USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 17
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
238
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
that this would end their concessions to the colony on this subject; but that was not the case. The representation was so promptly refused because the Trustees thought that it was the product of idle and undesirable inhabitants of Sa- vannah. They were always ready to satisfy if possible the industrious people of Georgia; and within two weeks after they refused to make the alterations desired in the petition, they drew up a statement of changes in the land system that they proposed to adopt. These changes were prepared by July 11, 1739; but they were not finally put into an ac- ceptable legal form until the next September. The changes were designed to benefit only those who held eighty or more acres of land. They regulated the disposal of lands of one dying without male issue, particularly securing the rights of widows and daughters of such tenants. These concessions practically abolished forfeiture of lands for failure of issue ; because they specified that when male issue failed the lands should descend to the daughters of the owner; and, in case of a failure of any issue whatever, the property would de- scend to the heirs at law unless the owner should devise to some one else. It was provided, however, that no one could thus secure lands whose holdings would be thereby increased to more than five hundred acres. Widows were guaranteed all the rights which they would possess in England. All persons who wished to take advantage of these concessions were required to enter their claims to land in the courts of the colony where the proper papers would be issued to them without cost to the landholders. The regulations were printed for distribution among the settlers; and advertise- ments of their terms were inserted in the London and South Carolina papers. So much publicity was given to the changes because the Trustees felt that the restricted ten- ures were seriously handicapping the colony. It was ear-
239
The Land System
nestly debated among the Trustees whether the changes made were not sufficiently important to be enacted as a formal law with the approval of the king in council; but this was deemed unnecessary by a majority of the corporation.20
Though both the Trustees and the people evidently re- garded these changes just noted as important, it seems to us that they could not greatly affect the landholding in Georgia. They applied only to persons holding over eighty acres, and there were few such colonists in the province. Again the changes applied only to those who died without issue. Besides, the actual details of the new law merely stated what had been in actual practice all the while, though of course the publication of the purpose of the Trustees would give the people more assurance of leniency than the mere practice without legal endorsement. It seems to us that the main significance of the regulations is that they evidence a disposition on the part of the Trustees to make the land laws easier for the settlers. What they actually granted was of slight importance in comparison with the fact that they yielded to the colonists; and we shall find that gradually they gave way on point after point until the wishes of the settlers were fully realized on this subject.
On the 7th and on the 21st of July, 1740, the Trustees again determined to remove all reasonable grounds of dis- satisfaction with the land system of Georgia. After con- sultation with one of the leading settlers of the colony who appeared to know the conditions in the province, they adopted several interesting changes which were of more prac- tical value than the much vaunted rules of the preceding year. One of the most notable changes dealt with the size of plantations that might be held in Georgia. The clause
" B. T., Ga., IX: Verelst to Stephens, Aug. 10, 1739; C. R. V: 210-212, 216-217, 225.
240
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
in the charter forbidding the Trustees to grant more than five hundred acres to any person had constantly been in- terpreted to mean that no person in the colony could hold more than five hundred acres by whatever means obtained. The clause was in 1740 construed more liberally. It was agreed that a daughter or any other person might be capable of holding by devise or inheritance any quantity of lands which did not increase her or his possessions to more than two thousand acres.21 This action naturally did not result in very large plantations; for even the two thousand acre limit could be reached only very slowly when the only means of increase beyond five hundred acres must be by the single method of inheritance. There was as yet no general priv- ilege of purchase or sale, and yet the concession was valu- able because it pointed once more to greater leniency in the future. ·
At the same time, the privilege was granted to Georgians for the period of two years of making leases for any term not exceeding five years of the whole or of a part of their estates, provided the lessee or lessees continue resident on the lands during the term of the lease.22
As a means of making the inhabitants perfectly content, as they thought, the Trustees made much easier the require- ments for cultivating land and planting white mulberry trees. Up to this time, the possessor of five hundred acres was re- quired to cultivate or improve two hundred acres of his grant within ten years; this amount was reduced to sixty acres. Those who held five hundred acre grants were re- quired to plant two thousand white mulberry plants within the first decade after their grants; this number was re- duced by one-half. Similar reductions were made for those
*C. R. II: 338; C. R. V: 385.
" Ibid., 340-341.
241
The Land System
who held smaller quantities of land. The Trustees felt that the sum total of the results of their new policy ought to be satisfaction on the part of all the colonists and the prevent- ing of further forfeitures of lands.23
In the spring of 1741, the liberal spirit of the Trus- tees was further shown in still greater concessions in the making of leases and in the cultivation of land. The term of five years, for which leases had hitherto been permitted, was too short to encourage tenants to make improvements ; and, when this fact was brought to the attention of the Trustees, they agreed that for a period of three years land- holders in Georgia might have the privilege of leasing their lands for a period of twenty-one years or less, provided that the lessees reside in person on the property. Also, instead of requiring sixty acres of land to be cultivated within ten years for every five hundred acres granted, the amount was fixed at fifty acres, with a corresponding decrease in farms of smaller acreage.24
As we have just noticed, the land laws had been slightly altered from time to time without being definitely revised, and great confusion resulted. Besides, some of the regula- tions were not well understood, especially those of Septem- ber, 1739, about which one of the colonists is said to have remarked that the whole laws consisted of "tails" and "males," and that all the lawyers in London could not make them plain to a common man. Accordingly the Common Council agreed to incorporate into one law the various changes and alterations that had been made. On March 8, 1742, the draft of the new law was reported and agreed to. There were no essential changes in the various details which we have already noted. It was ordered that all future
2C. R. V: 385.
24 B. T., Ga., XII: 462 et seq.
242
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
grants should have attached to them a printed copy of the conditions provided in the new comprehensive regulations.25
It is to be particularly noted that while the Trustees had made many concessions to the colonists yet they had refused to yield on the two points of which the Georgians most complained. Lands were still held in tail male, with some minor exceptions ; and there was still lacking the right of free purchase and sale of estates in the province. Ac- cordingly when Thomas Stephens petitioned the House of Commons in behalf of the people of Georgia on April 30, 1742, one of the main objects he sought was the fee simple tenure of landholding. In addition he petitioned for lower quit rents and for the use of negro slaves. In the debates that followed in the House on the subject, there was a strong sentiment in favor of giving the fee simple tenure at least to those persons who went to settle in the colony at their expense, and there was also a sentiment in favor of lower quit rents; but it was deemed best to leave these matters for the Trustees themselves to adjust; and so the only item of the petition of Stephens that was openly ap- proved by the House of Commons was the importation of rum, as already noticed.26
The Trustees, taking into consideration the sentiment of the House as expressed in the debates on Georgia matters, determined to grant lands in fee to those who should go to the colony at their own expense, but they were unwilling to make the grants except under certain conditions. One- eighth of the land granted must be improved within ten years, and the land must not be alienated until the expira- tion of ten years. It was further stipulated that no per- son could hold more than two thousand acres of land; if
%C. R. II: 393-401.
*C. R. V: 636.
243
The Land System
a man through inheritance became entitled to more than that amount of land, he would be permitted to sell the ex- cess above the two thousand acres, subject to all the condi- tions of cultivation.27 A formal law was prepared incor- porating these various regulations in regard to the tenure of adventurers, but the law retained the old rules regarding the land tenures of charity colonists. The act was referred to the king in council for approval, but it was not acceptable to the law officers of the crown on the ground that it pro- vided two tenures for one province and that this was not advisable. The matter was referred on December 5, 1743, to a committee, with whom the whole affair was permitted to die, so far as the records show.28 For seven years more the objectionable tenures were continued, and the colony suffered accordingly.
At length on March 19, 1750, a resolution was adopted by the Common Council enlarging all grants that had been made to absolute inheritances and determining that all fu- ture grants would be by the same tenure to the grantees, their heirs, and their assigns.29 This was at last the tenure for which the people of the colony had struggled during the eighteen years preceding. The lands were no longer en- tailed; and they were not burdened by restrictions as to purchase and sale, though nothing seems to have been done to permit larger grants than those before allowed. In the March regulations, no mention was made of any require- ments as to clearing and planting the land or as to cultivat- ing mulberry trees ; but in August of the same year in the so-called "Negro Act," the Trustees inserted the require-
" B. T., Ga., X: Martyn to Oglethorpe, Aug. 10, 1742.
2º B. T., Ga., XIII: 68 et seq .; C. R. V: 710-711.
"B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., May 3, 1750; C. R. II: 500.
244
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
ment that all planters who employed negroes must plant mul- berry trees in proportion to the land they held.30 This was not, however, so much a regulation affecting landholding as affecting the use of negroes.
There was great rejoicing in the province over the con- cessions made; and a spirit of confidence in the future of the colony was at once engendered. Colonists from the other British provinces began to come to Georgia, and the whole outlook of the colony began to improve so far as conditions in America were concerned. It was not wholly the changes in the land system that brought about the improvements mentioned; but they contributed as much as any other one cause to this end.
C. Forfeitures
In considering the foregoing summary of the rules and
1 laws which the Trustees formulated for the land system of Georgia, it will be immediately noted that occasions of for- feiting estates in the colony were very numerous. Indeed, to sum up the matter briefly, there were nine distinct grounds on which the Trustees at first reserved the right to re-enter and take possession of the grant made to any settler. These various occasions of forfeiture were: (1) Failure to pay within twelve months after it became due a quit rent of four shillings per hundred acres ; (2) Neglect to build within eighteen months a house at least twenty-four feet in length, sixteen feet in width, and eight feet in height; (3) Leaving the province within three years after the grant unless a proper license was secured for being absent; (+) Failure to clear and cultivate within ten years one-fifth of the land possessed; (5) Neglect to plant and properly care for ten "C. R. I: 60.
245
The Land System
white mulberry plants for each acre of land cleared; (6) Any attempt to alien or transfer a lot without the proper permission of the Trustees ; (7) The committing of a felony ; (8) The employment of any negro or other slave without a special license; (9) The failure of male issue.31
It has been previously stated that the land regulations were not strictly enforced. If they had been rigorously ap- plied, practically every lot and estate in Georgia would have escheated to the Trustees; for almost no settler fully met the requirements of his grant. The Trustees showed a de- cided tendency to waive forfeitures in individual instances, and later to make general releases of forfeitures. The rea- sons which led to this action on their part will be briefly noted.
The clause requiring a man to make a prompt payment of his quit rent did not become operative until ten years after he took possession of his land; and so many changes in the rules and regulations for holding land were made before 1743, when the first quit rents would become due, that the whole subject will be given fuller treatment in a separate section of this chapter.
The law for building a house of specified dimensions within a definite time gave comparatively little trouble. The work of construction was carried on in the first settlement, and in some of the later ones also, by means of joint labor; and this was generally the course followed by settlers sent at the expense of the Trust, who composed a very large per- centage of the colonists. Where this plan of work was adopted, it was obviously impossible to penalize an indi- vidual for failure to have his house completed, since his time would have been occupied in theory at least in assisting his neighbors and in helping to erect public buildings. The 31 B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq.
1
246
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
settlers who went at their own expense were generally lo- cated away from the towns, and buildings on their own lots were necessary. As a matter of fact, more time seems to have been given to building than was advisable from a business standpoint; and we find no record of any forfeiture on ac- count of this clause of the grants.32
There were abundant opportunities for the Trustees to re-enter upon grants because the grantees left the province without permission. It was a point about which the Trust was somewhat concerned, especially as to those sent at its own expense; for after it had paid the cost of sending a colonist to Georgia and of supporting him for a year, it very naturally would not like for him to move to Carolina or to return to England and still retain possession of his land in the colony. Occasionally the Trustees would declare vacant the grant to such a person without any remedy ; but more often they conferred if possible with the absentee and attempted to persuade him to return to the province. If he would consent to take up again his residence in Georgia, his forfeiture would be released; otherwise it would be en- forced.33
A difficult problem that faced the Trustees toward the latter part of their administration was whether or not lots ought to be forfeited for absence from the colony when the owners had remained the required time after receiving their grants. During the Spanish wars, many Georgians had left the province in search of less dangerous homes. They were not allowed by law to sell their estates, and they simply abandoned them. The President and Assistants in Georgia did not know what to do with such lots and they referred the matter to the Trustees. So far as we can learn, the
"B. T., Ga., XXI: Stephens to Verelst, July 25, 1738.
"C. R. I: 292; C. R. II: 96.
247
The Land System
question was still unsettled when Georgia was surrendered; but the tendency was for a lenient treatment of all those who had showed any interest in the colony.34
The most general grounds for forfeiting lots in Georgia were two that we may consider jointly ; namely, the failure to cultivate the requisite acres of land and the neglect to plant and keep in condition a sufficient number of white mulberry trees. In their requirements on these points, the Trustees showed that they did not understand the difficulties of establishing a colony under the conditions that prevailed in the province of Georgia. Clearing and cultivating land in a heavily wooded country like the new colony was no easy task under most advantageous circumstances ; and in Georgia the limitations of the labor supply and the hostilities with the Spanish in Florida aggravated the natural hardships in carrying out the conditions of land grants. Though the Trustees were perhaps too exacting in fixing their stipula- tions, they showed a readiness to pardon the failure to ful- fill them; and, while they made heroic efforts to get the col- onists to cultivate their land and to plant mulberry trees, they do not appear to have forced the forfeiture of estates on these grounds only.
Since the land in Georgia was free, and since the Trus- tees were usually willing to license sales and exchanges upon a proper application to them, there seem to have been only a few violations of the rules forbidding the free purchase or sale. In the cases reported, the Trustees were prompt to act, enforcing their authority and checking any attempts either to accumulate too much land or to encumber or alienate rashly what one possessed.35
" B. T., Ga., XXIV : 32.
" C. R. II: 263-265; B. T., Ga., VIII: Martyn to Dobree, May 29, 1735.
248
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
So far as we can tell, the question of forfeitures did not arise on account of felonies committed ; and there was prac- tically no agitation of the subject on account of the em- ployment of negroes, though the latter question stirred up bitter wrangling in the colony in many other respects.
The last of the occasions for forfeiture which we shall notice was for the failure of male issue. We have already noted that this regulation was speedily modified in favor of the colonists ; but, while it was in force, it was not allowed to work a hardship on the settlers. Although the lots of those who died without male heirs were declared escheated to the Trustees, yet the value of all improvements was given to the heirs at law, so that no real injury was worked.36
One reason why there were not more forfeitures for the particular reasons noted above was that the Trustees from time to time issued a general release of forfeitures. These releases excused from penalty all violations of the land regu- lations up to the time the releases were issued. The first action of this sort on the part of the Trustees came in 1740. It was in the nature of a repeal of a resolution passed the preceding year. By this resolution of 1739 the Trustees had determined to instruct the magistrates in Georgia to occupy all forfeited estates and grant them anew to appli- cants for land. On July 7, 1740, this action was repealed, and it was enacted that no breach of the covenants regard- ing land prior to June 24, 1740, would cause a forfeiture of the grant.37
Early in 1741, a similar resolution was adopted provid- ing a general release of all forfeitures on any account what- ever to Christmas 1740.38
"C. R. II: 87.
" B. T., Ga., XII : 418 et seq.
"C. R. II: 354.
249
The Land System
The third release, which was adopted on July 13, 1750, was a sort of corollary of the act providing for tenures in absolute inheritance. Since his tenure was to apply both to grants that had been made and to those that would be made in the future, it was necessary that some act be adopted to indicate that the former conditions would not be binding; hence this release was issued.39
To sum up the conclusions on this topic, the Trustees enforced relatively very few forfeitures of land, certainly not enough to cause any great dissatisfaction among the colonists; but they did have a formidable set of regula- tions under which they might escheat the lands they had granted. It was not so much what they did as dread of what they might do that caused alarm and uneasiness among the settlers. There were annoying trifles also that irritated the colonists ; such, for instance, as appearing in court and filing claims whenever they wished to obtain the benefit of minor land changes that were made from time to time.40 In the light of the results that followed the policy of the Trustees, it appears now that it would have been wiser for them to give the colonists more freedom in their activities rather than by threatened forfeitures to try to force them to perform their duties.
D. Quit Rents
The charter provided that the Trustees pay annually to the king four shillings per hundred acres of land in Georgia which they might grant to settlers, said payment not to commence until after ten years from the time of the grant, and it was to be paid in proclamation money of South Caro-
" B. T., Ga., XIII: 161.
"C. R. IV: 632, for example.
250
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
lina. When Lord Carteret in 1733 ceded his interest in Georgia lands to the Trustees, it was agreed that he should receive six pence per hundred acres for all the land that might be granted for settlement. None of the records make the point clear as to whether this six pence was to be levied in addition to the four shillings due the king or whether it was to be deducted from his rent. The latter view seems more probable.41
In making their grants to the poor settlers of the colony, the Trustees did not attempt to make any profit for the Trust. They specified that each holder of fifty acres should be required to pay two shillings annually for his grant. This payment was to be made in advance and was to be paid in sterling money, which was the standard money in all transactions of proprietary Georgia. The Trustees could make their payments to the king and to Carteret in proclamation money, as we have already noted. Since the latter bore to sterling money the ratio of three to four in value, the charge made to the colonists in proclamation cur- rency would be at the rate of five shillings four pence per hundred acres.42 This overcharge in quit rents would af- ford only a safe margin for the Trustees to make allow- ance for rents which they might not collect, their payments to the king and Carteret being fixed by the number of acres granted without regard to amount of rent that the Trustees could collect. No rent was charged by the Trustees until the end of the tenth year after the grants were made.
In making early grants to adventurers who paid their own expenses, the Common Council did not adopt any fixed rule as to what quit rent should be charged, nor did they adopt the ten year period of free rent as in the case of the set-
"C. R. V: 675.
"Statutes at Large, VI Anne, Chap. 30; B. T., Ga., XII: 4 et seq.
-
251
The Land System
tlers sent by the Trust. The adventurers paid a considera- tion of one pound one shilling sterling for making each grant, while charity settlers did not have this fee to pay. The first two grants to independent colonists provided that the rent should begin at the end of the seventh year and was to be at the rate of five shillings sterling until the end of the tenth year, after which time it was to be at the rate of ten shillings for each hundred acres. 43 Only a few deeds with these terms seem to have been issued. The next group of deeds made no provision for rent until the expiration of ten years, but the annual amount was fixed at ten shillings per hundred acres. 44 By the summer of 1733, the Trustees had doubled the already high rents, requiring those going at their own expense to pay twenty shillings for each hun- dred acres. The "Rules of 1735" adopted this rate as per- manent, and it continued to be the usual charge during the remainder of the proprietary period.45
Twenty shillings sterling was unquestionably a very high rate of rent in comparison with the amounts charged in other colonies. For instance, in Pennsylvania during the same period, the quit rent was only a half penny sterling per acre, a little more than one-fifth of the Georgia rate, though it is only fair to note that Pennsylvania charged a purchase price that exceeded somewhat the Georgia fees.46 In Maryland, when Georgia was first settled, the rent was ten shillings; but five years later it was reduced to four shillings, with a rather reasonable purchase price.47 In South Carolina the rates seem to have varied from twelve pence per hundred acres to one penny per acre, but in either event
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.