from all provincial offices. In 1691, the charter of Maryland was declared forfeited, and King William, by his own power, constituted the colony a royal government; and in 1692, the Church of England became the established religion therein. In 1704, Benedict, the son of the proprietary, renounced the Catholic Church for that of England, and, thereafter, (in 1715,) this Protestant heir of Lord Baltimore was restored to the rights of proprietorship, and Protestant Maryland became again a proprietary government, under which it remained until the Revolution. Thus the government granted to Maryland by a Protestant monarch, and protected by Protestant governments throughout, has, through the monarchical tendencies of its Papal rulers, had to yield to the republican spirit of the age. Its history proves the incompatibility of Papacy and republicanism. And the sublime doctrine given in the quotation from the speech of, commissioner of Lord Baltimore, made by Bancroft thus: "The power, therefore, whereof I speak, being, as said, firstly, in God and from God; secondly, in the king and from the king [or Pope either;] thirdly, in his lordship; fourthly, in us;" as establishing divine right to rule and govern, appears not to have been an element in the atmophere of these United States, even at that early period.

The Archbishop says:

"It was not in Maryland alone that the Catholics, in the early history of the Colonies, gave proofs of their devotedness to the principles of civil and religious liberty. The State archives of New-York furnish testimonies in this respect not less honorable than those of Maryland. The Duke of York was a Catholic; and although school-books say he was a tyrant, still it is a fact of history that to him the inhabitants of New-Netherlands, whether Dutch or English, were indebted for their first possession and exercise of civil and religious liberty."

We shall show from history the above to be in perfect keeping with the rest of the Archbishop's "Catholic Chapter," false in fact and inference; and thus will have an opportunity to exhibit the "devotedness" of Catholics, their "honorable" acts, and the nature of the indebtedness of the inhabitants

of New-Netherlands to the Catholic Duke of York. The settlement of New-York took place under the Dutch in 1633. The settlers were hunters and Indian traders. Although in the fatherland the power of the people was unknown, yet in New-York, as early as 1642, we find, according to Bancroft, that "they had become convinced, without a teacher, of the right of resistance.” In 1647, Stuyvesant appears as Governor, under orders of the West India Company, and through him "the persecuted of every creed and country were invited to the colony." In 1653, the people met in assembly, against the will of the Governor, and framed their demand

"that no new laws shall be enacted but with con

sent of the people; that none shall be appointed to office but with the approbation of the people; that obscure and obsolete laws shall never be re

vived."

They had previously resisted arbitrary taxes ; and although Governor Stuyvesant then dispersed the assembly, yet in 1663 he had to concede to the people the right of representation. The municipal authority chosen by the people in 1664, in opposition to the Governor, surrendered New-York to the English squadron then in the harbor, and thereupon the Catholic Duke of York became proprietor under a charter granted to him some months before by his Protestant brother, Charles II. of England. "And if,” says Bancroft, "to fix boundaries and grant the soil could constitute a state, the Duke of York gave political existence to a commonwealth. Two months before the conquest, he had assigned to Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret the land between the Hudson and the Delaware." Bancroft also informs us that "the moral character of the state was moulded by New England Puritans, English Quakers, and dissenters from Scotland."

The city of New-York was now incorporated, yet no popular representation, no true English liberty was conceded. In 1666,

the Governor was instructed that

"The method for keeping the people in order is

severity, and laying such taxes as may give them liberty for no thought but how to discharge them."

This is very Catholic, truly! The people remonstrated and resisted the taxation, and, according to Bancroft, the government of the Duke of York was hated as despotic.

In 1673, the city surrendered to a small Dutch squadron, but was restored to the English in 1674. Andros became Governor by appointment of the Duke of York; and, as a Catholic specimen of civil and religious liberty, we may notice his answer to Andros

in 1677:

"I cannot but suspect assemblies would be of dangerous consequence, nothing being more known than the aptness of such bodies to assume to themselves many privileges which prove destructive to, and very often disturb the peace of government, when they are allowed."

Customs were now levied without consent of the people. In 1679, the Dutch Calvinists had been inflamed by an attempt to thwart the discipline of the Dutch Reformed Church. In 1681, discontent created a popular convention; and although five persons were arbitrarily summoned to NewYork and thrown into prison, yet the fixed purpose of the yeomanry remained unshaken. In New-Jersey, (1680,) the people resisted Andros.

"We are the representatives of the freeholders of this province," said the Puritans, "and His Majesty's patent, though under the great seal, we dare not grant to be our rule or joint safety; for the Charter of England, alias Magna Charta, is the only rule, privilege, and joint safety of every free born Englishman."

In New-York, the attempt to levy customs without a colonial assembly (1682) had been defeated by the grand jury, and trade became free just as Andros was returning to England. All parties now joined in entreating for the people a share in legislation.

Now, in the face of the foregoing historical facts, the Archbishop, with a peculiar regard for truth, remarks thus:

"The colony of New-Amsterdam and NewNetherlands had been in existence, under the sway of a Protestant government, from that time [the discovery of the Hudson, 1609] until 1683;" when for the last nineteen years, that is, from 1664, they had been under the con

trol of a Catholic Duke, through his representative and governor, deprived of their liberties, and heavily taxed to keep their thoughts from wandering from the impositions of their ruler. And although it was not until 1682 that the people became finally roused against the tyranny practised over them, and that the Duke, who even "the school-books say was a tyrant," felt the necessity of making concessions to the colony, yet it is precisely at this period, it will be observed, that the Archbishop dates

the advent of Catholic devotedness to the

principle of civil and religious liberty, as emanating from and practised under the Duke of York, who "was a Catholic." In proof of his assertions, the Archbishop quotes from Bancroft as follows:

"The Duke of York," says the historian, "was at the same time solicited by those about him to sell the territory. He demanded the advice of one who always advised honestly; and no sooner had the father of Pennsylvania, after a visit at New-York, transmitted an account of the reforms which the province_required, than without delay Thomas Dongan, a Papist, came over as Governor, with instructions to convoke a free legislature."

"At last," Bancroft goes on to say, "after long effort, on the seventeenth day of October, 1683, about seventy years after Manhattan was first occupied, about thirty years after the demand of the popular convention by the Dutch, [and nineteen years after the Duke of York became proprietor,] the representatives of the people met in assembly, and their self-established Charter of Liberties' gave New-York a place by the side of Virginia and Massachusetts."

It will be observed that this concession on the part of the Duke was made under existing necessities. How long it lasted we will soon see. We should also remember that the self-established charter was framed by Protestants, and must be passed to their credit, and not to that of Catholics. It provided that

"Supreme legislative power shall ever be and reside in the governor, council, and people met in general assembly. Every freeholder and freeman shall vote for representation without restraint. No freeman shall suffer but by judgment of his peers; and all trials shall be by a jury of twelve men. No tax shall be assessed, on any pretext whatever, but by consent of the assembly. No seaman or soldier shall be quartered on the inhabitants against their will. No martial law shall

exist. No person, professing faith in God by Jesus Christ, shall at any time be any ways disquieted or questioned for any difference of opinion."

222

We present this quotation to ask the question, to whom were the people indebted for the wording of the Charter of Liberties but to Protestants? and also to illustrate the practical villany of presenting these things to an intelligent audience and to the world as evidences of Catholic labor, and honorable devotedness to the principle of civil and religious liberty, when the very page of Bancroft's History from which the Archbishop took the quotation advised him in these words:

"But the hope of a permanent representative government was to be deferred. It shows the true character of James, that on gaining power by ascending the English throne, he immediately threw down the institution which he had conceded."

And it might have been added, only under the previous necessity of the case were these institutions conceded.

Bancroft, in treating of the causes of large emigration from Scotland, draws a picture of this Catholic Duke of York, who even "the school-books say was a tyrant," and to whom the inhabitants of New-Netherlands, according to the Archbishop, were indebted for their first possession and exercise of civil and religious liberty. He ascended the throne of England in 1685, tried to overthrow the Protestant religion, became wofully alarmed for his own safety, and finally fled to France, after a reign of about two and a half years, Now follows the picture of his Catholic work in his own country, as drawn by the historian :

"Every day wretched fugitives were tried by a jury of soldiers, and executed in clusters on the highways; women, fastened to stakes beneath the sea-mark, were drowned by the rising tide; dungeons were crowded with inen perishing for want of water and air. The humanity of the government was barbarous. Of the shoals transported to America, women were often burnt in the cheek, men marked by lopping off of ears," &c.

"It was the evident intention of the King," says Wilson, "to introduce the Catholic religion into the province, [of New-York,] and most of the officers appointed by him were of that faith. Among the inodes of introducing Popery, James instructed Governor Dongan to favor the introduction of Catholic priests by the French among the Iroquois; but Dongan, although a Catholic, clearly seeing the ambitious designs of the French for extending their influence over the Indian tribes,

resisted the measure.

...

In 1689, news arrived

of the accession of William and Mary to the throne of England. The people joyfully received the ining government." telligence, and rose in open rebellion to the exist

The colony being now Protestant, and continuing so to the Revolution, we close bishop's remarks immediately following his this part of history, to introduce the Archillustration of the Duke of York:

"I know not how it happens that, in treating this subject, I had hardly launched my slender skiff, when I found it heading up stream, instead of gliding gently down the current of historical events. But the events are the same, no matter under which order of chronology they are considered. That little skiff, if I may be allowed to extend the figure for a moment, bas stemmed the flow of a certain prejudice which calls itself history; has overcome successfully even the rapids of the adverse tide; and now . . . I can guide its onward course, with gentle and recreative labor, to the very well-springs of American history.”

Can we trust one who cannot stem with honesty and overcome in truth the adverse tide that history bears against his cultured bigotry? Never let him appear again as an historian before an enlightened public, until he does penance for the sin of writing the false Catholic Chapter of these United States. He further remarks:

and is ever found meddling in the political affairs and governments of men. The sympathy, if any, which we received from the Catholic Church, as such, during our struggle for independence, could not have arisen from a desire for our religious prosperity, being Protestants; but rather from a desire to crush that older Protestant government (England) against whom we were contending; and that sympathy must have rested upon the possible basis, that when the greater body is removed the lesser may be converted. If "passive obedience on the part of the subject" is not an "approved principle" of the Church, we should like to know, in the name of all that is impudent, by what element of the Church all her subjects are so held in passive obedience! But in the matter of revolutions, the Archbishop proceeds to say:

"But a revolution begun under such circumstances as marked the commencement, the prose cution, and completion of the American struggle for freedom, it would be impossible for her [the Church] to condemn."

Well, considering the state of religion in Maryland, and throughout the country, at the time of the Revolution, it being decidedly Protestant, it is at least some gratification to learn that Rome herself could not condemn

the American action. This, however, is mere palaver, thrown in to introduce the name of Charles Carroll, together with that of Commodore John Barry, as Catholics who fought the good fight in word and deed, not as Catholics, but as honest, high-minded republicans. For to them the country was known to be Protestant, and in the struggle against England no religious question arose. The Archbishop states that

"The issue involved in the War of Independence was a choice, as England presented it to the colonists, between political freedom and political slavery."

And he asks:

"During the contest, so far as religion is concerned, who were your allies and friends? I answer, Catholics.... And on the other hand, in

this contest between slavery and freedom, who were your enemies! Protestants."

Now, so far as religion was concerned, we

had no allies. The religion of this country was Protestant, and that of the nation against whose political control we were contending was also Protestant; and consequently they were not enemies as concerning religion, but simply in a political sense, as above stated by the Archbishop; and therefore the subtlety in handling these questions thus coupled together is without excuse. Reflection will make this apparent to the reader. The whole subject is intricate, but should be thoroughly studied by every true American. In relation to the two questions above, it may be said that within them, as placed in juxtaposition, is embodied a triangular group of interests, typifying the times, and through which we are to trace the development of civil and religious liberty, that masterly achievement of the American mind. In this triangulation stand,

First, Rome and her satellites, seeking through Papacy political and religious control;

Second, England, rejecting Papacy, and seeking to extend her political power only;

Third, These United States, seeking to themselves, in justice and right, both civil and religious liberty.

In the old world, the yearning for religious liberty led to Protestantism-a protest against the Church of Rome as a Church; the yearning for political liberty led to a protest against the despotic temporal rule of the Papal power. In the new world, the yearning for civil and religious liberty led to the Declaration of Independence; a titlepage in the history of these United States sufficiently expressive to convey to the mind the reality that despotism, whether practised under a political or a religious garb, was to have no foothold here. Rome and her satellites had sought to plant the authority of the Papal See within this happy clime, but were entirely foiled by Protestant England and the colonists. The latter power then sought to exercise an oppressive political control over the land, which ultimately led to resistance and independent nationality,

The Archbishop states that Lord Howe