The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1854-08-19

mn ordinance making il in any declare his
son Charles to be King Of England Ireland or Of any
dopaions belonging hereunto that ON the 18th Novem
her 64o the Prince Of Wales proclaimed in Maryland
the undoubted rightul heir 10 all his fathers domnions
and further the common rejoicing Of the inhabitants
general pardon was proclaimed for every offence before
committed
That Maryland the only colony in which religious
prosecutions did not exist at that time unless ew York be
an excs1or-and that in your claim for that State
exception you with Bancroft Judge Story and
others that Governor Sharpe 1883 in letter TO Lord
Baltimore states that the Catholics We're in majority
down to the year 1899 the liberation act Of lGA9
in fact prepared by Lord Baltimore, in August 1913
and sent by him from England, with number OF
other laws and that it was, with number of
others selected and passed by the assembly; and that
this law in strict conformity to- and contained
parallel clauses and expressions with the commissions issued
and by Cecelius Calvert at the time to the
governor and the council of the province; and that with
those commissions Also the oa of office for the
and council to be taken by them before they entered
upon their Offices which oaths contained similar clauses
and expressions to those in the commissions and in the
liberation act Of l64o, 50 sent over with them
That, until very recently the universal impression was
that the act of I849 law proceeding from Roman
Catholics and that it is only claimed late discovery
that they were not the authors of it.
That various occasions, from the foundation OF the
colony down to the Declaration of Independence when the
of the province in the hands OF the Pro-
testants laws persecutng Roman Catholics were passed
aud that on no one OCCASION when the in
the hands Of Roman Catholics laws passed infringing
the liberty Of conscience Of Professionals
Now with these admitted facts proceed TO discussion
den Of proof those who seek to mpeach the ca hoc
title and disturb undspnted possession OF near two
centuries and that their proof should not only be strong
but conclusive.
maintain
First That the great liberation act Of Maryland (649)
was passed by Roman Catholics
Second That if not passed by them, religious
federation in Maryland Is not the less to be ascrbed to
them.
!. As to the first proposition-that this was Roman
The law could not have been law without the consent
of the lord proprietary Ceceus Calvert He was Catho
lie Then one department Of the law-making power was
Roman Catholic
The then governor Stone and the council constituting
the upper house. appointed by commissions from Ce
ceius Calvert bearing date the 18th August l64s The
law also passed this body but they his representatives
He was their constituent AS conclusion OF law no less
than ofcommon their act was his act even II this law
md been passed legislative acts usually are But an
unreCaled and unrepuaaed law act could under
be denied the representation OF the mind
of the constituents surely it could not be SO In this case
where the WAS sent already draughed with many others
by the constituent Lecelus Calyert was rejected by the
lower house the ground that the laws must proceed 40
orgs from them was then passed by the lower ana up
per houses originally draughte ana sent 10 Lord Caer
for his approval, and approved
The enacting clause Of the law ievenx the influence Of
the lord proprietary in enacting laws
Be it enacted "By the lord proprietary with the assent
and appreciation Of the upper and Toner houses
The action therefore OF the governor and council the
representatives of Lord Calvert must be regarded quite as
much his action his orgnaton and subsequent approval
of the law
1t is clear them that second department Of the egsa-
TN if composed OF Roman Catholics in point Of
fact oman Catholic nasmuch il the represents
tive of Roman Catholic lord proprietary, and on the
occasion in question acted in conformity with the wishes
Then a. to the third branch of the legislAturethe
lower house what ws the religion Of the majority of its
members?
In the year 1850 it is probable that eight of the fourteen
members of the lower house Protestants. That
concede, though perhaps il admits OF some question.
From this it is inferred that in l649 the Protestans had
~>nso -, %l,o1 hOncn
The inference is not just But conceding 1t 70 he so,
what does prove 1t does not necessarily establish M
less there was question Of religion involved in tue cleo
on that there majority Of Protesants in the PROV
incc It would constitute, confess, as general rule
primo acie OF zach majority if the question Of religion
agitatng the community ut the time But II there
was no such question astir would not he element in
tho election II would puzzle better philosopher and
arithmecan tho yourself from the data OF our present
determine the strength of the different religious denoni
nations Now there is nothing record or in traditions
tending to show that there was any religious question dis
urng the community at the time On the contrary the
presumption very strong that there for the
law in question proceeding from the proprietary sane
toned BY his adopted with various other
in the brief session of fourteen days cvnces both IN
its structure and the circumstances under which it WAS
passed. temperate wisdom which those of greater eA
perence BY two hundred and five cannot excel and
fear do not desire to initiate. But other circumstances
will presently be stated going still further to prove the
tolerant spirit Of ne n9icrity Of the people
Now submit is it fair presumption that because there
majority of Protesants in the lower house In 1850
there was majority likewise in 1919? and if there
such Klaorty in 649 that it indicated majority of the
people OK Maryland were Proiestants?
But the proof to the contrary IS SO conclusive AS TO
amount almos, II not quite, to demonstration:
Who founded this colony? A Catholic fleeing from the
storms of persecution Mt home the quiet of wilderness
pcopled by savages. who were his associates? Those
who Of the party prosecuting him. or those who like
himself victims of persecution? Truly, the lam
guage of the Roman poet slightly changed might be select
ed stheir motto" Ces, fyyanu Raf qutrdns mare
cunaenf he carried with him. in his own ships the very
rt,I 1,;n thar
Protesans put themselves under the spiritual guidance Of
the two priests who accompanied the expedition as its spr
itnal preceptors?
Did Ceceus Calvert while he engaged in laying the
of his province his costs send out
Protestant recruits ?-for IL will be remembered that he
remained in England to send ont coons leaving the in
FAINT fortunes of his province this side the the
guardianship of his brother Leonard.
This is impossible. 1t would be 10 make him fool,
which has dared 10 insinuate saint,
which one has ventured to call him
The first settlement in 1884 The act Of liberation
passed in l649--oniy fifteen years thereafter.
Now, is it credible that Roman Catholic colony, under
Roman Catholic proprietary, Ia whom the title to the
whole land vested who could grant to- withhold
It from whom he pleased first occupied by Roman Caho
lie emgrants under the spiritual guidance two Jesuit
priests most excellent they in the brief space
Of fifteen years is il credible that such colony should
have lost its religious complexion that in that brief
space fifteen years the majority of the people had become
Protesants The simple statement RECITATION Of
the claim.
But close examination Of certain nndispucd historical
facts confirms to demonstration the rcfuation.
The lower house Al first composed Of reemen who
attended in person voted by proxy At the session of
i649 they could assemble person by representatives,
The colonists established themselves at St Marys