CHAP. necessary for its comfort and protection, and spared no VII. costs to promote its interests; expending, in the two 1634. first years, upwards of forty thousand pounds sterling.

to

1639.

But far more memorable was the character of the Maryland institutions. Every other country in the 1636 world had persecuting laws; "I will not,"-such was the oath for the governor of Maryland,—“ I will not, by myself or any other, directly or indirectly, molest any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, for or in respect of religion." Under the mild institutions and munificence of Baltimore, the dreary wilderness soon bloomed with the swarming life and activity of prosperous settlements; the Roman Catholics, who were oppressed by the laws of England, were sure to find a peaceful asylum in the quiet harbors of the Chesapeake; and there, too, Protestants were sheltered against Protestant intolerance.

1635.

Feb.

Such were the beautiful auspices under which the province of Maryland started into being; its prosperity and its peace seemed assured; the interests of its people and its proprietary were united; and, for some years, its internal peace and harmony were undisturbed. Its history is the history of benevolence, gratitude, and toleration. No domestic factions disturbed its harmony. Every thing breathed peace but Clayborne. Dangers could only grow out of external causes, and were eventually the sad consequences of the revolution in England.

Twelve months had not elapsed before the colony of Maryland was convened for legislation. Probably all the freemen of the province were present in a strictly popular assembly. The laws of the session

1 Chalmers, 205–208. McMahon, 196—198.

2 Chalmers, 235. McMahon, 226.

ESTABLISHMENT OF LEGISLATIVE LIBERTY.

249

VII.

are no longer extant; but we know, that the neces- CHAP sity of vindicating the jurisdiction of the province against the claims of Clayborne was deemed a subject worthy of the general deliberation and of a decisive act. For he had been roused, by confidence in his power, to resolve on maintaining his possessions by force of arms. The earliest annals of Maryland are defaced by the accounts of a bloody skirmish on one of the rivers near the Isle of Kent. Several lives were lost in the affray; but Clayborne's men were defeated and taken prisoners. Clayborne himself had fled to Virginia; and when he was reclaimed by the government of Maryland, Harvey, though he seems himself to have favored Baltimore, sent the fugitive with the witnesses to England.'

Jan.

When a colonial assembly was next convened, it 1638. passed an act of attainder against Clayborne; for he had not only derided the powers of the proprietary, but had scattered jealousies among the Indians, and infused a spirit of disobedience into the inhabitants of Kent Island. Now that he had fled, his estates were seized, and were declared forfeited to the laws, which he had contemned as invalid.3 In England, Clayborne attempted to gain a hearing for his wrongs; and, partly by false representations, still more by the influence of Sir William Alexander, succeeded, for a season, in procuring the favorable disposition of Charles. But when the whole affair came to be referred to the commissioners for the plantations, it was found, that, on 1639. April. received principles, the right of the king to confer the soil and the jurisdiction of Maryland could not be

1 Chalmers, 210 and 232. Bacon, in his Laws at Large, makes no mention of this assembly. 2 Bozman, 280–282. Burk, ii.

VOL. I.

32

40, 41. Chalmers, 209, 210. 232.
McMahon, 12.

3 Chalmers, 210.

CHAP. Controverted; that the earlier license to traffic did not VII. vest in Clayborne any rights which were valid against

1639.

the charter; and therefore that the Isle of Kent belonged absolutely to Lord Baltimore, who alone could permit plantations to be established, or commerce with the Indians to be conducted, within the limits of his territory.'

Yet the people of Maryland were not content with vindicating the limits of their province; they were jealous of their liberties. The charter had secured to them the right of advising and approving in legislation. Did Lord Baltimore alone possess the right of originating laws? 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 their 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. How discreetly it was exercised, cannot now be known; for the laws, which were then enacted, were never ratified, and are therefore not to be found in the provincial records.2

In the early history of the United States, nothing is more remarkable than the uniform attachment of each colony to its franchises; and popular assemblies burst every where into life with a consciousness of their importance, and an immediate capacity for efficient legislation. The first assembly of Maryland had vindicated the jurisdiction of the colony; the second had asserted its claims to original legislation; the third,

1 Bozman, 330-344. Chalmers, Bozman, 299-318, and 324-329 212. 232-235. McMahon, 145.

2 Bacon, 1637. Chalmers, 211.