ral Assembly of the Province of Maryland passed an
Act in 1649 containing the following provision:

"No person whatsoever, in this province, professing to believe in Jesus
Christ, shall from henceforth be anywise troubled or molested for his or
her religion, or in the free exercise thereof, or any way compelled to
the belief or exercise of any other religion against his or her
consent."

Mr. Bancroft says: "Christianity was made the law of the land [in
Maryland], and no preference was given to any sect, and equality in
religious rights, no less than civil freedom, was assured."]

PART IV.

CONTEST BETWEEN KING CHARLES AND THE MASSACHUSETTS BAY PURITANS, DURING
TEN TEARS, FROM 1630 TO 1640; PROFESSIONS OF THE PURITANS ON LEAVING
ENGLAND; THEIR CONDUCT ON ARRIVING AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY; SUPPRESSION OF
PURITAN CORRESPONDENCE; COMPLAINTS TO ENGLAND OF THEIR CHURCH REVOLUTION
AND INTOLERANCE; MEMBERS OF THE NEW CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES ALONE
ELECTORS AND ELIGIBLE TO OFFICE; FIVE-SIXTHS OF THE POPULATION
DISFRANCHISED; COMPLAINTS OF THE DISFRANCHISED AND PROSCRIBED TO
ENGLAND; SUPPRESSION OF CORRESPONDENCE AND THE DENIAL OF FACTS, AND THE
PROFESSIONS OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PERSECUTORS OF
EPISCOPALIANS OBTAIN A FAVOURABLE DECISION OF THE KING AND PRIVY
COUNCIL, AND THEY ARE ENCOURAGED IN THEIR SETTLEMENT AND TRADE; TRANSFER
OF THE CHARTER, PLAIN VIOLATIONS OF IT; RUMOURS OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A
GOVERNOR-GENERAL, AND APPOINTMENT OF A ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY AND
REGULATION; PREPARATION TO RESIST THE APPOINTMENT AT MASSACHUSETTS BAY;
ROYAL AND COLONIAL RESTRICTIONS ON EMIGRATION; IT CEASES; COLONIAL
PROPERTY AND TRADE DEPRESSED; REVIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF MASSACHUSETTS
BAY COLONY BY KING CHARLES THE FIRST, AND THEIR PROFESSIONS AND
TREATMENT IN RETURN; THE REAL AUTHORS AND PROMOTERS OF RELIGIOUS
TOLERATION AND LIBERTY IN ENGLAND.

It is well known that the Puritans in England objected to the ceremonies
enforced by Laud, as "corrupt and superstitious," and many ministers
were ejected from their benefices for nonconformity to them; but none of
the nonconformists who refused compliance with such "corrupt and
superstitious" ceremonies ever professed that the _polity_ and _worship_
of the Church was "corrupt and superstitious," and should therefore be
renounced, much less abolished, as did Endicot and his party at
Massachusetts Bay, and that twenty years before the death of Charles the
First and the us