proceed, or of the struggle which followed their sess.

8. The parliamentary party being now completel in the ascendant, and having the king in their hands, Claiborne and Ingle acted in the name of parliament. Their success seemed a death-blow to the supremacy of Lord Baltimore in the province. I felt this, and accordingly, in 1646, directed his brother, the governor, to collect and take charge of his private property, and save what he could from the wreck of his fortunes, apparently abandoning the hope of recovering his rights.

9 Leonard Calvert was not willing to yield.— The people of Virginia were loyal to their sovereign, and he believed that the majority of the people of Maryland were attached to the mild and parental sway of the Calverts. In Virginia he found not only a safe refuge, but also the means for a final effort to subdue the rebels. The outrage, oppression and misrule of the usurpers in Maryland, soon prepared the people to sustain him in the attempt

10. Having completed his arrangements, at the close of the year 1646, he crossed the Potomac with a military force, surprised the enemy, entered St. Mary's in triumph, and once more took possession of the government

Questions.-8. In whose name did Claiborne act? What did Lord Baltimore direct? 9. Why did not Calvert yield? What did he find in Virginia? 10. When did he return, and with what suc

cess?

11. Kent Island, the stronghold of the malcontents, did not submit so easily as the rest of the province. It was found necessary to declare martial law; to cut off all communications from without, and send an expedition under the governor himself, into the island before the rebels could be reduced once more under the authority of the Proprietary. The governor having secured the tranquillity of the island, granted an amnesty to most of the offenders and returned to St. Mary's.

12 Just as order was once more restored to the colony, and renewed prosperity began to dawn upon the settlers, they met with a heavy blow in the death of their governor. Governor Calvert died, surrounded by his family and friends, on the 9th of June, 1647, having named Thomas Green his successor.

13. During the space of fourteen years he had guided the colony through the storms which had darkened around its infancy-he had devoted his whole life and energies to its permanent establishment with a disinterested self-devotion, he had striven in the wilderness for its glory and its prosperity and it seemed as if, through a special providence of heaven, to reward his labors, a beam of sunshine had broken over the province as he was about to die, at peace with all, triumphant

Questions.-11. What did he do on Kent Island? 12. What misfortune befel the Colony? 13. What had been the character of Calvert's administration?

over the enemies of Maryland, full of honor, and enriched with the prayers and blessings of a rescued people. His character, public and private, was without stain, his abilities were undoubted, his government, kind and parental, and his memory was long cherished by the colonists with grateful recollection.

man.

He was indeed a great and good

CHAPTER VIII.

LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE-New guards to Liberty of Conscience-Oath of Office--Acts of Assembly--Protection to Feelings-- Who formed the Assembly.

1. Lord Baltimore now perceived, that, while some concessions to the disaffected might be necessary to maintain his provinces, new guards were necessary to prevent the growing feeling of intolerance manifested by the insurgents, and which was tending to destroy the sanctuary he had erected at the cost of so much care and treasure.

2. Therefore, in 1648, he appointed William Stone, governor of the province, and prescribed the famous oath of office, as a further guaranty for the continuance of liberty of conscience, and full

Questions.-1. What did Lord Baltimore now perceive? 2. Whom did he appoint governor? What oath did he prescribe to the

governor ?

toleration to all persons who beneved in Jesus Christ.

3. The assembly that met on ne 2d of April, 1649, after enacting severe penaries for the crime of blasphemy, and providing that certain penalties shall be inflicted upon any one who shall call another by a sectarian name of reproach-such as "heretic," "idolater," "schismatic," "round-head," &c.-declared that "no person or persons professing to believe in Jesus Christ, shall from henceforth be any ways troubled, or molested, or discountenanced for, or in respect of his or her religion, nor in the free exercise thereof, nor any way compelled to the belief or exercise of any religion against his or her consent.

4. The passage of this act, when compared with the intolerant laws existing in other colonies, is one of the proud boasts of Maryland. Whoever was oppressed and suffered for conscience, might here find refuge, protection and repose.

5. It is said that some of these legislators could neither read nor write. "Two of them at least were in the habit of making their signet mark. But did they not leave a mark also upon the country, and upon the world? In depth and earnestness, in real dignity and propriety, in profound

Questions.-3. Against what penalties did the assembly make enactments? 4. How does this act compare with laws in other colonies? 5. What is said of the learning of some of these legis lators ?

views of human nature, and in true legislative wisdom, they were not behind those earlier law givers who bore the appellation of 'The Wise.'"* Their want of culture, though sometimes made the subject of ridicule, adds to the numerous examples in history, that progress is not so much dependent upon mental culture as upon force of character. This is the motive power in the progress of

events.

Be

6. No person was allowed to stigmatize his fellow-man by any term of reproach on account of his religious belief, or the sect to which he belonged. The law protected not only the property and persons of the citizens, but also their feelings. cause it made it p nal to deny the Saviour, and to blaspheme, it has been objected that this "freedom" was not entire. It was, at least, far in advance of the times; and, to blaspheme God is not, in any sense, freedom of conscience. Conscience can never require a man to blaspheme, and to do so is to violate the feelings of others. A law protecting a man's feelings is no more an abridgement of liberty than is that which protects his person.

7. This act, passed by an assembly made up of men of many different creeds, introduced no new principle in the colony, but, in its best provisions,

*Davis.

Questions.-6. What was disallowed? What were protected? What was made a penal offence? What is said of this? 7. Who composed this assembly?