« AnteriorContinuar »
plantations in obedience to his Majesty's order of August 14, 1772, and presented May 6, 1773. May 19th, the King referred it to the lords of the Council. After a minor change had been made, by the attorney and Solicitor-Gen. eral, concerning the manner of paying the quit rents, a decisive order was issued from the council chamber, October 28, 1773, directing the King's attorney and Solicitor. General to "prepare and lay before this Committee" of the Council "the draught of a proper instrument, to be passed under the Great Seal of Great Britain, containing a grant to the Honorable Thomas Walpole, Samuel Wharton, Benjamin Franklin," et cetera, "of the lands prayed for by their memorial, ..inserting in the said draught the conditions and reservations proposed in the said report of the Lords Commissioners for trade and plantations, dated the 6th of May, 1773."? So the matter seemed to be settled. When the governor of Virginia presumed to grant lands in the Vandalia territory, he was sharply reprimanded by Lord Dartmouth, then Secretary of State for the Colonies,' and the following spring was careful that no Virginia surveyors should enter any part of the territory “Petitioned for by Walpole and Company (commonly called the new Government).".
But still the final papers, establishing the Walpole grant and the colony of Vandalia had not been executed; delayed, probably, by the threatening attitude of the old colonies. In the spring of 1775, the draught of the royal grant had been prepared, and even examined and corrected by mem
1 This order may be found in Plain Facts, p. 157, and Franklin's Works, X., 367.
It had been rumored before this, that the new colony was about to be established. The Pa. Journal, November 24, 1773, published part of a letter from London, dated September 7, saying of the new colony,“ in all probability the next packet will carry to America proper documents for its establishment." The Pa. Chronicle of September 20, published a letter assuring that "the draft for the charter for establishing a new colony on the Ohio
was in a few days to be carried up by Mr. Thurloe for the last revision of his Majesty in Council, previous to a final delivery of it to the Proprietors." Newspaper copies in Draper Collection, Clark MSS., Vol. 13, No. 1, p. 172.
• Plain Facts, p. 159; Franklin's Works, X., 369. • Draper Colls., Preston Papers, IV., No. 6.
bers of the Company, when the execution of it was suspended.
"The Lord President of his Majesty's Privy Council requested that the Honorable Mr. Walpole and his associates would wait for the grant aforesaid, and the plan of government of Vandalia, until hostilities, which had then commenced between Great Britain and the United Colonies, should cease. But those hostilities did not cease until the thirteen colonies had won. If the war had broken out a little later there seems every reason to suppose that there would have been fourteen instead of thirteen colonies to fight for independence. As it was, however, the colony of Vandalia failed of establishment. The company lived on for a number of years, vainly petitioning Congress to confirm its claims. 3
With the Declaration of Independence, Virginia had asserted claims to the back lands in accordance with the provisions of her old charter. She was much annoyed when Congress "received and countenanced petitions from certain persons styling themselves the Vandalia and Indiana Companies."! Congress seems never to have taken definitive action on the Vandalia claims, and in a few years nothing more is heard of the company which, in its day, bid fair to become the pioneer in the political organization of the west.
1 Plain Facts, p. 159.
? Franklin's Works, X., 370. Thos. Walpole wrote to Wm. Trent, May 30, 1775, “We must flatter ourselves that the little which is wanting here will soon be done." He also said, “I hope that you will find everything in Vandalia in as good a way as you could expect; if not you will be able to take such measures as may secure the property which we have got there, and especially that you will be able to protect it from farther viola. tions." Historical Magazine, 1857, Vol. I., p. 85. Whether this property was anything more than the land, which was merely contracted for, it is impossible to say. It may have been property forme owned the Ohio Co ny.
3 Plain Facts, p. 160; Journals of Congress, Sept. 14, 1779. It was vccasionally referred to in connection with the Indiana, Illinois, and Wabash companies, -e. g. in Pennsyl. vania Packet, Jan. 5, 1786, quoting from a letter dated Dec. 10, 1781 from a Virginia delegate in Congress.
See the Remonstrance in Hening X., 537.
CONCLUSIONS FROM THE FOREGOING CHAPTERS.
In the two preceding chapters it has been the endeavor to give a connected history of the various attempts to establish colonial governments west of the Alleghany moun. tains. This history makes possible a few generalizations here, by way of summary.
In the first place, it is worthy of note that practically every proposition for a new colony involves its location on the Ohio. Not only did the Ohio river flow through a most fertile country, but it was in itself the gateway to the west. It was natural that would-be western colonists should turn their attention first in that direction.
In the next place, it is noticeable that the supporters of these schemes are, for the most part men from Pennsyl. vania, or New Jersey. This is probably due to the follow. ing facts. Pennsylvania was one of the most populous colonies, the nearest to the Ohio, and was by her charter limited on the west. The inhabitants of most of the colonies could find desirable lands without going outside of what they considered their legal limits. The Hazard scheme was evidently Presbyterian in its conception and its support, and so Hazard would naturally get a large following from Pres. byterian New Jersey.'
Dr. Franklin's unwavering interest in new colonies doubtless had some effect on Pennsylvanians, and without doubt strongly influenced his son, Governor William Frank. lin of New Jersey; where also Thomas Pownall was Lieutenant Governor at the time of the Albany Congress. To these facts should be added the information and interests of the Pennsylvania Indian traders, such as the firm of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan.
1 Hazard argued that only Presbyterians can, and are willing to colonize. 4 Am. Arch. 1 Documents Relative to the Colonial History of N. Y., VIII., 253. Also Fernow's Ohio Valley in Colonial Days, p. 276. George Washington declared in November, 1773, that Virginia had a right to the lands beyond the western boundary of the new colony' both by charter and by sale of the Six Nations, thus virtually conceding the better right of the Vandalia Company to the lands that had been as yet merely bargained for. Washington to Gov. Dunmore, Writings (Ford) II., 396. Washington evidently thought the King's Proclamation of 1763 did not interfere with Virginia's territorial extent.
Again, it may seem strange, that when all these schemes for new colonies were being brought forward, there was no protest from Virginia, that her jurisdiction was being threatened. Every scheme proposed, involved an invasion of territory, which, after the Revolution, she so strenuously insisted on as within her charter limits. In November, 1770, the Earl of Dunmore wrote to Lord Hillsborough that he had made it his business to inquire and find out the opinion of the people” on the question of “establishing a colony on the Ohio."! His letter would indicate that he found only disapproval; but among all the objections ad. vanced, not one had reference to the invasion of the jurisdiction of any old colony. We might surely have expected that Lord Hillsborough's letter to the Virginia governor, inviting objections to the establishment of Vandalia, back of Virginia, would have called out an objection on the score of invaded jurisdiction. But instead, the official reply states that “with respect to the establishment of a new colony on the back of Virginia,
when that part of the country shall become sufficiently populated it may be a wise and prudent measure," ? the only care being that land
, titles under prior grants should be respected by the new colony. Also in the opposition arguments before the council at Whitehall, while the question was brought up as to the expediency of the western country, or part of it, being under Virginia's jurisdiction, the charter right of Virginia was, so far as we know, never mentioned as an objection to the establishment of Vandalia. There can be little doubt
• Pres. Nelson to Lord Hillsborough, Oct. 18, 1770. Public Good, p. 24.
that it was generally recognized that the crown had the right to cut off vacant lands from any colony at pleasure, regardless of that colony's chartered extent. It was urged that one object (quite a secondary one however) of the King's proclamation of 1763, was to limit the colonies on the west, as "the charters of many of our old colonies give them, with few exceptions, no bounds to the westward but the South Sea."! If so, the King was merely using his recognized right. In the previous century there had been several cases in which new colonies had been carved out of the chartered territory of older ones, and there is no reason to believe that the crown did not still possess the right. In this connection, it may be well to mention that the fact of the province of Quebec, being ex. tended to the Ohio and Mississippi rivers by the Quebec Act of 1774' was no guarantee whatever against new colonies being erected north of the Ohio, whenever the British government should choose to establish them.3
But the most difficult subject upon which to draw conclusions from the foregoing attempts at colonization, is the policy of the British government in regard to new western colonies. In order to understand the situation, it is necessary to know something of the way American af. fairs were conducted in London. Until 1766 their direction appears to have been jointly in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and the President of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, the other members of the Board cutting little or no figure. The President of the Board of Trade doubtless attended to most of the details of colonial administration, but as the
* Annual Register, 1763, p. 20. The Annual Register is supposed to have been written by Edmund Burke.
· Houston's Const. Docs, of Canada, p. 91.
* It is Hinsdale's opinion that one object of the Quebec Act was permanently to sever the West from the shore colonies, and put it in train for being cut up when the time should come, into independent governments that should have their affiliations with the St. Lawrence bazin rather than with the Atlantic slope." Old Northwest, p. 141.
· Commonly called the Board of Trade.