The Irish standard., 1908-11-07
VIEWS OF RELIABLE HISTORIANS ON THE QUESTION
Reply of Rev. Dr.. VIM T. Russell, of Washington D. c.
an Episcopalian Divine Who Denied
Statement by Cardinal Gibbons

Rev. DR.. VIM. T. Russell, in letter
to the Washington Post Of Oct. -.
r.rlies to an Episcopalian minister
who had denied the accuracy OF ii
statement made by Cardinal Gibbons.
ior. Russell says in part:
The cardinal is reported as saying
in reference to the colony sent to
Maryland by Lord Baltimore in 1881
"This colony of British Catholics
was the first to establish on Americ IN
soil the blessing Of civil and religious
liberty. While the Purltans of New
England prosecuted other Christians,
and while the Episcopalians of Vir-
slna prosecuted Puritans, Catholic
Maryland gave freedom and hospltai
ity to Puritans and Episcopalians
alike"
It was to this statement that DR..
McKim took exception. Now | would
ask DR.. McKim to answer, squa.ely
ard like a man, Is not this statement
true? If he entertains any doubt Oh
this subject, 1 would ask him to reply
to the following questions. and to en-
ablo him to do 80 shall refer him to
the archives of the State of Muryl md,
Dacons Laws of Maryland, the Calver!
Letters and Manuscripts. and other re-
liable sources OF Maryland history. of
,$ylr Hy,f1 he
Il Maryandcr, to be in lamentable ig-
norancc.
Did not Lord Baltimore provide tina,
freedom of worship should obtain in
his colony? (Archives of the State Of
Maryland. vol ", page 6s. Ca,vert
papers, No. l, PIP. 131-132).
In addition to freedom of worship
did not the Catholic proprietary give
he franchise, together with all other
civil privileges, to his Protestant COL
onists? In the first assembly UG37,
whose records have come down to us,
were not all frccmen. Protestant as
we'll as Catholic, not only allowed hu.
compelled to be present or represent I'd !?
(Achives of the State OF Maryland,
| vol. !. PIP. 125). ...
According to tho best authorities on
/, Maryland history. were not the leading
, men of the colony, the men who con-
f. trolled the government in tile begin
ming. Catholics? bradley +. Johns is
I Foundation of Maryland and Acc
Concerning Religion" p. 81. w. Fl.
browne, George and Cccilus Calver- ''
y 45. Clayton Hall, 1.-THE Lords
baltimore" p. 81. ]. L. Boznan, Ills
tory of Maryland" H., p. 2G. ]. V.
Mcmahon, Historical View of the
Government Of Maryland" p. 1874.
Sanford Cobb, Rise and Development
OF Religious Liberty in America, PIP.
s7o-s75). -......
Whether the Catholics could have
excluded all Protestants from partici-
rotion in the government, as the e ,l;,-
copalians did in Virginia, and as the
Furitans. contrary to their character,
did in Massachusetts, is open to dis
pute. DIR. McKim contends that the
home government would not have per-
rntted Catholics to persecutc Protcs-
tents. IL they had been SO disposed
Let us see what Protestant histories
Ct undoubtful authority have to say
or this mater.
Rapin, in his history of Eng land
(vol. II, r. 274), says: "rhe king seem
Cd particularly well-disposed toward
the Catholics, and, though he had
promised to proceed with visor against
the recusants, he seems not to have
performed his promises. He countcn-
4 anced them during the first fift .'1
years of his reign, suspending the
penal laws and recalling them to court
Many were elected to the hig"es!
costs" 0bid. 264.) The following re ;.
sons, among others, disposed Charles
fsvorably toward the Catholics
Though the Papists would not *,
1.-The oath of supremacy. they would moi