The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Volume 40, July 1936 - April, 1937 Page: 36

Southwestern Historical Quarterly

British interest in the colonization project and to induce British
settlers to come to the colony.4 British interest in such a coloniza-
tion project appears to have risen or fallen with the success, or
lack of it, that the British government seemed to have in develop-
ing interest on the part of the Texas government in abolition,
which question was delaying final recognition of the Texas Re-
public by the British government." Since the Texas government
was apparently not responding to the abolition overtures of the
British in the summer of 1841, and British interest in coloniza-
tion was low, it appears that Daniel J. Carrol and other British
stockholders in the Texan Immigration and Land Company trans-
ferred their interests to Charles Fenton Mercer, September 22,
1841. In view of this, Peters obtained a supplementary contract,
November 20, 1841, and reorganized his company under the name
of "The Texas Agricultural, Commercial, and Manufacturing
Company."8
While Great Britain had acknowledged the independence of Texas
in November, 1840, she was withholding formal recognition.
Early in 1842, Ashbel Smith received the appointment of charge
d'affaires to England and France with instructions to press the
subject of formal recognition, which he obtained in June, 1842.
After Britain's recognition of Texan independence, a revival of
British interest in Texas colonization appeared. A contract for
1700 settlers from England had been let according to an adver-
tisement in the New York Journal of Commence of June, 1842.'
In a speech before Parliament in 1842, Robert Peel doubted
whether the British West Indies, in which negroes had been
emancipated, could compete with regions using slave labor. In
September, 1842, Crosky, legal representative of the Beale Col-
ony, a company of British stockholders, presented their claims to
Texas land to the British Undersecretary of Foreign Affairs in
London, saying the colonization by Englishmen would render
Great Britain independent of American cotton.8
From the following letter it is apparent that the discussions of
'William G. Hale Papers. University of Texas.
VJustin H. Smith, The Annexation of Texas, 79-83.
'Colony Contracts and Reports of Commissioners of Colonies. General
Land Office.
'The writer is unable to find the contract or to determine the contractors.
8Smith, Annexation of Texas, 83.