Biographical Memorials of James Oglethorpe | Page 9

are going about. If, therefore, it shall appear that the relieving our sugar colonies will do more harm to the other parts of our dominions, than it can do good to them, we must refuse it, and think of some other method of putting them upon an equal footing with their rivals in any part of trade.
"Our sugar colonies are of great consequence to us; but our other colonies in that part of the world ought also to be considered. From them we have, likewise, yearly, large quantities of goods. We ought not to raise one colony upon the destruction of another. Much less ought we to grant a favor to any particular set of people which may prove to be against the public good of the nation in general."
To these, and other matters of general moment, Oglethorpe devoted his time, his talents, and his influence while in Parliament. He earnestly supported the cause of silk manufacture, which had then begun to spread in England by means of the improvement introduced by Sir Thomas Lombe, in the invention of his large engines, which are described as being of "a most curious and intricate structure,"[1] but which in our own day, when mechanical ingenuity has reached a high degree of excellence, and machinery seems itself almost an intelligent principle, would, probably, be regarded as merely "curious and intricate," without possessing any practical value.[2]
[Footnote 1: The 6th of the excellent Essays by the Rev. Jared Eliot, _on Field Husbandry, &_ c., 1761, is devoted principally to recommendations of the culture of mulberry trees for the raising of silk-worms. In page 161, is a reference to Sir Thomas Lombe, "that eminent throwster, who erected the great engine in Derbyshire; a wonderful structure, consisting of twenty-nine thousand five hundred and eighty-six wheels, all set a going and continued in motion by one single water-wheel, for working silk with expedition and success." See also Appendix VII.]
[Footnote 2: Manuscript lecture of J. Willard, Esq.]
A Corporation was formed in London, in 1707, with the professed intention of lending money to the poor on small pledges, and to persons of better rank, upon an answerable security, for setting them up, or assisting them in business. Its capital was then limited to ￡30,000, but in 1730 increased to ￡600,000, and a charter granted to the Corporation, by act of Parliament. But in October 1731, two of the chief officers, George Robinson, Esq., member for Marlow, the Cashier, and John Thompson, the Warehouse keeper, disappeared on the same day. This gave the Proprietors great alarm; and an inspection of affairs led to the discovery that for a capital of about ￡500,000, no equivalent was found to the value of ￡30,000; the remainder having been disposed of by ways and means of which no one could give an account. In consequence of this defalcation, a petition of the Proprietors was presented to the Parliament alleging that some who had been guilty of these frauds had transported themselves to parts beyond the seas, and carried with them some of the books and effects of the Corporation; and that there was great reason to believe that such an immense sum of money could not have been embezzled without the connivance and participation of others who remained in the kingdom; but that the petitioners were unable to come at the knowledge of their combinations or to bring them to justice, unless aided by the power and authority of that House; and therefore prayed that it might be afforded.
On the reading of the petition, Mr. Oglethorpe rose and spoke as follows:
"Sir, I am persuaded that this petition will be received in a manner befitting the unhappy case of the sufferers and the justice of this House. I can hardly suspect that any gentleman that has the honor of being a member of this House will hesitate in giving all the relief which we can to the number of unfortunate persons, who have been so much injured. Yet, because I have heard it whispered out of doors, that we ought not to receive this petition upon account, as is pretended, that the common seal is not affixed to it, I deem it necessary to take some notice of that objection, in case it should be started here. Sir, I must say that if there be any irregularity as to the affixing the seal of the Company to this petition, it is, in my opinion, so far from being an objection to our receiving the petition, that it is a very strong reason for it. If there be any fault in form, it is the fault of those who had the keeping of the common seal; and, as they may, perhaps, be of those against whom the complaints are made, and who may, upon inquiry, be found