apparently won the day. But Mazarin had only simulated a yielding
spirit; in reality, he was more determined than ever to establish the
royal authority, to crush all opposition in Paris by a concentration of
troops under a trusted commander. By his advice Anne had made promises
which she never intended to keep, and Mazarin was simply biding his
time. One of his most striking characteristics was his perseverance in
carrying out his plans. Having fixed upon a policy, he carried it
through in the end, though compelled to adopt various and unexpected
methods before success was attained. It is noteworthy that the treaty of
Westphalia and the treaty with the Frondeurs were signed on the same
day. It is equally noteworthy that, while the Frondeurs were seemingly
triumphant, Mazarin was making careful preparations for the civil war
which he regarded as inevitable.
On October 24, 1658, the Peace of Westphalia was signed between France
and Sweden on the one hand and the representatives of the Emperor and
the empire on the other. France secured Upper and Lower Alsace, the
Sundgau, and the prefecture of ten imperial towns; in other words, the
practical ownership of Alsace, though the rights of the imperial princes
were for a long time a matter of difficulty. She also obtained
recognition of her possession of (1) Metz, Toul, and Verdun, the three
bishoprics conquered by Henry III, with their districts; (2) of Old
Brisach, situated on the right bank of the Rhine; while the privilege of
keeping a garrison in Philippsburg was also granted to France. Further,
no fortress was to be placed on the right bank of the Rhine between
Basel and Philippsburg. Indirectly France gained enormously. Her ally,
Sweden, secured a foothold in Northern Germany, together with a vote in
the Diet; and the practical independence of the princes of the empire
was recognized.
Mazarin had successfully carried on the foreign policy of Richelieu, and
the situation of the great European states in 1648 speaks volumes for
his skill and energy. The power of the house of Hapsburg was in many
respects seriously curtailed. The Austrian branch could no longer aim at
establishing a universal monarchy, and came out of the war with its
resources much weakened. The Spanish branch had lost its preponderance
in Italy, Portugal had regained her independence, Catalonia was in
revolt. Though Spain continued the war till 1659, she only lost by doing
so, and her defeats and losses strengthened the position of France.
French influence remained supreme in Germany for some thirty years, and
was only destroyed by the ambition and shortsightedness of Louis XIV.
Mazarin had not merely advanced the boundary of France toward the Rhine;
he had established French preponderance in Europe, and had insisted on
the recognition of the balance of power. The Peace of the Pyrenees in
1659 completed the work of the pacification of Westphalia. The
conclusion of the war between France and the Emperor was hardly noticed
in Paris, and this fact in itself is a striking illustration of the want
of patriotism of the Frondeurs. Moreover, De Retz, in October, 1648, was
actually considering the advisability of inviting the Spaniards to march
on Paris. His plan was to send St. Ibal, his friend and relation, to
Brussels to engage Fuensaldaña to advance. Already the Parliamentary
Fronde was falling into the hands of plotters and traitors.
On October 30th the court returned to Paris, and two months of anxiety
followed. Orléans was with difficulty induced to forego his feelings of
resentment toward Mazarin and to remain faithful to the royal cause. His
support was all the more valuable as the Parliament was disposed to
harass the government at every opportunity. It complained that the
promises in the Declaration of October 22d were not carried out; that
the grievances of the taxpayers had not been remedied; moreover, like
the National Assembly in 1789, it was much agitated at the gradual
concentration of troops around Paris. Though Orléans and Condé visited
the Parliament in December and promised that the Declaration of October
22d should be loyally executed, the attacks on the government, and
especially on Mazarin, increased in violence.
Countless pamphlets styled _mazarinades_ were published containing abuse
of the Cardinal. "It was the fashion to hate Mazarin," is the
declaration of a court lady, and the hatred was shared by the nobles and
the workmen of Paris. He gained no thanks for the conclusion of the
Peace of Westphalia, but was attacked for not bringing the war with
Spain to a close. These attacks on the Cardinal were intensified by the
support which they gained from De Retz. In the existing complications
lay his chance of securing at least notoriety. Utterly unprincipled, and
absolutely devoid of any patriotic feelings, De Retz hoped during the
coming troubles to become the practical ruler of Paris. For five years
Paris read little else but mazarinades, which, with very rare
exceptions, were utterly devoid of literary merit. These attacks on his
authority and position implied, in Mazarin's opinion, the growth of
revolutionary views, and he warned the Queen-mother that the situation
in France resembled that in England at the opening of the civil war. He
thought that his own position was like Strafford's, and he was prepared
to act vigorously. The encroachments on the royal power increased, and
the Cardinal advocated a fresh retirement from Paris. On January 5,
1649, the court, under circumstances of haste and secrecy, moved
suddenly to St. Germain, and the Parisians the following morning "saw
war, siege, and famine at their gates."
The civil war had begun, and continued from January 6 to April 1, 1649.
Mazarin hoped, by means of the troops, to cut Paris off from all
supplies and to starve it into surrender. But the army of fifteen
thousand was not large enough for carrying out so elaborate a scheme,
and Mazarin had to be content with occupying the principal posts outside
the city. Under Condé the military operations were efficiently
performed, and the Parisians, with their hastily raised army, could do
little but defend themselves. Though risings took place in the North and
Southeast, the war of the First Fronde concentrated itself round the
capital. At first Paris adopted a bold attitude. Under the influence of
the Duchess of Longueville, who now "sank to the level of a mere
adventuress," the Frondeurs were joined by many princes, such as her
brother the Prince of Conti, her husband the Duke of Longueville, the
Marshal de la Mothe, the Duke of Bouillon, and the Duke of Beaufort. The
latter, together with De Retz, became the real leaders of the resistance
to the court, and were the last to be reconciled to the government.
While De Retz headed the Parliamentary movement, Beaufort, "the idol of
the markets," led the mob. Hoping to stir up the provinces, the Duke of
Longueville proceeded to Normandy; but Mazarin at once sent the Count of
Harcourt to suppress all rebellious movements. In spite of this danger,
and of small risings in the Southwest, the war of the First Fronde was
mainly an attempt on the part of the Parliament of Paris to remedy
certain existing evils in the government, though De Retz hoped to win a
decisive success by means of the treason of Turenne.
The treason of Turenne was more serious than possible rebellions in the
provinces. That general, perhaps beguiled by the Duchess of Longueville,
proposed to lead his army, composed mainly of Germans, to Paris.
Fortunately, the German auxiliaries refused to follow him, and Turenne
was compelled later to retire to Heilbronn, and thence to Holland.
Freed from all fear of any serious risings in the provinces, and for the
moment from any hostile movement on the part of Turenne, Mazarin was
able to devote his energies to the task of subduing Paris. There, on
January 12th, the mob had seized the Arsenal, and had secured possession
of the Bastille. Two days later, on January 14th, Beaufort occupied
Charenton, important as facilitating the entry of provisions into Paris.
Possessed of Charenton and of the town of Brie-Comte-Robert, the
Parisians could feel secure from all danger of being starved into
surrender.
In spite, however, of these successes, and of the continual efforts of
De Retz and Beaufort, the Parisian levies proved no match for Condé's
regular troops, before whom they fled on January 23d and again on
January 29th. These reverses, together with the loss of Charenton on
February 8th, encouraged the party of moderation among the clergy and
the members of the Parliament to raise their voices in favor of peace.
The people in Paris were becoming weary of the war, resented the
sufferings to which they were subject, and complained of the conduct of
their generals. From being a determined stand for liberties and reforms,
the war was already showing signs of degenerating into a mere selfish
struggle on the part of the nobles against the centralization of the
royal power, and especially against Mazarin.
In many respects the siege of 1649 foreshadowed that of 1870. There were
the same levity and anarchy, the same endurance and courage. Condé and
Moltke both experienced similar difficulties in their attempts to subdue
the French capital. Through the influence of De Retz negotiations were
entered into with Spain, and a Spanish envoy arrived in Paris. But a
reaction had begun, and the moderate party in the Parliament protested
against dealings with Spain. The clergy favored a settlement, and the
news of the execution of Charles I shocked the consciences of the more
reasonable men on both sides. The loss, too, on February 25th, of the
town of Brie-Comte-Robert increased enormously the difficulty of
securing supplies. Though De Retz remained master of the Parisian
populace, and intractable, and though the nobles of the Fronde stood
aloof, moderate counsels prevailed, and on February 28th the Parliament
decided to send deputies, who should treat, not with Mazarin, but with
the courts. The interests of the royal cause demanded a settlement, even
though of a temporary character. Turenne was still anxious to march to
the aid of Paris, the Archduke Leopold was ready to invade France, and
some of the French governors of frontier towns were intriguing with the
Spaniards. Concessions were therefore advisable. On March 11th a
compromise was patched up, known as the Treaty of Rueil. But in Paris
the terms were refused. The extreme members of the Parliament were
furious when they realized that Mazarin was to remain in power, and
that, till the end of 1649, the Parliament was not to discuss political
questions. It was not till April 2d that the treaty, slightly modified,
was accepted, and the twelve-weeks' war came to an end. The right of
the Parliament to take some part in state affairs was reluctantly
allowed by Mazarin, and the treaty was registered; the Parisian troops
were then disbanded. But the main object of the Frondeurs, the expulsion
of Mazarin from France, remained unfulfilled, and the people and nobles
regarded the treaty with no enthusiasm.
RELIGIOUS TOLERATION PROCLAIMED IN MARYLAND
A.D. 1649
G. L. DAVIS
Whatever peculiar credit may belong to the first colonists in
other parts of North America for their services to human rights
and liberty, it remains the signal glory of the Maryland
founders to have established, almost at the beginning of their
enterprise, the principle and practice of religious tolerance,
at least within the limits of Christian faith.
From the planting of the colony by Cecilius Calvert, an English
Roman Catholic, in 1633, to the formal enactment of
"Toleration" was only sixteen years, but the colonists were
fully ripened for the step when it was taken. Their new
settlement had, in fact, begun "with Catholic and Protestant
dwelling together in harmony, neither attempting to interfere
with the religious rights of the other, 'and religious liberty
obtained a home, its only home in the wide world, at the humble
village which bore the name of St. Mary's.'"
The charter of Maryland was a compact between a member of the English
and a disciple of the Roman Church; between an Anglo-Catholic king and a
Roman Catholic noble; between Charles I of England and Cecilius, the
second Baron of Baltimore, and the First Lord Proprietary of Maryland.
To the confessors of each faith it was the pledge of religious freedom.
If not the form, it had the spirit and substance, of a _concordat_, in a
sense quite as strong as any of those earlier charters of the English
crown, to which the chief priest of Rome was, in any respect, a party.
This is the inference faithfully drawn from a view of the instrument
itself; from a consideration of the facts and circumstances attending
the grant; and from a study of the various interpretations, essays, and
histories of the many discourses and other publications which have
appeared upon this prolific theme. It accounts for the prohibition of
any construction of the charter inconsistent with the "true Christian
religion."[36] This in a grant to the Roman Catholic Proprietary is
intended doubtless as a simple security for the members of the English
Church.
It suggests the reason, also, why the obligation to establish the
religion of Englishmen was omitted in the case of Maryland, but
expressly or tacitly imposed, either by the charters or by the orders
given to most, if not all, of the other Anglo-American colonies. It is
not less in harmony with the supposition of King Charles' regard for the
rights of his Anglo-Catholic brethren, who subsequently came to St.
Mary's, than with that generally admitted sincerity of Lord Baltimore,
which cannot be reconciled to the notion of his accepting a grant
directly opposed to the principles or to the practice of his own faith.
It is supported by the fact that the object of the Calverts, in asking
for the charter, was to found a colony, including the members
respectively of the English and of the Roman Church--an object which, we
cannot doubt, was known to the King who signed the instrument. And it is
fully confirmed by the action of the provincial Legislature--the best
commentary upon the spirit of the charter--and by one of the first
judicial decisions still preserved upon the records.
Such is the meaning of the charter historically interpreted, and such
the earliest principle and practice of the government--freedom to the
Anglican and freedom to the Roman Catholic--a freedom of conscience, not
allowed, but exacted. A freedom, however, of a wider sort springs forth
at the birth of the colony--not demanded by that instrument, but
permitted by it--not graven upon the tables of stone, or written upon
the pages of the statute-book, but conceived in the very bosom of the
Proprietary and of the original pilgrims--not a formal or constructive,
but a living, freedom--a freedom of the most practical sort. It is the
freedom which it remained for them, and for them alone, either to grant
or to deny--a freedom embracing within its range, and protecting under
its banner, all those who were believers in Jesus Christ. And the grant
of this freedom is that which has placed the Proprietary among the first
law-reformers of the world, and Maryland in advance of every State upon
the continent.
Our ancestors had seen the evils of intolerance; they had tasted the
bitter cup of persecution. Happy is he whose moral sense has not been
corrupted by bigotry, whose heart is not hardened by misfortune, whose
soul--the spring of generous impulse--has never been dried up by the
parching adversities of life! The founders of Maryland brought with
them, in the Ark and the Dove, the elements of that liberty they had so
much desired, themselves, in the Old World, and which to others in the
New, of a different faith, they were too good and too just to deny.
Upon the banks of the St. Mary's, in the soil of Maryland, amid the
wilderness of America, they planted that seed which has since become a
tree of life to the nation, extending its branches and casting its
shadows across a whole continent. The records have been carefully
searched. No case of persecution occurred during the administration of
Governor Leonard Calvert, from the foundation of the settlement of St.
Mary's to the year 1647. His policy included the humblest as well as the
most exalted; and his maxim was, "Peace to all--proscription of none."
Religious liberty was a vital part of the earliest common law of the
province.
At the date of the charter (1632) toleration existed in the heart of the
Proprietary; and it appeared in the earliest administration of the
affairs of the province. But an oath was soon prepared by him, including
a pledge from the Governor and the privy counsellors, "directly or
indirectly," to "trouble, molest, or discountenance" no "person
whatever," in the province, "professing to believe in Jesus Christ." Its
date is still an open question; some writers supposing it was imposed in
1637, and others in 1648. I am inclined to think the oath of the latter
was but "an augmented edition" of the one in the former year.
The grant of the charter marks the era of a special toleration. But the
earliest practice of the government presents the first; the official
oath, the second; the action of the Assembly in 1649, the third, and, to
advocates of a republican government, the most important _phasis_, in
the history of the general toleration. The oath of 1648 is worthy of
attention in another particular. It contained a special pledge in favor
of the Roman Catholics--a feature which might have been deemed
requisite, in consideration of the fact that the Proprietary had
appointed a Protestant gentleman for the post of lieutenant-general or
governor. Some also of the privy counsellors were of the same faith.
The little provincial Parliament of Maryland assembled at St. Mary's, in
the month of April, during the year 1649. This was about fifteen years
after the landing of the Pilgrims, under Governor Calvert; about thirty
years later than the settlement of the Puritans at Plymouth; and more
than forty subsequently to the arrival of the Anglo-Catholics at
Jamestown, in Virginia. The members of the assembly at St. Mary's met in
a spirit of moderation, but seldom the characteristic of a dominant
party. The province was at peace with the aboriginal tribes within its
limits. The unhappy contest with Colonel William Clayborne had been
virtually terminated; the rebellions of Captain Richard Ingle and other
Protestant enemies effectively suppressed; the reins of government
recovered, and the principles of order once more established.
Governor Calvert, the chief of the Maryland Pilgrims, after a trying but
heroic and honorable administration, had died, amid the prayers and
blessings of his friends, without a stain upon his memory. Thomas Green
had also for a short period been the governor; and the principal key of
authority was then held by Captain William Stone.
The assembly was composed of the Governor, the privy counsellors and the
burgesses. In many particulars its model was not unlike that of the
primitive parliaments of England. The governor and the privy counsellors
were appointed by Cecilius, the feudal prince or proprietary of the
province; the burgesses, who were chosen by the freemen, represented the
democratic element in the original constitution of Maryland. The
delegates were sent by Kent and by St. Mary's, the only two counties at
that time within the limits of the principality; the former upon the
east, the latter upon the west, side of "the Great Bay." And while there
is no reason for asserting the want of harmony upon the business of this
assembly, it is a remarkable fact that for more than two centuries the
most strongly marked differences have existed between the shores of the
Chesapeake, not only of a geographical, but also of a political,
character.
Kent, in the midst of many sad reverses, had grown out of a settlement
founded as early as 1630, by Colonel Clayborne, in the spirit of a truly
heroic adventure, under the jurisdiction established at Jamestown, and
during the administration--it is supposed--of Governor Harvey, upon an
island of the Chesapeake called Kent, but then the "Isle of Kent"; a
purchase--to quote the Colonel's own words--from "the kings of that
country"; and the original centre of the country represented at St.
Mary's, though now included within the limits of Queen Anne's--an island
still noted for the beauty of its scenery and the wealth of its waters
in fish and fowl; and the only dwelling-place of the colonists upon the
eastern shore at the time of this assembly; the seat, also, of opulence
and elegance at a period anterior to the American Revolution, and
presented in the Virginia House of Burgesses before the settlement of
St. Mary's;[37] but above all, distinguished as the first focal point of
Anglo-American civilization within the present boundaries of the
State[38] of Maryland.
St. Mary's, which also had been purchased from the Indians--how
honorable to the memory of those who took part in that transaction!--and
which had borne the appellation of Augusta-Carolina, included a
territory of thirty miles, extending toward the mouth of the Potomac,
and embracing the St. Mary's, which flows into that river. Within this
country was also the small city, which had been founded upon the site of
an aboriginal village, and which, like the river upon which it stood,
derived its beautiful name from the Blessed Virgin. It was the chief
star in a constellation of little settlements and plantations, and for a
period of about sixty years was the provincial capital of Maryland; a
city of which nothing now remains deserving the dignity of ruins; a few
relics only are preserved, the records and everything belonging to the
government having long since been removed to Annapolis, but a spot
still consecrated in the affections of the country.
Judging from the number of wholesome laws enacted in 1649, as well as
the shortness of their session--for it did not include twenty-five
days--it would seem, the assemblymen of this year were certainly not
very fond of talking or speechmaking. It appears, also, that some of
them, like our Saxon forefathers, could neither read nor write. It can
be proved from the records that two of them, at least, were in the habit
of making a signet mark. But did they not leave a mark also upon the
country and upon the world?
The "Act Concerning Religion"--for that is the title of the law--forms
so important a link in the aim of this narrative that its leading
provisions should be stated. The design was five-fold: To guard by an
express penalty "the most sacred things of God"; to inculcate the
principle of religious decency and order; to establish, upon a firmer
basis, the harmony already existing between the colonists; to secure in
the fullest sense freedom, as well as protection, to all believers in
Christianity; and to protect quiet disbelievers against every sort of
reproach or ignominy. In determining the different lines and landmarks,
a regard, of course, must be had to the spirit of the charter, to the
theological notions of the age, and to the character of the elements
which then composed the population of the province.
1. The proprietary had the right, upon all doubtful points, to construe
the charter in that manner which was most favorable to himself. But no
interpretation was allowed inconsistent with the "Sacrosancta Dei" and
the "Vera Christiana Religio"--the former implying a prohibition of the
most wicked kind of blasphemy, as well as the desecration of the most
holy institutions; the latter defining or bounding the pledge of
religious freedom to the Roman Catholic by securing the same liberty for
the English churchman. And there cannot be reasonable doubt that among
statesmen, as well as ecclesiastics, two centuries ago, the Lord's Day
and the Trinity, or fundamental article of revealed religion, were two
of the "most sacred" things of God. This fact accounts for the penalty
against those who were guilty of violating the sanctity of the
"Sabbath," or of "cursing" God; that is, denying the great doctrine of
the Athanasian Creed.