USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 2
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
As was usual in such cases, the committee of the Council referred the petition to the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, commonly called the Board of Trade, in order to get a report as to the legal questions that might be involved and as to the expediency of granting the petition. The petition was referred to the Board of Trade on Novem- ber 23, 1730, and, after consulting the law officers of the Crown as to the legality of the charter, the Board made its first report within a month, on December 17, 1730. The unusual promptness with which the matter was decided in- dicates that there was a general unanimity of opinion in regard to the enterprise. The report approved the petition presented and recommended that the tract of land between the Savannah and Altamaha rivers with the islands adja- cent, be granted to the petitioners in trust, an annual quitrent of four shillings per hundred acres being paid by the trustees for all the land which they should grant to " America and West Indies (Cited A. W. I.) XXV: 322.
23
The Creation of the Trust
others. A register of all lands so granted must be kept. The tract of land mentioned, being entirely inhabited by Indians, was to be a separate colony. Though independent in its civil and military laws, its militia were to remain in the hands of the King and the dominion of the Crown was to prevail. Officers were to be chosen by the corporation composed of Trustees subject to the approval of his Majesty, and the corporation was to issue commissions un- der its common seal. Laws were to be made by the cor- poration and submitted to the King for approval. The person superintending the colony was to take over and re- ceive instructions similar to those taken and received by the governors at the time.º
This report was not entirely satisfactory to the pro- moters of the enterprise, and a conference between them and the committee of the Privy Council was held on Janu- ary 12, 1731,10 as a result of which the matter was again referred to the Board of Trade for further consideration. The founders of the colony desired larger powers than had been proposed in the report to Council, and on January 14 the Board reported a second time to the effect that there would be no inconvenience in granting the request of the peti- tioners. Accordingly, it was recommended that they be allowed to constitute courts of record and other courts under their common seal in the name of the King, and that they also for the period of twenty-one. years have the power to appoint and displace all civil and military officers in the district. In addition, it was recommended that such gen- eral powers should be granted the petitioners as might "be
" Colonial Office (Cited C. O.) V: 401, S. C. Entry Book: 8.
1º The sources on which this work is based frequently use the "old style" of reckoning time; but the dates given herein correspond throughout to present usage in that respect.
24
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
necessary for the support and defence of said colony." 11
On January 18, 1731, the committee of the Council agreed that the Attorney and Solicitor General should prepare a draft of a charter. Ten days later the report of the com- mittee was approved by the Privy Council and a formal or- der was issued for the preparation of the charter by the law officers of the Crown.12
The draft of the charter was reported by the Attorney and Solicitor General on August 11, 1731, and the next day it was referred to the committee of the Privy Council for their final approval. In order to have the boundaries of the province determined with more accuracy, the Board of Trade was again asked for advice; and it was not until January 19, 1732, that the committee finally agreed to lay the charter before the King for his approval. This was given by him in Council on January 27, 1732, and the Secretary of State was ordered to prepare a warrant for it to pass the Great Seal. This warrant was duly issued and signed, and on June 9, 1732, the final step in the issuance of the charter was com- pleted with its passing the Great Seal.13
The granting of such a charter was in a measure a rever- sion to type. It has been noted that more than a hundred years had elapsed since a corporation resident in England had been chartered for the purpose of colonization, but it was through corporations in the nature of trading com- panies that British colonization was first successfully achieved within the present limits of the United States. Vir- ginia, the first of the colonies, was the proprietary prov- ince of a corporation just as was Georgia, the last of the thirteen to be settled. Only two other corporations had
"C. O. V: 401, S. C. Entry Book: 15.
12 A. W. I. XXV : 322.
13 Ibid., 323.
25
The Creation of the Trust
been formed for the purpose of colonizing America, and they, like the London company, were organized prior to 1630. Individual proprietorships had been established, and in the case of Carolina eight men had been associated for the purpose of founding a colony ; but apparently the inter- est in colonization had not been wide-spread enough in Eng- land from 1630 to 1730 to call for the organization of a company or corporation. The settlement of Georgia en- listed the interest and the aid of a larger number of people than that of any other English settlement.
Since the charter was granted fifty years later than that of any other British colony, it is interesting to note the . effect of experiments with the colonies on the terms of the Georgia charter. Since the establishment of Pennsylvania in 1681, there had been marked efforts on the part. of the British government to increase imperial control in America, and there was a strong tendency to substitute royal prov- inces for those of proprietary or corporate nature.14 In its first report, the Board of Trade showed several tendencies in this direction. The land was not granted outright to the petitioners, but they were to be tenants of so much as they might occupy, paying therefor to the King the rather heavy quitrent of four shillings proclamation money per hundred acres. Careful registers were to be kept to ascertain the King's rights in the matter. Of greater importance, was the provision in the report requiring that officers be ap- proved by the King, and that all laws be submitted to him for approval. Moreover, a great deal of imperial control was secured by the requirement that officials in the new colony must take and receive instructions such as were given to the royal governors in the American provinces.
As the charter was finally issued, there were numerous ** Osgood III: 23.
26
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
provisions also for imperial control. The most remarkable one was that limiting the powers of government bestowed on the founders of Georgia to a period of twenty-one years. The petitioners had sought greater powers of appointing and removing officers and of establishing courts, and the request was granted only on the condition of this time limi- tation. Formal laws must be approved by the King, but regulations and orders to fit special occasions could be given without approval. The power of making laws was also lim- ited to a period of twenty-one years, and no law could be- come effective until actually approved. Even in the matter of appointing officers, there were two restrictions in favor of royal control. The Crown reserved the right to appoint all those who should be chosen to collect the King's revenue. Moreover, the person appointed to be governor in the colony must have the approval of the King, and must qualify him- self properly by taking oaths and giving security to obey the acts of Parliament relating to trade and navigation and to obey instructions sent him pursuant to said acts. He was not bound, however, to obey general instructions. The su- pervision of the British government over the financial man- agement of the colony was secured by the requirement that an annual account of all moneys received and expended be presented in writing to two officials of the home government. It was further stipulated that from time to time accounts of the progress of the colony should be given to the secre- taries of state and to the Board of Trade.
Having secured this charter which put them under the supervision of the English government and yet gave them a considerable amount of freedom in moulding the plans for the colony, the petitioners at once proceeded with the enter- prise. Their efforts, extending over a period of twenty years, resulted in the establishment of the proprietary prov-
27
The Creation of the Trust
ince of Georgia. The institutional development of this last English colony in America was peculiar in many respects, affording several points of contrast with that of the older colonies. It is impossible in a brief work to deal with all phases of this development; but it is here intended to treat in some detail a few of the problems which confronted the grantees of the charter of Georgia in the execution of the Trust which had been committed to them.
28
CHAPTER II
THE PERSONNEL OF THE TRUSTEES
T
HE charter provided for a corporation to be known as "The Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America." The name had been changed so as to be more definite than that at first suggested by Oglethorpe to the Board of Trade, and it is not known who proposed the one finally adopted. Twenty-one men were designated by name as the original members of the corporation ; but the membership was not limited to that number. The Trust was an open corporation like the London Company and the Massachusetts Bay Company, whereas the New England Council had been a closed corpo- ration. The difference between the two kinds of companies was that open corporations could indefinitely increase their membership, while closed ones maintained a definite number of members. It was a wise provision of the charter, since it allowed the Trustees to associate with them as many good and influential men as they might be able to interest in their enterprise. From the nature of the undertaking, it was not to be expected that many men would seek mem- bership in the Trust; only those who were willing to do hard work without remuneration could be induced to join in carrying on the settling and support of the colony. In addition to the twenty-one Trustees named in the charter, fifty others were elected to office during the twenty years of the corporation's existence. Twenty-six of these were
29
The Personnel of the Trustees
chosen during the first two years of the Trust, while the remaining twenty-four were scattered somewhat uniformly through the last eighteen years. This inequality of distri- bution in the adding of members is readily explained by the great amount of interest in the colony and enthusiasm for its development that were especially manifest during the years 1733 and 1734.
The Trustees named in the charter did not belong to any one profession or rank in society, though all were gen- tlemen. Interest in the charitable work proposed seems to have been the general basis of appointment. Five of the twenty-one members were ministers of the gospel, all of the Church of England. Ten were members of the House of Commons. Two held seats in the House of Lords. One was a commissioner of the excise, another was a philanthro- pist noted for his work in establishing and supporting hos- pitals, still another was clerk in the South Sea House, while the last was a country gentleman. None of the men were distinguished nobles or noted political leaders at the time, nor were they of such wealth that they would be able to carry on the work by their own financial contributions, in fact the records for the whole twenty years of the Trust show gifts from these twenty-one members of only about two hundred and twenty-five pounds.1
In the choice of members at the annual meeting of 1733, it would seem that interest in the financial progress of the colony had weight. Of the seventeen Trustees chosen on that occasion, twelve had shown their personal interest either by making contributions in money or by securing commis- sions to solicit funds from others for the purposes of the charter. Of the five who do not appear to have been thus interested, one was a member of the House of Lords, three 1C. R. III: 1-208.
m
30
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
of the House of Commons, and the last was a country gentleman.
If financial support was the basis of choice in 1733, it did not continue to be, for the next year nine Trustees were chosen, none of whom had contributed to the colony or had tried to get others to do so, though six of them made con- tributions shortly after their election. Four of them were members of the House of Commons, one was of the House of Lords, another was a clergyman, still another was an eminent lawyer, while about the remaining two very little is known. The next Trustee, who was chosen in 1737, was undoubtedly selected on account of his great financial assist- ance. He had given a thousand pounds from a trust fund in his possession for the development of Georgia, this sum being much in excess of the combined contributions of all the other Trustees during the proprietary period:2
Between the years 1738 and 1743 inclusive there were elected thirteen members of the corporation, and all of these were members of Parliament. There had been a strong tend- ency heretofore to choose members from those who could be useful in securing the support of Parliament, and as the support became more doubtful it is not surprising that mem- bers of the House of Commons would make the most ac- ceptable Trustees.
Of the ten members chosen during the last decade of the Trust, six were members of Parliament, one a clergyman, another was Lord Mayor of London, still another was a merchant, while nothing is known of the remaining one.3
Of the seventy-one + Trustees, eleven never qualified by
'C. R. I: 273-275.
3 Stevens I: 474-475.
.Jones, Stevens, and others give lists of seventy-two members of the Trust, but they overlook the fact that Robert Kendall, Esq., and Sir Robert Cater were two names for the same man. C. R. I: 28.
31
The Personnel of the Trustees
attending a single meeting and seven others attended only three meetings or less, so that the active membership of the Trust was only fifty-three, and it must not be supposed that all of these did much work either in attending meetings or in looking after the details of the colony. In view of the large number who were indifferent, we can understand why the average attendance was so small at both corporation and Common Council meetings. For the purpose of our study, the activity of a man in Georgia affairs and his gen- eral usefulness to the Trust are of more importance than the facts of his personal or private life. Some of those elected members of the corporation were in many respects very noted and influential men, and yet their participation in the business of the Trust was so slight that they do not merit individual attention in studying the personnel of the working members of the board. The following table will indicate those who were most diligent in attending to the duties which devolved on the members of the corporation:
ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS ON THE MEETINGS OF THE TRUS- TEES FOR ESTABLISHING THE COLONY OF GEORGIA IN AMERICA, 1732-1752.
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during member- ship 450
John Lord Viscount Perceval. . 1732 (Later Earl of Egmont.)
343
Hon. Edward Digby, Esq.
1732
97
512
George Carpenter, Esq.
1732
70
463
(Later Lord Carpenter.)
James Oglethorpe, Esq.
1732
147
512
George Heathcote, Esq.
1732
84
512
32
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
.
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during member- ship
Thomas Towers, Esq
1732
193
512
Robert More, Esq.
1732
39
512
Robert Hucks, Esq.
1732
187
423
Rogers Holland, Esq
1732
87
512
William Sloper, Esq
1732
36
388
Francis Eyles, Esq.
1732
26
512
John Laroche, Esq.
1732
161
512
Hon. James Vernon, Esq
1732
394
512
William Belitha, Esq.
1732
18
512
Rev. Stephen Hales. D.D.
1732
152
512
Rev. John Burton
1732
46
512
Rev. Richard Bundy, D.D
1732
81
274
Rev. Arthur Bedford
1732
36
423
Rev. Samuel Smith
1732
352
512
Mr. Adam Anderson
1732
129
512
Mr. Thomas Coram
1732
129
494
James Earl of Derby
1733
None
476
Anthony Ashley Earl of Shaftes- bury
1733
138
476
John Lord Viscount Tyrconnel. 1733
102
476
James Lord Viscount Limerick. 1733
27
476
James Lord D'Arcy .
1733
None
64
Hon. Richard Chandler, Esq
1733
61
476
Thomas Frederick, Esq
1733
30
320
Henry L'Apostre, Esq.
1733
294
476
William Heathcote, Esq.
1733
125
476
(Later Sir Wm. Heathcote, Bart.)
Robert Kendall, Esq.
1733
29
273
(Later Sir Robert Cater.)
33
The Personnel of the Trustees
Meetings held during member- ship
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended ·
John Page, Esq.
1733
16
476
William Hanbury, Esq.
1733
1
476
Erasmus Phillips, Esq.
1733
1
476
(Later Sir E. Phillips, Bart.)
Christopher Towers, Esq.
1733
23
476
Sir John Gonson, Knight
1733
6
476
George Tyrer, Esq.
1733
None
476
John White, Esq. 1733
38
476
Rev. Thomas Rundle, D.D. 1734
4
272
(Later Lord Bishop of Londonderry.) Hon. William Talbot, Esq. . 1734
8
412
(Later Lord Talbot.)
Richard Coope, Esq.
1734
None
412
William Wollaston, Esq. 1734
2
412
Hon. Robert Eyre, Esq.
1734
63
412
Thomas Archer, Esq.
1734
39
412
(Later Lord Archer.)
Henry Archer, Esq.
1734
62
412
Robert Tracy, Esq.
1734
57
412
Francis Wollaston, Esq
1734
None
412
Sir Jacob Des Bouverie, Bart. . 1737 (Later Lord Viscount Folkstone.)
4
283
Sir Harry Gough, Bart. 1738
10
238
Sir Roger Burgoyne, Bart. 1738
1
238
Lord Sidney Beauclerk. 1739
19
101
Hon. Henry Bathurst, Esq
1741
8
165
Hon. Philip Perceval, Esq.
1741
33
116
John Frederick, Esq.
1741
10
165
T
34
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
Name
Chosen
Meetings attended
Meetings held during member- ship
Hon. Alexander Hume Camp-
bell, Esq .. .
1742
None
146
Sir John Barrington, Bart 1742
26
146
Samuel Tuffnell, Esq. 1742
46
146
Henry Calthrope, Esq. 1742
3
146
(Later Sir Henry Calthrope.)
John Phillips, Esq.
1743
22
130
(Later Sir John Phillips, Bart.)
Velters Cornewall, Esq. 1743
9
130
John Wright, Esq 1743
None
130
Rev. Thomas Wilson, D.D. 1745
16
79
Francis Cokayne, Esq 1747
2
59
Samuel Lloyd, Esq. 1747
37
59
Hon. John Earl of Egmont. . .
1749
None
39
Anthony Ewer, Esq. 1749
20
39
Edward Hooper, Esq 1749
23
39
Sir John Cust, Bart. 1749
None
39
Slingsby Bethel, Esq.
1749
None
39
Stephen Theodore Jansen, Esq. 1749
None
39
Richard Cavendish
?
3
?
In addition to the regular members listed above, there were chosen on March 19, 1747, two corresponding members of the Trust for the service of Salzburghers and other Ger- mans who might be inclined to go to Georgia. These were Mr. Chretien Von Munch and Rev. Samuel Urlsperger of Augsburgh. They never attended any meetings of the Trust but they frequently gave information and advice through
1
35
The Personnel of the Trustees
letters to the Trustees.5 1727340
Since the Common Council of the Trustees was a closed board with a limited membership and since it was necessary for it to have eight members present in order to do business, it was more important that those holding office in it be selected from active and interested persons than that such should be chosen for the corporation only. There were in all forty-eight members of the Common Council appointed or selected. Of this number, two never accepted the office to which they were elected, so that only forty-six actually took the oath which inaugurated them into service. Six members served during the whole period of proprietary con- trol, and two others served from the completion of the first Council on March 15, 1733, to the end of the period. Since the duties of a Common Councilman were in many respects more arduous than those of an ordinary member of the cor- poration, it is worth while to tabulate the faithfulness of its members.
ATTENDANCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL ON ITS MEETINGS, 1732-1752
Meetings Meetings held during
Name
Chosen attended membership
Remarks
Egmont
1732
161
201
Resigned July 7, 1742.
Digby
1732
50
210
Died 1745.
Carpenter
1732
42
127
Resigned Mar. 8, 1738. Re-elected and resigned Apr. 12, 1740.
*Oglethorpe
1732
70
215
G. Heathcote
1732
65
215
Resigned Mar. 8, 1738.
*Laroche
1732
110
215
*Vernon
1732
176
215
Belitha
1732
7
15 Resigned Mar. 15, 1733.
'C. R. I: 499.
36
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
Meetings Meetings held during Chosen attended membership
Name
Remarks
*Hales
1732
95
215
*T. Towers
1732
125
215
Hucks
1732
82
111
Resigned Mar. 17, 1737.
More
1732
28
98
Resigned Apr. 16, 1736.
*Holland
1732
68
215
Sloper
1732
29
193
Resigned Feb. 20, 1742.
Eyles
1732
29
193 Resigned Feb. 11, 1742.
*Shaftesbury
1733
80
186
Resigned 1739; re-elect- ed 1740.
*Tyrconnel
1733
80
200
Limerick
1733
14
128
Resigned 1739.
*Chandler
1733
34
200
T. Frederick
1733
25
141
Died 1740.
L'Apostre
1733
138
189
Resigned 1747.
W. Heathcote
1733
42
141
Resigned Jul. 30, 1739.
White
1733
28
96
Resigned April 26, 1736.
Cater
1733
25
119
Resigned Mar. 8, 1738.
Bundy
1733
52
112
Resigned Mar. 8, 1738.
Talbot
1736
2
16
Resigned Mar. 8, 1738.
T. Archer
1736
11
72
Resigned Mar. 18, 1742.
*Eyre
1736
39
104
*Smith
1737
75
88
*Tracy
1737
32
88
*Page
1737
2
88
H. Archer
1737
31
69 Resigned Jan. . 28, 1744.
C. Towers
1737
14
75 Resigned 1747.
Beauclerk
1738
15
46
Died Nov. 23, 1744.
*J. Frederick
1740
13
45
*Bathurst
1740
7
45
Resigned Mar. 9, 1744.
*Barrington
1741
12
32
*Tuffnel
1741
19
32
37
The Personnel of the Trustees
Meetings Meetings held during Chosen attended membership Remarks
Name
*Phillips
1742
10
25
P. Perceval
1743
None
8 Died 1747.
*Cornewall
1743
6
19
Bouverie
1744
None
17
(Resigned ?)
*Wilson
1746
6
13
*Lloyd
1749
9
9
*Hooper
1749
6
9
*Ewer
1749
8
9
*Cavendish
? 1
?
* Those whose names are thus marked above formed the Common Council when the charter was surrendered in 1752. The minutes of the Trustees are not quite complete as to the changes made during the last few years and it is not certain when Cavendish was chosen to the Council or whether Bouverie ever resigned from the body or not.
Besides attending the meetings of the corporation and the Common Council, the more active Trustees frequently had duties to perform on some of the permanent or special committees which were so frequently employed by both bodies. Although service on the committees was very often assigned to any three or more of the members, it usually devolved on a very few persons who were willing to sacrifice their time for the good of the colony. The various journals and minutes which describe the work of the committees fre- quently fail to indicate the individuals who composed the committees, but sufficient information may be gleaned from them to show with reasonable accuracy the members both of the corporation and of the Common Council who were
38
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
most prominent in this work. The general results are tabu- lated below :
COMMITTEE SERVICE OF THE CORPORATION AND OF THE COM- MON COUNCIL OF THE TRUSTEES FOR ESTABLISHING THE COLONY OF GEORGIA IN AMERICA
Name
Corporation
Common Council
Total
Vernon
47
95
142
Egmont
12
98
110
T. Towers
26
74
100
L'Apostre
6
88
94
Laroche
11
51
62
Hucks
14
46
60
Hales
7
46
53
Oglethorpe
19
31
50
Shaftesbury
12
36
48
Eyre
6
40
46
Smith
20
23
43
Holland
4
33
37
Tyrconnel
6
22
28
H. Archer
8
11
19
W. Heathcote
2
17
19
G. Heathcote
6
11
17
Digby
1
17
18
Chandler
6
12
18
Tracy
3
14
17
Hooper
6
8
14
J. Frederick
2
10
12
T. Frederick
3
7
10
Bundy
6
3
9
More
4
5
9
White
2
7
9
Bathurst
3
6
9
39
The Personnel of the Trustees
Name
Corporation
Common Council
Total
Lloyd
4
9
13
Ewer
3
8
11
Cavendish
2
5
7
J. Phillips
2
4
6
Coram
6
6
Wright
2
3
5
T. Archer
3
-
3
Wilson
1
1
2
Campbell
1
1
2
Page
1
1
2
Burton
1
1
Anderson
1
-
1
Bedford
2
-
2
Carpenter
3
3
Sloper
4
4
Eyles
8
8
Belitha
-
7
7
Cater
3
11
14
Talbot
1
1
Limerick
1
1
Beauclerk
3
3
C. Tower.
3
3
Barrington
3
3
Tuffnel
1
1
.
·
-
.
This table furnishes the clearest evidence possible that a very few men did the actual work of the Trust. So far as information is available, there were in all 1,162 reports for committee duty, and more than half of these were made by seven men. These seven seem to have had more to do with the constructive policy of the Trustees than all the other sixty-four members of the Trust combined; for the minutes
40
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
of the Common Council and the journal of the Trustees make it evident that very much of their business consisted of hearing and approving the work of their committees. However, lest it give undue prominence to the committee work to select as the most prominent Trustees those who led in it, it will be best to combine in one table the various activities of those who ranked highest in all departments of service for the colony. The results are collated in the sum- mary following:
THE LEADING WORKERS AMONG THE TRUSTEES IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF SERVICE, 1732-1752
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.