Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The Mass. House of Representatives, for example, in a message to Gov. Francis
Bernard Jan. , , stated, “Every Act we make repugnant to an Act of Parlia-
ment, extending to the Plantations [as the Act of expressly did] is (ipso facto)
null and void,” Mass. Journals XXXVII Part II . But, as clearly appears from
the context of this statement, it was assumed that the Act of was constitu-
tional; the question of whether an act of Parliament might itself be void because
unconstitutional and, therefore, inoperative was not then under consideration.
Furneaux Letters to Blackstone () – challenged Blackstone’s statement as to
the absolute power of Parliament, quoted in the text. See, to similar effect, Lord
Camden’s speech in the House of Lords in , quoted in Chapter . The doc-
trine that Parliament was not bound by constitutional limitations was finally firmly
established by the opinion in the Wensleydale Peerage Case, House of Lords’ Cases V .
The evidence for the statement in the text concerning British and colonial views
as to the unlimited authority of the King in Parliament is given in Knollenberg
Origin –, –, and sources cited therein.
Thomas Cushing, Speaker of the Mass. House, to Lord Shelburne Jan. , ,
as to the colonial concept of constitutional limitations on the authority of Parlia-
ment quoted in the text, Prior Doc. .
Governor Stephen Hopkins’ statement on colonial taxation by Parliament quoted
in the text, The Rights of Colonies Examined (Providence, or ) –, Bailyn
Pamphlets .
The Act of as to taxation of the colonies, quoted in the text, is in Schuyler
Parliament . An act of , Geo. III ch. , explicitly waived authority of Par-
liament to legislate in any way for Ireland, same .
Gipson’s statement as to freedom of protest quoted in the text, Gipson Brit. Empire
XIII .
Benjamin Franklin wrote Joseph Galloway Jan. , , of the refusal of the House
of Commons to accept petitions or remonstrances denying the right of Parliament
to tax the colonies, in view of the Declaratory Act of , Franklin IX –. To
same effect, evidence set forth in Kammen Agents –, .
First Appendix (Chapter )
The Act of , Chas. II ch. , restricting colonial imports and the associated
Act of , Chas. II ch. , restricting colonial exports are discussed in Knol-
lenberg Origin –, –, –, –. Even the exception in the Act
of permitting importation of continental European salt directly into the col-
onies was limited to the northern and middle colonies, same .
The act made no provision for punishment by imprisonment for nonviolent in-
fringement of the act, but forfeiture of the offending vessel, as well as all the goods
on board, was of course, a serious penalty.
Article of the Act of Union of ( Anne ch. ) provided that all the subjects
of the “united kingdoms of Great Britain shall, from and after the union, have full
freedom of intercourse of trade and navigation to and from any port or place
within the said united kingdom and the dominions and plantations thereunto be-
longing....”
:
Examples of the complaints by Crown officials in the colonies of the reluctance or
refusal of colonial juries to find against the owners in suits for forfeiture under acts
restricting colonial trade, Lieut.-Gov. George Clarke of N.Y. to B. of T. Dec. ,
, N.Y. Col. Doc. VI ; William Bollan, Advocate-General in Mass., to the
Board of Trade Feb. , /, quoted later in this chapter, Col. Soc. Public. VI .
Opinions of Sir John Cooke, Advocate-General to the Crown, July , , and
of Attorney-General Edward Northey, Aug. , , that the Act of , and
Wm. III ch. , gave colonial admiralty courts jurisdiction over suits for forfeiture
arising under the Act of , Chalmers Opinions –, –. (Though the
colonial courts of admiralty are commonly called “vice-admiralty” courts, Cooke
referred to them as “admiralty” courts, and I adopt this shorter name.)
Richard West’s opinion of June , , as to limited jurisdiction of colonial ad-
miralty courts and issuance of writs of prohibition. Chalmers Opinions –.
See also Wroth “Mass. Vice-Admiralty Court” –; Andrews “Col. Adm.
Courts” –; Towle R.I. Admiralty ; Wiener “R.I. Adm.” –, ; and
Noble “Admiralty Jurisdiction” –. The writ must, however, be requested
before the admiralty court had proceeded to trial, Kennedy Qui Tam against Bar-
rels of Gunpowder and authorities therein cited.
Gov. William Shirley of Mass. to the Board of Trade Feb. , /, confirms the
frequent violation of the Act of ( Chas. II ch. ), Col. Soc. Public. VI () .
Additional evidence of the widespread violation of this act, some of it winked at
by the customs officers, sources cited in Knollenberg Origin and Jensen Philadel-
phia –, –. The Act of relating to East Indian products was prob-
ably no better observed; indeed, East Indian tea seems to have been among the
products most extensively imported into the colonies in violation of law.
Bollan [misprinted “Bolum”] to B. of T. Feb. , [, new style], concern-
ing non-enforcibility of the Act of , writs of prohibition, and proposed act of
Parliament, Col. Soc. Public. VI () –. Bollan wrote of a recent condem-
nation of a ship, the Hannah, by the admiralty court at Boston, but explained this
on the ground that counsel for the owner of the vessel apparently was unaware
that he could have secured a writ of prohibition to prevent this, same .
A qui tam (“who as well”) action was for a penalty to be divided by the plaintiff with
others.
The opinion of Attorney-General Sir Philip Yorke (later Lord Chancellor Hard-
wicke) Nov. , , that “importation” is “always accounted from the time of the
ship’s coming within the limits of the port, with intent to lay the goods on land,”
Chalmers Opinions () , seems to have been unchallenged, and the port of
New York unquestionably was within the body of a county, namely the City and
County of New York.
The Act of ( Richard II ch. ) referred to in the text provided that “all man-
ner of contracts, pleas and quarrels, and all other things rising within the bodies
of the counties, as well by land as by water...shall be tried, determined, discussed
and remedied by the laws of the land, and not before the admiral nor his lieu-
tenant in any wise.”
My account of the Kennedy case in the N.Y. Admiralty Court and the N.Y. Supreme
Court is drawn from notes on the proceedings in the Admiralty Court Oct. and
:
, , Hough Cases ; Kennedy’s undated memorandum in N.Y. Col. Doc. VI
–; record of proceedings, January, , term of the N.Y. Supreme Court, in
James Alexander Mss, Box , N.Y. Hist. Soc.; and the report of “Lords of the
Committee of Council for hearing Appeals from the Plantations” Feb. , /,
in P.C.::– (P.R.O.), supplemented by Smith Appeals –.
The legal skirmishing is described in the record of proceedings (sixteen foolscap
pages) in the Alexander Mss cited in note .
Decision in the Kennedy case of the Governor and Council of N.Y. sitting as a Court
of Error Apr. , , referred to in report of the “Lords of the Committee of
Council for hearing Appeals from the Plantations,” Feb. , /, P.C.::–
(P.R.O.).
The Privy Council as the final court of appeals in cases appealed from colonial
courts of common law, its reference of such appeals to its “Committee for hearing
Appeals from the Plantations,” and the Council’s formal adoption and issuance
of orders embodying the committee’s advice are discussed in Knollenberg Origin
–, . (Appeals from colonial admiralty courts in suits concerning the British
acts of trade are fully discussed in Smith Appeals –.)
Report of the Committee to the Privy Council Feb. , /, advising affirma-
tion of the decisions of the N.Y. Supreme Court (“Court of King’s Bench”) and the
N.Y. Court of Error, P.C. ::– (P.R.O.). The report refers to the decision
of the Court of King’s Bench, i.e., the N.Y. Supreme Court, as based on seizure
having been made “in the Body of the City of New York”; but the record in this
court (Box , James Alexander Mss. N.Y. Hist. Soc.) makes clear that Fowles re-
ferred to New York City and County, thus establishing the basis for invoking the act
of Richard II ch. .
Privy Council’s order of March , /, adopting and implementing the Com-
mittee’s advice in the Kennedy case, P.C. ::–, Acts P.C. III –.
The act of Geo. I, first session, Ch. sec. () forbad importation of any
product of the East Indies into the colonies except via Great Britain. The act of
and Wm. III ch. sec. () had defined “the East Indies” to include all
“places of Asia, Africa and America...beyond the cape of Bona Esperanza to
the streights of Magellan” i.e., the entire region from and including the East Coast
of Africa to and including the West Coast of the Americas.
The bill proposed by the Admiralty Board to give colonial admiralty courts juris-
diction over all suits for forfeiture for alleged violations in the colonies of all British
acts of trade and customs is described in the Admiralty Board to the Treasury
Board Apr. , , Adm. ::– (P.R.O.) and is quoted in Smith Appeals
n.
Section of the Act of , quoted in the text, did not expressly amend the Act
of to exclude the colonies, but apparently no one questioned that the Act of
gave colonial admiralty courts jurisdiction over all suits involving violation in
the colonies of British acts restricting colonial trade, including alleged violations
of the Acts of and , just as, so far as I have found, there was no challenge
of the jurisdiction of colonial admiralty courts in cases involving the earlier act of
Geo. II ch. (), containing a similar provision.
The Admiralty Board’s memorandum quoted in the text is in P.C. :, Unbound
:
Papers, Part (P.R.O.). This memorandum was in response to a Treasury Board
memorandum and an order of the Privy Council in Oct., , same and Acts. P.C.
IV –.
Order in Council Apr. , , for the establishment of a new court of admiralty
having jurisdiction over “all America,” same IV –, VI . The Act of
had been assented to by the King on April .
Letters Patent June , , appointing Dr. William Spry judge of the new colo-
nial admiralty court, T:::–. As to appeals, Blackstone Commentaries III
states that “Appeals from the vice-admiralty courts in America...may be
brought before the courts of admiralty in England...[or] before the king in coun-
cil.” Smith Appeals –, – shows there was much confusion on this point.
(The Stamp Act passed in , but repealed in , briefly gave Spry appellate
jurisdiction, same .)
Establishment and opening session of the new court at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Oct.
and , , M.H.S. Proc. XVII (–) – and colonial newspapers in
Oct. and Nov., , cited in Ubbelohde Vice-Admiralty Courts n.
Halifax had a population of only about , in , Brebner New Eng. Outpost .
Admiral Lord Colville to Philip Stevens Oct. , , quoted in the text, Adm.
::– (P.R.O.).
Colonial alarm over the extensive jurisdiction conferred on the new admiralty
court, Thacher Sentiments (Boston, ) –; Hopkins Rights (Providence, ) .
Colonial admiralty judges received as a perquisite of office part of the proceeds
from sales of condemned property, Thacher Sentiments ; Root Pa. –, n.;
Journals Cont. Cong. I ; Burke Speeches ; whereas Spry was to receive a fixed
salary, Admiralty Board memorandum of March , , P.C. :, Unbound
Papers Part (P.R.O.); Ubbelohde Vice-Admiralty Courts, . Customs officers
may well have thought they had a better chance of securing condemnation of
seizures by a judge who would share in the proceeds of the condemnation than
by Spry.
The only recorded suit in the new admiralty court for forfeiture or other penalty
for an offense committed outside Nova Scotia was against the Polly, seized in Mass.
in , same –.
The new court was abolished in , and four new admiralty courts were estab-
lished at Halifax, Boston, Philadelphia, and Charleston, each with jurisdiction
over a limited district, pursuant to an act of Geo. III ch. ().
Second Appendix (Chapter )
Section of the Navigation Act of , Chas. II ch. , clarified by the act of
and Chas. II ch. sec. (), prohibited vessels owned by foreigners or
manned to the extent of more than one-fourth of the crew by foreigners, to trade
with the English colonies except to import gold or silver, and this prohibition was
extended by the act of and Wm. III ch. sec. () to exclude foreign-built
ships even if owned and manned by English subjects, Knollenberg Origin , ,
, .
The advantages of an act making Dominica a free port had been well presented
:
in a letter from Lieut.-Col. Campbell Dalrymple writing from Guadeloupe to
Lord Bute Feb. , , Geo. III I –. Countermeasures by the French are de-
scribed in Goebel “West Indies” –.
The collaboration of Rockingham’s follower, Edmund Burke, with a consortium
of British merchants and shipowners engaged in trade with British America in
drafting and promoting the Free Port Act is brought out in Hoffman Burke –,
– passim; Burke Corresp. I – passim; Committee of British Merchants’
Agreement March , , Penson Agents of West Indies –; printed in part in
Adams Rev. New Eng. ; Armytage Free Port System –; Rockingham to George
III March , , Geo. III I ; Charles Garth to S.C. Comm. of Corresp. Sept.
, , So. Car. Hist. Mag. XXVIII () .
The Free Port Act of , Geo. III ch. , also gave leave for small foreign ves-
sels to import some articles of foreign colonial produce (but not the most impor-
tant, sugar) into four ports of Jamaica.
The trade of the British North American colonies with the French and other for-
eign West Indies, some illegal, some under hard-to-get licenses from local French
officials, is discussed in Pitman West Indies –, –; Pares Yankees and Cre-
oles, index under “Danish colonies,” “Dutch colonies,” “French colonies,” “Span-
ish colonies,” and “Surinam”; Knollenberg Origin –, –, sources cited
therein; and Dalrymple to Bute Feb. , , Geo. III I –. The wartime trade
of the northern British colonies with the French and Spanish West Indies is de-
scribed in Beer Brit. Col. Policy –.
Sec. of the Free Port Act permitted the export of all other foreign colonial prod-
ucts to the British colonies and European ports south of Cape Finisterre, but not
to any part of northern Europe except Great Britain.
Appendix (Chapter )
Quincy Reports – prints a form of general writs. Their provisions are well
described in Opinion of Attorney-General William De Grey Aug. , , same
. A general writ of assistance issued in Mass. in Dec., , closely following the
form of the English writs, is in same –.
The writs of assistance commonly issued by the Court of Exchequer to customs
officers in England were general writs, Opinion of Attorney-General William De
Grey Aug. , , same . Supporting evidence is in same –, , and
Adams Legal Papers II .
In his otherwise admirable discussion of general writs of assistance in Mass. be-
fore in Gipson Brit. Empire X –, Gipson states: “in the colonies such a
writ could be legally granted by any court having powers comparable to that of
the Court of Exchequer,” and that “there was really nothing that the Superior
Court could do but to grant the writs of assistance,” same , . For reasons
brought out in the text, I think these statements are erroneous.
Mass. Superior Court issues several general writs of assistance between and
, Quincy Reports –.
The Mass. act giving the superior court cognizance of all matters as fully as the
Court of Exchequer in England had, is Chapter of the Laws of – passed
:
June , , Mass. Acts I –. The application for the first writ known to
have been issued by the court (in ) was based on the court’s being “vested with
the Power of a Court of Exchequer for the Province,” and apparently the court is-
sued the writ on this ground, Quincy Reports –.
Previous to writs of assistance apparently expired on the death of the sover-
eign during whose reign they were issued. The act of Anne, first sess., ch. sec.
() provided that writs of assistance were to continue in force for six months
after the sovereign’s death.
The arguments of James Otis and Oxenbridge Thacher, representing a group of
Mass. merchants, against the authority of the Mass. Superior Court to issue any
writs of assistance and especially general writs, are discussed in Quincy Reports –
, –; Knollenberg Origin –, –; Adams Legal Papers II –;
Gipson Brit. Empire X –. The names of the merchants retaining Otis and
Thacher are in Quincy Reports .
Decision of the Mass. Superior Court Nov. , , that it had authority to issue
general writs and issuance of such writs to numerous British customs officers in
Mass. from Dec., , to , same –. The decision was rendered follow-
ing receipt of a copy of the kind of writs
—general writs—commonly issued by the
English Court of Exchequer, Wolkins “Bollan” . (Apparently the Superior
Court of New Hampshire also issued a writ of assistance, soon afterward, but at
some time before Oct., , revoked it, Quincy Reports , –.)
The Collector and Comptroller at New London, Conn., to British Customs Board
May or , , as to the Conn. Superior Court’s refusal to issue a writ of as-
sistance, Wolkins “Malcom” . The New London officers indicated that the
Conn. Court based its decision on the narrow ground that, unlike in Mass., there
was no local act constituting the Conn. Superior Court a court of exchequer. But,
as brought out later in this appendix, the Conn. Court later refused to grant gen-
eral writs even after it was expressly authorized by a British statute to issue writs
of assistance.
Opinion of Attorney-General De Grey Oct. , , sustaining the position of the
Conn. Superior Court, Wolkins “Malcom” –. De Grey added that “the Court
of Exchequer in England do not send their Process into the Plantations,” from
which it followed that, under existing law, no court was authorized to issue gen-
eral writs of assistance to customs officers in the colonies.
De Grey’s opinion of Oct. , , was apparently confirmed by an opinion by
him and the Solicitor-General in the Malcom case referred to in a Treasury
minute dated Feb. , , giving the opinion of the law officers that “no action
can...be brought for obstructing the Officers of the Customs in execution of
their office, inasmuch as the Writ of Assistance by Virtue of which they entered
the House and Cellar, was not in this case a legal Authority,” same .
I have not found the letters from the American Customs Board to the customs offi-
cers under their jurisdictions instructing them to apply for writs, but the officers’
replies, mentioned in later footnotes, indicate that the Board’s letters were sent in
April, .
Chief Justice Thomas Hutchinson of Mass. to Richard Jackson March , ,
reporting the refusal of the Conn. Superior Court to grant “Writs of Assistance
:
agreeable to the late Act of Parliament” because they were “unconstitutional,”
Quincy Reports . To same effect, Collector and Comptroller of Customs at New
Haven to the American Customs Board March , Wolkins “Malcom” n. Fur-
ther details are in Dickerson “Writs” – and in Hickman “Writs” .
Chief Justice William Allen of Pa. to customs officers at Philadelphia May ,
, declining to issue a writ of assistance (presumably a general writ) requested
by them, Dickerson “Writs” .
The Superior Courts of R.I., Md., and S.C. took no action on the petitions in
for issuance of writs of assistance under section of the Townshend Act, as shown
by the failure of the application by R.I. customs officers to R.I. Superior Court at
its term beginning Apr. , ; and letters of the Collector at Patuxent, Md., to
Am. Customs Board June , and customs officers at Charleston, S.C., to Am. Cus-
toms Board May , Dickerson “Writs” , , . But, as brought out later in the
text, general writs were eventually issued in S.C.
Petitions from customs officers at N.Y. to N.Y. Supreme Court for general writs of
assistance and the court’s decision to grant the writs Apr. , , Quincy Reports
–. Dickerson “Writs” –, and copy of the N.Y. writ to Lambert Moore
Apr. , , show that the words quoted in the text were omitted in the writ, same
–.
De Grey’s opinion dated Aug. , , as to the effect of sec. of the Townshend
Act, Geo. III ch. (), Quincy Reports –.
Hutchinson’s collaboration is described by a letter from the American Customs
Board to him Dec. , , and his reply, same .
American Customs Board circular letter of March , , enclosing form of writ
to be obtained, same . I have not found a copy of the form of writ, but there is
evidence that it was sent out in March, , and that it closely followed the form
of general writ granted by the Mass. Superior Court, same , ; Dickerson
“Writs” – and Va. Journals (for –) .
Conn. Court refers the petition for writs in March, , to the Legislature, and
apparently neither the Legislature nor the court takes any further action, Quincy
Reports –; Zeichner Conn. , ; minutes of conference between Duncan
Stewart, Collector of Customs at New London, and judges of the Conn. Superior
Court March , , Pitkin –; Conn. Courant of Hartford July , .
Report of the May and Oct., , sessions of the Conn. Legislature, disclosing no
action taken on the question of writs, Conn. Records (for –) –.
Proceedings of the N.Y. Supreme Court from April, , to May, , as to writs,
Dickerson “Writs” –.
Proceedings of the R.I., Md., and S.C. Courts in as to writs, Quincy Reports
–; Dickerson “Writs” , .
Collector John Swift at Philadelphia to Am. Customs Board May , , as to
writs in Pa., same –, and sources cited in Jensen Philadelphia , .
Proceedings of the Va. Court in as to writs of assistance, same – and
Quincy Reports .
Peyton Randolph, Robert Carter Nicholas, and Dudley Digges of the Va. Comm.
of Corresp. Jan. , , to the Conn. Comm. of Corresp. in response to the latter’s
inquiry of Aug. , , concerning writs of assistance, Va. Journals (for –)
:
, –. (Virginia’s leadership in in establishing the important system of
intercolonial Committees of Correspondence is brought out in Chapter .)
The views of Horace Gray and Joseph R. Frese are set forth in Gray “Notes,”
Quincy Reports –, and in Frese “Writs of Assistance in the American Colo-
nies” (Harvard dissertation, ) – and Frese “Legislation on Writs of As-
sistance” –.
Opinion Aug. , , as to writs by Attorney-General Edward Thurlow, Dicker-
son “Writs” –, corrected as to the signature from original in Treasury Bundle
: P.R.O. My view that Thurlow’s opinion was sound is based on the fact that
the act of Chas. II ch. () authorized either the Lord Treasurer or the
Court of Exchequer to issue particular writs and that the act of and Chas. II
ch. presumably was intended to give the Court of Exchequer, though not the
Lord Treasurer, discretion to issue either general or particular writs. Had Parlia-
ment intended to limit the court to the kind of writ specified in the earlier act, it
could easily, and presumably would, have said so.
In January and November, , the Am. Customs Board ordered customs offi-
cers in Va. to petition again for general writs, Dickerson “Writs” –; Va. Jour-
nals (for –) , and similar orders were given about the same time to cus-
toms officers in several other colonies, Dickerson “Writs” , –.
Issuance of general writs by the S.C. Court of General Sessions in April, , same
–. As to the replacement of native judges on the South Carolina Court of
General Sessions (Supreme Court) by judges sent out from Great Britain, Mc-
Crady South Carolina ; Smith S.C. .
Refusal of colonial courts other than the S.C. Court to issue general writs on re-
newed petitions for these in and , Dickerson “Writs” –, –; Va .
Journals (for –) ; Frese “James Otis and Writs of Assistance” –.
Thurlow’s opinion Aug. , , as to impracticability of compelling the courts to
issue general writs, Dickerson “Writs” .
The Enoch Ilfley fracas at Falmouth, Mass. (now Portland, Maine), in Aug., ,
is described in Gipson Brit. Empire XI –.
A general writ of assistance was issued by the Superior Court of Mass. to Ben-
jamin Hallowell March , , same . Presumably it was under this writ that
Hallowell was acting in demanding entrance into Daniel Malcom’s cellar in .
My account of the Malcom affair is based chiefly on the affidavits of Hallowell and
Deputy Collector William Sheaffe dated Sept. , , and of Stephen Green-
leaf, Sheriff of Suffolk County, Oct. , and Malcom Oct. , Wolkins “Malcom”
–, –, –. Other affidavits in same –, – give a somewhat, but
not radically, different version.
De Grey’s opinion dated Feb. , , in the Malcom case, same .
Gov. Francis Bernard of Mass. to B. of T. Oct. , , Quincy Reports , and
Hallowell to the British Customs Board Nov. , Wolkins “Malcom” – giving
detailed reports of the Malcom affair. John Temple, Surveyor-General of Customs
for the Northern District of America, also wrote the Board enclosing affidavits
concerning the affair and criticizing local “Civil Authority” for lack of “Firm-
ness,” same . The Ilfley incident cited in note above also was reported to offi-
cials in England by Bernard, Gipson Brit. Empire XI .
:
“Freeman” (William Henry Drayton) in a letter of Aug. , , to the Conti-
nental Congress recited as one of the grievances of S.C. that, “no sooner was the
bench filled with men who depended on the smiles of the crown for their daily
bread, than...the general writ...was granted...,” Gibbes Doc. Hist. –. As
to the newly appointed judges in S.C., headed by Thomas Knox Gordon, Smith
S.C. .
The Address (or Petition) to the King adopted by the First Continental Congress
Oct. , , reciting the grievance as to writs of assistance quoted in the text,
Journals Cont. Cong. I .
Appendix (Chapter )
The unsuccessful project in for an Anglican episcopate in the colonies, Knol-
lenberg Origin –, . Earlier projects are described in sources cited in same
and in Perry History I –; Cross Anglican Episcopate , –; Bridenbaugh
Mitre and Sceptre –, –. The last of these and Manning Deputies –
bring out the important part played by English Dissenters in discouraging the
and earlier projects.
Argument for an Anglican bishop in the colonies to confirm and ordain: Report of
the Bishop of London (Thomas Sherlock) to the King, undated, read in the Privy
Council Feb. , ; N.Y. Col. Doc. VII ; Thomas Secker, Archbishop of Can-
terbury, to the Reverend Samuel Johnson, May , , Schneider Johnson I .
The calm reception in America of bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church af-
ter the Revolutionary War, sources cited in Knollenberg Origin .
Colonial fears of American episcopate: undated letter, probably in , attributed
to Roger Sherman of Conn., Boutell Sherman ; instructions Jan. , , from
Mass. House of Representatives to Dennys De Berdt, Bradford Mass. Papers ;
the Reverend Francis Alison to the Reverend James Sproct, Nov. , , and
conventions of Conn., N.Y., N.J., and Pa. ministers to Dissenting Deputies in ,
, and , Minutes of the Convention –, , –, ; Thomas Gwatkin Let-
ter to the Clergy (Williamsburg, ) ; documents cited in note below.
Josiah Willard to Spencer Phipps Dec. , , as to Congregationalists’ reason
for fearing the settlement of Anglican bishops in America, Foote King’s Chapel II
. To similar effect, the Reverend Charles Chauncy and other Congregational
ministers of Boston to the Corresponding Committee of the Protestant Dissenting
Deputies in London Jan. , , Manning Deputies .
No visits to the colonies from any of the forty-three Anglican bishops in England,
Ireland, and the Isle of Man, Knollenberg Origin , .
Colonists’ fear of taxation for support of colonial bishops, Mass. House of Rep. to
Dennys De Berdt Jan. , , Bradford Mass. Papers ; Andrew Eliot’s “Re-
marks” enclosed in Eliot to Thomas Hollis Dec. , , M.H.S. Coll. II . A
letter of Oct. , , from the Reverend Samuel Auchmuty, rector of Trinity
Church, New York City, to Johnson favoring an act of Parliament to tax the resi-
dents of the entire colony of New York to support an Anglican minister in every
county of the colony (Bridenbaugh Mitre and Sceptre –) indicates that there
was some basis for this fear.
:
Sir William Johnson to Col. William Eyre Jan. , , to Board of Trade Jan. ,
to Cadwallader Colden Jan. , and to Gen. Thomas Gage Jan. suggesting con-
fiscation of Jesuits’ property in Canada to endow a bishopric in Canada, Pargellis
Military Affairs ; N.Y. Col. Doc. VII ; Johnson IV , . To similar effect,
the Reverend Thomas Barton of Pa. to Secretary of the Society Nov. , . The
Reverend George Craig of Pa. to the Secretary June , , proposed to apply
Crown lands in the colonies to support three colonial bishops, Perry Pa. , .
There is a sketch of Thomas Secker (–) in D.N.B.; see also Porteus Secker
and Horace Walpole to Horace Mann, Lewis Walpole XX –. Secker to Ho-
ratio Walpole Jan. , –, proposed that “two or three persons should be or-
dained Bishops and sent into our American colonies [primarily] to administer
confirmation and give Deacons and Priests orders to proper candidates...,” Lon-
don Chronicle June , .
New York City convention to Secker June , , appealing for a colonial
bishop, quoted in the text, Jones St. Peter’s –, where it is misdated . (The
correct date is from the original ms. in Lambeth Papers, London.)
The distinguished career of Samuel Johnson (–), born in Conn., gradu-
ate of Yale, missionary of the Society at Stratford, Conn. (–, –),
first President of King’s College (–), is described in D.A.B.; Beardsley
Johnson; and Johnson’s autobiography in Schneider Johnson I –.
Secker to Johnson Sept. , , replying to the convention’s letter of June ,
same III –.
Johnson to Secker March , , replying to his letter of Sept. , , same I –
. Their subsequent correspondence from through is listed (with ci-
tations of where located) in same IV –. Particularly interesting in this cor-
respondence is Secker to Johnson Nov. , , stating that Lord Halifax “is very
earnest for bishops in America” and expressing the hope “we may have a chance to
succeed in that great point, when it shall please God to give us a peace,” same IV .
Secker to Johnson May , , as to favorable prospect for an American epis-
copate, quoted in the text, Beardsley Johnson –.
D.A.B. has a sketch of the Reverend Myles Cooper (–), an Englishman,
graduate of Oxford, President of King’s College (–), who returned to En-
gland during the Revolutionary War and never came back to America.
The convention at Perth Amboy, N.J., attended by twelve Anglican clergymen of
New York and New Jersey, referred to in the text, was described in a letter from
the convention to the Secretary of the Society, the Reverend Daniel Burton, Oct.
, , St. Peter’s –, and Thomas Bradbury Chandler, a participant in the
convention, to Johnson Nov. , Schneider Johnson I . (As to Burton, Secretary
of the Society from to , Pascoe Two Hundred Years of the S.P.G. ; Secker
to Johnson Dec. , , Schneider Johnson III .)
The history of the Society and its colonial missionary work, including the support
of over thirty missionaries in the colonies, Pascoe Classified Digest of Records of the So-
ciety; Pascoe Two Hundred Years of the S.P.G.; Hawkins Historical Notices; Perry Histori-
cal Collections of the American Colonial Church ( vols.); Hawks and Perry Conn.; Ellis
Sermon Preached before the Society () –; Schneider Johnson; Cross Anglican Epis-
copate; Bridenbaugh Mitre and Sceptre; Knollenberg Origin –, –.
: