BOOK III.

Note 10, page 235.

Note 11, page 235.

plant ten companies "of the Irish Regiment into a fruitful part of America not yet inhabited." To make the proposal acceptable, it was stated, somewhat diplomatically perhaps, that the major part of the officers and many of the soldiers were Protestants. Sainsbury's Calendar, p. 95, where the conjectural date is 1628.

The translation quoted is that published by Cecilius Calvert in the Relation of 1635. The original reads: Unacum licencia et facultate Ecclesias Capellas et Oratoria in locis infra premissa congruis et idoneis Extruendi et fundandi eaque dedicari et sacrari juxta leges Ecclesiasticas regni nostri Anglie facendas." Maryland Archives.

Sir Edward Northey, Attorney-General of England in the following century, gave this decision: 'As to the said clause in the grant of the province of Maryland, I am of opinion the same doth not give him power to do anything contrary to the ecclesiastical laws of England." This is as ingeniously ambiguous as the clause itself. The attorneys-general and solicitors-general during the eighteenth century set themselves to the task of subordinating colonial government to parliamentary authority by a series of opinions in which they make rather than explain law. In the present instance Northey was more modest than usual, for he reaches a purely negative and impotent conclusion, which Neill turns into a positive one in his text. Founders of Maryland, 99. There is a collection of opinions on colonial subjects rendered by the attorneys and solicitors-general in the first half of the eighteenth century, in a volume at Landsdowne House which I have examined. This collection was made, or at least furnished, for the use of Lord Shelburne. Before Northey's opinion was given the English Parliament had assumed power to override some provisions of the Maryland charter, as is pointed out in Abercromby's Examination, MS. at Landsdowne House, 47. How slowly the Church of England grew in the colony may be inferred from the statement made in 1677, that four clergymen have plantations and settled "beings" of their own-a phrase sufficiently obscure. Others were sustained by voluntary contributions. Colonial Papers, No. 49, Record Office, folios 54, 55. This is Baltimore's reply to the paper at folio 56, the order of which is evidently reversed. The population of the province, it is stated, was composed at that time chiefly of dissenters of various sects, Catholics and Anglicans being the smallest bodies.

CHAP. I.

Ncte 12,

As early as 1752 it was remarked that the Maryland charter contained "the most extensive power of any charter in British America." Abercromby's Examination, MS., Landsdowne page 236. House. In Collier's Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain, vol. ix, is the writ of Edward III, A. D. 1327, by which the regalities of the bishopric of Durham are confirmed after a trial in parlia

ment.

Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, wrote to Strafford, 10 January, 1633-34, that he had sent “a hopeful colony into Maryland with a fair and probable Expectation of Success, however without Danger of any great prejudice unto myself, in Respect that many others are joined with me in the Adventure "—that is, in the financial risk. Strafford Papers, i, 179. Twenty years later Cromwell writes to Bennet, Governor of Virginia, "We have therefore at the request of Lord Baltimore and of divers other persons of quality here who are engaged in great adventures in his interest," etc. Thurloe, i, 724. A tradition of this co-operation may have remained in Maryland a century later, for in 1755 or 1756 there was presented to the Lord Baltimore of that day, who was a Protestant, a petition from Roman Catholic residents of Maryland in which this assertion occurs: " The money and persons of this persuasion contributed chiefly to the settling and peopling of this colony." British Museum MS. 15,489.

Note 13,

page 240.

The statement of Father Henry More, in 1642, that "in lead- Note 14, ing the colony to Maryland by far the greater number were here- page 242. tics," is not conclusive, though it is relied on by General Bradley T. Johnson and others. More was Provincial of the Jesuits in England, and he is no doubt repeating loosely the information contained in Father White's letter of the year before, which says, Whereas three parts of the people in four at least are heretics ―a statement true, no doubt, in 1641, when the Kent Islanders and newcomers were counted, but not true, probably, of the company of 1634, as Bancroft seems to say.

The original document is in the Stoneyhurst MSS., Anglia, vol. iv. It is reprinted in full in General Bradley T. Johnson's "The Foundation of Maryland." It tends to show that the emigration of many recusants was confidently expected.

Note 15, page 242.

Nubes, terrificum in morem excresentes, terrori erant intu- Note 16, entibus antequam discinderentur: et opinionem faciebant pro- page 243. diisse adversùm nos in aciem, omnes spiritus tempestatum maleficas, et malos genios omnes Marylandiæ." Relatio Itineris, 15.

BOOK III.

Note 17, page 247.

Note 18, page 248.

Note 19, page 248.

Note 20, page 249.

Note 21, page 250.

See passim, Letters of Missionaries. A letter of Copley, the Jesuit, to Lord Baltimore, in Calvert Papers, p. 165, implies the possibility of Catholic incumbents of Maryland parishes. He is complaining of the law of the Assembly of 1638 relating to glebe land: "In euery Mannor 100 acres must be laid out for Gleabe lande, if then the intention to bind them to be pastors who enjoy it, we must either by retaining so much euen of our owne land undertake the office of pastors or lesse euen in our owne Mannor maintaine pastors, both which to us would be uery Inconuenient."

Letters of Missionaries, p. 77. "The Catholics who live in the colony are not inferior in piety to those who live in other countries; but in urbanity of manners, according to the judgment of those who have visited the other colonies, are considered far superior to them." More than a hundred years later the Catholics retained a superiority, according to Updike's Appendix to McSparran, 1752: The Catholics, having the start in point of time of the after settlers, are also to this day ahead of them in wealth and substance; by which means the first and best families are for the most part still of the Roman communion,” p. 492.

The act passed in 1704 was renewed in 1715 and still in force in 1749. I cite from Ogle's Account of Maryland, of the latter date, a manuscript at Landsdowne House, numbered 45, folio 199. In No. 61 at Landsdowne House is a decision of the Attorney-General in England in 1705 that Jesuits may be expelled from Maryland by order of the queen if aliens, but not if they are subjects. The various eighteenth-century enactments against Catholics will be found in Bacon's Laws of Maryland, passim. MS. 15,489, British Museum, cites some of these severe laws and the proceedings taken under them. Strong petitions against these measures were signed by Charles Carroll and others.

Gabriel Hawley, Robert Evelin, and Jerome Hawley, appointed to places in Virginia, appear to have been Catholics and partisans of Baltimore. Aspinwall Papers, i, page 101, note.

Baltimore's letter bears date February 25, 1637, and is in the Record Office, Colonial Papers, xiv, No. 42. The memorial apparently sent with it is No. 49 in the same volume. Baltimore proposes to reward Windebank for his assistance, and he sets down the very manner in which the secretary is to approach the king with a diplomatic falsehood. Both the letter and memorial

are printed in Maryland Archives, Council Proceedings, pp.

41, 42.

But even in this ambiguous act Baltimore shrewdly puts himself under shelter of a precedent. A statute of Henry IV, 1399, reads: Premierement que seint esglise eit & enjoiez toutes ses droitures libertees & franchises entierement & saunz emblemissement.

A copy of the ordinance as printed separately at the time is in the Lenox Library. It is reprinted in Churchill's Voyages, viii, 776.

It is extremely curious that, in the letters of one of the Jesuits reporting the attack upon them in 1645, he should have used an expressive word hitherto supposed to be very modern and American. He says that the assault was made " by a party of rowdies' or marauders." From the way in which the sentence is printed in the Records of the Society of Jesus, iii, 387, I suppose that in the original manuscript the English word "rowdies" is given and explained by a Latin equivalent.

CHAP. I.

Note 22,

page 251.

Note 23,

page 252.

Note 24,

page 254.

Charles, the third Lord Baltimore, writes in defense of the Note 25, Maryland policy of toleration under date of March 26, 1678: page 256. That at the first planteing of this Provynce of my ffatherAlbeit he had an absolute Liberty given to him and his heires to carry thither any Persons out of any the Dominions that belonged to the Crown of England that should be found Wylling to goe thither, yett when he comes to make use of this Liberty He found very few who were inclyned to goe and seat themselves in those parts But such as for some Reasons or other could not Lyve with ease in other places, And of these a great parte were such as could not conforme in all particulars to the severall Lawes of England relateing to Religion. Many there were of this sort of people who declared their Wyllingness to goe and Plant themselves In this Provynce soe as they might have a generall toleračon settled there by a Lawe by which all of all sorts that professed Christianity in Generall might be at liberty to worship God in such manner as was most agreeable with their respective Judgments and Consciences without being Subject to any Penaltyes whatever for their soe doing." Colonial Papers, vol. xlix, Record Office. Compare Leah and Rachel, p. 23, where the author also implies that the Act of Toleration was a concession to Puritan demands.

CHAPTER THE SECOND.

THE PROPHET OF Religious freedom.

BOOK III.

Centrifugal forces in Massachusetts.

I.

THE centrifugal force of religious differences acted with disastrous results in Maryland, because the Catholic party, which had always a controlling negative there through the proprietary, was in the minority. The Massachusetts people, on the other hand, were fairly homogeneous in religious opinion, and their government was admirably compacted. In Massachusetts religious sentiment was a powerful centripetal force. Magistrates and ministers were nicely poised, and each order relied upon the other to maintain existing conditions. If the magistrates were perplexed or were seriously opposed, the elders were called in to advise or to lend a powerful ecclesiastical sanction to the rulers. When any disturbance of church order was threatened, the magistrates came to the front and supported the clergy with the sharp smiting of the secular arm. In the magistracy and in the ranks of the clergy were men of unusual prudence and ability. If the little Puritan commonwealth seemed a frail canoe at first, it was navigated-considering its smallness one might rather say it was paddled-most expertly. But in Massachusetts, as