CHAPTER XIII.
MARYLAND’S VICISSITUDES.
Virginia and Maryland.
The accession of William and Mary, which wrought so little change in Virginia, furnished the occasion for a revolution in the palatinate of Maryland. To trace the causes of this revolution, we must return to 1658, the year which witnessed the death of Oliver Cromwell and saw Lord Baltimore’s government firmly set upon its feet through the favour of that mighty potentate. The compromises which were then adopted put an end to the conflict between Virginia and Maryland, and from that time forth the relations between the two colonies were nearly always cordial. For the next century the constitutional development of Maryland proceeded without interference from Virginia, although on many occasions the smaller colony was profoundly influenced by what went on in its larger neighbour, as well as by those currents of feeling that from time to time pervaded the English world and swayed both colonies alike. We shall presently see, for example, that marked effects were wrought in Maryland by Bacon’s rebellion, and we shall observe what various echoes of the political situation in England were heard in all the colonies, from the wild scare of the Popish Plot in 1678 down to the assured triumph of William III. in 1691, and even later.
Fuller and Fendall.
It will be remembered that when the Puritans of Providence, in March, 1658, gave in their assent to the compromises by which Lord Baltimore’s authority was securely established in Maryland, only three years had elapsed since their victory at the Severn had given them supreme control over the country. While the defeated Governor Stone languished in jail, the victorious leader, William Fuller, exercised complete sway and for a moment could afford to laugh at the pretensions of Josias Fendall, the new governor whom Baltimore appointed in 1656. But this state of things came abruptly to an end when it was discovered that Lord Baltimore was upheld by Cromwell. Virginia, with her Puritan rulers, Bennett and Claiborne and Mathews, was thus at once detached from the support of Fuller, so that nothing was left for him but to come to terms. Fendall’s policy toward his late antagonists was pacific and generous, so much so that in the assembly of 1659 we find the names of Fuller and other Puritan leaders enrolled among the burgesses. Associated with Fendall, and second to him in authority, was the secretary and receiver-general, Philip Calvert, younger brother of Cecilius, Lord Baltimore.
The duty on tobacco.
After the fires of civil dudgeon had briskly burned for so many years, it was not strange that their smouldering embers should send forth a few fitful gleams before dying. Apart from questions of religion or of loyalty, there were difficulties in regard to taxation that can hardly have been without their effect. There seems to have been more or less widely diffused a feeling of uneasiness upon which agitators could play. In 1647 the assembly had granted to the lord proprietor a duty of ten shillings per hogshead on all tobacco exported from the colony. This grant called forth remonstrances which seem to have had their effect, as in 1649 the act was replaced by another which granted to the proprietor for seven years a similar duty upon all tobacco exported on Dutch vessels if not bound to some English port.[101] This act seemed to carry with it the repeal of that of 1647, concerning which it was silent; if the first act continued in force, the second was meaningless. During the turbulence that ensued after 1650 it is not likely that the revenue laws were rigidly enforced. In 1659 Baltimore directed Fendall to have the act of 1647 explicitly repealed on condition that the assembly should grant him two shillings per hogshead on tobacco when shipped to British ports and ten shillings when shipped to foreign ports. Whether this demand was popular or not, we may gather from dates that are more eloquent than words. The act of 1647 was repealed by the assembly in 1660, but no grant in return was made to the proprietor until 1671, and then it was a uniform duty of two shillings. Unless the demand had been unpopular it would not have been resisted for eleven years.
Fendall’s plot.
When the assembly met on the last day of February, 1660, to consider this and other questions, memorable changes had occurred in England. The death of mighty Oliver, in September, 1658, threatened the realm with anarchy; and the prospect for a moment grew darker when in May, 1659, his gentle son Richard dropped the burden which he had not strength to carry. For nine months England seemed drifting without compass or helm. When our assembly met, one notable thing had just happened, early in February, when George Monk, “honest old George,” entered London at the head of his army, and assumed control of affairs. The news of this event had not yet crossed the ocean, and even if it had, our Marylanders would not have understood what it portended. To some of them it seemed as if in this season of chaos whoever should seize upon the government of their little world would be likely to keep it. So Governor Fendall seems to have thought, and with him Thomas Gerrard, a member of the council and a Catholic, but disloyal to Baltimore. Why should not the government be held independently of the lord proprietor and all fees and duties to him be avoided? In this view of the case Fendall had two or three sympathizers in the council, and probably a good many in the House of Burgesses, especially among the Puritan members, who were in number three fourths of the whole.
Temporary overthrow of Baltimore’s authority.