THE CLAIM

OF

THE CHURCH OF ROME

ΤΟ

THE EXERCISE OF RELIGIOUS TOLERATION

DURING THE

PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT OF MARYLAND,

EXAMINED.

BY JOSIAH F. POLK.

"Ye have taken away my gods which I have made, *** and what have I more?"-JUDGES, 18, 24.

IN the "Cumberland Civilian" of the 17th July, there are nearly three columns of editorial strictures, numbered II, on our remarks, which form the first article in the January number of the "Investigator" for the present year, on the subject of Roman Catholic toleration in Maryland; and, as they give none of our arguments, we think that, perhaps, we cannot do better, by way of reply, than to republish that article, with some additional remarks, and some extracts from the writings of the Hon. John P. Kennedy on the same subject.

We are not surprised that the Jesuits should adhere to this claim with so much tenacity, and exhibit such extreme sensitiveness on the occasion of its validness and genuineness being disputed; for it is the only case of religious toleration to which their church has ever ventured to lay claim.

At what period they propagated this spurious claim we are not informed; but it is most certain they have published and proclaimed it with so much zeal, and industry, and effrontery, that none, till recently, has been found to question its validity; while many Protestants, from ignorance of the history of the times, and want of reflection, have positively believed it. Nay, more: having told it so often, we cannot wonder if some of them even believe it themselves!

[From the Investigator for January, 1846. ]

ROMAN CATHOLIC MARYLAND.

"Quousque tandem abutere, Catalina, patientia nostra?”

A member of that sect which claims all the Christianity, writing in the "Union" of the 13th October, over the signature of "A True Marylander," uses the following language:

"Maryland, I need not say, was founded by English Catholics," [meaning Roman, by the word "English,"] "who, flying from persecution at home, raised in America the standard of religious and civil liberty, and were the first to proclaim in the British colonies the freedom of conscience which Protestant states were denying them in the Old World."

Had the writer said that a Protestant king allowed the Roman Catholics in the British colonies the freedom of conscience which was denied them at home, he would have left us little ground for controversy. As it is, we must deny the historical correctness of his statement. The truth is, it was the Protestant King Charles I who permitted Lord Baltimore to raise in Maryland the standard of religious and civil liberty, affording equal protection to the Papist and the Protestant.

We have already shown, in a previous number, (February, 1845,) by extracts from the old Maryland charter itself, that the Roman Catholics of Maryland were not entitled to the least credit for the religious toleration observed under the proprietary government; and, as those extracts are short, we will here repeat them.

In the 7th section-after granting the power of legislation to the Lord proprietary and freemen-there is a proviso, in these words:

So, nevertheless, that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not repugnant or contrary, but (as far as conveniently may be) agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs, and rights of this our kingdom of England.”

This is repeated in the 8th section. In section 22, in relation to the interpretation of the laws or decisions of the courts, we find these words:

"Provided, always, that no interpretation thereof be made whereby God's holy and true Christian religion, or the allegiance due to us, our heirs and successors, may in anywise suffer, by change, prejudice, or diminution."

Any act of intolerance, therefore, or decision of a court prejudicial to the exercise of that religion which the Protestant government of Great Britain considered "God's holy and true Christian religion," would have been a violation of their charter, and have subjected them to the displeasure of that government, which had the power, and might not have wanted the disposition, to deprive them of all those cherished privileges which that charter conferred.

A respected friend, in reference to our remarks on this subject in the February number of this work, (pages 63 and 64,) has called our attention to certain passages of Mr. Bancroft's History of the United States, which will presently follow, and which, he thinks, militate strongly against the view we have taken of the subject. We thank our friend sincerely, as an occasion is thus afforded for a re-examination of the history of the times, and a revision of our own remarks.

Our main object was, to show that it was not only reasonable to suppose that a Protestant king, on granting a province to a Roman Catholic, would be careful to guard the rights of his Protestant subjects who might settle there, and not to clothe the grantee with power to persecute them, should he be so disposed; and that such, indeed, was the fact in respect of the case in question. But Mr. Bancroft seems disposed to give all the credit for those salutary provisions to the Roman Catholic grantee, rather than the Protestant grantor—on the supposition, it would also seem, that the grantee could have obtained anything he saw fit to demand, to the extent even of power to oppress, burn, and destroy all of the king's Protestant subjects who might dare to venture within the limits of the charter. If this is not to be inferred, we confess our inability to discover the object of such high encomiums as are bestowed upon the grantee for the just and tolerant provisions of that instrument.

In vol. 1, p. 241, Mr. Bancroft says:

"The nature of the document itself, and concurrent opinion, leave no room to doubt that it was penned by Lord Baltimore himself."

This is not improbable; but it is not to be supposed that it received the king's signature and seal without undergoing the scrutiny of the privy council, or his own inspection. Sir George Calvert had been near the crown long enough, and he well enough understood the sensitiveness of Charles in relation to his prerogative, and also the state of the public mind, to know how to limit his demands. Nevertheless, no one knows that his original draft of the charter did not contain articles which were rejected by the privy council, and that others were not substituted which he would rather had been omitted.

Again, vol. 1, pp. 242, 243, Mr. Bancroft says:

"Sir George Calvert was a Roman Catholic; yet, far from guarding his territory against any but those of his own persuasion, as he had taken from himself and his successors all arbitrary power, by establishing the legislative franchises of the people, so he took from them the means of being intolerant in religion."

Here Mr. Bancroft admits almost everything-certainly the principal thing for which we contend, namely: that the colonists had no power