184 
 A42 
 

MARYLAND TOLERATION ; 
 
 OR, 
 
 SKETCHES OF TOR EARLY HISTORY OF MARYIA^J, 
 
 TO THE YEAR 1650. 
 
 BY THE REV. ETHAN ^LLEN, 
 
 PEESBYTEE OF THE PEOTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHDECH, BALTIMOEE CO., MD. 
 
 BALTIMORE : 
 
 JAMES S. WATERS. 
 
 MDCCCLV. 
 
Entered, 
 
 According to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by 
 
 ETHA^^ ALLEN", 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the U. S. District Court, for the Distrir-t of Connecticut. 
 
 
MARYLAND TOLERATIOI; 
 
 SKETCHES OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF MARYLAND. 
 
 More than two years ago, the present writer drew up the following 
 sketches, at the request of some of his younger brethren in the Ministry, 
 who wished to have the facts of our early history before them. And at 
 the request of brethren whom he does not feel at liberty to refuse, he 
 now sends them forth in this form. In putting forth these sketches of 
 the early history of Maryland, it is right he should state, that he has 
 nothing to present, but what is already known to those who are familiar 
 with its beginning and its subsequent progress. And his purpose now 
 simply is, to set forth chronologically, such facts within his reach, as 
 have come down to us, and exhibit and illustrate directly or indirectly its 
 religious character and condition. He has endeavored to avoid putting 
 down mere probabilities, aiming to let the facts, as much as possible, 
 speak for themselves. 
 
 A. D. 1608. 
 
 THE FIRST EXPLORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY AND RELIGIOUS SERVICES. 
 
 The first permanent Colony which settled in Virginia, as is well 
 known, was a Church of England Colony; and settled there in 1607. 
 In June and July of the following year, the celebrated Capt. Smith, 
 Governor of Virginia, undertook to explore the Chesapeake Bay. In his 
 history of the Virginia Colony,* we learn, that he left Jamestown, the 
 second day of June, in an open barge of near three tons burthen, having 
 in his company, a physician, six gentlemen and seven soldiers. 13*6^ 
 returned in nine days. This voyage does not seem to have been satis- 
 
 * 1 Vol. p. 182. 
 
factory to hiin, for on the 24tli of July, he set out again, in order to 
 complete the discoveries which he had before commenced. He took now 
 with him a physician, five gentlemen and six soldiers. He apjjears at 
 Ihis time, (1608,) to have examined the Fiay and its shores to the Sus- 
 quehaniiah i)retty thoroughly ; excepting that part of the Eastern shore, 
 from Swann's point in Kent County, to the lower part of what is now 
 Dorchester County. This he passed without examination. 
 
 But he records — and it forms a beautiful introduction to our religious 
 history — that during the voyage of exploration, " our order was daily to 
 have Prayer with a Psalm." Thus early, as we are here shown, two hun- 
 dred and forty-six years ago, when the shores of the Chesapeake were 
 occupied by the wild Indians — and they pagans— and its waters for the first 
 time wafted on their surface the bark of the white man— did prayers and 
 hymns of praise ascend in the name of Jesus to the living God. It was 
 then, for the first time, that the shores and waters of our noble Bay re- 
 sounded with the teachings of God's Holy Word, the Bible, and with the 
 Services of His Worship. These men, the then Governor of Virginia, 
 and those with him, were not unmindful in the wilderness and on the 
 deep, of the God Who has all things in His hands. They were Christ- 
 ians, Church of England Christians, who had the book of Common 
 Prayer. They were men who prayed to God daily, and daily off"ered to 
 Him praise. Thus, with the very first sail of our Anglo-Saxon race, that 
 ever caught the breeze upon the waters of the Chesapeake— came the 
 Bible and the book of Common Prayer— and men of stout Christian 
 hearts to use them. " Our order was daily to have Prayer and a Psalm — 
 at which solemnity the poor savages much ivondered^ It was mdeed, 
 under the circumstances, a solemnity. It was no light thing, nor was it 
 done in a corner. The Indian himself saw— and seeing it he wondered. 
 
 1612. 
 
 THE EXTENT OF THE TERRITORY OF VIRGINIA. 
 
 In 1612, March the 12th, there was granted to the London or South 
 Virginia Company, the Charter known as the third and last Virginia 
 Charter. It is mentioned here, because it shows us the extent ot terri- 
 tory given at that time to that Company.* It states that it extended 
 " from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, all along the sea 
 coast northward two hundred miles ; and from the said Point or Cape 
 Comfort, all the sea coast southward two hundred miles. And all that 
 
 * 1 Hazzard, 1 3. 
 
space and circuit of land, lying from the sea coast of the precinct afore- 
 said, up into the land throughout, from sea to sea West and North- West," 
 etc. North thus of Point Comfort, the Virginia territory included all that 
 is now Maryland and Delaware, and one-third at least of New Jersey and 
 Pennsylvania. Maryland, therefore, that now is, was then a part of Vir 
 ginia ; it was all in Virginia territory and known as Virginia. 
 
 THE VIRGINIANS A CHURCH OF ENGLAND COLONY. 
 
 Now with respect to Religion in the " articles, orders and instructions," 
 etc., set down for Virginia Nov. 20, 1606, seven months after the first 
 Virginia Charter was issued, is found the following : " We do specially 
 ordain, charge and require the presidents and Councils [of the two Vir- 
 ginia Colonies] respectively, within their several limits and precincts, that 
 they with all care, diligence and respect, do provide that the true Word 
 and Service of God and Christian Faith, be preached, and planted, and 
 used," etc., " according to the doctrine, rites and religion, noiv professed 
 and established ioithin our realm of England.'' * In the second Charter, 
 that of May 23, 1609,f it is said, " we should be loath, that any person 
 should be permitted to pass, that we suspected to atfect the superstitions 
 of the Church of Rome. We do hereby declare, that it is our will and 
 pleasure, that no one be permitted to pass in any voyage, from time to 
 time into the said country, but such as shall have first taken the Oath of 
 Supremacy," &c. And the third Charter empowers certain officers there 
 specified, to administer the oath of Supremac}', which was also the oath 
 of allegiance,:j: to " all and every person, which shall at any time or 
 times hereafter, go or pass to the said Colony of Virginia." This oath 
 thus prevented any one from becoming a resident in Virginia, who could 
 not, or would not acknowledge the King, as the temporal head of the 
 Church ; and required the officers specified, to see it administered. The 
 Colony was thus consequently made a Church of England Colony. 
 
 And while upon this point, it may be well to add, that in 1619, the 
 Church of England was established in the Colony. And up to this 
 time, there had been neither papists nor puritans in it. "There is 
 reason however to believe," says Dr. Hawks,§ " that about this time, a 
 small number of puritans sought refuge in the Colony, but it was too in- 
 considerable to introduce any change in the religious opinions of the 
 people, and public worship continued to be conducted as it alioays had 
 been, in conformity with the Ritual of the Church in England.\\ In 
 
 * 1 Henning, 69. f 1 Hazzard, 72. % 1 Hazzard, 78. 
 
 § Hawks' Contributions Va., p. 35. | See Henning. 
 
6 
 
 1631-2 was enacted the following,— " It is ordered that there be a uni- 
 formity throughout this Colony, both in substance and circumstance to 
 the Canons and Constitution of the Church of England as near as may 
 be ; and that every person yield ready obedience to them, upon penalty 
 of pains and forfeiture in that case appointed." So late as 1639, twenty 
 years after the establishment of the Church in the Colony, several laws 
 were then made against the puritans ; and so rigorous were these laws, 
 that " none but conformists in the strict and most absolute sense were 
 permitted to reside in the Colony."* These however were made by way 
 of anticipation, for, says Burk.f " as yet there were none amongst them. 
 They were made to prevent the infection from reaching the country." 
 
 1624. 
 In this year, by the judgment of the Court of the King's bench, upon 
 a quo warranto, the Charter of Virginia was annulled, and on the 20th 
 of August, the Kingl "appointed and authorized for ordering, mana- 
 gino- and governing the affairs of the Colony, persons residing in the 
 part's of Virginia." Of the twelve thus appointed, three were subsequent- 
 ly Governors of the Colony, and among the others was William Clai- 
 borne.§ He came out first in 1621, 'To survey the planters' lands and 
 make a map of the country.' We mention his name here, because it 
 plays so conspicuous a part in after years. In this commission, the King 
 says, " We did resolve, by altering the Charters of said Company, as to 
 the point of government, wherem the same might be found defective, to 
 settle such a course, as might best secure the safety of the people there, 
 * * and yet with the preservation of the interests of evertj planter 
 or adventurer, so far forth, as their present interests shall not prejudice 
 the public plantations." 
 
 1625. 
 This year, on the 2Vth of March, King James died, and was succeeded 
 by Charles 1st. On the fourth of that month, previous to James' death, 
 a Commission was issued appointing Sir George Yeardly, one of the 
 before named C.ouncil, Governor, leaving out two others, but continuing 
 William Claiborne, and adds, " J^rasmuch as the affairs of state in said 
 Colony and plantation, may necessarily require some person of quality and 
 trust to be employed as Secretary, for the writing and answering such let- 
 ters, as shall be from time to time directed to, or sent from the said Gov- 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 198. \ 2 Buvk, 67. % 1 Hazzard, 191, 192. 
 
 § 1 Helming, 116. 
 
ernor and Council of the Colony aforesaid, our will and pleasure is, and 
 we do by these presents nominate and assign you, the said William Clai- 
 borne, to be our Secretary of State, of and for the Colony and plantation of 
 Virginia."* In using the word quality in this Commission, we are shown 
 something of the position in society of Claiborne, for it was " a word in 
 use, in those times, signifying men of the first rank in society under the 
 degree of nobihty, and synonymous to gentry^^\ 
 
 In the proclamation of Charles 1st, for the settling the plantation of 
 Virginia, dated May 13, 1625, it is said, that the repeal of the Charter^ 
 " was not intended to take away or impeach the particular interest of any 
 private planter, — the government of the Colony of Virginia, shall imme- 
 diately depend upon ourself — [before, it had depended on the London or 
 South Virginia Company] — and not be committed to any company, or 
 corporation to whom it may be proper, to trust matters of trade and com- 
 merce, but cannot be fit or safe to communicate the ordering of afi'airs of 
 state," etc. The officers in the Colony therefore now appointed, were to 
 be responsible to the King — and not to the Company, as before. These 
 commissions have been referred to here for future use in this sketch. 
 
 1627. 
 
 Gov, Yeardley was now dead ; and on the 20th of March, 162 7, John 
 Harvey was appointed Governor.§ The same commission appointing 
 him, continued Claiborne one of the Council, and also in his oflice of 
 Secretary of State. Thus under three successive Governors, he was a 
 member of the Council, and under two. Secretary of State. These 
 commissions, says McMahon,|| " abundantly evidence the high estimation 
 in which he was then held." 
 
 " During the years 1^26, V, 8,^ the Governors gave authority to Will- 
 iam Claiborne, 'the Secretary of State of this Kingdom,' as that most 
 ancient dominion was then called, to discover the source of the Chesa- 
 peake Bay, or any part of that Government, from the thirty-fourth to the 
 forty-first degree of North latitude. This was, as a learned Annalist 
 (Chalmers) alleges, " in pursuance of particular instructions from Charles 
 1st to the Governors of Virginia, to procure exact information of the riv- 
 ers and the country." McMahon says,** that he received these licenses 
 from the English government — licenses to trade under which he was 
 authorized to discover, &c. 
 
 * 1 Hazzard, 233, 4. f 2 Bozman, 100, note. % 1 Hazzard, 204, 5. 
 
 § 1 Hazzard, 234, 5. j p. 7, note. *![ 1 Bozman, 265. 
 
 ** p. 7 
 
1629. 
 
 While acting under these licenses, as Claiborne himself states in a peti- 
 tion to the King, in 1638,* " he discovered, and did then plant upon an 
 Island in the great Bay of Chesapeake, in Virginia, by them named the 
 Isle of Kent, which they, bought of the kings of the country, and built 
 houses, transported cattle, and settled people thereon, to their very great 
 costs and charges." He does not indeed state the year in which this was 
 done. But in a " Breviat of the proceedings of the Lord Baltimore,"! 
 it is stated that the Island called Kent was seated and peopled under the 
 Virginian government, three or four years befoi-e the King's grant to him," 
 that is. Lord Baltimore. As that grant was made in 1632, three or four 
 years previous, would be 1628 or 9. In a pamphlet of 1655, called 
 Virginia and Maryland,^ it is stated, that " the Isle of Kent was planted 
 almost three years, before the name of Maryland was ever heard of." 
 This too would fix that event to 1629. For the name Maryland was 
 given to the territory which still bears the name, in 1632. Such were the 
 statements of men high in office, to those high in office in England, who 
 all well knew the fact. 
 
 Claiborne thus discovered the Island ; purchased it of the Indians, and 
 then took up the lands on it according to the custom of the Colony at 
 that time.§ The settlement was at that time recognized as one of the 
 settlements of the Virginia Colony, and sent burgesses, who sat in the 
 Assembly of Virginia- 
 Kent Island is on the Eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay, at the 
 mouth of Chester River, opposite the city of Annapolis ; precisely in that 
 part of the Bay, which we have seen was not examined by Capt. Smith 
 in 1608 ; and was, as Claiborne says, discovered by himself. It is stated 
 in Scott's Geography of Maryland, to be fourteen miles long, by six and 
 one-half miles broad, and contains thirty-nine thousand acres. 
 
 Thus so early as 1629, Kent Island, then in Virginia, was occupied, 
 settled and cultivated by Virginians, under the government of Virginia. 
 And the preceding documents show not only that it was in V^irginia, and 
 a part of Virginia, but also that its settlers, of whom there were more 
 than one hundred, were of the Church of England, just as was its pro- 
 prietor himself._jNor was its proprietor inattentive to its religious inter- 
 ests ; for among the occupants there, was the Rev. Richard James, a 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 582. f 1 Hazzard, 628. X P- 9, see also 1 Hazzard, 621. 
 
 §Streeter'8 "Maryland two hundred years ago," p. 12. 
 
Clergyman of the Church of England,* if not from the beginning of 
 the settlement, yet within a very short time afterwards. It was the prior 
 settlement to that of St. Mary's, by five years; and was the nucleus, from 
 which subsequent settlements spread over to the main laud, in the Coun 
 ties now known as Kent, Queen Anne, and Talbot. And so true have 
 been those counties to their early Church, that to this day, only three 
 Romanist Chapels are found in their borders, and but one resident priest. 
 And so did the Church of that Island spread, that in 1692, when the 
 Church of England was established in the Colony, six parishes were 
 erected within its limits, one of which is known to have had four Church 
 edifices — St. Paul's, Queen Anne County. 
 
 In October, 1629,t Sir George Calveil, the first Lord Baltimore, a 
 Romanist nobleman, visited Jamestown in the Virginia Colonv. Imme- 
 diately on his arrival, the Virginia Assembly, then in session, as required 
 by the instructions before mentioned,^ caused the oath of allegiance and 
 supremacy to be tendered to him.§ The oath of supremacy, obliged him 
 who took it, to acknowledge the King as the temporal head of the Church 
 of England ; and the oath of allegiance, required submission and obedi- 
 ence to the King, as an independent sovereign. These oaths. Lord Balti- 
 more must have taken before in England ; but now he declined them, 
 and the Assembly contented itself by referring the matter to the King 
 and council.! Leaving Jamestown therefore, he sailed up the Bay to 
 examine it — but he could not have been long so engaged, for in the fol- 
 lowing January he was at home in England.*|[ 
 
 1631. 
 
 It has been already seen, that in the years 1626, 7, 8, William Clai- 
 borne was licensed, or commissioned according to instructions from the 
 King, by the Governor of Virginia, to trade and make discoveries in the 
 Chesapeake Bay, and that while so doing, he discovered and purchased 
 of the Indians Kent Island, and made a settlement there. This, as he 
 states in his letter to the King in 1638, Lord Baltimore took notice of. 
 And whether in the year 1630, he had heard of Lord Baltimore's appli- 
 cation for a grant, which would include Kent Island, and desired to make 
 his own title to it still more secure or not, he now himself made applica- 
 tion to the King, and obtained from him a license, which he seems to have 
 supposed, would secure to him his Island beyond question. This license 
 
 * Virginia Records, Mr. Streeter. •)• Mr. Streeter's Address, p. 2. :j:p. 3. 
 
 § 1 Bozman, 255. j) Hawks' Church of Va , p 47, 2d Br.rk, 25. 
 
 Tf Streeter, p. 11. 
 
10 
 
 bears date May 16, 1631, and reads thus: "These are to license and 
 authorize you, the said William Claiborne, one of the Council and the 
 Secretary of State, for our colony of Virginia, his associates and company 
 freely and without interruption^ from time to time, to trade for corn, furs, 
 &c., with their ship, boats, men and merchandise, in all seas, coasts, 
 harbors, lands, or territories in, or near, those parts of America, for which 
 there is not already a patent granted to others, for sole trade * * * 
 giving, and by these presents granting unto the said William Claiborne, 
 full power to direct and govern, correct and punish .such of our subjects, 
 as shall be under his command in his voyages and discoveries, etc."* 
 Now, when had patents for sole trade been granted? In the year 1629,f 
 a commission had indeed been granted to Captain Bass, by the Governor 
 of Virginia, to trade between the forty-first and thirty-fourth degrees of 
 north latitude — or to sail to New England, or the West Indies, — but 
 there was not one word in it, about sole trade. From the mere wording 
 of the King's license to Claiborne, it may not appear at first sight, to have 
 had any reference to Kent Island. But in his petition to the King, and 
 the Councils' decision thereon, in 1639, we are shown that it was so 
 understood. And it was supposed by Claiborne, and the King also, to 
 give him, that is Claiborne, the authority to govern the discoveries he 
 might make. The title to territory according to usage was to be deiived 
 from the Colonial authorities, but here was given him the power to exer- 
 cise Government. 
 
 In this year, 1631, was a second settlement pjade within the territory, 
 subsequently embraced in Lord Baltimore's charter — that of the Swedes \, 
 near what is now Wilmington, Delaware. In 1627,J a number of Swedes 
 and Finns came over to America, and purchased of some Indians, the 
 land from Cape Henlopen, on both sides of the Delaware Bay ; and 
 erected a fort on the West side of the Bay, near the Cape, not far from 
 what is now Lewistown, Delaware. This was for the purpose of defense 
 against the Indians in carrying on trade. But in 1631, the Swedes 
 erected a fort further up the Bay, on the same side, on Christiana Creek, 
 near what is now Wilmington ; and there, they laid out a town, and 
 made a settlement. ■ That settlement was soon cut ofl" by the Indians, 
 but the Swedes nevertheless continued to hold possession there. The 
 settlers of course were members of the Swedish Church. The beginning 
 of which Church there, was thus made. 
 
 1632. 
 We come now, to the time when Lord Baltimore obtained his Charter, 
 
 * 1 Bozman, 266, Tiote. f 2 Burk, 32. % \ Bozraan,- 260. 
 
11 
 
 or grant of Maryland. On the 25th of April of this year, Sir George 
 Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, died ; and was succeeded by his eldest 
 son, Cecil Calvert, as heir to his title and his estates. On the 1 6th of 
 the June following, a Charter was granted to this second Lord Baltimore 
 from Charles 1st, giving him that part of the territory of Virginia, extend- 
 ing from Watkins Point on the eastern shore of the Chesapeake, north- 
 ward to the fortieth degree of North latitude ; and from the ocean to 
 the Potomac west, containing more than eight millions of acres. This 
 grant. Lord Baltimore considered, as including the whole peninsula, 
 between the Delaware and Chesapeake, up to the fortieth degree of lati- 
 tude, which crosses the Delaware, a little above the city of Philadelphia ; 
 embracing thus, all of Delaware and Pennsylvania, up to that point. And 
 this is doubtless a true and fair construction of the boundaries given him. 
 
 This territory, the King named Maryland, the land of Maria, that 
 being the name of his Queen, and was given, as "a country hitherto 
 uncultivated, in the parts of America, and partly occupied by savages" — 
 in partibus Americce hactenus inculta et barbaris. This, however, was 
 not true. The Swedes, as we have seen, had planted a Colony on the 
 western shore of the Delaware, near half a degree, or thirty miles south 
 of the fortieth degree of latitude. But it may be admitted that Lord 
 Baltimore either did not know of this recent settlement, or that his north- 
 ern boundary would include it. But not so of Kent Island That had 
 been settled ihree years previous, by Church of England Virginians ; 
 and Lord George Calvert, who it is claimed drew up the Charter and 
 was there more than two years before this, knew it. Claiborne says, in 
 his petition to the King, 1638,* that Lord Baltimore took notice of it 
 when there. A pamphlet of 1655 says,f " that Lord Baltimore pretended, 
 though not truly, that the country was unplanted, and that his sugges- 
 tions to the king, that those parts were uncultivated and unplanted unless 
 by a barbarous people, not having the knowledge of God, was a misin- 
 formation." It certainly was not the fact. 
 
 Now, bearing in mind, that this Charter was given by a Protestant~ 
 King, of a thoroughly Protestant Kingdom, to a Romanist nobleman of 
 that kingdom, let us inquire what it says connected with, and bearing 
 upon religious matters. 
 
 In the first place, then, it says. Section 2d, of Lord Baltimore, that 
 " being animated with a laudable and pious zeal for extending the 
 Christian religion," &c. It may indeed have been the animating zeal of 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 582. f Maryland and Virginia, pp. 5, 9, 13. 
 
12 
 
 the fivst Lord Baltimore, to extend the Christian religion as he received 
 it, that is Romanism ; but we have very little proof that it was of the 
 second Lord Baltimore to whom the Charter was actually given. Besides, 
 it was a customary formula in Charters before granted, whether givea-to 
 Church of England-men, puritans, or Romans. Bozman says,* " this cant 
 pervades all the charters of North America, both French and English." 
 And we are not surprised that he should call it cant, when he advocatesf 
 " a total prohibition, enacted by law, against missionaries being permitted 
 to go among the Indians," and calls " planting Christianity among a 
 [this] people that knew not God, nor had heard of Christ, a false and 
 unfounded sentiment!" 
 
 The words, Protestant, or Roman Catholic, or their synonyms, are not 
 found in the Charter. All that is granted in it, therefore, is independent 
 .of any such expressed distinction. 
 
 In the 4th Section, however, " the patronages and advowsons of all 
 Churches, which, with the increasing worship and religion of Christ, 
 within the said region * * aforesaid, hereafter shall happen to be 
 built, together with the license and faculty erecting and founding Church- 
 es, Chapels, and places of worship, in convenient and suitable places 
 within the premises, and of causing the same to be dedicated or conse- 
 crated according to the Ecclesiastical laws of our Kingdom of England," 
 along with other rights and privileges, were granted to Lord Baltimore. 
 
 This, it will be perceived, confined the erecting and founding of 
 Churches and Chapels, and all places of worship, to his license and fac- 
 ulty. None consequently could be built but such as he should permit 
 and authorize. It placed thus the erecting of Protestant Churches, and 
 Roman Catholic ones also, at his will and pleasure ; so that if he saw fit 
 he could forbid and prevent any of either name from being built. 
 
 Again, it gave him alone, the right and power of presenting such 
 Ministers to the Churches built, as he should choose ; thus keeping it out 
 of the hands of the Bishops, or others, in the Roman Church on the one 
 hand, and of Protestant patrons, or the people on the other.' This was 
 not indeed worse in the Charter than in some cases in Eughxnd. For 
 the right of advowson, or the presenting of Protestant ministers in 
 England, was a privilege enjoyed by some Roman Catholic nobleman 
 there, as late as in the reign of William and Mary. The conferring 
 these powers thus, placed the Church, whether Romanist or Protestant, 
 in his hands ; it could not move a step, in the matters mentioned, onl) 
 
 * 1 Bozmaa, 185. f 2 Bozman, 3'.i9, note. 
 
13 
 
 as he should see good. And it took it out of the hands of the pope and 
 priests, as well as out of the hands of protestants. 
 
 But there was this restriction. Every Church edifice must be conse- 
 crated, if consecrated at all, according to the Ecclesiastical laws of the 
 kingdom of England. Now, according to these laws, no one could con- 
 secrate a Church or chapel> but a Bishop of the Church of England. 
 And Gibson in his ecclesiastical law,* and Burns from him, say, that 
 "after a new church is erected, it may not be consecrated without a com- 
 plete endowment." And both the Canon and the Civil law enjoin, that 
 the endowment be actually made before the building be begun. There 
 was indeed at this time, no form of consecration provided by law. One 
 was however in general use, drawn up by l^ishop Andrews. Thus, no 
 Church in the Colony could be consecrated, whether Church of England, 
 Roman Catholic, or Presbyterian, but by a Bishop of the English Church; 
 and not by him even, until a competent endowment for the support of 
 the Minister and Church was actually provided and secured. Thus far 
 the Romanist churches were subjected to the Protestant Episcopacy ; and 
 it was not to be avoided, but by not having them consecrated at all. 
 
 In the next place, the 10th Section of the Charter guarantees to all the 
 Colonists, without any distinction of Church names, all the privileges, 
 franchises and liberties of the kingdom of England. That section, so far 
 as immediately concerns this point, reads thus — " We will also, and of 
 our more abundant grace, for us, our heirs and successors, do firmly 
 charge, constitute, ordain and command, that the said province be of our 
 allegiance ; and that all and singular, the subjects and liege-men of us, 
 our heirs and successors, transplanted or to be transplanted into the prov- 
 ince aforesaid, and the children of them, &c., 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 reputed and esteemed, as the 
 faithful lipge-men of us, &c., also lands, tenements, revenues, services and 
 other hereditaments whatsoever, within our kingdom of England, and 
 other our dominions, to inherit or otherwise purchase, receive, take, have, 
 hold, buy, possess, and the same to use and enjoy, and the same to give, 
 sell, alien and bequeath ; and likewise all privileges, franchises and liber- 
 ties of this our kingdom of England, freely, quietly and i^^aceably to 
 have and possess, and the same may use and enjoy, In the same manner 
 as our liege-men of England, without impediment, molestation, vexation, 
 impeachment or grievance of us, or any of our heirs or successors; any 
 
 * See Article, Church. 
 
14 
 
 statute, act, ordinance or provision, to the contrary thereof notwithstand- 
 ing." 
 
 That these privileges, franchises and Uberties, include Ecclesiastical as 
 well as civil, is clear from the use of the word all, which excludes none, 
 particularizes none, and is restricted to no one class. This is also dis- 
 tinctly shown, by the Acts of the Assembly themselves. Thus, at the 
 Session of the General Assembly, there was an Act passed in 1640, 
 entitled, " An Act for Church liberties.^'' This Act itself, we have not ; 
 but in leYG, it was enacted as a perpetual law. And Bacon* tells us, it 
 enacted "that holy Church within this province, shall have and enjoy 
 all her rights, liberties and franchises, wholly and without blemish." 
 This, it is presumed, is sufficient to show, that these terms were intended 
 to include Ecclesiastical, as well as civil franchises, &c. 
 
 Such thus, was the guarantee to all those, who, under this Charter, 
 became colonists in Maryland ; whether Protestants or Romanists, it 
 secured to them the benefits of the rights and laws of England. 
 
 Finally, in the 22d and last Section, it is provided, that no interpreta- 
 tion of the Charter be made, by which the holy rites, or Service of God 
 and the true Christian Religion, may in any wise suflFer change, prejudice, 
 or diminution or, as the original is, 2>'roviso semjier, quod nulla fiat inter- 
 pretation per quam sacrosancto Dei, et vera Christiana religio, * * * immu- 
 tatione, prejudicio vel dispendio patiantur. Sacrosancto, by the very usage 
 of the term, applies to things external, consecrated or set apart to God, 
 things not inherently holy. The term is to be interpreted according to the 
 theological usage of the day, and not according to classical usage. This 
 the authorities show abundantly. 
 
 The Holy Service of God, and the true Christian Religion, could hon- 
 estly and fairly mean, only that which was then established by law in 
 England. Otherwise it would make a Protestant king and government 
 say, that the Romish worship and religion, were the holy worship and 
 service of God, and the true Christian Religion the very thing which the 
 law and government of England protested against, and utterly repudi- 
 ated. Bi/ law, the Romanist was forbidden to use the rites and ceremo- 
 nies of his own Church, and required to attend the Services of the 
 Protestant Church under a penalty of £20 per month if absent. Every 
 priest subjected himself to two hundred marks penalty, for each time he 
 said mass ; and every person hearing it to one hundred, and both to a 
 year's imprisonment. Subsequently to this law, every priest was banished 
 from England, and could not return under pain of death ; and all persons 
 
 * Laws of Maryland, 1640. Chap. 1. 
 
15 
 
 receiving or assisting such priests were made guilty of a capital felony. 
 Every person confessing the Romish religion, and convicted of absence 
 from the Established Church, might be imprisoned without bail, until he 
 conformed ; or if he refused after three months, was banished the realm. 
 Later still, those Romanists refusing to conform, were forbidden under 
 penalties, to appear at Court, or dwell within ten miles of London ; or go 
 on any occasion more than five miles from home ; were made incapable 
 of practising in physic, in surgery, in the common or civil law ; of being 
 judges, clerks, &c., of presenting to the livings within their gift, or of be- 
 ino- executors, or guardians; and unless married by a protestant minister, 
 each party forfeited the property, otherwise received from the other 
 party ; unless their children were baptized by a Protestant minister, they 
 were subjected to a fine of £100 in each case ; and if not buried in a 
 Protestant cemetery, the executor was liable to pay £20 for each corpse. 
 Every child sent out of the kingdom to be educated, forfeited all property 
 by descent, or gift ; and the house of every Romanist might be searched, 
 and his books and furniture relating to religion, might be burnt, and his 
 horses and arms taken from him. Later still, the Romanist was required, 
 by a new oath of allegiance, to renounce the pope's temporal power, on 
 pain of perpetual imprisonment and confiscation of their property. Such 
 were the existing laws ; and laws, too, which the King, six years previous 
 to the granting of the Maryland charter, and now at this time also had 
 to make an appearance of executing, and Romanists were only relieved, 
 by paying the King to dispense with these penal laws. 
 
 These things are mentioned, not as in the least justifyng them ; but 
 as showing that a Protestant King, checked by a Parliament, more 
 protestant than himself, and they by a people more protestant still, could 
 not have secured to Romanists what was secured by the charter, to the 
 exclusion of Protestants. In truth, it was not so attempted ; but what 
 was secured to one, was secured to both ; if, indeed, any favor was secured 
 to either, it was to Protestants, as shown by the restrictions imposed upon 
 Lord Baltimore. And any act or decision on his part, which would inter- 
 fere with, or prevent the exercise of that rehgion, which the Protestant ,, 
 Government of Great Britain held, as God's Holy Worship and the true ' 
 Christian Religion, would violate the Charter and render it at any time 
 liable to be revoked. 
 
 It was not howeveV toleration, as now understood, that it was intended 
 that Charter should secure. It was protection simply. Toleration, in its 
 present sense, had not then been dreamed of, and was not aimed at by , 
 any one. But that it actually did provide for the protection of the liber- 
 
16 
 
 ties privileges, rights, &c, of the members of the Church of England as 
 such, who might come to Maryland, is beyond all question 
 
 Now, whether this feature of the Charter was the original conception 
 ot Lord Baltimore, is not material, and cannot now be shown. But what 
 gave It Its authority was the King's signature and seal, before the giving 
 ot which, as IS well known, it was most thoroughly examined by himself 
 and by the Privy Council also, by whom it certainly did undergo some 
 changes. And that these changes did not relate to this very point is 
 quite improbable. The authority, then, which gave Protestants prot'ec- 
 hon m the Colony, was the King's own authority, and he a Protestant. 
 I Irom the same source, came the authority to protect the Romanist, in 
 the same colony, in the enjoyment of the same rights, privileges, fran- 
 chises, &c as were guaranteed to Protestants ; with slight exceptions in 
 favor of the Protestants, though placing both and all under the restricted 
 government of a Roman Catholic, Lord Baltimore. 
 
 1633. 
 
 VIRGINIA PETITIONS AGAINST THIS CHARTER. 
 
 No sooner did the Virginia Colony-which, as we have seen, was a 
 Church of England Colony-hear of the grant of Lord Baltimore, than 
 they sent a petition to the King, remonstrating against it. The petition 
 Itself IS not known to be extant, nor is its precise date known. But from 
 the decision of the Star Chamber upon that petition,* we learn they 
 stated, 'that some grants have lately been obtained [by Lord Bl of a 
 great portion of lands and territories of the Colony, [of Va.,] being the 
 places of their traffic and so near to their habitations as will gfve a 
 general disheartening to the planters if they be divided into several gov- 
 ernments, and a bar put to that trade which they have long since exer- 
 cised towards their supportation and relief, under the confidence of his 
 Majesties royal and gracious intentions towards them." This however 
 was more largely stated in the petition itself. 
 
 On the 12th of May, 1633, the King referred the petition to the Star 
 Chamber. And their Lordships ordered that the parties, the Virginia 
 planters and Lord Baltimore, should be heard on the 25th of June and 
 accordingly on that day they were heard. It was then ordered that the 
 parties should meet together, and accommodate their controversy in a 
 friendly manner, if it might be, and likewise set down in writing the 
 propositions made by either party, with their several answers and reasons 
 
 *2 Boz. 565. 
 
17 
 
 to be presented to the board. This was complied with, and in July, 
 " their Lordships having heard, and maturely considered the said propo- 
 sitions, answers and reasoris, and whatsoever else was alleged on either 
 side, did think fit to leave Lord Baltimore to his patent, and the other 
 parties, to the course of laio according to their desire. But for the pre- 
 venting of further questions and differences, their Lordships did also think 
 fit and order, thai things stand as they do — the planters on either side, 
 shall have free traffic and commerce with each other, and that neither 
 party shall receive any fugitive persons belonging to the other, nor do any 
 act, which may draw on a war from the natives, upon either of them. 
 And lastly, that they shall entertain all good correspondence, and assist 
 each other, on all occasions, in such manner as becometh subjects and 
 members of the same state." So reads the decision in Hazzard ;* and so 
 Bozmanf has it, in his first edition. But in his second, he follows Chal- 
 mers' reading of it; which, instead of being "that things stand as they 
 do," reads, " that things standing as they do." The authority of Haz- 
 zard is, however, to be preferred before that of Chalmers. And as the 
 former has it, things were to stand as they then did, till the matter should 
 be settled by a course of law. In the latter, it is made the ground of 
 deciding about assisting each other, and as was already therein decided. 
 
 And how did things stand? Why, the Virginia planters were not by 
 that decision to be dispossessed of Kent Island ; nor was Lord Baltimore's 
 patent to be invalidated. The question of i\iQ prior claim of the Virgin- 
 ians, was left at their desire, to a course of law. That question, the Star 
 Chamber did not decide upon. They did not decide any more against 
 the Virginians, than they did against Lord Baltimore. So, at least, it is 
 clear, that the Virginians themselves understood it, as shown both by 
 their after course, and by Burk in his history of Virginia,! '^here he says, 
 that the board " acknowleged the justice of the claim of the Virginia 
 planters." They certainly granted the request of these planters, that the 
 matter should be left to take the course of law which they desired. 
 
 In November 22d, 1633, Lord Baltimore's colony left England for 
 America. Cecil, the second Lord Baltimore, was then twenty-eight years 
 of age. He does not seem to have been so dissatisfied with the civil dis- 
 abilities under which he was placed in England, but that he remained 
 there instead of crossing the Atlantic, to his retreat from Protestant per- 
 secution. He therefore sent out his brother, Leonard Calvert, then at the 
 age of twenty -six, as Governor of his Colony, appointing two of the 
 
 • 1 Hazzard. f 1 Bozman, 381. ^2 Burk, 39. 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 colonists for his assistants. A younger brother, George, also came out, 
 but it seeras that he was so little of a Romanist, that he could do what 
 his father declined to do in Virginia — that is, to take the oaths required ; 
 for, as it is said, he lived and died there. Indeed, it must not be over- 
 looked, that the first and second Lord Baltimores were two different men. 
 For while the elder, as it may be conceded, sought in the Virginia terri- 
 tory to build up an asylum for the oppressed and persecuted Romanists, 
 the son, as proof in abundance may be found to show, had his eye upon 
 the pecuniary advantages to be derived from his large grant of land, in 
 no small degree. 
 
 It was now eighteen inonths from the date of his Charter, that his 
 Colonists set sail. The number of Colonists, is stated by Oldmixon, at 
 about two hundred.* He mentions Leonard Calvert, Esq., Governor, and 
 Jeremy Hawley and Thomas Cornwallis, Esqrs., Assistants or Councillors. 
 The other chief and principal characters, were Richard Gerard, Edward 
 Winter, Frederick Winter, Henry Wiseman, Esquires, Mr. John Saun- 
 ders, Mr. Edward Canfield, Mr. Thomas Greene, Mr. Nicholas Fair- 
 fax,f Mr. John Baxter, Mr. Thomas Dorrell, Capt. John Hill, Mr. John 
 Medcalfe and Mr. William Sayre. Most of these, are said to have been 
 gentlemen of fortune, and also Roman Catholics. And among others, 
 were two Jesuit Priests, Fathers Andrew White and John Altham, 
 and two lay-brothers, or temporal coadjutors, John Knowles and Thom- 
 as Gervase.;]; They were sent out by the superior of their order, 
 on the application of Lord Baltimore. The colonists came over in the 
 Ark, a vessel of four hundred tons burthen, and the Dove, a pinnace of 
 forty tons. How large a proportion of the emigrants were Roman 
 Catholics, is not now known. All, however, certainly Avere not such. 
 Father White, in his narrative of their voyage, written about a month 
 after the landing at St. Mary's, speaks repeatedly of the Roman Catho- 
 lics, in such a way, as to show that they did not constitute the whole 
 number of the emigrants — that there were others besides them.§ One 
 instance in particular, would show the number, not Romanists, to have 
 been a very large proportion. They were now in the West Indies. 
 And " no one," says Father White, " was attacked with any disease, till 
 the festival of the Nativity of our Lord. That the day might be more 
 joyfully celebrated, the wine flowed freely, and some who drank immod- 
 
 * 2 Bozraan, 26, from 1 Oldmixon, 184. 
 
 \ Died on the voyage. 
 
 X B. U. Campbell's Sketch. 
 
 8N. C. Brooks' Translation, pp. 11, 13, 19. 
 
19 
 
 erately, about thirty in number, were seized with a fever the next day, 
 and twelve of them not long after died, and among them, two Catholics, 
 Nicholas Fairfax and James Barefoot, caused great regret with us all.'' 
 If the number not Romanists, that died, indicates anything like a true 
 proportion, the proportion of protestants among the colonists must have 
 been large. The fact thus stated, speaks however for itself. But though 
 care was taken to have four Romanist priests and assistants, as before 
 stated, yet the Protestants were not favored with even one minister to 
 look after them and break to them the Bread of Life. They were in this 
 thing, uncared and unprovided for. 
 
 1634. 
 
 In the month of February, the 2'7th, Lord Baltimore's colony on their 
 way to Maryland, stopped for a few days at Jamestown, in Virginia. 
 While there, as stated by Captain Claiborne, (that title he had borne 
 since 1631, and was still a member of the Council and Secretary of 
 State,) to the Governor and Council of Virginia, March the 14th, Gov- 
 ernor Calvert had " signified to him, that he, Claiborne, was now a mem- 
 ber of that [Maryland] plantation, and therefore, he should relinquish 
 all relation and dependence on this [the Virginia] colony." And yet 
 Claiborne himself was now not only a resident in Jamestown, but was 
 still a member of the council and Secretary of State there, and had been 
 for the ten years past. Still, he was the proprietor of Kent Island, and 
 the colony there were Virginians, and had been and were now under the 
 jurisdiction of the Virginia government. The claim of Governor Calvert 
 was not only, that the Kent Island settlers, with the proprietor, should 
 submit to his government, but it involved their title to the right of soil 
 also. Admit Governor Calvert's claim, which, as we have seen, the Star 
 Chamber did not decide on, byt referred to the courts of law, and 
 it involved the necessity of abandoning their plantation, and thus losing 
 the fruits of past years of labor, or of a repurchase of the soil from Lord 
 Baltimore, upon his own terms of plantation, as they were then called, so 
 that instead of holding under Captain Claiborne, upon the annual pay- 
 ment of two capons. Lord Baltimore would become entitled to his quit 
 rents from them, of which more will be said presently. 
 
 On making the statement thus, of the demand of Governor Calvert 
 upon him, which Captain Claiborne did to the Governor and Council of 
 Virginia, he requested the opinion of the Board, as to *' how he should 
 demean himself, in respect to Lord Baltimore's patent, and his deputies in 
 the Bay." " It was answered by the Board, that they wondered why any 
 
20 
 
 such question was made ; that they knew of no reason why they should 
 render up the rights of the place of the Isle of Kent, more than any 
 other formerly given to this [the Virginia] colony, by his Majesty's 
 patent, and that the right of my Lord's [Baltimore's] grant, being yet 
 undetermined in England, we are bound in duty, and by our oaths, to 
 maintain the rights and privileges of this colony," &c.* They thus 
 clearly understood the decision of the privy council of July previous, not 
 to have been against their claim, and also that the matter was as yet 
 undetermined. And they therefore determined not to relinquish their 
 jurisdiction, nor Claiborne his proprietorship. Captain Claiborne and his 
 colonists were thus sustained in Virginia, as well as in England, in not 
 surrendering to Lord Baltimore's Governor, either the government of the 
 settlement at Kent Island, or their right of soil. 
 
 Eleven days after this action of the Governor and Council of Virginia, 
 March 25th, 1034, Governor Calvert landed with his colonists at the 
 Island which they named St. Clements. It was the day of the Annuncia- 
 tion of the Virgin Mary. After celebrating Mass, the Romanists formed a 
 procession, and proceeding to a spot selected, they erected a great Cross, 
 while the Litany of the Holy Cross was chanted — " the Governor, Com- 
 missioners, and other catholics, participating in the ceremony."f It does 
 not appear thus, that the Protestants did participate in it. 
 
 After having explored the Potomac as far up as Piscataway, the Gov- 
 ernor and men returned, and under the direction of Captain Fleet, a 
 resident of Virginia, who had accompanied them on the 27th of March,J 
 they sailed up St. George's River, which they so named — a tributary of 
 the Potomac — and landed on the right bank, and " having proceeded 
 about a thousand paces from the shore, we gave the name of St. Mary's 
 to the intended city. And that we .might avoid all appearances of 
 injury and hostility, having paid in exchange, axes, hatchets, hoes, and 
 some yards of cloth, we bought from the [Indian] King, thirty miles of 
 his territory, which part now [1634] goes by the name of Augusta 
 Carolina"§ — containing upwards of 1.50,000 acres. 
 
 St. Mary's is twenty miles from the mouth of the Potomac, one hun- 
 dred miles from .Jamestown, and forty-three miles from Kent Island, in a 
 direct line, and about eighty by water, as measured upon the map. 
 Here a town grew up, with the progress of population called a city. It 
 was the seat of government and continued so to be, till 1694, when the 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 571. f Father White, p. 19. 
 
 X 2 Bozman, 30. § Ibid, p. 21. 
 
21 
 
 government was removed to the city of Annapolis. In 1720 the State 
 House was given to the parish of Wilham and iMary for a church. In 
 1830, the building was very much decayed and a new edifice was erected 
 in its place, the only building now on the spot, where the city of St. Mary's 
 once was. Now then, there were at this time within the Territory of 
 Maryland two settlements ; one of which, consisting of more than one hun- 
 dred, had been settled on Kent Island, for five or six years. This was 
 a Church of England Settlement and had a resident Church of England 
 clergyman. Its proprietor was a Protestant, and it was under the Pro- 
 testant Government of Virginia. A settlement as before mentioned had 
 been made at Christina on the Delawar<^ — which was also Protestant, 
 but was not at this time, it is believed, replaced. 
 
 The other of the two mentioned was the settlement at St. Mary's, con- 
 sisting of about two hundred. Its proprietor was a Roman Catholic and 
 so was it government. Its priests were of the Order of the Jesuits. The 
 settlers were partly romanists and partly protestants. So that putting 
 the settlers of both the settlements together, it is by no means unlikely, 
 that the majority was Protestant even then. 
 
 Tlie claim of Virginia on Kent Island, as understood by Virginians, 
 had been sustained at least for the time being, by the Privy Council in 
 England, and also by the Governor and Council of Virginia. And now, 
 four months after the arrival of Lord Baltimore's colonists in St. Mary's, 
 on the 2'2d of July, the committee of the privy council for the colonies, 
 known as the Commissioners for Plantations,* wrote to the Governor and 
 Council of Virginia thus:f 
 
 " His majesty doth let you know, that 'tis not intended that interests 
 whicli have been settled, when you were a corporation, should be im- 
 peached : that for the present, they may enjoy their estates with the 
 same freedom and privilege, as they did, before the recalling of their 
 patents : — to which purpose also, we do hereby authorize you, to dispose 
 of such portions of lands to all those planters being freemen, as you had 
 power to do before the year 1625." This shows, "that no invasion of 
 any individual right of any Virginian was intended by Lord Baltimore's 
 grant." Captain Claiborne and his islanders, as well as others, were 
 thus informed, by these Commissioners, that they might still enjoy their 
 estates, and that there was no intention that Lord Baltimore's patent 
 should impeach their interests. They could not therefore but feel safe 
 in their possessions. Backed then, as we have seen, by the Governor 
 
 » 1 Hazzard, 345 ; t Bozman, 42, note. f 2 Bozman, 571. 
 
22 
 
 and Council of Virginia, by the King's Privy Council, and his Commis- 
 sioners also, can we wonder, that Captain Claiborne declined compliance 
 with the intimation and claim of Lord Baltimore's Governor, Leonard 
 Calvert ? 
 
 Besides, not long after this, the date is not given, but circumstances 
 show that it could not have been far from this time — as stated in Clai- 
 borne's petition,* " his majesty was pleased to signify his royal pleasure, 
 by letter, intimating, that it was contrary to justice and to the true intent 
 of his majesty's grant to Lord Baltimore, [to dispossess them of Kent 
 Island,] — that notwithstanding the said patent, the petitioners should 
 have freedom. of trade, requiring the Governor and all others in Virginia 
 to be aiding and assisting them, — prohibiting the Lord Baltimore, and 
 all other pretenders under him, to oft'er them any violence, or to dis- 
 turb or molest them in their (Kent Island) plantation." Bozman says 
 " it is not to be doubted, but that a letter of that import, was signed by 
 his majesty."! 
 
 And yet, notwithstanding all this, in September of this very year, Lord 
 Baltimore in England, issues orders to his Governor in Maryland, " that 
 if Claiborne would not submit to his government, he should be seized 
 and punished. "'I Yes, seized and punished, if he would not submit to his. 
 Lord B's government! 
 
 But with this the King's own declaration before him, that Lord Balti- 
 more's claim was contrary to justice, and to the true intent of his, Lord 
 B's patent; and the decisions of the Privy Council, and the Commis- 
 sioners, and the Governor and Council of Virginia just mentioned, is it 
 surprising, that Captain Claiborne should not submit? Besides, what 
 was this order but a declaration of War ? And it^ was, as we shall 
 presently see, not only against Capt. Claiborne, but it included also his 
 Protestant settlement. It was not merely personal, it was a contest for 
 the possession and government of Kent Island. Or is it surprising that 
 such a declaration of hostility — showing Lord Baltimore to be his 
 enemy — that Claiborne should be the enemy of Lord Baltimore ? 
 
 "A historian of the Colony," says Dr. Hawks,§ "has not scrupled to 
 call him — Claiborne — 'the bane of Maryland,' despising, in 1634, the 
 authority of the infant settlement, because its power was less than its 
 righty The historian mentioned was none other than Lord Baltimore 
 himself, in a pamphlet of a few pages — and as to Lord Baltimore's power 
 being less than his right, the reader can judge for himself. 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 582. f 2 Bozman, 69, note. 
 
 I 2 Bozman, 88. § Eccl. Contributions Md., 25. 
 
23 
 
 In the carrying on of this contest, a circumstance is mentioned, which 
 has called forth much condemnation of Claiborne. Bozmansays,* " that 
 he made an ungenerous and cruel attempt to set the savages at war upon 
 this infant colony," at St. Mary's, and places it after the failure, " to 
 seize and punish him," and as it would seem near the end of the year, 
 on the authority of the writers to whom he refers. Mr. B. U. Camp- 
 bell, on the same authorities, places it in the early part of the following 
 year. But Father White, in his narrative,f written before the expiration 
 of one month from the landing at St. Mary's, speaks of it as having 
 occurred before he wrote, and as the work of Capt. Fleet under Clai- 
 borne's influence. " At the first, he, Captain Fleet, was very friendly to 
 us. Afterwards, seduced by the evil counsels of a certain Claiborne, who 
 entertained the most hostile disposition, he stirred up the minds of the 
 natives against us, with all the art of which he was master." " We iiave 
 been h(;re only one month."J Thus Father White, writing on the 
 spot, and at the time, ascribes it to Captain Fleet, bringing in only Clai- 
 borne's influence. Captain Fleet was indeed in the Colony. But Clai- 
 borne was a hundred miles off". This Captain Fleet was an Indian 
 trader from the Jamestown Colony,§ induced by Governor Calvert when 
 there, to serve the Maryland Colony, by having a portion of the beaver 
 trade, and was a Protestant. But clearly, in the estimation of Governor 
 Calvert himself and the St. Marians, it was no great fault he had com- 
 mitted, if even true, and was easily and fully forgiven, for he continued 
 to reside in the Colony for some years. In the second year of the Colo 
 ny, the Governor and Council had four thousand acres of land conveyed 
 to him. I Four years after, 1638, he was a member of the Assembly,^ 
 and licensed to trade with the Indians;** and in 1644, was appointed to 
 go against the Indians with twenty men.ff 
 
 We have said that the contest was not merely personal, between Lord 
 Baltimore and Captain Claiborne. In a report of the Committee of the 
 Navy to Parliament, dated Dec. 31st, 1652, it is stated, "that upon the 
 arrival of Lord Baltimore's agent in Maryland, 1634, the Vir(jinians 
 were prohibited from trading with the Indians, in any part of Maryland, 
 to which formerly they had been accustomed."];]: This prohibition was 
 unquestionably leveled against the Kent Islanders themselves, here called 
 by high authority, Virginians. 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 33. f P- ^0. % 2 Bozman. 24. § Streeter, 17. 
 
 I Kilty, 64. T[ 2 Bozman, 55. **2 idem, 592. f f 2 idem, 276. 
 
 '\"XX Virginia and Maryland, p. 21. 
 
24 
 
 1635. 
 
 From the narrative of Father White* and others, we learn, that witli 
 the emigrants who came out this year, there was the addition of another 
 priest to the number already in the Colony. The narrative remarks, that 
 " from this Mission, which was but lately commenced, there has been as 
 yet but small fruit, on account of the very many difficulties which occur 
 in it, especially among the barbarians whose language is slowly acquired 
 by our countrymen. Nothing in a manner can be written. There fire 
 five members in it, three priests and two lay coadjutors, who, with much 
 alacrity, sustain their present labors in hope of future success." Tims in 
 a Colony, not all Roman Catholics, consisting of but little upward of three 
 hundred, if so many, there was full provision for the religious oversight 
 of the Romanists and a mission to the natives also. While, so far as the 
 ministry was concerned, the Protestant portion of the Colony we're unpro- 
 vided for. And we cannot but wonder somewhat, if Maryland was 
 intended for an asylum for the oppressed Roman Catholics of England, 
 why so many Protestant emigrants were brought into the Colony; and, 
 not less, why so many being brought in, no Protestant Ministry was pro- 
 vided to care for them. But they had, notwithstanding, their guides and 
 helps, which their Romanist brethren had not. They had the Bible and 
 the Book of Common Prayer, and that, too, in their own language ; and 
 were themselves a part of that spiritual priesthood of which St. Peter 
 speaks,f to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable lo God by Jesus Christ. 
 As has been well remarked,^ " all the faithful, baptized into One Body 
 and having drank of one Spirit, constitute that single Vine, that single 
 Spouse, that single Church, which altogether each member discharging its 
 own separate duty and ministry^ is sent into the world by Christ, even as 
 He was sent by the Father." 
 
 The Romanists had indeed their priests there, but their Bible and their 
 Mass book, in which their prayers were, were in an unknown tongue, the 
 Latin, or otherwise quite beyond their reach ; while the Protestants had 
 their Bible and Prayer book in their own language, and could thereby 
 search the Scriptures daily, as the noble Bereaus§ of old did, whether 
 the things taught them, by those around them, were in truth taught 
 there. It is a matter to be much regretted, that we have no more 
 account of what was the condition of the Protestants, furnished us, as 
 
 * p. 24. f 1 Ep. ii, 5, 9. 
 
 \ Moberly's forty days, p. 79. § Acts xvii, 11. 
 
25 
 
 that of the Romanists was, by a cotemporary writer of their own. As 
 it is, we learn little about them except from incidental facts. The com- 
 mercial spirit of individual Protestants of that day, seems to have been 
 as absorbing, as it still is, so that the things of the kingdom of God were 
 not sought first. Lord Baltimore could avail himself of them to swell 
 the number of his Colonists and increase his revenue from their occupa- 
 tion of his lands, but be could make no provision for their religious 
 wants. He could care for his own — the Romanists, and for the poor 
 Indian — but not for Protestants. 
 
 For the Protestants of Kent Island, as we have seen, Captain Clai- 
 borne did make provision. A Protestant Minister was there, and indeed 
 more than one ; for among the depositions taken in Virginia, 1640, 
 " allowances for Ministers," are testified to, among the expenses incurred 
 by Captain Claiborne between the years 1631-1636 inclusive, on Kent 
 Island. For this and other interesting facts, I am indebted to the kind- 
 ness and personal examination of the Virginia Colonial Records, to S. F. 
 Streeter, Esq., Baltimore. 
 
 In the narrative of Father White,* one fact is mentioned, perhaps 
 deserving of notice. It is this, "four servants that we bought for neces- 
 sary use in Virginia." One of these was Francisco, a mulatto. For, in 
 a memorandum recorded, p. 37, in the oldest land record book of the 
 pi'ovince of Maryland, there is mention made, that " Francisco, a 
 ?nolaio, was brought in by Andrew White, in the year 1635," and right 
 to land was therefore claimed.f This is the first notice on record, of the 
 introduction of this race into the Province. This fact is mentioned in 
 connection with the record, because the owner was entitled to one hundred 
 acres of land, for bringing in a servant. Father White, therefore, must 
 have the credit of introducing colored servants by purchase, into 
 Maryland. 
 
 But our attention is called here to the progress of the war between the 
 government of St. Mary's and the Kent Islanders. It is stated,^ that 
 early this year, Captain Claiborne granted a special warrant to Lieutenant 
 Warren, to seize and capture any of the vessels belonging to the Gov- 
 ernment or Colonists of St. Mary's ; and in pursuance thereof, an armed 
 boat, belonging to Claiborne, was fitted out for this purpose and manned 
 with about fourteen men. The authority for this statement is not given 
 us by our author. Bearing in mind, however, that Claiborne's seizure 
 and punishment had been ordered — and in his seizure, &c., that of his 
 
 * p. 25. ^ r f 2 Bozman, 571. t 2 Bozman, 34. 
 
islanders — it will not appear astonishing that he should prepare to act on 
 the defensive, or to make reprisals even, if found needful. Our author 
 also states that the government of St. Mary's, 'probably apprized of 
 Captain Claiborne's measures, equipped and armed two boats under the 
 command of Captain Cornwallis, one of the Governor's assistnnts. In 
 April, or May, these boats met Captain Claiborne's boat, in the Pokomoke 
 River — where Captain Cornwallis had gone in pursuit — and the result 
 was, that a battle ensued, in which one of Lord Baltimore's men was 
 killed ; and Lieutenant Warren, and two others of Captain Claiborne's 
 men, were also killed, and the rest of his men and his boat were taken. 
 Thus it will be seen that the order to seize and punish Captain Claiborne, 
 "was understood to include his Colonists, for Captain Claiborne himself 
 was not there. 
 
 Captain Claiborne, however, in his petition to the King, gives quite 
 another version of the affair. And it is but right that he should have a 
 hearing. He states there, and the statement he well knew would be 
 denied and disproved too, if not true, that "his boats had gone with 
 goods to purchase corn of the Indians, being utterly destitute of them- 
 selves." It was in pursuance of this design, he says, that his boats went 
 out. And it is notorious, that his boats and men were found by the 
 enemy, not at Kent Island, nor near even to the St. Mary's Colony, but 
 lower down, and on the opposite side of the Bay therefrom, some seventy 
 miles distant, near the Pokomoke Indians, on the Pokomoke River, from 
 whom corn was to be obtained in trade. And here it is admitted that 
 Captain Claiborne's boat was found, on the 23d of April,* when the cap- 
 ture took place. There was also another rencontre, in the same River, 
 on the 10th of May, the particulars of which are not stated. 
 
 Each party indeed claim, that the other fired first. But it certainly 
 matters little which fires the first gun when a state of war exists. Either 
 side may have fired first, and still have been acting only in defense. 
 Captain Claiborne was at this time in Virginia, where it is claimed he 
 had fled for refuge. But it seems unfortunate for this charge, that he 
 was not a resident of Kent Island, but of Jamestown, where his duties as 
 a member of the Council and Secretary of State, required him to be. 
 He was no more a resident in his Colony, than Lord Baltimore was in his. 
 
 Governor Calvert, however, sends Commissioners to the Governor of 
 Virginia to reclaim him, as a criminal against the laws of Maryland ; 
 and yet, singularly enough, not a single law had as yet been enacted in 
 
 * Streeter. 
 
27 
 
 Maryland. The only law was the order given by Lord Baltimore for 
 Claiborne's "seizure and punishment." This was unquestionably presum- 
 ing on Governor Harvey's friendship for Lord Baltimore and his opposi- 
 tion to Captain Claiborne. But the Governor had just then been deposed 
 by the people of Virginia, and sent to England. It is suflBcient, there- 
 fore, to say, that they did not comply with Governor Calvert's demand. 
 The demand, indeed, showed an unauthorized assumption of power. It 
 had not yet been decided in England that Captain Claiborne or his Col- 
 ony, were at all amenable to Lord Baltimore's jurisdiction. The Courts 
 of law there, had not yet decided upon the validity, or invalidity, of their 
 claim, while, as we have seen, the King, the Privy Council, the Commis- 
 sioners of plantations, together with the Governor and Council of Vir- 
 ginia, had, for the time being at least, sustained their claim. And it was 
 in the face of all this, that war was made on the Kent Islanders — three 
 men killed — eleven captured- -their goods and boat taken, and the pro- 
 prietor himself claimed as a criminal ! Such was the war waged by the 
 Roman Catholic Government of St. Mary's, against the Protestants of 
 Kent Island. 
 
 1636. 
 
 We have very little bearing on the main point before us, the religious 
 condition of Maryland, relating to this year. The narrative of Father 
 White and others, shows us only, that another priest had been added to 
 the number on the ground, that there was one temporal coadjutor less — 
 but no letters are published as having been sent to the superiors. There 
 were now thus four priests and one lay assistant. 
 
 This year, we have nothing from Father White and those associated 
 with him, unless what is stated above of last year belongs to this — which 
 is doubtless the fact. For we learn from Mr. Campbell, on the Roman 
 Catholic Missions, that a fourth priest arrived this year, known as ThomaS 
 Copley, Esq. He says, that " in the oldest book in the land office,* I 
 find the following entry : ' Thomas Copley, Esq., demandeth four thousand 
 acres of land, due by conditions of plantation, for transporting into this 
 province himself, and twenty able men at his own charge, to plant and 
 inhabit in the year 1637.' ^It is no objection to his identity with the Mis- 
 sionary of the same name, that the record calls him ' Esq.,' for it would 
 not have been safe, at that period, to have openly recognized a Romish 
 
 * L. I., fol. 25. 
 
28 
 
 priest by the title of Hev. ; and in the State records, we find a prudent 
 caution in this respect to any apparent disregard of the penal laws, then 
 In force in the mother country against Romish priests, and Jesuits 
 in particular."—" A. proof that Mr. Copley was a Jesuit priest, and en- 
 gaged in Missionary duty in Maryland, is found in an original letter," 
 in which " he is called Father Copley." Touching this same individual, 
 we find in Kilty's Landholder's Assistant, this extract from the same 
 records : " Came into this province the 8th of August, 1637, Mr. Thomas 
 Copley and Mr. John Knowles, who transported R. H., L. G., W. K., 
 &c. — and p. 86 — to the number of nineteen." Just before this, is the fol- 
 lowing entry : " Entered by Mr. Copley — brought into this province, in the 
 year 1633, O. S., Mr. Andrew White, Mr. John Altham, &c., Thomas 
 H., &c , &c., to the number of thirty." He seems thus to have been 
 the agent in procuring the first Colonists that came over in 1634, as well 
 as those of the present year, and also in securing their lands, as promised 
 *^ to emigrants. And thus the priests secured their portions of lands, not 
 ' J.ess than did the other settlers ; _jands which, it is understood, went to 
 the Roman Catholic Church itself by the very vows of this priestly Order. 
 This Thomas Copley, Esq., does not appear to have been known however 
 to the Protestants, in his real character of a Jesuit Father. 
 
 From the entries made in the land records, we are shown that there 
 were many Colonists who came over this year. 
 
 In the spring or fall of this year, it appears that Capt. Claiborne 
 repaired to England. Previously to this, there is no proof that he was 
 there, after he came into the Colony. And either by himself, or his 
 agents, such representations had been made to the King, as called forth 
 from him the following order* to Lord Baltimore : 
 
 " Whereas formerly, by our royal letters to the Governor and Council 
 of Virginia, and to others, our officers and subjects in those parts, we 
 signified our pleasure that William Claiborne, David Morehead and other 
 planters, in the Island near Virginia, which they have nominated Kent 
 Island, should in no sort he interrupted in their trade or plantation by 
 you, or any other on your right, but rather he encouraged to proceed 
 cheerfully in so good a work, we do now understand, that though your 
 agents had notice of our said pleasure, signified by our letters, yet con- 
 trary thereto, they have slain three of our subjects there, and by force, 
 possessed themselves by right of that Island, and carried away both the 
 persons and estates of said planters. Now, out of our royal care to pre- 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 685. 
 
29 
 
 vent such disorders, as we have referred to our Comrnissioners of Plan- 
 tations the examination of the truth of these complaints, and require 
 them to proceed therein according to justice, so, now, by these particular 
 letters to )'0urself, we strictly require and command you, to perform what 
 our general letter did enjoin, and that the above named planters and 
 their agents may enjoy, in the meantime, their possessions and he safe in 
 their persons and goods there, without disturbance or further trouble by 
 you, or any of yours, till that cause be decided. And herein we expect 
 your ready conformity that we may have no cause of any further mis- 
 like." Dated July 14th, 1638, in the copy, but should be 1637, as is 
 proved by other documents. 
 
 " Lord Baltimore on receiving the order, with an attention which," 
 says Chalmers,* " he deemed due to the command of his Prince, though 
 founded on misinformation, said that he would wait on the King and 
 give him perfect satisfaction !" What satisfaction he gave him is not 
 known — but such was the King's order to him. He was required and 
 commanded, that the Protestants of Kent Island enjoy their possessions, 
 and be safe in their persons and goods, without any further disturbance. 
 
 What misinformation was given by Captain Claiborne, as alleged by 
 Lord Baltimore, we are not informed. But that he had indeed possessed 
 himself of the goods and estates of some of the Kent Islanders, the Vir- 
 ginia and English records furnish full proof. The Rev. Richard James, 
 as before stated, was a resident clergyman on Kent Island, for some years 
 up to the present. This gentleman, it appears, had previously been 
 librarian to Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquarian ; and when Sir 
 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, obtained as a Protestant his 
 charter of Avalon, in the Island of Newfoundland, and took his Protest- 
 ant Colony thither, he was the Minister there. We next find him 
 as above stated, the Minister of Kent Island. In this year, he seems to 
 have accompanied Captain Claiborne to England, and to have died at Sir 
 Robert Cotton's in 1638.f On Captain Claiborne's return to Virginia, 
 he administered on the Rev. Mr. James' estate, and August 1st, 1640, is 
 found this record : " Captain Claiborne, administrator of Richard James, 
 Minister, brought into Court at James' City, his inventory and account. 
 He alleged, that the Governor of Maryland had seized on the greater 
 part of the estate of Mr. James, and detained it from him, Claiborne." 
 He therefore asked to be discharged, which was granted; J so, also, in 
 
 * -2 Bozman, 72. f Wood's Atheniensis, <fec. 
 
 ^Streeter, from Virginia and English records and depositions. 
 
30 
 
 another record, December 30lb, IGSY, the cattle of Gertrude James were 
 seized by a writ from St. Mary's. This, it is apprehended, is proof, that 
 the Roman Catholic Government of St. Mary's, did possess itself of the 
 goods and estate of at least one Kent Islander, and that one, the Protest- 
 ant clergyman of the Island, or rather his widow ! 
 
 And now, how went on matters at Kent Island, subsequently to the 
 disaster on the Pokomoke bay, in the spring of 1635 ? Did the Protest- 
 ants there, at once submit to Lord Baltimore's government upon the 
 defeat and capture of their men and boats, when one-seventh of their 
 Colony were killed and taken ? Very far otherwise. The remainder of 
 the year 1635 passes away — all of '36 and all of '37, to its very last day,* 
 when we find, that the Isle of Kent had been only in some measure 
 reduced to the obedience of Lord Baltimore, and George Evelyn, a 
 Roman Catholic, the owner of the barony of Eylinton, St. Mary's, was 
 appointed commander of the Island, and John Langford, another Roman 
 Catholic, high sherifFf then, or soon after. Thus, though deprived now 
 of the superintendence of their proprietary, and so long before of one- 
 seventh of their most valiant men, yet, now, at the end of near three 
 years, they were only in some measure reduced to Lord Baltimore's gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 1638. 
 
 Although Kent Island had been thus partially subjected to Lord Bal- 
 timore's Roman Catholic Government, during the latter part of the last 
 year, yet the Colonists there were so far from being quiet, or submissive 
 to his Lordship's government,;]; that there were insolences and mutinies 
 and contempts of the government of the province there. Governor Cal- 
 vert, therefore, himself, had to proceed with a military force, to reduce 
 the Colonists there to his government, which, it appears, he accomplished 
 in the month of March. And all this, notwithstanding the King's order 
 of the previous July to Lord Baltimore ; and the more easily, as Captain 
 Claiborne was now in England, so that the Kent Islanders were deprived 
 of his aid. 
 
 Previous to this, on the 25th of January, commenced the second 
 General Assembly held at St. Mary's, nearly four years from its first settle- 
 ment.§ It was composed of the Governor and his Council ; such indi- 
 viduals as the Governor specially summoned, and burgesses or represen- 
 tatives of those not personally summoned, together with every freeman 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 44. f Ibid, 61. X I^id, 62. § Ibid, 49. 
 
31 
 
 who had not voted for a burgess. Each member bad his own vote, and 
 as many more as had been given him by proxy, of freemen not present. 
 The number of members present, before its final adjournment, appear to 
 have been seventeen, giving and representing fifty-six votes. Among 
 those present, were the Commandant and High Sherifl" of Kent Island, 
 and Robert Philpott, gentleman, of the same Island. Capt. Henry Fleet 
 and some other Protestants were also members. Those who were person- 
 ally summoned, were Thomas Copley, Esq,, and Fathers White and 
 Altham, the three Jesuit Priests before mentioned. But Mr. Campbell 
 tells us, that they desired to be excused. 
 
 To this Assembly was submitted the laws transmitted to the Colony 
 by Lord Baltimore, and they were rejected, the Governor and Secretary 
 having fourteen votes only, voting in their favor. The Assembly, after 
 some other business, adjourned to the 8th of February. The Assembly 
 met at the time appointed, and again rejected Lord Baltimore's laws, and 
 soon adjourned to the 26th. But the Governor, not returning from his 
 expedition to Kent Island, above spoken of, the Assembly did not meet 
 until the 12th of March, when seventeen bills, presented by a Committeet 
 were passed. 
 
 Bozman says,* did the duty of an historian allow him to mention his 
 conjecture, a plausible supposition may be made, that the dispute about 
 the reception of these laws, was dictated more by a political contest for 
 the right of propounding laws to be enacted by the Assembly, than any 
 other cause." Previous to this, by three years, it is said, an Assembly had 
 met February, 1635, and passed some Acts which were sent to Lord 
 Baltimore for his concurrence, which he had rejected. And now the 
 laws originated and sent over by Lord Baltimore, vrere rejected by the 
 Assembly. But that the contest was about the right of originating and 
 propounding laws, is admitted to be only " a plausable supposition ;" 
 and granting it, may it not be an equally plausable supposition, that the 
 exercise of this right had something to do with Romanism and Protest- 
 antism ? He who knows anything of the state of things in England at 
 that time, may readily indeed so suppose. And the popular influence of 
 Protestantism in the Colony, was not small. Captain Fleet, a member 
 of the Assembly, was a known Protestant, as well as others ; and Captain 
 Cornwallis, so tradition reports, was also one, either at that time, or not 
 long after. And he was cleariy, the most popular man in the Assembly, 
 receiving ten more votes, when the appointment of a Committee was 
 made, than any other member. 
 
 f 2 Bozman, 66. 
 
32 
 
 The most peculiar Act of this body, was a Bill for the attainder of 
 " William Claiborne, gentleman,"* He not being taken, and being 
 absent from the country, was proceeded against in this way, and by this 
 Bill his property in Kent Island was forfeited to Lord Baltimore. Upon 
 the adjournment of the Assembly, on the 14th of March, it constituted 
 itself into a Court of Justice, and Thomas Smith, the second in com- 
 mand at the battle on the Pokomoke, three years previous, was called to 
 the bar for felony and piracy, and condemned, and thus sentenced : 
 " You shall be carried from hence, to the place from whence you came, 
 and thence to the place of execution, and shall be there hanged by ihe 
 neck until you be dead ; and that all your lands, goods and chattels, 
 shall be forfeited to the Lord proprietary," &c. And this sentence was 
 executed. 
 
 And by whom was this done ? In part by the very men who had 
 fought against him in the battle, and killed his commander by his side, 
 and three of his men. They were the witnesses before the Grand Jury, 
 and consenting Judges in his condemnation ; and who were themselves 
 deserving of the same condemnation, if Smith himself was not deserving 
 it. At this, who can help being astonished, when as yet, the Courts in 
 England had not decided on the injustice of Captain Claiborne's Virginia 
 claim, when the Privy Council and the Board of Commissioners, had 
 given the decision which they had, and when only on the July previous, 
 the King had strictly required and commanded Lord Baltimore and his 
 agents in Maryland, that the Kent Islanders should enjoy their posses- 
 sions, and be safe in their persons and goods! Verily this was taking 
 law and vengeance into their own hands ! 
 
 But it must be remembered, that at this period, feudal tenures were 
 not entirely abolished ; and that the dependents of a Lord were accus- 
 tomed to range themselves on his side, and act in his defense, leaving to 
 him the matter of settling the right or wrong of the case; and in this 
 view of it, the responsibility rested on Lord Baltimore himself, his Colo- 
 nists being his agents simply. 
 
 On the 26th of February, the King laid before the Commissioners for 
 Plantations, the following petition from William Claiborne and his part- 
 nersf — he being then in England where he had voluntarily gone, as has 
 been stated, sometime durin,;- the previous year. The date of the peti- 
 tion is not given. He shows : " that the petitioners, by virtue of a com- 
 mission under his Majesty's hand, &c., divers years past, discovered and 
 
 » 2 Bozman, 64. f 2 Bozman, 682. 
 
33 
 
 did then plant upon an Island in the great Bay of Chesapeake, in Vir- 
 ginia, by them named the Isle of Kent, which they bought of the Kings 
 of the country, and built houses, transported cattle, and settled people 
 thereon, to their very great costs and charges ; which the Lord Baltimore 
 taking notice thereof, and the great hopes for trade of beavers and other 
 commodities, like to ensue by the petitioner's discoveries, hath since 
 obtained a patent from your Majesty, comprehending said Island within 
 the limits thereof, and sought thereby to dispossess the petitioners there- 
 of, and debar them of their discovery, &c. Complaint thereof being 
 made, your Majesty was pleased to signify your royal pleasure by letter, 
 intimating, that it was contrary to justice, and the true intent of your 
 Majesty's grant to the said Lord Baltimore — that notwithstanding the 
 said patent, the petitioners should have freedom of trade, requiring the 
 Governor, and all others in Virginia, to be aiding and assisting unto 
 them, prohibiting the Lord Baltimore and all other pretenders under him, 
 to offer them any violence, or to disturb or molest them in their planta- 
 tion, as by your Majesty's letter annexed, appeareth. Since which, 
 albeit, your Majesty's royal pleasure hath been made known to Sir John 
 Harvey, Governor of Virginia, (who slighted the same,) as also to Lord 
 Baltimore and his agents there, yet they have, in a most willful and con- 
 temptuous manner, disobeyed the same, and violently set upon your peti- 
 tioners' pinnaces and boats, having goods to trade, and seized them, and 
 do still detain the same, by the loss of which pinnaces and goods, the 
 inhabitants within the said Isle, were in so great famine and misery, as 
 they became utterly destitute of any corn to sustain themselves ; which 
 enforced them to send a small boat to know why they obeyed not your 
 Majesty's said royal letter and commands, ****** the 
 said pinnace and goods to enable them to trade for Corn* * * * 
 which boat, approaching near unto some vessel of the said Lord Balti- 
 more's, or his agents, they shot among the petitioners' men, and slew 
 three of them and took eleven more ; and not content with these great 
 injuries, the said Lord Baltimore and his agents, have openly defamed 
 
 and unjustly accused the petitioners, of crimes to his exceeding 
 
 great grief, which hath caused him purposely to repair into this King- 
 dom, and humbly prostrate himself and his cause at his Majesty's feet, 
 to be relieved therein." 
 
 The rest of the petition relates to other matters — making proposals for 
 a new grant and commission. And what is the record of the Privy 
 Council at the same date when the petition was referred ? It is in part 
 
 * Blanks in the record. 
 3 
 
34 
 
 this — " His Majesty approving the proposals made in this petition, for 
 the advancement of those plantations, [Kent Island and Palmer's Isl- 
 and,] &c., is graciously pleased to confirm what was contained in his 
 former commission and letter, under the broad seal," and directs the 
 Commissioners of plantations " to settle such a grant of the things here- 
 in desired, as they shall think fit to be prepared by him [the Attorney] 
 for his Majesty's signature. Their Lordships are also to examine the 
 wrongs complained of, and certify to his Majesty what they think fit to 
 be done for the redress hereof." Signed by the Secretary, <fec. 
 
 On the 4th of April, the Lord's Commissioners having heard the case, 
 decided, " that the right and title to the Isle of Kent and other places in 
 question, to be absolutely belonging to Lord Baltimore; and that no 
 plantation or trade with the Indians ought to be within the precints of 
 his patent without leave from him. And concerning the violences and 
 wrongs by the said Claiborne and others complained of," they left " both 
 sides to the ordinary course of justice." 
 
 They said, that Claiborne confessed the Isle of Kent to be within the 
 bounds and limits of Lord Baltimore's patent ; and so it was. They also 
 said, that Claiborne's Commission, referring to the license of 1631, was 
 onlv a license to trade with the Indians, under the signet of Scotland — 
 not under the broad seal ; which did not extend, nor give warrant to 
 Claiborne or any other — nor had they any right or title thereby to the 
 Isle of Kent, or to plant or trade there. This discovery of Claiborne's 
 license being signed by only the Signet of Scotland, instead of the broad 
 seal of England, shows that gross imposition had been practiced upon 
 him. Kilty, in his Landholder's Assistant,* says, judging from what 
 appears on record, "I consider him as a man trifled with by the 
 Crown, for the traffic in his license being that of furs, &c., with the 
 Datives, could not well be carried on without settlements. Being turned 
 over and subjected to Lord Baltimore, without any compensation for his 
 disappointment, he had all the excuse that can arise from high provoca- 
 tion, for bis subsequent procedures." 
 
 The claim of Captain Claiborne, on the ground of prior occupancy, 
 does not seem by the Commissioners to have been thought worth 
 noticing; for they passed it by without any reference to it. And yet on 
 this very ground, under the claim of the Penns, of Pennsylvania, in a 
 subsequent year, 1685, all that is now Delaware, being one million two 
 hundred and sixty-seven thousand two hundred acres.f within the bounda- 
 
 * Page 17. t Scott'a Geog. Del. 
 
35 
 
 ries of Lord Baltimore's patent, was taken from him and given to them, 
 by the decision of the Privy Council. And it does not appear that the 
 claim of prior occupancy was even as good as was that of the Virginians 
 to Kent Island.* Either the one or the other decision, therefore, was 
 clearly wrong. And if the first decision was not right, does not the 
 latter look something like retributive justice? For, though by gaining 
 his case in the first instance, he gained thirty-nine thousand acres, yet in 
 losing it in the other, by the Penns, he lost, as just stated, one million 
 two hundred and sixty-seven thousand two hundred acres. There was 
 a power behind the throne greater than the throne. 
 
 It has been said,f that " Lord Baltimore's motives were purely political 
 and reliffious" while " Claiborne's was founded on private self-interest, 
 though plausibly holding out, at the same time, the possibility of imme- 
 diate commercial advantages to the nation or its monarch." That the 
 motives of the Secretary of Virginia were founded on private self-inter- 
 est, need not be denied ; and yet the annual rent which he imposed on 
 his Colonists amounted, in each case, to only two capons; said, then, to be 
 equal to sixteen pounds of tobacco, or one bushel of wheat, or two 
 shillings ; which allowing the entire Island to have been divided into 
 farms of fifty acres each, and taken up, would give him only seventy- 
 eight pounds sterling a year. 
 
 But was there no private self-interest in Lord Baltimore's case ? By 
 his terms of plantation of 1636, every first adventurer in 1634, for every 
 five men between sixteen and fifty years of age, which he brought over, 
 received two thousand acres, subject to a yearly rent of four hundred 
 pounds of wheat, or one pound to every five acres. To every one with- 
 in that year, 1636, bringing out less than five men, one hundred acres 
 for himself, one hundred for his wife and every servant ; and for every 
 child, under sixteen years of age, fifty acres, subject to an annual rent of 
 ten pounds of wheat for every fifty acres, or, as before, one pound to 
 every five acres.J The terms of plantation, however, were subsequently 
 changed. But what would the annual income be at this rate, were all 
 Lord Baltimore's lands taken up? V7hy, £1,l6l, or about 134,000. 
 And this sum is even actually less than his annual rents are stated to 
 have been in lYYO, by a thousand dollars. This certainly was moderate 
 enough. And the amount said to have been expended by him, could 
 have doubtless been better invested. But the Government of the Colony 
 was paid for by the Colonists, and some of the members of the family 
 
 * 1 McMahon, 32. f 2 Bozman, 71. X Ibid, 36. 
 
36 
 
 were provided with places in that Government. Besides, there was the 
 honor of being proprietor of such wide lands, and having so many ten- 
 ants. It told large. No other individual in England could boast of any- 
 thing like such domains. If this view indicates, as it so clearly does, 
 some regard to self interest, other facts unquestionably confirm it. The 
 Colonial Assembly's letter to Lord Baltimore in 1649,* for instance, will 
 show somewhat how intent he was upon this matter of property. The 
 stock on his plantation in the Colony had been pledged by Governor 
 Calvert, his brother, to pay the soldiers employed by him — to regain the 
 province from the usurpation of Ingle and others ; and he finds such 
 fault with the pledge having been fulfilled, that the Assembly say to him, 
 " We much wonder that your honor should consider^ or thmk much, 
 that a few cattle, not above eleven or twelve cows at most, of your lord- 
 ship's known clear stock, and those conquered again to your lordship, and 
 taken from the unlawful possessor, should be distributed among those 
 men who had ventured and hazzarded their fortunes, lives and estates, in 
 the defense, recovery and preservation of your lordship's province;" and 
 much more to the same purpose. 
 
 But Lord Baltimore's " motives were purely political and religious" ! 
 Passing those merely political, whatever the first Lord Baltimore's 
 motives were, who negotiated the charter, the second Lord Baltimore, to 
 whom it was actually given, certainly found England so safe and pleasant 
 a place of residence, that he never came over to his Maryland Colony. 
 And just as certainly he did not seek to make his province an exclusive 
 asylum for his Roman Catholic brethren. Witness the fact of so large 
 a portion of the first Colonists being Protestants ; his invitation to 
 Captain Fleet ; his invitation to the Puritan Colonists of Massachusetts 
 to come and reside in the Colony in 1643 ;f his constituting Colonel 
 Stone his Governor in 1648, who was a Protestant, and was to bring in 
 five hundred Colonists ; his admitting the Puritans of Virginia in the 
 same year ; and in the year following creating a new County for Robert 
 Brooke, a Pu; itan, and his Colonists. This shows, beyond question, that 
 he was more solicitous to settle his lands, and thus secure some income 
 from them, than he was to render his province a religious asylum for his 
 brethren of his own faith. But we pass on. 
 
 In July of this year, 1638, occurred a well known incident to every 
 reader of Maryland history, which shows something of the religious con- 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 666. f Hawks' Maryland, 30. 
 
37 
 
 dition of the St. Mary's Colonists * Captain Cornwallis, a member of 
 the Council, had some servants so called, white men they were, who, as 
 the custom then was, had sold themselves to him for a terra of years, to 
 pay for their passage across the ocean, who were Protestants. They 
 were residents in the same house with William Lewis, a zealous Roman 
 Catholic, who had them in charge. Among them were Francis Gray and 
 Robert Sedgrave. They were one day reading Smith's Sermons, and 
 reading aloud, where he remarks, " that the Pope is anti-Christ — the 
 Jesuits anti- Christian Ministers," &c. Lewis 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 he would prove it, and that all 
 Protestant Ministers were of the devil," and forbade them reading any 
 more. 
 
 Soon after, Sedgrave, at the request of Gray, drew up the following 
 petition, to be signed by the Protestants on the next Sunday at the 
 Chapel, which petition, Lewis said, was to be presented to Governor Har- 
 vey, of Virginia; but the others said it was for the Governor and Coun- 
 cil of the Province. 
 
 " Christopher Carroll, Ellis Beache, R'd. Sedgrave, and others, which 
 may hereafter be brought forth : Beloved in the Lord, (fee. — 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. Tnigoes ; who 
 saith, that our Ministers are Ministers of the devil, and that our books 
 
 are made by the instruments of the devil, and further saith, that f 
 
 who are under his charge, shall keep nor read any books which doth 
 appertain to our religion, within the house of the said William Lewis, 
 to the great discomfort of those poor bondmen, who are under his sub- 
 jection, especially, in this heathen country, where no godly Minister is, 
 to teach and instruct ignorant people in the grounds of religion. And 
 
 as for people who unto the said Lewis, or otherwise, to pass the 
 
 week, the said Lewis takes occasion to call them into his chambers and 
 there laboreth with all vehemence, craft, and subtility, to delude ignorant 
 persons. Therefore we beseech you, brethren, in the Lord and Saviour 
 Jesus Christ, that you who have the power, that you will do what lieth 
 
 in you to have these absurd and ridiculous to be reclaimed, and 
 
 that God and his Ministers may not be so grievously trodden down by 
 such ignominious speeches : and no doubt but you, or they, who strive 
 to uphold God's Ministers and word, all be crowned with eternal 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 596, from the proceedings of the Governor and Conncil. 
 \ Blanks in the record. 
 
38 
 
 joy and felicity, to reign in that eternal kingdom with Jesus Christ, 
 under whose banner we fight ever more." 
 
 Both of the parties were summoned before the Governor and Council, 
 and witnesses were examined. Lewis was found " guilty of an offensive 
 and indiscreet speech, in calling the author of the book an instrument of 
 the devil — and of a very offensive speech, in calling Protestant Ministers' 
 the Ministers of the devil, and to have exceeded in forbidding them to 
 read a hook, allowed and lawful to be read by the state of England, and 
 because that these offensive speeches, and other of his unreasonable dis- 
 putations in point of religion, tended to the disturbance of the public 
 peace and quiet of the Colony, and were committed by him against a pub- 
 lic proclamation set forth to prohibit all such disputes," or, as stated by 
 Captain Cornwallis, made "for the suppressing all further disputes tend- 
 ing to the opening of a faction in religion." Therefore he was fined 500 
 lbs. of tobacco to the Lord of the Province, and was bound over to good 
 behavior, giving security therefor, in 3,000 pounds of tobacco. 
 
 The Smith, whose Sermons are here spoken of, was Henrie Smith.* 
 He was a member of Lincoln College in 1575, and "esteemed the 
 miracle and wonder of his age, for his prodigious memory, and for his 
 fluent, eloquent, and practical way of preaching." He took his degree in 
 1583, and "was lecturer of St. Clement Danes, without the Temple Bar, 
 near London, which was much frequented by the puritanical party. He 
 was in very great renown among men in 1593, in which year he died, 
 aet 34." 
 
 The volume of Sermons from which those servants were reading, it is 
 presumed, was a fac simile of the copy now before us.f It is an 18mo. 
 of upwards of a thousand pages, just such a volume as we might natu- 
 rally suppose would find its way into an emigrant's chest. The Sermons 
 are such as we might expect from such an one as described by Woods, 
 and answers well to the character of the times. In a sermon from Job 
 i, 7, which, as given in the old translation then in use, reads thus : 
 "Then the Lord said unto Satan, whence comest thou? And Satan 
 answered the Lord, saying — from compassing the earth to and fro, and 
 from walking up and down in it." In the sermon, there is found the 
 following passage, and was doubtless the very one which the servants 
 were then reading, as it is the only one in the volume which answers the 
 allegation of Lewis. " As the serpent corapasseth, so does his seed — and 
 therefore doth Solomon call the ways of the wicked, crooked ways. 
 
 * Wood's Athenae Oxonienses. f Ex libris, Bishop Whitiugham. 
 
39 
 
 This is the great compasser. There be little compassers beside, like the 
 Pharisees, of whom it is said, that they compass sea and land lo make 
 one like themselves. Instead of these compassers, we have Seminary 
 priests which compass from Rome to Tyburn, to draw one from Christ to 
 anti-Christ. I will not name all compassers, lest I be compassed 
 myself; but this I speak within compass, that there is a craft in compass- 
 ing, and Satan is the craftiest Master, and the rest are his prentices or 
 factors under him." The first Sermon in the volume was printed in 
 1.592, and stated to be printed after the author's death. Woods, conse- 
 quently, must be wrong by a year, in the date which he assigns for 
 his death. 
 
 There are various facts which this petition and trial present worthy of 
 notice. One is, that there were a number of Protestant men in the St. 
 Mary's Colony. Four are mentioned in connection with the petition, and 
 others on the trial ; tbat the Protestants had a chapel, and consequently 
 were so numerous as to require one ; that there whs, notwithstanding 
 their number, no Protestant Clergyman in the Colony, though worship 
 was kept up by them, they being accustomed to meet in their chapel ; 
 and that these Protestants could write as well as read, and write to some 
 purpose. The tone and wording of the petition shows them to be Puri- 
 tanic ; and this is confirmed by the very volume they read from in Lewis' 
 house ; true Church of England men had little sympathy with such 
 authors in that day. Besides, while there was a common sympathy 
 between the Roman Catholics and Puritans, they being alike oppressed 
 and persecuted under the laws of that period, there was the most entire 
 antipathy between them and the Church of England men. And this 
 shows us, why all in the St. Mary's Colony so readily ranged themselves 
 under Lord Baltimore's banners, against the Church of England men of 
 Kent Island. The Puritans disliked the Churchmen not less than they 
 did the Romanists. 
 
 We are told, indeed, that then and there, Roman Catholics and 
 Protestants " lived in harmony."* But the facts elicited in this trial 
 show us otherwise. We are shown here that there were offensive 
 speeches and unreasonable disputations on religion, which tended to fac- 
 tion, to the disturbance of the public peace and quiet of the Colony ; 
 and that they were carried to such an extent that the Governor found 
 himself obliged to issue a public proclamation to prevent them ; and that 
 men were fined and bound under heavy penalties to keep the peace for 
 
 * Hawks, 30. 
 
40 
 
 its open violation. Their living in harmony is a fancy picture. Would 
 that it had been a true delineation. 
 
 We are shown here, also, that some at least of the Romanists were 
 most earnest in their proselyting eflforts. We shall see more of it as we 
 proceed further, and the exasperation which it caused, and at the same 
 time, how firmly these Protestants, without a shepherd, stood their 
 ground. And one thing more. We are shown that the Governor and 
 his assistants were prompt in sustaining the rights and privileges of the 
 Protestants, as secured by the Charter, to which attention has been 
 called. In their decision, they state incidentally, the very ground on 
 which they acted — "the book was allowed and lawful to be read in the 
 State of England." And by the Charter, they were not allowed to make 
 any laws, repugnant or contrary to the laws, statutes, customs, and 
 rights of the kingdom of England,* and consequently no judicial de- 
 cisions. 
 
 The settling of the case was unquestionably creditable and honorable 
 to them. But it must not be forgotten, that under the Charter they 
 could not do otherwise. Besides, the Roman Catholics were a small 
 minority in England, prescribed and excluded from office, and from 
 many of the civil rights. The King was Protestant; and the Parlia- 
 ment was more Protestant than the King. The Romanists durst scarce 
 lift up their heads — they were obliged to be submissively quiet. And 
 in this colony. — while just across the Potomac was the rigidly Protestant 
 colony of Virginia, ready always to act in defense of Protestantism, — the 
 settlement on Kent Island vpas Protestant, and it is by no means certain 
 that putting the Protestants of the Island and St. Mary's together, they 
 did not at that very time, constitute a majority even in Maryland. 
 
 Mr. Bozraanf estimates the population of St. Mary's at this time, to be 
 about three hundred. There was however a considerable accession this 
 year, by an arrival from abroad. Among the number was a Jesuit Priest, 
 Father Pulton, and a lay coadjutor, Wm. Morley. But John Knowles, 
 the coadjutor before spoken of, died, and also one of the priests, whose 
 name is not known, a young man, said to be of great promise, who had 
 been in the colony but two months. Nor did the other priests escape 
 sickness. But no other died, and so the number continued as before. In 
 the narrative of Father White and others,^ they .say, " we have not ceased_ 
 in an active manner, to exert our endeavors for our neighbors, [the In- 
 dians,] although it is not permitted us, by the rules of the province, to 
 
 * Charter, Sec. 7. \ 1 Bozman, 88. % P- 25. 
 
41 
 
 live among the barbarians, both on account of the prevailing sickness, 
 and the hostile acts which they commit. In the interim, we are more 
 earnestly intent on the English. And since there are Protestants as well 
 as Catholics in the colony, we have labored with both, and God has 
 blessed our labors. For of the Protestants who came from England this 
 year, almost all have been converted to the faith, besides many others, 
 with four servants that we bought for necessary use in Virginia. And of 
 five workmen, whom we hired for a month, we have in the mean time 
 gained two." They were thus on their own showing, in proselyting in- 
 defatigable. But no station had yet, on this fifth year of the colony, been 
 established among the Indians. 
 
 As illustrating something of the way in which some of the proselytes 
 were gained, we may take the following in the narrative of this same 
 year. " A certain one altogether unknown to us, but zealous in the re- 
 ligion of the Protestants, and staying with a host more fervent than him- 
 self, having been bitten by a snake, expected death every instant. One 
 of our people understanding this, having taken a surgeon with him to 
 the sick man, who was now said to be deprived of his senses, was anx- 
 ious for his soul, that he might in a measure heal it also. But his host 
 perceiving the thing, interrupted his pious endeavors. And when the 
 priest could think of no other opportunity, he resolved to spend the 
 night with the sick man. But the host then threw an impediment in 
 the way of this also, and lest by night access might be granted to the 
 priest, he set a watch who would sleep in a bed opposite to the door of 
 the chamber. Nevertheless, the priest taking advantage of every means, 
 at an unseasonable hour of the night, when he supposed the guard most 
 oppressed with sleep, without his being aroused, found a way of entrance 
 to the sick man, and admitted him into the Church as he desired it." 
 The sleepless efforts to proselyte the neglected Protestants, who were 
 kept without a shepherd, could hardly be better illustrated — " of this 
 sort are they which creep into houses."* 
 
 1639. 
 
 Mr. Bozman estimates, from data which he gives, that the population 
 of Kent Island at this time, was about one hundred and twenty ,f and 
 that of the St. Mary's Colony, to be about three hundred, though there 
 were not more than two or three wealthy persons among them.J 
 
 On the 25th of February, another General Assembly commenced its 
 sessions. 
 
 * 2,Tira. 3:6. t 2 Bo2man, 100. X 2 Ibid, 156. 
 
42 
 
 The only thing done now, which particularly concerns the view we 
 are taking of Maryland, is the Act which was passed " for Church liber- 
 ties." It was re-enacted the next year, and in 1 676, made a perpetual law. 
 It enacts, " that Holy Church within this province, shall have and enjoy 
 all her rights, liberties and franchises, wholly and without blemish ;"* 
 using thus, the very terms of the 10th section of the Charter, and show- 
 ing our construction of it to be true. But what meant the words " Holy 
 Church ?" If they are to be construed under the construction of the 7th, 
 10th and 2 2d sections of the Charter, they must mean the then estab- 
 lished Church of England. But this is not probable, the Lord proprietor 
 being a Romanist, and also his Governor and so large a part of his col- 
 onists. And that they intended the Roman Catholic Church seems just 
 as little probable, in view of the condition of the Romanists, and with 
 the charter hanging over them. Chalmers does not therefore seem very 
 far in the wrong when he says,f that " it would have puzzled the wisest 
 doctors of the Church of Maryland in that day, to have told what her 
 franchises were," or what Holy Church in that connection might mean- 
 It cannot be conceded, then, that the remark of Chalmers is a "con- 
 temptuous sneer."J It may not however be much in the wrong, to ad- 
 mit that the Act might be made to mean, whatever present circumstances 
 might require that it should mean. 
 
 In the sixth year of the St. Mary's Colony, the Jesuit Fathers had ex- 
 tended themselves throughout a large portion of the province. The 
 narrative so often referred to states, that the number of the missionaries 
 remained the same as the last year, but were located on places widely 
 distant. Father John Brock, the Superior, with a coadjutor, remained 
 in Metapawnian, which was given by Macquacoraen, the king of Patux- 
 ent, and was the storehouse of the mission. Father Philip Fisher was at 
 St. Mary's Father John Gravener, alias Altham, was stationed at Kent 
 Island, which, says the narrative, was sixty miles distant ; and Father 
 White was at Kittamaquenda, the metropolis ofPiscatoe, with the King, 
 Tayac — one hundred and twent)'^ miles distant. B. U. Campbell says^ 
 that Father Brock's real name was Morgan, and that his station was 
 near the mouth of the Patuxent, upon the land which had been given 
 to the missionaries by the Indians, and was called Mattapani. It was 
 afterwards, he says, relinquished to Lord Baltimore, and was the place 
 where he built his mansion. This relinquishment, it may be remarked, 
 was compulsory. Whatever may have been the motive for so doing, at 
 
 * Bacon, 1640, Chap. 1. f 2 Chalmers, 213. X 2 Bozman, 107. 
 
43 
 
 the session of the Assembly of this year, it was enacted, in a bill "for 
 maintaining the Lord proprietaries title," &c., that " no subject of his 
 Majesty, the King of England, or of any other foreign prince or state, 
 shall obtain, procure, or accept of any land within this province, from any 
 Indian to his own, or the use of any other than of the Lord proprietary, 
 or his heirs, nor shall hold or possess any land within this province by 
 virtue of such grant, upon pain that every person contrary hereof, shall 
 forfeit and lose to the Lord proprietary and his heirs all such lands so 
 accepted or held, without grant of the Lord proprietary or under him."* 
 This was in accordance with an old English Statute, which provided, 
 " that no religious community should, by gift or otherwise, obtain or 
 hold landed property without the consent of the civil authorities."! In 
 disregard of this, the missionaries had accepted from the king of the 
 Patuxents, a large tract of land, the plantation above alluded to. The 
 Act of the Assembly just met this case ; and Lord Baltimore therein 
 asserted his supremacy over the Church in the colony. He thus came 
 into collision with the missionaries, and their plantation was forfeited to 
 him. He had in a previous year, as we have seen, kept them in the 
 colony, and thereby from establishing missions out among the Indians at 
 a distance. But these acts were unquestionably in antagonism with his 
 Church, and rendered him liable to excommunication. In the bull " in 
 coena Domini,''^ the Pope asserts full supremacy over all powers and 
 persons, temporal and ecclesiastical, and forbids all persons whatsoever, 
 directly or indirectly, to violate, depress, or restrain the ecclesiastical lib- 
 erties or rights of the apostolic See and Church of Rome, howsoever and 
 whomsoever obtained, under pain of excommunication," &c. But to 
 return — Mr. Campbell tells us that " Father Altham was stationed at 
 Kent Island. He is of course the same, in the narrative called Gravener, 
 so that he too had two names. The narrative states that twelve Prot- 
 estants returned to Roman Catholic Church this year. The Kent Island 
 Church of England Colony, it will be seen, had now not only a Roman 
 Catholic Government, but a Jesuit priest stationed among them. And 
 if Indians were not converted to the faith, proselytes were made to it, 
 and the mission was not unsuccessful in St. Mary's. 
 
 1640. 
 
 The depriving of Captain Claiborne of Kent Island, and subduing the 
 Protestants there to Lord Baltimore's government, before spoken of, left 
 nothing for record this year, save that Father Altham, alias Gravener, 
 
 * See 2 Bozman, 113. f 2 Streeter, p. 30. 
 
44 
 
 died there, on the sixth of November. Father White remained at Pis- 
 cataway, and reports the baptism of Tayac on the 5th of July, together 
 with his queen and infant, and others of the principal men. And Father 
 Fisher at St. Mary's proselyted as many Protestants as the others baptized 
 Indians. 
 
 But though he had been deprived of his Island, Captain Claiborne 
 still conceived that he had a right to his property there. He was now 
 returned from England, and was a resident of Virginia as before, and on 
 the 8th of August, he made application for what he claimed on the 
 Island, to the Governor and Council of Md. He was very coolly told that 
 it was then possessed by right of forfeiture to the Lord proprietary, for 
 certain crimes of murder and piracy whereof he was attainted, March 
 24, 1638, by the judgment of the House of the General Assembly. 
 This was certainly an unwise reply, and exhibits a looking down upon 
 him,- and a contempt, which they afterward, no doubt, had reason to 
 regret. 
 
 1641. 
 
 For this year, the narrative of Father White and others supplies us 
 with nothing to our purpose, save only the arrival of another Priest» 
 Father Kigby, nor does the proceedings of the Assembly, or any other 
 source. 
 
 1642. 
 
 In the history of the religious dissensions in St. Mary's, we find record- 
 ed, that on the 2 2d of March, P. M., there was a petition presented to 
 the Assembly, by David WicklifF, in the name of the Protestant Catho- 
 lics of Maryland.* The next day, the petition of the Protestants, it is 
 said, was read, complaining against Mr. Thomas Gerard, for taking away 
 the key of the Chapel, and carrying away the books. The prefixing of 
 the title Protestant to Catholics, shows that the petitioners were not 
 Roman Catholics ; and the aflBxing the name Catholics to that of Prot- 
 estant, shows that they were not of the Puritan party of the Church of 
 England, then in the Colony. Mr. Gerard being charged to make an- 
 swer, upon the hearing of the prosecutors and of his defense, he was or- 
 dered to bring the books and the key taken away, to the place where 
 they had them, and pay a fine of 500 lbs. tobacco, a little upwards of 
 $22, towards the maintenance of the first Minister that should arrive. 
 Mr. Bozman remarks — " As Mr. Gerard must have been a man of con- 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 199, 200. 
 
45 
 
 siderable note at this time in the province, and probably a zealous Ro- 
 man Catholic, being the lord or owner of St. Clement's Manor, which 
 comprehended very nearly the whole of St. Clement's hundred — this ex- 
 aggerated fine demonstrates, that the Protestants must have possessed 
 at this early period, a very great influence in the Colony, as they natu- 
 rally indeed might be supposed to have, from the supremacy of the 
 mother country." And we are shown here clearly, that as yet, eight 
 years from the first settlement of the Colony, there was no Protestant 
 minister in it! 
 
 Another fact, which may be mentioned here, is, that on the 6th of 
 April, Captain William Claiborne, then a resident of Virginia, was ap- 
 pointed " the King's Treasurer, in the dominion of Virginia, for Ufe."* 
 This appointment shows, that though by the decision of the Lords Com- 
 missioners, he had lost his Island, yet that he had not thereby lost favor 
 with the Kino-. It was no doubt given him, as some compensation for 
 his loss by their decision ; and the leading ones of the Commissioners who 
 gave their decision against him, were not now at hand to advise — they had 
 been succeeded by others. It was probably the most lucrative oflBce in 
 Virginia. It also eflfectually refutes the charge of his having turned Pres- 
 byterian ; for it came not from the Presbyterian Parliament, then in the 
 ascendant in England, but from the King, and after his separation from 
 the Parliament, and having abandoned London. Besides, " so zealous 
 and firm had the Colony of Virginia hitherto been, in the support of the 
 Church of England, that shortly after the arrival of Sir William Berkley as 
 Governor of that province in 1639, several laws had been made against 
 the Puritans, though there were as yet none among them ; and so rigor- 
 ous were these laws, that none but conformists, in the strictest and most 
 absolute sense, were permitted to reside in the colony."f Yet Captain 
 Claiborne resided there, and was on the side of the King, not with the 
 Parliament. 
 
 During this year, however, ii is stated that three Puritan ministers 
 came to Virginia from Massachusetts, and were kindly entertained by 
 some private persons. In the preceding year, Mr. Richard Bennett, in 
 the name of some other gentlemen, had gone to Boston to desire that 
 such ministers might be sent. But though they came, their residence 
 was short, for they returned the next summer; and that, no doubt, be- 
 cause the Assembly of Virginia this year, had passed an Act to prevent 
 dissenting ministers from preaching and propagating their doctrines in 
 
 * 1 Hazzard, 493. t 2 Burk, 67. 2 Boz., 198, 9. 
 
46 
 
 the colony.* The Governor and Council — and Captain Claiborne was 
 one of that Council — issued an Order, that all such persons as would 
 not conform to the discipline of the Church of England, should depart 
 the country by a certain day ; yet it appears that an independent Church 
 was now founded and must have had some few members These things 
 are referred to, because three at least of the individuals mentioned, will 
 be seen hereafter, to have much to do in Maryland history. 
 
 One of the three ministers mentioned above, was William Thompson, 
 a native of England, and originally, among the primitive Puritans of 
 Lancashire. He was the first minister of Braintree, Massachusetts, and 
 was now sent to Virginia.t But it would seem, instead of returning to 
 Massachusetts, on leaving Virginia, that he came to Maryland and set- 
 tled here — where after a while we shall hear of him. 
 
 Ten days previous to the date of Claiborne's appointment, just spoken 
 of, March 26th, " Lord Baltimore was brought before the House of Lords, 
 on charges which are not now known ; in consequence of which, he was 
 placed under heavy bonds not to leave the kingdom.J He had thus 
 come under the suspicions of Parliament, if he was not indeed obnox- 
 ious to them. Whether these charges had anything to do with the 
 management of his colony or not, yet "certain it is, that from this time, 
 he manifested great anxiety to avoid every act which would expose him 
 to the charge of contravening, by his colonial policy, the established laws 
 of the realm. His firmness in this particular, and his watchfulness in 
 regard to compromising his proprietary rights, even placed him in oppo- 
 sition to the Jesuit missionaries in the colony, to whose aid he refused 
 for a time, to allow others to be sent, unless they would pledge them- 
 selves to make their practices conformable to the policy of the English 
 Government, and leave him the full exercise of his prerogatives." They 
 did thus pledge themselves, and in October two came over. But, says 
 the narrative, " our reasons being heard, and the thing itself being more 
 clearly understood, they easily fell in with our opinion."§ And that 
 opinion was, as expressed to the Governor and Secretary by them, that 
 to enforce the law against religious fraternities, would expose them to 
 excommunication, and the displeasure of Almighty God ! The priests 
 triumphed, and Lord Baltimore, for the present, had to give way. 
 
 * Beverly, 229. 1 Oldmixon, 201. 
 
 f 2 Bozman, 198, note, and Allen's Biog. Diet., Art. Thompson. 
 
 X Streeter, pp. 29, 30. § Father Wliite and others, p. 42. 
 
47 
 
 In September of this year, Mr. Bozman estimates the population of ' E'^' 
 Kent Island at 365, and that of Kent at 535,* — 900 in all. _j 
 
 The narrative of Father White and others, shows that there was this 
 year three priests. Fathers, Fisher the superior, at St. Mary's, White at 
 Piscataway, and Rigby at Mattapany — together with three coadjutors, 
 two of whom had come over this year. Besides reporting some miracles, 
 it is stated that Father White was detained during the winter, while 
 going up the Potomac, for some weeks at a village near by, and that its 
 chief and others of its principal men, received the faiih of Christ and 
 baptism. Not long after, the young Empress of Piscataway was baptized 
 at St, Maray's, where she had been educated. And almost at the same 
 time, the town called Port Tobacco, to a great extent, received the faith 
 with baptism, to the number of 130. The young queen of Patuxent, 
 with her mother, were converted. But no proselytes are reported. This 
 is the last report from the Jesuit Fathers for eleven years. 
 
 1643, 
 
 On the 15th of April, having appointed Giles Brent, Esq., as his deputy, 
 during his absence, Governor Calvert sailed for England. It is said, tbat 
 in consequence of difficulties in the Government of the province, he went 
 over, in order to have personal consultation with his brother, Lord Balti- 
 more, who declared his intention of visiting Maryland, but failed to do so. 
 
 Some time in the fall of this year, the Earl of Warwick was appointed 
 Governor in Chief and Lord High Admiral of the American Colonies, 
 with a Council of five peers and twelve commoners to assist him. This 
 looked, certainly, as if the Parliament, by whom they were appointed, 
 intended to subject Maryland and the other colonies to their jurisdiction, 
 but it does not appear that any steps were actually taken to effect it, 
 though it may account for Lord Baltimore's not leaving England, In 
 the colony, there was much trouble occasioned by war with the Indians. 
 
 1644. 
 
 On the 20th of January, Richard Ingle, a captain of a ship engaged 
 in the colonial trade, was the subject of an attempted arrest on the charge 
 of high treason against his Majesty .f His vessel was seized, but he him- 
 self escaped. The colony, as well as Lord Baltimore, unquestionably, for 
 the time being, took sides with the King against the Parliament, and 
 Ingle's men are said to have been tampered with, to carry the ship 
 
 » 2 Bozman, 237. ' f 2 Bozman, 271. 
 
48 
 
 to Bristol where the King then was * Hostilities with the Indians also 
 still continued and difficulties occurred between the acting Governor and 
 the Secretary. In September, Governor Calvert returned, bringing with 
 him a new commission ; one peculiarity of which was, that henceforth 
 those who received lands, were required to take an oath of fidelity to 
 Lord Baltimore. This, as the sequel will show, was the source of seri- 
 ous difficulties. 
 
 It appears from an executive document, issued towards the end of this 
 year, that Captain Claiborne, by means of a military and naval force, 
 regained possession of Kent Island.f So quickly had it been done, and 
 so entirely in accordance with the wishes of the people of that Island, 
 that upon rumor of what had been done, the Governor had to send out 
 spies or agents, in order " to learn with what force he did it, what strength 
 he is of those at sea or shore, what his intents are, and how long he 
 means to stay." 
 
 In July previous, the King had lost the whole north of England, and 
 " the estates of those who took part with the King," (and so Lord Balti- 
 mote had done thus far,) " were considered by Parliament as liable to 
 confiscation or sequestration, whenever the fortune of war should enable 
 them to do so."J But whether Captain Claiborne acted under any au- 
 thority of Parliament, Mr. Bozman confesses he has no information. 
 The existing difficulties, however, at St. Mary's, presented a tempting 
 opportunity, and knowing that he should meet with no opposition from 
 Parliament, then in the ascendant, he embraced it. And any one, who 
 knows any thing of the then existing antipathy of Protestants against 
 the Romanists, may readily imagine, that the Kent Islanders were quite 
 willing to escape from under Lord Baltimore's Government; and so will- 
 ing were they, that Governor Calvert learned nothing of Captain Clai- 
 borne's success from them. The Island had come under Protestant rule 
 again. Captain Claiborne had been expelled from the government and 
 pessession of his Island for more than five years. But now, having re- 
 gained it, he was proclaimed at St. Mary's, an enemy of the province, 
 and all intelligence or correspondence with him forbidden at peril. § 
 There is not a particle of proof, however, that he had forsaken his King 
 and benefactor, or that he had arranged himself under the banners of 
 the Parliament, and perhapses and probabilities are quite as good in his 
 favor as against him. It appears that Governor Calvert made " an ex- 
 pedition to Kent," but was not successful.! 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 691. | 2 Bozman, 287. J 2 Bozman, 289. 
 
 § 2 Bozman, 288. \ 2 Bozman, 290. 
 
49 
 
 1645. 
 
 Early in February of this year, during a session of the Assembly, 
 Captain Ingle, who, in January of the last year, had been proclaimed 
 guilty of high treason against his Majesty, in St. Mary's, and fled, — act- 
 ing now, it is said, under a commission from Parliament, — surprised and 
 took St. Mary's by force, and Governor Calvert fled to Virginia. Many 
 of the friends of Lord Baltimore were driven from the province, and the 
 Jesuit Fathers were seized and sent to England for trial,* and their 
 Mission, for the time being, was thus broken up. 
 
 The narrative of Father White and others for 1670,f states, — speak- 
 ing of an event alleged to have occurred in 1646, — " that there were 
 at the time, certain soldiers, unjust, plunderers, Englishmen indeed by 
 birth, of the heterodox faith, who coming the year before (1645) with a 
 fleet, had invaded with arms almost the entire Colony, had plundered, 
 burnt, and finally having abducted the priests, and driven the Governor 
 himself into exile, had reduced it to a miserable servitude." And in a 
 letter to Lord Baltimore from the Assembly, dated April 21, 1649, they 
 say, " great and many have been the miseries and calamities and other 
 sufierings, which your poor distressed people, inhabitants of this province, 
 have sustained and undergone here, since the beginning of the heinous tq- 
 hoiWoVi, first j)ut in practice hy that pirate I'^'jle, and afterwards, for al- 
 most two years' continuance by his complices and confederates, in which 
 time, most of your lordship'' s loyal friends here were spoiled of their whole 
 estate, and sent away^ as banished persons out of the province ; those 
 few, that remained, were plundered and deprived in a manner, of all 
 livelihood and subsistence, only breathing under that intolerable yoke, 
 which they were forced to bear under those rebels, which then assumed 
 the government of your Lordship's province unto themselves. Our suf- 
 ferings were violent like a tempest.''^ The misrule of Ingle and his asso- 
 ciates is here depicted in strong terms by Lord Baltimore's loyal friends 
 — the Romanists and others. 
 
 This loss of the government by Lord Baltimore, has been called usually 
 Claiborne's and Ingle's rebellion. If it is so called by Lord Baltimore's 
 friends, because each gained possession of his respective Colony, at or near 
 the same time, no material objection can be made. But there are no doc- 
 uments to show that they were identified. " Claiborne can be shown to 
 have been in his place in the Virginia Legislature, when Ingle made his 
 demonstration on St. Mary's ; and during the time of the occupancy of 
 
 * Streeter, 33, 34. f P. 45. X - Bozman, 665. 
 
 4 
 
50 
 
 Maryland, by tlie invaders, to have been a regular attendant on the 
 Courts of that Colony, where his official duties as Treasurer, required 
 him to be present."* Besides, the public documents of the day do not 
 associate Claiborne and Ingle together. Thus, on the Proclamation of 
 Governor Calvert, Jan. 1, 1645, Richard Thompson, planter, only is asso- 
 ciated with Captain William Claiborne.f Thus, on the proclamation of 
 pardon of March 4, 1648, after the province of St. Mary's was retaken, 
 Governor Green says,J " Whereas, sundry of the inhabitants of this 
 province, by the instigation of one Richard Ligle, have unfortunately 
 run themselves into a rebellion," &c., and " are now returned unto obe- 
 dience again," &c., "I do hereby * * grant a general absolute and free 
 pardon unto every and singular the inhabitants residing within this 
 province, * * excepting Richard Ingle, mariner."^ He only was thus 
 excepted. So in his granting a new seal, August 12, 1648,§ Lord Balti- 
 more says, " Whereas, our great Seal of the province of Maryland was 
 treacherously and violently taken away from them by Richard Ingle or 
 his complices, in or about February, 1645." So in his commission to 
 his Master General of the same date,|| he speaks of Richard Ingle and 
 his complices and again in his commission to the Commander of the Isle 
 of Keut,^ he speaks precisely in the same way. 
 
 But in his commission to Governor Stone, August 6, 1648, he gives 
 him power to grant pardons, &c.** " So as such pardon or pardons ex- 
 tend not to the pardoning of William Claiborne, heretofore of the Isle 
 of Kent, and now or of late of Virginia, or of his complices in their late 
 rebellion, * * nor of Richard Ingle, nor John Durford, mariner," (fee. 
 Instead thus as being considered by Lord Baltimore, as engaged in the 
 same rebellion, they are by him clearly distinguished as two distinct 
 parties. So in the commission to the Governor and Council, August 
 12th, I648,ft he forbids the repeal of any act, <fec., whereby William 
 Claiborne was, or is attainted, — Ingle is not mentioned. All this is proof 
 that, in that day they were not considered as associated and were distin- 
 guished as not having been. 
 
 1646. 
 
 Nothing is found touching our subject this year. Captain Claiborne 
 was in possession of Kent Island, and Ingle and his associates of St. 
 Mary's, — at least partially. 
 
 * Streeter, 34. f 2 Bozman, 228 % 2 Bozman, 641. 
 
 § 2 Bozman, 651. \ 2 Bozman, 652. T[ 2 Idem, 653. 
 
 ** 2 Bozman, 645. ff 2 Bozman, 654, 
 
51 
 
 164Y. 
 
 Towards the close of the last year, Governor Calvert returned from 
 Virginia, with a body of soldiers,* and surprised all those who had com- 
 bined against him, and cast them into prison,f and thus recovered again 
 the Government of St. Mary's, in which he was specially aided by those 
 who were his loyal friends of that Colony. They also paid on defraying 
 the expenses of the soldiers, 60,000 lbs. of tobacco, which say they "is 
 far more than all our recovered estates in the province were then worth." 
 And having gained St. Mary's, he turned his attention towards Kent 
 Island. On the 16th of January, therefore, he laid an embargo upon all 
 persons and vessels, that no intelligence might be communicated, or 
 practiced with foreigners during this time of war, in which he £ays,t " I 
 d© hereby forbid all persons now being in the county of St. Mary's, that 
 they presume not to go, or attempt to go out of the county of St. Mary's, 
 without acquainting me first therewith, and my leave to do so, and that 
 no person entertain any communication, or give any entertainment to 
 any one, coming into the province or from the Isle of Kent," &c. 
 
 After having done this, he went on with his work, and seems to have 
 succeeded, in April, in having reduced Kent Island again under his gov- 
 ernment, and took possession of it in person. Eleven are mentioned as 
 having been pardoned, and taken the oath of fealty to Lord Baltimore ; the 
 others fled. Those thus fleeing doubtless went over on to the main land 
 and settled there. Robert Vaughan, a Protestant, was now appointed the 
 Commander of the Island. Captain Claiborne had had possession there 
 for nearly three years, nor was this the last time that he came into pos- 
 session of the Island. 
 
 On the 9th of June, Governor Calvert died, at about the age of 40, 
 having previous to his death, named Thomas Green to succeed him. 
 
 1648. . 7 
 
 During the last few years, tliere appears to have been a material de- 
 crease of population. Judging from the votes in the Assembly of Janu- 
 ary of this year, Kent Island had a population less than 140; and St. 
 Mary's not more than 250. The decrease had been more than one half. I 
 
 On the l7th of August, Lord Baltimore appointed William Stone 
 Esq., as the Governor of his province ; but he does not appear to have 
 entered upon the duties of his office, till the middle of April of next year. 
 
 * 2Bozman, 296, ■)• 2 Idem, 666. ^1 2 Ibid, 299. 
 
52 
 
 Captain William Stone, as it is shown in his commission,* was from North- 
 ampton County, Virginia, and had undertaken " in some short time, to 
 procure five hundred people, of British or Irish descent, to come from 
 other places, and plant and reside within the province of Maryland." 
 He had been the High Sheriff of that county, and as Mr. John Langford, 
 Lord Baltimore's former Roman Catholic High Sheriff, in a pamphlet 
 published in London, 1655, states, was "well known to be a zealous 
 and well affected Protestant ;" nay, " he was generally known to have 
 been always zealously affected to the Parhament." 
 
 The oath which Lord Baltimore prescribed for him, in entering on his 
 oflBce as Governor, is a document of much interest, and so far as religion 
 is concerned, is as follows.f " I will not by myself, nor any person, direct- 
 ly or indirectly, trouble, molest, or discountenance any person whatsoever 
 in said provijice, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, and in particular 
 no Hornan Catholic, for, or in respect to his or her religion, nor in his 
 or her free exercise thereof, within said province, so as that they he not un- 
 faithful to his said Lordship, or molest or conspire against the civil gov- 
 ernment established here under him, nor will I make any difference of 
 persons in conferring rewards, offices, or favors, proceeding from the au- 
 thority which his lordship hath conferred upon me, as his lieutenant 
 here, for, or in respect to their said religion, respectively, but merely, as 
 I shall find them faithful and well deserving of his Lordship, and to the 
 best of my understanding, endowed with moral virtues and abilities, 
 fitting for such rewards, offices and favors, wherein mj prime end and 
 aim, from time to time shall be, the advancement of his said lordship^s 
 service here, and the public unity and good of the province, tvithout any 
 partiality to any, or any other sinister end whatsoever, and if any other 
 oflScer, or person whatsoever, shall, during the time of my being his lord- 
 ship^s lieutenant without my consent or privity, molest, or disturb any 
 person, within his jirovince, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, merely 
 for, or in respect of his or her free religion, or free exercise thereof, upon 
 notice or complaint thereof made to me, I will apply my poiver and au- 
 thority, to relieve and protect any person so molested, or troubled, 
 whereby he may have right done him for any damage lohich he shall 
 suffer in that kind, and to the utmost of my power, will cause all and 
 every such person, or persons, as shall molest or trouble any other person 
 or persons, in that manner, to be punished." 
 
 Dr. Hawks,J taking the parts of this oath not in italics, and leaving 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 642. f 2 Bozman, 648. $ Eccl. Contr. Md. 
 
53 
 
 out all the rest, says, " tbat there is no prouder tribute to the memory of 
 Cecil Calvert, than is found in this oath of office, which, from 1636, he 
 prescribed for his Governors." It is to be presumed, that he had not 
 seen the oath entire itself, but seen it only as stated by Chalmers, whose 
 authority he gives. Now Chalmers says,* "in the oath taken by the 
 Governor and Council, between the years 1637 and 1657, there was 
 the following clause," stating the oath as Dr. Hawks has done. B. 
 Mayer, Esq., remarks,f that " the statement of Chalmers has been held to 
 be indefinite, as to whether the oath Avas taken from 1637 to 1657, or 
 whether it was taken between those dates. But if the historian did not 
 mean to say, that it had been administered first in 1637, and continued 
 afterwards, why would he not have specified any other, as the beginning 
 year, as well as 1637 ? * * Chalmers was too accurate a writer to 
 use dates so loosely," &c. Now, the truth is, as stated by Chalmers, 
 that the oath was, as we have given it, administered to the Governor 
 between the years which he specifies ; still, his statement is deceptive. 
 What are the facts in the case? In 1634, Leonard Calvert became the 
 Governor of the province ; and history records no oath of office which 
 he took, until the one ordered by the Assembly of 1638, which is this.J 
 " I do swear, that whilst I am a member of this province, I will bear true 
 faith unto the right honorable Cecelius, Lord proprietary 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 juris- 
 dictions, and all and every of them will aid, defend and maintain to the 
 utmost of my power : the peace and welfare of the people I will ever pro- 
 cure, as far as I may ; to none will I delay or deny right, but equal justice 
 will administer in all things, to my best skill, according to the laws of 
 this province. So help me God." This he caused to be administered to 
 himself, March 20, 1638.§ But why this oath, if he had taken the 
 other spoken of before ? Then again we have the commissions given 
 him in 1637, 1642 and 1644, neither of which contain any form of oath 
 to be taken by him. During Governor Calvert's absence in England, in 
 1643 and 4, Mr. Brent, as we have seen, was appointed the temporary 
 Governor. In April 15, 1643,|| he was qualified by taking the following 
 oath : " You swear, that you will be true and faithful to the right honor- 
 able Cecelius, Lord proprietary of this province of Maryland, and that 
 you will defend and maintain to the utmost of your power, all his just 
 
 * Page 235. f Calvert and Penn, 46. X 2 Bozman, 608. 
 
 § 2 Bozman, 140. || 2 Ibid, 254. 
 
54 
 
 rights, interests, royal jurisdictions and seignory, in, to, and over the said 
 province, and the islands thereto belonging ; and that you will faithfully 
 serve him as his lieutenant of the said province ; and in all other offices 
 committed to your charge, you vfill do equal right and justice, to the 
 poor and to the rich, within the said province, after your cunning, wit and 
 power, according to the laws of this province ; you shall delay or deny 
 to no man right or justice ; you shall not know of any attempt against 
 his lordship's right and dominion, in, to, and over the said province, and 
 the people therein, but you shall resist and oppose it to the utmost of 
 your power, and make the same known with convenient speed to his 
 lordship ; and you shall in all things, faithfully counsel and advise his 
 lordship according to your heart and conscience. So help you God." 
 This, beyond all doubt, is evidence sufficient, that so late as 1643, there 
 was not any oath in existence, prescribed by Lord Baltimore as given by 
 Chalmers. If there was, why was it not administered to Governor Brent 
 — or why this? 
 
 At the death of Governor Calvert, in 1647, Mr. Green was appointed 
 Governor. Hut nothing is recorded of any oath as taken by him. 
 The truth is, that in neither of the commissions of Lord Baltimore to 
 his Governors, previous to the one given to Captain Stone, was any oath 
 to be taken, prescribed by him. Captain Stone's is the first which he 
 ever appointed, — and appointed in the words as given by us, in August 
 17, 1648. 
 
 Now then, does this oath propose toleration, as now understood, to all 
 religious sects and denominations of Christians, conscientiously differing 
 from each other ? Unquestionably no such thing is specified. The word 
 toleration is not in it; but 2^^otect is in it. The Governor is made to 
 swear, "I will apply my power and authority, to relieve aT\d protect any 
 person so molested." As before specified, Protection was the idea of that 
 day, not toleration ; that was of after growth. Nor was it the object of 
 the oath to grant toleration. Yielding to the force of circumstances, 
 the complete ascendency of the English Parliament, — the danger there- 
 from of losing his Colonial Government, if not possessions, and consider- 
 ing the large proportion of Protestants in his province. Lord Baltimore 
 found it advisable to appoint a Protestant Governor, a Protestant Secre- 
 tary, and one half of the other members of the Council Protestants. 
 And what clearly is the main object of this oath, to be taken by this 
 Protestant Governor ? — not simply to protect Episcopalians, Presbyterians 
 and Puritans. For the two latter, the Government at home would cer- 
 tainly see to ; and the officers now appointed also. JVo, it was that his 
 
55 
 
 Governor should not molest, trouble or discountenance any person what- 
 soever, in the said province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ — ix 
 PARTICULAR NO RoMAN Catholic, the vcry thing which Chalmers left out. 
 And this is no new idea or statement of our own. A cotemporary 
 writer — and he, Lord Baltimore's Roman Catholic High Sherift' of Kent 
 Island, his friend — so states the matter in his pamphlet of 1655. He 
 says* that Lord Baltimore " appointed this oath to be taken by the 
 aforesaid officers, when he made Captain Stone Governor, and Mr. 
 Thomas Hatton, Secretary, and others of his council there ; who, being 
 of a different judgment in religion from himself, his lordship thought it 
 but reasonable and fit that, as he did oblige the Governor by oath, not 
 to disturb any there who professed to believe in Jesus Christ, so to express 
 the Roman Catholics in particular, luho loere of his own judgment in 
 matters of religion:^ And Mr. Langford not only shows thus, why the 
 oath was made thus specific, but also the time tvhen it was prescribed, when 
 Captain Stone was made Governor in 1648. This was, indeed, " betiveen 
 1637 and 1657." It was unquestionably a wise and good measure. 
 But it was what Lord Baltimore had not done before ; and what he did 
 now, under the pressure of very peculiar circumstances. The retaining 
 of his possessions was clearly the moving cause, and for this who could 
 blame him ? But how an oath, which had the protection of Romanists 
 as its special object, should have become so exceedingly prolific in non- 
 sense about " Catholic Toleration in Maryland," it is difficult for us to 
 perceive. There was never a givsser perversion of the simple facts of 
 history. 
 
 1649. 
 
 The first Session of the Assembly, under Governor Stone, was held in 
 April, the 2d day. Of this Assembly, no Journal of its proceedings 
 remains.f " But there are strong grounds to believe, that the majority 
 of the members were Protestants, if not Protestants of the puritanic 
 order." It has been before stated, that Governor Stone, and a majority 
 of the members of the Council, were Protestants, and there are 
 strong reasons for a supposition, that a majority of the burgesses or 
 representatives " were Protestants also, inasmuch as they certainly Avere 
 at the next session of 1650."J They sat in one house, and not, as in the 
 next year, in two, says Bozman. Bacon thinks otherwise. But the first 
 law authorizing the division into two separate houses, was passed 1650. 
 
 * Langford, 26. f 2 Bozman, 349. X 2 Bozman, 354. 
 
56 
 
 If, therefore, there were no Burgesses from Kent, and eleven from St. 
 Mary's, as in 1650, and as of these five were Roman Catholics, and the 
 others Protestants, then adding the two Roman Catholic Councillors to 
 the five Roman Catholic Burgesses, there would be seven Romanists, and 
 adding the Governor, Secretary and two Protestant Councillors, to the 
 six Protestant Burgesses, there would be ten Protestants, — giving the 
 Protestants a majority of three. 
 
 And what was the population of St. Mary's? That of Kent was con- 
 fessedly Protestant. In St. Mary's, Hammond, in his pamphlet of 
 1656,* a prejudiced opponent of the Protestants, says, " an assembly 
 was called throughout the whole country," in 1650, "and because there 
 were some few papists that first inhabited these parts themselves, and 
 others of being diflerent judgments, an act was passed," &c. The Assem- 
 bly's letter to Lord Baltimore of 1648,f says, that during Ingle's rebellion, 
 " most of your lordship's loyal friends here, were spoiled of their whole 
 estate, and sent away as banished persons out of the province, — those 
 few that remained were plundered," &c., so that, as they said, in 1648, 
 they were not all worth 60,000 lbs. tobacco — 12,664. On the other 
 hand, they state, that in the first Assembly, after Governor Calvert had 
 regained his province, that of 164Y, " two or th-ee only excepted^ it con- 
 sisted of that rebelled party and his — Governor Calvert's — professed ene- 
 mies." And how long afterwards was it, that the Protestant Governor 
 Stone engaged to bring in five hundred colonists — Protestants, of course ? 
 We may thus see, without going further into proofs, that Mr. Bozman 
 had strong grounds for believing as he stated. It has indeed been 
 said, that now, and even forty-three years afterwards, in 1692, the Ro- 
 man Catholics were a majority in Maryland ;J and the only proof offered, 
 is a statement made by the then Governor Sharpe, in 1758 — sixty-six 
 years after the last date referred to ! ! But there are testimonies nearer 
 to 1649, which tell a different tale. Dr. Hawks§ says, " it is indeed true, 
 that at this time, 1692, from the testimony of an eye witness, there 
 were thirty Protestants to one Papist in the province."! Dr. Bray, 
 whose integrity and competency no one can question, in a Memorial to 
 the House of Bishops in England, in lYOO, says, "the papists in this 
 province — Maryland — appear to me, not to be above a twelfth part of 
 the inhabitants." So much for the population of the province, and the 
 Assembly of 1649. 
 
 * Leah and Rachel, 22. \ 2 Bozman, 665. 
 
 X MeSherry, the Romanist historian of Maryland. 
 
 § Maryland Eccl. Contr., 59. I| Chalmer's note, 24, p. 376. 
 
57 
 
 In this Assembly was passed the celebrated "Act concerning Reli- 
 gion,"* of which the following is an abstract : — " Forasmuch, as in a 
 well governed and Christian Commonwealth, matters concerning religion 
 and the honor of God, ought in the first place to be taken into serious 
 consideration, and endeavored to be settled, be it therefore ordained and 
 enacted," 
 
 1. That whosoever shall blaspheme God, or shall deny our Saviour 
 Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, or shall deny the Holy Trinity, the 
 Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the said persons 
 of the Trinity, or the unity of the Godhead, or shall use, or utter re- 
 proachful speeches, words, or language concerning them, shall be pun- 
 ished with death, and confiscation, or forfeiture of all his goods, to the 
 Lord proprietary. 
 
 2. That whosoever shall use or utter any reproachful words, or 
 speeches concerning the blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of our Saviour, 
 or the holy Apostles, or Evangelists, shall for the first offense be fined 
 £5 sterling, or if not able to pay, be publicly whipped, and imprisoned 
 during pleasure, &c.; for the second offense, £10, &c., and for the third 
 shall forfeit all his lands and goods, and be banished from the province ! 
 
 3. That whosoever shall, in a reproachful way, call any one an Her- 
 etic, Schismatic, Idolater, Puritan, Presbyterian, Independent, Popish 
 priest, Jesuit, Jesuited Papist, Lutheran, Anabaptist, Brownist, Antino- 
 mian, Barrowist, Roundhead, Separatist, or any other name, or term, 
 shall forfeit £10 sterling, or if not able, be publicly whipped and im- 
 prisoned, till the party offended be satisfied by the offender asking for- 
 giveness publicly ! 
 
 4. That whosoever shall profane the_ Sabbath or Lord's day, called 
 Sunday, by frequent swearing, drunkenness, or by any uncivil or disorderly 
 recreation, or by working when absolute necessity doth not require, shall, 
 for the first offense forfeit 2s. 6d., for the second 5s., for the third 10s., or 
 if unable to pay, shall for the first and second offense, be imprisoned, till 
 he shall publicly acknowledge this scandal and offence against God and 
 the civil government, and for the third offense, be also publicly whipped ! 
 
 5. "And whereas, the enforcing of the conscience in matters of religion, 
 hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous consequence," where " prac- 
 ticed, and for the more quiet and peaceable government of this prov- 
 ince, and the better to preserve mutual love and unity, be it enacted," 
 that no one professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be troubled, mo- 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 661. 
 
58 
 
 lested, or discountenanced for bis religion, or the free exercise thereof, 
 nor compelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion against bis 
 consent, so as he be not unfaithful to his Lordship, or molest or conspire 
 against the civil government. Every person offending, to pay 20 shillings 
 sterling, or if he refuse, or is unable to pay, be publicly whipped and 
 imprisoned ! 
 
 It Avill be perceived that this was simply a peace act, " to preserve 
 mutual love and unity." So says Mr. Langford,* "the intent of it being, 
 to prevent any disgusts between those of different judgments in religion 
 there," in the colony. So too Mr. Hammond,f both Lord Baltimore's 
 friends, and may be presumed to know something of his intentions. The 
 Act, indeed, compelled no one's belief; it only by penalties restrained 
 words and actions which were reproachful, and calculated to give disturb- 
 ance. The policy of so legislating is questionable, but the intention was 
 certainly good. Religion, however, needs not the aid of man's legislation, 
 but good government does in truth need the aid of religion, and in some 
 way must have it. 
 
 This Act, however much of toleration it embraced, was not a toleration 
 Act, and sustained by such penalties as it was, cannot be so considered. 
 Protection therefore was all that it aimed to secure. It has, nevertheless, 
 furnished ground for much eulogium on the Roman Catholic settlers of 
 Maryland. But the Act not having originated with them, and only 
 having been concurred in by them, their claim to any exclusive eulogium 
 must be, as by some it has been, abandoned. This being done, it has 
 then been claimed to have originated with Lord Baltimore. At the time 
 of his appointing Governor Stone, he sent over sixteen iVcts or laws, to be 
 enacted by the Assembly of Maryland. These laws were at once rejected 
 by the Assembly. But from these laws, some were chosen and selected 
 out, and enacted by this very Assembly of 1649. And it is claimed, 
 that the xA.ct which we have been considering, was one which was then 
 selected. It is probable that it was so. But there is no proof that it 
 was passed just as it was sent out, or that it was not amended, or in 
 any respect changed — none whatever. And if there were, he himself is 
 proof, that it did not originate with him. His words in Governor Stone's 
 commission, where he speaks of these sixteen Acts, are,l '' which said acts 
 or laws WERE proposed unto us, for the good and quiet settlement of 
 our colony." And this, his own testimony, is beyond doubt conclusive. 
 The Act, however, no matter where it originated, was the joint and con- 
 
 * Page 32. f Leah and Rachel, 22. % 2 Bozman, 654. 
 
59 
 
 current act of tlie Romanist Lord Baltimore, the Protestant Governor 
 and Council, and a Protestant House of Burgesses. And so far from 
 conceding tbat the Assembly acted in subserviency to Lord Baltimore's 
 judgment, precisely the opposite is the fact. He appointed bis officers 
 in tbe colony, because they ivere of a different judgment in matters of 
 religion from himself. And in tbis matter of religion so far from con- 
 trolling tbem, bis concurrence was a concession to tbeir views. Tbe last 
 part of tbe Act shows tbis conclusively. It is tbe very counterpart of 
 what is found in "tbe agreement," submitted by the officers of tbe En- 
 gbsb army to tbe consideration of their countrymen previous to Feb., 
 1648, and demands, " tbat all who profess faith in God by Jesus Christ, 
 however differing in judgment from the doctrine, discipline and worship 
 publicly held forth, shall not be restrained from, hwt protected in, tbe ex- 
 ercise of their faith and tbe practice of their religion, so they abuse not 
 this liberty to the civil injury, or tbe disturbance of the public peace."* 
 Tbis all know was a Puritan movement. 
 
 In 1642, mention was made of William Thompson, a Puritan minis- 
 ter, who left Virginia and is supposed to have come into Maryland. In 
 tbe Assembly's letter of tbis year, they mention that, "whereas your 
 lordship doth seem greatly distasted and disgusted at William Thomp- 
 son, through some information which has been given your lordship of his 
 comportment here, in aiding and siding with the rebels against your 
 lordship's Governor and government, which information we do assure 
 your lordship to be most false, your honor bath not a more faithful and 
 cordial friend in tbe whole province, and showed to the utmost of bis 
 ability, even before, in time of, and ever since the troubles here, that be 
 is."f Seven years thus he had continued in the colony, and such is tbe 
 account and character they give of him, — shov^'ing that though a Puritan, 
 he was Lord Baltimore's friend, and was so testified of by this Protestant 
 Assembly. 
 
 In tbe above mentioned year, 1642,J as has before been stated, an 
 Independent Church bad been formed in Virginia, with a few members. 
 At this time they had increased to one hundred and eighteen. It was 
 not a puritan party m the Church of England, as tbe puritans there still 
 continued to be, but a separate, independent, and distinct organization. 
 
 * Streeter's Maryland two hundred years ago, 46, and Neal's History of the 
 Puritans, 2, 79. 
 f 2 Bozman, 668. 
 X 2 Bozman, 370. 
 
60 
 
 In this year, says Leonard Strong, in his pamphlet of 1655, speaking of 
 them, " Many, both of this congregated Church, and other well affected 
 people in Virginia, being debarred from the free exercise of religion under 
 the government of Sir William Berkeley, removed themselves into the 
 province of Maryland, beihg thereunto invited by Captain William 
 Stone, then Governor for Lord Baltimore, with promise of liberty in reli- 
 gion and privileges of subjects." Such thus were some of the five hun- 
 dred colonists which Governor Stone brought in with him. 
 
 Bozman says,* " they were driven out" of Virginia, and a considera- 
 "ble number of their members, about a hundred,f emigrated, probably in 
 the spring and summer, to Maryland, and seated themselves at a place 
 called by them Providence, but afterwards Ann Arundel, most probably 
 on or near the spot on which the city of Annapolis now stands. Mr. 
 Langford,J before referred to, says, that they were, by the Lord Balti- 
 more''s special directions, received into Maryland. 
 
 They refused, however, on their first coming, the oath of fidelity to 
 Lord Baltimore, objecting to his "royal jurisdiction," "absolute domin- 
 ion," &c., but more especially, that, in taking it, they must, as they said, 
 swear to countenance and uphold anti-Christ, that is, the religion of the 
 Papacy ; and for a year, therefore, they would not take out any patents 
 of land. But a change in some of the terms of plantation having been 
 made by Lord Baltimore, and the oath having been modified with his 
 approval, they finally took out their patents, and made a permanent 
 settlement. 
 
 On the 20th of September, Robert Brooke, Esq., in England, obtained 
 from Lord Baltimore himself, a commission as commandant of a county, 
 newly set forth and erected,§ called Charles County. This County, as 
 then constituted, lay on the southwest side of the Patuxent, and seems 
 to have been, what is now contained in the three parishes on the Patux- 
 ent, — perhaps the four, All Faith, St. Mary's ; Trinity, Charles ; and St. 
 Paul's and Queen Anne, Prince George's. He must have settled, when 
 he came over. East of Portobacco. Besides being made the commandant 
 of the county thus erected, he was appointed also a member of the Coun- 
 cil, and was probably, says Bozman, a Puritan. He was to transport into 
 the province himself, his wife, and eight sons, and a great number of 
 other persons, 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 370. \ 2 Bozman, 405. | P. 6. § 2 Bozman, 376. 
 
61 
 
 1650. 
 
 The Assembly met this year, on the 5th of April. From St. Mary's 
 there were eleven Burgesses, and two from Providence. These, together 
 with the Governor, Secretary, Members of the Council and the Clerk of 
 the Lower House, constituted the Assembly* The Governor, Secretary, 
 two of the Council, six of the Delegates from St. Mary's, and the two [ 
 from Providence, were Protestants. The other two Members of the 
 Council, five of the Delegates from St. Mary's, and the one chosen Clerk, 
 wel-e Roman Catholics ; being twelve of the former, and eight of the 
 latter.! The religious denomination of each is here specified, because 
 the religious denominations of that day were respectively the political 
 parties, and their religion showed their party and politics. 
 
 The first Act passed, was "for settling the present Assembly," by 
 which two distinct Houses, apart from each other, were constituted; the 
 Governor, Secretary and Council constituting the Upper, and the Bur- 
 gesses the other. The Lower House organized by choosing James Cox, 
 one of the Burgesses from Providence, a Protestant, their Speaker, and 
 a Roman Catholic, Clerk. So that the Upper House had four Protest- 
 ants to two Roman Catholics, and the Lower, eight Protestants to six 
 Roman Catholics, and one of these, the Clerk, made a member by the 
 House. The Burgess from Kent was a member of the Council, and by 
 the Act, took his seat in the Upper House. 
 
 The oath then taken by the members is worth noticing, as it shows 
 something of the religious complexion of the Assembly. It was this :J 
 " I do swear, that I will fsiithfully and truly, according to my heart and 
 conscience, to the best of my understanding and ability, without favor, 
 or affection, or self-ends, advise, consult and give my vote to all bills and 
 other matters, wherein my advice or vote shall be required, during this 
 Assembly, wherein my chief end and aim shall be the glory of God, in 
 my endeavors for the advancement and promotion of the Lord proprie- 
 taries just rights and privileges, and the public good of this province ; 
 and will also keep secret during this Assembly, all such matters and 
 things as shall be acted or debated," &c. Why this secresy was en- 
 joined, is not now known. One however of the Romanist members of 
 St. Mary's declined taking it, because, as he said, " he ought to be guided, 
 in matters of conscience, by his spiritual council," and if he took the 
 oath, he could not advise with such council. His seat was promptly de- 
 
 « Bacon, 1650, chap. 1, et praeced. f 2 Bozman, 383, 672. 
 
 \ 2 Bozman, 384. 
 
62 
 
 dared vacant, and another, in three days afterwards, was appointed in 
 his place. Nothing could show more palpably, how entirely he had 
 committed the keeping of his conscience to the Jesuit priesthood. If 
 the oath itself indicate the tone of religious principle prevalent in the 
 Assembly, it was no ordinary civil Assembly. 
 
 One of the early Acts passed at this Session, was " An Act prohibiting 
 all compliance with Captain William Claiborne, in opposition to his 
 Lordship's right and dominion over this province."* The preamble 
 shows, that he still remained unexempted from pardon by Lord Balti- 
 more, so that if taken by him, his life was forfeited. And it also shows, 
 that the war was not at an end ; for that, in letters to the Governor, he 
 had renewed his claim for Kent Island, and gave out, that he proposed 
 to make an attempt to regain it. It enacted, therefore, that any one in 
 the province assisting him, abetting or countenancing him, in any at- 
 tempt, on the Isle of Kent, should be punished by death, and confisca- 
 tion of lands, debts, goods and chattels. 
 
 It may be worth while to recall to mind here, that Captain Claiborne 
 and his settlement on Kent Island, were of the Church of England. And 
 there appears nothing to show that they did not continue so. The Prov- 
 idence Colony were Puritans, and not less ceilainly opposed to the 
 Church of England, than to the Church of Rome. This is well known. 
 The Protestant members of St. Mary's, we may have seen, must have 
 been also, more or less Puritan, and they, therefore, as well as the Ro- 
 manist members of that county, were alike united, in their opposition to 
 the Church of England. The entire Lower House thus, were hostile to 
 the religion of Claiborne and the Kent Islanders. The same may be 
 seen to be true of a part of the Upper House, if not perhaps of the 
 whole. Two were Romanists ; and the Governor, though a Protestant, 
 was "zealously affected to the Parliament;" and we have no reason to 
 think that the Protestant members of the Council were unlike him. 
 
 Now, it will have been seen that Kent Island — County, as it was now 
 called — was not represented in the Lower House. When Governor Stone 
 issued his proclamation for the election of Burgesses, Kent County might 
 make choice of as many as three. But instead of choosing three, only 
 one was chosen, and he the Commandant of the County. As a member 
 of the Council, he was by virtue of that office, a member of the Assembly 
 without any election. So that when the Assembly divided into two 
 Houses, the law declared him a member of the Upper House, and thus the 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 391, 670. Bacon, 1650, Chap. 4. 
 
63 
 
 Lower House liad no Burgess from that County. Besides this fact, it 
 appears that the commandant was not very cordially chosen, for the re- 
 turn of his election stated that he was chosen by only " a major part of the 
 freemen," while those from Providence were chosen unanimously. The 
 freemen therefore of Kent sent no one from among themselves. They 
 consequently had no hand in passing the Act now spoken of against 
 their old friend and proprietary, Claiborne. It was passed by those who, 
 by their religion, were politically hostile to him, as well to those also of 
 his religion. And we cannot wonder therefore that the Kent Islanders 
 were no more forward to send their Burgesses to the Assembly. 
 
 At this Session was also passed " an Act for the erecting Providence into 
 a County, by the name of Ann Arundel County." It was so called, prob- 
 ably,* from the maiden name of Lady Baltimore — then lately deceased. 
 Lady Ann x\rundel was the daughter of Lord Arundel of Wardour. In 
 the following July, Governor Stone visited Providence, and having organ- 
 ized the County, appointed Mr. Edward Lloyd the Commandant thereof. 
 
 In another Act of the Assembly, calledf " an Act of recognition of the 
 lawful and undoubted right and title of the right honorable Cecelius, 
 Lord Baron of Baltimore, absolute Lord and proprietary of Maryland," 
 &c., the preamble has these words : " Great and manifold are the ben- 
 efits, wherewith Almighty God hath blessed the colony first brought and 
 planted within the province of Maryland, at your lorship's charge, and 
 continued by your care and industry, in the happy restitution of a blessed 
 peace unto us, being lately wasted with a miserable dissension and un- 
 happy war. But more inestimable are the blessings poured upon this 
 province, in planting Christianity among a people that knew not God, 
 nor had heard of Christ. All which as we recognize and acknowledge, 
 to be done and performed, next under God by your lordship's industry 
 and pious intentions towards the advancement and propagation of Chris- 
 tian religion, and the peace and happiness of this colony and province," 
 &c. This, coming as it did from such an Assembly, is eulogy sufficient 
 to gratify the warmest admirer of Lord Baltimore. With this, then, we 
 conclude these sketches of Early Maryland History. 
 
 In the view now taken, 
 
 I. We have seen, that the first settlement in the territory, now known 
 as Maryland, that of Kent Island, was made five years before Lord Balti- 
 more's Colony came to St. Mary's, consequently that Maryland was not 
 first settled by him. 
 
 * 2 Bozman, 393. % Bacon, Laws of Maryland, 1650, Chap. 23. 
 
64 
 
 II. We have seen, that tlie first settlers were of the Church of Eng- 
 land, and that Church, with its Ministry and worship, was the first estab- 
 lished on Maryland soil. And that of the colony brought over by Gov- 
 ernor Calvert in 1634, a very considerable part were Protestants. Con- 
 sequently, it cannot be said with truth that Maryland was first settled 
 with Roman Catholics. 
 
 III. We have seen, that toleration as now understood, was not an idea 
 of that day; but i\idii 2>rotection was provided for in the Charter, to both 
 Protestants and Romanists, under the Protestant authority by which it 
 was issued. 
 
 IV. We have seen again, that in 1650, sixteen years from the landing 
 of Lord Baltimore's colony, the Government in the province, was in the 
 hands of Protestants, and that, too, by Lord Baltimore's own appointment. 
 
 V. We have seen, that now, in 1650, there were three counties. 
 
 The first settled being Kent Island — and Protestant — having a Protest- 
 ant Commandant. 
 
 The second settled, that of St. Mary's, part Romanist and part 
 Protestant; and so many of the latter were there now, that six out of 
 the eleven delegates chosen to the Assembly were of that class. 
 
 The third settled being that of Ann Arundel — ultra Protestant or Pu- 
 ritan, with a Protestant Commandant. 
 
 A fourth, that of Charles, had been created with a Protestant Com- 
 mander. Mr. Brooke and his colony were Protestant, but they had 
 not yet arrived. 
 
 There were, thus, three distinct and separate Settlements within the 
 Province, widely distant from each other. The first and the third were 
 Protestant ; the second partly Romanist and partly Protestant ; over all, 
 was a Government in the Province, whose Governor, Secretary of State, 
 and two of the Council, being four to two, were Protestant ; and a majority 
 of nine to five of the members chosen to the last Assembly. It is not to 
 be questioned, but that the majority of the population was now Protestant. 
 
 And there was, indeed, practical toleration. The three parties — 
 Church of England men, Romanists and Puritans, — did live, side by 
 side, in the Province; and possessed equal civil privileges, and were 
 equally protected by the Charter and by oaths and laws ; but unfortu- 
 nately they did not live in peace together — they were hostile in their 
 dispositions towards each other and belligerent in their acts. This the 
 further progress of our history but too painfully shows. 
 
 n\\\) 
 
J