USA > Georgia > Georgia as a proprietary province; the execution of a trust > Part 9
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 a matter of fact, it seemed in 1739 as if Walpole would not be very averse to giving up Georgia to Spain in case this course would further the proposed convention with that country, and this indifference on the part of the Chancellor gave the friends of Georgia no little alarm. It did not reassure the Trustees when Walpole requested them to undertake a defence of the English right to Georgia. They realized that they were unskilled in such matters, and
57 C. R. V: 34.
18 Ibid., 88-89.
126
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
they felt that he was giving them a burden in which they might fail, and in which their failure would be an excuse for giving up the province. Consequently they determined not to try to defend the British title, asserting that the King's grant was sufficient for them and that any further defence ought to belong to the law officers of the Crown.59 At the same time, affairs in Georgia became so bad that the Trustees found that the £8,000 which they had planned to ask for the year would not be sufficient for their needs and so they determined to press for £20,000. Since Wal- pole was looking less favorably than before on the colony, it was determined to sound the attitude of the minority or the anti-ministerial party in the House of Commons. The latter was not hostile to Georgia and was willing to support the Trustees in their petition for money, if they would actively oppose Walpole in his scheme to give up the colony, as the minority asserted he was proposing to do.60 The support of Georgia was not, nor had it ever been, a dis- tinctly political issue, and it was the policy of the Trustees to keep it out of politics so far as it might be practicable.
It was a difficult feat to steer clear of political entangle- ments. Walpole professed to be the patron and friend of Georgia and yet the Trustees were afraid to commit them- selves to him. As a consequence he accused them of hos- tility to him. On the contrary, the minority were threat- ening to refuse further support unless the Trustees would join them tete baisse against the Ministry. Since they were courted and menaced by both sides, the Trustees thought a neutral position would be most dignified and effective, espe- cially as the vote on the convention Walpole had arranged with Spain was likely to be very close in the House of
"C. R. V: 100-101, 109.
" Ibid., 104.
127
The Executive in England
Commons.61
This neutral position was almost impossible to maintain. It was deemed necessary by the Trustees that they consult Walpole about the proper time to petition Parliament for the money they required, and they felt, too, that his sup- port was vital in getting the grant passed in the House of Commons. It was a problem with them how they might secure his aid without having to commit themselves to him in other matters. At length they determined to move in both houses a petition that Georgia might be fully pro- tected by Parliament and might not be affected by the pro- posed convention with Spain.62
When the debate on the convention itself came up in the House of Commons, Walpole was very anxious lest he might fail in the plan, and so he made strong efforts to secure the united support of all the Trustees who were members of Parliament. For a time it looked as if he would lose their votes, since many of them feared greatly that the conven- tion would be dangerous to the colony in spite of the peti- tion for protection that had been moved in Parliament. However, Walpole made some concessions to them in the matter of verbiage so as to remove their fears, and so he secured the support of most of the Trustees, passing his measure by a vote of 260 to 232; with the Trustees in op- position he could not have succeeded. The minority was much outraged that the Trustees should thus seem to be the mere tools of the majority, and some of the minority mem- bers of the Common Council went so far as to withdraw from membership in that body.63 Whether or not the Trustees truckled to Sir Robert Walpole to obtain their money, they
"1 C. R. V: 112-113. 62 Ibid., 125-126. 63 Ibid., 131-132.
128
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
succeeded in getting through him the £20,000 they de- sired.64
In 1740 there was a stronger desire on the part of many of the Trustees than even in the preceding year to break away from dependence on Walpole. Money was no longer coming in from charitably disposed people and the only source of supply was that of grants by Parliament, so that it was essential to secure action in the House of Parlia- ment. Hitherto this had seemed possible only with the co- operation of the Chancellor, but his waning majorities showed that he was becoming weaker in his hold on the government, and it was thought best not to be too closely identified with him. Besides, a sense of dependence was so distasteful to many of the Trustees that they had ceased to come to the meetings of the Trust. In order to put Georgia affairs on a firmer basis both at that time and for the future, it was thought wise to take the sense of Parliament in regard to the province, securing if possible a Parliamentary inquiry and investigation. The Trustees thought that if evidence of the worth of the colony could be produced and a favorable resolution could be passed it would no longer be necessary to proceed by petition, but a sufficient annual support would be granted on motion. This would be a much more dignified method than that hitherto followed. This plan would mean a breaking away from dependence on the ministry, but it would regain the good will of the minority, and it would not be hostile to Walpole. His allies among the Trustees, however, urged that dropping him would really result in his dropping the Trust, and his power was well known. Should the appeal to Parliament fail, resort to petition would then be the only resource, and for this the King's consent could be obtained " C. R. V: 147.
------
129
The Executive in England
by Walpole alone.65 So dangerous did it seem to run the risk of losing his favor that the Trustees finally determined to cling to their former policy of seeking the aid of the Lord Chancellor and of proceeding by petition, but they attached to the petition an offer to produce evidence of the worth of Georgia, if the House of Commons should choose to hear it. They hoped in this way to stir up an inquiry, but Sir Robert Walpole was no friend of Parliamentary inquiries in general, as they exposed many neglects of the ministry, and he opposed this one in particular, since it would likely remove the province from his control. He was successful in resisting the inquiry, but he granted the £4,000 the Trus- tees were asking for that year.66
By 1741 all hope of proceeding by any other method than that of petition had failed, but there was an earnest desire on the part of the Trustees to have the House of Com- mons institute an inquiry into the management of Georgia. They had prepared a formal account of the progress made by the colony since its establishment and they had distributed it widely among the membership of Parliament. It aroused sufficient interest in Georgia to make it easy for the pro- prietors to get an appropriation of £10,000, but the ef- fort to have a formal hearing again failed.67
The Trustees were sufficiently associated with the party of Walpole and his administration either in reality or in the opinion of the House of Commons, to suffer when he lost power and when a new ministry was formed. In 1742 the friends of Georgia followed the same tactics as in former years, seeking the aid of the Earl of Wilmington, the nominal head of the ministry, and of Mr. Sandys, the Chancellor of
65 C. R. V: 280-281.
Ibid., 297-302.
" Ibid., 445-446, 491.
130
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
the Exchequer. The latter promised his support to the ex- tent of securing the King's consent that the Trustees make their petition to the House of Commons, but the Earl of Wilmington was not very cordial. When the petition was moved in the House of Commons, the customary motion to refer it to the Committee of Supply was made, when, to the utmost astonishment of the Trustees, the motion was de- feated and the Trust was left almost helpless. This was a great surprise and shock to the supporters of Georgia. They made several attempts to secure the much needed money through a motion in the Committee of Supply it- self, but for this the support of the ministry was needed and the latter met the requests of the Trustees with a gen- teel but firm refusal. A petition to the King himself met with no better results.68
While these disappointments were being suffered by the Trustees, further vexations were begun for them by Thomas Stephens, who had come to England claiming to represent the people of Georgia. As the agent of the inhabitants of the province, he had on March 30, 1742, presented a petition to the Privy Council complaining against the oppressions of the Trustees and asking for relief. This petition was re- ferred to the committee of the council for plantation affairs and a copy of it was sent by the committee to the Trust with the desire that an answer might be returned as speedily as possible by the Trustees. This answer was filed on May 3, 1742, but before a hearing could be held by the Council the matter had been taken up by the House of Commons. 60 On April 30 a petition was presented in the House for Thomas Stephens, but in the name of the inhabitants of Georgia, and it was moved that the petition be referred to
*C. R. V: 610-612.
· Ibid., 632.
131
The Executive in England
a' private committee. The friends of the Trustees objected to this disposition of the matter, because they feared that a committee might be selected that would be hostile to the colony and so they pressed for a hearing before the whole House and this was finally secured by them. The petition and answer that had been filed with the Privy Council were laid before the House and it was agreed that both sides should be allowed to introduce evidence and might be heard by counsel.70
Three solemn hearings at the bar of the whole House of Commons were held on the allegations of the petition and the defence of the Trustees was then presented. After hearing the counsel for both sides and debating the subject among themselves, the members of the House as a committee adopted six resolutions to embody their findings in the case. They approved entirely the usefulness of Georgia ; they as- serted that it ought to be supported and preserved, and they condemned the petition of Stephens as containing false, scandalous and malicious charges, but they reported in favor of changing one or two of the regulations of the Trustees.71 When these resolutions were presented as the report of the committee, the Home adopted them without change on June 29; and Thomas Stephens on the next day was made to kneel in the House of Commons and was reprimanded by the Speaker for his part in trying to asperse the characters of the Trustees.72
Since the hearing before the House of Commons, which had been so long sought by the Trustees had been held and had resulted so favorably to the colony, it was thought that there would be little difficulty in getting passed an address
TO C. R. V: 616-618.
T Ibid., 635-636.
72 Ibid., 640-641.
132
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
to the King asking that he advance £6,000 for the support of the province, to be repaid the next year. The Trustees thought that in this manner they might retrieve their defeat in the spring when they tried in vain to secure money by any means then available. To carry out their plans, a motion was made on July 6, 1742, that an address be sent to the King in favor of the province and it was hotly debated. So much opposition developed in the House that in spite of the resolutions adopted a week before for the support of the province the motion for the address had to be withdrawn to prevent its defeat. This left the Trustees without sup- port for the year and there was much discouragement among them because they obtained a justification from the charges of Stephens with so much difficulty and were unable to reap any financial fruitage from their justification.73
This defeat was the climax of the relations between the Trust and Parliament during the first decade of Georgia's existence. The second decade was less eventful. There was little trouble in getting by a large majority the sum of £12,000 in March, 1743. In this case the opposition con- sisted almost entirely of Tories,"+ who had apparently gotten alienated from the Trustees when the latter voted with Wal- pole for the convention with Spain in 1739, and who had never become reconciled to the Trust as had the other ele- ments of the opposition of 1739.
The money granted in 1743 was so economically expended that no petition for a supply was necessary in 1744, the first time in the history of the colony that such was the case, and it was not until December, 1745, that Parliament was again requested to furnish financial aid to Georgia. In the petition on this occasion the resolutions of 1742 in favor
13 C. R. V: 642-644.
" Ibid., 682.
133
The Executive in England
of the province were cited and it was successful; but it was more than a year afterwards that the money was received and on account of the war the amount allowed was only £4,000.75
During the years 1746-1748, the exigencies of war made it so unlikely that money would be granted that the Trus- tees, though in sore need, did not petition for it. In Jan- uary, 1749, they determined to make an effort to secure relief and the old method of appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer was adopted. Toward the close of 1744, the Wilmington-Carteret ministry had been overthrown and since that time the Pelhams had been in charge of the govern- ment. Both of them were borough-mongers of the type of Walpole and neither cared much for the colony, but the Trustees agreed to make a personal appeal to Henry Pel- ham. His aid was secured and a petition to Parliament was successful to the extent of about £5,000.76 The next year a similar appeal was successful in securing a smaller sum. By this means the colony was kept going, but there was a constant handicap due to the lack of money. In 1751 the petition of the Trustees was defeated in the Committee of Supply of the House of Commons and the Trust was help- less.77 On April 25, 1751, the Common Council appointed a committee of twelve persons, eleven members of the Common Council and one Trustee who was not a member of the Council, to adjust with the administration the proper means for supporting and settling the colony in the future and to take from time to time all such measures as they might find necessary for the well being of the province.78
75 B. T., Ga., X: Verelst to Stephens, March 1, 1746.
16 C. R. I: 536.
77 B. T., Ga., XI: Martyn to Vice-Pres. and Assts., Apr. 27, 1751. 78 C. R. II: 506.
1
134 Georgia as a Proprietary Province
On May 6, 1751, this committee drew up a memorial to the King setting forth the progress of the colony since its founding, its present condition and the inability of the Trus- tees to maintain its civil government and to keep up the other necessary services. It prayed for such aid as might be necessary for the fulfilment of the Trust. The memorial was presented to the Privy Council and was referred by the Council to the Board of Trade and to the Commissioners of the Treasury. On December 19 the Privy Council met to consider the memorial and the reports thereon by the bodies to whom it had been referred. After considerable con- sultation and after the presentation of some requests by the committee of the Trustees in behalf of the inhabitants of Georgia, the committee definitely agreed to surrender the charter of the Trust to the Crown without limitations or con- ditions. The Privy Council had informed the Trustees that this was a sine qua non condition on which any more money could be recommended for Georgia.79 In view of the pro- posed surrender of the charter, the Trustees were successful in appealing to the House of Commons for a sufficient sum of money to defray the remaining expenses of the Trust.
The law officers of the Crown were consulted as to the manner in which the charter should be surrendered and they advised that the Trustees should execute a deed under the direction of the Common Council of the corporation giving up all rights which the charter had conferred and also yield- ing to the Crown the one-eighth interest in the land of the province which the corporation had secured from Lord Car- teret. Accordingly, on June 23, 1752, at a meeting of only four Trustees, the indenture of surrender was duly executed and exchanged for a counterpart under the Great Seal sig- nifying the acceptance by the King of the deed so executed 7ºC. R. II: 513-515.
135
The Executive in England
by the Trust. This ended the corporate existence of "The Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America" after a life of twenty years and fourteen days.80
It is not so surprising that the English government re- fused to continue the support of Georgia under the Trus- tees as it is that for so long a time it bore this burden. It had never been thought a function of the government to render financial aid to colonizing enterprises. From the be- ginning it had been considered proper that the government should grant land to those wishing to make a colony and to furnish protection for it and to give to its people the rights held in common by Englishmen, but it had also been thoughit unwise for it to finance any colony. On what ground, then, did the Trustees appeal to Parliament for support and why were they successful in their applications? Of course the objects which the founders had in view for Georgia appealed to the members of Parliament as worthy of encouragement; the relief of the poor, the extension of British trade and the development of manufactures, and the defence of British pos- sessions were as strong motives as could influence English- men to action. It cannot well be doubted that the argument which secured the largest appropriations was based on the need of defence, but after the government had taken over that burden, leaving to the Trustees only the civil affairs, there were frequent and somewhat generous grants. Why should these grants be made to Georgia when other colonies did not receive them? The Georgia authorities were bold enough to ask and to press earnestly for the money and the precedent already begun of making yearly grants to the colony was of help now, even though no plea could be made on the ground of defence. Of more influence perhaps was the personnel of the Trustee Board. Consisting of 80 C. R. I: 578.
136
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
many of the most eminent men in England, and including a large number of members of Parliament, it could command in England more influence and prestige than any former colony. Parliament would not lightly refuse a petition earnestly pressed by such a body of men, and their influence was the greater because they were known to serve without pay and without there being any possible opportunity for personal gain. There can be little doubt that respect for the Trustees had more weight in moving the House of Com- mons than a realization of the advantage of Georgia and of the necessity for its support. We have noticed that the grants were generally made through the influence of the ministerial party ; perhaps the motives prompting the Min- istry to generosity were not so high even as respect for the members of the Trust. Walpole and the Pelhams were no- torious borough-mongers and it is not surprising that they would readily make grants to hold the good will of the large number of votes commanded by the Trustees in Parlia- ment. The latter made no offer of support in return for financial aid, but it was inevitable that they should be closely affiliated with the faction that alone made it possible for them to carry on the purposes of their charter.
CHAPTER V
THE EXECUTIVE IN GEORGIA 1
T HERE were three varieties of colonial government in the British settlements of America. Viewed from Westminster, these differed widely in their nature. The royal province was under the direct control of the king, from whom all the executive authority was derived and to whom all the officials of the province were directly responsi- ble. In theory at least, this type of government was easily controlled by the home government, and it was the form to which the organs of imperial control in England desired to bring all the British plantations. The proprietary prov- ince differed from the one just mentioned in the important particular that the government of the province emanated from a lord proprietor or from a board of proprietors and was not directly responsible to the King. The extent of imperial control over this form of government depended on the terms of the charter granted to the proprietor, but it was in any case limited. The corporate colony was under the control of a corporation created by the King in council, and the government and corporation were practically merged into one. This form of government was also very difficult to reach and to control by the administration in England. In spite of these differences, which were so painfully mani- fest to the home government at Westminster, the actual results in all types of colonies were strikingly alike. In all of those existing when Georgia was established, there were
137
138
Georgia as a Proprietary Province
a governor and council with various other executive officials, besides the legislative and judicial machinery and organiza- tion; and while in some details the powers and functions of these officers differed in the various colonies, there seemed to be a general agreement as to what was necessary and best for the proper management of any British plantation.
Although the Trustees for Georgia received for twenty- one years full powers of government, the Board of Trade and the Privy Council assumed that the new province would have in general the same executive control that had been established in the other colonies of whatever type. Accord- ingly the charter provided that every governor of Georgia must be approved by the king and must duly qualify himself for office in the manner required in other American planta- tions.1 In order to thus qualify, it was necessary that the governor elect be approved by the king, that he take the usual oaths required of British officials, that he give security to observe all acts of Parliament relating to trade and navi- gation, and that he also give security to observe and obey any instructions sent by the king or any other authority in England pursuant to said acts. The governor of the new province was the only appointee of the Trustees who was required to conform to these rules, which were merely those which the British government was trying to require of the chief executive in every type of colony.
The records of the early years of the Trust contain no hint as to the reason why the usual organs of government were not adopted; but there are several circumstances that may partially explain the matter. The Trustees were at first much more interested in the charitable feature of their work than in any other; and, not being experts in framing governments, they simply neglected to give the executive 1C. R. I: 24.
139
The Executive in Georgia
administration of the province much care. Moreover, the settlement of only one town was contemplated in the begin- ning and it was no doubt thought unnecessary to establish for it a fully organized provincial system of government. The additional fact that Oglethorpe proposed to accom- pany the early settlers made the Trustees feel easy, since they could instruct him in detail about matters that could be decided in England and they could trust his judgment in : affairs that could be settled only in America. Using him as an attorney, they could in reality retain practically all authority in themselves, and it is beyond question that this was an end eagerly sought by the Trustees. It is evident that by 1739 the members of the Trust were unwilling to adopt the usual organs of government because of a dread of supervision by the Board of Trade, which body they regarded as hostile to them,2 and it may be that this jealousy of the Board may have had weight in their early determina- tion not to appoint a governor, though the evidence is lack- ing that the Trustees felt toward the Board of Trade in 1732 as in 1739.
Whatever the causes that influenced the Trustees, they chose to follow a plan of internal government for Georgia that was entirely unlike that of any other British colony. A municipal administration was chosen as a model rather than that of a province. Shortly before the first settlers left England for their new homes, the Common Council ap- pointed the following officials : three bailiffs, a recorder, two constables, two tithingmen, and eight conservators of the peace.3 Several important points are to be noticed in re- gard to these officers. There was no chief executive corre- sponding to a modern mayor. The bailiff's were designated
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.