USA > South Carolina > The history of South Carolina under the proprietary government, 1670-1719, V.1 > Part 21
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 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29
Previously to Sothell's administration. the enacting clause of all acts had run. "by the Palatine and the rest of the true and absolute Lords and Proprietors of this Province by and with the advice of the nobility and commons in their Parliament assembled."2 In Sothell's time the word " no- bility " had been omitted, and Ludwell. it appears, had advised the same omission. He had also assented to several acts which the Proprietors immediately annulled,
1 Hist. Sketches of So. Ca. (Rivers), 169. This allusion is to Sir Nathaniel Johnson. subsequently Governor, who had recently come into the province.
2 See Statutes of So. Ca .. vol. II, pp. 40-73.
266
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
and thereupon recalled the permission they had given for the publication of a certain class of important laws until ratified by themselves in England. He had been em- powered to grant lands and furnished with a form of in- denture for that purpose. The opposition of the people finally induced him to propose to the Assembly another form of deed on terms that affected the interests of their Lordships. The Proprietors, dissatisfied with his conduct, recalled his commission.1
The Proprietors now went back again to the colonists for a Governor, and sent out a commission for Thomas Smith. He had, it will be remembered, been nominated as Governor to succeed Colleton; but had been superseded by Sothell. He had loyally stood by the Proprietors in all the controversies since his arrival in the colony, and had advised Colleton in proclaiming martial law against Berresford and the others. whom their Lordships designated as "the Goose-Creek men." He was himself one of the richest men in the colony, and had recently married the widow of John d'Arsens, Seigneur de Wernhaut, to whom the Proprietors had in 1686 granted 12,000 acres of land.
D'Arsens appears to have died before the grant was per- fected. and upon Smith's marriage with D'Arsens's widow, he was allowed the benefit of the grant .? He was now made a Landgrave, as became a Governor, with the usual accompanying grant of 48,000 acres more. The Proprie- tors might well now congratulate themselves that they had committed the province to the care of one who was deeply interested in its welfare, and cognizant of its interests. Much was expected of his character, experience. and in- timate knowledge of colonial affairs. But he lost courage at the popular ferment about the tenure of lands. payment
1 Hist. Sketches of So. Ca. (Rivers), 169, 170.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc., vol. 1, 123.
267
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
of quit-rents. the naturalization of the Huguenots, the an- nulment by the Proprietors of the acts of Ludwell's Parlia- ment relating to juries, and the election of representatives. He did not continue in office a year.1 He was commis- sioned on the 20th of November, 1693,2 as Governor of "Carolina," including both North and South Carolina. His instructions, like those of Ludwell. directed him, if practicable, to unite the colonies under one General As- sembly, to which Albemarle County should send dele- gates. If this was, however, impracticable, he was to ap- point a deputy for North Carolina.3
Governor Smith was enjoined to compel by law the collection of rents, and assume the responsibility of direct- ing the Receiver General. But there stood, says Rivers, the violent James Moore and his coadjutors, determined not to pay. " We part with our lands on our own terms." reiterated their Lordships. " And we consider your deed invalid," rejoined the faction of the people, " because only some of you have set your hands and seals thereto." A number of the malcontents quitted the province, and it was thought unless others went peace could not be re- stored. At length Governor Smith. despairing of allaying the discontents and contentions, wrote to the Proprietors in October. 1694, that he and others intended to abandon Carolina and live in some other part of America ; "that it was impossible to settle the country except a Proprietor himself was sent over with full power to heal grievances." Without waiting for their reply, he resigned, and Joseph Blake, the son of Benjamin Blake the emigrant, who had been made a Landgrave, was chosen by the Council to act in his stead until a new Governor should be commissioned.‘
1 Hist. Sketches of So. Ca. ( Rivers), 171.
2 Cull. Hist. Soc. of Sa. Ca., vol. 1. 184. 3 Ibid.
4 Archdale, Carroll's Coll., 101 ; Hist. Sketches of So. Ca. (Rivers), 172.
CHAPTER XII
1694-96
GREAT changes had in the meanwhile taken place in England. James II had abdicated, and William and Mary had been proclaimed King and Queen in February, 1689. Of the original Proprietors, Clarendon, Albemarle, Lord Berkeley, Shaftesbury, Sir George Carteret, Sir William Berkeley, and Sir John Colleton were all dead. Earl Craven alone survived.
Clarendon had died at Rouen, in exile, on the 19th of December, 1674. and his share, which during his exile had been represented by his son, Lord Cornbury, had been sold to Seth Sothell (or Southwell) in September, 1681.1
Albemarle had died in retirement on the 3d of Decem- ber, 1669; his son, the second Duke. died in 1688, without leaving issue ; and his share had been in litigation in the King's Bench, Chancery, and House of Lords. It had just been adjudicated to be the property of the Earl of Bath, who was accordingly admitted as a Proprietor on the 12th of April, 1694.2
Lord Berkeley had failed to pay his quota towards the enterprise,3 and he does not seem to have been concerned in its affairs after Shaftesbury undertook their manage- ment. In 1675 he was accredited ambassador extraordi-
Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. 1, 105.
2 Public Records of So. Co., Colonial, vol. III, 122 ; Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ce .. vol. I, 135.
3 Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. 1, 100.
268
269
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
mary to the Court of Versailles, and died on the 28th of August, 1678. His son, the second Baron of Stratton, suc- ceeded to his proprietorship. He died at sea the 21st of September, 1682.1 The other Proprietors appropriated this share, under the forfeiture clause of their joint-stock asso- ciates, and conveyed it to Joseph Blake on the 11th of April, 1698.2
Shaftesbury, intriguing with Monmouth and joining in the "No Popery Cry," had been seized and committed to the Tower in 1681, from which he offered, if released, to retire to Carolina. He was allowed to escape and reached Amsterdam, where he died the 21st of January, 1683. His share was now held by his son, the second Earl, " a poor creature both physically and mentally." 3 It was represented, however, by Lord Ashley, the son of the latter, who afterwards became another famous Earl of Shaftesbury. Locke's connection with the province ceased with the fall of his patron.
Sir George Carteret, who had been created a baronet, died on the 13th of January, 1679, and was succeeded by his son, Sir George, then a boy of but ten years of age. During his minority the share was represented by the Earl of Bath. This second Sir George died just about this time, i.e. 1695, and was succeeded by his son, who afterwards became the Earl of Granville.+
Sir William Berkeley had been recalled from Virginia because of his severity in putting down Bacon's Rebellion, and, refused an audience by the King, had died, it was said, of a broken heart. on the 13th of July, 1677. He left no issue. There was great controversy over his share; the litigation in regard to it was not ultimately settled in
1 Burke's Peerage. 2 Danson v. Trott, 3 Brown's Parl. Cases, 452.
3 Encyclopedia Britannica. + Burke's Peerage.
270
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
the courts until 1729, the year of the surrender to the Crown.
In March. 1681, the other Proprietors write to the Gov- ernor in Carolina that Sir William was dead. but it was not known to whom his share belonged.1 In May they write that Mr. Archdale, having purchased Lady Berke- ley's proprietorship, had become one of the Proprietors.2 And yet, in 1682, they were attempting to appropriate the share to themselves on the ground that it had lapsed under the provisions of the Fundamental Constitutions. and were only prevented from doing so by the order of the King in council on the 10th of December, 1682, made upon the petition of Viscount Hardinge, who claimed it as Sır William's heir at law. The order declared that the grant to Sir William had been made " without being subject to such lapse or avoidance,"3 Viscount Hardinge, however. gained nothing by his interference ; for, as it turned out, Sir William had left a will by which he devised his eighth part of the province to his wife Dame Frances. After his death she had married Colonel Philip Ludwell, as we have seen, and the other Lords Proprietors, failing in their scheme of appropriating this share. on the 11th of April, 1684, four of them, to wit, the then Duke of Albemarle, the then Lord Carteret, the Earl of Craven, and Sir Peter Colleton. purchased it from Ludwell and his wife Dame Frances for £300, that is. probably, $7500. For purposes of their own, however, they did not take the title to them- selves, but the deed which they took conveyed the pro- prietorship to one Thomas Amy in fee. This Thomas
1 Call. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. 1, 104.
2 Ibid., 106.
3 Colonial Records of No. Ca., vol. I. 340. Charles Berkeley. Viscount Fitzhardinge in Ireland and Earl of Falmouth in England, was the son of Charles, eldest brother of Lord John and Sir William Berkeley. The Genesis of the United States, Alex. Brown, 827. 828.
271
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
Amy was a grocer in London, probably a relation of Sir Peter Colleton, whose mother was a daughter of William Amy, Esq. Amy appears to have been an agent of the Proprietors in procuring people to go to the province, and for this purpose was industrious in meeting and treating them at the Carolina Coffee House in London.1 For these services 12,000 acres were granted him in 1694.2 Sothell dying in the same year without, as it was believed, heirs or assigns, the Proprietors made a further grant to Amy of the share of the Earl of Clarendon that Sothell had pur- chased, and also appointed him one of the Proprietors. They at the same time made him a Landgrave and granted him a barony of 48.000 acres more.3
Sir John Colleton was the first of the Proprietors to die. Upon his death, in 1666, he had been succeeded by his son Sir Peter, who was just now also dead, and the Colle- tons' share was represented by William Thornburgh, mer- chant, Sir Peter's executor, as guardian for his minor son, the second Sir John.4
The sole survivor of the original Proprietors was the old Earl of Craven, who, in his eightieth year in com- mand of the Coldstream Guards, was ready to resist the foreign troops of the Prince of Orange, swearing that he would rather be cut in pieces than yield possession of his post, and only doing so at the command of James.5 The
1 Danson v. Trott, supra.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 137, 141, 142.
3 Danson v. Trott, supra ; Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 141, 142. In the case of Dansnon v. Trott, it is said that Sothell was dead without heirs or assigns. But the fact was that he had left a will which was admitted to probate in North Carolina, where he died. Hawks's Hist. of Na. Ca., vol. 1. 101. The proprietorship does not appear, however, ever to have been claimed by any one under his will.
Public Records of So. Ca., Colonial. vol. III, 127.
5 Macaulay's Hist. of England, vol. IV, 42.
272
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
stout old soldier was now in the eighty-seventh year of his age, but he still presided at the Board of Proprietors as Palatine.
The Proprietors, as we have seen, had in May, 1682, written that Mr. Archdale had purchased Lady Berke- ley's share, and had become a Proprietor. This purchase was made in the name of Thomas Archdale, a minor, and the interest purchased was represented by his father. John Archdale.1. It is impossible to reconcile the conflicting claims to this share. In the letter of May, 1681, the Pro- prietors recognize its purchase by Archdale as valid, and yet we find them in December, 1682, endeavoring to appro- priate it to themselves as lapsed, and when foiled in this, they purchased it themselves in 1684 from Ludwell and Lady Berkeley, now Ludwell's wife, and took this second title in the name of Thomas Amy. And what is still more curious, they appear to have recognized the double title for years ; for both Archdale and Amy sat at the Board of Proprietors with apparently title to no other share from April 11, 1684, to the assignment by them of Sothell's share to Amy in September 29, 1697.
However this may be, the Proprietors, on July 29, 1682, that is, just after his purchase of Lady Berkeley's share, commissioned Archdale to receive their rents due in North Carolina ; 2 and thereupon he came out and remained in Albemarle apparently for some years. He was probably. in some degree at least, attracted to that place by his sym- pathy with the Quakers, he having become a member of the Society of Friends, "convinced and separated from his father's house," as he states, by the preaching of George Fox. That he contemplated the permanent settlement of
1 Colonial Records of No. Ca., vol. I, 467 ; Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 204.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 105, 106.
--- --
273
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
a portion of his family in North Carolina, and that one of his daughters did actually settle there as the wife of Emmanuel Low, to whom she was married in 1668, is proved, says Dr. Hawks, by existing records, as well as by the fact that some of their descendants remained there until recently, and perhaps are there to this day.1 Arch- dale was in North Carolina in an official capacity in 1683, as Sothell, who was then the Governor there, was instructed by the Proprietors to communicate with him upon the subject of their letter.2
We have seen the great rewards the Proprietors had heaped upon Amy for the use of his name in holding the share they had purchased from Lady Berkeley, and for the "important services rendered by him " at the Carolina Coffee House, but it will appear a little later that Nicholas Trott of London,3 who became his son-in-law. was not sat- isfied with the provincial title of nobility and a few acres of wild woods in payment of good and lawful money of the realm expended by Amy in " drumming " for the Pro- prietors, but upon the death of Amy demanded further compensation before the legal title held by Amy's heirs should be divested. This gave rise to the great suit of Danson against Trott, which reached, as we have said, the House of Lords.
The business of the province in England was at this time principally conducted by Archdale. Amy, and Thorn- burgh in the name and over the signature of the aged Earl of Craven as Palatine.
The Proprietors had originally organized themselves into a joint-stock company, to the capital of which each
1 Hawks's Hist. of Vo. Ca., vol. II, 378, 499.
2 Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 110.
3 This Nicholas Trott of London was cousin of the famous Nicholas Trott, Chief Justice of South Carolina.
T
274
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
was to contribute £500, and £200 more annually. This capital was not, however, fully paid in; neither Lord Berkeley nor Sir William fulfilling their quotas. Archdale says, however. that about £12.000 was contributed. This was expended in fitting out the expedition for the settle- ment of the colony in 1669. No more capital appears to have been raised, though individual Proprietors are said to have laid out several thousand pounds to advance the colony. Upon this comparatively insignificant basis, an outlay of from 8240,000 to 8300.000 of our present money, the Proprietors had undertaken to establish a most ex- pensive and aristocratic government in the wild woods of Carolina. rivalling the kingdoms of Europe in the grandeur and number of its officers, with its three orders, themselves representing the King, a nobility of their own creation. and an assembly of the Commons.
The extravagance of this attempt was perhaps not so manifestly striking, while the board -a trading corpora- tion though it was - consisted only of famous Dukes. Earls, Lords. and Baronets who had already been engaged in the making and unmaking of Kings, and the overthrow and establishment of governments; but exile and death soon changed its composition, and the incongruity of the whole scheme began to expose itself more fully when commoners, some of whom were Quakers, and others mere adventurers, became purchasers and assignees of shares in the enterprise, the value of which had fallen below the sinall sums invested ; an eighth share in the vast domain included in the grant, with power in the owners of turn- ing themselves and others into a nobility, selling in the market at the paltry sum of £300 (from 86000 to $7500).
The board, -the Palatine Court, as it was styled, -- with its immense province to settle and govern. had not even an office or chamber for the transaction of its business, but
275
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
met about. sometimes at Whitehall, sometimes at the Cock Pit. sometimes at Westminster, but usually at the private residence of some one of its members, as convenience sug- gested : nor do they appear to have had any regular time for meeting. nor rules prescribing the conduct of their business: indeed, much of the business was transacted without any meeting at all, but by means of papers drawn by their Secretary, and carried about for the signature of such of the Proprietors as could be found. During the time that the affairs of the province were under the man- agement of Shaftesbury, with Locke acting as his secre- tary, the business was regularly and promptly attended to, whether the Constitutions they devised were proper or not; but after Shaftesbury's fall it was so neglected that, as has already appeared, it was usually a year before the Proprie- tors' approval to an act could be obtained.
The action of their Lordships then became careless and capricious. They had made it a part of their Constitutions that the eldest Proprietor or Landgrave, who should be personally in Carolina, should, of course, be the Palatine deputy, and yet they were offended when Yeamans, the only Landgrave in the province, assumed to act as such. So, too. while submitting, however reluctantly, to Sothell's assumption of the government. as the only Proprietor present, they refused to confirm his administration. West, their most faithful and efficient servant, was made to give way to Morton, because Morton had carried out a few new settlers. Then Morton was capriciously removed because they thought a stranger would be more subservient to their views than one who had identified himself with the colony ; and Kyrle, an Irishman who knew nothing of the people or their wants, was sent to govern them. He dying immediately. they not unnaturally appointed one of the Colletons as Governor, but the people overthrowing
276
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
his government, they weakly allowed Sothell's adminis- tration, while refusing to support it. Then they sent Ludwell; but retained him only two years, when they re- called him, and appointed Smith, who in disgust threw up the office in less than a year.
Without counting the short rule of Kyrle. and the acci- dental administration of Quarry, - though Quarry's admin- istration, short and accidental as it was, proved to be one of the most important, - in twenty-three years the Proprie- tors had had by these removals and appointments eleven different administrations. Smith, failing to compose the contentions in the province, might well appeal to the Pro- prietors that one of them should come out to see for him- self and in their interest, and to bring with him full power to act in the pacification of the people and the settlement of the affairs of the province.
Governor Smith's appeal to the Proprietors to send out one of their number was received by them; but who was to come ?
On the receipt of Governor Smith's letter, a meeting was called for the 16th of June, 1694, at Mr. Thornburgh's residence on Tower Hill; but there only came the old Earl of Craven, the Earl of Bath, Mr. Archdale, and Mr. Amy. It was resolved, therefore, to write to Lord Ashley, who was in the country, and pray him to arrange to attend upon this extraordinary occasion for the good of Carolina, which would require a full Assembly.1 Lord Ashley, the second great Earl of Shaftesbury, the third in number, then but twenty-four years of age, had shortly before returned from foreign travel, and it was hoped that he might have been induced to undertake the mission; but he was just about to enter public life in England, his father's affairs there required his attention, and he did not respond to
1 Public Records of So. Ca., Colonial (MISS.), vol. V, 130.
277
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
the call upon him to go out to Carolina. He did not even attend the attempted meeting on the 23d of July. There were present at this meeting only the same persons, and they adjourned to the 28th, for which day " a court " meet- ing was called. But at this court the Earl of Bath was not present, and the court consisted only of Earl Craven, Mr. John Archdale, Mr. Thomas Amy, and Mr. Thorn- burgh. Of these the Earl was the only owner of the proprietorship which he represented. We have seen the dubious position of both Amy and Archdale : and Thorn- burgh was present only as the guardian of the minor, Sir John Colleton. So far from being able to send out one of the Proprietors themselves, it was found possible to get but one of them to attend a meeting to consider the sub- ject, and he was an octogenarian.
In this dilemma Archdale was willing to make another visit to America, and though not in his own right a Pro- prietor, it was agreed between Amy, Thornburgh, and himself, with the assent of the Earl of Craven, that he should come ; so the four, holding " a court," sat down and prepared his instructions, Archdale himself taking part in their preparation. They were careful to qualify and to explain Mr. Archdale's position by recording " that Mr. Archdale being in the nature of a proprietor." and that the present exigency of affairs in Carolina required, were the only inducements and reasons for his commission and in- structions being so much larger than those of other Gov- ernors formerly had been.1
Archdale appears to have been a vain, amiable, quick- tempered man, of some cleverness for business, but without the political sagacity or ability of Sothell. Much has been said of his piety, and there is no reason to doubt its earnestness, though Randolph does accuse him of dishonest
1 Public Records of So. Ca., Colonial, vol. III, 134.
. ...
278
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
practices as Governor. But whatever other principles of Quakerism he may have adopted, humility was not one of them; and a barony of 48,000 acres, which accompanied the title of Landgrave, was too much to forego because of scruples as to worldly titles. So he accepted both, as well also as the title of Governor, although the latter did re- quire that he should be addressed as his " Honor."
Archdale was commissioned Governor both of South and North Carolina, on the 31st of August, 1694.1 He was empowered to constitute a deputy both in South and North Carolina while he was in the province and also upon his departure from Carolina to England. He was given power and authority, with the advice and consent of three of the deputies of the Proprietors, to grant and sell lands, reserving a rent of 12 pence for 100 acres per annum. and to settle the quit-rents by patents or indentures in such manner as he and three deputies might think fit, receiving such commodities as the country afforded for the rent at a true value. He was also authorized to escheat lands and afterwards to sell or let them as might be best. He was farther empowered. with the advice and consent of the Council and General Assembly, to alter any former laws that should be thought fit to be changed. and to enact such others as might be reasonable for the better government of the province, the new laws to be as near as possible to the Fundamental Constitutions. Special directions were given in regard to the drawing of juries.2
It was nearly a year before Governor Archdale reached Carolina. He came by the way of Virginia, from which place, although clothed with discretionary authority, he wrote requesting specifie power to appoint new deputies to the Proprietors, to abate the quit-rents in arrear, and to
1 Coll. Hist. Soc. of No. Ca., vol. I. 138.
2 Colonial Records of No. Ca., vol. I, 889, 390.
279
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
sell land. His request was granted, and where he needed guidance he was referred to the instructions sent to Lud- well. He was given authority to settle all disputes con- cerning lands, to sell at £20 per thousand acres. the land near the settlements, and £10 for the same quantity in the interior; to take care of the Indians as he thought best; to build new towns; to fortify Charles Town and grant it a charter and permanently to settle the government by examining the Fundamental Constitutions, finding what would be acceptable to the people, and proposing a new set to the Proprietors for their confirmation.1 The price of land. it will be observed, was thus greatly reduced ; from 81 an acre, lands near the settlement were now offered at from 50 cents to 40 cents an acre; and in the interior at from 20 cents to 25 cents.
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.