Skip to main content

Full text of "Maryland : the land of sanctuary : a history of religious toleration in Maryland from the first settlement until the American Revolution"

See other formats













"Thus your Lordship sees that we Papists want not 
charity towards you Protestants, whatever the less under 
standing part of the world think of us." George Calvert 
to Wenlworth. 

11 We Remember and We Forgive. "- 
Charles Carroll of Carrollton. 



Religious Toleration, Absolute or Unlimited Limited 
Toleration Toleration under Constantine and 
Theodosius Church and State before the Reforma 
tion After the Reformation Religious Intolerance 
in England at Epoch of George Calvert s Conver 
sion Idea and Theory of Toleration in Past Re 
formation Times Colonial Schemes of Toleration 
anterior to the Calverts Divisions of Maryland s 
Religious History 1-35 


George Calvert Birth, early life and marriage Public 
Offices Regard of the King Knighthood Secre 
tary of State Grant of Irish Lands Conversion - 
Lord Baltimore Newfoundland Visit to Virginia 
Grant of Maryland Death Estimates of 
Character and Attainments... 36-51 


Cecilius Calvert, birth, early life, and marriage The 
Charter Opposition Sailing of the Ark and the 
Dove Landing at St. Clement s Indians St. 
Mary s The Pilgrim Founders of Religious 
Liberty. 52-84 



The Missionaries Habits and Religion of Indians 
Baptism of the Emperor Native and Colonist 
Peaceful Conditions Claims of Claiborne De 
cision 8.1 101 


Leonard Calvert, first Governor Jerome Haw ley 
Captain Cornwaleys Religion of First Colonists 
Massachusetts and Maryland compared Impartial 
historians on Maryland Toleration 102-122 


Grant of Lands Toleration enforced First Assemblv 
Government Reorganized John Lewger Second 
Assembly" Holy Church " Invitation to Puri 
tansControversy between Lord Baltimore and the 
Jesuits Decision Catholicity of Cecilius Cal- 
vert 123-75 


Richard Ingle, Pirate and Rebel Seizure of St. Mary s 
Claiborne Ingle Expelled Death and Character 
of Leonard Calvert Mistress Brent 176-90 


Protestants Increase Puritans in Virginia Invited to 
Maryland Governor Stone Third Assembly 
" Toleration Act " Compromise Catholic Ma- 




King and Cromwell Virginia s Jealousy Claiborne, 
Commissioner of Reduction Puritan Ingratitude 
Catholics Outlawed Exit Claiborne... 209-31 


Puritan Intolerance Efforts of the Proprietor Battle 
of the Severn Wiles of Enemies Governor Fen- 
dall Surrender Toleration re-established Fen- 
dall s Treason Philip Calvert, Governor 233-51 


Land of Sanctuary Quakers Witchcraft Presby 
terians Augustine Herman Labadists Consi 
deration for Indians Treatment of Negroes Jews 
Jacob Lumbrozo 252-75 


Maryland First Home of Religious Liberty Wisdom 
and Liberality of Lord Baltimore Maryland and 
Rhode Island Compared Roger Williams Tolera 
tion in Other Colonies 276-89 


Motives of the Calverts Primarily Religious Maryland 

Designed as the " Land of Sanctuary." 290-309 


Maryland, a Catholic Colony Mr. Gladstone on Mary 
land Toleration Baltimore more Liberal than 
Charter Death of Cecilius Calvert Estimates of 
Character and Attainments Compared with Penn 
Neglected Memory 310-22 



Charles (I) Calvert John Yeo Complaints and Ac 
cusations Claiborne Again James II and Mary 
land " Papists and Indians " Coode and Fendall 
Rebellion Surrender of Proprietary Party 
Charter Vacated Close of the Golden Age 323-60 


Sir Lionel Copley Anglican Church Established in 
Maryland Capital Removed to Annapolis Catho 
lics Disbarred from Office Gov. Nicholson Gov. 
Seymour Penal Laws Chapel Closed at St. 
Mary s 361-85 


Clerical Judges of Cases Testamentary Taxation and 
Persecution of Catholics Gov. Hart Unnatural 
Legislation Situation of Lord Baltimore Un- 
progressive Age 386-94 


Death of Charles (I) Calvert Apostasy of Benedict 
Leonard Calvert Charles (II) Calvert Proprie 
tary Rights Restored Gov. Hart Catholics Dis 
franchised Protestant Fear and Suspicion Minis 
ters and Jesuits... 395-409 


Proclamation against Conversions Catholics Plan a 
Settlement in Louisiana Land Titles Attacked 
Gov. Sharpe Double Taxes Suspicion of Dis 
loyalty The Acadians Gov. Sharpens Letter. 410-431 



Jesuits Quakers Presbyterians Status of the Episco 
palian Clergy Their Immorality 432-46 


Reduced Fees Value of Revenue Number of Ministers 

Poor Tobacco 447-53 


Immorality of Clergy Infidelity Free Schools Excep 
tions, Among Clergy 454-69 


Stamp Act Exactions of Frederick Calvert Gov. 
Eden Carroll vs. Dulany Death of Frederick Cal 
vert, Last Lord Baltimore Eve of the Revolution 
Intolerance Wanes Foes Pay Tribute Mary 
land Catholics and the Revolution Declaration of 
Rights 470-489 


Quebec Act Attitude of Colonies Towards the Act 
Attitude of Maryland Mission to Canada Charles 
Carroll of Carrollton John Carroll Declaration 
of Independence 490-503 


Toleration in Constitvition of the United States Let 
ter of Catholics to George Washington Reply 
Bishop Carroll Thos. Jefferson Cardinal Gibbons 
Finis 504-512 




A. Penal laws under James I and Charles 1 513 

B. Calvert Document. Deed of George Calvert 516 

C. Charters of Avalon and Maryland 517 

D. Oath of Allegiance 520 

E. Trial of Lewis 530 

F. Oath of Governor 534 

G. Magna Charta. ( Extract. ) 536 

H. Bull of Demarcation of Alexander VI. (Ex 
tract.) 537 

I. Agreement between Lord Baltimore and the So 
ciety of Jesus 538 

J. Quit-Rents. Caution Money. Alienation Fees . . 543 

K. Act of Toleration 544 

L. Agreement of the People of England 547 

M. Act of the Puritan Parliament for punishing 

Blasphemy, etc 548 

N. Breviat and Protests against the validity of Lord 

Baltimore s Patent 549 

0. Quakers 554 

P. Gladstone and Maryland Toleration 556 

Q. Double Tax Debate between Upper and Lower 

Houses 564 

R. Memorial to Earl of Halifax 568 

S. Acadians 579 

T. Advertisement of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. . 581 

U. Genealogy of Charles Carroll of Carrollton 586 

V. List of Jesuits in Maryland 594 

W. Anglican clergy in Maryland before 1692 595 

X. Statutes 1 William and Mary, and 11 and 12 

William III ! 595 

Y. Quebec Act 597 



The present volume is most welcome. The his 
tory of our State, especially during the colonial 
era, bears a close relation to the Catholic Church 
whose infancy in the United States was cradled in 
the " Land of Sanctuary." A narrative of those 
events which helped or retarded the growth of re 
ligious liberty on the soil where it was first planted 
and developed under Catholic auspices, comes most 
fittingly from a Catholic author, especially from 
one whose forefathers settled in the Province under 
the government of the first Proprietary, and, not 
withstanding the trials to which Catholics were 
subjected, were ever loyal to their faith. 

The Eev. William T. Eussell, of the Cathedral, 
the author, has for the last three years been en 
gaged in writing the work which is now offered to 
the public. He is possessed of the judicial tem 
per so essential for historical accuracy, and having 
carefully weighed in the balance every contro 
verted point has given his decision with calm and 
dispassionate judgment. He has read every au 
thor of note who has written on early Maryland 



history, and upon questions affecting Catholic 
interests has quoted only from reliable non-Catho 
lic sources. Many manuscripts and documents 
which he has used have never before been made 

Every Marylander who loves his native State, 
every American who cherishes the privileges born 
of civil and religious liberty, everyone who ac 
knowledges the blessings of toleration, will peruse 
these pages with growing interest. The native of 
the " Land of Sanctuary," especially, will be filled 
with pride and enthusiasm, when he realizes that 
Cecil ius, Lord Baltimore, was the first ruler to pro 
claim freedom of conscience to all who sought 
shelter, and who dwelt within his Province. 


It has been said that the happiest nations are 
those having the least history and this is par 
ticularly applicable to Maryland. Her annals are 
not filled with those turbulent events that go to 
make up the story of most of the other colonies; 
hers was " a government of benevolence, good 
order and toleration," and under the Proprietary 
administration there were few dark intrigues and 
tragic scenes. She is possessed of a distinction all 
her own. Her influence, from the first scored 
deep and wide ; and from the planting of the Cross 
upon St. Clement s Island, her sons have been sec 
ond to none among the history-makers of America. 
While the records of most of the other settlements 
are strongly colored with cruelty and bloodshed, 
the history of Maryland is that of religious tolera 
tion in its struggle toward development and ma 
turity; of her was born freedom of conscience in 
the New World. The religious and civil elements 
of her origin and growth are inseparable. 

The fair and broad spirit generally exhibited 
by non-Catholic authors in writing the history of 
our State affords good reason to believe that a nar 
rative of those events which are closely associated 
with religious toleration under Catholic auspices, 



by one who being a Catholic must be more in 
sympathy with the subject, would not prove unac 
ceptable. Such a presentation while it possesses 
evident advantages is met by difficulties peculiar to 
itself which the non-Catholic historian can afford 
to ignore. Sympathy usually begets a favorable 
prejudice, and even if the writer has achieved the 
delicate task of viewing and presenting his subject 
without any of that bias which might not un 
kindly be ascribed to him, the reader, nevertheless, 
cannot at once rid himself of a pardonable scepti 
cism regarding the author s impartiality. This ob 
jection has been anticipated in preparing this vol 
ume, for it was realized that every conclusion fa 
vorable to the Catholic Church might fairly be 
challenged ; assertions, therefore have been ground 
ed upon authorities which may be considered un 

The method pursued, has been, first, to narrate 
the facts as they are unfolded by the most reliable 
testimony of the past ; and in the second place, to 
array these bare facts in the form and color fur 
nished by the comments of non-Catholic historians. 
Catholic writers have been consulted, but for the 
reasons already given, they have been rarely quoted 
to substantiate conclusions creditable to the 
Church, and never without confirmatory testimony 
from other authorities. This will explain why 
references to Scharf, McSherry and Shea appear 
so infrequently in these pages. Of the other 


standard authors Chalmers, the painstaking an 
nalist, is marvelous ly free from prejudice of any 
sort. 1 Bozman, the Episcopalian, is usually trust 
worthy for facts, and never consciously unjust in 
his opinions. McMahon, the Presbyterian, is al 
ways fair and generally reliable. Of the modern 
writers, to Dr. William Hand Browne, the dis 
tinguished archivist of the Maryland Historical 
Society, are the author s acknowledgments and 
appreciation due in an especial manner. " Mary 
land, The History of a Palatinate " was from the 
first an inspiration, and continued throughout to 
be a stimulus, from its fairmindedness, research, 
and dispassionate narration of events. The 
scholarly treatment and charm of style exhibited in 
"The Lords Baltimore" of Mr. Clay ton C. Hall, have 
been also a source of great pleasure and gain. The 
Eev. E. D. Neill, a prolific writer and quondam 
authority upon all phases of Maryland history, 
who by his mis-statements has proved himself en 
tirely untrustworthy, has not been relied upon in 

1K Mr. Chalmers, as I have been informed, was a Scotch 
man, residing in this city, as a practitioner of the law, at 
the commencement of the American revolution. Espousing 
the cause of the crown, he sought refuge in England, and 
took up his residence in London, where he acquired 
notoriety as a political writer, and more especially by his 
researches into the colonial history, and ultimately obtained 
a place in the trade office. Writing under such circum 
stances, and for the express purpose of demonstrating the 
supremacy of parliament, his general impartiality in the 
statement of facts is truly remarkable." (McMahon, p. 


this work, even when his assertions might be taken 
to reflect honorably upon the Catholic side of a 
question. He has been quoted but rarely, and 
then not in support of historical facts, but merely 
for his personal opinion regarding a subject that 
cannot be controverted, and when his expression of 
praise is the least that can be said. In one of his 
"pronouncements" ( Maryland ;Nbt A Roman Cath 
olic Colony,) through carelessness, we may chari 
tably suppose, there is not an assertion to the point 
that has not been proven to be false. He seems to 
owe his past prominence as an historian to his fa 
cility in making unequivocal and apodictic state 
ments, by his very boldness and assurance forestall 
ing investigation and disarming criticism. It is 
true that Rev. Mr. Neill wrote prior to the discov 
ery of the Calvert Mss. and other documents, and 
also before the publishing of the State Archives made 
these records of easy access, still if it was impos 
sible to obtain some facts, and difficult to ascertain 
others, he does not stand excused for supplying 
these deficiencies. Father Hughes, on subjects per 
taining to his Society in Maryland, has been found 
invaluable. His " History of the Society of Jesus 
in North America " is a masterful defence of the 
Jesuit side of the controversy with Lord Balti 
more. While drawing freely from the facts fur 
nished by the learned author, the conclusions of 
the writer will be found to be much at variance 
with those of Father Hughes. 


The author has relied almost invariably for the 
main facts upon original sources, such as the 
Maryland State Archives, printed and manuscript, 
the Archives of other States, documents, and colo 
nial papers. The works of men who have written 
contemporaneously with the events they narrate, 
and the standard historians, are frequently quoted. 

Every quotation in this volume, as well as every 
reference, has been taken by the writer directly 
from the source mentioned. When reference is 
made to Archives without any other designation, 
the Maryland State Archives are intended. 

The author finds great pleasure in expressing 
his appreciation of the interest taken in the prog 
ress of this work by his Eminence, the Cardinal, 
by the Very Reverend Dr. Shahan, of the Cath 
olic University; Rev. J. T. Whelan, Mr. Michael 
Jenkins, and other kind friends. His acknowledg 
ments are also due to the officials of the Peabody 
and Pratt Libraries, Baltimore, of the Congres 
sional Library, Washington, of the Maryland His 
torical Society, whose Assistant Librarian, Mr. 
George W. McCreary, has been unfailing in his 




Magnum Bullarium Komanum, a Beato Leone 
Magno usque ad S. D. K Benedictum XIII. 
Editio novissima octo voluminibus compre- 
hensa. Juxta exemplar Romae, ex Typo- 
graphia Keverendae Camerae Apostolicae. 
Luxemburg!, MDCCXXVII. 
Lactantii Opera Omnia. De Morte Persecutorum. 

Editio Migne. Paris, 1844. 
Eusebii Pamphili, De Vita Constantini. Edition 

of Valesius, Paris, 1678. 
Journal of the House of Lords, 1509-1839. Lon 

don, 71 vols. fo. Part 4 never printed. 
Journal of the House of Commons, 1647-1839. 

London, 96 vols. fo. 

Statutes of the Kealm, From Magna Charta to the 
End of the Keign of Queen Anne, From 
original Records and Authentic Manuscripts. 
9 vols. in 10 fo. Printed by order of King 
George III. London, 1810-22. 
Historical Collection of Private Papers of State, 
1618-29. By John Rushworth, 8 vols. Lon 
don, 1721. 



Calendars of State Papers (England) Colonial 
Series, Preserved in the Public Eecord Office. 
Published under the direction of the Master 
of Eolls. Large 8. Edited by W. Noel 
Saintsbury. London, I860, 1880. 

Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use 
Made by Parliament, 1640-1656. By Henry 
Scobell. London, 1658. 

Parliamentary History, Erom the Earliest Period 
to 1803, 36 vols. Cobbett. London, 1806-20. 

Memorials of English Affairs Erom the Beginning 
of the Reign of Charles I, to the Happy Re 
storation of Charles II. By Bulstrode White- 
locke, 4 vols. Oxford, 1843. (Also 1853.) 

A Collection of the State Papers of John Thurloe, 
Esq., Secretary Eirst to the Council of State, 
and afterwards to the two Protectors, Oliver 
and Eichard Cromwell. In 7 vols. fo. Con 
taining Authentic Memorials of English Af 
fairs from the year 1638 to the Eestoration of 
King Charles II. Published from the Origi 
nals formerly in the Library of Sir John Som- 
mers, Lord High Chancellor. London, 1742. 

Letters and Dispatches of Thomas Lord Strafford, 
(Earl of Wentworth), 2 vols. in 1. By Rad- 
cliffe. London, 1739. 

The Great Charter, And the Charters of the 
Eorest. By William Blackstone. Oxford, 1759. 

Documents of English Constitutional History. 


Edited by G. B. Adams and H. M. Stephens. 


Statutes and Documents of the Keigns of Eliza 
beth and James I. Edited by G. W. Prothero. 

State Affairs of England, 6 vols. E". Luttrell. 

Oalvert Mss. Documents, Deeds, Wills, Addresses, 

Memoranda. (Md. Hist. Soc.) 
Journals of the Upper House, Manuscript, 5 vols. 


Journals of the Lower House, Mss. 5 vols. fol. 
Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore. 
Archives of Maryland, 27 vols., comprising: 

Proceedings and Acts of the Assembly of 

Maryland, 8 vols. 
Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 8 

Judicial and Testamentary Business of the 

Provincial Court, 3 vols. 
Journal of the Maryland Convention, 4 

Journal and Correspondence of the Council 

of Safety, 4 vols. 

Muster Eolls, and Kecords of Service of 
Maryland Troops in the Kevolution, 1 

Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, 3 vols. 
Laws of Maryland At Large With Proper In 
dexes To which is prefixed the Charter With 


An English Translation. By Thomas Bacon, 
Rector of All-Saints Parish in Frederick Co. 
and Domestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. 
Frederick, Lord Baltimore. Annapolis, 
Printed by Jonas Green, Printer to the Pro 
vince, 1765. 

Calvert Papers (No. 1). Baltimore, 1889. 

Calvert Papers (No. 2). Correspondence. 

Calvert Papers, (No. 3). "A Brief e Relation of 
the Voyage unto Maryland," and Other Pa 
pers. Baltimore, 1890. 

Relatio Itineris In Marylandiam. Declaratio 
Coloniae Domini Baronis de Baltimore, Ex- 
cerpta ex Diversis Litteris Missionariorum ab 
Anno 1638, ad Annum 1677. 

Land Holder s Assistant: An Exposition of 
Original Titles As Derived From the Pro 
prietary Government, and State of Maryland, 
With Appendix Containing the Ancient Land 
Laws. By John Kilty. Baltimore, 1808. 

Maryland Calendar of Wills (Wills probated from 
1635-1685), vol. 1. Compiled and edited by 
J. Baldwin. Baltimore, 1901. 

Acts of Assembly of the Province of Maryland. 
James Bisset. Philadelphia, 1759. 

Maryland Gazette. 

Laws of Maryland. William Parks (Printer). 
Annapolis, 1727. 

Proceedings of the Maryland Convention of 1774- 
1776, held at Annapolis. Balthnore, 1836. 


Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton During 
His Visit to Canada in 1776, As One of the 
Commissioners of Congress. Edited by 
Brantz Mayer. Baltimore, 1876. 
Unpublished Letters of Charles Carroll of Car 
rollton, and of his Father Charles Carroll of 
Doughoregan. Edited by T. M. Field. New 
York, 1902. 

A Relation of Maryland. Reprinted From the 
London Edition of 1635. With Prefatory 
Note and Appendix. By Francis L. Hawks, 
D. D. LL. D. New York, 1865. (Sabin s Re 
prints, 1865.) 

Writings of Rev. Thomas Bray, Relating to Mary 
land. Edited by B. C. Steiner. Baltimore, 
Answer of Joseph Wyeth to Dr. Bray (1700.) 

Edited by B. C. Steiner. Baltimore, 1901. 
Letters From America, Historical and Descriptive, 
Comprising Occurrences from 1769-1777. By 
William Eddis, Late Surveyor of the Customs, 
&c., at Annapolis, Md. London, 1792. 
Statutes At Large of Virginia, William Waller 

Hening. Richmond, 1809. 

American Archives Consisting of a Collection of 
Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates 
and Letters, and other Notices of Publick Af 
fairs, the Whole Forming A Documentary His 
tory of the Origin and Progress of the North 


American Colonies, etc. In six Series. Fol. 
Published by Peter Force. Washington, 
1840, 3rd Series. 

Documents Relating to the Colonial History of 
ISTew York. Procured in Holland, England 
and France by John Romeyn Brodhead, Esq., 
11 vols., 4 to. Albany, 1853. 

Historical Collections Relating to the American 
Colonial (Episcopal) Church. Edited by 
William Stevens Perry, D. D., vol. iv. 1878. 

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. 
Edited From the Original Records in the 
Library of Congress. By W. C. Ford. Wash 
ington, 1904. Vols. I and II. 

Canadian Archives. Edited By Adam Short. 
Ottawa, 1907. 

Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour in 
Several of the American Colonies, 1679-80. 
By Jasper Bankers and Peter Sluyter of 
Wierwerd in Friesland. Translated from the 
original Mss. in Dutch for the Long Island 
Historical Society, and edited by Henry C. 
Murphy. Brooklyn, 1867. 

Massachusetts Historical Collections, Series 4, 
vols. 9-10. Boston, 1871. (Aspinwall Papers.) 

Charters and Other Documents, etc. William 
McDonald. ~New York, 1899. 

Charters of Old English Colonies in America. S. 
Lucas. London, 1850. 


Original Letters of Archbishop Carroll, Thomas 
Jefferson, and others. (Archiepiscopal Ar 
chives. ) 

Roger Williams Bloudy Tenets of Persecution. 
Edited by E. D. Underbill, 1849. 

Charters of the Provinces of North America. Lon 
don, 1766. 

Virginia Historical Collections, Virginia Com 
pany, 1619-24. Richmond, 1889. 

Translations and Reprints from the Original 
sources of European History. Published by the 
University of Pennsylvania, vols. I- VI. Series, 

Catholic Mission in Maryland. American Histori 
cal Review, April, 1907, p. 584. 

Extracts from the Votes and Proceedings of the 
American Continental Congress. Held at 
Philadelphia on the 5th of September, 1774. 
Printed by Anne Katherine Green and Son. 
Annapolis, 1774. 


Acta Regia, 4 vols. London, 1721. 

Atkinson, C. T. Michel de FHospital. London, 1900. 

Allen. American Biographical Dictionary. Boston, 1857. 

Archer, G. W. The Dismemberment of Maryland. Balti 
more, 1890. 

Anderson, Rev. J. S. M. History of the Church of Eng 
land in the Colonies and Foreign Dependencies of 
Great Britain, 3 vols. London, 1850. 

Allen, Ethan. Maryland Toleration. Baltimore, 1855. 

Arnold, S. G. History of the State of Rhode Island. 2 
vols., 1894. 


Anti-Nicene Fathers. Edited Rev. Alexander Roberts 

and James Donaldson. Buffalo, 1886. 
Adams, Herbert B. Village Communities of Cape Anne 

and Salem. Johns Hopkins Press. Baltimore, 1883. 
Allen, Ethan. History of Maryland. Philadelphia, 1886. 
Aspinwal Papers, vol. I. See Mass. Hist. Coll. 
Adams, John. Works of. By C. F. Adams. Boston, 1850- 

56. 10 vols. 
Alsop, George. Character of the Province of Maryland. A 

Collection of Historical Letters (1666). New York, 

Abbott, Jacob, Revolt of the Colonies. Washington and 

New York, 1864. 
Abbott, J. Northern Colonies. Washington and New 

York, 1862. 
Abbott, Jacob. Southern Colonies. Washington and New 

York, 1861. 
Ames, H. V. Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, 


Besse, Joseph. A Collection of the Sufferings of the Peo 
ple called Quakers, 2 vols. London, 1753. 

Byington, E. H. The Puritan As a Colonist and Reformer. 

Browne, Wm. Hand. Maryland, The History of a Pal 
atinate. Boston, 1884. 

Browne, Wm. Hand. George and Cecilus Calvert. New 
York, 1890. 

Belisle, D. W. Signers of the Declaration of Independence. 
Philadelphia, 1859. 

Bittinger, L. F. The Germans in Colonial Times. Phila 
delphia, 1901. 

Bradford, A. History of Massachusetts, 3 vols. Boston, 

Bozman, John Leeds. History of Maryland, 2 vols. Bal 
timore editions of, 1811 and 1837. 

Bancroft, George. History of the United States, 6 vols., 
10th ed. (also 1876-1884.) 

Belknap, J. American Biography. 1857-77. 


Ballagh, James Custis. White Servitude in the Colony of 
Virginia. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1895. 

Brantly, W. T. The English in Maryland. Winsor s Nar 
rative and Critical History. Vol. V. Boston and New 
York, 1887. 

Bowen, Rev. L. The Days of Mackemie. Philadelphia, 

Burnap, G. W. Life of Leonard Calvert. Boston, 1864. 

Banvard, J. Tragic Scenes in History of Maryland. Bos 
ton and New York, 1856. 

Balmes, Rev. J. Balines, Protestantism and Catholicism. 
Baltimore, 1854. 

Butler, E. H. History of Maryland. Philadelphia, 1866. 

Bradford, Gov. History of the Plymouth Colony (Re 
print.) Boston, 1855. 

Bradford, Gov. Dialogue. Boston, 1855. 

Black, J. William. Maryland s Attitude in the Struggle 
for Canada. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1892. 

Barrett, Jay A. Evolution of the Ordinance of 1787. New 
York and London, 1891 

Burke, Edmund. Works, 9 vols. London, 1854-57. 

Bancroft, George. History of the Foundation of the Con 
stitution of the United States of America, 2 vols, 6th 
ed. New York, 1884. 

Bridgett, Rev. L. E. Life and Writing of Sir Thomas 
More. London, 1891. 

Butler, C. De 1 Hospital. An Essay on the Life of the 
Chancellor of France. London, 1814. 

Boucher, Rev. Jonathan. A View of the Causes and Con 
sequences of the American Revolution. In Thirteen Dis 
courses Preached Between the Years 1763-1775. With 
An Historical Preface dedicated to George Washing 
ton, Esq. London, 1797. 

Cobb, Sanford. The Rise of Religious Liberty in America. 

New York, 1902. 

Cook, Eben. The Sot Weed Factor or a Voyage to Mary 
land. Md. Hist. Fund. Pub. No. 36. B. C. Steiner 
(ed.) London, 1792. 


Cocke, W. A. Constitutional History of the United States. 

Philadelphia, 1858. 
Curtis, G. L. Constitutional History of the United States, 

2 vols. 1889-96. 
Chalmers, George. History of the Revolt of the American 

Colonies, 2 vols. Boston, 1845. 
Chalmers, George. Political Annals of the Present United 

Colonies From Their Settlement to the Peace of 1763. 

London, 1780. 
Gushing, A. Historical Letters on the first Charter of 

Massachusetts Government. Boston, 1839. 
Campbell, D. The Puritans in Holland, England and 

America, 2 vols. New York, 1892. 

Coffin, C. C. Old Times in the Colonies. New York, 1880. 
Coffin, V. The Province of Quebec and the Early American 

Revolution. Madison, 1896. 

Case, Wheeler. Revolutionary Memorials. New York, 1852. 
Cheever, G. B. Journal of the Plymouth Pilgrims. New 

York, 1849. 
Campbell, B. U. Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll. 

In Catholic Magazine, 1843-45. 
Catholic Cabinet, 1844-6. Baltimore. 
Catholic Historical Magazine. 

Doyle, J. A. The English in Virginia, Maryland and the 

Carolinas. London, 1882. 
Doyle, J. A. First Century of English Colonization, 1700- 

63. London, 1903. (Cambridge Modern Universal 

Hist., vol. V.) 
Deane, Charles. New England. Winsor s Nar. and Grit. 

Hist., vol. 5. Boston and New York, 1887. 
Dexter, Henry Martyn, DD. As to Roger Williams. Bos 
ton, 1876. 
Davis, Geo. L. The Day-Star of American Freedom. New 

York, 1855. 
Dennis, Alfred Pearce. Lord Baltimore s Struggle With 

the Jesuits. American Historical Association Report. 

Vol. I, 1900. 
Davis, Horace. American Constitutions. J. H. U. Press. 

Baltimore, 1885. 


De Coursey, Henry. The Catholic Church of the United 
States, translated and enlarged by J. G. Shea. New 
York, 1856. 

Drake s Dictionary of American Biography. Boston, 1872. 

Dulany, Daniel. Considerations on the Proprietary of Im 
posing Taxes in the British Colonies in North America. 
Annapolis, 1765. 

Dillon, J. B. Oddities of Colonial Legislation. Indianap 
olis, 1877. 

Deane, Silas. The Deane Papers, 1774-90, 5 vols., 1887-91. 

Donaldson, Thomas. American Colonial History. Mary 
land Hist. Pub. Baltimore, 1849. 

Dwight, N. Lives of the Signers. New York, 1876. 

Ellon, Komeo. Life of Roger Williams. Providence, 1853. 
Eggleston, Edward. Beginners of a Nation. New York, 

Fox, George. Journal (fol.) London, 1694-98. 

Fuller, Thomas. Worthies of England, 3 vols. London, 


Fisher, G. P. History of the Christian Church, 1887. 
Fisher, G. P. Colonial Era, New York, 1892. 
Fiske, John. Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, 2 vols. Bos 
ton, 1897. 
Fisher, R. S. Gazette of the State of Maryland. New 

York and Baltimore, 1852. 
Foster, Wm. E. Town Government in Rhode Island, J. H. 

U. Press. Baltimore, 1886. 
Fisher, S. G. Evolution of the Constitution of the United 

States. 1897. 
Ford, W. C. (Ed.) Writings of Washington, 14 vols. 

1889-93. New York and London. 
Fiske, John. The Critical Period of American History. 

1783-87. Boston and New York, 1888. 
First Records of Baltimore and Jones Town. Baltimore, 


Fox, George. Journal, abridged. By Perry L. Parker. 
Fiske, John. The American Revolution, 2 vols. Boston 

and New York, 1891. 


Fiske, John. The Beginning of New England. The Puritan 
Theocracy. Boston and New York, 1889. 

Gladstone, William. Rome and the Newest Fashions in 
Religion. London, 1874. 

Grahame, J. History of the United States, 4 vols. Phila 
delphia, 1845. 

Gardiner, Samuel R. History of England, 10 vols. Lon 
don, 1883. 

Greene, G. W. History of Rhode Island. Providence, 1877. 

Goodrich, Rev. G. A. Lives of the Signers. Hartford, 

Greene, John Richard. History of the English People, 4 
vols. New York (no date.) 

Goodwin, John A. The Pilgrim Republic. Boston, 1888. 

Gambrall, Rev. Theodore. History of Early Maryland. 
New York, 1893. 

Gambrall, Rev. Theodore. Church Life in Colonial Mary 
land. New York, 1885. 

Griffith, Thomas W. Sketches of the Earl History of Mary 
land. Baltimore, 1821. 

Gibbons, Cardinal James. The Faith of Our Fathers. Bal 
timore, 1895. 

Guerber, H. A. The Story of the Thirteen Colonies, 1898. 

Gibbes, R. W. Documentary History of the American 
Revolution, 1852. 

Gambrill, J. M. Leading Events in Maryland History. 
Boston and London, 1904. 

Hawks, Rev. F. L. Rise and Progress of P. E. Church in 
Maryland. (Ecclesiastical Contributions. Vol. II.) 
New York, 1839. 

Hammond, John. Leah and Rachel. London, 1656. 
Force s Tracts, Vol. III. Washington, 1844. 

Howe, D. W. The Puritan Republic of Massachusetts 
Bay. Indianapolis, 1899. 

Haynes, Geo. H. Representation and Suffrage in Massachu 
setts, J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1894. 


Hall, Clayton C. The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland 
Palatinate. Baltimore, 1902. 

Hall, Clayton C. The Great Seal of Maryland. Maryland 
Historical Society Fund. Pub., No. 23. Baltimore, 

Hughes, Thomas S. J. History of the Society of Jesus in 
North America, Federal and Colonial. London, 1907. 

Hanson, George A. Old Kent of Maryland. Baltimore, 

Hart, A. B. (Ed.) American History Told by Contem- 
pararies, 1492-1689-1897. 

Hallam, Henry. Constitutional History of England, 2 
vols. 1882. 

Hergenrother, Joseph. The Catholic Church and Christian 
State. London, 1876. 

Haynes, Geo. H. Representation and Suffrage in Massachu 
setts. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1894. 

Howard, Geo. E. Local and Constitutional History of the 
United States. Baltimore, 1889. 

Harrison, S. A. Wenlock Christison. Maryland Fund. Pub. 
No. 26. Baltimore, 1888. 

Harrison, S. A. A Memoir of John Leeds Bozman. Balti 
more, 1888. 

Hotten, J. C. (Ed.) List of Emigrants to America, 1600- 
1700. New York, 1880. 

Hamilton, Alexander. Works, 7 vols. New York, 1850. 

Hull, William I. Maryland Independence and Confedera 
tion. Baltimore, 1891. 

Innes, A. T. Church and State, Edinburgh. (No date.) 
Ingle, Edward. Parish Institutions in Maryland. J. H. U. 

Press. Baltimore, 1883. 
Ingle, Edward. Local Institution of Virginia. J. H. U. 

Press. Baltimore, 1885. 
Ingle, Edward. Captain Richard Ingle. The Maryland 

Pirate and Rebel. Baltimore, 1884. 

Jones, C. H. The Campaign for the Conquest of Canada, 
Philadelphia, 1852. 


Johnson, George. History of Cecil County, Elkton, 1881. 

Johnson, Bradley F. Foundation of Maryland and Origin 
of Act Concerning Religion. Fund. Pub. No. 18. Bal 
timore, 1883. 

Johnson, John. Old Maryland Manors. J. H. U. Press. 
Baltimore, 1883. 

James, J. S. English Institutions and the American In 
dian. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1894. 

Johnston, Rev. Lucien. Maryland or Rhode Island, Which 
was First? New York, 1904. 

Knowles, J. D. Memoir of Roger Williams. Boston, 1843. 
Kent, James. Commentaries on American Law, 4 vols. 

Boston, 1860. 
Kaye, Percy Levis. The Colonial Executive Prior to the 

Revolution. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1900. 

Lingard, John. History of England, 10 vols. Edinburgh,, 

Lodge, H. C. History of the English Colonies in America. 

Lauer, Paul E. Church and State in New England. J. 
H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1892. 

Latane", J. H. Early Relations of Maryland and Virginia. 
J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1895. 

Latrobe, J. H. B. Charles Carroll of Carrollton in San 
dersons " Lives." Philadelphia, 1827. 

Libby, Orin Grant. The Geographical Distribution of the 
Vote of the Thirten States on the Federal Constitu 
tion. Madison, 1894. 

Lee, Guy Carlton. (Ed.) The History of North America,. 
6 vols. Philadelphia, 1904. 

Lecky, W. E. H. The American Revolution, 1763-83. (Ed.} 
J. A. Woodburn. New York, 1898. 

Marshall, J. Life of George Washington, 5 vols. Phila 
delphia, 1805-1807. 

Mallery, C. P. Ancient Families of Bohemia Manor. Wil 
mington, 1888. 


Mayer, Charles F. Discourse Maryland Hist. Pub. Bal 
timore, 1844. 

Meerness, Newton, Maryland As A Proprietary Province. 
New York, 1901. 

Mayer, Brantz. Calvert and Penn. Maryland Hist. Soc. 
Pub. Baltimore, 1852. 

Morley, Henry. Ideal Commonwealths. Utopia. London. 

Morley, John. Life of Edmund Burke. New York (no 
date. ) 

Manning, Cardinal. Vatican Decrees in Their Bearing on 
Civil Allegiance. London, 1875. 

Morley, John. Historical Study of Edmund Burke. Lon 
don, 1867. 

Mayer, Lewis. Ground Rents in Maryland. Baltimore, 

More, Cresacre. Life of Sir Thomas More. London, 1828. 

Morton, Nathaniel. New England s Memorial. Cambridge, 
1(569. Reprint. Boston, 1855. 

Moran, Thomas F. Rise and Development of the Bicameral 
System in America. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1895. 

Motley, D. E. Life of Commissary James Blair. J. H. U., 
Press. Baltimore, 1901. 

Morris, J. G. The Lords Baltimore. Maryland Hist. Soc. 
Fund Pub. No. 8. Baltimore, 1874. 

Mosheim. Ecclesiastical History, 2 vols. Maclaine s 
Translation. Baltimore, 1837. 

McMahon. J. V. L. Historical View of the Government 
of Maryland. Baltimore, 1837. 

McSherry, James. History of Maryland. Baltimore, 1852. 

McCormac, Eugene Irving. White Servitude in Maryland. 
J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1904. 

McMaster, J. B. History of the People of the United 
States, 5 vols. 1884-1900. 

Mcllwaine, Henry R. The Struggle of Protestant Dis 
senters for Religious Toleration in Virginia. J. H. U. 
Press. Baltimore, 1894. 

Mcllvaine, J. W. Early Presbyterianism in Maryland. J. 
H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1890. 


Neill, Rev. E. D. Maryland in the Beginning. Baltimore, 

Neill, Rev. E. D. English Colonies in America. London, 


Neill, Rev. E. D. Founders of Maryland. Albany, 1876. 
Neill, Rev. E. D. Terra Mariae. Philadelphia, 1867. 
Neill, Rev. E. D. Maryland; Not a Roman Catholic 

Colony. Minneapolis, 1875. 

Neill, Rev. E. D. Thomas Cornwaleys and the Early Mary 
land Colonists. Boston, 1889. 
Neill, Rev. E. D. Light Thrown by the Jesuits Upon 

Hitherto Obscure Parts of Early Maryland History. 

St. Paul, 1881. 
Newell, McFadden Alexander. Maryland. Philadelphia, 

Norris, John Laurin. The Early Friends in Maryland. 

Baltimore, 1862. 

Old Catholic Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missionaries. 
By Rev. Wm. P. Treacy. Swedesboro, N. J., (no 

Oldmixon, John. The British Empire in America, 2 vols. 
London, 1708. 

Onderdonk, Henry. History of Maryland. Baltimore, 

Oliver, Peter. The Puritan Commonwealth. Boston, 1856. 

Otis, J. Rights of the British Colonies. London and Bos 
ton, 1766. 

Petrie, George. Church and State in Early Maryland. 

Baltimore, 1892. J. H. U. Press. 
Prince s, Chronology. Boston, 1855 (reprint.) 
Pennsylvania Mag. of History and Biog., Vol. III. 
Proper, E. E. Colonial Immigration Laws, 1900. 

Richman, I. B. Rhode Island, Its Making and Meaning, 2 

vols. New York, 1902. 
Rowland, K. M. Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 2. 

vols. New York, 1898. 


Ramsay, D. History of the United States, 3 vols. Phila 
delphia, 1816. 

Ramsay, D. American Revolutions, 2 vols. Philadelphia, 

Roper, William. Life of Sir Thomas More. 1883. 

Randall, Daniel R. A Puritan Colony in Maryland. J. H. 
U. Press v Baltimore, 1886. 

Ramsay, D. Life of George Washington, 1814. 

Riley, Elihu S. Annapolis. Annapolis, 1901. 

Rapin de Thoyras. History of England, Continued from 
the Revolution to the Accession of George II. By N. 
Tindal, 4 vols. London, 1743-44. 

Shultz, Edward T. First Settlements of Germans in Mary 
land. Frederick, Md., 1896. 

Silver, John Archer. The Provincial Government of 
Maryland. J. H. U. 13th Series. Baltimore, 1895- 

Sanderson s Lives. Philadelphia, 1827. 

Scharf, J. Thomas. The Chronicles of Baltimore. Balti 
more, 1874. 

Steiner, Bernard C. Life and Administration of Sir 
Robert Eden. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1898. 

Shrigley, Nathaniel A True Relation of Virginia and 
Maryland, 1667. Force s Tracts, III. Washington, 

Steiner, B. C. (Ed.) Life of Dr. Thomas Bray. Maryland 
Hist. Fund. Pub No. 37. Baltimore, 1901. 

Sioussat, St. George L. Economics and Politics in Mary 
land. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1903. 

Sioussat, St. George L. The English Statutes in Mary 
land. J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1903. 

Steiner, B. C. Beginnings of Maryland. J. H. U. Press. 
Baltimore, 1903. 

Scott, E. G. Development of Constitutional Liberty, 1882. 

Streeter, S. F. The First Commander of Kent Island. 
Baltimore, 1868. 

Steiner, B. C. The Protestant Revolution in Maryland, 
American Historical Association Annual Report, 1897 


Steiner, B. C. The Restoration of the Proprietary of 
Maryland. American Historical Association Annual 
Report, I, 1899 (1900.) 

Sparks, Jared. Correspondence of the American Revolu 
tion, 4 vols. Boston, 1853. 

Sparks, Jared. Diplomatic Correspondence of the Ameri 
can Revolution, 12 vols., 1829. 

Streeter. S. F. Papers Relative to the Early History of 
Maryland. Maryland Hist. Soc. Fund. Pub No. 9. 
Baltimore, 1876. 

Scharf, Thomas. History of Maryland, 3 vols. Baltimore, 

Steiner, B. C. The First Lord Baltimore and His Colonial 
Projects. American Historical Association Annual 
Report, 1905, vol. I. 

Stockbridge, Henry. The Archives of Maryland. Mary 
land Hist. Fund. Pub. No. 22. Baltimore, 1886. 

Sparks, Jared. Life of Washington, 12 vols. New York, 

Shea, J. G. History of Catholic Church in Colonial Days. 
New York, 1886. 

Smith, Rev. C. E. Religion Under the Barons Baltimore. 
Baltimore, 1899. 

St. Beuve, Proudhon, Sa Vie et Sa Correspondence. Paris, 

Sparks, F. E. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. 
Baltimore, 1896. J. H. U. Press. 

Shea, J. G. Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll. New 
York, 1888. 

Thomas, J. W. Chronicles of Colonial Maryland. Balti 
more, 1900. 

The Maryland Historical Magazine. 

Tindal. See Rapin. 

Todd, Robert W. Methodism of the Peninsular. Phila 
delphia, 1886. 

Tyson, James. Life of George Washington and the Signers 
of the Declaration of Independence. 1895. 


Urban! Calvetanis Novae Novi Orbis Historiae Libri Tres, 

United States Catholic Magazine. Baltimore, 1844-8. 

Virginia and Maryland, or Lords Baltimore s Case, un 
cased and answered. London, 1655. Force s Tracts. 
Washington, 1837. 

Wells, S. R. Salem Witchcraft, 1872. 

Wilhelm, L. W. Sir George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore. 

Baltimore, 1883. 
Wilhelm, L. W. Local Institutions of Maryland. J. H. U. 

Press. Baltimore, 1885. 
Winsor, Justin. (Ed.) Narrative and Critical History of 

America, 8 vols. Boston and New York, 1887. 
Wilson, Woodrow. History of the American People, 5 vols. 

New York and London, 1902. 
Weishampel, J. F. History of the Baptist Churches in 

Maryland. Baltimore, 1885. 

Winslow, Gov. Visit to Nassasoit. Boston, 1855. 
Woodburn, James A. Causes of the American Revolution. 

J. H. U. Press. Baltimore, 1892. 
Weeks, Stephen. Church and State in North Carolina. 

Baltimore, 1893. J. H. U. Press. 
Walter, W. Jas. Sir Thomas More, His Life and Times. 

Baltimore (no date.) 

Winthrop, John. History of New England, 2 vols. Edited 
by James Savage. Boston, 1825. 

Young, Alexander. Chronicles of the First Planters of 
the Colony of Massachusetts, 1847. 

A relation of the successful beginnings of the Lord Balte- 
more s plantation in Mary -land; being an extract of 
certaine letters written from thence, by some of the ad 
venturers to their friends in England. Anno Domini 
1634. [Albany, N. Y., Reprinted by J. Munsell, 1865.] 


A short account of the first settlement of the provinces of 
Virginia, Maryland, New- York, New-Jersey, and Pen- 
sylvania, by the English. To which is annexed a map 
of Maryland, according to the bounds mentioned in 
the charter, and also of the adjacent country, anno 
1630. London, Printed in the year 1735. 

A Declaration of the People s Natural Right to a Share in 
the Legislature, by Granville Sharpe. London, 1774. 



To Maryland belongs the peerless distinction of 
being in modern times " The Land of Sanctuary." 
Here the persecuted for conscience sake of every 
creed might find an end of persecution and a peace 
ful home. The Prelatist excluded from the haven 
of Plymouth Rock by the Pilgrims of the May 
flower, the Puritan self-righteous, but self-denying, 
driven from England and Virginia, the Quaker, 
peaceful yet fanatical, hounded from every spot 
where he would build a cabin he might call his 
home, as well as the Jew, rejected by all, found in 
Maryland a welcome and an abode of peace. The 
landing at St. Clement s Island, on the 25th of 
March, 1634, of the little band of Pilgrims, who 
later founded the settlement of St. Mary s, marks a 
distinct era in the religious history of the world, for 
then and there religious liberty gained its first foot 
hold among the nations of the earth. A review of 
the liberal principles which guided George and 
Cecilius Calvert, the founders of Maryland, as well 
as a brief historical setting to outline the events 



which prepared the way for and led up to the appli 
cation of those principles will be found useful and 
necessary for a correct view and appreciation of this 
important subject. 

A careful though brief consideration of the ques 
tion of religious liberty will be all-important, for 
upon few subjects has so much been said and 
written at random. 

The principle of absolute religious liberty cannot 
be admitted by any civil government ; such a prin 
ciple would be subversive of its own authority. No 
State can permit what would undermine the founda 
tions of social order. That there have been religions 
which would have had this effect cannot be denied. 
Suppose a religion prescribing the sacrifice of human 
victims, or practising the degrading cult of Astarte, 
what nation to-day would tolerate it? No civilized 
government could afford liberty to such as John 
Brockhold, alias John of Leyden, one of the first 
Anabaptists of Germany, who declared himself king 
of Zion, married eleven wives at the same time, as a 
testimony to his belief in polygamy, and whose dis 
ciples, after the manner of the second century Adam 
ites, ran naked through the streets of Amsterdam, 
howling " woe, woe, the wrath of God." l Nor can we 
imagine any civilized government permitting the ex 
cesses indulged in by some of the Quakers in colonial 

1 Mosheim s Eccks. Hixt., translated by Maclaine, vol. n, notes, 
p. 131, Baltimore, 1837. 


days. 1 Suppose Proudhon s dogma, "property is 
theft/ 72 were based and promulgated on religious 
grounds, what country in the world would tolerate 
it ! Notwithstanding the broad assertion of reli 
gious freedom in the Constitution, absolute religious 
liberty does not and could not exist in the United 

1 Some shameless occurrences are narrated by the old Quaker 
authors, who seem to be wholly oblivious of the heinousness of 
the indecencies related, regarding them as Divinely inspired 
actions, and calling down the vengeance of heaven upon the 
authorities that refused to tolerate these peculiar manifestations 
of grace. Joseph Besse, a leading Quaker, who wrote of the 
treatment of his brethren in the Colonies, naively chronicles the 
following incident : " Remarkable was the case of Lydia War- 
dell. . . She found herself concerned to go to their Assembly in 
a very unusual manner, and such as was exceedingly hard and 
self-denying to her natural disposition, she being a woman of 
exemplary modesty in all her behavior. The duty and concern 
she lay under was that of going into their church at Newbury 
naked, as a token of that miserable condition which she esteemed 
them in, and as testimony against their wretched inhumanity of 
stripping and whipping innocent women as they had done." 
The woman was arrested and punished for this. Besse con 
tinues, "This cruel sentence was publicly executed on a woman 
of exemplary virtue and unspotted chastity for her obedience to 
what she believed the spirit of the Lord had enjoined her to do." 
Another example given by this same author is that of Deborah 
Wilson, "a young woman of very modest and retired life and 
sober conversation, who having passed naked through the streets 
as a sign against the cruelty and oppressions of their rulers, was 
sentenced to be whipped." (Joseph Besse, A Collection of the 
Sufferings of the People Called Quakers, n, pp. 235-36. ) 

2 u Sa theorie de la propriete, et sa fameuse definition : C est 
le vol. " Proudhon, "SaVie et Sa Correspondence," par Ste- 
Beuve, p. 44, Paris, 1875. 


States. Mormonism is not tolerated, nor would the 
people of this country countenance marriage accord 
ing to the Mosaic dispensation. But if the State 
accepts the principle of unlimited toleration, by 
what right can it exclude any of these ? Religious 
liberty, without restriction, being the law of the 
land, it is unjust for the State to punish a man who, 
on the ground that self-interest is the only true 
morality, will practice polygamy, defraud, or kill 
another. He will plead that he acts according to 
his conscience, and if you grant that his conscience 
is unlimited in its scope, wherein is the justice of 
his punishment ? 

On the other hand, to exclude all religion would 
be suicidal to the civil government, "If you take 
from the people the sweet yoke of religion, you leave 
government no other course than the vigilance of 
police and the force of bayonets." l Take away 
religion and the State becomes a tyranny, exercising 
unwarranted authority over subjects without moral 
responsibility, or it inevitably drifts upon the shoals 
of anarchy. " For/ 7 says Burke, " we know, and 
what is better we feel inwardly, that religion is the 
basis of civil society. " 2 

"Religion, blushing veils her sacred fires, 
And unawares morality expires." 

Pope s Dunciad. 

1 J. Balmez, Protestantism and Catholicism, p. 389. 

2 Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France, vol. n, p. 362. 


Where, then, is the line to be drawn? The 
practical principle of our time is that the civil 
government should regard the natural truths and 
foundations of religion as the foundations of its own 
authority, and prohibit any form of religion that is 
not in accord with this. No liberty is granted to 
religions hostile to morality and personal freedom, 
and which inculcate the denial of civil duties and 
responsibilities. Such is the attitude of the United 
States in regard to religious liberty. By the law and 
custom of this country, the Church and the indi 
vidual are entirely independent of the State, as to 
religious belief, practice and discipline, and the 
Church may not interfere in civil affairs, except in 
so far as by offering its beliefs to all, it exercises an 
influence upon public morality. No one can be 
compelled by the government to contribute to the 
support of any religious denomination. The clergy 
are subject to all civil laws and courts of law, as 
well as the laity. The State cannot discriminate 
among the denominations in the granting of conces 
sions, or in the bestowing of favors, the rights of all 
being the same, nor can it prefer one man before 
another on account of religious convictions. All 
citizens, no matter to what religious denomination 
they belong are entitled to all civic rights, to the 
franchise, to testify in court, to hold property, and 
to benefit by inheritance. The Church in the eyes 
of the law is a corporate body, with full rights to 


the benefit of the law, but is regarded as a corpora 
tion having no special privileges by reason of its 
ecclesiastical character : it may expect no favor in 
legislative decisions. Yet withal, the State will not 
tolerate any religious body whose doctrines and 
practice would conflict with public morality or set 
at nought the obligations of the civil laws. Thus, 
even under our liberal form of government the 
State cannot afford to allow unbridled religious 

The utmost that is consistent with the very exist 
ence of the civil government is a limited religious 
liberty. Nor can we agree with those who seem to 
hold that a multiplicity of warring religious beliefs 
is the ideal of social perfection. The conditions that 
necessitate even a limited toleration of all beliefs 
will ever prove more or less dangerous to the 
welfare of the people according as religious convic 
tions are more or less strong, or according as they 
are maintained by men more or less ignorant and 
narrow. When it is needlessly proclaimed it is an 
invitation to sectarianism, with its inevitable dis 
unions and discussions ; it is perilous to the peace 
of a community. The closer the union between 
the civil and religious authority, as long as each 
aids the other, and neither encroaches upon the 
domain of the other, the better will it be for both 
and the more secure will be the peace of the people. 
" But when religious liberty has been inevitably 


produced by the force of circumstances, and has 
been established by treaties or legislation " the law 
and the treaties should be respected. 1 "A Catholic 
ruler is justified in granting a limited religious 
liberty, as above explained, in two cases for the 
welfare of the people. The first occurs, when to 
refuse religious liberty would be more injurious 
than to grant it ; and the second, when the grant 
would be accompanied by greater good than the 
refusal. . . . The same reasons that warrant a 
Catholic ruler in tolerating other religions, and giv 
ing his sanction to liberty of worship, warrant him 
also in granting perfect equality in all civil relations. 
Of this equality the dissidents ought never again to 
be deprived ; the rights secured to them by charter 
and oath must be respected in every case ; and the 
accusation that the Catholic doctrine teaches that 
no faith is to be kept with heretics is totally 
unfounded. 7 

Freedom of worship is not, as many have imagined, 
an invention of modern times. In 313 Constautine, 

1 Hergenrother, The Catholic Church and the Civil State, I, p. 

2 Hergenrother, ibid., pp. 364-365; cfr. H. Hallara, Constitu 
tional History of England, 2 vols., 1882, p. 158; Balmez, ibid., 
pp. 194-195. 

Religious liberty and religious toleration are not indeed synony 
mous, since toleration implies the allowance of something about 
the morality of which there is at least a doubt. But the terms 
have become by usage so nearly synonymous that I shall use one 
for the "Other without further explanation. 


by the edict of Milan, disestablished Paganism, and 
granted toleration to all. " When we," so reads the 
edict, " Constantine and Licinius, Emperors, had an 
interview at Milan . . . we considered it to be accord 
ing to sound judgment and right reason, that absolutely 
no one should be denied leave to devote himself to 
the practice of Christianity, or to any other religion 
which he should feel to be most fitting for himself, 
that thus the Supreme Divinity, to whose worship 
with willingness we devote ourselves, might con 
tinue to vouchsafe His favor and beneficence to 
us." l After the defeat of Licinius, he issued (323) 
his famous " Proclamation to the Peoples of the 
East." He says : "And now I implore Thee Al 
mighty God to be gracious and kind to Thine 
Eastern peoples. . . . Not without cause, oh Holy 
God, do I prefer this prayer to Thee, the Lord of 
all. I hasten then to devote all my powers to the 
restoration of Thy most holy dwelling place, which 
those profane and impious men have marred by the 
rude and destroying hand of violence. My own 

1 "Cum feliciter, tam ego Constantinus Augustus, quam etiam 
ego Licinius Augustus apud Mediolanum convenissiraus .... 
hoc consilio salubri ac rectissima ratione ineundum esse credidi- 
mus, ut nulli omnino facultatem abnegandam putaremus, qui 
vel observation! christianorum, vel ei religion! mentern suam 
dederat quam ipsi sibi aptissimam esse sentiret ; ut possit nobis 
summa divinitas, cujus religioni liberis mentibus obsequimur, 
in omnibus solitum favorem suum benevolentiamque praestare." 
(Lactantii Opera Omnia. De Morte Persecut., XLVIII. Editio 
Migne, Paris, 1844. ) 


desire is for the general advantage of the world 
and all mankind, that thy people should enjoy a 
life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, 
therefore, that are led astray by error, be made 
welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility 
which they have who believe. For it may be that 
this restoration of equality to all, will avail much in 
leading them into the right path. Let no one molest 
another. What the soul of each one counsels, that 
let him do. Only let men of sound judgment be 
assured of this, that those only can lead a life 
of purity and holiness whom Thou callest to an 
acquiescence in Thy holy laws. With regard to 
those, who will hold themselves aloof from us, let 
them have, if they please, their temples of lies ; we 
have the glorious edifice of Truth, which Thou hast 
given us as our native home. We pray, however, 
that they, too, may receive the same blessing, and 
thus experience that heart-felt joy which unity of 
sentiment inspires. . . . As for those who will not 
allow themselves to be cured of their error, let them 
not attribute this to any but themselves. For that 
remedy, which is of sovereign and healing virtue,, 
is openly placed within the reach of all. Only let 
all beware lest they inflict an injury on that religion, 
which experience itself testifies to be pure and unde- 
filed. Henceforth, therefore, let us all enjoy in 
common the privilege placed within our reach, I 
mean the blessings of peace ; and let us endeavor to 
keep our conscience pure from all that is contrary 


to it. ... Once more, let none use to the detriment 
of another that which lie may himself have received 
on conviction of its truth ; but let everyone apply 
what he has understood and known to the benefit 
of his neighbor, if possible ; if otherwise let him re 
linquish the attempt. For it is one thing to under 
take voluntarily the conflict for immortality, another 
to compel others to do so from the fear of punishment. 
These are our words, and we have enlarged on these 
topics more than our ordinary clemency would have 
dictated, because we are unwilling to dissemble, or 
be false to the true faith." l 

Theodosius in 380 established Christianity as the 
State religion. Thenceforth Church and State for 
hundreds of years existed together in the close and 
intimate union of the same belief, each supreme in its 
own particular domain, in its offices, functions, laws 
and administration : independent indeed as organi 
zations, yet dependent, in a measure, as powers ; the 
civil authority of the State upholding the Church, 
the spiritual might of the Church commanding obe 
dience to the State. But the Church in saving the 
social organism of the West gained a decided supe 
riority over the civil power. Henceforth, until the 
Reformation, we find sometimes the State, sometimes 
the Church preponderating in influence, but always 
a union between the two. 

1 Eusebii Pamphili, De Vita Constuntinl, lib. IT, cap. LV-LX. 
Edition of Valesius (Greek and Latin), Paris, 1678. 


Among many there seems to prevail the belief 
that the revolt of Luther was the beginning of 
religions liberty. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. " The Reformation/ 7 as Cobb remarks, 
"did not introduce liberty. ... It was given to 
the nations to choose Romanist or Protestant, . . . 
but once the choice was made, the Church became 
a national church/ l The multiform character of 
Protestantism, its divisions and subdivisions, afforded 
a wide field for selection, but the form of belief de 
cided upon and that particular organization adopted, 
the principles for which it stood become an integral 
part of the nation s thought and existence. 2 No 
where in modern times has this union been more 
complete and more lasting than in England. Born 
of the Crown, its beliefs, functions and discipline 
defined by the State the Anglican Communion is 
the same to-day as at the time of its conception a 
creature of the Power that called it into being. 
It is contended by some that the Church of Eng 
land was never " established ;" that it developed 

1 Sanford Cobb, Rise of Religious Liberty in America, p. 65. 

2 "One of the most remarkable things," says Cobb, " in that 
age of the Reformation, is the tenacity with which the general 
Protestant mind clung to the idea that an intimate union of 
Church and State was necessary to the purity of religion and the 
perpetuity of the Government." The union of Church and 
State was accepted by Luther and defended by Calvin ; it was 
received by the first and second Helvetic Confessions, and adopted 
by Zwinglius. (Ibid., 47-51. ) 


naturally without being instituted by either the 
power of Parliament or by any authority emanating 
from the king. It is difficult to understand by 
what intricate windings of reason this conclusion 
can be reached, but when a man sets his back 
against the wall of a foregone conclusion, or still 
worse of an invincible delusion, it is useless to 
argue. Most certainly it cannot be denied, except 
by ignoring an historical event, that the Church of 
England was non-existent as a separate institution 
until after its creation by Parliamentary legislation 
in 1538. Before that time the church of England 
was a part of the Church of Rome, its spiritual 
head was the Sovereign Pontiff. This is admirably 
illustrated by the wording of Magna Charta which 
is granted " to the honor of God and the exultation 
of Holy Church .... by the advice of our venerable 
Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canterbury, pri 
mate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy Roman 
Church" the archbishops, bishops, barons, and the 
Papal legate, Pandulf, and by virtue of which " the 
English Church shall be free." l By a legal process 
the " Church of England " came into being and was 
made a distinct State organization with the spiritual 
authority vested in the Crown. It was from the 
civil power that it derived its existence, its right 
to hold certain doctrines and to recite a certain 
formula of prayer. The Anglican church is sup 
ported by the nation ; its bishops sit in the House 

1 See Appendix G. 


of Lords ; it is subject to the Crown, which 
appoints all its highest dignitaries, and to Parlia 
ment, which prescribes its form, beliefs, functions 
and polity. Citizenship, instead of faith and per 
sonal fitness, qualifies one for admission into its 
fold, and the members of parishes have no voice in 
the appointment or selection of those given to them 
as pastors. Thus England to-day presents to the 
world the most persistent example of a nation s 
unchanging belief in the necessity of a union be 
tween Church and State. It is not surprising then 
that during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries 
in England, Catholic, Independent, Jew and Puritan, 
all felt the crushing pressure of the dreadful penal 
laws. The Puritans, indeed, were from time to 
time relieved from their disabilities, yet, when in 
power, they, too, rent their persecutors in turn with 
terrible enactments of their own. The Catholic and 
the Jew, however, remained throughout the legiti 
mate quarry of the intolerant spirit of the age, 
hunted down remorselessly, persecuted relentlessly, 
feared and disabled. 1 The "Test" was not abolished 
until 1828, and many minor disabilities continued 
until recent years. Cromwell vigorously enforced the 
penal laws against Catholics, depriving them of civic 
rights and the franchise. On refusal to abjure their 
faith two-thirds of their estates were forfeited (1656). 2 

1 See Penal Laws under James I and Charles I, Parliament in 
1648, I William and Mary, 11 and 12 of William. See Appen 
dices A, M, X ; also Gardiner, I, p. 232. 

2 ScobeWs Collections, Chap. xvi. 


Under the Toleration Act of William non-con 
formists were subject to civil disabilities. In Ireland, 
where the Catholics were numerically in power, 
they experienced all the rigors of the laws enacted 
against them. They had no rights as citizens, hardly 
any as men. They were ineligible for office, they 
had no voice in the government, and no rights 
under the law. They were not permitted to receive 
Catholic education at home or to be sent abroad for 
that purpose ; the union between a Protestant and a 
Catholic was adjudged illegal, and the priest who 
had performed the ceremony was sentenced to death. 
Registration of all Catholic priests was ordered 
under pain of banishment, and a return to the 
country after conviction was punished with death 
on the scaffold. Speaking of this Act John Morley 
says : " The severity of the persecution exercised 
by the Protestants of Ireland against the Catholics 
exceeded that of the ten historic persecutions of the 
Christian Church. " l " Protestants/ he says, " love 
to dwell upon the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 
of the proscriptions of Philip II, of the Inquisition. 
Let them turn candidly to the history of Ireland 
from 1691 do\vn to 1798, and they will perceive 
.that the diabolical proscriptions of the penal laws 
:and the frenzied atrocities with which the Protes 
tants suppressed the Catholic rising at the close of 
the century, are absolutely unsurpassed in history." 

1 Morley s Life of Burke, p. 108. 

2 Morley s Edmund Burke, an Historical Study, p. 191. 


Our present subject leads us to a review particu 
larly of the disabilities against Catholics about the 
beginning of the seventeenth century. Their oppres 
sion at this time in England was well-nigh intoler 
able. The hatred for their faith, easily fanned into 
a flame by the lust for their possessions, denied 
them the protection guaranteed by the time-honored 
Christian laws of their country. In this there was 
little justice. If a few fanatics had given occasion 
for suspicion, the leading Catholics had given ample 
proof of their loyalty. 1 When threatened by the 
Armada, "the Catholics in every county repaired 
to the standard of the Lord-lieutenant, The vener 
able Lord Montague brought a troop of horse to 
the Queen at Tilbury, commanded by himself, his 
son and his grandson." " This law," said Lord 
Montague (referring to the Act of 1562, obliging all 
officials but peers to take the oath of supremacy), 
" is not necessary ; for as much as the Catholics of 
this realm disturb not nor hinder the public affairs 
of the realm, neither spiritual nor temporal." 
Montague was committed to the Tower on account 
of his outspoken utterances. 4 Neither allegiance 
nor devotion could save the adherents of the old faith 
of England from cruel persecution, and "the rack 

1 Gardiner s History of England, vol. I, p. 264. 
2 Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. i, p. 168. 
3 Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. I, p. 125. 
4 Gardiner, ibid:, i, p. 203. 


seldom stood idle in the Tower for all the latter part 
of Elizabeth s reign." ] 

Whatever hopes the Catholics and Puritans enter 
tained of relief on the accession of James I, in 1603, 
were soon dispelled. 2 Neither gratitude to Catholics 
for their loyalty to his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, 
nor attachment to the Kirk of Scotland, in which 
he had been reared, played any considerable part in 
the policy of James. James was as much of a 
puzzle to his contemporaries as he has since been 
to historians. 3 By both it has been thought at times 
that he leaned to Catholicism. The desire to placate 
the influential Catholic nobility may explain this. 
His conduct was consistent throughout with the 
purpose he had in view. His religion and his 
politics were centered in one object and aim the 
interests of James. The Catholics acknowledged 
the Pope as the head of the Church, the Puritans 
admitted no earthly head, while the Church of 
England conferred upon the king both titles and too 
often bowed down before him in abject servility. 4 
James was shrewd enough to adjust his religion to 
his ambition. 5 He conformed to the established 
Church. Not even the Tudors showed such utter 
disregard for English fundamental liberties as did 
the Lords, clerical and lay, under James. " The 

1 Hallam, vol. i, p. 154. 2 Cfr. ibid., note, p. 295. 

3 Cfr. Gardiner, ibid., m, 347. 4 Hallam, ibid., p. 317. 

5 Cfr. Gardiner, i, p. 75. 


sea-ports are the king s gates, he may open and shut 
them to whom he pleases," 1 announced chief Baron 
Fleming and Baron Clarke, in judgment for the 
crown against a merchant. " The king is above 
law by his absolute power" he may disregard his 
coronation oath, and break all laws, inasmuch as 
they were not made to bind him, but to benefit the 
people. 2 "It is atheism and blasphemy," said James 
to the Star Chamber, in 1616, "to dispute what 
God can do so it is presumption and high con 
tempt in a subject to dispute what a king can do, 
or say that a king cannot do this and cannot do 
that." 3 Thus, with a king claiming infallibility for 
his policy, as well as for his dogmas, and with the 
clergy of the establishment servilely submissive, 
England had well-nigh abandoned its liberties to a 
despot. 4 Little toleration could be expected by 
either Catholic or Puritan from a king holding such 
views, except such as accorded with either his 
interest, or his caprice when his interest was not at 
stake. To one who reads the laws of 1606, enacted 
against recusants, it is not strange that many sought 
the security of home in exile. The wonder is that 
more did not avail themselves of the opportunity. 
Between a king claiming absolutism, supported by 

Mlallam, vol. i, p. 314. 3 Hallam, vol. i, p. 320. 

3 Quoted by Hallam, vol. i, note 327, King James Works, 
p. 557. 

* Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. i, p. 220; Bancroft, History of the 
United States, vol. i, p. 239, and Gardiner, n, p. 21. 


the clergy of the Establishment on one hand, and 
a Commons, fanatical in its bitterness towards the 
Church, Catholics were in a sorry plight. They 
were moral lepers, not permitted within ten miles 
of London, virtually outlawed, shut out from pro 
fessions, banded from civic rights and offices, their 
houses subject to search, their property to confisca 
tion, and their wealth was speedily swept into the 
royal revenues by the forced payment of enormous 
fines. 1 Catholic children, disinherited by the penal 
laws, saw their lands pass to their Protestant next 
of kin. "The political and religious hatred," says 
Brantly, " with which the mass of the English 
people regarded the Church of Rome was increasing 
in bitterness, and the Parliament of 1625 had be 
sought the king to enforce more strictly the penal 
statutes against the recusants." 2 

1 "Protestantism was never thought of by them as a rule of 
life. It was a mere State contrivance, to be supported and 
encouraged for political reasons, or, at the most, a standard 
round which they might gather to fling defiance at their enemies. 
The one truth, which admitted of no doubt whatever, was that 
money was worth having." (Gardiner, in, p. 238.) 

The increase of the Catholics was one cause of the jealousy 
that excited the persecution. In 1604, from January to August 
in the diocese of Chester, the Catholics had increased from 2,400 
to 3,433. (Gardiner, i. p. 202. ) See Appendix A. 

2 William T. Brantly, The English in Maryland, p. 523, vol. 
Ill, of Justin Winsor s Narrative and Critical History of America. 

" The Roman Catholic inhabitants of this kingdom had been for 
many years the objects of increasing dread and antipathy to all 



We may well believe that Charles I, if left to 
follow the dictates of his naturally easy-going dis 
position, would have been averse to persecution. 
His marriage to Henriette Marie would, moreover, 
have induced him to measures of justice toward 
Catholics. But the increasing insolence of the Puri 
tan fanatics, their constant accusations against him 
of showing favor to his Catholic subjects, induced 
him to make at least a pretense of enforcing the 
penal laws. His shifty conduct was the cause of 
frequent quarrels between himself and the queen, 

other classes of their fellow-subjects, and had experienced from 
the British Government a progressive severity of persecution. 
. . . The accession of the House of Stuart to the English throne 
produced no less disappointment to the Catholics than to the 
Puritans of England. The favor which the Catholics had ex 
pected from the birth and character of James I was intercepted 
by the necessity of his situation, while the hopes which the 
Puritans derived from his early education and habits were frus 
trated by the flattery of their Protestant adversaries, and his 
unexpected display of rancor and aversion towards themselves. 
An increased apprehension of personal danger prompted 
James to employ more than once his royal proclamations to 
quicken, instead of restraining, the execution of the penal laws. 
And although the deliberate sentiments, both of this monarch 
and his successor, were averse to the infliction of the extreme 
legal rigor on the Catholics, yet, to discerning eyes, the advan 
tage of this circumstance was more than counterbalanced by the 
increasing influence of the Puritans in the English House of 
Commons and the increasing propagation of Puritan sentiments 
in the minds of the English people." (James Grahame, History 
of the U. S. ofN. A., n, pp. 7-8. Cfr. Gardiner, i, pp. 203-221- 
230-287-290, ) 


who considered herself the defender of the Catho 
lics. 1 

Although a stop was put to the prosecution of 
recusants upon signing the marriage treaty in Paris, 2 
yet a petition against the Catholic recusants was 
presented to King Charles after his accession in 
1625, and to all of its demands he assented. 
According to this petition no popish recusants were 
permitted to come within the Court ; the laws against 
the Jesuits and seminary priests, and Catholics in 
general, were to be enforced ; land grants to recu 
sants were to be void ; recusants were to be disarmed, 
to remain within five miles of their homes; Eng- 

1 Henrietta Marie was only fifteen years of age when she was 
married to Charles, who was twenty-four. "The yonng wife 
had been taught to regard herself as entrusted with the mission 
of comforting and protecting the members of her own Church. 
She had not crossed the sea forgetting her own people and her 
father s house. Nor was Charles likely to fill a large space in 
her imagination. He was punctilious, harsh when contradicted, 
and without resource in moments of emergency." (Gardiner, v, 
p. 333.) u She (Henriette Marie) had come to England in the 
full persuasion that her presence would relieve the English 
Catholics. She had scarcely set foot in the island when she 
learned that the orders which were to have saved them from the 
penalties of the law, had been countermanded. It is not im 
probable that if the secrets of those days of married life could 
be rendered up, we should hear of the young wife s stormy 
upbraidings of the man who had beguiled her into taking upon 
herself the marriage vow by promises which he now found it 
convenient to repudiate." (Ibid., p. 376.) 

2 Ada Regia, iv, p. 301. 


lish children were to be recalled from foreign 
seminaries. 1 

In such an uncertain condition of aifairs, knowing 
not what to hope or fear, the Catholics looked 
beyond the confines of England for the security 
of an English home. 

At this epoch of polilical ferment and religious 
intolerance in England, George Calvert became the 
pioneer of religious toleration by illustrating in 
practice the broad Catholic doctrine that, " however, 
convinced anyone may be of the truth of his own 
religion, he may let others live in peace without 
belonging to it," 2 and fulfil towards them with joy 
and zeal all the duties of fraternal love enjoined by 
the Catholic Church. 3 "It was," says Manning, 
"by conviction of the reason and persuasion of the 
will that the wo rid-wide unity of faith and commu 
nion were slowly built up among the nations. When 
once shattered, nothing but conviction and persuasion 
can restore it. Lord Baltimore was surrounded by 
a multitude scattered by the wreck of the Tudor 

1 History of England, n, pp. 241-42, by M. Rapin de Thoyras, 
continued from the Revolution to the Accession of George II, 
by N. Tindal. Charles offer of religious liberty to the Irish 
Catholics was "A mere shifty expedient from which nothing 
good was to be expected." (Gardiner, x, pp. 7, 46.) "At the 
time when the Maryland colony was projected by Lord Balti 
more, the Catholics were under the displeasure of the State in 
England ; they were incapacitated for all civil offices, and for 
bidden the exercise of their religion." (Burnap, p. 170.) Cfr. 
Appendix A. 

2 Balmez, note 25 to p. 203. 3 Hergenrother, n, p. 353. 


persecutions; he knew that God alone could build 
them up again into unity, but that the equity of 
charity might enable them to protect and help each 
other, and to promote the common weal/ l 

The idea of religious liberty was not new in 
George Calvert s day. A century before two of 
the most eminent men of Europe, both Catholics, 
had heralded the new order necessitated by the new 
conditions of society. These precursors of religious 
toleration in modern times both lived about the 
same time, each the chancellor in his own country 
the one in France, the other in England. They had 
close resemblances in character ; both of calm, judi 
cial temperament, adhering to principles in spite 
of dishonor and death ; both were scholars ; both 
far-seeing beyond the men of their own times and 
forecasting religious tolerance as one of the potent 
remedies in alleviation of the disturbances and woes 
that soon after them befell their respective countries. 
The one was Michel de L Hospital, 2 and the other 
was Sir Thomas More. 3 L Hospital maintained 
that " all citizens who obey the laws and perform 
their duties to their country and their neighbor 
have an equal right to the advantages which civil 

1 Manning s Vatican Decrees in their Searing on Civil Allegiance, 
pp. 91-92, London, 1875. 

2 Michel de L Hospital, born in 1505, was Chancellor of France 
during the Huguenot disturbances. 

3 Sir Thomas More, Lord High Chancellor of England, was 
born in 1478, and beheaded by order of Henry VIII in 1535. 


society confers ; those only deserve the protection 
and rewards of law ; the wicked Catholic and 
wicked Protestant are equally deserving of legal 
punishment, It certainly is very desirable, he said, 
that no cause whatever of division should exist 
among the citizens of the State, and, of course, 
that there should be no heretics. But to bring back 
heretics to the fold, charity, patience and prayer, 
are the only arms which the Divine Founder of 
our religion Himself used to draw nations to Him. 
The thunder of heaven was at His command, but 
He refused it to the prayer of the two unwise dis 
ciples, who wished it hurled on the unbelieving 
Samaritans. 77 1 " L Hospital calls the Huguenots les 
fleaux de sa vengeance/ sent by God, as the Baby 
lonians had been sent against Jerusalem, and it is 
for Frenchmen to accept the warning, to amend 
their lives, to seek out and correct the cause of the 
evil, rather than to continue in their wickedness 
and use the pretext of religious zeal as an excuse for 
brigandage. L Hospital thought it better to leave 
the religious question to work out its own solution, 
while he directed his efforts towards correcting such 
evils and abuses as were within the sphere of human 
power to set right/ 7 2 The enemies of the Chancellor 
made an effort to weaken his influence by impugn 
ing his faith, but Cardinal Ferrara, the Ambassador 

1 Butler a L Hospital, pp. 28-29. 

2 Atkinson, quoting L Hospital, pp. 161-162. 


of the Pope to France, writing to Cardinal Borro- 
meo, says : "It would be impossible to fix on 
L Hospital the imputation of heresy ; as he was 
seen regularly at Mass, at confession and commu 
nion." He endeavored to put his doctrines into 
practice amidst the disorders of France in his day, 
but his political enemies at length undermined his 
influence with the queen, Catherine de Medicis, 
and he resigned. Butler says : " L Hospital acted 
up to his principles ; from his elevation to the office 
of chancellor, till the moment when the seals were 
taken from him, he labored incessantly in the glori 
ous cause of religious toleration." 2 

Sir Thomas More sets forth in Utopia an ideal 
State, in which peace and concord reign undis 
turbed. It is not supposed, of course, that the. 
saintly chancellor proposed Utopia as Jm ideal State 
in every respect. The Catholic religion was dearer 
to him than his life, as he died a martyr to his 
faith. But the ideal state, pictured by More, best 
served the purpose he had in mind which was to 
show the advantages of peace, forbearance and 
charity. In Utopia (from the Greek, meaning "No 
where") philosophy, irony, wit and stinging satire, 
hold up a mirror to the governments of England, 
and the other European nations, in which they 
could see their inconsistencies. He says : "At the 
first constitution of their government, Utopus, hav- 

1 Butler, p. 74. *Ibid., p. 30. 


ing understood that before his coming among them, 
the old inhabitants had been engaged in great 
quarrels concerning religion, by which they were 
divided among themselves . . . ., made a law that 
every man might be of what religion he pleased, and 
might endeavor to draw others to it by the force of 
argument and by amicable and modest ways, but 
without bitterness against those of other opinions ; 
but that he ought to use no other force than that of 
persuasion, and was neither to mix with it reproaches 
nor violence. . . . This law was made by Utopus, not 
only for preserving the public peace which he saw 
suffered much from daily contentions and irreconcil 
able heats, but because he thought the interests of 
religion itself required it." 

That George and Cecilius Calvert were familiar 
with More s Utopia seems to be most probable. 
While Lord Baltimore was planning his colony 
in Maryland, Father Henry More was among the 
most prominent Jesuits in England. 2 At this time 
the relations between the Lords Baltimore and the 
Jesuits were most friendly ; in fact, the latter seem 
to have played a very important part in planning 
and projecting the Maryland venture, as well as in 
acting as the spiritual advisers of the Proprietaries. 
We may well believe that Father More, who soon 

1 Henry Morley, More 1 s Utopia, p. 151. Cfr. also Sir Thomas 
More, by the Rev. T. E. Bridgett, p. 101 et seq. 

2 Hughes, i, p. 62. 


after became the provincial in England, was one 
of the chief councillors of the Lords Baltimore in a 
project which was of deep interest to the Jesuits at 
that time. In his suggestions to them, it would 
be surprising if the great-grandson of Sir Thomas 
More had not adverted to the story of the saintly 
Lord High Chancellor. 1 With a comprehensive 
view of the conditions, political and religious, pre 
vailing in his time, deeply convinced of the truths 
of the Catholic Church, and acting under the guid 
ance of his spiritual advisers, with a rare insight, 
moreover, into the character of the king, with whom 
he was dealing, George Calvert was the first in 
modern times who showed the ability to design a 

*Sir Thomas More had three daughters, Margaret Roper, 
Elizabeth Dauncey and Cecilia Heron, and one son John. John 
More was the father of five sons : Thomas, Augustine, Edward, 
a second Thomas, and Bartholomew. Of these, Thomas, the 
eldest, had thirteen children, eight daughters and five sons, one 
of whom, Henry, born 1567, became a priest Father Henry 
More, S. J. With the death of Thomas More, Jesuit Pro 
vincial, in 1795, "it is supposed that the whole male progeny 
of Sir Thomas More became extinct." Hunter s Preface to the 
Life of Sir Thomas More, by His Great-Grandson Cresacre More, 
London, 1828. Cfr. also Sir Thomas More, by the Rev. T. E. 
Bridgett, p. 451. 

"Father Henry More, the English Provincial for the Society 
of Jesus, was the Lord Proprietor s chief spiritual adviser. He 
is said to have agreed to give his support in adopting and apply 
ing the principle of toleration, and at the same time to have 
offered the assistance of his Society in the colonizing enterprise." 
Newton Meerness, Maryland as a Proprietary Province, p. 426 ; 
Cfr. Hughes, i, pp. 246, 250, 251. 


government insuring religious liberty, which for half 
a century, under his son Cecilius, " who walked in 
his father s footsteps/ was successful in its purpose, 
despite fickle monarchs and political revolutions 
in the mother-country, and notwithstanding bitter, 
calumnious enemies in the colony itself. 

Years before Lord Baltimore s project was con 
ceived other designs had been set on foot, other 
plans had been formed to establish a colony wherein 
religious toleration might prevail, and Catholics be 
free from the penal disabilities of the mother-country. 
In 1582 Sir Humphrey Gilbert, Sir George Peck- 
ham and Sir Thomas Gerrard formed a plan to 
establish a colony where recusants should be able 
to live free from the penal laws of England. By 
their charter they were empowered to make laws, 
" so as they be not against the true Christian faith, 
or religion now professed in the Church of Eng 
land." They took possession of Newfoundland in. 
1583 ; but by the loss of Gilbert and all hands at sea 
afterward, the enterprise came to an end. 1 About 
1604 a Catholic gentleman, Mr. Winslade, proposed 
a plan whereby 1,000 Catholics were to be trans 
ported to the Western continent to avoid the perse 
cutions in England. The Rev. Robert Parsons, 
S. J., then rector of the English College in Rome, 
was consulted about the plan. He considered the 

1 J. S. M. Anderson, Hist, of the Church of England in the Col 
onies, i, pp. 46-61 ; Scharf s History of Maryland, i, note, p. 32 ; 
Bozman s History of Maryland, vol. i, pp. 47-60. 


carrying out of such an enterprise as morally im 
possible, for the following reasons : because the 
king would not allow it, and because Catholics 
would be either unwilling or unable to go ; because 
to make collections on the Continent for such a 
purpose would not be agreeable to Catholics in 
England, and would probably excite the ridicule 
and ill-will of the Protestants ; Catholicity in Eng 
land would suffer by the diminution of the Catholic 
body ; it would be almost impossible, moreover, to 
muster emigrants for such a voyage ; a project of 
this nature would likely excite the jealousy of Spain, 
and if Spain did not approve, the other Catholic 
princes would be unable to help : lastly, their success 
in a wild, unknown land among savages, would be 
doubtful. This enterprise finally resulted in failure. 1 

Thus, while others before them had planned, 
projected and attempted a colony, in which every 
man should be free to worship God according to his 
conscience, George Calvert and his son Cecilius 
were the first in modern times to design and estab 
lish an abiding sanctuary wherein those persecuted 
for conscience sake might find a home. 

The religious history of Maryland naturally divides 
itself into five periods. The first period dates from 
the founding of the colony in 1634 to Ingle s Rebel 
lion in 1644-46. 2 The incompleteness of the records 

Shea s Catholic Church in Colonial Days, pp. 25-28; also 
Hughes, pp. 153-55. 
2 Chapters ii-vn. 



for this period leaves much to be desired for a perfect 
understanding of the conditions and events which 
characterize it. 1 However, from the documents at 
hand, especially from the Legislative Archives still 
extant, and the correspondence in the Calvert Papers, 
sufficient light is cast on the scene to enable us to 
form a fair conclusion. One fact particularly stands 
forth in no uncertain light. The documents we have, 
prove beyond doubt that religious liberty prevailed 
in Maryland from the beginning ; that this policy 
was adopted voluntarily by Lord Baltimore, gladly 
accepted by his Catholic colonists, and faithfully 
adhered to by both Proprietary and people. During 
this period the most happy relations existed among 
the settlers, and their intercourse with the Indians 
was marked by a friendliness and cordiality which 
finds no parallel in the other colonies. This, the 
golden era of Maryland history, was ruthlessly 
brought to an end by the insurrection of Ingle in 

The second period dates from the termination of 
Ingle s Rebellion in 1646 to the close of the Puritan 
Rebellion in 1658. 2 Those upon whom the govern 
ment of the province had hitherto devolved were 
nearly all Catholics, though doubtless many of the 
colonists who emigrated to Maryland during this 

ir Tlie records were destroyed by Ingle and his associates. 
JohnV. L. McMahon, Historical View of the Government of Mary 
land, p. 17, note, Baltimore, 1831 ; Bacon s Preface. 

2 Chapters vnr-x. 


period were of the Protestant faith. The majority of 
these latter, however, came over as redemptioners. 1 
By a generous provision of Lord Baltimore, found 
in no other colony at the time, these redemptioners, 
regardless of their religious beliefs, were allowed the 
franchise as soon as they became freemen. The 
number of Protestants, thus given a voice in the 
government of the colony, was augmented by immi 
gration from Virginia after 1643. In that year 
the Virginia Assembly passed a law by which all 
non-conformists should be expelled. The Puritans 
thus banished, taking advantage of the invitation 
preferred by the Maryland colony, took up their 
residence at a place on the Severn river, near what 
is now Annapolis, to which they gave the name of 
Providence. It was not long, however, before they 
were troubled with scruples of conscience, because 
their benefactors enjoyed the same liberty of con 
science as themselves. These murmurings of an 

*A redemptioner was one who, unable to pay his passage 
money, contracted with a merchant to advance sufficient funds 
for that purpose, and in return the redemptioner agreed to serve 
from two to five years the colonist who should buy his services. 
After serving their time these redemptioners became freemen. 
"The usual terms of binding a servant is for five years; but 
for any artificer, or one that shall deserve more than ordinary, 
the Adventurer shall do well to shorten that time, and add 
encouragements of another nature (as he shall see cause) rather 
than to want such a useful man. ... At the end of the said 
term to give him (the servant) one whole year s provision of 
corn and fifty acres of land." (A Relation of Maryland, London,, 
ed. 1635; Hawks Reprint, New York, 1865.) 


advancing storm induced the Catholic majority in 
the Assembly of 1649 to pass the famous Act of 
Eeligious Toleration. In 1650 the Protestants out 
numbered the Catholics in the Assembly, and in 
1652 the Puritans revolted against the government 
of Lord Baltimore. The success of the Puritan 
party and the accession of Cromwell in England 
gave new zest to the Puritan zeal in Maryland. 
Governor Stone, who had been appointed by Lord 
Baltimore, although a Protestant, was deposed by 
the insurgents, and Wm. Fuller, a Puritan from the 
Severn, was put in his place. An Assembly was 
called, whose first ordinance was an "Act Con 
cerning Religion," by which both Catholics and 
Episcopalians were disfranchised. The Catholic 
missionaries were compelled to leave the colony. 
This unhappy state of affairs continued until 1658, 
when the Proprietary was again restored to power 
and religious liberty once more became the law 
of Maryland. 

The third period begins in 1658, with the restora 
tion of the proprietary government, and continued 
to the year 1692, when King William made Mary- 
laud a royal province and sent Sir Lionel Copley 
as the first royal governor. 1 The Puritan power 
had been broken in Maryland, as in England, and, 
although during the period that followed, some 
unsavory events remind us that Puritanism still 

1 Chapters xi-xv. 


lived in the colony, it never again obtained the 
ascendency. As a whole this period was one of 
quiet and peace in the province. Under the wise and 
firm administration of Cecilius, Catholic, Episcopa 
lian, Presbyterian, Quaker and Jew lived in peace. 
On the death of Cecilius in 1675, his son Charles, 
who was at the time governor of Maryland, suc 
ceeded his father as Proprietary. After approving 
of such salutary laws, as his experience had taught 
him were needful for the welfare of his province, 
he went to England. There he was met by com 
plaints from the Episcopalians of his colony, but 
having averted this blow aimed at his govern 
ment, he returned to Maryland. The spirit of 
discontent, however, gained apace in the colony. 
Lord Baltimore was a Catholic and this was more 
than the Protestants could endure. Having no just 
complaint against the Proprietary, some restless 
spirits among the Episcopalians and Presbyterians 
set to work to stir up bigotry by denouncing the 
government as Popish, Jesuitical, etc. Later they 
resorted to baser means, and the most preposterous 
calumnies were invented and disseminated among 
the people. It was said that the Catholics had 
leagued with the Indians to murder all the Protes 
tants. Finally, in 1689 the insurgents seized the 
government. Writing then to England they begged 
William, who had just ascended the throne, to make 
Maryland a royal Protestant province. William 
readily yielded to requests that accorded so well 


with his own desires, and commissioned Sir Lionel 
Copley as the first royal governor who arrived in 
Maryland in 1692. 

The fourth period begins with the administration 
of Sir Lionel Copley, and ends with the treaty of 
Paris, 1763. 1 Upon Copley s arrival there followed 
a series of laws against the Catholics, which became 
so intolerable as to induce them, towards the middle 
of the century, to apply to the king of France for 
leave to settle in French territory. The Fpiscopa- 
lian church was made the established church of 
Maryland. Catholics were not allowed freedom 
of worship, nor were they permitted to educate their 
own children. They were disfranchised and taxed 
twice as much as others, besides being subjected to 
innumerable petty vexatious, such as ignorant, small 
souls are wont to make use of to annoy those against 
whom their jealousy, bigotry and cupidity are ex 

The fifth period begins about the time when 
France ceded its Canadian possessions to England 
by the treaty of Paris. 2 To defray the expenses 
of the war England began its policy of taxing 
the colonies. This the colonies resented. As the 
tension between the mother-country and the colonies 
increased, the latter saw the necessity of uniting in 
their common cause. At the same time it became 
evident that in order to oppose the mother-country 

1 Chapters xvi-xxn. 2 Chapters xxm-xxiv. 


no reason for dissension should exist among the 
people themselves. In consequence the laws against 
Catholics were relaxed. For both patriots and 
royalists sought to enlist their good will and co 
operation. The Catholics, however, espoused the 
cause of the patriots. Shortly before the open 
rupture with England took place, the law dis 
franchising Catholics was repealed. By the amend 
ment to the Constitution, passed in 1777, Maryland 
returned after eighty-five years to the religious 
freedom which had been the law under Lord Balti 
more and the early Catholic settlers. 

Lord Baltimore and the Maryland Catholics were 
a century and a half in advance of their times. It 
would seem but natural to expect that after the 
different religious denominations had experienced in 
Maryland the blessings of liberty under Catholic 
auspices, they w T ould have been made broad-minded 
enough to appreciate the advantages of such a policy 
and would have been desirous of continuing it. The 
facts, however, show the contrary. The Puritans 
hardly obtained a foothold before they set about to 
restrict all who did not agree with them. The 
Episcopalians felt grievously wronged at this, yet 
when Episcopalians obtained the upper hand, they 
adopted towards others and especially Catholics, the 
very policy, the injustice of which they realized so 
keenly when exercised towards themselves. The 
Quakers imagined they had a grievance when they 
were compelled to obey the civil laws under the 



Catholic regime, and they certainly had a just ground 
of complaint under the Episcopalian government, 
yet, strange to say, it was the Quaker who brought 
the Jew to trial and conviction on religious grounds. 
Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Quaker, and Jew found 
a refuge in the Catholic " Laud of Sanctuary/ yet the 
Catholic alone found no friend to raise a voice in 
his defense when intolerance deprived him of rights 
and privileges which he had freely granted to all. 
Volumes of specious arguments have been written 
to explain away these facts, but the facts remain. 
They are recorded in the Archives of the State and 
other documents which cannot be gainsaid. " Facts 
are stubborn things." 


George Calvert was born at Kipling, 1 Yorkshire, 
England, about 1579. 2 His father was Leonard 
Calvert, his mother was Alicia Crosslaud. At an 
early age he entered Trinity College, Oxford, and 
took his bachelor s degree. Later in life, becoming 
a close friend of James I, he had a seat in his first 
parliament. About 1605 he married his first wife, 
Anne, daughter of John Mynne, and in the same 

1 J. L. Bozman (History of Maryland, 2vols., Baltimore, 1837; 
vol. 1, note to p. 232) says: " No place called Kipling, said 
to be the birthplace of Sir George Calvert .... appears on 
any map or in any common description of Yorkshire. It may, 
therefore, be supposed to have been erroneously written for 
Ripley, which is a small town in the West Riding of York 

In his will George Calvert speaks of his relatives at "Kiplie." 
(Calvert Papers, i, p. 49.) In Calvert Papers, MSS. documents, 
Calvert refers to Kipling, which he gives in trust to Cecilius. 
Cfr. Appendix B. 

"There is some difference among writers as to the year of 
his birth ; some placing it in 1580, and others in 1582 ; one cause 
of these disagreements is the mispunctuation of a sentence in 
Wood s Athenae, by which he is made fifteen years old at the 
time of leaving, instead of entering, the University. It is by no 
means probable that he became a Commoner at Oxford at the 
age of eleven, and if he was fifteen when he entered, he was 53 
years old when he died, which would make the year of his birth 
about l579."(Streeter>8MS., quoted by J. G. Morris, The Lords 
Baltimore, p. 7.) 



year he received his master s degree at Oxford. 1 
Soon after this he was made private secretary to Sir 
Eobert Cecil, the Secretary of State, and was given 
an office in Ireland resembling that of Attorney- 
General. The year after Cecil s death (1613), he 
was appointed clerk to the Privy Council and was 
employed by the king, whose favorite he was, in 
several commissions to Ireland and France. 

Out of regard for his services the king conferred 
upon him in 1617 the Order of Knighthood, and 
two years later elevated him to the office of principal 
Secretary of State, a position somewhat like that of 
a modern prime-minister. He was made one of the 
commissioners for the office of treasurer, 1620, and 
in the momentous Parliament of 1621, as well as 
afterwards he often acted as the king s confidential 
spokesman. 2 Tillieres, the French Ambassador, de 
scribes him as the most important man in public 
affairs after Buckingham, but " honorable, sensible 
and well-minded." 3 James, indeed, held him in the 
highest regard, and in consideration of his faithful 
services, granted him in 1621, a manor of 2,300 

1 It has been questioned whether he married a second time. 
But there cannot be the slightest doubt that he did. The name 
of his second wife was Joan. See Appendix B. 

2 S. B. Gardiner, History of England, from the Accession of James 
I to the Outbreak of the Civil War, 1603-1642, iv and v, passim. 

3 Quoted by Clayton C. Hall, The Lords Baltimore, p. 10,.. 
Baltimore, 1902. 


acres in County Longford, Ireland. 1 He sat for 
Oxford in the Parliament of 1624, and soon after 
this, having declared himself a convert to Catholi 
cism, he resigned his secretaryship, and asked to 
be retired to private life. 2 Despite this the King 

1 "His great knowledge of public business and his diligence 
and fidelity conciliated the regard of the king, who gave him a 
pension of 1,000 out of the customs." (Mien s American Bio 
graphical Dictionary, p. 187, Boston, 1857; Tindal-Rapin s-Histon/ 
of England, n, p. 225.) 

2 Bozman, i, p. 246; George Parke Fisher, Colonial Era, i, 
p. 63, New York, 1892 ; Woodrow Wilson, History of the Ameri 
can People, 5 vols., p. 129, New York and London, 1902. 

"He freely confessed to the king," says Fuller, " that he was 
then a Roman Catholic, so that he must be wanting in his trust 
or violate his conscience in the charging of his office. This, his 
ingenuity, so highly affected King James that he continued the 
Privy Councillor all his reign, . . . and soon after created him 
Lord Baltimore of Baltimore in Ireland." (Fuller, Worthies of 
England, 3 vols., pp. 417-418, London, 1860.) 

"In 1624 he [Calvert] became a Roman Catholic, and having 
disclosed his new principles to the king, resigned his office." 
( Allen sAmer. Biog. Diet., p. 187.) 

For a full discussion of the time of Calvert s conversion the 
reader is referred to the "Discourse on the Life and Character 
of George Calvert," by J. P. Kennedy, Life and Character of 
George Calvert, (Annual Addresses, Md. Hist. Soc. Pub. u, 1844- 
66) and to the review of the same by Mr. B. U. Campbell and Mr. 
Michael Courtney Jenkins, ibid., and the reply of Mr. Kennedy to 
his reviewer, ibid. The argument of Mr. Kennedy that Calvert 
had long been a Roman Catholic in disguise is shown to be the 
romance of the novelist. Cfr. Streeter s Maryland Two Hundred 
Years Ago, p. 9, note. 

Cfr. Salvetti s "Account of the conversion of George Calvert," 
in Beginners of a Nation, by Edward Eggleston, p. 260 ; also 
Archbishop Abbot s, ibid., 259. 


retained him in the Privy Council and elevated him 
to the Irish Peerage as Baron Baltimore of Balti 
more, in the County of Longford, 1 

Sir George Calvert began to turn towards the Catholic faith in 
1620, when " he drooped and kept out of the way " but nothing 
was revealed of his state of mind until February, 1625, when he 
made known his change of faith tu the king and then went to the 
North of England with Sir Tobias Matthews to be received into 
the Church. Aspinwall Papers, pp. 98-99. Sketch of Sir Tobias 
Matthews, ibid., pp. 81-100. 

1 Bozman, i, 248-49, says : "According to some he was created 
Lord Baltimore in the year 1623 [Beatson s Polit. Index, in, 
147], but this seems to be plainly contradicted by the Virginia 
Commission of July 15, 1624, in which he is styled by the king 
himself, Sir George Calvert, Knight, which title would cer 
tainly not have been used in such a commission had he then 
been a peer. Belknap and Allen, his American biographers, 
seem to be more correct, who state him to have been created 
Baron of Baltimore in 1625, when he most probably received 
this honor from Charles I, shortly after the death of his father, 
James, and Sir- George s resignation of the Secretary." 

Cfr. John Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors, i, 256. Boston, 
1897 ; Wilson, i, 129 ; Morris, i, p. 15. 

"Whereas our dear father. King James of blessed memory, 
did by his letters patent bearing date the 7th day of April, in 
the twenty-first year of his reign, grant unto the late Lord Balti 
more, by the name of Sir George Calvert, Knight (then principal 
Secretary of State), and to his heirs, a certain region in New 
foundland . . ., etc." (Maryland Archives, m, p. 55 ; Letter of 
Charles I, to Commission for Foreign Plantations, May, 1637.) 

James I succeeded Elizabeth on March 24, 1603, old style, 
1604 new style, the twenty-first year of his reign would be 
1624 old style, 1625 new style. McMahon, p. 9, says he was 
raised to the peerage in 1625. 

The word Baltimore, up to the time of Charles, 5th Lord 
Baltimore, was spelled Baltemore, with an occasional Baltamore 
or Baltimore, apparently by accident. Cfr. Archives, Calvert Papers 


The high place he held in the king s regard, his 
importance in public affairs, as well as a description 
of the man himself, may be gleaned from the words 
of the patent of nobility conferred upon him by 
James. "We, therefore, nearly considering in the 
person of our well-beloved and entirely faithful 
Councillor, George Culvert, knight, gravity of 
manners, singular gifts of mind, candour, integrity 
and prudence, as well as benignity and urbanity 
towards all men, and also reflecting in our mind 
with how great fidelity, diligence and alacrity he 
has served us, both in our kingdom of Ireland, 
whither not long ago, he was specially sent upon 
our weighty and most important business there, as 
also in this our kingdom of England, throughout 
many years, but especially since he was advanced 
near our person to the place and honor of a Coun 
cillor and our principal Secretary ; and willing that 
some singular mark of our royal favor may remain 
unto the aforesaid George and unto his posterity 
forever, by which not only he, but others also 
may perceive how highly we prize the fidelity and 
obedience of the said George, and how much we 
desire to reward his virtues and merits, we have 
decreed him to be inscribed among the number of 
the peers of our said kingdom of Ireland : know 
ye, therefore, that we of our special grace and of 
our sure knowledge and mere motion, have exalted, 
preferred and created the aforesaid George Calvert, 
knight, unto the estate, degree and dignity of Baron 


Baltimore of Baltimore within our kingdom of 
Ireland." : 

His original patent for the manor of Longford, 
which had been granted under condition that all 
settlers should " be conformable in point of reli 
gion," he surrendered when he became a Catholic, 
receiving it back, however, with the religious clause 
omitted. 2 James died a few weeks after, but Charles 
continued his favor to Lord Baltimore, and wish 
ing to retain him in his council he offered to dis 
pense with the oath of supremacy. 3 But Baltimore, 
realizing that the duties of such an office would 
conflict with his faith, insisted upon retiring. He 
had long before this been interested in schemes of 
colonization and in 1620 had purchased a planta- 

1 Calvert Papers, I, pp. 43-48. 

2 This argues against Kennedy s opinion that Lord Baltimore 
had " been attached to the Church of Rome from an early period 
of his life." Kennedy, p. 30. Annnal Addresses, p. 30, Md. 
Hist. Fund Pub., n, 1844-66. 

3 "Your old friend, Sir George Calvert, professed himself openly 
a Catholic before the Council ; and, as my L. of C. [Lord of 
Chalcedon] writes to me, had continued in the Council, if he 
would have taken the oath of allegiance, which is tendered to 
the Catholics." (Stonyhurst MSS., Anglia A, VIIT, f. 175, quoted 
by Hughes, in Hist, of S. J, in N. A., p. 179, date Jan. 20, 

"There is no evidence that Calvert s conversion was due to 
any sinister motive. The Church of Eome offered him in his 
distress of mind a surer peace than the deeply stirred Church of 
England, or the aggressive fold of the Puritans." (Wilhelm, 
note, p. 168.) 


tion in Newfoundland, which he called Avalou. 1 
By a grant of 1623 Avalon was erected into a 
province and Calvert was given a Palatinate, or 
quasi-royal authority. 2 Desiring to see for himself 
the conditions in his province, and with the purpose 
apparently of establishing a colony wherein all 
should be free to worship God according to their 
conscience, in 1627, after his retirement from 
office, he visited his settlement, which was known 
as Ferry laud. 3 Among those who accompanied him 
were the two Secular priests, Fathers Longueville 
and Smith. 4 Lord Baltimore afterwards made a 
second voyage to Avalon, bringing with him Kev. 
Father Hackett, a Secular priest. At this time there 
were at least two Secular priests in Newfoundland. 5 
Kev. Anthony Smith or Rivers, and Rev. Father 
Hackett. The Protestants in the colony likewise had 
their ministers. Rev. Mr. James, after spending 
one winter on the island, had returned to England. 
During the second visit of Lord Baltimore to 

lu He [Calvert] gave it tins name after the old Avalon in 
Somersetshire, which was so called from Avalonius, a monk who 
was supposed to have converted the British King Lucius and his 
Court to Christianity." (Fuller, in, p. 418. ) 

2 Chalmers (Geo.), Revolt of the American Colonies, p. 01, 
Boston, 1848. 

3 Bozraan, i, p. 249, who also refers to Chalmers, ch. ix, and 
Oldmixon, vol. i, p. 5. 

"Soon afterwards some other secular priests and Carmelites 
went to Avalon and two Jesuits also went there about Easter, 
1029, but returned before the following Christmas." (Hughes, 
Hist, of S. J. in N. America, pp. 190, 192.) 
& Ibid. 


Avalon, there resided there another Protestant 
minister, the Rev. Erasmus Stourton, who, on re 
turning to England, showed his gratitude to Lord 
Baltimore by laying a charge that his patron was 
having Mass said in his chapel and showing favor 
to Catholics. 1 Thus in his first trial of a liberal 
policy was he given a taste of that intolerance, of 
which his son and successor, Cecilius, was destined 
to have many bitter experiences. With Lord Balti 
more s failure to set up a colony at Avalon his 
attempt to establish religious toleration at that time 
came to naught. 2 In this venture Cal vert s fortune 
was seriously impaired. He spent 20,000, from 
which there was scarcely any return. 3 Nothing 
daunted, however, by this failure, his purpose re- 

1 Colonial Papers, Public Kecord Office, referred to in Hughes, 
Hist, of S. J., pp. 180, 194 ; Browne s Maryland, p. 10 ; Fiske, I, 
p. 261. 

2 The Charter of Avalon (dated 1623 ; Bozraan, vol. I, p. 240) 
affords in section iv a loophole for Lord Baltimore to escape from 
inflicting upon his colony the religious disabilities in force in the 
mother-country. This section, though not as broad as section 
iv of the Maryland Charter, has apparently the same object in 
view, i. t., to give to the grantee the opportunity without say 
ing so much explicitly of omitting in founding his colony the 
disabling acts against recusants. As he dictated the Charter 
(McMahon, I, p. 154) it is likely that Calvert was preparing the 
way for the difficulties which would follow the change of faith 
he was then contemplating. See Appendix C. 

3 In Cecilius Calvert s "Declaration to the Lords," he says : 
"The Lord Baltimore s father having disbursed near 20,000, 
besides the hazard of his own person, in a plantation in New 
foundland." (Calvert Papers, I, p. 222.) 


mained unshaken. 1 The king invited him to return 
to England and give over such enterprises, promis 
ing at the same time to be his friend, but before 
the letter of the king arrived, Calvert sailed for 
Virginia, and arrived at Jamestown October 1st, 
1629. 2 "He was," says Meerness, "received with 
coldness and a spirit of contempt by the Governor 
and Council of the Province. Such treatment was 
provoked by Lord Baltimore s Catholic faith, and 
by the unwillingness of the Virginians to have a 
new province carved out of the territory. ... As 
if, therefore, with the hope of driving away the 
unwelcome intruder, the Governor and the Council, 
with no authority for so doing, tendered to him 
the oath of supremacy and allegiance." 3 This was 
certainly a most presumptuous proceeding towards 
one who, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 

1 Calvert s letter to the king from Ferryland. (Archives, in, 
pp. 15-16.) Finding the winters of Newfoundland too severe 
for successful plantation in 1629, he resolved to abandon the 
colony. The king s answer : 

"... We out of our princely regard for you, and well weigh-, 
ing that men of your condition and breeding are fitter for other 
employments .... advise you to desist from further prosecuting 
your designs that way and to return back to your native country, 
where you should be sure to enjoy botli the liberty of a subject 
and such respect from us as your former services and late 
endeavors do so justly deserve." (Scharf, i, pp. 45-46.) 

2 On this voyage to Virginia Lord Baltimore was probably 
accompanied by the two Secular priests, Fathers Hackett and 
Smith. (Hist, of S. J. in N. America, p. 199.) 

3 Meerness, Md. as a Prop. Province, p. 11 ; Archives, nr, pp. 


Lord Treasurer, the Earl Marshal, and other high 
dignitaries of the kingdom, had sat in the Council 
upon Virginia affairs as late as 1623. 1 "In offer 
ing it [the oath] they incurred the penalties of a 
high contempt. 7 2 Bozman doubts the legal power 
of the Assembly to tender these oaths to his 
Lordship. "The Charters which gave such powers 
had been annulled .... The Assembly was but 
a self-created body ; moreover, if these oaths were 
tendered to him by two Justices of the Peace 
of the Province, the statutes which enabled two 
justices to do so expressly excepted noblemen from 
their jurisdiction." 3 Baltimore offered to take the 
oath of allegiance, but being a Catholic refused 
to take the oath of supremacy. 4 Anderson says, 
"He [Calvert] had been led to his act ] entering 
the Catholic Church] by no blind impulse. In the 
fulness of matured manhood and enlarged experi 
ence he had resigned the dignities and emoluments 
of office and retired from his native country, had 
sought a settlement in Virginia, and in that province 
had been so zealous to preserve intact the spiritual 
authority to which he was newly rendered subject 
as to refuse to take the oath of supremacy and alle 
giance to his king." Returning to England he 

1 Virginia Hist. Co.,Va. Co., 1619-24. 

2 Browne s Maryland, p. 16. 3 i, pp. 255-256. 
4 Md. Archives, in, pp. 16-17. 

5 J. S. M. Anderson, History of the Church of England in the 
Colonies and Foreign Dependencies, i/ pp. 479-80, London, 1850. 
Lord Baltimore offered to take the oath of allegiance, supra. 


obtained from Charles a grant south of the James 
River, but meeting opposition from Claiborne and 
others from Virginia/ he asked for and obtained the 
grant of Maryland. 2 Before, however, the charter 
passed the great seal Lord Baltimore died, April 
15, 1632. 3 

^iske, ibid., i, p. 265. 

2 Crescentia seems to have been the name originally intended by 
Baltimore. ( Crescite et Multiplicamini appeared upon the coins 
struck in 1659 during the administration of the First Proprietary, 
. . . The date at which this motto first came into use in Mary 
land has not been ascertained." (Hall s Great Seal of Maryland, 
p. 36.) u lt was placed upon the Great Seal of Maryland in 
1854." (Ibid., p. 34.)) The king suggested "Marianna" as a 
name for the colony, but to this Lord Baltimore objected. Charles 
then proposed Terra Mariae (Maryland), in honor of his Queen, 
Henriette Marie, daughter of Henry IV of France, and so it was 
concluded. (Ayescough and Sloane MSS., in British Museum, 
quoted by J. Thomas Scharf, History of Maryland, 3 vols., p. 52, 
Baltimore, 1879.) 

3 "Being returned into England he died in London, April 15, 
1632, being in the 53rd year of his age." (Fuller, n, p. 418. ) 
Also, Chalmers Revolt of the Colonies, vol. i, p. 61. 

Shortly after Lord Baltimore applied for his Charter, another 
Catholic, Sir Edmund Plowden, a descendant of the famous lawyer 
of that name in the time of Elizabeth, and whose descendants are 
represented in Maryland in the children of Mr. Austin Jenkins, 
(Mr. E. Austin Jenkins, Mrs. Michael Jenkins, Mr. Francis 
Jenkins, Mrs. Spotswood Garland and Mrs. Nicholas Kernan), 
obtained a patent for what is now New Jersey and Long Island. 
He came over in 1642, and nearly lost his life by the mutiny of 
his crew. His plan was to set up a colony which should be a 
refuge for all Christians, and secure religious freedom for Catho 
lics. But no settlement was effected. (John G. Shea, The 
Catholic Church in Colonial Days, i, pp. 86-87, 204, New York, 
1886, and Catholic World, p. 204, November, 1880. ) 


George Calvert admirably illustrated in his life 
a combination of qualities too rarely found in great 
men. Having to deal with great political affairs, 
he was a statesman of the highest order, but at 
the same time he proved himself to be a man of the 
most scrupulous integrity. He rose from the ranks 
to the highest position of trust in the kingdom, 
without having recourse to any sinister, fraudu 
lent means, but by sheer force of merit ; and 
then, having reached ambition s summit, he volun 
tarily resigned all for conscience sake, and became 
an exile from his native land. Impartial non- 
Catholic historians have vied with one another in 
praise of his character. " He was," says Hall, 
"judicious, prudent, tactful, and possessed of untir 
ing industry, and above all, living in the midst 
of a most scandalously corrupt Court, his integrity 
was never questioned during his lifetime. His 
course was uniformly consistent." l " He adhered 
to his political and altered his religious opinions," 
says Dr. Browne, " when his constancy and change 
were alike fatal to his advancement; and he died 
leaving a name without reproach from friend or 
enemy." 2 " Lord Baltimore, his eulogists say, was 
a man of truly exalted character. He conducted 
himself with such moderation and propriety, that 
all religious bodies were pleased and none com 
plained of him. He was a man of great good 

1 Hall, ibid., p. 23. 2 Browne s Maryland, p. 17. 


sense, not obstinate in his opinions, taking as 
much pleasure in hearing the sentiments of others 
as in delivering his own/ 1 " Frank honesty 
marked his character/ says Hawks, 2 "and one 
trait will be dwelt upon by the benevolent mind with 
peculiar pleasure, his humanity." According to 
Woodrow Wilson, "there was much to admire 
in his courtesy, his tact and moderation, his unob 
trusive devotion to affairs, . . . and both in public 
and private he behaved himself like a man of 
honor." "Yet no statue, bust or monument on 
either side of the Atlantic, perpetuates the memory 
of George Calvert," says Dr. Browne. 4 " Though 
he was a Eoman Catholic/ 7 quotes Burnap, "he 
kept himself sincere and disengaged from all 
interests, and was the only statesman, that being 
engaged to a decried party, managed his business 
with that great respect for all sides that all who 
knew him applauded him, and none that had any 
thing to do with him complained of him. . . . 
Judge Popham and he agreed in the public design 
of foreign plantations, but differed in the means of 
managing them. The first was for extirpating the 
original inhabitants, the second for converting them ; 

1 Morris, p. 26, quoting Belknap, n, p. 369. 

2 Rev. F. L. Hawks, Ecclesiastical Contributions, vol. n, pp. 18- 
19, New York, 1839. 

3 Hist, of the American People, I, p. 128. 

4 George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 34. There is a statue at Calvert 
Hall, Baltimore, which is the only reminder of this truly great 


the former sent the lewdest people to those places, 
the latter was for the soberest ; the one was for 
making present profit, the other for a reasonable 
expectation, liking to have few governors, and those 
not interested merchants, but unconcerned gentle 
men, granting liberty with great caution and leaving 
everyone to provide for himself by his own industry 
and not out of the common stock." l " He deserves," 
says Bancroft, " to rank among the most wise and 
beneficent law-givers of all times." 2 Says Wilhelm, 
" His integrity [after access to power] remained 
unimpaired ; his sense of justice, his principles of 
rectitude remained unaltered ; his hands remained 
clean and his conscience remained unseared at a 
period in British history, unexampled for its un 
bridled corruption, and its refined immorality. 3 . . . 
In the very year that a law was enacted in Massa 
chusetts, disfranchising the non-Church members 
[1631] , Calvert was drawing up his charter, securing 
toleration and protection to all creeds and parties. 4 
In his correspondence there runs a vein of kindli 
ness, sympathy and courage. Possessing a strong 
will and a sound judgment, he moved along quietly, 
doing his work thoroughly and conscientiously. His 
ambition was lofty but legitimate ; it did not carry 

1 W. Burnap, p. 22, quoting Biographia Britannica and Life of 
Leonard Calvert, Boston, 1864. (Sparks Amer. Biog.) 

2 Bancroft, 10th ed., vol. i, p. 244. 

3 L. W. Wilhelm, Sir George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, 
p. 167, Baltimore, 1883. 

*lbid., p. 165. 


him into intemperate zeal or corrupt practices. 1 
In the darkest hour of his career, when he landed 
in England after his failure at Avalon, and his 
banishment from Virginia, and but a short time 
after the vessel bearing his wife had been wrecked, 
and his personal wealth lost in the ocean, and at a 
time when the Puritans were growing in numbers 
and strength, Calvert wrote to his old friend Went- 
worth a letter, August 12, 1630, breathing a spirit 
of generous benevolence : Thus your Lordship 
sees that we papists want not charity towards you 
Protestants whatever the less understanding part of 
the world think of us. " 2 

The man of faith, indeed, nowhere reveals itself 
in his character more clearly than in another letter 
to Lord Strafford, his Protestant friend, wherein 
he writes, October 11, 1631 : " Were not my occa 
sions such as necessarily keep me here at this 
time, I would not send letters, but would fly to 
you myself with all speed I could to express my 
own grief and to take part in yours which I know 
is exceeding great for the loss of so noble a lady, so 
loving a wife. There are few, perhaps, can judge 
of it better than I, who have been a long time 
myself a man of sorrows. But all things, my Lord, 

p. 168. 

2 Ibid., pp. 160-161. This letter was written on the occasion 
of the birth of the Prince, when, says Calvert, "masses and 
prayers" were offered in Spain by the Catholics for the health 
and prosperity of "our Prince." (Stra/ord s Letters and 
Despatches, Radcliffe, i, p. 53.) 


in this world pass away; wife, children, honor, 
wealth, friends, and what else is dear to flesh and 
blood. They are but lent us until God please to 
call for them back again, that we may not esteem 
anything our own or set our hearts upon anything 
but Him alone, Who only remains forever. I be 
seech His almighty goodness that your Lorship 
may, for His sake, bear this great cross with meek 
ness and patience, whose only Son, our dear Lord 
and Saviour, bore a greater for you ; and to consider 
that these humiliations, though they be very bitter, 
yet are they sovereign medicines ministered unto us 
by our Heavenly Physician to cure the sickness of 
our souls if the fault be not ours. Good my Lord, 
bear with this excess of zeal in a friend whose great 
affection to you transports him to dwell longer upon 
this melancholy theme than is needful for your 
Lordship, whose own wisdom, assisted with God s 
grace, I hope, suggests to you these and better reso 
lutions than I can offer unto your remembrance." 1 

Stafford s Letters and Despatches, RadclifTe, I, p. 59. 


The Charter of Maryland was issued to Cecilius, 
the eldest son of George Calvert. 1 More important 
than the charter itself, Cecilius Calvert inherited the 
uprightness of character, the far-seeing statesman 
ship, the prudent executive ability of his father. He 
was born in 1606, and at the age of fifteen he entered 
Trinity College, Oxford. In 1629 he married Lady 
Anne Arundel, of Wardour. 2 His father died April 
15, 1632, aud on June 20 of the same year the 
charter was granted to Cecilius, the first proprie- 

*He was christened by the name of Cecil!, and afterwards 
confirmed by the name of Cecilius. British Museum, MSS. 
Sloane, quoted by Hughes, p. 155, and also Scharf, vol. i, p. 53. 
When his name appears at the head of a document, it is 
almost always Cecilius in full, but when signing his name at the 
end it is generally U C. Baltemore." I have not found any 
place where he uses "Cecil," but "Cicell" is the spelling in his 
father s will. In the deed to his brother, Leonard, for the one- 
eighth interest in the Dove, we find Cecill, and it is signed 
Cecilius Baltimore. Calvert Papers, in, p. 15. 

2 Fiske, i, 268, and Morris, p. 31. Brantz Mayer, Calvert and 
Penn, note, p. 23, quoting Bishop Goodman, T, p. 376, implies 
that this marriage influenced George Calvert in becoming a 
Catholic. That Cecilius Calvert did not marry until 1629, when 
he was twenty-three years of age, is proved by the existence of 
a document, dated March 20, 1628/9 (Doc. 39, Md. Hist. Soc. 
Coll., Calvert MSS.), which conveys land to Cecilius upon his 
marriage, provided he marries within the year. George Calvert, 
according to all, was a Catholic in 1624. 



tary. 1 According to McMahon, who has written 
exhaustively upon the subject, " The Charter of 
Maryland was the most ample and sovereign that 
ever emanated from the British Crown." 2 By the 
charter Lord Baltimore and his heirs and successors 
were granted and confirmed in the proprietorship 
of the land, islands and islets, the lakes, rivers and 
bays; were given ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the 
Palatinate, and power to ordain, make and enact 
laws with the advice and assent of the freemen of 
the province/ while in certain cases it lay within 
their right to legislate independently of the freemen 
assembled ; with them rested the power to appoint 
judges, justices, magistrates and officers, to pardon 
and release either before or after judgment had 
been passed, to award process, to hold pleas, in the 
execution of the laws if it be necessary to deprive 
of member or life ; y the colonists of his lordship 
did not surrender their title of Englishmen in 
leaving that country, they remained i natives and 
liegemen of the king, and the children born in the 
province were to be the same as the liege-men 
born ? in England ; they were to be accounted in 
possession of all the privileges, franchises and liber 
ties of Englishmen ; they could freely trade with 

1 "It was a grand fief for a young man only 26 years of age. 
But the subsequent laws, promulgated by him for the govern 
ment of his principality, indicate that he was fully prepared to 
assume the responsibility." (Lewis Wilhelm, "Local Institu 
tions in Maryland," J. H. U. Studies, p. 10.) 

2 McMahon, i, p. 155. 



and import from the mother-country, as well as 
with any power at amity with it, no burden of 
taxation was ever to be laid upon them, neither 
customs, impositions, quotas, nor contributions ; 
associated with the Proprietor they enacted their 
own laws which required no sanction from the home 
government ; while to the other prerogatives of the 
Proprietary were added the unrestrained power of 
a captain-general to wage war, to exercise martial 
law freely, to erect towns into boroughs, boroughs 
into cities ; to grant, devise, or assign lands, to be 
held of him and his heirs directly and not of the 
king ; finally, if hereafter, any doubts or ques 
tions should arise concerning the true sense and 
meaning of the charter, it is charged and com 
manded that l that interpretation be applied which 
shall be found most beneficial, profitable and favor 
able to the Baron of Baltimore. 7 1 

It was evidently the intention of the king that 
Lord Baltimore should establish a miniature king 
dom, retaining all the salient points and distin 
guishing characteristics of a monarchical institution. 
All the regal prerogatives were vested in the e Abso 
lute Lord of Maryland and Avalon whose only 
recognition of his sovereign s over-lordship, was 
expressed in the yielding of two Indian arrows 
every year in Easter week to the king at Wind 
sor, as a mark of fealty. But the absolutism thus 
placed in his power was set aside by Lord Balti 
more, his royal powers yielded up with the truly 

1 Cfr. Appendix C. 


royal grace of a kingly soul, no titles of nobility 
were conferred, and as soon as it was made known 
to him that the people desired him to relinquish 
legislative powers conferred upon him by his 
charter, he acceded to their wishes. Undoubtedly 
he followed in the footsteps of his father, 1 whose 
intention in so wording the charter as to give him 
self and his successors such sweeping sovereignty, 
was not to make use of that power for self-aggran 
dizement, but to defend his colony from royal inter 
ference, and to preserve intact for his colonists that 
principle of religious toleration which he had de 
sired should always be theirs in the Land of Sanc 
tuary. 1 It is the opinion of McMahon that " the 
proprietary might, doubtless, have as easily obtained 
a grant of legislative power to be exercised solely by 
himself, and quite as extensive ; and the admission 

According to the charter the king granted Maryland upon these 
terms : "To hold of us, our heirs and successors, kings of Eng 
land, as of our castle of Windsor, in our county of Berks, in free 
and common soccage by fealty only for all services, and not 
in capite, nor by knight s service, yielding, therefore, unto us, 
our heirs and successors, two INDIAN ARROWS of those parts, to 
be delivered at the said Castle of Windsor, every year in Tuesday 
in Easter week; and also the fifth part of the gold and silver 
ore, which shall happen, from time to time, to be found within 
the aforesaid limits." The term "common soccage" simply 
means that no other service or return of any kind would be 
required, other than the tender of the arrows and the fifths of 
gold and silver. (Kilty s Landholder s Assistant, pp. 25-26, for 
Soccage Tenure ; also McMahon, pp. 167-68. ) In the Maryland 
Historical Society s Archives are preserved the receipts of the 
arrows for the first year s rent. 


of the colonists to participate in it, at once evinces 
his sagacity and reflects lustre on his character. It 
was this exalted privilege that endeared his govern 
ment to the people of Maryland." l As Stockbridge 
remarks, " Lord Baltimore s charter gave him little 
less than the power of an absolute monarch. It 
constituted him and his heirs veros et absolutes 
dominos et proprietaries ? (true and absolute Lords 
and proprietaries) of the realm granted him ; and 
this vested him with all power civil, military, 
naval, and ecclesiastical head of Church and State. 
. . . He is the entire government, the legislative, 
judicial, and executive. ... It is true that the 
charter in giving free, full, and absolute power to 
ordain, make and enact laws provides that this be 
done with the advice, assent, and approbation of 
the freemen of the Province but this no more 
constituted them the legislative power than the 
requirement of the present day that certain appoint 
ments of the executive shall be subject to confirmation 
by the senate, constitutes the senate the appointing 
power." 2 

Much has been said, and much written regarding 
the definition of the terms of the fourth section 
of the Maryland charter, by those who assume and 
endeavor to prove, that it was a provision for the 
establishment of the Church of England in the 

1 McMahon, p. 155. 

2 Md. Hist. Soc. Fund Pub. 22, pp. 4-6. A full explanation of 
the charter is to be found in McMahon, pp. 140-168. 


colony. That this was the king s intention in grant 
ing the patent which was issued to Lord Baltimore 
under a misconception of the latter s religious atti 
tude and subsequent plans/ is one view ; another 
being that the king and Calvert connived in false 
representation and in hoodwinking the English 
people. 2 The terms of this part of the patent have 
been twisted and tortured into a variety of signifi 
cations, and, "like a straight staff bent in the pool " 
of prejudice, have "been viewed at whatever parallax 
best serves the purpose of the writers. Perhaps a 
better understanding of the real meaning might be 
gained, if both the letter and the spirit of the 
phrases were examined impartially and critically, 
the exact definition of the words well weighed, 
with the particular significance attached to them 
at that particular day ; added to this, a dispassionate 
study of the principals to the instrument the Lords 
Baltimore and the king. 

The disputed words of the charter are those 
granting to Lord Baltimore "the Patronages and 1 
Avowsons of all churches, which (with the increas 
ing worship and religion of Christ), within the said; 
region .... shall happen to be built .... together 
with licence and faculty of erecting and founding 
churches, chapels and places of worship . . . ., and of 

1 Kev. James S. M. Anderson, The History of the Church of Eng 
land, in the Colonies and Dependencies of the British Empire, TJ. 
p. 479. 

2 Id., i, p. 482, quoting Murray. 


causing to be dedicated and consecrated according 
to the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of England 
.... as any Bishop of Durham within the Bishopric 
or county of Durham in our kingdom of England 
ever heretofore hath had . . . ., etc." : It is argued, 
first of all, that the words "patronages" and "avow- 
sons " refer to an institution of the Church of 
England, and that, therefore, into this phrase we 
must read the formal proclamation of that particu 
lar ecclesiastical organization being constituted the 
established Church of the Maryland colony. Next, 
it is contended, that by the " ecclesiastical laws of 
the kingdom of England " is meant the laws of 

In the first place, an avowson is the right of 
presentation to a living in the " Church by Law 
Established," and even granting its exclusive use 
in connection with the Church of England, it must 
not be lost sight of that avowsons were then held 
by Catholic peers of the realm, and this privilege, 
already Lord Baltimore s in England, is further 
secured to him in his New World colony should he 
desire to make use of it. 2 He is neither enjoined 

1 See Appendix C. 

2 It was not till the Act of 1st William and Mary, chapter 26, 
that Parliament interfered with the rights of Catholics to present 
to religious benefices. That Act vested the presentation belong 
ing to Catholics in the universities. (Statutes of the Realm, 
printed by Command of His Majesty, King George III, from 
Original Records and Authentic Manuscripts, 7 vols., London, 
MDCCCXX, vol. vr, p. 92, 1688. See Appendix B.) 


nor commanded to do so, but in his absolute and 
feudal character of Lord Proprietor, it lies within 
his jurisdiction to administer the ecclesiastical as 
well as the State affairs of his Palatinate. 1 He is 
placed in control of whatever he may decide to 
establish, or to allow others to establish. That he 
had the power, and that the establishment of the 
Anglican Church was not enjoined upon him in his 
charter is amply proven by his successor s refusal 
his recognized legal right to refuse to make special 
provision later on for Church of England clergy 
men, when this was petitioned for. 2 Then, too, the 
words " shall happen to be built " are far from 
meaning the same thing as <f that must and shall 
be built," and in their tentativeness and uncertainty 
hardly argue the desire or conviction, on the part 
of the king, of such a condition arising. It seems, 
at the most, rather a provision for a contingency. 

The next disputed phrase is " according to the eccle 
siastical laws of our kingdom of England." Just 
here we must remember that, at that particular time> 
of religious and political ferment, terms were sadly 
mixed. Words meant one thing to-day and another 

1 " Baltimore became under the charter virtual king and head 
of the Church in Maryland, if he chose to exercise supremacy. 
. . . His dominant purposes were to protect his persecuted brethren 
and to give freedom to all. ... He knew there was no other way 
to gain these noble ends than to take into his own hand the 
direction of the religious affairs of his province, according ta 
the method of the king in England." (Cobb, p. 336. ) 

2 Maryland Archives, v, p. 133. 


to-morrow. Ideas and convictions were in solution 
and had not as yet crystallized into definite forms 
that could be easily classified. So the " ecclesiasti 
cal laws of England " and " the ecclesiastical laws 
of the Church of England" might mean the same 
thing or not according to the intention of him who 
used them. It would seem, indeed, that this term 
and not a more explicit one was used in order 
purposely to leave the exact meaning in doubt, so 
as to allow the grantor and grantee each to take 
his own meaning out of it. 1 

It does not appear then that the charter con 
tains a single word that may positively be taken 
as meaning a reference to any religion except a 
belief in Jesus Christ. If a matter of such vital 
importance as the establishment of the Church 
of England had been intended, it would have 
been duly set forth with alt the legal elabora 
tion and exactness, with which it is treated in the 
charters of the other colonies, instead of being 
almost pointedly slurred over and veiled as in that 
of Maryland. The charters were granted expressly 
to meet the exigencies, to further the plans, and 

*As to the clause, "the ecclesiastical laws of our kingdom of 
England," Sir Edward Northy, Attorney-General of England, 
in the following century gave this decision : "As to the said 
clause in the grant of the province of Maryland, I am of the 
opinion the same doth not give him power to do anything con 
trary to the ecclesiastical laws of England." " This is as 
ingeniously ambiguous as the clause itself." (Eggleston, The 
Beginners of a Nation, p. 262. ) 


fulfil the earnest desires of the grantee. In accord 
ance with this (to give a few examples), we see the 
Virginia patent setting forth in no uncertain terms, 
that " no person shall be allowed within the colony 
suspected to affect the superstitions of Rome," and the 
Georgia charter proclaiming, that " all except papists 
shall have free exercise of their religion." Penn s 
well-known tolerant spirit explains the absence of 
religious legislation in the patent of Pennsylvania, 
while the eloquent silence of the Massachusetts 
grant, regarding laws ecclesiastical, was evidently 
in accordance with the desire of the grantees to 
have the matter left in their own hands, that their 
policy might be entirely unchecked. 1 It would seem 
plain, that in granting to Lord Baltimore the Mary 
land charter, with its sweeping powers, " the most 
ample and sovereign that ever emanated from the 
British Crown," 2 Charles was in no uncertainty 
as to Calvert s religious convictions and intentions, 
any more than he had been regarding those of the 
father of Cecilius. George Calverc s conversion, 
his sacrifice of worldly honor, his absolute integrity, 
and his religious zeal, were among the great things 
of that day. 3 In the opening words of the charter, 

1 William McDonald, Select Charters and Other Documents, 
Illustrative of American History, Virginia Charter, p. 16; ibid., 
Georgia Charter, p. 244; ibid., Pennsylvania Charter, pp. 183- 
199 ; ibid., Massachusetts Charter, pp. 37-42. 

2 McMahon, p. 155. 

3 Bozman, I, 246; Fuller, 417-418 ; Scharf, i, 152-153.. quoting 
Beverly, 1722, Wynne, 1776, Md. Universal History, 1780. 


the king proclaims that the son has taken up the 
work where the father had laid it down, (t Cecilius, 
son and heir of George Calvert, treading in the 
.steps of his father, animated with a laudable and 
pious zeal for extending the Christian religion." 
Understanding, then, if not sympathizing with, 
Cecilius noble design of establishing religious 
toleration, Charles wished to go, in furtherance of 
it, as far as was possible. Had he desired to do 
more, which is not contended, it is doubtful if 
such a thing would have been practicable. The 
age was too violently intolerant, too much given to 
a white-hot intensity of persecution, his tenure of 
his throne was too uncertain for him to venture 
more than the oracular provisions of the charter, 
veiled and left in too indefinite a form for attack. 
Why should he pull the pillars of his house down 
on his head by speaking plainly of religious liberty 
to ears in which the sound would be anathema, and 
when, too, he was indifferent to religious liberty 
himself, and only well-disposed to Calvert personally? 
He went as far as he might safely go, and anticipat 
ing, as it were, the objections that would eventually 
arise from the very indeterminate character of the 
words used, in the 2 2nd section he goes back to 
the subject of religion, forestalling misunderstanding 
sind wrong interpretation, and in terms most abso 
lute constitutes Lord Baltimore the court of last 

This 22nd section of the Maryland charter has 


given rise to much dispute and conjecture. It 
says : " If peradventure, hereafter it may happen, 
that any doubts or questions should arise concerning 
the .true sense and meaning of any word, clause, or 
sentence contained in this, our present charter, we 
will, charge, and command, that interpretation be 
applied, always, and in all things, and in our courts 
and judicatories whatsoever to obtain, which shall 
be judged to be more beneficial, profitable and 
favorable to the aforesaid, now Baron of Baltimore,, 
his heirs and assigns ; provided always, that no 
interpretation thereof be made whereby God s holy 
and true Christian religion, or the allegiance due to 
us, our heirs, may in anywise suffer . . ., etc." It 
has been asked what need there was for such a 
sweeping provision. Viewed in the light of the 
4th section its purpose is evident. As we have seen 
the question of religion was designedly left indefi 
nite. Objections against Lord Baltimore might in 
future arise from the vagueness of this section. 
The charter provides that if doubts arise in regard 
to the meaning of any part of it, including there 
fore the phrase, "The ecclesiastical laws of our 
kingdom of England/ 7 that interpretation should be 
"applied always and in all things which shall 
be judged to be more beneficial, profitable and 
favorable to the Baron of Baltimore." There could 
not be in the mind of Charles or any one who 

1 See Appendix C. 


knew Lord Baltimore any doubt as to what church was 
the Church of England to him. He was a Catholic, 
and all knew it. To him the Church of England was 
the Catholic Church of Magna Charta. In as much 
as " his charter made him head of Church and State," l 
the established church in Maryland, was the church 
which he might choose to establish. One stipula 
tion only was made, the religion must be Christian, 
and the king s allegiance must not suffer. 2 

As to the allusion made to the Bishopric of 
Durham, those that pin their faith to this saving 
clause must not forget that Durham was Catholic 
for a thousand years before it ever became an 
appanage of Protestantism ; that it is alluded to 
rather in a temporal than in a spiritual sense, not 
as a Bishopric but as a Palatinate, and that as a 
Palatinate, its glory, prestige, power and privileges 
were Catholic. Lord Baltimore, as a temporal 
Lord, was granted all the powers which went with 
the temporal Lordship of Durham. Durham is 
selected as a model for the Palatinate of Maryland, 
because "at the date of the Maryland Charter," 

1 Md. Hist. Soc. Fund PuJb. y No. 22, p. 6. 

* Cfr. Culvert and Penn, by Brantz Mayer, p. 29. 

In Calvert and Penn, Appendix 1, Mr. Brantz Mayer has a 
curious explanation of the words "Sacrosancta Dei et vera Chris 
tiana Religio" God s Holy and true Christian Religion which 
lie renders " God s Holy Eights and True Christian Religion." 
But Scharf, vol. 1, p. 153, in a note shows how little authority 
there can be for such a translation. Cfr. also Streeter, Maryland 
Two Hundred Year* A go, pp. 71-76. 


says Hall, "Durham alone remained of all the 
ancient Palatinates. 7 

It has been often observed by historians that the 
charter of Maryland was modeled after the Magna 
Charta. In so providing, Lord Baltimore wisely, 
no doubt purposely, forestalled the objections of his 
adversaries. If they objected to the charter on 
religious grounds, he might well answer that its 
provisions were copied from Magna Charta, and 
thus throw on them the burden of proof that the 
ecclesiastical laws of England, under James and 
Charles, were the same as those which obtained 
when Magna Charta was adopted as the fundamental 
law of England. 

The charge that Baltimore wished to appear a 
Protestant, while in reality a devoted son of the 

1 Hall, p. 84. Cfr. Fiske, i, pp. 255-63 ; Kaye, J. H. U. 
Studies, 18th series, p. 45. 

In regard to this clause in the charter, Cecilius says : ". . . . 
As to those other words of royal jurisdiction we do hereby 
declare that it is intended by our said charter that we should 
have all such jurisdiction there as the Bishops of Durham at 
any time heretofore ever had, exercised or enjoyed, or might 
have exercised or enjoyed, in temporals, within the Bishopric or 
County Palatine of Durham, in the Kingdom of England. And 
we are well satisfied by learned council here, and such as are best 
read in antiquities, that the Bishops of Durham before Henry 
the Seventh his time heretofore King of England, had and 
did exercise all royal jurisdiction within the said Bishopric or 
County Palatine, though of later years their jurisdiction was 
much diminished by an Act of Parliament made in the time of 
the said King Henry. And this we thought fit to signify unto 
you for your better satisfaction therein." (Archives, I, pp. 
263-264. ) 


Catholic Church, is almost too absurd for anyone hon 
estly to believe. 1 His father s conversion and 
character, his own integrity and open profession 
of faith, were matters of national importance and 
note. At the time of the granting of the Maryland 
charter, his desire to furnish a home for his perse 
cuted co-religionists was no secret ; 2 he went about 
securing his colonists in the most open manner 
possible, 3 they were promised immunity from reli 
gious persecution, each man might worship God 
according to his conscience. 4 The fact that the 
greatest Catholic names of the realm 5 were asso 
ciated with him iu the enterprise, showed that men 
must have been well acquainted with the purpose of 
the colony s foundation. Still, more the famous " Ob 
jections," 6 proposed and answered publicly at the 
time, must convince those who are willing to see, 
that, whatever were his state and diplomatic reasons 
for concurring with the king in the particular word 
ing of the charter, he left not the world in ignorance 
of his beliefs, ideals and intentions. These objections 
show plainly that Lord Baltimore s plan for making 
Maryland a land of sanctuary for the persecuted of 
his own faith, and a place of religious toleration 
for all others, was a thing notorious throughout 
England, when the charter was granted. These 

Anderson, i, p. 479. 

2 Fiske, i, p. 271; Cobb, p. 367; Brantly, p. 523; Chalmers, 
Annalx, p. 207. 

3 Johnson, pp. 23, 30 ; Cobb, p. 367. * Archives, v, pp. 267-68. 
5 Johnson, pp. 22, 23. c Johnson, pp. 24-30. 


plans seem to have been the cause of much heart 
burning to the persecutors, who thus saw their 
legitimate quarry about to escape them. An unbe 
lievable lack of humor on the part of the " Objectors/ 
as well as a saving sense of it in the author of the 
answers, cannot escape us. The first objection shows 
that England must have been a-shudder with fear that 
if " licence " is granted for Catholics to depart the 
kingdom into Maryland, where they may have free 
liberty of their religion, there will be no further oppor 
tunity for their well-wishers (!) to persecute them into 
-conformity. The second objection sets forth that such 
a licence will seem a toleration of popery (a kind 
of idolatry), which some should scruple to allow in 
any part of the king s dominions. To this the 
answer is made, that forced conversions avail little 
and that such scrupulous persons may as well have 
a scruple to let Catholics live in England, although 
it be under persecution, adding the comforting assur 
ance that the horrors of the savage wilderness, the 
dangers and miseries of the life they are bound for, 
may be as bad as anything that can be provided 
for them by their kind friends at home. Also, that 
on the same ground they may scruple to allow 
Catholics to depart the realm for Erance, to trade 
with foreigners of that faith, or allow the idolatrous 
Indians to inhabit America. This being something 
they cannot prevent, they may as well suffer the 
idolatrous Catholics to live in that country also. 
Two other objections deal with the loss to the royal 


revenues by the deprivation of the recusant fines, 
and the danger to the kingdom by the diminishing 
of the population, and the taking out of it so much 
wealth. This is answered by pointing out that, as 
the object of the laws is supposed to be the freeing 
of the kingdom from Catholics, not the blackmail 
ing and mulcting of them, the end of the law is 
thus happily accomplished by the departure of the 
recusants from the realm. That their number is 
not so great as to make the exodus of all of them 
cause a sensible diminution of the population, and 
that they do not need to carry great sums of money 
with them. In the fifth objection all England 
trembles for the fate of New England and Virginia 
(evidently thought to be adjacent counties), when 
the Maryland planters shall rise to suppress Pro 
testantism by calling in the Spaniards for that 
purpose ; it fears that in time the planters may 
grow strong enough to do their own suppressing. 
Finally they may even in time shake off their 
dependence on the Crown of England. They are 
reassured, in reply, by the pointing out of a con 
soling fact, that of New England being 500 miles 
and Virginia 100 miles from Maryland, and the 
chance of distance saving them. Also that the 
Maryland planters may, after all, possibly have 
something else to think about than cutting their 
neighbors throats for a religions diversion, and that, 
as there are three times as many Protestants in the 
American colonies as Catholics in all England, there 


are reasonable chances that the former may consider 
themselves in comparative safety from their blood 
thirsty Catholic brethren. Last of all, if they 
should some day shake off dependence on the Crown 
of England, the kingdom would then be free from 
many suspected persons in it. 

Furthermore, the exaggerated reports about the 
Catholic colony prove that while it was not publicly 
proclaimed in the market-place, it was not pro 
jected in the dark ; and as might have been expected, 
such a generous charter, granted to a Catholic, set 
the enemies of the Church to scheming to defeat its 
execution. Lord Baltimore was seconded, however, 
by the Catholic nobility, the Howards, A models, and 
Blounts, and also by the Jesuits. 1 One of his most 
influential friends was a Protestant, Went worth, who 
became the powerful Earl of Stratford. 

The most ridiculous reports and preposterous cal 
umnies were set afoot to defeat the young Proprietary s 
plans. We see this plainly in a letter to Strafford 
(January 10, 1634), in which Lord Baltimore says : 
" My humble thanks unto your Lordship for the whole 
expression you gave me of your constant favor in 
your last letter to me. . . . Since your Lordship^ 
hath been pleased to take upon yourself a noble 
patronage of me, I must needs think myself obliged 
to give your Lordship sometimes an account of my 
actions. . . . After many difficulties, since your 

Johnson, ibid., pp. 21-23. 


Lordship s departure from hence, in the proceedings 
of my plantation wherein I felt your Lordship s 
absence, I have at last sent away my ships and have 
deferred my own going until another time. And, 
indeed, my Lord, it \vas not one of the least reasons 
of my stay at this time, the great desire I had to 
wait upon your Lordship in that kingdom (Ireland), 
which I must confess my own affections importuned 
me to when you went from hence ; and I should 
have done it had I been at liberty. But, as I said, 
my ships are gone, after having been many ways 
troubled by my adversaries, after that they had 
endeavored to overthrow my business at the council 
board, after they had informed, by several means, 
some of the Lords of the council that I intended 
to carry nuns over into Spain and soldiers to serve 
that king (which, I believe, your Lordship will laugh 
at as they did). After they had gotten Mr. Attorney- 
General to make an information in the Star Chamber 
that my ships were departed from Gravesend with 
out cockets from the custom-house, and in contempt 
of all authority, my people, abusing the king s officers 
and refusing to take the oath of allegiance. Where 
upon their Lordships sent present order to several 
captains of the king s ships, who lay in the Downs, 
to search for my ships in the river, and to follow 
them into the narrow seas, if they were gone out, 
and to bring them back to Gravesend, which they 
did, and all this done before I knew anything of it, 
but imagined all the while that my ships were well 


advanced on the voyage. But not to trouble your 
Lordship with too many circumstances, I, as soon as 
I had notice of it, made it plainly appear unto their 
Lordships that Mr. Attorney was abused and mis 
informed, and that there was not any just cause of 
complaint in any of the former accusations, and 
that every one of them was most notoriously and 
maliciously false ; whereupon they were pleased to 
restore my ships to their former liberty. After they 
had likewise corrupted and seduced my mariners, 
and defamed the business all they could, both pub 
licly and privately, to overthrow it, I have, as I 
said, at last, by the help of some of your Lordship s 
good friends and mine, overcome these difficulties 
and sent a hopeful colony into Maryland with a fair 
and probable expectation of good success, however, 
without danger of any great prejudice unto myself, in 
respect that others are joined with me in the, adventure. 1 

1 This sentence in italics has been twisted into various mean 
ings inimical to Lord Baltimore. It undoubtedly means that he 
runs no great danger, either politically or financially, because 
he is supported by friends both powerful and wealthy, and he 
wishes to assure Wentworth who, as his father s friend and his 
adviser, had no doubt cautioned prudence that he had acted 
according to his advice. Wentworth s affection for and interest 
in Cecilius himself is sufficiently attested throughout their entire 
correspondence. Writing to Lord Strafford (May 16th, 1634) 
Lord Baltimore says: ", . . I perceive neither distance nor 
greatness of employment, can any whit diminish that noble and 
true affection which you have so long professed and many times 
very really testified to my father s family. . . . My Lord, I 
have many occasions from your Lordship to remember my dear 


There are two of my brothers gone with very near 
twenty other gentlemen of very good fashion, and three 
hundred laboring men, well provided in all things." l 

father . . . and now I do not want one. For I must confess 
I never knew any man have the way of doing favors unto others, 
with that advantage to themselves as your Lordship hath, and 
he had," (Strafford Letters, n, p. 257,) 

1 Stra/ord t s Letters and Despatches, n, pp. 178-79, Peabody 
Library, Baltimore. 

"The names of the gentlemen adventurers that are gone in 
person to this plantation : 

Leonard Calvert, the Governor, j h}g Lordshi , g brotherg< 
George Calvert. 

Jerome Hawley, Esq., } ^ . . 

[ Commissioners. 
Ihomas Cornwallis, Lsq. > 

Richard Gerard, son to Sir Thomas Gerard, Knight and Baronet. 

Edward Wintour, ") 

>sons of Lady Anne Wintour. 
Frederick Wintour. J 

Henry Wiseman, son to Sir Thomas Wiseman, Knight. 

John Saunders. 

Edward Cranfield. 

Henry Greene. 

Nicholas Ferfax. 

John Baxter. 

Thomas Dorrell. 

Captain John Hill. 

John Medcalf. 

William Saire." (Sabin s Reprints, No. II, A Relation of Md.) 

"Exposed to molestation from the existing authorities in 
England, and apprehending still greater severity from the pre- 
dominence of a party gradually advancing in strength and 
hardening in sternness of spirit, many of the Catholics were 
led to meditate a retreat from the scene of persecution to some 
vacant corner in the British dominions. The most liberal and 
moderate of the members of the Romish church were the most 
forward to embrace this purpose, and of such consisted the first 
emigrants to Lord Baltimore s territory." (Grahame s-Hta. of 
U. S., vol. n, p. 8.) 


In spite of all obstacles, the month of October, 
1633, found all in readiness for the first migration. 
There were two vessels, the Ark and the Dove, the 
former a ship of three hundred tons, and the latter 
a pinnace of fifty tons. The expedition was placed 
under the command of Leonard Calvert, the brother 
of Lord Baltimore. The expenses of this first 
voyage were borne almost wholly by Lord Balti- 

1 Calvert Papers, pp. 228-229. It is said that Cecilius "had 
disbursed himself and his friends above 10,000 for a settlement 
of a colony of his Majesty s subjects in the said country, and 
having seated already above two hundred people there." Father 
White, in his Relation, says: "When we had sailed beyond the 
Fortunate Isles, Lord Leonard Calvert, the Commander of 
the Enterprise, began to consider where he could get any 
merchandise to load the ship with on its return, in order to 
defray the expenses of his brother, the Baron of Baltimore. 
For he, having originated the whole expedition, had to bear all 
the expense" (p. 22). Lord Baltimore testified before the House 
of Lords, March 4, 1647, that "he hath engaged the greatest 
part of his fortune" in Maryland. (Archives, in, p. 180.) 
Chalmers says: "The transportation and the necessary stores 
and provisions, during the first two years, cost that nobleman 
(Lord Baltimore) upwards of forty thousand pounds; which, 
if estimated according to the then value of money, and the 
price of all things, must be allowed to have been a considerable 
sum. The freemen of the Province thought so. For, even 
during the young and poor estate of the colony, they granted 
a subsidy of 15 pounds of tobacco on every poll as a testi 
mony of their gratitude for his great charge and solicitude 
in maintaining the government in protecting the inhabitants in 
their rights, for reimbursing his vast charge. " (Annals, I, 
p. 208.) Morris (p. 31) says: "The expenses of the colony 
cost his Lordship, from time to time, 40,000." Browne also 


The interesting details of this voyage are given 
by Father White, who, together with Father Altham 
and Brother Gervase, were the first missionaries to 
Maryland. 1 

(p. 21 ) says the cost to Cecilius was 40,000. McMahon (p. 196) 
says : "The colony, which was thus established, was supplied for 
its establishment, by the kind providence of the proprietary, not 
only with all the necessaries, but even with many of the con 
veniences adapted to an infant settlement. Although many of 
the first emigrants were gentlemen of fortune, he did not, there 
fore, throw the colony on its resources, and leave it dependent 
for its subsistence upon the casual supplies of an unreclaimed 
country, and a savage people. At the embarkation of the colony, 
it was provided, at his expense, with store of provisions and 
clothing, implements of husbandry, and the means of erecting 
habitations ; and for the first two or three years after its estab 
lishment, he spared no expense which was necessary to promote 
its interests. It appears not only from the petition preferred in 
1715 to the English parliament, by Charles, Lord Baltimore, 
but also from the concurring testimony of all the historians who 
treat of the settlement of this colony, that during the first two 
or three years of its establishment, Cecilius, the proprietary, 
expended upon it upwards of 40,000 sterling." 

"There were several persons who had formed a partnership 
in trading furs with the Indians, and who contributed supplies of 
truck for that purpose." (Calvert Papers, in, p. 24.) And 
on October 15, 1633, Cecill Calvert deeded one-eighth interest of 
the Dove to his brother Leonard. (Calvert Papers, in, p. 15. ) 

Sir Kichard Lechford invested 50 8s. and 6d. with Leonard 
Calvert. But it must be returned to Sir Richard in case the 
vessel does not sail, prevented by the king or the courts. 
(Calvert Papers, m, p. 17.) 

1 Calvert Papers, in, p. 50. Father Andrew White (alias 
Thomas White, Calvert Papers, I, p. 201) was born in London in 
1579. After studying at Valladolid and Seville he was ordained 
a priest. In 1605, as an earnest, self-sacrificing secular priest, 
he was in England engaged in missionary work when the storm 



" On the 22nd of the mouth of November/ says 
Father White, "in the year 1633, being St. Cecilia s 
day (Friday), we set sail from Cowes from the Isle 
of Wight . . . after committing the principal parts 
of the ship to the protection of God especially, and 
of his most Holy Mother and St. Ignatius, and all 
the Guardian Angels of Maryland." 

They arrived at length (February 27th), off the 
coast of Virginia. "At this time Captain Claiborne 
was there," says the writer, "from whom we under 
stood the Indians were all in arms to resist us, 
having heard that six Spanish ships were coming 
to destroy them all, the rumor was most like to 
have begun from himself." : 

"At our first arrival," says Leonard Calvert, in a 
letter written May 30, 1634, "the Indians, being 
astonished at the sight of so great a Cannow (as 
they termed it), and at the number of people, they 

occasioned by the Gunpowder Plot compelled him to leave. He 
entered the Society of Jesus at the age of twenty-six. From 
1619 to 1629 he was employed in many offices in the Society of 
Jesus. He was professor of Theology and of Scripture, and 
occasionally made a missionary trip to England, until in 1629 he 
asked to be sent to Maryland. (Hughes, pp. 168-174.) It was 
he who wrote the Declaratio, corrected by Lord Baltimore and 
sent out over the latter s name, setting forth the purposes of 
Lord Baltimore in founding the colony, the advantages of Mary 
land, etc. (Calvert Papers, I, p. 209.) It was he who, in all 
probability, wrote the Rdatio Itineris in Marylandiam in Latin, 
and the English version was very likely from his pen also. 
(Calvert Papers, ill, p. 8. } 

1 Relation, p. 10 et seq. 

2 Calvert Papers, ill, p. 38 ; English Relation. 


imagined those to be, which were, as it were, 
heaped upon the decks, they raised all the nations 
throughout the river, making first from town to 
town, by which they made a general alarm, as 
if they intended to summon all the Indians of 
America against us ; this happened more by the ill 
report our enemies of Virginia had prepossessed 
them withall of our coming to their country with 
intention to destroy them all, and take from them 
their country, than by any real injuries they had 
received from us." 1 

After remaining there eight or nine days they 
sailed up the Potomac. "The first land we came 
to we called St. Clement s Island," says Father 
White. 2 Here the Pilgrims of Maryland first 

1 Calvert Papers, in, p. 20. 

2 Relation, p. 32. J. W. Thomas, in Chronicles of Maryland, 
pp. 12 et seq., says : "It is singularly unfortunate that historians 
have fallen into the grave error of asserting that the island of 
St. Clement s, thus consecrated as the landing place of the Pil 
grims of Maryland, has long since yielded to the ravages of the 
surf, and has almost disappeared, an error resulting apparently 
from a misapprehension of the location of the island, and the 
assumption that it was the same as Heron Island nearby. They 
(Heron Island and St. Clement s) are not one and the same. A 
map of that time, and one also of later date (Map in Kelation 
of Maryland, 1635 ; Maps of 1670, Shea, i, p. 45), as well as the 
early land grants of the land nearest these Islands ( Patents to 
William Britton for Little Britton, and to Thomas Gerrard for 
St. Clement s Manor, 1639, in Land Office, Annapolis), not only 
confirm this as to the separate identity of the two, but show that 
their relative position, at that day, was the same that the rem 
nant of Heron Island bears to-day to the undiminished propor 
tions of St. Clement s Island. In name only has it changed. 


landed. Father White continues: " On the day of 
the Annunciation of the most Holy Virgin Mary, in 
the year 1634, we celebrated Mass for the first time 
on the Island. This had never been done before in 
this part of the world. After we had completed the 
Sacrifice we took on our shoulders a great Cross, 
which we had hewn out of a tree, and advancing 
in order to the appointed place, with the assistance 
of the Governor and his associates, and the other 
Catholics, we erected a trophy to Christ the Saviour, 
humbly reciting, on our bended knees, the lita 
nies of the Holy Cross with great emotion." 

" When the Governor had understood that many 
princes were subject to the Emperor of Pisca- 
tawaye, he determined to visit him, in order that, 
after explaining the reason of our voyage, and 
gaining his good will, he might secure an easier 
access to the others. . . . Accordingly he sailed 
round and landed on the other side of the river. 
When he had learned that the Savages had fled 
inland, he went on to a city which takes its name 
from the river, being also called Potomeack. Here 
the young king s uncle, named Archihu, was his 
guardian, and took his place in the kingdom ; a sober 

The first grant of St. Clement s Island was to Dr. Thomas 
Gerrard in 1639, when it was included in the grant of St. 
Clement s Manor. From him, through intermarriage of his 
daughter Elizabeth with Colonel Blackiston, it passed to the 
Blackistons, and from long possession in them, it came to be 
called Blackiston s Island, the name it bears to-day." 
l Relatio, pp. 32-33. 


and discreet man. He willingly listened to Father 
Altham (alias John Gravenor), who had been selected 
to accompany the Governor. When the Father ex 
plained, as far as he could through the interpreter, 
Henry Fleet, the errors of the heathen, he would, 
every little while, acknowledge his own ; and when 
he was informed that we had come thither, not to 
make war, but out of good will towards them, in 
order to impart civilized instruction to his ignorant 
race, and show them the way to heaven, and at the 
same time with the intention of communicating to 
them the advantages of distant countries, he gave us 
to understand that he was pleased at our coming. 
As the Father could not stop for further discourse at 
the time, he promised that he would return before 
very long. That is just what I wish/ said Archihu, 
we will eat at the same table ; my followers too 
shall go to hunt for you, and we will have all things 
in common. 7 r 

" They went on from this place to Piscatawaye, 
where all the inhabitants flew to arms. About five 
hundred, equipped with bows, had stationed them- 

1 Capt. Fleet, the Protestant interpreter, it seems was a rival 
of Claiborne in the trade with the Indians, and finding that 
Claiborne and Baltimore were at variance, he loved the Mary- 
landers for the enemy they had made. (Latane, J. H. U. Series 
13, iv-v, p. 16. ) He seems to have been well known in Virginia 
for an unscrupulous character. (Archives, v, 167.) Father 
White probably referred to this, when he says in the Rdatio, 
"we do not put much confidence in the protestant interpreters." 
(Relatio, p. 41.) 


selves on the shore with their Emperor. But after 
signals of peace were made, the Emperor, laying 
aside all apprehension, came on board the pinnace, 
and when he heard of onr friendly disposition 
towards those nations, he gave ns permission to 
dwell wherever we pleased in his dominions. 7 

For many reasons the Governor did not consider 
it advisable to make his first settlement at a point 
so high up the river. It was not well placed for 
strategic purposes should the Indians ever prove 
unfriendly, leaving no way open for retreat in case 
an onslaught were made by them ; therefore, he 
sailed back, down the Potomac, until, on the north 
side near its mouth, he reached one of its tribu 
taries, and sailing up this river, about twelve miles, 
they finally came to the town of the Yaocomicoes. 
After a friendly treaty with the Indians, and pay 
ment made for the land, the savages agreed to allow 
the Englishmen possession of half of the village, 
until after the harvest, when they would remove 
altogether, giving the new-comers entire possession. 
The settlers and the savages then promised each 
other to live in peace and concord, and thus, with a 
solemn covenant of faith to be kept, and mutual 
assistance rendered, was founded upon justice, peace 
and charity, the little town of St. Mary s. 2 

l Eelatio, p. 34. 

2 The left side of the river, t, e. , the eastern bank of St. 
Mary s Kiver, which flows from the north, was the abode of 
King Yaocomico." "We landed on the right-hand side, and 
going in about a mile from the shore, we laid out the plan of a 


" To avoid every appearance of injustice, and afford 
no opportunity for hostility/ adds Father White, " we 
bought from the king thirty miles of that land, deliver 
ing in exchange axes, hatchets, rakes, and several yards 
of cloth. This district is already named Augusta 
Carolina." " It made them more Avilling to enter 
tain us, for they had wars with the Sasquahanuockes, 
who came sometimes upon them, and waste and spoil 
them and their country, for thus they hope by our 
means to be safe." 2 

"Thus," says Bancroft, "the Catholics took pos 
session of the little place, and religious liberty 
obtained a home its only home in the wide world 
at the humble village, which bore the name of St. 
Mary s. Such were the beautiful auspices under 
which the province of Maryland started into being; 

city, naming it after St. Mary." ( u On the right-hand side of the 
Bay of St. Ignatius, leaving the ship there until they went, 
either on foot or in the pinnace, and found a place for a perma 
nent settlement, and this, indeed, they found about a mile from 
the left bank of St. Mary s River. Perhaps, near the promon 
tory, called Chancelor point." Editor s Note. ) (Relatio, p. 36.) 

l lt is now called St. Mary s County ; Relatio, p. 36. 

z Galvert Papers, in, p. 41, English Relation. 

"Calvert purchased the rights of the aborigines for a con 
sideration which seems to have given them satisfaction ; and, 
with their free consent, in the subsequent March, he took 
possession of their town, which he called St. Mary s." 
(Chalmers, p. 207.) 

"His first act was one of justice and humanity towards the 
aborigines, which presents a striking contrast to the first estab 
lishment of the other colonies. He purchased the town from 
the Indians, and established his colony within it by their con 
sent. . . ." (McMahon, vol. i, p. 195.) 


its prosperity and peace seemed assured ; the interests 
of its people and its Proprietary were united ; and 
for some years its internal peace and prosperity were 
undisturbed. Its history is the history of benevo 
lence, gratitude and toleration/ 1 

The story of the tranquillity of early Maryland, 
however, is inseparable from the history of the 
labors of the Jesuit missionaries. If the infant 
colony, instead of being the theatre of outraged 
justice, treachery and bloodshed, with all the attend 
ing horrors of a war between the two races, was a 
tranquil, peaceful settlement, it was due, in no small 
degree, to those first heroic priests and their influ 
ence upon the natives an influence beneficent in its 
operations, and so wonderful in its attainments that, in 
contemplating the results, one may well marvel and 
exclaim : " There were giants in those days." 

" Surely this is like a miracle/ 7 writes Father 
White, "that barbarous men, a few days before 
arrayed in arms against us should so willingly sur 
render themselves to us like lambs, and deliver up 
to us themselves and their property. The finger of 
God is in this and He purposes some great benefit to 
this nation. " 2 

" It was an event," says McMahon, " worthy 
of celebration, and the manner of its celebration 
attests most forcibly the liberal and humane policy 
observed by the colonists of Maryland in their 
earliest intercourse with the natives. The 

1 Bancroft, 10th ed., i, pp. 247, 248. 

2 Relation, p. 37. 


artless, untutored savage, had not yet learned to 
dread the approaches of civilization as the pre 
cursors of his expulsion from the home of his 
forefathers. He saw in the colonists only a gentle 
and conciliating people without the power or will 
to injure, and gifted with all that could excite 
his wonder or tempt his desires ; and, in the ful 
ness of his joy, he hailed their coming as the work 
of the Great Spirit in kindness to himself. To the 
feeble emigrants it was an occasion of joy more 
rational and profound. Preferring all privations 
to the privation of the liberty of conscience, they 
had forsaken the endearments of their native land 
to cast themselves, in reliance on divine protection, 
upon all the perils of an unknown country, inhabited 
by a savage people. They came prepared for the 
worst ; and fancy lent all its illusions to heighten 
the dangers of the adventure. But the God whom 
they had trusted was with them ; and He, in whose 
hands are all hearts, seems to have moulded the 
savage nature into kindness and courtesy for their 
coming. They came, they who were retreating 
from the persecution of their Christian brethren, 
to be welcomed by the confidence and affection of 
the savage ; and their peaceful and secure establish 
ment, in the wilderness, was enough to have called 
forth grateful aspirations from the coldest heart, and 
to have put into every mouth the song of joy." l 

" Every nation," continues the same author, " has 
had its festivals, to recall in pride the recollections 

1 McMahon, p. 197. 


of its history, and to fashion and sustain the spirit 
and character of its people, by the example of their 
ancestors. Yet, where shall we find, in the history 
of any people, an occasion more worthy of com 
memoration, than that of the landing of the colony 
of Maryland ? It is identified with the origin of a 
free and happy state. It exhibits to us the founda 
tions of our government, laid broad and deep in the 
principles of civil and religious liberty. It points 
us with pride to the founders of this State, as men, 
who, for the secure enjoyment of their liberties, 
exchanged the pleasures of affluence, the society of 
friends, and all the endearments of civilized life, for 
the privations and dangers of the wilderness. In 
an age, when perfidy and barbarity but too often 
marked the advances of civilization upon the savage, 
it exhibits them to us, displaying in their inter 
course with the natives, all the kindnesses of human 
nature, and the charities of their religion. Thus, 
characterizing this colony as one established under 
the purest principles, and by the noblest feelings 
which can animate the human heart, it presents to 
us, in its after-history, a people true to the princi 
ples of their origin. At a period when religious 
bigotry and intolerance seemed to be the badges of 
every Christian sect ; and those who had dwelt 
under their oppressions, instead of learning toler 
ance by their experience, had but imbibed the spirit 
of their oppressors ; and when the howlings of 
religious persecution were heard everywhere around 
them, the Catholic and Protestant of Maryland were 


seen mingling in harmony, in the discharge of all 
their public and private duties, under a free govern 
ment, which assured the rights of conscience to all. 
"The landing of the Pilgrims of New England has 
been the burden of many a story, and the theme of 
many an oration. The very Rock on which their 
feet were first planted, is consecrated in the esti 
mation of their descendants ; and its relics are 
enshrined as objects of holy regard. They were 
freemen in search of freedom. They found it, and 
transmitted it to their posterity. It becomes us, 
therefore, to tread lightly upon their ashes. Yet, 
whilst we would avoid all invidious contrasts, and 
forget the stern spirit of the Puritan, which so 
frequently mistook religious intolerance for holy 
zeal, we can turn with exultation to the Pilgrims 
of Maryland, as the founders of religious liberty in 
the new world. They erected the first altar to it 
on this continent ; and the fires first kindled on 
it ascended to heaven amid the blessings of the 
savage. Should the memory of such a people pass 
away from their descendants as an idle dream?" l 

1 McMahon, p. 197, note. 

John V. L. McMahon was born in Cumberland, Md., in 1800, 
of Irish Presbyterian parentage. He began the practice of law, 
which he abandoned for a while, to study for the Presbyterian 
ministry. Returning to the law again he attained great emi 
nence, was a member of the legislature, and identified with the 
highest business and professional interests of Baltimore. His 
Historical View of the Government of Maryland is a work exhibit 
ing wonderful research, deep learning, and all those scholarly 
attainments for which he was renowned. 


The Fathers gained the confidence of the Indians, 
learning by degrees their language, living their life 
in forest and wigwam. " Having/ they wrote, 
" frugal and scant fare and decent clothing, with this 
we are content/ 7 1 Ardent, self-immolating, no 
suffering was so intolerable as to appall their patient 
fortitude and fearless endurance, no difficulty was 
ever so great as to daunt their splendid courage. 
Civilizing the natives through the benevolent doc 
trines of Christianity, a consoling harvest of souls 
rewarded their untiring toil and burning zeal, the 
Emperor himself being one of the first fruits of their 
apostolic labors. They stood as mediators between 
their spiritual wards, the newly baptized natives, 
and the English colonists of Maryland ; and the 
Indians implicit confidence, their unswerving faith 
in the missionary Fathers, begot a trust in the 
strange white men, the priests 7 companions, who had 
so suddenly appeared amongst them from over-seas. 

The first chapel in Maryland was an Indian hut 
built in a " half oval form 20 feet long and 9 or 10 
feet high, with a place in the top half a yard square 
where they admit the light and let forth the smoke. 7 2 

1 Calvert Papers, m, p. 52. 2 Calvert Papers, iu, p. 43. 

6 85 


"The Indians," said Father White, "are of a 
frank and cheerful disposition, and understand any 
matter correctly when it is stated to them ; they 
have a keen sense of taste and smell, and in sight 
too, they surpass the Europeans. They live, for the 
most part, on a kind of paste, which they call Pone 
and Omini, both of which are made of Indian corn ; 
and sometimes they add fish, or what they have pro 
cured by hunting and fowling. They are especially 
careful to refrain from wine and warm drinks, and 
are not easily persuaded to taste them, except some 
whom the English have corrupted with their own 
vices. With respect to chastity, I confess that I have 
not yet observed, in man or woman, any act which 
even savored of levity, yet they are daily with us and 
among us, and take pleasure in our society. They 
run to us of their own accord, with a cheerful 
expression on their faces, and offer us w r hat they 
have taken in hunting or fishing ; sometimes also 
they bring us food, and oysters boiled or roasted, .... 
and this they do, when invited in a few words of 
their own language, which we have hitherto contrived 
to learn by means of signs. They marry several 
wives, yet they keep inviolate their conjugal faith. 
The women present a sober and modest appearance. 

" They cherish generous feelings towards all, and 
make a return for whatever kindness you may have 
shown them. They resolve upon nothing rashly, or 
while influenced by a sudden impulse of the mind, 
but they act deliberately; therefore, when anything 


of importance is proposed at any time, they think it 
over for a while in silence; then they speak briefly 
for or against it : they are very tenacious of their 
purpose. Surely these men, if they are once imbued 
with Christian precepts, (and there seems to be noth 
ing to oppose this, except our ignorance of the 
language spoken in these parts), will become eminent 
observers of virtue and humanity. They are pos 
sessed with a wonderful longing for civilized inter 
course with us, and for European garments. And 
they would long ago have worn clothing, if they had 
not been prevented by the avarice of the merchants, 
who do not exchange their cloth for anything but 
beavers. But every one cannot get a beaver by 
hunting. God forbid that we should imitate the 
avarice of these men ! 

" They acknowledge one God of Heaven, yet they 
pay him no outward worship. But they strive in 
every way to appease a certain imaginary spirit, 
which they call Ochre, that he may not hurt them. 
They worship corn and fire, as I hear, as Gods that 
are very bountiful to the human race. Some of our 
party report that they saw the following ceremony 
in the temple at Barchuxem. 1 On an appointed 
day, all the men and women of every age, from 
several districts, gathered together around a large 
fire ; the younger ones stood nearest the fire, behind 
these stood those who were older. Then they threw 

1 Barchnxem, /. e., Patuxent. Calvert Papers, in, p. 12. 


deer s fat on the fire, and lifting their hands to 
heaven, and raising their voices, they cried out Yaho ! 
Yalio ! Then making room, some one brings for 
ward quite a large bag : in the bag is a pipe and a 
powder which they call Pota. The pipe is such a 
one as is used among us for smoking tobacco, but 
much larger; then the bag is carried round the fire, 
and the boys and girls follow it, singing alternately, 
with tolerably pleasant voices, Yaho! Yaho! Hav 
ing completed the circuit, the pipe is taken out of 
the bag, and the powder called Potu is distributed to 
each one, as they stand near ; this is lighted in the 
pipe, and each one, drawing smoke from the pipe, 
blows it over the several members of his body, and 
consecrates them. They were not allowed to learn 
anything more, except that they seem to have had 
some knowledge of the Flood, by which the world 
was destroyed, on account of the wickedness of 
mankind." l 

The succeeding years present to us a picture of 
untiring zeal on the part of the missionaries, and 
of marvellous appreciation on the part of the Indians. 
In 1639 we find Father John Brock the Superior 
at Mattapany, Father Philip Fisher (alias Copley) 
at St. Mary s, Father Altham (alias Gravenor) at 
Kent Island, and Father Andrew White at Kittania- 
quindi ; the capital of the Piscataway Indians. Here 
Father White lived with the Tayac or Emperor of 

l Rdatio, pp. 39-42. 


the tribe who had become much attached to the good 
missionary. While the Tayac was under instruc 
tions,, he lent his good offices in converting an Indian 
who was condemned to be hanged for murdering one 
of the English. "When the murderer/ says the 
Annalist of 1639, "came to the place of execution, 
he inquired, with cheerful countenance, if anything 
was to be observed by him on his departure ; and 
when answer was given, that by piously taking the 
holy names of the blessed Jesus and Mary, he would 
propitiate them in his last conflict, he cheerfully 
obeyed those who advised him, and piously breathed 
his last. When dead, he was buried in our ceme 
tery, in the most solemn manner, that even from 
this, the barbarians might understand, that, although 
execrating the crimes of malefactors, Christians may 
avenge them by merited punishment, nevertheless 
they hold their souls dear, and are easily reconciled 
to them, if they repent. And surely an example of 
clemency and charity to the deceased, struck them 
so much the more forcibly, the more it differed from 
their customs who indeed are accustomed to serve 
up their enemies slain, in the most cruel manner, to- 
be feasted on by their friends." * So impressed was 
the Tayac that he insisted upon being baptized. He 
put away his many wives and lived content with one. 
He abstained from meat on the days when it 
was forbidden by the Christian laws. " He is 

l Fund Pub., No. 7, pp. 69-71. 


greatly delighted with spiritual conversation/ 7 says 
the Annalist "and indeed seems to esteem earthly 
wealth as nothing, in comparison with heavenly, as 
he told the Governor, who was explaining to him 
what great advantages from the English could be 
enjoyed by a mutual exchange of wares. Verily, I 
consider these trifling when compared with this one 
advantage that through these, as authors, I have 
arrived at the true knowledge of the one God ; than 
which there is nothing greater to me among you. or 
which ought to be greater. So not long since, when 
he held a convention of the empire, in a crowded 
assembly of the chiefs and a circle of the common 
people, Father White and some of the English being 
present, he publicly attested it was his advice, 
together with that of his wife and children, that the 
superstition of the country being abjured, to give 
their names to Christ ; for that no other true deity 
is anywhere else had, other than among the Christians, 
nor otherwise can the immortal soul of man be saved 
from death but that stones and herbs, to which, 
through blindness of mind, he and they had hitherto 
given divine honors, are the humblest things created 
by the Almighty God for the use and relief of human 
life. Which being spoken, he cast from him a stone 
which he held in his hand, aucl spurned it with his 
foot. A murmur of applause from the people suffi 
ciently indicated that they did not hear these things 
with unfavorable ears. But the greatest hope is, 
that when the family of the king is purified by 


baptism, the conversion of the whole empire will 
speedily take place." 1 

The following year the Tayac in a solemn manner 
received the Sacrament of Baptism "in a little chapel, 
which, for that purpose and for divine worship, he had 
erected out of bark, after the manner of the Indians. 
At the same time the queen, with an infant at the 
breast, and others of the principal men, whom he 
especially admitted to his counsels, together with his 
little son, were regenerated in the baptismal font. To 
the emperor, who was called Chitomachen before, was 
given the name of Charles ; to his wife that of Mary. 
The others, in receiving the Christian faith, had 
Christian names allotted to them. The governor was 
present at the ceremony, together with his secretary, 
and many others ; nor was anything wanting in 
display which our means could supply. 

" In the afternoon, the king and the queen w r ere 
united in matrimony in the Christian manner ; then 
the great holy cross was erected, in carrying which 
to its destined place the king, governor, secretary,, 
and others, lent their shoulders and hands ; two of 
us in the meantime chanting before them the litany 
in honor of the Blessed Virgin." 2 

The King of the Anacostaus also desired to come 
and live with the colonists, and other settlements 
were manifesting a strong leaning towards Christi 
anity. The pious missionaries only regret was that 

1 /&/., p. 68. *Belatio, p. 75. 


they could not multiply themselves to meet all the 
demands made upon them. 1 

"During the era of Roman Catholic toleration," 
says Davis, "the original tenant of the forest 
lived almost side by side and often upon terms 
of the best amity, with our colonial forefathers." 2 
"One of the most respectable features of the pro 
prietary s administration/ 7 says Grahame, " was the 
constant regard that was shown to justice, and to 
the exercise and cultivation of benevolence, in all 
transactions and intercourse with the Indians." 3 

Such were the relations between the Indians and 
the colonists that on one occasion a chief " it is said 
when he took his leave, made this remarkable speech 
to the governor : i I love the English so well, that if 
they should go about to kill me, if I had so much 
breath as to speak I would command the people not 
to revenge my death, for I know that they would 
not do such a thing except it were my own fault. 7 " 4 

l lbid., p. 76. * Day Star, p. 106. 

3 Grahame, n, p. 53; Kent s Commentaries, in, p. 523. 

4 "The first tiling that Mr. Calvert (the Governor) did was 
to fix a court of guard and erect a store-house ; and he had not 
been there many days before Sir John Elervey, Governor- of 
Virginia, came thither to visit him, as did several Indian 
wances, and many other Indians from several parts of the 
continent. Amongst other Indians came the king of Patuxent, 
etc. After the first store-house was finished, and the ship un 
laden, Mr. Calvert ordered the colors brought on shore, which 
was done with great solemnity, and the gentleman and their 
servants attending in arms ; several volleys of shot were fired 
on shipboard and ashore, as also the cannon, with which the 
natives were struck with admiration. The kings of Patuxent 


" The natives went every day to hunt with the 
new-comers ? for deer and turkeys, which, when 
they had caught, being more expert at it, they either 
gave to the English or sold for knives, beads and 
such trifles. They also supplied them with fish in 
plenty. As a certain mark of their entire confidence, 
which these unsuspecting people placed in the colo 
nists, their women and children became in some 
measure domesticated in the English families." 

A notable instance of this is that the young 
Indian Princess, Mary, daughter of the Emperor 
Kittamaquund, lived with Mistress Brent, as her 
ward and adopted daughter, and it is interesting to 
read how her interests were jealously guarded, as 
well as valiantly defended by her protector. 2 

Thus, " while the colonist of New England ploughed 
his field with his musket on his back, or was aroused 
from his slumber by the hideous war-whoop to find 
his dwelling in flames, the settler of St. Mary s 

and Wicomoco were present at this ceremony, with many other 
Indians of Yaocomico ; and the Werowance of Patuxent took 
that occasion to advise the Indians of Yaocomico to be careful 
to keep the league they had made with the English. He stayed 
in the town several days, and when he went away he made this 
speech to the Governor : I love the English so well that if they 
should go about to kill me, if I had so much breath as to speak, 
I would command the people not to revenge my death ; for I 
know that they would not do such a thing, except it were through 
my own fault. " A Relation of Maryland, Hawks Reprint of 
London Edition, 1635, pp. 11 and 12.) 

1 Bozman, n, p. 31. John Leeds Bozman was an Episcopalian. 

* Archives, iv, pp. 259-265, 270-271. 


accompanied the red warrior to the chase and learned 
his art of woodcraft ; and the Indian, coming to 
the settlement with wild turkey or venison, found 
a friendly reception and an honest market ; and if 
belated, wrapped himself in his mantle of skins and 
lay down to sleep by the white man s fireside, 
unsuspecting and unsuspected." 1 

In 1642 we find Father Roger Rigbie laboring 
among the Indians of the Patuxent. While Father 
White, the Annalist tells us, received into the 
Church the chiefs and the people of Port Tobacco, 
" which town, he says, as it is situated on the River 
Pamac, the inhabitants call it Pamake." This year 
the writer records also the baptism of the young 
Empress, the ward of Mistress Brent, at St. Mary s, 
where she was being educated. 2 

About this time the Susquehanna Indians, a war 
like and predatory tribe, made their presence felt in 
the neighborhood by slaying some of the friendly 
Piscataways, and they had even made an attack on 
one of the mission stations. In consequence, it was 
judged advisable for the Fathers not to remain far 
away from the white settlements, nor for a long 
while. Undismayed by the dangers and the obsta 
cles met with, the zealous Fathers made excursions 
in boats to the Indian settlements. 

" In our excursions we endeavor/ says the letter 
of 1642, "as much as we can, to reach by evening 

1 Scharf, i, chap. 3, p. 97. 
2 Fund Pub. , 7, pp. 80-82. 



some English house, or Indian village, but if not, 
we land, and to the Father falls the care of moor 
ing the boat fast to the shore, then of collecting 
wood and making a fire, while in the meantime 
the two others go to hunt so that, whatever 
they take may be prepared. But if not, having 
refreshed ourselves with our provisions, we lie 
down by the fire and take our rest. If fear of 
rain threatens, we erect our hut and cover it with a 
larger mat spread over ; nor, praise be to God, do 
we enjoy this humble fare and hard couch with 
a less joyful mind than more luxurious provisions 
in Europe ; with this present comfort that God now 
imparts to us a foretaste of what He is about to give 
to those who labor faithfully in this life, and miti 
gates all hardships with a degree of pleasantness, 
so that his divine Majesty appears to be present 
with us in an extraordinary manner." 

In the meantime the labors of the missionaries 
among the whites were rewarded with abundant 
fruits. 2 "Among the Protestants/ writes the Anna 
list in 1638, " nearly all who have come from 
England, in this year, and many others, have been 
converted to the faith, together with four servants, 
whom we purchased in Virginia (another colony 
of our kingdom) for necessary services, and five 
mechanics, whom we hired for a month, and have. 

1 Fund Pub., No. 7, p. 84. 
*Ibid., p. 56. 


in the meantime, won to God. 1 As for the Catho 
lics, the attendance on the Sacraments here is so 
large that it is not greater among the Europeans, 
in proportion to the number of Catholics. ... By 
the blessing of God, we have this consolation that no 
vices spring up among the new Catholics, although 
settlements of this kind are not usually supplied 
from the best class of men. 

"We bought off in Virginia two Catholics who 
had sold themselves into bondage, nor was the 
money ill-spent, for both showed themselves good 
Christians ; one, indeed, surpasses the ordinary 
standard. Some others have performed the same 
duty of charity, buying thence, Catholic servants, 
who are very numerous in that country. For every 
year very many sell themselves thither into bond 
age, and living among men of the worst example, 
and, being destitute of all spiritual aid, they generally 
make shipwreck of their souls. 

The Catholics who live in the colony, are not 
inferior in piety to those who live in other countries; 
but, in urbanity of manners, according to the judg 
ment of those who visited the other colonies, are 
considered far superior to them." 2 

" The Protestants of St. Mary s seem to have enjoyed, without 
restriction, the privilege of a chapel, though it does not appear 
that they were supplied, for some time, with an ordained clergy 
man." (Streeter, p. 232. ) Until a clergyman came, they seem 
to have had such parts of the service as a layman could perform 
2 Fund Pub., No. 7, pp. 60-77. 


Thus did Maryland enjoy a peace unequalled by 
any other colony. It must not be thought, how 
ever, that such a Utopian condition of affairs 
continued unbroken. Nevertheless it can be asserted, 
without fear of contradiction, that whenever religi 
ous liberty was denied, whenever the tranquility of 
the province was disturbed, it was in spite of the 
efforts and purpose of Cecilius, the Catholic Lord 

One of the earliest enemies of the colony was 
Captain William Claiborne. Claiming Kent Island 
as his possession, notwithstanding the charter of 
Lord Baltimore, he waged an incessant war against 
the Proprietary and his colony. Even after his 
claim had been denied by an impartial tribunal in 
England, he endeavored, by violence and intrigue, 
to unsettle the peace of Maryland. Claiborue is 
described by Hammond as "a pestilent enemy 
to the welfare of the province and the Lord Pro 
prietary, though he had formerly acknowledged 
submissively that he owed his forfeited life to the 
said Proprietor for dealing so favorably with his 
misdemeanors, as by his treacherous letters under 
his own hand, now is made manifest." 

The facts in the dispute show forth the forbear 
ance of Lord Baltimore, and his firmness when 
occasion called for it. A brief review of Claiborne s 
pretensions will not be out of place here. Clai- 

1 Leah and Rachel, p. 23. 


borne claimed Kent Island as his possession. Lord 
Baltimore denied the claim. The Court of King s 
Bench in 1624 had annulled the charter of Vir 
ginia, and by this act the king possessed an 
indubitable right to alter the boundaries of Vir 
ginia and to carve new territories out of it at 
pleasure. Claiborne obtained from the Council 
and Governor of Virginia, 1627, 1628, 1629, per 
mission to explore the Chesapeake. 1 Evidently they 
had no right to grant such a privilege, as their 
charter was annulled. Claiborne, recognizing this 
difficulty, procured another grant in 1631, " Freely 
to repair and trade to, and again in all the afore 
said parts and places," i. e., New England and Nova 
Scotia. 2 This he obtained through Sir William 
Alexander, the king s secretary of State for Scot 
land. It was signed by King Charles under the 
privy signet of Scotland, and gave Claiborne at 
most the right to trade, not to colonize. 

Now, it will be remembered, that Claiborne was 
one of those who had compelled the first Lord 
Baltimore to leave Virginia. 3 He afterwards opposed 
the grant to Lord Baltimore of land south of the 
James. 4 Notwithstanding this uncivil treatment of 
his father, after the Crown had granted Maryland to 
him, June 20, 1632, the second Lord Baltimore, in 
his letter of instructions to his brother Leonard, 
counselled him to use every means to conciliate 

} A, r.hires, v, pp. 159-163. 2 Archives, in, pp. 19-20. 

3 /6(W., p. 17. 4 Fiske, i, p. 265. 


Claiborne. 1 But Claiborne, who was an Episcopa 
lian/ could not overcome his dislike to " Jesuitical 
papists/ 7 and instead of coming to terms with the 
Proprietary in a straight-forward, manly spirit, had 
recourse to intrigue. 3 

In 1687 the dispute was submitted to the Com 
missioners of Plantations. At the head of this body 
was the Archbishop of Canterbury, who could not 
be accused of partiality to the Catholic Proprietary 
of Maryland. In the minutes of this Commission, 
which met April, 1G38, we read: " Whereupon all 
parties attending their lordships this day with 
their council learned, being fully heard, it appeared 
clearly to their lordships, and was confessed by the 
said Claiborne himself, that the Isle of Kent is 
within the bounds of Lord Baltimore s patent, and 
that the said Captain Claiborne s commission was 
only a license to trade with the Indians of America 
in such places where the said trade had not formerly 
been granted by his Majesty to any other ; which 
commission did not extend, nor give any warrant to 
the said Claiborne nor to any other, nor had they 
any right or title to the said Isle of Kent, or to 
plant or trade there, or in any other ports or places 
with the Indians, within the precincts of Lord 
Baltimore s patent." 4 

1 Calvert Papers, I, pp. 134-136. 

2 Davis, Day Star, p. 142. 

3 Steiner, J. H. U. Studies, 21st series, p. 401. 
4 Archives, m, p. 72. 


Dr. Browne, iu his preface to Council Proceedings, 
1667-1687, says: "These papers lighten iu some 
degree the darkness that covers the affairs of Kent 
Island before the reduction. It is more clear than 
ever that the" settlement there was no plantation, 
but simply a trading post established by a firm of 
London merchants and managed in their interest. 
They had no grant of land, but merely a license to 
trade ; nor did the settlers raise their supplies, but 
depended for these upon traffic. We also see that 
Claiborne was not dispossessed by Lord Baltimore, 
but by his own partners or employers, whose agent 
took possession in their name of the buildings, 
goods and servants, by quiet and unresisted legal 
process. To the laud, of course, this agent made 
no claim, as neither Claiborne nor his partners 
pretended any patent ; but, after seeing the Mary 
land charter they acknowledged the jurisdiction of 

Claiborne had "neither a patent for land nor a 
grant of trade in Virginia," declares Steiner, 1 "nor 
a grant of jurisdiction." 

But Claiborne nevertheless continued the struggle. 
Through the influence of his friends at Court, he 
obtained a letter to Baltimore from the king, com 
manding the Proprietary to permit the inhabitants 
of Kent Island to live in peace. The letter was 
unnecessary, as the people of Kent Island had sub- 

1 J. H. U. Studies, 21st series, p. 363. Cfr. Chalmers Annals, 
p. 228. 


mitted to Lord Baltimore s government six months 

"He was unsuccessful," says McMahon, "in his 
attacks upon the claims of Lord Baltimore ; and 
now that force, and fraud, and complaint had all 
failed in effecting his purposes, there remained to 
him but the spirit of deadly animosity toward the 
colony, waiting only the opportunity of revenge." 

1 P. 200. Archives, in, pp. 32, 65, 71, 78-79 ; Steiner, Beginnings 
of Maryland, pp. 21-24, 40-65, 71-74, 81-90; Bozraan, ir, pp. 
32-36, 59-64, 69-76. J. B. Latane tries to justify Claiborne in 
J. H. U. Studies, 13th series, pp. 8-31. It is very probable that 
Claiborne has been wrongly accused of inciting the Indians, as 
Fleet testified. Cfr. Steiner, J". H. U. Studies, 21st series, pp. 
403-5; Calvert Papers, I, p. 142; Latane, ibid., p. 16; Streeter 
Papers, p. 127. 


In sending out his colony to Maryland, Lord 
Baltimore appointed his brother. Leonard Calvert, 
deputy-governor, with Jerome Hawley and Thomas 
Coruwaleys, commissioners and councillors. Gov 
ernor Leonard Calvert, the brother of the proprie 
tary, the leader of the first baud of settlers, was 
its guardian spirit during thirteen years. We read 
his character in the planting and the settling of the 
colony, and in the after-history of its struggles, 
trials and successes. Courageous, loyal, honorable 
and just, something of his father s calm and quiet, 
as well as of his indomitable will and steadfast 
spirit, seem to have been his heritage. He had two 
children, and his widow long survived him. She 
was still living in Maryland in 1673. 1 

Jerome Hawley, the first councillor, was a man 
of education and refinement. He was one of the 
original commissioners, and was afterwards made a 
councillor. After his appointment as treasurer of 
Virginia he still retained his place as councillor 
of Maryland. 2 He, too, was a Catholic. 3 

*See Steiner s Beginnings of Maryland, J. H. U. Studies, 21st 
series, note to p. 368. 

2 Streeter Papers, pp. 108-124; also Steiner s Beginnings of 
J\[anjland, note to p. 368. 

3 Calvert Papers, I, p. 180 ; Aspimvall Papers, I, p. 101, note. 



No man is more conspicuous in early Maryland 
history than the "Captain," as Cornwaleys was 
styled. " He seems to have been always, from 
the first settlement of the colony, considered its 
guardian genius. In debates of the Assembly he 
appears as a popular leader, and in all military 
expeditions he is confided in as the ablest com 
mander." 1 In the opinion of Neill " he was the 
best and wisest of the founders of Maryland." 1 
He was a man of sound common sense and un 
swerving justice. One of the original commissioners, 
or advisers of Leonard Calvert, he was made a 
councillor in 1637, when the government was 
reorganized. He is found at the head of all expe 
ditions to secure the colony against hostile Indians 
or to prevent the incursions of Claiborne. He 
was uncompromising in upholding the Proprietary s 
claims against Claiborne, yet he was just as un 
bending in maintaining the rights of the colonists 
when they conflicted with the claims of the Proprie 
tary, and he was throughout a staunch friend of the 
Jesuits in their disputes with Lord Baltimore. 
About January, 1640, he went to England, but in 
1642 we find him again in the Assembly of Mary 
land. Having assisted in the restoration of the colony 
to the Proprietary, after the Puritan rebellion, he left 

, n, p. 228. 

2 Neill, Founders of Maryland, p. 81 . Neill thought he was a 
Protestant. Streeter speaks of his name as being "a tower of 
strength." (Streeter, pp. 124-212.) 


Maryland in 1 659 for England, never again to return. 
"As the men of the past had reason to respect the man 
himself, so those of the present, on the recapitula 
tion of the deeds of his active and useful life .... 
will pay a tribute of honor to the name of Corn 
waleys." He enjoys the singular distinction of 
having been the trusted friend of the Proprietary, 
of the colonists, and of the missionaries ; and of 
being the only man in the colony who has been uni 
versally praised by Protestant and Catholic writers 
alike. The author of Religion under the Barons 
Baltimore 7 becomes rather interesting on the sub 
ject of Cornwaleys, assuming that the latter was 
a Protestant. 2 Had the writer read with less 
jaundiced eye the letter of Cornwaleys 3 to Lord 
Baltimore he might have suspected, even if he did 
not understand, the true state of the case, i. <?., 
Cornwaleys complains not against the Jesuits 7 policy, 
but is their champion against Lewger and his adher 
ents. Rev. Dr. Smith could not have put himself 
in a more amusing attitude, had he tried with all 
the ingenuity with which he endeavors to gloss over 
Anglican intolerance in Maryland. Cornwaleys was 
a Catholic, 4 a defender of the Jesuits, contending 
against the laws proposed by Lewger, and remind- 

Streeter, p. 212. Pp. 235, 244, 245, 247, 254, 267. 

3 Calvert Papers, pp. 169-181. 

4 Steiner, J. II. U. Studies, 21st series, p. 369, note; also 
Streeter Papers, p. 124. 


ing the proprietor that he might, by approving 
these laws, render himself censurable by the Church. 
Such was Coruwaleys view. It is true, that in 
this last instance he was mistaken, for when the 
question at issue was submitted to Rome, Lord 
Baltimore was upheld by the General of the Jesuits, 
whose subjects in Maryland were complaining against 
the Proprietary. Writing to Lord Baltimore Corn- 
waleys thus pleads the cause of the Fathers : " There 
fore, I beseech your Lordship, for his sake, for whose 
honor you and we do here pretend, and who at last 
must judge with what sincerity we have discharged 
it, that you, from whose consent they must receive 
the binding force of laws, will not permit the least 
clause to pass that shall not first be thoroughly 
scanned, and resolved by wise, learned and reli 
gious divines, to be no wise prejudicial to the 
immunities and privileges of that Church, which 
is the only true guide to all eternal happiness, of 
which we shall show ourselves the most ungrate 
ful members that ever she nourished, if, in requital 
of those many favors and blessings that she and 
her devout servants have obtained for us, we 
attempt to deprive her or them of more than 
we can give them, or take from them, without pay 
ing such a price as he that buys it will repent his 
bargain. What are her grievances, and how to be 
remedied, you will, I doubt not, understand at large 
from those who are more knowing in her rights, 


and consequently more sensible of her injuries, than 
such an ignorant creature as I am. ... I never yet 
heard of any that lost by being bountiful to God or 
His Church, then let not your Lordship fear to be 
the first. Give unto God what doth belong to him, 
and doubt not that Caesar shall receive his due." l 
Anyone who reads the letters of Cornwaleys, 
Father Copley and Father White w r ill readily see 
that all are pleading the same cause, i. e., a rejec 
tion of the laws passed by the Assembly which 
militated against the claims of the missionaries. 2 
But Dr. Smith assumes that Cornwaleys is a de 
fender of Protestantism, and interprets the letters, 
if he read them at all, to suit himself, with the 
result that he makes himself supremely amusing. 
With undismayed confidence he declares : " Such is 
the opposition taken by the foremost Protestant- 
Catholic in the colony. His letter is a temperate, 
but earnest protest against any breach of faith, on 
the part of the Proprietary, in matters connected 
either with religion or commerce, but especially 
against his allowing the Roman Catholic Church to 
profit by the mistakes of inexperienced legislators." 
The writer, therefore, speaks of Cornwaleys in terms 
of highest praise. 3 

1 Culvert Papers, I, pp. 171-172. 

2 Culvert Papers, I. 

3 Dr. Smith speaks good things, in spite of his intention to say 
the contrary. He resembles a certain prophet of old who was 
paid to curse Israel, but was providentially compelled to utter 


There is reason to believe that the majority of the 
settlers who embarked on this first venture were 
Catholics, but the fact is by no means settled. In 
Lord Baltimore s letter, to the Earl of Strafford, we 
read : " There are two of my brothers gone, with very 
nearly twenty other gentlemen of very good fashion, 
and three hundred laboring men well provided for 
in all things." L Before leaving Gravesend the 
vessel had been visited by Watkins, the " London 
Searcher/ who reported to the privy council, "I 
offered the oath of allegiance to all and every one 
of the persons aboard, to the number of about 
one hundred and twenty-eight, who took the same, 
and enquiring of the master of the ship whether 
any more persons were to go the said voyage, 
he answered that some few others were shipped 
who had forsaken the ship and given over their 
voyage by reason of the stay of the ship." But 
some of the colonists, together with the Jesuit 
Fathers, embarked at the Isle of Wight, after the 
vessel had been visited by Watkins. 3 It is likely 
that those, who thus embarked with the Jesuits, 
were Catholics, and if Lord Baltimore s assertion, 
that the colonists numbered about three hundred 

good things in spite of himself : " How shall I curse whom God 
hath not cursed" (Numbers, xxiu) ? It is refreshing afterwards 
to find him say : " In Maryland churchmen (Anglican) have been 
always singularly free from bigotry " (p. 240). 

1 Stm/ord s Letters and Despatches, vol. n, p. 179. 

2 Watkins Certificate, Pub. llecord Office, London. 
3 Scharf, I, p. 68. 


and twenty-two be true, the Catholics must have 
numbered about one hundred and ninety-four. 

It has been contended that only Protestants would 
take the oath, but this is not true. 1 In regard to 
this subject, Lingard writing of the condition of 
the Catholics in England at this time says : " The 
greater number, swayed by the authority of the 
new arch-priest (George Berkhead), and of the Jesuit 
missionaries, looked upon taking the oath as the 
denial of their religion ; but, on the other hand, 
many professing to be satisfied by the arguments 
of Blackwell (the former arch-priest) and his advo 
cates, took it cheerfully when it was offered." 2 
"This controversy/ 7 he adds, "continued to divide 
the Catholics for the greater part of the century. 
On the one hand the oath was refused by a majority 
of those to whom it was tendered ; on the other, 
it was taken by many of considerable weight, both 
among the clergy and the laity. Among the latter 
are to be mentioned the Catholic peers, who, with 
a single exception, spontaneously took the oath on 
different occasions in the Upper House of Parlia 
ment." As Leonard Calvert did not leave the 
ship he was numbered among the one hundred 
and twenty-eight who took the oath. It is certain, 
that there were other Catholics on board who fol- 

1 For oath, see Appendix D. 

2 Lingard, vn, p. 95. Blackwell afterwards died in prison for 
his faith. 

3 Lingard, vol. vn, p. 98. 


lowed his example. These, with the one hundred 
and ninety-four who embarked with the missionaries, 
and who were probably Catholics, would make the 
Catholics about two-thirds of all the first settlers. 
This conclusion, however, is contradicted by Father 
Henry More, in his Memorial to the Propaganda at 
Rome/ in which he says : " In leading the colony to 
Maryland, by far the greater part were heretics." 
We have seen above that the Jesuits and their 
adherents regarded "the taking of the oath as the 
denial of their religion." Did Father More number 
among the heretics those Catholics who took the 
oath ? This may be the explanation of this seeming 

It is more than likely, however, that there 
were not as many as three hundred on this first 
voyage. Lord Baltimore supposed, when he wrote 
to Wentworth, that three hundred had gone, but 
we know that, at the last moment, many gave 
over the voyage. 2 In the advertisement, styled a 
" Relation of Maryland," published in London in 
1635, it is said, " These (the governor and coun 
cillors), with the other gentlemen adventurers and 
their servants, to the number of nearly two hundred 
people, embarked themselves for the voyage." 

1 Stonyhurst MSS. , Anglia, iv, No. 108 K., quoted by Bradley 
Johnson, p. 79. 

2 Supra, p. 107. 

3 /i Relation of Maryland, 1635, republished by Hawks in 1865, 
p. 4. The editor in a note says of the first settlers, that they 
were " mostly members of the Church of Home." 



Lord Baltimore, in a Declaration before the 
Lords, made soon after the first settlement, says : 
" Having seated already above two hundred people 
there." According to Oldmixon, who wrote in 
1708, during Governor Seymour s administration, 
" the first colony that was sent to Maryland was in 
the year 1633, and consisted of about two hundred. 
The chief of these adventurers were gentlemen of 
good families and Roman Catholics." 2 In Chal 
mers we read: "The first emigration, consisting 
of about two hundred gentlemen of considerable 
fortune and rank, with their adherents, who were 
composed chiefly of Roman Catholics." 3 Grahame, 
a Scotchman and a Presbyterian, writes : " The first 
band of emigrants consisted of about two hundred 
gentlemen, of considerable fortune and rank, pro 
fessing the Roman Catholic faith, with a number 
of inferior adherents." 4 Governor Sharpe, in the 
year 1758, asserts, "that the people who first settled 
in this province were, for the most part, Roman 
Catholics, and that, though every sect was toler 
ated, a majority of the inhabitants continued papists 
until the revolution." 5 If, then, we suppose the 
number was only about two hundred and twenty- 
two, which is most probable, it is still likely 
that the majority were Catholics. For, among the 
one hundred and twenty-eight who took the "oath 

1 Culvert Papers, i, p. 228. > 7*/-iViV, Empire hi America, p. 184. 
!""" *, P- 207. *Hit. o/U. S.,u, p. 9. 

Annals, p. 207. * m 

5 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, n, p. 315. 


we must reckon the twenty-two gentlemen adven 
turers, nearly all of whom were Catholics. It is not 
improbable, moreover, that some of the redemp- 
tioners on board who took the oath were likewise 
Catholics. The others about ninety -five came 
aboard with the Jesuit Fathers, and we have every 
reason to suppose, that they were all Catholics. 
Thus, whether the original number of pilgrims was 
about two hundred and twenty-two or three hundred 
and twenty-two, there is good reason to believe that 
a majority were Catholics. The question, however, 
is still surrounded with much obscurity. 

While no positive assertion can be ventured, in 
regard to the religion of the majority of the first 
settlers, it is certain that by far the greater 
number of those who had a voice from the begin 
ning in the government of the province were 
Catholics. 1 This is an important fact to remember. 
By limiting the suffrage Lord Baltimore and the 
first Catholic settlers in Maryland had it in their 

1 Johnson says, p. 31 : "The physical power was Protestant ; the 
intellectual, moral and political control was Eoman Catholic." 

Cfr. Browne s George and Cecilius Calvert, p. 45;Cobb, p. 370. 

Petrie, p. 29, says: " Most of the prominent men during the 
early years were Roman Catholics." 

Hall, p. 37 ; Bozman, I, p. 26 ; McMahon, p. 184. 

In the dispute between the Upper and Lower Houses in 1758, 
the former quotes numerous obsolete authors, such as Bowen, 
Ogilby and Salmon, in proof of the fact that Maryland was 
settled by Catholics, and that Catholics were in authority during 
the early years of the colony s existence. ( Upper House Journal, 
MSS., 1755 to 1761,) 


power, by religious tests, to keep the control of the 
colony in their own hands. But persecution was 
foreign to the character of the Lords Baltimore, 
and their acts go to show that their natural inclina 
tions were to kindness, gentleness and conciliation. 
George Calvert, indeed, was instinctively a very liber 
al-minded man. He had no sympathy with the self- 
righteous, narrow-minded policy of the Puritans. 
Inclined by training to uphold monarchical principles, 
these tendencies were accentuated by his experience 
in public life with the lawless intolerance of these 
people. It has been explained how Catholic 
authorities regard religious liberty. 1 Advised by 
the best informed and most influential Catholics in 
England, it is not surprising that both George and 
Cecilius Calvert planned the government of Mary 
land according to these principles. One of the 
advisers of Lord Baltimore, having been consulted 
in regard to religious liberty, wrote : " Conversion 
in matters of religion, if it be forced, should give 
little satisfaction to a wise State .... for, those 
who for worldly respects will break their faith with 
God, will do it on a fit occasion with men." 2 This 
opinion of their spiritual superior resolved any 

1 See Chapter I, pp. 1-7. 

2 Johnson, pp. 23-24, appears to give credit to Father Blount 
for the authorship of the "Objections answered," as does also 
Cobh, p. 368. Some ascribe this production to Father White, 
but Hughes, p. 257, says " there is no intrinsic evidence of 
its being Father White s production," and thinks the author 


doubts of Baltimore and his associates, and as 
Johnson remarks, may be taken as a " proof that 
the charter of Maryland was then considered and 
treated as securing liberty of conscience to Roman 
Catholics ; and that the Society of Jesus undertook 
to further and extend the planting of the colony, 
with a full knowledge that the principle of tolera 
tion was to be adopted as one of the fundamental 
institutions of the province." 

The influence of this advice we can plainly detect 
in the Letter of Instructions of Cecilius, Lord Balti 
more, to his brother Leonard : " Instructions, 13th of 
November, directed by the Right Honorable Cecilius, 
Lord Baltimore, and Lord of the provinces of Mary- 
laud and Avalon, unto his well-beloved brother, 
Leonard Calvert, Esq., his Lordship s deputy-gov 
ernor of his Lordship s province of Maryland, and 
unto Jerome Hawley and Thomas Cornwaleys, 
Esqrs., his Lordship s commissioners for the govern 
ment of the said province. Imprimis: His Lordship 
requires his said governor and commissioners that, 
in their voyage to Maryland, they would be very 
careful to preserve unity and peace amongst all the 
passengers on shipboard, and that they suffer no 
scandal nor offence to be given to any of the Protes- 

1 Johnson, p. 30. 

u It has been proclaimed from the very beginning by the pro 
prietary that religious toleration should constitute one of the 
fundamental principles of the social union over which he pre 
sided." (Grahame, u, p. 21.) 


tants, whereby any just complaint may hereafter be 
made by them in Virginia or in England, and that 
they instruct all the Roman Catholics to be silent 
upon all occasions of discourse concerning matters of 
religion, and that the said governor and commis 
sioners treat the Protestants with as much mildness 
and favor as justice will permit. And this to be 
observed at laud as well as at sea. 71 This com 
mand of Lord Baltimore was faithfully obeyed by 
his colonists. It was the first law promulgated for 
Maryland, a law of religious liberty which remained 
in force until the colonists came together in Assembly 
to formulate their own laws. 2 

Attempts have been made to show that the policy 
of Maryland was the result of compelling circum 
stances, rather than of a truly liberal spirit. But 
the arguments adduced fail to prove the assertion. 
Lord Baltimore, it is true, had promised toleration 
to all his colonists before they embarked. 3 But in 
the first Assembly, whose Acts are preserved (1637- 
38), the freemen, nearly all, if not all, Catholics, 
overruled the charter rights of the Proprietary, which 
gave him the initiative in legislation, and they might 
have done the same in limiting the suffrage. On 
the question of religious toleration, the Catholic 
colonists of Maryland prove beyond doubt, by their 
enactments and conduct, that they were of one mind 
on this subject with the Proprietary. 

1 Culvert Papers, j, pp. 131-132. 

2 Cfr. Archives, v, pp. 267-268. ^Archives, v, p. 267. 


A comparison between Maryland and Massachu 
setts will show how little there is in the argument 
of those who, not being able to deny the fact of 
toleration in Maryland, endeavor to lessen its force 
by ungenerous supposition. Had Lord Baltimore 
adopted, in his colonizing of Maryland, the same 
mode of procedure carried out by the settlers of 
the Plymouth colony, had he and his adherents 
secretly left England, establishing themselves tem 
porarily in some friendly foreign country, and at 
length, under cover of a mercantile venture set sail 
for America, planting a province in the New World, 
it is impossible to prove that he could not have 
adopted the same intolerant policy as that pursued 
by the settlers of New England. 1 Massachusetts 
limited the right to vote and to legislate to a very 
small minority. In 1665 five-sixths of the people 
were found to be disfranchised on religious grounds. 
Writing of Massachusetts, a distinguished historian 
thus expresses his views : " The statute books of the 
Commonwealth, during this period (1638), groaned 
under the severity of laws against error, heresy and 
schism. Deaths, banishments, whippings, imprison 
ments and fines are scattered throughout the leaves, 
and meet the eye at every turn. And this was 

1 Cfr. Cobb, pp. 133-136, 148-149 ; Bozman, i, 200-213, Edition 
1811 ; Vide, Old Colony Hist. Coll, I, Pilgrims and Puritan^ I. 
N. Tarbox ; also The Pilgrim Republic, by John A. Goodwin ; 
History of Plymouth Plantation, by Gov. Bradford ; History of 
Plymouth, Gov. Bradford ; Journal of Plymouth Pilgrims, G. B. 


liberty of conscience." 1 . . . "I have exhibited these 
great principles of intolerance, which our ancestors 
recorded in their histories and enrolled among their 
laws, and regarded simply in a legal view, it is a 
startling fact that every execution was a murder ; 
every mutilation a maiming ; every whipping a 
battery; every fine an extortion ; every disfrauchise- 
meut an outrage ; and all were breaches of the 
charter. There were no laws in England for hang 
ing or mutilating, or flogging the king s subjects, 
because they did not profess the Puritan faith ; 
while, to disfranchise a member of the corporation 
for any cause unconnected with the objects for 
which the charter was given, was a clear violation 
of justice and authority. Unless, then, we lay aside 
abstract right and wrong, and disregard the nature 
of the charter, the liberty of the subject, and the 
supremacy of Parliament, the jurisdiction of the royal 
courts, the authority of the law, and the prerogatives 
of the king, we cannot consider the persecutions of 
the elders of Massachusetts merely as acts of intoler 
ance. They were, in any proper, legal sense, viola 
tions of, and crimes against, the laws of England. 
For the king did not bestow upon the grantees of 
the charter the power of removing from the kingdom 
his Moving subjects/ in order that they might 
deprive them of their ears, or their liberties, for 

1 Oliver, Puritan Commonwealth, p. 192. 


refusing to conform to a sectarian religion/ " * It 
would be difficult to prove that the Catholics of 
Maryland might not have adopted the same cruel 
policy. It is said that the Catholics dared not 
follow the example of the Puritans, for the Catho 
lics were in greater disfavor and weaker in England. 
Catholics were, indeed, persecuted in England, but 
so were the Puritans. That James had little love 
for the Puritans will appear from his address to 
the ministers, January 16, 1604: "If you aim 
at a Scottish Presbytery, it agreeth as well with 
monarchy as God with the devil." " On another 
occasion the king talked much Latin, and dis 
puted with Dr. Reynolds at Hampton ; but he 
rather used upbraidings than argument, and told 
the petitioners (Puritans) that they wanted to strip 
Christ, and bid them away with their snivellings. 
. . ." "The bishops," says a witness of the scene, 
" seemed much pleased, and said His Majesty spoke 
by the power of inspiration. I wist not what they 
mean, but the spirit was rather foul-mouthed." 3 
The king, on the presentation of a petition in their 
favor, spoke of them in terms of bitterness which 

Oliver, pp. 227-228. Cfr. " Kepresentation and Suffrage in 
Massachusetts," J. H. U. Studies, 12th series, by Geo. H. Haynes, 
Ph. D. ; "The Puritan Kepublic of Massachusetts Bay," by D. 
W. Howe; "The Puritan as a Colonist and Reformer," by E. 
H. Ryington; "Salem Witchcraft," by S. R, Wells; "Chroni 
cles," by Alex. Young. 

2 Lingard, vn, p. 28; Fuller, Church Hist., m, p. 210. 

3 Nugae Antiquae, I, 181, in Lingard, vn, p. 30. 


showed how little they had to expect from the good 
will of the monarch, saying that " Both he and his 
mother had been haunted by Puritan devils from 
their cradles, but he would hazard his very crown 
to suppress such malicious spirits, and not Puritans 
only, but also Papists." * If compelled to choose 
between the two, there can hardly be any doubt 
that James would have preferred the Catholics. 

Charles had no love for the Puritans, and much 
preferred the Catholics. "It is very certain that 
he mortally hated the Presbyterians, and would 
have utterly extirpated the Puritans had it been in 
his power." Laud was bitterly opposed to them. 
"This prelate seldom missed an opportunity to show 
his hatred to them .... and to him they enter 
tained an implacable enmity." 3 The king seemed 
particularly well-disposed towards the Catholics, 
and " though he had promised to proceed with 
vigor against the recusants, he seems not to have 
performed his promises .... he countenanced them 
during the first fifteen years of his reign, suspend 
ing the penal laws and recalling them to Court. . . . 

1 Lingard, vu, p. 30. 

2 Tindal-Rapin s Hist, of England, II, p. 274. 
3 Ibid, ir, p. 285. 

All who opposed the king were considered Puritans, and 
were harshly treated. In consequence those that set themselves 
against the absolutism of Charles were, in a measure, forced to 
cast in their lot with the Puritans, in order to strengthen their 
opposition. This is considered by Rapin as one great cause of 
the tide of adherents that set in towards the Puritan party. 
(Rapin, n, p. 287.) 


Many were elevated to the highest posts. " l The 
following reasons, among others, disposed Charles 
favorably towards the Catholics : " Though the 
Papists would not take the oath of supremacy, 
they would not refuse to take the oath of allegi 
ance, which was sufficient for him to reckon them 
good subjects. . . . Nothing was more grating to 
the Puritans than to see the Papists well received 
at Court, and as the king hated the Puritans, he 
took a pleasure in mortifying them by caressing 
their enemies/ 2 Moreover, the softening influence 
of the queen s influence made him more tender 
towards her co-religionists, and Laud s policy was 
not to inflame the king against the Catholics for 
fear of a reaction in favor of the Calvinists. 3 Such 
was the attitude of Charles towards the Puritans 
and Catholics. While he was vacillating in his 
policy towards the Catholics, he was invariably 
unbending in his severity towards the Puritans. 

" But to these Puritans the king granted New 
England for an asylum, as he granted to Lord 
Baltimore Maryland as an asylum for the Catholics. 
He permitted them to erect their own form of 
government, as he permitted Lord Baltimore; and 
when the Episcopalian, the Catholic and all others 
but those of their own particular sect were dis 
franchised by the Puritans of Massachusetts, when 

1 Bapin s IZufc of Eng., n, pp. 292, 364. 

3 Ibid., IT, p. 364. *Ibid., n, pp. 241-42. 


the inoffensive Friends were lashed, their ears slit 
and their tongues bored, and their blood shed upon 
the scaffold, when Roger Williams was exiled, 
the Lion of England slumbered over the fearful 
wrong. The Puritans of the North were not 
dearer to the Church of England and the king than 
the Catholics, nor were they less feared." 

Bozman, who has studied the question thoroughly, 
draws this conclusion : " The English government 
through all its vicissitudes as well as those of the 
New England colonies, from their first planting 
to their Declaration of Independence, tolerated the 
Congregational or Independent sect as the estab 
lished religion of New England, and by connivance 
permitted them to persecute and exclude from their 
civil government as well as hierarchy every pre 
sumptuous intruding heretic. It is probable that 
the English government would have acted in the 

^charf, i, p. 160. Cfr. Anderson, IT, pp. 156-163, 450, 453; 
Grahame, pp. 226-227 ; also Cobb, pp. 233-36. 

In the first address to the Maryland Historical Society, the 
speaker, an Episcopalian, sums up the question in these words : 
<( If intolerance had been in the hearts of these excellent men, it 
would readily and assiduously have embodied itself in the enact 
ments and institutions ; and restrictions in that spirit would have 
had their iron rule in the evasions of the chartered interdict, 
express or constructive. Long too before the sufferings of the 
oppressed could have reached the ears of English royalty, 
the odious discriminations might have spread their affliction and 
tortured the obnoxious to quiescence." (Charles F. Mayer, Md. 
Hist. Soc. Pub., Annual Addresses, Baltimore. 1844. ) 


same manner by the Roman Catholics of Mary 
land." 1 

The author of The English in Maryland 2 asserts 
that " Baltimore could, without danger, have pro 
hibited the immigration of the Puritans, and could 
have dissuaded in many ways the settlement even 
of conformists. Not only did he not do any of 
these things, but he invited Christians of every 
name to settle in Maryland." 

Irving Spence, in The Early History of the Presby 
terian Churchy says : " I doubt whether there be 
older Presbyterian blood in America than flows in 
my veins at this moment; but let us do justice. 
The government of Maryland was one of the first 
organized in Christendom which made religious 
toleration a corner-stone. From its institution until 
the expulsion of the unfortunate James II from the 
British throne, indeed, until his Protestant successor 
laid violent hands upon it, the principle was not 
only recognized but carried out in practice that 
error of opinion in religion may be tolerated while 
reason is left free to combat it. 7 . . . The first 
Lord Proprietor and his successors carried out the 
purposes of their benevolent ancestor, and while 
their chartered rights were undisturbed, the inhabi 
tants of Maryland were as carefully protected in 
worshipping God according to the dictates of con- 

1 Bozman, u, p. 495. 

2 Justin Winsor, Nar. and Grit. Hist, of America, vol. in, 
p. 564. 


science, as they are at this time. Religious opinion 
wrought no civil disqualifications ; and no one 
could be vexed with religious tests, or legally taxed 
to support any church of any name. Never was 
any government more indulgent to persons of all 
religious persuasions than that of Maryland, whilst 
the Roman Catholic Lords Baron of Baltimore con 
trolled it ; and they had powers more ample in fact, 
as to the matter under consideration than could 
have been exercised by the First James or his 
successor, in the kingdom of Great Britain." l 

Lord Baltimore not only forbade persecution of 
Protestants, he commanded, also, that their reli 
gious feelings should be respected. He allowed 
not only freedom of worship, but he gave the 
franchise to the poor Protestants, who had been 
unable even to pay their expenses to Maryland. 
Maryland was intended from the beginning to be a 
Land of Sanctuary for the oppressed of every creed. 

P. 39. 


Under the charter Lord Baltimore was consti 
tuted not only the ruler of the province, he was 
also the owner of the soil. "Cecilius, Absolute 
Lord and Proprietary/ such was his title. 1 The 
rights of the Proprietary as civil ruler were later- 
annulled at the Protestant Revolution (1692), but 
even then his rights as owner of the soil remained 
intact. Although he had been put to such expense 
in establishing and furnishing his colony, Balti 
more, instead of expecting a large return immedi 
ately, granted the lands upon such terms as would 
not prove a burden to the settlers, insuring them 
stability at the same time in their possessions. From 
time to time he published what were called " Con 
ditions of Plantation," setting forth the terms upon 
which he proposed to grant lands in the province. 2 

1 Ci r. the Charter. The Proprietary "was more a sovereign 
in Maryland than the king was in England." (F. E. Sparks, 
J. IT. U. Studies, 14th series, p. 12. Cfr. McMahon, p. 167.) 

2 In the Declaratio, published before the colonists sailed, it is 
said: " Whoever shall pay a hundred pounds to carry over 
five men (which shall be enough for arms, implements, clothing 
and other necessaries), whether they shall think best to join us 
themselves, or to intrust the men and money to those who shall 
have charge of this matter, or to anyone else, to take care of 
them and receive a share of the lands : to all the men so sent, 
and to their heirs forever, shall be allotted the right of two 
hundred acres of good land (suis omnibus, suis haeredibus in 



Iii 1636 he issued the first " Conditions of Planta 
tion," which actually went into effect. They were 
even more generous than he had at first promised. 
For every five persons brought into the colony in 
1634 he granted 2,000 acres for the yearly rent 
of four hundred pounds of wheat. If the settler 
brought less than five persons, he w r as to receive one 
hundred acres for himself, one hundred for his wife, 
one hundred for every servant, and fifty for every 
child under fifteen years, for a yearly rent of ten 
pounds of wheat for every fifty acres. Those who 
came to the colony in the two succeeding years, were 
to receive two thousand acres for every ten persons 
at a yearly rent of six hundred pounds of wheat. 
Besides, he granted free to all the first adventurers 
ten acres of land in or around the town of St. 
Mary s, and five acres for everyone these first 
settlers brought to the colony. 1 In the succeeding 
years other conditions were issued less generous 
than the first, as the risks and burdens in settling 
decreased. 2 The legal name of the rent was " quit- 
rents," for upon its prompt payment the tenant was 

perpetuum possessio agri boni (200) ducentorum jugerum assig- 
nabitur). If, in the first expedition they prove themselves 
faithful followers, and do good service, they shall receive no 
small share in the profits of trade, of which hereafter, and in 
other privileges : concerning which they will be more fully informed 
when they come to the aforesaid Baron." (Fund Pub., No. 7, 
p. 46.) 

1 Archives, m, p. 47. 

2 Cfr. Kilty, Land Holder 1 s Assistant, pp. 29-50. 


quit of any other service but fealty. " Whether 
estimated in commodities or money the rent services 
were not onerous/ 1 These certificates of land were 
used sometimes as a medium of exchange, being 
probably the first paper currency in America. 2 The 
Proprietary in taking up claims of laud subjected 
himself to the same conditions under which he gave 
the land to others. His portion of land was to be 
allotted according to the number of persons he had 
sent to the colony. 3 The Jesuit Fathers, it is said, 
received 28,500 acres. 4 These generous provisions 
calculated to produce contentment among the first 

1 Wilhelra s Local Institutions of Maryland, p. 23. Cfr. also 
Culvert Papers, I, p. 206. 

2 Wilhelm, ibid., p. 28. 3 Calvert Papers, T, p. 319. 
4 Fund Pub., No. 18, p. 200. 

"Thomas Copley, Esq. (alias Father Philip Fisher), made 
his demand for lands under the " Conditions of Plantation" of 
1636, for transporting Mr. Andrew White, Mr. John Altham 
and thirty others in 1633, and Mr. John Knowles and thirteen 
others in 1637." (Kilty s .Land Holder s Assistant, p. 68.) 

" He obtained 28,500 acres, distributed the greater portion to 
others, and retained 8,000 acres for the Society of Jesus and the 
use of the Church. The first tract he took up for the Society 
was 2,000 acres, called St. Inigoes, 1,000 acres called St. George s 
Island, and 400 acres of town land, about the town of St. Mary s. 
The second tract taken up by him was St. Thomas and Cedar 
Point Neck (in Charles County near Port Tobacco). Copley was 
a Jesuit priest, but inasmuch as the Statutes of Mortmain pro 
hibited the taking of lands for pious uses, he is recorded as 
Thomas Copley, Esq. The title was taken in his name for the 
secret use of the Society. In one of these conveyances the 400 
acres, near St. Mary s, was omitted by accident, and the Fathers 
thus lost the land." ( Woodstock Letters, ix, p. 171, in Johnson s 
Foundation of Maryland, pp. 200-201. ) 


settlers are in striking contrast with the intolerable 
situation, in which the poorer first planters of Virginia 
found themselves at the inception of that colony. 1 

Before any law of which we have a record was 
passed on the subject of religion, there occurred an 
event which proves beyond question the fact that 
religious liberty was a law of Maryland, and that it 
was rigidly enforced by the Catholics, who were in 
control of the Province. In July, 1638, took place 
the trial of William Lewis. William Lewas, a Catho 
lic and the overseer of Father Copley, upon entering 
his house one day, heard two of his Protestant 
servants reading aloud a book containing " matter 
much reproachful to his religion ; namely, that the 
Pope was Anti-Christ, and the Jesuits anti-christian 
ministers " and such like expressions. " They read it 
aloud to the end that he should hear it." Much 
incensed at the insult to his religion, and, possibly 
also, to the disrespect offered to himself, he expressed 
himself in no uncertain terms, telling them " that 
it was a falsehood, and came from the devil, as all 
lies did, and that he that writ it was an instrument 
of the devil." 

The two servants reported the matter to their fel 
low-bondmen, who were Protestants, and as an out 
come of their conference a petition was drawn up, 
asking that their grievance might be redressed. The 
matter coming to the ears of Captain Coruwaleys, 

1 Cfr. "White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia," James 
Curtis Ballagh, J. II. V. Studies, pp. 11-21. 


he undertook the settling of it at the next Court, 
when Lewis the defendant, the plaintiffs and the 
witnesses appeared. As the result of the trial, 
Lewis was found guilty of having oifended against 
the proclamation made for the suppressing of all 
disputes in religion, and a heavy fine was imposed 
as a punishment. 1 

It is most important to notice, in connection 
with this trial, that the Governor, the " Captain " 
(Cornwaleys) and the Secretary were Catholics, that 
Lewis was a Catholic, being the overseer of Father 
Copley at St. Inigoes, and that Father Copley 
condemned the conduct of Lewis, while all the 
claimants to the suit were Protestants and not even 
freemen. " Thus, four years only after the settlement, 
liberty of conscience was vindicated by a recorded 
sentence, and unreasonable disputations in point of 
religion, rebuked by a Catholic governor in the 
person of a Catholic offender. There could scarcely be a 
clearer evidence of impartial and tolerant sincerity." : 
Thus it is clearly evident that " the Protestants of the 
colony were asserting, and the Catholic authorities 
were readily conceding their right to enjoy their reli 
gious opinions unmolested." 

We find in the sentence, it was for offending 
against " a proclamation " that Lewis was con 
demned to pay the fine. As to when this proclama 
tion was made, or how it had the force of a law,. 

1 Archives, iv, pp. 35-39. (See Appendix E. ) 

2 Mayer s Calvert and Penn, p. 47. 3 Streeter Papers, p. 236. 


the records extant do not enlighten us. There is 
reason to believe that the instructions sent by Lord 
Baltimore, to his brother and the Councillors, for 
bidding any " scandal or offence to be given to any 
of the Protestants/ 7 and which were to be " ob 
served on land, as well as at sea/ was the law still 
in Maryland. Dr. Browne thinks that a law for 
bidding disputes on religious topics was enacted at 
the First Assembly, 1634-35, the records of which 
are lost. 1 Whatever may have been the origin of 
this salutary law, the fact remains beyond doubt, 
that there was a law of some sort which was w r ell 
understood by the colonists, for Lewis made no 
complaint against the sentence passed upon him. 

Another instance illustrating the broad toleration 
in vogue at this time in the colony occurs a few 
years afterwards. On the 23rd of March, 1641, a 
"Petition of the Protestants was read complaining 
against Mr. Thomas Gerard for taking away the 
key of the chapel and carrying away the books." 
" Mr. Gerard being charged to make answer, the 
house, upon hearing of the prosecutors and his 
defence, found that Mr. Gerard was guilty of a 
misdemeanor, and that he should bring the books 
and key taken away, to the place where he had 
them, relinquish all title to them or the house, and 
should pay for a fine 500 Ibs. of tobacco towards the 
maintenance of the first minister as should arrive." 2 

1 Archives, v, Preface, p. 1. 

2 Archives, i, p. 119. Italics the author s. 


Mr. Gerard was a Catholic, and " these proceedings 
show the scrupulous care of the authorities to pre 
serve freedom of worship." 

In these cases we see strongly emphasized the 
inexorable quality of the law of religious liberty 
which prevailed in the colony from the very land 
ing of the settlers. It was the statute paramount, 
guarded by the Catholic authorities with the most 
absolute fidelity and with the most jealous care. 
They seem to have had an extreme sensitiveness 
concerning any, even the least, infringement of its 
provisions, and justice moved swiftly to punish the 
offender who rashly dared to assail the cardinal 
principle of the colony s foundation. Thus was 
the sacred fire of religious freedom guarded by the 
Catholics, who had first kindled the spark upon the 
shores of the New World. The proclamation and 
promise of the Catholic Proprietary, the enactments 
of the Catholic legislators, were held inviolate and 
defended by the Catholic officials, whose duty it was 
to enforce the law. Any transgression by a Catho 
lic was punished with what appears to be almost an 
excessive harshness, as if, indeed, the Catholic gov 
ernment felt called upon, in an especial manner, to 
guard with an unimpeachable fidelity the spiritual 
Interests of those of different creeds, who had with 
such generous abandon trusted themselves to their 
care. It was the i noblesse oblige of the Land of 

1 Steiner, Maryland During the English Civil Wars, p. 31. 


The oath prescribed for the Governor in 1648 
is the first in which any mention of religion is 
made. According to this oath the Governor swears : 
/ will not by myself nor any person, directly or indi 
rectly, trouble, molest, or discountenance any person 
whatsoever in the said Province professing to believe 
in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman Catholic, 
for or in respect of his or her religion, nor in his or 
her free exercise thereof within the said Province, so as 
they be not unfaithful to his said Lordship, nor molest 
or conspire against the civil government here under him. 
Nor will I make any difference of persons in confer 
ring of offices, rewards or favors proceeding from the 
authority which his said Lordship hath conferred 
upon me as his Lieutenant here, for, or in respect of 
their said religion respectively, but merely as I shall find 
them faithful and well-deserving of his said Lordship, 
and to the best of my understanding endowed with 
moral virtues and abilities fitting for such rewards, 
offices or favors, etc. 1 

In the oaths of 1639 and 1643 we find no trace 
or mention of toleration, no prohibition against 
discrimination on account of faith, showing that 
religions liberty was a thing that went without saying 
in the colony that was founded and settled primarily 
for this purpose. With Catholics in power, there was 
no need for the casting up of bulwarks in legislation 
to insure men in their rights, civic and spiritual. 

l Archire*, in, p. 209-210. 


But times had changed. The oath prescribed in 
1648, in its provisions, forbidding injustice on 
account of religion, safeguarding the Catholics in 
particular, contains a portent of the coming persecu 
tions ; it is designed as a breakwater against the 
rising tide of Protestant power and consequent 
intolerance. Toleration was about to become in 
" state of siege, 7 and for this reason we witness the 
preparation for defense, the ominous wording of 
the oath of office. 1 

In the laws enacted and enforced by the Catholic 
colonists in their Assemblies, we perceive the same 
liberal spirit which had animated the Lord Proprie 
tary in founding the colony. The first Assembly 
of Maryland consisted of Leonard Calvert, the Lieu- 
tenant-Governor, as chief executive, and the freemen 
of the Province. 2 This Assembly met for the first 
time on the 26th of February, 1635. 3 

1 Streeter says : The prohibition in regard to molesting 
believers in Christ cannot be found in any commission before 
that to Governor Stone," August, 1648. (Streeter Papers, p. 244.) 
See Appendix F. 

2 "Freeman" is evidently not synonymous with "Free 
holder" but meant any colonist, not an indented servant or 
redemptioner, who had reached his majority. "Some of the 
most honored names in our history were redemptioners, such as 
Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress during the Revolution ; 
Matthew Thornton, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, 
and the parents of Major and Governor Sullivan." Scharf, I, 
p. 273. 

3 Chalmers Annals, pp. 210-232. 


No record of its laws save one has been 
preserved to us. 1 As the Proprietary was entitled to 
the initiative in legislation, 2 he naturally disapproved 
of the Assembly s proceedings, and the English 
common law prevailed during the next two years. 5 

In 1637 the government of the colony was re 
organized. The commission sent by Lord Baltimore, 
the earliest extant, to his brother Leonard (dated 
April 15th, 1637), appoints him "Lieutenant- 
General, Admiral, Chief Captain and Commander, 
as well by sea as land," and gives him absolute 
authority in warfare. He is also constituted 
Chancellor, Chief Justice and Chief Magistrate, and 
he is to appoint all officers. He is to summon 
all the freemen the following January. At this 
Assembly he is to signify to them that the Pro 
prietary dissented to all laws hitherto passed by 
them, and is to show them the draught of laws 
sent by himself. If the freemen agree to these 
laws they are to be published at once. Leonard 
is given authority to call assemblies whenever he 
sees fit, and " to propound and prepare other whole 
some laws and ordinances for the government and 
well-ordering of the said Province and people 
within the same, to be by us assented to and con 
firmed, if upon view and mature consideration had 
of the same, we shall in our judgment approve 

1 Chalmers, pp. 210-232 ; Archives, i, p. 23. 

2 Charter, sec. 7, Appendix C. 
^Archives, I, p. 48 ; Johnson, p. 34. 


thereof/ In case of emergency full power is like 
wise granted to the Governor "to publish in our 
name such reasonable ordinances, edicts and procla 
mations with reasonable pains and penalties .... 
provided that such penalties .... do not extend 
to the taking away of life, members, freeholds, 
goods or chattels/ and these ordinances, edicts or 
proclamations are to be in force till he or the 
Governor revokes them. The Governor is given 
authority to call and adjourn all assemblies. 1 

Much has been said about the Proprietary s 
insistence npon his charter rights of initiating law r s. 
That he had this right no one can deny. From the 
terms of this commission, he does not by any means 
appear to be so stubbornly set upon asserting his 
rights, as some authors would lead us to believe. 

Leonard is further commissioned to name all 
ports for shipping. He may pardon all offenses 
except treason. All land grants, according to the 
" Conditions of Plantation," after being enrolled by 
the Secretary and sealed by the Governor, shall be 
as binding at law on the Proprietary as if he were 
present. He appoints Jerome Hawley, Thomas 
Coruwaleys and John Lewger the Councillors of the 
Governor. All of these were Catholics. 

Leonard is likewise constituted Chief Judge in 
all cases, criminal and civil, according to the laws 
of the Province, or in default of such laws, accord- 

1 Archives, in, pp. 49-55, 


ing to the laws of England, but cases which involve 
the loss of life, limb, or freehold are to be decided 
by the Council or any two of them with the Gov 
ernor, and after giving sentence they are to award 
execution accordingly. The Secretary, Mr. Lewger, 
is made recorder of land-grants, collector, and 
keeper of the proceedings of the Council. In the 
event of the death or absence of the Governor, 
anyone appointed by him shall exercise his pre 
rogatives. If for any reason the Governor fails to 
do this, the majority of the Council are to appoint 
the Executive subject to the Proprietary s approval. 1 
Such was the constitution of the first government 
of Maryland. 

John Lewger, the newly appointed Secretary of 
the Province, was born in London, 1602, was 
admitted to Trinity College at fourteen, and at 
seventeen took the degree of Bachelor of Arts. 
When thirty-three he took the degree of Bachelor 
in the faculty of Divinity, and received a handsome 
benefice in the County of Essex. After a careful 
study of the claims of the Catholic Church, he re 
signed his benefice and became a Catholic. Cecilius 
Culvert, who had been a fellow-commoner with 
Lewger at Oxford, learning of his conversion, made 
him a member of his own family. When Lord 
Baltimore determined to send out a new commission 
to his brother Leonard and organize the colony, 


Lewger appeared as the most acceptable person to 
perform this service, and at the same time, take 
upon himself the duties of the newly created office 
of Secretary of the colony. Lewger arrived in the 
Province, accompanied by his wife Ann, his son 
John, and several servants. In his position, as 
representative of Lord Baltimore, he naturally took 
the side on all occasions that seemed most agreeable 
to his friend and patron. He remained in the 
colony until the death of Leonard Calvert. About 
the same time he lost his wife. Keturnmg to Eng 
land, he became a priest, and during the plague 
in London, 1665, sacrificed his life in unselfishly 
ministering to the sick and dying. " His end was 
not unworthy of one who had given up old associa 
tions for solemn convictions of truth and right ; 
who had left the refinements and pleasures of a 
civilized land to bear the blessings of good govern 
ment and Christian truth into a new community 
and a far-off wilderness ; and who at last crowned 
his labors by sublimely disregarding self, and giving 
forth his last breath, in a benevolent effort to aid 
and comfort his suffering and dying fellow-men." l 
On January 25th, 1638, 2 in obedience to the 

1 Kilty, p. 37. Streeter Papers, pp. 218-276. Cfr. also Hughes, 
History of S. J. in N. America, passim. 

^Archives, i, p. 2. 

In order to avoid confusion it will be well to note that the 
dates in this volume are according to what is called the new 
style. In 3582 Pope Gregory XIII ordered a revision of the 
calendar so as to make the civil year conform to the solar year. 


instructions of Lord Baltimore, given the preced 
ing April, the Second Assembly convened. This 

The Catholic countries generally adopted the change. But 
England preferring to be wrong rather than Papal still adhered 
to the old way of reckoning. After 170 years finding it incon 
venient to be eleven days behind the calculation of Almighty 
God and the Catholic world at large, England in 1752 adopted 
the Gregorian calculation, and by Act of Parliament, the third 
of September, 1752, was made the 14th and the intervening days 
suppressed. Russia still adheres to the old calendar. At the 
same time a change was made as to the day on which the year 
should begin. "At the Reformation in England," says Bozman, 
" in Henry VHP s reign, in the early part of the sixteenth cen 
tury, both the civil and the ecclesiastical authority interposed to 
fix the commencement of the year to the feast of the Annuncia 
tion by adding the following rubric to the Calendar immediately 
after the table of movable feasts for forty years, viz. : That the 
supputation of the Feast of our Lord, in the Church of England, 
beginneth the 25th of March, the same day supposed to be the 
first day upon which the world was created, and the day when 
Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary, which 
stood thus down to the Savoy conference, soon after the Restora 
tion, when it was thought proper to retain the order, and drop 
the reason given for it, and in this shape it was continued down 
to the late Parliamentary correction of the calendar. It will be 
acknowledged, we may suppose, that this variance in the com 
mencement of the year would not affect the dates of any events 
mentioned to have occurred out of the space of time contained 
between the first of January and the twenty-fifth of March. The 
English, for the greatest part of the year, design it by the same 
number that the rest of the Christian world does ; but for three 
months; viz., from the calends of January to the 8th of the 
calends of April (that is, from the first day of January to the 
25th day of March) they wrote one less. This is illustrated by 
the instance put by our annalist, Dr. Holmes: It was cus 
tomary, says he, to give a double date from the 1st of January 
to the 25th of March. Thus February 8th, 1721, was written 


Assembly was composed of the Lieutenant-Governor, 
the freemen of the colony, or their deputies, and in 
addition there were others appointed by the Gov 
ernor. 1 The Proprietary reserved the right to 
summon members by special writ. The franchise 
was not only the right but the duty of every free 
man. In the Assembly of 1642 "Mr. Thomas 
Weston, being called, pleaded he was no freeman 
because he had no land nor certain dwelling here, 
etc., but being put to the question, it was voted that 
he was a freeman, and as such bound to his appear 
ance by himself or proxie, whereupon he took his 
place in the house." Thus Maryland not only 
granted the franchise to all freemen, but obliged 
them to exercise it. 3 The freemen were thus " made 

February 8th. 17~2i. This demonstrates that in the remaining 
part of the year there was no difference between the English and 
the rest of Europe, as to the date of the year. It is true that the 
days thrown out by Pope Gregory, in his reformation of the 
Calendar, made that much difference from the English compu 
tation, in the days of the months, but as to the date of the year, 
which is the present question, it has no effect." (Bozman, p. 
351, Edition 1811.) 

1 Archives, I, p. 2. The three Jesuits were summoned with 
the other freemen but were excused on a plea of sickness. For 
a brief sketch of the members of the Assembly of 1638, see 
Street er Papers, pp. 57-103. 

2 Archives, I, p. 70. 

3 In 1C81, in fact, the franchise was limited to freeholders. This 
was re-enacted by the Assembly after the Protestant Revolution 
of 1692. This provision continued until 1802 when property 
qualifications for votes were abolished. McMahon, i, pp. 443- 
445, who does not agree with Bozman, in respect to the privileges 
of freemen. 


to feel that they were dwelling under their own 
government. Religions liberty was subject only to 
the restraints of conscience ; courts of justice were 
established, and the laws of the mother-country, 
securative of the rights of person and property, 
were introduced in their full operation. The laws 
of justice and humanity were observed towards the 
natives. The results of so sagacious a policy were 
soon perceived. During the first seven years of 
the colony, its prosperity was wholly uninterrupted ; 
and when the interruption came, it proceeded from 
causes no policy could have averted." l 

This Assembly at once rejected the "Body of 
Laws" sent over by the Proprietary and deter 
mined to make its own. 2 After demurring for a 
time, Lord Baltimore agreed, August 21st, 1638, 
that their laws should be in force " until I or mine 
heirs shall signify in me or their disassent thereto." 3 

This Assembly enacted: "Holy Church within 
this Province shall have all her rights and liber 
ties." 4 On October 23rd, 1640, was published an 
Act of Church Liberties: "Holy Church within this 
Province shall have all her rights, liberties and 
franchises, wholly and without blemish." 5 This 
phrase, "Holy Church," has given rise to much 

^IcMahon p. 196. 

^Archives, I 9-11 ; Chalmers, 211. 

* Archives, I p. 31 ; Archives, ill, p. 51. 

4 -Archives, i p. 83, October 19th, 1639. 

^Archives, I p. 96. 


interesting discussion. 1 "This law/ says Cobb, 
" was in harmony with the mandate of the charter 

1 In the Charters of Henry I, of Stephen, of Henry II, of 
John and 1st, 2nd and 3rd of Henry III, we find the words 
"Holy Church" (Sancta Ecclesia). Also in the Charter of 
Edward II (Sainte Eglise) . 

Henry I : Sanctam Dei Ecclesiam liberam facio. (Rapin, n, 
p. 283.) 

Stephen : Sanctam Ecclesiam liberam esse concede, et debitam 
reverentiam illi confirrno. ( Rapin, II, 284. ) 

Henry II : Sciatis me .... concessisse et redidisse et praesenti 
charta mea confirmasse Deo et Sanctae Ecclesiae, et omnibus 
comitibus baronibus et omnibus hominibus mei, omnes consue- 
tudines, quas rex Henricus avus meus eis dedit et concessit. 
(Rapin, n, p. 284.) 

John : Quod Anglicana Ecclesia libera sit et habeat jura sua 
Integra et libertates suas illesas. (Wm. Blackstone, The Great 
Charter and Charters of the Forests, p. 11.) 

1st Henry III : Quod Anglicana Ecclesia libera sit et habeat 
jura sua Integra et libertates suas illesas. (Ibid., p. 28. ) 

2nd Henry III : Quod Anglicana Ecclesia libera sit et habeat 
jura sua integra et libertates suas illesas. (Ibid., p. 38, ) 

3rd Henry III : Quod Anglicana Ecclesia libera sit et habeat 
jura sua integra et libertates suas illesas. (Ibid., p. 48.) 

Thus was the Church in England guaranteed in her rights 
and liberties by Catholic Kings. "Anglicana ecclesia" is some 
times translated Church of England, but this is confusing. The 
"Church of England" as an organized body separate from 
the Catholic Church did not, of course, exist until the sixteenth 
century. Of late years the fashion has come into vogue of 
confounding the identity of the Ecdesia Anglicana of the old 
Charters with the modern " Church of England ;" but it is too 
absurd to deserve more than a passing notice. Gardiner says : 
"Such a phrase, Holy Church, was never to my knowledge 
applied to the Church of England after the Reformation." 
(History of England, viii, note to p. 180.) 

" It scarcely needs observation that the Church of England 
was at the times both of making and confirming Magna Charta the 


to Baltimore, that nothing should be done con 
trary to God s holy and true religion/ It is quite 
as notable for what it omits as for what it declares, 
making no distinction among the various Christian 
bodies, each of which claimed to be Holy Church 
and to represent God s holy religion. There can 
be no doubt, indeed, that these Maryland law 
makers were Romanists to a man, or that had they 
been called upon to specify the particular commu 
nion, which was to them Holy Church/ with one 
voice they would have named the Church of Home. 
But this definition they studiously refrained from 
making, leaving to each citizen of the colony to 
decide for himself as to what communion he would 
call Holy Church, and asserting that that Church 
must be free from all interference by the civil power. 
This was practical religious liberty. 7 1 

Speaking of these laws, Brantly says : " Both 

same as the Church of Home to which the appellation of " Holy 
Church " was then commonly applied." (Bozman, i, 107-109.) 

Rev. J. S. M. Anderson, chaplain to the Queen, says, "It 
cannot be doubted that the Proprietor of Maryland, being a 
Roman Catholic, understood by the expression Holy Church 
only that Church with which he was in communion ; the jurisdic 
tion of which, in matters spiritual and temporal, was established 
in England when Magna Charta was signed." (History of the 
Church of England in the Colonies, dedicated to the Archbishop 
of Canterbury, i, p. 490.) 

1 Cobb, pp. 371-372. Cobb is in error in saying that all the 
members of this Assembly were Catholics. Many of the Pro 
testant redemptioners having become freemen, took their seats in 
this Assembly. ( Calrert Papers, i, p. 202). Kent Island was also 
represented by Protestants. But there is no doubt that the great 
majority were Catholics. 


are founded on the first clause of Magna Charta, 
and must be held to apply to the Roman Church, 
since the phrase Holy Church was never used in 
speaking of the Church of England. But these 
acts can hardly be regarded as evidence of an inten 
tion to establish the Roman Church. They do not 
seem to have had any practical effect whatever. We 
have seen that Lord Baltimore proposed to make 
all creeds equal in Maryland." l 

" To the phrase Holy Church no Protestant 
could reasonably object," says Browne, (t it was the 
first clause of Magna Charta, promulgated when there 
could be no question as to what was Holy Church/ 
and still cherished as the paladium of English 
liberty. And, of course, no Catholic would object. 
Like the phrase, i God s holy and true Christian 
religion in the charter, it could be accepted by all 
believers in Christianity ; though, in strict fact, the 
phrase Holy Church was never applied to the 
Protestant Church of England." 2 It is Burnap s 
opinion that " there can be no doubt what church 
is here meant by Holy Church. 7 It is nearly a 
copy he notes of a clause in the Magna Charta of 
England, obtained in the time of John, when the 
Roman Catholic Church was everywhere predomi 
nant. It was enacted by a legislative Assembly, 
a majority of whom were Catholics ; it was passed 

1 Nar. and Crit. Hist, of America (ed. Justin Winsor), in, p. 

2 Browne s George and Cccilius Calvert, p. 102. 



upon by the Proprietary of the soil, himself a 
Catholic." l 

" It is certain/ says Bozman, 2 " that a majority 
of the colonists of Maryland were, at the time of 
this session of Assembly (1639) English Roman 
Catholics. They professed themselves to be of the 
same church as that alluded to in Magna Charta, to 
wit, the Roman Catholic Church, which was at the 
time of making Magna Charta, the Church of Eng 
land as therein expressed. The expression < Holy 
Church used in the act of Assembly, occurs not 
only in Magna Charta, but in most of the other 
charters prior to it, and indeed is a well-known 
expression commonly applied to the Church of Rome. 
Although the provincial government of Maryland 
did, as we have before seen, permit Protestants to 
reside within the Province, yet it does not appear, 
that they had no intention of making the Roman 
Catholic Church the established church of the pro 
vince. When we reflect on the original causes of 
their emigration, on the legislative provision for the 
benefit of their church, and on a similar law passed 
in the succeeding year, 1640, we cannot but suppose 
that it was the intention of those in whose hands the 
government of the province was (a majority of whom 
were, without doubt, Catholics, as well as much the 
greater number of the colonists) to erect a hierarchy, 
with an ecclesiastical jurisdiction, similar to the 
ancient Church of England before the Reformation, 

Burnap, p. 172. 



and to invest it with i all rights and immunities. 
Herein Bozman exhibits the character of the Pro 
testant. The Catholics had the power to establish 
their church, therefore, he concluded from this law 
they intended to do so. The Protestant always made 
his church the established Church, whenever the 
opportunity offered. Quite naturally he cannot 
understand that the Catholic would not do the same. 
In point of fact, there cannot be shown a single 
evidence from the subsequent acts or legislation of 
the Catholic majority, that they intended to make 
the Catholic Church exclusively the established 
Church of the colony. By this act they simply 
proposed to protect themselves against possible Pro 
testant intolerance in the future. Bozmau adds : " It 
does not appear that these heretics or Protestants 
enjoyed any other immunity than a mere toleration 
of residence and a security in the protection of their 
persons and property." l Even if this were so, such 
protection was more than the Catholics enjoyed 
under later Protestant administrations. But Bozman 
seems to forget that every Protestant, even if he 
came as a penniless redemptioner to the Catholic 
colony, had a voice in the legislation of the province, 
as soon as he had served out his term. His vote 
was equal to the vote of the Catholic, who had spent 
his fortune in establishing a refuge for the poor or 
persecuted Protestant. All Christian denominations 

1 Bozman, n, p. 109. 


had the same advautages as the Catholics, inasmuch 
as Lord Baltimore was willing to grant, and did 
grant lands to the ministers of other denominations 
under the same conditions as he granted them to the 
priests, and that none were asked to support any 
denomination unless he chose. 1 All were free to 
erect their own churches. The fine of Dr. Gerrard 
imposed by a court, the majority being Catholics, 
was to go for the support of the first minister that 
should arrive in the colony. 2 

Mr. Brantz Mayer says: "In 1640 legislation 
had already settled opinion as to the rights of 
Catholics and Protestants. Instead of the early 
Catholics seeking to contract the freedom of the 
other sects, their chief aim and interest seems to have 
been to secure their own. I consider the acts I 
have cited (16391640) as more declaratory than 
as necessary and original laws." 3 

In view of the subsequent conduct of the Catholics, 
it cannot be asserted that in passing this " Act for 
Church Liberties," the Catholics made their church the 
established church, to the exclusion of other de- 

1 A grant was made to Mr. Brooke, "to whom Lord Baltimore 
had shown particular favor, having given him liberty to build 
and erect chapels in any part of the land allotted to him, and 
the advowsons and donations to all such" (1650). About the 
same time Mr. Wilkinson, an Anglican minister, also came to 
the colony. (C. E. Smith, Barons of Baltimore, p. 316.) 

2 Archives, i, p. 119. For case of Dr. Gerrard, see p. 128. 

3 Culvert and Peim, p. 48. 


nominations. While fixing the status, safeguarding 
the liberties, and guaranteeing the franchises of the 
Church of their own faith, they did not lose sight 
of the rights and liberties of their Protestant fellow- 
settlers, and on the same day they enacted another 
law which evidently had that purpose for its inspi 
ration and end. " The inhabitants of this Province, 7 
it reads, " shall have all their rights and liberties 
according to the great charter of England." 1 Thus, 
while the Catholic Church was especially protected 
in her "rights and liberties," this guarantee wrought 
no prejudice to any other Christian denomination. 

In view of the enacting of this second law to 
defend the religious liberty of the Protestants 
of the colony, it can hardly be contended, with 
even a shadow of justice, that the Maryland Catho 
lics and the Lord Proprietary were unmindful of 
their solemn covenant, that all religions should be 
equally protected, if they, at the same time, insured 
to the " Holy Church " of their own communion, 
her " rights, liberties and franchises, wholly and 
without blemish." 2 Had this law, as well as the 
charter, been broader still, so as to exclude none on 
religious grounds, it would, doubtless, have been 
more in accordance with the first Lord Baltimore s 
private views ; and his son Cecilius, as we shall 
see, gave the privilege of citizenship to a Jew. 

"This system of toleration," says McMahon, "was 
coeval with the colony itself, and sprang from the 

1 Archives, I, p. 83. 2 Archives, I, p. 41. 


liberal and sagacious views of the Proprietary." 1 
Gnihame 2 says: "With a liberality unparalleled 
in that age, he united a general recognition of 
Christianity as the established fact of the land, with 
an exclusion of the political predominance or supe 
riority of any one particular sect or denomination of 
Christians. This wise administration soon converted 
a desolate wilderness into a flourishing Common 
wealth, enlivened by industry, and adorned by 
civilization. It is a proof at once of the success 
of his policy and of the prosperity and happiness of 
the colonists, that, a few years after, they granted 
to their Proprietary a large subsidy of tobacco 
in grateful acknowledgment of his liberality and 

It has always been an occasion of conjecture, why 
so few Catholics took advantage of the opportunity 
to leave England and settle in Maryland. The 
reason may be found in a proclamation of King 
Charles, the last day of April, 1637, against the 
disorderly transporting of his Majesty s subjects to 
the plantations within the ports of America. 3 
According to the terms of this proclamation no one 
liable to pay the subsidy tax was to leave England 
without the permission of the Commissioners of 
Plantation, and no one under the degree of subsidy 
was even to depart " without a certificate of two 
justices of the peace .... that he had taken the 
oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and like testi- 

1 McMahon, p. 226. 2 n, p. 10-11. 3 Rusliworth, u, p. 409. 


mony from the minister of his parish of his con 
formity to the orders and discipline of the Church 
of England." l 

It was shortly after the passing of the Act for 
Church Liberties that Lord Baltimore invited the 
Puritans of Massachusetts to participate in the peace 
and prosperity which Maryland enjoyed in conse 
quence of religious liberty. " Winthrop notes in 
his Journal for 1643 that Baltimore himself invited 
the Puritans of Massachusetts offering lands and 
privileges, with full liberty of conscience. " 2 "This 
letter reached Boston," says Hawks/ 3 "about the time 
of a transaction which it were to be wished could 
not be written upon the records of New England s 
history. The inhabitants of Massachusetts had just 
been thrown into a pious consternation by the stupid 
and unintelligible ravings of Gorton and his followers, 
which merited nothing but contempt; and were now 
settling down into a repose produced by a sentence 
upon the poor sufferers, which purposed to cure 
heresy with fetters. At such a time to offer liberty 

1 Sir Richard Lech ford tells Leonard Calvert, his partner in 
the fur trade, "how unhappily matters stand with me ; first my 
children the beginning of March were going beyond the seas for 
nuns. Apprehended and examined, whereupon I was called 
before the Counsel Board, questioned about my religion, com 
mitted unto the fleet, my place at court taken immediately from 
me, and there remained 9 weeks, and ever since pursuivants and 
messengers persecuting me, and sometimes the whole Council 
sending for me. ... I received many sharp checks, besides great 
charge and loss." (Calvert Papers, in, p. 46.) 

2 Cobb, p. 373. 3 Ibicl, p. 31. 


of religion to men who were congratulating them 
selves upon the successful application of their iron 
preservative of orthodoxy, doubtless provoked a 
sneer at the stupidity which could present toleration 
merely as a temptation to removal. Human inge 
nuity could not have devised a better- timed or keener 
rebuke than is contained in this offer of religious 
freedom from the persecuted Papist to his Protestant 
fellow-sufferer ; human wit could not have made the 
memory of that rebuke more lasting than it is made 
by the scornful rejection of the offer." 

It was during this period that there arose the 
much discussed controversy between Lord Balti 
more and the Jesuit Fathers. The question has 
relation to our present subject, inasmuch as the 
attitude of the Jesuits has been taken as an indica 
tion that the Church was opposed to the policy of 
religious liberty adopted by Lord Baltimore. 1 
That this is not true can be seen from the fact, that 
the first Lord Baltimore had established religious 
liberty in Newfoundland, having in his colony 
there both ministers and priests of whom, at least, 
two were Jesuits, and his policy was not ques 
tioned. 2 In the second place, when the dis 
pute between Cecilius Calvert and the Jesuits was 
at length brought before the authorities at Eome, 
the decision was given, as we shall see, in favor of 
Lord Baltimore by no less a person than the 

1 C. E. Smith, Religion Under The Barons Baltimore. 

2 Hughes, Hist, of 8. J. in N. A., pp. 190-193. 


General of the Society of Jesus. The difference, 
however, between Lord Baltimore and the Jesuits, 
while it does not bear directly upon religious 
liberty, may be considered as having some relation 
to it, and cannot, therefore, be entirely omitted in 
treating that subject. 

The principal subjects at issue between Lord 
Baltimore and the Jesuits were: they objected 
to the introduction of the Secular clergy into 
Maryland; to the payment of quit-rents in corn; 
to the obligation of military service on the part of 
their servants, and to being assessed for the build 
ing of a fort; to the rule that their adherents 
should be considered amenable to the civil laws in 
temporal affairs in common with the rest of the 
settlers of the colony; and finally, they protested 
against the determination of the Proprietary that 
they should not receive lands from the Indians 
except according to the terms of his charter. 

Whatever conclusion may be reached as to the 
justice of the claim on either side, two facts should 
not be lost sight of. In the first place, the gener 
ous, self-sacrificing conduct of these missionaries, 
which is borne witness to by every writer on this 
subject, even the most prejudiced, 1 precludes the 
conclusion that the good Fathers were actuated by 
mere mercenary motives. " Their pathway was 
through the desert," says Davis, an Episcopalian, 

1 " They were trained to be soldiers of the cross." (E. D. 
Neill, Terra Mariae, p. 71.) 



"and their first chapel, the wigwam of an Indian. 
Two of them were here at the dawn of our history ; 
they came to St. Mary s with the original emi 
grants; they assisted by pious rites in laying the 
corner-stone of a state; they kindled the torch of 
civilization in the wilderness; they gave consola 
tion to the grief -stricken pilgrim; they taught the 
religion of Christ to the simple sons of the forest. 
The history of Maryland presents no better, no 
purer, no more sublime lesson than the story of the 
toils, sacrifices, and successes of her early mission 
aries." 1 " The Order of Jesus," says Oliver, " re 
vived the magic of an Apostolic age. It is not 
difficult to discover the secret of this matchless 
series of triumphs. The object of the Jesuit was 
to civilize through the softening effects of religion. 
. . . and conforming to his (the Indian s) 
outward life, possessed himself of that key 
to all human action the heart. The In 
dian proselyte loved the Jesuit. . . . The 
man of learning, the scholar and the gen 
tleman became as a brother to the children of 
the wilderness. He lived in their wigwams, 
smoked their pipes, and ate of their venison. He 
shared their hardships, and sympathized with their 
joys. In a word, acting upon the Apostolic rule, 
with the weak he became weak, in order that he 
might gain the weak. But it is not alone because 
the Jesuits adopted the Indian habits, and became 

1 Davis, Day Star, pp. 159-160. 


as one of the tribe lie was proselyting, that he was 
blessed with success. This but furnished him with 
a moral lever. Instead of demolishing the natural 
religion of the Indians, he directed its energy and 
inspired it with an object. In his eyes it was the 
rough block which he was to chisel into life and 

In the possession of the lands which they 
claimed, and the special privileges they asked 
for, the Fathers saw only the means of enabling 
them the more effectively to further their Apostolic 
work in extending the kingdom of their Master. 

The impartial observer of events will, in the 
second place, remember that Lord Baltimore was 
a Catholic whose sincerity cannot be questioned. 
Had he, like his grandson, renounced his faith, 
most, if not all, the difficulties and dangers which 
menaced his colony would have disappeared, and 
his success in every worldly way would have been 
assured. He held fast to his Church at the cost 
of enormous sacrifices, and such sacrifices are 
proof sufficient of the genuineness of his belief. 

Indeed, the difficulties, in part, were due to his 
desire to provide more abundantly for the spiritual 
needs of the colony. Under date of April 4th, 
1634, shortly after the landing of the Maryland 
Pilgrims, a decree of the Propaganda states, to 
quote Father Hughes, " that at the instance of the 
English clergy/ whomsoever that term may desig- 

1 Oliver, Puritan Commonwealth, pp. 254-6. 


nate, the Sacred Congregation judged the pro 
posal of sending a mission, to Maryland, in the 
premises, as a measure highly opportune; and it 
ordered the agent of the same clergy to name a 
prefect and missionaries, or to have them named by 
the French Nuncio, who in all cases was to report 
on the fitness of the men designated." 1 For a time 
nothing seems to have resulted from this. But in 
1641 in accordance with Lord Baltimore s wishes, 
the Propaganda asked Mgr. Rosetti, Nuncio in 
Belgium, to send " information about the said 
Island [Maryland], the Catholics there, Secular 
priests fitted for the Mission, and especially one 
more prominent and learned who might be appoint 
ed Prefect." 2 After a visit to England, in the 
same year (1641), Mgr. Rosetti sent his report to 
the Propaganda, with the names of fourteen priests 
who would be fit for the Maryland mission; the 
first on the list was Dr. Britton who might be 
eligible for the office of Prefect. 3 Early the fol 
lowing year, however, after the faculties for the 
new missionaries had been received by Father 
Philips, the Queen s confessor, 4 a memorial on the 
part of the Jesuits was addressed to the Holy 
Office complaining against the attitude of Lord 

1 Hughes, I, p. 333, quoting Propaganda Archives. 

2 Id., p. 495, quoting Propaganda Archives. 

3 Id., pp. 493-498. 
*Id., pp. 506-515. 


Baltimore, and protesting against the sending of 
the Secular clergy to Maryland. l 

In February of that year (1642) the Congrega 
tion of the Holy Office on receiving the Memorial, 
ordered the suspension of the faculties that had 
been granted to the Secular clergy " until such time 
as this Congregation shall have examined some 
points, and determined that which is best to do for 
the greater service of God ever blessed, and for the 
Propagation of the Holy Faith." 2 Meanwhile 
the clergy appointed for Maryland were waiting 
impatiently for their faculties, and not entirely 
cognizant of the causes of delay, they proposed, at 

1 The closing sentences of the Memorial speaking of the 
Jesuits, reads thus: . . . "who were the first to enter that 
vineyard at their own expense; who have borne poverty 
and trials for seven years; who have lost four of their 
men while laboring with fidelity at their posts even unto 
death; who have maintained sound doctrine and the im 
munity of the Church, putting up with the odium and 
damages thus resulting; who know the country and 
language of the savages; whereof the priests to be sub 
stituted by the Baron of Baltimore are utterly ignorant, 
with the further circumstance that these latter are going 
over to countenance and maintain a system of doctrine from 
which contentions and scandals are sure to arise, and that 
the spark of faith will be quenched which has just been 
kindled in the hearts of the infidels. Still the Fathers de 
clare that they are ready with all submissiveness either to 
return from Maryland to England, or to stay there and 
labour unto death for the faith and for the dignity of the 
Apostolic See, according as it shall seem good to the pru 
dence and condescendence of your Eminence." (Id., p. 517.) 

2 Id., p. 520. 


first, to go by virtue of their ordinary faculties, 
" pro dominiis regiis Magnae Brittanniae " (for 
the royal dominions of Great Britain). Mgr. 
Rosetti, however, dissuaded them from taking this 
step. l In the meantime, Lord Baltimore finding 
his purpose of sending Secular clergy thwarted, 
determined that the Jesuits also should not go, and 
used effective means to that end, while at the same 
time the Governor, his brother, endeavored to pre 
vent those in the colony from leaving it. 2 Thus 
there was a dead-lock. To relieve the situation the 
General wrote to Father Edward Knott, Provincial 
of the Jesuits in England (Nov. 22nd, 1642) : 
" I, myself will see that faculties are asked for 
from the (Cardinal) Protector, to buy off vexation. 
If they are obtained I will let your Reverence 
know." We cannot say whether this proposal of 
the General was acceptable, or whether the sus 
pended faculties were granted to the Secular clergy, 
but two Secular priests, Rev. Fathers Gilmett 
and Territt, set sail sometime about November, 
1642, on two different ships. 4 Lord Baltimore 

l ld., p. 524. 

Ud., pp. 526-527. 

Lord Baltimore vetoed the proposed departure of Fathers 
Cooper and Hartwell, but allowed Father Roger Rigbie to 
go. This was in 1641. After the two Secular priests had 
gone, he allowed Fathers Cooper and Hartwell to depart. 
Id., pp. 526-531-32. 

3 Id., p. 532. 

4 Calvert Papers, i, p. 212. 


wrote to his brother to provide for the Fathers, 
if necessary, at his expense. 1 Again (1643) we 
find him giving detailed instructions to look after 
the welfare of the Secular Fathers. 2 

1 Lord Baltimore s Letter to Leonard Calvert, Nov. 1642": 
" In my despatch by Mr. Ingle s Ship wherein one Mr. Gil- 
mett comes recommended from me to you, I desired you to 
take care for his sojourning somewhere there to his con 
tentment, which I desire may be with yourself for many 
reasons. But I forgot to mention his boy that waited upon 
him, which must also sojourne with him for he cannot be- 
decently without such attendance. Wherefore, I pray, take 
order for him they have all necessaries of bedding, etc.,, 
provided and sent with them, and I writ then to you to- 
take care also of Mr. Will Territt who comes herewith to- 
you being a companion of Mr. Gilmett s, both whom I 
recommend in those letters, and do now again very heartily 
recommend to your care; for they are both I will assure you 
men of very high esteem here, and worthy to be cherished 
and valued by you, in which you shall extremely much 
oblige me. Take care, therefore, also I pray, to accommo 
date the said Mr. Territt with a convenient place to so 
journe in there; and I also shall, as I formerly wrote pay 
the charge of it, when I know what it is if it can not be 
done otherwise, which I hope by your endeavors it may be, 
and I shall take it very kindly of you. However, you will, I 
hope, husband my expense herein the best you can and I 
shall pay what is necessary for the sojourning of the afore 
said persons by bill of exchange hither." (Calvert Papers, 
i, p. 212.) 

2 He writes: "... I desire that my said Commissioners 
in that case to take care that some other convenient place 
be there provided for Mr. Gilmett s and Mr. Territt s resid 
ence and diet there to their contentment till the time above 
mentioned, with the best accommodations for them and the 
least charge to me as may be. And I would have them so 
contrive this business if possibly they can that Mr. Gil- 


" When the Abbate Cladius Agretti was sent by 
the Holy See on a special mission to England in 
1669, he visited Cecil, Lord Baltimore, and that 
aged nobleman complained that there were only 
two priests in Maryland to minister to the 2,000 
Catholics in that province, and that the Holy See 
although solicited for twenty-four years, had taken 
no action in the matter/ l 

From all this we are led to the conclusion 
that Lord Baltimore s opposition to the Jesuits 
was only personal, and in nowise weakened his 
staunch faith in the Church for which he was 
making such heroic sacrifices. 

The troubles between Lord Baltimore and the 
Jesuits were augmented, in a great measure, by 
the arrival in the colony about the same time of 
Father Thomas Copley (alias Philip Fisher) and 
John Lewger. Father Copley superseded Father 
White as the head of the Maryland mission, " a 
charge which now required rather business men 
than missionaries." 2 Father Philip Fisher, as he 

mett and Mr. Territt may by all means be continued in the 
Province till that time when I doubt not (by the grace of 
God) to be able to provide better for them than, by reason 
of the extremity of the present troubles in England I 
could do this year which I hope they will consider and 
have a little patience till then. And this article I do 
again and again commend to my Commissioner s care to 
give me satisfaction therein. . . . Given under my hand at 
Bristol, 18th November, 1643." (Md. Archives, m, p. 

1 Shea, i, p. 79. 

2 Hughes, p. 336. 


is named in the domestic records of the society, or 
Thomas Copley, as he appears in Maryland his 
tory, was of a distinguished family. " Born in 
Madrid, 1595-6, he had entered the Order at the 
age of twenty one. . . . He was alien born and 
claimed protection from the King of England. . . 
A warrant was then issued on December 1st, 
1634, from the palace of Westminster, securing to 
Thomas Copley, Gentleman, an alien the appro 
priate immunities from persecution." " Before 
coming to Maryland he had been in charge of the 
London residence, under the Rector of the Com 
munity ; that is, he was both minister and procura 
tor." 2 He was a zealous, self-sacrificing priest 
and was possessed of considerable executive ability. 
John Lewger was a converted Protestant minis 
ter, and a friend of Lord Baltimore when both were 
at Oxford. Looking for a man of ability, talent and 
integrity to whom he could intrust most of the 
higher offices of the colony, Lord Baltimore pro 
posed to Lewger that he should emigrate to Mary 
land to fill there those positions of great trust and 
honor, with which he should present him. This 
offer was accepted and he cast in his lot with that 
of Maryland, being appointed successively, Mem 
ber of the Council, Secretary of the Province, 
Justice, Administrator of Estates, Attorney-Gen 
eral, Secretary and Keeper of the Acts and Pro- 

1 Id., pp. 360-7. 

2 Id., p. 335. 


ceedings of the Governor, Receiver of Rents 
Revenues Profits and Customs, Recorder of Land 
Grants, and Judge of Cases Matrimonial and 
Testamentary. 1 

Copley and Lewger were men of strong indi 
viduality, powerful will and of extraordinary 
tenacity of purpose, and their clash of tem 
peraments probably resulted from the mani 
fest similarity of their natures. Secretary 
Lewger s attitude toward the Jesuits was on one 
occasion at least, considered deserving of repri 
mand by Lord Baltimore, who wrote cautioning 
him against giving offence to the Fathers. 2 Father 

1 Archives, in, pp. 53, 157-8; vide supra, Lewger, p. 133. 

2 Soon after Lewger s arrival in the Colony, he wrote to 
Lord Baltimore submitting a number of cases and asking for 
guidance. Lord Baltimore in reply, does not refer to the 
Cases, but cautions Lewger and the Governor against giving 
offence to the Jesuits. In answer Lewger again writes: 
" I should have been glad to have had resolution touch 
ing those cases I sent over though without anyone s hand 
to it, because it would have directed me in divers occur 
rences and difficulties which we meet with here. For the 
present we have no differences at all, and I hope we shall 
have no more, where either part can avoid them; and for 
the errors past (which your Lordship speaks of) on the 
Governor s part and mine, if we knew what or which they 
were, we should be ready to amend them, and should be 
glad of the proffer on their part of forgiving and forget 
ting of them; but we are yet confident we have committed 
none that we can condemn for errors either in point of 
Irreverence or disrespect to their persons, or in violation of 
their liberties, as the present condition of the state there is. 


More when Provincial gave it as his opinion that 
Father Copley " though of good talents and suf 
ficient experience/ 7 was " deficient in judgment 
and prudence." A meeting of these two indomi 
table natures could hardly make for peace and 
good will, yet we cannot doubt of their sincerity 
and self-sacrificing zeal. During Ingle s rebellion 
Father Copley was sent in chains to England and 
afterwards returned to Maryland to labor for the 
good of souls. John Lewger, after his return to- 
the mother-country devoted his life to God in the: 
priesthood, and died as a result of his devotion to- 
duty, in attending the plague-stricken of London. 2 

And for my own part I profess before Almighty God, that, 
I am not conscious of any thing yet done out of disrespect 
to their persons, functions, or rightful liberties; and that 
hereafter they shall find me as ready to serve and honor 
them as your Lordship can wish." (Lewger to Lord Balti 
more, Jan. 5, 1638; Calvert Papers, I, pp. 194-195.) 

There is " a memorandum still remaining in what is be 
lieved to be the handwriting of Mr. Lewger," says Streeter, 
(p. 251), beginning: "The governor and I went to the 
good men, (i. e., the Jesuit Fathers) about difficulties." 
The " difficulties " are then rehearsed, showing that the 
Governor and the Secretary must indeed, have been in a 
quandary, placed as they were between the violation of 
their official pledges, and opposition to the distinctly ex 
pressed will of his Lordship, on the one hand, and the op 
position of the clergy, with the displeasure of the Church, 
on the other. This was in 1642, and was in regard to 
the Statutes of Mortmain." See Btreeter s Papers Rela 
ting to the Early History of Maryland. 

1 Hughes, i, p. 423. 

2 Vide supra, Lewger, p. 134-135. 


From all the evidences at hand it would be dif 
ficult to doubt Lord Baltimore s sincerity in liis 
expressions of suspicion and fear concerning the 
motives and acts of the Jesuits, just as from the 
same evidences, it is difficult to conceive how such 
exaggerated suspicions and fears on his part could 
have been entertained. 1 

1 Calvert Papers, pp. 213, 217-18. Cfr. also Archives, 
I, 264, 265. 

Almost the same day (November 21st, 1642) that the Gen- 
nal) Protector to buy off vexation," (Hughes, p. 532, quoting 
myself will see that faculties are asked for from the (Cardi 
nal) Protector to buy off vexation," (Hughes, p. 532, quoting 
General Archives, Anglia}* Lord Baltimore, exasperated no 
doubt, by the obstructions that had been put in his way of 
obtaining faculties for the Secular clergy, believing that a 
Jesuit had gone to Maryland in spite of his prohibition, was 
writing a letter to his brother, Leonard, accusing the 
Jesuits of being his bitter enemies. He writes : " I pray 
hasten the design you wrote unto me of this year, of bringing 
all the Indians of that Province to surrender their interests 
and right to me, for I understood lately from a member of 
that Body Politic, whom you call those of the Hill there 
[the Jesuits] that Mr. White [the Jesuit] had a great 
deal of land given to him at Pascattoway not long since by 
Kittamaquund, before his death, which he told me by accident 
not conceiving that that place was within my Province, or 
that I had any thing to do with it, for so he said that he 
had been informed and I had some difficulty to satisfy him 
that it was within my Province. By this you may daily 
percieve what ways these men go and of what dangerous 
consequence their proceedings are to me." (Calvert Papers, 
I, p. 213.) And again: "Just now I understand that not 
withstanding my prohibition to the contrary another mem 
ber of those of the Hill there, hath by a slight got aboard 
Mr. IngeFs ship in the Downes to take his passage for 


The same letter which introduces the two 
Secular priests to Leonard Calvert, contains a re- 
Maryland, which for divers respects I have reason to 
resent as a high affront unto me, wherein if you do not that 
right to me as I require from you in my Instructions, 
dated 20th Oct. last, I shall have just cause to think that 
I have put my honor there in trust to ill hands who betray 
me to all the infamous contempts that may be laid upon me. 
This Gentleman the bearer hereof, Mr. Territt [the Secular 
priest] will acquaint you more particularly with my mind 
herein and with the opinion and sense which divers and 
learned men here have to this odious and impudent injury 
offered unto me, and with what is lawful and most neces 
sary to be done in it as well for the vindication of my honor 
as in time to prevent a growing mischief upon me, unto 
whom wherefore, I pray give credit. Mr. Gilmett [the 
Secular priest] will, I know, concur in opinion with him, 
for upon divers consults had here (before he went) he was 
well satisfied what might and ought to be done upon 
such an occasion. In case the man above mentioned who 
goes thither in contempt of my prohibition, should be dis 
posed of in some place out of my Province before you can 
lay hold of him, for they are so full of shifts and devises as 
I believe they may perhaps send him to Potomac Town, 
thinking by that means to avoid your power of sending him 
back into those parts, and yet the affront to me remaiji and 
the danger of prejudice also to the same, for (whatsoever 
you may conceive of them who have no reason upon my 
knowledge to love them very much if you knew as much 
as I do concerning their speeches and actions here towards 
you) I am (upon very good reason) satisfied in my judg 
ment that they do design my destruction and have too good 
ause to suspect, that if they cannot maRe or maintain a 
party among the English to bring their ends about, they 
will endeavor to do it by the Indians within a very short 
time by arming them &c. against all those that shall oppose 
them, and all under pretence of God s honor and the 


cital of the complaint against the Jesuits on ac 
count of Mattapany. 1 This tract of land called 
Mattapany was of exceeding importance. 2 As to the 

Propagation of the Christian Faith, which shall be the 
mask and vizard to hide their other designs withall. If all 
things that Clergymen should do upon these pretences 
should be accounted just and to proceed from God, laymen 
were the basest slaves and the most wretched creatures 
upon the earth. And if the greatest saint upon earth should 
intrude himself into my house against my will, and in de 
spite of me, with the intention to save the souls of all my 
family, but withall give me just cause to suspect that he 
likewise designs my temporal destruction, or that being 
already in my house doth actually practise it, though 
withall he do perhaps many spiritual goods, yet certainly 
I may and ought to preserve myself by the expulsion of such 
an enemy, and by providing others to perform the spiritual 
goods he did, who shall not have any intention of mischief 
towards me. For the law of nature teacheth this, that it is 
lawful for every man in his own just defence, vim m re- 
pellere those that will be impudent, must be as impudently 
dealt withal. In case, I say, that the party above men 
tioned should escape your hands by the means aforesaid, 
(which by all means prevent if you possibly can) then I 
pray do not fail to send Mr. Copley away from thence by 
the next shipping to those parts; unless he will bring the 
other new comer into your power to send back again. And 
this I am satisfied here that I may for divers reasons cause 
to be done, as the said Mr. Territt and Mr. Gilmett will 
more fully satisfy you and I am resolved to have it done 
accordingly." Italics the author s. (Letters of Cecilius 
Calvert to Leonard Calvert, Nov. 21-23, 1642, Calvert 
Papers, pp. 216-18.) 

1 Calvert Papers, I, p. 213. 

"By land this property was distant from St. Mary s 
only a few hours ride on horse-back through the woods. 
Thus it had quite a strategic value for ministries among 


justice of the respective claims, authorities are 
divided. On the one hand, those who side with 
Lord Baltimore hold that, as the Charter gave to 
the Proprietary all territory within the boundaries 
of Maryland, no English subject had a right to accept 
any portion of the land granted by the Crown with 
out the Proprietary s consent. The acceptance of 
Mattapany by the Jesuits was therefore illegal. 1 
The Jesuits, on the other hand, maintained that 
the Indian king Kittamaquund, who was de facto 
in possession of the land, had a just right to cede 
it to whomsoever he would. 

The attitude of Lord Baltimore in this instance 
seems to be in accordance with the opinion of 
Chancellor Kent and is sustained by the decisions 
of the Supreme Court of the United States. 2 

the Indians, of temporal supplies of corn, of which the 
St. Mary s mission stood in need, and for being easily in 
touch with the latter." (Hughes, pp. 344, 570.) 

1 Calvert Papers, I, pp. 213-19; Hughes, p. 491. 

2 Kent says : " In discussing the right and consequences 
attached by the international law of Europe to prior discov 
ery, it was stated in Johnson vs. Mclntosh (8 Wheaton Rep., 
563) that on the discovery of this continent by the natives of 
Europe, the discovery was considered to have given to the 
government by whose subjects or authority it was made, a 
title to the country and the sole right of acquiring the 
soil from the natives as against all other European powers. 
Each nation claimed the right to regulate for itself, in 
exclusion of all others the relation which was to subsist 
between the discoverer and the Indians. That relation 
necessarily impaired to a considerable degree the rights of 
the original inhabitant, and an ascendency was asserted, 


That he was surrounded by inimical conditions 

in consequence of the superior genius of the Europeans, 
founded on civilization and Christianity, and their superi 
ority in the means and art of war. The European nations 
which respectively established colonies in America, assumed 
the ultimate dominion to be in themselves, and claimed 
the exclusive right to grant a title to the soil with a legal 
as well as a just claim to retain possession of it. The 
natives were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the 
soil, with a legal as well as a just claim to retain possession 
of it, though not to dispose of the soil at their own will, 
except to the government claiming the right of preemption. 
. . ." (Kent s Commentaries, in, pp. 505-506.) 

" This assumed but qualified dominion over the In 
dian Tribes, regarding them as enjoying no higher title 
to the soil than that founded on simple occupancy and 
to be incompetent to transfer their title to any other power 
than the government which claims the jurisdiction of their 
territory by right of discovery, arose in a great degree 
from the necessity of the case. To leave the Indian in 
possession of the country, was to leave the country a wil 
derness, and to govern them as a distinct people, or to mix 
with them and to admit them to an inter-community of 
privileges, was impossible under the circumstances of their 
relative condition. The peculiar character and habits of the 
Indian nation rendered them incapable of sustaining any 
other relation with the whites than that of dependence and 
pupilage. There was no other way of dealing with them 
than that of keeping them separate, subordinate and de 
pendent, with a guardian care thrown round them for 
their protection. The rule that the Indian was subordinate 
to the absolute, ultimate title of the government of the 
European colonies, and that the Indians were to be con 
sidered as occupants, and entitled to protection in peace 
in that character only, and incapable of transferring their 
right to others; was the best one that could be adopted 
with safety. The weak and helpless condition in which 
we found the Indians, and the immeasurable superiority 


at home, which neither his brother the Governor, 
nor the Jesuits could understand, we may readily 

of their civilized neighbors, would not admit of the appli 
cation of any more liberal and equal doctrine to the case 
of Indian lands and contracts. It was founded on the 
pretension of converting the discovery of the country into 
a conquest; and it is now too late to draw into dis 
cussion the validity of that pretension, or the restriction 
which it imposes. It is established by numerous compacts, 
treaties, laws and ordinances, and founded on immemorial 
usage. The country has been colonized and settled, and is 
now held by that title. It is the law of the land, and no 
court of justice can permit the right to be disturbed by 
speculative reasonings on abstract right." (Ibid., in, p. 

" Congress have the exclusive right of preemption to 
all Indian lands lying within the territories of the United 
States. (So decided in the case of Johnson vs. Mclntosh 
and Fletcher vs. Peck.) The United States own the soil 
as well as the jurisdiction of the immense tracts of un- 
patented lands included within these territories. . . . The 
Indians have only a right of occupancy and the United 
States possess the legal title subject to that occupancy and 
with an absolute and exclusive right to extinguish the 
Indian title of occupancy either by conquest or purchase. 
The title of the European nations which passed to the 
United States to this immense territorial empire, was 
founded on discovery and conquest, and by the European 
customary law of nations, prior discovery gave this right 
to the soil, subject to the possessory right of the natives, 
and which occupancy was all the right that European 
conquerors and discoverers, and which the United States 
as succeeding to their title would admit to reside in the 
native Indians. The principle is that the Indians are to 
be considered merely as occupants, to be protected while 
in peace in the possession of their lands, but to be deemed 


conceive. He hints at such a state of affairs in 
his letter to Leonard, written November 23, 1642. 1 

incapable of transferring the absolute title to any other 
than the sovereign of the country." (Ibid., in, p. 280.) 

Supreme Court decisions: Johnson vs. Mclntosh, I, p. 
280; in, p. 505; 8 Wheaton Rep., 543. Cherokee Nation 
vs. State of Georgia, ibid., in, p. 508. Worcester vs. State 
of Georgia, ibid., in, p. 510. 

" The right given by European discoverers was the ex 
clusive right to purchase, but the right was not founded 
on the denial of the right of the Indian possessor to sell 
.... the exclusive right of purchasing such lands as the 
Indians were willing to sell." " Indians were to be con 
sidered independent nations competent to maintain relations 
of peace and war, and of governing themselves under pro 
tection." (Ibid., in, p. 510.) 

1 On this occasion he says : . . . I understand that not 
withstanding my prohibition the last year you did pass 
grants under my seal here to those of the Hill of St. Inigoes, 
and other lands at St. Mary s and also of 100 acres of land 
at Pascattoway, some of which, as I am informed, you con 
ceived in justice due unto them and therefore thought your 
self obliged to grant them although it were contrary to my 
directions, which to me seems very strange, for certainly I 
have power to revoke any authority I have given you here 
either in whole or in part; and if I had thought fit to have 
totally revoked your power of granting any lands there at 
all in my name, certainly no man that is disinterested could 
think that you were bound, nevertheless, in conscience to 
usurp such an authority against my will, because in justice 
divers planters ought to have grants from me. For when 
I have revoked the power I gave you for that purpose any 
man else may, as well as you, undertake to pass grants in 
my name, and have as much obligation also in conscience to 
do it, and how ridiculous that were for any man to do I 
leave it to you to judge. When I did give directions to you 
not to grant any more lands to those of the Hill there, upon 


These conditions made it incumbent upon him 
not to give his enemies occasion to accuse him of 
favoring the Jesuits and of discriminating against 
the Protestants. With all his care and prudence, 
however, such charges were brought against him. 1 

any pretence whatsoever, I did so far as concerned them re 
voke that power I formerly gave you of granting lands 
there, and it was a great breach of trust in you to do the 
contrary; for I believe you would take it very ill, and with 
good reason you might, if any man whom you should trust 
with the keeping of your seal should affix it to any thing 
contrary to your direction although you were bound perhaps 
in future to cause it to be done yourself. If these persons 
had had any just cause of complaint by having grants re 
fused them, it had been your part only to have referred 
them unto me, who knew best my own reasons why I gave 
the aforesaid directions, for you are merely instrumental in 
those things to do what I direct, and not to compel me to do 
what you think fitting. And for aught you know some acci 
dent might have happened here that it was no injustice in 
me to refuse them grants of any lands at all, which I do not, 
I will assure you, mention ivithout good ground. I shall 
earnestly, therefore, desire you to be moi^ observant 
hereafter of my direction, and not expect that I should 
satisfy your judgment by acquainting you still with my rea 
sons why I direct anything; for then my power there were 
no more than any man s else, who may with reasons per 
suade you to do or forbear anything as well as I." Italics 
the author s. (Calvert Papers, vol. I, pp. 219-220.) Nov. 
23, 1642. 

1 " Baltimore was no indifferentist in matters of religion. 
That he was a sincers Catholic is shown by the fact that all 
the attacks upon his rights were aimed at his faith, as the 
most vulnerable point. That he was a Papist and Maryland 
a Papist colony, a nursery of Jesuits and plotters against 
Protestantism, was the endless burden of his enemies 


The greatest circumspection was necessary to 
keep him from running his enterprise upon the 
shoals of destruction. It may truly be said that the 
liberty so long enjoyed by the Catholics in Mary 
land, was due to his wise and far-seeing manage 
ment of affairs. Under a less skillful hand, the 
control would have been wrested from Catholic 
influence. His son Charles soon lost the power 
for good that his father had so long and so suc 
cessfully maintained. Even when circumstances 
made it expedient to appoint Protestants to the 
chief offices in the colony, Cecilius made special 
provision to guarantee the rights of his fellow- 

When the dispute was submitted to the Gen 
eral of the Society of Jesus at Rome he replied to 
the Provincial in England, (October 31, 1643,) 
"From the accounts m which your Reverence sent 
me lately I received much gratification, on learn 
ing of the fruit yielded by the Evangelical seed 
which has been sown by the laboring of ours in 
Maryland; besides the well-founded hopes of see 
ing a plentiful harvest gathered into the granary 
of the Lord. At the same time, the satisfaction I 

charges. He had only to declare himself a Protestant to 
place himself in an unassailable position; yet that step he 
never took, even when ruin seemed certain. He was singu 
larly free from bigotry, and he had had a bitter knowledge of 
the fruits of religious dissension; and he meant from the 
first, as far as in him lay, to secure his colonists from 
them." (Browne s Maryland, p. 69.) 


found in your reports suffered no little diminution 
by reason of what you went on to relate, with 
respect to the controversy with the Right Honour 
able Baron, lord of that region, on the subject of 
not appropriating to the service of the Church any 
landed property without his consent. I should be 
sorry if differences about temporal things placed a 
hinderance in the way of the conversion of souls; 
or if on account of perishable goods we should be 
hampered in bringing the natives to goods eternal. 
Wherefore you may assure the Right Honourable 
Baron in my name, that we shall not be a source 
of detriment to his temporal dominion; and that 
on the contrary, we shall, as far as the nature of 
our institute allows us, be always ready to enlarge 
and promote the interests of his Proprietary rights. 
There is but small hope of obtaining a Pontifical 
brief (such as you ask for) that the donations 
made heretofore for the benefit of the Church 
without his consent may be nullified. Still that 
we may do all in our power to conciliate the Right 
Honourable gentleman, let your Reverence adopt 
this line of conduct : for the sake of peace you will 
issue an order to all of ours who are working in 
that vineyard, that they do not accept at all of 
any landed property offered them, whether by the 
faithful or by Infidels, without the consent of the 
same Right Honourable Baron. As I have often 
heard him spoken of with commendation for his 
eminent piety, zeal, and particular good will to- 


wards our lowly order, I am encouraged to hope 
that he will be facile and liberal in granting his 
consent, for such acquisitions, as shall appear 
necessary to support our missionaries according to 
our institute. Please convey my kindliest wishes to 
him, of whose piety, I am glad to recall I once had 
the pleasure of being a witness myself here, etc." l 
On December 5th, 1643, he writes again: 
" Certainly to the effect that no hinderance may be 
put in the way by any disagreement about earthly 
belongings, I have already expressed my mind to 
your Reverence, that for the sake of peace you 
should forbid ours to accept any landed property 
without the consent of the Right Honourable 
Baron, lord of that region ; and I trust that letter 
will have reached you. I should be sorry, indeed 
to see the first fruits, which are so beautifully de 
veloping in the Lord, nipped in their growth by 
the frost of cupidity." 2 As the General of the 
Jesuits is directly under the jurisdiction of the 
Pope, he would hardly have acted without the ad 
vice of the Holy Father. We have, then, in this 
decision, an intimation of the voice of Rome. 3 
This decision, moreover, seems to accord with the 

1 Hughes, p. 558, quoting General Archives. See Appendix I. 

2 Ibid., p. 559 quoting General Archives 8. J., Anglia, 
Epist. Gen. Documents, i, No. 6, J. K. 

5 For a more complete understanding of this question cf. 
Johnson s Foundations of Maryland; Hughes History of 
the 8. J. in N. A.; also Dr. Browne s review of the latter 
in the Maryland Historical Magazine, September, 1907; A. 
P. Dennis in American Hist. Assn. Report, I, 1900. 


custom of the Church as shown in the Bull of 
Demarkation of Alexander VI. 1 

The difficulty between Lord Baltimore and the 
Jesuits, is still wrapped in considerable mystery. 2 
It appears to be one of those lamentable instances 
of which we too often have experience when sin 
cere, honest, and devoted men through misunder 
standings, become involved in an inextricable laby 
rinth of suspicion, mutual recrimination and bit 
terness. The genuine astonishment exhibited both 
by the Proprietary and the Fathers, hardly leaves 
a doubt that there was a misunderstanding. The 
Fathers had evidently expected such clerical rights 
and privileges as had been customary in Catholic 
England. The Proprietary had planned, no 
doubt, under the instructions of his father, a con 
dition of Church and State much resembling that 
which now exists in the United States. The cor 
respondence between the Proprietary and the 
Fathers show this to be the fact. The letter of 
Father Copley to Lord Baltimore ? 3 is thus in 
dorsed: "3 April, 1638, Mr. Thomas Copley to 
me, from St. Maries: Herein are demands of 
very extravagant privileges." In this letter one 
paragraph especially took the Proprietary by 
surprise. Father Copley asks : " that ourselves 

1 See Appendix H. 

a Cfr. Hughes, Hist, of 8. J., and Johnson, Foundations 
of Md. A. P. Dennis, Ph. D., in American Hist. Assn. 
Report, i, 1900. 

3 Calvert Papers, i, pp. 167-169. 


and our domestic servants, and half, at least, 
of our planting servants may be free from 
public taxes and services, and that the rest 
of our servants and our tenants, though they ex 
teriorly do as others in the colony, yet that in 
the manner of exacting or doing it, privately the 
custom of other Catholic countries may be observed 
as much as may be, that Catholics out of bad 
practice come not to forget those due respects 
which they owe to God and His Church." Lord 
Baltimore has written on the margin of this: "All 
their tenants as well as servants he intimates here 
ought to be excepted from the temporal govern 
ment," 1 

Those who indulge in sweeping condemnation of 
the Jesuits in Maryland, overlook two important 
considerations. The most that the Jesuits asked 
for were special privileges; there is never the 
slightest hint that they begrudged freedom of con 
science to other denominations. The Puritans 
and Episcopalians, however, no sooner obtained a 
controlling power than they began at once a system 
of intolerance and oppression. 

The privileges, moreover, the Jesuits asked for, 
were such as the clergy had enjoyed in Catholic 
England under Magna Charta until the time of 
the Protestant separation. The world at large had 
hardly at that time conceived an idea of such a 
state of affairs as obtains now in the United 

1 Calvert Papers, I, p. 166. 


States. We, to-day, are accustomed to the present 
relations of Church and State; we can see its 
practicability, and we can appreciate its advan 
tages. It was then an untried novelty in civil 
government. To most people there appeared no 
middle way between favoring one church or another. 

The devoted, self-sacrificing priests, zealous for 
the salvation of souls, circumscribed by provincial 
limits, shut out from the rest of the world, were 
quite naturally in no position to take such a view of 
the situation as presented itself to Lord Baltimore. 
It was clear to him as to many other far-seeing 
statesmen that the time was come when the religi 
ous and political conditions of the world demanded 
religious freedom. In this respect, he and the 
other colonists who upheld his policy were far in 
advance of their times. 

Devoted, generous ministers of God, the Jesuits 
of Maryland deserve all honor for their fidelity to 
their calling; they deserve no blame in that they 
possessed not the foresight and statesmanship of 
the Proprietary or of their own Superior Gen 
eral. Would that the ministers had asked for 
nothing more than the Jesuits asked for, or had 
proved themselves as faithful to their vocation, as 
much an honor to their ministry. 1 

3 See chapter on Puritan government; and also conditions 
under the Episcopalian regime. 

" Since Fathers White, Altham and Copley were ex 
cused from serving in the General Assembly of 1637, no 


Was then Cecilius Calvert a true Catholic? 
The answer is given not by documents, but by his 
life. He was a Catholic when he had everything 
to gain by relinquishing his faith. He remained 
a Catholic despite the ruin that faced him from 
enemies who made use of his faith as the strongest 
argument for his downfall. When the most 
venomous weapons his enemies could hurl at him 
were the accusations, " Papist/ " Jesuitical 
Papist/ 7 " Friend of the Jesuits/ 7 when his colony 
was called a " Nursery of Jesuits/ when he had 
but to say the words, " I am a Protestant," and his 
enemies would have become his friends, and the 
highest offices in the Kingdom would have been 
within the range of his ambition, he stood firm and 
unshaken in his faith, stood to lose all he pos 
sessed; and this too, while those in the Church 
with whose name his own was associated in op 
probrium, whose supposed misdeeds he was corn- 
priest or clergyman has ever sat in that body. And the 
Constitution has always made all ministers and preachers 
of the Gospel ineligible, an exclusion which exists in no 
other State." (Johnson, p. 94.) 

These interesting survivals of the struggle between Lord 
Baltimore and the Jesuits are found in the laws of the 
State of today: No ecclesiastic may sit in the General 
Assembly; no gift, sale or devise of land, nor gift nor sale 
of goods or chattels to take effect after the death of the 
donor or seller can be effective without ratification by the 
Assembly; and Maryland is the only state of the Union 
which requires a religious ceremony for the completion of 
a marriage. (Steiner, Md. During, etc., p. 63.) 


pelled to bear the burden of, from whom he had 
hoped to receive support and sympathy, were at 
that very time leagued against him, and, to his way 
of thinking, were planning his ruin. A man who 
under such conditions had the courage, the heroic 
courage, to defy all opposition and to stand before 
a persecuting world a professed Catholic, needs no 
apologist. His Catholicity cannot be impugned. 
The invincible logic of such an unquestionable fact 
cannot be obscured, much less smothered under any 
amount of musty documents, raked out of holes and 
corners, fragmentary, dove-tailed and heaped up. 
Cecilius Calvert was a Catholic, a genuine Catho 
lic, a self-sacrificing Catholic, explain the rest as 
we may. 


Perplexed, doubtless, by the difficulties he found 
both within and without the province, Leonard 
Calvert resolved to return to England, April, 
1643, and he appointed Giles Brent to act as 
Governor during his absence. 1 It was during 
Calvert s visit to the mother-country that Captain 
Richard Ingle, lately arrived in the province, 
commenced his " plots and machinations " with 
the view of overthrowing the Proprietary govern 
ment. 2 He was arrested on a charge of high 
treason, 3 and his vessel was placed under a guard, 
which, however, through the interposition of Corn- 
waleys was removed, and Ingle making use 
of this opportunity, regained possession of his 
ship. 4 Two days later he was ordered arrested by 
the Governor; 5 but Ingle showed his regard for 
such proceedings by committing assault upon one 
Henry Bishop, who had been a witness against 
him; and on being reproached for so doing, 
threatened to beat down the dwellings of the peo- 

1 Archives, in, p. 130. 
2 Bozman, n, p. 270. 

3 Archives, iv, p. 231. 

4 Archives, iv, p. 232; Captain Richard Ingle, by Ed 
ward Ingle, pp. 9-10. 

5 Archives, iv, p. 233. 




pie, even that of the Governor himself. He was 
impeached shortly after for the " said crimes of 
piracy, mutiny, trespass, contempt and misde 
meanors and every of them severally, was put 
under bail of one barrel of powder, and 400 pounds 
of shot, to appear at St. Mary s, and answer the 
charges the following February." l The reckless 
dare-devil had scant respect for writs, courts or 
laws, and sailed away without paying either his 
bail or custom dues. 2 

Cornwaleys was, thereupon, charged with hav 
ing been responsible for Ingle s escape. The 
Captain " replied, that while he had not considered 
Ingle guilty of the charges against him, he had 
not been accessory to his defiance. 3 From this it ap 
pears, that Ingle had imposed upon the good-will 
of Cornwaleys, and made use of the Captain s kind 
offices to effect his release and subsequent escape. 
This was one of the few instances in which Thomas 
Cornwaleys showed a lack of judgment in permit 
ting himself to be so easily hood-winked. But 
Ingle must, indeed, have been a very specious 
rascal, for we know that he had some short time 
before this, managed to ingratiate himself into 
the confidence of the Proprietary himself, who had 

1 Archives, iv, pp. 247-8, 251; Ingle, p. 15. 
* Archives, iv, p. 261. 
3 Archives, iv, p. 248. 


employed him to bring to Maryland the two 
Secular priests, Fathers Gilmett and Territt. 1 

Cornwaleys was fined 1,000 Ibs. of tobacco, for 
the part he had taken in freeing Ingle from the 
custody of the officers. 2 The feeling amongst the 
people against Cornwaleys was so strong at the 
time that he felt compelled to escape with Ingle to 

In February, 1645, Ingle again appeared in 
Maryland with an armed ship, the Reformation, 
having goods entrusted to him by Cornwaleys 
valued at 200, and with a commission from 
Parliament for carrying food, clothing and ammu 
nition to the colonists in sympathy with the Par 
liamentary party. 3 St. Mary s was then taken, 
many of the members were made prisoners, 
the Governor was a fugitive in Virginia, and the 
Province in the hands of a force professing to act 
and probably acting, under the authority of Par 
liament. 4 According to the statements made in 
the Assembly of 1649, during this invasion, those 
who were loyal to the Proprietary " were spoiled 
of their whole estates, and sent away as banished 

1 Calvert Papers, pp. 211-12; also Hughes, p. 263, who 
says " Ingle [was] the Captain to whom Baltimore two 
years before, had intrusted his first instalment of intrud 
ing clergy." 

2 Archives, iv, p. 249. 

3 Ingle, p. 20. 

*Streeter Papers, p. 267; also, Bacon s Preface. 


persons out of the Province; those few that re 
mained were plundered and deprived in a manner 
of all livelihood and subsistance, only breathing 
under that intolerable yoke which they were forced 
to bear under those rebels." l The people were 
tendered an oath against Lord Baltimore, which 
all the Catholics refused to take. 2 

The invaders did not attempt to set up a 
government being content with pillaging, ma 
rauding and destroying. Judging from the ac 
counts that have come down to us of Ingle and his 
crew, we are led to the conclusion that they were 
nothing more than a gang of disorderly, vaporing, 
blatant rowdies, armed with a Parliamentary com 
mission, which the peaceable inhabitants, not know 
ing how the disorders in England might terminate, 
felt compelled to respect, until better knowledge 
of affairs abroad should afford them an occa 
sion to expel the marauders. The outlaws built 
a fort for themselves five miles from St. Mary s 
wherein they were protected. Having robbed and 
pillaged the town, they gave themselves very little 
further concern about it. The fact is, in 1646, the 
colonists elected their own Governor without any 
apparent objection from the invading garrison. 
However, the garrison sometimes gave evidence of 
its activity. From the account of one of the 

1 Archives, I, p. 238. 

2 Archives, I, p. 271. 


missionary Fathers of the time we read, that, 
" during the celebration of the Feast of St. 
Ignatius, mindful of the solemn custom, the anni 
versary 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 al 
most 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 de 
fence, 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, 
rushing upon us with arms, they break into the 
houses of the Catholics, and plunder whatever 
there is of arms or powder. 7 1 

This rebellion has been called Claiborne s and 
Ingle s, and although association with Claiborne 
would not have been dishonorable to one, such 
as Ingle, historical accuracy seems to call for a 
distinction. 2 " It is probable, in the absence of 
evidence to the contrary, that Ingle and Claiborne 

1 Fund Pub., pp. 94-95. 

2 Cfr. Ingle, p. 22. 


never planned any concerted action, but that each 
took advantage of the other s deeds to further his 
own interests." 1 Claiborne, we may well believe, 
had not lost sight of Kent Island, from which, by 
the decision of the Committee of Plantations he had 
been expelled. After the battle of Mars ton Moor 
(July 2, 1644) in which Charles lost the whole of 
the West of England, the enemies of Lord Balti 
more saw a favorable opportunity to strike a blow 
at his Province. Claibome " who was born to be 
the bane of Maryland," 2 after having experienced 
the king s favor by receiving the appointment as 
the king s treasurer for Virginia (1642), proba 
bly found in the ordinance of the Parliamentary 
party for the sequestration of the property of the 
king s adherents (1643) an opportunity to make 
good his claims to Kent Island. So sudden a change 
of politics was of little concern to him. Episco 
palian, abettor of Puritans, royalist or Par 
liamentarian, he was capable of being almost any 
thing but a friend to Lord Baltimore, and an 
honest man. Lord Baltimore had been among the 
loyal adherents of the king and had followed him 
to Oxford. His province, therefore, might come 
under the sequestration ordinance of Parliament. 
Claiborne, accordingly again appears at Kent Is 
land (1645). 3 

1 Ibid., pp. 23-4. 

2 Chalmers Annals, p. 210, 
3 Cfr. Bozman, i, pp. 264-285-299. 



The people of the Island secure in the possession 
of their lands, enjoying all the privileges they could 
desire under Lord Baltimore, gave little encourage 
ment to his intrigues. 

During this invasion of Ingle and his brawling 
swash-bucklers the saintly Father White, then sixty- 
six years old, together with Father Copley, was car 
ried off in chains to England. 1 Father White, 
the " Apostle of Maryland," though he longed to 
return to the much-loved scene of his labors and 
trials, was not permitted by his superiors to do so 
on account of his age and infirmities. 2 He expired 
in England in 1656. Two other priests, Kevs. 
Roger Eigbie and John Cooper, found their way 
into Virginia, where both died in 1646, leaving 
the Catholics without any spiritual guides. 3 

During this first period of missionary labor the 
number of priests in Maryland was sixteen; all 
but two were Jesuits; all true soldiers of the 
cross. Eight of them died in the performance of 
their heroic duties. 4 During ten years, these 
zealous priests had, amidst great hardships, visited 
the Indians, and after learning their language 

1 Hughes, p. 502. 

2 Ibid., pp. 61, 562. "The noble character of this saintly 
man is well seen from the fact that his great regrets are 
that the deafness hinders his hearing confessions." " He is 
the first true Marylander for his love for the land." Steiner 
suggests that he is probably the first to speak of Maryland 
as home. (Beginnings of Md., pp. 97, 98.) 

3 Shea, pp. 65-G ; Hughes, p. 563. 

4 Hughes, p. 564. 


sufficiently had instructed them in the truths 
of Christianity, so that nearly all the Indians 
south of what is now Washington had either 
been baptized, or were preparing for that sacra 
ment. 1 The good effected among the Indians by 
winning their favor for the colonists, by instruct 
ing them in the truths of Christianity, never re 
covered from the blow inflicted by the disorders of 
this rebellion. 2 

Ingle with his lawless following of kindred 
spirits, buccaneers at sea, and brigands on land, 
battened upon anarchy. As has been said, they 
had no desire to substitute a government for the 
one they had uprooted, their plan being to stamp 
out law and order that in the general panic and 
resulting confusion and tumult, they might raid 
and plunder the more easily. During this re 
bellion even the great seal of the Province was 
stolen for its silver, and the records were seized 
and destroyed. 3 

Towards the end of 1646, Calvert raised a small 
force, entered St. Mary s unresisted, and regained 
possession of the colony. Once more Maryland 
was at peace. 

1 Cfr. Shea, i, p. 67. 2 Fund Pub., pp. 94-7. 

3 Bacon s Preface. 

4 Leonard Calvert applied in vain to the Governor of 
Virginia for aid to expel the rebels (Streeter, p. 35). 
Left to his own resources he succeeded in mustering a small 
band to whom in payment he pledged his own and his 
brother s estates." (Archives, I, p. 227-229-316. 


It was shortly after this that the Governor 
died, June 9, 1647. " Take all and pay all," was 
the brief direction to his executrix, Mistress Mar 
garet Brent. " After thirteen years of faithful 
service in the highest office in the colony, this wise, 
just and humane governor, left a personal estate 
amounting to only 110 sterling." 1 

" No case of persecution occurred during the ad 
ministration of Governor Leonard Calvert from 
the foundation of the settlement at St. Mary s to 
the year 1647. His policy included the humblest 
as well as the most exalted; and his maxim was, 
Peace to all Proscription to none. Religious 
liberty was a vital part of the earliest common- 
law of the province." 2 " The design of the law of 
Maryland," says Bancroft, " was undoubtedly to 
protect liberty of conscience ; and some years after 
it had been confirmed, the apologist of Lord Balti 
more could assert that his government, in conform 
ity with his strict and repeated injunctions had 
never given disturbance in Maryland for matters 
of religion; that the colonists enjoyed freedom of 
conscience not less than freedom of person and 
estate." All authorities concur in ascribing to 
Lord Baltimore and the Governor, " the highest 

1 Browne, p. 64; see Archives, I, p. 239 and Council Pro 
ceedings, 1649-57, pp. 26, 19, 45, 46, for Mistress Brent s 
administration of his estate. 

2 Ibid., pp. 37-8. 

3 Bancroft, ed. 1892, I, p. 169. 


qualities of rulers and men. No man under their 
government ever complained that he was deprived 
by their agency of the smallest right of citizen or 
Christian. Possessed of hereditary wealth, they 
chose to use it in honorable enterprise in carrying 
civilization and Christianity into a savage wilder 
ness. The one was willing at a vast expense ta 
send, the other with personal privation, toil and 
danger to lead, a colony across three thousand 
miles of ocean to seek a home on a shore almost un 
known. The one at a distance watched over the 
interests of the rising colony, and strove to ward 
off from it the consequences at home; the other 
devoted his energies to the preservation of domestic 
peace and to the defence of the infant settlement 
from savage foes, to the enactment of wholesome 
laws, and the administration of justice." 1 

Ingle s perfidy is best shown in his treatment of 
Cornwaleys who had befriended him so signally. 
The story of their relations, and of Ingle s in 
gratitude, is narrated by Cornwaleys himself in 
his prosecution of the man upon whom he had con 
ferred so many benefits, and who had so ill repaid 
him. He tells how Richard Ingle had come to 
Maryland two years before " as master of a Lon 
don ship to trade with the English who had planted 
there, and was accused of high treason for words 
which he spoke against the King, upon some com- 

1 Burnap, Life of Leonard Calvert, p. 225. 


munication of the differences here between the 
King and Parliament, upon which accusation Ingle 
was arrested, and his ship and goods seized by the 
then Governor, but Cornwaleys, to declare his af 
fection to the Parliament, found means within 
eight hours space to free Ingle and to restore him 
to his ship and all his goods again, for which fact 
the greatest fine that by the laws of that country 
that could be set upon any man, was by the then 
Governor there imposed upon Cornwaleys, and he 
compelled to pay the same ; and then for the safety 
of his person, enforced to trust his whole estate 
there with a servant, and to fly hither with Ingle 
in the same ship. And when Cornwaleys came 
into England, Ingle gave testimony before a com 
mittee of his good affection to the Parliament and 
of his great sufferings for that cause. Afterwards 
Ingle going into those parts [Maryland] again, 
Cornwaleys entrusted him here in London, by way 
of trade, with divers commodities to the value of 
about 200, but Ingle kept the commodities and 
taking advantage of Cornwaleys absence, landed 
some men near his house and rifled it to the value 
of 2,500 at the least. And then returning into 
England, complained . . . against Cornwaleys as 
an enemy of the State, vainly hoping by that means 
to shelter himself from the law . . . Cornwaleys 
hath brought an action at law against Ingle for the 
commodities delivered here and a Commission was 
named to examine witnesses of the value of the 


goods taken away in Maryland. To stay these 
proceedings, Ingle caused Cornwaleys to be laid in 
prison, upon two feigned accusations of 15,000, 
but Cornwaleys by the help of his friends got out 
of prison. That project failing, Ingle preferred 
a petition against Cornwaleys before the Lords in. 
Parliament and upon feigned allegations procured 
an order to stop Cornwaleys Proceedings at law." 

It was in this manner Cornwaleys was requited 
for his benefactions. Just before this, Ingle, pro 
bably realizing that his hold upon the confidence of 
Parliament was becoming uncertain, sent to that 
body a remarkable " Apologia," representing his; 
plundering of the colony as a holy war, a religious 
crusade, an insurrection for conscience sake/ 
He gravely and piously recites how the c poor, dis 
tressed Protestants groaning under the tyranni 
cal power of the Governor and wicked Papists 
and Malignants in Maryland, were assisted by 
himself, who did venture his life and fortunes 
in the undertaking, and how i it pleased God to 
enable him to take several places from the Papists 
aforesaid. He then complains with a great show 
of just indignation of false accusations brought 
against him for pretended trespasses, and with 
refreshing audacity calls the attention of Parlia 
ment to the fact that " it would be of dangerous 
example to permit Papists and Malignants to 

1 Archives, in, pp. 166-67. 


bring actions for trespass against the well-af 
fected." 1 Such was Richard Ingle, Maryland s 
Pirate and Eebel. Even Ingle had not wanted 
an apologist. Unfortunately, the favorable charac 
ter so ingeniously constructed cannot be supported 
by authorities. 2 

Mention has just been made of Mistress Mar 
garet Brent. No woman was more conspicuous 
than she in the history of those early Maryland 
days, and she is preeminently the valiant woman 
of the colony. From the records we learn that she 
was a kinswoman of the Calverts, and came to 
Maryland with her brothers, Giles and Fulke and 
her sister Mary, bringing adherents, and taking up 
lands. She was a woman deep of heart, strong 
of soul, inflexible of will, keen and cultured, just 
and generous. Impulsive she must have been, and 
withal, compassionate ; and her influence seems to 
have cut deep into her day, from all accounts we 
have of her. She was, it would seem, the pioneer 
woman-suffragist of America, demanding right of 
representation and a voice in the colony s affairs. 
Into the General Assembly (in 1647) came Mis 
tress Brent " and requested to have a vote in the 
House for herself, and a voice also, for at the last 
Court, January 3rd, it was ordered that the said 

1 Archives, in, p. 165-6. 

2 Cfr. Capt. Richard Ingle, by Edward Ingle, A. B., Fund 
Pub. No. 10, Md. Hist. Society. 


Mistress Brent was to be looked upon and received 
as his Lordship s Attorney. The Governor denied 
that the said Mistress Brent should have any vote in 
the House. And the said Mistress Brent protested 
against all proceedings in this present Assembly, 
unless she may be present and have a vote as afore 
said." 1 The records fairly bristle with her busi 
ness ventures and achievements, her services to 
the colony upon one great occasion in particular, 
her guardianship of the young Indian Princess- 
Mary, and her administration of the estates of 
Governor Leonard Calvert. She was with him 
when he died, and it was principally upon her oath, 
and that of her sister Mary, that Thomas Greene 
was appointed to succeed to office. They testified 
that this was the last desire of the dying Governor. 2 
Writing to the Lord Proprietary, who had appar 
ently received complaints against her, the As 
sembly of Maryland in the year 1649 pays this re 
markable tribute to the woman whose lot had been 
cast with the fortunes of the struggling settle 
ment for so many years. " As for Mistress Brent s 
undertaking and meddling with your Lordship s 
estates here (whether she procured with her own or 
others importunity or no), we do verily believe and 
in conscience report, that it was better for the 
colony s safety at that time, in her hands, than in 

1 Archives, I, p. 215. 

2 Archives, m, p. 187. 


any man s else in the whole province after your 
brother s death. For the soldiers would never 
have treated any other with that civility and re 
spect, and though they were even ready at several 
times to run into mutiny yet still she pacified 
them till at last, things were brought to that strait 
that she must be admitted and declared your Lord 
ship s attorney by an order of Court ... or else 
all must go to ruin again, and then the second 
mischief had been doubtless far greater than the 

1 Archives, I, p. 239, also p. 316. 


Meanwhile the Protestants in the colony entitled 
to a vote were increasing. Most of them as we 
have seen came to the Province as redemptioners, 
and by this time had served out the term of 
years agreed upon. The number of Protestants, 
was, moreover, further augmented by the influx of 
Puritan immigrants from Virginia. As these 
Puritans were destined to play a most important 
and tragic part in the subsequent history of the 
Province, it will be instructive to trace briefly the 
causes which led them to choose the Land of 
Sanctuary for a home. 

The first Puritans came to Virginia in 1619 and 
settled in the Isle of Wight County. In 1621 Ed 
ward Bennet, a London merchant, sent a colony of 
Puritans, with his nephews Eobert and Richard 
Bennet to the Virginia colony and obtained patents 
for two hundred persons. In 1622 Captain 
Nathaniel Basse received a grant of land near the 
other settlements for one hundred colonists. All 
these had come from England. In 1621 Daniel 
Gookin came from Ireland, and took up land grants 
for three hundred persons near Newport News. 
These Puritan colonies seemed to be thriving when 
Governor Berkeley arrived in 1642. In May of 



that year, Philip Bennet was despatched from Vir 
ginia with letters to the Elders of Boston in which 
the writers bewailed their " sad condition for the 
want of the means of salvation." The letters 
were from Upper Norfolk, Virginia, and were 
signed by Richard Bennet, Daniel Gookin and 
some others, seventy-one in all. The Elders of 
Boston decided to send three ministers, but when 
they arrived in Virginia their reception was by no 
means encouraging. In March, 1643, the follow 
ing act was passed by the Virginia Assembly: 
" For the preservation of the purity of doctrine 
and unity of the Church, it is enacted that all 
ministers whatsoever, which shall reside in the 
colony, are to be conformed to the orders and con 
stitution of the Church of England, and not other 
wise to be permitted to preach or teach publicly or 
privately, and that the Governor and Council do 
take care that all non-conformists upon notice of 
them shall be compelled to depart the colony with 
all convenience." 

In view of the attitude of Virginia towards the 
Puritans, Lord Baltimore, in 1643, sent the letter 
already mentioned, to Captain Gibbons inviting 
the Puritans to Maryland. 2 In 1647 another act 

1 Statutes at Large of Virginia. William W. Hening, 
i, p. 277. 

2 Savage s Winthrop, vol. n, p. 148-9. 


was passed in Virginia against non-conformists. 1 
The following year William Durand and Rich 
ard Bennet, both destined in a few years to occupy 
a conspicuous place in Maryland history, were ex 
pelled from Virginia, and took refuge in Mary 
land. " With Lord Baltimore, their religious 
faith formed no objection to their admission to his 
colony." 2 At their solicitation, Governor Stone, 
invited the whole colony of persecuted Puritans to 
the Land of Sanctuary. Accordingly, during the 
year 1649, three hundred of them migrated to 
Maryland and settled on the Severn River, near 
what is now Annapolis, and in pious gratitude for 
the guiding hand that had led them to a secure 
refuge they called their settlement Providence. 
John Hammond, writing in 1656, says: " Mary 
land was courted by them as a refuge, the Lord 
Proprietor and his Governor solicited to, and sev 
eral addresses and treaties made for their admit- 

a Act of 1647: "Upon divers information presented to 
this Assembly against several ministers for their neglects 
and refractory refusing after warnings given them to 
read the Common Prayer or Divine Service upon Sabbath 
days. ... It is enacted that all ministers in their several 
cures throughout the colony do duly upon every Sabbath 
day read such prayers as are appointed and prescribed 
unto them by the said Book of Common Prayer. . . . And 
as a penalty to such as have ... or shall neglect their 
duty herein that no parishioners shall be compelled .... 
to pay any manner of tithes to any non-conformist as 
aforesaid." (Hening, I, p. 341-42). 

2 Streeter, Maryland Two Hundred Years Ago. 


tance and entertainment into that province, their 
conditions were pitied, their propositions were 
hearkened to and agreed on, which was that they 
should have convenient portions of land assigned 
them, liberty of conscience and privilege to choose 
their own officers and hold courts within them 
selves. All was granted them, they had a whole 
county of the richest land in the Province assigned 
them, and such as themselves made choice of. The 
t Conditions of Plantation (such as were com 
mon to all adventurers) were showed and pro 
pounded to them, which they extremely approved 
of, and nothing was in these conditions exacted 
from them but appeals to the Provincial Court, 
Quit-Rents, and an oath of fidelity to the Lord 
Proprietor." 1 " Mankind now beheld a scene 
new and uncommon, exhibited on colonial 
theatres; they saw in Massachusetts, the Inde 
pendents persecuting every different sect, the 
Church retaliating on them in Virginia; the Ro 
man Catholics of Maryland actuated by the gener 
ous spirit of Christianity, tolerating and protect 
ing all." 2 

Until this time nearly all the officials of the 
Province had been Catholics. This was quite 
natural, for, as Sanford Cobb remarks, " Every 
Romanist was a freeman, and only a minority of 

1 Hammond, pp. 22-25, in Force s Tracts; also Archives, 
in, pp. 233-37. See Appendix J. 

2 Chalmers, p. 219; Browne, Maryland, p. 74-5. 


Protestants could vote." l This gave rise to com 
plaints on the part of Protestants. 

In view of the political agitation in England 
and to satisfy the Protestants of Maryland, Lord 
Baltimore, in 1648, appointed a Protestant Gov 
ernor, William Stone, and three Protestant Coun 
cillors, Captain John Price, Thomas Hatton and 
Robert Vaughan, and two Catholics, Thomas 
Greene and John Pile. 2 At the same time as a 
protection for Catholics against possible intoler 
ance, the oath of the Governor and the Council, 
as we have seen, was revised. 3 

Religious freedom had certainly reigned as the 
law of the land for fifteen years while the Province 
was under Catholic control. Although the law in 
whatever form it existed, is not extant to-day, the 
existence of the law, or of a regulation, or custom, 
paramount to a law, is sufficiently attested by the 
trial and condemnation of Lewis and Gerrard, 
who, undoubtedly, would have complained, if they 
had been punished without legal warrant. It has 
been suggested by one who labors to minimize the 
credit due to Lord Baltimore and the Catholic gov 
ernment of Maryland, that discussions on religious 
topics were forbidden because they tended to dis 
turb the peace of the colony, and that this law had 

p. 375. The Protestant redemptioners received 
the right to vote as soon as they had served their time. 

2 Archives, I, p. 201, 211. 

3 Archives, I, pp. 244-47. 


little to do with religious toleration. 1 But if 
religious intolerance, even to the extent of discus 
sion was forbidden, it is difficult to see how 
religious toleration could have been more com 
plete. We should hardly expect the law to extend 
to men s thoughts. " It is certain/ says Brantly, 
" that from the time that the emigrants landed at 
St. Mary s religious toleration was the established 
custom of the province. The history of Maryland 
toleration does not begin with the famous Act of 
1649. That was merely a legislative confirma 
tion of the unwritten law. . . . While the annals 
of the other colonies of the New World were being 
shamed with the record of the crimes committed 
in the name of religion, in Maryland the doctrine 
of religious liberty was clearly proclaimed and 
practised. . . . All churches were tolerated, none 
were established. To this land of the Sanctuary 
came the Puritans who were whipped and im 
prisoned in Virginia, and the Prelatists who were 
imprisoned in New England." 2 " The records of 
the colony bear honorable testimony," says Bur- 
nap, " that the toleration which was professed, was 
most scrupulously maintained. This constitutes 
the true glory of the Catholics of Maryland, and 
gives them an enviable distinction above every 
other regularly constituted government." 3 " The 

1 Streeter, Maryland Two Hundred Years Ago, note, p. 39. 
2 Brantley, p. 530. 
3 Burnap, p, 174. 


pledge of civil liberty and religious toleration was 
redeemed to the letter." 1 " There has been," says 
the historian of Maryland, " much idle discussion 
about this matter, many imperfectly informed 
persons dating Maryland toleration from the 
Act of 1649. We have now proof that this was 
from the first the purpose of the founder of Mary 
land; and that the Act of 1649 only formulated 
the policy which had ruled in the Province from 
the very beginning." 2 

1 Ridpath s Hist, of the U. 8., p. 216. 

2 Calvert Papers, i, p. 35. Address of Dr. Browne. 

" The famous Toleration Act," says Thomas, " giving legal 
sanction and liberty of conscience, which shed such brilliant 
renown upon the legislative annals of Maryland and won for 
it the name of the land of the Sanctuary, and which ex 
tended to all who believed in Jesus Christ whatever their 
form of worship, shelter, protection and repose, became 
engrafted by law upon its government. Though religious 
toleration had been in practice in Maryland from its 
earliest settlement, it had never been made the subject 
of legislative enactment, and to the General Assembly of 
1649 does this, the proudest memorial of Maryland 
colonial history belong. . . . Injustice to none and Christ 
ian Charity and toleration for all who believed in Jesus 
Christ, established by Cecilius Calvert and continued by 
Charles Calvert, those in authority under them rigorously 
enforced." Chronicles of Maryland, note to p. 57. 

" In 1649," says R. S. Fisher, " the Assembly passed that 
noble Act of Religious Toleration, that has placed Mary 
land so far above her sister colonies, and which threw the 
mantle of charity over all, and in the benefits of which the 
Catholic, Quaker and Puritan participated; for all had 
experienced the rigours of persecution. The colony truly 
became the Land of the Sanctuary, and by this act all 


The first law, however, on this subject which is 
now extant is the famous Act of Assembly of 1649. 
Although, as we have seen, the Protestants in the 
colony had increased of late years, yet it is certain 
that in the Assembly of 1649 the Catholics were in 
the majority. The Rev. E. D. Neill, in Maryland; 
Not a Roman Catholic Colony, denied this fact 
when it was asserted by Cardinal Gibbons, then 
Bishop of Richmond. " A few years ago," says 
JsTeill, " / searched the manuscript records in the 
Maryland Capital at Annapolis, and read every 
work known to be published and I think it can be 
proved that the government of Maryland in 1649 
was as follows : 

The Governor, Protestant 1 

Councillors, 6 

Burgesses, 9 


Councillors, Roman Catholic 3 

Burgesses, Roman Catholic 5 

8" l 
The utter untrustworthiness of this writer has 

sects and denominations of Christians were secured in the 
public profession of their faith, and in the exercise of their 
religion according to the dictates of their consciences." 
Gazette of the State of Maryland, p. 12. 
1 Md. Not a Roman Cath. Col., p. 7. 


been demonstrated by Davis, a Protestant, who has 
thoroughly examined the question. 1 

" Looking at the question," he says, " under 
both of its aspects, regarding the faith either of 
the delegates or of those whom they substantially 
represented, we cannot but award the chief honor 
to the members of the Roman Church. To the 
Roman Catholic freemen of Maryland is justly 
due the main credit arising from the establish 
ment by a solemn legislative act, of religious free 
dom for all believers in Christianity." 

1 Dr. C. E. Smith, in Religion Under The Barons of Bal 
timore, p. 224, speaks of Davis as " a Roman Catholic 
author." Mr. Davis, however, speaking of himself, makes 
his profession of faith as a Protestant most unequivocally. 
He says : " Is there no gratitude among Protestants ? Will 
the Protestant flinch from the performance of a plain his 
torical duty? Shall he who inherits a pure Protestant 
blood, an unbroken Protestant faith, through eight genera 
tions from the age of Elizabeth, whose first Protestant an 
cestor of the Provincial line reached the shores of the 
Chesapeake but a year after the passage of the memorable 
Toleration Act, hesitate for one moment in doing justice to 
the memory of the early Catholic law-givers of Maryland?" 
(Davis, Day-Star of American Fredom, p. 208). 

2 Davis, p. 160-61. 

"The Proprietary was a Roman Catholic; and the Gov 
ernor, a Protestant. Three of the privy councillors 
(Thomas Green, John Pile, and Robert Clarke), held the 
faith of the former; the other three (John Price, Robert 
Vaughan, and Thomas Hatton), with equal certainty, may 
be classed w r ith the latter law-giver. As the result of the 
strictest historical criticism of the most careful and ex 
hausting analysis of the whole evidence it is but right 


The conclusions of Mr. Davis have not been 
questioned. They were accepted by Neill him- 

to say, the proof is not discoverable, that more than 
two members of the whole House of Burgesses (or repre 
sentatives of the people) were either Protestants, or in 
direct sympathy with the Protestant class of colonists. 
That Mr. Conner and Captain Banks belonged to that 
class, is a matter of evidence. And there is some degree 
of probability that Mr. Browne also held the faith of the 
English Church. But it is certain, that five of the 
burgesses (Messrs. Fenwick, Bretton, Manners, Maunsell, 
and Peake) cherished a faith in the Roman Church; and 
we have the basis of a very strong presumption, that Mr. 
Thornborough (a sixth member of the House) was also a 
Roman Catholic. Including the proprietary and Mr. Thorn- 
borough, ten of the law-givers of 1649 held the faith of the 
Roman Catholic Church. If we count the Governor and the 
two burgesses; six, it will appear, belonged to some branch 
of the Protestant probably the Anglo-Catholic. Adding 
Mr. Browne, we have a seventh. But this is a superficial 
view of the question; and refers only to the time they all 
sat in one House. 

" All we have from the remaining parts of the journal, is 
that on the last day of the Assembly, the representatives 
of the freemen, with the Governor, and with the privy 
councillors ( excepting Messrs Pile and Hatton ) , assembled 
in one House; that, on the same day, was passed the 
Act concerning Religion. It can be proved from the 
records, that of the fourteen, eight (including Mr. Thorn- 
borough) were Roman Catholics; and six (with Mr, 
Browne) were Protestants. But this estimate does not 
render strict historical justice to the claim of the former. 
The privy councillors were, all of them, as well as the 
Governor, the special representative of the Roman Catholic 
Proprietary; under an express pledge imposed by him, 
shortly before the meeting of the Assembly (as may be 
seen from the official oath) to do nothing at variance with 


self, without apology, however, for his previous 
glaring misstatements. 1 

Much has been said and written of the Act of 
1649, 2 as if from it, Maryland has received her 
crowning glory. But the student of her history 
who thoughtfully considers the events leading up 
to this enactment, as well as those which were sub 
sequent to it, will be forced to contrast the generos 
ity and breadth of the religious liberty accorded 
by the Catholic administration of the earlier days, 
with the narrowness and harshness beginning to 
show in the famous Act Concerning Religion, 
and will be inevitably led to the conclusion that 
this famous ordinance marks a transition stage 
from Catholic toleration to Protestant intolerance. 
It is at best but a compromise between the liberal 
principles which had guided the colonists hitherto, 
and Puritan bigotry and fanaticism which was 
now manifesting marked aggressiveness. The 
severe penalties of the Act of 1649 little accord 
with the generous spirit which characterized all 
previous customs and rules on the subject of 

the religious freedom of any believer in Christianty; and 
removable, any moment at his bidding. It would be fairer, 
therefore, to place the Governor and the four privy council 
lors on the same side as the six Roman Catholics against 
three Protestant votes." He adds : " It is not improbable 
that the Protestants constituted a fourth only of the popu 
lation of Maryland" at this time. (Davis, Day-Star, pp. 

1 Neill s Terra Mariae, p. 85. 

2 See Appendix K. 


religion, and the strength of the Puritan influence 
may be judged from the insertion of certain clauses 
foreign to the Catholic spirit which obtained in 
the colony from the beginning. " It is less tolerant 
than the charter and the Governor s oath, inasmuch 
as it includes Unitarians in the same category as 
blasphemers, and those who denied Our Saviour 
Jesus Christ, punishing all alike with confiscation 
of goods and the pains of death. This was the 
epoch of the trial and execution of Charles the 
First, and of the establishment of the Common 
wealth." l "It was," according to Kennedy, " a 
constrained Act contrived as a measure to protect 
the Lord Proprietor and his friends at a very critical 
period. ... It was the act of a Protestant legisla 
ture, with a Protestant governor at their head, and 
it did not establish toleration in Maryland. The 
Act itself is exceedingly intolerant." 2 " It was as 
good a compromise, as could be made at the 
time." 3 

1 Mayer, Calvert and Penn, p. 48. 

2 Kennedy s " Reply to his Reviewer," H d. Hist. Soc. Pub., 
p. 31. 

It is the opinion of the Rev. J. W. Mcllvaine, that " the 
Act itself is plainly a compromise between a Roman Catho 
lic Lord Proprietor and his Protestant subjects . . . this 
act gave to Maryland a Sunday law modeled on a strict 
Puritan Sabbath. . . . This is the language not of the 
Roman Catholic nor of the Anglican, but of the West 
minster Divines." (J.W. Mcllvaine, Early Presbyterianism 
in Maryland, p. 3-4). 

3 Browne, Maryland, p. 68. 


Although, as we have seen, the charter of 
Maryland included only Christians in its provis 
ions, yet there is nothing to show that Lord Bal 
timore or the early Catholics took advantage of 
this to exclude anyone from the Land of Sanctu 
ary, and notwithstanding this Act of 1649, we shall 
find the Proprietary extending the privileges of his 
colony to others. The genesis of this Act of 1649 
is very interesting. That some part of it was in 
substance, at least, contained in the sixteen laws 
which Lord Baltimore sent over to the colony in 
1648 for the adoption of the colonists seems to be 
beyond question. 1 The only part, however, which 
is in the style of Lord Baltimore, and harmonizes 
to some extent with the spirit of toleration in vogue 
during the previous fifteen years of the colony s 
existence, is to be found at the end, though from 
its import it seems to have formed the preamble 
to the original laws sent over by Lord Baltimore 
and rejected by the Assembly. " Whereas," it reads, 
" the enforcing of the conscience in matters of 
religion hath frequently fallen out to be of danger 
ous consequence in those Commonwealths where it 
hath been practised, and for the more quiet and 
peaceable government of this Province and the 
better to preserve mutual love and unity here; be 
it therefore also ordained and enacted, except as in 
this present Act is before declared and set forth, 

1 Archives, I, p. 262 


that no person or persons whatsoever within this 
Province, or in the islands, ports, harbors, creeks 
or havens thereunto belonging, professing to be 
lieve in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth be in 
any ways troubled, molested or discountenanced, 
for or in respect to his or her religion, nor in the 
free exercise thereof, within this province or the 
islands thereunto belonging, nor in any way com 
pelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion 
against his or her consent, so that they be not un 
faithful to the Lord Proprietary, or molest or con 
spire against the civil government . . . etc." : 
While yielding to none in their profound belief 
in their holy religion, it was not according to 
the liberal spirit of charity adopted by the Catho 
lics of Maryland to inflict such severe penalties on 
unbelievers, Unitarians or Jews. We shall see 
how a few years after this Puritanical wave had 
spent its force, Lord Baltimore gave land and the 
franchise to a Jew. The section in the act for- 

1 Archives, I, p. 244-247. 

The latter part of this Act in which toleration is limited 
to Christians, bears a close resemblance to part of the 
ninth section of the "Agreement of the People" (Jan. 15, 
1648) by which religious liberty was guaranteed to all in 
England except Catholics and Episcopalians. (See Ap 
pendix L. ) 

The section which imposes the penalty of death for 
blasphemy, denial of the Trinity or of the unity of the 
Godhead is apparently taken from an Act of the Presby 
terian Parliament of May 2, 1648. (See Appendix M.) 


bidding reproachful speeches concerning the 
Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and Evangelists, 
was evidently a Catholic provision and was intend 
ed by the Catholic majority as an efficacious 
damper upon the pietism of those who were apt 
to imagine that by insulting the Blessed Virgin 
Mary, the Mother of our Saviour, they were honor 
ing or pleasing the Son. The part of the act 
which forbids under penalty of fines, and whip 
pings, the calling of names such as Heretic, Schis 
matic, Idolater, Puritan, Presbyterian, Indepen 
dent, Popish Priest, Jesuit, Jesuited Papist, Lu 
theran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antino- 
mian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, was at 
least so far as punishment with fine was concern 
ed, the old law which had been in force up to the 
time of this Assembly. The penal enactments of 
imprisonment and public whipping for profaning 
the Sabbath, suggest a Puritanical source. The 
word Sabbath for Sunday smacks of Massachusetts 
rather than of Maryland. Thus it appears that 
whatever of Christian liberality or of religious 
toleration this act can boast, should be traced to a 
Catholic origin. With the exception of the penal 
clause for dishonoring the Mother of God, which 
the Catholics felt obliged to insert, it is according 
to the Catholic practice of the colony for the first 
fifteen years of its existence. To the Puritans and 
other Protestants in the colony must be given the 
credit for the severe penalties, and for the dis- 


abilities against Unitarians and Jews which had 
been unheard of, until this act modeled after 
one of a Puritan Parliament came into force. 
Anderson, the Queen s chaplain, who seldom has a 
kind word for Catholics, says of this act: "It 
bears remarkable testimony to the exient of religi 
ous divisions introduced even at that early period 
into the colony. . . . The latter part of this act 
breathes the spirit of toleration which animated 
the first Proprietors of Maryland. But it is 
strangely inconsistent with the first part. For 
how could the desire to preserve the rights of con 
science, or to secure to all persons, professing to 
believe in Jesus Christ the free exercise of religion, 
be in accordance within an enactment which pro 
vided that death, or confiscation of lands and 
goods, should follow the denial of the Holy Trin 
ity ? or that fines, and whippings and imprison 
ment should be inflicted upon any person who 
spoke reproachful words of the Virgin Mary ? 
The second can only be accounted for by the 
necessity, which Baltimore felt was laid upon him 
to vindicate from insult some of the distinguish 
ing doctrines of his own creed. He might have 
been justified in doing this ; especially since the 
Deputy Governor, and secretary and certain mem 
bers of the Maryland Council were not Komaii 
Catholics. But at all events it was a departure 
from the principles of government to which his 
father and he would willingly have adhered, and 


evidently forced upon him by the crowds of clamor 
ous sectaries pouring into his province, and striv 
ing to outvie each other in fierce intolerance." l 
Yet with all its imperfections and inconsisten 
cies this act of 1649, tainted with Puritan intoler 
ance, established a freedom of worship far superior 
to any prevailing at that time in the other colonies 
of America. " By the enactment of this statute," 
says Grahame, " the Catholic planters of Mary 
land procured to their adopted country the dis 
tinguished praise of being the first of the Ameri 
can States in which toleration was established as a 
law, and graced their peculiar faith with the 
signal and unwonted merit of protecting those 
rights of conscience which no other Christian As 
sociation in the world was yet sufficiently humane 
and enlightened to recognize. It is a striking and 
instructive spectacle, to behold at this period the 
Puritans persecuting their Protestant brethren in 
New England; the Protestant Episcopalians in 
flicting similar rigor and injustice on the Puritans 
in Virginia, and the Catholics, against whom all 
others were combined, forming In Maryland a 
Sanctuary, where Christians of every denomina 
tion might worship, yet none might oppress. 
Rhode Island was at this time the only one of the 
Protestant settlements in which the principle of 
toleration was recognized; and even there Roman 

1 Rev. J. S. M. Anderson, Hist, of the Church of England 
in the British Colonies, 11, pp. 31-2. 



Catholics were excluded from participating in the 
political rights that were enjoyed by the rest of 
the community." 1 

The Catholics were sensible of a coming storm. 
The first warning had been given in the revised 
oath of the Governor sent by Lord Baltimore, in 
which toleration for the Catholics was especially 
provided for. They had hitherto maintained reli 
gions freedom, but now fearing what might fol 
low, from a Protestant majority, they took steps 
in the enactment of this law to guarantee the 
continuance of what had hitherto been a custom 
requiring no law for its enforcement, or if a law, 
one that was always by them scrupulously ob 

History of the U. 8., I, pp. 21-2. 


Towards the end of that year (1649) the 
startling news reached the province of the execu 
tion of Charles I and the establishment of the Com 
monwealth. The Governor was at the time absent 
from Maryland, and Thomas Greene, who was act 
ing in his stead, contrary to the advice of the 
Councillors of the province, proclaimed Charles 
II, as successor to his father. 1 This act, for which 
he had no warrant from either the Proprietary or 
Governor, proved a little later on to be the cause of 
much embarrassment and trouble to Lord Balti 
more and the colony. In 1650 an Assembly was 
called by the governor, who in the meantime, had 
returned to Maryland. The influence of the 
Protestants, especially the Puritans now becomes 
more apparent in the fact that. James Coxe, one 
of their number, was elected Speaker. 2 Evi 
dence of Claiborne s continued intrigues to gain 
Kent Island is shown in the third Act of this As 
sembly " punishing with death and confiscation of 

1 Archives, in, p. 241-243. 

2 Archives, I, p. 201. James Coxe and George Pudding- 
ton, two Puritans of Providence, had been elected Burgesses 
for that settlement, the previous day. (Archives, I, p. 260). 
The majority of the members of this Assembly were indeed 
Protestants. (Streeter, p. 53.) 



all his goods " anyone who should " countenance 
Claiborne or any of his adherents in any attempt 
upon the Isle of Kent or any other place within 
this Province in opposition to his Lordship s un 
doubted right and dominion over the same. 1 The 
next Act passed, was " An Act of Recognition of 
the lawful and undoubted Eight and Title of Lord 
Baltimore "... to his province of Maryland. 2 
The Puritans had " scrupled " to take the oath 
heretofore prescribed for the Burgesses, and out of 
consideration for the extreme " tenderness of their 

1 Archives, I, p. 288. 

2 It recites, in part, that " we humbly beseech your Lord 
ship that as a memorial to all posterities, it may be pub 
lished and declared by your Lordship and the present As 
sembly, and enacted by authority of the same, that we 
bound thereto by the laws both of God and man, do 
recognize and acknowledge your Lordship s just right and 
title unto this province by the grant and donation of the 
late King Charles of England . . . and do also recognize 
and acknowledge you to be true and absolute Lord Propriet 
ary of this Province; and do humbly submit unto all power, 
jurisdiction and authority, given, granted and confirmed 
unto your Lordship and your heirs . . . and do hereby sub 
mit and oblige us our heirs and posterities forever until 
the last drop of our blood be spent to maintain, uphold 
and defend your Lordship and your heirs, Lords and 
Proprietaries of this province, in all the royal rights, 
jurisdictions, authorities, and preeminences, given, granted 
and confirmed unto your Lordship by the said grant and 
donation so far as they do not in any sort infringe or pre 
judice the just and lawful liberties of the free-born subject 
of the Kingdom of England. . . ." (Archives, I, p. 300). 


conscience " the following revised form was adopt 
ed, " I do swear that I will be true and faithful 
to the Right Honourable Lord Proprietary and will 
to the utmost of my power, defend and maintain 
all his Lordship s just and lawful right ... in 
the said province ... not anyways understood to 
infringe or prejudice liberty of conscience in point 
of religion, and I do also swear that I will with 
all expedition discover to his Lordship, or to his 
Lieutenant or other chief Governor of the said 
Province for the time being, and also use my best 
endeavors to prevent any plot, conspiracy or com 
bination which I shall know or shall have just 
cause to suspect is intended against the person of 
his Lordship, or which shall tend anyways to the 
disinheriting or deprivation or his heirs, their 
right, title, jurisdiction." 

At the same time was framed a Declaration 
(April 17, 1650), signed by Governor Stone, 
three members of the Council, eight members of 
the Assembly and forty-three colonists, including 
the two Puritan Burgesses from Providence: 

" We the said Lieutenant, Council, Burgesses, 
and other Protestant inhabitants above mentioned, 
whose names are herein subscribed, do declare and 
certify to all persons whom it may concern, that 
according to an Act of Assembly here, and sev 
eral other strict injunctions and declarations by 

l lbid., pp. 305, 320-321. 


his said Lordship for that purpose made and pro 
vided, we do here enjoy all fitting and conveni 
ent freedom and liberty in the exercise of our 
religion under his Lordship s government and in 
terest; and that none of us are anyways troubled 
or molested for, or by reason thereof, within his 
Lordship s said Province." In the light of their 
subsequent conduct, this protestation of loyalty and 
their solemn oath of fidelity are particularly inter 
esting and illuminating. 

" Unfortunately, with all their experience of the 
evils of intolerance, and of their possible willing 
ness to concede the rights of conscience to the 
various Protestant sects, these people brought with 
them the old hatred of popery, and looked with dis 
trust upon the oath, because it required them to 
obey a government that was bound to respect the 
religious convictions of the Roman Catholics in 
the Province. This, in the eyes of the more zeal 
ous, was no better than upholding Anti-Christ; 
and although they at first submitted, yet as they 
gained strength and their friends in England con 
solidated their power, they more openly manifested 
their repugnance, and finally refused to take the 
oath as it had been prescribed. Yet, for the pres 
ent all appeared content; new immigrants came 
from Virginia, and the territory on which they 

1 Bozman, u, pp. 672-3, quoting Longford s Refutation of 
Babylon s Fall. 


settled, was erected into a county, and called after 
the Lady of the Proprietary, Anne Arundel." l 
" They sat down joyfully," says Hammond, " fol 
lowed their vocations cheerfully, trade increased in 
their Province and divers others were by this 
encouraged and invited over from Virginia. But 
these people finding themselves in a capacity not 
only to capitulate but to oversway those who had 
so recently received and relieved them, began to 
pick quarrels first with the oath, and lastly their 
averseness to all conformality, wholly aiming (as 
they themselves confessed) to make it their own. 
What unworthiness ? What ingratitude ? What 
unparalleled inhumanity was in these practices 
made manifest." 2 

On receipt of the Declaration and the laws 
passed by the Assembly, Lord Baltimore, August 
6th, 1650, sent a letter in which he accepted the 
modified oath passed by the Assembly. 3 Thus, 
through the patience, forbearance and tact of the 
Proprietary, peace seemed now assured to Mary 

But the imprudent act of Governor Greene in pro-* 
claiming Charles II was fated to bring evil con 
sequences to the colony. In 1651 4 an Act was 
passed by Parliament for the reduction of the re 
bellious plantations, and authorizing a fleet to be 

1 Streeter, Maryland Two Hundred Years Ago, p. 55. 

2 Hammond, Leah and Rachel, pp. 22-23. 

3 Archives, I, p. 313-320. 

4 Archives, in, p. 265. 



sent out for that purpose. By bringing all the 
influence to bear that he was able to invoke to his 
assistance, by exhibiting proofs of his loyalty and 
tolerant government, Lord Baltimore succeeded in 
preventing Maryland from being included with 
Virginia and Barbadoes in the instructions about 
to be issued for the reduction of the colonies 
which had proclaimed Charles II as King. He 
showed that Greene s act had not been sanctioned 
by his authority, and that the Protestants in Mary 
land enjoyed perfect freedom in the exercise of 
their religion. 1 The name of Maryland was, 
therefore, not included in the letter of instruc 

In September, 1651, Cromwell extinguished 
the last hope of the royalists by the overwhelm 
ing defeat of the King s forces and entered Lon 
don in triumph. In the meantime, about the 
middle of August, the fleet destined for the re 
duction of the rebellious colonies set sail. " The 
Commissioners named to execute the orders of the 
Parliament were Captain Robert Denis, Mr. 
Eichard Beniiet, Mr. Thomas Stagg, and Captain 
William Claiborne." 2 We may well imagine the 
indignation mingled no doubt with fear which pos 
sessed ths Lord Proprietary when he became cog 
nizant of the trick which had been played upon 

1 Bozman, u, p. 672; also 433-34, 441-42. 
2 Archives, in, p. 264. 


him. The name of Maryland had been erased 
from the letters of instruction, but instead there 
was the command " to reduce all plantations with 
in the Bay of Chesapeake to their due obedience 
to the Parliament of England." l In this in 
clusion of Maryland by the phrase " all planta 
tions within the Bay of Chesapeake," historians 
generally see the directing hand and the vengeful 
heart of Claiborne. 2 

Claiborne has able defenders, however, who 
maintain, and seek to prove that he was altogether 
innocent of any such instigation, that he was de 
void of any desire to reclaim Kent Island, and 
without hope of Puritan influence that might help 
him to the accomplishment of this end. 3 It is 
claimed that he acted with wonderful moderation 
in the reduction of Maryland, and with remarkable 
magnanimity afterwards, withdrawing immediate 
ly upon the settlement of affairs and not intruding 
himself again until Governor Stone s proclama 
tion providing for the writs in Lord Baltimore s 
name, obliged the Commissioners to return once 

1 Archives, m, p. 265. 

2 " We have not far to seek for the inspiration of this 
device, when we find Captain William Claiborne named as 
one of the Commissioners, and with him Richard Bennet, 
one of the persecuted Puritans who had sought and found 
an asylum in Maryland and had taken an obligation of 
fidelity to the Proprietary." (Browne, Maryland, p. 76.) 

3 J. H. Latane, J. H. U. Studies, 13th Series, p. 176. 


more to Maryland. It may be that all this is 
true, but there is at least presumptive evidence 
to the contrary. 1 

1 " Maryland, " says a contemporary, " was first inserted, 
to be reduced as well as Virginia, but the committee being 
afterwards satisfied by all the merchants that traded 
thither (who were engaged to assist with their ships in the 
reducement of Virginia) that Maryland was not in oppo 
sition to the Parliament; that Captain Stone, the Lord 
Baltimore s lieutenant there, was generally known to have 
been always zealously affected to the Parliament, and that 
divers of the Parliament s friends were by Lord Baltimore s 
especial directions received into Maryland and well treated 
there, when they were fain to leave Virginia for their good 
affection to the Parliament; then the said committee 
thought it not fit at all to disturb that plantation, and 
therefore in the presence of many of the said merchants, 
and of the two commissioners, Denis and Stagg, caused 
Maryland to be struck out of the said instructions ; and the 
Council of State did, thereupon, give licence to many ships 
to trade at that time to Maryland, but would not permit 
any to go to Virginia till that colony were reduced to 
obedience. . . . By which it appears Mr. Bennet and Cap 
tain Claiborne took upon them an authority much contrary 
to the intention of state and indeed contrary to common 
sense and reason, for certainly if the Council had had any 
cause to have altered their mind in that particular, of 
Maryland, after they had struck it out of the said instruc 
tions, they would have caused it to have been put in again 
by the same name, whereby their intention might have been 
clearly understood; much less could they have any in 
tention of reducing any place that was not in opposition 
against them, but in due obedience; so as if Maryland had 
been by any mistake put in by name to be reduced, upon a 
supposition in the Council that it had been in opposition, 
yet they could not in reason intend, that in case their 
commissioners had found, when they came upon the place 


Considering Claiborne s past history and rel 
ations to Lord Baltimore and the colony, and the 
chance here offered to settle old scores, the inclu 
sion of Maryland by geographical description 
after it had been nominally excepted, does not 
bear the hall-mark of either chance or blind fate. 
Rather does it appear to be stamped with the 
sinister imprint of a carefully concerted plan. 
How did the name of Claiborne come to be chosen 
as Commissioner ? How did the Commitee know 
of his peculiar qualifications, and from whom ? 
It is not at all improbable that he had an emissary 
in London to look after his interests, and to sug 
gest his and Bennet s fitness for the office of re 
ducers, and to arrange the wording of the Commis 
sion. As early as February, 1647, at least, we 

(as they did) that it was not in opposition, that they 
should reduce it, or prejudice any man s right on that 
account. So that whatsoever was done in Maryland by the 
said Mr. Bennet, then Governor of Virginia, and the other 
commissioners was done without authority." (Langford s 
Refutation, quoted by Bozman, pp. 433-4, 441-42.) 

Bozman (i, pp. 441, 434) says in regard to Langford, 
" what he wrote was from a more intimate knowledge of 
the affairs of Maryland at that time than almost any other 
man . . . and being a sensible and contemporaneous writer, 
is to be relied on." Whether or not the phrase, " all the 
plantations within the Bay of Chesapeake " was a sugges 
tion of the one-time Commander of Kent Island, at least, 
says Bozman: "Bennet and Claiborne contrived a con 
struction of them sufficient to authorize them, in their 
opinions, to reduce Maryland as well as Virginia." (Ibid., 
p. 434). 


can follow the trail of this conspiracy in which 
Claiborne, playing on the " scruples " of the 
Puritans in Maryland, contrived to form a part 
nership with them for the overthrow of the gov 
ernment. 1 To say that " he had nothing to ex 
pect in the way of support or recognition of his 
claims from the Puritans of Providence. . . . 
that he had never been identified with the Puritan 
dissenters " 2 is absurd ; for his confrere Bennet 
" was the leading spirit among the dissenters, 
while Claiborne and Matthews, although not 
identified with the Puritans in religion, had all 
along been the leaders of the popular party in Vir 
ginia having brought about the insurrection under 
Governor Harvey and deposed him from office. 

1 A commission from Parliament was expected to over 
throw the existing government. Claiborne was to be a Com 
missioner. {Archives, in, pp. 175, 176, 178). Complaints 
were made against Lord Baltimore by the Protestants of 
Maryland on the ground that his government was tyranni 
cal, that Protestants were excluded from their religion. The 
Parliament, therefore, declares void the Charter of Maryland 
and orders the Commissioners for Foreign Plantations to 
appoint Protestants to the offices of Maryland. (Ibid., p. 
173). March 4th, 1647, Lord Baltimore asks for a stay of 
proceedings until he can bring witnesses from Maryland. 
(Ibid., pp. 180-181). 

2 Latane, p. 176. "There was a growing Puritan party, 
and William Claiborne appears to have been at the head 
of it." (History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of 
Virginia, by Charles Campbell, p. 206.) 

3 Latane, p. 175. "Claiborne most probably fully calcu 
lated on a restoration to all his rights and claims on the 
Isle of Kent." (Bozman, n, p. 439.) 


The careful observer should not find it difficult, 
in the policy directing the events of this period, to 
see the hand of Virginia reaching out for the ab 
sorption of Maryland, and the itching palm of 
William Claiborne waiting to grasp Kent Island, 
both feeding the fires of Puritan arrogance and de 
sire. This we discern as far back as 1649 in the 
glaring falsehoods of the Virginia " Declaration 
showing the Illegality of the Patent of Maryland." 
This document sets forth various reasons why the 
Charter of Lord Baltimore should be annulled, and 
why, incidentally, the Maryland territory should 
be added to the domain of Virginia. 1 

1 The " Declaration " is substantially as follows : Vir 
ginia by the fatal blow of a Massmaker was almost 
shattered to pieces, and brought to a calamitous condition. 
The patent of Maryland was obtained through pretence that 
the country was uncultivated, and uninhabited except by 
savages. Through defrauding Virginia of her land ; destroy 
ing and ruining those seated at the Isle of Kent. . . . Es 
tablishing of the Romish religion only. . . . Suppressing 
of poor Protestants. . . . The whole country carried 
on in the Proprietary s name, all power and dignities 
being from him only. ... No mention of a King in all their 
government. . . . Lord Baltimore imposing enforced oaths; 
of fidelity to maintain his regal jurisdiction, to protect 
the Roman Catholic religion in the free exercise thereof, and 
all done by yearly instruction from him out of England as 
if he were absolute Prince and King. ... It is evident that 
the Patent of Maryland was grounded on no good founda 
tion . . . the King being misinformed ... he would never 
have granted such a Patent as this to Maryland, being near 
two-thirds parts of the better territory of Virginia. . . . The 
great name of Maryland is in effect made but the factory 


The grasping policy of Virginia again appears 
in the Reasons of State advanced by Lord Bal 
timore, as to why Maryland and Virginia should 
not be united, evidently written in answer to a 
demand for their consolidation 1 and years after 
it is boldly set forth in the Objections/ 
* Breviats and Protests sent to the Protector. 2 
It is ever the same old quest, of Virginia for Mary 
land, of Claiborne for Kent, and the " old great, 
sad, complaint of seducing poor Protestants," 
while " papists bear rule over the free-born subjects 
of this nation." If, indeed, Claiborne s inten 
tions regarding Maryland were so benevolent and 
magnanimous, and no hope of tne recovery of 
Kent burned within him, what is the meaning of 
the fourth and fifth sections of the Virginia 
Articles of Surrender, arranged by himself and 
Bennet, " that Virginia shall have and enjoy the 
ancient bounds and limits granted by the Charters 

of trade, a nursery for Jesuits, etc. . . . We clearly claim 
by possession, having planted the Isle of Kent almost three 
years before ever the name of Maryland was heard of .... 
Lord Baltimore s suggestion to the King that those parts 
were uncultivated and unplanted unless by barbarous peo 
ple . . . was a misinformation . . . and by it that Patent 
appears illegally gotten." The Complainants urge "their 
zeal and pious endeavors to propagate the Christian reli 
gion " as a reason for the voiding of Lord Baltimore s 
Charter, and the return of their ancient boundaries. 
(Colonial History of New York, ill, p. 23, 1649.) 

1 Archives, in, p. 280. 

2 See Appendix N. 


of former Kings, and that we shall seek a new 
Charter from Parliament to that purpose against 
any that have intrenched upon the rights thereof ; 
that all patents of land granted under the colony s 
seal by any of the precedent governors shall be 
and remain in their full force." 1 All the ancient 
grudge of Virginia, and the old feud of 
Kent Island, the old lust for re-possession and 
revenge, blaze up again in these words, for the 
carrying out of these provisions would have de 
prived Lord Baltimore of his territory and placed 
the Island once more in Claiborne s hands. Though 
we have no positive proof that it was actually re 
turned to him after the reduction of Maryland, 
yet there is a significant allusion in one of the 
documents of that period, signed by Bennet 
and Fuller, his friends, in which is mentioned 
" the Isle of Kent and Palmer s Island, which be 
long to Captain Claiborne." 2 That he did not 
take formal possession of his former domain is not 
to be wondered at ; no one knew better than him 
self the insecurity and instability of the political 
frame-work in the mother country, and no one 
knew better than he how to bide his time. King, 
Parliament, Protectorate, one thing to-day, another 
tomorrow, so he would wait until he was sure of 
his prize, before grasping it only to have it 

1 W. W. Hening, Statutes at Large of Virginia, I, p. 364. 

2 Archives, in, p. 277. 


wrested from him again. There were many rea 
sons why the Protean-natured Captain should not 
be too much in evidence in England, why he should 
leave his colleague Bennet to represent him abroad 
he meanwhile holding the colony at home. 
It will be remembered that he had been in the 
past an ardent royalist, holding high office under 
the King, and it would have been questionable 
policy for him to appear in the open claim 
ing recognition from the Commonwealth, when 
recognition would have involved remembrance of 
his adherence to the Lost Cause. ISTo one could 
be more eager to cry, c the King is dead, long live 
the Parliament/ but he knew that his lightning- 
changes of political faith would not meet with 
either sympathy or credence where the Parlia 
mentary powers were concerned. Moreover, his 
claims to Kent Island had been decided against 
him. It were far better policy for him to make 
sure of the hold on Virginia by remaining in 
that colony, while Bennet, the Puritan, a persona 
grata to the Commonwealth would manage in Eng 
land to have the Charter of Maryland set aside as 
invalid. This being accomplished, Maryland would 
have become a part of Virginia, and both Virginia 
and Maryland under the joint control of the Com 
missioners. They were playing a deep game, 
and stealthiness was Claiborne s part of the play. 
Under his bluff, soldierly exterior and his veneer 
of ruffling bravado, he concealed an infinite depth 


of subtlety, cunning and craft. A matchless 
finesse and policy lurked beneath his Cavalier 
manner. Not only could he trim his sails to 
catch each and every wind that might carry him 
to the Fortunate Isle of his heart s desire, but he 
could so arrange circumstances that the event 
transpired apparently without an agency of his 
own, he could so inspire that the paternity of the 
suggestion could not be traced to himself. 

After reducing Virginia, the Commissioners- 
proceeded to Maryland, and to their demand that 
the colony should submit to the authority of the 
Commonwealth, Stone agreed, but to the further 
condition, that of issuing writs and warrants in 
the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of Eng 
land, he would not consent, and accordingly, was 
deposed by Bennet, Claiborne and Curtis, March 
29th, 1652. 1 Two months later, however, he 
agreed to issue the writs in the name of Parlia 
ment, as required, and was then re-instated by 
the Commissioners. 2 Matters were thus appar 
ently adjusted, and the colony returned outwardly 
to its former peaceful condition, but beneath the 
surface-calm boiled Puritan intolerance and greed, 
the longing of Virginia for her ancient boundaries, 
and the unsubdued desire of Claiborne for his old 
possession. The Puritans primed with complaints- 
and pious grievances, had but to appeal to the 
Commissioners, Bennet and Claiborne, their con- 

1 Archives, in, p. 271-2. 2 Archives, in, p. 276. 



federates, and these latter with apparent reluct 
ance would come to the rescue. All saw the time 
at hand for which they had schemed and waited, 
knowing that it would not be difficult to cogg the 
dice of circumstance and daily intercourse, to put 
an extra heavy strain upon some weaker spot, 
and the wrongs so carefully manufactured by one 
party to the plan, could be immediately righted 
by the other. 

In England, meanwhile, history was fast 
a-making. The Keepers of the Liberties of the 
People of England, had been summarily turned 
down and out by Cromwell, and writs no longer 
ran in their name. About this time without the 
colonial Commissioners being aware of it, Lord 
Baltimore found himself in a position in England 
to assume a bolder attitude. According to the 
Proprietary s instructions, Governor Stone issued a 
proclamation by which Baltimore asserted his 
rights under the Charter and declared that all 
writs in future should be issued in his name. 1 

1 " Whereas, the . . . Lord Proprietary of this Province 
hath given express charge and command to myself and his 
other officers of justice here to issue out writs within 
this Province in his lordship s name as formerly being a 
privilege granted to him by his patent, whereby sovereign 
other officers of justice here to issue out writs within this 
Province in his Lordship s name as formerly, being a 
dominion, faith and allegiance is reserved to the Common 
wealth of England, and in that respect the making out of 
writs here, according to his Lordship s directions afore 
said, cannot anyways derogate from our obedience to that 


This action gave the Commissioners and the 
Puritans the opportunity for which they had wait 
ed. It is true, they had no commission from 
Cromwell, and even the one held from the defunct 
Keepers of the Peoples Liberties was not intend 
ed to include Lord Baltimore s plantation, never 
theless, the opportunity to bring Maryland to 
greater subjection was not to be neglected. Ben- 
net " was too much of a Puritan not to be anxious 
to put the government of Maryland upon such a 
basis that his brethren whom he had been chiefly 
instrumental in fixing on the Severn, in that 
Province, might have all the influence therein 
which they could wish for." l 

The yeasty souls of the Puritans had for some 
time been thrown into a fermentation of scrupulos 
ity regarding the oath and other supposed griev- 

Commonwealth in chief, under God, nor our engagement 
taken thereto, which we must and ought to be very careful 
not to infringe." (Archives, in, p. 300). This waa on 
March 2, 1654, and in the following May, Cromwell was 
proclaimed in Maryland. (Ibid., p. 304). 

1 Bozman, n, p. 439. 

With Claiborne and Bennet, " it was that sweet, that 
rich, that large country they aimed at; and therefore, they 
agreed among themselves, to frame petitions, complaints 
and subscriptions from these benedetoes to themselves, to 
ease them of their pretended sufferings ; and then come 
with arms and make the Province their own, exalting them 
in all places of trust and command, totally expulsing the 
Governor and all the hospitable proprietary officers out of 
their places." (Hammond, Leah and Rachel, p. 23). 


ances, which gave them an occasion to appeal to 
the Commissioners. In the estimation of these 
worthies the time was fully ripe, and they ap 
peared again forthwith upon the scene. 1 Clai- 
borne and Bennet, therefore, in August 1654, de 
posed Governor Stone and appointed as Commis 
sioners to manage the affairs of the colony, Cap 
tain William Fuller, Richard Preston the Quaker, 
William Durand and seven otheis. An election 
was ordered for a new Assembly, and " all such 
shall be disabled to give any vote or to be elected 
members thereof as have borne arms in war against 
the Parliament, or do profess the Roman Catholic 
religion/ 2 If zeal for the Commonwealth, and 
a sense of duty in the discharge of their commis 
sion were the actuating principles of Claiborne and 
Bennet, it is passing strange that they did not con 
tent themselves with the disfranchisement of those 
only who had ( borne arms against the Parlia 
ment. The disabling provisions, however, are ex 
tended to the Catholics, who are apparently the 
real objects of the order, as their civic rights are 
taken from them, in any case. This was the last 
overt act of Claiborne and Bennet in Maryland. 
They then withdrew leaving subsequent events to 
play into their hands, knowing that Puritan rule 
in the colony, meant eventually the fulfillment of 

1 Archives, in, p. 312. 

2 Archives, in, pp. 311-313. 



their desires and the triumph of their policy. The 
province of Lord Baltimore was now in the hands, 
and at the mercy of that band of scourged and 
persecuted refugees, to whom he had so generously 
afforded a haven and a home. 

" The first law of the legislature which con 
vened under the new order of things (1654) was 
to recognize Cromwell s title to, and authority 
over, the province, as just; and the next was, to 
establish an Act Concerning Religion, which re 
paid the former humanity of the Roman Catholics, 
as the warmed viper of the fable requited the kind 
ness of the husbandman. . . . This is the first 
enactment against religious liberty to be found in 
the statute books of Maryland ; it came from men 
who had fled from persecution, it was aimed at 
those who had afforded an asylum-, further com 
ment is unnecessary." 1 By this Act it was " de 
clared : That none who professed and exercised the 
Popish (commonly called the Roman Catholic) 
religion, could be protected in the province, by 
the laws of England, formerly established and yet 
unrepealed: ^orbythe government of the Common 
wealth of England, . . . but were to be restrained 
from the exercise thereof. That such as profess 
faith in God by Jesus Christ, though differing in 
judgment from the doctrine, worship or discipline 
publicly held forth, should, not be restrained from, 

1 Hawks, pp. 42-43. 


but protected in, the profession of the faith, and 
the exercise of their religion; so as they abused 
not this liberty, to the injury of others, disturb 
ance of the peace, &c. Provided such liberty was 
not extended to Popery or Prelacy, nor to such as, 
under the profession of Christ, held forth and 
practised licentiousness." " That is with the 
exception of Roman Catholics and the Churchmen, 
together with the Brownists, Quakers, Anabaptists, 
and other miscellaneous Protestant sects aimed at 
by the third exclusion, all others might profess their 
faith without molestation. Surely this toleration 
might have been expressed in briefer phrases." 2 
" Thus," concludes a Presbyterian historian, " the 
Roman Catholics were deprived of the protection 
of law in the Commonwealth which their own in 
dustry and virtue had reared, and by those Protest 
ants to w r hom their charity had given a country 
and a home. 3 . . . With ingratitude still more 
odious than their injustice (the Puritans) pro 
jected the abrogation not only of the Catholic wor 
ship, but of every part of that system of toleration 
under whose sheltering hospitality they were en 
abled to conspire its downfall." 

Universal has been the condemnation of these 
people. In their course there is nothing deserv- 

1 Bacon s Laws; Archives, I, 340-1. 

2 Browne s Maryland, p. 80. 

3 Grahame, Hist, of U. 8. vol, n, p. 27. 

4 Ibid., n, p. 23. 


ing of palliation before the bar of history. " Him 
self equally with the Roman Catholic, the object 
of harsh treatment in England and in Virginia, 
the Puritan accepted the invitation of a Roman 
Catholic to an asylum of liberty for both. In it 
he suffered no wrong in his religious rights, and 
when he complained that he had not the share in 
governmental matters, which was appropriate to 
him, this also was accorded. On which recogni 
tion and with the first taste -of power, he set him 
self to plot against his benefactor and against the 
religionists who had given him a home and liberty. 
He played the part of a viper stinging the bosom 
which had warmed him, and made the most dis 
graceful chapter in the history of Puritanism and 
of religious liberty." l " The ingratitude of these 
Puritans," says Bozman, " in respect to the dis- 
franchisement of the Roman Catholics ... de 
serves the severest reprehension and can admit of 
no palliation. AVhen through the imprudent 
liberality of Lord Baltimore, in originally granting 
indulgence to every sect to settle within his 
Province, and afterwards, more particularly 
through the special permission of his government 
at St. Mary s in allowing those Puritans to form 
their settlements on the Severn in Maryland after 
they had been driven out of Virginia, an asylum 
had thus been generously granted to them; that 

1 Cobb, p. 378. 


they should rise up against their benefactors, seize 
the reins of the government into their own hands, 
and then proscribe and interdict these very bene 
factors from all their political rights, and as sub 
sequently appears, cruelly sequester their property 
from them as delinquents, was such a shameful 
sacrifice of all moral feeling at the shrine of religi 
ous zeal, as cannot but cover their descendants in 
the Province at this day, with confusion and re- 
gret." i 

" Had the Roman Catholics of Maryland," he 
says elsewhere, " followed the example of the 
Puritans of IsTew England, in obstinately and per 
tinaciously refusing any access whatever into their 
colony to any person who would not agree to live 
under their platform of religion, as they called it, 
the Roman Catholic religion might have been at 
this day the established religion of Maryland. The 
English government, through all its own vicissi 
tudes as well as those of the New England colonies, 
from their first planting to their declaration of 
independence, tolerated the Congregational or In 
dependent sect, as the established religion of New 
England, and by connivance permitted them to 
persecute and exclude from their civil government, 
as well as hierarchy, every presumptuous intruding 
heretic. It is probable that the English govern 
ment w r ould have acted in the same manner by the 

1 Eozman, n, p. 500. 


Roman Catholics of Maryland. . . The admisionof 
the Puritans into Maryland, after they had been 
ferreted out of Virginia by Sir William Berkeley, 
as has been hereinbefore stated, together with the 
unfortunate coincidence of events in England, 
where these Puritans had seized on the supreme 
power, gave a death blow to the Roman Catholic 
interest in Maryland. From this period they 
never afterwards could regain their just and due 
influence in the province, although for many subse 
quent years they continued to form the majority 
of the inhabitants thereof." l 

1 Bozman, n, p. 495. 

Commenting on the action of the Puritans, Chalmers re 
marks : " How different are the temper and conduct of 
this Assembly from that of 1649. Yet it would be in 
congruous to argue with men who thus contemned the laws 
of the province without cause; and it would be improper 
to point out the inconsistency of those who professedly acted 
contrary to the common principles of the world, without a 
blush." Annals, I, p. 223. "It would be difficult to find 
a more odious piece of legislation," says Ridpath, " than 
that of the Assembly of the Patuxent." (P. 222.) 


The Puritans, now masters of Maryland, seem 
to have carried matters with a high hand. It is 
claimed that the harsh provisions of the Act Con 
cerning Eeligion (1654) were never carried out, 
that Catholics suffered no particular hardships and 
disabilities from this enactment, but the records of 
the times and the Court Proceedings of this period 
will bear witness to the contrary. 1 

1 Archives, Court Proceedings, 1649-57, pp. 425-9. 

" Robert Clarke, Gent, hath openly confessed himself in 
Court to be a Roman Catholic owning the Pope s su 
premacy." (1655). 

" Whereas, Robert Clarke, gent, being fined ten thousand 
pounds of tobacco to the Lord Protector for the public, as 
by order of the Court holden at Providence, appeareth and 
being required to give security according to the said order, 
pleadeth his debility of estate. The Court doth accept of 
three thousand pounds of tobacco and cask out of the 
Bills out of the hands of James Veitch and the plantation 
of the said Robert Clarke, situate in Brittaines Bay in full 
of the said debt by fine." (P. 425) . 

(Deed of Robert Clarke to his Brittaine s Bay Property, 
with edifices, commodities, appurtenances, etc., in payment 
of his fine. P. 426.) 

" Thomas Matthewes hath openly in Court confessed him 
self a Roman." (1655). (P. 426). 

" William Boreman confesseth in Court that he is a 
Roman Catholic- and was born and bred so." (1655). (P. 

" John Pyle confesseth himself in Court to be a Roman 



In the meantime, Lord Baltimore, in England, 
was not resting supinely under the intolerable 
wrong that had been done him. The authority of 
the Commissioners had lapsed with the extinction of 
the Parliament that had conferred it. The Lord 
Protector regarded himself as the residuary legatee 
of the Crown, the inheritor of all its offices, respon 
sibilities and obligations. Under these conditions, 
the charter of the Lord Proprietor of Maryland 
was restored to its original validity. Lord Balti 
more was, of course, well aware of the Protector s 
views upon this subject, as well as his anxiety to 
placate the peers of the realm ; while the extent of 
his influence, and that of his friends, with Crom 
well, may be inferred from the letter sent by the 
Protector, to Bennet, a letter concerning the bound 
ary disputes written at the solicitation of the Lord 
Proprietary and his adherents. 

" Sir : Whereas, the differences between the 
Lord Baltimore and the inhabitants of Virginia, 
concerning the bounds by them respectively claim 
ed, are depending before our Council, and yet 
undetermined; and whereas we are credibly in 
formed, you have notwithstanding gone into his 
plantation in Maryland and countenanced some 
people there in opposing the Lord Baltimore s of- 
fficers ; whereby, and with other forces from Vir- 

Catholic and hath acknowledged the Pope s supremacy." 
(1055). (P. 429, etc.). 


ginia, you have much disturbed that colony and 
people to the endangering of tumults and much 
bloodshed there, if not timely prevented: We, 
therefore, at the request of the Lord Baltimore, 
and of other persons of quality here, who are en 
gaged by great adventures in his interest, do, for 
the preventing of disturbances or tumults there, 
will and require you, and all others deriving any 
authority from you, to forbear disturbing the 
Lord Baltimore, or his officers or people in Mary 
land; and to permit all things to remain as they 
were before any disturbance or alteration made 
by you, till the said differences above mentioned 
be determined by us here, and we give further 
order therein." l 

This important document clears up much that 
is mysterious, and is valuable in explaining the 
motives, schemes and conduct of the Commission 
ers in the policy they had pursued towards Mary 
land while in process of reduction. It is evident, 
that while Cromwell was something of an unknown 
quantity in their calculations, they at least were 
sure enough of his sympathy with the Puritan 
element, to feel that they might risk a great deal. 
According to their calculations, the decision con 
cerning the boundary question would ultimately 

1 Thurloe Papers, I, p. 724. 

The Commissioners were bidden " not to busy themselves 
about religion, but to settle the civil government." ( Chalm 
ers, p. 236). 


be in favor of Virginia, for to their way of think 
ing the views of the Protector must be identical 
with their own, as far as the results of the affair 
were concerned, and they dreamed dreams and saw 
visions of power and preferment in the attainment 
of success by their well-laid plans. But there was 
much afoot abroad that they knew nothing of, and 
there were many elements in the affairs of the 
Lord Protector that did not enter into their calcu 
lations. They did not count upon the necessity he 
was under of solidifying his power with the no 
bility of England. The greatness of the shock to 
them may well be imagined, when instead of en 
thusiastic commendation they received from him 
only a cold reproo/, and found that their actions 
were not only not sanctioned, but to a great extent 
disallowed, and they were curtly ordered to allow 
things to remain as they were in Maryland before 
the alterations and disturbances there had been 
made by them. 

Burning with indignation against Stone for 
what he considered an unpardonable breach of 
trust towards the people and of loyalty towards 
himself, the Proprietary wrote to the Governor 
charging him with cowardice, telling him the Com 
missioners would not have dared to oppose him had 
he shown the proper spirit, upbraiding him for 
resigning without striking a stroke, having so 
many men in arms, and threatening to give the 


commission to Captain Barber to reduce the peo 
ple to Lord Baltimore if Stone would not. Stone, 
thus spurred on was induced to make the attempt 
to regain the Province for Lord Baltimore. 1 
Gathering together a small force of about one 
hundred and thirty men, with this little band he 
advanced towards Providence. An account of the 
engagement is given in a letter written April 13th, 
1655, to Cromwell by Luke Barber, who had been 
only a month in Maryland at the time of the en 
counter. At Stone s request he had accompanied 
the Governor and the army to the Severn. In order 
to avoid hostilities, if possible, Barber was com 
missioned to carry a letter to the people of Provi 
dence, at the end of which communication " the 
Governor did protest, as in tne presence of Al 
mighty God, that he came not in a hostile way to do 
them any hurt, but sought all means possible to re 
claim them by fair means ; and to my knowledge," 
says Barber, " at the sending out of the parties 
he gave strict command, that if they met any 
of the Anne Arundel men they should not fire 
the first gun, nor upon pain of death plunder any. 
These were his actings to my knowledge upon the 
march." 2 

When Stone s men attempted to land on a nar 
row peninsula in the Severn they were fired upon 

1 Thurloe Papers, v, p. 483-485. 

2 Barber s Letter to Cromwell, Bozman, n, p. 687-8. 


by the " Golden Lion " a merchantman in collu 
sion with the Puritans, and the next morning the 
men of Providence attacking them on the land side 
of the narrow peninsula, while the " Golden Lion " 
assailed them on the other, they found themselves 
between two foes outnumbering their own small 
force. " After the skirmish/ continues an eye 
witness, " the Governor upon quarter given him 
and all his company in the field, yielded to be 
taken prisoners, but two or three days after, the 
victors condemned ten to death, and executed four, 
and had executed all had not the incessant petition 
ing and begging of some good women saved some 
and the soldiers others ; the Governor himself be 
ing condemned by them and since begged by the 
soldiers, some being saved just as they were lead 
ing them out to execution." 1 It was Fuller who led 
the Puritans against Lord Baltimore s adherents, 
and treacherously put to death these four prisoners 
of war after surrender and quarter given. This 
crime Bennet and Matthews seek to palliate in their 
petitions to the English government a year later. 2 
Stone was kept prisoner for some time, and the 
triumph of the Puritans appears so overwhelming 
and complete, that Lord Baltimore s government 

1 " Letter of Dr. Luke Barber to His Highness," Bozman, 
n, Appendix, p. 686-7. Bacon s Preface. 

2 Thurloe Papers, v, pp. 482-85. Md. Hist. Society Fund 
Pub. No. 7, p. 92. 


in Maryland seemed to be forever at an end. The 
Missionaries, of course, were the first objects to be 
assailed by the jealousy and faiiticism of the vic 
torious Puritans. " Rushing into our houses/ 
says the Annalist of 1656, " they demanded for 
death the impostors, as they called them, intending 
inevitable slaughter to all those #iio should be 
caught. . . . With almost the entire loss of their 
property, private and domestic, together with 
great peril of life " the priests escaped into Vir 
ginia, " and in the greatest want of necessaries, 
scarcely and with difficulty, do they sustain life. 
They live in a mean hut, low and depressed, not 
much unlike a cistern, or even a tomb." 1 

In the following June, Bennet went to England 
to represent his case before the Protector. After 
the overwhelming victory of the Puritans in Mary 
land, they imagined under the circumstances, that 
the Lord Protector would feel called upon to 
signify his approval of the actions of the Par 
liamentary Commissioners, as a matter of state 
policy, if nothing more ; that he would laud their 
action, rejoice in their successful usurpation, and 
set the seal of his approval with unequivocal en 
thusiasm. On the contrary, however, his interest 
in the matter appears to be of the most perfunctory 

1 Extracts from the Letters of Missionaries, 1656, Fund 
Pub. No. 7, p. 92. 


kind, only matched by his subsequent indifference 
concerning the fate of his Maryland brothers in the 
faith. 1 The Protector indeed was placed in a 
delicate position. He could not afford to offend 
those upon whose shoulders he had mounted to 
power. Neither could he antagonize the nobility 
with whom he was striving to ingratiate himself. 
Both were necessary for the continuance of his 
ascendency. We have in these two letters a fair 
sample of Cromwellian diplomacy. 2 

1 Circumstances seem to have forced from him this second 
letter to the Commissioners, evidently in answer to a peti 
tion from them that he should signify his approval of their 
course, and of its continuance. . . . But Cromwell, while 
explaining the other letter of January 12th, doubtlessly 
in compliance with their urgent request, takes occasion to 
repeat his former injunction, that the boundary rights of 
Maryland must be preserved inviolate, until pronounced 
upon by himself and Council. 

"Whitehall, 26th Sept. 1655. 

" Sir: It seems to us by yours of the 29th of June, and 
by the relation we received by Colonel Bennet, that some 
mistake or scruple hath arisen concerning the sense of our 
letters of the 12th of January last, as if by our letters we 
would have a stop put to the proceedings of those Commis 
sioners who were authorized to settle the civil government 
of Maryland. Which was not at all intended by us ; nor so 
much as proposed to us by those who made the addresses 
to us to obtain our said letter; but our intention (as our 
said letter doth plainly import) was only to prevent or 
forbid any force or violence to be offered by either of the 
plantations of Virginia or Maryland, from one to the other 
upon the differences concerning their bounds; the said dif- 


The control of the men of Providence was now 
entire in Maryland, but the other parties to the 
contract were as yet unprovided for ; Virginia and 
Claiborne awaited their share of the spoils, and 
the invalidating of Lord Baltimore s Charter, was 
the next move, which would consolidate the two 
colonies and restore Kent Island, to its former 
claimant. The boundary disputes must have been 
taken up with renewed eagerness. Every possible 
objection was advanced and pressed upon the 
home government for Lord Baltimore s dispossession 
by Bennet and Matthews, who had gone to Eng 
land to act as agents for Virginia. The Charter 

ferences being then under consideration of ourselves and 
Council here. Which for your more full satisfaction we 
have thought fit to signify to you." (Thurloe Papers, iv, 
p. 55 ) . The arrival of Dr. Barber in the colony some 
months previously, in fact just before the engagement of 
the Severn, seems significant. He was an intimate and 
trusted friend of Cromwell, and an equally devoted adher 
ent of Lord Baltimore. It is affrmed by the Commissioners 
that it was to him Lord Baltimore proposed giving the 
commission for the reducing of Maryland to his allegiance, 
if Stone refused to take up arms for the Proprietary. 
(Thurloe Papers, v, p. 485). In view of all this, his report 
afterward to the Protector, his great influence, his loyalty 
to Lord Baltimore, it is within the bounds of probability 
that this able man was sent to Maryland at this particular 
juncture, as the result of an understanding between the 
Proprietary and the Protector, to report upon conditions to 
the end that some arrangement might be effected by the 
home government for the returning of the province to the 
Lord Proprietary. 


was represented as dishonestly obtained; the 
grant as exorbitant; Virginia was shown to have 
been defrauded, and the Isle of Kent illegally 
taken; maladministration was charged to Lord 
Baltimore, who was represented as allowing no 
laws but those of his own making, and with giving 
his colonists no appeal; that the authority of the 
Protector was not upheld; that it was unlawful 
for subjects of the Commonwealth to be under a 
Papist government; malignancy, sedition and in 
numerable other charges, were laid against the 
Proprietary, who was held up as a tyrant and as 
an adherent of the King; the advantages of unit 
ing Maryland and Virginia, under one govern 
ment, are alluringly set forth, while the ever anci 
ent, ever new wail of the " seduced poor Protest 
ants forms a fitting finale to the whole. 1 During 
this interval, Lord Baltimore strove with all his 
power, to have the justice of his claims acknowl 
edged in England, to retain his hold upon the 
colonists in Maryland who were still loyal to his 
interests, and to strengthen that party which had 
always openly protested against his deposition and 
now advocated the restoration of his government. 
He made formal complaint to the Lord Protector, 2 
who referred the matter to a commission. The 
report of this Commission was, we may suppose, 

1 Thurloe Papers, v, pp. 482-5. 

2 November, 1653. 


favorable to Lord Baltimore/ and of a nature to 
make him sufficiently sure of his ground to risk 
the appointment of Josias Fendall as his 
Lieutenant, and Governor of Maryland. 2 Before 
Fendall had an opportunity to take any decisive 
action, however, the Puritans had him arrested 
" on suspicion. 7 He was released only after taking 
oath that he would neither directly nor indirectly 
be a " disturber to this present government till 
there be a full determination ended in England of 
all matters relating to this government." 3 On 
the 16th of September 165 6, the Committee of trade 
submitted the whole matter, proposals and answers 
to Cromwell, who in consequence promised " his 
Lordship a despatch with all convenient expedi 
tion. " Lord Baltimore, therefore, sent his in 
structions to Fendall to see that the new order 
of things was duly carried out, emphatically in 
sisting that religious liberty be secured to all who 
profess to believe in Jesus Christ. In this letter he 

>May, 1656. 

2 July 10, 1656. 

3 Archives, x, 463. 

The report of Matthews and Bennet, alluded to above, was 
referred July 31st to the Committee for trade. This com 
mittee thought fit " to desire Bennet and Matthews to 
make some proposals for the settlement and peace of the 
Province." The proposals were made, and Lord Baltimore 
replied, with which reply "the said Richard Bennet and 
Samuel Matthews declared themselves satisfied." 

4 Archives, in, pp. 324-5. 


also provided for the widows of those who had been 
slain during the rebellion. 1 

After much discussion, a satisfactory agreement 
was at length reached between Lord Baltimore and 
the authorities in England (Nov. 30,1657), accord 
ing to which the government was to be surrendered 
to the Proprietary, and to his jurisdiction all were to 
submit. In return, the Proprietary guaranteed im 
munity to all offenders in the late rebellion, as 
suring them that they should have their lands or be 
permitted to leave the colony if they wished to do 
so, and lastly Lord Baltimore doth promise that 
he will never give his assent to the repeal of the 
law whereby all persons professing to believe in 
Jesus Christ have freedom of conscience. 2 
The final articles of agreement were signed by 
Josias Fendall the Governor, and Philip Calvert the 
brother of Cecilius, and on March 24, 1658, Cap 
tain William Fuller, the Puritan, and Richard 
Preston, the Quaker, surrendered the government 
again into the hands of the rightful Proprietor. 3 

1 Archives, in, pp. 324-26. 2 Ibid., pp. 332-34. 

3 Ibid. 

According to the articles of agreement no further " re 
stitution or satisfaction " was to be required or made on 
account of any official acts from December 1, 1649; all fees 
were to be paid to "sheriffs and secretaries" from 1652; 
no one was to " be denied or hereafter made incapable of 
electing or of being elected to any future Assemblies," by 
reason of anything done " in relation to the late alteration 


It is worthy of remark that in the final articles 
of agreement, 1 the Puritan Commissioners appear 
more concerned regarding the clauses pertaining 
to property and the validity of past official acts, 
than they do respecting any provision to guarantee 
religious liberty, which subject is not touched up 
on. 2 It is Lord Baltimore who always insists 
upon liberty of worship. In his letter of in 
structions to Fendall : 3 " His Lordship wills and 
requires his said Lieutenant and Council, that the 
law in the said Province entitled an Act Concern 
ing Eeligion, and passed heretofore there with his 
Lordship s assent, whereby all persons who profess 
to believe in Jesus Christ have liberty of consci- 

in the government ; " " no Act or order of Assembly, or 
Courts within the Province passed since 1654 in cases of 
meum and tuum were to be declared void by pretence of ir 
regularity of the power of government during that year; " 
all land grants hitherto made were to be valid; the oath of 
fidelity was not to be pressed upon people now resident 
within the province/ but instead, the following engagement 
was to be subscribed to : " I ... do promise and engage 
to submit to the authority of the Right Honourable Cecilius 
Baltimore, and his heirs within this Province of Maryland, 
according to his patent of the said province, and to his 
present Lieutenant and other officers here by his Lordship 
appointed, by whom I will be aiding and assisting, and will 
not obey or assist any here in opposition to them." Lastly, 
no one was to be deprived of his arms. (Archives, I, pp. 

1 March 24, 1658. 

-Archives, pp. 370-1. 

3 Oct. 23, 1656. 

4 Underscored by Lord Baltimore. 


ence and the free exercise of their religion there, 
be duly observed in the said province by all the 
inhabitants thereof." 1 Again in the proposals of 
agreement signed by Lord Baltimore, November 
30, 1657, he promises " that he will never give 
his assent to the repeal of a law established here 
tofore in Maryland by his Lordship s consent, 
whereby all persons professing to believe in Jesus 
Christ have freedom of conscience." 2 The Puri 
tans were very willing to accept all the advantages 
of the principle, but the principle itself and its 
rights they were loath to concede to others. They 
had, indeed, so little reason to fear lest Lord Bal 
timore should not continue his policy of religious 
freedom, that they did not deem it necessary to 
insert a clause to that effect in the final agreement. 
In view of the facts just narrated, the following 
assertion of Neill is refreshing : " after a fight 
between the royalists and Puritans near Anna 
polis, their difficulties were settled by the Crom- 
ivellian Commissioners making a compact with 
Lord Baltimore that he would never consent to 
the repeal of a law established heretofore in Mary 
land by his Lordship s consent, whereby all per 
sons professing to believe in Jesus Christ have 
freedom of conscience there. That law so dear 
to the Puritans was the Act of 1649 which they 

1 Archives, in, p. 325. 

2 Archives, in, p. 334. 



had used their influence to enact. 1 We have seen, 
indeed, how tenderly they treated the law so dear 
to them. That the credit for the law of religious 
liberty was due to Lord Baltimore and the Catho 
lics, has been fully made manifest. ISTor did his 
Lordship, insist upon the law as a mere pretense 
or subterfuge. It was a law dear indeed to him, 
and he was determined to have its provisions re 
spected. In the following year (1659) he writes 
to Governor Fendall: " ... To the end that 
the Act touching religion may be inviolably ob 
served both in the Provincial and in all inferior 
Courts of the Province, I have caused some copies 
of it to be printed and sent over to you, one where 
of I would have set up in some convenient place 
of the room where any Court shall be held in my 
Province sometime before the Court break up. 
And I shall strictly require and enjoin you to 
maintain that Act and proceed in all your Courts 
exactly according to it, and to see that all Com 
missioners in their Courts do so too." 2 

Again was the Province restored to the Catholic 
Proprietary and once more was religious liberty 
established in the Land of Sanctuary. 

The Proprietary s troubles, however, were not 
yet at an end. Again he was destined to taste the 
bitterness of treason. Fendall s zeal in Lord Balti- 

1 Maryland; Not a Roman Catholic Colony, p. 10. 

2 Archives, in, p. 384. 


more s cause, and his prominence during the Puri 
tan hostilities, possibly attracted the attention of 
the Proprietary to the man who afterwards betrayed 
him in so shameful and signal a manner. His 
treachery must have dated from the beginning of 
his appointment as Governor. 1 

In 1660 the smouldering embers of the con 
spiracy burst into a blaze. It is not possible to tell 
by what devious ways and dark plotting, Fendall 
arrived at the successful issue of his shameless 
intrigue, for never once does he come into the 

1 From the letter written by Lord Baltimore, after the 
collapse of the rebellion we learn something of Fendall s 
actions in the early days of his Lieutenantship. He al 
ludes to Fendall s craft and subtilty his faults and ex- 
horbitances, such as his negligence at Courts, his contra 
dicting orders of Court, even orders made by himself and 
Council with the express provision included that they 
should not be altered but by himself and Council, and 
which complaint against him we gave notice of and have 
since found to be true, though we could not at first be 
lieve so ill of him. He also charges him with having 
made sinister use of a passage in a letter (written by Lord 
Baltimore in 1659) in order to stir the people up against 
the Proprietary by falsely representing that the latter 
had ordered the enforcement of an Act passed in 1646, 
concerning tobacco duties. (Archives, I, p. 422.) 

McMahon says : " Fendall s treachery is conspicuous in 
almost every transaction with which he is connected." 
(Hist, of Maryland, p. 10.) Chalmers calls him "a man of 
restless intrigue. . . who had been appointed Governor by 
the Proprietary, because his habitual turbulence had been 
mistaken for a principle of attachment to his Lord." 
(Annals, I, p. 224.) 


open; employing his genius for deception, he uses 
others as decoys and tools. It is not unlikely that 
Fuller also, who was one of the Burgesses, was a 
leading spirit in this conspiracy. 1 

The whole proceeding was ingeniously arranged. 
On March 12th, 1660, the Burgesses declared 
themselves to be " a lawful Assembly without de 
pendence upon any other power in the province." 2 
The Upper House in reply asked if the Burgesses 
considered themselves an Assembly without the 
Governor and the members of the Upper House, 
and independent of the Lord Proprietary. 3 To 
come to an understanding, a meeting was arranged 
between the two Houses, and Governor Fendall as 
serted his belief that his power of confirming the 

1 The Governor s proclamation against William Fuller 
will show to what an extent he was involved in Fendall s 
rebellion : " Foreasmuch as William Fuller, doth privately 
lurk and obscure himself in unknown places, I have 
thought fit to make the same publicly known to all per 
sons, and do hereby require and command all and singular 
the good people of this Province, Sheriffs, constables and 
other his Lordship s officers both civil and military to be 
diligent in inquiring, searching, seizing and apprehending 
him the said William Fuller in all places whatsoever, 
whom if they shall happen to take I do hereby further 
require them that they see him so apprehended to be car 
ried to the next Justice of the Peace, whom I do hereby 
straitly command securely to keep him in prison, and 
presently inform someone of his Lordship s Council of his 
apprehension that he may be safely conveyed to me nt 
St. Mary s." (Archives, in, p. 401.) 

2 Archives, I, p. 388. *IUd., p. 389. 


laws, was only valid provided his Lordship did not 
dissent, and it was his opinion that if the 
Burgesses should enact laws and publish them in 
his Lordship s name, those laws should be consider 
ed to be in full force. This appeared honest upon 
the Governor s part, yet it is evident from what 
happened subsequently, that the whole proceed 
ing, as well as what followed was by preconcerted 
arrangement between the Burgesses and the faith 
less Governor. 

The second act of the farce was played when 
the Burgesses protested against the Governor and 
Council considering themselves an Upper House, 
but they gravely conceded that His Lordship s 
deputy and the Councillors might, if they pleased, 
seat themselves in the Lower House. 1 Fendall 
affected to weigh the matter, as one might an 
academical question, and then boldly threw off the 
mask, accepting their proposition, announcing his 
willingness to sit with them in the manner the}? 
desired, and leaving the power of dissolving the- 
House to the Speaker of the Burgesses/ 2 Thus, 
did Fendall betray his oath to defend the rights of" 
the Proprietary; Maryland was left without ai 
governor, and his Lordship s power virtually wrest 
ed from him. The faithless deputy lieutenant, 
intoxicated with his success, doubtless aspired to 

1 lUd., p. 390. 

2 Ibid., p. 391. 


the dominion of the Province, and trusted to the 
power he exercised over his underlings to hold the 
colony against all odds. He at once began open 
war, stirred up sedition, raised a faction against 
his Lordship s jurisdiction and endeavored to 
change the government into a Commonwealth. 1 
In pursuance of his policy, he surrendered his 
commission received from Lord Baltimore, and ac 
cepted another from the Assembly. To further 
strengthen his position, a law was passed declaring 
it a felony to disturb the government thus estab 
lished, and he issued a proclamation commanding 
the colonists to obey no authority but that of the 
Grand Assembly or of his Majesty. 2 

The news of Fendall s betrayal of his trust was 
at once communicated to Lord Baltimore, who 
fearing that the late outrages in the colony would 
be re-enacted, hastened to avert, if possible, the 
calamity. He commissioned Philip Calvert as 
Governor, 3 and appealing to the King, caused His 
Majesty to throw the weight of his influence and 
power into the cause of the preservation of peace 
in Maryland, by sending letters to the Governor 
" commanding all magistrates and officers and all 
others his subjects in these parts, to be aiding and 
assisting to the re-establishment of his Lordship s 
just rights and jurisdiction within this province." 

1 Archives, in, p. 387. 

2 Bacon s Laws, under 1659, ch. xi. 

3 Archives, in, pp. 391-2. *lbid., p. 394. 


Thus by the prompt action of Lord Baltimore 
this conspiracy collapsed. A general pardon was 
finally extended to all those " engaged in the late 
mutiny and sedition, for any crime by them com 
mitted in the mutiny " except Josias Fendall and 
John Hatch. 1 They were both pardoned soon 
after, however ; Hatch was fined, and Fendall was 
declared incapable of holding office, or of exercis 
ing the right of the franchise. 2 

There have not been wanting some who, snatch 
ing at any opportunity to belittle Lord Baltimore, 
have affected to see in this conspiracy a popular 
movement for the independence of the people from 
the Proprietary. This attempt to overthrow his 
Lordship s government was the action of a few 
turbulent, ambitious men, and nowise represented 
the general sentiment of the inhabitants. As after 
events amply proved, the people were more prosper 
ous and more contented under the Proprietary, 
than they were under a royal governor. 

Ibid., 395. 

2 Ibid., in, p. 408. 


Tried in the fire of persecution, rebellion, and 
treason, the Proprietary, for the last fifteen years 
of his life, was to enjoy a comparative peace, 
happy in the contemplation of the successful de 
velopment of his benevolent plan to colonize with 
out persecution a plan to which he had so long and 
amidst so many trying vicissitudes devoted his 
energies, his fortunes and his life. Writing of 
this period, Alsop, who had been a redemptioner, 
says : " I really believe this land or government 
of Maryland, may boast that she enjoys as much 
quietness from the disturbance of rebellious opin 
ions, as most states or kingdoms do in the world, 
for here everyone lives quietly, and follows his 
labour and employment desiredly. ... I dwell 
now by Providence, in the Province of Maryland 
(under the quiet government of Lord Baltimore), 
which country abounds in a most glorious pros 
perity and plenty of all things." 1 

It was during this period that the Friends, or 
Quakers, appear conspicuously on the scene in 
Maryland, at a time when persecution against 
them was wide-spread throughout the colonies. 
Everywhere but in Maryland " they suffered ille- 

1 Alsop s Character of the Province of Maryland, 1G66. 
Shea s Edition, pp. 46, 90, N. Y., 1809. 



gal fines, imprisonment and whipping; their ears 
have been cut off, their faces branded, estates seized 
and they themselves banished." 1 

A notable example of the different kinds of 
treatment experienced by these people in other 
colonies is shown in the history of Wenlock Ghrist- 
ison, a famous Quaker in his day. His origin is 
unknown. 2 We first hear of him when as an itin 
erant preacher he was imprisoned in Boston. After- 
his release he went to Plymouth where similar en 
actments against the Quakers were in force, and 
Avhere he was treated with far greater inhumanity,, 
being not only imprisoned, but starved and whip 
ped as well, and finally banished on pain of 

l Knye, J. H. U. Studies, 23rd Series, p. 28. Death itself 
was their portion and punishment in Massachusetts. In 
Maryland they found a haven and a home ; " they were pro 
tected in their modes and places of worship, they had con 
cessions granted to their conscientious scruples and they 
had deference shown to their peculiarities by statutes passed 
in their behalf. ... A very thorough examination of the 
records of Talbot county (the Quaker stronghold in Mary 
land) and an equally thorough examination of the 
minutes of the Meetings of the Friends at Third Haven,, 
have revealed not a single instance of personal violence in 
flicted in that county upon a Quaker on account of his. 
religion; and it is noted that our Court records extend back 
to 1662, a period when persecution was rife elsewhere, and 
that the minutes of the Meetings commence in 1676, a period 
when the Friends were still emulous of martyrdom and 
would have been sure to record any case of suffering. " 
(Harrison s Wenlock Christison, pp. 12-13). 

2 His name is sometimes written Christopherson. He was, 
was probably of English birth. 


death. The years following were filled with the 
experience of bitterest persecution and suffering 
for Christison and his brethren. " We lose sight 
of him/ 7 says his eulogist, " as he is driven forth 
with blows into the wilderness, a wanderer, with 
out certain home, truly a vagabond but not in an 
opprobrious sense, imprisoned, starved, robbed, 
beaten, outlawed. When we catch glimpses of him 
again, it is under more auspicious circumstances. 
We find him settled in his own quiet home, sitting 
at his own fireside, in the midst of loving wife and 
children. We find him surrounded by honoring 
friends and neighbors, occupying the seat of the 
elders, among the Friends, without fear of pillory, 
jail, or constable s whip. We find him protected 
by benign laws, and even daring to stand covered 
precious privilege in the presence of Govern 
ors and magistrates. We find him, in short, in 
tolerant Maryland." 1 Christison came to Mary 
land about 1670, acquired wealth, position and in 
fluence, and was elected a Burgess. An account 
of his life in the colony, of the attitude of the 
Maryland government generally towards the Quak 
ers " furnishes evidence of the extreme liberality 
of sentiment that prevailed towards the Friends in 
Maryland ; more than this, it shows that there 
ivas a disposition to indulge them to an extent 
which would not be tolerated in the present day." 2 

1 Samuel Harrison s Wenlock Christison, p. 49. 

2 Ibid., p. 68. 


" There is a remarkable confirmation of the 
statement that the government of Maryland was 
very liberal towards the Quakers, who were perse- 
-cuted by almost every community where they ap 
peared, which has not before been noticed. There 
appears to have been a small society or settlement 
of Friends a settlement of which the historians of 
that body of Christians have failed to give any 
account whatever within the territory disputed 
by Virginia and Maryland, upon the borders of 
Accomack and Somerset Counties. An attempt 
was made in 1663 by one Colonel Scarborough to- 
bring these people under the jurisdiction of Vir 
ginia. But they positively refused to acknowledge 
the jurisdiction of that province, and claimed to- 
be under the government of the Lord Proprietary 
of Maryland. . . . Some of the Commissioners ap 
pointed by the Governor and Council of Maryland 
for the granting of land titles . . . were Quakers. 
In a commission appointed in 1665 composed of 
seven persons, no less than three were of the So 
ciety of Friends. . . . When Somerset was orga 
nized in 1666 there were three Quakers acting as 
land commissioners and probably as Justices of 
the Peace. All this serves to indicate with what 
feelings they were regarded by the Proprietary 
government of Maryland." 1 

1 Harrison, note, p. 11, quoting Accomack County, Vir 
ginia, Records. 



" In 1672 on the departure of John Burnyeat, 
a leading Quaker, for England, the Quakers were 
assembled in Maryland to bid him farewell. Fox 
arrived just in time for this meeting. 77 H e says 
of it, " a very large meeting this was and held four 
days, and to which besides many Friends, came 
many other people, many of whom were of con 
siderable quality in the world s account, for there 
were amongst them five or six Justices of the 
Peace, a Speaker of their Parliament or Assembly, 
one of the Council and divers others of note ; who 
seemed well satisfied with the meeting." 1 After 
this the Quakers held regular meetings. 2 

Thus while driven from every other colony the 
Friends, in common with the persecuted of all 
other sects found a haven in the Land of Sanctu 
ary. In return they refused to aid in defending 
the province that had afforded them a refuge, re 
fused to conform to its customs and obey its laws. 
They would neither take the oath of fidelity, bear 
arms, nor hold offices and perform civic duties 
Tequiring the oath, which they considered it an 
impiety to take. Now, defense of their colony 
was the first and most essential obligation of the 
settlers of the New World, always in real and 
momentary danger of an Indian invasion, while 
" to allow the customary oaths to be omitted byjury- 

1 George Fox s Journal, abridged by Perry L. Parker, p. 


J. S. Norris, The Early Friends in Md., pp. 12-14. 


men, or in testamentary matters would have been 
a dangerous innovation on English Common Law, 
and might on that ground have been construed as 
contrary to the charter, and have involved the 
Proprietary in complications with England." 1 
They not only refused to take the oath themselves, 
but dissuaded others from so doing ; spoke against 
the observance of the laws 2 were guilty of con 
tempt of Court, and even refused to subscribe to 
the Act of Assembly which substituted an agree 
ment for the oath of fidelity, out of consideration 
for their extreme scrupulosity, " alleging that they 
were to be governed by God s law and the light 
within them, and not by men s law." 3 The dis 
affection that was spreading in the Province made 
it necessary that some steps be taken to preserve 
order and prevent anarchy, and in consequence, it 
was proclaimed that all those who refused to sub 
scribe to the engagement (substituted for the oath) 
should be considered rebels and traitors. The 
Quakers, that had been arrested, signified their 
desire to leave the Province, and the warrant was 
withdrawn. They were allowed to depart in peace 
without punishment for their seditious actions. 4 
This was in 1658, under Eendall, and during the 
rest of the year, as well as the following one, the 

a Petrie, Church and State in Md., pp. 35-6. 

2 Archives, in, pp. 348-349. 

z lbid., in, p. 352. 

4 Ibid., m, pp. 352-353. 


Friends continued to go among the people dis 
suading them from military discipline and duty, 
in what was then a time of great danger, striving 
by argument and influence to prevent the colonists 
from giving testimony, acting as jurors or hold 
ing offices to the no small disturbance of the laws 
and civil government thereof. 1 As the Quakers 
not only refused their own obligations but en 
deavored to bring the other settlers to the same way 
of thinking, it is easy to fancy what would have 
been the consequence if they had been allowed full 
scope in their campaign of conversion. Governor 
Fendall, in 1659 issued an order that Quakers thus 
disturbing the peace, should be whipped and ban 
ished from the colony. 2 This order, however, was 
never carried out or sanctioned by the Proprietary. 
A prominent Quaker named Thurston, who with a 
colleague by the name of Cole, had been con 
spicuously active in stirring up the people, again 
defied the laws after the issuing of this order. He- 
was released, however, upon the representation 
that the law specified Quakers " not inhabitants 
of the Province " and at the time of the making 
of the order he was within the Province and conse 
quently not within the letter of the law. 3 He 
was not punished, but was , compelled to leave. 

1 Archives, in, p. 362. 


3 Archives, ill, p. 364. 


In 1662 the Friends applied for a dispensa 
tion from the oath, but after due consideration, the 
petition was refused. It was rather unreasonable, 
to expect the government to revolutionize its cus 
toms and methods of judicial procedure to accom 
modate the scruples of those to whom it had af 
forded a refuge, and who were free moreover to 
leave if they were not content. 1 

One must concede that, in the face of the evi 
dence here presented, it can hardly be considered 
a piece of special pleading to maintain that not 
only were the Friends never persecuted under the 
Proprietary Government of Maryland, but that 
every consideration was shown them. When they 
deliberately defied the government, stirred up sedi 
tion, and refused to conform to the established 
customs of colonial life, the laws they ignored were 
put in operation against them, as they would have 
been against any others, of no matter what creed, 
who had done in like manner. A Catholic was 
fined and imprisoned for such a slight thing as 
speaking disrespectfully of Protestants, at a time 
when Catholics were in complete control and in 
his home, too, when he had heard his own religion 
bitterly reviled. A Catholic refusing to bear 
arms, discouraging others from their manifest 
duty, refusing to perform civil offices required of 
him, flinging down the gauntlet to the English 

1 See Appendix O. 


Common Law by rebelling against the oath, would 
certainly have fared no better, if as well as the 
Quaker. When the Friend had an opportunity he 
dealt not so leniently with the Catholic who had 
given him a refuge and a home. After the down 
fall of the Catholic regime (1692) Quakers and 
Catholics were both placed under civil disabilities, 
but these disabilities were removed in regard to the 
Quakers in 1702 when they were granted the same 
rights as the other Protestants. In the Assemblies- 
which followed, many Quakers were members, but 
they who had scrupled at an oath, did not scruple 
the passing of severe laws against Catholics. 
Much has been made of this fact that for a brief 
interval in the history of Maryland during the 
few years of Fendall s administration orders 
were issued banishing the Quakers from the 
colony, and ordering them to be whipped if found 
therein. The reasons that gave birth to this order 
against the Friends, and the fact that the punish 
ment was never carried out, are passed over dry- 
shod by their apologists. There never ivas any 
persecution of the Quakers in Maryland. The 
punishments some suffered were occasioned, not by 
any antagonism of the people io their religious 
belief itself, but because the practical application 
of their creed would have resulted in anarchy with 
in, as well as destruction from without. Their 
claims (extraordinary and unreasonable in that 
dav and under those circumstances) were, as has 


been seen, always earnestly considered and allow 
ed, as far as consonant with the stability of the 
government; statutes were changed to meet their 
peculiar tenets, they were given places of honor 
and trust, even sitting in the Assembly, and what 
ever disabilities they endured they wilfully 
brought upon themselves. The case, then, of the 
Quakers in Maryland, is a political and civic, but 
not a religious one. 

The presence of Puritans without convic 
tions for witchcraft would seem anomalous. 
It was during the Puritan regime that we 
first hear of witches in Maryland. While no 
death penalties were ever inflicted on those un 
fortunate suspects in the Land of Sanctuary, some 
few instances are on record to remind us that there 
were not wanting in the Province those whose dis 
positions were modeled after Puritan forms. In 
1654, at sea, on the ship " Charity " about a fort 
night before its arrival in Maryland, it became ru 
mored among the seamen that a woman aboard 
named Mary Lee was a witch, the sailors confi 
dently affirming the same upon her own deport 
ment and discourse, and importuning the master 
that a trial might be had of her, which the master 
refused . . . Finally the sailors apprehended her 
without an order, and, without the consent of the 
ship s captain, the men hanged the woman. 1 

1 Archives, in, p. 307-8. 


Father Francis Fitzherbert travelling as an un 
known layman, was a passenger on this ship when 
Mary Lee was hanged by the sailors. In the 
Jesuit Letter of 1654 the following allusion to this 
occurrence is made. " The tempest lasted, in all, 
two months, whence the opinion arose, that it was 
not on account of the violence of the ship or atmos 
phere, but was occasioned by the malevolence of 
witches. Forthwith they seize a little old woman 
suspected of sorcery ; and after examining her 
with the strictest scrutiny, guilty or not guilty, 
they slay her, suspected of this very heinous sin. 
The corpse and whatever belonged to her they cast 
into the sea." 1 Needless to say, at such a time, it 
would have been worse than useless for the priest 
to have made any interference. 

In 1674, John Cowman was arraigned, convict 
ed and condemned 7 for witchcraft, conjuration, 
sorcery and enchantment used upon the body of 
Elizabeth Goodale. He was reprieved by the Gov 
ernor at the intercession of the Lower House, 
carried to the gallows, the rope put about his neck, 
it there being made known to him how much he 
is beholding to the Lower House for interceding 
in his behalf. Afterwards he was to be employed 
in such service as the governor should see fit. 2 

1 Letters of Missionaries,, 1635-38, Fund Pub. No. 7, p. 

2 Archives, n, pp. 425, 444, 447. 


There was still another case similar to the one 
mentioned above, in which John Washington, great 
grandfather of George Washington, lodges a com 
plaint against one Edward Prescott for the hang 
ing of Elizabeth Richardson for witchcraft on his 
ship. 1 But it must be remembered that neither 
of these executions took place upon Maryland soil, 
and in both were the proceedings condemned by 
the authorities. 

As far as known, these three cases include the 
whole story of Maryland s part in witchcraft. This 
was at a time too, when the land was swept by the 
horrors incident to this terrible suspicion. In 
Salem at one time 100 persons lay in jail under 
the charge of witchcraft (1691), and the blood of 
the innocent unfortunates, done to death by mad 
fanaticism, cried to heaven. 2 

The Presbyterians also found in Maryland a 
refuge from persecution. Erancis Doughty was 
probably the first pastor of the first Presbyterian 
Church in the Province, into which he came about 
1657, arriving there by way of a trail of eject 
ments and arrest. His seems to have been a 
stormy career, and the man himself not particular 
ly remarkable for either prudence or self-control. 
" The traces of his work in Maryland are pro- 
vokingly small. ... It is a pleasure to note that 

1 Browne s Maryland, pp. 83-88. 

2 Ezra Hoyt Byington, The Puritan as a Colonist and a 
Reformer, p. 178. 


the liberty of conscience which he had so long 
sought, but sought in vain, Doughty at last found 
in the liberal religious policy, which made Mary 
land a place of refuge for all victims of ecclesi 
astical tyranny." 1 

It is to be noted that the Presbyterians were 
not long in the colony before a disposition was 
manifested to rebel against the established order 
of things. It was about this time that we find 
Charles Mcholett, a minister, endeavoring to incite 
the people to acts of revolt and intolerance. But 
his efforts were futile. 2 The people were evidently 

1 Early Presbyterianism in Maryland, J. W. Mcllvaine, 
J. H. U. Studies, 8th Series, pp. 8-9. Cfr. Days of Mac- 
kemie, Rev. L. P. Bowen. 

2 In the Acts of the Assembly of 1669 we read: " Charles 
Nicholett in his sermon on Wednesday last to the Lower 
House did say that they should beware of the sin of per 
mission, and that they were now chosen or elected both by 
God and man, and have power put into their hands. The 
country hath often had an Assembly, but never an Assembly 
that so great expectations were as from this, he could 
have wished that they had read the Proceedings of the 
Commons of England to see what brave things they had 
done. And now let me beg of you to consider the poor 
people, for the Lord will hear their cause. You are not 
insensible how heavy the tax was upon them the last year, 
therefore, let me desire of you to beware of that sin of 
permission, for it is an old saying, set a beggar on horse 
back and he will ride, so set a child on horse-back and he 
will be afraid to guide the horse; Therefore, let me desire 
you to go on with courage, for that you have a power of 
yourselves, and equal to the rest of that, the people, and 
a liberty equal to the people of England; and that if they 
did not make such laws as was agreeable to their own 


satisfied with the existing conditions, for the time 
being at least. Nicholett was fined 40 shillings for 
his seditious words and obliged to crave pardon 
of the Lower House, the Governor and Assembly, 
for ( meddling with business relating merely to 
the government. 71 

In 1648, in a commission annexed to the " Con- 
ditionsof Plantation" of that year, Lord Baltimore 
gives permission to e persons of French, Dutch or 
Italian descent to settle in the colony in as ample 
a manner and upon the same terms and provisoes 
... as you are authorized to grant to any planter 
of British or Irish descent. 2 In 1660 Augustine 
Herman, an influential and wealthy Bohemian 
transported himself from the Dutch Settlement 
at Manhattan to Maryland. He was one of the 
two ambassadors from Governor Stuyvesant to 
Maryland the previous year, regarding the l re-de 
livery and restitution of servants and others who 
for debt had fled to Lord Baltimore s colony. 3 
After this he made a map of Maryland, which his 
Lordship considered of such benefit to the province 
that he granted him in return ( free denization 

conscience that then this was no liberty but a seeming 
liberty and hath better be without it." (Archives, II, pp. 

1 Archives, n, p. 1G3. 

2 Archives, in, pp. 232-233. 

3 Archives, in, pp. 366-78. 


and a large tract of land, which in memory of his 
native land, Herman named " Bohemia Manor." l 
About this time the Labadists appeared in 
Maryland and seem to have found a refuge 
from persecution. The Labadists were founded 
by a Frenchman, Jean de Labadie, a fanatic, who 
was born at Bordeaux in the year 1610. He was 
sucessively a Jesuit, a Jansenist, and an apostate. 
After being expelled from the Walloon Church at 
Middleburgh he announced himself as inspired and 
endowed with prophetic gifts, and founded a pecu 
liar communistic sect of so-called Mystics who also 
considered themselves possesed of divine light and 
inspiration. Their practice of private marriage 
brought them into conflict with the law, as did 
also the ease with which they separated from each 

1 Archives, in, pp. 398-9. 

Herman, a number of relatives, and Parks a Frenchman, 
were naturalized in 1666. (IUd., n, p. 144-5.) The first 
German settlers in Maryland were among the Dutch and 
French Labadists who settled in Cecil County on Bohemia 
Manor in 1681. Great numbers of Germans settled in 
Western Maryland and along the Pennsylvania border in 
the first part of the 18th century. (First Settlements of 
Germans in Md., Edward Schultz, p. 4) In 1660, free 
denization and land were granted to some Swedes and 
Dutch, Peter Meyor, Axtell Stille and fifteen others from 
New Amstell; and Jacob Clauson with three companions 
from Holland. (Archives, in, pp. 428-431.) In the follow 
ing year French colonists settled in Maryland. ( Archives, 
i~bid., p. 465.) In 1663-4 "a patent of denization was 
granted to J. Sicks, late of England, a subject of the Royal 
Empire of Germany." (Archives, in, p. 489.) 


other, when directed to do so by some alleged 
divine internal illumination. These people under 
their leaders, Peter Sluyter and Jasper Bankers, 
came to Maryland in 1684 and obtained from 
Augustine Herman the wealthy Bohemian, and 
naturalized Marylander the gift of a large tract 
of valuable land on Bohemia Manor. This grant 
was made to them at the earnest solicitation of 
Herman s son Ephraim, a weak-minded youth, who 
had fallen under the influence of Sluyter. The 
latter gradually absorbed the interests of the other 
Labadists, eventually obtaining possession of the 
whole property. Sluyter appears to have been 
tyrannical, crafty, mercenary, hard towards others, 
indulgent to himself, using his followers as dupes 
and tools. Ephraim Herman joined the Labad 
ists, but later on he became disillusioned and left 
the community ; some time after he lost his mind. 
After the death of Sluyter in 1722 the dissolu 
tion of the community commenced, and in five years 
not a vestige of it remained. Forty-three years 
had elapsed from the coming of the Labadists into 
Maryland until the time of their final extinction. 
It is not positively known how these people were 
regarded by the Maryland settlers, but they evi 
dently prospered in their adopted home and were 
partakers of the toleration and protection that was 
extended to all. 1 

1 History of Cecil County, by George Johnston, chapter IX 
(Elkton, 1881). The Labadists of Bohemia Manor, by 


Of those who planted colonies in the new world 
Lord Baltimore was the first Englishman to take 
thought for the original inhabitants of the land. 
A reservation was proposed of about eight or 
ten thousand acres, to be called Calverton Manor, 
and the Proprietor appointed the Surveyor-Gen 
eral to be its steward. This was done in accord 
ance with the desire of several Indian nations to 
put themselves under the Proprietor s protection, 
which he declares " may be a means not only to 
bring them to civility but also to Christianity, and 
may consequently be as well an addition of comfort 
and strength to the English inhabitants, as a safety 
and protection to those Indians . . . who are will 
ing to submit to our government. We esteem our 
selves bound in honor and conscience to allow them 
according to their desire, some place of habitation 
there. . ." * 

It will not be without interest to observe how 
negro slaves were treated by the colonists of Mary 
land under Lord Baltimore s government. The 
Catholic Proprietary himself tells us in his an 
swer to the Lords in 1676: ". . . Whereas, in 
many other parts of America, they refuse (out of 
covetousness) to permit their negroes and nmlat- 
toes to be baptised out of an opinion that baptism 
is a manumission from their services, and conse- 

Geo. A. Leakin, Md. Hist. Magazine, Dec. 1906; J. H. U. 
Studies, 17th Series, 277-312; Journal of J. Bankers and 
P. Sluyter. 

1 Archives, I, pp. 330-31. 


quently the same thing as to the damage of the 
masters and owners, as if their servants were 
actually dead and this opinion beginning to take 
place in this Province, a law was made to en 
courage the baptising of them, by which it was and 
is declared, that as in former times, the baptizing 
of villaines in England was not taken by the law 
of England to be a manumission or infranchising 
of the villaines, so neither shall it be in this pro 
vince as to negroes and mulattoes ; and there have 
been found good effects from this law, all masters, 
generally, since the making of this law, having 
been willing to instruct those kinds of servants in 
the faith of Christ, and to bring them to desire 
and receive baptism." 

After 1692 under the Episcopalian regime these 
unfortunate people seem to have been treated 

1 Archives, v, p. 267. 

"Whereas, several of the good people of this Province 
have been discouraged to import into or purchase any 
negroes or other slaves, and such as have imported 
or purchased any such have to the great displeasure of 
Almighty God and the prejudice of the souls of those 
poor people, neglected to instruct them in the Christian 
faith, or to endure or permit them to receive the holy 
sacrament of Baptism for the remission of their sins, upon 
a mistaken and ungrounded apprehension that by becoming 
Christians they and the issue of their bodies are actually 
manumitted, and made free and discharged from their 
servitude and bondage, be it enacted . . . that where any 
negro or negro slave being in bondage, . . . shall become 
Christian . . . and shall receive the sacrament of Baptism 
. . . the same shall not be ... construed into a manumis 
sion, . . . etc." (Archives, II, p. 272). 


fairly well; some of the ministers and the con 
gregations evidently taking an interest in their 
souls, though to others they appear to have been ob 
jects of indifference. 1 

1 " There is one thing tho , in which we must confess we 
are blameworthy, both pastors and people, in that greater 
care is not taken about the instruction of the negroes. It 
cannot be denied but that they are part of our cure, and 
that we shall be accountable to God for the discharge of 
our duty to them. But on the other side it cannot be ex 
pected that we should become schoolmasters and tutors to 
them any more than to others." (Masters are exhorted to 
instruct them.) Perry Papers, p. 292. Sermon of Rev. 
John Lang, Commissary, (1730). 

". . . Many of them (Negroes) I have baptised and in 
structed in the principles of the Christian Religion, but 
most have refused instruction." . . . ( Tibbs, Balto, Co., 

". . . Some that understand English come duly to 
Church, where means of instruction are held." (Donaldson, 
St. Mary s and Charles Co., 1724.) 

". . . Free liberty from their masters to attend Divine 
Service and other means of instruction. . . . Forty bap 
tised in one year. . . ." (Pr. Geo. Co., 1724.) 

"... Slaves Masters are pressed to instruct them, and 
allow liberty to attend service and other means of instruc 
tion; several have been baptised." (Calvert Co., 1724.) 

". . . Some are instructed by their masters and mis 
tresses, and 4 have been baptised in my time." (Anne 
Arundel, 1724, 150 families in Parish.) 

"... I have baptised a great many. . . . They frequent 
my churches ordinarily, and say their Catechism." (Pr. 
Geo. Co., 1724). 

". . . There are several negroes and mulattoes. . . . 
Their masters are instructed to instruct them in the Christ 
ian Religion, and several are baptized, and frequent the 
Church." (Portobacco, 1724.) 



It has been often asserted that Jews were ex- 
tluded from the Land of Sanctuary. It is true, 
indeed, that the Act of 1649, which as we have 
seen was a compromise between the liberal Catholic 
policy in force during the first fifteen years of the 
colony s existence, and the Puritan intolerance which 
then began to exhibit its power in the province, 
did exclude Unitarians and Jews. There is noth 
ing, however, to show that the Catholics of Mary 
land ever manifested any desire to exclude the peo 
ple of any religion. There is on record no 

". . . Some Negroes are baptized after instruction in 
the Catechism. . . ." (Somerset, 1724.) 

". . . There are some negroes in my parish. . . . Some 
whereof are capable of instruction, some are not." (Tal- 
bot, 1724), etc. (Perry Papers, pp. 190-224.) 

"Mr. Fletcher said that his parishioners were generally 
so brutish that they would not suffer their Negroes to be 
instructed, catechized, or baptized." 

" Mr. Wye says his people are generally disposed to have 
their negroes instructed." 

" Mr. Thompson says he finds his people generally remiss 
in this regard." 

" Mr. Airey finds his people inclinable to have their 
Negroes instructed but they will not be at the pains and 
trouble of it. " 

"Mr. Manadier finds his people remiss and neglectful on 
this point." 

" Mr. Nichols says when exhorting his people to instruct 
their negroes, the best answer he can get from the best 
people is that they are very sorry, and lament they cannot 
comply with it. " 

"Mr. Cox s parishioners allow Negro instruction to be a 
good thing, but they generally excuse themselves as think 
ing it impracticable. " (Perry Papers, pp. 304-305.) 


instance prior to 1649 of any Jew having asked 
for admission to the colony, and of having been re 
fused. Judging from the line of conduct toward 
all who sought a haven of refuge in Maryland, 
there is good reason to suppose that to the Jew, as 
well as to the Episcopalian and Puritan, the Catho 
lics of Lord Baltimore s province would have ex 
tended a welcome if any had applied. 

In 1658, before the Puritans had surrendered the 
government to Lord Baltimore, a Jew comes into 
unfortunate prominence. Jacob, alias John Lum- 
brozo, was accused of blasphemy. The circum 
stances of this accusation are so interesting that we 
shall give them in full. It is a notable fact, that 
his two principal accusers were the Quakers, Eich- 
ard Preston and Josias Cole, who seem, indeed, to 
have drawn Lumbrozo out and on to his own un 
doing by artful questioning, and with carefully 
concealed purpose. e At a Provincial Court held 
at St. Mary s on Wednesday, 23rd of February, 
1658, . . . was called before the board Jacob 
Lumbrozo, and charged with uttering words of 
blasphemy against our Blessed Saviour Jesus 
Christ. John Fossett, the first witness, deposed 
that half a year before, at Kichard Preston s house, 
he had spoken with Lumbrozo, concerning Our 
Saviour, saying the resurrection proved He was 
more than man, as did also His miracles. To the 
first Lumbrozo answered that His disciples stole 
him away, and to the second, that the miracles 


might be done by sorcery. The testimony of Pres 
ton, the Quaker, is interesting, exhibiting as it 
does, the subtle methods and devious ways, by 
which Lumbrozo was entangled to the end that he 
might be brought within the pale of the law of 
1649. Eichard Preston did testify that about 
June or July last coming from Thomas Thomas s 
in company with Josias Cole and the Jew doctor, 
known by the name of Jacob Lumbrozo, Josias 
Cole asked Lumbrozo whether the Jews did look 
for a Messias? And Lumbrozo answered, yes. 
Then Cole asked him how did He (our Saviour) 
do all his miracles ? And Lumbrozo answered that 
he did them by the magic art. Then Cole asked 
him, how His disciples did do the same miracles? 
And Lumbrozo answered, He taught them His 
art. In his defence Lumbrozo saith that he 
had some talk with those persons, and willed by 
them to declare his opinion, and by his profession 
a Jew, he answered to some particular demands 
they urged, and as to that of miracles done by magic 
he cited Moses and the magicians of Egypt. But 
said not anything scoffingly, or in derogation of 
him Christians acknowledged for their Messias. 
Lumbrozo was ordered to appear at the next Pro 
vincial Court to make answer to what shall be 
laid to his charge. 1 But a few days after this 
preliminary trial, Richard Cromwell was pro- 
provincial Court Records, 1658-62, pp. 454-457. 


claimed in Maryland, and the doctor was included 
in the general pardon accompanying the procla 

In the following March, as we have seen, Lord 
Baltimore regained the government of his province. 
Notwithstanding the law of 1649, the Catholic 
Proprietary gave the full rights of citizenship to 
Lumbrozo, 1 and furthermore granted him the priv 
ilege to trade. 2 No objection at this time or after 
wards seems to have been made by the colonists; 
and in 1664 we find Lumbrozo acting on a jury. "* 

It is a striking coincidence that in the very year 
that Lord Baltimore, despite the disabling law of 
1649, granted the rights of citizenship to Lum 
brozo, Rhode Island passed an ordinance exclud 
ing Catholics and Jews, by virtue of which the 
Superior Court of that Province in 1762 disallow 
ed the petition of two Jews who asked to be ad 
mitted as citizens, declaring that their admission 
was " wholly inconsistent with the first principles 
upon which the colony was founded." 4 

Thus w r e see how in Maryland the Catholic 
tolerated all, while the Puritan, when the oppor 
tunity was at hand, excluded Catholics, Episco 
palians, and all others who did not agree with him. 

1 Archives, in, p. 488 with reference, p. 470. 

2 Ibid., p. 526. 

3 Archives, IV, p. 521. 

4 Justin Winsor, Nar. and Grit. Hist, in, p. 379; Arnold, 
Hist, of Rhode Island, pp. 492-495. 


The Quaker, too, when occasion offered invoked 
the severity of the law against the Jew, in whose 
behalf the Catholic Proprietary waived the rigor 
of the Act of 1649 by a grant of lands and full 
citizenship. Only the Catholic in Catholic Mary 
land found no friend when intolerance assailed 


From all that we have seen, it can now be as 
serted without question that to Maryland belongs 
the credit of having been the first government in 
the world in modern times to successfully establish 
religious freedom. Let it be remembered that the 
Catholic Baltimoresand the early Maryland settlers 
were the first since the Keformation to see the 
necessity of the establishment of a government on 
the broad moral principle " that faith is an act of 
the will and that to force men to profess what they 
do not believe is contrary to the law of God, and 
to generate faith by force is morally impossible." l 

" Lord Baltimore/ says Bancroft, " was 
the first in the history of the Christian 
world to seek for religious security and peace 
by the practice of justice and not by the exercise 
of power; 2 to plan the establishment of popular 
institutions with the enjoyment of liberty of con 
science. The asylum of Catholics was the remote 
spot where in a remote corner of the world on the 
banks of rivers which as yet had hardly been ex 
plored, the mild forbearance of a Proprietary 

Planning, Vatican Decrees in their Bearing on Civil 
Allegiance, p. 92. 

2 Cfr. Constantino, pp. 7-10. 



adopted religious freedom as the basis of the 
state. . . . Roman Catholics oppressed by the 
laws of England, were sure to find a peaceful 
asylum in the quiet waters of the Chesapeake and 
there, too, Protestants were sheltered against Pro 
testant intolerance. 7 " The province was estab 
lished on the broad foundation of security to 
property and of freedom in religion. Christianity 
was established without allowing pre-eminence to 
any particular sect. Calvert s liberal policy ren 
dered a Roman Catholic colony an asylum for 
those who were driven from New England by the 
persecutions which were there experienced from 
the Protestants." 5 Says Davis: "The earliest 
policy of Maryland was in striking contrast with 
that of every other colony. The toleration which 
prevailed from the first, and fifteen years later 
was formally ratified by the voice of the people, 
must therefore be regarded as the living embodi 
ment of a great idea." 3 " The disfranchised 
friends of prelacy from Massachusetts and the 
Puritans from Virginia, were welcomed to equal 
liberty of conscience and political rights in the 
Roman Catholic province of Maryland." : " Man 
kind beheld a new scene, in Massachusetts the 
Puritans abridging the rights of various sects, and 

1 Bancroft, 10th ed. pp. 244, 248. 

2 Allen s Amer. Biog. Diet., p. 187. 

3 Day-Star, p. 64. 

* Bancroft, 10th ed., p. 257. 


the Church of England in Virginia actuated by 
the same spirit, harassing those who dissented 
from them in religion, while the Roman Catholics 
of Maryland tolerated and protected the professors 
of all denominations." l " With a policy," says 
Rev. Dr. Hawks, " the wisdom of which was the 
more remarkable, as it was far in advance of the 
spirit of the age, Lord Baltimore laid the founda 
tion of his province on the broad basis of freedom 
of property. Christianity, as a part of the old 
Common Law of England w is (stablished by the 
Proprietary." 2 " While all other governments," 
says Burnap, " established one form of religion, 
and persecuted all others, the Maryland colony 
. . . allowed all sects to worship God after the 
dictates of their own consciences. . . The Mary 
land colony was composed at the outset of both 
Catholics and Protestants, the Catholics being in 
the majority. We cannot suppose that with an 
ordinary share of prudence, the Protestants would 
have trusted themselves in the hands of Catholics 
without some previous understanding as to the 
rights of conscience and the liberty of enjoying 
unmolested their own religion. Sufficient proofs 
have come down to us, that this was the case. If 
so, the Maryland colony has the honor of taking 
the lead in the cause of religious freedom, and of 

*D. Ramsey, Hist, of the U. 8., p. 116. 
2 Rev. F. L. Hawks, Rise and Progress of the P. E. 
Church in Maryland, p. 24. 


being the first community in modern times, in 
which the civil was effectively separated from the 
ecclesiastical power." 1 We know, in fact, that 
religious toleration and freedom of worship were 
promised the first colonists by Lord Baltimore be 
fore they set sail for Maryland, and that " soon 
after the planting of the Province these conditions 
by the unanimous consent of all concerned were 
passed into a law." 2 

Advocates have not been wanting who claim for 
other colonies the distinction of being the first to 
establish religious liberty. Rhode Island especi 
ally has been put forward as a rival of Maryland. 
But a careful review of the facts shows conclusively 
that Maryland was the first where practical reli 
gious freedom prevailed, and vindicates her right 
to the title " The Land of Sanctuary." Rhode 
Island had a law of religious toleration from the 
beginning (1636) which in its wording was very 
broad but, in fact, was limited. The franchise 
was granted " to such as the major part of us 
shall admit into fellowship with us." 3 "While 
the charter of Rhode Island," says Arnold, " and 
the action of the colony uniformly secured to all 
people perfect religious freedom, it did not confer 

iBurnap, Life of Leonard Calvert, pp. 15, 171. 

2 Archives, v, pp. 267-8. It is Dr. Browne s opinion that 
this law was passed by the First Assembly, the records of 
which are lost. Preface to Council Proceedings, 1667-87. 

3 J. D. Knowles, Memoir of Roger Williams, p. 112. 


civil privileges, as a part of that right upon any 
one, and such only were entitled to these whom 
the freemen saw fit to admit." 

1 S. G. Arnold, History of Rhode Island, n, p. 495. 

Speaking of Roger Williams Deed: "The language of 
the Deed in its granting clause is That I, R. W. do 
freely and fully pass, grant, and make over equal right and 
power of enjoying and disposing the same grounds and 
lands (purchased of Canonicus and Miantonomi, including 
those upon the Patuxent) unto my loving friends and 
neighbors (designating them by their initials) and such 
others as the major part of- us shall admit into the same fel 
lowship of vote with us." (Rd. Id., I. B. Richman, I, p. 89.) 

Richman (vol. I, p. 95) says also, in allusion to Wil 
liams letter to Winthrop: "He (Wiliams) submits for 
the criticism of Winthrop, his correspondent, a form of 
compact, which, although never formally adopted, was 
acted upon, and may be regarded as the first written con 
stitution of the settlement. It is as follows : We, whose 
names are hereunder written, late inhabitants of the Mass 
achusetts (upon occasion of some difference of consci 
ence) being permitted to depart from the limits of the 
Patent under which we came over into these parts and 
being cast by the God of Heaven remote from others of 
our countrymen amongst the barbarians in this town of 
New Providence, do with free and joint consent, promise 
each unto other that, for our common peace and welfare 
(until we hear further of the King s royal pleasure con 
cerning ourselves) we will from time to time subject our 
selves, in active or passive obedience, to such orders or 
agreements as shall be made by the greater number of 
the present householders, and such as shall hereafter be 
admitted by their consent into the same privilege and 
covenant in our ordinary meeting. " 

" The new regime inaugurated by Williams . . . was 
equality among the ruling class; it was not democratic in 
the inclusive sense of later times." (Richman, I, p. 96-9). 


What would be thought of a religious freedom 
to-day, which denied the franchise. From the be 
ginning, all freemen, in Maryland, had this right. 
" Two years before the founding of Ehode Island, 
the Catholics of the Chesapeake, had emancipated 
the human conscience, built an asylum for the dis 
tressed, and laid the foundation of a new State." 

Writing in reference to the increase of the popu 
lation of Rhode Island, Greene remarks : " In 
estimating the population, we must bear in mind 
that not every inhabitant was a freeman, nor every 
resident a legal inhabitant. A probationary resi 
dence was required before the second step was 

"Solvency," says Dorr (quoted by Richman, I, p. 91), 
" has at all times held the same place in Rhode Island which 
Puritan orthodoxy once held in Massachusetts." 

"The judge together with the Elders (should) rule and 
govern according to the general rule of the word of God, 
but when they (had) no particular rule from God s word 
by the specific direction of the body politic, at which all 
cases, actions and rules, which (had) passed through (the) 
hands (of the judge and Elders), were to be scanned by 
the word of Christ. And if by the Body, or any of 
them, the Lord (should) be pleased to dispense light to the 
contrary of what by the Judge and Elders (had) been 
determined formerly, then and there it (should) be re 
pealed as the act of the Body. " (Richman, I, p. 119. R. 
I. Colonial Records, vol. I, pp. 63-64. Cfr. As To Roger 
Williams. Henry Martyn Dexter, p. 91.) 

" It may be said also that for the most of the Rhode 
Island men themselves, the principle of religious toleration 
was at first too broad." (Cobb, p. 439). 

"Ridpath, History of the U. 8., p. 219. 


reached and the resident became an inhabitant with 
certain rights to the common lands, the right of 
sitting on the jury, and of being chosen to some 
of the lower offices. This, also was a period of 
probation, and it was only after it had been passed 
to the satisfaction of the freemen, that the name of 
the new candidate could be proposed in town meet 
ing for full citizenship. Even then he had to wait 
for a second meeting before he could be admitted 
to all the rights and distinctions of that honorable 
grade." J 

Contrary to the charter of the province the 
Rhode Island Assembly of 1663, in which sat Wil 
liams, disfranchised Catholics and all non-Chris 
tians. 2 " It enacted that all men of competent 

1 Short History of Rhode Island, p. 36. 

Greene, p. 14, says: "The wife of Joshua Verin was a 
great admirer of Roger Williams preaching, and claimed 
the right of going to hear him oftener than suited the 
wishes of her husband. Did she, in following the dictates 
of her conscience, which bade her go to a meeting which 
harmonized with her feelings, violate the injunction of 
Scripture which bids wives obey their husbands? Or did 
he in exercising his acknowledged control as a husband, 
trench upon her right of conscience in religious concerns? 
It was a delicate question but after long deliberation and 
many prayers, the claims of conscience prevailed, and it 
was agreed that Joshua Verin upon breach of a covenant 
for the restraining of the liberty of conscience shall be 
withheld from the liberty of voting till he shall declare 
the contrary a sentence from which it appears that the 
right of suffrage was regarded a conceded privilege, not 
a natural right." 

2 Dexter, As to Roger Williams, p. 102. 


estates, and of civil conversation, Koman Catholics 
only excepted, shall be admitted freemen, or may 
choose or be chosen colonial officers. What an 
abundant reflection does this ordinance afford to 
the wise. Nothing is assuredly more incongruous 
than for a corporation created with special powers, 
to endeavor by its own act, to acquire privileges in 
consistent with the Patent which gave it exist 
ence. Yet that law plainly designed as its great 
charter, is manifestly repugnant to the grant. By 
it f none were at any time thereafter to be molested 
for any differences in matters of religion. Never 
theless, a persecution was immediately commenced 
against the Roman Catholics, who were deprived 
of their rights of citizens, and of the liberties of 
Englishmen, though they might have pleaded 
their chartered privileges ; and had the ordinance 
before mentioned been insisted on, they might have 
justly contended that the Assembly could not make 
a regulation contrary to the royal act which gave 
it existence." 1 

An effort has been made to show that the law 

1 Chalmers, Annals, p. 276. 

Of the Digests of 1783, Greene, p. 256, says: "Into the 
Digests, when or how nobody could tell, the phrases Roman 
Catholic excepted and professing Christianity had been 
interpolated in direct violation of the Royal Charter. 
Neither under Charles nor under James could this have 
been done." Chalmers says, " The Act before mentioned 
excluding Roman Catholics was carefully concealed." 
(Ibid., p. 284). 


was inoperative. It was, however, afterwards in 
1762 rigidly interpreted and enforced in. regard to 
the Jews by the Superior Court of the State. This 
court dismissed the petition of two Jews who 
asked for rights of citizenship, as " wholly incon 
sistent with the first principles upon which the 
colony was founded." Mr. Charles Deane, an 
apologist of Rhode Island, defends this judgment, 
and the law, by asserting that it does not relate to 
religious liberty but to the franchise, that it re 
stricts the latter, but insures the former. It is 
difficult to see how depriving a man of his civic 
rights on account of his religion can be construed 
into a grant of religious liberty. 1 

Towards the end of the 17th century a party 
of unfortunate Huguenots had established them 
selves in Rhode Island forming a little settlement 
of their own, and paying honestly for their 
lands. " But the French name was not loved in 
the colonies and their Protestant neighbors perse 
cuted them away." It is significant that there 
were no Catholics in the colony until the time of 
the Revolution, 3 although many sought refuge in 
Maryland even under the Episcopal regime, de 
spite the disabilities against Catholics. In 1680, 

1 Mr. Deane also defends the policy of the Rhode Island 
colony in discriminating against Catholics. (Nar. and Grit. 
Hist, of Amer., ed. by Justin Winsor, in, p. 379-380. 

2 Greene, p. 107. 

3 Cobb, p. 438. 


Governor Sanf ord writes, " as for Papists, we know 
of none among us." Roger Williams himself was 
personally very bitter against the Catholics, and 
altogether intolerant of the Quakers. 2 Cotton 
Mather in 1695 declared that in Rhode Island 
there was everybody " but Roman Catholics, and 
true Christians." 

In examining the question of priority between 
Maryland and Rhode Island, we should not con 
sider merely the liberal wording of charters or 
ordinances. Words do not constitute liberties, and 
notwithstanding the liberal charter of Rhode Is 
land we have seen how illiberal was its interpre 
tation. In Maryland, though there is on record no- 
written law prior to 1649, we know that the 
practice and custom of the colony from the very- 
beginning was of the most tolerant nature. A 
written document does not give liberty; nor does- 
the absence of such a document prove the lack 
of it. If religious toleration was a law of the 
land without a written ordinance, surely this was 
more genuine than a crippled liberty in practise, 
no matter how broad might be the terms of the 
written law. 

If the indulgent reader will leisurely parallel the 
respective claims of Maryland and Rhode Island, 
he will readily perceive that the palm of priority in 

1 Arnold, i, p. 490; Chalmers, Annals, 284. 

2 Knowles, pp. 310, 384; Cobb, p. 216; Dexter, ibid., p. 95. 



establishing freedom of conscience belongs to the 
settlement of Baltimore. 1 


In 1632-33, at the latest, 
Baltimore promised religious 
liberty to prospective colonists. 
(Archives, v, pp. 267-68; 
Johnson, Foundation of Mary 
land, pp. 23-31. ) 

In 1633 he instructed his 
brother to secure peace through 
toleration. Baltimore s Charter 
made him the law-giver with 
the consent of the colonists. 
His first law contained in this 
letter to his brother was a law 
of toleration. (Calvert Papers, 
i, p. 132. ) 

There was a proclamation 
after landing to this effect or 
a law of the First Assembly, 
the records of which are lost. 
(See pp. 126-127.) 

All freemen, Protestants and 
Catholics enjoyed the franchise 
and sat in the Assembly from 
the beginning. (See Charter, 
sec. vn, Appendix C ; Archives, 
i, pp. 1-23. ) 

1637. In the first Assem 
bly whose records have come 
down to us, all freemen were 
not only allowed, but com 
pelled by law to be present or 
be represented. (Archives, i, 
pp. 1-23.) 


In 1636, from the first settle 
ment of Rhode Island, religious 
freedom was supposed to be 
allowed, but the franchise was 
limited. (Richman, i, p. 98; 
Knowles, p. 112; Dexter, p. 
92; Arnold, i, p. 102; Id., n, 
p. 495. See pp. 279-82. ) 

No Catholic ventured to test 
its genuineness. (See pp. 284- 



It may not be uninteresting to the reader to 
scan the religious conditions in other colonies during 


In 1638-42 all religious dis 
cussions which tended to pro 
duce discord were promptly and 
severely punished. (Ibid., iv, 
p. 35. See pp. 125-128.) 

In 1649 the Assembly passed 
a law embodying in a measure 
the principles, which had, in 
fact, governed the colony from 
the beginning. (Ibid., I, p. 

As early as 1663 Lord Bal 
timore showed himself more 
liberal than his charter and 
the Act of 1649, by granting 
citizenship and even the privi 
lege to trade (1665) to Jacob 
Lumbrozo, a Jew. (Ibid., m, 
pp. 488-526.) 


In 1663 Ehode Island, de 
spite its Charter, disfranchised 
all Catholics and non-Chris 
tians. (Justin Winsor, Narra 
tive and Critical Hist, of America,) 
m, p. 379.) 

The authenticity of this law 
has been disputed by writers 
favorable to Rhode Island (Ar 
nold, Deane, Cobb), but it was 
five times formally reenacted 
and remained a law till 1783. 
( Winsor, in, p. 379. ) 

Moreover, the Superior Court 
considered it genuine in 1762 
when it decided that the Con 
stitution of Williams did not 
allow citizenship to Jews. 
(Ibid., pp. 379-80.) 

Roger Williams was natu 
rally narrow and bigoted, but 
his character had been broad 
ened by the persecution he had 
suffered. He never acquired 
the breadth of view possessed 
by the Catholic Balti mores. 
(Dexter, pp. 92, 95, 97-100.) 

Cfr. Religious Liberty in Maryland and Rhode Island, Rev. L. 
Johnston ; Maryland or Rhode Island, Which was First, R. H. 
Clarke, in the American Catholic Quarterly Review, 1845, pp. 

The Lords Baltimore were 
men of generous, liberal, and 
noble views. George Calvert 
had established religious tolera 
tion in Newfoundland in 1627. 
( See p. 42. ) 


this period prior to the American Revolution. The 
Charter of Pennsylvania seems to be of the most 
liberal character, but the first Colonial Assembly 
in 1682, enacted the " Great Law, or Body of 
Laws " in which (34) it was required that all of 
ficials should be Christians, and (35) that no one 
believing in God should be molested on religious 
grounds. 1 In 1693 under William and Mary, a 
test oath designed to discriminate against Catho 
lics, Jews and Unitarians was made obligatory for 
all office-holders. Penn strenuously opposed this 
law, and (1700) restored the law of 1682, but the 
Queen in Council annulled his action (1702) and 
so Pennsylvania remained under this system of 
intolerance until the Revolution. 2 Like Rhode 
Island and Catholic Maryland, Pennsylvania never 
had an established Church. 3 There never was any 
actual persecution of Catholics in Pennsylvania ; 
St. Joseph s Church, in Philadelphia, was the 
only place in the thirteen colonies where Mass 
was publicly allowed during the period immediate 
ly prior to the Revolution. 4 In 1776 Pennsyl 
vania adopted a toleration similar to that of Mary 
land under Catholic rule. 5 Religious liberty 


2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 
* Ibid. 

p. 442. 
pp. 445-47. 
p. 449. 

p. 450, quoting StillS. 
p. 503. 


such as obtained in Catholic Maryland was grant 
ed in New Jersey in 169S, 1 and in Maryland, 
under Episcopalian rule, not till 1775. Religious 
freedom was established in Virginia in 1798 ; in 
South Carolina in 1790; in Vermont in 1807; 
in Connecticut in 1818 ; in New Hampshire in 
1819 ; in Delaware in 1831 ; and in Massachu 
setts in 1833; New Jersey granted toleration to 
all creeds in 1776, but reserved offices for Protest 
ants. 2 In New York absolute religious toleration 
had been granted by the Catholic King James in 
1674, 3 but the Church of England was established 
in 1686 ; 4 and in 1777 all but Catholics obtained 
religious freedom. Later legislatures removed all 
disabilities. 5 

" Of all the religious legislation in the Col 
onies," says the author of The Rise of Religious 
Liberty in America, " none was more absurd than 
that against Roman Catholics. It was so need 
less as to be ridiculous." 6 

1 Ibid., p. 402. 2 IUd., pp. 503-517. 

*Ibid., p. 328; U. 8. Cdth. Hist, floe., Oct. 1906, p. 34. 
4 7oid., p. 334. *Ibid., p. 502. 

Ibid., p. 451. 


Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, was the first to 
establish a colony where religious liberty was ac 
corded to all. The fact being well established, his 
detractors have assailed his motives, viewing them 
through the distorting lenses of prejudice, bigotry, 
injustice and resentment. All the generosity of the 
noble purpose, the high-souled daring of the splen 
did achievement, the heroic tragedy of patient en 
durance and sacrifice, are warped and twisted, dim 
med and tarnished in the medium of the minds of 
those who seem incapable of reaching even in im 
agination, to those altitudes of thought, feeling, 
desire, and intention, where Lord Baltimore 
lived and planned and suffered. What then were 
the motives of the first Proprietary? To define 
the principles which inspire any man s actions 
must always be a difficult and a delicate task. It 
is seldom, indeed, that any one cause is responsible 
for such an act as that under consideration. Hu 
man deeds, generally speaking, proceed from a 
complexity of views and designs; for while one 
predominates, we usually find numerous subsidiary 
ones which add weight to the governing idea, or 
seem to detract from it, and influence, more or 
less, the execution and accomplishment of the end 



desired. Sometimes the leading purpose, colored 
by circumstances, seems to become secondary, or 
for the time being, appears even to be lost sight of 
beneath the accretions of other plans and aims, but 
it would be rash to argue from this that either it 
has disappeared from view, or that it is non-existent. 
When the man whose heart we would read, has 
lived in a different age, and under conditions 
which it is difficult for us to appreciate, or to re 
produce even in fancy, when the only means of 
reaching the hidden springs of his life s ac 
complishment are unfortunately a few scattered 
letters and defaced documents, too often obscured 
in their real meaning by wrong interpretations, or 
distorted by prejudice, then to define with assur 
ance any one motive as the principal end and 
chief design of a line of conduct extending over a 
number of years, is to say the least an under 
taking presenting more than ordinary difficulties. 
It has been often said that to form a correct judg 
ment of any individual we must place ourselves in 
his surroundings, and, as far as our personal incli 
nations, peculiarities, temperament, and possible 
antagonism will permit, must assume for the time 
being, the life and character of him we would 
judge. ~Not alone the conditions, political, social 
and religious, which are likely to broaden or nar 
row his subject s horizon of the world s doings must 
be borne in mind by the critic, but to as great an 
extent as possible, must be accounted for the 


antecedents and inborn instincts which point out a 
man s personal view of events, circumstanced as 
he was. Hence it is necessary for one who pro 
poses to speak of the impelling causes of another s 
actions, that he should be, at least, in sympathy 
with his subject. While all this would lead to a 
not unreliable conclusion as to the determining 
principles of a man s life, it might not give the 
ruling purpose at an especial time, and under the 
stress of some particular set of circumstances. For 
we can conceive a man dominated by a noble ideal, 
who finding himself embarrassed in a political, 
religious, or pecuniary way, would in order to re 
move the obstacles in his path, so give his atten 
tion to one side of the question, as to seem for a 
time to have forgotten the higher aim and intent 
with which he began. Such are the difficulties at 
tending a consideration of the motives of the Lords 

Most of the writers upon the subject, have taken 
the view that George and Cecilus Calvert were in 
fluenced by a single idea. In most cases this idea 
was predicated upon the preconceptions of the 
author, and colored with his prejudice. Hence 
the extreme theories we are met with ; some con 
tending that Cecilius Calvert set out with the de 
sign of establishing an imperfectly defined religi 
ous Utopia; others holding that he was compelled 
by political considerations to allow freedom of wor 
ship ; while many maintain that his own pecuniary 


advantage was the mainspring of his actions. 
While none of these reasons contains the whole 
truth, each one may yet include a portion of it. 

George Calvert was a sincere and unwavering 
Catholic. A man who publicly professes his faith 
in the face of the intolerant attitude of his day, 
who resigns the highest positions of trust and honor 
as incompatible with his religious professions, who 
perseveres in that faith in spite of the persecu 
tions to which he is subjected, must be given the 
credit for honest and deep conviction. That his 
faith was more to him than earthly emolument is 
evidenced by his resignation, from conscientious 
motives, of one of the highest offices in the king 
dom, and by his subsequent set purpose of remain 
ing out of the religious and political turmoil of 
his day. His son, Cecilius, did not relinquish 
such high offices as were held by his father ; yet, no 
doubt, he would have freed himself from innumer 
able vexatious intrigues, and his worldly pros 
pects would have been immensely enhanced, had 
he sacrificed his faith for worldly considerations. 
The Catholic faith was dearer to George and 
Cecilius Calvert than any thing else in the world ; 
at least, no prospective honors, wealth, or prefer 
ment, weaned them from their allegiance to the 
Church whose devoted sons they ever remained. 
Their religion, it must be conceded, was the pre 
dominant note in their life, the determining in 
fluence of their actions, for the sake of it they 


both proved their willingness to sacrifice all things 
else. Let it ever be remembered that they lived 
in an age of fierce religious passions, in an age 
when avaricious motives were too often cloaked 
under the guise of religion, in an age when all 
was surrendered by some for a vindictive attach 
ment to peculiar religious tenets, or when their faith 
was formally relinquished by others for worldly 
honors, power, and riches, in an age, in fine, when 
religion could not be a matter of indifference, and a 
perfunctory adherence to any belief was well-nigh 
impossible. In such an age, the Lords Baltimore 
exhibited a large-minded Catholic charity, which 
judged none, and excluded none from the rights 
and privileges which they asked for themselves. 
True unto God, they did under others, indeed, as 
they would that others should do unto them. Let 
him, then, who cannot comprehend such exalted 
principles of conduct, refrain from judging the 
motives of the founders of Maryland. 

The Charter sets forth that Cecilius Calvert, 
" treading in the steps of his father, being ani 
mated with a laudable, and pious zeal for extend 
ing the Christian religion " proposes to transport 
a numerous colony to Maryland. 1 It is 
true that words of similar tenor are found in 
most of the Charters of that time, but what in the 

^fr. Appendix C. 


mouth of others might be merely the formalism, 
or cant expression of the day, meant infinitely 
more to men who had sacrificed worldly prefer 
ment, and security in honor and wealth, from a 
conscientious motive of their duty to God. Even 
those who may not agree with their belief, or who 
would deprecate George Calvert s change of faith, 
must readily concede, that both father and son 
were sincere in their religious profession. This 
granted, it should not be difficult to see that they 
who were animated by such an exalted sense of 
their duty to God, could quite naturally be in 
fluenced by the same motive in their subsequent 
actions and plans. 

During this period of English History, Catho 
lics enjoyed little security of person or of property. 
George Calvert realized that the best guarantee of 
safety for Catholics was to be found in returning 
to the provisions of Magna Charta, which safe 
guarded the security of person and property, and 
which had been ruthlessly down-trodden by the 
Protestant Keformation under the Tudors, and 
continued to be ignored by their successors. It- 
was further evident to George and Cecilius Cal 
vert that where there is acrimonious, and often un 
reasoning, disagreement and dissension in religion, 
these two great principles cannot be sustained 
without freedom of conscience. Seeing their fel 
low-Catholics so straitened by persecution at 
home, it was but natural for men of such generous 


character to seek a means of providing a refuge 
for themselves and their brethren in the faith. 
They had learned through experience that liberty 
of conscience was necessary to conserve security of 
person and of property. They desired, therefore, 
to secure this boon for their co-religionists. With 
freedom of worship, life and property were pro 
tected, without it, as events proved, both life and 
property were at the mercy of intolerance. The 
main, purpose of the Lords Baltimore in founding 
Maryland was without doubt a religious one. 1 

1 " Lord Baltimore having obtained a grant of the Pro 
vince of Maryland, sent over his brother with several 
Roman Catholic gentlemen and other adventurers to th? 
number of two hundred, and many Roman Catholics trans 
ported themselves to avoid the penal laws made against 
them in England, and Maryland has been a place of refuge. 
(Salmon s Modern Histoiy, quote in Upper House Journal, 
Manuscript folio, 1758. Maryland Historical Society. See 
Appendix Q. ) 

"This gentleman (George Calvert) being of the Ro- 
manish religion was uneasy at home, and had the same 
reason to leave the kingdom as those gentlemen had, who 
went to New England, to enjoy the liberty of his consci 
ence. He, therefore, resolved to retire to America, and 
finding the Newfoundland company had made no use of 
their grant, he thought of this place for his retreat." 

(Oldmixon, I, pp. 4-5.) 

" Maryland at the vast charge and by the unwearied in 
dustry of Lord Baltimore was at first planted, and has since 
been supplied with people and other necessaries so effec 
tually that in the present year, 1671, the number of 
English amounts to fifteen or twenty thousand for whose 
encouragement there is a fundamental law there whereby 

liberty of conscience is allowed to all who profess to be- 


Cecilius, the founder of Maryland, was imbued 
with the same ideas which actuated his father. In. 
judging a man s purposes it is but fair to let him 
speak for himself. There is an " Account of 
Cecil Calvert, Baron of Baltimore, which he faith 
fully compiled from the reports scattered through 
England by travellers who had sought their for 
tunes in the New World." 1 In this it is said : 
" the most illustrious Baron has already determined 
to lead a colony into those parts : first, and especi 
ally, in order that he may carry thither and to the 
neighboring places, whither it has been ascertain 
ed that no knowledge of the true God has as yet 
penetrated, the light of the Gospel and the Truth ; 
then, also with this intent, that all the associates 

lieve in Jesus Christ so no man that is a Christian is 
in danger of being disturbed for his religion." (Ogilby, 
quoted by the Upper House of Md. Assembly, 1758. Mary 
land Historical Society. See Appendix Q. ) 

" Upon a new royal regulation in Virginia, several 
families went over from England to settle there; amongst 
those was Lord Baltimore, a rigid Roman Catholic; for 
the advantage of a more free exercise of his religion, he 
retired thither." (Douglass s Summary, 1760; quoted in 
Upper House Journal, Manuscript folio. 1758. 

"His Lordship (George Calvert) was a Catholic, and 
had formed his design of making this settlement, in order 
to enjoy a liberty of conscience, which, though the Gov 
ernment of England was by no means disposed to deny 
him; yet the rigor of the laws threatened in a great mea 
sure to deprive him of the severity, of which it was not in 
the power of the court to relax." (Wynne s History of 
America, quoted by Scharf, J, p. 152. ) 

1 Maryland Hist. Soc., Fund. Pul. No. 7, p. 53. 


of his travels and toils may be invited to a share 
in the gain and honor, and the empire of the King 
be more widely extended. For this purpose, he 
is seeking with all speed and diligence, for men to 
accompany him on this voyage, both such as intend 
to try their fortunes with him, and others also. 
. . . The first and most important design of the 
most illustrious Baron, which ought to be the aim 
of the rest, who go in the same ship, is not to 
think so much of planting fruits and trees in a 
land so fruitful, as of sowing the seeds of religion 
and piety. Surely a design worthy of Christians, 
worthy of Angels, worthy of Englishmen. . . . 
Who then can doubt that by one such glorious work 
as this, many thousands of souls will be brought to 
Christ ? I call the work of aiding and saving souls 
glorious, for it was the work of Christ, the king 
of Glory. For the rest, since all men have not 
such enthusiastic souls and noble minds, as to 
think of nothing but Divine things, and to con 
sider nothing but heavenly things; because most 
men are more in love, as it were, with pleasures, 
honors, and riches (than with the glory of Christ) 
it was ordained by some hidden influence, or rather 
by the manifest (and) wonderful wisdom of God, 
that this one enterprise should offer to men every 
kind of inducement and reward." 1 

Cecilius in his " Letter of Instructions " to 
his brother Leonard at the first setting out of the 

1 Md. Hist. Soc., Fund Pub. No. 7, pp. 44-48. 


little band of colonists, again gives a religious 
motive as his ruling purpose in establishing Mary 
land. He ordains : " That when they had made 
choice of the place where they intended to settle 
themselves, and when they have brought their men 
ashore with all their provisions, they do assemble 
all the people together in a fit and decent manner, 
and then cause his Majesty s letters patent to be 
publicly read by his Lordship s Secretary . . . 
and afterwards, his Lordship s commission to them, 
and that either the Governor or one of the Com 
missioners presently after makes some short decla 
ration to the people of his Lordship s intentions 
which he means to pursue in this his intended 
plantation, which are: first, the honor of God, by 
endeavoring the conversion of the savages to Chris 
tianity; second, the augmentation of his Majesty s 
empire and dominions in those parts of the world, 
by reducing them under the subjection of his 
Crown; and thirdly, for the good of such of his 
countrymen as are willing to adventure their for 
tunes and themselves in it, by endeavoring all he 
can, to assist them, that they may reap the fruits 
of their charges and labours according to the hope 
fulness of the thing, with as much freedom, and 
comfort and encouragement as they can desire; 
and withal to assure them that his Lordship s affec 
tion and zeal is so great to the advancement of this 
plantation, and consequently of their good, that 
he will employ all his endeavors in it, and that he 


would not have failed to come himself in person 
along with them this first year, to have been par 
taker with them in the honor of the first voyage 
thither, but by reason of some unexpected acci 
dents he found it more necessary for their good to 
stay in England for some time longer for the 
better establishment of his and their right." l 

This purpose is made even clearer in the 
answer of his son and successor Charles to the 
Committee of Trades and Plantations in 1676. He 
says : "At the first planting of this Province by 
my father, albeit he had an absolute liberty given 
to him and his heirs, to carry thither any persons 
out of England who should be found willing to go 
thither, yet when he came to make use of this 
liberty, he found very few who were inclined to go 
and seat themselves in those parts, but such as for 
some reason or other could not live at ease in other 
places ; and of these a great part were such as could 
not conform in all particulars to the several laws of 
England relating to religion? Many there were 
of this sort of people who declared their willingness 
to go and plant themselves in this Province so 
they might have a general toleration settled there 
by a law by which all sorts who professed Christ 
ianity in general, might be at liberty to worship 
God in such a manner as was most agreeable with 
their respective judgements and consciences, with- 

1 Calvcrt Papers, i, pp. 136-7. 

2 Italics the author s. 


out being subject to any penalties whatsoever for 
their so doing, provided the civil peace were pre 
served ; and that for the securing the civil peace 
and preventing all heats and feuds which were 
generally observed to happen amongst such as 
differ in opinions, upon occasion of reproachful 
nick-names and of reflecting upon each others 
opinions, it might by the same law be made penal 
to give any offence in that kind. These were the 
conditions proposed by such as were willing to go 
and be the first planters of this Province. Without 
complying with these conditions in all probability, 
this Province had never been planted. To these 
conditions my father agreed, and, accordingly, soon 
after the first planting of this Province these con 
ditions by the unanimous consent of all who were 
concerned, were passed into a law; and the in 
habitants of this Province have found such effects 
from this law, and from the strict observance of it, 
as well in relation to their quiet as in relation to 
the further peopling of this Province, that they 
look upon it as that whereon alone depends the pre 
servation of their peace, their properties and their 
liberties. This being the true state of the case of 
this Province, it is easy to judge what conse 
quences might ensue upon any scrutinies which 
should be made in order to the satisfying these par 
ticular inquiries. 1 

1 Archives, Council Proceedings, 1667-87, pp. 267-268. 

" Lord Baltimore, who was one of the Roman Catholic 


For fourteen years before the death of his 
father, Charles had been his representative as Gov 
ernor of the Province, and no one was more likely 
to be thoroughly conversant with his father s pur 
poses and designs. At the same time it must be 
remembered that Charles made this statement to 
men whose hostility he had reason to suspect and 
fear. He desired to persuade them not to demand 
this religious census, because it would occasion dis 
sension among the colonists. It would have been 
most unwise of him to have said that his father 
intended to offer a refuge for the persecuted Catho 
lics. To have made such a bald statement before 
the Commission would have defeated his desire of 
remaining unmolested. Yet the statement is truly, 
but tactfully, expressed in his declaration. For 
who were those of the Colonists " who could not 
conform in all particulars to the several laws of 
England relating to religion ?" Evidently the 

Gifted as he was with a more than common fore- 
religion, had obtained the grant to be an asylum to him 
self and those of his persuasion from the persecutions of 
the times. The first plantation consisting of about two 
hundred colonists, were sent thither in 1G33, chiefly, if not 
wholly, Roman Catholics, many of them gentlemen of 
fortune; and, like the Protestants of New England, their 
settlement was founded upon a strong desire for the un 
molested practice of their own religion." (Modern Uni 
versal History, London: 1780, quoted by Scharf, History of 
Maryland, I, p. 153. 


sight and prudence, we should hardly expect Ceci- 
lius to launch such an enterprise without ascertain 
ing as far as possible the cost of the project. No 
where, indeed, do we find evidence that he either 
considered himself or posed for others, as a philan 
thropist eager to divest himself of his wealth, nor 
was he, in fact, sufficiently wealthy to contemplate 
the eccentricity of entering into a business venture 
without a thought concerning the capital invested, 
any more than he was in a position to indulge in 
colony-planting as a luxury pure and simple. He 
was a man of lofty soul, but eminently practical. 
He can neither be considered a dreamer of dreams 
nor a grasping " company-promoter." To have 
started his project with some view to the financial 
gain that might accrue, should not argue against 
his having had a higher purpose, and an over 
ruling one at that, if the proof is in evidence. 
Lord Baltimore was not unmindful of the difficul 
ties and impediments, the hazards and peril, in 
bringing together men of different religious be 
liefs in those days of intense religious intolerance. 
To a man of narrower mind, the idea of religious 
liberty, at that period, would have seemed the 
surest way to effect the shipwreck of his colony. 
If therefore with a large-minded trust in the sense 
of equity and generosity of human nature, he 
adopted that policy, expecting his colony to suc 
ceed, he deserves not censure but honor. Other 
founders of colonies, who had preceded him, 


were, to say the least, not less desirous than he to- 
reap a reward from their ventures, but bigotry and 
narrow-mindedness prevented them from taking a 
similar attitude in their governments. 

The founders of Maryland were sagacious 
enough in an age of intolerance to see that liberty 
of conscience was the most Christian, and at the 
same time as far as their own personal interests 
were concerned the safest policy to adopt for 
their new colony. George Calvert had for a long 
period been interested in colonization schemes. It 
is reasonable to suppose that he desired, both be 
fore and after he became a Catholic to found a 
colony from which he and his posterity should de 
rive some financial benefit. " It is to the glory 
of Lord Baltimore and of the Province," says 
Braiitly, " that from the first perfect freedom of 
Christian worship was guaranteed to all ; that this 
magnanamity was the truest wisdom and resulted 
in populating the Province, there have not been 
wanting those who declare that it was not mag 
nanimity at all but only enlightened self-interest." 1 
Self-interest has been assigned, indeed, as the lead 
ing motive of Lord Baltimore in establishing religi 
ous liberty. 2 " Religious toleration must be at- 

1 Brantly in Nar. and Grit. Hist, of America, by Justin 
Winsor, v, p. 524. Cfr. Wilhelm, p. 12. 

2 Doyle, English Colonies in America, p. 6; Bowen, Days 
of Makemie, p. 24; Mayer, Calvert and Penn, p. 24; Boz- 
man, n, p. 193; Neill, Terra Mariae, p. 60; Hughes, Hist* 
of S. J. in N. America, passim. 


tributed to the very common-place law of self-in 
terest/ says Lodge, " and that this theory is the 
correct one the subsequent history of the colony 
proves." 1 It is lamentable to find this spirit of 
narrowness still existing in our day. Rip Van 
Winkle-like, it rises up with arms and dress a 
century old, to meet the just claims of Lord Bal 
timore and the early settlers. The noble Founder 
of Maryland was generous in defraying the ex 
penses of his colony, and not a single incident can 
be advanced to show that Cecilius ever put the 
welfare of his province in jeopardy for his own self- 
interest. History proves, in fact, that he guarded 
its interests when the colonists themselves little 
suspected dangers which he, in touch with Eng 
lish affairs, too often plainly realized. 

It has been observed that the Charter of Mary 
land was monarchical rather than democratic. 
This was not only consistent with the religious 
purposes of Lord Baltimore, but as things then 
were in England, was necessary for the fulfillment 
of his plan. Pie provided that Maryland should 
be as free as possible from the power of the King, 
and at the same time, that all authority should be 
centered in the Proprietary. In so doing he 
guarded his province against the caprices of royalty 
in England, and at the same time, against any 
possible bigotry of the settlers in the colony. It 

1 Lodge, English Colonies in America, p. 97. 


rested with him to yield or not, to the wishes of his 
colonists, according to the ability they manifested 
for self-government, and he had it in his power at 
any moment to check the least tendency towards in 
tolerance. The one-man power which the Charter 
created was essential to the development of the plan 
of religious toleration he intended to inaugurate. 
Lord Baltimore in becoming an absolute ruler was 
in a position to establish the most liberal democ 
racy. We know, in fact, that Cecilius surrender 
ed his prerogatives to initiate legislation, when his 
settlers proved themselves capable of making their 
own laws. We know, too, how in the most trying 
period of his colony s existence he protected his 
fellow-Catholics from intolerance, while on the 
other hand he resisted even his former devoted 
friends, the Jesuits, when an attempt was made not 
indeed to practice intolerance towards non-Catho 
lics (this was never thought of) but to derogate 
even in the smallest degree by privileges and ex 
emptions from the plan of equality to all and favor 
to none, which from the beginning he had adopted 
for his province. 1 

1 " His firm stand in favor of toleration, maintained with 
consistency and impartiality for forty years against Jesuit 
and Puritan alike, seems to indicate something more than 
a bitter and wily policy which uses the cloak of tolerance 
to protect a single creed. In a word the only probable 
explanation of his policy seems to be found in that policy. 
It was toleration chiefly for the sake of toleration." 
(Petrie s Church and State, p. 30.) 


In carrying out this plan the first Lord Balti 
more lost heavily in his initial venture in New 
foundland. He was urged by the King to give 
over such enterprises and was promised such em 
ployment as would be more congenial to one of his 
station and habits of life. He persevered, neverthe 
less, in his purpose. Cecilius, his son, undeterred 
by his father s failure and losses, devoted almost 
all his remaining fortune to the same noble pur 
pose, and for eight years, at least, scarcely receiv 
ed any return for his outlay. 1 His colonists, as 
we have seen, sensible of his generous expenditure 
voluntarily voted him a subsidy of tobacco (15 Ibs. 
per poll) in appreciation of his great charge and 
care for their interests/ 2 When Charles, the son 
of Cecilius, having been Governor of Maryland for 
fourteen years, left the colony for England after 
his father s death, the people of the Province, ap- 

1 " There is nothing more certain than that his Lordship 
and his Lordship s ancestors of ever noble and happy 
memory, have with the hazard of their lives, buried a vast 
estate in the first subduement and since continued settle 
ment of this province ... to a far greater value than the 
profits of this province do (or are like to do) or amount 
unto; nor is anything more apparent than if his Lordship s 
interests in America were to be disposed of, that there s 
none would give (considering the charge of government) 
the tenth part of what they cost." (Archives, xni, pp. 
152-3.) See Appendix I. Agreement between Lord Balti 
more and the Jesuit Fathers. 

2 Chalmers, p. 208; Archives, I, 123. 


preciative of his solicitous care for their welfare 

presented him a handsome token of their gratitude. 
He, while acknowledging their kindly sentiments, 
declined to accept the proffered gift. Such con 
duct on the part of George, Cecilius and Charles 
Calvert is not consistent with the opinion that their 
chief purpose, their principal design in the coloni 
zation of Maryland, was mercenary. 

To assert that the course of Cecilius was the most 
politic he could have pursued argues not against 
his main motives. He was in touch with the poli 
tical conditions of his day, and as far as consist 
ency would permit, adjusted his conduct to them. 
It is clear that his dearest desire and first consi 
deration was for the success of his colony. What 
ever change took place in the government at home, 
his instant thought was for the welfare of his 
Province, over which he watched with the solici 
tude of a father. He has been condemned for not 
taking a more prominent stand in the political 
agitation of the day. But why, it may be asked 
should he put the peace of his distant province in 
jeopardy by taking a prominent part in the poli 
tical intrigues of the time ? He steered his course 
as best to subserve the peace and prosperity of 
Maryland as a Land of Sanctuary. When, there 
fore, we reflect upon the life and character of 
George and Cecilius Calvert, taking into considera 
tion that which was dearest to them their reli 
gion when we call to mind the condition of Catho- 


lies in England and the evident intention of the 
father and son to establish a refuge for Catholics 
especially, and for all others, where they might no 
longer be the victims of religious bigotry, we are 
forced to the conclusion that the inspiration, and 
the leading motives of the Lords Baltimore in 
founding the Maryland colony were religious. 



Was Maryland a Catholic colony ? The ques 
tion has often been discussed and in order to an 
swer it fairly, an explanation of the terms will be 
necessary. Maryland, as we have seen, was found 
ed by a Catholic Proprietary. The funds were con 
tributed by Catholics, and Catholics were in control 
of the government, but, unlike those in similar posi 
tion in the other colonies, they conferred full citi 
zenship upon all others, even the poor Protestants, 
who had been unable to defray their expenses to 
Maryland. Whether the Catholics in the colony 
surpassed in numbers the Protestants after the 
first settlement and up to 1648 is not certain, but 
it is more probable that they did. Thus the de 
sign was Catholic, and Catholics developed the 
original plan, by laws, regulations and customs. 
To the Protestants were accorded all the advant 
ages of the system set on foot by the intelligence 
and wealth of the Catholics, while the labor and 
industry of both Protestants and Catholics, con 
tributed to its development. 1 The glory of Mary- 

1 One of the Leading men of the Province who had origin 
ally come to Maryland as a redemptioner, was Cuthbert 
Fenwick. In the documents of the time he is recorded as 
Cuthbert Fenwick, Gent. Two of his descendants became 
Catholic bishops of Boston and Cincinnati respectively. 



land is derived from its generous custom of reli 
gious toleration, which was Catholic in its origin 
and maintenance. Hence it is difficult to compre 
hend upon what grounds Maryland could possibly 
be considered a Protestant colony. When intoler 
ant it was Protestant, and it was Protestant inas 
much as Protestants were beneficiaries of Catholic 
liberality, which they requited for the most part 
with ingratitude. In every other sense it was 

On this subject Mr. Gladstone has placed him 
self in a false position by not consulting the stand 
ard writers of American history, and by relying 
too implicitly upon authors such as Neill and 
Allen. 1 Mr. Gladstone says: "I have already 
shown from Bancroft s History, that in the case of 
Maryland there was no question of a merciful use 
of power towards others. Bancroft says in 
fact, that " Christianity as professed by the Church 
of England was protected; but the patronage and 
avowsons of churches were invested in the Pro 
prietary; and as there was not an English statute 
on religion in which America was especially 
named, silence left room for the settlement of 
religious affairs by the colony. E"or was Balti 
more obliged to obtain the royal assent to his ap- 

1 Gladstone s Rome and the Newest Fashions in Religion, 
Preface, xi-xn Allen, pp. 12-13; Maryland; Not A Roman 
Catholic Colony, Neill, p. 7. 

2 Gladstone, ibid., Preface viii. For full discussion of 
Gladstone s objections, see Appendix P. 


pointments of officers, nor to the legislation of his 
Province, nor even to make a communication of 
the one or the other. . . . English statutes were 
not held to bind the colonies unless they especially 
named them; the clause which in the Charter of 
Virginia excluded from the colony all persons 
suspected to affect the superstitions of the Church 
of Kome found no place in the Charter of Mary 
land, while allegiance was held to be due, there 
was no requirement of the oath of supremacy. 
Toleration grew up in the Province silently as a 
custom of the land." 1 " To foster industry, to 
promote unity, to cherish religious peace, these 
were the honest purposes of Lord Baltimore during 
his long supremacy." 2 " The administration of 
Lord Baltimore was marked by conciliation and 
humanity." 3 " Maryland at that day was un 
surpassed for happiness and liberty. Conscience 
was without restraint; a mild and liberal pro 
prietary conceded every measure which the wel 
fare of the colony demanded." " Its history 
is the history of benevolence, gratitude and tolera 
tion." Even supposing the charter guaranteed 
protection to the Anglican Church, it did not 
give such countenance to the Puritans, Quakers 

1 Bancroft, Centenary ed. I, pp. 182-186. 
z lbid., p. 438. 
3 Ibid., p. 437. 

p. 252, 10th ed. 

p. 248, 10th ed. 


and Jews. By securing religious liberty to all. 
Lord Baltimore showed himself more generous 
than the Charter itself according to its most Pro 
testant interpretation. 

Cecilius Calvert died in 1675. For more than 
forty years he had been the guide of Maryland s 
destinies ; as long as he was in control, religious 
liberty was the law. " It was his constant maxim 
which he studiously inculcated, that by concord a 
small colony may grow into a great and renowned 
nation; but that by dissension, mighty and glori 
ous kingdoms have declined and fallen into noth 
ing. 7 1 Having with matchless toil and patience, 
with silent endurance and open daring, brought 
into existence his poor, weak little province over 
seas, he lived to see it wax and grow strong, to 
behold its infant energies increase, its powers ex 
pand, its government unfold and widen, to see it 
triumph over political hostility and religious fan 
aticism, over the treachery of trusted friend and 
unrelenting enemy, to witness, above all, his Mary 
land become in deed and truth, the "Land of Sanc 
tuary." This was the dear fulfillment of his; 
heart s desire, the consummation longed for in 
maturity, and cherished when the fires of life 
burned low. 

{ The slight notice which the policy of Lord Balti 
more has received from the philosophic economists 

1 Grahame, 11, p. 35. 


of liberal institutions attests the capricious distri 
bution of fame, and has been probably occasioned 
by dislike of his religious tenets, which it was 
feared would share the commendation bestowed on 
their votary." 1 

"It is amusing at this clay" (1780), says 
Chalmers, " to observe how differently the reputa 
tions of the fathers of Maryland and Pennsyl 
vania have been transmitted to posterity. Balti 
more is utterly forgotten and unknown to fame, 
while Pen is celebrated as the wisest of legisla 
tors equal to Lycurgus or Solon. The assemblies of 
Maryland, however, have always spoken with 
gratitude of the unwearied care of the former, in 
preserving their lives and liberties ; and of his vast 
expense in improving their estates. On the other 
hand, the Assembly of Pennsylvania has com 
plained with grief of the latter, i for undermining 
his own foundations, and by a subtle contrivance, 
laid deeper than the capacities of some could 
fathom, finding a way to lay aside the act of set 
tlement, to dissolve his second charter. The con 
stitution established by the former, though less 
striking, was more solid and more durable, under 
which the people enjoyed great repose to the pres 
ent times; though that of the latter flattered the 
vanities of men, it was too theoretic to be practic 
able, too flimsy to prove lasting, too complicated 

1 Grahame, n, p. 52. 


TO ensure harmony. What did honor to the good 
sense of one has conferred no celebrity on his 
name ; what was too wild to be useful has acquired 
the other the praise of philosophers." 1 

The discreet annalist calls Cecilius Calvert the 
" Father of Maryland " and speaks of " the many 
blessings poured on that colony by his unwearied 
care." And again he says, " On his tombstone 
ought to be engraven : that while fanaticism de 
luged the empire, he refused his assent to the re 
peal of a law, which in the true spirit of Christ 
ianity, gave liberty of conscience to all." 2 

Dr. Wm. Hand Browne writes : " Every engine 
had been brought to bear against him : fraud, mis 
representation, religious animosities and force ; and 
each for a time succeeded. He owed his triumph 
to neither violence, fraud, nor intrigue, but to the 
justice of his cause, and his wisdom, constancy, 
and patience." 3 " Such testimony," says Mr. 
Clayton C. Hall, " uniformly borne by all who 
have studied the subject impartially, and written 
upon it in the judicial spirit of historical investi- 

1 He further says of Penn : " A man of great depth of 
understanding, attended by equal dissimulation; of ex 
treme interestedness accompanied with insatiable ambi 
tion." pp. 654, 635. 

" Judging of the interestedness of Lord Baltimore, by his 
own feelings, he supposed that this nobleman had extended 
his province beyond his true limits." (Id., p. 640.) 

2 Id., p. 353. 

3 Browne, Maryland, p. 89. 


gation, may be accepted as conclusive evidence of 
the high character of Cecilius Calvert, second Lord 
Baltimore and first Proprietary of Maryland. . . 

. . . Cecilius seems never to have lost courage, and 
under all circumstances he bore himself with wis 
dom, patience, forbearance and tact, and by these 
qualities he triumphed in the end. His own in 
terests and his own authority he carefully guarded ; 
but at the same time he as carefully sought the 
welfare of the Province and of the people who 
were in a sense his subjects ; and when concessions 
seemed reasonably demanded he knew how and 
when to yield, and so exercised a much less auto 
cratic power than was conferred by the terms of 
the charter from which his authority was de 
rived." l 

" The character of Cecilius, the founder of 
Maryland," writes McMahon, " has come down to 
us, identified in his acts, and in the language of 
historians, with religious liberty and respect for 
the rights of the people. " 2 

The historian of the Protestant Episcopal 
Church in Maryland, says: "He had carried 
out in good faith, the principle which he professed 
on the subject of religion. ... To one conversant 
with the history of the times, and therefore but 
too familiar with many a bloody enactment, else 
where made, by which persecution was elevated 

1 Hall, pp. 61, 65. 2 McMahon, p. 221. 


into piety, it is refreshing to find in the bosom 
of a little colony scarce known by name even to 
the nations of the old world the blessed influence 
of a holier principle, proving its goodness by its 
effects, and presenting a picture from which the 
legislators of ancient empires might have caught a 
lesson of wisdom, and learned, if not to condemn 
the wickedness of persecution, at least to avoid its, 
folly. . . . The benevolent spirit of his Lord 
ship, however, was so much in advance of the re 
ceived opinions of that day, that there were good 
men by whom it was neither understood nor ap 
preciated." 1 

Cecilius Calvert sought power only that he 
might use it in guarding and cherishing the rights 
and welfare of those who had committed them 
selves to his paternal care. His high preroga 
tives, his royal rights, and generous franchises, he 
employed not alone for his personal emolument, 
and increase of power, but for the interest and 
protection of his colonists, as a shield between 
them and the slings and arrows of outrageous 
fortune. 7 " Anointed with his father s spirit, he 
was his illustrious father s counterpart in all his. 
benignant traits, and his faithful executor of the- 
kindly plan of colonial rule. ... To the standard 
of his mission without especial regard to their 
particular faith, he attracted spirits of as gentle 

1 Hawks, Rev. F. L. Rise of the P. E. Church in Mary 
land, pp. 27-30. 


mould as his own and of mellow wisdom and of 
resoluteness paramount to all the rigorous and 
baffling difficulties and privations of the wayfaring 
of the enterprise. . . . Let us seek no other clue 
to solve the mystery of the cherished scheme of 
toleration to which the early Proprietaries so 
earnestly held, as if an ordinance of their faith or 
a league with their Maker. It was the personal 
merit of these pure and enlightened intelligences, 
it flowed from their own motives to migration, 
their fervent and chastened characters." * To few 
is it given to possess from earliest youth a high 
ideal, to toil, to live, to suffer for it, to be faithful 
to it through a long life filled with every care, to 
hold inviolate a sacred trust, and to preserve un- 
dimmed a noble aspiration. It was to this great 
heritage that Cecilius was born, and in these high 
places of life that he moved and had his being. 

" The respect which is due to his memory, arises 
not only from the part he performed in laying the 
foundations of religious liberty, but also from the 
liberal policy he adopted, in the establishment and 
government of "the colony in every other particu 
lar. ... Tradition has given him the appella 
tion of Pater Patriae. And the Journal of the 
Assembly, the proceedings of the Courts, the 
frequent acts of executive clemency, and the ad- 

1 Mayer, Maryland Historical Pub. Annual Addresses, n, 
pp. 21-22. 


missions even of Protestants, are full of the strong 
est and most interesting testimony. As the patron 
of the early Catholic missions he has a claim upon 
our regards. Could anything have been conceived 
in the spirit of a more sublime charity ? Singular 
also was the sense of justice which marked his con 
duct in everything relating to the aborigines. The 
Indians looked up to him as their Patriarch. The 
chiefs upon the Pascattoway, and upon other 
streams, were accustomed to submit their gravest 
questions to the decisions of his government. To 
them, as well as to the colonists, he was, indeed, a 
guardian; tempering justice with mercy in every 
case compatible with the principles of order, and 
with the great ends of civil society." 1 " Never," 
says Dr. Kamsay, " did a people enjoy more happi 
ness than the people of Maryland under Cecilius, 
the father of the Province." : " The administra 
tion of Maryland," says Bancroft, " was marked 
by conciliation and humanity. To foster industry,, 
to promote union, to cherish religious peace, these 
were the honest purposes of Lord Baltimore during 
his long supremacy." 3 " The first ruler who es 
tablished and maintained religious liberty is en 
titled to enduring honour in the eyes of posterity. 
His name is that of one of the most enlightened 
and magnanimous statesmen who ever founded a. 

1 Davis, ibid., pp. 164-66. 

2 Ramsay, Hist, of U. 8., I, p. 116, Phila., 1816. 
3 Bancroft, i, p. 437, ed. 1882. 


Commonwealth." 1 His was a soul gracious, 
benignant, tolerant, earnest, well-fitted to conceive, 
to labor for, to carry out the high function of his 
fate ; and undaunted and unafraid he laid his life 
upon the altar-stone of sacrifice, of hard and high 
endeavor. Of him it has been well said : "If 
evil tongues of a later day have attempted in 
vain to sully [his name] it is because detraction, 
no less than death loves a shining mark." 2 

George and Cecilius Calvert were more than 
a century in advance of their times; for it was 
not until the American Revolution that the broad 
principle of the " Land of Sanctuary " became gen 
erally accepted by the American States. It would 
seem that to Marylanders and to Maryland Catho 
lics particularly, the name of Lord Baltimore 
should be held in sacred remembrance; yet while 
Massachusetts persistently, even obtrusively 
keeps before the world the memory of the Ply 
mouth Pilgrims, and the very place of their land 
ing is a sacred spot, while Pennsylvania has 
adorned its metropolis with a heroic monument 
to William Penn, and marked the place where he 
landed, while Rhode Island has a memorial upon 

1 Winsor s Nar. and Grit. Hist, of America, in, p. 547. 

2 Browne, Maryland, p. 17. 

None of the authorities here quoted are Catholics. Rev. 
O. E. Smith speaks of Cecilius as " A power among his fel 
lows . . . strong, determined, thoughtful . . . manifestly 
^ king." (p. 538). 


the shore of the river where Eoger Williams first 
set foot, and Connecticut has placed in her capital 
the statue of Thomas Hooker, while the United 
States Government has erected an obelisk at 
Jamestown in commemoration of the first Vir 
ginians, Maryland and North Carolina of all the 
original colonies which have reason to honor their 
founders, are the only two which have failed to do 
so by some fitting monument. Maryland, with 
more reason than all other States, to venerate, to 
honor and extol the imperishable renown of her 
founder, has attained to a conspicuous eminence 
of disgrace, in ignoring the claims of Cecilius 
Calvert upon her gratitude, and remembrance. 
The public squares of the " Monumental City," 
plentifully bestrewn with testimonials to numerous 
second rate celebrities, has not a single statue of 
the " Father of Religious Liberty," not a memorial 
or a tablet to tell the passer-by that the soil he 
treads is the " Land of Sanctuary." 1 Not only by 
the Marylander, but by all Americans should the 
memories of the first Lords Baltimore be held 
in veneration, by all those who believe that it is 
the right of man to worship God according to his 
conscience, by those that abhor persecution, and 
love justice. In the words of a Protestant his 
torian : " Let not the Protestant give grudgingly. 
Let him testify with a warm heart ; and pay with 

1 There is a project on foot to erect a statue to Cecilius 
Calvert in front of the Courthouse in Baltimore. 


gladness the tribute so richly due to the memory 
of our early forefathers. Let their deeds be en 
shrined in our hearts, and their names repeated 
in our households. Let them be canonized in the 
grateful regard of the American; and handed 
down through the lips of a living tradition to the 
most remote posterity. In an age of cruelty, like 
true men, with heroic hearts, they fought the 
first great battle of religious liberty. And their 
fame without reference to their faith, is now the 
inheritance, not only of Maryland, but also of 
America." 1 

1 Davis, Day-Star, p. 258. 


It had been the original intention of Cecilius, 
Lord Baltimore, to settle in Maryland. But 
either the affairs of the colony necessitated his 
presence in England, or the intrigues of his ene 
mies prevented his purpose from being realized. 1 
His son and heir, Charles, came to Maryland, and 
afterwards succeeded his uncle Philip Calvert as 
Governor in 1661. 2 He became Proprietor in 
1675, on the death of his father, having governed 
the province " with a high reputation for virtue 
and ability. 7 3 If he was not endowed with all 
the higher qualities of soul that so distinguished 
his father the steadfastness, and indomitable 
purpose of the latter he was not wanting in those 
other noble and lovable attributes which endeared 
him to his colonists, and which contributed so 
materially to the welfare of the Province. From 
the first, his relations with the Maryland settlers 
were marked by consideration for their welfare on 
his part, and a gratitude on theirs which reflects 

1 Calvert Papers, I, p. 136; Stafford s Letters and De 
spatches, n, pp. 178-9. 

2 Archives, ni, p. 439. Neill falsely asserts that Philip 
was illegitimate. (Md. not a Roman Catholic Colony, p. 5. 
Terra Mariae, p. 230.) See Appendix B. 

3 Chalmer s Annals, p. 364. 



credit upon their appreciation of his efforts. The 
Assembly, in the year 1683 with all dutiful af 
fection presented to His Lordship, with most hum 
ble and hearty thanks, in demonstration of their 
gratitude, duty and affection, and prayed his Lord 
ship s acceptance of 100,000 Ibs. of tobacco to be 
levied this present year. The Proprietary re 
turned his thanks for their kind tender, but con 
sidering the great charge the country had been at, 
did not think fit to accept thereof. l 

Meantime, there were not wanting malcontents 
who sought to disturb the peaceful conditions pre 
vailing. Do what he might for the welfare of the 
colony, Lord Baltimore was a " Papist," and that 
thought to them was sufficient to excite their discon 
tent. His tolerant administration, his care for 
the colonists, and the wisdom he evinced in the 
revision of the Laws of Maryland, should have 
won from the most prejudiced an unstinted ad 
miration. 2 

In 1676 occurred an event of apparently little 
importance, and emanating from a person of in 
significance, yet the consequences of which were 
indeed far-reaching. John Yeo, usually describ 
ed as a " turbulent parson," wrote a startling let 
ter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. His inten 
tion was to demonstrate to that prelate the neces- 

1 Archives, vn, pp. 515-16. 

2 Archives, u, p. 473, et passim; Assembly of June, 1676; 
cfr. Grahame, n, pp. 36-37. 


sity of establishing the Church of England in 
Maryland. He gives a lurid picture of the spirit 
ual conditions in the Colony, representing it as a 
" Sodom of uncleanness, and a Pest House of ini 
quity, where every notorious vice is committed." 
" Most Reverend Father ; " he writes, " please 
to pardon this presumption of mine in presenting 
to your serious view these rude and indigested 
lines which (with humble submission) are to ac 
quaint Your Grace with the deplorable estate and 
condition of the Province of Maryland for want 
of an established ministry. Here are in this Pro 
vince ten or twelve counties, and in them at least 
twenty thousand souls and but three Protestant 
ministers of us that are conformable to the doc 
trine and discipline of the Church of England. 
Others there are, I must confess, that run before 
they are sent, and pretend they are ministers of 
the Gospel, that never have a legal call or ordina 
tion to such an holy office ; neither (indeed) are 
they qualified for it, for the most part such as 
never understood anything of learning, and yet 
take upon them to be dispensers of the word, and 
to administer the Sacrament of baptism, and sow 
seeds of division among the people, and no law 
provided for the suppression of such in this Pro 
vince, so that here there is a great necessity of 
able and learned men, to confute the gainsayer, 
especially having so many professed enemies as the 
Popish priests and Jesuits who are encouraged 


and provided for, and the Quaker takes care of, 
and provides for those that are speakers in their 
Conventicles, but 110 care is taken or provision 
made for the building up Christians in the Pro 
testant Religion, by means whereof not only many 
daily fall away, either to Popery, Quakerism or 
fanaticism; but also the Lord s Day is profaned, 
Religion despised, and all notorious vices com 
mitted, so that it is become a Sodom of unclean- 
ness and a Pest House of iniquity. I doubt not 
that Your Grace will take it into consideration, 
and do your utmost for our eternal welfare, and 
now is the time that Your Grace may be an instru 
ment of a reformation amongst us with the great 
est facility. Cecilius Calvert, Baron Baltimore, 
and absolute Proprietor of Maryland being dead, 
and Charles, Lord Baron of Baltimore, and our 
Governor, being bound for England this year (as 
I am informed) to receive a further confirmation 
of that Province from His Majesty, at which time 
I doubt that Your Grace may so prevail with him, 
as that a maintenance for a Protestant ministry, 
as well in this Province as in Virginia, Barbadoes, 
and all other His Majesty s plantations in West 
Indies. And then there will be some encourage 
ment for able men to come among us, and that 
some person may have power to examine all such 
ministers as shall be admitted into any County or 


Parish in which diocese and by which bishop they 
were ordained." 1 

The writer was convinced apparently, that an 
assured salary for the Anglican clergy would im 
prove the colony, little reflecting that none of 
the clergy who led away the Protestants to 
" Popery, Quakerism or fanaticism 77 received any 
salary from the government. When later on, the 
Anglican Church was made the established Church 
of Maryland, and the people of the Province were 
compelled to contribute to the support of the 
Anglican clergy, the morality of the colony, as we 
shall see, was in no wise improved. 

One would think that such a manifestly exag 
gerated statement would have obtained little con 
sideration from either prelate or peers, but some 
times, " all is grist that comes to one s mill," and 
the missive in question, was taken very seriously, 
both by the Lord Archbishop, who pronounced it 
" laudable and honest " and by those to whom he 
handed it. 2 Commenting on this letter, Chalmers 
says : " The sole intention of the painter [of 
this hideous picture] was to display to the Arch 
bishop of Canterbury the use of a religious estab 
lishment; the laws, the execution of which was 
committed to the various inquests, assuredly pro- 

1 Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from John 
Yeo, Minister in Maryland, May 25th, 1676. (Archives, v, 
pp. 130-132.) 

2 Archives, v, p. 137. 


hibited the evils and the crimes which were so 
greatly deplored. And it may be safely asserted, 
that there existed in those days no other offences 
either against the municipal or Divine precepts, 
than generally prevail in countries ruled by the 
mildest of governments, where the inhabitants live 
widely scattered over the face of the country, and 
every man enjoys the shade of his own tree with 
out molestation." 

" Here is a most frightful picture of immoral 
ity, 7 says McMahon, " and the whole grievance is 
the want of an established clergy ; and the remedy, 
its establishment. How unlike his Divine Master 
who did not wait for an established support to go 
forth in his mission of grace. ( Having a care for 
the body/ is too often all that is meant by i having 
a care for souls. 7 77 2 

" The Protestant part of the population of Mary 
land was less distinguished by that Christian zeal 
which leads men to impose sacrifices on themselves 
than by that ecclesiastical zeal which prompts 

1 Annals, pp. 363-64. 

"McMahon, p. 215, note 38. 

" Tliis representation is as incredible as the statement 
that was published about twelve years afterward by the 
Protestant Association of Maryland, of the daily murders 
and persecutions incited by the Proprietary and com 
mitted by the Catholics. No reliance can be placed on 
the accounts that men give of the character and conduct 
of those whom they are preparing or longing to plunder." 
., note to p. 35.) 


them to impose burdens on others; they were 
probably less wealthy from having been more re 
cently established in the Province than the Catho 
lics ; and the erection of their churches was further 
retarded by the state of dispersion in which the 
inhabitants generally lived. The Protestant Epis 
copal pastors, like the clergy of every order, de 
pended on the professors of their own particular 
tenets for support; and it is not easy to discern 
the soundness of the argument that assigns the 
liberality of other sectarians to clergymen of their 
own persuasion, as a reason for loading them with 
the additional burden of supporting the ministers 
of the Church of England, or the existing incom- 
petency of these ministers to control the immorali 
ties of their people, as a reason for endowing them 
with a provision that would render them inde 
pendent of the discharge of their duty. This logic, 
however, was quite satisfactory to the primate of 
England, who eagerly undertook to reform the 
morals of the people of Maryland, by establish 
ment and wealthy endowment to a Protestant 
Episcopal Church in the Province." 1 

" Accordingly, the bishop of London represent 
ed to the Committee of Plantations, the deplorable 
state of Maryland in regard to religion ; that, while 
the Roman Catholic priests were endowed with 
valuable lands, the Protestant ministers of the 

1 Grahame, Hist of U. 8., pp. 35-36. 


Church of England were utterly destitute of sup 
port; whereby immorality reigned triumphant 
there." At the same time, another remarkable 
document against Lord Baltimore and his govern 
ment was despatched to King Charles and Parlia 
ment, entitled, " A Complaint From Heaven With 
a Hue and a Cry, and a Petition Out of Virginia 
and Maryland." 2 It reads like the ravings of 
madmen, and could certainly not be surpassed for 
wild incoherence, violence of denunciation, and a 
very insanity of extravagance. 

On his arrival in England whither he went after 
the death of his father, Lord Baltimore found him 
self placed in the pillory of public opinion, and 
called upon to answer the charges preferred against 
him by cupidity and fanaticism. Thus called 
upon to defend himself and his colony, Baltimore 
presented " A paper setting forth the Present 
State of Religion in Maryland." He showed how 
the toleration Act passed in 1649 gave religious 
liberty to all; that those adherents of the Church 
of England, -who had desired ministers to come 
over into the province had had several sent to 
them; that at -that time there were four ministers 
in Maryland, with plantations of their own, well- 
provided for in every way ; that in every County in 
Maryland, there were churches and meeting-houses 
for the people who frequent them, and he showed 

1 Chalmers, p. 365. 

2 Archives, v, pp. 134-40. 


the difficulties in the way of inducing the different 
denominations to consent to the support of a church 
other than their own. 1 This explanation was, de 
spite its candor and justice, not received by the 
Committee as satisfactory, and it was still con 
tended that Maryland should find some means to 
assure the support of the Anglican clergy. 

In time the excitement occasioned by Yeo s letter 
subsided, but, in the opinion of many, this 
event was the entering of the wedge which result 
ed in the Protestant Revolution of 1689, the 
Church Establishment of 1702, the Catholic dis- 
franchisement of 1718, and finally, one cause, at 
least, of those injustices which occasioned the 
downfall of Governor Eden, and the subsequent 
call to arms of the American Revolution. 

In refutation of the calumnious reports sent out 
against Lord Baltimore, the prominent and more 
respectable of the Protestants issued the " Declara 
tion " of May 13, 1682, in which they repudiate 
the misrepresentation published against the Catho 
lic Proprietary. Professing themselves Christ 
ians " according to the liturgy of the Church of 
England, and Protestants against the doctrine and 
practice of the Church of Rome," they declare that 
they possess " the free and public exercise and en 
joyment of their religion whatsoever it be," that 
they enjoy "in as full and ample manner as any of 

1 Archives, v, p. 133. 


His Majesty s subjects in any part of His Maj 
esty s dominions the general freedom and privilege 
in their lives, liberties and estates according to 
the grand privileges of Magna Charta." They 
further declare that his " Lordship s favors are 
impartially distributed, and places of honor, trust, 
and profit conferred on the most qualified for 
that purpose and service without any regard to 
the religion of the participants, of which generally 
and for the most part, it hath so happened that the 
Protestants have been the greatest number." 1 

All the enemies of Maryland seemed to regard 
this a propitious time for a concerted attack, the 
old as well as the later ones, and vulture-like, 
flocked together to descend upon the government 
of the colony to feed fat their grudges, ancient 
and new. Claiborne, the indomitable, unsubdued 
by the years, and untamed by the repeated balking 
of his vengeance, made at this period his final effort 
to reclaim Kent Island. To that end, in 1677, he 
addresses a letter to the King a letter pitiful in 
its whining and groveling, in its assumption of the 
character of an unrewarded partisan of His Majes 
ty s father of glorious memory, in its utter lack 
of the common decencies of self-respect. He al 
ludes to himself as " a poor old servant of Your 
Majesty s father and grandfather/ holds up his 
old age and losses for commiseration, and finally 

1 Archives, v, p. 353; cfr. Ibid., pp. 309-310. 


concludes with " humbly prostrating himself at 
His Majesty s feet for speedy justice in so lament 
able a case." This letter was accompanied by the 
whole mass of documents concerning his posses 
sion and dispossession of Kent Island, his dispute 
with Lord Baltimore, the depositions in the suit 
against Cloberry, and the Declaration against the 
legality of Lord Baltimore s Patent, which years 
before had been submitted to the King s father, by 
Virginia, and which was probably drawn up by 
Claiborne himself. 1 Nothing ever came of this 
petition, the case was never re-opened, and the old 
claimant of Kent Island makes his exit in this 
humiliating manner from the scene of Maryland 
affairs. Speaking of this " royalist who turned 
Parliamentarian, Churchman who turned Puritan, 
King s officer who became Cromweirs Commission 
er," Dr. Browne says : " While doing justice to 
his readiness of resource, and indomitable tenac 
ity of purpose, one cannot but wish that he had 
used directer methods, that he had sailed under 
fewer flags, and that when hard knocks were 
going, he had stayed and taken his share, instead 
of slipping off to Virginia and leaving others to 
do the fighting." 2 

If the accession of James II raised in Lord 
Baltimore any hope of a power to be appealed to 

1 Archives, v, pp. 157-239. 

2 Browne s Maryland, pp. 128-9; cfr. Anderson, I, p. 491. 


and relied upon, it was soon dispelled. The King- 
was actuated solely by self-interest and was de 
termined to make the colonies more dependent up 
on the Crown. Especially was he urged on by 
his overmastering jealousy of the royal preroga 
tives of the Lord Palatine of Maryland, and to 
effect the accomplishment of his purpose, he lent 
a ready ear to anything that might serve to bring 
about the end desired. " In the whole story of 
American colonization/ says a Protestant writer, 
" there is nothing more preposterous and absurd 
than the outcry of lying Protestants in Maryland 
to a Catholic King and his readiness to listen." l 
In vain Lord Baltimore pleaded for the validity 
of his Charter, and represented that " the adminis 
tration of his province had been at all times con 
ducted conformably to it, and to the laws of Eng 
land; that he had never been informed of the 
pleasure of his prince, but it was always obeyed; 
that neither he nor his father had done any act 
which could incur a forfeiture of the Patent which 
they had dearly purchased by adding considerable 
province to the Empire." 2 The King ordered the 
Attorney-general to issue the writ against the 
Charter in April, 1687. 

Soon after this an Assembly was called in Mary 
land presided over by William Joseph. The Bur 
gesses at this Assembly presented a number of 

Cobb, p. 383. 2 Chalmers, Annals, p. 371. 


grievances, which, says Chalmers, " were constitu 
tionally redressed in Assembly to their heart s 
content. 7 1 He continues, " but neither the pub 
lic felicity nor private happiness were of long con 
tinuance, notwithstanding this seeming cordiality. 
The cry against popery, which had been attended 
with such prodigious effects in England during the 
reigns of Charles II and his successor, was re 
echoed in Maryland, where the factious made the 
same use of it to promote similar purposes of in 
terest or ambition . . . No sooner were the tidings 
of the Revolution 2 told in that Province, than those 
latent dissentions inflamed by fresh incentives, 
blazed into insurrection, and those who hadforsome 
time waited impatiently for the harvest now reaped 
abundantly." 3 Almost simultaneously in various 

1 Chalmers, Annals, p. 372; Archives, xm, p. 158, et 

2 The Revolution which placed William and Mary on 
the throne. 

3 dhalmers, Annals, p. 372. 

". . . Baltimore was a man of unblemished reputation, 
upright, humane and just . . . his successors inherited his 
virtues as well as his name, and the wisdom and benevol 
ence of the first Popish Lords of Maryland will be found 
to put to shame and rebuke the words and acts of many 
who then clamored the most loudly against popery." 
(Anderson, i, p. 481.) 

" The articles of grievances, exhibited by the Lower to 
the Upper House at the session of 1688, do not ascribe a 
single act of deliberate oppression or wanton exercise of 
power, immediately to the proprietary or his governors. 
They do not even insinuate the slightest danger to the 


parts of the Province, rumors arose that a Catholic 
government, upheld by Catholics, had joined them- 

Protestant religion; or impute to the Proprietary ad 
ministration, a single act or intention militating against 
the free enjoyment and exercise of it. They were presented 
under the expectation of redress ; and to crown the whole, 
the reply of the Governor and Council, in answer to their 
articles, was so entirely satisfactory, that the Lower 
House in a body, presented them their thanks for its 
favorable character. Here the curtain drops, and when it 
next rises, it presents to our view, the Proprietary do 
minion prostrate, the government in the hands of the 
crown, and administered by men hitherto unknown to it; 
the Assembly pouring forth its congratulations for the 
royal protection, and its redemption from the arbitrary 
will and pleasure of a tyrannical Popish government; 
the proprietary himself formally impeached to the crown 
by that Assembly; his officers and agents degraded and 
harassed in every manner; and the Catholic inhabitants, 
the objects of jealousy, reproach and penalties." (Mc- 
Mahon, p. 230.) 

" Whatever may have been their [Cecilius and Charles] 
wisdom and uprightness, yet their church and religious 
connections were feared; as was evidenced by the fact 
that as long as these two held the government, that is 
till the Protestant Revolution in 1689 fault was found and 
apprehension was expressed. No man, probably, ever did 
less to deserve the apprehension, yet the sensitiveness of 
the people kept them always on the alert." (GambralFs 
Hist, of Early Md., p. 74. ) 

" The mild and equitable rule of the Roman Catholic 
Lord Baltimore would have shielded the members of our 
Church [Anglican] as well as others, from persecution; 
but the mere fact that powers so vast as those conveyed 
under the Charter of Maryland were intrusted to a Ro 
man Catholic Proprietor, was sufficient under any cir 
cumstances, to deter most of the members of our own 


selves with the Indians for the murder of all the 
Protestants in Maryland. When finally run to 
cover these reports were proved to be without foun 
dation, several of those who had disseminated 
them, were apprehended, but the alarming news 
continued to spread. The representatives of the 
Proprietary found themselves set at defiance by 
an intangible but seemingly ubiquitous enemy. A 
startling account of an Indian massacre in some 
remote place would reach their ears, and the 
officers hastening to the spot would find that noth 
ing whatever had occurred, but the people there 
were in confusion and dismay having heard of 
some frightful outbreak of the Indians forty or 
fifty miles away. Continuing their march to the 
spot designated as the one where the outrage had 
been committed, the soldiers would be met with 
the same conditions they had left, no trace of In 
dians, no murders, only rumors and panic-stricken 
settlers, stirred up to the highest pitch of excite 
ment and terror by tales of bloodshed by the natives 
and the " Papists," of burning houses, women and 

communion, whether in England or in America, from 
selecting that Province for their abode." (Rev. J. Ander 
son, History of P. E. Church in The Colonies, n, p. 28.) 

" All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a 
sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our 
northern climes is a refinement of the principle of resist 
ance, it is the very dissidence of dissent, and the Pro 
testantism of the Protestant religion." (Edmund Burke, 
On Conciliation with America, p. 466.) 


children carried off. Yet never had anyone even 
seen a hostile Indian. 1 The foundations of the 
Proprietary government were fast giving away, 
and order, peace and authority were being sub 
merged in the quicksands of discontent, fear and 
nervous uncertainty. The Catholics entirely in 
nocent of the cause of all this disturbance, were 
amazed at finding themselves so accused, and re 
garded by many of their former neighbors and 
friends as so many cut-throats ready to assist the 
savage foe, whom frenzied imagination pictured 
lurking on the outskirts of every settlement. 

Meanwhile William and Mary had been pro 
claimed in Virginia, and to lend color to the 
rumors afloat no recognition of the new order had 
been made in Maryland. This unfortunate acci 
dent was used to good purpose by the instigators 
of the conspiracy. The Catholic authorities were 
represented as being in revolt against the Pro 
testant sovereign. That this delay was due to an 
accident is now beyond question. 2 Lord Baltimore 
had been commanded to proclaim William and 
Mary in his colony, and had at once given orders 
to that effect, but some fatality attended his in 
structions to his deputies in Maryland. 3 To re- 

1 Archives, vm, p. 155. 

2 Archives, viu, pp. 112-113. 

The oaths of supremacy and allegiance which no Catholic 
could take, were changed to others. (Ibid., p. 69.) 
8 Ibid. 


move the fears of the people, the officials of the 
government at this time renewed the annual treaty 
of peace with the Indians. But instead of ac 
complishing the end they desired, their action was 
taken as a confirmation of the rumors that the 
Catholics were in collusion with the savages, plot 
ting to murder the Protestant settlers. Thus their 
best efforts to restore peace were converted by their 
enemies into convincing proof of their guilt. At 
first the better class of Protestants, took no part 
in this revolt, but they, in the end, threw in their 
lot with the rest. Men, whose interest it was to 
work the people into a very madness of unreason 
ing terror, made good use of the panic-creating 
words, " Papist," " Popish priest " and " Jesuit," 
with the result that the Protestant colonists, fran 
tic with fear, recoiled from their Catholic fellow- 
settlers with fear and horror. To such a pass had 
things come, that on March 27, 1689, sixteen of the 
most influential Protestants, including Cheseldyn, 
the Speaker of the Burgesses, Henry Jowles, 
Thomas Brooks and Ninian Beall, issued a Decla- 
laration publishing " that we have made an exact 
scrutiny and examination into all circumstances of 
this pretended design, and found it to be nothing 
but a sleeveless fear and imagination fomented by 
the artifice of some ill-minded persons, who are 
studious, and ready to take all occasions of raising 

1 Chalmers, pp. 372-3. 


a disturbance for their own private and malicious 
interest." 1 

" An Association in Arms for the Defense of the 
Protestant Religion and for Asserting the Right 
of King William and Queen Mary to the Province 
of Maryland and all the English Dominions " was 
formed in April, 1689. At its head was John 
Coode. 2 It will be remembered that Fendall had 
been leniently treated by the Governor, Charles 
Calvert, in 1660. He was found intriguing again 
in 1681 with Coode. Fendall was banished, but 
Coode was acquitted. 3 In July, 1689, Coode, with 
others, seized the capital, St. Mary s, and in ex 
planation of this rebellion, put forth a " Declara 
tion " of his reasons. " It is a string of gen 
eral charges without specific allegations, and some 
quite obviously false, in which the words ( Papist 
and Jesuit are made to do full duty ; and par 
ticularly charges a popish plot to massacre the 
Protestants, with the help of the Indians. And 
this paper was signed, not only by Coode but by 
Cheseldyn and others who had solemnly averred 
that these rumors were false and malicious. But 
Coode had fired their ambition." 4 

1 Archives, vm, p. 70-96. 

2 Chalmers, Annals, p. 273. 

3 Archives, v, 281, 312, 322, 331, 334; Chalmers, Annals, 
p. 368. 

4 Browne s Maryland, p. 151. Coode s address, "The 
Declaration of the Association, was printed at St. Mary s 
by the Printer of the Province. In Virginia, as we have 


The Proprietary s representatives driven to take 
refuge in a garrison at Mattapany, at length sur 
rendered, August 1st, 1689, it being stipulated 
that the persons in the garrison, should be allowed 
to return to their homes but henceforth no papists 
should hold office in the Province. 1 

seen, no printing press was allowed. ... In New England 
and New York there was assuredly none permitted. The 
other provinces were probably not more fortunate, because 
they did not enjoy more liberty. We may thence finally 
infer that Maryland under the mild government of the 
Proprietaries and the rational protection of the Assembly, 
of all the colonies, enjoyed the most genuine freedom at 
this era of the Revolution, notwithstanding the unfounded 
assertion of those who overturned the government." 
(Chalmers, Annals, p. 384). McMahon says: "That this 
address was printed by Lord Baltimore s printer is a 
sufficient proof of the liberty of the press." p. 226. 

1 Archives, vin, pp. 107-198. 

The names of the associators to whom Mattapany was 
surrendered in 1689, were John Coode, Henry Jowles, John 
Campbell, Kenelm Cheseldyn, Ninian Beale, Humphrey 
Warring, John Kurlinge and Richard Clouds. The names 
of the Proprietary s representatives were Wm. Joseph, 
Henry Darnall, Nicholas Sewall, Edward Pye and Clement 
Hill. (Archives, vm, p. 108). Among the adherents of 
Coode, was a leader among Presbyterians, Beale. (Early 
Presbyterianism in Maryland, J. H. U. Studies, p. 32 ). 

The Presbyterians joined in a petition for the establish 
ment of the Anglican Church, through prejudice against 
the Catholics, but they very soon discovered to their sor 
row how much they had lost by the change. (Ibid., p. 28.) 

" The deputies of Lord Baltimore endeavored by force to 
oppose the designs of the Associators; but as the Catholics 
were afraid to justify the prevalent rumors against them 
selves by taking arms, and as the well-affected Protestants 



Coode sent an address to the King (August 3, 
1689) declaring that they had taken up arms in 
defense of the Protestant religion and to secure 
the Province to His Majesty. "Of the charges 
which Coode and his friends brought against Lord 
Baltimore, Chalmers says, they were " as frivol 
ous as they were unjust " 1 and, indeed, they were 
denied by some of the most prominent Protestants 
who, in consequence, were ill-treated or imprison 
ed by the rebels. 2 

showed no eagerness to support a falling authority, they 
were compelled to deliver up the provincial fortress, and 
surrender the powers of government by capitulation. The 
King apprised of these transactions hastened to express 
his approbation of them, and authorized the leaders of the 
insurgents to exercise in his name the power they had ac 
quired, until he should have leisure to settle the administra 
tion of affairs on a permanent basis. Armed with this 
commission, Coode and a junto of his confederates, con 
tinued for three years after to conduct the government 
of Maryland, with a predatory tyranny, that exemplified 
the demerits that they had falsely imputed to the Pro 
prietary, and produced loud and numerous complaints from 
persons of every religious denomination in the Province. 
Thus even in the midst of their own insolent triumph, the 
Maryland Protestants were unable to escape entirely the 
visitation of retributive justice." (Grahame, n, p. 51.) 

1 Chalmers, Annals, p. 383 ; Archives, vm, p. 108. 

2 On the 20th day of August Michael Taney and sixty-six 
others of Calvert County petitioned the King "to protect 
us his loyal and Protestant subjects from the usurpa 
tion of Coode and his associates." (Archives, vm, pp. 110- 
111). At the same time, a letter was written in French, 
by Mr. Bertrand to the Bishop of London, describing the 
events we have narrated, and inclosing a letter from 


Charles Carroll writing about the same time to 
Lord Baltimore says : " Neither Catholic nor 
honest Protestant can well call his life or his 
estate his own, and if your Lordship (according 
to your wonted care and tenderness of your peo 
ple) by a speedy application and true representa 
tion to his Majesty of these most inhuman ac 
tions, do not procure some orders whereby to 
allay their fury a little, all your friends here will 
be reduced to a miserable condition ; for daily their 
cattle are killed, their horses pressed, and all the 
injury imaginable done to them, and to no other. 
Certainly Your Lordship s Charter is not such 
a trine as to be annulled by the bare allegation of 
such profligate wretches and men of such scandal 
ous lives, as Coode, Thurling, Jowles and such 

Richard Smith and Michael Taney in which they say the 
revolt " is only raised to carry on the designs of some 
prejudiced persons whose malice, rancour and haughty 
humors will have no peace with any but their slaves and 
vassals, and because we will not comply with their humor, 
are confined their prisoners. . . . Considering how we have 
been abused by this new-taken-up power, my wife Barbara 
Smith, is intended to England now immediately to render 
her personal petition." (Archives, vin, p. 115). This let 
ter was received in London December 16th, 1689. In his 
Letter to Mrs. Smith, the loyal Taney graphically de 
scribes the events that brought about his arrest and con 
finement, giving his address as " Charlestown in Charles 
County, where we are likely to remain till " (Archives, 
Vin, p. 121; also pp. 147 to 154.) 


fools as they have poisoned by the most absurd 
lies that were ever invented." 1 

About this time numerous petitions were for 
warded to the home government, most of which 
were favorable to Lord Baltimore. 2 

1 Archives, vin, p. 125, 187-190-192. 

2 Seventeen Protestants of Kent County addressed 
a petition to the King in which they testify to 
the justice of Lord Baltimore, and the peace and 
happiness they enjoyed under him; adding "that we 
abhor and detest the falsehood and unfaithfulness of John 
Coode and others," and pray that the -government may 
again be restored to the Right Honorable Lord Baltimore. 
(Archives, vn, p. 129). Calvert County also addressed a 
petition to the King signed by 104 Protestants to the same 
effect. (Ibid., p. 130-32.) From Talbot County an ad 
dress was sent signed by 52 Protestants. (Ibid., pp. 133-4) 
and from Cecil County, one signed by 19 Protestants. 
(Ibid., pp. 134-5). Baltimore County also sent a petition 

signed by 21 with divers others, solemnly protesting and 
declaring as persons guilty of sedition and the breach of 
the laws Coode and his aiders and abettors. (Ibid., pp. 
136-7). The Protestants of Charles County while asking 
for a Protestant Government (Nov. 1689) made no com 
plaints against Lord Baltimore or his administration. 
(Ibid., p. 138). The Protestants, however, of Somerset 
about the same time asked for a royal government, and 
complained against the Papists. (Ibid., p. 138). On Feb 
ruary, 1689, the justices of Kent County, thank the King 
for freeing them from Popery and tyranny, and then add 
" we with the consent of all the rest of Your Majesty s 
most loyal subjects within Your Majesty s province of 
Maryland, and in a Parliamentary way, have displaced all 
Roman Catholics whatsoever from bearing any office 
civil or military within this your Majesty s province." 
(Ibid., p. 142). We have seen how much truth there was 


Lord Baltimore on January 7, 1690, asked that 
a number of old inhabitants of Maryland most if 
not all Protestants be heard by the Lords of the 
Committee for Trade and Plantations, touching 
the charges against him by Coode and others. 1 On 

in this declaration. In February 1690, 28 Protestants of 
Talbot County asked the King to take the Province under 
his royal protection, though without complaint against Lord 
Baltimore and his government. At this same time there 
was a petition from Calvert County signed by 10 among 
whom were 7 newly-installed office-holders, including Henry 
Jowles, and quite naturally theirs is an implied complaint 
against the Proprietary government. The petition for 
warded by Coode, Cheseldyn and their associates, (Novem 
ber 28, 1689) contains, of course, a complaint against 
Priests, Papists and their adherents as well as this choice 
morsel : " As the beams of your extensive love for the 
Protestant interest have revived us at this distance, so 
they have influenced us with all alacrity and cheerfulness 
to demonstrate our duty and gratitude to the best of our 
ability, and encouraged our hopes and wishes for your 
Majesty s gracious answer to the repeated petitions of our 
fellow-subjects here to be covered by your Majesty s ap 
pointment under the wings of a Protestant government." 
(Ibid., p. 146.) "In Anne Arundel County, being one 
of the most considerable, and in which there are not five 
Papists, they would not choose Burgesses at Coode s com 
mand." (Archives, vm, p. 149.) 

1 Archives, vm, p. 163. 

List of Lord Baltimore s witnesses: "Col. Tailler and 
Mr. Abington old inhabitants; Mr. Lillingston, a minister 
of the Church of England and has been many years an 
inhabitant; Mr. Henry Coursey, Jr., and Mrs. Smith 
natives of Maryland; Mr. George Robing, an inhabitant; 
Mr. Samuel Groom, Captain Phillips and Captain Watts 
merchants and traders in Maryland." 


January llth he asks for a hearing, and after be 
ing sent from post to pillar, was at last allowed to 
offer his proposals for a settlement of the difficult 
ies in Maryland. These proposals of Lord Balti 
more were read before the Committee, January 
14th, 1690. His Lordship agreed: first, that 
deputies, councillors and justices, should be re 
moved according to His Majesty s pleasure; sec 
ondly, that Mr. Henry Coursey, an Episcopalian, 
and old inhabitant of Maryland, be made Deputy 
Governor; thirdly, that a Committee of Protest 
ants be appointed to examine the charges of Coode ; 
fourthly, that Coode and his adherents be pardoned 
if the King so desires. It would be difficult to 
imagine anything fairer than this agreement sub 
mitted by the Proprietary for the settlement of the 
disorders in Maryland. But it was not so much 
the peace as the possession of Maryland that the 
King desired. Quick to see his interest, and never 
over-scrupulous, William the next month sent his 
approval of what had been done by Coode and his 
band of outlaws, but ordered them to await his 
further commands. 1 As there were at least twelve 
Protestants to one Catholic in Maryland at this 
time, it is impossible to believe that the charges 
recited by the Associators in their Declaration, 
could have been credited by the king ; he, however, 
used the fabulous horrors perpetrated by the mur- 

1 February, 1690. Archives, vm, p. 1G7. 


derous " Papists " as a fulcrum for his policy. 
" William approved of a Eevolution which ran 
before his wishes, and was so consistent with 
his views." 2 The Associators worked their will 
for the time they had things in their power, putting 
into prison the well-affected Protestants as well as 
the Catholics, appointing officials and officers, rob 
bing, destroying, and marauding to their heart s- 

But the last act in this fraud of royalty had not 
yet been consummated. The question of appoint 
ing a governor without the consent of Lord Balti 
more, was submitted to the Lord Chief Justice 
Holt. In his reply to Lord Camarthen, President 
of the Privy Council, (June 3, 1690) Holt says: 
" I think it had been better if an inquisition had 
been taken and the forfeitures committed by the 
Lord Baltimore had been therein found before any 
grant be made to a new governor, yet I think there 
is none, and it being in a case of necessity, I think 
the King may by his commission constitute a 
governor whose authority will be legal though 
he must be responsible to the Lord Bal 
timore for the profits. If an agreement 
can be made with the Lord Baltimore, it will be 
convenient and easy for the Governor that the 
King shall appoint; an inquisition may at any 

1 Chalmers, Annals, p. 374. 


time be taken if the forfeiture be not pardoned, of 
which there is some doubt." 1 Acting on this 
Delphic pronouncement, notwithstanding the rep 
resentations of the respectable Protestants, and the 
protests of Lord Baltimore, the Lords in Council 
(August 21, 1690) ordered the Attorney-General 
to proceed against the Charter of Lord Baltimore, 
and to vacate the same. 2 

Sir George Treby, Attorney-General, was asked 
his opinion in regard- to a draught for the commis^- 
sion to Copley; he replied (September, 1, 1690) : 
:c I understand the seizure of this government to 
be for necessity as being the only means of pre 
serving the Province. The nature of the seizure 
is only to take the Government out of the hands 
that neglected and endangered it, into the King s 
hands, but the laws, and customs and properties of 
the inhabitants are to be preserved as far as may 
be. I do not know whether, or how far the par 
ticulars in this draught are agreeable to the laws 
and manner of government which have been settled 
there or may be prejudical to the interest of the 
inhabitants. I did draw a commission general 
reciting the confusion that was there, and the dan 
ger of losing the Province to the enemies, and the 
necessity of taking it into their Majesty s hands, 
and thereupon constituting a Governor there to 
govern according to the laws of the place (and as 

1 Archives, vin, pp. 186-7. 2 Ibid., p. 200. 


the administration ought to have been by the form 
er Governor), and to defend the province and to 
take and apply the public revenue to that pur 
pose. I see no cause to depart therefrom, nor to 
recommend this present draught hereunto annex 
ed, not knowing that the particulars herein con 
tained are agreeable to the settled order of gov 
ernment there, or absolutely necessary for the pre 
servation of the Province." 

On the 20th of November 1690, eleven Protest 
ants, one of whom was an Episcopalian clergyman, 
belonging to the colony of Maryland, being then 
in London presented a petition to the King in 
behalf of Lord Baltimore, in which they say: 
" The Declaration of the said Coode and eight 
more persons, which he falsely says to be that of 
your Majesty s Protestant subjects of Maryland, 
being most notoriously false as were also the sub 
scriptions to the addresses they presented to your 
Majesty, forged as your petitioners can make ap 
pear." This was answered in the usual style by 
Coode and his friends, December, 22, 1690. The 
Lords of the Committee of Trades and Plantations 
having heard both parties presented their answer 
to the King, January 1, 1691 : " We most humbly 
offer that the several matters in difference be re 
ferred to the examination of the Governor that 

1 Archives, vm, p. 204. 


shall be sent thither by your Majesty s direc 
tions." 1 

Nothing, of course could have better suited 
the designs of William on the colony. A draught 
for the commission of Copley was presented 
to Lord Baltimore to sign, January 3, 1691, by 
which he would virtually have surrendered his 
charter. 2 Lord Baltimore replied twelve days 
after, insisting upon his rights as contained in his 
Charter, but declared himself ready to appoint 
Protestants to the offices of Governor and Council 
lor and to give the command of the militia, with 
the custody of arms and ammunition to Protest 
ants. 3 But that very day (January 15th), the 
King orders Holt and Treby to settle the draught 
" appointing Lionel Copley, Esq., to be governor 
of Maryland." 4 The Commission was, accord 
ingly prepared by the Attorney-General, and ap 
proved by Holt. 5 The Commission was issued, 
signed by the Queen, June 27, 1691, with the ap 
probation of the Lord Chief Justice. 6 

Regarding this transaction McMahon says: 
"" These [proceedings] show conclusively that 
there was no sufficient reason for vacating the 
Charter ; and that the government was resumed 
by the Crown upon the plea of political necessity 
which has always been deemed the i tyrant s argu- 

*Ibid., p. 229. 2 Ibid., pp. 230-1. 

*Ibid., p. 231. * Ibid., p. 231. 

6 /&/., p. 233. "Ibid., p. 270. 


ment, . . . the King found no difficulty in procuring 
a legal opinion to cloak the arbitrary character 
of the proceeding. We almost blush to name Lord 
Holt as the high authority behind which the 
Crown entrenched itself. Even his high charac 
ter as an impartial and inflexible judge, cannot 
shield him from the suspicion of having yielded 
his judgment to the royal will, in the expression 
of that opinion." 

Thus William, without legal warrant, deprived 
Lord Baltimore of his Proprietary-ship and de 
clared Maryland a royal province, with Sir Lionel 
Copley first Royal Governor. The Assembly even 
tried to deprive Lord Baltimore of his territorial 
rights, but the Crown dissented. 2 

" The prerogatives of the Proprietary, which he 
had exercised with unexampled attention to the 
rights of the people, the privileges of the Roman 
Catholics, which they had hitherto enjoyed under the 
mildest of laws, with a moderation unparalleled in 
the annals of the world, were overwhelmed at once 
by the provincial plot and buried in the same 
grave." 3 Thus religious liberty came to its end 
in Maryland. -"It was the Revolution, which 
leveled the venerable trunk to the ground." 

Speakingof the period of Maryland s historythus 

1 McMahon, p. 242. 

2 Archives, vm, pp. 233, 235, 288, 290, 295, 299, 433. 

3 Chalmers, Annals, p. 374. 

4 lUd., p. 219. 


brought to a close, MeMahon says : " Conspicu 
ous, above every other colony of that period for 
its uniform regard of religious liberty it had its 
reward. Harmony, peace and prosperity were 
the general results ; and this period in the History 
of Maryland may be truly styled the golden age 
of colonial existence." 1 

During the years of the Proprietary administra 
tion up to this period, the f unwearied care, the 
solicitude, generosity and justice of the Lords 
Baltimore, towards their colonists, as well as the 
appreciation of the latter, may be found mirrored 
forth in the successive Acts of Gratitude passed 
by the Maryland Assembly, conferring revenues 
upon Cecilius and praying the acceptance of free 
gifts by Charles, in testimony of the benefits re 
ceived and the privileges enjoyed under their bene 
ficent government. It must be remembered, that 
these acknowledgments were not wrung from truck 
ling souls or cowering spirits, but from an inde 
pendent people jealous of their rights, and resent 
ing the slightest infringement upon their preroga 
tives as Englishmen and freemen, men who refused 
to concede to Lord Baltimore, in the early days of 
the colony, rights that were actually secured to 
him by his Charter. That they should solemnly 
put themselves upon record as attesting to the in 
tegrity, faithfulness, and probity of the purposes 

1 MeMahon, p. 228. 



and administration of the government, and their 
own gratitude for the blessings received under the 
Proprietary s rule, is the strongest evidence that 
can be offered of the inherent probity of the men 
and the excellence of the administration. Amidst 
all the upheaval of the colony, and during those 
periods when the government was wrested from the 
Proprietary, we witness the sorrow of the colonists 
deprived of the advantages of the old regime, and 
see also their satisfaction and delight at its restora 

A new era now began in Maryland, the darkest 
in its history. Charles Calvert, " Absolute Lord 
of Maryland," shorn of his proprietary rights, and 
deprived of all jurisdiction by violence and illegal 
processes, lived to endure the ingratitude of those 
for whose benefit he had labored so earnestly and 
so long ; a Catholic Proprietary, he lived, also, to 
witness while powerless to prevent, the persecution 
of his fellow-Catholics in the Province founded by 
his Catholic father, as a land of refuge and a 
haven of peace. Not until after his death, and 
the succession of his Protestant grandson were the 
Proprietary s rights restored. " The true cause 
of the long suspension of the Proprietary s gov 
ernment is found in the single fact that the Pro 
prietary was a Catholic." 

It has been said that the history of this Pro- 

1 McMahon, p. 278. 


testant Revolution of 1689 has never been writ 
ten/ 1 that the origin of those dastardly slanders 
against the Catholics rose as exhalations from 
whence no one can tell, that the sequence of events 
culminating in that outbreak of fanaticism and of 
fear are wrapped in impenetrable mystery. It 
now seems plain, that the history of that orgy was 
written in anticipation eight years before it took 
place, and may be read in the first trial of the 
miscreants Fendall and Coode, in 1681. 2 It is a 
long unbroken tale of treachery; the treachery of 
one man wedded to the violence of another. The 
account of the trial was taken by a clerk of the 
Provincial Council, and it makes us witness to 
the sowing of the seed that eight years later 
blossomed into the Protestant Association of 
plunderers, and its consequent Revolution. The 
renegade Governor and his villainous associate 
were arraigned in 1681, and as we read the pro 
ceedings, vividly do those long dead days live 
again, names become living personalities, and 

"The history of the Protestant revolution in 1689 has 
never yet been fully written. But there is evidence upon 
the records of the English government to show it was the 
result of a panic, produced by one of the most dishonor 
able falsehoods which has ever disgraced any religious or 
political party by the story, in a few words, that the 
Roman Catholics had formed a conspiracy with the In 
dians to massacre the Protestants." (Davis Day-Star, 
p. 86.) 

2 Archives, v, pp. 311-332. 


shadowy events of history present realities ; fierce 
passion and simplicity, loyalty and treachery, calm 
dignity and grossness, all take form and clothe 
themselves once more in actual flesh and blood. 

The insolent prisoner is brought to the Bar. l 
The jury is impanelled Fendall challenging each 
one in turn as to his religious belief, rejecting all 
professing the Catholic faith and the " Tryall " 
opens. Witness follows witness in quick succes 
sion, honest settlers, back- woodsmen, women too; 
and all with the same tale of Coode s and Fen- 
dall s treachery to tell. These two seem to have 
been everywhere, leaving the serpent s trail over 
all. 2 To-day they are in Maryland, to-morrow in 
Virginia, but plotting, inciting always. We see 
the one-time governor and trusted friend of Cal- 
vert, with subtle cunning, stirring up the people 
against their Lord Proprietary whom he calls a 
traitor ; telling them that i they are fools to pay 
him taxes ? and that it is time for them to speak 
their minds ; working on their cupidity with 
promises of great rewards, and lands a-plenty for 
their rebellion. 3 But over and above all and 
through all, we find him working on their fears 
and fiercer passions. Always we have the same 
refrain white settlers cut off by Indians and 

p. 313. 

2 Ibid., pp. 215-17. 

3 Ibid., pp. 319 to 324. 



"Papists," Indian foot-prints in the snow/ his own 
great fear and terror of what is about to come upon 
them that instant rising of the savages and " Pa 
pists " to murder all the Protestants in the land. 
Evidence is piled on evidence, new proof succeeds 
each proof that goes before; the intense earnest 
ness of the witness carries conviction with it, a 
breathless hush, and then the verdict of the 
jury: "We find Josias Fendall guilty of speak 
ing several seditious words without force or prac 
tice, and if the honorable Court think him guilty 
of the breach of the Act of Assembly we do or 
else not, "and then the sentence a fine and banish 
ment. 1 The jurors in the case were all Protest 
ants, a majority of the Court were Catholics. 
Coode, the confederate of Fendall, was tried No 
vember 16, 1681. He was a member of the Lower 
House, and was the only minister that ever sat in 
the Maryland legislature. As a result of his trial 
he was reprimanded and gave security to appear at 
the meeting of the next Provincial Court. 2 

Thus with these two malefactors again at liberty 
to take up their work of infamy once more, who 
can marvel if eight years later their ceaseless ef 
forts received in the Protestant Eevolution, the 
overthrow of the government, and the blotting out 
of the Maryland Palatinate, the establishment of 
a state Church, and the end of religious liberty 

/&*., pp. 327-9. *lUd., p. 332. 


until the American Revolution a successful ter 
mination, and a fitting crown. 

The man through whose intrigues this moment 
ous change was effected in Maryland, as we have 
seen was Coode. Captain John Coode, as he was 
styled, was a deacon and a minister of the Episco 
pal Church. 1 His later career is a remarkable 
one. He was elected a member of the Lower 
House of 1696. He had said that he had pulled 
down one government and might pull down 
another. Gov. Nicholson s vanity was touched 
and he refused to administer the oath of office to 
him on the ground that he had been in Holy 
Orders. 2 A vestryman of King and Queen Parish 
in 1696, he is ordered arrested for blasphemy in 
January of that year. 3 Gov. Nicholson laid 
charges against him, that being a vestryman he did 
not only cheat the parish, but likewise ran away 
with 15,000 Ibs. of tobacco belonging to it. 4 We 

1 At the Council held at Annapolis, August 10th, 1698, 
witnesses swore that Coode had said : " St. Paul may be an 
impertinent writer as well as other men. All Religion 
lies in Tully s offices." " The priests of both the churches, 
Roman and Protestant, were rogues and that it was all 
one to serve God or the devil for religion is but policy." 
Whereupon the witness said, " Capt. Coode, I admire to hear 
such things from you who as I am told are in Holy 
Orders yourself." Coode thus replied : " Yes, I am both 
deacon and priest in the Church of England." (Archives, 
xxin, pp. 479-482.) 

2 Archives, xx, p. 515. 5 Archives, xxin, p. 479. 

* Archives, XXHI, p. 451. 


find the Council, February 19th, asking the Gov 
ernor of Virginia (whither Coode had fled to 
escape justice in Maryland) to have him arrested 
for his " enormous crimes." A warrant was is 
sued for all sheriffs in Virginia to arrest Coode. 2 
He is indicted by the Grand Jury and ordered ar 
rested in July and again in September, 1698. Blas 
phemy, theft and sedition were not the only weak 
nesses of Code, for on one occasion he was beaten 
by the governor when he " was drunk and made 
disturbance at Divine worship." 3 Sometimes 
eluding the officers of the law, sometimes defying 
them, it was found necessary to issue a proclama 
tion to be read in all public places " commanding 
all and singular, his Majesty s good subjects to 
discover and apprehend him wheresoever found " 
and to offer a reward of 20 for his capture. 4 He 
was arrested at last, but upon recommendation of 
the Provincial Court in " consideration of his ser 
vice done on the Revolution " the Governor and the 
board, October 4th, 1699, " unanimously agree 
that the said Coode was very serviceable to his 
Most Sacred Majesty and this Province upon the 
said Revolution " and his punishment and fine 
were suspended. 5 In 1700 he was pardoned in 
consideration of his former services ; yet according 
to his own statement, Coode was actuated in bring- 

1 Ibid., p. 35. 2 Ibid., p. 485. 

3 Ibid., p. 471, xxv, pp. 5-7; xxm, pp. 443-452. 

4 Ibid., xxm, p. 472. 5 Ibid., xxv, pp. 75-80. 


ing about the Revolution by a motive of revenge 
towards Lord Baltimore. 1 Assuredly Maryland 
was having a taste of a new sort of justice. How 
different from the days of Catholic rule! An 
unfrocked minister condemned for blasphemy, 
fraud and sedition, with a price set on his head, is 
pardoned in consideration of his services in basely 
calumniating his fellow-Catholic citizens, in be 
traying the freedom of the colony, and converting 
it into a mere appanage of the Crown. Was there 
ever a more despicable travesty of justice ! 2 

" From an examination of the causes and charac 
ter of the Protestant revolution, it is manifest, 
that as far as the Proprietary was personally con 
nected with the transactions of that period, his 
government had fallen without a crime. The 

1 Ibid., vin, p. 210; cfr. McMahon, p. 238. 

2 " Coode," says Rev. Dr. Hawks, " is a striking illustra 
tion of the facility with which, in that day, vice that de 
served a prison, could figure in these unfortunate colonies 
clad in the robes of a priest." (p. 63.) Chalmers 
calls Coode " a man of utter profligacy, openly 
avowing a contempt for all morality and religion." (p. 
373). "He was," says Meerness, "a vain, shiftless, un 
principled man." (p. 39). Coode received little reward 
for his part in this conspiracy and he felt sorely grieved 
at the treatment accorded him by his fellow-conspirators. 
Kenelm Cheseldyn fared much better. He was for a long 
time Commissary General, but was finally dismissed on 
account of drunkenness and neglect of duty. (Archives, 
xxin, p. 197.) 


character of Charles Calvert, as displayed in his 
wise and virtuous administration of the province, 
for many years anterior to that revolution, is of 
itself sufficient for his vindication, against any sus 
picion of hostility to the civil or religious liberties 
of the people, predicated either upon the occur 
rence of the revolution, or the vague and un 
supported accusations of " the Associators." 1 

1 McMahon, p. 277. 


Sir Lionel Copley, the new governor, arrived in 
Maryland and took the oath of office April, 1692. 1 
The first act of the Assembly which was then 
summoned was one recognizing William and Mary, 
and thanking them, to use its own words, " for re 
deeming us from the arbitrary will and pleasure of 
a tyrannical popish government under which we 
have so long groaned." An eloquent commentary 
on popularity is furnished by comparing this decla 
ration with the Act of Appreciation passed eight 
years before by the Assembly in which many of the 
" groaners " took part. Their protestations of ( all 
imaginable gratitude/ the demonstrations of their 
gratitude, duty and affection to his Lordship in 
beseeching his acceptance of one hundred thousand 
pounds of tobacco as an acknowledgment of his 
great love and affection for them, will be recalled. 3 
Since then times had changed. Their advantage 
lay under another guise. When we compare the 
contemptible conduct of this Assembly with the 
manly, independent bearing of the First Assemblies 
of the colony, we see how much the character of 
the representative men of the province had deterior- 

1 Archives, viil, pp. 263-306. * Ibid., p. 315. 

3 Archives, vii, pp. 385-515. 



ated. Their second act was to make the Protest 
ant Episcopal Church the established Church of 
the colony. 1 A tax of forty Ibs. of tobacco per 
poll was to be levied on every taxable for the main 
tenance of the Episcopalian Church, whose clergy 
about this time numbered three. 2 It is true, 
only a small proportion of the Maryland colonists 
belonged to the Anglican communion, 3 but they 
had the power of the Crown to enforce this in 
justice, and they little cared for the rights of 

One cannot help recalling how half a century 
earlier the Catholic majority had granted religious 
liberty to all. " We may now," says Dr. Browne, 
" place side by side the three tolerations of Mary- 

lu An Act for the Service of Almighty God and the 
Establishment of the Protestant religion within this Pro 
vince " was passed June 2nd, 1692. (Archives, xin, 425.) 
" Every vestige of the old patent was swept away. The 
Episcopalian Church was established by law and supported 
by taxation. Religious toleration was abolished, and the 
government administered on despotic principles." (Rid- 
path, p. 224.) 

-Archives, xin, p. 429; also xxm, p. 81. 

Taxables were defined by an act of 1699, all male 
children born and resident in the province 16 years old and 
upwards, all male children servants imported, and all slaves 
16 years old and upwards. All freemen over 16, except cler 
gymen and the indigent. (Archives, xxn, p. 515.) In 1699, 
another tax was allowed of 10 pounds of tobacco on all 
parishioners for repairs. (Ibid., p. 469.) Cfr. Hawks, 
Contributions, for the character of the Clergy, pp. 71, 76, 77. 

3 Cfr. Browne s Maryland, p. 189. 


land. The toleration of the Proprietaries lasted 
fifty years, and under it all believers in Christ 
were equal before the law, and all support to 
churches or ministers was voluntary; the Puritan 
toleration lasted six years, and included all but 
Papists, Prelatists and those who held objection 
able doctrines; the Anglican toleration lasted 
eighty years, and had glebes and churches for the 
establishment, connivance for Dissenters, the 
Penal laws for Catholics, and for all the forty per 
poll." l 

" The Protestants," says Grahame, " who thus 
enacted toleration to themselves, with the most im 
pudent injustice and unchristian cruelty denied 
it to the men by whose toleration they had been 
permitted to gain an establishment In the province. 
Sanctioned by the authority and instructed by the 
example of the British government, the legislature 
of Maryland proceeded, by the most tyrannical 
persecution of the Catholics to confirm and dis 
grace the Protestant ascendency. . . . Thus were 
the Catholics of Maryland, under the pretence of 
vices which none exemplified more forcibly than 
their persecutors, deprived of those privileges, 
which, for more than half a century, they had ex 
ercised with unparalleled justice and moderation. 
In addition to the other odious features of the 
treatment they experienced, there was a shameful 

1 Browne s Maryland, p. 186. 



violation of national faith in suffering Protestant 
persecution to follow them into the asylum from 
its severity, which they had been encouraged to 
seek, and with laborious virtue had established. 
. . . From the still more unjust and perfidious 
treatment which the Catholics in Maryland beheld 
their brethren in Ireland undergo from Great 
Britain, they might derive at least the consolation 
of perceiving that they themselves were not de 
livered up to the utmost extremity of Protestant 
tyranny and intolerance. 7 1 

Notwithstanding the protests of the people of 
St. Mary s County, the Capital of the Province 
was removed from St. Mary s to Annapolis. 2 

1 Grahame, n, pp. 56-58. Grahame was a Protestant of 
Scotch descent. 

" Thus," says McMahon, " the toleration of the Protest 
ant dissenters was fully and finally secured; and thus in a 
colony, which was established by Catholics, and grew up to 
power and happiness under the government of a Catholic, 
the Catholic inhabitant was the only victim of religious 
intolerance." P. 246. 

2 Archives, xix, p. 78. 

Annapolis, the new capital, was at a place called " Proc 
tors " or " The Town Land of Severn," or " Town of Proc 
tors." At the period of removal it was described The 
Town land at Severn, where the town formerly was. It 
was then made a port of entry and called Anne Arundel 
Town. At the session of Assembly, 1695, it acquired the 
name of the Port of Annapolis. It was not made a City 
until 1708. (McMahon, p. 254.) About four or five years 
after it was made the capital, Oldmixon thus described it: 

" There are about 40 dwellings in it, seven or eight of 


As religious liberty was at an end in Maryland 
it was fitting, after all, that St. Mary s, its first 
home in the New World, should cease to be the 
Capital of a Province that was to be hereafter 
noted for its intolerance. 1 " It was to the interest 
of the new government, to destroy, as far as pos 
sible the cherished recollections which were asso 
ciated with the departed Proprietary power ; and 
there was no object so intertwined with all these 
recollections as this ancient city consecrated by 
the landing of the colonists, endeared to the na 
tives as the first home of their fathers, and exhi- 

which can afford a good lodging and accommodation for 
strangers. There are also a State House and a free school 
built of brick, which make a great show among a parcel of 
wooden houses, and the foundation of a church is laid, the 
only brick church in Maryland." (Oldmixon, I, p. 195.) 
Here the Assembly held its first Session, February, 28, 1694. 
(Archives, xix, p. 119.) 

x ln 1678 St. Mary s was thus described by Charles 
Calvert, Lord Baltimore, in his answer to the Lords: 
"The principal place is called St. Mary s. There the gen 
eral Assembly and provincial Court are kept and whither 
all ships trading there, do in the first place resort. But it 
can hardly be called a town, it being in length by water 
about five miles, and in breadth upward toward the land, 
not above a mile in all; which space, excepting only my 
own Home and the buildings wherein the said public 
courts and offices are kept, there are not above thirty 
houses and those at considerable distance from each other; 
and the buildings, as in other parts of the province, very 
mean and little, and generally after the manner of the 
meanest farm houses in England." (Archives, v, pp. 265- 


biting, at every step, the monuments of that gentle 
and liberal administration which had called up a 
thriving colony out of a trackless wilderness. The 
Catholics of the colony dwelt principally in that 
section of it; and under the joint operation of 
these causes, it had been distinguished during all 
the troubles consequent upon the civil wars in 
England, by its unshaken attachment to the Pro 
prietary. . . . The excitement of the moment 
made its claims to recollection cogent reasons for 
its destruction, and the public convenience came 
in as a sanction." 

While the intolerance of the Puritans in 1652- 
58 has been universally condemned, and that in 
unmeasured terms, attempts have been made by 
some to gloss over the injustice of the Episco 
palians. The Puritan revolt was characterized 
by shrewedness in its conception, violence in its 
uprising, brutality in its methods of procedure, 
but withal it assumed, at times, an open stand- 
and-deliver style which saved its leaders from 
being despicable. The Episcopalian Revolution 
was specious in its motives, insidious in its at 
tacks, and while the bar-sinister government which 
it established put to death none for sweet religion s 
sake, it was subtle in its cruelty, and its Pharis 
aical policy for eighty years was well calculated 
to extinguish the very name of Catholic in the 

1 McMahon, pp. 73-74. 



land. Bishop Carroll, referring to this period 
writes: "It is surprising that there remained 
even so much as there was of true religion. In 
general, Catholics were regular and inoffensive 
in their conduct, such I mean as were natives of 
the country." l The Episcopalian rule had one 
redeeming feature, however, its grinding policy 
created a healthful discontent among the people, 
and furnished a just cause for the American Kevo- 


In Governor Nicholson s instructions, dated 
March 8th, 1693, King William says : " You are 
to permit liberty of conscience to all." This did 
not mean, of course, that the Episcopalian Church 
was not to be the established Church, and as such 
derive its support from all the inhabitants of the 
colony. Nor did it mean that the Catholic Church 
could expect any, even the least, favor. Like all 
others, Catholics would be obliged to contribute 
the 40 pounds of tobacco for every taxable in sup 
port of the Anglican clergy; yet, having cast this 
sop to Cerberus, they were to be left at least free 
from persecution. 

Such appears to have been the policy of Wil 
liam, but the Maryland Protestants were not satis 
fied to leave the Catholics even so little in the 
"Land of Sanctuary" they had established by their 

1 Letter of Bishop Carroll to the Propaganda in 1790 

2 Archives, xxm, p. 542. 


wealth and care. Nothing can be more discreditable 
than the attitude of the Episcopalian government 
during this period. While William and Mary ap 
pear to have evinced an inclination to alleviate the 
rigor of the penal statutes in behalf of the Mary 
land Catholics, the Protestants in the colony per 
sistently urged and endeavored to enforce the 
worst features of the English penal code. 

Although the Assembly of 1692 had passed a 
law establishing the Church of England in the 
Province, it did not receive the royal sanction. 1 
A plethora of enactments followed during the next 
ten years, but were annulled by the King. Thus 
this misshapen brood of religion was still-born. 
In July, 1696, an Act of Religion was passed 
declaring all the laws of England to be in 
force in Maryland. This act included, of course, 
the tax of 40 Ibs. of tobacco on every taxable. 
The vestry was constituted a corporate body to re 
ceive any gift by deed or testament, verbal will, 
promise or otherwise, to " purchase any lands or 
tenements (without license of mortmain), as also 
any goods or chattels, and dispose of the same. 

Much ado has been made by some historians 
because the Jesuits in the first years of the colony s 
existence desired to hold property as a body cor 
porate, and the same writers have extolled the 

1 Archives, viu, p. 435 ; Historical Collections of the American 
Church, Wm. Stevens Perry, D. D., p. 327. 


conduct of Lord Baltimore in refusing to agree 
to such a claim. Yet the Catholics were then in a 
majority. When this last law of 1696, allowing 
the Episcopal vestry to hold lands as a corporation, 
was passed, this denomination was in a minority 
in the province. 

By the same act all marriages, births, baptisms 
and burials (except negroes) were to be recorded 
by the Register of the vestry who was entitled to 
a fee for registering, and another for the certi 
ficate, and if any one delayed to have these 
formalities complied with, he was subject to a 
fine of 500 Ibs. of tobacco. The act further pro 
vided that " if any Minister, Priest or Magistrate 
shall join in marriage any persons contrary to the 
table of marriages (as is established by the Church 
of England), he or they shall forfeit the sum of 
5,000 Ibs. of tobacco, and the parties so married 
shall pay the like sum." 

Even before the Assembly passed this law, 
which did not receive the assent of the Crown, the 
Catholic priests w r ere restricted by its provisions. 
For in 1096, April 29th, Father Hall of St. 
Inigoes, was summoned to the Council to give an 
account of a marriage he performed. Having 
shown his license from Mr. Davis, the Minister of 
William and Mary Parish, he was dismissed. 2 

1 Archives, xix, pp. 428-29-30; Historical Collections of 
the American Church, Wm. Stevens Perry, D.D., p, 29. 

2 Archives, xx, p. 402. 


Both the Catholics and the Quakers opposed 
this law in King s Council, 1 and in 1699 it was on 
technical grounds annulled. 2 Thus on a technical 
ity alone were the Catholics and Quakers saved 
from the severe penal laws of England. 3 

In 1700 and 1701 other laws of intolerance were 
passed by the Assembly, but they also failed to ob 
tain the royal assent. 4 In 1^02, Rev. Dr. Bray, 
founder of the " Society for the Propagation of 
Christian Knowledge," who had been appointed 
by the Bishop of London Commissary of Mary 
land, appeared on the scene and succeeded in draw 
ing up a law, which received the approval of the 
King. By this law the Church of England was 

1 Archives, xxv, pp. 91-93. 

2 It contained " a clause declaring all the laws of Eng 
land to be in force in Maryland; which clause is of another 
nature than that which is set forth by the title in the said 
law." (Perry Papers, pp. 29-30.) 

3 " For some years after the revolution, the Quakers 
were regarded by the Protestants of the established church 
with almost as much aversion as the Catholics. ... In 
their understanding, the Protestant Church was nothing 
more or less than the Church of England; and like all ex- 
clusives, in the first moments of power, they acted upon 
the doctrine, " He that is not with us, is against us." 
The Quakers were persecuted; and even the calmness and 
silence of their conventicles, where disorder itself might 
be softened into contemplation, could not exempt them 
from the appellation of unlawful assemblages." (McMahon, 
p. 245.) 

* Archives, xxiv, pp. 91-273; Perry Papers, p. 48. 

5 Archives, xxiv, pp. 223-4; Perry Papers, pp. 32, 147. 


established, and remained the established Church 
of Maryland until the Revolution. 1 As in the 
first law of 1692, a tax of 40 Ibs. of tobacco per 
poll was allowed for the support of the Episcopal 
clergy and according to the provisions of this last 
law, the province was divided into parishes of the 
Anglican Church. The growing influence of the 
Quakers was made clear in that all Protestant 
Dissenters and Quakers were allowed to affirm in 
stead of taking the oath. 2 Speaking of this legisla 
tion, Rev. Dr. Hawks remarks: " Such were the 
provisions of the law for the support of religion; 
from which it will be observed that the member ^ of 
the Church of Rome was not permitted to derive 
even the partial privilege of toleration. . . . 
Toleration to be consistent should be universal; 
and Maryland would not have presented the pic 
ture of a Province founded for the sake of religi 
ous opinion, by the toil and treasure of Roman 
Catholics, in which all who called themselves 
Christians, none save Roman Catholics were de 
nied toleration." 3 

While this law of Establishment was a-making, 
however, the Protestants in control of the govern 
ment gave evidence of their zeal, if not of their 
charity, in their conduct towards the Catholics. 

1 Archives, xxiv, p. 255. 

2 Archives, xxiv, p. 265. 

8 Rev. F. L. Hawks, Rise and Progress of the P. E. 
Church in Maryland, pp. 115-117. 


By an oath prescribed, Catholic attorneys were 
disbarred. Robert Carville who had formerly 
been Attorney-General of the Province was not 
even allowed to continue to plead some cases he had 
already begun before the obnoxious law prescrib 
ing the oath was passed. 1 

^lis letter and the answer lie received illustrate the 
bitter animosity toward Catholics: 

" To his Excellency Lionel Copley, Esq., Captain Generall, 
and the Honorable the Councill of their Majesties Province 
of Maryland: 

" The humble petition of Robert Carville, Humbly sheweth. 
That your Petitioner hath for above these 23 years till 
these late Revolutions been a practiser as an Attorney in 
the Provincial Court of this Province and hath so de 
meaned himself in the said Office that he hath generally 
given satisfaction to the good people thereof, but by reason 
your petitioner cannot comply in Conscience with the 
oaths by the law now prescribed your petitioner is sus 
pended from his practice aforesaid having severall old 
causes of great moment as well of his clients as his own 
particular concern still depending undetermined still in 
the Provincial Chancery and Commissary Courts which will 
all or most of them be put to a period the next Pro- 
vinciall Court. Your Petitioner, therefore, humbly prays 
your Honours will be graciously pleased to permit your 
Petitioner to make an end of those his old Causes only, and 
so long to continue an Attorney, which otherwise may be 
of great loss and damage, if not ruin to him, if he must 
refund his fees received, or to pay other Attorneys for to 
finish the same. 

" And Your Petitioner shall pray, &c. 
"Ro: Carville. 

5th. Decemb. 1692. (Archives, vm, p. 17.) 

" Which Petition being read and its Contents duly and 
maturely Considered, it is the Opinion of this Board that 
they give for answer thereunto that they cannot with 


The Test oath of 1699, required of office-hold 
ers was particularly insulting to Catholics, but 
admirably served its purpose which was to exclude 
Catholics from official positions in the province. 1 

safety dispence with the Law in permitting the Petr. 
openly to practise in Person, but he may and hath liberty 
hereby given him to make use of any other Attorney to 
plead and prosecute for him those actions by him already 
commenced, and wherein he hath been employed upon such 
terms as he can agree, Ordered also that for the future 
no Roman Catholick or other person whatsoever un 
qualified by Law do in any manner directly or indirectly 
practise as an Attorney or Councillor at Law either in 
public Pleading or otherwise solliciting any Cause." 
(Archives, vin, p. 448.) 

1 Test Oath : " I, A. B. do Solemnly and Sincerely in the 
presence of God, profess, Testify and Declare that I do 
believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord s Supper there is 
not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and 
Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ att or after the Con 
secration thereof by any person whatsoever, And that the 
Invocation or Adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other 
Saints, and the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are now used 
in the Church of Rome, are Superstitious and Idolatrous. 
And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess Testify 
and Declare that I do make this Declaration and every 
part thereof in the Ordinary Sence of the words now read 
unto me, as they are commonly understood by English 
Protestants, without any Evasion, Equivocation, or Mentall 
reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation from 
any person or Authority whatsoever or without thinking 
that I am or can be acquitted Before God or Man, or ab 
solved of this declaration or any part thereof although the 
Pope or any other person or persons or Power whatsoever 
should dispence with or annull the Same or declare that it 
was Null and Void from the Beginning." (Archives, xxv, 
p. 68.) 



It would be difficult to show the necessity of 
such a harsh law for civil officers. 

In 1697-98 a pestilence brought sickness and 
death to the homes of many of the colonists. The 
Catholic clergy, in a spirit of unselfishness, were 
untiring in their ministrations to the sick. The 
House of Delegates thereupon, petitioned the gov 
ernment to restrain the Catholic priests of Charles 
County from visiting the sick and the dying. 1 

Governor Nicholson then issued the following 
proclamation : " I have lately received credible in 
formation from Charles County and other parts 
of this His Majesty s Province, how that several 
Popish priests and zealous Papists make it their 
constant business (under pretence of visiting the 
sick during this time of common calamity and 
sickness) to seduce, delude, and persuade divers 
of His Majesty s good Protestant subjects to the 
Romish faith, by which means sundry of the in 
habitants of this His Majesty s Province have 
been withdrawn from the Protestant religion by 
law established, and from the due and natural 
obedience they owe to his said Majesty and laws, 

1 The House of Delegates petitioned the Governor to issue 
a proclamation against the priests of Charles County who 
" do of their own accord in this violent and raging mortality 
in that county, make it their business to go up and down 
the county to persons houses, when dying and frantic, and 
endeavor to seduce and make proselytes of them, and in 
such condition boldly to presume to administer the Sacra 
ment to them." (Archives, xxii, p. 96.) 


whereby the party so reconciled and withdrawn, as 
well as their procurers and counsellors, have justly 
incurred the penalty and forfeitures as in cases 
of high treason, if thereof lawfully convicted. 1 

It does not seem to have appeared to the Gover 
nor and his advisers that if the ministers had not 
forsaken their flocks, there would have been little 
danger from the " zealous Papists." The minis 
ters would not, the priests must not, offer the con 
solations of religion to the dying. 

What the ministers, however, were tmable to ac 
complish by word and example, they were deter 
mined to do, if possible, by force of law. They 
petitioned the Council in 1703 to inflict some 
penalty on the Protestants who did not attend 
public worship, and " to restrain Quakers and 

1 Catholics were also accused of restraining Protestant 
servants from going to church and of converting them. 
" For the prevention of all such mischiefs and growing evils 
for the future," continues the Governor, " I have thought 
fit (by and with the advice and consent of His Majesty s 
Honorable Council and Members of the House of Dele 
gates in Assembly now sitting) to issue this my Proclama 
tion strictly prohibiting and forewarning all priests and 
Papists whatsoever to desist and forbear such their notori 
ous and open violation of His Majesty s known laws, under 
pain of prosecution and suffering such penalties as by the 
said laws are prescribed, as also of the parties so with 
drawn and reconciled to the Romish faith as aforesaid." 
Furthermore anyone who knows of such offenses and does 
not report them within 20 days is likewise punishable. 
This proclamation was to be read in all public places. 
(Perry Papers, p. 24, March 29, 1698.) 


Papists from seducing Her Majesty s Protestant 
Subjects." 1 

The administration of Governor Seymour 
(1704-1709) was especially notable for its im 
pudent intolerance. This man, who styled him 
self an " English gentleman," omitted no oppor 
tunity to lord it over the inoffensive Catholic 
minority in the Province. By an Act of Septem 
ber 30, 1704, Catholics were not permitted to prac 
tise their religion, priests were forbidden to exer 
cise their office, Catholic children were not allowed 
to be educated in their faith, and an open bid was 
made for children to rebel against Catholic par 
ents. 2 

1 Archives, xxv, p. 161. 

2 " Be it enacted by the Queen s most excellent Majesty, by 
ind with the advice and consent of her Majesty s Governor, 
Council and Assembly of this Province, and the authority 
of the same, That whatsoever Popish Bishop, priest or 
Jesuit shall baptize any child or children other than such 
who have Popish parents, or shall say Mass or exercise 
the function of a Popish bishop or priest within this 
Province, or shall endeavor to persuade any of her Majesty s 
liege people of this Province to embrace and be reconciled 
to the Church of Rome, and shall be thereof legally con 
vict, shall forfeit the sum of fifty pounds sterling for 
every such offence, the one half thereof to our Sovereign 
Lady the Queen her heirs and successors for the support 
of the government of this Province, and the other half to 
him or them that will sue for the same to be recovered 
in any Court of Record, within this Province by Bill, 
Plaint or -Information, wherein no essoin, protection or 
wager of law to be allowed; and shall also suffer six 
months imprisonment of his or her body or bodies without 


In regard to this last provision, Rev. Dr. Hawks 
remarks : " Little comment is here necessary. 
The enactment enforced a gross violation of the 
best feelings of human nature ; it forbade a parent 

bail or Mainprize. And be it further enacted by and with 
the advice, consent and authority aforesaid: That if any 
Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit after such conviction afore 
said shall say Mass or shall exercise any other part of the 
office or function of a Popish bishop or priest within this 
Province, or if any papist or person making profession of 
the Popish religion, shall keep school or take upon them 
selves the education, government, or boarding of youth in 
any place within this Province, such person or persons be 
ing thereof lawfully convicted that then every such person 
shall upon such conviction be transported out of this 
Province to the Kingdom of England together with his con 
viction in order to his suffering such pains and penalties as 
are provided by the statute made in the eleventh and 
twelfth year of the reign of his late Majesty King William 
the third, entitled An Act for the further Preventing the 
Growth of Popery. And to the end that the Protestant 
children of Popish parents may not in the life-time of such 
their parents for want of fitting maintenance, be necessita 
ted in compliance with their parents to embrace the Popish 
religion contrary to their own inclination: Be it enacted 
by the Authority aforesaid, by and with the Advice and Con 
sent aforesaid. That from and after the end of this- Ses 
sion of Assembly, if any such parent in order to the com 
pelling such his or her Protestant child to change his or 
her religion, shall refuse to allow such child a fitting main 
tenance suitable to the degree and ability of such parent, 
and to the age and education of such chlid, then upon com 
plaint thereof made to the Governor of this Province or 
the Keeper of the great Seal, it shall be lawful for the 
said Governor or Keeper of the Seal to make such order 
therein as shall be agreeable to the intent of this ACT." 
Archives, xxvi, pp. 340-1.) 


to fulfil the first duty which he owed his offspring 
that of instruction ; and dissolving the filial obli 
gation offered to a wayward child a premium for 
youthful hypocrisy. He who can speak of such a 
law in any terms but those of indignant reprobation, 
deserves, himself, to endure all its penalties." 1 

But Queen Anne, less unjust than her Anglican 
subjects in Maryland, had a law passed allowing 
Catholic priests to officiate in private families. 2 

Hence arose the custom in colonial days of hav 
ing a chapel annexed to a house. The Catholic 
chapels were usually called Priests Mass-Houses. 3 

Headed by their representative men, the 
Catholics made a strong and dignified protest in 

1 Hawks, Rise and Progress of the P. E. Church in Mary 
land, p. 126. 

2 "... That no Popish Bishop, Priest or Jesuite shall 
by virtue of the said Act of Assembly for or by reason of 
Exercising his function in a private family of the Roman 
Communion be prosecuted or Indicted before any her 
Majestys Justices impowered to hold plea thereof within 
this Province until the full end and Expiration of the 
term of Eighteen months from the publication of this Law 
or until her Majesty s Pleasure shall be declared therein. 
Provided always that this Act nor anything therein Con 
tained shall in no wise be Construed to extend to defeat 
rescind abrogate or Suspend the force, vigour or Effect of 
the same Act for Preventing the Growth of Popery in any 
other Matter or thing whatsoever or for any longer time 
than what is in and by this Present Act expressed and De 
clared. Dec. 9th, 1704." (Archives, xxvi, p. 431.) 

3 A reminder of this law can still be seen at the old 
mansion of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Doughoregan 
Manor, in Howard County. 


the form of a petition against the intolerance 
under which they were suffering. 1 

1 " That upon application heretofore made by the said 
Roman Catholics to this honorable House for the repeal of 
an Act entitled an Act to prevent the Further Growth of 
Popery in this Province, whereby the toleration and free 
dom of conscience allowed here since the first settling this 
plantation, was infringed, the House moved by a Christian 
temper and out of their commendable inclination to modera 
tion suspended by another Act the execution of the former 
for eighteen months, or until the Queen s pleasure were 
further known. That the said Eighteen months are now 
near expired, and the Queen s pleasure not yet signified 

(being retarded as may be rationally supposed) by her Ma 
jesty being at this juncture intent upon the consideration 
and settlement of more weighty affairs, and opportunities 
of hearing out of England offering but seldom this war 
time : Wherefore they most humbly pray that this hon 
orable House would be pleased further to suspend the exe 
cution of the said Act until Her Majesty s pleasure be de 
clared thereon without limitation of any set time, lest 
that in the interval of Assemblies such time may expire 
and thereby your petitioners be disturbed contrary to the 
intention of the House." This was signed by Henry Dar 
nell, Charles Carroll, Richard Bennet, James Carroll. 

(Archives, xxvi, pp. 591-2.) 

On Monday, April 15th, 1706, the petition of the Roman 
Catholics signed by Col. Henry Darnell, Mr. Charles Car 
roll, Mr. Richard Bennet and Mr. James Carroll being this 
Day read at the Board, it is observed that the Petitioners 
tho they so stile themselves, rather seem to challenge than 
Petition for a toleration and freedom, and unhandsomely 
charge the General Assembly with infringing the same, 
which they cannot have the least reason to offer, seeing at 
the Time of making the Act they had not even the slightest 
Assurance of such Freedom or Toleration. All which is of 
the same Piece with the latter Part of the Petition seeming 


By an Act of April 18th, 1706, the penal statutes 

to insinuate as if her Majesty would forget the minutest 
Thing for the Ease and Advantage of her Subjects. Neither 
has this Board any reason to be satisfied with the Peti 
tioners Construction of the Houses Intention which they say 
was until her Majesty s Pleasure should be known that they 
might not be disturbed in the Interval of Assemblies. But 
we hope we have a better right and with better reason to 
judge, it was quite contrary thereto, for otherwise to what 
end was the Penal Act made or the suspending one limited 
to Eighteen months, a certain time perfixd. Which being 
read in the House was ordered to be laid aside." (Archives, 
xxvi, pp. 597-98.) 

On April 19th, 1706, permission was granted allowing 
Mass to be said in private houses which " in no case what 
soever was to be extended 12 months more." " Be it enacted 
by the Queen s most excellent Majesty, by and with the ad 
vice and consent of her Majesty s Governor, Council and 
Assembly of this province and the authority of the same, 
that the Act of Assembly made at a sessions of Assembly 
begun and held at the town and port of Annapolis the 5th 
day of December, one thousand, seven hundred and four, 
Entitled An Act for Suspending the Prosecution Of Any 
Priests of the Communion of the Church of Rome, incurring 
the penalties of an Act of Assembly entitled An Act for 
Preventing the Growth of Popery by exercising their func 
tions in a private family of the Roman Communion but in 
no other case whatsoever, and every article, matter, clause 
and thing contained shall be and remain in full force and 
effect to all intents and purposes for and during and unto 
the full end and term of twelve months next after the end 
of this sessions of Assembly, or her Majesty s pleasure first 
known." (Archives, xxvi, pp. 630-1. 

By order of Queen Anne, more inclined to justice than her 
Protestant subjects of Maryland, this permission was " con 
tinued [April 15, 1707] without any other limitation of 


of First William and Mary were declared to be in 
full force in the province. 1 

Even before the obnoxious law of 1704 was 
passed two priests were summoned on Sept. 11, 
1704, before Governor Seymour and Council for 
" Dedicating a Popish Chapel and for saying mass/ 
This whole proceeding shows so well the temper of 
the times towards the descendants of those who had 
established religious liberty, that it is here given 
in full. 

" His Excellency being informed that two- 
Popish Priests to wit William Hunter and Robert 
Brooke pursuant to the summons from this Board 
attend to the complaint against them made, and 
that Mr. Charles Carroll, a lawyer, accompanied 
them, asks the Board if the said Priests ought to 
have their Council with them, who unanimously 
agree, say they should not. His Excellency 
queries w T hether upon the pretense of any custom of 
Toleration from the first settlement of this Pro 
vince the actions of these Priests can pretend any 
justification who say not. The said Mr. William 
Hunter and Mr. Robert Brooke appeared and are 

time until her Majesty s further pleasure be declared and 
signified therein. . . . Provided always that this Act nor 
anything therein be taken ... to extend to the defeating, 
rescinding, abrogating, or suspending the force, vigour or 
effect, of the said Act for preventing the growth of popery." 
(Archives, xxvn, pp. 147-8.) 

1 Archives, xxvi, p. 630; see Appendix X. 


told on what occasion they were called before His 
Excellency. Mr. William Hunter gives his Ex 
cellency many thanks for the opportunity of ap 
pearing before his Excellency and says he is very 
sorry for any annoyance in his conduct. As to his 
consecrating the chapel, he did not consecrate it, 
for that is an Episcopal function, that nobody was 
present but himself in his common Priest s vest 
ments; and that neither under his Excellency s 
eyes nor in his presence, but if any such thing was 
done it was above fourteen months ago, long before 
his Excellency s arrival. Mr. Brooke says he did 
not say Mass in the Court Time at the chapel of 
St. Maries but found that others had formerly 
done so. 

" Advised that this being the first complaint, the 
said Mr. Hunter and Mr. Brooke be severely re- 
reprimanded and told they must not expect any 
favour but the utmost severity of the law upon any 
misdemeanor by them committed, and being called 
in, his Excellency was pleased to give them the fol 
lowing reprimand. 

" i Gentlemen : It is the unhappy temper of you 
and all your tribe to grow insolent upon civility 
and never know how to use it, and yet of all peo 
ple, you have the least reason for considering that 
if the necessary laws that are made were let loose 
they are sufficient to crush you and which (if your 
arrogant principles have not blinded you) you 
must need to dread. You might methiiiks be 


content to live quietly as you may, and let the ex 
ercise of your superstitious vanities be confined to 
yourselves without proclaiming them at publick 
times and in publick places unless you expect by 
your gaudy shows and serpentine policy to amuse 
the multitude and beguile the unthinking weakest 
part of them, an act of deceit well known to be 
amongst you. But Gentlemen be not deceived for 
though the clemency of her Majesty s Government 
and of her gracious inclination, leads her to make 
all her subjects easy that know how to be so, yet 
her Majesty is not without means to curb insolence, 
but more specially in your fraternity, who are 
more eminently than others abounding with it; 
and I assure you the next occasion you give me, 
you shall find the truth of what I say, which you 
should now do but that I am willing upon the 
earnest solicitations of some Gentlemen to make 
one trial (and it shall be but this one) of your 
temper. In plain and few words, Gentlemen, if 
you intend to live here let me have no more of 
these things, for if I do, and they are made against 
you, be assured I ll chastise you; and lest you 
should flatter yourselves that the severities of the 
laws will be a means to move the pity of your 
judges, I assure you I do not intend to deal with 
you, so I ll remove the evil by sending you where 
you will be dealt with as you deserve. Therefore 
as I told you I ll make this one trial and advise 
you to be civil and modest for there is no other 


way for you to live quietly here. You are the 
first that have given any disturbance to my Gov 
ernment, and if it were not for the hopes of your 
better demeanor, you should now be the first that 
should feel the effects of so doing. Pray take 
notice that I am an English Protestant Gentle 
man, and can never Equivocate/ After which 
they were discharged." 1 

This so pleased the members of the House of 
Delegates that a week after they addressed the 
following communication to the governor : " By 
a paper read in this House we perceive what your 
Excellency was pleased to say to the two Popish 
Priests on the occasion there mentioned. And as 
all your actions, so this in particular gives us great 
satisfaction to find you generously resolved to pro 
tect her Majesty s Protestant subjects here against 
the insolence and growth of Popery and we are 
cheerfully thankful to you for it." 2 

They had broken no law, they had been al 
lowed neither trial nor counsel, yet were they 
grossly abused by this British bully, who styled 
Mmself an " English Protestant Gentleman." 

" The members of this (same) Board taking 
under their consideration that such use of the 
Popish Chapel of the City of St. Maries, in St. 
Haries County, where there is a Protestant 

1 Archives, xxvi, pp. 44-45; Sept. 11, 1704; ibid., p. 159. 

2 Archives, xxvi, p. 160. 


Church, and the said County Court is kept, is 
scandalous and offensive to the Government, do 
advise and desire his Excellency the Governor to 
give immediate orders for the shutting up the 
said Popish chapel and that no person presume to 
make use thereof under any pretense whatsoever. 
Whereupon it was ordered by His Excellency, the 
Governor, that the Sheriff of St. Maries County 
lock up the said chapel and keep the key thereof." 
In such manner was this hallowed Sanctuary, the 
first founded in Maryland for the worship of God, 
taken forcibly from its legal owners forever. 

Even Ingle s band of marauders, though little 
in their eyes was sacred, touched not with sacrilegi 
ous hands this hallowed shrine wherein the Pil 
grims of Maryland knelt and prayed ; the Puritan, 
with his inborn prejudice and hatred for every 
thing Catholic, though he spared not the lives of 
his foes, paused within the sacred precincts, and 
withdrew his hand unsoiled by desecration; it 
was reserved for the Episcopalian to tear down this 
venerable Sanctuary, adding insult to injury. 2 

1 Archives, xxvi, p. 46; Sept. 11, 1704. 

2 There is a tradition that the bricks were afterwards 
used to build an Episcopal Church and a barn was built 
upon the site of the first Chapel in Maryland. 


About this time (1700-04) a law seems to have 
been passed making the leading Episcopal clergy 
men who were called Commissaries, the judges of 
testamentary cases. They appear to have made 
an ineffectual effort to have some extreme criminal 
causes also placed under their jurisdiction. 1 

1 " The Governor and Assembly of Maryland had, indeed," 
says Dr. Bray, " in the years 1794 and 1795, after they 
had set out parishes and established a maintenance for 
parochial ministers; they did also, I say, with great alac 
rity take proper measures, as they thought, to support one 
to preside over them. And to that purpose they passed an 
Act, vesting the office of Judge in Testamentary Causes, 
upon such an ecclesiastical person as the said Lord Bishop 
of London, for the time being, should commissionate under 
him. The country, I am sure did very much desire it, 
as supposing the administration of Justice from a clergy 
man would redound to their own benefit, in a Court in 
whose justice does depend the Estates of all the orphans 
and widows of that country. 

" The office of judge in Testamentary causes is an office 
of an ecclesiastical nature, an office that the country have 
desired might be vested in an ecclesiastical person. . . . 
(Perry Papers, pp. 57-9. Archives, xix, pp. 469-497.) 

"... Lastly I find there comes under my cognizance 
several very important cases to be speedily tried with rela 
tion to the clergy and laity. To determine several of which, 
being of so high a nature as forgery of Holy Orders, Polyg 
amy and Incest, I want instructions as to the manner and 
forms of proceedings: And as it appears to me have no 



In earlier colonial days when the greater part 
of the people were Catholics, the Jesuits also desir 
ed to have testamentary causes adjudicated by the 
ecclesiastical court. As this would have been an 
infringement upon the plan of religious equality 
to all which he had adopted for the colony, Lord 
Baltimore assigned the causes testamentary to the 
Secretary. 1 

An effort was now made to prevent the immigra 
tion of Catholics into the province. A law was 

power, by my commission to give such sentences as the 
nature of the crimes will require. And in the due execu 
tion of which, as I perceive I have many eyes upon me:" 
(Letter of Dr. Bray, Fund. Pub., No. 37, p. 180.) 

Of this passage Joseph Wyeth, one of the colonists and 
apparently a Quaker, remarks : 

". . . Had the Doctor designed to govern himself in his 
pretended Spiritual Function, and Ecclesiastical Jurisdic 
tion, by that Rule, he could not want any necessary instruc 
tions, relating to the manner of proceeding against sinners 
of his Communion. But it seems it is something more 
that he wants, viz. to give such sentence as the nature of 
polygamy and incest do require. The Doctor does well to 
tread softly here, and see that his power be full before he 
exercise the office of Civil Magistrate, and venture to give 
such sentences as the nature of these crimes require, lest 
he incur a Premunire; for who knows not that these crimes 
are in their Nature justly deemed Capital and the sen 
tences which our laws have provided for them are accord 
ing. Here the Doctor s commission was short, he might 
excommunicate but not hang the wicked, and it is like that 
it will be no short while before the government put into his 
hands such a branch of the civil power." (Ibid.) 

1 Johnson, Foundation of Maryland, pp. 56-98; Archives, 
in, p. 158. 


passed (October 3rd, 1704) imposing a fine of 20 
shillings for every Irish servant imported into the 
colony. 1 In 1717 this duty was doubled. 2 With 
what ludicrous fear did the few Catholics inspire 
the Protestant mind ? Catholics at that time were 
about one-twelfth of the population. 3 

1 Archives, xxvi, pp. 289-292. 

"An Act imposing three pence per Gallon on rum and wine, 
brandy and spirits, and 20 shillings per poll for negroes, 
for raising a supply to defray the public charge of this 
province, and 20 shillings per poll on Irish servants to 
prevent the importing of too great a number of Iri sh 
Papists into this province." Apparently the law was found 
to work a hardship on the Protestant merchants, for on the 
same day another law was passed exempting Maryland 
owners of vessels from the action of this law. (Ibid., xxvi, 
p. 349.) 

Governor Seymour " observing what white servants are 
or have been imported into Her Majesty s province are gen 
erally Irish Papists who are induced to come hither, by the 
false though specious pretences, of the free exercise of their 
Superstitious worship, and having lands at the head of the 
Bay settled on them at the expiration of their service . . . 
and considering their settlements at the head of the Bay 
frontier most liable to the invasion of the common enemy 
he asks for a duty of 20 shillings per poll as discourage 
ment to their importation." (Archives, xxvi, pp. 568-9.) 

On December 17th 1708, we find the former law imposing 
the " 20 shillings per poll tax on Irish servants " revived. 
(Archives, xxvii, p. 371.) 

2 Bacon s Laws, 1717, ch. x. 

8 Perry Papers, p. 38. The total population in 1708 was 
33,833, of these 2,974 were Catholics. The Catholics were 
distributed as follows: In Anne Arundel County there 
were 161; Baltimore County, 53; Calvert Co., 48; Prince 


The following incident brings before us vividly 
in a picture of the time, the calm dignity of a zeal 
ous priest 110 less than the brutal conduct of the 
Governor. " Mr. George Thorrold, a Jesuit be 
ing brought before the board, His Excellency was 
pleased to tell him he wondered what he had to do 
with servants to seduce a poor sick maid servant 
of his to change her religion when almost dying. 
The said Thorrold answers that he saw the woman 
at Mr. Carroll s where she came to him, but that 
he never saw her either before or after. Being asked 
if he then knew her to be the Governor s servant, 
asknowledged he did. His Excellency told him 
that heretofore in a Protestant house in this Town 
of Annapolis just under his nose he came and 
christened a child in contempt of the law. Mr. 
Thorrold answered that he understood that no one 
lived in the house but the woman (whose child he 
christened) who was a Catholic. His Excellency 
tells him that his behaviour at this time especially 
when those of his faction were setting up the pre 
tended Prince of Wales in her Majesty s kingdom 
of Great Britain, was very audacious. And the 
very first time he knows he says Mass in this 
Town he will set him by the heels, the second time 
indict him, the third time send him home to Eiig- 

George s County, 248; Charles Co., 709; St. Mary s 1,238; 
Cecil Co., 49; Kent Co., 40; Queen Anne Co., 179; Talbot 
Co., 89; Dorchester Co., 79; Somerset Co., 81. (Archives, 
xxv, 258.) 


land in irons, and dismissed him bidding him take 
care, saying he will have him narrowly watched." 1 
The name of Governor Seymour will go down in 
Maryland history with little that is manly and 
honorable attached to it. 

If the administration of Governor Hart was 
marked by less coarse brutality, especially on the 
part of His Excellency himself, the measures 
which were adopted during his incumbency sur 
passed in refined cruelty anything that had gone 
before, or that was ever afterwards honored by the 
name of law in Maryland. 

In 1715 was enacted the following ordinance: 
" That when any person being a Protestant shall 
die and leave a widow and children, and such a 
widow shall marry with any person of the Romish 
communion, or be herself of that opinion and pro 
fession, it shall and may be lawful for his Ma 
jesty s Governor and Council, within this pro 
vince, upon application to them made, to remove 
such child or children out of the custody of such 
parents, and place them where they may be secure 
ly educated in the Protestant religion." 2 Thus 
did Anglican bigotry, not content with driving the 
inoffensive Catholics from civil life, even invade 
the sanctity of the home to rend asunder the na 
tural bonds between a widow and her children. 

June 9, 1708. Archives, xxv, p. 241. 
2 Bacon s Laws, ch. 39, Sec. x, 1715. 


And as if this were not a sufficiently dark blot upon 
the fair name of Maryland, the power thus to break 
up the family of a defenceless widow was given in 
1729 to any petty justice of a county court, as 
may be seen from the following : " Be it enacted, 
that where any person being a Protestant who 
shall intermarry with a Papist, or be herself a 
Papist, it shall and may be lawful for the Justices 
of the County Courts, upon application, to remove 
such child or children out of the custody of their 
mother, and place him or her or them, where he, 
she, or they may be securely educated in the Pro 
testant religion. 

Such a law was repellent to the first instincts 
of nature and outraged the most sacred love of the 
human heart. When the bereaved household was 
plunged in grief by the loss of the husband and 
father, when every concession should have been 
extended to the widow and her family, this law 
enacted by the Episcopal government in the land 
made sanctuary by the benevolence of Catholics, 
gave to any heartless informer who chose to exer 
cise it the power to separate a mother from her 
children. It is the most disgraceful page in Mary 
land history. Such harsh measures as we have 
seen taken against the Catholics must not, how 
ever, be laid at the door of the Episcopalians in 
general, but only of the class that had, of late, 

1 Bacon s Laws, Ch. 24, Sec. xn, 1729. 


come into power. There is even reason to be 
lieve that the better element did not regard with 
favor these harsh measures. The Upper Cham 
ber or Council, is generally found showing a 
leaning towards juster enactments, intolerant in 
deed, but less cruel. 

Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore, recogniz 
ing the difficulties of the Catholics while powerless 
to prevent the persecution of his brethren, at that 
time and probably on other occasions afforded aid 
to the missionaries. In his instructions to his 
agent, Charles Carroll (1712), he ordered that 
8,000 Ibs. of tobacco be paid to eight Catholic 
clergymen in the Province. 1 

This period appears to have been an unhappy 
one for the colony in every respect. " The popu 
lation was not much increased during the royal 
government. In 1689, it contained about twenty- 
five thousand inhabitants ; and in 1710, only thirty 
thousand. Immigration, the principal cause of 
the rapid increase in the population of the colony 
during the preceding era, had in a great degree 
ceased. But few or no families have come into 
the province to reside, of late years/ says the re 
port of the Assembly, in 1697. Some single per 
sons, mostly women, are of late come from Eng 
land or Ireland, in the quality of servants, in all 
about sixty souls. Indeed, the low price which 

1 Kilty, p. 129. 


the planter hath of late been constrained to accept 
from the merchant, hath obliged many here, find 
ing their industry would not supply their neces 
sities, to try their fortunes elsewhere, to the ap 
parent and considerable diminution of the num 
ber of our inhabitants, compared with preceding 
years and lists. The population had never been 
much increased by emigrants from other colonies ; 
and the principal causes which had hitherto in 
duced emigration from England, had now ceased 
to operate. Under the Proprietary government, it 
was a city of refuge to all who sought shelter from 
civil or religious oppression. The Catholic here 
found peace and security ; and the non-conforming 
Protestant came hither, to enjoy, under a Catholic 
ruler, the toleration denied to him by his Protest 
ant brethren. The enemy of arbitrary preroga 
tive found it here in subjection to the laws ; and the 
friend of civil liberty discovered, in the organiza 
tion and powers of the provincial Assembly, the 
essential features of a government based upon the 
people s will. In these respects, it then present 
ed a striking contrast, not only to the condition of 
the mother country, but also to that of most of the 
sister colonies; but the contrast had now ceased. 
Maryland was now under a royal government ; and 
its people subject to the restrictions of an estab 
lished church. To the Catholic, it offered nothing 
but disqualification and penalties ; and to the non- 
conforming Protestant, it now gave no privileges, 


which he could not enjoy in England, under the 
system of Protestant toleration established by the 
revolution. At the same time, many of the tem 
poral inducements to settlers were removed. Lands 
were no longer given as a bounty to emigrants; 
and the controversies about his land rights, in 
which the Proprietary was involved for several 
years after the revolution, rendered it difficult to 
obtain grants from him upon acceptable terms." 1 

McMahon, p. 273. 


Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore, died 
February 20th, 1715, at the age of 85. Four 
years before his death he had petitioned the gov 
ernment to restore his colony to him, but his peti 
tion was denied on account of his faith. His life 
was saddened by the conduct of his son and heir, 
Benedict Leonard, who in 1705 had been divorced 
from his wife 1 and who two years before his 

1 Benedict Leonard Calvert On January 2, 1698, mar 
ried Lady Charlotte Lee, daughter of the Earl of Litch- 
field . . . grandchild of the notorious Duchess of Cleve 
land, from whom he was divorced in 1705. (Morris, p. 43.) 

McMahon is in error when he says of Charles Calvert 
" he induced his son and heir apparent, Benedict Leonard 
Calvert, to embrace the doctrines of the established church," 
p. 279. The contrary is seen from a letter of Benedict 
Leonard himself. The Humble Petition of Benedict Leon 
ard Calvert to the King sets forth his renouncement of his 
" Romish Errors," the " unkindness " of the petitioner s 
father who withdrew his son s annuity after the latter s 
apostasy, thus obliging him to live upon his marriage 
settlement, and how immediately after changing his reli 
gion he brought his six children home from foreign Popish 
Seminaries, where they were being educated at his father s 
charge, placing them in Protestant schools. He relates how 
the late Queen granted him a pension out of consideration 
of "his hard usage by his father," and had also directed 
the governor of Maryland to remit the Petitioner 500 
per annum out of the revenues of Maryland: Therefore, 



father s death, in the hope of eventually obtaining 
possession of the Province denied to his father, 
publicly renounced his faith (1713) and entered 
the Church of England. He lived but a short time, 
however, to enjoy his title. He died only a few 
weeks after his father, April 5th, 1715. 

The title descended to his son Charles, the fifth 
Lord Baltimore who was then sixteen years of age. 
Representations being made to King George that 
Charles was a Protestant, the Palatinate was re 
stored to him under the terms of the original 
charter. The Assembly of Maryland adopted an 
address expressive of their deep and abiding grati 
tude that the administration of the province had 
been finally put upon a wholly Protestant estab 
lishment, and expressing the hope that further 
toleration might not be granted to Catholics. 1 

he prays, that, in consideration of his change of faith, his 
pension may be continued, that if possible he may be made 
Governor of Maryland during his father s lifetime," with a 
saving of all the rights of the patent, which is his inherit 
ance." (Archives, xxv, pp. 271-272, 1708-9.) 

1 Address of the Upper House to Charles Calvert and his 
guardian Lord Guilford. (May 14, 1719.) 

" It was with the greatest satisfaction imaginable that 
we fell upon the consideration of your Lordships speech 
. . . and sensibly touched with your Lordships condescen 
sion upon putting us upon an establishment truly Pro 
testant; where by the very grounds and motives of those 
jealousies, which of late made your Lordship s Protestant 
tenants very uneasy, are effectually removed, and room 
made for the truly charitable and Christian spirit of the 


Charles was not in any great danger of over- 
worry in regard to religious toleration. " As 
gentleman of the bed-chamber/ says Morris, 
" Lord Baltimore was the unscrupulous minister 
of the Prince s intrigues and dishonest alliances, 

Church of England, to show hoio indulgent she is to the 
professors of the Romish religion, although at the same 
time she knows them to be her irreconcilible enemies; nor 
can anything be wanting to the security of the Papists 
here, while they demean themselves good subjects to our 
King, forbearing and discountenancing all evil practises 
that may render them obnoxious to the government.". . . 
(Calvert Collection Mss.) Italics the author s. 

The Lower House, two years after, take occasion to ex 
press to their Lordships their gratification at their "com 
passion for truly scrupulous consciences." 

" We beg leave," they say, " to applaud your Lordships 
compassion to consciences truly scrupulous, a principle 
which speaks you true sons of that Holy and Pious Church, 
which practises charity with all mankind. And do further 
assure you that we are led by our inclinations, as well as 
principles to the same compassion for all such persons of 
scrupulous conscience as demean themselves inoffensive 
in the government, and do not endeavor the perverting 
of his Majesty s Protestant subjects to the Church of 
Home. But if any such persons should complain of per 
secution, merely because we do not make particular laws 
in their favour to be a barrier and as it were a screen to 
them against the laws of Great Britain, we flatter our 
selves that your Lordships will have such a just regard of 
the sincerity of our proceedings, that you will not upon the 
suggestions or insinuations of any such evil-minded persons, 
lessen that confidence so happily established between your 
Lordships and your Great Council of this Province. . . ." 
(Calvert Collection Mss.) 


and did service disgraceful even in a Court which 
had to wait for another reign to introduce the 
fashion of good morals. . . . He was not even a 
decently educated man." 1 " Charles, fifth 
Baron/ says Hall, " was characterized by weak 
ness and vanity, manifested alike, in his career as 
a courtier, his relations with the Province, and his 
dealings in connection with the boundary dis 
putes." 2 

John Hart was the first governor under the new 
regime. To the creditof any justice towards Catho 
lics Governor Hart is not in the least entitled. While 
acknowledging the incompetency and ill-conduct 
of the Episcopal ministers and the consequent de 
fection of many Episcopalians to the Catholic 
Church, he confesses that the only remedy is to 
restrain the Catholic priests by force of law. 
" There are," he writes in 1714, " among the 
clergy of Maryland many worthy persons, who de 
serve more encouragement than can be expected 
here. I am sorry to represent to your Lordship, on 
the contrary, that there are some whose education 
and morals are a scandal to their profession, and 
I am amazed how such illiterate men came to be 
in holy orders. The advantages which the Jesuits 
have from their negligence is but too evident in 
the many proselytes they make. NOT is there any 

1 Morris, p. 50. 

2 The Lords Baltimore, p. 172. 


other remedy for this growing evil, but by mak 
ing use of the authority I have to constrain them 
from entering the houses of dying persons. Mais 
les Jesuites sont Jesuites par tout." 

Taking advantage of a rumor that some Catho 
lics and others in the province had offered to drink 
the health of the Pretender, and " were otherwise 
favoring his claims/ the Governor issued a Procla 
mation placing such Papists under surveillance, 
and obliging them if suspected to take the Test 
Oath and other oaths obnoxious to Catholics. On 
refusing to take these oaths they are to give bail 
for their appearance at Court, and in default of 
this be committed to jail. 2 

Indeed it is scarcely to be wondered at if some 
of the Catholics, smarting under the continued in 
sults to which they were subjected, longed for a 
change and expressed themselves at times with 
more indignation than prudence. They were not 
saints prepared to suffer without a word every in 
justice and indignity. After all they were only 
human, and they remembered how their fathers 
had provided the funds for the fathers of their 
persecutors to come to Maryland, and had given 

1 Perry Papers, p. 78. A year later he writes: (Sep 
tember 6th, 1715): "the inhabitants are daily carried 
away from our church by the craft and subtlety of insinuat 
ing Jesuits and separatists of all kinds, who make great 
advantages of the sloth and ill-conduct of our clergy." 
(Perry Papers, p. 81.) 
a Archives, xxv, p. 335. 


them afterwards the liberty and power, which their 
children were so shamefully abusing. 

Notwithstanding all the measures that had been 
adopted to suppress them, the Catholics constantly 
increased, and strange, as it may seem, the increase 
was due in great part to conversions of Episcopali 
ans. In 1714, twenty-one Episcopalian ministers 
complained of " the indulgence " allowed the 
Catholic priests. 1 This renewed campaign of the 
ministers against the Catholics and their clergy 
was soon felt in the legislation which followed. 

In 1716 a law w r as enacted: " That in case any 
person who holds any office or trust within this 
Province, and has taken the oaths appointed by 
this law, shall afterwards be present at any Popish 
assembly, conventicle or meeting, and join with 
them in their service at Mass or receive the Sacra 
ment in that Communion, he shall not only forfeit 
his office and incur the penalty in the Act limited, 
but also be incapable of taking, holding or execut 
ing any commission or place of trust within this 
Province, until he shall be fully reconciled to the 
Church of England, and receive the Communion 
therein. 2 

~Not content with the laws already in force, de 
signed to grind down the Catholics, in 1718 they 
were deprived of the franchise by a law for that 

y Papers, p. 77. 
2 Bacon s Laws, 1716. 


purpose, enforcing the taking of the Test Oath as 
a qualification for voting. " Whereas," it reads, 
" notwithstanding all the measures that have been 
hitherto taken for preventing the growth of popery 
within this province, it is very obvious, that not 
only professed Papists still multiply and increase 
in numbers, but that there are also too great numbers 
of others that adhere to and espouse their interest 
in opposition to the Protestant Establishment ; and 
being under a just apprehension (from what steps 
they have already taken) that if Papists should 
continue to be allowed their vote in electing of 
delegates, they, with their adherents and those un 
der their influence, will make such a party at the 
elections of many of the counties within this pro 
vince, as well as the City of Annapolis, as to de 
termine the choice of some of their great favourites 
and adherents; which if they should accomplish, 
how much it would tend to the discouragement and 
disturbance of his Lordship s Protestant govern 
ment, it is not easy to imagine. It is, therefore, 
humbly prayed, that it may be enacted, that all 
professed Papists whatsoever, be and are hereby 
declared, incapable of giving their vote in any elec 
tion of a delegate or delegates within this Province, 
either for counties, cities, or boroughs, unless they 
first qualify themselves for so doing by taking the 
several Oaths appointed to be taken by an Act of 
Assembly of this Province, entitled An Act for the 
Better Security of the Peace and Safety of his 


Lordship s Government, and the Protestant Inter 
est within this Province, and subscribe the oath of 
abjuration and declaration therein mentioned; and 
further, inasmuch as too many persons that are 
either really Papists, or popishly inclined, act in 
disguise, and will not make any public profession 
of their principles, for the better and more effectu 
al carrying on their wicked and malicious designs, 
for the undermining and subverting our present 
Establishment ; Be It Therefore Further Enacted, 
that it shall and may be lawful for the Sheriff, or 
other Judges of Elections, and such Sheriff, or 
other Judges, are hereby required, as often as any 
of them shall see needful (or upon the information 
of any other Person duly qualified to vote) to 
tender and administer the oaths and subscriptions 
aforesaid, to any person or persons, suspected to 
be Papists or Popishly inclined, and upon their 
refusal, to set aside such vote or votes. Provided 
Always, That nothing in this Act be construed to 
debar or hinder any of the people called and gen 
erally reputed Quakers, from their votes in elec 
tions, they being otherwise duly qualified." 1 

1 Bacon s Laws. 

The oaths referred to as prescribed in 1716 were as fol 

(Oath of Allegiance.) 

" T, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, That I will be 
faithful and bear true Allegiance to his Majesty King 
George. So help me God." 


No crime, be it remembered, were the Catholics, 
as a body, even accused of. At the most for a 
groundless suspicion were they deprived of the 
rights of citizenship which were accorded to all 

(Oath of Abhorrency.) 

" I, A. B. do swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest 
and abjure, as impious and heretical that damnable doc 
trine and position, That Princes excommunicated or de 
prived by the Pope, or by any authority of the See of 
Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or 
any other whatsoever. And I do declare That no foreign 
Prince, Person, Prelate, State or Potentate, hath or ought 
to have, any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preeminence 
or Authority, Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within the King 
dom of Great Britain, or any the Dominions thereto be 
longing. So help me God." 

" I, A. B. do declare that I do believe that there is not 
any Transubstantiation in the Sacrament of the Lord s 
Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or 
after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever." 

The act declares that without taking these oaths " no 
person or persons whatsoever, shall be capable of holding 
or enjoying any office, deputation or trust within this 
Province whatsoever. And in case any person or persons 
whatsoever, shall presume to execute or enjoy any such 
office, deputation or trust, contrary to the true intent and 
meaning of this present Act, the commission, deputation or 
authority of such person or persons is not only hereby de 
clared to be utterly void ab initio, but he or they so act 
ing or offending, shall forfeit to his Lordship, the Right 
Honourable the Lord Proprietary of this Province, his 
heirs and successors, Two Hundred and fifty pounds Ster 
ling; one half to be applied to the use of free Schools 
within this Province, the other half to the informer, or to 
him or them that shall sue for the same, &c." (Bacon s 
Laws of Maryland. 


others. Nor could it be said that they were unfit 
for the duties of citizenship, and the exercise of 
these rights. These laws against them were dic 
tated by the meanest of motives narrow bigotry 
and jealousy. As Fiske remarks, " oppressive 
statutes had not prevented the Catholics from in 
creasing in numbers and the influence which 
ability and character always wield. They were 
preeminently the picked men of the colony." 

The fear of the Catholics, though undoubtedly 
often feigned for the attainment of selfish ends, 
was sometimes ludicrous in its genuine simplicity 
and readiness to swallow any tale that might be 
coated with the toothsome suspicion of being a 
" popish plot." An incident in January, 1715, illu 
strates this. Father Hunter had borrowed a book 
from a Mrs. Hemsley. On returning the book he 
left in it, evidently by accident, a letter written 
by Father Atwood and intended for another priest 
Father Killuck. To nullify any " popist charms 
or spells " against her, Mrs. Hemsley said that 
she tied a ribbon about the letter. She confessed 
that though the letter " was of dangerous conse 
quence and tended to excite rebellion," she had 
kept it concealed. The Governor obtaining this 
letter, so fraught with dreadful consequences to 
the province, presented it before the Council. 
After much ado, in sending post haste, up and 

1 Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors, n, p. 170. 


down, for various persons supposed to be connected 
in some mysterious way with this " Popish Plot/ 
and obliging witnesses to leave their plantations 
to attend Court; after much swearing in and ex 
amining of testimony before the Judges of the 
Provincial Court, it developed that the letter was 
an answer to one from Father Killuck in which 
the latter asked to see a sermon Father Atwood had 
preached on the text : " Per totam noctem labor- 
antes, nihil cepimus!" l 

Apparently chagrined by the failure to scent a 
conspiracy, the governor informs the Council that 
he has some " intimation " of disaffection among 
the Catholics and others of Prince George County ; 
whereupon he issues a proclamation that any sus 
pected persons are to be brought before a magis 
trate and obliged to take the oaths of Allegiance 
and Supremacy and the Test Oath. If they re 
fuse they are to give security for their appearance 
at the County Court, or be committed to jail. 2 

As the test oath was one pertaining to religion 
which no Catholic could take, it is easily seen how 
great a hardship this might become for one of that 
faith. This law was not a dead-letter. Even as 
late as 1746 we find it in full force. 3 

1 " We have labored all the night and have taken nothing." 
A fitting text for this ridiculous procedure. "Parturi- 
unt monies, nascetur ridiculus mus." 

2 Archives, xxv, pp. 327-335. 

3 " Last week," says the Maryland Gazette, (March 25th, 
1746), "some persons of the Romish Communion were 



When the cause of these enactments by the Gov 
ernor is laid bare, one is amazed, and indeed 
hesitates to believe the testimony, were it not for 
the unimpeachable character of the witness. While 
Governor Hart was raising the hue and cry against 
the Catholics, it now appears that he was making 
an effort to cover his own tracks, and to lead sus 
picion from his own treasonable designs. Rev. 
Jacob Henderson (1718) charges the Governor 
with accusing Lord Baltimore and Lord Guilford 
of being Papists in order to secure the government, 
for himself. Writing to the Bishop of London, he 
says : " Mr. Hall and Mr. Thomas Cockshutt 
(Episcopalian clergymen and friends of Governor 
Hart) have most scandalously gone about the coun 
try here raising a faction against my Lord Balti 
more, telling people he is a Roman Catholic, and 
they offered to the Clergy a petition to your Lord 
ship, to endeavor to have the government taken 
from him and given to the Governor, which the 
clergy refused to be concerned in ; but this they 
knew would wonderfully please him, for he is now 
playing his old game against that noble Lord, and 
representing him and his guardian, Lord Guil 
ford, to be Papists. There is not in reality the 
least danger from them, but Mr. Hall being very 

apprehended, and upon examination were obliged to give 
security for their appearance at the Provincial Court." 


serviceable to him in these purposes, makes him 
very dear to him." x 

Few as the priests were at this time in the 
colony, they seem to have inspired the ministers 
with an abiding fear which caused some of them 
to exaggerate their number beyond reason. In an 
interesting letter to the Bishop of London at this 
time, Eev. Mr. Kainsford writes : " We have in 
this Province a vast number of Jesuits, who, by 
their sophistry and cunning, make proselytes daily 
throughout the whole Government. They are ad 
vanced to such heights of assurance as to send 
public challenges, and to disperse their popish 
books thro all quarters of the country. The en 
closed paper to me is an instance where I am ob 
liged either to answer or give up the cause. I no 
way doubt (when my reply is ready), but I shall 
be able to check the force and dam up the current 
of such proceedings. I need not tell your Lord 
ship that those of this order are men of subtlety 

1 Perry Papers, p. 111. Italics the author s. 

The Rev. Jacob Henderson was the Commissary of the 
Western Shore, which position made him the leader of the 
clergy in that section of the State, and the Ecclesiastical 
representative of the Bishop of London. Of all the Episco 
pal clergymen at that time, he was, without doubt, the 
most respectable. He is the only minister of that time 
who speaks an occasional just word for the Catholics. He 
was therefore accused of being friendly to them (Perry 
Papers, pp. 253-254). But this he indignantly denies. 


and politics. They are generally very careful to 
approve themselves to the world. They suffer 
nothing unattempted which may raise their credit 
in the judgment of the people. This is ohvious 
from their deluding the credulous. They take vast 
pains to ward off any disadvantageous measures 
that may shed disparagement on their Society. In 
short, they are so numerous that their name is 
Legion. They possess the people, and nothing but 
a regal power can cast them out. Upon what bot 
tom they subsist amongst us ; how their privileges 
are maintained and their encroachments supported, 
I can but guess at. All I shall observe is this, that 
in time it may prove fatal thus to give them liberty 
to propagate their kind, for every proselyte they 
make a subject s lost, and as they increase, the in 
terest of our Church and King must proportionate 
ly sink. Your Lordship, in your wisdom, knows 
best how to put a stop to the growing evil. The 
grievance is not redressed here, and their friends 
and money are too powerful a spirit (when raised) 
for the feeble attacks of a contemptible adversary 
to lay again. Now I think it is every man s busi 
ness to discourage superstition, to stop the progress 
of idolatry, and help those to right that suffer 
wrong. He that sees an infection spread, and 
won t be quick with his antidote, is guilty as far 
as the morality reaches." 1 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 251-252. 1725. 


Mr. Kainsford had received a challenge to a de 
bate. It must have been the force of the argu 
ments advanced by his challenger which inspired 
him with the idea that the priests are " so numer 
ous that their name is Legion/ for at this time 
there were nineteen Jesuits in Maryland and 
about twenty-five Episcopal ministers, l 

1 Calvert Papers, in, p. 53. 


Although the Province had been restored to its 
rightful owner, Charles, the Fifth Lord Baltimore, 
when it became known that he was a Protestant, yet 
this seems to have had little effect in alleviating 
the condition of the Catholics. ~No new laws were 
passed against them, while the Proprietary exer 
cised himself the office of Governor, but at the same 
time, none of the old laws were repealed. At any 
moment the threatening storm might break. In 
nocent though they might be of giving any occa 
sion for fresh persecutions, the occasion might be 
manufactured at will from the wild imaginings of 
those in control of affairs, or if it was found neces 
sary for their own purposes, occasion might be made 
out of hand, as had been done before. 

Some such opportunity seems to have presented 
itself in 1746 for in that year Governor Bladin 
issued a proclamation against all priests who 
should convert Protestants and ordering both 
priests and converts to be imprisoned. 1 

1 " Whereas, I have received certain information that sev 
eral Jesuits and other Popish priests and their emissaries 
have presumed of late, especially since the unnatural re 
bellion broke out in Scotland, to seduce and prevert sev 
eral of His Majesty s Protestant subjects from their reli- 



The petty spirit of intolerance is noticeable 
especially in the Lower House, 1 and in the repre- 

gion, and to alienate their affections from his Majesty s 
royal person and government, although such practices are 
high treason, not only in the priests or their emissaries 
who shall seduce and pervert, but also in those who shall 
be seduced or perverted; I have therefore thought fit with 
the advice of His Lordship s Council of State to issue this 
my Proclamation, to charge all Jesuits and other Popish 
priests and their emissaries to forbear such traitorous 
practises, and to assure such of them as shall dare here 
after to offend that they shall be prosecuted according to 
law. And all magistrates within this province are hereby 
strictly required and charged, when and as often they shall 
be informed, or have reason to suspect, of any Jesuit or 
any other Popish priests, or any of their emissaries offend 
ing in the premises, to issue a warrant or warrants against 
such offenders to take his or their examinations, and the 
examinations or the depositions of the witnesses against 
them; and, if need be to commit such offender or offenders 
to prison, until he or they shall be delivered by due course 
if law. And I do hereby strictly charge and require the 
several sheriffs of this province to make this my proclama 
tion public in their respective counties, in the usual man.- 
ner." (Maryland Gazette, July 22, 1746.) 

1 The colonial records of this period are filled with " grie 
vances " against Catholics, setting forth the dangers of 
Popery, together with petitions for their further disabling 
and proposed legislation providing for their exclusion from 
the province. Bills were continually introduced by which 
" the importing of German and French Papists and popish 
priests and Jesuits " into Maryland was to be forbidden. 
In reply to the clamors of the Lower House Governor 
Sharpe wrote, " The magistrates assure me that after a 
careful enquiry and scrutiny into the conduct of the- people 
of the Romish faith, who reside among us, they have not 
found that any of them have misbehaved or given just 
cause of offence." (L. H. J., Ms.) 


sentations made to the House by the Episcopalian 
clergymen. l 

1 Letters of Governor Sharpe, I, p. 240. He says that the 
Assembly presented him with " a furious address against 
the Roman Catholics." 

At this time complaints were made of " Papists send 
ing their children to foreign seminaries; of Priests living 
together ; having public mass-houses, and propagating with 
great industry their doctrine, etc." 

Another report submitted to the Lower House also 
declares that, " Popery is too assiduously propagated. That 
too many priests are coming into the country, and that as 
very good provision is made for able and faithful minis 
ters, prays that those sent may be of orthodox faith, well- 
learned, and of exemplary lives. . . . We further pray that 
your Excellency will put into all places of trust and profit, 
none but faithful Protestant subjects, known as such by 
their civil and religious principles." (L. H. J., Hss. 
Folio. ) 

The Committee on Grievances again reports later on 
that " Contrary to Statutes, a papist keeps a school 
for the education of youth within six miles of Anna 
polis. . . . Benj. Wright says: "a certain James Elston, a 
papist, keeps a school near his house which is about 7 miles 
from Annapolis; that he has heard Elston say that he 
would educate such of the people s children in the Romish 
Religion as approved of it, and such as did not he would 
educate in the Protestant way. That he (Elston) told him 
that he was a Papist and went to Mass." ... " That 
Popish priests or Jesuits, take grants of land from the 
Lord Proprietary as well as deeds from others in their own 
names, whereon they build public Mass Houses, planta 
tions, seminaries, for the public exercise of their functions; 
of which Mass Houses (exclusive of many Mass Houses in 
private families) there are six or more seated, besides 


Iii consequence of this constant and petty nag- 
trusts of lands held in their right ready to be seated for the 
purposes aforesaid. . . . That many Papists openly send 
their children to St. Omer s and other Popish seminaries, 
out of the King s obedience, many of whom return to this 
Province propagating their doctrine without control, which 
if not timely checked may be of dangerous consequence to 
this part of his Majesty s domination. . . . That a Ger 
man priest or Jesuit, has a seat of land, or place for exercis 
ing the Popish religion near the Back Mountain. . . , 
. . . That not only most of the Papists within this Pro 
vince exert their power and interest to procure such per 
sons to be elected into your honorable House as they think 
most suitable for their purpose, but more particularly Mr. 
Charles Carroll, a powerful Papist, before and at the late 
election did endeavor to influence many Electors. . . . All 
of which we humbly conceive to be great grievances, intro 
ducing of dangerous broils, and tend to alienate the af 
fection of his Majesty s Protestant subjects of Maryland 
from his Lordship s good rule." (L. H. J., Mss. Folio.) 
See Appendix R. 

It was not long afterwards reported by " several cler 
gymen and other gentlemen of the Church of England. 
. . . That the growth of Popery within this Province is be 
came notorious by the public preaching of priests, . . . 
and corrupting the minds of youth by teaching school 
publicly, and that the Papists not content with sending 
their own children to be brought up at St. Omer s . . . 
endeavor to prevail on Protestants to do the same. The Com 
mittee humbly conceives that sending children into foreign 
popish seminaries for education is against the law and that 
endeavoring to or perverting any subject to the Church of 
Rome is likewise illegal, and that such and other practises 
of the Papists tend to endanger the established Church and 
State therein." 
. . . Here follows a list of charges: 1. Popish schoolmast- 


ging, and persecution, the Catholics authorized 
Charles Carroll, the father of the Signer, in 1752 
to apply to the French government for a tract of 
]and in Louisiana. But when he showed on the map 
the desired territory on the Arkansas River to the 
French Minister of State, the Minister astonished 
at the extent of the tract, interposed objections 
until the plan was defeated. 1 

Like the children of Israel in the land of Egypt 
the Catholics continued to grow in numbers. 
They were fined, disfranchised, their children and 
their possessions taken from them, they were soci 
ally ostracised, yet they held to their faith in spite 
of all, and what was the greatest crime of all 
they increased. 2 

ers teaching Protestant children openly in school. 2. Chil 
dren of Popish parents sent to St. Omer s and Protestants 
influenced to do the same. 3. Priests making proselytes, 
and refusing to marry a Catholic to a Protestant, without 
the usual promises from the Protestant party. 4. Public 
preaching. Signed by Episcopalian Ministers. (L. H. J., 
Mss. Folio.} 

1 Latrobe s Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, p. 240. 

2 In Maryland Gazette we read: "Does Popery increase 
in this Province? The great numbers of Popish chapels 
and the crowds that resort to them, as well as the great 
number of their youth sent this year to foreign popish 
seminaries for education, prove to a demonstration that it 
does. Moreover many Popish Priests and Jesuits hold 
sundry large tracts of land, manors, and other tenements, 
and in several of them have dwelling houses, where they 
live in a collegiate manner, having public Mass-Houses 
where they exercise their religious functions. . . with the 
greatest industry, and without control." (Oct. 17th, 1754.) 


But a blow was now aimed at them which was 
expected to inflict a mortal wound and extinguish 
the name of Catholic from the soil of the Sanctu 
ary. Although it failed of its purpose, it illu 
strates the extreme bitterness felt for them in the 
province founded by their fathers. 

It will be recalled, that the Catholic Proprie 
taries had studiously refrained from any act which 
might be construed an endowment of their own 
church or clergy. With the purpose of establish 
ing perfect religious freedom, they had given a fair 
field to all and favor to none. The Catholic priests- 
had received grants of land according to the usual 
"Conditions of Plantation." The same concession 
was made to any minister who should elect to- 
settle in Maryland ; the colonists also, following the 
exampleof the Proprietary, to show their impartial 
ity, had turned over the fine of Dr. Gerrard to be 
used for the first ministers who should come to the 
colony. 1 The title, therefore, of the priests to 
their lands was as clear, as unimpeachable as that 
of any other settler. Any voi dance of their rights 
was a declaration of invalidity against any and all 
the land-grants that had hitherto been made. But 
the priests, instead of squandering their possessions 
in a life unsuited to their sacred profession, devoted 
the earnings of their farms to the maintenance of 
their churches and schools. This was considered a 

1 See p. 127. 


grievous abuse, as we learn from the following 
protest : " Whereas, . . . many popish priests and 
Jesuits hold sundry large tracts of land, Manors 
and other tenements within this Province, and on 
them or some of them have dwellings where they 
live and cohabitate as in a Collegiate manner, hav 
ing public mass-houses where they celebrate their 
religious functions in the most public manner, 
perverting many of his Majesty s dutiful Protest 
ant subjects to Popery, as also many servants . . . 
which from their known principles in Church and 
State must prove of most dangerous consequence 
to his Majesty s dominions and his Protestant sub 
jects here, as well from the vicinity of the French 
and their allied Indian Nations, and the manifest 
encroachments making by them on his Majesty s 
territories adjoining to this Province; and the dan 
ger of their being joined and assisted by those our 
domestic enemies. To prevent, therefore, such 
evils and the further growth of Popery within this 
Province, It is humbly prayed: That all manor- 
lands, tenements, hereditaments, etc., possessed by 
priests shall on October 1st. be taken from them 
and vested in a Commission appointed for that 
purpose, (the Commission taking the test oath) 
all said lands and premises, etc., to be sold by 
public sale to the highest bidder, the money to be 
paid to the treasurer of the particular shore where 
the property is situated to be used by him towards 
securing his Majesty s dominion against the en- 


croachments of the French and Indians." Priests 
are to be summoned and required to take the test 
Oath of Allegiance, Abhorrency, and Abjuration, 
on their refusal to do so, they are to be judged 
Popish Recusant Convicts forfeiting their lands, 
etc., as mentioned in this Act. 1 

Governor Sharpe, although a Protestant with no 
favorable bias towards the Catholics could not 
keep pace with the hot zeal of his Anglican breth 
ren. They even accused him of being favorable 
to the Papists. 2 From the Governor s letters 
we learn that many of the Catholics were men of 
large possessions although they numbered only 

1 L. H. J., Mss. Folio. 

In the Maryland Gazette, Nov. 28th, 1754, we find : " The 
enclosed instructions to our Representatives were signed by 
a great number of the Freemen in Prince George County, 
who desire you to print them in your next paper. . . . We 
desire and expect you to pursue the plan laid down in a 
former session, and to promote with all your weight and 
influence : A law to dispossess the Jesuits of those large 
landed estates which render them formidable to His Ma 
jesty s good Protestant subjects of this Province: To ex 
clude Papists from places of trust and profit and to prevent 
them from sending their children to Popish semi 
naries for education, whereby the minds of youth are cor 
rupted and alienated from his Majesty s person and gov 
ernment. " 

2 Archives, vi, p. 301. The Governor s attitude towards 
Catholics was due, no doubt, to an acquaintance with 
Charles Carroll, the father of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. 
(Unpublished Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 
pp. 46-47.) 


one-twelfth of the population. 1 He testifies in his 
letter to Calvert, that as far as he knows the 
<( Papists behave themselves as good subjects." 
He therefore, refused to accede to the resolution 
passed by the Lower House that the penal laws 
are in force in the province. 2 As the Governor 
would not lend a willing ear to their clamors, the 
Protestants formed an Association to carry out 
their purpose against the Catholics, and proposed 
to send deputies to England. 3 

In 1756 a double tax was put on the Catholics 
for the support of the militia. 4 As a justification 
for this act the Governor represents, that in view 
of the persecutions against Catholics in England 
and in the other colonies (except Pennsylvania), as 
he has received " positive instructions to put sev 
eral parts of the penal statutes in force against 
them" they should be satisfied ! 5 It is true that 
Catholics did not bear arms for the defence of 
the colony, but they were excluded or excused. 
" All civil officers and persons of particular trades 
and callings " were also exempted from military 
service, but they were not doubly taxed. 6 The 
Catholics vigorously protested against this tax, but 

-Archives, pp. 240, 297. The entire population numbered 
about 153,000. (Ibid., p. 353.) 

IMd., p. 419. lUd,, pp. 419, 429, 490-97 

Ibid., p. 353. 


in vain. 1 

_ Charles Carroll, the father of the Signer, 

contemplated at this time selling out all he possess 
ed and leaving Maryland, but was dissuaded by his 
son. "I have given you reasons/ writes the 
father, " to show Maryland to be no desirable resi 
dence for Koman Catholics. A Eoman Catholic 
stands but a poor chance for justice." 

Nothing seemed to escape the vigilant and keen 
eye of Protestant intolerance. A " Naturalization 
Bill " was rejected by the Lower House because it 
did not exclude Catholics from the advantages of 
citizenship. 3 

The border wars with the French and Indians 
about the middle of the century, gave another pre 
text for much ill-feeling towards the Catholics, who 
were suspected of being in sympathy with the 
French. The accusation was without foundation. 
In a letter (Nov. 1, 1756) the Governor relates 
that a man by the name of Johnson, from Fort 
Frederick, accused " one priest Neal "of fomenting 
rebellion against the Maryland government in the 
interest of the French. 4 After a full hearing of 

1 Charles Carroll keenly felt the injustice of this measure. 
Writing to his son he says : " I do not care to mortify 
Mr. Calvert [whom his son had met in England] who can 
urge nothing to excuse his family s ingratitude to ye Ro 
man Catholics and therefore I drop the subject.". (Un 
published Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, pp. 57, 

2 Ibid., p. 68. 3 Archives, ix, p. 400. 
4 Ibid., p. 501. 


Father Neal, Johnson was found to be an imposter 
and deserter. 1 

1 " A warrant was issued for apprehending and bringing 
before us on the 29th, the several persons whom he (John 
son) had on his examination accused or named. They were 
yesterday brought hither and some of them examined but 
as they soon convinced us that the prisoner (Johnson) had 
charged them wrongfully, that he had assumed a feigned 
name and was in fact a great imposter we discharged them, 
and several of them being extremely poor I ordered the 
Sheriff to defray their expenses and convey them back to 
their respective homes : As I enclose you the minutes of 
this Council also, I need not tell you that the informant 
did not when he was called into the room where they were, 
so much as know the Priest or Mr. Wheeler, and that he 
thereupon made a recantation giving us at the same time 
the reasons that induced him to frame and insist on such 
a story as he had before told and sworn to the truth of 
.... I presume enough witnesses will be found in the 
company that was Capt. Clark s to convict him of 
desertion, and he will probably be punished with death 
by the sentence of a Court Martial. We are told that two 
priests, and a lay Roman Catholic, are imprisoned in Pliila. 
for seditious practices but what they are particularly ac 
cused of we do not yet learn. This affair, however, is much 
talked of and as every one is at liberty to make conjec 
tures, many people among us are persuaded that some hor 
rid plot will be shortly discovered." (Letter of Governor 
Sharpe to Calvert, Nov. 30, 1756. Correspond., I, p. 512.) 

In the same year in which a double tax was put on 
Catholics (1756) it was proposed to the Assembly to dis 
arm all Catholics, " the opposition to this obnoxious mea 
sure prevailed by only one vote. . . . Yet withal we find no 
disloyalty among the Catholics. Rather is their treatment a 
reflection of the character of the Assembly itself." (Mary 
land s Attitude in the Struggle for Canada, J. W. Black, 
J. H. U. Studies, p. 65.) 


Another complaint was made against the Gov 
ernor in 1757 for encouraging " Popery." Al 
though he was tainted with the prejudice of the 
times against Catholics, the Governor was natural 
ly inclined to be just, and heard with no good 
grace of these accusations. In a letter to Calvert, 
(December, 1757) he regrets that " any people 
should have been so wicked as to propagate a re 
port, that the Roman Catholics have met with any 
encouragement in this province, at least since my 
administration." Thus had it come about in 
Catholic Maryland, that it was deemed a wicked 
ness to say of the Governor that he encouraged 
Catholics. Yet his Excellency openly testified on 
several occasions that he found no cause to censure 
them, even, that they were the most law-abiding 
citizens in the Province. Another governor once 
said, " I find no cause in Him, therefore, I will 
scourge Him, and let Him go." 

It was at this inauspicious time for anything 
Catholic that the poor Acadian exiles, the un 
fortunate victims of Lawrence s cruelty and per 
fidy, were cast upon the shores of Maryland, once 
the home of the outcast and the haven of the op 
pressed. Time was when these unfortunates, like 
the persecuted of the rest of the world, would have 
found a welcome in the Land of Sanctuary. But 
the old order of charity had changed, giving place 

1 Archives, ix, p. 117. 


to a new one of cold repulsion and intolerance. In 
the formal correspondence of the period, the stark 
tragedy of this people and their position in Mary 
land, appears in striking contrast with the past 
traditions of the Province. We catch here and there 
a glimpse of husbands seeking their wives, 
mothers in quest of their children, of poor, starving, 
simple people left upon the shore destitute, con 
signed to the cold charity of those who feared and 
hated then as political enemies, and worst of all, 
as Catholics. The government of the Province 
made a feeble and ineffectual attempt to afford 
some succor to these exiles, but so meagre was the 
provision made, that these pitiful outcasts were 
compelled to roam the country, dragging after 
them from farm-house to farm-house, their starv 
ing, ill-clothed children, begging for the very 
necessities of life. 

Governor Sharpe did, indeed, give permission 
for such as could procure the means to leave the 
Province for the more hospitable colony of Penn 
sylvania, but the greater number were compelled 
to remain, the objects of the scant charity and en 
durance of the Protestants, and were not allowed 
to receive from the Catholics the shelter and as 
sistance which would have been gladly given. 1 

In 1758 there occurred a controversy between 
the Upper and Lower Houses of Assembly. The 

1 See Appendix S. 


former had passed a bill which seemed in its judg 
ment to be sufficiently severe towards Catholics. 
The Lower House was not satisfied, and declaring 
that Catholics never had any right to toleration in 
the colony, insisted on such measures as would 
have driven the Catholics from the colony al 
together. The Upper House, however, refused to 
yield to the clamors of the Lower. 1 

We have seen the repeated attempts to pass 
laws against the Catholics at this period, but 
" . . . the legal disqualifications of the Catho 
lics," says Latrobe, " fell short of the actual op 
pressions practised upon them during many periods 
of this era. When laws degrade, individuals learn 
to practise wanton outrage ; the former stigmatize, 
the latter catch its spirit, and make its example an 
excuse for oppression. Hence the personal ani 
mosity of the Protestants against the Catholics of 
Maryland, was at one period carried to such an 
extent, that, as we are informed the latter were 
even excluded from social intercourse with the 
former, were not permitted to walk in front of the 
State House, and were actually obliged to wear 
swords for their personal protection."" 

The complaints against the Governor continued, 
and in justification of his conduct, he again writes 
to Calvert (Dec. 16th, 1758) upon the same sub- 

1 See Appendix Q. 

a Latrobe s Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. (Biog. 
of Signers, vn, p. 240) 


ject. This letter sums up the whole situation, and 
gives a view of the times which leaves nothing to 
be desired by the modern writer. 

"Mr. Calvert, Your Lordship s Secretary, hav 
ing intimated to me sometime ago that it had been 
reported by some persons in England who were 
supposed to have correspondents here, that Ro- 
man Catholics are too much countenanced in Your 
Lordship s Province, that in consequence thereof 
their number increases, and that many of them 
have lately behaved in such a manner as to give 
his Majesty s Protestant subjects in the Province 
great offence and uneasiness, I think it my duty, 
and in justice to myself, I can do no less than to 
assure Your Lordship, that since I have had the 
honor to bear your commission, nothing has been 
farther from my inclination than to countenance 
or give encouragement to any person of that persua 
sion, nor has there to my knowledge been any given 
them by any persons in authority under me, but on 
the contrary, extraordinary burthens have been lately 
laid on them particularly by an Act of Assembly 
that was made in May, 1756, whereby all landhold 
ers of the Romish faith are obliged to pay by way 
of land-tax twice as much as the rest of your Lord 
ship s tenants who are Protestants. It might be 
unknown, if not to the authors at least to some of 
the propagators of the above-mentioned report, that 
the people that first settled in this Province were 
for the most part Roman Catholics, and that al- 


though every other sect was tolerated, a maj ority of 
the inhabitants continued Papists till the Revolu 
tion, soon after which event an Act was made here 
for the support of a clergyman of the Church of Eng 
land in every parish, which is still in force and the 
Papists as well as Protestants are hereby obliged 
to pay annually very considerable sums for that 
purpose. Other acts of Assembly were made after 
wards in the reign of her Majesty Queen Ann, sub 
jecting all Popish priests that should be discov 
ered here to all the penalties to which such priests 
would be liable to in England, but Her Majesty was 
pleased to disapprove thereof, and to order that no 
Popish Bishop, Priest, or Jesuit should be prose 
cuted or indicted for exercising his functions in 
any private family within this Province. But not 
withstanding her Majesty thought fit to allow the 
Papists in Maryland the free exercise of their relig 
ion, they were not permitted to sit in either House 
of Assembly, to vote at the election of Representa 
tives, to act as magistrates, or to enjoy any place of 
publick trust or profit, nor have they been since 
suffered, and to this I presume it must be particu 
larly attributed, that altho half the Province were 
Roman Catholics about sixty years ago, the people 
of that religion do not at present make a thir 
teenth part of the inhabitants, as I find by the re 
turns of the sheriffs and constables who have, 
in obedience to my order, made the most 
strict enquiry in their respective districts, 


and the rolls returned by the collectors of 
the land tax, show that they are not possessed of a 
twelfth part of the land which is held under your 
Lordship as Proprietary of Maryland. That your 
Lordship may not be at a loss to account for their 
having many enemies ready to propagate stories to 
their disadvantage, I must entreat your patience, 
while I inform you that sometime before your 
Lordship was pleased to appoint me your Lieuten 
ant-Governor, one Mr. Carroll, a Roman Catholic, 
died here and left a considerable estate to his two 
sons, having appointed two of his relations their 
guardians and executors of his last will and testa 
ment. Both these gentlemen were at that time of the 
same religion as the testator, but after awhile one 
of them declared himself a Protestant, and having 
qualified himself according to law, was chosen by 
the people of this county to represent them in the 
Lower House of Assembly. A difference or quarrel 
arising between the executors concerning the ad 
ministration, he that had not renounced his relig 
ion published a piece, by way of advertisement, 
which reflected much on the conduct and character 
of the other who had address enough to persuade 
the House of Assembly which was then sitting, to 
take notice thereof, and to punish the author for 
violating their privileges by libeling, as they said, 
one of the members. 1 

1 This incident illustrates the spirit of that day. The 
case is as follows: Mr. James Carroll died leaving several 


" Some Roman Catholics, friends of the gentle 
man who was thus treated, having taken the liberty 
to speak disrespectfully of the Assembly for such 
their proceedings, the Lower House immediately 
resented it by resolving that the Papists were bad 
members of the community and unworthy of the 
protection and indulgence which had been given 
them. After this their enemies, and many were 
made such by envy or the hopes of reaping some 
advantage from a persecution of the Papists, were 
continually representing them as a very dangerous 
people, enemies to his Majesty and their country, 
nor had this spirit of enmity subsided when I 
arrived in the Province. Immediately after the 
defeat of General Braddock, it was given out that 
several Roman Catholics had showed signs of sat- 

legacies and appointing Dr. Charles Carroll and Mr. Charles 
Carroll as executors. Dr. Charles Carroll is the one who 
abandoned his faith. When called to give an account of his 
trusteeship, he offered to compromise by a sum which Mr. 
Carroll considered altogether inadequate. Mr. Carroll de 
manded that he give an account. Dr. Carroll, thereupon, 
threatened Mr. Carroll with the penal statutes. Mr. Car 
roll then published the whole proceeding, beginning with 
the opinion of Daniel Murray on the case, the leading 
member of the bar. A copy of this Advertisement was 
posted on the door of the Lower House of which Dr. 
Carroll was a member. The House was pleased to consider 
this an insult, and ordered Mr. Carroll s arrest. Mr. Car 
roll apologized to the House, but refused to apologize to 
the embezzler, Dr. Carroll, although the House desired him 
to do so. (See full history of the case in Appendix T; see 
also Appendix U for Carroll genealogy.) 



isf action and joy at that unhappy event, and that 
one of their priests had been seen on the frontiers 
in the dress of an officer. To alarm the people the 
more, it was at the same time rumored that the 
negroes had been caballing in many parts of the 
country, nay, Mr. Chase, Eector of St. Paul s par 
ish in Baltimore county, scrupled not to intimate 
from the pulpit to his congregation, that the state 
or situation of the Protestants in this Province, was 
at that time very little different from that of the 
Protestants in Ireland at the eve of the massacre. 
In order to learn whether the behaviour of the 
Papists or of any negroes had given reason or af 
forded room for such reports, I convened the gen 
tlemen of the Council, and by their advice circular 
letters were sent to the Justices of the Peace in the 
several parts of the Province, whereby they were 
directed to enquire whether the Eoman Catholics 
in their respective counties had misbehaved, or 
whether there was any foundation for the reports 
which had been spread concerning them, and which 
had made many of his Majesty s good subjects in 
the Province very uneasy. The letters which I 
shall herewith transmit to your Lordship in a 
packet marked No. 1, will show that none of the 
county courts could, upon the strictest inquiry, find 
that any of the Papists had behaved or expressed 
themselves in an unbecoming manner, though, in 
deed, the Justices of Prince George s county (who 
it seems had taken extraordinary pains to make 


discoveries, but in vain) were too much prejudiced 
to acquit them, or at least to acquit their priests, 
of having ill designs against the government. 
When the Assembly met in April following, the 
Lower House incited by two or three gentlemen 
whose interest and popularity were thereby pro 
moted, presented an address to me which was cal 
culated to inflame the people still more against the 
Papists and to make em believe that they, or a few 
of them at least, had received extraordinary favors 
from myself. I cannot help thinking that your 
Lordship was thoroughly satisfied by the answer I 
gave the gentlemen the 24th of April, 1756, which 
is printed in their Journal, that the allegations or 
insinuations contained in their address were false 
and groundless, and indeed I am persuaded that 
if they had not been convinced thereof, and 
been sensible that they had been imposed 
on, they would not have failed to make a 
reply. During the same session the gentle 
men of the Upper House thought proper to 
frame a bill for preventing the growth of Popery 
within this Province, by which the priests were to 
be rendered incapable of holding any lands, to be 
obliged to register their names, and give large secur 
ity for their good behavior, forbid to make a prose 
lyte under pain of the penalty for high treason, and 
it was to have been enacted by the said Bill that no 
person that should be hereafter educated at any for 
eign Popish Seminary, could qualify to inherit any 


estate or to hold lands within this Province. There 
were many other restraints to be laid on them by 
this Bill, as Your Lordship may see, if you shall be 
pleased to peruse the copy of it which you will 
herewith receive, but the gentlemen of the Lower 
House refused to pass it without many amend 
ments, and these the Upper House would not agree 
to, being of opinion that the Bill as it was first 
drawn was severe enough and sufficient to answer 
every good end that could be desired by any Prot 
estants who delighted not in persecution. The step 
which the gentlemen of the Upper House had taken 
in proposing such a bill, added to the report which 
the Justices had made, had this effect, however, 
that it quieted the minds of the people, and silenced 
those who had endeavored to inflame and terrify 
them. I have since ordered another circular letter 
to be wrote, and sent to the Justices desiring them 
to enquire again and inform me how the Roman 
Catholics in the several counties have behaved since 
they, the Justices, made their last report. In a 
packet marked No. 2, I shall transmit your Lord 
ship copies of all their answers which will, I am 
apt to think, incline Your Lordship to believe that 
the Roman Catholics who are among us continue 
to behave as behoves good subjects; and upon the 
whole my Lord I must say, that if I was asked 
whether the conduct of the Protestants or Papists 
in this Province hath been most unexceptionable 
since I have had the honor to serve Your Lord- 


ship, I should not hesitate to give an answer in 
favour of the latter." 1 

Unjust and inhumane as were the laws passed 
at this period against Catholics, their condition 
in Maryland was far more bearable than in any 
other colony except Pennsylvania. This was a 
result not so much of a more tolerant inclination 
on the part of the Protestants of Maryland as of 
"long established custom in favor of religious 
liberty." 2 

1 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, n, pp. 315-318. 
3 Hall, p. 146. 


A passing review of the ecclesiastical conditions 
of the province during this time will not be out of 
place here. From 1634 to 1700 twenty-one 
Jesuits had labored in the missionary field of the 
Colony. 1 Of these all were English except Father 
Robert Brooke who was born in Maryland. There 
were three Secular priests Fathers Gilmett, Ter- 
ritt, and William Waring. In 1673, two Francis 
cans also arrived ; in all six of that order were in 
Maryland. From 1700 to 1771 seventy Jesuits 
came to the Province. 2 Schools supported by 
the produce of their farms had been established 
by the priests. 3 Obliged to maintain themselves 
and their churches from the fruits of their 
plantations, it is not to be wondered at that the 
schools were not numerous. It was rather surpris 
ing that they were able to support as many as they 
did. In 1698 an official census of the Catholic 
priests and Quaker preachers at that time in Mary- 

1 Calvert Papers, in. p. 53. A MS. list of Jesuits in the 
Archiepiscopal Library, Balto., gives the names of twenty- 
three Jesuits ; see Appendix V. 

2 Calvert Papers, in, p. 53. A MS. in the Archiepiscopal 
Library, Baltimore, gives seventy- three; see Appendix V. 

3 Calvert Papers, in, p. 52; Archives, xxin, p. 81 ; Shea, 
p. 405, quoting Woodstock Letters, xni, p. 72. 



land gives five priests and two lay-brothers for the 
Catholics and two preachers for the Quakers. 1 

In 1706 it is said that there were about six 
Presbyterian churches in the province. 2 The 
failure of that denomination to make any con- 

1 In obedience to an order of August 10th, 1698, the 
sheriffs of the Province returned the following census of 
priests and Quakers: "Anne Arundel Co. no priest or 
lay-brother. The Quakers have one yearly meeting house, 
two monthly, one quarterly, four weekly, two preachers. 
(Perry Papers, p. 20.) Baltimore Co. neither priest nor 
preacher, church nor meeting house for Catholic or 
Quakers. Calvert Co. no priest nor chapel Quakers two 
meeting houses. Prince George. No priest nor church, no 
preacher nor meeting house for Catholics or Quakers. 
Charles Co. Three priests and one lay brother, viz., Rich 
ard Hubbert, Franciscan and William Hunter, Robert 
Brooke, and William Burley, lay brother, Jesuits; chapel 
near Newport at Major Boroman s [Boarman s], Priest 
Hubbert s dwelling house, chapel at Priest Hunter s house 
at Port Tobacco; only two Quakers in the county. St. 
Mary s Co. Rev. John Hall and Nicholas Gulick and one 
lay-brother at St. Inigoes. Brick chapel at St. Mary s 
wooden chapels at Father Gulick s house, one at St. 
Clement s Town, and another at Mr. Hayward s; no Quak 
ers or dissenters in the County. Somerset Co. no priests 
nor chapels. Dorchester Co. no priests nor dissenting 
ministers. Talbot County No resident priests; chapel at 
Doncaster; four Quaker meeting houses. Kent Co. No 
priest nor chapel, and only three papists, Edmund Mack- 
donall, Thos. Collins, and James Bruard; about 25 Quakers 
and one meeting house. (Perry Papers, pp. 20-23. Cfr. 
article " Archdiocese of Baltimore," by the author, in Catho 
lic Encyclopedia, vol. II.) 

2 One at Patuxent, one in Baltimore County; on the East 
ern Shore, churches at Snow Hill, Reboboth, and Manoakin ; 
some also in Cecil County. 


siderable progress is ascribed to the fact that 
the Anglican and not the Presbyterian Church was 
supported by taxes. 1 

We have seen how in 1676, Rev. Mr. Yeo had 
petitioned the Archbishop of Canterbury to take 
some steps towards the maintenance of the Episco 
pal Church in Maryland, attributing the abuses 
and disorders which exhaled from his fertile ima 
gination, to the deplorable fact that no Episcopal 
ministry was established and provided for out of 
the funds of the Province. This end, so devoutly 
wished for being accomplished, it will not be devoid 
of interest to learn what improvements took place 
in the colony. There is no part of Maryland his 
tory which has come down to us in more detail and 
which is better authenticated. 2 

1 Early Presbyterianism in Md., J. H. U. Studies, 8th 
Series, p. 337. 

2 As the reader is already aware, an effort has been made 
in this narrative to present as far as was possible and 
convenient, the very words of the men whose names have 
appeared, and whose deeds have been recorded. It will be 
but fair to follow the same course in dealing with the sub 
ject of the Episcopal clergy during the Episcopal ascend 
ency. As the lives of the priests have been presented ac 
cording to the testimony of their own letters and other 
documents relative to them, so the character of the Episco 
pal clergy will be given in their own words. A collection 
of these private letters addressed to the Bishop of 
London and the Archbishop of Canterbury, was made by 
Rev. Dr. Hawks, a distinguished Anglican clergyman, and 
another was edited by Rev. Dr. Stevens Perry, a bishop of 
the Episcopal Church. 


Until the establishment of the Episcopalian 
Church in Maryland, all the clergy of the various 
denominations in the Province had been sup 
ported, their churches and schools built as well as 
maintained, either by private contributions or by 
the products of the lands which had been granted 
at a nominal rent by the Lord Proprietary. " The 
people gave freely as a benevolence what they 
would have loathed as a tax." 1 It was at his 
personal charge that the second Lord Baltimore 
directed his brother to provide for the two Secu 
lar priests, Fathers Gilmett and Territt, for a short 
time until they could secure an independent liveli 
hood and when Charles, the third Lord Baltimore, 
contributed eight thousand pounds of tobacco . an 
nually for the eight priests in the Province at the 
time of the Episcopal revolution, it was given as a 
private donation, and not required of the people 
as a tax. 

That the Maryland Catholics of the early days 
were generous in their benefactions to the Church 
and clergy is abundantly attested by the records of 
that period. The wills probated from 1635-1685 
show innumerable instances of the liberality of the 
faithful, in bequests of land and personalty made 
for pious uses. 2 The priests neither asked for 
nor expected a regular salary. Generally speak- 

1 McMahon, p. 243. 

2 Baldwin s Maryland Calendar of Witts, passim, vol. I. 



ing, they were gentlemen of good families; 
they had renounced the world not for the " loaves 
and fishes " but out of love for their Master. 
From the beginning of Maryland history to 
5 we find twenty Episcopal clergymen in the 
province. 1 They seem to have supported them 
selves, like the priests, by the crops which they 
raised and sold. "Up to the year 1684," says 
Rev. Dr. Hawks, "nothing materially affecting 
the [Episcopal] Church is recorded ; though it is 
probable that the number of its clergy had increas 
ed by an accession of men who are remarkable only 
for scandalous behaviour, utterly inconsistent with 
the sacred office." 2 

After the establishment of the Anglican Church 
in the Province, the ministers were inducted by 
the Governor " who was for many purposes con 
sidered the Ordinary." * Later on they were 
appointed by the Proprietary who generally took 
council with the Bishop of London, though 
sometimes the people were consulted. Once he 
had been inducted into office, the clergyman could 
not be gotten rid of except by resignation. As a 
means of persuading him to this step, the congre 
gation sometimes mobbed him, or locked him out 
f church. By means of taxes, fees, fines, and 

1 See Appendix W. 

2 Rev. F. L. Hawks, Rise and Progress of the P E 

rch in Maryland, p. 195, quoting Oldmixon. 
Ibid., p. 122. 


sometimes private collections, not only the church, 
the minister, his clerk, the vestrymen were pro 
vided for, but libraries were also furnished for 
the incumbents. Fees were received for baptism, 
and the funeral sermon over a wealthy parishioner 
usually had its reward. Dr. Bray wrote in 1700, 
that a law had been passed to establish free schools. 
These schools were mainly for the training of 
aspirants to the Episcopal ministry. 1 The af 
fairs of a parish were under the control of vestry 
men, who usually met the first Tuesday of each 
month. " The only qualifications required for a 
vestryman were that he should be i sober and dis 
creet and not a member of the Komish Church. " 2 
The parish revenues depended upon the 40 Ibs. of 
tobacco per poll, and when this was insufficient, an 
extra 10 Ibs. per poll could be levied by the County 
Court. It was thus to the interest of the parish to 
maintain the quality of this commodity. For this 
purpose we find that inspectors were appointed by 
the vestrymen. Of these latter " some were not even 
open professors of religion " 3 but they were obliged 
to be alert guardians of the tobacco interests. To 
be a good judge of an inspector, and not to be 

1 Md. Mss. in the Whittingham Library, quoted by Edw. 
Ingle in Parish Institutions in Maryland, J. H. U. Studies, 

2 Ibid., p. 14. Bacon s Laws, 1730, Chap, xxm, Sec. G. 

3 Ibid,, p. 13-19. 



Romanist, were probably in the last analysis the 
necessary qualifications for these guardians of the 
spiritual and temporal welfare of a parish. 

We have seen that previous to 1702 many laws 
were passed by the Assembly for the establishment 
of the Episcopal Church and for dividing the Pro 
vince into Parishes. When the first law was pass 
ed in 1692, there were only three ministers of that 
denomination in the province. 1 In 1698 there 
were sixteen ministers in Maryland. 2 Yet we find 
that in 1700 there were still fifteen parishes vacant, 
because the law of 1696 failed to provide for any 
incumbents. 3 When this law received the royal 
sanction, however, the parishes were soon more 
amply provided for. The reason of this appears 
in a Memorial of the Clergy of Maryland in 1728, 
in which they assert that they were induced to come 
to Maryland by the provisions of the Act of 
Establishment. 4 

Until a clergyman could be supplied to a parish, 
the funds derived from taxing all the people of 
the district, Presbyterians, Catholics and Quakers 
as well as the few Episcopalians, were to be de 
voted to the building of a church. 5 There were 
also other sources of revenue for these parish 

1 Achives, xxni, p. 81; Perry Papers, p. 8. 
2 Steiner, Rev. Dr. Bray, pp. 217-218. 

3 Perry Papers, p. 39. 

4 Perry Papers, p. 263. 

5 Archives, xni, p. 429; Perry Papers, p. 156. 


churches. " One of the functions of the vestry 
was to sell, for a term of years, white women 
guilty of having mulatto children. . . . The 
strangest part was that such children were sup 
posed to belong to the Church, and the pecuniary 
profits resulting from the crime in the sale of 
both parents and children went to the use of the 
Church, though afterwards it was claimed by one 
of the best ministers ever in the colony, that such 
persons belonged of right to the clergy, a claim 
that was apparently recognized." l 

Of the clergymen themselves, one might hesitate 
to speak, but as they were the chief beneficiaries 
and indefatigable promoters of the religious in 
tolerance established by the Episcopal Church in 
Maryland, they deserve special consideration. 
Their private letters, moreover, are the best expo 
nents of the life in the colony during the long 
period of Episcopal domination. 

Writing in 1G97 Gov. Nicholson says: " There 
is often very great want and now especially of good 
clergymen and schoolmasters in these parts of the 
world; and I will not venture to answer for some 
of their abilities, lives and conversations," : Nich 
olson was not easily offended in point of morals. 
Dr. Hawks writes of clergymen " of profligate 
lives finding a home in these unfortunate col- 

1 Church Life in Colonial Maryland, by Rev. L. C. Gam- 
brail, p. 72; cfr. Perry Papers, p. 232. 

2 Archives, xxm, p. 83. 


onies," 1 of the " flagrant misconduct " of one of 
the Maryland clergy who fled to Virginia. 2 Dr. 
Bray thus addresses one of his brethren: "It so 
happens that you are seated in the midst of papists, 
and I am credibly informed there have been more 
perversions made to popery since your crime has 
been the talk of the country than in all the time it 
has been an English colony." 3 " The immorali 
ties of some of the clergy of the Establishment, had 
become so glaring, that the legislature thought it 
necessary to devise some mode of coercing them 
into decency of behaviour. . . . Their plan was 
the establishment of a Spiritual Court, to be com 
posed of the Governor, and three laymen. . . . 
They were to have cognizance of all cases of im 
morality on the part of a clergyman, and of non- 
residence in his parish for thirty days at one time, 
and their powers extended to deprivation of 
his living, and suspension from the ministry/ 
"What must have been the extent of injury inflict 
ed on the cause of religion, by clerical profligacy 
so rank, that even the laity felt obliged thus to 
labor for its correction ? " We read of " minister 
ial worthlessness and wickedness "... and of 
clergymen who " still continued to be vicious and 
hardened in iniquity by impunity in crime." 
We have already seen that the increase among 

1 Hawks, p. 100. 2 IUd., p. 101. 

*IUd., p. 192. *IUd., 128-132. 


the Catholics, which the Government so bitterly 
deplored, and took such stringent measures to put 
an end to, was due to conversions of Episcopalians. 
This need not surprise us when we consider the 
character of some of the clergymen of the Estab 
lished Church. 

In speaking of the scandalous life of Eev. Mr. 
Tibbs. of St. Paul s, Baltimore Co., Mr. Hender 
son says : " The Roman Catholics are very 
numerous and make great advantage of these 
things." 1 Mr. Tibbs was one of the most promin 
ent of the clergymen of this period. He is fre 
quently mentioned in the letters of complaint sent 
to the Bishop of London by the Commissaries. 
He is adjudged " incorrigible," is described as be 
ing " as bad as ever and proclaims defiance against 
any power whatsoever," and being rich it is feared 
that he will make a strong opposition. He is 
charged with living out of his parish, and with 
setting up his clerk, " a person convicted of felony 
to read the service not excepting the absolution^ 
that he comes very seldom to church himself,, 
that he refuses the burial of his parishioners,, 
refuses to visit the sick . . . and that the 
parishioners of the parish are much injured by the 
said Tibbs evil example, particularly in swearing 
and drunkenness and many more instances. 
Being a minister for near forty years, in the whole 

1 Perry Papers, p. 80, Sept. 1, 1715. 


course of that time he has not only . . . most 
miserably neglected his cure but lived to scandal 
to the holy function in drunkenness, cursing and 
swearing, fighting and quarreling." 1 

The establishment up to this time does not seem 
to have effected the good that Mr. Yeo had pre 
dicted from a salaried clergy. Rev. Samuel Skip- 
pon, writing to the Bishop of London, January 
19th, 1714, says that the neglect has been so great 
that " whole families, both parents and children, 
sometimes live and die without Baptism," and he 
complains at the same time of the " frequency of 
polygamy, fornication and such like sins." It 
was at this time that Governor Hart wrote : " The 
advantage which the Jesuits have from their [the 
ministers ] negligence is but too evident in the 
many proselytes they make. Nor is there any 
other remedy for this growing evil but by making 
use of the authority I have to constrain them [the 
priests,] from entering the houses of dying per 
sons." 3 A letter written about 1716 says in part : 
" The Roman Catholics, especially, gain much 
ground with us; and I verily believe that if the 
jurisdiction of our Church do not soon take place 
here, it will by degrees, dwindle to nothing. I am 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 133, 302, 309, 310. 

2 Perry Papers, p. 73. 

3 Hawks, quoting Md. Mas. from Records at Fulham, p. 


not of opinion that the fault is entirely in the 
clergy ; there is a great deal owing to the diligence 
and ingenuity of the Romish priests; but at the 
same time it is very obvious that the weakness of 
some of our clergy, the negligence of others, and 
the ill lives of many, have made more converts to 
that Church than their priests could have done 
notwithstanding their extraordinary abilities. 
This is not only my opinion; but the opinion of 
many worthy gentlemen who have lived long in the 
Province. 7 1 

" Roman Catholics and Dissenters looked on 
with contempt, not unmingled with satisfaction, at 
the picture of an establishment, so profligate in some 
of its members that even the laity sought to purif 7 
it, and yet so weak in its discipline, that neither 
clergy nor laity could purge it of offenders." 2 

As a result of this utter want of discipline the 
lamentable condition still continued. Rev. Mr. 
Rairisford writing in 1Y24, says : " I am sorry 
to acquaint you, that we have among us men of our 
robe of most lewd and profligate lives, men that 
have been presented and fined for drunkenness and 
swearing, and are carrying on the interest of the 
devil and his dominion with all their might, among 
the number of which was Mr. James Williamson, 

1 Hawks, quoting Md. Mss. from the Records of the 
Venerable Society. (P. E. Church in Md., p. 149.) 

2 Hawks, quoting Md. Mss. at Fulham. 


Eector of All Saints, and Mr. John Donaldson, 
rector of William and Mary Parish, the former 
of which his own parishioners design to petition 
against to my Lord of London. I have a large 
field of discourse open before me on this melan 
choly subject, but must beg of you to conceal what 
I offer from the Bishop of London till you hear 
again from we which shall be some time this 
summer. Mr. Barret s behavior during his con 
tinuance on board Capt. Wilkinson has been the 
occasion of the Bp. of London s being hugely re 
flected on. The Capt. reports that he was continu 
ally drunk with the foremast men, that he went 
on shore at Portsmouth, raked it in the gown, 
came aboard drunk, and challenged the Capt. to 
fight him, upon which he sent him ashore and dis 
missed him from the ship ; what s become of him I 
presume you know by this time, but the inhabitants 
have returned the Capt. thanks, and after an im 
pious manner cursed and damned the worthy Bish 
op for designing such a parson for em. I can 
assure you several weak men were turning papists 
on that and other occasions, and altho Mr. Cox is 
a man of a sober life and conversation, and they 
have it not in their power to object against his 
morals, yet they do against his country, as being 
Irish. We have Popish priests daily flocking in 
amongst us, and the whole province smells of 
Popish superstitions, &c. I wish these caterpillars 


were destroyed ; they poison apace our young plants 
that are growing up." 1 

Again in August of that year the Rev. Mr. 
Rains ford says : "I writ you two letters by two 
several ships, and in them I mentioned something 
of the scandalous behavior of some of our rascally 
clergy. Mr. Williamson is grown notorious and 
consummate in villainy. He is really an original 
for drinking and swearing. His own parishioners 
design to petition my Lord of London on the occa 
sion, and a presbyterian minister is now gathering 
a congregation out of the disaffected part of his 
flock. Mr. Donaldson is so vile that the other day, 
being sent for to a dying person, came drunk, and 
the poor dying soul, seeing his hopeful parson in 
that condition, refused the Sacrament at his hands, 
and died without it. He s notorious for lying and 
sins of the first magnitude. His own people can 
best describe him. Mr. Mackonchie is a mere 
nuisance, and makes the church stink. He fights 
and drinks 011 all occasions, and, as I am told, 

better of Rev. Mr. Rainsford, April 10, 1724; Perry 
Papers, pp. 233-234. 

" The Jesuits," says the British Review of October, 1844, 
" succeeded in teaching European virtues and not teaching 
European vices. Every reflecting Protestant will admit/ 
continues the writer, " that Popery and Priestcraft are ele 
ments of less immediate destructiveness than grooved rifles 
and gin; and that the Jesuits may be excused for intro 
ducing Romanism, where no other European had introduced 
anything but smallpox." (Quoted by Oliver, Puritan Com 
monwealth, p. 257.) 


alienas permolet uxores. I have no time to en 
large; one thing occurs that is truly remarkable. 
The Papists (in which this province abounds) are 
petitioning the assembly to make negro women no 
taxables, whereby the salary of the clergy will be 
reduced to scarce a subsistance if it takes, but tis 
thought it will not ; however, the papists show their 
teeth and would bite if they durst. They are 
truly intolerably ignorant even beyond descrip 
tion." ! 

From what we have seen of the character of the 
Episcopal body at this period, it may readily be 
surmised that the clergy were not likely to make 
much progress in the building up of their church, 
and we are prepared to believe the declaration of 
the ministers of the Eastern Shore that " the pre 
servation of the Crown in the Protestant line is our 
only security from Popery." 2 

1 Aug. 16th, 1724. (Perry Papers, pp. 241-242.) 
2 Perry Papers, p. 239. 


The year 1728 was one that created great con 
sternation in the ranks of the Episcopal clergy. 
By an Act of that year their fees were reduced to 
30 Ibs. of tobacco per poll. In great excitement 
and distress at the thought of their dwindling 
revenues the ministers of the Anglican Communion 
forwarded petitions, protests, and addresses to 
their friends abroad, the Bishop of London and to 
the King himself, 1 imploring that the former law 
of 40 per poll might be restored, setting forth in 
no uncertain terms that they had come to America, 
induced thereto by legislative security that in 
preaching the Gospel they should live by the gos 
pel/ and that a reduction in their stipend would 
result in their seeking fallow fields elsewhere. 2 
They decided upon sending some of their brethren 
privately to England to strengthen these represen 
tations by personal appeals, 3 and in 1729 Rev. 
Jacob Henderson undertook this embassy. 4 In 
consequence the act of 1728 was vetoed, but the 
Assembly despite the wishes of the Proprietary, 
passed another in 1730 which really became the 
law. 5 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 262-68. 2 lUd. 

3 IUd., p. 269. 4 Ibid., p. 270. 5 Ibid. 



In view of these complaints it will be found in 
teresting to see what revenue was derived from this 
tax on the people of Maryland. In 1724 the 
clergy of the Established Church gave about 6,000 
as the number of families in their parishes, with 
about 1,400 communicants. 1 If we suppose from 
this that the number of taxables was about twenty- 
four thousand, we shall not overestimate the 
sources of revenue for the clergy. 2 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 190-232. 

2 Mr. Wyeth, who seems to have been a Quaker, in a 
letter to Dr. Bray, the Episcopal Commissary, sums up the 
whole situation on this subject. He says: 

" By taxable persons is understood, all males of sixteen 
years and upwards, to sixty; of white persons and all, both 
men and women, blacks of the like ages. Now for the 
drawing of the scheme and estimate, which I promised, I 
shall suppose (for with respect to number I can do no 
more unless I had the assistance of the Doctor s Tabula 
Prima, &c.) that the heads of families who differ in 
worship from Episcopacy, their children and servants, both 
black and white, which are taxable, may be in number 
6,000 . . . the yearly assessment of these at 40 Ibs. of 
tobacco per poll, valuing the tobacco communibus annis, at 
a penny a pound (though some years since since 1692 it 
has been double that price) it amounts to 1,000 pounds 
sterling a year; which is no inconsiderable sum to be taken 
and distrained annually, for eight years, as this has been, 
on pretence of the service of Almighty God by colour of 
laws disallowed by authority. But as the assessments above 
mentioned of 40 Ibs. of tobacco per poll, hath been 
gathered by laws disallowed, so it is some degree of in 
justice, to constrain even those who owned their ministry, 
to give them such a certain portion; which assessments 
being added to the former, will make up according to the 


At this period, then, the Province was paying 
about 3,000 per annum for the support of the 

information I have, a sum three times the former; the 
whole number of taxable persons being supposed to be about 
24,000, by which computation, 4,000 pounds sterling a 
year has been taken or distrained for eight years for the 
clergy of that province. The total of which sum is 32,000 
pounds; and the Doctor (Bray) tells that there is but 16 
ministers, and the churches but lately built, and that to the 
great charge of the Governor Nicholson and the Country. 
That it has been to their great charge, is very likely true, 
for each of these 16 ministers had for the past 8 years 
100 1. per annum that will make the sum of 12,800. Then 
for building churches and petty expenses if at least it has 
been so expended 19,200: Total, 32,000." (Joseph Wyeth s 
Answer to Dr. Bray, Fund. Pub. 37, pp. 217-18. 

In 1696 the average number of taxables in each of the 29 
parishes established were 350. (Archives, xxm, pp. 17-23.) 
The accuracy of Mr. Wyeth s figures was denied by Dr. Bray, 
who asserted that there were not more than 12,000 tax 
ables, and that tobacco was not sold for as much as penny 
a pound, as a general thing. 

In 1741 we find the whole number of taxables to be 36,- 
000. ( Perry Papers, p. 323 ) , and we know that there was 
not a great increase in the population during these years. 
(McMahon, p. 273; cfr. Dr. Thomas Bray, Md. Fund. Pub. 
No. 37, pp. 188-199; 216-218.) 

It is extremely difficult to determine exactly what was 
the equivalent in English money for tobacco in Mary 
land. We are told by one of the earliest historians 
of the colonies that in the young days of Virginia "the 
price of a wife to the husband who purchased her, was one 
hundred pounds of tobacco, for each of which was then 
allowed in money three shillings." He continues, " ninety 
girls young and uncorrupt were transported in the year 
1620, and sixty more, handsome and recommended for 
virtuous demeanor in the subsequent year, and almost all 


Episcopalian Church and clergy. The latter about 
this time numbered twenty-five. 1 So that the 
average salary which the 6,000 families, Catholics, 
Presbyterians, Quakers and Jews, paid to these 
twenty-five Episcopal ministers for the benefit of the 
Episcopalians represented by the 1,400 communi 
cants, was 120 per annum, with house and glebe- 
lands free, besides perquisites. 

Yet it was not always an easy matter during the 
Establishment for the members of the Episcopal 
Church to obtain an incumbent. In 1719, the 
vestrymen of All-Hallows (writing to the Bishop 
of London) set forth how their pastor, Mr. Wil 
kinson, had left them destitute of a spiritual guide 
to accept a more valuable pastorate elsewhere. 
They offer as an inducement to an incumbent a 
glebe of 400 acres of rich land with a good dwell- 

these were immediately blessed with the object of their 
wishes." This was in 1620. Whether or not this remained 
the rate until the founding of Maryland, fourteen years 
later, and whether the price of this staple was the same in 
both colonies cannot be ascertained positively, though it is 
more than probable that it was, as trade was carried on 
between them, and tobacco being the currency, would proba 
bly have the same value in both settlements. We find from 
Acts passed in 1638 that it was 2 pence per pound, and in 
1676 1 penny. It seems to have continued at this valuation 
from that time on, for in 1688 three pence sterling equalled 
three pounds of tobacco. In 1700 the lots laid out in 
Baltimore Town were paid for in tobacco at the rate of 
one penny per pound, and in other official records of this 
period the same valuation is given. 
1 Perry Papers, pp. 128-9. 


Ing house, an apple orchard and a peach orchard 
of 1,000 trees, and more than 20,000 Ibs. weight 
of tobacco yearly revenue, not counting the per 
quisites, as they do long for a spiritual pastor. 7 
They then continue their appeal in these words : 
41 Having tried several methods to obtain one, all 
failing, we humbly conceive it our duty to repre 
sent to your Lordship s consideration our misery 
through the long continuance of the famine or 
scarcity of the Word of God in our Church," and 
they pray for " a Godly clergyman towards sup 
porting the sinking Church and the salvation of the 
souls of the poor desolate people." 1 

Another ground of frequent complaint on the 
part of the Anglican clergy, was the poor quality 
of tobacco which was given to them for their 
spiritual ministrations. The tax was most un 
popular and was resisted by the people. 2 It is not 
to be wondered at, if they contributed only what 
the law compelled; for it must not be forgotten, 
that during these eighty years of Episcopal su 
premacy, the clergy of the other denominations 
were supported, their churches built, and their 
schools maintained by the produce of their farms, 
or by the voluntary contributions of their people. 
It was this fact that caused the bitterness of the 
Presbyterians against the Establishment ; for after 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 116-117. 

~ Cfr. Rev. Thos. Bray, by Steiner, Fund. Pub. 37, passim. 


having done all they could to bring it about and 
having digged a pit for their Catholic brethren, they 
found they had fallen into it themselves. To rem 
edy this grievance of the 30 per poll tax in bad to 
bacco, which was the cause of such anguish to the 
Established clergy, a law was passed giving the 
vestrymen the appointment of the inspectors of 
tobacco. 1 This plan, however, was not successful 
in putting an end to the protests called forth by 
the reduction in the clergymen s salaries; peti 
tions, pleadings and remonstrances continued to 
assail the King, the Proprietary, and his Lordship 
of London. 

In the meantime the growth of the population 
occasioned an increase in the yearly incomes of the 
salaried pastors. According to a list of parishes 
and their annual values as returned in 1767, there 
were forty-four parishes which averaged an income 
of a little over 192 a year. The largest was All 
Saints, Frederick, which returned 452.13, and the 
lowest St. Augustine s, Kent Co., which yielded 
74, 4s, 4d. 2 There is a latent humour in some 
of the communications sent to England in regard 
to the salary reduction, which is unconsciously 
manifested by the writers. For example, while 
protesting against the substitution of the 30 per 
poll, which he says, " has picked my pockets about 

1 Bacon s Laws, 1763, cap. xvm. 
a p erry Papers, pp. 336-7. 


200 during the time the law has lasted/ Rev. 
Alex. Adams reports, " my Lord, I have three most 
irregular clergymen in my neighborhood." 1 

There are three subjects which are made con 
stantly manifest in the letters and official reports 
sent to England by the clergy during this period 
of the Establishment ; namely the " Papists/ the 
immoral lives of the Anglican clergy, and, last but 
not least, the lamentable reduction of the 40 per 
poll. It is a remarkable fact that in all of the 
correspondence at this time, there is not the 
slightest hint of irregularity in the lives of the 
Catholic priests. Their < learning/ their dilig 
ence and ingenuity/ their i proselytizing/ their 
attendance upon the sick/ their superstitions are 
all made matters of comment and bitter complaint, 
but not a word that in the eyes of a discerning age 
will throw the least discredit upon the Catholic 
clergy then laboring in Maryland. 2 

1 Perry Papers, p. 382, 1752. 
* Perry Papers, passim. 


The increase in the salaries of the Episcopal 
clergy due to the natural growth of the population 
was not marked by any increase in the zeal or 
spirituality of the recipients of the peoples bene 
ficence. In fact, it is lamentable to notice, if 
anything, a decrease in spirituality proportionate 
to the increase in salaries. Lest one should think 
that the record of the clergy of the establishment 
is exaggerated, it will be but just to let the docu 
ments speak for themselves. 

In July, 1626, the following complaints were 
sent by the much aggrieved people of Kent Island 
against their pastor the Eev. Thomas Phillip : 

" . . . Touching visiting the sick, the most 
humble supplication of them, their friends and re 
lations hardly ever prevails, so that now the people 
has utterly done expecting it from him. As to 
burying the dead, if there is to be a funeral sermon 
in the case, he seldom fails coming, but if the de 
ceased be poor so that [there is! no sermon, it is 
altogether vanity to expect him. In relation to 
the baptizing infants, he very rarely accepts any 
for sureties but communicants, which (God knows) 
are too few in number to be burdened with be 
coming sureties for all the rest, and that small 



number is rather decreased than augumented by a 
general disgust of our people at the surly, proud, 
morose and unhappy temper of our minister ; and 
yet he has sometimes accepted without scruple for 
sureties the basest profligate and notoriously in 
famous to take that charge on them, when that 
humor is on him. And at other times we are 
generally obliged to carry our children, some by 
land and some by water, many miles to other 
ministers, who never refuse to baptize them with 
such surities as we can provide." (The remainder 
of the letter is not fit for publication.) Signed by 
the vestry and some of the people. 1 

It is not indeed surprising that sometimes the 
people rebelled against their pastors, for we read 
how the Kev. Theodore Edgar, Westminster 
Parish, " was lately drove out of Virginia for 
drunkenness and was inducted into a parish soon 
after by our Governor." 

From Cecil County likewise comes a cry of dis 
tress about the same time. The people of St. 
Stephen s parish, complain that their rector is 
drunk on Sundays. " The people had entirely 
left the church, and some were for turning Papists 
and others Presbyterians." 3 

1 July, 1726. Perry Papers, pp. 257, 258. 

3 Report of the visitation of July 15, 1730. (Perry 
Papers, p. 297.) 

3 Commissary Henderson to the Bishop of London, August 
7, 1731. (Perry Papers, p. 308.) 


It seems, however, that some ministers had 
fallen too low even for Maryland. The Commis 
sary asserts in 1732 that Mr. Wright, a clergy 
man who was sent to Virginia three years ago, 
afterwards ran away from there with another 
man s wife. He afterwards tried to get employ 
ment in Maryland. 1 

The people of St. Mary s County still remained 
true to their faith and were unwilling to partici 
pate in the blessings which the Establishment was 
bestowing on the other counties. This was an oc 
casion of much concern to the minister appointed 
as a beneficiary of the tobacco tax in that county. 
Rev. Mr. Holt informs his correspondent that " the 
number of Papists are supposed now to exceed the 
Protestants three to one in that county." Anti- 
Catholic literature, therefore, to send broadcast 
among those poor benighted souls will be very ac 
ceptable. He says : " Some of those small pieces 
of dissuasive from and defensive against Popery 
would be a very charitable present in this parish, 
where Romish Pamphlets are diligently dispersed 
up and down, and where, during my predecessor s 
incapacity many years through lameness and sick 
ness, &c., the Romish priests made a plentiful 
harvest. Many families amongst us are but half 
Protestant; the husband of one and the wife of 

1 Commissary Henderson s Letter to the Bishop, March 
13, 1732. (Perry Papers, p. 302.) 


the other persuasion. The women who are Papists 
and inter-marry with Protestant husbands, make it 
a part of their contract that all their daughters shall 
be brought up in the Romish faith. The number 
of Papists are supposed now to exceed the Protest 
ants at least 3 to one in this colony." * 

These abuses can hardly be ascribed to the 
salaries of the ministers, for in 1741 the Rev. Mr. 
Jones writes to the Bishop of London : " Your 
Lordship s most laudable zeal in the cause of sound 
Christian Faith and vestal encourages me to pre 
sume you will not take my officiousness amiss in 
acquainting you hereby that tho there is as com 
petent a maintenance established on the Clergy of 
Maryland as (perhaps) in any other part of the 
British dominions, the benefices being, one with 
another, worth at least 200 per annum sterling, 
and there being about 36 parishes; yet the great 
remissness or mean capacity of some and the 
notorious immoralities of others of my brethren 
here give great offence to many devout people, and 
occasion a contempt of the clergy amongst many of 
the laity ; of which out Jesuits and the champions 
of dissentious enthusiasm, deism, and libertism 
(with all which we abound) make no small ad 
vantage, especially seeing these sons of Eli are per 
mitted to persevere with impunity, and without 

1 Rev. Arthur Holt, St. Mary s Co. ( Perry Papers, pp. 



censure or admonition. 7 l This prosperous con 
dition of the clergy of the Establishment is further 
corroborated by a later report, which says : " That 
the clergy of Maryland are better provided for 
than the clergy in any other colony, and that they 
are less respectable is not to be controverted ; being 
subject to less restraint than other men, they in the 
same proportion are less guarded in their morals. 
I speak of their general character, for there are 
some of the sacred order who are men of worth 
and merit. ; 2 

The establishment of the Episcopal Church had 
now been in operation for nearly half a century. 
It will be of interest to learn from the leading 
clergyman at the time, the results that had been 
accomplished. In 1750 Rev. Thos. Bacon thus 
sums up the situation. " Infidelity has indeed 
arrived to an amazing and shocking growth in 
these parts ; and tis hard to say whether tis more 
owing to the ignorance of the common people, the 
fancied knowledge of such as have got a little 
smattering of learning, or misconduct of too many 
of the clergy, especially in this Province. Religion 
among us seems to wear the face of the country; 
part moderately cultivated, the greater part wild 
and savage. . . . Here indeed the infidels seem 
to triumph and the misbehavior of some weak and 

1 Perry Papers, p. 323. 

2 Case of the Maryland Clergy. (Perry Papers, p. 339.) 


(I wish I could not say) scandalous brethren lies 
open to the eyes and understanding of the meanest 
and most illiterate, furnishes the evil-minded 
among them with a plausible objection to the truth 
of Christianity drawn from the open practice of 
its professed defenders, makes others careless about 
the knowledge or means of religion leads many 
of them into corrupt or at least sceptical princi 
ples and leaves some simple well-meaning people 
a prey to the emissaries of the Church of Rome, or 
to the enthusiasm of the New Light and other Itin 
erant preachers who not long ago were very numer 
ous, especially in the parts bordering on Pennsyl 
vania; which multiplies the labors and afflictions 
of the more regular honest pastors, who are grieved 
to see the kingdom of Satan and separation from 
the Church thus promoted, and their mouths 
stopped from any reply to such scandalous notori 
ous matters, as are every day to be objected from 
that quarter. In this unhappy Province where 
we have no Ecclesiastical Government, where every 
clergyman may do what is right in his own eyes, 
without fear or probability of being called to ac 
count, and where some of them have got beyond 
the consideration even of common decency, vice 
and immorality as well as infidelity must make 
large advances ; and only the appearance of a 
Bishop or Officer armed with proper powers of 


suspension, . . . seems capable of giving a check 
to their further progress." 1 

The same testimony is given about this time by 
two other clergymen of the Establishment. 
Messrs. Jones and Addison writing to the Lord 
Bishop of London (Aug. 27th, 1753) say, " that 
not only clergymen made of the lowest of the 
people, have been inducted, but, being under no 
jurisdiction, they have done what seemed good in 
their own eyes, to the greatest scandal and detri 
ment of our holy religion, for from hence the 
Jesuits stationed among us have reaped no small 
advantage ; from hence the enthusiasts and schis 
matics, rambling up and down the Provinces, seek 
ing whom they may seduce, have too much pre 
vailed on the wavering and ignorant; from hence 
those that sit in the seats of the scorner have 
proselyted too many to Deism; from hence many 
professed members of our Church have degenerat 
ed into lukewarmness by regard to the doctrines 
of those whose persons they hold in the utmost con 
tempt; and from hence, by the vicious examples 
and indiscreet behaviour of such teachers, too 
many have been patronized in immoral courses." 2 
" No wonder," says Eev. Dr. Hawks, " that such 
a bastard establishment as that of Maryland was 
odious to so many of the people; we think their 

1 August 4, 1750. (Perry Papers, p. 324.) 
8 Perry Papers, p. 331. 


dislike is evidence of their virtue. It deserved 
to be despised for it permitted clerical profligacy 
to murder the souls of men." 1 

This deplorable condition one might expect to 
see remedied after a few years especially as the 
attention of the authorities in England had been 
called to it. ^o evidences of improvement, how 
ever, are apparent. We find a minister regu 
larly receiving the allowance of 30 Ibs. of tobacco 
forced from Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics and 
other dissidents, even whilst the clergyman was in 
prison escaping the punishment of a murderer. 2 
The " scandalous behaviour," the " notorious bad 
ness," " immoral conduct," the " abandoned and 
prostituted life and character " of some of the 
ministers, was such that Governor Sharpe proposed 
to bond them in order " to prevent for the future 
the complainings against lives and examples of the 
clergy. 3 

1 Ibid., pp. 236-237. 

2 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, I, p. 38 ; also vol. in, p. 504. 

3 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, i, pp. 30, 60, 69, 61. 

"That [law]," says Gov. Sharpe, "for the regulation of 
the clergy was occasioned by the scandalous behaviour of 
some of that rank, over whom his Lordship may think pro 
per to exert his authority, lest the example of their lives 
should lessen the influence of the whole order; at this 
time one Parson Cook, after escaping with great difficulty 
the fate of a murderer, receives as punctually his 30 per 
poll in prison as if he was duly attending the duty of his 
function, such instances as this I shall endeavor to pre 
vent for the future by taking bonds for good behaviour from 


Lord Baltimore, though an Episcopalian, dis 
approved of the plan to bond the clergy, giving 
as his reason that it " may occasion controversy 
with them and the Bishop of London." Thus the 

the clergy before presentation. In that other Bill for pre 
venting the farther growth of Popery I am persuaded 
many things will appear to you somewhat extravagant; 
but T should be glad to receive your advice what notice I 
might take of a more moderate bill if offered respecting 
persons of that profession." (Gov. Sharpe to Calvert; Cor 
respondence, vol. i, p. 38 and vol. in, p. 504.) 

" If his Lordship approves of their [the clergy] being 
required before induction to sign such bonds as I have 
enclosed copies of, I will proceed as often as occasions offer, 
and hope it will effectually prevent for the future any com 
plainings against lives and examples of the clergy. If I 
could obtain permission, I would by some removals of a few 
of the Order to livings a little more considerable than 
those they now enjoy, bring them under the like regula 
tion and prevent the possibility of their future immoral or 
vicious conduct." ( Cor. of Gov. Sharpe, vol. I, p. 60 ; see 
also Correspondence, vol. in, p. 507.) 

" I have taken the liberty to enclose to your Lordship 
the copy of a letter I lately received from the Rector of 
Coventry parish in Somerset County, a person of a most 
abandoned and prostituted life and character, which I ap 
prehend he was incited to write to me by my refusal to 
grant him a Nolo Prosequi to prevent his being punished ac 
cording to law for marrying persons without license. Your 
Lordship will perceive what sentiments he entertains of 
any superior authority, but if your Lordship should be 
pleased to take any step for his suspension or removal, the 
whole parish will gladly transmit me attestations of his 
notorious immoral behaviour by which he has forfeited not 
only the character of a clergyman, but even of a Christ 
ian." (Correspondence of Gov. Sharpe, vol. I, p. 69.) 
1 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, I, p. 129. 


condition of affairs remained unchanged. Clergy 
men " degraded in England for gross immor 
ality/ 7 l " leading notoriously scandalous lives/ 
one with a pistol defying his enemies from the 
pulpit, served the Colonial Church in Maryland. 2 
These letters throw some light also on the 
manner of conducting the free schools which the 
Episcopal Church had established at the expense 
of the colony. Mr. Addison, writing to the Lord 
Bishop of London (Oct. 29th, 1766), gives the 
following account of James Colgrave, a minister 
who was appointed master of a free school. " He is 
a native of Ireland, and hath been a good many 
years in America, where by his own account, he 
hath lived a vagrant life, strolling from place to 
place thro most of the colonies upon the continent. 
He kept a house of public entertainment for some 
time at Philadelphia, of no good repute, I have 
reason to believe. He was likewise in the army 
here, particularly at the siege of Louisbourg, 
where he belonged to the train of artillery. The 
war being over, and strolling about as he had been 
accustomed to do, he came to Maryland, and was 
appointed master of the Free School of the Coun 
ty of Prince George, in which I live. Here he 
married a wife who left him in a week s time, 
apprehending her life to be in danger from his vio- 

1 Hawks, p. 338. 

2 Meerness, pp. 443 and 451, quoting Md. Gazette, 1768; 
Ijetters of Governor Sharpe, m, p. 432. 


lences. She had much reason for he is an aban 
doned drunkard, and when drunk an outrageous 
madman. He remained with us about five or six 
months, and having got in debt left us abruptly, 
in other words, ran away, and I was in hopes I 
should have heard no more of him forever. Your 
Lordship will judge what was my surprise and 
indignation upon receiving a letter from London 
informing me that he was in holy orders. 

" Such was his conduct before he was ordained ; 
and your Lordship shall hear that his change of 
character wrought no change of manners in him. 
Upon his arrival from England, he officiated in 
the Parish where he had before resided, and im 
mediately after the service got drunk, and behaved 
in the most outrageous manner to the scandal and 
grief of the friends of the Church of England, 
and to the triumph of its enemies. He officiated 
again at Annapolis, the metropolis of this Pro 
vince, where the congregation, as I was well in 
formed, thro indignation at his unworthy charac 
ter, in a good measure deserted the Church. Hav 
ing made a short stay here, where he met with no 
countenance, and having prevailed with his wife, 
against the sense of all her friends, to accompany 
him, he went to North Carolina, where, together 
with a parish, he enjoys a small appointment of 
20 per annum from the Society; how worthily, 
your Lordship from this detail will judge." l 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 333-334. 


In a sermon preached in 1Y71, the Rev. Jonathan 
Boucher thus describes the conditions of the colonial 
schools : " In a country containing not less than 
half a million souls (all of them professing the 
Christian Religion, and a majority of them mem 
bers of the Church of England, living, moreover 
under a British government and under British 
laws, a people further advanced in many of the re 
finements of polished life, than many of the large 
districts of the Parent State, and in general thriv 
ing if not opulent), there is yet not a single College 
and not a single school with an endowment ade 
quate to the maintenance even of a common me 
chanic. What is still less credible is, that at least 
two-thirds of the little education we receive are 
derived from instructors who are either indented 
servants or transported felons. . . . When I said 
that two-thirds of the persons now employed in 
Maryland in the instruction of youth were either in 
dented servants or convicts, the assertion was not 
made at random, nor without as much authentic 
information as the case would admit of. If you 
enquire who and what the other third are, the an 
swer must be, that in general, they are aliens and 
in very few instances, members of the Established 
Church. . . . Mark the conduct of the various 
Sectaries springing up amongst us. They not 
only plant their schools in any place where they 
have the most distant prospect of success, but they 
have conducted their interest with such deep 


policy that, (as was observed of the Jesuits in Eu 
rope), they have almost monopolized the instruc 
tion of your youth. Of our American colleges 
only two, I think, are professedly formed on the 
principle of the Established religion." 

It is gratifying to find that the people did not 
always imitate the example of their pastors. Kev. 
Dr. Chandler, writing to the Bishop of London 
(Oct. 21st, 1767), speaks of the people of the 
Southern part of the Eastern Shore as sober and 
orderly. The livings are generally worth 300 
sterling, some of them 500. " The general 
character of the clergy, I am sorry to say, is 
most wretchedly bad. It 1ST readily confessed that 
there are some in the province whose behaviour is 
unexceptionable and exemplary, but their number 
seems to be very small in comparison, they appear 
ing like here and there lights shining in a dark 
place. It would really, my Lord, make the ears 
of a sober heathen tingle to hear the stories that 
were told me by many serious people, of several 
Clergymen in the neighborhood of the parish 
where I visited, but I still hope that some abate 
ment may fairly be made on account of the pre 
judice of those who related them. The inhabit 
ants look upon themselves to be in a state of the 
cruelest oppression with regard to ecclesiastical 

1 Rev. J. Boucher, A View of the Causes and Consequences 
of the American Revolution, pp. 183-191. 


matters. The churches are built and liberally en 
dowed entirely at their expense, yet the proprietor 
claims the sole right of patronage, and causes in 
duction to be made without any regard to the 
opinion of the parishioners; those who are induc 
ted are frequently known to be bad men even at 
the very time, and others soon show themselves to 
be so after induction. There is no remedy, as 
they cannot be removed, not even by the highest 
exertion of Proprietary power." 

It was a grievous hardship indeed that all the 
colonists, Presbyterians, Quakers, Catholics and 
the rest were compelled to contribute to the sup 
port of parsons who were drunkards, adulterers 
and suspected murderers. 2 During the early 
years of the colony when a clergyman, like the 
Apostle, was expected to work for his bread as well 
as preach the Gospel, few Episcopalian ministers 
ventured to Maryland ; but now when the govern 
ment provided most liberally for them, they came 
in greater numbers. 

It must be remembered that the Act of 1702 im 
posing 40 Ibs. of tobacco yearly upon every taxable 
was " for the encouragement of faithful and able 
ministers labouring in the work of the Gospel. 3 

While this distressing state of affairs prevailed 
among the clergy at large, it is consoling to find 

1 Perry Papers, pp. 334-335. 

2 Sharpens Letters, in, pp. 480, 507. 

3 Bacon s Laws, cap. i, sec. in. 


some notable exceptions to the general rule. The 
Commissary, Dr. Bray, seems to have been a man 
of unblemished life and desirous of remedying the 
abuses prevalent among his brethren. If his zeal 
outran his charity, and if he sometimes mistook 
the promptings of bigotry for divine inspiration, 
if in his burning desire for the promotion of 
Christian knowledge, and the propagation of the 
Gospel/ he practically denied to all outside the pale 
of the Church of England the name of Christian, 
and belief in the word of God, if he not only 
refused to accord others equal rights and advant 
ages in their form of worship, by bringing about 
legislation whereby all dissenters from the Angli 
can Church were taxed for its support, if horror 
of Papists, with the perversions of Popish priests ? 
so disturbed his waking hours and his dreams by 
night, it was doubtless because, like so many other 
good men, he suffered from a certain mental 
obliquity of vision and moral colour-blindness. 
His ambition as a man was merged in that of the 
churchman, and self-aggrandizement seems to have 
had no place in a nature entirely given over to de 
sire for the building up of the Anglican com 
munion upon the ruins of all others. 1 There were 
a few others, like Commissary Henderson, Rev. 
Thomas Bacon, and Rev. Alexander Adams of 

J Cfr. Rev. Thomas Bray, Bernard C. Steiner, Md. Hist. 
Fund. Pub. No. 37. 


Somerset County, who appear to have led regular 
lives. As for the great majority, the only selvage 
of religion they seem to have retained in their 
spiritual make-up was an intense and blind ani 
mosity towards the Catholic Church, and all others 
who did not agree with them. 

The history of the Episcopal domination in 
Maryland shows, what has before been observed, 
that the cruel laws against Catholics and the flag 
rant abuses of position should not be laid at the 
door of the whole Episcopal body. It may be as 
serted without fear of contradiction that the worst 
features in this dark age of Maryland s history 
must be fathered on the ministers and the less 
educated portion of the Episcopal Church. The 
educated class of the Anglican laity has, in fact, 
always shown an inclination to a more liberal, 
catholic spirit. 



But a new era was beginning to dawn for the 
colonists in America, and especially for the Catho 
lics. Before the last quarter of the 18th century, 
there loomed up on the political horizon what 
proved to be a pillar of fire to the American patriot, 
but a cloud darkly ominous to the adherent of 
the mother country. The Stamp Acts of 1765 and 
1767 had developed in the people of the colonies a 
determination to uphold their rights as British 
subjects not to be taxed without representation. 1 

1 The first attempt of the English government to tax the 
colonies of America was in 1696, when a discussion as to 
the propriety of this plan was started in England, the pur 
pose finding many advocates as well as enemies. Those 
against it held that as the colonies had no representatives 
in Parliament to consent to the measure, the home govern 
ment was without right to force it upon the American de 
pendencies. From that day the question never completely 
died out, being revived in discussion from time to time. 
After the Treaty of Paris (1763), however, England deter 
mined to replenish her coffers, which had been depleted by 
her European Wars, by taxing the colonies, giving as a 
specious reason that it was for the " raising of a revenue 
for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and 
securing his Majesty s dominions in America." This mea 
sure raised a veritable storm of indignation throughout the 
colonies, and the opposition was so violent, the attitude of 
the people so menacing, that the British government repealed 
the Act in 1766. Another reason for the tax was the de- 



In this dispute Maryland took a leading part 
and held out for the principle even after New 
York, Philadelphia and Boston had yielded. 1 
About the time that the second Act levying a duty 
on tea alone (1770) was passed, the people of 
Maryland were called on to take up the struggle 
for the same principle which was being violated 
by the Proprietary government. " A Kepublican 
spirit appears generally to predominate," says 
an eye-witness of the time. 2 This " Eepublican 
spirit " which had been growing during the life of 
Charles, the fifth Lord Baltimore, 3 on account of 
the burdensome taxes, at length produced an open 
rupture between the officials of the Proprietary 
and the people. 

Frederick, the last Lord Baltimore, more intent 
upon deriving profit from the colony than in con 
sulting the welfare of his people, was a constant 
source of irritation to Governor Eden, his brother- 
in-law, as he had been to Governor Sharpe, spur 
ring him on continually to create sinecures for 

termination of England to maintain a standing army in 
America, to waken the colonists from any possible dreams 
of future self-government and independence, and foreseeing 
that the people would refuse to support these troops thus 
quartered upon them, England conceived the idea of defray 
ing this expense also by the Stamp tax. 

1 McMahon, p. 375. 

2 William Eddis, Letters From America, 1769-77. 

a Calvert Papers, u, pp. 73-77-129. 


the friends of the Proprietary. 1 The people of 
Maryland, at first restive under the unjust and un 
bearable tax upon their resources, occasioned by 
the furnishing of these perquisites for the Pro 
prietary s adherents, at last resolved to put an end 
to this method of extortion. 2 In consequence, af 
ter a heated dispute between the two Houses, the 
Assembly of 1770 adjourned without renewing the 
law of 1763, which was the Act determining these 
objectionable fees. 3 " From the reports of this 
period, these complaints appear to have been justly 
founded." 4 The law of 1702 requiring 40 Ibs. of 
tobacco per poll for the support of the Anglican 
clergy, had been amended as we have seen, re 
ducing the tax to 30 Ibs. This last act, and the 
act regulating fees and perquisites expired in 1770. 
The clergy and their friends contended that the 
amended act of 1763 providing 30 Ibs. per poll 
having expired, the old act of 1702 exacting 40 
Ibs. per poll was revived. 5 

1 Archives, vi, pp. 127, 206; Calvert Papers, IT, pp. 122- 
241; Cfr. also Maryland s Attitude in the Struggle for Can 
ada, J. H. U. Studies, 10th Series, J. W. Black. 

2 Eddis, pp. 120-5; Calvert Papers, II, p. 225. 

3 Laws of Maryland, 1751-1763. 

4 The annual fees of the Land Office averaged 407,276 Ibs. 
of tobacco, or 6,876 dollars, and those of the commissary s 
office 235,428 Ibs. of tobacco, or 3,923 dollars. (McMahon, 
pp. 382-383.) 

5 If persons preferred to pay in specie, the rate was 12 
shillings and sixpence currency, or 8s. 4 pence sterling, the 
hundred weight. 


The incumbents were generally in comfortable 
and respectable circumstances. The parishes in 
the Province numbered forty-five at this time, the 
steadily growing population rendering the bene 
fices more and more valuable. 1 

By the action of the Assembly refusing to re- 
enact the law of 1763, Governor Eden found him 
self in a vexatious position. On one side were 
the grasping Proprietary, the Anglican clergy, and 
the officials of the government; and on the other, 
the recalcitrant representatives of the people. In 
this dilemma he decided upon a course which at 
the time seemed most disastrous, but proved to be 
the occasion in Maryland for a decided advance in 
the development of the idea of popular govern 
ment. The Governor issued a Proclamation (No 
vember, 1770) by which he re-established the Fee 
Bill. 2 Notwithstanding the personal popularity 
of the Governor, who had won the respect and ad 
miration of all by his affability and graciousness, 
this Proclamation shook the Province to its very 
^depths. Half-formed principles, thoughts and 
theories in solution, plans and purposes in the 

1 All-Saints Parish was estimated to yield 1,000 ster 
ling per annum. (Eddis Letters, pp. 47-9; McMahon, p. 
398.) The revenues of the Proprietary at this period ave 
raged 12500 a year. (Eddis, p. 125; Calvert Papers, n, 
pp. 207, 214, 220.) 

2 Steiner, Sir Robert Eden, pp. 42 et seq.; Rowland, Life 
of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, p. 98; McMahon, p. 383. 


germ, at the touch of the edict assumed with 
magical swiftness perfection of growth and com 
pleteness of form. Parties were formed for and 
against the political dogmas in question ; there was 
no longer any middle course, and each man was a 
partisan. The great line of demarcation was 
drawn at last, and the Episcopal clergy with the 
officials were arrayed against the people. 

To defend the position taken by Eden, Daniel 
Dulany, the Secretary of the Province, began a 
series of letters in the Maryland Gazette of Jan. 
7th, 1773. The first letter of Dulany, signed 
" Antillon," was a dialogue between " First Citi 
zen " and " Second Citizen," the latter defending 
the Proclamation, the former attacking it. As 
" First Citizen " was a man of straw, Dulany 
managed the argument to further the cause of the 
administration. He had a few years before taken 
the side of the colonies against the mother-county, 
on the question of the Stamp Act, 1 Up to the 
time of the Proclamation he had been the most 
popular and prominent man in the province. He 
was styled the i Pitt of Maryland. The princi 
ple for which Dulany contended in the Stamp Act, 
was identical with the principle for which the 
people now held out against the colonial govern 
ment. It was to his interest, however, to be with 
the colonists in the first instance and against them 

1 Taxes in the British Colonies, D. Dulaney, 1765. 


in the second. He was deriving a handsome sal 
ary from the objectionable fees. 

The people were bitterly opposed to the mea 
sure, their liberties were down-trodden, ridden 
over roughshod by those who held the reins of 
government; but protest as they might, complain 
and rail against these high-handed measures as 
they did, there seemed to be none capable of champ 
ioning their cause. Their one-time leader had 
forsaken them in their need, deserting to the 
enemy. Then it was that the disfranchised 
Catholic, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, entered 
the lists for the people. With the manacles of 
intolerance still binding him, he took the lead in 
the struggle for the people s rights, and while still 
shut out from participation in the government, he 
wrested from the foremost Protestant in the colony 
the rights of freemen for the very Protestants 
who had denied these rights to himself and his 
fellow Catholics, and would have driven, not long 
since, both him and them from the colony their 
fathers had founded. 

Mr. Carroll came of a family which had settled 
in Maryland during the last part of the seven 
teenth century. 1 His grandfather Charles Car 
roll arrived in the colony while it was yet a Pro 
prietary province, and after it passed Tinder royal 
jurisdiction, the third Lord Baltimore appointed 
him his Agent and Eeceiver General. His son 
Charles Carroll, inherited from his father a large 

^fr. Appendix U. Colonial Carrolls. 


fortune and a position of influence, especially 
among his co-religionists. Charles Carroll of 
Carrollton was born at Annapolis, September 
20th, 1737. He received his education at the 
Jesuit College of St. Omer s in France, studied 
law in that country and afterwards, in England. 
In 1764 he returned to Maryland to find the 
colony seething with the political excitements of 
that period. Disabled in many ways by the laws, 
on account of his religion, he at once took the part 
of the people, throwing all the weight of his wealth 
and commanding influence, as well as his learn 
ing, into the cause of liberty and independence, 
and finally when the crisis was reached he crossed 
swords with Dulany, the one-time champion, but 
now a traitor to the people s cause. Equally 
matched in education, Mr. Dulany had the ad 
vantage which years, experience, political position 
and his relation to the government assured him. A 
powerful Protestant, the distinguished Secretary 
of a Protestant Province on the one side, and on the 
other, the disfranchised Catholic shut out from all 
participation in the civil affairs of that Province, 
measured their strength in this momentous con 
flict. 1 

1 Mr. Carroll was " a gentleman of independent fortune, 
perhaps the largest in America a hundred and fifty, or two 
hundred thousand pounds sterling." (Works of John 
Adams, IT, p. 380.) "His fortune the first in America."- 
(Ibid., m, p. 60.) 


Mr. Carroll wrote in answer to " Antillon," 
signing himself " First Citizen." Four letters 
were written on either side and when, in July, the 
last letter of " First Citizen " appeared, the peo 
ple s cause was overwhelmingly triumphant. Mr. 
Carroll had the satisfaction of realizing that, 
ostracized as he was on account of his faith, he 
was in truth the "first citizen" of the province. In 
this vindication of the people s rights, Carroll re 
frained from attacking the Governor. It was a 
line of argument made necessary by the temper of 
the times. Being a Catholic, his enemies would 
have probably accused him of attacking the Divine 
right of kings, so extended under the Tudor s and 
their successors. How different from the days of 
the Catholic administration, when the laws of 
Cecilius, " Absolute Lord of Maryland " were set 
aside by the Catholic colonists and their action 
agreed to by the Catholic Proprietary, who seems 
to have recognized their action as according to 
Catholic doctrine and tradition. 1 

1 " The Cortes of Spain, were accustomed to tell their 
sovereign at the opening of the assembly, that each one of 
them was equal to himself, and all united were more than 
his equal. ... In those days the divine right of mon 
archy never entered into the heads of men. Even in the 
eighth century, Pope Zachary writing to the people of 
France says, the Prince is responsible to the people, whose 
favour he enjoys. Whatever he has power, honour, riches, 
glory, dignity, he has received from the people. . . . The 
people make the king, they can unmake him. St. Thomas 


The contention of Carroll was that fees were 
taxes and, as such, could only be levied by the 
vote of the people s representatives. In the 
course of the controversy, Dulany made the un 
generous argument that Carroll was disfranchised 
and not to be trusted. Carroll writes : 1 " I am 
as averse to having a religion crammed down peo 
ple s throats as a proclamation. These are my 
political principles, in which I glory." Dulany 
answers : " Papists are distrusted by the law, 
and laid under disabilities." To which Carroll 
replies : " They cannot, I know, (ignorant as I 
am), enjoy any place of profit or trust while they 
continue Papists; but do these disabilities extend 
so far as to preclude them from thinking and 
writing on matters merely of a political nature ? 

Aquinas, one of the greatest divines of the Church in any 
age, lays down in his principles of theology, that Civil 
Governments are not by Divine right but by human 
right, and that when anything is to be enacted for the 
common good, it ought to be done either by the whole 
multitude of the people or by their representative. Even 
Bellarmine says, it is false that political princes have their 
power from God only: for they have it from God only so 
far as he has planted a natural instinct in the minds of 
men, that they should wish to be governed by some one. 
But whether they should be governed by kings or consuls 
by one or by many by a perpetual or temporary magi 
strate, depends on their own wishes." (Archbishop 
Hughes, Lecture on " The Civil and Ecclesiastical Power 
in the Governments of the Middle Ages," Catholic Cabinet, 
1843, pp. 660-61.) 
1 Letter iv. 


roll, " we Catholics who think we were hardly 
treated on occasion, we still remember the treat 
ment, though our resentment hath entirely sub 
sided. . . . To what purpose was the threat 
thrown out of enforcing the penal statutes by pro 
clamation ? Why am I told that my conduct is 
very inconsistent with the situation of one who 
owes even the toleration he enjoys to the favour 
of the government? If by instilling prejudices 
into the Governor, and by every mean and wicked 
artifice, you can rouse the popular resentment 
against certain religionists, and bring on a perse 
cution of them, it will then be known whether the 
toleration I enjoy, be due to the favour of the 
government or not. That you have talents ad 
mirably well adapted to the works of darkness, 
malice to attempt the blackest, meanness to stoop 
to the basest, is too true." * 

Thus did the Catholic, ostracised by his fellow- 
Protestants, with the bonds of bigotry still upon 
him, do battle in the cause of the people, Protest 
ant and Catholic alike. He was stigmatized as a 
Catholic and a Jesuit, was referred to in Green s 
Gazette as " one who doth not enjoy the privilege 
of offering his puny vote at an election," and as 
" this patriotic nurseling of St. Omer s." 2 The 
clergy of the Established Church, of course, took 

1 Rowland, i, pp. 358-9. 
a McMahon, p. 391. 


sides against Carroll. " The press of the colony," 
says McMahon, " abounds with publications de 
monstrating their poverty, and sometimes de 
nouncing, sometimes supplicating the resistors of 
their claims." But Carroll " had now estab 
lished a rank and influence in the province at 
large, which rendered him prominent in its coun 
cils and operations in the consummation of inde 
pendence which was soon to follow." 

When the election of Mr. Hammond and Mr. 
Paca, the opponents of the Proclamation, was an 
nounced, and the polls were closed, the people 
eagerly proposed that funeral obsequies should be 
held over the Proclamation which they had so 
hated, fought, and now finally defeated. Accord 
ingly a cortege moved with it to the gallows where, 
amidst the firing of minute guns and the beating 
of muffled drums, the famous Proclamation of the 
Governor was interred, and the death knell 
of Episcopalian intolerance in Maryland was 

In the meantime Frederick, Lord Baltimore, had 
died (1771). He was the last of the Lords Bal 
timore. Having no legitimate heirs, his pro- 
prietary rights he bequeathed to Henry Harford, 
his illegitimate son. Of Frederick Calvert 
Morris says : " A fast young man, and did not 

1 McMahon, p. 399. 

2 Ibid., p. 392. 


live to be an old one. His memory is not pre 
cious, and his deeds were anything but meritori 
ous. ... A man universally known to be one of 
the most licentious of his times." 1 " He was," 
says Browne, " a degenerate scion of a noble stock, 
a selfish and grasping voluptuary, who cared only 
for his Province, which he never visited, as a 
source of revenue for his pleasures. He added 
his name to the list of noble authors by an indif 
ferent book of travels, and came near adding it 
.also to the list of noble criminals, by figuring as 
the traverser in a discreditable trial for felony, of 
which, however, he was acquitted." 2 Hall says 
of him, that he was " a selfish, disreputable and 
dissolute degenerate, neither ability nor character 
was even respectable. It is to be observed " con 
tinues the same writer, " with respect to the six 
Calverts who successively held the title of Baron 
of Baltimore, as it was transmitted from father 
to son, that the first three appear, so far as records 
can indicate, to have been happy in their domestic 
lives ; while the last three were each of them 
either separated from their wives, or divorced. 3 
<. . . The student of vital statistics would note 
one fact which is to be gathered from the dates of 
the birth and death of the several Lords Baltimore. 

1 Morris, Lords Baltimore, pp. 53-4. 

2 Browne, p. 217. 

"The first three were Catholics, the others were Episco 


The duration of the lives of the first three Barons 
was fifty-two, sixty-nine and eighty-five years, 
respectively, an average of nearly sixty-nine, 
almost the three score years and ten alloted to 
man. The ages at death of the last three were 
thirty-seven, fifty-two and thirty-nine, an ave 
rage of forty-three years. The degeneracy was 
apparently physical, as well as moral and 
mental." l 

As events progressed towards the Revolution, 
much of the old intolerant spirit towards Catho 
lics disappeared. The need was felt of placating 
them in order to present a united opposition to the 
mother-country. It is something of a novelty to 
hear words of commendation of Catholics from 
the lips of a Protestant clergyman, but one pub 
licly acknowledged that " in Maryland, the Catho 
lics have all the respectability which good birth, 
respectable connections, and good estates can con 
fer. They are not, moreover (as we are) dis 
tracted and enfeebled by sects and parties." 2 

The reason for this change of front on the part 
of the Episcopal clergy is apparent in the fact 
that it became all important at this time to enlist 

Hall, p. 172-3. 

2 Rev. Jonathan Boucher, A. M., " A View of the Causes 
and Consequences of the American Revolution," 1763-75; 
Diocesan Library of the P. E. Church, Baltimore. 


if possible the sympathies of the Catholics in the 
cause of royalty. Mr. Boucher was, of course, on 
the royalist side, dependent for his " living " upon 
the continuation of the royal government, which 
meant a continuation of the Episcopal establish 
ment. An effort was therefore made to have the 
Catholics take sides with the established govern 
ment. To this end, the Anglican laity must by 
all means be taught at this juncture to assume 
towards the Catholics a friendly attitude. But 
in order to win over the Episcopalians, who had 
for so long been taught by their ministers that 
Catholics were monsters, they must first be taught 
to lay aside their long cherished prejudices. 

" Unwilling," says the same minister, " to repeat 
grievances I endeavour to forget the long series 
of oppressions and wrongs which these unfortu 
nate people have suffered among us. Hardly a 
book or an article of religion has been written, 
hardly a sermon on any controverted point has 
been preached, hardly any public debate or pri 
vate conversations have been held on the subject 
of religion or politics in which (in the strong 
phrase of a noted Divine of the last century) the 
parties have not contrived a thwack at Popery/ 
We have exhibited them as some of their own Com 
munion are wont to exhibit those they call heretics 
in an auto-da-fe, in a horrid dress disfigured with 
monsters and devils, or as one Emperor of Eome, 
distinguished for his cruelty, is said to have ex- 


hibited the primitive Christians, when he wrap 
ped them in the skins of beasts, and threw them 
into the arena to be devoured by lions." l . . . 

1 Rev. J. Boucher, p. 263. 

" The ill-treatment," he says again, " which they every 
where received from us is everywhere disgraceful; but it 
more particularly ill becomes the people of this Province 
which was settled by Catholics. It was granted to a 
Papist avowedly that Papists might here enjoy their 
religion unmolested. Differing from colonists in general, 
the first settlers of Maryland were, with very few excep 
tions, persons of family and fortune, and this too is the 
character of their descendants who still possess some of 
the best of the lands and best fortunes in the Province. 
Restrained from many of the means of showing their 
regard for their country, they are yet, as far as it is in 
their power, as desirous and as ready to promote its wel 
fare as any other of its inhabitants. I am sure they 
have reason to be so, for their all is at stake in it, and I 
know of nothing in their religion that necessarily makes 
them hostile either to their own interests or those of the 
public. If they have not hitherto been, or are not now so 
active as some other descriptions of men are, in what are 
called patriotic exertions, they have not only the common 
apology of other quiet and orderly persons, that they con 
ceive themselves in this case to be at liberty to follow their 
own private judgments, and that they do not think such 
self-commissioned exertions either necessary, wise or just; 
but they may also allege that they are restrained by laws 
to which they submit from a sense of duty. ... In the 
hard measure thus dealt out to this people we first make 
the offence and then punish it. To justify our rigour to 
wards them, we pretend that by their education, modes 
and habits of thinking, they are disqualified from exer 
cising certain offices of citizenship, from which, there 
fore, we exclude them." (Rev. Jonathan Boucher, A View 
of the Causes and Consequences of the American Revolu 
tion, 1763-1775, pp. 290-92.) 


" If any man of an unprejudiced and ingenu 
ous mind, forgetting for a moment that he is 
either a Protestant or a Papist, will sit down and 
read the Popish controversy,! can almost answer 
for his rising up with this conviction strongly im 
pressed on his mind, that Protestants have hardly 
shown themselves more superior in point of argu 
ment (sic) than Papists have in good temper and 
good manners. When Catholics write or speak of 
Protestants, we are always mentioned with decency, 
if not with respect : whereas we very rarely notice 
them without bestowing upon them some harsh 
and offensive epithet." l 

So long indeed had the Protestants been ac 
customed to call the Catholics by names intended 
to insult them, that this minister, even when ha 
was thus trying to win the favor of Catholics, in 
advertently committed the very fault he was con 
demning. 2 

1 Rev. Jonathan Boucher, ibid., p. 282" 

2 " The descendants of those great men in the old times 
before us, the Papists of our times are no longer in any 
capacity of emulating the greatness of their ancestors; but 
their fortitude under trials of peculiar poignancy is al 
most as unexampled as their oppressions; and their ac 
quiescence under a long series of accumulated wrongs, is 
such an instance of true patriotism as entitles them to 
the highest respect. With a patient firmness of character, 
worthy of all praise and all imitation, they have long 
submitted to such injuries and indignities, as their high- 
spirited forefathers would have ill-brooked; and such as 
their undegenerate posterity would not endure, were it not 


From a sermon delivered by the same clergy 
man in 1Y74 we have an excellent description of 
the attitude of Catholics at this time. ". . . The 
Catholics of Maryland (who were at that time 
both in point of property and respectability of no 
ordinary weight in the community) seemed to 
hesitate, and to be unresolved what part they 
should take in the great commotions of their coun 
try which were then beginning. Their principles, 
no doubt led them to side with the government, 

that they have the wisdom and the virtue to respect the 
laws more than their own personal feelings. Everything 
most dear to the human heart has been torn from them, 
excepting their attachment to their religion, and their 
determination to love and bless those fellow-subjects, who 
unmindful of the duties resulting from their religion, and 
unmoved by so endearing an example, foolishly and wicked 
ly continue to regard Papists as Samaritans, with whom 
they resolve to have no dealings." (Boucher, iUd., p. 289.) 
" If there is one principle which the Catholic Church 
inculcates with more earnestness than another, it is the 
Christian doctrine of obedience. As long, therefore, as 
they are consistent with their religion, they must be 
friends of settled government, and adverse to Revolution 
and rebellion, no less inclined to defend Republicanism 
when it is the established form of government under which 
they live, as in the Catholic Cantons of Switzerland, 
than they are to defend monarchy in France, Spain and 
Portugal. And surely, as loyal subjects, the people of 
those countries are blameless. . . . Their sufferings prove, 
at least, their sincerity. And the sacrifices they still 
make for conscience sake of many worldly advantages, is 
such an instance of firmness in conscientious adherence to 
what they believe to be the truth, as it must be allowed 
cannot be said of their oppressors." (Boucher, ibid., p. 


whilst their inclinations, and (as they then 
thought) their interest made it their policy to be 
neutral. . . . The persons in America who were 
most opposed to Great Britain had also, in gen 
eral, distinguished themselves by being particular 
ly hostile to Catholics; but then, though Dissent 
ers and Republicans were their enemies, the 
friends of government could hardly be said to bo 
their friends. In America, if they joined the 
Government, all they had to look for was to ba 
bitterly persecuted by one party and to be defeated 
by the other. Hence for some time they appeared 
to be wavering and undetermined. This irresolu 
tion drew down upon them many suspicions, cen 
sures and threats. ... At length a Catholic 
gentleman who was possessed of one of the first 
fortunes in the country (in short, the Duke of 
Norfolk of Maryland), actuated, as was generally 
thought, solely by his desire to become a public 
man, for which he was unquestionably well quali 
fied, openly espoused the cause of Congress. Soon 
after he became a member of that body. This 
seemed to settle the wavering disposition of the 
Catholics in Maryland; under so respectable a 
leader as Mr. Carroll, they all soon became good 
whigs, and concurred with their fellow-revolution 
ists in declaiming against the misgovernment of 
Great Britain." * 

1 Rev. Jonathan Boucher, Preface to Sermon preached in 
1774, pp. 242-3. 


The Convention of Maryland met at Annapolis 
in June, 1774. Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 
was one of the most active members of this body. 
The Convention concluded its session December 
the twelfth with the following appeal to the peo 
ple : "As our opposition to the settled plan of 
the British administration to enslave America, 
will be strengthened by a union of all ranks of 
men within this province, we do most earnestly 
recommend that all former differences about reli 
gion or politics, and all private animosities and 
quarrels of every kind, from henceforth, cease, and 
be forever buried in oblivion; and we entreat, we 
conjure every man, by his duty to his God and his 
country, and his posterity, cordially to unite in 
defence of our common rights and liberties." * 

In the stirring times that followed, Charles 
Carroll took a prominent part. lie was a mem 
ber of the " Committee to propose a Declaration of 
Rights, and a Form of Government for this 
State." The committee incorporated in the 
Declaration that principle of religious liberty 
which had been proclaimed in Maryland by the 
first Catholic settlers 142 years before a princi 
ple always in operation while the Catholic Pro 
prietors were in power, always in abeyance when 

1 Proceedings of Convention of the Province of Maryland 
held at Annapolis, 1774-76, p. 10; Baltimore, 1836; cfr. 
also The Provincial Government of Maryland, John Archer 
Silver, J. H. U. Studies, 13th series. 


the government was in the hands of Puritan or 
Prelatist. As formulated, however, by the Mary 
land Convention, it was not the perfect expression 
of religious toleration arranged for and desired by 
Lord Baltimore, for while he allowed all churches 
and established none, the law-makers of 1776 pro 
vided for the continued support of the Anglican 
Institution. 1 

1 Article xxxm, of the Maryland Declaration of 
Rights : " That it is the duty of every man to worship 
God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to him, 
all persons professing the Christian religion are equally 
entitled to protection in their religious liberty, wherefore 
no person ought by any law to be molested in his person 
or estate on account of his religious persuasion or pro 
fession, or for his religious practice, unless under color of 
religion any man shall disturb the good order, peace or 
safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, 
or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; 
nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or main 
tain, or contribute unless on contract, to maintain any par 
ticular place of worship, or any particular ministry; yet 
the legislature may in their discretion lay a general and 
equal tax for the support of the Christian religion, leaving 
to each individual the power of appointing the payment 
over of the money collected from him, to the support of 
any particular place of worship or minister; or for the 
benefit of the poor of his own denomination, or the poor in 
general of any particular county; but the churches, chapels, 
glebes and all other property now belonging to the church 
of England ought to remain in the Church of England for 
ever. And all Acts of Assembly lately passed for collecting 
monies for building or repairing particular churches or 
chapels of ease, shall continue in force and be executed, 
until the Legislature shall by Act supersede or repeal the 


Fortune seemed to favor the American patriots 
in 1775. They had captured Ticonderoga, Crown 
Point, St. John s, Chamblay and Montreal. Mont 
gomery was besieging Quebec, when on the last 
day of the year the gallant hero fell. It became 
of the utmost importance to the Americans to form 
an alliance with Canada, or, at least, prevail on 
the Canadians to preserve neutrality. At this 
time there were 150,000 Catholics, and only 360 
Protestants in the Province of Quebec. 1 

The politic conduct of England at this time con 
duced to make the Canadians loyal, for after the 
cession of Canada to England, Parliament had 

same; but no county Court shall assess any quantity of to 
bacco or sum of money hereafter, on the application of any 
vestryman or churchwardens; and every minister of the 
Church of England who hath remained in his Parish and 
performed his duty shall be entitled to receive the pro 
vision and support of the Act entitled, An Act for the 
Support of the Church of England in this Province till 
the November Court of this present year, to be held for 
the county in which his parish shall lie, or partly lie, or 
for such time as he hath remained in his parish and per 
formed his duty." (Proceedings of Maryland Convention 
pp. 314-15.) 

1 Journal of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, during his 
Visit to Canada, p. 20. In 1774, there were in Quebec the 
Bishop and 126 priests. 


passed (June 13th, 1774) the famous " Quebec 
Act " by virtue of which England restored to the 
Canadian Church the rights that were hers when 
under the dominion of France. This act of Par 
liament was the cause of an outburst in the United 
Colonies of fanaticism and bigotry of feeling ac 
companied with a vitriolic intensity of expression, 
almost without parallel. The whole country was 
aroused at the thought of the outrage perpetrated 
by England in thus countenancing the Catholic 
Church in Canada, when it was in the power of 
the British government to destroy that hated in 
stitution of Popery root and branch. The recog 
nition of the Church and the payment of revenues 
to her clergy by all-conquering England was chaos 
come again in the eyes of the dissenting colonists. 
Mass-meetings were held in all the towns ; 
speeches, proclamations, appeals and remonstrances 
poured forth, eloquent with the outrage thus 
offered to the tender-conscienced ones. At a meet 
ing in Boston on September 6, 1774, it was re 
solved " That the late Act for establishing the 
Roman Catholic Eeligion in that extensive country 
called Quebec, is dangerous in an extreme degree 
to the Protestant religion, and to the civil rights 
and liberties of all America, and therefore, as men 

1 Quebec Act, see Canadian Archives, edited by Adam 
Short, p. 401. Ottawa, 1907. 


and Protestant Christians we are indispensably 
obliged to take all measures for our security." 1 
From one who speaks with authority comes the 
following in proof of the Colonial trend of opinion : 
" The affair of Canada is still worse. The Ro 
mish faith is made the established religion of the 
land, and his Majesty is placed at the head of it. 
The free exercise of Protestant faith depended 
upon the pleasure of the Governor and Council. 
The Parliament was not content with introducing 
arbitrary power and Popery into Canada with its 
former limits, but they have annexed to it vast 
tracts which surround the Colonies. Does not 
your blood run cold to think an English Parlia 
ment should pass an act for the establishment of 
arbitrary power and Popery in such an extensive 
country. If they had any regard to the freedom 
and happiness of mankind they would never have 
done it. If they had been friends to the Protest 
ant cause, they never would have provided such a 
nursery for its great enemy. They would never 
have given such encouragement to Popery. The 
thought of their conduct in this particular shocks 
me. It must shock you, too, my friends. Be 
ware of trusting yourselves to men who are cap 
able of such an action. They may as well estab 
lish Popery in N"ew York and the other colonies 
as they did in Canada. They had no more right 

1 Journal of Congress, I, pp. 34-35; See Appendix Y. 


to do it there than here. Your lives, your prop 
erty, your religion, are all at stake." 

The press of the country expressed its opinion 
and showed the tendency of its sympathies by 
printing countless letters from its " foreign cor 
respondents," which mirrored the intolerant at 
titude and gave expression to the bigotry of the 
different colonies. 2 

1 Alexander Hamilton, A Full Vindication of Measures of 
Congress from Calumnies of their Enemies, p. 26. 

2 " . . . This popish Act (Quebec Bill) which is worse in 
tendency than the Stamp Act, or the Jew Bill." (Letter 
from Warsaw, Maryland Gazette, October 13, 1774.) 

" It is the only statute which has been passed these two 
hundred years to establish Popery and arbitrary power in 
the British dominions." (London Letter in Maryland 
Gazette, September 8th, 1774.) 

"The plausible pretext for the Quebec Bill is, that at 
the time of the peace the inhabitants of Canada were as 
sured that they should enjoy their religion and their 
ancient laws; they have rested satisfied under these as 
surances ever since to the present time; and whence (says 
the correspondent) the forwardness of the present ministry 
to establish Popery by an Act of Parliament in the do 
minions of a Protestant Prince? The people of Canada 
took the King s word, and were satisfied with the tolera 
tion, and what but Toryism would satisfy the Canadians 
with the Romish religion and the French Laws? Where 
were my Lords, the Bishops? Where were all those who 
have denied upon oath the many damnable doctrines and 
positions of the See of Rome, when the consciences of the 
Canadians were assigned over to the dominion of the 
Pope?" (London Letter, in Maryland Gazette, Sept. 8th, 

" There is no doubt but that every encouragement that 
can be possibly afforded to these licenced slaves, these 


The feelings of the country were voiced by Con 
gress which in its " Address to the People of Great 
Britain " put on record expressions in opposition 
to the Quebec Act which afterwards were the occa 
sion of much regret. 1 It declared that the Act " is 
not only unjust to the people in that Province but 
dangerous to the interests of the Protestant religion 
and ought to be repealed." It is resolved that its 
repeal " is essentially necessary to restore harmony 
between Great Britain and the American col 
onies. . . . That this Act establishing the Eoman 
Catholic religion in the Province of Quebec, 
abolishing the equitable system of English laws, 
and erecting a tyranny there, to the great danger 
from a total dissimilarity of religion, law and gov 
ernment of the neighboring British colonies, by the 
assistance of whose blood and treasure the said col 
ony was conquered from France." 

But now at this juncture of events, a change of 
front was thought expedient on the part of the 
American colonies. At the very time when the tide 
of fanaticism, of religious fury and hatred against 
the Catholic Canadians was as its height, Con- 
children of popery supported by a Protestant Court, will be 
guaranteed in order to subdue those headstrong colonists 
who pretend to be governed by English laws." (London 
Letter of June 5th, in Maryland Gazette, Seeptember 18, 

1 See Appendix Y. 

2 Journal of Congress, i, p. 70. 
*H)id., pp. 71-2. 


gress addressed to them the following appeal: 
" We are too well acquainted with the liberality of 
sentiment distinguishing your nation, to imagine 
that difference of religion will prejudice you 
against a hearty amity with us. You know that 
the transcendent nature of freedom elevates those 
who unite in her cause above all such low-minded 
infirmities. The Swiss Cantons furnish a mem 
orable proof of this truth. Their union is com 
posed of Roman Catholic and Protestant states, 
living in the utmost concord and peace with one 
another, and thereby enabled, ever since they vin 
dicated their freedom, to defy and defeat every 
tyrant that has invaded them. . . . That Al 
mighty God may incline your minds to approve 
our necessary and equitable measures, to add your 
selves to us ... and may grant to our joint exer 
tions an event as happy as our cause is just, is the 
fervent prayer of us, your sincere and affectionate 
friends and fellow-subjects." 1 

On the 15th of February, 1776, Congress ap 
pointed a Committee of three to proceed to Can 
ada for the purpose of enlisting the sympathy of 
the Canadians, or at least to prevail upon them 
to preserve neutrality. This Committee was com 
posed of Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and 

1 Journal of Congress, I, pp. 112-113, October 26. (See 
Appendix Y. ) 


Charles Carroll of Carroll ton. 1 Mr. Carroll did 
riot become a member of Congress until after his re 
turn from Canada, but was at that time in Phila 
delphia in close touch with the members of that 
body. By a special resolution of Congress, Mr. 
Carroll was desired to " prevail on Mr. John Car 
roll [afterwards Archbishop] to accompany the 
Committee to Canada to assist them in such mat 
ters as they should think useful. 7 2 It was ex 
pected that Rev. Dr. Carroll would exercise a 
potent influence upon the Bishop and clergy, and 
through them the laity, of Canada. 

An interesting draught of a letter of Dr. Car 
roll reviewing his ideas upon the subject, shows 
that while he was ready to sacrifice himself for the 
good of his country, he hesitated to mingle in 
politics on account of his religious character, and 
furthermore because it was clear to him that the 
mission from which so much was hoped, would be 
undoubtedly a failure. The Canadians had sworn 
to be loyal to the British government and they had 
no excuse, such as the Americans had, to justify 
a revolution. Obedience to established authority 
is a doctrine inculcated by the Catholic Church, 
and while Dr. Carroll was willing to serve his 
country in persuading the Canadians to take no 

1 Journal of Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, edited by 
Brantz Mayer, p. 18; quoting Journal of Congress, n, p. 62, 
ed. 1800. 

2 Journal of Charles Carroll, p. 18. 


active part against the Americans, it is clear from 
his words that he had no intention of prevailing on 
them to take arms against the mother-country 
which had faithfully kept its promises. 1 

1 Dr. Carroll writes : " The Congress has done me the 
distinguished and unexpected honor of desiring me to ac 
company the Committee ordered to Canada, and of assist 
ing them in such matters as they shall judge useful. I 
should betray the confidence put in me by the Honourable 
Congress, and perhaps disappoint their expectations were 
I not to open my mind to them with the utmost sincerity, 
and plainly tell them how little service they can hope to 
derive from my assistance. In the first place, the nature 
and functions of that profession in which I have engaged 
from a very early period in life, render me, as I humbly 
conceive, a very unfit person to be employed in a negotia 
tion of so new a kind to me, of which I have neither ex 
perience nor systematical knowledge. I hope I may be 
allowed to add, that though I have very little regard to 
my personal safety amidst the present distress of my 
country, yet I cannot help feeling for my character; and I 
have observed that when the ministers of religion, leave 
the duties of their profession to take a busy part in politi 
cal matters, they generally fall into contempt, and some 
times even bring discredit to the cause in whose service 
they are engaged. Secondly From all the information I 
have been able to collect concerning the State of Canada, it 
appears to me that the inhabitants of that Country are no 
wise disposed to molest the United Colonies, or prevent 
their forces from taking and holding possession of the 
strong places in that province, or to assist in any manner 
the British arms. Now if it is proposed that the Can 
adians should concur with the other colonies any further 
than by such neutrality, I apprehend that it will not be 
in my power to advise them to it. They have not the 
same motives for taking up arms against England which 


Whatever his own opinions were upon the sub 
ject, we know that he obeyed the call of his coun 
try and accompanied the Committee. Thus on 
this important legation of Congress composed of 
Franklin, Chase, and the Car rolls, we find two 
Catholics, who had been but a short while before 
deprived of the privileges of citizenship on ac 
count of their religion. As Dr. Carroll had sur 
mised the Canadians were prepared to remain 
neutral, but all hope of assistance from them 
proved futile. One of the causes of this failure 
to induce Canada to join arms with the United 
colonies was the inevitable and logical result of 
the intolerant expressions in the colonies. The 
Canadians could not accustom themselves to the 
lightning-change in the attitude of their neigh 
bors, and the facing-both-ways of those who 
at one moment reviled and at another cajoled 
them. After the insulting expressions used in 
their regard by Congress, they were not disposed to 

renders the resistance of the other colonies so justifiable. 
If an oppressive mode of government has been given them 
it was what some of them chose, and the rest have ac 
quiesced in. Or if they find themselves oppressed they have 
not yet tried the success of petitions and remonstrances, 
all which ought, as I apprehend, to be ineffectual before it 
can be lawful to have recourse to arms and change of gov 
ernment. Thirdly Though I were able to bring myself to 
think (which as objects now appear to me I really cannot) 
that the Canadians might lawfully take up arms and con 
cur with " the draught of the letter stops abruptly here. 
(Original Ms., Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore.) 


either listen to or believe the protestations and af 
fectionate appeals made to them by this body in 
almost the same breath. It savored too much of 
blowing hot and blowing cold. England had 
treated them with justice and humanity, had with 
a large-minded policy grappled the Catholic Cana 
dians to her cause by assuring to them their ancient 
rights and in respecting their religion. 

It is difficult to understand how the people of 
the American colonies could have imagined it 
possible to win over Canada to a union with them 
against Great Britain, when at every turn they 
outraged her people in what was dearer to them 
than life. How Congress could have fancied 
that their real sentiments so publicly expressed in 
the form of Addresses and Petitions to England 
would remain a secret from the Canadians, is not 
easy to comprehend. 

k The address from the Continental Congress 
attracted the attention of some of the principal 
Canadians ; it was soon translated into very toler 
able French. The decent manner in which the 
religious matters were touched, the encomiums on 
the French nation, nattered a people fond of com 
pliments. They begged the translator, as he suc 
ceeded so well, to try his hand on that addressed to 
Great Britain. He had equal success in this, and 
read his performance to a numerous audience. 
But when he came to that part which treats of the 
new modeling of the Province, draws a picture of 


the Catholic religion and Canadian manners, they 
could not control their resentment, nor express it 
but in broken curses. i Oh, the perfidious double- 
faced Congress. Let us bless and obey our bene 
volent Prince, whose humanity is consistent, and 
extends to all religions ; let us abhor all who would 
seduce us from our loyalty, by acts which would 
dishonor a Jesuit, and whose addresses, like 
their resolves, are destructive of their own ob 
jects. " 1 

Thus while Maryland sent her two Catholic 
sons to win the good will or at least the neutral 
ity of Canada in the great struggle, we see how 
their efforts were balked by the narrow bigotry of 
the Americans themselves. 

After this unsuccessful journey to Canada, the 
Commissioners returned to Congress to find that 
body discussing the question of independence. 

It, was with reluctance that the colonists finally 
severed the ties which bound them to the mother- 
country. Chase and Carroll were for independ 
ence, and were mortified to find on their return 
that the Maryland delegates to Congress we re still 
restricted by the instructions of the Maryland 
Convention " to disavow in the most solemn man 
ner all design in the colonies of independence. 7 
It was a critical moment, no time was to be lost, 
the destiny of the country might depend upon the 

1 American Archives, u, p. 231. 


votes of any one colony, and the honour of Mary 
land was at stake. The time for temporizing, the 
time for clinging to forlorn hopes of ultimate 
union again with England was over and past, the 
smallest delay might be the means of depriving 
Maryland of the glory and renown of declaring for 
Independence. Mr. Carroll drove to Annapolis, 
took his seat in the Convention, and by every 
argument, by his persuasive eloquence, by the 
power of his influence, by entreaty and pleading, 
and the inspiration of his splendid courage, 
compelled the timid delegates to revoke their 
former instructions and to send their representa 
tives to the Congress committed to Independence. 1 

Mr. Carroll was appointed a delegate to Con 
gress, and took his seat July 4th. 2 

When Mr. Carroll arrived to take his seat, Con 
gress had decided on Independence, and although 

1 Cfr. Lives of the Signers, James Tyson. 

3 " From the earliest symptoms of discontent, Mr. Car 
roll had foreseen the issue, and made up his mind to abide 
by it. Once when conversing with Samuel Chase in 1771 or 
1772, the latter remarked: Carroll, we have the better 
of our opponents, we have completely written them 
down. And do you think, Mr. Carroll asked, that 
writing will settle the question between us ? To be sure 
replied his companion, what else can we resort to? The 
bayonet, was the answer. Our arguments will only raise 
the feelings of the people to that pitch when open war will 
be looked to as the arbiter of the dispute. " ( Latrobe s 
Life of Charles Carroll, in Biog. of The Signers, vn, p. 


he had not been able to take part in the delibera 
tions which led to that consummation, he gladly 
took upon himself the responsibility of the act 
and signed the Declaration. At that time when 
the patriots throughout the country awaited with 
grim patience the action of their delegates in con 
vention assembled at Philadelphia, when with tre 
pidation not a few of the delegates looked forward 
with sad misgivings to the outcome of their action, 
it was then, placing in jeopardy his fortune and 
his life, without fear or hesitation, the one-time 
disfranchised Catholic, but now the honored 
champion of the peoples rights and of religious 
liberty, signed, with bold hand, Charles Carroll 
of Carrollton. 1 

To Charles Carroll wrote Secretary Adams 
(1824) : "Permitme to felicitate you and the coun- 

1 The story that he first signed Charles Carroll and after 
wards added of Carrollton to distinguish himself from 
others of that name is only legendary. He always signed 
his name Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Thus it appears 
in all MSS. and books in the Archiepiscopal Library, Balto. 

The Declaration of Independence was adopted on the 
fourth of July, but not signed until the second of August. 
We learn from the secret journals of Congress that it was 
not until the nineteenth day of July that it was resolved 
to engross the Declaration on parchment; this was done 
and the signatures were affixed upon the date above men 
tioned. Mr. Carroll was among the first of the members 
of Congress present to subscribe his name. (Cfr. Latrobe s 
Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, p. 254-5.) 


try which is reaping the rewards of jour labors, as 
well that your hand was affixed to that record of 
glory, as that after the lapse of near half a cen 
tury, you survive to receive the tribute of rever 
ence and gratitude from your children, the present 
fathers of the land." l 

^atrobe s Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, p. 256. 


None had more reason to rejoice over the out 
come of the struggle for independence than the 
Catholics of Maryland. The Federal Constitu 
tion submitted to the Convention of 1787 con 
tained but one utterance upon the subject of re 
ligion, (vi, 3) : " No religious test shall ever be 
required as a qualification to any office or public 
trust under the United States. 7 The first Con 
gress of the United States added ten amendments 
to the Constitution, the first of which is: "Con 
gress shall make no laws respecting the establish 
ment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise 

Thus after a century and a half, marked at times 
by bloodshed, often by cruelty and for the most part 
disgraced by selfish intolerance, the people of 
America had learned the lesson first taught by the 
Catholic Lords Baltimore and the Catholics of St. 
Mary s, and there is to-day no article of the Con 
stitution more jealously guarded, more lovingly 
cherished than that which embodies the practice 
of religious freedom so faithfully observed in the 
early days of Catholic Maryland. 

The election of George Washington was the oc 
casion of great joy to the Catholics of Maryland 



end the other united colonies. To give voice to 
these sentiments, the Catholics presented to the 
Father of his Country the following address: 
"Sir We have long been impatient to testify our 
joy and unbounded confidence in your being called 
by an unanimous vote to the first station of a 
country in which that unanimity could not have 
been obtained without the previous merit of un 
exampled services, of eminent wisdom and un 
exampled virtue. Our congratulations have not 
reached you sooner because our scattered situation 
prevented our communication and the collecting of 
those sentiments which warmed every breast. But 
the delay has furnished us with the oportunity, 
not merely of presaging the happiness to be ex 
pected under your administration, but of bearing 
testimony to that which we experience already. 
It is your peculiar talent in war and peace to af 
ford security to those who commit their protec 
tion into your hands. In war you shield them 
from the ravages of armed hostility ; in peace 
you establish tranquility by the justice and mod 
eration, not less than by the vigor of your govern 
ment. By example, as well as by vigilance, you 
extend the influence of laws on the manners of 
our fellow-citizens. You encourage respect for 
religion, and inculcate by words and actions 
that principle on which the welfare of nations so 
much depends, that a superintending Providence 
governs the events of the world and watches over 


the conduct of men. Your exalted maxims and 
unwearied attention to the moral and physical im 
provement of our country have produced already 
the happiest effects. Under your administration 
America is animated with zeal for the attainment 
and eiicouragrnent of useful literature. She im 
proves her agriculture, extends her commerce and 
acquires with foreign nations a dignity unknown 
to her before. From these happy events, in which 
none can feel a warmer interest than ourselves, we 
derive an additional pleasure by recollecting that 
you, sir, have been the principal instrument to 
effect so rapid a change in our political situation. 
This prospect of national prosperity is peculiarly 
pleasing to us on another account; because whilst 
our country preserves her freedom and independ 
ence, we shall have a well-founded title to claim 
from her justice, the equal rights of citizenship 
as the price of our blood spilt under your eyes and 
of our common exertions for her defence, under 
your auspicious conduct rights more dear to us 
by the remembrance of former hardships. When 
we pray for the preservation of them, where they 
have been granted and expect the full extension 
of them from the justice of those States which 
still restrict them when we solicit the protection 
of Heaven over our common country, we neither 
omit nor can omit recommending your preserva 
tion to the singular care of Divine Providence, 
because we conceive no human means are so avail- 


able to promote the welfare to the United States 
as the prolongation of your health and life, in 
which are included the energy of your example, 
the wisdom of your counsels and the persuasive 
eloquence of your virtues." 

To this address Washington graciously replied: 

" While I now receive with much satisfaction 
your congratulations upon my being called by an 
unanimous vote, to the first station in my country, 
I cannot but duly notice your politeness in offering 
an apology for the unavoidable delay. As that 
delay has given you an opportunity of realizing, in 
stead of anticipating, the benefits of the general 
government, you will do me the justice to believe 
that your testimony of the increase of the public 
prosperity enhances the pleasures which I should 
otherwise have experienced from your affectionate 
address. I feel that my conduct in war and in 
peace, has met with more general approbation 
than could reasonably have been expected; and I 
find myself disposed to consider that fortunate cir 
cumstance, in a great degree, resulting from the 
able support and extraordinary candour of my fel 
low-citizens of all denominations. The prospect 
of national prosperity now before us is truly ani 
mating, and ought to excite the exertions of all 
good men to establish and secure the happiness of 

1 Address of the Catholics of America to Washington, 
Archiepiscopal Library, Baltimore. 


their country, in the permanent duration of its 
freedom and independence. America, under the 
smiles of a Divine providence, the protection of 
. a good government, and the cultivation of man 
ners, morals and piety, cannot fail of attaining an 
uncommon degree of eminence, in literature, com 
merce, agriculture, improvements at home and re 
spectability abroad. As mankind become more 
liberal they will be more apt to allow, that all those 
who conduct themselves as worthy members of the 
Community are equally entitled to the protection 
of civil government. I hope ever to see America 
among the foremost nations in examples of justice 
and liberality. And I presume that your fellow- 
citizens will not forget the patriotic part which 
you took in the accomplishment of their revo 
lution and the establishment of their government, 
or the important assistance which they received 
from a nation in which the Koman Catholic faith is 
professed. I thank you, Gentlemen, for your kind 
concern for me. While my life and my health 
shall continue, in whatever situation I may be, it 
shall be my constant endeavour to justify the favor 
able sentiments which you are pleased to express of 
my conduct. And may the members of your so 
ciety in America, animated alone by the pure spirit 
of Christianity, and still conducting themselves as 
the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy 
every temporal and spiritual felicity. 



The private sentiments of Dr. Carroll may best 
be understood from a letter addressed about this 
time to Lord Petre: ". . . Your lordship/ he says, 
" is solicitous to see Catholics emancipated from 
the cruel bondage under which they have been long 
held here, and no equitable government, I may 
add no government which has risen superior to 
the mean and despicable prejudices of a narrow 
and interested education, will support the policy 
of that bondage after they know the justice and 
political advantages of not only a free toleration,, 
but of extending equal rights to the professors of 
all religions. The daily advantages arising to 
America from this policy should be a lesson to 
Britain, which, in other instances of law, govern 
ment, trade, etc., furnishes so many useful in 
structions to us. . . ." 

Whatever may have been Jefferson s sentiments 
towards the Catholic Church prior to the Revolu 
tion, the following letter to Archbishop Marechal 
in 1820 sufficiently proves his favorable regard at 
that time. 

Monticello, January 17, 1720. 

"... Your letter is my first information of the 
death of the worthy Cardinal Dugnani. An inti 
mate acquaintance with him of several years at 

1 Aug. 31st, 1790, original in Archiepiscopal Archives,. 


Paris, had proved to me the excellence of his char 
acter, and after my return I received many testimo 
nies of his continued friendship, on which I placed 
a just and cordial value. I sincerely regret his 
loss. Having been consulted by him while at 
Paris, by instruction of the Pope, previous to his 
making the appointment of Bishop Carroll to the 
See of Baltimore, and given the assurance that he 
was perfectly free to make such an establishment 
without offence to our institutions or opinions, I 
received an assurance in the name of His Holiness, 
that any youths of our country who might wish to 
visit Rome for their education, should be under 
his protection and free from all question or moles 
tation in their religious faith, and I had proofs of 
attention to this through Cardinal Dugnani, on 
the return of some youths who had been there for 
their education. With my thanks for the com 
munication of your acceptable pastoral letter, be 
pleased to accept the homage of my high vener 
ation and esteem. 


We have traced the course of religious toleration 
in Maryland from the first settlement in 1634 
until the adoption of the Constitution of the 
United States. One fact appears prominently 
throughout and as we have seen is indisputable; 
that Catholics were ever the friends of toleration. 

1 Original in Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore. 


Even when the Protestants had overturned the 
benign government of the Catholic Proprietaries 
and refused toleration to their benefactors, we find 
no indication of vindictiveness when the Catholics 
again returned to power. They seemed indeed to 
remember but to forgive. Nowhere in the world 
shall we find a more noble example of generosity 
and Christian charity on the part of a persecuted 
people than is shown by the colonial Catholics of 

" The Catholics of our generation," says Car 
dinal Gibbons, 1 " have nobly emulated the 
patriotism and the spirit of toleration ex 
hibited by their ancestors. They can neither 
be accused of disloyalty nor of intolerance 
to their dissenting brethren. In more than 
one instance of our nation s history, our churches 
have been desecrated and burned to the 
ground; our convents have been invaded and de 
stroyed; our clergy have been exposed to insult 
and violence. These injuries have been inflicted 
on us by incendiary mobs animated by hatred of 
Catholicism. Yet in spite of these provocations, 
our Catholic citizens, though wielding an immense 
numerical influence in the localities where they 
suffered, have never retaliated. It is in a spirit 
of just pride that we can affirm that hitherto in 
the United States no Protestant house of worship 

1 Faith of our Fathers, p. 276. 


or educational institution has been destroyed, nor 
violence offered to a Protestant minister, by those 
who profess the Catholic faith. God grant that 
such may always be our record." 

If the question is asked what will be the atti 
tude in the future of the rapidly increasing Catho 
lic people of this country on any subject pertain 
ing to the welfare of our country and especially 
to religious liberty, we can proudly point to 
the past. As in the past, so in the future, the 
Catholics of America may be relied on to 
maintain the principles first proclaimed in the 
land by Cecilius Calvert, the second Lord Bal 
timore, and afterwards embodied in the Constitu 
tion of the United States; and if (quod Deus 
avertat*) persecution should again arise against us, 
may we be able to repeat the words of the noble 
Carroll, expressive of the generous patience and 
charity of our forefathers: WE REMEMBER AND 



James ascended the throne in 1603, and in 1604 an act 
was passed putting into execution the Statutes of Eliza 
beth against Recusants, Jesuits and Seminary priests. 
(1 Jac. 1 cap. iv. Statutes of the Realm; Journal of the 
House of Lords. 

In 1605, as a result of some negotiations with the 
Vatican, James was suspected of a sympathetic leaning to 
wards Rome, therefore to nullify these suspicions and to 
prove himself guiltless of such heterodoxy, he allowed the 
penal laws to be put more strongly in force against the 
Catholics; (Gardiner, I, pp. 224-227, 228-29) and as a 
result, in a short time between five and six thousand ^yere 
adjudged Popish recusant convicts, surrendering two-thirds 
of their estates, being subjected to immense fines, and the 
forfeiture of their personal property, in many instances. 
(Ibid.). The revenues of these sequestered lands be- 
came the perquisites of the hangers-on of the Court; for 
instance, " the profits of the lands of two recusants were 
granted to a footman, and this was by no means an iso 
lated case." (Gardiner, I, p. 230.) To such a height had 
the tide of popular hatred of the Catholics reached, that it 
was considered a cause of bitter disappointment and sorrow 
that the eagerly longed for execution of the priests might 
not after all take place. (Ibid.) . In 1606, as a result 
of the Gunpowder plot new penal laws were enacted, 
against recusants, an Act for the better repressing of 
Popish Recusants was passed. (3 & 4 Jac. 1. cap. 4.) By 
this ordinance the Sacramental test was required: a fine 
of 20 each month or two-thirds of the Recusant s lands 
was forfeited until he conformed: a fine of 20 for all over 
sixteen years of age who refused to attend the Established 
Church, or a forfeiture of two-thirds of their lands, also 
power given to the King to refuse the fine of 20 and seize 
the lands at will. A fine of 20 a month was exacted 
of those who were possessed of large estates. At the ac- 
cession of James there were not more than 16 whose landed 



interests were large enough to allow them to escape thus 
easily. Upon the less wealthy fell the harder exaction of 
a forfeit of two-thirds of their lands, the revenues of which 
passed into the King s treasury, though as a great con 
cession enormous fines were accepted by the commissioners. 
Those without estates were mulcted of their personal 
property. (Cfr. Gardner, i, pp. 96-97.) It was felony to 
serve a foreign prince; it was adjudged high treason to 
reconcile anyone to the Church of Rome: and a forfeit of 
10 for any servant or stranger in one s house refusing to 
attend the Church of England service. (3 Jac. I, cap. 4; 
Statutes of the Realm. An additional Act was passed 
To avoid dangers which might grow from Popish Recu 
sants. (1606.) 

By this it was ordered that anyone discovering anyone 
relieving any Jesuit or Seminary priest, or shall discover 
Mass being said, on the conviction of the priest shall have 
one-third part of the forfeiture of all sums of money which 
shall be forfeited by such offence: Popish recusants coming 
into Court or the King s house shall be fined 100, and for 
not attending Divine service, or dwelling within the city of 
London, or ten miles of the city, shall forfeit the sum of 
100: No recusant shall practise the common law, nor 
shall be Councillor, clerk, attorney, solicitor, proctor, nor 
shall practise the art of physic, the trade of apothecary, 
nor shall be judge, clerk, steward, minister, in any Court, 
shall not bear office in the army, nor have charge of any 
ship, castle or fortress, fine 100: No Popish Recusant 
convict, or one having a wife a popish recusant convict 
shall exercise any office in the Commonwealth : Every 
married woman being a Popish recusant convict (her 
husband not standing convicted) who shall not conform one 
year before the death of her husband, shall forfeit two 
parts of her jointure and two parts of her dower, be dis 
abled from becoming executrix, or administratrix of her 
husband, and shall forfeit all her right to his goods and 
chattels: Every Popish recusant shall be disabled from 
seeking redress in law: A man, recusant convict married 
except in Church and according to the Church of England 
shall be utterly disabled to have any estate or freehold in 
any of the lands of his wife, and every woman, a Popish 
recusant, so married shall be disbarred from claiming 
dower, inheritance or jointure, the fine besides to be 100: 
For the non-baptism of a child in the Church of England, 
and for burying in any but a burial place of the Established 
Church, fines of 100 respectively: Popish children sent 
to foreign seminaries forfeit their inheritance to their 
Protestant next of kin; not permitted to exercise the of 
fices of administrators or guardians, nor to undertake the 


education of a child: For bringing into the country, buy 
ing, selling, printing Popish books, rosaries, catechisms, etc., 
40s. fine for each article : It shall be lawful for any two 
justices of the peace to search any house and lodging of a 
Popish recusant convict for these articles, and to deface 
and burn them: Finally Recusants shall be disarmed. 
(3 Jac. I, c. 5, Statutes of the Realm. 

Now that it was no longer possible for a Catholic to pur 
chase immunity by the payment of a fine, and his estate 
could be seized at the King s pleasure, an excellent oppor 
tunity offered for the King s favorites to enrich themselves 
by obtaining from him the gift as it were of many of the 
wealthy Catholics. They were at liberty to use them as 
they chose, to exact from them large amounts of money in 
lieu of the confiscation of their lands. Lingard says, 
41 There still exist in the State Paper Office returns made 
from the Signet Office of these grants, in language suf 
ficiently indicative of their real nature. They are Notes 
of such recusants as His Majesty hath granted liberty to 
his servants to make profit of, by virtue of that power 
which His Majesty hath, to refuse the payment of twenty 
pounds per mensem, and in lieu thereof to extend three 
parts of their lands. " ( Lingard, vii, p. 89, quoting Tier- 
ney, iv, App. p. xxv. ) The Catholics were " farmed out " 
as it w r ere, to those courtiers who had sufficiently insinuated 
themselves into the graces of the King. 

Under Charles the severity of the persecution was some 
what mitigated, the King being forced thereto by Richelieu 
{Hallam, Constitutional History, p. 402.) 

The King agreed, however, to the following Petition of 
Parliament, in 1625, That English children should be 
brought back from foreign Popish seminaries : No Recus 
ant should come within the Court, nor be allowed in the 
Queen s household, nor to be a Keeper of the King s 
prisons: Recusants land grants were to be void; they 
were to be removed from all places of trust; to retire to 
their several counties, and to remain within five miles of 
their place of abode; celebrating or attending Mass was 
forbidden. (1 Car. I, Rushworth s Collection.) In 1627 was 
passed the Act by which anyone sending any child or person 
abroad to be popishly bred lost all rights in law, could 
not be Executor, guardian, administrator, could receive no 
legacy, deed of gift, nor hold any office, was to forfeit all 
goods and chattels, lands and income during life. These 
penalties extended to the child sent abroad, and were only 
removable upon conforming to the Church of England and 
taking the Sacramental Test. (III Car. I, Statutes of 
Healm. ) In 1628, the penal laws were put in execution 


against Recusants, Bishop Smith s arrest ordered; Priests 
ordered committed to jail without bail or mainprize, if 
convicted and execution respited, they were to be closely 
restrained, Jesuits taken at Clerkenwell removed to New 
gate, one convicted: (1628, iv. Car. I, Rushworth s His 
torical Collections.) In 1629, Recusants were prosecuted, 
were to be seized in going to Ambassador s houses for 
Mass, only the Queen s household allowed in her chapel, 
Stat. 3 Jac. put in force against Recusants dwelling within 
10 miles of London; Proclamation dissolving monasteries 
and convents, forbidding religious orders to teach, preach, 
Mass also interdicted; recusants assigned to State prisons, 
(v. Car. I, Rushworth s Hist. Collections.) Recusants were 
obliged to compound for their forfeitures, to raise money 
for the King s profit. (Ibid.) In the year 1634 " It con 
cerned his Majesty to think of some other means than 
hitherto he had done to raise monies for his occasions 
for that the monies which were to come from . . . the com 
positions with the Recusants fell far short of expectation." 
x, Car. I, Rushworth Coll.) In 1640, Recusants ordered 
indicted, removed from Court. (xvi, Car. I, Rushworth 
Coll.) the burning of Popish books ordered, (xvi, Car. I, 
Rushworth Coll. in, p. 1180;) in 1641, penal laws put in 
execution, (xvn, Car. I, Rushworth Coll.] In 1642, no 
Popish Recusants permitted to serve in the army. (XVIIT, 
Car. I, Rushworth Coll.) 


Abstract from the original Calvert Papers. 

1628 III Charles I, 20 March. 

Sir George Calvert, Lord Baltimore to his son Cecill 
Calvert, Sir Thomas Wentworth of Wentworth, Woodhouse, 
York, and Sir Francis Cottington of Harworth, Middlesex. 

Conveyance in Trust. 

Manor of Danby Wiske, Advowson of the Rectory of 
Danby Wiske, Mansion House Manor mill and Chapel of 
Kipling being part of the dissolved Monastery of St. 
Agatha of the Archdeanery of Richmond, lands in the 
Parish of Cathericke and Northeast Moore in Mouton near 
Richmond in North Riding, York, and all other lands of 
Sir George Calvert in England. 

" Also all that the Advowson, donation, free disposition, 
right of patronage and presentation of the rectory of Danby 
aforesaid in the said countie of York, with all rights, mem 
bers, appurtenances whatsoever and also of all and singular 
houses, buildings, hereditaments, barnes, stables, . . . tene- 


ments, meadows, pastures, foodings, . . . privileges, gleebc, 
lands, tytlies of ... lambes and all other tythes whatso 
ever ... as well spiritual and Temporall belonging to the 
said advowson and premises. 

To keep these lands in the name and blood of Sir George 
Calvert and for 3,000 to be paid by Cecill Calvert, 1,000 
on marriage and 2,000 after marriage. 

Sir George Calvert grants these lands to be held for 
Cecill Calvert and his heirs male, then for his other sons, 
Leonard, George, Francis, Henry and Phillip, and their 
heirs male in priority of birth and failing these then for 
the right heirs of Sir George Calvert. 

For this purpose Sir George Calvert and his wife Joan 
will levy a fine at Westminster on all the said lands to 
Went worth and Cottington. 

To the same persons Sir George Calvert and his wife 
will levy a fine at Dublin, on Manor of Cloghamon of 7,000 
acres, Wexford, the Abbey of Downe and all other lands of 
Sir George Calvert in Ireland. 

To be held for Sir George Calvert, during his life, and 
then for the same uses as his lands in England. Cecill Cal 
vert can grant a jointure to his wife for term of her life 
out of the lands in England. If Cecill Calvert does not 
marry within a year from date and with the consent of 
Wentworth and Cottington, or if he does not pay the 3,000 
to Sir George Calvert in manner aforesaid then this con 
veyance is void. 

GEORGE BALTIMORE, (seal destroyed.) 

Philip Darnall a witness. 


IV. Wee doe further give, and by this present Charter 
for us our heirs and successors, wee doe grante and con- 
firme unto the said Sr. George Calvert his heires and As- 
signes all and singular the Islands and Iletts +-hat are or 
shall be within Tenne Leagues from the Easterrne Shoare 
of the said Region towards the East with all and singular 
Ports, harbours and Creekes of the Sea belonging unto the 
said Region or the Islands aforesaid. And all the Soile, 
Landes, Woods, Lakes, and Rivers scituate or being within 
the Region Isles or Limitts aforesaid, with the Fishings of 
all sortes of Fishe, Whales, Sturgions, and other Royal 
Fishes in the Sea or Rivers; and moreover all Veines, 
Mines and delues as well discovered as not discovered, of 


Gold, Silver, Gemmes and precious Stones, and all other 
whatsoever be it of Stones, Metalls, or of any other thing 
or matter whatsoever found and to be found within the 
Region lies and Limitts aforesaid. And furthermore the 
Patronages and Advowsons of all Churches which as the 
Christian Religion shall increase within the said Region 
Isles and Limits shall happen hereafter to be erected, To 
gether with all and singular the like and as ample Right, 
jurisdictions, privileges, prerogatives, Royaltyes, Liberties, 
Imunityes and Franchises whatsoever as well by Sea as by 
Land within the Region, lies and Limits aforesaid. To have 
exercise, use, and enjoy the same, as any Bishop of Durham 
within the Bishopprick or County Palatine of Durham in 
our Kingdome of England hath at any time heretofore had, 
held, used, or enjoyed, or of right ought or might have had, 
held, used, or enjoyed. 

XX. In witnesse whereof we have caused these our Let 
ters to be made patents. Witnesse ourself at Westminster 
the seventh day of April, in the one and twentieth yeare of 
our Raigne of England, France and Ireland, and of Scotland 
the sixe and fifteth. 


CHARLES, by the grace of GOD, of England, Scotland, 
France, and Ireland, KING, Defender of the Faith, &c. To 
ALL to whom these presents shall come, GREETING. 

II. W T HEREAS our well beloved and right trusty subject 
CECILIUS CALVERT, Baron of BALTIMORE, in our kingdom of 
Ireland, son and heir of GEORGE CALVERT, knight, late Baron 
of BALTIMORE, in our said kingdom of Ireland, treading in 
the steps of his father, being animated with a laudable and 
pious zeal for extending the Christian religion, and also 
the territories of our empire, hath humbly besought leave 
of us, that he may transport, by his own industry and ex 
pense, a numerous colony of the English nation, to a certain 
region, herein after described, in a country hitherto un 
cultivated, in the parts of America, and partly occupied by 
savages, having no knowledge of the Divine Being, and that 
all that region, with some certain privileges and jurisdic 
tions appertaining unto the wholesome government and state 
of his colony and region aforesaid, may by our royal high 
ness be given, granted, and confirmed unto him, and his 

III. KNOW YE, therefore, that WE, encouraging with our 
royal favour the pious and noble purpose of the aforesaid 
Barons of BALTIMORE, of our special grace, certain know 
ledge, and mere motion, have GIVEN, GRANTED and CON 
FIRMED, and by this our present CHARTER, for us, 


our heirs and successors, do GIVE, GKANT and CON 
FIRM unto the aforesaid Cecilius, now Baron of 
Baltimore, his heirs and assigns, all that part of the 
Peninsula, or Chersonese, lying in the parts of America be 
tween the ocean on the east and the bay of Chesopeake on 
the west; divided from the residue there of by a right line 
drawn from the promontory, or head-land, called Watkin s 
Point, situate upon the bay aforesaid, near the river of 
Wighco on the west, unto the main ocean on the east; and 
between that boundary on the south, unto that part of the 
bay of Delaware on the north, which lyeth under the 
fortieth degree of north latitude from the sequinoctial, 
where New England is terminated; and all the tract of 
that land within the metes underwritten (that is to say,) 
passing from the said bay, called Delaware bay, in a right 
line, by the degree aforesaid, unto the true meridian of the 
first fountain of the river of Pattowmack, thence verging 
towards the south, unto the further bank of the 
said river, and following the same on the west 
and south, unto, a certain place called Cinquack, 
situate near the mouth of the said river, where it dis 
embogues into the aforesaid bay of Chesopeake, and thence 
by the shortest line unto the aforesaid promontory, or place 
called Watkin s Point. So that the whole tract of land, 
divided by the line aforesaid, between the main ocean and 
Watkin s Point, unto the promontory called Cape Charles, 
and every the appendages thereof/ may entirely remain 
excepted for ever to us, our heirs and successors. 

IV. Also We do GRANT, and likewise CONFIRM unto the 
said Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, all islands 
and islets within the limits aforesaid, all and singular 
the islands and islets, from the eastern shore of the afore 
said region, towards the east, which have been, or shall be 
formed in the sea, situate within ten marine leagues from 
the said shore; with all and singular the ports, harbors, 
bays, rivers and straits belonging to the region or islands 
aforesaid, and all the soil, plains, woods, mountains, 
marshes, lakes, rivers, bays and straits, situate, or being 
within the metes, bounds and limits aforesaid, with the 
fishings of every kind of fish, as well of whales, sturgeons, 
and other royal fish, as of other fish in the sea, bays, straits 
or rivers, within the premises, and the fish there taken ; and 
moreover, all veins, mines and quarries, as well opened as 
hidden, already found, or that shall be found within the 
region, islands or limits aforesaid, of gold, silver, gems and 
precious stones, and any other whatsover, whether they be 
of stones, or metals, or of any other thing, or matter what 
soever; and furthermore, the PATRONAGES and ADVOWSONS 
of all churches which (with the increasing worship and 


religion of CHRIST), within the said region, islands, islets 
and limits aforesaid, hereafter shall happen to be built; 
together with license and faculty of erecting and founding 
churches, chapels and places of worship, in convenient and 
suitable places, within the premises, ana of causing the 
same to be dedicated and consecrated according to the ec 
clesiastical laws of our kingdom of England; with all and 
singular such, and as ample rights, jurisdictions, privileges, 
prerogatives, royalties, liberties, immunities and royal 
rights, and temporal franchises whatsoever, as well by sea 
as by land, within the region, islands, islets and limits 
aforesaid, to be had, exercised, used and enjoyed, as any 
bishop of Durham, within the bishoprick or county palatine 
of Durham, in our kingdom of England, ever heretofore 
hath had, held, used or enjoyed, or of right could, or ought 
to have, hold, use or enjoy. 

V. And WE do by these presents, for us, our heirs and 
successors, MAKE, CREATE and CONSTITUTE HIM, the now 
Baron of BALTIMORE, and his heirs, the TRUE and ABSOLUTE 
LORDS and PROPRIETARIES of the region aforesaid, and of all 
other the premises (except the before excepted) saving 
always the faith and allegiance and sovereign dominion due 
to us, our heirs and successors ; to HAVE, HOLD, POSSESS and 
ENJOY the aforesaid region, islands, islets, and other the 
premises, unto the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, and 
to his heirs and assigns, to the sole and proper behoof and 
use of him, the now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and 
assigns, for ever. To HOLD of us, our heirs and successors, 
kings of England, as of our castle of Windsor, in our coun 
ty of Berks, in free and common SOCCAGE, by fealty only for 
all services, and not in capite, nor by knight s service, 
YIELDING therefore unto us, our heirs and successors, TWO 
INDIAN ARROWS of those parts, to be delivered at the said 
castle of Windsor, every year, on Tuesday in Easter-week; 
and also the fifth part of all gold and silver ore, which shall 
happen from time to time, to be found within the aforesaid 

VI. Now, that the aforesaid region, thus by us granted 
and described, may be eminently distinguished above all 
other regions of that territory, and decorated with more 
ample titles, KNOW YE, that WE, of our more special grace, 
certain knowledge, and mere motion, have thought fit that 
the said region and islands be erected into a PROVINCE, as 
out of the plenitude of our royal power and prerogative, WE 
do, for us, our heirs and successors, ERECT and INCORPORATE 
the same into a PROVINCE, and nominate the same MARY 
LAND, by which name WE will that it shall from henceforth 
be called. 


VII. And forasmuch as WE have above made and ordain 
ed the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, the true LOKD 
and PROPRIETARY of the whole PROVINCE aforesaid, KNOW YE 
therefore further, that WE, for us, our heirs and successors, 
do grant unto the said now baron, (in whose fidelity, pru 
dence, justice, and provident circumspection of mind, WE 
repose the greatest confidence ) and to his heirs, for the good 
and happy government of the said PROVINCE, free, full, and 
absolute power, by the tenor or these presents, to ordain, 
make, arid enact LAWS, of what kind soever, according to 
their sound discretions whether relating to the public state 
of the said PROVINCE, or the private utility of individuals, 
of and with the advice, assent, and approbation of the free 
men of the same PROVINCE, or of the greater part of them, 
or of their delegates or deputies, whom WE will snail be 
called together for the framing of LAWS, when, and as often 
as need shall require, by the aforesaid now Baron of BAL 
TIMORE, and his heirs, and in the form which shall seem 
best to him or them, and the same to publish under the seal 
of the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE and his heirs, and 
duly to execute the same upon all persons, for the time 
being, within the aforesaid PROVINCE, and the limits thereof, 
or under his or their government and power, in sailing to 
wards MARYLAND, or thence returning, outward-bound, 
either to England, or elsewhere, whether to any other part of 
our, or of any foreign dominions, wheresoever established, 
by the imposition of fines, imprisonment, and other punish 
ment whatsoever; even if it be necessary, and the quality 
of the offence require it, by privation of member, or life, 
by him the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, and his 
heirs, or by his or their deputy, lieutenant, judges, justices, 
magistrates, officers, and ministers, to be constituted and 
appointed according to the tenor and true intent of these 
presents, and to constitute and ordain judges, justices, 
magistrates and officers, of what kind, for what cause, and 
with what power soever, within that land, and the sea of 
those parts, and in such form as to the said now Baron of 
BALTIMORE, or his heirs, shall seem most fitting; and also 
to remit, release, pardon, and abolish, all crimes and of 
fences whatsoever against such laws, whether before or 
after judgment passed; and to do all and singular other 
things belonging to the completion of justice, and to courts, 
praetorian judicatories, and tribunals, judicial forms and 
modes of proceeding, although express mention thereof ID 
these presents be not made; and, by judges by them dele 
gated, to award process, hold pleas, and determine in those 
courts, praetorian judicatories, and tribunals, in all actions, 
suits, causes, and matters whatsoever, as well criminal as 
personal, real and mixed, and praetorian: Which said 


laws, so to be published as abovesaid, WE will, enjoin, 
charge, and command, to be most absolute and firm in law, 
and to be kept in those parts by all the subjects and liege 
men of us, our heirs and successors, so far as they concern 
them, and to be inviolably observed under the penalties 
therein expressed, or to be expressed. So NEVERTHELESS, 
that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not 
repugnant or contrary, but (so far as conveniently may be) 
agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs and rights of this 
our kingdom of England. 

VIII. And forasmuch as, in the government of so great a 
PROVINCE, sudden accidents may frequently happen, to which 
it will be necessary to apply a remedy, before the free 
holders of the said PROVINCE, their delegates, or deputies, 
can be called together for the framing of laws; neither will 
it be fit that so great a number of people should immediate 
ly on such emergent occasion, be called together, WE 
therefore, for the better government of so great a PROVINCE, 
do will and ordain, and by these presents, for us, our heirs 
and successors do grant unto the said now BARON OF BAL 
TIMORE, and to his heirs, that the aforesaid now Baron 
of BALTIMORE and his heirs by themselves, or by their magist 
rates and officers, thereunto duly to be constituted as afore 
said, may, and can make and constitute fit and wholesome 
ordinances from time to time, to be kept and observed 
within the PROVINCE aforesaid, as well for the conservation 
of the peace, as for the better government of the people 
inhabiting therein, and publicly to notify the same to all 
persons whom the same in any wise do or may affect. 
Which ordinances, WE will to be inviolably observed within 
the said PROVINCE, under the pains to be expressed in the 
same. So that the said ordinances be consonant to reason, 
and be not repugnant nor contrary, but (so far as con 
veniently may be done) agreeable to the laws, statutes, or 
rights of our kingdom of England, and so that the same 
ordinances do not, in any sort, extend to oblige, bind, 
charge, or take away the right or interest of any person or 
persons, of, or in member, life, freehold, goods or chattels. 

IX. Furthermore, that the new colony may more happily 
increase by a multitude of people resorting thither, and at 
the same time may be more firmly secured from the in 
cursions of savages, or of other enemies, pirates, and 
ravagers: WE, therefore, for us, our heirs and successors, 
do by these presents give and grant power, license and 
liberty, to all the liege-men and subjects, present and 
future, of us, our heirs and successors, except such to whom 
it shall be expressly forbidden, to transport themselves and 
theif families to the said PROVINCE, with fitting vessels, 
and suitable provisions, and therein to settle, dwell, and 
inhabit; and to build and fortify castles, forts, and other 


places of strength, at the appointment of the aforesaid now 
Baron of BALTIMOKE, and his heirs, for the public and their 
own defence; the statute of fugitives, or any other what 
soever to the contrary of the premises in any wise not- 

X. We will also, out of our more abundant grace, for us, 
our heirs and successors, do firmly charge, constitute, or 
dain and command, that the said PROVINCE be of our alle 
giance; and that all and singular the subjects and liege 
men of us, our heirs and successors, transplanted, or here 
after to be transplanted into the PROVINCE aforesaid, and 
the children of them, and of others their descendants, 
whether already born there, or hereafter to be born, be 
and shall be natives and liege-men of us, our heirs and 
successors, of our kingdom of England and Ireland; and 
in all things shall be held, treated, reputed, and esteemed 
as the faithful liege-men of us, and our heirs and successors, 
born within our kingdom of England; also lands, tene 
ments, revenues, services and other hereditaments whatso 
ever, within our kingdom of England, and other our do 
minions, to inherit, or otherwise purchase, receive, take, 
have, hold, buy, and possess, and the same to use and enjoy, 
and the same to give, sell, alien, and bequeath; and like 
wise all privileges, franchises and liberties of this our 
kingdom of England, freely, quietly, and peaceably to have 
and possess, and the same may use and enjoy in the same 
manner as our liege-men born, or to be born within our 
said kingdom of England, without impediment, molesta 
tion, vexation, impeachment, or grievance of us, or any of 
our heirs or successors; any statute, act, ordinance, or pro 
vision to the contrary thereof, notwithstanding. 

XI. Furthermore, that our subjects may be incited to un 
dertake this expedition with a ready and cheerful mind: 
KNOW YE, that WE, of our especial grace, certain know 
ledge, and mere motion, do by the tenor of these presents, 
give and grant, as well to the aforesaid Baron of BALTI 
MORE, and to his heirs, as to all other persons who shall 
from time to time repair to the said province, either for the 
sake of inhabiting, or of trading with the inhabitants of 
the province aforesaid, full license to ship and lade in any 
the ports of us, our heirs and successors, all and singular 
their goods, as well moveable as immovable, wares and mer 
chandises, likewise grain of what sort soever, and other 
things whatsoever necessary for food and clothing, by the 
laws and statutes of our kingdoms and dominions, not pro 
hibited to be transported out of the said kingdoms; and the 
same to transport by themselves, or their servants or as 
signs, into the said PROVINCE, without the impediment or 
molestation of us, our heirs or successors, or of any officers 


of us, our heirs or successors, (SAVING unto us, our heirs 
and successors, the impositions, subsidies, customs, and 
other dues payable for the same goods and merchandizes,) 
any statute, act, ordinance, or other thing whatsoever to the 
contrary notwithstanding. 

XII. But because, that in so remote a region, placed 
among so many barbarous nations, the incursions as well 
of the barbarians, themselves, as of other enemies, pirates 
and ravagers, probably will be feared, therefore WE have 
given, and for us, our heirs and successors, do give by these 
presents, as full and unrestrained power, as any captain- 
general of an army ever hath had, unto the aforesaid now 
Baron of BALTIMORE, and to his heirs and assigns, by them 
selves, or by their captains, or other officers, to summon to 
their standards, or to array all men, of whatsoever condi 
tion, or wheresoever born, for the time being, in the said 
province of MARYLAND, to wage war, and to pursue, even 
beyond the limits of their province, the enemies and 
ravagers aforesaid, infesting those parts by land and by 
sea, and (if God shall grant it) to vanquish and captivate 
them, and the captives to put to death, or, according to their 
discretion, to save, and to do all other and singular the 
things which appertain, or have been accustomed to apper 
tain unto the authority and office of a captain-general of an 

XIII. We also will, and by this our CHARTER, do give 
unto the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, and to his 
heirs and assigns, power, liberty, and authority, that in 
case of rebellion, sudden tumult, or sedition, if any 
(which God forbid) should happen to arise, whether upon 
land with the province aforesaid ,or upon the high sea in 
making a voyage to the said province of MARYLAND, or in 
returning thence, they may, by themselves, or by their 
captains, or other officers, thereunto deputed under their 
seals (to whom WE, for us, our heirs and successors, by 
these presents, do give and grant the fullest power and 
authority) exercise martial law as freely, and in as ample 
manner and form, as any captain-general of an army, by 
virtue of his office may, or hath accustomed to use the 
same, against the seditious authors of innovations in those 
parts, withdrawing themselves from the government of him 
or them, refusing to serve in war, flying over to the enemy, 
exceeding their leave of absence, deserters, or otherwise, 
howsoever offending against the rule, law, or discipline of 

XIV. Moreover, lest in so remote and far distant a 
region, every access to honors and dignities may seem to 
be precluded, and utterly barred, to men well born, who are 
preparing to engage in the present expedition, and desirous 


of deserving well, both in peace and war, of us, and our 
kingdoms; for this cause, WE, for us, our heirs and suc 
cessors, do give free and plenary power to the aforesaid now 
Baron of BALTIMORE, and to his heirs and assigns, to confer 
favours, rewards and honours, upon such subjects, inhabit 
ing within the province aforesaid, as shall be well deserv 
ing, and to adorn them with whatsoever titles and digni 
ties they shall appoint; (so that they be not such as are 
now used in England,) also to erect and incorporate towns 
into boroughs, and boroughs into cities, with suitable 
privileges and immunities, according to the merits of the 
inhabitants, and convenience of the places; and to do all and 
singular other things in the premises, which to him or 
them shall seem fitting and convenient; even although they 
shall be such as, in their own nature, require a more 
special commandment and warrant than in these presents 
may be expressed. 

XV. We will also, and by these presents do, for us, 
our heirs and successors, give and grant license by this our 
CHARTER, unto the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, his 
heirs and assigns, and to all persons whatsoever, who are, 
or shall be, residents and inhabitants of the province afore 
said, freely to import and unlade, by themselves, their 
servants, factors or assigns, all wares and merchandizes 
whatsoever, which shall be collected out of the fruits and 
commodities of the said PROVINCE, whether the product of 
the land or the sea, into any of the ports whatsoever of us, 
our heirs and successors, of England or Ireland, or other 
wise to dispose of the same there; and, if need be, within 
one year, to be computed immediately from the time of 
unlading theerof, to lade the same merchandizes again, in 
the same, or other ships, and to export the same to any 
other countries they shall think proper, whether belonging 
to us, or any foreign power, which shall be in amity with 
us, our heirs or successors : Provided always, that they 
be bound to pay for the same to us, our heirs and succes 
sors, such customs and impositions, subsidies and taxes, as 
our other subjects of our kingdom of England, for the time 
being, shall be bound to pay, beyond which WE will that the 
inhabitants of the aforesaid province of the said land, called 
MARYLAND, shall not be burdened. 

XVI. And furthermore, of our more ample special grace, 
and of our certain knowledge, and mere motion, We do, for 
us, our heirs and successors, grant unto the aforesaid now 
Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, full and abso 
lute power and authority to make, erect, and constitute, 
within the province of MARYLAND, and the islands and islets 
aforesaid, such, and so many sea ports, harbours, creeks, 
and other places of unlading and discharge of goods and 


merchandizes out of ships, boats, and other vessels, and of 
lading in the same, and in so many, and such places, and 
with such rights, jurisdictions, liberties, and privileges, 
unto such ports respecting, as to him or them shall seem 
most expedient. And, that all and every the ships, boats 
and other vessels whatsoever, coming to, or going from the 
PROVINCE aforesaid, for the sake or merchandizing, shall be 
laden and unladen at such ports only as shall be so erected 
and constituted by the said now Baron of BALTIMORE, his 
heirs and assigns, any usage, custom, or any other thing 
whatsoever to the contrary notwithstanding. Saving al 
ways to us, our heirs and successors, and to all the sub 
jects of our kingdoms of England and Ireland, of us, our 
heirs and successors, the liberty of fishing for sea-fish, as 
well in the sea, bays, straits and navigable rivers, as in the 
harbours, bays and creeks of the PROVINCE aforesaid; and 
the privilege of salting and drying fish on the shores of the 
same PROVINCE; and, for that cause, to cut down and take 
hedging-wood and twigs there growing, and to build huts 
and cabins, necessary in this behalf, in the same manner as 
heretofore they reasonably might, or have used to do. 
Which liberties and privileges, the said subjects of us, our 
heirs and successors, shall enjoy without notable damage 
or injury in any wise to be done to the aforesaid now Baron 
of BALTIMORE, his heirs or assigns, or to the residents and 
inhabitants of the same province in the ports, creeks, and 
shores aforesaid, and especially in the woods and trees there 
growing. And if any person shall do damage or injury of 
this kind, he shall incur the peril and pain of the heavy 
displeasure of us, our heirs and successors, and of the due 
chastisement of the laws, besides making satisfaction. 

XVII. Moreover, We will, appoint, ana ordain, and by 
these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, do grant 
unto the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and 
assigns, that the same Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and 
assigns, from time to time, for ever, shall have, and enjoy 
the taxes and subsidies payable, or arising within the 
ports, harbours, and other creeks and places aforesaid, 
within the PROVINCE aforesaid, for wares bought and sold, 
and things there to be laden, or unladen, to be reasonably 
assessed by them, and the people there as aforesaid, on 
emergent occasion; to whom WE grant power by these 
presents, lor us, our heirs and successors, to assess and 
impose the said taxes and subsidies there, upon just cause, 
and in due proportion. 

XVIII. And furthermore, of our special grace, and certain 
knowledge, and mere motion, We have given, granted, and 
confirmed, and by these presents, for us, our heirs, and 
successors, do give, grant, and confirm, unto the aforesaid 


now Baron of BALTIMOEE, his heirs and assigns, full and 
absolute license, power and authority, that he. the afore 
said now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, from 
time to time hereafter, for ever, may and can, at his or 
their will and pleasure, assign, alien, grant, demise, or 
enfeoff so many, such and proportionate parts and parcels 
of the premises, to any person or persons willing to pur 
chase the same, as they shall think convenient, to have and 
to hold to the same person or persons willing to take or pur 
chase the same, and his and tneir heirs and assigns, in fee 
simple, or fee tail, or for term of life, lives, or years ; to 
hold of the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs 
and assigns, by so many, such, and so great services, cus 
toms and rents OF THIS KIND, as to the same now Baron of 
BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, shall seem fit and agree 
able, and not immediately of us, our heirs or successors. 
And WE do give, and by these presents, for us, our heirs and 
successors, do grant to the same person and persons, and to 
each and every of them, license, authority, and power, that 
such person and persons, may take the premises, or any 
parcel thereof, of the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, 
his heirs and assigns, and hold the same to them and their 
assigns, or their heirs, of the aforesaid Baron of BALTIMORE, 
his heirs and assigns, of what estate of inheritance soever, 
in fee simple or fee tail, or otherwise, as to them and the 
now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, shall seem 
expedient; the statute made in the parliament of lord 
EDWARD, son of king HENRY, late king of England, our 
progenitor, commonly called the " STATUTE QUIA EMPTORES 
TERRARUM," heretofore published in our kingdom of Eng 
land, or any other statute, act, ordinance, usage, law, or cus 
tom, or any other thing, cause or matter, to the contrary 
thereof, heretofore had, done, published, ordained or pro 
vided to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. 

XIX. We, also, by these presents, do give and grant 
license to the same Baron of BALTIMORE, and to his heirs, 
to erect any parcels of land within the PROVINCE aforesaid, 
into manors, and in every of those manors, to have and to 
hold a court-baron, and all things which to a court-baron 
do belong; and to have and to keep view of frank-pledge, for 
the conservation of the peace and better government of those 
parts, by themselves and their stewards, or by the lords, for 
the time being to be deputed, of other of those manors when 
they shall be constituted, and in the same to exercise all 
things to the view of frank-pledge belonging. 

XX. And further We will, and do, by these presents, for 
us, our heirs and successors, covenant and grant to, and 
with the aforesaid now Baron of BALTIMORE, his heirs and 
assigns, that WE, our heirs and successors, at no time here- 


after, will impose, or make or cause to be imposed any 
impositions, customs, or other taxations, quotas or 
contributions whatsoever, in or upon the residents 
or inhabitants of the PROVINCE aforesaid, for their 
goods, lands, or tenements within the same PROVINCE, or 
upon any tenements, lands, goods or chattels within the 
PROVINCE aforesaid, or in or upon any goods or merchandizes 
within the PROVINCE aforesaid, or within the ports or 
harbours of the said PROVINCE, to be laden or unladen: 
And WE will and do, for us, our heirs and successors, enjoin 
and command that this our declaration shall, from time to 
time, be received and allowed in alt our courts and pretorian 
judicatories, and before all the judges whatsoever of us, 
our heirs and successors, for a sufficient and lawful dis 
charge, payment, and acquittance thereof, charging all and 
singular the officers and ministers of us, our heirs and suc 
cessors, and enjoining them, under our heavy displeasure, 
that they do not at any time presume to attempt anything 
to the contrary of the premises, or that may in any wise 
contravene the same, but that they, at all times, as in 
fitting, do aid and assist the aforesaid now Baron of BAL 
TIMORE, and his heirs, and the aforesaid inhabitants and 
merchants of the PROVINCE of MARYLAND aforesaid, and their 
servants and ministers, factors and assigns, in the fullest 
use and enjoyment of this our CHARTER. 

XXI. And furthermore We will, and by these presents, 
for us, our heirs and successors, do grant unto the afore 
said now Baron 01 BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns, and to 
the freeholders and inhabitants of the said PROVINCE, both 
present and to come, and to every of them, that the said 
PROVINCE and the freeholders or inhabitants of the said 
colony or country, shall not henceforth be held or reputed 
a member or part of the land of Virginia, or of any other 
colony already transported, or hereafter to be transported, 
or be dependent on the same, or subordinate in any kind of 
government, from which we do separate both the said pro 
vince and inhabitants thereof, and by these presents do 
will to be distinct, and that they may be immediately sub 
ject to our crown of England, and dependent on the same 
for ever. 

XXII. And if, peradventure, hereafter it may happen 
that any doubts or questions should arise concerning the 
true sense and meaning of any word, clause, or sentence, 
contained in this our present CHARTER, WE will, charge and 
command THAT interpretation to be applied, always, and in 
all things, and in all our courts and judicatories whatso 
ever, to obtain which shall be judged to be the more bene 
ficial, profitable and favourable to the aforesaid now Baron 
of BALTIMORE, his heirs and assigns: provided, always, that 


no interpretation thereof be made, whereby GOD S holy and 
true Christian religion, or the allegiance due to us, our 
heirs and successors, may in any wise suffer by change, prej 
udice or diminution; although express mention be not 
made in these presents of the true yearly value are cer 
tainty of the premises, or of any part thereof, or of other 
gifts and grants made by us, our heirs and predecessors, 
unto the said now Lord BALTIMOKE, or any statute, act, 
ordinance, provision, proclamation or restraint, heretofore 
had, made, published, ordained or provided, or any other 
thing, cause, or matter whatsoever to the contrary thereof 
in any wise notwithstanding. 

XXIII. In witness whereof WE have caused these our 
letters to be made patent. Witness OURSELF at Westminster, 
the twentieth day of June, in the eighth year of our reign. 
(From Bacon s Laws.) 




" I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, 
and declare in my conscience, before God and the world; 

"That our Sovereign Lord, King (Charles,) is lawful and 
rightful King of this realm, and of all other his Majesty s 
dominions, and countries; and that the Pope neither of him 
self, nor by any authority of the Church, or See of Rome, 
or by any other means with any other, hath any power or 
authority to depose the King, or to dispose any of his 
Majesty s Kingdoms or dominions; or to authorize any 
foreign Prince to invade or annoy him or his countries; or 
to discharge any of his subjects of their allegiance, and 
obedience to his Majesty, or to give license or leave to any 
of them to bear arms, raise tumults or to offer any violence 
or hurt, to his Majesty s royal person, state, or govern 
ment, or to any of his Majesty s subjects within his Ma 
jesty s dominions. 

"Also I do swear from my heart, that notwithstanding 
any declaration, or sentence of excommunication, or depri 
vation, made or granted, or to be made or granted by 
the Pope, or his successors, or by any authority derived, 
or pretended to be derived from him, or his See, against 
the said King, his heirs or successors, or any ab 
solution of the said subjects from their obedience, I 
will bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, his 
heirs and successors, and him or them will defend 
to the uttermost of my power, against all conspiracies 
and attempts whatsoever, which shall be made against 


his or their persons, their crown and dignity, by 
reason or color of any such sentence, or declaration, or 
otherwise; and will do my best endeavor to disclose and 
make known unto his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all 
treasons, or traitorous conspiracies, which I shall know or 
hear of, to be against him or any of them. 

" And I do further swear, that I do from my heart, abhor, 
detest and adjure, as impious and heretical, this damn 
able doctrine and position; that, Princes which be ex 
communicated or deprived by the Pope, may be deposed or 
murthered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. 

"And I do believe, and in my conscience am resolved, that 
neither the Pope, nor any person whatsoever, hath power 
to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof, which I 
acknowledge by good and full authority to be lawfully 
ministered unto me, and do renounce all pardons, and dis 
pensations to the contrary. And all these things I do 
plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear, according to 
these express words by me spoken and according to the plain, 
and common sense and understanding of the same words, 
without any equivocation or mental evasion, or secret re 
servation whatsoever. And I do make this recognition and 
acknowledgment heartily, willingly, truly upon the true 
faith of a Christian: So help me God." (Statutes of the 
Realm. ) 



" On Sunday, the first of July, William Lewis informed 
Capt. Cornwaleys that certain of his servants had drawn a 
petition to Sir John Harvey, and intended at the chapel 
that morning to procure all the Protestant hands to it. 
Whereupon the Captain (calling unto him Mr. Secretary) 
sent for Robert Sedgrave (one of the parties informed of) 
and examined thereof, who confessed ne had drawn a 
writing and delivered it to Francis Gray, who, being like 
wise examined, had the writing in his bosom and delivered 
it to the Captain. The writing was of this tenor : Be 
loved in our Lord, etc. This is to give you notice of the 
abuses and scandalous reproaches which God and his 
ministers do daily suffer by William Lewis of St. Inigoes, 
who saith that our ministers are the ministers of the devil, 
and that our books are made by the instruments of the 
devil, and further saith that those servants which are under 
his charge shall not keep nor read which doth appertain to 
our religion within the house of the said William Lewis, to 


the great discomfort of those poor bondmen which are under 
his subjection, especially where no godly minister is to 
teach and instruct ignorant people in the grounds of 
religion. And as for people which cometh unto the said 
Lewis or otherwise to pass the creek, the said Lewis 
taketh occasion to call them into his chamber, and there 
laboretn with all vehemency, craft and subtlety to delude 
ignorant persons. Therefore we beseech you, Brethren in 
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, that you who have 
power, that you will do in what lieth in you to have these 
absurd abuses and herediculous crimes to be reclaimed, 
and that God and his ministers may not be so heinously 
trodden down by such ignominious speeches; and no doubt 
but that he or they which strive to uphold God s ministers 
and word, he shall be recompenced with eternal joy and 
felicity to reign in that eternal kingdom with Christ 
Jesus, under whose banner we fight forever more, all which 
words aforesaid which hath been spoken against William 
Lewis the parties hereunder will be deposed when time and 
opportunity shall be thought meet. 

"And being further examined, touching the intent of 
the writing, Francis Gray said that he was not acquainted 
with the writing till it was delivered to him by Robert 
Sedgrave, and that he had not as yet read it; and that 
Robert Sedgrave desired him to publish it to some of the 
freemen, and to the intent only to procure them to join 
in a petition to the Governor and Council of this Pro 
vince for the redressing of those grievances which were 
complained of in the writing. Whereupon the Captain 
willed them to return again in the afternoon and to bring 
security for their answering the matter at the court; and 
in the meantime to demean themselves quietly and soberly. 
And in the afternoon the Captain and Mr. Secretary bound 
them over with two surieties to answer it at the next 

" On Tuesday, the tnird of July, the sheriff was com 
manded by warrant from the Governor to bring William 
Lewis, Robert Sedgrave, Francis Gray, Christopher Carnoll 
and Ellis Beach into the court, where were present the 
Governor, the Captain and Mr. Secretary. The Governor 
demanded of Robert Sedgrave whether that were his writ 
ing, and he confessed it. He demanded further, touching 
the intent of the writing, and he answered as afore; and 
being demanded who moved or advised him to that course, 
he said that himself and Francis Gray being much of 
fended with the speeches of William Lewis, Francis Gray 
did wish him to draw a writing to some of the freemen, 
and he would procure them to join in a petition to the 
Governor and Council which the said Robert Sedgrave did 


accordingly the next day; but Francis Gray wished him 
to keep it umil he had spoken with Mr. William Copley, 
which was on Saturday, the last of June. And on Sun 
day morning, meeting with Francis Gray at the fort, he 
asked him if he had spoken with Mr. William Copley. 
[This was intended for Father Copley,] who said he had, 
and that Mr. Copley had given him good satisfaction in it, 
and blamed much William Lewis for his contumelious 
speeches and ill-governed zeal, and said it was fit he should 
be punished. And Francis Gray asked him for the writing 
and put it up, and were going with it to the chapel when 
the Captain called them in by the way. And Francis Gray, 
being examined, confessed that he did wish to draw a writ 
ing, to be delivered to two or three of the freemen, and his 
reason was because the said servants had no knowledge 
what to do in it, nor could so well go to the Governor to 
move for redress as the freemen could. Then were the 
complaints contained in the writing against William Lewis 
taken into examination. And, touching the first, Ellis 
Beach did depose that William Lewis, coming into the room 
where Francis Gray and Robert Sedgrave were reading of 
Mr. Smith s sermons, did say that the book was made by 
the instrument of the devil. And Robert Sedgrave, asked 
whether William Lewis spake in general of Protestant books 
or of that book in particular, said that he could not well re 
member whether he spake of books in general. And Wil 
liam Lewis, being put to his answer confessed that, coming 
into the room where they were reading of a book, they read 
it aloud to the end that he should hear it, and the matter 
being much reproachful to his religion; namely, that the 
Pope was anti-Christ and the Jesuits anti-Christian minis- 
ers, etc., he told them that it was a falsehood, and came 
from the devil, as all lies did, and that he that writ it was 
an instrument of the devil, and so he would approve it 
and further lie said not. 

" Touching the second, it was deposed by two witnesses 
that William Lewis said that their ministers [Innuendo 
the Protestants] were the ministers of the devil. 

" Touching the third, Robert Sedgrave said, at first, 
that William Lewis did forbid them to use or to have any 
Protestant books within his house, which being denied by 
William Lewis, and that he had expressly given leave to use 
or have books, so that they read them not to his offence or 
disturbance in his own house, and that he spake only touch 
ing that book then in reading: Robert Sedgrave said he 
was not certain whether he forbade them that book only, 
or all other books. And Richard Duke [a witness pro 
duced by Francis Gray and a Protestant,] being sworn, 
said that William Lewis said that Francis Gray could not 


read that book in the house, nor no such base fellows as he 
wasj but no more or further as he heard. Then was 
Christopher Carnoll and Ellis Beach examined upon oath, 
and they likewise testified, touching the forbidding of that 
book, but not any further as they heard. 

" Then was it alleged by William Lewis that the intent 
of the writing was to combine the Protestants together, 
and to send a petition under all their hands to the Gov 
ernor and Council of Virginia, that they would send hither 
for William Lewis and proceed against him for a traitor, 
and this he offered by one here present that heard James 
Thornton say that they declared such their intent in his 
hearing. But this being refused by the Governor as an 
insufficient proof, and the party himself demanded that 
heard the word; it was answered that he was gone 
out a-trading the day before. Whereupon the Gov 
ernor thought fit to defer their trial and censure till the 
witness could be produced in court; and in the meantime 
willed Mr. Secretary to deliver his censure, touching the 
complaints against William Lewis. And Mr. Secretary 
found him guilty of an offensive and indiscreet speech in 
calling the author of the book an instrument of the devil; 
but acquitted him from that he was charged withal in 
the writing that he used that speech touching Protestant 
ministers in general. He likewise found him guilty of a 
very offensive speech in calling the Protestant ministers the 
ministers of the devil. He likewise found him to have ex 
ceeded in forbidding tnem to read a book otherwise allowed 
and lawful to be read by the State of England, but he 
acquitted him of the accusation that he forbade his ser 
vants to have or use Protestant books in his house. And 
because of these his offensive speeches and other unseason 
able disputations in point of religion tending to the dis 
turbance of the public peace and quiet of the colony, and 
were committed by him against a public proclamation set 
forth to prohibit all such disputes, therefore he fined him 
five hundred weight of tobacco to the Lord of the Province, 
and to remain in the sheriff s custody until he found suffi 
cient surieties for his good behavior, in those kinds, in time 
to come. The Captain likewise found him to have offended 
against the public peace and against the proclamation made 
for the suppressing of all such disputes tending to cherish 
ing a faction in religion; and. therefore, fined him likewise 
five hundred to the Lord of the Province. But for his good 
behavior thought fit to leave it to his own discretion. The 
Governor* concurred wholly in his sentence with Mr. Secre 
tary; and so the court brake up; and William Lewis was 
committed to the sheriff." (Archives of Maryland, iv, pp. 





There is much obscurity in regard to the oath of the 
Governor. Chalmers informs us that from 1637 to 1657 
the oath of the Governor was as follows : I will not by my 
self or any other person, directly or indirectly, trouble, or 
molest, or discountenance any person believing in Jesus 
Christ, for or in respect of religion. (Chalmers, Annals, p. 
235.) In the terms of this oath there is enough to lead us 
to suspect that Chalmers was quoting from memory the 
oath which the Governor was obliged to take in 1648. Yet 
Chalmers is usually exact, and he was in a position to 
know whereof he spoke, having occupied the position of 
custodian of the State Archives. It is possible that the 
original record of this oath has been lost. 

Hawks says (p. 7) that the oath prescribed by Calvert 
for his Governors in 1636, was as follows: / will not by 
myself or any other, directly or indirectly, trouble, or 
molest or discountenance any person professing to believe 
in Jesus Christ, for, or in respect of religion: I will make 
no difference of persons in conferring offices, favors, or 
rewards, for or in respect of religion; but merely as they 
shall be found faithful and well-deserving, and endued with 
moral virtues and abilities: my aim shall be public unity, 
and if any person or officer shall molest any person pro 
fessing to believe in Jesus Christ, on account of his religion, 
L icill protect the person molested, and punish the offender. 

McMahon (p. 226) gives this same form of oath, but 
neither he nor Hawks gives an authority for it. It is 
found, however, .in the Upper House Journal, 1758, in the 
dispute between the Upper House and the Burgesses con 
cerning the double test imposed upon Catholics. (See Ap 
pendix Q.) The first official oath of the Governor, of 
which we have any record, is that of 1638-1639, passed by 
the Assembly of that year in its final bill. It reads thus: 
The said Lieutenant-General and Commander shall take 
an oath to administer equal justice to all persons, without 
favor or malice of any one. (Archives, I, p. 83.) Now 
this appears to be less the regular and exact form of the 
oath itself than a reference to it. This whole bill, indeed, 
seems to be mere memoranda of the more elaborated ones 
introduced, but not passed a few days before. The real 
and formal expression of the oath is probably contained in 
an Act read twice and engrossed but not passed four 
days previously, and entitled "An Act for several Oaths 


to be taken by Judges and Public Officers." (Archives, i, 
p. 44.) It reads: /, A, B., do swear that (whilst 7 am a 
member of this Province) 7 will bear truth faith to the 
Right Honorable Cecilius, Lord of this Province and his 
heirs (saving my allegiance to the Crown of England), and 
the said Province and him and them, and his and their due 
rights and jurisdictions, and all and everyone of them will 
maintain to the uttermost of my power. The peace and 
welfare of the people 7 will ever procure as far as 7 may, 
to none will 7 delay or deny right, but equal justice will 
administer in ait things to my best skill, according to the 
laws of this Province. 80 help me God . (Archives, i, p. 

Then follow the several oaths of Councillor, Judge, Sec 
retary of Province, Clerk of Chancery and Court Register, 
all similar in tenor to that of the Governor. The last sec 
tion of the Act provides that the Secretary of State shall 
administer the oath to the Governor, and that the Governor 
shall, in turn, administer it to Councillors, Judges and 
Officers aforesaid. (Ibid.) When the Governor, Council 
lors and others took the oath of office the day after the ad 
journment of the Assembly, we know that it was done 
exactly according to the form prescribed in the Act just 
alluded to; and all being sworn upon the same bill. 
(Archives, in, p. 84.) Also the oath for the councillors, 
used in 1643, " was, according to the form of a bill, drawn 
up in the Assembly, loth of March, 1638, entitled An Act 
for Several Oaths, " (Archives, in, p. 131.) From this 
evidence we conclude, then, that it is more than probable 
that the oath, taken by the Governor in 1638-39, was not 
the short and evidently abridged form contained in the 
final Act of the Assembly of that year, but the more com 
plete and elaborate expression of the Act read in the As 
sembly four days previously. 

% The Governor s oath of 1643 is the next recorded in the 
Archives. It was taken by the Deputy-Governor, Giles 
Grent. He swears to do equal right and justice to the poor 
and to the rich ivithin the said Province, after his cunning, 
wit and power, according to the laws of the said Province, 
neither to delay nor deny to any man right of justice, etc. 

The Governor s oaths, alluded to by Chalmers, Hawks, 
McMahon and others, as given above, may or may not have 
existed. We have no positive proof or evidence that they 
ever did. The forms of oath just given (those of 1638-39, 
1643-1648) are the only ones of which we have any authen 
tic record down to the last-mentioned date. 





"Magna Carta Regis Johannis, XV die Junii, MDCCXV, 
anno Regni XVII. 

" Joannes Dei gratia rex Anglie dominus Hybernie dux 
Normannie Aquitanie et comes Andegavie archiepiscopls 
episcopis abbatibus comitibus baronibus justiciariis fore- 
stariis vicecomitibus prepositis ministris et omnibus bal- 
livis et fidelibus suis salutem Sciatis nos intuitu Dei et pro 
salute anime nostre et omnium antecessorum et heredum 
nostrorum ad honorem Dei et exaltationem sancte eccle- 
sie et emendationem regni nostri per consilium venerabilium 
patrum nostrorum Stephani Cant arcbiepiscopi totius 
Anglie Primatis et sancte Romane ecclesie cardinalis Hen- 
rici Dublin archiepiscopi Willielmi London Petri Winton 
Joselini Bathon et Glaston Hugonis Lincoln Walter! 
Wygoon Willielmi Coventr et Benedicti RofF Episcoporum 
magistri Pandulfi domini pape subdiaconi et familiaris 
. . . et aliorum fidelium nostrorum In primis concessisse 
Deo et hac presenti carta nostra confirmasse pro nobis et 
heredibus nostris in perpetuum quod Anglicann ecclcsia 
libera sit et habeat jura sua Integra et libertates suas 
illesas et ita volumus observari quod apparet ex eo quod 
libertatem electionum qua maxima et magis necessaria 
reputatur ecclesie Anglicane mera et spontanea voluntate 
ante discordiam inter nos et barones nostros mo tarn con- 
cessimus et carta nostra confirmavimus et earn optinuimus 
a domino papa innocentio tertio confirmari quam et nos 
observabimus et ab heredibus nostris in perpetuum bona 
fide volumus observari." (William Blackstone, the Great 
Charter and the Charters of the Forest. Oxford, 1759. ) 

John, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ire 
land, etc., . . . Know that by the suggestion of God and for 
the good of our soul and those of all our predecessors, and of 
our heirs, to the honour of God and the exaltation of Holy 
Church and the improvement of our kingdom, by the advice 
of our venerable Fathers, Stephen, Archbishop of Canter 
bury, Primate of all England and Cardinal of the Holy 
Roman Church, Henry, Archbishop of Dublin, William of 
London, Peter of Winchester, Jocelyn of Bath and Glas- 
tonbury, Hugh of London, Walter of Worcester, William of 
Coventry and Benedict of Rochester, Bishops ; of Master 
Pandulf, subdeacon and member of the household of the 
Lord Pope . . . and others of our faithful . . . 


In the first place, we have granted to God, and by this our 
present Charter confirmed, for us and our heirs forever, 
that the English church shall be free and shall hold its 
rights entire and its liberties uninjured, and we will that it 
be observed; which is shown by this, that the freedom of 
elections which is considered to be the most important and 
especially necessary to the English churcn, we, of our pure 
and spontaneous will, granted and by our Charter con 
firmed before the contest between us and our Barons had 
arisen; and obtained a confirmation of it by the Lord Pope 
Innocent Third; which we will observe, and which we will 
shall be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. . . . 
(Doc. of English Constitutional History, George Burton 
Adams and Henry Morse Stephens, editors. Translation- 
Cheyney. ) 



(6) . . . De nostra mera liberalitate, et ex certa scientia, 
ac de Apostolicae potestatis plenitudine, omnes insulas ,>t 
terras firmas inventas et inveniendas, detectas et dete- 
gendas . . . auctoritate Omnipotentis Dei Nobis in beato 
Petro concessa, ac Vicarius Jesu Christi, qua fungimur in 
terris, cum omnibus illarum Dominiis, Civitatibus, Castris, 
Locis, et Villis jurisbusque et jurisdictionibus ac pertinen- 
tiis Universis Vobis, heredibusque et successoribus vestris 
(Castellae et Legionis Regibus) in perpetuum tenore pre- 
sentium donamus, concedimus, et assignamus, Vosque et. 
haeredes ac successores praefatos illarum dominos cum 
plena, libera et omnimodo potestate, auctorite, et juris- 
dictione, facimus, constituimus et deputamus. 

(8) Ac quibuscumque personis, cujuscumque dignitatis, 
etiam Imperialis et Regalis, status, gradus, ordinis vel con- 
ditionis sub excommunicationis latae sententiae poena, quam 
eo ipso si contrafecerint incurrant, districtius inhibemus ne 
ad insulas et terras firmas inventas et inveniendas . . . pro 
mercibus habendis vel quavis alia de causa accedere prae- 
sumant absque vestra ac haeredum et successorum vestro- 
rum praedictorum licentia speciali. (Magnum Bullarium 
Romanum, i, p. 454. Luxenburgi, MDCCXXVII. Cfr. 
Novae Novi, Orbis Historiae, Libri tres, p. 284, Urban! 
Calvetanis, M. D. C.) 



iepiscopal Archives, Baltimore.) 

I, Provincial of the Society of Jesus in the English Mis 
sion, do for myself and on the behalf of my successors .and 
all those of the said Society who are or shall be sent into 
the Province of Maryland, undertake, promise, and agree to 
and with the Rt. Honorable Cecilius Lord Baltimore and 
his heirs, Lords and proprietors of the said Province of 
Maryland, in manner following: 

1. That in regard the King of England by way of re 
muneration and special grant, hath by his charter granted 
the said Province of Maryland and the royal jurisdiction 
thereof to his Lordship and his heirs, so that by reason of 
the said charter, no subject of the King of England or any 
other member of his Lordship s colony in Maryland, is 
capable of accepting purchasing or possessing any land 
within that Province, but from, by, or under some grant im 
mediately or mediately derived from his Lordship or his 
heirs ; and in regard that his Lordship has already been and 
daily is at very great charges and hath and doth daily un 
dergo very great hazards and trouble, both in his person 
and estate principally for the Propagation of the Christian 
faith in those parts and the welfare of the people there 
having no temporal gain, or profit to himself from thence 
as yet ; without which protection of his Lordship the Colony 
there could not according to human reason have possibly 
subsisted hitherto; and in respect the deriving of any title 
to any land within that Province from any other way than 
merely and solely from, by, or under his Lordship or his 
heirs, would not only tend to the destruction of his Lord 
ship and his heirs, and their interest and royal jurisdiction 
over and in the said province, so dearly purchased by his 
Lordship as aforesaid and consequently be offensive to the 
crown of England from and upon which authority his Lord 
ship s said interest and royal jurisdiction originally pro- 
. ceeds and solely depends ; but would in all probability be 
very prejudicial also to the publick good of that Colony by 
occasioning great divisions and dissensions among the peo 
ple there; therefore none of our said Society shall at any 
time, directly or indirectly by him or tnemselves or by any 
other person or persons whatever to any use, intent or 
purpose whatsoever take, accept, possess, purchase, or enjoy 
any lands, tenements or hereditaments within the said pro 
vince of Maryland or the .islands thereunto belonging from, 


by, or under the grant, gift, purchase, or legacy of, or from 
any Indian or Indians or any other person or persons, or 
from by or under any other title whatsoever than merely 
and solely (without mixture of any other title) from by or 
under some grant legally passed or to be passed from his 
Lordship or his heirs under his or their great seal for the 
time being of the said province of Maryland, and if any one 
or more of our said Society have already or shall hereafter 
directly or indirectly by him or themselves or by any person 
or persons take, accept any lands, tenements, or heredita 
ments within the said Province contrary to the tenor and 
true meaning of these presents, such taking, acceptation, 
purchase or possession shall by virtue hereof, be wholy un 
derstood, construed and adjudged and shall really and actu 
ally be to the only use of his Lordship and his heirs and 
absolutely void as to all other uses, intents and purposes 

2. Whereas, by the laws and statutes of England, no 
lands, tenements or hereditaments within that kingdom, can 
be granted conveyed or transferred to any person or persons 
whatsoever whether Spiritual or temporal for any pious 
uses or to the Church, without Special license from his Ma 
jesty, the form of the government of which kingdom his 
Lordship for divers just reasons hath cause to observe in 
Maryland as near as conveniently he can; and whereas his 
Lordship hath already granted a considerable proportion 
of land within that province for the maintenance of our 
said Society there; therefore none of our said Society by 
him or themselves or any other person or persons in trust 
for him or them, shall accept, take, receive, purchase, 
possess or enjoy any lands, tenements, or hereditaments 
within the said Province to their own use or to any pious 
uses or to any other use or uses prohibited or compre 
hended within any of the Statutes of Mortmain now in force 
in England, without Special license in writing to be first 
had and obtained under the hand and seal of his Lordship 
or his heirs for so doing; and if any one or more of our said 
Society shall (notwithstanding this my promise and agree 
ment,) accept, take, receive, purchase, possess or enjoy any 
lands, tenements or hereditaments either by him or them 
selves or by any other person or persons in trust for him or 
them or our said Society or to any pious use or uses or to 
any other use or uses comprehended in any of the said 
Statutes of Mortmain without the said Special license of 
his Lordship or his heirs as aforesaid, then every such ac 
ceptation, purchase or possession shall by virtue hereof be 
wholy construed and adjudged and shall really and actuary 
be to the own use of his Lordship and his heirs and abso 
lutely void as to all other intents and purposes whatsoever. 


3. For that the said province of Maryland, hath a de- 
pendance upon England and cannot in all probability sub 
sist without supplies of people, clothing and other neces 
saries from that kingdom; and because the King and State 
of England as it now stands, would undoubtedly be much 
offended which might endanger the ruin of his Lordship and 
the whole Plantation, if ecclesiastical persons of the Roman 
Church should be allowed in that Province all those privil 
eges, exemptions, and immunities in temporal affairs which 
are usually granted and allowed unto them and to the 
Church by Princes of the Catholic Roman Religion within 
their dominions; therefore none of our said Society shall 
by application of any Spiritual authority or otherwise exact 
or require from his Lordship or his heirs or from any of 
his or their officers to be allowed in the Province of Mary 
land any other privileges, immunities or exemptions in tem 
poral affairs than what our said Society or Uie Roman 
Church, or shall be publicly allowed in England by the 
Government of that kingdom, at such time as they shall 
request the same in Maryland; provided nevertheless that 
neither his Lordship nor his heirs nor any of his or their 
officers, shall at any Catholic suit, cause any Corporal 
punishment to be inflicted upon any of our said Society 
within the said Province, in any way or manner derogatory 
from the privileges immunities or exemptions which in 
Corporal punishments are usually allowed unto our said 
Society in other Catholic Countries, except it be for a 
Capital crime in which case also previous degradation is to 
be procured. 

4. That none of our Society shall at any time hereafter 
be sent into that Province of Maryland without the special 
consent and license from time to time of his Lordship or 
his heirs. 

5. In case his Lordship or his heirs shall at any time or 
times hereafter, desire to have recalled from Maryland any 
one or more of our said Society who already are, or at any 
time hereafter shall be sent thither, then upon his Lord 
ship or his heirs signification by him or themselves or 
by any other person or persons from his Lordship or his 
heirs, to the Provincial of the English Mission for the time 
being, or to the Super, of our said Society residing in that 
Province for the time being of such his Lordship or his heirs 
desire, the said Provincial of the English Mission or other 
Super, of the said Society for the time being, shall within 
the space of one year after such signification as aforesaid, 
recall from Maryland such of our said Society, as his 
Lordship or his heirs shall so desire to have recalled, 
his Lordship being at the charge upon such occasions of 
transporting into any place out of said Province where the 


said Provincial in the English Mission or the said Super, 
of our said Society in Maryland for the time being, shall 
reasonably desire such of our said Society as his Lordship 
or his heirs shall so desire to have recalled; provided that 
it be to such a place as some ship or vessel shall chance to 
go at that time from Maryland upon other occasions ; and in 
case the said Provincial or other Super, for the time being, 
shall at any time neglect or refuse upon such signification 
as aforesaid, to comply with the desire of his Lordship or 
his heirs herein, or that any of our said Society there so 
desired to be recalled as aforesaid shall refuse to depart 
that Province when at the request of his Lordship or his 
heirs, he or they shall be recalled from thence by the 
said Provincial or other their Superior for the time being, 
it shall be then lawfull (notwithstanding such neglect and 
refusal as aforesaid) for his Lordship or his heirs to dimiss 
or cause to be transported out of that Province such of our 
said Society, as his Lordship or his heirs shall so desire to 
have recalled as aforesaid, provided that if his Lordship 
or his heirs shall desire the removal of any of our said So 
ciety from or out of the said Province for any other cause 
than misdemeanor, his Lordship or his heirs shall tnen give 
to every such person of the said Society, so ac his Lord 
ship or his heirs request to be recalled as aforesaid (and 
who shall willingly, without compulsion depart from thence 
at the request of his Lordship or his heirs, twenty pounds 
sterling, either in ready money or in valuable commodities 
of that Province of Maryland, (according to the usual rate 
which they shall then happen to be sold) at his removing 

6. That such of our Society as are or shall be hereafter 
sent into the said Province of Maryland shall from time to 
time, both in public and private as occasion shall require, 
maintain and defend his Lordship and his heirs, rights, 
privileges and royal jurisdiction over and in the said Pro 
vince as absolute lords and proprietors thereof against all 
oppressors of the same, as far as in him or them layeth, and 
to that purpose they and every one of them shall take an 
oath of fidelity to his Lordship and his heirs (to be ad 
ministered unto them, by such person or persons as his 
Lordship or his heirs shall, from time to time appoint in 
these words following, that is to say, I ... do faithfully 
and truly acknowledge the Rt. Honorable Cecilius Lord 
Baltimore to be true and absolute Lord and Proprietor of 
the Province and country of Maryland and the islands there 
unto belonging, and I do promise that I will bear true faith 
unto his Lordship and his heirs, Lords and Proprietors of 
the said Province and will yield willing and true obedience 
to his Lordship and his said heirs and to his and their gov- 


ernment in temporal affairs in and over the said Province 
and Islands thereunto belonging, as to the true and abso 
lute Lords and Proprietors of the said Province and islands, 
thereunto belonging; and also I do swear that 1 will not at 
any time by my words or actions in public or private will 
ingly to the best of my understanding any way derogate 
from, but will at all times as occasion shall require to the 
utmost of my power defend and maintain all sucn his Lord 
ship and his heir s title, interest, privileges, Royal rights 
and franchises, jurisdictions, prerogatives, propriety and do 
minion over and in the said Province of Maryland and 
people who are or shall be therein for the time being as are 
granted or mentioned to be granted to his Lordship and his 
said heirs by the King or crown of England in his Lordship s 
patent of the said Province under the great seal of that king 
dom; and I do likewise swear that I will with all expedi 
tion discover to his Lordship or his said heirs or to his or 
their lieutenants or governor of the said Province of Mary 
land for the time being, any plot conspiracy or combina 
tion which I shall know or have just cause to suspect is or 
shall be intended against the person of his Lordship or his 
said heirs, or which shall tend any way to the disinherison 
or deprivation of his Lordship or his said heirs, their title, 
interest, privileges royal rights and franchises, jurisdiction, 
prerogatives, propriety or dominion aforesaid; and I do 
further swear that I will not either by myself or by any 
other person or persons directly or indirectly take, accept, 
receive, purchase or posess any land, and tenements or 
hereditaments within the Province of Maryland or the 
islands thereunto belonging from any Indian or Indians or 
any other person or persons not deriving a legal title there 
unto by, from, and under some grant of his Lordship or his 
said heirs legally passed or to be passed under his or their 
great seal, of the said Province for the time being, and I 
do also acknowledge that this oath is administered unto 
me by lawful authority and do therefore respectively 
acknowledge and swear all the promises without any equivo 
cation or mental reservation in any kind whatsoever, So 
Help me God! 

Lastly I do hereby declare undertake and affirm that I 
have sufficient and lawful authority to oblige by this in 
strument under my hand and seal hereunto fixed, not only 
myself, but also all my sucessors who shall be Provincials 
or Superiors of our Society in the English Mission 
and also all persons of the Society who are or shall here 
after be sent into Maryland to perform and make good all 
matters and things in every point above mentioned, accord 
ing to the tenor and true meaning of this my instrument of 
promises and agreement to and with his Lordship. 



"Quit-rents were the rent charges, laid upon the land 
when it was first granted to each colonist. They were to 
be paid annually in perpetuity to the Proprietary by the 
owner of the land in acknowledgment of his tenancy. These 
rents were paid in wheat, in money, in tobacco or other 
commodities according to the conditions demanded by the 
Proprietary. In 1671 a duty was imposed on all exported 
tobacco in lieu of the quit-rents and alienation fees. This 
relieved the colonist of some of the grievances of the old 
system, but this plan was also found unsatisfactory. The 
collectors armed with a little brief authority, were a con 
stant source of vexation to the people. The Assembly then 
resorted to the plan of buying out the rents and alienation 
fees. By an Act of 1717 the Proprietary was granted two 
shillings on every hogs-head of exported tobacco in full 
discharge of his quit-rents and alienation fees. This tem 
porary law continued till 1733 when it lapsed. All the 
evils of the old system returned in full force and continued 
till the American Revolution." 


The population and the resources of the colony had so 
increased during the life of Cecilius that after, his death, 
his son (1683) adopted a new system by which lands were 
granted for a definite sum. This was called Caution Money, 
because no warrant of land was issued till it was paid. 
Once paid, the land became the property, rent free, of the 
payee. This is our present system. 


Alienation fees were the fees which the tenant 
paid to the owner of the land when the land 
w T as transferred by the tenant either living or dead 
but the alineation fees for devises were abolished 
in 1742. (McMahon, pp. 174-75.) These were the reve 
nues of the Proprietary from the land. Other fees were 
the tobacco and tonnage" duty, and the fines, forfeitures and 
amercements. (For a full account of these taxes and how 
the principle " no taxation without representation " was 
developed in Maryland, see McMahon, pp. 169-183.) 



Forasmuch as in a well governed and Christian Common 
wealth, matters concerning Religion and the honour of God 
ought in the first place to be taken into serious considera 
tion and endeavored to be settled, Be it therefore ordained 
and enacted by the Right Honourable Cecilius, Lord Baron 
of Baltimore, absolute Lord and Proprietary of this Pro 
vince, with the advice and consent of this General 
Assembly that whatsoever person or persons within 
this province and the islands thereunto belonging, 
shall from henceforth blaspheme God, that is curse 
His, or shall deny Our Saviour Jesus Christ to be 
the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, 
Son & Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said 
three persons of the Trinity, or the unity of the Godhead, or 
shall use or utter any reproachful speeches, words or 
language concerning the Holy Trinity, or any of the said 
three persons thereof, shall be punished with death, and 
confiscation or forfeiture of all his or her land and goods 
to the Lord Proprietary and his heirs. 

And be it also enacted by the authority and with the 
advice and assent aforesaid: That whatsoever person or 
persons shall from henceforth use or utter any reproach 
ful words or speeches concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, 
the Mother of our Saviour, or the holy Apostles or Evan 
gelists, or any of them, shall in such case for the first 
offence forfeit to the said Lord Proprietary, and his heirs, 
Lords and Proprietaries of this Province, the sum of 5 
sterling, or the value thereof, to be levied on the goods and 
chattels of every such person so offending: but in case such 
offender or offenders should not then have goods and 
chattels sufficient for the satisfying of such forfeiture, or 
that the same be not otherwise speedily satisfied, that then 
such offender or offenders shall be publicly whipped and 
be imprisoned during the pleasure of the Lord Proprietary 
or the Lieutenant or chief governor of this Province for 
the time being; and that every such offender or offenders 
for every such second offence shall forfeit 10 sterling, or 
the value thereof to be levied as aforesaid or in case such 
offender or offenders shall not then have goods and chat 
tels within this Province sufficient for that purpose, then 
to be publicly and severely whipped and imprisoned as be 
fore is expressed; and that every person or persons before 
mentioned offending herein the third time, shall for such 


third offence forfeit all his lands and goods, and be forever 
banished and expelled out of this province. 

And be it also further enacted by the same authority, 
advice and assent, that whatsoever person or persons shall 
from henceforth upon any occasion of offence or otherwise, 
in a reproachful manner or other way, declare, call, or de 
nominate any person or persons whatsoever inhabiting, re 
siding, trafficing, trading or commercing, within this Pro 
vince, or within any the ports, harbours, creeks or havens 
to the same belonging, an Heretic, Schismatic, Idolater 
Puritan, Presbyterian, Independent, Popish Priest, Jesuit, 
Jesuited Papist, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anabaptist, Brown- 
ist, Antinomian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or other 
name or term in a reproachful manner, relating to matters 
of religion, shall for every such offence forfeit and lose the 
sum of 10s. sterling or the value thereof to be levied on the 
goods and chattels of every such offender or offenders, the 
one-half thereof to be forfeit and paid to the person or per 
sons of whom sucii reproachful words are or shall be 
spoken or uttered, and the other half thereof to the Lord 
Proprietary and his heirs, lords and proprietaries, but if 
such person or persons who shall at any time utter or 
speak any such reproachful words or language, shall not 
have goods or chattels sufficient and overt within this 
province to be taken to satisfy the penalty aforesaid, or 
that the same be not otherwise speedily * satisfied, then 
the person or persons so offending shall be publicly whip 
ped, and shall suffer imprisonment without bail or main- 
prise, until he, she or they respectively, shall satisfy the 
party offended or grieved by such reproachful language, 
by asking him or her, respectively forgiveness publicly for 
such his offence before the magistrate or chief officer or offi 
cers of the town or place where such offence shall be given. 

And be it further likewise enacted by the authority and 
consent aforesaid, that every person and persons within this 
Province, that shall at any time hereafter profane the 
Sabbath or Lord s Day, called Sunday, by frequent swear 
ing, drunkenness, or by any uncivil, or disorderly recrea 
tion, or by working on that day when absolute necessity 
doth not require, shall for every such first offence forfeit 
2s. 6d. sterling or the value thereof, and for the second of 
fence 5s. sterling or the value thereof, and for the third of 
fence, and for every time he shall offend in like manner 
afterwards 10s. sterling or the value thereof; and in case 
uch offender or offenders shall not have sufficient goods or 
chattels within this Province to satisfy any of the said 
penalties respectively hereby imposed for profaning the 
Sabbath or Lord s Day called Sunday as aforesaid, then 
in every such case the party so offending, shall for the 
first and second offence in that kind be imprisoned until 


he or she shall publicly in open Court, before, the Chief 
Commander, judge or magistrate of that county, town or 
precinct wherein such offence shall be committed, acknow 
ledge the scandal and offence he hath in that respect given 
against God, and the good and civil government of this 
Province; and for the third offence and for every time 
after shall also be publicly whipped. And whereas the 
enforcing of the conscience in matters of religion hath 
frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence in 
those Commonwealths where it has been practised, and for 
the more quiet and peaceable government of this Pro 
vince, and the better to preserve mutual love and amity 
amongst the inhabitants here, Be it therefore also, by 
the Lord Proprietary, with the advice and assent of this 
Assembly, ordained and enacted, except as in this present 
Act is declared and set forth, that no person or persons 
whatsoever within this Province or the Islands, ports, har 
bours, creeks or havens thereunto belonging, professing to 
believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth be anyways 
troubled, molested or discountenenced, for or in respect 
of his or her religion, nor in the free exercise thereof, 
witnin this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging, nor 
anyway compelled to the belief or exercise of any other 
religion against his or her consent, so as they be not 
unfaithful to the Lord Proprietary or molest or conspire 
against the civil government, established or to be estab 
lished in this Province under him or his heirs; and that 
all and every person or persons that shall presume con 
trary to this Act, and the true intent and meaning thereof, 
directly or indirectly, either in person or estate, wilfully 
to wrong, disturb or trouble, or molest any person or per 
sons whatsoever within this Province, professing to believe 
in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of his or her religion, or 
the free exercise thereof within this Province, otherwise 
than is provided for in this Act, that such person or per 
sons so offending shall be compelled to pay treble damages 
to the party so wronged or molested, and for every such 
offence shall also forfeit 20s. sterling in money or the value 
thereof, half thereof for the use of the Lord Proprietary 
and his heirs, Lords and Proprietaries of this Province, and 
the other half thereof for the use of the party so wronged 
or molested as aforesaid; or if the party so offending as 
aforesaid shall refuse or be unable to recompence the party 
so wronged or to satisfy such fine or forfeiture, then such 
offender shall be severely punished by public whipping 
and imprisonment during the pleasure of the Lord Pro 
prietary, or his lieutenant or chief Governor of this Pro 
vince for the time being, without bail or mainprise. 

And be it further also enacted by the authority ajid 


consent aforesaid, that the sheriff or other officer or officers 
from time to time be appointed and authorized for that 
purpose of the county, town or precinct where every par 
ticular offence, in this present Act contained, shall happen 
at any time to be committed, and whereupon there is here 
by a forfeiture, fine or penalty imposed, shall from time to 
time distrain, and seize the goods and estates of every 
such person so offending as aforesaid against this present 
Act or any part thereof, and sell the same or any part 
thereof for the full satisfaction of such forfeiture, fine or 
penalty as aforesaid, restoring to the party so offending 
the remainder or overplus of the said goods and estate 
after such satisfaction so made as aforesaid." (Archives, I, 
pp. 244-47.) 


" Agreement of the People of England, and the Places 
therein Incorporated, For a Secure and Present Peace, 
Upon Grounds of Common Right, Freedom and Safety. . . . 

Section 9th. Concerning religion. We agree as fol- 
loweth: It is intended that the Christian religion be held 
forth and recommended as the public profession in this 
nation, which we desire may, by the grace of God, be re 
formed to the greatest purity in doctrine, worship and dis 
cipline, according to the word of God; the instructing of 
the people thereunto in a public way, so it be not com 
pulsive; as also the maintaining of able teachers to that 
end and for the confutation or discovery of heresy, error, or 
whatever is contrary to sound doctrine is allowed to be 
provided for by our representatives; the maintenance of 
which teachers may be out of a public treasury, and we de 
sire not by tithes. Provided that Popery or Prelacy be 
not held forth as the public way or profession in this 

(2) That to the public profession so held forth, none 
"be compelled by penalties or otherwise, but only may be en 
deavored to be won by sound doctrine, and the example of 
a good conscience. 

(3) That such as profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, 
however, differing in judgment from the doctrine, worship 
or discipline publicly held forth as aforesaid, shall not be 
restricted from, but shall be protected in, the profession 
of their faith and exercise of their religion according to 
their conscience, in any place except such as shall be set 
apart for the public worship; where we provide not for 


them, unless they have leave, so as they abuse not this 
liberty to the evil injury of others, or to actual disturb 
ance of the public peace on their part. Nevertheless, it is 
not intended to be hereby provided that this liberty shall 
extend to Popery or Prelacy. 

(4) That all laws, ordinances, statutes and clauses in 
any law, statute or ordinance to the contrary to the liberty 
herein provided for in the two particulars next preceding 
concerning religion, be and are hereafter repealed." ( Par 
liamentary History of England, From the Earliest period 
to the year 1803.) . 

Whitelocke says, " tne frame of this Agreement of the 
People, thought to be for the most part made by the Com 
missary General Ireton, a man full of invention and in 
dustry, who had a little knowledge of the law which led him 
into more errors." (Memorials, n, p. 473.) 


For the preventing of the growth and spreading of heresy 
and blasphemy. Be it ordained by the Lords and Commons 
in this present Parliament assembled that all such per 
sons as shall from and after the date of this present 
ordinance, by preaching, teaching printing or writing, 
maintain and publish that there is no God, or that God is 
not present in all places, doth not know and foreknow all 
things, or that He is not Almighty, that He is not per 
fectly holy, or that He is not eternal, or that the Father is 
not God, or that the Son is not God, or that the Holy Ghost 
is not God, or that they three are not one eternal God: or 
that shall in like manner maintain and publish that Christ 
is not God equal with the Father, or shall deny the man 
hood of Christ, or the Godhead and Manhood of Christ are 
several natures, or that the humanity of Christ is pure and 
unspotted of all sin, or that shall maintain or publish as 
aforesaid, that Christ did not die, or did not arise from 
the dead, nor is ascended into heaven bodily, or that shall 
deny that his death is meritorious in the eyes of believers, 
or that shall publish or maintain as aforesaid that Jesus 
Christ is not the Son of God, or that the Scripture ... is 
not the word of God, or that the bodies of men shall not 
rise again after they are dead, or that there is no day of 
judgment after death: All such maintaining and publish 
ing of such error or errors with obstinacy therein, shall by 
virtue thereof be adjudged felony. 


And all such persons upon complaint and proof made 
of the same, in any of the cases aforesaid, before any two 
of the next Justices of the Peace for that place or county, 
by the oaths of two witnesses (which said Justices of the 
peace in such cases shall hereby have power to administer) 
or confession of the party, the said party so accused, shall 
be by the said Justices of the Peace, committed to prison 
without bail or mainprize, until the next gaol delivery to 
be holden for that place or county; and the witnesses, 
likewise, shall be bound over by the said Justices, unto the 
said gaol delivery to give in their evidence; and at the said 
gaol delivery the party shall be indicted for felonious pub 
lishing, and maintaining such error: and in case the in 
dictment be found and the party upon his trial shall not 
abjure his error and defence and maintenance of the same, 
he shall suffer the pains of death as in the case of felony, 
without benefit of clergy: But in case he shall recant 
or renounce and abjure his said error or errors, and the 
maintenance and publishing of the same he shall nevethe- 
less remain in prison until he shall find two sureties, 
being subsidy men that shall be bound with him before 
two or three more Justices of the Peace or gaol delivery, 
that he shall not henceforth publish or maintain as afore 
said the said error or errors any more; and the said 
Justices shall have power hereby to take bail in such 

Journal of the House of Commons. 

Journal of the House of Lords. 

(London, 1647-1839.) 


(From Thurloe s State Papers.} 

The province of Maryland, in that state, wherein it stood 
under the Lord Baltimore s government, had more need of 
reducing than any English plantation in America, for these 
reasons, viz : 

1. The convenant, laws, and platform of government 
established in England declare the suppression and extirpa 
tion of popery, to which his highness oath tends; but the 
Lord Baltimore s government declares and swears the up 
holding and countenancing thereof, both by the officers and 


2. The Lord Baltimore exercised an arbitrary and 
tyrannical government, undertook a princely jurisdiction, 
styles himself absolute lord and proprieter, constituted a 
privy council, most of papists, and the rest sworn thereto. 
This privy council must be the legislative power, that is to 
put in execution such laws which the Lord Baltimore him 
self makes and imposeth; and he makes what laws he 
pleaseth. The people are indeed called to assemblies, but 
have neither legislative power nor of judicature, that being 
appropriated to the privy council or Upper House, so that 
what is determined by them, admits of no reference or 

3. The Lord Baltimore s grants of land are made, to 
the end that the grantees might be the better enabled to do 
him and his heirs all acceptable service, for the tenure is 
for all service, to which* they must all swear, before they 
have any grants, without any relation to, or mention of 
the supreme authority of England, either in this, or any 
thing else that passeth there. 

4. That the Lord Baltimore issued writs and all other 
process whatsoever, in his own name. 

5. Charles Stewart, son to the late King, was in Mary 
land proclaimed king of England, &c., against which no 
act, order or proclamation hath been published by the Lord 
Baltimore or his officers ; for although Mr. Greene who 
made the proclamation was put out of the Government, 
yet that action was not mentioned to be the cause, but 
other matters against the Lord Baltimore. 

0. That there was a notable practice and compliance of 
the Lord Baltimore and his party with the late king s 
party in Virginia, against the Parliament and their ships, 
the said Lord Baltimore having gotten commission from 
the King at Oxford to seize and take the ships and goods 
of all such as would not pay the customs there, which the 
Lord Baltimore was to receive, and undertook to put in 
execution, but failed thereof through the country s non- 
compliance; which had it took effect as he designed, would 
have engaged the country in a war against the Parliament, 
to the apparent ruin and destruction of that plantation, 
besides the exceeding great damage and loss to the state 
here, in point of revenue, custom, excise, &c., the hinder 
ing of trade and navigation, loss of ships and goods to the 
merchants, and the strengthening of the King s party. 

Since the reducement of the province under the obedience 
of the Commonwealth of England: 

1. That the Lord Baltimore hath utterly disowned and 
contradicted the said reducement (though acted by com 
mission and instructions from the council of state by au 
thority of Parliament, by the commissioners appointed, and 


the ships sent over for that purpose) terming it rebellion 
against himself and his government there, scandalizing and 
abusing the commissioners of the Commonwealth of Eng 
land with the opprobrious names of factious, seditious, 
malicious and rebellious persons, that they should stir up 
the people to sedition and rebellion, and were the abettors 

2. That the Lord Baltimore hath from time to time 
instigated and animated his officers to oppose and act con 
trary to the said reducement, as well by force of arms as 
otherwise, commanding them to apprehend the State s 
commissioners and their complices, as rebels to him, and 
deal with them accordingly; requiring his officers to pro 
ceed in his own way of government, and to carry all in his 
name as before, notwithstanding anything done by the said 
commissioners; and to undertake to justify them in such 
their proceedings, and to bear them out in it, and further 
most unjustly and cruelly disseised Capt. Claiborne and 
others of the island called Kent, though seated and peopled 
under the Virginian government three or four years before 
the King s grant to him ; and not the land only, but the 
estates and lives too, of such as opposed him or his officers, 
hanging some and killing others, who sought the preserva 
tion of their rights from Popish violence. Such a begin 
ning had that unhappy plantation, being founded upon the 
rights and labours of other men, and begun in bloodshed 
and robbery, and all manner of cruelty. 

3. The Lord Baltimore, in his last letter to Capt. Stone 
doth blame him for resigning up his government into the 
hands of the Lord Protector and Commonwealth of England, 
without striking one stroke; taxing him in effect with cow 
ardice, that having so many men in arms, he would not 
oppose, saying that Bennet and Claiborne durst as well 
have been hanged, as have opposed him; or to that effect. 

4. That in the last rebellion against his highness the 
Lord Protector and Commonwealth of England, and the 
government established in Maryland by their authority, the 
said Lord Baltimore and his officers have In high measure 
abused the name of the Lord Protector, and under that 
notion have committed many notorious robberies and murders 
against peaceable and loyal subjects of the Commonwealth 
of England and his highness the Lord Protector; and to 
this end, raised men in arms, conferring honors on base 
and bloody minded people, as well Papists as others, and 
employed them in a violent and formidable manner in 
battle array with Lord Baltimore s colours displayed, to 
fight against the Lord Protector s people and government, 
yea, to shoot against his highness s colours, killing the 
ensign-bearer; by which means much blood hath been shed, 


many made widows and fatherless, and great damage, dan 
ger and distress brought upon the whole province. The 
Indians likewise taking occasion and advantage hereby to 
fall upon the frontier plantations, have killed two men, 
and taken some prisoners. 

Before the alteration of the Government here in Eng 
land, the Lord Baltimore obtained a patent from the King 
for a tract of land in the bay of Chesapiak in Virginia, 
pretending the same to be unplanted: by this mean takes 
away the lands from the Virginians, to whom the same of 
right belongs, and not only so, but takes away the trade 
with the nations which they had so many years enjoyed; 
and not being able to manage the trade himself, left it to 
the Swedes and Dutch, who furnished the Indians with 
powder, shot and guns, to the great damage and danger of 
these plantations, and his highness s subjects. 

Objections against Lord Baltimore s Patent Reasons 
why the government of Maryland should not be put into 
his hands. (Thurloe Papers.) 

By the Patent, he was to have no land but what was un 
cultivated and inhabited by Pagans. Maryland included 
the Isle of Kent which was inhabited long before Maryland 
was ever heard of. The Patent provides that the laws were 
to be made with the advice and consent of the freemen of 
the Province, but the people in Maryland have no laws but 
what he allows and consents to: The laws were to be made 
agreeable to those of England, but this condition is also 
violated: It was provided that God s Holy and true 
Christian religion and the allegiance to England should not 
suffer, but as to religion the governor and those of the 
Council in Maryland are bound by oath to defend and main 
tain the Catholic religion and the free exercise thereof, and 
refused to issue writs in the name of the Keepers of the 
Liberties of England. Lord Baltimore caused Stone to take 
up arms. 

The following reasons are given against Lord Baltimore 
retaining his patent: 

1. His dissatisfaction and malignancy against Parlia 
ment, his being in communication with the King at Oxford, 
taking possesson of Ingle s ship, and tampering with the 
seamen in order that it might be taken to Bristol then in 
the King s possession, his proclamation of King Charles II. 

2. In respect to the petitions of the inhabitants of Vir 
ginia and Maryland against a Popish, monarchical govern 
ment, so against the interests of the Protector. In order 
to the peace and the common good of those plantations 


which mainly consist in uniting and keeping them under 
one government, whereby dissensions, quarrels, cutting 
throats, etc., all likely to arise between neighboring plan 
tations may be prevented; the Protector s authority be 
established; trade encouraged, excessive planting of to 
bacco restrained, so making way for silk; besides the old 
great, sad complaint of seducing of poor Protestants, and 
Papists to bear rule over the free born subjects of this 
nation, will be likely hereby in some measure taken off, and 
yet those of "the Popish persuasion not debarred from any 
lawful liberty and free in civil things or exercise of con 



Specious Pretenses of Lord Baltimore to the Patent of 

(1) Lord Baltimore s Patent was surreptitious, James 
having passed the same by patent to the planters and ad 
venturers of Virginia, and they actually possessed the Isle 
of Kent, etc. 

(2) Maryland Grant was exorbitant. 

(3) Contrary to law to put subjects of the Common 
wealth under perpetual government of a Papist. 

(4) Lord Baltimore s maladministration of his govern 
ment; (no laws but of Proprietary s making, Authority 
ol Protector not upheld, Catholic religion allowed, 
Ingle s ship seized, Stone ordered to resist, etc.) 


" Whereas, it is said that the Committee for Petitions in 
the time of the little Parliament reiected the petition of 
Colonel Matthews concerning the Lord Baltimore, it is not 
so. They were so far from slighting the same that they con 
sidered it too high for them and therefore ordered the 
business to be transmitted back again to the Council of 
State, as more proper for their consideration." 

Whereas, Lord Baltimore alleges that the word Maryland 
was stricken out of the letter of instructions for the re 
duction of the colonies, and the actions of the Commission 
ers were therefore unlawful, it is alleged in contradiction 
that Parliament knew well that Maryland was situated in 
the Chesapeake, and approved of the Commissioners ac- 


tions as is evidenced by the letter of instructions sent the 
next year, that in the report drawn up for Parliament it is 
expressly stated that Maryland was intended, Cromwell s 
letter to the Commsisioners expresses his approval, etc. 

Thurloe Papers. 
Regarding the engagement of March 25th, 1655. 

Stone reproved by Lord Baltimore for not resisting. 

Recital of Stone s fierce, bloody, and brutal warfare, 
seizing records, arming papists, attack, murders, etc. 

Lastly Captain Fuller, the country being in such a sad, 
distressed, distracted condition, and so desperately engaged 
and endangered and like to be ruined througn su cn wicked 
ana bloody insurrection, etc., . . . being authorized 
God having given those bloody people into his hands . . . 
thought it a duty to take away the chief and most danger 
ous incendiaries, etc. . . . 


( 1 ) " The Assembly hath admitted and obliged the Judges 
to proceed according to the Law of England, and in that 
law we can take no man s life, nor dispose of any man s 
estate but by the oath of lawful witnesses. 

(2) Many laws of this province not to be repealed di 
rectly in words prescribe an oath upon the Holy Evangelists. 

(3) Persons though not of tender consciences if they 
have a mind to pleasure a friend knowing such a declara 
tion not to bind so severely in conscience as an oath, will 
be apt to pretend tenderness of conscience, so to waive a 
perjury before God. 

(4) It will render all testimonies taken in this Province 
invalid in any Court either in England or in other planta 

(5) Upon the like act tendered the last Assembly, no 
person would engage or promise that all persons pretend 
ing a tenderness of conscience would so give evidence if 
settled by a law." (Archives, I, p. 437.) 

Again in 1674 the Quakers laid a petition before the 
House, setting forth their reasons for not taking oaths, it 
being contrary to their beliefs and against their conscience: 
also showing how their inability to swear caused them in 
numerable civil disabilities, losses in their estates, and 
reduced their power to be of service to the Country, and 
made the execution of the administrators office impossible. 
They therefore, pray the Assembly to do away with the oath 


in their regard, promising " if we do break our yea yea, 
or nay nay in what we testify then let us suffer the same 
punishment as they do that break their oath and swear 
falsely. . . . This petition was laid aside until the governor 
should receive commands from the Proprietary who had 
formerly had intention of gratifying the desire of these 
people called Quakers in that kind." ( Archives, II, pp. 355- 

In February of the same year the Upper House " desires 
the Lower House to take into consideration the inconveni 
ences and mischiefs that have happened for want of a law 
in this Province impowering the Chief Judge for probate 
of wills and testaments to grant letters of administration 
upon good security given by such persons who for conscience 
sake cannot swear." (Archives, u, p. 424.) A message is 
sent to the Lieutenant General asking if he has yet" received 
any instructions from the Lord Proprietor touching the 
Dispensation." (Ijbid., p. 427.) On the 30th of the month 
the matter is again earnestly discussed. (Archives, n, p. 

We find in Sept. 1681, another Act for doing away with the 
Oath for Quakers was introduced and carefully considered 
(Archives, vn, p. 179), but the almost insuperable diffi 
culties, the dangers to the State and the Charter from such a 
dispensation, made them slow to come to any decision, 
anxious though they were to stretch every point in order 
to give the Quakers the dispensation they desired. 

1681. Later in the session the Chancellor calls attention 
to the inconsistency of the Quakers showing " that they 
pretending themselves a people of tender conscience they 
cannot take an oath, yet in the body of the Act they offer 
and propose the most severe asseveration that can be fixed 
in any oath which shows they are only an obstinate people 
and only quarrel with the form and not with the substance 
of an oath and only inclined to change the rules of govern 
ment." The Bill was dissented to. (Archives, vu, p. 184.) 

In 1688 Charles Lord Baltimore dispenses the Quakers 
from oath, when acting as administrators and executors. 

In 1695 the Quakers again petition for a dispensation 
from oaths and complain they have not afforded them the 
rights of Englishmen. Their petition was refused. Upon 
the Governor asking them if they did not receive the 
Privileges of Englishmen, they confess they do but they 
expected some other privileges having been at great charge 
and expense in helping to serve the government. Archives, 
xix, p. 155.) 



Mr. Gladstone declares " there was no question of a 
merciful use of power towards others, but simply of a wise 
and defensive prudence with respect to themselves: that is 
to say, so far as the tolerant legislation of the colony was 
the work of Roman Catholics. But it does not seem to 
have been their work. By the Fourth article of the Char 
ter, we find that no Church could be consecrated there ex 
cept according to the Church at home. The Tenth Article 
guaranteed to the colonists generally all privileges, fran 
chises and liberties of our kingdom of England. " 
Mr. Gladstone seems to have relied again on Neill in " Terra 
Mariae," p. 54, where we read: "As he could not by the 
laws of England make the Church of Rome the established 
Church, a check was held on all religious denominations, by 
securing the patronage of all churches that should happen 
to be built." 

Mr. Gladstone says, " By the Fourth Article of the Char 
ter [Cfr. Appendix C] we find that no church could be 
consecrated there except according to the laws of the Church 
at home." A careful reading of this clause will show that 
the King granted a privilege but did not impose an obli 
gation. " The ecclesiastical laws of England did not bind 
the colonies unless especially mentioned." (Brantz Mayer, 
pp. 29-30.) "This charter is sometimes spoken of" as 
establishing the Church of England in Maryland. But this 
is not correct. The Church of England is not mentioned in 
the instrument, while the phrase, according to the ec 
clesiastical laws of our kingdom of England, might mean 
much or little as circumstances might vary. Baltimore 
construed the charter as conferring ecclesiastical supremacy 
on the proprietary which he was to exercise according to 
those laws. This is to say, as those laws made the king head 
of the English Church, the Charter made Baltimore head of 
the Maryland Church. It did not specifically tell him to 
conform the Church of Maryland to the English model, but 
left it in his hands to do as he wished and as he found what 
Church he desired." Cobb, p. 364, vide supra, pp. 56-65. 

Mr. Gladstone says: "The Tenth Article [Cfr. Appendix 
C] guaranteed to the colonists generally all privileges, 
franchises and liberties of our kingdom of England. " Let 
the reader here refer to the intolerance of Massachusetts, 
which was against its charter. (P. 115-122.) In regard to 
this Brantly says : " The opinion entertained by some that 


the Charter itself enforced toleration is altogether untenable. 
These provisions did not prevent the Church of England 
from being afterwards established in Maryland, nor avert 
disabilities from Catholics and Dissenters." (Brantly, W. 
T., The English in Maryland, p. 524 In Justin Winsor s 
Narrative and Critical History of America.) 

Mr. Gladstone says: "It was in 1649 that the Maryland 
Act of Toleration was passed, which, however, prescribed 
the punishment of death for anyone who denied the Trinity. 
Of the small legislative body which passed it, two-thirds ap 
pear to have been Protestants, the recorded numbers being 
sixteen and eight respectively. The colony was open to the 
immigration of Puritans and all Protestants, and any per 
manent and successful oppression by a handful of Roman 
Catholics was altogether impossible. But the Colonial Act 
seems to have been an echo of the order of the House of 
Commons at home, on the 27th of October, 1645, that the 
inhabitants of the Summer Islands, and such others as shall 
join themselves to them, shall, without any molestation or 
trouble, have and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in 
matters of God s worship; and of a British ordinance of 
1647. " (Rome and the Newest Fashion in Religion, Pre 
face. ) In regard to Mr. Gladstone s first statement, " It 
was in 1G49 that the Maryland Act of Toleration was 
passed, which, however, prescribed tae punishment of death 
for anyone who denied the Trinity," the reader is referred 
to what has been said regarding the Act of 1649. (P. 196- 

In regard to Mr. Gladstone s second point, that " of the 
small legislative body that passed it, [the Act] two-thirds 
appear to have been Protestant, the recorded numbers 
being 16 and 8 respectively," we have already seen that the 
majority were Catholics. (See p. 198-201.) 

As to the third point, " that the Colony was open to the 
immigration of Puritans and all Protestants, and any per 
manent and successful oppression by a handful of Roman 
Catholics was altogether impossible;" it has been shown 
that the Colony was open to Puritans and Protestants, 
through Lord Baltimore s generosity and liberal toleration. 
(Pp. 111-122, 199-201.) 

Mr. Gladstone says fourthly that " The Colonial Act 
seems to have been an echo of the order of the House or 
Commons at home, on the 27th of October, 1645, that the 
inhabitants of the Summer Islands, and such others as may 
join themselves to them shall, without any molestation or 
trouble, have and enjoy the liberty of their consciences in 
matters of God s worship." We can judge how much the 
Act of 1649 was " an echo " of this order of 1645, by re 
ferring to Lord Baltimore s instructions to his brother 


eleven years before (1634), and the unvarying toleration 
which obtained in the colony under Catholic rule. The 
Act passed by the House of Commons (Oct. 27th, 1645) 
orders " That the inhabitants of the Summer Islands, and 
such others as shall join themselves to them, shall without 
any molestation or trouble, have and enjoy the liberty of 
their conscience in matters of God s worship, as well in 
those parts of America, where they are now planted, as in 
all other parts of America where hereafter they may be 
planted; until this House shall otherwise order. (Journal 
of the House of Commons, iv, p. 325.) This order was, 
however, inoperative, as it did not pass the House of Lords. 
If there was an " echo," it was certainly misunderstood 
when it reached the Puritans of Maryland in 1652, as we 
have seen. 

In making his fifth point, that the Act was inspired by 
" a British Ordinance of 1647," Mr. Gladstone is scarcely 
honest, for after positively stating it as a fact, and making 
use of it as an argument, he naively remarks in a note: 
"An ordinance, not in ScobelPs Collection, is mentioned 
in Rush worth, vol, vn, pp. 834, 840, 841. I cannot say 
whether this is the ordinance intended by the American 
writer, probably not, for it excepts Papists and Churchmen, 
and it does not name the plantations." (Gladstone, Rome 
and the Newest Fashions, etc., Preface, xu.) No law of 
toleration is to be found in the Journal of the House of 
Commons, London, nor in Whitelock s Memorials, nor Rush- 
ivorth s Hist. Coll., nor is there any allusion to it in the 
Thurloe State Papers. To show how much weight this 
law affords to the argument of Mr. Gladstone, the reader is 
referred to political conditions at the time and to the 
Ordinance in full. 

(The "American writer" (Neill) who takes as his motto,. 
" nee falsa dicere, nee vera reticere " coolly says " The Act 
of 1649, relative to religion, I have shown was only an 
adaptation of a similar Act in 1647, by the Parliament of 
England, then intensely Puritan." Neill, Maryland ; Not A 
Roman Catholic Colony, p. 10.) 

In the conflict between the King and Parliament the 
Catholics, generally, sided with Parliament against the 
King because Parliament promised religious liberty, but 
when it came to the point of giving definite assurances to 
Catholics, some of the Parliamentary party appeared to 
doubt the sincerity of Catholics. (Johnson s Foundation of 
Md., pp. 101-106.) In the Stonyhurst MSS. we read, "The 
opposite party (the Independents) began to lift 
its head, to hate the tyranny of the Presbyterians . . . and 
at last to contend for freedom of conscience, as for their 
altars and their hearths. The heads of the soldiery sided 


with the Independents, and did valiantly, and finally they 
got possession of the King. When well-nigh all power was 
in their hands, and they began to lay the foundations of 
freedom of conscience, to the end that they might establish 
it more deeply and firmly, they began to draw to their 
side, with no obscure attempts, the Catholics, who had 
lately groaned under the most heavy yoke of servitude, and 
this from no favor towards the Roman Faith, which they 
hated, but from their hatred of the Penal laws, which form 
erly enacted against the Orthodox, strike them also, as not 
attending church, to which they are not willing to be com 

"Nor did the Catholics behave sluggishly, for with the 
hope of obtaining liberty also, they made trial of the 
dispositions of the soldiers, and a certain most Illustrious 
Baron sent privily among them, one who should follow the 
camps, and warily watch for favorable seasons 
of speech. When another layman had tried this, 
one thing hindered, which either baffled or certain 
ly delayed our hope, the many things objected against 
the morals, doctrine and faith of the Catholics, which an 
unlettered man could not resolve, therefore it was, that one 
of Ours was asked to give his help for the common good of 
the Catholics, and to uphold the cause, which it was hoped 
would bring to all Catholics, quiet and the enjoyment of 
conscience, and of all their possessions. Moreover, if this 
liberty were once granted, and the doors which deterred 
many from the Catholic faith rescinded, a wide door is 
opened to the conversion of all England. The matter being 
brought before the Vice-Provincial, and counsellors having 
been heard, it was thought good to designate Father N. N. 
a professor of theology, who should refute the objections 
to our faith, and doctrine, and explain it when needful 
to the soldiery. He, when he saw that he would have to 
deal not with any private soldier, but with those who had 
the management of military affairs (commonly called 
* agitators agitatores ) appeared, though unwillingly, 
at their assembly. He did, however, so appear, for at the 
first meeting he so satisfied the president in refuting ob 
jections, that in full Senate (I should more rightly say 
plebiscitum) when many things had been said on this side 
and on that, and had been answered by our theologian, they 
came, with none gainsaying, to the opinion that* Catholics 
might be adimtted to fellowship in the benefit, and to the 
privilege of liberty. Thus was said and done in the lower 
chamber (subsellio) but because it had to be referred to the 
Upper, it brought only a fair dawning of our hope, not yet 
sunrise much less full day. 


" Drawn on by this beginning of the matter, the Illustri 
ous Baron, certain nobles eminent for their skill and pru 
dence in the conduct of affairs, being also joined in council 
with him, wisely thought it well to proceed further and use 
the help of the theologian. So all thought it necessary, 
that the counsels of the Catholics and the wishes of the 
agitators or assistants should be imparted to the generals 
(belli ducibus) colonels ( chili-arch is ) , and leaders of the 
soldiery, that is to say, to the council of war (by whose 
mind and opinion Parliament (comitia publica) was almost 
wholly swayed at this state of affairs. This was a more 
serious and difficult matter, for some, gaping after the goods 
of Catholics, which were now confiscated everywhere, seemed 
disposed to be subserving the avarice of the soldiers; they 
ill-brooked that these should revert to their owners, and for 
themselves to be disseised of that prey. Others from a 
hatred to the faith and a most wicked animosity against 
the Roman See, alleged many things which, as incompatible 
with the rule of the Independents, would disturb their Com 
monwealth. Here the theologian and the nobles had great 
labor (lit. "had to sweat.") They promised that so far 
as the Commonwealth was concerned, all things should be 
undisturbed, that there was nothing in the faith and 
morals of Catholics which did not well agree with the com 
merce and society of the heterodox; whereunto Germany, 
Holland and other provinces bear witness, where Catholics 
dwell in peace under the rule of others, enjoying liberty of 
conscience, finally that they bound themselves to render all 
civil obedience to the King and magistracy; nor was this 
pledge made by the Catholics without consulting the King, 
that his Majesty might suffer no detriment. The most 
factious could object nothing to this, save only that all 
Papists were slaves of the Pope, servile to his rule, every 
where serving his will, and so subject to his sway that they 
would make this pledge, and every compact entered into 
with the heterodox, would stand or fall not otherwise than 
according to the Pope s will. That nothing certain or con 
stant was to be looked for from those who so stubbornly 
cling to the power and will of the Pontiff, and teach that 
faith is not to be kept with heretics. Who does not see 
that these tilings were said from a desire of faction? So 
the Catholics urged in reply that the Papal power did not 
extend to- things unlawful ; that the Pope, without doubt, 
would consent to this pledge wherein the welfare of his 
flock is consulted, where the free exercise of their religion is 
promised, where all the laws offending against the faith are 
either silent or are rescinded. Finally, if he should consent, 
he would not easily go back from his promise given, nor 
would he absolve those who had pledged their faith. This 


address was able to move some to assent but was not able 
to influence all. It was therefore decreed that the Catho 
lics should be admitted to liberty of conscience and the en 
joyment of their goods on this condition and not other 
wise that they should affirm in writing, and in express 
terms, that the Pope could not invalidate this agreement 
made with them, nor absolve Catholics from its obligation." 
(Johnson, pp. 103-106, quoting Stonyhurst M8S., vol. Aug. 
Hist., 1645-1647.) 

In reply to this the Superiors of the Clergy in England, 
of the Benedictines, Carmelites, Franciscans, Jesuits, etc., 
signed the following "formula:" "That all penal statutes 
which hitherto retain their force against Roman Catholics 
shall be revoked, and furthermore, that they shall enjoy 
liberty of their conscience by concession of Parliament, it 
shall be determined that it shall not be lawful for any per 
son or persons, subject to the Crown of England, to pro 
fess, or to recognize as true, or otherwise to persuade these 
following propositions : 

1. That the Pontiff has the power of absolving any per 
son or persons from their obedience to the civil government 
established in this nation. 

2. That it is lawful, by virtue of a command or dis 
pensation of the Pontiff or the Church, to slay, destroy or 
otherwise injure or offend any person whatsoever, because 
they are either accused or condemned, or censured, or ex 
communicated on account of error, schism, or heresy. 

3. That it is lawful in itself, or by the dispensation of 
the Pontiff, to break faith or oath, given to the aforesaid 
persons, for the reason that they have fallen into error or 

After consideration of these promises, we sign upon 
another part of the page, that each of these propositions 
may be answered negatively, and the names of those sub 
scribing are these." (Johnson, p. 107.) This proposal was 
laid before Parliament and was rejected. Instead the fol 
lowing was offered as a .basis of religious toleration: 

" Propositions to be offered to Catholics, or conditions to 
be observed by them, if they desire to enjoy the general 
liberty of conscience: 

1. That no Catholic shall bear arms. 

2. That they shall hold no office in the Commonwealth. 

3. That they may have the exercise of Religion privately, 
only in their own houses. 

4. That it shall be held a capital crime if any one, by 
writing, printing, preaching or teaching, shall promulgate 
or persuade these following heads: 

I. That it is lawful in itself, or by virtue of a dispensa- 


tion of the Pope, not to keep a promise or oath with a 
heretic for this sole reason that he is a heretic. 

II. That it is lawful, by precept or dispensation of the 
Pope or the Church, to slay, destroy, or otherwise injure or 
damage any one, for the reason that he is accused, con 
demned, censured, or excommunicated, on account of error, 
schism, or heresy. 

III. That the Pope or the Church has the power of ab 
solving from the obedience to be shown to the civil magis 
tracy, when and so long as the persons who might be ab 
solved enjoy the common laws and liberties of the nation. 

5. That it shall be a capital crime- if any Roman Catholic 
has intelligence with any foreign State or person what 
soever, hostile to this nation, concerning the public af 
fairs thereof. 

6. That the revocation of the penal statutes shall only 
extend to native subjects of this nation." Johnson, 108-109. 

This was the attitude of the Parliament which, indeed, 
oid, in Oct. 1645 pass an order declaring that the inhabit 
ants of the summer Isles should enjoy freedom of con 
science in matters of religion. " Their proposition for liberty 
of conscience as above formulated to the Roman Catholics, 
was the only sound which they ever made, from which the 
statute of toleration of Maryland could have been an 
echo. The moment they secured power in England and in 
Maryland, they signalized it by the bitterest intolerance." 

LAW OF 1647. 

October 6, 1647. " TheOrdinance for the settling theGov- 
ernment of the Church in a Presbyterial Way, this Day re 
ported to the House, took up the debate of the whole day 
and ordered to be committed, and to be brought in again, 
with a Clause for giving ease to tender Consciences of such 
as are Godly, and make a Conscience of their Ways, etc. 
And this to be sent along with other Propositions for his 
Majesty s Assent." (Historical Collections, by John 
Rushworth, 2nd ed. vol. vii, p. 834.) 

October 13th, 1647. "This day being Oct. 13th both 
Houses sat upon the Business of Religion, and how far the 
Presbyterial Government shall be set up in this Kingdom, 
and His Majesty s Concurrence to be desired to the same and 
several Votes passed hereupon. The Lords proceeded thus 
far in a Grand Committee That the King be desired to give 
his Consent to such Act or Acts of Parliament as shall be 
presented to him for settling the Presbyterial Government 
according to the Matter of the several Ordinances of Par 
liament already agreed upon for the Directory of the 


Church Government, to continue for the space of three years, 
from the time of the King s assent given to the said Act 
or Acts, with Provision to be made that no Person shall be 
liable to any Question or Penalty, only for Nonconformity 
to the said Government or to the form of Divine Service 
appointed in the said Ordinances: And that such persons 
as shall not voluntarily conform to the said form of Gov 
ernment and Divine Service, shall have liberty to meet for 
the Service and Worship of God, and for Exercise of Re 
ligious Duties and Ordinances, in any fit and convenient 
places, so as nothing be done by them to the disturbance of 
the Peace of the Kingdom. And provided that nothing in 
this Provision shall extend to any Toleration of the Popish 
Religion, not to exempt any Popish Recusant from any 
penalties imposed on them for the exercise of the same. 
And also that it shall not extend to tolerate the practise of 
anything contrary to the Principles of Christian Religion, 
contained in the Creed, commonly called the Apostles 
Creed as it is expounded in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 
13, 14, and 15 Articles of the Church of England, according 
to the true sense and meaning of them, and as they have 
been cleared and vindicated by the Assembly of Divines now 
sitting at Westminster; nor of anything contrary to the 
Point of Faith; for the ignorance whereof men are to be 
kept from the Sacrament of the Lord s Supper, as they are 
contained in the Rule and Direction, past for that purpose 
by both Houses October 20, 1645. 

And also provided, That nothing herein shall excuse any 
Persons from the penalties of the Statutes of primo Eliz. 
Cap. 2. for not coming to hear the Word of God on the 
Lord s Day in any Parish, Church or Chapel, unless he can 
show a reasonable Cause of his Absence, or that he was 
present to hear the Word of God preached unto him else 

The Commons likewise insisting upon the Business 01 
Religion, passed several Particulars : As That Presbytery 
be established, and for the time, until the end of the next 
Sessions of Parliament after this, or the end of the Second 
Sessions of Parliament. That the tenths and all other 
Maintenance belonging to any Church or Chapel, shall be 
only for the use of those that can submit to the Presbyterian 
Government and none other: That Liberty of Conscience or 
Worship granted, shall extend to none that shall print, 
preach, or publish contrary to the first 15 Articles of the 30, 
except the Eighth, which* mentions the Three Creeds made 
many years after the Apostles: That nothing contained in 
this ^Ordinance shall extend to any Popish Recusant, or tak 
ing away of Penal Laws against them. (Vol. vn, p. 840. 


October 14th, 1647. The Commons further proceeded in 
the Business of Religion and Church Government, and 
agreed, That such tender Consciences should be freed by 
way of Indulgence from the Penalty of the Statute for the 
Presbyterian Government, for their Nonconformity, who do 
meet in some other Congregation for the Worship of God 
on the Lord s Day and do nothing against the Laws and 
Peace of the Kingdom; and that none others shall be free 
from the Penalties of the Statute / Eliz. Cap. 2. (Ibid. vn. 
p. 841.) 

October 16th, 1647. The Commons on Oct. 16 further 
proceeded in the Debate of that Proposition concerning 
Religion, and made a further additional Vote, That the 
Indulgence, as to Tender Consciences, before mentioned, 
shall not extend to tolerate the use of Common Prayer in 
any Place whatsoever. (Ibid, vn, p. 842.) 

Nov. 8th, 1647. A Message was sent to the Lords to de 
sire a speedy Concurrence for Despatch of the Propositions 
of the King; to which the Lords Concurred, and met pre 
sently; and they were delivered to their Lordships as 
passed by the Commons House." Those added are, 1, For 
the due observance of the Lord s Day 2, Against Innova 
tions in Religion 3, For an Oath o/ Conviction of Papists, 
differing from that of Abjuration, but for discovery of that, 
and for that end; 4, For the Education of the Children 
of Papists in the Protestant Religion; 5, Against Plurali 
ties. (Ibid., vol. vn, p. 865.) 

The intolerance of this Parliament may be further shown 
by calling to mind that it passed one ordinance, among 
others, commanding all Papists whatsoever, to depart 20 
miles from London, on pain of being apprehended and pro 
ceeded against as traitors. This did not include those who 
had made composition, or secured their fines, or who had 
taken the required Oath. (Rushworth, ibid, vn, p. 933.) 
See Appendixes L, M, N. 


" The Papists, gentlemen, are so far the principal ob 
jects of our regard as your design is to oppress them by 
the measure you would introduce, and we do most sincerely 
declare to you that any man, let their persuasion on 
religious matters be what they will, in the same circum 
stances as the Papists, would be as much the objects of our 
regard as they are; and that popular applause to be pur 
chased by the inhumane act of wantonly persecuting any 
Christians, nay any Infidels, we not only do not desire but 


abhor, and shall despise any calumny for not doing what 
our conscience forbids us to do. What you may mean by 
naming your undoubted right, we cannot comprehend, is it 
your undoubted right to banish them because they are 
obnoxious to you? We offered in our message that the 
first settlement of this Province was made by Roman 
Catholics who had been driven from their native country 
by the severity of its laws, and after the services these 
people had done in extending the dominion of the Crown, 
and had been promised and allowed an asylum here, an Act 
of the legislature would have the effect of banishing their 
posterity, when it can t be pretended that it is necessary 
such an extreme measure should take place, could not be 
defended upon any principle of justice or policy. You 
have been pleased to remark upon this passage of our mes 
sage, that you have not been able to discover anything in 
history or otherwise to justify or countenance our asser 
tions that the Papists were promised and allowed an asylum 
here. It may be so, but it is not our fault that you have 
not, and to be plain with you, we should have refrained 
from telling you what you have been pleased to acknowledge, 
by the apprehension of its offence. However, as you 
have desired to have this matter explained and we flatter 
ourselves it may have some effect, we shall undertake to 
do it in as full a manner as the shortness of the time will 
admit. The Province was granted by charter to Cecilius, 
Lord Baltimore, the 20th of June, 1623, who was then a 
Roman Catholic. . . . After the Charter was granted to 
Lord Baltimore, who was then a Roman Catholic, his Lord 
ship emitted this proclamation to encourage the settlement 
of his province, promising therein, among other things, 
liberty of conscience, and any equal exercise of religion to 
every denomination of Christians who would transport 
themselves and reside in his province, and that he would 
secure a law to be passed for that purpose afterwards. 
At the first or second Assembly that met after the colonists 
arrived here, sometime in the year 1638, a perpetual law was 
passed in pursuance of his lordship s promise, and, indeed, 
such a law was easily obtained from those who were the 
first settlers. This act was confirmed in 1640 and again in 
1650. [Here follows the Act Concerning Religion of 1649; 
then a recital of the Protector s inquiries into the state of 
the Province in 1655.] In the year 1657, Lord Baltimore 
made the following declaration that he would never give 
his consent to the repeal of the Act Concerning Religion, by 
which all, persons professing to believe in Jesus Christ 
should have freedom of conscience, which was confirmed by 
the Act of Assembly. Part of the oath directed to be 



taken between 1636 and 1657 by the Governor and Coun 
cil was in the following words : I will not by myself or 
any other person directly or indirectly, trouble or discount 
enance any person whatsoever professing to believe in 
Jesus Christ, for or in respect of his or her religion, or in 
the free exercise thereof. So far the oath was common to 
the Governor and the Council but the governor proceeds 
further that he would make no difference of person in con 
ferring offices, rewards or favours proceeding from the 
authority his Lordship had conferred upon him, for or in 
respect of their religion, but merely as they should be 
found faithful and well deserving and endued with moral 
virtues and abilities fitting, wherein his principal aim 
should be sincerely the advancement of his Lordship s ser 
vice and the public unity, and if any person or officer should 
molest any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ on 
account of his or her religion, the person molested was to be 
protected, and the person offending to be punished. The oath 
of fidelity which was taken by the inhabitants of this Province 
in virtue of an Act of 1650 was to the following effect: I 
will maintain to the utmost most of my power his Lord 
ship s just and lawful rights, etc., as guaranteed to his 
Lordship in his patent under the Great Seal, not being any 
way understood to infringe or prejudice liberty of Consci 
ence in matters of religion. The Grant to Lord Baltimore, 
who was a Papist, his Lordship s promises and declarations, 
the confirmations of them by Acts of Assembly, and the 
oaths we have recited, we hope will amply justify our asser 
tion that the Roman Catholics were promised and allowed 
an asylum here. As you have been pleased to say that you 
have not discovered anything in history, or otherwise, to 
countenance our assertion, we shall mention some passages 
from books for your satisfaction, though we must observe 
to you that writers may be mistaken or misrepresented, but 
the evidence we have produced can t mislead. Mr. Bowen, 
speaking of Maryland says: The first colony sent to 
Maryland was in 1633, and consisted of two hundred people. 
The chief of these adventurers were gentlemen of good 
families and Roman Catholics; for persons of that religion 
being made uneasy as well as Protestant Dissenters, they 
transported themelves to this Province, hoping to enjoy 
there the liberty of their conscience, under a Proprietary of 
their own profession, as the then Lord Baltimore was. 
King James II before the Revolution intended to take from 
the Lord Proprietary the power of appointing a Governor, 
being instigated thereto by Father Peters, which seems 
something surprising since Lord Baltimore was of the same 
religion as himself, but must be observed that Lord Balti- 


more though a Roman Catholic had been so moderate and 
so politic as to grant full liberty of conscience to all those 
who should settle in Maryland. So far Mr. Bowen Ogilby 
in treating of the province says : That Maryland at the 
vast charge and by the unwearied industry of Lord Balti 
more was at first planted, and hath since been supplied with 
people and other necessaries so effectually that in the pres 
ent year, 1671, the number of English amounts to 15 or 
20,000 for whose encouragement there is a fundamental 
law established there whereby liberty of conscience is al 
lowed to all who profess to believe in Jesus Christ, so that 
no man who is a Christian is in danger of being disturbed 
for his religion. Morden upon the same subject says : 
that the peopling of the Province of Maryland by the vast 
expense and industry of Lord Baltimore hath been im 
proved to that height, that in 1670 there were reckoned 
nearly 20,000 inhabitants, and that which keeps them to 
gether in the greatest peace, order, and concord, is the 
liberty of conscience to all who profess to believe Christ 
ianity, so that everyone lives quietly and peaceably with 
his neighbor, neither molesting nor being molested for dif 
ference in judgment of religion. Dr. Douglas, upon the 
same subject says: That towards the end of King James 
First s reign, Sir George Calvert, Principal Secretary of 
State, afterwards Lord Baltimore, obtained a patent for 
some fishing harbours in Newfoundland. By the reason of 
the civil troubles in England, these settlements were dis 
continued, and being a zealous Roman Catholic with other 
dissenting zealous of other sectaries, he left Newfound 
land and went to Virginia. The same author again, Upon 
a royal proclamation in Virginia, several families went 
over to settle there, among those was Lord Baltimore, a 
rigid Roman Catholic, for the advantage of his religion he 
retired thither, but being ill-used by the Church of Eng 
land sectary petitioned for a grant of the province of 
Maryland. For the first two years, says this author in 
another passage, this settlement cost Lord Baltimore 40,- 
000 sterling, by bringing over people, provisions, etc. Again 
by an Act of Assembly for the liberty of conscience to all 
people who profess Christianity, Protestant dissenters, as 
well as Roman Catholics were induced to settle there. 
Salmon, in his Modern History says : That Lord Balti 
more having obtained a grant of the Province of Mary 
land, sent over his brother with several Roman Catholic 
gentlemen and other adventurers to the number of two 
hundred, and many Roman Catholics transported them 
selves to avoid the penal laws made against them in Eng 
land, and Maryland has been a place of refuge, etc. Many 


passages from books to the like effect might be cited, but 
we presume they would be unnecessary. That the Roman 
Catholics have from the beginning of this war, behaved in 
a very quiet and inoffensive manner will not be denied. If 
it should be one proof that we know or have heard of can 
be produced to the contrary, and very ample testimonials, 
in their favor to which you can be no stranger may be 
urged." (Upper House Journal, Mss. Folio.) 



It seems of consequence to the British interest in America 
and particularly in Maryland, that the following facts and 
circumstances be inquired into thoroughly, and proper 
remedies applied if they be found to be true/ 

1. The present Attorney General is known to have been 
bred at St. Omer s, has never been at a Protestant Church 
since he entered upon his Commission, but on the contrary 
has Mass said regularly in his own house and lately sent his 
own son to St. Omer s for education, agreeable to his 
character, and refused during the late rebellion to carry on 
prosecutions for treasonable words and practices. 

2. Mr. Attorney s brother also bred at the same foregoing 
seminar} 7 , was for sometime Judge of Assize in Maryland, 
which occasioned much murmuring, and Philip Lee, Esq., 
one of the council could not help lamenting publicly the un- 
liappy condition of the province where a Protestant subject 
might be prosecuted by a Popish Attorney General and tried 
before a Popish judge; indeed he was removed sometime 
after, and had abundant recompence made him by two other 
different posts of profit, honor and trust in Frederick Coun 
ty being appointed clerk of the court, Deputy Commissary, 
and Receiver of the Lord Proprietary s quit-rents. 

3. Indeed people of the Romish profession have all along 
been too much favored and trusted. There is hardly any 
employment gives a man so much influence over the in 
habitants as the receiving of the quit-rents, for if the 
Planters omit paying them upon the very day they be 
come due, the Receiver has power to seize his cattle or 
slaves, to call them at public vendue, perhaps at half value, 
and so absolutely ruin the poor man and his family. This 
power consequently enables the Receivers to influence all 
elections of representatives, and to tyrannize over these of 
opposite sentiments in religion or politics, yet among all 


the Receivers in Maryland, there is scarce a Protestant 
save one, and he was lately appointed on marrying the 
agent s daughter, and no wonder then if Protestants are un 
easy there when they see so much power put in such hands 
as will probably on all proper occasions use it to their detri 
ment and to the prejudice of their Mother Country and her 
constitution both in Church and State. 

4. Moreover the Jesuits are not only already possessed 
of large tracts of land well-cultivated by tenants and well- 
stocked with slaves, six or seven fine Seats and several 
public chapels, but they frequently prevail with dying bigots 
to leave their effects to the Popish Church, by this means 
that artful society, if not timely prevented, will increase 
into so much property as cannot be thought of by Protest 
ants without great concern for the consequence. 

5. In the time of the late rebellion, the Papists could not 
help telling the Protestants, in very insulting and shocking 
terms what they had to expect if their pretended prince 
should succed: nay they taught the very negro slaves to 
believe in such case they should all be free, besides, during 
the late war, the Jesuits were frequently absent, and were 
generally believed to carry on a secret correspondence with 
his Majesty s enemies: it is certain that about a fortnight 
before the treaty with the six nations of Indians at Lan 
caster Father Mullenex, the principal of our Jesuits was 
with them, and there is good reason to suspect that he 
went as an agent for the French, and that his business was 
no other than to dissuade the Indians from making peace 
with us. 

6. In the time of the rebellion, this same Mullinex was 
taken up for treasonable practices, being carried before the 
Provincial Court, he was so conscious of his guilt, that he 
begged for his liberty to leave the Province, the Judge, 
however, resolved to make an example of him, in order to- 
get the fullest and clearest evidence of the facts, postponed 
the affair for a few days, but Mr. Carroll, a Popish gentle 
man bailed him out, the Council called Mr. Mullinex before 
themselves, and having examined him privately, despatched 
him without any public mark of resentment. 

7. But this was not the only instance of great tender 
ness shown the Roman Catholics in Maryland, for to what 
else could it be imputed that there was no Proclamation 
issued by the late Governor, for putting a stop to their 
excesses till after the London Gazette had confirmed his 
Royal Highness, the Duke s victory over the rebels at 
Cullpden. The indulgence from time to time showed the 
Papists, had so raised their spirits, that since the last As 
sembly, they have publicly insulted several of the members 
who voted for putting in execution the Penal Laws against 


them; Capt. Addison in particular was so abused by one 
Mr. Lowe on that occasion that he was provoked to knock 
him down and since that session some of the richest Papists 
have not only exerted all their interest, but have kept open 
house, and treated the Electors profusely in order to pre 
vent these members from being rechosen who declared for 
this bill. Thus matters stand at present, and without a 
speedy interposition they will probably soon grow worse. 
(MSS. Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore.) 


(This seems to have been loritten by the Attorney-General 
himself. ) 

To a memorial said to be laid before the Right Honour 
able the Earl of Hallifax, together with some cursory re 
marks on a report of the Committee of Aggrievances of the 
Province of Maryland. 

It is a rule in Logick, as well as in Law and reason, that 
a bare denial of Facts, charged without proof to support 
them, is a sufficient answer; and the most of those, men 
tioned in the Memorial, might very justly be refuted this 
way, I shall proceed, however, to consider, and answer them 
distinctly and severally, as they are there laid down. 

1st. The Attorney General ivas bred at St. Omer s. He 
was born of Popish parents, and by them sent young abroad 
for education, this being no act of his own, it is unjust to 
charge him with it, and can only be imputed to his par 
ents, who sent him. But when he arrived to a state of in 
dependency and at an age, when he conceived mankind had 
a right to judge for themselves in the point of religion, he 
abjured papacy, took the Oaths of Government appointed 
by Parliament subscribed the test and abjuration, and 
qualified himself, according to the laws, to hold any place 
in a Protestant Government that the Supreme Magistrate 
might think proper to appoint him to, and some years 
after that, to wit, on the 14th of April, 1744, he was 
named Attorney General and still continues so. 

But he has never been to a Protestant Church 
since that appointment. Although, going to church 
be not always the test of a man s religion al 
though going to church be not made essentially 
necessary towards holding an office, yet the declara 
tion of a Gentlemen of Character and a sound Pro 
testant, made at the bar of the Lower House of Assembly 
(and the oaths of fifty more which might be procured to 
the same purpose) declaring that he saw the Attorney Gen 
eral at Church, during the whole Divine Service, very fully 


refutes the calumny, and falsifies the charge. This indeed 
might have been unknown to the Memoralist, and he may 
be only looked upon as too bold an assertor of facts. 

He has mass regularly said in his house. This is round 
ly asserted, but stands without proof. He married indeed 
one of the Popish Communion who still continues of that 
profession, and if she, at any time, has had mass in his 
house, it is not even alleged or pretended that the Attorney 
General, ever knew of it, or that he ever assisted at it. But 
let us admit, that Mass has been sometimes said there, 
that it came to his knowledge, and that he connived at it, 
men of good manners, or of the least politeness, I believe 
would only esteem this a piece of Complaisance, and condes- 
cention which perhaps a warmer bigot, a less indulgent or 
more clownish husband might positively have denied and 
prevented. It will then be a very unfair deduction to con 
clude from hence, that he is a Papist, contrary to the 
solemn and public abjuration he has made against it, or 
that Mass is regularly said in his house, because his wife 
may have procured it to be done for her own convenience 
eight or ten times during the eight or nine years, he has 
been in office; and I am instructed to say, that by the best 
information we can get, concerning it, for upon this occa 
sion he has inquired, he cannot find out, that it has been 
more frequently done, and says, that he should be obliged 
to these knowing Gentlemen, if they could furnish him with 
any proof that Mass is, or has been regularly said there. 

He lately sent his son to St. Omer s for education. An 
honest narrative of this fact will refute the calumny. 
He has many children, and like other parents I presume he 
chose to provide the best he could for them: the Right 
Honourable the Lady Sturton, with whom he had the 
honour, it seemes to be acquainted, wrote for one of his 
sons, and proffered to provide for him. Few parents in his 
condition and circumstances, but would have been tem 
pted with the offer, and accordingly in the year 1742, two 
years before he was appointed to his office, he sent his 
youngest son, a child of ten years of age, to her Ladyship 
in England, and if she gave him an education abroad, in a 
Popish monastry or elsewhere, the Attorney General by no 
means contributed thereto, or bore the least share of any 
expense towards it. It is observable that the son, was sent 
before the father entered on his office, and after he entered 
upon it, he could not get him back until about two years 
ago, when he returned again into this province. Is this 
lately sending his son to St. Omer s or can an act of that 
nature, done a long time before he was called to his office? 
he deemed a disqualification to hold that office? It is 


equally just to contend that going to Mass, whilst a 
Papist, should render him uncapable, notwithstanding the 
oaths he had taken, and the abjuration he has made, from 
enjoying any of the advantages and priviledges of a Pro 
testant. How disingenious then are his accusers. The Right 
Honourabel the Lady Sturton, now living can prove the 
truth of this narrative. I am now come to the last, and if 
true, I think the heaviest charge against the Attorney Gen 
eral, it being no less than a breach of his duty in a very 
essential part of his office. For agreeable to this caracter 
says the Memoralist, he refused during the late rebellion 
to carry on prosecutions for treasonable words and practices 
and by his letter refers to an instance which happened in 
Calvert County at the Assizes, the case of Samuel Hai-- 
rison. The report refers to the same, and by doing so, I 
think has spared me the trouble of answering the charge. 
For by setting the case more fully forth, it shows how very 
trifling an instance they are drove to rely on, and evidences, 
that he has not only prosecuted but also fined. 
: The truth of the case is really this, William Harrison 
was presented by the grand jury for speaking those 
words mentioned in the report. He is an unfortunate 
young man who had married a near relation of the Attorney 
Generals and at that time very much reduced in his cir 
cumstances. The Attorney General, very reasonably judged, 
that he might be suspected of partiality, and to avoid this 
he directed Wm. Clark who prosecuted at that time and 
still continues to prosecute the pleas of the Crown, and of 
the Lord Proprietary for that County, to manage and carry 
on the prosecution against Harrison. It was accordingly 
done, and he was fined proportioned to his circumstances. 
How hard are these men then to be pleased, and how un 
reasonable in their malice and ill-nature, to put such con 
structions on an Act, done with no other view, than to 
avoid their censure and escape their reflections. Whose con 
duct now stands fairest in view: his, who procured im 
partial justice on an offending relation, or theirs who in- 
vidiousy insinuate, that offenders escape with impunity by 
charging that he refused to carry on prosecutions against 
them ? but to show the uprightness and candor of his 
enemies, it may be proper here to observe, and I am au 
thorized to declare, that George Plater, Esq., never gave 
information to the Attorney General during the late re 
bellion, or at any other time, of any malpractices or be 
haviour of Jacobites or Papists, or of any other in St. 
Mary s County, or elsewhere. I may therefore very justly 
apply here, what the late witty and ingenious Dean Swift, 
has somewhere said on the like occasion: In verity the 
ivhole story of the libel is a lie. 


2d. The same answer serves for Mr. Attorney s Brother 
being bred at a Popish Seminary, as was given for him, it 
was the act of his parents and not his own such as the 
Memorialist indeed might possibly have murmured at his 
being appointed a Judge of the Assizes, and these, were 
either so few or contemptable, that I may venture to assert, 
they died away in the low circle of their own Acquaintances, 
and that none of the complaints ever reached the ear of the 
Supreme Magistrate. 

But that some persons of Rank and figure in the country, 
might keep them in countinance, he imprudently asserts that 
Philip Lee, Esq., one of his Lordship s Council could not 
help lamenting publickly the unhappy condition of the Pro 
vince where a protestant subject might be prosecuted by a, 
popish Attorney General, and tried before a popish judge. 
But it unfortunately happens, that there is a slight mis 
take in this. For unluckily the Attorney General was not 
called to his office, till after the death of the aforesaid 
Philip Lee. Nor was the judge afterwards removed by the 
clamours of the people, as is most falsely suggested, but he 
held his seat as Judge, till by the dissent or expiration of the 
Assize law, the circuits were no longer continued. Of all 
the facts the Honourable Thomas Bladen, Esq., at that time 
Governor of Maryland, who made the appointments, and 
who is now living in England, can attest the truth if 
abundant Compensation w T as afterwards made to the judge s 
by other posts in Frederick County. It was owing to the per 
sonal regard the Honourable Samuel Ogle, Esq., the succeed 
ing Governor, who named him to one of them, to that which 
the honourable the Secretary who commissioned him, to the 
regard that the Honourable Benjamin Tasker, Esq., who 
appointed him to another of them, and to these which the 
Honourable the Commissary General, who conferred the 
third on him, are well known to have had for him. 

3rd. The people of the Romish communion have been all 
along too much favoured and trusted. He then proceeds, 
to give a very extraordinary instance of this, for after 
pompously setting forth, the great influence the receivers of 
his Lordship s rents, have over the people, he roundly as 
serts, that if the planter omited paying them on the very 
day they became due the receiver has power to seize his 
best cattle or slaves, to sell them at public vendue, perhaps 
at half their value, and consequently ruin the poor man 
and his family. Hence it might be reasonable to conclude, 
that there are some arbitrary and despotick powers vested 
in these receivers, unknown to the laws of England and in- 
consistant with the right and liberties of a free people. But 
when we come to learn that they have no other powers, no 
other authority, but such which are exercised by the 


Steward of every Gentlemen in England in receiving and 
collecting of his rents, the frightful phantome must at once 
vanish and disappear. That the laws of England are made 
the rule of conduct in getting in his Lordship s rents, every 
gentlemen conversant with the affairs of the Lord Balti 
more and acquainted with Maryland very well knows. 

But to follow the Memorialist a little further this Power, 
says he, consequently enables them to influence all elections, 
and tyranize over those of different sentiments either in re 
ligion or politicks, yet among all the receivers in Maryland 
there is scarce a Protestant save one. 

How true and consistant this account is, I am now to 
consider the following: They influence all elections, They 
tyranize over people of different sentiments, They are all 
Papists save one. But the poor, servile govern d Electors 
have chosen a Majority, very disagreeable to these men of 
influence, a majority, who has actually voted in the last 
Assembly, for putting in execution the penal laws against 
them, a majority who in this Assembly has concured with 
a report, and in everything moved and proposed against 

If the Memoralist, had been a man of sense, surely he 
could never have fell on so palpable a blunder, if he is a 
man of modesty, he would certainly blush and be con 
founded; but if he has a least regard left to a character, 
how unfortunate he must be to be confronted and detected 
in so glaring a falsehood, and instead of one, to find nine 
protestants and but three Papist receivers in Maryland. 
This the certificate of his Lordship s agent who appoints 
them will very clearly evince, and against this proof the 
publick notoriety of the fact, he or his associates cannot 
have the effrontery to object. 

It is true indeed that one of these received the rent of 
three counties, the county is divided into fourteen, so that 
according to the absurd doctrine of the Memorialist, there 
are five counties under the influence of popish receivers, 
and nine influenced by protestants. But what is very re 
markable not one of those popish receivers is resident in the 
county where he receives, or even once attended their elec 

But these receivers are no public officers, they only collect 
and gather in the rents of his Lordship s private estates, 
and by an Act made in this Province some years since, en 
acting that all persons admitted to enjoy any office or 
place of trust here, shall take the oaths to the Government 
directed by the first of George the First, it is expressly pro 
vided that the said Act should not extend or be constructed 
to extend to the negotiation or management of the Lord 


Proprietary his private affairs. And whilst his Lordship 
is at large, and in the condition of all other noblemen and 
Gentlemen in England he will, I presume, like them, em 
ploy those who will serve him best without any regards to 
the religions they profess, or what particular church they 
resort to. 

4th. The Jesuits are possessed of large tracts of land 
have six or seven fine houses, and I find it true that they 
have four or five good seats and are seized of some large 
tracts of land, but cannot see how this can be imputed to a 
fault in the Government, or that it can be offered as an 
instance to show they are too much favoured by it. 

This county was granted to the Right Honourable Cecilius 
Lord Baltimore, by King Charles the First, and by the 
Royal Charter it is expressly provided, that all people 
professing faith in Jesus Christ might settle there. 

Every person, conversant with the history of that region, 
knows very well that the papists in England looked upon 
this country as a place of retreat and an Asylum against 
the rigorous executing of the penal laws, and the troubles 
with which England was then agitated, 

Many of them therefore went over into Maryland, and 
among these many gentlemen of fortune and good families, 
who increased their estates and left their posterity to be 
envied by such whose passions or principles, taught them to 
believe, that in a Protestant country Papists had no right 
to enjoy the same liberties, and the same share of property, 
in common with their Protestant neighbors. But such 
principles, no true or honest Protestant will ever avow. 

However, to return to my subject, priests were either 
brought in with these adventurers, or very soon after were 
sent to their assistance. They like others seeked out for 
places to inhabit, applied as others did to the proper office 
for the purchase of land, paid the price which others paid, 
erected houses, lived in them, yet hold and enjoy them. 

In this situation we find them at the Revolution, the 
priest seized of lands, the Papists in virtue of the Royal 
Charter enjoying places of profit and trust in common with 
their Protestant countrymen. But soon after that period, we 
see them beginning to loose ground, and within a few years, 
by laws made for that purpose, we find them prevented 
from holding any post of profit or trust in the Government, 
or from voting in elections. 

But this not being judged sufficient, they were some, 
time after prevented the free exercise of their religion, 
and in the year 1704, a law was made to prevent the growth 
of Popery. 

On some applications, another act was made the same 
year for suspending the prosecution of any priests of the 


Church of Rome incurring the penalties of the said former 
Act, by exercising their function in a private family of the 
Roman Communion, but in no other case, whatsoever, for 
eighteen months, or until Her Majesty s pleasure therein 
should be known. 

Afterwards the Queen taking it into her Royal considera 
tion and out of her gracious tenderness to all her subjects 
behaving themselves peaceably and quietly under Her Ma 
jesty s Government, by her Royal order dated at the Council 
Board at White Hall on the third of January 1705, she 
was pleased to direct that a new law, or clause of a law, 
should be enacted in Maryland for continuing the last men 
tioned suppression Act, without any other limitation of 
time, than until her Majesties further pleasure be declared 
and signified therein. 

In obedience whereunto an Act passed in the year 1707 
comforrnable to the said Royal Order; and in the year 1717 
the aforesaid first Act to prevent the growth of popery, 
was altogether repealed. The first of William and Mary, 
commonly called the Toleration Act and the several penal 
Acts of Parliament therein mentioned being before then, 
enacted to be in full force within this Province : together 
with one other Act laying a duty on Irish servants to pre 
vent the too great number of Irish papists being imported 

In this condition, and under the control of these laws, 
we find the papists at this day, we find Jesuits possessed 
of estates, on these estates we see some Chappells erected, 
and find two or three more small ones built on the lands of 
some papist Gentlemen in different parts of the Province. I 
cannot find out that more than the parts of two estates, the 
one a very small one, has been given or bequeathed to them 
for these 60 or 70 years past. 

How that artful Society will by these means creep into 
so much property as will give concern to any reasonable 
protestants I confess I am at a loss to conceive. 

Their numbers are inconsiderable, and 12 or 13 Jesuits, 
the whole number of priests settled in this Province, I hope 
can never endanger the rights, liberties or properties of any 
one Protestant country in the world. 

And the Lower House of Assembly no longer ago than the 
year 1740 gave it as their sense and opinion, that the feiv 
of the Romish Profession here amongst us (these are their 
very words) have it neither in their power or inclination to 
disturb the peace of this Province. Who will subscribe to 
so great an authority. 

What reasonable fears can be entertained for these men, 
or why any new laws should now be made influencing 
further penalties, or laying them under great restraint at 


this period under the mild influence of his Majesty s reign, 
I must leave to those to consider who have a more im 
mediate direction of them, and may be more concerned and 
interested in the event. 

5th. It would be giving too much credit to this charge to 
treat it seriously. How ridiculous it is to suppose, that 
the papists should teach their negroes to believe that if 
their pretended Prince succeeded they should be set free. 

And how contemptable must that man appear, who can 
dive down for evidence into a conversation between the 
negroes of Mrs. Eleanor Addison and those of Dr. Whit hall, 
and offer in proof to a Xoble Peer, in so great a concern, 
the allegations of a race of people, whom the wisdom of our 
laws and whom the most Protestant Justice of the Peace, 
will not admit to give testimony before him, against the 
most abandoned, profligate and meanest white subject 
amongst us. 

What is said by John Boone is declared by Moses Orme, 
the witness quoted, to be false. Henry Boone is a married 
man, has a family, is no lay brother and was never out of 
this Province, but once to Philadelphia, upon account of 
his health. Philip Thomas, Esq., declares that he knows 
nothing, or ever heard before of Mr. Molyneux being at 
Lancaster or with the Indians, Mr. Thomas Colvill knows 
nothing of it. 

6th. It is known to every man woman and chitd in the 
country to be false, and is a most scandalous abuse of his 
Lordship s Council. 

The Judge indeed is admitted doing his duty, and resolv 
ing to make an example of him. I am glad to find that 
one officer in the Government is allowed by those men to 
Act uprightly. 

But it is imprudently charged that the priest was wrested 
out of his hands, was called before the Council, privately 
examined and discharged there without any public mark or 

This case is also reported at large by the Committee, and 
the record there set forth, very clearly refuted the calumny. 
It shows that he was discharged by the Provincial Court, 
no evidence appearing against him, and not by the Council 
as is most untruly and imprudently affirmed. 

And here it might be improper to appeal to the judges of 
that Court, to that Honourable Judge who would have done 
his duty and was resolved to make an example of him, 
and to the then Governor Honorable Thomas Bladen, Esq., 
if the Attorney General was furnished with the least evi 
dence against him, or if any witnesses summoned on that 
or the like occasion, were discharged till after an examina- 


tion in court, they were found, to know nothing of the 

All these witnesses, I hear, are still living, yet in the 
Province, and may be examined de novo. If he has swerved 
from his duty, and supprest the truth on so important an 
occasion, if I say, he is found tripping in this. What a 
glorious opportunity will be here to observe to those all 
discerning gentlemen, to satiate at once their patriot rage, 
and their most greedy hopes, and to unfold the dark designs, 
the horrid views, the dangerous plans and the wicked 
Machinations of this tremendous officer. 

This surely is an excellent expedient, its quite a safe one 
too; for if he is guilty, his guilt by these means will appear 
to others, who perhaps may be unreasonable enough, to ex 
pect some better proof, than the hated charge of his ac 
cusers, or the idle whispers of his enemies. 

If he is innocent, it shall not avail him, for he is still 
upon the same charge, and liable to be condemed on the 
same proofs, viz.: strong assertions, invidious insinuations 
vague reports, &c. 

Strange; that so good, so obvious an expedient should 
be so much and so long neglected. 

7th. He concludes with a most scandalous account of 
Governour Bladen s unseasonable tenderness to the Roman 
Catholicks, and that the proclamation he issued out on the 
success of his Royal highness over the Rebe