that accompanied it, and he had emerged in firm control
of a rapidly developing province. In England he had
found allies among Protestant tobacco merchants to de-
fend his charter; in Maryland he had found Protestants
willing to cooperate with Catholics to maintain his rule.
Without judicious balancing of interests and willingness
to make concessions to his colonists, he would never
have retained—at some points regained—control. Be-
tween them, father and son, the first and second Lords
Baltimore had created an English colony, a family
investment, a viable social experiment—in short, the
province of Maryland.²⁰

Epilogue

   Unfortunately the story does not end here. Cecil Cal-
vert's son Charles, the third Lord Baltimore, proved to
be a less flexible and inventive leader. He lost governing
rights to Maryland in 1689 after a group of Maryland
Protestants staged a rebellion. A crown governor ruled
until 1715, when the fourth Lord Baltimore—a Protes-
tant—inherited the Maryland patent. During the period
of royal control, the Anglican Church was established
and Catholics were deprived of political rights.

   Yet the charter itself survived this crisis. During the
years of royal government, Lord Baltimore never lost his
title to Maryland and he retained all rights to profits
from the land. When governing rights were restored, his
charter was not rewritten. Apart from church establish-
ment and its drastic consequences for Catholics, little
had changed internally that can be ascribed to the over-
throw of proprietary government. Maryland was al-
ready following the general path of colonial develop-
ment.

                      [xxii]