reasonable and just, but the only one that it was possible for him to take; and so it must have seemed to a much better judge, namely, the General of the Order, who decided in his favour and thus ended the controversy. It has long been observed that controversies on matters theological are apt to beget in the contestants feelings of personal animosity. If I dispute with any one, say on supralapsarianism, it is not long before I discover that my opponent is as deficient in moral principle as he is in intellectual grasp. And Father Hughes' otherwise urbane style gets an infusion of gall whenever he speaks of Baltimore or his friends. He cannot refer to him without at least a sneer or an innuendo, and he has the art of so choosing his phrases as to imply odium. One instance will suffice: On p. 535 he marginates his text: "Baltimore on kidnapping Copley," and paraphrases an instruction of Baltimore thus: "If Copley do not execute your orders, you kidnap him and send him away." Contrary to his usual laudable custom, Father Hughes does not quote the text of the order, which may be seen in Calvert Papers, 1, 218. Baltimore writes to the Governor that if a certain contingency occurs, "I praie do not faile to send Mr. Copley away from thence by the next shipping to those parts." Now this instruction (which was never carried out) may have been arbitrary or harsh, but it was not "kidnapping." But then the word "kidnap " has an odious colouring. He harps upon Baltimore's supposed desire to "feudalise" his Province, though, as it was completely feudal already, one does not see how that could be done. We have seen, not so long ago, a writer on Maryland history who supposed that a socage tenure was not feudal; but such ignorance is not possible in the case of the present author. Hence one cannot but be surprised at a sentence like this (p. 399) Baltimore, having failed to impose his tenure in capite on the colony at large, endeavored for years to force it on the Jesuits." Surely the Rev. author forgot the words of the charter which expressly says that Maryland is to be held in free and common socage"-that is, by a fixed compensation instead of uncertain services-"and not in capite." So very strange is this statement, that the reviewer, on reconsideration, is inclined to suspect an inaccuracy of expression, and that "his tenure in capite" should read "a tenure in capite"; that is, that Baltimore, holding his lands by socage (rent), tried to impose on his colonists a tenure by services. If this be the meaning, I can only say that I see no intimation anywhere that so preposterous an idea ever entered Baltimore's mind, nor can I imagine how he could have carried it out if it had. In several places the author adverts to the tyranny of Baltimore in exacting from his colonists an "Oath of allegiance to himself" (pp. 391, 501). But Baltimore never required anything of the sort; in fact, he could not, for by his Charter (§ 10) all the colonists were in allegiance to the King of England. What he did at one time exact was an "Oath of Fidelity," which is a very different thing. It required the colonists to swear that they would be faithful to the government, and not be parties to any conspiracies against it. It was a harmless thing enough, and neither the lax-conscienced Fendall and his malcontents, nor the strait-laced Puritans on the Severn, ever felt any scruple at breaking it. But here again the Rev. author has unfortunately departed from his custom of citing the text of a document on which he is commenting. The oath may be seen in Maryland Archives, III, 196. So embittered against Baltimore does the Rev. historian grow as he proceeds, that he comes to believe that he was not a Catholic at all. He was only "a so-called Catholic" (p. 485), he "posed as a Catholic" (p. 511). Such was not the opinion of the venerable Father Vitelleschi, General of the Order, who in a letter to the English Provincial testifies to Calvert's piety. But here we see the results of that mental astigmatism adverted to before. Calvert, not treating the Jesuits as the author thinks they should have been treated, must have been a hypocrite, and if so, then his profession of the Catholic faith must have been hypocrisy. But what had he to gain by it? On the contrary, he stood to lose everything. During his whole life his charter was fiercely attacked by powerful and insidious enemies without and within, and the most vulnerable point, at which all arrows were aimed, was the fact that he was a "Papist," and his government therefore a "Popish tyranny." "Papist," to the English mind in those days, meant a potential if not actual traitor, and a colony governed by Papists, a seminary of treason. He had but to declare himself a Protestant, to seal the accusers' lips. But he never did. It was but natural that the worthy Fathers, escaping from a land where they were persecuted and proscribed, often in peril of their lives, and always under the shadow of the penal laws, to a land whose lord was himself a Catholic, where they might openly profess their faith and safely perform the rites of their religion-that they should expect to be reinstated in their ancient privileges: right of sanctuary, exemption from the public burdens, control of matters matrimonial and testamentary, immunity from the temporal laws and courts, and the right to accumulate in the hands of their order vast and inalienable territorial possessions. But they looked at these matters only from one side, while Calvert had other sides to consider. He had to see that equal justice was done to all, and to promote, as far as possible, peace and harmony among his colonists, in a Province where the Protestants were largely in the majority. He had to avoid, as far as possible, giving any opportunity for the malcontents in Maryland to play into the hands of his powerful and vigilant enemies on both sides of the Atlantic, and strengthen their attacks on his charter. The concession of the Fathers' demands would have been the instant signal for a Quo Warranto. What they owed to the Proprietary and the Charter they learned six years later, when Calvert's authority being paralysed, their stations were broken up, the priests driven into hiding, and Father White sent in irons to England; and again in 1655, when Bennett and Claiborne were in power, and they "only escaped slaughter by God's mercy" and their fellow-believers learned still more bitterly, in 1692. It is much to be regretted that the bias of which I have spoken, and the inability to see beyond a certain narrow field of vision, detract from the value of a work on which so much labour and learning have been expended. Apart from this defect, the book is a very important one, and is full of matter that sheds light on the time and events spoken of, and that cannot be overlooked by students of Maryland history. REVIEW. BALCH GENEALOGICA, by Thomas Willing Balch. Philadelphia, Allen, Lane and Scott, 1907. In the introduction, the author states that it has not been his aim to write a complete genealogy "but to publish all the information at present available of the family in England and of the descendants of John Balch of Maryland." The book, in fact, is not merely a genealogy but a family history in the best sense of the term, and the author has done his work well and thoroughly. The account of the English Balches (pp. 1-85) is very full, and much research is exhibited in the mass of documents cited in evidence, and in the numerous biographical details gleaned from many sources. While the connection of the American family with the parent English stem has not been definitely ascertained, the probability is strong that they were descendants of the Balches of Somersetshire whose connected pedigree is carried back to the year 1477. The author's own line is traced from John Balch who settled in Maryland in 1658 and, on the authority of family manuscripts, is said to have been the father of Thomas Balch who, after going to England and participating in Monmouth's rebellion, returned to Maryland and died there in 1730. It is to be regretted that the evidence for the first two American generations is not given with the same completeness that characterizes the citation of proofs elsewhere in the work. The descendants of this Thomas Balch, numbering not a few men of eminence, are very fully treated and the copious biographies are decidedly interesting. The book is profusely illustrated, and its typography and general make-up are admirable. LOWNDES FAMILY. CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. A very full pedigree of the English ancestors of this family, tracing the line back to the year 1582, is given in Earwaker's History of Sandbach, pp. 122-123. The arms of the family are as follows: Arms.--Arg., fretty az., on a canton gu., a lion's head erased or. 1. CHRISTOPHER LOWNDES,' fifth son of Richard Lowndes of Bostock House, in Hassall, Cheshire, England, and Margaret (Poole) his wife, was baptized at Sandbach, 19 June 1713, and is mentioned, 1743, in his father's will. As early as 1738 he was living in Prince George's County, Maryland. 20 July 1738, William Beall Sen., of Prince George's Co., conveys to Christopher Lowndes, who acts in behalf of himself and of Henry and Edward Trafford of Liverpool, merchants, one acre of land called "The 22d Lot," on the Eastern Branch of Potomac (Pr. Geo. Co., Lib. T, fol. 633). 25 May 1741, "Capt." Christopher Lowndes conveys his interest in this lot to Messrs. Henry and Edward Trafford of Liverpool (Pr. Geo. Co., Lib. Y, fol. 293). Further evidence of his residence in Maryland at this time is found in a bill of sale, dated 26 Sept. 1739, wherein James Freeman sells two negroes to "Christopher Lowndes of Prince George's County, in the Province of Maryland, merchant" (ibid., fol. 94). In 1748 he was the senior partner in the firm of Christopher Lowndes and Company, operating both in Maryland and in England. 22 August 1761, Francis Hatfield, attorney in fact for the executors of John Hardman, late of Liverpool, deceased, William Whalley and Edward Lowndes of Liverpool, merchants, convey to Christopher Lowndes of Prince George's Co., Md., merchant, the tract "Simon and Jane," 107 acres, in Prince George's Co., condemned at June Court, 1748, for 5992 lb. tobacco, for the use of Christopher Lowndes and Company, which said company consisted of John Hardman, William Whalley, and Edward Lowndes in Liverpool, and Christopher Lowndes, |