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: 16 February 2015
One can reasonably argue that the founding of Maryland, one of the original thirteen colonies in the New World, was the result of the close relationship between the Calvert family and the Stuarts. George Calvert (c. 1580–1632) was the son of Leonard, a prosperous but obscure cattle farmer, and his wife Alicia (née Crossland), ‘living in the little Yorkshire village of Kiplin in the valley of the Swale’. Whether he was born Catholic is a matter of some dispute. He matriculated, however, as a commoner at Trinity College, Oxford when he was thirteen or fourteen, and all who matriculated had to accept the thirty-nine articles of the Established Church. He received his bachelor’s degree in 1597, following which he travelled to Europe as part of ‘the grand tour’ typical of English educated gentlemen. The MA Oxford degree was granted in 1605 ‘on the occasion of the first visit of the new king… The master’s degree was conferred upon forty-three candidates, including many members of the nobility.’
1 Charles I ‘expressed the desire to have the colony named in honour of his Catholic consort, Terra Maria (Mary Land)’, Ives, J. M.: The Ark and the Dove, 1936, p. 100.Google Scholar
2 Ives, p. 28.
3 Krugler asserts he was ‘born a Roman Catholic’, Krugler, J. D., English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century, 2004, p. 4 Google Scholar.
4 Ives, p. 29.
5 Hall, C. C.: The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate, 1904, p. 7.Google Scholar
6 Johnson, G. W.: The Maryland Act of Religious Toleration, 1949, p. 5.Google Scholar
7 Ives, p. 5.
8 Krugler, p. 85.
9 Hanley, T. O.: Their Rights and Liberties, 1959, p. 64.Google Scholar
10 G. W. Johnson, pp. 5–6.
11 Krugler, pp. 4–5.
12 Ibidem, p. 77.
13 Ibidem, p. 8.
14 Cecil was named for Robert Cecil (Krugler, p. 131); at his confirmation he changed his name to Cecilius (Krugler, p. 130). One can infer he was putting space between himself and the notorious Salisbury.
15 Garraghan, G. J., ‘Catholic Beginnings in Maryland’, Thought, IX, June 1934.Google Scholar
16 Krugler, p. 133.
17 Ibidem.
18 Ibidem, p. 140.
19 Newman, H. W.: The Flowering of the Maryland Palatinate, 1984, p. 103.Google Scholar
20 Fogarty, G. P., ‘I. The Origins of the Mission, 1634–1773’ in The Maryland Jesuits 1634–1833, 1976, p. 9.Google Scholar
21 Ibidem.
22 G. W. Johnson, p. 5.
23 Haydon, C.: Anti-Catholicism in Eighteenth-Century England, c. 1714–80: A Political and Social Study, 1993, p. 3.Google Scholar
24 Gillow, J.: A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of The English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Day, vol. II, 1885, p. 540.Google Scholar
25 Gother, John: Papist Protesting, 1687 Google Scholar, A2, A3. [Ann Arbor: Xerox University Microfilms]
26 The spelling in all of the contemporary documents has been regularized.
27 G. W. Johnson, p. 7.
28 Hanley, T. O.: The American Revolution and Religion, 1971, p. 7.Google Scholar
29 Ibidem, p. 172.
30 Hall, C. C.: The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate, 1904 Google Scholar; Ives, J. M.: The Ark and the Dove, 1936 Google Scholar; Krugler, J. D.: English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century, 2004 Google Scholar; Spalding, H. S.: Catholic Colonial Maryland, 1931.Google Scholar
31 Ives, p. 138.
32 Ibidem, p. 200.
33 Ibidem, p. 202.
34 Krugler, p. 180. It was during this time that Ingle sent Fathers White and Copley (alias Father Philip Fisher) back to England in chains to be tried for treason. At their capital trial for having been ordained and entering England, they received a directed acquittal because they demonstrated that their entry was the result of their being imprisoned and transported against their will. Despite their innocence, they were banished from England and Maryland. Fr. Copley eventually made his way back to Maryland (Ives, pp. 207–208).
35 Krugler, p. 181.
36 Newman, p. 144. ‘Clayborne’ is another spelling of ‘Claiborne’.
37 Spalding, p. 66.
38 Ibidem, pp. 66–67.
39 Ellis, J. T. (ed): Documents of American Catholic History, 1956, p. 115.Google Scholar
40 Spalding, p. 74.
41 Hanley, , The American Revolution and Religion, 1971, p. 172.Google Scholar
42 Ellis, p. 116.
43 Spalding, p. 68.
44 Ellis, p. 117.
45 J. Dilhet: Beginnings of the Catholic Church in the United States, trans. P. W. Browne, 1922, Browne, p. 160, n. 7.
46 Spalding, p. 76.
47 Ellis, p. 117.
48 Johnson, B.T. : The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion of April 21, 1649, 1883, p. 151.Google Scholar
49 Newman, p. 151.
50 B. T. Johnson, p. 153, n. 2.
51 In some versions ‘Phillip’.
52 Krugler, p. 221.
53 Ibidem, p. 227.
54 Ibidem, p. 226.
55 Ibidem, p. 234.
56 Ives, p. 247.
57 Krugler, p. 238.
58 Ibidem.
59 Hanley, T. O.: Charles Carroll of Carollton, 1970, p. 2 Google Scholar. The Founder’s coming to Maryland for this office began a family saga that extends through the beginning of the nineteenth century. His grandson, Charles Carroll of Carollton, was the richest man in the colonies and the only Catholic signer of the Declaration of Independence. The younger Carroll’s distant cousin was the first Archbishop of the United States, John Carroll; another cousin. Daniel, helped draft the first amendment.
60 Krugler, p. 244.
61 ‘An Act for the Establishment of Religious Worship in this Province [Maryland] According to the Church of England and for the Maintenance of Ministers’ finally passed in April 1700. It ‘allowed bonafide Quakers, shown by attendance at their own assemblies, to make an affirmation in lieu of an oath, and rights of dissenters were recognized’. ( Werline, A. W.: Problems of Church and State in Maryland During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, 1948, p. 23.Google Scholar)
62 Ives, p. 259.
63 Krugler, p. 246, ‘Later, Jesuits dismantled the locked chapel, reclaiming the bricks for another building some distance from the former capital city’.
64 Krugler, p. 246.
65 Linck, J. C.: Fully Instructed and Vehemently Influenced Catholic Preaching in Anglo-Colonial America, 2002, p. 14.Google Scholar
66 Ibidem, pp. 14–15.
67 Ives, p. 259.
68 Hanley, T. O., The American Revolution and Religion, p. 172.Google Scholar
69 Linck, p. 16.
70 Hanley, T. O., The American Revolution and Religion, p. 174.Google Scholar
71 Ibidem, p. 173.
72 Ibidem, p. 174.
73 Ellis, p. 116.
74 Hanley, T. O., Their Rights and Liberties, p. 117 Google Scholar; Ives, pp. 244–46; Spalding, pp. 72–73.