USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 8
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
Connected with the business of making settlements on a large scale at so great a distance from England, there were of course many duties that neither the corporation nor the Common Council could look after as a body, and so we find a large use of committees in both bodies. In the records of the general board of Trustees, there are at least fifty-five instances where committees of one or more persons were designated for somewhat trivial matters, such as the thank-
112
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
ing of some donor for contributions of money or effects. Most of these appointments were made early in the history of the colony, for the secretary or accomptant performed such offices during a large portion of the time. At various times, eight committees were selected to look after and re- port on laws or regulations necessary for the Trust or for the colony. For correspondence with the Salzburghers or for consultation with them relative to their going to Georgia, at least twelve committees performed duty. Members espec- ially delegated looked after the various embarkations of colonists for America and supplied their needs for the jour- ney. Others carried the annual reports to the Chief Justice or other officials designated by the charter and filed reports with the Board of Trade or with the other executive offices of the home government. There were committees also for keeping the seal of the Trust, for making estimates on work to be done in Georgia, and for presenting Indian visitors in England to the king. Quite frequently it was necessary that a committee confer with the Secretary of State relative to despatches from Georgia on matters of national import. On several occasions, committees were appointed to make an effort to have the quitrents reduced, to examine accounts, or to certify various drafts. To others were assigned the very important task of getting the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer interested in the financial support of the colony, or petitioning Parliament for funds to assist in the work, or of seeking financial assistance from the Society for the Prop- agation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts. When the Trust was about to be dissolved for lack of support, all of its af- fairs were placed in the hands of a special committee for more than a year. The foregoing list of committees only partially represents the many activities of the corporation, but it gives typical examples of the work performed by the
113
The Executive in England
general board of Trustees in this manner.
All the committees heretofore mentioned were in large measure temporary, whose duties extended only through periods of a few hours or of a few days. Far more important than any of them, therefore, was the Committee of Cor- respondence, which lasted, with some variations in member- ship, throughout the proprietary period. It was established in 1734. On February 6 of that year, a motion was made that a Committee of Correspondence be appointed, and five days later a resolution was passed creating the important committee. It was to inspect all letters coming to or affect- ing the Trust, and to prepare drafts of letters and other correspondence for the approbation of the Common Council or of the Board of Trustees. The accomptant, secretary or messenger receiving letters for the Trust would at once com- mit them to some member of the committee which had power to summon a meeting of either the corporation or the Com- mon Council at will. The committee was to consist of twelve men designated by name, but any three of them could make a quorum for business.32 At a later time the com- mittee was enlarged,33 and it played a very important part in the practical administration of the Trust affairs.
The Common Council, while itself supposed to be a com- mittee of the general corporation, nevertheless made much more frequent use of committees than did the whole body of Trustees. Many of these were charged with the financial interests of the colony, of which we have seen that the Com- mon Council had jurisdiction. The committee most fre- quently called to act was charged with the power of draw- ing on the Bank of England for Trust funds on deposit there; any five of the original fifteen members of the Council
"C. R. I: 158.
33 Ibid., 242.
114
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
were authorized to act as a committee for this purpose, and, when the number was enlarged to twenty-four members, the same rule applied.3+ Committees from the Common Council, as well as from the corporation, were sent to con- fer with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about securing support. Dealing also with financial matters, but having a more difficult task to perform than these other committees, was that on accounts. It was originally composed of ten men, any three of whom might form a quorum; the consti- tution of the committee was later changed so that any three of the Council could serve in this capacity.35 The ac- comptant relieved the committee of many tedious duties; but even with this aid, the task was very slow and difficult. When matters of peculiar intricacy arose, as in the case of Thomas Causton, the deposed storekeeper of Savannah, members might again be designated by name for the service, other members of the Common Council being allowed a vote on the committee, and members of the general board who were not of the Council might also be asked to assist in the work.36 Other appointees balanced accounts with the Bank of England and prepared reports of the yearly expenses. When it became the policy of the Trustees to pay their bills in notes or sola bills, several committees were made necessary. One of these prepared the form of the notes, an- other looked after their exchange at the bank, while a third cancelled and destroyed them. Another important financial committee was that charged with the duty of making out the budget or estimate of expenses in Georgia ..
Next to financial affairs, perhaps the framing of regula- tions and the preparing of instructions for magistrates
"C. R. II: 4, 37.
" Ibid., 17, 40.
" Ibid., 104, 437.
_ :
115
The Executive in England
formed the most important work of the Common Council committees. On several occasions these were appointed to consider changes in the land tenures, the forms of grants, forfeited estates and other agrarian matters.37 Other com- mittees were authorized to prepare an act for powder duty, a sumptuary law forbidding the use of gold and silver for ornaments, an act for the use of negroes, and many regula- tions of less importance. The Common Council delegated members to investigate prospective magistrates and to pre- pare commissions or instructions for magistrates on the comparatively rare occasions when such were sent. As a general rule, the sending of instructions was in the hands of the Committee of Correspondence, and the directions were sent informally, but this committee was not of so much im- portance in the work of the Common Council as it was in that of the general board.
Committees to look after trifling or petty matters were very numerous indeed, and the duties performed by them were in general very much like those of the corporation, so that it would be tedious to repeat them in detail; but to- wards the close of the Trust there were several important ones that we must notice somewhat carefully. On April 25, 1751, all the powers of the Common Council were delegated to eleven of its members and to one of the other Trustees in order to adjust with the administration the proper means for supporting and settling Georgia in the future, and to take such steps from time to time as might be necessary for the welfare of the province. The committee was empow- ered to frame, seal and present all such representations or memorials as might seem advisable. The whole committee or any three of its members might act as a committee of correspondence without having to submit its letters or other
" C. R. II: 387, 409, 485, 506, as examples.
116
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
correspondence to either the Common Council or the cor- poration, and it was also given authority to audit and inspect the Trust accounts. The same committee or any five of its members were authorized to prepare the important regula- tions for the first meeting of an assembly in Georgia, and it could put these regulations into operation without report- ing them to any other body.38 The appointment of this committee with such plenary powers was practically creating a substitute for the Common Council as designed by the char- ter, displacing the Council by a body with less strict require- ments as to quorum. The action was probably necessary, as it was very difficult to get eight members together, and the Council was not entirely abolished, for when it could get a quorum of eight it met under its own name.
About a year after the appointment of this committee, another was named to superintend the final details of the surrender of the Trust. It was composed of nine members. It took charge of the books, papers and effects of every kind, and any three of the committee might dispose of them as they thought best. It was also entrusted with the money to be paid by Parliament for the cancelling of certain debts of the Trust, and it was to distribute it according to its judgment as to what was proper.39
The Georgia Trustees were ,anxious to be as independent of control as possible during the twenty-one years of their political authority. They felt that only in that way could singleness of aim be secured in the management of the prov- ince. We have already noticed how they interviewed re- peatedly the Board of Trade or the committee of the Privy Council before the charter was granted in order to secure the privileges they deemed essential to the proper control
38 C. R. II: 506-507.
" Ibid., 523-524.
-
117
The Executive in England
of the colony. On the other hand, as it was the general policy of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Planta- tions to procure a large degree of imperial control over the various British colonies, and as they were especially opposed to the chartered colonies, it is not surprising that the Trustees of Georgia and the Board of Trade did not always agree about the affairs in which they were both concerned. We have already noted that the Trustees did not appoint a governor for the province, as the charter had anticipated that they would do. Such an official would have been under the control of the Board of Trade and other executive of- fices of the Crown.40 By sending James Oglethorpe as an attorney for them, the Trustees effectually maintained their independence in that particular, though we have also seen that it was probably a mistake in policy to do this. Whether or not it was resented by the Board of Trade does not ap- pear, but for a considerable while thereafter the Trustees felt that the Board was not favorable to them. This feel- ing that the Board was hostile appears several times in the records in connection with the dispute between South Caro- lina and Georgia on the subject of the Indian trade. This dispute was brought before the Board of Trade for settle- ment, and several hearings on the subject were held. The Trustees claimed that the Board's partiality to South Caro- lina was shown before making its report in its putting cer- tain questions to the law officers of the Crown which they refused to allow the Trustees to see, and also in its present- ing a report in favor of South Carolina in spite of the fact that the law officers reported in favor of Georgia.41 The facts would be too tedious to be given here, but the action of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations can be
"C. R. I: 24.
" C. R. V: 7-8.
118
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
explained on other grounds than prejudice toward the Trus- tees. Their well-known policy was to encourage and pro- mote trade, and it was no doubt in pursuance of this policy that they made their decision in the Georgia-South Carolina case. The free admission of Carolina traders to take part in the traffic with the Indians was thought to be an encour- agement to this very desirable trade, and in like manner it was thought that the promotion of this trade was a suf- ficient reason for allowing the free navigation of the Sa- vannah river, even by vessels carrying rum, provided they did not trade with the Georgia settlements.42 However, the Georgia Trustees were not willing to accept the decision of the Board of Trade in the matter and appealed the case to the Privy Council.43 After a hearing before that body, the case was compromised, but some of the Trustees were quite dissatisfied with that result and even questioned the right of the Privy Council to reach such a conclusion that it practically suspended an act which had been passed by the Trustees. 44
In 1740 the same feeling that the Board of Trade was hostile was manifested in regard to a Pilot Act which the Trustees had proposed and which had been referred to the Lords Commissioners for consideration. Referring to their action thereon, the Earl of Egmont wrote, "This Report ap- peared to be made with great animosity against us, but we were not much surprised at it, the Board being constantly our Enemies." 45
In the same year, Mr. Vernon, another of the prominent Trustees, expressed very freely his opinion that the influ-
"B. T. (S. C.), XXVI: 224.
"C. R. V: 9.
" Ibid., 40, 46, 54-55.
"Ibid., 390.
1
119
The Executive in England
ence of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations was dangerous to Georgia, and his sentiments were approved by his fellow Trustees. He was urging the necessity of a better government in the colony, but he was suggesting that two presidents be appointed rather than one governor, be- cause in that way they could preserve the colony to the Trus- tees. He argued that appointing one man would be in a measure surrendering their charter, for by its terms such a person must be approved by the King, and when he was once established in office the Trustees could not remove him at pleasure. Such a governor "would be obliged to obey not only the Trustees' Orders but the Orders also of the Board of Trade, Our Enemies, who would become our Masters, and without regarding the Trustees and acquainting them, would send over such Orders as they pleased, which in a multitude of Cases might clash and interfere with Orders sent by the Trustees : So that no Gentleman would continue in the Trust to be rival'd, disputed with, and become subservient to the Board of Trade, who know as little of the Colony as they do of trade." 46
In 1742 an act of the Trustees allowing the importation of rum into Georgia on certain conditions was referred to the Board of Trade. It approved the general tenor of the act, as it tended to encourage trade, but it refused to report in favor of the clause which gave power to the Common Council of the Trustees to make rules and regulations for the purchase or sale of the rum, thus indicating a desire to limit to some extent at least the exclusive powers of the Trustees in Georgia.47 The Trustees reconsidered the act, making two acts out of it-one to allow the importation of rum and the other to regulate it. These acts were also reported to
4 C. R. V: 415-416.
47 C. R. I: 407.
120
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
the Board of Trade for its approval. To both the acts ob- jections were raised: to the one, because it restricted too much the trade in rum and made no allowance for a British distillery ; to the other, because its penalties were too severe for violations of the act. The Trustees had made changes once in the general act, as we have seen, and they refused to alter the acts further. The secretary of the Trust was ordered to request the return of the acts if they could not be approved as they were by the Board of Trade.+8 Noth- ing seems to have been done at once, but after the lapse of nearly a year the Trustees were again informed that the objections had not been removed,49 and so far as the records are available, there is no indication that any agreement was ever reached in the matter. The Trustees merely allowed the government in Georgia to wink at the violation of the rum act in preference to making further attempts to legis- late on the subject.
It must not be understood, however, that there were no peaceful and cordial relations between the Trustees and the Board of Trade. There was much routine connection between them which made no noise and so left no echoes, but the gen- eral relations could not be harmonious on account of the opposing viewpoints of the two bodies. The Trustees were probably unselfish to a very considerable degree in thinking it for the best interests of Georgia that they retain very full control of the province, though reviewing this policy in the light of its results we can see that it hindered the develop- ment and trade of the colony. The Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, having steadily in view the de- velopment and extension of English commerce and trade and
"C. R. I: 453-454.
" Ibid., 465.
121
The Executive in England
receiving the regular reports of the progress in Georgia 50 which frequently failed to show much real growth or prog- ress, could not look with favor on the policy of the Trustees. The latter were idealists; the Board of Trade looked for practical results. That the Board was not hostile to the colony itself appears when the Trustees had agreed to sur- render their charter. The report of the Board of Trade on that occasion was very full and favorable to Georgia, and the presiding officer of the Lords Commissioners was known to be a firm friend of the colony.51 The question might be raised as to how much they were influenced in their report by the fact that after the surrender of the Trust they would themselves have the direction of the affairs of the colony, but it is hardly necessary to discuss the matter. The Board of Trade had always shown itself sufficiently friendly to the new colony itself, and any hostility that it may have shown was directed toward the methods followed by the Trustees in carrying on the work of settlement and development.
It was not with the Board of Trade alone that the Trus- tees disagreed in trying to maintain their complete control over Georgia; they also had misunderstandings with the Commissioners of the Customs and asserted their rights to the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral. The dispute with the customs officials was in regard to the appointment of a naval officer in Georgia. The Trustees appointed such an officer early in their ad- ministration, relying on the clause in the charter which gave them the general power of appointing officers. There was no difficulty in the matter until the colonists who were clearing their land of some fine timber wished to ship some
5º C. R. V: 455.
51 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Pres. and Assts., Jan. 23, 1752.
-
1 122
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
of it to England for masts. There was a considerable bounty offered for such timber, and that alone made the shipments profitable, but the customs officers would not grant the bounty to Georgians on the ground that there was no regu- larly appointed naval officer in the province, claiming the right to nominate and appoint all such officials. The Trus- tees were not disposed to yield the point, but they were at a disadvantage in the affair and so they proposed to com- promise by allowing their appointees to receive instructions from the Commissioners of the Customs. This seemed to be satisfactory to some individual commissioners, but no prog- ress was made in the matter. In 1739 efforts were again made by the Trustees to settle the point, but apparently it continued in dispute all through the proprietary period.52
It was in 1748 that the Trustees asserted their powers of government to the Admiralty Board. They had received information that the Lords of Admiralty had appointed one Mark Care as Judge of the Court of Admiralty in Georgia. They wrote to the Admiralty Board that such action had been taken without their knowledge or consent, and they wished it to be understood that in them alone is the govern- ment of Georgia vested. However, in this particular ap- pointment they were willing to agree, since they approved the choice that had been made.53 The boards of both the Customs and the Admiralty were right in law and in prac- tice, and it is surprising that the Trustees did not know it.
While there is something of interest in the relations of the Trustees to the various executive offices noted above, there is not so much of importance in them so far as the actual life of the colony was concerned as in the relations of the Trust to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to Parlia-
8 C. R. V: 228.
NC. R. I: 507-508.
---------
123
The Executive in England
ment. Accordingly, these must be treated in some detail. Since the relations to the Chancellor and to Parliament were so closely connected, they will be treated together. Parlia- ment had nothing to do with the founding of the corpora- tion to settle Georgia ; it was an executive act of the King in council. Since Sir Robert Walpole was so large a factor in the administration at the time the charter was granted, his attitude toward the enterprise is of some importance. As a rule careless about colonial affairs, he may have thought the proposed settlement a matter of small importance, and he seems to have left it entirely to the Board of Trade and to the law officers of the Crown.54 Even if he did not look on the enterprise as an affair of small consequence, an ex- periment that could do no harm, it would be in keeping with his general attitude toward colonies in America. The In- dians had been causing trouble on the Carolina frontier, and the proposed barrier colony might remove that source of irritation to the national government without any ex- pense, since it was thought that charitable gifts would main- tain Georgia without assistance from the English govern- ment. There was no immediate prospect that Georgia would be a source of trouble with Spain, and therefore, as the easiest and cheapest way of managing colonial affairs, it is not surprising that Walpole put no obstacle in the way of the settlement.
During the first year as it became evident that the con- tributions of charity would not be sufficient to cover even half of the expenses in Georgia, a petition was filed by the Trustees that Parliament would furnish a supply for the project. The petition set forth the three-fold object of the colony and asked that aid be granted for its further establishment and security. According to the usual form,
"C. R. V: 100.
124
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
it was Walpole's duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer to declare the King's consent before such a petition could be presented to the House of Commons,55 and there is no evi- dence that he raised any objection to the grant of £10,000 made to the Trust by Parliament. The next year no peti- tion was presented to Parliament on the subject, but the King by his royal sign manual granted the sum of £3,161 for the furtherance of the colony.56 As Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Robert Walpole would no doubt have had an opportunity to oppose and very likely defeat such a gift, if he had been actively opposed to the colony, as it was later thought that he was.
During the next three years the Trustees through peti- tions secured from Parliament the very large sum of £56,000, and there are no indications that there was any trouble in securing the grants. The Trustees were able to convince Parliament that the Spanish were threatening Georgia and South Carolina, and the large financial assistance was given principally for the purpose of defence. Finally, as we have seen, the government took over the entire defence of Georgia, relieving the Trustees of that responsibility and giving them concern with only the civil affairs of the province.
After this change the Trustees realized that it would be more difficult to obtain Parliamentary grants, and they very much desired to have the money they needed put into the yearly estimate, so that they would not have to petition for it year by year. Walpole seemed at first to favor them in the matter, encouraging them to hope that such an ar- rangement would be made, but in spite of his assurance both to Oglethorpe and to a committee of the Trustees, he continued to require that they petition as before, though he
" C. R. V: 281.
"C. R. III: 71, 75.
I 1
A
125
The Executive in England
allowed their request for the £8,000 sought. The same year he was planning to send a regiment under Oglethorpe to Georgia but the Spanish minister objected to the action so strongly that Walpole almost reversed his decision, and it was only after very persevering work of the Trustees that he finally agreed for Oglethorpe to proceed with the raising of the regiment.57
In 1739 it was again the purpose of the Trustees to ask for £8,000, and a committee was sent to the Lord Chan- cellor to remind him of his promise to put the sum into the estimate. He was willing to grant the money but he still refused to put it into the estimate. He explained to the members of the Trust that Spain and Great Britain were to settle by commissioners the boundary of Florida and Georgia ; and, while it was eminently proper to support the colony as long as it was in dispute, it was not proper to support the province in the estimate so long as it was at all disputed. In reality, however, Walpole thought that there was no place in the estimate for Georgia expenses, and he would seem to be right on the matter. The estimate gen- erally covered only military expenditures of various kinds, and the civil support of Georgia could scarcely be reckoned as military.58
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.