00000326 |
Previous | 326 of 597 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
THE CHARTER IN DANGER. 299
But the case in which sentence was carried into execution, happened in
1685; and unfortunately we have but a meagre notice of it. The victim was
a woman, designated in our sole authority for the fact, by the initials B. F.
She was indicted for witchcraft, and the jury, upon trial, brought " a special
verdict, finding the facts, and if," etc. " The court took time to consider
their evidence till the next term." "Afterwards, the court having advised
themselves of, and upon the premises, it is considered by the court that the
said E. F. be hanged by the neck till she be dead," which was carried into
execution on the 9th of October following. There were several other cases
tried in Maryland, one in 1686, and one as late as 1712, in which the verdicts
were " not guilty."x
The accession of James II., in 1685, might have seemed a favorable event for
Lord Baltimore, as the new sovereign was of his own faith; but James's religion,
though narrow to the extreme of bigotry, placed no obstacles in the way of his
tyrannous craving for absolute power. The sudden uprising under Monmouth
was crushed with a -severity and punished with a pitiless vindictiveness that
have branded his name and those of the ministers of his cruelty with lasting
infamy. He wrote to the proprietary on the 26th of June, telling him of the
revolt and its failure, and informing him that " the parliament had cheerfully
granted him aid, to be levied on the importation of sugars and tobacco," which
he hoped would not be burdensome to the inhabitants of Maryland, as the
imposition was not laid on the planter, but on the retailers and consumers.
- When Baltimore reached England, he found that he had little to hope
from either the sympathy or justice of the king, whose designs against the
liberties of the English people were extended to the colonies, where the
charters formed a hindrance to his tyranny that he was resolved to sweep
away. That of Maryland, as the most liberal, was specially obnoxious; and
finally, on April 30, 1687, the king in council, alleging that it was of very
great and growing prejudice to his affairs in the plantations and to the
customs here, that such independent administrations should be maintained
without more immediate dependence on the crown, directed the attorney
general, Sir Eobert Sawyer, " to proceed in prosecution on the writ of quo
warranto against the Lord Baltimore's and other proprietary charters."
To avert this issue, Lord Baltimore had pleaded " that the administration
of his province had been at all times conducted conformably to his charter
and to the laws of England; that he never was informed of the pleasure of
his prince, but it was always obeyed; that neither he nor his father had done
any act which could incur a forfeiture of a patent which they had dearly
purchased in adding a considerable province to the empire."2 Little would
this plea have availed him; but before judgment could be obtained on the
writ of quo ivarranto, the king himself had been condemned by a mightier
tribunal, and had been deprived of his crown and driven from his kingdom
by the revolution of 1688.
1 Kilty's English Statutes, p. 190. 2 Chalmers, p. 371.
| Title | History of Maryland - 1 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000326 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | THE CHARTER IN DANGER. 299 But the case in which sentence was carried into execution, happened in 1685; and unfortunately we have but a meagre notice of it. The victim was a woman, designated in our sole authority for the fact, by the initials B. F. She was indicted for witchcraft, and the jury, upon trial, brought " a special verdict, finding the facts, and if," etc. " The court took time to consider their evidence till the next term." "Afterwards, the court having advised themselves of, and upon the premises, it is considered by the court that the said E. F. be hanged by the neck till she be dead," which was carried into execution on the 9th of October following. There were several other cases tried in Maryland, one in 1686, and one as late as 1712, in which the verdicts were " not guilty."x The accession of James II., in 1685, might have seemed a favorable event for Lord Baltimore, as the new sovereign was of his own faith; but James's religion, though narrow to the extreme of bigotry, placed no obstacles in the way of his tyrannous craving for absolute power. The sudden uprising under Monmouth was crushed with a -severity and punished with a pitiless vindictiveness that have branded his name and those of the ministers of his cruelty with lasting infamy. He wrote to the proprietary on the 26th of June, telling him of the revolt and its failure, and informing him that " the parliament had cheerfully granted him aid, to be levied on the importation of sugars and tobacco," which he hoped would not be burdensome to the inhabitants of Maryland, as the imposition was not laid on the planter, but on the retailers and consumers. - When Baltimore reached England, he found that he had little to hope from either the sympathy or justice of the king, whose designs against the liberties of the English people were extended to the colonies, where the charters formed a hindrance to his tyranny that he was resolved to sweep away. That of Maryland, as the most liberal, was specially obnoxious; and finally, on April 30, 1687, the king in council, alleging that it was of very great and growing prejudice to his affairs in the plantations and to the customs here, that such independent administrations should be maintained without more immediate dependence on the crown, directed the attorney general, Sir Eobert Sawyer, " to proceed in prosecution on the writ of quo warranto against the Lord Baltimore's and other proprietary charters." To avert this issue, Lord Baltimore had pleaded " that the administration of his province had been at all times conducted conformably to his charter and to the laws of England; that he never was informed of the pleasure of his prince, but it was always obeyed; that neither he nor his father had done any act which could incur a forfeiture of a patent which they had dearly purchased in adding a considerable province to the empire."2 Little would this plea have availed him; but before judgment could be obtained on the writ of quo ivarranto, the king himself had been condemned by a mightier tribunal, and had been deprived of his crown and driven from his kingdom by the revolution of 1688. 1 Kilty's English Statutes, p. 190. 2 Chalmers, p. 371. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
