communicated it to the Council in Maryland. The Council give an answer
at their leisure, having waited till the 1st of June, when they write
to his Lordship, protesting against Virginia's exercising any
superintendence over Maryland, and peremptorily refusing to deliver
Talbot. They tell him "that we are desirous and conclude to await his
Majesty's resolution, [in regard to the prisoner,] which we question not
will be agreeable to his Lordship's Charter, and, consequently, contrary
to your expectations. In the mean time we cannot but resent in some
measure, for we are willing to let you see that we observe, the small
notice you seem to take of this Government, (contrary to that amicable
correspondence so often promised, and expected by us,) in not holding us
worthy to be advised of his Majesty's being proclaimed, without which,
certainly, we have not been enabled to do our duty in that particular.
Such advice would have been gratefully received by your Excellency's
humble servants." Thanks, Colonels Darnall and Digges and you other
Colonels and Majors, for this plain outspeaking of the old Maryland
heart against the arrogance of the "Right Honorable Lord Howard, Baron
of Effingham, Captain General and Chief Governor of his Majesty's Colony
of Virginia," as he styles himself! I am glad to see this change of
tone, since that first letter of obsequious submission.

Perhaps this change of tone may have had some connection with the recent
change on the throne, in which the accession of a Catholic monarch may
have given new courage to Maryland, and abated somewhat the confidence
of Virginia. If so, it was but a transitory hope, born to a sad
disappointment.

The documents afford but little more information.

Lord Baltimore, being in London, appears to have interceded with the