the Lieut Grail Nevertheless he the said
Sheriff on the dav 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 offender
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 COENWALEYS

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 of? 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 amies 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' kind 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 The. 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.'^

" IHd., 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 The. 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 Ligle 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.

" Ibid.

"Ibid., p. 255.

^Ihid., p. 275.

^' Ibid., p. 258.

2' 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.-' 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." ^^ The people were tendered an oath of sub-
mission, which all the Catholics 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.'^

" lUd.

"'Ibid., p. 20.

"' Browne, op. cit., p. 130.

»/— ^rcWves, p. 238.

" Streeter, Papers relating io the Early History of Maryland, p. 267.

2^ Winsor, History of America, Vol. in, 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 in 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 Parliament to risk all to come to the aid
of the "well 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 CornwaUis 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 affected 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 fui'ther proceeded in.^*^

On March 2, 1645, we find the following entry relative to
the case of Cornwaleys versus Ingle:

Thomas CornwaUis pit [plaintiff]

agst
Richard Ingle defte [defendant]

CornwalHs 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
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

2* III — Archivesof Maryland, Cou7ml,p- 165; Lords' Journal, vni, pp. 183, 186.
M Ibid., p. HJ6.
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
accon 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 aceons 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
Malignants." 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

3' Ibid., pp. 166-7.
" 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

^^Ibid., 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., 6lh Rept., app. p. 113; /// — 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 having 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., viii, 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 pubhshed 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 CORNWALEYS

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. ^Vhatever 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, Cecihus 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 CathoUc 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 believe in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman
Catholic' In the year 1649, the Assembly of Maryland

' Winsor, History of America, Vol. in, p. 533.

2 Ihid.

' 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 reproachfuU words or Speeches con-
cerning the blessed Virgin Mary the Mother of our Saviour
or the holy Apostles or Evangehsts." 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 tliis 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 ShaUop and other Small boates,
with divers debts for Goods Sold to the quantity of
neare A Hundred thousand weight of Tobacco, aO 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 ])itts, and ript up Some floors of the house, And
having by these Violent and unlawfull Courses, forst
awa}^ 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.^

s X — 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, Wilham 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 defraj^ed by their labor" *

The list 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

« Ibid., p. 234.
' Ibid., p. 348.

* Neill, Founders of Maryland, pp. 80-1.

'Richardson, Side-Lighls 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. (0. S.) John HoUowes, John Holdern, Roger
Walter, Roger Morgan, Josias . . ., Thomas Beckworth,
Matthew Burro wes, Samuel . . ., Cuthbert Fenwick, Rich-
ard Loe, William Fitter, John Robinson, WilHam Browne,
Stephen Gore, Stephen Jammison and Stephen Sammon.^^

As Richardson was only concerned with the first settlers, we
complete our Ust from Neill's account. It is to be noted that
this author uses the new-style date.

1635. Zachary Mottershead, John Gage, Walter Water-
Ung, 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 Ahce Moreman.

1639. Nicholas Gwyther, Edmund Jaques, Richard
Farmer, Edmund Deering, George . . ., William Freak,
Morris Freeman, Jeremiah Coote and Martha Jackson.

'"Richardson, op. cil., 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 argiiment by two records to this effect
against one record that he was brought from Virginia. For the three records,
see Richardson, op. cil., pp. 12, 14, 15.

"Richardson, op. cil., pp. li-2.

^' Ibid., pp. i2 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, WilUam 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.

Cornicaleys 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, located in St. Mary's County. What the extent of

" Davis, The Day-Star of American Freedom, p. 209.

"Richardson, op. cil., 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 was 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 hves 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 WilUam 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.'^

" Streeter, op. oil., pp. 166 and 190.

's/hid., p. 194.

" /// — Archives of Maryland, Council, p. 282; also Streeter, op. cil., 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 likely that the appointment of Fuller was more
opportvme 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 ParUament 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.
»/Wd., 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
fidehty 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. cil., pp. 198-9.

128 THOMAS CORNWALEYS

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 Cecihus 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. Wliilst 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 Ibid., pp. 199-200.

»/W(i., pp. 200-1.

» III— 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 deaUngs, 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 decUning 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.

2« Streeter, op. cil., 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. Wlien his debtors refused to pay
him, he asked for authority from the officials of the Pro\'ince
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
Cornwalej's 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, Wilham 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

" 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 WiUiam 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
umbra.'' 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 life . . . will pay a merited
tribute of honor to the name of cornwaleys." '"

'' / — Archives, p. 463.
'UHd., p. 466

1 UlU., p. 1UU.

Neill, op. cil., p. 81.

Streeter, op. cit., p. 211; Richardson, op. cil., p. 333.

Streeter, op. cit., p. 211.

" streeter, op. cu., p. zii
^* Streeter, op. cit., p. 211
'^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 httle 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 Cecilius 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 cau?e 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-
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

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. English 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 deaUng
with this subject are Herbert L. Osgood's article in the
American Historical Reiiew (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 N. 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-Cornwaleys 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., published with an English translation and edited
by Rev. E. A. Dalrymple, S. T. D., in Baltimore, 1874; and
A Relation of Marxjland, 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 Proiince 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 Proiince of Maryland,
reprinted from the original edition of 1666, with introduction
and notes by Newton D. Mereness, Cleveland, 1902. — Wil-
Uam 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 Manjland Manors, Balti-
more, 1883. — John Kilty, The Land-Holder's Assistant and
Land-Office Guide, Baltimore, 1808. — John H. Latan^, The

CRITICAL ESSAY ON AUTHORITIES 139

Early Relations hetween 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, O. P., S. T. M., Cuthbert Fenwick—Pioneer
Catholic and Legislator of Maryland, in The Catholic
Historical Retieiv, 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 Radcliffe (2
Vols.), London, 1739. — Hester Dor.sey 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
Renew (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 Enghsh 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, 0. 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.

^1

^°"nK

,4*\.«'JL'«-'5>^

,^;* /\ '•:,.-

0" /,

^°^

»">,.

<l1°^

f -A: *'-/ --M^: %/ •^■- \./ .-^S^t %.** ••

- v/^b

«? "^ '^V^^' a'T "^ neacidined using the Bookkeeper process.

.•f* **^ ".^^»%y4 •*■ t SiSSzIng Agent: Magnesium oxide

V «^. e • » • ^ Trealment Date.

,f^-BJil I \^^„^. I inM TECHHOLUCjIbS, LP

Si^

'bV"

iP-56.

PRESERVATION TECHMOLUUlES, LP .
Thomson Park DnvR

» ^'d* ^'tiy'^^TIS^ II- lit Thomson parKurivc

« '^, »^^**!»' IV \ "l Cr,nl»-.yTo«nship. PA 16066

ni^ . • • .

^^.^'^^ .

.^^

^•i«^*V .P*.c:^,% .**.i^^V .o*.c^.%

--lO^ .1

-•lo* .1

HECKMAN

BINDERY INC.

^I^SEP 89

#feB^ N MANCHESTER,
^^^ INDIANA 46962

'•• \/ .-ffi^-- %.** .-^v \/ .•^•, %,# -•■

^ "<pk » V-sS.v^ ♦ tCy ^tt> • ©Bra ♦ <S' '^. o^

-^^ ♦.

'^o.