40. Quoted by Bradley, Captain John Smith (1905), p. 144.
41. Force, Tracts (1836-46), vol. i.
42. Gates, A True Declaration of the Estate of the Colonie in Virginia (1610).
43. Force, Tracts (1836-46), vol. iii.
44. Sir Thomas Dale was Governor 1611 and 1614 to 1616. Sir Thomas Gates as Governor organised the colony 1611 to 1614. See Dictionary of National Biography, xxi. p. 64.
45. Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia (ed. 1860).
46. Hamor, A True Discourse of the Present Estate of Virginia (ed. 1860).
47. The characters of the two parties is controversial owing to the scarcity of documentary evidence.
48. Doyle, op. cit. p. 220.
49. Ibid., p. 226.
50. There was no question of abandoning the colony itself, which was what Spain desired.
51. Doyle, op. cit. pp. 242, 244.
52. Gardiner, History of the Commonwealth, i. 317.
53. Neill, Virginia Carolorum (1886), p. 215.
54. Cromwell's Speech V., Sept. 17, 1656.
55. Hening, Statutes at Large (New York, 1823), ii. p. 517.
56. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 64.
57. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1669-1674, p. 530.
58. Strange News from Virginia (1677), p. 8.
59. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 64.
60. Ibid., p. 67.
61. Ibid., p. iv.
62. Fortescue, Introduction to Calendar, 1677-1680, p. v.
63. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1677-1680, p. 589.
64. See p. 93.
65. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial, 1697, p. 642.
66. Itinerant Observations, p. 62.
CHAPTER III
THE COLONISATION OF MARYLAND AND THE CAROLINAS
"Maryland is a province not commonly knowne in England, because the name of Virginia includes or clouds it, it is a Country wholy belonging to that honorable Gentleman the Lord Baltamore."67 Such is the description of the colony that now comes before us, and at the time it was penned John Hammond, the writer, told the truth. The colony had arisen under rather peculiar circumstances, which neither resembled the foundation of Virginia nor the settlement of the Pilgrim Fathers. In 1632 Charles I. granted to George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, an ill-defined tract of territory to the north of Virginia. Baltimore was an old hand at colonisation, for he had some years previous attempted to form a settlement in Newfoundland which had not been successful. David Kirke, who took over the Baltimore lands there, said that Newfoundland agreed with all God's creatures except Jesuits and schismatics, and that a great mortality among the former tribe had driven Baltimore away. Whether this was the true reason, or whether, as it has been proposed, Baltimore was practically driven out by the Presbyterians, it is hard to decide. His next trial as a colony founder was made in the more southern lands of Virginia, but here his Roman Catholicism was sternly opposed by the English Church party. Under these circumstances his Maryland colony seemed likely to flourish, for there were neither schismatics nor churchmen, nor Presbyterians, but only Indians to contend against. Before the first Lord Baltimore could accomplish anything he died, but the grant was transferred to his son Cecil. The charter is an important one, for by it the Proprietors gained both territorial and political rights; the freemen or representative assembly were to be consulted, and with their advice the Proprietor could enact laws. All places of worship were to be consecrated according to the Church of England, and so the Roman Catholic faith had only a subordinate position in a colony which owed its foundation to a true upholder of that belief. From the very first Maryland was better off than several of the other colonies, as the Crown divested itself of the right of levying taxes within the province; but in other respects the constitution was normal, consisting of a governor and two chambers, the proprietor possessing the privilege of creating councillors.
Leonard Calvert, brother of the second Lord Baltimore, sailed to take possession in 1633, accompanied by two Jesuit priests and three hundred emigrants. These colonists were neither gaol-birds nor religious fanatics; they had been selected with great care and were well provided. One of the Jesuits, Father White, has left on record his Impressions in which he says that the colony was founded with a definite religious and educational purpose. "We had not come thither for the purpose of war, but for the sake of benevolence, that we might imbue a rude race with the precepts of civilisation, and open up a way to heaven, as well as impart to them the advantages of remote regions."68 When the settlers came to the place of landing they "beheld the natives armed. That night fires were kindled through the whole region, and since so large a ship had never been seen by them messengers were sent everywhere to announce 'that a canoe as large as an island had brought as many men as there was trees in the woods.'"69 From this moment and onwards the relations with the natives were always friendly. The small independent landowners being free from this danger, at first, lived happy and contented lives, but they were gradually crushed out