2CABYLAMD
758
2CABYLAMD
married and settled in the province, and lived there
several years, discharging tiie duties of governor as
well as of proprietary according to liberal and en-
lightened princfples and with consideration for the
welfare of the inhabitants. In 1683 the General As-
sembly voted him 100,000 lbs. of tobacco as an ex-
pression of " the duty gratitude and affection" of the
people of the provmce. This he declined on the
ground that it would impose too great a tax buiden on
the people.
Puritan Usurpation. — Charles was not, however, without his troubles. Attempts were made in 167G to force him to make public provision for the clergymen of the Church of England. This, following his father's example, he declined to do, and with the approval of the innaoitants, because of the worthless character and scandalous conduct of most of the ministers of that denomination sent over from England. In 1676 a proclamation was issued by the Protestant malcon- tents denouncing the government of the Catholic Pro- prietary, demanding its extinction, and the appoint- ment of a royal governor. They assembled in arms in Calvert County to carry out their programme, but Governor Notfey, in the absence of Sir Charles Cal- vert in Ensland, quickly suppressed the movement and hanged two of the ringleaders. Later on the malcontents availed themselves of the opportunity created by the Revolution in England to raise the standard of revolt against the government of Lord Baltimore, and to call upon all good Protestants to aid in its overthrow. Unoer the leadership of one John Coode, an apostate Catholic, a Colonel Jowles and others formed " The Protestant Association in arms to defend the Protestant religion. All sorts of lying charges against the Catholics were scattered broad- cast through the community. They were accused among other things of forming an alliance with the Indians for the massacre of the Protestants. The Government of the proprietary was overthrown, and a Committee of Public Safety was installed in its place. This Committee appealed to William and Mary for a recognition, and to the discredit of those monarchs it was given.
Lord Baltimore, without the charge of a single offence bein^ brought against him, except that he was a Catholic, without a trial by a jury of his peers, against his earnest protest, and notwilHstanding the remon- strances of large numbers of respectable Protestants in several of the counties, was deprived of all the civil and political authority conferred upon him in the charter, and remained so deprived until his death in 1715. William and Mary without a scruple took over the province, made it a royal colony, and appointed Lionel Copley governor. And now began the reign of religious intolerance and bigotry. William and Mary, although they deprived Lord Baltimore of his govern- ment of the province in violation of the express pro- visions of the charter, refused to sanction the repeated attempts made by the Maryland usurpers to rob him of his proprietary rights. These rignts he retained until his death in 1715, administering his land olFice, appointing his surv'eyors, collecting his rents and issuing, as the only recognized source of title, grants and patents for lands to claimants under the condi- tions of plantation promulgated by his father Cecilius. This retention of his territory enabled the proprietary to save his province and the future State ot Marj-land from absorption by either Virginia or Pennsylvania colonies. Encouraged by the Government both in England and in the colony, and by the sympathy and support of the Protestant inhabitants of Maryland, the revolutionists began an era of religious persecu- tion.
In 1692 an " Act of Religion " was passed whereby all the penal laws of England existing at that time against the Catholics were declared to be in force in the colony. This Act established the Church of Eng-
land as the Church of the province, and provided for
conformity with its worship and discipline. To Eps-
copal clei^^en was given jurisdiction in testamentaiy
causes. The members of the Church of England at
that time constituted but a small minority of the
people. To the Dissenters and the Quakers, who to-
other with the Catholics formed a considerable ma-
jority of the people, this act was very obnoxious.
Under the rule of the Catholic proprietaries there was
no Established Church, no tax imposed for its sup-
port, no conformity with its worship and discipline re-
quired under penalties for non-compliance. In 1702
an Act was passed exempting Puritans and Quakers
and all other Rinds of Dissenters from the provisions of
this law, except the one imposing an annual tax of 40
pounds of tobacco per poll on all the inhabitants for
the support of the Establishment. To the Catholics no
relief whatever from these burdens was extended.
They and they alone remained subject to the jpains,
S3nalties, disabilities, and taxes provided in this Act. y the Test Oath of 1692 Catholic attorneys were de- barred from practising in the provincial courts. By the Act of 1704 Catholics were prohibited from prac- tising their religion; priests were debarred from the exercise of their functions; priests and parents for- bidden to teach Catholic children their religion, and the children encouraged to refuse obedience to the rule and authority of their parents.
Charles, Lord Baltimore, died 20 February, 1715. His son Benedict Leonard now succeeded to the title and estates. This son, a few years before the death of his father, had renounced the Catholic Faith, and with his family had conformed to the Church of England. His father, incensed by this conduct, had cut off his allowance. To replace this. Queen Anne had, on the petition of Benedict, directed Governor Hart to provide for him an annuity of £500 out of the revenue of the province. This apostasy proved an injury to the Catholics of Maryland. Benedict died 5 April, 1715. His son Charles II. who had conformed with his father, became 2he fifth Lord Baltimore and the fourth proprietary, and received from Queen Anne the government of the province. In 17.18 a more stringent law w^as passed barring Catholics from the exercise of the franchise and the nolding of any office in the province. In 1 71 5 a law was adopted providing that if a Protestant should die leaving a widow and children, and such widow should marry a Catholic, or be herself of that opinion, it should be the duty of the governor and council to remove such child or children out of the custody of such parents and place them where they might be securely educated in the Protes- tant religion. This Act was amended and re-enacted in 1729 by an Act which in the case mentioned gave the power to take the child to any justice of the county court. Without regard to sex or age the child or children should be put w^herever the justice pleased. There was no appeal.
In all this proscriptive legislation there are evi- dences of a latent lU-conc^ed purpose which in 1756 was boldly announced in petitions to the Lower House, and in a series of articles from correspondents in the " Maryland Gazette " published in Annapolis.
The Jesuits owned and cultivated several lai^ manors and other tracts of fertile lands, the revenues of which were devoteil to religion, charity, education, and their missionary work. The Assembly was there- fore prayed to enact that all manors, tenements, etc., possessed by the priests should on 1 October, 1756, be taken from them, and vested in a commission appointed for that purpose and sold^ the proceeds of the sale to be devoted to the protection of the inhabitants from the French and Indians. Priests were to be required to take all the test oaths and on their refusal banished, and. as " Romish recusants "^ their lands to be forfeited. In the same year the Upper House, as the Governor's Council was called, framed a bill with the title "To
