Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

person in Philadelphia or New York, beyond the condition of a mere pauper, who cannot afford to eat flesh meat at least once a day*—and that a wood-sawyer or common porter, steadily employed, might, by frugality, save from fifty to one hundred dollars per annum.

A Brief View of the Policy of the Founders of the Colonies of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, West Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina, as regards Liberty of Conscience. Read before the American Philosophical Society, Nov. 7, 1828.

AT an anniversary celebration in Salem, some weeks since, the following toast was drunk:

"The intrepid assertors of Liberty of Conscience-Roger Williams in 1635 -John Milton in 1659-William Penn in 1681-John Locke in 1689-may the series never end."

On this toast I wish to offer a few observations, which I shall confine to the two American philanthropists, omitting, as irrelevant to my purpose, Locke and Milton.

Nothing can be more just—nothing more richly deserved, than the praises thus bestowed on those two illustrious men, Williams and Penn, who towered pre-eminently over the prejudices of the age in which they lived, and had the good sense to discover, and the justice and honesty to act on the conviction, that any attempt to restrain or control the religious opinions or religious practices of their fellow mortals, provided they did not violate the public peace, or the rights of others, was a direct invasion of the prerogative of the Almighty, and the exer

On reflection, this requires some qualification. In consequence of great competition, and the various employments from which women are debarred by the importation of threads, laces, gloves, &c. &c., and by the inroads made by males on employments for which females are peculiarly qualified, female labour, such as making shirts, vests, and pantaloons, spinning, &c. &c., is reduced so low, that they cannot earn, with great industry, more than from a dollar to a dollar and a half per week. There are probably few greater evils in society than the degraded rate of female labour. The same exertion that is necessary for a woman to earn a dollar and a half per week, would suffice to earn for a man five, six, or seven dollars! This is a great discouragement to matrimony, and an equally great promoter of licentiousness in the lower classes of society-a natural consequence of checks to marriage.

cise of a most unwarrantable tyranny over conscience, as use less as it was absurd and wicked.

It is, however, to be regretted, that in the honourable commemoration of these two benefactors of mankind, the name of one who stands at least on equal ground with either, and preceded the settlement of Pennsylvania, by nearly half a century, is wholly omitted. I cannot for a moment allow myself to believe that the omission was other than the result of inadvertence. The high standing and respectability of the parties who conducted the celebration, forbid the supposition that it was a wilful one. But it is nevertheless "passing strange," that in the enumeration, the name of a man who made such a distinguished figure among the founders of the British Colonies, as Lord Baltimore, should have been wholly overlooked.

This nobleman founded the colony of Maryland on as broad and noble a basis of religious liberty to Christians of all denominations, without exception, as Roger Williams or William Penn. His settlement took place in 1632, about twelve years before William Penn was born, and four years before Roger Williams settled in Providence.

At this period, there is reason to believe, that no government in the world, great or small, had made any advances towards liberty of conscience, or even to toleration. Religious persecution, one of the foulest blots on the human character, was the order of the day, throughout Europe. In a great part of that quarter of the globe, and among some of the most celebrated of the reformers, at an earlier period, the idea of a general liberty of conscience was regarded as a pestilent heresy, as a sowing of tares in the garden of Christ. The doctrine was disclaimed with as much earnestness as if it were an odious blasphemy. Among the charges against Roger Williams, in Massachusetts, for which he was about to be seized and sent to England, was his preaching this doctrine. He escaped deportation by flight to Rhode Island in 1636.

The omission of the name of Lord Baltimore is the more to be regretted, as many well-meaning, but ignorant men believe, not only that persecution is a characteristic feature of the Catholic religion, but, contrary to the uniform tenor of the history of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, that Protestants have never been dishonoured by this foul crime, than which nothing can be much more erroneous.

From the preceding statement, it appears, that the settlement

of Rhode Island was nearly cotemporaneous with that of Maryland; that the founders of both were a century or two in advance of the age; that neither of them can be supposed to have borrowed his system from the other; that in all future celebrations, they ought to be brought forward prominently together; and that without at all derogating from the honour of that great and good man, William Penn, they both preceded him, as I have stated, nearly half a century. Penn's Charter secured unbounded liberty of conscience to all persons who "confessed and acknowledged the one Almighty and Eternal God, to be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world."

The merit of Calvert is greatly enhanced by the contrast between his system and that of Virginia and New England. In the former colony, the Protestant Episcopalian religion was established-in the latter, the Congregational. The Episcopalians persecuted the Congregationalists and all other denominations but their own, in Virginia*—and the Congregationalists persecuted the Episcopalians in New England. Maryland, the only Catholic colony in the country, afforded an asylum to the persecuted religionists of both descriptions, and indeed of all other descriptions.t

For the honour of human nature, it were to be wished that a veil could be drawn over the residue of the proceedings in this case-as they are foul and dishonourable. Some time after the

"The first settlers in this country [Virginia] were emigrants from England, of the English church, just at a point of time when it was flushed with complete victory over the religious of all other persuasions. Possessed as they became of the power of making, administering and executing the laws, they showed equal intolerance in this country, with their Presbyterian brethren who had emigrated to the northern government. The poor Quakers were flying from persecution in England. They cast their eyes on these new countries, as asylums of civil and religious freedom-but they found them free only for the reigning sect. Several acts of the Virginia assembly of 1659, 1662, and 1693, had made it penal in parents to refuse to have their children baptized; had prohibited the unlawful assembling of Quakers; had made it penal for any master of a vessel, to bring a Quaker into the state; had ordered those already here, and such as should come hereafter, to be imprisoned till they should abjure the country; provided a milder punishment for their first and second return-but DEATH FOR THE THIRD." Jefferson's Notes on Va. article religion.

"This liberty [of conscience] which was never in the least instance violated, encouraged a great number, not only of the Church of England, but of Presbyterians, Quakers, and all kinds of dissenters, to settle in Maryland." Burke's Account of the European Settlements in America, vol. 1, page 264.

Revolution of 1688, the Protestant and Presbyterian members of assembly in Maryland, acting in concert, with a degree of ingratitude which every honourable man must regard with abhorrence, passed the whole body of the barbarous and piratical penal laws against the Catholics, which were in force in England, by which the Catholics were not only deprived of their seats in the legislature, and disqualified therefrom in future, but subject to a severe persecution. History in the odious details of human turpitude, presents nothing much more revolting.*

The spirit of persecution extended itself to Carolina, where intolerant laws were passed by the Episcopalians, who possessed the powers of the government, and excluded from the legislature all denominations but their own.t

It has been asserted by Chalmers in his Political Annals, and Holmes in his American Annals, that the tolerant spirit of Rhode Island was disgraced by the proscription of the Roman Catholics in 1649. This, I am gratified to say, appears to be an error; as in an elaborate investigation that took place in the year 1819, no trace could be found of such a law in the records of the Colony.‡

* « When, upon the revolution, power changed hands in that province, the new men made but an indifferent requital for the liberties and indulgences they had enjoyed under the old administration. They not only deprived the Roman Catholics of all share in the government, but of all the rights of freemen. They have even adopted the whole body of the penal laws of England against them. They are at this day [1770], meditating new laws in the same spirit, and they would undoubtedly go to the greatest lengths in this respect, if the moderation and good sense of the government in England, did not set some bounds to their bigotry." Idem, page 267.

"The assembly meeting in Carolina, a Bill, in express violation of the fundamental Constitution, was passed, for the more effectual preservation of the government, requiring all persons elected members of the commons house of assembly, to conform to the Church of England, and receive the sacrament, according to the rites and usage of that church. Thus all dissenters were disqualified, though legally elected, from sitting in the assembly, and the candidate who had the next majority of votes, was to be admitted, &c. &c. The dissenters were without redress-and, to complete their grievances, a bill was signed by the governor and deputies, for establishing religious worship in this province, according to the church of England, and for erecting churches for the worship of God, and also for the maintenance of ministers, and building convenient houses for them. In consequence of this act, many oppressive things were done by the government of Carolina against the dissenters." Idem, vol. 2, page 265.

See this subject fully and ably discussed in the appendix to Walsh's Appeal.

It appears that in 1676, previous to the settlement of Pennsylvania, the proprietors of New Jersey passed a code of fundamental laws, or perhaps rather a Bill of Rights, which went beyond the charter of Maryland; as that limited liberty of conscience to the professors of the Christian religion; whereas the Bill of Rights in question, made no distinction between Christians, Jews, or Mahometans. I annex the clause which embraces this subject:

"That no men, nor number of men upon earth have power or authority to rule over men's consciences in religious matters: therefore it is consented, agreed, and ordained, that no person or persons whatsoever, within the said province, at any time or times hereafter, shall be any ways, upon any pretence whatsoever, called in question, or in the least punished or hurt, either in person, estate, or privilege, for the sake of his opinion, judgment, faith, or worship, towards God in matters of religion. But that all and every such person and persons may from time to time, and at all times, freely and fully have and enjoy his and their judgments and the exercise of their consciences in matters of religious worship throughout all the said province."

Among the numerous signers of this admirable document, stands, the honoured name of William Penn.

It is scarcely credible, but nevertheless true, that so late as 1753, the Legislature of Virginia passed an act declaring that popish recusants (that is, Catholics who would not abjure their religion,) should be incapable of being witnesses in any case whatever; that they should not keep arms in their houses, under a penalty of forfeiture, and three months' imprisonment; that persons who knew of their keeping arms, and did not discover them, should be subject to the same imprisonment; that they should not keep a horse above five pounds value, under penalty of forfeiture; and finally, that persons aiding Catholics to conceal horses above that value, should be liable to three months' imprisonment.

Philadelphia, Nov. 7, 1828.

« ZurückWeiter »