Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/63

 1632-s] Settlement of Maryland. 31 disapproval. On the other hand one Allen, who had bought the rights of Mason's heirs, contrived, as it would seem through the corrupt con- nivance of an English official, to get the territory of New Hampshire separated from Massachusetts. Allen himself was appointed governor ; there was to be a council nominated partly by him, partly by the Crown, and a representative assembly elected by the freeholders. There was no declaration to show how far this was intended to be permanent. In the case of the other two colonies, Connecticut and Rhode Island, the law officers of the Crown decided that the forfeiture of their charters by James was invalid. MARYLAND. We must now go back to a colony whose origin was nearly contem- porary with that of Massachusetts. In 1632 George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, a Roman Catholic, received from Charles I a grant of land immediately to the north of Virginia. He had already tried to form a settlement in Newfoundland. The severity of the climate and the hostility of certain Presbyterians settled there led him to give up the attempt. With his company he emigrated to Virginia. There he fared no better. The colonial government required him to take the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and thereby to renounce the spiritual and ecclesiastical authority of the Pope. Baltimore, as a peer, was exempted from the second of these oaths; and it is doubtful whether any authority resident in Virginia had a right to administer either. Instead of resisting, however, Baltimore withdrew. In the same month in which Baltimore received the grant he died. The grant was confirmed to his son and successor Cecilius, and was em- bodied in a charter giving not only territorial but also political rights. The colony thus constituted was the first instance in which a portion of the rights of sovereignty inherent in the Crown was transferred to a subject. The proprietor was authorised to make laws with the advice of the free- men or their representatives; that is to say, a system of popular govern- ment was suggested, but so vaguely as hardly to impose on the proprietor any definite restriction. The Crown divested itself of any right to levy taxes within the colony. All churches and places of worship were to be consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of the Church of England. It does not appear certain what liberty of worship was left to Roman Catholics; but we may at least say that the religion of the proprietor was allowed only a subordinate position. In the autumn of 1633 Baltimore sent out three hundred emigrants under his brother Leonard, accompanied by two priests belonging to the order of Jesus. In material matters the colony was prosperous from the outset. It is evident that the settlers were both well chosen and well provided. The social and industrial organisation of the colony proceeded CH. I.