USA > South Carolina > The history of South Carolina under the proprietary government, 1670-1719, V.2 > Part 25
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 | Part 30 | Part 31
703
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
The effect of the Indian wars had been rather to extend than to diminish the territory of the colony. The settlers had. at the first outbreak, been driven into the town. but as the Indians were defeated. the lands occupied by them in the immediate neighborhood of the colony were taken in and settled. Thus, as we have seen. the Yamassee lands were appropriated to new settlers. To protect these, a small fort of ten guns was built at Port Royal ; another at Pallizado Fort. with five or six small guns ; another at Savano Town. 140 miles from Charles Town, near the present site of the city of Augusta, which became known as Fort Moore ; and another, "towards the head of the Santee," that is. at what was called the Congaree, --- in all of which places there were about 100 men, in garri- sons divided into companies.1
Until 1717 there were few houses at Charles Town out- side the fortifications, the lines of which have been before described. In that year the fortifications on the north, west. and south sides were dismantled and demolished to enlarge the town, which now began to spread out on the north across the creek. which ran where the market now stands. and on the west beyond what is now Meeting Street. There are but three buildings in the city of Charleston of which there is any historical authority for believing that they were built during the Proprietary Gov- ernment.2 Dr. Shecut, in his essay on the topography of
tion." Since writing that paper he has collected and now has in his hands copies of 412 advertisements relating to education, taken from the Gazettes published in Charles Town between 1732 and 1774, and has a list of the names of nearly 200 persoons engaged in teaching as tutors, schoolmasters, or schoolmistresses during that time.
I t'blonde Records of No. Ca., vol. II. 12.
2 There is a tradition that a small brick house of but two stories, still standing on Church Street, adjoining the lot on the southwest corner of Church and Tradi streets, is one of the very oldest in the city, and that
704
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles Town, written in 1719. states that among the first brick houses built in the town was that in Cumberland Street, immediately opposite to which at that time was the Episcopal Methodist Church ( where now stands the Cham- pion Cotton Press). which was the residence of Chief Jus- tice Trott, and next to which was an old magazine.1 This latter, which also still stands, was doubtless the magazine of Carteret Bastion. which stood about where Cumberland and Meeting streets now intersect. Dr. Johnson, in his Traditions. states that Colonel Rhett's family mansion. at the time of his death, was the still excellent building now known as No. 60 Hazel Street.2 Dr. Johnson is cor- roborated in this by a map published according to an act of Parliament, June 9, 1739, in which this house is repre- sented as standing upon a tract of land marked as Colonel Rhett's. If this was Colonel Rhett's residence. the build- ing was in all probability erected during the Proprietary rule ; for Colonel Rhett died January 14. 1722. a little more than two years after the overthrow of that govern- ment. A watch or guard house stood at the end of Broad Street, where the old Exchange or Postoffice now stands.3
A few plantation residences built during the Proprie- tary Government still remain standing. The two oldest of these were both the properties of Landgrave Smith. the Council of the province held their meetings in its rooms; but we have been able to find nothing on record in regard to it.
1 Shecut's Essays, 6. The house and magazine still stand. The house unfortunately lost a story in the great fire of December, 1861. It had escaped all the previous disastrous conflagrations of the town and city ; but in this tire it was gutted. and when rebuilt upon the old still sub- stantial walls. the third story was left off. It is now the residence of Miss Whitney. It is to be observed, however, as discrediting the an- tiquity of this house, that it does not appear in a map published by Parliament in 1789, but on the contrary its site is left as vacant.
: Johnson's Traditions, 232.
3 Sheeut's Essays, 4: The Olden Time of Carolina (Mrs. Poyas), IT.
705
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
The first was his residence on Back River, a branch of the Cooper, and is believed to have been the first brick house in Carolina. Landgrave Smith afterward, in 1693, removed to " Yeamans Hall," or " Yeomans Hall." on Goose Creek, which some traditions would identify with the " country house " which Sir John Yeamans built when he came into the province. and to which he retired when the people would not " salute him governor," though he was a Landgrave ; 1 others that it was the property of Lord Craven.2 There is little probability that either of these traditions is true. Sir John could scarcely, in the time he was in the province, have built such a house ; and Lord Craven was never in the colony at all. But, how- ever built, the house has been in the family of Landgrave Smith for more than two hundred years, and. though much injured by the earthquake in 1886, still stands. It was surrounded by an earthwork, and had portholes in its walls, as a defence against the Indians : in the cellar was a deep well for supplying the family or garrison with water in case of a siege, and a subterranean passage, whose entrance can still be seen, led out under the gar- den to the creek, where boats were kept moored. There is in this old mansion a secret chamber, a small space between two walls with a sliding panel leading into it. which was used as a hiding-place for valuables, not only during the times of the Proprietary Government, but dur- ing the American Revolution when the family silver was safely secreted there. This house is but two stories high. The walls are stuccoed, and in large, old-fashioned panels.3 The piazza or gallery which is now on its front face is
1 Harper's Magazine. No. CCCVII, December, 1875, 16.
- The Olden Time of Carolina ( Mrs. Poyas), 19.
3 Harper's Magazine, supra ; The Olden Time of Carolina; A Day on Cooper River ( Irving), 20
2 z
706
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
probably a late addition, as the piazzas now so common in the South were not generally introduced into Carolina until the end of the last or before the beginning of the present century. 1 " Mulberry," or " Mulberry Castle," on the west side of Cooper River. was built in 1714. The land on which the house stands was purchased from Sir John Colleton by Thomas Broughton, afterwards the first Lieutenant Governor under the Royal Government. This, too, it is said, had loopholes for musketry, with bastions at the four corners. It was used also for the purpose of defending the settlers in the vicinity against incursions of Indians.2
The house built, in 1704, by Stephen Bull, who came out with the very first colonists, known as "Ashley Hall," and after his death the residence in succession of the two William Bulls, his son and grandson, who for more than thirty years were Lieutenant Governors of the province under the Royal Government, and often the administra- tors of its affairs, -a house which was the scene of many historic incidents. -- remained standing until burned in 1865, at the close of the late war.3 It is remarkable that the houses built by two of the early settlers in South Caro- lina should so long have remained in existence.
1 The first mention of a piazza we have found is in a letter of Edward Rutledge to Captain Simons, dated September 1, 1782. See Gibbes's Document, Hist. of the Am. Rev., 218. No piazzas appear upon any of the pictures of buildings of the time save this.
2 .A Day on Cooper River ( Irving), 18.
3 Upon the evacuation of Charleston during the late war, in February, 1865, every house on the west bank of the Ashley -- the place of the first settlement of the colony - was burned by the Federal besieging forces which came from James Island. But three houses were left standing in the whole of St. Andrew's Parish between the Ashley and Stono. One of these - Drayton Hall -- was spared, it is said, because of Commo- dore Percival Drayton of the United States Navy. Anticipating this destruction, the last of the Bulls to reside in Ashley Hall, the Hon.
707
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
Several church buildings erected during the Proprietary period in the country remain in whole or in part. The oldest entire building vet standing is St. James, Goose Creek. It was built during the incumbency of the Rev. Francis Le Jau, D.D. (1707-17). probably in 1711, and remains, save for repairs after the earthquake of 1886, just as it was when first erected. It is built of brick, cherub heads adorn the windows, and the high pulpit, marble tablets of the Commandments. Creed, and Lord's Prayer, are surmounted by the Royal arms, -a decoration which preserved the little temple from desecration and destruction during the Revolutionary War.1 The floor is of stone, seventeen mahogany pews fill it, and there is a gallery across one end. Memorial tablets and hatchments adorn the walls.2 The walls of the old White Meeting House, at Dorchester, erected in 1700, still remains. The building was burned during the Revolution, but was rebuilt in 1794.3 Near the same, the old tower of St. George's, Dorchester. built in 1719, still stands. The church was built of brick, seventy feet long by thirty wide, in cruciform shape, with Gothic windows, and the tower,
William Izard Bull, who, like his great-grandfather and grand-uncle, had been a Lieutenant Governor of the State, declaring that the invaders should never enter the mansion of his forefathers, himself set fire and burned it to the ground.
1 " These arms were destroyed by the earthquake of 1886, and their exact restoration seemed impossible. But a few years before, a lady now deceased, the daughter of one of South Carolina's greatest scientists . . . (the late Professor John McCrady ), had painted a copy in oils for the use of a New England society. This was obtained, and from it the restoration was made as it now stands." - Historical Discourse, by Rev. Robert Wilson, D.D., at St. James, Goose Creek, on Sunday, April 12, 1896. Appendix to Year Book City of Charleston, 1895 (John F. Ficken, Mayor).
2 Dalcho's Ch. Hist., 21 ; Harper's Magazine, No. CCOVII, December, 1875.
3 Howe's Hist. of Presb. Ch., 567 ; Harper's Magazine, as above.
708
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
which once held a ring of bells. shows how beautiful, com- plete, and church-like the little sanctuary must have been.1 The second St. Philip's Church, that built under the act of 1710, upon the site of the present church (burned in 1835), the beauty of which was so extolled by Edmund Burke, was just nearing its completion, and so must be attributed to the period of the Proprietary Government. Its rising walls had been blown down in the great storm of 1716. It was opened on Easter Sunday, 1723, during the Provisional Government of Sir Francis Nicholson. Burke described it as " spacious and executed in a very handsome taste, exceeding everything of that kind we have in America." ?
Notwithstanding the very genteel entertainments that Lawson tells that the country gentlemen extended to strangers, society in the colony was, at the end of the Proprietary Government, still in rather a primitive condi- tion. Some account of it, in 1700, has come down to us from tradition as given by Landgrave Smith. In his courting days, he said. young girls received their beaus at three o'clock, having dined at twelve, expecting them to withdraw about six o'clock, as many families retired to bed at seven in the winter, and seldom extended their sitting in summer beyond eight o'clock. their fathers hav- ing learned to obey the curfew toll in England.3 The rooms in those days, Landgrave Smith said. were all uncarpeted, the rough sides of the apartments remaining the natural color of whatever wood the house chanced
1 Dalcho's Ch. Hist .. 346 ; Harper's Magazine, as above.
Dalcho's Ch. Hist., 123 ; quoting Account of European Settlements in America, vol. II, 258.
" Labat's account is that in Bridgetown, Barbadoes, they dined at two o'clock, and their dinner lasted four hours. Perhaps the cavaliers did the same in Charles Town and at their country seat, upon occasions of formal entertainments.
709
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
to be built of. Rush-bottomed chairs were usual. 1 It must be remembered, however, that Landgrave Smith belonged to the party in which the stiff and rigid morals of the Puritan were cultivated. and Hewatt tells that these were made the object of ridicule by their neigh- bors.2 Lawson describes the gentlemen seated in the country as very courteous, living very nobly in their houses, and giving very genteel entertainments. The Swiss gentleman who wrote to his friend at Bern, in 1710, so favorable an account of the province, says that no people were more hospitable. generous. and willing to do good offices to strangers ; that every one was ready to entertain them freely with the best they had. Morose- ness and sullenness of temper, so common in other places, was rare among them. Though so happily situated that nobody was obliged to beg for food, yet the charity of the inhabitants was remarkable in making provisions for the poor. Those born of European parents, he says, were for the most part very temperate, and had generally an aversion to excessive drinking. He could not call to mind above two or three addicted to that vice. 3
Besides these glimpses, we have little to guide us historically in regard to the condition of society during the Proprietary rule. In all probability, the people were as much divided in their habits and manners as in their politics, and the division ran along the same lines of churchmen and Puritans.
One of the distinguishing features in the Proprietary Governments of Carolina and New Jersey, from those of others, was in the number of Proprietors. The grant to the Earl of Carlisle, of Barbadoes. in 1624-29, to Lord
1 The Olden Time of Carolina, +1.
2 Hist. of So. Ca., vol. 1. 77.
3 A Letter from So. Ca., etc., 1710 (second ed., 1782), 42.
710
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Baltimore. of Maryland, in 1632, to Sir Ferdinando Gorges, of Maine, in 1639, to William Penn, of Penn- sylvania. in 1681. was each to an individual Proprietor. That to Carolina. in 1663-65, was to eight Proprietors, and that to New Jersey, in 1664, was to two, -Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, two of the Carolina Proprietors. A Royal Government had been substituted for the Proprietary in Barbadoes the same year as that in which the grant of Carolina was made, 1663. The grant of Maine passed to the company of Massachusetts Bay in 1677, and that of Maryland was resumed by the Crown in 1690. The Proprietary Government of Penn- sylvania continued until the Revolution. That of New Jersey became subdivided. until towards the close of the seventeenth century, the number of Proprietors had so increased as to render good government impracticable in consequence of divergent interests and views. The evil became unendurable, and in 1702 by the general consent of the Proprietors and people the former, while retaining all their rights of property, surrendered their rights of government to the Crown.
Well would it have been for the province had the Proprietors of Carolina adopted the same course. They were, it is true. not so numerous as those of New Jersey ultimately became, but they were too many and too often changing for the efficient exercise of such powers. The continual changes and frequently recurring minori- ties and guardianships of the heirs or devisees of shares as deaths occurred among them, rendered the Board of Proprietors in a great measure perfunctory in its charac- ter, and allowed it at times to fall under the control of some irresponsible individual. Thus it was that while Sir George Carteret was Palatine the province was managed really by Locke, who was not officially con-
711
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
nected with the Proprietors as a body, but merely the private secretary of Shaftesbury. and that after him John Archdale. while not really a Proprietor himself, in a great measure controlled its affairs : and that after Archilale Mr. Shelton, the secretary, relieved the indolent mem- bers of their duties at the board. and conducted the affairs of the province of his own will, only asking their signatures to carry out what he proposed. The old Earl of Craven during his long presidency appears to have been always at hand as Palatine. and the Earl of Bath for the short time of his palatinate attended to its duties with some regularity; but Lord John Gran- ville was the only Palatine who took an active interest in the affairs of the colony, and his interest in the matter was induced by and was subservient to the great political struggle of the time in England.
The colonists of Carolina had now, with the connivance of the Royal Government, overthrown the weak and uncertain rule of this careless and inefficient body. and great was their demonstration of joy upon coming di- rectly under the rule of the King. But, after all, what had they gained ? They were turned over by his Majesty, the King, to the control of the Board of Trade and Plan- tations. Would this board prove more attentive to. and observant of. their interests than the Board of Proprietors had been? If the self-interest of the Proprietors had not been sufficient to secure their attention to the province. was it likely that the Board of Trade and Plantations. without such interested motives. would be more attentive and concerned for their welfare? Then again. in their contests with the Proprietors. they had had a measure to which they could always appeal. and by which the con- duet of the Proprietors could be judged. Was the con- duct of the Proprietors in accordance with their charter ?
712
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
was a question they had a right to ask. But now there was no longer any charter to which they could appeal in restraint of the Board of Trade. Under the Royal Gov. ernment, upon whose protection and under whose imme- diate control they had thrown themselves, in the place of the charter their rights and duties were to be prescribed in the Royal Instructions to the Governors, nominally by his Majesty, in reality by the Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, in which instructions there was to be no saving clause providing for "the advice assent and ap- probation of the freemen " of the province.
APPENDIX
I
RULES OF PRECEDENCY
UNDER LOCKE'S FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONS
1st. The Lords Proprietors, the eldest in age first,1 and so in order.
2d. The eldest sons of the Lords Proprietors, the eldest in age first, and so in order.
3d. The Landgraves of the Grand Council: he that hath been longest of the Grand Council first, and so in order.
4th. The Caciques of the Grand Council ; he that hath been longest of the Grand Council first. and so in order.
5th. The seven commoners of the Grand Council, that have been longest of the Grand Council; he that hath been longest of the Grand Council first, and so in order.
6th. The younger sons of the Proprietors; the eldest first, and so in order.
7th. The Landgraves; the eldest in age first, and so in order.
8th. The seven commoners who next to those before mentioned have been longest of the Grand Council; he that hath been longest of the Grand Council first, and so in order.
9th. The Caciques. the eldest in age first, and so in order.
10th. The seven remaining commoners of the Grand Council; he that hath been longest of the Grand Council first, and so in order.
11th. The male line of the Proprietors.
The rest shall be determined by the Chamberlain's Court.
1 The first article of the Constitutions provided that the eldest of the Lords Proprietors shall be Palatine ; and upon the decease of the Pala- tine the eldest of the seven Proprietors should always succeed him.
713
714
HISTORY OF SOUTH CAROLINA
II DEVOLUTION OF TITLE OF THE PROPRIETARY SHARES IN CAROLINA
1. Earl of Clarendon's Share. - During the exile of the Earl of Clarendon from 1607 to his death, 9th of December, 1674. this share was represented by Lord Cornbury, son of the Earl. It was afterwards purchased by Seth Sothell (or Southwell). September, 1681 (Coll. Hist. Soc. of' So. Ca., vol. I, 105). Sothell died in North Carolina in 1694, as it was supposed, without heirs, assigns. or will, and the remaining Pro- prietors sequestered the share under the provisions of the Fundamen- tal Constitutions, and assigned it to Thomas Amy, 29th of September. 1697. Upon the marriage of his daughter to Nicholas Trott of Lon- don, Amy assigned the share to Trott as a marriage portion, 21st of March. 1700. Under proceedings in chancery, the share, with that originally belonging to Sir William Berkeley, which also stood in the name of Thomas Amy. was sold 16th of February, 1724. at $900 for both, to Hugh Watson. who purchased as trustee of Henry and James Bertie, and subsequently this particular share was allotted to the Hon. James Bertie (Danson v. Trott, Brown Parl. Cases, vol. III. 452-157), in whose name it was surrendered to the Crown ( Statutes of So. Ca., vol. I, 62).
2. Duke of Albemarle's Share. - The Duke of Albemarle died 3d of December, 1669, and his share descended to his son, the second Duke, who died in 1688 without issue ( Burke). The Earl of Bath was ad- mitted as Proprietor in his room 24th of April. 1691 (Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I. 135). The Earl of Bath died 21st of August. 1701, and was succeeded by his son, John Lord Granville ( Ibid .. 150). The share subsequently became vested in the Duke of Beaufort in April. 1709 (Ibid., 156), who died 24th of May, 1714, and by his will devised it to James Bertie and Hon. Dodington Greville, trustees for his sons. Henry, the second Duke of Beaufort, and Charles Noel Somerset, in whose name it was surrendered to the Crown (Statutes of So. Ca., vol. I, 62).
3. Earl of Craren's Share. - The Earl of Craven died 9th of April, 1697, without issue, and William Lord Craven. his grandnephew, suc- ceeded to his proprietorship ( Coll. Ilist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. I, 141). He was succeeded by his son William Lord Craven Sth of Noventhan, 1711, in whose name the share was surrendered to the Crown (Statutes of So. Ca., vol. 1. 62).
715
UNDER THE PROPRIETARY GOVERNMENT
4. Lord Berkeley's Share. - Lord Berkeley fell in arrears in the joint stock. failing to pay his quota. and his share appears to have been forfeited and disposed of by the Proprietors to Joseph Blake on the 11th of April, 1699 ( Danson v. Trott, Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. [, 118, 211). He died in 1700, and was succeeded by his son Joseph Blake, a minor. in whose name the share was surrendered to the Crown ( Statutes of So. Ca., vol. I, 62).
5. Lord Ashley's Share. - Lord Ashley, afterwards the Earl of Shaftesbury, died in exile, 21st of January, 1683. and was succeeded by his son Anthony Ashley. the second Earl, who died 10th of No- vember, 1699. and was succeeded by his son Anthony Ashley. the third Earl ( Burke). The share became vested in Maurice. brother of the third Earl, who died without issue in 1726 ( Ibid.), when the same became vested in Archibald Hutcheson. in trust for John Cotton. in whose name it was surrendered to the Crown (Statutes of So. Ca., vol. 1, 62).
6. Sir George Carteret's Share. - Sir George Carteret died 13th of January. 1679. and was succeeded by his son Sir George, who died in 1695, and was succeeded by his son John Lord Carteret, afterwards Earl of Granville, who refused to join the other Proprietors in the sur- render of 1729, and held his share until 1744. when he released upon the allotment to him in severalty of a part of North Carolina ( Colo- ninh Records of No. Ca., vol. IV, 655).
7. Sir John Colleton's Share. - Sir John Colleton died in 1666, and was succeeded by his son Sir Peter, who died April, 1691 (Coll. Hist. Soc. of So. Ca., vol. 1, 136), and he was succeeded by his son Sir John, a minor, in whose name it was surrendered to the Crown ( Statutes of So. Co., vol. I. 62 ).
8. Sir William Berkeley's Share. - Sir William Berkeley died 13th of JJuly, 1677 (Cooke's Hist. of Va., Am. Com. Series, 296). He devised his share to his widow, who afterwards married Philip Ludwell. While Lady Berkeley she sold the share to John Archdale, 20th of May, 1681, who took the title in the name of his son Thomas. Disregarding this sale, after her marriage she joined Philip Ludwell, her husband, in another sale of the same in 1682. and conveved the same to Thomas Amy in trust for the then Duke of Albemarle, the then Lord Carteret. the Earl of Craven, and Sir John Colleton. Subsequently, in 1897. the four noblemen. c'esturs que trust, requested William Thornburg to act as trustee in the place of Amy. Thornburg did so act. but with- out conveyance of the title by Amy. Subsequently. in 1705. the four cestuis que trust sold to and executed a deed to John Arendale of the
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.