companied in his explorations of
the country by Captain Henry Fleet, an early Virginia pioneer, who was
familiar with the settlements and language of the savages, and in much
favor with them; and it was under his guidance and direction that the
site of St. Mary's, the ancient capital of Maryland, was
selected.[190:A] White, a Jesuit missionary, says of Fleet: "At the
first he was very friendly to us; afterwards, seduced by the evil
counsels of a certain Clayborne, who entertained the most hostile
disposition, he stirred up the minds of the natives against us."[190:B]
White mentions that the Island of Monserrat, in the West Indies, where
they touched, was inhabited by Irishmen who had been expelled by the
English of Virginia "on account of their profession of the Catholic
faith."

In a short time after the landing of Leonard Calvert in Maryland, Sir
John Harvey, Governor of Virginia, visited him at St. Mary's. His
arrival attracted to the same place the Indian chief of Patuxent, who
said: "When I heard that a great werowance of the English was come to
Yoacomoco, I had a great desire to see him; but when I heard the
werowance of Pasbie-haye was come thither also to see him, I presently
start up, and without further counsel came to see them both."[191:A]

In March, 1634, at a meeting of the governor and council, Clayborne
inquired of them how he should demean himself toward Lord Baltimore and
his deputies in Maryland, who claimed jurisdiction over the colony at
Kent Isle. The governor and council replied that the right of his
lordship's patent being yet undetermined in England, they were bound in
duty and by their oaths to maintain the rights and privileges of the
colony of Virginia. Nevertheless, in all humble submission to his
majesty's pleasure, they resolved to keep and observe all good
correspondence with the Maryland new-comers.[191:B]

The Maryland patent conferred upon Lord Baltimore, a popish recusant,
the entire government of the colony, including the patronage and
advowson of all churches, the same to be dedicated and consecrated
according to the ecclesiastical law. This charter was illegal, inasmuch
as it granted powers which the king himself did not possess; the grantee
being a papist could not conform to the ecclesiastical laws of England;
and, therefore, the provisions of this extraordinary instrument could
not be, and were not designed to be, executed according to the plain and
obvious meaning. Such was