Transcriber's Note Letters following a carat (^) were superscripted in the original text. CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE, The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel, " 1642-1653. [Illustration] A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society, May 12th, 1884, BY EDWARD INGLE, A. B. BALTIMORE, 1884. CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE, The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel, " 1642-1653. RICHARD INGLE. "Captain Richard Ingle, ... A pirate and a rebel, was discovered hovering about the settlement. "--_McSherry, History of Maryland, p. 59. _ "The destruction of the records by him [Ingle] has involved this episode in impenetrable obscurity, &c. "--_Johnson, Foundation of Maryland, p. 99. _ "Captain Ingle, the pirate, the man who gloried in the name of 'The Reformation. '"--_Davis, "The Day Star, " p. 210. _ "That Heinous Rebellion first put in Practice by that Pirate Ingle. "--_Acts of Assembly, 1638-64, p. 238. _ "Those late troubles raised there by that ungrateful Villaine Richard Ingle. "--_Ibid. , p. 270. _ "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. "--_Jefferson, Works, Vol. III, p. 105. _ Fund-Publication, No. 19 CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE, The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel, " 1642-1653. [Illustration] A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society, May 12th, 1884, BY EDWARD INGLE, A. B. BALTIMORE. 1884. PEABODY PUBLICATION FUND. COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION. 1884-5. HENRY STOCKBRIDGE, JOHN W. M. LEE, BRADLEY T. JOHNSON. PRINTED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO. PRINTERS TO THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY, BALTIMORE, 1884. CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE, THE MARYLAND "PIRATE AND REBEL. " In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the American colonies, from Massachusetts to South Carolina, were at intervals subject tovisitations of pirates, who were wont to appear suddenly upon thecoasts, to pillage a settlement or attack trading vessels and assuddenly to take flight to their strongholds. Captain Kidd was longcelebrated in prose and verse, and only within a few years havecredulous people ceased to seek his buried treasures. Thearch-villain, Blackbeard, was a terror to Virginians and Caroliniansuntil Spotswood, of "Horseshoe" fame, took the matter in hand, andsent after him lieutenant Maynard, who, slaying the pirate in hand tohand conflict, returned with his head at the bowsprit. [1] Lapse oftime has cast a romantic and semi-mythologic glamor around thesedepredators, and it is in many instances at this day extremelydifficult to distinguish fact from fiction. The unprotected situationof many settlements along the seaboard colonies rendered them an easyprey to rapacious sea rovers, but it might have been expected that theMaryland shores of the Chesapeake bay would be free from theirharassings. The province, however, it seems was not to enjoy such goodfortune, for in the _printed_ annals of her life appears the name ofone man, who has been handed down from generation to generation as a"pirate, " a "rebel" and an "ungrateful villain, " and other equallycomplimentary epithets have been applied to him. The originalhistorians of Maryland based their ideas about him upon some of thestatements made by those whom he had injured or attacked, and whodiffered from him in political creed. The later history writers havebeen satisfied to follow such authors as Bozman, McMahon and McSherry, or to copy them directly, without consulting original records. To thegeneral reader, therefore, who relies upon these authorities, RichardIngle is "a pirate and rebel" still. [2] A thorough defence of him would be almost impossible in view of thecomparative scarcity of records and the complicated politics of histime. In a review of his relations with Maryland, however, and by apresentation of all the facts, some light may be thrown upon hisgeneral character, and explanations, if not a defence, of his acts maybe made. Richard Ingle's name first appears in the records of Maryland underdate of March 23rd, 1641/2, when he petitioned the Assembly againstGiles Brent touching the serving of an execution by the sheriff. Hehad come to the province a few weeks before, bringing in his vesselCaptain Thomas Cornwallis, one of the original council, the greatestman in Maryland at that time, who had been spending some months inEngland. [3] Between the time of his arrival and the date of hispetition Ingle had no doubt been plying his business, tobacco trading, in the inlets and rivers of the province. No further record of him inMaryland this year has been preserved, but Winthrop wrote that on May3rd, 1642, "The ship Eleanor of London one Mr. || Inglee || masterarrived at Boston she was laden with tobacco from Virginia, and havingbeen about 14 days at sea she was taken with such a tempest, thatthough all her sails were down and made up, yet they were blown fromthe yards and she was laid over on one side two and a half hours, solow as the water stood upon her deck and the sea over-raking hercontinually and the day was as dark as if it had been night, andthough they had cut her masts, yet she righted not till the tempestassuaged. She staid here till the 4th of the (4) and was well fittedwith masts, sails, rigging and victuals at such reasonable rates asthat the master was much affected with his entertainment and professedthat he never found the like usage in Virginia where he had tradedthese ten years. "[4] Although his name is given an additional _e_ andthere are some few seeming discrepancies, the facts taken togetherpoint to the probability of his being Richard Ingle on his returnvoyage to England. Next year he was again in Maryland, and, asattorney for Mr. Penniston and partners, sued widow Cockshott fordebts incurred by her husband. The next entry in the "ProvincialRecords" under this date, March 6th, 1642/3, is an attachment againstWilliam Hardige in case of Captain Cornwallis. [5] This WilliamHardige, who was afterward one of Ingle's chief accusers, was veryfrequently involved in suits for debts to Cornwallis, and others. About the middle of the month of January, 1643/4, the boatswain ofthe "Reformation" brought against Hardige a suit for tobacco, returnable February 1st. Three days afterward a warrant was issued toWilliam Hardige, a tailor, for the arrest of Ingle for high treason, and Captain Cornwallis was bidden to aid Hardige, and the matter wasto be kept secret. [6] Ingle was arrested and given into the custody ofEdward Parker, the sheriff, by the lieutenant general of the province, Giles Brent, who also seized Ingle's goods and ship, until he shouldclear himself, and placed on board, under John Hampton, a guardordered to allow no one to come on the ship without a warrant from thelieutenant general. [7] Then was published, and as the records seem toshow, fixed on the vessel's mainmast the following proclamation. [8] "These are to publish & pclaym to all psons as well seamen as others, that Richard Ingle, m^r of his ship, is arrested upon highe treason tohis Ma^ty; & therefore to require all psons to be aiding & assistingto his Lo^ps officers in the seizing of his ship, & not to offer anyresistance or contempt hereunto, nor be any otherwaise aiding orassisting to the said Richard Ingle upon perl of highe treason to hisMa^ty. " Notwithstanding this proclamation Ingle escaped in the followingmanner. Parker had no prison, and, consequently, had to keep personalguard over his prisoner. He supposed, "from certain words spoken bythe Secretary, " that Brent and the council had agreed to let Ingle goon board his vessel, and when Captain Cornwallis and Mr. Neale camefrom the council meeting and carried Ingle to the ship, he accompaniedthem. [9] Arrived on board Cornwallis said "All is peace, " andpersuaded the commanding officer to bid his men lay down their armsand disperse, and then Ingle and his crew regained possession of theship. Under such circumstances the sheriff could not prevent hisescape, especially when a member of the council and the mostinfluential men in the province had assisted the deed by their acts orpresence. Besides it was afterwards said that William Durford, JohnDurford, and Fred. Johnson, at the instigation of Ingle, beat andwounded some of the guard, though this charge does not appear to havebeen substantiated. [10] On January 20th, 1643/4, the following warrant was issued to thesheriff. [11] "I doe hereby require (in his Ma^ties name) Richard Ingle, mariner to yield his body to Rob Ellyson, Sheriff of this County, before the first of ffebr next, to answer to such crimes of treason, as on his Ma^ties behalfe shalbe obiected ag^st him, upon his utmost perl, of the Law in that behalfe. And I doe further require all psons that can say or disclose any matter of treason ag^st the said Richard Ingle to informe his Lo^ps Attorny of it some time before the said Court to the end it may be then & there prosequuted G. BRENT. " Ingle, however, was not again arrested, though he still remained inthe neighborhood of St. Mary's, for on January 30th his vessel wasriding at anchor in St. George's river, and mention is made of him inthe records as being in the province. For nearly two months the Inglequestion was agitated and for the sake of clearness an account will begiven of the acts concerning him in the order of their occurrence. The information given by Hardige to Lewger which had caused Ingle'sarrest was: that in March or April, 1642, he heard Ingle, who was thenat Kent Island, and at other times in St. Mary's, say, that he was"Captain of Gravesend for the Parliament against the King;" that heheard Ingle say that in February of that year he had been bidden inthe King's name to come ashore at Accomac, in Virginia, but he, inthe parliament's name had refused to do so, and had threatened to cutoff the head of any one who should come on his ship. [12] On January29th, Hardige and others were summoned to appear and to give evidenceof--here the pirate enters--"pyratical & treasonable offences" ofIngle. On February 1st, the sheriff impannelled a jury of which RobertVaughan was chosen foreman, and witnesses were sworn, among themHardige who "being excepted at as infamous, " by Capt. Cornwallis, "wasnot found so. "[13] John Lewger, the attorney-general, having statedthat the Court had power to take cognizance of treason out of theprovince in order to determine where the offender should be tried, presented three bills for the jury to consider. The first billincluded the second charge brought by Hardige, the second ordered thejury to inquire "if on the 20th of November and some daies afore &since in the 17 yea of his Ma^ties reigne at Gravesend in Comit Kentin England" the accused "not having the feare of God before his eies, but instigated thereunto by the instigation of the divill & example ofother traitors of his Ma^tie traiterously & as an enemy did levie war& beare armes ag^st his ma^tie and accept & exercise the comand &captainship of the town of Gravesend, " and by the third bill theywere to inquire if Ingle did not, on April 5th in the eighteenth yearof Charles' reign, on his vessel in the Potomac river, near St. Clement's island, say, "that Prince Rupert was a rogue or rascall. " Ifthe rest of the testimony was no stronger or more conclusive than thatof Hardige, it is not surprising that the jury replied to all thebills "_Ignoramus_. "[14] Another jury was impannelled to investigatethe charge of Ingle's having broken from the sheriff, and theyreturned a like finding. In the afternoon the first jury were giventwo more bills, first, to find "whether in April 1643 Ingle, beingthen at Mattapanian, [15] St. Clement's hundred, said 'that PrinceRupert was Prince Traitor & Prince rogue and if he had him aboard hisship he would whip him at the capstan. '" This bill met the fate of theothers, but the second charging him with saying "that the king(meaning o^r Gover L. K. Charles) was no king neither would be noking, nor could be no king unless he did ioine with the Parlam^t, "caused the jury to disagree and no verdict having been reached at 7P. M. , they adjourned until the following Saturday. [16] On that day, February 3rd, at the request of the attorney-general the jury weredischarged and the bill given to another jury who returned it"_Ignoramus_. "[17] In spite of the unanimity of all the juries infinding no true indictment, another warrant was issued for the arrest, by Parker or Ellyson, of Ingle for high treason, and after a fruitlessattempt to secure by another jury a different finding, Ingle wasimpeached on February 8th, for having on January 20th, 1643/4, committed assaults upon the vessels, guns, goods, and person of oneBishop, and upon being reproached for these acts, having threatened tobeat down the dwellings of people and even of Giles Brent, and for"the said crimes of pyracie, mutinie, trespasse, contempt &misdemeanors & every of them severally. "[18] If Ingle did commit thesedepredations he was, no doubt instigated by the proceedings institutedon that day against him, and moreover by the fact that Henry Bishophad been among the witnesses to be summoned against him. Nothing more was done in the matter, for from a copy of a certificateto Ingle under date of February 8th, it is learned that "Upon certainecomplaints exhibited by his Lo^ps attorny ag^st M^r R. Ingle theattending & psequution whereof was like to cause great demurrage tothe ship & other damages & encumbrances in the gathering of his debtsit was demanded by his Lo^ps said attorny on his Lo^ps behalfe thatthe said R. I. Deposite in the country to his Lo^ps use one barrell ofpowder & 400 l of shott to remaine as a pledge that the said R. I. Shall by himself or his attorny appeare at his Lo^ps Co^rt at S. Maries on or afore the first of ffebr next to answere to all suchmatters as shalbe then and there obiected ag^st him * * * * and uponhis appearance the said powder & shott or the full value of it at thethen rate of the country to be delivered to him his attorny or assigneupon demand. "[19] What a change of policy, from charging a man with treason, the penaltyfor which was death, to offering him the right of bail for theappearance of his attorney, if necessary, to meet indefinite charges!In view of all the facts, it seems probable that the Marylandauthorities were committed to the King's cause by the commissiongranted by him to Leonard Calvert in 1643, and by their action inseizing Ingle; that after his arrest it was thought to be injudiciousto go to extremes, and that they made little resistance to, if theydid not connive at, his escape. Certainly, efforts to recapture himmust have been very feeble, for when the sheriff demanded the tobaccoand cask due him from the defendant for summoning juries, witnesses, &c. , it was found that Ingle had left in the hands of the Secretarythe required amount. [20] In arresting Ingle for uttering treasonablewords, the palatine government was not only placing itself upon theside of King Charles, but was preparing to do what he had beenprevented from doing a few months before. For when at his command somepersons who had acted treasonably were condemned to death, parliamentdeclared that "all such indictments and proceedings thereon wereunjust and illegal; and that if any man was executed or suffered hurt, for any thing he had done by their order, the like punishment shouldbe inflicted by death or otherwise, upon such prisoners as were, orshould be, taken by their forces, " and their lives were saved. [21] Theauthorities of Maryland themselves show why Ingle was allowed toescape. On March 16th, Lewger showed that "whereas Richard Ingle wasobnoxious to divers suits & complaints of his Lo^p for divers andsundry crimes all w^ch upon composition for the publique good & safetywere suspended ag^st the said Richard Ingle assuming to leave in thecountry to the publique need at this time, " powder and shot, but hehad not paid the composition and had left without paying custom dues, which were required for the proper discharge of his ship "by the law &custom of all Ports, " he prayed that all of Ingle's goods, debts, &c. , might be sequestered until he should clear himself. [22] Under thecircumstances, the grave charges pending against him, as there is noproof that he had known the terms of composition, a crew and vesselbeing at his command, it is not surprising that he sailed away fromdanger, without attending to the formality of clearing, and leavingunpaid debts, for Lewger claimed 600 pounds of tobacco from him, aspayment for some plate and a scimitar, for which Cornwallis wentsecurity. [23] There is a touch of seeming sarcasm in the suggestionthat the deposit by Ingle of ammunition would have relieved the publicneed, for he would have been that much less dangerous, and thegovernment would have been so much the more prepared to resist him. But how were those who assisted him treated? On January 30th, ThomasCornwallis, James Neale, Edward Parker and John Hampton, wereimpeached for having rescued him, and thereby of being accessories tohigh treason. Cornwallis made answer, "that he did well understand thematters charged ag^st the said Richard Ingle to be of no importancebut suggested of mean malice of the ---- William hardige, as hathappeared since in that the grand enquest found not so muchprobability in the accusations, as that it was fitt to putt him to histriall" and "he supposed & understood no other but that the said rich. Ingle went aboard w^th the licence and consent of the L. G. & Counsell& of the officer in whose custody he was & as to the escape & rescuousin manner as is charged he is no way accessory to it & thereforeprayeth to be dismissed. "[24] The judgment was delayed, but Cornwalliswas anxious to be at once discharged. The lieutenant general and theattorney general, therefore, having consulted together, foundCornwallis guilty, and fined him one thousand pounds of tobacco, though at the request of the accused the fine was respited until thelast day of the month, when Brent ordered the sheriff "to levie 1000lbs tob. On any goods or debts" of Capt. Tho. Cornwallis "for so muchadjudged by way of fine unto the Lord Propriet^r ag^st him at theCourt held on the 9^th ffeb last. "[25] This fine, which was to begiven to the attorney of Tho. Wyatt, commander of Kent Island, inpayment of Lord Baltimore's debt to him, Cornwallis afterwardacknowledged he had paid. [26] Neale did not make his appearance before the court, though he seems tohave been in St. Mary's, and was suspended from the council for hiscontempt. On February 11th, being accused of having begged Ingle fromthe sheriff, he denied all the charges, and in a few days was restoredto his seat in the council, upon the eve of Brent's departure for KentIsland. [27] Parker said Ingle had escaped against his will, and he wasdischarged, while Hampton escaped prosecution, presumably, for thereis no further record of action in the case against him. [28] But it would have been bad policy for the authorities to allow thematter to drop without apparent effort on their part to punishsomebody, and Cornwallis had to bear the brunt of their attacks. Thefeeling against him was so strong, according to his own statements, that besides paying a fine, the highest "that could by law be laidupon him, " he was compelled for personal safety to take ship withIngle for England, where the doughty captain testified before aparliamentary committee of Cornwallis' devotion to its cause, and ofthe losses he had sustained in its behalf. [29] The lieutenant governor, and council, may have congratulatedthemselves about the departure of Ingle and Cornwallis, but thatmariner and trader was preparing to return to Maryland. On August26th, 1644, certain persons trading to Virginia petitioned the Houseof Commons to allow them to transport ammunition, clothes, andvictuals, custom free, to the plantations of the Chesapeake, whichwere at that time loosely classed under the one name--Virginia. TheCommons granted to the eight[30] vessels mentioned in the petition, the right of carrying victuals, clothes, arms, ammunition, and othercommodities, "for the supply and Defence and Relief of the Planters, "and referred the latter part of the petition, asking power tointerrupt the Hollanders and other strange traders, to the House ofLords. [31] It is hardly necessary to say at this point that theplanters to be relieved and defended by the cargoes of the vessels, were planters not at enmity with the parliament. For vessels fromLondon were used in the interests of parliament, while those fromBristol were the King's ships. De Vries, the celebrated Dutchman, whohas left such acute observations about the early colonists, wrote thatwhile visiting Virginia in 1644 he saw two London ships chase afly-boat to capture it, and it was reported in Massachusetts that acaptured Indian had given as a reason for the Indian massacre, onApril 18th, 1644, "that they did it because they saw the English tookup all their lands, * * * and they took this season for that theyunderstood that they were at war in England, and began to go to waramong themselves, for they had seen a fight in the river between aLondon ship, which was for the parliament, and a Bristol ship, whichwas for the King. "[32] Among the ships commissioned by the parliament, which were armed, wasthe "Reformation, " of which Ingle was still master. He was in Londonin October, 1644, receiving cargo, and Cornwallis entrusted to himgoods, valued at 200 pounds sterling. [33] The vessel soon afterwardssailed, and was in Maryland in February. In the province, at thattime, affairs were in a very unsettled condition. The energeticClaiborne, who was also called by Maryland authorities a pirate and arebel, but who was a much better man than is generally supposed, andwhose life ought to be especially studied, was still pushing hisclaims to Kent Island, and Leonard Calvert had been compelled to visitVirginia more than once during the winter in trying to prevent hisactions. The Indians were aroused and prone to take advantage ofdisputes between the factions in the province, while the coloniststhemselves were in a state of unrest. At this juncture Ingleappeared. Streeter wrote of his coming, "several vessels appeared inthe harbor, from which an armed force disembarked, (Feb. 14, 1645, )under the command of Capt. Richard Ingle, St. Mary's was taken; manyof the members were prisoners; the Governor was a fugitive inVirginia; and the Province in the hands of a force, professing to act, and probably acting, under authority of Parliament. "[34] There is noauthority given for the first part of this statement, though it is notimprobable, and is partly substantiated by the exaggerated chargesagainst Ingle, made by the Assembly of 1649, and the references to himin proclamations. There is no mention in the provincial records ofCalvert's having being forced out of the province, but, on thecontrary, Calvert in his commission to Hill in 1646 stated that "atthis present, I have occasion, for his lordship's service to be absentout the said province, " and says nothing at all about Ingle. Therebellion has been called "Claiborne's and Ingle's, " and, althoughassociation with Claiborne would not have been dishonorable to anyone, historical accuracy seems to call for a distinction. In Greene'sproclamation of pardon given in March, 1647/8; in the letter writtenby the Assembly to Lord Baltimore in April, 1649; in the Proprietor'scommissions for the great seal, for muster master general, forcommander of Kent Island, respectively, in 1648; and in his letter toStone in 1649, the rebellion is attributed to the instigation ofIngle. [35] In the commission to Governor Stone, of August, 1648, isthe statement, "so as such pardon or pardons extend not to thepardoning of William Clayborne heretofore of the isle of Kent in oursaid province of Maryland and now or late of Virginia or of hiscomplices in their late rebellion against our rights and dominion inand over the said province nor of Richard Ingle nor John Durfordmariner, " and in the act of Oblivion, in April, 1650, pardon isgranted to all excepting "Richard Ingle and John Darford Marryners, and such others of the Isle of Kent" as were not pardoned by LeonardCalvert. [36] In these two instances alone is any kind of anopportunity offered for connecting the two names, even here they areseparated, and the distinction is made greater by the fact that in acommission concerning Hill, also of August, 1648, and in other places, Claiborne is mentioned with no reference at all to Ingle. [37] It isprobable, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Ingle andClaiborne never planned any concerted action, but that each tookadvantage of the other's deeds, to further his own interests. To return to the year 1645. The rebellion supposed to have beenoriginated by Ingle, was according to statements of the Assembly of1649, continued by his accomplices, and during it "most of yourLordships Royal friends here were spoiled of their whole Estate andsent away as banished persons out of the Province those few thatremained were plundered and deprived in a manner of all Livelyhood andsubsistance only Breathing under that intollerable Yoke which theywere forced to bear under those Rebells. "[38] The people were tenderedan oath against Lord Baltimore, which all the Roman Catholics refusedto take, except William Thompson, about whom there is some doubt. [39]Ingle, himself, said that he had been able to take some places fromthe papists and malignants, and with goods taken from them hadrelieved the well-affected to parliament. Further on in this paper itwill be seen that Roman Catholics' property was attacked under Ingle'sauspices, but that the bad treatment of them did not continue long andwas not very severe, may be inferred from the fact that in 1646, therewere enough members of the council, who were Roman Catholics, in theprovince to elect Hill governor. In this connection ought to bementioned the report, by an uncertain author, concerning the Marylandmission, written in 1670. The report is devoted principally to anaccount of a miracle which, strange to say, had not been recorded, asfar as is known, although twenty-four years had elapsed since it hadoccurred. "It has been established by custom and usage of theCatholics, " the uncertain author wrote, "who live in Maryland, duringthe whole night of the 31st of July following the festival of St. Ignatius, to honor with a salute of cannon their tutelar guardian andpatron saint. Therefore, in the year 1646, mindful of the solemncustom, the anniversary of the holy father being ended, they wishedthe night also consecrated to the honor of the same, by the continualdischarge of artillery. At the time, there were in the neighborhoodcertain soldiers, unjust plunderers, Englishmen indeed by birth, ofthe heterodox faith, who, coming the year before with a fleet, hadinvaded with arms, almost the entire colony, had plundered, burnt, andfinally, having abducted the priests and driven the Governor himselfinto exile, had reduced it to a miserable servitude. These hadprotection in a certain fortified citadel, built for their owndefence, situated about five miles from the others; but now, arousedby the nocturnal report of the cannon, the day after, that is on thefirst of August, rush upon us with arms, break into the houses of theCatholics, and plunder whatever there is of arms or powder. "[40] Nowthis statement bears upon the face of it a contradiction, for therestriction upon the Roman Catholics could not have been very great, since they were allowed to retain, up to August, 1646, the powder andcannon necessary to fire continual salutes, moreover, when next daythe soldiers came to their dwellings, nothing seems to have been takenexcept the ammunition, and this was done no doubt to prevent anyfurther alarm, that a body of troops situated as they were mightreasonably have felt at hearing artillery discharges five miles away. Many writers have stated that good Fathers White and Fisher werecarried off to England by Ingle, but from the records of the Jesuitsat Stonyhurst, it is learned that Father White was seized "by a bandof soldiers, " "and carried to England in chains, " and also that in"1645 This year the colony was attacked by a party of 'rowdies' ormarauders and the missioners were carried off to Virginia. "[41] Theseextracts serve to show what was the confusion existing in the minds ofcontemporaries of Ingle, and the extreme difficulty, therefore, offinding the real truth. But in the sworn statements preserved in theMaryland records, some facts may be found. Within a few days of theevents at St. Mary's resulting in partial subversion of Baltimore'sgovernment, the "Reformation" was riding at the mouth of St. Inigoes'creek, near which was situated the "Cross, " the manor house ofCornwallis, who, when he had been obliged in 1644 to leave Maryland, had left his house and property in the hands of Cuthbert Fenwick, hisattorney. [42] Fenwick was intending to go to Accomac, Virginia, andsent Thomas Harrison, a servant, who had been bought from Ingle byCornwallis, and a fellow servant, Edw. Matthews, to help Andrew Monroeto bring a small pinnace nearer the house. [43] In the pinnace wereclothes, bedding, and other goods, the property of Fenwick. Monroerefused to bring the pinnace, and waited until Ingle came into thecreek;[44] and allowed the pinnace to be captured, (if that may becalled a capture to which consent was given, ) and plundered. Fenwicksaid that the pinnace was plundered by "Richard Ingle or hisassociates;"[45] another witness said that Ingle "seized or plundered"the pinnace, and Monroe was employed by him in his acts against theprovince, and while in command of another pinnace assisted in thepillaging of Copley's house at Portoback. [46] Matthews as well asother servants were held captives on the "Reformation, " and Harrisontook up arms for Ingle and afterwards left the province and fled toAccomac. Fenwick went on board, no doubt to protest against such acts, and when he returned to the shore was seized by a party of men underJohn Sturman, who seems to have been a leader in the rebellion, andcarried back to the vessel where he was kept prisoner. [47] In themeantime Thomas Sturman, John Sturman, coopers, and William Hardwick, a tailor, led a party to sack the dwelling of Cornwallis, who, in apetition to the Governor and Council in 1652, described it as "aCompetent Dwelling house, furnished with plate, Linnen hangings, beding brass pewter and all manner of Household Stuff worth at least athousand pounds. " In the same petition he said that the party"plundered and Carryed away all things in It, pulled downe and burntthe pales about it, killed and destroyed all the Swine and Goates andkilled or mismarked allmost all the Cattle, tooke or dispersed all theServants, Carryed away a Great quantity of Sawn Boards from the pitts, and ript up Some floors of the house. And having by these Violent andunlawfull Courses forst away my Said Attorny the Said Thomas and JohnSturman possest themselves of the Complts house as theire owne, dweltin it Soe long as they please and at their departing tooke the locksfrom the doors and y^e Glass from the windowes and in fine ruined hiswhole Estate to the damage of the Complt at least two or threethousand pounds. "[48] It may be well to bear in mind that Cornwallisin this petition, which was against the two Sturmans and Hardwick, whodid not deny the allegations, but claimed the statute of limitation, no mention is made of Ingle, save that on his ship Fenwick wasdetained. [49] In the latter part of the year 1645 began the era of petitions, whichshould be taken with allowance, for the age has been characterized asone of perjury, and in the representations by both parties in Marylandpolitics, advantage was taken of every slight point to strengthentheir respective positions, and from internal evidence it seems thatsome statements were garbled, to say the least about them. The openingof this era was marked by the presentation, December 25th, 1645, bythe committee of plantations, to the House of Lords, the followingstatements and suggestions, viz: that many had complained of thetyranny of recusants in Maryland, "who have seduced and forced many ofhis Majesty's subjects from their religion;" that by a certificatefrom the Judge of the Admiralty grounded upon the deposition ofwitnesses taken in that Court: Leonard Calvert, late Governor there, had a commission from Oxford to seize such persons, ships and goods asbelonged to any of London; which he registered, proclaimed, andendeavored to put in execution at Virginia; and that one Brent, hisdeputy Governor, had seized upon a ship, empowered under a commissionderived from the Parliament, because she was of London, and afterwardnot only tampered with the crew thereof to carry her to Bristol, thenin hostility against the Parliament, but also tendered them an oathagainst the Parliament; the committee under these circumstancesrecommended that the province should be settled in the hands ofprotestants. [50] This was the first part of the determined effort todeprive the great Cecil Calvert of his charter of Maryland, whichRichard Ingle continued so vigorously in after years. He was probablyin England at that time, for he refers to the action of the Lords inregard to the settling of the Maryland government, in his petition ofFebruary 24th, 1645/6, to the House of Lords. To this petition wasappended a statement on behalf of Cornwallis, which will explain it. Cornwallis said that on Ingle's return to England, to cover up hisdefalcation in the matter of 200 pounds worth of goods, he hadcomplained to the committee for examinations against Cornwallis as anenemy to the State. The matter was given a full hearing, and when itwas left to the law and the defendant was granted the right of havingwitnesses in Maryland examined, Ingle had him arrested upon twofeigned actions to the value of 15, 000 pounds sterling. Some friendssucceeded in rescuing him from prison, and then Ingle sent thefollowing petition to the House of Lords, which had the effect ofstopping for the time proceedings against him. [51] Having done so hecarried the prosecution no further. The petition is somewhat lengthy, but it should be read as it is eminently characteristic of theman. [52] "The humble petition of Richard Ingle, showing That whereas thepetitioner, having taken the covenant, and going out with letters ofmarque, as Captain of the ship Reformation, of London, and sailing toMaryland, where, finding the Governor of that Province to havereceived a commission from Oxford to seize upon all ships belonging toLondon, and to execute a tyrannical power against the Protestants, andsuch as adhered to the Parliament, and to press wicked oaths uponthem, and to endeavor their extirpation, the petitioner, conceivinghimself, not only by his warrant, but in his fidelity to theParliament, to be conscientiously obliged to come to theirassistance, did venture his life and fortune in landing his men andassisting the said well affected Protestants against the saidtyrannical government and the Papists and malignants. It pleased Godto enable him to take divers places from them, and to make him asupport to the said well affected. But since his return to England, the said Papists and malignants, conspiring together, have broughtfictitious acts against him, at the common law, in the name of ThomasCornwallis and others for pretended trespass, in taking away theirgoods, in the parish of St. Christopher's, London, which are the verygoods that were by force of war justly and lawfully taken from thesewicked Papists and malignants in Maryland, and with which he relievedthe poor distressed Protestants there, who otherwise must havestarved, and been rooted out. "Now, forasmuch as your Lordships in Parliament of State, by the orderannexed, were pleased to direct an ordinance to be framed for thesettlement of the said province of Maryland, under the Committee ofPlantations, and for the indemnity of the actors in it, and for thatsuch false and feigned actions for matters of war acted in foreignparts, are not tryable at common law, but, if at all, before the Courtand Marshall; and for that it would be a dangerous example to permitPapists and malignants to bring actions of trespass or otherwiseagainst the well affected for fighting for the Parliament. "The petitioner most humbly beseecheth your Lordships to be pleased todirect that this business may be heard before your Lordships at thebar, or to refer it to a committee to report the true state of thecase and to order that the said suits against the petitioner at thecommon law may be staid, and no further proceeded in. " It is not known how this matter was settled, but in 1647, September8th, Ingle transferred to Cornwallis "for divers good and valuablecauses" the debts, bills, &c. , belonging to him, and made him hisattorney to collect the same. Among the items in the inventoryappended to the power of attorney were "A Bill and note of JohnSturman's, the one dated the 10th of April 1645 for Satisfaction oftenn pounds of powder the other dated the 4th of April 1645 for 900 lof Tob & Caske, " and "an acknowledgem^t of Cap^t William Stone datedthe 10th of April 1645 for a receipt of a Bill of Argall Yardley'sEsq, for 9860 l of Tobacco and Caske, "[53] which show that themercantile interests of Ingle were not subservient to his supposedwarlike measures. A consideration of the statements by Cornwallis andof those by Ingle, proves that the latter must have had considerableinfluence in the Parliament, and that he was prepared to stand by anddefend all his actions, and the similarity to his petition of ideasand even of words in certain places, would safely allow the conjecturethat Ingle had something to do in the report of 1645 alreadymentioned. It is curious also to compare his reference to theill-treatment of the Protestants, and the mention of the hardships ofBaltimore's adherents, made by the Assembly of 1649. There is norecord of the presence of Ingle in Maryland after the spring of 1645, though the rebellion which he was accused of instigating continuedsome months longer. [54] For continuity, a rapid sketch of the historyof Maryland during the next two years must be given. For fourteen months the province was without a settled government. InMarch, 1645/6, the Virginian Assembly in view of the secret flightinto Maryland of Lieutenant Stillwell, and others, enacted that "Capt. Tho. Willoughby, Esq. , and Capt. Edward Hill be hereby authorized togo to Maryland or Kent to demand the return of such persons who arealreadie departed from the colony. And to follow such furtherinstructions as shall be given them by the Governor and Council. "[55]After Hill had arrived in Maryland he was elected governor by themembers of the council, who, notwithstanding Ingle's rebellion, werein the province. The right of the council to elect Hill was afterwardsdisputed, but one word must be said in regard to this. The reason fordisputing the right was that the councilors could elect only a memberof the council to be governor. In the commission to Leonard Calvert in1637, no such restriction was made, [56] in the commission of 1642 therestriction occurs, and in the commission of 1644, which has beenpreserved in two copies, the same provision was made. [57] As LordBaltimore himself had confused ideas about this commission, it is notsurprising that the council thought they were doing right in electingHill. Even if the council had no right to act thus, Hill had strongerclaims to the governorship. In Lord Baltimore's commission to LeonardCalvert, of September 18th, 1644, is the provision:[58] "and lastlywhereas our said Lieutenant may happen to dye or be absent from timeto time out of the said province of Maryland, before we can havenotice to depute another in his place we do therefore hereby grantunto him full power and Authority from time to time in such Cases toNominate elect and appoint such an able person inhabiting and residingwithin our said province of Maryl^d, as he in his discretion shallmake choice of & think fit to be our Lieutenant Governor, &c. " Such isthe command as recorded in the Council Proceedings of Maryland. ButBaltimore, in 1648, in a commission to the Governor and council inMaryland, wrote that Leonard Calvert had no right to appoint anyperson in his stead "unless such persons were of our privy councilthere, "[59] although he recognized the validity of Leonard's death-bedappointment by witnesses of Governor Greene. He, to be sure, was amember of the council, but this fact was not mentioned in the preambleof the commission, in which the words, with some slight changes intense and mood, are almost identical with those in the preamble of thecommission of July 30th, 1646, from Calvert to Hill, which, notwithstanding doubts to the contrary, must have been genuine. ForLord Baltimore, in the commission of 1648 seems to have acknowledgedthat his brother had granted the commission to Hill, [60] who, in aletter to Calvert, said that he had promised him one-half the customsand rents, the remuneration stipulated in his commission. Hill, notknowing that Calvert was dead, wrote him a letter, dated June 18th, 1647, urging the payment of his dues, and the next day Greene, the newGovernor, replied that he did not understand the matter, but that ifHill would send an attorney "full satisfaction should be given him. "When Hill wrote next he waived the authority of Calvert, and based hisclaim upon the right of the council to elect him, and in this wayplaced himself upon an illegal footing, which circumstance was takenadvantage of for a time by the Maryland authorities. But finally at acourt held June 10th, 1648, [61] one year after Calvert's death, aclaim from Hill was presented "for Arrears of what consideration wasCovenanted unto him by Leonard Calvert, Esq. , for his Service in theoffice of Governor of this Province, being the half of his Ldps rentsfor the year 1646 & the half of the Customes for the Same yeare. " Itwas ordered by the court, "that ye half of that yeares Customes as faras it hath not already been received by Capt. Hill shall be paid untohim by the Ld Prop^rs Attorny out of the first profitts which shall bereceivable to his Ldp * * * his Ldps Receiver shall accompt & pay untoCap^t Edward Hill or his assignes the one halfe of his Ldps rents dueat Christmas next in Lieu of the S^d rents of the yeare 1646 whichwere otherwise disposed of to his Ldps use. " There is, however, onefact which must not be lost sight of in regard to Leonard Calvert'scommission to Hill. If it was executed by a member of the council, andtherefore was a forgery, for in the records Calvert's name is signedto it, and the place of the seal is noted, it is not at all likelythat it would have been allowed by Calvert on his return, and by hisimmediate successors, to be preserved and copied into the records. Ifall other proof failed this last would establish the validity ofHill's commission. But Calvert, who, throughout his whole career as governor of Maryland, showed unchanging devotion to his brother's interests, gathered inVirginia a body of soldiers and returned at the end of 1646 to St. Mary's, where he easily repossessed himself of that part of thecountry, though Kent Island remained still in possession ofClaiborne's forces. Thus was ended what has been called Ingle'srebellion, in which the loss of the lord proprietor's personal estate"was in truth so small as that it was not Considerable when it wascome in Ballance with the Safety of the Province which as the thenpresent Condition of things stood, hung upon so ticklish a pin as thatunless such a disposition had been made thereof an absolute ruin andsubversion of the whole Province would inevitably have followed. "[62]Another proof of Hill's regular appointment is that Calvert on the29th of December, soon after his return, re-assembled the Assembly, which Hill had summoned and adjourned, and proceeded with it to enactlaws. [63] Although a later Assembly in 1648 protested against the lawspassed by this Assembly, the proprietor recognized them as valid, andwrote in 1649 that it had been "lawfully continued" by his brother"ffor although the first Sumons were issued by one who was not ourLawfull Lieutenant there, yet being afterwards approved of by one thatwas, it is all one, as to the proceedings afterward as if at firstthey had issued from a lawfull Governor. "[64] The writer is no lawyer, but it seems, that, if the Assembly of Hill was "lawfully continued"and "approved" by Calvert, the recognition by Baltimore must have beenlegally retroactive, and, therefore, that the laws passed beforeCalvert's return must have been legally valid, saving of course theproprietor's dissent. Leonard Calvert having spent some months insettling the affairs of the province died, June 9th, 1647, and Greeneruled in his stead. In the following March, Ingle's name again appearsin the records. The governor, on March 4th, 1648, proclaimed pardon toall except Richard Ingle, and in August of the same year the lordproprietor issued, besides his commissions to Governor Stone, to thecouncil and to secretary Thomas Hatton, commissions, for the GreatSeal, for muster master general, and for commander of the Isle ofKent. John Price was made muster master general for his "greatFidelity unto us in that Occasion of the late insurrection andRebellion in our said province was begun there by that NotoriousVillain Richard Ingle and his Complices, " and Robert Vaughan wasappointed commander of Kent for the same reason. [65] Then in 1650 waspassed the act of Oblivion, excepting Ingle, Durford, and some of theIsle of Kent. In 1649, Baltimore granted to James Lindsey and RichardWillan certain lands, and directed that in the grants should beinserted the notice "of their singular and approved worth courage andfidelity (in Ingle's insurrection) to the end a memory of their meritand of his (the Proprietor) sense thereof may remain upon record tothe honour of them and their posterity forever. "[66] An investigation into Ingle's doings at this time may explain thebitter terms in which he is mentioned in the official records ofMaryland, and also why upon him was foisted the chief responsibilityfor the disturbances. During the year 1646, Lord Baltimore was engagedin defending his charter, against the justice of which such gravecharges had been brought by Ingle and others, in the winter of 1645/6. On January 23rd, 1646/7, application in Baltimore's behalf, was madeto the House of Lords, that the depositions of witnesses made beforethe Admiralty Court in regard to Maryland should be read. In a fewweeks Baltimore begged that the actions looking to the repeal of hischarter might be delayed, and on the same day certain merchants inLondon, who were interested in the Virginia trade, requested that theordinance should be sent to the Commons, for Baltimore's petition wasintended only to cause delay. [67] The matter was stayed for the time, but by December, 1649, Ingle had sent to the Council of State apetition and remonstrance against the government of Lord Baltimore'scolony. The hearing, which was referred to the Committee of theAdmiralty, was postponed until January 10th, 1650, when Baltimore'sagent requested it to be deferred until the 16th. Witnesses weresummoned and upon Baltimore's appearance, he was ordered to makeanswer in writing to Ingle by the 30th. On January 29th the matter wasagain postponed until February 6th, "in respect of extraordinaryoccasions not permitting them to hear the same to-morrow. " Delayfollowed delay until March 1st, when Ingle was "unprovided to prove"the charges against Lord Baltimore for misconduct in the governmentof Maryland, but on the 15th of the same month, "after several debatesof the business depending between Capt. Ingle and Lord Baltimore, touching a commission granted to Leonard Calvert, * * * by the lateKing at Oxford in 1643" the advocate for the State and the attorneygeneral were directed to examine the validity of the original charterto Cecil, Lord Baltimore. Allusion to this matter was again made inthe records, but nothing showing its result unless it be the order ofthe Council of State, of December 23d, 1651, that Lord Baltimoreshould be allowed to "pursue his cause according to law. "[68] Ingle seems to have been at this time in the service of what was oncea parliament, but which had been reduced in 1648, by Pride's purge, toabout sixty members. In February, 1650, he informed the Council ofState that on board two ships, the "'Flower de Luce' and the 'Thomasand John, ' were persons bound to Virginia, who were enemies of theCommonwealth. " The vessels were stayed for over a month, when theywere allowed to sail down to Gravesend, where, before they left forVirginia, the mayor and justices were to "take the superscription ofpassengers and mariners not to engage against the Commonwealth. "[69]In April of this year the Council of State ordered the payment toIngle of £30 sterling for services and care in keeping CaptainGardner, who had been arrested for treason, in having tried to betrayPortland Castle. [70] He again comes into notice in 1653, by someletters written by him to Edward Marston. He had been cast away byshipwreck in the Downs, and was then at Dover, where he had been veryill. Having heard that two prizes which he had helped to secure, hadbeen condemned and that the rest of the men had obtained their shares, he wrote to secure the eleven shares due him, and told Marston to sendone part to his wife, and the other to him. On November 14th, he againwrote that he had received no answer although "I have written youevery post these 3 weeks, having been sick my want of money isgreat. "[71] This is the last fact, which can at present be found, about Richard Ingle, who first came into notice demanding tobaccodebts, and is discovered, at last demanding prize money. These twoacts were typical of the man, he was always on the lookout for gainand yet remained a staunch adherent to the Long Parliament, which didso much to strengthen English liberties, but whose acts led to suchextreme measures as those which culminated in the execution of theself-willed unfortunate Charles I. By a careful consideration of all the facts, it will be seen that theacts of Richard Ingle are in some cases legendary, and as suchnaturally have become more heinous with every successive account. Theendeavor has been in this paper to give an unprejudiced historicalaccount of his life, but in view of the mis-statements about him, itstill remains to sum up, and examine the specific charges against him. He is accused of having stolen the silver seal of the province. LordBaltimore's own statements, however, concerning it are doubtful. "Whereas our great seal of the said province of Maryland wastreacherously and violently taken away from thence by Richard Ingle orhis complices in or about February, [72] 1644/5, " he wrote in August, 1648. Nothing had been said according to the records up to that timein Maryland about the loss of the seal. On the contrary, in acommission given by Governor Greene on July 4th, 1647, over a yearbefore the proprietor's commission for the great seal, are the words, "Given under my hand and the Seal of the province. "[73] and in theproclamation of March 4th, 1648, Greene promised pardon "under myhand and the seal of the province, "[74] to all out of the provinceexcept Ingle, who should confess their faults before a certain date. It may be urged against these facts that "under my hand and the sealof the province, " was mere legal phraseology. But those which havebeen given are the only two instances of the use of the term from 1646to 1648, and are both preceded and followed by commissions, &c. , ending "and this shall be your commission, " or "given at St. Mary's, "in which, if the term was merely technical language, why was it notmore frequently used? Again, it may be said that it was a temporaryseal. If it were, it is strange that no mention is made of the fact inthe records of the province, or in Lord Baltimore's commission for thenew seal. It was hoped and desired that in this paper no occasionwould arise to make accusations against any of Ingle's opponents, buthistoric truth now requires it to be done. It must be remembered thatBaltimore was in constant danger of losing his charter, in a greatmeasure, on account of Ingle's activity against him. Upon hisauthority alone is based the charge against Ingle about the seal, butof how much value is the authority of one who, at the very same timeand in a commission sent out with that of the seal, wrote that LeonardCalvert "was limited by our commission to him not to appoint" anyperson governor "unless such person were of our privy councilthere, "[75] although no such limitation as to the governor's right wasmade in any of the commissions to Leonard Calvert so this clause inthe lord proprietor's commission resolves itself into a Machiavellianstatement. It is hardly credible that Lord Baltimore could have madesuch a statement from ignorance, for no one knew the commission betterthan the author of it. But notwithstanding the evidence against LordBaltimore, the writer has too high an opinion of his character toattribute to him the diplomatic lie. Lord Baltimore was no doubtinfluenced a great deal, by what was reported to him concerningMaryland, so the blame must rest upon his informers. Still if thesepersons would resort to such methods in one case, they would be likelyto do so in other instances. Whoever was the author of the statement, it throws doubt upon other supposed facts of this period, and leads tothe conclusion that the commission for a new seal was one of thereconstructive acts of the proprietor, on a par with the treatment ofHill. Ingle has been charged with the destruction of the records of theprovince. What was Baltimore's opinion? "We understand" he wrote in1651, "that in the late Rebellion there One thousand Six hundredForty and four most of the Records of that province being then lost orembezzled. "[76] This hearsay statement of Lord Baltimore may have beenbased upon the testimony in 1649, of Thomas Hatton, Secretary of theprovince, of the receipt of books from Mr. Bretton, who "delivered tome this Book, and another lesser Book with a Parchment Cover, diversof the Leaves thereof being cut or torn out, and many of them beinglost and much worn out and defaced together with divers other Papersand Writings bound together in a Bundle, "[77] and swore that they wereall the documents belonging to the secretary or register which couldbe found, "except some Warrants, and some Draughts of Mr. _Hill's_Time. " All the records, therefore, were not destroyed, but in 1649, there were in existence papers belonging to the Hill regime. Butgreater proofs against the vandalism of Ingle are the recordsthemselves, or the copies of them, which could not have been made ifthe originals had been destroyed, and which have at last beendeposited where thieves do not break through nor steal. There havebeen preserved among the records up to 1647, the original proprietaryrecord books, liber Z. , 1637-1644 and liber P. R. , 1642 to February12, 1645. The Council Proceedings, 1636-1657, the AssemblyProceedings, 1638-1658, and liber F. , 1636-1642, proprietary records, have been handed down in copies. The loss of liber F. , 1636-1642, canno more be attributed to Ingle than can the loss of liber K. , 1692-1694, which was made fifty years after Ingle's time. Both ofthese, as well as records of later years, have been preserved incopies only, but a brief study of the Calendar of State Archives, prefixed to the Acts of Assembly, will demonstrate that thedestruction of records by Ingle could not have been so great as hasbeen supposed. But did he destroy any? There are gaps in the records, that exist between February 14, 1645, when the rebellion occurred, andDecember, 1646, when Calvert returned, but it is not likely that underthe existing circumstances very great care was taken of the records ofthese twenty-two months, and moreover there is no proof that Ingle wasin the province after 1645, for he was probably in London in Decemberof that year, and certainly in the following February. His appointingCornwallis his attorney for collecting Maryland and Virginia debtswould also lead one to believe that he did not return to the province. Some of the records of the Hill government, however, were in existencein 1649, but as far as is known have since disappeared. Inglecertainly did not destroy them, and indeed to a man engaged in thetobacco trade, there were few inducements to waste his time, and thatof his men cutting up records. It is difficult to understand why Lord Baltimore should have calledIngle an "ungrateful villain, " for the reception the latter met at St. Mary's in 1644, was not calculated to inspire one with gratitude. Thecompensation offered Ingle might have been deemed liberal, but theMaryland authorities acknowledged that they had to make this offer forthe public good and safety, and, therefore, no particular credit canbe given them for kindness towards the troublesome mariner. But therelations between Ingle and Cornwallis are rather perplexing. Thelatter accused Ingle of not returning the value of goods entrusted tohim, and also of landing, during his absence, "some men near hishouse, " and rifling "him to the value of 2, 500 l at least. "[78] Allthis was done after Cornwallis had showed his devotion to Parliament, by releasing Ingle. It must be remembered in connection with thedevotion to Parliament, that Ingle was doing the great carrying tradefor Cornwallis. Besides, after Ingle had made him his attorney, hewent to Maryland and there sued three men for the pillage anddestruction of his property, without implicating Ingle. In the absenceof full records concerning these two men, it is unfair to judge eitherof them harshly in this matter. The indefinite allusion to Ingle's piracy in 1644 was not sustained, but in 1649 he was again called "pirate. " The definition of piracy hasundergone many changes within the past three hundred years. Fromrobbery committed upon the high seas, it has come to mean, "acts ofviolence done upon the ocean or unappropriated lands or within theterritory of a state through descent from the sea, by a body of menacting independently of any political or organized society. "[79] Thepirate has also been held as an enemy, whom the whole human race canoppress. These definitions are from the international standpoint. Whatwas the English law at the time of Ingle? The treatment of pirates wasregulated by the Act of Parliament, made in the reign of HenryVIII. , [80] and Sir Leoline Jenkins, on September 2d, 1668, at asession of the Admiralty, said, "now robbery as 'tis distinguishedfrom thieving or larceny, implies not only the actual taking away ofmy goods, while I am, as we say, in peace, but also the putting me infear, by taking them away by force and arms out of my hands, or in mysight and presence, when this is done upon the sea, without a lawfulcommission of war or reprisals, it is downright Piracy. "[81] In theAssembly of March, 1638, piracy was defined as follows: "Williamdawson with divers others did assault the vessels of Capt. ThomasCornwaleys his company feloniously and as pyrates & robbers to takethe said vessels and did discharge divers peices charged wi^thbulletts & shott against the said Thomas Cornwaleys, &c. "[82] Granted, although it is doubtful, that Ingle seized the pinnace, riding in St. Inigoes' creek, he was not, therefore, a pirate. According to thetestimony, he used no force, for the one in charge of the pinnaceallowed him to take it; and the act was not committed on the highseas. For the acts committed on the land, Ingle acknowledged himselfto have been responsible; for in his petition he wrote, that he "didventure his life and fortune in landing his men and assisting the saidwell-affected Protestants (_i. E. _, such as adhered to Parliament)"against the government, the papists and malignants. His acts on theland were rather contradictory, if one reads the testimony. In 1647, for instance, a certain Walter Beane[83] at the request of CuthbertFenwick, said that during the plundering time, with the consent ofFenwick, he paid Ingle some tobacco, which was due Fenwick orCornwallis. Ingle then gave him the following, "Received of WalterBeane five hund^r Thirty Eight pounds of Tob for a debt th^t the s^dWalter Beane did owe to Cuthbert ffenwick. Witness my hand, RICH^D. INGLE. " Beane stated also that sometime before Ingle came, he paid sixhogsheads of tobacco to Fenwick for Cornwallis, and that Ingle, uponhis arrival, sent eleven men to fetch the hogsheads and other tobacco;that when Beane refused to give them up, Ingle was notified, and senta note threatening extreme measures, and Beane was thus forced to giveup the tobacco. Does it not seem curious that Ingle should give areceipt for one batch of tobacco, and within a short time have othertobacco forcibly seized? Of course the authorities of Maryland mighthave considered such acts piratical. But they were not. Ingle had acommission from Parliament, to relieve the planters in Maryland, byfurnishing them arms, &c. He found the government of Maryland atenmity with Parliament, which was the actual government of England atthat time, and assisted the friends of Parliament in Maryland. Even ifhe exceeded the provisions of his letter of marque he was responsibleto Parliament alone. [84] That the English authorities did notdisapprove of his conduct is shown by the weight attached to hisstatements, and by the fact that he was afterwards in the service ofthe Commonwealth. As to Ingle's having been a "rebel, " the facts all point to hisparticipation in the beginning of a rebellion, caused probably, bythose dissatisfied with Leonard Calvert's rule, more probably by theinfluence of William Claiborne, who in spite of condemnatory acts bythe Maryland Assembly, and the vacillating measures of Charles I. , insisted for many years upon his right to Kent Island. But rebellionis viewed in different ways: by those against whom it is made, withhorror and detestation; by those who make it, with pride and ofttimeswith devotion. If Ingle led on the rebellion, he was acting inMaryland, only as Cromwell afterwards did on a larger scale, inEngland, and as Bacon, the brave and noble, did in Virginia, and to beplaced in the same category with many, who will be handed down tofuture generations as rebels, will be no discredit to the firstMaryland rebel. FOOTNOTES: [1] Spotswood Letters, Brock, p. 12. [2] Rev. Edw. D. Neill, to whom I am indebted for valuable references, was the first to attempt any kind of a defence of Ingle, but Dr. Wm. Hand Browne, who also has greatly aided me, has omitted the pirate andrebel clause in the history which he is preparing for the CommonwealthSeries. [3] Assembly Proceedings, 1638-1664, p. 120, Land Office Records, Vol. I. , p. 582. In the Maryland records the name is spelled Cornwaleys, but in this paper the rule has been adopted of spelling it Cornwallis, as it is known to history. [4] Winthrop's History of New England, Vol. II. , p. 75. Winthrop gaveanother spelling, "Jugle, " no doubt obtained from the signature, ashas been done with the name more than once in modern times. In a billsent to the grand jury at St. Mary's, Maryland, February 1st, 1643/4, it was stated that Ingle's ship in 1642 was the "Reformation. " Thebill was, however, returned "Ignoramus, " and the use of the name wasprobably anachronous. [5] Proprietary Records, Liber P. R. , p. 85. [6] Ibid. , p. 124. [7] Ibid. , p. 137. [8] Ibid. , p. 124. Council Proceedings, 1636-1657. Bozman, in hisHistory of Maryland, Vol. II. , p. 271, not knowing evidently that morethan one warrant was issued for Ingle's arrest, transposed thisproclamation, making it follow Jan. 20; but in P. R. It is under dateof Jan. 18, 1643/4. [9] P. R. , p. 146. [10] Ibid. , pp. 125, 138. [11] C. P. , p. 111, P. R. , p. 125. [12] Ibid. , p. 125. [13] Ibid. , pp. 129, 130. [14] Ibid. [15] This was on the south side of the Patuxent river. At one time theJesuits used a building there for a storehouse. There was the favoritedwelling of Charles, third Lord Baltimore, which afterward belonged toMr. Henry Sewall, and there Col. Darnall took refuge during the Coodeuprising. [16] P. R. , p. 131. [17] Ibid. , p. 134. [18] Ibid. , pp. 137, 139. [19] Ibid. , p. 141. [20] Ibid. , p. 148. [21] Bozman: History of Maryland, Vol. II. , p. 272. [22] P. R. , p. 149. [23] Ibid. , p. 150. [24] Ibid. , p. 131. [25] Ibid. , pp. 139, 145. [26] Sixth Report of the Historical Commission to Parliament, p. 101. [27] P. R. , pp. 140, 141, 146. [28] Ibid. , p. 146. [29] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com. , p. 101. [30] The absence of punctuation between the "Elizabeth and Ellen"leads one to conjecture that there were but seven vessels. [31] Journal of the House of Commons, 1642-44, p. 607. This may befound in the Congressional Library, Washington, D. C. [32] Collections N. Y. Historical Society, Series II. , Vol. III. , p. 126. Winthrop: History of New England, Vol. II. , p. 198. [33] L. O. R. , Vol. I. , p. 224; Sixth Rep. Hist. Com. , p. 101. [34] Papers Relating to the Early History of Maryland, by S. F. Streeter, p. 267. [35] C. P. , pp. 166, 201, 204; A. P. , 238, 270. [36] C. P. , p. 175; A. P. , p. 301. [37] C. P. , p. 209. [38] A. P. , p. 238. [39] Ibid. , pp. 238, 270, 271. At the request of the Assembly, Baltimore forgave Thompson for acts which he might have committed byreason of ignorance or through a mistake. [40] Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, p. 95. [41] Records of the Eng. Prov. Society of Jesus, Series V. , VI. , VII. , VIII. , pp. 337, 389. [42] L. O. R. , Vol. I. , p. 432. [43] Ibid. , p. 572. [44] Ibid. , Vol. II. , p. 354. [45] Ibid. , Vol. I. , p. 584. [46] Now Port Tobacco, Charles Co. Ibid. , Vol. II. , p. 354. [47] Ibid. , Vol. I. , p. 433. Most of the testimony against Ingle inMaryland was by those whom he had held prisoners. [48] Ibid. , Vol. I. , pp. 432, 433. [49] Ibid. [50] Terra Mariae, Neill, pp. 110, 111. [51] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com. , p. 101. [52] Rev. E. D. Neill has given the full draft of this petition. SeeFounders of Maryland, pp. 75-77. [53] L. O. R. , Vol. I. , p. 378. [54] Father White and Father Fisher were carried to England andimprisoned. The former was, after some months, released upon thecondition of his leaving England. He went to Belgium, and afterwardsreturned to England, but never again to Maryland. "Thirsting for thesalvation of his beloved Marylanders he sought every opportunity ofreturning secretly to that mission, earnestly begging the favor of hisSuperiors; but, as the good Father was then upwards of sixty-fiveyears of age and his constitution broken down, they would notconsent. " R. P. S. J. , p. 337. Fisher was released and returned toMaryland. [55] Hening: Statutes, Vol. I. , p. 321. [56] C. P. , pp. 17, 77. [57] Ibid. , p. 136; L. O. R. , Vol. I. , p. 203. [58] C. P. , p. 135. [59] Ibid. , p. 209. [60] Ibid. , p. 154-161. [61] L. O. R. , Vol. II. , p. 328. [62] A. P. , p. 242. [63] Ibid. , pp. 209-210. [64] Ibid. , 266. [65] C. P. , pp. 204-205. [66] Kilty. Landholder's Assistant, pp. 79-80; L. O. R. , Vol. II. , p. 410. [67] Seventh Report His. Com. , pp. 54, 162. [68] Sainsbury: Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1574-1660, pp. 331-337, 368. [69] Ibid. [70] Ibid. , Domestic, 1650, pp. 64, 79, 572. [71] Ibid. , 1653-1654, pp. 235, 251, 278. [72] C. P. , 201. [73] Ibid. , 162. [74] Ibid. , 166. [75] Ibid. , p. 209. [76] A. P. , p. 329. [77] C. P. , 219. [78] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com. , p. 101. [79] Hall: International Law, p. 218. [80] 28 Henry VIII. , C. 15. See p. 124, Vol. VI. , Evan's Collection ofStatutes. [81] Quoted by Phillimore. See International Law, Vol. I. , p. 414. [82] A. P. , pp. 17-18. [83] L. O. R. , Vol. II. , p. 312. [84] Phillimore, Vol. I. , p. 425. Transcriber's Note Archaic and variable spelling and capitalisation has been preserved inthe quoted material as printed. Asterisks are used instead of periodsin ellipses. Minor punctuation errors have been repaired. Where theletter l (representing pounds) is preceded by a number, a space hasbeen inserted between number and l for clarity. The following amendments have been made: Page 14--Febuary amended to February--"... A copy of a certificate to Ingle under date of February 8th, ... " Page 20--masacre amended to massacre--"... Had given as a reason for the Indian massacre, ... " Page 33--Corwallis amended to Cornwallis--"A consideration of the statements by Cornwallis and ... " Page 47--proprietory amended to proprietary--"... And liber F. , 1636-1642, proprietary records, have been handed down ... "