No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
With justification American historians emphasize the rise of democratic government during the Colonial Period. The will of the colonists to determine their own affairs grew with greater force after their departure from the mother country. Within the colonies themselves they successfully demanded greater liberty in their political institutions.1 Free representation was strengthened by the plea for free conscience in a common effort to transform the outward political forms which they had left behind in seventeenth century England. In this process new understanding of the State was developing.
1. “It is through a broad and thorough study of this conflict,” wrote Herbert Osgood, “that we shall discover the main trend of events within the provinces themselves, and at the same time note the preparation of forces which were largely to ocasion the revolt of 1776.” Cf. “The Proprietary Province as a Form of Colonial Government, Part I,” American Historical Review, II (1896–1897), 654Google Scholar.
2. Brown, William Hand et al. (eds.), The Calvert Papers No. 1, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publications No. 18 (Baltimore, 1889), p. 35.Google Scholar
3. In the Proceedings of the Assembly, ordinance implies all the force of the term, law, but designates a specific period of time for which it binds.
4. Johnson, Bradley T., The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion of April 21, 1649, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication No. 28 (Baltimore, 1883), 31.Google Scholar
5. In the History of the Society of Jesus in North America, Text (New York, 1917), I, 204–205,Google Scholar by Thomas Hughes.
6. Church and State (New York, 1939), 249–250.Google Scholar
7. Bachelet, Xavier M. La (ed.), Auctarium Bellarminianum (Paris, 1913), 235Google Scholar; the translation followed here is that of Brodrick, James, The Life and Work of Blessed Robert Francis Cardinal Bellarmine 1542–1621 (London, 1928), II, 166.Google Scholar
8. Ibid.
9. “St. Robert Bdllarmine on the Indirect Power,” Theological Studies, IX (12., 1948), 503.Google Scholar
10. The Colonial Period of American History (New Haven, 1937), II, 279; I, 79.Google Scholar
11. Clarke, Mary P., Parliamentery Privilege in the American Colonies (New Haven, 1943).Google Scholar
12. Browne, William Hand et al. (eds.), Archives of Maryland (Baltimore, 1883—), III, 12Google Scholar; hereafter referred to as Archives.
13. Petrie, George, Charch and State in Maryland, Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, Vol. X, No. 4 (Baltimore, 1892), p. 11.Google Scholar
14. King, William, “Lord Baltimore and His Freedom in Granting Religious Toleration,” American Catholic Historical Society Records, XXXII (12, 1921), 298.Google Scholar
15. Church and State in Maryland, 11–12.
16. Archives, III, 18.Google Scholar
17. Ibid., 19.
18. Florentine Ambassador to the Grand Duke of Tuscany; in Andrews, C. M., Colonial Period, II, 277–278.Google Scholar
19. Hughes, op. cit., Documents, I, 11.
20. Ibid., 13.
21. Archives, I, 82.
22. Ibid., 75.
23. Ibid., 41.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., 83.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid., 40.
29. Andrews, Matthew Page, History of Maryland: Province and State (New York, 1929), 95–96.Google Scholar
30. Archives, I. 71–72.
31. Ibid.