Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

HAVING shown, in our April number, that | jesuitical entanglement into which his wouldProtestantism, civil liberty, and religious be Grace, either ignorantly or designedly, toleration were fixed occupants of the soil of seeks to lead his people. Maryland before the Roman Catholic colony under Lord Baltimore was created, we again take up the history of Maryland, and proceed to show, through the operations of the settlers under its charter, that even this Roman Catholic colony became decidedly Protestant prior to, and was so at the time of, the American Revolution. The Archbishop states in his "Chapter," that

"George Calvert, known as Lord Baltimore, was the projector of the Catholic colony of Maryland, although it was actually settled under the leadership of his brother, Leonard Calvert."

After the decease of Sir George Calvert,. his honorary titles and fortunes passed to his son Cecil, to whom the charter elevating: the Catholic (1) colony of Maryland upon Protestant Virginian soil, was duly granted! by a Protestant king; and it was Cecil Calvert who, as Lord Baltimore, appointed his brother (not his father) Leonard to act as his lieutenant. The latter, with about two hundred emigrants, mostly but not all Roman Catholics, sailed for the Potomac, arriving in March, 1634. Upon their arrival, although the Commissioners of Virginia in England: Here is a falsity as to fact. Leonard Cal-had, in 1633, remonstrated against the terrivert was the son and not the brother of Sirtorial grant as an infringement on her domains George; and the latter became deceased and a discouragement to her planters, yet, in before the former sailed for America. The obedience to the express commands of King false inference led to is, that Leonard acted James I., the emigrants were welcomed by in behalf of Sir George, which inference is Harvey, the Governor of Virginia, with courstrengthened by the Archbishop giving at tesy and humanity. In March, 1635, the once a quotation from Bancroft, stating the first legislative assembly in the new province expedition and landing in Maryland; folwas convened, for the passing of laws, each lowing it up immediately with another quo- freeman being entitled to a vote; for, says. tation, giving the character of the deceased the Archbishop, gentleman; and directly with another from the same historian, stating "the oath for the governor," and "munificence of Baltimore," as if they related all to the same individual. Thus we have exemplified the characteristic

VOL. III.

[ocr errors]

"Representative government was indissolublyconnected with the fundamental charter;"

a point that we should not lose sight of as a condition of the grant emanating from.

16

a Protestant king. The Archbishop quotes first act of religious bigotry staining the from Bancroft thus:

[blocks in formation]

It is to be observed, that this oath is for the acting governor, a lieutenant of the proprietor, Cecil Calvert, and emanates from the people, at the passing of laws; also, that it is in strict accordance with the provisions of the charter; and, truly, we could wish that every Roman Catholic in the world would take it; and, further, that his "Holiness" the Pope should cease to claim the power to grant them absolution there from; yet the proprietary grant was, in this instance, a pretty strong inducement against the seeking of such kind interference. In May, 1635, some of the first occupants, under Clayborne as a leader, refused to submit to the encroachments upon their territory; a bloody skirmish followed, yet Clayborne's men were defeated by the new comers. We now pass on to the acts of the people, and find that, according to Bancroft, in 1638,

"The people of Maryland rejected the code which the proprietary, as if holding the exclusive privilege of proposing statutes, had prepared for their government; and asserting their equal rights of legislation, they in turn enacted a body of laws, which they proposed for the assent of the proprietary; so uniformly active in America was the spirit of popular liberty. Yet an apprehension of some remote danger of persecution seems even then to have hovered over the minds of the Roman Catholics; and, at the session of 1639, they secured to their Church its rights and liberties. Those rights and those liberties, it is plain, from the charter, could be no more than the tranquil exercise of the Roman worship."

[ocr errors]

Thus Catholics were as yet only five years in a Catholic colony, and had already grown apprehensive! It looks as if there must have been some few Protestants there, through permission of the charter granted by their king, and evidently working briskly for the full measures of civil liberty, which the lord proprietor was measurably withholding. Yet we notice this fact, that the

statute-book was Catholic, and one that should not have missed honorable notice in

66

the "Catholic Chapter." We find the Archbishop continually transposing events, possibly to make them read better, or as being due "to the propriety of the occasion." Thus, a quotation from Bancroft, commencing with, Maryland at that day was unsurpassed for happiness and liberty," and applying to 1642, after the people had resisted the encroachment upon their rights by the proprietor, is preceded in the Catholic Chapter by an act of the colonial assembly in 1649, (seven years later,) when, according to Bozman, a majority of the members were Protestants. We insert the quotation, which is from Bancroft:

in matters of religion-such was the sublime tenor "And whereas, the enforcing of the conscience of the statute hath frequently fallen out to be where it has been practised, and for the more of dangerous consequence in those commonwealths quiet and peaceful government of this province, and the better to preserve mutual love and amity among the inhabitants, no person within this province, professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall be any ways troubled, molested, or discountenanced for his or her religion, or in the free exercise thereof" But, says Bancroft, "The clause for liberty in Maryland extended only to Christians, and was introduced with a proviso: Whatsoever person shall blaspheme God, or shall deny or reproach the Holy Trinity, or any of the three Persons thereof, shall be punished with death.'”

Bancroft informs us that this religious act was passed at the earnest desire of the Roman Catholics, and with the earnest concurrence of their governor; that it was in consequence of an apprehension of pending danger; and thus we learn that it was not solicited, on their part, with a feeling of concession and toleration, but rather for selfpreservation, they being in the minority.

We must not lose sight of the struggle in England between the monarchists and republicans, which, as relating to their religion, could be stated as being between Episcopalians and Puritans. The same issues arose in this country. The English monarch fell; Cromwell had succeeded. This was a crisis for Lord Baltimore and his proprietaryship. His injunctions were strict, and repeated

to the government of the colony; and, in conformity with them, no disturbance was given in Maryland to any person for "matters of religion;" and thus, at this period, we learn-quoted by the Archbishop from Bancroft-that

"The disfranchised friends of prelacy from Massachusetts, and the Puritans from Virginia, were welcomed [in accordance with the charter] to equal liberty of conscience and political rights in the Roman Catholic colony of Maryland.”

At this point in history the Archbishop pauses, to remark:

"By all this it would seem that the provision of the Federal Constitution, securing universal freedom of religion, corresponds, or might be regarded as having been almost literally copied from the provisions of the charter and statutes of the Catholic colony of Maryland, proclaimed and acted upon by them one hundred and forty years before the war of independence. Hence, I submit that the Catholics of the United States, not only by what has occurred since, but by their presence and their principles and their practice, from the earliest colonial times, are entitled in their own right to a full participation of all the privileges, whether civil or religious, which have been acquired by this country in the progress of her history."

Now, we conceive that the "provisions of the charter," and also of the statutes, so far as they relate to civil and religious liberty, are eminently Protestant, and that they certainly proceeded from or were granted by Protestants; yet the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New-York would call them their principles and their practices! Would to God they were not only theirs-his-but the principles of all Catholics throughout the world! The principles of religious toleration were declared by the Protestant discoverer, Roger Williams, upon American soil, in 1631, before the charter of Maryland was written or thought of. They tolerated the infidel, pagan, Mussulman—all mankind, whether fools or philosophers; and since he gave these principles freely to the world, let "Catholics" take them, and work up to them in full faith. There is one other point to be noticed. The Archbishop says:

"You will be surprised and sorry to hear that the Catholics of Maryland, who had given such an example as we have seen described, were themselves disfranchised in 1654, on account of their religion."

It should be, on account of the political tendencies of their Church, and then viewed in reference to the state of the times. The Romanists were monarchists; the rights proprietary constituted a mimic monarchy. The Puritans were friends of popular liberty, were hostile to monarchy, and equally so to an hereditary proprietary. They had compelled Stone, the commissioner of Lord Baltimore, to surrender the commission and government into their hands. Parties had now become identified with religious sects, after which, an intolerant act was passed by the Puritans, who were at this period in the majority. Cromwell, the Protestant ruler of England, never approved the decree; he commanded the assembly "not to busy themselves about religion, but to settle the civil government." Struggles (intercine) commenced in 1655. Papists, and others, arm and get possession of provincial records; but they are attacked and defeated. 1658: A compromise is effected; and then fol lowed, according to Bancroft,

"Permission to retain arms; an indemnity for arrears; relief from the oath of fealty; and a confirmation of the acts and orders of the recent Puritan assemblies; [for] these were the terms of surrender, and prove the influence of the Puritans."

In 1660, the Assembly of Maryland dissolved the upper house, consisting of the governor and his council, and assumed to itself the whole legislative power, and was thus in full possession of liberty, based upon the practical assertion of the sovereignty of the people. In 1661, the restoration of the Stuarts was also the restoration of the proprietary, which continued after his decease [1676] to his son Charles, who, in 1681, limited the right of suffrage; and, subsequently, (in 1688,) an Assembly was convened, and an attempt made to exact an oath of fidelity. It was resisted; and, in 1689, an armed association was formed by the people, for asserting the right of King William. The deputies of Lord Baltimore endeavored to oppose the association by force, but at length they capitulated, and yielded assent to the exclusion of Papists

« AnteriorContinuar »