Return to home page.

 

 

 

NOTE: This is an HTML-formatted copy of the original 1996 edition. That edition had 467 pages of text, with an additional 13 pages of front material, which included a title page, a listing of contents, abbreviations, tables, maps and illustrations, and acknowledgments. Page numbers have been inserted in this HTML edition that correspond with the numbering in the original edition. But in some cases these page numbers do not exactly correspond with the page numbers listed in the index. If the item listed in the index is not found on the listed page, it will be in the preceding or following page. In order to make the book reader -friendly, most of the 13-page front material has been placed at the end of the document, after the index. Only the table of contents remains in the front.

 

 

Social, Economic and Religious Beliefs among Maryland Catholic Laboring People During the Period of the English Civil War, 1639-1660

Edward Terrar

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. iii]

CONTENTS

 

List of Tables, Maps & Illustrations.................   ..................................	v
Abbreviations	vi
Note on Quotations, Dating, and Money Values	xii
Note on "Career Files"	xiv
Acknowledgements	xvi
Introduction: The Argument, Methodology, and English Demographic-Career Background...............………….......................................	1
The Argument	1
Background: Demographic and Career Aspects of English                                                             Catholicism	17
Chapter 1: The English Catholic Belief Background Concerning                                                             Labor, Politics, the Clergy, and the Market.......................	35
Catholic Labor Beliefs in England	35
Catholic Political Beliefs in England	42
English Catholic Beliefs about the Clergy	62
Catholic Market Beliefs in England	75
Chapter 2: The Demographic and Career Backgrounds of the                                                             Maryland Catholics and their Beliefs about Labor...........	89
Maryland Demographic Background	89
Beliefs of Laboring People	94
Maryland Landlord Beliefs	114
The English Gentry's Beliefs About Labor	122
Chapter 3: The Political Beliefs of Maryland Catholics..........................	143
Self-Government and the Proprietor	143
Independence from Proprietor: Legislative	145
Independence from Proprietor: Judicial	149
Independence from Proprietor: Taxation	151
Independence from the Crown	156
Royalist Accusations	161
Gentry Catholics in England	173
Chapter 4: Beliefs about the Role of the Clergy...................................	181
Parish Ministry	181
Obstacles to Ministry	186
Assembly Legislation Concerning Clergy's Role: Praemunire	196
Legislation: Pastors	204
Legislation: Church Courts	205
Legislation: Tax, Military & Court Liability	210
Legislation: Mortmain	211
Legislation: Oaths and Covenants	214
Legislation: Argument	216

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. iv]

Chapter 5: Beliefs about the Market...............................................	221
Depression Market Conditions	221
Collectivist Corn Legislation	223
Collectivist Tobacco Legislation	228
Collectivist Land & Labor Legislation	233
Legislation: Pelts, Merchants & Officials	236
Legislation: Local Merchants & Officials	237
Legislation: Foreign Merchants & Officials	239
English Catholic Gentry Beliefs about the Market	243
Chapter 6: Catholic Beliefs in Relation to Gender................................	257
Gender: Demographic Background	258
Legislation: Contract Rights	263
Legislation: Civil Marriage	264
Court Decisions and Customs	266
Customs: Family Formation	268
English Catholic Gentry: Primogeniture	272
English Catholic Gentry: Celibacy	274
English Catholic Gentry: Obedience	277
Beliefs in Relation to Race...................................................	278
African & Indian Demography	279
Religious Background	281
African & Indian Laboring Background	285
Conoy Labor Beliefs	287
Conoy Political Beliefs	289
Conoy Religious Beliefs	292
Conoy Market Beliefs	296
Conclusion..............................................................................	301
Appendix 1: Biographical Information on the Documented and Some             Undocumented Catholics in Maryland During the Civil War             Period	307
Appendix 2: Documented Catholics Arranged According to Decade of             Arrival and Status upon Arrival	315
Appendix 3: Documented Catholics Who Followed Non-Agrarian             Trades	319
Appendix 4: Catholics in the Assembly during the Civil War Period	320
Appendix 5: Maryland Catholics Who Carried on Business as Usual             During the 1645 Overthrow and Those Against Whom             Hostility Was Directed	323
Appendix 6: Religion of St. Mary's Troops Involved in the Battle of             the Severn, 1655	325
Appendix 7: Chronology of the Civil War Period in England and             Maryland	326
Appendix 8: Saints' Days and Other Festivals	329
Selected Bibliography.................................................................	331
I.   Europe (Ancient, Middle Ages)/England (general)	331
II.  England (Catholic)/Ireland	336
III. Maryland primary	340

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. v]

IV.   Maryland secondary...................................................	350
V.    Africa/African-American/Indian	354
VI.   Women	358
VII.  Economic/Political/Social	358
VIII. Intellectual (primary)	364
IX.   Intellectual (secondary)	374
X.    America (general)/New England/New York/Virginia/                     Delaware	378
XI.   Religion (general)/Rome/Italy	381
XII.  France/Canada/Dutch Republic/Flanders	383
XIII. Spain/Portugal/Mexico/South America/Caribbean/                     Brazil	384
XIV. Law	386
Index....................................................................................	391

 

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 1]

Introduction:

The Argument, Methodology, and English Demographic-Career Background

            This study is about the beliefs of the Maryland Catholics during the period of the English Civil War. The center of their belief was that the world should be taken seriously. Their beliefs are studied by looking at four themes that were basic to their thinking: their belief about the value of labor, political independence, the role of the clergy, and the nature of market relations.

            It might be objected to this study's approach that the only beliefs which should be called "Catholic" were those which were "official," that is, those taught by the hierarchy, meaning the bishops and pope. In considering this objection, two points need to be observed. First, most of the Maryland Catholics' beliefs were those taught by the hierarchy at least in certain times and places. For example, in the seventeenth century the hierarchy taught that it was wrong but officially accepted the right of national governments to veto the appointment of bishops. The official church also often taught that it was wrong but in its canon law accepted the accumulation or multiple holding of benefices, that is, parish income, and acknowledged that the receiver of the benefices did not have to fill their conditions, that is, serve as pastor.[1] On the other hand, as will be seen, the Maryland Catholics prohibited the authority of canon law and legislatively required the clergy to serve as pastors. In this instance, the Catholics were more "official" than the hierarchy.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 2]

            The second point that needs to be observed in considering the objection that the Catholics' beliefs were not official is that the hierarchy and pope acknowledged that the traditions of the Catholic people were a source for "official" belief and that tradition at times took precedent over contrary written (canon) law.[2] An example of where Catholic custom became a source for "official" beliefs despite canon law to the contrary was Maryland's Act of Religious Toleration. The present-day hierarchy hold this up with pride but at the time it was enacted in 1649, it was in violation of official bulls and canons going back a century. Toleration was not then the doctrine of the hierarchy.

            To confine the study of seventeenth-century Catholic beliefs to those of the hierarchy, it is argued in this study, would be to miss more often than not the "official" beliefs. This is an ambitious study. It is about Maryland Catholic beliefs, but the theoretical framework it follows makes it applicable beyond its particular geographic and time limitations. The theoretical framework involves identifying what is official based on the universal acceptance of such beliefs by Catholics. The nature of the Catholics' beliefs will be addressed in the next six chapters. Then the argument about their official nature will be further developed in the concluding chapter.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 3]

            Another objection that might be raised to the this study's approach besides the "officialness" of beliefs concerns the use of the term "beliefs" rather than mentality or ideology. Beliefs is generally preferred here because it is a term with ancient roots that was used by the Catholics themselves. The terms mentality and ideology are more recent in origin and do not precisely cover what is studied here. This study is equally interested in the convictions or persuasions of truth held by the Catholics as it is in the Catholics themselves. The study of mentality tends to emphasize group psychology and give a secondary place to ideas or beliefs. Ideology or intellectual studies tend to disembody beliefs, and give secondary attention to the believers. This study finds that one cannot know the Catholics unless one knows their beliefs, and one cannot know their beliefs unless one knows the Catholics and their social situations.

            The study begins with a summary discussion of the English Catholic community and their beliefs, being the sources from which the Maryland community sprang. Then follows five chapters that take up the four substantive themes of the study. The first theme centers on the point that most Catholics were laboring people. They spent much of their lives doing manual labor of one type or another. To understand what it was to be a Catholic, it is necessary to look on their views of such an important part of their lives.[3] The study finds, not unexpectedly, that they viewed labor in a positive light, both as a means to an end and as a way of life. This was reflected in the Maryland assembly and judicial records, in their migration to and their remaining in Maryland, and in their everyday work-lives. This positive view of labor had the roots of what classical political economists formulated as the labor theory of value.[4] The Catholics were not concerned about formulating a theory of economic activity, but as Ronald Meek points out, throughout the period the "habit of thinking of `value' in terms of producers' cost remained firmly rooted in the consciousness of the direct producers themselves."[5] The Catholics' labor theory of value dominated their political, religious, and market beliefs.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 4]

            As laboring people the Catholics during the Civil War years had political interests and beliefs that were sometimes independent from and opposed to both the royalist and parliamentary gentry in England. This is the second theme that will be taken up. The Catholics succeeded in upholding the independence of their assembly, judiciary, and tax system, which included at times defiance of the crown, the proprietor, the Parliament, and the London merchants.

            The third issue looked at in this study is the belief of the Catholics about the role of the clergy. As laboring people, they had beliefs that on some fundamental issues ran counter to the thinking of the clergy. They believed the clergy should serve their needs, which involved the establishment of parishes and the employment of the clergy as pastors. The clergy were inclined toward Indian mission work or the manorhouse type of ministry which often dominated in England and which ignored the needs of laboring people. The Catholics through assembly legislation and court cases were able to prevail in making the clergy serve their needs.

            The fourth issue taken up concerns market relations. The Catholics believed the market should serve their needs. They were often able to make their market beliefs prevail through court cases and the legal codes which they enacted. Finally, beliefs in relation to gender and race are discussed.

            The prime argument or thesis of this study is that the Maryland Catholic laboring people had beliefs which served their needs and which they were often successful in defending. In being nearly a law unto themselves concerning their basic beliefs, the Catholics resembled the Protestant antinomians (literally "those against the law"), who were challenging the established order in church and state throughout the period. Not a few antinomian doctrines found their way into the Catholic pamphlet literature of the period, such as universal grace, an emphasis on the Holy Spirit, and eschatology.[6]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 5]

            The Catholics, like many of the Protestants, did not use the term "antinomianism" to describe their beliefs. The term was used mainly to insult them by their enemies.[7] The Maryland Catholics in 1649 outlawed the use of the term in their Act Concerning Religion.[8] The Catholics did not call their beliefs antinomian, but scholars who study Catholicism use the term about Catholics. For example, Jodi Bilinkoff in her study of the subject calls "antinomian" the teachings of Maria Vela y Cueto in sixteenth-century Spain.[9] James Gaffney labels the program of the English Benedictine priest Augustine Baker (d. 1641) "a virtual antinomianism predicated on the belief that nothing is finally normative for human behavior but the personal experience of what is taken to be a divine inspiration."[10] Vela and Baker never labelled themselves as antinomian. But Bilinkoff and Gaffney show that the substance of antinomianism, which included resistance to what authorities were calling God's order, existed among Catholics just as among Protestants.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 6]

            In using the term "antinomian" to indicate as much a material as a spiritual doctrine, this study follows Christopher Hill, Gertrude Huehns, Charles Francis Adams, and a general tendency in Civil War antinomian leveler tracts. The leveler Gerald Winstanley (d. 1652) taught that antinomianism was about the "here and now," that is, rent-free land, not only about the next life or the Holy Spirit.[11] The Presbyterian-dominated Parliament in 1646 called treasonous the teaching of antinomianism and enacted capital punishment against it.[12] The Presbyterian gentry did not fear antinomianism because of otherworldly considerations, but because, as occurred in Pride's purge in 1648, the antinomians were seeking political power at the expense of the Presbyterians.

            The antinomian Thomas Collier wrote in 1646 that "believers are a law unto themselves."[13] The English Catholic priest Thomas White's doctrine was antinomian, although he never labelled it that. He taught that, "It is a fallacious principle, though maintained by many, that obedience is one of the most eminent virtues and that it is the greatest sacrifice we can offer to God, to renounce our own wills, because our will is the chiefest good we have."[14] Augustine Baker and the English Benedictine nun Gertrude More (d. 1633) were antinomian in teaching that it was necessary to look to the "inner light," the "inward voice," "the illumination of God's Holy Spirit," "the liberty of the Spirit," and "in preferring interior divine guidance to the counsel of spiritual directors."[15] The term antinomian is used in this study to describe Maryland Catholics because it was used in the period in connection with the type of beliefs expressed by them. Like Thomas White, they did not believe that obedience or the renunciation of their wills concerning labor, politics, the clergy, and the market was something pleasing to God. Rather, they used their wills to benefit their own material needs.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 7]

            Besides the thesis that Catholics had beliefs that served their needs, this study makes several subsidiary arguments or observations. One is that the Civil War period is a good period for studying their beliefs. It is a good period because first, the sometimes sharp divisions that were present during the period in England and Maryland and the pamphlets, letters, legislation, and court cases that were generated to justify the various interests, bring into clearer focus beliefs which in other periods might be misinterpreted or missed entirely. It is no wonder that the period has attracted much attention among historians interested in studying the beliefs of laboring people in England. The war pitted the crown against Parliament. During the 1630s the crown had refused to call a Parliament and had imposed what were widely considered to be illegal taxes. In the 1640s the crown sought by armed force to overthrow Parliament, but ended up itself being abolished in 1649. Laboring people did the brunt of the fighting and left in the leveler and digger pamphlets a record of their thinking. The period in Maryland has a similar uniqueness for those interested in the beliefs of Catholic laboring people.

            The Civil War era is also a good period for studying the thinking of Maryland Catholics because the war and its prelude coincided with the establishment of the Maryland colony in 1634. Catholic laboring people dominated the assembly and courts to an extent that was not repeated in the post-war period. Many of the records they left express their beliefs.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 8]

            Another argument or observation of this study is that anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism were a relatively unimportant aspect of Maryland Catholic existence. This is a point about Maryland history that has been observed by Lois Green Carr, who expresses a certain amount of puzzlement:

Given the disruptions of the first twenty-five years of Maryland history, one might suppose it was a period of great internal conflict over religion. But in fact the evidence is strong that when Protestants and Catholics lived side by side they lived peaceably together. There was remarkably little open conflict between settlers as individuals over religious issues. One might have thought that the court records would abound with complaints that Catholics or Protestants had criticized each other's beliefs or religious behavior. But over the first twenty-five years there were only three such occurrences.[16]

            In finding anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism to have been of little significance, this study follows the pattern that has characterized the county studies of English Catholic history since at least World War II.[17] The work of those like J. T. Cliffe and Hugh Aveling has been criticized because they "have quite failed to provide a grass-roots background for the national policies of no-popery."[18] The most important work about the period, John Bossy's English Catholic Community is said to be "decidedly odd" for "scarcely mentioning anti-Catholicism, a persistent feature of English politics for nearly 300 years."[19] Like Bossy's study this present study is "not primarily concerned with the relation of minority to majority, considered either as a state or as a church, but with the body of Catholics as a social whole and in relation to itself, with its internal constitution and the internal logic of its history."[20] Nor is there in this study anything on other traditional themes: martyrology, apology, or debates on the hierarchy.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 9]

            In defense of the local English Catholic historians, it needs to be pointed out that they did not set out to ignore anti-Catholicism, anti-Protestantism or the traditional themes of other historians. Their work merely reflects the fact that these topics were not, as one writer puts it, a significant part of Catholic life:

The great value of the county studies has been to demonstrate in detail how mistaken this picture [of anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism] was, and how normal, even uneventful, was the life led by many English Catholics. Religion served as a pretext for occasional legal or even physical attacks upon Catholic gentry, but investigations of such incidents usually turn up the familiar motives for local feuding--personality, property, and prestige.[21]

            Likewise at the national level, the nature of anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism was probably not as simple as it is sometimes presented. Christopher Hill observes that anti-Catholicism was a way of attacking absolutism.[22] As will be seen, Catholics no less than Protestants promoted this "anti-Catholicism," which included rejecting the claims of the papacy to anything but a fraternal (not paternal or superior) relation. Catholic "anti-Catholicism" was not a result of Protestant influence but the continuation of an English Catholic tradition. The claim of the Roman emperor and later of Charlemagne and his successors to be above the law had never been a popular doctrine. Similarly when the papacy tried to make law on its own, this was not accepted. Edward Norman remarks:

The English Catholic Church of the middle ages had always been separated from Rome. The centralizing of the Council of Trent which ended in 1563 was foreign to traditional English Catholicism. . . There had been no agreement about the extent or nature of papal jurisdiction in English Catholicism of the past. Elizabethian Catholicism did not rush to assert the primacy of the pope. The Jesuits did.[23]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 10]

            "Penal" laws against Roman interference in the English Catholic church had been on the books for centuries prior to those enacted during the Reformation.[24] The First Statute of Praemunire was enacted in 1353. It outlawed legal appeals to Rome and the extension of Roman law to England.[25] Penalties included outlawry, forfeiture, imprisonment, and banishment. Pope Martin V (ruled 1417-1431) protested that the laws against the Jews and Saracens did not have such dire consequences as these.[26] The "Second Statute of Praemunire" (1393) made it treason for anyone to allow Rome to interfere with the election of bishops.[27] The same purpose had been served prior to praemunire by common law writs of prohibition, of quare impedit, of quare non admisit, of quare non-permittit, and by the long-established right, reaffirmed by an ordinance in 1343, of forbidding the introduction into England of papal bulls prejudicial to the church.[28] Beginning in the 1480s praemunire began to be applied not only to Roman courts but to litigation in the English church courts. Litigants used common law courts to punish those who sued them in church courts.[29] R. H. Helmholz remarks that by the time of the Reformation, a jurisdictional reformation had already occurred because of the expanded use of praemunire.[30] The nature of the English Catholic "penal" tradition was commented on at the time by those who disliked it. Robert Persons, S.J., for example, remarked:

If we caste back our eyes unto the former times in England, we shall find that for above five hundred years, even from the Conquest and entrance of the Normans and French Governors over our country, they have ever continued a certain faction and emulation of the laity against the clergy, which did make the path by little and little unto that open schism, heresy and apostasy, whereunto at length it fell.[31]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 11]

            In addition to being a way of attacking clerical absolutism, in which the Catholics had a hand, anti-Catholicism also had another use. Some of the magnates seem to have regularly employed it in their efforts to manipulate laboring people. The idea was to shift the blame away from themselves for an established order in England in which up to half the people were in poverty and without employment.[32] There were Chesapeake landlords who in a similar manner attacked the economic interests of white and black laboring people by attempting to pit them against each other to minimize their united opposition to the landlord order.[33] But just as in mid-seventeenth-century Maryland whites and blacks were not easily fooled in discerning what was in their interest, the English laboring majority and even many among the gentry were not generally misled.

            For example, one scholar believes that John Pym in 1641 and 1642 used anti-Catholicism to "hold a majority about him in Parliament" against the crown.[34] Pym used anti-Catholicism, but his main argument centered on anti-Royalism and anti-Laudism. There was unity against the crown because the gentry in Parliament had no interest in increasing their taxes so that the king could impose an episcopacy in Scotland. Not theoretical fear, but concrete dislike of clericalism and taxation was the issue.

            An over reliance on some of the gentry's pamphlets, especially from the period of the 1688 revolution, might lead one to conclude that anti-Catholicism was "the strongest, most widespread, and most persistent ideology in the life and thought of the seventeenth-century British and constituted one of the forces making for national unity."[35] However, this largely ignores local and national studies on the subject. There was as much disunity on religious, economic, and political issues as there was unity. The disunity was great enough to bring civil war. It was not Catholics who the Independents and levelers purged from Parliament in 1648. The Independents went after the Presbyterian gentry, who were seeking a settlement with the crown without satisfying the demands of the laboring people that in large part made up the New Model Army.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 12]

            Assertions about the strength of anti-Catholicism at the national level based on the unity which it produced need to be re-examined. Likewise one has to question the strength of anti-Catholicism when one finds Catholics being included in the various coalitions that were formed during the era. For example, the Presbyterian gentry formed a coalition with Catholic Royalists and the French government. This included starting in 1646 a plot with the Catholic queen, Henrietta Maria against the Independents.[36] Similarly, the levelers in 1649 opposed Cromwell's invasion of Ireland. They stated that the Irish Catholics were not their enemy, but the London merchants and English gentry who wished to weaken the power of the laboring people by sending off to Ireland their most effective protector, the army.[37] The leveler William Walwyn suggested that the English should look to "honest papists . . . to learn civility, humanity, simplicity of heart; yea, charity and Christianity."[38]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 13]

            Anti-Catholicism was not strong enough at the national level to produce unity or to prevent coalitions with Catholics. It was also not a significant issue in much of the pamphlet literature. Robin Clifton has done the most extensive study of pamphlet literature for the period. He finds that pamphleteers abandoned anti-Catholicism as a stock propaganda theme early in the war because the majority of English readers knew better and could not be manipulated by it: "Why should a writer in such evident need pass over a stock propaganda theme [as anti-Catholicism] unless he knew its value to be debased?"[39] At best the popular fear of Catholicism was a factor only until 1642, as Clifton sums up:

During the English Revolution the fear of Catholics had political significance for three years only, between 1640 and 1642. . . A few anti-Catholic alarms occurred early in 1643, but despite the confusion and defeats of war, the open presence of Catholics in the royalist army, Charles's negotiations to add Irishmen to his forces, and the most strenuous efforts of Catholic-baiting parliamentary propagandists, the alarms of 1640-1642 did not revive. Reports of plots against parliamentary garrisons abounded between 1643 and 1646, but only twice were Catholics mentioned among the conspirators and none of the plots were explicitly described as popish.[40]

            Illustrative of the limited usefulness of anti-Catholic propaganda during the war was the inability of the Presbyterian gentry in Parliament to enact legislation that would have solemnized Guy Fawkes Day.[41] This was designed in part, it seems, to keep laboring people in fear of Catholics instead of in rebellion against the established order. But the Independents in Parliament, who were considerably under the influence of the army, blocked the enactment.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 14]

            An over reliance on pamphlet literature mainly from later in the century can lead to false conclusions about the importance of anti-Catholicism. Similarly the reliance on anti-Catholic statutory law without studying its actual implementation can result in distorted conclusions.[42] The main practitioners of this type of history were the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century English Catholic martyr and "siege" historians. Caroline Hibbard remarks that "the existence of harsh legislation was often mistaken for evidence that it was enforced."[43] The legislation was enacted at times of national emergency, such as the 1588 attack of the Spanish Armada. In these periods England was at risk from Catholic powers. But the English Catholics were just as "anti-Catholic" in opposing the efforts of Spain to rule England through the pope as were the Protestants. The lax enforcement of the legislation was in part a recognition of this.[44]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 15]

            Had the penal legislation which started in 1559 been enforced, there would have been no recusants by the Civil War.[45] For example, a 1581 act imposed a fine of £20 per month on recusants to be paid directly to the exchequer.[46] Most recusants did not make half that amount in a year. Had it been enforced, they would all have died in debtor's prison. Another penal law imposed a 12d weekly fine. It too was not enforced because it would have forced most recusants into pauperdom. The parish enforcers of the 12d fine would then have had to support the recusant paupers from parish funds. Hugh Aveling remarks, "The exaction of the 12d fine was pretty universally disregarded by parochial officers, presumably because exaction meant distraint on the household goods of the poor, pauperdom, and a charge on the parish."[47]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 16]

            By the 1610s even the pretense of the penal system had been replaced by a system of compounding, that is, a tax on recusants.[48] Illustrative of how the compounding tax worked was the case of Thomas Meynell, who had an income of £500 per year. As a recusant, he was obliged in certain periods to pay up to one-fourth of it in fines. But for purposes of the fine, his income was rated at £40 per year. This meant he paid only £10 per year on an income of £500.[49] In the years when he chose to conform by taking the oath of allegiance, he seems to have paid no fine.[50] By using methods of undervaluation, as well as by using trusts, downers, debt laws, perjury, and bribery, recusants paid little or nothing for their religious beliefs. Peter Newman comments that the view "of all Catholics as committed sufferers in the cause of the faith is one more myth that the history of the Catholic community can do without."[51]

            It should also be noted in connection with the penal laws that as much as 80 percent of the Catholics as will be discussed shortly, were church Catholics. By partial conformity to the Anglican church they were not made subject to the penal laws.

            The reverse of anti-Catholicism was anti-Protestantism. The county studies as well as the present study do not find anti-Protestantism to have been any more significant a factor in the Catholic community than anti-Catholicism. This is not to deny that it was a doctrine of Roman clericalism and that there was an extensive controversial literature between the Catholic and Protestant clergy.[52] But this literature did not arise from the ranks of the laboring Catholics or of the Catholic clergy who were engaged in the pastoral and congregational ministry.[53] Some of Rome's "anti-Protestantism" was directed largely at Catholics and their clergy rather than at Protestants. For example, Thomas Sanchez, S.J. and Robert Persons, S.J. taught that partial conformers and the clergy who served them were apostates, schismatics, and excommunicate.[54]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 17]

            The county studies demonstrate that it is not accurate to reduce Catholic thinking to the beliefs of the gentry or of the Roman establishment. The Catholics were laboring people with beliefs that served their political, economic, and religious needs and they could not be easily manipulated. Where Catholicism did best in England it was not because of clerical doctrines but because the Catholic clergy served the pastoral needs of those who were neglected by the Protestant clergy. This is not to say that Catholics had any lack of doctrines. But their doctrines centered on the value of labor. The Catholics were Catholics because of their clergy who served them. But much of the substance of their religion, which encompassed their way of life and not merely their occasional cultic activity, came from themselves, not from the clergy. Many of the clergy, however, shared in their beliefs.

Demographic and Career Aspects of English Catholicism

            Besides the three theses or observations, this introduction will outline the demographic and career aspects of the Catholic community in England. Catholic beliefs, the Civil War, and the significance of anti-Catholicism and anti-Protestantism in Maryland cannot be viewed in isolation from but as an extension of the events in England. Maryland Catholic beliefs were influenced by local factors in Maryland like the crops which they produced and the clergy who ministered to them, but also by foreign developments, such as market conditions for tobacco in Europe, the progress of the war, and more fundamentally, by the beliefs they acquired in the communities in which they were born and raised. Except for the Conoy converts, most of the Maryland Catholics were migrants from England, with a minority being from Ireland, France, Spain, Portugal, the Low Countries, and Africa. Their political, religious, and economic thinking was in part formed in England. David Allen has remarked on the continuity between old and New England, "The English who came to settle in New England gave up as little of their former ways of doing things as possible."[55] For Allen the Frederick Jackson Turner frontier thesis does not explain New England beliefs. This seems to have been the case with the Maryland Catholics.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 18]

            Because of the continuity, it is logical for Europe and especially England to be the starting points of this study. The beliefs encountered in Maryland are less surprising when the English background is understood. In most cases because Catholics dominated the Maryland assembly and embodied their beliefs in legislation, their thinking is easier to reconstruct in Maryland. On some points, however, the sources that reveal particular beliefs are more numerous in England and can help fill out what is sometimes encountered more briefly or obscurely in the Maryland sources.

            In looking at European Catholicism, one of the characteristics that distinguishes it from Maryland was its diversity. In Europe Catholicism was the religion of numerous nations and of various classes within those nations. During the 1640s there were rebellions and revolutions involving laboring people in most of the Catholic nations and city-states of Europe: France, Florence, the Kingdom of Naples, Spain, the Low Countries, and Germany.[56] As one might expect, the beliefs of Catholic laboring people were not necessarily the beliefs of the Catholic gentry. Diverse groups and beliefs existed alongside each other, sometimes in harmony and re-enforcing each other, sometimes in conflict. The gentry "improvers" and the Maryland proprietor sometimes had more in common with yeomen, that is, field workers, than with the idle rich in terms of belief about the value of productivity and labor. The Maryland Catholics were composed of various types of laboring people. The beliefs which they expressed had a continuity with the beliefs of the laboring people in England.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 19]

            It is these English Catholic laboring people from whom the Maryland Catholics sprang who are the focus of the latter part of this introduction and of the first chapter. Laboring people as used here includes anyone who made their living from their own labor, as opposed to landlords whose income derived mainly from rent or capitalists whose income derived from stock ownership. The expansive definition of laboring people used here has a basis in seventeenth-century economic thought. Ronald Meek, for example, in his study of the era's ideas about the relation of income and labor, finds that the income of employers and merchants was thought to derive solely from the labor of the employer and merchant:

It very often happened at this time that the employers of labor had risen from the ranks of the direct producers and still participated more or less actively in the actual process of production. Therefore they naturally persisted in regarding the differences between their paid-out costs and the price they received for their commodities as a sort of superior "wage" for their own personal efforts rather than as a "profit" on the capital, often very meager, which they had supplied. Even when such employers came to confine themselves to merely supervisory functions, it might still seem plausible to speak of their net reward, as so many economists at this time actually did of it, as the "wages of superintendence."[57]

            Because the earnings of merchants who profited from stock investments were commonly associated with labor, Adam Smith in the eighteenth century went to considerable lengths to show that the profits of stock were not "the wages of a particular sort of labor, the labor of inspection or direction," but were "all together different," being "regulated by quite different principles."[58] In the Smithian definition of laboring people followed here, merchants, improving landlords, and professionals such as architects, lawyers, physicians, and clergy are included. Unlike field hands, their labor was more mental or managerial than manual, but the income of both came from their selling their time and skills, not from capital or land rent. The beliefs of England's non-improving gentry are not the focus of this study, since they did not migrate to Maryland. It is necessary, nevertheless, to include them in the discussion. Their beliefs are informative about the thinking of the Maryland Catholics in indicating what was of less importance to them.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 20]

            In terms of methodology, this and the next chapter construct a paradigm, or what Max Weber calls an ideal type, of the beliefs of the ordinary English Catholics.[59] An ideal type is a simplified version which accentuates certain elements of reality without giving nuances and subtleties. The beliefs outlined here were also shared by many Protestants and were rejected by some Catholic laboring people, not to mention the non-improving Catholic gentry. It is in the nature of ideal types not to be full or unique pictures. But they are employed by scholars because they are a useful tool for discerning reality. In this particular study the ideal type helps introduce and fill out beliefs encountered in Maryland. There was probably no single individual in England or Maryland that embodied every aspect of the type outlined here, and even if there were, no pretense is made of giving a full, well-rounded social history of the English Catholic laboring people. The point is  to set the stage for Maryland in a fruitful manner.

            It might be argued that it is not analytically clarifying to lump together under the same heading as "laboring people" such widely divergent groups as merchants, lawyers, freeholders, and agricultural laborers. How would these people be supposed to have a coherent, unified world view? In answer, it needs to be observed that the ideal type presented here is not about a unified world view, as far as the merchants and professionals were concerned. The interest is about the positive belief concerning labor which each group shared to a greater or lesser degree and which was in contradiction to a negative view of labor which was held by many of the non-improving Catholic gentry and their clergy.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 21]

            In looking at the positive regard for labor which was shared by various groups, this study follows observations by those like Max Weber and R. H. Tawney concerning the divisions which they observe concerning the value of labor.[60] Weber finds the Protestant ethic ideal type, which he in part equated with the work ethic, to be characteristic of whole societies, including peasants as well as merchants. Studies by Wilfrid Prest and Christopher Brooks demonstrate that most seventeenth-century professionals had positive attitudes toward work that set them apart from the "landed ruling elite."[61] Lawyers put in long six-day weeks and were proud of their work.[62]

            A way to appreciate the value in which labor and laboring people were held by some groups, is to study how negatively labor was looked on by other seventeenth-century groups, most importantly the non-improving gentry. By legal definition the gentry were those who lived "idle and without labor." They had an elaborate system of beliefs which justified their view of labor and laboring people as evil, and which glorified the existing order in which the gentry had a monopoly on wealth, politics, housing, the military, education, and religion. Their views dated back to antiquity, during which period labor was associated with slavery, with sin, and with a fall from original perfection. The gentry's negative views of labor were taught to their children and clergy in the continental English language schools. Thomas Aquinas, whose works popularized the anti-labor social philosophy of Aristotle, was the dominant authority for the Catholic gentry and their clergy. Aquinas's doctrine for laboring people was obedience to the established order.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 22]

            The interest in this study is not the beliefs of the non-improving gentry. However, as mentioned earlier, their beliefs will be documented at some points because the laboring people's beliefs can better be understood by contrasting their thinking with that of the gentry. Nor is the interest in professionals or merchants. But their beliefs will be documented at some points because the laboring peoples' beliefs can be better understood by the similarity between their beliefs and those of other groups. There is nothing here about a "unified world view" with lawyers and merchants. But Catholic laboring people did at times share with these groups a rejection both of the gentry's negative views of labor and of the doctrine about obedience to the established order.

            Before looking at English Catholic beliefs, the demographic make-up of the Catholic population out of which the beliefs arose requires examination. The penal laws starting in the sixteenth century as well as the ability of the established church to meet popular needs in many parts of the country accounted for a rapid decline in the English Catholic population. But as Brian Magee pointed out fifty years ago, it was not until the papacy sanctioned the Spanish armada's invasion of England in 1588 that a majority of the English population went from one which was still loyal to Rome to one which had little fraternal regard for it.[63]

            Christopher Haigh suggests that the Reformation in England was introduced at a time when the Catholic church in England was vital and expanding, not the corrupt institution met with in some parts of Europe or in earlier periods of English history.[64] Anticlericalism, as manifested for example in resistance to tithes, was stronger in fifteenth-century England than at the time of the Reformation in the 1530s.[65] The established ministry starting in the 1580s and for the rest of Elizabeth's and the early Stuarts' reign, with its university education, professional cohesion, and synods, was sometimes more clericalist and unresponsive to the needs of rural and laboring people than the pre-Reformation priesthood.[66] Added to the problem as far as laboring people were concerned was the destruction of confraternities that had been the focus of their religion. The confraternities had controlled large numbers of unbeneficed clergy, who served the needs of working people.[67] As a result of the established clericalism, the traditional English Catholicism of the laboring people, continued to be attractive to some ordinary people throughout the first half of the seventeenth century.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 23]

            Catholicism did best in the poor northern and western areas of the country where Anglican parishes were large, offered little income, and attracted relatively few established clergy to serve the people. Those Anglican clergy who did serve in these areas were sometimes non-residents or pluralists, meaning they held incomes and responsibilities for two or more parishes.[68] In Yorkshire there were 314 parishes, but there were 470 settled places of worship. In effect this meant there were more than 100 potential Yorkshire parishes without regular clergy.[69] In these areas, as one writer puts it, Catholicism had "an ability to attract and hold people as diverse as Cleveland jetters, fisherman, tailors, small gentry, farmers, ambitious new peers, and declining old ones. It had an extraordinary tenacity of attraction for the most marginal."[70] John Bossy thinks the English Catholic population increased by one-half, from 40,000 to 60,000, between 1603 and 1641.[71] A similar growth in the Catholic population in Ireland occurred during the period, for the same reason.[72]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 24]

            No reliable census was taken. This means exact population estimates for Catholics during the seventeenth century are a "pipe dream," as Anne Whiteman puts it.[73] Some scholars such as Keith Lindley refuse to make an estimate.[74] Nevertheless, it is safe to say that by the Civil War period, Catholics were at best only 5 or 10 percent of the 5 million English population.[75] Estimates of the Catholic population in 1641 range from 60,000 to 500,000. The 60,000 figure consists of the convicted recusants for whom documentation still exists plus their children and an allowance for administrative inefficiency in enforcing the penal laws.[76] John Bossy is the chief defender of this figure.

            To the 60,000 figure a number of scholars would add several groups. First, poverty saved probably a quarter to one-half of the laboring Catholics from recusancy prosecution, assuming the proportion of poor Catholics was similar to the proportion of poor people in the English population as a whole.[77] According to Christopher Hill and Peter Burke, laborers, servants, the young, and the old may have rarely attended church, whether Catholic or Protestant. They did not have the money to make them worth prosecuting for non-attendance and consequently did not end up in the court records.[78] In some cases, the authorities prevented or attempted to prevent them from attending services because they did not have proper clothes for church. This non-enforcement of the penal laws was not a case of administrative inefficiency but a policy of efficiency. As was mentioned earlier, exaction of the 12d fine was disregarded by parochial officers because it would have meant pauperdom for the Catholics, Puritans, and others who did not conform. Paupers became a charge on the parish; that is to say, a financial drain.[79] The interest of the church warden was to collect parish revenue, not needlessly to expand obligations.[80]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 25]

            A second group that some scholars would add to the convicted Catholics were the church Catholics.[81] The church Catholics were those who escaped recusancy conviction by either partial or occasional conformity to the established church. Occasional conformity meant reception of communion in the established church at least once within forty days after Easter, as required by Canon 112 of the 1604 code.[82] Partial conformity meant those who attended services in the established church without taking communion. The requirement of communion was seldom imposed by governmental authorities as a test.[83]

            Determining how many Catholics were partial conformists is difficult because in some places one-half or more of those who attended established services, whether Catholic or not, never took communion.[84] As one study notes, partial conformers apparently went to see their friends, to pray and sing, and especially to hear the sermon, which sometimes was political in nature. Paul Seaver remarks:

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 26]

In an age when printing was still the only means of mass communication, and a means often obstructed by censorship and illiteracy, preaching understandably had a potency that it has largely lost since. In an age, moreover, when theology still provided the basis not only for cosmology but also for politics, . . . preaching necessarily had political implications.[85]

During periods when local Anglican parishes had preachers who were particularly popular or unpopular, attendance fluctuated significantly.[86] At Rowley in East Riding, for example, a new loft had to be built on the church there in 1634 to hold the overflow of non-parishioners attracted to hear sermons by anti-royalist lecturers.[87] Catholics who lived in the many areas that did not have regular access to Catholic clergy were probably partial conformers because they found a benefit from attending Anglican services rather than because of penal laws. A report in the early part of the seventeenth century noted that the Catholics enjoyed having the scripture and psalms in English and joined in the singing.[88]

            Even the Catholics who had regular access to the clergy were partial conformists when it came to matters such as baptism, marriage, and burial. Double baptism by both the Catholic and the established priest was common, especially among the ordinary people who wanted their children entered in the parish registers to avoid allegations of illegitimacy.[89] Double marriages among Protestant and Catholic couples was an accepted practice.[90] Partial conformity for burial was universal, as Catholics wished to be buried in consecrated ground. This included Jesuits like Edward Knott who had spent their life "impatient with eirenicism and ready to defend the privileges of the Jesuits and the prerogatives of the Holy See at the slightest provocation."[91] They preferred the Protestant church to burial in unmarked ditches among paupers.[92] The only objections came from some established clergy who tried to keep recusants out, on the principle that they died excommunicated.[93]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 27]

            Partial conformity among Catholics with regular access to the clergy also involved their children. Except for Catholic gentry who could afford to send their children abroad, the parish school was the normal way Catholic children were educated. Catholic children who attended parish schools attended parish services.[94] Even the gentry who sent their children to the continent for education started them off by sending them to learn the rudiments of latin grammar at the village school which was often run by the local curate. The standard latin grammar in the village schools was William Lily's A Short Introduction of Grammar, first published in 1549 and many times thereafter.[95] In the grammar one finds as teaching materials the latin prayers and hymns that Catholics had been using for centuries. These included the "Veni Creator Spiritus," "Pater Noster," "Credo," "Decaloguus Decem Praeceptorum," and the words for the sacrament of baptism. In his study of Yorkshire, Hugh Aveling discusses several of the Catholic gentry who chose to have their children educated completely in England:

Robert Holtby went to Oswaldkirk school. Ninian Girlington of Wycliffe, a recusant, sent his son William to the town school at Alderborough, Boroughbridge and then to Caius College, Cambridge, and Lincoln's Inn. Francis Scrope of Danby was sent to the ordinary schools at Thornton Steward and Pocklington before entering the Puritan Sidney Sussex College at Cambridge--and emerging to be convicted as a recusant. . . Henry Constable of Burton Constable, a Catholic seems to have attended the fashionable school run by the Rev. Anthony Higgin (later dean of Ripon) at Well in Richmondshire--and to have presented Higgin with a Catholic book.[96]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 28]

            What Anne Whiteman concludes about the Restoration period seems to hold for the Civil War, that it was by no means as easy to distinguish papists from conformists "as historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, accustomed to sharper divisions" between Catholics and Protestants, used to assume.[97] Along the same lines Christopher Haigh comments, "Catholicism was a varied and amorphous phenomenon, and individuals drifted in and out of formal recusancy while always regarding themselves as Catholics and retaining Catholic habits."[98] Elliot Rose in studying the penal laws remarks that "The church-papist must have thought of himself as a Catholic and that is how I shall regard him."[99]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 29]

            Reginold Kiernan and Brian Magee estimate the total number of Catholics at 500,000, while Martin Havran and Ludwig Pastor, citing contemporary estimates, put it at 360,000.[100] If Kiernan and Magee are near the mark, then 80 percent of the Catholics were church papists. This is consistent with the evidence from Maryland. Of the 100 known Catholics who lived there during the Civil War period, there is no record that any of them had ever been convicted recusants prior to migration or that any of their relatives who continued to live in England were ever convicted.[101] But there are records that some of them, including Leonard Calvert, the governor, and Thomas Cornwallis, had relatives who were church Catholics. Leonard Calvert's father, George Calvert, was from a non-noble, sometimes recusant family that was a tenant on and farmed land formally owned by a monastery.[102] To attend Oxford University, George Calvert conformed.[103] He conformed as a member of Parliament and secretary of state, which required taking the oath of uniformity and supremacy. He continued to conform until he was forced from office in 1624 along with John Digby, earl of Bristol and others, who had favored the unsuccessful Spanish marriage policy.[104] When it no longer was necessary for economic and political reasons, he stopped conforming. But he was never a convicted recusant or ever fined for failing to attend services of the established church.[105] He baptized his children, including Leonard, in the Protestant church and directed that he himself be buried in a Protestant church.[106] He was not subservient to the clericalism of either the Roman establishment or the established church. There are a number of possibilities as to where Cornwallis originated.[107] One possibility is he was related to an individual of the same name who attended established services but read from a Catholic prayer book which he kept in his pew.[108] From the perspective of Maryland, D. S. Reid's criticism of those who omit or minimize the church Catholics and poor Catholics in discussing population figures is well taken:

"Church Papists" can not be included among those whose numbers can be ascertained, for the whole point of being a "church papist" was to effect concealment of whatever attachment one might have to Catholicism.[109]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 30]

            A third group besides the poor and the church Catholics that might be added to the 60,000 recusant figure were those who either because of necessity or choice did not have the habitual services of a priest. John Bossy excludes these from his population estimates.[110] If they were excluded from Maryland estimates, there would be no Catholics to study. Maryland Catholics at several points did not have the services of a priest for up to two years. Nevertheless, they met without clergy and held their own services during these periods. Even when a priest was available, some Catholics did not make use of them. For example, one priest did not respect the rights of a Catholic's Protestant spouse. The planter involved along with other Catholics had the priest recalled to England.[111] To exclude from population estimates those who refused to permit excessive clericalism in Maryland might mean excluding much of the Catholic population. In some districts of England, a priest visited but once or twice per year.[112] The Catholics officiated at the sacraments themselves. For example, Richard Danby of Masham in York, for lack of a priest, baptized all seven of his children.[113] These individuals thought of themselves as Catholics, were recognized as such by other Catholics, and probably should have a place in the population statistics.

            Exact population figures are difficult to determine, but, as has been noted, it is evident that by the Civil War, Catholics were a relatively small group, less than 10 percent of the total population by even the most liberal estimates. What is more certain than population figures is that a majority of Catholics both in England and Maryland were people of ordinary occupations, not gentry.[114]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 31]

            David Mosler finds the following occupational breakdown of Catholic recusants in the Warwickshire sequestration and composition records of 1642:

Table 1-1:[115]
Occupations of Warwickshire Recusants

Occupation	Number of Catholics	Percentage of Catholics
yeomen	37	11
husbandman	51	15
artisan	62	18
laborer	68	19
widows	49	14
spinster	18	5
other	3	1
total (non-landlord)	288	83%
gentry ("overwhelmingly marginal”)	57	17
knights	4	1
total (landlord)	61	83%

            In J. H. Hilton's study of northeast England, an area of relatively high Catholic concentration, 41 percent of the Catholics were husbandmen, mainly copyholders and cottagers, such as day laborers, ploughhands, dairymaids, artisans, and apprentices in husbandry.[116] They paid rent to a landlord and farmed up to 25 acres.[117] Among the better off Catholics were freeholders or yeomen who farmed their own land, which was generally less than 100 acres. They owned cows, horses, sheep, dwellings, and farm equipment worth up to £500 and averaged from £40 to £120 per year in income.[118]

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 32]

Table 1-2:
Expenditures and Receipts for a 100-Acre Farm[119]

Expenditures		£s	Receipts		£s
rent  (28%)			fallow 25 acres
	100 acres arable @ 15s	76
	farm maintenance	7
seed (12%)			grain
	45 bu wheat @ 4s	10		20 acres wheat (400 bu @ 4s)	90 (30%)
	19 bu barley @ 2s	2
	128 bu oats @ 1s	11		5 acres barley (120 bu @ 2s)	15 (5%)
	70 bu peas @ 2s	8
soil dressing (manure)		32		30 acres oats (1080 bu @ 1s)	101 (33%)
draught animals (11%)
	feed (grass, hay, oats)	31		20 acres peas (560 bu @ 2s)	70 (23%)
	interest & depreciation	5	straw
	misc (shoes, medicaments)	3		37 tons @ 10s	19 (7%)
labor (26%)			manure		6  (2%)
	plowing, harrowing & carting 600 person days @ 1s 2d	35
	harvesting
	20 acres wheat @ 5s	5
	5 acres barley @ 2s	0.5
	30 acres oats  @ 2s	3
	20 acres peas @ 2s	2
	threshing
	50 qtr wheat @ 2s	5
	15 qtr barley @ 1s	1
	135 qtr oats @ 1s	6
	70 qtr peas @ 1s	5
	miscellaneous (dunging, sowing, weeding)	7
marketing		3
total expenditures (100%)		£267	total receipts		£302 (100%)
			net profit		£35  (12%)

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 33]

            Peter Bowden gives the above table showing the expenditures and receipts of an average 100 acre farm during the early eighteenth century. Bowden's table suggests what occupied much of the life of a Civil War Catholic yeoman, and it will be found to be useful both as a comparison with Maryland farming and in the discussion of the relation of landlords and capitalist tenants.

            A majority of the Catholics were engaged in agriculture, but there were also sizable numbers involved in occupations that were not directly farming. In Hilton's study, 16 percent worked as blacksmiths, butchers, laborers, mercers (cloth sellers), millers, miners, saddlers, sailors, tailors, tavern keepers, teamsters, and textile workers.[120] The recusant records for Warwickshire list non-agrarian trades such as blacksmith, laborer, innkeeper, drover, barber, saw-maker, flax dresser, weaver, thread maker, musisioner, yeomen, husbandmen, and saddler.[121] Catholic women, in addition to the above, were engaged in dairying, semptrying, spinning, weaving, knitting, lacemaking, gardening, baking, and winnowing.

            In London as in the four other major towns and cities of Norwich, Bristol, Newcastle, and York, there were relatively large Catholic populations. Their occupations included apothecaries, goldsmiths, innkeepers, lace weavers, merchants, physicians, printers, schoolmasters, silk weavers, students pursuing their studies, tobacco pipe makers, and watermen.[122] One contemporary counted among the London Catholics 26 physicians, eight surgeons, and apothecaries (four in Fleet Street alone), and numerous barber surgeons.[123] There were also the unemployed Catholics: orphans, widows, spinsters, beggars, paupers, vagrants, wandering poor, blind, insane, and lame.

[INTRODUCTION, 1996 ed., p. 34]

            Along with laboring people, there were also gentry among the Catholic population. Nearly 30 years ago Lawrence Stone wrote, "For all intents and purposes seventeenth-century Catholicism was a quietest sect of aristocrats and upper-gentry families."[124] Stone wrote before the advent of the county studies. In a few areas of the country as indicated in Table 1-1, the gentry were as much as 17 percent of the recusant Catholic population. In the north and west, however, where most of the Catholics lived, they were closer to 5 percent of the total Catholic population. If the church Catholics were included, the gentry figure would probably be even smaller.

            To sum up, this chapter has set forth the three arguments or observations which this study makes, it introduced the ideal type methodology followed here and it discussed in demographic and career terms the English Catholics from which those in Maryland sprang. The English Catholics were relatively small in number and clustered in the north, west, and larger towns where the needs of laboring people were relatively less well attended by the established church.

            It was suggested that the partial conformers or church Catholics and those who were not prosecuted for recusancy because of their poverty should be counted as part of the Catholic population along with the convicted recusants. If only convicted recusants were counted, then not a single Catholic that migrated to Maryland could be counted a Catholic. The Catholic migrants and their relatives whom they left behind in England were church Catholics or too poor to be prosecuted for recusancy. From Rome's perspective the partial conformers were excommunicate, but they and the Catholic clergy who served them exercised on the subject a jurisdiction independent of Rome.

            It was also pointed out that the county studies since World War II have revised earlier ideas about the Catholic's occupational or career characteristics. Most were laboring people, mainly agrarian field workers and artisans. Nineteenth and early twentieth-century accounts over emphasized the Catholics as gentry and nobility. These were but a small percentage of the total population. The county studies confirm what one sees about the occupational characteristics of those who migrated to Maryland. They were laboring people. No Catholic gentry as measured by English standards lived in Maryland during the Civil War period.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 35]

 

Chapter 1

The English Catholic Belief Background Concerning Labor, Politics, the Clergy, and the Market

            The demographic and career characteristics of the English Catholic community from which the Maryland community sprang have been outlined. This chapter discusses the English background to the four beliefs of the Maryland Catholics that will be taken up in later chapters. It will touch first upon the beliefs of English Catholics concerning labor, then concerning politics and the clergy, and finally market relations. It is the argument in this study that Catholics in England and in Maryland held beliefs that were consistent with the circumstances of their lives.

            One belief that was supportive of their careers concerned the value which they placed on labor. That English Catholics valued labor and productivity can be seen from a sampling of their pamphlet literature. Examples include Richard Weston of Surrey and Robert Wintour of Gloucestershire. They were gentry "improvers." Weston wrote a scientific treatise in 1650 on how to increase crop productivity in sandy soil by planting flax, turnips, and clover.[125] In his treatise he expressed his belief that God wanted and favored husbandry.[126] In Wintour's writings, agrarian husbandry was called the root of all riches.[127]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 36]

            Another Catholic, the London lawyer Edward Bolton, wrote a treatise in 1629 called Cities Advocate that defended those such as himself who worked for a living. He was critical of those who glorified the idle gentry. He held up for emulation Martin Calthorpe, who started out as an apprentice, became mayor of London, and to whose skills even Queen Elizabeth had paid homage:

Queen Elizabeth acknowledged Martin Calthorpe, the Lord Mayor of London, who started as apprentice. I pray to resemble the worthies of this city, out of whatever obscure parentage, than being descended of great nobles, to fall by vice far beneath the reckoning of the poorest prentiser.[128]

The value which English Catholics put on labor was reflected perhaps in the catechism written by Thomas White in 1637 and published several times during the Civil War period. White pictured God as a producer, the maker of the universe.[129] White was a secular priest whose many writings sympathized with the interests of ordinary Catholics. During at least part of the period, he lived in London and boarded in Drury Lane with John and Mary Gregson, who were apparently people of ordinary occupations.[130]

            Along with God as a laborer, the maker of the universe, Jesus and his followers were pictured as laboring people. "Each in scripture has a trade and exercises it daily," Paul the tentmaker, Peter the fisherman, Joseph the carpenter.[131] Kings, bishops, and popes claimed their positions were God's charism. Catholic laboring people countered by claiming their own skills were God's charism:

The virtuous industrious are to be cherished, yea, God himself (the only best pattern of governors) has made it known, that mechanical qualities are his special gifts and his infused, as it were charismata.[132]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 37]

Genealogy, a favorite theme used by the gentry to justify itself, was made to honor laboring people, "Scripture not only makes the skill of laboring people immortally famous, but puts down their parentage, and birth places in contrast to that of many princes. Thus in Hiram's case (1 Kings 7:13-47; 2 Chronicles 2:14), the brass-founder's family is recorded."[133] According to Edward Bolton, Solomon was satisfied with nothing less than the best in building the temple because there was a religious quality in work well done. Thus Hiram, who was not even a Jew, but was an artisan of great skill, was asked to come from Tyre to make the bronze pillars for the temple.

            One finds in Catholic pamphlets a bible that was filled with working people and God's love of them. Scripture that was quoted included that about Noah, the ark builder, and Genesis 4:20, which honored Jabel (Iabel), the father of agricultural husbandry: "Moses put into eternal monuments that Jabel was pater pastorum, the most ancient of increase."[134] At one point Edward Bolton compiled a list of various "secondary" trades given praise in the bible, such as iron workers, hammer-smiths, engravers, furniture makers, and metal founders. He remarked that if these non-essentials were delighted in by God, how much more were the essential trades to be honored:

If then such honor be done by God not only to those which are necessary hand-crafts, but to those also which are but the handmaid of magnificence and outward splendor, as engravers, metal founders and the like, he shall be very hardy who shall embrace honest industry with disgraceful censures, and too unjust who shall not cherish, or encourage it with praise and worship.[135]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 38]

            Several studies of religion among English laboring people indicate they had their own patron saints, feast days, clergy, street pageants, pilgrimages, and prayers, which celebrated labor.[136] In rural areas the symbolic rituals were related to the productive cycle, that is the harvest year. These rituals seem to have glorified labor and productivity.[137] Lady Day (March 25) marked the initiation of sowing and was the first day of the year in the old calendar. Michaelmas (September 29) was the beginning of reaping.[138] Martinmas (November 11) was the original harvest and thanksgiving day celebrating the filled barns and stocked larders. The farming people went to mass and observed the rest of the day with games, dances, parades, and a festive dinner, the main feature of which was the traditional roasted goose (Martin's goose).[139] The symbolic rituals included a cycle of eight feast-days, distributed throughout the year at intervals of about six weeks: Christmas, the first Sunday of lent, Easter, Whitsun, St. Peter and Paul (June 29), the Assumption (August 15), Michaelmas (September 29), and All Saints (November 1).[140]

            Rural religion was characterized by work-related songs, ballads, and jigs, which were sung while laboring. These songs concerned among other things, cultivated crops set in straight rows, well-kept homesteads, and satisfaction with the completion of the days' labor.[141] Perhaps also in the category of celebrating life and productivity were the Whitsun Ales, may-poles, morris dancing, village pipers, plays and drama, and pilgrimages.[142] The May festival commemorated full spring and nature's triumph, when trees stood in their early foliage and flowers blossomed in abundance. Cottages were adorned with flowers and the branches of pale-green tender leaves. A "May Queen" was chosen by vote of the young men, who led a procession to the place of the spring festival, where she presided over the celebration. She was crowned with a wreath of flowers and held a wooden scepter adorned with flowers in her hand.[143]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 39]

            These customs were strong in Catholic areas, such as Lancashire and North Riding and were sometimes led by Catholics.[144] Frederich Blundell remarks that both Catholic adults and their children enjoyed dancing around the maypole and flowering the marl pits.[145] Part of the festival included children burning their puppets with great solemnity.

            In urban areas, artisans celebrated their craft skills and labors on religious feast days in the common hall of their companies.[146] Every profession of men and women had its own patron saint whose virtues were held up for emulation.[147] Pride in labor was manifested in coats of arms: cloth workers had a coat of arms with a tezel on it, merchant taylors had one with a robe, grocers a clove, merchant-adventurers an anchor.[148] Such religion dated back to the pre-Reformation era, the guild system, and confraternities.[149] Guild priests were those who were employed by the guild and looked to the needs of laboring people.[150] One scholar suggests that the relative strength of Catholicism within some of the northern coal-mining communities was due to traditional habits like the observance of saints' days by coal miners.[151]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 40]

            In the thought of some Catholic urban laboring people was the belief that their labor was what accounted for progress and civilization. It was said that without those like Tubal Cain, the iron worker, hammer-smith, and founder of the guild of metal-workers, described in Genesis 4:22 and Ecclesiasticus, "there can be no civilization."[152] Labor was an honor:

Some say London is a place of vice and should be reduced to servility. But they are wrong. Industry and civil virtue are the lawful things of this life. Their nearest object is honor and honest wealth. It is a foul note to brand them as associated with bondage, or give them any the least disparagement at all. The ancient excellent policy of England did and does constitute corporations of artisans and adorns companies with banners of arms.[153]

            No doubt Protestant and Catholic laboring people shared some of this religion in common. This was despite efforts at times to outlaw it by both the established church and the Roman establishment.[154] One of the objections raised by some Protestant pamphleteers was that the religion of laboring people was based more on popular devotions than on scripture, that is, upon scripture as interpreted by clergy who had little regard for labor.[155] Christopher Haigh points out that some of the hierarchy and landlords attempted without much success to replace "socially-minded" religion with an easily manipulated type of personal devotion.[156]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 41]

            It might seem surprising that Catholic laboring people had positive views of labor. It will be recalled that the work ethic and Puritanism, not Catholicism, are seen to be almost synonymous in the works of Max Weber and R. H. Tawney.[157] An examination of the English Catholics and their Maryland counterparts seem to indicate, as John Bossy has stated, that Catholic opinions were "perfectly compatible with an entrepreneurial approach to agriculture or anything else."[158] In his study of the Yorkshire Catholic gentry, Hugh Aveling finds the Catholics were prospering in every part of the county because of their hard labor and skills at estate management, trade, or the professions. Thomas Meynell of North Kilvington, the Wintham family at Cliffe, the Yoward, Crosland, and Wycliffe families, and Thomas Middleton of Stockeld were constantly improving their holdings and income.[159] Bertrum Bulmer of Wilton, who was one of the trustees for the funds of the secular clergy, started a lead mine at Marrick in the 1630s and the Lawson family started a coal mine about the same time.[160] Hugh Smithson of Cowton Grange was a yeoman and tenant of Anthony Cotterick. He went to London, prospered in the haberdasher trade, returned to the county in 1638, and bought a farm called Stanwick from his former landlord.[161] Among the professional families were the Applebys of Clove Lodge, the Swales and Inglebys of Rudby, the Jacksons of Knayton, the Pudseys and the Metcalfes of Hood, the Tophams, Lawsons, and Pudseys, all of whom had successive generations of lawyers.[162] Ambrose Appleby did well enough in the law that he bought farms at Larrington and Linton on Ouse in 1640.[163] Two of his sons were ejected from Gray's Inn in London in 1638 for persistent non-communicating. Solomon Swale of Grinton entered Gray's Inn in 1630 and his son went there in 1648.[164] Among the professional Catholic women was Jane Grange who taught a private school at Bedale and was also a housewife.[165] Aveling sums up his study by saying that "there was no universal or necessary connection between Puritanism, the `new gentry' or officials, and economic progressiveness--and, in fact, comparatively little actual connection."[166]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 42]

            In addition to having beliefs about labor that grew out of and sustained their material lives, Maryland Catholics had a second belief, the European background of which will now be addressed. The Maryland Catholics believed that political independence from both the royalist and the parliamentary gentry served their interests. This belief corresponded to similar beliefs held by the English laboring people, both Catholic and Protestant. Familiarity with the English background makes one unsurprized at the spirit of independence in Maryland. During the Northern War in 1639 and the first Civil War between 1642 and 1646, most ordinary English Catholics took an independent position with only a minority serving in the parliamentary or royal forces or holding parliamentary or royal offices.

            It should be emphasized that the laboring Catholics who were the majority, unlike the gentry Catholics, did not take the royalist side. This is a point that has confused scholars like Christopher Hill and Francis Edwards, S.J. Edwards, for example, writes, "Inevitably, the Catholics supported the king's cause, and drew enmity on themselves for that alone."[167] Hill remarks in similar fashion, "The Catholics were solidly royalist in the Civil War."[168] If one looks only at the Catholic gentry, then Edwards and Hill are accurate. About one-third of the officers in the king's northern army were Catholic.[169] Of the 500 royal officers killed during the war, about 200 were Catholic.[170] The Catholic gentry's pamphlet literature abounded with admonitions about being obedient to the established royal authority.[171]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 43]

            However, in contrast to the gentry, the Catholic laboring people saw themselves as having nothing to gain in 1639 by having Scotland reduced to an English colony and by imposing a system of bishops on the Scottish church.[172] Nor was there any advantage to them in the first Civil War in helping the king to overthrow Parliament. Keith Lindley, J. T. Pickles, and J. M. Gratton have studied the diversity of economic and class interests within the Catholic community and note the corresponding political diversity. Lindley comments:

When Catholic royalism is related to Catholics generally in the counties, it is apparent that the Royalists managed to raise only a minority of Catholic support for their body. . . Catholics were not a unified group in this period, but were divided by status and interest, and to some extent they appear to have reacted to the formation of the parties in the same way as their Protestant counterparts.[173]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 44]

            In a sampling of 1,500 London Catholic recusants, Lindley finds that 82 percent took an independent position during the war; which is to say, they did not join the royal side.[174] In his history of the Lancashire County Catholic recusants, B. G. Blackwood documents that even among the gentry, a number served in the parliamentary army or in the parliamentary government as sequestration agents, assessors, collectors, or magistrates.[175] The Catholic Alexander Barlow, who was a sheriff for Lancashire in 1651 under the parliamentary government, had two uncles in the Benedictine religious order.[176]

            Hugh Aveling and John Cliffe's examinations of Yorkshire Catholic recusant gentry make findings similar to those of Lancashire. Of 110 Catholic gentry, 46 took an independent position.[177] Cliffe lists ten who served in the parliamentary army or government. This amounted to 11 percent of Catholic gentry for whom sufficient data could be found to determine loyalties.[178] Some Catholics such as Edward Saltmarshe of Saltmarshe in Yorkshire and Robert Brandling (1617-1669) of Leathley in York held positions of rank in the parliamentary army. Saltmarshe served as a captain "ever since the beginning of the war." His sons Peter and Gerald, became priests.[179] Brandling was commissioned a cavalry colonel on July 16, 1644.[180]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 45]

            In the North Riding district of Yorkshire, Aveling lists Charles Howard, Solomon Swale of Grinton, who as mentioned earlier was a member of Gray's Inn, Robert Hunter, the Beckwiths of Tanfield, and the Stapletons of Warter as having served in the parliamentary army or held offices such as treasurer under the parliamentary government.[181] Jordan Methan of Wigganthorpe in North Riding went to Rome to act as Parliament's agent there.[182] William Salvin of Newbiggin returned from college in Lisbon in March 1644 and immediately was in arms for Parliament in Colonel Welton's regiment.[183]

            A number of Catholic gentry including those who had served as royal military officers joined the parliamentary army starting in 1644, after it became evident the king was heading for defeat.[184] William Lloyd, a contemporary in speaking of royal officers, noted that "of the Catholics that fought for the king, as long as his fortunes stood, they stood; when that was once declined, a great part fell from him."[185] Among the former Catholic royal officers who became parliamentary military officers were Anthony Morgan of Marshfield in Monmouthshire, a colonel who came over in 1645.[186] Thomas Brockholder and Francis Morley of Lancashire had both started out as royal officers before joining Parliament.[187]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 46]

            Most of the Catholics, like most of the Protestants in the parliamentary army who are known by name, were officers and members of the gentry. But some of the Catholic rank and file are also known. Among these was John Hippon, a member of Cromwell's own regiment in the New Model Army.[188] Hippon referred to himself as a "Catholic and a Parliamentarian." Allen Prickett was a church papist who served first in the trained band for "part of St. Sepulchers parish and other parts adjacent to the city of London" and on March 8, 1642, he joined the parliamentary army.[189] Another was a weaver, who was mentioned by Richard Baxter in his account of the war. Baxter was a chaplain in the same unit with this follower of "Thomas More":

When I came to the Army, among Cromwell's soldiers, I found a new face of things, which I never dreamed of. I heard the plotting heads very hot upon that which intimated their intention to subvert church and state. Independency and anabaptistry were most prevalent; antinomianism and arminianism were equally distributed; and Thomas More's followers (a weaver of Wisbitch and Lyn, of excellent parts) had made some shifts to join these two extremes together. . . I perceived that they took the king for a tyrant and an enemy and really intended absolutely to master him or ruin him; They said, what were the Lords of England but William the Conqueror's colonels, or the barons but his majors, or the knights but his captains?[190]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 47]

            An anonymous parliamentary pamphlet in 1643 discussed the presence of Catholics within the parliamentary army, noting that unlike the royal army, where regiments or companies were led by Catholic officers and "exactly and distinctly known to be such," in the parliamentary army the Catholics were integrated in the ranks. The author maintained that even if it was desirable, Catholics could not be kept out of the parliamentary army because their friends among the Protestant captains and other officers paid no attention to their religion.[191] Royalists like the Catholic Edward Somerset (Lord Herbert) and non-Catholics like Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon, and William Cavendish, Earl of Newcastle complained about the "very many" Catholics who joined the parliamentary army.[192]

                                                Laboring Catholics were to be found not only within the parliamentary army but in the parliamentary government. For example, Thomas Stich of Fetter Lane worked as one of Parliament's attorneys in the office of the Treasurers Remembrancer throughout the war. He lent Parliament £300 on December 4, 1644.[193] He appeared on the recusant rolls in 1644, 1650, and 1651.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 48]

            Thomas Clancy, S.J. suggests that after the crown's defeat in 1646, Catholics "overwhelmingly" supported the Independent party within Parliament.[194] This included the Catholic gentry and clergy who wished to benefit from the religious toleration offered by the Independents. They drew up an oath of loyalty to the parliamentary government on September 10, 1647. In preparing the oath they had one of their priests, George Ward, S.J., formerly a professor of theology at Liege, consult with representatives (agitators) within the New Model Army.[195] The Norfolk lawyer, John Austin, one of the Catholic gentry seeking toleration published a study in 1651 that demonstrated most Catholics had not backed the crown. It made use of the case records of the Catholics who had appeared before the parliamentary committee for compounding at Haberdasher's Hall in London.[196] More recent studies of these records reach the same conclusion: only an eighth of all sequestered Catholics supported the king. The majority were sequestered, that is fined, merely as recusants.[197] Charles II complained of this in 1657:

It is necessary to take notice of the general temper of the kingdom and of the fact that the majority of the king's friends have an aversion for Catholics. This aversion is a natural consequence of the Catholics having "more than an ordinary zeal for Cromwell."[198]

            Among the Catholics who were independent in their political beliefs after the crown's defeat were the 450 Catholic secular clergy. They were governed by their own elective dean and chapter system. Their independence was based on goals such as the re-establishment of a system of Catholic bishops. They argued without success to Cromwell that allowing Catholic bishops in addition to Protestant bishops to govern in the ancient sees would counterpoint the Protestant bishops who had used their positions to promote the interests of the crown.[199]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 49]

            Unlike the gentry and clergy who came to independent beliefs after the crown's defeat, most ordinary Catholics took an independent political position throughout the war. This was because independence served their interests. Independence did not mean neutrality. They had nothing to gain but probably much to lose by the crown overthrowing Parliament. Derek Hirst has shown that Parliament was often responsive to laboring people. This was despite two-thirds of the adult male population, including a similar proportion of church Catholics, not having the franchise. Tenants and wage workers did not generally meet the requirement of possessing a freehold that produced an income of 40 shillings per year.[200] But as Ann Kussmaul finds there was little in the way of economic and political interests that separated yeomen and artisans who had the vote and the tenants and wage workers who did not.[201] The young in many parts of England served agrarian apprenticeships as wage laborers in order to acquire knowledge and savings prior to farming on their own account. Membership in Parliament was generally confined to the gentry, but the yeomen through the ballot exercised considerable influence over public policy.[202]

            Illustrative of a parliamentary policy that was favorable to ordinary people and that may have made them reluctant to see the crown overthrow Parliament was the tax system. During the 1630s when it ruled without Parliament, the crown imposed an illegal "ship money" tax to fund itself. This tax fell heavily on the ordinary people, both rural and urban, and was resented, especially by the poor.[203] The Catholic playwright Philip Massinger (d. 1640) was among those who protested against the tax. In his play The King and the Subject (1636), which the crown called "insolent" and refused to license, Massinger put the following lines into the tyrannical king's mouth:

Money? We'le raise supplies what way we please,
And force you to subscribe to the blanks, in which
We'le mulct you as we shall think fit. The Caesars
In Rome were wise, acknowledging no laws
But what their swords did ratify.[204]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 50]

In her writings the English Benedictine nun Gertrude More (d. 1633) remarked on the "unjust taxes" inflicted on the people.[205] In 1639 there was a mass refusal to pay the "ship money" tax.[206] Derek Hirst describes the widespread opposition to "ship money" taxation that was manifested in the parliamentary elections of 1640:

The likelihood is that the open challenges to aspects of government policy which took place at many of the 1640 elections were not wholly manufactured by the gentry. Unlike ordinary parliamentary taxation, which left the bulk of the population untroubled, ship money hit the pockets of a very extensive social group, and was correspondingly resented.[207]

            Not long after Parliament took over, it abolished the "ship money" tax. Beginning in 1643 an assessment tax explicitly on landowners was established as one of Parliament's main sources of revenue.[208] Tenants who paid what was due on account of their farms were entitled to deduct it from the rent. While the ordinary people had no objections, both the royalist and parliamentary gentry disliked the assessment, which was collected on a weekly and then a monthly basis and which equaled from 15 to 70 percent of the gentry's rent receipts.[209] It was only the New Model Army's threat of rebellion that kept Parliament from repealing the assessment after 1646.[210] The Catholic recusant landowners such as Arthur Tyrer and his wife Margaret in the parish of West Derbie (Liverpool), Lancashire had a double reason to resent the tax, as it was doubled against them.[211]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 51]

            Illustrative of how the tax worked was a case at the manor of Sowerby Thirsk in Yorkshire. Sowerby Thirsk had enough Catholics that it had its own Catholic school.[212] The manor was owned by the Catholic Thomas Meynell, a "radical encloser" who had been censured by the quarter sessions court as a depopulator. He rented to a number of tenants who were probably Catholic.[213] These included the families of Lawrence Brown and Christopher Hawe, who stopped paying rent all together during the Civil War period. His other tenants turned over their rent to the county committee instead of to Meynell. Meynell disliked this. As was mentioned earlier, his income was about £500 per year and was normally understated as £40 per year for tax purposes.[214] Meynell was unable to dodge his taxes when his tenants handed over their rent directly to the county committee. In 1647 he called his tenants "vulgar plebeians" because they "presumed to assess the true landlord. . . as thought he had been one of their coridons. . . The lord's rent at Sowerby was never assessed or questioned until these late new times. The bushhopper tenants were never so unkind or foolish to access their lords' rent."[215] Meynell appealed to the county committee, but it took the side of the tenants.[216]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 52]

            The independence which the tenants at the Sowerby Thirsk manor showed their landlord was a normal pattern both in England and Maryland. Manors were governed by assemblies of tenants, which as David Allen points out, required wide participation in government.[217] Manors dominated in areas of open field production, such as the north and west of England, where Catholics had their greatest strength. Allen takes note that Massachusetts towns such as Cambridge, Ipswich, and Watertown were settled by those from the eastern part of England, where government was not as "democratic--in the sense of offering wide participation."[218] Seen in this English context, the behavior of Maryland Catholics, who were at least as independent if not more so than their Massachusetts counterparts, is less surprising.

            Besides taxation, another policy that made laboring Catholics unenthusiastic for the royal side in 1642 was the crown's drafting and billeting of troops for the Northern War beginning in 1639.[219] Laboring people were targets of the troop levies and they resented it. On the other hand, Parliament found favor with ordinary people because it abolished many crown monopolies and patents, eliminated a number of rotten boroughs to improve Parliament's representativeness, abolished the Star Chamber, which had been used by the crown to control the county justice of the peace network, eliminated the House of Lords in 1647, which was a landlord institution, outlawed slavery (servitude) and the incidents of post-conquest feudal tenures in 1646, released poor debtors from prison, and in some cases allowed the landless to take over royal and common land.[220] Because the peerage was abolished Catholic nobles like Henry Arundell were denied trials in the house of peers. They had to appear in their county courts, which were sometimes more receptive to popular needs. Arundell fell victim to the local Wiltshire county court and resented its jurisdiction over him.[221]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 53]

            Abolition of the tithe and the establishment of a voluntary system for maintaining the clergy was a popular demand favored by the Catholics that was achieved by Parliament in November 1653. However, the Presbyterian and Anglican minority in the Barebones Parliament went to Cromwell and got him to overturn Parliament's decision.[222] But Cromwell was not able to prevent the people on their own from substantially reducing the income of the established clergy.[223]

            Catholics took an independent position because they had nothing to gain by the crown overthrowing Parliament, but they may also have had nothing to gain by the abolition of the monarchy in 1649. The crown was sometimes seen by laboring people as an asset. It forced the gentry in Parliament to seek the aid of and make concessions to the ordinary people, especially those in the army, in order to gain their support against the threats of the crown. As was noted, concessions were sometimes won on issues involving toleration of opinion, expanding voting rights, and taxes that hurt the poor, not the least of which were tithes and excises.[224] Because it eliminated some of their leverage against the gentry, there was opposition to the king's execution from the levelers and artisans, including weavers, painters, and journeymen in the city companies.[225]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 54]

            The opposition of laboring people against the excise tax illustrates how they used the crown against Parliament. The excise was a tax on consumer goods and, unlike the assessment, had a direct impact on laboring people in raising prices. It was often protested by the Moderate, which was the newspaper of the Leveler movement, although sustained opposition to it also came from overseas traders and merchants. Rioting in 1646 and 1647 and the threat that the population would join with the recently defeated Royalists forced Parliament to remove the excise tax on salt and meat in June 1647. The widespread refusal to pay it on other items thereafter lessened its usefulness as a revenue measure.[226] Another illustration of how the crown was used against Parliament by laboring people involved Catholic recusants. They joined the Independents in 1647 in winning increased religious toleration by playing the royalist and parliamentary gentry off against each other. The effectiveness of their tactics can be seen in the animosity shown by the Presbyterian gentry in Parliament who baited Cromwell and the Independents for their neglect to enforce the anti-Catholic laws:

Is not this like the practice of Garnet the Jesuit who did lay his commands on the papists to obey their king and keep themselves quiet, and all in order that the plot might not be suspected? If Cromwell follows Garnet's steps, I would have him take heed of Garnet's end.[227]

Cromwell took pride in stating that citizens of all creeds enjoyed liberty of conscience under his rule, provided they did not use religion as a cloak for rebellion.[228]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 55]

            At the local level, as well as at the national, Catholic political independency did not mean neutrality. This can be seen in the reaction of Catholic tenants both in England and Maryland who turned the Civil War into a war against their landlords. The troubles which the Maryland proprietor, Cecil Calvert and his Arundell in-laws had with their tenants are illustrative. Calvert and the Arundells were Catholics and lived in southwest Wiltshire. Arundell had at least some Catholic tenants.[229] The records are silent about the religious denomination of Calvert's tenants, but it was common for a Catholic landlord to have Catholic tenants.[230] Both Arundell and Calvert identified with the crown and were to a degree leveled during the war. Their tenants seem to have taken part in the leveling. Derek Hirst finds that assaults on the Catholic gentry's houses in the early part of the war were often a pretext for forays against the manorial records.[231] Tenants, including Catholics, took the war as an opportunity to settle economic grievances. The leveling in May 1643 of Wardour castle, which was the Arundell's residence, was precipitated by the siege there of Edward Hungerford, Edmund Ludlow, and their parliamentary troops. But when it came to confiscating from the castle and its surrounding lands some £100,000 worth of cattle, farm animals, tools, furniture, cartloads of fish from ponds that were drained dry, and oak and elms worth £5 per tree that were felled and sold at 4d per tree, the neighbors and tenants, including no doubt Catholics, took a hand.[232] A number of studies find that thousands of gentry houses, woods, and parks were plundered and at least 200 houses "of major importance" were reduced to ruins.[233] This looting was directed at both royalist and parliamentary, Catholic and Protestant gentry, and it would be natural that the beneficiaries sometimes included Catholic tenantry and laborers.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 56]

            Likewise, some of Cecil Calvert's tenants turned the Civil War into a rebellion against him. After he was sequestered in November 1645 by the parliamentary Wiltshire County committee, his tenants questioned and at least one refused his right to hold a manor court, impose the homager's oath, and receive the economic benefits that went along with such rights.[234]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 57]

            The troubles which Arundell and Calvert had with their tenants were common throughout the period and reflected the tendency of copyholders and tenants-at-will, both Catholic and Protestant, to take a political position that was independent of and directed against the authority and rights of their royalist or parliamentary landlords. Tenants refused to pay rent or paid less than was customary. They ploughed up the landlord's pastures, put in improper crops, and neglected normal manuring and repairs. Christopher Clay comments, "Tenants threw up their farms, pressed for reductions in rent, ignored husbandry covenants, and encroached on their landlord's rights in other ways."[235] J. P. Cooper documents the "irrecoverable rent arrears piling up."[236] David Underdown quotes as not unusual the complaint by a landlord at seeing the "massive arrears" in rents being run up:

Now men are are lawless, trees and hedges are carried away without controlment; tenants use their landlord how they list for their rents, taking this to be a time of liberty.[237]

Most large landowners according to one study were forced to sell land because of lack of rental income in order to pay their debts and taxes.[238] Many were bankrupted and in counties such as Lancashire that had many Catholics, about half the gentry families disappeared permanently as landlords.[239]

            Especially in areas with relatively heavy Catholic population, the leveling of landlords has to be seen in part as a result of the independent political beliefs and resulting activities of the Catholic tenantry. They used the disruption caused by the war in behalf of their own rights and authority.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 58]

            In addition to economic leveling, a second manifestation at the local level of politically independent beliefs among Catholics concerned enclosures. Enclosures and depopulation were long-standing grievances of copyholders and tenants-at-will in areas with relatively heavy Catholic concentrations, such as the western part of England. Landlord-dominated courts and parliamentary legislation allowed land to be confiscated by landlords and turned into pasture on which to raise sheep. In these areas there was more profit for the landlord in wool production than in the income that could be gained by a tenant's production of grain crops.[240] The complaint against enclosures was part of the Grand Remonstrance in 1641.[241] According to R. C. Richardson, "the central agrarian issue in the English Revolution was whether the landlords or the small farmers should control and develop the wastes."[242]

            During the 1620s and 1630s more profits for Catholic landlords like John Wintour and Basil Brooke because of enclosures meant the loss of livelihood for their tenants, some of whom were undoubtedly Catholic. The Catholic Philip Massinger in his plays wrote against those such as Wintour and Brooke who "intrude on their poor neighbor's right" and "enclose what was common land, to their use."[243] During the war, because of their independence from Wintour and Brooke's royalist inclinations, it was the tenants who profited and Wintour and Brooke who had a reduced livelihood.[244] Wintour, several of whose sons migrated to Maryland for short periods, held a monopoly on royal leases in Gloucestershire's Forest of Dean.[245] These leases were in Lydney and 28 other parishes as well as in several dozen manors. "Forest" did not mean a wooded area, but an area under the crown's ownership and under forest law, rather than common law. Wintour's leases involved some 18,000 acres of arable land, timber, iron mills, and coal mines, much of which had been enclosed in the years prior to the war.[246] The revenues from these leases was so great that Wintour had acted as a financier for the crown during the 1630s when the king had ruled without Parliament.[247]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 59]

            Wintour's displaced tenants used the war as an opportunity to stage a widespread, successful uprising. They tore down some 17 miles of enclosures standing 4½ feet high worth £1,000.[248] They burned structures used for coal mining.[249] At one point 3,000 people assembled including 8 score Welshmen and staged a mock funeral for Wintour. Armed with guns and pikes they carried his effigy accompanied by two drums, two colors, and a fife. Among the leaders was a cobbler, a glover, and a husbandman.[250] Since 800 A.D. the people of Dean had held land in common for their hogs and cattle to graze upon. They fought to preserve their rights.[251]

            What Wintour's tenants achieved was a common occurrence during the period, as Buchanan Sharp documents:

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 60]

As soon as the members of England's elite found themselves preoccupied with the political crisis that led to Civil War, the inhabitants of forests and fens took advantage of the times to riot once again and destroy the works of enclosers and drainers. In the years between 1642 and 1649 riots erupted in all those western forests which had been the scenes of the riots between 1626 and 1632.[252]

Those who lived in royal forests were militant because the crown's forest law governed. Forest law gave tenants fewer legal remedies than common law. This made rioting, petitioning, leveling, and illegality a necessity in maintaining rights.[253]

            Two factors suggest Wintour had at least some Catholic tenants who profited from his reversal during the war. First, as was noted earlier, the west was an area of relatively high Catholic concentration. Second, Catholics, especially recusant Catholics as opposed to church Catholics, tended to rent from the Catholic magnates. This was because the magnates were influential in local politics and prevented recusancy prosecutions or they sometimes paid the fines for their tenantry.[254] B. G. Blackwood documents that in the 1660s, one Catholic landlord had 68 percent, that is 68 of his 99 leases, with Catholics; and another had 85 percent of his leases with Catholics.[255] Catholic tenants of those like Wintour, no less than Protestant tenants, would have resisted being evicted from their customary leases in order to be replaced by sheep. At the national level in Parliament this militancy of both Catholic and Parliament tenants helped block the gentry from re-enacting enclosure and depopulation measures during the war period.[256]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 61]

            In addition to rent and enclosure, another manifestation at the local level of independent political beliefs held by Catholic laboring people concerned the relations of masters and servants. During the war servants found opportunities to make use of the political system which had traditionally been unsympathetic to their rights. The masters' world was so turned up-side-down that they sometimes complained of being slaves of their servants. An illustration of a Catholic servant who turned the tables on his master is given in the following account:

There were obvious dangers in sending away discontented servants at a time of national tension. One Lancashire servant "was required to go, as did his master and mistress, to hear a Jesuit preach. He did not go." He was presumably dismissed as a consequence. Naturally enough he turned informer. "As these times go," one lord was told by his son in similar circumstances, "all servants are masters, and we their slaves."[257]

            Prominent among the Catholic masters who were confronted by the independence of their servants was Inigo Jones (d. 1652). As a youth, he had started out as an apprentice joiner and ended up a London architect and surveyor in the employment of the crown and nobility. Among his achievements was an addition to London's St. Paul's Cathedral in the 1620s. He was a Royalist and at the beginning of the war, to avoid taxes and confiscation, he had his four servants bury his money in a secret place near his home in Scotland Yard. As the war continued, however, his servants, who were probably all Catholic, showed sympathy for Parliament. Jones, in his 70s, correctly feared that they would turn him and his money into Parliament. He managed to dig up and rebury his money in Lambeth Marsh before being arrested. He saved his money but spent part of the war in prison.[258]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 62]

            There was a third belief held by Maryland Catholics, the European background of which this chapter will discuss. As has been noted, most English Catholics were laboring people and believed in the value of their labor and in a political order which advanced their interests. They also believed the role of the clergy was to serve their needs, a belief that was repeated in Maryland. There were several obstacles to the full achievement of this belief in England, including first the penal laws and the established episcopacy's control of traditional church property, and second the sometimes contrary beliefs held by the Catholic gentry, who tended to monopolize the clergy as live-in chaplains and tutors.[259]

            Christopher Haigh and A. D. Wright argue that the Catholic gentry, more so than the penal laws, were the obstacle to the Catholics' belief about the role of the clergy. Haigh writes:

The Catholic gentry, the second group of heroes of the Persons' version of English Catholic history, arrogated to themselves an inappropriate share of the clerical resources of the post-Reformation mission. The gentlemen have been credited with ensuring "the survival of the faith" and so they did, but their faith, at the expense of everyone else's! The fact that English Catholicism became more and more seigneurial in structure does not demonstrate the crucial role of the gentry in its survival: that was the way it was, but not the way it had to be.[260]

            The gentry had a negative influence, but Haigh probably overstates the case in saying English Catholicism was gentry dominated. There co-existed along with gentry Catholicism and its beliefs that the role of the clergy was to serve gentry interests, the belief among the laboring majority that the clergy should serve their needs. This latter belief was demonstrated by the Civil War Catholics in Lancashire, Yorkshire, the Northern High Peake district, and Monmouthshire on the South Wales border. They had their own itinerant and congregational clergy who they supported financially. Ralph Corby, S.J. (1598-1644) was one of their priests. A report discussed the esteem in which he was held, "He was so beloved of the poor people and so reverenced and esteemed for his pious labors and functions that he was commonly called by them apostle of the country."[261] Henry Foley, S.J. writes of Corby:

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 63]

He pursued a moderate and poor style of living with the laboring class of men, and always visited the neighboring places on foot. In the neighborhood where he lived, were many Catholics of narrow means and obscure station. There he always thought it his duty to administer the sacraments and to visit among their villages and in their houses. He used to go without a cloak, in a very humble dress, so that he might have been taken for a servant, a farm-bailiff or letter-carrier. His reception too and manner of living was such as is usually to be met with among the laboring classes. He did not visit by appointment, but casually. And he was as much delighted with chance fare as with the greatest luxuries.[262]

            Another of their priests was Nicholas Postgate who served in Cleveland, which was in Yorkshire. He reported, "at this moment I have quite 600 penitents, and could have more if I wished; or rather, what I lack is not will, but help; I am working to the limits of my strength."[263] In parts of England the clergy of the established church did not very enthusiastically serve poor laboring people. In addition in some areas, such as Lancashire and Yorkshire, where Catholicism made advances among laboring people, there were large populations scattered over large areas and few established priests. While in some counties there was one Anglican priest per 400 people, in Lancashire's 56 Anglican parishes, it was sometimes closer to 1,700 people per priest.[264] Catholic priests willing to serve without pay or rather to serve a circuit in exchange for a meal with a family and a night's rest under their roof had unlimited congregations.[265] The Benedictine Ambrose Barlow (d. 1641), for example, served 23 years at Leigh in Lancashire. From a neighborhood gentry family, he spent one week in circuit for every three he spent at home. On circuit he lived with the country farmers, wore country dress, walked, not rode, and ate the meatless diet of whitemeats such as cheese and eggs and the garden produce of the ordinary people.[266] The circuits of some clergy, such as that of the Jesuit, Thomas Gascoigne, extended for 200 miles and took a month to complete.[267] At his home base, Gascoigne lived in a cottage and chopped his own wood for fire.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 64]

            To get a picture of how effective the Catholics were in realizing their belief about the role of the clergy, the number, geographical, and class distribution of the Catholic clergy can be considered. There were between 750 and 1,000 Catholic priests serving in England during the Civil War.[268] John Bossy, assuming the lower figure, estimates that about 450 were secular priests and 300 were regular priests, that is Jesuits, Benedictines, and those of several other orders. Of the seculars, 70 served in the north, 60 in Wales, 40 in London, and 270 in the south and midlands. The regular clergy were similarly distributed. More than half, especially among those serving in the south and midlands, were chaplains and tutors for the gentry, with little service to the ordinary Catholics.[269]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 65]

            That more than half the clergy should have ended up serving at best 20 percent of the Catholic population is not surprising. Two-thirds of both the seculars and regulars were from gentry families, as it was generally the gentry who could afford to send their children to the continent for the extensive education received by the clergy.[270] Service to the gentry meant earning £20 to £25 per year, twice what laboring Catholics who supported families were able to make.[271] Leander Jones noted in 1634 that being a priest was a way for the gentry to gain a comfortable living.[272] In addition the ordered clergy, such as the Jesuits and Benedictines, were by their beliefs, constitutions, and customs restricted from pastoral-congregational-parish employment.[273] Robert Southwell, S.J., one of the early ordered priests in the country after the Reformation, was a domestic chaplain to the countess of Arundel. He was critical of another priest who served laboring people through an itinerant ministry, "I am much grieved to hear of your unsettled way of life, visiting many people, at home with none. We are all, I acknowledge, pilgrims, but not vagrants; our life is uncertain, but not our road."[274] Thomas Aquinas, an ordered priest himself, taught that the secular clergy who served in parishes belonged to a "lower grade of perfection" than the ordered clergy, whose only employment was prayer.[275] It was the exception rather than the rule when laboring Catholics were able to obtain the services of the ordered clergy for their congregations.

            What is surprising is not the number of clergy who served the gentry, but that the laboring people were able to attract to their service the number that they did, despite all the obstacles. In some places the congregation of mainly tenants and yeomen owned their own chapel or held services in barns and farmyards.[276] A few congregations numbered up to 200 people. In and about Lancashire there were Catholic chapels, some of which are still in use, at Brindle, Chorley, Claughton, Gillmoss, Little Crosby, Liverpool Lytham, Manchester, Pleasington, Preston, Wigan, and Woolton.[277] There were villages that were entirely Catholic in population.[278] In some villages the school master or catechist were Catholics, either licensed or as in the case of Thomas Wood at Leake and Emmanuel Dawson at Lanmouth, unlicensed.[279] They taught the rudiments of religion as well as English and Latin. Women who had been educated in the seventeen English language continental convents also served as school teachers and catechists in these villages.[280] In 1637 Mary Ward established a community of women at Newby, Ripon, which made its living as teachers.[281] In 1639 three English Franciscan nuns established a convent in York to teach school.[282]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 66]

            Hugh Aveling has studied the congregational structure of the Catholic community in York, which was probably similar to that in Maryland. In the Langbaurgh district of York there were eight Catholic congregations in 1642, with a total membership of about 500.[283] In the North Riding district there were 28 self-supporting congregations served by both secular and ordered clergy. These congregations and the number in them were: Egton (28), Lythe (40), Forcett (81), Thronton-le-Street (64), Bradsby (38), Malton (42), Northallerton (39), Leake (38), Wensley (35), Catterick (31), Manfield (28), Brotton (43), Crathorne (25), Bedale (19), Yarm (13), Hilton (21), Helmsley (28), Hovingham (40), Kirkleavington (23), Arsgarth (19), Appleton Wiske (25), Stokesley (21), Grinton (24), Masham (62), Whitby Strand (58), Stanwick St. John (61), Kirkby Ravensworth (43), and Middleton Tyas (16).[284] Catholics in some Yorkshire districts seemed to have persuaded their landlords, such as the Constable, Gascoigne, and Fairfaxe families, who had their own house chaplains, to pay for the services of a second priest to serve themselves.[285]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 67]

            The Catholics' belief in the role of the priest as their servant successfully met with another obstacle besides that presented by the gentry. Some of the Roman establishment's ideas about the role of the clergy ran counter to that of providing service. Many of the popes at the time believed they had the right to demand that the clergy and Catholics seek the overthrow of the English government. These popes also believed they had the right to excommunicate priests and Catholics who took oaths of allegiance to the English government or who attended services in the established church.[286] Had the Maryland Catholics permitted such authority to the Roman establishment, they would have all been excommunicated. It was standard for migrants to take an oath of allegiance to the English government on departing from England and upon arriving in Maryland. The assembly in 1639, a majority of whose delegates were Catholics, enacted legislation providing for swearing allegiance to the English government.[287] In England it has already been noted, up to 80 percent of the Catholic population may have been church Catholics. If they had permitted papal authority they would have been cut off from the services of the clergy.

            In maintaining their belief about the role of the clergy, the Catholics had several defenses against Roman authority. First, from the beginning, the English church was self-financed.[288] The Roman establishment had no economic leverage. The papacy also had no political leverage with the English government, but just the opposite. For example, the English Catholic bishop Richard Smith sought to set up a church court which would have had jurisdiction to excommunicate Catholics for failure to follow Roman authority. In response, the Catholic gentry went to the privy council for help. The council issued a proclamation for the bishop's arrest on a charge of treason. This forced him into exile in 1631.[289]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 68]

            All during the Civil War, England's only Catholic bishop lived in exile in Paris until he died in 1655. This was despite the change in government during the war and even the negotiations with the Protestant Independents in 1647 to re-establish the system of Catholic bishops as a balance against the established bishops. At least part of the reason he remained in Paris seems to have been Catholic hostility against his interest in church courts. It is perhaps more than a coincidence that one of the first enactments of the Maryland assembly, a majority of whose members with known religion were Catholics, was a praemunire law in 1638.[290] The law provided for the hanging of any Catholic bishop that came to Maryland or anyone else who sought to extend Roman judicial jurisdiction there. The Maryland law was one of a series of measures designed to make the clergy there serve the interests of the laboring people.

            An even more dramatic example of the political vulnerability of the Roman establishment is discussed by Thomas Hughes, S.J. It started in 1647 and involved an effort to deport the entire 170 Jesuits plus the Catholics who were associated with them from England into Maryland. The Jesuits in reputation, if not always in fact, had a special allegiance to Rome's authority. They received their authority or faculties to serve in England directly from Rome, whereas the seculars received their faculties from their locally elected dean and chapter government.[291] The deportation scheme failed, but it demonstrates the strategy and the length to which Catholics would go in defending their beliefs against Roman interference. Hughes remarks:

A project had been started by a certain class of Catholics, to invoke the power of the heterodox Parliament to expel from England into far-off Maryland another class of Catholics who did not agree with them in religion and political views. And the Jesuits they proposed to rid the realm of altogether. . . Whereas the Cromwellian formula had been "Off to Virginia," or "Off to Barbados," for the Scotch prisoners taken at Dunbar, the Catholic agitators in 1647 introduced the variation, "Off to Maryland," as the lot of English Roman Catholics.[292]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 69]

            The Catholic attempts to expel the Jesuits continued after the Civil War. Caroline Hibbard remarks that "some seculars entered into a curious practical alliance with the English government with the hopes of effecting an expulsion of the Jesuits. It was an alliance that would persist into the Restoration period and produce government-sponsored anti-Jesuit literature from Catholic hands that was as violent as any Puritan publican."[293]

            Coinciding with the deportation scheme were the maneuverings in 1647 mentioned earlier of the Catholic gentry with the Protestant Independents to gain toleration. The Catholics proposed that they take an oath to the parliamentary government. Anyone including the clergy who refused to take it would be banished. Among the advocates of the oath was Andrew White, S.J., who had served in Maryland.[294] When the pope learned of the oath and that the clergy had agreed to take it, he ordered the Jesuit and Benedictine superiors to give up their offices and go into exile.[295] Over the seculars the pope was powerless. Part of the Catholic proposal was that the bishops who would be established would be outside of the pope's power to remove. If he refused to consecrate them, they would get themselves consecrated in France or Ireland by their fellow bishops.[296] The issue of "exterior spiritual jurisdiction," that is, an effective clerical superiority over the spiritual aspects of English Catholicism, was left negotiable.

            In defending their right to have the clergy serve their needs against Roman clericalism, English Catholic laboring people generally had an ally in the chapter government of the secular clergy. A description of the chapter written some years after the war described its 28 members. One was John Medcalf, who was archdean of Northumberland and Cumberland. He maintained that if he headed the English government, he would proscribe all priests who refused to take the oath of allegiance.[297] Rome asked Humphrey Waring, who was dean or head of the chapter, why he was unwilling to comply with "the decrees of His Holiness, for the keeping of which decrees one hundred and forty martyrs had shed their blood, and undergone a glorious death." He responded that he and the other clergy had made up their minds "to live for the future according to the customs of the Gallican church."[298] Chapter member and archdeacon Henry Turbervill was said by Rome to "constitute himself defender of the oath, commonly known as the oath of allegiance, in which are contained many things contrary to Catholic faith and the authority of the Roman church."[299] Thomas Carr another member of the chapter "to the best of his power promoted Jansenism."[300] Chapter member John Leyburn was a "`neopoliticus Gallus,' looking after his own rather than the public good," the "public" being Rome.[301] The non-sectarian bent of some secular priests, such as Thomas Carter and William Johnson included occasional attendance at services in the established church.[302]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 70]

            Roman interference with the rights of the Catholics was limited, but that does not mean there were not instances of it, as when particular priests would uphold prohibitions on church Catholicism. A Northumberland priest in the 1650s did not allow a nine year old to make his first communion because he attended a village school, which included attending services at the established church.[303] When a priest in Maryland similarly attempted to excommunicate a planter there in the 1650s, he was arrested, taken to court, and later recalled to England by his superiors.[304]

            The ordinary Catholics, in seeking to make the clergy serve their needs, manifested a low regard for clericalism. One can see in the pamphlets of Catholic professionals like John Austin and Thomas Hawkins a respect for the clergy but an apparently widespread Catholic impatience with and embarrassment at the doctrines of papal temporal power and papal infallibility.[305] Their low regard for these doctrines was similar to the independence they showed toward the pretensions of both the royalist and parliamentary gentry during the Civil War. When the king was in power, church Catholics lied in taking the oath of supremacy, which acknowledged the king as head of the church. Then the Catholics lied in taking Parliament's oath of abjuration when that oath was imposed after 1642.[306] Blaise Pascal in his Provincial Letters of 1656 blamed Rome and the Jesuits for teaching the doctrine of equivocation, that is, that it was licit to lie under oath. But Rome and the Jesuits were teaching just the opposite. Pope Innocent X in 1649 denounced equivocation because it was "ecclesiastically subversive."[307] If the pope had had his way, Catholics would not have taken the oaths. They would have shed their blood for Roman clericalism.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 71]

            Against both Rome and the royalist and parliamentary gentry the Catholics constituted themselves as a law unto themselves, not unlike the Protestant antinomians. Antinomianism, meaning literally "against the law," involved, as Christopher Hill points out, the repudiation of "all human law, not just Mosaic law."[308] It is not surprising, as noted earlier, that the Presbyterian-dominated Parliament in 1646 enacted the death penalty against those who taught the antinomian doctrine.[309] Because they did not control the army, however, the Presbyterians were unable to enforce the prohibition against antinomianism. The parliamentary gentry used antinomian arguments against the crown, but once they achieved success during the first Civil War, they wished to cut off the doctrine to the laboring people.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 72]

            One can see repeated in the Catholic pamphlets that took the side of the laboring people, the antinomian themes that were developed by the Protestants, such as universal grace and eschatology.[310] The secular priests William Rushworth and Henry Holden wrote that it was wrong to look to the law and scripture like the pharisee, "We should look to our own hearts: Christ's law is written in a Christian's heart."[311] In justifying the overthrow of the crown, Holden remarked that the royalist "sycophants" did "basely flatter all supreme power and act as if we ought to look upon them as to be worshiped and adored as Gods."[312] Catholic millennialists wrote of the imminent rule of the saints on earth during which wealth would be redistributed to producers, social injustice would be eradicated for a thousand years prior to the final judgment day and a "third age of the church" would be established.[313]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 73]

            The Catholics believed that the role of the clergy was to serve them and allowed neither the crown, Parliament, or the pope to stand in their way. If as much as 80 percent of the Catholics were church-going, it seems appropriate to also mention their beliefs about the Anglican clergy, whom they encountered when they attended established services. As in the Catholic church, Catholics no doubt believed the established clergy should serve their needs. This belief would have inclined them to take the Independent side on the questions that arose during the war about how the established church was to be governed. That is, just as in civil politics, so in church politics, there was an Independent-Presbyterian split throughout much of the period. The Presbyterian gentry and clergy wanted to make the church serve their interests. After the abolition of episcopal judicial control in January 1643, the Presbyterian clergy, through parliamentary legislation, sought to put the church under the control of regional and national clerical-dominated assemblies.[314]

            However, the Presbyterians, despite controlling Parliament until 1648 and enacting legislation on the subject, were for the most part never able to actually gain control of the church at the parish level. The local congregations refused to recognize the synods or send deputies to them.[315] They remained under the control of local communities and their elected parish vestries and wardens. In these local church governments, church Catholics or their bailiffs no doubt did service. Those Catholics with more than an ordinary voice in their parish governments included Ralph Sheldon who paid to have the church built at Beoley, Thomas Stonor who gave the parish at Watlington its bell, and Thomas Nevill who paid for an addition to the parish church at Holt, which to the present day has his name inscribed over the entrance along with the phrase, "Built this porch at cost 1635."[316] Those like Thomas Arundell who owned the rectory and advowson of the vicarage of Anstye in Wiltshire until his death in 1643, and Edward Vaux who owned the rectory and parsonage at Irthlingborough, likewise had an economic leverage that gave them a voice in parish government.[317]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 74]

            Church Catholics probably had a hand in ejecting some 2,000 established clergy from their churches because these clergy were unsympathetic to congregational needs.[318] Dominated by the Court of High Commission, the ejected clergy had made the pulpit an instrument of crown propaganda.[319] The ejected were often pluralists and non-residents who took the parish income but neglected to minister to the people. Hugh Aveling remarks, "We know that Protestant society then contained many features closely resembling Catholic ones. . . a violent and increasing discontent with the `mass priest' type of incumbent and curate which the church of England had inherited from the middle ages, together with lay impropriation, non-residence, and pluralism."[320] In addition to supporting the ejectment of pluralists and absentees, the church Catholics, like the Independent Protestants probably found the threat of clericalism from the Presbyterian synods just as unattractive as that from the Anglican episcopacy or the Roman establishment. On this an Independent remarked:

Far better to have one tyrant [the pope] whose power is limited to spiritual things and who is outside the realm than to have a tyrant in every parish who meddled in temporal affairs as did the Presbyterians."[321]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 75]

            Retention of local control over the parish clergy served the needs of church-going Catholics. There were other Independent goals that served the needs of the Catholic recusants as well as those of church Catholics concerning the role of the Catholic clergy. One of the obstacles to having the Catholic clergy serve them had always been the established episcopacy, which through a system of courts enforced the penal laws. Independent-backed legislative enactments in 1643 and 1646 abolished the episcopacy and the church and prerogative courts which had enforced the penal laws._ The courts abolished included the High Commission, the Court of Wards, the Council of the North, the court before the president and council in the Marches of Wales, the court of the duchy of Lancaster, and the court of exchequer of the county palatine of Chester._ After the restoration these courts were not re-established. The Catholic support for independent policies helped eliminate this obstacle to the services of their clergy.

            There was a fourth and final belief held by Maryland Catholics, the European background of which this chapter will discuss. Ordinary Catholics believed market relations should serve their needs. The Maryland assembly enacted a comprehensive system of market regulations to achieve this end. In England similar regulations existed and were expanded during the Civil War. It is more difficult to pinpoint Catholic support for such legislation in England, because they did not dominate the legislature there, as they did in Maryland. Nevertheless, sentiments supporting market relations that served their needs can be seen in their pamphlet literature and in their political activity.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 76]

            Illustrative of their belief that market relations should serve their needs was the attitude of Thomas White. He condemned "private" interests that sought to subordinate the market at the expense of the public:

When I see the same person work for a commonwealth, in a free way doing it good, and again for a private person, I see a vast distance between his pretended ends. There is an eminent generosity in one over the other. Whence, I believe it comes that heroes and heroical virtues are chiefly taken in respect of doing good to the whole society.

When I see it thought that good is the same, I find it an intricate labyrinth of equivocation wherein we endless err. To cry the common good is a mere deceit and flattery of words unless we can show that the common good is as great to us as we make it sound.[322]

            According to John Bossy, White was the intellectual leader of the 450 secular clergy during much of the period.[323] Robert Bradley, S.J. states, "Few English Catholics of that century had such an impact on their contemporaries as Thomas White had."[324] The Catholic priest George Leyburn remarked at the time on the "zeal" which Catholics had for White, his "wonderful influence," and his being looked to as an "oracle."[325] White's leadership was dependent in part on his representing a broad spectrum of Catholic belief. That White was representative of the thinking of laboring people was also testified to at the time. Robert Pugh, for example, complained that White took the side of the "meanest of the commons, against the just rights of the king, the nobility, and a great part of the gentry."[326] Roger Coke was upset because White spoke for those with "plough-holding" hands.[327]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 77]

            Pugh and Coke were accurate in attributing to White a sympathy for laboring people. But support for market regulations existed among many of the gentry as well. Derek Hirst remarks on the ubiquity of the "commonweal" market beliefs:

Dearth caused both rich and poor to turn on profiteering middle men, the `caterpillars of the commonweal': the magistrates through quarter sessions and the enforcement of the marketing regulations, the commons by less peaceful means. There was a common espousal of a philosophy of an ordered, inter-dependent commonwealth. While on the one hand this was indeed frequently a pious cover for unrestrained capitalistic enterprise, there seems to have been less hypocrisy from the other side, for there was little direct challenge to the ideal of the commonweal from the poor.[328]

            Government granted corporate charters were one of the forms of regulation. These charters gave monopoly rights in a certain area of the economy. But as Astrid Friis remarks, in the seventeenth century the term "monopoly" was generally applied only to something prejudicial to the commonwealth while there was a reluctance to call anything a monopoly when it was considered as contributing to the public welfare.[329] For example, in foreign trade the East India Company had considerable public respect. The trade to Japan and China required the accumulation of large amounts of capital because of the distance and risks. Defenders of monopolies such as that of the East India Company noted that individual merchants had no protection for their ships in piratical waters except that furnished by their own guns. Monopolies dispatched their vessels in fleets. The collective unit increased the potentialities of defense. Joint-stock companies were also able to accumulate the necessary funds to erect warehouses for their own trade, and establish consular offices, which helped promote favorable relations in the diplomatic as well as commercial spheres. Finally, it took large funds to compete against the Dutch, Spanish, and Italians who had monopolies of their own in Asia.[330]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 78]

            The East India monopoly gave a benefit, but the monopolies in trade to the Baltic, Muscovy, Germany, Holland, and the Mediterranean were often seen as less justifiable. No monopoly existed in trade with France. There was a desire to extend such free trade elsewhere by English producers of cloth, wool, lead, and tin, along with those who imported from abroad and those who lived in port cites like Bristol, Hull, York, and Newcastle.[331] London had one-tenth of the English population, but accounted for eight-tenths of the English foreign trade. It brought in £70,000 of England's £90,000 annual custom revenue in the early part of the century.[332] The English Catholics, who had relatively large concentrations in York, Bristol, and Newcastle were no doubt among those who looked negatively on London's foreign trade monopolization. One can see in the drama of Philip Massinger a Catholic's protest against court party monopolists as "parasites of the kingdom."[333]

            There seems to have been a particular dislike of the Merchant Adventurers. They had a monopoly on the export of cloth to the Netherlands and Germany. Clothmakers throughout the country had long sought an end to the monopoly. It enriched the London merchants at the expense of producers.[334] Among the migrants to Maryland who had a dislike of the Merchant Adventurers was Thomas Weston (1575-1647). Weston was an ironmonger of unknown religion. As early as 1617 he was engaged in unlicensed shipments of cloth to the Netherlands. The privy council at the request of the Merchant Adventurers forced him to cease his trade.[335]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 79]

            Like foreign monopolies, domestic trade and manufacturing monopolies had a potentially positive aspect for laboring people. The justification for domestic monopolies was that they regulated trade, along with justices of the peace, the House of Commons, the common law, and the parish governments. They helped maintain quality and gave uniform prices and supplies. For example, Walter Raleigh had had a patent to issue licenses to tavern keepers and wine retailers.[336] Raleigh performed a governmental function in regulating taverns for the public benefit. In addition, a company was obligated because of its charter to have financial obligations to the state commensurate with the scope of its enterprise and investment. These duties would involve furnishing a loan to the government, providing a guarantee of credit to the king, or making extraordinary customs payments.

            The problem with monopolies for laboring people came when their benefit was less than their burden. Conyers Reid maintains the Stuarts generally turned monopoly corporations from being effective governmental regulative devices into mere money-raising expedients. This was because the Stuarts sought to rule and spend money without the consent of Parliament.[337] The dislike of patents came when they were given as one contemporary put it, for "a private and disordered engrossing, for the enhancing of prices, for a private purpose, to a public prejudice."[338] The crown granted patents to get loans and revenue, and often ignored the abuses caused by monopolies.

            During the Civil War Catholics, as given voice in the writings of Thomas White, along side the levelers, supported the parliamentary council of trade at the national level and its promotion of free trade and the right to unrestricted migration and naturalization.[339] Free trade meant freedom from private monopoly, it did not mean freedom from government regulations. Government regulations were sometimes desired because they were beneficial to trade and protected the public from private monopoly.[340]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 80]

            The enthusiasm which those like Thomas White had for the council of trade and more generally for the republican order established by the abolition of the crown was due in part to their belief that republics were better for producers than monarchies.[341] J. P. Cooper points out, it was "the commonly held view that republics were more beneficial for trade than monarchies."[342] Thomas Violet in 1660 wrote that the "common sort of people" do better under a commonwealth than "the nobility and gentry." This idea "has for twenty years been the oil that fed the flame of rebellion in London."[343]

            Just as at the national level, so at the local level, the Catholics' belief about market relations seems to have coincided with the thinking of the Protestants who helped enact and enforce legislation at the county and parish level that made the market responsive to the needs of laboring people. One type of local regulation was directed against monopolization by merchants. County committees, grand juries, assize courts, and parishes such as in Wiltshire and Cheshire, no doubt with the help of Catholics, licensed grain dealers or set up commissions to see that grain was sold without hoarding for unjust profits.[344] The same forces also made prohibitions during times of shortage on the export of items such as beer, cattle, corn, cheese, beef, port, candles, and sheepskin.[345]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 81]

            When crops were bad, county and parish governments sometimes suppressed alehouses and limited the sale of grain to maltsters in order to get a better distribution of grain.[346] Ale making wasted barley, which was the ordinary bread corn. As in Maryland, typical English ordinances authorized the constables to search all "houses, barnes, and men holding corn more than for necessary support of themselves and their families."[347] Those with excess were obliged to bring the corn to market by installment and sell it at "at reasonable rates to the poor people." J. A. Chambers writes about the enforcement of antimonopoly regulations during the period:

The middle years of the seventeenth century saw new vigor in the enforcement of the statutes. During the Interregnum, and at least until the later 1680s, active prosecution of offenses by middlemen continued.[348]

            Market regulations during the period were not meant to prevent trade but to make it serve more than merely the interests of the merchants. For example, in the 1650s free export was allowed on basic commodities, but only as long as the domestic prices remained below established prices, such as 40s per quarter ton for corn, 24s per quarter ton for peas and beans, and 6d per pound for butter.[349] Merchants could make profits, but not at the undue expense of the ordinary people.

            A second type of regulation which corresponded to Catholic ideas about market relations being responsive to ordinary people dealt with unemployment. One of the demands of the Levelers was that the government provide jobs for the unemployed.[350] Mobilized and demobilized parliamentary and royal troops, including no doubt Catholics, were militant in pressing for unemployment and pension measures and sometimes took the law into their own hands.[351]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 82]

            For example in 1647 many gentry in Parliament proposed to disband the New Model Army without providing for the disabled, the families of those killed, and the arrears of pay. In response the rank and file established a military command system independent from that of their officers, and they set up a press and published newsletters and pamphlets to make their case known to the English people. Then they successfully marched on Parliament to aid those who had been defending their economic rights there.[352] One of their pamphlets demanded that all the "ancient rights and donations belonging to the poor, such as alms houses, enclosed commons, etc. throughout all parts of the land, now embezzled and converted to other uses, may forthwith be returned to the ancient public use and services of the poor, in whose hands soever they be detained."[353]

            Most of the areas where Catholics were strongest were areas of chronic unemployment, such as Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in the west, and Lancashire and Yorkshire in the north. These were cloth producing areas. Unemployment was a problem because the market for English undressed broadcloth was in the process of being replaced by a demand for lighter materials produced in Holland. The numbers of cloth pieces produced for export declined from 60,000 in 1600 to 30,000 in 1640.[354] The land in the clothmaking areas had been converted by enclosure from arable to pasture in order to raise wool for cloth production. The small farmers were dependent on clothmaking to supplement their farm income.[355]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 83]

            Joan Thirsk has remarked that concern for full employment for laboring people quite naturally distinguished their thinking from most gentry.[356] To solve the unemployment problem, a wide range of measures were initiated or continued during the war by England's 10,000 parish governments. F. G. Emmison writes, "It was the duty of everyone to work. It was equally the responsibility of the parish to help them get work."[357] Parish measures sought to provide for full employment and job training through the spinning and weaving of wool, fisheries, the establishment of municipal brewhouses, the draining of fens, clearing of wasteland, working up of flax, and the distribution of confiscated royal estates to the landless for farming.[358] In many parts of the country the relief system gave laboring people the security of a job and of knowing that in their senior years they would not have to worry about their necessities.[359] In London Parliament established the London Corporation of the Poor in 1647 and made it a model for the country.[360]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 84]

            At the national level Parliament sought to help alleviate unemployment by giving state backing to the subsidization of manufacturing and agricultural projects and the establishment of high import duties that made the import of foreign manufactured goods into England difficult.[361] Illustrative was the House of Commons 1642 Book of Rates, which was protectionist.[362] A 1649 ordinance renewed a 1619 act that prohibited the export of wool. This subsidized cloth spinners and weavers by keeping the cost of wool low.[363] One of the complaints in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 had been about the decline of the cloth-making trade because the government of Holland was more aggressive in promoting the trade there.[364] The Catholic improver, Richard Weston was among those who wrote pamphlets advising Parliament to enact legislation to promote hemp and flax production, which would reduce unemployment:

You shall do a charitable deed by bringing that manufacturer [of flax] into this country. For it keeps a very great number of poor women and children at work in Flanders and Holland that otherwise would not have means to live.[365]

In August 1650 a Council of Trade was set up to consider "how the traders and manufacturers of this nation may most fitly and equally be distributed to every part thereof," and "how the commodities of this land may be vented to the best advantage thereof into foreign countries."[366]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 85]

            Several studies have commented on how the local and national measures made market relations during the period serve the interests of the ordinary people despite the economic disruption caused by the war.[367] Margo Todd and Valerie Pearl discuss how laboring people sometimes turned up-side down the gentry's approach to market relations and poor relief. The approach of the gentry was often punitive and designed to enforce obedience to the established order.[368] Provision for full employment and poor relief were part of what Hirst calls the philosophy of the "ordered, inter-dependent commonwealth."[369] Thomas White and the gentry improver Robert Wintour reflected this justification for full employment regulations in their writings.[370] Unemployment hurt market relations: "God and nature have so managed humanity, that none have as much as they desire, but regularly abound in one kind of goods, and want some others which their neighbor has. Hence they mutually assist society to be accommodated with such necessities, as they cannot have but by communication one with another."[371]

            Besides regulations directed at monopoly and unemployment, there was a third type of regulations favored by Catholics that addressed the work conditions of laboring people. As John Bossy remarks, the laboring Catholics "invented" and enforced these regulations without the benefit of written legislation. In Maryland, this type of regulation found embodiment in the assembly's legislative code. Laboring Catholics, as in the case of Yorkshire coalminers, limited the amount of time they would work for their masters in part by a system of up to 52 feast-days per year, which they took off as holidays. They valued labor, but they also valued rest.[372]

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 86]

            Catholic laboring people resisted not only the market forces that influenced their masters' interest in excessive profit, but those clergy and Roman pontiffs who throughout the period were seeking to reduce the number of feast-days.[373] Edgar Furniss has shown that a prevalent doctrine among seventeenth-century masters was that wages should be kept at the minimum and hours of labor at the maximum of physical subsistence.[374] Catholic masters and gentry, like their Protestant counterparts, had an extensive literature that justified, as would be expected, their doctrine on work and wages and that looked with disfavor on the efforts of laboring people to better themselves. Robert Persons, S.J., for example, was an archetype of this type of gentry thinking. Thomas Clancy, S.J. writes of his negative ideas on economic mobility among laboring people:

As for the commons, their economic welfare was to be made the responsibility of their feudal lords. In England there was great inequality among the members of the third estate. . . It was said some gave themselves the airs of gentlemen. This social mobility was to be stopped.[375]

            What is of interest is that the English Catholic laboring people had their own pamphleteers, such as Thomas White, who defended their interests. For example, against the claim that the master-servant relation was God-ordained, unchangeable, and not subject to contractual rights by laboring people, White responded, "None think a husbandman, who is hired to till or fence a piece of ground, obeys the hirer more than he that sells a piece of cloth obeys the buyer, because he takes his money; but they are said to contract and perform their part of the bargain."[376] White praised working people who stood up to undue market domination, as he put it, "seeing their labors disposed on to people, of whom they have opinion that they are idle, vicious and unworthy, therefore desire freedom from such a yoke and become masters of their own goods and labors."[377] He pointed out:

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 87]

What are people better than a herd of sheep or oxen, if they be owned, like them, by masters? What difference is there between their masters selling them to the butcher, and obliging them to venture their lives and livelihoods for his private interest?[378]

About the anti-yoke symbolism used by White, Christopher Hill has remarked on its long-standing popularity among the ordinary English people, especially during the Civil War.[379] It had been a theme since the Norman Conquest.

            To sum up, this chapter has looked at the European background to four themes or beliefs that were part of the thinking of Maryland Catholics: the value of labor, political independence, the role of the clergy, and market relations. On these issues the ideal type Catholic seen in this chapter often thought of themselves as a law unto themselves. The resemblance between the Catholic independence and antinomianism was noted in the discussion on the role of the clergy. The Protestant Gerard Winstanley (1609-1652), who demanded that producers have the land rent free, had taught that antinomianism was about the "here and now, not about damnation in the next life."[380] The gentry in making the teaching of antinomianism a treasonable offense in 1647 gave witness to their fear of the doctrine. Catholics like Thomas White were accused of sedition for publishing antinomian passages such as the following:

It is a fallacious principle, though maintained by many, that obedience is one of the most eminent virtues and that it is the greatest sacrifice we can offer to God, to renounce our own wills, because our will is the chiefest good we have. . . To renounce any natural faculty or the legitimate and fitting use of it, under pretense of pleasing God, is a folly, not a virtue.[381]

But despite hostile claims, the Protestant and Catholic antinomians were not anarchists. The antinomians did not intend to remove the essence of the Mosaic law--its political and moral content--but rather to clear the way for its realization, which the established system prevented.

[CHAPTER ONE, 1996 ed., p. 88]

            In being a law unto themselves, there was a continuity between the English and Maryland Catholic population. A majority of Maryland Catholics were born and grew up in England. Their political, religious, and economic thinking was in part formed in England. Most English Catholics were working people and, like their Protestant counterparts, they seemed to have held to views that served their interests. The antinomian beliefs held by Maryland Catholics are less surprising when the English background is understood. In most cases, because the Catholics dominated the assembly in Maryland and embodied their beliefs in legislation, their thinking is easier to reconstruct in Maryland. But the English background in some instances provides a supplement to and further understanding of what was enacted in Maryland.

 

 

Map 1: English Counties

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 89]

Chapter 2

The Demographic and Career Backgrounds of the Maryland Catholics and their Beliefs about Labor

            This and the following chapters take up the Maryland Catholic beliefs about labor, politics, the clergy, and the market during the period of the English Civil War. This particular chapter is about the demographic background of the Maryland Catholics and their beliefs concerning labor. Ninety-five percent of the Maryland Catholics spent much of their lives doing manual labor. To understand what it was to be a typical Catholic, it is necessary to reconstruct their beliefs about such an important part of their lives.

            Scholars like Max Weber and Richard H. Tawney identify positive views of labor with the "Protestant ethic."[382] This chapter finds that in Civil War Maryland, the "Protestant ethic" was likewise the "Catholic ethic." As reflected in their migration to the province and the work-lives they led, in their assembly and judicial records, and in their pamphlet literature, most Catholics viewed labor in a positive light, both as a means to an end and as a way of life. John Krugler finds a similarity in some political beliefs between the Maryland Catholics and the Massachusetts Puritans.[383] This chapter finds the similarity extended to beliefs about labor.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 90]

            That most Catholics had beliefs about labor that grew out of and supported their careers is not to deny that some might have preferred to be like the English gentry, who lived "idle and without labor." Or more to the point, that some Catholics, if not all, would have opted for slaves, had they been available.[384] In fact, by 1700 a minority of the next generation owned slaves. While some Civil War Catholics may have dreamed of owning slaves, they adjusted to a reality without slaves. Field labor had been a way of life for them in England. It continued to be so in Maryland. A more basic dream was that migration would improve their way of life. Slaves were unnecessary to achieve this goal. Very few if any owned slaves during the war years and most did not own slaves later. That some did not fulfill their desire to own slaves does not mean they did not achieve their more basic dream, which included a positive view of labor.

            A more convincing argument against positive views about labor than the desire for slaves was the widespread existence of indentured servitude. Between 1634 and 1639, but not afterwards, a majority of the Maryland population were indentured servants, owned mainly by 5 percent of the Catholic and Protestant population.[385] These masters exploited their servants, sometimes brutally. One-third of the population died within the first several years of arrival.[386] Disease was the chief killer, but in some cases harsh masters with a low regard for labor were also a cause.

            A class system prevailed in Maryland and a diversity of views about labor. The diversity reflected the division in economic interests. The evidence does not support equating the views of the servant with those of the master. Ordinary people, as this chapter will show, were capable of having their own interests, which included a positive view of their labor. Just as they rejected the dominant religious beliefs of the crown, despite considerable obstacles, they had no trouble maintaining their own beliefs about labor, despite the local magnates.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 91]

            This chapter will first discuss the demographic and career background of the Maryland Catholic population. Second it will take up the beliefs of the owner-operators, indentured servants, artisans, and professionals, as manifested in their work-lives, legislation, and court cases. Third it will examine the beliefs of the Maryland landlords. Fourth it will look at several of the theses of this study in light of the discussion presented in the chapter.

            The first part of the chapter is about the demographic and career background of the Catholics. Unlike in England, in Maryland everyone was involved in the productive process. There were no gentry, idle or otherwise, although the 5 percent of the population who were landlords and owned most of the indentured servants, were the source of some anti-labor beliefs and activity. Most Catholics were owner-operators, or hoping to become owner-operators. Most owner-operators, unlike landlords, did field labor during the Civil War period.[387] The assembly and judicial records make statements about the value of labor, but they can be fully understood only when read in the context of the owner-operator's work-life of manual labor.

            The Catholics were small in number but there were enough to show a pattern of belief about labor. No census of Catholics or of the population generally survives for the period. Scholars, however, using what became the "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," have reconstructed the general figure. The "Career Files" are a modern-day census made from the surviving court and other records.[388] From the general population figure it is possible to give a range of estimates for the Catholic figure, as indicated in Table 2-1.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 92]

Table 2-1:
Euro-Catholic Population Estimates

	Menard's Total Pop[389]	10% Cath Pop	25% Cath Pop
1640	551	55	138
1650	682 (200 women)[390]	68	171
1660	3,869	386

Recusants and church Catholics made up perhaps 10 percent of the total English population.[391] Column two assumes Catholics were the same percent of the population in Maryland.[392] However, the 25 percent estimate in column three can be justified at least until 1650 on several grounds. The Jesuit archival sources and the testimony of the provincial secretary stated as much.[393] A second ground for the higher figure is that while there were English Catholics in Virginia and the West Indies, they probably came in higher proportions to Maryland because their clergy were there and because they were actively recruited.[394] The clergy even managed a London migration office in the early 1630s.[395]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 93]

            Whatever the exact population figures, a Catholic belief pattern about labor can be identified. The pattern was that Catholics came to work. A recruiting pamphlet composed by the clergy summarized the inducement to migrate, "those that do good service, shall receive no small share in the profits of trade."[396] Free unimproved land was given to all migrants. In order to turn the land into a market crop that in boom periods gave a good return on labor expended, it took three ingredients: capital, skill, and labor. Of these three, labor was the common element possessed by all the Catholics.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 94]

            As seen in Table 2-2, several categories of Catholics migrated to Maryland. About half of the total as indicated by the "Career Files" paid the £5 passage and arrived as free but for the most part with no capital.[397] Another group, which was about a quarter of the total had a landlord or merchant pay their way. They arrived as indentured servants. A third group, about 5 percent of the total, were landlords. They actually were a subset of the first group mentioned above. They paid their own way and had sufficient capital to purchase indentured servants to work for them. For the fourth group there is not sufficient data to determine arrival status.

Table 2-2:
Arrival Status[398]

Arr Status	Catholic	Protestant	Rel. Unknown
Unknown	28 (28%)	19  (24%)	721 (53%)
Free	47 (47%)	39  (49%)	244 (18%)
Indentured	25 (25%)	22  (28%)	389 (29%)
Total	100	80	1,354

The work-life and expectations of each group were somewhat different and will be expanded upon shortly.

            Having outlined their demographic and career background, the second part of the chapter now takes up the beliefs about labor of the owner-operators, indentured servants, artisans, and professionals. The positive views about labor encountered in the discussion of the English Catholics were undoubtedly carried over or re-invented in Maryland. In addition the Catholics in Maryland possessed some of the same literature discussed earlier, including the bible, that took a positive view of working people. Seventy-five percent of the Maryland Catholics in the "Career Files" for whom there is sufficient evidence to make a determination were literate.[399] Pamphlets were plentiful, judging from the Maryland estate inventories.[400]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 95]

            However, the best evidence for the Maryland Catholics' views about labor is their work-lives, legislation, and judicial cases. This is the focus in this second part of the chapter. The largest group of Catholic migrants were those who arrived free but without capital. Between 1633 and 1641, and from 1649 to 1656, they were granted a tract of 100 acres. From 1642 to 1648 the grant was 50 acres. Additional tracts were granted for a spouse or child. Single women received headrights equal to those of men. In Virginia the headright was 50 acres, so that between 1633 and 1641, and after 1649, an immigrant got twice as much acreage for coming to Maryland. The quit rent, which amounted to 1 percent of their gross income or about 1s for 50 acres, was what the market would allow and was the same in Virginia as in Maryland.[401] This was cheaper than in England, where annual rents averaged about 30 percent of the tenants gross income or between 5s to 8s per acre and £1 per acre. This reflected the difference in the market value of land and produce between England and Maryland and perhaps the Maryland tenants' political strength.[402]

            Because one received free land did not mean it was possible to set up immediately as an independent operator. Table 2-3 shows that by 1642 after almost a decade of settlement, 76 percent (136 of the 177) of the free Europeans in Maryland still owned no land.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 96]

Table 2-3:
Non-Landowner Figures in 1642[403]

Status[404]	Landowner	Non-Landowner	Status Tot
Free	41	136	177
Servants	0	53	53
Indentured Svt	0	35	35
Total Taxables	41	224	265

            The land was free, and it only took three acres to grow the 3,000 to 10,000 tobacco plants that made up a 1,200 pound (4 hogsheads) harvest worth £15 in good years.[405] Three acres was about the maximum a single individual could farm. But as was noted earlier, one of the three ingredients for setting up a plantation besides the land was a minimal amount of capital, about £15, to pay survey and patent fees, to build a house, barn, and other outbuildings, and to purchase seed, cooking gear, hardware, tools, cloth, nails, and farm animals. A 100-acre tract could be patented for 500 of pounds of tobacco, which was equal to five months labor or £5.[406] The same tract could be rented for 100 pounds of tobacco per year.[407] Some bought their land by working it as sharecropper-tenants and purchasing it on credit over a three to seven year period.[408] A dirt-floored cottage from 10 feet by 10 feet to 15 by 30 feet could be put up, depending on size, for from 60 to 500 pounds of tobacco.[409]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 97]

            Most free Catholics arrived with no capital. Between 1638 and 1645 they were faced with a depression in tobacco prices and a cut off in foreign capital investment. This made borrowing capital to set up one's farm difficult but not impossible. In 1642 the five major local landlord-creditors had extended at least some credit to 90 people.[410] The debtors were owner-operators, tenants, and servants who used their loans to buy farm animals, raise crops, or build a house. The pattern was often to become a free servant or tenant to one of the twelve landlords for the first five or ten years of settlement. During this period the immigrants accumulated enough capital to set up on their own. The wage scale was a "full share" or about £10 pounds per year, that is, the same as one would make by setting up as an independent operator. Therefore free laborers were not hired to work in the fields, but to engage in profitable sidelines.[411] Those with specialized skills did better. During the 1630s, Maryland carpenters got wages that were two to three times higher than in England and Ireland, plus food.

            The work-life and expectations of the second largest group of Catholics, those who arrived as indentured servants, were similar to the first group. However, they were usually younger than the first group, with many being teenagers. To this group was added an initial period of from four to seven years of labor, depending on age and skill, prior to becoming a free servant or tenant. Those with skills served a shorter time.

            Part of the indenture contract and "custom of the country" sometimes required that indentured servants be given land to plant their own crops and raise their own pigs, calves, and other farm animals, which they kept at the end of their service.[412] The master was also required at the end of service to give the servant 50 acres of land, five of which were cultivated, along with clothes and tools.[413] But the servant still had to accumulate capital in order to have the land surveyed and patented and to acquire the other necessities for establishing a plantation. A considerable number of former indentured servants had already managed to set themselves up as owner-operators by 1642. Russell Menard writes of them, "Men who had arrived without capital were establishing households with ease. Twenty to twenty-five men who arrived in Maryland as servants or poor immigrants had become freeholders by 1642."[414] By 1652 74 percent (16 out of 25) of the former indentured Catholic servants had become owner-operators.[415]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 98]

            Free and indentured immigrants were not able to become owner-operators immediately both because they lacked capital and because tobacco farming was a skill that could be obtained only with experience. Working for one of the landlords was a way to obtain an education in soils, rainfall, mean temperatures, planting, tending, curing, and packing tobacco. Gloria Main comments on the skill demanded in tobacco production:

The success of tobacco culture demands the kind of knowledge acquired only through long experience and diligent attention to detail. Failure to make a proper judgment at any one of the crucial steps in harvesting, curing, and packing might not only reduce the quality of the product but even damage it beyond salvage by inducing fermentation and ultimate spoilage.[416]

Frequent court cases testify to the skill needed in production and the lack thereof.[417]

            Labor was the common element in achieving capital and skill for most Catholics and was the third ingredient in rising from free or indentured servant to owner-operator. Tobacco was a labor intensive crop that required diligence for ten months of the year. It required more work per unit of output than any other commercial crop except flax and rice. It did not do well under gang labor, like sugar or cotton.[418] A nineteenth-century tobacco farmer commented on the work demanded of a tobacco farmer:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 99]

It would startle even an old planter to see an exact account of the labor devoured by an acre of tobacco, and the preparation of the crop for market. . . He would be astonished to discover how often he had passed over the land, and the tobacco through his hands, in fallowing, hilling, cutting off hills, planting and replantings, toppings, succerings, weedings, cuttings, picking up, removing out of ground by hand, hanging, striking, stripping, stemming, and prizing.[419]

            The tobacco crop cycle had three parts: growing, curing, and packing.[420] The first part of the cycle began in early spring. The planter made a seedbed and sowed tobacco seeds kept from the previous year. When the plants had grown to three inches, they were transplanted to prepared hills about four feet apart in other fields. The replanting took place in moist weather in June. The ground was kept clear of weeds by continuous hoeing, and tobacco worms were picked off daily. Within a month, the plant grew to a foot high. After the plants had put out about nine leaves, they were topped to prevent flowering and to force maximum growth in the existing leaves. The planters' large thumb nail, hardened in a candle, served as a tool for the topping process.[421]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 100]

            Growing ended in September when the second part of the tobacco cycle, the curing process, began. Harvesters cut down the entire plant. The stalks were then taken to specially built houses where they were pegged and hung to cure in the air. It could take six weeks for the tobacco to reach the proper texture. The third part of the tobacco cycle was packing. The plants were "struck" down in moist weather when the leaves were made pliable by the dampness. They were stripped off the stalks, bundled into "hands," and packed into hogsheads. Average tobacco production rose from 700 pounds per planter in the 1630s to 1,300 in the 1650s.[422] The total provincial value of the tobacco as it left the farm in the 1640s was conservatively worth between £800 and £1,200.[423] A planter's average yearly income came to between £5 and £10 per year.[424]

            Besides tobacco, the planters' labor was directed at other crops, including grain, livestock, pelts, and cider. An owner-operator would typically plant two or three acres of corn yielding 7 barrels in addition to tobacco. A 50 acre plantation usually consisted of one-half the land in woods, one-fourth in pasture, one-tenth under cultivation, and the rest fallow and waste.[425] Lois Green Carr and Russell Menard characterize Maryland husbandry as a new "long-fallow agriculture," based on the value of labor, which yielded impressive productivity gains and substantial increases in wealth and income. They describe the system, which did not undermine the long-term fertility of the soil:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 101]

First, because the main crops, tobacco for export and corn for subsistence, were very demanding of soil nutrients, they required long rotations after short use if the land was to regain its fertility without manuring. The planter could grow tobacco for three years, followed by another three of corn, which has a deeper root system than tobacco and hence draws on another layer of soil, but the land then had to lie fallow for 20 years before yields could once again be profitable. To maintain this rotation, the planter required 20 acres per head, just for these two crops. Second, while seventeenth century planters introduced domestic livestock, they did not fence and feed it and hence could not use animal manure. Long rotations were therefore the rule, Third, the new system of husbandry afforded few returns to scale.[426]

            This chapter argues that their migration to Maryland and back-breaking work in the tobacco fields is evidence of the value which Catholics placed on labor. The tree can be known by its fruit. In England an ordinary person with a low regard for labor could minimize work in their own lives by living at a subsistence level and on the margins of the market economy. The people who migrated to Maryland directed the bulk of their labor to the market economy. They did not tend, even during the depression between 1638 and 1645, to subsistence production, which would have lessened their labor. As John McCusker and Russell Menard put it, the planters responded "creatively" to the periodic depressions. Instead of "retreating into subsistence and riding out the storm," they improved productivity and sharply increased output per worker in the middle decades of the seventeenth century. Tighter and more-careful packaging led to permanent savings in shipping costs.[427] They also experimented with new exports like grain, meat, and wood products.[428]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 102]

            A further observation needs to be made about the work-lives of indentured servants. Once their indentures were served, most continued to labor in tobacco and eventually became owner-operators. They did not return to England or become subsistence farmers, which would have minimized their work. However, for a considerable number, during the period of their indenture, there is evidence that they did not have a high regard for labor. Many unilaterally ended or modified their indenture contracts by running off to live in nearby Indian villages or in Virginia, New York, Delaware, New England, or back to England, or by resorting to other forms of resistance, such as laziness, feigned sickness, theft, refusal to work, breaking and losing tools, mistreating and maiming animals, fighting, arson, alcohol abuse, murder, vexatious lawsuits, and suicide.[429] For example, the Catholic Thomas Allen in 1648 seems to have abused two Irish indentured servants, Nick and Mark. Allen made a will in April 1648 stating that if he died unexpectedly to suspect the pair. Later that year Allen's body washed up on shore at Point Look Out with three holes under the right shoulder and a broken skull.[430] Abbott Smith in his study of Maryland servants, refers to them as "at best irresponsible, lazy, and ungoverned, and at worse frankly criminal in character."[431] Russell Menard comments that servants were "unruly and difficult to discipline."[432] Eugene McCormac writes that running away was characteristic of servitude and that it cut into profits:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 103]

One of the most noticeable features of indentured servants, and one which greatly impeded the successful operation of the institution, was the large number of runaways. There is abundant evidence that large numbers of servants deserted the service of their masters.[433]

            Servants in the other English colonies and in England also showed negative views about labor and their masters. At St. Kitts and Nevis, they betrayed their masters to Spanish fleets; those in Barbados staged an island-wide rebellion.[434] Timothy Nourse wrote of the "pride" held by the servants whom he encountered:

There is not a more insolent and proud, a more intractable, perfidious, and a more churlish sort of people breathing, than the generality of our servants.[435]

Richard Dunn and Warren Billings remark on the tendency among indentured servants and slaves in Virginia to be lazy and rebellious. In Dunn's view, the laboring people were not so much opposed to labor as they were against not receiving the fruit of their labor, "They worked unwillingly because they could see no personal gain in their work."[436] Timothy Breen argues that the militancy of the Tidewater planters at the time of the American Revolution was related to their fear of losing personal autonomy because of debt to London creditors.[437] The eighteenth-century planters did not want to be slaves to London merchants and probably their seventeenth-century ancestors did not want to be slaves to the local landlords. The eighteenth-century planters, as Breen points out, had a belief in labor. Idleness was seen as a vice. They had a sense of power and responsibility. They would rush out of bed when it rained at transplanting time and would stay up late at night in the fall involved in stripping, stemming, and packing.[438]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 104]

            Although many Catholic indentured servants hated indentured labor, most of them, based on their post-indenture work-lives, held positive views toward labor when it was freely performed. The militancy against labor by some of them during their period of indenture, as Dunn and Breen suggest, had more to do with not receiving the fruit of their labor than with not liking labor. The tendency among indentured servants to resist exploitation can be seen as testimony to their belief in the labor theory of value. Instead of being an argument that servants had a low regard for labor, servant militancy against their masters can be seen as an argument for the value which they placed on their labors. It was in part because laboring people knew their value and resisted exploitation that the French in establishing settlements in Canada had the home government at times pay the passage and subsidize laboring people in their farming.[439] In eighteenth-century South Carolina, the provincial government also paid the passage for immigrants and subsidized their farming.[440]

            It is in the context of laboring people having a high regard for the value of their labor that the leveling of most Maryland landlords in 1645 and 1646 should perhaps be regarded. The leveling followed the overthrow of the proprietor, which was led by the London ship captain Richard Ingle and his crew. Some Maryland working people, including Catholics, took a hand in the overthrow. They overthrew the absentee proprietor's governor and secretary because of his pro-royalist policies. But the six landlords that were leveled at the same time had generally been united with the ordinary planters in opposing the proprietor. The landlords included both Catholics and Protestants and their own tenants and servants, who were about 20 percent of the population, were the main local levelers. The owner-operators were not generally disturbed. Economics, including ideas about labor, not politics, seems to have been one of the reasons the local tenants and servants took part in the leveling. In England landlords, regardless of their religious or political beliefs, were similarly being leveled by tenants and servants seeking agrarian reform.[441]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 105]

            The leveling's political background will be discussed in the next chapter. The interest in this chapter is the relation of the leveling to beliefs about labor. The Maryland levelers, like the levelers in England, did not wish to abolish property rights but rather to distribute property more in their own direction, that is in the direction of those whose work had produced it. The English levelers complained that they were "levelers, falsely so called."[442] One pamphlet stated, "We profess we never had it in our thoughts to level men's estates, it being the utmost of our aim that the commonwealth be reduced to such a pass that every man may with as much security as may be enjoy his property."[443] Morton points out that at the time laboring people saw the small property of the small man menaced "not by the poor but by the rich--by monopolists, greedy entrepreneurs, and enclosing landlords." It was against these that security was needed. The levelers represented and appealed in the main to the small and medium producers.

            Some scholars maintain that the levelers also did not wish to abolish social hierarchy. However, leveler support for eliminating the peerage and episcopacy, two pillars of hierarchy, argues against this. The labor theory of value and the doctrine of antinomianism that were part of leveler thought also argue against a desire on their part to retain a landlord hierarchy based on birth and unearned wealth. Even among the gentry there were those who wished to reduce the hierarchy. An example was the Catholic Kenelm Digby, who served as an unofficial ambassador to France for Cromwell. R. T. Petersson describes Digby's "horizontal" views, "He was a believer in the idea of progress then sweeping across Europe, the new, disorganizing horizontal force that was gradually weakening and replacing the order of things called the `great chain of being.'"[444]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 106]

            The role which ideas about labor played in the justifications for leveling in England was illustrated earlier. It will be recalled that Catholic pamphleteers called it a virtue for working people to rise up against the yoke of their "idle, vicious, and unworthy" masters and become masters of their own goods and labor.[445] The Catholic-educated William Petty viewed landlords as parasitical and tenants as productive, "Labor is the father and active principle of wealth."[446] He advised the establishment of a tax system that would transfer wealth "from the landlord and lazy, to the crafts and industrious."[447] From the antinomian perspective, as set forth in the leveler tracts, agrarian reforms against the landlords, including the liberation of indentured servants and tenants from exploitative conditions, brought the kingdom of God to earth.[448]

            The Maryland levelers apparently thought the landlords were in possession of more than they deserved, that is, more than their "wages of superintendence" had produced. Aron Gurevich remarks, "In a class society, the commandment `Thou shalt not steal' protected property in a way that was much in the interests of the `haves'."[449] But in a society dominated by the labor, the commandment about theft became the justification for laboring people to repossess the wealth they had created. Catholic tenants like William Lewis, Henry Hooper, and Robert Percy stopped paying the three barrels of corn in annual rent on their 21 year leases.[450] Indentured servants like the Catholic Elena Stephenson ran off or became squatters on the land they had been working for their masters.[451] Both indentured servants and tenants divided up the landlords' cattle, tools, grain, and household goods for their own use.[452]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 107]

            Scholars like Lois Green Carr, Russell Menard, Lorena Walsh, and David Jorden find that servants generally had an opportunity to move up and have remarked that the relatively small number of levelers and the extent of their leveling should be kept in perspective.[453] Stephen Crow in discussing the leveling, mentions that "placed besides the Levelers, Diggers, and Fifth Monarchy Men, the colonists were a conservative lot, indeed."[454] However, the differences between Maryland and English leveling was probably not about belief in the value of labor. Levelers both in England and Maryland, as indicated by their conduct, held there was nothing sacred about landlordism and the ability of a small class of people to accumulate wealth produced by others. To the extent the Maryland leveling can be called "conservative," it was probably because there was less to level in Maryland than in England. A majority of the working people in Maryland had already achieved and were in the process of achieving much of the Digger program by 1645: taxes were small and non-existent on food and other necessities, and the colony had an annual parliament, a wide franchise, equal constituencies, no tithes or bishops, a simplified legal system, no imprisonment for debt, and no enclosures.[455] The Maryland levelers were small in numbers, just as in England, but their beliefs about labor were widely shared. Keeping the levelers in perspective does not mean ignoring them, as they give evidence about the way labor was viewed in Maryland. Morton remarks about the English levelers:

A party that held the center of the stage for three of the most crucial years in our nation's history, voiced the aspiration of the unprivileged masses, and was able to express with such force ideas that have been behind every great social advance since their time, cannot be regarded as wholly a failure or deserve to be wholly forgotten.[456]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 108]

            A second source in addition to work-lives, militant or otherwise, for evidence that the Catholics had positive beliefs concerning labor is the assembly and judicial records. There are two themes in the records that seem to make a statement about the value of labor. These are first, the honor and rights which were given working people and second, their pride in and lack of shame for being working people.

            Concerning the first theme, one way the records show working people were held in honor relates to terms of honor such as "gentleman." In England such terms of honor were not customarily used for manual laborers. But it was noted earlier that there were English Catholics, as reflected in their pamphlet literature, who turned the customary use of such terms on their head and used scripture to support their thinking. The assembly records suggest the terms were likewise turned on their head by Maryland Catholics. The term "gentleman" was often used to honor the hardest working and most successful manual laborers. At least eight Catholics who started out as indentured servants and became owner-operators or artisans were referred to as gentlemen. They did not have great wealth or substantial amounts of land. This indicates manual workers were honored.[457] Every owner-operator was a manual laborer, complete with calloused hands and hardened thumbnails, for whom hoeing hills and pinching suckers was a way of life. Being a Maryland gentleman, as Lois Green Carr, Russell Menard, and Lorena Walsh point out about the Catholic Robert Cole during the 1650s, did not mean quitting manual labor; rather manual labor was for most Catholics an indispensable part of being a gentleman.[458] Cole called himself a yeoman, meaning a field worker, and a gentleman.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 109]

            The records show working people were given honor and also at least three different types of rights. In England the franchise was limited to about a third of the adult male population: the gentry, the 40 shillings freeholders, and the merchants.[459] Property qualifications kept working people from holding office. In Maryland all freemen, not merely freeholders, both European and African, including artisans with no land, tenants, and share croppers voted and served as assembly delegates, jury members, and holders of public office such as sheriff.[460] Mathias de Sousa, a mulatto who migrated in 1633 from Portugal, was a member of the March 23, 1642 assembly.[461] The 1638, 1642, and 1648 assemblies were run as town and parish meetings, which, if like in England and New England, would have included women.[462] Edward Papenfuse lists Margaret Brent as an official member of the tenth assembly.[463] As a lawyer she was politically influential throughout the period. In England birth and inheritance were often honored by political privileges. In Maryland, labor was sometimes honored by such privileges.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 110]

            Besides the franchise a second political right enjoyed by working people, including indentured servants and women, was the right to contract and to litigate in the provincial court.[464] Indentured servants, including the Catholics John Askins, Henry Adams, John Harrington, and James Langworth, brought suits against their masters, summoned witnesses, and demanded jury trials, which they sometimes won.[465] Susan Frizell ran away from her master because of harsh usage. The provincial court freed her from servitude on condition she pay her master 500 pounds of tobacco to reimburse his cost.[466] Russell Menard comments that "the provincial courts seem to have taken seriously its obligation to enforce the terms of indentures and protect servants' rights."[467] Being a laborer with valued skills at times could save one from the full rigors of the law. John Dandy was an illiterate Catholic blacksmith. In 1644 he was sentenced by the provincial court to death for shooting to death an Indian boy named Edward in the stomach. Because Dandy was one of the few people in the province that knew how to make gun locks and other necessities, however, he was pardoned, on condition he become a servant for seven years and serve as the public executioner. However in 1657 Dandy killed his lame servant, Henry Gough by breaking his head with the pole of an ax. This time Dandy was sentenced to be hung by 24 jurors. Despite his skill as an arms manufacturer, the sentence was carried out.[468]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 111]

            In addition to franchise and judicial rights, a third group of rights that reflected the value in which labor was held were possessed specifically by indentured servants. In some assemblies starting in 1638, a large number of the voters and assembly delegates were former indentured servants. The legislation of servant rights may have reflected in part the value which the former servants placed on protecting indentured servants.[469] If such was the motivation, then it was different from that which motivated Parliament in making concessions to laboring people. As described by Clive Holmes, Christopher Hill, and Roger Manning, the English gentry in Parliament made concessions not because it was in their interest but because they feared revolution. Hill comments about the parliamentary cliques having to come into the open in 1642 to head movements which "threatened to turn. . . against the gentry as a whole if those who were able to give a lead failed to do so." "`I am their leader, I must follow them.' To say that by these means `incipient social tension was quickly brought under control' is to ignore the history of the next decade in which `the leaders' badly lost control."[470]

            One right specifically for indentured servants began with the second assembly in 1638. It limited the period of service time for which a landlord could contract.[471] If servants came at age twenty or above, four years was the limit. Another right granted servants freedom from labor on Sunday and perhaps on about forty holydays.[472] Saturday afternoons and Sundays were the days indentured servants customarily tended to their own crops, as well as to hunting, fowling, fishing, and spiritual and social needs. A third right made them full members of the militia, including having their own arms provided and periodic drilling instructions.[473]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 112]

            The institutionalized denial of labor's rights through the enslavement of Africans and Indians existed in the 1650s in a few instances but was a minor part of the economy.[474] There were several proposed acts in 1639 dealing with slaves, but they were not enacted.[475] In 1649 capital punishment was provided by the assembly for anyone attempting to enslave Indians.[476]

            Besides honoring and giving rights to laboring people, the records seem to make a statement about the value of labor in a second way. In some of the Catholic gentry's literature in England, labor was viewed as a base activity about which one should be ashamed. However, this was not a view shared by all English Catholics. In the Maryland assembly and court records, one finds no indication that Catholics viewed their labor with shame.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 113]

            For example, the assembly of 1649, a majority of whose members with known religion were Catholic, was unwilling to enact a code of laws that the proprietor had sent over. They justified themselves not by detailing their objections to the code, but by saying they were ordinary laboring people who had to be at work in their fields. They did not have time to develop an elaborate criticism of his code. "Most of us," they wrote, "are forced upon necessary employment in a crop at this time of year, most of us having no other means of subsistence."[477] Had the assembly representatives been embarrassed about their labor and their having "no other means of subsistence," they probably would not have publicized it in a public document which they collectively sent to the proprietor. They could have found a more "honorable" objection to the code.

            Another illustration in the records of a seeming absence of shame about being planters occurred the following year. The transplanting of tobacco from seed beds to prepared hills in other fields took place in moist weather in June. A court day broke up on June 25, 1650 in St. Mary's, when "upon the earnest motion of the inhabitants to be discharged, it being very like to be plantable weather."[478] Enthusiasm not to let judicial matters interfere with their crops was a natural reaction of planters who valued their work. There was no shame associated with it.

            Rather than shame, one sometimes sees pride. It was noted that in the English pamphlet literature, some of the Catholics manifested a pride in labor. This can also be seen in the Maryland pamphlet literature. The anonymous author of the pamphlet, Complaint from Heaven with a Hue and Cry (1676), looking back to the Civil War period, told with pride of how indentured servants had been able by "hard labor" to advance themselves:

We confess a great many of us came in servants to others, but we adventured our lives for it, and got our poor living with hard labor out of the ground in a terrible wilderness, and soon have advanced ourselves much thereby.[479]

In 1649 the Catholic laborer Nicholas Keiting described his period of service with apparent pride as "truly accomplished."[480]

            It has been seen that most Catholics, whether they arrived as indentured or free, were manual laborers. They manifested a belief in the value of labor by their work-lives. Their assembly and judicial records also reflected such beliefs. Mention also needs to be made, however, about the labor beliefs of two other groups of Maryland Catholics who did not spend most of their time hoeing tobacco: the artisans and professionals on the one hand and the landlords on the other. Both these groups, it is argued, had a positive view of labor, although some contrary views were held by the landlords.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 114]

            About one quarter of the Catholics in the "Career Files" never owned land at all. They worked as artisans, innkeepers, professionals, and merchants. Among the Catholic artisans were carpenters, blacksmiths, millers, tailors, and surgeons.[481] Catholic women artisans and professionals included Elizabeth Willan and the Irish-born Audrey Daly, who were tailors.[482] Several Irish Catholic women worked as maid servants for the Protestant merchant Robert Slye and the Catholic planter Thomas Gerard in the 1650s.[483] During the 1650s the Maryland assembly authorized a Catholic woman to run a public ferry, since her cottage was near the crossing.[484] The Catholic Katherine Hebden worked as one of the province's two or three physicians during the 1640s and 1650s. That she had an extensive practice can be seen by the numerous suits which she had to file for her fees. These included suits against the government to pay for doctoring injured militia members.[485] Margaret Brent was an attorney.[486] Among her clients were both Catholics and Protestants. The diligence of the work-life and views about labor among artisans and professionals do not seem to have differed from those of the owner-operators.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 115]

            The third part of this chapter examines the labor beliefs of the Maryland landlords. With the exception of a few professionals, about 95 percent of the Catholics, like the Protestants, supported themselves by manual labor. This needs to be emphasized because it has sometimes been held, even as recently as 1984 in the authoritative Maryland Historical Magazine, that Catholics were not laboring people, but gentry.[487] Some Catholics were gentry in the eighteenth century, but by English standards there were no gentry in the Civil War period. Starting more than 40 years ago, Wesley Craven and many since him have pointed out that it was not the gentry but owner-operators who dominated seventeenth-century tobacco production.[488] But since Craven and those after him have not specifically studied the Catholics, the belief has persisted that Catholics were an exception, the one group of gentry landlords that migrated to Maryland.

            One of several factors which has misled writers about the nature of Maryland Catholicism was that the gentry institution of "manor lord" was transported to the province.[489] But this was merely a marketing device created by the proprietor in his unsuccessful effort to interest people with wealth to migrate to Maryland.[490] Maryland's manor lords were not gentry, but mainly laboring people like Nicholas Harvey and Richard Gardiner (1616-1651). Neither could spell their names. They lived in one- and two-room cottages, of wattle and daub, with thatched roofs, dirt floors, and clay-covered log chimneys.[491]

            The Catholic landlords have sometimes been over-emphasized. But this is not to deny that they existed or that some of them did not have negative or ambivalent views of labor. As indicated in Table 2-4, five percent of the population in the early 1640s, that is six Catholics and six Protestants were landlords, composing the closest thing Maryland had to a gentry class.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 116]

Table 2-4:
Property Distribution in St. Mary's Co., 1642[492]

Freemen & Freewomen
Tenants, sharecroppers (includes mates)	87
Inmate sharecropper and wage laborers	35
Freeholders	30
Non-planting specialist (professional, artisan and laborer)	12
Manorial Lords major investors                                     minor investors	6 3
Subtotal	173
Indentured Servants	100
Slaves	0
Total	273

The six Catholic landlords or at least those who made relatively large investments and had large landholdings during some part of the Civil War period were Giles Brent, Leonard Calvert, Thomas Cornwallis, Thomas Copley, S.J., Thomas Gerard, and John Lewger.[493]

            There would have been more landlords, but those with the most negative views about labor seem to have returned to England soon after arriving in Maryland in the 1630s. They had come to make a quick fortune through land speculation and the exploitation of indentured labor. But they found that only labor awaited them. In 1635 one of them voiced the low regard which perhaps most of them felt about laboring people: "They [the Maryland population] are for the most part the scum of the people taken up promiscuously as vagrants and runaways from their English masters, debauched, idle, lazy squanderers, jailbirds, and the like."[494]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 117]

            An illustration of the negative views about labor from among those who chose to remain in Maryland was articulated by the clergy in 1633. As might be expected, it had a theological twist and was similar to some of the English gentry pamphlet literature, "Enthusiastic souls and noble minds think of nothing but divine things, and consider nothing but heavenly things."[495] Andrew White, S.J. did not think labor was part of the heavenly order. At one point the clergy complained that the economic downturn might force them "to become planters ourselves," as if that was an evil.[496] The clergy had been trained in Spain and Portugal where domestic African slavery and the negative views of labor which went with it were common.[497] Having an African as a domestic slave was a fashionable item in seventeenth-century Portugal and ten percent of Lisbon's population in the 1600s were slaves. The Jesuits were the largest institutional owner of slaves in Brazil.[498] The Maryland clergy transported Mathias de Sousa, who was of African origins in 1633 from Portugal.[499] Between 1580 and 1640 the Spanish crown ruled the Portuguese empire. As early as 1444 the Portuguese Bishop of Algarve, like many landlords of the period, had invested in slave buying expeditions to Guinea. In 1537 Pope Paul III authorized a slave market at Lisbon at which 12,000 Africans were sold yearly for transportation to the West Indies. Each slave that passed through Sâo Tomé, a central Portuguese port for Angola and the Congo, was branded with a cross.[500] Between 1516 and the 1620s, the crown commonly sold licenses to Portuguese convents, monasteries, and religious orders to import slaves. By 1620 Spain and Portugal had 250,000 African slaves.[501]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 118]

            Despite what ever negative sentiments they may have had, the landlords who ended up staying in Maryland, including the clergy, were or became less negative about labor. Several of the clergy even became full-time or part-time farm managers, which would indicate the value which they came to attach to such work.[502] Another of the clergy worked as a school teacher.[503] It was not unusual for them to be on the side of the planters in their confrontations with the proprietor. Andrew White, S.J., for example, taking the point of view of labor, criticized the proprietor for living like a prince in splendor when he should be considering "the poverty and paucity of the planters."[504]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 119]

            It might be thought that because they owned most of the indentured servants and land, the landlords could afford to be idle and indulge a contempt for labor. But just the opposite was the case. Prior to and during the Civil War, being a Maryland landlord was a losing business for even the best managers. A depression in tobacco prices occurred from 1636 to 1645, followed by a political revolution that included an economic leveling of many landlords. Indentured servants during the depression cost more to maintain than the value they produced in cash crops.[505] By 1642 the number of indentured servants had dropped to between 13 and 37 percent of the total population, depending on how one calculates it.[506] Few indentured servants were brought in after 1638 because it was unprofitable, and the indentures of those brought in prior to 1638 were running out. The landlords were reduced to asking their former servants to stay on to work for full shares of the tobacco and corn crops. In return, the tenants would help with the other chores.

            In addition to indentured servants, land was also a liability to the landlords during the depression because the proprietor collected an annual tax, based on the number of acres, which became substantial on large holdings. This was despite much of the land not being in productive use. For example, Thomas Greene, although he was not a large investor, had been induced to migrate in the first ship of settlers in return for a 10,000 acre grant. According to his calculations, the ten barrels of corn valued at between £15 and £30 he paid yearly in quit rent to the proprietor was worth more than the value of the tract.[507] In 1639 he was contemplating deserting the province because he had only three servants to help him. Even these would shortly be free.[508]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 120]

            The clergy were articulate in recording the double liability concerning servants and land to which the depression exposed landlords. Thomas Copley, S.J., summarized the problem in a 1638 letter:

A payment of one barrel of corn for every one hundred acres of ground yearly is perhaps not very heavy to one who getting a mate and laboring faithfully himself, and taking but one hundred acres, will have no great difficulty to pay it, but to a gentleman, who has a company of headstrong servants who in the beginning especially shall scarcely maintain themselves, this burden will come heavy.[509]

            The Maryland landlords who actually stayed in Maryland were all "improvers," either by desire or necessity.[510] According to Ronald Meek, such landlords believed their income came from their own labor and knowledge, the "wages of superintendence" as it was called.[511] In his study of Virginia, Martin Quitt finds the landlords there had a positive view of labor not unlike that of their counterparts in Maryland. There was no "counter ideology as in England that denigrated" labor. Quitt remarks:

If the ideal gentleman in England was a rentier whose income let him devote himself to a life of cultivated leisure, there is no evidence to suggest that this concept weighed much in the cultural baggage of immigrant leaders. Historians often have noted how the exigencies of tobacco culture and merchandising left little time for leisured pursuits even for the wealthiest planters. . . Theirs was not the ethic of the English country house or the London court, where refined idleness was considered a gentlemanly virtue. Their values were akin to the city of London.[512]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 121]

            Typical of the Catholic landlord improvers was Thomas Cornwallis. His £1,000 investment was not great by English standards, but in Maryland that made him, along with the clergy, Maryland's largest landlord. In contrast to the Maryland landlords, who at best netted less than £100 per year, the rental income for the lowest rank of English gentry, the gentlemen, averaged £280.[513] Cornwallis owned 100 cattle and oversaw the production of 100,000 pounds of tobacco per year. He transported 71 indentured servants, was a licensed Indian trader, and owned 16,000 acres.[514] Cornwallis worked hard supervising wage laborers and indentured servants, building and managing an unprofitable grain mill, buying and selling commodities and supplies, not only on his own account but as the agent of many of the small planters, and contracting, collecting, and paying debts.[515] He wrote in 1638 that "I have to my no little prejudice employed myself and servants in public service. . . I love to be the manager of my own affairs."[516] Despite his labor he was barely able to "keep from sinking."[517] He stated he was lucky to make £60 per year.[518] He sold out at the end of the Civil War period for £1,200, little more than what he had started with and returned to England.[519]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 122]

            In addition to the depression, the landlords who stayed were unable to live idle lives despite their investment because of the constant tendency of their servants to run off and otherwise minimize the landlord's profits. The largest example of this, the 1645-1646 leveling, has been noted. Landlords lost their livestock, household furnishings, and crops. Thomas Cornwallis alone lost 100 head of cattle, each of which was worth a full years labor to the servants and tenants who took them. Years later Cornwallis and the other landlords were still trying to reclaim their cattle from those who had changed the markings on them.[520] It was because of the depression and the servant revolt that very few indentured servants were owned during the Civil War era. None of the twenty-three documented Catholics who died during the period, including at least one who was a landlord, had any record of having owned an indentured servant at the time of their death.[521] Some of the landlords probably had a low regard for labor, but by necessity they spent their lives contributing to the productive process.

The English Gentry's Beliefs About Labor

            The fourth and last part of the chapter compares the thinking of the Maryland Catholics with the beliefs about labor of at least one type of frequently publishing English Catholic gentry. The beliefs of these non-improvers are sometimes referred to as "bastard feudalism," that is, a revival of ideas that were never widely believed in the feudal period except by landlords and were glorified in the seventeenth century mainly by the gentry. How these gentry disseminated their beliefs will be taken up later. This study is not about the gentry, but it is useful to outline their thinking to show what the Catholics did not find useful in Maryland. It was mentioned in the discussion of the Maryland leveling that the Catholics did not think the landlord order was especially sacred. By looking at the gentry's thinking, it can be seen that it was not a random event that the working people arrived at their views. The gentry had a system of beliefs designed to make themselves and everyone else believe in the sacred nature of unearned wealth.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 123]

            In the pamphlets which many Catholic gentry wrote or purchased for themselves, wealth was said to come from God, a windfall.[522] It did not come from laboring people. The Catholic landlord Thomas Meynell of North Kilvington in Yorkshire gave thanks in his commonplace book because God had always maintained him in gentry status:

God's providence did very much increase our estate. . . I poor wretch beseech his blessed mother to thank this majesty in my behalf to uphold our name, family, and armory: so he always furnished with means to maintain our gentry--my worthy mother brought lands and worship to this house from whom I derived and had five cote armours.[523]

Wealth was also said to be a reward to the gentry for being morally superior to laboring people, "Our ancestors who raised their titles upon noble actions were men of heaven."[524] Landlords were "types of the heavenly lord," the "image and splendor of the lord's divinity."[525]

            To reach an alternative position, it is argued here, Catholic laboring people had equally strong beliefs. The contrast between the non-improving gentry and working people's beliefs points up both the uniqueness and the antinomian character of the Maryland Catholic thinking. Catholic thinking was not derivative from or respectful of the gentry's thinking. In taking up the views of the gentry, it is appropriate to recall that one of the arguments in this study is that anti-Catholic persecution was not significant in the lives of most Catholics. There was persecution, but it was mostly economic, and it was waged by Catholic and Protestant landlords against the Catholic and Protestant tenantry. The vehicles of persecution were economic institutions, the law, education, and theology. The teaching of contempt for labor and laboring people that was reflected in gentry theology was part of the persecution.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 124]

            The gentry's beliefs about labor not only contrasted with but were an assault on the beliefs of working people. In some instances the contempt was blatant, as when landlords and their clergy ridiculed tenants as "base-born and lowly," called labor a vile activity, refused basic ecclesiastical services to them, and advised gentry sons and daughters against marrying them. The contempt, however, was probably mainly embodied in doctrines that sought to divert laboring people from their political rights and economic justice. These doctrines taught that God had a special regard for the rich. This included the idea that God had established the landlord system, that it was a virtue for a small number of landlords to monopolize the land and draw away much of the annual wealth produced by the tenantry, and the idea that disobedience or rebellion against the established order was sinful.

            To appreciate the significance of the gentry's beliefs about labor, it is useful to outline the economic context of their beliefs. In 1641 about 4.5 million acres or 15 to 20 percent of England's 25 million cultivated acres was monopolized by 200 families. These were mainly peers, that is dukes, marquises, earls, viscounts, and barons.[526] The peerage was established by law as a separate order and their yearly rental income as a group amounted to £600,000 or about 5s to 8s per acre. Fifteen percent (20 out of 125) of the peers were Catholics.[527] In addition to the peerage, about 50 percent of the land was owned by less than 20,000 gentry or one percent of England's 5 million population.[528] Several thousand of these were Catholics.[529] They took in the form of rent and the surplus value created by wage labor about one-third of the annual wealth produced by tenants and labor.[530] The non-peerage landholding families were what one contemporary called "lower class nobility."[531] Peter Laslett remarks that "the peerage in England was for all purposes at one with the gentry as a whole," rather than "a class apart."[532]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 125]

            The Catholic gentry were less than 5 percent of the estimated 60,000 recusant Catholic population.[533] They received the housing, nutritional, educational, and political benefits which land ownership brought. Many of the Catholic gentry who partially conformed to the established church attended Oxford, Cambridge, and the inns of court, and they were elected to the House of Commons.[534] They also did service in lesser offices, such as sheriff, constable, and justice of the peace.[535] They had a share in leases of crown (national) resources, in the sale of political offices, and in the royally granted manufacturing and trading monopolies.[536]

            The gentry-subsidized Catholic books, sermons, schools, and priests taught that God intended landlords and the wealthy to live off the labor of and dominate over the majority.[537] This was the same doctrine held dear by Protestant landlords.[538] One Catholic writer, said by bibliographer Joseph Gillow to have been "for many years in great favor, especially among Catholics," summarized the gentry's glorification of their idleness:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 126]

O you noble men, God uses you as Adam in terrestrial paradise, he suffereth you to eat the corn at ease, which others have sowed, and the wine which others pressed; he causes your meat to come to your table, as if it were borne by certain invisible engines; he holds the elements, creatures, and men in breath, to supply your necessities.[539]

            The gentry to a greater or lesser degree commonly believed God had constituted their blood a separate, non-laboring race, distinct from and better than ordinary people. This idea of a separate race paralleled the type of racial beliefs based on national origins and color which resulted in those of African and semitic origin not being allowed at the time to attend various Catholic colleges, enter some religious orders, or gain church offices.[540] The blood which flowed in the gentry's veins was said to be the source of their supposed beauty, impetuosity, leadership, and martial qualities. One had to have noble blood in order to ride and control a horse well. The following illustrates typical racial beliefs:

Great men have many more talents from God, for the traffic of virtues than others have. The bodies of nobles and gentlemen are ordinarily better composed, and as it were more delicately molded by the artful hands of nature. They have their senses more subtle, their spirits more agile, their members better proportioned, their garb more gentle and grace more accomplished, and all these prepare a safe shop for the soul to exercise her functions with greater liberty.[541]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 127]

            The history of these beliefs about the racial superiority of the gentry went back at least to the slave system of classical antiquity in which people of different race, language, and religion were attacked.[542] The Greek and Roman slavocracy taught that certain people were by nature destined to be slaves. As set forth in Aristotle and Cicero these people, along with women, were justifiably subordinated because by nature the landlord class was superior in reasoning ability.[543] The early Christian and ancient classical writers found in the libraries of and cited by seventeenth-century landlords as authorities were themselves landlords and their dependents.[544] These included the fifth-century Macrobius in Saturnalia, Pseudo-Dionysius in The Celestial Hierarchy, Augustine in The City of God, and the sixth-century Gregory the Great (Pope Gregory I) in The Pastoral Care.[545] Augustine was typical in using the argument of the superior nature of the slave-owning class to justify slavery, "The justice of masters dominating slaves is clear, because those who excel in reason should excel in power."[546]

            Probably the leading authority on the superiority of the gentry and on issues relating to labor and frequently cited in the writings of gentry like George Calvert, the proprietor's father, was Thomas Aquinas.[547] Aquinas was from a gentry family.[548] The Council of Trent (1545-1564) had sparked a revival of interest in him and his popularization of Aristotle's conservative views of society.[549] Aquinas was probably more authoritative with the seventeenth-century gentry than he had been in his own time. One can see in the notebooks kept by Catholic students on the continent, which found their way into the libraries at Cambridge and Oxford, the influence of Aquinas. Margo Todd remarks concerning these commonplace books:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 128]

Extant notebooks of English Catholic students at Cagliari (in Sardinia), Rome and Salamanca consist either of unadulterated Thomistic commentary on the Latin text of Aristotle, or of the combined comments of the medieval schoolmen and such contemporary figures as Cajetan, Tolleta, Desoto, Medina, Molina, Suarez, Becanus, and Vasquez.[550]

            One does not find in Aquinas a justification for the agrarian reform and slavery abolition doctrines that had been sought by working people beginning at least with the ancient Romans. Instead it was said that landlords collected the rent as "God's elected stewards of His goods."[551] Heaven was the ideal that should be imitated on earth, a place both of contemplation (mental prayer, the "beatific vision") and of military orders of angels, but not of productive labor.[552] The further from the material, the closer to God. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., a widely read Thomistic theologian of the period, commented:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 129]

Things are so much the more noble, and eminent, by how much the more pure, and more abstracted from matter. This we see first in corporeal things: for water is superior to earth in nature, because purer. On the same account, air is superior to water, fire to air, and heaven to fire. We see the same thing in spiritual things. For the understanding is superior to sense, because sense has a bodily organ, which the understanding needs not. The understanding of an angel is superior to that of man, because man needs the ministry of imagination and fancy, which an angel does not. Among angels, those are of a superior rank, who understand most things by the general species. God, only is a pure act, and stands in need of nothing without himself, neither organ, imagination, nor species. No, not the presence of any object without himself, but his essence itself is all things to him. . . On these accounts I say the divine nature is most high and sublime, and God can by no means have an equal.[553]

            In the pamphlets written and translated by many seventeenth-century gentry, both Catholic and Protestant, the heavenly order was held to resemble the Platonic ideal-changeless and motionless.[554] This was the point of the Catholic royalist army officer, Vivian Molyneux, in his translation of A Treatise of the Differences between the Temporal and Eternal.[555] Prayer and religious practices, and even public service, meaning ruling and soldiering, were compatible with the Platonic ideal, but not manual labor. God himself and the angels were warriors who combined contemplation and war. Catholic gentry like Garrat Barry lived the tradition of the monk-knights and militarized prayer. They praised themselves for "their excellence of war-like virtue," or what one of their critics called "heroic laziness."[556] Some 8,000 English Catholic troops, half in the Scottish regiment under the Scotch Catholic Archibald Campbell, 7th Earl of Argyle, served in the Spanish army in the 1620s and 1630s against the Dutch during the Republic of the Seven United Provinces's war for independence. The conflict started in 1581 and lasted until 1648._ The Catholic gentleman Richard Gerard came to Maryland from Lancashire in 1634 but left within six months to follow the "honorable" career of a soldier in the Spanish army against the Dutch. Manual labor was not honorable._

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 130]

            There were two aspects to the gentry's beliefs about labor. As has been seen, one aspect tended to glorify the gentry and their living idle off the wealth of others. The other aspect of the gentry's beliefs was that labor and laboring people were of low regard. They traced their authority for such thinking back to the Roman classics and the early Christian writers such as Pope Gregory the Great, who had taught that God made producers lowly.[557] God did this in order to punish them for being sinners. Gregory in The Pastoral Care, wrote that tenants were predetermined to evil. It was because of their propensity to sin that they had to pay rent:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 131]

Sin (culpa) subordinates some to others in accordance with the variable order of merits; this diversity, which arises from vice is established by divine judgment. Man is not intended to live in equality.[558]

In another work Gregory remarked, "Nature begets all men equal, but by reason of their varying merits, a mysterious dispensation sets some beneath others. This diversity in condition, which is due to sin, is rightly ordained by the judgment of God."[559] Gregory was from a Roman landlord family. Even as pope he resided on his family's property and owned slaves.[560]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 132]

            It might seem that Gregory did not have a negative attitude toward laboring people. What he meant was not that laboring people were sinners and landlords were sinless, but that both were sinners. Laboring people were not being punished because of the particular sins they had committed. Sin, which had destroyed the natural order, made laws and hierarchy necessary. Wealth and power were given by God only to provide charity and justice. Another argument in defense of Gregory is that poverty was considered a holy condition and the poor were thought to be better positioned for salvation than the rich.[561]

            There are several problems with these arguments, assuming that either Gregory or those who quoted him held these positions. First, whether landlords were regarded as sinners or not, Gregory and those who followed him had a negative view of labor, which was attributed to sin and its punishment. He also had a negative view of laborers, who he calls sinners. Gregory and his class lived off the labor of others. One is not surprised that he would claim God had designed it that way. A second problem concerns the idea that wealth and power were thought to have been given by God only to provide charity and justice. As will be seen in a later chapter, landlord charity and justice was a testimony to their low regard for working people. As for the argument that poverty was considered holy, that was not the emphasis that Gregory and those who quoted him put on it when discussing working people. Sin was Gregory's explanation for poverty.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 133]

            Besides Gregory, the seventeenth-century Catholic gentry such as John Abbott, Robert Wintour, and their Protestant counterparts like the Laudian Henry Hammond found in the other esteemed writers, such as Augustine, Aquinas, Isidore of Seville (560-636 AD), Pope Gregory VII (1020-1085, Hildebrand), and John of Salisbury (d. 1180), that the origin of productive labor was in the Fall, in sin, in the devil, in evil, and in biblical characters like Cain, who was ignoble to his brother and Noah's son Shem, who was a "churl" to his father.[562] The existing order was both punishment for sin and a way to occupy laboring people and keep them from further sin.[563] In Latin America and Africa among the theologies which the gentry and their clergy taught at the time was that Indians and Africans were enserfed and enslaved because of their sinfulness.[564] Augustine in City of God Against the Pagans wrote, "The prime cause of servitude is sin, which brings people under the dominion of others, which does not happen save by the judgment of God, with whom there is no unrighteousness, and who knows how to award fit punishments to every variety of offense."[565] A Catholic pamphlet commented about the Adam and Eve origins of labor and laboring people:

The world was as yet in her cradle, and man was no more than borne, when God making a place of justice of terrestrial paradise, pronounced against him the sentence of labor and pain, and afterwards wrote, you shall eat your bread with the sweat of your brow.[566]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 134]

            Just as collecting the rent, contemplation, and living "idly and without manual labor" were Godly and "spiritual" in the pamphlets of the gentry, so productivity and manual labor were contemptible. The more productive a person's trade, the lower was the person's spiritual worth. At the bottom in Aquinas's widely taught hierarchy were the most productive, the agricultural laborers (laborantium in agris), whom he called vile people (vilis populus).[567] Above them were merchants. Neither of these were honorable people (populus honorabilis). A pamphleteer in following the logic of the early writers divided creation into three types of existence: vegetable, animal, and intellectual. The existence of producers was vegetable and animal.[568] It was common for merchants and professionals whose children attended Jesuit institutions to complain about the contempt for labor which was taught their children.[569]

            The royalist contempt for labor and laboring people during the Civil War was demonstrated by their use of the term "roundhead" for their opponents. Roundhead referred to shorn, bullet-headed apprentices. Apprentices were thought to be of low worth by the gentry. For some Catholic gentry, including their clergy, the slander of working people was habitual. Illustrative were the theological writings of Robert Persons, S.J. (1546-1610). He was something of a Jesuit archetype. One of his methods of teaching was ridicule. Persons called John Mush (1551-1613) "Dr. Dodipol Mush" because Mush was not university educated but the son of a "poor, rude serving man."[570] Thomas Law comments on the regularity with which such language against laboring people appears in Person's writings:

The scorn and ridicule with which Persons seemed to regard low birth and poverty, and his habit of taunting his opponents on that score, are notable features in his method of controversy.[571]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 135]

Another illustration of the habitual contempt for laboring people was in the works of the landlord Robert Wintour. His designation of working people as "scum," has already been noted. He also referred to them negatively as "beer-swilled butter-fly [flighty] blue coat cousins, germain but once removed from a black jack."[572]

            A feature of servant behavior in Maryland as noted earlier, was resistance to the landlords, including the 1645-1646 leveling. As would be expected, the Catholic gentry had a tradition of teaching against such agrarian reform. Frequently found in their works and quoted in their writings were classical texts that reinforced the status quo, such as Aristotle's Economics, Xenephon's Economist, and Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts.[573] These writers advised landlords to govern their tenants justly, which meant "strictly and firmly." Tenants were to be kept at a subsistence level. Otherwise, it was believed, they would not work.[574] Surplus wealth belonged to the landlord. Masters were to look after their servants in sickness and old age, but they were not to be indulgent or allow themselves to be "robbed" or imposed upon.[575]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 136]

            The classical authorities that were celebrated by the gentry condemned agrarian reform and slave abolition measures. During the period of the Roman Republic between 510 and 27 B.C.E, the plebeians, that is the tenantry and small farmers, had been subjected to state laws which gave landlords nearly unlimited rights. The landlord monopoly was said to be part of the natural law.[576] The people, as they themselves complained were "nominally lords of the earth, while not possessing one lump of earth."[577] For hundreds of years they fought for and sometimes achieved agrarian reforms (lex agraria), such as those enacted under Spurius Cassius in 486 B.C.E. and during the tribuneship of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 B.C.E.[578] These aimed to redistribute land to the producers. Machiavelli, a landlord, had called the lex agraria the first cause of the destruction of the Roman Republic.[579] Pseudo-Dionysius who was said by the seventeenth-century gentry to have been a personal friend of Jesus and representative of his teaching on the subject, rebuked as contrary to the divine order Demophilus' advocacy of agrarian reform. Pseudo-Dionysius wrote in "Letter Eight":

It is not for Demophilus to correct these things. If theology exhorts us to pursue just things justly, and if the pursuit of justice is to will the distribution of what is fitting to each, it must be pursued justly by all, not contrary to the merit or rank of each; for justice is distributed even to angels according to merit, but not by us.[580]

As for abolition of the slave system, church father Tertullian (d. 230) in Apologeticus had equated with demons the Catholic slaves who sought to overthrow the system in his period.[581]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 137]

            It was not the writings and traditions of Rome's agrarian reformers and abolitionists that one learned about in gentry schools. One does not find on reading lists the Acts of the Apostles (Acts 2:42-47; 5:32), which taught communal ownership, but rather Aristotle, Livy, and Cicero, who fought reform and at best believed in personal betterment.[582] One of the lessons in Livy's Ab urbe condita, and Cicero's three consular orations, De Lege agraria contra Rullum seems to have been that the laboring people could be fooled into acting against their own interest if there was sufficient rhetoric involved, as when Cicero, speaking against agrarian reform, told them to live like the gentry on the public purse rather than disgrace themselves with productive labor.[583] The Roman and canon law, as well as Gregory the Great were used by the gentry as authorities for the view that landlord property rights were based in natural law and thus part of God's law and not susceptible to agrarian reform measures.[584]

            In place of agrarian reform, Catholic gentry theology, like that of at least some of their Protestant counterparts, offered laboring people the doctrine of obedience, not resistance, to the established order. One must suffer one's "cross and passion" in life with humility, self-denial, and meekness.[585] The chief offense was pride, as manifested by ambition for the wealth and life style of the landlord. God's will for the tenantry, said Robert Persons, S.J. was the "old simplicity, both in apparel, diet, innocency of life, and plainness of dealing and conversation."[586] Persons wanted to restore the system of feudal servitude and destroy the tenants and artisans who had bettered their economic circumstances. Thomas Clancy remarks on Persons' landlord prejudices:

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 138]

As for the commons, their economic welfare was to be made the responsibility of their feudal lords. In England there was great inequality among the members of the third estate. . . It was said some gave themselves the airs of gentlemen. This social mobility was to be stopped.[587]

            It might be thought that the typical seventeenth-century gentry had a higher regard for the productive process than indicated here. But by many accounts, it was the eighteenth century that was the age of the improving gentry and that saw a significant expansion in scientific and capitalist farming.[588] The eighteenth-century industrial revolution and the explosion in urban population supplied both the iron farm implements that helped increase crop productivity and the city populations that resulted in a demand for increased productivity.[589] Christopher Clay remarks about the lack of landlord-improvers in the seventeenth century:

It was not unusual for copyholders and life estate holders to have almost no contact with their landlord save on rent days. . . Owners of great estates spreading across several counties rarely paid much attention to the details of management. . . The age of the "improving" type of steward, bent on rationalizing estate administration and imposing greater uniformity in the interests of efficiency, was barely under way by the middle of the eighteenth century.[590]

As recorded in the their commonplace books, the seventeenth-century Catholic landlords following the classical Roman example were often more interested in improving the breed of their horses for showing, racing, or war, their dog packs for hunting, and their houses for ostentation than with maximizing cash crops.[591] One sees in commonplace books a listing of the gold and silver cups won by their horses, the names, dates, and places of each race and the name of each horse and who the other contestants were.[592] Some of the gentry's clergy engaged in similar pursuits. John Medcalf was called a "noteworthy priest" by one of his contemporaries in part because of his experience in breeding and training horses.[593] Because Catholic families such as the Cattericks, Frankes, and Lascelles put their time into these pursuits rather than into productive agriculture, they ran up debts, were forced to sell out, and disappeared from the gentry.[594]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 139]

            There is other evidence besides the testimony in their literature and diaries in support of the ideal type gentry as being at best indifferent to the productive process. For example the legal system of the period reflected the gentry's belief about labor. According to the common law definition, the gentry were those who lived "idle and without labor."[595] The common law was part of the system by which the gentry monopolized property and maintained their life style.

            In addition to the law, another type of evidence as to the gentry's beliefs about labor comes from the complaints of the the contemporary laboring people. One Catholic professional remarked, "The demeaning of work has filled our England with more vices and sacrificed more souls to sinful life, than perhaps anyone other uncivil opinion whatsoever. They [gentry] hold it better to rob by land or sea than to labor."[596] The same writer contended that the "paragon gentry" in comparing themselves with laboring people, much overrated themselves:

Aristotle held that only the Greeks were free and all the barbarians, that is, non-Greeks, were bad. Some among us seem Aristotelians in this point, who as he gloriously over-valued his countrymen, so these overvalue the paragon-gentry, and repute none more worthy of honor but themselves.[597]

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 140]

The Catholic Thomas Hawkins in taking exception to the religious practices promoted by the gentry, indicated they generally had a contempt for labor. He compared their thinking to that of the fourth-century Messalians:

One may wear a scapular, say everyday some beads or some famous prayer without restoring things ill got. These are the devotions that people love. From thence come the exterior devotion to the blessed sacrament. Since the work of hands has ceased, they have extremely praised mental prayer. Tis in what constituted the heresy of the Messalians, condemned in the fourth century. And what Catholics reproached them for the most was their contempt of labor.[598]

The Catholic dramatist Philip Massinger in mocking the gentry, remarked about those who believed that because they had "some drops of the king's blood running in their veins derived some ten degrees off," they were entitled to be a separate, non-laboring race, that squandered the nation's wealth.[599]

            The Maryland Catholics' beliefs about labor, as manifested in their work-lives, legislation, court cases, pamphlets, and leveling of landlords, were based in the labor theory of value: those who produce wealth should be its beneficiaries. St. Paul (2Th. 3:10) put it negatively: those who do not work, which in seventeenth-century terms were the gentry, should not eat. Thomas Aquinas denied the labor theory of value by claiming, "What belongs to the slave is the masters."[600] Catholic laboring people believed the reverse: the master possessed what labor had produced and what belonged to labor. The thinking of the Catholics was not derivative but often in opposition to the ideal type gentry. In this there was an antinomian character to their beliefs.

[CHAPTER TWO, 1996 ed., p. 141]

            To sum up, this chapter has looked at the Maryland Catholics' beliefs about labor that grew out of and supported their careers. In England and Maryland manual labor was the characteristic aspect of the the ideal type Catholic's life. Among the Catholics in Maryland, including even the few landlords, it has been argued that manual labor was well regarded both as a means to an end and as a way of life. This was reflected in the assembly and judicial records, in their migration to and their remaining in Maryland, in their everyday work-lives, and by their failure to recreate gentry beliefs about labor.

Map 2: Civil War Period Catholic England, Wales and Ireland

 

Map 3: Maryland-connected Europe, Africa and America in the 1640s (not to scale).

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 143]

 

 

Chapter 3

The Political Beliefs of Maryland Catholics

            This chapter takes up the political beliefs of the Maryland Catholics. It argues that their political thinking grew out of and served their needs. Their beliefs were often independent of both Parliament and the crown. This should not be surprising, having seen the similar position of the Catholic laboring people in England. Nevertheless, it has sometimes been stated, based on assumptions about the English Catholic gentry or about the Maryland proprietor, Cecil Calvert, and his governor, who were Royalists, and also based on those who made such claims at the time, that the Maryland Catholics were Royalists. For example, the authoritative Maryland Historical Magazine in 1984, on the 350th anniversary of English settlement at St. Mary's maintained that Maryland Catholics were Royalists:

The polarization between Royalists and Roundheads, between those Anglicans and Catholics who supported the king and those Presbyterians and Independents who supported Parliament, spilled over into the American colonies.[601]

            In looking at how Maryland Catholic political beliefs grew out of and served their needs, four areas will be the focus: first, their thinking about self-government, the judiciary, and taxation, and their degree of independence from the proprietor in these areas; second, their independence from the crown; third, the charge made by contemporaries that the Catholics were royalist; and fourth, the contrast in political beliefs between Maryland Catholics and the English Catholic gentry.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 144]

            It is useful to look first at the Catholics' beliefs about self-government, the judiciary, and taxation and their independence from the proprietor because he was a Royalist in the first Civil War (1642-1646), and he sought to maintain the crown's policies in Maryland. By acting independently of the crown's representative in Maryland and by at times repudiating the charter given by the crown, the Catholics in effect acted independently of the crown. It is also useful to look at Catholic independence from the proprietor in order to point up the inaccuracy of assuming either that the Catholics must have been Royalists merely because the proprietor was, or that they did not have political beliefs at all and the Civil War did not extend to Maryland.[602] Of course, because the Catholics were independent does not mean they were neutral or that they wished to abolish either the crown or proprietor.

            In looking at the Maryland Catholics' beliefs about self-government, the judiciary, and taxation, the source of information will largely be the Maryland assembly. A comment, therefore, needs to be made about Catholic influence in the assembly. It can be seen in Table 3-1 on the next page, that Catholics were a majority of those with known religion who served in the assembly in the 1630s and 1640s.

            Catholic influence was also present in the assembly committees where they held leadership positions, in the governor's council, and in other provincial offices, such as sheriff, juror, militia officer, and justice of the peace.[603] For example, in the 1638 assembly five people were elected to the legislative drafting committee, three of whom were Catholics.[604]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 145]

            The Catholics' influence in the assembly does not mean their political beliefs were significantly different from the Protestants. John Krugler remarks that the Protestants did not exert "any profound influence on the colony as Protestants."[605] The Catholics were an absolute majority in the 1639 assembly. The legislation it enacted does not seem to have notably differed from the legislation of the prior or later years. There was no "Catholic" block voting. Because the Catholics may not have been unique in the thinking which they manifested through assembly legislation does not mean the legislation did not represent their beliefs.

Table 3-1:
Religion of Maryland Assembly Members[606]

Assembly/Date	Cath	Prot	Rel Unk	Total
1st Feb. 26, 1635				(no records)
2nd 1638 (all freemen)	13	10	39	62 + 24 or more proxy
3rd 1639 (elected & writs)	10	6	2	18
4th 1640 & 1641 (elected & writs)	8	5	3	16
5th Mar.1642 (all freemen)	14	10	37	61 + 29 or more proxy
6th July-Aug.1642 (elected & writs)	12	6	2	20 + 73 or more proxy
7th Sept.1642	11	6	9	25
8th 1644 & Feb.1645				(no records)
9th 1646 & 1647	5	4	5	14
10th 1648	8/11[607]	9	3/10	30
11th1649	7/8[608]	6	3/2	25

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 146]

            The first area that will be examined deals with beliefs about self-government, including the right to establish an assembly and initiate legislation. It will be recalled that in northern England, where Catholics lived in relatively large numbers, local government was what David Allen calls "democratic" in the sense of wide participation. Representative assemblies in parishes and manors such as Sowerby Thirsk in Yorkshire were run by and for the Catholic tenants who, as indicated by their legislation, believed their authority to be superior to that of their Catholic landlord.[609]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 146]

            The Maryland assembly asserted similar rights to self-government, despite the proprietor's wishes, starting in its first recorded session, which was in 1638.[610] The proprietor had sent over a twelve law code which the assembly refused to rubber-stamp. Of the thirteen documented Catholics in the assembly, only two voted for the code: the proprietor's governor and secretary.[611] These two served under the patronage of the proprietor, not as elected officials.

            The Catholic representatives and their Protestant counterparts in 1638, in spite of the crown's charter, which gave them no right to initiate legislation, became a law unto themselves. They enacted a forty-two law code. The proprietor refused to accept it, but it became the de facto law.[612] Likewise, in most of the assemblies during the 1640s, the proprietor attempted to impose legislation or a new code, which the assembly generally voted down or ignored. In the third assembly of March 1639, the Catholics, who had an absolute majority, rejected several laws for which only the proprietor's governor and secretary voted.[613]

            In the first session of the fourth assembly in October 1640, the assembly, including its Catholics, voted down ten bills proposed by the proprietor. Usually only the governor and secretary voted for the bills.[614] Among the rejected bills were those that would have provided for the "Proprietor's Prerogatives."[615] In the second session of the fourth assembly on August 12, 1641, the assembly even refused, except for the governor and secretary, the "confirmation of his lordship's patent."[616]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 147]

            A statement of the Catholics' belief about themselves being a law unto themselves was contained in a letter which the 11th assembly sent to the proprietor in April 1649. It perhaps was inspired by and was written at about the same time that they heard that Parliament had executed Charles I: "We request your lordship hereafter to send us no more such bodies of laws which serve little other end than to fill our heads with suspicious jealousies and dislikes."[617] They also informed him that they rejected his use of the terms "absolute lord and proprietary," and "royal jurisdiction."[618]

            The Catholics' belief in the right of ordinary people to govern themselves by initiating their own legal codes included various collateral rights that had counterparts in Parliament and in the county and parish governments in England. One collateral right involved the calling of assemblies. The proprietor, like the crown, claimed the sole right to call assemblies.[619] The crown in the 1630s had ruled without Parliament simply by not calling a parliament. One of the reforms which the Long Parliament enacted on May 10, 1641 was the Triennial Act.[620] It required a parliament to meet at least every three years. The Maryland assembly in 1639 anticipated Parliament by enacting a provision that its code would lapse after three years.[621] The fifth assembly in March 1642 repeated the language of the parliamentary Triennial Act in declaring, "the house of assembly may not be adjourned or prorogued but by and with the consent of the house."[622]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 148]

            Another right collateral to initiating legislation involved restricting the interference of the proprietor's governor, secretary, and councilors in the assembly deliberations. The sixth assembly of July 1642 proposed, and the ninth assembly of 1646 and twelfth assembly of 1650 enacted, legislation that required a separate house for elected representatives.[623] This kept the governor and others who were not elected from having a vote in the lower house. The twelfth assembly added an oath of secrecy, which insulated the assembly deliberations from the proprietor.[624]

            In examining their legislative activity, it is evident there was a measure of independence from the proprietor and from the crown's charter. It is not surprising that the Catholics, 75 percent of those for whom there is enough evidence to make a determination, were literate, favored and possessed the works of Edward Coke, William Lambarde, Thomas Smith, John Selden, and others who defended legislative assemblies.[625] In their first recorded act, which was in 1638, the assembly repeated the philosophy that was common to each of these writers:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 149]

The inhabitants of the province shall have and enjoy all such rights, liberties, immunities, privileges, and free customs, within this province, as any natural born subject of England has by force and virtue of the common law or statute law of England.[626]

            In addition to acting independently from the proprietor concerning self-government, a second area of the Catholics' political beliefs that will be taken up deals with the judiciary. The proprietor's charter from the crown granted him an exclusive right to establish courts.[627] Courts established by the executive were called prerogative courts and were one of the institutions abolished in England during the Civil War reforms.[628]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 150]

            A prerogative court was apparently one of the provisions in the code of laws which the proprietor sent over for the assembly to approve in 1638. The governor and secretary from time to time throughout the period exercised or attempted to exercise a prerogative judicial power.[629] As mentioned earlier, the assembly voted down the proprietor's 1638 code and in its substitute code included a judiciary act establishing an independent provincial court, which was renewed in the third assembly of 1639 and in later assemblies.[630] The judiciary acts gave the provincial court jurisdiction in testamentary and other civil matters, as well as in criminal, ecclesiastical, maritime, and equity cases. It also provided for the incorporation of English common law and usages, including the jury system. The assembly maintained ultimate control over the judiciary by itself acting as a trial court in important cases.[631] It also maintained at least some control over the judges and sheriff because it controlled their fees.[632] The provincial court was similar to but had more jurisdiction than the quarter sessions county courts in England.

            Illustrative of the continuing independence of the assembly concerning the judiciary was the fourth assembly in October 1640. This assembly which included six Catholics, voted down a bill proposed by the proprietor for appeals of court cases.[633] But it did enact several judicial measures of its own.[634] The assembly was independent of the proprietor concerning the judiciary, and, as Stephen Crow mentions, this was done "the better to protect the colonists' interests from the proprietor."[635]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 151]

            For the most part, however, because the courts were independent does not mean that the judicial interests of the assembly and those of the proprietor were antagonistic. For example, the 1638 assembly named the proprietor's secretary as judge of probate and his governor as judge of other civil cases.[636] However, the assembly's control of the judiciary was a factor in the determination of some cases against the proprietor. In January 1645 the Catholic Giles Brent, who was then the judge, granted a judgment against the proprietor and the governor in a case involving the large sum of 100,000 pounds of tobacco or £200. The governor called this "a crime against the dignity and dominion of the right honorable the lord proprietor of this province."[637] It would appear there was no less independence from the proprietor in beliefs about the judiciary than has been seen concerning the rights of the assembly.

            The third and last area besides the self-government and the judiciary that will be examined deals with Catholic independent thinking concerning taxation. In England this was a long-standing area of contention. In the 1620s, Parliament had been adamant in refusing to enact revenue measures desired by the crown. As a result, the crown ruled without Parliament in the 1630s and levied what were widely considered to be illegal taxes.[638] Those in the court party, however, including the proprietor's father, enjoyed crown patronage. They supported the crown's economic independence.

            But among laboring Catholics there was a dislike of crown taxation independent of Parliament. For example, Catholic planters involved in the Chesapeake tobacco trade were adversely affected by a 2d crown tax on each pound of tobacco imported into England.[639] The tax raised the price in England and cut sales. The tax was large when it is considered that the planters were receiving a market price of as little as 3d per pound. After Parliament took charge of revenue collection in the 1640s and made a combination property and poll tax the main source of revenue, the port duty was reduced to 1d.[640]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 152]

            It was probably in part because he realized the crown's tax schemes were unpopular in Maryland that the proprietor did not attempt to extend the "Catholic Collection of 1639" to Maryland. The collection was a crown revenue effort to raise funds without Parliament's consent for the Northern War against the Scots. The proprietor was one of 149 Catholic gentry who  served on the national committee which took up a collection within the Catholic community. He was co-chair for the collection committee in his county of Wiltshire.[641] His failure to extend the collection to Maryland contrasted with that of his friend, Thomas Wentworth. Wentworth, as deputy lieutenant in Ireland at the time, collected a subsidy of £180,000 from the Irish for the 1639 war.[642] Just a year previously the Maryland assembly had voted the proprietor a gift of money in return for the work he was doing in developing the colony.[643] Generally the proprietor never had any reluctance to make requests.[644]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 153]

            Despite the proprietor's efforts, however, the assembly always kept for itself the decision as to when and what taxes would be collected. In Maryland, as in England, the greatest tax expenditure was for the defense budget. The assembly kept defense expenditures low by repeatedly rejecting with nearly unanimous votes the proprietor's requests in the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh assemblies that it mount a military campaign against the Susquehannock Indians who resided to the north of the province.[645] The proprietor claimed and apparently wished to enforce an exclusive right to the lucrative pelt monopoly.[646] He did not want the Susquehannock to deal with the Virginians, Dutch, and Swedes. The assembly replied to the proprietor that "military decisions are not to be left to the discretion of the governor and council."[647] When the proprietor claimed the charter gave him the power to wage war, the assembly responded by asking "to have the patent to peruse."[648]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 154]

            Another example of the assembly's financial independence from the proprietor also concerned military expenses. Several years after having been overthrown in February 1645, which will be discussed shortly, the proprietor's governor hired a band of Virginia soldiers to retake the province. The proprietor wanted the assembly to pay for the cost of the Virginia soldiers. The tenth assembly of 1648, however, decided to confiscate the personal estate of the proprietor to pay the cost.[649] There were twelve documented Catholics voting for the confiscation, along with nine Protestants and nine of unknown religion.[650] When even the proprietor's newly appointed governor, the Catholic, Thomas Greene, went along with the confiscation, he was fired.[651] The assembly refused to give the proprietor any part of the Dutch custom to pay for the recapture.[652]

            Parliament in the Grand Remonstrance of 1641 did not object to giving tax revenue to the crown but only to the crown's levying of taxes without its consent. Likewise, the assembly did not object to the proprietor collecting tax revenues. He had made a considerable investment of £10,000 or more in Maryland which benefited the planters and they appreciated it.[653] The assembly only objected to the proprietor collecting taxes which it had not approved.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 155]

            Starting in 1638 the assembly annually granted the proprietor a poll tax or part of the Dutch custom tax, which seems to have been the largest source of tax revenue in the province.[654] The assembly also established a list of fees to compensate the proprietor's officials.[655] The poll and assessment (property) taxes may have had more potential as revenue devices, but they were less frequently levied than the Dutch custom tax. The poll tax was unpopular with laboring people because it fell more heavily on them, relatively speaking, than on the gentry.[656] Wat Tyler, a tiler of Essex, had led a peasant revolt in 1381 against the poll tax, which led to its abolition for 200 years.[657] In England during 1639 and 1640 there was a general refusal to pay the poll tax, which undermined the crown's warmaking in the north.[658]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 156]

            As noted earlier, in 1642 Parliament replaced the poll tax with an assessment or property tax, which fell only on landlords. To a certain extent Maryland followed the 1642 parliamentary taxation system. Each head of household, not each poll, that is, each freeman or freewoman, was accessed by an assembly committee. This made taxes easier to collect and put a heavier burden on landlords.[659] Edgar Johnson calls Maryland's revenue scheme a poll tax but that in effect it became a property tax, because it was placed on the number of servants in a landlord's household and because it was made proportional to the amount of land a person owned.[660]

            Unlike Maryland and New England, which used the property tax, Virginia relied on the poll tax. This was because of the strength of landlords there. Of this, Edgar Johnson remarks, "The poor classes protested against a poll tax. . . As a consequence, a long struggle arose between the small and large landowners, which led to violence in Bacon's rebellion."[661]

            In their self-government, judiciary, and tax measures, the Maryland Catholics acted independently of the proprietor and his charter, not unlike the way their counterparts in England were acting toward the crown. The point in discussing the Catholics' independence from the proprietor has been to raise doubts about attributing Royalism to the Maryland Catholics based on the proprietor's Royalism. The Catholics did not necessarily have the same political beliefs as the proprietor.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 157]

            Considering their independence from the proprietor, it should not be surprising that on the two occasions during the war when they had an opportunity to directly manifest loyalty to the crown, they chose independence. The second part of this chapter will look at these two events. The first instance in which the Catholics acted independently and directly in opposition against the crown's war efforts began on January 18, 1644 during the height of the Civil War. The proprietor's governor and secretary attempted to cut off Maryland's trade with the parliamentary forces in London. The crown had been complaining that "Our rebellious subjects of the city of London drive a great trade" in the Chesapeake, "receiving daily great advantage from thence which they impiously spend in vast contributions towards the maintenance of an unnatural war against us."[662] In July 1643, the Royalists had secured the port of Bristol. By November 1643 the proprietor had taken up residence there.[663] He directed his governor in Maryland to trade only with ships from Bristol. Parliamentary-aligned London ships were to be seized and brought back to Bristol as prizes. The proprietor was to get a percentage from each prize. The king had given freedom of trade to merchants in Bristol in violation of the monopolies held by the Merchant Adventurers and other London companies.[664]

            In January 1644 the governor arrested the representative of the London merchants in Maryland, the ship captain Richard Ingle. Ingle had been in Maryland carrying on his trading activities. Within a day of the arrest four individuals led in freeing Ingle in defiance of the governor and crown. Three of the liberators were Catholic. According to the proprietor's secretary, they were on the side which was in "high treason to his majesty."[665]

            The independence of the Maryland Catholics from the proprietor and crown's war against Parliament was further demonstrated soon after the liberation. The governor, along with the royalist Protestant William Hardidge, brought charges in the provincial court of treason, jail break, piracy, mutiny, trespass, contempt, and misdemeanors against Ingle, who was still trading in Maryland.[666] Seven successive juries convened by the governor refused to return an indictment.[667] Had the Catholics been interested, they would have had no trouble in bringing back an indictment against and shutting off the London trade. The Catholic independence from the crown resulted from their unwillingness to disrupt their established trade relations with London.[668]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 158]

            Parliament acknowledged the loyalty of the Maryland Catholics later that year by the favorable treatment which it gave Thomas Cornwallis, Maryland's largest Catholic planter. The Committee for Sequestration at Camden House in London in May 1644, had initially sequestered Cornwallis' tobacco and corn, which had been shipped to England. This tobacco and corn also included that of many of the smaller planters who had consigned their goods to Cornwallis. The reason given for the sequestration was that Cornwallis was a Catholic. But he produced testimony that satisfied the committee as to his loyalty and his goods were released.[669] Then he testified before the House of Lords, "I have shown my affection to the Parliament by finding means within eight hours space to free Richard Ingle and to restore him to his ship and goods again."[670] He asked Parliament to abolish the proprietor's charter. Stephen Crow describes Cornwallis' complaints to Parliament concerning the proprietor as, "arbitrary governing, Catholicism, which ardent Catholic that he was, must have given Cornwallis pause, and the proprietor's loyalty to the monarch."[671]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 159]

            The Catholics' support for the London merchants in January 1644 indicates the Catholics were not Royalists, but exercised independence in their political beliefs. The second and equally clear opportunity for Catholics to act independently of the crown and its war against Parliament occurred in the Fall of 1644 and Winter of 1645. The proprietor, after consulting with the crown and royal Parliament at Oxford in January 1644, obtained a commission from Charles I to construct custom houses and fortifications in the Chesapeake, to establish an armed force, and along with the royalist Virginia governor, William Berkeley, to seize all ships, goods, and debts belonging to any Londoner or from any person from a place in rebellion. The estates of those who joined with Parliament were to be seized and plundered. One-half of all seized property was to go to the king and the proprietor was to receive part of the customs revenue.[672]

            As soon as the proprietor's governor revealed the existence of the royal commission in the Fall of 1644, the assembly denounced it. A deposition by Thomas Copley, S.J., described the assembly's action and the active role of several Catholics:

Mr. Calvert had a commission from the king. . . The first assembly after Calvert's arrival declared they would have free trade with Londoners and others under the protection of Parliament and that they would not receive any commission to the contrary and thus Copley or Giles Brent or one of them did write a letter to Ingle from Calvert telling him of the good affection of the inhabitants of Maryland to the Parliament and their desire of free trade with Ingle or other Londoners. Thomas Cornwallis also wrote a letter to Ingle as aforesaid which letters are in the possession of Richard Ingle or John Durford.[673]

            Considering the independence of the province against the crown and proprietor, a suggestion made by Matthew Andrews is of interest. Andrews speculates that the aim of the proprietor's royal commission was mainly to obtain the royalist Virginia governor's help to mount an attack on Maryland, in order to reduce it to the control of the proprietor and those inclined to Royalism. Andrews writes about the visit of the proprietor's governor to Virginia in late 1644 in connection with the commission:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 160]

Governor Leonard Calvert had gone to Virginia in order either to come to some eclaircissement or to apply to the government of Virginia, which was still opposed to the Parliamentarians, for its interference on behalf of his province.[674]

            The rejection by the assembly of the proprietor's royal commission to fortify the Chesapeake in the Fall of 1645 was followed by and connected to the bloodless overthrow of the proprietor on February 13, 1645. The proprietor's governor spent almost two years in exile in Virginia. The overthrow was led by Richard Ingle, the London ship captain, who named the proprietor's royal commission as one of the reasons for the overthrow.[675] Only three known Catholics came to the proprietor's defense at the time of the overthrow. This seems to have been in part because most Catholics were indifferent to the crown's commission.[676] Lois Green Carr comments that the reason the Catholics were indifferent was that they "did not feel an identity of interest with Lord Baltimore's enterprise."[677] The proprietor wanted to enforce the royal commission, which would have hurt Maryland's trade, in the midst of an eight year economic depression.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 161]

            It should not be surprising that Ingle during the overthrow had the help of what Stephen Crow calls the "disgruntled Catholics."[678] Of the eleven Maryland supporters of the overthrow known by name, four were Catholic, one was Protestant, and six were of unknown religion.[679] That not only the four documented Catholics but probably the entire Catholic population tended to support or be indifferent about the overthrow was indicated by the proprietor's governor in December 1646. At that point he was trying to restore his position, and he granted a general pardon to the entire population, including the Catholics, "for their former rebellion."[680]

            The traditional assumption that Maryland Catholics tended toward the royalist side has been based on three factors: first, on the belief that the Catholics in England were Royalists; second, on the belief that Catholics were deferential to the Royalism of the proprietor; and third, on the claims made by prominent individuals at the time that the Maryland Catholics were Royalists. The first two factors have been addressed, but the statements made by those at the time need to be discussed. This will now be done in the third part of the chapter.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 162]

            The main contemporary to claim the Maryland Catholics were Royalists was Richard Ingle. He used the charge as a defense in the three lawsuits that were brought against him after the 1645 overthrow. Ingle and his ship crew of eight to twelve men had expanded the overthrow of the proprietor into the leveling of six landlords and two owner-operators, in addition to the proprietor's governor and secretary. By leveling is meant the confiscation of the tobacco they had ready to ship together with their household goods and farm animals, and the deporting to London of two of the five Catholic clergy who had fled to Virginia.[681] Henry Thompson summarizes Ingle's "Catholic Royalism" defense:

Ingle averred that Maryland was a stronghold of papists and those who supported the king in opposition to the Parliament. He also said that Brent, Cornwallis, and Lewger were the prime movers. . . Ingle alleged as his reason for this and his other exploits in Maryland, that the greatest number of persons and families in Maryland were "papists and of the popish and Romish religion," and that nearly all of them assisted Leonard Calvert in putting his commission in force in Maryland; that they had so carried things that before his arrival none but papists and those of the Romish religion were suffered to hold office or any command; that it was generally believed in the colony that if he had not come there, the papists would have disarmed all the Protestants, and that all the property that was taken or destroyed by him or his men belonged to papists and those of the Romish religion.[682]

            Several points need to be made in addressing Ingle's statement. First, he was partially correct. There were Catholics who took the royalist side, at least at certain points. For example, Thomas Copley, S.J., Maryland's largest landlord, helped the proprietor's governor to escape to Virginia during the overthrow, or rather, he too escaped to Virginia, where he was apparently taken prisoner. Like the governor and many of the English Catholic clergy, he seems to have identified with the crown and perhaps sought refuge in Virginia because he felt the Maryland Catholics could not be trusted to defend him.[683]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 163]

            Another Catholic royalist, at least during the period when he was acting governor in 1643 and 1644, was Giles Brent. He was the one that had attempted to stop the trade with London by arresting Ingle in January 1644. He asked Ingle and his crew to take an oath to the king and offered them a drink, toasting "Here is a health to the king sans Parliament."[684] It appears that at the time of the overthrow, neither Copley nor Brent any longer supported the crown's commission against the London merchants and they both had notified Ingle of this. In fact, far from being involved in royalist plotting with the proprietor, Brent at the time of the overthrow was fighting an arrest warrant that had been issued by the governor several weeks earlier. As judge of the provincial court, Brent had issued a large judgment against the proprietor that resulted in the governor's warrant.[685] Copley and Brent seem to have been targeted not so much for supporting the royal commission but for their prior activity.[686]

            A second point that needs to be made about Ingle's claim is that while it was partly true, it was mostly false. Of the four landlords whom he and his crew helped level, besides Copley and Brent, only two were Catholics: Thomas Cornwallis and Thomas Gerard.[687] The other two were: Francis Brooke, a Protestant and Maryland's third largest tax payer, and Nicholas Harvey, of unknown religion.[688] Further, neither Cornwallis nor Gerard were Royalists. Cornwallis had been recognized only six months earlier by Parliament itself for resisting the crown's interference with Maryland's trade. As already noted, he had petitioned Parliament to revoke the proprietor's charter because the proprietor was a Royalist.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 164]

            What all those who were leveled had in common was not their religion or politics, but perhaps that they traded with the Dutch. There were instances in the early 1640s when English ships had to return empty to England because there was no cargo for them.[689] This was resented by the London merchants and especially George Goring (1583-1663), who owned the custom farm on tobacco. He wanted all Maryland tobacco to be landed in London and pass through his hands.[690] The London merchants had been in opposition to the Dutch in the Chesapeake since the colony was established. The Seven United Provinces of the Free Netherlands was the leading maritime power in the first half of the seventeenth century and had handled shipping to the English settlements in the Chesapeake from the 1610s to the 1640s.[691] The original reason for the granting of the charter was to prevent further Dutch encroachment between Virginia and New England.[692] The London merchants were behind prohibitions on "trucking for merchandise whatsoever with any ship other than his majesty's subjects," which were issued by the crown and by Parliament with regularity, as in 1635, 1642, 1650, and 1651.[693] Parliament on July 22, 1643 made an ordinance establishing a duty or "excise" of 2s on each pound of tobacco brought into England but suspended it as long as the particular colony traded only with English ships.[694] The London merchants were responsible for the Navigation Acts of 1650 and 1651 and the war waged against the Dutch from 1652 to 1654.[695] London customs farmers such as Abraham Dawes and John Wolsterholme and merchants such as Maurice Thompson sought parliamentary permission to attack Dutch shipping in 1644.[696]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 165]

            At the same time Parliament was prohibiting the Dutch trade, the Maryland assembly was sanctioning it. The Catholic Edward Packer and the Protestant Henry Fleet on July 17, 1644 were given a commission by the assembly to trade with the Dutch.[697] On arriving in Maryland on Dec. 29, 1644, Ingle heard of Dutch ships doing trade in Maryland and "in a rage" immediately set sail for Virginia.[698] A contemporary described it:

I had heard that Ingle arrived in Maryland on Dec. 29, 1644, and hearing of a Dutch ship there trading in the port, then did in a rage and fury without license of the governor thereupon presently sail back to Virginia, but why I do not know. I was told about this by one of the passengers then on board Ingle's ship.

During the overthrow, Ingle captured a Dutch ship anchored at St. Mary's and took it back to England as a prize.[699]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 166]

            The leveling against Cornwallis was mainly economic, not political or religious in motivation. In addition to Ingle's crew, which had been promised plunder if it would help in the overthrow, those who did the leveling were Cornwallis's sixteen indentured servants, including four Africans, and his debtors.[700] Thomas Harrison, a cooper, was one of Cornwallis's servants with five years to run on his indenture. He took his indenture from Cornwallis's house and destroyed it.[701] One account stated that "account books, bills, notes, and papers were always destroyed, whether they belonged to Giles Brent, Cornwallis, Thomas Copley, the Speagle, or others."[702] Such leveling was common in England against the royalist and parliamentary gentry. For example, in Wiltshire, the proprietor's home county, the tenants and clothing workers joined with armed deserters from the royal army starting in 1643 to plunder manors and steal cattle from both royalist and parliamentary gentry.[703] Derek Hirst finds that assaults on Catholic houses in the summer and autumn of 1642 were often a pretext for forays against the manorial records.[704]

            Thomas Gerard was the fourth Catholic who was leveled. Economics rather than Royalism or Catholicism seems to have been the reason. Gerard's tenants, at least one of whom was a Catholic, took the occasion to stop paying rent on their 21 year leases.[705] That religion does not seem to have been a controlling factor in the levelings is also seen both from the several Protestants who were leveled and from the Catholic landlords, such as Thomas Greene, who were not touched.[706]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 167]

            Some writers maintain that Ingle was nothing but a brigand.[707] But from the view of the planters, both Catholic and Protestant, who were faced with a proprietor that had been plotting to stop the London trade for several years, Ingle's part in the overthrow was probably welcome or at least seen as something which they would not oppose. The Civil War was at its height, and trade with London was a strategic concern for Parliament and a necessity in depression-era Maryland. In that context, Ingle cannot be reduced to a brigand.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 168]

            In this light the Catholics' failure to support the proprietor against Ingle can be seen to have been more than merely their having been taken by surprise, as is sometimes argued.[708] First, the governor and those who joined him were not so surprised that they did not try to appease Ingle prior to his attack. After that failed, they had enough time to escape to Virginia. Second, while the settlement was scattered, that did not mean there was not an existing alarm and military defense system that had proven itself against hostile Indians and Virginians.[709] Third, if it were conceded the Catholics were taken by surprise, then their failure to undertake a movement to restore the proprietor or promote the crown's commission during the two year overthrow period would seem to indicate an indifference toward both crown and proprietor among the thirty known Catholic members and leaders of Maryland's seven militia districts.[710] Instead of restoration attempts, the Catholics continued to plant their crops. Lois Green Carr shows that the province was not laid waste.[711] There was no grain shortage. In part because of the Dutch trade, they enjoyed a relative boom in tobacco prices and tobacco production beginning in 1645.[712] The assembly met as usual in February, March, and December 1646 with a majority of the delegates with known religion being Catholics.[713] When the proprietor's governor was finally restored in December 1646, it was not with the aid of Catholics but with the protection of an army hired in Virginia and led by a Presbyterian Richard Bennett. The army had an agreement with the proprietor that they would plunder the Catholics and Protestants if there was resistance.[714]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 169]

            Besides Ingle, the other contemporary who has confused later writers by claiming the Catholics were Royalists was Richard Bennett, the same individual who had helped restore the proprietor in 1646.[715] He made his charges to justify the second overthrow of the proprietor between 1652 and 1656.[716] Like Ingle's claim, an analysis of Bennett's statement only offers more evidence that the Catholics had independent political beliefs. In this instance, however, they were being independent of Virginia and the London merchants who wanted to monopolize the Maryland tobacco market. This was the period of the Anglo-Dutch War. The Dutch had among its allies the Scots, Irish, New England, southern Maryland, Northampton County, Virginia, and Charles II.[717] The Maryland Catholics, like the English levelers, would not have been against using the crown against the parliamentary gentry and English merchants. But from 1652 to 1656, when the second overthrow took place, the crown had sunk too low to be of use. The interest of the Maryland planters was in retaining the Dutch trade, not in restoring the crown, despite the charges of Richard Bennett. This can be seen by outlining the second overthrow.

            With the first Civil War having ended in the 1646 defeat of the crown and with the Maryland charter under attack both by some Maryland Catholics and Virginia and London merchants, the proprietor made peace with Parliament. In 1648 he appointed a new governor, William Stone (1603-1660) and secretary, Thomas Hatton (d. 1655), both of whom were Protestants, merchant-planters, and Virginia legislators with working ties to the London merchants and Parliament.[718] The proprietor probably did not want the monarchy and the house of lords abolished, but once they were gone in 1649, Maryland was the first colony to assent to the new order. Parliament had to commission an armed force in 1651 to overthrow the royal governors in Virginia, Bermuda, Antigua, Barbados, St. Christopher, Nevis, and Montserrat. These governors, having been appointed by Charles I, sided with the claims of Charles II.[719] The proprietor pointed out to Parliament in 1652 the enthusiasm he had shown for the new order in comparison with Virginia and the West Indies:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 170]

If the lord Baltimore should, by this commonwealth, be prejudiced in his patent and right to that province, it would be a great discouragement to others in foreign plantations, upon any exigency, to adhere to this commonwealth, because it is notoriously known that by his express directions his officers and the people there did adhere to the interest of this commonwealth, when all other English plantations, except New England, declared against the Parliament.[720]

            At about the time he was converting to the parliamentary side in the late 1640s, some 300 Presbyterian families migrated at the invitation of the proprietor and new governor from the Nansemond River area of Virginia to what is now Annapolis. The Presbyterians had been dissatisfied in Virginia because the royalist governor there had forced their clergy to exit the province and otherwise raised a "persecution" against them. The new community in Northern Maryland formed itself into a county, Anne Arundell in 1650. It soon objected to paying land fees and quit rents to the proprietor and to taking loyalty oaths to him.[721] That he was a Catholic and the holder of a crown monopoly was salt on the wound. In 1652 their leader, Richard Bennett, who by then was governor of Virginia, having overthrown the royalist governor there several months earlier, headed the bloodless overthrow of the proprietor.[722] Stone and Hatton were retained as governor and secretary, but they ruled as a sub-district of Virginia, not as agents for the proprietor.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 171]

            As with the 1645 overthrow, the Maryland Catholics seem to have been indifferent to the 1652 overthrow. Catholics, including Thomas Gerard, were part of the 13th assembly of June 24-28, 1652, which confirmed the new order.[723] But later Bennett attempted to enforce a ban desired by the London merchant's on trade with the Dutch.[724] In the 1650s Maryland shipped as much tobacco to Holland as it did to England. Despite the Anglo-Dutch War being waged between 1652 and 1654, the St. Mary's planters, Catholic and Protestant, continued to trade with the Dutch. Their lack of loyalty to Parliament, that is, to London merchants, resulted in Bennett excluding Catholics and Anglicans from the Maryland assembly in 1654.[725] With the proprietor's encouragement and promises of free land, the southern Maryland Catholics and Protestants waged an armed struggle against Annapolis in 1655 in an attempt to overthrow Virginia's domination there.[726] An armed struggle was also waged against Bennett and the prohibition on Dutch trade by Maryland's neighbor, Northampton County on Virginia's eastern shore. Northampton stopped sending delegates and paying taxes to the Virginia House of Burgesses. The Dutch trade, not royalism or Catholicism, was the issue there.[727] It was probably the main issue in the Maryland confrontation as well.[728]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 172]

            The Catholics' independence from Bennett and the London merchants does not mean they were Royalists. Massachusetts, for example, allowed no interference with the Dutch trade in its harbors, but this was not because it supported the crown.[729] The Massachusetts legislature as early as November 4, 1646, declared it owed to Parliament the same allegiance as the free Hanse Towns rended to the Empire, that is, no allegiance. The Massachusetts legislature made death the penalty for any who asserted the supremacy of the English Parliament.[730]

            Parliament itself recognized that the Maryland Catholics' independence from the Virginia and London merchants was not royalist in motivation. Parliament refused to confirm the 1652 overthrow and re-confirmed the proprietor's charter in 1656.[731] Stephen Crow discusses Cromwell's dissatisfaction with Virginia's interference with Maryland's independence:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 173]

What brought this all to a halt was Cromwell's apparent dissatisfaction with the Virginians' meddling with Maryland. Cromwell had no reason to trust Virginians, even if one of the colony's agents was Parliament's commissioner.[732]

From the outset of the Anglo-Dutch War, Cromwell and the independent gentry and laboring people in England had been opposed to the war as well as to the aggression against the Irish. As Charles Korr puts it, the war was a "contradiction" to their interests and came about from the scheming of the London merchant faction in Parliament.[733]

            It has been seen that Catholic political beliefs grew out of and served their needs concerning self-government, the judiciary, and trade policy. They did not generally let themselves be subordinated by the crown, the Parliament, the proprietor, the Virginians, or the London merchants. In discussing the Catholics' beliefs about labor and laboring people in the last chapter, it was found useful to contrast their thinking with that of the typical Catholic gentry. This helps to show what the Catholics did not find of use and what was distinctive in their beliefs. The fourth and final part of the chapter will make a similar contrast concerning political belief. The typical Catholic gentry had a belief system to justify their loyalty to the crown. The argument here, as it was concerning the value of labor, is that to reach an alternative to the gentry's belief required equally strong beliefs. The contrasts point up the uniqueness and the antinomian character of Maryland Catholic thinking. Their political beliefs were not generally derivative from or respectful of the gentry thinking.

            In justifying their low regard for labor, one of the beliefs that guided the nobility was based on ideas about race and nature. The same type of lineage belief was used to justify loyalty to the crown. The king was pictured as being part of a divine race. He was addressed as "your sacred majesty."[734] His blood was believed to cure the sick.[735] His court was viewed as a "type" of the court around God's heavenly throne.[736] The Catholic Walter Montagu suggested that contemplation of the English court was a good way to learn about heaven:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 174]

From the riches of court men may make optic glasses through which they do the easier take the high celestial glories; and surely the sight of our minds is much helped by such material interests, in the speculation of spiritualities.[737]

Those who held that monarchy derived from purely historical causes or otherwise criticized it were denounced as blasphemous.[738] As God's representative on earth, obedient support for him during the war was a religious duty. A Catholic gentleman remarked at the time, "My duty to God cannot be complied with, without an exact performance of my duty to my sovereign. This doctrine was instilled into my youth by catechism and confirmed to my riper years by sermons and conferences."[739] Another of the Catholic gentry, Thomas Brudenell, wrote about 1640:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 175]

Let every soul be subject to the higher powers, for who resists power resists God, and ex consequentia who rebels against kings doth so against God and purchases damnation.[740]

            Both Walter Montagu and the Catholic William Davenant wrote dramatic works based in neo-Platonic philosophy to teach the sacred nature of monarchy. According to Kevin Sharpe, Montagu's the Shepherd's Paradise (1632) set the pattern for courtly drama in the 1630s.[741] It taught that "In the body politic, the constitution of Platonic love was that of the absolute rule of the king, as the soul of the commonwealth, over creatures inhabiting a world of sense and illusion."[742] Queen Henrietta Maria and other members of the court performed the Shepherd's Paradise on January 10, 1633. The production took eight hours. It had royalist lines such as "the true nature of monarchy lies in the marriage of will and law in the polity and in the person of the king. To separate these is to abuse the nature of man and monarchy."[743] It was treason to divide the king's will from the law, that is, the king's will, not Parliament, made the law.

            In their ideas about lineage the nobility believed they were all part of a single family with the king. Earls when in the presence of the king kept their coronets on their heads "as cousins to the king."[744] They did not appreciate mixing their blood in non-noble marriages, and the off-spring of such unions they sometimes called mongrels.[745] Catholic nobility like Thomas Brudenell stated his reason for being a Royalist, "Let's keep the Crown glorious and entire, the more one's safety and renown."[746] Such traditional racial beliefs among Catholic gentry help account for why 200 of the 500 royal officers killed during the war were Catholic.[747] The Catholic nobility supported the war because they had been doing such, or thought they had been doing such, since the Norman invasion.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 176]

            Part of the political thinking of the gentry was that one had to have noble blood in order to govern. As Davenant in his poem "Gondibert" (1651) commented, "the most necessary men are those who become principal by prerogative of blood."[748] For Catholic Royalists like George Calvert, the proprietor's father, the necessity of having noble blood in order to rule meant Parliament had no legitimacy in legislating on state and church affairs: "Antiquity shows that by inheritance the realm succeeds in one line and family. Dominion is centered in the same race and blood. Kings and kingdoms were before Parliaments. The Parliament was never called for the purpose to meddle with complaints against the king, or church or state matters."[749] At another point Calvert baited Parliament for being a friend of democracy:

They bark against kings and councils, and spit upon the crown like friends of democracies, of confusion and irregularity. They seek to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, and cashiere so many places of baronies in the upper house, and yet these men pretend to be friends and patrons of Parliaments and order. . . Where a prince is sovereign, no subject can be partaker of his sovereignty, which is a quality not communicable, for it resideth in a body politique, and if it be divided (without the prince's consent), it looses the sovereignty.[750]

            The proprietor shared his father's belief that ruler and ruled should be determined by birth. Just as Calvert senior baited Parliament for being a friend of democracy, Calvert junior baited the Maryland assembly in 1649 as atheistic and enslaving for asserting the rights of the laboring people:

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 177]

By woeful experience it has been found in divers nations that no one thing has so certainly betrayed the people into true slavery indeed, as the deceitful suggestions of subtle machiavellians pretending religion, and an extraordinary care of the people's liberty. Such religion possesses them with fears and jealousies of slavery, thereby to alienate their affections from the present government. The common way to atheism is by a pretended reformation in matters of religion, so the direct road to bondage is usually found in specious pretenses of preservation of liberty.[751]

The proprietor's dislike of representative institutions included, as Thomas Hughes, S.J. puts it, a "contempt" for the planters.[752] Like the crown which during the 1630s displaced the rule of Parliament and the proprietor's friend, Thomas Wentworth, who allowed no right of legislative initiative to the Irish Parliament, Calvert wanted to limit the Maryland assembly.[753]

            Gentry catechisms had a bias for monarchism. This form of government, according to Thomas Aquinas, "best assured stability of power, wealth, honor and fame" for landlords.[754] Those saints who were the objects of gentry devotion included no less than twenty canonized kings.[755] It might be contended that the gentry were for monarchy because they knew of no other choice. This ignores, first, that since the Conquest there had been a continuous and often successful English Catholic tradition of resistance to the "Norman yoke," especially in the north and west of England.[756] Second, the history of the anti-monarchical communes in Spain, Germany, and Italy, of the republics in Italy and Holland, not to mention the ancient Greek and Roman examples, were also available for consideration.[757] Humanists like Thomas More and Erasmus popularized the idea that republicanism was preferable to monarchy.[758] The Catholic architect Inigo Jones during the 1630s helped renew the late republican Roman tradition in architecture, not in politics.[759]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 178]

            The corollary to the nobility's belief that lineage and nature made them natural rulers was that laboring people by birth were meant to be obedient. One sees this doctrine repeated in a wide selection of gentry-written Catholic pamphlets, including the gentry-subsidized Douay translation of the bible. This bible was the exclusive English language version for the seventeenth-century Catholics who chose not to use the Protestant translations. It emphasized the political virtue of obedience to the crown in its marginal notes. This was despite the pope's wishes that Protestant kings be overthrown. For example, the note for 1 Kings 8 taught:

In case kings or other princes commit excesses and oppress their subjects, yet are they not by and by to be deposed by the people nor commonwealth, but must be tolerated with patience, peace and meekness.[760]

The marginal note for Macabees 4:1 stated, "In the case of tyranny, the best remedy is by authority of superior power, not by the people, who are more prone to faction than justice."[761]

            Among the Catholic writers who developed the theme that obedience was the way to curb pride and rebellion were Walter Montagu in Miscellanea Spiritualia, or Devout Essays and Tobie Matthew in his translation of Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtue.[762] John Abbot in Jesus Praefigured, which he dedicated to Charles I, called rebellion a crime.[763] William Davenant believed the people were weak in mind, creatures of the senses and in "Gondibert" (1651) called for Charles II to put them down because they were "in a condition of beasts whose appetite is liberty and their liberty a license of lust."[764] God's people in the gentry's view had four marks:

The first is a profound humility. The second a great love of virginity. The third, a great obedience to superiors, recommended by St. Paul to the Romans: Let every soul be subject to superior powers. The fourth a sweetness and an admirable patience in persecutions.[765]

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 179]

Neo-Platonic love, which the court often held up as the greatest virtue was equated with peace and obedience.[766] Davenant equated obedience to the crown with liberty.[767]

            The Maryland Catholics' political beliefs, as manifested in their legislative, judicial, and trade policies, were not derivative but often in opposition to those of the ideal type gentry. They found nothing especially sacred about the crown or the gentry. Political virtue for the Catholics was not in obedience but in making government serve their needs.

            To sum up, the first part of this chapter looked at Catholic beliefs concerning the rights of the assembly, the judiciary, and taxation. The ideal type Catholics followed a policy that was independent of the proprietor. This makes suspect the attribution of Royalism to Maryland Catholics based on the proprietor's Royalism. The second part of the chapter discussed several situations in which the Catholics had an opportunity to take a stand directly on the crown's war efforts. In both cases, they chose to act independently of Charles I's wishes. In January 1644 and again in late 1644 and in the early 1645 overthrow, they chose not to stop trade with the London merchants. As pointed out in the third part of the chapter, later accounts have sometimes been confused by the charges of Royalism made against the Catholics by prominent contemporaries like Richard Ingle and Richard Bennett. It was argued that such charges cannot be accepted at face value and the episodes in which Ingle and Bennett were involved actually provide further evidence of Catholic political independence. The fourth part of the chapter contrasted the beliefs of the ideal type Maryland Catholics with those of the English Catholic gentry. The gentry's beliefs were not found to be useful by the Maryland Catholics.

[CHAPTER THREE, 1996 ed., p. 180]

            Derek Hirst notes in his study of Parliament that large sections of the ordinary English people were making political decisions not just because they had been pressured by superiors, bribed, or made drunk. The gentry and the town corporations were not the sole force in politics "even before the polarization and propaganda campaign of 1641-1642 took place."[768] The working people had their own interests and principles, and were not totally ignorant of their own capacity for action. What was true in England seems also to have been the case in Maryland. The Catholics upheld their interests and principles, in spite of the proprietor and even of the crown.

 

Map 4: St. Mary's in the 1640s[769]

 

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 181]

 

Chapter 4

Beliefs about the Role of the Clergy

            This chapter is about the ecclesiology or beliefs of the Maryland Catholics concerning the role of the clergy. What is found is an initial conflict between the Catholics' beliefs and those of the clergy. The Catholic migrants believed the role of the clergy was to serve as pastors in their parish communities in the manner that they had experienced in Lancashire and Yorkshire. The clergy however, were inclined toward the Indian missions and the "manorhouse" type of ministry that dominated in southern and eastern England, not toward congregational parishes for laboring people.

            Examining the beliefs of Catholics about the role of the clergy gives an insight into the nature of their religion that is sometimes difficult to detect. Timothy Tackett remarks on the problem which historians have in such studies. His comments concerning eighteenth-century France apply equally to Maryland:

The great majority of historians, whether clerical, anticlerical, or something in between, have tended to concur with the Lefebvre position. Though the countrypeople are usually deemed fully capable of independent political judgment and action where their economic interests are at stake, they have been curiously transformed into non-entities or automatons in the religious crisis of 1791, reacting reflexively to the pressure of events and the decisions of their clergy. To be sure, the vast majority of the laity could never have understood the fine theological subtleties debated by ecclesiastics in the battle of the oath. But the people had their own logic in such matters, their own theology of sorts.[770]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 182]

            The conflict in Maryland between the "theology" of the Catholics, to use Tackett's term, and that of the clergy was often resolved in favor of the Catholics, in part because they controlled the Maryland assembly and used its legislation to implement their beliefs. The order of presentation in the chapter will first be a description of the parishes which were developed. Second will be outlined the obstacles which the Roman establishment and the clergy's beliefs about their role initially posed for the parishes. Third will be considered the legislation which they enacted to regulate the role of the clergy. Finally, there will be mention of six measures that benefited congregational development.

            The first part of this chapter describes the three parishes or congregations that were developed in Maryland by 1640. Within these parishes ministered the clergy, of which 12 were present in Maryland from periods of six months to fifteen years during the Civil War era. There were about 400 European parishioners, as mentioned earlier. If parish registers of births, marriages, and burials were kept, they have not been preserved. However, from references in other records, it is known that the clergy officiated at baptisms, marriages, and burials.[771] They also celebrated mass on Sundays and gave catechetical lectures.[772] On holy days they gave sermons.[773] They helped in the festivities which included parades or processions and fireworks. Among the first activities when the Catholics landed in Maryland on March 25, 1634 was a procession. The clergy made a cross "and taking it on our shoulders, we carried it to the place appointed for it. The Governor and commissioners putting their hands first unto it, then the rest of our chief adventurers."[774] The traditional eight feast-day agrarian cycle seems to have been followed in Maryland. A feast day came about every six weeks: Christmas, the first Sunday in Lent, Easter, Whitsun, Sts. Peter and Paul (June 29), the Assumption (August 15), Michaelmas (September 29), and All Saints (November 1). These symbolic rituals relating to the harvest year, if England is any example, glorified productivity, fertility, and husbandry.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 183]

            Probably some of the other Catholic customs described earlier were also brought over: Whitsun ales (the seventh Sunday after Easter), may-poles, Morris dancing, pageants, village pipers, plays and drama, dancing around a bonfire and singing, as on the feast of St. John, ringing bells, shooting off guns, lighting candles, raising cheers, drinking and banqueting, and patron saints such as St. Anne, who brought fertility and protected pregnant mothers, especially in childbirth.[775] An example of such festivities was the feast of Ignatius Loyola on July 31. Loyola was the founder of the Jesuit order which ministered in Maryland. The following describes the nocturnal part of the festival at St. Mary's in 1646:

"Mindful" runs the record, "of the solemn custom, the anniversary of the holy father being ended, they wanted the night also consecrated to the honor of the same by continued discharge of artillery." Accordingly they kept up the cannonade throughout the whole night.[776]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 184]

            Most Catholics thought well of the clergy, as they customarily left substantial bequests to them in their wills.[777] They also gave the clergy various privileges which the clergy requested, such as exempting them from having to attend the assembly or serve on juries.[778] Even a considerable number of Protestants found the Catholic communities and the clergy attractive enough that they joined them. One of the clergy remarked in a report to England, "For among the Protestants nearly all who came from England in 1638 and many others have converted to the faith."[779] After looking at their work, Michael Graham, S.J., concludes in his study, "The Roman Catholic clergy shouldered the difficulties of missionary life with such love and deep devotion that their witness can still, centuries later, amaze and challenge us."[780]

            The church Catholics in England wanted the clergy to be supported by voluntary contributions. This was a reform which laboring Catholics had been seeking since the time of the Lollards. The English levelers voiced the same desire in the 1650s. It was not generally because they were anticlerical. Rather, voluntary support gave them more of a voice in obtaining clergy who had a sympathy for their needs and preventing absentee pastors and other abuses. In Maryland the Catholics refused to establish their clergy by enacting tithe or glebe legislation, although this was debated.[781] Instead the clergy were supported in part by the voluntary taxes and services of the Catholic families, including direct labor, such as helping to build their cemeteries and chapels.[782] The Catholics probably established a regular if informal set of fees for burials, marriages, and baptisms, as was the case in other Catholic nations.[783] Some of the Maryland clergy's expenses were covered by income from their plantation and alms from Catholics in England. In one letter during the 1650s, the clergy reported that the ship carrying their annual donations from Europe was lost and they were experiencing hardship.[784] As mentioned earlier, in the Civil War era the clergy probably lost money on their plantation, so that they had to depend for part of their income on the Catholics.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 185]

            The relatively large capital, amounting to perhaps £1,000, which the clergy used to initially establish their plantation and bring over indentured servants came from several Catholic magnates in England. William Petre gave the Jesuits £8,000 in land in 1632. From the tenants on this land they earned £500 per year, part of which probably ended up in Maryland.[785]

            The three parishes within which the clergy's work was carried out were first, the St. Mary's community in St. Mary's City, which was built in 1638.[786] In addition to the free standing chapel, there was also by 1640 a chapel within the clergy's house at St. Mary's. This house was purchased in April 1641 by the proprietor for £200 as a residence for his governor. Under his ownership, the public and the clergy continued to use the chapel.[787]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 186]

            The second community, the Newton parish on St. Clement's Bay, did not establish a chapel until 1661. It met at the home of Luke Gardiner starting in 1638.[788] Gardiner was a tenant of William Bretton, the manor lord of Little Bretton.[789] Thomas Copley, S.J. served at Newton parish between 1639 and 1644, Lawrence Starkey, S.J. served there from 1649 to 1654, and Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. was there from 1654 to 1662.[790] Starting in 1640 the Newton community also ran a school that was taught by Ralph Crouch in the 1650s. Crouch was later associated as a lay-brother with the clergy. The school was supported by the bequests of testators and by the families whose children attended.[791] The third Catholic community was established at Port Tobacco Hundred in what is now Charles County. As at Newton, no chapel was built until the 1660s, but Andrew White, S.J. (1579-1656) was ministering there by 1640.[792]

            With this summary of the parishes that developed in Maryland as background, the problems which the clergy's beliefs about their role initially posed for these parishes will be addressed. One obstacle to parish development was that the clergy viewed the ministry to the Indians, not to the English Catholics, as their main interest.[793] The Jesuits seem to have assumed that secular priests, that is, non-Jesuits, were to come out to serve the English. This did happen for a period in the early 1640s when two secular priests came out.[794] Another secular, John Lewger, served in the later half of the 1640s.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 187]

            The Jesuits were encouraged by their constitution and traditions to make missionary work among the native people a primary concern.[795] Ignatius Loyola, as noted the founder of the Jesuits, was the first to use the term "mission" in the sense of sending someone to a colony.[796] The Jesuit heroes were missionaries like Matteo Ricci, S.J. (1552-1610) in China, Roberto de Nobili, S.J. (1577-1656) and Francis Xavier, S.J. (1506-1552) in India and Japan.[797] John O'Malley, S.J. comments about the Jesuit superior of the period, "Jerome Nadel returned again and again to the idea that the Society was essentially a group `on mission,' ready at any moment to travel to any point where there was need for its ministry."[798] Andrew White, S.J., who served in Maryland, showed his special regard for the missions by vowing in 1619, "I promise a special obedience to the supreme pontiff regarding the missions."[799] For Jesuit saints like Aloysius Gonzaga, the missionary ideal was an expression of their "contempt" for the world. Gonzaga joined the order so that he could "sacrifice" his life in converting the Indians to Christ in the American missions.[800] Nathaniel Southwell, S.J. asked his superior in 1634 to be sent to North America because it was "the most perfect oblation of all and the greatest sacrifice of myself which I can offer in this life to the lord. . . It is likewise a most complete act of self-abnegation, since it is a separation in fact from all things that are dear to me in this life, without any hope of ever seeing them again; and so it is morally a kind of death suffered for Christ."[801] In ministering to the Indians the Maryland clergy underwent considerable hardship. Several died from the diseases and difficulties they met.

            The Maryland Catholics, however, seem to have had little sympathy in general with beliefs about missions or beliefs associated with mission like contempt for the world. The basis for Catholic morality was labor. The Catholics needed the services of the clergy for their congregations. The emphasis on the Indian missions and on a quick and glorious death were obstacles to the congregational ministry.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 188]

            A second obstacle to the development of parishes was the gentry orientation brought by the clergy to Maryland. The Jesuits assumed the secular clergy would come out to minister to the laboring people. They also seem to have expected Catholic gentry to migrate to Maryland, and that they would serve as their domestic chaplains. The Jesuits' counterparts in other parts of the colonial world hired secular clergy to attend to the needs of the laboring people who worked on their estates. The Jesuits were more interested in ministering to the colonial gentry.[802] The problems caused by the preference for the gentry in England have already been explained. Most of the Catholic congregations were in the north and west of England, but a majority of the clergy, both Jesuit and secular, were employed in the south and east. The gentry, who were no more than 5 percent of the recusant population, employed Jesuits as domestic chaplains and tutors for their children.[803] The gentry's hold on the clergy was little different than its ownership of land, education, and other resources. The disregard of laboring people's needs reflected the general low regard which the gentry had for labor.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 189]

            The clergy were monopolized  because of the gentry's beliefs and because many clergy shared in those beliefs. Two-thirds of the clergy were from gentry families. They earned £20 to £25 per year as domestic chaplains, which was a comfortable living, twice what a laboring Catholic made. The Jesuit clergy were also encouraged by their constitutions and traditions to minister to the gentry. Thomas Aquinas had called the congregational ministry "a lower grade of perfection."[804] John O'Malley comments, "The Jesuits deliberately forswore for themselves the very offices with which reform was concerned--papacy, episcopacy, pastorate."[805] The constitution of the Jesuit order stated in part, "The more universal the good is, the more is it divine. . . For that reason, the spiritual aid given to important and public persons ought to be regarded as more important, since it is a more universal good."[806] By "important" the Jesuits meant gentry. This was not far different from the argument of Gregory the Great and the landlords' clergy for a millennium. It was, as Paul Meyvaert points out, the age-old justification, in a Christian version, of Roman imperialism, the natural subordination of barbarians to Romans, as slaves to freemen.[807] It turned up "dismayingly often" in the heroes of the gentry.[808] Ministering to landlords, it was said, would filter down to the laboring people.

            The contemporary Christopher Bagshaw described the negative results for the congregational ministry which came from the gentry's beliefs, "The Jesuits are used to fawn upon men of noble birth, especially if they be rich. They look not after the cottages of the poor, nor minister their help to them, be they ever so much in need."[809] The seculars, no less than the Jesuits were often dominated by a low regard for working people. Christopher Haigh comments:

The brand of religion which appealed to illiterate peasants offered little satisfaction for the priestly products of the seminaries, Jesuit Colleges, and reformed Benedictine monasteries, who preferred the spiritual life of an educated household. . . If priests became private chaplains to landlords because of the brand of religion they professed, they did so too because of the kind of men they were and their concepts of clerical dignity. . . The devotional works printed for English Catholics were designed for the gentry family. They enjoin a life of piety which created a demand for domestic chaplains, and the patterns of intense family religiosity, was followed in manor-houses across the country.[810]

By the time of the Civil War there were ten Catholic colleges and convents on the continent established and financed through the tuition paid by the gentry for their children. Because of the cost, most laboring Catholics could not attend. The schools had been operating since the 1590s and may have had as many as 1,000 students in some years.[811] Almost 5,000 graduates became priests and nuns in the first-half of the seventeenth century.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 190]

            It was natural, given this background, that when the clergy came to Maryland, they brought beliefs about their role which were opposed to congregational development. While service in the Indian missions inspired heroic sacrifices, their beliefs about the laboring Catholics were closer to those of Robert Persons, S.J., who regarded low birth with scorn. The priest Thomas Copley, S.J. referred to the political participation of working men in the Maryland assembly as "factious."[812] When because of an economic downturn, it appeared the clergy might have to engage in manual labor to support themselves, they invoked the "laws of the Church of God" and "God's cause."[813] At first manual labor was seen by them as incompatible with their ideas about clerical dignity. When forced to live like the laboring people, they complained of having no servants and of living "in a vile little hut, mean and low down in the ground."[814] The clergy's tastes in liturgical accessories reflected manorhouse preferences. In 1645 they possessed tapestries embroided in gold and silver, jewelry made of gold, diamond, sapphire, and ruby, as well as silver plate.[815]

            In their annual reports to Europe they stressed it was to the "chief men," to whom they ministered their main devotion or ministry, the Spiritual Exercises. One report to Europe stated, "Several of the chief men have, through the use of the Spiritual Exercises, been formed by us to piety, a fruit by no means to be despised."[816] The same report spoke of "a noble matron" who had lately died, "She was fond of us when living, and a benefactor to us when dying."

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 191]

            The Spiritual Exercises and the life which it taught was directed at inspiring personal piety in the gentry: lengthy and complex daily meditation and self-examination, scripture reading, acts of penance, catechizing, spiritual direction from a priest, and mass and frequent sacraments.[817] The Anglican gentry, including the Puritans, often had the same ideals and shared the same books as Catholics.[818] The Spiritual Exercises and personal piety were not designed to serve congregational needs and in fact distracted the clergy from such pursuits. The criticism by the English Catholic Thomas Hawkins (d. 1639) about the anti-labor nature of devotions like the Spiritual Exercises was in part noted earlier:

Since the work of hands has ceased, they have extremely praised mental prayer. Tis in what constituted the heresy of the Messalians, condemned in the fourth century. And what Catholics reproached them for the most was their contempt of labor. . . Mental prayer is a lazy devotion. The clergy make a long and difficult art, pretending to distinguish exactly the several states of prayer, and the degrees and progress of Christian perfection. And it was made long since to turn all the texts of scripture to a figurative sense.[819]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 192]

            Among the "chief men" in Maryland formed by the Spiritual Exercises was probably the proprietor's governor, Leonard Calvert. When he died at age 41 in 1647, the governor's estate was worth little more than £150, but it had "a table book [bible?] and a discipline [whip?], a bone cross, a gold reliquary case, a kneeling desk, and a picture of Pauls [the Protestant cathedral in London?]."[820] The gentry ideal of personal devotion, as opposed to congregational service, held up for imitation the Jesuit saints such as Aloysius Gonzaga. Gonzaga believed it was a virtue to daily beat himself bloody and indulge in an abundance of mental prayer.[821] Calvert's discipline and kneeling desk corresponded to these requirements.

            Another of the chief men for whom the clergy showed a bias was the local Conoy leader. For a period in 1639 Andrew White, S.J. took up residence in what he called the "palace" of the Patuxent king and later of the Piscataway "king." He became their chaplain, not unlike a domestic chaplain of the English gentry. And not unlike a gentry chaplain, White arranged for the Piscataway king's eldest daughter, who was 7 years old, to be educated among the English and married to a European. The Indian king's real estate descended matrilineally through this eldest daughter. John Brooke, S.J. reflected in 1641 that "many of the higher ranks of Indians show themselves inclined towards the Christian faith, amongst them being the king of the Anacostians."[822]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 193]

            The clergy's beliefs about their role was not the only obstacle to parish development in Maryland. Some of the Catholics had a bias against the clergy because they were members of the Jesuit order. John Krugler believes the reason some English Catholics did not migrate to Maryland in the first place was because the Jesuits were there.[823] The Jesuits were centered in Rome with roots in Spain and the Hapsburg empire. Catholics, as seen in their writings, were aware of the problems which the Hapsburg empire and its emperors, such as Charles V (1500-1558), a nephew of Queen Katherine (1485-1536), had created for them. Charles V captured Rome and took Pope Clement VII prisoner in 1527. Charles forced the pope to block his aunt Katherine's divorce by Henry VIII (d. 1547), which created the English schism.[824]

            In England and on the continent there was frequent hostility to the Jesuits from bishops, secular priests, and Catholic populations. They were viewed as arms of the Roman establishment and of Spanish imperial ambitions. The Catholic lawyer Anthony Copley commented on the disaster which Spanish Hapsburg rule meant for laboring people:

We are not ignorant by the example of Sicily, Naples, Lombardy, and the Low Countries (Flanders, Belgium). The Spanish king dignifies the nobles of these provinces. He endowes them over and above their own patrimony with double as much pension from Spain. But to what end? Truly, to no other, than that by so retaining the affections of the nobles loyal to him, he may by their hands (being naturals) the easier tyrannize over commons to their utter bondage and beggary, as in those parts we see it.[825]

Of the 30 year Spanish Hapsburg rule in Flanders, Copley pointed out: "How displeasing the calamities of Flanders may any time these past 30 years and yet at this day touch us. With the Duke of Alva came what oppression of the commons, what wars and waste of their estates to this house (Hapsburg)."[826] Robert Persons quoted, in order to rebut, a description given by one of his opponents concerning the onerous Spanish taxation system imposed on farmers:

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 194]

A tale whereof I will give you as that for every chimney and other place to make fire in, as ovens, furnaces, smiths forges and such others, a french crown is yearly paid. The king also takes a pence for all manner of corn, bread, beef, mutton, capons, pigs, geese, beans, ducks, chicken, butter, cheese, eggs, apples, pears, nuts, beer, wine and all other things whatsoever he feedeth upon. Yea no farmer, yeoman or husband - durst eat a capon in his house if his friend came to him. For if he did it must cost him 6s/8d, though the capon was not worth 12d. And so toties quoties. These be the benefits and blessings that this Catholic king fought to bring in hither by his absolute authority.[827]

Anthony Copley listed among his complaints against Spanish tyranny the "taxation and rapine" of salads, eggs, pudding-pies, horse-shoeing and "the like plain and petty wares" throughout the realm.[828]

            The Maryland Catholics had reason to be cautious towards the Hapsburg influence on the Jesuits. For example, the Jesuit priest Andrew White, S.J. had spent much of his life teaching theology in Spain prior to his arrival in Maryland. He advised the proprietor in 1639 to initiate a monopoly or tax scheme on basic necessities modeled on the Hapsburgs that would have impoverished the planters:

As in France, Spain, and Italy, the sovereigns appropriate the sale of certain things for themselves, so I conceive your lordship for a time to monopolize certain trades as bringing in a brickman to serve you for years and obliging all to take so many bricks of him. . . and for this a convenient price may be set on the thousand, no man permitted to make bricks. . . The like I say of carpenters, hatters, sawyers, coopers, smiths, etc.[829]

At another point White advised the proprietor to set up a store in Maryland like the Duke of Florence did in his colony. The store would have a monopoly in selling all commodities shipped into the country. This would bring "a very great gain" to the proprietor.[830]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 195]

            Understandably, the Jesuit and Spanish crown's intrusion into the local churches was not appreciated. An illustration of the hostility by some of the Catholics in England, as mentioned earlier, was the project during and after the Civil War to enlist Parliament's help in deporting them and their supporters to Maryland or otherwise opposing their presence in England.[831] An example of where there was Catholic hostility in Maryland can be seen in the will of John Lloyd in 1658. Instead of leaving his bequest to the Jesuits, who were the only Catholic clergy within several thousand miles, he left it to the secular clergy in Europe.[832] The clergy needed economic support in ministering to the congregations, especially during those periods of the Civil War era when their plantation was not profitable. In another case illustrative of anti-Jesuit hostility among some Catholics was an invitation in 1641 to two secular priests, Thomas White and Henry Holden to take over the ministry in Maryland. For 40 years these individuals were prominent in the anti-Jesuit party in England.[833] Anti-Jesuit hostility probably also accounted for some of the Catholics who joined the Protestant church or refused to use the services of the clergy. For example, the Catholic Thomas Allen (d. 1648) wrote in his will that he did not want his son, Robert, to be adopted by a "papist."[834]

            An aspect of anti-Jesuitism that cannot be blamed on the Catholics but that had an adverse impact on their service to the congregations was the deportation of two of them to England in 1645. The two deported priests, as described in the last chapter, had taken refuge along with the Maryland governor in Virginia at the time of the proprietor's overthrow. They were Royalists and may have believed that they would receive more sympathy from the Royalists in Virginia than the Independents in Maryland.[835] The Catholics were not part of the 1645 deportation, but they did force the recall of Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. to England toward the end of the Civil War.[836] Thomas Hughes, S.J. remarks that Fitzherbert had roused "his own people" against him, and a contemporary stated, "He offended everybody with whom he dealt."[837] Fitzherbert was not forced out because he was a Jesuit but because he had ideas that were incompatible with the Catholic church in Maryland.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 196]

Assembly Legislation Concerning the Clergy's Role

            With this description of the parishes and the obstacles to their development as a foundation, the third part of the chapter will look at what is argued here was the key law that helped overcome the problems mentioned above and that evidently reflected the Catholics' views on the role of the clergy. It will be recalled from the last chapter that in Maryland a role in governing was generally wide open to the ordinary planters. Some of the assemblies, such as those in 1638 and 1642 when the legislation that helped establish the parishes was enacted, were run as town meetings. Each freeman, not merely each freeholder, was required to attend or send a proxy. This included tenants and artisans who owned no land.[838] At least one women was officially part of the 1648 assembly. If the meetings as mentioned in Chapter 2 resembled parish assemblies in England, then they were also generally present and contributing to the proceedings.

            In all the assemblies prior to the 1650s the Catholics were a majority of those with known religion. For example, in the 1638 assembly there were 18 Catholics, 10 Protestants, and 34 of unknown religion.[839] In the 1639 assembly the Catholics had an absolute majority, with at least 10 and perhaps 12 out of the 18 legislators being Catholic.[840] In all the assemblies Catholics held committee leadership positions. For example, in the 1638 assembly five people were elected to the legislative drafting committee, three of whom were Catholic, the other two being of unknown religion.[841] The Catholics were Leonard Calvert, Robert Wintour, and Thomas Cornwallis. That the committeemen gained their appointments by majority vote is perhaps an indication that they were expected to represent the interests of those who voted. The laws which they helped draft concerning the role of the clergy seem to have conformed to the interests of the Catholic voters.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 197]

            Another preliminary point about the assembly needs to be recalled. While the interests of the proprietor and the planters were often identical, the assembly from the start did not rubber stamp the proprietor's laws. It enacted its own independent codes. Each bill in the assembly codes was separately read aloud, debated, amended, and voted upon by all present on each of three separate days before passage.[842] The legislative procedure indicates that in the 1630s and 1640s, the assembly and the planters were no more deferential than the Parliament, which at that time was conducting a successful war against the Crown to safeguard its privileges.

            The basic law by which the Catholics expressed their beliefs about the role of the clergy was that which limited the clergy's rights to invoke canon law, church courts, excommunication, the Roman establishment, and bishops against the assembly's legislation and court decisions. The assembly enacted and the provincial courts decided various matters dealing with parish development. These would have had no authority, had the clergy been able to challenge such legislation and court decisions by appeal to Rome and by excommunicating those who enacted or enforced the legislation.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 198]

            The policy by which the clergy were traditionally limited, and the one followed in Maryland, went back to the First Statute of Praemunire, which was enacted in England in 1353.[843] The statute outlawed legal appeals to Rome and the extension of Roman law into England. Such appeals were the way Rome and the clergy attempted to control the English church. The praemunire law had been most recently incorporated by Parliament into the Act of 1571 against the "Bringing in and putting into Execution of Bulls and other instruments of the See of Rome."[844] In Maryland the equivalent of the 1571 penal law was written into the Maryland assembly's 1638 code as law No. 34. The law "guaranteed the immigrants from papal interference," as Alfred Dennis puts it.[845] The pope had no legal rights in Maryland. The exact wording of the statute does not survive, but a description of it was included in a letter of April 3, 1638 by Thomas Copley, S.J. Copley was writing to the proprietor in England, asking him to veto the law:

In law [No.] 34 among the enormous crimes one is exercising jurisdiction and authority, without lawful power and commission derived from the lord proprietary. Hereby even by Catholics a law is provided to hang any Catholic bishop that should come hither, and also every priest, if the exercise of his functions be interpreted jurisdiction or authority [from Rome].[846]

            Law No. 34 undoubtedly had the support of the Protestants and probably of the proprietor, although he did not confirm any laws from the 1638 assembly.[847] In the Maryland charter which the proprietor's father had drawn up for approval by the crown in 1632, it was stated, "The church in Maryland is to be established according to the ecclesiastical laws of England." This would have included the praemunire law in the 1571 Act and the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, with the Book of Common Prayer as the norm for worship and the Thirty-Nine Articles as norms for doctrine.[848] In spite of the charter, the proprietor did not support the oath of supremacy and other measures so he may not have supported the praemunire legislation.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 199]

            Because others may or may not have supported law No. 34, does not mean it did not also represent the beliefs and serve the interests of most Catholics. Several points need to be emphasized concerning this. First, the voting record of the 1638 assembly has not been preserved. But Copley indicated that the law was enacted "even by the Catholics," that is, it had Catholic support. Catholics were a majority on the committee which drafted the law. Among the Catholics who helped enact law No. 34 was William Lewis, the clergy's own overseer. Thomas Hughes, S.J., who does not appreciate the assembly's legislation, comments that William Lewis's support for the law "shows how obscure to the minds of plain people and ordinary planters was the drift, meaning, and management of the code which subsequently passed."[849]

            Scholars such as Russell Menard and John Krugler have examined the matter and concluded that there was no feud between Protestants and Catholics out of which legislation hostile to the Catholics might have arisen. Krugler finds the Protestants did not exert "any profound influence on the colony as Protestants."[850] Menard makes note that the division was not between Catholics and Protestants, but between Catholics: "The relative harmony between Protestants and Catholics did not mean an absence of religious conflict, for there was a serious division among Maryland Catholics."[851]

            The differences in belief about the role of the clergy were not unique to the Maryland Catholics. For example, in New England in the same period the Congregational church was engaged in similar legislation restricting its clergy. In the Platform of Church Discipline, the Massachusetts General Court set regulations on the holding of clerical gatherings.[852] A defender of the clergy, Thomas Parker, complained against the limitations. He wrote that presbyters rather than the "votes and suffrages of the people" should dictate church government.[853] John Cotton on the other hand believed the role of the clergy was to submit to congregational control.[854] Cotton was not accused of being anti-clerical. He was a cleric himself.[855]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 200]

            The role of the church Catholics in England on the side of the Independents against the Presbyterians was discussed earlier. After the abolition of episcopal-controlled church courts on January 26, 1643, the Presbyterian gentry in Parliament sought to get control of the church through regional and national clerical-dominated assemblies.[856] However, the local congregations, including their church Catholic members generally refused to recognize the synods or to send deputies to them. Some 2,000 clergy were ejected by local parishes for failure to identify with and serve the needs of their congregations.

            A point to be observed about the Catholics' support for the 1638 assembly code which established controls on the clergy is that it was enacted only after the assembly rejected a proposed code sent over by the proprietor.[857] The restrictive legislation on the clergy may have initially been part of the proprietor's proposed code. Thomas Hughes, S.J. speculates that such was the case.[858] If it was, it was not rubber stamped by the assembly but independently adopted according to the lengthy process that was mentioned earlier. That Thomas Copley, S.J., the Jesuit superior, wrote the proprietor seeking him to veto the clerical restrictions would indicate that the proprietor may not have initiated the legislation. Further, Copley would have blamed the proprietor, if he had been responsible for the legislation. Copley was not reluctant to complain against and even threaten excommunication against the proprietor.[859] In fact the proprietor did attempt to veto the 1638 assembly code.[860] If the 1638 assembly code had been similar to that he sent over, he presumably would not have attempted to veto it.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 201]

            Concerning the enactment of the praemunire law, the role of John Lewger, the proprietor's secretary in Maryland, needs to be mentioned. Thomas Hughes believes Lewger had a leading role in enacting the limitations. However, Lewger was not elected to nor did he serve on the committee that drafted the law. He did have influence, as Copley's letter at the time noted.[861] But his influence was in conjunction with the "Catholics" mentioned by Copley. Lewger himself was a convert from the Anglican church and later returned to Europe and was ordained a secular priest.

            Thomas Hughes thinks that the clergy had Thomas Cornwallis, Maryland's largest landlord, on their side against the limitations. Cornwallis wrote the proprietor on April 16, 1638 shortly after the assembly enacted its code. He requested the proprietor to look carefully at the code to make sure it contained nothing that was contrary to the "good conscience of a real Catholic."[862] He added, "I never yet heard of any that lost by being bountiful to God or his church, then let not your lordship be the first. Give unto God what does belong to him, and doubt not but Caesar shall receive his due." He was ready, Cornwallis declared, to sacrifice all "in defense of God's honor and his churches right."[863]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 202]

            Cornwallis in his letter made no accusation against the praemunire law. He and probably the clergy were more concerned about other aspects of the code, such as the right to trade with the Indians and the acquisition of land directly from the Indians. Both the clergy and Cornwallis stood to benefit from these rights.[864] Allowing the clergy to receive land directly from the Indians would have been bountiful. Cornwallis had been a leader in the assembly that approved the praemunire law and had been on the committee which drafted it. When the proprietor's proposed code was rejected by the assembly in 1638, Cornwallis had been the one to suggest that Maryland be governed by the common and statutory law of England. The praemunire law was as much a part of the suggested English law, as it was in the 1638 code that was finally enacted.[865] When Cornwallis mentioned the "church's right," the right was the praemunire law, which protected it from being dominated by Rome. Robert Persons' remarks were quoted in the introductory chapter about the 500 year-old rights of the English church in preventing first the Normans and later the Hapsburgs from ruling England through Rome, "Even from the Conquest and entrance of the Normans and French Governors over our country, they have ever continued a certain faction and emulation of the laity against the clergy."[866]

            Cornwallis may have opposed the code which he led in enacting, but the evidence is not clear cut on the point. As will be seen, the clergy were threatening to excommunicate him for administering several estates in the provincial court. The clergy believed the estates and the fees that were generated should be under the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, of which they were demanding recognition. In England the fight against bishop Richard Smith and his effort to establish probate courts between 1625 and 1631 was led by Catholic lawyers such as Francis Plowden and Toby Matthews.[867] They had a business in administering the estates of the English Catholics. Cornwallis was a counterpart to them in Maryland. Nevertheless he might have sought to accommodate the clergy on some points.[868]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 203]

            It could be argued that in addition to Cornwallis, Catholics such as Robert Clark, who were in the employment of the clergy or were otherwise well disposed toward them, would have supported the clergy's opposition to the praemunire law.[869] But the contrary case of William Lewis, the clergy's overseer, has been noted. Thomas Hughes assumed Lewis supported the code because he was an "ordinary planter." However, the code was debated for three months in Lewis's presence. If Lewis had been under the influence of the clergy, he would have voted against it, just on their word. Because the clergy had Catholics in their employment does not mean they shared common interests and beliefs with the clergy on every point.

            That the Catholics were concerned about a development such as the appearance of a Catholic bishop in Maryland or the expansion of hierarchical powers may not be as remote as it sounds. Ireland during the 1630s had a functioning Catholic bishop in each of its dioceses. The penal laws there had been suspended by the crown's "Dispensing Power," as manifested in the Act of Grace of 1634.[870] In other Catholic colonies, the first bishops were sometimes appointed shortly after settlement. In Quito, for example, a bishop was named in 1545. Europeans first appeared there in 1534 and it was only in 1547 that a European-controlled civil government was established. There were only 250 European households in Quito at the time.[871] Even earlier bishops had been established at Las Palmas in the Canary Islands (1409), at Funchal in Madeira (1514), and at Sant Iago in Cape Verde (1533), which were trading centers for the area of Africa extending south from Senegal to Guinea and the Ivory and Gold Coast. In 1639, the Cape Verde bishop became a suffragan, that is, subordinate of Lisbon. Further south in 1534 Pope Paul III (1534-1549) established a bishop on the island of Sâo Tomé. This was the largest single producer of sugar in the western world along with the Azores and the Canaries.[872] It was also a trading center for the Portuguese in the present-day area of the Congo and Angola.[873] In 1658 FranÇois de Montmorency Laval was named the bishop of French Canada.[874]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 204]

            The only reason there was no Catholic bishop in England during the period was not because of the penal laws and anti-Catholicism but because the Catholics had used their influence in the early 1630s to have the crown expel Richard Smith, the bishop.[875] He spent the next 20 years in exile in Paris until his death in 1655. It is not always accurate to assume the interests of the Catholics and those of the hierarchy and Rome were the same.

            Because law No. 34 prevented appeals to Rome and excommunication, the Catholics were able to enact a series of other laws that helped in the development of functional parishes. Six of these measures will now be outlined in the fourth and final part of the chapter. One provision which the 1638 assembly enacted required that the clergy undertake the office of "pastors." Being a pastor meant ministering to the three congregations, performing baptisms, marriages, and burials, and conducting regular services. The clergy protested against this law, calling it "inconvenient."[876] The Jesuits' negative beliefs about congregational service have been noted. Reformers at the Council of Trent had sought legislation that would have forced the clergy to reside in parishes and be pastors. The reformers were on many points defeated. In France, it was only with the Revolution and the Civil Constitution of the Clergy that the pastoral requirement was achieved.[877] Protestants involved in a plot against the Catholics would not have supported a law that required the clergy to be pastors. Anti-Catholics and anti-clerics would have been inclined toward penal laws that outlawed the clergy.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 205]

            The concern of the Catholics in enacting the pastoral legislation appears to have been directed both at the clergy's preference for service among the Indians and at their devoting considerable time to managing their plantation. In later assembly codes such as that of 1639, limitations were placed on the clergy's freedom to live among the Indians.[878] Farm administration was a full-time job for one of the three clergymen then present in Maryland.[879] The clergy were among the largest landowners and had 20 or more indentured servants under their command. Later in the century it became difficult to distinguish the clergy from gentlemen farmers.[880]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 206]

            A second consequence of limiting the clergy that had a beneficial effect on maintaining the service of the clergy concerned church courts. These were not allowed to be established. Catholic jurists like Christopher Saint-Germain (1460-1540) and John Bishop had long had advocated that common law reduce or replace ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[881] It was largely because Bishop Richard Smith had advocated the establishment of an ecclesiastical court and Roman jurisdiction that the Catholic gentry in England sent him into exile.[882] Initially the Maryland clergy expected to have ecclesiastical courts. When the assembly assigned all the matters that traditionally came under ecclesiastical jurisdiction to the provincial court, the clergy threatened to invoke the bull In Coena Domini and excommunicate those who took their cases to the provincial court.[883] This would have included Thomas Cornwallis, who in April 1638 was administering the estates of John Saunders and Jerome Hawley in the provincial court.[884] The administration of personal as opposed to real property traditionally came under ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[885] Because of the praemunire law, however, the clergy were unable to appeal to and be backed up by Rome. Their threat of excommunication was for practical purposes unenforceable.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 207]

            One of the reasons the clergy wanted church courts and one of the several consequences of not having them was that the provincial court, which often had a Catholic as a judge, did not look with favor on testators giving legacies for masses to be said for the souls of the deceased.[886] Not only Protestants, but prominent English Catholics of the period such as Thomas White and Henry Holden, who were mentioned earlier as having been invited to minister in Maryland, objected to the problems which the purgatory doctrine brought.[887] White commented on the clerical abuses arising from hell and purgatory fear-mongering to obtain purgatory bequests:

If I be thought the occasion of restraining the profuse abundance of alms in this particular, I shall withal have the satisfaction to have checked the daily increasing swarms of unworthy priests, who, like drones upon this flock, to the disgrace and contempt of their function, to the abuse of souls, and the common scandal both of those who live in and out of the church.[888]

The practices that were the basis for purgatory bequests interfered with clerical services to Catholic congregations. In the case of Martin Luther, it had led to the split in the German church. That White spoke for many Catholics on this and other topics has been noted by Robert Bradley, S.J.[889]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 208]

            Another result of not having church courts was that cases dealing with matrimony, blasphemy, sorcery, idolatry, tithes, and sacrilege came under the jurisdiction of the provincial court.[890] Cases dealing with the latter items in the provincial court were rare. Had the hierarchy had its own way, this might not have been the case. It is interesting to note the contrast with other Catholic areas in the 1640s. In Mexico, for example, church courts were allowed as an appendage to the Spanish colonial order. As studied by scholars like Colin Palmer, such courts destroyed clerical service to laboring people. One example deals with blasphemy prosecutions. Masters normally used corporal punishment to coerce obedience. When their slaves and servants rebelled during such punishment by blaspheming, they were turned over to church courts. The church courts applied torture, which was legal, to gain an admission of guilt concerning the blasphemy. Then they were further punished by the church courts to gain obedience.[891] This resulted in popular dislike of the clergy and a renunciation of the master's God to whose established order the laboring people were to be obedient. Palmer comments:

Blasphemy appeared to be the instinctive reaction by a slave to an unbearable situation. In this sense they were no different from the ordinary Spaniard, who used blasphemous words as a matter of course. Blasphemous expressions seem to have been in the mouth of everyone, ineradicable by the most severe legislation.[892]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 209]

            The Maryland clergy were familiar with the ecclesiastical courts. They were common in Spain, where the clergy were trained. Thomas Copley, S.J., the Maryland superior, was born in Spain to exiled English parents. His father, William Copley had a life-long pension from the Spanish crown. Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. (1615-76), who came to Maryland in 1654 had been a chaplain in the Spanish forces at Ghent.[893] Andrew White, S.J. had taught at Valladolid and Seville.[894] They likely had acquaintances who ran church courts. Even without the courts, the Maryland clergy waged at least one anti-blasphemy campaign among their servants.[895]

            The Maryland Catholics were probably familiar with the reputation of the Spanish church courts, and they had direct experience of the undesirable ecclesiastical courts in England. There was a hierarchy of 250 Protestant church courts there, until they were abolished along with the episcopacy as part of the Civil War reforms.[896] These courts had jurisdiction over the probate of wills, alimony, tithes, rates, sequestering goods and livings, impleading debtors, and trespassers.[897] The Grand Remonstrance in 1641 complained against the bishops' use of the High Commission, which was the chief ecclesiastical court, to excommunicate, suspend, and degrade the clergy. The High Commission was compared with the Roman Inquisition in the ability of the bishops to use it to impoverish, imprison, and to force to flee to Holland and New England the "meaner sort of tradesmen and artisans."[898] Alexander Leighton estimated at the time that the people needlessly spent £50,000 per annum on matrimonial suits, £100,000 on probate of wills, and another £100,000 for "pleas and jangling matters."[899] John Milton wrote of the burden on laboring people caused by the church courts:

Two leeches the episcopacy have that still suck and suck the kingdom - their ceremonies and their courts. . . For their courts, what a mass of money is drawn from the veins into the ulcers of the kingdom this way; their extortions, their open corruptions, the multitude of hungry and ravenous harpies that swarm about their offices, declare sufficiently. . . Their trade being, by the same alchemy that the pope uses, to extract heaps of gold and silver out of the drossy bullion of the people's sins.[900]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 210]

            In addition to the assembly's requirement that the clergy serve as pastors and its refusal to establish church courts, a third consequence of putting the praemunire limits on the clergy, which helped parish development, was that the clergy were made subject to many of the normal rights and duties of a citizen. They were permitted privileges such as exemption at assembly attendance and jury service and in criminal cases the 1639 assembly exempted them from capital punishment, as was the normal common law practice.[901] But they were held responsible for other matters, such as taxation, military service, and liability to civil and criminal proceedings in the provincial court. Against this they initially protested, but in the long run many of these responsibilities were beneficial to them and the province.[902]

            An example of where the Catholics used civil proceedings to safeguard and promote clerical service to the congregations involved a 1658 case brought against Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. The plaintiff was the Catholic Thomas Gerard (d. 1673). Gerard's wife, Susan Snow Gerard was a Protestant. He had agreed with his wife that while he would remain Catholic, his wife would raise their children as Protestants. Fitzherbert used anti-Protestantism to browbeat Gerard for not making his wife and children become Catholic. Fitzherbert also attempted to turn the Catholics against Gerard, in effect, to excommunicate him.[903] Under normal circumstances in Catholic countries where no praemunire laws existed, Gerard could have been excommunicated merely for bringing charges against a priest in a non-ecclesiastical court, not to mention for marrying a Protestant and not raising his children as Catholics. In Maryland, the provincial court prosecution such as that against Fitzherbert helped protect Catholics in maintaining their church membership and still have harmony with their Protestant spouses.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 211]

            One might contend that subjecting the clergy to judicial proceedings was anti-clerical. The argument offered in this chapter, however, is that Catholics and the clergy simply had different beliefs about the role of the clergy. The thrust of the Catholics' legislation was toward making the clergy serve their needs, not toward outlawing the clergy, which would have been anti-clerical. Fitzherbert was allowed to make a full defense in the provincial court and in fact the court dismissed Gerard's charge. Not only the clergy but Catholics who engaged in sectarian misconduct were also rebuked. The Catholic Luke Gardiner in 1654 wanted to raise his 12 year old step-daughter, Elinor Hatton, as a Catholic, contrary to the wishes of the child's mother. The provincial court ruled the child should be raised as a Protestant.[904] A similar example involved William Lewis, who at the time was the overseer for the clergy. Several of the clergy's servants in June 1638 were reading a collection of sermons by the Protestant cleric, Henry Smith. Lewis prohibited them from reading the sermons. The servants went to the provincial court. Lewis was arrested, convicted, and fined. Both judges were Catholic. They stated that Lewis had "exceeded his power in forbidding them to read a book otherwise allowed and lawful to be read by the State of England."[905] In non-capital cases English common and statutory law generally governed in Maryland, except where the assembly decided otherwise.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 212]

            A fourth consequence of putting limits on the clergy was that they were not allowed corporately to own church property. But they could and did own property as ordinary citizens and in addition some of the Catholics held property in trust for them. Thomas Copley, S.J. owned and paid taxes on St. Mary's Freehold in 1642.[906] Mortmain, literally "dead hand," meant holding property corporately, rather than personally. In England a statute against ecclesiastical mortmain was first enacted in the thirteenth century to control the monopolizing of land by the Norman monasteries.[907] The aim was to keep the church's land, revenue, services, and theology under local control rather than under that of a foreign hierarchy.[908]

            The Maryland anti-mortmain policy was included in the "Laws of England," which Thomas Cornwallis proposed and the 2nd assembly in March 1638 adopted as a replacement for the proprietor's code, which they rejected.[909] The main user of the anti-mortmain policy was the proprietor. He included such a provision in his "Conditions of Plantations" in 1641.[910] The measure stated:

Any corporation, society, fraternity, guild, or body politic, either spiritual or temporal, or any other person or persons whatsoever, can receive land in trust for them or any of them or to such use or uses forbidden in the kingdom of England at any time before the reign of Henry VIII, upon pain of forfeiture of all such lands.[911]

While the assembly did not make a practice of accepting the proprietor's proposed legislation, it did endorse the anti-mortmain law or at least its results in 1649.[912]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 213]

            The positive result from the anti-mortmain policy for congregational development can be seen in the establishment and governance of St. Mary's chapel. The chapel was built by a joint subscription of the Protestants and Catholics in 1638. It was 18 by 30 feet in size, of brick construction, and used by both Catholics and Protestants.[913] Building it jointly with Protestants cut down on the costs to the Catholics. Such collaboration where the clergy owned the church would have been impossible. The clergy could have been excommunicated by Rome for permitting Protestant services. Even when churches were owned by non-clergy, there were difficulties. Thomas Gerard, for example, donated the land for and helped build the first Protestant chapel at St. Clement's manor. As noted earlier, Gerard was a Catholic, but his wife was a Protestant. Gerard believed he had a proprietary interest in the chapel. For reasons not disclosed in the record, Gerard decided to lock the chapel and not permit services there. For this he was brought to court, ordered by a Catholic judge to unlock the chapel, and fined 500 pounds of tobacco to be paid to the first Protestant minister to come to the province.[914]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 214]

            The fifth consequence of putting limits on the clergy concerns oaths. As discussed earlier, some of the Roman hierarchy's ideas about the role of the clergy ran counter to that of providing service. The papacy believed it had the right to demand that the clergy and Catholics seek to overthrow the English government. Rome maintained that the clergy and Catholics who took oaths of allegiance to the English government or who voted in the Maryland assembly for the establishment of such oaths were apostates, guilty of schism, and excommunicated.[915] When the 1638 assembly enacted legislation requiring an oath of allegiance to the English government, Thomas Copley, S.J. threatened to excommunicate the Catholic legislators.[916] But the praemunire law negated any leverage to his threat. At least 18 Catholics were members of the 1638 assembly.[917] They ignored Copley's threat. No one resigned. In the 3rd assembly in 1639, which had an absolute majority of Catholics, they re-enacted the oath.[918] If the Catholics had permitted Roman clericalism, they would have been cut off from the services of the clergy. This should be kept in mind if one suspects the oath requirement was a Protestant plot or that Catholics were not capable of independent religious beliefs. Those in England setting out for the colonies were also required to take oaths of allegiance to the government. Had Catholics not been allowed to take such oaths, it would have eliminated their migration and the development of Maryland parishes.[919] The clergy itself was influenced by the Catholics' approval of oaths. Andrew White, S.J. was condemned by Rome on November 15, 1647 for supporting an oath to the parliamentary government in London.[920]

            A sixth and final consequence of limiting the clergy involved outlawing the establishment of convents. Edward Knott, S.J., the Jesuit superior in London, reported to the papal nuncio, Monsignor Rosetti on November 17, 1641 about the Maryland assembly having prohibited convents. He called the act "extremely disparaging to the dignity and authority of the Supreme Pastor, Christ's Vicar upon earth."[921] Henry More, S.J., who was the Jesuit superior in England at the time reported to Rome that the Maryland "law is repugnant to the Christian faith and ecclesiastical immunities: that no virgin can inherit unless she marries before 29 years of age."[922] Copley remarked that it was contrary to canon law for the assembly to require that "unless a woman marry within 7 years after land falls to her, she must either dispose away of her land, or else she shall forfeit it to the next of kin."[923] The anti-convent measure referred to by Copley made the state of perpetual celibacy for women a state of perpetual economic insecurity.[924]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 215]

            The explanation for the Catholics having put a limitation on the clergy's right to establish a convent was not motivated by any particular desire to disparage Rome, although this would not have been foreign to the praemunire tradition. It had more to do with beliefs about the role of the clergy and Maryland's unequal sex ratio. The sex ratio ranged from three to six men for each woman over the course of the Civil War period.[925] Thomas Hughes speculates that the arrival of the "rich, influential, and pious" Margaret Brent in 1638, who was also single, was the reason the clergy sought to establish a convent.[926] Looked at from the perspective of laboring people, the need to establish families was the primary concern; the desires of the clergy to establish convents would not have benefited congregational development.

            Six consequences for parish development that came from assembly legislation dealing with the role of the clergy have been discussed. These dealt with pastors, church courts, tax, military, and provincial court liabilities, mortmain, oaths, and convents. The clergy in their correspondence listed 14 other limitations that the assembly placed upon them.[927] According to the clergy's superior in England, the Maryland Catholics, like the New England Puritans, allowed the clergy no rights "except such as can be proved from scripture."[928] This was the doctrine taught by Henry Smith, whom as mentioned, the clergy's servants found of interest.[929] To list out and elaborate on each of the 14 other limitations, all of which were similar to or overlapped those already mentioned, is unnecessary. Enough legislation has been discussed to establish that the Catholics believed the role of the clergy was to serve their congregational needs, not to be dominated by clericalism.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 216]

            Even the proprietor, the main person within the gentry class connected to Maryland who might have been sympathetic to the ideal of domestic chaplains, opposed them on the issue of mortmain and probably on the other issues. In England, the proprietor, like many of the gentry, monopolized clerical services for his own use. John Lewger served as his domestic chaplain in the 1650s. There is no indication the proprietor sought to promote the pastoral ministry in Wiltshire. But in Maryland the proprietor was instrumental in acquiring the services of the clergy for the laboring people in the first place and then in supporting the congregations against the wishes of the clergy.[930]

            The proprietor had his own needs in the matter. The clergy, if a negative factor for some potential migrants, were a selling point to others. But at least during the early part of the Civil War the proprietor also feared that too close an identification with the clergy could cost him his patent. It will be recalled that even the Catholic Thomas Cornwallis charged the proprietor with "Catholicism" before Parliament in 1644. To have allowed the clergy to own a chapel in St. Mary's would have been just one more weapon for those in Virginia and London who had ambitions of gaining the Maryland charter for themselves.[931]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 217]

            Among those in Europe whom the proprietor had to fear were George Goring (d. 1663), Earl of Norwich and Richard Boyle, Earl of Cork. Goring had negotiated the marriage of Prince Charles to Henrietta Maria of France in the 1620s. This resulted in the pro-Spanish faction at court, of which George Calvert was a member, losing favor.[932] Goring owned the farm of the tobacco custom for England, which meant all colonial tobacco sold in England and Ireland passed through his hands. Goring was resentful of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Strafford and of John Ormond (d. 1688), who were allies of the proprietor.[933] Wentworth in the 1630s obtained the tobacco custom farm in Ireland, which eliminated Goring's income from that source. More tobacco was sold in Ireland than in England.[934] Goring's father-in-law was Richard Boyle. Early in the century Boyle had introduced some new types of manufacturing into Ireland and made a fortune. Prior to Wentworth, he in conjunction with Goring held the tobacco monopoly which had been centered at Galway. He had also profited as a banker for the bills of exchange issued for imports and exports. This business too had been taken by Wentworth.[935] Because of this and because Wentworth had built up a powerful and papist army in Ireland that scared Boyle and many in England, he helped with Parliament's impeachment and execution for treason of Wentworth in 1641.[936]

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 218]

            The proprietor, as a member of Wentworth's party, was similarly disliked by Goring and Boyle. One writer remarks concerning the mortmain limitation, "Calvert's hostility to the Jesuits was irrational."[937] But it was not irrational in terms of keeping his charter. As John Krugler puts it, "To have acquiesced to the Society of Jesus would have been suicidal for Baltimore."[938]

            The argument in this chapter has been that the legislation discussed reflected mainly the beliefs of the Catholics, not the reputed anti-Catholic beliefs of the Protestants who were part of the assembly. The legislation was not penal laws: there were no fines, supremacy oaths, or requirements for the clergy to leave the province. This is not to deny that anti-Catholicism did not play a role in provincial politics at some points during the period. But the Catholics were capable of dealing with anti-Catholicism. They even used it to advance their own interests. The 1644 case involving Cornwallis was just mentioned. The proprietor, as a Royalist, was seeking to close down the tobacco trade between London and Maryland. The Catholic planters, with Cornwallis in the lead, petitioned Parliament to revoke the proprietor's charter for his "arbitrary government, Catholicism, and loyalty to the monarch."[939] This anti-Catholicism promoted the interests of Catholic planters.

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 219]

            Another apparent example of using anti-Catholicism to their advantage involved Virginia's aggression against the province. The Virginia magnates had not wanted the establishment of Maryland in the first place, and they revived their opposition by attempting to annex it in 1655. To win Parliament's approval, they claimed the Catholics were persecuting the Protestants. At the same time they imposed on Maryland a penal law against Catholics and Protestants.[940] In response the Maryland Catholics and Protestants first waged a military battle, which failed, and then petitioned Parliament to protect their independence, which succeeded.[941] Prior to the petition, six Catholics in 1655 had gone to court, voluntarily confessed to being Catholic, and allowed themselves to be fined under the penal law: "I confess myself in court to be a Roman Catholic and acknowledge the pope's supremacy."_ The explanation for the Catholic confessions apparently was that they wished to make explicit in London that if any religious persecution was going on, it was the work of the Virginians and their penal laws. Parliament ruled shortly thereafter that the Virginians should stop "meddling" with Maryland.

            To sum up, the chapter has looked at Catholic beliefs concerning the role of the clergy by looking at assembly legislation. In the two previous chapters on the Catholics' beliefs about labor and politics, the views of the English Catholic gentry were discussed in the concluding sections to point up that the Maryland Catholics had their own unique beliefs. In this chapter it is unnecessary to bring in the beliefs of the English Catholic gentry about the role of the clergy. Their beliefs as reflected in the thinking of the clergy have been contrasted with those of the Catholics throughout the chapter.

            The Catholics believed the clergy should serve as pastors in the three congregations which were established in Maryland. The clergy were initially resistant to their legislatively mandated pastoral role, but this role ended up being their most lasting contribution to the Maryland community. In the early 1650s the Jesuit superior in England, Edward Knott, S.J., wanted to abolish the Jesuit presence in Maryland because it had not worked out according to the missionary and gentry pattern favored by the Jesuit constitution. The Maryland Jesuits who had come to value the pastoral ministry successfully argued for the continuation of the Jesuit presence.[942] Maryland's achievement can be contrasted with New Mexico in the same period, where instead of serving laboring people, the clergy ended up in permanent hostility to them and their government. France C. Scholes writes:

[CHAPTER FOUR, 1996 ed., p. 220]

Neither state nor church learned the need for patience and friendly cooperation in dealing with problems of ecclesiastical immunity. Permanent compromises were never found, and the tradition of rivalry and hostility became one of the powerful traditions in provincial life.[943]

 

Map 5: European Locations in Maryland in the Civil War Period

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 221]

 

 

Chapter 5

Beliefs about the Market

            This chapter is about the market beliefs of the Maryland Catholics during the English Civil War era. Just as Catholics believed politics and the clergy should serve their needs, they held the market should do likewise. Their interests in terms of the market meant those of laboring people, which were not necessarily those of the proprietor, local landlords, Parliament, crown or London merchants. Depending on the circumstances they served their needs by a free market and sometimes by a regulated market and collective enterprise.

            The defense of their market interests against the proprietor and other interests had an antinomian character to it. Having seen in Chapter 1 the broadly held antipathy among most English Catholics to "private" monopolies, unemployment, and excessive profit making by employers, and the measures they took against them, the similar developments in Maryland should not be surprising. John McCusker and Russell Menard describe the laboring people as migrating to Maryland to avoid higher rents, smaller yields, lower wages, fewer chances, greater inequality, and being trapped in low-paying seasonal jobs that kept them close to the subsistence margin.[944] They did not have much patience with those who wished to deny them what they had come for.

            The chapter is divided into three parts. There is first a preliminary discussion of market conditions during the period and of the Catholics' beliefs about the market; second, five different types of assembly legislation concerning corn, tobacco, land and labor, pelts, and local and foreign merchants and officials will be outlined; and third, the beliefs of the English Catholic gentry about the market will be mentioned, in order to contrast them with those of the Maryland Catholics.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 222]

            The first part of the chapter outlines the market conditions in Maryland and Catholics beliefs about them. Between 1638 and 1646, the European and colonial American economies were in a period of depression and Civil War.[945] In Maryland this meant that prices and profits for agricultural produce paid by European merchants declined. With the decline in profits came a decline in migration and investment. However, the price of imported goods, such as shoes, tools, ammunition, clothing, servants, and credit, upon which the province depended, did not necessarily decline.[946] These market forces put pressure on the Maryland producers to increase their productivity in order to pay for European imports with a greater amount of the lower-priced exports. However, this demand-and-supply or more work for less return model was legislatively resisted.

            The assembly legislation was not always as successful in guiding Maryland's economic development as the planters intended. This is demonstrated by Russell Menard and John McCusker. They find market forces, such as the cyclical pattern of trade, depression, overproduction, credit, and labor, to be more useful in explaining economic developments in Maryland.[947] These scholars give consideration to the non-market force of legislative regulation but see it as a secondary factor, and often as "vague and impractical."[948] However the interest in this chapter is not economic development as such, but the nature of Catholic beliefs. The legislation downplayed by the market studies sheds light on the economic beliefs of the legislators and those who elected them. As will be seen, the legislation was also successful in a number of its aims.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 223]

            Lois Green Carr, Michael Graham, and Lorena Walsh document what might be called the collective economy that was characteristic of Maryland at the neighborhood level.[949] Free-market, arms-length relations for personal gain had a place. But also basic for survival and part of Catholic beliefs were the less than arms-length, collective efforts at economic advancement. These efforts were not anti-market, but supplemental to it. Neighbors helped each other in framing buildings, hunting, gathering corn, and housing and packing tobacco. They lent tools and exchanged salt, corn, liquor, meat, and cloth from family stocks when neighbors needed them.[950] Michael Graham writes:

These [good neighbor] patterns can be seen over and over in the lives of the Catholic men who worshiped at the Newton church. For example, they publicly supported one another through the signing of one another's documents; that they did so signals the importance of the informal relationships upon which these more formal, legal relationships were based. . . Death especially called upon friends to stand by one another.[951]

            Maryland's Catholics and Protestants, as documented in the county studies by Carr and others, often believed economic relations included a concern for the local neighborhood. This concern for community also extended to the provincial level through assembly legislation. The assembly's regulatory legislation was not unique. To a greater or lesser extent there were similar enactments in the other colonies and in England.[952] However, because the Maryland regulations were not unique does not mean they were inevitable or that they did not represent the Catholics. There was both local and foreign opposition to some of the legislation, which opposition the Maryland planters in some cases overcame only with difficulty.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 224]

            In looking at assembly legislation, it should be recalled from Chapter 3 that up to the 1650s the Catholics, as assembly and council members and as members of legislative drafting and other committees, had an influential part in enacting and, as provincial office-holders, in enforcing Maryland legislation. In the ten assemblies that met during the 1640s, the Catholics constituted a majority of those with known religion and in the third assembly of 1639 they were an absolute majority. These Catholics were laboring people, including tenants, share-croppers, artisans, and laborers.[953]

            The Catholics in the assembly were planters, that is, field laborers, and it was natural that the legislation they helped enact addressed the needs of the planters. It was seen earlier that they were not rubber stamps for the proprietor or for the few landlords. They repeatedly rejected the legal codes which the proprietor sent over and initiated their own legislation. This is not to say that the proprietor was not in agreement with much of their legislation. Similarly, the landlords were often, but not always in agreement with and supported legislation that served the needs of the majority. Thomas Copley, S.J., a priest, but also one of Maryland's landlords mentioned the potential strength of the laboring people in the assembly, "If any factious working man can but procure an overweening number of votes by proxies, he shall undo whom he pleases."[954] To the extent a large Catholic landlord like Thomas Cornwallis was able to play a leadership role on some issues, it seems to have been because his interests and those of the laboring people coincided.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 225]

            The assembly addressed issues relating to the market first through corn regulations, second through tobacco regulations, third through land regulations, fourth through pelt regulations, and fifth through regulations covering local and foreign merchants and officials. Through the corn laws, of which there were three types, the assembly sought to insure the production of corn. Corn was Maryland's main food. Assembly codes between 1639 and 1654 required that "Every person planting tobacco shall tend two acres of corn."[955] The Maryland corn laws were stricter than those in Europe or those that would be locally enacted later in the century in that no minimum planting requirements existed in Europe or later in Maryland. Parish and county governments in England reacted to bad corn crops by enacting measures such as shutting down alehouses and proscribing malting in times of bad crops, since alemaking wasted bread corn.[956]

            The corn regulation inhibited market pressure for increased productivity in tobacco, the cash crop. Each day and each acre spent in corn production was a day and an acre not spent in tobacco production. Garry Stone estimates that each direct producer planted an average of two acres of corn and two acres of tobacco per year.[957] Market forces in Ireland, Latin America, New England, and in early seventeenth-century Virginia drove planters to neglect their own nutritional needs or those of their servants and tenants.[958] Ireland's population declined from 1.5 to .9 million between 1641 and 1652 because of famine. This resulted from the Civil War, but also because cash crops were substituted for food crops.[959] On a smaller scale many died just north of Maryland in the the mid-1640s at Fort Christiana, which is now Wilmington, Delaware. The New Sweden Trading Company which established the fort in 1637 emphasized pelt trading. It employed one person to grow corn for each eight pelt traders. But in the early period, it seems to have required eight corn growers to feed just one pelt trader.[960]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 226]

            In Maryland one finds no starvation but rather numerous cases of default to creditors. For example, Giles Brent was not able to pay a debt of 8,000 pounds of tobacco and John Lewger had to mortgage his plantation for 10,000 pounds of tobacco or about £83 to meet his debt to a London merchant.[961] This meant the planters were not planting enough tobacco to keep up with their creditors, but they were planting enough corn to keep up with their own needs.

            At least some of the Maryland landlords were opposed to the obligatory minimum corn planting law. In Virginia it was a common pattern for the landlords to oppose corn laws.[962] The Maryland landlord, Thomas Copley, S.J. with 20 or more indentured servants, was concerned that he was not obtaining enough productivity even without the corn regulations. He commented that his "company of headstrong servants scarcely maintain themselves."[963] Yet,

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 227]

It is expected that every head plant two acres of corn, whereas already we find by experience that we cannot possibly employ half our number in planting and therefore we must turn planters ourselves.[964]

            It should be noted that Copley apparently was not speaking merely as a clergyman. He did not invoke an argument of clerical privilege but voiced the concern of a landlord seeking to make ends meet. During depression periods, indentured servants were a liability. Further, the corn laws applied to those who physically planted tobacco. Clergymen, like artisans and overseers, did not plant, and so were exempt from the corn laws, at least until 1649.[965]

            Besides minimum planting requirements, the assembly passed other corn regulations. One prohibited the export of grain in times of scarcity, as during the winter months.[966] It was between October and February when the province was most dependent on corn for its nutritional needs. It was in these months when the best prices and profits could have been gained by speculators selling to Virginia or New England. As in the case of corn planting legislation, there was opposition among the landlords about the export laws, and for not dissimilar reasons. Thomas Copley, for example, expressed his dislike for not being able to trade in corn freely.[967]

            The final type of corn regulation required that private stores of corn were to be inspected by officials to prevent the hoarding of any amount over and above the necessary sustenance for each household.[968] Rationing as carried out in the winter of 1647-1648 involved confiscating the proprietor's entire supply, despite his objections. The assembly stated, "Since there is a scarcity of corn and since some considerable amount of corn is by diverse persons concealed for their private interests which if it were purchased of the owner and distributed" would end the scarcity, therefore the government "is authorized to view and measure each person's corn."[969] Where there was more than two barrels per head, the corn was to be purchased at 150 pounds of tobacco per barrel, which was worth between £1 1/2 and £3. It was seen earlier that similar anti-hoarding measures were characteristic of Lancashire county, where the Catholic population was relatively heavy. The constables there were ordered to search all "houses, barnes, and men holding corn more than for necessary support of themselves and their families."[970] Those with excess were obliged to bring the corn to market by installment and sell it "at reasonable rates to the poor people."

            Besides legislation designed to protect the province's nutritional needs in time of economic depression, the assembly passed a second type of legislation which impeded the negative effects of unregulated supply-and-demand market relations. This was tobacco regulations. The fourth assembly in October 1640 sought to stabilize declining prices and planter income by eliminating surplus production. The assembly's law established an inspection system to destroy "bad tobacco." Bad tobacco, which had a market in good times, was defined as "ground leaves, second crops, leaves notably bruised, or worm eaten, or leaves sun burnt, frost bitten, or weather beaten."[971] The legislation ran for two years. Another type of legislation relevant to tobacco production was that which sought to reduce the cost of shipping. These laws increased and standardized the size of the hogshead in which tobacco was transported to Europe. The standard weight in 1640 was 250 pounds. By 1660 it was nearing 400 pounds.[972]

            In their study of the Chesapeake economy John McCusker and Russell Menard find that the regulations covering tobacco were a positive development:

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 229]

By responding creatively to the periodic depression in the tobacco industry, Chesapeake planters escaped the worst consequences of dependence on a single crop in an uncertain international market. . . In the face of falling prices, profits and expensive imported manufacturers, colonial officials attempted to control the price, quality, and quantity of tobacco, encourage alternative staples, and supported local industry.[973]

The "alternative staples" and "local industries" referred to above which the assembly helped support through legislative enactment included the cattle, fish, horse, swine, deer skin, beaver pelt, and corn milling industries.[974]

            As with the corn laws, some of the local magnates, including the governor, opposed the tobacco regulations. But six of the seven known Catholics in the Fourth Assembly voted for the regulations, not for the free market.[975] There are no surviving letters from the proprietor to the governor giving the proprietor's views on the tobacco regulations. But since the governor was appointed by and the agent of the proprietor, with no independent authority, it might be assumed the governor's veto was the veto of the proprietor and that the proprietor opposed the tobacco regulations. This was the case in the post-Civil War era.

            The reasons the proprietor opposed the regulations later would have been just as compelling in 1640. They included, first, that the crown, London merchants, and shipowners wanted maximum volume, because custom taxes and freight revenue were dependent on volume. Calvert sought to please the crown.[976] Second, the proprietor's revenue came in part from quitrents, and idle land meant less revenue for him.[977] His revenue also came from land registration and patent fees. A cut in tobacco production brought a cut in migration and in land registration fees. Third, the proprietor in 1640 may have particularly wanted no regulations because these would have displeased his friend, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, who had given the proprietor £500 in 1639.[978] Wentworth was the lord deputy and then lord lieutenant of Ireland in the 1630s.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 232]

            Wentworth's tobacco policy in Ireland was to flood the market, which meant maximum importation from Maryland and elsewhere.[979] By doing this Wentworth maximized his personal income. He owned the custom farm for Ireland starting in 1637. All of the tobacco imported into Ireland passed through his custom house at the port of Kinsale. He charged a per pound custom duty of 1s/6d and an impost tax of 6d.[980] The price of tobacco to the Irish consumer was 2s/4d per pound.[981] Between 1637 and 1640 the value of tobacco imported was £80,000.[982] In a remonstrance Wentworth was accused by the Irish House of Commons of "uttering tobacco at high prices" so that "thousands of families in Ireland and the colonies were utterly destroyed."[983]

            Despite the governor's wishes and perhaps those of the proprietor, most Catholics seemed to have felt, as would be expected, that decreased production for higher prices was preferable. The aim of the Catholics was not to defy the governor, but merely to serve their own needs. The elimination of surplus tobacco through quality controls was among the reasons Chesapeake tobacco eventually proved more competitive than that grown in Europe.[984]

            It might be argued the tobacco regulations favored the landlords more than the ordinary planters and that the 1640 assembly was dominated by landlords, that is, those who were not field workers. They were looking out for their interests at the expense of the ordinary planters. There are several problems with this argument. First, there were only four landlords in the assembly: Leonard Calvert, Giles Brent, Thomas Gerard, and John Lewger. One of these, Leonard Calvert, voted against the regulations. The other 12 members of the assembly, so far as can be told from the "Career Files," were laboring people. Even among the landlords, Thomas Gerard probably was a field worker in this period.[985] Four laboring people voted against the regulations, but eight voted for them. This would appear to mean the laboring people along with the landlords were generally for the regulations.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 231]

            It could be argued that the eight laboring people who voted for the regulations only voted for them because they were dominated by the landlords. But the landlords seem to have felt that they were the ones that were dominated. The statement of Thomas Copley, S.J. has already been quoted about any working man with enough proxies was able to undo whomever he chose.[986] Thomas Cornwallis, another landlord stated that he was in the power of his servants, if they but chose to turn spy and informer.[987] Even in England, where there actually was a gentry class complete with a military, legislature, courts, church, and educational institutions to support it, the laboring people often dominated during the war. A Royalist of Yorkshire, where Catholic influence was strong, recollected with distaste:

We had a thing called a committee in our locality which overruled deputy-lieutenants and also justices of the peace, and of this we had brave men: Ringwood of Newport, the pedlar; Maynard, the apothecary; Matthews, the baker; Wavell and Legge, farmers, and poor Baxter of Hurst Castle. These ruled the whole area and did whatsoever they thought good in their own eyes.[988]

Christopher Hill finds that in large measure, even the gentry in Parliament were dominated by and not dominant over laboring people during the Civil War. As noted earlier in Chapter 2, he describes the parliamentary groups in 1642 that came forward to head movements which threatened to turn against the gentry as a whole: "I am their leader, I must follow them."[989]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 232]

            There is another problem with the argument that the regulations represented the interests of the landlords at the expense of the ordinary planters. Not only is there no indication in the record that the laboring majority which enacted them were under the domination of the landlords, but there is no indication that the legislation was more favorable to the landlords than to the ordinary planters. How can one logically say that getting paid more for less work was to the disadvantage of ordinary planters? Perhaps there is an assumption that for the laboring people to have given voice to their own needs was somehow anarchistic and disorderly. But to the contrary, it was the unregulated market for tobacco that was disorderly and to the disadvantage of Catholic needs. The Catholics in establishing tobacco regulations were on the side of order. Those who wanted the free market were closer to being the anarchists in this instance.

            There is a another problem that concerns specifically the proprietor. His successor in 1682 approved of the regulations and did so because this was in the interest of the ordinary planters. Specifically, the "poorer classes," in Virginia, as Vertrees Wyckoff labels them, early in 1682 had rioted after the Virginia legislature, dominated by landlords, failed to enact tobacco regulations. In response the ordinary planters illegally destroyed three-fourths of the Virginia tobacco crop.[990] The Maryland proprietor agreed to the regulations because he saw what happened in Virginia. He had no choice in the face of the militant small planters. The evidence from the post-war period is no different from the evidence in 1640: the small planters wanted the regulations because they were felt to serve their interests.

            A final problem with the argument that the regulations represented the interests of the landlords at the expense of the ordinary planters also concerns the proprietor. In the 1630s he had attempted to veto the codes enacted by the assembly. He gave up doing this beginning in 1640. Because he did not veto the act does not mean he approved it. The Maryland population operated in the 1630s under the codes which they enacted. They ignored the proprietor and his vetoes. He stopped vetoing in 1640 because he conceded it was pointless to do so. It was not only the tobacco regulations he did not veto, but every act starting in 1640.[991]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 233]

            There was a third type of market regulations besides those dealing with corn and tobacco. These addressed the market in land and labor. Concerning land, most laboring people initially lacked the capital to patent, survey, and build farms on the land which the proprietor and landlords offered to them as their freedom dues and headrights. In 1642, for example, four landlords owned 69 percent of the patented land.[992] One aspect of the 1645-1646 leveling was that tenants and indentured servants sometimes became squatters on the land they had been farming for their landlord or they became squatters on vacant land elsewhere. It cost about £3 to establish a bare minimum frontier cottage.[993] Stephen Crow studies the proprietor's unhappiness with the leveling of the landlord monopoly by those who "had acquired land without his approval and therefore did not pay the quitrents due him. . . The colony had grown rapidly and men had hurriedly grabbed more lands as the frontiers moved further inland."[994]

            In the years following the leveling, the proprietor sought to reimpose limitations on the market in land, but the assembly generally declined to cooperate with him. For example, he requested in 1648 that all those making use of public services, such as the courts, be required to take an oath of fealty to him, a copy of which oath he sent over. In this oath the taker acknowledged the proprietor as landlord and promised to pay survey, patent, quitrent, and other fees.[995] The assembly voted down the regulation and told him to stop sending over proposed oaths, "Experience teaches us that a great occasion is given to much perjury when swearing becomes common. Oaths little prevail upon men of little conscience."[996]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 234]

            Because the assembly declined to do so, the proprietor beginning in 1641 sought to legislate a regulation by prerogative decree that would have required squatters to take out a patent within one year of a claim arising or the claims would be lost.[997] But the assembly declined to recognize his prerogative jurisdiction and even refused to enact legislation proposed by the proprietor that would have acknowledged his proprietorship and right to collect fees. Fees were in part what kept the land monopolized and evidently were not appreciated. The Fourth Assembly of 1641 by a unanimous vote except for the proprietor's governor and secretary refused the "confirmation of Calvert's patent."[998] The Tenth Assembly of January 1648 by a unanimous vote except for his governor and secretary did the same thing to an act for confirmation of his proprietorship.[999] The assembly "ordered that the said bill should be thrown out of the house by all the freemen then assembled."

            The assembly likewise voted down a bill proposed by the proprietor that would have allowed him to use the provincial court to attach the property of squatters in order to force them to pay up. The assembly in 1648 stated, "no attachment is allowed on goods or chattels of any inhabitant of the province except when the true owner [that is, the proprietor] is not resident or dwelling in the province."[1000] Instead of passing the proprietor's legislation, the assembly enacted legislation that allowed his property to be attached by the Maryland residents. He complained on hearing of the legislation, "We be less master of our estate than the meanest planter there."[1001] The Catholics seem to have taken literally the remarks by John Smith (d. 1631) in 1616, "In the colonies there are no hard landlords to rack us with high rents, nor tedious pleas in law to consume us with their many years disputation for justice. Here every person may be master of their own labor and land."[1002] William Hilton wrote in 1621 from Plymouth plantation, "We are all free-holders, the rent day does not trouble us."[1003] The Catholics in the 1640s might have said the same.[1004]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 235]

            The assembly protected the free market in land by not permitting the proprietor to use the provincial court to attach land in order to collect his revenue. Another measure dealing with the courts also protected the free market in land. In Massachusetts the general court established a land recording system.[1005] In disputes over land ownership, the law provided that the courts should give priority to recorded deeds. In Maryland, a recording act would have opened up squatting planters to the revenue demands of the proprietor. Unlike Massachusetts the assembly never enacted a recording act and in a 1650 case, the provincial court declared that priority in land disputes was not to be given to the deed of record, that is a recorded deed.[1006]

            The assembly addressed the labor market as well as the land market. The proprietor proposed, and if the assembly had cooperated, Maryland would have been a semi-feudal state with the laboring people enserfed to landlords. There would have been less of a market for land and labor there than in England. But the assembly refused to enact legislation that would have made it illegal for tenants and servants to leave the province without his permission.[1007] The Catholics believed the market in labor and land should serve their benefit and they used the assembly in successfully defending their beliefs. The leveling and the assembly legislation following it resulted in a "broadly distributed" land and labor system.[1008]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 236]

            A fourth type of regulations covered the pelt market. This was a lucrative industry in early English Maryland.[1009] Both in prerogative proclamations, in the proposed codes which he sent, and in the various wars which he sought to wage against the Susquehannock, the proprietor claimed the right to monopolize the pelt market for his own benefit. The Maryland Catholics however, believed the pelt trade should benefit the entire province. They did not approve of the proprietor's "raking out of mens necessities."[1010] They declined to give him a monopoly. The assembly code in 1638, for example, "confirms the trade with the Indians for all commodities to be exported."[1011] A year later the third assembly debated but did not enact a provision to allow an unlicensed pelt trade to those who bought or sold no more than two or three pelts per year.[1012] This was the number of pelts most planters were able to afford to buy yearly from the Indians and resell to trading ships. Such trade brought £2 or £3 additional yearly income. Because the proposal was not enacted, there seems to have been no limits on pelt dealing. The proprietor continued to request a monopoly, as in the 11th assembly of April 1649. His proposed code contained a provision for "freedom of trade with the natives upon reasonable conditions tending more to public good than to our advantage."[1013] The assembly, however, refused to enact his proposed "freedom of trade" legislation. Its "conditions" apparently were not believed to be for the "public good." The New England population similarly refused to permit a pelt monopoly to the magnates there.[1014]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 237]

            In addition to corn, tobacco, land, and pelt regulations a fifth type of legislation addressed the negative effects of demand-and-supply market relations created by local and foreign merchants and officials. These began in 1639 if not earlier, when the assembly enacted regulations against monopolization and profiteering on a limited number of day-to-day goods and services. The regulations on local, as opposed to foreign, merchants and officials, consisted of price controls of three types. The local merchants and officials were also often the landlords in the province. The regulations gave the ordinary planters and laboring people an equality with the landlords and merchants at the market place. One of these types of local price controls prevented merchants from "engrossing" commodities, that is monopolizing the market.[1015] Also prohibited by such legislation was "forestalling" or speculating, that is, buying goods or servants before public sale and later selling them at higher prices.[1016] Illustrative of an anti-speculation regulation was the 1640 prohibition on forestalling:

It is prohibited for any person to go aboard any vessel wherein are imported goods to be retailed or to treat, deal or give intelligence to or with the skipper, factor or any seaman in any such vessel touching any goods, or the rates or quantity of tobacco or want of goods within the colony before liberty of trade is proclaimed at the fort. Even then there shall be no trade at any higher or greater rate than shall be proclaimed.[1017]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 238]

            Through a second type of local economic regulation the assembly set the fees which government officials such as the provincial secretary, sheriff, coroner, surveyor, and marshal could collect. Table 5-1 gives the fee schedule for 1639.

Table 5-1:
Fees for Public Officials[1018]

Officer	Fees (lbs Tobco)	For Type of Service
secretary	60	manor patent
“	30	freehold patent
“	20	license
“	1	administering allegiance oath
“	5	pass
“	5	will probate (less than 1,000)
“	10	"           “(1,000 to 5,000 lbs tob)
“	20	"             (estate more than 5,000)
court clerk	5	registering/certifying a matter
sheriff	10	serving writ
marshal	50	burning in hand/mutilation
“	100	inflicting death penalty
coroner	40	viewing or burying body
surveyor	20	per 100 acres surveyed

            The third type of local price regulations were those involving the service trades such as a 1640 act which authorized the county court to "moderate the bills, wages, and rates of artificers, laborers, and surgeons."[1019] Craft wages in Maryland averaged 3 times higher than in England. In England the daily craft wage was 1s/5d. In Maryland during the 1630s, carpenters got from 300 pounds of tobacco per month to 20 pounds of tobacco per day. With tobacco at 3d per pound, this meant from 3s to 5s per day. In the 1640s, when tobacco dropped to 2d per pound, Maryland wages were between 2s and 3s per day. In 1644 a shipwright in Maryland was paid 1½ pounds beaver or 12s to 15s for two days work.[1020]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 239]

            The assembly did not approve a type of regulation that would have been favorable to the proprietor in giving him a monopoly on the labor of brickmakers, carpenters, coopers, hatters, sawers, and other artisans. But among the regulations for artisans which were approved was the "Order Providing for the Smith" by the 11th Assembly of 1649.[1021] It gave blacksmiths a priority at the county court over landlords and others in collecting debts. This was in recognition of their value.[1022] While smiths were given a priority, debts to merchants for wine and "hot waters" were given a subordinate status to the claims of other creditors.[1023] The anti-liquor merchant legislation seems to have been directed in particular at and was resented by the London merchant John Smith and his Maryland agent, the landlord John Lewger. Smith exported liquor valued at £100 to Maryland in 1639. This was equal in value to 10 percent of Maryland's gross tobacco production, which amounted to between £800 and £1,200 per year.[1024] The three types of price control regulations on local merchants and officials had their counterparts in Virginia and were likewise not appreciated by some merchants there. Charles I wrote in their behalf in 1642 that the planters should not "constrain merchants to take tobacco at any price, in exchange for their wares."[1025]

            The regulation of local merchants and officials was a fairly easy task compared to regulating demand-and-supply market relations with foreign merchants and officials. During the Civil War period royalist Bristol merchants, the proprietor, and his governor sought to shut off Maryland to the parliamentary London merchants. The London merchants with the help of the Virginia governor, sought to do the reverse to the royalist and Dutch merchants. Despite the difficulties, the Maryland Catholics seemed to have believed foreign merchants and officials no less than local ones should serve their needs and they acted accordingly, often with success. No foreign merchants or officials were able to establish the type of monopoly in Maryland which the Dutch West India Company had over New Amsterdam. There were frequent complaints from New Amsterdam during the 1640s about the company's monopoly, which resulted in unjustified high prices.[1026] No such monopoly was allowed in Maryland.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 240]

            The threat to the province's trade from the Royalists came in 1644 and 1645. As seen earlier in the Chapter 3 discussion of political beliefs, on January 18, 1644 the proprietor's governor and secretary arrested Richard Ingle, the representative of the London merchants in Maryland. Within a day of the arrest, however, four individuals, including three Catholics, freed him in defiance of the governor. The three Catholics were Edward Packer (1614-1667), who was an owner-operator, a former indentured servant, and the current sheriff of St. Mary's; James Neale (1615-1675), another small planter; and Thomas Cornwallis (1605-1675), the landlord. Cornwallis had employed Ingle in prior years to carry goods to and from Maryland.

            Despite convening seven different juries, the governor could get no support to indict the London merchant or otherwise inhibit trade relations with Parliament. At least seven people who sat on the juries that refused to indict were Catholics.[1027] Later that year Thomas Cornwallis brought charges against the proprietor before Parliament to have the proprietor's patent suspended. His sentiments seemingly represented the views of the Maryland Catholics, who resented the proprietor's threat to their market interests.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 241]

            In January 1645 the Catholics again came forward to protect their market relations from the interference of the Royalists. The proprietor, as already described in Chpater 3 had a commission from the crown to construct royal custom houses and fortifications in the Chesapeake. London ships were to be seized. As soon as the commission was revealed in Maryland, the assembly denounced it. It might be argued that the governor and proprietor voluntarily gave up because the crown's defeat at Naseby made implementing the commission impractical. However, Naseby was not until June 1645. The assembly rejected the royal commission some six months prior to the crown's defeat. What changed the governor and proprietor's mind was not developments in England, but the Maryland planters. A short time after the assembly rejected the royal commission, the "disgruntled Catholics" in February 1645 helped in the bloodless overthrow of the proprietor's governor.[1028] The crown and proprietor were defeated in Maryland well before they were defeated in England. After the proprietor's defeat, some 30 Catholic adult males known by name who were members of the provincial militia carried on their farming as usual and made no effort to come to the proprietor's defense or help restore his governor.[1029]

            It might be argued that the Catholics did not support the proprietor because of a failure of leadership, rather than that they merely were doing what they found to be in their best interest. That is, the Catholics were Royalists, and they did not mind committing economic suicide to serve the crown. But it was pointed out in Chapter 3 that the governor and secretary were not surprised by Richard Ingle. They had been negotiating with him and had time to escape to Virginia. There was no lack of time to call out the militia. The problem was the militia was not interested in disrupting the London trade. Not only did the Catholic militia not support the proprietor, it took a Presbyterian militia from Virginia headed by Richard Bennett to restore the proprietor in 1646.

            Not only the Royalists but the London merchants sought to inhibit Maryland's trade and met Catholic resistance in the process. The London merchants resented the Dutch trade and had been in opposition to it since the colony was established. As noted earlier in the Chapter 3 discussion on political beliefs, prohibitions on "trucking for merchandise whatsoever with any ship other than his majesty's subjects" were issued by the crown, by Parliament, and by the proprietor with regularity, as in 1635, 1642, 1650, and 1651.[1030] Despite London's prohibitions and England's war against the Dutch traders, the Catholics maintained and expanded the trade with the Dutch.[1031] The Catholic Edward Packer and the Protestant Henry Fleet on July 17, 1644 were given a commission by the assembly to trade with the Dutch.[1032] This was given at the very time and perhaps in response to Parliament giving London merchants permission to attack Dutch shipping.[1033]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 242]

            The assembly had begun sanctioning the Dutch trade at least as early as 1639. The assembly provided that the Dutch pay a 5 percent custom tax on the tobacco which they purchased.[1034] This became the province's largest source of tax revenue.[1035] Establishing a custom tax independent of and in opposition to Parliament was seemingly an act of political autonomy. The Maryland planters also established ambassadors or agents in Amsterdam in order to promote their trade there. These ambassadors were James Neale and Samuel Goldsmith.[1036] London merchants disliked the Dutch traders because they paid higher prices for tobacco, which forced the English to pay higher prices. This was so significant that the proprietor called the Dutch traders the "darling" of the Maryland planters.[1037]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 243]

English Catholic Gentry Beliefs about the Market

            The third part of this chapter takes up the beliefs of the English Catholic gentry about the market. The antinomian and labor value nature of Maryland Catholic beliefs about labor, politics, and the clergy were better seen when compared with the beliefs of the Catholic gentry. A look at the gentry's beliefs about the market likewise helps point up the antinomian and labor value thinking of the Maryland Catholics on that subject. Their market beliefs generally stemmed from their role as producers seeking a maximum return on their labor and were not derivative from but largely in opposition to those of the gentry.

            The non-improving Catholic gentry tended to think the market should serve their benefit. This meant a market in which the laboring majority lived at subsistence so that the 5 percent that were gentry could live in relative luxury. A way to study the gentry's market beliefs is by looking at their writings about different sectors of the market. One sector was the market in land and labor, which they believed should be monopolized by themselves. The gentry's largest source of wealth was the rent paid by tenants. To maintain the rent system, they held a disproportionate amount of the land. They often opposed agrarian reforms such as the elimination of primogeniture, entail, and perpetuities, the imposition of property and inheritance taxes, or the confiscation of land by those who worked it.[1038] An exception was their general approval of the sixteenth-century agrarian reforms which involved confiscation of monastic and hierarchic land and its redistribution to themselves. Not a few Catholic gentry, including the proprietor's family, were living on confiscated monastic estates.[1039]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 244]

            A majority of gentry did not believe in a free market in land. They saw the system of entails and other restrictions to be in their interest. Nor did they want a free market in labor. For example, many favored restricting the migration of laboring people to the colonies.[1040] Robert Persons, S.J., it will be recalled from Chapter 2, taught that when Catholicism was restored in England, the mobility of laboring people would be stopped and they would become the "responsibility" of feudal lords.[1041] The gentry quoted ancient authorities to justify their belief about monopolizing land and labor, and its corollary, that laboring people should live at subsistence.[1042] Their authorities, as discussed in Chapter 2 on beliefs about labor included the standard classical texts found in seventeenth-century libraries: Aristotle's Economics, Xenephon's Economist, and Plutarch's Conjugal Precepts.[1043] These authorities condemned or ignored agrarian reform and slave abolition measures that would have produced a market more favorable to laboring people. The classical doctrine was production by slavery, which meant the physical minimum of subsistence for laboring people or what the economic liberals of the eighteenth century called the iron law of wages.[1044] Gregory the Great and Aquinas were authorities for the view that the landlord's property concentration was based in natural law and was thus part of God's law and not susceptible to agrarian reform measures. Injunctions by the clergy directed at the rich to give generously to the poor had in some periods brought a cumulative redistribution of wealth, but it was in the direction of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and monasteries. The hierarchy, which was among Europe's largest landlords, called itself the "poorest of the poor" and took a preference in alms.[1045] The redistribution did not reduce but increased the concentration of land and labor.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 245]

            The market for commodity goods is a second area besides land and labor, in which the court Catholics, if not the Catholic gentry generally, believed they should have a monopoly. Court Catholics had a share in the lease of crown (national) resources, in the sale of political offices and in the royally granted manufacturing and trading patents which existed on many commodities including butter, herring, salt, beer, soap, coal and alum.[1046] Nicholas Crispe, for example, was the Catholic son of a London alderman. He headed the Guinea Company, which had a licensed monopoly on the gold, redwood, and slave trade with Guinea.[1047] Over a several year period he gained £140,000 for himself and his partners, who included the Catholics Anthony Bugges, Kenelm Digby, and William Herbert.[1048] Another Catholic, John Wintour, held a patent on royal leases at Lydney, Gloucestershire in the Forest of Deane. These leases involved some 18,000 acres of timber, iron mills, and coal mines.[1049] The revenues from these leases, together with his shares in fishing and other companies, were so great that he acted as a financier for the crown during the 1630s when the king ruled without parliamentary revenue appropriations.[1050]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 246]

            The Maryland proprietor and his father were not least among the court Catholics who looked on monopoly patents as a divine right. It was observed in the English background discussion that the Stuarts turned licensed corporations from being effective governmental regulatory devices into mere money-raising expedients. The Stuarts tended to rule for their own narrow benefit and spend money without the consent of Parliament. The Calverts in gaining and retaining the Maryland patent were tied into the worst aspects of the crown abuse. George Calvert made a career out of using public corporations for royal fund raising schemes. His early career and role in gaining the Maryland patent resembled that of his better known friend, Thomas Wentworth. Wentworth came from a non-noble family. He had ambitions of being a noble but had no significant revenue-producing estates. Therefore he advanced himself, as John Eliot put it in 1628, by going into the service of the crown against the interests of the nation and of his own class.[1051] In return for promoting crown monopolies and similar activities, he eventually obtained a peerage and an office. As lord lieutenant of Ireland in the 1630s he confiscated Irish land, had a concession on the tobacco trade, and earned £23,000 annually.[1052] Part of his service included helping the crown plot the overthrow of Parliament. About this, Thomas Macaulay remarked that Wentworth was one "to whom a peerage was a sacrament of infamy, a baptism into the communion of corruption, which destroys nations."[1053] Wentworth had a common theological explanation for monopolizing the market place:

The prerogative of the crown is the first table of the Fundamental Law. It has something more imprinted on it. It hath a divinity imprinted on it. It is God's anointed. It is He that gives the Powers. Kings are as gods on earth.[1054]

            George Calvert was similarly from a non-noble family. He had ambitions of nobility and advanced himself by place-seeking and promoting crown monopolies.[1055] As a royalist member of Parliament, he was sometimes one of only four members who consistently supported the crown's domestic and foreign policies.[1056] He was threatened with permanent banishment because, as John Krugler puts it, he was "often expressing the very words his colleagues least wanted to hear."[1057] His defense of patents included a tobacco concession given to Thomas Roe in 1620 and the Newfoundland and North American fishing concessions.[1058] In the fishing monopoly he had a personal interest. These licenses were given to raise funds for the crown. The increased prices paid by consumers were popularly understood to be a form of taxation without the consent of Parliament.[1059] George Calvert took a hand against those like Edwin Sandys who opposed the patents. Sandys as a member of Parliament was jailed on the pretense of having sought to establish a Puritan republic in Virginia.[1060]

            Court Catholics tended to believe in a monopolized market place because they profited from it. George Calvert's office during the 1620s netted him £2,000 or more annually. He also gained landholdings of 2,300 acres in County Longford, Ireland, 2,700 acres in County Wexford, Ireland, and a title in the Irish peerage (Lord Baltimore).[1061] When he died in April 1632, he was worth about £10,000. But for his early death, he would have been granted the Maryland patent.[1062]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 248]

            The Maryland proprietor, Cecil Calvert, like his father was a monopolist. He was the god-son and name-sake of the great promoter of Stuart monopolies, Robert Cecil.[1063] Cecil was secretary of state from 1596 to 1608 and helped in securing the Stuart succession. The proprietor used the same court connections that his father had cultivated.[1064] These connections assisted him in maintaining the patent against those in Virginia and London who, as mentioned in Chapters 3 & 4, wished to abolish or obtain it for themselves.

            Besides the classical authorities, Catholic magnates such as the Calverts, Crispe, and Wintour had the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas and similar writers to justify themselves.[1065] Andrew White, S.J., a professor of the theology of Aquinas prior to his arrival in Maryland followed the morality of Aquinas in advising the proprietor in 1639 to pursue a monopolistic course that would have impoverished the planters.[1066]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 249]

            Aquinas was favored because, as Barry Gordon puts it, he emphasized commutative, not distributive justice. Commutative (from commutatio or transaction) justice was the classical Greek and scholastic term for the government of relations of individual to individual. Distributive justice was the term for collective justice, that is, for the obligation of the community to the individual. Keith Luria suggests that the spirituality of laboring people generally was, as might be expected, sensitive to collective needs.[1067] Gordon writes about the absence of the collective element from Aquinas, "Because he related economic analysis mainly to questions of commutative [individualistic] rather than distributive justice, Aquinas offers little by way of insight into the theory of income distribution."[1068] The wealth produced by laboring people in Aquinas' day ended up disproportionately monopolized by the 5 percent that were landlords and merchants. This was the nature of the market system and his theology was not concerned about significantly changing it. In one of his earliest works, Commentary on the Sentences (of Peter Lombard), Aquinas did concur with Lombard, for whom commutative and distributive exchange were linked together by one general end, the transfer of the necessities of life.[1069] However, 16 years later when he started writing his main work, the Summa Theologiae, Aquinas had abandoned that approach.[1070]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 250]

            In part because they limited their attention to commutative (individualistic) exchange, that is to the little picture rather that the big picture, Aquinas and the seventeenth-century magnates endorsed a number of market doctrines that dated back to the classical writers. One of these was the doctrine of token almsgiving, the superficial redistribution of monopolistic income. As described in seventeenth-century pamphlets, this type of almsgiving was characterized by funeral almsgiving, feast-day donations, and giving succor to a ritual number of poor, usually twelve.[1071] Such charity was inefficient and little adapted to material needs. It was meant to satisfy the conscience of the magnate, not to address the issue of market monopoly. Illustrative of the type of income distribution favored was the following:

If you wish to magnify charity toward persons necessitious, cast your eye upon Anne of Austria, Queen of Poland. She was accustomed to serve twelve poor people every Monday. This was the very same day she yielded her soul up to God. When she had scarcely so much left as a little breath on her lips, she asked that she might once more wait on the poor at dinner, and that death might close her eyes when she opened her hands to charity.[1072]

            The scholastic authority Domingo de Soto at the University of Salamanca, as well as Gregory the Great and Salvian of Marseille condemned efforts to substantially address monopoly and the poverty it caused, saying removal of the indigent from the streets would result in grave spiritual harm by denying the faithful the opportunity of practicing charity.[1073] Contrary to the thinking of laboring people who resisted market monopoly and made peasant rebellion "endemic to the middle ages," Aquinas said that poverty was inevitable and could be an opportunity for virtue.[1074] Monastic landlords set the norm for magnate almsgiving by doling out in alms as little as 3 percent of the revenue which they received from their tenants and perhaps a similar amount of less formal charity.[1075]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 251]

            In addition to token almsgiving there was  another market-related doctrine associated with commutative exchange that dated back to the classical writers and that was favored by Aquinas and the magnates. This was the doctrine of "just price." It could be argued that the just price doctrine would have been against monopoly. A just price presumed a free market. Prices set by a monopolized market would favor the monopolist and violate the doctrine. This might seem to be Aquinas' point in the following passage:

In a just exchange the medium does not vary with the social position of the persons involved, but only with regard to the quality of the goods. For instance, whoever buys a thing must pay what the thing is worth whether the person buys from a pauper or from a rich person.[1076]

Aquinas accepted that the "free" market set the price for "what the thing is worth."[1077] He insisted only that poor and rich both receive the same market price.

                                                The just price doctrine, despite what would seem to be a contradiction, was nevertheless acceptable to monopolists because they viewed the market, as did Aquinas, in terms of commutative (individualistic) justice, that is, as a relation of individual to individual. Just price, like token almsgiving, required no substantive reduction in monopoly. Barry Gordon comments about Aquinas's just price doctrine:

Aquinas does not confront the issue of the relationship of commutation and distribution. . . There is no guarantee that the achievement of justice in pricing will ensure justice in distribution.[1078]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 252]

Aquinas' free market was more illusion than reality and lent itself to monopolization. Commutative justice ignored the unequal economic position of poor buyers who were forced to pay the same price as the gentry. The price was set by gentry who could outbid the poor. It was a system of rationing that gave the gentry a monopoly on consumer goods.

            The Maryland Catholics in regulating the corn, tobacco, and other markets were not against a free market and a just price. Their belief was that a free market required regulation to protect it from monopoly. The unregulated market was a free market only in the sense of the rich having freedom to monopolize it for their benefit. Between the strong and the weak, it was freedom which oppressed and law which liberated. The Maryland producers were not prone to allowing the free market to become a fetish in which the magnates could stand reality on its head by calling getting rich off the labor of others "paying a just price."[1079] The Maryland laboring people did not reject the doctrine of just price but rather interpreted it to require that labor be included as the central element in the just price doctrine. This required a substantive reduction in monopoly.

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 253]

            There was a third market doctrine besides token almsgiving and just price, which accompanied the commutative or individualistic concept of justice. This was the doctrine of humility and patient suffering. The monopolization of wealth was acceptable, according to Aquinas and Salvian, as long as no pride was taken in it by the gentry.[1080] Market relations and the world generally were a testing ground for laboring people to endure in order to make amends for sinfulness and earn heavenly life. Because suffering was willed or permitted by God as part of his plan, it could not be changed. The market was not the cause of suffering. One should suffer one's "cross and passion" in life with humility, self-denial, and meekness.[1081] The chief offense was pride, as manifested by ambition for the wealth and life style of the gentry. God's will for the laboring people, said Robert Persons, S.J. was the "old simplicity, both in apparel, diet, innocency of life, and plainness of dealing and conversation."[1082] This "testing ground" doctrine was incorporated by Loyola as a foundation for the spirituality of his religious group.[1083] The theme of Jesus as meek and humble was standard in the prayers, hymns, form of confession, meditations, examination of conscience, and litanies that were published in the Catholic gentry's prayer manuals. The book titles give an idea of the testing-ground, virtue-of-suffering theology which they contained. Tobie Matthew translated A Treatise of Patience and wrote A Missive of Consolation, sent from Flanders to the Catholics of England.[1084] Henry Arundell authored Five Little Meditations in verse: . . . (2) Persecution No Loss; (3) On the text "God Chastiseth those whom He Loves"; (4) Considerations before the Crucifix; (5) Upon the Pains of Hell.[1085] Richard Mason produced Brother Angelus Francis, The Rule of Penance of St. Francis.[1086] Richard Verstegan wrote Odes in Imitation of the Seven Penitential Psalms and translated Mental Prayer Appropriated to the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.[1087] There were similar works about the cross, humility, penance, and contempt of the world by John Martiall, Alfonso Rodriquez, William Stanney, Robert Bellarmine and Diego de Estella.[1088]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 254]

            These writers held that laboring people should have no hope to make the market decent or struggle against it. It was the laboring people, not the market or the world, that was being tested. Montagu in his Miscellanea Spiritualia maintained that otherworldly contempt for the present life was a virtue.[1089] Persons offered a litany about the world's unredeemable nature:

This world is so vain, so deceitful, so troublesome, so dangerous; being it is a professed enemy to Christ, excommunicated and damned to the pit of hell; being it is (as one father said) an ark of travail, seeing it is a grove full of thorns, a meadow full of scorpions, a flourishing garden without fruit, a cave full of poisoned and deadly basiliskes; seeing (as Saint Augustine said) the joy of this world has nothing else but false delight, travailsome labor, seeing it has nothing in it (as St. Chrysostome said) but tears, shame, labors, terrors, sickness, sin, and death itself; seeing the world's repose is full anguish, its travails without fruit.[1090]

Andrew White, S.J. wrote that his first act on landing in Maryland was to "humbly recite on bended knees, the litanies of the Holy Cross with great devotion."[1091]

            In their thinking, gentry magnates equally with laboring people were to accept established market relations. But accepting an order that served their interest had a different significance for them. Similarly they had to endure suffering, such as sickness, old age, and death. But the suffering did not include the appropriation of wealth produced by their labor and a theology which claimed that God wanted it that way. As Aron Gurevich remarks, "In a class society, the commandment `Thou shalt not steal' protected property in a way that was much in the interests of the `halves'."[1092] In addition when laboring people threatened market relations during the Civil War, the gentry did not talk of patient suffering but rather, as Walter Montagu put it in his Miscellanea Spiritualia, "death" for those in rebellion.[1093]

[CHAPTER FIVE, 1996 ed., p. 255]

            To sum up, this chapter has discussed the market beliefs of the Maryland Catholics. They believed the market should serve their needs. They enacted legislation dealing with corn, tobacco, land and labor, pelts, and local and foreign merchants and officials in order to protect their beliefs. In supervising economic relations, the assembly at times had to set itself in opposition to the Bristol and London merchants and even to the crown and Parliament. The market beliefs of the English Catholic gentry have also been discussed to point up that the Maryland Catholic beliefs were not necessarily a repetition of but often in opposition to the gentry's beliefs. The Maryland Catholics seem to have had something in common with Timothy Breen's revolutionary planters of the 1770s. Both were not characterized by fatalism in religion, as Breen puts it, but rather had a sense of power and responsibility. They took charge of the market in the interest of promoting independence from England when it suited their needs.[1094]

 

Illustration 3: A 1641 woodcut showing how the people took the law into their own hands against monopolists like Cecil Calvert. The caption above it reads, "The manner and form how projectors and patentors have rode a tilting in parliament time."[1095]

 

Map 6: Maryland Indian Locations in the Seventeenth Century[1096]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 258]

 

 

Chapter 6

Catholic Beliefs in Relation to Gender and Race

            The focus of this study is on class because most Catholics, including women, Africans, and Indians were laboring people. Labor, that is, class considerations dominated their beliefs. But gender and race were also influential and will be discussed in this chapter. Several Chesapeake historians have shown that when and where the gentry dominated, they promoted sexist and racist beliefs in attacking laboring people.[1097] It was in the gentry's class interest to attempt to keep laboring Europeans from uniting with laboring women, laboring Africans, and laboring Indians. Disunity allowed the gentry, which sometimes included women, Africans, or Indians, to live off the wealth of both laboring Europeans and laboring Africans and Indians. As mentioned in Chapter 2, the gentry since ancient times had used sexism and racism based on nationality, "blood," and gender against laboring people.

            Civil War Maryland was dominated by labor, not by the gentry. There were class, that is, economic reasons for unity, not disunity along gender and racial lines. The division in Maryland was at important times between the laboring people on one side and the crown, Parliament, proprietor, London and local merchants, or Virginian magnates on the other. The beliefs of the Civil War laboring Catholics, in contrast to those of the gentry, were not generally characterized by sexism or racism.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 258]

            The chapter will first take up the Catholics' beliefs in relation to gender roles and the family, and then will discuss their beliefs in relation to race. The argument concerning gender roles as in the earlier chapters is that the Catholics' thinking grew out of and served their needs. The labor of women as well as men, and the family as a productive unit were basic to survival. The beliefs about the value of women and the family were reflected in assembly legislation, court cases, and customs. James Henretta is among those scholars who hold that positive views about women were often found in colonial British North America.[1098] In other words, the Catholics' beliefs were not unique. However, their beliefs were not inevitable. The Catholics overcame opposition to their views from the proprietor, the Maryland landlords, and the clergy.

            The discussion of gender and the family is divided into three parts. The first part reviews the Maryland demographic and occupational background of the Maryland women and the family. The second part discusses Catholic beliefs in relation to gender roles. The third part contrasts the Catholics' beliefs with those of the gentry.

            Concerning the demographic background, it will be recalled that women and families were a numerical minority throughout the Civil War period. In the 1630s the ratio of women to men was probably one to six. By 1650 it had improved somewhat to one in three.[1099] Lois Green Carr and Lorena Walsh estimate that there were 200 adult women in 1650, as compared to about 700 adult males.[1100] For reasons explained in Appendix 1, the surviving Maryland records are not as adequate in identifying the religion of women as they are for men. Nevertheless the names of 56 women who were married to Catholics are known.[1101] Many of these would have been Catholic. Five of these women came as servants: Eleanor Stephenson Brainthwaite, Bridget Seaborn Greenway, Rebecca Hall, Ann Pike Mansell, and Ann Lewger Tattersall. Twenty-one came as free, meaning they had the £5 to pay their passage and initial maintenance. Among the free were the Brent sisters, Mary and Margaret, and those who were spouses and children in a family unit, such as Elizabeth Gardiner (Lusthead) and Mary Cockshott (Adams), who was four years old when she arrived in 1641.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 259]

            Like the men, most women, whether single, widowed or married, and whether free or indentured, did manual labor to improve their economic conditions.[1102] They generally migrated with little capital. If free they hired themselves out or sharecropped for up to a decade in order to accumulate enough money to set themselves and their spouses up as owner-operators. Some of the recruiting pamphlets published in England advertised that because of the scarcity of single women, most were able to have their pick of husbands immediately upon arrival. If they had an indenture, claimed the pamphlets, their new husband would pay it off. But Carr and Walsh show that this was not accurate. Most men did not have their own cottage in which they could shelter a wife nor did they have the resources to pay off their own indenture, much less that of a wife.[1103] While native-born women of the next generation married at an average age of 16, the migrants married at 25.[1104]

            When the women eventually did marry, they sharecropped jointly with their spouse. Women were at little disadvantage in doing the field work involved in tobacco and corn husbandry. Hilary Beckles writes that even in the more demanding work of sugar production in the Caribbean, the indentured and slave women "worked together in the same gangs with men from sun-up til sun-down."[1105] The work required stamina but not great strength. At least in Barbados, the women worked in the fields until "far gone in their pregnancy." They were back at work within two weeks of delivery, their babies strapped to their backs or looked after by their older brothers or sisters.[1106] In Maryland, where two adult males were farming in a partnership or where there were teenage children old enough to labor, or where the family owned an indentured servant, the woman probably lessened her involvement in field work and engaged in a "customary" division of labor.[1107]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 260]

            However, the division of labor never was as sharp as it was in England. During periods of low tobacco prices, the chief interest was not in home industry to make up for reduced buying power, but in increased tobacco production.[1108] This meant increased pressure for women's field work. As a result sheep and wool cards, flax and hackles, and spinning wheels were nowhere as common in Maryland as in England.[1109] Even when there was a division of labor, this still meant field work for women at peak periods, such as planting and harvesting. At other times, they would take charge of butter and cheese making, pounding corn in a mortar into meal, spinning flax and wool to a limited extent, winding silk from the worms, gathering fruits, looking after the house, washing, cooking, tending the herb and salad garden, gathering greens in the wild, and keeping the poultry, hogs and cow, not to mention caring for the younger children.[1110] The custom among the Indians which was probably common among the Europeans was for the men to clear the fields and for the women to plant and tend the bean, pumpkin, and corn crops.[1111] Helen Rountree remarks that because Indian women were food producers as well as food preparers, they had a higher status in their society than those women in Europe who did no labor.[1112]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 261]

            Most women and family units were working in the direction of being owner-operators. But some earned their livings as artisans or professionals. Elizabeth Willan and the Irish-born Audrey Daly were tailors.[1113] Several Irish women worked as domestic maid servants for the Protestant merchant Robert Slye and the Catholic planter Thomas Gerard in the 1650s.[1114] During the 1650s the Maryland assembly authorized a Catholic women to run a public ferry, since her house was near the crossing.[1115] The Catholic Katherine Hebden worked as one of the province's two or three physicians during the 1640s and 1650s. That she had an extensive practice can be seen by the numerous suits which she had to file for her fees. These included suits against the government to pay for doctoring injured militia members.[1116] Margaret Brent was an attorney.[1117] In performing her duties she appeared in the court records 124 times between 1642 and 1650.[1118] Among her clients were both Catholics and Protestants, including Cuthbert Fenwick, Thomas White, Thomas Allen, Thomas Green, John Jarbo, William Evans, Edward Hull, Anthony Rawlings, and Leonard Calvert.[1119] The diligence of the work-life and views about labor among women artisans and professionals do not seem to have differed from those of the owner-operators.

            Having reviewed the demographic and career background, the second part of the discussion looks at the Catholics' beliefs in relation to gender. The assembly and its legislation, court cases, and customs are the sources for information. Women approached being the economic equals of men and they often tended to have political, economic, and other rights and influence that were equal to those of men.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 262]

            In politics, for example, it was pointed out earlier that the 1638, 1642, and 1648 assemblies were run as town meetings.[1120] If similar to parish, manor, and village assemblies in England and New England, they included women.[1121] Margaret Brent was an official member of the tenth assembly in 1648 and led it in one of its most significant decisions.[1122] As executor of Governor Leonard Calvert's estate, who had died in June 1647, she had authorized the sale of his property to pay the Virginia army with which he had retaken Maryland in December 1646. The proprietor objected to this. As Leonard Calvert's heir, he claimed the proceeds of the estate should go to himself. He wanted the planters to pay for the army out of the Maryland treasury.[1123] Acting in behalf of the proprietor, who was angry with Brent, the new governor denied Brent the right to vote in the assembly. Nevertheless, she led the assembly in refusing to pay for the Virginia army.[1124] In 1649 the 11th assembly defended her in the following terms:

We do verily believe and in conscience report that it [the confiscation] was better to the colony's safety. . . We are desirous justly to give your lordship all just and honorable satisfaction. . . There is no just cause of your indignation.[1125]

            Brent and the other women seem to have been able to make their political interests known within the assembly and also less formally to their neighbors and relatives. Women shared the same economic circumstances as their spouses, and had an identity of interest on issues such as corn and other regulations and on not permitting the Royalists, Parliament and others to interfere with Maryland's trade. In Europe it was customary for women to play the leading role in revolts against bread prices.[1126]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 263]

            Women's political and economic influence can be seen in several types of assembly legislation. Assembly codes from the beginning enforced the right of women to contract as illustrated in their indentures of servitude.[1127] The code, indenture contracts, and customs gave them rights, such as the payment of their Atlantic passage, initial maintenance, and the granting of head rights and freedom dues equal to those of men. Freedom dues included the grant of 50 to 100 acres depending on the period, at least 5 of which had to be cleared and plantable. Assembly legislated freedom dues also required the giving of a new petty coat, a pair of new stockings, waist coat, a new smock, a pair of new shoes, as well as a hilling hoe, weeding hoe, falling ax, new cloth suit, new monmouth cap,  and a years provision of corn, that is 3 barrels.[1128] Additional tracts were granted for children. Indenture contracts gave women the right to an education, as in the case of Mary Howell, daughter of Blanch and Humphrey Howell. Her parents contracted on August 8, 1648 for her to serve Thomas Copley, S.J. for 10 years in exchange for an education, as well as for food, clothing, and other customary benefits.[1129] During their service women sometimes had a right of having their own parcel of ground which they could work for their own account, as well as their own pig or heifer, which they kept at the end of service.[1130]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 264]

            The marriage vow was another contract which the assembly code recognized and enforced. Prior to the Civil War the ecclesiastical courts had had jurisdiction over marriage cases in England. These courts were, as indicated in the pamphlet literature, expensive and served more the needs of the clergy than of the family. The Civil War Parliament enacted the Civil Marriage Act to establish a less expensive common law system.[1131] The Maryland assembly anticipated the parliamentary reforms by enacting its own civil marriage act in 1640, which put marriage cases under common law jurisdiction.[1132] The Maryland law gave women the right to share their spouse's food, clothing, and shelter during his life and to a life estate in one-third his real property upon his death. It also gave them the right to bargain for marriage with anyone they chose. Interracial marriage between Africans, Europeans, and Indians were equally recognized. The names of at least some interracial couples are known.[1133]

            The civil marriage act and the Maryland judiciary seem to have given children considerably greater rights in choosing spouses than was the custom in England.[1134] However, it was a common complaint of English parents during the war period that "Children asked not the blessing of their parents... The young women conversed without any circumspection or modesty. Parents have no manner of authority over their children."[1135] In one Maryland case Elizabeth Gary promised Robert Harwood that she would marry him. Gary's parents objected and she apparently gave into their wishes. But Harwood went to court and obtained an order that she should stay at the house of a third party for six weeks, during which Harwood could court her, always in the presence of a third person. If he could convince her to go forward, the court would back the marriage.[1136]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 265]

            One of the advantages which the civil marriage act had for Catholics was that Maryland did not recognize canon law and the various doctrines which impeded family life. For example, marriage between Catholics and Protestants was outlawed in canon law and at the Council of Trent.[1137] Mixed marriages between Catholics and Protestants were common in Maryland. The Catholic partners would have been excommunicated from church services and the offspring from the marriages would have been illegitimate from the perspective of church law. Special dispensations from canon law could be obtained for those who could afford it.[1138] But Rome generally discouraged mixed marriages. It taught, as mentioned in the introductory chapter, that Protestants were excommunicate and could not be saved. Catholics were supposedly not allowed to even speak with them, much less marry them. Under the Maryland act, mixed couples such as Thomas Gerard and Susan Snow Gerard were able to bring into provincial court clergy who threatened excommunication or otherwise disturbed family relations.[1139]

            The positive regard for women was also reflected in assembly legislation that gave women the rights and duties of militia membership. It was required that every woman between age 14 and 40 be provided with arms, ammunition, monthly militia training and drill, and a regular inspection of household arms by the local captain of the trained band.[1140] They apparently attended the periodic musters. Equally with men they also had the right and duty to pay taxes. Mary Tranton of unknown religion was one of the largest tax payers in 1642 at 30 pounds of tobacco. Most Catholics paid 2 pounds.[1141]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 266]

            In addition to assembly legislation, the records from the provincial court are a source for giving information about beliefs concerning the family. Women had the right to bring suit against their masters, debtors, and tortfeasors. This included summoning witnesses, cross examination, and jury trial. For example, the Catholic Susan Frizell ran away from her master because of harsh usage toward the end of the Civil War period. After a trial, the jury freed her from servitude on condition she pay her master 500 pounds of tobacco to reimburse his cost.[1142] When the Catholic Elena Stephenson (Brainthwaite) ran away in 1645 from her Catholic master, Edmund Plowden in Virginia, the Maryland court refused to extradite her back to Virginia.[1143] Court cases also prevented step-fathers such as Thomas Denton from exploiting their step-children. Denton had tried to make an orphan, Margaret O'Daniell, do adult field work as hard "as any servant."[1144] The court was used by servant women to prevent masters from sexually abusing them. Masters were infrequently accused of this, but when they were, the court punished them. As Lois Green Carr and Lorena Walsh comment, "County mores did not sanction their misconduct."[1145] In cases dealing with the administration of decedents' estates the probate courts automatically made women the administrator of their spouses' estate.[1146] This was not the practice in England.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 267]

            Mary Beth Norton has remarked on how their often successful court cases in defamation suits was associated with a recognition of women's value. The Catholic Elinor Spinke, for example, obtained a jury verdict in a defamation case.[1147] In another case, the court ruled in 1654 that Peter Godson, of unknown religion, was guilty of defamation. He had accused a neighbor woman, Mrs. Manship, of being a witch. Mrs. Manship had apparently been making fun of Godson. The record states that "in a jesting way" she had laid down two pieces of straw and told Godson, "I am a witch" and that he could not skip over the two straws.[1148] The next day Godson became lame and from this arose the charge of witchcraft. Godson was ordered by the court to apologize and to pay the court charges.

            In at least one case involving women an all-woman jury was impaneled to made a determination. Judith Catchpole of unknown religion, a servant to William Dorrington during the 1650s, was accused of infanticide. A jury of 12 women, which included one or more Catholics, determined that the man who had made the charges was not of sound mind and that Catchpole had not had a child.[1149]

            Customs, in addition to legislation and court records give information about Catholic beliefs concerning gender roles and the family. Dying men, both Protestant and Catholic, in 90 percent of the cases during the seventeenth century made their spouses executors.[1150] In about 65 to 70 percent of the cases, dying men left all their estates to their spouses or at least more than the minimum intestate (dower) amount, rather than to their children.[1151] Carr and Walsh see in this the trust in which women were generally held and a recognition of their contribution to the estate.[1152] They conclude, "in the politics of family life women enjoyed great respect."[1153]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 268]

            There was a second type of custom concerning property rights besides decedents estates that illustrate a positive belief about the role of women. In England the law provided that upon marriage or remarriage, the woman lost ownership and control of her property. In Maryland this was avoided by an agreement with the husband to relinquish his rights or he deeded to his wife the property, which she could dispose of at her pleasure. In England a wife could not make a valid contract with her husband. But in Maryland these contracts as well as pre-nuptial contracts were not challenged by the provincial court.[1154] These contracts were useful when woman with property remarried and wished to make sure children from previous marriages received full portions.

            A practice among some of the indentured women that seems to indicate their beliefs about the family was that 20 percent of them had children outside of marriage.[1155] The woman and their partners, who were also generally servants, were too capital-poor to buy themselves out of servitude. They had children despite the opposition of masters, for whom childbearing meant less economic production. When a servant had a child her time of service was extended from 12 to 24 months and she could be whipped. Nevertheless, many opted for children rather than for obedience to a master.[1156]

            The ability and willingness of Maryland women to exercise their right to have children despite the interests of their masters points up the generally strong economic position and family beliefs of Maryland women. This can be seen by contrasting Maryland with developments that were taking place among the slave- and servant-European, African, and Indian women in the Caribbean and Latin America in the 1640s. In these areas women commonly used abortion, infanticide, and contraception rather than have children.[1157]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 269]

            Barbara Bush in her study of Caribbean women discusses the relation of family limitation to beliefs based in the labor theory of value. Sugar cane and babies were commodities produced by African and European labor which went to the enrichment of the landlord. Servant and slave labor had no incentive to increase their numbers:

Slave women in addition to laboring in the fields were expected to produce children to add to the value of their master's estate. . . Reports from the Caribbean, Latin America, and the Southern United States accuse slave women of secretly destroying their unborn children, frequently out of malice to spite their masters.[1158]

It took 10 to 20 replacements each year to maintain a gang of 200 African slaves in Barbados.[1159] Not until emancipation in the nineteenth century did the African population in much of Caribbean begin to grow as a result of natural increase.

            Along with beliefs about protecting labor from confiscation was a concern for self-preservation among slave women. The confiscation of surplus value was so complete that labor was chronically overworked and underfed.[1160] In these circumstances having children was a lethal burden for many women. Men and women stopped having children or had small families. Richard Dunn writes of one well-documented plantation:

A great many of the women had no living children at all. The Mesopotamia women were certainly overworked, but they seem also to have been underfed, and because of semi-starvation some of them appear to have been infertile, incapable of ovulation, or menstruation. The males in the estate were generally in poorer health than the females, and this too must have limited procreation.[1161]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 270]

Common plants used to induce abortions were manioc, yam, papaya, mango, lime, and frangipani. Mechanical means were less popular and relied on the insertion of sharp sticks or stalks into the vaginal canal.[1162]

            A measure of the Caribbean Indian and African success at limiting family growth and in inhibiting the confiscation of their labor can be seen in the complaints from the landlords who were unhappy with the results. The magnate Edward Long linked family limitation to promiscuity, arguing that slave women were no better than "common prostitutes" who frequently took "specifics" to cause abortion in order that they could resume their immoral activities "without loss or hindrance to business."[1163] The Catholic priest Fray Juan de la Conception, while testifying to the effectiveness of family limitation was more accurate in linking it to labor value and self-defense than to promiscuity, "The women promised themselves not to bear further children and instead aborted themselves by means of well-known plant poisons. . . The women of the Marianas Indians made themselves deliberately sterile and threw their own infants into the water. . . which saved them from being overworked and from grief."[1164]

            Not only African, Indian, and European women in the Caribbean but also Catholic laboring women in seventeenth-century Europe, when driven by harsh market conditions, turned in self-defense to family limitation, including infanticide. For example, the new-born infants of women silk-weavers in Lyon, and the foundlings discovered on church steps there were regularly sent by the mothers and clergy to wetnurses in the countryside. The wetnurse was in reality a rag soaked in cows milk. Three-fourths of the infants died within one year of birth.[1165]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 271]

            The ability and willingness of Maryland women to exercise their right to have children despite the interests of their masters seems to point up their stronger economic position and resulting family beliefs, as compared with developments elsewhere. Their right to take a lengthy maternity leave in the process also points up their stronger position. The extension of the indenture for from 12 to 24 months seems to indicate that they would take this much time from their master. In the Caribbean a woman received as little as two weeks maternity leave.

            There was another practice besides having children out of wedlock and taking lengthy maternity leaves that indicates a positive Catholic view about the family and gender roles. It was common for both servant and free women to be pregnant at the time of marriage. One-third of the women in one study were pregnant.[1166] In England there were court presentments and punishment for bridal pregnancy, but in Maryland the courts did not take notice of the practice. When the husband died before the marriage, the court ordered that the decedent's estate pay for the maintenance of the mother and child.[1167] The English Catholic gentry, as will be seen shortly, made an ideal of virginity. Among Maryland laboring people bridal pregnancy was part of starting a family and was seen in a more positive light.

            The last part of the discussion about the relation of the Catholics' beliefs to gender will contrast their thinking with that of the English Catholic gentry. The contrast will help show that the Maryland Catholics' beliefs were not merely derivative but were considerably more positive than the gentry's approach. Several aspects of the English system tended to undermine the family. For example, the gentry system required primogeniture and entail in order to maintain itself. Primogeniture mandated the succession of the eldest son to the entire real property of the father. Entailed land stayed in the family and could not be given away, willed by testament, sold by deed, or seized by creditors.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 272]

            Originally the primogeniture system was used only by large landowners but by the seventeenth century it had spread to smaller landowners. Nevertheless, it was the crown and large landowners who mainly supported and benefited from it, not the small landowners.[1168] The crown and lords held an indefeasible hereditary right in government as well as land.[1169] The Civil War Royalists used Aristotle and the bible to teach the primogeniture approach to the family. The king was said to have inherited the original patriarchal power from God and Adam.[1170]

            Younger gentry sons and daughters were primogeniture's victims, not to mention the tenants whose rent supported it. Primogeniture denigrated part of the family to keep wealth concentrated. There was often evasion of it and a literature of protest against it, not the least of which was written by the gentry's younger sons and daughters. Catholics like John ap Robert in Apology for a Younger Brother (1634) used the bible to show primogeniture was wrong.[1171] Roberts' thinking was similar to that of the better known Independent, Hugh Peter (1598-1660). Peter followed the labor theory of value in advocating that daughters who worked should have an equal portion with sons.[1172] During the war the Independents like Peter in the barebones Parliament made an unsuccessful effort to outlaw primogeniture.[1173]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 273]

            In Maryland as in Virginia primogeniture had little or no role.[1174] The assembly incorporated English common law which included primogeniture into Maryland law. This meant the creation of primogeniture by deed or will and the decent of land by primogeniture was legally possible.[1175] But land was essentially free and there was no hereditary gentry class seeking to perpetuate a monopoly on wealth and political power.[1176] The concern of the Catholic planters over land descent, as indicated in their legislation on the topic, was not primogeniture but how to give clear title to a local heir as opposed to a foreign one. This was a problem when the decedent left no will and a closer heir such as a wife or child was in England. The solution was to allow the local heir the use of the property. If the foreign heir did not take steps to claim it within a certain period, then the local heir gained clear title.[1177]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 274]

            There is a second example of the English landlord system which generated negative beliefs and practices about the family that contrasted with those in Maryland. This example also concerns concentrated landholdings. Part of the gentry "solution" to the economic problems arising from primogeniture involved younger sons and daughters entering monasteries, convents, and the celebration of perpetual celibacy. As noted earlier, the religious life was not generally for the children of laboring people. Convents required dowries. Ordination required travel to the continent and education that was beyond the means of most laboring families. The use of religious life as a way of obtaining economic security had been more popular with the gentry prior to the Council of Trent and the establishment of the seminary system.[1178] The barely literate younger sons of the gentry were commonly ordained and given life-time incomes for which they did little in return.[1179] It will be recalled that institutions which were less than positive about the family such as perpetual celibacy, convents, and the existence of clergy who refused to serve as pastors were rejected by the Maryland assembly in some of its first recorded enactments. The clergy's desire to establish a convent or to not serve as pastors was not acceptable.[1180]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 275]

            Some of the gentry's pamphlets which celebrated celibacy and monastic-convent life were Hieronymous Platus, The Happiness of a Religious State (1632), translated by Henry More, S.J., Leonardus Lessius (d. 1627), The Treasure of Vowed Chastity in Secular Persons (1621), Lawrence Anderton, The English Nunne, being a Treatise wherein by way of Dialogue the author endeavors to draw Young and Unmarried Catholic Gentlewomen to embrace a votary and religious life (1642), anonymous, The Catholic Younger Brother (1642), and books about nuns such as Clara of Assisi (d. 1253), Teresa of Avila (d. 1582), and Catherine of Sienna. English Catholics who authored these works included Luke Wadding and Tobie Mathew.[1181] Works about the virgin Mary were also favored by the gentry: Sister Joane, The historie of the Blessed Virgin (1625), Alessio Segalia (d. 1628), An Admirable Method to Love, Serve, and Honor the B. Virgin Mary (1639), Sabine Chambers (d. 1633), The Garden of our B. Lady, Henry Gamet, Society of the Rosary, together with the Life of the Virgin Marie (1624), and anonymous, The Primer: or, Office of the Blessed Virgin Marie in Latin and English (1599).[1182]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 276]

            Illustrative of the gentry's monastic literature which to a greater or lesser degree minimized the family and egalitarian gender roles was the biography of the sixteenth-century Italian gentleman, Aloysius Gonzaga. He was described as so modest that he would not look at his own body, not even his toes.[1183] When circumstances forced him to go out in public, he fixed his eyes on the ground so that he would not view women, for whom he had a "noted antipathy."[1184] He spoke to his mother through a door half shut, so that he did not have to look at her. When he had to be in the same room with her, he had witnesses present.[1185]

            Similar beliefs were taught in the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius Loyola. These were popular in the manorhouse type ministry promoted by the gentry. The Maryland clergy reported the Spiritual Exercises were also part of their ministry among the prominent Maryland migrants, including probably the governor, Leonard Calvert. The Spiritual Exercises in its guidelines for discernment compared the devil to a woman.[1186] Leonard Calvert died at age 41 in 1647, never having married. As a younger son he apparently never was able to gain enough money to support a wife in the manner to which the gentry were accustomed. However, he did father several children on his visit to England in the mid-1640s.[1187]

            The gentry's dramatic literature as well as its monastic literature had a bias for the institution of celibacy. The Catholic dramatists William Davenant and Walter Montague were fashionable at court. Their patron Queen Henrietta Maria liked them because they stressed Platonic love as the heavenly ideal along with stoic self-discipline.[1188] The heroine in Montague's The Shepherds Paradise (1632) was Fidamira, queen of the shepherdesses. She was vowed to chastity and was the symbol for Queen Henrietta Maria.[1189] Fidamira remarked in one passage, "Sensual appetite does not suit with the divine image."[1190]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 277]

            Besides primogeniture and celibacy, a third aspect of the English landlord system which generated negative beliefs about the family and gender roles grew out of the ideal of living idle and without labor. In Roman law the intermarriage of the patrician order with the plebeian order, not to mention with slaves, was outlawed. Similar to the patrician woman, the goal of the English gentry woman was to marry "well," be obedient to her domestic role, and bear a male heir.[1191] Political, economic, and other rights and duties were not a large part of the ideal. Among the arguments which the gentry literature offered for women's subordination was the biblical passage about eating the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden and the special curse upon Eve for inducing her husband to sin.[1192]

            Some of the proprietor's promotional literature in seeking to attract women, pictured Maryland as a place where women could obtain the gentry ideal or at least the customary division of labor. John Hammond, for example, wrote in Leah and Rachel in 1655, "The women are not, as is reported, put into the ground to work, but occupy such domestic employments and housewifery as in England, that is dressing victuals, righting up the houses, milking, employed about dairies, washing, sewing. Yet," he said, "some wenches that are nasty, beastly, and not fit to be so employed are put into the ground."[1193] As noted earlier, despite Hammond's statement, most women did field work, and to work at the hoe, in the gentry's view, meant one was nasty and beastly.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 278]

            However, it was probably more than a coincidence that in Maryland, where women often worked equally with men, they also shared relatively equal rights. Lois Green Carr, Lorena Walsh, and James Henretta maintain that many of the rights obtained by Maryland women were a recognition of their economic contribution.[1194] In contrast to the Maryland pattern, English and Jamaican gentry women were less equally integrated into the economic system. Several scholars maintain that this lack of equal economic integration was associated with women gaining fewer rights and the family having less respect.[1195] Jamaica's sugar agriculture was based on class divisions, gang labor, and large plantations, not on family production. The discrimination against women in England, as Vivien Brodsky notes, was also associated with their secondary role in the economic system.[1196]

            To sum up, the first half of the chapter has looked at the Catholics' views of the family and of gender roles. It was seen that the labor of women and of the family as a productive unit were basic to survival. Not unexpectedly, the Catholics manifested a positive view toward the family and gender roles in their assembly legislation, court cases, and local customs. The views of the English Catholic gentry concerning the family were contrasted with those of the Maryland Catholics. It was seen that the migrants' beliefs were not derivative from the gentry's views, but were more sympathetic to the family and equal gender roles.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 279]

Beliefs in Relation to Race

            The second half of the chapter takes up the Catholics' beliefs in relation to race. The argument is that the Catholics were not generally racists, unlike the English Catholic gentry. Catholic Indians, Catholic Africans, and Catholic Europeans lived in relative harmony. As in the case of gender, their harmony was related to a unity of interests concerning labor, politics, religion, and the market. The three nationalities were all laboring people. The rest of the chapter will compare the beliefs of the African and Indian Catholics with those of the Europeans and illustrate how these gave rise to racial harmony.

            As in the first half of the chapter, the second is divided into several parts. Demography will be discussed before the beliefs are taken up. By 1642 there were several hundred Indian Catholics out of a total Maryland Indian population of between 5,000 and 7,000.[1197] The total figure included about 1,665 Conoy (Piscataway, Yeocomico), 300 Patuxent, and 1,000 Accomac.[1198] The Maryland Indians were part of the Algonquian language group, who had been cultivators, that is, farming people in the Chesapeake region since at least 800 A.D.[1199] They traded their tobacco, corn, bean, pumpkin, and deer skin surplus for beaver pelts and other products throughout northeast America with tribes such as the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannock, as well as with tribes to the west and south.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 280]

            In addition to the Catholic Indians, there were perhaps 10 Catholic Africans in Maryland during the Civil War period. Some and perhaps all were Portuguese-Congo freemen. At least the one African whose origin is known for certain, Mathew de Sousa, was a Portuguese-Congo mulatto (mestiÇo) yeomen. The others had names that seem to have been Portuguese, not African or English: John Baptista, Francisco, and Antonio (Tony).[1200] Sousa, who come to Maryland in 1633, in petitioning for naturalization in 1671 mentioned his home country was Portugal. He may have been related to Pedro de Sousa, who was the Congo ambassador to Portugal under King Afonso I (ruled 1506-1543).[1201]

            It will be seen in comparing the African and Indian Catholics with the Europeans, that they dealt with each other as equals. Adrian van Oss in his study of the sixteenth-century Catholic Indians of Guatemala makes several observations that are relevant to Maryland.[1202] Oss finds that the highland Guatemalan Indians like the Maryland Indians were not a conquered people who were forced to adopt Catholicism as part of being subjected to a foreign ruler. Unlike in some parts of Mexico and Peru, the Guatemalans did not have enough wealth to make them a target of conquest. They retained their traditional political, economic, and religious structure. Between the traditional Quiché religion of Guatemala and Catholicism, just as between the Conoy religion and Catholicism there was a continuity, which explains why there was little resistance to Catholic missionaries. For example, in Guatemala the cult of Catholic saints were paired with the the Quiché pantheon. The traditional Quiché religious leaders became sacristans, acolytes, and catechists in the Catholic church. Oss remarks, "Roman Catholicism was a syncretic religion before it even reached America's shores
--one of the reasons it was difficult to explain or understand `correctly'--and it should have surprised no one that the highland Guatemalan church rapidly acquired its own character."[1203]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 281]

            The Maryland Indians like those in Guatemala had their own political, economic, and religious reasons for helping promote the settlement at St. Mary's and for converting to Catholicism. As James Merrell remarks, when the Maryland Indians such as the Piscataway made accommodations with the English, it was on their own terms in their own time.[1204]

            In comparing the three nationalities it also needs to be mentioned that the Catholic Africans in Maryland were for the most part not a conquered people. They were Portuguese-Congo yeomen, who were fifth-generation Catholics. The African kingdom of Congo, which was located in what is now Angola, had been officially Catholic since King Nzinga Nkuwu had himself baptized under the name Joâo in 1491.[1205] With their capital at Sâo Salvador, the Catholic Congolese had a fairly extensive system of parishes, schools, pamphlets in their own kikongo (Bantu) language, and a fluency in Portuguese among those who were merchants.[1206] According to John Thornton the Congolese were proud of their Catholic heritage, "which they believed made them a distinctive people."[1207]

            Traditional studies of Congolese Catholicism maintain that it served only the interests of the Europeans, that is, it was a light syncretism confined to a westernized strata at court, or that it was a faÇade to enhance the Congo's diplomatic relations to Europe, or that its strength was proportional to the number of European clergy in the country, which in certain periods was not great. Thornton disputes the accuracy of these conclusions. Since the Congo converted to Catholicism of its own free will, "the shape and structure of the church and its doctrines were determined as much by the Congolese as by Europeans. Because Congo controlled the church, attempts to use the church for political leverage by outsiders were not successful, although the Portuguese tried regularly to do so."[1208]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 282]

            The Congo government maintained control over foreign clerical interference by favoring native secular clergy for church offices and by cutting off the income of the foreign clergy when necessary. For example King Diogo I (ruled 1545-1561) allowed the Jesuit clergy to minister in the Congo starting in the 1540s. The Jesuits as in Maryland came desiring that the entire religious life of the country would be put in their hands.[1209] Diogo, while respecting them, favored the Catholics' control of the church and the Congo clergy. The Congo Catholics abused the Jesuits and refused to obey both them and the bishop of Sâo Tomé who supposedly had jurisdiction over them. When the Jesuits continued to interfere they had their tithe income cut off by the government in the early 1550s. This resulted in 1555 in their withdrawing from the country until 1619.[1210]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 283]

            In Maryland as in the Congo, Catholicism was "inclusive" as opposed to exclusive. All aspects of the traditional Indian or African culture not directly contrary to fundamental doctrine was considered acceptable.[1211] The Jesuit missionary Mateus Cordoso wrote in 1624 that "the Congo knew of the existence of the true God but had not had the opportunity to know, prior to their contact with Europe, of Jesus Christ."[1212] As will be seen the same was said by Andrew White, S.J. about the Maryland Indians. Maryland Catholic cosmological doctrine like Congo Catholic cosmological doctrine involved only a simple declaration of faith, such as might be found in the Apostle's Creed, in which one confessed belief in the existence of a single God, God's relationship to Jesus Christ, and belief in the mission and resurrection of Jesus.[1213]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 284]

            The inclusive approach contrasted with the exclusive, which was applied in Mexico, Peru, Virginia in the 1610s and 1620s, and perhaps in the New England Congregational Indian ministry of John Eliot (1604-1690).[1214] In the exclusive approach, an effort was made for example to ensure that there was no identification between Indian cosmology and the Christian cosmology. This required that key cosmological words be rendered in Spanish or English.[1215] In the Congo and in Guatemala as in Maryland the key cosmological terms such as God, holy, and spirit were rendered in the traditional Kikongo, Quiché, and Algonquian terms.[1216]

            In terms of cosmology, the Maryland missionaries came with the same spirit of concession and willingness to syncretize as occurred in the sixth-century mission to Europe or the sixteenth-century mission to China and India. There was a mixing of cosmologies and an adaptation to the local conception of religion. In China and India this meant a blend of Catholicism and Confucianism (the China rites) or Catholicism and Hinduism (the Malabar rites), which was comfortable to many Chinese and Indians.[1217]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 285]

            The Maryland Catholic Indians, Africans, and Europeans had similar cosmological beliefs and perhaps not unrelated to this, they had similar beliefs about labor, politics, the role of the clergy, and about the market. Gary Nash and T. H. Breen have shown that the Indians and Africans as well as the Europeans often shared or assimilated each others political, economic, and religious achievements.[1218] This was the result not of conquest, but, it is argued here, because each nationality were laboring people. In discussing the beliefs of the English Catholics in Maryland it was seen that they valued labor. This was also a characteristic of the Indian and African Catholics. What the French Jesuit missionary Jean de Brébeuf said about the Hurons' respect for the best laborers, rather than for birth or wealth, applied with similar force to most Conoy, "All the fine qualities which might make you loved and respected in France are like pearls trampled under the feet of swine, or rather of mules, which utterly despise you when they see that you are not as good pack animals as they are."[1219] The Conoy leaders, most of whom were Catholic, including the werowance (king), wisoes (councilors), and caweawaassough (advisors and, in time of war, captains), all supported themselves from their own labor. John Lewger and Jerome Hawley wrote in 1635, "The werowance himself plants corn, makes his own bow and arrows, his canoe, his mantle, shoes, and whatever else belongs unto him, as any other common Indian."[1220] Similarly the Conoy "queen" did the normal labor of a woman, which included field work, preparing meals, dressing meat, baking bread, and weaving baskets and mats from rushes. The mats were used as beds and to cover the houses.[1221] The Conoy took nothing for free, as Andrew White, S.J. put it, "You can do them no favor, but they will return it."[1222]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 286]

            The work life of the Conoy and Africans was similar to that of the European migrants described in Chapter 2. The Portuguese-Congo yeomen in Maryland like the English came from class divided societies, in which the gentry promoted negative views of labor. Both Portugal and the Congo had a ruling class which employed slave labor and engaged in international credit-based market relations.[1223] Whatever the class background of Sousa and the other Africans, they lived off their own labor in Maryland. Sousa was a boatman, Indian trader, and planter.[1224]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 287]

Conoy youth were sometimes apprenticed to Catholic planters, such as Luke Gardiner.[1225] Some worked as wage laborers and artisans among the Europeans, just as some Europeans lived and worked in the Indian villages.[1226] For the most part, however, the Conoy were and had been prior to the European arrival, sedentary agrarians, which did not exclude them from foraging like the Europeans for berries, fruits such as persimmon, and nuts such as hickory, walnuts, chestnuts, chinquapin, and beech. Both Europeans and Indians also foraged for fiber for cordage, for roots and plants such as arrow drum and its tuckahoe root and for wild greens in the meadows.[1227] They raised their crops, assimilated iron technology, and sold their surplus, not unlike the European owner-operators. Between 1632 and 1638 the Indian village on Kent Island sold to their London trading partners some 2,843 bushels of maize worth £568 at 4s per bushel, 6,348 pounds of tobacco worth £106 at 4d per pound, and 7,488 pounds of beaver pelts worth £4,493 at 12s per pound.[1228] Because of the warmer climate, the Maryland beaver pelts were not of high quality. It was the Susquehannocks to the North and their Iroquois trading partners on the Great Lakes who excelled in this. But the Conoy learned to cure deer skins which they traded to the Europeans.[1229]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 288]

            Because there was a division of labor with the Conoy men doing most of the hunting and fishing and the women doing much of the agricultural work, Europeans often assumed the men were lazy and did not have positive views about labor. But as Helen Rountree notes, "the men had their hands full being hunters and fishers; yet the English persisted for centuries in viewing them as lazy."[1230] Besides white-tailed deer, which were hunted by individual men year-round and by whole villages in communal hunts in the late fall, they also trapped raccoons, opossums, muskrats, wild turkeys, and brown bears.[1231] At night they hunted with fire in a canoe to attract fish.[1232] The Conoy were a riverine people and the construction of weirs for fishing and of dugout canoes was a big job.[1233]

            An aspect of the Conoy's belief in labor can be seen in their theory of land ownership. This theory was based on labor (usufruct), not on land speculation or profit from buying and selling land.[1234] Deserted fields could be used by anyone who wanted to use them. As one authority puts it, "Indian title was originally one of aboriginal use and occupancy."[1235] The Indian system of holding land collectively was not unlike the institution of common land among the English laboring people.[1236] John Lewger and Jerome Hawley stated in 1635 that the Conoy "show no great desire of heaping wealth. If they were Christians and would live so free from covetousness, and many other vices which abound in Christendom, they would be a brave people."[1237] The Conoy had no objection to wealth but, as Andrew White, S.J. observed, they found collective rather than individual wealth to be in their interests.[1238] Wealth such as tobacco and corn was held in common warehouses and storage pits.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 289]

            A second of the European Catholics' beliefs was that politics should serve their needs. This similarly characterized Conoy-Catholic thinking. The Conoy promoted the European settlement at St. Mary's because they perceived it to be in their political interest. In the first part of the seventeenth century the Conoy had been under encroachment from the Powhatans and Europeans in Virginia to the southwest and from the Iroquois-speaking Susquehannocks who lived at the head of the Delmarva Peninsula in present-day Pennsylvania and Delaware.[1239] For the Powhatans warfare had been endemic prior to the European arrival.[1240] They had an empire until 1646 to which most of the Algonquian villages in Eastern Virginia were forced to pay an annual tribute.[1241] The Powhatan emperor in the 1610s, whose name happened to be Powhatan, appointed his brothers and sons to rule the subject tribes. He had slaves or servants, as well as whole villages that raised food for him and his 100 wives. A few groups such as the Chickahominies persisted in governing by a council of elders and the Conoy maintained their independence, but were subjected to Powhatan raids. The European Virginians had likewise made war against the Maryland Piscataways and Natotchtanks in 1624 and William Claiborne, the Virginia land speculator, had made an alliance with their Susquehannock enemies in the late 1620s. He led a party that leveled an Indian town at Cantauncrck on the north side of the York River in March 1629 and then patented the town for himself in 1640.[1242] The Susquehannock were in turn allied to the Iroquois and Hurons in the Great Lakes and to New Sweden on the Delaware Bay between 1638 and 1655.[1243] Conoy women and children were sometimes kidnapped and their goods were stolen by Susquehannock raiding parties.[1244] In addition to the outside encroachments, the Conoy had been reduced in number in the century prior to the European arrival because of disease.[1245]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 290]

            The alliance with the Europeans and European arms helped the Conoy even the balance between themselves and the Virginians and the Susquehannock. The proprietor was generally willing to wage war against the Susquehannock in defense of Maryland.[1246] The Maryland assembly, which had to pay for the wars and do the fighting was less enthusiastic for war.[1247] Nevertheless, the assembly when attacked did fight back in a limited way, as in 1642.[1248] This was an advantage to the Conoy, as the Europeans served as a buffer between them and the Virginians and Susquehannocks.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 291]

            The Conoy who had been living at what became St. Mary's in 1634 were called the Yeocomicos, after the Algonquian name for the river on which they lived. Some continued to live there with the English but most moved across the nearby Potomac River to live with their relatives there.[1249] This move had been decided upon prior to the English arrival in Maryland. In exchange for being allowed to settle at St. Mary's, the Europeans made payment to the Conoy in the form of trade goods.[1250]

            Acknowledgement that the Conoy Catholics believed politics should serve their interests does not deny that the Europeans, especially the proprietor and crown, sought to use Catholicism more to serve their own political interests than the interests of the Conoy. The crown wanted to undermine Conoy sovereignty as part of a larger colonial relationship between Europe and North America. Andrew White, S.J. reflected the proprietor's wish to use Catholicism to pacify and keep the Indians obedient:

We came to teach divine doctrine whereby to lead the Indians to heaven, and to enrich them with such ornaments of civil life as our community abounds withall, not doubting but this emperor being satisfied, the other kings would be more peaceable.[1251]

Despite the wishes of the proprietor and crown, the Conoy followed their own independent course. Their Catholicism was not characterized by servility. They had their own Indian government system and leaders. Later in the century the proprietor sought to gain a veto over the election of the Conoy's top leader, but this was never given.[1252] Typical of their independence was an alliance of friendship in 1644 with the Susquehannock who were then at war with the Maryland Europeans. The Conoy felt the migrants had not been adequately serving as a buffer.[1253] In the Civil War period the threat to the Conoy sovereignty was mainly from the Susquehannock not from the crown. Both the crown and proprietor were on the defensive and in no position to undermine Conoy sovereignty.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 292]

            The early relation between the Conoy and the Europeans was more positive than that between the Europeans and the Powhatans in Virginia. The difference in part was that the Maryland Europeans from the start planted corn and were self-sufficient in food production. The Virginians from their landing in 1607 until well into the 1630s were dependent on the Virginia company, the Dutch, and the Powhatans for food.[1254] Helen Rountree remarks that the early Virginia gentlemen were "adverse to labor."[1255] The first corn crop planted was in 1611, five years after settlement. It was put in by Indian captives, not by Europeans.[1256] In 1618 the Europeans started planting tobacco because it brought a substantial financial return. But in emphasizing tobacco, the Virginians neglected to plant food crops. This resulted in frequent raids against their neighboring Powhatans to steal grain supplies, especially in years of poor harvest.[1257]

            A third of the Conoy beliefs that was similar to those of the Europeans was that religion should serve their interests. The Catholic Conoy wanted and used the services of the clergy. They respected the clergy's learning, spirituality, and songs. The presence of the clergy at their marriages, funerals, feasts, and dances added to the occasion.[1258] They seem to have appreciated the clergy's baroque religious art: the silver and gold altar equipment, the vestments, liturgy, incense, and songs.[1259]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 293]

            Besides the Conoy who joined the Catholics because of the missionary work of the clergy within the Indian villages, others joined because they lived in close proximity to or worked for Catholics. Some number of Conoy youth were indentured to European Catholic artisans and agrarians. Adult Conoy hired themselves as wage laborers to Catholics in order to earn enough to buy iron tools or European clothing. They learned English and it would have been natural for many of these to attend Catholic services and be baptized.[1260]

            It might be argued that the Conoy were seduced to Catholicism and took on a religion that was perpetually foreign to them.[1261] If an exclusive Catholicism had been imposed as was attempted in Mexico and Quito (or as some Protestants attempted for their religion in New England and Virginia) then this argument would be more compelling.[1262] But the Conoy took Catholicism on their own terms. When Andrew White, S.J. translated the Apostle's Creed into Eastern Algonquian it was the traditional Conoy nature force or god, manet in whom belief was expressed: nauzamo manet (I believe in God). The "Catholic church" was translated as poqwatz-akkawan manet, that is, manet's house.[1263] In contrast, as noted earlier, the Spanish in Mexico attempted without success to make the Indians learn the Spanish religious vocabulary for essential words. Part of the conquest was the destruction of the Indian gods.[1264]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 294]

            The clergy reported in 1639 that the Conoy beliefs were similar to those of the Catholics, "they acknowledge one God of heaven. . . They are readily swayed by reason, nor do they withhold their assent obstinately from the truth set forth in a credible manner."[1265] The Conoy had a different language and so different names for the beliefs, but the substance was similar.[1266] The crosses, pictures, rings, and rosaries distributed by the clergy supplemented and served the same purposes, such as protecting fields, crops, and health, as did the Conoy's traditional charms, herbs, stones, and other amulets and fetishes.[1267]

            The ten commandments which Andrew White translated into Algonquian and the catechism which Roger Rigby, S.J. (d. 1647) translated were not an innovation for the Conoy but in large measure a morality which was part of their tradition as laboring people.[1268] Most, for example, were faithful to their spouses and did not abuse alcohol.[1269] John Lewger and Jerome Hawley wrote:

These people acknowledge a God, . . . wherewith their life is maintained. To him they sacrifice of the first fruits of their corn, and of that which they get by hunting and fishing. . . They hold the immortality of the soul, and there is a place of joy and another of torment after death. Those who kill, steal or lie shall go to the place of torment, but those which do no harm to the good place.[1270]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 295]

            The Conoy traditions, like those in the Hebrew scriptures, allowed for more than one wife.[1271] This does not seem to have been an obstacle to those who wished to become Catholics. Most only had one wife to begin with.[1272] The Conoy, unlike their Powhatan neighbors in Virginia were not a class-stratified society. Only the king and a few others could afford more than one wife. The king, when he became a Catholic, restricted himself to his chief wife.[1273] Even if some continued to keep more than one wife, this would not have been a major obstacle. In Europe and the Congo, polygamy was "solved" by the male merely marrying his head wife and keeping the others as concubines. John Thornton writes of Congo polygamy:

Marriage as a social institution was not subject to much theological baggage, and in the world of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in Europe as in Africa, it was enough to differentiate between types of sexual unions and to label one as marriage to overcome the problem raised by polygamy in Kongo. . . The question of polygamy was solved quite early by transforming it into concubinage. Since in Kongo society the multiple wives of a polygamous husband did not have equal status, the Kongo nobility simply married their head wife following Christian rites, and kept the others as concubines. Such wives were normally called mancebas (concubines) and the word became a regular part of clerical vocabulary.[1274]

The practice of extra-marital relations was well enough established among the European gentry that a body of law and social practice had grown up around it. This included laws for the legitimization of children born in this way.[1275]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 296]

            A fourth of the Conoy's beliefs that was similar to those of the Europeans was that the market should serve their needs. The Conoy promoted the settlement at St. Mary's in part because they needed an ally against the Susquehannock. But another consideration was that they believed the settlement would serve their market interests. It gave them both a closer source for European technology and a trade outlet for their surplus corn, tobacco, fish, oysters, fowl, and deer skins.[1276] James Axtell remarks, "having been introduced to the cloth and metal trade goods of the Virginia traders, the Indians welcomed the Marylanders as future and more reliable sources of the same."[1277] The Patuxents had been trading with the Virginians since the 1620s.[1278] The new technology, such as iron axes, knives, hatchets, hoes, needles, thread, and fish-hooks was an improvement on their traditional farming technology.[1279] Cloth was warmer and lighter than animal skins. Andrew White observed that the Conoy "exceedingly desired Christian apparel."[1280] They continued to favor traditional clothing style, but they used English fabrics when they could. Women's aprons and men's breechclouts were made of blue or red cotton, with a matchcoat of Duffields for cold weather.[1281] Leggings continued to be worn, but were made of cotton. When they wore English-style coats, the preference was for diverse colors.

            The nature of the market goods which the Conoy desired can be seen in the cargo of a typical supply ship such as one that landed at St. Mary's in 1634. It carried 1,000 yards of cloth, 35 dozen wooden combs, 17 dozen horn, 300 pounds of brass kettles, 600 axes, 30 dozen hoes, 40 dozen hawks' bells, 45 gross of sheffield knives.[1282] European housing technology was also an area which at least some of the Conoy wished to assimilate.[1283] A few preferred English timber frame cottages to the rectangular barrel-roofed Conoy construction. Most however maintained the traditional yi-hakans (later called wigwams or cabins) construction until well into the eighteenth century. However, their iron technology allowed them to improve upon it. Helen Rountree writes of the Conoy neighbors across the river in Virginia.[1284] Bark coverings became standard on most of their houses where before this had been available only to a few. The change was possible because everyone possessed iron hatchets, tools that reduced the time needed to cut through enough bark to cover a house. Because of the bark addition, houses were able to have windows left between slabs of bark, "Their windows are little holes left open for the passage of light, which in bad weather they stop with sheaths of the same bark, opening the leeward windows for air and light."[1285]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 297]

            Several different arguments based in the the nature of market relations might be made that the Conoy were not "real" Catholics. For example Thomas James argued in 1643 that Catholicism among the Conoy was superficial. James was a New England visitor to Maryland. In his view all the Conoy wanted were European goods, not religion. James' observations were recorded by John Cotton:

When Thomas James landed in 1643, he saw 40 Indians baptized in new shirts, which the Catholics had given them for the encouragement in baptism. James tarried there for a fair wind. Before his departure, he saw the Indians, when their shirts were foul, and they knew not how to wash them, come again to make a new motion. Either the English must give them new shirts, or else they would renounce their baptism.[1286]

            In response it has been seen that Catholic laboring people studied here did not generally counterpoise material and spiritual considerations. They viewed as superficial a religion that did not take material considerations seriously. That the Conoy were concerned about adequate trade goods points up their belief that religion should serve their market interests. They were not a conquered people. They took from the Europeans what they wanted. They were not sectarian or against assimilation when it served their needs. The question of adequate clothing was probably also not a superficial question for most New England Congregationalists.

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 298]

            If James had tarried longer, he would have observed that part of the technology which the Conoy adopted was how to wash textiles.[1287] In time they also took up weaving wool clothing for themselves. The Conoy who so desired took regular religious instruction both before and after Baptism. In 1642 the clergy would spend about seven weeks in a village teaching the Apostles Creed, prayers, and catechism prior to baptism.[1288] From the 1630s to the present, Catholicism has had a continuous existence among the Conoy. Some 7,000 Catholic descendants of the Conoy presently live in St. Mary's and Charles County, Md.[1289]

            A second argument can be made about the strength of Conoy Catholicism from the perspective of market relations. Just as it might be argued that all the Conoy wanted was trade goods, so it could be maintained, as was noted in the discussion of politics, that the proprietor used the mission mainly to make the Conoy obedient to his market interests. He wanted a monopoly on their deer skin, corn, and land. What they were taught was not religion but an ideology of servitude.

            From the proprietor's perspective this was no doubt one of the purposes of the mission, but that does not mean that his Catholicism of obedience was adopted any more by the Conoy than by the European laboring people. Despite his claims and efforts, the proprietor was not given a monopoly on Conoy trade. They traded with those licensed by the proprietor, such as Thomas Cornwallis and Mathew de Sousa. But they also traded with other Maryland and Virginia Europeans who offered better prices.[1290]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 299]

            Similarly the Conoy made grants of land to the proprietor but they also made grants to individual planters, including the Jesuits in 1639, the Maryland levelers in the 1640s, and the Virginians who migrated to the Providence area of Maryland starting in 1648._ When they initially made the St. Mary's grant to the proprietor, it was not from obedience but because it served their market, religious, and defensive interests. As James Axtell puts it, the Yeocomicos "made out like bandits. For a trove of valuable trade goods, they gave up an old village that the previous year they had decided to abandon to escape the raids of the Susquehannocks."_ Like the proprietor, one of the Maryland Catholic landlords, Giles Brent, sought to take advantage of the Conoy to enrich himself. The Conoy tradition was for offices of leadership to pass matrilineally. Brent secured an agreement with the Piscataway king to designate his (the king's) daughter to be his successor. Brent married the king's daughter, Mary Kittamaquund, believing this would make his children heir to political office and gain for himself a land monopoly._ But when the king died, the Piscataway rejected the king's designation. They did not allow tradition to subvert their land interests. Brent and his Piscataway wife ended up raising their family in Virginia.

            To sum up the Catholic Conoys and Africans had beliefs about labor, politics, religion, and the market that were similar to those of the Europeans. These beliefs were not so much an innovation for them as a continuation and development of their earlier traditions. They were not against progress and assimilation any more so than the seventeenth-century English Catholics who migrated to Maryland and those who stayed in England such as Kenelm Digby, who was described as believing in the idea of "progress then sweeping across Europe, the revolutionary disorganizing horizontal force that was gradually weakening and replacing the order of things called `the great chain of being.'"[1291]

[CHAPTER SIX, 1996 ed., p. 300]

            Racism and sexism were fundamental to the existence of the class system in Europe. To the extent the Catholic and Protestant magnates, land speculators, and London-based creditors were able, they used political power, debtor-creditor laws, land laws, and restriction of the franchise to advance themselves at the expense of the majority. This included enslavement and aggression against Africans and Indians, political, economic, and religious marginalization of the European male and female laboring people, and the teaching of race hatred. Typical was the gentry writer Gervase Markham who wrote in 1600 that the American Indians and the Irish had the same origins and both served the devil.[1292] The Chesapeake magnates included some Indians, Africans, and women who owned slaves. But the argument in this study has been that during the Civil War period, the laboring people, not the class system, dominated in Maryland. Gender and nationality harmony, not racism and sexism were characteristic.

 

Illustration 4: Seventeenth-century Algonquian boatmakers  (Virginia State Library)

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 301]

 

 

Conclusion

            The conclusion will summarize the Catholics' beliefs, outline what became of their beliefs during the rest of the colonial period, and then discuss an aspect of the significance of their beliefs. This study has argued that the Catholics' beliefs were characterized by what the classical political economists called the labor theory of value. Catholic thinking also manifested what the seventeenth-century established order called antinomianism. That is, labor was a center of their lives and a source from which their beliefs were drawn. Their beliefs were often independent of and at various points in opposition to the crown, parliament, proprietor, London merchants, English gentry, local magnates and clergy, and Roman establishment. Opposition came when one or the other of these interfered unduly with the Catholics' self-interests. The Catholics' beliefs were not unusual. Similar beliefs existed in England. What was unique was that the Catholics had a dominant role in the legislature and judiciary. They left documentation about their beliefs that is not usual for laboring people.[1293]

            In the post-Civil War and throughout the colonial period the Maryland Catholics continued to be mainly laboring people.[1294] Their beliefs were characterized by the habit of thinking of value in terms of producers' cost, which included views on politics, religion, and the market which sometimes set them apart from landlords, London merchants, and the proprietor. In 1675 Catholics were about 8 percent of the Maryland population or 1,700 out of 20,000.[1295] In the 1708 census they were 9 percent of the population or 2,974 in a total population of 34,000.[1296] In 1759 they were estimated to be 7,700 out of 100,000 in the province.[1297]

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 302]

            About half of the Catholics lived in St. Mary's and Charles Counties throughout the colonial period. The congregations established in these counties during the Civil War period continued to function throughout the colonial period. Many of the offspring of the following generations dispersed throughout the state and further abroad in order to establish their own farms. Because of the scarcity of clergy, some attended the services of their Protestant spouses, relatives, and friends.[1298] They became church Catholics or Presbyterian-Catholics or Quaker-Catholics. When the clergy were available, such as Peter Manners, S.J. (d. 1669), the people responded with enthusiasm. Besides ministering to Catholics, Manners attracted 100 converts in his two year ministry before being killed in a swollen stream.[1299] But clergy such as Manners were exceptional. Many priests came out to Maryland, but most returned to England within a year. They preferred the type of manor house ministry among the gentry that dominated in much of England.[1300]

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 303]

            Most of the Catholics had no political patronage from the proprietor. But this is not to deny the existence of a small group of Maryland Catholic landlords, many of whom had married the proprietor's relatives and converted to Catholicism, that served on the governor's council and in the assembly's upper house.[1301] For them Catholicism was a necessary stepping stone for gaining political benefits at the expense of the laboring people, including most Catholics. In England it was similarly not unusual prior to the Glorious Revolution in 1688 for those seeking the crown's patronage to convert to Catholicism. In the Revolution of 1688 and the American Revolution there were splits in the Catholic ranks.[1302] The Catholic landlords within the proprietor's circle, like their counterparts in England, supported James II in 1688. They suffered a political defeat when the revolutionaries won out in England. William and Mary annulled the proprietor's charter on July 15, 1691.[1303]

            Just as during the Civil War, so in the later period, what are often seen as anti-Catholic enactments were mainly anti-proprietor.[1304] For example the assembly enacted an oath of abjuration for elected officials in 1716 and for the electorate generally in 1718.[1305] This was in response to two related developments. First, the Jacobite-Tory-Catholic landlords were plotting in England to overthrow the Hanover-Whigs, who had succeeded to the crown on the death of Queen Anne (d. 1714), the last of the Stuarts. Second, the proprietor's charter, which had been annulled in 1691 was restored in 1715 to Charles Calvert, the great grandson of the Civil War era proprietor.[1306] This pleased no one but the proprietor's relatives and patrons who stood to profit at the public's expense. The assembly measures were directed at these court Catholics.

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 304]

            As in the Civil War period, Catholics took the oaths and served in the Maryland government. The Catholics Henry Darnall III was Maryland's attorney general and John Darnall was judge of the provincial court.[1307] The Calverts took oaths of abjuration to retain their patent after 1715, but their families and probably themselves remained Catholic. The crown and the papacy made an alliance in the 1760s and a Catholic bishop was appointed in British Canada. Following the example of their 1638 praemunire legislation, some 256 Maryland Catholics petitioned against any appointment of a bishop in Maryland.[1308] The Anglicans were fighting against the appointment of a bishop for their church. Both Catholics and Anglicans wanted the pulpit to preach their interests, not those of the crown.[1309]

            The beliefs of the Civil War Catholics and of those who came later were not unusual. But this does not mean they were not significant. "Official" Catholicism is more willing now than in the past to acknowledge that Catholic beliefs and customs along with the hierarchy and papacy, are a source for Catholic doctrine. The Catholics took the world seriously in their labor, politics, religion, and market affairs. Taking the world seriously is now accepted by official theologians as a starting point for Catholic belief. Those in the past who emphasized the next world and minimized the present were an aberration.

            Themes central to the gentry's beliefs like "praising, reverencing, and serving" God, as found in sources such as Ignatius Loyola's Spiritual Exercises, were as the present-day theologian Juan Luis Segundo, S.J. puts it, "devoid of christological influence."[1310] "Praising" and "reverencing" were not human responses to a concrete love but the first prehuman consequence of the creature's discovery of its condition as a creature, wherein human freedom played no positive role.

            The "service" in gentry belief, as pointed out by theologians who are inclined to take the world seriously, was considered a means to an ahistorical end. Service was not seen as a vocation to build a just society, as set forth by Jesus, but a goal or test envisioned to save one's soul.[1311] The conception of life-as-test, which had circulated at least since the book of Wisdom, made the only important moment in life to be the moment of death. That is, the point when the test ended and one either passed or failed.[1312] "Service" and its equation with life-as-test made the avoidance of sin and the attainment of heaven of supreme importance. The concept of sin became individual.[1313] This was not the case for the historical Jesus, for whom sin was social. Sin involved every fault that posed an obstacle to the reign of God on earth.

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 305]

            What avoidance of sin meant for the gentry and groups like the Jesuit clergy, as Segundo notes of his own religious order, was a lack of corporate commitment to contribute creatively to establishing God's reign on earth. Segundo writes, "Jesus took an interest in concrete human affairs. . . This sin of omission by the Jesuits is crucial, especially as society depends on complex mechanisms that operate (and even kill) by themselves."[1314]

            Maryland's Catholics resisted ahistorical doctrines and made complex mechanisms such as the market and politics serve their needs. They did not accept the "hardship" associated with the established order and which the gentry mystified by doctrines such as the cross, the passion, poverty, insults, hunger, thirst, cold, death, and abuses. Segundo's comments about Ignatius Loyola also applies to the landlords who shared his beliefs:

Loyola lost sight of the fact that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus appear to go out looking for poverty, abuses, or death. He accepts them because his mission confronts him with the alternative of enduring them or giving up that mission. . . This preference of God's for the poor does not lead Jesus to make himself even poorer but rather to introduce a terrible conflict into Israel by shouldering the cause of the poor.[1315]

In substituting hardship for the historical message, Jesus was made a monk. The one book Loyola recommended by name to the exercitant was the Imitation of Christ and Despising of the World by Thomas a Kempis.[1316]

[CONCLUSION, 1996 ed., p. 306]

            The comment of the theologian Karl Rahner about labor does not ring true in the case of Maryland Catholics, "The first thing that theology has to say about work is simply that it is and will continue to be tiresome and monotonous."[1317] Eric Jones' studies in agrarian history come closer to the Maryland reality. Jones finds that most farmers have a "passion" for their work.[1318] It is probably not an exaggeration to say the Maryland Catholics generally had a passion for their labors and the world. Their beliefs and the beliefs of similar laboring people are significant as a source for "official" Catholicism.

 

Illustration 5: Seventeenth-century trades, including weaving, candle making, fishing with line and net, carpentry, spinning, potting, iron smithing, furniture making, tailoring, printing, plowing and porter.[1319]

 

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 307]

 

Appendix 1:
Biographical Information on the Documented and Some Undocumented Catholics in Maryland During the Civil War Period[1320]

            There were 100 documented Catholics during the Civil War period. All were men. They were:

1. Henry Adams (d. 1686, arrived 1639, transported at the charge of
                                                viscountess Falkland, planter, box 1).

2. Thomas Allen (arrived 1633, the last record for him was 1642 or 1649,
                                                box 1).

3. John Althome, S.J. (d. 1640, arrived 1633, a Jesuit brother, also known as
                                                John Gravner, box 1).

4. John Askins (1643-1680, arrived 1658, planter, box 1).

5. Peter Bathe (d. 1661, arrived 1658, clerk, box 2).

6. William Boreman, Sr. (1630-1709, the first record of him was 1645,
                                                mariner, box 3).

7. William Boreman, Jr. (1654-1720, planter, box 3).

8. James Bowling (1636-1693, arrived 1655, sharecropper and overseer in
                                                1658 for John Anderton, box 3).

9. Fulke Brent (arrived 1638, brother of Giles Brent, returned to England in
                                                1642, box 3).

10. Giles Brent (1600-1672, arrived 1638, box 3).

11. William Bretton (d. 1672, arrived 1638, merchant, planter, box 3).

12. Baker Brooke (1628-1679, arrived 1650, married Leonard Calvert's
                                                daughter, box 3).

13. Charles Brooke (1636-1671, arrived 1650, box 3).

14. Thomas Brooke (1632-1676, arrived 1650, does well, box 3).

15. Leonard Calvert (1610-1647, box 4).

16. Phillip Calvert (1626-1682, arrived 1656, box 4).

17. Nicholas Causine (1608-1656, arrived 1640 from France, box 5).

18. John Cissell (d. 1698, arrived 1658, gunsmith and planter, box 5).

19. Robert Clark (1611-1664, arrived 1637, surveyor, box 5).

20. Robert Cole (1628-1663, first record of him was 1652, came with wife,
                                                two servants, from Heston in Middlesex, died with an estate worth
                                                £220 box 6).

21. Garrett Comberford (arrived 1653, the last record for him was 1697,
                                                planter, box 6).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 308]

22. Robert Cooper (the first record for him was 1659, his last record was
                                                1687, planter, box 6).

23. Thomas Copley, S.J. (d. 1652, the first record of him was 1637, priest,
                                                planter, also known as Philip Fisher, box 6).

24. Thomas Cornwallis (1605-1675, planter, arrived 1634, box 6).

25. Edward Cottram (also spelled Cotton, d. 1653, arrived 1637, carpenter,
                                                box 6).

26. Thomas Courtney (1641-1706, the first record for him was 1658, planter,
                                                box 6).

27. Ralph Crouch (b. 1618, free, first record of him was 1647, Jesuit brother
                                                by 1659, planter, box 7).

28. John Dandy (the first record of him was 1637, the last 1659, migrated as
                                                servant for Clobery and Co. on Kent Island, blacksmith and miller,
                                                box 7).

29. John Davis (d. 1698, arrived 1658, carpenter [non-"Career File" source],
                                                box 7).

30. Thomas Dynyard (Dinniard, d. 1659, arrived 1648, in 1653 he leased a
                                                300 acre tract for 21 years from Thomas Gerard. See Md. Arch., vol.
                                                49, p. 459, box 8).

31. William Evans (d. 1669, arrived 1646, supported proprietor in 1645
                                                revolution, box 9).

32. Cuthbert Fenwick, Sr. (1614-1655, arrived 1634, servant to Thomas
                                                Cornwallis, planter, box 9).

33. Cuthbert Fenwick, Jr. (1640-1676, the first record for him was 1649,
                                                planter, box 9).

34. Ignatius Fenwick (the first record for him was 1649, the last record for
                                                him was 1663, box 9).

35. John Fenwick (1655-1720, the first record for him was 1655, box 9).

36. Richard Fenwick (1653-1714, the first record for him was 1655, planter,
                                                box 9).

37. Robert Fenwick (1651-1676, the first record for him was 1654, box 9).

38. Francis Fitzherbert, S.J. (1615-1674, arrived 1654, priest, also known as
                                                Francis Darby, box 9).

39. Richard Gaines (the first record for him was 1652, the last 1664, box 9).

40. Luke Gardiner (1622-1674, arrived 1637, planter, box 9).

41. Richard Gardiner (d. 1651, arrived 1637, planter, box 9).

42. Robert Gates (d. 1698, arrived 1655, carpenter, planter, box 10).

43. Thomas Gerard (1608-1673, arrived 1638, surgeon and planter, box 10).

44. Thomas Gervais, S.J. (d. 1637, arrived 1637, priest, also spelled Gervase,
                                                Gelway, box 10).

45. Benjamin Gill (d. 1656, arrived 1642, box 10).

46. Leonard Greene (d. 1688, arrived 1644, box 10).

47. Thomas Greene (d. 1651, migrated 1634, free, gentleman by 1638, box
                                                10).

48. John Greenway (1625-1658, the first record for him was 1643, planter,
                                                box 11).

49. Walter Hall (d. 1678, arrived 1652, box 11).

50. John Harrington (d. 1676, the first record for him was 1660, planter, box
                                                12).

51. Bernard Hartwell, S.J. (d. 1646, arrived 1642, priest, box 12).

52. William Hawley (the first record of him was 1648, the last 1711, box 12).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 309]

53. Timothy Hays (b. 1584, arrived 1636, box 12).

54. Thomas Hebden (arrived 1635, last date 1650, box 13).

55. Henry Hooper (d. 1650, arrived 1637, surgeon, box 13).

56. Barnaby Jackson (d. 1670, arrived 1638, tailor, box 13).

57. John Jarboe (1619-1674, the first record of him was 1646, the last 1676,
                                                box 14).

58. Nicholas Keiting (d. 1661, first record of him was 1641, box 14).

59. John Knolls, S.J. (d. 1637, arrived 1637, Jesuit brother, box 14).

60. Philip Land (1607-1659, arrived 1647, innkeeper, box 15).

61. James Langworth (1630-1661, arrived 1641, attorney-in-fact, planter, box
                                                15).

62. William Langworth (d. 1694, first record for him was 1656, planter, box
                                                15).

63. John Lewger (1602-1665, arrived 1637, box 15).

64. James Lindsey (1626-1670, the first record for him was 1642, planter, box
                                                15).

65. John Lloyd (d. 1658, arrived 1658, no occupation, box 15).

66. Richard Lusthead (arrived 1633, the last record for him was 1650, servant
                                                for Thomas Copley, planter, box 15).

67. George Manners (d. 1651, arrived 1646, attorney-in-fact, planter, box 16).

68. William Manners (arrived 1646, last record was 1651, box 16).

69. John Mansell (1626-1660, arrived 1637, planter, box 16).

70. Thomas Matthews (also sp. Mathews, d. 1676, arr. 1637, surgeon, box 16).

71. Charles Maynard (1622-1661, arrived as servant 1637, literate, soldier,
                                                box 16).

72. John Medley (d. 1679, arrived 1637, planter, box 16).

73. Walter Morly, S.J. (1615-1684, arrived 1638, last record for his was 1642,
                                                Jesuit brother, box 17).

74. James Neale (1615-1684, the first record of him was 1638, merchant,
                                                planter, box 18).

75. Edward Packer (1614-1667, arrived 1637, schoolmaster and planter, box
                                                19).

76. James Pattison (d. 1698, arrived 1660, planter, box 19).

77. Robert Percy (the first record of him was 1638 and the last 1649, box 19).

78. Bartholomew Phillips (d. 1665, arrived 1638, planter, box 19).

79. John Pile (d. 1676, arrived 1644, box 19).

80. Joseph Pile (d. 1692, the first record for him was 1659, planter, box 19).

81. Ferdinand Pulton, S.J (d. 1641, arrived 1638, priest, box 20).

82. Roger Rigby, S.J. (arrived 1641, d. 1647, priest, box 21).

83. John Rogers (b. 1584, arrived 1636, no occupation, box 21).

84. William Rosewell (1637-1695, arrived 1659, innkeeper, box 21).

85. Thomas Salmon (d. 1695, arrived 1659, cooper, planter, box 21).

86. Henry Sewell (d. 1665, arrived 1660, box 22).

87. William Shercliffe (1648-1707, the first record for him was 1659, box 22).

88. John Shircliffe (1613-1663, arrived 1638, tailor, planter, box 21).

89. William Smith (arrived 1633, died 1635, box 23).

90. Henry Spinke (1622-1695, arrived 1641, planter, box 23).

91. Lawrence Starkey, S.J. (1606-1657, arrived 1648, school teacher, priest,
                                                box 23).

92. William Tattersall (1637-1670, arrived 1648, box 24).

93. John Thimbleby (d. 1659, arrived 1646, planter, box 24).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 310]

94. William Thompson (1597-1649, first record for him was 1642, last record
                                                for him was 1660, box 24).

95. William Thompson (d. 1661, the first record for him was 1648, planter,
                                                box 24).

96. Thomas Thorneborough (the first record for him was 1647, the last
                                                record for him was 1652, box 24).

97. Thomas Turner (d. 1663, arrived 1653, owned land in several parishes in
                                                Essex, Eng., box 25).

98. John Wheatley (1603-1659, arrived 1641, he and his wife hired on as
                                                servants to Cornwallis for a period of time, box 26).

99. Richard Willan (1622-1663, arrived 1638, servant of Leonard Calvert, box
                                                26).

100. John Wiseman (d. 1704, the first record for him was 1650, box 27).

                                                Scholars have identified at least 27 individuals of the Civil War period as Catholics who do not appear in the "Career Files" as Catholics. These identifications are based on logical deductions and/or data not included in the "Career Files" data base. They are:

1. Francis Anketill (1625-1679, migrated 1640).[1321]

2. John Bailey (b. 1619, date of first record was 1652, date of last record was
                                                1653, religion unknown in "Career Files").[1322]

3. Henry Bishop (d. 1645).[1323]

4. William Brainthwaite (d. 1645 or 1650, migrated 1638, son of Robert

                                                Brainthwaite, who was jailed in the Tower of London for a period and

                                                who had been secretary to Sir Richard Weston, and Ann, daughter of

                                                Francis Carter, chief clerk of the crown's rolls. He died with one

                                                plough, one harrow, one featherbed, one chest, and two milk pails.

                                                Leonard Calvert called him "my well-beloved cousin").[1324]

5. William Brown (1623-1666, migrated 1634, listed as Protestant in the
                                                "Career Files").[1325]

6. William Blount (1630-1709).[1326]

7. Ignatius Causine (d. 1642).[1327]

8. Thomas Chares (d. 1659, not in "Career Files").[1328]

9. John Cockshott.[1329]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 311]

10. Bryan Daley (also spelled Daly & Dayley, d. 1675, migrated 1639).[1330]

11. William Eltonhead (1616-1655, Cambridge graduate in 1631, Middle
                                                Temple, brought 100 servants).[1331]

12. Francisco (mulatto).[1332]

13. Alexander Frisell (1634-1666, date of arrival was 1657, religion unknown
                                                in "Career Files").[1333]

14. Forker Frisell (d. 1662, date of first record was 1659, religion unknown in
                                                "Career Files").[1334]

15. William Johnson.[1335]

16. John Langford (b. 1595, surveyor 1642-1648, alumni of Gray's Inn, wrote
                                                in 1655 a pamphlet, A Just and Clear Refutation of a False and
                                                Slanderous Pamphlet Entitled Babylon's Fall in Maryland).[1336]

17. William Lewis.[1337]

18. Henry Neale.[1338]

19. Walter Peake (Pakes).[1339]

20. Francis Rabinett.[1340]

21. George Reynolds.[1341]

22. Thomas Spalding (b. 1640, migrated 1658).[1342]

23. Francis Trafford (migrated 1642).[1343]

24. Robert Tuttey.[1344]

25. Francis Van Enden (van Rynden).[1345]

26. Andrew White, S.J. (1579-1656, ordained at Douay in 1605).[1346]

27. Nicholas Young.[1347]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 312]

            Only a few women, such as the Brent sisters and Mary Kittamaquand Brent can be documented as Catholics. This is because religious affiliation is determined in large part from wills in which the testators stated their religion. Men often left wills but not women. This was because men greatly outnumbered women and died without a spouse or family. They needed wills to direct how their estate was to be distributed. Most women died with spouses. A widow was three times more apt to remarry than a widower, because of the many single men.[1348] Only 3 percent, that is, 60 out of 1735 women known by name, left probate inventories.[1349]

                                                The surviving Maryland records are not as adequate in identifying the religion of women as they are for men, but the names of 56 women who were married to documented Catholic men are known. At least one of these, Susannah Gerard (d. 1667), was a Protestant. But many were Catholic. The women who married documented Catholic men were:

1. Mary Cockshott Adams (b. 1637, arrived 1641, married Henry Adams, box
                                                28).

2. Jane Anketill (the first record for her was 1654, married Francis Anketill,
                                                Sr., had offspring, box 28).

3. Sarah Boreman (the first record for her was 1651, married William
                                                Boreman, box 28).

4. Eleanor Stephenson Brainthwaite (the first record for her was 1645,
                                                arrived as servant, married William Brainthwaite, had offspring,
                                                box 28).

5. Margaret Brent (1601-1663, arrived 1638, attorney, never married, sister of
                                                documented Catholic Giles Brent, box 28).

6. Mary Brent (arrived 1638, never married, sister of documented Catholic
                                                Giles Brent, box 28).

7. Mary Kittamaquand Brent (native Indian, the first record for her was 1641,
                                                married Giles Brent, had offspring, box 28).

8. Temperance Jay Bretton (the first record for her was 1651, married
                                                William Bretton, box 28).

9. Ellinor Hatton Brooke (arrived 1649, married Thomas Brookes, then
                                                Henry Darnall, three of her children became priests, box 28).

10. Margaret Browne (the first record for him was 1659, married William
                                                Browne, had offspring, box 28).

11. Ann Wolsely Calvert (the first record for her was 1658, married Phillip
                                                Calvert, box 28).

12. Jane Lowe Calvert (d. 1700, arrived 1660, married Henry Sewall, then
                                                Charles Calvert, had offspring, box 28).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 313]

13. Mary Darnall Calvert (the first record for her was 1656, married Charles
                                                Calvert, box 28).

14. Winifred Clark (arrived 1638, married [first name unknown] Seyborn,
                                                then Thomas Greene, then Robert Clark, had offspring, box 28).

15. Jane Cockshott (arrived 1641, married John Cockshott, then Nicholas
                                                Causine, then Robert Clarke, had offspring, box 28).

16. Jane Cockshott, the younger (b. 1641, box 28).

17. Rebecca Cole (d. 1662, arrived 1652, married [first name unknown]
                                                Knott, then Robert Cole, had offspring, box 28).

18. Penelope Cornwallis (b. 1635, married Thomas Cornwallis, had offspring,
                                                box 28).

19. Anne Cox (arrived 1633, married [first name unknown] Cox, then
                                                Thomas Greene, box 28).

20. Audrey Daley (the first record for her was 1657, married Nicholas
                                                Keiting, then Bryan Daley, had offspring, box 29).

21. Ann Dandy (the first record for her was 1650, married John Dandy, had
                                                offspring, box 29).

22. Mary Davies (arrived 1658, married John Davis, had offspring, box 29).

23. Ann Evans (the first record for her was 1643, married William
                                                Thompson, then William Evans, box 29).

24. Jane Eltonhead Fenwick (d. 1660, the first record for her was 1649,
                                                married Robert Moryson, then Cuthbert Fenwick, had offspring, box
                                                29).

25. [First name not known] Cornwallis Fenwick (first record for her was
                                                1640), married Cuthbert Fenwick, had offspring, box 29).

26. Sarah Frisell (arrived 1657, married Alexander Frisell, had offspring, box
                                                29).

27. Mary Gaines (arrived 1651, married Andrew Wardner, then Richard
                                                Gaines, had offspring, box 29).

28. Elizabeth Gardiner (arrived 1637 with four children, married Richard
                                                Gardiner, box 29).

29. Elizabeth Hatton Gardiner (arrived 1649, married Luke Gardiner, then
                                                Clement Hill, had offspring, box 29).

30. Elizabeth Morris Gardiner (the first record for her was 1656, married
                                                Luke Gardiner, had offspring, box 29).

31. Bridget Mary Seaborn Greenway (b. 1627, arrived as servant in 1650,
                                                married John Greenway, then Robert Sheale, had offspring, box 29).

32. Margaret Hall (d. 1682, the first record for her was 1658, married John
                                                Lloyd, then Walter Hall, then James Pattison, box 29).

33. Rebecca Hall (b. 1624, arrived as a servant in 1649, married George
                                                Manners, then Edward Hall, then Thomas Orley, had offspring, box
                                                29).

34. Mary Harrington (the first record for her was 1658, married Francis
                                                Brookes, then Francis Mugg, then John Harrington, had offspring, box
                                                29).

35. Katherine Hebden (arrived 1640, physician, married Thomas Hebden,
                                                then William Marshall, had offspring, box 29).

36. Sarah Hooper (arrived 1651, married Henry Hooper, had offspring, box
                                                29).

37. Mary Tattersall Jarboe (the first record for her was 1656, married John
                                                Jarboe, then Stephen Gough, had offspring, box 30).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 314]

38. Ann Land (d. 1668, arrived 1650, married Philip Land, then Mark
                                                Pheypo, had offspring, box 30).

39. Priscilla Land (d. 1649, arrived 1647, married Philip Land, box 30).

40. Agatha Morris Langworth (the first record for her was 1656, married
                                                James Langworth, had offspring, box 30).

41. Ann Lewger (arrived 1637, married John Lewger, had offspring, box 30).

42. Mary Lindsey (d. 1676, married James Lindsey, then Kenelm
                                                Mackloughlin, had offspring, box 30).

43. Elizabeth Gardiner Lusthead (b. 1618, arrived 1637, married Richard
                                                Lusthead, box 30).

44. Ann Pike Mansell (the first record for her was 1650, married John
                                                Mansell, arrived as servant, had offspring, box 30).

45. Ann Martin (arrived 1648, married Charles Maynard, then James Martin,
                                                had offspring, box 30).

46. Hester Matthews (also spelled Mathews, arrived 1643, married Thomas
                                                Matthews, had offspring, box 30).

47. Elizabeth Medley (arrived 1641, married John Medley, had offspring, box
                                                30).

48. Penelope Nicholls (the first record for her was 1651, married William
                                                Evans, the John Nicholls, had offspring, box 30).

49. Sarah Pile (arrived 1648, married John Pile, had offspring, box 30).

50. Emma Morris Rosewell (1630-1696, first record for her was 1656,
                                                married William Johnson, then Thomas Turner, then William
                                                Rosewell, had offspring, box 30).

51. Elizabeth Sewell (d. 1710, arrived 1660, married Jesse Wharton, then
                                                William Diggs, had offspring, box 30).

52. Anne Smith (arrived 1635, married William Smith, box 30).

53. Ann Lewger Tattersall (arrived as a servant in 1658, married William
                                                Tattersall, then Henry Neal, had offspring, box 30).

54. Margaret Goodrick Thompson (the first record for her was 1657, married
                                                Barnaby Jackson, then George Thompson, box 30).

55. [First name unknown] Wheatley (arrived 1641, married John Wheatley,
                                                had offspring, box 30).

56. Elizabeth Willan (arrived 1659, married Richard Willan, then Thomas
                                                Wynne, had offspring, box 30).

                                                The additional 27 men and 56 women mentioned above have not been added to the "Career Files" in the present study, since many of the additional attributions are educated guesses and lack the documentation found in the "Career Files." Furthermore, the emphasis in this study is on developing an ideal type, not on statistical accuracy. Demographer Ansley Coale notes that even modern data from large parts of the world is "usually quite untrustworthy."[1350]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 315]

Appendix 2:
Documented Catholics Arranged According to Decade of Arrival and Status Upon Arrival

                                                There were 39 documented Catholics who migrated to Maryland in the 1630s, 29 in the 1640s, and 32 in the 1650s. The largest group of migrants, those who arrived as free, that is, paid their own passage, comprised 47 percent (47 out of 100) of the documented Catholics. Seventeen paid their own way in the 1630s, 16 in the 1640s, and 14 in the 1650s. The 17 who came in the 1630s were:

Fulke Brent (arrived 1638) Giles Brent (arrived 1638) William Bretton (arrived 1638) Leonard Calvert (arrived 1634) Thomas Copley (first record 1637) Thomas Cornwallis (arrived 1634) Thomas Gerard (arrived 1638) Thomas Greene (arrived 1634) Thomas Hebden (arrived 1635)

John Lewger (arrived 1637) Thomas Matthews (arrived 1637) James Neale (first record 1638) Edward Packer (arrived 1637) Robert Percy (first record 1638) Ferdinand Pulton (arrived 1638) William Smith (arrived 1633) Richard Willan (arrived 1638).

The 16 Catholics who paid their own way in the 1640s were:

William Boreman, Sr. (first record 1645) Nicholas Causine (arrived 1640) Ralph Crouch (first record 1647) William Evans (arrived 1646) Benjamin Gill (arrived 1642) William Hawley (first record 1648) John Jarboe (first record 1646) Nicholas Keiting (first record 1646)

Philip Land (arrived 1647) George Manners (arrived 1646) William Manners (arrived 1646) John Pile (arrived 1644) Lawrence Starkey (arrived 1648) William Tattersall (arrived 1648) William Thompson (first record 1642) John Wheatley (arrived 1641).

                                                The 14 documented Catholics who paid their own way in the 1650s were:

Peter Bathe (arrived 1658) James Bowling (arrived 1655) Baker Brooke (arrived 1650) Charles Brooke (arrived 1650) Thomas Brooke (arrived 1650) Philip Calvert (arrived 1656) John Cissell (arrived 1658)

Robert Cole (first record 1652) John Davis (arrived 1658) Francis Fitzherbert (arrived 1654) Walter Hall (arrived 1652) William Rosewell (arrived 1659) Henry Sewell (arrived 1660) Thomas Turner (arrived 1653).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 316]

                                                Of the 47 free migrants, only a few probably did no field work. These were the 5 who were under the proprietor's patronage or otherwise possessed enough capital to own four or more indentured servants at any single time. The 4 Jesuit clergy also probably did little or no field labor.[1351] Those under the proprietor's patronage were:

Giles Brent Leonard Calvert Phillip Calvert

Thomas Cornwallis John Lewger.

The four Jesuits who arrived free were:

Thomas Copley Francis Fitzherbert

Ferdinand Pulton Lawrence Starkey.

                                                Among the 25 indentured Catholic servants, 13 came in the 1630s, 6 in the 1640s, and 6 in the 1650s. The 13 who came in the 1630s were:

Henry Adams (arrived 1639, planter) Thomas Allen (arrived 1633) John Althome (arrived 1633, Jesuit    brother) Robert Clark (arrived 1637) Edward Cottram (arrived 1637) John Dandy (first record was 1637) Cuthbert Fenwick, Sr. (arrived 1634,    planter)

Henry Hooper (arrived 1637) Barnaby Jackson (arrived 1638) Richard Lusthead (arrived 1633,    planter) John Mansell (arrived 1637,    planter) Charles Maynard (arrived 1637) John Shircliffe (arrived 1638).

                                                The 6 indentured Catholics who came in the 1640s were:

Thomas Dynyard (arrived 1648) John Greenway (first record was    1643, planter) James Langworth (arrived 1641)

James Lindsey (first record was    1642, planter) Henry Spinke (arr. 1641, plntr) John Thimbleby (arr. 1646, plntr).

                                                The 6 indentured Catholics who came in the 1650s were:

John Askins (arrived 1658, planter) Garrett Comberford (arrived 1653,    planter) Richard Gaines (first record was    1652)

Robert Gates (arrived 1655) John Harrington (first record was    1650, planter) James Pattison (arrived 1660,    planter).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 317]

                                                Twelve documented Catholics were listed merely as migrants with no indication as to whether they were free or indentured, including 6 Jesuits. Eight migrated in the 1630s, 3 in the 1640s, and 1 in the 1650s. These were:

Luke Gardiner (planter) Leonard Greene (migrated 1640s) John Lloyd (no occupation, migrated    1650s)

John Medley (planter) Bartholomew Phillips (planter) John Rogers (no occupation).

The 6 Jesuits listed merely as migrants were:

Thomas Gervais (priest) Bernard Hartwell (priest, migrated    1640s) Timothy Hays

John Knolls (brother) Walter Morly (brother) Roger Rigby (priest, migrated    1640s).

                                                No indication of arrival status exists for 16 other documented Catholics. One of these migrated in the 1630s, 4 in the 1640s, and 11 in the 1650s. These were:

William Boreman, Jr. (planter) Robert Cooper (planter) Thomas Courtney (planter) Ignatius Fenwick (migrated 1640s) John Fenwick Richard Fenwick (planter) Cuthbert Fenwick, Jr. (planter,    migrated 1640s) Robert Fenwick William Langworth (planter)

Richard Gardiner (planter,    migrated 1630s) Joseph Pile (planter) Thomas Salmon (cooper, planter) William Shercliffe (planter) William Thompson (planter,    migrated 1640s) Thomas Thorneborough (migrated    1640s) John Wiseman.

                                                Among the 56 women who were married to documented Catholics, 7 came in the 1630s, 17 in the 1640s, and 32 in the 1650s. There were 5 who came as servants, 21 as free, 7 as merely "migrants," and 23 as unknown. The five who came as servants were:

Eleanor Stephenson Brainthwaite Bridget Seaborn Greenway Rebecca Hall

Ann Pike Mansell Ann Lewger Tattersall

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 318]

                                                The 21 who came as free were:

Margaret Brent Mary Brent Mary Kittamaquand Brent    (born free) Ellinor Hatton Brooke Jane Lowe Calvert Jane Cockshott Rebecca Cole Penelope Cornwallis Anne Cox Mary Davies

Sarah Frisell Mary Gaines Elizabeth Gardiner Sarah Hooper Priscilla Land Ann Lewger Elizabeth Gardiner Lusthead Hester Matthews Sarah Pile [First name unknown] Wheatley Elizabeth Willan

                                                The 7 who came as "migrants" were:

Temperance Jay Bretton Winifred Greene Clark Jane Eltonhead Fenwick Katherine Hebden

Ann Land Ann Martin Elizabeth Medley

                                                The 23 whose arrival status is unknown were:

Mary Cockshott Adams Jane Anketill Sarah Boreman Margaret Browne Ann Wolsely Calvert Mary Darnall Calvert Jane Cockshott, the younger Ann Dandy Audrey Dayley Ann Evans [1st unk.] Cornwallis Fenwick Elizabeth Hatton Gardiner

Elizabeth Morris Gardiner Margaret Hall Mary Harrington Mary Tattersall Jarboe Agatha Morris Langworth Mary Lindsey Penelope Nicholls Emma Morris Rosewell Elizabeth Sewell Ann Smith Margaret Thompson

Illustration 6: Destroying suckers.[1352]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 319]

Appendix 3:
Documented Catholics who Followed non-Agrarian Trades

                                                There were 21 documented Catholic migrants who followed artisan, merchant, and other non-agrarian trades or who combined these trades with being a planter. There were 12 of these out of the 47 who paid their own passage to Maryland. They were:

Peter Bathe (clerk) William Boreman (mariner) William Bretton (merchant, planter) John Cissell (gunsmith and planter) John Davis (carpenter) Thomas Gerard (surgeon, merchant) Philip Land (innkeeper)

George Manners (attorney-in-fact, planter) Thomas Matthews (surgeon) James Neale (merchant, planter) Edward Packer (schoolmaster and planter) William Rosewell (innkeeper).

                                                Among the 25 Catholics who came as indentured servants were 9 artisans and professionals. They were:

Robert Clark (surveyor) Edward Cottram (carpenter) John Dandy (blacksmith and miller) Robert Gates (carpenter, planter) Henry Hooper (surgeon)

Barnaby Jackson (tailor) James Langworth (attorney-in-fact, planter) Charles Maynard (soldier) John Shircliffe (tailor, planter).

                                                Of the 25 indentured servants, 9 never became freeholders. Of the 9, four were artisans and professionals. They made their living from their trade. The four were:

Edward Cottram (carpenter) Henry Hooper (surgeon)

James Langworth (attorney-in-fact) John Althome (Jesuit brother).

The other 5 made their livings as tenants, sharecroppers, and laborers. The five were:

Garrett Comberford (planter) Richard Gaines John Harrington (planter)

Richard Lusthead (planter) James Pattison (planter).

                                                Among the 56 women who were either married to documented Catholics or otherwise known to be Catholics, one was an attorney, Margaret Brent, one was a physician, Katherine Hebden, and two were tailors, Audrey Daley and Elizabeth Willan.

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 320]

Appendix 4:
Catholics in the Assembly during the Civil War Period[1353]

                                                The 41 Catholics whom Edward Papenfuse lists as members of the assembly during some part of the Civil War period were:

1. Henry Adams (d. 1686), migrated 1639, as servant, no parents listed (p.
                                                98).

2. Henry Bishop (d. 1645), migrated 1634, indentured servant, free 1637, no
                                                parents mentioned (p. 134).

3. William Blount (Blunt) migrated 1642, leave Maryland 1643, literate,
                                                captain in militia, esquire on arrival, no parents mentioned (p. 138).

4. William Boreman (Boarman) (1630-1709), migrated from England 1645,
                                                free, mariner in the 1640s, planter, Indian trader, land speculator, gets
                                                patronage from proprietor for helping in the Battle of Severn (p. 148).

5. William Brainthwaite (d. 1650), migrated 1638, free, father is Robert
                                                Brainthwaite with no title but was secretary to Sir Richard Weston,
                                                gentleman by 1638 (p. 159).

6. Fulke Brent (1590-1656), migrated 1638 free, returned 1642, attended
                                                Oxford (1613), Middle Temple (1615), oldest son, father was Richard
                                                Brent of Stoke and Addington, sheriff of Gloustershire (1614), mother
                                                was daughter of Giles Reed, Lord of Tusburne and Witten (p. 161).

7. Giles Brent (1600-1671), second son, see Fulke Brent for parents (p. 161).

8. William Bretton (d.1672), gentleman on arrival, father not mentioned,
                                                clerk to the assembly (1637-1650) (p. 162).

9. Thomas Brooke (1632-1676), migrated 1650 with father, Robert Brooke
                                                (1602-1655), mother Mary, daughter of Thomas Baker, barrister,
                                                granddaughter of Sir Thomas Engham of Goodnerton, Kent, younger
                                                brother of Baker Brooke (1628-1679) (p. 171).

10. Leonard Calvert (1606-1647), younger son, no title, but father, George
                                                Calvert, had title (p. 190).

11. Phillip Calvert (1626-1682), migrated 1656, younger son, father was
                                                George Calvert (p. 190).

12. Nicholas Causine (1608-1658), migrated from France, 1639, son was
                                                Ignatius Causine, (b. 1642) (p. 204).

13. Robert Clarke (1611-1664), indentured servant in 1637, gentleman by
                                                1638, no parents mentioned (p. 225).

14. John Cockshott (d. 1642) (p. 204; see also Beitzell, "Mission," p. 21).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 321

15. Thomas Cornwallis (1605-1676), father Sir William Cornwallis, who was
                                                son of Sir Charles Cornwallis (d. 1629), who was ambassador to Spain
                                                (1605-1610), mother was daughter of Sir Philip Parker of Ewarton,
                                                Suffolk (p. 235).

16. Edward Cotton (d. by 1653), (mentioned in Beitzell, "Mission," p. 26).

17. William Evans (d. 1669), migrated 1646, free, parents not listed.

18. Cuthbert Fenwick (1614-1655), arrived 1634 as servant, gentleman by
                                                1638, father not mentioned (p. 319).

19. Luke Gardiner (1622-1674), migrated 1637 as servant, father was Richard
                                                Gardiner, see below (p. 344).

20. Richard Gardiner (d. 1651), migrated 1637 as servant, no father listed, is
                                                with Luke Gardiner (pp. 344-345).

21. Thomas Gerard (1608-1673), migrated 1638, free, father was John
                                                Gerard, New Hall, England, son of Thomas Gerard and wife Jane of
                                                Garswood, England (p. 348).

22. Thomas Greene (d. 1651), migrated 1634, free, gentleman by 1638 (p.
                                                373).

23. Walter Hall (d. 1678), migrated 1652, free, parents not mentioned, (p.
                                                389).

24. Jermome Hawley (1590-1638), migrated 1633, free, born in Middlesex,
                                                England, younger son, father James Hawley (1558-1622) of
                                                Brentwood, Middlesex (p. 426).

25. John Jarbo (Jarboe) (1619-1674), migrated from Dijon, France to
                                                Kecoughton, Virginia, then to Maryland, free, in 1646 to help
                                                proprietor recapture colony, no parents listed, in 1655 he supported
                                                Stone's attack against Providence, naturalized by act of assembly, 1666
                                                (p. 482).

26. Philip Land (1607-1659), migrated 1647, free, no parents listed (p. 516).

27. John Langford (b. 1595), migrated 1637, free, gentleman on arrival,
                                                esquire by 1642, returned to England 1648 (p. 516).

28. James Langworth (1630-1661), migrated 1641 as servant, no parents
                                                listed, gentleman at death (p. 517).

29. John Lewger (1602-1665), migrated 1637, free, Trinity College (1616-
                                                1619), no parents mentioned (p. 533); admitted a commoner at
                                                Oxford (Gillow, Dictionary, vol. 4, p. 202).

30. Richard Lusthead (migrated 1634, indentured servant, no parents
                                                mentioned (p. 554).

31. George Manners (b. 1651), migrated 1646, free, no father mentioned,
                                                sheriff 1648 (p. 571).

32. John Mansell (1616-1660), migrated 1638, as servant, free by 1643, no
                                                parents listed (p. 572).

33. Thomas Matthews (1622-1676), migrated 1637, free, no father listed (p.
                                                581).

34. John Medley (1616-1662), migrated 1637, servant, no father listed (p.
                                                592).

35. James Neale (1615-1684), migrated 1635, left 1644, returned 1660, free,
                                                father Raphael Neale of Wollaston, Northamton, mother Jane,
                                                daughter of Dr. Foreman, eldest son (p. 609).

36. John Pile (d. 1676), migrated 1643, gentleman, no parents listed (p. 647).

37. Francis Trafford, migrated 1642, free, no parents, called colonel in
                                                England (p. 839).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 322]

38. Thomas Turner (b. 1663), migrated 1657, free, no parents listed (p. 844).

39. Richard Willan (1622-1663), migrated 1638, free, servant, no parents
                                                listed (p. 890).

40. Robert Wintour (d. 1638), migrated 1637, free, father Sir Edward Winter,
                                                member of Parliament, esquire on arrival, brother knighted.

41. Nicholas Young (d. 1669), migrated 1656, free, no parents listed,
                                                gentleman by 1667 (p. 931).

 

Illustration 7: Old St. Paul's, London. The Catholic architect, Inigo Jones (d. 1651) built an addition to this Protestant Cathedral. Leonard Calvert during the 1640s kept a picture of it on his wall in Md.[1354]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 323]

Appendix 5:
Maryland Catholics Who Carried on Business as Usual During the 1645 Overthrow and Those Against Whom Hostility Was Directed

                                                The 30 Catholics who carried on business as usual during the 1645-1646 overthrow, as far as available documentation is concerned, were:

                                                Henry Adams (d. 1686, arrived 1639, planter).

                                                William Boreman, Sr. (1630-1709, first record was 1645, mariner).

                                                Edward Cottram (d. 1653, arrived 1637, carpenter).

                                                Robert Clark (1611-1664, arrived 1637, surveyor).

                                                John Dandy (first record 1637, last 1659, migrated as servant,
                                                            blacksmith and miller).

                                                Luke Gardiner (1622-1674, arrived 1637, planter).

                                                Richard Gardiner (d. 1651, arrived 1637, planter).

                                                Benjamin Gill (d. 1656, arrived 1642).

                                                Leonard Greene (d. 1688, arrived 1644).

                                                John Greenway (1625-1658, first record 1643, planter).

                                                Thomas Hebden (arrived 1635, last record 1650).

                                                Henry Hooper (d. 1650, arrived 1637, surgeon).

                                                Barnaby Jackson (d. 1670, arrived 1638, tailor).

                                                Nicholas Keiting (d. 1661, first record 1641).

                                                James Langworth (1630-1661, arrived 1641, attorney-in-fact, planter).

                                                James Lindsey (1626-1670, first record 1642, planter).

                                                Richard Lusthead (arrived 1633, last 1650, servant, planter).

                                                John Mansell (1626-1660, arrived 1637, planter).

                                                Thomas Matthews (d. 1676, arrived 1637, surgeon).

                                                Charles Maynard (1622-1661, arrived 1637, soldier).

                                                John Medley (d. 1679, arrived 1637, planter).

                                                Edward Packer (1614-1667, arrived 1637, schoolmaster, planter).

                                                Robert Percy (first record 1638, the last 1649).

                                                Bartholomew Phillips (d. 1665, arrived 1638, planter).

                                                John Pile (d. 1676, arrived 1644).

                                                John Shircliffe (1613-1663, arrived 1638, tailor, planter).

                                                Henry Spinke (1622-1695, arrived 1641, planter).

                                                William Thompson (1597-1649, arrived 1642).

                                                John Wheatley (1603-1659, arrived 1641, servant).

                                                Richard Willan (1622-1663, arrived 1638, servant).

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 324]

                                                The 14 women who were married to Catholic men and carried on as usual during the war, as far as available documentation is concerned, were:

                                                Mary Cockshott Adams (b. 1637, arrived 1641).

                                                Eleanor Stephenson Brainthwaite (first record 1645).

                                                Winifred Greene Clark (arrived 1638).

                                                Jane Cockshott (arrived 1641).

                                                Jane Cockshott, the younger (b. 1641).

                                                Anne Cox (arrived 1633).

                                                Ann Evans (arrived 1643).

                                                Elizabeth Gardiner (arrived 1637).

                                                Katherine Hebden (arrived 1640).

                                                Elizabeth Lusthead (b. 1618, arrived 1637).

                                                Hester Matthews (arrived 1643).

                                                Elizabeth Medley (arrived 1641).

                                                Anne Smith (first record 1635).

                                                [First name unknown] Wheatley (arrived 1641).

                                                The 6 Catholic landlords who were economically leveled during the 1645 overthrow were:

                                                Giles Brent (1600-1672, arrived 1638).

                                                Leonard Calvert (1610-1647).

                                                Thomas Cornwallis (1605-1675, planter, arrived 1634).

                                                Thomas Copley (d. 1652, first record 1637 priest, planter).

                                                Thomas Gerard (1608-1673, arrived 1638, planter).

                                                John Lewger (1602-1665, arrived 1637).

                                                The 2 Catholic non-landlords against whom hostilities were directed were:

                                                Nicholas Causine (1608-1656, arrived 1640).

                                                Cuthbert Fenwick, Sr. (1614-1655, arrived 1634, planter).

 

Illustration 8: An engraving showing the leveling of Wardour Castle, which was owned by Cecil Calvert's landlord in-laws.[1355]

 

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 325]

Appendix 6:
Religion of St. Mary's Troops Involved in the Battle of the Severn, 1655[1356]

                                                Of the 27 known troops in the proprietor's army, 16 were Protestant or of unknown religion.

Luke Barber (d. 1668, Oliver    Cromwell's doctor before migrating    to Maryland, p. 114) William Barton (p. 116) James Berry (d. 1666, p. 131) William Bramhall Job Chandler (d. 1659, p. 209) Nicholas Gwither (taken prisoner and    condemned to be shot, but escaped    to England)

Henry Coursey Josias Fendall (d. 1688, p. 318) Thomas Hatton (d. 1655, p. 442) William Hawley Owen James John Price (1607-1660, p. 666) William Price Robert Taylor Thomas Truman (1625-1685, p. 842) George Thompson

                                                Eleven were Catholic.

William Boreman Robert Clark John Dandy William Eltonhead (1616-1655) William Evans John Jarboe

James Langworth William Lewis (d. 1655) Thomas Matthews Edward Packer John Pile

 

Illustration 9: Blue and white soldier series on Dutch delftware tiles similar to tiles recovered from Civil War Maryland housing.[1357]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 326]

Appendix 7:
Chronology of the Civil War Period in England and Maryland

1631                                                                English settlement of Leeward Islands began at St.
                                                                        Kitts.

1632                                                                English settlers in Antigua and Montserrat.

                                                                        Charles I issued charter for colony of Maryland, named
                                                                        in honor of Queen Henrietta Maria, under control
                                                                        of Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore.

1633                                                                Charles I revived forest eyre to raise money by fines.
                                                                        Trial of the Lancashire witches.

Mar. 25, 1634                                      English migrants landed in Maryland.

1634                                                                Earl of Ormond was Calvert's proxy in Irish Parliament.

1638                                                                Proprietor sought without success to get law code
                                                                        enacted by Maryland assembly.

1638-1644                                           First economic depression in English Maryland, an
                                                                        extension of the depression in Europe.

1639                                                                First Bishops' War in which Charles I made war on
                                                                        Scotland to enforce religious uniformity. Covenanters
                                                                        take Edinburgh, Dumbarton, and Stirling. Charles
                                                                        joined army at York, dared no attack, and signed
                                                                        Pacification of Berwick to end war, episcopacy
                                                                        abolished in Scotland.

1640                                                                Second Bishops' War. Scots crossed Tweed into
                                                                        England; the king left London for York, relieved
                                                                        Newcastle, and was defeated at Newburn-on-Tyre;
                                                                        agreed by Treaty of Ripon to pay Scot army £860 per
                                                                        day until settlement was reached.

Apr. 13 -May 5, 1640                Short Parliament.

Nov. 3, 1640 - 1660                Long Parliament.

Nov. 22, 1641                                     Grand Remonstrance.

Jan 1642                                              Charles I went North to York.

Aug. 22, 1642                                      Charles I made war at Nottingham on Parliament.

Oct. 23, 1642                                      Battle of Edgehill with indecisive outcome.

Fall 1642                                              Royalists took Marlborough, Parliament took
                                                                        Winchester.

1643                                                                Royalists lost Bradford, were defeated by Cromwell at
                                                                        Grantham, and were beaten at Newbury. Parliament
                                                                        won at Leeds, Reading, Wakefield, Gainsborough, and
                                                                        Gloucester. Unsuccessful peace talks between crown
                                                                        and Parliament at Oxford. Confederacy of New England
                                                                        formed by Connecticut, New Haven, Plymouth, and
                                                                        Massachusetts Bay.

Jan. 1643                                             Leonard Calvert went to England.

Mar. 1643                                            Richard Ingle arrived in Maryland for his yearly trading
                                                                        activities.

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 327]

Apr. 11, 1643                                Brent made temporary governor in Leonard Calvert's
                                                                        absence.

July 1643                                             Bristol taken by Royalists.

Nov. 18, 1643                                   Proprietor wrote letter from Bristol.

Jan. 1644                                             Proprietor's governor got commission from crown at
                                                                        Oxford. Ingle arrested and released.

Jan. 22, 1644                                       Oxford Parliament met.

Feb. 8, 1644                                        Ingle traded in Maryland after his release and left
                                                                        without incident.

July 2, 1644                                         Royalists defeated at Marston Moor.

Aug. 1644                                            Parliament authorized Ingle to trade with Maryland.

Sept. 2, 1644                                       Essex's army surrendered to Charles I at Lostwithiel.

Sept. 6, 1644                                       Leonard Calvert returned to Maryland.

Jan. 1, 1645                                         Brainthwaite made lieutenant-governor while Leonard
                                                                        Calvert goes to Virginia.

Jan 11, 1645                                        New Model Army created, Presbyterian leadership
                                                                        ousted.

Feb. 14, 1645                                      Ingle led in the overthrow of proprietor's rule in
                                                                        Maryland.

June 14, 1645                                      Battle of Naseby (Royalists defeated).

July 30, 1645                                       Fairfax stormed Bath (Royalists defeated).

Sept. 1645                                           Bristol surrendered to Parliament.

Feb. 24, 1646                                      Ordinance on land reform, ends knights holdings and
                                                                        dues (benefited tenantry).

Mar. 1646                                            Edward Hill arrived in Maryland.

May 5, 1646                                        Charles I surrendered to Scots.

1646                                                                Leonard Calvert returned to Maryland from exile in      
                                                                        Virginia.

Feb. 1, 1647                                        Charles I delivered to Parliament by Scots.

June 5, 1647                                        New Model Army took solemn oath not to disband until
                                                                        rights of English people secured.

June 9, 1647                                        Leonard Calvert died.

June 1647 -Aug. 1648   Thomas Greene governor.

Jan. 15, 1648-Aug. 20, 1648   Second Civil War began.

Aug. 17 - 19, 1648                  Battle at Preston, Scots and English Royalists defeated.

Aug. 17, 1648                                      William Stone appointed governor.

Dec. 1, 1648                                        King taken into custody.

Dec. 6, 1648                                        Army purged Parliament of Presbyterian majority.

Jan. 31, 1649                                       Charles I executed.

Apr. 20, 1649                                      Act Concerning Religion (Toleration Act).

May 1649                                            Confirmation of king's execution reached New England.

Sept. 1649                                           Stone departed from Maryland to Virginia on business.

Oct. 10, 1649                                      William Berkeley, Virginia's governor, declared himself
                                                                        for Charles II.

Nov. 15, 1649                                     Acting governor Thomas Greene declared himself for
                                                                        Charles II.

1650 - 1655                                         International economic depression.

Jan. 1650                                             Stone returned to Maryland.

1651                                                                Royalists defeated at Worcester.

Feb. 1652                                            Act of Pardon and Oblivion, allowed Royalists in
                                                                        Parliament.

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 328]

1652                                                                Parliamentary commissioners in Maryland overthrew
                                                                        proprietary regime.

Apr. 20, 1653                                      Rump Parliament (largely Presbyterian) dissolved,
                                                                        which allowed Independents more power.

July 4-Dec. 12, 1653                Short (Barebone's) Parliament introduced civil
                                                                        marriage, abolished tithes.

Dec. 1653-May 1659              Protectorate.

Mar. 2, 1654                                        Stone put all writs in proprietor's name.

July 1654                                             Bennett overthrew proprietor's governor for the second
                                                                        time.

Sept. 1654-Jan 22, 1655   First Protectorate Parliament.

Mar. 1655                                            Battle of the Severn.

Sept. 17, 1657                                     Second Protectorate Parliament commenced.

1657                                                                Proprietary rule restored.

Sept. 3, 1658                                       Cromwell died.

Mar. 1659                                            Richard Cromwell stepped down.

May 6, 1659                                        Long Parliament called into session.

Oct. 1659                                            New Model Army disbanded Parliament.

Jan. 1660                                             General George Monck attacked New Model Army and
                                                                        called Parliament into session.

May 25, 1660                                      Charles II landed at Dover.

 

Illustration 10: Tobacco pipes from a Civil War Md. trash pit. Pipes were made by Indians and European migrants. Some were imported from Virginia, Holland (marked with fleurs-de-lis) and Bristol, Eng.[1358]

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 329]

Appendix 8:
Saints' Days and Other Festivals[1359]

All Saints	Nov. 1
All Souls	Nov. 2
Annunciation of the Virgin    (Lady Day, first day of New    Year in old calendar)	Mar. 25
Ascension of the Lord	fortieth day after Easter[1360]
Ash Wednesday	the first day of Lent
Assumption of the Virgin	Aug. 15
Bartholomew, St. (the Apostle,    Matt. 10:3)	Aug. 24[1361]
Candlemas	Feb. 2
Chair of St. Peter	Jan. 18
Close of Easter	Sunday after Easter
Conception of the Virgin	Dec. 8
Corpus Christi	first Thursday after Trinity Sunday
Cuthbert, St. (841-870 A.D.)	Mar. 20
Dunstan, St.(d. 988)	May 19
Easter	first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox (Mar. 21)
Edmund King of East Anglia,    St. (635-687)	Nov. 20
Edward the Confessor, St.    (1002-1066)	Oct. 13
Epiphany	Jan. 6
Exaltation of the Holy Cross	Sept. 14
Faith, St.	Aug. 1
Giles, St.	Sept. 1
Gregory the Great, St.	Nov. 3
Helen, St.	Aug. 18
Hillary, St.	Jan. 13
Hokeday	second Tuesday after Easter
James the Apostle, St.	July 25

[APPENDIX, 1996 ed., p. 330]

John, St.	Dec. 27
John the Baptist, St.	June 24
Martin of Tours, St.(315-399)   original thanksgiving day	Nov. 11
Matthew, St.	Sept. 21
Michael, St. (Michaelmas)	Sept. 29[1362]
Nativity of the Jesus   (Christmas)	Dec. 25
Nativity of the Virgin	Sept. 8
Peter and Paul, Sts.	June 29
Purification of the Virgin	Feb. 2
Rogation Days	the three days before the feast of the Ascension
Shrove Tuesday	day before Ash Wednesday[1363]
Simon and Jude, Sts.	Oct. 28
Stephen, St.	Dec. 26
Thomas the Martyr, St.	Sept. 6
Trinity, The Holy	eighth Sunday after Easter
Vincent, The Martyr, St. (d.    304, patron of wine    producers)	Jan. 22
Whitsuntide (Whit Sunday, Pentecost; feast of first fruits,    Exodus 23:16)	the seventh Sunday after Easter

 

 

Illustration 11: (left) seventeenth-century Maryland post-in-the ground house construction; (right) sleeping loft.[1364]

 

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 331]

 

Bibliography

I. Europe (Ancient, Middle Ages)/England (general) II. England (Catholic)/Ireland III. France/Canada/Dutch    Republic/Flanders IV. Maryland primary V. Maryland secondary VI. America (general)/New England/New York/Virginia/Delaware

VII. Spain/Portugal/Mexico/South America/Caribbean/Brazil VIII. Africa/African-American/Indian IX. Religion/Rome/Italy X. Economic/Political/Social XI. Intellectual (primary) XII. Intellectual (secondary) XIII. Women XIV. Law

I. Europe (Ancient, Middle Ages)
England (general)

Adams, Herbert. Catalogue of Books Printed on the Continent of Europe 1501-1600 in Cambridge Libraries (2 vols., London: Cambridge University Press, 1967).

Appleby, Andrew. Famine in Stuart and Tudor England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1978).

Astarita, Tommaso. The Continuity of Feudal Power: The Caracciolo di Brienza in Spanish Naples (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Aylmer, G. E. (ed.). "Introduction," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660 (London: Macmillan, 1972).

_____. The King's Servants: The Civil Service of Charles I, 1625-1642 (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, [1961] 1974).

_____. Rebellion or Revolution: England from Civil War to Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Barlow, Frank. The English Church, 1066-1154: A History of the Anglo-Norman Church (London: Longman, 1979).

Barnard, Ettwell A. The Sheldons: Being some Account of the Sheldons of Worcestershire and Warwickshire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1936).

Baxter, Richard. Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696), reprinted in Blitzer, Commonwealth Documents, p. 29.

Bayley, Arthur R. The Great Civil War in Dorset (Taunton: Barncott and Pearce, 1910).

Birch, Thomas (ed.). A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe, Secretary to Oliver and Richard Cromwell (7 vols., London: F. Gyles, 1742).

Blackwood, B. G. The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, Cheltenham Society Series, 1978), no. 25.

Blitzer, Charles (ed.). The Commonwealth of England: Documents of the English Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1641-1660 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1963).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 332]

Boswell, John. The Kindness of Strangers: The Abandonment of Children in Western Europe from Late Antiquity to the Renaissance (New York: Vintage: 1988).

Brockbank, Elizabeth. Richard Hubberthorne of Yealand, Yeoman, Soldier, Quaker (London: Friends Book Center, 1929).

Bund, J. W. Willis. The Civil War in Worcestershire (London: Simpkin Marshall, 1905).

Burke, Peter. "Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century London," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins Press, 1985).

Campbell, Mildred. The English Yeoman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942).

Chaderow, Stanley. Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian's Decretum (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

Cliffe, John T. The Yorkshire Gentry from the Reformation to the Civil War (London: Athlone Press, 1969).

Cokayne, George. The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland, ed. Vicar Gibbs (12 vols., New York: St. Martins Press, 1984).

Coleman, Emily. "Infanticide in the Early Middle Ages," Women in Medieval Society, ed. Susan Mosher Stuard (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1976), pp. 47-70.

Cook, S. A. (ed.). The Roman Republic, 133-44 B.C. in Cambridge Ancient History (New York: Macmillan, 1932), vol. 9.

Cooper, J. P. "Social and Economic Policies under the Commonwealth," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (London: Macmillan, 1972), p. 132.

Davies, Godfrey. The Early Stuarts: 1603-1660 (2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959).

Davis, Richard. George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer in Anglo-American Culture in the Seventeenth Century (London: The Bodley Head, 1955).

Dickens, A. G. The Counter Reformation (Norwich, Eng.: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1989).

Drayton, Robert (ed.). Statutes of the Realm (1225-1948) (3rd ed., 11 vols, London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1950).

Emmison, Frederick G. Early Essex Town Meetings of Braintree [Eng.], 1619-1636 (Chichester, Eng.: Philmore Press, 1970).

Everitt, Alan. The Community of Kent and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660 (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1966).

Firth, Charles H. Cromwell's Army: A History of the English Soldier During the Civil War, Commonwealth and the Protectorate (London: Meuthen, [1902] 1962).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 333]

Fisher, F. J. (ed.). "Thomas Wilson's The State of England," CM (1936), series 3, vol. 52, no. 1.

Fletcher, Anthony. A County Community in Peace and War: Sussex, 1600-1660 (London: Longmans, 1975).

_____. The Outbreak of the English Civil War (London: E. Arnold, 1981).

Foucault, Michel Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York: Pantheon, 1965).

Fox, George. A Collection of Many Select and Christian Epistles, (London: T. Sowle, 1698).

Gardiner, Samuel. History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649 (4 vols., London: Longmans, Green, 1891), vol. 3.

Godwin, George N. The Civil War in Hampshire (London: J. Bumpus, 1904).

Graham, J. K. "`Independent' and `Presbyterian': A Study of Religious and Political Language and the Politics of Words during the English Civil War, 1640-1660," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Washington University, 1978.

Gurevich, Aron G. Categories of Medieval Culture (Boston: Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).

Hackwood, F. W. Good Cheer: The Romance of Food and Feasting (New York: T. F. Unwin, 1911).

Haigh, Christopher. The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Harrison, George. "Royalist Organization in Wiltshire, 1642-1646," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1963.

Hart, Cyril. The Commoners of Dean Forest (Gloucester: British Publishing Co., 1951).

Historical Manuscript Commission, House of Lords, Calendar, I, Sixth Report (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1877), Appendix, pp. 109-113.

Holmes, Clive. The Eastern Association in the Civil War (Cambridge: University Press, 1974).

Holmes, G. S. "Gregory King and the Social Structure of Pre-Industrial England" in TRHS, 27 (1977).

Hore, Herbert Francis. History of the Town and County of Wexford, compiled principally from the State Papers, ed. P. H. Hore (5 vols., London: Elliot Stock, 1900).

Hughes, Ann. "Militancy and Localism: Warwickshire Politics and Westminster Politics, 1643-1647," TRHS, 3 (1981), 67.

Hyde, Edward. The History of the Rebellion and Civil War in England Beginning in the Year 1641, ed. W. Dunn Macray (6 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1888], 1958).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 334]

_____. The Life of Edward, Earl of Clarendon, in which is included a continuation of his History of the Great Rebellion (3 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1827).

Jenkins, Ronald B. Henry Smith, England's Silver-Tongued Preacher (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1983).

Kaeuper, Richard. "Peasants' Rebellion," Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer (New York: Scribners, 1989), vol. 9.

Kearney, Hugh. Scholars and Gentlemen: Universities and Society in Pre-Industrial Britain, 1500-1700 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1970).

Kerridge, Eric. "The Revolts in Wiltshire against Charles I," WAM, 57 (1958-1960), 67-90.

King, Gregory. Two Tracts, (a) Natural and Political Observations and Conclusions upon the State and Conditions of England, (b) of the Naval Trade of England, ed. George Barnett (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1936).

Korr, Charles. Cromwell and the New Model Foreign Policy: England's Policy toward France, 1649-1658 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).

Laslett, Peter. The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1971).

Laurence, Anne. Parliamentary Army Chaplains: 1642-1651 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1990).

LeGoff, Jacques. Medieval Civilization, 400-1500 (London: Basil Blackwell, 1988).

Lindert, Peter and Jeffrey Williamson. "Revising England's Social Tables, 1688-1812," Explorations in Economic History, vol. 19 (1982).

Manning, Brian. The English People and the English Revolution, 1640-1649 (London: Heinemann, 1976).

_____. "The Outbreak of the English Civil War," The English Civil War and After, ed. R. H. Parry (London: Macmillan, 1970),  p. 16.

Manning, Roger. Village Revolts: Social Protest and Popular Disturbance in England, 1509-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

Mathew, David. The Social Structure in Caroline England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948).

Newman, Peter R. Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Pub., 1981).

Phillips, William. Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985).

Pickles, J. T. "Studies in Royalism in the English Civil War, 1642-1646, with special reference to Staffordshire," University of Manchester M.A. Thesis, 1968.

Prest, Wilfrid. The Rise of the Barristers: A Social History of the English Bar, 1590-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 335]

Public Record Office, Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, 1643-1660 preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office, ed. Mary A. Green (5 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, Eyre & Spotteswoode, 1892).

_____. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American and West Indies, ed. William N. Sainsbury, (40 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, 1860 - ), vol. 12, no. 71.

_____. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Reign of Charles I, 1625-1649 (23 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1871], 1967), ed. Mary Green.

Raines F. R. (ed.). William Dugdale's Visitations of the County Palatine of Lancaster (3 parts, vols. 84, 85, 88, Manchester: Chetham Society, 1872-1873).

Rapin-Thoyras, Paul. The History of England, ed. N. Tindal (21 vols., London: T. Osborne, 1763).

Reid, D. S. "P. R. Newman and the Durham Protestation," RH, 15 (1979), 371.

Richardson, R. C. "Metropolitan Counties: Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Middlesex," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 1.

Roots, Ivan A. The Great Rebellion, 1642-1660 (London: Batsford, 1966).

Rushworth, John. Historical Collections of Private Passages of State: 1618-1648 (8 vols., London: D. Browne, 1772).

Sharp, Buchanan. "Popular Protest in Seventeenth-Century England," in Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins's Press, 1985).

Sherwin-White, Adrian. Racial Prejudice in Imperial Rome (London: Cambridge University Press, 1967).

Smuts, R. Malcolm. Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987).

Stephen, Leslie and Sidney Lee (eds.). Dictionary of National Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922).

Stone, Lawrence. "The Crisis of Aristocracy," Social Change and Revolution in England: 1540-1640, ed. Lawrence Stone (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1965).

_____. The Crisis of Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965).

Stubbs, William. Constitutional History of England and its Origins and Development (3 vols., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, [1879], 1978).

Thompson, F. M. "The Social Distribution of Landlord Property in England since the Sixteenth Century," EcoHR, 19 (1966), 509-517.

Underdown, David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 336]

Usher, Roland G. The Rise and Fall of the High Commission (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913).

Wallace, Willard. "Sir Edwin Sandys and the First Parliament of James," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1940.

Watts, Sheldon J. From Border to Middleshire: Northumberland 1586-1625 (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1975).

Webb, John. Memorials of the Civil War. . . as It Affected Hertfordshire and the Adjacent Counties (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1879).

Wedgwood, C. V. Thomas Wentworth, First Earl of Strafford, 1593-1641: A Revaluation (London: Jonathan Cape, 1961).

Wentworth, Thomas. The Earl of Strafford's Letters and Dispatches, ed. William Knowler (London: W. Bowyer, 1739).

Whiteman, Anne. "Introduction," The Compton Census of 1676: A Critical Edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Wilson, Thomas. The State of England, 1600, ed. F. J. Fisher, in CM, 52 (3rd series, 1936).

Wood, Alfred C. Nottinghamshire and the Civil War (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937).

Yule, George. The Independents in the English Civil War (Cambridge: University Press, 1958).

Wrigley, Edward A. and R. S. Schofield. The Population History of England, 1541-1871: A Reconstruction (London: Edward Arnold, 1981).

II. Catholic England/Ireland

Allison, Anthony F. "A Question of Jurisdiction, Richard Smith, Bishop of Chalcedon and the Catholic Laity, 1625-1631," 7 RH (1982-1983), 113-142.

Anstruther, Godfrey. "Lancashire Clergy in 1639," RH, 4 (1958), 38-46.

_____. The Seminary Priests: A Dictionary of the Secular Clergy of England and Wales, 1558-1850 (4 vols., Ware, Eng.: Edmund's College Press, 1969).

_____. Vaux of Harrowden, a Recusant Family (Newport, Eng.: R. H. Johns, 1953).

Aveling, O.S.B., Hugh. Catholic Recusancy in the City of York, 1558-1791 (St. Albans, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1970).

_____. The Catholic Recusants of the West Riding of Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (Leeds: Proceedings of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 1963).

_____. Catholic Recusancy in the County of York, 1558-1791 (St. Albans: Catholic Record Society, 1967).

_____. "Introduction to the Recusancy Papers of the Meynell Family," Miscellanea, (Newport, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1964), vol. 56.

_____. "Marriages of Catholic Recusants, 1559-1642," JEH, 14 (1963), 72.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 337]

_____. Northern Catholics: The Catholic Recusants of the North Riding, Yorkshire, 1558-1790 (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1966).

_____. "Some Aspects of Yorkshire Catholic Recusant History, 1558-1791," Studies in Church History, 4 (1967), 108.

Birrell, T. A. "English Catholics without a Bishop, 1655-1676," RH, 4 (1958), 142-161.

Blackwood, B. G. "The Lancashire Gentry and the Great Rebellion, 1640-1660," Chetham Society, 25 (1978), 40-170.

_____. "Plebeian Catholics in Later Stuart Lancashire," Northern History, 25 (1989) 158.

_____. "Plebeian Catholics in the 1640s and 1650s," RH, 18 (1986), 45-46.

Blundell, Frederick. Old Catholic Lancashire (3 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1941).

Bossy, John. "The Counter-Reformation and the Peoples of Catholic Europe," PP, 47 (1970), 59.

_____. The English Catholic Community, 1570-1850 (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1975).

Bowler, Hugh (ed.). London Sessions Records, 1605-1685 (Newport, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1934), vol. 34.

_____. Recusant Roll No. 2 (1593-1594) (Newport, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1965), vol. 57.

Browne, William. George Calvert and Cecilius Calvert (New York: University Press, 1890).

Challoner, Richard. Memoirs of Missionary Priests and Other Catholics of both Sexes, that have Suffered Death in England on Religious Accounts from the years 1577 to 1684, ed. John Pollen (London: Burns and Oates, [1803] 1924).

Clancy, S.J., Thomas. "English Catholics and the Papal Disposing Power, 1570-1640, Part III," RH, 7 (1962/1963), 7.

_____. "The Jesuits and the Independents, 1647," AHSJ, 40 (1971), 73-85.

Clarkson, Leslie A. The Pre-Industrial Economy in England, 1500-1750 (New York: Schocken, 1972).

Clifton, Robin. "The Fear of Catholics in England, 1637 to 1645, Principally from Central Sources," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Balliol College, 1967.

_____."Fear of Popery," The Origins of the English Civil War, ed. C. Russell (New York: Macmillan, 1975).

_____. "The Popular Fear of Catholics in England," PP, 52 (Aug. 1971), 41-47.

Cokayne, George. "Cecil Calvert," The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland and Ireland, ed. Vicary Gibbs (12 vols., London: St. Catherine Press, 1910).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 338]

Davidson, Alan. "Roman Catholicism in Oxfordshire from the Late Elizabethan Period to the Civil War, 1580-1640," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bristol, 1970.

Dictionary of National Biography, "Nicholas Crispe," (ed.) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (London: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922), vol. 5, p. 95.

Dures, Alan. English Catholicism: 1558-1642 (Harlow, Eng.: Longman, 1983).

Edwards S.J., Francis. The Jesuits in England from 1580 to the Present Day (Tunbridge Wells, Eng.: Burns and Oates, 1985).

Elliott, Bernard. "A Leicestershire Recusant Family: The Nevills of Nevill Holt," RH, 17 (1984/1985), 174.

Firth, Charles H. and R. S. Rait (eds.). Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (3 vols., London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1911), vol. 1, p. 106 (Mar. 27, 1643).

Foley, S.J., Henry (ed.). Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, pp. 371-373, 378-379, "Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639, 1640).

_____. vol. 3, p. 385, Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the Clergy" (1642).

Foster, James. George Calvert: The Early Years (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1983).

Gaffney, James. Augustine Baker's Inner Light: A Study in English Recusant Spirituality (Scranton, Pa.: University of Scranton Press, 1989).

Gillow, Joseph (ed.). A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Time (5 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902), vol. 1, pp. 374-375, "George Calvert."

_____. "William Davenant."

Gratton, J. M. "The Earl of Derby's Catholic Army" Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 137 (1987), 44.

Haigh, Christopher. "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," TRHS, 31 (1981), 138-139.

Havran, Martin. The Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962).

Hilton, J. A. "The Recusant Commons in the Northeast, 1570-1642," NCH, no. 12 (Autumn 1980), 2-4.

Holmes, Peter. Resistance and Compromise: The Political Thought of the Elizabethan Catholics (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Jones, Leander. "Apostolici Status Missionis in Anglia," CCSP (1767-1786 edn.), vol. 1, pp. 199-200.

Kiernan, Reginold H. The Story of the Archdiocese of Birmingham (West Bromwich, Eng.: Joseph Wares, 1951).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 339]

Krugler, John. "Our Trusting and Well Beloved Counselor: The Parliamentary Career of George Calvert, 1609-1624," MHM, 72 (1977), 486-487.

_____. "The Calvert Family, Catholicism, and Court Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England," The Historian, 43 (1981).

Leatherbarrow, Joseph S. The Lancashire Elizabethan Recusants (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1968).

Leland, Thomas. The History of Ireland from the Invasion of Henry II (3 vols., Dublin: B. Smith, 1814).

Lindley, Keith J. "The Lay Catholics of England in the Reign of Charles I," JEH, 22 (1971), 203-220.

_____. "The Part Played by Catholics in the Civil War," Politics, Religion and the English Civil War, ed. Brian Manning (London: Edward Arnold, 1973).

_____. "The Part Played by the Catholics in the English Civil War," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1968.

Markham, Gervase. The New Metamorphosis (1600), in Nicholas Canny, Kingdom and Colony: Ireland in the Atlantic World, 1560-1800 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988).

Meynell, Thomas. "The Recusancy Papers of the Meynell Family," Miscellanea, ed. Hugh Aveling (Newport, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1964), vol. 56.

Mosler, David. "Warwickshire Catholics in the Civil War," RH, 15 (1980), 259-261.

Newman, Peter. "Catholic Royalist Activities in the North, 1642-1646," RH, 14 (1977) 29.

_____. "Roman Catholics in Pre-Civil War England: The Problem of Definition," RH, 15 (1979), 148.

O'Grady, Hugh. Strafford and Ireland: The History of his Vice-Royalty with an Account of his Trial (2 vols., Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, and Co., 1923).

Payne John O. (ed.). The English Catholic Nonjurors of 1715 (Farnborough, Eng.: Gregg, [1885], 1969).

Persons, S.J., Robert. A Brief Discourse containing certain reasons why Catholics refuse to go to church (Douai: John Lyon, 1580).

_____, "Story of Domestic Difficulties," ed. J. H. Pollen, S.J. CRS, 2 (1906), 50.

Petty, William. Political Anatomy of Ireland in Charles Hull, The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (New York: A. M. Kelley, [1898], 1964), vol. 1, p. 151.

Petersson, Robert T. Sir Kenelm Digby: The Ornament of England, 1603-1665 (London: Jonathan Cape, 1956).

Raban, Sandra. Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279-1500 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 340]

Ridyard, Susan. The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglican Cults (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Rose, E. Elliot. Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Puritans under Elizabeth and James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

Scarisbrick, J. J. The Reformation and the English People (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984).

Terrar, Toby. "A Seventeenth-Century Theology of Liberation: Antinomianism and Labor Theory of Value in the Beliefs of English Catholic Laboring People, 1639-1660," The Journal of Religious History (1993), vol. 17, pp. 297-321.

_____. "Gentry Royalists or Independent Diggers? The Nature of the English Catholic Community in the Civil War Period of the 1640s," Science and Society (1993), vol. 57, pp. 313-348.

_____. "Social Beliefs among English Catholic Gentry during the Civil War Period of the 1640s," Paradigms: Theological Trends of the Future (1991), vol. 7, pp. 1-33.

Tootell, Hugh. Charles Dodd's Church History from the Commencement of the Sixteenth Century to the Revolution in 1688, ed. Mark A. Tierney (5 vols., New York: AMS Press, [1843] 1971)), vol. 3.

Wake, Joan. The Brudenells of Deene (London: Casell, 1954).

Walker, F. X. "Implementation of the Elizabethan Statutes against Recusants," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1961.

Waugh, W. T. "The Great Statute of Praemunire," English Historical Review, 37 (1922), 193-194.

Williams, J. Anthony. Bath and Rome: The Living Link, Catholicism in Bath from 1559 to the Present Day (Bath: Searight's Bookstore, 1963).

_____. Catholic Recusancy in Wiltshire, 1660-1791 (Newport, Eng.: Catholic Record Society, 1968).

Wright, A. D. "Catholic History, North and South, Revisited," Northern History, 25 (1989), 127.

III. Maryland primary

Beitzell, Edwin (ed). CSM, 26 (no. 2, February 1978), "Thomas Cornwallis, Plaintiff versus Richard Ingle, Defendant: Testimony of John Lewger and Cuthbert Fenwick, 1645-1646," pp. 348-353.

Calvert, Charles. "Copy of Tracts Relating to America," American Historical Association Report, 1892, pp. 21-22.

"Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28, "Cecil Calvert's Declaration to the Lords" (1636), p. 223.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 341]

_____. "Thomas Copley, S.J.'s Letter to Lord Baltimore (Cecil Calvert)" (Apr. 3, 1638), vol. 28, pp. 159-169.

_____. "John Lewger's Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 25, 1638), p. 198.

_____. "Thomas Cornwallis' Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 16, 1638), vol. 28, pp. 172-178.

_____. "John Lewger 's Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Jan. 5, 1639), p. 200.

_____. "Andrew White, S.J.'s Letter to Lord Baltimore (Cecil Calvert)" (Feb. 20, 1639), pp. 204-207.

_____. "Thomas Copley, S.J.'s Certificate for St. Inigoes to Cuthbert Fenwick" (July 27, 1641), pp. 164, 211-220.

_____. "Cecil Calvert's Letter to Leonard Calvert" (Nov. 21, 1642), p. 215.

_____. "Cecil Calvert Letter to Leonard Calvert" (Nov. 23, 1642), p. 220.

"Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," St. Mary's City Commission, (manuscript, 27 boxes of men, 4 boxes of women, Annapolis: Hall of Records).

_____. "Thomas Allen," box 1.

_____. "Giles Brent," box 3.

_____. "Ann Calvert Brook Brent," box 28.

_____. "Margaret Brent," box 28.

_____. "Audrey Daly," box 29.

_____. "John Dandy," box 7.

_____. "Cuthbert Fenwick," box 9.

_____. "Francis Fitzherbert," box 9.

_____. "Susan Frizell," box 29.

_____. "Luke Gardiner, " box 9.

_____. "Thomas Gerard," box 10.

_____. "William Hawley," box 12.

_____. "Katherine Hebden," box 29.

_____. "James Langworth,"box 15.

_____. "Edward Packer," box 19.

_____. "John Pile," box 19.

_____. "William Rosewell," box 21.

_____. "Matthew de Sousa," box 8.

_____. "John Thimbleby," box 24.

_____. "Elizabeth Willan," box 31.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 342]

Ellis, John (ed.). Documents of American Catholic History (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1967).

Foley, S.J., Henry (ed.). Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966), vol. 3, p. 338, reproduces Andrew White, S.J., Narratives of a Voyage, p. 351 in Anonymous, "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1656).

_____. vol. 3, p. 388, "Thomas Copley, S.J.'s Letter to Father General."

Force, Peter (comp.). Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963), vol. 3, no. 14, pp. 14-292, reproducing John Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or, The Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656).

_____. vol. 2, no. 7, pp. 19-24, Plowden, Description of New Albion.

Hall, Clayton (ed.). Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925), reproduces Andrew White, S.J., An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore (1633), p. 6.

_____. Andrew White, S.J., A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), pp. 42-44.

_____. John Lewger and Jerome Hawley, A Relation of Maryland (1635), pp. 73-96.

_____. "Leonard Calvert's Letter to Cecil Calvert" (April 25, 1638), p. 156.

_____. "Catholic Clergy's Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1638), pp. 119-123.

_____. "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1639), pp. 124-130.

_____. "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1640), pp. 131-132.

_____. "Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus" (1642), pp. 135-137.

_____. William Stone, "Letter of Resignation" (July 20, 1654), in Anonymous, Virginia and Maryland, or the Lord Baltimore's Printed Cases Uncased and Answered, p. 225.

_____. John Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitful Sisters, Virginia and Maryland (1656).

_____. George Alsop, A Character of the Province of Maryland (1656), p. 363.

Heamans, Roger. Heamans' Brief Narrative in MHM, 4 (1909), pp. 140-153.

Hughes, S.J., Thomas. History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917), "Giles Brent," documents, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 130-131.

_____. Cecil Calvert, "Conditions of Plantation," documents, vol. 1, pp. 162-168 (Nov. 10, 1641).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 343]

_____. Thomas Copley, S.J., documents, vol. 1, no. 8, Q, "Letter to Provincial" (Mar. 1, 1648).

_____. John Lewger, "The Cases" (1638), documents, vol. 1, p. 158.

_____. Maryland Clergy, documents, vol. 1, no. 8, T; and text, vol. 2, p. 59, "Letter to Provincial" (1655-1656).

_____. Vatican archives, text, vol. 1, pp. 347, 496, Nunziatura d'Inghilterra, 4, f. 57; and Propaganda Archives, Letters, no. 141 [1642], f. 361.

Md. Arch. William H. Browne (ed.), Archives of Maryland (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1 (Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland: January 1638 - September 1664; vol. 3 (Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1637-1667); vol. 4 (Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1650).

_____. Assembly, "Act Against Run-Aways," vol. 4, pp. 511-517.

_____. "Assembly Proceedings" (Jan. 29, 1638), vol. 1, pp. 8-9, 265.

_____. Assembly (Second), "A Bill for Corn Measures" (Mar. 14, 1638), vol. 1, p. 16.

_____. Assembly (Second), "A Bill for Planting Corn" (Mar. 15, 1638), vol. 1, p. 20.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Act for Swearing Allegiance to our Sovereign" (Mar. 16, 1638), vol. 1, p. 20.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Bill for the Liberties of the People" (Mar. 16, 1638), vol. 1, p. 20.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Bill against Alienating Manors" (Mar. 16, 1638), vol. 1, p. 20.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Bill for Punishment of Ill Servants" (Mar. 16, 1638), vol. 1, p. 21.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Bill for Limiting the Times of Service" (Mar. 17, 1638), vol. 1, p. 21.

_____. Assembly (Second), "Act for Support of the Lord Proprietor" (Mar. 19, 1638), vol. 1, p. 22.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proceedings" (Mar. 1, 1639), vol. 1, p. 36.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for Swearing Allegiance" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 40.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Act for the Liberties of the People" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 41.

_____. Assembly (Third), "An Act for Trade with the Indians" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, pp. 42-44.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for the Authority of Justice of the Peace" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 53.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for Fees" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, pp. 57-58.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 344]

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for the Descending of Land" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 60.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act Detailing Enormous Offenses" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, pp. 73-74.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for Military Discipline," (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, pp. 77-78.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act for Planting of Corn" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 79.

_____. Assembly (Third), "Proposed Act Limiting the Times of Servants" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, p. 80.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Proclamation" (Oct. 12, 1640), vol. 1, p. 90.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Assembly Proceedings" (Oct. 12-24, 1640), vol. 1, pp. 93-97.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Act for Tobacco" (1640), vol. 1, p. 93.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Marriage Bill" (1640-1641), vol. 1, p. 94.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Marriage Bill" (Oct. 23, 1640), vol. 1, p. 95.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "An Act Prohibiting the Exportation of Corn" (Oct. 1640), vol. 1, p. 96.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Act for Planting of Corn" (Oct. 1640), vol. 1, p. 97.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Act Touching Tobacco" (Oct. 1640), vol. 1, p. 97.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "An Act Touching Servants Clothes" (Oct. 30, 1640), vol. 1, p. 97.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Act for Rating Artificers Wages" (Oct. 30, 1640), vol. 1, p. 97.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Oath of a Viewer" (Oct. 1640), vol. 1, p. 98.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "The Bill for Confirmation of his Lordship's Patent" (Aug. 12, 1641), vol. 1, p. 107.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Bill for an Expedition Against the Indians" (Aug. 12, 1641), vol. 1, p. 107.

_____. Assembly (Fourth), "Act for Measures" (Aug. 12, 1641), vol. 1, p. 108.

_____. Assembly (Fifth), "Proceedings" (Mar. 21-22, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 117-118.

_____. Assembly (Fifth), "Proceedings" (Mar. 23, 1642), vol. 1, p. 119.

_____. Assembly (Fifth), "Act for Granting a Subsidy" (Mar. 23, 1642), vol. 1, p. 123.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Proceedings" (July 17, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 130-131.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Act to Pay Wages of Sergeant," (Aug. 1, 1642), vol. 1, p. 140.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 345]

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Act for Support of the Government" (July 30, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 146-147.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Proceedings" (Aug. 1, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 142-146.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "An Act Touching Succession to Land" (Aug. 1, 1642), vol. 1, p. 157.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Act Providing for the Planting of Corn" (July 30, 1642), vol. 1, p. 160.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "An Act Limiting the Exportation of Corn" (July 30, 1642), vol. 1, p. 161.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "An Act Against Engrossers and Forestallers" vol. 1, p. 161.

_____. Assembly (Sixth), "Table of Officer's Fees (Surveyor General, Sheriff, Clerk)" (Aug. 2, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 162-163.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "Proceedings" (Sept. 5, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 167-198.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "Protest of the Assembly" (Sept. 13, 1642), vol. 1, p. 180.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "Act for the Support of the Government" (Sept. 13, 1642), vol. 1, p. 182.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "An Act Touching Succession to Land" (Sept. 13, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 190-191.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "Act for an Expedition Against the Indians" (Sept. 13, 1642), vol. 1, p. 196-198.

_____. Assembly (Seventh), "An Act Appointing a Fee for Sergeants of the Trained Band" (Sept. 13, 1642), vol. 3, pp. 153-154.

_____. Assembly (Eighth), "An Act for the Defense of the Province" (Feb. 13, 1645), vol. 1, p. 205.

_____. Assembly (Eighth), "Bill against Richard Ingle" (Feb. 1, 3, & 5, 1644), vol. 4, pp. 238-245.

_____. Assembly (Ninth), "Proceedings" (Dec. 29, 1646), vol. 1, pp. 209-210, 220.

_____. Assembly (Tenth), "Proceedings" (Jan. 24, 1648), vol. 1, pp. 217-218.

_____. Assembly (Tenth), "An Act for the Confirmation of the Lord's Patent" (Jan. 25, 1648), vol. 1, p. 218.

_____. Assembly (Tenth), "An Act for the Extent of Attachments and Executions" (Mar. 4, 1648), vol. 1, pp. 232-233.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "Letter to Cecil Calvert" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, pp. 238-243.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Act Concerning Religion" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, pp. 245-246.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 346]

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Act Concerning Purchasing land from the Indians" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, p. 248.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Act Touching Indians" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, p. 250.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Act Touching Hogs and Marking of Cattle" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, p. 251.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Order Providing for the Smith" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, p. 255.

_____. Assembly (Eleventh), "An Act for Militia" (Apr. 21, 1649), vol. 1, pp. 254-255.

_____. Assembly (Twelfth), "Act for the Settling of this Assembly" (Apr. 6, 1650), vol. 1, p. 272.

_____. Assembly (Fourteenth), "An Act Concerning Religion" (Oct. 20, 1654), vol. 1, pp. 340-341.

_____. Assembly (Fourteenth), "Concerning Fencing of Ground" (Oct. 20, 1654), vol. 1, p. 344.

_____. Assembly (Fourteenth), "Stealing of Indians" (Oct. 11, 1654), vol. 1, p. 346.

_____. Assembly (Fourteenth), "Act Against Engrossers" (Oct. 20, 1654), vol. 1, p. 351.

_____. Assembly (Fourteenth), "An Act for all Servants coming into the Province with Indentures" (Oct. 20, 1654), vol. 1, p. 352.

_____. Assembly, "An Act Concerning Negroes and Other Slaves" (Sept. 6, 1664), vol. 1, pp. 533-534.

_____. Richard Bennett, "Reduction of Maryland" (Mar. 29, 1652), vol. 3, p. 272.

_____. "Bill of Sale executed by John Richardson" (Feb. 12, 1638), vol. 4, p. 15.

_____. "Commission to the Sheriff of St. Mary's" (July 4, 1641), vol. 3, p. 98.

_____. "Commission and Instructions to Henry Fleet" (June 18, 1644), vol. 3, pp. 148-150.

_____. "Commission of Richard Bennett and William Claiborne for Governor of Maryland Under the Commonwealth" (Aug. 8, 1654), vol. 3, pp. 311-313.

_____. "Committee of Burgesses' Accounts" (Aug. 2, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 142-146.

_____. "Council of State Order" (July 31, 1656), vol. 3, p. 320.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 347]

_____. "Charge of John Lewger against John Hampton, James Neale, Thomas Cornwallis, and Edward Parker" (Feb. 8, 1644, Jan. 21, 1644), vol. 4, pp. 232-247.

_____. "Charge of John Lewger against Richard Ingle" (Feb. 8, 1644), vol. 4, p. 247.

_____. "Declaration of William Claiborne Showing the Illegality of the Patent" (1649), vol. 5, pp. 175-181.

_____. "Deed from William Bretton" (Nov. 10, 1661), vol. 41, p. 531.

_____. "Demand of Thomas Copley for Land" (Aug. 16, 1650), vol. 3, p. 258.

_____. "Deposition of Will Lewis, John Jarboe, Robert Sharpe, John Salter, Will Clare, and Thomas Kingwell," (Dec. 29, 1646), vol. 1, pp. 209-210, 220.

_____. "Deposition of William Evans" (Jan. 25, 1648), vol. 4, pp. 368-369.

_____. "Deposition of John Jarboe" (Jan. 25, 1648), vol. 4, pp. 368-369.

_____. "Deposition of George Manners," (Oct. 3, 1648), vol. 4, p. 415.

_____. "Deposition of Henry Spinke in Case of Nicholas Harvey" (Dec. 5, 1648), vol. 4, p. 453.

_____. "Deposition of John Greenway" (Feb. 14, 1650), vol. 4, p. 524.

_____. "Deposition of William Boreman," (May 28, 1650), vol. 10, p. 12.

_____. "Deposition of Cuthbert Fenwick" (Apr. 18, 1654), vol. 10, p. 372.

_____. "Deposition of John Robinson, et al." (June 16, 1657), vol. 10, pp. 511-515.

_____. "Deposition of Henry Pope and Sepharinah Hack," (Sept. 25, 1657), vol. 10, p. 531.

_____. "Deposition Thomas Prichard," (June 17, 1661), vol. 41, p. 499.

_____. "Estate of Thomas Adams" (Feb. 6, 1641), vol. 4, pp. 99-100.

_____. "Estate of Richard Lusthead" (Aug. 23, 1642), vol. 4, p. 94.

_____. "Estate of John Cockshot" (Oct. 28, 1642), vol. 4, p. 97.

_____. "Estate Inventory of Lands, Goods, and Chattels of Leonard Calvert" (June 30, 1647), vol. 4, pp. 320-321.

_____. "Estate Inventory of Leonard Calvert" (Mar. 11, 1648), vol. 4, p. 320.

_____. "Estate Inventory of William Eltonhead" (July 1658), vol. 41, p. 103.

_____. "Estate Will of John Lloyd," (July 26, 1658), vol. 41, p. 116.

_____. "Examination of Hannah Littleworth on Death of Tony" (Dec. 2, 1658), vol. 41, pp. 190-205.

_____. "Governor's (Leonard Calvert) Proclamation to Kill Susquehannock and Wkomeses" (Jan. 26, 1642), vol. 3, p. 129.

_____. "Governor's (Leonard Calvert) Declaration of Governor" (June 28, 1642), vol. 4, p. 67.

_____. "Governor's (Leonard Calvert) Orders in Case of Attack by Indians" (Aug. 25, 1642), vol. 3, pp. 107-108.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 348]

_____. Governor (Thomas Greene), "Non-Exportation of Corn, Horses, etc." (Nov. 10, 1647), vol. 3, pp. 194-195.

_____. Governor (William Stone), "Non-Exportation of Corn" (Jan. 24, 1652), vol. 3, p. 293.

_____. "Indenture of Mary Harris" (Aug. 8, 1648), vol. 10, p. 305-306.

_____. "Indenture of Sale of Thomas Cornwallis" (Aug. 9, 1661), vol. 49, pp. 3-6.

_____. John Harvey, "Letters to Francis Windebank" (Dec. 16, 1634 and July 14, 1635), vol. 3, pp. 30-39.

_____. "Oath of Fealty to the Lord Proprietor" (June 20, 1648), vol. 3, pp. 196-197.

_____. "Petition of William Claiborne to his Majesty" (Apr. 1636), vol. 3, p. 32.

_____. "Petition of Thomas Cornwallis" (Feb. 10, 1644), vol. 4, pp. 292-294.

_____. "Petition of Richard Ingle to Parliament" (Feb. 24, 1646), vol. 3, p. 165.

_____. "Petition of Maurice Thompson to House of Lords" (Feb. 8, 1647), vol. 3, p. 181.

_____. "Pre-nuptial contract of Jane Moryson" (Mar. 5, 1659), vol. 41, p. 261.

_____. "Process Against William Lewis, Francis Gray, Robert Sedgrave" (July 3, 1638), vol. 1, p. 119; vol. 4, pp. 35-37.

_____. "Proclamation on Export of Tobacco" (Jan. 8, 1644), vol. 3, p. 144.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letters to Francis Windebank" (Sept. 15, 1634, Feb. 25, 1637, Mar. 1637), vol. 3, pp. 25, 41-43.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (August 8, 1636), vol. 3, pp. 47-48.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Leonard Calvert" (Apr. 15, 1637), vol. 3, pp. 49-55.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Petition to King" (Mar. 1638), vol. 3, p. 69.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letter" (Aug. 21, 1639), vol. 1, p. 31.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Make War against northern Indians" (June 11, 1639), vol. 3, pp. 87-88.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Sheriff to Enforce the Forestalling Act" (Oct. 12, 1640), vol. 1, p. 91.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Sheriff of Kent Island to Collect Rent" (Dec. 7, 1640), vol. 3, p. 95.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (Nov. 10, 1641), vol. 3, pp. 99-100.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 349]

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (Oct. 8, 1641), vol. 4, p. 100.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (Nov. 10, 1641), vol. 3, pp. 99-100.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Leonard Calvert" (Sept. 4, 1642), vol. 3, p. 110.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letter to Governor at New Amsterdam" (May 1, 1643), vol. 4, p. 203.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Instructions Given to Commissioners for Treasury in Maryland" (Nov. 18, 1645), vol. 3, p. 143.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to Edward Hill" (July 30, 1646), vol. 3, pp. 171-172.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Petition to Parliament" (Mar. 4, 1646), vol. 3, p. 180.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission to the Governor" (Aug. 12, 1648), vol. 3, pp. 188-191, 219-220.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Commission of William Stone" (Aug. 6, 1648), vol. 3, p. 203.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Third Conditions of Plantation" (Aug. 1648), vol. 3, pp. 99-101.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (Aug. 20, 1648), vol. 3, pp. 223-229.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Conditions of Plantation" (July 2, 1649), vol. 3, pp. 233-237.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letter to the Assembly" (Aug. 26, 1649), vol. 1, pp. 262-268.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letter to the Assembly" (Aug. 29, 1649), vol. 1, pp. 270-271.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Reasons of State Concerning Maryland" (Aug. 1652), vol. 3, pp. 280-281.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Instructions to Governor" (Oct. 23, 1656), vol. 3, p. 326.

_____. "Proprietor's (Cecil Calvert) Letter to Maryland Council" (July 1, 1661), vol. 3, p. 428.

_____. "Receipt of Katherine Hebden for Payment from Dutch Custom for Services" (Aug. 30, 1651), vol. 10, p. 375.

_____. "Receipt for Henry Adams" Oct. 15, 1651, vol. 10, p. 376.

_____. "Receipt for Thomas Copley" Dec. 23, 1651, vol. 10, p. 373.

_____. "Requisition to High Constable" (Aug. 23, 1643), vol. 4, p. 210.

_____. "Remonstrance of Brent" (1649), vol. 1, pp.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 350]

_____. "Tax List" (Aug. 1, 1642), vol. 1, pp. 142-146.

_____. "Tax List" (Nov. 1, 1642), vol. 3, pp. 120-126

_____. "Testimony of Susan Warren" (Oct. 20, 1649), vol. 10, p. 80.

_____. "Warrant of Giles Brent to Arrest Richard Ingle and Seize his Ship upon High Treason to his Majesty" (Jan. 1644), vol. 4, p. 231.

Stock, Leo (ed.). Proceedings of the British Parliament Respecting North America (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute, 1924), "Cornwallis versus Ingle in the House of Lords" (Mar. 31, 1646), vol. 1, p. 178.

Strong, Leonard. Babylons Fall in Maryland, reprinted in MHM, 3 (Sept. 1908), 7.

Thompson, Henry. "Richard Ingle in Maryland," MHM, 1 (1906), 129-140, "Giles Brent's Libel of Thomas Copley against the Reformation," Public Record Office, Admiralty Court Libels, 167, no. 205.

_____. vol. 3, p. 386, "John Brooke, S.J.'s (real name Morgan, d. 1641) Letter to the English Provincial" (1641).

White, S.J., Andrew. A Relation of the Successful beginnings of the Lord Baltimore's Plantation in Maryland, ed. Lois Green Carr, (Annapolis: Maryland State Archives, [July, 1634], 1984.

Winter (Wintour), Robert. "Letter" (1635), quoted in Ralph Semmes, Crime and Punishment in Early Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1938), p. 81.

_____. To Live Like Princes: A Short Treatise concerning the New Plantation Now Erecting in Maryland, ed. John Krugler (Baltimore: Enoch Pratt Free Library, [1635] 1976).

IV. Maryland secondary

Andrews, Matthew. Tercentenary History of Maryland (Baltimore: S. J. Clarke Publishing Co., 1925).

Anonymous, "Land Notes, 1634-1655," MHM, vol. 6, p. 202; vol. 7, p. 386.

Beitzell, Edwin. "Captain Thomas Cornwallis: Forgotten Leader in the Founding of Maryland," CSM, 20 (1972), 169-178.

_____. The Jesuit Missions of St. Mary's County, Maryland (Abell, Md.: n.p., 1976).

Bossy, John "Reluctant Colonists: The English Catholics Confront the Atlantic," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982).

Bozman, John L. The History of Maryland (Spartenberg: Reprint Co., [1837], 1968).

Brugger, Robert. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 351]

Carr, Lois Green. "Introduction," in Andrew White, S.J., A Relation of the Successful Beginnings of the Lord Baltimore's Plantation in Maryland [1634] (Annapolis: Maryland State Archives, 1984), pp. i-xxx.

_____. "Sources of Political Stability and Upheaval in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," MHM, 79 (Spring 1984), 46-54.

_____ and Russell Menard. "Land, Labor, and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland: Some Limits to Growth in the Chesapeake System of Husbandry," JEcoH, 19 (1989), 409-410.

_____, Russell Menard, Lorena Walsh. "A Small Planter's Profits: The Cole Estate and the Growth of the Early Chesapeake Economy," WMQ, 40 (1983), 174-196.

_____. Robert Cole's World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991).

Clark, Michael. "Jonathan Boucher and Toleration of Roman Catholics in Maryland," MHM, 71 (1976), 197-203.

Coldham, Peter Wilson. The Complete Book of Emigrants, 1607-1660: A Comprehensive listing compiled from English Public Records of those who took ship to the Americas for political, religious, and economic reasons, of those who were deported for vagrancy, roguery, or non-conformity; and of those who were sold to labor in the new Colonies (Baltimore: Genealogical Pub. Co., 1987).

Dennis, Alfred. "Lord Baltimore's Struggle with the Jesuits, 1634-1649," American Historical Review, 1 (1900-1901), p. 121.

Ellis, John T. Catholics in Colonial Maryland (Baltimore: Helicon Press, 1964).

Fausz, Frederick. The Secular Context of Religious Toleration in Maryland (Baltimore: Maryland Humanities Council, 1984).

Fogarty, Gerald. "The Origins of the Mission, 1634-1773," Maryland Jesuits: 1634-1833 (Baltimore: n.p., 1976), p. 23.

Garraghan, Gilbert. "Catholic Beginnings in Maryland," Thought, 9 (1934), 273.

Goebel, Edward. A Study of Catholic Secondary Education During the Colonial Period up to the First Plenary Council of Baltimore (New York: Benzenger Bros., 1937).

Graham, S.J., Michael. "Lord Baltimore's Pious Enterprise: Toleration and Community in Colonial Maryland," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1983.

_____. "Meetinghouse and Chapel: Religion and Community in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," in Lois Green Carr, Philip Morgan, and Jean Russo, Colonial Chesapeake Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989).

Hardy, Beatriz Betancourt. "Papists in a Protestant Age: The Catholic Gentry and Community in Colonial Maryland, 1689-1776," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1993.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 352]

Hathaway, Ronald. Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: a Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Hague: Martin Nijhoff, 1969).

Hanely, Timothy O'Brien. The American Revolution and Religion: Maryland, 1775-1800 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1971).

Horn, James. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994).

_____. "Adapting to a New World: A Comparative Study of Local Society in England and Maryland, 1650-1700," in Carr, et al., Colonial Chesapeake Society, p. 249.

_____. "Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth-Century: Essays in Anglo-American Society, ed. Thad Tate (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979).

Ingle, Edward. Captain Richard Ingle, The Maryland "Pirate and Rebel" (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1884).

Johnson, Bradley. The Foundation of Maryland and the Origin of the Act Concerning Religion in Maryland, in vol. 18, Fund Publication (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1883).

Jonas, Manfred. "Wages in Early Colonial Maryland," MHM, 51 (1956), 27-28.

Kilty, John. The Land-Holders Assistant, and Land-Office Guide: Being an Exposition of Original Titles, as Derived from the Proprietary Government, and more Recently from the State of Maryland (Baltimore: G. Dobbin and Murphy, 1808).

Krugler, John. "Lord Baltimore, Roman Catholicism, and Toleration: Religious Policy in Maryland during the Early Catholic Years, 1634-1649," CHR, 65 (1979), 73.

_____. "Our Trusty and Well Beloved Councilor: The Parliamentary Career of Sir George Calvert, 1609-1624," MHM, 72 (1977), 486.

_____. "Puritan and Papist: Politics and Religion in Massachusetts and Maryland before the Restoration of Charles II," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1971.

_____. "Sir George Calvert's Resignation as Secretary of State and the Founding of Maryland," MHM, 68 (1973), 239.

_____. "`With Promise of Liberty in Religion,' The Catholics Lord Baltimore and Toleration in Seventeenth-Century Maryland, 1634-1692," MHM, 79 (Spring 1984), 30-37.

McCormac, Eugene J. White Servitude in Maryland, 1634-1820 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1904).

McGrain, J. W. "Priest Neale, His Mass House, and His Successors," MHM, 62 (1967), 254-284.

McIlvain, James W. Early Presbyterianism in Maryland, in John Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science, vol. 8 (1890).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 353]

Main, Gloria. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982).

Menard, Russell. Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland (New York: Garland Pub., [1975], 1985).

_____. "Five Censuses," WMQ, 30 (1973), 619-621.

_____. "Five Maryland Censuses, 1700-1712: Note on the Quality of the Quantities," WMQ, 37 (1980), 610-621.

_____. "The Lords Baltimore and the Colonization of Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982).

_____. "Maryland's Time of Troubles: Sources of Political Disorder in Early Maryland," MHM, 76 (1981), 126-136.

_____. "Population, Economy and Society in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," MHM, 79 (Spring 1984), 72.

Middleton, Arthur. "Toleration and the Established Church of Maryland," HMPEC, 53 (1984), 13-14

Moran, Denis. "Anti-Catholicism in Early Maryland Politics: The Puritan Influence," ACHSPR, 61 (1950), 153.

Morris, John. "The Lords Baltimore," Fund Publications (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1874), vol. 8.

Neill, Edward. Founders of Maryland Portrayed in Manuscripts, Provincial Records and Early Documents (Albany, N.Y.: J. Munsell, 1876).

Newman, Harry. The Flowering of the Maryland Palatinate (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1984).

_____. Seigniory in Early Maryland (Baltimore: Descendants of Lords of the Maryland Manors, 1949).

Papenfuse, Edward (ed.). A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).

Randall, Daniel. A Puritan Colony in Maryland in JHU 6, (4th series, 1886).

Rightmyer, Nelson. Maryland's Established Church Baltimore: Diocese of Maryland, 1956).

Scisco, Louis. "Evolution of Colonial Militia in Maryland," MHM, 35 (1940), 166-177.

Smith, Charles E. Religion Under the Barons of Baltimore (Baltimore: E. A. Lycett, 1899).

Spalding, Hughes. The Spalding Family of Maryland (Atlanta, Ga.: Stein Pub. Co., 1963).

Steiner, Bernard. "Kent County and Kent Island, 1656-1662," MHM, 8 (1913), 13.

_____. Maryland During the English Civil Wars in JHU, series 24, nos. 11-12 (1907).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 354]

Stone, Garry. "Society, Housing, and Architecture in Early Maryland: John Lewger's St. John's," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1982.

Terrar, Toby. "Was there a Separation between Church and State in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and Colonial Maryland?" Journal of Church and State (1993), vol. 35, pp. 61-82.

_____. "Social Ideas among Post-Reformation Catholic Laboring People: The Evidence from Civil War England in the 1640s," History of European Ideas (1992), vol. 14, pp. 665-694.

Thomas, James. Chronicles of Colonial Maryland (Cumberland, Md.: Eddy Press, 1913).

Treacy, William. Old Catholic Maryland and Its Early Jesuit Missions (Swedenboro, N.J.: n.p., 1889).

Usher, Roland G. "Thomas Weston," Dictionary of American Biography, ed. Dumas Malone (New York: Charles Scribners, 1936).

Walsh, Lorena. "Charles County, Maryland, 1658-1705: A Study of Chesapeake Social and Political Structure," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977.

_____. "Community Networks in the Early Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois Green Carr, Philip Morgan, and Jean Russo (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), pp. 207-235.

V. Africa/African-American/Indian

Ajayi, J. F. and Michael Crowder (eds.). History of West Africa (2nd ed., London: Longman, 1976).

Axtell, James. The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).

_____. "White Legend: The Jesuit Mission in Maryland," MHM, 81 (1986), 1-5.

Balandier, Georges. Daily Life in the Kingdom of the Kongo from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Centuries (New York: World Publishing Co., 1968).

Beckles, Hilary. Afro-Caribbean Women and Resistance to Slavery in Barbados (London: Karnak House, 1988).

_____. White Servitude and Black Slavery in Barbados, 1627-1715 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1989).

Blake, J. W. "The Farm of the Guinea Trade in 1631," Essays in British and Irish History in Honor of James E. Todd, eds. Henry A. Cronne and D. B. Quinn (London: F. Muller, 1949), pp. 86-106.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 355]

Blake, John. West Africa: Quest for God and Gold, 1454-1578: A Survey of the First Century of White Enterprise in West Africa, with particular Reference to the Achievement of the Portuguese and their Rivalries with other European Powers (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1977).

Bontinck, FranÇois and D. Ndembe Nsasi. Le Catéchisme Kikongo de 1624: Réédition critique (Brussels: Academie royale des Sciences d'outre-mer, [1624, 1650] 1978).

Bouchaud, Joseph. L'Eglise en Afrique noire (Paris: La Palatine, 1958).

Bowden, Henry. American Indians and the Christian Mission: Studies in Cultural Conflict (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).

Brasio, Antonio (ed.). História de Reino de Congo: ms. 8080 da Biblioteca Nacional de Lisboa (Lisbon: Centro de Estudos Historicos Ultramarinos, [1624], 1969).

Cutrufelli, Maria. Women of Africa: Roots of Oppression (London: Zed Press, 1983).

Dunn, Richard. "Masters, Servants, and Slaves in the Colonial Chesapeake and the Caribbean," Early Maryland in a Wider World (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), ed. David Quinn, pp. 248-258.

Fage, J. D. "African Societies and the Atlantic Slave Trade," PP, no. 125 (Nov. 1989), 110.

Fausz, J. Frederick. "The Invasion of Virginia: Indians, Colonialism, and the Conquest of Cant--a Review Essay on Anglo-Indian Relations in the Chesapeake," VMHB, 95 (1987), 133-156.

_____. "Merging and Emerging Worlds: Anglo-Indian Interest Groups and the Development of the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake," Colonial Chesapeake Society, ed. Lois G. Carr, Philip Morgan, and Jean Russo (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), pp. 69-79.

_____. "Opechancanough: Indian Resistance Leader," Struggle and Survival in Colonial America, ed. David Sweet and Gary Nash (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), pp. 21-37.

_____. "Patterns of Anglo-Indian Aggression and Accommodation Along the Mid-Atlantic Coast, 1584-1634," Cultures in Contact: The Impact of European Contacts on Native American Cultural Institutions, A.D. 1000-1800, ed. William Fitzhugh, (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1985), pp. 225-268.

_____. "The Powhatan Uprising of 1622: A Historical Study of Ethnocentrism and Cultural Conflict," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, College of William and Mary, 1977, pp. 228-250.

_____. "Present at the `Creation': The Chesapeake World that Greeted the Maryland Colonists," MHM, 79 (Spring 1984), 13.

Feest, Christian. "Nanticoke and Neighboring Tribes," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, p. 242.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 356]

Fey, Harold and D'Arcy McNickle. Indians and Other Americans: Two Ways of Life Meet (rev. ed., New York: Harper and Row, 1970).

Finn, Peter. "The Slaves of the Jesuits in Maryland," unpublished M. A. Thesis, Georgetown University, 1974

Glasgow, Roy Arthur. Nzinga: resistencia africana a investida do colonialismo portugues en Angola, 1582-1663 (Sao Paulo, Brazil: Editora Perspectiva, 1982).

Heintze, Beatrix. "Luso-African Feudalism in Angola? The Vassal Treaties of the Sixteenth to Eighteenth Centuries," Revista Portuguesa de Historia, 18 (1980), 111-131.

Higman, B. W. Slave Populations of the British Caribbean, 807-1834 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).

Hilton, Anne. The Kingdom of Kongo (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983).

Hopkins, Anthony G. An Economic History of West Africa (London: Longman, 1973).

Hudson, Charles. "Why the Southeastern Indians Slaughtered Deer," Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trades: A Criticism of Keepers of the Game, ed. Shephard Krech (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1981), pp. 155-176.

Jennings, Francis. "Indians and Frontiers in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982), pp. 220-222.

Kickingbird, Kirke and Karen Ducheneaux. One Hundred Million Acres (New York: Macmillan, 1973).

Kupperman, Karen. Settling with the Indians: The Meeting of English and Indian Cultures in America, 1580-1640 (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1980).

Law, Robin. The Slave Coast of West Africa, 1550-1750: The Impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade on an African Society (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).

Lounsbury, Floyd. "Iroquoian Languages," Handbook of North American Indians, Northeast, ed. William Sturtevant and Bruce Trigger (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, 1978), vol. 15, pp. 335-336.

MacGaffey, Wyatt. Custom and Government in the Lower Congo (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1970).

_____. "The Economic and Social Dimensions of Kongo Slavery (Zaire)," Slavery in Africa: Historical and Anthropological Perspectives, ed. Suzanne Meiers and Igor Kopytoff (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1977).

Manning, Patrick. Slavery and African Life: Occidental, Oriental, and African Slave Trades (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Martin, Phyllis. The External Trade of the Loango Coast, 1576-1870: The Effects of Changing Commercial Relations on the Vili Kingdom of Loango (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 357]

Merrell, James. "Cultural Continuity Among the Piscataway," WMQ, 36 (1979), 548-570.

Miller, Joseph. Kings and Kinsmen: Early Mbundu States in Angola (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976).

Moore, James T. Indian and Jesuit: A Seventeenth-Century Encounter (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1982).

Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1975).

Morrison, Kenneth M. The Embattled Northeast: The Elusive Ideal of Alliance in Abenaki-Euroamerican Relations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

Nash, Gary B. Red, White, and Black (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1974).

Potter, Stephen R. "European Effects on Virginia Algonquian Exchange and Tribute Systems in the Seventeenth Century: An Example from the Tidewater Potomac," Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southwest, ed. Peter Wood, Gregory Waselkov and Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), pp. 151-172.

Robinson, W. Stitt. "Conflicting Views on Landholding: Lord Baltimore and the Experiences of Colonial Maryland with Native Americans," MHM, 83 (1988), 92.

Rountree, Helen. Pocahontas's People: The Powhatan Indians of Virginia through Four Centuries (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990).

_____ (ed.). Powhatan Foreign Relations, 1500-1722 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1993).

Salisbury, Neal. "Prospero," Papers of the Sixth Algonquian Conference, 1974, ed. William Cowan (Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, 1975).

Semmes, Raphael. "Aboriginal Maryland, 1608-1689," MHM, 24 (1929), 195-209.

Terrar, Toby. "Repenting the Quincentennial? A Study in Maryland Catholic History," Journal for Peace and Justice Studies (1992), vol. 4, pp. 143-165.

Thornton, John. Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlatic World, 1400-1680 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

_____. "African Dimensions of the Stono Rebellion," AHR, 96 (Oct. 1991), 1103.

_____. "Central African Names and African-American Naming Patterns," WMQ, 50 (Oct. 1993).

_____. "The Development of an African Catholic Church in the Kingdom of the Kongo, 1491-1750," Journal of African History, 25 (1984), 147-148.

_____. The Kingdom of the Kongo: Civil War and Transition, 1641-1718 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 358]

Wilson, Anne. "The Kongo Kingdom to the Mid-Seventeenth Century," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London School of Oriental and African Studies, 1977.

Zurara, Gomes Eanes de. The Chronicle of Discovery and Conquest of Guinea written by Gomes Eanes de Azurara: Now First Done into English by Charles Raymond Beagley (2 vols., London: 1899).

VI. Women

Brodsky, Vivien. "Widows in Late Elizabethan London: Remarriage, Economic Opportunity, and Family Orientations," The World We Have Gained: Histories of Population and Social Structure, ed. Lloyd Bonfield, et al (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), p. 145.

Burnard, Trevor. "Inheritance and Independence: Women's Status in Early Colonial Jamaica," WMQ, 48 (1991), 112-114.

Bush, Barbara. Slave Women in Caribbean Society, 1650-1838 (Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1990).

Cantarella, Eva. Pandora's Daughters: The Role and Status of Women in Greek and Roman Antiquity, trans. Maureen Fant (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987).

Carr, Lois Green and Lorena Walsh. "The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," WMQ, 34 (1977), 542-571.

Dunn, Mary. "Saints and Sisters: Congregational and Quaker Women in the Early Colonial Period," American Quarterly, 30 (1978), 585-589.

Fox, George. The Women Learning in Silence (London: Thomas Simonds, 1656).

Gibson, Laurita. "Catholic Women of Colonial Maryland," unpublished M.A. Thesis, Catholic University of America, 1939.

Laurence, Anne. Women in England, 1500-1760: A Social History (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994).

Norton, Mary B. "Gender and Defamation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," WMQ 44 (Jan. 1987), 5.

Spruill, Julia. Women's Life and Work in the Southern Colonies (New York: Russell and Russell, [1938] 1972).

_____. "Mister M. Brent, Spinster," MHM, 29 (1934), 29.

Thomas, Keith. "Women and the Civil War Sects," PP, 13 (1958), 46-47.

VII. Economic/Political/Social

Andrews, Charles McLain. British Committees, Commissions, and Councils of Trade and Plantations, 1622-1675 (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Studies, 1908).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 359]

Appleby, Joyce. Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).

Ashton, Robert. The Crown and the Money Market: 1603-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960).

Baldwin, John. The Medieval Theories of Just Price: Romanists, Canonists, and Theologians in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1959).

Barbour, Violet. "Dutch and English Merchant Shipping in the Seventeenth Century," EcoHR, 2 (1929-1930), 261-290.

Barley, M. W. "Rural Building in England," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 657-682.

Bartell, Ernest. "Values, Price, and St. Thomas," The Thomist, 25 (1962), 354.

Beier, A. L. "Poor Relief in Warwickshire, 1630-1660, PP, no. 35 (1966), 78.

Blake, J. W. "The Farm of the Guinea Trade in 1631," Essays in British and Irish History in Honor of James E. Todd, eds. Henry A. Cronne and D. B. Quinn (London: F. Muller, 1949).

Bosworth, Timothy W. "Anti-Catholicism as a Political Tool in Eighteenth-Century Maryland," CHR, 61 (1975), 539-563.

Bowden, Peter. "Agricultural Prices, Farm Profits and Rents," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 4, pp. 593-641.

_____. "Agricultural Prices, Wages, Farm Profits and Rents," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, pp. 5-91.

Braudel, Fernand. Civilization and Capitalism, Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries (3 vols., London: Collins, 1984).

Brenner, Robert. "The Civil War Politics of London's Merchant Community," PP, 58 (1973), 98.

_____. "Commercial Change and Political Conflict," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1970.

_____. "Development in Pre-Industrial Europe," The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Preindustrial Europe, ed. T. H. Aston (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Carr, C. T. Select Charters of Trading Companies (London: Selden Society, 1913).

Cedarberg, Herbert. "An Economic Analysis of English Settlement in North America, 1583-1635," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California Press, 1968.

Clay," Christopher. Landlords and Estate Management in England," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt 2, p. 120.

Coale, Ansley J. Regional Model Life Tables and Stable Population (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 360]

Cooper, J. P. "Inheritance and Settlement by Great Landlords," Family and Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800, ed. Jack Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

_____. "In Search of Agrarian Capitalism," The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. T. H. Ashton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

_____. "Social and Economic Policies Under the Commonwealth," The Interregnum: The Quest for Settlement, 1646-1660, ed. G. E. Aylmer (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 126-139.

Croot, Patricia "Agrarian Class Structure and the Development of Capitalism: France and England Compared," The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. T. H. Ashton (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), pp. 46-86.

Crow, Steven. "Left at Libertie: The Effects of the English Civil War and Interregnum on the American Colonies, 1640-1660," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1974.

Dietz, Frederick C. English Public Finance, 1558-1641 (London: F. Cass, 1964).

Dowell, Stephen. A History of Taxation and Taxes in England From the Earliest Times to the Present Day (4 vols., London: Longmans, Green, 1884).

Egerton, Hugh E. A Short History of British Colonial Policy (London: Methuen, 1928).

Everstine, Carl. "The Establishment of Legislative Power in Maryland," Maryland Law Review, 12 (1951), 99-121.

_____. The General Assembly of Maryland, 1634-1776 (Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1980).

Falb, Susan. Advice and Ascent: The Development of the Maryland Assembly, 1635-1689 (New York: Garland Publishers, 1986).

Farnell, J. E. "The Navigation Act of 1651, the First Dutch War, and the London Merchant Community," EcoHR, 16 (1964), 443-454.

Fausz, J. Frederick. "`To Draw Thither the Trade of Beavers': The Strategic Significance of the English Fur Trade in the Chesapeake, 1620-1660," "Le Castor Fair Tout": Selected Papers of the Fifth North American Fur Trade Conference, 1985, ed. Bruce Trigger, Toby Morantz, and Louise Dechene (Montreal: Lake St. Louis Historical Society, 1987), pp. 42-71.

Figgis, John. Divine Right of Kings (Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, 1914, 1970).

Fitzmaurice, Edmond. Life of William Petty (London: J. Murray, 1895).

Friis, Astrid. Alderman Cockayne's Project and the Cloth Trade: The Commercial Policy of England in its main Aspects, 1603-1625 (London: Oxford University Press, 1927).

Furniss, Edgar S. The position of the Laborer in a System of Nationalism: A Study in the Labor Theories of the Later English Mercantilists (rev. ed., Boston: Houghton Mifflin, [1920], 1965).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 361]

Galenson, David. White Servitude in Colonial America: An Economic Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Gardiner, Samuel (ed.). The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, 1625-1660 (3rd. ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906).

Goffe, William. How to Advance the Trade of the Nation and Employ the Poor, in Harleian Miscellany: or, a Collection of Pamphlets (London: White Murray, and Harding, 1813), vol. 12.

Gordan, Barry J. Economic Analysis Before Adam Smith: Hesiod to Lessius (New York: Macmillan, 1975).

Gras, Norman. The Evolution of the English Corn Market from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1915).

Habakkuk, H. J. "Landowners and the Civil War," EcoHR, 18 (1969), 131.

Hakewill, William. The Manner of Holding Parliaments in England (London: n.p., 1641).

_____. The Manner how Statutes are Enacted in Parliament by passing bills collected many years out of the journals of the House of Commons (London: B. Benson, 1641).

_____. Modus tenendi Parliamentum, or the old Manner of Holding Parliaments (London: n.p., 1660).

Hall, Hubert. A History of the Custom Revenue in England from the Earliest Times to the Year 1827 (2 vols., New York: B. Franklin, [1885] 1970).

Hanson, Donald. From Kingdom to Commonwealth: The Development of Civic Consciousness in English Political Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1970).

Hardacre, Paul. The Royalists During the Puritan Revolution (London: Hager, 1950).

Harper, W. P. "Public Borrowing 1640-1660 with Special Reference to the City of London between 1640 and 1650" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, Department of Political Science, 1955).

Hart, Cyril. Royal Forest: A History of Dean's Woods as Producers of Timber (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).

_____. Free Miners of the Royal Forest of Dean (Gloucester: British Book Co., 1953).

Hirst, Derek. The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England Under the Early Stuarts (Cambridge: University Press, 1975).

Innes, Arthur D. The Maritime and Colonial Expansion of England under the Stuarts, 1603-1714 (London: S. Low, Marston and Co., 1931).

James, Margaret. Social Problems during the Puritan Revolution, 1640-1660 (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1966).

Johnson, Edgar. American Economic Thought in the Seventeenth Century (London: Russell and Russell, 1932).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 362]

Jones, Eric L. (ed.). Agricultural and Economic Growth in England, 1650-1815 (London: Methuen, 1967).

_____. Seasons and Prices: The Role of Weather in English Agricultural History (London: Allen and Unwin, 1964).

Jordan, David. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Jordan, Wilbur K. The Charities of Rural England, 1480-1660: The Aspirations and the Achievements of the Rural Society (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1961).

Karraker, Cyrus. The Seventeenth-Century Sheriff: A Comparative Study of the Sheriff in England and the Chesapeake Colonies, 1607-1689 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1930).

Klotz, Edith. "Wealth of Royalist Peers and Baronets During the Puritan Revolution" in EngHR, 58 (1943), 119.

Kussmaul, Ann. Servants in Husbandry in Early Modern England (London: Cambridge University Press, 1981).

Latimer, John. A History of the Society of Merchant Venturers of the City of Bristol with an account of the anterior merchants' Guilds (Bristol: J. W. Arrowsmith, 1903).

Lipson, Ephram. The Economic History of England (3 vols., London: A. & C. Black, [1931], 1961).

_____. A Short History of Wool and Its Manufacture, Mainly in England (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953).

Little, Lester. Liberty, Charity, Fraternity: Lay Religious Confraternities at Bergamo in the Age of the Commune (Northampton, Mass.: Smith College, 1988).

McCusker, John and Russell Menard The Economy of British America: 1607-1785 (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1985).

McGrath, Patrick. Merchants and Merchandise in Seventeenth-Century Bristol (Bristol: Record Society, 1955).

Mann, Julia. The Cloth Industry in the West of England from 1640 to 1880 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).

Meek, Ronald. Studies in the Labor Theory of Value (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1973).

Menard, Russell and Lois Green Carr. "The Lords Baltimore and the Colonization of Maryland," Early Maryland in a Wider World, ed. David Quinn (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1982).

Morrill, John S. Cheshire 1630-1660: County Government and Society During the "English Revolution" (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974).

Morris, Thomas. "`Villeinage. . . as it existed in England, reflects but little on our Subject': The Problem of the Sources of Southern Slavery," American Journal of Legal History, 32 (1988), 107.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 363]

Nef, John U. Industry and Government in France and England, 1540-1640 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1957).

Notestein, Wallace et al. Commons Debates, 1621 (9 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1935).

O'Day, Rosemary and Anne Hughes. "Augmentation and Amalgamation: was there a Systematic Approach to the Reform of Parochical Finance, 1640-1660," Princes and Paupers in the English Church, 1500-1800, ed. Rosemary O'Day and Felicity Heal (Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1981).

Oglander, John. A Royalist's Notebook, The Commonplace Book (New York: B. Blom, 1971), pp. 110-111.

Pearl, Valerie. "Puritans and Poor Relief: The London Workhouse, 1649-1660," in Puritans and Revolutionaries, ed. Donald Pennington and Keith Thomas (Oxford: 1978).

Petty, William. Treatise on Taxes and Contribution, in Charles Hull (ed.), The Economic Writings of Sir William Petty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899).

Phillips, C. B. "The Gentry in Cumberland and Westmoreland, 1600-1665." Ph.D. diss., Lancaster University, 1974.

Phillips, William D. Slavery from Roman Times to the Early Transatlantic Trade (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1985).

Popofsky, Linda. "The Crisis Over Tonnage and Poundage in Parliament in 1629," PP, 126 (1990), 50-74.

Read, Conyers. "Mercantilism: The Old English Pattern of a Controlled Company," The Constitution Reconsidered (New York: Columbia University Press, 1938).

Reavis, William. "The Maryland Gentry and Social Mobility, 1637-1676," WMQ, 14 (1957), 423.

Scott, William R. The Constitution and Finance of English, Scottish, and Irish Joint-Stock Companies to 1700 (3 vols., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1912).

Shaw, William. Select Tracts and Documents Illustrative of English Monetary History, 1626-1730 (2 vols., London: George Harding, 1896, 1935).

Slack, Paul. "Poverty and Politics in Salisbury, 1597-1666," in Crisis and Order in English Towns: Essays in Urban History, ed. Peter Clark (Toronto: 1972).

Smith, Abbott. "The indentured Servant and Land Speculation in Seventeenth-Century Maryland," AHR, 40 (1934-1935), 467-472.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (New York: Modern Library, [1776] 1937).

Smith, Warren B. White Servitude in Colonial South Carolina (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1961).

Strauss, Erich. Sir William Petty, Portrait of a Genesis (London: Bodleyhead, 1954).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 364]

Thirsk, Joan (ed.). The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, part 2.

_____. "Agricultural Innovations and their Diffusion," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 549.

_____. "Agricultural Policy: Public Debate and Legislation," in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 318.

_____. "The European Debate on Customs of Inheritance, 1500-1700," Family Inheritance: Rural Society in Western Europe, 1200-1800, ed. Jack Goody (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), pp. 178-185.

_____. "Seventeenth-Century Agriculture and Social Change," Land, Church and People in Supplement to AgHR (1970), pp. 148-157.

_____. Tudor Enclosures (London: Historical Association, [1958] 1967).

Todd, Margo. Christian Humanism and the Puritan Social Order (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Underdown, David. Revel, Riot and Rebellion: Popular Politics and Culture in England, 1603-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

Vaughan, Alden. "The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth-Century Virginia," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, 97 (July 1989), 322.

Verlinden, Charles. "Slavery," in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph Strayer (New York: Scribner, 1989).

Violet, Thomas (d. 1622). An Humble Proposal against Transporting Gold and Silver (1661).

Walter, John. "Dearth and Social Order in Early Modern England," PP, no. 71 (1976) 24-39.

Wintour, John. A True Narrative Concerning the Woods and Iron-Works of the Forest of Deene, and how they have been Disposed since the year 1635, and a defense of Sir John Wintour (London: n.p., 1670).

_____. Sir John Wintour Vindicated from the Aspersion of Destroying the Ship-Timber of the Forest of Deene (London: n.p., 1660).

Wyckoff, Vertrees. "The International Tobacco Trade in the Seventeenth Century," Southern Economic Journal, 7 (1940), 13-17.

_____. Tobacco Regulation in Colonial Maryland (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Studies, 1936), no. 22.

VIII. Intellectual (primary)

Abbot, John. Jesus Praefigured or a Poem of the Holy Name of Jesus ([1623] 1970), in ERL, vol. 54.

Allen, Cardinal William (d. 1594). An Admonition to the Nobility (1588), in ERL, vol. 74.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 365]

Allen, William (John Brereley). A Defense and Declaration of the Catholic Church's Doctrine Touching Purgatory (1565), ERL, vol. 18

_____. A Treatise made in defense of the lawful power and authority of priesthood to remit sin (1567) ERL, vol. 99.

Anderton, James. The Liturgy of the Mass (1620), ERL, vol. 184.

Anderton, Lawrence. The English Nunne (St. Omer, English College Press, 1642).

Androzzi, Fulvio. Certain Devout Considerations of Frequenting the Blessed Sacrament (1606), ERL, vol. 23.

Anonymous. The Catholic Younger Brother (St. Omer, n.p., 1642).

Anonymous. A Confutation of the Earl of Newcastle's Reasons for taking under his command divers Recusants in the Northern Parts (London: n.p., 1643).

Anonymous. The General Rubriques of the Breviary (1617), ERL, vol. 351.

Anonymous. Good Catholic No Bad Subject, or a letter from a Catholic Gentleman to Mr. Richard Baxter, modestly accepting the challenge (London: John Dinkins, 1660).

Anonymous. A New Petition of the Papists for Toleration (London: n.p., 1641).

Anonymous. The Primer: or, Office of the Blessed Virgin Marie in Latin and English (1599), in ERL, vol. 262.

Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle (Metaphysicam aristotelis commentaria), ed. John Rowan (Chicago: H. Regency, 1961), bk. 1, sect. 30.

_____. In Metaphysicam aristotelis commentaria, ed. M. R. Cathala (Rome: Collegii pontificia internationalis angelici, 1915).

_____. On the Governance of Rulers, ed. Gerald Phelan (Toronto: St. Michaels College Press, 1935).

_____. Questiones quodlibetales, ed. R. Spiazzi (Taurino: Casa Marietti, 1956).

_____. The Religious State (De perfectione vitae spiritualis), ed. F. J. Procter (St. Louis: B. Herder. 1902).

_____. Scriptum super sententiis magistri Petri Lombardi, ed. Pierre Mandonnet and M. Moos (4 vols., Paris: 1949).

_____. Summa Theologiae: Latin Text and English Translation, Introduction, Notes, ed. Thomas Gilby, O.P. (60 vols. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964), vols. 34-47.

Arendzen, J. P. "Messalians," Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton, 1911), vol. 10.

Aristotle, Metaphysics in The Works of Aristotle, ed. W. D. Ross (12 vols., London: Oxford University Press, 1952).

_____. The Politics, ed. Benjamin Jowitt (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1885] 1920).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 366]

Arundell, Henry. Five Little Meditations in verse: . . . (2) Persecution No Loss; (3) On the text "God Chastiseth those whom He Loves"; (4) Considerations before the Crucifix; (5) Upon the Pains of Hell (London: Nathaniel Thompson, 1679).

Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, ed. Mason Dock (New York: Hafner Pub., 1948).

Austin, John. The Christian Moderator (first part), or Persecution for religion condemned by the light of Nature, Law of God, Evidence of our own principles, with the explanation of the Roman Catholic belief, concerning these four points: their church, worship, justification and civil government (London: printed for J.J., published twice in 1651, twice in 1652 and three times in 1653).

Bagshaw, Christopher. A True Relation of the Faction begun by Fr. Persons at Rome (1601), ed. Thomas Law (London: D. Nutt, 1889).

Barry, Garrat. A Discourse of Military Discipline ([1634] 1978) in ERL, vol. 389.

Bellarmine, S.J., Robert. The Soul's Ascension to God, by the Steps of Creation ([1616] 1970), trans. Francis Young, in ERL, vol. 22.

_____. Meditations upon the Passion (1617), ERL, vol. 23.

Berzetti, Nicholas. The Practice of Meditating (1613), ERL, vol. 42.

Bishop, John. A Courteous Conference with the English Catholics Roman about the Six Articles Ministered unto the Seminary Priests (London: Robert Dexter, 1598).

Bolton, Edmund. The Cities Advocate, in this case, or a Question of honor and arms, whether Apprenticeship extinguisheth Gentry? Containing a clear refutation of the Pernicious common Error affirming it, swallowed by Erasmus of Roterdam, Sir Thomas Smith in his "Commonweal", Sir John Ferris in his "Blazon", Ralph Broke York Herald and others. With the copies or transcripts of three letters which give occasion of this work (Norwood, N.J.: W. J. Johnson, [1629], 1975).

Bruno, S.J., Vincenzo. An Abridgement of Meditations (1599), ERL, vol. 246.

Caesar, Julius. Bellum Gallicum in Caesar's the Conquest of Gaul, trans. S. A. Handford (Baltimore: Penguin Classic, 1951).

[Calvert, George, Lord Baltimore], L. B. The Answer to the Judgment of a Divine upon the Letter of the Lay Catholics, to my Lord Bishop of Chalcedon (1631) ERL, vol. 55.

_____. The Answer to Tom-Tell-Truth: The Practice of Princes and the Lamentations of the Kirke (London: n.p., [1627], 1642).

Carroll, Kenneth L. "William Southby, Early Quaker Anti-Slavery Writer," Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 89 (1965), 416.

Caussin, Nicholas. The Holy Court, or the Christian Institution of Men of Quality with Examples of those who in Court have Flourished in Sanctity [1626, 1634, 1638, 1650, 1663, 1664, 1678, 1898], 1977, trans. Basil Brooke in ERL, vol. 367.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 367]

Cavendish, William. A Declaration Made by the Earl of Newcastle . . . for entertaining some Popish recusants in his forces (London: n.p, 1642).

Cepari, S.J., Virgilio. The Life of B. Aloysius Gonzaga ([1627], 1974) in ERL, vol. 201.

Ceriziers, S.J., Rene (d. 1622). Innocence Acknowledged in Life and Death of St. Genovea, Countess Palatin of Trevers, trans. John Tasborough (Gaunt: n.p., 1645).

Chambers, Sabine. The Garden of our B. Lady (1619), in ERL, vol. 381.

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation. . . De Lege Agraria, I, II, III, trans. John Freese (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1930).

_____. On Moral Obligation (De Officiis), trans. John Higginbotham (London: Faber, 1967).

_____. The Speeches with an English Translation. . . Pro M. Fonteio (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953).

_____. The Speeches with an English Translation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937), XVIII (Pro Flacco); XXXIII (Pro domo).

Clara, Saint, of Assisi. The Rule of the Holy Virgin S. Clare (1621), in ERL, vol. 274.

Coke, Edward. The Reports of Edward Coke (6 vols., London: J. Butterworth, [1600-1615] 1826).

Coke, Roger. Justice Vindicated from the False Fusus put upon it by Thomas White (London: Thomas Newcomb, 1660).

Copley, Anthony (1567-1607). An Answer to a Letter of a Jesuited Gentleman, by his Cousin, Mr. A. C. Concerning the Appeal, State, Jesuits (1601) in ERL, vol. 31.

_____. Another Letter of Mr. A. C. to his Dis-Jesuited Kinsman (1602) in ERL, vol. 100.

Cotton, John. John Cotton on the Churches of New England, ed. Larzer Ziff (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 1968).

Crispe, Frederick. Collections Relating to the Family of Crispe (2 vols. London: n.p., 1882).

Davenant, William. Sir William Davenant's Gondibert: An Heroic Poem, ed. David Gladish (Oxford: Clarendon Press, [1651] 1971).

_____. The Temple of Love (London: n.p., 1635).

Estella, Diego de. The Contempt of the World (1584), ERL, vol. 242.

Falconer, John. The Life of S. Catherine (1634), in ERL, vol. 141.

Fitzsimon, Henry. The Justification and Exposition of the Divine Sacrifice of the Mass (1611), ERL, vol. 108.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 368]

Force, Peter (comp.). Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963), vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 43-45, "Cecil Calvert's Form of Appointment of Collector of Customs under Charles I," in Anonymous, Virginia and Maryland, or the Lord Baltimore's Case Uncased and Answered (1655).

Galliardi, Achilles. Jesus Psalter, 1575: An Abridgement of Christian Perfection (1625), ERL, vol. 176.

Gamet, Henry. Society of the Rosary, together with the Life of the Virgin Marie (1624), in ERL, vol. 112.

G. K. (trans.). The Roman Martyrology (1627), ERL, vol. 222.

Granada, Luis de. Of Prayer and Meditation, Wherein are Contained Fourteen Devout Meditations [1582] in ERL, vol. 64.

_____. A Memorial of a Christian Life [1586], in ERL, vol. 272.

Gregory I, Pope. The Dialogues of S. Gregorie: The Four Books of Dialogue on the Life and Miracles of the Italian Fathers and on the Immortality of Souls [594] (1608), ERL, vol. 240.

_____. Morals on the Book of Job, trans. John Parker (3 vols., London: Series Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, J. Rivington Co., 1844).

_____. Pastoral Care in Ancient Christian Writers: The Works of the Fathers in Translation, ed. Henry Davis, S.J. (Westminster, Md.: Newman Publishers, 1950).

_____. The Second Book of the Dialogues, trans. Cuthbert Fursdon, ERL, vol. 294.

Hawkins, Henry. The History of St. Elizabeth (1632), ERL, vol. 198.

Hawkins, Thomas. A View of the Real Power of the Pope and of the Priesthood over the Laity, with an account of How they use it (London: n.p., 1639, 1733).

Heigham, John (d. 1639). A Devout Exposition of the Holy Mass (1622), ERL, vol. 205.

Holden, Henry. The Analysis of Divine Faith: or two Treatises of the Resolution of Christian Belief (Paris: n.p., [1652, 1655], 1658).

_____. A Letter to Mr. Graunt, Concerning Mr. White's treatise, "De Medio animarum statu" (Paris: n. p., 1661).

Horace. Horace: Epodes and Odes (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991).

I. R. A Manual, or Meditations (1596), ERL, vol. 116.

Joane, Sister. The historie of the Blessed Virgin (1625), in ERL, vol. 335.

Jubbes, John. An Apology . . .touching a proceeding in a paper called Proposals for Peace and Freedom, offered from many worth citizens unto Commissioner General Ireton, for the concurrence of the army, after the prohibition of things of that nature (London: 1649).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 369]

Knott, S.J., Edward. Charity Mistaken, with the want whereof Catholics are unjustly Charged, for affirming that Protestancy unrepented destroys Salvation (London: n.p., 1630).

LeJeune, S.J., Paul. "Hardships We Must be Ready to Endure when Wintering with the Savages," An Autobiography of Martyrdom: Spiritual Writings of the Jesuits in New France, ed. FranÇois Roustang, S.J. (St. Louis: B. Herder Co., 1964), p. 45.

Lessius, S.J., Leonardus. The Treasure of Vowed Chastity in Secular Persons (1621) in ERL, vol. 214.

Leighton, Alexander. An Appeal to the Parliament, or Sions Plea Against the Prelacie (Holland: n.p., 1628).

Livy. The Roman History written by T. Livius of Padua (London: Sawbridge, 1659).

Lloyd, William. The Late Apology in behalf of the Papists Re-printed and Answered, in behalf of the Royalists (London: n.p., 1674).

Loyola, Ignatius. The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, trans. George Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1970).

_____. Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius, ed. Louis Puhl, S.J. (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1951).

Lucian. Nigrinus in Six Dialogues of Lucian, trans. Sidney Irwin (London: Methuen, [180 A.D.] 1894).

Machiavelli, Niccolo. Niccolo Machiavel's Discourses upon the First Decade of Livius (London: Daniel Parker, 1663).

Maihew, Edward (d. 1625). A Paradise of Prayers and Meditations (1613), ERL, vol. 132.

Martiall, John. A Treatise of the Cross (1564), ERL, vol. 174.

Mason, Richard. Brother Angelus Francis, The Rule of Penance of St. Francis (Douay: English College Press, 1644).

Massinger, Philip. Believe as You List (London: T.C. & E.C. Jack, 1907).

_____. The King and the Subject, later called The Bashful Lover, in Three New Plays: The Bashful Lover, etc. (London: Humphrey Moseley, 1655).

_____. The Guardian in Three New Plays. . . The Guardian (London: Moseley, [1633] 1655).

_____. The Maid of Honor (1630).

_____. A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. George Stronach (London: J. M. Dent, [1625] 1904).

Matthew, Tobie. A Missive of Consolation sent from Flanders to the Catholics of England (Louvain: n.p., 1647).

_____ (trans.). A Treatise of Patience, written by Father Francis Arias of the Society of Jesus, in his second part of the Imitation of Christ our Lord, translated into English with permission of Superiors ([1630, etc.], 1970), ERL, vol. 21.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 370]

Matthieu, Pierre. The History of St. Elizabeth (1633), ERL, vol. 94.

Milton, John. "A Reformation of England," The Prose Works of John Milton (5 vols., London: H. G. Bohn, 1881).

Molina, Antonio de (d. 1619). A Treatise of Mental Prayer ([1617] 1970), ERL, vol. 15.

Montagu, Walter, Henrietta Maria, et al., A Copy of the Letter sent by the Queen Majesty Concerning the Collection of the Recusant Money for the Scottish War (London: n.p., [1639], 1640).

Montagu, Walter. Miscellanea Spiritualia: or, Devout Essays, the Second Part (London: John Crook, 1654).

_____. The Shepherds' Paradise: A Comedy Privately Acted Before the Late King Charles by the Queen's Majesty and Ladies of Honor (London: For John Starkey, [1632] 1659).

Moore, John. The Crying Sin of England, of not Caring for the Poor, wherein enclosure is arraigned, convicted, and condemned by the Word of God (London: n.p., 1653).

More, Cresacre (d. 1649). Meditations and devout discourses upon the Blessed Sacrament (1639), ERL, vol. 20.

Morejon, Pedro (d. 1634). A Brief Relation of the Persecution in the Kingdom of Japan (1619), ERL, vol. 213.

Morton, A. L. Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

Nieremberg, S.J., Juan Eusebius. A Treatise of the Differences between the Temporal and Eternal, trans. Vivian Molyneux (London: n.p., 1672).

Nourse, Timothy. Compania Felix, or a Discourse on the Benefits and Improvements of Husbandry (London: T. Bennet, 1700).

Parker, Thomas. A True Copy of a letter Written by Mr. Thomas Parker, a Learned and Godly Minister in New England unto a member of the Assembly of Divines now at Westminster (London: n.p., 1644).

Persons, S.J., Robert. A Brief Discourse containing certain reasons why Catholics Refuse to go to Church (Douay: John Lyon, 1580).

_____. The Christian Directory: Guiding Men to Eternal Salvation, Commonly called the Resolution ([1582, etc.] 1970) in ERL, vol. 41.

_____. First Book of the Christian Exercise, appertaining to resolution, ed. Edmund Bunny (1582).

_____. A Manifestation of the Great Folly and Bad Spirit of Certain in England Calling themselves Secular Priests, who Set Forth Daily Most Infamous and Contumelious Libels against Worthy Men of their Own Religion and Divers of Them their Lawful Superiors. By Priests Living in Obedience (1602) in ERL, vol. 82.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 371]

_____. A Memorial of the Reformation of England, Containing Certain Notes, and Advertisements, which seem might be proposed in the First Parliament after God shall restore it to the Catholic Faith, ed. E. Gee (London: Richard Chiswel, [1596] 1690).

_____. "A Story of Domestic Difficulties," Miscellanea, ed. John H. Pollen, S.J. CRS, 2 (1906), 50.

_____. A Temperate Ward-Word to the Turbulent and Seditious Watch-Word of Francis Hastinges ([1601] 1970) in ERL, vol. 31.

Peter, Hugh. A Word for the Armie and two Words to the Kingdom (London: M. Simmons for G. Calvert, 1647).

Playford, John. The English Dancing Master (London: Schott, [1651] 1957).

Plato. Sophist in Platonis opera quae extant omnia (Paris: H. Stephanus, 1578).

Platus, S.J., Hieronymous. The Happiness of a Religious State, trans. Henry More, S.J., (1632), in ERL, vol. 270.

Preston, Thomas. A New-Years Gift for English Catholics, or a Brief and Clear Explanation of the New Oath of Allegiance (1620), ERL, vol. 130.

_____. (Roger Widdrington), Roger Widdrington's Last Rejoinder to Mr. Thomas Fitzherbert's Reply Concerning the Oath of Allegiance, and the Pope's Power to Depose Princes (1616, 1633) ERL, vol. 280.

Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Reign of Charles I, 1625-1649 (23 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1871], 1967), 1638-1639, ed. John Bruce, vol. 13, p. 476, "Thomas Arundell's Letter to Secretary of State Sir Francis Windebank," (Feb. 17, 1639).

Pseudo-Dionysius. The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite, ed. John Parker (Merrick, N.Y.: Richwood Publishers, [1899] 1976).

Puccini, Vincenzio. The Life of Suor Maria Maddalena de Patsi (1619), in ERL, vol. 33.

Serre, Jean Puget de la (d. 1665). The Sweet Thoughts of Death and Eternity (1632), ERL, vol. 142.

Raymond of Capua (d. 1399). The Life of Saint Catherine of Siena (1609), in ERL, vol. 373.

Ribadeneyra, Pedro de (d. 1611). The Life of B. Father Ignatius Loyola (1616), ERL, vol. 300.

Robert, John ap. Apology for a Younger Brother ([1634] 1972), ERL, vol. 103.

Rodriquez, S.J., Alonso (Alfonso). Practice of Perfection and Christian Virtues, trans. Tobie Matthew and Basil Brooke (3 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1631] 1929).

_____. A Treatise of Humility (1632), ERL, vol. 347.

Rogers, Thomas (trans.). Of the Imitation of Christ: in three books, which are for Wisedome and Godlinesse most excellent by Thomas of Kempis (London: E.P., 1640).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 372]

Rose, E. Elliot. Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Protestants Under Elizabeth and James (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

Rushworth, John (ed.). "Grand Remonstrance," Historical Collections of Private Passages of State (8 vols., London: D. Browne, 1721), vol. 4, p. 438.

Rushworth, William. Rushworth's Dialogue, or, the Judgment of Common Sense in the Choice of Religion (Paris: n.p., 1640).

Salvian of Marseille, Archbishop. Quis Dives Salvus: How a Rich Man May be Saved, written to the Catholic Church of Marseille about the year 480 ([1618] 1973) in ERL, vol. 170.

Sanchez, S.J. Thomas. Opus Morale in Praecepta Decalogi sivi summa casuum conscientiae (2 vols., Antwerp: Martin Hutium, [1615] 1631).

Seneca. On Benefits (De beneficiis) (London: George Bell and Sons, 1900).

Servius. Ad Georgics (400 A.D.).

Smith, Bp. Richard. The Life of Lady Magdalen Viscountesse Montague (1627), ERL, vol. 54.

Southwell, Robert. A Humble Supplication to Her Majesty (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, [1595] 1953).

Stanney, William. A Treatise of Penance (1617), ERL, vol. 92.

Suetonius. Claudius ed. J. Mothershead (Bristol: British Classical Library, [120 A.D.] 1986).

Sweet, John. The Apologies of the Most Christian Kings for the Fathers of the Society of Jesus (1611), ERL, vol. 48.

S. W. A Vindication of the Doctrine in Pope Benedict XII, his Bull, and the General Councils of Florence Concerning the State of Dependent Souls, wherein the purposes of Master White's lately maintained Purgatory is laid open (Paris: n.p., 1659).

Tacitus, Cornelius. The Annals, in The Works of Tacitus, Oxford Translation (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1865).

_____. A treatise on the situation, manners, and inhabitants of Germany; and the life of Agricola (Warrington: J. Johnson, 1777).

Taylor, John. Arator, Being a Series of Agricultural Essays (Georgetown, District of Columbia: J. M. and J. B. Carter, 1813).

Teresa of Avila (Theresa de Cepeda, d. 1582). The Flaming Heart or the Life of the glorious S. Teresa. . . written by the saint herself, trans. Tobie Mathew (Antwerp: Johannes Meuroius, 1642).

_____. The Life of the Mother Teresa of Jesus (1611), in ERL, vol. 212.

Tertullian. The Apology in Social Thought, ed. Peter Phan (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1984).

Torsellino, Orazio (d. 1599). The Admirable Life of S. Francis Xavier (1632), ERL, vol. 299.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 373]

Verstegan, Richard. Odes in Imitation of the Seven Penitential Psalms (London: n.p., 1601).

_____ (trans.). Mental Prayer Appropriated to the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, written by George Rainaldi (London: n.p., n.d.).

Villegas, Alfonso de. The Lives of Saints (1623), ERL, vols. 355-356.

Wadding, Luke. The History of S. Clare (1635), in ERL, vol. 144.

Wadsworth, James (trans.). The Civil Wars of Spain. . . by P de Sandoval (London: William DuGard, 1652).

Walwyn, William. The Just Defense of William Walwyn (May 30, 1649), reprinted in William Haller and Godfrey Davies, The Leveler Tracts, 1647-1653 (Gloucester: P. Smith, [1944] 1964).

______. The Writings of William Walwyn, ed. Jack R. McMichael and Barbara Taft (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989).

Warmington, William. A Moderate Defense of the Oath of Allegiance (1612), ERL, vol. 276.

Weston, Richard (1591-1652). A Discourse of Husbandrie used in Brabant and Flanders Showing the Wonderful improvement of land there serving as a pattern for our practice in this Commonwealth (London: William DuGard, 1650).

White, S.J., Andrew. A Brief Relation of the Voyage unto Maryland (1634), in Hall, Narratives, pp. 31-40.

_____. An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron of Baltimore (1633) in Hall, Narratives, p. 6.

White, Thomas. Apology for Rushworth's Dialogues, wherein the Exceptions of the Lords Falkland and Digby are Answered and the Arts of their Commended Daille discovered (Paris: Chez Jean Billain, 1654).

______. Blacklo's Cabal Discovered in Several of their Letters, ed. Robert Pugh (1610-1679), re-edited, T. A. Birrell (Farnborough, Eng.: Gregg International Publishers, [1680], 1970).

______. A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Paris: n.p., 1637, 1640, 1659).

______. The Grounds of Obedience and Government: Being the Best Account to All that has been Lately Written in Defense of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance (Farnsborough, Eng.: Gregg International Publishers, [1649, 1655, 1659, 1685], 1968).

_____. The Middle State of Souls from the hour of death to the day of judgment (London: n.p., 1659).

______. Religion and Reason Mutually Corresponding and Assisting Each Other (Paris: n.p., 1660).

Worthington, Thomas (ed.). Holie Bible: Old Testament, faithfully translated into English from the Latin by the English College of Dowai (1609), ERL, vols. 265-266.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 374]

IX. Intellectual (secondary)

Adler, Doris. Philip Massinger (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1987).

Aston, Margaret. "Lollardy and Sedition, 1381-1431," PP, no. 17 (1960), 1-44.

Bloch, Marc. The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973).

Bontinck, FranÇois. La Lutte autour de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siecles (Louvain: Nauwelaerts, 1962).

Bradley, S.J., Robert. "Blacklo and the Counter-Reformation: An Inquiry into the Strange Death of Catholic England," From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation Essays in Honor of Garrett Mattingly, ed. Charles Carter (New York: Random House, 1965).

Breen, Timothy H. "The Non-Existent Controversy: Puritan and Anglican Attitudes on Work and Wealth, 1600-1640," Church History, 35 (1966), 281.

_____. Tobacco Culture: The Mentality of the Great Tidewater Planters on the Eve of Revolution (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).

Butler, Jon. "Thomas Teackle's 333 Books: A Great Library on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1697," WMQ, vol. 49 (July 1992), 450.

Campbell, Kenneth. The Intellectual Struggle of the English Papists in the Seventeenth Century, the Catholic Dilemma (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellon Press, 1986).

Capp, Bernard. "Popular Literature," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martins Press, 1985).

Clancy, S.J., Thomas. "The Jesuits and the Independents: 1647," Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, 40 (1971), 72-88.

_____. Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Persons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572-1615 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964).

Cruickshank, A. H. Philip Massinger (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1920).

Dainville, FranÇois de. L'Éducation des jésuites, XVIe-XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1978).

Edwards, S.J. Francis (ed.). "Introduction," The Elizabethan Jesuits of Henry More (London: Phillimore, [1660] 1981).

Evans, Eric. "Tithes" in Thirsk, Agrarian History, vol. 5, pt. 2, p. 394.

Figgis, John N. The Divine Right of Kings (Gloucester, Mass.: P. Smith, [1914] 1970).

Freese, John. "Introduction," Cicero: The Speeches with an English Translation, . . . De Lege Agraria I, II, III (New York: Putnam, 1930).

Gaffney, James. Augustine Baker's Inner Light: A Study in English Recusant Spirituality (Scranton, Pa.: University of Scranton Press, 1989).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 375]

Greaves, Richard. "Revolutionary Ideology in Stuart England: The Essays of Christopher Hill," Church History, 56 (Mar. 1987), 97.

Gurevich, A. J. Categories of Medieval Culture (Boston: Rutledge and Kegan Paul, 1985).

Guy, John A. Christopher St. German on Chancery and Statute (London: Selden Society, 1985.

Habington, William. History of Edward the Fourth, King of England (London: Thomas Cotes, 1640).

Haigh, Christopher. "Anticlericalism and the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

_____. "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

_____. "The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation," PP, 93 (1981), 67.

_____. "The Fall of a Church or the Rise of a Sect? Post-Reformation Catholicism in England" Historical Journal, 21 (1978), 184.

_____. "From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England," TRHS, 31 (1981).

_____. "The Recent Historiography of the English Reformation," The English Reformation Revised (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

_____. Reformation and Resistance in Tudor Lancashire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975).

_____. "Revisionism, the Reformation, and the History of English Catholicism," JEH, 35 (July 1984), 394-406.

Hall, David. The Antinomian Controversy, 1636-1638: The Documentary History (Middletown: Wesleyn University Press, 1968).

Hathaway, Ronald. Hierarchy and the Definition of Order in the Letters of Pseudo-Dionysius: a Study in the Form and Meaning of the Pseudo-Dionysian Writings (Hague: Martin Nijhoff, 1969).

Havran, Martin. The Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1962).

Hibbard, Caroline. "Early Stuart Catholicism: Revision and Re-Revisions," JMH, 52 (1980), 4-24.

Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution, 1603-1714 (New York: Norton, [1961], 1980).

_____. The Collected Essays of Christopher Hill: Religion and Politics in Seventeenth-Century England (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1986).

_____. "Debate: Parliament and People in Seventeenth-Century England," PP, no. 98 (1983), 157.

_____. The English Revolution: 1640 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1940).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 376]

_____. God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution (London: Dial Publishers, 1970).

_____. "Interpretation of the English Interregnum," EcoHR, 8 (May 1938), 160.

_____. "The Norman Yoke," Democracy and the Labor Movement, ed. John Saville (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1954), pp. 21-23.

_____. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England (New York: Schocken Books, 1967).

Hilton, Rodney. Bond Men Made Free: Medieval Peasant Movements and the English Rising of 1381 (New York: Viking, 1973).

Hoffman, Richard. "Outsiders by Birth and Blood: Racist Ideologies and Realities around the Periphery of Medieval European Culture," Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, ns. 6 (1983), 14-20.

Howell, Roger. "Reconsidering the Levelers: The Evidence of the Moderate," PP, no. 46 (1970), 77.

Huehns, Gertrude. Antinomianism in English History with special Reference to the Period, 1640-1660 (London: Cresset Press, 1951).

James, Margaret. "The Political Importance of the Tithes Controversy in the English Revolution, 1640-1660," History, 26 (1941), 11.

Jonkers, Engbert. Social and Economic Commentary on Cicero's Agraria Orationes tres (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1963).

Kennedy, Douglas. English Folk Dancing, Today and Yesterday (London: G. Bell, 1964).

Knachel, Philip (ed.). "Introduction," Eikon basilike: The Portraiture of his sacred majesty in his Solitude and Sufferings (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1966).

Kselman, Thomas (ed.). Belief in History: Innovative Approaches to European and American Religion (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991).

Law, Thomas. A Historical Sketch of the Conflicts between the Jesuits and the Seculars (London: D. Nutt, 1889).

Lawes, William. Trois Masques a la cour-de Charles Ier d'Angleterre. . . Britannia triumphans (Paris: Editions du Centre National de la recherche, 1970).

Lunn, Maurus. "The Anglo-Gallicanism of Dean Thomas Preston, 1567-1647," Studies in Church History, 9 (1972), 244.

Luria, Keith. "The Counter-Reformation and Popular Spirituality," Catholic Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Don Saliers (New York: Crossroads, 1989), p. 104.

McNeill, John. A History of the Cure of Souls (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1951).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 377]

Meyvaert, Paul. "Gregory the Great and the Theme of Authority," Spode House Review, (1966), 24.

Morton, A. L. "Introduction," Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

_____ (ed.). Freedom in Arms: A Selection of Leveler Writings (New York: International Publishers, 1974).

O'Malley, John. "Early Jesuit Spirituality: Spain and Italy," Christian Spirituality: Post-Reformation and Modern, ed. Louis Dupré and Dom E. Saliers (New York: Crossroad, 1989), vol. 18.

_____. "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 482.

_____. "To Travel to any Part of the World: Jerome Nadel and the Jesuit Vocation," Studies in the Spirituality of the Jesuits, 15 (1983), 5.

_____. "Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer? How to Look at Early Modern Catholicism," 77 CHR (1991), 181-182.

Rahner, Karl. Everyday Things (London: Sheed and Ward, 1965).

Scaglione, Aldo. The Liberal Arts and Jesuit College System (Philadelphia: John Benjamin Co., 1986).

Scarisbrick, J. J. "Robert Person's Plans for the `True' Reformation of England," Historical Perspectives: Studies in English Thought and Society in Honor of J. H. Plumb, ed. Neil McKendrick (London: Europa, 1974).

Schurhammer, Georg. Saint Francis Xavier: His Life, His Times (4 vols., Rome: Jesuit Historical Institute, 1982).

Seaver, Paul. The Puritan Lectureship: The Politics of Religious Dissent, 1560-1662 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1970).

Segalia, Alessio. An Admirable Method to Love, Serve, and Honor the B. Virgin Mary (1639), in ERL, vol. 178.

Segundo, S.J., Juan Luis. The Christ of the Ignatian Exercises in the series, Jesus of Nazareth Yesterday and Today (New York: Orbis Pub. & Ediciones Christiandad, 1987), vol. 4.

Sharp, Buchanan. In Contempt of all Authority: Rural Artisans and Riot in the West of England, 1586-1660 (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1980).

Sharp, Cecil. The Morris Book: A History of Morris Dancing with a description of Eleven Dances as performed by the Morrismen of England (London: Novello Co., 1907).

Sharp, Kevin. Criticism and Compliment: the Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).

Shaw, Howard. The Levelers (London: Longmans, 1968).

Southgate, Beverley C. "The Life and Work of Thomas White, 1598-1676," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1980.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 378]

_____. "Thomas White's Grounds of Obedience and Government, A Note on the Dating of the First Edition," NQ, 28 (1981), 208-209.

Staloff, Darren. "Intellectual History Naturalized: Materialism and the `Thinking Class,'" WMQ, 50 (1993), 406.

Stone, Lawrence. "The Educational Revolution in England, 1560-1640," PP, 28 (1964), 80.

Thirsk, Joan. "Plough and Pen: Agricultural Writers in the Seventeenth Century," Social Relations and Ideas. . . Essays in Honor of R. H. Hilton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Weisheipl, J. A. Friar Thomas D'Aquino, His Life, Thought and Work (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1974).

Wolfe, Don M. (ed.). Leveler Manifestoes (New York: Nelson and Sons, 1944).

Wood, Ellen M. Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978).

Zakai, Avihu. "Religious Toleration and Its Enemies: The Independent Divines and the Issue of Toleration During the English Civil War," Albion, 21 (Spring 1989), 1-7.

X. America (general)/New England/New York/Virginia/Delaware

Accomac County, "Wills, Deeds, and Orders, 1678-1682," p. 284.

Ahern, Marie L. The Rhetoric of War: Training Day, The Militia, and the Military Sermon (Westport: Greenwood, 1989).

Ames, Susie. Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond, Va.: Dietz Press, 1940).

Andrews, Charles Mclean. The Colonial Period of American History (4 vols., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934-1938).

Anonymous, "Surrender of Virginia to the Parliamentary Commissioner, March 1652," VMHB, 11 (1903-1904), 32-34.

Bailyn, Bernard. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955).

Bancroft, George. History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Abridged ed., Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., [1856-1874], 1966).

Beverley, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia, ed. Louis Wright (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, [1705], 1947).

Billings, Warren (ed.). The Old Dominion in the Seventeenth Century: A Documentary History of Virginia, 1606-1689 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 379]

Breen, T. H. "Creative Adaptations: Peoples and Cultures," Colonial British America: Essays in the New History of the Early Modern Era, ed. Jack Greene and J. R. Pole (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984), pp. 195-198.

_____ and Stephen Innis. "Myne Owne Ground": Race and Freedom on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1640-1676 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980).

Burg, Richard. "The Bay Colony Retaliates: A Taste of Venom in Puritan Debate," HMPEC, 38 (Sept. 1969), 281-289.

Burk, John. The History of Virginia, from its First Settlement to the Commencement of the Revolution (3 vols., Petersburg, Va.: Dickson & Pescud, 1822).

Channing, Edward. A History of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1912).

Charles I, "Instructions to William Berkeley, 1642," VMHB, 2 (1894-1895), 288-289.

Commager, Henry (ed.). Documents of American History (7th ed., New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963).

Cotton, John. The Way of the Churches of Christ in New England (London: M. Simmons, 1645).

Craven, Wesley Frank. The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century: 1607-1689 (4 vols., Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949).

Crow, Steven. "Your Majesty's Good Subjects: A Reconsideration of Royalism in Virginia, 1642-1652," VMHB, 87 (1979), 158-173.

Davis, Richard. George Sandys, Poet-Adventurer: A Study in Anglo-American Culture in the Seventeenth Century (London: Bodley Head, 1955).

Earle, Carville. "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia," The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth-Century, ed. Thad Tate and David Ammerman (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1979), pp. 108-116.

Goddard, Ives. Delaware Verbal Morphology: A Description and Comparative Study (New York: Garland Publishers, 1979).

Gorton, Samuel. Simplicities: Defense Against the Seven-Headed Policy, or Innocency vindicated: being unjustly accused, and sorely censured, by the Seven-headed church-government united in New-England; or that servant so imperious. . .,  (London: J. Macock, 1646), in Force, Tracts, vol. 4.

Greene, Evarts B. and Virginia Harrington, American Population before the Federal Census of 1790 (New York: 1932).

Henretta, James. "Mentalité in Pre-Industrial America," WMQ, 39 (1978), 3-32.

Holmes, Nils G. John Companius' Lutheran Catechism in the Delaware Language (Upsala: A. B. Lundequistska Bokhandeln, 1946), pp. 7-32.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 380]

Hutchinson, Thomas. The History of the Colony and Province of Massachusetts Bay, ed. Lawrence Mayo (2 vols., Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1936).

Janes, Lewis G. Samuel Gorton: A Forgotten founder of our Liberty, first Settler of Warwick (Providence, R.I.: Preston and Rounds, 1896).

Keim, R. Ray. "Primogeniture and Entail in Colonial Virginia," WMQ, 25 (1968), 546-558.

King, H. Roger. Cape Cod and Plymouth Colony in the Seventeenth Century (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993).

Lapomarda, S.J., Vincent. "The Jesuit Missions of Colonial New England," Essex Institute Historical Collections, 126 (April 1990), 109.

Leach, Douglas. Arms for Empire: A Military History of the British Colonies in America, 1607-1673 (New York: Macmillan, 1973).

McIlwaine H. R. (comp.). Minutes of the Council and General Court of Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676 (2nd ed., Richmond, Va.: State Library, [1924], 1979).

_____. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia (1619-1776) (13 vols., Richmond, Va.: E. Waddy, 1915), vol. 1, pp. 79, 90-91, "Articles of Surrender" (Mar. 12, 1652) and "Assembly Proceedings" (1653).

Morgan, Edmund. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975).

Munroe, John. Colonial Delaware: A History (Millwood, New York: KTO Press, 1978).

Osgood, Herbert. The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century (3 vols., Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [1930] 1957).

Parker, John. "Religion and the Virginia Colony, 1609-1610," The Westward Enterprise: English Activities in Ireland, the Atlantic and America, 1480-1650, ed. K. R. Andrews, N. P. Canny and P. E. Hair (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1978).

Pegan, John. "Dutch Maritime and Commercial Activities in Mid-Seventeenth-Century Virginia," VMHB, 90 (1982), 491-495.

Perry, James. The Formation of a Society on Virginia's Eastern Shore, 1615-1655 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), pp. 215-216.

Quitt, Martin. "Immigrant Origin of the Virginia Gentry," WMQ, 45 (1988), 643-644.

Ripley, William. The Financial History of Virginia, 1609-1776 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1893).

Scholy, Robert. "Clerical Consociation in Massachusetts Bay: Reassessing the New England Way and Its Origins," WMQ, 29 (1972), 411-413.

Shurtleff, Nathaniel (ed.). Records of the Governor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay (New York: AMS Press, [1854], 1968).

Smith, John. A Description of New England (London: H. Lownes, 1616).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 381]

Terrar, Toby. "Religious Freedom in the American Colonial Era from the Perspective of Race, Class and Gender: The Contribution of the New Social History," Epoche: Journal of the History of Religions (1986), vol. 14, pp.71-137.

_____. "Catholic Ecumenism During America's Revolutionary Era," Journal of Religious Studies (Cleveland) (1988), vol. 14, pp. 102-152.

Usher, Roland G. The Pilgrims and their History (New York: Macmillan, 1918).

Wertenbaker, Thomas J. Virginia Under the Stuarts, 1607-1688 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1914).

Winthrop, John. The History of New England from 1630 to 1649, ed. James Savage, (2 vols., 2nd ed., Boston: Phelps and Farnham, 1853).

Wyatt-Brown, Betram. Southern Honor: Ethics and Behavior in the Old South (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982).

Young, Alexander. Chronicles of the Pilgrim Fathers of the Colony of Plymouth, 1602-1625 (Boston: C. C. Little and Brown, 1841).

Ziff, Lazar. The Career of John Cotton: Puritanism and the American Experience (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962).

XI. Religion/Rome/Italy

Albian, Gordon. Charles I and the Papacy (Norfolk, Eng.: Royal Stuart Society, 1974).

Barclay, William. Of the Authority of the Popes: Whether and How Far Forth He has Power and Authority over Temporal Kings and Princes (1600, 1609) in ERL, vol. 136.

Bilinkoff, Jodi. The Avila of Saint Teresa: Religious Reform in a Sixteenth-Century City (New York: Cornell University Press, 1989).

Bosch, David. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (New York: Orbis, 1991).

Boyle, Leonard. "Aspects of Clerical Education in Fourteenth-Century England," Pastoral Care, Clerical Education, and Canon Law, 1200-1400 (London: Variorum Reprints, 1981).

Bradley, Rosemary. "The Failure of Accommodation: Religious Conflict Between Presbyterians and Independents in the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1646," Journal of Religious History, 12 (June 1982), 23-47.

_____. "`Jacob and Esau Struggling in the Womb': A Study of Presbyterian and Independent Religious Conflicts, 1640-1648," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kent, 1975.

Brunni, Joseph. The Clerical Obligations of Canon 139 and 142 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1937).

Corpus Juris Canonici, Descretum Gratiani, emendatum una cum glossis, etc. (3 vols, Rome: Populi Romani, 1582); vol. 2, Decretales D. Gregorii IX suae integritati una cum glossis, etc.; vol. 3, Clemmentis V Constitutiones, etc.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 382]

Cox, Ronald J. A Study in the Juridic Status of Laymen in the writing of the medieval Canonist (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1959).

Cross, Claire. "The Church in England: 1646-1660," in Aylmer (ed.), Interregnum, p. 113.

Dickens, A. G. The Counter Reformation (Norwich, Eng.: Harcourt, Brace and Ward, 1969).

Donovan, John. The Clerical Obligation of Canon 138 and 140: A Historical Synopsis and a Commentary (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1948).

Gee, Henry (ed.). Documents Illustrative of English Church History (London: Macmillan, [1896], 1921), pp. 562-564, Parliament "Clerical Disabilities Act" (16 Car. 1, cap. 27).

_____. "The Grand Remonstrance," p. 557.

_____. Mortmain Act (1279) (7 Edward 1, Stat. 2, Statutes of the Realm), p. 81.

Guibert, Joseph de. The Jesuits: Their Spiritual Doctrine and Practice, A Historical Study (Chicago: Institute of Jesuit Sources, 1964).

Hammond, Henry. Works (London: n.p., 1853).

Hudson, Elizabeth. "The Catholic Challenge to Puritan Piety, 1580-1620," CHR, 77 (1991), 6.

Hughes, Philip. Rome and the Counter-Reformation in England (London: Burns and Oates, 1942).

Jordan, Wilbur K. The Development of Religious Toleration in England (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1932).

Kirby, E. W. "The English Presbyterians in the Westminster Assembly," Church History, 3 (1964), 418.

Kuntz, Paul. "The Hierarchical Vision of St. Roberto Bellarmino," Jacobs Ladder and the Tree of Life: Concepts of Hierarchy and the Great Chain of Being, ed. Marion Kuntz (New York: Plong, 1987).

LeCler, Joseph. Toleration and Reformation (2 vols., New York: Association Press, 1960).

Lyndwood, William. Lyndwood's `Provinciale': The Text of the Canons therein contained, reprinted from the Translation made in 1534 (London: Faith Press, 1929).

McDannell, Colleen and Bernhard Lang. Heaven: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988).

Laurie, Nussdorfer. Civic Politics in the Rome of Urban VIII (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992).

O'Day, Rosemary. "The Anatomy of a Profession: The Clergy of the Church of England," The Professions in Early Modern England, ed. Wilfrid Prest (London: Crown Helm, 1987).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 383]

O'Malley, John. "Renaissance Humanism and the Religious Culture of the First Jesuits," Heythrop Journal, 31 (1990), 473-478.

Panzani, Gregorio. The Memoirs of Gregorio Panzani, ed. Joseph Berington (introduction by T. A. Birrell) (London: Gregg International Publishers, [1793], 1970).

Pullan, Leighton. Religion Since the Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923).

Reay, Barry. "Popular Religion," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England (New York: St. Martins Press, 1985).

Reiffenstuel, Anaklet. Jus Canonicum Universum (5 vols. in 7, Paris: Ludovicum Vives, 1864-1870).

Ryan, Christopher (ed.). The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).

Scarisbrick, J. J. The Reformation and the English People (London: Oxford University Press, 1984).

Schroeder, O.P., H. J. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent: Original Text with Translation (St. Louis: Herder Books, 1941).

Seumois, André. Theologie missionaire (Rome: Bureau de Press OMI, 1973).

Shaw, William. A History of the English Church, 1640-1660 (New York: B. Franklin, [1900] 1974).

Sheifs, S.J., W. Eugene. "Seventeenth-Century Legal Crisis in the Missions," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe, Ariz.: Center for Latin American Studies, 1977).

Terrar, Toby. "Episcopal-Roman Catholic Ecumenism and Church Democracy During North America's Revolutionary Era," Anglican and Episcopal History 56 (June 1987), pp. 163-185.

_____. "Some Religious Roots of the of the Eighteenth-Century Democratic Revolutions," NST: Nature, Society and Thought (1991), vol. 4 (1991), pp. 127-150.

Weiser, Francis X. Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs: The Year of the Lord in Liturgy and Folklore (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1952).

XII. France/Canada/Flanders/Dutch Republic

Charlevoix, P. F. X. de. History and General Description of New France, trans. J. G. Shea (6 vols., Chicago: Loyola University Press, [1872] 1962).

Courtsey, Francis. "English Jesuit Colleges in the Low Countries, 1593-1776," Heythrop Journal 4 (1963), 254-263.

Donck, Adrian van der. The Representation of New Netherlands (New York: [1650], 1849), p. 40, in Johnson, American Economic Thought, p. 149.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 384]

Doolin, Paul. The Fronde (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935).

Faillon, Etienne M. Histoire de la colonie franÇaise en Canada (3 vols., Montreal: 1866).

Goubert, Pierre. The French Peasantry in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Cambridge University Press, [1982] 1986).

Guilday, Peter. The English Catholic Refugees on the Continent: The English Colleges and Convents in the Low Countries, 1558-1795 (London: Longmans, 1914).

Knox, Thomas (ed.). The First and Second Diaries of the English College, Douay (London: D. Nutt, 1878).

Kossmann, Ernst H. In Praise of the Dutch Republic: Some Seventeenth-Century Attitudes (London: H. Lewis, 1963).

Leyburne, George. The Douay College Diaries: 1598-1654, ed. Edwin Burton (London: Catholic Record Society, 1911), vol. 11.

Luria, Keith. Territories of Grace: Cultural Change in the Seventeenth-Century Diocese of Grenoble (Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press, 1991).

Moogk, Peter. "Reluctant Exiles: Emigrants from France in Canada before 1760," WMQ, 46 (1989), 478.

Mousnier, Roland. Peasant Uprisings in Seventeenth-Century France, Russia, and China, trans. Brian Pearce (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).

Parker, Geoffrey. The Army of Flanders and the Spanish Road, 1559-1659: The Logistics of Spanish Victory and Defeat in the Low Countries (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972).

Steward, John (ed.). A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), document 31, pp. 169-181.

Swart, K. W. The Miracle of the Dutch Republic as Seen in the Seventeenth Century (London: H. K. Lewis, 1967).

Tackett, Timothy. Religion, Revolution, and Regional Culture in Eighteenth-Century France: The Ecclesiastical Oath of 1791 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Thwaites, Reuben G. (ed.). The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents (73 vols., Cleveland: Burrows Brothers, Co., 1896-1901), vol. 7, pp. 34-64; vol. 13, p. 123.

XIII. Spain/Mexico/South America/Caribbean/Portugal/Brazil

Berleant-Schiller, Riva. "Free Labor and the Economy in Seventeenth-Century Montserrat," WMQ, 46 (1989), 544.

Boyajian, James C. Portuguese Trade in Asia Under the Hapsburgs, 1580-1640 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 385]

Cushner, S.J., Nicholas. Farm and Factory: The Jesuits and the Development of Agrarian Capitalism in Colonial Quito, 1600-1767 (Albany: SUNY Press, 1982).

deSoto, Domingo. Deliberación en la causa de los pobres (Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Politicos, 1965).

Flynn, Maureen. Sacred Charity: Confraternities and Social Welfare in Spain, 1400-1700 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).

Garcia II. "Letter to Dutch Governor in Brazil, Brunte" (Feb. 23, 1643), Monumenta Missionaria Africana: Africa Ocidental ed. Antonio Brásio (15 vols., Lisbon: Agencia General do Ultramar, 1952-1988), IX, 14.

Henson, Edward (ed.). The English College at Madrid, 1611-1767 (1929), in CRS, vol. 39.

Ingham, John. Mary, Michael, and Lucifer: Folk Catholicism in Central Mexico (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986).

Kupperman, Karen. Providence Island, 1630-1641: The Other Puritan Colony (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Ligon, Richard. A True and Exact History of the Island of Barbados (London: H. Moseley, 1657).

Lockhart, James and Stuart Schwartz. Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

McAlister, Lyle. Spain and Portugal in the New World, 1492-1700 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984).

Oss, Adrian van. Catholic Colonialism: A Parish History of Guatemala: 1524-1821 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986).

Palmer, Colin. Slaves of the White God: Blacks in Mexico, 1570-1650 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976).

Ricard, Robert. The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).

Saunders, A. C. de C. M. A Social History of Black Slaves and Freedmen in Portugal, 1441-1555 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

Scholes, France C. Church and State in New Mexico, 1616-1650 (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1937).

Schwartz, Stuart B. Sugar Plantations in the Formation of Brazilian Society: Bahia, 1550-1835 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

_____. Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983).

Warren, Benedict."The Ideas of the Pueblos of Santa Fe," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe: Arizona State University Press, 1977).

Williams, Michael E. St. Alban's College Valladolid: Four Centuries of English Catholic Presence in Spain (New York: St. Martins, 1986).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 386]

XIV. Law

Allen, David. In English Ways: The Movement of Societies and the Transferal of English Local Law and Customs to Massachusetts Bay in the Seventeenth Century (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1981).

Barnes, Donald. A History of the English Corn Laws (London: A. M. Kelly, [1930], 1961).

Baumer, Franklin. "Christopher Saint-Germain: The Political Philosophy of a Tudor Lawyer," AHR (July 1937).

Blackstone, William. Commentaries on the Law of England, ed. William Jones (San Francisco: Bancroft-Whitney, 1916).

Digby, Kenelm. An Introduction to the History of the Law of Real Property (5th ed., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1897).

Harper, Lawrence. The English Navigation Law: A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939).

Hening, William (ed.). Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia (13 vols., 2nd ed., New York: R. Barstow, 1823), vols. 1-2.

Helmholz, R. H. Roman Canon Law in Reformation England (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).

Magee, Brian. The English Recusants: A Study in the Post-Reformation Catholic Survival and the Operation of the Recusancy Laws (London: Burns and Oates, 1938).

Md. Arch. William H. Browne (ed.), Archives of Maryland (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), Assembly (Third), "An Act Ordering Certain Laws for the Government of this Province" (Mar. 19, 1639), vol. 1, pp. 82-84.

_____. "Court Proceedings" (June 19, 1638), vol. 4, pp. 35-39.

_____. "Court Proceedings against Giles Brent" (Oct. 10 and 17, Dec. 1 and 3, 1642), vol. 4, pp. 126-161.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Affidavit of Mathias de Sousa" (Nov. 2, 1642), vol. 4, p. 138.

_____. "Court License for Thomas Hebden to Kill Swine" (Nov. 4, 1642), vol. 4, p. 139.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Attachment" (Jan. 15, 1644), vol. 4, p. 215.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Testimony of William Hardidge" (Jan. 29, 1644), vol. 4, pp. 233-234.

_____. "Court Proceedings and Testamentary Business" (Feb. 1-5, 1644), vol. 4, pp. 237-245.

_____. Court Proceedings, "Answer of James Neale and Edward Parker" (Mar. 12, 1644), vol. 4, p. 258.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 387]

_____. "Court Business" (Mar. 28, 1644), vol. 4, p. 266.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Thomas Cornwallis versus Richard Ingle" (Mar. 2, 1646), vol. 3, pp. 166-167.

_____. "Court Business" (June 19, 1647), vol. 4, pp. 313-314.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Stephen Salmon Suit against Cuthbert Fenwick" (Dec. 22, 1647), vol. 4, p. 362.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Giles Brent Suit against William Cox" (June 23, 1648), vol. 4, p. 395.

_____. "Court Testimony of Francis Brooks" (Nov. 8, 1648), vol. 4, p. 441.

_____. "Court Proceedings, Nicholas Keiting versus Giles Brent" (Jan. 15, 1649), vol. 1, p. 468.

_____. "Court Business" (Jan. 8, 1650), vol. 10, p. 52.

_____. Court Proceedings, "Affidavit of Thomas Green in behalf of Thomas Copley" (Aug. 16, 1650), vol. 3, p. 258.

_____. "Court Proceedings of Johnson versus Land," vol. 4, p. 542.

_____. "Court Complaint of Thomas Cornwallis against Thomas Sturman et al," (Mar. 24, 1653), vol. 10, pp. 253-254.

_____. "Court and Testamentary Business" (July 16, 1654), vol. 10, p. 396.

_____. "Court Case of Peter Godson" (Oct. 16, 1654), vol. 10, p. 399.

_____. "Court Proceedings Concerning Robert Clarke, William Boreman, John Condy, Thomas Mattthews, and John Pyle" (Oct. 5 & 12, 1655), vol. 10, pp. 423-429, 441.

_____. "Court Case of Judith Catchpole" (Sept. 22, 1656), vol. 10, pp. 456-458.

_____. "Court Proceedings of Elizabeth Frame versus Thomas Davis" (Nov. 1, 1656), vol. 41, p. 67.

_____. "Court Proceedings against John Dandy" (Sept. 23, 1657), vol. 10, p. 522.

_____. Court Proceedings, "Article of Courtship" (Sept. 24, 1657), vol. 10, p. 532.

_____. "Court Case of Attorney General versus Fitzherbert" (Oct. 5, 1658), vol. 41, p. 144.

_____. "Court Proceedings Concerning Susan Gerard" (Nov. 8, 1658), vol. 41, pp. 143-144.

Morris, Richard. Studies in the History of American Law with Special Reference to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1930).

Morris, Thomas. "`Villeinage. . . as it existed in England, reflects but little on our Subject': The Problem of the Sources of Southern Slavery," American Journal of Legal History, 32 (1988), 107.

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 388]

Ogle, Arthur. The Canon Law in Medieval England: An Examination of William Lyndwood's `Provinciale' in reply to the late Prof. Maitland (London: John Murray, 1912).

Page, John. Jus Fratrum: The Law of Brethren Touching the Power of Parents to Dispose of their Estates to their Children or to others; the Prerogative of the Eldest and the Rights and Privileges of the Younger Brothers (London: H. Fletcher, 1657).

Reppy, Alison. Historical and Statutory Background of the Law of Wealth, Descent, and Distribution, Probate and Administration (Chicago: Callaghan and Co., 1928).

Richie, Carson I. A. The Ecclesiastical Courts of York (Arbroath: Herald, 1956).

Rushton, P. "The poor Laws, the Parish, and the Community in North-East England, 1600-1800," Northern History, 25 (1989), 151.

Saint-German, Christopher. The Doctor and Student, or, Dialogues between a Doctor of Divinity and a Student in the Laws of England Containing the Grounds of Those Laws Together with Questions and Cases Concerning the Equity Thereof, ed. T. F. Plucknett (London: J. L. Barton, 1974).

Salmon, Marylynn. Women and the Law of Property in Early America (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1986).

Scrutton, Thomas E. Commons and Common Fields or, The History and Policy of the Laws Relating to Commons and Enclosures in England (New York: Burt Franklin, [1887], 1970).

Sharpe, James. "The People and the Law," Popular Culture in Seventeenth-Century England, ed. Barry Reay (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1985).

Sheifs, S.J., W. Eugene. "Seventeenth-Century Legal Crisis in the Missions," The Roman Catholic Church in Colonial Latin America, ed. Richard Greenleaf (Tempe, Ariz.: Center for Latin American Studies, 1977).

Sheldon, Richard. Certain General Reasons, Proving the Lawfulness of the Oath of Allegiance (London: Felix Kyngston, 1611).

Smith, Joseph (ed.). Colonial Justice in Western Massachusetts, 1639-1702: The Pychon Court Record (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961).

Steiner, Bernard. "Maryland's First Courts," American Historical Review, 1 (1901), 215.

T. E. The Laws Resolutions of Women's Rights or the Laws Provision for women: a Methodical Collection of such statutes and customs with the Cases, Opinions, Arguments and points of learning in the Law, as do properly concern Women (New York: Garland, [1632], 1978).

Tiragueau, Andre (b. 1488). On the Nobility and the Law of Primogeniture (1549, 15th ed. 1580).

Trexler, Richard. Synodal Law in Florence and Fiesole, 1306-1580 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1971).

[BIBLIOGRAPHY, 1996 ed., p. 389]

Walker, John. "Grain Riots and Popular Attitudes to the Law," An Ungovernable People: The English and their Law in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, ed. John Brewer (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1980).

Watson, Alan. Slave Law in the Americas (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1989).

 

Illustration 12: Fishing-nets on the Congo. The Congo-Maryland migrants also used nets for fishing.[1365]

 

Illustration 13: Catholic landlord piety: one of the gentry is quoting a passage from scripture in praising those at court, "I said you are as gods" (Ego dixi dij estis). Jesus is depicted as a king, receiving the crown and going the royal way (via regia) and as a cleric, receiving a bishop's hat.[1366]

 

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 391]

 

INDEX

 

Abbott, John (writer), 178

Abjuration, see oath

Abnaki (Indians), 279

Abolition, bishops, 209, 326

            church courts, 184, 199

            Md. patent, 12, 170, 216, 248

            peerage, 105

            prerogative courts, 184

            tithes, 328

Abolition (slavery), landlord

opposition, 135, 244

            Roman slaves, 136

Abortion, 268, 270

Absentee pastors, 184

Absolute, see authority, monarchy,

proprietor

Abstinence (sexual), 270

Accomac (Md. Indians), 279

            map, 220, 256

Acolytes (church office), 280

Acre, surveyed, 238

            tax on, 119-120

            See also, land tax

Act(s), 149

            civil marriage __, 264-265

            for confirmation of

proprietorship, 234

            Judiciary, 150

            Navigation, 165

            of Grace, 203

of Pardon and Oblivion, 327

of Religious Toleration, 2, 5, 327

            of Supremacy and Uniformity,

198

            Triennial, 147-148

Acts of the Apostles, communal

ownership, 136

Adam (biblical), 125, 284

            origin of labor, 133

            origin of primogeniture and

patriarchy, 272

            used against class system, 284

            See also, Fall

Adams, Mary Cockshott (migrant),

259

Administration, estate, 202, 206,

266 (women)

Admiralty Committee (London),

216

Advantage, proprietor's, 236

Adventurer, Md., 183

            See also, merchant

Afonso I (Congo king), 280, 282,

295

Africa(n)(s), 17, 109, 117-118

            beliefs (cosmological), 284-285

            birth control, 270

Catholic(ism), 279, 282 (inclusive), 285, 295

            class system, 286-287

discrimination in religious orders, schools, church offices, 126

            enslavement, 112, 118, 300

            European relations, 280

            in Spain and Portugal, 117-118

landlord theology for enslavement, 133

            language (Kikongo), 281

            magnates, 287, 300

            map, 142

            marriage, 295

            migrants, 389

            missions, 205

            pamphlets, 281

            parishes, 281

            population, 269

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 392]

            schools, 281

            slave-buying expeditions, 118

            slaves, 269

            women, 268-269

See also, Angola, Congo, Gold Coast, Guinea, Ivory Coast, John Baptista, Mathias de Sousa, Sâo Tomé, Senegal

African-Maryland, 11, 165, 299

            assembly membership 109, 287

            assimilation, 285

            beliefs, 257, 299

            Catholics, 281

            interracial marriage, 264

            labor, 257

            laboring people, 287

Agent, Md. __ at Amsterdam, 242

            Md. liquor dealer, 239

Aggression, Africans (targets), 300

            ecclesiastical, 202

            Indians (targets), 300

            landlord, 289

            land speculator, 289

            Va. against Md., 218

Agrarian(s), cycle, 183

            history, 305

            Indian, 287

            reform, 105-106, 128, 135-137,
            243-244

Agriculture, see farms, husbandry,
            planter

Ahistorical, see history

Alarm, militia, 167

Alchemy, 209

Alcohol, abuse, 102

            Indian, 294

            merchants, 239 (regulations)

Alderman, London Catholic, 245

Ale, 81

            house 81, 225

            Whitsun, 38, 183

Algonquian (Indian), 279, 284

            boatmakers, 300

            labor beliefs, 285

            language, 293-294

            Virginia, 289

Alimony, 209

Allegiance, see oath

Allegory, political, 176

Allen, David (historian), 145

            Thomas (migrant), 195, 261

            William (writer), 207, 273

All Saints (feastday), 183, 329

Alms, annual Md., 185

            Catholic, 185, 195, 207

            doctrine, 250

            endowment, 188 (Jesuit)

            European, 185

            funeral, 250

            hierarchy, 245

            house 82

            magnate norm, 251

            token __-giving, 250, 252

            See also, economics, tithes

Altar equipment, 292

Alum, monopoly, 245

Alvaro III (Congo king), 282

Ambassador, 217

            Congo __ to Portugal, 280

            Md. __ at Amsterdam, 242

            Spain, 321

Ambition, social, 246 (G. Calvert
            & T. Wentworth)

            worker __ condemned, 253

America(n), 222, 258

            northeast, 279

Ammunition, 222, 265

            See also, guns

Amsterdam, see Dutch

Amulet(s), 294

Anabaptistry, 46

Anacostian(s), Indians, 192

            map, 256

Anarchist(ic), 87, 232

Ancestor(s), Indian, 279

Anderton, Lawrence (writer), 275

Andleby, William (priest), 65

Andrews, Matthew (historian),
            159-160

Anemia, 269

Angel(s)(ic),

            gentry-military orders, 128-130

            merit as basis of hierarchy, 136

Anglessey, Eng., 133

            map, 88

Anglican church (established

church), 15, 29, 40, 63, 67, 70, 72, 143, 171, 201

            clergy, 182, 184, 274 (married)

            gentry, 191

            Indian, 293

            Md., 198, 304

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 393]

            oppose bishops, 304

            relation of Catholics, 34

            services, 182

            Virginia, 283, 293 (Indians)

Anglo-Dutch war, 169, 171, 173

Anglo-Powhatan war, 283

Angola, Afr., 118, 204, 281

            map, 142

            See also, Congo

Animal(s), farm, 96-97, 101, 162

            laboring people as, 134

            pack __, workers criticized as,
            285

            servant maiming, 102

            skins (clothing), 296

            See also, cows, pigs, sheep

Annapolis, Md., 170-171

            map, 220

Anne Arundell County, 170

Anne of Austria, 250

Anne (English queen), 303

Annex, Md. to Va., 218

Anointed, God's (king), 247

Anti-Catholicism, 8-10, 12-14, 54,
            123, 158, 165, 171-172

            Md., 199, 204-205, 216, 218-219,
            303

            overthrow, 166

            used by landlords, 11

            See also, Anti-Protestantism,
            penal laws

Anticlerical(ism), 22, 181, 184

            J. Cotton, 199

            Md., 205, 211

Antigua, 169, 326

Anti-hoarding, see hoarding

Anti-labor beliefs, 91, 191

            See also, labor

Anti-liquor merchant legislation,
            239

Antimonopoly, 255

            regulation 81

            See also, assembly, market
            legislation

Antinomians (Antinomianism), 4-

7, 9, 46, 71-72, 87-88, 105-106, 123, 139, 173, 221, 243, 262, 301

            See also, Act of Religious
            Toleration, liberation, theology

Anti-Protestantism, 8-9, 16, 199,
            210, 218

Antiquity, 126, 176

Anti-Royalism, 26

Anti-speculation legislation, see
            market government regulation

Apostate(s), 213, 285 (Indian)

Apostle(s), above __, 262

            Creed, 283, 293, 298

            to laboring people, 63

Apothecary, occupation, 22

            political power, 231

Apparel, see clothes

Appeal (judicial), see court

Apple, 194

Appomatux (Indians), 291

Apprentice(s), 61

            in husbandry, 31, 36, 49, 287
            (Indians)

            Royalist contempt for, 134

            See also, bullet-headed

Aprons, Indian women's, 296

Aquinas, Thomas (theologian),
            129

            authority for monopoly, 244,
            248-249, 252

            authority in schools, 128

            class origins, 128

            Commentary on the Sentences,
            249

            commutative & distributive
            justice, 249

            criticized, 252

            fatalism, 250

            just price doctrine, 251-252
            (omits labor)

            morality, 248-249

            natural law, 244

            on congregational ministry, 188

            on labor, 21, 140

            on poverty as inevitable, 250

            politics, 174, 177

            pride condemned, 252

            producers on bottom of
            hierarchy, 134

            productive labor based on sin,
            132-133

            promotion of pope's authority
            over bishops, 128

            reason for revival by Rome, 128

            right of labor to contract, 110

            secular clergy, 65

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 394]

            slavery justification, 127-128,
            140

            Summa Theologiae, 249

            wealth distribution, 106

See also, natural law, theology

Architect(ure), 61, 177-178, 322

            profession approved by gentry,
            130

Archetype, Jesuit, 134

Argument(s), 1-17, 35, 91

            clergy's role, 196, 211, 219

            gender role, 257

            "Holy" poverty, 132

            Indian Catholicism, 297-298

            Jesuit ministry, 189, 218

            laboring people & class system,
            300

            labor value, 101-109, 112-114,
            123, 132, 140-141

            See also, antinomian

Aristotle, 134-135

            conservative social philosophy

popular with gentry, 127-128, 136-137, 244, 272

            criticized, 139

            Economics, 244

Arminianism, 46

Arm(s)(ed), __-length market
            relations, 223

            coat of, 123,

            banner of 40

            force, 159

            household fire__, 167, 265

            Indian, 290

            manufacturer, 110-111

            servant right to bear, 112, 265

            struggle, 171

            women's right to bear, 265

            See also, ammunition

Army, 53, 72

            draft, 52

            economic expenditures, 153

            Parliamentary, 44-47, 273, 327-
            328

            papist (Irish), 217

            proprietor's, 325

            Roman, 133

            royal, 45, 47, 166, 217, 326

            Scot, 326

            Spanish, 130

            Virginia, 168-169, 262

See also, conscript, militia, New Model Army, royal, trained band

Arrears (debts), 57, 82

Arrest, 211, 240 (R. Ingle)

Arrow(s), 286

            __-drum (herb), 287

Arson, servant, 102

Art, baroque religious, 292

Articles, Thirty-Nine, 198

Artificer, see artisan

Artillery, 183

Artisan(s), 21, 31, 37, 40, 44, 49,

54, 91, 94, 108-109, 113-114, 116, 137, 209, 227, 239, 319

            assembly members, 196, 224

            Indian, 287, 293

            wage regulation, 238

            women, 114, 260-261

Arts (liberal), gentry's positive
            view, 130

Arundell family, 55

            Henry (writer), 253

Asia, origin of Indians, 279

Assault, of gentry on labor, 124

Assembly,

            African membership, 109

            authority, 197

            commissioned Dutch trade, 242

            English clerical, 199

            delegates to Md.__, 109, 111-
            112

            independent Md. __, 144-151,

153-156, 160-161, 165, 168-171, 176-177, 179, 200, 240-242, 290, 299, 303

            labor membership, 231

            leaders, 202

            legislative initiative, 198

Md., 4, 7, 18, 67, 74, 85, 87, 102, 111, 114, 167, 258, 261-263, 266, 272, 287, 302-303, 326

            Md. Catholic legislation, 182,
            196-220, 303

            Md. clerical privileges, 183, 227

Md. rejection of crown interference, 240-241, 255

Md. market legislation, 221-242, 255

            of Divines, 73

            of tenants, 51, 145, 196

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 395]

            parish, 145, 196, 224

            prohibition on Indian
            enslavement, 112, 133

            Providence, Md., 218

            records, 89, 91-92, 108-109, 141

            religious composition in Md.,
            145, 196, 320-321

            upper house, 302

            village, 262

            women, 261-262

            See also, code, delegates, Irish,
            Triennial Act

Assessment (property tax), 50, 54,
            155-156

            Md. records, 92

Assimilation, Indian, 287, 293, 296,
            299

            Md., 285, 299

            See also, iron technology, trade
            goods

Assize court, 80

            sermon, 21

Assumption (feastday), 38, 183,
            329

Athei(st)(ism), Md. assembly, 176-
            177

Atkinson, Robert (Indian), 288

Atlantic Ocean, 263

Attach(ment) (real property),
            court, 235

            legislation, 234

Attorney, see lawyer

Augustine, see St. Augustine

Austin, John (lawyer), 48

Austria, Anne of, 250

Authorit(y)(ies), 21, 56-57

            absolute, 194

            assembly, 197

            canon law, 2, 25

            classical landlord __, 127, 130-
            131, 137, 244, 248

            episcopal, 206

            established, 43

            Md. tenant, 146

            parental, 264

            proprietor's, 151

            Roman (papal), 67-68, 128, 198,
            214

            royal, 43

            See also, Aquinas, canon law,
            classics, doctrine

Autonomy, from creditors, 15, 103

            Md. Assembly political__, 242

Aveling, Hugh, 24, 66, 74

Aviz dynasty (Portuguese), 20

Avoirdupois, see weights

Ax(es), 110

            falling, 263

            freedom dues, 98, 263

            technology, 296

Axtell, James (historian), 296, 299

Azores, 204

 

Bab(y)(ies), 259-260, 269

Backs, babies on __, 259-260

Bacon's Rebellion, 156

Bagshaw, Christopher (writer), 189

Bailiff, 73

            farm, 63

Baker, Augustine (priest), 5

Baker(s)(ing), occupation, 33

            Indian, 286

            political power, 231

Ballad, 38

Baltic trade 78

Baltimore, Lord, 56, 160, 170, 218,
            326

            gaining title, 247

            See also, Calvert

Band, see trained

Banker, 217

Bankrupt, 57

Banquet(ing) feastday, 183

Bantu language, 281

Baptism(s), 26-27, 29-30, 246

            Congo, 281

            fees, 185

            Indian, 285, 287, 293, 297-298

            Md., 204

            See also, sacrament

Baptista, John (African-Md.), 112,
            280

Barbados, 93, 103, 169, 259, 268-
            269

Barbari(c)(ans), communal
            landownership, 136

            enslavement, 133, 139

            subordination, 189

Barber, 33

Barley (grain), 81

Barlow, Ambrose (priest), 64

Barn(s), 65, 81

            Md., 96 (cost), 228

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 396]

Baron(s)(y), opposition to, 46, 176

            rental income, 121

            wealth monopolization, 124

Baroque, art, 292

Basket, Indian, 296

            -making, 286

Bastard feudalism, 122

Battle(s), Md. military, 219, 326
            (Edgehill)

            Severn, 320, 325 (religion of
            troops in), 328

            See also, Civil War, Naseby

Bautista, Manuel (African Bp.)
            282

Beads (rosary), criticized, 140

Beans, price of, 81

            Spanish tax, 194

            trade, 279 (Indian)

            women's role, 260

Bear, brown, 288 (Indian trapping)

Beast, laboring people, 178

            women, 277

Beat, see whip

Beatific (vision), landlord ideal,
            128

Beauty, 174

            of nobility, 126

Beaver, see pelt

Becanus (theologian), 128

Becket, Thomas (Bishop), 202

Beckles, Hilary (historian), 259,
            268

Bed(s), 310

            Indian, 286

Beech nuts, 287

Beef, Hapsburg tax, 194

            regulation, 80

Beer, Hapsburg tax, 194

            monopoly, 245

            regulation, 80

            -swilled labor, 135

Beggar(y), from tyranny, 193

            occupation, 33

Belgium, Hapsburg misrule, 193

Belief(s), 22, 35, 42, 89

African-Md., 257, 285-289 (labor), 289-292 (political), 292-295 (religious), 295-299 (market)

            Catholic, 257, 261, 301, 304-306

            clergy's role, 181-220

            English landlord labor __, 122-
            141, 305

            family, 258, 266, 268, 271

            gender, 257-278

            gentry's racial __ about
            inherited titles, 123

            humanist, 177

            in civilization, 40

Indian, 257, 285-289 (labor), 289-292 (political), 292-295 (religious), 295-299 (market)

            in New England, 18

            in progress, 40, 105

            in unearned wealth, 122-123

            labor theory of value, 269

            labor's view of human body, 110

            lineage, 173

            market, 221-255

            Md. landlord labor __, 114-122

            official nature of, 1-2, 304, 306

            racial, 126-127, 175, 257, 261,
            278-300

            racist, 257

            Republican, 177

            sexist, 257

            worker's labor __, 94-114

            women, 257-278

See also, Catholic, church liberty, clergy, labor, gentry, market, politics, race, value

Believers, priesthood of, 128

Bell, hawks', 296

            ringing, 183

Bellarmine, S.J., Robert, 253

            on labor, 129

Belt, English monopoly, 245

Benedictine(s), 5-6, 44, 50, 64-65,
            69

            reformed, 189

Benefactor, clergy's, 191

Benefices, 23

            multiple holding, 1

Bennett, Richard (governor), 168-

172, 179, 218, 241 (resisted L. Calvert), 328

Bequest(s), common law, 206

            purgatory, 207

            testator, 183, 186, 195

            to wives, 267

Beriberi, 269

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 397]

Berkley, William (governor), 159,
            195, 327

Bermuda, 169

Berries, 287

Bias, missionary, 192

Bible, see scripture

Bill, of exchange, 217

            See also, legislation

Billet (troops), 149

Birds, native Md., 120

Birth, 105

            "base-born," 124

            child, 183

            control, 270

            gentry belief, 176, 178, 285

            gentry contempt for "low" __,
            135

            hatred of "well-born" for labor,
            130-131

            honor and privilege, 109, 285

            laboring women, 259

            low, 190

            noble, 189

            pre-__ & post-__ care, 270

            register, 182

            __right, 149

            See also, blood, inheritance,
            race

Bishop(s), 1, 14, 27, 36, 43, 48, 67-
            69, 390

            African, 282

            arch__ W. Laud, 248

            authority based on consecration
            as, 128

            Canada, 304

            church courts, 209

            colonial expansion, 203-204

            English expulsion, 204, 206, 216

            hostility to Jesuits, 193

            investors in slave-buying
            expeditions, 118

            Jesuit hostility, 204

            opposed in Md., 304

            Ordinance for Abolishing, 209

            outlawed in Md., 197-198

            political activity, 183

            pope's authority over, 128

            regulation of, 43, 67-69, 105, 107

            war, 326

            See also, R. Smith

Bishop, John (reformer), 205

Blacksmith, 33 (occupation),

in Md., 110, 114, 167, 239 (debt collection priority), 308, 319, 323

Blackwood, B.G. (historian), 60

Blasphemy, 174

            jurisdiction, 207-209

Blessed Mother (Mary), 123

Blessed Sacrament, see sacrament

Blessing, parents, 264

Blood(y), ability to rule, 287
            (Africa)

            gentry's racial belief, 126, 140,
            174-176, 257, 287

            religious penance, 192

Blount, S.J., Richard, (priest), 216

Boatmaker, 300

Boatman, occupation, 287

Body (human), burial, 238 (fee)

            gentry belief, 178

            labor's view, 110

            view of landlord clergy, 128-129,
            276 (shame)

Body, politique, 175-176

            of law, see law

Bolton, Edward (lawyer), 35, 37

Bondage, 177, 193

Bone cross, 192

Bonfire, 183

Book(s), account, 184

            Catholic, 125, 191-192, 275

            Catholic prayer __, 29

            in Md., 148, 211

            of Common Prayer, 198

            religious, 175, 253

            See also, commonplace,
            pamphlets, literature

Bossy, John, 23-24, 30, 41, 64, 76,
            85

Boston, Mass., 142 (map)

Bow (& arrows), 286

Boyle, Richard (capitalist), 217-
            218

Bradley, S.J., Robert (historian),
            207

Brainthwaite, Eleanor (servant),
            258, 266 (runaway)

Brand (markings), on cattle, 122

            on slaves, 118

Brass kettles, 296

            weights, x

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 398]

Brazil, map, 142

            revolt, 172

            slaveowning, 117, 120

            trade with Congo, 287

Bread, 81, 134

            corn, 225 (rationed)

            crust, 235

            Hapsburg tax, 194

            Indian __-making, 286

            women, 263 (price revolts)

Brébeuf, S.J., Jean de
            (missionary), 285

Breed(ing), dogs and horses, 138-
            139

Breen, Timothy (historian), 103-

104, 255, 285 (revolutionary planters)

Brent, Anne (migrant), 276

Giles (migrant), 148, 151, 163, 180, 226 (insolvent), 230 (landlord), 264, 299-300, 307, 315-316, 320, 324, 327

Margaret (attorney), 109, 114, 180, 215, 259, 261-262, 312, 318

Mary (migrant), 180, 259, 312

            See also, M. Kittamaquand

Bretton, William (migrant), 185

Brewhouse, 83

Bribery, 16, 180

            Spanish party, 217

Brick(s), __man (layer), 194

            English monopoly, 245

            maker, 239 (monopoly)

            Md. monopoly, 194

Bristol, Eng., 29, 33, 78, 141, 157,

164, 327-328

            royalist merchants, 239, 255

British North America, see

America, Canada, Md., New England

Britons, enslavement of, 133

Broadcloth, 82

Brodsky, Vivien (historian), 278

Brook, Francis (migrant), 163

Brooke, S.J., John (priest), 192

Brother, family duties, 259

Indian, 289 (nepotism), 294

Brow, sweat of, 134

Brudenell, Thomas (royalist), 175

Budget, military, 153

Building, Jesuit college, 188

            Md. __, 223

Bull (papal), 197

            In Coena Domini, 206

            Regnans in Excelsis, 198

Bullet-headed, apprentices, 134

Bullion, clerical theft, 210

Burgesses (Va. house), 171

Burial, 26-27

            church, 204

            fees, 183, 238 (coroner)

            register, 182

Burn, punishment, 238

            sun, 228

Bush, Barbara (historian), 269

Butcher (occupation), 33, 87

            negative view, 130

            guild procession, 330

Butter, Hapsburg tax, 194

            monopoly, 245

            price of, 81

            production, 100, 260

            women, 260

Button, English monopoly, 245

 

Caesar, Julius, 201

            landlord authority for slavery,
            133, 135

Cain (biblical), labor based on, 133

Cajetan, Tommaso de Vio
            (theologian), 128

Cal(f)(ves), 97

            See also, cow

Calling, 205

            See also duty, ethic, labor

Calvert, Cecil (Lord Baltimore),

28, 53, 56, 67, 143, 151, 171, 176-177, 218, 229 (crown relations), 234, 246, 248, 255, 324, 326

            Charles, 303, 312

George (d. 1632), 28-29, 128, 151, 154, 176, 204, 206, 216-217, 246-248

Leonard (governor), 29, 116, 119, 159-162, 180, 192, 197, 230, 261-262, 276, 307, 313, 315-316, 320, 322, 324, 326-327

            Phillip, 307

            See also, Baltimore, proprietor

Cambridge University, 311

            Catholics at, 125

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 399]

            Catholic books at, 128

Camden House (London), 158

Campaign (military), see war

Campaign (political), 180

Canada, 104, 204, 298, 304

Canary Islands, 203-204

Candles, making, 306

            regulation of, 80

            religious customs, 183

Cannon, see gun

Canoes (dugout), hunting from,
            288

            Indian building, 286

Canon law, 1-2, 25

            clerical political activity, 183

            False Decretals (Isidorian
            Forgeries), 212

            family regulation, 265

            jurisprudence, 206

            landlord authority for rights,
            137

            negative view of manual labor,
            130-131

            outlawed in Md., 197, 206, 215

            profit-making missions
            prohibited, 205

            right of clergy to do manual
            labor, 131

            See also, church liberty,
            praemunire

Canon(s) (legal), 206

Canonized (kings), 177

Cap (Monmouth), as freedom
            dues, 98, 263 (women's)

Cape Verde, 203

Capital(ism)(ist), 19, 33, 77

            farming, 138

            foreign, 96

            Md., 94-95, 96-98, 233, 316

            Md. Clergy's, 185

            poor (women), 259, 268

            punishment, 111, 210-211

            See also, execution

Capon, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Captain, Indian war __, 286

            ship, 160

            trained band, 167, 265

Capuchin clergy, 282 (Congo)

Career Files, 91, 94, 108, 111-114,
            119, 144-145, 148, 231, 307-314

Caribbean, family limitation, 269

            maternity leave, 271

            women's labor, 259, 268

Cargo, Md. 164

            trade ship, 296

            See also, transport

Carpent(er)(ry), 36, 97, 306

            holiday, 330

            Md., 114, 308, 319, 323

            Md. monopoly, 194, 239
            (proprietor)

            not compatible with dignity of
            priesthood, 131

            wages, 238

Carr, Lois Green (historian), 100,

107-108, 160, 168, 222-223, 258-259, 266-267, 278

Case(s), judicial, see court

Catchpole, Judith (migrant), 267

Catech(ist)(ism)(etical)(izing),
            174, 177

            gentry, 191

            Indian, 280, 294, 298

            lectures, 182

Catechist, 65

Cathedral, St. Pauls, 192

Catholic(s)(ism), Africans, 279,
            283, 285

            arrival status in Md., 315-318

            __-Presbyterians, 302

            __-Quakers, 302

            chief, 206

            community, 184

            cosmology (Md. & Africa), 283

            court, 245-247, 303-304

            criticism of clergy, 195

            customs, 183

            "disgruntled"__ overthrow
            proprietor, 241

            English, 207, 221, 244
            (restoration)

English gentry __, 173-180 (political beliefs), 189 (devotional works), 202 (estates), 243-255 (market beliefs), 253, 255, 271, 279

            "ethic," 89

            free in Md., 97

            inclusive (Md. & African) __,
            282-283

            indentured servants, 224

            Indian __, 279, 285

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 400]

            Irish __ gentry, 248

            Jacobite __, 303

            judge, 211-212

            king (Hapsburg), 194

            landlords, 303

            liberator, 157

Md. __, 143-180 (political beliefs), 91-94 (demography), 94-141 (labor beliefs), 209, 221-242 (market beliefs), 255, 285, 301, 307-314 (biographical information), 323-324 (overthrow of 1645)

            Md. committee representatives,
            197-199

            mixed __-Protestant marriage,
            265

            nations, 185

            official, 1-2, 304, 306

            Portugal, 172

            "real" __, 201, 297 (Indian)

            royalist, 143, 162-163, 168, 171

            syncretic, 280, 282

            Tory __, 303

            voters, 197

            women, 224, 258-278

See also, assembly, beliefs, bishops, church, clergy, gentry, Indian, laboring people, methodology, pamphlets, politics, population, Protestant, tenants

Cattle, Md., 100, 121

            regulation of, 80, 229

            theft by tenants, 107, 166, 122

            value, 122

Causin, Nicholas (planter), 160,
            163, 307, 315, 320, 324

Cecil, Robert (politician), 248

Celebrate, see feast

Celibacy, see virgin

Cemeter(y)(ies), Md., 184

Censure, of enclosers, 51

Census, 23, 91, 302, 307-319

            See also, demography

Ceramic pots, 296

Chain of being, 105, 300

            See also, order

Chancery, see court

Changelessness, gentry ideal, 129

Chapel(s), 65

Md., 167, 180 (map), 184-186, 213, 216

Chaplain, see clergy

Chapter, see church government

Charism, of labor, 36

Charit(y)(able), 84-85

            scholastic view, 250-251

            wealth and power given to
            landlord for, 132

Charles I (king), 13, 73, 147, 159-
            160, 170, 178-179, 248, 326-327

            against anti-monopoly
            regulations, 239

            beliefs about women, 277

            execution, 273

            Spanish marriage, 217

Charles II (king), 12, 48, 169-170,
            172, 176, 327-328

Charles V (Hapsburg king), 193

Charles County, Md., 186, 188, 298
            (Indians), 302

Charm(s) (fetish), 294

Charter, corporate, 77, 79

Charter, Massachusetts, 172

Md., 144, 146, 148-149, 153, 156, 158, 198, 216, 218, 303 (annulled), 326

            new, 219

            restored, 303

            revocation, 164

            See also, patent

Chastity, 276

Chattel(s), 234

Chauvinism, European, 282

Cheers, raising, 183

Cheese, production in Md., 100

            regulation, 80

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

            women as __ makers, 260

Chesapeake, 157, 160, 164

            historians, 257

            Indians, 279

            magnates, 300

            map, 220

            planters, xiii, 229

            shipping, 240 (restricted)

            tobacco, 230

            women's rights, 278

Chestnuts, 287

Chickahominy (Indians), 279, 290

Chicken, tax (Hapsburg), 194

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 401]

Chief wife, 295

Child(ren), 27, 84, 93, 95, 211, 276

            bearing, penalized, 268

            birth, 183

            commoditization resisted, 269

            freedom dues, 263

            Indian __, 285

            inheritance rights, 274

            labor, 259-260

            Md., 186, 259, 302, 312-314

            rights, 264, 266, 268

            right to have, 271

            step__, 266

            women as caring for, 260

Chimney(s), 115

            tax, 194

China, 77, 186

            missions, 284

            rites, 285

Christ(ological), 187

            __'s vicar (pope), 214

            __ influence, 304

Christiana, Fort (Delaware), 220,

226

Christian, class system, 189

            classics popular with gentry,
            127, 130-131

            faith, 214

            Indians, 192

Christmas, 38, 183, 330

Church,

Catholic(s), 16, 25, 28-29, 34, 46, 60, 67, 70-75, 92, 184, 200-201, 293 (Indians), 302

            class nature, 231

control, 176, 194 (Hapsburg), 212 (local), 282 (Congo)

            finance, 184 (voluntary)

            German, 207

            government (dean & chapter),
            48, 65, 68-70, 75-76, 79, 87

            government (parish), 73-74

            immunities, 212

            law, 265

            liberty, 1

            Massachusetts, 199

            Md., 167, 196, 198 (laws
            governing), 223 (Newton)

            Md. Protestant, 195 (conversion
            to)

            patronage, 200

            Platform of __ Discipline
            (Massachusetts), 199

            power, 200

            property (economic income),
            62, 74, 211-212 (land)

            right(s), 201-202

            self-finance, 67

            steps, babies abandoned, 270

            taxation, 200

            women in __ government, 109

See also, Anglican, canon law, congregational, courts, lay impropriation, mortmain, offices, parish, synod, vestry

Church court(s), 67, 207-209, 215,
            272

            England outlawed, 199

            Md. outlawed, 197

            Spanish, 209

Cicero, Marcus Tillius, 127, 130-
            131, 133

            philosophy in schools, 135-137

Citizenship, 280 (naturalization)

            rights & duties, 109, 210-211
            (clergy)

City, population, 138

Civilization, belief in, 40

Civil, cases, 151

            __ law, 272

            __ lawyers, 272

            clergy's view of __ life, 291

            court, 150, 210

            government, 203

            marriage, 264-265, 328

            virtue, 40

See also, Constitution of the Clergy, court

Civil War, 1-4, 6-7, 11, 15, 17, 24,

28, 30, 32, 34, 42, 51, 55-56, 60-61, 64, 68, 71-72, 89-92, 115, 118, 121-122, 134, 154, 156, 167, 182, 222

            chronology, 326-328

            era, 185, 189, 195, 215-216, 221,

231, 233, 239, 254, 257, 262, 291, 300, 302-303, 320

            first __, 144, 169

            map, 141, 220

            post __, 229, 264, 301

            pre __, 264

            reforms, 149, 209

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 402]

            second __, 327

            See also, Battle of Naseby,
            Bishops War

Claiborne, Wm. (migrant), 212,
            218, 290

Clark, Robert (migrant), 203

Class(es) (nature of society), 3, 6,

18, 43, 63-64, 68, 90, 106-107, 116, 125, 127, 216, 254, 257, 273

            Africa, 286

            betrayal, 246

            Christian __ system, 189

            __ system, 300

            intermarriage (Roman law), 277

            Jamaica, 278

            membership based on sin, 131-
            132, 134

            poor, 156, 232 (riots)

            Portugal, 286

            relation to racism & sexism, 300

            ruling __, 286

            slave-owning, 127, 133

            thinking __, 301

            Virginia, 295

            working __, 301

            See also, gentry, laboring
            people, landlord, lord, ranks

Classic(s)(al), anti-labor, 127-128,
            130-133, 135-136, 138, 244

            on market monopoly, 248-250,

            on politics, 249

            political economy, 301

Clement VII (pope), 193
            (prisoner)

Clergy, 85, 89, 390

            absentee, 74

            abuses, 207

            African, 282

            Anglican, 23, 27, 72-73, 182

            army chaplain, 273

            as workers (farm managers,
            teachers), 118, 205

beliefs about role of, 1, 4, 35, 62-75, 149, 181-221, 243, 274, 285 (African & Indian)

            canon law rights, 131 (manual
            labor), 183 (political activity)

            comfortable living, 188

            corruption, 209

            criticism, 195, 207, 209

            dignity, 189-190

            dislike of, 192, 202, 208-209
            (ceremony), 211

            economic income, 53, 184-185,
            244-245, 273 (monastic land)

            employees of, 203

            English, 162

            established, 53, 73-74, 184

            gentlemen, 120

            gentry's, 139

            guild, 40

            Hapsburg military chaplain, 208

            in Africa, 281-282

            incumbent, 74

            Indian language ability, 293

            laboring people as, 30

            land deals with Indians, 299

            landowners, 120, 202

            laybrother, 186

            legal liability, 265

            library, 148

manorhouse (domestic chaplains), 4, 16, 62, 64-66, 120, 125, 181, 188-190, 192, 216, 302

            married, 274, 295

Md., 93, 117-118, 162, 184, 186, 192, 197, 205-206, 208-209, 227, 276, 301, 316

negative view of labor and laboring people, 117-118, 124, 285 (Indians)

            negative view of women, 258

            oaths, 69

            parish, 75

            Presbyterian, 170, 199

            privilege, 227

            Protestant, 182, 211

            puritan, 254

            refusal of ecclesiastical services,
            124, 207

            regular, 23, 64-66, 203

            respected, 184

            rights, 215

            Royalists, 162

            scarcity, 302

secular, 41, 48, 64-66, 68-70, 72, 76, 128, 184, 186, 188-189, 195, 204, 282 (agrarian)

            servants, 120, 215

            services, 195, 210, 214, 216

            slander laboring people, 134-
            135

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 403]

            slaveowning, 117-118

            tenants of __, 301

            unbeneficed, 23

            wealth, 120, 244-245

See also, Aquinas, Capuchin, church liberty, Congregational, Constitution of the Clergy, curate, Dominicans, Franciscans, hierarchy, income, Jesuits, mission, monastic, pluralist, priest, synod

Clericalism, 11, 29-30, 70, 74, 216

            Anglican (established), 23

            Massachusetts, 199-200

            Roman, 16, 69, 71, 214

            See also, clergy (beliefs about
            role)

Clerk, 307, 310, 319-320

            Md. court, 238

Clobery & Co., see corporation

Cloth(es)(ing), 78, 82-84, 86, 110,
            137, 330

            Caribbean servant's, 268

            cotton, 296

            Indian, 286, 296-298

            Indian assimilation, 293, 296-
            297

            Indian women __-making (wool
            weaving), 285, 298

            in Md., 96, 98, 222 (prices), 223
            (lending)

            laboring people, 253

            monopoly, 245

            qualities, 296

            servant's right to, 111, 263-264
            (women)

            suit (as freedom dues), 98, 263

            See also, cotton, wool

Clothes maker, see textile worker

Coal, mine, 59

            miner, 85

            monopoly, 245

Coat, Indian assimilation, 296

            waist, 263

            women's right, 263

Cobbler (occupation), 59

Code,

            legal, 4

            Md., 85, 146-147, 149-150, 198-
            203, 205, 232, 263-264, 326

            Md. enactment procedure, 197

            racial in Spain, 126

            rejection of proprietor's, 112,
            200, 212, 224, 236

            See also, assembly, legislation

Coitus interruptus, 270

Coke, Edward (jurist), 148, 176

Cole, Robert (migrant), 108-109,
            307

Collect(ion), "Catholic," 152

            debt, 121

            proprietor's fees, 234-235

Collectiv(e)(ism), economic, 223-
            242, 289 (Indian)

            Indian land ownership, 288

            justice, 249

            needs, 249

            See also, common land

College(s), 85, 301

            Catholic, 126

            Jesuit, 188 (defined), 189

Colon(y)(ists)(ial), 223, 282

            American, 222

            Catholic, 188, 203

            English, 103, 214 (oath)

            conservative, 107

            gentry, 188

            leveling, 235

            Md., 150, 154, 162, 169, 241
            (Dutch trade), 301-302

            migration, 244 (restrictions)

            monopoly, 230

            Newfoundland, 154

            North American, 258, 291

            Spanish, 208

            trade, 165

            Va., 173

            See also, Massachusetts Bay,
            New England

Color (skin), racial beliefs against
            labor, 126-127

Combs, wooden, 296

Comfortable living, clergy, 188

Commandment(s) (Ten), 72, 106

            class perspective 106, 254

            decaloguus decem, 27

            Indian language translation,
            293-294

            See also, killing, theft

Commission(er), 182

            crown's, 159-160, 162-163, 167,
            240-241 (Md. rejection), 327

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 404]

            for foreign plantations, 248

            government, 80

            High __, 209

            Md. assembly, 165, 242 (Dutch
            trade)

            Parliament, 169, 171, 173

            proprietor's, 198

Committee(s), Admiralty (Council
            of State), 216

            Catholic collection, 152

            county, 51, 56, 80, 231 (leveler)

Md. Assembly, 144, 196 (Catholic leadership), 224 (Catholic members)

            Md. drafting, 197-199, 201-202

            parliamentary (for
            compounding), 48

            sequestration, 158

Commodit(y)(ies), 83

            buying and selling, 121

            children as, 269 (resisted)

            Indian export, 236

            monopolization, 237, 245

            tax, 194

Common(s), 76-77

            __ corn storage pits (Indians),
            289

            __-place book(s), 123, 128, 138

            enclosure of, 82

            folk, 191

            good, 76

            Hapsburg oppression, 193

            land, 52, 58-59, 289

            politics of Mexican Indian __
            folk, 284

            sort (of people), 80, 86, 137

            tobacco warehouses (Indian),
            289

See also, Book of Common Prayer, commonweal

Common law, 59-60, 79, 112, 139,

149-150, 202, 205-206, 210-211, 264 (Md.), 272-273

            See also, usufruct

Commons (House of), 79, 84

            Catholics in, 125

            Irish, 230

Commonweal(th), 77, 80, 105, 170,
            172, 175, 178

            philosophy of, 75, 77, 80, 85

Communal hunts, 288 (Indian)

Communal land ownership,

            England, 259

            Indian, 288-289

            in scripture, 136

            German, 136

Commune(s), 177 (Spain,
            Germany, Italy)

Communion, of corruption, 246

            See also, sacrament

Commutative justice, 106, 249,
            251-252

Community, Aquinas, 249

            concern for in Md., 223

            Md. parish, 181, 184-186

            of goods and provision, 223
            (Plymouth)

Company, see corporation

Concubines, Africa, 295

Conception, Fray Juan de (priest),
            270

Conditions, market, 221-224

            of Plantation, 212

            of settlement, 273

Conference (religious), 174

Confession, 208, 253

            See also, sacrament

Confiscation,

            of English Royalists, 61

            of Irish Royalists, 93

            of labor, 269

            of Md. proprietor, 154, 227
            (corn), 262

            of monasteries, 23, 29, 85

            of planters, 162, 243

            of royal property, 83

Conflict, doctrine of __, 305

            religious, 199

            theological, 181

Conformers, 28

            partial 25-27, 34, 125

Confraternities, 23, 39

Confucianism, 285

Congo, Afr. 118, 204

            ambassador to Portugal, 280

            Catholic heritage, 281

            __ yeomen, 286

            cosmology, 283-284

            European diplomacy, 281

            fishing, 389

            gentry, 286-287

            government, 282

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 405]

            kingdom of __, 281

            King Garcia II, 282, 287

            language (kikongo), 284

            map, 142

            married clergy, 295

            polygamy, 295

            Portuguese-__ freemen in Md.,
            279-281

            resistance to European
            interference, 282

            slave trading, 287

Congregation(al)(s) (Catholic),
            191, 204, 302

            clergy, 62, 65

            development, 212, 215, 219-220

            government, 74

            ministry, 16, 66, 181-182, 187-
            190, 192, 195, 204-205, 207

            needs, 216

            power, 200

            structure, 73

            See also, parish

Congregational Church
            (Massachusetts), 199-200, 297

            Indian ministry, 283

Connecticut, 279 (Indians), 326

Conoy (Indians), 17, 256, 264, 279

            animal skin trade, 288

            apprentices, 287

            assimilation, 289, 293

            beliefs about labor, 285, 288,
            299

            beliefs about politics, 288, 290-
            291, 299

            beliefs about religion, 280, 292-
            294, 297, 299

            Catholics, 288, 297

            division of labor, 288

            housing, 286

            independence from crown &
            proprietor, 291-292

            land dealings, 291

            land law, 299 (matrilineal)

            leaders (werowance), 285

            market beliefs, 294-300

            marriage laws, 295

            obedience, 298

            Piscataway, 192, 279

            queen, 286

            sovereignty, 291-292

            theology, 293

            wealth, 289

            women & children kidnapped,
            290

            Yeocomico, 279, 291, 299

Conquest, absence in Congo &
            Md., 284-285, 297

            Mexico, 284, 294

            See also, William the Conqueror

Conscience, examination, 253

            good Catholic, 201

            liberty of, 54

            little, 234

            magnate's, 250

            Md. planter's __, 262

Conscription, Massachusetts, 172

Conservative(s), Aristotle's views,
            128

            colonists, 107

Consumer(s), goods, 54

            monopoly, 252

            taxation, 247

Constable(s), 81

            Catholic, 125

Constitution(al), 65, 175

            Civil __ of the Clergy (French),
            204

            Jesuit, 186, 188, 219

            married women's __ disabilities,
            278

Consular office (for trade), 77

Contemplation, 128-130, 174, 253

            See also, prayer

Contempt (for labor and laboring
            people), 118, 123-124

            criticized, 191

            R. Ingle, 157

            Jesuit, 134

            planters, 177

            Royalist, 134

Contempt, for clergy, 207

            for world, 187, 253-254, 305

Continent(al), 66, 68, 217

            education, 21, 23, 27, 64, 128,
            189, 274

Contraception (family limitation),
            268, 270

Contract, conveyancing, 278

            debt, 121

            indenture, 97-98, 102

            marriage, 264

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 406]

            pre-nuptial __, 268

            right of labor, 86, 109-111, 244

            right of women in England, 268

            right of women in Md., 109-110,
            263-264, 278

            See also, indenture, right

Convent(s), 66

            entrance dowry, 272

            gentry ideal, 274-275

            outlawed in Md., 214-215, 274

            slave importers, 118

            resulting from primogeniture,

            274

Conversation, laboring people,
            137, 253

Convert(ing) (religious), 184, 187,

189, 201, 281 (Congo), 284 (forced), 302-303

Cook(s)(ing), 100

            gear, cost of in Md. 96

            in classics, 130

            women, 260, 285 (Indian)

Cooper, holiday, 330

            Md. monopoly, 194, 239
            (proprietor)

            occupation, 166, 309, 317

Copley, Anthony (attorney), 193-
            194

Copley, S.J., Thomas (priest), 116,

120, 159-160, 162, 166, 185, 190, 195, 198-201, 208, 211, 213-215, 226-227 (landlord problems), 308, 315-316, 324

            contempt for workers, 224, 231

            woman servant, 263

Copyholder (of land), 31, 56, 58,
            138

Corby, S.J., Ralph (priest), 62

Cordoso, S.J., Mateus
            (missionary), 283

Corn, amount produced, 225, 263
            (year's supply)

            bread, 225

            collective harvest, 223

            crop, 119, 225 (bad), 260

            Delaware, 226 (famine)

            export, 158

            farming in Md., 99, 101, 292

            freedom dues, 98, 263

            gentry belief about origin, 126

            husbandry, 259

            Indian production, 260, 279, 286
            (king), 289, 294, 296 (surplus)

            Indian religious protection, 294

            market, 228

            Md., 223 (lending), 227
            (scarcity)

            mill, 229

            monopoly, 227-228, 236
            (proprietor), 298 (Indian)

            New England shortage, 226

            rationing, 227

            regulation, 80, 221, 225-228,
            233, 237, 252, 255, 262

            planting laws, 226-227 (landlord
            complaints), 229

            prices, 81, 119, 287

            rent payment, 107, 119

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

            Va. shortage, 292

            women as __ producers, 260

Cornwallis, Thomas (planter), 28,

116, 121-122, 148, 158, 162-163, 165-166, 180, 197, 201-203, 206, 212, 216, 218, 224, 231, 240, 298, 308, 313, 315-316, 321, 324

Coroner, Md., 238

Coronets, 175

Corporation (company), 79

            attacked by mortmain, 211-212

            charter, 77

            Clobery & Co., 308

            Dutch West India Co., 172, 240
            (complaints against monopoly)

            Guinea Co., 245

            joint-stock, 77

            licensed, 246 (Stewart abuse)

            Merchant Adventurers, 78, 157

            New Sweden Trading __, 226

            of the Poor, 82

            public, 246

            shares in, 246

            town, 180

            See also, East India, Virginia

Cosmology, Indian, 284, 293

            Md. & African Catholic, 283

            missionary (inclusive), 284

Cottage(r), 31, 64, 114

            adorned with flowers, 38

            cost in Md., 96, 233

            described, 115, 296 (frame)

            Md., 259

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 407]

            poor, 189

            troop billeting, 149

            See also, housing

Cotton, 99

            cloth, 296

            industry, 44

Cotton (Cottram), Edward

(migrant), 258, 308, 316, 321, 323

            John (cleric), 199, 297

Council, governor's, 302

            in the Marches of Wales, 75

            king's privy, 67, 78, 176

            Md., 144, 153, 168, 224
            (Catholic members)

            offices, 77

            of elders (Chickahominies), 290

            of North, 75

            of State, 84, 216, 248 (B.
            Whitelocke)

            of Trade, 79-80, 84

            Trent, 9, 128, 204, 265, 274

Councilor, Indian, 286

            Md., 148

Count(y)(ies), Anne Arundell __,

Md., 170

            Charles __, 186, 298, 302

            committee, 80

            court, 150, 238-239

            English, 88 (map)

            government, 81, 147, 225

            Longford __, Ireland, 247

            St. Mary's __, 301-302

            studies, 223

            Wexford __, Ireland, 247-248

            See also, Northampton, Va.

Courier, 162

Court(s), 8-9, 56, 58, 70

            appeal(s), 150, 204 (Rome)

            assize, 21, 80

            authority, 197

            bridal pregnancy, 271

            cases in Md., 95, 98, 140, 151,
            206-208, 210, 258, 278

            chancellor of exchequer, 217

            chancery, master of, 272

            church (ecclesiastical), 67-68,
            75, 208, 264-265 (cost), 272

            church __ abolished, 184, 209

            church __ outlawed in Md., 197,
            200, 202, 205-207, 209-210, 215

            civil, 210

            class nature, 231

            clerk, 238

            __ Catholics, 245-247

            criminal, 210

            criticized, 235

            cross examination, 266

            day, 113

            decision(s), 197, 112 (against
            slavery)

            decisions (women's rights), 263,
            266

            drama, 175

            English, 235 (expensive & slow)

            English (royal), 174 (criticized)

            equity, 150

            family, 264-266

            fees, 264, 267

            independence of in Md., 149-
            151

            inns of __ (Middle Temple,
            Grays), 311, 320

            "high society" Congo, 281

            "high society" London, 120, 179,
            276, 390

            Massachusetts General __, 172,
            199, 235

            Md. assembly as trial __, 102,
            150

            Md. chancery, 150

Md. provincial __, 109-112, 163, 197, 202, 206-208, 210-212, 215, 218, 233-235 (anti-monopoly), 239 (blacksmith debt preference), 265, 266 (extradition to Va.), 303

            of Council of North, 75

            of Dutchery of Lancaster, 75

            of exchequer (of Chester), 75

            of High Commission (chief
            ecclesiastical __), 74-75, 209

            of quarter sessions, 51, 77

            of Wards, 75

            party, 78, 151, 217-218 (Spanish
            faction)

            pleas, 209, 235

            prerogative, 75, 149

            presentment, 271

            probate, 202, 266

            quarter sessions county, 150

            records, 92, 261, 266

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 408]

            servants' right to sue in, 109-110

            Spanish church, 209

            womens' rights, 263-265, 268

            womens' right to sue in, 109-110

            See also, common law, county,
            judicial, jurisdiction, Star Chamber

Court (inns of), Catholic
            membership, 125

Courtship, 264

Cousin, L. Calvert's, 310

            king's, 175, 177

Covenant, see contract

Covetousness, 289

Cow(s), 97, 270

            servant womens' right, 263-264

            women as keeping, 260

            See also, calf

Craftworkers, industrious, 106

            London, 278

            scorned by classics, 130

            wages, 238

Craven, Wesley (historian), 115

Creator, God as __ of landlord
            system, 124

Credit(or)(s), 79

            __-based economy (Portugal & Congo), 286

            __-debtor laws, 300

            gentry protection against, 272

            imported, 222

            liquor __ subordinated, 239

            London, 103, 300

            Md. 96-97, 206, 226 (default to)

            price, 222

            womens' protection against, 273

Creed, see apostles

Crime, 151, 178 (rebellion), 198

Criminal, court, 150, 210

            penalty, 238

            servants, 102

Crispe, Nicholas (magnate), 245,
            248

Cromwell, Oliver, 12, 46, 48, 53-54,
            68, 105, 173, 325-326, 328

Crop, 57-58, 81, 97

            corn, 119, 225, 260, 292

            cycle, 99, 101

            damage, 228

            food, 226, 292

            Indian, 260, 287

market __ (commercial, cash), 94, 99, 101, 113, 119, 138, 225-226

            Md., 168

            productivity, 35, 138

            religious protection (Indian),
            294

            rotation, 120

            servant right, 112

            single, 229

            women, 270

See also, assembly, corn legislation, sharecropper, tobacco

Cross(es), crucifix, 182, 192, 294

(Indian)

            holy, 254

            ideology (doctrine), 137, 252-
            254, 305

            slave brand, 118

Crouch, Ralph (migrant), 186, 308

Crow, Stephen (historian), 150,
            158, 161, 172, 233

Crown, 7, 48-49, 52, 54-55, 60-61,

72, 80, 91, 147, 151-152, 154-157, 162-164, 166-170, 172-173, 175-176, 178-180, 204, 240, 304, 390

            benefit from primogeniture, 272

            charter, 148

            corporation licensing, 246
            (abuse)

            defeat at Naseby, 240-241

            dispensing power, 203

            drama license, 194

            English __'s relation with
            papacy, 304

            executive courts, 149

            Indian independence, 291

            keeper of __'s rolls, 310

            market interest, 221

            Md. Catholic beliefs, 156-160

            Md. opposition, 255, 257, 301

            Md. policies, 144

            monopolies, 247

            patronage, 303

            Portuguese licensing of slave
            dealing, 118

            prerogative, 246

            propaganda, 74

            Spanish, 208, 294

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 409]

            trade policy, 229, 241

            war against, 197

            See also, authority, Charles I, Charles II, charter, commission,

king, monopoly, obedience, taxation

Cult, 30

            activity, 17

Cultural baggage, 120

            tobacco, 120

Curate, 27, 74

Cure (medical), beliefs, 174

Curing tobacco, 98-100

Currants, monopoly, 245

Custom(ary) (tax), 79, 108, 229-230

            crown, 152

            Dutch, 154-155, 242

            farm (tobacco), 217, 230

            farmer, 150, 164-165

            free, 149

            house, 159, 230 (Ireland), 240
            (Md.)

            officials, 151

            See also, import duty, tax

Custom(s)(ary), benefits, 263

            Catholic faith, 183, 304

            children's rights, 264

            division of labor, 260, 277

            family __, 267

            landholding, 273

            of common land, 289

            of the country (dues, rights of
            labor), 97, 112, 263-
            264

            trade jargon (language), 293

women's __, 258, 260-261, 263-264, 278

Cycl(e)(ical), agrarian feast-day,
            183

            trade pattern, 222

 

Dairy(s)(ing), 33, 277 (women)

            dairymaid, 31

Daly, (Daley) Audrey (migrant),
            260

Damnation, in next life, 87, 175,
            254

Dancing, devotion, 38

            Indian, 292

            Morris, 183

Darnall, Henry (attorney general),
            303

            John (judge), 303

Daughter(s), dowry for convent,
            272

            gentry marriage to laborers, 124

            Indian king's, 299

            inheritance rights, 273

            marriage for real estate, 192

            primogeniture, 272

Davenant, William (dramatist), 12,
            39, 50, 174-176, 178-179, 276

Dealer, grain, 80

Deane, Forest of, 245

            map, 141

Dea(th)(d), 122, 191, 204, 250, 254,
            267

            goal, 187, 304-305

            infant, 271

            Indian belief, 294

            masses, 207

            Md., 223, 302

            penalty, 110-111, 172, 238 (fee)

            Queen Anne's __, 303

Debate, Md. assembly, 197, 236

            women, 262

Debauch(ed), 117

Debt(or)(s), 52, 57, 103, 139, 166

            church court, 209

            collection, 121, 239 (blacksmith
            priority)

            contract, 121

            in Md., 97, 121, 159, 226
            (default), 300

            laws, 16

            Portuguese-Brazilian, 172

            resistance to imprisonment, 107

            women's rights, 265-266

            See also, creditor

Decent, market, 254

Decretals, false, see canon law

Deed, real property, 235, 267

(women), 272-273 (primogeniture)

Deer skin, 229, 279, 288, 296, 298

Defamation, women, 266-267

Default to creditors, 226

Defense, see army, military

Defiance, of governor, 240

Delaware, 102, 164, 226, 241
            (Dutch)

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 410]

            Indians, 279, 289, 293

            map, 220

            New Sweden, 290

Delegate(s), former servants, 111

            laboring people, 113

            qualifications, 109

            Md. assembly, 111

            Northampton Co. (Va.), 171

Demand-&-supply, see market

Democratic, 52, 145, 176

Demography, 17, 19, 314

            African, 279

            Catholics in England, 31-35

            Catholics in Md., 89-94, 302,
            307-319

            Indian, 279

            Md. women, 258-261

See also, census, population

Demons, Catholic slave

revolutionaries, 136

Demophilus, agrarian reformer,
            136

Denigrate, family, 272

            labor, 120

Deportation, 68

            from England, 195

            from Ireland, 93

            from Md., 162, 195

Depression, 160, 167, 190, 327

            Md., 222, 227-229, 326

            tobacco prices, 96, 101, 119-121

            See also, economic

Desk, 192

Desoto (de Soto), Domingo
            (theologian), 128, 250

Devil, Indians, 300

            Irish, 300

            origin of labor, 133

            women, 276

Devotion(s)(al), anti-labor, 191

            criticized, 140, 189, 191

            gentry, 177, 190, 192, 254

            Indian, 294

            Md., 184

            personal, 40, 190-192

            pictures, 294

            popular, 40

            rings, 294

            rosary, 294

See also, cross, dance, feast days, May-pole, mental prayer, pageants, parades, piety, pious prayer, rosary, sacrament, saints, scapular, singing, Spiritual Exercises,

Diamond, liturgical, 190

Diary, 139

Diet, 137, 253

            See also, food

Digby, John (ambassador), 217

            Kenelm (writer), 105, 245, 300

Diggers (communists), 107

Dignity, clerical, 189-190

            papal, 214

            priesthood and labor, 131

            proprietor, 151

Dinner, 250

Dioceses, Ireland, 203

Diogo I, King (Congo), 282

Diplomat(ic), 77

            relations between Congo &
            Europe, 281-282

Disabled (bodily), 82

Discipline, Platform of Church __,
            (Massachusetts), 199

            servants, 102

            stoic, 276

            whip (religious), 192

Discrimination, Jews and Africans

in religious orders, schools & church offices, 126

            women, 277

Disease(s), 90

            Indian, 290

            Md., 187

Dishonest(y), retail merchants,
            130-131

Disobedience(ent), as sin, 124

            of servants, 102-103, 268
            (women)

            See also, obedience

Distribution, T. Aquinas, 251
            (conservative economics)

            income, 249

            merit as basis, 131, 136

            of nutrition, education, housing,
            political benefits, 125

            of property, 116

            wealth, 249

Distributive justice, 106, 249

District militia, 168

Divin(e)(ity), 117

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 411]

            against family, 277

            class system as __ order, 136,
            188-189

            clergy's __ doctrine, 291

            crown, 246

            judgment & class system, 131-
            133

            landlords as types, 123

            nature, 128-129

            race, 173

            right, 212 (church property
            ownership), 246 (patents)

Division of labor, see labor

Divorce, Henry VIII, 193

Doctor, civil law, 272

Doctor (medical), 114, 325

            women, 114, 261

            See also, physician

Doctrine(s), 178

            agrarian reform, 128

            ahistorical __, 305

            antinomian, 105

            church __, 304

            classical economic, 244
            (slavery), 249-251 (monopoly)

            class system, 131-133

            commandments (ten), 27, 72

            Congo Catholic __, 281-283

            cosmological (Congo), 283

            destruction of natural order,
            132

            endurance (Seneca), 118

            equivocation, 71

            eschatology, 72

            family life, 265

            grace (universal), 72

            just price, 251-252

            landlord, 124-126, 137

            market, 252

            millenialism, 72

            missionary Indian, 293

            papal infallibility, 70-71

            papal temporal power, 70

            Protestant, 284

            purgatory, 207 (criticized)

            slavery abolition, 128

            special love of the wealthy, 124

            "testing ground" (life as), 253

            Thirty-Nine Articles, 198

            token almsgiving, 250-251

            work and wages, 86

See also, agrarian reform, antinomian, Aquinas, obedience, slave abolition

Dog(s) (hunting packs), breeding,
            138

Domestic, employment, 277
            (women)

            slavery, 117

Domingo de Soto, see Soto

Dominican order, 128

Dominion, 176,

            landlord, 133-134

            proprietor, 151

Donation, see alms

Douay, Fr. 311

            bible, 178

Dower(y), 267, 278

            convent, 272

            to subvert law, 16

Drama, 38, 175, 276-277

            Md., 183

            See also, W. Davenant, P.
            Massinger,

Dream, 90

Dress, 64

Drinking, 183 (feasting)

            glass, 93

Dropsy, 269

Druid, 133

Drum (music), 59

Drunk, Indians, 294

            working people, 180

Dublin, Ireland, 141 (map)

Duck, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Dues, see freedom

Duke(s), monopolization of
            wealth, 124

            of Alva (Hapsburg), 193

            of Florence, 194

Dunn, Richard (historian), 103,
            269

Dutch (United Provinces of the
            Free Netherlands), 77

            Amsterdam, 242

            Anglo-__ war, 165, 169, 171,
            173, 241, 273

            Brazil, 287

            custom tax, 154-155

            Delaware, 102, 164, 241

            merchants, 239

            New Amsterdam, 240

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 412]

            Republic, 130

            ship(ping), 164-165, 242

            tiles, 325

trade, 153, 164-165, 168-169, 171-172, 241-242 (Maryland), 292 (Va.)

            war for independence, 130

            West India Company, 172, 240

            See also, Delaware, Holland

Dut(y)(ies), citizen, 210

            clerical, 63

            import (custom, excise, port,
            tax), 83, 164, 152, 230

            militia, 268 (women)

            moral, 83, 174

            religious, 174

            taxes (women), 266

            to work, 83

            war, 174

            women, 277

Dynasty, Portuguese, 204

Dysentery, 269

 

Earl(s), 175, 230

            annual rental income, 121

            wealth monopolization, 124

Earnings, negative view, 130

            See also, wages

Earth, 174

            Christ's vicar on, 214 (pope)

            God's reign on __, 305

East India Company, 77-78

Easter, 32, 182, 329

Eastern shore, see Md.

Ecclesiastic(al)(s), 181

            aggression, 202

            immunity, 220, 214

            jurisdiction, 150, 206

            services refused to laboring
            people, 124

            wealth, 245

            See also, clergy, courts, law,
            mortmain

Ecclesiology, 181

Economic(s), 19, 43, 67, 74, 88, 117

            Africa, 285

            Aquinas, 249, 252

            Aristotle, 244

            class, 257 (unity), 300 (system)

            classical political __, 301

            clergy, 184, 195

            collective, 222, 249

            context of labor beliefs, 124

            depression, 160, 190, 222-223,
            228, 327

            division, race & gender, 257

            grievances, 55, 104, 274
            (younger sons & daughters)

            Indian, 280-281, 285

            insecurity, 215 (nuns)

            institutions used against
            tenantry, 123, 153

            justice, 124, 252

            king's independence, 151

            leveling, 119, 137, 165-166, 324

            liberals, 244

Md., 153, 222 (development),
223 (advancement), 235 (opportunity), 241 (royalist)

            Md. beliefs, 222, 224

            reality, 252

            regulation, 223-242, 255

            rights, 277 (women)

            security, 272

            slave, 112

            theory, 244, 249 (income
            distribution)

            women, 259, 261-263, 268, 271,
            278

            working people's, 181, 252

            Xenephon's, 244

See also, Adam Smith, alms, beliefs, commutative, distributive, Dutch custom, enclosure, justice, labor theory of value, leveling, market, Ronald Meek, merchants, monopoly, overthrow, rent, revolution, tithe

Eden, biblical, 277

Edinburgh, Eng., 326

Education, 21-22, 27, 29, 64

            clergy's, 274, 292

            English, 192

            Indian, 192

            in Md. farming, 98

            institution, 231 (landlord)

            Jesuit, 188, 263

            landlord uses against labor, 123

            military, 112

            monopolization, 125, 188

            on continent, 23, 189, 274

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 413]

            university, 29, 301

            women, 263

            See also, alms, finance,
            university

Egalitarian, see equal

Egg, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Eighteenth century, 120, 138, 244

Elect(ion)(ed), 146

            Indian leaders, 291

            officials, 303

Eliot, John (writer), 246, 284

Elite, 21, 60

Elizabeth, Queen, x, 36

Emancipation (nineteenth
            century), 269

Embezzle, 82

Empire, Hapsburg, 193

            Holy Roman, 172

            Portuguese, 204

            Powhatan, 289

            Spanish, 204

Employ(er)(ment), 113, 221

            by clergy, 203

            full 81, 83, 85

            women, 277

Enclos(er)(ure)(ing)

            landlords, 51, 57-61, 82

            resistance to, 51, 57-61, 107

Endowment, see alms

Endurance, as virtue, 118

Enem(y)(ies), Christ's, 254

            Indians, 284 (nobility), 291

            proprietor's 217

Engl(and)(ish), 102, 105, 109, 115,
            139, 149, 153, 155

            assemblies, 262

            Catholics, 3, 33, 35-88, 143, 152,
            162, 195, 202, 207, 221, 244, 301

            county studies, 9, 17-28, 34, 65-
            66

            court, 174

            demography of Catholics, 17,
            31-34, 64-66

            deportation to, 195

            Eastern, 181, 188

            __ Catholics in Spanish army,
            130

            Jesuits, 193, 214, 216, 219, 302

            labor market, 235

            liberties, 172, 211

            literacy, 148

            map, 88, 141-142

            merchants, 169

            migration, 184, 259
            (recruitment)

            Northern, 23, 62, 177, 188

            return to, 302

            schism, 193

            Southern, 181, 188

            studies of Catholics, 8-9, 31-34

            tobacco monopoly, 217

            trade, 163-165, 169, 242

            wage rates, 238

            Western, 23, 60, 177, 188

            women's rights, 268

See also, deportation, gentry, Lancashire, law, levelers, North Riding, politics, wages, Yorkshire

Engrav(er)(ing), 37, 324

Engrose, 79

            Md. regulation against, 237

Enserfdom, 133, 235

Enslavement, 112, 133, 300

            Md. assembly, 176

Entail, 243, 271-273

Enterprise, 160

            collective, 221

Entrepreneur(s), greedy, 105

Episcopa(cy)(l), 62, 73-74

            abolition, 75, 105, 176, 209, 326

            authority, 206

            controlled-courts, 200

            jurisdiction, 203 (Mexico)

            leech, 209

            reform, 188

            See also, courts

Equal(ity), 137

            African-Md. relations, 280

            gender, 261-265, 273, 275, 278

            Indian, 280

            Md. laboring people __ with
            landlords, 237

            natural, 131

            purpose for migration, 221

            racial, 280

            theological causes, 132

Equity, court, 150

Equivocation, 76

            doctrine, 71

Erasmus, (republican), 177

Eschatology, 72

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 414]

Establish(ed)(ment),

            episcopacy, 62, 75

            market relations, 254

            prices, 81

            system, 87, 249

            See also, Anglican, church,
            clergy, order, Roman

Esquire(s), 320

            rental income, 121

            wealth monopolization, 124

Estate(s), administration, 138, 202,
            206, 266, 312

            L. Calvert's, 262

            clergy's, 188

            country praised by classics, 131

            decedent's, 266-267

            governor's, 154

            Hapsburg waste, 193

            inventory, 95

            life, 138, 264 (women's)

            master's 269

            monastic, 243

            real __, 192 (Indian), 206

            women, 278

            See also, probate, property

Ethic, Catholic, 89

            English country house, 120

            London court, 120

            Protestant, 20, 89

Ethnic, see race

Europ(e)(ean)(s), 109-110

            division of labor, 260

            economy, 222, 326

            __-controlled government, 203

            __-Indian relations, 287-289,
            290-293, 296

            imports, 222

            laboring, 257, 268

            landlords, 245

            planting regulations, 225

            return to, 201

            tobacco, 230

            women, 260

Eve (biblical), 133, 277 (gentry
            view)

Eviction, 60

Evil, Indian nobility, 284

            labor, 117, 133

            tenant propensity, 131

Exchange, Bills of, 217

Excise, salt & meat, 54

            See also, tax

Excommunicate, 17, 27, 34, 67, 70,
            209, 254, 282

Md., 197, 200, 202, 204, 206, 210, 265 (marriage with Protestants)

            Md. legislators, 213-214

            See also, praemunire

Execution, king, 54, 80, 147, 273,
            327

            Md., 110-111

            T. Becket, 202

            T. Wentworth, 217

Executive, see crown

Executor(s), women, 262, 267

Exile, 69, 160, 206 (Bp. R. Smith),

208 (Spanish), 209 (New England & Holland)

Expedition, slave-buying to Africa,
            118

Experimentation, new exports, 101

Exploitation, children, 266

            indentured labor, 116

            liberation, 106

Export(s), grain, meat, wood, 101

            Irish, 217

            Md., 222, 227 (prohibitions)

            new, 101

            pelt, 236

            tobacco from Md., 101

Extortion, episcopacy, 209

Extradition, 266

Eyes, diseases, 269

 

Fabric, 296

Factio(n)(us), 190, 202, 217
            (Spanish), 224

Faculties (clerical), 68

Fair, 237

Faith, see Catholic, Christian

Fallow, fields, 99-101

Fall (biblical), authority for class
            system, 133

            reason for labor, 305

            See also, Adam

Fame, nobility, 175

Famine, 226

Famil(y)(ies), 299

            beliefs, 268-269, 271, 274-275,
            277-278

            Catholic, 184, 186, 301

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 415]

            customs, 267

            gentry, 189, 277 (ideal)

            law, 264-265

            Md., 215, 259-260, 301, 312

            non-noble, 246-247

            productive unit, 258, 278

            proprietor's __, 304

            role, 257, 277

            Roman, 132

            royal, 175-176

            size limitation, 269-270

Farm(ers)(ing), 23, 49, 57, 83, 91,
            104

            animals, 96-97, 162

            capitalist, 138

            classical gentleman, 131

            clergy's, 299

            cost, 96, 233

            criticized, 231

            custom, 159, 164-165, 217, 230
            (Ireland)

            dress, 64

            __ labor beliefs, 306

            Hapsburg taxation, 193-194

            income in Md., 95-96

            Indian, 279, 299

            implements, 138

            management, 118 (by Md.
            clergy), 119, 205

            Md., 241

            ownership, 302

            scientific, 138

            size in Md., 95-96, 100-101

            technology, 296

tobacco, xiii, 97-101, 119-121

            unlimited Roman landlords
            rights, 136

            yard, 65

            See also, husbandry

Fast(ing), 254

Fatalism, Aquinas, 250 (poverty)

            religious, 255

Father, 321

            holy, 183 (Ignatius Loyola)

            property succession, 272

            proprietor's, 246

Fausz, Frederick, 171, 283

Fealty, see oath

Fear, clergy __-mongering, 207

            See also, toleration

Feast day(s), 167, 329-330

            almsgiving, 250

            Indian, 292

            of laboring people, 37-38, 85-86,
            183 (agrarian cycle)

See also, All Souls, Assumption, Christmas, Easter, Ignatius Loyola, Ladyday, Lent, Martinmas, Michaelmas, St. John, Sts. Peter & Paul, Thanksgiving, Whitsun

Fee(s), 233

            baptism, 185

            burial, 185

            control of, 150

            court, 264

            estate administration, 202

            __tail, 273 (women)

            land, 170

            marriage, 185

            Md., 155, 238 (public services)

            medical, 114, 261, 308, 316-317,
            321, 324

            patent, 96, 229, 233

            proprietor, 234

            survey, 233

            See also, rent

Fen, draining, 83

Fenwick, Cuthbert (migrant), 203,
            261

Fence(s), 86

            Md., 101, 229

            See also, enclosure

Fertility, 183, 270 (slave)

Ferry (boat), 114, 261

Festival(s), 329-330

            Md., 182

            See also, feast day, holyday

Fetish, 252 (free market), 294
            (Indian), 316

Feudal(ism), 153

            bastard __, 122

            lord, 86, 137, 244

            Md. semi-__, 235

            tenure(s), 52

Field labor(er)(s), 90-91, 101, 113,
            224, 260, 286 (Indian)

            women, 266, 269, 277

Fieldworker (occupation), 34, 109,
            230-231, 259

Fife, 59

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 416]

Fifth Monarchy Men
            (communists), 107

Fight(ing), servants, 102

            Indian, 290

Figurative scripture interpretation,
            192 (criticized)

Financ(e)(ier), education, 189

            return, 292

            to crown, 246

Fine(s), 60

            crown, 326 (forest eyre)

            Md. court, 211

            on Catholics, 15, 218-219 (Md.)

Fireworks, 182

Fish(eries)(ing), 83, 306

            Africa, 389

            company, 246

            -monger, negative view, 130

            herring, 245

            Indian, 285, 288, 294

            Md., 112, 229

            men (occupation), 23, 36

            monopoly, 247

            Newfoundland, 247

            See also, lobster, salmon

Fitzherbert, S.J., Francis (priest),

186, 195-196, 208, 210, 308, 315-316

Flanders, 84, 193, 253

            English Catholic soldiers, 130

Flax, production, 83-84

            Md., 99, 100, 260

Fleet, 172

Fleet, Henry (migrant), 165, 242

Flock, see pastor

Floor, dirt, 115

Florence (Italy), 18

            economic monopoly, 194

Food, African clergy's, 282

            Caribbean, 268

            crops, 226, 292

            Indian, 289-290, 292

            Md., 292, 235 (main)

            regulation, 237

            servants' right to, 111, 263

            stuff, 237

            spouse's right, 264

            woman producers, 260

Foraging (food), 287

Foreign, Commission for __
            Plantations, 248

            crown __ policy, 247

            heir, 273

            hierarchy, 212 (Norman), 282

            merchants, 221, 237, 239-240,
            255

            opposition to Md. legislation,
            224

            religion (Indians), 280, 293

            trade 78

Forest, 60, 79

            __ eyre (tax), 326

of Dean, 59, 141 (map), 245

Forestall(ing), 237

Forge, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Forgery, George Calvert, 206

Fort Christiana, Delaware, 226

Fort(ification), Md., 159, 167, 180

(map), 237 (trade), 240 (royalist)

Foundry, x

Foundlings, 270

Fowl(ing) in Md., 112

            296 (Indian)

France (French), 10, 12, 17-18, 68-
            69, 78, 104-105, 285, 307, 321

            book, 148

            Canada, 204

            family limitation, 271

            Jesuit, 285, 294

            monarchy, 52

            monopoly, 194

            pastoral reform, 204

            pope (Avignon), 275

            revolutionary, 181, 204

            royal marriage, 217

            See also, Normans

Franchise, see vote

Franciscan, 66

Fraternity, Md. regulations, 212

Fraud, against Irish, 248

Free(dom), 76, 86, 112

            Aristotle, 139

            as oppression of weak, 252

            Barbarians, denied, 139

            Catholic(s), 96

            contract, 244

            dues, 97-98, 233, 263 (amount)

            export, 81

-men in Md., 92, 95-96, 109, 116, 145, 156, 196, 224, 234, 279, 308, 315-318, 320-322

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 417]

            -men, 189 (Roman), 279
            (African)

            -women, 116, 156, 264, 271

            from vice, 289 (Indians)

            goods, 82

            human __, 304

            ideal, 252

            labor(ers), 97, 104, 259

            land, 171, 273

            market, 221, 223, 229, 232, 235,
            243-244, 251-252

            Md. clergy's denied, 205

            Mexican __ population, 208

            of trade, 236-237

            servant, 96-98, 111, 119, 259,
            266

            spouse, 268

            tenant(s), 97

            will, 281

            See also, land, rent, trade

Freeholder, 20, 31, 36, 49, 109, 235
            (pride)

            in Md., 98, 109, 116, 196, 238
            (patent)

            St. Mary's, 211

Freight, 228-229

            See also, shipping

Friend(s), (Md.), 223, 302

Frizell, Susan (servant), 266

Frontier thesis (Turner), 18

Frostbite, 228

Fruit, forbidden, 277

            gathering, 260, 287, 294 (Indian)

            of labor, 93, 103-104

Funchal (Madeira), 203

Function(s), clerical, 198

Fund raising, royal, 246

Funeral, 59

            almsgiving, 250

            Indian, 292

            See also, burial

Furnace, 93

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Furniture maker, 37, 306

 

Gain, personal, 103, 223

            See also, interest

Gallican(ism), 70

Galway, 217

Games, 38

Gang, work (men & women), 259,
            269, 278

Garcia II (Congo king), 287
            (slaves), 282

Garden(ner), herbs, 100

            occupation, 33

            salad, 260 (women)

Gardiner, Elizabeth (migrant), 259

            Luke (migrant), 185, 211, 287,
            308, 321, 323

Gascoigne, Thomas (priest), 64

Gauls, authority for enslavement,
            133

Geese, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Gender, see sex

Genealogy, 37

General Court (Massachusetts),
            199

Gentleman, 62, 86, 138, 308

            annual rental income, 121

            beliefs about human body, 126,
            276

            farmers, 205 (clergy)

            Md., 108-109, 117, 119-120, 320-
            322

            in classics, 131

            leisure as ideal, 120-121, 128-
            130, 292

            Virginia, 292

            wealth monopolization, 124

Gentry, 11-12, 17-18, 27, 30-31, 33,

37, 40, 42-43, 46-47, 50, 54-57, 61-62, 64, 67, 69, 71-73, 76-77, 80, 82-83, 86, 91, 109, 115-116, 125, 180

            anti-labor classics, 130-131

            Aquinas, 128

            assault on labor, 124

            attack on, 231

            beliefs, 21-22, 105, 112, 122-141,
            243-255 (market)

            belief about horses, 124
            (riding), 138-139 (racing)

beliefs (religious), 189, 304-305, 390

            catechism, 177

            Catholic, 152, 175, 179, 219,
            222, 228

            Catholic __ oppose bishop, 204-
            205

            class, 216, 231

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 418]

            clergy's orientation, 188, 302

            clergy's roots, 188

            colonial, 188

            Congo, 286-287

            criticized, 139-140

            devotion(s), 177, 187, 191-192

            English, 89, 115, 117, 122-141,
            143, 271, 278, 301

            extra-marital relations, 295

            family beliefs, 258, 271-272,
            274-275, 277

            God and angels as __-warriors,
            128-130

            government subsidy, 137

            honor, 140

            ideal of contemplation & war,
            but not labor, 128-130, 140, 292

            ideal type, 179

            "important persons," 189

            improvers, 18, 35, 41-42, 85, 138

            independent, 173

            in Parliament, 82, 111

            lifestyle, 252

            literature, 178, 275, 277

            manor-house clergy, 4, 64, 139,
            302

            marriage to laboring people,
            124

            Mexican, 284

            Md., 115, 273

non-improvers (idle rich), 18, 20-21, 35, 118, 120, 122, 126, 130, 139-140, 243

            paragon, 139-140

            parliamentary, 42, 45, 169, 200

            political beliefs, 173-180, 286

            prayer books, 253

            Presbyterian, 11, 54, 200

            racial beliefs, 126-127, 140, 257,
            279, 286 (Congo)

            renown, 175

            rental income, 124-125, 243, 251

            robbers by land and sea, 139-
            140

            royalist, 166

            schools (education), 135-136,
            190, 231, 274

            sexist beliefs, 257

            taxation, 155

            wealth monopoly, 252

            women, 277-278, 258

See also, Aristotle, economics, justice, landlord, methodology, pamphlets, political, primogeniture, type

Gerard, Susan (migrant), 265

Thomas (migrant), 119, 163, 166, 171, 210-211, 213, 230-231, 261, 265, 308, 315, 321

German(y)(s), 18, 78

            church, 207

            communal system of land
            ownership, 136

            communes, 177

            enslavement, 133

Gestation, 270

Ghent, Flanders (Belgium), 208

Gibbons, Edward (Massachusetts
            resident), 160

Gift, Catholic gentry, 152

Gillow, Joseph (bibliographer),
            126

Glassmaker, 93

Glebe, legislation, 184

Glorif(y)(ication), of crown, 174-
            175

            of death, 187 (ideal)

            of idleness, 120, 126, 130

Glorious Revolution, 303

Glover (occupation), 59

God(s), 72, 85, 87

            as gentry warrior, 129-130

            as laborer, 36

            as making producers "lowly",
            130-133

            Congo, 283, 287

            creator of landlord system, 124-
            125, 272

gentry beliefs, 174-175, 246, 250, 272, 286-287, 390

__'s anointed, 246, 390

            __'s reign on earth, 305

            __son, 248 (C. Calvert)

            honor, 201

            Indian, 283-284, 293-294

            king as __ on earth, 246

            labor's view, 6-7

            landlords as __ elected
            stewards, 128

            law, 137, 190, 244

            master's, 208

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 419]

            Massachusetts as __'s republic,
            174-175

            -ordained class relations, 5, 86,
            132, 134, 286

            preference for working people,
            36-37

            providence for gentry, 123

            Roman__, 131

            source of gentry's unearned
            wealth, 123

will, 137, 190 (for clergy), 252 (suffering), 254 (wealth concentration)

Goddard, Ives (linguist), 293

Godly, collecting rent, 134

            contemplation, 134

Gold, Coast, 203

            liturgical accessories, 190, 192,
            292

            papal, 210

            racing cup, 139

            Spain's use, 130

            trading monopoly, 245

Goldsmith, Samuel (Md.
            ambassador), 242

Gonzaga, S.J., Aloysius (saint),
            187, 192, 276

Good(s), 87, 158-159

            common, 76

            community of, 223

            conscience, 201

            consumer, 252

            court attachment, 234

            household theft by Md. levelers,
            107, 122, 162

            imported, 222, 237

            Indian, 290-291, 297-299

            luxury (Congo), 287

            monopoly, 245

            neighbor, 223

            public, 80, 236-237

            rationing, 252

            regulations, 237

            sequestration, 209

            shipping, 240

            theology of exchange, 251

            See also, trade

Goose, Martin's, 38

Gordon, Barry (writer), 249, 251

Goring, George (merchant), 164,
            217-218

Gorton, Samuel (royalist), 160

Gospel, 305

Government, 52, 67, 69, 179

            Africa, 282

            arbitrary, 158, 218, 246

            beliefs, 176, 272 (gentry)

            health care, 261

            hereditary, 272

            Indian, 291

            lawsuits against, 114, 261

            leveler, 149

            local, 145, 205, 225

            Md. __, 303

            Md. self__, 144-146, 149, 156,
            202

            New Mexico, 220

            nutritional measures, 228

            oaths to, 214

            official, 238

            overthrow, 213 (papal doctrine)

            parish, 81, 145, 147

            parliamentary (London), 214

            revenue, 79

            Spanish, 217 (colonial), 203

            wide participation, 196

            women, 109, 262

See also, assembly, canon law, church, committee, county, independence, law, market, parish, politics, regulation, relief, subsidization, vote

Governor, Dutch, 287 (Brazil)

__'s council, 302

Md., 104, 143-144, 146, 148-149, 151, 153-157, 159-163, 165, 167-168, 170-171, 182, 185, 192, 195, 240 (royalist), 262, 276, 327-328

            Md. __ opposition to regulation,
            229-230, 234, 239

            Norman & French, 202

            overthrow, 241

            royal, 169-170

            Va., 159, 169-170, 195, 239

Grace, Act of, 203

            universal, 4, 72

Graham, S.J., Michael (historian),
            184, 222-223, 258

Grain, 32, 58, 100-101

            licensed dealer, 80

            mill, 121

            price, 81

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 420]

            regulations, 227, 237

            shortage, 168, 227

            theft by Md. levelers, 107. 122

Grand, Remonstrance, 58, 84, 151,
            154, 209

            jury, 80

Grass, production, 83

Great Lakes, 288 (Indian trade),
            290

Gree(ce)(k), criticized, 139

            gentry-favored classics, 126-127,
            130-131, 138, 249

            republic, 177

Greed, among entrepreneurs, 105

Greene, Thomas (governor), 154,

166, 180 (map), 203, 261, 308, 327

Gregory the Great (Pope Gregory
            I), 244, 250

            class system doctrine, 189

            feast, 329

            landlord-slaveholder, 132

            negative doctrine on labor, 127,
            130-133

            property rights, 137

Gregory VIII (pope, Hildebrand)

            labor based on sin, 133

Grief, slave, 270

Guatemala, 279, 281, 284

Guild, 39-40, 330

            foundry, x

            Md., 212

Guilt, 208 (servant), 267
            (defamation)

Guinea, Afr., 118, 203

            company, 245

Gun(s), 59, 77, 167

            cannon, 167, 183

            -maker, 110

            __-smith, 307, 319

            shoot, 183

            See also, ammunition, arms

Gurevich, Aron (historian), 106,
            254

 

Haberdasher, 41

            hall, 48

Haigh, Christopher, 22-28, 40, 62,
            189

Hail Mary, 293

            See also, prayer

Hammersmith (occupation), 37, 40

Hammond, John (writer), 277

Hand(s), caloused, 108

            hired, 91, 130

            mutilation, 238

            work, 140

Hanging, see capital punishment,
            execution

Hanover-whigs, 302

Hanse Towns (Germany), free
            trade, 172

Hapsburg(s), empire, 193

            pope, 275

            overthrow, 204

            rule through Rome, 202

            tax, 194

            tyranny, 193

Hardware, cost in Md., 96

Harmony, 305

Harpies, episcopal, 209

Harrow, 310

            See also, plough

Harsh, see masters

Harvest, 37

            engross, 237

            Indian, 292

            rituals, 183

            tobacco, 96, 98-100

            women, 260

Harvey, John (governor of Va.),
            248

            Nicholas (migrant), 163

Hatchet, see ax

Hat(s)(ter), bishop's, 390

            felt, 299

            regulations, 239

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Hatton, Elinor (migrant), 210

            Thomas (Md. secretary), 169-
            170

Hawk, 296

Hawkins, Thomas (writer), 140,
            191

Hawley, Jerome (migrant), 206,
            286, 289, 294

Headright(s), to land for migrants,
            95, 119, 233, 263 (women)

Headstrong servants, 226

Health, 294

Heaven(ly), clergy view, 117, 128-
            129, 305

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 421]

            gentry view, 174

            __ contempt for world, 254

            ideal (Platonic love), 276

            Indians, 291, 294-295

            landlord as type of __ lord, 123

            life, 252 (earned)

            nobility as __ people, 123

Hebrew, 295

Heir (hereditary), 273-274

Hell-mongering, clergy, 207

            Indian, 294-295

            pains of, 253

Hemp, 84

Henretta, James (historian), 258,
            278

Henrietta Maria (queen consort of
            Charles I), 12, 175, 276, 326

            marriage, 217

Henry VIII (king), 193, 212

Herb, garden, 100, 260, 294

Heresy, 10, 191

Hero(es)(ic)(ine), 276 gentry, 189

            gentry __ laziness, 130

            Jesuit, 186, 190

            labor, 76

            landlord, 62

Herring, see fish

Hickory, 287

Hierarchy, basis in labor's sin, 131-
            132

            Catholic resistance, 204, 208

            church, 1, 2, 9, 40, 105, 203, 304

            divine right property rights, 212

            English church courts, 209

            foreign (Norman), 212, 274

            Mexican, 284

            producers at bottom, 130, 134

            property accumulation, 245, 249

            Roman, 213

            See also, bishops

Hildebrand, see Gregory VII

Hill, Christopher, 5, 24, 42, 71, 87,
            111, 231

Hill, Edward (governor), 168, 327

Hills, tobacco, 98-99, 108, 113

Hilton, William (migrant), 235

Hinduism, 285

Hiram (artisan), 37

Hire(r)(d), 86, 97

            contract beliefs, 110

            -hand, 91, 130

Hirst, Derek (historian), 179

Histor(y)(ical)(ians)(iography), 18,
            120, 181, 257, 304

            agrarian __, 305

            causation, 174

            __ Jesus, 305

            intellectual, 301

            Md. Catholic __ beliefs, 305

            "siege" history, 14

Hoard(ing), 80, 227-228

Hoe(ing), 99, 108, 113, 277, 296

            freedom dues, 98

            women, 263

Hogs, see pig

Hogshead (tobacco), 96, 100, 228

Holden, Henry (priest), 72

            in Md., 195, 207

Holiday(s), in Md., 111, 329-220

Holland, 78, 82, 84, 328

            exile, 209

            Md. trade, 171

            republic, 177

            See also, Dutch, republic

Holy(ness) 70

            day(s), 85-86, 110, 182, 329-330

            Indian, 284

            orders, 128

            poverty, 132

            rites, workers forbidden, 131

            See, 26,

            See also, Rome, Papacy

Holy Spirit, 4, 27

            liberty, 6

Honor(able), 40

            birth, 109, 126

            gentry, 140, 177

            God's, 201

            Ignatius Loyola, 183

            labor, 37

            Md., 108-109, 112-113

            proprietor, 262

            soldiering career, 130

            See also, labor

Hope, 187, 254

Horace (classic), 131

Horizontal (leveling) politics, 105

Horse(s), breeding race, war &
            show, 138-139

            gentry belief, 126

            -shoeing tax, 194

            Md. imports, 229

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 422]

            Md. laws, 229

            training, 139

Hospital, 85

Hotwater, see alcohol

Hours of labor, 86

Hous(e)(ing), 21, 325

            Barbados servant __, 268

            Camden, 158

            clergy's, 185, 190

            collective construction, 223

            cost in Md., 96, 259

            custom, 159, 230

            English country, 120, 138, 189

illustration, 330

            Indian, 285-286, 293, 296-297

            Md. assembly, 234

            monopolization, 125, 245, 259

            Quito, 203

            search, 228

            tobacco curing __, 100

            women, 260-261

            See also, cottage

House of Burgesses (Va.), 171

House of Commons, 79, 84, 148

            Catholics in, 125

            Irish __, 230

            Md., 148

House of Lords, 158, 169, 176, 183

Household(er), 167, 227

Housewife (occupation), 42, 277

Howard, Thomas (general), 217

Hughes, S.J., Thomas (historian),
            177, 183, 196, 199-201, 203, 215

Hull, Eng., 78, 141 (map)

Human(ity), 85, 177, 304
            (freedom)

            See also, law, will

Humility, prayers, 253

            virtue, 137, 179, 252-254

Hungar, 305

Hunting, dog packs, 138

            Indians, 285, 288 (communal)

            Md., 112, 223 (collective)

Husband, 259, 264, 267, 271, 277

Husbandry(man) (occupation), 21,

31, 35, 37, 59, 87, 120, 139, 194, 259

            Africa, 287

            at bottom of hierarchy, 134

            contract beliefs, 110

            covenants, 57

            glorified, 183

            Indian, 279, 288, 293

            women, 278

            See also, corn, farm, improver,
            production, tobacco

Hymn(s), 27, 253

            See also, singing

Hypocrisy, 77

 

Ideal(s) (gentry), 277 (family)

            devotional, 191-192, 216

            heavenly (platonic love), 276

            mission, 187, 284

            platonic, 129

            stability, 177

            women, 277

            See also, lazy, virginity

Ideal type, see methodology, type

Idea(s), Jesuit, 196

            material factor in social
            advance, 108

Ideology, 3, 120, 298

            See also, anti-Catholicism, anti-
            Royalism

Idle(ness), ideal, 277

            landlords, 21, 35, 86, 106, 126,
            139

            rich, 18, 89, 91, 118, 120-121,
            126, 130, 134

            vice, 103

            working people, 117

Idolatry, court cases, 207

Ignatius Loyola (Jesuit founder),
            65, 276

            feast, 167, 183, 329

            spirituality, 253, 304-305

Illegal(ity), 60

            crown taxes, 151

            illegitimate children, 265, 271

Illitera(te)(cy), 26, 110, 115, 189

            See also, literacy

Illumination, spirit, 6

Immigrant, see migrant

Imitation of Christ (Thomas a
            Kempis), 191, 305

Immunity (political), 149

            clergy, 212, 214, 220

Impeachment, parliamentary, 217

Imperialism, Roman, 189

            Spanish, 193

Import(s) duty, 83, 151

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 423]

            gentry view, 131

            Irish, 217, 230
            Md., 222, 229

            See also, custom, duty, tax

Impost, see tax

Income (economic), African
            clergy, 282

            civil lawyers, 272

            clergy, 274

            crown, 152

            distribution, 249 (theory)

            English magnate's, 217, 230

            incense, 292

            Md. clergy, 185

            Md. farming, 95-97, 100, 121

            peerage, 124

            rent in England, 119-121, 124-
            125

            See also, tithe

Indenture(d)(s) (servitude) 90-91,

94, 96-98, 101-102, 104, 106-109, 113-114, 116, 118, 121-122, 165-166, 240, 316-317, 321

            clergy's, 205

            cost, 185

            cost to maintain, 119, 226-227

            economic beliefs, 224

            exploitation, 116

            Indians, 293

            rights, 109-111, 233

            terms, 97-98, 110

            women, 259-260, 263, 268, 271

            See also, squatters, levelers

Independence (political), 1, 42, 44,
            48, 51-53, 55-57, 61, 69, 87, 143

            crown, 151

            Dutch war of __ from Spain,
            130

            Md. Catholics, 145-149

(legislative), 149-151 (judicial), 151-155 (taxation), 156-159 (crown), 179-180, 221-243 (market), 255

            See also, politics

Independent(s), 12, 15, 46, 54, 68,
            73-75, 143, 273

            English Catholic, 200

            farm operators, 95, 97

            Indian, 290-291

            in Parliament, 11, 13, 15, 328

            Massachusetts, 160, 273

Md., 195, 197 (legal code), 200, 214 (religious beliefs), 219, 242 (taxation)

            Md. assembly, 242

            party, 47

            theater, 277

            women, 262

India, 187, 284

            West __ Co., 240 (complaints)

Indian(s), 110, 167

            Abnaki, 279

            Accomac, 256, 279

            Appomatux, 291

beliefs, 281, 285 (labor), 290-292 (politics), 293-294 (religion), 295-297 (market)

            arms, 290

            boatmaking, 300

            Catholics, 279-280

            Chickahominies, 289

            class stratification, 284, 295

            cosmology, 284

            culture, 282

            Delaware, 279

            division of labor, 285-286, 288

            enslavement, 112

            family limitation, 270

            fishing, 288

            Guatemalan, 280

            Huron, 285, 290, 298

            independence, 291

            interracial marriage, 264

            Iroquois, 288, 290

            Iroquois (language), 279, 289

            laboring people, 257, 284

            land acquisition, 201-202, 212,
            288 (usufruct), 299

            language, 298

            leaders (government), 192, 286,
            288-289, 291, 294

            Loup, 279

            Machodocs, 291, 300

            Mahican, 279

            map, 256

            Marianas, 270

            Md., 283

            Mexico, 284

            mission work, 4, 181, 186-187,
            190, 192, 205, 283

            Mohegan, 279

            Monacans, 289

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 424]

            murder, 109

            Nahuatl, 184

            Narragansett, 160, 279

            Natotchtanks, 290

            New England, 292

            nobility, 284

            obedience, 291

            Onawmanients, 291

            Patawomecks, 300

            pelts, 236

            pipes (tobacco), 328

            Pocoughtaonacks, 289

            Portobaccos, 298

            prohibition on enslavement, 112

            Rappahannocks, 298

            relations with Europeans, 279,
            300

            theological basis for
            enslavement, 133

            trade(r)(s), 121, 201, 236, 287,
            320

            villages, 102 (as refuge), 287,
            290 (leveled), 292

            Virginia, 283

            women, 260, 268

            Yeocomico, 279, 291, 299

See also, Algonquian, assimilation, Conoy, house, king, M. Kittamaquand, Patuxent, Piscataway, Powhatan, Susquehannock

Indict(ment), 158, 240

Indies, West, 92-93

Indigent(s), 250

            See also, poor

Individual(istic), justice, 249, 251

            relations, 249

            sin, 305

Industr(y)(ious)(ial), craftsmen,
            106

            home, 260

            revolution, 138

            See also, pelt, tobacco

Inequality, see equality

Infallibility, papal doctrine, 70-71

Infamy, trading monopoly, 246

Infanticide, see murder

Infertile, 269 (women)

Ingle, Richard (ship captain), 104,

157-163, 165, 167, 169, 179, 326-327

            arrested, 240

            attack, 241

Inheritance, 176

            land, 105, 123

            political privilege, 109, 272

            titles, 123

Innkeeper (occupation), 33

            in Md., 114, 309, 319

Innocent X (pope), 18

Inns of Court, 125, 311, 320

            See also, court

Inquisition, Roman, 209

Insane (occupation), 33

Insecurity, economic, 215

Inspection system, see tobacco
            regulations

Intellectual, history, 301

            laboring people as not, 134

            See also, beliefs

Interdependent, commonwealth
            philosophy, 77

Interest(s), class, 246

            classical gentry, 133

            clergy's, 186

            collective, 249

            colonial (Africa), 281

            gentry's, 254

            hierarchy's, 249

            Indian, 279, 299

            Indian market __, 295-296

            Indian political __, 289, 291

            laboring people, 90, 180-181

            landlord, 232

            leveler, 184

            master's, 268, 271

            material, 174, 250

Md. Catholic, 143, 149-150, 173, 179-180, 197-198, 203-204, 211, 221-242, 255 (market), 301, 304-305

            private, 87, 111, 247

            proprietor, 151, 298

            See also, gain

International, see law, market

Interracial marriage, 264

Inventory, estate, 95, 312

Invest(ment)(or), 79

            in Md., 96, 116, 119, 121, 154,
            222 (decline)

Ireland (Irish), 12-14, 17, 23, 56,
            69, 173, 203

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 425]

            army, 217

            County Longford, 247

            County Wexford, 247-248

            crown revenue, 152

            deportation and
            migra(nt)(s)(tion), 93

            Dutch allies, 169

            fraud against, 248

            free, 98

            hatred, 300

            imports, 217, 230

            in Md., 102, 114

            landholdings in, 247 (G.
            Calvert)

            map, 141

            market, 225

            Md. trade relations, 242

            nutritional needs, 225

            parliament, 177, 326

            peerage, 247

            Port of Kinsale, 230

            tax, 155, 242

            tobacco monopoly, 217, 230
            (policy), 246

            wages in, 97

            war, 173

            women, 260, 268

            See also, T. Wentworth

Iron, farm implements, 138

            law of wages, 244

            mill, 59, 79

            monger, 223

            plow, 120

            smith, 306

            technology (Indian), 287, 293,
            297

            worker, 37, 40

Irresponsibility, servants, 102

Isidore of Seville (theologian),

            on labor, 133

Israel, 305

Ital(y)(ians), 77

            communes, 177

            gentry, 276

            glassmakers in Va., 93

            republic, 177

            taxation, 194

Itinerant (clergy), 62, 65

Ivory Coast, Afr., 203

 

Jabel (father of agricultural
            husbandry), 37

Jacobite, see Stewarts

Jail(ed), 247

            break, 157

            See also, prison

Jailbird(s), laboring people, 117

Jamaica, 142 (map), 278

James I, (king), 218

James II (king), 303

Jansen(ism), 70

Japan, 77, 187, 284

Jarboe, John (migrant), 161, 261,
            309, 315, 321, 325

Jest, 267 (woman)

Jesuit(s), 9, 26, 54, 61, 64-65, 68-69,
            71, 92

            Africa, 283

            archetype, 134

            conservative social philosophy,
            189, 305

            constitution, 188-189, 219

            contempt for labor in __
            schools, 134

            dislike of, 192-193, 195-196, 218

            finances, 185, 299 (land)

            French, 285, 294, 298

Md., 180 (map), 186-188, 200, 204, 302, 307-309, 317, 319

            operational mode, 188

            opposition to English Catholic
            episcopacy, 204, 206, 216

            preference for rich, 189

            slaveowners, 117

            Spanish-Hapsburgs, 193-194

            testing ground spirituality, 252-
            254, 305

See also, R. Bellarmine, R. Blount, J. Brébeuf, J. Brooke, college, T. Copley, R. Corby, M. Cordoso, clergy, F. Fitzherbert, A. Gonzaga, heroes, E. Knott, P. LeJeune, Ignatius Loyola, P. Manners, missions, R. de Nobili, H. More, J. Nadel, R. Persons, F. Pulton, M. Ricci, R. Rigby, saints, T. Sanchez, J. Segundo, N. Southwell, R. Southwell, L. Starkey, superior, A. White, F. Xavier

Jesus, 253, 304-305 (historical),

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 426]

390 (king & bishop)

Jew(s), discrimination against in

religious orders, schools, church offices, 126

Jewelry, liturgical, 190

Jobs (employment), 81-82, 221

Jockey(s), 139

John of Salisbury (theologian)

            on labor, 133

Joiner (occupation), 61

Jones, Eric, (historian), 305-306

Jones, Inigo, 61, 177, 322

Jones, Leander, 65

Jorden, David (historian), 107

Journeyman, 54

Judge(s), control of, 149-151

            Md., 163

            Md. Catholic, 207, 211, 213, 303

Judgment, class system a divine __,
            131-133

            court __, 151, 163

            day (final), 72

            labor's political __, 181

Judicia(l)(ry), 4, 111, 113

            act, 150

            children, 264

            episcopal participation, 183

            Md. Catholic beliefs, 149-151,
            156, 179, 211, 301

            records, 89, 91, 95, 108, 113, 141

Jurisdiction, civil,
            272 (probate)

            common law, 264
            (marriage), 272 (inheritance)

ecclesiastical courts, 264 (marriage)

            episcopal, 176, 202-203, 205,
            282 (Africa)

            equity court, 150

            maritime court, 150

            proprietor's prerogative, 234

            provincial court, 150, 208

            Roman, 198, 206

            royal, 147

            spiritual, 69

            See also, praemunire

Jurist, Catholic, 205

Jur(y)(or)(ies), all-women, 267

            artisan and tenant, 109

            clergy exemption, 183, 210

            grand 80

            independence, 240

            Md. Catholic, 144, 157

            membership qualifications in
            Md., 109, 150

            right of women to trial by, 109-
            110, 266

            twenty-four persons, 111

Just price, 106, 251-252

            omission of labor as element,
            252

Just society, 304

Justice(s) of the peace, 79, 231

            Catholic, 125

            Md., 144

Justice, class system as God's __,
            131-133

            commutative (individualistic),
            106, 249, 251-252

            court's criticized, 235

            distributive (collective), 106,
            249

            economic __ for labor, 124

            gentry, 178

            God's __ for merit, 131-133

            proprietor, 262

Katherine of Aragon (English
            queen), 193

Kempis, Thomas a (writer), 305

            See also, Imitation of Christ

Kent Island, Md., 220 (map), 287

Kidnap, 290 (Indians), 294

Kikongo language, 281

Killing, 305

            commandment against, 106

            See also, murder

King, 36, 42-43, 45-46, 59, 71, 76,
            79, 157, 162

            absolute, 175

            Africa, 281-282, 284, 287

            blood, 140

            commission, 159

            divine race, 173

            execution of, 80

            God on earth, 246

            Indian, 286, 291, 295, 299

            Jesus, 390

            __'s will as law, 175

            nobility as __'s family, 175

            Patuxent, 192

            power from Adam, 272

            Piscataway, 192

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 427]

            rebellion against, 175-176, 178

            rule without parliament, 246

            Spanish, 193-194

            superior to Parliament, 176

            war making, 159

            See also, Charles I & II, crown,
            James I & II, monarchy, war

Kingdom, 209

of England, 142 (map), 212

            of God on earth, 106

            See also, Congo

Kinsale, Ireland, 230

Kittamaquand, Mary (Brent,
            Indian), 264, 294, 299, 312, 318

Kneal, 254

Knife(ives), 296 (Indian)

Knight, 322

            annual rental income, 121

            wealth, monopolization, 124

            __-warrior ideal, 130

Knott, S.J., Edward (priest), 214,
            219

Krugler, John (historian), 89, 115,
            143-144, 192, 199, 218, 247

 

Labor, 32, 35, 41, 44, 62, 86, 94, 98-
            99

            added to just price doctrine, 252

            African beliefs, 285, 287

            assaulted by gentry, 124

            Aquinas, 252

            base, 112

Catholic beliefs, 35-42, 86-87, 89-91, 94-141, 173, 243-244, 252, 261 (women), 301, 304-305

            classical authority for
            monopoly, 244

            congregational, 184

            contempt for, 118, 134, 140, 188,
            191, 287

            creator of God's rule on earth,
            106

            defended, 139

            denigrate, 120

            dignity of priesthood, 131

            division of __, 285-286, 288

            ecclesiastical monopoly, 245

equivalent value, 97 (in tobacco), 97 (in years), 97 (cattle), 122 (cattle)

            evil, 117

            faithful, 120

            field __, 90, 100, 244, 260
            (women), 316

            free market, 244

            freedom from Sunday and
            Saturday afternoon, 111

            fruit of, 93

            gang, 99, 278

            gender division, 100, 277

            hard, 113

            holidays, 330

            honor, 37, 40, 108-109, 112-113

            honor based on, 109

            Indian beliefs, 285-286, 288, 292

            in Md., 101

            -intensive crop, 98

            law, 139

            leveling, 236, 254

            manual, 89, 91, 108, 113-114,
            129-131, 140-141

            market, 330

            Md. landlord beliefs, 114-122

            Md. legislation (regulations),
            221-222, 233, 235-236, 255

            monopoly, 243-244

            morality based on, 187

            negative view of classical
            authorities, 130-132, 137

            negative view of clergy, 285, 305
            (K. Rahner)

negative view of non-improving gentry, 21, 91, 108, 116-117, 122-141, 173, 244, 277 (women), 286-287 (African nobility), 292 (Va.)

negative views of servants, 102-103

positive views of Catholic workers, 89-90, 94-114, 123, 305-306

positive views of Md. clergy, 118

positive views of Md. landlords, 118, 120

            pride, 21, 39, 113

productive, 129 punishment for and resulting from sin, the Fall, the devil, evil, 130-133

            racial beliefs based on __, 126-
            127, 140

            shameful, 112-113

            slave, 286

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 428]

            theft of, 139-140

theory of economic value, 1, 3, 4, 17-20, 87, 101-102, 104-107, 125, 140, 173, 243, 249, 254, 269, 273, 285, 301

            Va., 292

            vile, 124, 134

            wage, 125, 243, 287

            way of life, 89-90, 141

            women's, 258-261, 269, 277-278,
            286-287

            See also, argument, A. Smith,
            law, pride, slaves, wages, work

Laborer(s), 103-104, 110

            assembly membership, 224

            Catholic __'s beliefs, 151, 243

            denied ecclesiastical services,
            124

economic institutions, law, education, theology used against, 123

            franchise rights, 149

            God as, 36

            ideas, 104

            interests, 73

            masters of own labor, 235

            Md. field, 224

            viewed negatively, 132

            wages, 97, 116, 125, 287, 293
            (Indian)

            wealth creator, 106, 123, 249

Laboring people, 4, 7, 11-12, 18-19,

21, 23, 31, 34, 36-37, 42-43, 49, 52-54, 56, 61-62, 64-65, 68, 72, 76-77, 79-80, 83, 85-86, 104-105, 130, 143, 188, 303

            African, 269, 279, 285

            anarchism, 232

            Anglo-Dutch War, 173

            assembly membership, 231-232

            as priests and nuns, 274

            capital, 233, 300

            Catholic, 184, 188, 224, 301, 305

            church courts, 208

            classical authority for
            subsistence, 244

            congregations, 181, 216, 220

            contempt for taught in schools,
            134

            conversation, 137, 253

            European-Indian relations, 283

fooled, 137, 257 (race & gender), 284 (scripture translation)

            Hapsburgs, 193, 284

            holidays, 330

            Indian, 279, 285, 294

            Jesuit beliefs, 189-190, 252-253

            labor beliefs, 94-114, 252

            land beliefs, 289

            landlord beliefs about, 254, 300

            levelers, 254

            lust, 178

            market beliefs, 221-243

            marriage laws, 215

            Md., 96, 113-114, 115-117, 224,
            252, 279, 301

            Md. rights, 108-109

            migration, reasons, 221

            morality, 294

            not honorable, 134

            obedience, 178, 208, 298

            official Catholicism, 306

            privileges, 109

            relation with Md. clergy, 188

            resistance to landlords, 235, 237

            rights, 176

            tax resistance, 155

            sinful, 130-133

            spirituality, 249

            unity (racial & gender), 257, 285

            wages, 188, 221

            weak mind, 178

            wealth production, 249, 254

            women, 269-270

            See also, anti-Norman, levelers,
            politics, work

Ladyday, 38

Laity, 74, 206

            hostility to clergy, 202

Lambarde, Wm. (political writer),
            148

Lame (occupation), 33

Lancashire, Eng., 39, 44, 46, 57, 61-

65, 82, 130, 141 (map), 181, 228, 326

Land, acquisition by laboring
            people, 235-236, 263

            acquisition by marriage, 121

            acquisition from Indians, 201-
            202, 212, 283 (Va.), 299

            chapel, 213 (donated)

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 429]

            clergy's, 185, 201-202, 212

            commons, 289

            descent, 273

            dispute with proprietor, 151

            ecclesiastical monopoly, 245

            fees, 170, 229, 234-235

            free, 6, 93, 171

            German communal ownership,
            136

            Indian ownership beliefs, 288-
            289

            inheritance, 105, 123, 206

            Irish, 246

            laws, 300

            leveling, 236

            liability, 119-120

            market value, 95, 235

            Md. legislation, 221, 233, 235-
            237, 255

            monastic, 273

monopolization, 118-119, 136, 188, 212, 235, 243-244, 273, 298-299

            ownership in Eng., 125, 274
            (concentrated)

            ownership in Md., 98, 108, 118-
            119, 235

            ownership in Va., 156

            probate, 272

            proprietor's Delaware land, 241

            recorded deeds, 235

            registration, 229

            servants' rights to, 111, 263

            speculation, 116, 212, 299-300

            squatters on in Md., 107, 236

            taxation, 119-120, 156

            unimproved, 93

            See also, agrarian, headrights,
            reform, tax, usufruct

Landholders, 116

Landless, 83

            in Md., 109, 196, 301

Landlord(s), 11, 19, 23, 31-33, 40-
            41, 52, 57-58, 60, 66, 103, 105

            aggression against Indians, 300

            background of classical
            authorities, 127

            classical authority for
            monopoly, 136, 244

            clergy, 189, 245

            close-fisted, 235, 305

            criticized, 231, 235

            duties, 233

            elite, 21

            Glorious Revolution, 303

            God established system, 124-
            125

            God's elected stewards, 128

            improvers, 117, 120-121, 138

            lazy, 106

leveled, 140, 163, 324 (illustration)

            limitations on contract rights
            with labor, 109-111

            limitations on debt collection,
            239

            Md., 91, 94, 97-98, 104-106, 114-

116, 118-122, 140-141, 201, 221, 224, 226-227, 230-231, 233, 235-237, 239-240, 287, 299, 301-303, 324

            Md. clergy, 162

            monastic, 250-251

            not viewed by levelers as sacred,
            107, 122

            profit, 121

            resistance of __ to proprietor,
            240

            resistance of __ to regulation,
            226-227, 230, 232, 234

            resistance to, 235, 237, 258

            royalist, 43

            system, 273-274

            taxation, 155-156

            unlimited rights in Roman law,
            136

            use of law, education, theology
            (economic), 123

            Virginia, 212, 232

            See also, beliefs, gentry

Landlord beliefs, 137, 390

            ecclesiastical, 245 (poorest of
            poor)

            English, 122-141

family limitation, 270 (of tenants)

            government, 135

            labor, 114-122, 124, 138

            market, 226, 243-255

            Md., 114-122, 226, 301

            monarchy, 177

            providence, 125

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 430]

            sin, 131-133

surplus value, 125-126, 135, 269-270

Landowner(s), 50-51, 57

            clergy, 205

            in Md., 96, 98, 301

            primogeniture, 272

Language, 298, 293-294

            African, 281

            basis of enslavement, 127

            See also, Indian

Las Palmas (Canary Islands), 203

Latin (language), 27, 66, 128

Latin America, 225, 268-269

            slavery, 133

            See also, Brazil, Mexico, Quito

Laud(ian), William (cleric), 132,
            248

Laval, FranÇois de Montmorency
            (bishop), 204

Law(s), 49

            appeals, 197

            artisans pardoned from, 110

            business, 202

            canon, 265 (marriage)

            caused by labor's sin, 132

            Christ's, 71

            church, 190, 205, 265

            civil, 272

            common, 59, 112, 139, 206, 272-
            273

            corn, 225-226

            criminal, 110

            criticized, 235

            debtor-creditor, 300

            defacto, 146

            English, 212

            export, 227

            family, 295

            forest, 59

            God's, 137

            human, 71

            Indian, 294

international (jus gentium), 127 (slavery), 133 (violated by Romans)

into own hands, 82, 255 (illustration)

            Irish Parliament, 176

            king's will as, 175

            land, 300

            landlord, 123

            liberation of weak, 252

            marriage, 215, 265

            Md., 273 (primogeniture)

            militia, 167

            moral, 71

            Mosaic, 71, 87

natural, 127 (slavery), 136 (land monopoly), 137 (property rights)

No. 34 (praemunire), 198-199, 204

            pelt, 225

            proprietor, 197

            pleas, 235

            Roman (landlord rights), 136-
            137

            rule of, 176

            simplified in Md., 107

            statutory, 112, 149

            suit, 161, 235

            suits by servants, 102, 109-110

            suits by women, 261, 263

            tradition as, 2

unto self, 87-88, 146-147, 262 (women)

            veto, 198

            women, 261, 265

See also, antinomian, assembly, Aquinas, canon law, code market, mortmain, penal, praemunire, rights

Lawful, books, 211

Lawyers, civil, 272

in Md., 109, 303 (attorney general), 309, 319-320, 323

Lay brother, 186

occupation, 20-22, 35, 41, 47-48, 193, 202

            women, 261

Lay impropriation of bishops, 74

Laz(y)(iness), devotion (mental
            prayer), 191

            gentry's view of servants, 119

            gentry-warrior ideal of heroic
            __, 130

            Indian, 288

            of servants, 102-103

            See also, idle

Lead (mineral), 78

Leader(s)(ship), 111, 120, 231

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 431]

            Indian, 280, 285, 291, 294, 299

            Md., 144, 196, 224

            Md. militia, 168

            proprietor, 241

            quality of nobility, 126

Lease(s), crown (national), 125,
            245-246

Leaves, see tobacco

Leeward Islands, 326

Legacy, 206-207

Legal system, 139

            collectivist, 223

            land, 289

            simplified in Md., 107

            See also, code

Legislat(ion)(ive)(or), 58, 80

            anti-Catholicism, 303

            appellate, 150

            blasphemy, 208

            collectivist, 223

            community of goods, 223

            Council of Trent, 204

            criticized, 234

            family, 266

            labor, 222, 236, 255

            labor value, 140

            land, 236, 255

            liquor, 239

            Massachusetts, 172, 199

Md., 85, 88, 95, 197, 218, 232, 234

Md. Catholic beliefs, 143-149, 179, 182, 196, 211, 214-216, 218, 224, 301

            Md. market, 221-243, 255

            migration, 244

            non-market force, 222

            parliamentary, 73

            planting, 227

            pope's rights, 198

            prerogative, 234

            probate, 273

            proprietor's, 212

            resistance to market forces, 222

            right to initiate, 146, 176, 198

            servant rights, 111

            slavery, 112

            Virginia, 169, 200

            women, 258, 261, 263, 265

See also, anti-Catholic, assembly, glebe, market, praemunire, tithe

Leisure, life of (gentry ideal), 120-
            121

LeJeune, S.J., Paul (missionary),
            285

Lent, 38

            agricultural-liturgical cycle, 183

Lessius, Leonard (writer), 275

Letter(s), 185, 212, 229

            carrier, 63

Level(er)(s)(ing) (revolutionary),

6-7, 11-12, 16, 54-55, 60, 79, 81, 106

in Md., 104-104, 107, 119, 122, 135, 140, 162-166, 169, 233, 236, 299, 324

            of Indian village, 290

            program, 107, 149

wealth redistribution, 72, 233, 236

            See also, overthrow, revolution

Lewger, John (planter), 97, 120,

160, 162, 180 (map), 184, 186, 201, 216, 226, 239, 286, 289, 291, 294, 309-321

Lewis, William (migrant), 161, 199,

203, 211

Lex agraria, see agrarian reform

Liberal arts, gentry's view, 130

Liberal, economic, 244

Liberat(ion)(or) (liberty), 1, 57

            assembly, 161

            assembly's __ theology, 177

            beliefs, 214

            conscience, 54

            indentured servants, 102, 106

            gentry's soul, 126-127

            law as __ of weak, 252

            Md. migrants, 149, 157

            popular, 151

            spirit, 6

See also, agrarian reform, antinomian, belief, independence, labor theory, laboring people, leveling, politics, rebellion, theology, war, T. White

Liberty, Keeper of England's

(Commonwealth), 172

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 432]

            obedience to crown as __, 179

            __ of trade, 237

            people's "false __," 176, 178

Library, Md., 148

License, corporation, 246

            English crown __ for slave &

gold trade, 245

            grain dealers, 80

Indian trade, 121, 236 (pelts exempted), 298

            laboring people's liberty as, 178

            Md. port, 165

            revenue versus regulation, 246

slave trading by Portuguese crown, 118

            trade by government, 79, 245

Liege, 47

Lieutenant, lord __ of Ireland, 246

Life, as test, 304-305

            estate, 138, 264

            family, 265

            gentry __ style, 137, 139

            next 87,

            present, 187

            sinful non-worker __, 139

            See also, damnation, work

Lime(s), 270

Lineage, beliefs, 173, 175, 178

            See also, blood, race

Linen industry, 44

Liquor, see alcohol

Lisbon, Portugal, 117-118

Litanies, 253-254

Liter(acy)(ate), 95, 148, 274, 309,

320

Literature, 86, 89, 113

            clergy's, 207

            controversial, 16

            dramatic, 276

gentry's 112, 117, 139, 277 (women)

            in Md., 113

            proprietor's promotional __, 277

            protest, 272

            See also, drama, pamphlets

Liturg(y)(ical), 190, 292 (Indians)

Livestock, 100-101, 122

Living, see clergy, income, wages

Livy (Roman writer), conservative

philosophy in schools, 136-137

Lloyd, John (migrant), 195

Loan, 79

            in Md., 97, 119

Lock, gun, 110

Lollard, 53

            church finance reform, 184

Loot, 56

Lombard, Peter (theologian), 249

Lombardy, Hapsburg, 193

London, 61, 78, 80, 93, 160, 326

            alderman, 245

            cathedral, 322

            Catholics, 33, 64

            Corporation of the Poor, 83

            creditor(s), 103, 300

            deportation to, 162

            iron monger, 223

            Jesuits, 214

            manufacturers, x

            map, 141

            Md. relations, 218-219, 248, 257

trade, 4, 103, 116, 120, 156-160, 163-165, 167, 169, 171-173, 179, 287

            Virginia Co., 283

            See also, merchants

Longford Co., Ireland, 141 (map),

            247

Lord(s), 51, 61

            absolute, 147

            annual rental income, 121

            feudal, 137, 244

            heavenly, 187

            hereditary rights, 272

            House of, 15, 52, 121, 158, 169

            __ lieutenant of Ireland, 246

            manor __ in Md., 115, 119, 185

            opposition to, 46

Roman citizens as nominal __, 136

            -ship, 147, 184, 201

Love, 285, 304

            clergy, 184

            platonic, 175, 179, 276

Low Countries, 17-18, 193

Lowly, producers, 130-131, 188-189

            tenantry, 124

Loyalty, oath(s), 170

            Md., 156, 158, 160, 171-173, 218

Loyola, see Ignatius Loyola

Lucian (satirist), 138

Luria, Keith (historian), 249

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 433]

Lust, laboring people, 178

Luther, Martin (reformer), 207

Lutherans, 293 (Delaware)

Luxury, gentry, 243

Lyon, Fr., 270

 

Macabees (scripture), 178

Macaulay, Thomas (historian), 246

Machiavelli, Niccolo, against

agrarian reform, 136

Machiavellians, Md. assembly, 176

Machodoc(s) (Indians), 291, 300

Macrobius (classical writer), 127

Madeira, Afr., 203

Magistrate, 77

Magnate(s), 60, 91, 252, 254, 273,
            300

            African, 287

            almsgiving norm, 251

            conscience, 250

            English Catholic, 184, 248-249

            just price, 251

            Md., 229, 301

            New England, 237

            Virginia, 257, 299

Mahican (Indians), 279

Maid, servant, in Md., 98, 114, 260,
            263

            __ maid, 277

Main, Gloria (historian), 98

Maize, see corn

Majesty, God's, in gentry religion,
            123

Majority, 62, 125, 300

            gentry, 243

            Md. assembly, 196-197

Malabar (Hindu) rite, 285

Mal(ster)(ting), 225

            occupation, 81

Manage(r)(ment), 119,

            clergy's farm, 120-121, 205

            estate, 41, 138

Manet (god), 293

Mango (abortion drug), 270

Manioc (abortion drug), 270

Manners, S.J., Peter, 302

Manor(s), 52

            court, 56

            in Md., 115, 119 273

            leveled, 166

            lord, 115, 185

            __ house, 276, 302

            patent fee, 238

            records (destroyed), 55, 166

representative assemblies, 145, 261-262 (women)

See also, clergy (__ house), St. Clements

Mansell, Ann Pike (servant), 258

Manual labor, 89, 91, 113-114, 259

            Md. ideal, 140-141

not gentry ideal, 129-131, 134, 140

not compatible with priestly dignity, 131, 190

Manual, Catholic prayer, 253

Manufactur(e)(ers)(ing), 79, 83-84

            imported, 229

            Indian, 296

            in Md., 110-111

            Ireland, 217

            London, x

            monopoly, 125

            surplus, 287

            See also, subsidization

Manure, 57, 101

Marianas (Indians), 270

Mariner (occupation), 307, 319-
            320, 323

Maritime, court jurisdiction, 150

            power, 164 (Dutch)

Market(ing), 76, 91

            Africa, 286

            anti-__, 223

            antimonopoly regulations, 81

            beliefs, 75-88, 221-255, 301, 304-
            305

            beliefs (African), 279, 295-299

            beliefs (Indians), 279, 295-299

            Catholic __ interests, 240, 305

commodity goods, 245, 269-270 (children as)

conditions, 17, 221-222, 270 (harsh)

            crop, 94

            decent, 254

doctrine, 249, 251-252, 254 (conservative)

            economy, 101

            equality, 237

            flood, 230

            forces, 85, 222, 225

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 434]

free, 221, 223, 229, 232, 235, 243-244, 251-252

government regulation, 74, 77, 79-80, 223-242, 252, 263

            Indian, 296-297, 299

            international, 229

__-driven nutritional deprivation, 226

            Md. by proprietor, 115

            monopoly, 249-250

            monopoly beliefs, 243-255

            non-__ forces, 222

            Portugal, 286

            pressure, 225

            price, 152

regulat(ed)(ions), 221, 225 (corn)

relations, 1, 4, 35, 75-88, 254-255, 297-298 (Indians) (established)

            suffering from, 252

supply-and-demand, 222 228, 237, 239

tobacco, 152, 165, 225 (regulations), 230

            unregulated, 232, 252

            value, 270

See also, corn, Dutch custom, labor, pelt, poor, price controls, tobacco, unemployment

Markham, Gervase (writers), 300

Marquise, monopolization of
            wealth, 124

Marri(age)(s)(ed), 26

            acquisition of land, 123, 299

            African, 295

            age at time of __, 259

            Anglican clergy, 274

            Charles I-Henretta Maria, 217

            church, 182, 204

            civil __ act, 264-265, 328

            class mixing, 175, 277

clergy's opposition to class mixing, 124

contract(s), 264, 267-268 (pre-nuptial)

            courts, 271

            fees, 184

            gentry ideal, 277

            Indian, 292, 295

            Indian-European, 192, 299

            infidelity, 295

            interracial, 264

            jurisdiction, 206-207

            law suits, 209

Md., 258-259, 264-265, 268, 302, 307, 312-314, 317

            of will and law in king, 175

            polygamy, 295

            priesthood (African), 295

Protestant-Catholic mixing, 210, 265

            provincial court, 265

            register, 182

            Spanish, 217

women, 214-215, 258-259, 263-265, 277-278, 317

Marshall, Md. official, 238

Marston Moor, battle of, 327

Martial quality of nobility, 126

Martiall, John (writer), 253

Martinmas (feastday), 38, 330

Martyrology, 9

Mary, Blessed Mother, 123, 275

Maryland, 70, 85, 88

            arrival, 315-316

Catholics, 89, 140-141, 221-222, 239, 255, 307

            church, 198, 214

clergy, 184, 188, 195, 207-209, 276

            colony established, 218

demography of Catholics, 28, 30, 67, 87

            eastern shore, 171

            Indians, 279

            landlord(s), 258

            law, 68, 202

            map, 142, 180, 220, 256

            patent, 248

            producers, 222

            relations with Dutch, 241-242

            residents, 234

            trade, 141

See also, assembly, clergy, housing, politics

Mason, Richard (writer), 253

Mass, 38, 74, 182, 191

            -legacies, 206

Massachusetts, 6, 89

            Bay Colony, 273, 326

            Dutch trade, 172

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 435]

            general court, 199

            independence, 172

            Indians, 279

            land recording, 235

            Royalists, 160

See also, New England, Pychon, T. Weston

Massinger, Philip (dramatist), 39,

49,58, 62, 78-79, 140, 174, 194, 277

Master(s), 61, 85-86, 103-104, 117

            Aquinas, 140

            as thieves, 139-140

            classical writers on, 135

            duties, 97, 135

            harsh, 90, 106, 110, 266, 268

            malice toward, 269

            __'s God, 208

            __-servant relation, 86, 208, 271

            __-slave relation, 268

__-slave relation in classics, 127, 140

            of school (teacher), 66

opposition to childbearing, 268, 271

            own __, 235

            Mexico, 208

planters as __ over proprietor, 234

            rebellion against, 106

            resistance, 268, 271, 287

            servant suits against, 266

            sexual abuse, 266

women servant rights against __, 264, 266

Matchcoat Indian, 296

Maternity leave, 270-271

Mate(s), 116, 120

Mat(s), Indian, 286, 296

Matrilineal, property inheritance,

192, 299 (Indian)

Matron, Md. noble, 190

Mattapany plantation, 205, 299

Matter(materialism), 174, 297

            __ needs of poor ignored, 250

            negative view, 128-129

Matthew, Tobie (lawyer), 178, 202,

248 (G. Calvert's friend), 253, 275

Mayflower (ship), 78, 223

Maypole, 38, 183

McCusker, John (historian), 101,

221-222, 228

Meadows, 287

Meal, corn, 260

            Indian, 286

            laborer's, 63

Mean(est), planter, 234

            See also, poor

Meat, belief about origin, 126

            dressing, 285

            export from Md., 101

            lending, 223

Mechanic, qualities of, 36

Medicine, profession, 130

Medieval (theologian), 128

Medina (theologian), 128

Meditation, see contemplation,

prayer

Mediterranean, 78

Meek, Ronald (economist), 3, 19,

120

Meekness, Jesus as, 253

            as ideal, 137, 178, 252

Meeting, town, 196, 261

            See also, assembly

Membership, church, 210

Men, chief, 190 (Jesuit view), 192

            division of labor, 260

            "great," 126

Menard, Russell (historian), 92,

98, 101-102, 107-108, 110, 199, 221-222, 228

Menstruation, 269

Mental prayer, 128, 191-192, 253

            criticized, 140

            See also, contemplation, prayer

Mentality, 3

Mercer (occupation), 33

Merchandise, 237, 241

            tobacco, 120

Merchant(s), 12, 19, 39, 58, 77, 81,

94

            Adventurers, 78, 157

            African, 281

            anti-liquor __ legislation, 239

            beliefs, 131, 134

            Brazil, 287

            Bristol, 157, 239

            Dutch, 239

            English, 169

            European, 222

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 436]

foreign __ legislation, 221, 225, 237, 239-240

            franchise, 109

            in Md., 114, 260, 307, 309, 319

local __ legislation, 221, 225, 237, 239, 257

London, 4, 78, 103, 116, 120, 157, 163-165, 169, 171-173, 179, 221, 226, 229, 239-242, 248, 255, 257, 273, 301

wine and hotwater __ debts subordinated, 239

            See also, J. Smith

Merit, in gentry writings, 131, 136

Mercy, landlord lack, 235

Merrell, James (historian), 281

Messalians (anti-labor), 140, 191

MestiÇo, 280

Metal, trade goods, 296

            worker, 40

Methodology, 1, 20

            gentry type, 179

            ideal of contemplation, 128-130,

140

ideal types, 20-21, 34, 86, 120, 123, 128-129, 139-140, 314

            improving steward type, 138

            manual labor type, 140

vegetative, animal, intellectual type, 134

Mexico, 203, 208

exclusive Catholicism, 283-284, 293

            Indians, 280

            map, 142

            missionaries (resistance to), 280

            population, 208

Meyvaert, Paul (historian), 189

Michaelmas (feastday), 38, 183,

330

Micmac, 279

Middle ages, 250

Middle Temple, see court

Middleman, 77, 81

Migra(nt)(s)(te)(tion), causes, 221

            costs, 93

            decline, 222, 229

            expenses, 259

            from Va. to Md., 299

            gentry, 188

            government regulation, 79

            housing, 286

Md., 89-90, 93-96, 101, 104, 115-117, 119, 120, 141, 146, 160, 181, 192, 198, 214, 216, 259, 276, 278, 298, 315-318, 320-322, 325-326, 328

            secular clergy, 196

            See also, beliefs, housing

Militant(cy), 61, 81

            Md. servants, 103-104, 108

            planter, 232

            restrictions, 235, 244

            See also, yoke

Militarized prayer, 130

Military, 21

            clergy __ service, 210, 215

defense system, 160, 167, 299 (Indian)

            English gentry, 231

            Indian, 299

            Md. budget, 153

            Md. campaign, 153

            Md. __ battle, 219

Militia, clergy exemption, 210

            defense regulations, 167

            districts, 168

            drilling instructions, 112

Md. Catholics, 144, 241, 241, 320

            monthly drill, 182, 265 (women)

            physician, 261

            reject proprietor, 241

right of servants to belong, 112, 114

            Va. Presbyterian __, 241

            women members, 265

Milk, 271

            maid, 277

            pail, 310

Mill, corn, 229

            grain, 121

            iron, 59, 245

St. Mary's, 180 (map)

Millennialism, 72

Miller (occupation), 33

            in Md., 114, 308, 319, 323

Milton, John (poet), 209

Mind, sound, 267

            weak, 178

Mine(r), 33

            coal 40-41, 59, 85, 245

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 437]

            lead, 41

            See also, coal

Minist(ry)(er), African, 282

            American, 187

            Aquinas, T., 188

            Indian, 186-187, 190, 283

            manorhouse, 181, 188, 276, 302

            Md., 183, 195, 207, 302

            New England, 283

            obstacles, 186-196

            parish, 181-185

            poor ignored, 189

            Protestant, 213

            secular clergy, 207

See also, congregational, parish, pastoral

Mint, 172

Misdemeanor, 157

Mission(ary)(s), African, 283-284

            bias, 192

            Canada, 285, 298

            China, 284

            church, 63

            episcopal jurisdiction, 203

exclusive (Mexico, Peru, Va., Mass.), 283

            inclusive Catholicism, 284

Indian, 181, 186-187, 292, 294, 298

            Indian contempt for __, 285

            Indian language capability, 293

            Jesuit ideal, 187, 219

            Jesus, 283, 305

            Md., 294

            Mexican resistance, 280

            profit making, 205

            Spanish-American, 203, 205

            Virginia, 283

            work, 184

Mistress, 61

Mixed (Protestant-Catholic)

marriage, see marriage

Mobility (social), 86, 138, 303

            laboring people, 244

Moderate (newspaper), 54

Modesty, 264, 276

Mohegan (Indians), 279

Molina (theologian), 128

Monacans (Indians), 289

Monarch(y)(ism), 53, 80, 158, 174

            abolition, 169

            absolute, 175

            gentry bias, 177

            loyalty, 218

            sacred, 175

            Thomas More's view, 177

Monast(ery)(ic)(ies), 23, 29, 85

            Benedictine, 189

            confiscation of __ land, 243, 273

            daughters, 274

            glorified, 275

            landlords, 250

            land monopoly, 212

            licensed slave importers, 118

            literature, 275

            wealth concentration, 245

            younger sons, 274

Monck, George (general), 328

Money, x, 276

            crown __ raising, 246

            episcopal theft, 209

            gift to proprietor, 152

            laborer __ raising, 259

            tobacco used as, 109

            willed to clergy, 207

See also, labor (equivalent value), wages

Mongrel, class marriage, 175

Monk, 85, 305

            -knight ideal, 130

            See also, monastery

Monopol(y)(ists)(ization), 21, 58,

62, 77-80, 85, 93, 105

            anti-__ legislation, 221-242

            T. Aquinas, 251-252

            belts, 245

            beer, 245

            brick, 245

            butter, 245

            buttons, 245

            Calverts, 248

            coal, 245

            commodity, 237, 245

            common law, 139

            criticized, 246, 255

crown (royal, national), 52, 125, 170, 246-247

            currant, 245

            fishing, 247

            for the rich, 252

            gentry, 245

            gentry __ on clergy, 188, 216

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 438]

            gold, 245

            herring, 245

            just price, 251

            labor, 239, 244

            land, 234, 298-299

            land __ beliefs, 124, 136, 244

            landlord, 233-234

            lobster, 245

            monastic __ income, 250

            manufacturing, 125, 245

            Md. corn, 225-227, 298

            Md. merchants & officials, 240

            Md. pelt, 153, 201, 236-237

            monastic land __, 212

            pins, 245

            political power, 273

            private, 221

            proprietor, 194, 239, 249, 298

            redwood, 245

            salmon, 245

            salt, 245

scholastic theological justification, 250

            slave, 245

            soap, 245

            Stuart __, 248

tobacco, 217, 229-231, 246 (Ireland)

            trading, 125, 157, 169

            wealth, 273

See also, antimonopoly, engross, forestall, market, patent

Montagu, Walter (writer), 174-175,

178, 254-255

            on celibacy, 276

Montserrat, 170, 326

Moor(s) (African), 280

Moral(ity), 87

            Aquinas, 248

            belief about labor, 123, 139

            criticism against class system,

284

            duty to work, 83, 87, 285

            Indian, 285, 294

            labor, 187, 285

            missionary, 187

            ten commandments, 27, 72, 254

            wealth monopoly, 248

See also, labor, law, mosaic law, obedience

More, Gertrude (Benedictine

nun), 6, 50

More, S.J., Henry (priest), 214, 275

More, Thomas (lawyer), 46, 177

Morly, S.J., Walter (priest), 309

Morris dancing, 183

Morsel, landlord's sweet, 235

Mortality, see death

Mortar (corn), 260

Mortgage, 226

Mortmain, 211-213, 215-216, 218

Morton, A. L. (historian), 105, 107,

149

Mother(s), 211

            Blessed (Mary), 123

            gentry, 276

            maintenance, 271

            pregnant, 183

Mulatto (African-European), 279,

311

Mules, workers criticized as, 285

Municipal brewhouse, 83

Murder, 109

            classical Rome, 133

            Indian morality on, 294

            infanticide, 267-268, 270

            servants, 102

Muscovy (Russia), 78

Mush, John (theologian), 134

Muskrat(s), 288

Muster, militia, 167, 265

Mutilation, Md. criminal penalty,

238

Mutiny, 56, 157

Mutton, tax (Hapsburg), 194

 

Nadel, S.J., Jerome (priest), 187

Nahuatl (Mexican Indian

language), 284

Nail(s), cost of in Md., 96

Name(s) (family), African

Marylanders, 280

            gentry pride, 123,

Nansemond River, Va., 170, 256

(map)

Nanzaticos (Indians), 291, 256

(map)

Naples (kingdom of), 18

            Hapsburg misrule, 193

Narrogansett Indians, 160, 279

Naseby, Eng., battle, 240-241, 327

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 439]

Nash, Gary (historian), 285

Natal, see birth

Nation(al)(s)(alities), Catholic,

185

            Catholic committee, 152

            harmony, 300

            Indian, 288

            labor's view, 279, 285

            race discrimination origins, 126,

257, 279

            resource monopolization, 125,

245-246

            wealth squandered, 140

Native, born, 259

            clergy (Congo), 282

Native People, see Indians

Natotchtanks (Md. Indians), 290

Naturalization, government

regulation, 79

            in Md., 109

Natur(e)(al), 85

            basis of slavery, 127

            born citizen, 149

            gentry's divine __, 128-129

            increase, 269

            man's, 175

            "man's" __ equal, 131

            __ force (Indian god), 293

            nobility's belief, 173, 176

            order, destroyed by sin, 132

            ruler, 178

            sacred monarchal, 175

            subordination, 189

            tyranny, 193

            un__ war, 157

            See also, law

Naturalization, 280, 321

Navigation Act, 165

Neale, James (planter), 240

            Dutch ambassador, 242

Necessit(y)(ies), economic, 83, 85,

120, 122, 126, 167, 236, 249-250

            taxes on, 107, 194 (Hapsburg)

Need(s), see interest(s)

Needle (technology), 296

Needy, clergy ignored, 189

            clergy's relief, 131

            government relief, 83

Neighbors, Md., 223 (good), 297

(Indian)

Nepotism, 289

Netherlands, see Dutch

Nevis, West Indies, 169

New Amsterdam, 142 (map), 240

(monopoly)

New Castle, Eng., 33, 78, 141

(map)

New England, 17-18, 102, 109, 164,

170, 327

            anti-monopoly trade policy, 237

            art, 292

            assemblies, 262

            clergy's role, 198, 215

            confederacy of, 326

            congregationalists, 297

            corn shortage, 226

            Dutch allies, 169

            exile, 209

            independent(s), 273

            Indian mission, 283, 292-294

            literacy, 148

            market forces, 225

            relations in Md., 297

            taxation, 156

            trade, 227

            training day sermons, 182

            women, 278

            See also, Massachusetts

Newfoundland, 142 (map), 154

            patent, 247

New Haven, Conn., 142 (map), 326

Newman, Peter (historian), 16

New Mexico, 220

New Model Army, 12-13, 48, 50,

82, 327-328

            Catholics in, 44, 46

Newsletter, 82

New Sweden, Indian trade, 290

            __Trading Co., 226

Newton parish, Md., 185-186

            church, 223

New York, 102

Night celebration, 183

            hunting, 288

Noah, as ark builder, 37

Nobili, S.J., Roberto de

(missionary), 186

Nobility, 34, 43, 61, 76, 78, 80

            African, 295

            ambition to be, 246-247

            Catholic, 175-176

            king's family, 175

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 440]

            labor beliefs, 173, 178

            lesser ranks, 124

            Mexican Indian, 284

Noble(s), 36

            birth & Jesuits, 189

            blood, 176

            matron, 191

            men, 126, 191 (virtuous)

            minds, 117

            tyranny against labor, 193

Nomadic, Indians, 285

Non-laboring race, 126

Norman(s), Conquest (invasion),

10, 87, 176, 202, 274

            monasteries, 212

            yoke, 177

See also, William the Conqueror

Norms, see doctrine

North America(n), colonial

relations with Europe, 291

            fishing concession, 247

            missions, 187

Northampton Co., Va., 169, 171,

220 (map)

Northern, Md., 170

Northern War, 42, 52, 152, 155

North Riding, Eng., 39, 45, 66, 141

(map)

Norton, Mary Beth (historian), 266

Norwich, Eng., 33, 141 (map)

Notebook, see commonplace book

Nun(s), 190, 275

Nuncio, papal, 214

Nutrition(al), assembly legislation,

224

            deprivation, 226

            distribution, 125

            Md. __ needs, 227-228

Nuts, Md. Indians, 287

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Nzinga Nkuwu (Congo king), 281

 

Oath(s), 15, 69-70

            criticized, 234

            French revolutionary, 181

            homagers (tenant), 56

            Md. rejection of, 234

            of abjuration, 15, 71, 303

of allegiance, 15, 67, 69-70, 149, 213-215, 238 (fee)

            of fealty to proprietor, 233

            of New Model Army, 327

            of Obedience, 15, 47

            of secrecy, 148

of Uniformity and Supremacy, 15, 29, 71, 198, 218

            proprietor's loyalty, 170

            to king, 163

Obedien(t)(ce), 6, 21-22, 43, 54,

85, 174, 178-179, 208

            criticized, 87, 110

            doctrine, 137

            gentry women ideal, 277

            Jesuit, 187

mission doctrine for Indians, 291, 298-299

            oath of, 15, 47

            official beliefs, 1-2

resistance, 268, 282 (African), 299 (Indian)

See also, cross, disobedience, passion, virtue

Oblation, see sacrifice

Occupancy, right of land __, 288

(Indian)

Occupational background, women,

258

O'Daniell, Margaret (migrant), 266

Officer(s), military, 144, 175

Office(s) (political), 246 (crown

reward)

            Indian, 294, 299

provincial, 144, 162, 224 (holders)

            sale of, 125, 245

See also, constable, justice of the peace, sheriff

Offices (religious), 206, 209, 282

            acolyte, 280

            catechist, 280

            racial discrimination, 126

            sacristan, 280

Official(s), crown, 151

            fees, 238

            judicial, 150

            Md., 146, 155, 170, 227, 229

Md. regulation of, 221, 225, 237-240, 255, 303

nature of Catholicism, 1-2, 304, 306

Old age, 254

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 441]

            security, 83

O'Malley, S.J., John (historian),

187-188

Onawmanients (Indians), 256

(map), 291

Opossums, trapping, 288

Order, colonial, 208, 283 (Va.

Indians)

established, 4, 11, 13, 22, 43, 85, 137, 208, 249, 300, 305

            God's, 5

            destroyed by disobedience, 124

gentry's heavenly __, 117, 128-129

            holy __, 128

            landlord, 11

            natural, 124, 132

            new Md. __, 171

            of things, 105

Roman patrician __-plebeian intermarriage, 277

            republican, 80

            See also, chain of being

Orders (religious), 128

            entrance dowry, 272

lack of commitment to God's reign, 305

            licensed to import slaves, 118

            racial discrimination, 126

See also, Benedictine, Dominican, Franciscan, Jesuit

Ordinance (law), 81, 164

            for abolishing bishops, 209

Ordinary, planters, 196, 199, 203,

230-232, 237

Ordination, 274

Ormond, John (Irish magnate),

217

            Earl of __, 326

Orphan, 266

Orthodoxy, religious, 208

(Spanish), 282 (Africa)

Oss, Adrian van (historian), 280

Otherworldly, see heaven

Outbuildings (farm), cost of, 96

Output of workers, 101

Overseer, farm, 199, 203, 211, 227,

307

Overthrow, crown, 178, 213, 303

(Hanover-Whigs)

            slave system by Catholic slaves,

136

            Spanish, 204

Overthrow, (government in Md.),

104

first (1645),144, 153, 160-163, 165, 167-168, 171, 179, 195, 241, 308, 323-324, 327

            second (1652), 169-172, 328

Ovulation, 269

Owner(s), 138

            communal Indian __, 288

            land, 235, 286 (Congo gentry)

Owner-operator (farm), 91, 94, 97-

98, 100-101, 104, 108, 115, 117, 148, 162-163, 240, 259-260, 273

            Indian, 287

Oxen, workers not, 86

Oxford, 159

            agreement, 159

            map, 141

            Parliament, 326-327

Oxford, University, 320-321

            Catholics at, 29, 125

            Catholic writings at, 128

Oysters, 296

 

Pacifier, Catholicism as, 291

Packer, Edward (migrant), 165,

240, 242, 309, 315, 325

Pack(ing), animal, 285

            improved, 101

tobacco, 98-100, 103, 223 (collective)

Page, John (lawyer), 272

Pageants, Md., 183

            of laboring people, 37

Painter (occupation), 54

Palace, Indian, 192

Palmer, Colin (historian), 126, 208

Pamphlet (literature), 7, 93, 113,

117, 129

Catholic, 35, 37, 43, 70, 72, 75, 84, 86, 89, 93, 106, 108, 110, 123, 129, 133-134, 178, 191, 250, 275

            Congo, 281

            controversial, 13-14, 16, 40, 69

            Independent, 82

            in Md., 95, 113, 140, 311

            leveler, 6, 105, 264

            parliamentary, 46

            recruiting, 259

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 442]

            women, 259

Pantheon, 284 (Christian-Mexican)

            280 (Quiché-Guatemalan)

Papacy (pope), 9-10, 15, 22, 39, 304

            reform, 188

            relations with English crown,

303

Papal, courts criticized, 209

            dignity, 214

            doctrines, 70-71, 128

            infallibility, 70-71

            Md. interference, 198

            nuncio, 214

            __-Congo diplomacy, 282

            states, 18

            temporal power, 70

            See also, pope

Papaya, 270

Papenfuse, Edward (historian),

109, 320

Papist, 13, 18, 28-29, 54, 162, 195

            army, 217 (Irish)

Parade, 38, 329

            Md., 182

Paradise, landlord, 126, 133

Parasite, landlord, 106

            monopolist, 78

Pardon, 161

            judicial, 110

Parents, 321

            rights of, 264

Paris, 68

            exile, 204

Parish(ioners), 15, 65, 310, 329

            clergy, 75, 200 (dismissed)

            Congo, 281

            congregational, 181

            development, 210

            government (assemblies), 73-74,

79, 81-83, 145, 147, 224-225, 261

            law enforcement, 80

            Md. __ communit(y)(ies), 181-

182, 185, 188, 196-197, 204, 214, 302

            meeting(s) in Md., 109, 196

            revenue, 15, 25, 74

            school, 27

            vestry, 73

See also, church government, congregation

Parker, Thomas (writer), 199

Parliament(ary), 4, 7, 11, 13, 42-46,

49-50, 52, 54, 56, 59, 61, 68-69, 71-72, 74, 79, 82-84, 111, 143, 147, 151-152, 177, 255

            act of 1552 (engrossing), 237

            annual in Md., 107

            army, 45, 47, 55, 93, 273, 326

Barbones, 53, 81, 273 (primogeniture), 328

            Catholics, 195

economic monopoly (Md. resistance), 221, 255

            gentry, 166, 169, 200

government, 47-48, 93, 179, 214 (oath)

            impeachment, 217

            independence, 197

            Irish, 177, 326

legislation, 58, 175-176, 264 (marriage)

            long, 147, 326, 328

Md. relations, 158, 163, 169-173, 216, 218-219, 240-241 (trade), 255, 257, 263 (women), 301, 328

            member, 322

            merchants, 239

opposition to, 160, 162-163, 172, 175-176, 230, 255

            Oxford, 327

            privileges, 197

prohibition on Dutch trade, 241-242

            revenue, 246

            royal (Oxford), 159

            Royalists in __, 247

            Rump, 328

            Short, 326, 328

trade, 156-157, 159, 164-165, 167, 171

            usurpation by crown, 246-247

            See also, Civil War

Partner, See marriage

Party, anti-Jesuit, 195

            court, 78, 151

            leveler, 108

            political, 43, 47

                        Spanish court __, 217-218

Pascal, Blaise, 71

Pass, fee, 238

Passage, payment, 94, 104, 263

(women's right)

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 443]

            See also, transportation

Passion (ideology), 137, 252-253,

305-306

Pastor(al)(ate) (ministry), 1-2, 4,

16, 65

            absentee, 184

            England, 216

            French Canada, 285 (Indian)

            flock, 207

            Md., 181, 219, 274

            Md. law, 204-205, 215

            reform, 188

            supreme (pope), 214

Pasture (farm), 82

            in Md., 100

Patawomecks (Indians), 256

(map), 300

Patent (franchise, charter), 79, 255

crown, 52, 245 (leasing in England)

            crown tobacco __, 247

            fee (in Md.), 96, 229, 233, 238

            Indian, 289

            land in Md., 98, 291

Md., 12, 153, 170, 216, 234, 246-247, 303

            Md. __ criticized, 240, 247

            monopoly, 246 (divine right)

            trading, 245

See also, abolition, charter, franchise, squatter

Patience, 178-179

conservative economics, 252-254

            Md. lack of __, 221, 254

Patriarchal, 270, 272

Patrician (Rome), 277

Patrimony, Hapsburg, 193

Patron(s)(age), clergy, 200

            crown, 151, 303

proprietor, 146, 302-303, 316, 320

saints, 183, 330 (wine producers)

            supernatural Indian, 284

Patuxent, Indians, 192, 256 (map),

279, 296, 299

Paul III, (pope), bishops

established, 203

            slave, 118

Pauper(dom), 15, 25, 27

            T. Aquinas, 251

            occupation, 33

See also, corporation, poor, poverty, relief

Payer, tax, 163

Peace, 178-179, 291 (European-

Indian)

Pear, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Peasant('s), 189

            rebellion, 250

            Revolt, 50, 155

Pedlar (occupation), 231

Peer(age), 52, 246

            abolition of, 105

            G. Calvert, 247

            Catholic, 124-125

            wealth monopolization, 124-125

            See also, Lord

Pelt(s) (beaver), 100

            Delaware, 226

            Indian curing, 285

            Indian trade, 279, 288, 298

Md. regulation, 221, 225, 229, 236, 255

            monopoly, 236-237

            price(s), 236, 239

            proprietor's monopoly, 153, 210

Penal Law, 12, 14-16, 22, 24, 62,

75, 203-204

            Md., 149, 198, 205, 218-219

            See also, sequestration

Penalty, childbearing, 268

(indentured women)

            death, 109, 238

            See also, execution, punishment

Penance, 191, 253

            See also, discipline, self-denial

Pennsylvania, 289

Pension, agricultural improvement,

84

            government old age, 82

            Hapsburg (tyranny), 193, 208,

217

People, common, 284

            plain, 199

            sin, 210

            "The __," 149, 170, 176-178

Pequot (Indians), 279

Perambuco, Brazil, 172

Perfection (spiritual), 191-192

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 444]

(criticized), 188 (Aquinas's view), 188

            See also, hierarchy

Perjury, 16, 234

Perpetuities, 243

Persecution, 179, 253

            against Catholics, 219

            against Presbyterians, 170

            theological, 123

            Va. accusations, 218

            See also, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant

Persimmon, 287

Persons, S.J. Robert, 10, 14, 16, 62,

86, 129, 191, 252-254, 273

            against primogeniture, 272

contempt for labor, 134-135, 190

            feudal order, 137, 244

            Hapsburgs, 193, 202

            Norman rule, 202

Peru, Indians, 142 (map), 280, 283-

284 (exclusive Catholicism)

Peters, Hugh (chaplain), 273

Petition, 60, 177, 304

Petre, William (benefactor), 185

Petticoat, franchise dues, 98

Petty, William (economist), 106

Philip II (king), 204

Philosophy, Commonwealth, 75,

77, 80, 85

            Md. political, 149

            neo-platonic, 175

Physical, gentry's view, 130

Physician (occupation), 33

            in Md., 114

            women, 114, 261, 313, 319

            See also, medical

Picture, 294, 322

Pie, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Piety, 189-191, 274 (clergy ideal),

390 (landlord)

            See also, devotion

Pig(s), 285

            freedom dues, 263

            in Md., 97, 229

            Md. laws, 229

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

            women, 260

Pike (weapon), 59

Pilgrim(age)(s), 223 (Plymouth,

Mass.)

of laboring people, 37-38

Pin(s), monopoly, 245

Pious, Md., 215

            See also, devotion

Pipe, Indian, 296

Pipemaker, tobacco, 33, 328

Piper, 38

            Md., 183

Piracy, 157

Piscataway Indians, 192, 279-280,

290-291

            king, 299

            map, 256

Place-seeking, 247

Plant(ing)(ation)(s), 97-98, 170

            Caribbean, 269

            clergy, 185, 195, 205

            Commission for Foreign __, 248

            "conditions of __," 212

            corn, 292

            crop, 168

            Indian, 286

            Jamaica, 278

            Md., 236, 260

            mortgage, 226

            Plymouth, Mass., 235

            size, 100-101, 225, 227

tobacco, 96, 98-101, 113, 225-227

            women, 260

            See also, corn

Planter(s), 30, 70, 103-104, 113,

120-121

            African, 287

            Barbados, 268 (harsh)

Catholic, 261, 273 (inheritance problems), 287

            economic power, 234, 239, 241

            Indian land, 298

            income, 121, 228 (regulation)

            Ireland, 248

Md., 152, 154, 158, 160, 167, 169, 171, 177, 194, 196-197, 199, 203, 222-242 (market beliefs), 262, 307-310, 316-317, 319-320, 323-324

            monopoly, 249

            ordinary, 230-231, 237

            poverty of, 118

            regulation, 225-229

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 445]

            relations with Dutch, 242

            revolutionary, 255

            small, 240

See also, independence, market, politics

Plato(nic), 134, 175

            ideal, 129

            love, 175, 276

            neo-, 179

Plays and drama, 38

            Md., 183

Plea, legal, 235

Plebeian(s), 51

            classical authorities, 135-136

            order (Rome), 277

Pliny, 176

Plough(ing), 310

            hand (occupation), 31, 120

            priestly dignity, 131

            -holding, 76

            trade, 306

            See also, harrow

Plowden, Edward (migrant), 266

            Francis (lawyer), 202

Plunder, 168

Pluralist(ism), 23, 74

            See also, clergy

Plutarch (classical writer),

conservative views, 135

            market doctrine, 244

Plymouth, Mass., 142 (map), 223,

235, 326

Pocoughtaonacks (Indians), 289

Poem, 176

Poison(ed), the world as __, 254

            used to abort, 270

Poland, Queen of, 250

Policy, crown, 144, 247

            Irish tobacco, 230

            Md. trade, 179

            missionary, 283

Politic(s)(al), 1, 21, 35, 75, 88-89

            Africa, 279, 282, 285, 300

beliefs, 1, 4, 42-61, 104-105, 173-180 (English Catholic gentry), 240

            classical __ economy, 301

            crown __ in Md., 291, 300

distribution of __ benefits, 125, 289 (Indian)

            Guatemalan Indian, 180

Indian, 279, 281, 291, 296, 299-300

Md. Catholic __ beliefs, 143-149 (legislative), 149-151 (judicial), 151-156 (taxation), 156-161, crown), 221, 242 (autonomy from crown), 243, 273, 301, 304-305

            Md. clergy, 183

            Md. women, 262-278

__ patronage, 302-303 (proprietor)

__ privileges of wealth in Eng., 109

__ program of levelers and diggers, 107

            __ revolution in Md., 119

            __ rights (women), 261, 277

__ strength of Md. tenantry and labor, 95, 109

            Portuguese-Congo __, 282

            proprietor, 291, 300, 302-303

            provincial __, 218

royalist accusations against Md. Catholics, 161-172

            sale of __ office, 125, 245

See also, antinomians, assembly, crown, independence, London merchants, Parliament, patronage, Royalists, town meetings,

Poll tax, 50

            Md., 152, 155-156

            Md. records, 92

Polygamy, Congo, 295

Poor, Aquinas, 252 (conservative

economics)

            capital __, 268

            clergy, 244-245

            doctrine on __, 305

            gentry almsgiving, 250

            God's preference for __, 305

laboring people, 15, 21, 23-24, 29-30, 35-36, 49, 52, 58, 61-63, 77, 81-85, 105, 123, 132, 134, 228

            Md. immigrants, 95, 98, 113

            political power, 230, 232

            resistance, 152, 156

            rights, 149

            wandering (occupation), 33

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 446]

            water, 285

            viewed negatively, 189

See also, corporation, pauperdom, poverty, relief, rights, vagrant

Pope, 1-2, 9, 36, 39, 67, 69, 72, 74,

127

            Africa, 295

            Avignon (French) __, 275

            English schism, 193

            Hapsburg __, 275

            landlord and slaveowner, 132

            Md. rights, 198

            political beliefs, 178

            slavery promoter, 118

            supremacy, 219

See also, Clement VII, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Innocent X, papal, Paul III, Urban VIII

Pontiff, 85

            obedience, 187

Popish, 162

Popular needs, 53

Population(s), 58, 63, 78

            Catholic, 193

            Caribbean, 269

            city, 138

            English, 124

English Catholic, 22-24, 29-30, 33-34, 65, 67, 228

            Ireland, 225

            Lisbon, Portugal, 117-118

            Md., 117, 161, 168, 232

Md. Catholic, 90-93, 109, 224, 302, 307-317

            Md. Indian, 279

            Mexican, 208

            New England, 237

            recusant, 125, 188

            servant __ in Md., 119

Port, 157, 165

            duty, 152

            Kinsale, Ireland, 230

Port (alcohol), regulation, 80

Port Tobacco Hundred, 186

Porter (occupation), 306

Portug(al)(ese), 17, 109

            bishop, 282

            Brazil, 172

            Congo, 279 (ambassador), 286

            empire, 118, 204

            map, 142

            Md., 280

            mission policy, 284

            __ Congo yeoman, 279-281

            slavery, 117-118

            relations with Congo, 282

Postgate, Nicholas (priest), 63

Potomac River, 220 (map), 291

Pot(s)(ting), Indian, 296

            trade, 306

Poulton, S.J., Fernando (priest),

205

Poultry, 100, 260

Poverty, 11-12, 24, 34, 305

            Aquinas, 250 (inevitable)

            church courts, 209

            contempt for, 135

            "holy," 132

            planters in Md., 118, 249

scholastic theology justification, 249-250

            sin, 132

            See also, poor, pauperdom

Powder, gun, 167

Power, clergy, 200

given by God to kings, 246

given by God to landlords, 132-133

Indian ruling class, 284 (criticized)

            king's dispensing __, 203

            maritime, 164

            Md. buying __, 260

            obedience, 175

            planter, 103, 255

            proprietor's, 198

            slaveowner justified, 127

            superior, 178

            supreme, 72

Powhatans (Va. Indians), 279, 292

            alcohol, 294

            Anglo-__ war, 283

            class system, 289, 295

            emperor, 289, 291

            Md. aggression, 290

Praemunire, 10, 68, 149, 198, 201-

203, 206, 210, 215, 304

            First Statute of __, 197

Praise, 304 (God), 390 (court)

Prayer(s), 65

            Apostle's Creed, 293, 298

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 447]

            Book of Common __, 198

gentry-Platonic ideal, 128-129, 253

            Hail Mary, 293

            Indian, 293-294

            in Latin, 27

            mental, 128, 140, 191-192

            militarized __, 130

            of laboring people, 37

            __ book (manual), 29, 253

            service, 182

            See also, contemplation

Preaching, 262 (women), 304

Preference, clergy's service, 190,

205

Prerogative, 234, 236

            crown, 246

            proprietor, 147, 176 (blood)

            See also, court

Presbyter(ian)(s), 6, 11-13, 15, 53,

71-75, 143, 168

in Parliament, 6, 54, 200, 327-328

            power, 199

            __-Catholics, 302

            Va. militia, 241

            See also, synod

Press (media), 82

            See also, literature, pamphlet

Pregnan(t)(cy), Barbados, 259

            bridal __, 271

            mothers, 183

Price(s), bread revolts, 263

Aquinas, 252 (conservative economics)

            brick, 194

            corn, 119

            imported goods, 222 (increase)

            Indian trade, 299

            just, 106, 251-252

            market, 152

            Md. decline, 222, 228-229

            pelt, 239

regulation (controls), 81, 227, 237-240

tobacco, 100, 151, 168, 260 (low), 238, 242 (Dutch), 263 (women)

            tobacco __ in Ireland, 230, 249

Pride, 113

            curb, 178

            family name, 123

            servant, 103, 108

            See also, labor

Priest(s), 30, 45-70

            court jurisdiction, 210

            gentry subsidized, 125

            Hapsburg influence, 194

            married, 295 (Congo)

            mass, 74

Md., 162, 195, 224 (landlords), 236, 302, 308-309, 312, 317, 324

            population, 190

__hood, dignity of manual labor, 131

            __hood of believers, 128

            spiritual director, 191

            unworthy, 207

            See also, clergy

Primogeniture, 243, 271-274, 277,

320

Prince(s), 176, 178

            dislike of, 118

Principles, working people, 180

Printer (occupation), 33, 306

Prison(ers), 61, 160, 162, 247, 325

            church courts, 209

            debtor, 52, 107

            Roman enslavement, 133

Private, interest, 76, 87

__ monopolies condemned, 221, 228, 227 corn)

            purpose, 79

Privilege(s), clerical, 183, 227

            Md. citizen, 149

            parliamentary, 197

Privy council, 67, 78

Prize (war), 165

Probate, 151, 312

            civil law, 272

            court, 202, 209, 266 (women)

            fee, 238

Procession, religious, 182, 329-330

(laborers)

            See also, devotions

Produc(e)(er)(tive), 3-4, 72, 78, 83,

91, 95, 121, 137

            agricultural __, 222

            classics view as lowly, 130-131

            __'s cost, 301

            cycle, 37, 99-101

            family as __ unit, 258

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 448]

            gentry contempt, 134

            God as, 36

            increased, 101

Indian, 260 (women), 283 (theft)

            labor, 129, 254, 269

            Md., 222, 243

            process, 122, 138-139

            skills needed, 98

            sugar, 204

            tobacco, 99-101, 115

            wine, 330

            women, 269

Production, 83, 168

            corn, 225 (Md.)

            drama, 175

            family, 278

            food, 292

            over __, 222

            sugar (Caribbean), 259

            surplus, 228

tobacco, 228, 239, 260 (increased)

            women, 268

Productivity, 38, 120, 138, 183, 221

(migration)

            in England, 221

            Md., 222

            Md. regulation, 225-226, 230

Professional(s), 41-42, 91

            criticized in schools, 134

            defend labor, 139

Md., 94, 113-114, 116, 260-261 (women)

Professor, 248 (theology)

Profit(eering), 77, 80-81, 93, 102

            court Catholic beliefs, 249

            excessive, 85

            Indian, 288

            landlord, 121

            Md., 227 (prohibitions)

            Md. plantations, 195

Md. plantations decline, 222, 229

            missionary, 205

            monopoly, 247

            opposition, 221, 237

Program (political), of levelers and

diggers, 107

Progress, 42, 108

            belief, 40, 105, 113

            Indian, 309

            spiritual, 191 (criticized)

Promiscuity, 270

Propaganda, 180

            crown, 74

            Presbyterian, 13

Property, church, 211-212

            confiscated, 162

            confiscated proprietor, 234, 262

            corporate, 212

            distribution, 105, 116, 244

            inheritance, 273-274

            landlord, 255

            landlord right abolished, 105

            law, 278

            monopoly, 139

personal (personalty) versus real __, 206, 212, 264, 272

            right(s), 137

            tax, 152, 155-156, 243

            trust __, 211

            voter qualification, 109

            women's, 264, 267-268

See also, mortmain, primogeniture

Prophecy, women's ecclesiastical

rights, 109

Proprietor (Cecil Calvert), 4, 12,

115, 117, 120, 159-164, 166-173, 176-177, 179-180, 185, 194-195, 216, 219, 316, 320-321

            code (legal), 198, 201, 212, 234

            conditions of settlement, 273

confiscation, 227, 243 (monastic land), 262

            criticized, 158, 236, 240

            defiance, 240

economic independence from, 229-230, 232, 235, 301-302

            enemies, 217-218

            family, 304

            friends, 303

            friends at court, 217, 248

            governor, 240-241, 328

            hierarchy as, 249

Indians, 290-292, 299 (land grant)

monopoly, 212 (land), 216 (clergy), 221 (resistance), 239 (labor), 246 (divine right), 249

            overthrow, 104, 308, 325, 328

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 449]

            pelt monopoly, 201, 236

political independence from, 143-158, 197, 301-303

            prerogative, 234

            rejection of code, 112, 200, 326

            __ relatives, 302

resistance, 118, 224, 239, 257-258

            royalism, 218, 327

            squatters, 233

            tithe, 184

See also, C. Calvert, overthrow, patronage

Prorogue, Md. assembly, 148

Prosecution (judicial), 28, 34, 60

            blasphemy, 208

Prostitution, 270

Protectionist, trade policy, 84

Protectorate, 328

Protestant(ism), 5, 20, 30, 43, 46-

48, 56, 60, 68, 71-72, 74, 80, 86-88, 90, 94, 126, 129, 132, 178

            courts, 209

            conversion to, 195

            "ethic," 20

Md., 104, 113-116, 144-145, 162-163, 166-169, 171, 196, 198, 223, 310, 312, 325

            Md. influence, 199

mixed Catholic-__ marriages, 265, 302

            Portugal landlord fear, 284

relations with Md. Catholics, 184, 199, 205, 207, 210-213, 218-219, 302

            services, 212, 302

Providence (Annapolis), Md., 218,

220 (map), 299, 321

Providence (God's), gentry's view,

123

Provinc(e)(s)(ial), 111

court, 109-110, 150, 163, 197, 202, 206, 210-211, 215, 234-235, 303

            court women, 265-266, 268

            Hapsburg, 193

Md., 89, 112, 115, 119, 153, 160, 168, 170, 213, 218, 222-223, 227-228, 236-237, 240 (trade), 302

            New Mexico, 220

            offices, 144, 224 (holders)

            politics, 218

            security, 238

            self-government, 149

            sermon, 182

            taxes, 155

            Va. aggression, 218

            See also, court

Psalms, 253

Pseudo-Dionysius (theologian),

127

            class system, 136

Public, benefit, 79

            corporations, 246

            expense, 303

            ferry, 261

            good, 70, 80, 236-237

            interest, 76, 79

            official, 238

            persons, 189

            prejudice, 79

            purse, 137

            sale, 237

            use, 82, 185

            welfare, 77

            See also, official

Public service, 121, 233

ruling and soldiering, not labor, 129

Pudding pies, tax (Hapsburg), 194

Pulpit, 74, 304

Pulton, S.J., Ferdinand (priest),

309, 316

Pumpkin, 260, 279

Punishment, capital, 112, 210

            class system as, 134

            corporal, 208

            court, 271

            fee(s), 238

            labor as, 131-133

            servants, 102, 268

Puritan(s), 6, 25, 27, 40, 42, 69, 78,

89

            clergy, 254

            clergy rights, 215

            devotions, 191

            republic in Va., 247

Purity, landlord-clerical view, 128-

129

            of blood limpeÇa de sangue, 126

Purgatory, see doctrine

Purse, Public, 137

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 450]

Pychon, William (migrant), 236

 

Quaker, 90, 302

Quebec, 142 (map), 236, 298

            See also, Canada

Queen (Indian), 286

            See also, Anne, Elizabeth

Quiché religion (Guatemala), 280,

284

Quito, bishop, 203, 293

            nutritional deprivation, 226

Quitrent, see rent

 

Raccoons, 288

Race(ial)(ist)(ism), 173, 176

            African, 257

            based on blood, 126, 174-176

            based on color, 126

            based on labor 126

            based on language, 126-127

            based on national origins, 126

            beliefs, 257, 278, 284, 300

beliefs about inherited titles, 123

            class system, 300

            divine __, 173

            hatred, 300

            in antiquity, 126

            Indian, 257, 284

            Md., 279, 300

            separate gentry __, 126

Rac(e)(ing) horse, 138-139

Rahner, Karl (theologian), 305

Raid(s), European, 292 (food)

            Indian, 153, 299

Rainborough, Thomas (leveler),

149

Rainfall, 98

Raleigh, Walter, 79

Rank(s), Catholic __'s, 303

            gentry (titles), 121, 124

            higher Indian __, 192

            of angels, 128-130

Rapine, Hapsburg, 194

Rates, 81

            Book of (on imports), 84

            church courts, 209

            Md. regulations, 228, 237

Ration(ing), against labor, 252

            corn, 227

Read(er)(ing), lay __, 182

scripture, 191

Reap, 93

Reason ("higher"), possessed by

slaveowners, 127

Rebelli(on)(ous), 13, 18, 50, 54, 80,

103, 159

            as sin, 124, 254

            Bacon's, 156

            condemned, 175, 178, 254

            Md., 161

            peasant, 250

            women, 133

Recife (Brazil), 142 (map), 172

Record(s)(ed)(ing), Md., 182, 232

            deed, 235

            Md. women, 258

            system, 235

See also, assembly, career files, court, judicial, registers, voting

Recusant(s), 15-16, 27-28, 34, 44,

47-48, 51, 60, 75, 92, 188

            convicted, 24, 28

Redistribution, see leveling, wealth

Redwood, trade monopoly, 245

Reform(er)(s), 149

agrarian, 105-106, 128, 135-137, 243-244

            alms, 184

            church, 188

            Civil War, 209

            land, 327

            writings of, 136

            See also, Council of Trent

Reformation, 22, 62, 177, 207

Refuge, Md., 216 (English Jesuit)

Register(s)(ing), Md., 182

            fee, 238

Regrator, regulations against, 237

Regulations, see assembly, legislation, market, prices, tobacco

Relative(s), 302-303

            See also, family

Relief (government) for needy, 83

Relig(ion)(ious), 66, 88, 144-145,

162-163, 168, 176, 189 (religiosity)

            African, 279, 282

            art, 292

assimilation (Indian-European-African), 285, 293

            belief(s), 90, 104, 301, 304

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 451]

            books, 175

            duty, 174

            example for labor, 191

            fatalism, 255

            Indian, 279-281

            instruction, 298

            liberation, 177, 214

            Md., 196, 199, 224, 312

offices, 126 (racial discrimination)

orders, 126 (racial discrimination), 118 (licensed to import slaves), 272 (dowry)

practices of gentry, 129, 140, 189

            women, 298

See also, Catholic, orders, Protestant, toleration

Reliquary, 192

Rent (quit-rent), 14, 19, 32, 50, 60-

61, 119, 272

            collecting as Godly, 134

            day, 138, 235, 330

            -free, 6, 87

            God's punishment, 131-132

            in Eng., 95, 121, 124-125, 221,

243, 272

            in Md., 95-96, 119, 121, 170

            proprietor's, 229, 233

            refusal to pay, 51, 57, 166, 170

            resistance, 235

            __-taker, 235

            theological justification, 128

Reproduction, see birth

Republic, of the Seven United

Provinces (Dutch), 130

            Roman, 135-136, 177-178

            Va. Puritan, 247

Republican(ism), 80, 177-178

Resistance, 137

of servants to landlords, 135, 268

            to established order, 177

            to imprisonment for debt, 107

            to London merchants, 241

            to market economy, 222

            to proprietor, 118, 168

            to Royalists, 241

            to servitude, 102, 268

            to tithes, 107

            to work speed-up, 222

See also, bishops, enclosure, proprietor

Resources (national),

monopolization, 125, 245

Responsibility, sense of, 103, 255

Restoration, 28, 69

            proprietor, 168

Retail sales, Md., 237

Resurrection (Jesus), 283

Revenue, 56

            church, 212, 251

            crown, 79, 152, 159

            freight, 229

            monopoly, 245-246

            parish, 25

parliamentary measures, 151-152, 154, 246

            proprietor's, 229, 233, 235

            tax, 242

See also, economics, monopoly, royal, taxes

Revolt(s), Peasant, 50, 155

            servant, 122

            women bread __, 263

Revolution(aries), 18, 58, 103, 111

            egalitarian, 300

            French, 181, 201

            Glorious, 303

            industrial, 138

            Md., 119, 161, 308

            North American, 255, 303

            See also, leveling, overthrow

Rhetoric, 137

Ricci, S.J., Matteo (missionary),

186

Rice farming in Md., 99

Rich (class), 18, 77, 105, 244, 251-

252

            God's special love, 124

            Jesuit service, 189

            Md., 215

Ride, horses, 126

Rigby, S.J., Roger (priest), 294,

309

Righteousness, God's in making

class system, 133

Right(s), 56-57, 61, 70, 76, 111

            abolition of property __, 105

            birth, 149

            church's, 201-202

            citizen __, 109

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 452]

clergy's, 131 (labor), 215 (biblical)

            custom of the country, 97

diversion of tenants from political __, 124

            divine, 128, 212 (Rome), 246

            economic, 82, 277 (women)

            equal women's __, 261, 263, 278

            hereditary, 272

            husband's, 267

            Irish legislative, 177

            labor, 30

            labor in Md., 108-110, 176

Md. legislative, 146-149, 179, 198 (initiative)

            Md. trade __, 201

            of English people, 327

of land occupation & use (Indians), 288

            of servants to crops, 112, 119

            of servants to jury trial, 109-110

            of the poor, 82

            political __, 277

            pope's __ in Md., 198

            servant, 109-111, 263 (women)

            squatters, 107

            to bring suit, 266 (women)

to militia membership, 112, 265 (women)

            to obtain Indian land, 201

            to pay taxes, 266 (women)

to Sunday freedom from labor, 111

            unlimited landlord __, 136

            voting, 109, 149, 262

women's property __, 137, 267

women's __ to contract, 109-110, 263-264 (marriage)

women's __ to have children, 268, 271

            women's __ to jury trial, 109-110

worker contract, 86, 98, 109-111, 244

See also, headrights (for migrants), labor, servants, tenants, trial, vote, women

Rings (Indian), 294

Riot, 54, 60, 232

Rite(s), 295 (Africa)

            China __, 285

            labor defilement of holy __, 131

            Malabar __, 285

Rituals, almsgiving, 250

            symbolic, 37, 183

            See also, devotion

Robbers, gentry, 139-140

Robert, John ap (writer), 272

Role(s), beliefs about clergy's, 181-

220

gender, 258, 267, 271, 275, 277-278

            Indian religious __, 285

Rom(e)(an), 16, 34, 45, 47, 70-71,

85, 112, 132, 282

agrarian reform in __ Republic, 135-137, 177

            antiquity, 126-128, 138

            architecture, 178

            attacked, 162, 204, 206

            authority, 198

            Avignon, 275

            classical __ family, 277

            classical __ women, 277

classical writers, 127, 130-131, 138

            clericalism, 214

ecclesiastical aggression, 128, 149, 202

            English landlord rejection, 273

            English students at, 128

establishment, 29, 40, 67, 74, 182, 193, 197, 301

            excommunication, 213, 265

            family limitation, 271

            gods and religion, 131

Hapsburg dominated, 193, 202, 275

            hierarchy, 213

            horse racing, 139

            imperialism, 189

            infant exposure, 271

            inquisition, 209

            Jesuit center, 193

            judicial appeals, 204

law, 137, 197, 206, 277 (classical intermarriage)

            legal court of, 68, 197-198

married priesthood, (history) 274

            Md. relations, 215, 301

            mixed marriage, 265

            oaths, 214 (condemned)

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 453]

            property rights, 212

            Protestants, 265

            relations with, 34

            __ Catholic, 184

            See also, Catholic, praemunire

Roe, Thomas (immigrant), 247

Roof, thatched, 115

Rosary, criticized, 140

            Indian, 294

Rosetti, Monsignor (nuncio), 214

Roundhead(s), 143

            defined, 134

Rountree, Helen (historian), 261,

288, 292, 297-298, 300

Royal(ists)(ism), 4, 13, 15, 42-44,

54, 56, 61, 71-72, 83, 152, 157, 160, 273, 326-327, 390

accusations, 143, 156, 158, 161-172, 179

            anti-__, 11

            beliefs, 231

            G. Calvert, 247

            Catholic, 12, 47, 50, 129, 143-

144, 161-163, 175-176

            commission, 160, 241

            contempt for labor, 134, 231

            governor, 159, 161-162, 170

            hereditary rights, 272

            jurisdiction, 147

            leases, 245

            Md., 104, 143

            Md. clergy, 195

            Md. trade interference, 248, 263

            merchants (Bristol), 239

            monopolies, 125, 245

            parliament, 159

            proprietor, 218

            revenue measures, 245-246

            troops, 81, 166

            Va., 195

See also, army, Bristol, crown, gentry, king, sycophant

Ruby, liturgical accessories, 190

Rule(s), gender, 262

            Hapsburg-Spanish, 204

            of faith, 71

            of law, 176

            parliament, 177

            Stuart, 246

            See also, common law

Rul(ing)(er), absolute, 175

            class, 286

gentry ideal, 129, 176, 178, 287 (Congo)

Rum, 294

Run(ning)(aways)(-off),

            laboring people, 117

            servants, 102-103, 110, 121, 287

            servant women, 266, 268

Rushworth, William (priest), 72

 

Sacrament(s), 26-27, 30, 293

(book)

communion (Blessed Eucharist), 70, 140

confession (penance, reconciliation), 253

            frequent, 191

Holy Orders (ordination), 128, 274

            of infamy, 246

            sale, 207

            See also, baptism, marriage

Sacred, crown, 173, 175

            leveler view, 107, 122

            Md. Catholic view, 179

            unearned wealth, 122-123

Sacrifice(s) (to God), 294

            defiled, 131

            ideal, 187, 190

            laboring peoples' lives, 133

            questioned, 6, 87

Sacrilege, court cases, 207

Sacristan(s), office of __, 280

Safety, gentry, 175

Sailor (occupation), 34

Saint(s), 72

            cult of, 280 (Guatemala)

            days (festivals), 329-330

            gentry, 177

            Jesuit, 187, 192

            labor, 37, 39-40

            patron, 183

            Roman version, 39

            See also, St. __

Saint-Germain, Christopher

(jurist), 205

Salad(s), gardens in Md., 100, 260

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Salamanca, Spain,

            English students, 128

            university, 250

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 454]

Salmon, 245

Salmon, Marylynn (historian), 278

Salt, 130, 223, 245

Salvation, gentry's view, 132

            Rome's view, 265

            See also, heaven

Salvian of Marseille (theologian),

250, 252

Sanchez, S.J., Thomas, 16

Sandys, Edwin, 247

Sant Iago (Cape Verde), 203

Sâo Tomé, Africa, 118, 142 (map),

204, 281-282

Sapphire, clergy's 190

Sardinia, Italy,

            English students, 128

Saturday, freedom from labor, 110

Saunders, John (migrant), 206

Sausage, makers, 130

Sawyers, occupation, 239

            monopoly, 194

Scabies (disease), 269

Scandal, clergy, 207

Scapular, criticized, 140

Scarcity, Md. grain, 227-228

            women, 259

Schism(atics), 10, 17

            English, 193, 213

Scholastic, 249-250

School(s), 27, 42, 51, 85

            Africa, 281

            agrarian reform, 136

conservative social philosophy, 136-137

            contempt for labor, 134

continental English language, 21, 189-190

            cost, 189-190

            gentry-subsidized Catholic, 125

            Md., 118, 186, 309

            Spanish, 294

            village, 70

Schoolmaster (occupation), 33,

309, 319, 323

Scien(tific)(ce) farming, 138

Scorpions, 254

Scot(s)(land) (Scotch), 130, 327

            Dutch allies, 169

            Northern war, 152, 217, 326

Scripture, 295

basis of slavery, serfdom, murder, 133

clergy rights restricted to __ basis, 215

communal ownership, 136 (Acts of the Apostles)

            countered by Rome, 128

            Douay translation, 178

family beliefs, 272, 295 (Indians)

feast days, 329 (St. Bartholomew, Matt. 10:3), 330 (first fruits/Pentecost, Exodus 23:16)

figurative interpretation criticized, 192

            in English, 26

            in Md., 94

in Indian language, 284 (outlawed)

labor's honor, 37 (1Kings 7:13-47, 2Chronicles 2:14, Genesis 4:20), 40 (Genesis 4:22, Ecclesiasticus), 108-109

            labor value, 140 (2Th. 3:10)

obedience to crown, 178 (1Kings 8; Macabees 4:1)

obedience to superiors, 179 (Romans)

            primogeniture, 272

Psalms, penitential (theology of suffering), 253

quoted, 201, 285 (pearls before swine), 390 (court life)

            reading, 191

rights of God (clergy) & of Casear (proprietor), 201 (Mk. 12:17, Mt. 22:21, Lk. 20:25

ten commandments (decaloguus decem), 27, 72, 254 (stealing)

            Wisdom (bk of), 304

            women's rights, 109 (Gal. 8:28)

women's subordination, 277 (Genesis)

Scum, laboring people, 117, 135

Sea, 139

Seaman, 237

Search, house, 228

Season(al), employment, 221

            traveling, 241

Secrecy, oath, 148

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 455]

Secretary, 310

of state, 104 (F. Windebank, R. Cecil)

            overthrow, 104

provincial, 93, 146, 148-149, 151, 156, 162, 169-170, 234, 238, 240-241

Sectarian, exclusive Catholicism,

282-284

            Indian, 297

            misconduct, 211

            See also, Catholic, Protestant

Secular, see clergy

Security, economic, 272, 274

            employment, 83

            laboring people, 105

            old age, 83

Sedition, 87

Seed, tobacco, 113

Segundo, S.J., Juan Luis, 253, 304-

305

Seigneurial, 62

Selden, John (political writer), 148

Self-denial, 187 (self-abnegation)

            ideal, 137, 252

Self-examination (gentry), 191

Self-government, see

independence, politics

Seminar(y)(ies), 274

            Jesuit, 189

Semitic, see Jewish

Senator, 277

Seneca (philosopher), 118

Senegal, Afr., 203

Senior, see old age

Senses, nobility, 126

Sensual, 277

Sequestration, 14, 31, 48, 56

            Camden House committee, 158

            church courts, 209

Serf(dom), resistance, 244

            sinful barbarians, 133

Sermons, 21, 25-26, 174

            book of, 211

            gentry subsidized, 125

            Md., 182

Servant(s), 61, 63, 67, 90-91, 93, 96

            Caribbean, 268-269

            clergy's, 190, 205, 215, 211

            cost, 222, 237

            cost to maintain, 119-120

            exploitation, 116

            free, 97, 119, 320, 322

            full-share work, 97, 119

            headstrong, 120, 226

indentured, 90, 94, 102, 116, 118, 185, 205, 224, 226-227, 233, 240, 260, 263, 320-321

            independence, 152, 211

            Indian, 289

            labor beliefs, 269

            legal protection, 111, 235 (Md.)

            maid, 260-263

Md., 96, 98, 102-104, 110, 113-114, 116-117, 121-122, 209, 231, 309-314, 316-317, 321-323

Md. levelers, 104, 107, 122, 165-166

            poor, 134

            power, 231

            rebellion, 208

            revolt, 122

            rights, 109-111, 211, 235

            running off, 102, 121, 287

            theft, 102, 122

            women, 263, 266, 268, 271

See also, beliefs, indentured, labor, running away

Serv(e)(ice)(s), clergy, 187, 191,

195, 205, 207-208, 212-213, 216, 220

            clergy's military __, 210

            crown, 246

ecclesiastical, refused to labor, 124

            gentry religious belief, 304

            government regulation, 237

            indentured, 93, 111, 264

            judicial, 150

            Md. need, 187

            Md. religious, 182, 213

            Protestant, 213

            public, 121, 129, 233

religious, 29-30, 204, 292-294 (Indian), 304-305

            to congregations, 192, 204

            trades, 238

            voluntary, 184

            writ, 238

            See also, cult

Servility, 62

            Indian Catholicism, 291

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 456]

Servitude, feudal, 137

            freedom from, 110

            God's judgment for sin, 133

ideology of, 298 (Indian mission)

            indentured, 89, 91, 263

            length, 97, 111

            resistance, 135

            women, 268

            See also, leveling, running away

Servius (Roman writer), 131

Seville, Spain, 209

Sex(ist)(ual), 257, 300

            abuse, 266

            beliefs, 261

role(s), 257-258, 267, 271, 275-277

            union, 295

Sex ratio, 215 (Md.), 258

Shame(ful), labor, 108, 112-113

            the world as __, 254

            See also, labor

Sharecropp(er)(ing), 97, 116, 119,

259, 307

            assembly membership, 224

            right to vote, 109

Sheep, 61, 260

            skin regulation, 80

            workers not, 86

Sheffield knives, 296

Shelter, 259, 264

Shepherd(ess), 276

Sheriff, 320

            qualifications in Md., 109

            Md., 144, 150, 238, 240, 321

Ship(s)(ping), 77, 158-160, 164,

185, 194

            Bristol, 164

            cost, 101, 228 (Md.)

            crew, 161, 163

            Dutch, 155, 164-165, 242

            English, 164

London, 157, 164, 229 (owners), 240

            Md. __ wright, 239 (wages)

            money (tax), 49-50

regulations, 237, 241 (royalist), 242

            supply __, 296

            trading, 236

            See also, freight, transportation

Shoe(s), 222, 263, 286 (Indian)

Shoot, guns, 183

Shortage, grain, 168

Show horse, 138

Sicily, Hapsburg, 193

Sickness, 174

            acceptance, 254

            duty of masters, 135

            feigned by servants, 102

            missionary, 285

            the world as __, 254

Silk, Md. production, 100

            weakness, 270

            winding, 260

Silver, racing cup, 139

            liturgical accessories, 190, 292

            papal, 210

            Spain's, 130

Sin(ner)(s)(fulness), associated

with labor, 21

            avoidance of, 305

disobedience to established order, 124

            Indians, 289

            labor as punishment, 131-133

            landlords, 132-133

making amends by suffering, 252

            non-workers, 139

            papal profit, 210

            social __, 305

women's subordination associated with, 277

            the world as __, 254

            workers as, 132

Singing, 25-26

            clergy's, 292

            feast day, 183

            hymn, 27

            work related song, 38

Sioux language, 289

Skill (in labor), 94, 97-98, 110

Skin, deer, 229, 279, 288, 296, 298

Skipper, of ship, 237

Slander, clerical __ of labor, 134-

135

Slave(s)(ry), 61, 90-91, 103, 112,

116-118

            abolition, 128, 135, 244

            abortion, 270

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 457]

Aquinas, 127 (natural law), 140, 244

            Aristotle, 244

            associated with labor, 21, 40

            Barbados, 269

            barbarian, 133

            branded with cross, 118

            Briton, Gaul and German, 133

buying expeditions in Africa, 118

            Caribbean, 259, 268-269

            Catholic, 287

            classics, 135, 244

            class system, 277

            Congo, 287

convent, monastic and religious order importation, 118

            destiny by nature, 127

            domestic, 117

            English trading monopoly, 245

            Greek and Roman, 127-128

            Gregory the Great, 189, 244

            Guinea Co., 245

            Indian, 289

            in Portugal, 117-118

            in Spain, 117-118

            international law, 127

            Jesuit owned, 301

            labor, 269, 286

            language, 127

            legislation, 112

            marriage, 264, 277

            master's higher reason, 127

            Md., 300

            Mexico, 208

            outlawed, 52

overthrown by Catholic labor, 136

            overwork, 269

owner beliefs, 270 (family limitation)

            Plutarch, 244

            proprietor's "concern," 176-177

            Pseydo-Dionysius, 136

            race, 127

            rebellion, 208

            religion, 127

            Tertullian's authority, 136

            wages as token, 130

            women, 259, 268-270

See also, Africa, Angola, class, Congo, Guinea, villeinage, W. Southby,

Smith, Adam (economist), 3, 19

Henry (Protestant cleric), 211, 215

            John (writer), 234-235

Richard (bishop), 67, 202, 204, 206, 216

            Thomas (political writer), 148

Smith, 306, forges, 194

            Md., 239

            monopoly, 194

See also, blacksmith, hammersmith

Soap, 245

Social, mobility, 138

            needs of servants, 112

            __ sin, 305

Society, class, 254, 286, 295

gentry's conservative view, 127-128

            just __, 304-305

legal regulation, 212 (mortmain)

            See also, Jesuit

Soil, Md., 98

            fertility, 101

Soldier(s)(ing), gentry ideal, 129-

131

illustration, 325

Md., 161, 309, 319, 323, 325

Va., 153, 161

Somersett, Henry (official), 217

Songs, see singing

Sorcery, court cases, 207-208

Sordid, wage labor, 130

Soto, see Desoto, D.

Soul, 117, 139, 175, 179 250

            gentry's liberty of, 126-127

            immortal, 294

            king as, 175

            purgatory, 207

            save one's __, 304

Sousa, Mathias de (African), 280,

286-287, 298

            Md. assembly member, 109

            transported by clergy, 117

Sousa, Pedro de (Congo

ambassador), 280

South America, 172

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 458]

Southby, William, slave abolition,

90

South Carolina, 104, 278

Southwell, S.J., Nathaniel, 187

Southwell, S.J., Robert, 65

Sovereign(ty), 174, 176

            Indian, 292

Sowerby Thirsk (Yorkshire), 141

(map), 145

Sow(ing), 99, 126, 277

Spain(ish), 17-18, 77

            ambassador, 321

            Armada, 14, 22

            betrayal to, 103

            blasphemy, 208

            Brazil, 172

            bribes, 217

            church courts, 208-209

            colonialism, 208

            communes, 177

            empire, 118, 204

            faction, 217

            Hapsburgs, 193

            Indian religious terms in __, 284

            Jesuits, 193-194

            Jews, 126

            king, 193, 294

            language, 294

            map, 142

            Marriage, 29, 217

            missions, 203, 284

            monarchy, 52

            overthrow, 204

            party, 217

            pension, 193, 217

            slavery in, 117-118

            taxation, 193

            tyranny, 194

            war against Dutch, 130

Speculation, anti__ legislation,

227, 237

            corn, 227

land, 116, 212, 288 (Indian), 289-290, 300, 320

            See also, forestalling

Spinner (occupation), 33, 83-84,

306

            Md., 100, 260 (flax)

            wheels, 260

Spinster (occupation), 33

Spirit(ual)(ity), 4, 6, 27, 42, 71, 74

            aid, 189

            clergy's, 292

            direction, 191

            gentry's, 126, 174, 189 (life)

            harm, 250

            Ignatian (Jesuit), 253

            Indian, 284

            jurisdiction, 69

            landlord, 128-129

            led by __ (women), 262

legal regulations, 212 (mortmain)

            needs of servants, 112

not compatible with production, 134

            of laboring people, 249, 297

Spiritual Exercises (Loyola), 129,

190-192, 275, 304

Spit, on monarchy, 176

Spouse, 30, 244, 259, 262, 264, 266-

268, 273, 294, 302

            Protestant, 210, 302

Springfield, Mass. 236

Spurius Cassius (tribune), agrarian

reform, 136

Spy, 231

Squatter(s), on land, 107, 233-235

(legislative support)

            See also, usufruct

Stability, gentry ideal, 177

Stafford, Earl of, see T.

Wentworth

Stanney, William (writer), 253

Staple, 229 (Md.)

Star Chamber, 52

Starkey, S.J., Lawrence (priest),

186, 309, 316

Starvation, 226, 269 (women)

State, 176

            council of, 216, 248

            of England, 211

            secretary of, 248

Status, arrival in Md., 94, 96-98,

315-318

Statute, see law

Statistic(s), 90

St. Aloysius Gonzaga, 187, 192,

276

St. Anne, fertility, 183

St. Augustine, contempt for the

world, 254

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 459]

            labor based on sin, 133

            slavery, 127, 133

St. Catherine of Sienna, 275

St. Christopher (colony), 169

St. John Chrysostom, worldly

contempt, 254

St. Clara of Assisi, 275

St. Clements, Bay (Md.), 185, 213

            manor (Md.), 92

St. Francis of Assisi, 253

St. Francis Xavier, S.J., see Xavier

St. Ignatius Loyola, see Ignatius

St. Inigoes, 180 (map), 301 (parish)

St. John, feast, 183, 330

St. Kitts and Nevis (colonies), 103,

326

St. Mary's, chapel, 213, 216

            county, 301-302

            festival, 183

            Indian grant, 299

            map, 180, 220

            soldiers, 325

village (Md.), 97, 113, 116, 143, 165, 167, 171, 185, 211, 240, 281, 289, 291, 295-296, 298

St. Paul, dagger of (London), x

            feast, 183

            labor value, 140

            obedience, 179

St. Paul's Cathedral, 61, 192, 322

(illustration)

Sts. Peter & Paul, 38, 183 (feast),

330

St. Teresa of Avila, 275

St. Thomas More, see T. More

Steal(ing), 254, 292

            Indian, 290, 294

Stephenson, Elena (servant), 107

Steward(s), 138

            landlords as, 128

Stockings, as freedom dues, 98, 263

Stoic(ism), ideal, 276

Stone, Garry (historian), 225

Stone, William (governor), 169-

171, 321, 327-328

Store, monopoly, 194

Straw, 267

Strength (political), Md. tenants,

95

Strong, 252 (versus weak)

Struggle, armed, 171

            laboring people, 254

            Va., 165

Stuarts, 22, 79, 246

            Jacobite, 303

            monopoly, 248

            succession, 248

See also, James I & II, Charles I & II

Student (occupation), 33, 128

            See also, continent

Stud(y)(ies), Congo, 281

            county, 223

            Md. market, 222

            See also, England

Suarez, Francisco (theologian),

128

Subsidy(ization),

            agriculture and manufacturing

by government, 83, 104

            books, 175, 178

            gentry, 137

            schools and priests, 134

Subsistence, 113

            classical authority, 135

            gentry belief, 135, 243-244

            rejected in Md., 101

            wages, 86, 221

Suck, baby, 260

            episcopacy, 209

Suetonius (Roman writer), 131

Suffering, 16

            doctrine (theology), 252-254

Suffragan, 203

Suffrage, see vote

Sugar, Caribbean, 269

            farming, 99

            Jamaica, 278

            production, 204, 259

Suicide, economic, 241

            servant, 102

Suit (cloth), freedom dues, 98, 263

            matrimonial, 209

            servant's right to bring, 109-110

women's right to bring, 109-110, 114, 266

            See also, court, law

Summa Theologiae, 249

Sunday, feast, 183

            mass, 182

            right not to work, 111

Superior(s), 178-180

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 460]

            Jesuit, 187, 200, 214, 219

Supremacy, see oath

Surgeon, 33, 308-309

            in Md., 114, 238, 319, 323

Surplus, production, 228, 230

(tobacco), 287 (Indian), 296 (corn)

            See also, value

Survey(or), fees in Md., 96, 233,

238

            in Md., 98

            occupation, 61, 319, 323

Susquehannock (Indians), 153,

156, 236, 279, 288-292, 296, 298

Sustenance, 227

Sweat, of labor, 134

Swede(n)(s), 18, 153

            New __, 290

            New __ Trading Co., 226

Sweetness, gentry virtue, 179

Swine, see pig

Sycophant(s), Jesuit, 189

            royal, 72

Syncretic religion, 280-282, 284

Synod (clerical assembly), 73-74,

200

            Massachusetts, 199

            See also, Presbyterian

 

Tackett, Timothy (historian), 181

Tacitus, Cornelius (historian),

German and Gaul enslavement, 133

Tailor, 33, 306

            Md., 114, 167, 309, 319, 323

            women, 260

Talent, nobility, 126

Tapestry, liturgical, 190

Tavern keeper (occupation), 33, 79

Tawney, Richard (historian), 89

Tax(es)(ation)(ables), 4, 7, 11, 49-

53, 57, 61, 96

            church, 200

crown, 151 (poundage & tonnage), 152, 154, 247 (license), 326 (forest eyre)

            custom, 229-230, 242 (Dutch)

            duty, 164

            excise, 53-54, 164

            for clergy, 184

            illegal, 151, 247

            impost, 230 (Ireland)

            inheritance, 243

licenses and government regulation as, 79, 247

            list(s), 90-92, 116

            Md. annual land, 119

Md. Catholic beliefs, 151-156, 179, 210

            New England, 156

            of clergy, 210-211, 215

on necessities (Hapsburg tyranny), 193-194

            on recusants (fine), 15

            payer(s), 116-117, 163

            parliamentary, 155

            persons (Md.), 227

            property (assessment), 155-156

            proprietor's, 155

            resistance in Md., 107

            system in Md., 4, 96, 107, 242

            tobacco, 151, 155, 164

            tribute (Indian), 289

            Va., 156

wealth redistribution to its creators, 106

            women, 266

See also, assessment, Dutch custom, poll, quitrent, ship money, tithe

Teacher(s), 65, 309

            gentry's view, 130

            Md. clergy, 118, 194

            See also, school

Teamster (occupation), 33

Tears, the world as, 254

Technology, Indian, 287, 297-298

Teenagers, see children

Temporal, 74, 212

Tenant(s), 49-51, 55-61, 65, 272

            contempt for, 124, 137

            free, 97

            full share, 97, 119

            in Md., 97, 224, 233

            levelers, 166, 233

            Md. levelers, 104-107

            of Md. clergy, 301

            of monasteries, 251

political strength in Md., 95, 196, 224

political strength in Eng., 145-146, 327

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 461]

            productive, 106, 125, 243

            rights, 224, 235

            Roman, 135-136

            sin, 131

            squatters, 233

            voting rights in Md., 109

Tenement, 56

Tentmaker (occupation), 36

Tenure, feudal, 52

            German communal system, 136

Terence (playwright), 130

Terror, the world as, 254

Tertullian (church father), class

system, 136

Testament(ary), 150

            defined, 206, 272

            women, 267

Testator, 186, 207, 312 (religion)

Testing ground, see theology

Textile(s), 298

            levelers, 166

worker (occupation), 33, 39, 44, 78, 82

Thanksgiving feast, 38

Theft, commandment against, 106

            landlord, 139-140

            leveler, 166

            servant, 102, 122

Theology, 6, 26, 47

            African, 295

            against tenantry, 123, 131

            class system, 136

            gentry __, 137

habitual slander of labor & laboring people, 134-135, 305

            in Md., 117

            in Spain, 194

            landlord __, 128-129, 254

            monopolist __, 246

            official, 304

            scholastic, 249-250

slavemaster __ in Africa and Latin America, 133

            testing ground, 252-254, 304-305

            Thomistic (T. Aquinas), 248

            working class __, 181, 212

See also, Africa, antinomian, T. Aquinas, becanus, beliefs, T. Cajetan, conflict, Conoy, D. Desoto, equality, good, Indians, Isidore of Seville, John of Salisbury, laborer, landlord, liberation, P. Lombard, medieval, Medina, monopoly, J. Mush, persecution, poverty, professor, Pseudo-Dionysius, K. Rahner, rent, Salvian of Marseille, scripture, J. Segundo, F. Suarez, suffering, Summa Theologiae, Tolleta, G. Vazquez, T. White

Theory of value, see economics,

labor, value

Thinking class, 301

            See also, belief

Third estate (labor), 137

Thirty-Nine Articles (Anglican),

198

Thomas, Keith (historian), 262

Thompson, Maurice (merchant),

116, 159, 165

Thornton, John (historian), 281-282,

284, 295

Throne (heavenly), 174

Thumbnail, as tool, 100, 108

Tiberius Gracchus (tribune),

agrarian reform, 136

Timber, royal leases, 245

Tin, 78

Tithe, 22, 53, 107, 184 (tenths),

207, 209,282 (Africa), 328-329

Title(d)(s), 124, 320

            belief about origin, 123

            land, 212, 274, 299 (Indian)

Toast, 163

Tobacco, 318

amounts produced, 100, 121, 225

            bad, 228

            boom, 168

            crown interference, 218

            crown tax, 151

            custom, 164, 217, 242

            damage, 228

farming, xiii (illustration), 97-101, 225 (size)

            full shares for tenants, 97, 119

            income from, 96, 121, 226

Indian, 279, 287, 289 (collective ownership), 296

            Industry, 229

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 462]

            Ireland, 217, 230 (policy)

            market, 232, 252

            monopoly, 169, 247

            packing, 223

            patent, 247

prices, 100, 119, 168, 230, 238-239, 242, 260

production, 91, 96, 113, 115, 120-121, 168, 225, 228-229, 239

            quality, 228-230

regulations, 221, 225, 227-229, 232-233, 237, 252, 255

            sequester, 158

            surplus, 230

            tax, 164

            trade, 151, 169, 171, 246

used as money, 110, 213, 226, 228, 238-239, 266

            Virginia, 292

            wages paid in, 97

            women, 259

See also, G. Goring, pipes, trade

Token, see alms

Toleration, 2, 48, 53-54, 69

            Act of Religious __, 2, 5, 327

Tolleta (theologian), 128

Tool(s), 100

            freedom dues, 97-98

            irons (Indian), 293, 297

            lending, 223

            prices, 222

            servant breaking and losing, 102

            tenant theft, 107, 122

Tortfeasors, suits against, 266

Torture, judicial, 208

Tory, 302

Town (Indian), 290

Town meetings, 224

            in Md., 109

Tract, leveler, 106

            See also, leveler, pamphlets

Trade(r)(s)(ing), 84

            African, 203-204

            church court persecution, 209

            council of, 80

crown interference, 157, 163, 240, 263

            cyclical pattern, 222

            domestic, 79

Dutch, 160, 164-165, 168-169, 171-172, 241-242

            English episcopacy, 209

free, 78-79, 156, 159, 227, 236-237

            gentry classics, 130-131

            gold, 245

            goods, 291, 296, 298-299

Indian, 121, 201, 287-288, 291, 296, 299, 300, 320

London, 157-158, 167, 169, 171, 287, 327

London interference, 241-242, 263, 319, 326

            Massachusetts, 172

            Md., 179, 241, 263

            monopoly, 125, 157, 169, 194

            New Sweden __ Co., 226

            pelt, 201, 226

            Portuguese, 203

            profit from, 93

            proprietor's interference, 156

            royal patents, 245

            season, 241

            service __, 238

            ship, 236

            slave, 245

            sugar, 203-204

            tax, 184

            tobacco, 151, 246

            Virginia, 296

See also, consular office, foreign, market, protectionism, slave, subsidy

Tradition(s), Africa, 282

            as law, 2

            Indian, 280, 282, 293-295, 299

            Jesuit, 186, 188

            landlord ideas, 135

            resistance to landlord, 177

Trained band, 46, 167, 265

            day (militia), 181

Trained horses, 139

Translation, see scripture

Trap (animals), 285, 288 (Indians)

Trash, 328

Treason, 15, 157, 175, 217

            act of, 15

Treaty, 326

Transportation, walking, 64

            consignment, 158

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 463]

            cost to Md., 93-94

            See also, cargo

Treasury, 262

Trent (council), 9, 274

            Aquinas, 128

Catholic-Protestant marriage, 265

            reform, 204

            seminaries, 274

Trespass, criminal, 157

Trials (judicial), assembly, 150

            church courts, 209

            in Md., 102, 110

            right of women to jury, 109-110

            witches (Lancashire), 326

Tribe (Indian), 288-289

Tribute (forced), 289 (Indian)

            See also, tax

Triennial Act, 147-148

Troop(s), 56, 81, 93

            billeted, 149

            Eng. Catholic in Spain, 130

            Md., 325

            See also, army, soldiers

Trust (legal), to subvert law, 16,

211-212

            See also, mortmain

Truth, 294

Tubal Cain (iron worker), 40

Tuition, see school

Turkey, 288

Tutor, clergy as, 62, 64, 188

Tyler, Wat (labor hero), 50, 155

Type (ideal), gentry, 140, 173, 179,

314

            gentry devotional manuals, 191

            heavenly court, 174

            improving steward, 138

            landlord as heavenly lord, 123

            manorhouse ministry, 181

            manual labor, 140

            Md. Catholic, 179

            See also, methodology

Tyranny, 178, 195 (Hapsburg-

Spanish)

Tyrer, Arthur and Margaret

(recusants), 51

 

Unemploy(ed)(ment), 81-83, 85,

221

Ungentlemanly, wage labor as, 130

Uniformity, Act of, 25

Unity, racial & gender, 257

University, Cambridge, 125, 128

contempt for lack of __ education, 134-135

            Oxford, 29, 125, 128

            Salamanca, 250

Uprising, 59, 268 (servant-slave)

Urban VIII (pope), 86

            mission profiteering, 205

Usufruct (landownership), 274, 288

            See also, squatter

 

Vagrant(s), 65

            Md. laboring people as, 117

Valladolid, Spain, 209 (school)

Value, of labor, 101-104, 107-108,

110-113, 119, 120, 140, 173, 239, 243, 269-270, 273, 301

            children, 269

            in terms of cattle, 122

            London, 120

            market, 270

            surplus, 125, 135, 269

            women, 258, 269

            See also, labor, price

Vazquez, Gabriel (theologian),

128

Vegetable, laboring people as, 134

Vein, see blood

Verstegan, Richard (writer), 253

Vessel, see ship

Vestments (clergy's), 292

Vestry, parish, 73

Veto, Irish legislature, 177

            Md. governor, 229

            Md. legislature, 198

            proprietor, 201, 232-233, 291

Vicar, 214 (pope)

Vice(s), 103

            Indian, 289

            non-labor, 139

Victims, blamed for crime, 133

            of primogeniture, 272

Vile, housing, 190

            laboring people, 134

Village(s), 66

            assemblies, 262

            Indian, 287-290, 292, 299

            pipers, 183

Villeinage, 112

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 464]

            See also, slavery

Virginia(ns), 93, 95, 102-103, 120,

299, 321

            army, 262

            corn laws, 226 (opposed)

            custom tax, 155

            Dutch trade, 164

exile, 160-161, 163, 167, 195, 241, 327

            governor, 195, 239

            House of Burgesses, 171, 232

Indians, 289, 295 (class stratification), 296-298, 300

            Indian missions, 283, 293

            Indian trade, 153, 296

            Indian wars, 290, 292

            Kecoughton, 321

            landlords, 212

legislation, 169, 200 (clergy), 232

            London trade, 165

            magnates, 297

            map, 220, 256

            markets, 225

Md. relations, 171-173, 216, 218-219, 227, 239, 242 (trade), 248

            merchants, 169

            Nansemond River, 170

            Northampton Co., 167, 171

            nutritional needs, 225, 227

            pipe makers, 328

            poll tax, 156

            price controls, 239

            primogeniture, 273

            probate, 273

            Puritan republics, 247

            revolutionary, 170

            riots, 232

            royalist, 160, 169-170

            soldiers, 153, 161, 168

            speculators, 212

            tobacco regulations, 232

            trade, 299

            __ Company, 93, 283, 292

Virgin(ity), 179

            Africa, 295

            gentry ideal, 271, 274-277

            Mary, 275

            Md. dislike, 214-215

Virtue, 87

            T. Aquinas, 250

            common law, 149

            endurance, 118

            equated with wealth, 174

            gentry, 120

            God's gift, 126

            humility, 137

            landlord wealth monopoly, 124

            nobility, 191

            obedience, 179

            peace, 179

            political, 179

poverty as opportunity for __, 250

            prayer, 192

renounce, 87 (will), 254 (renounce world)

            servant uprisings, 106

            suffering, 192, 253

            sweetness, 179

            virginity, 179

            war-making, 130

            See also, obedience

Viscount(s), annual rent income,

121

            wealth monopolization, 124

Vitamin(s), 269

Vocation, 304

Vot(e)(er)(ing) (franchise), 39, 49,

109, 111

            Catholic, 197

            leveler, 149

Massachusetts church government, 199

Md. assembly deliberations, 145-146, 148, 150, 197, 199, 229, 231

            Md. clergy's influence, 203

Md. tenants & artisans __ rights, 109, 224, 231

no property qualifications in Md., 109

            rights, 53

            wide in Md., 107, 109

            women, 262

Vow, marriage, 264

            religious, 187

 

Wadding, Luke (writer), 275

Wage(s), 86

            craft __, 238

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 465]

            in Eng., 97, 221, 330

            in Ireland, 97

            iron law of, 244

labor, 125, 238

labor in Md., 116, 121, 287, 293 (Indian)

Md. compared with England, 238

            Md. regulation, 238-239

            Md. shipwright, 239

            scale in Md., 97

            slavery association, 130

            superintendence, 19, 106, 120

            workers, 49, 238

            See also, earnings, subsistence

Wales, 64

            Council in the Marches, 75

            map, 141

            south, 62

            See also, Welshmen

Walnut(s), 287

Walsh, Lorena (historian), 107-

108, 119, 222, 258-259, 266-267, 278

Walwin, William (leveler), 12

War(s), 83

            Anglo-Dutch, 171-173, 241

            Anglo-Powhatan, 283

            Dutch Independence, 130

            gentry ideal, 128-130, 176

            Hapsburg, 193

            horse, 138

            Indian, 285, 289, 290-291

            legislative right to wage, 153

            Md., 290 (cost), 324

            Northern, 152, 155

            religious duty, 174

            Susquehannock, 92, 153, 156,

236, 291

            virtue, 130

            See also, Civil War

Warden, parish, 73

Warrant, arrest, 163

Warrior(s), God and Angels as,

128-130

Washing (clothes), 260, 277, 297-

298

            See also, clothes

Way of life (vocation), 89-90, 108,

141

Wealth(y), 85, 137

            Aquinas, 177

concentrated landlord __, 272-273

            created by labor, 106, 254, 257

            distribution in England, 124-125

            equated with virtue, 174

            God as source, 123

            God-given for charity, 132

Indian, 280, 284-285, 289 (beliefs)

            in Md., 100, 108, 120

            monarchal protection, 177

            monastic, 250-251

            people of, 115-116, 120-121

redistribution, 72, 250, 253 (condemned)

reward for moral superiority, 123

            squandered, 140

            unearned, 105, 122-123, 130

            windfall as source, 123

            women, 278

See also, labor theory of value, level

Weather, 99-100, 285, 296-297

            damage to crops, 228

            plantable, 113

Weaver (occupation), 33, 46, 54,

84, 306

            Indians, 286, 298

            industry, 82

            silk, 270

Weber, Max, 41, 89

Weeding, tobacco production, 97-

99, 263 (women)

Weights & measures, x

Weir, 288, 296

Welshmen, 59

            See also, Wales

Wentworth, Thomas, Earl of

Strafford, 117, 152, 177, 217-218, 230, 246, 248

West Indies, 93, 118, 169-170

            Dutch __ Co., 172

See also, Antigua, Barbados, Bermuda, Nevis, St. Christopher, Montserrat

Weston, Richard (writer), 35, 84,

217

Weston, Thomas (migrant), 78,

223

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 466]

Wetnurse, 270-271

Wexford County, Ireland, 141

(map), 247

Whigs, 303

White, S.J., Andrew (priest), 69,

117-119, 186-187, 192, 194, 208, 214, 248, 254, 283, 289, 291, 293-294, 296

White, Thomas (priest), 6-7, 36,

72, 76-77, 79-80, 85-87, 106, 110, 244, 286, 311

            Md., 195, 207

Whitelocke, Bulstrode (official),

248

Whiteman, Anne, 24, 28

Widdrington, Thomas (official),

248

Widow(s), 278

            in Md., 100, 259

            occupation, 31

Wife, 93, 259, 267-268, 274, 276-

277, 289, 321

            Indian, 295

Wigwam, see housing

Will, God's 137, 252

            king's __ equated with law, 175

            patriarch's, 277

            women's 277

Will (human), 281 (free)

            renouncing no virtue, 87

Will(s) (testament), 102, 273

(primogeniture), 312

            church court, 209, 272-273

            clergy, 183, 195, 206-207

probate (common law), 238, 272-273

            Virginia, 273

William the Conqueror, 202

            opposition, 46, 176-177

Wilmington, Del., 226

Wiltshire Co., Eng., 80, 82, 88

(map), 152, 166, 216

Windebank, Francis (secretary of

state), 248

Windfall, source of wealth, 123

Wine, beliefs about origin, 126

            retailer, 79

            patron of __ producers, 330

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Winstanley, Gerald, 6, 87

Wintour, John (landlord), 245, 248

            Robert (landlord), 35, 85, 117,

135, 197, 322

Wisdom, book of, see scripture

Witch(craft), 208, 267, 326

Whitsun, Ale(s), 38, 183

            feast, 183, 330

Women, 3, 31, 34, 66, 84, 92

            artisan, 114

            beliefs, 258, 268

            Catholic, 270, 312

            civil marriage, 264-265

            clothing, 296

            contract rights, 98, 109-110, 268

            devil, 276

            discrimination against, 278

            Druid rebel, 117

            economic beliefs, 224, 263

            equality, 262, 278

            family beliefs, 268-269

            ferry operator, 114, 261

            free, 116, 264, 271

            gentry beliefs, 276

            in church government, 109

            indentured, 259, 268

            Independent, 262

Indian, 260, 285-286, 288, 290, 296

            in Md., 100, 224, 312-314, 317

            jury, 267

labor, 42, 97, 100, 107, 257, 259-261, 270, 273, 278, 285-286, 288

            land rights, 95, 215, 273

            levelers, 107

            magnates, 300

marriage, 215 (laws), 264 (interracial), 267

            married, 278

            Md. assembly, 196, 262-263

            Md. maid-servant, 98, 114

            occupations, 258

            plant, 260

            population, 258, 312-314, 317

            probate, 266-267, 273

            religion, 258

            revolts (bread), 263

rights, 109-110 (jury trial), 109 (voting), 278

scripture in defense of rights, 109

            servant, 271

            slave, 259, 264, 269

[INDEX, 1996 ed., p. 467]

            tailors, 114

            taxpaying, 117

            town meetings, 109, 262

            unmarried, 100, 259

            wench, 277

See also, M. Brent, civil marriage, daughters, family, housewife, lawsuits, mate, partner, primogeniture, E. Stephenson, widow, wife, witch

Wood(s), in Africa, 282

            in Md., 100

            Md. products exported, 101

Wool(en), 58, 78, 298

            industry, 44, 83-84

Md. production, 100, 260 (women)

Work(er)(ing), 93

            criticized, 224

            daughters, 273

            ethic, 21, 41, 83

            factious, 224

field, xiii (illustration), 230-231, 277

            house, 82

            intellectualism, 301

life, 91, 95, 97, 101, 104, 108, 113-114, 140-141, 261 (women)

            Md. political power, 224, 230

            no shame, 108, 112-113

            passion for __, 306

            people, 86, 88, 104, 106-109, 122

            political power, 231

            religious quality, 37

            sinners, 132-133

            speed-up, 222 (resistance)

            women, 277-278 (equality)

            See also, belief, ethic, labor

World, as testing ground, 252, 254

            contempt, 187, 254

            not taken seriously, 304

            passion for __, 306

Worm(s), silk, 100, 260

            tobacco, 100

Worship, Md., 198, 223

Writ, 145, 172, 238, 328

 

Xavier, S.J., Francis (priest), 187,

284

Xenephon (historian),

conservative views, 135, 244

 

Yams, 270

Yaws, 269

Yeomen, 21, 31-33, 41, 49, 65

            African, 280-281, 286

            in Md., 109

            tax (Hapsburg), 194

Yoke, resistance, 86-87, 106

York(shire), Eng., 23, 33, 40, 44-

45, 62-63, 66, 78, 82, 85, 145, 181, 231, 326

map, 88, 141

York River, Va., 256 (map), 290

Younger sons & daughters, 272,

274

Youth(s), 28, 93, 292 (Indian)

 

 

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. ii]

Publishers Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Terrar, Edward Toby, 1944-

Social, Economic and Religious Beliefs among Maryland Catholic Laboring People During the Period of the English Civil War, 1639-1660/Edward Toby Terrar

 

p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references, index, maps and illustrations.

ISBN 0-9764168-5-9.

1. Intellectual life--History.

2. Catholics--Maryland--History--17th Century.

3. Catholic Church--Clergy.

4. Catholic Church--Doctrines--History.

5. History (Theology).

6. History of doctrines--Middle Ages--Thomas, Aquinas, Saint, 1225.

7. Liberation Theology.

8. Labor theory of value.

9. Antinomianism.

10. Spirituality.

11. Jesuits--History.

12. Drama--History.

13. Philosophy--History.

14. Politics--History.

15. Working class--Maryland--Religious life--17th century.

16. Working class--Maryland--Social conditions--17th century.

17. Maryland--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

18. Virginia--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

19. Massachusetts--History--Colonial period, ca. 1600-1775.

20. Puritans--Massachusetts.

21. Canada--History--To 1763 (New France).

22. Indians--History.

23. England--Church History--17th century.

24. Great Britain--History--Civil War, 1642-1649.

25. Africa--Church History.

26. Africa, West--History.

27. Africa--Politics and government.

28. Brazil--History--17th century.

29. Latin America--History.

30. Ireland--History--1649-1660.

31. Portugal--History--Spanish dynasty, 1580-1640.

32. Greece & Rome--Civilization.

33. Greece & Rome--History.

 

F190.C3 T47 1996

975.2’02

CWP
15405 Short Ridge Ct.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20906
https://www.angelfire.com/un/cwp

 

To order: (301) 598 5427
E-Mail: CathWkr@aol.com

 

Copyright Acknowledgements:

Grateful acknowledgment is given for permission to use material in this monograph that was published earlier in the following sources:

Edward Toby Terrar, "A Seventeenth-Century Theology of Liberation: Antinomianism and Labor Theory of Value in the Beliefs of English Catholic Laboring People, 1639-1660," copyright 1993, by permission of The Journal of Religious History.

_____. "Gentry Royalists or Independent Diggers? The Nature of the English Catholic Community in the Civil War Period of the 1640s," copyright 1993, by permission of Science and Society.

_____. "Was there a Separation between Church and State in Mid-Seventeenth-Century England and Colonial Maryland?" copyright 1993, by permission of Journal of Church and State.

_____. "Social Ideas among Post-Reformation Catholic Laboring People: The Evidence from Civil War England in the 1640s," copyright 1992, by permission of History of European Ideas.

_____. "Repenting the Quincentennial? A Study in Maryland Catholic History," copyright 1992, by permission of Journal for Peace and Justice Studies.

_____. "Social Beliefs among English Catholic Gentry during the Civil War Period of the 1640s," copyright 1991, by permission of Paradigms: Theological Trends of the Future.

_____. "Some Religious Roots of the of the Eighteenth-Century Democratic Revolutions," copyright 1991, by permission of NST: Nature, Society and Thought.

_____. "Religious Freedom in the American Colonial Era from the Perspective of Race, Class and Gender: The Contribution of the New Social History," copyright 1986, by permission of Epoche: Journal of the History of Religions.

_____. "Episcopal-Roman Catholic Relations During the American Revolution," copyright 1987, by Anglican and Episcopal History.

_____. "Catholic Ecumenism During America's Revolutionary Era," copyright 1988, by Journal of Religious Studies (Cleveland).

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. iii]

 

List of Tables, Illustrations & Maps

Table 1-1: Occupations of Warwickshire Recusants   .............................	31
Table 1-2: Expenditures and Receipts for a 100 Acre Farm	32
Table (Footnote): Percentage of Owner-Operator Farms over Time	91
Table 2-1: Euro-Catholic Population Estimates	92
Table 2-2: Arrival Status	94
Table 2-3 Non-Landowner Figures in 1642.........................................	96
Table (footnote): Days Required for Tasks	99
Table 2-4: Property Distribution in St. Mary's Co., 1642	116
Table 3-1 Religion of Maryland Assembly Members	145
Table (footnote): Maryland Literacy Rates	148
Table (footnote): Those Who Abandoned Maryland	168
Table 5-1: Fees for Public Officials................................................	238
Illustration  1: Weights and Money	x
Illustration  2: Tobacco Farmer	xiii
Illustration  3: Protest against Monopoly	255
Illustration  4: Algonquian Boatmakers	300
Illustration  5: Laboring Trades	306
Illustration  6: Destroying Tobacco Suckers .....................................	318
Illustration  7: St. Paul's Cathedral, London	322
Illustration  8: Leveling of Calvert's In-laws	324
Illustration  9: Soldiers	325
Illustration 10: Tobacco Pipes	328
Illustration 11: House Construction	330
Illustration 12: Congo Fishing-nets	389
Illustration 13: Landlord Catholicism .............................................	390
Map 1: English Counties	88
Map 2: Civil War Period Catholic England, Wales and Ireland	141
Map 3: Europe, Africa and America in the 1640s	142
Map 4: St. Mary's in the 1640s	180
Map 5: European-Md. Locations in the Civil War Period	220
Map 6: Maryland Indian Locations in the Seventeenth Century ............	256

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. vi]

 

ABBREVIATIONS

The following abbreviations have been used in the notes.

ACHSPR	American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, Records(Philadelphia).
AgHR	Agricultural History Review (Oxford).
AH	Agricultural History (Berkeley, Cal.).
AHR	American Historical Review (Washington, D.C.).
AHSJ	Archivium Historicum Societatis Jesu (Rome).
AJLH	American Journal of Legal History (Philadelphia).
Blitzer, Commonwealth Documents.	Charles Blitzer (ed.), The Commonwealth of England: Documents of the English Civil Wars, the Commonwealth and Protectorate, 1641-1660 (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1963).
Calv. Pap.	"Calvert Papers," Fund Publications (Baltimore, Md.: Historical Society, 1889), no. 28.
"Career Files"	St. Mary's City Commission, "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," (manuscript, 27 boxes (men), 4 boxes (women), Annapolis: Hall of Records), facilitator, Lois Green Carr.
CCSP	Edward Hyde, Calendar of the Clarendon State Papers Preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford University, ed. F. J. Routledge (4 vols., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932).
CM	Camden Miscellany (Camden Society, London).
CQR	Church Quarterly Review (London).
CRS	Catholic Record Society (London).
CSM	Chronicles of St. Marys (Leonardtown, Md.).
DNB	Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography (London: Oxford University Press, 1921-1922).
EcoHR	Economic History Review (Welwyn Garden City, Eng.).
EEH	Exploration in Economic History.
EngHR	English Historical Review (Harlow, Eng.).
ERL	D. M. Rogers, English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 (London: Scolar Press, 1977).
Firth, Acts.	Charles H. Firth and R. S. Rait (eds.), Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660 (3 vols., London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1911).
Foley, Records.	Henry Foley, S.J., (ed.), Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus (3 vols, New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., [1875], 1966).
Force, Tracts.	Peter Force (comp.), Historical Tracts and Other Papers, Relating Principally to the Origins, Settlement, and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, [1838], 1963).
Gillow, Literary.	Joseph Gillow (ed.), A Literary and Biographical History or Bibliographical Dictionary of the English Catholics from the Breach with Rome in 1534 to the Present Time (5 vols., London: Burns and Oates, 1885-1902).
Hall, Narratives.	Clayton Hall (ed.), Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, [1910], 1925).
Hall of Records.	Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md.
Harleian Misc.	William Oldys, (ed.), The Harleian Miscellany, a Collection of Scarce, Curious, and Entertaining Pamphlets Selected from the Library of Edward Harley, Second Earl of Oxford (12 vols., London: White, Murray and Harding, 1714-1746, 1813).
Hening, Virginia Statutes.	William Hening (ed.), Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia (13 vols., 2nd ed., New York: R. Barstow, 1823).
History.	History (London: The Historical Association).
HMC Report	Historical Manuscript Commission, Report (London: H.M. Stationary Office).
HMPEC	Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church.
HRS	Historical Records and Studies (U.S. Catholic Historical Society, New York, New York).
Hughes, Society of Jesus.	Thomas Hughes S.J., History of the Society of Jesus in North American: Colonial and Federal (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917).
JAH	Journal of American History (Wash., D.C.).
JCS	Journal of Church & State (Waco, Texas).
JEcoH	Journal of Economic History (Atlanta).
JEH	Journal of Ecclesiastical History (London).
JHC	Great Britain, Parliament, House of Commons, Journals of the House of Commons (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1803).
JHL	Great Britain, Parliament, House of Lords, Journals of the House of Lords (119 vols., London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1509-  ).
JHU	John Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science (Baltimore).
JMH	Journal of Modern History (Chicago).
Md. Arch.	William H. Browne (ed.), Archives of Maryland (72 vols., Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1883-1972), vol. 1 (Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland: January 1638 - September 1664; vol. 3 (Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1637-1667); vol. 4 (Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1650).
MHM	Maryland Historical Magazine (Baltimore).
NCH	Northern Catholic History (Gosforth, Eng.).
Newman, Royalist Officers.	Peter R. Newman, Royalist Officers in England and Wales, 1642-1660: A Biographical Dictionary (New York: Garland Pub., 1981).
Nicholas, Papers.	Edward Nicholas, The Nicholas Papers: Correspondence of Sir Edward Nicholas, ed. George F. Warner (London: Camden Society, 1886).
NQ	Notes and Queries (for Readers and Writers) (London).
Papenfuse, Dictionary.	Edward Papenfuse (ed.), A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).
PP	Past and Present (Oxford).
Pro, CCC	Public Record Office, Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding, 1643-1660 preserved in the State Paper Department of Her Majesty's Public Record Office, ed. Mary A. Green (5 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, Eyre & Spotteswoode, 1892).
PRO, Close Rolls.	Public Record Office, Calendar of the Close Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office (London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1833).
PRO, CSPC	Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, American and West Indies, ed. William N. Sainsbury, (40 vols., London: H.M. Stationary Office, 1860 - ).
PRO, CSPD, 1547-1625	Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series: Reign of Edward I, . . . James I, 1547-1625 (12 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1872], 1967).
PRO, CSPD, 1625-1649	Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Reign of Charles I, 1625-1649 (23 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1871], 1967), ed. Mary Green.
PRO, CSPD, 1649-1660	Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, Commonwealth, 1649-1660 (13 vols., Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1871], 1967), ed. Mary Green.
PRO, CSPV	Public Record Office, Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts Relating to English Affairs, Venetian (Italy) Series, 1636-1639, ed. Allen Hinds (Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, [1924], 1970).
RH	Recusant History (Bognor Regis, Eng.).
Scobell, Acts.	Henry Scobell (ed.), A Collection of Acts and Ordinances of General Use, Made in the Parliament, 1640-1656 (2 vols., London: Henry Mills, [1648], 1658).
Statutes at Large.	Owen Ruffhead (ed.), The Statutes at Large (London: 1763).
Statutes of the Realm.	Robert Drayton (ed.), Statutes of the Realm (1225-1948) (3rd ed., 11 vols, London: H. M. Stationary Office, 1950).
Stock, Proceedings.	Leo Stock (ed.), Proceedings of the British Parliaments Respecting North America (Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institute, 1924).
Thirsk, Agrarian History.	Joan Thirsk (ed.), The Agrarian History of England and Wales: 1640-1750 (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1985), vol. 5, part 2.
Thurloe, State Papers.	Thomas Birch (ed.), A Collection of State Papers of John Thurloe, Secretary to Oliver and Richard Cromwell (7 vols., London: F. Gyles, 1742).
TLCAS	Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society (Liverpool).
TRHS	Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (London).
TS	Theological Studies (Baltimore, Md.).
VMHB	Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (Richmond, Va.).
WAM	Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine (Devizes, Eng.).
WMQ	William and Mary Quarterly (Williamsburg, Va.).
WR	Worcestershire Recusant (Malvern, Eng.).

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. ix]

NOTE ON QUOTATIONS, DATING, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES, AND MONEY VALUES

            In the seventeenth-century quotations, the spelling has been modernized. Old constructions have been modified to make reading easier. Paragraphs and sentences of inordinate length which would be separate sentences in modern usage, have been broken up.

            During the period under discussion, March 24, was counted as the first day of the year. In this monograph, the first day has been changed to January 1, in accord with modern usage. However, the Julian calendar dating, which was used in England at the time, has been retained. It was ten days behind the Gregorian calendar, which was in use on the continent and was eventually adopted in England.

                                                Some approximate money values, weights, and measures in England and Maryland during the Civil War are given in the following listing.[1367]

1s (shilling)	=          12d (pence)
£1 (pound sterling)	=          20s =          100 pounds of tobacco
1 pound of tobacco	=          3d to 6d (1630s) =          2d to 3d (1640s & 1650s)
1,200 pounds tob.	=          a year's production =          £16 in the 1640s & 1650s
£5	=          net profit per year from average             plantation[1368]
1 hogshead	=          250 pounds tob. (1640s) =          400 pounds tob. (1660s)
4 hogsheads per yr	=          £15 (amount a person could raise in             1660s)[1369]
1 ship load of tob.	=          200-600 hogsheads @ 400 pounds             per hogshead[1370]
1 barrel of corn	=          150 lbs of tobacco (in               value)[1371] =          £1½ to £3[1372]

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. x]

1 barrel of corn	=          150 lbs of tobacco (in               value)[1373] =          £1½ to £3[1374]
1 acre of corn	=          3 or 4 barrels of corn
1 barrel of corn	=          5 Winchester bushels[1375]
1 quarter (of ton)	=          8 bushels =          64 gallons[1376]
1 ell of cloth	=          3 ft, 9 in.

 

Illustration 1: Brass scale measuring weights (avoirdupois) used in early seventeenth-century Maryland. They are stamped with the mark of the Foundry Guild and with the dagger of St. Paul, indicating they were manufactured in London.

Worn Elizabeth I silver sixpence from seventeenth-century Md. Originally made between 1561 and 1602, one piece was cut from it to provide change.[1377]

 

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. xi]

Note on "Career Files"

            The St. Mary's City Commission, under the direction of Dr. Lois Green Carr, has created the "Career Files of Seventeenth-Century Lower Western Shore Residents," which are at the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md. The "Career Files" contain a file for each of the 1534 men and 421 women migrants of the Civil War period for whom any information has been preserved in the Maryland government records. The government records have been "stripped," that is, each individual's file contains a copy of every document in which the individual's name is mentioned. The individual files, which are alphabetically arranged according to the settler's last name, total 27 boxes for men and 4 boxes for women. Many individual files are 100 pages or longer and contain information not only on religion, but on birth and death date, parents, date of arrival, status on arrival, land holdings, occupations, offices held, and court, tax, and probate records.

            Forty items from each of the 1955 "Career Files" for the Civil War period have been entered into a personal computer program, A Biographical Dictionary of St. Mary's County Residents, 1634-1705, available from Historic St. Mary's City on disk in d-Base IV. The items in the data base include migrants' name, dates of birth and death, date of arrival in Maryland, dates of first and last record in Maryland, arrival status (free, indentured, unknown), origin, marriage, occupations, offices held, religion, will, inventory, children, literacy, land holdings, titles, and value of estate. A copy of the "Career Files" on d-Base IV disk was made available for this monograph through the assistance of Dr. Lois Green Carr, Historian for the St. Mary's City Commission.

 

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. xii]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

            During the ten years that I researched and wrote this monograph, a number of individuals and institutions provided generous assistance. They included Gary Nash the chair of my doctoral committee. He spent an enormous amount of time patiently reading, correcting, and helping me improve the many drafts. The work also benefited from the comments of a number of other readers: Robert Brenner, Lois Green Carr, Michael Graham, S.J, Gerald Horne, John Krugler, Erik Monkkonen, Jeffrey Prager, and Albian Urdank. Others who helped were J. Frederick Fausz, Maryanne Finkelstein, Irma Pazmiño, Dean Richards, Daniel Smith, and the Los Angeles Maryknoll community. Those acknowledged are in no way responsible for errors of fact or interpretation.

            Many difficulties were eased by Ruth Ann Raferty, Barbara Bernstein, John Lafferty, Betty Anderson, and the other employees of the U.C.L.A. History Department. The students in the Early American Thesis Writers' Seminary (EATS) which meets regularly at Gary Nash's provided support. They were Holly Brewer, Hans Eicholz, David Finch, Rochelle Friedman, John Howell, Thomas Ingersol, Lisa Lebow, David Lehman, Jim Pearson, Carla Pestana, Rosalind Remer, Jonathan Sassi, Paula Scott, Rick Vernier, and Barbara Wallace.

            I would like to thank Miki Goral and the staff of the University Research Library at the University of California, Los Angeles; Edward Papenfuse of the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md.; Jon Reynolds, University Archivist, Lauringer Library, Georgetown University, Wash. D.C.; Brother Francis of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement, Archivist at the Cathedral Central Library, London; R. G. Holt, S.J., Archivist, Mount St., London; and William Nash, S.J., Campion Hall, Oxford, Eng.; the staffs at the Clark Library, Los Angeles; the Huntington Library, San Marino; the Hall of Records, Annapolis, Md.; the McKeldin Library at the University of Maryland, College Park, Md.; the Library of Congress, Wash., D.C.; the Woodstock Library at Georgetown University, Wash., D.C.; the Mullen Library at Catholic University of America, Wash., D.C.; the Peabody Library at The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.; and the Maryland Historical Society Library.

[FRONT MATERIAL, 1996 ed., p. xiii]

            I owe a debt to A. F. Allison, Hugh Aveling, John Bossy, Thomas Clancy, S.J., Christopher Haigh, Christopher Hill, Keith Lindley, Peter Newman, D. M. Rogers, and the other historians who helped me understand Maryland developments through their work on seventeenth-century England.

            Others that need to be remembered are E. F. Terrar, Jr., who accompanied me to the Hall of Records in Annapolis on most of my visits, helped take notes from the "Career Files," and shared his own ideas of history in the process. Hazel, David, Celine, Antoine, and Alexia Terrar and Estelle Hunt each in their own way helped in the monograph's progress.

 

Illustration 2: Chesapeake tobacco farmer working his field[1378]