USA > Georgia > A standard history of Georgia and Georgians > Part 30
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76
It is remarkable that the name of James Vernon heads the list in every department of service connected with the trust. Not only was he first in attending the corporation, the common council, and commit- tees, but he was the most consistent and regular worker among the trus- tees. Several of the ten listed above were faithful and prompt when the enterprise was begun; but, as the hardships increased and as the task appeared to attract less enthusiasm and approval among the people generally, some of them became less regular in their attendance. Ver- non maintained the good record with which he began his labors for Georgia, and during the last nine years of proprietary government he was absent from only four of the 114 meetings held by the corporation. At the meetings when he was absent, only routine business of slight importance was transacted,* so that Vernon may be said to have parti- cipated in practically everything that was done after 1743. The attend- ance of other members of the corporation at these meetings varied greatly, and it was nearly always small, no other member being present at near all the meetings. One might infer from the situation that dur- ing much of the time Vernon was practically in charge of the work and that he called in others to confirm and make legal what he wished to do, though he was doubtless only leading and not entirely dominating corporation affairs. The part he played in the common conneil and in committees was similar to that he held in the corporation.
The general idea of his leadership during the second decade of the trust is reinforeed by the fact that during this period the policy for which he stood eame more and more into practice. More earnestly than any other trustee, so far as the records indicate, Vernon had advocated the plan of satisfying the colonists in Georgia and so inducing them
+ C. R. I: 533, 536, 575, 576.
212
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
actively to work in the development of the province. When they com- plained of the poor quality of their land, he urged repeatedly that they be given good land in proportion to the bad that they held,* and he was willing that even the islands along the coast and in the rivers should be granted in order that the good land might be convenient for culti- vation and development.t When the inhabitants showed discontent on account of the strict land tenures and a lack of negroes, Vernon was inclined to yield to them in both respects. # Ile also was the trustee who suggested and urged strongly the need of a firm and orderly gov- ernment in the colony which would please both people and the home management of the province, and he outlined the form of government which was adopted to meet the needs of the occasion .** It is notice- able that in all records of debates and discussions among the trustees, Vernon's opinions and arguments are given space, and his suggestions were evidently regarded as weighty by his companions. As the liberal treatment of the colonists in Georgia in the matters of land tenure, good lands, trade in rum, and the use of negroes was gradually adopted by the trustees, it became evident that the policy thus advocated by him was the wisest and best for the province.
Some of Vernon's best work was done in making it possible for the Salzburgers and other German Protestants to settle in Georgia. It was a help to the immigrants, and it was a valuable addition to Georgia to have them come. Ile was the correspondent of the trustees in making the agreements under which they sailed; he interviewed the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge and arranged with it to furnish the means for transporting the foreigners to Georgia,tt and he labored to make the colony a success after it had been established. In token of the appreciation which the foreigners felt for his labors, his name was given to the Town of Vernonburgh, which was largely settled by those whom he had befriended. Another work in which he was regularly engaged for the trust was that of arranging with the Society for the Propaga- tion of the Gospel in Foreign Parts for the support of missionaries appointed by the trust to labor in Georgia. He was also one of the most active supporters of Georgia in visiting the various executive depart- ments of the British Government in behalf of the province, and he was eloquent in his support of it. ##
Vernon was himself a commissioner of the excise. IIe had earlier been an envoy to the King of Denmark, and he had been spoken of before he was twenty-five years of age as "a young gentleman who hath had a fine education, is master of abundance of learning, is very modest and sober." *** All of these traits of character and attainments he exhibited in his labors for the Province of Georgia. He was a particular friend of General Oglethorpe, who said of him, "If there is a friend to be de-
C. R. V: 227-228.
+ Ibid., 257.
# Ibid., 378.
** Ibid., 412-413. tt C. R. I: 77, 137.
## C. R. V: 610.
Stevens, I: 465.
213
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
pended upon, he is one." * Vernon deserves to rank very near Ogle- thorpe in credit for the establishment and success of Georgia. The latter made more personal sacrifices for it; but Vernon worked with him in obtaining the charter, and he kept up his interest and efforts for the province after Oglethorpe and all the other founders had eeased to labor for it.
Next to Vernon in activity for Georgia, was John, Lord Viseount Perceval, better known by his later title, the Earl of Egmont. IIe was the first president of the corporation and as such administered the oath of office to his fellow members of the common council.t In almost all the lists of the trustees occurring either in the charter or in the records of the trust, his name stands at the top, for he was recognized as a leader among them. Had it not been for his resignation from the com- mon council in 1742 and his death in 1748, he might have equalled or even surpassed Vernon in his attention to Georgia affairs, for they were almost equally prompt in service until 1742, Egmont being perhaps a somewhat more dominant figure than Vernon. In spite of his gout and other physical handicaps, he took the lead in the affairs of Georgia, and he seemed to occupy in England a position somewhat similar to that of Oglethorpe in America, being the person to whom others generally looked for suggestions and directions. To him were sent more letters and reports concerning the province than to any other trustee, and lie was foremost in pressing the claims of the colony for help and support, knowing better than any other its circumstances and needs. }
Like Vernon, the Earl of Egmont was inelined to be liberal toward the colonists; but he was more cautious in his policy. He opposed the giving of good lands for bad too hastily, urging that a more careful study of the facts should be made. His attitude was that the colonists ought to make a good showing with what they had before they should be allowed their full requests.## Ile was also opposed to the use of negroes, either free or slave, in Georgia; but his opposition was not harsh and overbearing like that of some of the other trustees.tt IIe strongly favored alterations in the land tenures so as to conform to the desires of the people of Georgia, giving as his reason for his position on the matter a desire to conciliate the settlers in every possible manner consistent with the purposes of the colony. ##
Though raised to the rank of an earl under the Walpole adminis- tration, he occupied an independent position in polities. He discloses a good deal of animus against Walpole himself at various times, aecusing him of deliberately falsifying in order to get the support of the trus- tees .*** * Egmont himself felt that it was best for him and for the other trustees to make no alliance with either party, putting the interests of Georgia ahead of the success of any faction.ttt
* Wright. 143-144, 165.
+C.R. 1: 66.
* C. R. V: 636, 639, 641, 271-273, for example.
** Ibid., 227-225.
tt Ibid., 378,
** Ibid., 379.
*** Ibid., 34, 8%, as examples.
+++ Ibid., 112.
214
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Were his devotion to the colony not so manifest on many occasions, it might be questioned in view of the circumstances of his resignation. When Parliament refused a supply of money in the spring of 1742, he spoke of throwing up the whole trust because both the ministry and the minority in Parliament seemed to appreciate so little the labors of the trustees. He did not meet with encouragement in the idea and he dropped it for the time." Later in the year, after Thomas Stephens had been repri- manded for attempting to asperse the characters of the trustees, and after another effort on the part of the supporters of Georgia had failed, the Earl of Egmont in hasty indignation resigned his place as a member of the common council on July 7, 1742. If any means of resigning from the corporation had been provided, he would likely have given it up also, for he was thoroughly roused. His action was ill considered. His letter enclosing his resignation did not touch on what was the real seat of trouble, which was the hope of getting others also to resign and so forcing the government to either support Georgia or to give it up.t He failed in his purpose of getting others to follow his example; and it was well for the colony that he did so fail. If the charter had been sur- rendered at that time, it is most certain that Georgia would either have been surrendered to Spain or would have been joined to South Carolina, and in either case its independent character would have been lost. The reasons assigned in his letter of failing health and his physician's direc- tions to rest would have been ample excuses for his resignation were it . not that he himself gave a different interpretation of his own action.
The Earl of Egmont was disposed to judge harshly the motives and actions of his fellow trustees, and he would have been very severe toward another acting as he did in that matter.
Egmont had had a somewhat distinguished career before he became connected with Georgia. He had been privy councillor for Ireland. In 1715 he had been made Baron Perceval; and in 1722 he had been created Viscount. His advancement to the earldom was in 1733, his interest in Georgia possibly having some influence in his promotion. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society. Egmont was the author of several tracts or small books, most of which were concerned with the advantages of Georgia and the need of its support. ¿
Henry L'Apostre, the trustee ranking third in faithful attendance on the duties of his office, seems to have been a man of much less force of character than either Vernon or Egmont. He was not a member of Parliament, and almost nothing is known of his private life. While he was regularly in his place at the meetings of corporation, common coun- cil, or committees, arguments or suggestions from him rarely appear in the proceedings, indicating that his influence was perhaps not very great among his fellow trustees. His committee service was to a large extent connected with financial or banking affairs, ** and it might be in- ferred that he was experienced in such matters, but there is no corrobo- rative evidence to support the inference. He did not share Vernon's
* Ibid., 612.
t Ibid., 643-644.
# Ibid., 273-275; Stevens I: 463-464.
** C. R. II: 248; C. R. V: 707, as examples.
215
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
view of conciliating the people of Georgia, but opposed humoring them as to either land tenures or negroes .*
Rev. Samuel Smith was a graduate of Magdalen College, Oxford, and he was the rector of All Hallows on the Wall. He was early impressed with possibilities for good in the Georgia enterprise, and he preached a sermon for the special purpose of recommending the charity. In con- sequence of this and other services, an application was made by the trustees to the right honorable the lord high chancellor for some prefer- ment in or near London to be given to the Rev. Mr. Smith "for the great Service he has been of to the Trust." t Like Mr. L'Apostre, he seems to have been more faithful in attending meetings than promi- nent in his participation in them. He aided Vernon in securing the interest of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in the remov- ing of the Salzburgers from Germany to Georgia; and he was active in all religious enterprises of the trust. ¿
Thomas Tower was one of Oglethorpe's closest friends among the trustees, ** and they were in thorough accord as to many matters of importance in colonial affairs. Neither of them was willing to yield to the clamors of the Georgians for better land tenures, the exchange of bad lands for good, the traffic in rum, and the introduction of negroes. Tower had been on the committee which framed the regulations for the colonists, tt and he had satisfied himself that they were suitable and necessary ; and he felt, as did Oglethorpe, that those complaining ought to be entirely disregarded unless they were improving their lots the best they could before making their complaints. Accordingly he op- posed more than any other trustee the various concessions that were made to the people. ##
Tower was a good speaker in the House of Commons, *** and he was a lawyer of ability. His legal services were the most valuable that he rendered to the trustees. He was on nearly all committees that were appointed to prepare laws, draw up instructions for magistrates in Georgia, or to put papers into proper legal form.ttt In this respect he was perhaps the most active and able trustee. He also served the trust at times by interviewing Sir Robert Walpole to get his approval of measures desired by the friends of Georgia; in this capacity he was effective, but he was unwilling to do much service of the sort. In fact his close allegiance to the Walpole party greatly hampered him in his usefulness to the Georgia trustees. In order to please Sir Robert Wal- pole, Tower was willing to surrender Georgia to the Spanish without a serions fight to retain it. #11 To further please him, he undertook with another trustee to defend the English title to Georgia, though the trus- tees as a whole very strongly disapproved of the measure, thinking that
* C. R. V: 378.
+ C. R. II: 60.
* C. R. I: 114, 209, as examples.
** Wright 143-144, 165.
tt C. R. I: 70.
## C. R. V: 217, 467.
*** Ibid., 117.
ttt Ibid., 390, 429, 599, as examples.
### Ibid., 100.
216
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
it was a matter to be settled by the law officers of the Crown and fear- ing that an unsuccessful defense would be used as an excuse for giving up the province." Friendship for the Walpole party also led Tower to oppose any effort to make the corporation independent of politics ; he did not wish the trustees to petition Parliament for the protection of Georgia, and he frequently insisted that the demands for money be cut low enough to please the lord chancellor. It is not certain but it is probable that his refusal to speak for the colony in the House of Com- mons and his indifference on other occasions may be explained also on the basis of his political alignment.t
Hucks and Laroche were two other strong supporters of Walpole among the trustees; and their general position on all matters of im- portance was that of Thomas Tower. Hucks was at first one of the most interested and faithful of the little group who were launching the enterprise of the new colony, but his political connections were a source of weakness to him as a trustee, and his. father thought that the brew- ing business in which they were engaged suffered because of his son's occupation with Georgia affairs. $ Accordingly he withdrew from the common council, and after a little time he seemed to lose all interest. in the trust, failing to uphold it in its efforts to get support from the House of Commons .**
Though Laroche was a steady adherent of Walpole and on that account was not perhaps always as useful to the trust as he could have been, he was ever ready to defend in the House of Commons both the province of Georgia and the management of it by the trustees.tt His connection with Walpole was not an unmixed disadvantage, but he was a useful committeeman in securing the aid of Sir Robert in many affairs in which Georgia was concerned. In regard to the policy to be pursued in the province, he inclined to a conciliatory attitude toward the inhabitants, as did Vernon and Egmont. ##
One of the most eminent of the active trustees was Rev. Stephen Hales, D.D., who was a charter member of the corporation and who was the only minister who continued faithful all through the years of proprietary control. He was a graduate of Bennet College, Cambridge, and he also was given the degree of doctor of divinity by the rival University of Oxford. In 1717 he was chosen a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1739 he won its gold medal for a scientific essay. At a later time he was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences in Paris. He was one of the foremost naturalists of his day and he was "pious, modest, indefatigable, and born for the discovery of truth." *** Being closely associated with the royal family, he was offered prefer- ment as preacher, but he retained his position because he thought he could render more service in it than if he aceepted advancement.
In his duties as trustee, he seems to have been interested chiefly in
* Ibid., 108.
t Ibid., 117, 274, 280.
# Ibid., 116.
## Ibid., 286, 302.
tt Ibid., 433, 444, 446, as examples.
## Ibid., 371.
*** Stevens II: 467-468.
217
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
the charitable side of the enterprise. During the early years of the undertaking he was instrumental in securing many gifts for carrying on the work. He does not seem to have taken much part in the discus- sions or debates as to policies to be pursued, and his opinions on them are not cited in the records. He was interested with Vernon in the religious welfare of the people in Georgia, consulting the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel and aiding in the settlement of foreign Protestants in Georgia.
Concerning the work of James Oglethorpe as a trustee, Chapter II of this work gives ample information. Had he been as interested after 1743 as he was when the work was first begun, he would have ranked with Vernon and Egmont in his attendance, and his right to the first place among the trustees could hardly have been questioned. As it is, whatever place of honor is assigned him must be limited to his activi- ties during the first decade of the trust.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, fourth Earl of Shaftesbury, was one of the mainstays of the trustees after the Earl of Egmont resigned from the common council. Shaftesbury seems to have acted always in perfect harmony with Vernon, and he was the latter's most frequent associate during the closing years of proprietary management. His service in the common council was not continuous. Elected in 1733, he served until the question of the convention with Spain was settled in Parlia- ment in 1739. Being a member of the minority at that time, he was greatly exasperated that so many of the members of the common coun- cil supported Walpole in the vote on the convention and he resigned in disgust his place on the council. The resolution to resign was hastily reached, being brought about by the influence of Lord Limerick and other minority leaders; and, while it was much resented by his fellow members who felt that they had a right to vote in Parliament as they pleased, the trustees were disposed to overlook his rashness on account of his youth and the influence of older men .*
The next year through the influence of the Earl of Egmont, Shaftes- bury was persuaded to return to the common couneil. He was warmly welcomed and his rejoining the body gave credit to the sinking fortunes of the trustees; for, as one of them described him, he was a "nobleman of all amiable qualities and not one vice." t Ilis high rank and known character made him useful in all committee service affecting the vari- ous departments of the government, and he was the leader in the negoti- ations which resulted in the British government's assuming the sup- port and control of the province in 1752. }
Among the seventy-one trustees who were appointed or eleeted dur- ing the twenty years of the trust, there were many men who were influ- ential, interested and active during certain portions of the time, but who withdrew from the common couneil so soon, or were elected to office so late, that they did not exercise sufficient influence on the whole course of executive management to be ranked with those whom we have been considering. A few of these ought to be mentioned. Among
* Ibid., 132-133.
t 1bid., 318, 325.
+ C. R. I: 569 et seq.
218
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
them Henry Archer was one of the most energetic and useful. Hold- ing office in the common council from 1734 to 1744, he was concerned in all the legal and political problems of that stormy period of the trust. He was allied with Thomas Tower in politics, but he was more inde- pendent than most of the Walpole group, frequently breaking from his chief in minor matters and nearly always defending the trustees in the House of Commons .* He served on nearly all the committees ap- pointed to interview the chancellor of the exchequer, the speaker, or other officials of either the Walpole or the Wilmington-Carteret minis- tries.t During his term of office he probably also served oftener than any one else on committees to draw up laws or to determine the legal responsibility of the trustees, being generally associated with Tower in this work.
George Heathcote, on account of failing health, was not so regular an attendant at the meetings as the others already mentioned, but he served apparently without pay as cashier or treasurer of the trust until March 22, 1740. The duties of the office were not taxing but they required time and attention. It was customary to deposit about five hundred pounds at a time with the cashier with which to pay the minor expenses of the trust. The largest amounts were paid by direct drafts on the Bank of England, signed by any five of the common council. Heathcote was dissatisfied with the policy of the trustees in support of the Church of England in Georgia, ¿ but he was a good friend of the colony and of the trustees after he ceased to be actively associated with them, defending them ably in Parliament on several occasions .** He was an alderman of London, and in 1740, the year he resigned from the position of cashier of the trustees, he was elected Lord Mayor of London, but declined to serve.tt
Sir William Heathcote was one of the few members of the trust who, having resigned from the common council, continued to attend the meetings of the corporation. He was a man of recognized worth and good sense and he also had a large fortune; it was with regret that his fellow members of the council gave him up. He resigned in 1739 and it was thought by Egmont that he was persuaded to this course by George Heathcote, Lord Limerick and other minority members of Parlia- ment who had already persuaded the Earl of Shaftesbury to withdraw. }} Heathcote in his letter of resignation professed great love for the colony, regretting that private affairs prevented his further service in the coun- cil, and he did afterwards as an ordinary trustee render service to the cause, being the only one to aid the members of the common council in transferring the responsibility of the trustees to the crown when the charter was surrendered .*
Very few of the trustees who were not also members of the common council were regular in attending the meetings of the corporation. To
* C. R. V: 120, 286.
t Ibid., 600, 607, as examples.
+ C. R. V: 116.
** Ibid., 294, 444.
tt Stevens I: 464.
## C. R. V: 230.
*** C. R. II: 506.
219
GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
this general rule, Adam Anderson was in a measure an exception. He was a clerk in the South Sea House, and he was afterwards an author of some note; but he seems to have been of comparatively little influ- enee in the Georgia board, his faithful attendance being his principal merit.
Three members elected to the trust during its declining years deserve special mention. These were Samuel Lloyd, Edward Hooper, and Anthony Ewer, all of whom were of great assistance to Vernon and Shaftesbury in maintaining the work of the board at a time when some of its older friends were falling away.
On the whole, the trustees were an able set of men. They repre- sented well the leading political and religious beliefs of England, and they included persons of varied experience and occupations in life. Since they were thus varied in their personnel, it is not strange that there were among them eauses of misunderstanding and disputes. The most serious of the disagreements among the members of the trust grew out of politics centering about the support of Walpole or opposition to him. We have seen that feeling over this matter caused the with- drawal of some members from the common council. Perhaps next in importance to the political differences were those over religious matters. The large majority of the trustees were members of the Church of England, and they were anxious that it prevail in Georgia; but there were also many Presbyterians and other non-conformists on the board,* and these were disgusted with the resolution of the majority of the corporation to support a church establishment. Whether this differ- ence caused the withdrawal of members or not, it produced a coolness among some of them.t
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.