RC (Adams Papers); internal address: “His Excellency Jno Adams Esqr.”

Sharp sent JA The Works of the Most Reverend Dr. John Sharp, Late Lord Archbishop of York, 7 vols., London, 1754, which are in JA’s library at MB ( Catalogue of JA’s Library ). In his 23 Jan. reply, JA thanked Sharp for the “valuable present” so “eligantly bound” and invited him to visit him any morning before noon (LbC, APM Reel 113). JA was familiar with the archbishop’s writings, indicating in his Diary entry for 10 Nov. 1761 that he had that day read a number of Sharp’s sermons, characterizing Sharp as “a moving, affectionate Preacher” if “not so moral” as his contemporary John Tillotson, archbishop of Canterbury (JA, D&A , 1:9–10, 224; DNB ).

Granville Sharp (1735–1813) was a noted philanthropist, scholar, and pamphleteer. Following the American Revolution, which he supported, Sharp became interested in the development of the American Episcopal Church, particularly the nature of its liturgy and the ordination of American bishops. He carried on an extensive correspondence with Benjamin Franklin on the subject and was presumably of assistance to JA in his efforts on behalf of the American church, for which see note 2, below.

Sharp, however, was most noted for his antislavery efforts, in support of which he produced numerous pamphlets, many of which are in JA’s library at MB, but see also JA’s 31 Jan. 1786 letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, below. He also became interested in the settlement of freed slaves in Africa and in 1786 at London published A Short Sketch of Temporary Regulations: (Untill Better Shall be Proposed) for the Intended Settlement on the Grain Coast of Africa, Near Sierra Leona. Prior to its publication, Sharp sent JA a manuscript copy of the pamphlet, dated “Old Jewry / 3 July 1786,” with authorial insertions that were included in the published text (Adams Papers). A copy of the pamphlet’s 3d edition, published in 1788, is in JA’s library at MB.

As he wrote to Franklin on 29 Oct. 1785, Sharp supported the American election of Episcopal bishops, provided that they were consecrated at the hands of English clergy and not by Scottish non-juring bishops, whose “popish” practice signified a possible departure from apostolic succession (CtY:Benjamin Franklin Papers). Sharp, who met with the archbishop of Canterbury shortly after JA’s visit, proposed that English clergy forgo the usual oaths of allegiance for American candidates. Through his correspondence with Franklin, Sharp continued to monitor the Episcopal general convention’s revisions to the Book of Common Prayer and liturgy, observing that “America is not the only part wherein Protestant Episcopacy is likely to be extended, when the rights of election are better understood.” Sharp’s reassurances to the archbishop, emphasizing American commitment to the use of standing creeds and 114 the opportunity to counter Socinian growth, likely influenced John Moore’s final assent (vol. 17:540; William White, Memoirs of the Protestant Episcopal Church, N.Y., 1880, p. 370–377).

RC (NHi:Rufus King Papers); internal address: “The Hon Rufus King. Esq.”; endorsed: “Mr. Adams Jan. 22. 86.” LbC (Adams Papers); APM Reel 113.

JA’s views reflect, to some degree, the Chevalier de Pinto’s reasoning for the Portuguese reluctance to send a minister to the United States without a treaty in place. Three years earlier, seeking to prevent such concerns, JA pressed Congress to send an official notification of American independence to the nations of Europe, but it never did (vols. 15:186–187; 17:572–573).

William Pitt, who served as chancellor of the exchequer throughout his tenure as prime minister, had received Richard Price’s proposal to establish a sinking fund in 1784. Pitt’s revised version, which he introduced in the House of Commons on 29 March 1786, promised a £1 million annual payment to redeem the national debt at a high compound interest rate, with funds to be supplied by the existing surplus, Britain’s post-Revolutionary trade boom, and new taxes on spirits and hair powder. Pitt recommended that independent commissioners supervise the sinking fund, which he predicted would eradicate the national debt in less than forty years. As JA suggested, Pitt’s bill easily passed Parliament, and it was accepted by George III on 26 May (Hague, Pitt , p. 194; Carl B. Cone, “Richard Price and Pitt’s Sinking Fund of 1786,” Economic History Review, 4:243–251 [1951]).

The RC’s enclosed by JA have not been found. For the first see the extract from the Marquis de Lafayette’s 9 Jan. letter, above. Nathaniel Barrett’s last extant letter to JA was of 10 Dec. 1785 (Adams Papers), for which see JA’s 24 Dec. letter to Barrett, note 1, above. Barrett’s next letter to JA is of 29 Jan. 1786, below. This suggests that Barrett sent another letter to JA, probably dated around 9 Jan., that has been lost, since RC’s of both of Barrett’s other letters are in the Adams Papers. In a 22 April letter to Jonathan 116 Jackson, King indicated that he was sending the enclosures he had received from JA to the Newburyport merchant Nathaniel Tracy (Smith, Letters of Delegates , 23:249–250).

On this day, JA also received Elbridge Gerry’s 8 Nov. 1785 letter with news of Congress’ 28 Oct. resolution empowering JA, along with Thomas Jefferson and William Carmichael, to act as consuls general (vol. 17:386, 574–577). A formal commission, however, never arrived. John Jay originally planned to send copies of the act to JA in early December, but presumably he delayed doing so in hope of receiving clarification from Congress regarding the powers and duties of the post. Specifically, Jay inquired if a consul general’s authority extended to appointing vice-consuls or agents; whether Thomas Barclay and Jefferson would enjoy “concurrent Jurisdiction” in France; and if formal commissions were needed. Jay’s queries apparently went unanswered by the congressional committee, which included King, as members debated instead the credentials of Britain’s consul general, John Temple ( JCC , 29:888, 896–897).