Google This is a digital copy of a book lhal w;ls preserved for general ions on library shelves before il was carefully scanned by Google as pari of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. Il has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one thai was never subject to copy right or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often dillicull lo discover. Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher lo a library and linally lo you. Usage guidelines Google is proud lo partner with libraries lo digili/e public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order lo keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial panics, including placing Icchnical restrictions on automated querying. We also ask that you: + Make n on -commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request thai you use these files for personal, non -commercial purposes. + Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort lo Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each lile is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. + Keep it legal Whatever your use. remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries. Whether a book is slill in copyright varies from country lo country, and we can'l offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. About Google Book Search Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through I lie lull lexl of 1 1 us book on I lie web al |_-.:. :.-.-:: / / books . qooqle . com/| WHITE SERVITUDE IN MARYLAND Series XXII Nos. 3-4 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN Historical and Political Science (Edited by H. B. Adams, 1882-1901) J. M. VINCENT J. H. HOLLANDER W. W. WILLOUGHBY Editors WHITE SERVITUDE IN MARYLAND I634- l820 BY EUGENE IRVING McCORMAC, PH. D. Instructor in American History, University of California BALTIMORE: JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PUBLISHED MONTHLY MARCH- APRIL, 1904 C * — /' % 'j i .;■. N-:w \ M:K" 287719 ' ASlch, LLNOx AND TILDES KJ fc -i '-^ '.ON,. 19l"4 Copyright 1904, by THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PBB8S OF guggbnhbimbb, wbil & co. Baltimobb, Md. • ••• • •• •• " w . to • • • • , » • IP • to to •* *•:; v -- -- : b fc to ^v.:..» I. w V 'to* •• CONTENTS. Chapter Page I. Introduction 7 II. The Early Land System in Maryland n III. Number and Economic Importance 27 IV. Indenture and "Custom of the Country" 37 V. Fugitive Servants 48 VI. Status of Servants and Freedmen 60 VII. Servant Militia 80 VIII. Convicts 92 Conclusion 107 4 / C % I 1 •• : ■ v. # 4 r » Copyright 1904, by THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PBB8S OF GUGGBICHBIMBB, WBIL A Co. Baltimore, Md. '•• " » • • • • • «. • • * *> fcta •» ' „ w * .- ; " fc CONTENTS. Chapter Page I. Introduction 7 II. The Early Land System in Maryland n III. Number and Economic Importance 27 IV. Indenture and "Custom of the Country" 37 V. Fugitive Servants 48 VI. Status of Servants and Freedmen 60 VII. Servant Militia 80 VIII. Convicts 92 Conclusion 107 J ,% 1 ' >-' V 1 ""?*"^ 1**1 -*-••:«- * m 719 A:lu LL^-O. AND mDLK KJ'-. * o--. . ._ ■> Copyright 1904, by THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS PBB8S OF guggbkhbimbb, wbil & co. Baltimobb, Md. » «■ - «. «■ to • V • • to • , • « ' to ~ » * V to • to * to to to «. Wto •»• to «. <■ V w »W to * CONTENTS. Chapter Page I. Introduction 7 II. The Early Land System in Maryland 11 III. Number and Economic Importance 27 IV. Indenture and "Custom of the Country" 37 V. Fugitive Servants 48 VI. Status of Servants and Freedmen 60 VII. Servant Militia 80 VIII. Convicts 92 Conclusion 107 / ■r% I I — ■* g - * * * A v / a; i v. i : l^-o **'& i * *« Copyright 1904, by THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS Pbbbs of guggbnhbimxb, weil a co. Baltimore, Md. . • ••• • •• •. » ■ « • • * " «■• „• •- • • • . _ » • » » * • I. " v * w • • • CONTENTS. Chapter Page I. Introduction 7 II. The Early Land System in Maryland 11 III. Number and Economic Importance 27 IV. Indenture and "Custom of the Country" 37 V. Fugitive Servants 48 VI. Status of Servants and Freedmen 60 VII. Servant Militia 80 VIII. Convicts 92 Conclusion 107 WHITE SERVITUDE IN MARYLAND CHAPTER I. Introduction. White servitude as it existed in Maryland and the other colonies was only a modified form of the system of appren- ticeship which had been in vogue in England for several centuries preceding. The wide use of this system of labor during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries accounts in a great measure for the readiness with which persons in later years entered into a contract of servitude in order to reach the New World. Not only were persons regularly bound out to masters for the purpose of learning various trades, but it was customary in the early part of the sixteenth cen- tury for parents of all classes to apprentice their children to strangers at an early age. 1 Used at first for training tradesmen and domestics, the system was extended to agri- cultural laborers during the reign of Elizabeth. The con- dition of the laborer had become so reduced by the debase- *The following contemporary account illustrates how common this custom was in the first part of the sixteenth century. "The want of affection in the English is strongly manifest toward their children; for after having kept them at home till they arrive at the age of 7 or 9 years at the utmost, they put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another 7 or 9 years. And these are called apprentices, and during that time they perform all the most menial offices; and few are born who are exempted from this fate, for every one, however rich he may be, sends away his children into the houses of others, whilst he, in return, receives those of strangers into his own." — Italian Relation of England, Camden Society, 1847. 8 White Servitude in Maryland. [120 i ment of the currency, the change from tillage to sheep- farming and the numerous enclosures of land during the preceding reigns 2 that vagrancy and crime were met with on every hand. Attempts were made to better the condi- tions by compulsory apprentice laws 3 and by forced con- tributions for the poor. 4 Work was to be provided for those who were able to do it, and relief for those who were not. Poor children were to be trained for some trade and the idle were to be punished. In the reign of James I. the I statutes of Elizabeth for binding children were made use of 1 for sending them to the plantations. 5 But statutory reme- dies failed to afford adequate relief, and, in spite of the general prosperity during Elizabeth's reign, the condition of the poorer classes was deplorable. 6 In the latter part of the reign and during that of James, attempts were made to relieve England of her surplus population by founding colonies in America. The early expeditions were ill- planned and ill-managed. No systematic methods were adopted for supplying the plantations with laborers and failure was inevitable. In order to maintain a permanent and profitable settlement, a constant supply of laborers from the mother country was indispensable, but without pecu- niary assistance the poor of Europe were unable to emigrate. Various schemes were proposed for promoting emigra- tion, the most successful of which was the system of apprenticeship. It was successful not only in furnishing emigrants with free transportation to America, but in profit- ably employing them when they reached there. Sir George Peckham, partner in the colonization schemes of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, seems to have been the first who conceived the idea of sending out apprentices to the planta- 2 Gibbins, Industry in England, p. 256. 8 5 Eliz. cap. 4. 4 43 Eliz. cap. 2. 6 Cal. St. Pap. Col. Feb. 18, 1623. e Gibbins, p. 260. 121 J Introduction. 9 tions. In a treatise on the benefits to be derived from colonization written in 1582, he says: "There are at this day great numbers . . . which Hue in such penurie & want, as could be contented to hazard their Hues, and to serue one yeere for meat, drinke and apparell only, without wages, in hope thereby to amend their estates." He urges that in this way the kingdom will be greatly enlarged and strength- ened, the poor relieved, and "all odious idleness from this our Realme vtterly banished." 7 During the reign of James I. the apprenticeship system was adopted by the Virginia and London Companies as well as private adventurers. Servitude as established by these Companies differed in many respects from the indentured servitude of later years. The servant was in theory a member of the Company and served for a term of years to repay the Company for his transportation and maintenance. 8 In order to carry out the scheme of colonization, money was raised by subscription to assist those who were willing to embark, and many who were unwilling to go were im- pressed as servants for the plantations. The practice of ap- prenticing poor children to the Virginia Company began as early as 1620. In that year, Sir Edwin Sandys petitioned Secretary Naunton for authority to send out one hundred children who had been "appointed for transportation" by the city of London, but who were unwilling to go. 9 By making use of the apprenticeship statute of Elizabeth this difficulty was removed, and both children and vagrants were regularly gathered up in London and elsewhere, and con- tracts made with merchants for carying them to America. To this number were added persons who were convicted of capital offences, but pardoned and transported by the order of the king. For a number of years the involuntary emigrants prob- T Hart's Contemporaries, I. p. 157. •Ballagh, White Servitude in Virginia, p. 13. •Cal. St. Pap. Col. Jan. 28, 1620. io White Servitude in Maryland. [122 ably outnumbered those who went of their own free wills; 10 but when the colony became firmly established, men and women willingly bound themselves to serve for a term of years in order to obtain free transportation to America. The system of servitude thus early established in Virginia was adopted by Lord Baltimore as a means of settling and developing the colony of Maryland. Too poor to send out settlers himself, he induced others to transport servants in return for grants of land in the new colony. Many who did not wish to go in person furnished Baltimore money for transporting servants and received their pay in lands. The servants usually signed a written contract called an indenture, which bound them to serve a master for a speci- fied number of years in return for free transportation, food, clothing and fifty acres of land. From this contract, whether they signed it or not, all servants came to be called "indented servants." 10 Hammond, Leah and Rachell, p. 7. CHAPTER II. The Early Land System in Maryland. The land system in Maryland during the life of the second Lord Baltimore was very closely connected with the enter- prise of importing white servants into that colony. Land was parcelled out to the adventurers directly in proportion to the number of servants brought with them from England. Concerning the motives which led Lord Baltimore to found the colony of Maryland there has been much dispute among writers on toleration. By confining their attention to this religious controversy, they have apparently lost sight of the underlying principle in Baltimore's plans which over- shadowed all others, viz., that of revenue. There is very little evidence to support the theory that Maryland was founded as a home for persecuted Catholics. A majority of the first settlers sent out were Protestants j 1 the privileges of the Catholics were limited at a very early date and their religion was not publicly allowed. 2 On the other hand, the financial difficulties of the proprietor, his instructions to his deputies, his various proclamations, and his whole scheme of colonization seem to indicate that the planting of the colony was largely a business enterprise by which Baltimore hoped to recoup his fortunes and erect for himself and his posterity a monument in the New World. When through Ms brother he offered land and privileges to the people of Masachusetts, he was very careful to have it understood that the new comers were to pay "such annual rent as should be agreed upon." 3 Johnson, Foundation of Maryland, pp. 31, 32, 73, 74; Records Eng. Prov. of Soc. of Jesus, p. 362. 8 Rec. of Soc. of Jesus, pp. 362, 365. 8 Winthrop's History of New England, II, 149. II 12 White Servitude in Maryland. [124 Baltimore's finances in 1633 and for some time following were at a low ebb. There is a petition to the king, dated November, 1633, recorded against Baltimore and his deputy, Gabriel Hawley, setting forth "that Hawley billetted men and women for Maryland at I2d. a day in the houses of the petitioners, but took them away without giving satisfaction for their entertainment amounting to about £60, and Lord Baltimore refers them for payment to Hawley, now a pris- oner in the Fleet." 4 He was dependent upon his father-in- law, Lord Arundel, for the support of himself and his family. Lord Arundel says in a letter to Windebanke, Secretary of the Treasury, "My son Baltimore is brought so low with his setting forward the plantations of Maryland and with the clamorous suits and oppositions which he hath met withal in the business as that I do not see how he could subsist if I did not give him his diet for himself, his wife, his children, and his servants." 5 Among the inducements held out by Baltimore to secure settlers for his colony the material advantages were always put in the foreground. Rewards, station, and lands were offered in return for transporting people to Maryland. 6 Governor Stone received his appointment upon the express condition of his bringing in a specified number of colonists. 7 Baltimore's scheme of settlement was one devised to se- cure as much revenue as possible from the new colony. Everything was done to settle the plantation as rapidly as possible, and as a means to this end, he resorted to the practice of importing servants on a large scale, a custom already familiar in Virginia. Up to 1682 the distribution of land was based almost entirely upon the importation of servants. There was no such thing as direct purchase of land from the proprietor. 4 Cal. State Pap. Col., Nov., 1633. 8 Cal. State Pap. Col., Feb. 17, 1639. • See account of Md. Fund. Pub., No. 7, p. 46. 7 Scharf, History of Md. II., 12-13. 125] Early Land System in Maryland. 13 Each settler who came into the province received one hun- dred acres of land, but if he wished more he could obtain it only by importing servants. Sometimes large tracts of land were granted to Baltimore's personal friends without the importation of servants, but this formed a very small frac- tion of the land granted. The plan upon which Maryland was founded was ex- tremely aristocratic. It was intended to set up a landed aristocracy similar to the old manorial system. To a land- less Englishman the thought of ruling over a large manor in Maryland was very attractive. He did not stop to consider the vast difference between an English manor and a barren tract in Maryland. Baltimore and his agents therefore had no difficulty in finding persons who in return for a tract of land were willing either to embark with a body of servants or to furnish them money for transporting men and women to Maryland. The first instruments of government were instructions from the proprietor called "Conditions of Plantation." They were issued from time to time and regulated in detail the amount of land to be granted for each servant transported, and the amount of quit rent due the proprietor. The first of these conditions was issued August 8, 1636, to Leonard Calvert, governor of Maryland. The amount of land granted the adventurers varied according to the year the persons were transported. Every "first adventurer," or those who came in 1633-34, were allowed 2,000 acres of land at a yearly rent of 400 pounds of wheat for every five men servants transported. Those who transported less than five servants in the same year were allowed for each, 100 acres at a yearly rent of 20 pounds of wheat. Fifty acres were granted for bringing in children under sixteen years of age. 8 Those who brought in servants in 1634 and 1635 received but half as much land for their transportation as 'Arch, of Maryland, Vol. III., 47-48; Kilty, Land-holder's As- sistant, 30-31 ; Bozman, Sketch of Hist, of Md., 283-285. 14 White Servitude in Maryland. [126 those who came in 1633-34, and the rent was 600 pounds of wheat per manor instead of 400 pounds. For 1635 an( l until further conditions should be issued the rating was fixed at 1,000 acres for every five men servants transported at an annual rent of twenty shillings to be paid in commodities of the country. If less than five servants were transported the master received for each man servant 100 acres ; for maid servants and children 50 acres at a rent of twelve pence per annum. 9 The same "Conditions" introduced into Maryland the old manorial system which continued throughout the pro- prietary government and traces of which may be seen even in the present day. The governor was authorized to erect every tract of 1,000 acres or more into a manor to be named in accordance with the wishes of the adventurer. Authority was also given the governor to grant to the holder of every such manor the privilege of holding a court-baron and court- leet. It is the opinion of Bozman that these courts were "probably never used," 10 but in one case at least we have existing evidence of the contrary in the manuscript records of the St. Clement's Manor preserved in the Library of the Maryland Historical Society. 11 Besides the lands granted by the first "Conditions of Plantation," Baltimore authorized his brother to grant to the "first adventurers" ten acres of land in the town of St. Mary's for every person transported. Five acres were to be allotted to succeeding adventurers who came prior to 1638. This land was granted in free hold. 12 The second "Conditions" were promulgated in November, 1641, to take effect the following year at the feast of Annunciation. Both adventurers and servants were limited to persons of •Arch, of Maryland, Vol. III. 47-48; Kilty, Land-holder's As- sistant, 30-31 ; Bozman, Sketch of Hist, of Md., 283-285. 10 Hist, of Md., p. 287. u Printed in full in John Johnson's "Old Maryland Manors." J. H. Univ. Studies I. No. 7, 1883. "Kilty, Land-holder's Assistant, 32-33. 127] Early Land System in Maryland. 15 "British or Irish descent." It now required that twenty able bodied men be transported in order to obtain a manor of 2,000 acres. Those who brought less than twenty serv- ants were allowed but 50 acres for each and twenty-five acres for children under sixteen years. The quit rent was changed to forty shillings sterling per annum for each manor of 2,000 acres and twelve pence sterling per fifty acres for the small tracts, both to be paid in "commodities of the country." These smaller grants were "to be holden of some Mannor of his Lopp s - ... in free socage." No claims to land were to be valid unless presented within a year after the transportation had taken place. 18 Baltimore gives as his reasons for reducing the amount of land for each servant that the land would soon be taken up by a scattered population. 14 This would interfere with future immigration. It was to his interest to have the land more densely populated in order to develop it and enable him to increase the quit rents. New conditions were issued in August, 1648, which were still more favorable to the proprietor but which also gave some new privileges to the adventurers and servants. The amount of land for transporting a servant remained the same; but instead of the rents being paid in commodities at the option of the planter they were to be paid in gold, silver or commodities at the option of the proprietor. For the first time, provision was made for disposing of lands by sale. The sixth part of every manor was made de- mesne land which could never be alienated for a period ex- ceeding seven years, but all the rest might be sold in fee simple to persons of Irish or British descent. This would have been a great step toward the'freedom of the land holder if the land had possessed any market value, but it was counteracted to a great extent by the provision that the " Arch, of Md., III. pp. 99-101 ; Kilty, 33-35. "Arch, of Md. I. 331. 16 White Servitude in Maryland. [128 lands so disposed of in fee simple were subject to the same rents and services to the proprietor forever, as was required by the original grant. In case the full number of servants were not transported and actually residing on the land, the planter forfeited to the proprietor two bushels of wheat yearly for each delinquent ; and at the end of three years the proprietor was at liberty to seize upon fifty acres for each servant wanting and rent it to some one else for a term not exceeding twenty-one years, returning to the original holder a tenth part of the rent re- ceived in excess of the original quit rent. These Conditions of 1648 were the first that made any pro- vison for freed servants. All persons of British or Irish descent having served their full time were to be considered planters and granted the same amount of land as though they had transported themselves. All claims for land not presented within a year after due were declared invalid. 15 Although the formal instructions limited the grants of land to persons of British or Irish descent, a commission from Baltimore to Governor Stone, enclosed at the same time, permitted him to grant lands to French, Dutch and Italian settlers in all cases where he thought it expedient. In July, 1649, Baltimore revoked all former instructions because they "are not like to Give sufficient encouragement to many to adventure" and issued new Conditions which differ from those of 1648 only in making more liberal grants to the adventurers. The amount for importing a servant was again raised to 100 acres at a rent of two shillings sterling. 16 No expressed provision is made for freed serv- ants, but there is every reason to believe that they continued to receive land on the expiration of their service the same as before, and by the instructions to the Lieutenant Governor, dated November 12, 1656, every servant having served his 15 Arch, of Md. III. 223-228; Kilty, 38-43. " Kilty, 47-Si- 129] Early Land System in Maryland. 17 time and proved himself faithful to his Lordship is to re- ceive fifty acres at an annual rent on one shilling sterling. 17 It will be seen from the above regulations that while the quit rents were never excessive the proprietor was ever mindful of his own interests and increased the rents as rapidly as the conditions would permit without discouraging immigration. From a small payment of wheat in 1636 the rent was considerably increased and rated in sterling in 1641; while in 1648, the proprietor might exact the rents in gold or silver. In September, 1658, he instructed the governor to raise the rent from one shilling to two shillings for every fifty acres. 18 Servant laborers were necessary in order to make the land more productive and capable of paying rent, and Baltimore secured the passage of laws requiring every planter who received land to keep at least three able bodied servants above sixteen years of age. 10 This created a ready market for servants and built up a lucrative trade for speculators. We should naturally expect to find the planters eager to secure as much land as possible for their trouble and ex- pense of bringing servants from England and at once enter- ing claims for the fulfillment of the contract; but the con- trary seems to have been the case. They had transported the servants as a means of obtaining grants of land and not because they cared especially for their labor ; but when they arrived in Maryland their ideas concerning advantages to be derived from large estates seem to have undergone a sudden change. The real value of undeveloped tracts was at once apparent. Instead of demanding the lands due them they often neglected or absolutely refused to accept them. All the anxiety for an early distribution is exhibited on the part of the proprietor. The planters were not at all eager to begin paying rents on lands which were of little " Kilty, p. 55. "Kilty, pp. 55-57- Arch, of Md., Vol. I. 479, 500. 1 8 White Servitude in Maryland. [130 use to them and in many cases preferred to sacrifice their claims altogether. In all the conditions except the first, Baltimore warns the planters that those not presenting their claims within a year after due will lose all right to lands forever. In a proclamation of Lieutenant-Governor Stone, April 13, 1649, it is stated that many adventurers have not only neglected but refused to receive lands due by virtue of the several Conditions, although some of these lands have been due "by a space of divers years past." This, he says, "can produce no good effect to any adventurers . . . and his Lordship thereby also receives great prejudice in the non-payment of rents for a long time which are due and payable unto him from such adventurers or planters if they had or did take grants of all such lands due unto them in convenient time as they ought to have done." He gives those residing within the province until the following November, and those who have claims but are now residing in Virginia, until the following March, to present their claims, "and all such persons . . . who shall neglect or refuse to comply herewith must blame their own obstinancy if hereafter they be refused any such Grants." 20 Even this threat did not secure the desired effect, and the time was extended by three successive proclamations, indicating that the planters did not consider the lands with the attached quit rents very desirable possessions. When we compare the value of the land at that time with the amount of rents we can readily understand why the planters were willing to allow their claims to lapse. The value of land in terms of other commodities is easily as- certained from the appraisement of property belonging to the estates of deceased persons. In an inventory of the property of one Robert Tutty, who died in 1647, there are three articles, each valued at 200 pounds of tobacco, viz., 80 Arch, of Md. III. 229-230; Kilty, 44-45. A similar proclama- tion had already been issued in 1642 — Arch. III. 129. 131] Early Land System in Maryland. 19 generally speak- ing, they groan beneath a worse than Egyptian bondage." This account, as applying to some masters, is doubtless true, but it represents only the darkest side of the system. Even at its worst it was better than languishing in a debtor's cell in England. A little more than a decade before this we are told that "about 25,000 of the most useful Subjects are locked up in Gaols or forced to abscond." 51 Several causes combined to degrade the condition of serv- ants in Maryland in the years which immediately preceded and followed the Revolution. After the treaty of Utrecht in 17 13, English vessels began importing slaves in greater numbers than ever before, and by the middle of the century the slave element in Maryland had considerably increased. 52 There were not, however, a sufficient number of slaves to cultivate the plantations and servants were regularly em- ployed along with slaves in the cultivation of tobacco. By 1770, Maryland was the only colony which had not succeeded in practically excluding convicts, 53 and they con- tinued to come to Annapolis and Baltimore in large num- bers. The constant association of servants with convicts and slaves had a demoralizing effect upon them and in- 60 Eddis Letters, pp. 69, 70. " London Chronicle, May, 1757, p. 500. M In 1748, there were 36,000 slaves to 94,000 whites ; 1770, 59,717 slaves to 140,100 whites; and in 1790, 103,036 slaves to 208,649 whites. Kennedy, Hist, and Statistics of Md. p. 19. M Eddis Letters, p. 66. 76 White Servitude in Maryland. [188 creased the severity of their treatment. They labored side by side, the servant for a term of years, the slave for life, and the tendency was for many masters to treat them all alike. Maryland depended largely upon servant schoolmasters for the instruction of youth. "At least two-thirds of the little education we receive, ,, says Boucher, "are derived from instructors, who are either indented servants or transported felons." 54 This was not a random statement, but was made after an investigation of the subject. Concerning the char- acter of these servant schoolmasters, there is little said by other contemporaries. The German redemptioners who continued to pour into Maryland long after the Revolution were an honest and in- dustrious people, and did much toward developing the coun- try. Their peaceable dispositions, while often exposing them to indignities from both slaves and masters, 55 made them more valuable servants than those from other countries. An editorial in the Maryland Journal gives tes- timony of their high character and industry. "It has been generally allowed that the German emigrants were for- merly remarkable, at least the major part of them, for their integrity and industry, which give them the preference as Servants, before any other nation." 56 This standard was lowered somewhat by the importation of Hessians who had served in the British army during the American Revolution and who brought with them all the vices of camp life. 57 Frances Wright, who visited the United States in 1818-20 and who took a special interest in the immigrants of that 54 55 View of Causes and Consequences of the Am. Rev. pp. 183-184. "The natural cunning of the Negro, his superior dexterity, and fluency in English give him too great an advantage over the simple, good-natured German peasant. He considers himself as of a higher nature and looks down upon the poor German. The latter is confounded in treatment with the blacks, nay is often treated worse. Furstenwarther, Der Deusche in Nord-Amerika, p. 55, quoted by Everett in N. Am. Rev. 1820, Vol. 2, p. 10. M Md. Jour, and Bait. Adv. Apr. 15, 1785. 57 Ibid. 189] Status of Servants and Freedmen. yy period, has left a very good account of the relative merits of immigrants from the several countries. "The starving emigrants of Switzerland and Germany are simple agricul- turists and ignorant peasants who here quietly devote them- selves to the pursuits from which they have been driven in Europe, and instantly become harmless and industrious citi- zens. Their prejudices, whatever they might be, are per- fectly innocent, and of absolute vices they usually have none." 58 The Welsh, in general, resembled the Germans, and made valuable servants. The English and Irish came usually from the cities, and were not fitted for the labor required of servants. "An Englishman, in general," says the author, "can do but one thing, and an Irishman, but too frequently, can do nothing." Many of the injustices experienced by the German and Swiss redemptioners were removed by the exertions of the German Society of Maryland, which was incorporated in February, 181 7. Its object, as stated elsewhere, was pri- marily to prevent abuses on shipboard, but it also did much to better the condition of servants on land. As the Ger- mans were unable to speak our language, they might be induced to sign an indenture without knowing its signifi- cance. By the law of 1817, instigated by the German So- ciety, no indenture or contract was valid unless made out or sanctioned by the officer appointed for that purpose, who must be familiar with both languages. All indentures were registered and filed at the county courts in order to prevent unjust claims of the masters. The term of servitude was again reduced to four years for adults. No minor could be indentured without the consent of his parents or nearest living relative, and could in no case be bound to serve for a term extending beyond majority. But a still greater step toward social uplifting of these poor immigrants was the provision that every indenture must contain a clause re- M Views of America, p. 430. 78 White Servitude in Maryland. [190 quiring the master to give every minor servant at least two months' schooling each year. 59 Armed with this law, the German Society at once set to work to rigidly carry it into operation. They did much to better the condition of the servant by legal protection and pecuniary assistance. 60 The officers frequently found cases where servants were ill- treated. On the other hand, many complaints were un- founded and caused in the main by some misunderstanding or by misconduct of the servant. The president of the so- ciety to whom the complaints were usually made laments that "the want of understanding the language is frequently the occasion of injustice on the part of the master, and more frequently of his agents and the impropriety of conduct on the part of the servant. ,, Having traced the institution of servitude through the two hundred years of its existence, it has been found that, on the whole, the legal protection of the servant was adequate and usually carried into effect. Their social position, which for many years differed little from that of the freemen of the time, gradually deteriorated with the increase of convicts and the growth of slavery. The status of the freedman is more difficult to trace, but, in general, there was a downward movement, as in the case of the servant. Legally, the freedman at all times enjoyed the privileges of a freeman. Socially, this was not always the case. In the early years of the colony, when land was abundant and the proprietor did everything in his power to develop the province and increase his rent roll, the freed servant at once became a prosperous planter, and the fact that he had been a servant was soon forgotten. So large a proportion of the immigrants came over in this way that servitude carried with it no disgrace. Later on, land was harder to obtain, and the servants, except the Germans, were a more worthless class. When set free, they helped 59 60 Laws of Md. Dec. Sess. 181 7, pp. 224-226. See Henninghausen, The Redemptioners, pp. 14 ff. 191] Status of Servants and Frccdmen. 79 to swell the ranks of the class known as white trash." 61 Some of the freedmen and their descendants in Maryland and other colonies rose to prominence. Daniel Dulany, the elder, one of Maryland's greatest lawyers, was an Irish indentured servant. 62 The parents of Major General Sulli- van were redemptioners. 63 Others of national reputation had themselves been servants. Among them were George Taylor 64 and Matthew Thornton, signers of the Declara- tion of Independence; also Charles Thomson, secretary of congress during the Revolution. 65 Mathew Lyon, the "Hampden of Congress/' was a kidnapped servant. 66 a. Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors, II. pp. 188-189. Boyle, Biographical Sketches of Distinguished Marylanders, p. 35. Sioussat, Public Services of Daniel Dulany, J. H. U. Stud. Series XXI. No. 8. 68 Scharf, Hist, of Md. I. p. 373. 64 McLaughlin's Mathew Lyon, p. 40, note. Scharf I. p. 373. McLaughlin's Mathew Lyon, p. 34 ff. «6 CHAPTER VII. Servant Militia. In Maryland, as in other colonies, servants were required to perform military duty in defending themselves and others from the attacks of the Indians. It was always a much-disputed question whether the government had a right to impair the contract between master and servant by impressing the latter into the army. In the early years of the colony no provision was made by the Assembly for supplying the army with food and muni- tions of war, and the expenses of a campaign were borne by the individual planters. During the first fifty years, the planters do not appear to have denied the right of the government to enlist the servants, but they considered it a great burden to be obliged to equip a large number of servants for war, and very often they neglected or refused to comply with the laws. For a number of years the servants formed a large pro- portion of the able-bodied men in the colony and were of considerable importance from a military standpoint. As the greater number had been brought from Europe, more on account of the land received for their transportation than from the profit resulting from their labor, the time lost by the servant in military operation was no serious loss to his master, and had the expense been borne by the Assembly the servant might have enlisted without opposition. Although the planters often neglected to' equip their servants with arms, it was not till tobacco and wheat growing became a profitable enterprise and the servants' labor indispensable, and when the king or the governor demanded military duty of the servant in wars which were distasteful or viewed with indifference by the colonists, that both the economic 80 193] Servant Militia. 3i and the military importance of the servant was realized and the strife .over the right of the king or the colony to impress the servant began. As early as 1638-39, the Assembly passed a law, entitled "An act for Military Discipline." 1 It required every house- holder to have ready on all occasions for himself and every person in his house, able to bear arms — which included servants — a serviceable gun and a prescribed amount of ammunition. As soon as any alarm was given, he must send one man completely armed for every three in his household. All expenses were to be borne by the master. A new law was passed in April, 1649, which imposed a penalty of 100 pounds of tobacco for neglecting to furnish necessary arms for servants. Masters were ordered to equip all hired servants and to deduct the amount from their wages. 2 The records concerning military affairs in the early years are scanty, but there is an occasional mention of servants being pressed into service. At the court held at St. Mary's November 25, 1652, to consider the raising of troops for an expedition against the Indians, it was required that every six persons in the province should equip a seventh with food and ammunition for the campaign. In making up the list it was ordered "that William Thompson Servant to John Jarbo of St. Maries County be pressed for one of the Seventh men in the County." 3 It was a difficult matter to compel masters to provide arms for their servants, and, in 1654, the officers in each county were ordered by the Assembly to inspect every household and see that each servant between sixteen and sixty years of age was provided with arms and ammunition. The officers were also authorized to drill the servants for duty. 4 Masters 1 Arch, of Md. I. pp. 77-78. "Ibid. pp. 254-255. * Arch, of Md. III. p. 283. 4 Ibid. p. 347. 82 White Servitude in Maryland. [194 not only neglected to equip their servants, but many re- fused to allow them to drill or perform other military duty. In 1661, officers were authorized to enlist as many persons between sixteen and sixty years as they saw fit. It was further provided that "in case any of the aforesaid Officers shall happen to enlist any Servant . . . and that their Master . . . shall refuse to lett such Servant . . . goe to such place ... for trayneing or shall refuse to furnish such Servant . . . with sufficient Gunns and Ammunition he should pay a fine of fifty pounds of to- bacco for each servant." 5 This fine was so small that many of the planters preferred paying it to fitting out the servant for war. The penalty was raised to 100 pounds of tobacco in 1 678,° but the planters continued to evade the law when- ever it was possible. The servants were sometimes forced into miltary service before they reached the colonies at all. In the contest with the Dutch over the possession of New York, the British government practised gross deception upon servants bound for America and impressed them into their army. In 1673, Lord Culpepper proposed to the Council for Trade and Plantations a plan for reinforcing the British army in America. He advised that the commanders-in-chief of all vessels used for carrying planters and servants to Virginia and Maryland should be ordered to form into squadrons, and that the passengers be drilled for service. None were to be allowed to escape till the expedition was completed. The servants were to be told that they were bound for Mary- land or Virginia until the vessels were well under way, and then resistance would be useless. Culpepper estimated that 600 or 800 servants annually embarked for those two col- onies, "which would be a great reinforcement and cost little 6 Arch, of Md. I. pp. 412-413. •Ibid. VII. p. 54. Renewed in 1715 and 1719, Park's Laws, pp. 102, 109. 195] Servant Militia. 83 besides the ships themselves." The plan was recom- mended to the king and carried into effect. 7 When the French and Indian War broke out, the old con- troversy over enlisting servants was renewed with vigor. The objections to the plan now assumed the proportions of an open revolt, the colonists denying the right of the gov- ernor or king to impair their contract with the servant by allowing or forcing him to join the army. Maryland at first considered this war as affecting the territorial claims of Virginia and Pennsylvania. She felt that the war did not immediately concern herself, and the Assembly maintained that nothing more could be expected of them than to send what available troops they had to assist the sister colonies and to provide defence in case the enemy later invaded Maryland. Although Governor Sharpe was anxious to raise both troops and money, as the crown had demanded, the people and the assemblymen refused to act, the latter stating that they were willing to resist an invasion of themselves or neighbors when they considered that necessity required it. 8 They consented to send delegates to the Albany con- vention, and appropriated £500 toward buying the good will of the Indians, but they rejected the plan of union by a unanimous vote in the lower house as "tending to the de- struction of the rights and liberties of his Majesty's subjects in the province." 9 After the capture of Washington at Little Meadow and the renewed depredations of the French and Indians on the frontiers of Maryland, Pennsylvania and Virginia, the Mary- land Assembly at last considered means of defence neces- sary. On July 17, 1754, they voted £6000 to aid in repelling the invaders. To help raise this amount a duty was put on servants and convicts. The people were very much alarmed and a few companies of rangers had been raised before this 7 Cal. State. Pap. Col. Nov. 13 and 15, 1673. 8 McSherry, Hist, of Md. pp. 127-128. 'Ibid. 128-129. 84 White Servitude in Maryland. [196 act of the Assembly. The command of all the forces sent against the French on the Ohio was conferred by royal commission on Governor Sharpe of Maryland. Fort Cum- berland was erected and later became a bone of contention between the governor and the people, who refused to fur- nish troops to defend it. When the news of Braddock's overwhelming defeat reached Annapolis, Governor Sharpe set out for Frederick with a body of troops supported by private subscriptions of the panic-stricken citizens, who, at Annapolis, and even at Baltimore, began to fortify the towns. It was difficult, how- ever, to get a sufficient number to leave their homes exposed and enter the ranks against the invaders. 10 The foregoing will suffice to give an idea of the chaotic condition of military affairs in Maryland, when, in the early part of 1756, the king's recruiting officers entered that prov- ince to raise troops for the campaign against the French. The members of the Assembly thought only of guarding their own soverign rights and privileges from all encroach- ments from the neighboring colonies, their own governor, or the commander-in-chief of the army. Most freemen, either from indifference to the cause or from the danger of ex- posing their families to the ravages of the Indians, refused to enter the service. Under such conditions, the enlistment of the indentured servant who had no one but himself to care for was of great importance to the successful prosecu- tion of the war. General Shirley, commander-in-chief of the American forces, at first forbade the enlisting of servants by recruiting officers. He continued this course, as he himself writes, "as long as the Circumstances of his Ma- jesty's Service would admit. But this not now ye case." ai It is impossible, he continues, to raise a sufficient number 10 See McSherry, pp. 135-136. 11 Shirley to Gov. Robt. H. Morris of Penn. Feb. 29, 1756, among MS. Cor. of Baltimore and officers of the Brit. Crown. Letter No. 13, Md. Hist. Soc. Library. 197 J Servant Militia. 85 of troops without enlisting servants. He, therefore, re- voked his former order and allowed the servants to join the ranks. The recruiting of servants no sooner began than the mas- ters prepared to resist it; first by protests, then by open violence. On February 2, 1756, Governor Sharpe wrote to General Shirley: "Within 3 or 4 days I have received several letters from the Magistrates in different Parts of this Province informing me that those of His Majesty's officers who have been ordered hither to recruit have lately received Your positive Instructions to enlist without Ex- ception or Distinction all Apprentices and Servants, that they are persuaded to enter into the Service, that the Inhabitants having a great part of their Property vested in Servants unanimously oppose the Execution of such Instructions, & that unless their Cause of Complaint be speedily removed an Insurrection of the People is likely to ensue. The Magistrates as well as myself have & shall endeavor to prevent Mischief but as the officers are deter- mined to persist I cannot promise that the people will be much longer restrained from expressing their Resentment by Actions : I think it my Duty to make this Representa- tion to Your Excellency & hope you will not be averse to countermanding such orders otherwise I shall find myself under a Necessity of exercising the Power with which I am invested to preserve the peace of the province." 12 This letter, coming from Governor Sharpe, who heartily supported the war, would not paint the case any darker than the facts warranted. The violence feared by the governor was not long in making its appearance. Robert Sterling, one of the recruiting officers, was apprehended and thrown into Kent county jail. From here, he wrote a letter to Gov- ernor Sharpe asking him to secure his release. 13 The local officers were shrewd enough to hold Sterling to answer an 12 No. 9 Prop. Papers, Govs. Sharpe & Eden, Letter No. 27. " Ibid. Letter No. 28. 86 White Servitude in Maryland. [198 action for damages, and the Council Board decided that the governor, as governor, could not discharge him. 14 Gov- ernor Sharpe was anxious to do everything in his power to relieve the recruiting officers. He appealed to the At- torney-General for his opinion on the right of the servant to enlist and on the right of the governor to discharge an action against a recruiting officer. He received the follow- ing reply, which agreed with the decision of the Council Board: (1) "I am of Opinion that a Master has a property in the labor of his Indented Servant for the time he has contracted to serve, and that he has no Right to enlist in his Majesty's Service Without his Master's Consent, untill the expiration of time of his servitude." (2) "I am of Opinion that a Recruiting Officer who enlists a Man's In- dented Servant knowing him to be such is liable to the action of the Master, and that he ought to recover Damages adequate to the injury He sustains by the loss of his Servant, but if an officer should enlist a Servant not knowing him to be such I think no Action will lye against him, unless he should detain the Servant from his Master after he is in- formed of his being a Servant, In which case I think an Action would lye against him." (3) "I am of Opinion that the Governor cannot discharge any Civil Action commenced by a Man for the Recovery of his Property, and such is an Action commenced by a Master ag st an Officer for taking his Servant out of his Service. "22 March, 1756." « " W - Dorsey. The governor was powerless and could do nothing to re- lieve Sterling except to act on the advice of the Council and provide bail for the accused and order the Attorney- General to defend him in the next court. Recruiting of servants continued and so also did the 14 No. 9, Prop. Pap. Govs. Sharpe and Eden. Letter No. 30, March, 1756. No. 9, Prop. Pap. Govs. Sharpe and Eden. Letter No. 29, Md Hist. Soc. Lib. 1 99 J Servant Militia. 87 violence of the planters against the army officers. They were willing to expose the province to the ravages of the enemy, to defy the authority of king or governor rather than part with the servants whom they needed to cultivate the plantations. In August, 1756, Captain Gardner, in a letter to Governor Sharpe, complained that his recruiting sergeant had been attacked in July by Charles Ridgeley and a num- ber of others. Six recruits were indentured servants. The planters threatened to whip the sergeant and his party out of town if he continued to enlist servants. Gardner ap- pealed to the Attorney-General and the latter not only made light of, but even justified, the conduct of the planters. 16 Disputes over enlisting servants, and sometimes armed resistance of the planters, continued all through the summer of 1756. The greatest obstacle to a satisfactory settlement of the controversy was that no one in the colonies, either officer or planter, knew enough about affairs in England to know whether or not the officers had any authority from Parliament to enlist servants. There were vague rumors that Parliament had pased some sort of an act at some time or another, but no one knew anything more about it. The planters denied the existence of such a law and were backed up in it by the local magistrates as well as the Attorney- General. Governor Sharpe, as late as August 21, speaks of an act which is "said to have been passed," 17 and in a letter to Governor Morris, August 25, he asks if Morris has "seen or can get him a Copy of the Act of Parliament that is said to have been made to impower the Officers to enlist them (servants)." 18 Washington and Governor Dinwiddie of Virginia had a very ludicrous misunderstanding over the rumored act, each accusing the other of stating that Parliament had passed 16 Arch, of Md. VI. p. 461. " Sharpe to Calvert, Arch, of Md. VI. p. 467. 18 Sharpe to Morris, Arch, of Md. VI. p. 472. 88 White Servitude in Maryland. [200 a new law for recruiting servants. Washington was un- doubtedly the one at fault. On August 4, 1756, he wrote to Dinwiddie stating that "There is an act of Parliament to allow all servants to enlist, and the owners to be paid a reasonable allowance for them. ,, 19 On September 8, he wrote again in reply to a letter from Dinwiddie, "Your Honor's letter of the 19th mentions that I may enlist serv- ants agreeable to the act of Parliament; but as I have not seen that, am at a loss how to proceed, until I receive your further orders or a copy of the act." 20 Dinwiddie, reply- ing, September 13, accuses Washington of being the first to mention the act, "Sir, I mentioned in my Letter of the 9th Ult. to enlist Servants agreeable to the Act of Parliam*; that act of Parliament I wrote from Y r letter to me, I know of no Act of Parliam* on that head." 21 As a matter of fact there had been a law passed by Parlia- ment in the spring of 1756, but neither Washington nor any one else in America knew anything of it when these dis- cussions arose. The act was introduced in the Commons, March 17, 1756, and after several amendments, was finally passed in May. 22 It was enacted, the preamble states, to settle all "Doubts (which) may arise, whether such indented Servants can be legally enlisted." Power was given all the king's officers to enlist all servants who were willing to en- roll, "any Law Custom or Usage to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding." But it was provided that in case the master should claim his servant within six months after he had enlisted, the officer in charge must either give him up or pay the master a reasonable compensation for the unexpired term of indenture. 23 It was not definitely known in the colonies till fall " Writings of Washington, Ford's Ed. I. p. 298. 20 Ibid. p. 338. a Hamilton's Letters to Washington, I. 364. 21 Commons Journals. M Eng. Stat, at Large, 29 Geo. II. Cap. 35, Sees. 1 and 2. 20i] Servant Militia. 89 that Parliament had authorized the enlisting of servants, and the strife continued all through the summer. Another strife arose between the king's recruiting officers and the provincial officers. Washington complained to Governor Dinwiddie that unless power should be given by the Vir- ginia Assembly to enlist servants that they would "all run off to the regular officers . . . and weaken our colony much." 24 Unsuccessful attempts were made to induce the Assem- blies of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to appro- priate money to pay the masters for the unexpired time of all servants who should enlist. The king, through his Secretary of State, Henry Fox, sent a circular letter to the colonies ordering them to pro- vide a compensation for masters whose servants should enlist. 25 The Maryland Assembly refused to comply with this order by more than a two-thirds majority 26 and made provision only for raising 300 men for the Royal American Regiment, allowing a bounty not exceeding five pounds for each man enlisting. 27 The Pennsylvania Assembly refused to make any provisions for defence unless the governor would accept a bill imposing a land tax for twenty years which were nine more than his powers would permit. 28 These refusals of the Assemblies to make adequate pro- visions for defence followed closely after the fall of Os- wego, — a time when the French and Indians were making great inroads into the western parts of Pennsylvania and Maryland. In spite of the opposition of the masters and the refusal of the Assemblies to vote a compensation for enlisted serv- ants, the recruiting officers had to depend to a very great 24 28 Writings of Washington, Ford's Ed. I. pp. 298, 300. Sharpe to Morris, Arch, of Md. VI. p. 472 ; Dinwiddie to Wash- ington ; Hamilton's Letters to Washington, I. pp. 364-365. ^ Writings of Washington, Ford's Ed. I. p. 300, note. Arch of Md. VI. p. 497 ; Writings of Washington, I. p. 300, note. Sharpe to John Sharpe, Sept. 15, 1756, Arch, of Md. VI. p. 486. 27 28 90 White Servitude in Maryland. [202 extent on servants for filling up the ranks of the army. They secured more servants than freemen, the latter, as a rule, refusing to serve in any campaign outside of their own province. The servants, as a rule, were willing to enlist if their masters would let them, but most of the freemen could neither be persuaded nor forced to serve. For want of a draft law in Maryland, says Sharpe, it is "impossible to raise any Number of free Men in this Province," and "Few but Indented Servants have enlisted with the Recruiting Offi- cers." 29 When the unexpired term of the servant was short the officers sometimes avoided trouble by purchasing the indenture from the master. 30 The king's officers who had come to Maryland in the early part of the summer had enlisted so many servants that it was very hard for the provincial officers to secure recruits later. Governor Sharpe despaired of raising even the number voted by the reluctant Assembly. Virginia had no better success in her efforts to induce or compel freemen to join the army. A law was passed in that colony imposing a fine of $10 upon freemen for re- fusing to serve when drafted. The freemen paid the fine and remained at home, leaving the army in as deplorable condition as ever. 31 Washington considers the only sal- vation of the army to be the passage of a law allowing the officers to impress servants. He urges that if such an act were passed the fines collected from the freemen would go a long way towards paying for the servants. 32 The servants were usually willing enough to enlist and many offered their services, 33 but as the legislatures neglected to appropriate money for paying the masters, many servants were pre- vented from serving. 2t Sharpe to Calvert, Sept. 14, 1756, Arch, of Md. VI. p. 483. 80 Sharpe to Morris, Ibid. p. 472. "Dinwiddie to Washington, Aug. 19, 1756, in Letters to Wash- ington, I. pp. 342-343 ; Writings of Washington, I. p. 299, note 1. 82 Writings of Washington, I. p. 298. n Ibid. p. 300. 203] Servant Militia. 91 • Catholics and convicts, whenever they were known to be such, were excluded from the army. General Braddock was very much opposed to convicts, and forbade the officers to enlist them, but some found their way into the ranks. Whenever Governor Sharpe discovered that convicts had been enlisted, he replaced them by other recruits. Very little is said in the records concerning the part played by servants in the Revolution. The first Assembly of the new State of Maryland which was held in February, 1777, passed an act for recruiting servants and apprentices, but it was repealed the same year. 34 They were enlisted in both Pennsylvania and Maryland, but there is no evidence that the number of this class of recruits was very large. M Green's Laws of Md. 1777, Chaps. 3 and 10. CHAPTER VIII. Convicts. Pike, in his History of Crime in England, 1 characterizes transportation of felons as "only an extension of the old law according to which persons who had taken sanctuary might abjure the realm." The old law referred to is an act passed in the reign of Elizabeth, 2 but this act does not appear to be the origin of the transportation of convicts to America nor the ground upon which it is based. The first transporta- tion to America was based rather upon the royal order of King James I. than on Parliamentary legislation. Many persons who had been sentenced to death for various of- fences were granted royal pardon on condition of their being transported to some of the plantations. The first act of Parliament which was passed for the pur- pose of sending offenders to America is the Act of Charles II., which provided for transporting Quakers to the plan- tations. 3 Another act was passed in the same reign 4 which gave power to judges at their discretion either to execute or transport to America for life the Moss-Troopers of Cum- berland and Northumberland. Parliament, however, took very little interest in the matter, until the reigns of the Georges, when laws were made regulating transportation in detail. During these three reigns transportation of "his Majesty's seven-year passengers/' as they were called, af- forded a subject of frequent acts of legislation on both sides of the Atlantic. From the reign of James I. till the separation of the colo- nies from England, large numbers of convicts were annually 1 Vol. III. p. 109. 2 39 Eliz. Ch. 4. 8 Stat, at Large 13 and 14. Charles II. Ch. 1, Sec. 2. 4 Ibid. 18. Charles II. Ch. 3. 92 205] Convicts. 93 transported to the thirteen colonies, as well as the Barba- •does, Jamaica, and other islands, and influenced materially the history of both the mother country and the plantations. The English kings, ever solicitous about the want of labor- ers in America, kindly consented to send over all their un- manageable subjects to become servants in the planta- tions — a kindness not always appreciated by the colonists. Convicts were sent to Virginia and Barbadoes before the founding of Maryland, but after the settlement of the latter colony, and continually throughout the colonial period, she received her share, and, in fact, a greater number than any other province. Colquohoun, who made a special study of crimes and criminals in England, in speaking of transporta- tion after 1718, says: "This System continued for 56 years; during which period, and until the commencement of the American War in 1775, great numbers of Felons were sent chiefly to the Province of Maryland." 5 Available material furnishes no clue to the actual num- ber of convicts sent to Maryland before the Revolution. Scharf has estimated the number "at least twenty thousand," and the annual importation between the years 1750 and 1770, at "four to five hundred." 6 Judging from the news- paper records of the arrival of convicts at Annapolis and Baltimore, this estimate is not too high, if, indeed, it is high enough. Other estimates have been made of the whole number of "involuntary emigrants" sent from the British Isles to the American plantations. Between 1717 and 1775, *h e number sent from the Old Bailey alone is thought to be at least io,ooo, 7 and the whole number from various places in Great Britain and Ireland at least 50,00a 8 B A Treatise on the Police of the Metropolis, 6th Ed. p. 454. •Hist, of Md. I. pp. 371-372. Pitkin gives the annual importation of convicts to Maryland as 300 or 400. Hist, of U. S. p. 113. 7 Butler, British Convicts shipped to America, — Am. Hist. Rev. II. p. 25. •Lang, Transportation and Colonization, pp. 37-38; Penny Cyclo- paedia XXV. p. 138. 94 White Servitude in Maryland. [206 Transportation of felons simply on the order of the king, without parliamentary or other regulation, proved unsatis- factory, and it was recognized that some machinery ought to be provided for disposing of the large number condemned at every session of the courts. In June, 1661, a committee was appointed by the Council for Foreign Plantations "to consider of the best ways of encouraging and furnishing people for the Plantations, and how felons condemned to death for small offences and . . . sturdy beggars, may be disposed of for that use, and to consider an office of registry for same." 9 For want of any regular system of transportation, par- doned felons very often had to undergo great hardships before they were sent to America. They were left in charge of the sheriffs to await the next jail delivery, without any provision being made for their support. 10 Both prisoners and sheriffs at various times petitioned the Council of State that power might be given the latter to speedily execute the order of transportation. Very often, security was re- quired for the safe arrival of the convict in America and his non-appearance in England till his term of banishment had expired. Sir John Towers, who had been reprieved from a sentence of death in August, 1666, petitioned the king for a speedy transportation. He states that he has "long lain in a loathsome prison" because he was unable to furnish the necessary security for the fulfillment of the order of trans- portation. He begs the king to give authority to the sheriff to deliver him to the ship-captain without such security. After three months' delay, the request was granted. 11 Without a license, the sheriffs were not allowed to deliver any felons to the transporters, and to secure such license they sometimes gave security themselves that any so de- • Cal. St. Pap. June 3, 1661. " Ibid. Dec. 19, 1662. 11 Cal. St. Pap. Aug. and Oct. 15, 1666. 10 207] Convicts. 95 livered would not return to England till their term of ban- ishment had expired. In this way they were relieved of the expense of supporting the convict. 12 The committee appointed in 1661 to consider methods for transportation did nothing for three years; but, in 1664, a proposal was made to the king and council to constitute an office for "all vagrants, rogues, and idle persons that can give no account of themselves, felons who have the benefit of clergy, such as are convicted of petty larceny, vagabonds, gypsies, and loose persons, making resort to unlicensed brothels." They were to be transported from the nearest port and serve in the plantations four years, if over twenty years of age, and seven years, if under that age. In the proposed office an accurate register was to be kept of all persons transported, under penalty of £20. 13 In the same year the committee in their report recommend an act of Parliament as the only adequate remedy for the evils con- nected with transportation. 14 It was many years, however, before Parliament took any action, and what little was done to better the conditions was the work of the king and council. On September 14, 1664, the Lord Chancellor (Clarendon) was ordered to prepare letters-patent for the creation of the proposed office, which was put in charge of Roger Whitley. But as Parliament neglected to appro- priate money to pay the salaries of responsible officers, the law failed to better the condition of the convict or to pre- vent persons from being kidnapped for transportation. 15 The greatest number of the "seven-year passengers" sent to the plantations were ordinary criminals from various jails of Great Britain and Ireland. Among them were men and women of all ages and descriptions. They represented u Cal. St. Pap. Col. Dec. 19, 1662. "Cal. St. Pap. Col. 1664, No. 772. Another object of the office was to prevent spiriting. 14 Ibid. 791. 16 Kidnapping and the press-gang were evils to be feared by free men as well as bound servants or malefactors. 96 White Servitude in Maryland. [208 all crimes — if some of the offences may be so classed — from stealing a loaf of bread to sustain life, to highway robbery. The worst criminals were seldom transported, but were executed in large numbers after every session of the court. The number was augmented at various times by the trans- portation of rebel convicts. Most of these were sent to the Barbadoes and other islands, 16 but during the eighteenth century some were sent to New England, Virginia, and Maryland. In the summer of 1 717 one hundred and thirty- five Scotch rebels were sent to Maryland and sold as servants. 17 It is difficult to tell, from the court records and state papers, where the greater number were sent, as there is seldom any more specific destination given than "the plan- tations" or "the West Indies" — which may mean any part of America. In the Calendar of State Papers for Decem- ber 13, 1666, there is an interesting entry concerning the disposition of Scotch rebels. "The resolution about the Scotch rebels is to hang all ministers and officers; of the common sort one in ten is to be executed, one forced to confession and the rest sent to Plantations." The rebels sent to the West Indies in the seventeenth century were required to serve ten years. In a letter of the king to the governor of Jamaica, he instructs the governor that all the late rebels sent to Jamaica "shall serve their masters ten years, without permission to redeem themselves by money or otherwise till that term be expired." The gov- ernor is ordered to propose a bill to the Council and Assem- bly for enforcing the order. 18 The term of servitude for the Monmouth rebels sent to Barbadoes was also ten years, while ordinary servants were bound for only four years. 19 16 IT See Hotten's Original List of Emigrants to America. See Scharf, Hist, of Md. I. pp. 385-389 for a full list and the proclamation of the Governor concerning them. 18 Cal. St. Pap. Col. Oct. 11, 1685. Ibid. Lieut-Gov. Stede to Lords of Trade, Feb. 3, 1686. 19 209] Convicts.