Full download ebook at ebookname.

com

Merit Aid and the Politics of Education Studies in

Higher Education 1st Edition Erik C. Ness

https://ebookname.com/product/merit-aid-and-the-politics-of-
education-studies-in-higher-education-1st-edition-erik-c-
ness/

OR CLICK BUTTON

DOWLOAD NOW

Download more ebook from https://ebookname.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Grading Student Achievement in Higher Education Signals

and shortcomings Key Issues in Higher Education 1st
Edition Mantz Yorke

https://ebookname.com/product/grading-student-achievement-in-
higher-education-signals-and-shortcomings-key-issues-in-higher-
education-1st-edition-mantz-yorke/

Globalization And Reform In Higher Education Eggins

https://ebookname.com/product/globalization-and-reform-in-higher-
education-eggins/

Private Higher Education in Post Communist Europe In

Search of Legitimacy Issues in Higher Education First
Edition Snejana Slantcheva

https://ebookname.com/product/private-higher-education-in-post-
communist-europe-in-search-of-legitimacy-issues-in-higher-
education-first-edition-snejana-slantcheva/

Between Citizens and the State The Politics of American

Higher Education in the 20th Century Christopher P.
Loss

https://ebookname.com/product/between-citizens-and-the-state-the-
politics-of-american-higher-education-in-the-20th-century-
christopher-p-loss/
The Academic Quality Handbook Enhancing Higher
Education in Universities and Further Education
Colleges Patrick Mcghee

https://ebookname.com/product/the-academic-quality-handbook-
enhancing-higher-education-in-universities-and-further-education-
colleges-patrick-mcghee/

Higher Education Finance Research Policy Politics and

Practice 1st Edition Mary P. Mckeown-Moak

https://ebookname.com/product/higher-education-finance-research-
policy-politics-and-practice-1st-edition-mary-p-mckeown-moak/

Collaborative Learning in Higher Music Education Helena

Gaunt

https://ebookname.com/product/collaborative-learning-in-higher-
music-education-helena-gaunt/

Learner Centered Theory and Practice in Distance

Education Cases From Higher Education 1st Edition
Thomas M. Duffy

https://ebookname.com/product/learner-centered-theory-and-
practice-in-distance-education-cases-from-higher-education-1st-
edition-thomas-m-duffy/

The Transformation of the Student Career University

Study in Germany the Netherlands and Sweden
Routledgefalmer Studies in Higher Education 1st Edition
Michael Nugent
https://ebookname.com/product/the-transformation-of-the-student-
career-university-study-in-germany-the-netherlands-and-sweden-
routledgefalmer-studies-in-higher-education-1st-edition-michael-
Studies in Higher Education

Edited by
Philip G. Altbach
Monan Professor of Higher Education
Lynch School of Education, Boston College

A Routledge Series
Studies in Higher Education
Philip G. Altbach, General Editor

University-Industry Partnerships in Coming of Age

MIT, Cambridge, and Tokyo Women’s Colleges in the Philippines
Storytelling across Boundaries during the Post-Marcos Era
Sachi Hatakenaka Francesca B. Purcell

The Women’s Movement and the Does Quality Pay?

Politics of Change at a Women’s Benefits of Attending a High-Cost,
College Prestigious College
Jill Ker Conway at Smith, 1975–1985 Liang Zhang
David A. Greene
Adaptation of Western Economics
Acting ‘Otherwise’ by Russian Universities
The Institutionalization of Women’s/ Intercultural Travel of an Academic Field
Gender Studies in Taiwan’s Universities Tatiana Suspitsyna
Peiying Chen
Dominant Beliefs and Alternative
Teaching and Learning in Diverse Voices
Classrooms Discourse, Belief, and Gender in
Faculty Reflections on Their American Study Abroad
Experiences and Pedagogical Practices Joan Elias Gore
of Teaching Diverse Populations
Carmelita Rosie Castañeda Inhabiting the Borders
Foreign Language Faculty in American
The Transformation of the Colleges and Universities
Student Career Robin Matross Helms
University Study in Germany, the
Netherlands, and Sweden The Changing Landscape of the
Michael A. Nugent Academic Profession
The Culture of Faculty at For-Profit
Teacher Education for Critical Colleges and Universities
Consumption of Mass Media and Vicente M. Lechuga
Popular Culture
Stephanie A. Flores-Koulish The WTO and the University
Globalization, GATS, and American
When For-Profit Meets Nonprofit Higher Education
Educating Through the Market Roberta Malee Bassett
Jared L. Bleak
Merit Aid and the Politics of
Democratizing Higher Education Education
Policy Erik C. Ness
Constraints of Reform in Post-Apartheid
South Africa
Molatlhegi Trevor Chika Sehoole
 Merit Aid and the
Politics of Education

Erik C. Ness

Routledge
New York & London
First published 2008
by Routledge
270 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016

Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2008.
“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.”

© 2008 Erik C. Ness

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereaf-
ter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-

marks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Ness, Erik Christian.
Merit aid and the politics of education / by Erik C. Ness.
p. cm. -- (Studies in higher education)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-415-96100-9
1. Scholarships--United States. 2. Student aid--United States. I. Title.

LB2338.N377 2007
378.30973--dc22 2007016136

ISBN 0-203-93368-0 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN10: 0-415-96100-9 (hbk)

ISBN10: 0-203-93368-0 (ebk)

ISBN13: 978-0-415-961004 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-203-93368-8 (ebk)
For Kim and Ben
Contents

List of Tables ix

List of Figures xi

Acknowledgments xiii

PART I: INTRODUCTION TO THE POLITICS OF MERIT AID 1

Chapter One
Deciding Who Earns Merit Aid: A Comparative Case
Study Approach 5

Chapter Two
Public Policy Frameworks: Advocacy Coalition,
Multiple Streams, and Electoral Connection 13

PART II: THREE EPISODES OF CRITERIA DETERMINATION 25

Chapter Three
New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program 27

Chapter Four
West Virginia PROMISE Scholarship Program 55

Chapter Five
Tennessee HOPE Scholarship Program 89

vii
viii Contents

PART III: ANALYSIS OF AND IMPLICATIONS FOR

EDUCATION POLICY 123

Chapter Six
Comparative Case Analysis: Between Episodes and
Across Frameworks 125

Chapter Seven
Conclusion: A Revised Model of Merit Aid Policy Formulation 143

Appendix A
Population of States with Merit-Based Financial Aid Programs 157

Appendix B
Interview Protocol 159

Appendix C
Analytical Framework 161

Notes 163

Bibliography 167

Index 175
List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Sample State Scholarship Programs 7

Table 2. Distribution of Interview Participants 9

Table 3. Case Study Tactics for Four Design Tests 12

Table 4. Rationality of Policy Actors’ Behavior and Preferences 126

Table 5. Clarity of Program Goals 127

Table 6. Stability of Policy Coalitions over Time 129

Table 7. Influence of Elected Officials and

Non-Elected Policy Actors 130

Table 8. Availability of Technical Information 132

Table 9. Effect of External Influences 134

Table 10. Explanatory Power of Three Theoretical Frameworks 137

ix
List of Figures

Figure 1. Advocacy Coalition Framework 17

Figure 2. Multiple Streams Framework 19

Figure 3. Revised Multiple Streams Model of Criteria

Determination Process 147

xi
Acknowledgments

This book, and the dissertation from which it emerged, could not have been
completed but for sage advice and generous support from many sources.
First and foremost, I am indebted to Michael McLendon, who served as
my advisor and dissertation chair during my graduate studies at Vanderbilt
University. Michael introduced me to not only the field of higher education,
but also to the relevance of political science and public policy concepts.
Through his rigorous analysis, provocative topics, and incisive writing,
Michael’s work has immeasurably informed and inspired both this study
and my continued research interests.
I also acknowledge the influence and insights of three additional
senior scholars. I am grateful for the opportunity to have learned from Jim
Hearn the fundamental financial and organizational concepts of our field
and for his encouragement and contribution to this study. To Jim Guthrie,
I am grateful that during my first course at Vanderbilt he introduced me to
the “black box” of politics—a notion that has intrigued me and informed
my research interests ever since. Don Heller offered expert advice both
broadly on research design matters and specifically as a policy actor inti-
mately familiar with the policy process I aim to explain. My interest in stu-
dent financial aid began by reading Don’s work and I am honored to have
had his input on this study.
Three sources of financial support sustained this effort. First, with
funding provided by the Department of Leadership, Policy and Organiza-
tions and the Office of Federal Relations, my experience with the Vander-
bilt / Peabody National Fellowship in Education Policy provided me the
requisite time and reflective setting to craft this area of inquiry and to out-
line the initial stages of this project. I am also grateful for the generous
time and flexibility afforded me by the Tennessee Higher Education Com-
mission and specifically for the understanding and encouragement offered

xiii
xiv Acknowledgments

by Brian Noland and Richard Rhoda. Lastly, the joint Association for the
Study of Higher Education (ASHE) and Lumina Foundation for Educa-
tion Dissertation Fellowship provided the resources to fund data collection
efforts in all three states and to support the final analysis and earlier writ-
ing stage of this study.
In addition to my appreciation of the 56 respondents who gave gen-
erously of their time and insights, I am grateful for the camaraderie and
counsel of my friends and co-workers in Nashville: Rob Anderson, Jane
Best, Russ Deaton, Amy Hirschy, Betty Dandridge Johnson, Brandyn Payne,
Richard Tucker, and Jason Walton. Additionally, I acknowledge the support
of the Department of Administrative and Policy Studies at the University of
Pittsburgh during the final stages of this study. I am particularly grateful
for the advice and encouragement of John Weidman and for the editorial
assistance of Molly Mistretta.
Finally, my family’s encouragement throughout this study reflects their
constant and unconditional support. I am forever grateful to my parents,
Steven and Barbara Ness, who instilled in me the confidence and indepen-
dence to form my own opinions and to pursue my own interests. I thank
my siblings, Alex and Emily, who checked in on my progress and offered
stories of their own to keep me going. And, to my wife, Kimberly, for her
love and encouragement always and for her patience and prodding during
the home stretch of this endeavor, during which time our son, Benjamin
Carl, was born. I dedicate this book to Kim and Ben. Without them this
finished product would have remained but an idea.
Part I
Introduction to the
Politics of Merit Aid

By virtue of the tenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, education is

largely a state enterprise. For higher education, the result is a state-level
governance system and financing scheme. Over the past three centuries,
the American states have funded higher education in essentially two ways:
direct appropriations to institutions and financial aid to students on the
basis of need. However, in the last decade or so in response to broader
higher education finance issues, a new form of funding has emerged from
the states: merit-based student financial aid.
In the last ten years, tuition increases have far out-paced inflation—an
alarming trend documented in a recent spate of national reports (Advisory
Committee on Student Financial Assistance, 2001, 2002; Callan, 2002;
SHEEO, 2006; WICHE, 2003). From 1996–97 to 2006–07, the average
tuition (in real dollars) at public four-year universities has increased by 51
percent (College Board, 2006a). This tuition increase has disproportion-
ately affected students from low-income families, especially given that the
buying power of Pell grants has diminished from 72 percent of total cost
of attendance at a public four-year college in 1975–76 to 33 percent of
total costs in 2002–03 (College Board, 2006b). Additionally, federal stu-
dent aid policy has shifted precipitously from grants targeted at low-income
students, such as Pell, to loans available to students irrespective of finan-
cial need (Hearn & Holdsworth, 2004). Many argue that the proliferation
of state-funded merit aid programs, which has further exacerbated these
trends of rising college costs, has supplanted increases in state need-based
aid programs (Heller & Marin, 2002, 2004).
In 1993, this new type of financial aid emerged when Georgia enacted
the HOPE Scholarship program.1 This merit-based scholarship program

1
2 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

covered college costs equivalent to public college tuition for all students
who graduated high school with a “B” average and who continued to main-
tain a “B” average in college. In the following decade, twelve states enacted
similar programs. As outlined in Appendix A, these programs vary greatly
by state with regard to both revenue source and initial eligibility criteria.
Revenue sources include state lotteries, tobacco lawsuit settlements, state
general funds, land leases and sales, and video gambling revenues. The eli-
gibility criteria generally include a combination of high school grade point
average (GPA) and standardized test scores (i.e., ACT, SAT); however, some
states determine eligibility by class rank or college GPA.
This shift to merit-based scholarships required a different and expanded
rationale from the need-based aid concept of simply funding needy students.
Heller (2002a) offers three motivations for states’ enactment of these pro-
grams: (1) to increase college access and educational attainment, (2) to
encourage and reward academic achievement, and (3) to stanch the ‘brain
drain’ of excellent students to out-of-state colleges. Each of these motiva-
tions, to varying degrees, is enhanced by the increased attention of research-
ers and policymakers on the challenges to college affordability.

PROBLEM
Despite the proliferation of statewide merit aid programs and the growing
scholarly criticism of such programs, the research literature is surprisingly
void of any systematic consideration of how states determine eligibility cri-
teria for these scholarships. While the merit aid phenomenon has attracted
considerable attention from researchers, most studies focus on the effects
of merit aid (Cornwell, Mustard, & Sridhar, 2006; Dee & Jackson, 1999;
Dynarski, 2000, 2004; Heller & Marin, 2002, 2004; Henry & Rubenstein,
2002; Henry, Rubenstein, & Bugler, 2004) rather than the policy processes
whereby such programs have been established. This is particularly surprising
given recent attention by scholars to the policy process in other higher educa-
tion contexts (Cook, 1998; deGive & Olswang, 1999; Hannah, 1996; Leslie
& Novak, 2003; Martinez, 2002b; McLendon, 2000, 2003a; Trow, 1998).
With regard to merit aid programs, the policy process is only men-
tioned to the extent that scholars urge policymakers not to adopt such inef-
ficient programs. However, the selectivity of merit aid eligibility criteria can
be as important as whether or not such programs are adopted. If merit aid
programs have broad, easily-attained initial eligibility criteria, then a large
proportion of high school graduates, including low-income and under-rep-
resented students, will gain eligibility. On the other hand, if the criteria are
more rigorous, then a smaller proportion of students, likely those already
Part I 3

planning to attend and with the means to afford college, will be eligible.
Thus, it seems that a better understanding of how states determine merit-
based scholarship eligibility would compliment studies that aim to evaluate
the effects of merit aid programs. Indeed, such is the intent of this book.

SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPLICATIONS

The significance of this study rests on its conceptual implications for
researchers and practical implications for policy analysts and policymak-
ers. With regard to the scholarly research literature, this study may add to
the descriptive and conceptual understanding of the policy process through
which these merit aid programs emerge. Practical implications may also
emerge for those who seek to influence merit aid policy through this study’s
descriptive account of policy formation in three states that enacted broad-
based merit aid scholarship programs.
Since Graham Allison’s Essence of Decision (1971), which applies
three conceptual models to the decision-making process during the Cuban
missile crisis, popularized the multi-model research design the approach
is rarely employed in the postsecondary setting. In fact, a review of recent
public policy literature in the higher education sector reveals few studies
that aim to test or refine theoretical frameworks. Those that do exist typi-
cally test a single theory on a single case (Martinez, 2002; Pusser, 2003),
multiple theories on a single case (Mintrom & Vergari, 1996), or a sin-
gle theory on multiple cases (Gittell & Kleiman, 2000). These research
designs, while vital in the accumulation of theory development, do not
offer as robust implications as do studies considering multiple theories
applied to multiple cases (McLendon, 2000, 2003a). Additionally, these
implications may be relevant not only to merit aid programs, but also to
other higher education contexts, and possibly to K-12 education and other
policy sector contexts.
As McLendon (2003b) suggests, scholars stand to benefit from the
application of “conceptual underpinnings” borrowed from political science,
such as advocacy coalition and multiple streams. While such studies have
often included Kingdon’s (1995) multiple streams framework, the advocacy
coalition framework remains rarely utilized by higher education research-
ers. Further, this study re-introduces the electoral connection framework to
the higher education research community. This well-established notion that
policymakers’ policy decisions can be traced directly to their desire to be
reelected presents an elegant alternative conceptual understanding that may
have implications for other policy issues and may complement other public
policy conceptual frameworks.
4 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

Additionally, researchers interested in the social consequences of

merit aid programs may gain clarity from this study’s description of the
policy process through which scholarship criteria are determined. Political
popularity is often cited as the primary reason for merit aid proliferation;
however, this notion has not yet been sufficiently explored. It could be that
these programs were as politically popular among constituents from low-
income and minority citizens as they are among middle and upper income
citizens, who are commonly reported as the primary beneficiaries. Or, on
the other hand, states could intentionally craft the scholarship eligibility
criteria to a small portion of exceptional students knowing that such a pol-
icy would only exacerbate college access for students already under-rep-
resented in higher education. These two plausible scenarios would better
set the context for evaluators of merit aid programs, specifically these pro-
grams’ intended and unintended effects on individuals and states. Indeed,
this study’s focus on eligibility criteria creation will complement research-
ers’ efforts to evaluate merit aid programs through its account of policy-
makers’ intentions and the influences that shape these objectives.
This study may also yield implications for policy and practice.
Through this study’s exploration of the influences on higher education,
policy scholars and policy advocates may evaluate strategies to inform the
policymaking process. For example, Wright (2003) suggests that informa-
tion tied directly to legislators’ districts has the greatest impact on policy
outcomes. Heeding this advice, those who aim to influence higher educa-
tion policy may choose to disaggregate policy analysis to the district-level.
More broadly, the description of the policy process in this study reports
the extent to which policymakers utilize technical information. Undoubt-
edly, this use of information includes both the scholarly criteria of merit aid
programs and the practical information gathered from other states’ experi-
ence with similar merit aid programs. Understanding the calculus through
which policymakers balance this information is vital for policy analysts.
By clearly identifying the sources of information and influence of inter-
nal and external phenomena, this study aims to inform policymakers and
researchers of the effects of information and influence on policy outcomes.
Researchers, especially scholars who aim to influence policy, could use this
understanding to better craft compelling testimony and policy reports. Fur-
thermore, policymakers may find this explicit framework of information
and influence helpful in their consideration of future policy issues.
Chapter One
Deciding Who Earns Merit Aid:
A Comparative Case Study Approach

Given the inherently political nature of the policymaking process and the
natural tendency of educators to avoid explicitly political activity, it should
come as no surprise that the education community is often left scratching its
collective head upon the enactment of certain policies. In the primary and
secondary levels of education, the implications of No Child Left Behind are
bemoaned across the nation (Apple, 2007; Berliner & Nichols, 2007; Olsen,
2006). Similar reactions have recently come from higher education with the
recent unveiling of Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’ Commission
on the Future of Higher Education (NCPPHE, 2006; Zemsky, 2007). The
proliferating trend of state adoptions of merit-based scholarship programs
has also led higher education researchers and administrators to criticize this
shift in state-funding student financial aid from students with demonstrated
financial need to students who meet certain grade point average and stan-
dardized test score requirements (Heller & Marin, 2002, 2004).
As alarming as this trend from need-based aid to merit-based aid
is, the more highly-selective or rigorous scholarship eligibility criteria has
even more pronounced implications on access to postsecondary education
among low-income and minority students. In an effort to systematically
explore how and why policymakers determine merit aid eligibility criteria,
this book aims to describe the policy process and to conceptually consider
how theoretical perspectives might explain these phenomena.
Again, the purpose of this study is to deepen the conceptual understand-
ing of the process by which states determine merit aid scholarship criteria.
My intent is not to focus on the causes or antecedents of merit aid program’s
rise on the state’s policy and political agenda, but rather to explore how spe-
cific eligibility criteria come to be enacted by state policymakers. Scholars

5
6 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

have long relied on a variety of theoretical frameworks to explain complex

policy process phenomena. Guiding this particular study are three theories:
advocacy coalition framework, multiple streams, and electoral connection.
Instead of attempting to identify one theory exclusively as having the great-
est explanatory power, this study aims to identify prospectively the elements
of each theory that may explain the policymaking process in the context of
state merit aid programs.
The two overarching research questions guiding this study both lead to
a descriptive understanding of the process through which state merit aid pro-
grams emerge and reveal conceptual implications for policy process theories.

1. How do states determine the initial eligibility criteria for merit

aid programs?
2. How will three theoretical frameworks—advocacy coalition, mul-
tiple streams, and electoral connection—explain the process by
which states determine merit aid eligibility criteria?

To explore these questions, the research strategy follows a compara-

tive case study method. Qualitative methodologists (Creswell, 1998; King,
Keohane, & Verba, 1994; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003) suggest a
case study design for studies that aim to understand or explain processes or
phenomena in a bounded system, rather than to predict or show causality.
Furthermore, multiple case study models are seen as more robust than single
case studies based primarily on the multiple case study design allowing for
replication of analysis within and between cases. Indeed, political scientists
and public policy scholars rely often on this method of inquiry, especially in
their efforts to test and build conceptual frameworks that explain the policy
process (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Cobb & Elder, 1983; Leslie & Novak,
2003; McLendon, 2000, 2003a; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993, 1999).

SAMPLE SELECTION
Following the qualitative research design notion of purposive sampling and
Yin’s (2003) “replication logic,” this study considers multiple case studies
that substantively differ from one another and reveal different perspectives
on the topic. This strategy is similar to the use of multiple experiments in
scientific research, which yield robust findings, and therefore increase gen-
eralizability, due to the theoretical replication of research analysis on cases
that differ on a few key dimensions. This study applies five criteria in the
selection of case study states.1 First, each state must have a broad-based
merit aid program that awards scholarships to more than 10 percent of the
Deciding Who Earns Merit Aid 7

statewide graduating high school class. This criterion ensures that programs
of similar scope are compared. Second, each state’s merit aid program must
allow students to retain their scholarships, based on academic performance,
for multiple years of postsecondary education. The purpose of this criterion
is similar to the first one listed above. Third, the merit aid programs must
have been created with a new source of revenue, such as a state lottery or
tobacco lawsuit settlement. This criterion is necessary due to the implica-
tions of differences in policy formulation process dynamics based on policy
type—distributive, redistributive, or regulatory (Lowi, 1964). For example,
if a merit aid program was created without new money, then it would inev-
itably lead to budget reductions or program eliminations in other areas,
which may lead to more contentious policy and political dynamics than if
the program were created with its own earmarked revenue source. Fourth,
each state must have substantively different initial eligibility criteria. This
criterion aims to maximize variation among sample states.2 Fifth, Georgia’s
HOPE Scholarship program will not be considered. As the original broad-
based merit aid program, the dynamics of this initial policy conception will
likely differ greatly from those that followed, especially since Georgia’s pro-
gram, to varying degrees, influenced each of the twelve subsequent merit
aid programs.3 These criteria leave three states to serve as the sample of this
study—New Mexico, Tennessee, and West Virginia.
Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of each state’s
merit-based scholarship program.

Table 1. Summary of Sample State Scholarship Programs

State Name of Year of Revenue Initial
Scholarship Criteria Eligibility
Program Adoption Criteria

New Success 1996 Lottery College GPA 2.5 after

Mexico first semester

West PROMISE 2001 Gray machines 3.0 GPA and 21 ACT

Virginia (video lottery)

Tennessee HOPE 2003 Lottery 3.0 GPA or 19 ACT

(890 SAT)
3.75 GPA and 29 ACT
(1280 SAT)
2.75 GPA and 18 ACT
(860 SAT) and AGI <
$36,000
8 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

The New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship program was enacted in

1997 through funds generated by a new state lottery. The criteria for these
scholarships are based on students’ academic performance during their
first semester at a New Mexico college or university. To earn a Success
scholarship, worth the total cost of full tuition fees at public institutions,
students must enter college in the fall immediately after high school gradu-
ation, take a full course load, and maintain a 2.5 GPA. To retain the schol-
arships, students must maintain a 2.5 GPA and enroll continuously as a
full-time student.
The Tennessee Education Lottery Scholarship program, also funded
through a new state lottery, was enacted in 2003. This merit aid program
includes five award types with varying GPA and ACT score requirements and
some with family income thresholds. The base award, named HOPE after
Georgia’s HOPE Scholarship program, provides $3,000 to students who earn
a high school GPA of at least 3.0 or earn at least a 19 ACT score (or 890
SAT score). Two supplemental awards, both worth an additional $1,000, are
available for students with financial need and for students demonstrating high
academic performance.4 The Access award targets students who fell just short
of the HOPE award criteria. If students earn a 2.75 GPA and 18 ACT score
(or 860 SAT score), they are eligible for a $2,000 award. The renewal criteria
are the same for all awards: 2.75 GPA at the end of the first year of postsec-
ondary education and 3.00 GPA at the end of each subsequent year.
The West Virginia PROMISE scholarship program was authorized
in 1999 and funded through proceeds from state-operated video gambling
(gray machines) in 2001. The criteria for PROMISE include a 3.0 GPA and
21 ACT score (or 1000 SAT equivalent). The awards are worth full tuition at
public institutions or the equivalent amount (roughly $3,000) at a West Vir-
ginia private college or university. The renewal GPA criterion for PROMISE
is a 3.0 GPA.

DATA COLLECTION
Based on the comparative case study research design, I collected data from
interviews with policy actors in each sample state and from relevant doc-
uments and archival materials. This section outlines the identification of
informants, the interview protocol, and the collection of archival materials
and documents.

Identification of Informants
This study identifies informants in two stages: (1) targeted informants
based on preliminary archival analysis, and (2) additional informants
Deciding Who Earns Merit Aid 9

Table 2. Distribution of Interview Participants

New Mexico Tennessee West Virginia

Governors and staff 2 2 5
Legislators and staff 6 5 5
Campus/System officials 3 6 6
State agency officials 4 3 3
Researchers and observers 2 2 2
Total 17 18 21

recommended through the snowball procedure of asking each of the tar-

get participants to identify other key actors in policy process. I identified
target informants based on their formal position and from four differ-
ent data sources: (1) local media coverage in the sample states, (2) the
Chronicle of Higher Education, (3) websites of government agencies, and
(4) conversations with individuals familiar with sample states.
The second stage of identifying informants follows the snowball
procedure recommended by qualitative methodologists (Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Erlandson et al., 1993). By asking informants to recom-
mend other individuals involved in the policy process, this technique
identifies individuals who may not have been mentioned in public
accounts of the scholarship criteria determination process. Informants
were also asked to identify individuals that may offer a different per-
spective on the policy process, which serves to ensure that diverse view-
points are represented.
This study includes participants from varying backgrounds, includ-
ing legislators and their aides, governors and senior staff members, state-
wide governing or coordinating board officials, higher education system
and campus leaders, researchers and consultants. Table 2 summarizes
informants by category in each sample state.

Interview Protocol
In order to explore consistent themes between participants and to
allow for follow-up questions on topics important to each interviewee,
I employed a semi-structured interview protocol. As Rubin and Rubin
(1995) suggest, case study interviews, while following an a priori pro-
tocol, should remain fluid in order to capture emerging themes. Appen-
dix B lists the seven open-ended questions, along with relevant probes,
10 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

that serve as the interview protocol. During the interviews, I asked infor-
mants questions that most directly relate to their position or expertise
and to their involvement during the policy process (informants were not
necessarily asked every question on the list). Of course, I also asked new
questions or probes in order to follow-up on relevant themes or issues
that arise during the interview.
In addition to a transparent interview protocol, the interview proce-
dures followed in this study aim to enhance the study’s trustworthiness.
The average length of each interview was approximately 50 minutes,
ranging from 20 minutes to two and a half hours. Respondents selected
the interview location and most often the interviews occurred in the par-
ticipant’s office. Although I made every effort to conduct interviews in
person, I conducted eleven telephone interviews, which represents less
than 20 percent of all interviews. In advance of the interview, I mailed
to respondents a waiver to consent letter outlining the purpose of this
study and clarifying the degree of confidentiality. I allowed all respon-
dents the option of confidentiality through the use of pseudonyms.
Alternatively, if they chose, respondents could be identified by name or
title. Interviews were audio-recorded, with the respondents’ permission,
and transcribed fully. In addition, I recorded extensive field notes during
the interviews.

Archival Materials and Documents

In an effort to corroborate interview data, this study considers docu-
mentation and archival records as additional sources of evidence (Yin,
2003). Such evidence includes legislative bills, committee meeting and
hearing minutes or transcripts, governmental reports or studies, govern-
mental and campus correspondence, speeches, articles, or reports attrib-
uted to policy actors, scholarly publications, and local and national print
media coverage. Since, informants’ recollections of events likely included
“rationalizations and reconstruction” due to recall error, his wide array
of documents serves to triangulate the data and add to the reliability
and validity of the study. Additionally, archival documents and artifacts
establish a systematic temporal sequence of scholarship criteria determi-
nation in each of the states.

DATA ANALYSIS
Data analysis relies on both deductive and inductive strategies. The pat-
tern matching technique is applied to interview and archival data to
deduce themes from data collected in each state. At the same time, an
Deciding Who Earns Merit Aid 11

analytical framework, consisting of operationalized analytical dimen-

sions used to test the three theories, induces the data with an analysis of
how the core dimension of each theory relate to data collected in each
state (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2003).

Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis

Analysis includes within-state and cross-state consideration. Within each
sample state, analysis follows three stages: (1) background context and his-
tory of the state, both with regard to financial aid programs and the policy
decision structure, (2) narrative chronological account of the policy process
used to determine scholarship eligibility criteria, and (3) case analysis of
data along several key dimensions. These analyses consider interview data,
documentation, and archival materials for each stage.
After these three state analyses, cross-site analysis reports first the data
patterns emerging from each state then derives an aggregate, complemen-
tary conceptual model that aims to explain the merit aid eligibility determi-
nation process in the states. According to King, Keohane, and Verba (1994),
“descriptive inference” materializes from analysis of the observable facts
collected by utilizing scientifically tested procedures. Based on the maxi-
mum variation type of purposeful sampling, the cross-case analysis utilizes
the “multiple exemplars” strategy, which ultimately produces a conceptual
synthesis (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Additionally, variable-oriented anal-
ysis is utilized to capture common patterns across cases.

Analytical Framework
Interview data and archival content were systematically analyzed by uti-
lizing the analytical framework outlined in Appendix C. This framework,
including six dimensions, provides the structure to analyze the competing
conceptual lenses of the advocacy coalition framework, multiple streams,
and electoral connection. As mentioned in the data collection section, the
analytical framework serves to guide the interview protocol for respon-
dents. Additionally, this framework serves as the basis for the coding sys-
tem to be used in data analysis.

Validity and Reliability

To guard against threats to validity and reliability and to ensure case qual-
ity, this study employs Yin’s (2003) four tests: construct validity, internal
validity, external validity, and reliability. The following table, derived from
Yin’s Case Study Methods (2003, p. 34), summarizes the case study tactics
employed to ensure case quality.
12 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

Table 3. Case Study Tactics for Four Design Tests

Test of Case Quality Case Study Tactic Phase of Research

Construct validity Multiple sources of evidence Data collection

Informants review of case Composition
chapters

Internal validity Pattern matching Data analysis

Rival explanations Data analysis

External validity Multiple cases selected Research design

through “replication logic”

Reliability Followed case study protocol Data collection

in the collection and docu-
mentation of evidence

LIMITATIONS
This study is limited primarily in two respects: (1) generalizability due to
research design, and (2) effects of the participant observation technique.
The generalizability of this study is bounded by the qualitative case study
method. While purposive sampling maximizes transferability, the study
would better explain phenomena by considering the population of merit aid
programs. Future case studies on the eligibility criteria development policy
process may mitigate this limitation and eventually provide the opportunity
for empirical analysis.
Another limitation is the use of participant observation data in one
state. As a policy analyst for Tennessee’s coordinating board during the
lottery scholarship criteria determination process, I observed legislative
deliberations and was privy to more intimate policy discussions regarding
criteria development. This level of familiarity with Tennessee may lead to a
deeper understanding of the context and setting in which the policy process
took place than in New Mexico and West Virginia. However, while Tennes-
see is the only case utilizing participant observation data, analysis in each
state includes multiple data sources allowing for the triangulation of data,
as Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Yin (2003) suggest.
Chapter Two
Public Policy Frameworks: Advocacy
Coalition, Multiple Streams, and
Electoral Connection

Higher education scholars have long relied on the conceptual body of lit-
erature produced by political science and public policy scholars, specifically
their rigorous, multifaceted frameworks of the policy process (Baumgart-
ner & Jones, 1993, 2002; Berry & Berry, 1999; Kingdon, 1995; Lindblom,
1959, 1968; McCubbins & Schwartz, 1984; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith,
1993, 1999; Simon, 1957). In the most recent decades, the previously popu-
lar framework of stages heuristic (Anderson, 1984; Jones, 1984) and many
other public policy theories have been applied to the higher education con-
text, yet few studies have considered multiple theories. The three theoretical
frameworks considered in this study include: advocacy coalition, multiple
streams, and electoral connection.
In addition to reviewing the core aspects of these three frameworks,
this chapter begins with an overview of the stages heuristic of the policy pro-
cess. This background section serves two purposes. First, it provides a brief
summary of how and why public policy scholars have extended beyond the
stages heuristic. The second purpose is to outline the relevance of the three
public policy frameworks I have selected for this study. To be sure, there
are other theoretical frameworks that might be reasonably applied to this
study. Nevertheless, in this section, I also provide a rationale for ultimately
selecting advocacy coalition, multiple streams, and electoral connection.

BACKGROUND OF STAGES HEURISTIC

Given the aim of this study, to understand the policy process through which
merit aid eligibility criteria are determined, it is first necessary to briefly

13
14 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

outline the lens through which the public policy process has historically
been considered and to set parameters for this study. As noted earlier, pub-
lic policy scholars have long questioned the precision of the stages heuristic
approach to policy research. Indeed, Sabatier (1993) cites six limitations of
this approach, including its descriptive inaccuracy, top-down focus, tem-
poral unit of analysis, and inability to be tested empirically (p. 3). King-
don (1995) also questions the stages approach due to his fluid conceptual
understanding of the policy process. Despite these challenges, however,
Sabatier (1993) recognizes the contribution of stages heuristics in provid-
ing “a useful disaggregation of the complex and varied policy process into
manageable segments” (p. 2). Indeed, deLeon (1999) argues that this was
the primary intent of the stages approach, a heuristic to categorize a seam-
less understanding of the policy process. Policy researchers continue to use
the stages outline as a perfunctory means to delimit the phases of the policy
process. While the public policy literature appears to have reached con-
sensus on the limitations of the stages model since no stage can be studied
without overlap into other stages, scholars continue to set their frameworks
in the context of these five phases.
Public policy researchers most often cite two tomes, Jones (1984) and
Anderson (1984), when defining the policy formulation stage. This phase of
the process, between agenda setting and implementation, includes two dis-
tinct steps: (1) alternate policy proposals are put forth for consideration, and
(2) one specific policy proposal is selected for adoption. Anderson (1984)
notes the importance of which policy actors (agency officials, elected offi-
cials, interest groups) are involved in the proposal step and outlines “deci-
sion criteria” and “styles of decision making” in the policy adoption step.
Although scholars generally agree on the alternative proposals and
adoption steps, there are multiple references for what Jones (1984) refers
to as the policy formulation phase, these include: alternative specifica-
tion (Kingdon, 1995), policy estimation and selection (Brewer & deLeon,
1983), and policy formation and adoption (Anderson, 1984). Recognizing
that the policy formulation stage is not the same for each case and that it
will inevitably include phenomena that occur in the agenda setting phase,
this study is primarily interested in the policy process used to determine
scholarship eligibility criteria. In some cases, this may have been decided
when the issue of merit aid initially rose to the agenda. For others, however,
a merit aid scholarship program may have been proposed in general terms
with the eligibility criteria not determined until after merit aid was on the
agenda. As for the end point, this study is bound by enactment—that is, a
signed bill—of the merit aid program, thereby excluding consideration of
the implementation stage.
Public Policy Frameworks 15

Each of the three conceptual frameworks considered in this study

extend beyond one policy stage. The advocacy coalition framework
claims that policy change must be considered over a period of a decade
or more due to the cyclical nature of the policy process, thereby extending
the framework’s scope to include all stages of the policy process. Multiple
streams is also a fluid framework with problems and solutions in constant
motion, however, Kingdon (1995) primarily considers the stages prior to
policy adoption, or enactment. The electoral connection framework also
considers all stages based on their constituencies’ satisfaction with policies.
Again, this study will focus exclusively on the pre-enactment phases of the
policy process, which may or may not include the agenda setting stage.
Undoubtedly, the merit aid criteria selection process is cyclical as
many states have altered their eligibility criteria, primarily due to fiscal
constraints or windfalls. Future studies may wish to consider the cycle
through which merit aid programs evolve from agenda setting through
program evaluation and back to alternative selection, especially as more
states reconsider their scholarship eligibility criteria. For now, however,
few states have implemented significant changes in eligibility require-
ments, therefore, the focus of this study remains exclusively on the initial
policy process through which merit aid scholarships emerged.

ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK

Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993, 1999) advance the advocacy coalition
framework as an alternative conceptualization of the public policy pro-
cess based primarily on the roles of common belief systems, stable over
time, among coalitions of policy actors. Seeking to borrow from extant
policy process theories, advocacy coalition emerged as a means to: (1)
find an alternative to the dominant perspective, stages heuristic (Ander-
son, 1984; Jones, 1984), (2) synthesize the best aspects of top-down and
bottom-up theories of policy implementation (Sabatier, 1986); and, (3)
advance the role of technical information in the understanding of the
policy process (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). Scholars have applied
this framework, using both qualitative and quantitative designs, to many
contexts, such as: K-12 education (Mintrom & Veragi, 1996; Mahwin-
ney, 1993), airline deregulation (Brown & Stewart, 1993), water poli-
tics (Munro, 1993), communications policy (Barke, 1993), energy (Duffy,
1997; Jenkins-Smith & St. Clair, 1993), environmental policy (Leschine,
Lind & Sharma 1999; Nicholson-Crotty, 2005; Sabatier & Brasher,
1993; Weible & Sabatier, 2005; Zafonte & Sabatier, 2004), and federal
economic policy (Dolan, 2003).
16 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1993) define an advocacy coalition as,

“people from a variety of positions (elected officials, agency officials, inter-
est group leaders, researchers, etc.) who share a particular belief system—
that is, set of basic values, causal assumptions, and public perceptions—and
who show a non-trivial degree of coordinated activity over time” (p. 25).
Advocacy coalition extends the iron triangle notion of elected officials,
agencies, and interest groups, to include other actors, such as journalists,
researchers, policy analysts, and governmental actors at all levels. In further
contrast to previous policy process theories, advocacy coalition suggests
that multiple coalitions may exist within a policy subsystem. For example,
considering the federal health care deliberations, two distinct coalitions may
exist: (1) elected officials favoring user pay models, interests from doctors,
pharmaceutical corporations, and heath maintenance organizations, and
(2) elected officials favoring government subsidized models, advocacy inter-
ests on behalf of uninsured or low-income citizens, and interests opposed
to rising health care costs. This polarized example of coalitions illustrates
the importance of external events and parameters on policy process. The
diagram in Figure 1, as published in Policy Change and Learning: An advo-
cacy coalition approach (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993), outlines the
fundamental components of the advocacy coalition framework and their
direction of influence.
According to this framework, four relatively stable parameters exist
within the advocacy coalition model: (1) basic attributes of the problem
area, such as the degree to which the area is susceptible to quantitative
measurement, (2) basic attributes of natural resources, which can affect
the feasibility of policy options, (3) fundamental cultural values and social
structure, such as the concentration of political power among upper income,
majority race, and large organizations, and (4) basic constitutional structure
(rules), which impact the extent to which policy can be influenced through
legislative or judicial means (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993, p. 20–22).
These parameters constrain policy options due to their stability over time.
For example, consider the prospect of increasing federal influence of col-
leges and universities. Such a policy change would be limited by: (1) lack
of large-scale quantitative measures to gauge institutional value added, (2)
the availability of federal resources, which would likely need to come from
other sectors (i.e., social security, Medicare, defense, etc.), (3) influence of
collective interests of colleges and universities exerted both by individual
institutions on their local Representatives and Senators and by college asso-
ciations representing national coalitions of similar institutions (e.g., ACE,
NASLGC, AASCU, AAU, AACC, NAICU), and (4) constitutional author-
ity, which rests in the states.
Public Policy Frameworks 17

Figure 1. Advocacy Coalition Framework

In addition to the above stable parameters, four external (system)

events influence the policy process. First, changes in socio-economic condi-
tions, such as the impact of the increased price of oil on alternative energy
sources. Second, changes in public opinion as illustrated currently by the
steady increase of public support for stem-cell research. Third, changes in
systemic governing coalitions marked most often by “critical elections”
(Burnham, 1970) such as the Republican revolution in 1994. Fourth, policy
decisions and impacts from other subsystems, such as the decreased budget-
ary priority for defense after the Cold War which led to increased appro-
priations for domestic social programs (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993,
p. 22–23). Changes in these external events will inevitably affect the stable
parameters identified above and could affect the policy subsystem depend-
ing upon the constraints and resources of sub-system actor. As with all
18 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

aspects of advocacy coalition, external events are most likely to influence

policy change if they affect policy belief systems.
The crux of the advocacy coalition framework rests on three struc-
tural categories of policy belief systems. The first category is the deep (nor-
mative) core of fundamental and ontological axioms, such as the nature of
man as good or evil and relative priority of ultimate values (i.e., freedom,
power, health, and knowledge). This category of beliefs is extremely dif-
ficult to change. The near (policy) core represents fundamental policy posi-
tions designed to accomplish normative tenets of the deep core. The desired
scope of governmental versus market activity, identification of most critical
social groups, and orientation on substantive policy conflicts such as excel-
lence or access in higher education represent illustrative components of the
policy core. This category of beliefs is difficult to change, but change can
occur with experience of changes in the external events. Finally, secondary
aspects of belief systems are relatively easy to change. This category con-
sists of specific policy considerations and alternatives necessary to imple-
ment the policy core, including administrative rules, budgetary allocations,
and seriousness of the policy problem (Sabatier, 1993).
Advocacy coalition contends that policy change is not likely to occur
in the absence of a power shift within a policy subsystem or significant
changes external to the subsystem. Instead, controversies within a sub-
system tend to be stable over time, especially with regard to the policy
core. In the event of policy disagreements, actors or rival coalitions will
give up secondary aspects of the belief system rather than admit to weak-
nesses in the policy core. Furthermore, learning is most likely to occur
across coalitions when a moderate level of conflict exists, especially if
limited to secondary aspects of each coalition, and each have technical
resources to engage in debate. The prospect of learning is greater if agreed
upon quantitative and theoretical data exist rather than subjective and
anecdotal evidence. Ultimately, learning across coalitions is most likely to
occur when a forum is prominent enough to include professionals from
different coalitions to participate and when the forum is dominated by
professional norms.
The implications of advocacy coalition on the study of scholarship
eligibility are essentially three. First, since student financial aid is an issue
that will likely overlap competing coalition’s deep core and policy core,
thereby limiting the debate to secondary aspects of belief systems (the most
likely belief system for policy change to occur). Second, technical infor-
mation plays a crucial role in the policy debate due to the availability of
quantitative data on the potential impact of various criteria proposals on
students by academic qualifications that can be disaggregated by income
Public Policy Frameworks 19

level, legislative district, and race. Finally, due to the critical mass of states
with merit aid scholarship programs (and their political popularity) and
the established scholarly criticism of such programs, conditions are ripe for
a professionalized forum with experts from opposing coalitions including
policy analysts from merit aid states and researchers with evidence of the
social ills of merit aid.

MULTIPLE STREAMS
Based on the notion of an ambiguous and multifaceted policy process, the
multiple streams framework suggests that policy decisions are influenced
by a combination of problems, policies, and politics. Cohen, March, and
Olson’s (1972) garbage can model of college decision-making serves as
the foundation for this theory of “organized anarchies.” Kingdon’s (1995)
revised garbage can model was then applied to the federal government in
various contexts to explain how issues rise to the agenda and how pol-
icy alternatives are generated. Recently, Zahariadas (2003, 1999, 1998)
further revised the Cohen, et al. and Kingdon’s “revised-Garbage Can”
framework based on his case studies in an international context. How-
ever, given its setting in state governments, this study considers Kingdon’s
framework with a select few of Zahariadas’s modifications as depicted in
Figure 2, which is borrowed from Ambiguity and Choice in Public Policy
(Zahariadas, 2003).

Figure 2. Multiple Streams Framework

20 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

The three fluid streams of processes (problems, policies, and politics)

represent the fundamental aspect of the multiple streams framework. As
Kingdon (1995) states, “People recognize problems, they generate solu-
tions for public policy changes, and they engage in such political activi-
ties as election campaigns and pressure group lobbying” (p. 87). Not all
problems, however, emerge in the problem stream. Kingdon maintains
that there are three mechanisms by which conditions become problems:
(1) through systematic indicators, (2) dramatic events, and (3) feedback
based on programs, citizen input, and previous experience.
Kingdon (1995) identifies the policy stream as the process during
which policy alternatives are considered in a sort of “policy primeval
soup.” These policies are generated from a variety of sources, including
executive and legislative staff, interest group communities, researchers,
and bureaucrats. As these solutions interact with one another, sometimes
splitting, sometimes combining, certain solutions are “selected out” as
they couple with the problem or politics stream. Kingdon notes that the
solutions receiving serious consideration do so on the basis of technical
feasibility, values acceptability, and anticipation of future constraints.
The politics stream accounts for the many influences external to the
specific problems and policies. The national mood, public opinion, politi-
cal culture, electoral turnover, and interest group activity represent the
most common elements. Kingdon maintains that this stream may exert the
most influence, especially as policy decisions are made among the alter-
natives. Indeed, one of Kingdon’s respondents suggests that regardless of
the specific policy recommendations, decisions ultimately come from the
preferences or proclivities of powerful committee chairmen.
As these separate streams flow through the policy process, phenom-
ena affect each stream independently until for “serendipitous” reasons
a policy actor is able to “couple” an issue across streams. Accord-
ing to Kingdon, for coupling to be most sustainable, an issue must be
connected between all three streams. That is, an identified problem is
matched with a plausible solution in a politically favorable context. This
essential coupling aspect of the multiple streams framework can hap-
pen only during a brief period of time, or policy window.1 At such time,
policy entrepreneurs seize the opportunity to advance their pet issues
or solutions and gain political support. Kingdon notes that three quali-
ties contribute to an entrepreneur’s success: a claim to hearing (expertise
or authority), political connections or negotiating skill, and persistence.
These skills are often utilized in the policy stream as these policy actors
“soften up” the system for policy change, then once the timing right,
successful entrepreneurs pounce with their solutions or issues. Figure 2
Public Policy Frameworks 21

graphically outlines the three streams along with the notions of coupling
and policy entrepreneurs.
Returning to the notion of policy windows, both Zahariadas and
Kingdon recognize that differences exist depending on which stream they
emerge from, the problem stream or political stream. Kingdon (1995) notes
that essentially windows emerge in either the problem or political stream
and thereby lead to participants coupling with the policy stream for alter-
natives or solutions. However, Zahariadas (2003) amends this logic to sug-
gest that unlike problem windows, which he agrees leads to coupling with
the policy stream, political windows lead to the reverse—coupling with
the problem stream upon which to apply an existing solution. Zahariadas
(2003) offers four explanations for this tendency: (1) electoral victory is
usually seen as broad public approval or mandate, (2) easier to find solu-
tions for problems since policymakers deal with more problems and have
relatively fewer solutions due to time and resource limitations, (3) tech-
nological change is often an impetus for more sophisticated solutions and
reveals previously unidentified problems, and (4) spillover from other pol-
icy contexts promotes more doctrinal coupling.
Two types of participants emerge in the policy process outlined by the
multiple streams framework—those in a visible cluster and a separate hid-
den cluster. The visible cluster receives broad public recognition and media
attention based on the high-profile participants such as executives and their
cabinet members, legislative leaders, and, especially during election cycles,
political party leaders and media. The hidden cluster includes researchers,
staff members of elected officials, and career bureaucrats. Kingdon notes that
the visible cluster is most effective in setting the agenda, while the hidden
cluster more often generates alternative solutions. Given its emphasis on the
determination of specific scholarship eligibility criteria, this study consid-
ers the interaction between the visible and hidden cluster participants. For
example, financial aid researchers have identified many potential policy alter-
natives such as income cap requirements and early education outreach initia-
tives. At the same time, policymakers must contend with problems such as
rising college costs and the rising electoral influence of middle class families.
In addition to the visible and hidden cluster implications for merit aid
eligibility criteria determination, there are two major implications of this
framework: the effects of coupling and policy entrepreneurs. Undoubtedly,
the effect of coupling will differ by states perhaps due to phenomena in the
political stream. In fact, as Kingdon and Zahariadas suggest, whether the
window for merit-based scholarships emerges in the problem or political
stream may significantly impact the enacted scholarship criteria. For exam-
ple, if a broad-based merit aid program rose to the policy agenda in a state
22 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

due to mounting concern of rising college costs, then the policy alternatives
considered would more likely be designed to meet these cost concerns. On
the other hand, if the merit aid program emerged due to the ambition or
insight of an elected official, then a pre-determined policy solution (i.e.,
scholarship criteria) would be applied to the problem stream (i.e., brain
drain of brightest students). The latter scenario also addresses the effect of
policy entrepreneurs.
In the study of the policy process, policy entrepreneurs have been rec-
ognized primarily for their roles in the agenda setting stage (Baumgartner
& Jones, 1993; Kingdon, 1995; McLendon, 2003a) and for their effect on
policy innovation (McLendon, Heller, & Young, 2005; Mintrom, 1997;
Polsby, 1984). However, these consequential policy actors may also signifi-
cantly influence which policy alternative is ultimately enacted. Indeed, this
may take two opposite forms. First, a policy entrepreneur may so indissolu-
bly link the merit aid criteria with the larger state problem (e.g., minimal
eligibility criteria so that college costs are defrayed for the most students)
that other policy alternatives are not fully considered. Undoubtedly, this
would also take persistence and political acumen on the part of the entre-
preneur. Second, a policy entrepreneur may focus the broader goal of enact-
ing a merit aid program regardless of the policy alternative necessary to do
so. That is, a policy actor may decide to compromise on the specific eligibil-
ity criteria so long as a merit aid program comes to fruition. In this case,
political connections and persistence may be paramount since many policy
alternatives would likely be considered.

ELECTORAL CONNECTION
Are legislators elected to serve as delegates or trustees of the citizens who
elected them to office? This fundamental debate dates back to James
Madison’s Federalist Paper Number 39, which argues that representatives
ought to be entrusted to act in their constituents best interests, as opposed
to delegates required to vote in accordance with constituency preferences.
In addition to the historic scholarly consideration this core issue, the final
framework, electoral connection, is derived from two preeminent politi-
cal science theories based on the notion that legislators’ preferences are
shaped by reelection concerns, and thereby their constituents’ preferences
(Fenno, 1978; Mayhew, 1974). Indeed, Mayhew’s (1974) premise of leg-
islators as “single-minded reelection seekers” and Fenno’s (1978) theory
that legislators “internalize constituents” both argue that legislators’
behavior in office is directly related to reelection. In this way, the electoral
connection framework offers more of a rational choice perspective than
Public Policy Frameworks 23

either advocacy coalition or multiple streams.2 While this study combines

Fenno’s and Mayhew’s classic studies into one framework, each theory is
outlined separately.
Richard Fenno’s (1978) seminal work, Home Style, offers a theory
of representation which suggests that members of the U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives often “internalize constituents,” therefore legislators’ behavior
in their districts affects their voting and committee behavior in the capital.3
Fenno (1978) categorizes district constituencies in four concentric circles of
influence: (1) “geographic,” demographic population with many divergent
opinions, (2) “reelection,” citizens most likely to vote for the legislator, (3)
“primary,” core or base supporters, and (4) “personal,” close friends and
supporters. According to this theory, each circle of constituencies influ-
ences legislators’ voting behavior with each issue determining which circle’s
influence is maximized. Fenno’s (1978) primary finding is that regardless of
whether legislators are better classified as delegates or trustees, their ulti-
mate objective to gain or increase the trust of their constituency.
David Mayhew’s (1974, 2004) classic, Congress: The Electoral Con-
nection, revolutionized the study of legislatures with its elegant, simple the-
ory that, “reelection underlies everything else” (p. 16).4 This theory holds
for legislators that Mayhew identifies as both “marginals” and “nonmar-
ginals.” The marginals are those representatives that serve districts fairly
evenly divided among parties and, therefore, are more likely identified
as “district-oriented” or “delegates” than nonmarginals.5 However, the
inverse is not true for nonmarginals. Mayhew maintains that no legislative
seats are as safe as they seem and, more importantly, “The ultimate con-
cern here is not how probable it is that legislators will lose their seats but
whether there is a connection between what they do in office and their need
to be reelected” (p. 36–37).
Given this premise, Mayhew identifies three types of activities in
which legislators engage for electoral ends. First, advertising, which has
remained ubiquitous among elected officials, consists of developing a
brand-type appeal to constituencies based on little substantive issues. Sec-
ond, credit claiming entails taking personal responsibility for causing the
government or some other entity to do something seen as a beneficial. This
has the effect of constituents believing that their legislator will continue to
“make pleasing things happen.” Third, position taking involves the public
proclamation of anything that might be of interest to political actors. This
activity includes not only taking official positions in roll-call votes or floor
speeches, but also includes taking positions on “hot button” issues that are
rarely addressed in legislation (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, gun control,
political scandals).
24 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

The electoral connection framework offers several useful implications

and one limitation on this study. Given this framework’s rational choice
elements, electoral connection offers a plausible and simple explanation for
how legislators determine merit aid eligibility criteria—constituent prefer-
ences. Merit aid programs generally receive broad-based public support,
so it would not be surprising if Fenno’s “reelection” constituents pres-
sured their legislators to craft criteria in a manner that would maximize
benefits to students and families in their district. Alternatively, Mayhew’s
credit claiming activity may suggest that many legislators ultimately want
to take credit for a popular scholarship program (especially if the criteria
were determined as the program rose to the agenda) regardless of how the
program affects their constituents. That is, legislators may not want to risk
the potentially negative attention they might receive for opposing merit-
based scholarships.
The limitation of the electoral connection framework rests in the sole
lens through which it considers the policy process—legislators. While the
primary benefit of the electoral connection framework is its elegance, by
limiting policy decisions to only those processes that involve legislators
many other policy actors will not be fully considered. For example, gov-
ernors have historically played a significant role in garnering support for
merit aid programs. In these cases, governors would undoubtedly have
a major role in crafting the eligibility criteria.6 The electoral connection
framework would capture this influence only to the extent that it affected
legislators. Nevertheless, all broad-based merit aid programs will ultimately
have scholarship eligibility criteria determined through legislation. Conse-
quently, while the electoral connection framework does not fully consider
all policy actors, perhaps this perspective will bring greater attention to role
of legislators.
Part II
Three Episodes of Criteria
Determination

In the course of conducting interviews in each of these three states, and

particularly the time spent driving between capital cities and college towns,
an analogy occurred to me between each state’s geographical characteristics
and their criteria determination episode. The Land of Enchantment, New
Mexico’s official state nickname, boasts boundless views of the horizon
over deserts and stunning geological formations. The New Mexico land-
scape differs quite clearly from the verdant woods and mountain ranges of
Tennessee and West Virginia. In fact, the stretch of Interstate 25 between
Santa Fe and Las Cruses splits a practically barren desert, while the Inter-
states connecting the state capitals and flagship campuses in West Virginia
and Tennessee include rivers and rolling hills. Similarly the eligibility crite-
ria for New Mexico’s Lottery Success Scholarship differ substantially from
Tennessee’s HOPE and West Virginia’s PROMISE programs. At the risk of
carrying this metaphor too far, the contexts of each state appear to differ at
least as widely as their geography.
Like many states in the American West, New Mexico’s individualistic
culture manifests itself in citizen legislature where state Senators and Rep-
resentatives are in session fewer than two months each year and in a highly
decentralized higher education system whereby most institutions are governed
by their own boards and have authority to set their own tuition. Respondents
from West Virginia repeatedly referenced the waning coal mining industry,
their citizens’ work ethic, and the perpetual challenges of an undereducated
citizenry and a declining population. While other states face similar chal-
lenges, there remained a paradoxically resilient and despondent outlook on
the context within which higher education policy is crafted in West Virginia.
The three stars on the Tennessee flag represent each geographic division of

25
26 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

the state; indeed, stark differences in the historic and cultural context of
west, middle, and east Tennessee remain. While there have been exceptions
in the past, the western part of the state has long leaned toward the Demo-
cratic Party and east Tennessee has been supportive of Republicans.1 In the
chapters that follow, these differences in state context quite naturally affect
the policy process in each criteria determination episode. In addition though,
there appear to be common national trends and fundamental political char-
acteristics and impulses that affect all cases. As such, my dual intent in Part
II of this book is for each chapter to stand alone and for all three chapters to
hang together.
To this end, Chapters 3, 4, and 5 contain three core sections. The
first section summarizes the governmental and educational structures in the
state and reviews financial aid trends leading up to the creation of a merit
aid program. The second section outlines a narrative chronology, highlight-
ing seminal events and actors, of the eligibility criteria determination policy
process. This section relies heavily on interview data, which are presented
in large segments at times, and archival documents for background infor-
mation and corroboration of interview data. Incidentally, just as the nar-
rative history section of each chapter follows chronologically, so too does
the order in which the chapters appear. New Mexico determined eligibil-
ity criteria for the Lottery Success Scholarship program in 1995; West Vir-
ginia determined criteria for PROMISE between 1999 and 2001; Tennessee
determined eligibility criteria for the HOPE scholarship and its supple-
mental awards in 2003. The final section presents an analysis of the policy
episode by utilizing the six dimensions of the analytical framework drawn
from three public policy theories.
This three-part structure for each chapter allows for a thick descrip-
tion of the policy process and its influences in each episode and for com-
prehensive analysis of that single case. Likewise, by reporting each case in
a similar format and, more importantly, by following consistent analytical
procedures in all cases, I am able to report common themes between cases
in Part III.
Chapter Three
New Mexico Lottery Success
Scholarship Program

In 1996, New Mexico became the second state to adopt a lottery-funded

scholarship program. Just two years after Georgia citizens voted to enact
a statewide lottery with proceeds earmarked, in part, for college scholar-
ships, public support rose in New Mexico for a similar program. However,
based on the personal experience and steadfastness of one newly-elected
state senator, the eligibility criteria crafted for the New Mexico Lottery Suc-
cess Scholarships remain the outlier among the population of broad-based
merit aid programs. The New Mexico case illustrates the importance of the
state’s historical context, the relevance of a decentralized higher education
community, and the influence of political strategy and perseverance.

OVERVIEW OF STATE CONTEXT

Executive Branch
Based on the statewide election of multiple offices, New Mexico has a
“plural executive.” In addition to the governor and lieutenant governor,
who are elected together on one slate, eight other executives are elected to
office every four years, including: Secretary of State, State Auditor, State
Treasurer, Attorney General, Commissioner of Public Lands, and three
Corporation Commissioners. All state executives can serve two consecutive
four-year terms based on an amendment to the state constitution in 1986.
Prior to this constitutional change, executives were limited to one four-year
terms; however, no limit, then or now, existed for the number of non-con-
secutive terms served (Office of Secretary of State, 1995).

27
28 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

The plural executive of New Mexico government also contains numer-

ous agencies, boards, and commissions. The governor appoints slightly
more than 30 cabinet-level Secretaries and Directors in addition to direct-
ing more than 300 boards and commissions. In addition, at the time of
the Lottery Success Scholarship program adoption, the State Corporation
Commission collected roughly $55 million in revenue to fund seven depart-
ments charged to protect the New Mexican customer, public interests, and
industry. The seven departments are Administration, Corporations, State
Fire Marshall’s Office, Insurance, Transportation, Pipeline Safety, and Tele-
communications (Office of Secretary of State, 1995).
With regard to the governor’s statutory power, the New Mexico gover-
nor ranks slightly above the national average of governors’ powers. Accord-
ing to Thad Beyle’s (2004) index of governor’s institutional powers, New
Mexico’s total score on a five-point scale is 3.7 compared to the national
average of 3.5. This index provides a score (1–5) for state executives along
six indices: separately elected executive branch officials, tenure potential,
appointment powers, budget power, veto power, and gubernatorial party
control. New Mexico scores average on three categories, above average on
two, and below average on one. With regard to tenure power and veto power,
the New Mexico governor had an index score of 4 and 5 respectively. With
regard to veto power, the New Mexico governor has line-item veto power
and a supermajority vote of two-thirds of legislators present is required to
override a veto. At the time of the Lottery Success Scholarship program
adoption, the governor’s party controlled neither chamber of the legislature.
As a result, party control was the one category with a below average score.
In 1994, Gary Johnson defeated the incumbent governor, Bruce King,
on a platform anchored by his anti-tax stance. In fact, during the election
season best known for the Republicans gaining the majority in the U.S. House
of Representatives and their “Contract with America,” Gary Johnson was ini-
tially considered a long-shot to win the Republican nomination. However, his
simple message opposing taxes and reducing the role of government resonated
with New Mexico voters. While both state houses had been under Demo-
cratic control for 50 years prior to the 1994 election,1 the governor’s office
changed party 10 times and the state’s U.S. Senators were split by party since
1983. Likewise, in the preceding presidential elections, New Mexico’s elec-
toral votes went to Bill Clinton in 1992 and to George H.W. Bush in 1988.

Legislative Branch
The New Mexico Legislature is a “citizen” legislature by any definition.
Legislators draw no salary; legislative sessions are limited to 90 calendar
days every biennium; and, the legislative staff is comprised of fewer than
New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program 29

100 employees. As a result of this structure, most legislators have full-time

employment outside of their public service and bring these practical experi-
ences with them to the Capitol.
The New Mexico Legislature includes a 70-member House of Represen-
tatives and 42-member Senate. House members are elected every two years and
Senators every four years. During the 1995 legislative session, the Democratic
Party controlled both branches of the New Mexico Legislature. In the Senate,
the margin was 27 Democrats to 15 Republicans. Democrats controlled the
House by a margin of 46–24 (Office of the Secretary of State, 1995).
With regard to the legislative committee structure, during the 1995 leg-
islative session, the Senate operated 9 standing committees and the lower
chamber operated 15. The lieutenant governor by title also serves as President
of the Senate. However, the Senate also elects a President Pro-Tempore to
preside in the lieutenant governor’s absence. The President Pro Tempore also
serves as chair of the Committee on Committees, which appoints all Senate
committee members and chairpersons. The Speaker of the House appoints
all committee chairs and members for the lower chamber (CSG, 2002).
On Pervill Squire’s (2000) scale of legislative professionalism, the New
Mexico Legislature ranked 49th. As such, legislative salaries, session length,
and legislative staff rank among the lowest of all states. While senators and
representatives receive no annual salaries, members do receive a modest per
diem of up to $136. Neither the President Pro Tempore of the Senate nor
the Speaker of the House receives additional compensation. As mentioned
earlier, the legislative sessions are relatively short in duration—60 calendar
days during the odd-numbered years and 30 calendar days during the even-
numbered years (Office of the Secretary of State, 1995).
Legislative staff resources are also limited. In fact, only three states
have fewer permanent staff members than New Mexico (Squire, 2000).
State House and Senate members only have legislative staff available in
the Capitol during the session. Committee staffers are also available only
during the session with the exception of two interim committees—Legisla-
tive Finance Committee (LFC) and Legislative Education Study Commit-
tee (LESC). These committees serve as a stabilizing influence characterized
by joint memberships of House and Senate members and by professional
employees with longevity in the leadership roles. Regular meetings of both
committees are held throughout the year with members traveling to the
Capitol in the interim between sessions. The LFC included more than 40
legislative members and a staff of nearly an equal number. The LESC was
comprised of more than 25 legislative members and a professional staff of
10 full-time employees. The difference in the number of legislator and staff
members that serve each committee reflects their respective scope as the
30 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

LFC considers all aspects of the New Mexico state budget while the scope
of the LESC is limited to education issues, generally not including higher
education.

Higher Education Institutions and Structure

The New Mexico public higher education system included three research
universities, three comprehensive universities, nine independent commu-
nity colleges, and ten community colleges affiliated as branch campuses of
public universities. In Fall 1996, the total public headcount enrollment was
99,988. The research universities accounted for nearly 40 percent of the
total enrollment: University of New Mexico (22,643), New Mexico State
University (14,749), and New Mexico Institute of Mines (1,461). The three
comprehensive universities—Eastern New Mexico University, New Mexico
Highlands University, and Western New Mexico University—had an aver-
age enrollment of roughly 2,750. The enrollment in community colleges
ranged from 15,942 at the Albuquerque Technical-Vocational Institute to
six two-year institutions with fewer than 1,000 students. The remaining 12
institutions’ average enrollment was roughly 3,000 (NMCHE, 1997).
The state has a small private higher education sector. During the time
of this policy episode, the New Mexico Independent Association of Colleges
and Universities included only three institutions: College of Santa Fe, College
of the Southwest, and St. John’s College in Santa Fe. In 1995, the combined
total enrollment of these three colleges was roughly 3,000 students.
Statewide governance of public colleges and universities is highly
decentralized. The state constitution provides autonomy to all public four-
year institutions and two of the two-year institutions with the governor
appointing members to each of their respective governing boards.2 In fact,
in addition to all six universities, each of the nine independent community
colleges has their own governing board and the power to set tuition pric-
ing. Furthermore, all public two-year institutions, with the single exception
of the constitutionally established Northern New Mexico Community Col-
lege, could issue bonds (Martinez, 2002a). With such a decentralized higher
education community, state coordination has been a perennial challenge.
The primary function of the New Mexico Commission on Higher
Education (CHE), and its predecessor the Board of Educational Finance,
was to provide funding recommendations for all public higher education
institutions to the legislature. However, based on the universities’ consti-
tutional autonomy and long-standing practice of employing lobbyists to
advocate their budget and policy interests, end runs around the coordi-
nating board drastically limited the effectiveness of the Commission on
Higher Education. In fact, during the 1990s, public institutions created
New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program 31

two new associations to advocate their interests to the legislature. Only

two years prior to the Lottery Success Scholarship deliberations, the New
Mexico Association of Community Colleges was formed to highlight the
relevance and contributions made by the state’s two-year institutions.
Based partly on the success of the Association of Community Colleges, in
1998, public universities established the Council of University Presidents
in an effort to coordinate their policy interests and draw attention to the
economic impact that universities have on the state (Martinez, 2002a).
While these two voluntary associations serve the institutions’ interests
with the legislature, their role in coordinating a statewide policy agenda is
far more dubious.
At the time of lottery scholarship deliberations in the mid-1990s, the
Commission on Higher Education benefited from a widely respected exec-
utive director, Dr. Bruce Hamlett. While statewide coordination remained
challenging, both the legislature and governor relied on Dr. Hamlett and
CHE staff for information and recommendations with regard to this new
form of student financial aid.

Statewide Financial Aid

Even before the adoption of the Lottery Success Scholarship program,
New Mexico had a healthy statewide commitment to student financial
aid. In 1993–94, New Mexico ranked in the top half of all states in most
financial aid indicators. In undergraduate financial aid per full-time equiv-
alent (FTE) student, the New Mexico estimated amount ($222) was sig-
nificantly below the national figure ($350) and ranked New Mexico 19th
among all states. Similarly, considering the need-based financial aid per
undergraduate FTE, New Mexico ranked 16th with an estimated amount
of $219 as compared to the national amount of $315. On another mea-
sure—financial aid expenditures as proportion of all higher education
appropriations—New Mexico ranked 24th with 4.42 percent allocated to
financial aid compared to 7.11 percent nationally (NASSGAP, 1994).

NARRATIVE HISTORY OF EVENTS AND POLICY ACTORS

This section provides a narrative chronology of criteria determination pro-
cess of the New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program. The funding
source, a statewide lottery, dominated the political discourse throughout
the policy process by which scholarship criteria were determined. With
elected officials and the New Mexican citizenry divided over the adoption
of a statewide lottery, policymakers paid little attention to the beneficiary
of a lottery bill introduced by freshman Senator Michael Sanchez. As a
32 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

result, the following narrative illustrates how this single policymaker came
to craft the eligibility criteria for the New Mexico Lottery Success Scholar-
ship program.

Antecedents to New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program

During the decade preceding the creation of the New Mexico Lottery Success
Scholarship program, state-sponsored gambling became a hot-button issue
both in New Mexico and nationally. Prior to 1985, less than one-half of
U.S. states (19) operated lotteries. Ten years later, New Mexico became the
38th state to adopt a lottery. Two national trends coincided with this lottery
boom. First, states began to earmark lottery revenues for education, and thus,
linked the politically divisive gaming trend to an overwhelmingly popular
societal good. Second, Native American communities began to successfully
advocate for the right to operate casinos on their federally protected reser-
vations. Both trends inform the policy process though which New Mexico
adopted a lottery and determined the eligibility criteria for the scholarships
it would fund.

The emergence of the “education lottery.” At the time New Mexico consid-
ered implementing a lottery, 19 of the 37 lottery states earmarked proceeds
for education. However, studies of the Illinois and Florida lotteries began to
show that lottery revenues simply supplanted general fund appropriations
to education. Not only did education not receive net increases in funding,
Borg and Mason (1990) report that total state support for education actu-
ally decreased in Florida once lottery revenues replaced appropriations.
Based partially on this evidence, when Georgia voters approved a referen-
dum to enact a statewide lottery, the statute explicitly stated that lottery
funds would “supplement, not supplant” existing state support for edu-
cation and created new programs to fund K-12 school construction, early
childhood (Head Start) education, and the HOPE Scholarship program.
The Georgia HOPE Scholarship program altered the education lottery
beneficiary landscape. The simple message that all students who earned a
“B average” would receive free in-state tuition resonated with voters, stu-
dents, and families. Its popularity, in fact, led to the creation of a federal
tax credit program for tuition payments, which used the same HOPE name.
While the Georgia HOPE program later faced scholarly scrutiny for the dis-
proportionately smaller share of racial minority and low-income students
who were eligible, in its first two years of existence, lottery revenues far
exceeded the education expenditures. In New Mexico, therefore, state leg-
islators and higher education officials quickly looked to the Georgia HOPE
model as a framework for a similar lottery-funded scholarship program.
New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program 33

However, the issue of gaming in New Mexico was not limited to the pros-
pect of a state lottery. Native American tribes and pueblos had been press-
ing for the right to operate casinos on their land only to be vetoed by then
Governor Bruce King.

Native American gaming compacts. The proliferation of state lotter-

ies during the late 1980s and early 1990s was matched by the exponen-
tial growth in gaming on Native American lands. Two federal decisions
in the late 1980s sparked this trend. First, the California v. Cabazon
Band of Mission Indians (1987) U.S. Supreme Court decision determined
that Native American tribes must negotiate gaming “compacts” in order
to operate casino-style gambling. In the following year, the U.S. Congress
enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which created the Indian
Gaming Commission to regulate the industry. Beginning in 1989, Native
American tribes in New Mexico pressed the state to negotiate compacts;
however, Governors Gary Carruthers and Bruce King were opposed to
this form of state-sanctioned gaming and refused to negotiate. In the
1994 gubernatorial campaign, Republican candidate Gary Johnson
announced his support of Indian gaming compacts and negotiated with
Native American tribes during his first month in office. As with the lot-
tery referendum, this decision was subsequently ruled unconstitutional
by the state Supreme Court, then became law again by virtue of legisla-
tion passed during the 42nd New Mexico Legislature (Heild, 2005).

“We don’t want to become another Las Vegas.” As a result of the 1994
election, it seemed that New Mexicans voted to implement both new forms
of gambling. Governor-elect Gary Johnson openly declared his willingness to
negotiate Indian gaming compacts and his support for the lottery now that
the voters approved the referendum, which passed on the same general elec-
tion ballot. Change would not come so swiftly.
While the constitutional amendment to create a state lottery passed
with a clear majority (54 percent), the double-barreled question con-
cerning both a lottery and video gambling was deemed unconstitutional
(Peterson, 1994). This brought the lottery debate back to legislature,
which held the statutory power to adopt a lottery. Although public sup-
port for a state-run lottery appeared palpable, the legislature had been
mired in lottery debates in recent sessions and the anti-gaming faction
was a vocal and influential minority. Consistent with the national trend,
legislators sought to tie lottery revenues to education. This notion of
“doing good with bad,” as one legislator put it, surfaced often during the
1995 legislative session. However, one respondent highlighted the moral
34 Merit Aid and the Politics of Education

objections and the “slippery slope” perspective held by many members

of the legislature:

From a moral standpoint, there were some members of both the House
and the Senate who felt that we shouldn’t be perpetuating gambling.
They weren’t happy about the gaming compacts either. And, I want to
say that there was some terminology thrown around that, you know,
this isn’t Las Vegas.

We don’t want to become another Las Vegas. If you let the lottery go
and now you have the Native Americans having their own casinos,
how long is it going to be before the cities want their own casinos? It
was kind of, you don’t want to perpetuate gambling because gambling
is a social problem and the slippery slope argument that once you start
down that path, it’s only a matter of time before more and more gam-
bling is done throughout the state.

Lottery is not like “putting $40 on red.” On the other hand, in

addition to the majority of New Mexico voters, many members of the
legislature held no moral objections to the lottery. According to a Uni-
versity of New Mexico Institute for Public Policy (1995) survey of New
Mexican citizens conducted in September 1995, more than two-thirds
of respondents supported a state-run lottery with 44 percent indicating
they “strongly support” the lottery. By comparison, in the same survey
support for Indian casinos was slightly less than 50 percent. Legislators
shared these differences of opinion by the type of gambling. One House
member quipped, “Lottery to me is not gaming, but that’s just me. Gam-
ing is when you go out there and put forty on red, that’s gaming. This
one here, a little scratch [off ticket] for a buck, wasn’t that big of a deal
for me, for others it was a major issue.”
Speaker of the House Raymond Sanchez also identified economic
arguments in support of the lottery, primarily in communities along the
Texas, Arizona, and Colorado borders. Speaker Sanchez also noted differ-
ences in negative social effects by gaming type, “It’s not like a slot machine,
they’re not going to be sitting there pouring money into it every five min-
utes. And, that once people get it out of their system, they won’t be buying
as many.”
With the public support having been proven and Governor Gary
Johnson’s statement that he would sign a lottery bill should one reach his
desk, the legislature appeared likely to enact a lottery during the first ses-
sion of the 42nd Legislature in 1995.
New Mexico Lottery Success Scholarship Program 35

42nd Legislature

The legislative establishment of the New Mexico Lottery Success Schol-

arship program rested in the passage of two bills during the first session
of the 42nd Legislature in 1995. Senate Bill 583 provided the structural
foundation by creating the Lottery Authority to implement the lottery
and identified capital school construction and college scholarships as
the beneficiaries of lottery proceeds. Another piece of legislation, Sen-
ate Bill 1064, aimed to establish the Lottery Success Scholarship program
and outlined the eligibility criteria by which students would earn these
awards. Freshman Senator Michael Sanchez sponsored the latter bill. His
personal insights, network of support, and advocacy strategies shaped
not only the ultimate eligibility criteria, but also the process by which the
criteria were determined.

The involvement and influence of Senator Michael Sanchez. Having

been elected to the New Mexico Senate only two years earlier, Senator
Michael Sanchez was not your typical freshman legislator. While his suc-
cessful law practice in Belen, just 30 miles south of Albuquerque, was not
a unique professional background among legislators, his familiarity with
the legislative institution and with individual legislators by virtue of fam-
ily ties was unique. His brother, Raymond Sanchez, was the sitting and
longest-serving Speaker of House in New Mexico history. This natural
alliance with House leadership and the well-established informal relation-
ships with many of the members of both chambers helped to build support
for the scholarship program. However, the leadership style and personal
investment of Senator Sanchez played a larger role in building support for
this initiative.
The son of a bakery owner, Michael Sanchez was raised in a mid-
dle class family that valued hard work and education. In high school, his
determination and talent as a baseball player earned him a scholarship to
attend a junior college in Kansas. After two years away, Michael Sanchez
returned to enroll in the University of New Mexico where he would com-
plete his bachelor’s degree and continue to earn a law degree. This educa-
tional experience would serve as the foundation that he would draw upon
in shaping the criteria for the lottery scholarship program.
Respondents offered differing accounts of who approached whom
regarding Senator Sanchez’s initial involvement in the lottery scholar-
ship program. One respondent familiar with the lottery policy process
during the 1995 legislative session claimed that Speaker Raymond San-
chez approached his brother Michael Sanchez about the opportunity and
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
elected), because others are glad to accept what brings an
additional share in prize.
The deponents further say that at Sierra Leone every man had
more especially the means of escaping, and that this prisoner, in
particular, neglected it, and came off from that place after the ship
was under sail and going out of the river.
The prisoner, in his defence, protests he was at first forced, and
that the office of boatswain’s mate was imposed on him, and what
he would have been glad to have relinquished. That the barbarous
whipping he had received from the pirates at first was for telling
them that none who could get their bread in an honest way would
go on such an account. And he had certainly taken the opportunity
which presented at Sierra Leone of ridding himself from so
distasteful a life, if there had not been three or four of the old
pirates on shore at the same time who, he imagined, must know of
him, and would doubtless have served him the same, if not worse,
than they since had done William Williams, who, for such a design,
being delivered up by the treacherous natives, had received two
lashes through the whole ship’s company.
The Court observed the excuses of these pirates about want of
means to escape, was oftentimes as poor and evasive as their pleas
of being forced at first; for here, at Sierra Leone, every man had his
liberty on shore, and, it was evident, might have kept it, if he, or
they, had so pleased. And such are further culpable, who having
been introduced into the society by such uncivil methods as
whipping, or beating, neglect less likely means of regaining liberty; it
shows strong inclinations to dishonesty, and they stand inexcusably.
Guilty.

Jo. Mansfield.
It was proved against this prisoner, by Captain Trahern and
George Fenn, that he was one of those volunteers who was at the
attack and robbery of the Company’s ship called the King Solomon.
That he bullied well among them who dared not make any reply, but
was very easy with his friends, who knew him; for Moody on this
occasion took a large glass from him, and threatened to blow his
brains out (a favourite phrase with these pirates) if he muttered at
it.
From others acquitted it likewise appeared that he was at first a
volunteer among them, from an island called Dominico, in the West
Indies, and had, to recommend himself, told them he was a deserter
from the Rose man-of-war, and, before that, had been on the
highway; he was always drunk, they said, and so bad at the time
they met with the Swallow, that he knew nothing of the action, but
came up vapouring with his cutlass, after the Fortune had struck her
colours, to know who would go on board the prize; and it was some
time before they could persuade him into the truth of their condition.
He could say little in defence of himself, acknowledged this latter
part of drunkenness; a vice, he says, that had too great a share in
ensnaring him into this course of life, and had been a greater motive
with him than gold. Guilty.

William Davis.
William Allen deposed he knew this prisoner at Sierra Leone,
belonging to the Ann galley; that he had a quarrel with, and beat,
the mate of that ship, for which, as he said, being afraid to return to
his duty, he consorted to the idle customs and ways of living among
the negroes, from whom he received a wife, and ungratefully sold
her one evening for some punch to quench his thirst. After this,
having put himself under the protection of Mr. Plunket, governor
there for the Royal African Company, the relations and friends of the
woman applied to him for redress, who immediately surrendered the
prisoner, and told them he did not care if they took his head off; but
the negroes wisely judging it would not fetch so good a price, they
sold him in his turn again to Seignior Jessee, a Christian black, and
native of that place, who expected and agreed for two years’ service
from him, on consideration of what he had disbursed for the
redemption of the woman. But long before the expiration of this
time Roberts came into Sierra Leone river, where the prisoner, as
Seignior Jessee assured the deponent, entered a volunteer with
them.
The deponent further corroborates this part of the evidence, in
that he being obliged to call at Cape Mount, in his passage down
hither, met there with two deserters from Roberts’s ship, who
assured him of the same, and that the pirates did design to turn
Davis away the next opportunity as an idle, good-for-nothing fellow.
From Glasby and Lillburn it was evident, that every pirate, while
they stayed at Sierra Leone, went on shore at discretion. That
Roberts had often assured Mr. Glynn and other traders at that place,
that he would force nobody; and, in short, there was no occasion for
it; in particular, the prisoner’s row-mate went away, and thinks he
might have done the same if he had pleased.
The prisoner alleged his having been detained against his will,
and says that, returning with elephants’ teeth for Sierra Leone, the
pirates’ boat pursued and brought him on board, where he was kept
on account of his understanding the pilotage and navigation of that
river.
It was obvious to the court, not only how frivolous excuses of
constraint and force were among these people, at their first
commencing pirates, but also it was plain to them, from these two
deserters, met at Cape Mount, and the discretional manner they
lived in at Sierra Leone, through how little difficulty several of them
did, and others might have escaped afterwards, if they could but
have obtained their own consents for it. Guilty.

This is the substance of the trials of Roberts’s crew, which may

suffice for others that occur in this book. The foregoing lists show,
by a * before the names, who were condemned; those names with a
+ were referred for trial to the Marshalsea, and all the rest were
acquitted.
 The following pirates were executed, according to their sentence,
without the gates of Cape Corso Castle, within the flood-marks, viz.:
—William Magnes, 35, Minehead; Richard Hardy, 25, Wales; David
Simpson, 36, North Berwick; Christopher Moody, 28; Thomas Sutton,
23, Berwick; Valentine Ashplant, 32, Minories; Peter de Vine, 42,
Stepney; William Philips, 29, Lower Shadwell; Philip Bill, 27, St.
Thomas’s; William Main, 28; William Mackintosh, 21, Canterbury;
William Williams, 40, near Plymouth; Robert Haws, 31, Yarmouth;
William Petty, 30, Deptford; John Jaynson, 22, near Lancaster;
Marcus Johnson, 21, Smyrna; Robert Crow, 44, Isle of Man; Michael
Maer, 41, Ghent; Daniel Harding, 26, Groomsbury in Somersetshire;
William Fernon, 22, Somersetshire; Jo. More, 19, Meer, in Wiltshire;
Abraham Harper, 23, Bristol; Jo. Parker, 22, Winfred, in Dorsetshire;
Jo. Philips, 28, Jersey; James Clement, 20, Bristol; Peter Scudamore,
35, Wales; James Skyrm, 44, Somersetshire; John Walden, 24,
Whitby; Jo. Stephenson, 40, Orkneys; Jo. Mansfield, 30, Bristol;
Israel Hynde, 30, Aberdeen; Peter Lesley, 21, Exeter; Charles Bunce,
26, Other St. Mary’s, Devonshire; Robert Birtson, 30, Cornwall;
Richard Harris, 45, Sadbury, in Devonshire; Joseph Nositer, 26
(speechless at execution); William Williams, 30, Holland; Agge
Jacobson, 30, Bristol; Benjamin Jeffreys, 21, Topsham; Cuthbert
Goss, 21, Plymouth; John Jessup, 20, Plymouth; Edward Watts, 22,
Dunmore; Thomas Giles, 26, Minehead; William Wood, 27, York;
Thomas Armstrong, 34, London (executed on board the Weymouth);
Robert Johnson, 32, at Whydah; George Smith, 25, Wales; William
Watts, 23, Ireland; James Philips, 35, Antegoa; John Coleman, 24,
Wales; Robert Hays, 20, Liverpool; William Davis, 23, Wales.
The remainder of the pirates, whose names are undermentioned,
upon their humble petition to the court, had their sentence changed
from death to seven years’ servitude, conformable to our sentence
of transportation. The petition is as follows:—
“To the Honourable the President and Judges of the Court of Admiralty, for
trying of pirates, sitting at Cape Corso Castle, the 20th day of April,
1722.
 “The humble petition of Thomas How, Samuel Fletcher, &c.
“Humbly showeth—
“That your petitioners being unhappily, and unwarily drawn
into that wretched and detestable crime of piracy, for which
they now stand justly condemned, they most humbly pray the
clemency of the court, in the mitigation of their sentence,
that they may be permitted to serve the Royal African
Company of England, in this country for seven years, in such
a manner as the court shall think proper; that by their just
punishment, being made sensible of the error of their former
ways, they will for the future become faithful subjects, good
servants, and useful in their stations, if it please the Almighty
to prolong their lives.
“And your petitioners, as in duty, &c.”
The resolution of the court was—
“That the petitioners have leave by this Court of Admiralty,
to interchange indentures with the Captain-General of the
Gold Coast, for the Royal African Company, for seven years’
servitude, at any of the Royal African Company’s settlements
in Africa, in such manner as he, the said Captain-General,
shall think proper.
“On Thursday, the 26th day of April, the indentures being
all drawn out, according to the grant made to the petitioners,
by the court held on Friday the 20th of this instant, each
prisoner was sent for up, signed, sealed and exchanged them
in the presence of—
Captain Mungo Heardman, President,
James Phipps, Esq.,
Mr. Edward Hyde,
Mr. Charles Fanshaw, and
Mr. John Atkins, Registrar.”@
 A Copy of the Indenture.
The Indenture of a person condemned to serve abroad, for piracy,
which, upon the humble petition of the pirates therein
mentioned, was most mercifully granted by his Imperial
Majesty’s Commissioners and Judges appointed to hold a Court
of Admiralty, for the trial of pirates, at Cape Corso Castle, in
Africa, upon condition of serving seven years, and other
conditions, are as follows, viz.:—

“This Indenture, made the twenty-sixth day of April, Anno Regni

Regis Georgii magnæ Britanniæ, &c. Septimo, Domini Millessimo,
Sepcentessimo viginti duo, between Roger Scot, late of the City of
Bristol, mariner, of the one part, and the Royal African Company of
England, their Captain-General and Commander-in-chief, for the time
being, on the other part, witnesseth, That the said Roger Scot doth
hereby covenant, and agree, to, and with, the said Royal African
Company, their Captain-General, and Commander-in-chief for the
time being, to serve him, or his lawful successors, in any of the
Royal African Company’s settlements on the coast of Africa, from the
day of the date of these presents, to the full term of seven years,
from hence next ensuing, fully to be complete and ended; there to
serve in such employment as the said Captain-General or his
successors shall employ him, according to the custom of the country
in like kind.
“In consideration whereof, the said Captain-General, and
Commander-in-chief, doth covenant and agree to, and with, the said
Roger Scot, to find and allow him meat, drink, apparel, and lodging,
according to the custom of the country.
“In witness whereof, the parties aforesaid, to these presents,
have interchangeably put their hands and seals, the day and year
first above written.
“Signed, sealed, and delivered, in the presence of us, at Cape
Corso Castle, in Africa, where no stamped paper was to be had.
 Mungo Heardman, President,
⎬Witnesses.”
John Atkins, Registrar,
In like manner was drawn out and exchanged the indentures of
Thomas How, of Barnstaple, in the county of Devon; Samuel
Fletcher, of East Smithfield, London; John Lane, of Lombard Street,
London; David Littlejohn, of Bristol; John King, of Shadwell parish,
London; Henry Dennis, of Bideford; Hugh Harris, of Corf Castle,
Devonshire; William Taylor, of Bristol; Thomas Owen, of Bristol; John
Mitchel, of Shadwell parish, London; Joshua Lee, of Liverpool;
William Shuren, of Wapping parish, London; Robert Hartley, of
Liverpool; John Griffin, of Blackwall, Middlesex; James Cromby, of
London, Wapping; James Greenham, of Marshfield, Gloucestershire;
John Horn, of St. James’s parish, London; John Jessup, of Wisbech,
Cambridgeshire; David Rice, of Bristol.
But two or three of whom, I hear, are now living; two others, viz.,
George Wilson and Thomas Oughterlaney, were respited from
execution till his Majesty’s pleasure should be known; the former
died abroad, and the latter came home, and received his Majesty’s
pardon; the account of the whole stands thus:—Acquitted, 74;
executed, 32; respited, 2; to servitude, 20; to the Marshalsea, 17;
killed in the Ranger, 10; killed in the Fortune, 3; died in the passage
to Cape Corso, 13; died afterwards in the Castle, 4; negroes in both
ships, 70: total, 276.
I am not ignorant how acceptable a relation of the behaviour and
dying words of malefactors are to the generality of our countrymen,
and therefore shall deliver what occurred worthy of notice in the
deportment of these criminals.
The first six that were called to execution were Magnes, Moody,
Simpson, Sutton, Ashplant, and Hardy; all of them old standers and
notorious offenders. When they were brought out of the hold, on the
parade, in order to break off their fetters, and fit the halters, none of
them, it was observed, appeared the least dejected, unless Sutton,
who spoke faint, but it was rather imputed to a flux that had seized
him two or three days before than fear. A gentleman, who was
surgeon of the ship, was so charitable at this time, to offer himself in
the room of an ordinary, and represented to them, as well as he was
able, the heinousness of their sin, and necessity which lay on them
of repentance; one particular part of which ought to be
acknowledging the justice they had met with. They seemed heedless
for the present, some calling for water to drink, and others applying
to the soldiers for caps; but when this gentleman pressed them for
an answer, they all exclaimed against the severity of the court, and
were so hardened as to curse, and wish the same justice might
overtake all the members of it as had been dealt to them. “They
were poor rogues,” they said, “and so must be hanged, while others,
no less guilty in another way, escaped.”
When he endeavoured to compose their minds, exhorting them to
die in charity with all the world, and would have diverted them from
such vain discourse by asking them their country, age, and the like,
some of them answered, “What was that to him? They suffered the
law, and should give no account but to God.” They walked to the
gallows without a tear in token of sorrow for their past offences, or
showing as much concern as a man would express at travelling a
bad road; nay, Simpson, at seeing a woman that he knew, said, “He
had lain with that b——h three times, and now she was come to see
him hanged.” And Hardy, when his hands were tied behind him
(which happened from their not being acquainted with the way of
bringing malefactors to execution), observed, “That he had seen
many a man hanged, but this way of the hands being tied behind
them he was a stranger to and never saw before in his life.” I
mention these two little instances to show how stupid and
thoughtless they were of their end, and that the same abandoned
and reprobate temper that had carried them through their rogueries,
abided with them to the last.
Samuel Fletcher, another of the pirates ordered for execution, but
reprieved, seemed to have a quicker sense of his condition; for when
he saw those he was allotted with go to execution, he sent a
message by the Provost-Marshal to the court, to be “informed of the
meaning of it, and humbly desired to know whether they designed
him mercy or not? If they did, he stood infinitely obliged to them,
and thought the whole service of his life an incompetent return for
so great a favour; but that if he was to suffer, the sooner the better,
he said, that he might be out of his pain.”
There were others of these pirates the reverse of this, and though
destitute of ministers or fit persons to represent their sins and assist
them with spiritual advice, were yet always employing their time to
good purposes, and behaved with a great deal of seeming devotion
and penitence; among these may be reckoned Scudamore, Williams,
Philips, Stephenson, Jeffreys, Lesly, Harper, Armstrong, Bunce, and
others.
Scudamore too lately discerned the folly and wickedness of the
enterprise, that had chiefly brought him under sentence of death,
from which, seeing there was no hopes of escaping, he petitioned
for two or three days’ reprieve, which was granted; and for that time
applied himself incessantly to prayer and reading the Scriptures. He
seemed to have a deep sense of his sins, of this in particular, and
desired, at the gallows, they would have patience with him, to sing
the first part of the thirty-first Psalm; which he did by himself
throughout.
Armstrong, having been a deserter from his Majesty’s service,
was executed on board the Weymouth (and the only one that was);
there was nobody to press him to an acknowledgment of the crime
he died for, nor of sorrowing in particular for it, which would have
been exemplary, and made suitable impressions on seamen; so that
his last hour was spent in lamenting and bewailing his sins in
general, exhorting the spectators to an honest and good life, in
which alone they could find satisfaction. In the end he desired they
would join with him in singing two or three latter verses of the 140th
Psalm; and that being concluded, he was, at the firing of a gun,
triced up at the fore-yard-arm.
Bunce was a young man, not above twenty-six years old, but
made the most pathetic speech of any at the gallows. He first
declaimed against the gilded baits of Power, Liberty, and Wealth,
that had ensnared him among the pirates, his inexperienced years
not being able to withstand the temptation; but that the briskness
he had shown, which so fatally had procured him favour amongst
them, was not so much a fault in principle as the liveliness and
vivacity of his nature. He was now extremely afflicted for the injuries
he had done to all men, and begged their’s and God’s forgiveness,
very earnestly exhorting the spectators to remember their Creator in
their youth, and guard betimes, that their minds took not a wrong
bias, concluding with this apt similitude, “That he stood there as a
beacon upon a rock” (the gallows standing on one) “to warn erring
mariners of danger.”
 IV.

CAPTAIN AVERY AND HIS CREW.

Romantic reports of his greatness—His birth—Is mate of a Bristol man—For what
voyage designed—Tampers with the seamen—Forms a plot for carrying off the
ship—Executes it, and how—The pirates take a rich ship belonging to the
Great Mogul—The Great Mogul threatens the English settlements—The pirates
steer their course back for Madagascar—Call a council—Put all the treasure on
board of Avery’s ship—Avery and his crew treacherously leave his
confederates—Go to the Isle of Providence in the West Indies—Sell the ship—
Go to North America in a sloop—They disperse—Avery goes to New England—
From thence to Ireland—Avery afraid to expose his diamonds for sale—Goes
over to England—Puts his wealth into merchant’s hands of Bristol—Changes
his name—Lives at Bideford—The merchants send him no supplies—
Importunes them—Goes privately to Bristol—They threaten to discover him—
Goes over to Ireland—Solicits them from thence—Is very poor—Works his
passage over to Plymouth—Walks to Bideford—Dies a beggar—An account of
Avery’s confederates—Their settlement at Madagascar—They meet other
pirates—An account of them—The pirates deposed, and why—Marooned on
the Island Mauritius—Some account of that island—The adventures of the
company continued—Angria, an Indian pirate—His strength by land and sea—
The East India Company’s wars with him—The pirates go the island of Melinda
—Their barbarous behaviour there—Hear of Captain Mackra’s designs against
them—Their reflections thereupon—Sail for Cochin, a Dutch settlement—The
pirates and the Dutch very good friends—Mutual presents made between the
pirates and the Governor—The pirates in a fright—Almost starved—Take a
prize of an immense value—Take an Ostend East Indiaman—A short
description of Madagascar—A prodigious dividend made by the pirates—A
fellow’s way of increasing his diamonds—Some of the pirates quit, and join
the remains of Avery—The proceedings of the men-of-war in those parts—
Some Dutchmen petition to be among the pirates—The pirates divided in their
measures—Break up—What became of them.

N oneof these bold adventurers were ever so much talked of for a

while as Avery: he made as great a noise in the world as
Meriveis does now, and was looked upon to be a person of as great
consequence; he was represented in Europe as one that had raised
himself to the dignity of a king, and was likely to be the founder of a
new monarchy, having, as it was said, taken immense riches and
married the Great Mogul’s daughter, who was taken in an Indian ship
which fell into his hands; and that he had by her many children,
living in great royalty and state; that he built forts, erected
magazines, and was master of a stout squadron of ships, manned
with able and desperate fellows of all nations; that he gave
commissions out in his own name to the captains of his ships and to
the commanders of his forts, and was acknowledged by them as
their prince. A play was written upon him, called “The Successful
Pirate”; and these accounts obtained such belief that several
schemes were offered to the Council for fitting out a squadron to
take him, while others were for offering him and his companions an
Act of Grace and inviting them to England, with all their treasure,
lest his growing greatness might hinder the trade of Europe to the
East Indies.
Yet all these were no more than false rumours, improved by the
credulity of some and the humour of others who love to tell strange
things; for while, it is said, he was aspiring at a crown he wanted a
shilling, and at the same time it was given out he was in possession
of such prodigious wealth in Madagascar he was starving in England.
No doubt but the reader will have a curiosity of knowing what
became of this man, and what were the true grounds of so many
false reports concerning him; therefore I shall, in as brief a manner
as I can, give his history.
He was born in the West of England near Plymouth, in
Devonshire; being bred to the sea, he served as a mate of a
merchantman in several trading voyages. It happened before the
Peace of Ryswick, when there was an alliance between Spain,
England, Holland, &c. against France, that the French in Martinico
carried on a smuggling trade with the Spaniards on the continent of
Peru, which by the law of Spain is not allowed to friends in time of
peace, for none but native Spaniards are permitted to traffic in those
parts or set their feet on shore, unless at any time they are brought
as prisoners; wherefore they constantly keep certain ships cruising
along the coast, whom they call Guarda del Costa, who have the
orders to make prizes of all ships they can light of within five
leagues of land. Now the French, growing very bold in trade, and the
Spaniards being poorly provided with ships, and those they had
being of no force, it often fell out that when they light of the French
smugglers they were not strong enough to attack them, therefore it
was resolved in Spain to hire two or three stout foreign ships for
their service, which being known at Bristol, some merchants of that
city fitted out two ships of thirty odd guns, and one hundred and
twenty hands each, well furnished with provision and ammunition,
and all other stores; and the hire being agreed for by some agents
for Spain, they were commanded to sail for Corunna—the Groine—
there to receive their orders, and to take on board some Spanish
gentlemen who were to go passengers to New Spain.
Of one of these ships, which I take to be called the Duke, Captain
Gibson, commander, Avery was first mate, and being a fellow of
more cunning than courage, he insinuated himself into the good will
of several of the boldest fellows on board the other ship as well as
that which he was on board of. Having sounded their inclinations
before he opened himself, and finding them ripe for his design, he at
length proposed to them to run away with the ship, telling them
what great wealth was to be had upon the coast of India. It was no
sooner said than agreed to, and they resolved to execute their plot
at ten o’clock the night following.
It must be observed the captain was one of those who are
mightily addicted to punch, so that he passed most of his time on
shore in some little drinking ordinary; but this day he did not go on
shore as usual; however, this did not spoil the design, for he took his
usual dose on board, and so got to bed before the hour appointed
for the business. The men also who were not privy to the design
turned into their hammocks, leaving none upon deck but the
conspirators, who, indeed, were the greatest part of the ship’s crew.
At the time agreed on the Duchess’s long-boat appeared, which,
Avery hailing in the usual manner, was answered by the men in her,
“Is your drunken boatswain on board?” which was the watchword
agreed between them, and Avery replying in the affirmative the boat
came aboard with sixteen stout fellows and joined the company.
When our gentry saw that all was clear they secured the hatches,
so went to work; they did not slip the anchor, but weighed it
leisurely, and so put to sea without any disorder or confusion,
though there were several ships then lying in the bay, and among
them a Dutch frigate of forty guns, the captain of which was offered
a great reward to go out after her; but Mynheer, who perhaps would
not have been willing to have been served so himself, could not be
prevailed upon to give such usage to another, and so let Mr. Avery
pursue his voyage whither he had a mind to.
The captain, who by this time was awakened, either by the
motion of the ship or the noise of working the tackles, rung the bell.
Avery and two others went into the cabin. The captain, half asleep,
and in a kind of fright, asked, “What was the matter?” Avery
answered coolly, “Nothing.” The captain replied, “Something’s the
matter with the ship. Does she drive? What weather is it?” thinking
nothing less than that it had been a storm and that the ship was
driven from her anchors. “No, no,” answered Avery, “we’re at sea,
with a fair wind and good weather.” “At sea!” says the captain; “how
can that be?” “Come,” says Avery, “don’t be in a fright, but put on
your clothes, and I’ll let you into a secret. You must know that I am
captain of this ship now, and this is my cabin, therefore you must
walk out. I am bound to Madagascar, with a design of making my
own fortune, and that of all the brave fellows joined with me.”
The captain having a little recovered his senses began to
apprehend the meaning. However, his fright was as great as before,
which Avery perceiving, bade him fear nothing; “for,” says he, “if you
have a mind to make one of us we will receive you, and if you’ll turn
sober and mind your business, perhaps in time I may make you one
of my lieutenants; if not, here’s a boat alongside, and you shall be
set ashore.”
 The captain was glad to hear this, and therefore accepted of his
offer; and the whole crew being called up, to know who was willing
to go on shore with the captain and who to seek their fortunes with
the rest, there were not above five or six who were willing to quit
this enterprise. Wherefore they were put into the boat with the
captain that minute and made their way to the shore as well as they
could.
They proceeded on their voyage to Madagascar; but I do not find
they took any ships in their way. When they arrived at the north-east
part of that island they found two sloops at anchor, who, upon
seeing them, slipped their cables and run themselves ashore, the
men all landing and running into the woods. These were two sloops
which the men had run away with from the West Indies, and seeing
Avery, they supposed him to be some frigate sent to take them, and
therefore not being of force to engage him they did what they could
to save themselves.
He guessed where they were, and sent some of his men on shore
to let them know they were friends, and to offer they might join
together for their common safety. The sloops’ men were well armed,
and had posted themselves in a wood, with sentinels just on the
outside to observe whether the ship landed her men to pursue them,
and they observing only two or three men to come towards them
without arms, did not oppose them; but having challenged them,
and they answering that they were friends, they led them to their
body, where they delivered their message. At first they apprehended
it was a stratagem to decoy them on board, but when the
ambassadors offered that the captain himself and as many of the
crew as they should name would meet them on shore without arms,
they believed them to be in earnest, and they soon entered into a
confidence with one another, those on board going on shore and
some of those on shore going on board.
The sloops’ men were rejoiced at the new ally, for their vessels
were so small that they could not attack a ship of any force, so that
hitherto they had not taken any considerable prize; but now they
hoped to fly at high game. And Avery was as well pleased at this
reinforcement to strengthen them for any brave enterprise, and
though the booty must be lessened to each by being divided into so
many shares, yet he found out an expedient not to suffer by it
himself, as shall be shown in its place.
Having consulted what was to be done, they resolved to sail out
together upon a cruise—the galley and two sloops. They therefore
fell to work to get the sloops off, which they soon effected, and
steered towards the Arabian coast. Near the River Indus the man at
the masthead spied a sail, upon which they gave chase, and as they
came nearer to her they perceived her to be a tall ship, and fancied
she might be a Dutch East Indiaman homeward bound; but she
proved a better prize. When they fired at her to bring to she hoisted
Mogul’s colours, and seemed to stand upon her defence. Avery only
cannonaded at a distance, and some of his men began to suspect
that he was not the hero they took him for. However, the sloops
made use of their time, and coming one on the bow and the other
on the quarter of the ship, clapped her on board and entered her,
upon which she immediately struck her colours and yielded. She was
one of the Great Mogul’s own ships, and there were in her several of
the greatest persons of his Court, among whom it was said was one
of his daughters, who were going on a pilgrimage to Mecca, the
Mahometans thinking themselves obliged once in their lives to visit
that place; and they were carrying with them rich offerings to
present at the shrine of Mahomet. It is known that the Eastern
people travel with the utmost magnificence, so that they had with
them all their slaves and attendants, their rich habits and jewels,
with vessels of gold and silver, and great sums of money to defray
the charges of their journey by land; wherefore the plunder got by
this prize is not easily computed.
Having taken all the treasure on board their own ships, and
plundered their prize of everything else they either wanted or liked,
they let her go; she not being able to continue her voyage, returned
back. As soon as the news came to the Mogul, and he knew that
they were English who had robbed them, he threatened loud, and
talked of sending a mighty army with fire and sword to extirpate the
English from all their settlements on the Indian coast. The East India
Company in England were very much alarmed at it; however, by
degrees they found means to pacify him, by promising to do their
endeavours to take the robbers and deliver them into his hands;
however, the great noise this thing made in Europe as well as in
India, was the occasion of all these romantic stories which were
formed of Avery’s greatness.
In the meantime our successful plunderers agreed to make the
best of their way back to Madagascar, intending to make that place
their magazine or repository for all their treasure, and to build a
small fortification there, and leave a few hands always ashore to
look after it and defend it from any attempts of the natives; but
Avery put an end to this project, and made it altogether
unnecessary.
As they were steering their course as has been said, he sends a
boat on board of each of the sloops desiring the chief of them to
come on board of him in order to hold a council; they did so, and he
told them he had something to propose to them for the common
good, which was to provide against accidents; he bade them
consider the treasure they were possessed of would be sufficient for
them all if they could secure it in some place on shore, therefore all
they had to fear was some misfortune in the voyage; he bade them
consider the consequences of being separated by bad weather, in
which case the sloops, if either of them should fall in with any ships
of force, must be either taken or sunk, and the treasure on board
her lost to the rest, besides the common accidents of the sea; as for
his part he was so strong he was able to make his party good with
any ship they were likely to meet in those seas; that if he met with
any ship of such strength, and could not take her, he was safe from
being taken, being so well-manned, besides, his ship was a quick
sailor, and could carry sail when their sloops could not, wherefore he
proposed to them to put the treasure on board his ship, to seal up
each chest with three seals, whereof each was to keep one, and to
appoint a rendezvous in case of separation.
 Upon considering this proposal it appeared so reasonable to them
that they readily came into it, for they argued to themselves that an
accident might happen to one of the sloops and the other escape,
wherefore it was for the common good. The thing was done as
agreed to, the treasure put on board of Avery, and the chests
sealed; they kept company that day and the next, the weather being
fair, in which time Avery tampered with his men, telling them they
now had sufficient to make them all easy, and what should hinder
them from going to some country where they were not known and
living on shore all the rest of their days in plenty. They understood
what he meant, and, in short, they all agreed to bilk their new allies,
the sloops’ men; nor do I find that any of them felt any qualms of
honour rising in his stomach to hinder them from consenting to this
piece of treachery. In fine, they took advantage of the darkness that
night, steered another course, and by morning lost sight of them.
I leave the reader to judge what swearing and confusion there
was among the sloops’ men in the morning when they saw that
Avery had given them the slip, for they knew by the fairness of the
weather and the course they had agreed to steer, that it must have
been done on purpose. But we leave them at present to follow Mr.
Avery.
Avery and his men, having consulted what to do with themselves,
came to a resolution to make the best of their way towards America,
and, none of them being known in those parts, they intended to
divide the treasure, to change their names, to go ashore, some in
one place some in another, to purchase some settlements and live at
ease. The first land they made was the island of Providence, then
newly settled; here they stayed some time, and having considered
that when they should go to New England the greatness of their ship
would cause much inquiry about them, and possibly some people
from England who had heard the story of a ship’s being run away
with from the Groine might suspect them to be the people, they
therefore took a resolution of disposing of their ship at Providence.
Upon which Avery, pretending that the ship being fitted out upon the
privateering account and having had no success, he had received
orders from the owners to dispose of her to the best advantage. He
soon met with a purchaser, and immediately bought a sloop.
In this sloop he and his companions embarked. They touched at
several parts of America, where no person suspected them, and
some of them went on shore, and dispersed themselves about the
country, having received such dividends as Avery would give them,
for he concealed the greatest part of the diamonds from them,
which in the first hurry of plundering the ship they did not much
regard, as not knowing their value.
At length he came to Boston, in New England, and seemed to
have a desire of settling in those parts, and some of his companions
went on shore there also, but he changed his resolution, and
proposed to the few of his companions who were left to sail for
Ireland, which they consented to. He found out that New England
was not a proper place for him, because a great deal of his wealth
lay in diamonds, and should he have produced them there he would
have certainly been seized on suspicion of piracy.
In their voyage to Ireland they avoided St. George’s Channel, and
sailing north about, they put into one of the northern ports of that
kingdom; there they disposed of their sloop, and coming on shore
they separated themselves, some going to Cork, and some to
Dublin, eighteen of whom obtained their pardons afterwards of King
William. When Avery had remained some time in this kingdom he
was afraid to offer his diamonds for sale, lest an inquiry into his
manner of coming by them should occasion a discovery; therefore,
considering with himself what was best to be done, he fancied there
were some persons at Bristol whom he might venture to trust; upon
which he resolved to pass over into England; he did so, and, going
into Devonshire, he sent one of these friends to meet him at a town
called Bideford. When he had communicated himself to his friends,
and consulted with them about the means of his effects, they agreed
that the safest method would be to put them in the hands of some
merchants, who, being men of wealth and credit in the world, no
inquiry would be made how they came by them. This friend telling
him he was very intimate with some who were very fit for the
purpose, and if he would but allow them a good commission would
do the business very faithfully. Avery liked the proposal, for he found
no other way of managing his affairs, since he could not appear in
them himself; therefore his friend going back to Bristol and opening
the matter to the merchants they made Avery a visit at Bideford,
where, after some protestations of honour and integrity, he delivered
them his effects, consisting of diamonds and some vessels of gold;
they gave him a little money for his present subsistence, and so they
parted.
He changed his name and lived at Bideford without making any
figure, and therefore there was no great notice taken of him; yet let
one or two of his relations know where he was, who came to see
him. In some time his little money was spent, yet he heard nothing
from his merchants. He wrote to them often, and after much
importunity they sent him a small supply, but scarce sufficient to pay
his debts; in fine, the supplies they sent him from time were so
small that they were not sufficient to give him bread, nor could he
get that little without a great deal of trouble and importunity;
wherefore, being weary of his life, he went privately to Bristol to
speak to the merchants himself, where, instead of money he met a
most shocking repulse, for when he desired them to come to an
account with him they silenced him by threatening to discover him,
so that our merchants were as good pirates on land as he was on
sea.
Whether he was frightened by these menaces, or had seen
somebody else he thought knew him, is not known; but he went
immediately over to Ireland, and from thence solicited his merchants
very hard for a supply, but to no purpose, for he was even reduced
to beggary. In this extremity he was resolved to return and cast
himself upon them, let the consequences be what it would. He put
himself on board a trading vessel, and worked his passage over to
Plymouth, from whence he travelled on foot to Bideford, where he
had been but a few days before he fell sick and died, not being
worth as much as would buy him a coffin.
 Thus have I given all that could be collected of any certainty
concerning this man, rejecting the idle stories which were made of
his fantastic greatness, by which it appears that his actions were
more inconsiderable than those of other pirates since him, though he
made more noise in the world.
Now we shall turn back and give our readers some account of
what became of the two sloops.
We took notice of the rage and confusion which must have seized
them upon their missing of Avery. However, they continued their
course, some of them still flattering themselves that he had only
outsailed them in the night, and that they should find him at the
place of rendezvous. But when they came there, and could hear no
tidings of him there was end of hope. It was time to consider what
they should do with themselves; their stock of sea provision was
almost spent, and though there was rice and fish, and fowl to be
had ashore, yet these would not keep for sea without being properly
cured with salt, which they had no conveniences of doing; therefore,
since they could not go a-cruising any more, it was time to think of
establishing themselves on land; to which purpose they took all
things out of the sloops, made tents of the sails, and encamped
themselves, having a large quantity of ammunition and abundance
of small arms.
Here they met with several of their countrymen, the crew of a
privateer sloop which was commanded by Captain Thomas Tew;
and, since it will be but a short digression, we will give an account
how they came here.
Captain George Dew and Captain Thomas Tew having received
commissions from the then Governor of Bermudas to sail directly for
the river Gambia in Africa, there, with the advice and assistance of
the agents of the Royal African Company, to attempt the taking the
French factory at Goorie, lying upon that coast. In a few days after
they sailed out, Dew, in a violent storm, not only sprung his mast,
but lost sight of his consort; Dew therefore returned back to refit,
and Tew, instead of proceeding on his voyage, made for the Cape of
Good Hope, and doubling the said Cape, shaped his course for the
Straits of Babel Mandel, being the entrance into the Red Sea. Here
he came up with a large ship, richly laden, bound from the Indies to
Arabia, with three hundred soldiers on board, besides seamen; yet
Tew had the hardiness to board her, and soon carried her; and it is
said by this prize his men shared near three thousand pounds a-
piece. They had intelligence from the prisoners of five other rich
ships to pass that way, which Tew would have attacked, though they
were very strong, if he had not been overruled by the quartermaster
and others. This differing in opinion created some ill blood amongst
them, so that they resolved to break up pirating, and no place was
so fit to receive them as Madagascar; hither they steered, resolving
to live on shore and enjoy what they got.
As for Tew himself, he, with a few others, in a short time went off
to Rhode Island, from whence he made his peace.
Thus have we accounted for the company our pirates met with
here.
It must be observed that the natives of Madagascar are a kind of
negroes; they differ from those of Guinea in their hair, which is long,
and their complexion is not so good a jet; they have innumerable
little princes among them, who are continually making war upon one
another; their prisoners are their slaves, and they either sell them or
put them to death as they please. When our pirates first settled
amongst them their alliance was much courted by these princes, so
they sometimes joined one, sometimes another, but wheresoever
they sided they were sure to be victorious, for the negroes here had
no firearms, nor did they understand their use; so that at length
these pirates became so terrible to the negroes that if two or three
of them were only seen on one side when they were going to
engage, the opposite side would fly without striking a blow.
By these means they not only became feared, but powerful; all
the prisoners of war they took to be their slaves; they married the
most beautiful of the negro women, not one or two, but as many as
they liked; so that every one of them had as great a seraglio as the
Grand Seignior at Constantinople. Their slaves they employed in
planting rice, in fishing, hunting, &c., besides which they had
abundance of others who lived, as it were, under their protection,
and to be secure from their disturbances or attacks of their powerful
neighbours, these seemed to pay them a willing homage. Now they
began to divide from one another, each living with his own wives,
slaves, and dependents, like a separate prince; and as power and
plenty naturally beget contention, they sometimes quarrelled with
one another, and attacked each other at the head of their several
armies; and in these civil wars many of them were killed; but an
incident happened which obliged them to unite again for their
common safety.
It must be observed that these sudden great men had used their
power like tyrants, for they grew wanton in cruelty, and nothing was
more common than, upon the slightest displeasure, to cause one of
their dependents to be tied to a tree and shot through the heart—let
the crime be what it would, whether little or great, this was always
the punishment; wherefore the negroes conspired together to rid
themselves of these destroyers all in one night; and as they now
lived separate the thing might easily have been done had not a
woman, who had been wife or concubine to one of them, run near
twenty miles in three hours to discover the matter to them.
Immediately upon the alarm they ran together as fast as they could,
so that when the negroes approached them they found them all up
in arms; wherefore they retired without making any attempt.
This escape made them very cautious from that time, and it will
be worth while to describe the policy of these brutish fellows, and to
show what measures they took to secure themselves.
They found that the fear of their power could not secure them
against a surprise, and the bravest man may be killed when he is
asleep by one much his inferior in courage and strength; therefore,
as their first security, they did all they could to foment war between
the neighbouring negroes, remaining neuter themselves, by which
means those who were overcome constantly fled to them for
protection, otherwise they must be either killed or made slaves.
They strengthened their party, and tied some to them by interest;
when there was no war they contrived to spirit up private quarrels
among them, and upon every little dispute or misunderstanding
push on one side or other to revenge, instruct them how to attack or
surprise their adversaries, and lend them loaded pistols or firelocks
to dispatch them with, the consequence of which was that the
murderer was forced to fly to them for the safety of his life with his
wives, children, and kindred.
Such as these were fast friends, as their lives depended upon the
safety of the protectors; for, as we observed before, our pirates were
grown so terrible that none of their neighbours had resolution
enough to attack them in an open war.
By such arts as these, in the space of a few years their body was
greatly increased; they then began to separate themselves and
remove at a greater distance from one another for the convenience
of more ground, and were divided, like Jews, into tribes, each
carrying with him his wives and children (of which by this time they
had a large family), as also their quota of dependents and followers.
And if power and command be the thing which distinguish a prince,
these ruffians had all the marks of royalty about them; nay more,
they had the very fears which commonly disturb tyrants, as may be
seen by the extreme caution they took in fortifying the places where
they dwelt.
In this plan of fortification they imitated one another. Their
dwellings were rather citadels than houses; they made choice of a
place overgrown with a wood, and situate near a water; they raised
a rampart or high ditch round it, so straight and high that it was
impossible to climb it, and especially by those who had not the use
of scaling ladders; over this ditch there was one passage into the
wood; the dwelling, which was a hut, was built in that part of the
wood which the prince who inhabited it thought fit, but so covered
that it could not be seen till you came to it; but the greatest cunning
lay in the passage which led to the hut, which was so narrow that no
more than one person could go abreast, and contrived in so intricate
a manner that it was a perfect maze or labyrinth, it being round and
round, with several little cross-ways, so that a person that was not
well acquainted with the way might walk several hours round and
cross these ways without being able to find the hut; moreover, all
along the sides of these narrow paths certain large thorns which
grew upon a tree in that country were struck into the ground with
their points uppermost, and the path itself, being made crooked and
serpentine, if a man should attempt to come near the hut at night
he would certainly have stuck upon these thorns, though he had
been provided with that clue which Ariadne gave to Theseus when
he entered the cave of the Minotaur.
Thus tyrant-like they lived, fearing and feared by all; and in this
situation they were found by Captain Woods Rogers when he went
to Madagascar in the Delicia, a ship of forty guns, with a design of
buying slaves, in order to sell to the Dutch at Batavia or New
England. He happened to touch upon a part of the island where no
ship had been seen for seven or eight years before, where he met
with some of the pirates, at which time they had been upon the
island above twenty-five years, having a large motley generation of
children and grandchildren descended from them, there being about
that time eleven of them remaining alive.
Upon their first seeing a ship of this force and burthen they
supposed it to be a man-of-war sent to take them; they therefore
lurked within their fastnesses; but when some from the ship came
on shore without any show of hostility, and offering to trade with the
negroes, they ventured to come out of their holes, attended like
princes; and since they actually are kings de facto, which is a kind of
a right, we ought to speak of them as such.
Having been so many years upon this island it may be imagined
their clothes had long been worn out, so that their majesties were
extremely out at the elbows; I cannot say they were ragged, since
they had no clothes—they had nothing to cover them but the skins
of beasts without any tanning, but with all their hair on, nor a shoe
nor stocking, so they looked like the pictures of Hercules in the lion’s
skin; and being overgrown with beard, and hair upon their bodies,
they appeared the most savage figures that a man’s imagination can
frame.
However, they soon got rigged, for they sold great numbers of
those poor people under them for clothes, knives, saws, powder and
ball, and many other things, and became so familiar that they went
aboard the Delicia, and were observed to be very curious, examining
the inside of the ship, and very familiar with the men, inviting them
ashore. Their design in doing this, as they afterwards confessed, was
to try if it was not practicable to surprise the ship in the night, which
they judged very easy in case there was but a slender watch kept on
board, they having boats and men enough at command; but it
seems the captain was aware of them, and kept so strong a watch
upon deck that they found it was in vain to make any attempt;
wherefore, when some of the men went ashore they were for
inveigling them and drawing them into a plot for seizing the captain,
and securing the rest of the men under hatches when they should
have the night-watch, promising a signal to come on board and join
them, proposing, if they succeeded, to go a-pirating together, not
doubting but with that ship they should be able to take anything
they met on the sea. But the captain, observing an intimacy growing
between them and some of his men, thought it could be for no
good; he therefore broke it off in time, not suffering them so much
as to talk together; and when he sent a boat on shore with an
officer to treat with them about the sale of slaves, the crew
remained on board the boat, and no man was suffered to talk with
them but the person deputed by him for that purpose.
Before he sailed away, and they found that nothing was to be
done, they confessed all the designs they had formed against him.
Thus he left them as he found them, in a great deal of dirty state
and royalty, but with fewer subjects than they had, having, as we
observed, sold many of them; and if ambition be the darling passion
of men, no doubt they were happy. One of these great princes had
formerly been a waterman upon the Thames, where, having
committed a murder, he fled to the West Indies, and was of the
number of those who ran away with the sloops, the rest had been all
foremast men, nor was there a man amongst them who could either
read or write, and yet their Secretaries of State had no more
learning than themselves. This is all the account we can give of
these kingdoms of Madagascar, some of whom it is probable are
reigning to this day.

THE END.

UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON.

Select Books
PUBLISHED BY
Mr. T. Fisher Unwin
London:
Paternoster Square.
MDCCCXCI.
 The Adventure Series.
Averaging 400 pp. each.
Large crown 8vo., cloth, 5s. each, fully Illustrated.

T he desire of the English people for genuine accounts of the

adventures of their fellows has at present chiefly called forth the
ingenious absurdities of writers who have always stopped at home.
To dispel the idea that adventures are confined to Africa, Mr. T. Fisher
Unwin has in hand a Collection which will include the narratives of
Travellers, Soldiers, Seamen, Prisoners who have escaped from
Captivity, early Emigrants, Famous Robbers, Pirates and Buccaneers,
Adventurers for Profit, and Adventurers for Pleasure. While most of
the volumes published will be necessarily reprints, with full
introductions by various Eminent Hands, the publisher designs to
include in his Series the exploits of contemporaries, English and
Foreign. Of the first four volumes in the Series it is superfluous to
speak,—the names of Trelawny, the friend of Byron and Shelley; of
Robert Drury, the early authority on Madagascar; of John Shipp, the
soldier who twice rose from the ranks to a commission; of Pellow,
the undaunted Cornishman who lived for twenty-three years a
captive among the savage Moors;—these names speak for
themselves. But of volumes to come a word may be said. Professor
Vambéry has in preparation a volume on the life of a man whose
adventures are even more entertaining and interesting than those of
the celebrated Professor himself; an eminent American, known for
his dealings with Pirates, has a volume in preparation on The
Buccaneers; an Englishman of equal celebrity is giving his attention
to the claims of an English, a Scotch, and an Irish Robber; these and
many other subjects will find a place. Taking for his motto Lord
Beaconsfield’s aphorism “Adventures are to the Adventurous” the
publisher launches the Series, assured that though his undertaking
be of Adventure, the public will not deem it venturous.

I.

The Adventures of a Younger Son.

By E. J. TRELAWNY. With an Introduction by EDWARD GARNETT.
Second Edition. Illustrated with several Portraits of Trelawny,
Cuts illustrating his Greek Adventures, and an Autograph Letter.

II.
Robert Drury’s Journal in Madagascar.
With Preface and Notes by Capt. S. P. OLIVER, Author of “Madagascar.”
Illustrated with Maps and curious Cuts.

III.
Memoirs of the Extraordinary Military Career of John Shipp.
With Introduction by H. MANNERS CHICHESTER. Illustrated.

IV.
The Adventures of Thomas Pellow, of Penryn, Mariner.
(Three-and-Twenty Years in Captivity among the Moors.)
Written by Himself; and Edited, with an Introduction and Notes, by Dr. ROBERT
BROWN. Illustrated from Contemporaneous Prints.

V.
The Buccaneers and Marooners of America:
Being an account of the Famous Adventures and Daring Deeds of certain notorious