Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust, Part 2

Author: McCain, James Ross, 1881-
Publication date: 1917
Publisher: Boston, R.G. Badger
Number of Pages: 722


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.