xt7r4x54h941 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7r4x54h941/data/mets.xml  Washington, D.C. : District of Columbia Historical Records Survey 1940 Other contributors: Wentz, Charles Hancock, 1880- comp; United States. Work Projects Administration. Division of Professional and Service Projects; District of Columbia. Board of commissioners. 2 v. : ill. ; 28 cm. UK holds archival copy for ASERL Collaborative Federal Depository Program libraries. Call number FW 4.14:D 633/c. books  English Philadelphia, Pa. : Work Projects Administration, National Research Project in cooperation with Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines This digital resource may be freely searched and displayed in accordance with U. S. copyright laws. Maryland Works Progress Administration Publications Inventory of Church Archives in the District of Columbia: the Protestant Episcopal Church, Diocese of Washington-  v. 2. Washington Cathedral (preliminary ed.)., prepared by District of Columbia Historical Records Survey, Division of Professional and Service Projects, Work Projects Administration; sponsored by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia text Inventory of Church Archives in the District of Columbia: the Protestant Episcopal Church, Diocese of Washington-  v. 2. Washington Cathedral (preliminary ed.)., prepared by District of Columbia Historical Records Survey, Division of Professional and Service Projects, Work Projects Administration; sponsored by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia 1940 1940 2015 true xt7r4x54h941 section xt7r4x54h941   { I S   IIIIIII III IIII I II II II II
  FV I A O   é,  2 uuas uvmssv.2 L.
I   M v .2,;/ c,,<  
  W jp       S`?
  IIIII          [
’ I
  Of I
I f
I washnngtun wtbmml I
- l are
/<é>‘Z>ié@§t€+g .
.. /%%~-_ é%;i=£¤  I
I I—··I¤ @i~:F®"*·’§# I I"~I
._, I:II 4-* ¤  I I I?
. IW 3   s FEI
  Eiutzzz uf Iilfftiazbtugtun
I vorurm Two I S
V;. The Protestant Episcopal Church l
.r I


 { `
Q .
L The issuance of this volume in its
b present form has been made possible
b 1
, Y bv ez _ener0us dO]*.!3,`tj.Ol']. from the
.. E
Chapter of WasE1iz1g*c0n Catheclral
gi V   ,.   . - . ,. .. . , , V .
;i-I »

· !

Prepared by
District of Columbia
Historical Records Survey _
Division of Professional and Service Projects
Work Projects Administration
Sponsored by
Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia
Diocese of Washington
Volume 2
(Preliminary Edition)
* * * * * * *
Washington, D. C.
District of Columbia
Historical Records Survey

Sargent B. Child, Director, Historical Records Survey Projects
Henry B. Dillard, Supervisor, District of Columbia
Florence Kerr, Assistant Commissioner
Mary Steele Ross, Director, District of Columbia
F. C. Harrington, Commissioner
Paul Edwards, Administrator, District of Columbia

During the past few years I have, upon many occasions, called to
the attention of clergy and laity alike of the Diocese of Washington,
the urgent importance of carefully maintaining Parish records. Im-
portant as is the maintenance of parish records it is still more
urgently imoortant that the Cathedral records should be carefully
kept. The life of Parish or Mission cannot be as extended as that
of the Cathedral; the latter in its edifice and organization continues
through centuries of time.
'Washington Cathedral has reached the stage where the pilgrim can
visualize what the completed edifice will be like. There is still
GTS work to be done which will require the time and effort of Churchmen
for many years. After the fabric is completed it will be necessary
to complete the program which contemplates many minor buildings in
the Cathedral Close, and to see that adequate endowment is provided
for the maintenance of Worship, hhssions, Charity and Education.
There is a danger that future generations may not fully appreciate
the aims of the founders and the sacrifices that have been made in
carrying forward this important Church enterprise.
This inventory has been compiled by the Historical Records Survey
of the Work Projects Administration. It has sought to give exact
information not only about printed and manuscript accounts of the life
and development of the Cathedral, but it is also designed to serve as
a supplement to the Washington Cathedral Guide Book, which contains a
description of the organization and a conoise history of the Cathedral.
As Episcopal Churches over the country become more and more conscious
of the value of carefully kept records (many of these records having
come down from tho remote past), it seems likely that they will desire
a safe depository for these records where they may be available for
Church historians. The Cathedral with its ample space in the crypts
furnishes a fitting place for such a repository of the records of our
older parishes and institutions.
It is my hope that, during the years while I continue to exercise
episcopal duties in the Diocese of Washington, I shall seo provision
made at the Cathedral for the proper housing and intelligent handling r
of such records as may be entrusted to our custody. With the growth
of the National Cathedral Library as a center for research and the
development of a finer scholarship, I trust that those parishes which
wish to retain their records will be encouraged to forward attested
copies or photostats for preservation in the Cathedral archives. By
so doing they will insure to future generations records of incalculable
James E. Freeman,
Bishop's House Bishop of Washington
Mount Saint Alban
April 15, 1940
Q , r
§ r

This inventory of the archives of Washington Cathedral
represents one phase of the program of the historical Records
Survey in the District of Columbia. By authority of a Presi-
dential letter, the Survey was created in 1936 as a part of
Federal Project No. l of the Works Progress Administration, now
the Work Projects Administration. Organized on a nation-wide
basis, the Survey was developed under the guidance of Dr. Luther
H. Evans, National Director. With the discontinuance of Federal
Project No. 1 in l959, the Board of Commissioners of the District
of Columbia became the sponsor of the District of Columbia His-
torical Records Survey. Co-sponsors of the project are the
Library of Congress, the National Archives, Georgetown University,
Howard University, the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, .
and the Washington Federation of Churches. Early in 1940, direc-
tion of the national program of the Survey was taken over by
Sargent B. Child.
The work of the Survey in Washington includes the pre-
poration of inventories of public archives; the preparation of
inventories, guides, and calendars of manuscript collections;
the preparation of inventories of books, pamphlets and broad-
sides printed in the United States and its territories prior to
January 1, 1891; the transcription of old and important archives
as a measure of preservation; and the arranging of archives,
manuscripts, and printed materials as a preliminary step to
l preparing inventories, guides, and calendars.
An important part of this program is the preparation of
, inventories of church archives. It is hoped that these published
inventories will provide a groundwork for research in a neglected
field of social history. Obviously, no record of American
civilization can be complete which overlooks any of the forces
that have vitally affected government and the social and economic
well-being of the nation at many significant points.
The Historical Records Survey in the District of Columbia
has selected for its first publication in this field, an in-
ventory of the archives of Washington Cathedral. This selection
is based in part on the national character of the Cathedral and
the widespread interest in its history and work. The present
‘ volume forms thc second part of the inventory of the archives of
the Diocese of Washington. The first part, now nearing com-
‘ pletion, will include the archives of the diocesan offices and
the various parishes, missions, and institutions in the diocese.
:5 .

Soon after the inventory of the archives of the Diocese
of Washington was begun, it was decided to conduct the work
from the national office of the Survey. Late in 1939, with the
growth of the church archives program in the District of Co-
lumbia, direction of the work was taken over by the District of
· Columbia Historical Records Survey.
Charles H. Wentz, assistant editor in charge of the survey
of the archives of the Diocese of Washington, conducted the
field work and compiled this inventory. Dr. Nelson R. Burr
collaborated with Mr. Wentz in the writing of the historical
statement. Dr. Henry N. Barbee, supervisor of the church archives
unit, and Clarence H. Brownfield, his assistant, prepared this
volume for publication. Detailed editorial comments and criticisms
have been made by Donald A. Thompson, Assistant Archivist, in
charge of the church archives inventory program of the Survey.
Grateful acknowledgment is hereby made to the Right Reverend
James E. Freeman, Bishop of Washington, to the Very Reverend Noble
· C. Powell, Dean of Washington Cathedral, and to the Cathedral clergy
and staff for their counsel and cooperation during the progress
of the work.
· A When completed, the inventories of church records in the
" ~ District of Columbia prepared by the Historical Records Survey
will constitute a comprehensive catalogue of the archives of all
denominations. Additional information, corrections, or suggestions
for making the inventories more useful, will be welcomed.
A list_of the publications by the Historical Records Survey
in the District of Columbia, issued or in preparation for early
release, will be supplied on request. Communications should be
addressed to the Historical Records Survey, the McGill Building,
908 G Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
· H. B. Dillard, Supervisor
District of Columbia
Historical Records Survey ,
Washington, D. C.
May lO, l94O

A This mimeographed volume should be considered in the nature
of a preliminary edition. It is hoped that in the future it will _
` be possible to issue a standard printed edition.
Additions and corrections should be sent to the Historical
Records Survey, the McGill Building, 908 G Street, N. W}, Wash-
ington, D. C.
g I,
g . _,
E l. ,.i ..   - , . . - . . . . . , , .

2LAiLT;E,..£.E.-£JL}:LE. EL? .T._S
FOREWORD --—— --~-———--———————- - —-—--»——-————-——---———--—- i
PREFACE ——---—----———--—--————--——-———————————--—————--—— ii-iii
ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS ——-—---———-——-——-——————————--—- iv
NAME AND STATUS -—--————~— » --—--———-~——————--—--——-——-——- ~ 3
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ---—----—---—-————-—-—~—-—---·——--- 4-25
INCORPORATORS ~—-——-—---—----—---—-—-—-———-——---~ ~ -——-——- 24 A
CHRONOLOGY ---—-—-———————----——-— ~ ——-—-~————-——- - --—-———— 25
ARCHITECTURE ----—-- — —---— - ~—-——-——-——————-————--————- —-— 25-27
PROGRESS OF CATHEDRAL PROJECT -—————— ~ -—~--—--————————--- 27-28
AUXILIARY BUILDINGS ——————— ~ —————~—-———————~- ~ ---—-——--- - 28
` COST AND ESTIMATES ---—-——--————-——-——-—-—--—~—---——-——-- 28
THE BISHOPS OF WASHINGTON —----— ~ -——-—---—————-—-———----— 29-50
THE CATHEDRAL CHAPTER ———-———-—----————————-— ~ -——-----——— 51
THE CATHEDRAL COUNCIL ——-—-—--—-———-—-——-————--———-——---- 52
HONORARY CANONS —————-——-—--——-—--~——--—-——--———-—-—-——-- 52
THE CATHEDRAL STAFF — ————- - -——---———-----———-—-————----—- 55
GENERAL CONVENTION'S ENDORSEMENT —-——-—--- ~ —---—-—-——--—- 54
ORGANIZATION CHART -—-·—~——·————-—-----— hnmediately preceding 55
ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ---——-—-—---—--—--———— — -—--—-—---—-- 46-55
COLLECTIONS AND GIFTS --—-———-—-—-——----———-—------——-- -— 56-59
{ . _,

» "_ INSTITUTIONS --—-——-———————·-— ———— —-—-- — ——-————-——- — —-—- GO-74
— ° ORGANIZATIONS --———- ~ -———-———-————-~————-—--—-———~----~— 75-78
BIBLIOGRAPHY ---———-——-—-————--—-—--——-·-——-——-———-——— —- 79-IIO
INDEX -—-——-~———--——-~—-----—- — —--—--————-—--———--—---—- III-120
‘ » #**$***

The official name of the Cathedral at Washington is "Ehe
Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul". The Cathedral is also
referred to as "Washington Cathedral", or, "The National Cathedral".
For the sake of brevity the term "Washington Cathedrul" is gener-
ally used throughout this inventory.
The Cathedral is connected with the Diocese of Washington through
the Bishop of the Diocese who is head of both.
The Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District
of Columbia, the corporate name of the Cathedral Project, was consti-
tuted an institution of the Diocese of Washington, and the Cathedral
Church was designated "The Chief Hission Church" of the Diocese of
Washington by the Diocesan Convention in 1903. However, the admin-
istration of Washington Cathedral is independent of the Diocesan
Convention, although the Cathedral Chapter has given to the Diocese
of Washington the privilege of nominating to the Bishop of Washington,
a clerical member of the Diocese for membership in the Chapter.
Washington Cathedral is, in some respects, both a diocesan and
a national institution, supported by many members of the Church and
others throughout the United States, and its records take on a truly
national significance. The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church
is Honorary President of the Cathedral Chapter.
é" .

Washington Cathedral: 1895--.
President George Washington employed Major Pierre Charles
L'Enfant, Frcnch engineer and architect, to formulate a plan
under the President's direction, for the new “Federal City," as
I the present City of Washington was at first called. Major L'Enfant
included in the plan he submitted to the President, a location (the
present site of the "Old Patent Office Building“) for a structure
which was to be a National or State Church - a kind of American
Westminster Abbey, yet belonging to no denomination. "Of course
this was impossible in a land where Church and State were to be
forever separate. The State Church was never built; yet here was
the germ of the idea of a Christian Cathedral and it slumbered
in the minds of Episcopalians."(l). Major L'Enfant, in Reference
D appearing on the margin of the original manuscript map of the
”L'Enfant Plan" which he presented to President Washington in
August 1791, and which is now in the Division of Maps at the
Library of Congress, thus describes the proposed building:
"This Church is intended for national purposes, such as public
prayer, thanksgivings, funeral Orations, &c, and assigned to the
special use of no particular Sect or denomination, but equally open
to all. It will be likewise 1 proper shelter for such Monuments as
were voted by the late Continental Congress, for those heroes who
fell in the cause of liberty. and for such others as may hereafter
be decreed by the voice of a grateful Nation.“(2)
For some years before the Civil War it was realized that great
benefit would likely result to the Episcopal Church from the estab-
lishing of a cathedral in Washington, the seat of the Federal Gov-
l. The Rt. Rev. Charles Henry Brent. A Master Builder: Being the
Life and Letters of Henry Yates Satterleo, First Bishop of
Washington {New York: Longmans, l9l6, 477 pp.$, page 563.
2. Elizabeth S. Kite. L‘Enfant and Washington: l79l-1792:
Published and UnpubliEhed—Documents Now Brought Together For
The First Time (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, Copyright
by Institut Francais do Washington, 1929, 182 pp.), page 64.
5. Webster's New International Dictionary, End ed., unabridged
IQSQ, Cathedral: Properly, the church (building) which con-
tains the cathedra or bishop’s official chair or throne, and
which is therefore officially, the principal church of a
diocese; as St. Paul's Cathedral, London."
  I ,,_. - .c c A v_   . V I ‘

Historical Background
The Rt. Rev. William Rollinson Whittingham, fourth Bishop of
y Maryland (1840-79), whose See was Baltimore and within whose dio-
cese and jurisdiction the District of Columbia was contained, was
` very sympathetic towards this idea of a cathedral in the National
S _ Capital, chiefly, because he felt it would be a means of present-
ing the Church in the fullness of its claims before representa-
tive men from all parts·of the United States. (4),(5)
In order to establish a cathedral in Washington, connected
with a diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church, it would be
necessary for Washington to be the See of the diocese in which
"Ad Washington was contained.
l This could be accomplished in one of two ways: First, by
officially placing the See of the Diocese of Maryland at Wash-
ington; or second, the creation of a new diocese, by the neces-
sary territorial division of the Diocese of Maryland, which would
_ include`Washington, and placing there the See of this new diocese.
r The first plan was suggested in 1839 at a Convention of the Dio-
v° cese of Maryland, meeting in Baltimore, May 29-June l, that year,
· - 7 ` at which a successor to the late Rt. Rev. William Murray Stone,
` third Bishop of Maryland, was to be elected. Francis Scott Key,
senior warden of Trinity Church, Trinity Parish, Washington, D. C.,
g - and a delegate to the Convention, was authorized by the vestry
of his parish to request the Bishop-elect, when he had been
chosen by the Convention and had accepted the election, to make
Washington his home, accept the rectorship (then vacant) of
Trinity Parish, and make Trinity Church his cathedral. How-
V ever, the Rev. Dr. Benjamin I. Dorr, of Philadelphia, after hav-
ing been chosen Bishop by the Convention, declined to accept
his election. No record is found that the suggestion and offer
of Trinity Parish was renewed when, at a Special Convention held
later in the same year, the Rev. Dr. Whittingham was elected and
The first plan was again attempted about 1870. Certain eminent
and influential members of the Church in Washington wished the Dis-
· _ trict of Columbia to become an independent diocese and believed
M Bishop Whittingham to be peculiarly fitted to be its first bishop.
4. Ibid., "See: A seat; esp., a seat of power or center of the
power or authority of a bishop; the diocesan centcr."
5. The Rev. William Francis Brand. Life of William Rollinson Whitt-
ingham, Fourth Bishop of Maryland {New York: E.&J.B. Young & Co.,

Historical Background
Among these gentlemen was the rector of St. John's Parish, Wash-
ington, who felt that many of the values of an independent organ-
ization might be secured without a division of the Diocese of
Maryland, the necessary consent by the diocese to the division
not then being obtainable. His plan contemplated the Bishop of
Maryland (then, Bishop hhittingham), confining his Episcopal
functions to the churches in the District of Columbia and assign-
ing jurisdiction of the remainder of the diocese to the Assistant
Bishop of Maryland (the Rt. Rev. William.Pinkney). A free church
or independent congregation was to be erected within St. John*s
Parish, “which might at some time be the cathedral of a diocese,
and for the present be such in effect - the bishop's church with
a corps of clergy."’ But, this effort was not successful. It ~
lacked the approval of others of influence, including that of the
~ Assistant Bishop.(6)
B Plans for a division of the Diocese of Maryland had been
under consideration and discussion almost from the time the dio-
cese was first organized, in 1785, when its area comprised the
entire State of Maryland.
In May 1791, the vestry of St. James Parish, Anne Arundel
County, of which the Rev. Dr. Thomas John Claggett was rector,
instructed their delegate to the Diocesan Convention, meeting the
following month in Baltimore, to propose to the Convention that
consideration be given to the election of two bishops for the
State of Maryland. This vestry was "fully Persuaded that one
Bishop would not be adequate to perform the Duties of his Office
~ in this State...divided as it is by a large Bay and in which
· there appears to them a greater number of Parishes than can be
A properly superintended by one man." The Convention of l7Ql elect-
· · ed Dr. Cleggett its president, and resolved that notice be given
the members of the Church in Maryland "that the Convention will,
V at the next annual Meeting, proceed to the Election of a Bishop;
i~ ‘ 6. Journal of a Special Convention of the Protestant Episcopal
· · V ‘ · which of ms?§i'ana...1szs, Q3?. s-a.
A {Mrs.} Marcus Benjamin:—Eompiler. Historical Sketches of
the Parishes and Eissions in the D 
y_4_ ZWashingtonT—DT—CTYmlEES,  Hercefter
"P cited as Benjamin, Historical Sketches.
. - Brandt, op. cit., pp. 125-124.

Historical Background
or, . . .to the Election of Bishops."(7)
- _ The Convention of 1792, Dr. Claggett being unanimously rc-
· . » elected its president, discussed the proposed division of the dio-
— i cese, and the election of more than one bishop. Both proposals
* were rejected. Thereupon, the Convention unanimously chose the
. Rev. Dr. Cleggett as bishop - the First Bishop of Mary1and.(8)
The Rt. Rev. Dr. Thomas John Claggett was Bishop of Hary-
\ . . I . . .
land from 1792-l8l6.($) During this entire period he resided at
Croom, the name of his·fami1y estate in Prince George's County,
, Maryland; and in addition to his duties as bishop of the Diocese
of Maryland, Dr. Clagget was rector, successively, of two cures,
both located in Prince George's County, in tho vicinity of Groom:
St. Paul's Church (Baden), St. Paul's Parish, 1795-1808; Trinity
Church (Upper Marlboro), 1810-(death) l8lB.( O}
"Bishop Claggett always were the mitre in performing
episcopal functions. He always were his episcopal robes when
officiating in his own parish as rector. He always gave the
absolution, even though only attendent on services, unrobed, and
in the body of the church," ll} His mitre of silk covered card-
board, was in the possession of“Washington Cathedral after the
reintormont of the remains of tho bishop at Mount St. Alban in
1898, but cannot at present be located.
Bishop Claggett felt that he could be of more value and ren-
der greater service to the Church in Maryland if he resided and
was officially connected with a church in a city instead of the
quiet corner of the world where he was located. To this end,
early in his episcopate, when on two occasions, a vacancy had
7. George B. Utley. The Life and Times of Thomas John Clagpettz
First Bishop of Maryland and The First Bishop Consecrated in
America {Chicago; R. R, Donnelley & Sons Cc., 1915, 184 pp.},
pages 60-61.
‘ Journal of the Proceedings of a Convention of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in Maryland, . , 1791, pp, 6, S, Hereafter,
A Maryland Convention Journals are cited as: Journal, Md.
8, Jpurnal, Md., 1792, pp. 7-9.
l 9. The Living Church Annual, 1959, p. 265.
lO. Utley, op. cit., pp. 67, 144.
1].. I-Dj.d|, pj  

Historical Background
occurred`j¤'ihgincumbency of a Baltimore parish, he intimated
` ` to its vestry his willingness to accept the rectorship if tender-
ed to him on certain conditions. However, those conditions ap-
parently were not acceptable to the vestry and, consequently,
P the matter was dropped.(l2)
Shortly after the new "Federal City" of Washington had been
laid out, Bishop Claggett became interested in developing the work
of the Episcopal Church there.
l At the Convention of 1795, the first over which Bishop
= Claggett presided as its Episcopal head, the bishop had brought _
before it the subject of the establishment of an Episcopal church
in the City of Washington. This is probably the first formal cc-
casion on which this matter was discussed. The Convention appoint-
ed a board of "trustees", one of whom was General Uriah Forrest,
for the execution of plans in this direction and passed a reso-
_ lution that it would later propose a lottery scheme for building
V a church edifice in`Washington - a method quite usual in those
days and regarded as entirely regu1ar.<15)
General Forrest, we shall presently observe, about this time
Owned a tract of land which, subsequently, became in part the pres-
, ent site of Washington Cathedral Close.
‘ Continuing his belief that he could better serve the Church
in Maryland if he were established in an important center of act-
ivity, Bishop Claggett made an attempt "to fix myself in ye City
V of Washington." It was the bishop's purpose to have an Episcopal
y church erected in the new city, become its rector, and make Wash-
_ g ington his permanent place of residence.
Accordingly, in addition to the move he had made in the Con-
.. vention of 1795 for the erection of a church in Washington, the
bishop was largely responsible for securing, in December 1794, the
· passage of the act establishing Washington Parish by the General
U . ., Assembly of Maryland, under whose government the District of Colum-
.. bia, East of the Potomac, was to continue until the Congress of the
United States should remove to Washington.
X 12. ibid., p. 122.
P _ 15. gpprnal, Md., 1795, p, 10.
g ,
g _ r,

Historical Background
This new parish was created by a division of the old Prince
George's Parish whose area before this division included all the
V territory which had been set off as the District of Columbia, as
` well as parts of Prince George*s and Montgomery Counties in Mary-
- in Washington Parish, upon its creation, included the original
‘ area of Washington City plus some additional territory within the
District of Columbia.
Bishop Cleggett desired and attempted to become the first
. rector of Washington Parish, However, just as his plans in this
` V respect were thought to be favorably consummated, the first vestry ‘
of the parish, on May 25, 1794, elected another clergyman as rec-
tor. Later, about 1797, when the rectorship of Washington Parish
s p was vacant, steps were taken to elect Bishop Claggett to the posi-
tion, but once more without success.(l41
At the convention of 1795, Bishop Claggett reported that the
"trustees" appointed in connection with the plan to erect a church
1 in the City of Washington, informed him that "nothing had been done
under the appointment," and, "that the prospect of success from a
. ‘ lottery at present appeared to him to bo small."’ The Convention
f decided "that, inasmuch as the city of Washington and the neighbor-
ing territory have been erected into a distinct parish, the inter-
position of the Convention in the_erection of a church in the said
parish is no longer necessary."(lb)
1 Following his efforts to establish himself in Washington,
Bishop Claggett "set himself down contentedly at Croom," where
· he retained his residence for the rest of his earthly life.(l6)
Bishop Claggett*s wish, if it had been consummated, to estab-
lish himself in the new "Federal City" of Washington, presents A
‘ picture which lends itself to interesting speculation on the pos-
sibilities that might have eventuated as a result, and how the fu-
° ‘ ture history of the Church in Maryland might have been considerably
altered. If his plan to settle in`Washington had been accomplished
2 I 14. Ibid., pp. 122-125. The Rev. Ethan Allen, Historiogrspher,
· ‘ Diocese of Maryland, Historical Sketch; "washingtsn Parish,
Washington City, 1794-1857 ' €Original manuscript, 2O pp.,
,’· · ‘ 895, passim. Deposited in the Library of Congress.
15. Journal, Md., 1795, p. 8.
16. Utley, pp. pit}, pp, 122-123, 144.

Historical Background
it seems reasonable to conjecture, in view of the rapid growth
~ in the national and social prominence, and in the importance
. of the new city, that quite possibly Washington would have be-
come officially the See of the first Bishop of Maryland, and,
in consequence, been continued as such by his successors. Under
these circumstances a Cathedral Church of a national character
_ might very well have been established in the Capital of the Na-
tion comparatively early in its history.
- During the early part of the nineteenth century increasing
~ agitation arose in the Diocese of Maryland for an additional bishop.
It was felt that Bishop Claggett needed assistance in his episcopal
work, especially in the area of the State comprising the Eastern I
_ shore. Opinions differed as to whether the proposed new bishop
» should be an assistant, coadjutor, or a suffragan bishop.(l7)
In the Convention of 1812, Bishop Claggett himself suggested
that consideration be given to the choosing of a bishop who might
` assist him in discharging his episcopal functions. No action, how-
ever, was taken in the matter until 1814, when, largely because of
V Bishop C1aggett's age and increasing infirmities, the Convention
. of that year elected a suffragan bishop (the Rev. Dr. James Kemp),
who, "shall succeed the Bishop in case of survivorship."(l8)
I "The Right Rev. Dr. Claggett, the first Bishop of Maryland,
will ever stand forth as an historic character in the annals of
our American Church, not only from the fact that he was the first
Bishop of any branch of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
r ever consecrated in America, but also because he was the only Bishop
_ of our Church in whom the Scotch succession secured by Bishop Sea-
bury (a Connecticut Clergyman consecrated in Scotland, in 1784, as
Bishop of Connecticut - the First Bishop of the American Church) was
continued and handed down to those Bishops who came afterwards. In
addition to this, Bishop Claggett was the first Chaplain of the
· Senate of the United States after the Government removed to Wash-
ington (in 1800), and when he died in 1816, Francis Scott Key, the
` author of 'The Star Spangled Banner' wrote the epitaph engraved
upon his tombstone."(l9)
UV · ` 17. Utley, op. cit., p. 144.
' V IB. Ibid., 145, 155. Journal, Md., 1812, pp. 6-7; 1814, p. 9.
19. The Rt. Rev. Henry Yates Satterlee. The Building of a Cathe-
. dral (New York; Edwin S, Gorham, 1901, 90 pp.), pages 55-54.
§ if

Historical Background
The remains of Bishop Claggett and his wife, according to a
resolution of the House of Bishops (in 1898), were translated from
the old burial ground at Croom and placed temporarily in a vault,
_ especially built to receive them, beneath the chancel of St. Alban's
- Church, adjoining Washington Cathedral Close, on All Saints' Day
(November 1}, 1898; (20) and, were permanently placed in a vault
V _ , , beneath the Bethlehem Chapel in the crypt of Washington Cathedral
~ ` when the chapel was consecrated on All Saints' Day, 1919.
I Bishop Claggett's coat of arms, which was assumed by his family
‘ in 1104, now largely forms the design of the seal of the Diocese
V of Maryland.(2l)» (22)
Discussion of a division of the Diocese of Maryland was again 1
I . brought forth in the Convention of 1867, when Bishop Whittingham
1 then re-opened that question. He declared that he had been thorough-
ly convinced from the beginning of his experience as Bishop of Mary-
land that the Church in Maryland would never thrive as it might and
ought to do, until it was divided into at least three dioceses.
The bishop informed this Convention that "Nothing could more gratify
p V me than such action of the Convention as should divide the present
" . jurisdiction and income of the Diocese (of Maryland) into three,
p and set off. . . two new Sees of`Washington and Easton."(25) But,
.· B the Convention consented only to the erection of one new diocese:
‘ The Diocese of Easton - to comprise the area of the Eastern shore.(24)
_ However, the Convention appointed a committee to study and report to
· the next Convention the most suitable manner in which the Western
shore of Maryland might be divided into two dioceses, the exped-
iency and advisability of such a division having already been con-
ceded. The Committee's conclusions were reported to the next two
Conventions, but the failing health of Bishop Whittingham neces-
sitating the election, in 1870, of an Assistant Bishop(25j (the
Rev. Dr. William Pinkney), delayed favorable action on a further
‘ division of the diocese for a quarter of a century.(26)
20. Ibid., p. 54.
21. Utley,