MARYLAND ;
THE LAND OF SANCTUAEY
A HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN MARY
LAND FROM THE FIRST SETTLEMENT UNTIL
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
BY
WILLIAM T. RUSSELL
si
SECOND EDITION.
BALTIMORE
PUBLISHED BY J. H. FURST COMPANY
1908
COPYRIGHT, 1907,
BY
REV. WILLIAM T. RUSSELL.
"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.
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I.
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
CHAPTER II.
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
CHAPTER III.
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
VI CONTENTS
CHAPTER IV.
The Missionaries — Habits and Religion of Indians —
Baptism of the Emperor — Native and Colonist —
Peaceful Conditions — Claims of Claiborne — De
cision 8.1 101
CHAPTER V.
Leonard Calvert, first Governor — Jerome Haw ley —
Captain Cornwaleys — Religion of First Colonists —
Massachusetts and Maryland compared — Impartial
historians on Maryland Toleration 102-122
CHAPTER VI.
Grant of Lands — Toleration enforced — First Assemblv
— Government Reorganized — John Lewger — Second
Assembly—" Holy Church " — Invitation to Puri
tans—Controversy between Lord Baltimore and the
Jesuits — Decision — Catholicity of Cecilius Cal-
vert 123-75
CHAPTER VII.
Richard Ingle, Pirate and Rebel — Seizure of St. Mary's
—Claiborne — Ingle Expelled— Death and Character
of Leonard Calvert — Mistress Brent 176-90
CHAPTER VIII.
Protestants Increase— Puritans in Virginia— Invited to
Maryland — Governor Stone — Third Assembly—
" Toleration Act " — Compromise — Catholic Ma-
191-208
CONTENTS Vll
CHAPTER IX.
King and Cromwell — Virginia's Jealousy — Claiborne,
Commissioner of Reduction — Puritan Ingratitude
— Catholics Outlawed — Exit Claiborne... 209-31
CHAPTER X.
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
CHAPTER XI.
Land of Sanctuary — Quakers — Witchcraft — Presby
terians — Augustine Herman — Labadists — Consi
deration for Indians — Treatment of Negroes — Jews
— Jacob Lumbrozo 252-75
CHAPTER XII.
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
CHAPTER XIII.
Motives of the Calverts Primarily Religious — Maryland
Designed as the " Land of Sanctuary." 290-309
CHAPTER XIV.
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
Vlll CONTENTS
CHAPTER XV.
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
CHAPTER XVI.
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
CHAPTER XVII.
Clerical Judges of Cases Testamentary — Taxation and
Persecution of Catholics — Gov. Hart — Unnatural
Legislation — Situation of Lord Baltimore — Un-
progressive Age 386-94
CHAPTER XVIII.
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
CHAPTER XIX.
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
CONTEXTS IX
CHAPTER XX.
Jesuits — Quakers — Presbyterians — Status of the Episco
palian Clergy — Their Immorality 432-46
CHAPTER XXI.
Reduced Fees — Value of Revenue — Number of Ministers
—Poor Tobacco 447-53
CHAPTER XXII.
Immorality of Clergy — Infidelity — Free Schools — Excep
tions, Among Clergy 454-69
CHAPTER XXIII.
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
CHAPTER XXIV.
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
CONCLUSION.
Toleration in Constitvition of the United States — Let
ter of Catholics to George Washington — Reply —
Bishop Carroll — Thos. Jefferson — Cardinal Gibbons
—Finis 504-512
CONTENTS
APPENDIXES.
PAGE.
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
PEEFACE
BY His EMINENCE, JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS.
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
XI
Xll PREFACE
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
public.
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.
PREFACE
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,
xiii
XIV PREFACE
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
impeachable.
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
PREFACE XV
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
1KMr. 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.
231.)
XVI PREFACE
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.
PEEFACE XV11
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
courtesy.
THE AUTHOB,
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ORIGINAL SOUKCES AND OTHERS THAT MAY BE
CONSIDERED AS BELONGING TO THAT CLASS.
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.
xx
XX BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
BIBLIOGKAPHY XXI
Edited by G. B. Adams and H. M. Stephens.
1901.
Statutes and Documents of the Keigns of Eliza
beth and James I. Edited by G. W. Prothero.
1894.
State Affairs of England, 6 vols. E". Luttrell.
1857.
Oalvert Mss. Documents, Deeds, Wills, Addresses,
Memoranda. (Md. Hist. Soc.)
Journals of the Upper House, Manuscript, 5 vols.
fol.
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
vols.
Judicial and Testamentary Business of the
Provincial Court, 3 vols.
Journal of the Maryland Convention, 4
vols.
Journal and Correspondence of the Council
of Safety, 4 vols.
Muster Eolls, and Kecords of Service of
Maryland Troops in the Kevolution, 1
vol.
Correspondence of Governor Sharpe, 3 vols.
Laws of Maryland At Large— With Proper In
dexes — To which is prefixed the Charter With
XX11 BIBLIOGKAPHY
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XX111
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,
1901.
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
XXIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXV
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,
1894-1899.
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.
AUTHORS REFERRED TO AND CONSULTED.
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.
XXVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
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,
1869.
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,
1897.
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,
1822-29.
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.
BIBLIOGKAPHY XXV11
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,
1885.
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.
XXV111 BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXIX
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,
1897.
Fox, George. Journal (fol.) London, 1694-98.
Fuller, Thomas. Worthies of England, 3 vols. London,
1860.
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,
1907.
Fox, George. Journal, abridged. By Perry L. Parker.
Fiske, John. The American Revolution, 2 vols. Boston
and New York, 1891.
XXX BIBLIOGRAPHY
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,
1841.
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.
BIBLIOGKAPHY XXXI
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,
1886.
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,
1876.
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.
XXX11 BIBLIOGEAPHY
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,,
1902.
Lodge, H. C. History of the English Colonies in America.
1882.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXX111
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,
1883.
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.
XXXIV BIBLIOGRAPHY
Neill, Rev. E. D. Maryland in the Beginning. Baltimore,
1884.
Neill, Rev. E. D. English Colonies in America. London,
1871.
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,
1891.
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
date.)
Oldmixon, John. The British Empire in America, 2 vols.
London, 1708.
Onderdonk, Henry. History of Maryland. Baltimore,
1868.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXV
Ramsay, D. History of the United States, 3 vols. Phila
delphia, 1816.
Ramsay, D. American Revolutions, 2 vols. Philadelphia,
1789.
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,
1844.
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
(1898.)
XXXVI BIBLIOGRAPHY
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,
1879.
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,
1847-48.
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,
1875.
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.
BIBLIOGRAPHY XXXVll
Urban! Calvetanis Novae Novi Orbis Historiae Libri Tres,
1600.
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.]
XXXV111 BIBLIOGRAPHY
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.
MARYLAND ;
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY.
CHAPTER I.
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
1
z MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 3
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 uSa theorie de la propriete, et sa fameuse definition : 'C'est
le vol.'" Proudhon, "SaVie et Sa Correspondence," par Ste-
Beuve, p. 44, Paris, 1875.
MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 0
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
3
MARYLAND
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
liberty.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 7
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.
363.
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.
8 MARYLAND
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. )
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
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
10 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 11
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. )
1 2 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 13
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.
2ScobeWs Collections, Chap. xvi.
1 4 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 15
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.
2Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. i, p. 168.
3Hallam, Const. Hist., vol. I, p. 125.
4 Gardiner, ibid:, i, p. 203.
16 MARYLAND
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
1Hallam, vol. i, p. 154. 2Cfr. ibid., note, p. 295.
3Cfr. Gardiner, ibid., m, 347. 4 Hallam, ibid., p. 317.
5Cfr. Gardiner, i, p. 75.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 17
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.
18 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
19
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, )
20 MARYLAND
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.) uShe (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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 21
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.
MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 23
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.
24 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 25
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, More1 's Utopia, p. 151. Cfr. also Sir Thomas
More, by the Rev. T. E. Bridgett, p. 101 et seq.
2 Hughes, i, p. 62.
26 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 27
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.
28 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
29
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
1644-46.
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
irTlie 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.
30 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 31
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.
32 MARYLAND
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
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 33
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
cited.
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.
34 MARYLAND
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 wTould 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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
35
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."
CHAPTER II.
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
shire."
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.)
36
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 37
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.
38 MARYLAND
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.)
2Bozman, 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 39
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
passim.
40 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 41
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,
1625-6.
"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.)
42 MARYLAND
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
luHe [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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY o
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.)
44 MARYLAND
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.
16-17.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 45
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. 3i, pp. 255-256.
4Md. 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.
46 MARYLAND
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.) ult 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. )
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 47
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
1Hall, ibid., p. 23. 2 Browne's Maryland, p. 17.
48 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 49
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.
3L. W. Wilhelm, Sir George Calvert, Baron of Baltimore,
p. 167, Baltimore, 1883.
*lbid., p. 165.
50 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 51
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.
CHAPTER III.
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 UC. 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.
2Fiske, 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.
52
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 53
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.
5
54 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 55
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.
56 MARYLAND
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
1McMahon, 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 57
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 and1
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.
58 MARYLAND
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
Protestantism.
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 59
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.
60 MARYLAND
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. )
THE LAKD OF SANCTUARY 61
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.
2McMahon, p. 155.
3Bozman, I, 246; Fuller, 417-418 ; Scharf, i, 152-153.. quoting
Beverly, 1722, Wynne, 1776, Md. Universal History, 1780.
62 MARYLAND
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
resort.
This 22nd section of the Maryland charter has
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 63
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
1See Appendix C.
64 MARYLAND
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,"
1Md. 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 65
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. )
66 MARYLAND
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 realm5 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.
2Fiske, 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 67
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
68 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 69
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.
70 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 71
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
1This 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
72 MARYLAND
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,)
1Stra/ordts 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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 73
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
74 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
70
" 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.
76 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 77
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."
lRelatio, pp. 32-33.
78 MAKYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 79
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
lEelatio, 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
80 MARYLAND
" 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.)
llt is now called St. Mary's County ; Relatio, p. 36.
zGalvert 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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUAEY 81
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.
82 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 83
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
84 MARYLAND
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.
CHAPTER IV.
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 priests7 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
86 MARYLAND
"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 wrhat 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
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 87
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.
88 MARYLAND
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
lRdatio, pp. 39-42.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
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
lFund Pub., No. 7, pp. 69-71.
90 MARYLAND
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
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 91
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 wrere
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.
92 MARYLAND
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
llbid., p. 76. * Day Star, p. 106.
3Grahame, 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 We.ro-
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 93
" 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.
94 MARYLAND
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
1Scharf, i, chap. 3, p. 97.
2 Fund Pub. , 7, pp. 80-82.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
95
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.
96 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 97
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
Proprietary.
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.
98 MARYLAND
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. 4Fiske, i, p. 265.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 99
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.
3Steiner, J. H. U. Studies, 21st series, p. 401.
4Archives, m, p. 72.
100 MARYLAND
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
Baltimore."
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 101
mitted to Lord Baltimore's government six months
before.
"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."
1P. 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.
CHAPTER V.
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.
2Streeter 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.
102
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 103
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.)
104 MARYLAND
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
Baltimore7 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 Cornwaleys3 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 Jesuits7 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.
4Steiner, J. II. U. Studies, 21st series, p. 369, note; also
Streeter Papers, p. 124.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 105
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,
106 MAKYLAND
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 wrill 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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 107
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.
3Scharf, I, p. 68.
108 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 109
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
'contradiction.
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."
110
MARYLAND
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. *Hi«t. o/U. S.,u, p. 9.
0 Annals, p. 207. * m
5 Letters of Gov. Sharpe, n, p. 315.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 111
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,)
112 MARYLAND
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
unknown.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 113
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.)
114 MAEYLAND
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.
2Cfr. Archives, v, pp. 267-268. ^Archives, v, p. 267.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 115
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.
Chener.
116 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 117
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.
2Lingard, vn, p. 28; Fuller, Church Hist., m, p. 210.
3Nugae Antiquae, I, 181, in Lingard, vn, p. 30.
118 MARYLAND
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.
3Ibid, 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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 119
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.
120 MARYLAND
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. )
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 121
same manner by the Roman Catholics of Mary
land." 1
The author of The English in Maryland2 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.
122 MARYLAND
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.
CHAPTER VI.
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
1Ci'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
123
124 MARYLAND
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 wras 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.
2Cfr. Kilty, Land Holder1 s Assistant, pp. 29-50.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 125
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. )
126 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 127
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.
128 MARYLAND
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 wrell
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 129
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
Sanctuary.
1 Steiner, Maryland During the English Civil Wars, p. 31.
130 MARYLAND
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.
lArchire*, in, p. 209-210.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 131
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.
132 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 133
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 lawrs.
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,
134 MARYLAND
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,
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 135
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.
Io6 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 137
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.
138 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 139
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
140 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 141
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.
530.
2 Browne's George and Cccilius Calvert, p. 102.
142
MARYLAND
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.
JT>
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 143
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.
144 MARYLAND
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 (1639—1640) 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 145
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.
146 MARYLAND
liberal and sagacious views of the Proprietary."1
Gnihame2 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
beneficence."
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-
1McMahon, p. 226. 2 n, p. 10-11. 3Rusliworth, u, p. 409.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 147
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.)
2Cobb, p. 373. 3Ibicl, p. 31.
148 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 149
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.)
8
150 MARYLAND
"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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 151
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
beauty.''
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.
152 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 153
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.
154 MARYLAND
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
lld., 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.
4Calvert Papers, i, p. 212.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 155
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-
156 MARYLAND
" 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.
143.)
1 Shea, i, p. 79.
2 Hughes, p. 336.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 157
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.
158 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 159
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.
160 MARYLAND
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
1Calvert 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 LAND OF SANCTUAKY 161
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
162 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 163
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,
164 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 165
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.
507.)
" 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
166 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 167
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'
168 MARYLAND
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-
Catholics.
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 169
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-
170 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 171
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.
172 MAKYLAND
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.
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 173
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
174 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 175
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.
CHAPTER VII.
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.
2Bozman, 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.
176
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 177
%
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.
178 MARYLAND
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
England.
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 179
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.
180 MAKYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 181
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,
3Cfr. Bozman, i, pp. 264-285-299.
9
182 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 183
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.
1Cfr. 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.
184 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 185
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.
186 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 187
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.
188 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 189
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.
190 MARYLAND
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
former.
1 Archives, I, p. 239, also p. 316.
CHAPTER VIII.
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
191
192 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 193
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-
aAct 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.
194 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 195
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.
196 MARYLAND
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.
2Brantley, p. 530.
3 Burnap, p, 174.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 197
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
198 MARYLAND
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
16
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 199
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 writh 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
200 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 201
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.
136-139).
1Neill's Terra Mariae, p. 85.
2 See Appendix K.
202 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 203
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
204 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 205
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-
206 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 207
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.
208
MARYLAND
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
served.
History of the U. 8., I, pp. 21-2.
CHAPTER IX.
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.)
209
210 MARYLAND
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).
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 211
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
llbid., pp. 305, 320-321.
212 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 213
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
land.
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.
10
214 MARYLAND
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
tions.
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
1Bozman, u, p. 672; also 433-34, 441-42.
2 Archives, in, p. 264.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 215
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.)
3J. H. Latane, J. H. U. Studies, 13th Series, p. 176.
216 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 217
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).
218 MARYLAND
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).
2Latane, 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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 219
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
220 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 221
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.
222 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 223
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.
224
MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 225
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).
226 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
227
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.
228 MARYLAND
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 wrhom 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 229
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.
230 MARYLAND
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 wrould have acted in the same manner by the
1 Eozman, n, p. 500.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 231
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.)
CHAPTEK X.
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.
426).
" John Pyle confesseth himself in Court to be a Roman
232
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 233
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.).
234 MARYLAND
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).
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 235
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
236 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 237
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.
238 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 239
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-
240 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 241
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.
242 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 243
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
244 MARYLAND
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.
369-71.)
1 March 24, 1658.
-Archives, pp. 370-1.
3 Oct. 23, 1656.
4 Underscored by Lord Baltimore.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 245
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.
11
246 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 247
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.)
248 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SAXCTUAKY 249
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.
250 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 251
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.
CHAPTEE XL
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-
1Alsop's Character of the Province of Maryland, 1G66.
Shea's Edition, pp. 46, 90, N. Y., 1809.
252
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 253
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
lKnye, 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.
254 MAKYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 255
" 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.
256
MARYLAND
" 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 He 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.
431
' J. S. Norris, The Early Friends in Md., pp. 12-14.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 257
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
aPetrie, Church and State in Md., pp. 35-6.
2 Archives, in, pp. 348-349.
zlbid., in, p. 352.
4 Ibid., m, pp. 352-353.
258 MARYLAND
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.
Maryland.
1 Archives, in, p. 362.
-Hid,
3 Archives, ill, p. 364.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 259
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.
260 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 261
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.
262 MARYLAND
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.
91.
2 Archives, n, pp. 425, 444, 447.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 263
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.
264 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 265
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.
159-160.)
1 Archives, n, p. 1G3.
2 Archives, in, pp. 232-233.
3 Archives, in, pp. 366-78.
266 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 267
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
268 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 269
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).
270 MARYLAND
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.,
1724.)
". . . 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.)
c
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 271
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.)
272 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 273
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.
274 MARYLAND
claimed in Maryland, and the doctor was included
in the general pardon accompanying the procla
mation.
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 wre 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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 275
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
him.
CHAPTEK XII.
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.
276
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 277
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.
12
278 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 279
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.
280 MARYLAND
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).
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 281
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.
282 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 283
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).
284 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 285
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.
286
MARYLAND
establishing freedom of conscience belongs to the
settlement of Baltimore.1
1 MARYLAND.
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.)
EHODE ISLAND.
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-
285.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
287
It may not be uninteresting to the reader to
scan the religious conditions in other colonies during
MARYLAND.
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.
244.)
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.)
RHODE ISLAND.
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.
289-312.
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. )
288 MARYLAND
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
'Cobb
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
* Ibid.
p. 442.
pp. 445-47.
p. 449.
p. 450, quoting StillS.
p. 503.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 289
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. 2IUd., 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.
CHAPTER XIII.
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
290
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 291
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
292 MARYLAND
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
Baltimore.
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
THE LAXD OF SANCTUARY 293
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
294 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 295
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
296 MAEYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 297
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.
298 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 299
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
300 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 301
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
302 MARYLAND
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
Catholics.
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 303
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,
304 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 305
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.
306 MAKYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 307
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.
308 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 309
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.
13
CHAPTEK XIV.
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.
310
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 31 1
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
Catholic.
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.
312 MARYLAND
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.
zlbid., p. 438.
3 Ibid., p. 437.
p. 252, 10th ed.
p. 248, 10th ed.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 313
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.
314 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 315
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.
316 MAKYLAND
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
1Hall, pp. 61, 65. 2 McMahon, p. 221.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 317
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.
318 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 319
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.
320 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 321
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.
322 MAKYLAND
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.
CHAPTER XV.
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.
323
324 MAKYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 325
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
326 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 327
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.
328 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 329
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.
330 MAKYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 331
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.
332 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 333
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.
334 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 335
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
passim.
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
336 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 337
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.)
338 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 339
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.
340 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 341
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
14
342 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 343
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.)
344 MARYLAND
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
t
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 345
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." —
346 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 347
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-
content.
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.
348 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 349
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.
350 MARYLAND
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. 2Ibid., pp. 230-1.
*Ibid., p. 231. * Ibid., p. 231.
6 /&«/., p. 233. "Ibid., p. 270.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 351
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
1McMahon, p. 242.
2 Archives, vm, pp. 233, 235, 288, 290, 295, 299, 433.
3 Chalmers, Annals, p. 374.
4 lUd., p. 219.
352 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
353
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
tion.
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.
354 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 355
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.
356
MARYLAND
"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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 357
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
1At 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.
358 MAYLAND
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-
1Ibid., p. 35. 2Ibid., 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAEY 359
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.)
360 MARYLAND
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.
CHAPTER XVI.
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.
361
362 MARYLAND
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
others.
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-
luAn 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 363
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.
364
MARYLAND
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
1Grahame, 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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 365
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.)
xln 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-
66.)
366 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
367
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-
lution.
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.
368 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 369
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 wrere 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.
370 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 371
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.
372 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 373
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.)
15
374 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 375
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.)
376 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 377
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.)
378 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 379
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
380 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 381
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 wThether 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.
382 MAKYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 383
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
384 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 385
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.
CHAPTER XVII.
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
386
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 387
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.
388 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 389
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.)
390 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 391
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.
392 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUAKY 393
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,
394 MARYLAND
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.
CHAPTEK XVIII.
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,
395
396 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 397
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.)
398 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 399
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.
400 MARYLAND
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 wras 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 401
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
402 MAKYLAND
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
lows:
(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."
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 403
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.
404 • 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 405
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
16
406 MARYLAND
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."
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 407
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.
408 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 409
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.
CHAPTEE XIX.
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-
410
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 411
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.)
4 1 2 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 413
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-
414 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 415
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.
416 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 417
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
1L. 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.)
418 MAE YLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 419
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,
59.)
2 Ibid., p. 68. 3 Archives, ix, p. 400.
4 Ibid., p. 501.
420 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 421
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.
422 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 423
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.
aLatrobe's Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton. — (Biog.
of Signers, vn, p. 240)
424 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 425
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,
426 MARYLAND
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
1This incident illustrates the spirit of that day. The
case is as follows: Mr. James Carroll died leaving several
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 427
" 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.)
428
MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 429
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
430 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 431
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.
CHAPTER XX.
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.
432
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 433
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. •
434 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 435
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-
1McMahon, p. 243.
2 Baldwin's Maryland Calendar of Witts, passim, vol. I.
436
MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 437
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,
1883.
2 Ibid., p. 14. Bacon's Laws, 1730, Chap, xxm, Sec. G.
3 Ibid,, p. 13-19.
17
438 MARYLAND
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.
2Steiner, 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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 439
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.
440 MARYLAND
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. 2IUd., p. 101.
*IUd., p. 192. *IUd., 128-132.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 441
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.
442 MARYLAND
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.
139.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 443
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.
444 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 445
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.)
446 MARYLAND
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
1Aug. 16th, 1724. — (Perry Papers, pp. 241-242.)
2 Perry Papers, p. 239.
CHAPTER XXI.
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.
3IUd., p. 269. 4Ibid., p. 270. 5 Ibid.
447
448 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 449
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
450 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 451
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.
452 MARYLAND
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 perry Papers, pp. 336-7.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 453
£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.
CHAPTEK XXII.
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
454
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 455
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.)
456 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 457
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.
317-318.)
458 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 459
(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
460 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 461
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
1Ibid., 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
462 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 463
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.
464 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 465
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
466 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 467
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.
468 MAKYLAND
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
JCfr. Rev. Thomas Bray, Bernard C. Steiner, Md. Hist.
Fund. Pub. No. 37.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 469
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.
18
CHAPTEE XXIII.
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-
470
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 471
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.
1McMahon, p. 375.
2 William Eddis, Letters From America, 1769-77.
a Calvert Papers, u, pp. 73-77-129.
472 MARYLAND
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.
2Eddis, 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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 473
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.
474 MAKYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 475
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.
476 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 477
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
478 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 479
WE REMEMBER, AND WE FORGIVE/' says Car
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.
480 MARYLAND
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
sounded.
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 481
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
palians.
482 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 483
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-
484 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 485
" 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
1Rev. 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
486 MARYLAND
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.
277.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 487
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.
488 MARYLAND
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 489
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
CHAPTEE XXIV.
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.
490
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 491
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.
492 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 493
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,
1774.)
" There is no doubt but that every encouragement that
can be possibly afforded to these licenced slaves, these
494 MARYLAND
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,
1774.)
1 See Appendix Y.
2 Journal of Congress, i, p. 70.
*H)id., pp. 71-2.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 495
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. )
496 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OP SANCTUARY 497
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
498 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 499
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
500 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 501
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.
246-7.)
502 MARYLAND
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.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 503
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.
CONCLUSION.
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
thereof."
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
504
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 505
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
506 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 507
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:
" GENTLEMEN :
" 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.
508 MARYLAND"
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.
GEORGE WASHINGTON."
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 509
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.
" VENERATED SIR :
"... Your letter is my first information of the
death of the worthy Cardinal Dugnani. An inti
mate acquaintance with him of several years at
1Aug. 31st, 1790, original in Archiepiscopal Archives,.
Baltimore.
510 MARYLAND
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.
THOMAS JEFFERSON/' 1
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 511
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
Maryland.
" 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.
512 MARYLAND
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
WE FORGIVE.
APPENDIX.
APPENDIX A.
PENAL LAWS.
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
513
514 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 515
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 wrere, 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
516 MARYLAND
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.)
APPENDIX B.
CALVERT PAPERS.
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 517
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.
APPENDIX C.
CHARTER OF AVALON.
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
518 MARYLAND
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.
CHARTER OF MARYLAND.
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. WTHEREAS 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
heirs.
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,
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 519
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
520 MARYLAND
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
limits.
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 521
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
522 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 523
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-
\vithstanding.
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
524 MARYLAND
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
army.
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
war.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 525
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
526 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 527
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-
528 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 529
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.)
APPENDIX D.
i
OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.
" 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
530 MARYLAND
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. )
APPENDIX E.
TRIAL OF LEWIS.
" 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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 531
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
court.
" 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
532 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 533
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.
35-39.)
20
534 MARYLAND
APPENDIX F.
OATHS OF OFFICIALS.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 535
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.
44.)
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. —
(Ibid.)
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.
536 . MARYLAND
APPENDIX G.
MAGNA CHARTA.
(Extract.)
"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 . . .
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 537
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. )
APPENDIX H.
BULL OF ALEXANDER VI. — 1493.
(Extract.)
(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.)
538 MARYLAND
APPENDIX I.
CONVENTION BETWEEN LORD BALTIMORE AND THE SUPR.
PROVINCIAL OF THE JESUITS IN ENGLAND. (Copy in Arch-
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,
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
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
whatsoever.
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.
540 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 541
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
thence.
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-
542 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 543
APPENDIX J.
QUIT-RENTS.
"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."
CAUTION MONEY.
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.
Alienation fees were the fees which the tenant
paid to the owner of the land when the land
wTas 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.)
544 MARYLAND
APPENDIX K.
AN ACT CONCERNING RELIGION.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 545
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
546 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 547
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.)
APPENDIX L.
AGREEMENT OF THE PEOPLE.
" 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
nation.
(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
548 MARYLAND
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.)
APPENDIX M.
ACT OF PARLIAMENT.
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.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 549
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
cases.
Journal of the House of Commons.
Journal of the House of Lords.
(London, 1647-1839.)
APPENDIX N.
A BREVIAT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LORD BALTIMORE.
(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
people.
550 MARYLAND
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
appeal.
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 551
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
thereof.
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,
552 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 553
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
science.'
SAMUEL MATTHEWS.
RICHARD BEXNET,
A PAPER RELATING TO MARYLAND — Thurloe State Papers,
Specious Pretenses of Lord Baltimore to the Patent of
Maryland.
(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.)
CONCERNING LORD BALTIMORE AT OXFORD.
" 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-
554 MARYLAND
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. . . .
APPENDIX 0.
QUAKERS.
( 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
tions.
(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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 555
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-
356.)
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.
431.)
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.)
556 MARYLAND
APPENDIX P.
ME. GLADSTONE AND MARYLAND TOLERATION.
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY 557
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-
208.)
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
558 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 559
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
pelled.
"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.
560 MARYLAND
" 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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 561
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
heresy.
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-
562 MARYLAND
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 563
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
where.
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.—
ibid.)
564 MARYLAND
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.
APPENDIX Q.
REPLY OF THE UPPER HOUSE TO THE LOWER HOUSE.
" 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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 565
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
21
566 MARYLAND
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-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 567
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
568 MARYLAND
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.)
APPENDIX R.
A MEMORIAL TO THE RIGHT HONORABLE THE EARL OF
HALIFAX.
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 LAND OF SANCTUARY
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
570 MARYLAND
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.)
AN ANSWER
(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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 571
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
572 MARYLAND
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.
THE LAKD OF SANCTUARY 573
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 wTas 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
574 MARYLAND
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
them.
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
tions.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 575
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
576 MARYLAND
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
here.
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
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 577
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
resentment.
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-
578 MARYLAND
tion in court, they were found, to know nothing of the
matter.
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 Rebels at Culloden,
would hardely have made its appearance had there been an
incontestable account of that glorious victory.
It is difficult to answer nonsense, and idle to enter into
refutation of objections which have no weight in them.
W. Bladen's loyalty, and the attachment he has to the
present happy establishment is too well known to be called
in question, by any law or invidious reflections, and these
must be extreamly prone to slander, who would join in
censuring the omission of an Act which commonly prudence
directed, ought to have been forbore, till by an *anthentick
account of the victory, it became proper, to put it in execu
tion.
As I cannot learn what papists have insulted several of
the Members of the Lower House of Assembly ivho voted for
putting in execution the penal laws against them and as
the instance given of Captain Addisons knocking clown
Mr. Lowe upon that occassion, I am told is forged, but if
true, is no more than a difference between two protestant
Gentlemen (for such it seems they both are) I therefore
conclude the whole to be as false, as it is frivolous.
The papists have kept open houses and treated the elec
tors profusely, cC-c. The only instances I can find of this,
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 579
is, that of a Gentlemen of a Romish Communion, who gave
two or three entertainments about that time, he is Gentle
men of the first fortune amongst us, and conceived that he
had been personally ill-treated by two gentlemen who stood
candidates for the County he lives in; there were great dif
ference among them, and these are generally believed to be
the source from whence all those complaints, Memorials,
&c., &c., &c. do arise; He indeed publickly opposed their
elections, but did not pretend to vote himself conceiving 1
presumed that he might by those means, give them an in
stance of his resentment, and at the same time offended no
law in being.
I cant learn one other instance of papists keeping open
house and treating profusely. But if there be any one man
in the Province who knows this, besides the Memorialist,
Let him stand forth that the truth may appear. Amicus
Plato, Amicus Socrates, Sed magis Arnica veritatis. —
(M8S. Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore.)
APPENDIX S.
ACADIANS.
" That the wretched Acadians, in a manner quartered
upon us, are become a grievance, inasmuch as we are not at
present in a situation, and in circumstances, capable of
seconding their own fruitless endeavors to support their
numerous families, as a people plundered of their effects.
For though our magistrates have taxed us, perhaps sufficient
to feed such of them as cannot feed themselves, they cannot
find houses, clothing and other comforts, in their condition
needful, without going from house to house begging, whereby
they are become a nuisance to the country hereby unable to
afford necessary comfort to their own poor. And as it is
no easy task for a Christian to withstand the unfortunate
cravings of their distressed fellow citizens, those among us
who especially possess the greatest degree of humanity,
must, of course, be the greatest sufferers. But this is not
all. Their religious principles in a Protestant country, being
dangerous, particularly at this juncture, and their attach
ment to their mothers-country, added to their natural re
sentment of the treatment they have met with, render it
unsafe to harbor them in case of any success of the enemy,
which visibly affords them matter of exultation on the
slightest news in favor of the French and the Indians. We
therefore pray that you will use your endeavors in the As
sembly to have this pest removed from among us, after the
•example of the people of Virginia and Carolina, at their own
580 MARYLAND
expense, as they request, or otherwise as the Assembly
shall, in their wisdom, think fit. We humbly conceive that
any apprehensions of their adding to the strength of the
enemy, if transported into their colonies, would argue a de
gree of timidity not to be approved of. That, on the con
trary, they would rather be burdensome to their country in
their present circumstances encumbered with their wives
and children whose immediate wants will, for a long time,
employ the utmost industry of a few able-bodied fathers
amongst them. Besides, they need not be discouraged with
out binding them as strongly as people of their principles
can be bound, by an oath of neutrality for so long time as
may be judged needful. It will have perhaps this further
effect, that since they so earnestly desire to quit his Ma
jesty's protection, in a manner renouncing it, they enfeeble
their claim to the restitution and restoration they contend
for; a point it would be greatly the interest of the colonies
to gain with a good grace." — (Maryland Gazette, February
10, 1757, quoted by Scharf, I, 478.) Cfr. Upper and Lower
House Journals, Mss. Folio of this period.
APPENDIX T.
. Archiepiscopal Archives, Baltimore.)
ADVERTISEMENT.
A COPY OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL DULANEY, ESQ.
His OPINION.
Mr. James Carroll by his will bequeathed several legacies
to some of his relations, and appointed executors: the
same which undertook the execution of the will in usual
form. Those who did so were trustees for the legatees, and
ought to have paid the legacies at the expiration of one
year after the death of the testator, unless some other or
longer time was appointed by him in the will for the pay
ment.
If the legatees were in their minority, the legacies carry
interest from the end of the year, though no demand is
made, because no lapse is to be imputed to minors. If the
legatees are major, the interest accrues from the time a
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 581
demand is made and the payment is refused or delayed.
Interest is due whether the Executors did or did not make
interest of the money, if they might have done it. As a
great part of Mr. Carroll's personal estate consisted in out
standing debts which required some time to collect, and
some time after for the collector to place out the money at
interest, I think it but just and reasonable to exempt the
Executors from interest till it was or might have been so
placed, and that six, or at most, eight months is sufficient
time for that purpose: but if the Executors made use of
the money immediately after the receipt of it, they ought,
from that instant to pay the interest.
If the Executors were in advance for the Legatees before
the money can be collected out of which the Legacies are to
be paid, they (the Executors) I conceive justly entitled to
the interest of such money till it is replaced, and may
justly retain such interest, as well as the principal, out of
the money that was due to the testator, when they shall
have received it.
All legatees ought, if required, to give security to the
Executors to return a valuable part of what they receive,
to pay such latent debts of the Testator as the "law will
charge the Executors with the payment of.
D. DULANY.
Jan. 22, 1750.
BY MR. CHARLES CARROLL.
N. B.—
That Dr. Charles Carroll offered before the above-men
tioned Daniel Dulany, Esq., £420 sterling, as a composition
for what money he might owe to the legatees of James
Carroll, which was refused by Mr. Charles Carroll, he ap
prehending the said Dr. Carroll to owe them near three
times that sum, on which the said Doctor Carroll threatened
Mr. Carroll with the Penal Statutes. For the truth of the
above, Mr. Carroll refers to Mr. Dulany.
A Bill in Chancery is now preparing, and will be shortly
filed by one of the Legatees of James Carroll to bring Dr.
Carroll and Mr. Carroll to fair account.
CHARLES CARROLL.
582 MARYLAND
BY DANIEL DULANY.
SIR: —
Hearing that my name has been made use of in the dis
pute between Charles Carroll, Esq., and Doctor Carroll, that
the subject is to come under the consideration of the Lower
House of Assembly, and that it was desired that I would
give some account of it, — all that I can say about it is
that both of the gentlemen came to my office, in view, as I
apprehended, to have my sentiments on the subject under
dispute between them concerning Mr. James Carroll's per
sonal interest, and the right of his legatees to it, which I
readily undertook in hopes of being instrumental in re
conciling their differences. Mr. Carroll demanded an ac
count, which Dr. Carroll said was very difficult, if not im
possible to render, and that if Mr. Carroll persisted in his
demand (which was very considerable) he. the Doctor, did
not know how he should comply with it. After some warm
altercation, Dr. Carroll made several proposals of giving
the papers and securities he had in his hands relating to
Mr. James Carroll's estate, and to pay a sum of money, as
1 believe, 2 or £300, and at last came up to £420, which Mr.
Carroll refused, declaring that he would not accept of
£1.000, nor lump the account, but would insist on a particu
lar account, and whatever should appear to be the balance.
Dr. Carroll then told Mr. Carroll that he (Mr. Carroll)
was fishing for the Society of Jesuits, and perhaps he might
stretch the string, or the Lion's skin, till it broke. I un
derstood this to be an allusion to the Penal Laws, and was
confirmed in this opinion by a letter which I afterwards re
ceived from Dr. Carroll while the affair (wherein they de
sired my opinion) was under my consideration, which let
ters my son has to produce. To this letter, I writ no an
swer, but told Dr. Carroll that I would not make the ability
or disability of the legatees any ingredient in my opinion, as
I had no authority to determine any such thing but that
it must be decided by the law. I have been told that Dr.
Carroll asserted in the Lower House that I told him in
private conversation he would be in danger of a Prae-
munire if he paid the money, which I hope, for his own sake
is not true; for if he did assert it, I declare solemnly, it
was without foundation, and that I never told him any such
thing in my life. He talked much about the Penal Laws,
and I told him there were many of them, and turned to
Nilson's ' Justice ' wherein there are abstracts of them. I .
told him once, or oftener, that the penal laws were not made
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 583
against the Papists because their religion was a bad one,
but because many of them were bad subjects and disturb
the government, and conspired to destroy the person of
the great and glorious Princess, Queen Elizabeth, and con
tinued the same practices under some of her successors;
that when the Papists behaved as became good and peace
able subjects, the penal laws were very seldom put in
execution against them, that I did not apprehend any dan
ger from them here, and that it would be ill-policy in a
country like this where people are wanting, to force any out
of it, or to deter any from coming into it, who would not
disturb the peace of society. I remember the Doctor men
tioned his being apprehensive of incurring a Praemunire if
he paid the money to Mr. James Carroll's legatees, to which
I answered that I did not doubt but he had discretion
enough to act safely. This, Sir, is all that I can recollect
relating to the present subject, and I would not be under
stood as if I took upon me to mention the very expressions
of either of the gentlemen, but I assure you to the best of
my remembrance, I have told you the substance of what
passed, and that I have no bias, or favour, or prejudice to
either of them, — I am Sir,
Your most humble and obedient servant,
D. DULANY.
To the Honorable, the Speaker.
SIR:—
I was too busy yesterday to look for the enclosed letter
besides I promised Dr. Carroll a copy of it which I have
sent him this morning, I am sir.
Your most humble and obedient servant,
D. DULANY.
June 25, 1751.
To Charles Carroll, Esq.
DOCTOR CARROLL TO DANIEL DULANY, ESQ.
Jan. 21, 1750.
SIR:—
I find Mr. Carroll bent on a matter which must (if his
end's gained) ruin me. As you are going to give us your
opinion (or I would choose advice) I must request you will
make this an ingredient toward giving such. I am ap
pointed Executor by the Will, which may be proper for
584 MARYLAND
you to see, during the minority of Mr. Carroll's nephews
only, — who are men taken into orders, and are priests. (2)
Whether a recusant, or priest, can be an executor. If not
what right has Mr. Carroll to call me to account, or who
shall have the residue of the estate? I am,
Sir, Your most humble servant,
C. CARROLL.
To Daniel Dulany, Esq.
N. B. — Mr. Carroll could not Doctor Carroll, unless
Doctor Carroll owed a very large sum of money, and which
is only recoverable by law.
TUESDAY, JUXE 4TH, 1751.
The order of the day being read, the House took into con
sideration the Paper Advertisement fixed at the door of the
House on the 24th day of May last, and on reading and
considering the same, the question was put whether the said
Advertisement doth contain scandalous and malicious re
flections upon the proceedings of this House and a member
thereof? or not.
Resolved in the affirmative.
For the Affirmative.
Band, Mills, Smitn, Willmer, Worthington, Bordley, J.
Marshall, Heighe, B. Marshall, Reynolds, Smallwood, Stod-
dard, Lee, Wilson, King, Waggerman, N. Goldsborough, I.
Goldsborough, Loyd, Oldhain, Tillotson, Hooper, LeCompte,
Travers, Hyland, W. Smith, Franklin, Wooten, Addison,
Sprigg, Murdock, Hopper, Davis, Sullivan, Selby, J. Henry,
Crabb, Chaplin, Prother.
For the Negative.
Key, Colville, Garden, Scarborough, Barnes, Henry,
Dulany.
The House adjournes till to-morrow morning, 8 o'clock.
THE LAND OF SANCTUAEY 585
WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 25TH, 1751.
The House met according to adjournment. The members
were called and all appeared as yesterday. The Proceed
ings of yesterday were read. On a further consideration of
the advertisement set up by Charles Carroll, Esq. — Re
solved that the Advertisement fixed up at the door of this
house by Charles Carroll, Esq., a powerful and leading Ro
man Catholic, contains matter scandalous and malicious,
reflections upon the proceedings of this House in general,
and a member thereof in particular, and is a violation of
the rights and privileges of this House. Thereupon ordered
that the said Charles Carroll, Esq., be taken into custody
by the Sergeant attending this House.
On motion of a member that the word false be inserted
in the above, — Resolved, The question was put whether the
word false shall be inserted in the above resolve or not?
Resolve in the Negative.
The Sergeant at Arms attending this House acquaints the
Speaker that in obedience to the order of this House he had
taken into his custody the body of Charles Carroll, Esq., —
Ordered that the warrant be made out directed to the
Sheriff of Ann Arundel County and the Keeper of the Public
Gaol in the City of Annapolis, to take into his custody the
body of Charles Carroll, Esq., of the City of Annapolis,
which warrant was accordingly made out in the following
words: viz.,
By the Lower House of Assembly, 6th of June 1751.
You are hereby ordered to take into your custody the
body of Charles Carroll of the City of Annapolis, now in
custody of the Sergeant at Arms, for scandalously and
maliciously reflecting upon the proceedings of this House in
general and a member of it in particular, and for violating
the rights and privileges of this House, and himself keep
close confined, until he shall make a due submission, and
be discharged from such confinement by order of this House,
for which this shall be your sufficient warrant.
Signed by order,
P. HAMMOND, Speaker.
To John Gassaway, Sheriff of Ann Arundel County, Keeper
of the Public Gaol in the City of Annapolis.
Whereupon the Question was put whether the word public
gaol be inserted in the Warrant or not. — Resolved in the
Negative.
586 MARYLAND
Ordered that the Sheriff of Ann Arundel County do at
tend this House immediately. The Sheriff of Ana Arundel
County in pursuance of the order of the House, attended
and was called to the Bar. Mr. Speaker acquainted him that
by the order of the House, he do forthwith take the Body
of Charles Carroll, Esq., now in custody of the Sergeant at
Arms, and him safe keep in close confinement, until he
shall make a due submission, and be discharged from such
confinement by order of this House. The Sheriff was
ordered to withdraw.
A SUBMISSION REQUIRED OF MR. CARROLL BY THE HOUSE.
Mr. Speaker: — I am very sorry that the paper which I
fixed up at the door of your House has given offence. I
assure you, Sir, that I had no intention either to reflect
upon the proceedings or violate the privileges of the House
of Delegates. But for the offence I ask pardon of the
Honorable House in general (so far Mr. Carroll offered to
submit but declined to subscribe to the following) and of any
member in particular, that by your Honorables may be
thought to be more immediately pointed at by that Adver
tisement."
APPENDIX U.
THE COLONIAL CARROLLS.
The surname Carroll is not, as commonly thought, con
nected with the Latin Carolus, but is an evolution of the
Celtic Cearrbhal. Like Campbell (crooked mouth) and
many other names of Celtic origin, it indicates some per
sonal peculiarity in the one to whom it was first attached.
The signification of Cearrbhal may be approximated as
"wry-mouth:" its pronunciation resembles pretty closely
that of the present form, Carroll.
The first to assume the surname was Monach, King of
Munsier. From this O'Cearbhaill sprang the dominating
family of one of the Irish septs or clans, whose domain
known as Ely O'Carroll included what is now the western
part of King's County and a part of Tipperary. " Cousin
Carroll is right about ye country of ye O'Carrolls," writes
Charles of Doughoregan to his son : " it was by ye Latin
authors called Elea Carolina, commonly Ely O'Carroll."
And thus Betham (Irish Antiquarian Researches, Part I) :
" It is indisputable that the O'Carrolls were in very
early ages kings of the entire district of Ely, and that the
territory was so named from Ely, daughter of Luchta, son
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 587
of the king of Munster, one of our ancient lawgivers who
ticurisiied aoout the time of our Lord Jesus Christ."
English conquest and penal laws, although they reduced
all branches of the family to " ye low estate " mentioned
by Chas. Carroll of Doughoregan, did not, however, en
tirely alienate their property. Probably much of this
immunity may be traced to the fact that the O'Carrolls
were amongst the first to place their possessions directly
under the safeguard of the Crown. " With this view, in
the third year of the present reign ( Edward VI ) , the
dynast O'Carroll, lord of Ely, surrendered his country to
the King, and had it returned to him by letters patent, to
gether with the title of baron of Ely." (Moore's History
of Ireland, Chap. XLVII. ) In 1010 we find a letter
protesting against Sir Atulrony Carroll's intrusion upon
the " castles and lands " of his orphaned relative John
Carroll, the King's ward and rightful heir to Sirs Charles
and Wniiani Carroll. — (Papers of the Marquis of
Ormonde, App. I.) A half century and more later, Chas.
Carroll the grandfather of the Signer appears to have been
regarded as the O'Carrolls, i. e. rightful claimant of the
estates which pertained to the hereditary septarch or
cnieitain of the Carrolls, or of at least the younger branch.
And so strong were his claims, even then in the days of
the most fickle of the Stuarts, that one is left to infer that
the grant of lands in Maryland was obtained for him in
settlement. Says Betham : " He was in great favour with
Kings Charles II and James II, who were not able to restore
him to his paternal estate; but the latter made him grants
of large tracts of land on the Monoccasy river, in the pro
vince of Maryland, in North America."
Considering his adherence to the ancestral faith the rep
resentative 01 the Carrous, might well, even in his reduced
circumstances, regard himself as particularly favored of
Providence. After all, the decline of his fortunes might be
traced to an additional cause. There is evidence about this
time, of lines rather sharply drawn between at least two
branches of the family, the elder and tne younger. They
even assumed different arms. A century later the Comtesse
d'Anzouers (nee Carroll) claims near kinship with Abp.
Carroll on the ground of " portant le meme nom et les
memes armes." (Cathedral Archives, Baltimore) . And one
Thomas Carroll writing to the Archbishop deems it neces
sary to assert that his " genealogy says there were for time
out of mind constant connection between botn families." —
(Cathedral Archives, Baltimore.)
Yet divided or undivided, unuer fortune's smile or under
fortune's frown, there can be no question that in the eyes
588 MARYLAND
of those who knew them and their past, they were always,
as Rev. Henry Bolton puts it, " the most honorable and
illustrious families of the O'Caroles of Leinster."
Amongst the Carrolls of colonial Maryland both branches
were represented ; the elder by Dr. Charles Carroll, of
Annapolis, and his son, Charles Carroll, the Barrister; the
younger by the families from which sprang diaries of Car-
rollton, and John, first Bishop and Archbishop of Balti
more.
But little cordiality prevailed between the representa
tives of the two branches. It was by members of the
younger branch that the epithet " Apostate " was first ap
plied to Dr. Charles Carroll, of Annapolis, and it will be
remembered that the frenzied renewal of sectarian bitter
ness and intolerance in Maryland, about the middle of the
eighteenth century, came as an aftermath to a quarrel be
tween this Charles Carroll and Charles Carroll of
Doughoregan, father to the Signer. It is to this Charles
Carroll that the designation " of Annapolis " belongs, al
though, because of tneir long residence at liie Capital, it is
frequently but confusingiy applied to Charles of Doughore
gan ana his father the Attorney General, just as that of
" Barrister " is sometimes substituted for " of Doughoregan "
in the name of the Attorney General's son, whilst it dis
tinctively belongs to Charles the son of Charles of Anna
polis.
To this Dr. Charles Carroll, of Annapolis, an estate had
been granted of about 2,500 acres which he designated " The
Caves " and from which he is sometimes styled, also " Charles
Carroll of the Caves." It was his son, Charles the Bar
rister who in 1754 built the old Carroll mansion, still
standing in Carroll Park, Baltimore, and occupied by him
until his death in 1783 and by his collateral descendants
until 1851. Charles the Barrister was a brilliant lawyer
and has left his name attached to some of the most ef
fective documents in the legal Archives of his State. With
him the elder branch of the Carrolls became extinct in
Maryland in the male line. By his will be devised " The
Caves " to Nicholas McCubbin, one of his sister's children
with the proviso that he should endeavor to have his name
changed by act of Assembly to Carroll. The devisee was
successful in his endeavor. In consequence this branch of
the family is now represented by a Carroll of the Caves,
but in the female line.
As to the younger branch of the family in Maryland, it
must not be thought that, whilst closely akin, all its
members descended from one first settler. Although Charles
Carroll, the Attorney General, the first of his name to set-
THE LAND OF SANCTUAEY 589
tie in Maryland, did have a son by the name of Daniel,
brother to Charles of Doughoregan and uncle to Charles of
Carrollton, it is certain that he cannot be identified, as
many seem to have thought, with Daniel the father of
Archbishop Carroll, a son of Keane who (Keane) never
migrated from Ireland. It is likewise certain that the Car
roll whom the minister of James II advised to emigrate
to America, was not, as Brent and others assert, the an
cestor of Archbishop Carroll. For it was Charles, the
grandfather of Charles of Carrollton, who acted as secre
tary to Lord Powis. The story runs that young Carroll,
having one day congratulated Lord Powis on the prosper
ous face of public affairs and the progress of his Majesty's
service, "You are quite wrong," replied Lord Powis," affairs
are going on very badly; the King is very ill-advised."
And, after a pause, " Young man, I have a regard for you,
and would be glad to do you a service. Take my advice —
great cnanges are at hand — go out to Maryland. I will
speak to Lord Baltimore in your favour."
Charles followed the Minister's advice and having through
his influence and the King's favour obtained from Lord
Baltimore a grant of large tracts of land and an appoint
ment as Attorney General, arrived in Maryland the very
year of the downfall of James II. Lord Baltimore after
wards appointed him his agent and Receiver General.
Charles Carroll acted, in fact, as a sort of vice-proprietary.
Possessed of 60,000 acres of land he parceled them out
into three manors, two of which he named from his lost
estates in Ireland, Ely and Doughoregan, and the third,
Carrollton. He thus became the founder of one of those
manorial families which under the Proprietary government
were invested with what were really baronial rights and
privileges.
Doughoregan and Carrollton manors descended to his
grandson Charles Carroll of Carrollton. Charles of Car
rollton, was reputed the wealthiest man in the colonies.
An estimate of his property made by his own hand in
1764 is as follows:
40,000 acres of land, two country seats £40,000
20 Houses at Annapolis 4.000
285 Slaves, at an average of £30 each 8,550
Stock on plantations 1,000
Household Plate 600
Debts Outstanding 24,230
£78,380
(Magazine of American History, Vol. II.)
590 MARYLAND
A later estimate by another than himself places his.
wealth at about $2,000,000. It is a pleasant fiction that
he first attached the " of Carrollton " to his name at the
signing of the Declaration of Independence. It is certain
that the designation was used by him as far back as 1765,.
immediately after Charles of Doughoregan settled upon
him the estate of Carrollton, and, having so signed himself
in a letter to his friend Jennings, 23 Nov., 1765, he adds:
" by which appellation, if you favour me with an answer,
direct to me your letter."
But if Charles of Carrollton and John, Bishop of Balti
more, were not descended from the same Colonial Carroll,
what was the degree of kinship between them? Time after
time it has been asserted they were first cousins, equally
as often it has been said there was no appreciable relation
ship. That they could not have been first cousins on the
Carroll side may be inferred from what we have said
above. It is equally plain that they were not first cousins-
on the Darnall side. Charles Carroll, the Attorney Gen
eral, indeed, married a Mary Darnall and Daniel Carroll
married an Eleanor Darnall, but Charles Carroll, the At
torney General was grandfather to Charles Carroll of Car
rollton, whilst Daniel was father to John Carroll, Arch
bishop of Baltimore, and Mary and Eleanor Darnall were
not sisters, but aunt and niece.
Yet a relationship does exist and on both sides.
Before attempting an inquiry it must be stated that the
genealogy of Charles of Carrollton is much confused after
the fifteenth century. Charles of Doughoregan writing to
his son then in England, is anxious that his genealogy
be traced " from 1500 to ye present time. I shall not be
grudge ye expence." Charles of Carrollton evidently acted
in accordance with his father's desire, for it is on record
that to his own satisfaction he established a connection witn
the line recorded up to 1500, and through the noble O'Car-
roll "who was chief of that name and defeated at the
battle of Knock Lee by Gerald, Earl of Kildare, in the year
1516," and thus became, according to Irish genealogists,
the twenty-fifth in descent from Monach ( the first to assume
the name of Carroll and probably identical with Olliol
Ollum) and (God save the mark!) the one hundred and
thirty-first from Adam, the primal man! However, John
O'Kane Murray remarks that in his old age, he was con
tent to begin at Daniel Carroll of Littamourna, Kings Coun
ty, Ireland. Happily this is sufficient to establish the de
gree of relationship between the contemporary John and
Charles of Maryland. For there is every reason to be
lieve that thev were both direct descendants of this Daniel
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY
591
Carroll of Littamourna. The following genealogical
synopsis is probably correct.
— a
at
1-3
<°
-ill
_ §
8 "So
*S §
i
From the foregoing it will be seen that Daniel Carroll,
father of the Archbishop of Baltimore, was a nephew of
592
MARYLAND
that john an
- -de plain by
O
s±>
r
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 593
From the foregoing it is plain that on the Darnall side,
Charles of Carrollton anu the Bishop of Baltimore are
descended from the same first settler and great-grand
father, Henry Darnall, blood relative of the Calverts, and
are therefore third cousins. It will be also noted that
Charles of Carrollton married his own third and Bishop
Carroll's first cousin, Mary Darnall, thus introducing a
connection by marriage.
Besides these, a third blood relationship may be de
tailed. Charles of Doughoregan, married his cousin, Eliza
beth Brooke, most probably a " cousin of the full blood "
i. e. first cousin. If so Bishop Carroll was her third cousin
and therefore a fifth to her son, Charles of Carrollton.
Summarizing then, Charles and John Carroll were
1°. 3d cousins through the Carrolls.
2°. 3d " " " Darnalls.
3°. 5th " " Brookes.
4°. Connected by marriage.
In Synopsis No. 1 there appears one James Carroll. This
James Carroll was also a colonial settler and owned, be
sides considerable other property, the strip of land on
which Fort McHenry now stands. He died childless, leav
ing the bulk of his estate to the Rev. Anthony Carroll, his
nephew (Mss. of Bishop Carroll.) This estate is historic.
Its settlement entailed the quarrel between Charles Car
roll of Doughoregan and Charles Carroll the Apostate, the
gaoling of the former for insult to the Assembly, and the
stricter enforcement of the penal laws against Catho
lics in Maryland. Anthony Carroll was a Jesuit
and, shortly after the Suppression of the Society,
in 1774, came over to Maryland with Rev. John
Carroll. After sojourning there and in Pennsylvania about a
year, he returned to England. Charles of Doughoregan
styles him cousin (Letter to Charles Carroll of Carrollton,
1763). Now neither Charles of Doughoregan nor his son
usually employed the term cousin except in relation to
those "of the full blood," i. e. first cousins. We may there
fore reasonably infer that Anthony Carroll was first cousin
to Charles of Doughoregan and consequently second cousin
to Charles of Carrollton and Bishop Carroll. Now Anthony
Carroll was uncle to the Rev. John Ashton. (Letter of
Rev. Wm. Strickland, Cathedral Archives, Baltimore.) It
is thus evident that Bishop Carroll and John Ashton were
descendants of the same great grandfather and therefore
third cousins. Cousins, indeed they are termed by Wm.
Aston in a letter to the former. A* kinship is thus estab-
594
MARYLAND
lished between two men who (with an unhappy
third, also a kinsman, Wharton the Apostate) were among
the interesting personalities of the American clergy of their
time.
(For this sketch of the Carroll family, I am indebted to
the courtesy of Mr. Frederick Welty.)
APPENDIX V.
LIST OF JESUITS WHO CAME TO MARYLAND, 1634-1774.—
(From MSS. in Archiepiscopal Archives.)
Father White.
Thomas Copley.
Starkey.
Ferret.
Pulton.
Fitzherbert.
H. Waring.
Pelcome.
Pool.
Clavering.
Waldegrave.
F. Pennington.
T. H. Matthews.
W. Hunter.
John Hall.
Robert Brooke.
Matth. Brooke.
G. Thorold.
W. Killick.
T. H. Mansel.
Cattaway.
Rich. Leath.
Th. Havert.
W. Attwood.
Webster.
Brokas.
Poulton.
Hudson.
W. Gerrard.
Lloyd.
Benet.
Greaton.
Whetenhall.
Davis.
Gate.
WThitgrave.
Kingby.
Philips.
Quin.
Molineux.
Lecomby.
Harding.
Fleetwood.
Liverk.
Henry Neale.
Archbold.
Diggs.
Sneyder.
Wappeler.
John Diggs.
Bennet.
Neale.
Ashby.
G. Hunter.
John Kingdon.
Richard Ellies.
James Carroll.
J. Beadnall.
J. Lewis.
Rich. Molineux.
Gillibrand.
Manners.
Farmer.
Vincent Philips.
Greaton.
Joseph Mosely.
M. Murphy.
Frambank.
James Pellentz.
Joachim William.
George Hunter.
John Kingdon.
Michael Murphy.
Frederick Leonard.
Lewis Roels.
John Kingdon.
Joseph Sky.
Deritter.
James Boon.
James Walton.
Ignatius Matthews.
O'Reilly.
Arnold Livers.
John Ashton.
Pet. Norris.
Luke Geister.
Robert Molineux.
John Bolton.
Sylvester Boarman.
John Boarman.
Ch. Sewall.
A. Jenkins.
Ant. Carroll.
John Carroll.
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 595
APPENDIX W.
The following clergymen of the Church of England were
in Maryland before 1692: Henry James, (1632.) The
same Mr. James, who was in Kent Island prior to 1638
was the same who was at Avalon with Lord Baltimore. —
Md. During the English Civil Wars, Part I, Steiner, J. H.
U. Press, 1906.) William Cotton (1635), Hampton
(1636), Robert Brooks (1650), William Kilkinson (1650),
Jonathan Sanders (1661), Matthew Hill (1669), John
Good (1676), John Yeo (1676), John Hewitt (1678), Am
brose Sanderson (1681), Duell Pead (1682), William Mul
let (1683), John Turling (1684), Joseph Leech, (1685),
Paul Bertrand (1685), John Lillingston (1685), John
Matthews (1688), Francis Pennington (1688), Lawrence
Vanderbush (1692.)
(For the above information I am indebted to Mr. Henry
F. Thompson of the Maryland Hist. Soc.
APPENDIX X.
1 WILLIAM AND MARY, Statutes of the Realm.
Act for amoving Papists or Recusants from the city of
London.
If Papists after refusing to take the Declaration oath
shall continue to remain within the city or ten miles of
it he or she shall forfeit or suffer as a popish Recusant Con
vict by the laws already established, . . . etc.
. . . Adjudged Popish Recusant convicts on refusal to
sign Declaration (30 Charles II.)
1 WILLIAM AND MARY, Ibid.
Act for the Better securing the Government by disarming
Papists.
Papists refusing to sign Declaration are subject to
penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities in this Act mentioned;
They must keep no arms;
Three months' imprisonment for not discovering arms;
Three months' imprisonment for concealing them arms.
Not allowed to keep one or more horses worth more
than £5.
596 MARYLAND
1 WILLIAM AND MARY, Ibid.
" Act to invest in the Two Universities the Presenting of
Benefices belonging to Papists."
Persons refusing the Declaration (3 James I, c. 5) Act of
Parliament third year of King James' reign, adjudged
Recusants and not allowed to present. . . .
Trustees for Catholic Recusants disabled.
1 WILLIAM AND MARY.
An act for the preventing of the Growth of Popery.
..." After March 25th, 1700. . . . All persons appre
hending Popish Bishops, priests, or Jesuits, and prosecut
ing him or them so apprehended, until he or they be con
victed of saying Mass or exercising any other part of the
functions of a Popish Bishop, Priest, or Jesuit . . . shall
receive the sum of £100.
" Be it enacted : That if any Popish Bishop, Priest or
Jesuit whatsoever, shall say Mass or exercise any other
part of the office or functions of a Popish Bishop, Priest or
Jesuit within this realm ... or if any Papist, or person
making profession of the Popish religion, shall keep school,
or take upon themselves the education, or government, or
boarding of youth in any place within this realm . . . being
lawfully convicted shall be adjudged to perpetual im
prisonment. . . .
" If any person educated in the Popish religion or pro
fessing the same, shall not within six months after he or
she shall attain the age of 18 years take the oath of Al
legiance and Supremacy, also subscribe to the Declaration
expressed in the Act of Parliament made in the thirtieth
year of the reign of the late King Charles II, entitled " An
Act Disabling Papists from Sitting in Either House of Par
liament "... every such person shall in respect to him or
herself . . . and not in respect to his or her heirs ... be
disabled and made incapable to inherit . . . any lands,
tenements, hereditaments within the kingdom of England.
And during the life of the said person, until he or she do
take the Oath, and make and subscribe to the Declaration
aforesaid, the next of his or her kindred which shall be a
Protestant, shall have and enjoy the said lands, tenements
hereditaments, . . . etc., without being accountable for the
profits by him or her received during such enjoyment" . . .
(In case of wilful waste the administrator may recover.)
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 597
"All Papists . . . shall be disabled and hereby made in
capable to purchase either in his or her name or in the
name of any other person or persons, any Manor Lands,
Profits out of Lands, Tenements, Rents, Terms, Heredita
ments, within the kingdom of England . . . All estates or
profits . . . etc., out of lands for use ... of such persons
... or benefit or relief ... to be utterly void and of none
elFect . . . etc.
"... Whoever shall be convicted of sending any child or
other person beyond the seas, out of the King's obedience to
the intent that such child or person shall be educated in
the Romish religion, shall forfeit £100 . . . said £100 for
the sole use and benefit of him who shall discover any per
son so offending to the end that Protestant children may
not in the life time of their parents for want of fitting
maintenance ... be necessitated in compliance with their
parents to embrace the Popish religion contrary to their
inclination; Be it enacted that if such a parent in order to
compelling such his child to change his or her religion,
shall refuse to allow such child a fitting maintenance suit
able to the degree and ability of such parent . . . then
complaint shall be made to the Lord High Chancellor or to
the Keeper of the Great Seal, and it shall be lawful for the
said Lord High Chancellor or the Keeper of the Great Seal
to make such an order as shall be agreeable to this Act."
12 WILLIAM III, 1699-1700.
Papists were doubly taxed: Those over sixteen years
of age not having taken oath to pay double tax. (Statutes
of the Realm). The penalty for refusing the oath pre
scribed (I William and Mary, ibid. ) was the infliction of
the pains, penalties, forfeits, and disabilities, of a Popish
Recusant.
Statutes of the Realm. Printed by command of His
Majesty King George III. From Original Records and
Authentic Manuscripts, 7 vols., London, MDCCCXX.
APPENDIX Y.
THE ADDRESS OF THE COLONIES TO THE PEOPLE OF GREAT
BRITAIN — (Oct. 21. 1774.) CONCERNING THE QUEBEC ACT.
" That we think the Legislature of Great Britain is not
authorized by the Constitution to establish a religion
fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets, or, to erect
an arbitrary form of government in any quarter of the
22
598 MARYLAND
globe. Tliese rights, we as well as you, deem sacred. And
sacred as they are, they have, with many others, been fre
quently, been repeatedly, and flagrantly violated. . . . Now
mark the progression of the ministerial plan for enslaving
us.
" The Dominion of Canada is to be so extended, modelled
and governed, as that by being disunited from us, detached
from our interests, by civil as well as religious prejudices,
that by their numbers daily swelling with Catholic emi
grants from Europe, and by devotion to Administration, so
friendly to their religion, they might become formidable to
us, and on occasion, be fit instruments in the hands of
power, to reduce the ancient free Protestant Colonies to the
same state of slavery with themselves. This was evidently
the object of the act; — And in this view, being extremely
dangerous to our liberty and quiet, we cannot forebear
complaining of it, as hostile to British America. — Super-
added to these considerations we cannot help deploring the
unhappy condition to which it has reduced the many Eng
lish settlers, who, encouraged by the Royal Proclamation,
promising the enjoyment of all their rights, have purchased
estates in that country. They are now the subjects of an
arbitrary government, deprived of trial by jury, and when
imprisoned, cannot claim the benefit of the habeas corpus
Act, that great bulwark and palladium of English liberty:
— Nor can we suppress our astonishment, that a British
Parliament should ever consent to establish in that country,
a religion that has deluged your island in blood, and dis
persed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion
through every part of the world. This being a true state
of facts, let us beseech" you to consider to what end they
lead. Admit that the Ministry, by the powers of Britain,
and the aid of our Roman Catholic neighbors, should be
able to carry the point of taxation, and reduce us to a state
of perfect humiliation and slavery. Such an enterprise
would doubtless make some addition to your national debt,
which already presses down your liberties, and fills you
with Pensioners and Placemen. We presume also, that
your commerce will somewhat be diminished. However,
suppose you should prove victorious — in what condition
will you then be? What advantages or what laurels will
you reap from such a conquest?
" May not a Ministry with the same armies enslave you.
It may be said you will cease to pay them, but remember
the taxes from America, the wealth, and we may add, the
men and particularly the Roman Catholics of this vast con
tinent will then be in the power of your enemies, nor will
you have any reason to expect, that after making slaves
THE LAND OF SANCTUAKY 599
of us, many among us should refuse to assist in reducing
you to the same abject state." — (Journal of Congress, pp.
83, 87, 88.)
Friday, Oct. 21, 1774.
An historian of the Revolution tells us how the Quebec
Act was regarded by the people of this country:
" Tlie Government of Quebec was converted into the most
odious despotism, and the • Catholic clergy placed upon a
footing in direct hostility to the genius and spirit of the
American colonies. This should not fail to alarm them for
the safety of the Protestant religion, the free enjoyment
of which, according to the dictates of their consciences, had
been the chief cause of the first migrations. Hence in all
subsequent meetings of the people as well as in the pro
ceedings of Congress, this subject was mentioned as one of
the grievances of which they had to complain." — (History
of the American Revolution, 2 vols, by Paul Allen, I, p.
206; Balto., 1822.)
The importance of not antagonizing the Canadians, by
any display of bigotry on the part of the American army,
during the Quebec expedition was realized by Washington,
who in his instructions to Arnold (September, 14, 1775)
counselled an attitude of conciliation. " You are by every
means in your power to endeavor to discover the real senti
ments of the Canadians towards our cause. . . . You are
to endeavor to conciliate the affection of these people . . .
convincing them that we come at the request of many of
their principal people; not as robbers, or to make war
against them, but as friends and supporters of their liberties
as well as our own, and to give efficacy to these senti
ments, you must carefully inculcate upon the officers and
soldiers under your command, that not only the good of
their country, and their honour, but their safety, depends
upon their treatment of these people. . . . And as the con
tempt of the religion of a country, by ridiculing any of its
ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever
been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to
restrain every officer and soldier of such imprudence and
folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other
hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protest and
support the free exercise of the religion of the country, and
the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in
religious matters with your utmost influence and au
thority." — (American Archives, A Documentary History of
the English Colonies of North America, Peter Force, Wash
ington, 1860, m, pp. 765-767.)
We may well believe that Washington was superior to the
600 MARYLAND
narrow bigotry of his day. It came to the ears of the
Commander-in-Chief, that the Continental troops outside of
Boston (November 5, 1775) were preparing to celebrate the
anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, which in America was
known among the ignorant, bigoted and vulgar, as Popes
Day, and celebrated by them with the usual indulgence in
all forms of coarseness, ofTensiveness, and fanaticism.
Washington immediately issued an order setting forth that
" As the Comrnander-in-Chief has been appraised of a de
sign formed for the observance of that ridiculous and child
ish custom of burning the effigy of the Pope, he cannot help
expressing his surprise that there should be officers and
soldiers in his army so void of common sense as not to see
the impropriety of such a step at this juncture; at a time
when we are soliciting, and have really obtained the friend
ship of the people of Canada whom we ought to consider as
Brethren embarked in the same cause, the defense of the
general liberties of America. At such a juncture, and in
such circumstances to be insulting their religion is so mon
strous as not to be suffered or excused: indeed instead of
offering the most remote insult, it is our duty to address
public thanks to these our brethren, as to them we are so
much indebted for every late happy success over the com
mon enemy in Canada." — (Writings of Washington. By
Jared Sparks, Vol. in, p. 144, note, N. Y., 1847.)
In order to gain the co-operation of the Canadians, if
possible, Washington addressed to them a letter inviting
them to join their forces with the Americans against Great
Britain.
" Friends and Brethren," he writes to them, " the unnatural
contest between the English Colonies and Great Britain
has now risen to such a height, that arms alone must de
cide it. The colonies confiding in the justice of their cause
and the purity of their intentions, having reluctantly ap
pealed to that Being in whose hands are all human events.
He has hitherto smiled upon their virtuous efforts. The
hand of tyrrany has been arrested in its ravages, and the
British arms which have shono with so much splendor in every
part of the globe, are now tarnished with disgrace and dis
appointment. Generals of approved experience, who boasted
of subduing this great continent, find themselves circum
scribed within the limits of a single city and its suburbs,
suffering all the shame and distress of a siege, while the
free-born sons of America, animated by the general princi
ples of liberty and love of their country with increasing
union, firmness, and discipline, repel every attack and de-
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 601
spise every danger. Above all, we rejoice that our enemies
have been deceived in regard to you; they have persuaded
themselves, they have even dared to say, that the Canadians
were not capable of distinguishing between the blessings of
liberty and the wretchedness of slavery; that gratifying the
vanity of a little circle of nobility would blind the eyes of
the people of Canada; by such artifices they hoped to bend
you to their views, but they have been deceived; instead of
finding in you that poverty of soul and baseness of spirit,
they see with a chagrin equal to our joy, that you are en
lightened, generous and virtuous; that you will not re
nounce your own rights, or serve as instruments to de
prive your fellow-subjects of theirs. Come my brethren,
unite with us in an indissoluble union; let us run together
to the same goal. We have taken up arms in defense of our
liberty, our property, our wives, and our children; we are
determined to preserve them or die. We look forward with
pleasure to that day, not far remote we hope, when the in
habitants of America, shall have one sentiment, and the full
enjoyment of the blessings of a free Government. Incited by
these motives, and encouraged by the many friends of
liberty among you, the grand American Congress have sent
an Army into your Province, under the command of Gen
eral Schuyler, not to plunder, but to protect you; to ani
mate and to bring forth into action, those sentiments of
freedom you have disclosed, and which the tools of despot
ism would extinguish through the whole creation. To co
operate with this design, and to frustrate those cruel and
perfidious schemes, which would deluge our frontiers with
the blood of women and children, I have detached
Colonel Arnold into your country, with a part of the Army/
under my command.
" I have enjoined upon him, and I am certain he will con
sider himself and act as in the country of his patrons and
best friends. Necessaries and accommodations of every
kind which you may furnish, he will thankfully receive, and
render the full value. I invite you therefore as friends and
brethren, to provide him with such supplies, as your Coun
try affords, and I pledge myself not only for your safety
and security, but for ample compensation. Let no man de
sert his habitation. Let no one flee as before an enemy.
The cause of America and of liberty, is the cause of every
virtuous American citizen, whatever may be his religion or
his descent. The United Colonies know no distinction but
such as slavery, corruption, and arbitrary domination may
create. Come then, ye generous citizens, and range your
selves under the standard of general liberty, against which
602 MARYLAND
all the force and artifice of tyranny will never be able to
prevail."
GEORGE WASHINGTON.
American Archives, in, p. 764.
[Maryland Gazette, Oct. 27, 1774.]
" Quebec, September 22nd.
Translation of the Address of the clergy to his Excellency
Guy Carlton, Esq., Major General and Commander in chief
over the Province of Quebec.
Sir: — Permit us, when we congratulate your Excellency
on your happy return, likewise to felicitate ourselves and
the Province, on having you for the protector of our laws
and religious liberties. History will rank your name among
the bravest of warriors, and the wisest of politicians, but
gratitude is already imprinted in the heart of every Can
adian. We know with what firmness you have supported
our interest, and the testimony you have borne to our
fidelity, to his most gracious Majesty and the Parliament.
We want words to express our sincere gratitude, but the
universal joy and the fervent expression of our allegiance,
those public demonstrations on the moment of your Ex
cellency's arrival with your worthy family, are proof too
convincing to need any arguments to support them. Your
name will be ever held in the highest esteem in Canada, and
you will always find the clergy to be good and faithful sub
jects.
" John Oliver, Bishop of Quebec.
" H. F. Grave, Superior of the Seminary.
" Louis Aug. de Glapion, Superior General of the Jesuits.
• " Emanuel Cerspel, Superior of Recollects."
ADDRESS OF THE CANADIANS TO GENERAL CARLTON.
(Maryland Gazette, Oct. 27, 1774.)
"May it please your Excellency: We his Majesty's
Canadian subjects in the city of Quebec are deeply im
pressed with the most lively gratitude for the protection
your Excellency has afforded us, and the care and solici
tude you have taken to render us happy and easy, call
upon us to congratulate you on your happy arrival in this
metropolis. Suffer us to express the satisfaction we feel
from the favour which his most excellent Majesty, our
Sovereign, has conferred on us, by placing you Sir (who is
very justly styled our protector and father) at our head
THE LAND OF SANCTUARY 603
to rule over us, to guide and establish the government of
this province upon a happy, firm and lasting foundation, by
putting in force the Act which his most gracious Majesty
and his Parliament have been pleased to pass over this
province. We know that we owe to your Excellency alone
the gracious treatment of his Most sacred Majesty and the
Parliament, are obligations we never shall forget, but al
ways acknowledge with the most respectful gratitude. We
desire through you to oft'er at the foot of the throne of our
most gracious sovereign, our assurances of the most profound
respect, our attachment ana inviolable fidelity (confirmed by
an oath) and to assure him that he has no subjects more
faithful or dutiful than the Canadians, and that we will be
at all times, and on all occasions ready to sacrifice our lives
and fortunes in the defence of his sacred person, his Crown,
his Parliament and his arms. Knowing your prudence,
moderation, equity, the uprightness and goodness of your
heart, we flatter ourselves that your administration will
prove propitious to our wishes, and that your Excellency
will be pleased according to the tenor of the Act you have
obtained in our favour to suffer us to participate in the
rights and privileges o* English citizens."
INDEX
Abington, witness for Lord
Baltimore against Coode, 345.
Acadians, in Maryland, 421-2;
Destitution of, Appendix S;
How regarded in Maryland,
Appendix S.
^Act, Toleration;" passed by
" Catholics, 198-201; did not
begin Religious Liberty in
Maryland, 196-7; a compro
mise, 201-2; for Christians
only, 203-8; Catholic provis
ions in, 205-6.
Act, see Test; Parliamentary of
Reduction, 213-14; "concern
ing Religion," 227-231; of
Religion, 368.
Act of Church Liberties, 138-
145.
Agretti. Abbate Claudius visits
Cecilius Calvert, 156.
" Agreement of the People of
England," Appendix V.
Alexander, Sir Win., obtains
trading rights for Claiborne,
98.
Alexander VI, Bull of Demar
cation of, Appendix II.
Altham, Father (alias Graven-
or) ; amongst first Mission
aries in Maryland. 74; inter
view with Archihu, 77-78; at
Kent Island, 88; excused
from Assembly, 173, note 1.
Allegiance, see Oath.
Anacostans, friendliness of
King of, 91.
Annapolis, Puritans settle near,
193.
Anne, Queen, legislation in
favor of Maryland Catho
lics, 378-380.
Anabaptists ; religious vagaries
of, 2 ; in " Act Concerning
Religion," 228.
Anderson, J. S. M., quoted on
Culvert's conversion, 45.
Anglican. Clergy in Marj'land,
Appendix W.
Anglican Clergy, see Episco
palian.
Anglican Church; its relations
to the State, 11-14; in Mary
land Charter, 57-65; attitude
of members as to settlement
in Maryland, 336, note 1, see
Episcopalian.
Annapolis, descriptions of, 364,
note 2; made Capital of
Maryland, 364.
Anne Arundel County; name,
213 and Coode, 244, note 2.
" Apologia," Ingle's, 187-8.
Archihu, interview of Governor
Leonard Calvert and Fr.
Altham with, 77-8.
" Ark, The," vessel of Lord
Baltimore, 73.
Arkansas, the, Charles Carroll
of Doughoregan projects a
Catholic settlement on, 414.
Articles of Surrender (Va.)>
boundaries in, 220-1.
"Association in Arms,"
Coode's, 340.
Armada, Catholics of England
and the, 15.
Arundel, Lady Anne; wife of
Cecil Calvert, 52; county
named after, 213.
Assembly, Maryland, the first,
131-2; the second, 135-146;
Catholics and Protestants in
the second, 198-201, 140, 143;
third (1650), 209-13; ineligi-
bility of clergy to, 174, note;
Mistress Margaret Brent and,
188-9 ; Puritan (1654), 226-231 ;
" Acts of Gratitude" to Cecil
and Charles Calvert, 314, 352,
361; of 1688, 334-5; attempts
to deprive Lord Baltimore of
territorial rights, 351; ad
dresses to Charles Calvert,
396, note; enactments, com
plaints, etc., against Catho
lics under Episcopal regime,
411-414, 417-419, 427-431; Ap
pendixes Q, R.
Attwood, Fr., "book incident,"
404-5.
Augusta Carolina, see St.
Mary's County.
Assembly, the Episcopal
regime, 361; Charles Carroll
of D. D., 426-7.
605
606
INDEX
Avalon, Palatinate of, 42-4.
Advowsons ; in Maryland Char
ter, 57-9; rights of English
Catholics to, 58, note 2; Ap
pendix X.
Bacon, Rev. Thos., on religious
conditions in Maryland, 458.
Baltimore, George Culvert
created Baron of, 38, note 2,
39, 40-41 (the patent) ; spell
ing of, 39, note 1; Cecil Cal-
velt neglected in city of, 321 ;
petition from coumy of, to
William III ; against Coode,
344, note 2.
Baltimore, Lords, character of
Lords Baltimore, 481-2; see
Calvert.
Baltimore, Joan, second wife
of George Baltimore, Ap
pendix B.
Bancroft, estimate of George
Calvert, 49; quoted on Be
ginnings of Maryland, 80; on
Toleration in Maryland, 184,
276-7; on Cecil Calvert' 's Ad
ministration, 319, Appendix P.
Banks, Captain, Protestant
Burgess, 200, note 2.
Barbadoes, in Reduction Act,
214.
Barber, Luke; commission,
236, 240, note; account of en
gagement between Stone and
Puritans, 236-7.
Basse, Nathaniel, Puritan set
tler in Virginia, 191.
Baxter, Jno., amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
Beall, Ninian, joins in Declara
tion of 1689, 339; Mattapany
surrendered to, 341, note 1.
Bertrand, Mr., letter to Bishop
of London, 342, note 2.
Benefices, right of presenta
tion to, see Advowsons.
Benefices, right to present to.
58; Appendix X.
Bennet, Edw. Robt., Puritan
settlers in Virginia, 191.
Bennet, Philip, despatched to
Boston, 192.
Bennet, Richard, Puritan set
tler in Virginia, 191-2;
refugee in Maryland, 193;
Parliamentary Commissioner
of Reduction, 214-215, note
2; 217-18; represents Clai-
borne in England, 222.
Berkhead, Rev. George, and
oath of allegiance, 108.
Bennet, Richard, with Clair-
borne in Maryland, 223-6;
letters from Cromwell, 233-4,
239, notes; palliates Fuller's
treachery, 237 ; relations with
Cromwell, 238-9; agent for
Virginia in boundary dis
putes, 240; settlement with
Lord Baltimore, 242.
Bennet, Richard, signs Peti
tion against Episcopal Intol
erance, 379, note 1.
Bishop, Henry, assaulted by
Ingle, 176.
Blackistou, Colonel, marriage,
76, note 2.
Blackiston's Island, see St.
Clement's Island.
Blackwell, Archpriest, and oath
of allegiance, 108.
Bladin, Governor, proclamation
against Catholic conversions,
410.
Boreman, William, confesses
Catholicity, 232, note.
Boarnian, Major, Chapel at
house of, 433, note 1.
Bohemia Manor, granted to
Augustine Herman, 265-6 ;
Labadists on, 266, note, 287.
" Book Incident," 404-5.
Bordeaux, Labadie born at, 266.
Boston, ministers from, to Vir
ginia, 192; Wenlock Christi-
son in, 253.
Boucher, Rev. Jonathan, on
condition of schools, 465; on
Catholics in Maryland, 482-7.
Bowen, early historian, Ap
pendix Q.
Braddock's defeat, Catholic re
joicing at, 427.
Brantly, William, quoted, 18;
on "Holy Church" law, 140-1;
on Toleration in Maryland,
196.
Brav, Rev. Dr.. Commissary of
Maryland, 370; on Clerical
Judges in Testamentary and
other causes, 386, note;
character of, 468.
Britton, Dr., proposed as pre
fect of Maryland, 152.
Brock, Fr. Jno., at Mattapany,
88.
Burnyeat, John, Maryland
Quaker, 256.
Brent. Mistress Margaret, her
Indian Princess, 93; execu
trix of Gov. Leonard Calvert,
184, 189; life, character and
services of, 188-90; pioneer
woman suffragist of America,
188-9.
Brent, Giles, acts as Gover
nor, 176.
INDEX
607
Brettou, Mr., Catholic Burgess,
200, note.
Bruard, James. Catholic of
Kent County, 433, note.
Brockhold, see Leyden, John
of.
Brooke, Mr., grant of land to,
144, note.
Brooke, Fr. Robert, trial be
fore Gov. Seymour, 381-4;
born in Maryland. 432; in
Charles County, 433.
Brooks, Thos.. joins in Decla
ration of 1689, 339.
Browne. Mr.. Protestant Burg
ess, 200, note.
Brownists, in " Act Concerning
Religion," 228.
Burke, Edmund, quoted on
Religion and Society on Pro
testantism, 337, note.
Burley, William, Jesuit lay
brother in Charles County,
433. note.
Bull of Demarcation, Appendix
H.
Calendar, Revision of, 135, note
2.
Camarthen, Lord, Lord Holt's
reply to, 347.
Campbell, Jno., Matapany sur
rendered to, 341, note.
Calvert, Benedict Leonard
son of Charles; divorce.
395; apostacy,, 395-6; fourth
Lord Baltimore, 396.
Calvert, Cecilius, Date of Mar
riage, Appendix B ; acquaint
ance with "Utopia," 25-6;
birth and marriage, 52;
name. 52, note 1; charter of
Maryland granted him as
first Proprietary, 52-3 ;
character and attainments
of 52,184, 313-322; Agreement
with Society of Jesus, Ap
pendix I ; his rights as Pro
prietary, 53-6, 59. note 1, 61-
65 p«ssiw,123,133, 137; liberal
policy, 54-6; Catholicity of.
61. 65-9. 151, 167-170, 174-175;
friend of Toleration, 61-2 66-
72, 112-121. 173. 203. 242, 244-
6, 274, 300-9, 317-18; inten
tions with regard to Mary
land, 59, note 1; 66-9, 295-305.
313-322; objections to his
plans, 67-77; sends first
colony to Maryland, 71-2;
defrays early expenses of
colony, 73-4; letters to
Brother Leonard, 113-114,
155, note, 160, note, 166, note;
Terms of land grants, 123-6;
the laws, 138; and Jesuits,
25-6, 148; and Secular Clergy,
151; letter to Lewger, 158;
royalist, 181; invites Puri
tans from Virginia to Mary
land, 192; authority recog
nized by third Assembly,
200 ; Parliamentary Party
and, 214, 218, note 1; "Rea
sons of State." 220; Clai-
borne and Puritans seize
upon Government, 223-7 ; and
Indians, 268, 319; efforts to
regain Province. 233-7, 241;
recovers jurisdiction, 242-6;
letter to Governor Fendall,
246; Fendall's Rebellion,
247-51; death, 313; neglect,
320-1; project for statue of,
321, note.
Calvert, George (I) his
acquaintance with Utopia,
25-6; birth and parent
age, 36; at Oxford, 36,
and note 2, p. 37; friend of
James I, 36, 37, 38 notes
1 and 2, 40-41; in
Parliament, 36-8; first mar
riage, 36; second mar
riage,, 37, note 1; .public
offices, 37; knighted, 37;
grant of Irish lands from
James I, 37-8; convert to
Catholicity, 38, 41, notes 2
and 3, 45; created Lord Bal
timore, 38, note 1, 39, 40-41
(the patent) ; in favor with
Charles I, 41; settlement in
Newfoundland, 39, note 1,
41-44, 296, note; in Virginia,
44-5, 296, note; Oath tender
ed, Appendix D; grant of
land south of the James, 46;
grant of Maryland, 46; inten
tions with regard thereto,
295-6; death, 46; character
and attainments, 47-51. 293,
335, note 3 ; statue of, 48,
note 4; friend of toleration,
42, 49, 112, 296; sons, Ap
pendix B; Second Wife,
Joan, Appendix B.
Calvert, George (II), brother
to Cecil, amongst first set
tlers in Maryland, 72, note 1.
Calvert, Charles (I), son of
Cecilius gift of colonists to,
307-8, 324; Governor, 323;
Lord Proprietor, 323; de
fends Maryland's religious
policy, 330-1 ; Coode's charges
against. 342, 345-7; proposals
in settlement of same, 346 ;
character and attainments,
323-4, 360; Charter vacated,
608
INDEX
348, 350; territorial rights
preserved, 357 ; Catholicity
of. 353; description of St.
Mary's, 365. note; aids mis
sionaries, 392; last days and
death of, ,395.
Calvert, Charles (II), son of
Benedict Leonard, fifth Lord
Baltimore, 396; Government
of Maryland restored to him
as Protestant Proprietor,
398; character, 397-8.
Calvert, Frederick, last Lord
Baltimore, 371-80; difficulties
concerning fees, 472; death
and character, 480-2.
Calvert Hall, statue at, 48, note
4.
Calverton Manor, reservation
for Indians, 268.
Calvert County, petitions from
Protestants in favor of
Charles Calvert, 344, note 2.
Calvinists, see Presbyterians.
Canada, Catholics in, 490 ; policy
of England towards, 490;
committee of three appointed
to go to Canada, 495; atti
tude of the people of Canada
respecting address of Con
gress, 500.
Canterbury, Archbishop of, in
_ council on Virginia Affairs,
*44-5; president of Commis
sion of Plantations, 99; John
Yeo's letter to, 324-9.
Carroll, Dr. Charles, " the
Apostate," quarrel with
Charles, 426, Appendix T.
Carroll, Charles (I), on Coode's
Revolt, 343; signs Petition
against Episcopalian intoler
ance, 379, note; at trial of
Frs. Brook and Hunter. 381.
•Carroll, Charles (II), Influence,
413, note; applies to French
Government for Catholic set
tlement, 414; acquaintance
with Gov. Sharpe, 417, note
2; contemplates leaving
Maryland (1856), 419; quarrel
with Dr. Charles Carroll,
426-27, Appendix T.
'Calvert, Leonard (I), father of
George, 36.
Calvert, Leonard (II), brother
of Cecil, amongst first col
onists and first Governor of
Maryland. 72, 73, 77: visits
Emperor of the Piscataways,
77-9; purcheses lands of the
Yaocomicoes, 79-80 ; charac
ter of, 102, 183; oath of alle
giance, 108; extent of Com
mission, 132-4; returns to
England, 176; puts down
Ingle's Rebellion, 183; policy
and death of, 183-4.
Calvert, Philip, brother to
Cecil ; Maryland Councillor,
243, Appendix B; signs
agreement with Puritans,
243; appointed Governor,
250; birth, 323, note 2.
Carlton, General, Address of
Canadian clergy and laity to,
Appendix Y.
Carroll, Charles of Carrollton,
debate with Daniel Dulany,
475-81 ; in convention of
Maryland, 488; on committee
to Canada, 496; member of
Congress, 501; conversation
with Chase on independence,
501; signs Declaration of
Independence, 502; Genea
logy of, Appendix U.
Carroll, Charles, Dr., advertise
ment, Appendix T.
Carroll, genealogy, Appendix
Carroll, James, signs petition
against Episcopalian Intol
erance, 379, note ; estate of,
426, Appendix T.
Carroll, Most Rev. Jno., on
Episcopalian Intolerance, 367 ;
with committee to Canada,
496-8; views on religious
toleration in United States,
509; Genealogy of. Appendix
\j .
Carville, Robert. disbarred
from law practice, 372.
Carmelites, in Newfoundland,
42, note 4.
Catholics, oppression of, see
under Intolerance and Penai
Laws; James I and, 118;
Charles I and, 118; loyalty of
the English, 15; in Virginia,
96; piety and culture of, in
Maryland, 46; number and
influence of, amongst first
Maryland colonists. 107-112,
194-5; in second Maryland
Assembly, 140, 143. 198-201;
and " Toleration Act," 198-
201; ineligible to Assembly
of 1654, 226; in "Act Con
cerning Religion," 227-231;
disabilities of, in Maryland
(1654), 232; "massacres,"
335-40, 354-6; disqualified
from holding office, 341;
petition against Episcopalian
intolerance in Maryland, 378-
INDEX
609
9; concessions of Queen
Anne to, 378, 380, note; at
tempt to oppose immigration
of, 387-8; population (1708),
388, note 3; increase of, 400,
414; deprived of franchise,
400-404; Protestant fear of,
404-5 ; proposed migration
to Louisiana. 412-13; suspect
ed of sympathy with French.
419-20; personal animosity of
Protestants for, 423; under
Episcopalian regime. 423-31.
Cecil County (Md.), Dutch and
French Labadists in, 266;
Protestant address to the
King, 344, note 2.
Cecil, Sir Robert. Geo. Calvert
Secretary to, 37.
Cedar Point Neck, Jesuit lands
at, 125, note 4.
Chapel, first, in Maryland. 85,
385; for Protestants at St.
Mary's, 96 note 1.
Charles I, see under Intoler
ance; marriage to Henriette
Marie, 20; friendships for
George Calvert, 41; gives
right of trade to Claiborne,
98; see under Puritans and
Catholics; Proclamation on
Transportation of Subjects
to America, 146-7; execution,
209.
Charles II. Catholic prayers at
birth of, 50. note 2; pro
claimed in Maryland (1649),
209; Claiborne's letter to,
332-3; "Complaint from
Heaven " addressed to. 330.
•" Charity, The," witchcraft
aboard. 261-2.
Charles County, petition of
Protestants to William III,
344, note 2; priests forbidden
to visit sick and dying in,
374.
Charier, Maryland, see under
Maryland; Church of Eng
land in, 57-65; see under
Toleration; A'acated, 348, 350,
353; restored to Charles (II)
Calvert, 396.
Chase, Rev. Mr., fears of a
massacre by Catholics. 428.
Chitomachen, Emperor, friend
liness with Maryland colon
ists, 78-9; conversion of, 88-
91.
Chesapeake Bay, Claiborne on,
98; in Reduction Act, 215.
Cheseldyn, Keuelm, joins in
Declaration of 1689, 339;
: signs Coode's " Declaration,'
340 ; Mattapany surrendered
to, 341, note 1; petitions
William III, 344, note 2;
after the Protestant Revolu
tion, 359, note 2.
Christisou, Wenlock, sketch of,
253-4.
Church of England, see Angli
can Church.
Church and State; see Union
between in Maryland, see
under Toleration and Intoler
ance, 171; in seventeenth cen
tury, 171-3.
Churches, funds for building,
438.
Cole, Josias, disturbing Quaker,
258; testifies against Lum-
brozo, 272-3.
Connecticut, Religious Tolera
tion in, 289.
Convention of Maryland, 488;
Federal Convention of 1787
in respect to religion, 504.
Congress, first of United States
in respect to religion, 504;
Address to Canadians, Ap
pendix Y ; Address to the
British Colonies, Appendix
Y; Intolerance of, Appendix,
Y; Address to Great Britain,
Appendix Y.
Coode, John, trial of (1681),
354-6; rebellion of, 340-
2; governs Maryland, 341,
344, note 2; later career,
357-9.
Copley, Sir Lionel, first Royal
Governor, 350-1, 361; letter
of Robert Carville to, and
answer, 372. note.
Claiborne, Captain William,
opposes settlement of George
Calvert south of the James,
46: rumor excited by. 75;
enmity and claims of, 97, 220,
222, 332-3; decision of Com
mission of Plantations, 99-
100; Treasurer of Virginia,
181 ; relations with Ingle, 180-
1; renews intrigues, 181-2;
insurrection under Governor
Harvey. 218; Acts of third
Maryland Assembly, against,
210;' Parliamentary Commis
sioner of Reduction, 214-18;
in Maryland. 223-6; charac
ter, 181. 221-3, 333; final ef
forts, 332-3.
Clarke, Robert. Catholic, Mary
land Councillor, 199, note 2;
trial and confession of, 232,
note.
Clergy Catholic, in Maryland,
610
INDEX
see Secular and Jesuit] ineligi-
bility to Assembly, 174, note;
first, 182-3; abused by Puri
tans (1656), 238; under Episco
palian regime, 369, 374-5, 376,
381-4, 400, 414, note 2; 415-
432-3, number returned by
Sheriff's census (1698), 433.
Cloberry and Claiborne, 333.
Colonists, names of first gen
tlemen, in Maryland. 72, note
1; number of first, in Mary
land, 109-111; religion of,
107-112.
Colony, see Maryland.
Conditions of Plantation, 122-
4.
Conner, Protestant Burgess,
200, note.
Clark, Captain, Johnson, a de
serter from company of, 420,
note.
Clouds, Richard, Mattapany
surrendered to, 341. note.
Cockshutt Thos., tool of Gov.
Hart, 406.
Collins, Thomas, Catholic of
Kent County, 433, note.
" Complaint from Heaven, etc.,"
330.
Congregational Church, see
Puritans.
Copley, see Fisher.
Cooper (S. J.), Father, de
parture for Maryland, 154.
note 2; in Virginia and
death, 182.
Cornwaleys, Cornwallis,
Thomas, Captain, Commis
sioner of Lord Balti
more and amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1; character and public
services, 103-6; religion, 104-
6; Dr. Smith on, ibid.; at
trial of William Lewis, 126-
7; apointed Councillor. 133;
share in Ingle's escape,
176-8; intrusts goods to Ingle,
178; treatment by Ingle, 185-
Coursey, Henry, witness for
Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 345, note.
Cowman, John, tried for witch
craft, 262.
Coxe, James, Speaker of the
Assembly. 269.
Cranfield, Edward, amongst
first colonists in Maryland,
72, note 1.
" Crescentia," name intended
for Calvert's colony, 46, note
" Crescite at Multiplicamini,"
the motto, 46, note 2.
Curtis, deposes Gov. Stone,
223.
Cromwell. Oliver, and the
Penal Laws, 13; tri-umphs
over Royalists, 214; pro
claimed in Maryland, 224,
note 1, 227; letters to Rich
ard Beunet, 233-4, 239, notes;
and Maryland Puritans, 234-
5; letter from Luke Barber,
236; relations with Benuet,
238-9.
Crossland. Alicia, mother of
George Calvert, 36.
| Cromwell, Richard, proclaimed
in Maryland, 273-4.
Currency, first paper, in
America, 125.
Dankers, Jasper, Labadist lea
der in Maryland, 267.
Darnall, Henry, surrenders
Mattapany, 341, note; signs
petition against Episcopalian
intolerance, 379, note, Ap
pendix R.
Davis, Rev. Mr.. Fr. Hall's
license from, 369.
Davis, G. L. Religion of, 199;
on Assembly of 1649, 199-
201; on Cecilius Calvert. 319;
on Founders of Maryland,
312-322.
Declaration of 1650, 211-12;
showing illegality of Patent
of Maryland, 219; of Protest
ants (1682), 331-2; of repre
sentative Protestants (1689),
339-40; Coode's. 340.
Delaware, Religious Tolera
tion in. 289.
Denis, Captain Robert, Par
liamentary Commissioner of
Reduction, 214.
Darrell. Thomas, amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
Doughoregan Manor, Mass-
House at, 378, note 3.
Doughty, Francis, first Presby
terian pastor in Maryland,
263-4.
Douglass, Early historian, Ap
pendix Q.
" Dove, The," vessel of Lord
Baltimore, 73; interest deeded
to Leonard Calvert, 74, note
1.
Dnlany, Daniol opinion on
James Carroll's estate. 427,
note; debate with Charles
Carroll of Carrollton, 474-80;
INDEX
611
in Maryland Gazette, contro
versy with Charles Carroll,
Durham, a model for Palati
nate of Maryland, 64-5.
Dutch in Maryland, 285, 268,
note.
Durand, William, Refugee in
Maryland. 193; Commissioner
under Claiborne, 226.
Eden, Governor, Proclamation,
473.
Elizabeth, Queen, see under
Intolerance, Rcliyiou*.
Elston, James, " Papist "
schoolmaster, 412, note.
England, Church of, see
Anglican Church.
England, oppression of Catho
lics in, 13-20.
Episcopalian Church in Mary
land, John Yeo on, 324-9; the
established Church, 362, 368,
370-1; taxes for support of,
362; 437-8, 447-53; incorpor
ated, 368; clerical judges,
386-7; number and morals of
clergy, 367, 386, note; 398-9,
436-46, 464-8, 462-9; qualifica
tions for vestrymen. 437;
fruits of Establishment, 458-
61; "Free Schools," 463-5,
482-88.
Episcopalians, negroes in Mary
land under, 269-70; intoler
ance of, 362.
Episcopal clergy, spiritual
court for, 440; Immorality
of, 439, 441-443-455, 456, 458-
461-2-3-466; Total number in
Maryland until 1692; Protest
against reduction of tax
447: Salaries of, 450-3, 457
472; clergy cannot be re
moved, 467; Appendix W.
Expenses of early settlemem
of Maryland, 73-4, 307, note
2.
Fenwick, Mr. Cuthbert, re
demptioner, 310, note; Catho
lie Burgess. 200, note; de
scendants, 310, note.
Families, number of, in Mary
land, 448.
Fees, difficulties over, 472;
alienation. Appendix J.
Fendall, Josias, appointed
Governor, 242; arrested, 242;
signs articles of agreement
with Puritans, 243: letter
from Cecil Calvert, 246; and
Quakers, 258, 260; conspiracy
and treason of, 247-51; trial
of (1681), 354-6; intrigues
with Coode, 340, 354-6.
Ferfax, Nicholas, amongst
first Maryland colonists, 72,
note 1.
Ferrara. Cardinal, on ortho
doxy of L'Hospital, 24.
Ferrylaud, Geo. Calvert's set
tlement of, in Newfoundland,
4-2-44.
Fisher, Father Philip (alias
Thomas Copley). at St.
Marv's, 88; claims lands, 125.
note 4; condemns conduct of
Lewis, 127, supersedes Father
White, 156; early life and
character, 156-7; and Lew-
ger, 156-9; sent in chains to
England, 159; letter to Cecil
Calvert, 171-2; excused from
Assembly, 173, note 1.
Fitzherbert, Father Francis,
witness to hanging of Mary
Lee, 262.
Fleet, Captain, Protestant
Interpreter, 78.
Flood, Indian knowledge of
the. 88.
Fosset, John, testifies against
Lumbrozo, 272.
Fox, George, quoted on Mary
land Quakers.
Franciscans in Maryland (1634-
1700), 432.
Franchise in Maryland, obliga
tion of, 137-8; denied to
Catholics. 226, 400-404; in
Rhode Island, 281.
French; in Maryland, 285. 266,
note; in Rhode Island, 284.
" Freeman, "distinguished from
" Free-Holder," 131, note 2.
Friends, see Quakers.
Fuller Win. Commissioner
under Claiborne, 226; leads
Puritans against Governor
Stone, 237; treachery of, 237;
surrenders government, 243;
involved in Fendall's re
bellion, 248.
Georgia, see under Intolerance.
Gerard, Richard, one of first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
Germans, in Maryland, 266,
note.
Gerrard, Sir. Thomas, settle
ment of, in Newfoundland,
27; father of Richard, 72,
note 1.
Gerrard (Gerard), Dr. Thos.,
grant to St. Clement's Manor,
76, note 2; fine of, 128-9.
Gervase, Brother, amongst
612
LNDEX
first missionaries to Mary
land, 74.
Gibbons, Captain, Cecil Cal-
vert's letter to, 192.
Gibbons, Cardinal, Preface;
on " Toleration Act," 198; on
attitude of Catholics towards
Protestants in United States,
511.
Gilbert, Sir Humphrey, settle
ment of, in Newfoundland,
27.
Gilmett, Father, departure for
Maryland, 154, 155, notes, 161.
note.
Gladstone. on Religion in
Maryland, 311; on toleratioij
in Maryland, Appendix P.
" Golden Lion " fires upon
Gov. Stone's party, 236-7.
Goodale, Elizabeth, victim of
witchcraft, 262.
Gookin, Daniel, Puritan settler
near Newport News, 191-2.
Gorton, Samuel, fanaticism of,
147.
Gravenor, John, see Allham.
Greene, Henry, amongst first
Grievances of Protestants, 412-
414.
colonists in Maryland, 72, note.
Greene, Thomas, oath of the
Brent sisters, 189; Maryland
Councillor, 195; Catholic.
195, 199, note 2; proclaims
Charles II. 209, 214.
Gregory XIII (Pope), revision
of calendar, 135, note 2.
Groom, Samuel, witness for
Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 134, note.
Guilford, Lord, guardian of
Charles (II) Calvert, 398,
note 1. 406.
Gulick. Father, at St. Inigoes,
433, note 1.
Halifax, Earl, memorial to.
Appendix R.
Holt, Rev. Arthur, on Catho
lics of St. Mary's Countv,
456.
"Holy Church, 12; in laws of
Second Maryland Assemblv.
138-145; Appendix G.
Hnckett. Rev. Father, in New
foundland, 42; in Virginia,
44. note 2.
Hall, Clayton, on George Cal
vert, 47, 65, 481-82; on Cecil
Calvert, 315-16.
Hall, Father Jno., called to ac
count for marriage ceremony
at St. Inigoes, 433, note.
Hall, Mr., tool of Gov. Hart,
369, 406.
Hartwell (S. J.), Father, de
parture for Maryland, 154,
note 2.
Hart, Governor, Catholics un
der, 390, 398-9, 405; on
Episcopalian Clergy, 398-9;
and " book incident," 404-5;
treasonable designs, 406-7.
Hart, Governor, about Jesuits
and Ministers, 442.
Harvey, Governor (Va.), in
surrection under, 218.
Hammond, John, 97; quoted on
Puritans in Maryland, 193-4,
213-225.
Hatch, John, engaged in Fen-
dall's rebellion, 251.
Hatton, Thomas. Maryland
Councillor, 195 ; Protestant,
195, 199. note.
Hawks, Rev. F. L., quoted on
Character of George Calvert,
48; beginnings of Maryland,
278; on invitation to Puri
tans of Massachusetts, 146;
on character of Cecilius, 317;
on Puritan intolerance, 227;
on Anglican intolerance. 371,
434; on Anglican clergy, 439-
40. 442-443; on Penal Laws,
377; on conditions of clergy
in Maryland, 460.
Ilawley, Jerome, Commissioner
of Lord Baltimore and
amongst the first colonists in
Maryland, 72; councillor of
Maryland and treasurer of
Virginia, 102. 132.
Ilayward, Mr., Chapel at house
of, 433, note 1.
Hemsley, Mrs., principal in
" book incident," 404-5.
Henderson, Jacob, accusation
against Governor Hart, 406-
7; position and character,
407, note.
Henriette Marie, marriage of,
19-20 ; Maryland named after,
46, note 2.
Herman, Augustine, Bohemian
settler in Maryland, 235-6;
Labadists and, 267.
Herman. Ephraim, Labadists
and, 267.
Heron Island, not identical
with St. Clements, 76, note
o
Hervey, Sir Jno., visits Gov
ernor Leonard Calvert, 92;
note 4.
Hill, Captain John, amongst
INDEX
613
first settlers in Maryland,
72, note 1.
Hill. Clement, surrenders
Matapany, 341, note.
Holt, Lord, on appointment of
Royal Governor, for Mary
land, 347-8; approves Cop
ley's Commission, 350-1.
Hugnenots, L'Hospital and
the, 23; in Rhode Island,
284.
Hughes, Archbishop, on divine
right of Kings, 477.
Hunter, Father Wm., trial of,
before Governor Seymour,
381-4; "book incident," 404-
5; at Port Tobacco County,
433, note.
Hubbert, Richard, Franciscan
priest in Charles County,
433, note.
Immorality of Episcopal
clergy, 349-445, 455-460.
Indians, see under Piscataways,
Yaocomicoes, Archihu, Anacos-
tans, Putuxent, Kittamaquund,
Chitomacheu, amazed at Cal-
vert's expedition, 75; be
haviour of, towards Mary
land colonists, 77-9; purchase
of lands from, 79-80; conver
sion of, 81, 85, 94, 150, 182,
183; relations of Maryland
colonists with, 77-82, 85, 92-3;
character and habits of. 86-
8; religion of, 87-8; Clai-
borne and, 75, 101, note;
rights to soil, 163-6; Lord
Baltimore's reservation for,
268; rumors of massacre by
Papists and, 337-40, 354-6.
Ingle, Captain Richard, records
destroyed by, 29, note 1;
brings over Secular clergy,
155, notes, 178; plots and ma
chinations of, 176; escapes
arrest, 176-7; takes St.
Mary's 178; character of, and
his crew, 178; relations with
Claiborne, 180-1, 183; treat
ment of Cornwaleys, 185-7;
" Apologia " to Parliament,
187-8.
Intolerance, Religious, in Eng
land, 13-22, 66-69; under
Queen Elizabeth, 15-16; un
der William III, 14; under
James I, 16-18; Charles I, 19-
21; under Cromwell, 13; in
Newfoundland, 43; in Mas
sachusetts, 49, 61, 115-117,
147-8; in Virginia, 60, 278; in
Georgia, 60; in New Eng
land, 84, see Massachusetts,
119-121; in Rhode Island,
274; in Maryland, 97,213,227-
251, 261-3, 272-3, 281-5, 341,
362-4, 366-414; in Pennsyl
vania, 288; see Appendixes
A, L, M, N.
Ireland, persecution of Catho
lics in, 14; grant of lands to
George Calvert in County
Longford, 37-8, 41.
Isle of Wight County (Va.),
Puritans settle in, 191.
Italians in Maryland, 265.
James I, see under Intolerance,
character of and preroga
tives claimed by, 16-17; his
friendship for George Cal
vert, 36, 37, 38, notes 1 and
2, 40-41; dislike for Puritans,
117-118; disputes with Dr.
Reynolds, 117.
James II, grants Religious
Toleration to New York, 289;
attitude towards Maryland,
333-4.
James, Rev. Mr. in Newfound
land, 42, Appendix W.
James River, grant of land to
George Calvert south of, 46.
Jamestown, George Calvert, at,
44-6.
Jansenists, Labadie and, 266.
Jesuits, early relations of the
Lords Baltimore with, 25-6,
69; in Newfoundland, 42,
note 4; labours among In
dians of Maryland, 81, 85,
88, 94-95, 150, 153, note 1, 182,
183; number of early, in
Maryland, 182; Captain Corn
waleys, and, 103-6; and oath
of allegiance, 108-9; and
Toleration, 113, 148, 172;
lands in Maryland, 125, 149,
160, note, 412, note, 414, note;
415-17; summoned to Second
Assembly, 137. note 1; dis
pute with Cecil Calvert, 148-
178, 387; and Ingle's gar
rison, 180; Labadie and,
266; under Episcopalian
regime, 381-4, 389-90, 399,
404-5, 407-8, 412, note, 414,
note; number in Maryland,
1634-1771, 432; number in
colony, Appendix V; Agree
ment with Lord Baltimore,
Appendix I.
Joseph, William, presides over
Assembly of, 168, 334; sur
renders Mattapany, 341, note.
614
INDEX
Jefferson, Thomas, letter to
Archbishop Marechal. 510.
Jenkins, Austin, and children,
descendants of Sir Edmund
Plowden, 46, note 3.
Jenkins, M. C., on George Cal-
vert, 38, note 2.
Jews, in " Toleration Act,'
204-6; in Catholic Maryland
271-4; in Rhode Island, 274,
284.
Johnson, accuser of Father
Neal, 419-20.
Johnson, Bradley T., on tolera
tion in Maryland, pp. 66, 69;
on colonists, 111, 112; Ap
pendix P.
Jowles, Henry, joins in
Declaration of 1689, 339;
Mattapany surrendered to,
341, note 1, 343.
Keepers of Liberties of Eng
land, authority extended to
Maryland, 223; dismissed by
Cromwell, 244, Appendix M.
Kennedy, J. P., argument on
religion of George Calvert,
38, note 2, 41 note 2; quoted
on Toleration Act, 202.
Kent, Chancellor, quoted on
rights of Indians to soil,
163-6.
Kent County, petition from
Protestants, in favor of
Charles Calvert, 344, note 2;
the justices thank King Wil
liam II for freedom from
Popery, 344, note 2.
Kent Island, claimed by Clai-
borne, 97-101, 181-2, 219, 332-
3; possessed by Claiborne,
221; represented by Protest
ants, 140. note 1.
Killuck, Father, " book inci
dent," 404-5.
Kipling in Yorkshire. George
Calvert born at, 36; location,
36, note 1 ; Appendix B.
Kittamaquund, Emperor, edu
cation and baptism of
daughter of. 93-4; gives
lands to Father White, 160,
note.
Knott. Father Edward, letters
of General S. J. to, 154, 168-
70.
Kurlinge, John, surrenders
Mattapany, 341, note.
Labadie, Jean de, life and sect,
266.
Labadists, in Maryland, 266-7.
Lands, Grant of, in Maryland,
Indians to, 163-6; gifts by In
dians, 149, 160; rights of In
dians, 163-6; attempt to void
rights of clergy to, 415.
Laud, Archbishop, hostility to
Puritans, 118-119; policy to
wards Catholics, 119.
Laws relating to land of ab
origines, 163-6, notes; Appen
dix H.
Laws, see Penal, in Maryland
on Toleration, 127-8; of first
Assembly, 132, 227-279. note;
of second Assembly, 138; re
lating to the Church and to
Toleration, 138-146; Intoler
ant in Maryland, see under
Intolerance
Lechford, Sir Richard, invest
ment with Leonard Calvert,
74; letter to same, 147, note
1.
Lee, Mary, hung for witchcraft,
261-2.
Leydeu, John of, tenets and
behaviour of, 2.
Lewger, Jno., opposed by Capt.
Cornwaleys, 104; appointed
Councillor, 133; Secretary of
Maryland, 134; other life
and character, 134-5; public
offices, 157-8; difficulties
with Father Copley and
Jesuits, 158-9; letter to Cecil
Calvert, 158, note, 2.
Lewis, Wm., trial of, 128-8;
Appendix E.
L'Hospital, Michel de, cham
pion of Religious Tolerance.
22-4.
Liberty, Religious, not
synonymous with Toleration,
7; note 2; see Toleration.
Lillingston, Rev. Mr., witness
for Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 345, note.
jUingard, quoted on Oath of
Allegiance, 108, Appendix A.
Long Island, Sir Edm. Plow-
den's attempted settlement
in, 46, note 3.
Louisiana, Charles Carroll of
D. projects Catholic settle
ment in, 414.
London, Bishop of. on Religion
in Maryland, 329-30; Mr.
Bertrand s letter to, 342, note
2, 434, 444, 447, 452.
Longueville, Father, in New
foundland, 42.
Lumbrozo, Jacob (alias John),
trial for blasphemy, 272-4;
INDEX
615
Lord Baltimore grants citi
zenship and trade, 274.
Lower House, Intolerance of,
374-75, 384, 397, 411-414 with
notes, Appendix Q.
Mackdonall, Catholic in Kent
Co., 433, note 1.
McMahon, Jno, V. L., quoted
on Maryland Charter, 53; on
Powers of the Proprietary, 56-
7; on Expenses of Establishing
the Colony, 74; on Settlement
of Maryland, 81-84; on Clai-
borne's Claims, 101 ; on
Toleration in Maryland, 145-
6; on Character of Cecil Cal-
vert, 316, on John Yeo,328; on
salaries of clergy, 328; on
Vacating of Maryland Char
ter. 351, 353; on Maryland's
Golden Age, 352; on Protes
tant Revolution, 359-60; on
St. Mary's, 365-6; sketch of,
84, note 1; on rents, Appen
dix J.
Magua Charta, 12 " Holy
Church" in, 139-142; Catho
lic clergy under, 172; model
for Maryland Charter, 65,
295; Appendix G.
Manning. Cardinal, quoted on
Toleration, 21-2.
Mather, Cotton, on Religion in
Rhode Island. 285.
Mai thews, Thomas, confesses
Catholicity, 232, note.
Maunsell. Mr., Catholic Burg
ess, 200, note.
" Marianna," name proposed
for Calvert's colony, 46, note
2.
Marriage in Maryland, 174,
note, 369.
Mary, the Indian Princess, 93;
her baptism, 94.
Maryland, third Governor, see
Fendall, witchcraft in, 261-3;
fourth Governor, see Philip
Calvert; fifth Governor, see
Charles (I) Calvert; Protestant
clamor and discontent, 324-
340; Protestant Revolution,
— ; Coode's Rebellion. 340-
7; Charter vacated, 348, 350;
first Royal Governor, see
Lionel Copley; Royal Gover
nors, see Nicholson, Seymour,
Hart, Bladen ; small increase
of Population (1689-1710),
392-4; Proprietary Govern
ment restored, 396; Rupture
between Proprietary and
people, 471-480; convention of
Maryland, 488; Gazette, on
Quebec Act, 493.
Maryland, divisions of Religi
ous History in, 28-34; grant
of, to George Calvert, 46;
the motto of, 46, note 2; the
name, 46, note 2 ; descendants
of Sir Edmund Plowden in,
46, note 3; first Proprietary
of, see Cecil Calvert; nature
and extent of Charter of,
53-56; a fief of the King, 54,
55, note 1; intentions of
Cecil relative to, 59, note 1,
66-9; first expedition of Cal-
verts to, 71-84, 300; expenses
of settlement, 73-4, 307, note
2; first Governor, see
Leonard Calvert (II) ; treat
ment of Indians in, 77-80, 85',
92-3, 268, 319; Jesuits in, 81,
86, 94-6, 148-175, 182; first
Chapel in, 86; Claiborne's
claims, 97-101; see under
Toleration and Intolerance,
Proprietaries, Assembly, Catho
lics, Protestants; terms of
land grants, 123-6; govern
ment reorganized. 132-4;
franchise in, 137-8; fewness
of settlers in, 146; Secular
Clergy in, 149; Ingle's Rebel
lion, 176-183; second Gover
nor, see William Stone,
"Toleration Act," 197-208;
in Parliamentary Act of Re
duction, 214-15, 216, note;
Virginia's jealousy. 219-224,
241; Claiborne and Puritans,
218, 223-7; Boundary Dis
putes, 220-1, 233-4. 239, notes,
240-1; Lord Baltimore re
covers jurisdiction, 242-6;
Fendall's Rebellion, 247-51; a
Catholic Colony, 310.
Massachusetts, see under Intol
erance, Puritans ; Religious
Toleration, in 289.
Mass, first in Maryland, 77;
forbidden, 376, note.
Mass-Houses, 378, 412, note.
Mattapany, Jispute regarding,
161-3, 168-70; surrender of
garrison at. 341.
Matthews, Virginia insurrec
tionist, 218; palliates Ful
ler's treachery. 237; agent
for Virginia in boundary
disputes, 240; settlement
with Lord Baltimore, 242;
see Appendix N.
Mayer, Brantz, quoted on
616
INDEX
Legislation of Second Mary
land Assembly, 144.
Medcalf, John, amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
Meyor, Peter, Swiss settler in
Maryland. 266, note.
Middleburgh, Labadie at, 266.
Ministers in Maryland, 438;
See Appendix W.
Missionaries, see Clergy.
Montague, Lord, loyalty and
sentiments of, 15.
Morden, early historian, Ap
pendix Q.
More, Father Henry, adviser of
the Lords Baltimore, 25-6;
quoted on Religion of first
Maryland Colonists, 109.
More, Sir Thomas, birth and
death of, 22, note 3;
"Utopia," 24-5; family and
descendants, 26.
Morley, John, quoted on
Persecution of Catholics in Ire
land, 14.
Mulatto children, sale of, 439.
Mynne, Anne, wife of George
Calvert, 36.
Mynne, John, George Calvert's
father-in-law, 36.
Neal. Father, accused of fo
menting rebellion, 419-20.
Negroes, treatment in Mary
land, 269-70; rumored cabals
of (1756), 428.
Neill, Rev. E. D., on "Tolera
tion Act," 198, 200; " Cecil
Calvert and Toleration, 245;
on toleration in Maryland,
Appendix P.
New England, see under In
tolerance; Claiborue's right
to trade with, 98.
Newfoundland, settlement of.
by Gilbert, Peckham and
Gerrard, 27; George Calvert's
Palatinate in, 41-44.
New Hampshire, religious tol
eration in, 289.
New Jersey, Sir Edw. Plow-
den's attempted settlement
in, 46. note 3; religious
toleration in, 289.
New York. Religious Tolera
tion in, 289.
Nicholett, Charles, turbulent
Presbyterian minister, 264-5.
Nicholson, Gov., and Coode,357;
King William's Instructions
to, 367; Proclamation against
Priests visiting sick the,
374-5; opinion of clergy, 439.
Nova Scotia, Claiborne's right
to trade with, 98.
Oaths of Governor of Mary
land, Appendix F.
Oath of Abhorrency in Mary
land, 403, note.
Oath of Allegiance, controversy
on, 108; George Calvert and,
41, note 3, 45; Leonard (II)
Calvert and, 108; changed,
338, note 2; in Maryland,
402, note; Appendix D.
Oath of Supremacy, George
Calvert and, 41, 45; changed,
338, note 2.
Oath, revised, for Maryland
Governor, 129, 195, 208; re
vised, for Maryland Bur
gesses, 210-13; Quakers and,
of Fidelity, 257, 259 ; see Test.
" Objections " to Cecil Cal
vert's colonial scheme of
Toleration, 66-9; "answered"
ibid., 112, note 2.
Office, Congregation of Holy,
and Secular Missionaries, in
Maryland. 153.
Ogilby, early historian, Ap
pendix Q.
Oliver, historian 116-117 on Jes
uits, and Ministers, 150, 445.
Oxford, George Calvert at, 36,
and note 2, 37; Cecil Calvert
at, 52, 134.
Parliament, George Calvert in,
36, 37; Ingle acts under au
thority of, 178; Ingle's
Apologies to. 187-8; Act for
Reduction of Rebellious Pro
vinces (1651), 214; annuls
Maryland Charter, 218, note
1.
Peake, Catholic Burgess, 200,
note.
Palmer's Island, claimed by
Claiborne, 221.
Paris, treaty of, 470.
Parks, naturalized, 266.
I'arsons, Rev. Robert, con
sulted on Winslade's enter
prise, 27-8.
Pascataway, grants of land at,
160. 166, note 1.
Patuxent, King of, his love for
the English, 92-3; Father
Roger Rigbie among Indians
of, 94.
Peckham, Sir George, settle
ment of, in Newfoundland,
27.
Penal Laws, enforced by
INDEX
617
Cromwell, 13; in Ireland,
j.4: under James I, 18; un
der Charles I, 20-21; in Mary
land. 227-231, 369-370, 372-384,
387-392, 400-404; 410-411.
Penn, Wm., compared with
Cecil Calvert, 314.
Pension given Geo. Calvert by
James I, 39, note 1.
Pennsylvania, see under
Toleration.
Pestilence (1697-8), 374.
Petition of eleven Protestants
against Coode, 349.
Pile, John, Maryland Council
lor. 195; Catholic, 195, 199,
note 2; Confession in Court,
232, note.
Philips, Father. receives
faculties for Maryland mis
sionaries, 152.
Philips, Captain, witness for
Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 345, note.
Piscataways, see under Indians ;
Governor Leonard Calvert's
visit to, 77-9; Father While
among, 88-9 ; conversion of
Emperor and principal men
of, 89-91; lands of, given to
Father White. 160.
Plymouth, Wenlock Christisou
at, 253.
Port Tobacco, Father White
at, 94.
Plowden, Sir Edmund, his at
tempted settlement in New
Jersey and Long Island, 46,
note 3; descendants of, ibid.
Popham, Judge, and foreign
plantations, 48.
Potomeack, residence of
Archihu, 77.
Press, American, on Quebec
Act, Appendix Y.
Press, free, first in Maryland,
340, note 4.
Presbyterians, petition estab
lishment of Anglican Church,
341. note: treatment in Mary
land, 263-4; behaviour in
Maryland, 264-5; number of
Churches, 433-4; hated by
Charles II, 118-19.
Prescott, Edward, hangs a
witch, 263.
Price, John. Maryland Council
lor, 195; Protestant, 195, 199,
note 2.
Prince Charles, see Charles II.
Privy Council, George Calvert
. clerk to, 37; George Calvert
in, 38, note 2; 39, 41.
Proclamation of Gov. Eden,
474.
Proctor's, old name of Anna
polis, 361, note 2.
Propaganda, and Secular Mis
sionaries, for Maryland, 151-
153, 367.
Proprietaries of Maryland; see
under Maryland, Calvert;
rights of, see under Cecil
Caivcrt.
Providence, Puritan settle
ment in Maryland, 193.
Preston, Richard, Commis
sioner under Claiborne, 226;
surrenders government, 243;
testifies against Lumbrozo,
272-3.
Prince George County, " In
structions " on •' Papists,"
417, note; prejudice against
Catholics in, 429.
Printing Press in Maryland,
340, note 4.
Protestantism, see under
Anglican Church and Puri
tans ; "a State contrivance,"
18.
Protestant Revolution (1689),
see Coode ; causes of, 354-6,
359-60.
Protestants, in Newfoundland,
42-3; conversion of, in Mary
land, 95-6; at St. Mary's 96,
note 1; number amongst first
Maryland colonists, 107-111;
see under Anglican, Presby
terians, Puritans, Quakers ;
Episcopalians privileges in
Maryland. 121-22, 143-4, 195;
in 'Second Maryland As
sembly, 140, note 1, 198-201;
increase in Maryland, 191,
200, note; in Government of
Maryland, 195; in Third
Maryland Assembly, 209;
" Declaration " (1682), 331-2;
and Coode, 342-5; passim,
349 ; clamor of, and rumors ex
cited by (1687-8), 335-40, 354-
6; fear of Catholics, 404-5;
personal animosity against
Catholics, 423.
Proudhon, quoted on Property,
3.
Puddington, Geo., Protestant
Burgess, 209, note 2.
Puritans, oppression of Catho
lics by, 13; in New England,
49, 61, 84, 115-117, 119-121,
147-8; persecuted in Eng
land, 117-118; James I and,
117-118; Charles I and, 118-
119; invited from Massachu
setts to Maryland, 147-8; in
618
INDEX
Maryland, 172; in Virginia,
191-3; invited from Virginia
to Maryland, 192-3; settle
ment and influence in Mary
land, 193-5, 201; conduct in
Maryland, 212-13; and Clai-
borne, 218, 223-4; uprising in
Maryland, 225-7; defeat Gov.
Stone, 236-7; abuse Mission
aries, 238; witchcraft, 261-3;
Parliament, Acts of, Ap
pendix P.
Pye, Edward. surrenders
Mattapany, 241, note.
Quakers, excesses of, 2-3; perse
cution of, in New England,
120; in "Act Concerning Re
ligion," 228; in Masaschu-
setts, 253. note 1; treatment
in Maryland, 252-6, 260-1;
conduct in Maryland, 256-9;
under Episcopalian rule, 370-
71; in Sheriff's census (1698),
433; Appendix O.
Quebec. Catholics in, 490;
Quebec Act, 491; how act
was viewed in United col
onies, 491-5; expressions of
Congress concerning Quebec
Act. 492-4; Hamilton on
Quebec Act, 492-3: Maryland
Gazette on Quebec Act, 493;
Allen on, Appendix Y.
Quit-Rents, Appendix J.
Rainsford, Rev. Mr., on Jesuits,
407-8-9; on Ministers, 443-
445.
" Reasons of State," Cecil Cal-
vert's, 220.
Redemptioners, in Maryland.
30, 191; honored names
among. 131, note 2.
Reformation, Religious Tolera
tion after the, 11.
" Reformation, The," Captain
Ingle's ship, 178.
" Relatio," of Father White,
74, note 1.
Religion, of the Maryland In
dians, 87-8; of Captain Corn-
waleys, 104-6; of first Mary
land Colonists, 107-112.
Rents (Quit), nature of in
Maryland, 124-5; Jesuits ob
ject to payment in corn, 149;
Appendix J.
Reynolds. Dr., disputes with
James I, 117.
Rhode Island, Toleration in,
274, 279-85, 287.
Richardson, Elizabeth, hung
for witchcraft, 263.
Rigbie, Father Roger, among
Patuxent Indians, 94; de
parture for Maryland, 154,
note 2; in Virginia and
death, 182.
Rivers, Rev. Anthony, see
Smith.
Robing, George, witness for
Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 345, note.
Rosetti, Mgr. (Nunico in
Belgium), and Maryland
Missions, 152-4.
St. Clement's Island, first
landing place of Maryland
colonists, 76-7: situation and
identity of, 76, note 2; in
cluded in grant of St. Cle
ment's Manor, ibid. ; descend
ed to Blackistons, ibid.
St. Clement's Manor, see the
above.
St. Joseph's Church (Phila.),
Mass in Colonial Days, 288.
St. George's Island, lands of
Jesuits, 125, note 4.
St. Inigoes, lands of Jesuits,
125, note 4, 166, note 1.
St. Mary's laying out of, 79,
note 2, 80; Father Philip
Fisher at, 88; Protestants at,
96, note 1; grants of land at,
124, 125, note 4, 166, note 1;
relations of Mattapany to,
162, note 2; taken by Ingle,
178-80; retaken by Leonard
Calvert, 182; seized by Coode,
340; Capitol removed from,
364; Charles Calvert's de
scription of, 365, note;
Father Brooke at, 382; clos
ing and fate of Chapel at,
384-5.
St. Mary's County, old name,
80.
St. Omer's, Maryland youth
educated at, 413-14, note, Ap
pendix R.
St. Thomas, lands of Jesuits,
125, note 4.
Saire, William, amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
Salem witchcraft, 261.
Salmon, early historian. Ap
pendix Q.
Sanders, John, amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
Sanford. Governor, letter of,
285.
Saunders, John, amongst first
colonists in Maryland, 72,
note 1.
INDEX
619
Scarborough, Colonel, and
Quakers, 255.
School, Episcopal condition of,
464-6.
Scharf, quoted on Maryland
Colonists and Indians, 93.
Secular Clergy, Jesuits object
to, in Maryland, 149, 152, 178 ;
sending of, to Maryland, 151,
432.
Severn River, Puritans settle
on, 193, 225; engagement on,
236-7.
Sewall, Nicholas, surrenders
Mattapany, 341, note.
Seymour. Governor, intoler
ance of, 376, 388, note 1;
trial of two priests, 381-4;
Rev. Geo. Thorrold, before,
389-90.
Sharpe. Governor, attitude to
wards Catholics, 417-18, 421,
423-31; and Acadians, 422;
quoted on Religion of first
Maryland Colonists, 110; on
condition of Episcopal clergy
in Maryland, 462.
Sicks, ,T., patent granted to,
266, note.
Skippon, Rev. S., conduct of,
442.
Sluyter, Peter, leader of
Labadists in Maryland, 267.
Smith, Rev. Anthony, in New
foundland, 42; in Virginia,
44, note 2.
Smith, Rev. C. E., quoted on
Cecil Calvcrt. 320, note 2.
Smith, Barbara, wife of Rich
ard, 342, note 2; witness for
Lord Baltimore against
Coode, 342, note 2. 345, note
Smith, Richard letter on
Coode's revolt, 342, note 2.
Somerset County (Md.)
Quakers in, 255; Protestants
ask for a royal government
344, note 2.
South Carolina, Religious
Toleration in, 289.
Stagg, Thomas, Parliamentary
Commissioner of Reduction
214.
Stamp Act, 470-1.
State, Church and, see Unior
between Church.
Stille, Axtell. Swiss settler in
Maryland, 256, note.
Stone,' William. Second Gover
nor of Maryland, 195; Pro
testant, 195, 199, note 2;
signs Declaration of (1650).
211 ; Parliamentarian, 216,
note, 223; deposed, 223, 226;
issues Proclamation assert
ing rights of Proprietary
(1654), 224; upbraided by
Cecil Calvert, 235; atempts
to regain Province, 236-8; a
prisoner, 237.
Stony hurst, Mss., 41, 109; on
conditions under Parliament,
Appendix P.
Stourton, Rev. Erasmus, Pro
testant clergymen in New
foundland, 43.
Strafford, Lord, see Wentworth.
Sullivan, Gov., parents Re-
demptioners, 131, note 2.
Summer Isles, Act of Parlia
ment concerning, Appendix
Sunday law, in " Toleration
Act," 202, note 2, 205.
Supremacy, see Oath.
Stuyvesant, Governor, sends
embassy to Maryland, 265.
Susquehannas, depredations of
the, 80, 94.
Swedes, in Maryland, 266, note.
Tailler, Col., witness for Lord
Baltimore against Coode,
345, note.
Talbot County (Md.), Quaker
stronghold, 253, note 1; Pro
testant addresses to William
III, 344, note 2.
Taney, Michael, petitions the
King, 342, note 2; letters on
Coode's revolt, 342, note 2.
Tax, The Double, pp. 418-9;
Appendix Q.
Territt. Father, departure for
Maryland* 154, 155, notes,
161, note.
"Test" the, abolished, 13; in
Maryland. 373, 399, 401, 405.
Theodosius the Great, estab
lishes Christianity as State
Religion. 10.
Third Haven, Quakers at, 2o3,
note 1.
Thomson, Charles, a Redemp-
tioner, 131, note 2.
T'lioruborough, Mr., Catholic
Burgess, 200, note.
Thornton, Matt., a Redemp-
tioner, 131. note 2.
Thurling, confederate of Coode,
343
Thur'ston, disturbing Quaker,
258
Tibbs, Rev. Mr., conduct of,
441.
Tillieres, French Ambassador,
his description of George
Calvert, 37.
620
INDEX
Thorrold, Father Geo., before
GOT. Seymour, 389-90.
Toleration. Religious, absolute
or unlimited. 2-4; limited, 5-
7; in United States, 5-6; un-
•der Constantine the Great,
7-10; Catholic doctrines of,
7, 21 ; and the Reformation.
11; idea and theory of, 22-5;
Colonial schemes of, anterior
to the Calverts, 27-8; in
Newfoundland, 42-3; in
Pennsylvania, 60-61; in
Maryland, 28-35. 83-4. 96,
note 1, 97, 112-122, 126-131,
138-148, 184, 194-208. 212. 242-
6, 252-61, 263-4, 266, 271-5,
286, 290-309. 331-2, 352, 362-3:
Sir Edm. Plowden's colonial
scheme, 46, note 3; in" Mary
land Charter, 57-65, 113;
Jesuits and, 113, 148, 172; in
Rhode Island, 279-80; in
Pennsylvania, 288; in New
Jersey, 289; in Virginia. 289;
in other Colonies and States,
289.
Toleration Act, non-conform
ists under the, 14; Appendix
K.
Treby. Sir George, opinion on
Copley's Commission, 348;
prepares the same, 350.
Tobacco, 448-450, notes.
Thurloe, John, State Papers of.
Appendix N.
Union between Church and
State, under Theodosius the
Great, 10; after the Reforma
tion, 11-12; in England, 11-
13.
Unitarians in " Toleration
Act." 202, 205-6.
" Utopia." plan and argument
of, 24-5; acquaintance of Geo.
and Cecil Calvert with, 25-6.
Vaughan. Robert, Maryland
Councillor. 195; Protestant,
195, 199. note 2.
Verin, Joshua, and his wife's
conscience, 282, note 1.
Vermont, Religious Toleration
in, 289.
Virginia, see Jamestown ; see
Intolerance; see under Catho
lics; Charter annulled, 98;
Claiborne in, 98, 100. 218;
first settlers in. 125-6; Puri
tans in, 191-3; in Reduction
Act. 214; insurrection under
Harvey, 218; jealousy of
Maryland, 219-224, 241 ;
boundary disputes, 220-1,
233-4, 238, notes, 240-1; reli
gious toleration in, 289.
Walloon Church, Labadie ex
pelled from, 266.
Washington, George, address
of Catholics to, 505-7; reply
of, to Catholics 507-8; Ad
dress to Canadians, Ap
pendix Y; on celebration by
troops of " Pope's Day," Ap
pendix Y; instructions to
General Arnold, Appendix Y.
Washington, John, complains
of hanging for witchcraft,
263.
Watts, Captain, witness for
Lord Baltimore, against
Coode, 345, note.
Wardell, Mrs. Lydia, her per
formance at Newbury, 3,
note 1.
Waring, Wm., Secular priest
in Maryland, 432.
Warring, Humphrey, Matta-
pany surrendered to, 341,
note.
Watkius, '• London Searcher,"
107; Oath administered, Ap
pendix D.
Wentworth (Lord Strafford),
friend of the Calverts, 50,
69, 71, note 1; letter of
George Cnlvert to, 50-51; let
ters of Cecil Calvert to, 69-
71, 71, note 1; Appendix A.
Weston, Mr., Thomas, and the
Assembly, 137.
White, Father Andrew (alias
Thomas), life prior to emi
gration to Maryland, 74,
note 1; amongst first mis
sionaries to Maryland. 74;
writings. 74, note 1; among
the Piscataways.88-9; among
Indians at Port Tobacco, 94;
lands given to, by Indians,
160, note : excused from As
sembly. 173, note 1; in chains
to England and death, 182;
character, 182, note 2; quoted
on First Expedition to Marii-
land, on Expense of Maryland
Settlement, 73, note 1; on
Conversion of Indians, 81; on
Character and Habits of the
Indians, 86-88.
Wilkinson. Mr., settlers in
Maryland, 144.
W h e e 1 e r, Mr., accused by
Johnson, 420, note.
Wilhelm, L. W., quoted on
St. Michael's College
Russell, W. T.
Maryland
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11