The English Civil War in the American Colonies
By
Major Peter Cottrell, Gentleman Volunteer
late of the Royalist Army Staff of the Sealed Knot Society
In ‘The Cousins’ Wars’ Kevin Phillips pointed out that the English Civil
War was not a distant war in a foreign land but one that affected the ‘Old
Country’ which still had enormous emotional, family and economic ties for the
40,000 or so colonists living in English North America. Consequently, it was
almost inevitable that civil war would eventually find its way across the Atlantic
to the New World.1
Unsurprisingly, when war finally came to the colonies in 1644 it came
from the sea. The North American colonies were heavily dependent upon
maritime trade with England and as London was also the centre of the centre
of the trans-Atlantic tobacco and sugar trade Royalist planters in the
Caribbean, Virginia and Maryland had little alternative than to do business
with the Parliament.
Although Privateers claiming to support the King operated out of
Wexford and Waterford in Ireland as well as Dunkirk, it was not until the
Royalists took Bristol, Exeter and Dartmouth in 1643 that they had major
anchorages in mainland Britain from which to import arms, conduct trade and
launch maritime operations. Soon a Royalist navy began to emerge made up
of west-country merchantmen that were willing to take up arms for the king
1
Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997) pp. 7-8.
1
and within a few weeks Admiral Sir John Pennington was ‘…ready to go to
sea with eighteen tall stout ships.’ 2
Throughout 1643 the ‘Royal’ navy continued to grow and in December
the King instructed James Ley, 3rd Earl of Marlborough, to raise a squadron in
Dartmouth. Marlborough promptly set about recruiting local ships with the
promise of prize-money payouts within six months. 3 According to Governor
Winthrop of Massachusetts, most Dartmouth sailors were unenthusiastic
Royalists at best and their allegiance to the King was probably as much to do
with the possibility of turning a quick profit as anything else. 4
Consequently, his less enthusiastic captains deserted his fleet when
prize-money failed to materialize. In August 1644 the ‘Fellowship’ changed
sides after surrendering without a fight to a Parliamentarian warship under
Capt William Smith. 5 Parliamentarian Privateers Brown Bushell and George
Bowden both went over to the King whilst Capt Brooke of the ‘Providence’
was only narrowly prevented from doing so because his crew arrested him.6
All in all, it would seem that for many Privateers, it was the profit not the
ideology that mattered. Thus, changing sides when it suited made much of
their activity little more than piracy under a flag of convenience.
2
Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland
and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York,
1998) pp.165-166.
3
Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland
and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York,
1998) p166.
4
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.201.
5
Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland
and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York,
1998) p167.
6
Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland
and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York,
1998) p167.
2
In February 1644 Marlborough mustered his squadron for a foray into
the Atlantic to seize rebel shipping off the Azores and Canary Islands and
then sweep up the North American east coast collecting prizes. His intention
was to capture enough ships to both pay his captains and fit-out a fleet
capable of challenging Parliament’s control of the English Channel and thus
trade with the Continent. In the end his plans were cut short and at least one
captain, a known Parliamentarian sympathiser, took the opportunity to escape
and made his way to America where he fell foul of Parliamentarian Privateers
in Boston Harbor. 7
This incident, however, was not the first action between Royalist and
Parliamentarian ships to take place in American waters. That honour, if such
is the word, went to an engagement that took place at Blanck Point, where the
Warwick River runs into the James, within sight of Col Samuel Matthews’
Manor in Virginia on 10 April 1644 which was witnessed by a Dutch explorer
named David de Vries. De Vries was staying with Matthews and later wrote
an account of the incident although, rather annoyingly he failed to name any
of the ships involved even though he went on board all of them after the event
and spoke with their captains. 8
His account is quite detailed and describes the Royalist ship as a
‘…large fly-boat (fluyt)…mounting 12 guns.’ A fly-boat or fluyt was a type of
round-sterned sailing vessel specifically designed for trade rather than war
and de Vries description of it having 12 guns makes it likely that it was about
80 feet long three-masted square-rigger of around 200 tons with a crew of
7
Bernard Kapp, Naval Operations, in The Civil Wars: A Military History of England Scotland
and Ireland 1638-1660, John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer eds (OUP: Oxford and New York,
1998) p169.
8
Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York:
Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.
3
about 30 men.
Although de Vries does not name the ship a Bristol
merchantman fitting this description called the ‘David’, under the command of
Capt John Edson, was known to be in the vicinity at this time and it is likely
that it was this ship that was attacked. 9
According to de Vries the two Parliamentarian ships were from London and
their captains’ saw the smaller Bristolman as an opportunity to boost their
profits. In ‘The Plundering Times’ Riordan says that London based tobacco
ships ranged between 50-450 tons with 180-240 tons being typical. Assuming
the Bristolman was around 200 tons then the larger Parliamentarian
Privateers would have been nearer the top end of the spectrum at around the
300-ton mark or possibly more which would also explain why they drew more
water than their prey. 10
Ever since the middle of the sixteenth century and England’s war with
Spain, English merchant ships tended to be more heavily armed than their
continental equivalents, making it easy for English merchant captains to slip
seamlessly from trade to privateering or even piracy. Again Riordan points
out that most English ships plying the Atlantic had one gun per 15-20 tons of
ship giving our Parliamentarian privateers between 20-15 guns and a crew of
around 40-50 crew each if one assume a crew ratio of 1 man per 5-8 tons of
ship. 11
Later the two Londoners told de Vries that they had been in the
Chesapeake for a couple of weeks searching for tobacco. They justified their
9
Deposit Book of Bristol , vol. 1 1644-1647, ed. HE Nott (Bristol Records Society) vol. VI, pp.
69-93.
10
Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646,
(Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.91-92.
11
Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646,
(Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.91-92.
4
attack by claiming that the Virginian planters’ Royalist sympathies meant that
they would not trade with the Londoners, which presented both captains with
the prospect of financial ruin if they returned empty handed.
12
This was, at
best a weak excuse as dependence on maritime trade had ensured that all of
the English colonies passed legislation authorising free trade with ships from
any port in England.
As the tide began to flow up-river on the morning of 10 April 1644 the
two Londoners were sailing up the James River when they sighted a
Bristolman, possibly the ‘David’ at anchor near Blanck Point trading with the
local planters.
Without any warning they glided alongside their prey and
opened fire. Their shot tore down some of the Bristolman’s rigging killing a
Virginian planter and injuring several of her crew. 13
It is likely that they fired high in order to minimise any damage to their
intended prize and frighten their victim into surrender. What they did not
anticipate was that their prey would fight back and, in de Vries words, ‘…a
sharp engagement…’ ensued. The Royalist captain quickly cut his anchor
cable and used the in-coming tide manoeuvred his vessel into a creek that
was too shallow for his larger attackers to follow. Again, according to de Vries
the Parliamentarians got to within ‘…a couple of musket- shots, because their
ships drew too much water. They did what damage they could to each other
with cannon shot, and some people were killed. At evening they ceased
firing’. 14
12
Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York:
Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.
13
Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York:
Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.
14
Charles M Parr, The Voyages of David de Vries, Navigator and Adventurer (New York:
Crowell, 1969) pp.252-253.
5
Riordan speculates that the Londoners could have opted to send their
boats up the creek but the threat of a swivel gun and further resistance held
them at bay.
Despite the fact that Parliament had passed an Act on 1
December 1643 authorising the seizure of Royalist ships it is unlikely that the
Londoners actually had commissions to do so, otherwise de Vries would
probably have mentioned it and there would have been no need for them to
make excuses. They were after a cheap, profitable victory and instead got
their fingers well and truly burnt leaving them with little alternative than to sail
away empty handed before news of their attack spread. 15
Whilst clashes between Marylanders and Virginians in the 1630s had
been about local rivalries what made the ‘Battle of Blanck Point’ significant
was not that it was the first armed clash between Englishmen in America but
resulting from events in England rather than in the colonies. Unfortunately,
the significance was not lost on the local Powhatan Indians who witnessed
this clash between English ships. 16
Armed with the knowledge that across
the Atlantic the English were at war with themselves, Pocahontas’ uncle
sachem Opchanacanough launched a pre-emptive strike against the Virginia
colonists on 18 April 1644 killing between 300-400 settlers. 17
Governor Sir William Berkeley swiftly rallied his forces and appointed
Col William Claiborne, a veteran of the 1622 Indian War, and Lord Baltimore’s
nemesis on the Chesapeake, as his Captain General. The Virginians also
15
Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646,
(Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.151-152.
16
Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646,
(Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004) pp.151-152.
17
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.167-168., Timothy B Riordan, The Plundering Time:
Maryland and the English Civil War 1645-1646, (Maryland Historical Society: Baltimore, 2004)
p.152. Riordan put s the number of settlers killed at 500.
6
established Fort Royal at Pamunkey, Fort James at Chickahominy Ridge and
Fort Henry at the Falls of the Appomattox whilst Claiborne led a strikeforce of
60 or so well equipped militiamen against the aging Opchanacanough’s illequipped braves. 18 Parliament even voted to send arms to their countrymen
in the beleaguered colony, despite its Royalist sympathies. 19
Governor Winthrop’s journal tells us that a Virginia merchantman
arrived in Boston on 20 May 1644 confirming rumours that had filtered back to
Massachusetts about the latest massacres in the South.
Only six years
before New Englanders had fought a bloody campaign against the Pequot
Indians in Connecticut and were still wary of attack from the Wampanoag,
Nipmuck, Narragansett, Mohegan and Pequot.
Consequently, despite the
news that hundreds of Virginians were dead and claims that all the tribes
within 600 miles of Jamestown were in arms New England did nothing. 20
Fear of attack by either the Indians or Dutch to the south west in the
New Netherlands certainly helped Governor Winthrop draw Massachusetts,
Plymouth, New Haven and Connecticut together into a New England
Confederation on 19 May 1643 but the real target of the ‘…United Colonies of
New England…’ was Roger Williams’ fledgling colony at Narragansett Bay,
which later developed into Rhode Island.
21
Williams was banished from
Massachusetts in 1636 and his belief in religious toleration, a thing almost
18
Virginia: The New Dominion (New York: Doubleday & Co, 1971) p.45.
House of Commons Journal Vol III, 26 August 1644, pp.606-608.
20
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p167.
21
Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997) p.57., John
Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles Scribner
& Son: New York, 1908) pp.99-105.
19
7
unheard of in the seventeenth century, ensured that its neighbours viewed his
colony as ‘…the latrine of New England’. 22
Rhode Island soon became a sanctuary for those who fell foul of the
theocracies in the rest of New England, whose residents were dismayed when
Williams’ managed to persuade the Parliament to grant his colony a Charter in
1644.
Both Massachusetts and Plymouth colonies had used their militia
against religious detractors in the past and it is probable that without
Parliament’s Charter, Williams would have faced invasion from his less
tolerant neighbours.
Meanwhile, as the Powhatan War dragged on the Virginia Assembly
imposed a levy of 6lbs of tobacco on its tax-payers and made arrangements
for ‘…the great and vast expense of the collony, in prosecuting the warr
against our common enemies the Indians.’ In the spring of 1645 Accomack
and Rappahannock Indians were recruited to act as scouts for the colony’s
forces and in March 1646 Capt Henry Fleet was paid 15,000lbs of tobacco to
finance operations along the Rappahannock River.
The tide of the war finally turned when in the autumn of 1644 Claiborne
overcame a numerically superior force of around 800 bow-armed warriors
capturing their chief.
Berkeley had hoped to send Opchanacanough to
England as a Royal captive but his plan was frustrated when the sachem was
shot by one of his guards before he could be dispatched.
With
Opchanacanough dead, Berkeley sent Capt Fleet to negotiate a ceasefire
with the new Powhatan Weroance, Nectowance, and a treaty was concluded
in 1646 bringing the war to an end.
22
Dairmaid MacCulloch, Reformation, Europe’s House Divided (London: Penguin Books,
2004) p.539.
8
Militarily defeated, Nectowance had little choice but to swear allegiance
to King Charles I. He agreed to keep his people north of the York River and
pay 20 beaver skins to Virginia every autumn in reparations. Although the
Powhatan attacks of 1644 resembled those of 1622, Virginia had moved on.
In 1644 the colonists were in a far better position to fight back and although
the defeat of the Powhatan in 1646 effectively ended the Indian threat the
colonists were still afraid of attack in the future. Ultimately, fear of Indian
attack would tie up most of the military resources of all of the English colonies
during the civil war and did much to limit what internecine violence there was.
Meanwhile, as war broke out in Virginia the ripples of the English Civil
War continued to be felt in elsewhere in North America. On 23 June 1644 a
London privateer by the name of Captain William Stagg seized a Royalist ship
in Boston Harbor.
Stagg had taken part in the ‘Great Migration’ carrying
settlers from England to Massachusetts Bay in his ship, the ‘Elizabeth’ in April
1635 and was no stranger to Bostonians who had seen him come and go over
the last nine years.
Stagg was commissioned by Earl of Warwick,
Parliament’s Lord High Admiral to capture any ship originating from Bristol,
Barnstable or Dartmouth, in other words from any Royalist port.
He made no mention of his commission whilst unloading his cargo of
Tenerife wine but cut short his business to intercept a Bristolman laden with
fish making for Bilbao.
Stagg overhauled his quarry near Charlestown and
set his ship between it and the open sea.
With his broadside to the
Bristolman he invited its captain onboard his own ship and demanded his
surrender. Brandishing his commission Stagg told him that ‘…if he would
yield, himself and all his should have what belonged to them and their wages
9
to that day, and turning up the half hour glass, set him in his own ship again,
requiring to have his answer by the time of half an hour.’
At 100 tons, the Bristolman probably had at most 5-6 guns and a crew
of around 15 men whilst Stagg’s had, by Winthrop’s account, 24 guns making
her nearer 350 tons with a crew of about 40-70 hands. Although Winthrop
tells us that two or three of the Bristol crew were willing to fight or even scuttle
the ship they knew that they were seriously out-classed making any fight
hopeless. Understandably, the captain surrendered quietly and all but three
of his crew were put ashore. 23
As Massachusetts was generally supportive of Parliament, Stagg must
have assumed that no one would take any exception to his actions. Whilst he
was in the act of seizing the ship a small crowd began to gather on Windmill
Hill, over-looking the bay and ‘…some who had an interest in the ship,
especially one Bristol merchant, (a bold malignant person,) began to gather a
company and raise a tumult.’ In other words there was a real danger that
disorder could break out ashore between supporters of the King and
Parliament over the seizure.
The Royalist agitators were quickly apprehended and brought the
before John Winthrop, who was then Deputy Governor, ‘…who committed the
merchant and some others who were strangers to a chamber in an ordinary,
with a guard upon them, and others who were town dwellers he committed to
prison, and sent the constable to require the people to depart to their houses.’
He also ‘…wrote to the captain (Stagg) to know by what authority he had done
23
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.183-184.
10
it in our harbor, who forthwith repaired to him with his commission…’ to
explain his actions.
When Winthrop saw Stagg’s commission he ordered him to go to
Salem, which was both the religious and administrative centre of the colony at
that time. He also took sureties from the ‘…principal stirrers, to appear at the
meeting and keep the peace in the meantime.’
The church elders were
divided over the legitimacy of Stagg’s actions and some demanded that he
‘…be forced to restore the ship.’ In the end the meeting went in Stagg’s
favour, partially because ‘…the King of England was enraged against us, and
all that party, and all the popish states in Europe: and if we should now, by
opposing the parliament, cause them to forsake us, we could have no
protection or countenance from any, but should lie open as a prey to all
men.’24
Winthrop had good reason to fear that his colony was under threat from
within as well as without. On 29 May 1644 the colony had issued an order
that made it a capital offence for anyone ‘…whosoever should, by word,
writing, or action, endeavour to disturb the public peace, directly or indirectly,
by drawing a party under the pretense that he was for the King of England,
and such as joined with him against the Parliament, should be accounted an
offender of a high nature against the Commonwealth’. Consequently, it was
vital that prompt action was taken to contain any escalation of Stagg’s actions
into wider disorder.
Unsurprisingly, the Massachusetts authorities were alarmed in July
1644 to discover that Capt William Jenyson, an respected Puritan officer in
24
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.183-187.
11
the Waterton militia had publicly stated that although the Parliament stood for
‘…the more godly and honest part of the kingdom…’ he disputed the
legitimacy of its rebellion and that if he were in England he would not take up
arms against the King. Jenyson was no ne’er-do-well on the edge of society
but a founder member of the Military Company of Massachusetts with access
to the strategically important Castle Island Fort guarding Boston Harbor. 25
If someone so embedded in Boston society was willing to voice such
opinions then there was a real danger that latent Royalist sympathies could
bubble to the surface and divide the colony. Worse still the mutual defence
provisions of the Confederation meant that the other colonies would become
involved if fighting broke out.
The fact that Jenyson quickly retracted his
statement when hauled before the magistrates is a fair indication that he had
no intention of fermenting an insurrection and under cross-examination he
insisted that he would defend Massachusetts with his life if the King invaded.
In the end his inquisitors reluctantly agreed not to cashier him as his military
experience was still of use to the colony. 26
The problem of latent Royalist sympathies did not, however, go away
and their willingness to trade with ships from any English port meant that
Royalist and Parliamentarian sea captains rubbed shoulders in Boston Harbor
creating a potential flashpoint for violence. Predictably it was only a matter of
time before one or the other felt it was safe to chance his arm and carry out
an attack.
In the end the catalyst for the next incident was the same
Dartmouth ship that had abandoned Marlborough’s fleet in February.
25
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.178-179.
26
John Adair, Puritans: Religion and Politics in Seventeenth-century England and
America,(London: Sutton Publishing, 1998) p.177.
12
After giving Marlborough the slip the ship’s captain had decided to
collect a cargo of salt in the Azores and then on to Virginia and Boston.
Being, at heart a Parliamentarian the captain felt that Boston would be a safe
place to trade before returning to England. Unfortunately for him his port of
origin marked him to the Boston authorities as a Royalist rather than one of
their own. Consequently several Boston merchants, who had recently lost a
ship worth £1,500 to Royalist privateers off Wales, petitioned the court to
impound the ship as compensation. 27
Thus, by the evening of 16 September 1644 the ship rode at anchor
under the guns of Castle Island Fort whilst lawyers ashore decided its fate.
The following day Capt John Bayley in the London ship ‘Gillyflower’ entered
the harbour after six-months of trading in Canadian waters. Bayley knew
nothing of the Dartmouth master’s sympathies and undoubtedly believed that
his ship was a legitimate target for anyone with a commission from
Parliament.
He had no reason to suspect that the sympathetic Boston
authorities would intervene and probably believed that, like Stagg, he would
be allowed to keep his Royalist prize.
Thus, Bayley decided on a course of action that appears to have been
the preferred modus operandi of both privateers and pirates and attempted to
overawe his victim with a show of force, running out his guns and threatening
to engage. Of course he did not want to make a fight of it, as that would run
the risk of damaging not only his own ship but also his prize as well. What
Bayley did not appreciate was that his prey had left England as a warship not
a trader and that its captain and crew were willing to fight.
27
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.197.
13
Winthrop, who recorded the incident in his journal, does not say who
fired first but shots were exchanged forcing Bayley to break contact, probably
to re-think his tactics. The Dartmouth captain could have cut and run but
there was no guarantee that he would not be overhauled by the ‘Gillyflower’ in
open water, nor did he know whether any of the other Londoners would join
the fight so he took the only sensible course open to him. He appealed to
Winthrop for protection.
Winthrop was far from happy that yet another privateer was carrying
out an attack in the harbour, especially against a ship that was on the verge of
being impounded by Boston’s Court. Thus, he agreed to the captain’s request
on the condition that he put his crew ashore and also sent a message to
Bayley ordering him to desist. Faced with the prospect of being fired on from
the fort he had little choice but to acquiesce.
Because the action had, unsurprisingly, attracted the attention other
captains in the harbour, Winthrop warned them to stay away and an
emergency overnight court hearing decided to impound the ship as
compensation making it strictly off limits to any privateer in Boston Harbor. At
first light, however, another Londoner, Capt Matthew Richardson, ‘…fitted his
ship to take her…’ and set about where Bayley had let off.
When he heard of Richardson’s attack, Winthrop sent a party of
commissioners to physically take possession of the ship and dispatched an
officer to Richardson demanding that he come ashore. Richardson refused to
do so and instead he sent off a boarding party, probably in the belief that if he
had physical possession of the ship he would have valuable bargaining chip
with which to negotiate his way out of a desperate situation. This resulted in
14
the fort firing a warning shot across his bows that cut away ‘…rope in the
head of the (his) ship’.
Winthrop also sent forty militiamen to repel Richardson’s men. In the
confusion an unidentified ship, but probably yet another Londoner and
associate of Richardson’s, fired at the fort but the ill-aimed ball struck the
Dartmouth ship instead.
Richardson realised that he was rapidly losing
control of the situation as the initiative passed to Winthrop. Thus, faced with
the prospect of being sunk by the fort’s guns he called for a ceasefire and
agreed to go ashore. 28
Once ashore Richardson desperately tried to talk his way out of the
mess and finally produced what he claimed was a commission from Warwick
to harry Royalist shipping.
On close examination it was found that his
commission was ‘…not under the great seal, nor grounded upon any
ordinance of parliament, as Capt Stagg’s was…’ and thus did not give him
any power to act as he had done in Boston Harbor. Technically, Winthrop
could have had him tried and hanged for piracy if he so chose instead to fine
him a barrel of gunpowder for his crime.
Despite Parliamentarian sympathies the authorities in Massachusetts
realised that maritime trade was so important that they could not afford to
refuse to trade with English ships from Royalist ports but equally they could
not afford to allow rival captains to attack each other as and when they
pleased.
Consequently, on 13 November 1644 the authorities effectively
declared Boston Harbor a neutral port and appointed Major Edward Gibbons
and Major Robert Sedgwick, the commander of the Middlesex County Militia
28
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.196-201.
15
Regiment who later became a Major General in the New Model Army, ‘…to
keep the peace, and not permit any ships to fight in the harbor without licence
from authority.’
Massachusetts’ decision to clamp down on Privateering effectively
ended attacks in Boston Harbor, although its militia would be involved in
operations against the Dutch and French colonies.
However, from 1645
onwards Maryland, and to a lesser extent Virginia, became the focus of
clashes between supporters of King and Parliament. Again the fighting from
1645-55 was not the first time that colonists fought each other but it was the
first time they had over events thousands of miles away in England rather
than local territorial disputes.
On 14 February 1645 Capt Richard Ingle sailed into St Inigoe’s Creek,
south of Maryland’s capital St Mary’s City and attacked a Dutch ship called
the ‘Looking Glass’ sparking off a period remembered in Maryland history as
the ‘The Plundering Time’. Riordan’s excellent book ‘The Plundering Time:
Maryland and the English Civil War’ does an outstanding job of piecing
together the fragmented records of a chain of events that would only really be
resolved by a Commonwealth invasion of Virginia and a bloody encounter
known as the Battle of the Severn in 1655.
Ingle was no stranger to St Mary’s having traded with its planters since
at least 1639 and indeed could possibly have been the principle tobacco
carrier for the colony. He was firmly tied into the colony’s credit system and
even briefly owned land there. He was on good terms with several of the
colonies leading citizens including Capt Thomas Cornwallis who was not only
the chief military advisor to the Governor but a wealthy tobacco merchant and
16
Roman Catholic to boot.
Even his crew had financial and family ties to
Maryland, all of which arguably facilitated his assault on the colony.
From its foundation Maryland had been resented by neighbouring
Virginia. The crux was that many Virginians considered Baltimore’s charter
illegal as it encompassed land that they believed belonged to their colony and
this led to armed clashes in 1635 and 1638.
On top of that Baltimore’s
ambition to create a society where religion was a matter of private conscience
not only aroused the suspicions of Anglican Virginia and Puritan New England
in an age when religious tolerance was virtually unheard of and according to
Krugler the outbreak of the civil war threatened the King’s protection of
Baltimore and brought him face to face with Parliament’s anti-Catholic
legislation.
Although Baltimore was adamant that Maryland ‘…must be as neere as
may be in conformity with English law…’ and did nothing to promote
Catholicism over Anglicanism many of the colony’s Protestant majority
begrudged the prominent role played by Catholics in the government and
militia. Although only 10-25% of the colony was Catholic, Ingle later claimed
that most Marylanders were ‘…Papists and of the Popish and Romish
religion…’ in order to justify his attack and asserted that if he had not acted
the Protestants would have been disarmed and in all probability massacred.
Such a turn of events was, however, extremely unlikely as most
Marylanders were Protestants and Governor Leonard Calvert, the Catholic
brother of Lord Baltimore, even sent Cuthbert Fenwick to New England in
1643 to recruit Protestant settlers for the colony on the promise of ‘…free
liberty of religion…’ as well as land grants although very few took up the offer.
17
Considering New England was considered to be ‘…full of Puritan Calvinists,
the most bigoted of the sect…’ it is unlikely that Calvert would have offered
such an invitation if he were intent upon a Counter-Reformation in Maryland.29
On 20 November 1642 Ingle had been commissioned by Parliament to
attack Royalist shipping, however, he seems to have chosen not to act upon
it. His sympathies were well known in both Virginia and Maryland and the
‘…mad captain’s…’ fiery temper ensured that he fell foul of Royalist
authorities there long before his attack on the ‘Looking Glass’.
On 22
February 1643 he got into an argument in Accomack with the commander of
Northampton County, Argall Yeardley and his brother Capt Francis Yeardley.
Insults about ‘…rundheads…’ and Royalist ‘…rattleheads…’ were
exchanged and Yeardley attempted to arrest Ingle in the King’s name but
Ingle refused to submit. Having bundled the Yeardley brothers off his ship,
Ingle hastily weighed anchor and sailed for Maryland. On 30 March, whilst at
anchor in the St Mary’s River he announced the ‘…King Charles was no
king…’ ironically still an offence in Parliamentarian London in 1643, and on 3
April at St Clement’s Island slandered Prince Rupert and whilst at Kent Island
even told the inhabitants that he was a Parliamentarian officer.
According to Riordan his ship, the ‘Reformation’, was somewhere
between 180-240 tons with 12 guns and a thirty man crew which made it, in
colonial terms, a very formidable force to be reckoned with and would go
some way towards explaining why the authorities in Maryland chose to ignore
Ingle’s anti-Royalist outbursts. The fact that Maryland had effectively been at
war with the Susquehannocks since 1641 also meant that the colony’s military
29
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) p.150. MORE DETAIL.
18
resources were already overstretched to the point that they probably lacked
the resources to deal with Ingle even if they had wanted to.
In an attempt to contain the threat Maryland built a fort on Palmer’s
Island at the mouth of the Susquehanna River that they rather optimistically
named Fort Conquest, which was manned by ten ‘…choice shot.’
In the
summer of 1643 Capt Cornwallis also led a raid of fifty men against the
Susquehannock’s main village on the Conestoga Creek.
Outnumbered
roughly 5:1, Cornwallis lost four killed and abandoned two light guns as he
beat a hasty retreat to his pinnace, the ‘St Helen’ anchored two miles away in
the Susquehanna River. Deputy Governor Giles Brent also commissioned
James Neale to raise a company to patrol the Patuxent River and deter raids.
Despite the ongoing Susquehannock war Governor Calvert decided
that he needed to return to England, probably to consult with his brother Lord
Baltimore who was with the King’s army in the West Country. Leaving Brent,
the commander of Kent Island, in charge Calvert left sometime in the spring of
1643 and did not return until September 1644. Although Calvert had chosen
to ignore Ingle’s indiscretions in 1643 Brent had a vested interest in acting
against him when he returned in 1644.
When William Hardige went to Brent on 18 January 1644 and accused
Ingle of treason, Brent was only too willing to listen. In February 1643 Ingle
had sued Brent for 8,000lbs of tobacco and protested a bill of £16 drawn by
Brent’s sister Margaret on a London merchant. Although none of the charges
were new, Hardige’s allegations presented Brent with the opportunity to wipe
out his debts and possibly confiscate Ingle’s ship, which was worth around
£2,500.
19
Brent ran the risk of severing Maryland’s major trading link with
England and placing the colony firmly in the Royalist camp which could cause
problems in the future. However, in 1644 the civil war was far from decided
and before the disasters of Marston Moor and Naseby there was every
chance of a Royalist victory. That aside, Brent also had a reputation for
abusing his position to promote his own interests and it was probably that as
much as his Royalist sentiments that prompted him to act.
Having decided to act, Brent had to tread carefully if his plan was not to
fall foul of the heavily armed ‘Reformation’, which is why he did not confide in
St Mary’s Sherriff, Edward Packer, who was an associate of Ingle’s. The only
one of Ingle’s associates he confided in was Cornwallis, Maryland’s military
commander, who arguably went along with the arrest of his friend because he
believed that the charges would not stick.
Accompanied by a party of militiamen, Brent, Cornwallis and Hardige
found Ingle ashore at St Inigoe’s Point with his gunner, Richard Garrett and
the brother of his Mate, a colonist by the name of William Durford. They
surrendered without a fight and were turned over Packer, who was ordered
not to let them return to the ‘Reformation’. In the meantime John Hampton
with thirty Marylanders overpowered the four sailors left onboard.
So far
Brent’s plan had worked like clockwork.
Unfortunately, few plans survive contact with the enemy and Brent’s
was no exception. He offered the Mate, John Durford double pay if he would
captain a prize crew and invited him to swear an oath to support the King and
take up arms against Parliament. Durford agreed to take the ‘Reformation’ to
20
Bristol but requested time to think about the oath.
In hindsight it is obvious
that he was stalling for time.
Whilst Hampton and his men guarded the ‘Reformation’ Ingle was
brought before the Council to answer the charges.
By all accounts the
session was stormy and events did not go Brent’s way. In the end the court
released Ingle into Cornwallis’ custody, who accompanied by Neale and
Packer took him back to his ship. In the circumstances no one should have
been surprised that once Ingle was aboard his men would try and retake the
ship.
Whilst most of Hampton’s men slept Durford, Thomas Greene,
Frederick Johnson and the rest of Ingle’s crew overpowered those on deck,
secured those below and locked Cornwallis, Neale and Packer in the Great
Cabin. After a brief, but bloody melee in which several Marylanders were
wounded, Ingle had his ship back. He put Hampton and his men ashore but
opted to keep his three more important hostages onboard.
At a stroke,
Brent’s plan was in tatters.
The next day, 19 January 1644, the ‘Reformation’ remained anchored
at St Inigoe’s and Riordan suggests that the tense negotiations that followed
were an attempt to salvage what he could of his relations with Maryland. If
that was the case then they came to nothing and on 20 January he sailed for
Kent Island seizing several small boats and weapons en route whilst
threatening to ‘…beat down the dwelling houses of divers inhabitants…’
including Brent’s.
Even before Ingle left with his hostages Brent had replaced Packer and
appointed Robert Ellyson Sherriff in his place. He also rather unfairly charged
21
Cornwallis, Hampton, Packer and Neale with having helped Ingle escape.
Ingle skulked in Maryland waters for several weeks afterwards and court
records show that his hostages were released at some point in late January.
In court the case against Ingle collapsed when the principle prosecution
witness, Hardige was persuaded to go to Virginia and Brent failed to secure a
guilty verdict after three separate hearings.
By March 1644 an uneasy peace seems to have settled on the colony
and Cornwallis posted a bond of 4,000lbs of tobacco and 400lbs of shot as
security for Ingle’s good behaviour in return for a certificate, from Brent,
guaranteeing Ingle free trade in Maryland. The truth was that Ingle needed
Maryland and Maryland needed Ingle and so it would have been ruinous not
to come to some sort of rapprochement. Brent even granted him an island
near Kent Island and paid Ingle his debt.
By 16 March, however, Ingle had left Maryland without asking
permission or paying outstanding customs duties so Brent seized Ingle’s
Island and confiscated his estate, which was valued at 1,123lbs of tobacco. It
was also clear that both Brent and Lewgar blamed Cornwallis for Ingle’s
escape in January and fined him 1,000lbs of tobacco. On 18 March Lewgar
even indicted him for slandering the colony.
Cornwallis was already involved in a land dispute with Lord Baltimore
and became increasingly fed up with Brent and Lewgar. Consequently he
decided to go to England to seek redress in the courts. On 28 March he
sailed down the Chesapeake to Accomack to rendezvous where Ingle, who
was there boasting to any who would listen of his escape from Maryland.
22
Several days they sailed for London leaving Maryland bereft of the one man
who could have possibly averted the events that followed.
In 1644 London did not a welcome Catholics and Cornwallis faced the
prospect of having two-thirds of his good confiscated on arrival. When the
‘Reformation’ reached London in May his goods were impounded. It was only
after Ingle came to Cornwallis’ defence claiming that he was for Parliament
and had saved Ingle’s life that they were freed. Although Cornwallis trusted
Ingle with £200-250 worth of goods on his return trip to America it is difficult to
assess how close they actually were. Their friendship did not stop Ingle from
sacking Cornwallis’ estate in January 1645 nor indeed did it prevent
Cornwallis, a man with close family connections to King Charles’ court, from
ending up in the King’s army as a Major in Sir Thomas Hooper’s Dragoons.
On 2 July 1644 Calvert left Bristol on the ‘Trewlove’ with a commission
from the King empowering him to seize ‘…ships, cargoes and debts on land
or sea that belonged to residents of London or other ports in rebellion against
the crown’. The ‘Trewlove’ had been hired by Thomas Weston to get back to
Maryland after his own ship; a 25-ton barque called the ‘John of Maryland’
along with its cargo, was confiscated on 2 September 1643 in Padstow
harbour by Royalist officers. Despite being a Royalist himself the seizure of
his ship by Royalists clearly illustrated how abused such commissions were.
Lord Baltimore saw his brother’s commission as a godsend as it
appeared to be an easy solution to his financial problems. The commission
provided for a 50:50 split between Baltimore and the King, with any expenses
incurred being deducted from the King’s half. If one considers that a typical
tobacco ship was worth £2,000-2,500 and its cargo another £2,000-3,000 and
23
that 2/3 of the 1.5m pounds of American tobacco passed through London then
Baltimore stood to make up to £55,000.
Calvert was back in Maryland by 6 September and no doubt appraised
of events. He lost no time in publishing the new commissions he brought
confirming Lewgar as Secretary and giving direction to the Council. Although
after 363 years it is difficult to know exactly why Calvert removed Brent and
appointed the relatively unknown William Brainthwaite as his Deputy, it is
likely that his bungled handling of Ingle’s arrest featured highly.
Incongruously Baltimore neglected to provide his brother with a ship
and his commission was also for Virginia not Maryland. Although we will
probably never know for sure, the likelihood is that this oversight was a result
of Baltimore’s financial difficulties at the time. The limitation to Virginia could
also have been because it was by far the more important area for the tobacco
trade but it may well have been because some had great difficult
understanding exactly where Maryland was in the first place.
Calvert also carried instructions for the Virginia House of Burgesses
requesting that they pass legislation to collect tobacco duties in Virginia rather
than pay them in England.
This would potentially deprive Parliament of
significant income and give the King access to tobacco duties. Thus, Calvert
headed for Jamestown to be present at the next meeting of the House on 1
October. Unfortunately for Calvert the vehemently pro-Royalist Governor, Sir
William Berkeley was in England and although the Deputy Governor, Richard
Kemp was supportive he lacked influence over the House.
In Berkeley’s absence Baltimore’s old adversary Claiborne held sway
over the meeting and persuaded the burgesses not to act. They wrote to the
24
King expressing their loyalty but stated that they were unwilling to disrupt
trade with London because of their acute need for ammunition to fight the
Powhatan. In a gesture that Berkeley would never have sanctioned they even
wrote to Parliament to reassure London’s merchants. On 17 February 1645
the House even passed legislation declaring that ‘…there be free trade and
commerce allowed to all His Majesties subjects within the kingdom of
England’.
Thankfully, Calvert only needed the Governor’s acquiescence to act
upon his commission from the King, which Kemp happily gave. There is
some evidence that Calvert did try to seize Ingle’s debts in Virginia and that
he declared that ‘…if Ingle or any other Londoner should come here, he would
hang them’.
Without a ship, however, his options were limited and the
scheme came to nothing. In fact his actions simply helped aggravate ‘…that
ungrateful villaine Richard Ingle…’ and firmly placed Maryland in the Royalist
camp with little profit to show for it.
Meanwhile, in response to the outbreak of the Powhatan War,
Parliament passed an Act on 26 August 1644 authorising the ‘Virginia
Merchant’, the ‘Globe’, the ‘Honour’, the ‘Ellen’, the ‘Mary’, the ‘Elizabeth’ and
Ingle’s ‘Reformation’ to transport ‘…Passengers, and their Cargazons of
Victual, Cloathing, Arms, Ammunition, and other Commodities, for the Supply,
Defence, and Relief of the Planters, Custom-free’.
In addition he also
received a fresh commission and ‘Letters of Marque’ from Warwick just before
he left London in October 1644.
It is difficult to know what dealings Claiborne had with Ingle before the
winter of 1644 or indeed how closely they colluded in the events that followed,
25
however, circumstantial evidence suggests that they were allies. It is also
difficult to judge whether Claiborne, a member of the Royalist government of
Virginia, was a Parliamentarian at heart or simply an opportunist out for
revenge against Baltimore. By December 1644 Ingle even appears to have
settled his differences with the Yeardley brothers who, being both Claiborne
and Parliament men at heart, wasted no time relating Calvert’s activities. The
‘Reformation’s’ surgeon, Robert Rawlins even confirmed that Claiborne had
sent Ingle a copy of Calvert’s commission.
The mercurial Ingle was, no doubt, also displeased to learn that the
Dutch were exploiting the disruption of civil war to insinuate themselves into
the Virginia tobacco trade to the extent that by 1648 half the ships carrying
tobacco were Dutch. He was doubtless aware that a Dutch vessel, Capt
Hatrick Cocke’s ‘Looking Glass’, was interloping on what he considered to be
his ‘patch’ although one of its crew, Henry Stockton, later testified that the
‘Looking Glass’ was only there because no one was expecting Ingle to return
in 1645. Cocke’s ship had been in Kecoughton at the end of December and
after several errors by its Virginian pilot, John Rably, arrived in St Mary’s
sometime between 8 and 17 January 1645.
The ‘Looking Glass’ was registered in Rotterdam and with 12 guns was
of a comparable size to the ‘Reformation’; albeit with a much smaller crew.
Although a Dutchman, it was not lost on Ingle that almost half the crew were
English and that it had been leased by a Netherlands based English company
whose representative, Henry Brooks was onboard. In fact Ingle later tried and
claim that far from being neutral, the ‘Looking Glass’ was actively involved in
trading with the Royalists in England.
26
Despite the lack of concrete evidence, it appears that Claiborne and
Ingle decided upon a joint course of action against Maryland. Claiborne and
his cousin Richard Thompson would take two ships to Kent Island and raise
the inhabitants against Calvert whilst Ingle sailed to St Mary’s City to await
their arrival. The fact that Ingle told the Protestants of St Mary that he was
working in consort with two other ships helps support this supposition.
Claiborne’s attempt on Kent Island failed miserably. Towards the end
of December he landed with a force of ten or so musketeers and falsely
announced that he had a commission from the King and was soon joined by
seven or eight more men from Chicacoan, always good recruiting ground for
men willing to stir up trouble in Maryland. He summoned the island’s militia to
muster at Edward Commins’ house and planned to march on Fort Kent to take
it by ‘…force of armes’. Although Fort Kent belonged to Brent it had originally
belonged to Claiborne until Cornwallis expelled him in 1638.
Claiborne’s claim to be acting for the King indicates that the islanders
were Royalists, regardless of whether they were loyal to Baltimore or not and
although many were Claiborne men they were not willing to act on his
authority alone. When Brent heard that Claiborne was planning to march on
Fort Kent he fled to St Mary’s. Had he kept his nerve his flight would have
been unnecessary. At John Abbott’s house, about three miles from Commins’
Claiborne’s men began to hesitate and ‘…the greatest number of them
doubting the validity of his Authority…left him’ causing him to abandoned the
island.
News of Claiborne’s attack had filtered back to Calvert by 22
December and in response he planned to send eight men in a shallop under
27
the command of Sgt Mark Pheypo and John Genellas on a covert
reconnaissance to discover what was happening. They were ordered to avoid
all contact with ships along the Chesapeake and land four men on the west of
Kent Island, near Commins’ house, to capture a prisoner for interrogation.
As Brent was in St Mary’s by 23 December it is not clear whether this
expedition was ever dispatched. Although Brent clearly believed that his flight
was justified Calvert issued an arrest warrant on 25 January to re-instated
Sheriff Packer for Brent’s ‘…several crimes against the dignity and dominion
of Lord Baltimore’. The charges, however, were soon dropped as tempers
cooled and relations between the two men were restored. Claiborne’s failed
coup also resulted in both he and Thompson being declared enemies of
Maryland by Calvert, who also forbade anyone from travelling to or trading
with Kent Island without his permission.
By the time Ingle finally arrived at St Mary’s in mid January the
‘Looking Glass’ was half-way through its contracted three-and-a-half months
in America and had already done a brisk trade with most of Maryland’s
principle landowners. It was obvious that Ingle objected to competition and
after having only discharged half his cargo left for Virginia in a fit of pique.
Whilst in port Ingle, however, also secretly wrote to the leading Protestant
planters. It was in these letters that he claimed not to be working alone and
that he had a commission to ‘…root them (the Catholics) out like vermin’.
Alternatively, Ingle’s abrupt departure may have been because of
Claiborne’s failure and he realised that no reinforcements were on their way.
With no guarantee that the ‘Looking Glass’ would remain neutral or enough
men to take the town, the sensible course was to return to Chicacoan for
28
reinforcements. Regardless of cause either could easily explain his foul mood
and in reality it was probably a mixture of both that motivated him.
Whatever the cause, his departure left Calvert confused and
apprehensive. However, such was the colony’s dependence on Ingle that
Calvert even contemplated sending Fenwick to Virginia to bring him back and
give him a permit allowing him free-trade Maryland. In the end he did not
have to bother as Ingle was back in St Mary’s by 14 February 1645, only this
time he was confident that he had the support of the colony’s Protestants and
was prepared to fight.
At Chicacoan, Ingle lost no time in complaining loudly about Maryland
Papists and recruiting more men. Most appear to have been Maryland exiles
with ties to the Protestant population and included his former accuser
Hardige, his Mate’s brother - William Durford as well as Thomas and John
Sturman.
John Sturman was openly Parliamentarian and had challenged
Calvert over his commission at a recent council meeting. Interestingly, most
of the dozen or so men who joined him had been with Claiborne at Kent
Island.
There is still some confusion over what happened when the
‘Reformation’ returned to St Mary’s. Later Ingle claimed that he attacked the
‘Looking Glass’ in self-defence whilst Cocke denied this allegation.
Both
Calvert and Brent were certainly onboard the ‘Looking Glass’ when Ingle was
sighted and both his intentions and his commission were no longer secret.
Indeed, Calvert may well have asked Cocke to help him defend the colony but
the Dutchman had quite rightly insisted he was a neutral and would not take
29
sides. Apparently this angered Calvert who left the ship in a huff to raise men
to fight Ingle.
Of course, Riordan points out that the source of this information was a
Virginian called Robert Popley who happened to be trading onboard the
‘Looking Glass’ that morning. Popley also had ties to Claiborne that may
make him an unreliable source. Either way Cocke was aware that a fight was
possible and despite openly flying Dutch colours, cleared his decks for action,
just in case. As the ‘Reformation’ approached Cocke could see that it was
flying a white flag signalling its friendly intentions and stood his men down.
Little did he realise that it was a ruse de guerre.
Ingle hailed the ‘Looking Glass’ and demanded that Cocke strike his
colours and allow his ship to be boarded. According to Ingle the Dutchman
refused to comply whilst Cocke’s crew later testified that they were in the act
of lowering their colours when the ‘Reformation’ fired three warning shots.
Whatever actually happened Cocke struck his colours and boarded the
‘Reformation’ with his papers. After a cursory inspection Ingle tore some of
them up, perhaps in an attempt to claim that Cocke had visited Royalist ports
and destroyed the incriminating evidence, which would make his ship a
legitimate prize.
Ingle then informed Cocke that he was seizing his ship and claimed
Dutchman that he would release it after he had finished his business in St
Mary’s.
With Cocke safely in custody Ingle sent his Boatswain, Thomas
Greene with a boarding party to secure the Dutch ship. It was whilst the
boarding party were rowing across that the ‘Reformation’ again fired on the
‘Looking Glass’ because one of the boarders, William Little, claimed it was
30
about to open fire.
For a ship allegedly preparing to fight Greene met
surprisingly little resistance.
Despite Ingle’s claims, the haste with which Cocke’s crew surrendered
is a fair indication that after seeing Ingle’s white flag they had no intention of
making a fight of it. Greene was apparently stabbed in the hand whilst forcing
his way into the cuddy where he found Brooks with two loaded brass guns
who, outnumbered and with no personal stake in the feud chose to surrender.
Ingle must have been extremely satisfied that he had not only neutralised the
only significant threat to his ship in the harbour but that his men had also
found Brent hiding in its hold.
Ingle then turned his attention to the only legitimate target in the
harbour; the Royalist pinnace, ‘Trewlove’ anchored further up the creek. The
‘Trewlove’s’ captain witnessed the taking of the ‘Looking Glass’ and quite
understandably refused to let Ingle’s men onboard his ship, instead he
exploited its shallow draft and took it up a small creek, probably Weston’s
Branch (now Schoolhouse Branch) on the eastern side of St Inigoe’s Creek.
As extra insurance he also landed a gun to cover the approach. Later under
cover of darkness the ‘Trewlove’ slipped past the ‘Reformation’ to freedom.
The ‘Trewlove’ was, in the scheme of things, small beer. From the
start it was obvious that Ingle had not returned to St Mary’s for a bit of armed
robbery but to overthrow the Proprietorship.
Although Ingle had brought
several leading Maryland Protestants with him and secretly prepared the
ground by writing to others he needed local support and within hours
Maryland’s Parliamentarians began to rally to him. It would be wrong to think
that they wanted to destroy Maryland; they simply wanted to remove
31
Baltimore’s Catholic government and replace it with one create one that was
loyal to Parliament.
Despite controlling two powerful ships Ingle needed a land base. He
quickly dismissed the small stockade overlooking the harbour known as St
Inigoe’s Fort and decided that the most suitable venue was his friend
Cornwallis’ fortified house at Cross Manor on the southern shore of the creek.
Cross House was a substantial brick and timber construction surrounded by a
wooden palisade and probably resembled the bawns built by Protestant
planters in Ireland. Ingle was no stranger to Cornwallis’ estate; indeed he
probably delivered its furniture, and was no doubt aware that it also contained
a small cache of muskets and three light cannon.
In Cornwallis’ absence Cross Manor, with its dozen or so servants was
presided over by his estate manager, Fenwick who lived there with his wife
and family.
When he heard the commotion on the river he sent Andrew
Monroe, Thomas Harrison and Edward Matthews to move his employer’s
pinnace up river and out of Ingle’s reach. All three were quickly captured but
only Matthews refused to join the rebellion.
Although Calvert knew probably expected Ingle’s attack, he had no
idea what was going on during the confusion that followed the ‘Reformation’s’
arrival. It would appear that he did try to muster the St Mary’s Trained Band
and Ralph Bean later testified that Calvert had ordered him to take up arms.
Unfortunately for Calvert the loyalties of the militia were torn and Bean ended
up in arms for Parliament not the King. In fact, as the majority of the militia
were Protestants Ingle was able to draw on a larger pool of manpower than
the Governor.
32
It did not help that some militia officers were also willing to desert to
Ingle’s camp and one, Lt Thomas Baldridge became such an active rebel that
he was eventually forced to emigrate to Virginia after the rebellion collapsed.
In all Ingle managed to raise a force of about 30-40 men in the immediate
vicinity of St Mary’s City, which in colonial terms was a significant force. Even
so he still lacked sufficient manpower to directly confront Calvert and relied on
subterfuge to secure Cross Manor.
Ingle invited Fenwick onboard his ship and promised him that no harm
would come to the manor if he surrendered it. Fruitlessly Fenwick tried to
defuse the situation but eventually was prevailed upon to write a letter
instructing his wife to hand the house over to Ingle’s men. The next morning
John Durford led sixteen men to Cross Manor and after delivering the letter
summoned Mrs Fenwick to surrender in the name of ‘…King and Parliament’.
Unlike Baltimore’s sister at Wardour Castle or the Ladies of Basing or Lathom
House, Mrs Fenwick was not destined to become a Royalist heroine. Most of
the defenders had already ‘…fled to the Governor or were in Armes as
Associates to the said Ingle’ leaving her little alternative but to capitulate.
Whilst Ingle was persuading Fenwick to surrender the manor he also
sent out raiding parties to try and round up the leading Catholic-Royalists
Lewgar, Thomas Copley, Nicholas Causin and George Binks amongst others.
He intended to send these men back to England to prove that Maryland was
both Catholic and in open support of the King. As Calvert was named on the
King’s commission his capture would have made Ingle’s task simple but he
was already beyond his reach although his men surprised Lewgar in his bed
and took him prisoner.
33
Despite placing a garrison under the command of Thomas Sturman in
Cross Manor, Ingle’s men systematically looted it of everything including the
windows and doors. In fact they plundered the house three times taking over
£2,623 worth of goods. This act shattered Ingle’s friendship with Cornwallis
although it is difficult whether he intended to rob his friend or not. He also
ordered the house fired but changed his mind and settled for dismantling its
palisade.
The looting did not end with Cross Manor and over the next few
months Ingle’s men sought out goods and debts belonging to Calvert, Copley,
Fenwick and Lewgar and systematically plundered Catholic estates. Those
Protestants who refused to co-operate had their tobacco houses torched. The
Jesuits had fortified their manor at Portobacco and garrisoned it with their
servants. It would appear that the property was stormed and the head of
mission, Copley along with his four compatriots, Andrew White, Bernard
Hartwell, John Cooper and Roger Rigby were taken prisoner.
Ingle needed Copley and White as proof of Jesuit influence in the
colony but had no use for the others. Their fate remains a mystery, however,
one of his men, Henry Stockton later told an Admiralty Court that Ingle had
used Cornwallis’ pinnace ‘…to put them ashore upon some place or other
among the heathans and there to leave them’. If this is true Ingle knew that
they would not survive alone and unarmed amongst the ‘…salvages…’
making their disposal the only example of anyone being deliberately executed
by either side.
Whilst Maryland’s Parliamentarians were flocking to Ingle’s banner
Royalists were rallying to Calvert at Margaret Brent’s house in St Thomas’
34
Hundred. St Thomas’ Fort as the house became known, would hold out for
several months and became Calvert’s operating base against the rebels.
Lacking sufficient men to defeat Ingle, Calvert probably hoped that if he could
maintain a foothold in St Mary’s he could buy time to call for help from
Berkeley.
Having made Cross Manor indefensible Ingle fortified Nathaniel Pope’s
house at the northern end of St Mary’s City. Pope was a self-made man who
was without doubt the leading Protestant in Maryland. He profited from the
sack of Lewgar’s house and the fact that his house became the centre of
Parliamentarian operations is a fair indication of his importance to the
rebellion. In fact many Maryland loyalists held him personally responsible for
their financial losses.
Calvert had originally been built as a residence and meeting place for
the Maryland Assembly but had sold it to Pope in 1642. As it was by far the
most substantial building in St Mary’s it remained the site of local government
even after its sale and was later known as the Country’s House. When the
rebels ‘…assumed the Government…’ it continued to serve that function even
after Calvert re-occupied the colony.
Mr Pope’s Fort, as it was known, was excavated in the 1980s and has
provided the only American archaeology that can be positively dated to the
English Civil War. The Parliamentarians initially built a triangular earthwork
around the house, similar to a fort built in Northern Ireland near the River
Blackwater in 1601.
Rounded bastions sat at each corner and the
archaeology shows that at least one saker and a demi-culverin were kept
35
there. Calvert had brought four of each type of gun with him when the colony
was founded and they were probably kept at Pope’s house.
Three sets of pikeman’s tassets were also found at the site. Discarding
tassets was a common and well-documented habit of English soldiers during
the period but their cost makes it unlikely that anyone would have thrown
them away if they were personal property. Calvert had, however, ordered
twenty sets of pikeman’s armour from Virginia in 1639 and as Pope’s house
was a substantial brick building it is likely that the colony used it as the
militia’s main armoury.
The fort was enlarged and the eastern bastion removed, however, the
south-western wall was not properly finished. As the rebellion was in full
swing when it was built this fact would seem to indicate that whoever was
directing its construction left before was finished leaving people with no real
understanding of fortifications to finish it off. As Ingle left Maryland some time
in April 1645 it would be fair to assume that either Ingle or one of his men
provided the requisite expertise.
The fact that Widow Blanche Oliver complained that she had livestock
stolen by the occupants of both forts indicated that there was a period when
both Royalists and Parliamentarians carried out raids to sustain themselves.
Thus, for several weeks, two armed camps existed in St Mary’s until the
Royalist stronghold was overrun.
Archaeological evidence suggests Mr
Pope’s Fort did not function for long and as Calvert was in Virginia by August
his fort probably fell in June or July 1645.
Although there is no evidence of what actually happened to end
Royalist resistance in St Mary’s but the evidence of John Greenold and
36
Nicholas Gwyther, who were soldier in the St Thomas’ garrison suggests that
the end was violent. The fact that Calvert was not captured indicates that he
was either not present when St Thomas’ was stormed or that he managed to
escape. It is difficult to say whether his move to Virginia was the cause or the
result of the fort’s fall but his presence there at the beginning of August
indicates that Royalist resistance ended at some stage during June or July
1645.
By that time Ingle was back in England wrangling in an Admiralty court
for permission to keep his plunder. Although he now argued that Cornwallis
was a Papist and Royalist it was this court that had accepted Ingle’s defence
of Cornwallis in 1644.
His volte face did him no favours and the court,
perhaps unsurprisingly, refused to grant him Cornwallis’ goods.
To his
chagrin it also refused to accept his version of events altogether and returned
the ‘Looking Glass’ to its owners. Even the presence of the Jesuits, Copley
and White did little to convince the Admiralty Court that Ingle’s attack had
been a legitimate act of war. Ingle’s failure to capture Calvert and Brooks’
death in captivity further undermined his case.
Although he had failed to convince the Admiralty Court that his attack
had been a legitimate act of war, Ingle also carried a ‘…Petition of Diverse
Inhabitants of Maryland…’ to Parliament appealing against Baltimore’s
‘…tyranicall rule’.
On 28 November 1645 the Committee of Lords and
Commons for Foreign Plantations sat to judge the case and found that
Baltimore ‘…hath wickedly broken the trust of the English Government’.
Initially Parliament ordered the committee to prepare an ordnance extending
protection to all whom ‘…act of shall act…’ in their name.
37
After the King’s defeat at Naseby on 14 June 1645 the Parliament gave
Charles’ supporters until 1 May 1646 to submit to its authority.
Ever the
consummate survivor, the recusant and malignant Baltimore knew that his
future survival demanded that he reach a rapprochement with the new
regime. We have no idea when he actually submitted but he lost no time in
petitioning Parliament as well as the courts and his cause was undoubtedly
aided by the testimonies of men like Ralph Bean, the Mate of Ingle’s prize
crew who stated that the attack was unprovoked and unwarranted.
Baltimore’s legal battle lasted until 1657 but in the short term it ensured
that Ingle came away penniless and Parliament delayed granting the
Protestant rebels in Maryland the legitimacy they craved. Besides the legal
wrangling, Parliament was possibly more concerned about the Dutch colonies
that separated the English colonies.
As Ingle’s coup had destabilised
Maryland and created an opportunity for Dutch exploitation it is possible that
some members of the government were reluctant to reward such rash
behaviour.
The consequences of failure were devastating for Ingle. The litigation
dragged on for years and his friendship with Cornwallis and his trading
connexions with the colonies were in tatters. Many colonists now viewed him
as little more than a pirate and he does not appear to have returned to
America after 1645. His attack on St Mary’s not only deprived of his main
source of income since 1632 but made him an embarrassment to the Navy.
The lack of any reference to Ingle and his ship after 1650 also seems to
indicate that they too had dispensed of his services. Cornwallis sued him for
38
£4,000 in damages and it is thought that he died in penurious circumstances
in London sometime in 1653 aged 44.
During the early 1640s the disputes between Calvert and the Assembly
bore striking parallels with those between Charles and his Parliament and
consequently Maryland’s rebels anticipated Parliamentarian support for their
assumption of government. The only member of the Council remaining in
Maryland was Sir Thomas Gerard so it must be assumed that some form of
junta under Pope and Sturman was created.
An oath of allegiance to
Parliament was also imposed although John Thompson was the only Catholic
in the province to take it. Presumably most of the other Catholics were in
prison or in exile in Virginia.
Neighbouring Virginia had always provided a convenient bolt-hole for
Maryland’s political exiles and outlaws although until 1645 they had tended to
be Baltimore’s Protestant opponents rather than his supporters.
When
Berkeley returned from England on 7 August he was more than willing to lend
what support he could to his fellow Royalist, Calvert and ensured that he
received a sympathetic hearing from Virginia’s Council on 9 August.
Berkeley sailed from Bristol in June and was probably aware of the
King’s defeat at Naseby. On 11 September Bristol fell and his own family’s
seat, Berkeley Castle, followed on 26 September when it surrendered to
Winthrop’s brother-in-law, Col Thomas Rainsborough and his regiment full of
New Englanders. With Charles’ fortunes in decline Berkeley made Virginia a
safe haven for his supporters and until the Restoration in 1660 thousands of
Royalist refugees, including George Washington’s great-grandfather Col John
39
Washington, to settle in Virginia in what has become known as the ‘Cavalier
Migration’.
Although Berkeley’s Council was sympathetic the colony was still
fighting the Powhatan War and thus unable, or unwilling, to raise a force to
invade Maryland so Calvert appears to have set up camp in the nearest
settlement to Maryland that was sympathetic to his cause, Kecoughton on the
York River instead. Although the Indian trading post of Chicacoan, to the
north, was closer to Maryland it was the haunt of Claiborne’s men and
Baltimore’s enemies rendering it unsuitable.
In March 1646 Capt Edward Hill led a Virginian delegation to St Mary’s
to request the return of several Virginians who had fled to Maryland without
permission. Presumably these men were Parliamentarian supporters, or even
Claiborne men who felt safer over the border. Hill, a Burgess for Charles City
County and onetime Speaker of the House must have made an impression in
St Mary’s as he returned in July 1646 as Governor of the colony.
His appointment as Governor is still controversial and shrouded in
mystery. He is not listed as one of the colonial Governors of Maryland yet the
Assembly voted him his arrears of pay after he was deposed. He claimed to
hold a commission from Calvert ‘…Given under my hand and seale this 30th
July 1646 in Virginia…’ yet he later admitted that it had been ‘…acted by
another person’. Thus between July and December 1646 the ‘Governor’ of
Maryland was a man claiming to be acting on the authority of both Baltimore
and Calvert.
Why exactly Maryland’s rebels would accept a Governor appointed by
Calvert when they had only just ousted him is hard to say. Indeed if the
40
commission was genuine then why did Calvert invade in December 1646 to
depose him? Hill even denounced Calvert’s invasion as an illegal abuse of
power as it was done without authority of Maryland’s Council. No doubt the
Council referred to was the Protestant junta and in 1647 Governor Thomas
Greene, not to be confused with Ingle’s Mate of the same name, wrote to Hill
telling him that he was wrong to assume that ‘…the counsell residing in the
Province had full power and authority to elect & chuse you, which is evident
they had not’.
It would seem that the junta appointed Hill as Governor and claimed
that he had a commission from Calvert in order win over support from those
colonists who did not support the coup.
After all Claiborne had used a
counterfeit commission when he landed on Kent Island so it would not have
been the first time such a ruse was used. Interestingly the Kent Islanders
never submitted to Hill’s authority, nor did he seek to impose it. Both Hill and
Claiborne were Virginian government officials so it is likely that Hill was
sympathetic to the latter’s claim over Kent Island and deliberately avoided
bringing it back under Maryland jurisdiction. Of course it could equally have
been because he was unable to.
Whatever the basis of Hill’s governorship by December 1646 Calvert
seemed confident that he could regain power.
Not only did he raise a
company of 28 men at a personal cost of 45,600lbs of tobacco but he also
contacted Thomas Thornborough, a leading rebel and invited him to
Kecoughton to reconcile their differences.
In front of his troops, Calvert
reassured Thornborough that if the colony submitted peacefully his men
41
would not pillage it. His aim was to restore lawful government to Maryland,
not despoil it.
This company was not, as some claim a band of Puritan mercenaries
supplied by Col Richard Bennett but a mixed bag of Maryland exiles and
Virginian Royalists with connexions to the colony. Of the officers Capt John
Price was a Maryland Catholic as were Lt William Lewis and Sgt Pheypo
whilst Lt William Evans was a Virginian Catholic. In fact Bennett’s contribution
was minimal and although he was reputedly ‘…one of the Chesapeake’s most
intense Puritan idealogues and Parliamentarian supporter…’ he had no
qualms about dealing with Calvert, Cornwallis or even Copley.
Few records survive of what happened when Calvert sailed for St
Mary’s in December. A letter from the Assembly to Baltimore later stated that
he ‘…surprised all those who had combined themselves against him and cast
them into prison’. As three of Calvert’s men vanish from the records almost
immediately it is possible that they were killed during the invasion, however, if
there was resistance it was ineffective and short-lived.
Without the
‘Reformation’ in the harbour the rebels appeared to lack the will or ability to
make a fight of it and the fact that the remaining rebels held a meeting at St
Inigoe’s on 29 December indicates that the rest of St Mary’s was in Calvert’s
hands by that date.
Tense negotiations followed and faced with the imminent prospect of
defeat the rebels submitted. From the outset it was obvious that Calvert was
out to restore order not exact revenge and in a shrewd act of reconciliation
and diplomacy not only pardoned the rebels and accepted the elected
members of Hill’s assembly as members of his own whilst rejecting the
42
legitimacy of Hill’s governorship. Having reassured the Assembly that his
soldiers were serving for pay not plunder the newly pardoned rebels
adjourned on 2 January 1647 having proved willing to agree with anything
Calvert suggested.
Of course the presence of Calvert’s troops and the loss of rebel
leadership contributed greatly to the situation. The Sturman brothers, Francis
Gray, John Hampton, Robert Smith and Thomas Yewell had all fled to
Chicacoan on 13 January and Hill had joined them there by the 26th, when
Samuel Taylor witnessed a grant of power of attorney to John Hollis to settle
his affairs in Maryland. In addition, Claiborne and 20 men were back on Kent
Island fermenting trouble against Calvert. With so many enemies still at large,
the war was far from over.
Edward Thompson said that he had heard Taylor and Gray boast in
Chicacoan that they would ‘…goe over and would fire and burn and destroy
all that they can…’ in Maryland. In fact the threat from Chicacoan was what
prevented Calvert launching an attack on Kent Island until April. The rebels
continued to spread rumours of Parliamentarian reinforcements.
A Capt
Wyatt was said to be at hand with a squadron of ships and troops from
London whilst others claimed that Claiborne and 50 men were on their way
from Kent Island to attack St Mary’s.
Meanwhile, Calvert consolidated his position and placed an embargo
on Kent Island and restricted the movements of colonists. In a stroke of luck
the Sturmans, Gray and Hampton were arrested on 17 January, probably
after a botched raid, and locked up.
Calvert sent an ultimatum to the
remaining rebels in Chicacoan to submit by 4 February or face outlawry and
43
the confiscation of their property. Although no evidence survives to confirm
that they submitted the raids effectively ended after this date.
With the threat from Chicacoan neutralised, Calvert was able to turn his
attention towards Kent Island. Abandoned by Claiborne the rebel leader on
the island, Capt Peter Knight wrote to Calvert seeking to make peace and on
9 March Calvert sent the former rebel, Pope to Kent Island to negotiate.
Reports of his embassy are contradictory and ultimately he failed to persuade
the rebels to surrender.
Not all the islanders were behind Knight and three; Robert Vaughan,
Francis Brookes and Walter King were staunch supporters of Calvert’s party.
The rebels attacked Vaughan’s house shortly after Pope’s arrival and after
initially being repulsed stormed the house killing two servants and capturing
its owner who was held captive for three weeks by Thomas Bradnox. With
two loyalists still at large and support waning, Knight realised that he had little
hope of defending Kent Island if Calvert attacked and began to prepare to
abandon it.
When news reached Knight at the end of March that Calvert was on his
way he looted what was left of Brent’s house as well as stealing the ironwork
from the mill at Kent and loaded his spoils onto a ship and fled to Virginia.
When Calvert landed at the beginning of April the remaining rebels
surrendered without a shot and in line with his policy of reconciliation he
pardoned them. In 1642 there were 73 freemen on the island yet in 1647
Calvert issued pardons to 11. In all only 14 freemen, including the three
loyalists already mentioned swore an oath of allegiance to Baltimore giving
44
credence to the claim that Kent Island had been virtually abandoned as a
result of the Plundering Times.
Although rumours still circulated that Hill was planning to invade from
Chicacoan, Calvert had at last brought the colony fully under Proprietary
control. His triumph was, however, short lived and he died suddenly after a
short illness on 9 June 1647 that Riordan speculates was caused by a
snakebite. On his deathbed he appointed Council member Thomas Greene
as his successor.
Although Greene had been one of the original passengers on the
‘Dove’ and a long-established member of the colony’s Council, he was a
Catholic like Calvert and some of the Protestant colonists, like James
Johnson and Walter Broadhurst began threatening violence against his new
administration. Hill even wrote to Greene from Chicacoan telling him that his
appointment was illegal and that he was the rightful governor of Maryland and
claiming that ‘…others of humors different from mine, privately embrace a
parliamentary influence, which may prove fatal to the whole…’ made a thinly
veiled threat of renewed civil war.
As long as Price’s company remained in arms, however, Greene could
afford to ignore Hill’s threat and told him that he would only surrender his
office if ordered to do so by Baltimore himself. In a diplomatic offensive he
also wrote to Berkeley to secure support and did his best to ensure that Price,
now a member of the Council, and his men received their arrears of pay. In
the end Hill’s threats rang hollow and Greene remained in office until
Baltimore appointed a new Governor, Capt William Stone on 8 August 1648.
45
Stone was an unusual choice in several respects. Not only was he a
Virginian from Accomack but a Puritan with strong Parliamentarian
connexions. Stone had emigrated in the 1620s and become a wealthy and
well established member of Virginia’s political and mercantile elite although he
was not well known in Maryland. His uncle, Thomas Stone, was a leading
tobacco merchant in London and his family had close ties to the Independents
in New England.
In short, by appointing Stone, Baltimore created an
administration in Maryland that was acceptable both to Parliament and the
Independent faction in the New Model Army.
Appointing Stone also carried a degree of risk as his previous dealings
with Maryland had been as a representative of both Pope and Ingle, men
closely associated with the rebellion.
However, since 1642 Berkeley had
declared that the church in Virginia had ‘…to be careful that Almighty God is
served according to the form established Church of England’ and by 1648 he
was actively discriminating against dissenters which made moving to
Maryland, with its toleration of sectarian views, attractive.
In 1648 a new oath of allegiance was introduced ‘…for equal
administration of justice…’ and on 2 April 1649 the Assembly passed the ‘Act
Concerning Religion’ which guaranteed religious tolerance to anyone who
was loyal to the Proprietor. This Act placed Maryland on a similar footing to
Rhode Island and although such toleration was anathema to many
Independents and Anglicans it attracted large numbers of Virginian Puritans.
It is difficult to say whether Baltimore appointed Stone because he
wanted to attract Puritan settlers or that Stone’s appointment was part of a
deal to attracted them. A deliberate policy of recruiting dissenters is a realistic
46
proposition as Fenwick had been dispatched on just such a mission in 1643
and it is likely that Kent Island was not the only part of the colony to have
become depopulated.
If Baltimore needed new colonists then Virginia’s
Independents were as good a source as any, especially as he now appeared
to be at peace with Parliament.
Thus, in December 1649 around 500 Virginians ‘…both of the
Congregated Church, and other well affected people in Virginia, being
debarred from free exercise of religion under the government of Sir William
Berkeley removed themselves, families and estates into the province of
Maryland…’ led by Edward Lloyd established the settlement of Providence,
now Annapolis, and a new county, Ann Arundel County, opposite Kent Island
at the head of the Chesapeake Bay. It would be wrong to think that these
people went to Maryland because they believed in religious toleration, they
went because of persecution in Virginia and in many ways their presence lit
the slow fuse that was to cause a second wave of internecine warfare in
Maryland.
The other catalyst for renewed war was the death of the King in
January
1649
and
the
creation
of
England’s
only
Republic,
the
Commonwealth. The Regicide shook the very fabric of what could be termed
‘British’ society as Charles had been king of England, Ireland and Scotland
and many Parliamentarians, including the commander of the New Model
Army, Sir Thomas Fairfax, were shocked by it. Despite, or perhaps because
the Scottish Government had handed their King, a fellow Scot, over to the
English in 1648 they declared his son Charles Stuart, Prince of Wales, King
47
Charles II on 5 February 1649 and crowned King of Scots at Scone on 1
January 1651.
Much to the chagrin of the Commonwealth Virginia, Maryland, Jersey,
Barbados, Bermuda, The Isle of Man and Antigua all declared for Charles II in
1651 and refused to recognise the authority of Cromwell’s regime.
Predictably the New England colonies were firmly behind the Republic and
indeed many New Englanders, such as Hugh Peter, Edward Hopkins and
Edward Winslow were to exert a great degree of influence over the republic.
In fact New England remained a bastion of the ‘Good Old Cause’ long after
the Restoration and its influence could still be seen 115 years later during the
American Revolution.
By the end of 1651 the New Model Army and Commonwealth Navy
had reduced all of the Royalist territories to obedience except for Barbados,
Maryland and Virginia and with war looming with the Dutch it was essential
that these colonies were reclaimed.
On 26 September 1651 the
‘Commonwealth Commission to Reduce Virginia’ appointed naval Capt
Robert Denis, Col Richard Bennett, Thomas Stagge, Edmund Carew and
Capt William Claiborne, who was now openly in support of Parliament,
commissioners ‘…for the reducing of Virginia, and the inhabitants thereof to
their due obedience to the commonwealth of England... And upon your arrival
at Virginia, you, or any two or more of you (whereof captain Robert Denis to
be one) shall use your best endeavours to reduce all the plantations within the
bay of Chesopiaik’.
Although both Bennett and Claiborne were Virginians it was Denis who
was placed in command of the expedition and given power ‘…to raise forces
48
within every of the plantations aforesaid, for the furtherance and good of the
service; and such persons as shall come unto you, and serve as soldiers, if
their masters shall stand in opposition to the present government of this
commonwealth’. In 1651 the issue of Baltimore’s Charter had not yet been
decided and although Maryland was not specifically mentioned in the
commission it was ambiguous enough to give Claiborne the legal authority he
craved to attack Maryland and settle old scores with Baltimore.
Denis’ expedition consisted of two ships, the ‘Guiney Frigate’ under his
command and the ‘John’ under Capt Edmond Curtis and a force of 500 men
drawn from the regiments of the New Model Army. In all probability they were
musketeers as pikes were of no use at sea and the cavalry threat in the
colonies minimal. Surviving records tell us that both vessels carried 32 guns,
which would place them in the 450-500 ton bracket making them a potent
threat to any shipping in America.
The expedition arrived off Virginia in March 1652 and demanded that
Berkeley surrender. Berkeley was at first openly defiant and called out the
militia, numbering some 7,000 men.
For several days open warfare
threatened but it is difficult to know how reliable these troops were in the face
of an invasion led by Claiborne, a man who had been Captain-General in the
Powhatan War. Perhaps even Berkeley knew he could not rely on his men to
fight and, no doubt, through gritted teeth he submitted to Parliament on 12
March and Jamestown was occupied on 7 April. Berkeley was subsequently
stripped of his office and replaced by Bennett as Governor and Claiborne as
Secretary of State.
49
With Virginia secured the Commissioners now turned their attentions
towards Maryland and Claiborne sailed to St Mary’s where, backed by
Commonwealth troops, he forced Stone to renounce his allegiance to
Baltimore and removed him from office. Stone, however, was known to be a
Parliament man at heart and Claiborne had no reason to believe that he
would cause trouble. Thus, in June 1652 he was reinstated as Governor on
the condition that he acted under the direction of Parliament’s representatives,
Bennett and Claiborne, as the ‘…the keepers of the liberties of England’. 30
Despite Claiborne having no authority to revoke Baltimore’s Charter his
takeover of Maryland effectively did just that. Although he may have thought
his fight with the Calverts was over not everyone in the colony seems to have
accepted the changes and John Krugler suggests that from 1652-55 a low
level war raged between the government and the Independents of Ann
Arundel County. Unfortunately for Claiborne, Cromwell dismissed Parliament
in April 1653 and became Lord Protector of the Commonwealth on 16
December.
When news reached Maryland in the spring of 1654 Stone
naturally concluded that Bennett and Claiborne’s commission was no longer
valid and repudiated his agreement with them.
On 2 March 1654 he decreed that although he was still loyal to the
Commonwealth all legislation in the colony should be in Baltimore’s name and
he insisted upon an oath of fidelity to the Proprietor and charged Bennett and
Claiborne with ‘…sedition and rebellion…’ on 4 July. This further aggravated
the residents of Ann Arundel County who flatly objected to the oath and
appealed to Bennett and Claiborne for help against Stone. Despite explicit
30
Archives of Maryland, vol.662, p.117.
50
orders from Cromwell forbidding Bennett, or his officers, from interfering in
Maryland the Commissioners once more placed their own interests before
duty and in July Bennett dispatched a force under Claiborne’s command to
oust Stone.
Faced with invasion from Virginia and attack from the north from
Providence it would appear that Stone was either unable to rally sufficient
support or lost his nerve and on 8 August Claiborne deposed him and
appointed Capt William Fuller, a Providence New Model Army veteran, as the
new Governor.
With the Puritans in charge Maryland began to change.
Catholics were barred from public office, as were those who had borne arms
against Parliament or indeed anyone else they deemed to ‘…practice
licentiousness’.
Fuller’s first Assembly, convened on 20 October 1654 at
Richard Preston’s house at Patuxent and passed over 44 pieces of legislation
including a repeal of the Act Concerning Religion and abolished the oath of
fidelity. He also moved the seat of government from St Mary’s to the Puritan
stronghold of Providence, where it would remain until March 1658.
Fuller was born in Deal in Kent, England, and sailed to New England
on the ‘Abigail’ in April 1635. Little is known about him between 1635 and
1652 when he first appears in Maryland’s records. He may have moved to
Virginia in the 1640s, however, he was an officer in the New Model Army and
fought at Dunbar on 3 September 1650 and was probably the Sgt Fuller listed
in Lt Gen Thomas Hammond’s Regiment of Foot in February 1645. Although
some accounts claim he arrived in Providence in 1651 it is possible that he
actually arrived in 1652 as part of Denis’ Commonwealth force. If so, that
51
would explain why both Bennett and Claiborne trusted him enough to appoint
him Governor.
By 1654 Fuller was an active member of the Assembly representing
Ann Arundel County. As a former professional soldier it is likely that he was
also the commander of the county’s militia or at least one of its key officers.
He seems to have played a similar rôle in Providence to that played in the
1630s by Cornwallis in St Mary’s and in July 1652 had negotiated a treaty with
the Susquehannock and in November was appointed by Stone to command
an expedition against the Nanticokes and Wicomicoes.
Claiborne also appointed a committee ‘…for the Conservation of the
peace and publick Administracon of Justice…’ consisting of Richard Preston,
William Durand, Edward Lloyd, Capt John Smith, Leonard Strong, John
Hatch, Richard Wells, Richard Ewen and a Mr Lawson to support Fuller’s
administration in the ‘…well Ordering directing and Governing the affaires of
Maryland under his highness the Lord Protector of England, Scotland, Ireland
and the Dominons thereof, and in his Name onely and no other and to
proceed therein as neare as may be to the Lawes of England’.
At the end of January 1655 two ships entered St Inigoe’s Creek, the
‘Golden Lyon’ commanded by Capt Roger Heamans and the ‘Golden Fortune’
commanded by Capt Samuel Tilghman. Although Stone had told Heamans
that he was no longer the governor Tilghman had with him a letter from the
Lord Protector addressed to ‘Governor Stone of Maryland’. William Eltonhead
and Capt Josias Fendall were also on board the ‘Golden Fortune’ with the
news that Baltimore’s Charter had not been revoked and with news that
52
Cromwell had also written to Bennett censuring him for over-stepping his
authority.
Encouraged by Eltonhead’s news and more than a little resentful of
Baltimore’s accusations of cowardice, Stone concluded that Fuller’s
appointment was illegal and that he was in a strong enough position to
challenge his authority. As Fuller was in Providence at the time Stone had
little difficulty in mustering his fellow loyalists and seizing the colony’s archives
held at Pope’s house. He then appointed Fendall and Eltonhead as militia
officers and called out the St Mary’s Trained Band.
Although no accurate records survive of this muster it would seem that
as Stone had between 150-200 men at the subsequent Battle of the Severn it
would seem that most of the male population of St Mary’s answered his call to
arms. Stone knew that he had to act quickly and decisively if he was to defeat
Fuller and deter intervention from Virginia. To that end he sent Fendell and
Eltonhead with 20 men to Patuxent to seize the arms and ammunition stored
there.
En route they attacked the properties of known enemies and took
Preston and John Sutton prisoner, although Preston later escaped.
Meanwhile Heamans slipped out of St Inigoe’s and sailed north to
warn Fuller. Heamans told Fuller that he had only just escaped with his life as
Stone had plotted to seize his ship and put the crew to the sword and planned
to massacre the inhabitants of Providence.
Although it was obvious that
Stone would attack Heamans’ claims were undoubtedly an exaggeration and
it would appear that rather than planning to attack Heamans, Stone wanted
his support and had already issued him with orders to that effect.
53
Instead Heamans pledged his support to Fuller who convened a
Council of War on 23 March and ordered that all the women and children of
the colony be placed onboard the ‘Golden Lyon’ for their own safety. The
next day he issued a warrant to Heamans warning him that he was ‘…not to
fail as you will answer to the contrary at your peril…’ and when Stone’s
squadron appeared later that evening Heamans opened fire killing a
militiaman and forcing them to seek shelter in Spa Creek, south of
Providence. Heamans then ordered a sloop carrying two guns, commanded
by New Englander Capt John Cutts, to block the mouth of the creek,
effectively bottling up Stone’s flotilla. As Stone’s boats were no match for the
‘Golden Lyon’ he disembarked his men on the eastern shore of Spa Creek to
camp for the night.
Stone is believed to have left St Mary’s on 20 March with a force of
some 150-200 men, one source claims the rather precise figure of 225 men
whilst Puritan sources claimed that he even had as many as 300 but this is
unlikely. According to Charles F Stein Jr in his ‘Origin and History of Howard
County Maryland’ Stone even had a group of German professional soldiers in
his force. If this is true they were probably refugees from the King’s defeated
army rather than mercenaries hired by Stone. Although Cornwallis does not
appear to have fought at the Severn he had returned to Maryland in 1652 and
had served in a Royalist Dragoon Regiment belonging to the German-Royalist
commander Prince Rupert of the Rhine.
There were also several other
Royalist civil war veterans in Stone’s force and the Germans in question may
well have accompanied them into exile.
54
Stone’s plan was to march overland and use a small flotilla of 10-12
boats to aid his movement when the terrain became impassible. Tilghman, it
would seem did not use his ship to aid Stone and he may well have been in
Providence with Heamans for all we know. It is possible that he chose this
approach in order to rally support from outlying settlements and to give his
envoys, Col Henry Coursey and Dr Luke Barber, ontime physician to
Cromwell, time to deliver his ultimatum to Fuller.
When they arrived in
Providence they demanded that Fuller and his people ‘…deliver themselves
up in a peaceful manner…’ but they refused saying ‘…they would rather die
like men than live like slaves’.
There is some dispute as to where the Battle of the Severn was
actually fought and its sight still remains to be positively identified. The site is
referred to as a place called Horn Point opposite modern Annapolis, however,
nowhere of that name seems to exist today. As Spa Creek is mentioned in
most accounts it is likely that Horn Point is Annapolis suburb of Eastport, on
the southern bank of Spar Creek. Eastport fits with most of the accounts of
the battle and would also have been a good location to land troops for an
attack on Providence itself. Unfortunately, Eastport is now an urban area and
it is unlikely that any archaeology from the battle will ever come to light unless
a major re-building programme takes place.
In the morning Stone began marshalling his men into some sort of
order with drums beating and with Lord Baltimore’s colours, charged with a
paly of six pieces, or and sable, a bend dexter counterchanged, being
flourished. Given the lack of a cavalry threat and the amphibious nature of
Stone’s expedition it is extremely unlikely that any of his men were armed with
55
pikes, making it an all-musketeer force. Because he had at least 10 officers
and infantry companies of the time usually contained 50 men it is likely that he
had three or four companies at his disposal.
By the 1650s experience musket blocks tended to form up in three
ranks, however, despite the presence of several veteran Royalist soldiers
Stone’s men were mostly inexperience militiamen and probably took up a
deeper formation or up to six ranks to fire by introduction, a slow and
measured method of giving fire. Fuller, on the other hand was a New Model
Army veteran, as were a number of his men which meant that the Providence
militiamen were more likely to be conversant with the latest military practices
than those from St Mary’s.
Anyone who has witnessed a modern ECW re-enactment would have
little difficulty picturing the scene in Stone’s camp or even 4 miles away where
Fuller was forming up his own forces. Again one account claims that Fuller
had around 120 men at his disposal although it is possible that he had more.
Despite claims by Michael Bellesiles in ‘Disarming Early American History’,
there is no evidence to support the theory that Fuller’s men were
Commonwealth Regulars. Instead many may well have been New Model
Army veterans like Fuller and some probably even wore their old redcoats
creating a greater degree of uniformity than amongst Stone’s men. Again, as
neither pikes nor cavalry are mentioned it would also be reasonable to
assume that Fuller’s force was also made up of musketeers only.
Thus, on the morning of Sunday 25 March 1655 two opposing armies
were forming up to fight what was to be the only formal set-piece battle of the
English Civil War in America. Although by British standards this was a small
56
skirmish it should be remembered that in colonial terms a fight involving
possibly as many as 400 men was a major engagement. Even during the
bloody and protracted King Philips War in the 1670s the much larger colony of
New England, with tens of thousands of inhabitants considered fielding forces
of around 1,000 men a major achievement.
The presence of Baltimore’s Colours left little doubt, in Puritan eyes,
that Stone’s force was a Papist-Royalist one.
In order to emphasize his
Commonwealth credentials Fuller chose to march under Commonwealth
Colours, albeit without authority to do so. In fact his muster was somewhat
delayed whilst Heamans fetched just such a flag from his ship and Fuller gave
it to a fellow Virginian Puritan, William Ayers who appears to have served as
an officer in Cromwell’s Ironsides. Apparently there was some attempt to
negotiate a settlement and it may well have been at this point that Coursey
and Barber delivered their message rather than on the day before.
Having rejected Stone’s terms Fuller began his attack with drums
beating and colours flying. His advance to contact would have taken at least
an hour if not two across the broken scrub as he inevitably halted and redressed his men within sound if not sight of the enemy. As Fuller’s men came
into extreme range, about 150 yards, a ragged volley rippled across Stone’s
line to little effect.
The unfortunate Ayres fell mortally wounded, which
undoubtedly raised a cheer from the ‘Royalists’ but as the smoke cleared it
was apparent that someone else had taken up the fallen Colours and Fuller’s
men pressed on unfazed.
Although the Providence militia were probably outnumbered by that of
St Mary’s their superior discipline was borne out by what followed. It would
57
appear that they halted close to Stone’s troops, probably within 50 yards, and
fired into the enemy. Fuller had probably followed current New Model Army
practice and formed his men into three man deep musket blocks trained to fire
by ‘salvee’ or salvo as we would say today, meaning that all three ranks fired
at the same time with devastating effect.
Hearted by the sight of dozens of Stone’s men falling the
Commonwealthmen took up the cry of, ‘In the name of God, fall on, God is our
strength,’ and exploiting the shock of their volley charged. Although some of
Stone’s raw militiamen broke and ran whilst others threw down their arms,
others took up the rather unusual war cry of, ‘Hey, for St Mary’s and wives for
us all,’ and stood their ground.
At least five made it to the Creek and
managed to swim to safety.
According to Thomas R Calloway a body of St Mary’s militia, probably
under the direction of Stone, took up a position behind a large fallen tree and
held up Fuller’s advance. It was at his point that Fuller seems to have worked
a ‘Forlorn Hope’ of musketeers around their flank making their position
untenable and eventually Stone asked for a Parley which effectively ended
the fight. In roughly an hour-and-a-half of combat he had been shot through
the shoulder, his Secretary of State Thomas Hatton along with at least 17 or
even as many as 40 of his men were dead whilst another 30-40 were
wounded.
Stone had surrendered on the condition that his men would be spared,
however, it would appear that several of his men were shot out of hand,
including several Germans serving in is ranks. All of his boats, arms and
Colours were taken along with virtually all his surviving officers – Eltonhead,
58
Fendall, Col John Price, Capt Gerard, Col Henry Coursey, Maj Thomas
Truman, Capt William Lewis, Capt Kendall, Capt Nicholas Gwyther and Maj
Job Chandler were also taken prisoner and if Cornwallis was present he must
have managed to escape unscathed.
On Fuller’s side only four, Ayers,
Francis Beasley, Thomas Marsh and John Underhill appear to have died and
an unknown number wounded.
Tactically the Severn was a crushing defeat for Baltimore’s supporters,
the Puritans even began calling the field ‘Papist Pound’, but it was also a
massive strategic defeat. Almost every member of Baltimore’s Council, from
Governor Stone to Chandler his Agent and Receiver General were prisoners
as were Price, Lewis, Williams and Gwyther who were veterans of the fighting
in 1645-6.
With so many enemies in their power, Fuller and his Council
imposed an oath of silence on their prisoners so they could not tell Baltimore
of their defeat.
More shockingly, in a flagrant breach of the surrender terms Fuller
convened a Court Martial on 27 March that sentenced Stone, Fendall,
Eltonhead, Price, Lewis, Gerard, Kendall, Gwyther, Chandler, John Legatt,
John Pedro and the Hon Robert Clarke to death. Whilst Eltonhead, Lewis,
Legatt and Pedro were shot immediately the other were reprieved after a
group of Puritan ladies who were friends of Stone’s wife, Verlinda, interceded.
Over 200 Providence residents, including many who had fought in the battle,
believed that as they had simply obeyed Baltimore’s orders they did not
deserve to die.
Instead the prisoners were handed over to Capt John Northwood, High
Sheriff of Anne Arundel County until they were eventually released. Fuller
59
ordered the seizure of his enemies’ estates and dispatched a force to plunder
St Mary’s as punishment for supporting the Proprietor. In addition legislation
was also passed to further restrict religious toleration and deprive the
Catholics of what rights they had. By 1656 many on both sides of the Atlantic
felt that Maryland’s Puritans had ‘…brought to desolation one of the happiest
plantations that ever Englishmen set foot in’.
Anxious to justify his actions Fuller sent a dispatch to Bennett, in
Virginia giving an extremely biased account of the campaign.
Bennett
promptly left for England to explain the events in Maryland before any other
version of events could reach Cromwell. Unfortunately for Bennett, Cromwell
was favourably disposed towards Baltimore’s cause and when Mrs Stone and
his friend Dr Barber, who had been at the Severn, wrote with their accounts
the Lord Protector was sympathetic.
Events now followed a similar course to those that followed Ingle’s
rebellion with Baltimore’s friends and enemies engaging in a propaganda
campaign of pamphlets and litigation. As the Commonwealth had not stripped
him of his Charter, Baltimore argued that been ‘…interrupted in his rights…’
by Bennett and his coterie. Although Fuller was firmly in control of Maryland,
Baltimore issued a commission to Fendall on 10 July 1656 making him
Governor. Before he was able to rally support he was arrested on 15 August
and imprisoned as ‘...dangerous to the public peace…’ and finally released on
24 September.
With both the Commission for Trade in England and Cromwell
sympathetic, Baltimore sent his youngest brother, Philip as Principal
Secretary of the Province to Maryland in November 1656 in order to pave the
60
way for a return to Proprietary rule. In 1657 Fendall went to England leaving
Dr Barber ‘in charge’ and returned on 28 February 1658 with a commission
from Baltimore making him Governor, with Cornwallis as his Deputy, and
instructions from Cromwell ordering Fuller to surrender the colony.
As a
result of the Articles of Agreement brought by Fendall, Fuller surrendered on
23 March 1658. The civil war in Maryland was finally over.
Although New England’s governors had managed to avert civil war in
their colonies their citizens did not escape involvement all together and when
war broke out with the Dutch Cromwell sent Bostonian Robert Sedgwick,
commander of the Middlesex Militia Regiment, a Major General’s commission
on 26 May 1652 with orders to assemble a force for an attack on their on their
colonies of New Netherlands and New Amsterdam (New York).
Although these colonies were established in 1624 their populations
were small compared to those of their English neighbours. Involvement in a
protracted war between 1641-45 that cost around 1,000 lives further added to
the New Netherland’s problems. In 1647 Peter Stuyvesant replaced Governor
Kieft as head of the colony. Although it was hoped that he would do a better
job than Kieft he was later forced to cede Long Island to the English in 1650.
In 1654 Stuyvesant decided to attack the Swedish colony along the
Delaware called New Sweden when the Swedish Governor, Johan Rising,
attempted to evict Dutch settlers from the colony by seizing Fort Casimir (New
Castle, Delaware) and renaming it Fort Christina. In the summer of 1655
Stuyvesant struck back and sailed up the Delaware with seven ships and 317
soldiers.
Outnumbered, the Swedes surrendered Fort Trinity and Fort
Christina 14 days later.
61
By the time Sedgwick was in a position to attack the Dutch, however,
the Anglo-Dutch War was over and one with France had begun so he decided
to attack the French colony of Arcadia (New Brunswick, Canada) instead.
New England had first been drawn into Arcadian affairs in July 1643 when
Boston sent four armed vessels and some men to support the Huguenot
settlers against Arcadia’s Catholic government. The Bostonians ‘…wounded
several men, killed three others and took one captive. They killed a quantity
of livestock and took a ship loaded with furs, powder and food…’ and ‘…the
Puritans returned home, having ... compromised their colony’. 31
Sedgwick seized the Arcadian settlement of Port-Royal and chased the
French authorities out. The Governor, Charles La Tour managed to escape to
England and with the help of John Kirke even succeeded in convincing
Cromwell to give him back part of his colony at Cap de Sable. After a swift
victory Sedgwick was needed elsewhere so Sir Thomas Temple was
appointed Governor. He remained unchallenged until Alexandre Le Borgne
de Bélisle ‘…at the head of a force of fifty men, took possession of the fort at
La Heve…’ in May 1658 but Temple successfully counter-attacked and sent
Bélisle to London as a prisoner of war.
On 25 December 1654 a force of 3,000 soldiers drafted from regiments
of the New Model Army under the joint command of General-at-Sea William
Penn, whose son later founded Pennsylvania, and General Robert Venables
arrived in Barbados where a further 6,000 volunteers were recruited and
although they now had 18 warships, 20 transports and 9,000 soldiers, many
of their men were poorly trained and ill-disciplined. Both were veteran officers
31
John Winthrop, Winthrop’s Journal: A History of New England 1630-1649, Vol II, (Charles
Scribner & Son: New York, 1908) pp.130-138. MORE DETAIL
62
but neither had been given overall command, which along with the poor
quality of their troops was to cause problems in the future. .
After Arcadia, Sedgwick was ordered south to join this expedition. He
was not the only New Englander and Edward Winslow, effectively
Massachusetts’ ambassador to London was also with the expedition a
Commissioner. Winslow was to be responsible for establishing an English
administration in Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic) whilst
Sedgwick was to be Governor of Jamaica.
Penn and Venebles reservations about the quality of their troops were
vindicated when they failed to take San Domingo, the main port on
Hispaniola, in April 1655. Suffering from heat exhaustion and opening fire at
fireflies at night in the belief that they were the matches of Spanish
musketeers; Venebles men were repeatedly ambushed and mauled by the
Spanish garrison. Their plans were further damaged when Winslow died at
sea on 8 May 1655. Deflated by this set back to Cromwell’s ‘Western Design’
they decided to attack the less important Spanish colony of Jamaica, next
door.
They arrived of Jamaica on 11 May 1655 and occupied Santiago de la
Vega (Spanish Town) on the 12th. The Spanish garrison on Jamaica was
much weaker than that of Hispaniola and surrendered on 17 May 1655.
Before surrendering the Spanish not only released their cattle but freed their
slaves as well in the hope that they would wage a guerrilla war against the
English until they could re-take the Island. Known as ‘Maroons’ these exslaves soon began raiding and were to remain a threat to English plantations
well into the eighteenth century.
63
Penn and Venebles promptly left for England leaving Sedgwick in
charge as Governor but unfortunately he died of disease on 24 May and was
replaced by his deputy Col Edward Doyley who built Fort Cromwell to guard
the harbour. In 1657 the Spanish Governor Don Cristobel de Ysassi launched
two unsuccessful attempts to re-take Jamaica but by 1660 they had
abandoned all hope of its recapture and formally ceded it to England in 1670.
English colonisation of Jamaica was not rapid and the island became a
notorious centre for piracy against the Spanish.
The Jamaica campaign
signalled the end of English military activity in the Americas until after the
Restoration of 1660.
Predictably, the last aftershock of the civil war was in Maryland, which
remained unsettled after 15 years of upheaval.
On 2 June 1659 Deputy
Governor Cornwallis broke the colonies’ last governmental ties with the
original settlement of 1634 and left never to return. In fact the next time a
member of his family would set foot in the Chesapeake would be as the
commander of the British army that surrendered at Yorktown in 1781.
Ironically the great grandfather of the man who took the surrender, Col John
Washington was a resident of St Mary’s at the time and worked closely with
Cornwallis in the Maryland courts and Assembly.
Governor Fendall felt increasingly isolated after Cornwallis’ emigration
and felt that criticisms levelled at him by Baltimore were unwarranted. Not
only had he ventured his life in Baltimore’s cause in 1655 but as Governor he
had reformed the militia but improved government as well. Whether he feared
for his position or genuinely shifted his loyalties is hard to gauge but the
attempted coup he led in March 1660 should probably be seen in the same
64
context as attempts by Gen John Lambert and others to prevent the
Restoration of Charles II.
In the climate of political uncertainty prevalent in the declining years of
the Commonwealth internal divisions within the Army led to a split between
the Republicans and those who sought a rapprochement with the King. It is
possible that the Republicans in England secretly encouraged Fendall to oust
the Proprietary government and create a Commonwealth in Maryland. This
supposition is possibly borne out by the fact that his main ally in his bid for
power was none other than Fuller, the man who had sentenced him to death
in 1655.
In March 1660 Fendall and his confederates used a meeting of the
Maryland Assembly to declare the colony a Commonwealth governed by a
House of Burgesses, in may ways similar to the Parliamentarian government
set up after the Regicide of 1649. Secretary Philip Calvert naturally objected
to the usurpation of his brothers’ rights and walked out of the meeting.
Fendall’s bloodless rebellion was overtaken by events in England when the
Republic collapsed on 24 June 1660 and Charles II restored to the throne and
Berkeley to the Virginia governorship.
Charles II promptly reinstated Baltimore’s Charter and commanded that
the colonists give ‘…obedience to him’.
Philip Calvert was appointed
Governor and Baltimore demanded that ‘…that perfidious and perjured fellow,
Fendall…’ be arrested and executed. Whilst Fendall was in gaol Lt George
Godfrey, an officer in the Charles County militia cavalry planned a rescue
mission but was arrested and initially sentenced to ‘…be hanged by the neck
until he be dead’. Instead the sentence was commuted and both Fendall and
65
Godfrey had their estates confiscated and were exiled for life. The civil war,
on both sides of the Atlantic was finally over.
With the monarchy restored in England and the Regicides being
hunted down and punished by the new regime New England became the last
bastion of Commonwealth ideas and ‘The Cause’. Not only did it provide a
refuge for three of the signatories of Charles I’s death warrant but 18 years of
disruption in England had given the colony its first real taste of autonomous
government. It is perhaps unsurprising that it would be in Boston, at the heart
of the last English Republican enclave that the American Revolution would
begin in 1775, picking up the baton that their English cousins had dropped
115 years before.
References:
Michael Bellesiles, Arming America: The origins of a national Gun Culture
(New York: Kopf, 2000)
Herbert Osgood, The American Colonies in the seventeenth century (New
York: Colombia University Press, 1904)
Kevin Phillips, The Cousins’ Wars, (New York: Basic Books: New York 1997)
Dr Timothy Riordan, The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil
War, 1645-46 (Maryland Historical Society, 2004)
66