mint, a tonnage duty was imposed upon all vessels trading with the colony, and a state house was built in 1674, at a cost of forty thousand pounds of tobacco, or about five

upon all the tobacco sent out of the colony. One-half of this duty was appropriated to the support of the government, and the remainder was assigned unconditionally to the

On the thirtieth of November, 1675, Cecil Calvert, second Lord Baltimore, died. He had been for fourteen years the earnest and devoted friend, as well as the generous lord of the province, and had lived long enough to enjoy the gratitude with which the colony sought to repay his judicious care. His memory is perpetuated by the chief city of Maryland, which bears his name, and which is already the largest city on the Atlantic coast, south of the Susequehanna, and the seventh in population in the United States. Charles Calvert, who had been for fourteen years governor of Maryland, succeeded to his father's titles and possessions, and in 1676 returned to England. Previous to his departure from Maryland he gave his sanction to the colonial code of laws, which had been thoroughly revised. One of these laws prohibited the "importation of convicted persons" into the colony without regard to the will of the king or Parliament of England.

Roman Catholics Disfranchised. Notwithstanding the mild and equitable government of the third Lord Baltimore, the spirit of popular liberty was becoming too strong in the colony for the rule of the proprietor to be cheerfully acquiesced in much longer. The rebellion of Bacon in Virginia affected the Maryland colony profoundly, and when Lord Baltimore returned to the province in 1681, he found a large part of the people hostile to him. An attempt at insurrection was suppressed, but the seeds of trouble were too deeply sown not to spring up again.

The increase of the population had left the Roman Catholics in a small minority, so that Maryland was now to all intents and purposes a Protestant colony. During the latter part of the reign of Charles II. the

toleration which had hitherto marked the history of the province, endeavored to secure the establishment by law of the Church of England in Maryland. Lord Baltimore steadfastly resisted this unwise course, and maintained the freedom of conscience as the right of the people. He thus added to the existing opposition to his proprietary rule the hostility of the Protestant bigots. A little later, the English ministry struck the first blow at his proprietary rights and at the religious freedom of Maryland by ordering that all the offices of the colonial government should be bestowed upon Protestants alone. "Roman Catholics were disfranchised in the province which they had planted."

charter, and governed the colony by means of a convention until the royal pleasure should be known. Lord Baltimore endeavored to defend his rights in spite of his struggles, William III., in June, 1691, 'annulled the charter of Maryland, and by the exercise of his own power constituted that colony a royal province.

4 In 1692, the king appointed Sir Lionel Copley 'Governor of Maryland. Upon his arrival in the colony he dissolved the convention and assumed the government. He He at once summoned an assembly, which, recognizing William and Mary as the lawful sovereigns of Maryland, established the Church of England as the religion of the colony, and imposed taxes for its support. The capital was removed from St. Mary's to Annapolis, both because the old seat of government had become inconvenient and because it was desired to remove the government to the centre of Protestant influence. The disfranchisement of the Catholics advanced step by step. At first the dissenters from the established church were granted toleration and protection, but in 1704 the triumph of bigotry was complete. All the dissenting bodies were tolerated, but Roman Catholics were forbidden the exercise of their faith. Mass was not allowed to be said in public, nor was any bishop or clergyman of the Roman Catholic church to be permitted to seek to make converts for his faith. Other severe measures were enacted, and in the land which Catholics had settled, the members of that communion alone were denied the rights which in the day of their

power they had offered to others. Nor did the royalist assembly manifest any care for the true interests of the province. Education was neglected; the establishment of printing was prohibited: and the domestic manufactures which the necessities of the colony had brought into existence were discouraged. In 1710 the population numbered over 30,000, free and slave.

In 1715 Benedict Charles Calvert, the fourth Lord Baltimore, succeeded in obtaining the restoration of his rights in Maryland, and the province passed into his hands. The people had been so disgusted with the rule of the royal governors that no opposition was made to this change. The new Lord Baltimore, unlike the rest of his family, was a Protestant, which was the cause of his restoration to his hereditary rights. After his restoration the colony increased with still greater rapidity. The establishment of a post route in 1695, between the Potomac and Philadelphia, had brought it into communication with the Northern colonies. In 1729 the town of Baltimore was founded. Frederick City was settled in 1745, and in 1751 was followed by Georgetown, now in the District of Columbia. In 1756 the population of the colony had increased to .154,188 souls, of whom over 40,000 were negroes. The increase in material prosperity was equally marked. By the last-mentioned year the annual export of tobacco was 30,000 hogsheads, and, in spite of the efforts of the home government to prevent it, there were eight furnaces and nine forges for smelting copper in operation in the province.

T

16

HE persecutions with which Queen Mary afflicted the reformers of England in her bloody effort to restore the Roman Catholic faith in that country caused many of the most eminent men of the English church to seek safety on the continent of Europe. Upon the accession of Elizabeth the Church of England became once more the religion of the state, and the reformers were free to return to their own country. They came back with broader and more liberal views than they had carried away with them, and there sprang up in the English church a party which demanded a purer and more spiritual form of worship than that of the church. These persons were called in derision Puritans. They adopted the name without hesitation, and soon made it an honorable distinction.

The queen, however, was determined to compel her subjects to conform to the established church, and was especially resolved to make them acknowledge her supremacy over the church. To the Puritan the worship of the Church of England was only less sinful than that of Rome, and to acknowledge the queen as the head of the church was to commit blasphemy. He claimed that the queen

had no control over him in matters of relig ion, and that it was his right to worship God in his own way, without interference. The Puritans gradually came to embrace in their number some of the best men in the English church. These sincerely deprecated a separation from the church, and earnestly desired to carry the reformation to the extent of remedying the abuses of which they complained, and to remain in communion with the church. One of the reforms which they wished to inaugurate was the abolition of Episcopacy. Failing in their efforts, they desired to be let alone to form their own organizations and to worship God according to their own ideas, without the pale of the Church of England.

The queen and the bishops were not content to allow them this freedom. England had not yet learned the lesson of toleration, and severe measures were inaugurated to compel the dissenters to conform to the established church. All persons in the kingdom were required to conform to the ceremonies of the church. ceremonies of the church. A refusal to do so was punished with banishment. Should any person so banished return to the kingdom without permission he was to be put to death. Accused persons were obliged to

answer upon oath all questions concerning themselves and their acquaintance, respecting their attendance upon public worship. Ministers refusing to conform to the estabtished usage were deprived of their parishes; and if they persisted in preaching to their congregations, or if the congregations were detected in listening to their deposed pastors, the offenders were fined or subjected to some severe punishment. Absence from the services of the church for a certain length of time was also punished. The persecution thus inaugurated drove many of the nonconformists, as they were termed, into exile from Englan They fled to Holland and Swit

CHAINED BIBLE, TIME OF JAMES I.

zerland, where alone they found "freedom to worship God." In spite of the severe measures and determined efforts of Elizabeth, the Puritans increased steadily in numbers and importance in England. Persecution only served to multiply them.

They were hopeful that James I. would prove a more lenient sovereign to them than Elizabeth had been, and they had good ground for this hope. ground for this hope. The real character of James was unknown in England, and while King of Scotland he had shown great favor to the Presbyterians of that kingdom, whom it was his interest to conciliate. He had once publicly thanked God "that he was king of such a kirk--the purest kirk in all the world. As for the Kirk of England," he added, "its service is an evil-said mass." This most contemptible of monarchs had scarcely become King of England when he uttered the famous maxim, "No bishop, no king!" Interest had made him the foe of Episcopacy in Scotland; the same motive made him its champion in England.

A Royal Demagogue.

Upon his entrance into his new kingdom, the Puritans met him with an humble petition for a redress of their grievances. James quickly saw that the majority of the English people favored a support of the church as it was, and had no sympathy with the Puritans, and he at once constituted himself the enemy of the petitioners. Still, in order to cover his desertion of the party to which he had belonged in Scotland, he appointed a conference at Hampton Court.

The conference was held in January, 1604, and the king, silencing all real debate, made the meeting merely the occasion of displaying what he regarded as his talents for theological controversy, and for announcing the decision he had resolved upon from the first. He demanded entire obedience to the church in matters of faith and worship. "I will have none of that liberty as to ceremonies," he declared. "I will have one doctrine, one discipline, one religion in substance and in ceremony. Never speak more as to how far you are bound to obey."