USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 21
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24
We have previously noticed that the Trustees were not altogether pleased with the management of the orphanage. The letter of Bosomworth convinced them that it was indeed to be condemned; and they sent to Habersham one of the most stinging criticisms ever given to one of their Georgia people. They disapproved strongly of his apparent con- tempt for the ministers of the Established Church. They complained of the methods used to excite and terrify orphans so as to keep them praying and crying all night for Jesus Christ. They suggested to him that he make religion appear more amiable to his charges. Finally they warned him that the institution and all its affairs were under the control of the magistrates at Savannah, who had been ordered to make frequent inspection of the work of the school.43
" B. T., Ga., XXII: Bosomworth to Trustees, March 10, 1742.
"B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Habersham, May 10, 1743.
295
Education in Georgia
All the correspondence and reports of the period serve to give a rather clear view of what the orphan school was doing. It was to some extent industrial, endeavoring to teach each student some useful occupation ; but this feature of the work was not emphasized very strongly. It was rather thorough in the secular instruction given in the school room, and considerable stress was placed upon it. But the main object of the whole institution was to make earnest Christians. It was charged against Whitefield that his sole purpose in founding the institution was to "establish a school or seminary to breed up those in his sect in." 44 This is not just to him, for, while he was an enthusiastic Dissenter, he did not adhere to his independent principles when the orphanage work was begun and he did not limit his charity by any means to those who would accept his doc- trines. It is true, however, that he very earnestly desired for all his flock to be Christians.
We have previously referred to the fact that late in 1740 Whitefield left the colony for a money raising campaign in England. He found this to be a difficult matter. All the leading pulpits of the Church of England were closed to him, for he was undoubtedly a Dissenter. His break with the Wesleys on the subject of doctrine alienated many of the Methodists from him. At this time he owed about £1,000; and he was being even threatened with arrest for the debt. However, he bent all energies to the task, and he was finally successful in raising the amount that was immediately necessary. Scotland, England, Ireland, Amer- ica and even the Bermudas had to be appealed to, however, before the task was accomplished. It was manifestly neces- sary to reduce the expenses of the institution, and the num- ber of inmates had to be lessened. By 1746 there were "C. R. V: 359.
296
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
reported to be in the orphanage only twenty small boys and girls.45
In order to supplement the decreasing revenues of Bethesda, in March, 1747, Whitefield purchased a plantation of six hundred and forty acres in South Carolina to be culti- vated by slave labor.46 He had followed this policy in 1741 on a smaller scale with success. Now again he found that the use of negroes was profitable; and the following year he wrote a strong letter to the Trustees telling of his experi- ences. He said that he had spent more than £5,000 on Bethesda, and that not half that amount would have been needful if slaves had been allowed in the colony. He stated also that in South Carolina he raised more in one year than in several years at the orphanage and at only one-fourth the expense. 47 In this matter, Whitefield failed to take into account that Bethesda was not a commercial enterprise. Its prime object was to be a training school, and much of its labor was done by boys who were being taught how to work; they were not being exploited for profit. It was not fair to compare the results with those of enterprises on a mere finan- cial basis.
There were no further developments at the orphanage of any great importance from 1748 until the Trustees sur- rendered their charter in 1752. The institution was care- fully run. The Trustees became more kindly disposed to it. They had been very suspicious of Habersham both as to his character and motives; but he came to be one of their most trusted officers ; and with a better feeling toward him came a better understanding of the institution that he was so largely instrumental in running.
" B. T., Ga., XXIII: 5.
" B. T., Ga., XXIII: Whitefield to Trustees, March 15, 1747.
47 Ibid., December 6, 1748.
-
------
297
Education in Georgia
Before turning aside to trace the history of the Bethesda orphanage, we were recounting some of the main facts re- garding the Trustees' school in Savannah. We shall now return to that subject. So long as the orphanage school was conducted within the precincts of Savannah, the Trus- tees seem not to have felt it necessary to operate a separate school; but when the orphans were transported to Bethesda on November 3, 1740, it was once more important to have a teacher in the town. A man by the name of John Dobell had been an assistant both of Delamotte and of Haber- sham, and he took charge temporarily. In the early part of 1741, he went to England and sought from the Trustees an appointment as the regular teacher.48 His request was granted ; and he was on December 5, 1741, appointed to the position sought at a salary of £10 per year. Since this would afford but meager support, he was also appointed register of the province.19 While Dobell was in England, the school was conducted by the pastor of the Savannah church, Rev. Christopher Orton; and he was still to ex- ercise general supervision over it, directing the work of the schoolmaster.50
Ever since the establishment of a school in Savannah, it had been intended to be free to those who were unable to pay tuition; but the schoolmaster had been supposed to collect fees from those having ability to pay them. This arrange- ment had never been very satisfactory, for it was a difficult matter to determine who ought to pay the tuition and who ought to be exempted. On June 14, 1742, Schoolmaster Dobell petitioned the President and Assistants of the colony to act with the minister in making out a list of those who
48 C. R. II: 377.
" B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, Feb. 16, 1742.
5º C. R. V: 653.
298
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
ought to have free education.51 They accepted the responsi- bility; but they found the task about as difficult as the schoolmaster himself had done. The question was referred to the Trustees ; and finally on April 18, 1743, the Com- mon Council resolved that it would be best to make the school free to all the children of the colony irrespective of their ability to pay. To compensate the teacher for the fees he might lose in making the change, they doubled his salary, making the total stipend from the school £20 per
year.52 Possibly the main reason for this action at the time it was taken was the fact that John Dobell had just presented a very discouraging report from the school as it was being run. He had only eleven pupils. He ascribed the small number to the dislike that many of the poorer people had to receiving education as charity from the Trus- tees. It was a curious circumstance that they should hesi- tate to accept tuition free when they had gotten in the same way their passage to Georgia, their lands, and much of their physical support ; but the Trustees felt that it was better to yield without argument in the matter ; and the school was made entirely free to all on the assumption that the aboli- tion of distinctions between the rich and poor would tend to increase the school attendance.53 As a matter of fact, the change had little appreciable effect on the number of stu- dents. Before the news of the free tuition reached Savannah, Dobell had worked up the number to twenty-five, of whom five paid fees ; and this was about the average attendance for some time.54
On February 28, 1746, Dobell wrote to the Trustees ask-
" C. R. VI: 35.
" B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Stephens, May 10, 1743.
" B. T., Ga., XXII : 78.
" Ibid., 121.
1
299
Education in Georgia
ing to be released from his duties as schoolmaster in order that he might give more attention to his other work; 55 but before he had time to get an answer to his request he resigned from all the positions which he held in the colony.56 He seems to have been offered more remunerative work in Charleston; and he was not getting along very peaceably with some of the Georgia officials. As a teacher, he seems to have been well liked by most people of the province; but as register he did not have the confidence of the other offi- cers, and he was constantly sending to the Trustees bad reports of them.57
His resignation came as a complete surprise to the Presi- dent and Assistants, and they resented it, immediately with- drawing a grant of land that had been made to him but which had not been given in possession to him. They were also much puzzled to know how to keep the school going.58 The Trustees regretted very much to lose his services, and they wrote to him at Charleston asking him to return and promising him a valuable consideration if he would do so ; 59 but he would not give his consent.
It was a difficult matter to secure a good man to take the Savannah school; for few of the settlers were qualified to teach, and the remuneration was poor. It seems to have been more than three years after Dobell's resignation before the Trustees were able to elect another teacher. In the mean- time, Peter Joubert was employed by the Savannah authori- ties to conduct the school. He did not give satisfaction. He neglected the work and was much addicted to drunken- ness, setting a bad example before the children. Finally
5% B. T., Ga., XXII: 208.
56 B. T., Ga., XXIII: 5.
" Ibid., 5, 9, etc., as examples.
5 C. R. VI: 158-160.
"C. R. II: 479.
.
300
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
after many complaints by the pastor and by the patrons of the school, the President and Assistants, finding that their admonitions to him were of no avail, discharged Joubert from the colonial service.60
In 1749 the Trustees appointed Edward Holt to act as schoolmaster at Savannah with a salary of £20 annually, which was to be supplemented with £5 more if he would act as parish clerk. 61 He was an old man, and he did not make a good impression on the people whom he was to serve. Mr. Zouberbuhler, the minister at Savannah, wrote the Trus- tees that he was not fit to assist as clerk and that he and his wife enjoyed tattling too much for him to succeed as a teacher.62 He was plainly not qualified to give good in- struction ; but it was on account of his attitude toward the officials of the colony that he soon came into serious trouble in the colony. He had hardly arrived in the province before the patrons began to complain that he was treating his pu- pils too harshly. The matter was brought repeatedly be- fore the magistrates ; and finally on October 17, 1750, they felt compelled to examine the truth of the reports. They sent a messenger to request the presence of Mr. Holt at the council meeting ; but he refused to obey the summons, saying that he would come when he found time. The magistrates sent again urging his immediate attendance upon them, but he again refused to come. His insolence caused them to send an officer to arrest him and bring him to court; but when he was brought into the presence of the magistrates he was so abusive of the minister and of the officials of the colony that the investigation could not procced, and he was ordered into confinement, scornfully refusing to acknowledge
60 C. R. VI: 303.
61 B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., Nov. 24, 1749.
@ B. T., Ga., XXIV: 10.
:
301
Education in Georgia
the authority of any one in the province over him. The next day the minister and one of the magistrates went to see him in prison to ascertain if he were not softened, but they re- ported that his behavior was worse than before. Finally the magistrates were so moved with compassion for his decrepit body that they released him from prison. They suspended him from acting as public schoolmaster, but permitted him to run a private school if he could find any parents still will- ing to send to him.63
It was not long before Holt discovered that he could not find support in running a private school, and he became as humble as he had formerly been insolent toward the minister and the magistrates. After he had confessed his faults of the past and given assurance for the future, he was restored to his position ; and his conduct gave such general satisfac- tion that he soon had a very good school of forty-one children, though there were still many that needed to be in school.6+
For several months, Mr. Holt seemed to get along very nicely with his work, but by August of 1751 the colonial Council reported to the Trustees that he was becoming un- ruly again, and that another person had started a school in Savannah and was taking away most of the students from the public school.63 There is no information available as to who it was that afforded the successful competition with the Trustees' school. The Trustees felt that they could not much longer bear with Holt, and in 1752 they authorized the magistrates to send him to England at the expense of the Trust.66 The proprietary period closed without there be-
63 C. R. VI: 343-345.
B. T., Ga., XXIV: 29; C. R. VI: 354.
65 B. T., Ga., XXIV: 80.
"C. R. II: 20.
302
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
ing in the colony any regularly appointed schoolmaster for the white children of the Savannah region.
In estimating the scope and effectiveness of the educational work done under the Trustees for Georgia, we must take into consideration the difficulties encountered. The inhabitants of the colony were widely scattered. They were very poor and therefore unable themselves to help much in the pro- moting of education. They represented many diverse na- tions and languages and religions. When communities were populous enough to afford a good school, these varied lan- guage or racial differences made it frequently impossible for one teacher or one management of a school to meet the needs of all the people. The Trustees were three thousand miles away and could not appreciate the conditions in the prov- ince; it was therefore difficult for them to select teachers as wisely as if they were on the field.
The educational results in Georgia were admittedly meager. Only the most elementary instruction was attempted. Only one school in the province, the orphanage, was run with regu- larity. The teachers as a class were poorly equipped for their duties and were not paid living salaries. Bethesda was the only school in the province that had anything like a satis- factory equipment, and it did good work; but during the larger part of its existence it was unable to meet the needs even of the colony's orphans, leaving untouched the other children of the province. Although far from sufficient for the needs of Georgia, its schools were nevertheless about as good as those of some of the provinces that had been longer established; and they turned out many students who later developed into able and useful men.
CHAPTER X
RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF GEORGIA
I N order that we may understand the religious work that was attempted in Georgia, it will be advisable for us to notice briefly some of the organizations or agencies in England that co-operated with the Trustees in promoting and largely sustaining the efforts to Christianize both set- tlers and natives. The oldest of the societies that were ac- tive in carrying on the religious undertakings in the colony was the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. It was organized in 1698 by Dr. Bray, Lord Guilford, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Justice Hook, and Colonel Colches- ter; but Archbishop Tennison and Henry Compton, Bishop of London, were the leading men who presented the matter to the government and secured a charter. The principal objects of the organization were to furnish gratuitous in- struction to the poor, to provide cheap Bibles and religious literature for distribution, and to assist in carrying on mis- sionary work in the British colonies and in foreign coun- tries.1
Before Georgia was settled, this society had given up its purpose of appointing and sending missionaries, having sur- rendered this function to another organization; but it still collected and expended money for the furthering of this work. Its principal activities in Georgia were the trans- porting of the Salzburghers to the colony, the payment of 1 Perry-Hist. of Church of Eng. 561.
303
304
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
the salaries of a pastor and other workers for them, and the making of contributions to other salaries for catechists.
We have already mentioned that the Society for Promot- ing Christian Knowledge did not continue the full missionary program with which it began its work. It soon found that it had too many objects for them all to be properly ad- ministered by one organization; and in 1701, under the guid- ing influence of Dr. Bray who was so influential in starting the original plan, a separate corporation was founded for the specific work of spreading the Gospel outside the realm. It was called the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, being also spoken of sometimes as the Venerable Society, and being perhaps more familiarly known as the S. P. G.2 The work of this organization was intended to unite the interest and activities of all the clergy of the Established Church. All the bishops of the realm were to canvass for such clergymen as were willing to go as mis- sionaries. Those secured for this purpose were to report to the Secretary of the Society who would co-operate with the Bishop of London in deciding where they should labor. All missionaries must report to the Archbishop of Canter- bury and to the Bishop of London for instructions. They were required to correspond regularly with the Secretary of the Society, to send every six months a statement of the condition of their parishes, and to communicate whatever else might be of interest and concern to the Society. It did not obtrude the Episcopal service on the colonies ; and it did not send missionaries until asked to do so. by the peo- ple among whom they would labor and until adequate sup- port for them could be provided.3
This Society had slender means, but it did an excellent
2 Cross-Anglican Episcopate 35.
* Dalcho 42-43.
305
Religious Development of Georgia
work for Georgia. Most of the ministers who went to the colony received in whole or in part support from it. Catechists were also maintained. In addition, the Society was instrumental in getting the Trustees to take a greater interest in the religious welfare of the province than they would otherwise have done.
Another society that did some missionary work in the colony was The Associates of the Late Rev. Dr. Bray. It was founded in 1733. Its purpose was to provide libraries for ministers at home and abroad and to carry on missionary work among negroes. Its name was taken from that of Dr. Thomas Bray, once a commissary of the Bishop of London in America, who had been so influential in arousing an interest in educational and evangelistic work. We have already noted his activity in the founding of other societies. The organiza- tion to commemorate his work did not carry on very ex- tensive operations in Georgia. It equipped the pastor's home in Savannah with a very good library, and in the later years of the Trust it aided in some work among the negroes.4
The three organizations already mentioned were corpora- tions independent of church control; but they were all af- filiated with the Church of England. They all still exist and are doing good work.
Another agency of the home land that was active in Georgia was the Society in Scotland for Promoting Chris- tian Knowledge. It was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church; and it combined in its work the objects of all three English societies that we have been considering. Its prin- cipal activity in Georgia was the supporting of a mission among the Scotch who settled at Darien in the southern part of the province.5
. B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Ottolenghi, Jan. 23, 1752.
" Warneck-Hist. of Protestant Missions 68.
her
306
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
The Bishop of London was an influential factor in the religious affairs of several American colonies ; and we should consider his relation also to the development of Georgia. The jurisdiction of the Bishop of London in colonial ec- clesiastical matters had long been recognized before Georgia was settled ; but it had usually rested on custom rather than on formal commission. . It was he who usually licensed min- isters and schoolmasters for service in America. He ap- pointed commissaries to visit churches and missionaries, to supervise for the Bishop all religious affairs, and to make reports to him. Just prior to the founding of Georgia, the new Bishop of London, Edmund Gibson, had secured from the king a formal commission for the performance of these various duties for which his predecessors had only the au- thority of custom.6
When missionaries began to be sent to Georgia, there arose a controversy between Gibson and the Trustees as to the scope of his authority in the province. He claimed the right to license all ministers of the Established Church who preached in the colony. The Trustees objected to this on the ground that the removal of the missionaries would then be in the hands of other authorities than themselves, and they did not feel that this was wise. They argued that Georgia had been founded since his commission was granted, and that it therefore could not come within the scope of the authority given him. Bishop Gibson threatened to bring to trial in the courts the question of his rights, but the matter does not seem to have been carried so far.7 As a mat- ter of policy, the Trustees usually asked the Bishop to or- dain their ministers, and he sometimes slipped into their hands his license without its being requested; but the Trus-
New York Colonial Docs. V: 849-854.
'C. R. V: 46-48.
307
Religious Development of Georgia
tees chose to ignore such actions on his part.8 The Trus- tees felt that Gibson was hostile to them, and they com- plained that he opposed at times their efforts to advance the spiritual welfare of Georgia; 9 but the indications are that they misjudged his motives in such cases.
The Bishop of London did not appoint any commissary to look after ecclesiastical affairs in Georgia ; but his repre- sentative in South Carolina, Commissary Alexander Garden, had a rather interesting encounter with Rev. George White- field, at the time an ordained minister of the Established Church and located in Georgia. It is not within the scope of this chapter to give a detailed account of the contro- versy ; 10 but the leading facts may be briefly stated. White- field and Garden were for several years cordial and friendly ; but when the former began to show signs of breaking away from the forms of the Church of England the Commissary reproved him and finally forbade him to preach in Charles- ton, where Whitefield was visiting. The latter disregarded Garden's warning and continued to preach; and he was accordingly brought to trial in the commissarial court at Charleston on July 15, 1740. Whitefield refused to answer the charges brought against him because he denied the au- thority of the court to try him. He declared that the Bishop of London could not establish in South Carolina competent courts without the consent and action of the colonial legis- lature. In the second place, he claimed that as a resident of Georgia he could not be tried in the court, even if it were a competent court for South Carolinians. Finally. he as- serted that the Trustees of Georgia, under whose exclusive
8 C. R. V : 49.
" Ibid., 217.
10 For full and clear statements regarding the trial, see Cross 80-86 and Tyerman's Whitefield I: 396-401.
308
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
government he lived, doubted whether the Bishop of London had any jurisdiction in the colonies.11 After some delay Whitefield presented a formal paper refusing to accept Gar- den as his judge; the latter declined to accept it, and White- field appealed to the English authorities. The appeal seems never to have reached the proper persons, partly perhaps because the law was not at all clear as to who were to hear such appeals; and Garden finally summoned Whitefield to appear again in court for trial. The summons was ignored, and the Commissary pronounced a sentence of suspension from the ministry of the Church of England upon White- field. The latter utterly disregarded it, and the matter ended without further incident. It is of interest to us prin- cipally for the light which it throws upon the authority, or lack of it, of the Bishop of London in Georgia.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.