“Placed Therein and Managed” the Church of England, Poor Relief, and Elite Political Power

Chapter 4 “Placed Therein and Managed” The Church of England, Poor Relief, and Elite Political Power

Josiah Quincy of Massachusetts described eighteenth-century Charles Town as a worldly place. He was not impressed by what he found when he attended a Church of England service in Charles Town, and even judged the state of religion there to be generally “repugnant not only to the ordinances and insti- tutions of Jesus Christ, but to every law of sound policy.” The Sabbath, he noted, was nothing more than a day for the rich to socialize and for slaves to either “frolic” or hire themselves out illegally.1 He visited St. Philip’s on 7 March 1773. He first noted light attendance and thought the boy reading prayers had a “most gay, indifferent and gallant air.” Few of the men and no women stood when it came time to sing. Quincy thought the sermon eloquent, but remarked on its brevity—only seven and a half minutes. Perhaps it did not matter, as men commonly sat in church conversing rather than listening to the minister. He thought the church itself was splendidly decorated and commented upon the relative abundance of marble monuments in Charles Town churches.2 Charles Woodmason, himself a minister, also noted Charles Town’s beautiful churches, describing St. Philip’s as the “most elegant religious edifice in British North America.”3 Both observers understood that, on some level, the Church of England in South Carolina was another creature of the wealthy elite. They failed; however, to see or comment upon the vital governing functions it per- formed that supported elite rule. South Carolina’s established church and its vestries functioned as another branch of colonial government. The lowcountry elite used the political power of their legislature to define poverty, and they used the parish vestries and the Charles Town workhouse to govern the lowest orders of white society. The Church of England’s vestries in South Carolina lost the autonomy that their English counterparts enjoyed, as the legislature specifically outlined their functions and demarcated the bounds of their governing authority. Even the most powerful members of the lowcountry elite served on these local church councils that had the power to fund poor relief programs through a limited

1 “Journal of Josiah Quincy, Junior,” 455, 455. 2 Ibid., 444. 3 “A Report on Religion in the South,” in Hooker, The Carolina Backcountry on the Eve of the Revolution, 70.

162 Chapter 4 taxing authority. Poor relief did not necessarily focus on relieving the root causes of poverty. Like eighteenth-century English poor relief, South Carolina’s system focused on manipulating behavior or the “nuisance, disorder and crime” to which poverty—especially vagrancy—contributed.4 The ruling class imposed its definitions of poverty and its causes, thus shaping the nature and work of this oft-neglected branch of colonial government. The assembly also attempted to enforce moral regulations, and the Church of England itself served to reinforce important values such as obedience and respect for authority. South Carolina’s vestries mirrored England’s except in two important ways: first, the Commons House directly set, limited and supervised the vestries’ functions, and the provincial clergy and Church of England hierarchy had little or no authority over the vestries.5 Second, blacks and slaves were excluded from the poor relief system except through the Charles Town workhouse. A 1723 statute of Parliament allowed English parishes to establish workhouses and withhold relief from those who refused to enter. They were meant to deter the able bodied from seeking relief and house those who could not care for themselves. However, a 1610 law required houses of correction to employ,

4 Paul Langford, A Polite and Commercial People: England, 1727–1783 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 153. 5 Most studies of the colonial Church of England focus on church hierarchy, the clergy, and the controversies surrounding the attempt to establish bishops. For the classic study on the latter issue see Arthur Lyon Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies, new ed. (Hamden: Archon Books, 1964). A more recent study of the episcopal controversy, especially colonial reactions to establishing bishops, can be found in Frederick V. Mills, Bishops by Ballot: An Eighteenth Century Ecclesiastical Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978). See also Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre: Transatlantic Faiths, Ideas, Personalities, and Politics, 1689–1775 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962) and Nancy L. Rhoden, Revolutionary Anglicanism: The Colonial Church of England During the American Revolution (London: Macmillan, 1999). Bridenbaugh studied the church and colonial responses to and perceptions of English imperialism, while Rhoden traces the careers of over 300 Church of England clergymen during the revolution. Since there was never a serious episcopal controversy in South Carolina, that colony plays little part in these studies. For a more general sur- vey of the colonial Church of England, see John Frederick Wolverton, Colonial Anglicanism in North America (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1984). For an interesting, recent study of how Anglicanism played a role in forming British imperial ideologies and adapted its own theology to account for colonial experiences, see Rowan Strong, Anglicanism and the British Empire, c. 1700–1850 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). See also Patricia Bonomi, Under the Cope of Heaven: Religion, Society, and Politics in Colonial America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986). Bonomi studies the church’s role in public leadership and upholding morality and stability.