by Nathan Allen
Concurrent with Bollan’s dismissal, the colonies – and Massachusetts more than most – were growing alarmed at reinvigorated efforts by the mother country to govern and influence its territories. Customs enforcement was newly energized, new Acts were being formulated, and rumors were afoot of replacing colonial charters with royal governments. In Massachusetts, these concerns inevitably included the possible establishment of an Anglican bishop and a series of events seemed to confirm those fears: the promotion of a governor – Bernard – who was closely affiliated with the Anglican establishment, a new Anglican church in Cambridge and the appointment of the celebrated Reverend East Apthrop to lead that church, persistent gossip that the governor wanted to charter the Williams’s new school as “Queen’s College.” Bollan was certainly a member of the Church of England, though there exists no evidence that he was engaged in some pending religious cabal. But Bollan’s guilt or innocence was not relevant; he had supported Hutchinson’s effort to maintain general search warrants, so he was an enemy. Bernard confirmed the removal of Bollan, in part because Jemmy Otis had just pushed through a huge land grant for him and in part because he did not want another fight.
After Bollan was dismissed, Bernard pushed for the appointment of Richard Jackson, the agent for Connecticut, a Member of Parliament, and Bernard’s friend. The House, however, was in no mood to appoint friends of the oligarchy. Concurrent with these political battles, the Dissenters in the colonies, chief among them Mayhew, were battling the Anglican Church and the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.” The Society was chartered in 1701 by King William III and its expressed purpose was to convert the heathen and forestall missionary efforts by the Jesuits. Yet by 1761, 66 of the society’s 80 representatives in the New World were stationed in Philadelphia, New York, Boston and other northern cities, leaving only 14 representatives for the southern colonies and the Caribbean. For Mayhew, it was the clear that the society’s purpose was political, not religious. He fought doggedly for the Society to focus on places that were populated with heathens or influenced by Jesuits, which certainly did not include Philadelphia, New York, and Boston. The politicization of the church and use of the Society to “Spye” on the Dissenters infuriated the Dissenter clergy in New England. But reformation of the Society seemed beyond their power, so the Dissenters of Massachusetts decided to pursue a plan to secure a charter for their own missionary society. A capable lobbyist in London would be required to secure such a charter.
For the new province agent, the House elected Jasper Mauduit, an elderly London wool wholesaler who likely secured the appointment due to the support of the “black regiment.” Mauduit was a passionate religious dissident who was esteemed by Jonathan Mayhew and Charles Chauncy, two of Boston’s most influential ministers. Chauncy had long communicated with dissenters in England and elsewhere and aggressively promoted colonial causes, not least of which was keeping Anglican bishops out of Massachusetts. Mauduit had been communicating with Mayhew for many years, and in 1755 sent to him “a box” containing the works of fierce anti-royalist Algernon Sidney who was executed in 1683 for plotting to kill King Charles II. Mauduit also supplied a box of Sidney’s writings for Harvard. And while Boston’s Black Regiment promoted Mauduit, he was neither aware of his election nor was he particularly interested. Mayhew wrote Mauduit a letter on April 26, 1762 urging him to accept the position:
The most steady friends of Liberty amongst us, and all the Friends to the dissenting Interest (who are, I suppose, fifty to one throughout this Province) would be extremely sorry if you should decline this Service; thinking you will be much more likely to serve the Province in its most essential Interests, than a Gentleman of the Chh. of England tho’ this is by no means the only objection that has been made against Mr. Bollan. The Chh. Party here, and perhaps some Persons of distinguished Eminence, may possibly, for their own private Ends, throw discouragements and stumbling-blocks in your way, in order to prevent your undertaking this Service.
Mayhew was quite clearly a man of political and religious interests and knew that a Church of England lobbyist would be disinclined to promote the Boston Dissenters’s missionary charter. And Mayhew’s reference to their opponents – “some Persons of distinguished Eminence” – plainly references the oligarchy. John Adams, in his Diary, noted that some critics cited
the unfitness of Mr. Mauduit to represent this Province at the British court, both in point of age and knowledge. He is, as that writer says, seventy years old; an honest man, but avaricious; a woollen draper, a mere cit; so ignorant of court and public business, that he knew not where the public offices were, and that he told Mr. Bollan that he was agent of New England. He says that all the other agents laugh at this Province for employing him, and that all persons on that side of the water are surprised at us.
Mauduit, then, was the choice of the Black Regiment, not a seasoned lobbyist or diplomat, and his appointment struck fear in some of the oligarchy; Peter Oliver had accused Jemmy Otis of threatening “to secure the Black Regiment, these were his Words, & his Meaning was to engage the dissenting Clergy on his Side.” The “dissenting Clergy” were suspicious of the oligarchy, particularly those from England who they feared would impose Anglicanism on the province. And rebel ministers such as Mayhew had been using the pulpit to criticize the oligarchy for over a decade. Peter Oliver knew that fiery preachers like Mayhew were usually harmless, but Oliver also knew that Mayhew could be wildly dangerous if anyone started taking him seriously or if he actually started effecting events – like the choice of province lobbyist.
Jemmy Otis was just as happy with his new agent as the Governor was with his new land grant. Otis wrote to Mauduit on April 23, 1762, “I have taken this early oppertunity to acquaint you that I have the merit of a small share in your election. Royall Tyler, Jno. Phillips, and Thomas Cushing, Esqrs., with whom I have the honour to represent the city Boston, are your staunch friends.” Otis had just named the “damned faction, which will shake this province to its Foundation” that Judge Ruggles feared. Jasper Mauduit, a fiercely independent, not-very-wealthy, and not-well-connected Dissenter was exactly the type of lobbyist the Popular Party wanted precisely because Mauduit would never become a servant of the oligarchy. And for Bollan, he was now unemployed but still had his reputation for loyalty to those in power, so Bernard hired him as his personal agent in his quest to get his new land grant officially recognized as quickly as possible.
When Bollan was dismissed, the province was in debt to him for £4838 but was having great difficulty paying him. Attorney General Trowbridge wrote to Bollan on July 15, 1762, explaining that in his attempts to secure Bollan’s pay, he “found the Town as much drained of silver as the Treasury was.” The province’s currency problems were perpetual. Trowbridge was informed that he could not get Bollan’s “Money until the 28th of next June, as by the Agreements nothing more could be required than to pay the money at the End of the Year in Silver.” Trowbridge then informed Bollan that he and “a Majority of the Council … suspected [the delay] came from Otis.” Trowbridge than expanded on the political situation in Boston:
Coll. Otis’s Son James raved against the Governor and his Conduct so loudly as that he sattisfied the People in Boston he was a proper person to represent them in the General Court, and they chose him accordingly, and he, together with a Number of other firebrands There presently set the Government into a Flame …
And finally, Trowbridge informs Bollan that a core issue in his dismissal was “that our Dissenting Churches were in danger, that you being a Churchman were a very unsuitable Person ….” Just as Arminianism had coalesced with natural rights, the concerns about the “Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts” coalesced with the promotion of rule by consent as ripe political issues. Concurrent with Bollan’s dismissal, the separation of powers bill was brought out of Otis’s committee for a vote on April 17; this bill would have prohibited Supreme Court justices from holding seats in th
e House or Council. Though this prohibition would have affected most justices, as they typically held seats in both the Supreme Court and the Council, this bill was clearly targeted at Hutchinson. It was defeated on a legal technicality with a handful of votes, but the bill proved that the issue of separation of powers was alive. Hutchinson was pessimistic about his political future; he sensed a threat to his world.
Thus ended Jemmy Otis’s first year in office. On May 11, 1762, new elections were held; the Boston town meeting had a healthy attendance of 629 voters. After just a year in office, Otis was the recognized commander of the Boston bench and received 619 of the 629 votes cast. John Phillips received 613 votes, Royall Tyler 609, and Thomas Cushing 460. The following Monday the Gazette reported that the incumbents were reelected because of their “Zeal,” and “particular Care” in preserving “the Religious and Civil Rights of the People.” The confederacy was proving popular. Another Gazette article, likely written by Thacher in coordination with Otis, was published just before the selection of Council members and continued the barrage against plural office-holding, reminding the readers “that the Power of making and executing Laws in the same Persons were incompatible.”
Abraham Williams, Jemmy’s Harvard classmate and close friend of Colonel Otis, gave the opening sermon before the General Court on May 26, 1762, lecturing the politicians on the problem of “political schism.” Nearly every General Court started with a lecture recounting the benefits of unity and the problems of divisiveness, and nearly every time, backroom deals divided the House nearly as soon as the opening sermon ended. Members of the Boston Bench felt good about their prospects, but events soon went horribly wrong: Colonel Otis declined his unanimous election as Speaker because “his living at such a Distance rendered his constant attendance very uncertain.” A deal had been made, and certainly few – apparently not even Jemmy – were aware of it.
Like clockwork, Sylvanus Bourne resigned his seat on the Council, and Colonel Otis was elected to fill it; the “Distance” was not now so much of a problem. And before the Boston Bench could ascertain what was happening, that “friend of government” and fearer of “damned factions” Judge Ruggles was elected Speaker of the House. No evidence of the arrangement exists, but in all likelihood the governor, still giddy over his new vast land holdings, had warmed up to the Colonel. So when Councilor Bourne, who was quite old, suggested that he might retire, Bernard offered to secure the seat for his new friend Colonel Otis in exchange for Otis securing the Speaker seat in the House for a friend of government. The existence of an arrangement is further evidenced by Colonel Otis’s boast that he received 112 votes, a total that must have included fairly solid support from the incumbent councilors who had just a year prior concluded that the Colonel was not oligarchy material and therefore should not be on the Superior Court. At long last, the Colonel would get a much-coveted seat on the Council. Bernard would strengthen a new friendship with the powerful Colonel Otis, and the friends of government would take back control of the House, which would enable them to limit Jemmy’s committee assignments as they’d previously done to James Allen. Everyone would win.
Royall Tyler did not win. Ignorant of the deal that had been struck, the Popular Party put Tyler on the ballot as their candidate for Speaker of the House; the votes were already in for Ruggles. Peter Oliver told John Adams that he “never knew so easy an election.” The governor wrote Secretary to the Board of Trade John Pownall that the election of Judge Ruggles for the Speaker position was “a great point in favor of government.” Colonel Otis wrote to his son Joseph a report that explains the events as if they were the normal operations of a democracy. “They could not carry their point against the Great J_dg,” he wrote, after reciting his resignation as Speaker. He noted that Judge Ruggles had beaten Tyler for the Speaker’s chair by nine votes, as if Ruggles’s election was not coordinated. Tellingly, the Colonel does not mention Jemmy in the letter. The Colonel’s wife, Mary, infrequently visited Boston, but she did that May perhaps in anticipation – or foreknowledge – of her husband’s election to the Council. It is likely on this occasion that the couple sat for John Singleton Copley, the premier painter of the era.
Judge Ruggles’s role would not be forgotten. The Popular Party would be patient, as they had been with Bollan, but the response would be considerably more vicious. But first, the Popular Party had to comprehend the deal that cost them control of the House. A day after the Colonel had written home, Samuel Allyne also wrote to Joseph and reported the calamity as best he understood it: “You will be surprized when I tell you last fryday [May 28th] Jas Otis jr resign’d his seat in court & took leave of the members, he however resumed to it next but such a proceeding can by no means be justified, & is what has got him much dishonor, however he acts for himself & I resolved to think no more of politics.…” So upon learning of the deal that put his father on the Council and Ruggles in the Speaker’s chair, Jemmy resigned his House seat in protest and stormed out of the chamber. It seems clear that he didn’t know about the arrangement, and the Colonel’s silence in his letter to Joseph shows the tension that must have existed between the two.
It had been a demanding year for Jemmy, and he had not made much apparent progress in his crusade against the oligarchy. It’s therefore conceivable that his political career might have ended in May 1762. He doubtless feared that his influence in the House would be curtailed by the obedient Ruggles. But Jemmy Otis’s one day resignation of May 28, 1762 received little attention at the time precisely because it wasn’t viewed as so bizarre; any man would have been shocked to learn of his father’s betrayal. By the following day the episode seemed to have been forgotten, as the Popular Party regrouped and refocused its attention and Jemmy concluded that old issues could still be leveraged and new issues were appearing in the recently redrawn political landscape. The business of the first session of the General Court was fairly calm. Governor Bernard proposed that the province secure its 1760 parliamentary grant by drawing bills of exchange in London instead of shipping specie to the province; the shipment of such a large sum would have been extraordinary but more expensive. The proposal easily sailed through the House. And Bernard’s proposal to survey the Saint Croix River boundary line similarly met with House approval. For the first time in over a year, Governor Bernard was optimistic that his easy and lucrative term might be a reality. On June 7, 1762 he gloated to his patron Lord Barrington about “the Credit I am in with the people. … There never was greater Harmony in the Government than at present.” The governor was still elated with his land grant and the election of Ruggles, and the co-opting of the Colonel seemed to signal a new beginning. “This island,” Bernard continued, “proves to be so much more Valuable, than at first apprehended, that it becomes a Great object; especially to me.”
What at first must have seemed like betrayal to Jemmy was now an important lesson; his father had easily manipulated Bernard to get the council seat he wanted. Jemmy and the Boston bench learned from this episode and would use Bernard’s weaknesses to their advantage. In Bernard’s letter to Lord Barrington, he reported as an afterthought that a French naval fleet had taken St. John’s in Newfoundland and dispersed the Massachusetts fishing fleet. At the same time, Jemmy Otis informed Jasper Mauduit that the governor, despite falling “into some of the worst hands upon his first arrival,” was now beginning “to be convinc’d whose view are nearly connected with the true interest of the province.” Jemmy would take Bernard’s new outlook and manipulate it to maximum effect.
CHAPTER V
mad people have overturned empires
A few in the oligarchy were apprehensive about Jemmy Otis’s radicalism and Governor Bernard’s naiveté. While riding circuit together, the young John Adams and the Superior Court justice Peter Oliver discussed the recent elections, and Oliver was a strident supporter of fellow oligarch Hutchinson. Oliver bemoaned that Otis “said not long since in the Representatives Room that all the superior Judges and every Inferior Judge in
the Province, put all together and they would not make one half of a Common Lawyer” – clearly a strike at those judges such as Hutchinson who’d never practiced law. After some conciliatory comments from Adams, Oliver continued: “If Bedlamism is a Talent he has it in Perfection. … I have the Utmost Contempt of him.” The principal virtue of feudalism is order, and Oliver isolated the lack of that virtue as Otis’s core vice. Adams and Oliver agreed that Jemmy was the master of Bedlam, and while that opinion was probably pervasive throughout the province, many would increasingly disagree over whether it was a character flaw or a successful tactic. Oliver was also aware of Otis’s talent for manipulation. Writing of Otis and “the whole Pack” who followed him, Oliver observed, “They published the meanest, libellous Falsehoods against … [Barnard] whom not long before they had caressed.” Nevertheless, Oliver’s “Contempt” had yet to negatively affect Jemmy’s legal practice or growing popularity. It seems that Jemmy was absent from the May term of the Superior Court in Barnstable, but he was active in the Suffolk County Inferior Court, bringing suit against Stephen Brown for unpaid legal bills and sending writs to Falmouth. Ironically, Jemmy and Oxenbridge Thacher were ordered by the Boston selectmen to prosecute some bakers who had refused inspectors on the pretext that the inspectors had no warrant. Otis and Thacher were counsel for the town, so their position required them to defend these warrantless inspections.
