diff options
Diffstat (limited to '26958-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 26958-h/26958-h.htm | 2271 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26958-h/images/cri01.jpg | bin | 0 -> 17443 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26958-h/images/cri02.png | bin | 0 -> 1740 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26958-h/images/cri03.png | bin | 0 -> 2520 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 26958-h/images/cri04.png | bin | 0 -> 1621 bytes |
5 files changed, 2271 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/26958-h/26958-h.htm b/26958-h/26958-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..594d2fa --- /dev/null +++ b/26958-h/26958-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2271 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Captain Richard Ingle, by Edward Ingle. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { margin-top: .75em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + + a {text-decoration: none;} + + img {border: none;} + + em {font-style: italic;} + + sup {vertical-align: .4em; font-size: .8em;} + + ins.abbr {text-decoration: none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray;} + /* for expansion of abbreviations */ + + .pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-style: normal; + font-size: smaller; + text-align: right; + } /* page numbers */ + + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .bbox {border: solid 2px; padding: 1em;} + + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + + .dropcap {float: left; padding-right: 3px; font-size: 350%; line-height: 83%;} + /* Plain dropcaps */ + + .figcenter {margin: auto; text-align: center;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: .2em; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + .tdl {text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom;} /* left align cell */ + + .sig {margin-left: 35%; text-indent: -4em;} /* author signature at end of letter, move 2nd line right */ + + .padtop {padding-top: 3em;} + .smlpad {padding-top: 1.5em;} + .padbase {padding-bottom: 3em;} + .lrgfont {font-size: 150%;} + .xlrgfont {font-size: 250%;} + .redtext {color: red;} + + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Captain Richard Ingle, by Edward Ingle + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Captain Richard Ingle + The Maryland + +Author: Edward Ingle + +Release Date: October 18, 2008 [EBook #26958] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE *** + + + + +Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Sam W. and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + + + + + +</pre> + +<div class="bbox"> +<p><b>Transcriber's Note</b></p> + +<p>Some abbreviated words have been expanded; these have a fine dotted gray underline. +Hover your mouse over the word to see the <ins class="abbr" title="like this">expansion</ins>.</p> +</div> + + +<h1 class="padtop">CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,</h1> + +<h2>The Maryland “Pirate and Rebel,”</h2> + +<p class="center padbase">1642-1653.</p> + + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;"> +<img src="images/cri01.jpg" width="200" height="200" +alt="Maryland Historical Society 1844 crest" /> +</div> + + +<p class="center padtop">A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society,</p> + +<p class="center">May 12th, 1884,</p> + +<p class="center">BY</p> + +<h2 class="padbase">EDWARD INGLE, A. B.</h2> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 180px;"> +<img src="images/cri02.png" width="180" height="31" alt="Baltimore, 1844." /> +</div> + + + + +<p class="center padtop xlrgfont">CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,</p> + +<p class="center lrgfont">The Maryland “Pirate and Rebel,”</p> + +<p class="center lrgfont">1642-1653.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h2>RICHARD INGLE.</h2> + + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>“Captain Richard Ingle, ... a pirate and a rebel, was discovered hovering +about the settlement.”—<i>McSherry, History of Maryland, p. 59.</i></p> + +<p>“The destruction of the records by him [Ingle] has involved this episode +in impenetrable obscurity, &c.”—<i>Johnson, Foundation of Maryland, p. 99.</i></p> + +<p>“Captain Ingle, the pirate, the man who gloried in the name of ‘The +Reformation.’”—<i>Davis, “The Day Star,” p. 210.</i></p> + +<p>“That Heinous Rebellion first put in Practice by that Pirate Ingle.”—<i>Acts +of Assembly, 1638-64, p. 238.</i></p> + +<p>“Those late troubles raised there by that ungrateful Villaine Richard +Ingle.”—<i>Ibid., p. 270.</i></p> + +<p>“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.”—<i>Jefferson, +Works, Vol. III, p. 105.</i></p> +</div> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 400px;"> +<img src="images/cri03.png" width="400" height="37" +alt="Fund Publication, No. 19" /> +</div> + + + +<p class="center xlrgfont padtop redtext">CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,</p> + +<p class="center lrgfont">The Maryland “Pirate and Rebel,”</p> + +<p class="center padbase">1642-1653.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 200px;"> +<img src="images/cri01.jpg" width="200" height="200" +alt="Maryland Historical Society 1844 crest" /> +</div> + +<p class="center padtop redtext">A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society,</p> + +<p class="center smlpad">May 12th, 1884,</p> + +<p class="center">BY</p> + +<p class="center padbase">EDWARD INGLE, A. B.</p> + +<div class="figcenter" style="width: 180px;"> +<img src="images/cri04.png" width="180" height="31" alt="Baltimore, 1844." /> +</div> + + + + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p class="center padtop">PEABODY PUBLICATION FUND.</p> + +<p class="center smlpad smcap">Committee on Publication.</p> + +<p class="center">1884-5.</p> + +<table border="0" summary="Committee members"> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">HENRY STOCKBRIDGE,</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">JOHN W. M. LEE,</td> + </tr> + <tr> + <td class="tdl">BRADLEY T. JOHNSON.</td> + </tr> +</table> + + +<p class="center padtop smcap">Printed by John Murphy & Co.<br /> +Printers to the Maryland Historical Society,<br /> +Baltimore, 1884.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p> + +<h2 class="padtop">CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,</h2> + +<h3>THE MARYLAND “PIRATE AND REBEL.”</h3> + + +<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>n the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the +American colonies, from Massachusetts to +South Carolina, were at intervals subject to +visitations of pirates, who were wont to appear +suddenly upon the coasts, to pillage a settlement +or attack trading vessels and as suddenly to take +flight to their strongholds. Captain Kidd was +long celebrated in prose and verse, and only within +a few years have credulous people ceased to seek +his buried treasures. The arch-villain, Blackbeard, +was a terror to Virginians and Carolinians +until Spotswood, of “Horseshoe” fame, took the +matter in hand, and sent after him lieutenant +Maynard, who, slaying the pirate in hand to hand +conflict, returned with his head at the bowsprit.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> +Lapse of time has cast a romantic and semi-mythologic +glamor around these depredators, and +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> +it is in many instances at this day extremely difficult +to distinguish fact from fiction. The unprotected +situation of many settlements along the +seaboard colonies rendered them an easy prey to +rapacious sea rovers, but it might have been +expected that the Maryland shores of the Chesapeake +bay would be free from their harassings. +The province, however, it seems was not to enjoy +such good fortune, for in the <em>printed</em> annals of her +life appears the name of one man, who has been +handed down from generation to generation as a +“pirate,” a “rebel” and an “ungrateful villain,” +and other equally complimentary epithets have +been applied to him. The original historians of +Maryland based their ideas about him upon some +of the statements made by those whom he had +injured or attacked, and who differed from him in +political creed. The later history writers have +been satisfied to follow such authors as Bozman, +McMahon and McSherry, or to copy them directly, +without consulting original records. To the general +reader, therefore, who relies upon these authorities, +Richard Ingle is “a pirate and rebel” still.<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a></p> + +<p>A thorough defence of him would be almost +impossible in view of the comparative scarcity +of records and the complicated politics of his +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> +time. In a review of his relations with Maryland, +however, and by a presentation of all the +facts, some light may be thrown upon his general +character, and explanations, if not a defence, of his +acts may be made.</p> + +<p>Richard Ingle’s name first appears in the records +of Maryland under date of March 23rd, 1641/2, when +he petitioned the Assembly against Giles Brent +touching the serving of an execution by the sheriff. +He had come to the province a few weeks before, +bringing in his vessel Captain Thomas Cornwallis, +one of the original council, the greatest man in +Maryland at that time, who had been spending +some months in England.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> Between the time of +his arrival and the date of his petition Ingle had +no doubt been plying his business, tobacco trading, +in the inlets and rivers of the province. No further +record of him in Maryland this year has been +preserved, but Winthrop wrote that on May 3rd, +1642, “The ship Eleanor of London one Mr. +|| Inglee || master arrived at Boston she was laden +with tobacco from Virginia, and having been about +14 days at sea she was taken with such a tempest, +that though all her sails were down and made up, +yet they were blown from the yards and she was +laid over on one side two and a half hours, so low +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> +as the water stood upon her deck and the sea over-raking +her continually and the day was as dark as +if it had been night, and though they had cut her +masts, yet she righted not till the tempest assuaged. +She staid here till the 4th of the (4) and was well +fitted with masts, sails, rigging and victuals at such +reasonable rates as that the master was much +affected with his entertainment and professed that +he never found the like usage in Virginia where he +had traded these ten years.”<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> Although his name +is given an additional <em>e</em> and there are some few +seeming discrepancies, the facts taken together +point to the probability of his being Richard Ingle +on his return voyage to England. Next year he +was again in Maryland, and, as attorney for Mr. +Penniston and partners, sued widow Cockshott for +debts incurred by her husband. The next entry in +the “Provincial Records” under this date, March +6th, 1642/3, is an attachment against William Hardige +in case of Captain Cornwallis.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> This William +Hardige, who was afterward one of Ingle’s chief +accusers, was very frequently involved in suits for +debts to Cornwallis, and others. About the middle +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span> +of the month of January, 1643/4, the boatswain +of the “Reformation” brought against Hardige a +suit for tobacco, returnable February 1st. Three +days afterward a warrant was issued to William +Hardige, a tailor, for the arrest of Ingle for high +treason, and Captain Cornwallis was bidden to aid +Hardige, and the matter was to be kept secret.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> +Ingle was arrested and given into the custody of +Edward Parker, the sheriff, by the lieutenant general +of the province, Giles Brent, who also seized +Ingle’s goods and ship, until he should clear himself, +and placed on board, under John Hampton, a +guard ordered to allow no one to come on the ship +without a warrant from the lieutenant general.<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> +Then was published, and as the records seem to +show, fixed on the vessel’s mainmast the following +proclamation.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> + +<p>“These are to publish & <ins class="abbr" title="proclaym">pclaym</ins> to all <ins class="abbr" title="persons">psons</ins> +as well seamen as others, that Richard Ingle, <ins class="abbr" title="master">m<sup>r</sup></ins> of +his ship, is arrested upon highe treason to his +<ins class="abbr" title="Majesty">Ma<sup>ty</sup></ins>; & therefore to require all <ins class="abbr" title="persons">psons</ins> to be aiding +& assisting to his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> officers in the seizing of his +ship, & not to offer any resistance or contempt +hereunto, nor be any otherwaise aiding or assisting +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> +to the said Richard Ingle upon perl of highe +treason to his <ins class="abbr" title="Majesty">Ma<sup>ty</sup></ins>.”</p> + +<p>Notwithstanding this proclamation Ingle escaped +in the following manner. Parker had no prison, +and, consequently, had to keep personal guard +over his prisoner. He supposed, “from certain +words spoken by the Secretary,” that Brent and +the council had agreed to let Ingle go on board +his vessel, and when Captain Cornwallis and Mr. +Neale came from the council meeting and carried +Ingle to the ship, he accompanied them.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a> Arrived +on board Cornwallis said “All is peace,” and persuaded +the commanding officer to bid his men lay +down their arms and disperse, and then Ingle and +his crew regained possession of the ship. Under +such circumstances the sheriff could not prevent +his escape, especially when a member of the council +and the most influential men in the province +had assisted the deed by their acts or presence. +Besides it was afterwards said that William Durford, +John Durford, and Fred. Johnson, at the +instigation of Ingle, beat and wounded some of +the guard, though this charge does not appear to +have been substantiated.<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a></p> + +<p>On January 20th, 1643/4, the following warrant +was issued to the sheriff.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> +“I doe hereby require (in his <ins class="abbr" title="Majesties">Ma<sup>ties</sup></ins> name) +Richard Ingle, mariner to yield his body to Rob +Ellyson, Sheriff of this County, before the first of +<ins class="abbr" title="ffebruary">ffebr</ins> next, to answer to such crimes of treason, as +on his <ins class="abbr" title="Majesties">Ma<sup>ties</sup></ins> behalfe shalbe obiected <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> him, +upon his utmost perl, of the Law in that behalfe. +And I doe further require all <ins class="abbr" title="persons">psons</ins> that can say +or disclose any matter of treason <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> the said +Richard Ingle to informe his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> Attorny of it +some time before the said Court to the end it may +be then & there prosequuted</p> + +<p class="sig"><span class="smcap">G. Brent.</span>”</p> +</div> + +<p>Ingle, however, was not again arrested, though +he still remained in the neighborhood of St. +Mary’s, for on January 30th his vessel was riding +at anchor in St. George’s river, and mention is +made of him in the records as being in the province. +For nearly two months the Ingle question was +agitated and for the sake of clearness an account +will be given of the acts concerning him in the +order of their occurrence.</p> + +<p>The information given by Hardige to Lewger +which had caused Ingle’s arrest was: that in +March or April, 1642, he heard Ingle, who was then +at Kent Island, and at other times in St. Mary’s, +say, that he was “Captain of Gravesend for the +Parliament against the King;” that he heard +Ingle say that in February of that year he had +been bidden in the King’s name to come ashore at +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +Accomac, in Virginia, but he, in the parliament’s +name had refused to do so, and had threatened to +cut off the head of any one who should come on +his ship.<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> On January 29th, Hardige and others +were summoned to appear and to give evidence +of—here the pirate enters—“pyratical & treasonable +offences” of Ingle. On February 1st, the +sheriff impannelled a jury of which Robert +Vaughan was chosen foreman, and witnesses were +sworn, among them Hardige who “being excepted +at as infamous,” by Capt. Cornwallis, “was not +found so.”<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> John Lewger, the attorney-general, +having stated that the Court had power to take +cognizance of treason out of the province in order +to determine where the offender should be tried, +presented three bills for the jury to consider. +The first bill included the second charge brought +by Hardige, the second ordered the jury to inquire +“if on the 20th of November and some daies +afore & since in the 17 yea of his <ins class="abbr" title="Majesties">Ma<sup>ties</sup></ins> reigne at +Gravesend in Comit Kent in England” the +accused “not having the feare of God before his +eies, but instigated thereunto by the instigation of +the divill & example of other traitors of his <ins class="abbr" title="Majestie">Ma<sup>tie</sup></ins> +traiterously & as an enemy did levie war & beare +armes <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> his <ins class="abbr" title="majestie">ma<sup>tie</sup></ins> and accept & exercise the +comand & captainship of the town of Gravesend,” +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> +and by the third bill they were to inquire if Ingle +did not, on April 5th in the eighteenth year of +Charles’ reign, on his vessel in the Potomac river, +near St. Clement’s island, say, “that Prince +Rupert was a rogue or rascall.” If the rest of +the testimony was no stronger or more conclusive +than that of Hardige, it is not surprising that the +jury replied to all the bills “<em>Ignoramus</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> +Another jury was impannelled to investigate the +charge of Ingle’s having broken from the sheriff, +and they returned a like finding. In the afternoon +the first jury were given two more bills, first, to +find “whether in April 1643 Ingle, being then at +Mattapanian,<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> St. Clement’s hundred, said ‘that +Prince Rupert was Prince Traitor & Prince rogue +and if he had him aboard his ship he would whip +him at the capstan.’” This bill met the fate of +the others, but the second charging him with saying +“that the king (meaning <ins class="abbr" title="our">o<sup>r</sup></ins> Gover L. K. +Charles) was no king neither would be no king, +nor could be no king unless he did ioine with the +<ins class="abbr" title="Parlament">Parlam<sup>t</sup></ins>,” caused the jury to disagree and no verdict +having been reached at 7 P. M., they adjourned +until the following Saturday.<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> On that day, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> +February 3rd, at the request of the attorney-general the +jury were discharged and the bill given to another +jury who returned it “<em>Ignoramus</em>.”<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> In spite of +the unanimity of all the juries in finding no true +indictment, another warrant was issued for the +arrest, by Parker or Ellyson, of Ingle for high +treason, and after a fruitless attempt to secure by +another jury a different finding, Ingle was impeached +on February 8th, for having on January +20th, 1643/4, committed assaults upon the vessels, +guns, goods, and person of one Bishop, and upon +being reproached for these acts, having threatened +to beat 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.”<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> If Ingle did commit +these depredations he was, no doubt instigated by +the proceedings instituted on that day against +him, and moreover by the fact that Henry Bishop +had been among the witnesses to be summoned +against him.</p> + +<p>Nothing more was done in the matter, for from +a copy of a certificate to Ingle under date of February +8th, it is learned that “Upon certaine complaints +exhibited by his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> attorny <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> <ins class="abbr" title="Master">M<sup>r</sup></ins> R. +Ingle the attending & <ins class="abbr" title="prosequution">psequution</ins> whereof was +like to cause great demurrage to the ship & other +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span> +damages & encumbrances in the gathering of his +debts it was demanded by his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> said attorny on +his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> behalfe that the said R. I. deposite in the +country to his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> use one barrell of powder & +400 l of shott to remaine as a pledge that the said +R. I. shall by himself or his attorny appeare at +his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Lo<sup>ps</sup></ins> <ins class="abbr" title="Court">Co<sup>rt</sup></ins> at S. Maries on or afore the first of +<ins class="abbr" title="ffebruary">ffebr</ins> next to answere to all such matters as shalbe +then and there obiected <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> him * * * * and upon +his appearance the said powder & shott or the full +value of it at the then rate of the country to be +delivered to him his attorny or assigne upon +demand.”<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a></p> + +<p>What a change of policy, from charging a man +with treason, the penalty for which was death, to +offering him the right of bail for the appearance +of his attorney, if necessary, to meet indefinite +charges! In view of all the facts, it seems probable +that the Maryland authorities were committed +to the King’s cause by the commission granted by +him to Leonard Calvert in 1643, and by their +action in seizing Ingle; that after his arrest it was +thought to be injudicious to go to extremes, and +that they made little resistance to, if they did not +connive at, his escape. Certainly, efforts to recapture +him must have been very feeble, for when the +sheriff demanded the tobacco and cask due him +from the defendant for summoning juries, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> +witnesses, &c., it was found that Ingle had left in the +hands of the Secretary the required amount.<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> In +arresting Ingle for uttering treasonable words, the +palatine government was not only placing itself +upon the side of King Charles, but was preparing +to do what he had been prevented from doing a +few months before. For when at his command +some persons who had acted treasonably were condemned +to death, parliament declared that “all +such indictments and proceedings thereon were +unjust and illegal; and that if any man was +executed or suffered hurt, for any thing he had +done by their order, the like punishment should be +inflicted by death or otherwise, upon such prisoners +as were, or should be, taken by their forces,” +and their lives were saved.<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> The authorities of +Maryland themselves show why Ingle was allowed +to escape. On March 16th, Lewger showed that +“whereas Richard Ingle was obnoxious to divers +suits & complaints of his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordship">Lo<sup>p</sup></ins> for divers and sundry +crimes all <ins class="abbr" title="which">w<sup>ch</sup></ins> upon composition for the publique +good & safety were suspended <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> the said Richard +Ingle assuming to leave in the country to the publique +need at this time,” powder and shot, but he +had 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 +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> +of all Ports,” he prayed that all of Ingle’s goods, +debts, &c., might be sequestered until he should +clear himself.<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Under the circumstances, the +grave charges pending against him, as there is no +proof that he had known the terms of composition, +a crew and vessel being at his command, it is not +surprising that he sailed away from danger, without +attending to the formality of clearing, and +leaving unpaid debts, for Lewger claimed 600 +pounds of tobacco from him, as payment for some +plate and a scimitar, for which Cornwallis went +security.<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> There is a touch of seeming sarcasm in +the suggestion that the deposit by Ingle of ammunition +would have relieved the public need, for he +would have been that much less dangerous, and +the government would have been so much the +more prepared to resist him.</p> + +<p>But how were those who assisted him treated? +On January 30th, Thomas Cornwallis, James Neale, +Edward Parker and John Hampton, were impeached +for having rescued him, and thereby of +being accessories to high treason. Cornwallis made +answer, “that he did well understand the matters +charged <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> the said Richard Ingle to be of no +importance but suggested of mean malice of +the —— William hardige, as hath appeared since in +that the grand enquest found not so much +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> +probability in the accusations, as that it was fitt to putt +him to his triall” and “he supposed & understood +no other but that the said rich. Ingle went aboard +<ins class="abbr" title="with">w<sup>th</sup></ins> the licence and consent of the L. G. & Counsell +& of the officer in whose custody he was & as to +the escape & rescuous in manner as is charged he +is no way accessory to it & therefore prayeth to be +dismissed.”<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> The judgment was delayed, but Cornwallis +was anxious to be at once discharged. The +lieutenant general and the attorney general, therefore, +having consulted together, found Cornwallis +guilty, and fined him one thousand pounds of +tobacco, though at the request of the accused the +fine was respited until the last day of the month, +when Brent ordered the sheriff “to levie 1000 lbs +<ins class="abbr" title="tobacco">tob.</ins> on any goods or debts” of Capt. <ins class="abbr" title="Thomas">Tho.</ins> Cornwallis +“for so much adjudged by way of fine unto +the Lord <ins class="abbr" title="Proprietor">Propriet<sup>r</sup></ins> <ins class="abbr" title="against">ag<sup>st</sup></ins> him at the Court held on +the 9<sup>th</sup> <ins class="abbr" title="ffebruary">ffeb</ins> last.”<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> This fine, which was to be +given to the attorney of Tho. Wyatt, commander +of Kent Island, in payment of Lord Baltimore’s +debt to him, Cornwallis afterward acknowledged +he had paid.<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> + +<p>Neale did not make his appearance before the +court, though he seems to have been in St. Mary’s, +and was suspended from the council for his +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> +contempt. On February 11th, being accused of having +begged Ingle from the sheriff, he denied all the +charges, and in a few days was restored to his seat +in the council, upon the eve of Brent’s departure +for Kent Island.<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> Parker said Ingle had escaped +against his will, and he was discharged, while +Hampton escaped prosecution, presumably, for +there is no further record of action in the case +against him.<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> + +<p>But it would have been bad policy for the +authorities to allow the matter to drop without +apparent effort on their part to punish somebody, +and Cornwallis had to bear the brunt of their +attacks. The feeling against him was so strong, +according to his own statements, that besides paying +a fine, the highest “that could by law be laid +upon him,” he was compelled for personal safety +to take ship with Ingle for England, where the +doughty captain testified before a parliamentary +committee of Cornwallis’ devotion to its cause, and +of the losses he had sustained in its behalf.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> + +<p>The lieutenant governor, and council, may have +congratulated themselves about the departure of +Ingle and Cornwallis, but that mariner and trader +was preparing to return to Maryland. On August +26th, 1644, certain persons trading to Virginia +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> +petitioned the House of Commons to allow them to +transport ammunition, clothes, and victuals, custom +free, to the plantations of the Chesapeake, +which were at that time loosely classed under the +one name—Virginia. The Commons granted to +the eight<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> vessels mentioned in the petition, the +right of carrying victuals, clothes, arms, ammunition, +and other commodities, “for the supply and +Defence and Relief of the Planters,” and referred +the latter part of the petition, asking power to +interrupt the Hollanders and other strange traders, +to the House of Lords.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> It is hardly necessary to +say at this point that the planters to be relieved +and defended by the cargoes of the vessels, were +planters not at enmity with the parliament. For +vessels from London were used in the interests of +parliament, while those from Bristol were the +King’s ships. De Vries, the celebrated Dutchman, +who has left such acute observations about the +early colonists, wrote that while visiting Virginia +in 1644 he saw two London ships chase a fly-boat +to capture it, and it was reported in Massachusetts +that a captured Indian had given as a reason for +the Indian massacre, on April 18th, 1644, “that +they did it because they saw the English took up +all their lands, * * * and they took this season for +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> +that they understood that they were at war in +England, and began to go to war among themselves, +for they had seen a fight in the river +between a London ship, which was for the parliament, +and a Bristol ship, which was for the +King.”<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> + +<p>Among the ships commissioned by the parliament, +which were armed, was the “Reformation,” +of which Ingle was still master. He was in London +in October, 1644, receiving cargo, and Cornwallis +entrusted to him goods, valued at 200 +pounds sterling.<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> The vessel soon afterwards +sailed, and was in Maryland in February. In +the province, at that time, affairs were in a very +unsettled condition. The energetic Claiborne, +who was also called by Maryland authorities a +pirate and a rebel, but who was a much better +man than is generally supposed, and whose life +ought to be especially studied, was still pushing +his claims to Kent Island, and Leonard Calvert had +been compelled to visit Virginia more than once +during the winter in trying to prevent his actions. +The Indians were aroused and prone to take +advantage of disputes between the factions in the +province, while the colonists themselves were in a +state of unrest. At this juncture Ingle appeared. +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> +Streeter wrote of his coming, “several vessels +appeared in the harbor, from which an armed +force disembarked, (Feb. 14, 1645,) under the +command of Capt. Richard Ingle, St. Mary’s was +taken; many of the members were prisoners; +the Governor was a fugitive in Virginia; and the +Province in the hands of a force, professing to act, +and probably acting, under authority of Parliament.”<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> +There is no authority given for the +first part of this statement, though it is not +improbable, and is partly substantiated by the +exaggerated charges against Ingle, made by the +Assembly of 1649, and the references to him in +proclamations. There is no mention in the +provincial records of Calvert’s having being forced +out of the province, but, on the contrary, Calvert +in his commission to Hill in 1646 stated that “at +this present, I have occasion, for his lordship’s +service to be absent out the said province,” and +says nothing at all about Ingle. The rebellion has +been called “Claiborne’s and Ingle’s,” and, +although association with Claiborne would not +have been dishonorable to any one, historical +accuracy seems to call for a distinction. In +Greene’s proclamation of pardon given in March, +1647/8; in the letter written by the Assembly to +Lord Baltimore in April, 1649; in the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> +Proprietor’s commissions for the great seal, for muster +master general, for commander of Kent +Island, respectively, in 1648; and in his letter to +Stone in 1649, the rebellion is attributed to the +instigation of Ingle.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> In the commission to +Governor Stone, of August, 1648, is the statement, +“so as such pardon or pardons extend not to the +pardoning of William Clayborne heretofore of the +isle of Kent in our said province of Maryland +and now or late of Virginia or of his complices in +their late rebellion against our rights and dominion +in and over the said province nor of Richard +Ingle nor John Durford mariner,” and in the act +of Oblivion, in April, 1650, pardon is granted to +all excepting “Richard Ingle and John Darford +Marryners, and such others of the Isle of Kent” +as were not pardoned by Leonard Calvert.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> In +these two instances alone is any kind of an opportunity +offered for connecting the two names, even +here they are separated, and the distinction is +made greater by the fact that in a commission +concerning Hill, also of August, 1648, and in other +places, Claiborne is mentioned with no reference +at all to Ingle.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> It is probable, in the absence of +evidence to the contrary, that Ingle and Claiborne +never planned any concerted action, but that each +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> +took advantage of the other’s deeds, to further his +own interests.</p> + +<p>To return to the year 1645. The rebellion supposed +to have been originated by Ingle, was +according to statements of the Assembly of 1649, +continued by his accomplices, and during it “most of +your Lordships Royal friends here were spoiled of +their whole Estate and sent away as banished persons +out of the Province those few that remained were +plundered and deprived in a manner of all Livelyhood +and subsistance only Breathing under that +intollerable Yoke which they were forced to bear +under those Rebells.”<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> The people were tendered +an oath against Lord Baltimore, which all the +Roman Catholics refused to take, except William +Thompson, about whom there is some doubt.<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> +Ingle, himself, said that he had been able to take +some places from the papists and malignants, and +with goods taken from them had relieved the well-affected +to parliament. Further on in this paper it +will be seen that Roman Catholics’ property was +attacked under Ingle’s auspices, but that the bad +treatment of them did not continue long and was +not very severe, may be inferred from the fact that +in 1646, there were enough members of the council, +who were Roman Catholics, in the province to +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span> +elect Hill governor. In this connection ought to +be mentioned the report, by an uncertain author, +concerning the Maryland mission, written in 1670. +The report is devoted principally to an account of +a miracle which, strange to say, had not been +recorded, as far as is known, although twenty-four +years had elapsed since it had occurred. “It has +been established by custom and usage of the Catholics,” +the uncertain author wrote, “who live in Maryland, +during the whole night of the 31st of July +following the festival of St. Ignatius, to honor with +a salute of cannon their tutelar guardian and +patron saint. Therefore, in the year 1646, mindful +of the solemn custom, the anniversary of the +holy father being ended, they wished the night +also consecrated to the honor of the same, by the +continual discharge of artillery. At the time, +there were in the neighborhood certain soldiers, +unjust plunderers, Englishmen indeed by birth, of +the heterodox faith, who, coming the year before +with a fleet, had invaded with arms, almost the +entire colony, had plundered, burnt, and finally, +having abducted the priests and driven the +Governor himself into exile, had reduced it to a +miserable servitude. These had protection in a +certain fortified citadel, built for their own defence, +situated about five miles from the others; but now, +aroused by the nocturnal report of the cannon, the +day after, that is on the first of August, rush upon +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> +us with arms, break into the houses of the Catholics, +and plunder whatever there is of arms or +powder.”<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> Now this statement bears upon the face +of it a contradiction, for the restriction upon the +Roman Catholics could not have been very great, +since they were allowed to retain, up to August, +1646, the powder and cannon necessary to fire continual +salutes, moreover, when next day the soldiers +came to their dwellings, nothing seems to have been +taken except the ammunition, and this was done +no doubt to prevent any further alarm, that a body +of troops situated as they were might reasonably +have felt at hearing artillery discharges five miles +away.</p> + +<p>Many writers have stated that good Fathers White +and Fisher were carried off to England by Ingle, +but from the records of the Jesuits at Stonyhurst, +it is learned that Father White was seized “by a +band of soldiers,” “and carried to England in +chains,” and also that in “1645 This year the colony +was attacked by a party of ‘rowdies’ or +marauders and the missioners were carried off to +Virginia.”<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> These extracts serve to show what was +the confusion existing in the minds of contemporaries +of Ingle, and the extreme difficulty, therefore, +of finding the real truth. But in the sworn statements +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> +preserved in the Maryland records, some facts +may be found. Within a few days of the events at +St. Mary’s resulting in partial subversion of Baltimore’s +government, the “Reformation” was riding +at the mouth of St. Inigoes’ creek, near which was +situated the “Cross,” the manor house of Cornwallis, +who, when he had been obliged in 1644 to leave +Maryland, had left his house and property in the +hands of Cuthbert Fenwick, his attorney.<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> Fenwick +was intending to go to Accomac, Virginia, and +sent Thomas Harrison, a servant, who had been +bought from Ingle by Cornwallis, and a fellow servant, +<ins class="abbr" title="Edward">Edw.</ins> Matthews, to help Andrew Monroe to +bring a small pinnace nearer the house.<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> In the +pinnace were clothes, bedding, and other goods, the +property of Fenwick. Monroe refused to bring the +pinnace, and waited until Ingle came into the +creek;<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> and allowed the pinnace to be captured, (if +that may be called a capture to which consent was +given,) and plundered. Fenwick said that the pinnace +was plundered by “Richard Ingle or his associates;”<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a> +another witness said that Ingle “seized or +plundered” the pinnace, and Monroe was employed +by him in his acts against the province, and while +in command of another pinnace assisted in the pillaging +of Copley’s house at Portoback.<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> Matthews +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> +as well as other servants were held captives on the +“Reformation,” and Harrison took up arms for +Ingle and afterwards left the province and fled to +Accomac. 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 under +John Sturman, who seems to have been a leader in +the rebellion, and carried back to the vessel +where he was kept prisoner.<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> In the meantime +Thomas Sturman, John Sturman, coopers, and +William Hardwick, a tailor, led a party to sack +the dwelling of Cornwallis, who, in a petition to +the Governor and Council in 1652, described it as +“a Competent Dwelling house, furnished with +plate, Linnen hangings, beding brass pewter and +all manner of Household Stuff worth at least a +thousand pounds.” In the same petition he said +that the party “plundered and Carryed away all +things in It, pulled downe and burnt the pales +about it, killed and destroyed all the Swine and +Goates and killed or mismarked allmost all the +Cattle, tooke or dispersed all the Servants, +Carryed away a Great quantity of Sawn Boards +from the pitts, and ript up Some floors of the +house. And having by these Violent and unlawfull +Courses forst away my Said Attorny the Said +Thomas and John Sturman possest themselves +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> +of the <ins class="abbr" title="Complainants">Complts</ins> house as theire owne, dwelt in it +Soe long as they please and at their departing +tooke the locks from the doors and y<sup>e</sup> Glass from +the windowes and in fine ruined his whole Estate +to the damage of the <ins class="abbr" title="Complainant">Complt</ins> at least two or three +thousand pounds.”<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> It may be well to bear in +mind that Cornwallis in this petition, which was +against the two Sturmans and Hardwick, who did +not deny the allegations, but claimed the statute +of limitation, no mention is made of Ingle, save +that on his ship Fenwick was detained.<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p> + +<p>In the latter part of the year 1645 began the era +of petitions, which should be taken with allowance, +for the age has been characterized as one of perjury, +and in the representations by both parties in +Maryland politics, advantage was taken of every +slight point to strengthen their respective positions, +and from internal evidence it seems that +some statements were garbled, to say the least +about them. The opening of this era was marked +by the presentation, December 25th, 1645, by the +committee of plantations, to the House of Lords, +the following statements and suggestions, viz: that +many had complained of the tyranny of recusants +in Maryland, “who have seduced and forced many +of his Majesty’s subjects from their religion;” that +by a certificate from the Judge of the Admiralty +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> +grounded upon the deposition of witnesses taken in +that Court: Leonard Calvert, late Governor there, +had a commission from Oxford to seize such +persons, ships and goods as belonged to any of +London; which he registered, proclaimed, and +endeavored to put in execution at Virginia; and +that one Brent, his deputy Governor, had seized +upon a ship, empowered under a commission +derived from the Parliament, because she was of +London, and afterward not only tampered with +the crew thereof to carry her to Bristol, then in +hostility against the Parliament, but also tendered +them an oath against the Parliament; the committee +under these circumstances recommended that +the province should be settled in the hands of protestants.<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> +This was the first part of the determined +effort to deprive the great Cecil Calvert of his +charter of Maryland, which Richard Ingle continued +so vigorously in after years. He was probably in +England at that time, for he refers to the action +of the Lords in regard to the settling of the Maryland +government, in his petition of February 24th, +1645/6, to the House of Lords. To this petition +was appended a statement on behalf of Cornwallis, +which will explain it. Cornwallis said that on +Ingle’s return to England, to cover up his defalcation +in the matter of 200 pounds worth of goods, he +had complained to the committee for examinations +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> +against Cornwallis as an enemy to the State. The +matter was given a full hearing, and when it was +left to the law and the defendant was granted the +right of having witnesses in Maryland examined, +Ingle had him arrested upon two feigned actions to +the value of 15,000 pounds sterling. Some friends +succeeded in rescuing him from prison, and then +Ingle sent the following petition to the House of +Lords, which had the effect of stopping for the time +proceedings against him.<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> Having done so he carried +the prosecution no further. The petition is +somewhat lengthy, but it should be read as it is +eminently characteristic of the man.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a></p> + +<p>“The humble petition of Richard Ingle, showing +That whereas the petitioner, having taken the covenant, +and going out with letters of marque, as Captain +of the ship Reformation, of London, and sailing +to Maryland, where, finding the Governor of +that Province to have received a commission from +Oxford to seize upon all ships belonging to London, +and to execute a tyrannical power against the Protestants, +and such as adhered to the Parliament, +and to press wicked oaths upon them, and to +endeavor their extirpation, the petitioner, conceiving +himself, not only by his warrant, but in his +fidelity to the Parliament, to be conscientiously +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +obliged to come to their assistance, did venture his +life and fortune in landing his men and assisting +the said well affected Protestants against the said +tyrannical government and the Papists and malignants. +It pleased God to enable him to take divers +places from them, and to make him a support to +the said well affected. But since his return to +England, the said Papists and malignants, conspiring +together, have brought fictitious acts against +him, at the common law, in the name of Thomas +Cornwallis and others for pretended trespass, in +taking away their goods, in the parish of St. Christopher’s, +London, which are the very goods that +were by force of war justly and lawfully taken from +these wicked Papists and malignants in Maryland, +and with which he relieved the poor distressed +Protestants there, who otherwise must have starved, +and been rooted out.</p> + +<p>“Now, forasmuch as your Lordships in Parliament +of State, by the order annexed, were pleased +to direct an ordinance to be framed for the settlement +of the said province of Maryland, under the +Committee of Plantations, and for the indemnity of +the actors in it, and for that such false and feigned +actions for matters of war acted in foreign parts, +are not tryable at common law, but, if at all, +before the Court and Marshall; and for that it +would be a dangerous example to permit Papists +and malignants to bring actions of trespass or +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> +otherwise against the well affected for fighting for +the Parliament.</p> + +<p>“The petitioner most humbly beseecheth your +Lordships to be pleased to direct that this business +may be heard before your Lordships at the bar, or +to refer it to a committee to report the true state of +the case and to order that the said suits against +the petitioner at the common law may be staid, +and no further proceeded in.”</p> + +<p>It is not known how this matter was settled, but +in 1647, September 8th, Ingle transferred to Cornwallis +“for divers good and valuable causes” the +debts, bills, &c., belonging to him, and made him +his attorney to collect the same. Among the items +in the inventory appended to the power of attorney +were “A Bill and note of John Sturman’s, the one +dated the 10th of April 1645 for Satisfaction of +tenn pounds of powder the other dated the 4th of +April 1645 for 900 l of <ins class="abbr" title="Tobacco">Tob</ins> & Caske,” and “an +<ins class="abbr" title="acknowledgement">acknowledgem<sup>t</sup></ins> of <ins class="abbr" title="Captain">Cap<sup>t</sup></ins> William Stone dated the +10th of April 1645 for a receipt of a Bill of Argall +Yardley’s Esq, for 9860 l of Tobacco and Caske,”<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> +which show that the mercantile interests of Ingle +were not subservient to his supposed warlike +measures. A consideration of the statements by +Cornwallis and of those by Ingle, proves that the +latter must have had considerable influence in +the Parliament, and that he was prepared to stand +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +by and defend all his actions, and the similarity +to his petition of ideas and even of words in certain +places, would safely allow the conjecture that Ingle +had something to do in the report of 1645 already +mentioned. It is curious also to compare his +reference to the ill-treatment of the Protestants, +and the mention of the hardships of Baltimore’s +adherents, made by the Assembly of 1649. There +is no record of the presence of Ingle in Maryland +after the spring of 1645, though the rebellion which +he was accused of instigating continued some +months longer.<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> For continuity, a rapid sketch +of the history of Maryland during the next two +years must be given.</p> + +<p>For fourteen months the province was without a +settled government. In March, 1645/6, the Virginian +Assembly in view of the secret flight into +Maryland of Lieutenant Stillwell, and others, +enacted that “Capt. Tho. Willoughby, Esq., and +Capt. Edward Hill be hereby authorized to go to +Maryland or Kent to demand the return of such +persons who are alreadie departed from the colony. +And to follow such further instructions as shall be +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> +given them by the Governor and Council.”<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> After +Hill had arrived in Maryland he was elected +governor by the members of the council, who, +notwithstanding Ingle’s rebellion, were in the +province. The right of the council to elect Hill +was afterwards disputed, but one word must be +said in regard to this. The reason for disputing +the right was that the councilors could elect only +a member of the council to be governor. In the +commission to Leonard Calvert in 1637, no such +restriction was made,<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> in the commission of 1642 +the restriction occurs, and in the commission of +1644, which has been preserved in two copies, the +same provision was made.<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> As Lord Baltimore +himself had confused ideas about this commission, +it is not surprising that the council thought they +were doing right in electing Hill. Even if the +council had no right to act thus, Hill had stronger +claims to the governorship. In Lord Baltimore’s +commission to Leonard Calvert, of September 18th, +1644, is the provision:<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> “and lastly whereas our +said Lieutenant may happen to dye or be absent +from time to time out of the said province of Maryland, +before we can have notice to depute another +in his place we do therefore hereby grant unto +him full power and Authority from time to time in +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> +such Cases to Nominate elect and appoint such an +able person inhabiting and residing within our said +province of <ins class="abbr" title="Maryland">Maryl<sup>d</sup></ins>, as he in his discretion shall +make choice of & think fit to be our Lieutenant +Governor, &c.” Such is the command as recorded +in the Council Proceedings of Maryland. But +Baltimore, in 1648, in a commission to the +Governor and council in Maryland, wrote that +Leonard Calvert had no right to appoint any +person in his stead “unless such persons were of +our privy council there,”<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> although he recognized +the validity of Leonard’s death-bed appointment +by witnesses of Governor Greene. He, to +be sure, was a member of the council, but this +fact was not mentioned in the preamble of the +commission, in which the words, with some slight +changes in tense and mood, are almost identical +with those in the preamble of the commission of +July 30th, 1646, from Calvert to Hill, which, notwithstanding +doubts to the contrary, must have +been genuine. For Lord Baltimore, in the commission +of 1648 seems to have acknowledged +that his brother had granted the commission to +Hill,<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> who, in a letter to Calvert, said that he had +promised him one-half the customs and rents, the +remuneration stipulated in his commission. Hill, +not knowing that Calvert was dead, wrote him a +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +letter, dated June 18th, 1647, urging the payment +of his dues, and the next day Greene, the new +Governor, replied that he did not understand the +matter, but that if Hill would send an attorney “full +satisfaction should be given him.” When Hill +wrote next he waived the authority of Calvert, +and based his claim upon the right of the council +to elect him, and in this way placed himself upon +an illegal footing, which circumstance was taken +advantage of for a time by the Maryland authorities. +But finally at a court held June 10th, 1648,<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> +one year after Calvert’s death, a claim from Hill +was presented “for Arrears of what consideration +was Covenanted unto him by Leonard Calvert, +Esq., for his Service in the office of Governor of +this Province, being the half of his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Ldps</ins> rents +for the year 1646 & the half of the Customes for +the Same yeare.” It was ordered by the court, +“that ye half of that yeares Customes as far as it +hath not already been received by Capt. Hill +shall be paid unto him by the <ins class="abbr" title="Lord Proprietors">Ld Prop<sup>rs</sup></ins> Attorny +out of the first profitts which shall be receivable +to his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordship">Ldp</ins> * * * his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Ldps</ins> Receiver shall accompt +& pay unto <ins class="abbr" title="Captain">Cap<sup>t</sup></ins> Edward Hill or his assignes the +one halfe of his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Ldps</ins> rents due at Christmas next +in Lieu of the <ins class="abbr" title="Said">S<sup>d</sup></ins> rents of the yeare 1646 which +were otherwise disposed of to his <ins class="abbr" title="Lordships">Ldps</ins> use.” +There is, however, one fact which must not be +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> +lost sight of in regard to Leonard Calvert’s commission +to Hill. If it was executed by a member +of the council, and therefore was a forgery, for in +the records Calvert’s name is signed to it, and +the place of the seal is noted, it is not at all +likely that it would have been allowed by Calvert +on his return, and by his immediate successors, to +be preserved and copied into the records. If all +other proof failed this last would establish the +validity of Hill’s commission.</p> + +<p>But Calvert, who, throughout his whole career +as governor of Maryland, showed unchanging +devotion to his brother’s interests, gathered in +Virginia a body of soldiers and returned at the +end of 1646 to St. Mary’s, where he easily repossessed +himself of that part of the country, though +Kent Island remained still in possession of +Claiborne’s forces. Thus was ended what has been +called Ingle’s rebellion, in which the loss of the +lord proprietor’s personal estate “was in truth so +small as that it was not Considerable when it was +come in Ballance with the Safety of the Province +which as the then present Condition of things +stood, hung upon so ticklish a pin as that unless +such a disposition had been made thereof an +absolute ruin and subversion of the whole Province +would inevitably have followed.”<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> Another proof +of Hill’s regular appointment is that Calvert on +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> +the 29th of December, soon after his return, +re-assembled the Assembly, which Hill had summoned +and adjourned, and proceeded with it to +enact laws.<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> Although a later Assembly in 1648 +protested against the laws passed by this +Assembly, the proprietor recognized them as +valid, and wrote in 1649 that it had been “lawfully +continued” by his brother “ffor although the +first Sumons were issued by one who was not our +Lawfull Lieutenant there, yet being afterwards +approved of by one that was, it is all one, as to +the proceedings afterward as if at first they had +issued from a lawfull Governor.”<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> 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 +been legally retroactive, and, therefore, that the +laws passed before Calvert’s return must have been +legally valid, saving of course the proprietor’s +dissent. Leonard Calvert having spent some +months in settling the affairs of the province +died, June 9th, 1647, and Greene ruled in his stead. +In the following March, Ingle’s name again +appears in the records. The governor, on March +4th, 1648, proclaimed pardon to all except +Richard Ingle, and in August of the same year +the lord proprietor issued, besides his commissions +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> +to Governor Stone, to the council and to secretary +Thomas Hatton, commissions, for the Great Seal, +for muster master general, and for commander of +the Isle of Kent. John Price was made muster +master general for his “great Fidelity unto us in +that Occasion of the late insurrection and Rebellion +in our said province was begun there by +that Notorious Villain Richard Ingle and his +Complices,” and Robert Vaughan was appointed +commander of Kent for the same reason.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> Then +in 1650 was passed the act of Oblivion, excepting +Ingle, Durford, and some of the Isle of Kent. In +1649, Baltimore granted to James Lindsey and +Richard Willan certain lands, and directed that +in the grants should be inserted the notice “of +their singular and approved worth courage and +fidelity (in Ingle’s insurrection) to the end a +memory of their merit and of his (the Proprietor) +sense thereof may remain upon record to the +honour of them and their posterity forever.”<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> + +<p>An investigation into Ingle’s doings at this +time may explain the bitter terms in which he is +mentioned in the official records of Maryland, +and also why upon him was foisted the chief +responsibility for the disturbances. During the +year 1646, Lord Baltimore was engaged in defending +his charter, against the justice of which +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> +such grave charges had been brought by Ingle +and others, in the winter of 1645/6. On January +23rd, 1646/7, application in Baltimore’s behalf, was +made to the House of Lords, that the depositions +of witnesses made before the Admiralty Court +in regard to Maryland should be read. In a few +weeks Baltimore begged that the actions looking +to the repeal of his charter might be delayed, +and on the same day certain merchants in London, +who were interested in the Virginia trade, +requested that the ordinance should be sent to +the Commons, for Baltimore’s petition was +intended only to cause delay.<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> The matter was +stayed for the time, but by December, 1649, Ingle +had sent to the Council of State a petition and +remonstrance against the government of Lord +Baltimore’s colony. The hearing, which was +referred to the Committee of the Admiralty, was +postponed until January 10th, 1650, when Baltimore’s +agent requested it to be deferred until +the 16th. Witnesses were summoned and upon +Baltimore’s appearance, he was ordered to make +answer in writing to Ingle by the 30th. On January +29th the matter was again postponed until +February 6th, “in respect of extraordinary occasions +not permitting them to hear the same to-morrow.” +Delay followed delay until March 1st, +when Ingle was “unprovided to prove” the +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> +charges against Lord Baltimore for misconduct +in the government of Maryland, but on the 15th +of the same month, “after several debates of the +business depending between Capt. Ingle and Lord +Baltimore, touching a commission granted to +Leonard Calvert, * * * by the late King at Oxford +in 1643” the advocate for the State and the +attorney general were directed to examine the +validity of the original charter to Cecil, Lord +Baltimore. Allusion to this matter was again +made in the records, but nothing showing its +result unless it be the order of the Council of +State, of December 23d, 1651, that Lord Baltimore +should be allowed to “pursue his cause according +to law.”<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a></p> + +<p>Ingle seems to have been at this time in the service +of what was once a parliament, but which had +been reduced in 1648, by Pride’s purge, to about +sixty members. In February, 1650, he informed +the Council of State that on board two ships, the +“‘Flower de Luce’ and the ‘Thomas and John,’ +were persons bound to Virginia, who were enemies +of the Commonwealth.” The vessels were stayed +for over a month, when they were allowed to sail +down to Gravesend, where, before they left for Virginia, +the mayor and justices were to “take the +superscription of passengers and mariners not to +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +engage against the Commonwealth.”<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> In April +of this year the Council of State ordered the +payment to Ingle of £30 sterling for services and +care in keeping Captain Gardner, who had been +arrested for treason, in having tried to betray +Portland Castle.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> He again comes into notice +in 1653, by some letters written by him to Edward +Marston. He had been cast away by shipwreck +in the Downs, and was then at Dover, where he +had been very ill. Having heard that two prizes +which he had helped to secure, had been 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 send one part to +his wife, and the other to him. On November 14th, +he again wrote that he had received no answer +although “I have written you every post these +3 weeks, having been sick my want of money is +great.”<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> This is the last fact, which can at present +be found, about Richard Ingle, who first came into +notice demanding tobacco debts, and is discovered, +at last demanding prize money. These two acts +were typical of the man, he was always on the +lookout for gain and yet remained a staunch +adherent to the Long Parliament, which did so +much to strengthen English liberties, but whose +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> +acts led to such extreme measures as those which +culminated in the execution of the self-willed +unfortunate Charles I.</p> + +<p>By a careful consideration of all the facts, it +will be seen that the acts of Richard Ingle are +in some cases legendary, and as such naturally +have become more heinous with every successive +account. The endeavor has been in this +paper to give an unprejudiced historical account +of his life, but in view of the mis-statements about +him, it still remains to sum up, and examine the +specific charges against him. He is accused of +having stolen the silver seal of the province. +Lord Baltimore’s own statements, however, concerning +it are doubtful. “Whereas our great seal of the +said province of Maryland was treacherously and +violently taken away from thence by Richard +Ingle or his complices in or about February,<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> +1644/5,” he wrote in August, 1648. Nothing +had been said according to the records up to +that time in Maryland about the loss of the seal. +On the contrary, in a commission given by Governor +Greene on July 4th, 1647, over a year before +the proprietor’s commission for the great seal, +are the words, “Given under my hand and the +Seal of the province.”<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> and in the proclamation +of March 4th, 1648, Greene promised pardon +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> +“under my hand and the seal of the province,”<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> +to all out of the province except Ingle, who should +confess their faults before a certain date.</p> + +<p>It may be urged against these facts that +“under my hand and the seal of the province,” +was mere legal phraseology. But those which +have been given are the only two instances of the +use of the term from 1646 to 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 not more +frequently used? Again, it may be said that it +was a temporary seal. If it were, it is strange +that no mention is made of the fact in the records +of the province, or in Lord Baltimore’s commission +for the new seal. It was hoped and desired +that in this paper no occasion would arise to make +accusations against any of Ingle’s opponents, but +historic truth now requires it to be done. It must +be remembered that Baltimore was in constant +danger of losing his charter, in a great measure, +on account of Ingle’s activity against him. Upon +his authority alone is based the charge against +Ingle about the seal, but of how much value is +the authority of one who, at the very same time +and in a commission sent out with that of the +seal, wrote that Leonard Calvert “was limited by +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> +our commission to him not to appoint” any person +governor “unless such person were of our privy +council there,”<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> although no such limitation as to +the governor’s right was made in any of the commissions +to Leonard Calvert so this clause in +the lord proprietor’s commission resolves itself +into a Machiavellian statement. It is hardly +credible that Lord Baltimore could have made +such a statement from ignorance, for no one knew +the commission better than the author of it. But +notwithstanding the evidence against Lord Baltimore, +the writer has too high an opinion of his +character to attribute to him the diplomatic +lie. Lord Baltimore was no doubt influenced a +great deal, by what was reported to him concerning +Maryland, so the blame must rest upon his +informers. Still if these persons would resort to +such methods in one case, they would be likely to +do so in other instances. Whoever was the author +of the statement, it throws doubt upon other supposed +facts of this period, and leads to the conclusion +that the commission for a new seal was one +of the reconstructive acts of the proprietor, on a +par with the treatment of Hill.</p> + +<p>Ingle has been charged with the destruction of +the records of the province. What was Baltimore’s +opinion? “We understand” he wrote in +1651, “that in the late Rebellion there One thousand +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> +Six hundred Forty and four most of the Records +of that province being then lost or embezzled.”<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> +This hearsay statement of Lord Baltimore may +have been based upon the testimony in 1649, of +Thomas Hatton, Secretary of the province, of the +receipt of books from Mr. Bretton, who “delivered +to me this Book, and another lesser Book with a +Parchment Cover, divers of the Leaves thereof +being cut or torn out, and many of them being +lost and much worn out and defaced together with +divers other Papers and Writings bound together in +a Bundle,”<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> and swore that they were all the documents +belonging to the secretary or register which +could be found, “except some Warrants, and some +Draughts of Mr. <em>Hill’s</em> Time.” All the records, +therefore, were not destroyed, but in 1649, there +were in existence papers belonging to the Hill +regime. But greater proofs against the vandalism +of Ingle are the records themselves, or the copies +of them, which could not have been made if the +originals had been destroyed, and which have at +last been deposited where thieves do not break +through nor steal. There have been preserved +among the records up to 1647, the original proprietary +record books, liber Z., 1637-1644 and +liber P. R., 1642 to February 12, 1645. The +Council Proceedings, 1636-1657, the Assembly +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> +Proceedings, 1638-1658, and liber F., 1636-1642, +proprietary records, have been handed down in +copies. The loss of liber F., 1636-1642, can no more +be attributed to Ingle than can the loss of liber +K., 1692-1694, which was made fifty years after +Ingle’s time. Both of these, as well as records +of later years, have been preserved in copies +only, but a brief study of the Calendar of State +Archives, prefixed to the Acts of Assembly, will +demonstrate that the destruction of records by +Ingle could not have been so great as has been +supposed. But did he destroy any? There are +gaps in the records, that exist between February +14, 1645, when the rebellion occurred, and December, +1646, when Calvert returned, but it is not +likely that under the existing circumstances very +great care was taken of the records of these twenty-two +months, and moreover there is no proof that +Ingle was in the province after 1645, for he was +probably in London in December of that year, +and certainly in the following February. His +appointing Cornwallis his attorney for collecting +Maryland and Virginia debts would also lead one +to believe that he did not return to the province. +Some of the records of the Hill government, however, +were in existence in 1649, but as far as is +known have since disappeared. Ingle certainly +did not destroy them, and indeed to a man +engaged in the tobacco trade, there were few +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> +inducements to waste his time, and that of his +men cutting up records.</p> + +<p>It is difficult to understand why Lord Baltimore +should have called Ingle an “ungrateful villain,” +for the reception the latter met at St. Mary’s in +1644, was not calculated to inspire one with gratitude. +The compensation offered Ingle might have +been deemed liberal, but the Maryland authorities +acknowledged that they had to make this offer for +the public good and safety, and, therefore, no particular +credit can be given them for kindness +towards the troublesome mariner. But the relations +between Ingle and Cornwallis are rather +perplexing. The latter accused Ingle of not +returning the value of goods entrusted to him, +and also of landing, during his absence, “some +men near his house,” and rifling “him to the +value of 2,500 l at least.”<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> All this was done after +Cornwallis had showed his devotion to Parliament, +by releasing Ingle. It must be remembered in +connection with the devotion to Parliament, that +Ingle was doing the great carrying trade for Cornwallis. +Besides, after Ingle had made him his +attorney, he went to Maryland and there sued +three men for the pillage and destruction of his +property, without implicating Ingle. In the +absence of full records concerning these two men, +it is unfair to judge either of them harshly in this +matter.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> +The indefinite allusion to Ingle’s piracy in 1644 +was not sustained, but in 1649 he was again called +“pirate.” The definition of piracy has undergone +many changes within the past three hundred years. +From robbery committed upon the high seas, it +has come to mean, “acts of violence done upon +the ocean or unappropriated lands or within the +territory of a state through descent from the sea, by +a body of men acting independently of any political +or organized society.”<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> The pirate has also +been held as an enemy, whom the whole human +race can oppress. These definitions are from the +international standpoint. What was the English +law at the time of Ingle? The treatment of +pirates was regulated by the Act of Parliament, +made in the reign of Henry VIII.,<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> and Sir Leoline +Jenkins, on September 2d, 1668, at a session of +the Admiralty, said, “now robbery as ’tis distinguished +from thieving or larceny, implies not +only the actual taking away of my goods, while I +am, as we say, in peace, but also the putting me +in fear, by taking them away by force and arms +out of my hands, or in my sight and presence, +when this is done upon the sea, without a lawful +commission of war or reprisals, it is downright +Piracy.”<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> In the Assembly of March, 1638, +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> +piracy was defined as follows: “William dawson +with divers others did assault the vessels of Capt. +Thomas Cornwaleys his company feloniously and +as pyrates & robbers to take the said vessels +and did discharge divers peices charged wi<sup>th</sup> bulletts +& shott against the said Thomas Cornwaleys, +&c.”<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> Granted, although it is doubtful, that +Ingle seized the pinnace, riding in St. Inigoes’ +creek, he was not, therefore, a pirate. According +to the testimony, he used no force, for the one in +charge of the pinnace allowed him to take it; and +the act was not committed on the high seas. For +the acts committed on the land, Ingle acknowledged +himself to have been responsible; for in +his petition he wrote, that he “did venture his life +and fortune in landing his men and assisting the +said well-affected Protestants (<i>i. e.</i>, such as adhered +to Parliament)” against the government, the +papists and malignants. His acts on the land +were rather contradictory, if one reads the testimony. +In 1647, for instance, a certain Walter +Beane<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> at the request of Cuthbert Fenwick, said +that during the plundering time, with the consent +of Fenwick, he paid Ingle some tobacco, which +was due Fenwick or Cornwallis. Ingle then gave +him the following, “Received of Walter Beane +five <ins class="abbr" title="hundred">hund<sup>r</sup></ins> Thirty Eight pounds of <ins class="abbr" title="Tobacco">Tob</ins> for a debt +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> +<ins class="abbr" title="that">th<sup>t</sup></ins> the <ins class="abbr" title="said">s<sup>d</sup></ins> Walter Beane did owe to Cuthbert ffenwick. +Witness my hand,</p> + +<p class="sig"><span class="smcap"><ins class="abbr" title="Richard">Rich<sup>d</sup>.</ins> Ingle</span>.”</p> + +<p>Beane stated also that sometime before Ingle +came, he paid six hogsheads of tobacco to Fenwick +for Cornwallis, and that Ingle, upon his +arrival, sent eleven men to fetch the hogsheads +and other tobacco; that when Beane refused to +give them up, Ingle was notified, and sent a note +threatening extreme measures, and Beane was +thus forced to give up the tobacco. Does it not +seem curious that Ingle should give a receipt for +one batch of tobacco, and within a short time have +other tobacco forcibly seized? Of course the +authorities of Maryland might have considered +such acts piratical. But they were not. Ingle +had a commission from Parliament, to relieve the +planters in Maryland, by furnishing them arms, +&c. He found the government of Maryland at +enmity with Parliament, which was the actual +government of England at that time, and assisted +the friends of Parliament in Maryland. Even +if he exceeded the provisions of his letter of +marque he was responsible to Parliament alone.<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> +That the English authorities did not disapprove +of his conduct is shown by the weight attached to +his statements, and by the fact that he was afterwards +in the service of the Commonwealth.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> +As to Ingle’s having been a “rebel,” the facts +all point to his participation in the beginning of a +rebellion, caused probably, by those dissatisfied +with Leonard Calvert’s rule, more probably by the +influence of William Claiborne, who in spite of +condemnatory acts by the Maryland Assembly, +and the vacillating measures of Charles I., insisted +for many years upon his right to Kent Island. +But rebellion is viewed in different ways: by those +against whom it is made, with horror and detestation; +by those who make it, with pride and ofttimes +with devotion. If Ingle led on the rebellion, +he was acting in Maryland, only as Cromwell +afterwards did on a larger scale, in England, +and as Bacon, the brave and noble, did in Virginia, +and to be placed in the same category with +many, who will be handed down to future generations +as rebels, will be no discredit to the first +Maryland rebel.</p> + + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Spotswood Letters, Brock, p. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Rev. <ins class="abbr" title="Edward">Edw.</ins> D. Neill, to whom I am indebted for valuable references, was +the first to attempt any kind of a defence of Ingle, but Dr. <ins class="abbr" title="William">Wm.</ins> Hand +Browne, who also has greatly aided me, has omitted the pirate and rebel +clause in the history which he is preparing for the Commonwealth Series.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> 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.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Winthrop’s History of New England, Vol. II., p. 75. Winthrop gave +another spelling, “Jugle,” no doubt obtained from the signature, as has +been done with the name more than once in modern times. In a bill sent +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.” The bill was, however, +returned “Ignoramus,” and the use of the name was probably +anachronous.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> Proprietary Records, Liber P. R., p. 85.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> Ibid., p. 124.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> Ibid., p. 137.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Ibid., p. 124. Council Proceedings, 1636-1657. Bozman, in his History +of Maryland, Vol. II., p. 271, not knowing evidently that more than one +warrant was issued for Ingle’s arrest, transposed this proclamation, making +it follow Jan. 20; but in P. R. it is under date of Jan. 18, 1643/4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> P. R., p. 146.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 125, 138.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> C. P., p. 111, P. R., p. 125.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> Ibid., p. 125.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 129, 130.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a> Ibid.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> This was on the south side of the Patuxent river. At one time the +Jesuits used a building there for a storehouse. There was the favorite +dwelling of Charles, third Lord Baltimore, which afterward belonged to +Mr. Henry Sewall, and there Col. Darnall took refuge during the Coode +uprising.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> P. R., p. 131.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Ibid., p. 134.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 137, 139.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Ibid., p. 141.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a> Ibid., p. 148.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Bozman: History of Maryland, Vol. II., p. 272.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> P. R., p. 149.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> Ibid., p. 150.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> Ibid., p. 131.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 139, 145.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> Sixth Report of the Historical Commission to Parliament, p. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> P. R., pp. 140, 141, 146.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> Ibid., p. 146.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> The absence of punctuation between the “Elizabeth and Ellen” leads +one to conjecture that there were but seven vessels.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Journal of the House of Commons, 1642-44, p. 607. This may be found +in the Congressional Library, Washington, D. C.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> Collections N. Y. Historical Society, Series II., Vol. III., p. 126. Winthrop: +History of New England, Vol. II., p. 198.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 224; Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Papers Relating to the Early History of Maryland, by S. F. Streeter, +p. 267.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> C. P., pp. 166, 201, 204; A. P., 238, 270.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> C. P., p. 175; A. P., p. 301.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> C. P., p. 209.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> A. P., p. 238.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 238, 270, 271. At the request of the Assembly, Baltimore forgave +Thompson for acts which he might have committed by reason of ignorance +or through a mistake.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, p. 95.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> Records of the Eng. Prov. Society of Jesus, Series V., VI., VII., VIII., +pp. 337, 389.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 432.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> Ibid., p. 572.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. II., p. 354.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. I., p. 584.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> Now Port Tobacco, Charles Co. Ibid., Vol. II., p. 354.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. I., p. 433. Most of the testimony against Ingle in Maryland +was by those whom he had held prisoners.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 432, 433.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> Ibid.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Terra Mariae, Neill, pp. 110, 111.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> Rev. E. D. Neill has given the full draft of this petition. See Founders +of Maryland, pp. 75-77.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 378.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> Father White and Father Fisher were carried to England and imprisoned. +The former was, after some months, released upon the condition of +his leaving England. He went to Belgium, and afterwards returned to +England, but never again to Maryland. “Thirsting for the salvation of his +beloved Marylanders he sought every opportunity of returning secretly to +that mission, earnestly begging the favor of his Superiors; but, as the +good Father was then upwards of sixty-five years of age and his constitution +broken down, they would not consent.” R. P. S. J., p. 337. Fisher +was released and returned to Maryland.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Hening: Statutes, Vol. I., p. 321.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> C. P., pp. 17, 77.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Ibid., p. 136; L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 203.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> C. P., p. 135.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Ibid., p. 209.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> Ibid., p. 154-161.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> L. O. R., Vol. II., p. 328.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a> A. P., p. 242.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> Ibid., pp. 209-210.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Ibid., 266.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> C. P., pp. 204-205.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Kilty. Landholder’s Assistant, pp. 79-80; L. O. R., Vol. II., p. 410.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Seventh Report His. Com., pp. 54, 162.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> Sainsbury: Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1574-1660, pp. 331-337, 368.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Ibid.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> Ibid., Domestic, 1650, pp. 64, 79, 572.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> Ibid., 1653-1654, pp. 235, 251, 278.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> C. P., 201.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> Ibid., 162.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> Ibid., 166.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Ibid., p. 209.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> A. P., p. 329.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> C. P., 219.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Hall: International Law, p. 218.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> 28 Henry VIII., C. 15. See p. 124, Vol. VI., Evan’s Collection of +Statutes.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> Quoted by Phillimore. See International Law, Vol. I., p. 414.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> A. P., pp. 17-18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> L. O. R., Vol. II., p. 312.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> Phillimore, Vol. I., p. 425.</p></div> +</div> + + +<div class="bbox"> +<p><b>Transcriber's Note</b></p> + +<p>Archaic and variable spelling and capitalisation has been preserved in +the quoted material as printed. Asterisks are used instead of periods in +ellipses. Minor punctuation errors have been repaired. Where the +letter l (representing pounds) is preceded by a number, a space has +been inserted between number and l for clarity.</p> + +<p>The following amendments have been made:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>Page <a href="#Page_14">14</a>—Febuary amended to February—"... a copy of a certificate to Ingle under date of +February 8th, ..."</p> + +<p>Page <a href="#Page_20">20</a>—masacre amended to massacre—"... had given as a reason for the Indian massacre, +..."</p> + +<p>Page <a href="#Page_33">33</a>—Corwallis amended to Cornwallis—"A consideration of the statements by +Cornwallis and ..."</p> + +<p>Page <a href="#Page_47">47</a>—proprietory amended to proprietary—"... and liber F., 1636-1642, proprietary +records, have been handed down ..."</p> +</div> +</div> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Captain Richard Ingle, by Edward Ingle + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE *** + +***** This file should be named 26958-h.htm or 26958-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + https://www.gutenberg.org/2/6/9/5/26958/ + +Produced by Robert Cicconetti, Sam W. and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This +file was produced from images generously made available +by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +https://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at https://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit https://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including including checks, online payments and credit card +donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + https://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> diff --git a/26958-h/images/cri01.jpg b/26958-h/images/cri01.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..f15668c --- /dev/null +++ b/26958-h/images/cri01.jpg diff --git a/26958-h/images/cri02.png b/26958-h/images/cri02.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..c24bedf --- /dev/null +++ b/26958-h/images/cri02.png diff --git a/26958-h/images/cri03.png b/26958-h/images/cri03.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..bec323c --- /dev/null +++ b/26958-h/images/cri03.png diff --git a/26958-h/images/cri04.png b/26958-h/images/cri04.png Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..033a1f0 --- /dev/null +++ b/26958-h/images/cri04.png |
