Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T18:38:45.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eighteenth Century Empire: The London Dissenters' Lobbies and the American Colonies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

Alison G. Olson
Alison G. Olson
Affiliation:
Alison G. Olson is Professor of History, University of Maryland at College Park, Maryland 20742–7315, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the eighteenth century England had virtually no army and only a handful of administrators in its American colonies: the empire was held together by voluntary compliance, not coercion. One of the reasons the American colonists acquiesced in imperial decisions was that they had an effective way to influence them through London lobbies working on the Americans' behalf. London interest groups spoke and acted on behalf of their colonial correspondents before the ministry, the Privy Council, the Board of Trade and, less often, Parliament; in so doing they gave the colonists an input into imperial decision-making and provided vital information to the government.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , April 1992 , pp. 41 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a discussion of interest groups in general, see Gabriel Almond and James Coleman, S., The Politics of the Developing Areas (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1960), 33–35.Google Scholar See also Truman, David, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (Knopf, New York, 1958), 33Google Scholar; Wilson, Charles, “Government Policy and Private Interest in Modern English History,” Economic History and the Historian, Collected Essays (London, 1969), 140–55Google Scholar; Finer, Samuel, Anonymous Empire; a Study of the Lobby in Great Britain (Pall Mall Press, London, 1958), 3Google Scholar; and Wootton, Graham, Pressure Groups in Britain, 1720–1970 (Archon, Hamden, Conn., 1975), 3.Google Scholar On English interests see Armstrong, Maurice W., “The Dissenting Deputies and the American Colonies,” Church History, 29 (1960) 298–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Kammen, Michael, Empire and Interest: The American Colonies and the Politics of Mercantilism (Lippincott, New York, 1970)Google Scholar; Steele, I. K., The Politics of Colonial Policy: The Board of Trade in Colonial Administration, 1698–1720 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1968)Google Scholar; Olson, Alison G., Anglo American Politics, 1660–1775 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1973), ch. IVGoogle Scholar and Olson, , “The Board of Trade and London-American Interest Groups in the Eighteenth Century,” in The British Atlantic Empire Before the American Revolution, ed. Marshall, Peter and Williams, Glyn (Frank Cass, London, 1980).Google Scholar For Quakers see Hunt, Norman C., Two Early Political Associations: the Quakers and the Dissenting Deputies in the Age of Sir Robert Walpole (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1961).Google Scholar For both Quakers and Anglicans, as well as Dissenters, see Bridenbaugh, Carl, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic faiths, Ideas, Personalities, and Politics, 1689–1775 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1962).Google Scholar See also Thompson, H. P., Into All Lands: The History of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, 1701–1950 (published by S.P.C.K., London, 1951), 1–103.Google Scholar

2 This information is gleaned from the Minute Books of the Three Denominations of Dissenters in London. Various committees are suggested in the minute of 11 Jan. 1757. Minute Book I, 192–93.Google Scholar

3 25 Sept. 1732, Minute Book I, 32.Google Scholar

4 Minutes of the Dissenting Deputies, 9 11 1732Google Scholar, Guildhall MS. 3083/159.

5 Bridenbaugh, , Mitre and Sceptre, 41–42.Google Scholar

6 This is an estimate, based on the number of ministers they were able to support as listed in the Minute Books [of the Body of Protestant Dissenting Ministers] of the Three Denominations in and about the cities of London and Westminster. I, 7–11, 147–54; II, 57–61, Dr. Williams Library, London. For some difficulties in estimating the number of dissenters in Hanoverian England see Coomer, Duncan, English Dissent Under the Early Hanoverians (Epworth Press, London, 1946), 60–61.Google Scholar

7 Lillywhite, Bryant, London Coffee Houses (Allen & Unwin, London, 1963), 908, 878, 623, 774.Google Scholar

8 Lillywhite, , Coffee Houses, 261–62Google Scholar; Minutes of Three Denominations, 29 08 1732, II, 31.Google Scholar

9 29 Jan. 1754, Pilcher, George William ed., The Reverend Samuel Davies Abroad; The Diary of a Journey to England and Scotland (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill., 1967), 65.Google Scholar

10 For Holden, see Hunt, N. C., Two Early English Associations, passimGoogle Scholar, and Colman MSS., Mass. Hist. Soc., passim. For Avery, see Dictionary of National Biography. Two of Stennett's letters to Newcastle, 5 09 1756, and 7 11 1757Google Scholar, are in Add. MS. 32867, fos. 244, 250, 447, 454–55.

11 See Jones, William, ed., The Works of Samuel Stennett, DD, Late Pastor of the Christian Church Assembling in Little Wild Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London I (London, 1824) VII–XVIGoogle Scholar, and Underwood, A. C., A History of the English Baptists (Carey, Kingsgate Pr., London, 1956), 147–48.Google ScholarStennett's meetings are referred to in Minutes of the Three Denominations, 4 04 1738, 14 04 1741, 2 03 1743, 69–70, 87, 119.Google Scholar Avery's are mentioned in Bernard, , Manning, Lord, The Dissenting Deputies, 454.Google Scholar

12 For example, see Journals of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, , 18 10, 20 12 1751, 21 02 1752.Google Scholar In England the leading lobbyists also became the leading administrators for charity funds. Minutes of Three Denominations, 6 04 1736, I, 57.Google Scholar

13 Newcastle, to White, , 1 04 1758Google Scholar (Add. MS 32879, fo. 74), mentions that Seeker, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, “has assured me that he is well” with Dr. Avery and Dr. Chandler.

14 Stennett described Newcastle also as “the bulwark of our religion and liberties, and in the end the happy partaker of everlasting honors.” (Stennett, to Newcastle, , 7 11 1757.Google Scholar Add. MS. 50477, fos. 454–55.)

16 Walpole, Horatio to Bishop of London, 29 05 1750Google Scholar, Cross, Arthur Lyon, The Anglican Episcopate (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1924), App. A, 324–30.Google Scholar

16 For Avery see for example, Avery, to Newcastle, , 10 11 1749.Google Scholar Add. MS. 32719, fos. 296, or Same, to Same, 10 12 1747.Google Scholar Add. MS. 32725, fo. 480, Same, to Same, 22 12 1761, Add. MSS. 32932, fos. 510.Google Scholar

17 Stennett, to Newcastle, , 7 11 1757, Add. MS. 50447, fo. 454.Google Scholar

18 Chandler, J. B. to Johnson, Samuel, 3 05 1752.Google ScholarBridenbaugh, , Mitre and Sceptre, 95.Google Scholar

19 Deputies' Minutes 10 Oct. 1753; Ledyard, John to Avery, Benj. [13 08 1753]Google Scholar, Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3083/a, 363–64.Google Scholar Journals of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, , 16 11 1753 (XII, 297–302).Google Scholar Letter from MrPunderson, to the Society read, dated 27 08 1753.Google Scholar (Journals S.P.G. 17 06 1752, XII, 130–31.Google ScholarJournals S.P.G. 15 03 1753 (XII, 227–29)Google Scholar, Avery, Benj. to Abp. Cantab, 9 11 1753Google Scholar, Lambeth Palace MS. II, 70.Google Scholar At times the Committee found itself caught between two different denominations in the colonies, as when the Baptists unsuccessfully tried to enlist their support against a Massachusetts law requiring that new Baptist churches receive certificates of recognition from three older Baptist churches before they could be legally established: Backus, Isaac, A History of New England with Particular Reference to the Baptists (Arno Press, New York, 1969 edn.), 96.Google Scholar The Committee also found it difficult to handle disputes between the Congregational governor of Massachusetts (Belcher) and the Congregational dominated legislature whose agent was Christopher Kilby. Avery worked with Kilby far more than he let on to Belcher: Kilby, to Thos. Hancock, 12 07 1746Google Scholar; Tuttle, Charles Wesley, Captain Francis Champernovne, The Dutch Conquest of Acadie, and Other Historical Papers. (J. Wilson & Son, Boston, 1889), 236–37.Google Scholar

20 Law, Jonathan to DrAvery, , 11 1743Google Scholar, Minutes of Dissenting Deputies, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 266–68.Google Scholar

21 Deputies' Committee to Law, Jonathan, 26 09 1744Google Scholar, Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 269–70.Google Scholar

22 For Avery, see 28 Feb. 1749/50 Minutes of the Dissenting Deputies, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, and Avery, to Law, J., 17 02 1749Google Scholar, Collections, Connecticut Historical Society, 15 (Hartford, 1914), 366–69.Google Scholar

23 The New Hampshire Congregational ministers organized in 1747 and opened correspondence with the Deputies in 1751. Their letter asking help on the councillors is in the Deputies Minutes, 2 05 1753, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 36.Google Scholar For the governorship of New Jersey, see Deputies' Minutes 15 10 1756, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 398.Google Scholar For the Massachusetts governorship, see Harris, W. to Benj, . Colman, 29 04 1730Google Scholar, Colman Corr., Mass. Hist. Soc. For the Secretaryship of Massachusetts see Deputies' Minutes, 23 02 1757 Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 407.Google Scholar

24 Harris, W. to Benj, . Colman, 29 04 1750, Colman MS., Mass. Hist. Soc.Google Scholar

25 Belcher wrote thanking A very for his help 14 May 1741 (Colls. Mass. Hist. Soc. 6th ser. XII, 538Google Scholar) and later wrote Avery thanking him for past help (6 Dec. 1751): Belcher Corr., Microfilm Reel 9, Library of Congress. Avery's work on the instructions is mentioned in his letter to Newcastle, , 16 02 1741, Add. MS. 32699, fo. 62.Google Scholar Avery's opposition to Belcher's appointment to New Jersey in 1746 is detailed in Kilby, Christopher to Hancock, Thomas, Tuttle, , Captain Frances Champernoivne, 236–37.Google Scholar For the Colonists' expectation that English dissenters could “help remove unpopular governors” as well as “lobby for or against specific legislation” and “explain and defend colonial actions,” see Schiavo, Bartholomew, “The Dissenter Connection: English Dissenters and Massachusetts Political Culture, 1630–1774” (Ph.D., Brandeis University, 05 1976).Google Scholar

28 For problems and inconsistencies in enforcing the law in England see Charles Mullett, F., “The Legal Position of English Protestant Dissenters, 1689–1767,” Virginia Law Review, 23 (1937), 389–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Colman's comment is in Colman, to Holden, , 12 11 1735.Google Scholar Colman MS., Mass. Hist. Soc.

27 See, for example, New England clergy to Bp. London, 21 July 1725, Perry, William Stevens, Papers Relating to the Colonial Clergy, III, 175–76.Google Scholar

28 11 April 1750, Acts of the Privy Council of England, IV, 1745–66 (Liechtenstein, 1966, reprint of London 1911 edn.), 100.Google Scholar

29 For the bishop issue see Cross, Arthur Lyon, The Anglican Episcopate, 114–29Google Scholar, and Bridenbaugh, Carl, Mitre and Sceptre, esp. 97.Google Scholar The ministers' assurance was reported to the Deputies 5 May 1749. Avery reported his talk with Pelham on 28 March 1750 and with the Lord Chancellor 30 May 1750: Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3083/1, 315, 325, 326.Google Scholar

30 Rev. Jas. Mac Sparran to Gibson, Bishop, 6 07 1750, Lambeth Palace MSS.Google Scholar

31 “Case of James Mac Sparran vs. Geo Mumford.” Various papers, 1 Sept. 1723 to 27 April 1724. Lambeth Palace MSS.

32 Rev. Mac Sparran to Bp. Gibson, 14 June 1748, 7 June 1724, 21 April 1732, Lambeth Palace MS.

33 Clergy of New England to Bp. Gibson, 23 June 1736, Lambeth Palace MSS. Roger Price to Bp. London, 3 July 1756. Perry, , Papers Relating to the Colonial Clergy, III, 303.Google Scholar

34 Browne, Arthur to Bp. Gibson 16 06 1736, Lambeth Palace MSS.Google Scholar

35 Letter to Mac Sparran of 19 Nov. 1752 read 16 March 1753, S.P.G. Journals XII, 225. Colman to “Honor'd Sir” (Holden) (Feb. 1734), Colman, to Holden, , 6 01 1735Google Scholar, Jos. Torrey, to Colman, , 10 08 1734, Colman Corr., Mass. Hist. Soc.Google Scholar

38 Bearcroft, Philip to Rev. Mac Sparran, 8 05 1752Google Scholar; Rev. Mac Sparran to Bp. Sherlock, 10 Nov. 1752, Lambeth Palace MSS.

37 See Brown, Katherine L., “The Role of Presbyterian Dissent in Colonial and Revolutionary Virginia, 1740 to 1785” (Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, 1969), 60, 92, 97, 99, 101–04, 119, 124, 127–30Google Scholar; Davies, Samuel, State of Religion Among the Protestant Dissenters in Virginia… (Boston, 1751), 8–21Google Scholar; Prinz, Andrew Karl, “Sir William Gooch in Virginia: The King's Good Servant” (Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1963), 93–95Google Scholar; Gewehr, Wesley M., The Great Awakening in Virginia (University of North Carolina Press, Durham, N.C., 1930), 40Google Scholar; Williams, David Alan, “Political Alignments in Colonial Virginia Politics, 1698 to 1740” (Ph.D., Northwestern University, 1959), 280, 304.Google Scholar See also Synod of Philadelphia to Governor Gooch of Virginia, 30 May 1738, Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 1706–1788 (Arno Press, New York, 1969), 142.Google Scholar

38 30 Jan., 27 Feb. 1754, Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3081/1,369, 370; 27 Feb. 1754, Samuel Davies Abroad, ed. Pelcher, , 79.Google Scholar

39 27 Nov. 1754, Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3081, 380.

40 Basye, Arthur Herbert, The Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, Commonly Known as the Board of Trade 1748–82 (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1925), 84, 93–94, 102–04, 111.Google Scholar

41 Pilcher, George William, Samuel Davies, Apostle of Dissent in Colonial Virginia (University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville, Tenn., 1971), ch. IX.Google Scholar

42 Toller, Thomas to Newcastle, , 23 07 1765, Add MS. 32968, fo. 206Google Scholar, and Stennett's, Samuel account of monies distributed, 10 06 1772, Add. MS. 32968, fo. 209Google Scholar; Stennett, and Toller's, account for 23 07 1765 is Add. MS. 32968, fo. 208.Google Scholar

43 Basye, , Lords Commissioners of Trade, 107, 158–60, 171.Google Scholar Board of Trade, to King, , 27 05 1775, CO. 5/ fos. 254–55.Google Scholar

44 6 Oct. 1762, Diss. Deputies' Minutes, 460; Kellaway, William, The New England Company, 1649–1776 (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1962), 194.Google Scholar

45 Rev. Caner, Henry to Abp. Cantab. 9 08 1762Google Scholar; Abp. Cantab to Bp. London, 5 10 1762Google Scholar; Bishop, London to Abp. Cantab., 11 10 1762Google Scholar; Smith, William to Abp. Cantab., 20 11 1762Google Scholar; Abp. York to Abp. Cantab., 11 Dec. 1762, Lambeth MS. 269, 276, 281–2, 287.

46 28 Jan., 4 Feb. 1765, 15 March 1763, JBI 11 (1759–63), 330–44, Board of Trade, to King, , 18 03 1763, C.O. 5/920, fos. 157–59.Google Scholar 21 March, 20 May 1763. A.P.C. IV, 1745–66.

47 Board of Trade, to King, , 31 05 1771. C.O. 5/920, fos. 409–10.Google Scholar

48 9 March 1748, and 31 July 1770, Dissenting Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3083/11, 24, 74.

49 For example, Deputies to Rev. Dr. Rodgers, 11 March 1772, Deputies' Minutes II, 129–30.

50 Pownall, John to the Bishop of London, 12 06 and 1 07 1767, Board of Trade Report to the Privy Council, 10 07 1767. C.O. 5/1130, fos. 395–96, 396–97, 200–01.Google Scholar

51 Draft answer to Allison, and Taylor's, letters, 16 06 1771, Dissenting Deputies' Minutes, Guildhall MS. 3083/11, 89–90.Google Scholar