Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1856-06-05
", aa;, lie Times.
1.-THE DzY-sTAK,"& sc.
lCONCLUSION.l

Hau intolerance been dared by the Pro-
prietary and his fellow churchmen, Gin vio-
iatlon of the principles and the spirit of the
Charter toward any other-they together
with their Protestant brethren of the power
full Colony of Virginia, who could have been
readily called to the rescue, it cannot be
doubted, were at any time, from the first
day of the Maryland Colony, equal to their
own vindication and protection-if not for
the Proprietarys utter ruin and subversion
We have, upon good authority, that in a
letter from the General Assembly of 1913 to
Lord Baltimore, it is stated there, that dur
ing Ingles' usurpation, but '.fe,o remained
of Roman Catholics in the Province-but
that s'most of his Lordship's friends were sent
away as banished persons" This observa-
ton was true four gears Git would SEEM af-
ter ingles' rebellion, and in the very year
before the memorable session Of Assembly
i'll 1919, which passed the celebrated ssAct
concerning religion" The. greatest of all
federation acts, according to Mr.. Davis-the
grand focal point in which all the essential
light and liberty of American freeman are
concentrated. Now with the fact, of this
alledged and violent expulsion of Roman
Catholics from the Province-( existing I'M
to the very year before the date of the .tAct''
in question )-is it at all likely that these
scattered forces, should, in year or less,
all of them, by some common or sudden i'm
pulse, return to the insecure Gas they had
found IT'D settlement in ST. Mary's. In 1647
and in 1850 that the Protestants had ma
jority in the Lower House, will scarcely ad-
nit of a question-and this looks very like
Protestant predominance in members and
in population which there is no proof,
whatever, had failed-or had been drained
or driven off in the intermediate year of
l649, the year of the famous ssAct" passed
by the General Assembly. These facts and
suggestions are attempted to be rebutted and
everthrown by Mr.. Davis-by the asser-
tons, that s'fve-sixths of the taxpayers
were in St. Mary this decides nothing
as to what proportion of them were Roman
Catholic -''tha it was the home-the cho-
sen home of the disciples of the Roman
Church" this might have been perfectly
true, and yet majority of Protestants might
have made it home along with them -
''that the names originally given to the
towns and hundreds, to the creeks and RI
yulets, to the tracts and manors of the coun-
ty," bespeak Roman Catholic origin
(they might have been given by the Lord
Proprietary or his agents, without MUIR
muir, at that time, even from decidedly
predominant Protestant population of the
Countrywide State itself bears the name
Of L. Catholic queen this might have
been alzoaced and approved, without opposi-
ton or dissent, as it ever has been since, a
vast Protestant. ma; ority of the population
to the contrary Notwithstanding The con-
stitution Of juries, as we have seen, prore
nothing to the purpose. @But the soiMs
ladds Mr.. Davis) furnish the best clew to
the faith of our early ancestors" And all
that this proves is, that some made aoi7s,
and some doubtless the greater part did
not male thena-or if they did, every trace
of them is long since swallowed up in the
dark abyss of oblivion. The argument at
tempted by him from Extraordinarily his
BEST cleaU-is killed, in the very breath which
utters it, by the unfortunate admission, that
~'Messrs. Fenwick and Manners are the onla
Bmyesses of the Assembly in 1649 whose
sciNs are preserved" Thus showing pro-
portion only of about t,oo to eight or nine,
even of the more literate and prominent,
who left wills at that period.
We now proceed to examine briefly Mr..
Dayis's deiineations of personal history to see
how he makes out the Roman Catholic char
acter of majority of the Assemblymen Of
1649,-admitting that we have beyond the
shadow of doubt who were the Assembly
men of 1649." tits admitted at the same time
by our author, that Governor William Stone
and three of his Privy Councillors-John
Price, Robert Vaughan, and Thomas Hat
ton, with absolute certainly, were not 10
man Catholics while Governor Thomas
Green, John, Pile, and Robert Clarke, were
Roman Catholics. The proof offered by
Mr.. Davis in support of the assertion that
this latter was the faith of Gov Green is
that his attachment was sincere to the inte-
rests of the royal family Protestant as it
was) cat home" A stronger evidence in
the opposite direction to his assumption than
any he has offered in support of it. For
when he continues that zone of his children
was the namesake and godson of the first
Governor" we answer that this is hardly to
be deemed impossible with liberal and
high minded Romanist on the one hand and
liberal minded or compromising Protest
ant, at that period, on the other. Indeed it
involves no greater, nor so great sacrifice
of faith as that which is now every day done
in committing the education of Protestant
youth into the hands of Jesuit and Roman
Catholic preceptors. But che expressly
says he was a r. Catholic in 165O-and
gives in testimony of the fact, token of re-
gard for the Rev. Thomas Copley." This
is very remote from proof (of which Mr.. D.
now bears the burden) that he was of the
identical faith in 1919, when he sat in the
General Assembly of the Colony. We shall
not therefore, until 1850, give him up from
the Protestant side of the question. The