,nonaThe Maryland Toleration Act ( 1649)
is' that the answer of this
certainly will be; that
death to me' Therefore'good
L-.t *ff be life or
as you can; and if you send
father, send as soon
the mark'
t". .tYtfting let this be
Richard Frethorne'
ROT
Martin's Hundred
RrvrEwQUESTIoNS
1. What senseof community did Frethorne note
in this early settlement?
2. Although Frethorne worked primarily at the
Martin's Hundred plantation or settlement,
what other task did this company servant commonly have to Perform?
3. What were Frethorne's major complaints?
4. What did Frethorne want of his parents?
The MarylandTolerationdct (1649)
FROM
Bay coloniesunder
loint-stockcompaniesestablishedthe Virginia and Massachusetts
although
ventures,
royal charters.Thesecompaniesundertooksettlementas business
to
secondary
made
proft was almost immediately
in the latter caseof Massachusetts
a
religious
had
also
piety. The settlementof Maryland, like that of Massachusetts,
"Papist"-the term usedby hostileEnbasis;but that basisw,asestablishedby a
glishProtestants-proprietor instead of a Puritan company. Cecilius Calvert, the
iecondLord Balti*ori, hoped to make his colony into a refugefor Roman Catho'
lics;however,from its very planting in 16i4, not aII the settlersin MaryIand were
Catholic.Calvert was willing to acceptatl Christiansin his colony,but his accepAs a result, the
tancewas not echoedor acted upon by all of the other colonists.
Maryland proprietor had to make a rather bold movefor that era: he passedthe
Toleration-Aci of 1649. The act would be revokedby a Puritan parliamentary commissionin 1654,but restoredby 1656.Later, as a result of the revolt of the Protesin 1689and the 1692 establishmentof the Church of England in
tant Associators
the colony, Catholicswould face activediscrimination,but a precedenthad beenset
for tolerance,
From Browne, William H., ed., The Archives of Maryland, vol. I (Baltirnore: Maryland
Historical Society,1883),pp. 244-47'
*
*
*
And whereasthe enforcing of the consciencein
matters of Religion hath frequentiy fallen out to
be a dangerousConsequencein those commonwealthswhere it hath been practiced,and for the
more quiet and peaceablegovernment of this
Province,and the better to preservemutual Love
and amity among the Inhabitants thereof: Be it
Therefore. . . enacted.' . that no personor PerProsons whatsoeverwithin this Province
fessingto believein JesusChrist, shallfrom henceforth be any ways troubled, molestedor discountenancedfor or in respectof his or her religion
28
cHAprER 2
rNcreND AND irs coloNrEs
nor in the free exercisethereof within this Province or the Islands thereunto belonging nor any
way compelied to the belief or exercise of any
other Religion against his or her consent, so as
they be not unfaithful to the Lord Proprietary, or
molest or conspire againstthe civil government
establishedor to be establishedin this Province
under him or his heirs.
And that all and everyperson and personsthat
shall presume Contrary to this Act and the true
intent and meaningthereof,directlyor indirectly,
either in person or estatewillfully to wrong, disturb, trouble, or rnolest any person whatsoever
within this Province professingto believein ]esus
Christ for or in respectof his or her religion or
the free exercisethereof in this Province . . . shall
be compelled to pay triple damagesto the party
so wronged or molested.. . . Or if the party so
offending as aforesaidshall refuse or be unable to
recompense the party so wronged, or to satisfy
such fine or forfeiture, then such Offender shall
be severelypunishedby public whipping and imprisonment during the pleasureof the Lord proprietary. . . .
R[VIEW
QUESTIONS
1. Why did the proprietor promote tolerance?
2. To which faiths did this toleration for differing
religiouspracticesextend?
3. What were the penaitiesfor prejudicial actions?
. Why do you think they were so harsh?
WTLLTAM
Bvnp ll
FRoM
The History of the Dividing Line
Betwixt Virginiaand North Carolina(1725)
An excessof religioussentimentwas not evidentin North Carolina, nor apparently,
accordingto William Byrd II, was that of the good husbandryand industry that
supposedlymarked the Englishyeonxan.Byrd was an erudite Virginia landholder
and official, who in 1728 headedthe Virginia commissionthat, along with the
North Carolina teant,surveyedthe disputedboundary line betweenthe two colonies.
The conscientious
and ambitiousByrd duly reportednot only the commission's
fndings but his own. His observationsare marked by scathingsarcasmand insightful
ironies-which are as revealingof him as they are of segmentsof North Carolina
society.Byrd deploredwastein any deg'eeor kind-whetlter in land, livestock,
tinte, or people.Wrile he acceptedcalamity as God's will, he certainly believedthat
prosperitycould be the result of ntan's will. That determination,and the ability to
useit for profit, nmrlcedfor hint the dffirence betweenthe lower and upper ranks
of lnmtanity.
From Wright, Louis B., ed.,The ProseWorksof Williant Byrd (Carnbridge:Harvard University
Press,1966),pp.158-62,168-69. IEditorialinsertionsappearin squarebrackets-Ed.]