r the Georgia Loyalists."

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 124: The names of the agents, or delegates, are as follows: W.
Pepperell, for the Massachusetts Loyalists; J. Wentworth, jun., for the
New Hampshire Loyalists; George Rowe, for the Rhode Island Loyalists;
Ja. Delancey, for the New York Loyalists; David Ogden, for the New
Jersey Loyalists; Joseph Galloway, for the Pennsylvania and Delaware
Loyalists; Robert Alexander, for the Maryland Loyalists; John R. Grymes,
for the Virginia Loyalists; Henry Eustace McCulloch, for the North
Carolina Loyalists; James Simpson, for the South Carolina Loyalists;
William Knox, for the Georgia Loyalists.]

[Footnote 125: Another very able pamphlet was issued some time
afterwards, entitled "Claims of the American Loyalists Reviewed and
Maintained upon the Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice;"
printed in London, 1788.]

[Footnote 126: "Historical View of the Commission for Inquiry into the
Losses, Services, and Claims of the American Loyalists, at the Close of
the War between Great Britain and her Colonies in 1783; with an Account
of the Compensation granted to them by Parliament in 1785 and 1788." By
John Eardley Wilmot, Esq., London, 1815. Dedicated "To His Most Gracious
Majesty George the Third, equally distinguished for justice and
beneficence to his subjects and for humanity to his enemies."]

[Footnote 127: It has already been mentioned that the Legislature of
South Carolina (the only State of the American Republic) had taken steps
to restore the estates of several of her Loyalists. This "caused the
withdrawal of the claims of their owners (before the English
Commissioners), except that in instances of alleged strip and waste,
amercements, and similar losses, inquiries were instituted to ascertain
the value of what was taken compared with that which was returned."

The English Commissioners, in their twelfth and last report, remark on
this subject as follows:

"We thought it our duty to state, in our second report of the 24th
December, 1784, that the State of South Carolina had, by an Act of the
24th March, 1784, restored the confiscated property of certain
Loyalists, subject to the restrictions therein mentioned; and that in
consequence thereof many had withdrawn the claims they had before
presented to us. We find, however, that in many instances the parties
have not been able to reap that advantage they had expected, and which
the Act above-mentioned held out to them.