Untitled - the Digital Library of Georgia

GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS 205
Of the seventeen trustees chosen on that occasion, twelve had shown
their personal interest either by making contributions in money or by
securing commissions to solicit funds from others for the purposes of
the charter. Of the five who do not appear to have been thus interested,
one was a member of the Hmise of Lords, three of the House of Com
mons, and the last was a country gentleman.
The financial support was the basis of choice in 1733, it did not con
tinue to be, for the next year nine trustees were chosen, none of whom
had contributed to the colony or had tried to get others to do so, though
six of them made contributions shortly after their election. Four of
them were members of the House of Commons, one was of the House of
Lords, another was a clergyman, still another was an eminent lawyer,
while about the remaining two very little is known. The next trustee,
who was chosen in 1737, was undoubtedly selected on account of his
great financial assistance. He had given £1000 from a trust fund in
his possession for the development of Georgia, this sum being much in
excess of the combined contributions of all the other trustees during
the proprietary period.*
Between the years 1738 and 1743 inclusive there were elected thirteen
members of the corporation, and all of these were members of Parlia
ment. There had been a strong tendency heretofore to choose members
from those who could be useful in securing the support of Parliament,
and as the support became more doubtful it is not surprising that mem
bers of the House of Commons would make the most acceptable trustees.
Of the ten members chosen during the last decade of the trust, six
were members of Parliament, one a clergyman, another was lord mayor
of London, still another was a merchant, while nothing is known of the
remaining one.t . . . .
Of the seventy-one J trustees, eleven never qualified by attending
a single- meeting and seven others attended only three meetings or less,
so that the active membership of the trust was only fifty-three, and it
must not be supposed that all of .these did much work either in attend
ing meetings or in looking after the details of the colony. In view of
the large mnnber who were .indifferent, we can understand why the
average attendance was so small at both corporation and common .council
meetings. For the purpose of our study, the activity of a man in
Georgia affairs and his general usefulness to the trust are of more im
portance than the facts of his personal or private life. Some of those
elected members of the corporation were in many respects very noted
and influential men, and yet their participation in the business of the
trust was so slight that they do not merit individual attention in study
ing the personnel of the working members of the board. The following
table will indicate those who were most diligent in attending to the
duties which devolved on the members of the corporation:
* O.K. I: 273-275.
t Stevens. 1: 474-475.
t Jones, Stevens, and others give lists of seventy-two members of the trust; but
they overlook the fact that Robert Kendall, Esq., and Sir Robert Cater were two
names for the same man. G. JR. I: 28.