Untitled - the Digital Library of Georgia

214 GEORGIA AND GEORGIANS
Were his devotion to the colony not so manifest on many occasions,
it might be questioned in view of the circumstances of his resignation.
When Parliament refused a supply of money in the spring of 1742,
he spoke of throwing up the whole trust because both the ministry and
the minority in Parliament seemed to appreciate so little the labors of the
trustees. He did not meet with encouragement in the idea and he dropped
it for the time.* Later in the year, after Thomas Stephens; had been repri
manded for attempting to asperse the characters of the trustees, and after,
another effort on the part of the supporters of Georgia had failed, the
Earl of Egmont in hasty indignation resigned his place as a member of
the common council on July 7, 1742. If any means of resigning from
the corporation had been provided, he would likely have given it up
also, for he was thoroughly roused. His action was ill considered. His
letter enclosing his resignation did not touch on what was the real seat
of trouble, which was the hope of getting others also to resign and so
forcing the government to either support Georgia or to give it up.f
He failed in his purpose of getting others to follow his example; and it
was well for the colony that he did so fail. If the charter had been sur
rendered at that time, it is most certain that Georgia would either have
been surrendered to Spain or would have been joined to South Carolina,
and in either case its independent character would have been lost. The
reasons assigned in his letter of failing health and his physician's direc
tions to rest would have been ample excuses for his resignation were it
not that he himself gave a different interpretation of his own action.
The Earl of Egmont was disposed to judge harshly the motives and
actions of his fellow trustees, and he would have been very severe toward
another acting as he did in that matter.
Egmont had had a somewhat distinguished career before he became
connected with Georgia. He had been privy councillor for Ireland. In
1715 he had been made Baron Perceval; and in 1722 he had been created
Viscount. His advancement to the earldom was in 1733, his interest in
Georgia possibly having some influence' in his promotion. He was a
Fellow of the Royal Society. Egmont was the author of several tracts
or small books, most of which were concerned with the advantages of
Georgia and the need of its support. J
Henry L'Apostre, the trustee ranking third in faithful attendance
on the duties of his office, seems to have been a man of much less force
of character than either Vernon or Egmont. He was not a member of
Parliament, and almost nothing is known of his private life. While he
was regularly in his place at the meetings of corporation, common coun
cil, or committees, arguments or suggestions from him rarely appear in
the proceedings, indicating that his influence was perhaps not very
great among his fellow trustees. His committee service was to a large
extent connected with financial or banking affairs,** and it might be in
ferred that he was experienced in such matters, but there is no corrobo
rative evidence to support the inference. He did not share Vernon's
*Ibid., 612.
t Ibid., 643-644.
Jlbid., 273-275; Stevens I: 463-464.
** 0. E. II: 248; C. E. V: 707, as examples.