The religious liberty that distinguished Baltimore's Maryland palatinate, which has been belittled by some American writers as having existed in imagination rather than in fact, was wide enough to give the colony a character different from the older ones. It is probable that had an avowed Catholic king sat on the throne of England, and had the majority of Englishmen been spiritual subjects of the Pope, Cecil Calvert would have been no more liberal in his views or religion than the Puritans; but circumstances compelled another course. Much as the Catholics might have desired to establish their religion to the exclusion of all others, much as they may have hated or sorrowed over the heretic and have regretted that he was doomed to everlasting damnation, it was impossible to exclude Protestantism from the palatinate, where it had been enjoined by the charter. What they could do was to recognize liberty of worship, and they could not sanction Catholicism and exclude Puritanism, which would not only have been inconsistent but inexpedient and impolitic. Cecil Calvert may not have been in advance of his age and at heart no more liberal than Laud, he may have regretted that he could not complete his machinery of government by the establishment of the inquisition and the star chamber, but the fact remains that Maryland, in the seventeenth century, was the only place on the American continent under English rule in which religious sects were unmolested.

It is not easy at the present day, Lea says, for those accustomed to universal toleration to realize the importance attached by statesmen in the past to unity of belief, or the popular abhorrence of any deviation from the standard of dogma. These convictions were part of the mental and moral fibre of the community and were the outcome of the assiduous teachings of the church for centuries, until it was classed with the primal truths that it was the highest duty of the sovereign to crush out dissidence at whatever cost, and that hatred of the heretic was enjoined on every Christian by both divine and human law. The heretic was a venomous reptile, spreading contagion with his breath, and the safety of the land required his extermination as a source of pestilence.'

At a time when Catholics and Episcopalians were disfranchised in Massachusetts and Quakers were scourged at the cart tail until their bodies ran with blood, and Roger Williams was driven forth, and John Cotton boldly proclaimed that "the Church never took hurt from the punishment of heretics"; when Virginia compelled nonconformists to depart the colony and prevented "popish recusants" from holding office, and Quakers were persecuted as felons, Maryland neither flogged nor maimed, and instead of driving out heretics opened her arms to them.

In 1649 the Assembly passed "An Act concerning Religion," the first American toleration act 1 Lea: History of the Inquisition of Spain, vol. ii, p. 1.

that shows the liberality of the lord proprietor and his legislature. Any person "who denominated any other person a heretic, schismatick, idolator, puritan, presbyterean, independent, popish priest, jesuit, jesuited papist, lutheran, calvinist, anabaptist, brownist, antinomian, barrowist, roundhead, separatist, or other name or term in a reproachful manner, relating to matter or religion," was subject to a fine of ten shillings, one half to the lord proprietor and the other to the person "of whom such reproachful words are or shall be uttered or spoken"; and in case of not being able to satisfy the fine, "the person so offending shall be publicly whipt and shall suffer imprisonment without bayle or mainprise, until he, she, or they respectively shall satisfy the party offended or grieved by such reproachful language, by asking him or her respectively forgiveness publicly for such his offence before the magistrate or chief officer or officers of the towne or place where such offence shall be given." A further section recognized that the "inforcing of the conscience in matters of religion hath frequently fallen out to bee of dangerous consequences in those commonwealths," therefore, "for the more quiet and peaceable government of this province, and the better to preserve mutual love and unity amongst the inhabitants here," it was provided that no person "professing to believe in Jesus Christ shall henceforth be any waies troubled, molested, or

discountenanced, for or in respect to his or her religion, nor in the exercise thereof . . . nor in any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any other religion against his or her consent.”

All through the colonial period Catholics were looked upon with suspicion, which long afterwards colored the New England view, but was less noticeable in the South, possibly because of the early influence of Maryland. We have only to examine the various commissions and charters to see that Catholics were always discriminated against. In the commission for New Hampshire of 1680 liberty of conscience was granted to all Protestants, but not to other sects. In the Massachusetts charter of 1691 William III allowed liberty of conscience "in the worship of God to all Christians (except papists)." Rhode Island, defaming the memory of Roger Williams, enacted a statute depriving Catholics of the franchise; Oglethorpe's charter for Georgia permitted "free exercise of religion" to all persons "except papists." Even in Pennsylvania, the most liberal of all colonies, the Catholics were compelled to walk with great circumspection and permitted to make little public announcement of their faith. Penn, in 1708, rebukes his secretary of the colony for having suffered "public mass in a scandalous manner," and the Philadelphians opposed the erection of a Catholic chapel because it was "in too public a place.”

If Baltimore had done nothing else than make it

possible for Catholics to be placed on an equality with other Englishmen and to bring under the protection of the organized machinery of government the Catholic Church among English-speaking colonists, he would have won his place in history. His motives, I repeat, may have been selfish and unworthy, he may have been as illiberal as his contemporaries, policy may have cloaked his hopes, and under the guise of tolerance he may have patiently waited for the day when the Church was to become supreme and the temporal power bow to the spiritual. With hidden motives we have nothing to do. He was as much a pioneer and did as great a work in his own way as John Smith did in the South or Bradford in the North. I have always regretted that Cecil Calvert was no diarist and had none of the love of introspection that so marked the Puritans, who had a perfect passion for self-analysis and the vivisection of their emotions. It would be supremely interesting if we knew what was in the back of this man's head, whether he was simply, as his life and public acts would seem to indicate, a person of moderation, shrewdness and generous instincts, or whether he was a cunning visionary who toiled patiently to accomplish an end that was never realized. It is a fascinating speculation, but profitless, as it leads nowhere.

The circumstances that gave a Catholic proprietor a Protestant charter, that made him realize that he was always under suspicion and was narrowly