USA > Maryland > Maryland toleration; or, Sketches of the early history of Maryland, to the year 1650 > Part 2
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
* I Bozman, 185+
+ 2 Bozmau, 399, 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 V 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 Bishop 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 liege-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 peaceubly 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.
1
14
statute, act, ordinance or provision, to the contrary thereof notwithstand- ing."
That these privileges, franchises and liberties, 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 1676, 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 suffer change, prejudice, or diminution or, as the original is, proviso semper, quod nulla fiat inter- pretatio, per quam sacrosancto Dei, et vera christiana religio, * * * immu- tatione, prejudicio vel dispendio patiantur. Sucrosancto, 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. By 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- ing 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 religion, 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 however 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 of 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 of which, as is well known, it was most thoroughly examined by himself and by the Privy Council also, by whom it certainly did undergo somne changes. And that these changes did not relate to this very point, is quite improbable. The authority, then, which gave Protestants protec- tion in the Colony, was the King's own authority, and he a Protestant. From 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 B.] 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 give 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.
-
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 reasons, and whatsoever else was alleged on either side, did think fit to leave Lord Baltimore to his paient, and the other parties, to the course of law according to their desire. But for the pre- venting of further questions and differences, their Lordships did also think fit and order, that 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 Bozmant 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 the 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,t where 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.
+ 1 Bozman, 381.
# 2 Burk, 39,
2
18
colonists for his assistants. A younger brother, George, also came out, but it seems 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, soughi 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 months 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,t Mr. John Baxter, Mr. Thomas Dorrell, Capt. Jolin 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. Ilow large a proportion of the emigrants were Roman Catholics, is not now known. All, however, certainly were 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 Bozman, 26, from 1 Oldmixon, 184.
t Died on the voyage.
# B. U. Campbell's Sketch.
§N. 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 dicd, 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 27th, 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, but 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 demcan 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, er their right of soil.
Eleven days after this action of the Governor and Council of Virginia, March 25th, 1634, 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."t 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,t 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 150,000 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.
# 2 Bozman, 30.
t Father White, p. 19. § Ibid, p. 21.
.
21
government was removed to the city of Annapolis. In 1720 the State House was given to the parish of William and Mary 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 Delaware -- 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.
The 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 22d 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 :+
" His majesty doth let you know, that 'tis not intended that interests which 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; 2 Bozman, 42, note.
+ 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 offer 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."}
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.