USA > Maryland > Chronicles of colonial Maryland, with illustrations > Part 6
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
The consternation which Saint Mary's felt at this sudden, and, to it, disastrous movement can well be understood. It solemnly protested, pathetically appealed, and graciously offered. Through its Mayor, Aldermen, Recorder and Council, it sent a protest to the Governor and Council,2 in which the point was made, that the "power of appointing a place for the Supreme Court of Judicature and Seat of Gov- ernment" of Maryland was the special prerogative of the Crown, and that it could not be done by Act of Assembly, and urged that they "reject said bill" until their Majesties' pleasure could be ascertained.3 This they supplemented with a lengthy petition, in which, after dwelling upon the ancient rights and privileges of Saint Mary's, sustained by long enjoy- ment, and confirmed in the most solemn manner by the late Proprietary, and upon the advantages of a site well-watered, with a commodious harbor, and a healthful and pleasant situa- tion, they proposed to obviate all objections as to want of accommodations and the difficulty of access, by keeping a
1 Scharf, I, p. 347.
2 Ibid.
3 Those who signed the protest and the petition were, Philip Lynes, Mayor; Kenelm Cheseldine, Recorder; Henry Dutton, John Lewellyn, Jo. Watson, Thomas Beall, Philip Clark, Edward Greenhalgh, Alder- men; Thomas Wanghop, William Aisquith, Thomas Price, Richard Benton, Robert Mason, W. Taylard, Samuel Watkins, Common Coun- cilmen ; Wm. Diggs, J. Bouye, Clerks; G. Van Sweringen, Josh Brod- bert, Ro. Carville, Chas. Caud, Robt. King, George Layfield, John Coode, Henry Wriothesley, W. Bladen, James Cullen, Thomas Hebb, James B. Baker, Stephen Blatchford, Daniel Bell, Jonathan Clarke, Edward Kel- sey, Abraham Rhodes, Joseph Edto, Roger Tolle, Henry H. T. Taylor, James Reckets, John Wincoll, Edward Fisher, John F. Noble, Thomas Hutchins, Richard Sowler, Thomas [his X mark] Guyther, Robert Denry, Claudius Dutitre, Samuel Wheeler, Constables; John I. M. Mackye, Peter Dent, Wm. Guyther, John [his X mark] Janner, John [his X mark] Little, Thomas H. Hickson, William Nuthead, Richard Griffin, Isaac Paine, Peter Watts, Robert Carse, John Evans, Wm. Lowry, - Anderson, Eben Cooke, Zacharias Van Swearingen, Leon D. Hukenett, William Harpenos, Michael Chevers, Elias Beech, Thomas Guinurn, John Freeman, and Joseph Doyne, Freemen.
62
COLONIAL MARYLAND
coach or caravan, to run daily during the sessions of the Legislature and Provincial Court, between the City and the Patuxent, and weekly at other times, and at least six horses with suitable furniture, for riding post, etc.1
The appeal, however, was of no avail. Governor Nich- olson had removed the Capital of Virginia from its ancient seat,2 and had come to Maryland resolved upon the same course towards Saint Mary's.3 He went through the form of submitting the addresses to the Assembly, from whence they were returned to him-whose wishes were probably well understood-with a reply, conspicuous only for its vindictive spirit, bitter acrimony, and extreme coarseness; in which they ridiculed the idea of being bound by Proprietary prom- ises, denied the advantages of Saint Mary's, mocked at its calamities, and laughed at its proposals.4
On the receipt of the reply from the Assembly, the Governor and Council thus tersely recorded their views on the matter: "This Board concurs with the said answers made by the House of Burgess".5
In February, 1695, Governor Nicholson issued an order for the removal of the archives, records, etc., "from Saint Mary's to Anne Arundel Town, they to be conveyed in good strong bags, and to be secured with cordage and hides, and well packed, with guards to attend them night and day, to be protected from all accidents, and to be delivered to the Sheriff of Anne Arundel County". The final removal was made that winter, and on the 28th of February, 1695, the General
1 McMahon, p. 252.
2 Brown, p. 187.
3 During the time that Saint Mary's was the capital of the Prov- ince, all sessions of the General Assembly were held there, except that it met at Saint Inigoe's from December 29th, 1646, to January 2nd, 1647, four days, and at Saint Leonards, on the Patuxent under commis- sioners of the Protector, 1654, 1657 and 1658; at Brambly and Bush- wood, residences of Thomas Gerard and Robert Slye during Fendall's rebellion, 1659, and at The Ridge, and Anne Arundel Town in Anne Arundel County, 1683, 1694.
4 Scharf, I, pp. 344-346; Riley, History of Annapolis, p. 62.
5 Riley, p. 62.
63
THE FIRST CAPITAL
Assembly commenced its first session in the new Capital of Maryland.1
The reason alleged for this change, was that Saint Mary's, being on the verge of the Province, was difficult of access to the masses of the people. This may not have been altogether without weight, but it was more probably due to the fierce political struggle and the bitter sectarian strife, which existed there at that time-between the advocates of the Proprietary and the adherents of the King-between the Church of England and the Church of Rome.
"It was", says one of Maryland's eminent historians, McMahon, "the interest of the new government, to destroy, as far as possible, the cherished recollections which were associated with the departed Proprietary power; and there was no object so intertwined with all these recollections, as this ancient city, consecrated by the landing of the colonists, endeared to the natives as the first home of their fathers, and exhibiting, at every step, the monuments of that gentle and liberal administration, which had called up a thriving colony out of the once trackless wilderness. The Catholics of the colony dwelt principally in that section of it; and, under the joint operation of these causes, it had been distinguished dur- ing all the troubles consequent upon the civil wars in England, by its unshaken attachment to the Proprietary. Without these considerations to prompt the removal, the recollections and the attachments, which centre the feelings of a people in an ancient capital, would probably have contributed to pre- serve it as such; until, by the denseness of the population, and the increasing facilities for traveling, thereby afforded to the remote sections of the State, the objection to its location would have been in a great measure obviated; and the City of Saint Mary's would, at this day, have been the seat of our State government. The excitement of the moment made its claims to recollection, cogent reasons for its destruction, and the public convenience came in as the sanction".
After Saint Mary's ceased to be the Capital of the Prov-
1 Riley, p. 62; Ridgely, History of Annapolis, p. 88.
64
COLONIAL MARYLAND
ince, it soon began to decline. The removal of the govern- ment officials, in itself, seriously diminished its population, and, in 1708, it ceased also to be the county seat of Saint Mary's County, the last symbol of its official character. : The same year, it lost its long honored privilege of sending delegates to the General Assembly, and soon after, lost its rank as a city.
No longer the commercial emporium of the Province, with no manufacturing interests at that day to sustain its vitality, and completely stripped of its official importance, it was left without means of support. Its population gradually departed; its old fort sank to the level of the earth; its houses-one by one-fell to ruin, and, in a comparatively short time, nothing remained, save the old State House and a few of the more durable buildings, the latter used as home- steads for the farms into which the site of the old city became converted.
In 1695, permission was given the Justices of Saint Mary's County, to use the State House for a Court House and church. In 1708, the public buildings and land at Saint Mary's, were ordered to be sold. They were, however, not sold, and, in 1720, the General Assembly vested the old "State House and grounds in the Rector and Vestry of William and Mary Parish, and their successors, in fee simple, for the use of the Parish, forever".1
The changes deemed necessary to adapt the old edifice to church purposes, were made the following year, the contractor for the work being Joshua Doyne. The attic and second story floors, and all the partitions were removed, and the building was ceiled "square with the top of the arch after the model of the old Chapel at Saint Mary's". A railing was put across the transept of that arm of the cross which originally forced the porch, and which was converted into a chancel, its large central arch being bricked up and giving place to the altar, which was of heavy oak, ornamented with carvings, and above it, a fresco picture, representing "the flight into
1 Act, 1695, c. 13; 1708, c. 3; 1720, c. 4.
65
THE FIRST CAPITAL
Egypt"; while in place of the two smaller arches, windows were substituted, each eight feet high, and twenty-two inches wide. The opposite, or "stair-way", arm of the cross became the vestibule of the church, and was made to correspond, in design and appearance, to the original entrance to the building; while in the northern and southern transepts, galleries were erected. As thus changed, it would accommo- date about four hundred persons.1
There was so much opposition manifested, it is said, on the part of the Roman Catholics, to the old State House being used for Protestant worship, that the latter, about the year 1700, applied to a British man-of-war for assistance, and three canon were placed there for their protection, and which remained in the church yard until 1823, when they were removed to Washington City.2
The old State House continued to be used as a church for more than a century; but, in 1829, this historic old building was pulled down, and its material used in the con- struction of Trinity Church, which stands nearby. This old monument might well have been "spared all but the ravages of time," and-had it been saved from the sacrilege of man -it might to-day be standing to "point a moral," and "adorn the history" of the founders of Maryland.3
In 1839, the State of Maryland purchased from William and Mary Parish, the eastern half of the State House lot, and to commemorate the spot where "civilization and christianity were first introduced into our State", erected on it the impos- ing and classic building, known as the "Saint Mary's Female Seminary." It also, a little over two years ago, did tardy justice to Maryland's first Governor-Leonard Calvert-by erecting to his memory a handsome granite shaft, placing it on the site of the "Old Mulberry;" and, at the same time,
1 Allen's MSS .; Extracts from Vestry Record.
2 Scharf, Historical Address, June 1891.
3 Much of the furniture in the present church is made of the wood of the "Old Mulberry." Some of this wood has also been worked up into "relics" and sold, the proceeds having been used to keep the church in repair.
66
COLONIAL MARYLAND
in order to perpetuate the foundation lines of the old State House, planted at each of its twelve corners, a massive granite marker.
The shaft is thirty-six feet high, and six feet square at the base. Above the inscription blocks, are two bronze medal- lion plates, bearing the Coat of Arms of Maryland. The monument contains the following interesting inscriptions :
To the Memory of LEONARD CALVERT, First Governor of Maryland, This Monument is Erected by The State of Maryland.
Erected on the Site of the OLD MULBERRY TREE, Under which the First Colonists of Maryland Assembled To Establish a Government Where the persecuted and oppressed of every creed and every clime might repose in peace and security, adore their common God, and enjoy the priceless blessings of civil and religious liberty.
LEONARD CALVERT, Second Son of George Calvert, First Baron of Baltimore, and Anne, His Wife, Led the First Colonists to Maryland, November 22, 1633-March 3, 1634, Founded Saint Mary's, March 27, 1634, Died, June 9, 1647.
By His Wisdom, Justice, and Fidelity, He Fostered the Infancy of the Colony, Guided it Through Great Perils, and Dying, Left it at Peace, The Descendants and Successors of the Men He Governed, Here Record Their Grateful Recognition of His Virtues, November, MDCCCXC.
67
THE FIRST CAPITAL
Thus did the ancient City of Saint Mary's spring into being, flourish, and pass away. In the "very State to which it gave birth;" in the State whose foundations it erected; in the State, many of whose most valued institutions, and more ancient principles of organic law it established, it to-day stands almost a "solitary spot, dedicated to God, and a fit memento of perishable man".
But it is one, which, as long as civilization shall endure upon the earth, will be memorable in the history of its devel- opment. The philosopher and the statesmen, when tracing back the progress of the political systems of men, from the loftiest heights they shall ever reach, will always pause upon the banks of the Saint Mary's to contemplate one of the greatest epochs in their history. It was there that, under the auspices of the founders of the State of Maryland, the injured freemen of England found a refuge from the depredations of Royal power; it was there that the inherent rights of man found opportunity for growth to strength and vigor, away from the depressing tyranny of Kings; it was there that the ancient privileges of the people, that came down with the succeeding generations of our fathers, from the morning twi- light of Anglo-Saxon history, struggling through the centuries with varying fortunes, at last found a home and a country as all-pervading as the atmosphere around them; it was there that these principles and rights first entered into the practical operations of government; it was there that was established the first State in America where the people were governed by laws made by themselves; it was there that was organized the first civil government in the history of the Christian world, which was administered under that glorious principle of American liberty-the independence of Church and State in their relations to each other; it was there, too, that freedom of conscience, in all of its breadth and fullness, was first proclaimed to men as their inherent and inviolable right, in tones which, sounding above the tempest of bigotry and per- secution, were to continue forever, from age to age, to gladden the world with the assurance of practical Christian
68
COLONIAL MARYLAND
charity, and ultimately find expression in the political systems of every civilized people.1
Such was the halo surrounding Maryland's early colonial metropolis, and yet, the present generation asks when and where it was; such the renown of Maryland's first capital embodying in its history, the germ of so much of that which gave grandeur and glory, as well as inspiration and pride, to the later annals of the State, and yet, history has recorded its birth without a smile, and written its epitaph without a tear.
In desolation and ruin, as it is, and though its hearth- stone is buried beneath the moss of so many years, it should be revered as a hallowed spot; sacred to the "proudest mem- ories" of Maryland ; endeared in the pride and in the affection of its sons and its daughters; the glory of every American patriot; for it was the spot where first arose the radiant morning sun of our religious freedom; the spot where first broke and brightened into effulgent daylight, the early dawn of our civil liberty.
1 Honorable Richard T. Merrick, Historical Address, 1884.
CHAPTER IV
Religious Toleration in Colonial Maryland
F OR more than two centuries and a half, Maryland has en- joyed hier unique position in the matter of early religious toleration. It is the keystone of the great archway in her history, as it was the key-note of her earliest code. Whether for re- ligious, prudential or commercial reasons, the fact remains- and it is one than which none other in Maryland history is more conclusively established-that religious toleration, and in a broad sense for that day, had practical existence in Maryland from the date of its settlement, and that it continued throughout the successive administrations of Cecilius and Charles Lord Baltimore, except when the Government was in the hands of Cromwell's Commissioners and the Puritan element from 1652 to 1657; and, except also, when it was under jurisdiction of the English Crown after 1692. Injustice to none, and Christian toleration and charity to all, was a cardinal rule established by Cecilius, continued by Charles Lord Baltimore, and which those in authority under them rigorously enforced. As it has been well said, "there was no spot in Christen- dom, where religious belief was free, and when even the com- mons of England had openly declared against toleration, Bal- timore founded a community where no man was to be molested for his faith". That such was the clearly defined intention of the founder of Maryland is abundantly proven by the instruction which he sent out with the first colonists in 1634, which provided, in order "to preserve peace and unity" and avoid all occasion of offense, that "all Protestants be treated with as much mildness and favor as justice will permit, and that all Roman Catholics abstain from public discourse concern- ing matters of religion and perform all their religious acts as privately as circumstances would permit". It is also proven ,
70
COLONIAL MARYLAND
by his proclamation of 1638 for the suppression of all "disputes tending to the opening of a faction in religion. And by the rigid oath prescribed for the Governor providing for strict observance of Baltimore's policy of toleration. This is further confirmed by the well-known letter of Charles Lord Balti- more, of 1678, in which he says: "that his father had promised absolute religious freedom to the first adventurers ; that he had done what he could to make good that assurance, and that with- out it, it is doubtful if the colony could have been planted". The records also furnish numerous examples to demonstrate that these early instructions of Baltimore were zealously guarded and practically maintained by those whose duty it was to do so, and that religious liberty in early Maryland was not a fancy, but a condition-not a theory, but a fact-and was a fundamental principle underlying the Baltimore policy and the Maryland Government. This is proven by the pro- ceedings against Lieutenant William Lewis, a Roman Catho- lic, who, in 1638, on complaint that he would not allow his Protestant servants to read a certain book of sermons, and that he had spoken disrespectfully of the ministers of their Church, was arranged, convicted for violating the proclamation as to religion, fined, and placed under bond for his future good behavior. It is also proven by the case against Dr. Thomas Gerrard, also a Roman Catholic, who, in 1642, on com- plaint of the Protestants against him for interfering with their worship, was, upon conviction, fined 500 lbs. of tobacco; not only that, but the order provided, that the fine should be given to the complainants for the support of the first Protestant minister that they could obtain. The case, too, against the Rev. Francis Fritz Herbert, is in point, who, while acquitted upon the charge, was promptly arraigned and tried for threat- ening ex-communication of a member from his Church, un- less he compelled his Protestant wife and children to attend the Roman Catholic Church with him. It is also established by the Protestant declaration of 1650, signed by Governor William Stone, whose churchmanship and veracity are not in doubt, and by a large number of the leading Protestants of the Province, in which it was distinctly stated "that according to an Act of
71
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
Assembly here, and several other strict injunctions and decla- rations by his lordship for that purpose made and provided, we do here enjoy all fitting freedom and liberty in the exercise of our religion, and that none of us are in any way troubled or molested by reason thereof".
The Protestants so understood the situation, and the Roman Catholics also fully understood and realized that it was Baltimore's settled determination to make Maryland the home of religious freedom; and whatever special privileges the latter may have hoped for at first, it soon became apparent to them that the cardinal rule in Maryland was to be equal rights to all and special privileges to none.
In addition to this, there is the famous Toleration Act, known as the Act concerning religion. Though religious tol- eration had existed in practice in Maryland, from its earliest settlement, it had never been made the subject of legislative enactment, and to the General Assembly of 1649, does this one of "the proudest memorials" of Maryland's colonial history be- long.1 This Act has been the subject of much adverse criti-
1 Much time and energy have been expended, both by Protestant and Roman Catholic historians, to ascertain the religious complexion of the General Assembly of 1649. While the Governor of the Prov- ince and three of the five members of the Council at that time were Protestants, it is not improbable that a majority of the Burgesses were Roman Catholics, but at the session of the Assembly the next year, when the Act concerning religion, as well as many other Acts of the previous session were re-considered before making them per- petual laws, the upper house, consisting of the Governor and Council, was composed of five Protestants and two Roman Catholics, and the lower house, consisting of the Burgesses, had eight Protestants and five Roman Catholics.
The Act concerning religion, however, was not treated by the Assembly of 1649, or of 1650, as a denominational question, but it was wholly a governmental measure. It did not even have its origin in the General Assembly, but was one of sixteen laws, looking to the strengthening and development of the Maryland Government, which Cecilius Lord Baltimore prepared and transmitted to the Province, with the request that the Assembly pass them. Of these, the Assembly of 1649 passed seven, including the Act concerning religion, but owing to the lateness of the season, adjourned without passing the rest of them. The Assembly of 1650, after reviewing and considering the whole code as submitted by Baltimore, enacted a substitute for Act number
72
COLONIAL MARYLAND
cism, because of the very severe penalties which it provided, and because the language in which it was couched is not as comprehensive as that which might be employed in framing such an Act at this day. This, however, is a view of the sub- ject which is largely the result of an imperfect conception of the scope and purpose of the Act. Penalties at that time were not measured so much by the gravity of the offense, as by the facilities and ease for committing it. The penalty for petty. larceny at one time was death because of this fact, a. penalty which at this day would seem wholly unwarranted. The Long Parliament, as evidence of the spirit of the age, in May, 1648, passed its fearful ordinance against "heresies and blasphemies" by which the death penalty was pronounced against all who denied the belief in God, the doctrine of the Trinity, the dogma of predestination, etc. The Toleration Act was passed with reference to the times and conditions as they existed two hundred and fifty years ago, and not to those of the present day, and when those conditions are considered, the objections which have been framed against it must largely fade away and disappear. The religious troubles of that time were between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and if peace and harmony could be made to prevail among them, the great problem was solved. However imperfect it may be adjudged from the standard of the twentieth century, it is a fact that it did most effectually meet the issues of that day, was abundantly compre- hensive for that purpose and marked a most material epoch in the history of civilization. It safeguarded what were then con- sidered the most sacred institutions of the Christian religion, the holiness of the Sabbath and the doctrine of the Trinity ; it secured the fullest freedom of worship to all of its votaries,
4 of those of the code passed at the previous session, and formally adopted the remaining nine of the sixteen laws so submitted.
Nor can the genesis of the Act concerning religion be found in the fact that Cecilius Lord Baltimore was a Roman Catholic. It did not emanate from Calvert the devoted and consistent churchman, but from Calvert the sagacious and far-sighted statesman.
Johnson, Foundation of Md., 149; Archives, Ass. Pro., 1637-1664, 240, 275, 77, 78, 79 and 80.
73
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
and it went even a step in advance of the present time, by protecting the feelings of the people against the use of re- proachful terms in matters relating to their religion. The Act concerning religion was not confined, either by proper construc- tion or in its application, to those who believed in Christianity only, for by its express terms, in the third section of the Act, it protected all persons whatsoever, whether inhabitants of the Province or those only trading with it, from approbius epithets or reproachful terms in the matter of their religion, and the public records of the Province, it is believed, do not furnish a single instance in which it failed to protect those who saw fit to place themselves under its provisions. In fact, the oath of fidelity to his lordship, which had to be taken by every one in the Province, expressly reserved to the party taking it "his liberty of conscience in point of religion", and this was one of the sixteen laws sent over by Baltimore to be passed by the General Assembly along with the Act concerning religion. It is charged that it did not protect the Jew or the Unitarian. They were not a part of the Maryland population at that time, and hence not an issue, but when they came, they lived unmolested and in religious harmony with their neighbors. It has also been charged that it did not protect the Quakers, and who because of their religion were driven out of the Province, but this is not true. When driven out of Virginia, they sought admission in Maryland, and were granted it. They re- fused, however, to take the oath of submission, or to bind themselves in any way to the Maryland government, and for that reason, just as would be done under like conditions at the present day, they were ordered to leave the Province. This they did, but returning later, soon became a prominent element of the community.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.