INTRODUCTION ix

modeled in part upon the County Palatine of Durham with its jura regalia. As a
matter of policy, Charles Calvert had sought to keep the inhabitants ignorant of
the charter provisions, to maintain the lower house of Assembly in a subservient
position and to concentrate all the important offices in the hands of relatives or
co-religionists. Thus the profits of power, as well as its exercise, were united in the
proprietor and those closely connected with him. The political impact of this
policy was sharpened by economic factors. The low price of tobacco had depressed
the economy of the province while attempts to control overproduction inevitably
led to friction. In some respects this concentration of power also gave rise to con-
flicts with the increasing imperial control exercised over the plantations in the
reign of Charles II.1

The dissatisfaction with proprietary rule deepened when Calvert returned to
England in 1684 to answer charges before the Lords of Trade and Plantations and
to defend the Maryland boundaries against the claims of William Penn. Upon his
departure he turned the government of the province over to the Council, the
members acting as deputy governors. Shortly thereafter George Talbot, a nephew
of the proprietor and the head councillor, was forced to flee the province after mur-
dering Christopher Rousby, a royal collector of customs, leaving the governing
body somewhat at loose ends. Although the King in Council, as part of the gen-
eral move to bring the chartered colonies into closer dependence on the crown,
ordered quo warranto proceedings against the Maryland charter in 1687, Calvert
took no steps to strengthen the provincial government until 1688 when one William
Joseph was sent over from England to serve as president of the Council. Tactless,
incompetent and with no experience in colonial administration, Joseph soon pro-
ceeded to arouse further opposition with his "high notions of prerogative." That
Calvert should have sent over such an advocate, in view of the unrest already pre-
vailing in the colony, indicates an uncompromising adherence to the prerogative
rights of the proprietor as defined in the charter. 2

The first news of the revolutionary events in England gave rise to wild rumors
(whether deliberately planted by anti-proprietary elements is not clear) that the
Catholic element controlling the colony was planning to declare for James II and
with the assistance of the Catholic French and the Indians to massacre any opposing
Protestants. These rumors were effectively quieted, largely by Colonel William
Darnell, a Catholic deputy governor and alleged leader of the "Jacobite party",
but the continued failure of Lord Baltimore or his Council to issue a proclamation
recognizing the new rulers, whether due to neglect or a break-down of communica-
tions, and the proroguing of the assembly until October 1689 provided the needed
pretext for revolution. 3

In July and August of 1689 a group of Protestant malcontents, largely drawn
from St. Marys, Charles and Calvert Counties, and headed by John Coode, Kenelm
Cheseldyn, Henry Jowles and Nehemiah Blackiston, in a swift and bloodless coup
seized the capital at St. Marys and the fortified residence of the proprietor at Mat-

1. Accounts of the government of Charles Calvert appear in 3 Osgood, The American
Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, c. XVI (1907); 2 Andrews, The Colonial Period of American
History, c. VIII (1936); M. P. Andrews, The Founding of Maryland, c. XIV-XV (1933); Kammen,
The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689, 55 MHM 293 (1960). The charter is set forth
in 3 Thorpe, Federal and State Constitutions 1677 (1909).

2. 3 Osgood, op. cit. supra, 486-90; 2 Andrews, op. cit. supra, 356-71; M. P. Andrews, op. cit.
supra, 311-14; Steiner, The Protestant Revolution in Maryland, Annual Rep. Amer. Hist. Asso.
(1897) 281, 282-89........

3. Steiner, op. cit. supra, 290-98; 3 Osgood, op. cit. supra, 490-95; 2 Andrews, op. cit. supra,
371-75.