|
Home : Quarterly Archives : Volume 4 |
Tredyffrin Easttown Historical Society |
|
Source: January 1941 Volume 4 Number 1, Pages 2–11 The prosecution for libel of William Moore of Moore Hall and the Rev. William Smith, D.D. (Editor's Note: This paper was read by John Cadwallader, Esq., at the anniversary of Old St. Peters-in-the-Great-Valley, and re-read with the consent of the owner, William Ives Rutter, by Dr. Crusswell McBee, before the Tredyffrin-Easttown History Club, November 12, 1940.) When Mrs. Young very kindly invited me to come to your annual gathering and address you, besides being highly honoured, I felt greatly at a loss to justify myself as I could not recall any connection with this old Church. However, I knew that William Moore, who was one time an important person in these parts, was an ancestor, and I am proud to possess his family Bible and in it found an entry of a little daughter, which reads, "Margaret Moore, born at Moorehall March 26th, 1738, died July 17th, 1745; buried at St. Peter's Church in the Great Valley the day following". When you want to make a claim to kinship and association, the feeblest link will serve and I am, therefore, going to claim a right of relationship through this child aunt of mine, of many 'greats' back, who lies buried here. Our old churches are most precious possessions. In this ever changing world, we can and must uphold these haunts of ancient peace, which give us a sense of the true values of things and make us dwell on the beauties of past lives and the shining lamps of our religion. And what truly beautiful and well-nigh romantic names our ancestors have given to these beloved shrines. The names of Christ Church and St. Peter's in Philadelphia ring in my ears so familiarly that I don't think of them quite so emotionally but more as very vital influences. But Gloria Dei, in Weccacoe, Trinity, Oxford, St. James, Kingsessing, St. Thomas', Whitemarsh, St. Davids, Radnor, and St. James, Perkiomen, and perhaps most picturesque name of all, St. Peter's in the Great Valley! What a vision those old names bring to us of 'the passion and the piety and prowess' of so many generations who have gone to their reward and whose works do not altogether follow them for they remain for us to cherish. And let me congratulate you on your determination to keep this old shrine intact. The removal of churches generally means the sale of their birthright. The Church yard where your family lie is a lodestone to draw you from the ends of the earth, and nothing adds more attachment to an old Parish. Churches without Church yards are like Colleges without dormitories or like ships without anchors. Churches that have once moved and lost their moorings have often lost their hold on their congregations and perhaps all reason for their existence. Neighbourhoods may change completely and the surroundings of most of our historic churches seem very barren ground, but I am sure that it is not really so and that the work which they still can do as witnesses to religion is proven by such ties as have brought all of you together here today. And now having claimed kinship through old William Moore, I have thought that it might be of interest to rehearse the dramatic story which you may have often heard of his troubles and those of his son-in-law, the Rev. William Smith, first Provost of the College of Philadelphia, with the Quakers and of their persecution by the Assembly of Pennsylvania. A true understanding of history is often better obtained from some minor incident illustrative of human passions than from long and minutely detailed narratives leading up to some great event. I have often thought that the issues precipitated by the Great War of 1914-18 could be better understood by a reading of Robert Louis Stevenson's story of the great storm at Samoa, entitled a 'Footnote to History' than by any of the numerous works on European history of pre-war days. Stevenson wrote in 1892, years before the Great War but his account of German intrigues in Samoa and of their arrogant efforts to seize the islands, ending in the disaster of the Harbour of Apia, gives a perfect picture of the megalomania which a few years later so nearly destroyed civilization. An incident in the early history of Pennsylvania involving the careers of two militant churchmen gives, I believe, the best understanding of the clash of conflicting standards which has always injured our prestige and our influence outside our boundaries. It happened in 1757 at a time when the French and Indian War was at its height and the fortunes of England and her colonies at their lowest ebb. Following Braddock's defeat on 9th July, 1755, and for more than two years thereafter, the Indians ranged the length and breadth of the Colony almost at will, massacring and scalping whenever opportunity offered. The Scotch-Irish and the German settlers bore the brunt of these attacks and it took very sturdy manhood to endure the horrors of those days. For the first seventy years of our history no such conditions had existed within the borders of Pennsylvania. They had for a long time existed in New York and New England, but it was Braddock's defeat which let loose the flood gates of savagery into Pennsylvania's hitherto peaceful realms.
St. David's Church We read much of horrors in the newspapers today, of bandits and racketeers and stickups in our streets and the immunity to get away afforded by motors, but what can equal the ever present dread to the backwoods farmer and frontiersman of the Indian's stealthy tread, his persistent lurking for his prey, be it man, woman or child, his insensate brutality, torturing, scalping, burning and mutilating and his almost certain escape into the encompassing forest. It was then for the first time that savage war whoops were heard as far east as Bethlehem and it is said that hostile Indians roamed the woods within fifty and perhaps within thirty miles of Philadelphia. It is in times like these that fundamental traits of character are shown in the strongest light, the good and the bad are emphasized so strongly that even what is good in ordinary times becomes bad by its exaggeration. The Scotch-Irish, who perhaps suffered most from the Indians and who had all the qualities of stern unbending covenanters, became in their dealings with them scarcely less savage than the Indians themselves and a few years later in 1763 while Pontiac's conspiracy was raging, some of their number, known as the Paxton boys, perpetrated the horrible massacre of the harmless Conestogas and their kith and kin very generally gloried in the deed. It was just such an outbreak of Celtic savagery as their forbears committed when the Campbells destroyed the McGregors in the Valley of Glencoe. Naturally to the Quakers, the name of the Scotch-Irish was anathema, if they ever permitted themselves to use such a word. Having lived for seventy years in perfect peace with the Redskins, they could not help feeling that it was the fierce and cruel nature of the frontiersmen which had brought their troubles on themselves. Backed up by these feelings, they stoutly professed their abhorrence of war and of all military measures, even purely defensive, and this attitude to a people whose lives were in jeopardy every minute could only inflame and infuriate. It is hard to imagine two more hopelessly antagonistic elements in one Government. The saving grace in Pennsylvania, as well as elsewhere in our Country, we like to think, were the Church of England people or Churchmen. Although small in number, they were generally more liberally, though not more deeply, educated, more broad minded in their sympathies, much more altruistic and charitable in their views of others' failings. They had no feeling that they were the chosen of the Lord to work vengeance on the heathen nor had they the smug complacency of those who sat at home and washed their hands of their neighbour's sufferings. Of course, generalizations of this kind can never be wholly fair but I think the three leading elements in our population can thus be identified. Each division might be said to have a Biblical background. The Scotch-Irish found rich comfort in the vengeful Mosaic Jehovah and enjoyed nothing more than visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation. The Quakers on the other hand perhaps did not actually love their enemies and pray for them that despitefully used them and persecuted them, but that was one of their cardinal principles. The Churchmen tried to reconcile the good in both the Jewish and Christian dispensations. They tried hard, as St. Paul did, to recognize the value both of truth and beauty and, without binding themselves to any fixed rules, had a higher belief in the efficacy of the virtuous life than of doctrinal beliefs. They were perhaps more subtle, but if, as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews puts it, faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen, their faith could be based on a much broader basis and could and must be so related to hope and charity as well that it never became a mere matter of outward observance and Sunday going to meeting technique. To the strait-laced Scotch-Irish, they were regarded as sinful renegades, and to the Quakers as frivolous worldlings but they were not in the least disturbed by these attitudes. Church people were by no means necessarily Tories. Although inclined to be conservative and moderate in tone, they were often far more advanced in thought and we know that of the Signers of the Declaration a very large number were Church of England men. Of the two characters of this sketch, one was Scotch and the other probably of Anglo-Norman ancestry and, both, although Churchmen, somewhat inclined to be censorious. The father of William Moore, John Moore, had been Crown Advocate of the Court of Admiralty and had been a thorn in the side of William Penn, making complaints of various kinds to the authorities in England, which apparently, as one of the leading representatives of the Crown, he thought it his duty to do. John Moore had a large family and sent at least three of his sons to England to be educated. One of them, Daniel, remained in England, became a barrister and M. P. for Marlow, and his daughter, Frances, married Thomas Erskine, afterwards the celebrated Advocate and Lord Chancellor. William was born in Philadelphia in 1699, and at the age of 14 was sent to England. After graduating at Oxford in 1719 and studying at the Inns of Court, came home and became a member of the Assembly, a Colonel of Militia and Judge of the C. P. of Chester County, holding the office for forty years. It is interesting to me, at least, to note that his great granddaughter, Frances Cadwallader, married her cousin, David Montagu Erskine, the son of the Lord Chancellor, and afterwards succeeding to the title and becoming Minister to the United States and later to Saxony and Bavaria. This lady was blessed with seventeen children, and many of her descendants are prominent today in England, Scotland, and Bavaria. Rev. William Smith, born in 1727, was a graduate of Aberdeen and came first to New York in 1751. Franklin heard of him as a teacher and scholar with advanced ideas of education, which he had set forth in a pamphlet entitled 'A General Idea of the College of Mirania', and had him selected in 1754, when he was only twenty-seven years old, as the first Provost of the College of Philadelphia. His course of instruction was thought of very highly and under him the College soon acquired an excellent reputation for scholarship. The controversy with the Assembly in which these two were protagonists and which has an important place in our annals was a direct outgrowth of the aroused feeling against the Quakers for their failure to arm and defend the Province. No better statement of the conditions can be found than in a letter of Rev. William Smith to the Archbishop of Canterbury, dated 22 Oct., 1755. He says, 'Our situation at present is such as never any Country was in. The Province is powerful in men, in money and in all sorts of provisions. From twelve to twenty thousand men might be raised on an emergency and we could find provisions for six times that number. And yet we have not a single man in arms but our lives and our all left at the mercy of a savage crew who are continually scalping around us and among us. While I am writing this, I hear of a large number cut off on our own frontiers. The winter approaches and the King's troops have left this Province so that we have a most melancholy prospect. 'Tis extremely distressing to think that we have strength sufficient and yet, by the very Government that owes us protection, to be restrained from making use of those powers which God and Nature gave us to repel violence and prevent the inroads of injustice and iniquity into the world.' William Moore was an outspoken advocate for a militia law and for arming for the defense of the Province, and very open and pronounced in his views. The Religious Society of Friends were strongly opposed to all military measures and were greatly irritated by his activities, and thereupon armed themselves for another kind of warfare, not at all, however, of a disarming nature. They procured petitions
St. Peter's Church - 1744 from disappointed suitors in Moore's own Court and other discontented persons, charging him with extortion and various forms of injustice. Thereupon, in August, 1757, the Assembly summoned him to answer these charges to which Moore replied in a respectful memorial, proclaiming his innocence of the charges but refusing to appear because the Assembly had no right to try him and, if tried at all, he was amenable to the law courts. The Assembly thereupon in Moore's absence proceeded to hear the petitioners ex parte, and without other proof addressed the Governor, charging Moore with oppression, injustice and corruption in office and praying for his immediate removal. This address was published by the Assembly and to it the Governor replied that he would appoint a day for a hearing when both sides could appear and be heard and that no man should be condemned unheard. The Assembly which had made the charges dissolved and a new one was elected and convened in October, 1757, and Moore, thinking that he could not overlook the charges made and published against him by the preceding House, presented to Governor Denny what he called "The Humble Address of William Moore", the opening sentence of which reads: "May it please your Honour: Whereas the late Assembly of this Province, upon a number of groundless and scandalous petitions most shamefully procured against me by one or more of their members from sundry persons of mean and infamous characters, did on the 28th of September last, present to your Honour and order to be published in the common Gazette, a most virulent and slanderous address, charging me in the bitterest terms with divers misdemeanours and corrupt practices in my office, without exhibiting any other proof thereof than their own unjust allegations founded on the evidence of the said petitioners, procured as above and taken ex parte before themselves who were invested with no legal authority for so doing." The address then went on to explain the motives behind the Assembly's accusations, viz. Moore's effort with others to have a Militia Law passed and the evil consequences to the rights of freemen if the Assembly were allowed to exercise such arbitrary powers and condemn persons unheard as if they had judicial authority. Certainly never did political venom exhibit itself in a more odious light than in all the actions of the Assembly that followed. And the most remarkable feature of the printed record is that in all the proceedings of the Assembly there seem to have been nothing but generalizations of the vaguest kind as to the charges against Moore and no reference to any specific acts of wrong doing whatever. "The Humble Address" was printed at Moore's request in the Gazette after the printer had obtained permission from the Speaker and several members of the House to do so, and it was also published in Bradford's Penna. Journal. One of Smith's early activities had been to establish a German newspaper largely for the religious instruction of the German settlers who had been left very much to shift for themselves, and Moore then applied to Smith to have the address translated into German and printed in that paper. Smith had had his troubles with the Germans and some of them, especially the printer and publisher, Christopher Sauer, was bitterly hostile to him in everything he did religious, educational and political, and fought him tooth and nail. Neither Moore nor Smith were of the type of men to be downed by opposition. It merely aroused them to more strenuous action. Moore's address was published in German as he had requested. The Germans were generally on the side of the Quakers and were, in fact, indispensable to them in retaining control of the Assembly, and Smith's act further infuriated them. Accordingly, in January, 1758, both Moore and Smith were arrested for libel. Editor's Note: The term "gaol" appears in the following paragraph, and is a synonym of jail. The absurdity of such a charge seems obvious in view of the fact that in the John Peter Zanger case in 1735, Andrew Hamilton, one of our greatest lawyers, not only sustained the principle that the public acts of a public official are open to criticism but for the first time successfully argued that a libel to be actionable must be false as well as scandalous. To say, therefore, that the conduct of the Assembly of the Province could not be criticized for its public acts was stultification of the worst kind. It was like an attempt to set up the principle of lese majeste. Nevertheless, Moore, still refusing to be tried but stoutly defending himself in print, was sentenced to gaol for contempt, misconduct as a judge, and publishing a libel on the Assembly. The Sheriff was further ordered to disregard any writs of habeas corpus that might be issued. Next, the Assembly proceeded with its charges against Smith. Although both Moore and Smith were vigourous personalities, Smith had a keener wit and made a most able and what should have been a complete defense. The charge against him was aiding in the publication of the libel by Moore. In answer to which, Smith showed that Moore's address contained charges against a former 'House', which had ceased to exist. It was, moreover, in no wise libelous, it having always been the privilege of Britons, as of the Romans of Republican days, to criticize freely the conduct of their officials in their public acts. He showed that to close the mouth of citizens to the conduct of their officials, present as well as past, meant that no one could even write history or make the slightest complaint of the most iniquitous conduct. He stood for the liberty of the Press and he showed that it was not only he who had been guilty of publication in the German newspaper, but every other paper as well, and even the Assembly itself had had it printed. The Assembly, however, was not open to argument. It in fact refused to allow the question of its jurisdiction to be raised nor the question of whether or not Moore's address was in fact a libel. Only one result was possible, the cards being stacked, Smith was found guilty and sentenced to gaol. He, however, was in no wise humbled, but in fact more determined than ever and, having perhaps an eye to dramatic effect as well as a fluent tongue, he did not fail to use his powers effectively. He stated that he would appeal to the King and that others equally guilty with him had been unmolested whilst he had been singled out. His closing words were very eloquent and dignified and produced a great effect on the spectators, many of whom were his friends who had crowded in to hear the proceedings. He received in fact an ovation from the audience as he sat down and this, of course, added fuel to the flame. I am fortunate in possessing a copy of 'Votes and Proceedings of the H. of R. of the Province of Pennsylvania, met at Philadelphia, on 14th October, 1757, and continued by Adjournments', 'Printed and sold by E. Franklin at the Nonprinting Office near the Market 1758'. It thus describes the scene after Smith had made his remarks which occurred on 24th January, 1758. (The printer is careful never to use the term 'Rev.' in connection with Smith's name, which no doubt Quaker usage would not permit). "Upon the conclusion of which speech, a loud tumultuous stamping of feet, hissing and clapping of hands, being set up by a few of the prisoner's friends, orders were given from the Chair to shut the doors and seize the persons concerned in so riotous an insult on the house." It then describes how some of the 'sober, reputable Freeholders present' gave information that 'they had seen while standing in the crowd, John Bull, John Wallace, merchants of the City, James Young, Paymaster of the Pennsylvania forces, and Charles Osborne, druggist, join in the said insult by clapping their hands'. Nothing has always delighted the true Quaker more than 'to hear testimony' and later similar information was lodged against Thomas Fisher, John Elliott, William Vanderspiegel, Thomas Lawrence, Richard Hockley, Lynford Lordner, Thomas Willing and William Peters. Of these, Lardner proved an alibi; Venderspiegel and Hockley denied that they had taken part and established their innocence; Thomas Fisher and John Elliott were not proceeded against, possibly because they were Quakers, and all the others apparently very tamely apologized. Thomas Willing 'confessed he was sorry for the countenance he had given to and the part he hud borne in the said disturbance'; Peters 'confessed he did clap his hands but designed thereby neither any approbation of Mr. Smith's speech or the least offense to the House, having done it suddenly and inconsiderately for, had he thought at all, he should have condemned it as an indecency, and was sorry for it, because an act he ought not to have been guilty of'; Osborne said that 'had he believed his applauding Mr. Smith's speech would have given offense to the House, he should not have done it, but hurried by the examples of others, he owned he had joined in the clap, though could he have imagined it would be considered by the House as an insult upon them, he should not have done so.' Wallace 'acknowledged he did clap his hands and hiss, at the conclusion of Mr. Smith's speech, but in justice to himself and in respect to the House, declared he was sorry for it and that he had done it in surprise and without thinking, for had he had time to reflect on it, he should have concluded it an indecency'. The offended dignity of the House finally asserted itself with this entry on 28th January, 1758: "The House taking into consideration the late riotous disturbance committed in the House and the several testimonies, charging persons concerned therewith. Resolved - That stamping of feet, hissing and clapping of hands in a tumultuous manner in the presence of and before this House at the time William Smith ended his insolent speech after he had been found guilty of promoting and publishing an infamous libel, entitled 'The Humble Address of William Moore, etc.,' are an high contempt to the authority of this House, a breach of the privileges thereof and destructive to the freedom and liberties of the Representatives of the People". They then resolved that John Bell, James Young, John Wallace, Thomas Lawrence, William Peters and Charles Osborne were guilty. On 31st January, these six culprits were called to the Bar, 'and, having respectively made such acknowledgments of the charge of joining in the late insult on the Representatives of the People as were satisfactory to and accepted by the House, they were, after a proper caution and reprehension from the chair for so great misbehaviour, discharged, upon payment of their respective fees'. Thus ended for the time being this preposterous affair which had consumed practically an entire month of the Assembly's time and that also during the most serious crisis of the French and Indian War. At this distance, we can well say of the Representatives of the People with Dogherry 'Oh if he were here to write me down an Ass' but in fact it was then a serious matter.
The College of Philadelphia Both Moore and Smith remained in prison from the end of January until the 11th April, when the Assembly adjourned and writs of habeas corpus were allowed by the Supreme Court. There is an interesting letter extant from Smith to the Bishop of London in which he tells how his friends crowded to see him in his cell, and also how he heard his classes from the College, This fact is also stated on the Minutes of the Trustees of 4th February, 1758. We hear a good deal about contempt for law in these days, but law that has not the sanction of public approval will never be accepted submissively. The public of Philadelphia, or at least a large part of it that did not sympathize with the attitude of the Quaker Assembly, were indignant at their treatment of two estimable citizens, but were apparently powerless to do anything. It was during their imprisonment that Rebecca, the oldest daughter of William Moore, came to visit her father, and Smith fell in love with her, admiring, it is said, both her beauty and her filial, devotion. They were married at Moorehall in June of that year. Moorehall is still standing in Phoenixville and Provost Smith's house near the Falls of Schuylkill, but the surroundings of both houses are sadly changed and unattractive, which once must have been picturesque and beautiful. The Governor, William Denny, was conceded to have jurisdiction over William Moore as a judge and his trial took place before him on 24th August, 1753. It was prosecuted with plenty of malice by the Assembly, but Moore was acquitted and retained his seat on the bench for many years to come. Smith, however, not holding any office, had no recourse except to the Privy Council in England, or rather the Committee of the Privy Council, known as the Committee on Trade and Plantations. Perhaps the hardships of such an undertaking at such a distance, involving long, tedious and dangerous voyages, heavy expenses and an unconscionable amount of time were in Smith's case somewhat mitigated by the sympathy which he met in England and the warmth of his reception. He was regarded as a victim of Quaker persecution who had been made to suffer solely because he had urged the Assembly to make proper defense against the French and Indians. The Universities of Oxford and Aberdeen conferred degrees upon him, and he was hospitably treated and entertained by many important people. Finally the case was heard and both parties, Smith and the Assembly had counsel to represent them, the Attorney-General also appearing for the Crown. The decision was a complete reversal and victory for Smith. A hard but square fighter and a hard hitter, he at last won his reward. Not only was Smith entirely exonerated, but the Assembly was roundly berated. They were charged with invading the liberties of freemen and of encroaching on powers which only belonged to the Sovereign. In particular, the refusal to allow the writ of Habeas Corpus was denounced as a tyrannical assumption of power. It was one of the rights asserted by the Act of 31, Car. II, and afterwards embodied in Article 1, Section 9, of our Federal Constitution, and never, I believe, suspended since that day except by President Lincoln in the Civil War, an Act which Chief Justice Taney in the Circuit Court declared to be illegal without an Act of Congress. So far as its effect on the Assembly went, the decision was a brutum fulmen. They continued in their course of doing things their own way and in their own time, which was often too late to accomplish any military purpose. It was at the beginning of the Session of 1757 that Governor Denny had asked them to pass (1) a 'well framed constitutional' militia law; (2) A bill for regulating the Indian trade and preventing the abuses formerly practised on the natives; (3) An appropriation to raise supplies for the War by an equal and just taxation of the Estates of the inhabitants; (4) An act to put the public roads in good repair 'without which it will be impossible to defend and relieve the province in case of attack from the enemy or to act offensively against them'. After prodigious wrangling between the Governor and the Assembly for over three months, one bill was finally passed granting the sum of £ 100,000 to his Majesty's use. The other matters were left undisposed of. The bone of contention in regard to the Militia Bill was that the Assembly wished to give the soldiers the right to elect their officers, one of the vicious ideas from which we have suffered in all our Wars down to the Great War, when, I believe, the War Department firmly set its foot down on it. In regard to the bill to regulate trading with the Indians, the Governor wished to provide against a repetition of the 'Walking Purchase' fraud of 1737 and similar schemes, which had served to alienate them and made them allies of the French. The question of taxation always brought up that of the taxation of the Proprietary Estates. The Assembly could see no reason why they should escape taxation. Based on the original idea of Sovereign rights granted to William Penn and the great sacrifices which he had made and the losses he had suffered, there was some justification for it, but the principle had lost all its raison d'etre in the time of his grandsons. They had become wealthy and had left the Quaker communion and there was no more reason that they should escape taxation than the British nobility and even certain Crown lands in England which paid taxes. Two years later, in 1759, the Assembly again passed an Act taxing the proprietary estates equally with all other lands, and this time the Governor gave in and passed the Bill up to the Privy Council. Franklin was in London at the time, and it was upon the strength of his personal engagement that no injury would be done to the proprietary estate that the Bill was finally approved. This was the Act which gave Franklin his greatest early renown throughout the colonies. Much as we can sympathize with Moore and Smith and the outrageous treatment they received, it is not fair to denounce the Assembly altogether. They did practically as much to defend the Colony as any of the other Provinces were doing. Braddock had stated that Maryland and Virginia had promised everything and given nothing, whereas Pennsylvania had promised nothing and given everything. It has been characteristic of Pennsylvania to do everything that it does very quietly and probably no State has as honorable a record for supporting the Government both with men and money in every crisis of our existence. But the independent spirit and outspoken courage of such men as Moore and Smith is what we need at all times and especially today. Their onslaught was undoubtedly helpful in its results for Pennsylvania made greater efforts and greater appropriations as the War went on. Although the French War, or the Seven Years War, as it was known in Europe, came to an end with the peace of 1763, when it appeared as if the Great Organizer of Victory, William Pitt, had gloriously succeeded in immensely extending the British Empire and in putting all enemies under his feet, yet this was followed here by Pontiac's conspiracy and four more terrible years of Indian fighting and massacres. It was still painfully true that the Quakers and Germans and the Scotch-Irish left most of the fighting to the Royal troops, and had it not been for the influence of the Churchmen, there would have been little of the spirit of self sacrifice and true patriotism displayed in the Colony. Moore's life after his imprisonment appears to have been uneventful, but covered a long and honorable service on the Bench. Smith continued to show his courageous qualities down to the Revolution and through it, although he was again made the victim of Anti-Church prejudice when the Charter of his beloved College was taken from it and he was deprived of his position as Provost. Even then, he was not downed, for in 1782, he was one of the founders and became the head of Washington College in Maryland, where he remained until 1789. In that year, the Charter of his beloved College of Philadelphia was restored and he returned and reassumed his duties as Provost and so continued until his death in 1803. The lesson I would draw from their lives is the need to a State of politically minded men who are not politicians but who care mightily for its welfare and honour and have the courage of their convictions. As Shakespeare says: "The purest treasure mortal times afford, is spotless reputation That away, men are but gilded loam and painted clay." In spite of the bitterness of faction and the malice of their enemies, their reputation has not suffered, but they have become more highly regarded and respected with time, and such a fate is the best that any man can hope for. |
