Title: Captain Richard Ingle - The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel," 1642-1653
Author: Ingle, Edward, 1861-1924
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Captain Richard Ingle - The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel," 1642-1653" ***


Transcriber's Note

Letters following a carat (^) were superscripted in the original text.



               CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,

          The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel,"

                     1642-1653.


                   [Illustration]


 A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society,

                   May 12th, 1884,

                         BY

                 EDWARD INGLE, A. B.

                  BALTIMORE, 1884.



CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,

The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel,"

1642-1653.



RICHARD INGLE.


    "Captain Richard Ingle, ... a pirate and a rebel, was
    discovered hovering about the settlement."--_McSherry,
    History of Maryland, p. 59._

    "The destruction of the records by him [Ingle] has
    involved this episode in impenetrable obscurity,
    &c."--_Johnson, Foundation of Maryland, p. 99._

    "Captain Ingle, the pirate, the man who gloried in the
    name of 'The Reformation.'"--_Davis, "The Day Star," p.
    210._

    "That Heinous Rebellion first put in Practice by that
    Pirate Ingle."--_Acts of Assembly, 1638-64, p. 238._

    "Those late troubles raised there by that ungrateful
    Villaine Richard Ingle."--_Ibid., p. 270._

    "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a
    good thing and as necessary in the political world as
    storms in the physical."--_Jefferson, Works, Vol. III,
    p. 105._



Fund-Publication, No. 19


CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,

The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel,"

1642-1653.


[Illustration]


A Paper read before the Maryland Historical Society,

May 12th, 1884,

BY

EDWARD INGLE, A. B.

BALTIMORE. 1884.



  PEABODY PUBLICATION FUND.

  COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATION.

  1884-5.

  HENRY STOCKBRIDGE,
  JOHN W. M. LEE,
  BRADLEY T. JOHNSON.


  PRINTED BY JOHN MURPHY & CO.
  PRINTERS TO THE MARYLAND HISTORICAL SOCIETY,
  BALTIMORE, 1884.



CAPTAIN RICHARD INGLE,

THE MARYLAND "PIRATE AND REBEL."


In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the American colonies,
from Massachusetts to South Carolina, were at intervals subject 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.[1] Lapse of
time has cast a romantic and semi-mythologic glamor around these
depredators, and 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 _printed_ 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.[2]

A thorough defence of him would be almost impossible in view of the
comparative scarcity of records and the complicated politics of his
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.

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.[3] 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 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."[4] Although his name is given an additional _e_ 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.[5] 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 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.[6] 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.[7] Then was published, and as the records seem to
show, fixed on the vessel's mainmast the following proclamation.[8]

"These are to publish & pclaym to all psons as well seamen as others,
that Richard Ingle, m^r of his ship, is arrested upon highe treason to
his Ma^ty; & therefore to require all psons to be aiding & assisting
to his Lo^ps officers in the seizing of his ship, & not to offer any
resistance or contempt hereunto, nor be any otherwaise aiding or
assisting to the said Richard Ingle upon perl of highe treason to his
Ma^ty."

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.[9] 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.[10]

On January 20th, 1643/4, the following warrant was issued to the
sheriff.[11]

    "I doe hereby require (in his Ma^ties name) Richard
    Ingle, mariner to yield his body to Rob Ellyson, Sheriff
    of this County, before the first of ffebr next, to
    answer to such crimes of treason, as on his Ma^ties
    behalfe shalbe obiected ag^st him, upon his utmost perl,
    of the Law in that behalfe. And I doe further require
    all psons that can say or disclose any matter of treason
    ag^st the said Richard Ingle to informe his Lo^ps
    Attorny of it some time before the said Court to the end
    it may be then & there prosequuted

        G. BRENT."

Ingle, however, was not again arrested, though he still remained 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.

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 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.[12] 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."[13] 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 Ma^ties 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 Ma^tie traiterously & as an enemy did levie war
& beare armes ag^st his ma^tie and accept & exercise the comand &
captainship of the town of Gravesend," and by the third bill 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 "_Ignoramus_."[14] 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,[15] 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 o^r Gover L. K. Charles) was no king neither would be no
king, nor could be no king unless he did ioine with the Parlam^t,"
caused the jury to disagree and no verdict having been reached at 7
P. M., they adjourned until the following Saturday.[16] On that day,
February 3rd, at the request of the attorney-general the jury were
discharged and the bill given to another jury who returned it
"_Ignoramus_."[17] 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."[18] 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.

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 Lo^ps attorny ag^st M^r R. Ingle the
attending & psequution whereof was like to cause great demurrage to
the ship & other damages & encumbrances in the gathering of his debts
it was demanded by his Lo^ps said attorny on his Lo^ps behalfe that
the said R. I. deposite in the country to his Lo^ps 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 Lo^ps Co^rt at S.
Maries on or afore the first of ffebr next to answere to all such
matters as shalbe then and there obiected ag^st 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."[19]

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, witnesses,
&c., it was found that Ingle had left in the hands of the Secretary
the required amount.[20] 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.[21] 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 Lo^p for divers and
sundry crimes all w^ch upon composition for the publique good & safety
were suspended ag^st 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 of all Ports," he prayed that all of Ingle's goods, debts,
&c., might be sequestered until he should clear himself.[22] 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.[23] 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.

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 ag^st 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
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 w^th 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."[24] 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 tob. on any goods or debts" of Capt. Tho. Cornwallis "for so much
adjudged by way of fine unto the Lord Propriet^r ag^st him at the
Court held on the 9^th ffeb last."[25] 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.[26]

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
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.[27] 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.[28]

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.[29]

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 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[30] 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.[31] 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 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."[32]

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.[33] 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. 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."[34] 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 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.[35] 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.[36] 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.[37] It is
probable, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that Ingle and
Claiborne never planned any concerted action, but that each took
advantage of the other's deeds, to further his own interests.

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."[38] 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.[39]
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 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 us with arms, break into the houses of the
Catholics, and plunder whatever there is of arms or powder."[40] 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.

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."[41] 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 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.[42] 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, Edw. Matthews, to help Andrew Monroe
to bring a small pinnace nearer the house.[43] 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;[44] 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;"[45] 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.[46] Matthews 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.[47] 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 of the Complts house as theire owne, dwelt
in it Soe long as they please and at their departing tooke the locks
from the doors and y^e Glass from the windowes and in fine ruined his
whole Estate to the damage of the Complt at least two or three
thousand pounds."[48] 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.[49]

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 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.[50] 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 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.[51] 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.[52]

"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 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.

"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 otherwise
against the well affected for fighting for the Parliament.

"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."

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 Tob & Caske," and "an acknowledgem^t of Cap^t 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,"[53] 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 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.[54] For continuity, a rapid sketch of the history
of Maryland during the next two years must be given.

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 given them by the Governor and Council."[55]
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,[56] 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.[57] 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:[58] "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 such Cases to
Nominate elect and appoint such an able person inhabiting and residing
within our said province of Maryl^d, 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,"[59] 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,[60] 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 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,[61] 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 Ldps 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 Ld Prop^rs Attorny out of the first profitts which shall be
receivable to his Ldp * * * his Ldps Receiver shall accompt & pay unto
Cap^t Edward Hill or his assignes the one halfe of his Ldps rents due
at Christmas next in Lieu of the S^d rents of the yeare 1646 which
were otherwise disposed of to his Ldps use." There is, however, one
fact which must not be 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.

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."[62]
Another proof of Hill's regular appointment is that Calvert on 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.[63] 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."[64] The writer is no lawyer,
but it seems, that, if the Assembly of Hill was "lawfully continued"
and "approved" by Calvert, the recognition by Baltimore must have 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 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.[65] 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."[66]

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 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.[67] 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 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."[68]

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 engage against the Commonwealth."[69]
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.[70] 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."[71] 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 acts led to such
extreme measures as those which culminated in the execution of the
self-willed unfortunate Charles I.

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,[72] 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."[73] and in the
proclamation of March 4th, 1648, Greene promised pardon "under my
hand and the seal of the province,"[74] to all out of the province
except Ingle, who should confess their faults before a certain date.

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 our commission to him not to appoint" any
person governor "unless such person were of our privy council
there,"[75] 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.

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 Six hundred
Forty and four most of the Records of that province being then lost or
embezzled."[76] 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,"[77] 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. _Hill's_
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
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 inducements to waste his time, and that
of his men cutting up records.

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."[78] 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.

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."[79] 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.,[80] 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."[81] In the
Assembly of March, 1638, 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^th
bulletts & shott against the said Thomas Cornwaleys, &c."[82] Granted,
although it is doubtful, that Ingle seized the pinnace, riding in St.
Inigoes' creek, he was not, therefore, a pirate. According to 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. e._, 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[83] 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 hund^r Thirty Eight pounds of Tob for a debt th^t the s^d
Walter Beane did owe to Cuthbert ffenwick. Witness my hand,

    RICH^D. INGLE."

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.[84] 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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] Spotswood Letters, Brock, p. 12.

[2] Rev. Edw. D. Neill, to whom I am indebted for valuable references,
was the first to attempt any kind of a defence of Ingle, but Dr. Wm.
Hand Browne, who also has greatly aided me, has omitted the pirate and
rebel clause in the history which he is preparing for the Commonwealth
Series.

[3] Assembly Proceedings, 1638-1664, p. 120, Land Office Records, Vol.
I., p. 582. In the Maryland records the name is spelled Cornwaleys,
but in this paper the rule has been adopted of spelling it Cornwallis,
as it is known to history.

[4] Winthrop's History of New England, Vol. II., p. 75. Winthrop 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.

[5] Proprietary Records, Liber P. R., p. 85.

[6] Ibid., p. 124.

[7] Ibid., p. 137.

[8] Ibid., p. 124. Council Proceedings, 1636-1657. Bozman, in 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.

[9] P. R., p. 146.

[10] Ibid., pp. 125, 138.

[11] C. P., p. 111, P. R., p. 125.

[12] Ibid., p. 125.

[13] Ibid., pp. 129, 130.

[14] Ibid.

[15] This was on the south side of the Patuxent river. At one time 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.

[16] P. R., p. 131.

[17] Ibid., p. 134.

[18] Ibid., pp. 137, 139.

[19] Ibid., p. 141.

[20] Ibid., p. 148.

[21] Bozman: History of Maryland, Vol. II., p. 272.

[22] P. R., p. 149.

[23] Ibid., p. 150.

[24] Ibid., p. 131.

[25] Ibid., pp. 139, 145.

[26] Sixth Report of the Historical Commission to Parliament, p. 101.

[27] P. R., pp. 140, 141, 146.

[28] Ibid., p. 146.

[29] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.

[30] The absence of punctuation between the "Elizabeth and Ellen"
leads one to conjecture that there were but seven vessels.

[31] Journal of the House of Commons, 1642-44, p. 607. This may be
found in the Congressional Library, Washington, D. C.

[32] Collections N. Y. Historical Society, Series II., Vol. III., p.
126. Winthrop: History of New England, Vol. II., p. 198.

[33] L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 224; Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.

[34] Papers Relating to the Early History of Maryland, by S. F.
Streeter, p. 267.

[35] C. P., pp. 166, 201, 204; A. P., 238, 270.

[36] C. P., p. 175; A. P., p. 301.

[37] C. P., p. 209.

[38] A. P., p. 238.

[39] Ibid., pp. 238, 270, 271. At the request of the Assembly,
Baltimore forgave Thompson for acts which he might have committed by
reason of ignorance or through a mistake.

[40] Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam, p. 95.

[41] Records of the Eng. Prov. Society of Jesus, Series V., VI., VII.,
VIII., pp. 337, 389.

[42] L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 432.

[43] Ibid., p. 572.

[44] Ibid., Vol. II., p. 354.

[45] Ibid., Vol. I., p. 584.

[46] Now Port Tobacco, Charles Co. Ibid., Vol. II., p. 354.

[47] Ibid., Vol. I., p. 433. Most of the testimony against Ingle in
Maryland was by those whom he had held prisoners.

[48] Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 432, 433.

[49] Ibid.

[50] Terra Mariae, Neill, pp. 110, 111.

[51] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.

[52] Rev. E. D. Neill has given the full draft of this petition. See
Founders of Maryland, pp. 75-77.

[53] L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 378.

[54] 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.

[55] Hening: Statutes, Vol. I., p. 321.

[56] C. P., pp. 17, 77.

[57] Ibid., p. 136; L. O. R., Vol. I., p. 203.

[58] C. P., p. 135.

[59] Ibid., p. 209.

[60] Ibid., p. 154-161.

[61] L. O. R., Vol. II., p. 328.

[62] A. P., p. 242.

[63] Ibid., pp. 209-210.

[64] Ibid., 266.

[65] C. P., pp. 204-205.

[66] Kilty. Landholder's Assistant, pp. 79-80; L. O. R., Vol. II., p.
410.

[67] Seventh Report His. Com., pp. 54, 162.

[68] Sainsbury: Calendar State Papers, Colonial, 1574-1660, pp.
331-337, 368.

[69] Ibid.

[70] Ibid., Domestic, 1650, pp. 64, 79, 572.

[71] Ibid., 1653-1654, pp. 235, 251, 278.

[72] C. P., 201.

[73] Ibid., 162.

[74] Ibid., 166.

[75] Ibid., p. 209.

[76] A. P., p. 329.

[77] C. P., 219.

[78] Sixth Rep. Hist. Com., p. 101.

[79] Hall: International Law, p. 218.

[80] 28 Henry VIII., C. 15. See p. 124, Vol. VI., Evan's Collection of
Statutes.

[81] Quoted by Phillimore. See International Law, Vol. I., p. 414.

[82] A. P., pp. 17-18.

[83] L. O. R., Vol. II., p. 312.

[84] Phillimore, Vol. I., p. 425.



Transcriber's Note

Archaic and variable spelling and capitalisation has been preserved 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.

The following amendments have been made:

    Page 14--Febuary amended to February--"... a copy of a
    certificate to Ingle under date of February 8th, ..."

    Page 20--masacre amended to massacre--"... had given as
    a reason for the Indian massacre, ..."

    Page 33--Corwallis amended to Cornwallis--"A
    consideration of the statements by Cornwallis and ..."

    Page 47--proprietory amended to proprietary--"... and
    liber F., 1636-1642, proprietary records, have been
    handed down ..."





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Captain Richard Ingle - The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel," 1642-1653" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.