Cecil Calvert and the Act of 1649

Maryland Historical Society

The Act Concerning Religion of 1649 guaranteed liberty of conscience to all Christians in Maryland. This legal toleration of different faiths, extraordinary for its time and place, carefully balanced competing interests: colonial laws against English laws, colonists against English, non-Protestants against Protestants, supporters of the Maryland Colony against opponents.

Cecil Calvert's enemies, adherents to the old Virginia Company who used every conceivable tactic to thwart the initial voyage to Maryland, forced Baltimore to remain in England to protect his charter. He delegated his authority to his brother Leonard and the other Catholic leaders. His Charter of Maryland required that all laws be in conformity with the laws of England. The penal laws aimed to force all English subjects to conform to the Church of England. Long before Lord Baltimore began recruiting colonists, these laws had reduced Catholics to a small minority of the English population.

Baltimore's dilemma was how to provide liberty of conscience for his coreligionists without running afoul of the penal laws. His November 13, 1633 Instructions, which encapsulated his thinking regarding religion and society, required his officers to preserve unity and peace, in part, by making certain that Protestants had no reason to carry complaints to Virginia or England. He instructed Catholics to avoid public displays of their religion, to remain silent "upon all Occasions of discourse concerning matters of Religion," and to treat Protestants with as much mildness and favor as justice would permit. This strategy aimed to curb religious disputations, thereby preventing potentially contentious religious issues from destroying the Maryland project before it had a chance to succeed. As long as political leadership of Maryland remained in the hands of Catholics and family members of Lord Baltimore, Catholics remained relatively free to practice their religion.

Fifteen years of conflict in his colony, the aggressions of the Virginians, and contemporary political events in England forced adjustments in Baltimore's policy. In 1648, he appointed a Protestant governor and council and adopted a public policy, like those in England, that required oaths from his officers in the colonial government. His officers swore to protect Christians, who remained loyal to the proprietor, in the free exercise of their religion. The governor promised not to discriminate in appointing Marylanders to positions of authority.

To reduce the potential for ruinous religious wrangling among the colonists of his increasingly pluralistic society, Baltimore submitted a body of sixteen laws to the 1649 Assembly, the first under a Protestant governor. If passed, it would have replaced all existing laws of the colony and introduced new guarantees for religious freedom. His instructions to pass them without alteration offended the assemblymen, who thought they had won the right to initiate legislation. The freemen argued and debated and finally wrote their own version of the bill.

Then, having made their point, they juxtaposed combined parts of their bill with portions of that proposed by the proprietor to produce a code of twelve laws, which they passed. This hybrid "Act Concerning Religion" formed the foundation of Baltimore's modified "Maryland designe."

The Act sought to stop religious disputes as a step toward preserving the public peace while at the same time protecting the sacredness of religion in this religiously diverse community. The legislation imposed severe penalties for anyone who shall "blaspheme God," deny Jesus Christ to be the Son of God or the Holy Trinity, or speak against the Holy Trinity. The Assembly decreed less severe penalties for persons who spoke against the Virgin Mary or the apostles and for those who used religious invectives.

The Act reflected the concerns of new immigrants from Virginia. It provided punishment for those who profaned "the Sabbath or Lords day called Sunday" by swearing, drunkenness, or other uncivil or disorderly activities. The Act concluded on Baltimore's more generous note: Those who believed in Jesus Christ, and who remained faithful to the proprietor and did not engage in hostilities again the government, received assurances that they were not to be troubled on account of their religion nor compelled to believe in or exercise any "Religion against his or her consent." Marylanders were to enjoy complete freedom of worship.

The last section, which guaranteed all Christians the right to worship without scrutiny from secular authorities, significantly deviated from contemporary thinking. In nearly all other countries, people who neglected religious responsibilities, such as attending church, had to pay fines to or, sometimes, were imprisoned by the government. Now, for the first time in the English world, a government rejected the religious responsibilities (e.g., church attendance) traditionally assigned to it.

This innovative act failed to achieve the stable body politic that Lord Baltimore desperately desired for his colony. Maintaining religious freedom became increasingly difficult in the turbulent English world of the 1650s. Over the next decade the proprietor's troubles accelerated rapidly in both England and America.

Persecuted Puritans from Virginia had accepted Baltimore's offer for land and religious freedom in return for allegiance and a quit-rent, a nominal fee for land to the proprietor. Maryland commissioners, charged with reducing Virginia's loyalty to Parliament, joined forces with the Virginia emigrés and overthrew proprietary authority in the 1650s. Their strong anti-Catholic sentiments provided reasons for reducing, or subjugating, Maryland. They expected Oliver Cromwell would support their initiative, but they failed to understand that the Lord Protector's commitment to liberty of conscience made the proprietary policy of 1649 more attractive than their commitment to religious repression (e.g., the 1654 Act Concerning Religion). After protracted negotiations in England, Cromwell's government supported Baltimore's resumption of power. The 1649 Act squared much better with Cromwell's thinking than the repressive 1654 Act Concerning Religion offered by the Puritan government. Baltimore's Act was the focal point of his defense of the charter and the restoration of proprietary authority.

Beginning in 1659 and until his death in 1675, the proprietor reiterated his commitment to the Act and required his officers to uphold it. The policy made religion an essentially private matter and allowed religiously diverse Marylanders to set aside their differences and enjoy the bounty that the colony offered after 1661. For example, when Secretary Philip Calvert issued licenses for ordinaries, he did so with the stipulation that the inn keeper would not permit evil rule or disorder especially upon the Lord's day by gaming or excessive drinking during the time of Divine services. He clearly understood the importance the proprietor placed on the 1649 Act.

Three cases, one involving Quakers and oath-taking, another a Catholic priest and one of his parishioners, and a third a Jewish physician, indicated the Act's efficacy in resolving disputes and preventing them from unduly disrupting public business. Likewise, Governor Charles Calvert, the third Lord Baltimore and second proprietor, found the Act useful in defending his colony against mounting threats from the British colonial bureaucracy.

The greatest threat to the Act came from Protestant immigrants in the 1660s or 1670s. They brought with them pronounced anti-Catholic attitudes and a predisposition to a state-supported church. The third Lord Baltimore was unable to incorporate them into his society; the result was a rebellion in 1688 that overthrew the proprietorship and replaced the 1649 Act with one that made the Church of England the state-supported church.

Krugler, John D. English & Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.