« AnteriorContinuar »
correspondent. With a Governor, we think our Agent beyond meer civility has little to do."
James Otis wrote to Mauduit, February 14, 1763, that the failure to appoint Israel Mauduit was due to the Governor and his dependents. The Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Secretary Oliver, were said to have been the chief opponents because of an alleged prior committal to Mr. Jackson, of whom mention will be made later. Hutchinson, the Lieut. Governor, as it seemed, wished himself to be Agent. Suggestion is also made that there is a newspaper war commenced against Mauduit. Otis says further:
I really fear this poor Province will be undone under the present administration, which is the weakest and most arbitrary that we have known since the revolution. If either the Governor could be removed to some better place, and a wiser man sent in his room, that would act for himself, or if the Lieut. Governor could be confined to anyone or two great posts, as Chief Justice, or anything but Governor in Chief, we might do well enough. But while he has all the real power of the Province in his hands but the militia, a much wiser Governor than I have yet seen must submit to him or live in perpetual broils. . . England will ultimately be hurt by the growth of arbitrary power in hands of plantation Governors.
It is interesting to notice how gradually the conviction took root that the independence of the province must be asserted. Not one of the American agents in England imagined that the Colonies would think of disputing the stamp act at the point of the sword, and even Otis said “it is our duty to submit."
In the instructions to Jasper Mauduit, as to his conduct as agent, is found the expression, “we shall ever pray that our sovereign and his posterity may reign in British America till time shall be no more." And yet it is not surprising that the spirit of independence should have grown strong between the time of the first settlement in 1620 and the Revolutionary War. The people of Plymouth Colony were left pretty much to themselves, until 1691, when they were united with the Colony of Massachusetts Bay by the Charter of William and Mary. The people of Massachusetts Bay were quite independent under the Charter granted by Charles I in 1629, which gave them extensive powers amounting to self-government. This Charter was annulled by a writ of quo warranto in 1684. Thus, for many years the people of Plymouth Colony and the people of Massachusetts Bay were unvexed by any outside interference with the administration of their own affairs.
Jonathan Mayhew writes two letters to Jasper Mauduit. Mayhew was a famous preacher and controversialist minister, perhaps the best known of that period. He was the son of Rev. Experience Mayhew, the missionary to the Indians. Jonathan Mayhew was born in 1720, graduated from Harvard College, and, in 1747, was ordained minister of the West Church in Boston. John Adams said of him:
This divine had reputation both in Europe and America, by the publication of a volume of seven sermons, in the reign of King George and Second, 1749, and by many other writings, particularly a sermon in 1750 on the subject of passive obedience and non-resistance, in which the saintship and martyrdom of King Charles the First are considered, seasoned with wit and satire superior to any in Swift or Franklin. It was read by everybody — celebrated by friends, and abused by enemies. . . . Mayhew seemed to be raised up to revive all the animosities against tyranny, in church and state, and at the same time to destroy their bigotry, fanaticism and inconsistency. ... To draw the character of Mayhew would be to transcribe a dozen volumes. This transcendent genius threw all the weight of his great fame into the scale of his country in 1761, and maintained it there with zeal and ardor till his death in 1766.
He was called by Robert Treat Paine “the father of civil and religious liberty in Massachusetts and America.
In 1701, there had been established in England the “Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts.” This was thought by many to be a society for propagating the hierarchy, especially in New England.
In 1763, Jonathan Mayhew published his Observations on the Charter and Conduct of the Society, in the course of which he not only attacked the society for sending missionaries into New England, but also took occasion to censure the proposed scheme for the introduction of an American Episcopate. He quoted from St. Pau.'s epistle to the Galatians, describing the society's missionaries as “Brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.
Several answers were made to these observations, among them a broadside which illustrates the methods of controversial arguments of the day, in which Mayhew is referred to as “A certain Jonathan Mayhew," and in which is found the statement: “And if he were treated according to his demerits, a strong toed shoe, or an oaken plank well applied would be quite gentle and seasonable ... and
if the said Mayhew should print any more such foul mouthed anonymous papers, tending to vilify characters,” concludes the advertiser, “I will advertise him again in such a manner, as that his whole character shall be known.”
The pamphlet that attracted most attention was the so-called answer written by Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury, of which someone said after his death:
As to Secker, he is laid in his grave; disturb not his slumber. His character no more than his body, can endure the keen question of the searching air: Unless you would give another specimen of your friendship, cause him not to stink to futurity.
Mayhew replied to Archbishop Secker's "answer,” and this reply was in turn answered in a pamphlet by the Reverend East Apthorp, an Episcopal missionary in Cambridge. The question had a decided influence on the history of the time.
John Adams writing on the causes of the Revolution said:
If any gentleman supposes this controversy to be nothing to the present purpose, he is greatly mistaken. It (the plan of episcopizing the colonies, especially New England) spread an universal alarm against the authority of Parliament. It excited a general and just apprehension, that Bishops and diocese and churches, and priests and tithes were to be imposed on us by Parliament. It was known that neither King, nor ministry, nor archbishops, could appoint Bishops in America without an act of Parliament; and if Parliament could tax us, they could establish the Church of England, with all its creeds, articles, tests, ceremonies and tithes, and prohibit all other churches as conventicles and schism shops.
Rev. Henry Caner, Rector of King's Chapel, writing to Archbishop Secker, January 7, 1763, said: “We are a rope of sand; there is no union, no authority among us. We cannot even summon a convention for united council and advice, while the dissenting ministers have their monthly, quarterly, and annual associations, conventions, etc., to advise, assist and support each other in many measures which they shall think proper to enter unto.
A year earlier, in 1762, Mayhew, in a letter to Thomas Hollis, of London, speaks of the incorporation by the General Court of a considerable number of persons by the name of the Society for propagating Christian knowledge among the Indians of North America. The Act of Incorporation was sent home for His Majesty's approbation, without which it could not take effect. “We are not without apprehensions,” said Mayhew, “that our good friends of the Church of England will endeavor to obstruct this scheme, but hope to no purpose.” The Privy Council, however, reported against the act of incorporation. Mayhew is quite certain, so he says, that Mauduit is much more likely to serve the Province than “a gentleman of the Church of England,” which, by the way, was one of the reasons for dismissing Bollan, to whom the reference is made. An interesting illustration of the delays incident upon correspondence between Boston and London is found in one of Mayhew's letters, which he held from November 17, 1762, until February 21, 1763, for “a convenient opportunity of conveyance.
Samuel Martin, in behalf of the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury, writes from the Treasury Chambers to Mauduit under date of June 21, 1762, in regard to the “Memorials of the Agents of the Several Colonies" asking for a distribution of the £200,000 granted by Parliament in 1761 as compensation for expenses incurred in 1760 by the colonies for the troops. The reply of the Colony agents follows, dated London, June 25, 1762.
Then follows a Treasury Minute, dated White Hall, Treasury Chambers, June 25, 1762. Present: The Earl of Bute, Sir Francis Dashwood, Lord North, Mr. James Oswald, Sir John Turner. The Earl of Bute was Prime Minister in 1762. Sir Francis Dashwood was Chancellor of the Exchequer. His financial statement in 1762 was very much confused and was received by the House of Commons with roars of laughter. He exclaimed “What shall I do? The boys will point at me in the street and