settlements were the outcome of Puritan discontents in England.
The commercial motive was altogether subsidiary in their
establishment; they existed in order that the doctrine and
discipline of Puritanism might find a home where its ascendancy
would be secure. It was indeed under the guise of a commercial
company that the chief of these settlements was made, but the
company was organised as a means of safe-guarding the colonists
from Crown interference, and at an early date its headquarters
were transferred to New England itself. Far from desiring to
restrict this freedom, the Crown up to a point encouraged it.
Winthrop, one of the leading colonists, tells us that he had
learnt from members of the Privy Council 'that his Majesty did not
intend to impose the ceremonies of the Church of England upon us;
for that it was considered that it was the freedom from such
things that made people come over to us.' The contrast between
this licence and the rigid orthodoxy enforced upon French Canada
or Spanish America is very instructive. It meant that the New
World, so far as it was controlled by England, was to be open as a
place of refuge for those who disliked the restrictions thought
necessary at home. The same note is to be found in the colony of
Maryland, planted by the Roman Catholic Lord Baltimore in 1632,
largely as a place of refuge for his co-religionists. He was
encouraged by the government of Charles I. in this idea, and the
second Lord Baltimore reports that his father 'had absolute
liberty to carry over any from his Majesty's Dominions willing to
go. But he found very few but such as ... could not conform to the
laws of England relating to religion. These declared themselves
willing to plant in this province, if they might have a general
toleration settled by law.' Maryland, therefore, became the first
place in the world of Western civilisation in which full religious