Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations on the Petition of the Honourable Thomas Walpole, Benjamin Franklin, John Sargent, and Samuel Wharton, Esquires, and their Associates: 1772Great Britain. Board of Trade
History
Report of the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations on the Petition of the Honourable Thomas Walpole, Benjamin Franklin, John Sargent, and Samuel Wharton, Esquires, and their Associates: 1772
Great Britain. Board of Trade
Ohio River Valley -- History -- To 1795; Walpole, Thomas, 1727-1803
[4] "We think of nothing but extending our settlements still
further on these _pestiferous sea coasts_, even to the sunken
lagunes of _East Florida_, and the barren sands of _Mobile_ and
_Pensacola_. The only use of _new settlements in North America_,
is for the people in the _Northern_ and other colonies, who want
lands _to make staple commodities_ for _Britain_, to _remove to
them: but none will ever go to Florida, or thrive in it, more
than_ they have done in _Carolina_ and _Georgia_. The climate of
_Florida_ is _more_ intemperate, the lands _more_ barren, and the
situation _much worse_ in every respect."
_State of Great Britain and America, by Dr._ Mitchel.
It now only remains for us to enquire, whether it was the intention of
the Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations in 1768, that the
territory, which would be included within the _boundary line_, then
negociating with the Indians (and which was the _one_ that was _that
year_ perfected) should continue a useless wilderness, or be settled
and occupied by his Majesty's subjects.--The very _representation_
itself, which the present Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations
say, contains "_every argument on the subject_," furnishes us an ample
and satisfactory solution to this important question.--The Lord
Commissioners in 1768, after pronouncing their opinion _against_ the
_proposed three new governments_, as above stated, declare, "They ought
to be carefully guarded against, by encouraging the settlement of that
extensive tract of sea coast hitherto unoccupied; which, say their
Lordships, _together with the liberty, that the inhabitants_ OF THE
_middle colonies_ WILL HAVE (in consequence of the proposed _boundary
line_ with the Indians) _of gradually extending themselves backwards_,
will _more effectually_ and _beneficially answer_ the object of
_encouraging population_ and _consumption_, than the erection of new
governments; such gradual extension might, through the medium of a
continual population, upon even the same extent of territory,
_preserve_ a communication of mutual commercial benefits between its
extremest parts and Great Britain, _impossible to exist in colonies
separated by immense tracts of unpeopled desart_."--Can any opinion be
more clear and conclusive, in _favour_ of the proposition which we have
humbly submitted to his Majesty?--for their Lordships positively say,
that the inhabitants of the middle colonies _will have liberty of
gradually extending themselves backwards_;--but is it not very
extraordinary, that after near _two years_ deliberation, the present
Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations should make a _report_ to
the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council, and therein expressly
refer to that opinion of 1768, in which, they say, "_every argument on
the subject is collected together with great force and precision_," and
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account