USA > Maryland > Maryland toleration; or, Sketches of the early history of Maryland, to the year 1650 > Part 6
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
1648.
. During the last few years, there 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.
On the 17th 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.
* 2 Bozman, 296. + 2 Idem, 606.
# 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 Iligh 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 Parliament."
The oath which Lord Baltimore prescribed for him, in entering on his office as Governor, is a document of much interest, and so far as religion is concerned, is as follows.t "I will not by myself, nor any person, direct- ly or indirectly, trouble, molest, or discountenance any person whatsoever in said province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, and in particular no Roman 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 be 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, procceding 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 my 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, without any partiality to any, or any other sinister end whatsoever, and if any other officer, 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 province, 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 power and au- thority, to relieve and PROTECT any person so molested, or troubled, whereby he may have right done him for any damage which 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,į taking the parts of this oath not in italics, and leaving
* 2 Bozman, 642. . + 2 Bozman, 648.
# Eccl. Contr. Md.
1
53
out all the rest, says, "that there is no proudor 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,t that " the statement of Chalmers has been held to be indefinite, as to whether the oath was 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 be 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.t "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
* Tage 235.
+ Calvert and Penn, 46.
# 2 Bozman, 60S.
§ 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 will 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. But 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 protect is in it. The Governor is made to swear, "I will apply my power and authority, to relieve and 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. No, 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-IN PARTICULAR NO ROMAN CATHOLIC, the very 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 Sheriff 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, who were 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 when it was prescribed, when Captain Stone was made Governor in 1648. This was, indeed, " between 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 grosser 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.t " 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 were at the next session of 1650."; 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. + 2 Bozman, 349.
# 2 Bozman, 354.
56
If, therefore, there were no Burgesses from Kent, and sleven 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 tha's first inhabited these parts themselves, and others of being different judgments, an act was passed," &c. The Assem- bly's letter to Lord Baltimore of 1648,t 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-$2,664. On the other hand, they state, that in the first Assembly, after Governor Calvert had regained his province, that of 1647, " two or three 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 ;} 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 1700, 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.
# MeSherry, the Romanist historian of Maryland.
§ Maryland Eeel. Contr., 59.
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 !
1
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.
1
58
lested, or discountenanced for his religion, or the free exercise thereof, nor compelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion against his 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 will 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,t 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 Acts 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 Act 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,{ " which said acts or laus 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. t Leah and Rachel, 22.
# 2 Bozman, 654.
-
59
current act of the Romanist Lord Baltimore, the Protestant Governor and Council, and a Protestant House of Burgesses. And so far from conceding that the Assembly acted in subserviency to Lord Baltimore's judgment, precisely the opposite is the fact. He appointed his officers in the colony, because they were of a different judgment in matters of religion from himself. And in this matter of religion so far from con- trolling them, his concurrence was a concession to their views. The last part of the Act shows this conclusively. . It is the very counterpart of what is found in "the agreement," submitted by the officers of the En- glish army to the consideration of their countrymen previous to Feb., 1648, and demands, " that 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, but protected in, the ex- ercise of their faith and the practice of their religion, so they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury, or the disturbance of the public peace."* This 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 the Assembly's letter of this 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 hath not a more faithful and cordial friend in the whole province, and showed to the utmost of his ability, even before, in time of, and ever since the troubles here, that he is."t Seven years thus he had continued in the colony, and such is the account and character they give of him,-showing that though a Puritan, he was Lord Baltimore's friend, and was so testified of by this Protestant Assembly.
In the above mentioned year, 1642,¿ as has before been stated, an Independent Church had 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 in the Church of England, as the 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.
+ 2 Bozman, 668.
$ 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, being 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,t 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,¿ 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.
صد الشر
7
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, were Roman Catholics ; being twelve of the former, and eight of the latter.t 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 bad 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 :} "I do swear, that I will faithfully 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.
$ 2 Bozinan, 384.
+ 2 Bozman, 383, 672.
----
elared 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 bim, 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 certainly 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 had 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 Arundel 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, calledt "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 the 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 that protection 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 cleven 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.
-
F857.03
min
5421
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.