legislation, nor from any formal and general edict of the governor, nor from any oath as yet imposed by instructions of the proprietary. English statutes were not held to bind the colonies, unless they especially named them; the clause which, in the charter for Virginia, excluded from that colony "all persons suspected to affect the superstitions of the church of Rome," found no place in the charter for Maryland; and, while allegiance was held to be due, there was no requirement of the oath of supremacy. Toleration grew up in the province silently, as a custom of the land. Through the benignity of the administration, no person professing to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ was permitted to be molested on account of religion. Roman Catholics, who were oppressed by the laws of England, were sure to find an asylum on the north bank of the Potomac; and there, too, Protestants were sheltered against Protestant intolerance. From the first, men of foreign birth enjoyed equal advantages with those of the English and Irish nations.

The prosperity and peace of Maryland seemed assured. But no sooner had the allegiance of Clayborne's settlement been claimed than he inquired of the governor and council of Virginia how he should demean himself; and was answered that, as the question was undetermined in England, they knew no reason why they should render up the rights of the isle of Kent, which they were bound in duty to maintain. Fortified by this decision and by the tenor of letters from the king, he continued his traffic as before. On the other hand, Lord Baltimore, in September, gave orders to seize him, if he did not submit to his government; and the secretary of state "directed Sir John Harvey to continue his assistance against Clayborne's malicious practices."

In February, 1635, the colony was convened for legisla tion. Probably all the freemen were present, in a strictly popular assembly. The laws of this first legislative body of Maryland are no longer extant, nor do we know what part it took in vindicating the jurisdiction of the province. But in April of that year the pinnace, in which men employed by Clayborne had been trafficking, was seized by a party from St. Mary's. Resenting the act, he sent a vessel into the Chesa

peake to demand the restoration of his captured property. On the tenth of May, a skirmish took place on one of the rivers of the eastern shore, south of Kent island. The Marylanders, with the loss of but one man, slew the commander and two others of the Virginians, and took the rest prisoners.

Unable to continue the contest by force, Clayborne repaired to England to lay his case before the king. During his absence, and just before the end of 1637, the government of Maryland established itself on the isle of Kent. In the following January, an assembly, in which Kent island was represented, was convened; and an act of attainder was carried against Clayborne, as one who had been indicted for piracy and murder and had fled from justice. Thomas Smith, who had served as his officer, could not be tried by a jury, for there was no law that reached his case; he was therefore called to the bar of the house, arraigned upon an indictment for piracy, and, after his plea had been heard, was found guilty by all the members except one. Sentence was pronounced on him by the president, in the name of the freemen; all his property except the dower of his wife was forfeited, and he was condemned to be hanged. Then did the prisoner demand his clergy; but it was denied by the presi dent, both for the nature "of his crime and that it was demanded after judgment."

In England, Clayborne attempted to gain a hearing; and, partly by strong representations, still more by the influence of Sir William Alexander, succeeded, for a season, in winning the favorable disposition of Charles. But, when the whole affair came to be finally referred to the commissioners for the plantations, it was found that the right of the king to confer the soil and the jurisdiction of Maryland could not be controverted; that the earlier license to traffic did not vest in Clayborne any rights which were valid against the charter; and, therefore, that the isle of Kent belonged to Lord Baltimore, who alone could permit plantations to be established, or commerce with the Indians to be conducted, within his territory.

The people of Maryland were not content with vindicating the limits of their province; they were jealous of their liberties. Their legislature rejected the code which the pro

prietary, as if holding the exclusive privilege of proposing statutes, had prepared for their government; and, in their turn, enacted a body of laws, which they proposed for the assent of the proprietary. How discreetly they proceeded cannot now be known, for the laws which were then enacted were never ratified, and are not to be found in the provincial records.

In the early history of the United States, popular assemblies burst everywhere into life, with a consciousness of their importance, and an immediate efficiency. The first assembly of Maryland had vindicated the jurisdiction of the colony; the second had asserted its claims to original legislation; in 1639, the third examined its obligations, and, though its acts were not carried through the forms essential to their validity, it showed the spirit of the people and the times by framing a declaration of rights. Acknowledging allegiance to the English monarch and the prerogatives of Lord Baltimore, it confirmed to all Christian inhabitants of Maryland, slaves excepted, all the liberties which an Englishman enjoyed at home by virtue of the common or statute law, established a system of representative government, and asserted for their general assemblies all such powers as were exercised by the commons of England. The exception of slaves implies that negro slavery had already intruded itself into the province. At this session, any freeman, who had not taken part in the election, might attend in person; thenceforward the governor might summon his friends by special writ, while the people were to choose as many delegates as "the freemen should think good." As yet there was no jealousy of power, no strife for place. While these laws prepared a frame of government for future generations, we are reminded of the feebleness of the state, where the whole people contributed to "the setting up of a water-mill."

In October, 1640, the legislative assembly of Maryland, in the grateful enjoyment of happiness, seasonably guarded the tranquillity of the province against the perplexities of an "interim" by providing for the security of the government in case of the death of the deputy governor. Commerce was fostered, and tobacco, the staple of the colony, subjected to in

spection. The act which established church liberties declares that "holy church, within this province, shall have and enjoy all her rights, liberties, and franchises, wholly and without blemish." This revival of a clause in Magna Charta, cited in the preceding century by some of the separatists as a guarantee of their religious liberty, was practically interpreted as in harmony with that toleration of all believers in the divinity of Jesus Christ, which was the recognised usage of the land.

Nor was it long before the inhabitants acknowledged Lord Baltimore's great charge and solicitude in maintaining the gov ernment, and protecting them in their persons, rights, and liberties; and, therefore, so runs the statute of March, 1642, "out of desire to return some testimony of gratitude," they granted "such a subsidy as the young and poor estate of the colony could bear." Ever intent on advancing the interests of his colony, the proprietary invited the Puritans of Massachusetts to Maryland, offering them lands and privileges, and "free liberty of religion;" but Gibbons, to whom he had forwarded a commission, was "so wholly tutored in the New England discipline" that he would not advance the wishes of the Irish peer, and the people were not tempted to desert the bay of Massachusetts for the Chesapeake.

The aborigines, alarmed at the rapid increase of the Europeans, and vexed at being frequently overreached by their cupidity, began hostilities; for the Indians, ignorant of the remedy of redress, always planned retaliation. After a war of frontier aggressions, extending from 1642 to 1644, but marked by no decisive events, peace was re-established with them on the usual terms of submission and promises of friendship, and rendered durable by the prudent legislation of the assembly and the humanity of the government. Kidnapping them was made a capital offence, the sale of arms to them prohibited as a felony, and the pre-emption of the soil reserved to the proprietary.

To this right of pre-emption Lord Baltimore would suffer no exception. The Jesuits had obtained a grant of land from an Indian chief; the proprietary, "intent upon his own affairs, and not fearing to violate the immunities of the church," would not allow that it was valid, and persisted in enforcing against

Catholic priests the necessity of obtaining his consent before they could acquire real estate in his province in any wise, even by gift.

In the mixed population of Maryland, where the administration was in the hands of Catholics, and the very great majority of the people were Protestants, there was no unity of sentiment out of which a domestic constitution could have harmoniously risen. At a time when the commotions in England left every colony in America almost unheeded, and Virginia and New England were pursuing a course of nearly independent legislation, the power of the proprietary was almost as feeble as that of the king. The other colonies took advantage of the period to secure and advance their liberties; in Maryland the effect was rather to encourage insubordination; the government vibrated with every change in the political condition of England.

In this state of uncertainty, Leonard Calvert, the proprietary's deputy, repaired to England to take counsel with his brother. During his absence, and toward the end of the year 1643, a London ship, commissioned by parliament, anchored in the harbor of St. Mary's; and Brent, the acting governor, under a general authority from the king at Oxford, but with an indiscretion which was in contrast with the caution of the proprietary, seized the ship, and tendered to its crew an oath against the parliament. Richard Ingle, the commander, having escaped, in January, 1644, was summoned by proclamation to yield himself up, while witnesses were sought after to convict him of treason. The new commission to Governor Calvert plainly conceded to the representatives of the province the right of originating laws. It no longer required an oath of allegiance to the king, but it exacted from every grantee of land an oath of fidelity to the proprietary. This last measure proved a new entanglement.

In September, Calvert returned to St. Mary's to find the colony rent by factions, and Clayborne still restless in asserting his claim to Kent island. Escaping by way of Jamestown to London, Ingle had obtained there a letter of marque, and, without any other authority, reappearing in Maryland, he raised the standard of parliament against the established au