The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Planters of Colonial Virginia, by
Thomas J. Wertenbaker
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Planters of Colonial Virginia
Author: Thomas J. Wertenbaker
Release Date: May 24, 2010 [EBook #32507]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLANTERS OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA ***
Produced by Mark C. Orton, Christine Aldridge and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Transcriber's Notes:
1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.
2. Superscripted characters are marked by a ^carat.
3. Corrections to minor spelling, punctuation, or other errors in the
original text appear in a detailed list at the end of this e-text.
4. Notations of inconsistencies in the original text, specifically the
Appendix, Footnotes and Index, which have been retained, appear at the
end of this e-text.
5. In the chapter "NOTES ON CHAPTERS", Footnotes without anchor points
have been marked with a question mark, (ex: ?[5-3]).
_The Planters of Colonial Virginia_
_The_ PLANTERS OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA
By THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER
[Illustration]
_New York_
RUSSELL & RUSSELL
1959
COPYRIGHT 1922 BY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS
COPYRIGHT 1958, 1959 BY THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER 59-11228
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PREFACE
America since the days of Captain John Smith has been the land of hope
for multitudes in Europe. In many an humble home, perhaps in some
English village, or an Ulster farm, or in the Rhine valley, one might
find a family assembled for the reading of a letter from son, or
brother, or friend, who had made the great venture of going to the New
World. "Land is abundant here and cheap," the letter would state. "Wages
are high, food is plentiful, farmers live better than lords. If one will
work only five days a week one can live grandly."
In pamphlets intended to encourage immigration the opportunities for
advancement were set forth in glowing colors. In Virginia alone, it was
stated, in 1649, there were "of kine, oxen, bulls, calves, twenty
thousand, large and good." When the traveller Welby came to America he
was surprised to "see no misery, no disgusting army of paupers, not even
beggars;" while Henry B. Fearson noted that laborers were "more erect in
their posture, less careworn in their countenances" than those of
Europe.
In Virginia, as in other colonies, it was the cheapness of land and the
dearness of labor which gave the newcomer his chance to rise. The rich
man might possess many thousands of acres, but they would profit him
nothing unless he could find the labor to put them under cultivation.
Indentured workers met his needs in part, but they were expensive, hard
to acquire, and served for only four years. If he hired freemen he
would have to pay wages which in England would have seemed fantastic.
Thus the so-called servants who had completed their terms and men who
had come over as freemen found it easy to earn enough to buy small
plantations of their own. That thousands did so is shown by the Rent
Roll which is published as an appendix to this book. One has only to
glance at it to see that the large plantations are vastly outnumbered by
the small farms of the yeomen. It proves that Virginia at the beginning
of the eighteenth century was not the land of huge estates, worked by
servants and slaves, but of a numerous, prosperous middle class.
Owning plantations of from fifty to five hundred acres, cultivating
their fields of tobacco, their patches of Indian corn and wheat, their
vegetable gardens and orchards with their own labor or the labor of
their sons, the yeomen enjoyed a sense of independence and dignity. It
was their votes which determined the character of the Assembly, it was
they who resisted most strongly all assaults upon the liberties of the
people.
As the small farmer, after the day's work was over, sat before his
cottage smoking his long clay pipe, he could reflect that for him the
country had fulfilled its promise. The land around him was his own; his
tobacco brought in enough for him to purchase clothes, farm implements,
and household goods.
But he frowned as he thought of the slave ship which had come into the
nearby river, and landed a group of Negroes who were all bought by his
wealthy neighbors. If Virginia were flooded with slaves, would it not
cheapen production and lower the price of tobacco? Could he and his
sons, when they hoed their fields with their own hands, compete with
slave labor?
The event fully justified these fears. The yeoman class in Virginia was
doomed. In the face of the oncoming tide they had three alternatives--to
save enough money to buy a slave or two, to leave the country, or to
sink into poverty.
It was the acquiring of a few slaves by the small planter which saved
the middle class. Before the end of the colonial period a full fifty per
cent. of the slaveholders had from one to five only. Seventy-five per
cent. had less than ten. The small farmer, as he led his newly acquired
slaves from the auction block to his plantation may have regretted that
self-preservation had forced him to depend on their labor rather than
his own. But he could see all around him the fate of those who had no
slaves, as they became "poor white trash." And he must have looked on
with pity as a neighbor gathered up his meager belongings and, deserting
his little plantation, set out for the remote frontier.
It was one of the great crimes of history, this undermining of the
yeoman class by the importation of slaves. The wrong done to the Negro
himself has been universally condemned; the wrong done the white man has
attracted less attention. It effectively deprived him of his American
birthright--the high return for his labor. It transformed Virginia and
the South from a land of hard working, self-respecting, independent
yeomen, to a land of slaves and slaveholders.
_Princeton, New Jersey_ THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER
_August, 1957_
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: ENGLAND IN THE NEW WORLD 7
CHAPTER II: THE INDIAN WEED 21
CHAPTER III: THE VIRGINIA YEOMANRY 38
CHAPTER IV: FREEMEN AND FREEDMEN 60
CHAPTER V: THE RESTORATION PERIOD 84
CHAPTER VI: THE YEOMAN IN VIRGINIA HISTORY 101
CHAPTER VII: WORLD TRADE 115
CHAPTER VIII: BENEATH THE BLACK TIDE 134
NOTES TO CHAPTERS 162
APPENDIX 181
INDEX 249
_CHAPTER I_
ENGLAND IN THE NEW WORLD
At the beginning of the Seventeenth century colonial expansion had
become for England an economic necessity. Because of the depletion of
her forests, which constituted perhaps the most important of her natural
resources, she could no longer look for prosperity from the old
industries that for centuries had been her mainstay. In the days when
the Norman conquerors first set foot upon English soil the virgin woods,
broken occasionally by fields and villages, had stretched in dense
formation from the Scottish border to Sussex and Devonshire. But with
the passage of five centuries a great change had been wrought. The
growing population, the expansion of agriculture, the increasing use of
wood for fuel, for shipbuilding, and for the construction of houses, had
by the end of the Tudor period so denuded the forests that they no
longer sufficed for the most pressing needs of the country.
Even at the present day it is universally recognized that a certain
proportion of wooded land is essential to the prosperity and
productivity of any country. And whenever this is lacking, not only do
the building, furniture, paper and other industries suffer, but the
rainfall proves insufficient, spring floods are frequent and the
fertility of the soil is impaired by washing. These misfortunes are
slight, however, compared with the disastrous results of the gradual
thinning out of the forests of Elizabethan England. The woods were
necessary for three all-important industries, the industries upon
which the prosperity and wealth of the nation were largely
dependent--shipbuilding, for which were needed timber, masts, pitch,
tar, resin; the manufacture of woolens, calling for a large supply of
potash; smelting of all kinds, since three hundred years ago wood and
not coal was the fuel used in the furnaces. It was with the deepest
apprehension, then, that thoughtful Englishmen watched the gradual
reduction of the forest areas, for it seemed to betoken for their
country a period of declining prosperity and economic decay. "When
therefore our mils of Iron and excesse of building have already turned
our greatest woods into pasture and champion within these few years,"
says a writer of this period, "neither the scattered forests of England,
nor the diminished groves of Ireland will supply the defect of our
navy."[1-1]
From this intolerable situation England sought relief through foreign
commerce. If she could no longer smelt her own iron, if she could not
produce ship-stores or burn her own wood ashes, these things might be
procured from countries where the forests were still extensive,
countries such as those bordering the Baltic--Germany, Poland, Russia,
Sweden. And so the vessels of the Muscovy Company in the second half of
the Sixteenth century passed through the Cattegat in large numbers to
make their appearance at Reval and Libau and Danzig, seeking there the
raw materials so vitally necessary to England. "Muscovia and Polina doe
yeerly receive many thousands for Pitch, Tarre, Sope Ashes, Rosen, Flax,
Cordage, Sturgeon, Masts, Yards, Wainscot, Firres, Glasse, and such
like," wrote Captain John Smith, "also Swethland for Iron and
Copper."[1-2]
But this solution of her problem was obviously unsatisfactory to
England. The northern voyage was long, dangerous and costly; the King of
Denmark, who controlled the entrance to the Baltic, had it within his
power at any moment to exclude the English traders; the Muscovy company
no longer enjoyed exemption from customs in Prussia, Denmark and Russia.
In case war should break out among the northern nations this trade might
for a time be cut off entirely, resulting in strangulation for England's
basic industries. "The merchant knoweth," said the author of _A True
Declaration_, "that through the troubles in Poland & Muscovy, (whose
eternall warres are like the Antipathy of the Dragon & Elephant) all
their traffique for Masts, Deales, Pitch, Tarre, Flax, Hempe, and
Cordage, are every day more and more indangered."[1-3] Moreover, the
trade was much impeded by the ice which for several months each year
choked some of the northern ports.
The most alarming aspect of this unfortunate situation was the effect of
the shortage of shipbuilding material upon the merchant marine. Situated
as it was upon an island, England enjoyed communication with the nations
of the world only by means of the ocean pathways. Whatever goods came to
her doors, whatever goods of her own manufacture she sent to foreign
markets, could be transported only by sea. It was a matter of vital
import to her, then, to build up and maintain a fleet of merchant
vessels second to none. But this was obviously difficult if not
impossible when "the furniture of shipping" such as "Masts, Cordage,
Pitch, Tar, Rossen" were not produced in quantity by England itself, and
could be had "only by the favor of forraigne potency."[1-4] Already, it
was stated, the decay of shipping was manifest, while large numbers of
able mariners were forced to seek employment in other countries. "You
know how many men for want of imploiment, betake themselves to Tunis,
Spaine and Florence," declared one observer, "and to serve in courses
not warrantable, which would better beseeme our own walles and borders
to bee spread with such branches, that their native countrey and not
forreine Princes might reape their fruit, as being both exquisite
Navigators, and resolute men for service, as any the world affords."[1-5]
It must be remembered that the merchant vessel three hundred years ago
constituted an important part of the nation's sea defence. The fleet
which met the mighty Spanish Armada in the Channel and inflicted upon it
so decisive a defeat, was made up in large part of volunteer ships from
every English port. And the Britisher knew full well that the merchant
marine constituted the "wooden walls" of his country, knew that its
decay would leave England almost defenseless. At the moment when one
able writer was pointing out that "the Realme of England is an Island
impossible to be otherwise fortified than by stronge shippes," another
was complaining that there were scarce two vessels of 100 tons belonging
to the whole city of Bristol, and few or none along the Severn from
Gloucester to Land's End on one side, and to Milford Haven on the
other.[1-6]
For this intolerable situation there could be but one remedy--England
must secure colonial possessions to supply her with the products for
which her forests were no longer sufficient. Her bold navigators had
already crossed the Atlantic, returning with alluring stories of the
limitless resources of the New World, of mighty forests spreading in
unbroken array for hundreds of miles along the coast and back into the
interior as far as the eye could see.[1-7] Why, it was asked, should
Englishmen be forced to make the hazardous journey to the Baltic in
order to procure from other nations what they might easily have for
themselves by taking possession of some of the limitless unoccupied
areas of America? It was folly to remain in economic bondage while the
road to independence stretched so invitingly before them.
Long before the Goodspeed, the Discovery and the Sarah Constant turned
their prows into the waters of the James, able English writers were
urging upon the nation the absolute necessity for colonial expansion. In
1584 the farseeing Hakluyt pointed out that the recent voyage of Sir
Humphrey Gilbert had proved that "pitche, tarr, rosen, sope ashes" could
be produced in America in great plenty, "yea, as it is thought, ynoughe
to serve the whole realme."[1-8] Captain Christopher Carleill had the
previous year made an effort to persuade the Muscovy Company to divert
its energies toward America. Why remain under the power of the King of
Denmark, he asked, or other princes who "command our shippes at their
pleasure," when all the products of the Baltic regions were to be had
from unoccupied territories which so easily could be placed under the
English flag?
It has often been taken for granted that the statesmen and merchants of
three centuries ago pursued always a mistaken and shortsighted economic
policy. John Fiske assures us that even at the close of the Eighteenth
century the barbarous superstitions of the Middle Ages concerning trade
between nations still flourished with scarcely diminished vitality. Yet
it requires but a cursory study of the theories and arguments of the
Elizabethan economists to realize that they were men of ability and
vision, that they knew what was needed and how to procure it, that they
were nearer right than many have supposed. In fact, they acted upon
sound economic principles a century and a half before Adam Smith
formulated and expounded them.
These men realized keenly that England's safety demanded a larger
measure of economic independence and they pointed out what seemed to be
the only available means of securing it. Since her forests upon which
her prosperity in the past had been so largely based, were nearing the
point of exhaustion, she must expand to embrace new lands where the
virgin growth of trees stood untouched. If this is barbarous, then the
recent efforts of Italy to gain an independent coal supply, of Great
Britain to get control of various oil fields, of the United States to
build up a dye industry, are all likewise barbarous. In fact the world
today in matters of economic policy has by no means gotten away from the
conceptions of the men whose able writings cleared the way for the
beginning of the British colonial empire.
But it must not be supposed that England in this matter was concerned
only for her supply of naval stores, potash and pig iron. There were
other products, not so vital it is true, but still important, which she
was forced to seek abroad. From the south of Europe came salt, sugar,
wine, silk, fruits; from the Far East saltpetre and dyes, together with
spices for making palatable the winter's stock of food; from Holland
came fish, from France wine and silk. And as in the Baltic, so elsewhere
the merchants of London and Bristol and Plymouth found their activities
resented and their efforts blocked and thwarted.
All commerce with the dominions of the King of Spain was carried on with
the greatest difficulty. "Our necessitie of oiles and colours for our
clothinge trade being so greate," pointed out Hakluyt, "he may arreste
almoste the one halfe of our navye, our traficque and recourse beinge so
greate in his dominions." The rich trade with the Far East was seriously
hampered by the Turks, through whose territories it had to pass, and
often a heavy tribute was laid upon it by the Sultan and his minions.
Even after the merchants had succeeded in lading their vessels in the
eastern Mediterranean with goods from the Orient, they still had to run
the gauntlet of the hostile Powers who infested that sea. If they
escaped the Knights of Malta, they might be captured by the corsairs of
Algeria or Tripoli.
The trade with France had also declined greatly during the closing years
of the Sixteenth century. Not only had the religious wars proved a
tremendous obstacle, but the government at Paris discriminated against
the woolens from England by means of custom duties, while the French
workmen were themselves manufacturing cloth of excellent quality in
larger amounts than had hitherto been thought possible. In the Low
Countries the long and bitter struggle of the people against the bloody
bands of Alva had wrought such destruction and had so ruined industry
that all foreign commerce had greatly declined.[1-9]
There can be no surprise, then, that many English economists felt that a
crisis had been reached, that nothing save the immediate establishment
of colonies would prevent disaster. With the woolen industry declining,
with the shipbuilding centres almost idle, with able mariners deserting
the service, with the foreign market gradually closing to English wares,
with the country overrun with idle and starving laborers, with some of
her chief natural resources nearly exhausted and the trade by which her
needs were replenished in constant danger, England turned to America as
her hope for salvation. Upon securing a foothold in the New World,
hitherto monopolized by Spain and Portugal, depended Albion's future
greatness and prosperity.
It is this which gave to the London Company its national character, and
made its efforts to establish a colony across the Atlantic a crusade, a
movement in which every Englishman was vitally concerned. The great
lords and wealthy merchants who comprised the Company knew well enough
that there was little hope of immediate returns upon the money they
subscribed so liberally. They expected to receive their reward in
another way, in the revival of English industrial life and the
restoration of English economic independence. It is a singular
perversion of history, an inaccurate interpretation of men and events,
which for so many years beclouded our conception of the beginning of the
British colonial empire. The settlement at Jamestown was not the product
of a selfish, private venture, but the fruition of long years of thought
and endeavor, long years of pleading with the English public, of the
conscious and deliberate efforts of the nation to expand to the New
World, to break the bonds of economic dependence and to restore to
England the place in the world which rightfully was hers.
In addition to, but closely associated with, the economic causes of
Anglo-Saxon expansion was the realization in England of the need for
prompt action in putting a limit to the growing domains of the King of
Spain. In the century which had elapsed since Columbus opened a new
world to the peoples of Europe, this monarch had seized the richest part
of the great prize, and was still reaching forward to the north and to
the south. Unless England took advantage of the present opportunity, the
vast American continents might be closed to her forever. Anglo-Saxon
civilization in that case might well remain permanently cooped up in the
little island that had seen its inception, while the Spanish language
and Spanish institutions expanded to embrace the garden spots of the
world.[1-10]
There were still other motives for this great movement. The English felt
the prime necessity of discovering and controlling a new route to the
East, they wished to expand the influence of the Anglican church and
convert the Indians, they hoped to seize and fortify strategic points in
America which would aid them in their struggles with the Spaniards. But
these things, important as they were, paled beside the pressing
necessity of national expansion, of rehabilitating English industrial
life, restoring the merchant marine and securing economic independence.
Thus, when Captain Newport returned in 1607 to report that the colony of
Virginia had been safely launched, many Englishmen were aroused to a
high pitch of hope and expectation. Now at last a province had been
secured which could supply the raw materials which England so greatly
needed. The active supporters of the undertaking were lavish in their
promises. Virginia would yield better and cheaper timber for shipping
than Prussia or Poland, she would furnish potash in abundance, and since
wood could there be had for the cutting, her copper and iron ore could
be smelted on the spot. Wine could be made there, as excellent as that
of the Canaries, they boasted, while it was hoped soon to manufacture
silk rivalling in fineness that of Persia or of Turkey. The waters of
the colony were full of "Sturgion, Caviare and new land fish of the
best," her fields could produce hemp for cordage and flax for linen. As
for pitch, tar, turpentine and boards, there was a certainty of a rich
return.[1-11] In February 1608, the Council of Virginia wrote to the
corporation of Plymouth: "The staple and certain Comodities we have are
Soap-ashes, pitch, tar, dyes of sundry sorts and rich values, timber for
all uses, fishing for sturgeon and divers other sorts ... making of
Glass and Iron, and no improbable hope of richer mines."[1-12]
And no sooner had the infant colony been established than the Company
turned with enthusiasm to the production of these highly desired
commodities. A number of foreigners, Dutchmen and Poles skilled in the
manufacture of ship-stores, were sent over to make a start with pitch,
tar, turpentine and potash. They were to act as instructors, also, and
it was expected that within a few years the Virginia forests would be
filled with workers in these trades. Unfortunately their efforts met
with ill success, and save for a few small samples of pitch and tar
which were sent to England, nothing of value was produced.
For this failure the reason is apparent. All the able economists and
statesmen who had predicted that the colony would become an industrial
center had overlooked one vitally important factor--the lack of cheap
labor. No matter how rich in natural resources, Virginia could not hope
to compete with the long-established industries of Europe and Asia,
because she lacked the abundant population requisite to success. It had
been imagined by Hakluyt and others that the colony could avail herself
of the surplus population of England, could drain off the upper stratum
of the idle and unemployed. What more feasible than to set these men to
work in the forests of the New World to produce the raw materials the
want of which was responsible for unemployment in England itself!
But the voyage across the Atlantic was so long and costly, that it
proved impossible to transport in any reasonable length of time enough
workers to Virginia to supply her needs. And the few thousand that came
over in the early years of the Seventeenth century were in such great
demand that they could secure wages several times higher than those in
vogue throughout Europe. Thus the London Company, from the very outset,
found itself face to face with a difficulty which it could never
surmount. Virginia could not compete with the ship-stores of the Baltic
nations because her labor, when indeed it was found possible to secure
labor at all, was far more expensive than that of Poland or Sweden or
Russia. It mattered not that the Company sent over indentured servants,
bound by their contracts to work for a certain number of years; the
effect was the same. The cost of transportation swallowed up the profits
from the servant's labor, when that labor was expended upon industries
which had to face the competition of the cheap workers of the Old World.
It speaks well for the acumen of Captain John Smith that he seems to
have been the first to grasp clearly this truth. He wrote that the
workingmen had made a beginning of "Pitch and Tarre, Glass, Sope-ashes
and Clapboard," but that little had been accomplished. "If you rightly
consider what an infinite toyle it is in Russia and Swetland, where the
woods are proper for naught else, and though there be the helpe both of
man and beast in those ancient Common-wealths, which many a hundred
years have used it, yet thousands of those poor people can scarce get
necessaries to live ... you must not expect from us any such
matter."[1-13]
The attempt to produce iron in Virginia was pursued even more
vigorously, but with equally poor success. The early settlers, eager to
assure the Company that the venture they had entered upon would soon
yield a rich return, spoke enthusiastically of the numerous indications
of the presence of iron ore. In 1609 Captain Newport brought with him to
England a supply of ore from which sixteen or seventeen tons of metal
were extracted of a quality equal or superior to that obtained from any
European country. The iron was sold to the East India Company at the
rate of £4 a ton.[1-14] Immediately plans were launched for taking
advantage of what seemed to be a splendid opportunity. In the course of
the first three years machinery for smelting and manufacturing iron was
sent over and men were set to work to operate it. But the difficulties
proved too great and ere long the attempt had to be abandoned.
The Company had no idea of relinquishing permanently its quest for
staple commodities, however, and soon a new and far more ambitious
project was set on foot for extracting the ore. The spot selected was at
Falling Creek, in the present county of Chesterfield, a few miles below
the rapids of the James river. George Sandys had noted with satisfaction
some years before that the place was in every respect suited for iron
smelting, for in close proximity to the ore was wood in abundance,
stones for the construction of the furnace and deep water for
transportation. To him it seemed that nature itself had selected the
site and endowed it with every facility which the enterprise could
require.[1-15] Here the London Company spent from £4,000 to £5,000 in a
supreme effort to make their colony answer in some degree the
expectations which had been placed in it. A Captain Blewit, with no less
than 80 men, was sent over to construct the works, upon which, they
declared, were fixed the eyes of "God, Angels and men." But Blewit soon
succumbed to one of the deadly epidemics which yearly swept over the
little colony, and a Mr. John Berkeley, accompanied by 20 experienced
workers, came over to take his place.
At first things seem to have gone well with this ambitious venture. Soon
the Virginia forests were resounding to the whir of the axe and the
crash of falling trees, to the exclamations of scores of busy men as
they extracted the ore, built their furnace and began the work of
smelting. Operations had progressed so far that it was confidently
predicted that soon large quantities of pig iron would be leaving the
James for England, when an unexpected disaster put an abrupt end to the
enterprise. In the terrible massacre of 1622, when the implacable
Opechancanough attempted at one stroke to rid the country of its white
invaders, the little industrial settlement at Falling Creek was
completely destroyed. The furnace was ruined, the machinery thrown into
the river, the workmen butchered. This project, which had absorbed so
much of the attention and resources of the Company, is said to have
yielded only a shovel, a pair of tongs and one bar of iron.[1-16]
The history of the attempts to establish glass works in Virginia is also
a story of wasted energy and money, of final failure. The Dutch and
Polish workers who came in 1608 set up a furnace at Jamestown,[1-17] but
nothing more is heard of them, and it is clear that they met with no
success. Nor did Captain William Norton, who arrived in 1621 with a
number of skilled Italian glass workers fare any better.[1-18] In 1623
George Sandys wrote: "Capt. Norton dyed with all save one of his
servants, the Italians fell extremely sick yet recovered; but I conceave
they would gladly make the work to appear unfeasable, that they might by
that means be dismissed for England. The fier hath now been for six
weeks in ye furnace and yet nothing effected. They claim that the sand
will not run." Shortly after this the workmen brought matters to an end
by cracking the furnace with a crowbar.[1-19]
Thus ended in complete failure the efforts of England to reap what she
considered the legitimate fruits of this great enterprise. The day of
which her farseeing publicists had dreamed had arrived; she had at last
challenged the right of Spain to all North America, her sons were
actually settled on the banks of the James, a beginning had been made in
the work of building a colonial empire. But the hope which had so fired
the mind of Hakluyt, the hope of attaining through Virginia British
economic independence, was destined never to be fulfilled. However
lavishly nature had endowed the colony with natural resources, however
dense her forests, however rich her mines, however wide and deep her
waterways, she could not become an industrial community. Fate had
decreed for her another destiny. But England was reluctant to accept the
inevitable in this matter. Long years after Sir Edwin Sandys and his
fellow workers of the London Company had passed to their rest, we find
the royal ministers urging upon the colony the necessity of producing
pig iron and silk and potash, and promising every possible encouragement
in the work. But the causes which operated to bring failure in 1610 or
1620 prevented success in 1660 and 1680. Virginia had not the abundant
supply of labor essential to the development of an industrial community
and for many decades, perhaps for centuries, could not hope to attain
it. Her future lay in the discovery and exploitation of one staple
commodity for which she was so preëminently adapted that she could, even
with her costly labor, meet the competition of other lands. The future
history of Virginia was to be built up around the Indian plant tobacco.
_CHAPTER II_
THE INDIAN WEED
History is baffling in its complexity. The human mind instinctively
strives for simplicity, endeavors to reproduce all things to set rules,
to discover the basic principles upon which all action is based. And in
various lines of research much success has attended these efforts. We
know the laws underlying the movements of the planets, of various
chemical reactions, of plant and animal life. It is inevitable, then,
that attempts should be made to accomplish similar results in history,
to master the vast multitude of facts which crowd its pages, many of
them seemingly unrelated, and show that after all they obey certain
fundamental laws. Despite the vaunted freedom of the human will, it is
maintained, mankind like the planets or the chemical agents, cannot
escape the operation of definite forces to which it is subjected. And if
these forces are studied and understood, to some extent at least, the
course of future events may be predicted.
Thus it may be accepted as practically established that in any country
and with any people a condition of continued disorder and anarchy must
be succeeded by one of despotism. History records, we believe, no
exception to this rule, while there are many instances which tend to
confirm it. The absolute rule of the Caesars followed the anarchy of the
later Roman republic, the Oliverian Protectorate succeeded the British
civil wars, the first French Empire the Reign of Terror, the Bolshevik
despotism the collapse of the old regime in Russia. Such will always be
the case, we are told, because mankind turns instinctively to any form
of government in quest of protection from anarchy, and the easiest form
of government to establish and operate is despotism.
Not content with generalizations of this kind, however, certain
historians have undertaken to reduce all human action to some one great
fundamental principle. The Freudian view emphasizes the influence of
sex; Buckle maintains that the effect of climate is all-powerful. In
recent years many students, while not agreeing that the solution of the
problem is quite so simple, yet believe that underlying all social
development will be found economic forces of one kind or another, that
in commerce and industry and agriculture lies the key to every event of
moment in the history of mankind. Often these forces have been obscured
and misunderstood, but close study will always reveal them. It is folly
to waste time, they say, as writers have so long done, in setting forth
the adventures of this great man or that, in dwelling upon the details
of political struggles or recounting the horrors of war. All these are
but surface indications of the deeper movements underneath, movements in
every case brought about by economic developments.
But this interpretation of history is by no means universally accepted.
While admitting readily that the conditions surrounding the production
and exchange of useful commodities have affected profoundly the course
of events, many historians deny that they give the key to every
important movement. We must study also the progress of human thought, of
religion, of politics, or our conception of history will be warped and
imperfect. How is it possible to explain the French religious wars of
the Sixteenth century by the theory of economic causes? In what way does
it account for the rebellion of Virginia and North Carolina and Maryland
against the British government in 1775? How can one deny that the
assassination of Abraham Lincoln affected profoundly the course of
American history?
These efforts to simplify the meaning of human events have often led to
error, have stressed certain events too strongly, have minimized others.
The complexity of history is self-evident; we must for the present at
least content ourselves with complex interpretations of it. If there be
any great underlying principles which explain all, they have yet to be
discovered.
Thus it would be folly in the study of colonial Virginia to blind
ourselves to the importance of various non-economic factors, the love of
freedom which the settlers brought with them from England, their
affection for the mother country, the influence of the Anglican church.
Yet it is obvious that we cannot understand the colony, its social
structure, its history, its development unless we have a clear insight
into the economic forces which operated upon it. These Englishmen,
finding themselves in a new country, surrounded by conditions
fundamentally different from those to which they had been accustomed,
worked out a new and unique society, were themselves moulded into
something different.
And in colonial Virginia history there is a key, which though it may not
explain all, opens the door to much that is fundamental. This key is
tobacco. The old saying that the story of Virginia is but the story of
tobacco is by no means a gross exaggeration. It was this Indian plant,
so despised by many of the best and ablest men of the time, which
determined the character of the life of the colony and shaped its
destinies for two and a half centuries. Tobacco was the chief factor in
bringing final and complete failure to the attempts to produce useful
raw materials, it was largely instrumental in moulding the social
classes and the political structure of the colony, it was almost
entirely responsible for the system of labor, it even exerted a powerful
influence upon religion and morals. In a word, one can understand almost
nothing of Virginia, its infancy, its development, its days of
misfortune, its era of prosperity, its peculiar civilization, the nature
of its relations to England, unless one knows the history of tobacco.
As though they had a prophetic vision of its future importance, the
Virginia Indians revered the plant. To them it was an especial gift
direct from the Great Spirit, and as such was endowed with unusual
properties for doing good. When the fields of maize were dried and
parched for lack of rain they powdered the tobacco and cast it to the
winds that the evil genii might be propitiated; their priests on great
occasions fed it to the sacrificial fires; when the usual catch of fish
failed it was scattered over the water.[2-1] Smoking was considered a
token of friendship and peace. When the white men first visited the
native villages they soon found that to reject the proffered pipe was to
offend their savage hosts and incur their hostility.
It was John Rolfe, celebrated as the husband of Pocahontas, who first
experimented with the native leaf. This gentleman was himself fond of
smoking, but he found the Virginia tobacco as it came from the hands of
the savages, decidedly inferior to that of the West Indies. The leaf
itself was small, and although the flavor was weak it was biting to the
tongue.[2-2] Rolfe's efforts proved entirely successful. In 1614, two
years after his first attempt, he had obtained a product which Ralph
Hamor declared to be as "strong, sweet and pleasant as any under the
sun."[2-3]
Thus, early in its history, Virginia had found a commodity for which she
was preëminently suited, in the production of which she could compete
successfully with any country in the world. And for her tobacco she had
a ready market. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth the habit of smoking
had spread rapidly among the upper classes of English, until at the end
of the sixteenth century, it was almost universal. When James I
ascended the throne, although feeling a strong aversion to tobacco, he
was forced to take up its use in order not to appear conspicuous among
his courtiers, for the dictates of custom seem to have been as strong
three hundred years ago as at present.[2-4] At the time that Rolfe was
making his experiments England was spending yearly for the Spanish
product many thousands of pounds.
It is not surprising, then, that the colonists turned eagerly to tobacco
culture. The news that Rolfe's little crop had been pronounced in
England to be of excellent quality spread rapidly from settlement to
settlement, bringing with it new hope and determination. Immediately
tobacco absorbed the thoughts of all, became the one topic of
conversation, and every available patch of land was seized upon for its
cultivation. The fortified areas within the palisades were crowded with
tobacco plants, while even the streets of Jamestown were utilized by the
eager planters.[2-5] In 1617 the George set sail for England laden with
20,000 pounds of Virginia leaf, the first of the vast fleet of tobacco
ships which for centuries were to pass through the capes of the
Chesapeake bound for Europe.[2-6] By 1627, the tobacco exports amounted
to no less than half a million pounds.[2-7]
The London Company, together with the host of patriotic Englishmen who
had placed such great hopes in the colony, were much disappointed at
this unexpected turn of events. They had sought in the New World those
"solid commodities" which they realized were fundamental to the
prosperity of their country, commodities upon which English industrial
life was founded. And they had found only the Indian weed--tobacco. This
plant not only contributed nothing to the wealth of the kingdom, it was
felt, but was positively injurious to those who indulged in its use.
Surely, declared one writer, men "grow mad and crazed in the brain in
that they would adventure to suck the smoke of a weed." James I thought
there could be no baser and more harmful corruption, while Charles I
expressed himself with equal emphasis. So late as 1631 the latter
protested against the growing use of tobacco, which he termed "an evil
habit of late tymes."[2-8]
Yet England soon learned to welcome the colonial tobacco as far better
than no product at all. Hitherto the leaf in use had been raised in the
Spanish colonies, and England's annual tobacco bill was becoming larger
and larger. It seemed calamitous that British industry should be drained
of good and useful commodities in exchange for a plant the consumption
of which was harmful rather than beneficial. It was at least some
satisfaction to know, then, that England could substitute for the
Spanish leaf the growth of their own colonies. Apparently it was only
later, however, that there came a full realization of the opportunity
afforded for enriching England and building up her merchant marine by
exporting tobacco to foreign countries. For the present they accepted
this one product of their experiment in colonial expansion, reluctantly
and with keen disappointment, as the best that could be obtained.
Yet it was obvious to the London Company that tobacco held out the only
prospect, not only of securing a profit from their venture, but of
bringing to Virginia some measure of prosperity. The first consignment
of leaf which came from the colony sold for no less than 5s. 3d. a
pound, a price which promised a rich return to the planters on the James
and their backers in England.[2-9] And they much preferred to have a
prosperous colony, even when prosperity was founded on tobacco, than a
weak, impoverished settlement, which would be a drain upon their
personal resources and of no value to the nation. Thus they accepted the
inevitable, gave what encouragement they could to the new product, and
sought to use it as a means for building up the British empire in
America. When once England had established herself firmly in the New
World, it would be time enough to return to the attempt to secure from
the colony ship-stores, potash, iron and silk.
With the overthrow of the Company, however, the Crown made repeated
efforts to direct the energies of Virginia away from the all-absorbing
cultivation of tobacco. In 1636 Charles I wrote to the Governor and
Council bidding them moderate the excessive quantities of the plant laid
out each year and to endeavor to produce some other staple
commodities.[2-10] "The King cannot but take notice," he reiterated the
next year, "how little that colony hath advanced in Staple commodities
fit for their own subsistence and clothing," and he warned the planters
to emulate the Barbados and Caribee Islands, where a beginning had been
made in cotton, wool and other useful things.[2-11] But the colonists
paid no heed to these repeated warnings. The King's commands were no
more effective in establishing new industries than had been the first
attempts of the Company. Virginia was not prepared to compete with the
workers of Europe in their own chosen fields, and persisted, had to
persist, in the production of the one commodity for which she possessed
unsurpassed natural advantages.
It is remarkable how universally the plant was cultivated by all classes
of Virginians throughout the colonial period. It was difficult to find
skilled artisans in any line of work, since those who had pursued in
England the various trades usually deserted them, when they landed in
the colony, in order to turn to the raising of tobacco. And the few who
continued to pursue their old vocations usually rented or purchased a
small tract of land and devoted a part of their time to its cultivation.
Blacksmiths, carpenters, shipwrights, coopers all raised their little
tobacco crop and sold it to the British merchants,[2-12] while even the
poor minister sought to make ends meet by planting his glebe with
Orinoco or Sweetscented. The Governor himself was not free from the
all-prevailing custom, and frequently was the possessor of a farm where
his servants and slaves, like those of other gentlemen in the colony,
were kept busy tending the tobacco crop.
It is doubtful whether the members of the London Company, even Sir Edwin
Sandys himself, ever attempted to visualize the social structure which
would develop in the Virginia they were planning. If so, they
unquestionably pictured a state of affairs very different from that
which the future held in store. They took it for granted that Virginia
would to a large extent be a duplicate of England. In the forests of the
New World would grow up towns and villages, centers of industry and
centers of trade. The population would be divided into various
classes--well-to-do proprietors boasting of the title of gentleman;
professional men, lawyers, physicians, ministers; skilled artisans of
all kinds; day laborers.
We catch a glimpse of the Virginia of their minds from a Broadside
issued in 1610, appealing for volunteers for service in the
colony.[2-13] We can see the shipwrights at work in the busy yards of
thriving ports; the smelters caring for their iron and copper furnaces;
the "minerall-men" digging out the ore; saltmakers evaporating the
brackish waters for their useful product; vine-dressers tending their
abundant crops of grapes and coopers turning out the hogsheads in which
to store the wine which came from the presses; bricklayers and
carpenters fashioning substantial houses; fishermen bringing in the
plentiful yield of the day and dressers preparing the fish for foreign
shipment; joiners, smiths, gardeners, bakers, gun-founders,
ploughwrights, brewers, sawyers, fowlers, each plying his trade in the
New Brittania.
But how different was the reality. Virginia became, not an industrial,
but a distinctly agricultural community. For more than a century it
could boast not a single town worthy of the name.[2-14] It was but a
series of plantations, not large in extent, but stretching out for miles
along the banks of the rivers and creeks, all devoted to the raising of
tobacco. The population of the colony was but the aggregate of the
population of the plantation--the owner, the wage earners, the
indentured servant, a few slaves. Virginia in the Seventeenth century,
despite the design of its founders, developed a life of its own, a life
not only unlike that of England, but unique and distinct.
Immigration, like everything else in the colony, was shaped by the needs
of tobacco. For its successful production the plant does not require
skilled labor or intensive cultivation. The barbarous natives of Africa,
who later in the century were imported in such large numbers, eventually
proved quite adequate to the task. But it does require the service of
many hands. For decades after Rolfe's discovery had opened a new vista
of prosperity for Virginia, fertile land was so cheap that a person even
of moderate means might readily purchase an extensive plantation,[2-15]
but it would be of little service to him unless he could find hands for
clearing away the forests, breaking the soil, tending and curing the
plants.
Of the three requirements of production--natural resources, capital and
labor--the fertile soil furnished the first in abundance, the second
could readily be secured, but the last remained for a full century the
one great problem of the planters. From the days of Sir George Yeardley
to those of Nicholson and Andros there was a persistent and eager demand
for workers. Of this there can be no better evidence than the remarkably
high wages which prevailed in the colony, especially in the years prior
to the Restoration. In fact, it is probable that the laborer received
for his services four or five times the amount he could earn in
England. Even during the time of the London Company we find George
Sandys writing to a friend in London to procure indentured servants for
the colony as the wages demanded were intolerable. A day's work brought,
in addition to food, a pound of tobacco valued at one shilling, while in
England the unskilled worker considered himself fortunate if he could
earn so much in a week.[2-16]
In his efforts to solve this acute problem the planter found little hope
in the aborigines. The Spaniards, it is true, had made use of the
Indians to till their fields or work in the gold and silver mines, but
the Pamunkey and the Powhatan were cast in a different mold from the
Aztec and the Peruvian. To hunt them out of their native lairs and bind
them to arduous and ignominious servitude was hardly to be thought of.
Their spirit was too proud to be thus broken, the safe refuge of the
woods too near at hand. One might as well have attempted to hitch lions
and tigers to the plough shaft, as to place these wild children of the
forest at the handles. At times it proved practicable to make use of
Indian children for servants, and there are numerous instances on record
in which they are found in the homes of the planters.[2-17] But this, of
course, could be of little service in solving the pressing labor
problem, in clearing new ground or tilling the idle fields. The Virginia
landowner was forced to turn elsewhere for his helpers.
In 1619 a Dutch privateer put into the James river and disembarked
twenty Africans who were sold to the settlers as slaves. This event, so
full of evil portent for the future of Virginia, might well have
afforded a natural and satisfactory solution of the labor problem.
Slaves had long been used in the Spanish colonies, proving quite
competent to do the work of tending the tobacco plants, and bringing
handsome returns to their masters. But it was impossible at this time
for England to supply her plantations with this type of labor. The
slave trade was in the hands of the Dutch, who had fortified themselves
on the African coast and jealously excluded other nations. Thus while
the demand for negro slaves remained active in the colony, they
increased in numbers very slowly. The muster of 1624-25 shows only
22.[2-18] During the following half century there was a small influx of
negroes, but their numbers were still too small to affect seriously the
economic life of the colony.[2-19]
The settlers were thus forced to look to England itself to supply them
with hands for their tobacco fields. They knew that in the mother
country were many thousands of indigent persons who would welcome an
opportunity to better their lot by migrating to the New World. And the
English statesmen, feeling that there was need for blood letting,
welcomed an opportunity to divert the surplus population to the new
colony in America.[2-20] The decline in English foreign trade and the
stagnation of home industry had brought unemployment and suffering to
every class of workers. Wages were so low that the most industrious
could not maintain themselves in comfort, while to provide against want
in case of sickness or old age was hardly to be thought of. Every
parish, every town swarmed with persons stricken with abject poverty. In
some parts of the country no less than 30 per cent of the population
were dependent in part upon charity for their daily bread, while many
were driven into vagabondage and crime, becoming an element of danger
rather than of strength to the nation.[2-21] It seemed to the planters
that the mother country constituted an abundant reservoir of labor, a
reservoir already overflowing and capable of supplying indefinitely
their every need.
The only drawback was the long and expensive voyage across the Atlantic.
The fare, even for the poorest and most crowded accommodations, was no
less than six pounds sterling, a sum far beyond the means of the
thriftiest laborer.[2-22] Obviously some scheme had to be evolved to
overcome this difficulty before Virginia could make use of English
labor. And so the planters turned to the simple expedient of advancing
the passage money to the immigrant and of placing him under strict legal
bonds to work it out after reaching the colony.
This system, around which the economic life of Virginia centered for a
full century, proved satisfactory to all concerned. The credit advanced
to the immigrant made it possible for him to earn his ocean fare, not in
England where labor was cheap, but in America where it was dear. In
other words, he was enabled without delay to enjoy the full benefits of
selling his services in the best market. The necessity for placing him
under a stringent contract or indenture is evident. Had this not been
done the immigrant, upon finding himself in Virginia, might have refused
to carry out his part of the bargain. But the indenture was in no sense
a mark of servitude or slavery. It simply made it obligatory for the
newcomer, under pain of severe penalties, to work out his passage money,
and until that was accomplished to surrender a part of the personal
liberty so dear to every Englishman.
It is erroneous to suppose that most of the servants were degenerates or
criminals. It is true that the English Government from time to time
sought to lessen the expense of providing for convicted felons by
sending some of them to the colonies, among them on rare occasions a few
decidedly objectionable characters. More than once the Virginians
protested vigorously against this policy as dangerous to the peace and
prosperity of the colony.[2-23] By far the larger part of these penal
immigrants, however, were but harmless paupers, driven perhaps to theft
or some other petty offense by cold and hunger. Often they were
sentenced to deportation by merciful judges in order that they might
not feel the full weight of the harsh laws of that day.[2-24]
And of the small number of real criminals who came in, few indeed made
any lasting imprint upon the social fabric of the colony. Many served
for life and so had no opportunity of marrying and rearing families to
perpetuate their degenerate traits. Those who escaped fled from the
confines of settled Virginia to the mountains or to the backwoods of
North Carolina. Many others succumbed to the epidemics which proved so
deadly to the newcomers from England. In fact the criminal servant was
but a passing incident in the life and development of England's greatest
and most promising colony.[2-25]
An appreciable proportion of the so-called criminal laborers were no
more than political prisoners taken in the rebellions of the Seventeenth
century. These men frequently represented the sturdiest and most
patriotic elements in the kingdom and were a source of strength rather
than of weakness to the colony. When Drogheda was captured by Cromwell's
stern Puritan troops in 1649, some of the unfortunate rebels escaped the
firing squad only to be sent to America to serve in the sugar or tobacco
fields. Just how many of these Irishmen fell to the share of Virginia it
is impossible to say, but the number rises well into the hundreds, and
the patent books of the period are full of headrights of undoubted Irish
origin.[2-26]
When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 it became the turn of
the Puritans to suffer, and many non-conformists and former Oliverian
soldiers were sent to Virginia. In fact so many old Commonwealth men
were serving in the tobacco fields in 1663 that they felt strong enough
to plot, not only for their own freedom, but for the overthrow of the
colonial government.[2-27] In 1678, after the suppression of the
Scottish Covenanters by the Highland Host, a new batch of prisoners were
sent to the plantations.[2-28] Seven years later many of Monmouth's
followers taken at Sedgemour, who were fortunate enough to escape the
fury of Jeffreys and Kirk, were forced to work in the plantations.
But the bulk of the servants were neither criminals nor political
prisoners, but poor persons seeking to better their condition in the
land of promise across the Atlantic. They constituted the vanguard of
that vast stream of immigrants which for three centuries Europe has
poured upon our shores. The indentured servant differed in no essential
from the poor Ulsterite or German who followed him in the Eighteenth
century, or the Irishman, the Italian or the Slav in the Nineteenth.
Like them he found too severe the struggle for existence at home, like
them he sought to reach a land where labor, the only commodity he had to
sell, would bring the highest return. The fact that his passage was paid
for him and that he was bound by contract to work it out after reaching
America, in no wise differentiates him from the newcomers of later days.
In 1671 Sir William Berkeley reported to the Board of Trade that the
colony contained "6,000 Christian servants for a short tyme," who had
come with the "hope of bettering their condition in a Growing
Country."[2-29]
Virginia is fortunate in having preserved a record of this, the first
great migration to the English colonies, which in some respects is
remarkably complete. In fact, the names of fully three-fourths of all
the persons who came to the colony, whether as freemen or servants
during the first century of its existence, are on record at the Land
Office at Richmond, and at all times available to the student of
history. In the early days of the settlement a law was passed designed
to stimulate immigration, by which the Government pledged itself to
grant fifty acres of land to any person who would pay the passage from
Europe to Virginia of a new settler. Thus if one brought over ten
indentured servants he would be entitled to 500 acres of land, if he
brought 100, he could demand 5,000 acres. But the headright, as it was
called, was not restricted to servants; if one came over as a freeman,
paying his own passage, he was entitled to the fifty acres. Should he
bring also his family, he could demand an additional fifty acres for his
wife and fifty for each child or other member of the household.[2-30]
When the Government issued a grant for land under this law, the planter
was required to record with the clerk of the county court the names of
all persons for whose transportation the claim was made. Some of these
lists have been lost, especially for the period from 1655 to 1666, but
most of them remain, constituting an inexhaustible storehouse of
information concerning the colony and the people who came to its
shores.[2-31] How the papers escaped destruction during the fire which
did so much damage in the Secretary's office at the time of Andros, it
is impossible to say. The explanation is to be found perhaps in the fact
that copies of the records were kept, not only at Williamsburg, but in
the several counties, so that in case of loss by fire new entries could
be made.
Immigration to Virginia continued in unabated volume throughout the
Seventeenth century. The needs of the tobacco plantations were
unceasing, and year after year the surplus population of England poured
across the Atlantic in response. An examination of the list of
headrights shows that the annual influx was between 1500 and 2000. Even
during the Civil War and Commonwealth periods this average seems to have
been maintained with surprising consistency. Apparently the only limit
which could be set upon it was the available space on board the merchant
fleet which each year left England for the Chesapeake bay. Thus in the
year ending May 1635 we find that 2000 landed in the colony,[2-32] while
in 1674 and again in 1682 the same average was maintained.[2-33] At
times the numbers dropped to 1200 or 1300, but this was the exception
rather than the rule. All in all, considerably more than 100,000 persons
migrated to the colony in the years that elapsed between the first
settlement at Jamestown and the end of the century.[2-34]
This great movement, which far surpassed in magnitude any other English
migration of the century, fixed for all time the character of the white
population of tidewater Virginia. The vast bulk of the settlers were
English. An examination of the headright lists shows here and there an
Irish or a Scotch name, and on very rare occasions one of French or
Italian origin, but in normal periods fully 95 per cent were
unmistakably Anglo-Saxon. In fact, such names as Dixon, Bennett,
Anderson, Adams, Greene, Brooke, Brown, Cooper, Gibson, Hall, Harris,
King, Jackson, Long, Martin, Miller, Newton, Philips, Richards, Turner,
White, appear with monotonous repetition. Except in the years 1655 and
1656, after the Drogheda tragedy when one sees such names as O'Lanny,
O'Leaby, O'Mally, and Machoone, or in 1679 when there was a sprinkling
of Scottish names, the entire list is distinctly English.
It must not be supposed that immigration to Virginia in the Seventeenth
century was restricted to indentured servants. Some of the settlers were
freemen, paying their own passage and establishing themselves as
proprietors immediately after arriving in the colony. But the conditions
which attracted them were the same as those which brought over the
servants. In both cases it was tobacco, the rich returns which it
promised and the urgent need it had of labor, which impelled them to
leave their homes in England to seek their fortunes in the strange land
beyond the seas.
Having seen the character of the immigration to Virginia, it remains to
determine what was the fate of the settler after he reached the colony,
what rôle lay before him in its social and economic life. Would he
remain permanently in the status of a servant, entering into a new
agreement with his master after the expiration of the old? Would he
eventually become a day laborer, working for wages upon the estates of
the wealthy? Would he become a tenant? Could he hope to become a
freeholder, making of Virginia, like Rome in the early days of the
republic, the land of the small proprietor?
_CHAPTER III_
THE VIRGINIA YEOMANRY
The system of indentured labor differed vitally from negro slavery. The
servant usually was bound to his master for a limited period only, and
at the expiration of four or five years was a free man, to go where he
would and pursue what employment seemed most lucrative. And of
tremendous importance to the future of Virginia was the fact that he was
of the same race and blood as the rest of the population. There was no
inherent reason why he might not take up land, marry and become a part
of the social structure of the colony.
When races of marked physical differences are placed side by side in the
same territory, assimilation of one or the other becomes difficult, and
an age long repugnance and conflict is apt to result. Perhaps the
greatest crime against the southern colonies was not the introduction of
slavery, but the introduction of negroes. It was inevitable that
eventually slavery would be abolished. But the negro race in America
cannot be abolished, it cannot be shipped back to Africa, it cannot well
be absorbed into the white population. Today California is struggling to
avoid a like problem by excluding the Japanese, while Canada, Australia
and New Zealand are closing their doors to Orientals of all kinds.
Thus Virginia, during its century of white immigration, was storing up
no perplexing difficulties for the future, was developing slowly but
surely into an industrious, democratic, Anglo-Saxon community. Not until
the black flood of slaves was turned loose upon her, strangling her
peasantry and revolutionizing her industrial and social life, was her
future put in pawn. The white servants, so far as they remained in the
colony, became bone of her bone, flesh of her flesh, promised her a
homogeneous race, a sound economic and political development.
When the alien newcomer to the United States sees from the deck of his
steamer the Statue of Liberty and the ragged sky line of lower
Manhattan, he feels that the goal of his ambition has been reached, that
the land of opportunity lies before him. But to the indentured settler
of the Seventeenth century, his arrival in the James or the York was but
the beginning of his struggles. Before he could grasp the riches of the
New World, he must pay the price of his passage, must work out through
arduous years the indenture to which he had affixed his signature.
And these years were filled not only with toil, perhaps with hardship,
but with the greatest peril. He might account himself fortunate indeed
if during the first twelve months he escaped the so-called Virginia
sickness. Tidewater Virginia for the English settlers was a pest-ridden
place. The low and marshy ground, the swarming mosquitoes, the hot sun,
the unwholesome drinking water combined to produce an unending epidemic
of dysentery and malaria. And at frequent intervals, especially in the
early years, yellow fever, scurvy and plague swept over the infant
colony, leaving behind a ghastly train of suffering and death.[3-1] At
one time the mortality among the settlers upon the James ran as high as
75 per cent and for a while it seemed that this attempt of the British
nation to secure a foothold upon the American continent must end in
failure.[3-2]
But as the years wore on better conditions prevailed. Governor Berkeley
testified in 1671, "there is not oft seasoned hands (as we term them)
that die now, whereas heretofore not one of five escaped the first
year."[3-3] This improvement was brought about by the use of Peruvian
bark, a clearer understanding of sanitary matters and the selection of
more healthful sites for plantations. At the time when Sir William wrote
it is probable that 80 per cent or more of the indentured servants
survived the dangers of the tobacco fields, completed their terms of
service and, if they remained in the colony, became freedmen with the
full rights of Englishmen and Virginians.
In the period from 1660 to 1725 there was, as we shall see, an exodus of
poor whites from Virginia. This, however, was chiefly the result of the
influx of slaves which marked the end of the century, and it is safe to
assume that prior to the Restoration there was no extensive movement
from Virginia to other colonies. The servant, upon attaining his
freedom, usually remained in the colony and sought to establish himself
there.
Although it is impossible to determine accurately the average length of
service required by the indentures, there is reason to believe that it
did not exceed five years. In cases of controversy between masters and
servants who had come in without written contracts as to when their
terms should expire, it was at first required by law that the period be
fixed at five years if the age was in excess of twenty-one.[3-4] In
1654, however, a new act was passed by the Assembly, making it necessary
for those who had no indentures, if over sixteen to serve six years, if
less than sixteen until the twenty-fourth year had been reached.[3-5]
This was found to work to the disadvantage of the colony by discouraging
immigration, and in 1662 the law was changed so that in all doubtful
cases the legal term should be five years for persons over sixteen.[3-6]
Since the Assembly, which was so largely made up of persons who
themselves held servants, would certainly not fix the legal term for a
period shorter than that normally provided for in the indentures, we
may assume that usually the servant secured his freedom within four or
five years after his arrival in the colony.
Thus it is evident that the bulk of the population could not have been,
as is so often supposed, made up of large landed proprietors with their
servants and slaves. Such a conception takes no account of the annual
translation of hundreds of men and women from bondsmen into freedmen.
The short duration of the average term of service, together with the
fact that the servants were usually still young when freed, made it
inevitable that in time the freedmen would outnumber those in service.
The size of the annual immigration could in no wise alter this
situation, for the greater the influx of servants, the greater would be
the resulting graduation into the class of freedmen.
The average number of headrights, as we have seen, was probably not less
than 1750 a year. If it is assumed that 1500 of these were servants,
five per cent of whom served for life and 20 per cent died before the
expiration of their terms, no less than 1125 would remain to become
freedmen. While the number of those under indenture remained practically
stationary, the size of the freedman class grew larger with the passing
of the years.
Placing the average term at five years, then, and the average mortality
at twenty per cent, there would be in service at any given time some
6,000 men and women. In fact, Sir William Berkeley, in his famous report
of 1671, estimated the number of servants in the colony at this
figure.[3-7] On the other hand an annual accession of 1125 to the class
of freedmen would in five years amount to 5,625, in ten years to 11,250,
in fifteen to 16,875, in twenty to 22,500. At the end of half a century
no less than 56,250 persons would have emerged from servitude to become
free citizens. Although there is every reason to believe that these
figures are substantially correct,[3-8] their accuracy or lack of
accuracy in no way affect the principle involved. From its very nature
it was impossible that the system of indentured servants should long
remain the chief factor in the industrial life of the colony or supply
most of the labor.
It is true, of course, that the number of those completing their terms
of indenture is not an absolute gauge, at any given date, of the size of
the freedman class. To determine this it would be necessary to know the
average span of life of the freedman, a thing certainly not worked out
at the time and impossible of accomplishment now. We may assume,
however, that it was relatively long. The newcomer who had lived through
the first terrible year in the tobacco fields had been thoroughly
tested, "seasoned" as the planters called it, and was reasonably certain
of reaching a mature age. Moreover, the servants were almost universally
of very tender years. Seldom indeed would a dealer accept one over
twenty-eight, and the average seems to have been between seventeen and
twenty-three. The reasons for this are obvious. Not only were young men
and women more adaptable to changed conditions, more capable of
resisting the Virginia climate, stronger and more vigorous, but they
proved more tractable and entered upon the adventure more eagerly.[3-9]
These conclusions are fully borne out by an examination of the lists of
servants given in Hotten's _Emigrants to America_. Of the first 159
servants here entered whose ages are attached, the average is
twenty-three years.[3-10] And as many of these persons were brought over
as skilled artisans to take part in the industrial life which the
Company had planned for the colony, it is probable that they were much
older than the average servant of later days who came as an agricultural
laborer. There is every reason to believe, then, that the average
servant was still in his prime when he completed his term, perhaps not
more than twenty-six or twenty-seven, with many years of usefulness and
vigor before him.
It must also be remembered that the freedman, by a display of energy and
capability, might acquire property, marry and rear a family. While the
number of indentured servants was strictly limited to those who were
brought in from the outside, the class of poor freemen might and did
enjoy a natural increase within itself. Thus it was inevitable that with
the passing of the years the servants were more and more outnumbered by
the growing group of freemen. In 1649, when the population was but
15,000,[3-11] 6,000 servants might well have performed most of the
manual labor of the tobacco fields, but in 1670, when the inhabitants
numbered 40,000,[3-12] or in 1697 when they were 70,000,[3-13] they
would form a comparatively small proportion of the people, so small in
fact that most of the work of necessity had to be done by freemen. In
other words the picture so often presented, even by historians of
established reputation, of a Seventeenth century Virginia in which the
land was divided into large plantations owned by rich proprietors and
tilled chiefly by indentured servants is entirely erroneous. Such a
state of affairs was made impossible by the very nature of the system of
indentures itself.
It becomes a matter of prime interest, then, to determine what became of
the mass of freedmen, what rôle they played in the social and economic
life of the colony. Because the servant who had completed his term was
free to follow his own bent, we have no right to assume that he sought
at once to establish himself as an independent proprietor. He might seek
service with the large planters as a hired laborer, he might become a
tenant. In either case the population would have been divided into two
classes--the wealthy landowner and those who served him.
We know that at all periods of Virginia history there were a certain
number of persons employed as wage earners. The colonial laws and the
county records contain many references to them. Payment of wages was not
unusual even under the Company, and we are told by George Sandys that
hired laborers received one pound of tobacco a day in addition to their
food.[3-14] In later years we have from time to time references to wage
rates, and in some cases copies of contracts entered into between
employer and wage earner. But such cases are comparatively rare, and it
is evident that the use of hired labor throughout the colonial period
was the exception rather than the rule. In fact it would seem that few
save servants newly freed and lacking in the funds necessary for
purchasing and equipping little farms of their own ever sought
employment upon the large plantations. And even in such cases the
contracts were for comparatively short periods, since it often required
but a year or two of labor for the freedman to save enough from his
wages to make a beginning as an independent proprietor.
When once established, there was no reason, in the days prior to the
introduction of slavery, why he should not hold his own in competition
with his wealthy neighbor. In the production of tobacco the large
plantation, so long as it was cultivated only by expensive white labor,
offered no marked advantage over the small. With the cost of land very
low, with the means of earning the purchase price so readily in hand,
with the conditions for an independent career all so favorable, it was
not to be expected that the freedman should content himself permanently
with the status of a hired laborer.
Nor was there any reason why he should become a tenant. Had all the
fertile land been preëmpted, as was the case on the banks of the Hudson,
the poor man might have been compelled to lease the soil upon which he
expended his efforts or do without entirely. But such was not the case.
It is true that at the end of the Seventeenth century certain wealthy
men got possession of large tracts of unsettled land, but their monopoly
was so far from complete that they gladly sold off their holdings in
little parcels to the first purchasers who presented themselves.
Apparently they made no attempts to establish themselves in a position
similar to that of the great landlords of England.
The records afford ample evidence that the leasing of property was by no
means unknown in colonial Virginia, but the custom was comparatively
rare. Hugh Jones, writing in 1721, declared that the tenant farmers
constituted but a small fraction of the population, a fact which he
explained by the unusual facilities for acquiring property in fee
simple.[3-15] It would have been folly for the tobacco planter to expend
his labor upon another man's property, perhaps erecting barns and fences
and otherwise improving it, when he could for so small an outlay secure
land of his own.
Thus we are led to the conclusion that the average Virginia plantation
must have been comparatively small in extent. The development of large
estates was narrowly limited by the various factors which made it
impossible to secure an adequate labor supply--the restrictions upon the
slave trade, the insufficient number of indentured servants and the
shortness of their terms, the unwillingness of freedmen and others to
work for wages. On the other hand, it would be expected that the
servants upon securing their freedom would purchase land of their own,
and cover all tidewater Virginia with little farms.
Turning to the various records of the time that deal with the
distribution of land--deeds, wills, transfers, tax lists,
inventories--we find that these conclusions are fully borne out. All
reveal the fact that the average plantation, especially in the
Seventeenth century, so far from vieing with the vast estates in
existence in certain parts of America, was but a few hundred acres in
extent.
The land transfers of Surry county afford an interesting illustration.
In thirty-four instances mentioned during the years from 1684 to 1686,
for which the exact number of acres is given, the largest is 500 acres,
the smallest twenty. The aggregate of all land which changed hands is
6,355 acres, or an average of 187 for each sale. There are eleven
transfers of 100 acres or less, twenty-three transfers of 200 or less
and only four of more than 300 acres.[3-16] One can find in this no
evidence of the fabled barons of colonial Virginia, but only of a well
established class of small proprietors.
The York county books for the years from 1696 to 1701 tell the same
story. Here we find recorded forty-one transfers and leases. Twenty-two
are for 100 acres or less, 33 for 200 acres or less, and four, one for
1,400, one for 1,210, one for 600 and one for 550, are more than 300
acres in extent. The aggregate is 8,153 acres and the average 199.[3-17]
In the Rappahannock county records from 1680 to 1688 of fifteen land
transfers taken at random from the books, the largest is 400 while the
average is 168 acres.[3-18] Of the forty-eight transfers mentioned in
the Essex county books for the years from 1692 to 1695, the largest is
600 acres and the smallest 50. Twenty are for 100 acres or less, 31 for
200 or less and only four for over 300.[3-19]
That conditions not fundamentally different prevailed in the early days
of the colony is shown by the census taken of the landowners in 1626. Of
the holdings listed no less than 25 were for 50 acres or less, 73 for
100 and most of the others for less than 300 acres. The total number of
proprietors listed is 224 and the total acreage 34,472, giving an
average for each plantation of 154 acres.[3-20]
It has been assumed by certain writers that the land grants preserved
in the Registrar's Office in Richmond tend to contradict this evidence.
Although the average patent is by no means large, it is much more
extensive than the typical land transfer. In 1638 this average was 423
acres, in 1640 it was 405, in 1642 it was 559, in 1645 it was 333, in
1648 it was 412, in 1650 it was 675. During the entire period from 1634
to 1650 inclusive the size of the average land grant was 446 acres. From
1650 to 1655 the average was 591 acres, from 1655 to 1666 six hundred
and seventy-one, from 1666 to 1679 eight hundred and ninety acres, from
1679 to 1689 six hundred and seven acres, from 1689 to 1695 six hundred
and one acres, from 1695 to 1700 six hundred and eighty-eight
acres.[3-21] In the course of the entire second half of the Seventeenth
century the average size of the patent was 674 acres.
Yet these facts have little direct bearing upon the extent of the
plantations themselves. The system of granting land, as we have seen,
was not based upon the individual needs of the planters, but upon the
number of headrights presented to the Government. Obviously it was the
question of the most economical method of transporting immigrants which
would determine the average size of the grant. If it proved best to
bring in servants in small groups, distributed among vessels devoted
chiefly to merchandise, the patents would be small; if they came in on
immigrant vessels, in numbers ranging from 50 to 200, the patents would
be large.
Apparently both methods were in vogue. There are grants recorded varying
in size from 50 acres to 10,000 acres.[3-22] Beyond doubt many
merchants, finding that their vessels on the western voyage were not
fully laden, from time to time took on a few indentured servants. If
they furnished accommodation for from ten to twenty immigrants, they
could demand, in addition to the sale of the indentures, 500 to 1,000
acres of land. It was a frequent practice, also, for planters in
Virginia to send orders to their agents in England to procure and ship
one or more servants as need for them arose.[3-23] "Your brother George
hath moved you in his letters to send him over some servants the next
year," wrote Richard Kemp to Robert Read in 1639.[3-24] Undoubtedly in
cases of this kind the servants usually sailed in small parties upon the
regular merchant vessels.
On the other hand it would appear that large numbers of persons arrived
on strictly immigrant vessels, in which they made the chief if not the
only cargo. Some of the best known men in the colony were dealers in
servants and reaped from the business very large profits. Of these
perhaps the best known in the earlier period was William Claiborne,
celebrated for his dispute with the Maryland proprietors over the
possession of Kent Island. Peter Ashton was another extensive dealer in
servants, at one time receiving 2,550 acres for his headrights, at
another 2,000. Isaac Allerton, Lewis Burwell, Giles Brent, Joseph
Bridger and many others of like prominence are upon the patent rolls for
large grants. The most inveterate dealer in servants, however, was
Robert Beverley. This well known planter, so famous for his part in
Bacon's Rebellion and in the political contests which grew out of it, is
credited with patents aggregating 25,000 or 30,000 acres.[3-25]
Often partnerships were formed for the importation of servants, in which
cases the patents were made out jointly. Among the more interesting are
patents to Robert Beverley and Henry Hartwell, to Thomas Butt and Thomas
Milner, to William Bassett and James Austin, to Thomas Blunt and Richard
Washington. When associations of three or more persons were formed for
the importation of servants, a not infrequent occurrence, the number of
headrights is unusually large and the grants patented in consequence
extensive. Thus Edmund Bibbie and others are credited with 3,350 acres,
Robert Ambrose and others with 6,000, George Archer and others with
4,000.[3-26]
It is clear, then, that the size of the average patent in the
Seventeenth century is not an indication of the extent of the average
plantation. If economic conditions were such as to encourage large
holdings, extensive farms would appear regardless of the original
patents, for the small proprietors would be driven to the wall by their
more wealthy rivals and forced to sell out to them. On the other hand,
if the large planters found it difficult to secure adequate labor they
would of necessity have to break up their estates and dispose of them to
the small freeholders. That the latter development and not the former
actually took place in Virginia during the Seventeenth century a careful
examination of the country records makes most apparent.
Over and over again in the records of various land transfers it is
stated that the property in question had belonged originally to a more
extensive tract, the patent for which was granted under the headright
law. A typical case is that of John Dicks who purchased for 8,500 pounds
of tobacco, "all the remaining part of 900 acres gotten by the
transporting of 19 persons."[3-27] Similarly we find John Johnson in
1653 selling to Robert Roberts half of 900 acres which he had received
by patent.[3-28] In 1693 John Brushood sold to James Grey 200 acres, a
part of 5,100 acres originally granted to Mr. Henry Awbrey.[3-29] Such
cases could be multiplied indefinitely.
Perhaps the most instructive instance left us of this development is the
break up of a tract of land known as Button's Ridge, in Essex country.
This property, comprising 3,650 acres, was granted to Thomas Button in
the year 1666.[3-30] The original patentee transferred the entire tract
to his brother Robert Button, who in turn sold it to John Baker. The
latter, finding no doubt that he could not put under cultivation so
much land, cut it up into small parcels and sold it off to various
planters. Of these transactions we have, most fortunately, a fairly
complete record. To Captain William Moseley he sold 200 acres, to John
Garnet 600, to Robert Foster 200, to William Smither 200, to William
Howlett 200, to Anthony Samuell 300, to William Williams 200. It is
probable that he sold also a small holding to Henry Creighton, for we
find the latter, in 1695, transferring to William Moseley 100 acres,
formerly a part of Button's Ridge.[3-31]
Important as are these gleanings from the county records, we have at our
disposal even better and more conclusive evidence that colonial Virginia
was divided, not into baronial estates of vast proportions, but into a
large number of comparatively small farms. Governor Nicholson's rent
roll, which is published as an appendix to this volume, for the early
years of the Eighteenth century at least, places the matter beyond
doubt. Here we have before us an official inventory of all Virginia save
the Northern Neck, giving the name of every proprietor and the number of
acres in his possession.
It will be remembered that in the Crown colonies there was a perpetual
obligation imposed upon all land when first granted known as the
quit-rent. In Virginia this duty amounted to one shilling for every
fifty acres, payable in tobacco at the rate of a penny per pound.[3-32]
Despite the fact that some 27 per cent of the returns was consumed by
the cost of collection, and that there were frequent frauds in disposing
of the tobacco, the revenue derived from this source was of considerable
importance.[3-33] The amount collected in 1705 was £1,841. 1. 6-3/4.
When James Blair, the Virginia Commissary of the Bishop of London,
petitioned William and Mary for a fund from the accumulated quit-rents
for his proposed college at Williamsburg, some of the British
governmental officials objected strenuously. "This sum is perhaps the
only ready cash in all the plantations," it was declared, "which happens
to be by good husbandry and is a stock for answering any emergency that
may happen in Virginia."[3-34]
Throughout the entire Seventeenth century, however, the Governors had
experienced great difficulty in collecting this tax. Over and over again
they reported in their letters to the Board of Trade that there were
large arrears of quit-rents which it was impossible to make the
landowners pay.[3-35] The reason for this was obvious enough. In each
county the tax collector was the sheriff. Although this officer was
appointed by the Governor, he usually had a wholesome respect for the
larger proprietors and in consequence was wary of giving offense by
holding them to too strict an account of their estates.[3-36] At times
the sheriffs themselves were the sufferers by this state of affairs, for
they were held responsible for the rents upon all land patented in their
counties, for which returns had not been made.
Although the Governors from time to time made rather feeble attempts to
remedy the prevailing laxness in this matter, nothing of importance was
accomplished before the first administration of Francis Nicholson. The
chief executive himself had much need of the good will of the richer
inhabitants, and he was not over forward in forcing them to bring in
accurate returns. Nicholson, however, who prided himself on his
executive ability and who was bent on breaking the power of the clique
which centered around the Council of State, exerted himself to the
utmost to secure full payment for every acre.
So early as 1690 we find him issuing orders to the sheriffs for the
drawing up of an accurate rent roll, through an examination of the
patent lists and the records of land transfers.[3-37] May 15, 1691, he
took up the matter again, warning the sheriffs that he expected more
accurate returns than they had yet made.[3-38] With the appointment of
Sir Edmund Andros as Governor, however, interest in the quit-rents
lapsed, and not until his removal and the reappointment of Nicholson was
the attempt resumed.
In July, 1699, Nicholson wrote the Commissioners of Trade and
Plantations that he was doing his best to improve the quit-rents and
that the auditor had been ordered to draw up a scheme for securing a
more exact list of land holdings.[3-39] But for a while the matter still
hung fire. The leading men in the Government were ready enough in making
suggestions, but they were extensive landholders themselves and
apparently rendered no real assistance. "I have considered those papers
given me by your Excellency relating to a perfect rent roll," the
auditor, William Byrd I wrote Nicholson, Oct. 21, 1703, "notwithstanding
I have, according to your repeated directions used my utmost diligence
in giving charge to sheriffs and taking their oaths to rolls, I am
sensible there is still very great abuse therein."[3-40]
Despite these discouragements Nicholson persisted and in 1704 succeeded
in obtaining the first really accurate rent roll of the colony. These
lists have long been missing, and perhaps were destroyed in one of the
several fires which have wrought so much havoc with the records of
colonial Virginia, but a true copy was made by the clerk, William
Robertson, and sent to the Board of Trade. Fortunately the British
Government has been more careful of its priceless historical manuscripts
than has Virginia, and this copy today reposes in the Public Record
Office in London, a veritable treasure trove of information concerning
economic and social conditions in the colony.[3-41]
Even a cursory examination of the rent roll is sufficient to dispel the
old belief that Virginia at this time was the land of the large
proprietor. As one glances down the list of plantations he is struck by
the number of little holdings, the complete absence of huge estates, the
comparative scarcity even of those that for a newly settled country
might be termed extensive. Here and there, especially in the frontier
counties is listed a tract of four or five or even ten thousand acres,
but such cases are very rare. In Middlesex county there is but one
plantation of more than 2,500 acres, in Charles City county the largest
holding is 3,130, in Nansemond 2,300, in Norfolk county 3,200, in
Princess Anne 3,100, in Elizabeth City county 2,140, in York 2,750, in
Essex 3,200.
On the other hand the rolls reveal the existence of thousands of little
proprietors, whose holdings of from 50 to 500 acres embraced the larger
part of the cultivated soil of the colony. Thus we find that in
Nansemond, of 376 farms 26 were of 50 acres or less, 66 were between 50
and 100 acres, 110 between 100 and 200 acres, 88 between 200 and 400
acres, 78 between 400 and 1,000 acres, and only eight over 1,000 acres.
In Middlesex county out of 122 holdings eleven were of 50 acres or less,
33 between 50 and 100 acres, 32 between 100 and 200 acres, 25 between
200 and 500 acres, 19 between 500 and 2,500 acres, one of 4,000 acres
and one of 5,200 acres. Of the 94 plantations in Charles City county 26
were of 100 acres or less, 21 between 100 and 200 acres, 25 between 200
and 500 acres, 19 between 500 and 2,500 acres and three more than 2,500
acres.[3-42]
Although the average size of the plantations varied considerably in
different counties it was everywhere comparatively small, far smaller
than the average land grant of the time, far smaller than has been
imagined by some of the closest students of the period. For Nansemond
the rolls reveal the average holding as 212 acres, for James City county
400, for York 298, for Warwick 308, for Elizabeth City county 255, for
Princess Anne 459, for Gloucester 395, for Middlesex 406, for Charles
City county 553.[3-43]
In the past few decades much has been written of the social life and
customs of the people of colonial Virginia. But except in the able works
of Dr. Philip Alexander Bruce little has been said concerning the small
planter class, the men who made up the vast bulk of the population, the
true Seventeenth century Virginians. We have long and detailed
descriptions of the residences of the small group of the well-to-do,
their libraries, their furniture, their table ware, their portraits,
their clothing, their amusements. The genealogy of the leading families
has been worked out with minute care, their histories recorded, some of
their leading members idealized by the writers of fiction. The mention
of colonial Virginia brings instantly to mind a picture of gay
cavaliers, of stately ladies, of baronial estates, of noble manors. And
the sturdy, independent class of small farmers who made up a full 90 per
cent of the freeholders at the time the rent roll was taken, have been
relegated into undeserved obscurity.
It is to be noted that the roll does not include the names of
proprietors residing in the Northern Neck, as the peninsula between the
Potomac and the Rappahannock is called. This territory, although
acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Government at Williamsburg in most
matters and sending representatives to the House of Burgesses, paid its
quit-rents, not to the Crown but to a proprietor. Nicholson, therefore,
was not concerned in their collection and took no steps to list its
landholders in his new roll. There is no reason to believe, however,
that conditions in that part of the colony were fundamentally different.
Nor can the accuracy of the rent roll be challenged. There existed
always the incentive to make false returns, of course, in order to
escape the payment of taxes, and not many sheriffs were so diligent as
the one in Henrico who unearthed 1,669 acres that had been
"concealed."[3-44] Yet it must be remembered that the Governor brought
to bear all the pressure at his disposal to make this particular roll
accurate, that the sheriffs were his appointees, that they could not
lightly defy him in so important a matter. And even though in isolated
cases they may have winked at false returns from men of wealth and rank,
from the mass of small proprietors they must have insisted upon reports
as accurate as the records or actual surveying could make them. No doubt
certain uncultivated tracts in the frontier counties were omitted, but
with these we are not immediately concerned. For conditions in the older
parts of the colony, where the slow evolution of economic factors had
been at work for a century, the roll presents unimpeachable evidence
that the bulk of the cultivated land was divided into small plantations.
But it still remains to prove that their owners were men of meagre
fortunes, men who tilled the soil with their own hands. After all a farm
of two or three hundred acres might give scope for large activities, the
employment of many servants and slaves, the acquisition of some degree
of wealth. Might it not be possible that though the acres of the planter
were limited, his estate after all corresponded somewhat with the
popular conception?
This leads us to a study of the distribution of servants and slaves
among the planters. At the outset we are faced with convincing evidence
that at the end of the Seventeenth century the average number for each
farm was very small. This is shown by a comparison of the number of
plantations listed in the rent roll of 1704 with the estimated number of
workers. In the counties for which the sheriffs made returns for
Governor Nicholson there were some 5,500 landholders. When to these is
added the proprietors of the Northern Neck the number must have
approximated 6,500. If at this time the servants numbered 4,000, as
seems probable,[3-45] and the slaves 6,000, together they would have
averaged but 1.5 workers for each plantation. A decade earlier, when the
use of slaves was still comparatively infrequent, the figure must have
been still lower.
Fortunately we have even more direct and detailed evidence. Throughout
almost all of Virginia colonial history one of the chief methods of
raising revenue for the Government was the direct poll tax. This levy
was laid, however, not only on every freeman over sixteen years of age,
but upon male servants over 14, female servants who worked in the
fields, and slaves above 16 of either sex, all of whom were officially
termed tithables.[3-46] The tax rolls in which these persons were
listed, some of which have been preserved among the county records,
throw much light upon social and economic conditions in the colony.
In one district of Surry county we find in the year 1675 that there were
75 taxpayers and only 126 tithables. In other words only 51 persons in
this district had this duty paid for them by others, whether parents,
guardians or masters. And of the taxpayers, forty-two were liable for
themselves alone, having no servants, slaves or dependent sons over 16;
fifteen were liable for one other person, eight for two others, and only
one, Lieutenant-Colonel Jordan, for so many as seven.[3-47]
In other districts the story is the same. In one there were forty
taxpayers, 75 tithables and 25 persons who paid for themselves alone; in
another 28 taxpayers, 62 tithables, fifteen who had no servants or
slaves; in a third 48 taxpayers, 83 tithables, 28 who paid only for
themselves, eleven who paid for two, five who paid for three; in a
fourth district 29 taxpayers, 63 tithables, fourteen who had no servants
or slaves; in a fifth 25 taxpayers, 45 tithables, 12 who paid only for
themselves.[3-48] Thus in Surry county in the year 1675 there were in
all 245 taxpayers and 434 tithables. In other words the men who paid
their own tax outnumbered all those whose tax was paid for them, whether
servants, slaves or relatives, at the ratio of about 4 to 3.
A study of the records of the same county ten years later leads to
almost identical results. At that time Surry seems to have been divided
into four districts. In the first there were 78 taxpayers, 132
tithables, 30 persons who paid only for themselves; in the second, 63
taxpayers, 133 tithables, 33 persons who paid for themselves alone; in
the third there were 38 taxpayers, 74 tithables and 22 persons paying
only for themselves; in the fourth 125 taxpayers, 201 tithables and 81
persons having no dependents to pay for. Thus there were 540 tithables
in all and 304 taxpayers. In the entire county there were about 122
persons who paid the poll tax for others. The largest holders of
servants or slaves were Mr. Robert Randall with seven, Lieutenant-Colonel
William Browne with nine, Mr. Robert Canfield with seven, Mr. Arthur
Allen with six, Mr. William Edwards with six, Mr. Francis Mason with
seven and Mr. Thomas Binns with eight.[3-49]
Here again is proof that the popular conception of the Virginia
plantation life of the Seventeenth century is erroneous. Instead of the
wealthy planter who surrounded himself with scores of servants and
slaves, investigation reveals hundreds of little farmers, many of them
trusting entirely to their own exertions for the cultivation of the
soil, others having but one or two servants, and a bare handful of
well-to-do men each having from five to ten, or in rare cases twenty or
thirty, servants and slaves.
A further confirmation of these conclusions is to be had by comparing
the number of plantations listed in the rent roll of 1704 with the
official returns of tithables for 1702.[3-50] Thus in Nansemond there
were 375 plantations and 1,030 tithables, Henrico with 162 plantations
had 863 tithables, Middlesex with 122 plantations had 814 tithables,
Gloucester with 381 plantations had 2,626, James City with 287
plantations had 1,193, York with 205 plantations had 1,180, Warwick with
122 plantations had 505, Elizabeth City with 116 plantations had 478,
Princess Anne with 215 plantations had 727, Surry with 273 plantations
had 739, Isle of Wight with 262 plantations had 896, Norfolk with 303
plantations had 693, New Kent with 497 plantations had 1,245, King
William with 217 plantations had 803, King and Queen with 403
plantations had 1,848, Essex with 376 plantations had 1,034, Accomac
with 392 plantations had 1,041, Northampton with 258 plantations had
693, Charles City and Prince George together with 420 plantations had
1,327.[3-51]
In Nansemond the average number of tithables as compared with the number
of plantations was 2.7, in Henrico 5.1, in Middlesex 6.7, in Gloucester
6.9, in James City 4.2, in York 5.7, in Warwick 4.1, in Elizabeth City
4, in Princess Anne 3.4, in Surry 2.7, in Isle of Wight 3.3, in Norfolk
2.3, in New Kent 2.5, in King William 3.7, in King and Queen 4.6, in
Essex 2.8, in Accomac 2.6, in Northampton 2.3, in Charles City and
Prince George combined 3.1. In all Virginia, with the exclusion of the
Northern Neck, there were 19,715 tithables and some 5,500 plantations,
an average of 3.6 tithables for each plantation. If we deduct from the
tithables all the male freeholders included in the rent roll, there
remains only some 14,700 persons south of the Rappahannock to make up
the list, not only of servants and slaves, but of professional men, wage
earners, artisans and dependent sons of landholders over 16 years of
age.
Another invaluable source of information concerning the distribution of
servants and slaves is provided by the numerous inventories, deeds, and
wills which have been preserved in the records. Thus in Surry during the
years from 1671 to 1686 we find listed the estates of fifty-nine
persons. Of these no less than fifty-two were apparently without
servants or slaves; two, William Rooking and Captain Robert Spencer, had
five each; one, Mr. William Chambers, had three; and four, Captain
William Corker, John Hoge, Mr. John Goring and Samuel Cornell, had one
each.[3-52]
In Elizabeth City of twenty-seven estates recorded during the years from
1684 to 1699 sixteen were without servants or slaves; of twenty-six
recorded in York during the period from 1694 to 1697 thirteen had no
servants or slaves; of twenty-three recorded in Henrico from 1677 to
1692 fourteen were without servants or slaves.[3-53] It is true that
these inventories and wills, since they would usually pertain to persons
of advanced age, perhaps do not furnish an absolutely accurate gauge of
the average number of servants held by each planter. On the other hand,
it is equally probable that a larger proportion of big estates than of
the small found their way into the records. At all events it is evident
that a goodly proportion of the landholders, perhaps sixty or sixty-five
per cent possessed no slaves or indentured servants, and trusted solely
to their own exertions for the cultivation of their plantations.
Thus vanishes the fabled picture of Seventeenth century Virginia. In its
place we see a colony filled with little farms a few hundred acres in
extent, owned and worked by a sturdy class of English farmers. Prior to
the slave invasion which marked the close of the Seventeenth century and
the opening of the Eighteenth, the most important factor in the life of
the Old Dominion was the white yeomanry.
_CHAPTER IV_
FREEMEN AND FREEDMEN
It is obvious that the small planter class had its origin partly in the
immigration of persons who paid their own passage, partly in the
graduation into freedmen of large numbers of indentured servants. But to
determine accurately the proportion of each is a matter of great
difficulty. Had all the records of Seventeenth century Virginia been
preserved, it would have been possible, by means of long and laborious
investigation, to arrive at strictly accurate conclusions. But with the
material in hand one has to be satisfied with an approximation of the
truth.
It must again be emphasized that the indentured servants were not
slaves, and that at the expiration of their terms there was no barrier,
legal, racial or social to their advancement. The Lords of Trade and
Plantations, in 1676, expressed their dissatisfaction at the word
"servitude" as applied to them, which they felt was a mark of bondage
and slavery, and thought it better "rather to use the word service,
since those servants are only apprentices for years."[4-1] "Malitious
tongues have impaired it (Virginia) much," Bullock declared in 1649,
"for it hath been a constant report among the ordinary sort of people
that all those servants who are sent to Virginia are sold into slavery,
whereas the truth is that the merchants who send servants and have no
plantations of their own doe not only transferre their time over to
others, but the servants serve no longer than the time they themselves
agreed for in England, and this is the ordinary course in England, and
no prejudice or hurt to the servant."[4-2]
The terms of indenture not only took for granted that the servant, upon
completing his contract, would establish himself as a proprietor, but
usually made it obligatory for the master to furnish him with the
equipment necessary for his new life. With rare exceptions he received a
quantity of grain sufficient to maintain him for one year; two suits,
one of Kersey, the other of cotton; a pair of canvas drawers; two
shirts; and one felt hat.[4-3] The historian Beverley states that to
this outfit was added a gun worth twenty shillings.[4-4] Another writer
tells us that the freedman received "a year's provision of corne, double
apparel" and a supply of tools.[4-5]
There existed in England a widespread impression that the servant, upon
securing his freedom, was entitled by law to fifty acres of land. This
appears to have been a mistake arising from a misapprehension of the
nature of the headright, which belonged not to the servant himself, but
to the person who paid for his transportation. In many cases the
indentures do not state the exact rewards to be received by the new
freedman, but only that they are to accord with "the custom of the
country," a very elastic term which could be construed by the master to
suit his own interest.[4-6] John Hammond, in his _Leah and Rachel_,
strongly advised the immigrant before affixing his signature to the
indenture to insist upon the inclusion of a clause specifically
providing for the payment of the fifty acres.[4-7] But the importance
which attaches to this matter lies as much in the servant's expectation
as in its fulfilment. Whether or not he received his little plantation,
he believed that he was to get a tract of land, a very extensive tract
it must have seemed to him, which would assure him a good living and
make it possible for him to rise out of the class to which he
belonged.[4-8]
In 1627 the Virginia General Court issued an order which is significant
of the attitude of the colony itself to the freedmen. "The Court, taking
into consideration that the next ensueing year there will be many
tenants and servants freed unto whom after their freedom there will be
no land due, whereby they may without some order taken to the contrary
settle and seat themselves ... have ordered that the Governor and
Council may give unto the said servants and tenants leases for terms of
years such quantities of land as shall be needful."[4-9] Thus, at this
period at least, not only was it expected in the colony that servants
would become land holders, but it was felt that for them not to do so
was a matter of such grave concern as to require the special attention
of the Government.
After all, however, the key to the situation must be sought in the
history of tobacco culture and the tobacco trade. Tobacco was the
universal crop of the colony and upon it every man depended for his
advancement and prosperity. If the market was good and the price high,
the planters flourished; if sales fell off and the price was low, they
suffered accordingly. It is evident, then, that the ability of the
freedman to secure a position of economic independence hinged upon the
profit to be derived from his little tobacco crop. It does not matter
whether he worked as a wage earner, tenant or freeholder, in the end the
result would be the same. If the returns from his labor greatly exceeded
his expenses, his savings would make it possible for him to establish
himself firmly in the class of the colonial yeomanry. On the other hand,
if he could wring from the soil no more than a bare subsistence, he
would remain always a poor laborer, or perhaps be forced to seek his
fortune in some other colony. Thus if we are to understand the status of
the freed servant and the hope which he could entertain of advancement,
it is necessary to turn our attention once more to economic conditions
in the colony. First, we must determine the amount of tobacco the
freedman could produce by his unassisted labor; second, the price he
received for it; third, how much he had to give the merchants in
exchange for their wares; and finally, the margin of profit left after
all expenses had been paid.
Despite a marked divergence of testimony regarding the amount of tobacco
one man could cultivate, we are able to determine this matter with some
degree of exactness. In 1627 the King, in outlining a plan to take into
his own hands the entire tobacco trade, proposed to limit the imports to
200 pounds for each master of a family and 125 for each servant.[4-10]
To this, however, the planters entered a vigorous protest, claiming that
the quantity was "not sufficient for their maintenance." They in turn
suggested that the King take a total of 500,000 pounds a year, which for
a population of 3,000 meant 167 pounds for each inhabitant, or perhaps
about 500 pounds for each actual laborer.[4-11] Again in 1634 it was
proposed that the Crown purchase yearly 600,000 pounds of Virginia
tobacco.[4-12] As the population of the colony at that date was about
5,000, this would have allowed only 120 pounds for each person, and once
more the planters protested vigorously.[4-13] It would seem that both of
these offers were based not so much upon the amount that one man could
raise as upon the quantity which could be sold in England at a certain
price. In fact it is probable that even so early as 1628 the average
output of one freedman was not less than 1,000 pounds. It is interesting
to note that in 1640, soon after Governor Francis Wyatt's arrival from
England, it was found that the excessive crop of the previous year had
so clogged the market that upon the advice of the merchants the
Government was "forced to a strict way of destroying the bad and halfe
the goode."[4-14]
The author of _A New Description of Virginia_, published in 1649, claims
that one man could plant from 1,600 to 2,000 pounds a year.[4-15] As the
pamphlet presents a somewhat optimistic picture of affairs in general in
the colony, this estimate must be taken with some reserve. More
trustworthy is the statement of Secretary Thomas Ludwell in 1667 that
1,200 pounds was "the medium of men's yearly crops."[4-16]
At all events, it is evident that the planter, even when entirely
dependent upon his own exertions, could produce a goodly crop. It is now
necessary to ascertain what he got for it. In the second and third
decades of the Seventeenth century the price of tobacco was very high.
The first cargo, consisting of 20,000 pounds consigned in the George,
sold for no less than £5,250, or 5s. 3d. a pound.[4-17] No wonder the
leaders of the London Company were pleased, believing that in the Indian
weed they had discovered a veritable gold mine! No wonder the settlers
deserted their pallisades and their villages to seek out the richest
soil and the spots best suited for tobacco culture! The man who could
produce 200 pounds of the plant, after all freight charges had been met,
could clear some £30 or £35, a very tidy sum indeed for those days. It
was the discovery that Virginia could produce tobacco of excellent
quality that accounts for the heavy migration in the years from 1618 to
1623. In fact, so rich were the returns that certain persons came to the
colony, not with the intention of making it their permanent residence,
but of enriching themselves "by a cropp of Tobacco," and then returning
to England to enjoy the proceeds.[4-18]
But this state of affairs was of necessity temporary. Very soon the
increasing size of the annual crop began to tell upon the price, and in
1623 Sir Nathaniel Rich declared that he had bought large quantities of
tobacco at two shillings a pound.[4-19] This gentleman felt that it
would be just to the planters were they to receive two shillings and
four pence for the best varieties, and sixteen pence for the "second
sort." In the same year Governor Wyatt and his Council, in a letter to
the Virginia Company, placed the valuation of tobacco at eighteen pence
a pound.[4-20] Three years later, however, the Governor wrote the Privy
Council advising the establishment in Virginia of a "magazine" or
entrepot, where the merchants should be compelled to take the tobacco at
three shillings a pound.[4-21] This proposal did not seem reasonable to
the King, and when Sir George Yeardley came over as Governor for the
second time he was instructed to see to it that "the merchant be not
constrained to take tobacco at 3. P. Pound in exchange for his wares,"
and to permit him to "make his own bargain."[4-22]
Apparently not discouraged by this rebuff, in 1628 the Governor, Council
and Burgesses petitioned the King, who once more was planning to take
the trade into his own hands, to grant them "for their tobacco delivered
in the colony three shillings and six pence per pound, and in England,
four shillings."[4-23] This valuation undoubtedly was far in advance of
the current prices, and King Charles, considering it unreasonable would
not come to terms with the planters. In fact, it appears that for some
years the price of tobacco had been declining rapidly. In May, 1630, Sir
John Harvey wrote the Privy Council that the merchants had bought the
last crop with their commodities at less than a penny per pound,[4-24]
and two years later, in a statement sent the Virginia Commissioners, he
claimed that the price still remained at that figure.[4-25]
It may be taken for granted, however, that this estimate was far below
the actual price. The planters showed a decided tendency to blow hot or
cold according to the purpose in view, and in these two particular
statements Sir John was pleading for better treatment from the
merchants. Yet it is reasonably certain that tobacco was at a low ebb in
the years from 1629 to 1633, and sold at a small fraction of the figures
of the preceding decade.[4-26] The Governor repeatedly wrote asking for
relief, while in the Assembly attempts were made to restore the market
by restricting the size of the annual crop.[4-27]
Yet things must have taken a favorable turn soon after, for in 1634 the
planters informed the King's Commissioners that they would not sell him
their tobacco at less than six pence in Virginia and fourteen pence
delivered in England.[4-28] Later the King wrote to the Governor and
Council that the rate had recently "doubly or trebly advanced."[4-29]
This is substantiated by the fact that the Commissioners, in 1638,
allowed the planters "4d. a pound clear of all charges," despite which
they complained that in an open market they could do better.[4-30]
In 1638 several prominent Virginians estimated that on an average during
the preceding eleven years they had received not more than two pence for
their tobacco, but here again it is probable that there was some
exaggeration.[4-31] In 1649 the author of _A New Description of
Virginia_ stated that tobacco sold in Virginia for three pence a
pound.[4-32] All in all it seems that prices in the early years of the
settlement varied from five shillings to a few pence, that a disastrous
slump occurred at the end of the third decade, followed by a rapid
recovery which brought the rate to about three pence, at which figure it
remained fairly constant for twenty-five years or more throughout the
Civil War and most of the Commonwealth periods.
The return which the Virginia farmer received from his one staple crop
was determined by a number of factors over which he himself had but
little control. Had he been permitted to seek his own market and drive
his own bargain free from the restraining hand of the British
Government, no doubt he would have secured a much better price. But from
the moment it became apparent that the Virginia tobacco rivalled in
flavor that of the Spanish colonies and could command as ready a sale
throughout Europe, the trade was subjected to various regulations and
restrictions which proved most vexatious to the colony and elicited
frequent and vigorous protests. Neither James nor Charles had any idea
of permitting free trade. In their prolonged struggle with the liberal
party both saw in tobacco a ready means of aiding the Exchequer, and so
of advancing toward the goal of financial independence. These monarchs
were by no means hostile to Virginia. In fact, both took great interest
in the tiny settlement upon the James, which they looked upon as the
beginning of the future British colonial empire. Yet they lent too
willing an ear to those who argued that tobacco might be made to yield a
goodly revenue to the Crown without injury to the planters.
The policy adopted by the early Stuart kings and adhered to with but
minor changes throughout the colonial period consisted of four essential
features. First, the tobacco raised in the plantations should be sent
only to England; second, upon entering the mother country it must pay a
duty to the Crown; third, Spanish tobacco should be excluded or its
importation strictly limited; lastly, the cultivation of the plant in
England itself was forbidden.
In the years when the colony was still weak and dependent upon the
mother country this program was not unfair. The prohibition of tobacco
growing in England, however unnecessary it would have been under
conditions of free trade, was felt by the planters to be a real
concession, while the restrictions upon foreign importations saved them
from dangerous competition at the very time when they were least able to
combat it. Nor were they seriously injured by the imposition of the
customs duties. The planters themselves imagined that the incidence of
this tax fell upon their own shoulders and that they were impoverished
to the full extent of the revenues derived from it. But in this they
were mistaken. The duty, in the last resort, was paid not by the
planters but by the British consumers. The colonists were affected
adversely only in so far as the enhanced price of tobacco in England
restricted the market.
On the other hand, the prohibition of foreign trade was a very real
grievance and elicited frequent protests from the planters. Dutch
merchants paid high prices for the Virginia tobacco and offered their
manufactured goods in return at figures far below those of the British
traders. The Virginians could not understand why they should not take
advantage of this opportunity. "I humbly desire to be informed from your
honors," wrote Governor Harvey to the Virginia Commissioners in 1632,
"whether there be any obstacle why we may not have the same freedome of
his Majesties other subjects to seek our best market."[4-33]
But Harvey was attacking what already had become a fixed policy of the
Crown, a policy which was to remain the cornerstone of the British
colonial system for centuries. The Government had, therefore, not the
slightest intention of yielding, and from time to time issued strict
orders that all colonial tobacco, whether of Virginia or the West
Indies, be brought only to England or to English colonies. When Sir
William Berkeley was appointed Governor in 1642 he was instructed to
"bee verry careful that no ships or other vessels whatsoever depart from
thence, freighted with tobacco or other commodities which that country
shall afford, before bond with sufficient securities be taken to his
Majesty's use, to bring the same directly into his Majesty's Dominions
and not elsewhere."[4-34]
Despite the insistence of the British Government in this matter, there
is abundant evidence to show that the Virginians continued to indulge in
direct trade with the continent for many years after the overthrow of
the Company. In 1632 Governor Harvey wrote that "our intrudinge
neighbours, the Dutch, doe allow us eighteen peance p. pound" for
tobacco, while a few months later we find him reporting the attempt of
John Constable and others "to defraud his Majesty of his duties by
unloading in the Netherlands."[4-35]
With the advent of the English Civil War and throughout the Commonwealth
period Virginia enjoyed a large degree of independence and found it
possible to trade with the Dutch almost with impunity. Even the strict
Berkeley seems to have felt it no disloyalty for the planters to seek
foreign markets for their staple while the mother country was torn by
the contending armies of King and Parliament. And so the merchantmen of
Flushing and Amsterdam pushed their prows into every river and creek in
Virginia and Maryland, taking off large quantities of tobacco and giving
in return the celebrated manufactured goods of their own country. At
Christmas 1648, if we may believe the testimony of the author of _A New
Description of Virginia_, there were trading in the colony ten ships
from London, two from Bristol, seven from New England and twelve from
Holland. In 1655 the statement was made that "there was usually found
intruding upon the plantation divers ships, surruptitiously carrying
away the growth thereof to foreign ports to the prejudice of this
Commonwealth."[4-36]
Thus in the years prior to the Restoration Virginia was never fully
subjected to the operation of the British colonial system. When the
price of tobacco in the London market fell lower and lower, the planters
might and often did find relief by defying the King's commands and
trading directly with the Dutch.[4-37] And this benefitted them doubly,
for not only did they strike a better bargain with the foreign traders,
but every cargo of tobacco diverted from England tended to relieve the
market there and restore prices. In fact there can be little doubt that
the frequent violations of the trade restrictions of this period alone
saved the colony from the poverty and distress of later days and made
possible the prosperity enjoyed by the planters.
It must be noted also that of the tobacco sent to England itself, a part
was reshipped to foreign countries. In 1610 a law was enacted for the
refunding of all import duties upon articles that were re-exported. This
drawback applied also to colonial products, but under Charles I an
exception was made in their case and the privilege withdrawn. In
consequence the importers made a vigorous protest in Parliament, and the
King, in 1631, modified his policy by ordering that of the nine pence
duty then in operation, six pence should be refunded when the tobacco
was shipped abroad. In 1632 the drawback was increased to seven pence
leaving the total duty paid by the merchants who traded through England
to foreign countries two pence a pound only.[4-38] Although this
constituted a most serious obstacle to trade and at times aroused the
merchants to bitter protest, it by no means completely blocked
re-exportation. So great were the natural qualifications of Virginia for
producing tobacco, that it was possible to purchase a cargo from the
planters on the James, proceed with it to London, pay there the two
pence a pound duty, reship it to the continent and sell it there at a
profit.[4-39] Although this trade was not extensive, it must have had an
important influence in maintaining prices and in bringing prosperity to
all classes in the colony.
Thus Virginia, contrary to the wishes of the mother country and in
defiance of her regulations, enjoyed for its staple product in the years
prior to 1660, a world market. Whether by direct trade or by
re-exportation from England a goodly share of the annual crop was
consumed in foreign countries, a share which had it been left in England
to clog the market, would have reacted disastrously upon all concerned.
It is apparent, then, that in the first half century of its existence
Virginia was the land of opportunity. The poor man who came to her
shores, whether under terms of indenture or as a freeman, found it quite
possible to establish himself as a person of some property and
consideration. We may imagine the case of the servant who had completed
his term and secured his freedom at any time during the third decade of
the Seventeenth century. As we have seen, it was an easy matter for him
to secure a small patch of land and the tools with which to cultivate
it. By his unassisted efforts, if he applied himself steadily to the
task, he could produce a good crop of tobacco, consisting perhaps of
some 400 pounds. This he could sell to the merchants for from two
shillings to six pence a pound, or a total of from £10 to £40.[4-40]
In the years from 1630 to 1640, when the price of tobacco seems to have
stabilized itself at from two to three pence, cases of such
extraordinary returns must have been of less frequent occurrence, but to
some extent lower prices were offset by larger crops. If our freedman in
1635 could raise 800 pounds of leaf and dispose of it for four pence,
his income would be £13.6.8; in 1649, by producing 1,000 pounds, he
could sell it at three pence for £12.10.0. In fact, it is not too much
to say that the average annual income from the labor of one able worker
at any time prior to 1660 was not less than £12. When we take into
consideration the fact that the planter produced his own food, and that
out of the proceeds of his tobacco crop he paid only his taxes and his
bills to the English importers, it is evident that he had a goodly
margin of profit to lay aside as working capital.
It must not be forgotten, however, that this margin was greatly reduced
by the high cost of clothing, farm implements and all other articles
brought from across the ocean. The long and dangerous voyage from London
to the Chesapeake made the freight rates excessive, while the merchants
did not scruple to drive a hard bargain whenever possible. The letters
of the Governors are filled with complaints against the exactions of
these men. "This year the Merchants have bought our tobacco with their
commodities at less than a penny the pounde," Harvey wrote in 1630, "and
have not shamed to make the planters pay twelve pounds Sterlinge the
tunn freight home."[4-41] Two years later he complained that a certain
Captain Tucker had just sailed leaving his stores well stocked with
goods, but with "instructions to his factors not to sell but at most
excessive rates."[4-42] In 1628, the Governor, Council and Burgesses, in
a petition to the King, declared that for years they had "groaned under
the oppression of unconscionable and cruel merchants by the excessive
rates of their commodities."[4-43] Six years later Governor Harvey
stated that all things which "come hither" are sold at "thrice the value
they cost in England."[4-44]
It is obvious, however, that after all expenses had been paid, a goodly
margin of profit was left, a margin perhaps averaging some three or four
pounds sterling. The provident and industrious immigrant, a few years
after the conclusion of his term, might well lay aside enough to make it
possible for him in turn to secure a servant from England. This
accomplished, he at once rose into the class of employers and his future
advance was limited only by his capabilities and his ambition.
We would naturally expect to find, then, that during these years a large
percentage of those who came to the colony under terms of indenture,
sooner or later acquired land, perhaps bought servants, and became
persons of some standing in the colony. Certainly the opportunity was
theirs. It will be interesting therefore to study the early records in
order to glean what evidence we may concerning this matter. If the
servants graduated in any appreciable numbers into the planter class,
the patents, wills, inventories, land transfers and muster rolls could
hardly fail to yield some evidence of the fact.
Turning first to the earliest period, we find that of the laborers who
were imported by the London Company to cultivate the public lands, a
fair proportion became proprietors and were regarded by later comers
with especial esteem as "ancient planters." At the termination of their
service they were granted 100 acres and when this was fully cultivated
received another tract of the same extent. To the apprentices bound out
to tenants even more liberal treatment was accorded, for they were
provided with a year's store of corn, a house, a cow, clothing, armor,
household utensils, farm tools and as much land as they could
till.[4-45]
The guiding hand of the Company was missed by the freedmen after the
revoking of the charter, for the Governors seem to have left them to
shift for themselves. Yet this fact did not prevent many from forging
ahead, acquiring land, and in some cases positions of trust in the
Government itself. In Hotten's _Immigrants_ is published a muster roll
for the year 1624 of all the settlers in Virginia, in which servants are
carefully distinguished from freemen.[4-46] By following, as well as the
imperfect records of the period permit, the after careers of the former,
it is possible to determine with a fair degree of accuracy to what
extent the small farmer class at this period was recruited from persons
coming to the colony under terms of indenture.
Of the forty-four Burgesses who sat in the Assembly of 1629, no less
than seven--John Harris, William Allen, William Popleton, Anthony
Pagett, Richard Townsend, Adam Thoroughgood and Lionell Rowlston--were
listed as servants in the muster of 1624.[4-47] Thus some sixteen per
cent of this important body, the Virginia House of Commons, at this time
was made up of men who five years previously had been working out their
passage money. Among the thirty-nine members of the House of 1632, six
appear as servants in the muster--Thomas Barnett, Adam Thoroughgood,
Lionell Rowlston, Thomas Crump, Roger Webster and Robert Scotchmon.
Whether there were other members who came over under terms of indenture
but secured their freedom before 1624, we have no means of determining.
The author of _Virginia's Cure_, published in 1662, asserted that the
Burgesses "were usual such as went over as servants thither; and though
by time, and industry, they may have obtained competent estates, yet by
reason of their poor and mean condition, were unskilful in judging of a
good estate, either of church or Commonwealth."[4-48] This statement is
a gross exaggeration both as to the composition of the Burgesses and
their abilities. Instances of the election of freedmen to the House,
fairly frequent in the early years of the colony, became rarer as the
century advanced and the field of selection widened. Yet in the Assembly
of 1652, of the thirty-five members, eight or nine appear on the patent
rolls as headrights brought over by others.[4-49] It is evident that
even so late as the middle of the century the door of opportunity was
still open to the freedmen.
In the absence of a complete census for the decades after 1624, it is
very difficult to determine what proportion of the servants listed in
the muster roll of that year subsequently became landowners. Some light
is thrown on the matter by a search through the patent books. Here are
found a surprisingly large number of persons who in 1624 were servants.
Among these are Anthony Jones, John Sparkes, John Cooke, Roger Delk,
John Trussell, William Woolritch, Pettyplace Cloyse, Edward Sparshott,
William Dawson, Richard Bell, Robert Browne, Nicholas Browne, John
Chandler, Lionell Rowlston, Thomas Savadge, Samuel Bennett, Daniel
Shurley, James Hatfield, Adam Thoroughgood, John Robinson, John Hill,
John Seaward, William Ramshaw, Samuel Weaver, John Upton, John Watson,
Thomas Crompe and John Russell.[4-50]
Of these persons several acquired a fair degree of wealth and became of
importance in the early life of the colony. It is interesting to note
also, that some were men of good condition in England, the case of Adam
Thoroughgood, whose brother Sir John Thoroughgood was at one time
secretary to the Earl of Pembroke, is notable in this respect. John
Hill, before coming to Virginia, had been a book binder in Oxford
university, and his father had been a fletcher.[4-51] The patents of
Thomas Crompe and John Russell state that fifty acres was due in each
case for the "personal adventure" of the patentee, but since they are
distinctly listed as servants in 1624 it seems probable that
subsequently each made a visit to England and put in claims for the
headright for the return voyage.[4-52]
Thus it is evident that a large proportion of the landholders during and
prior to 1635 had come to the colony under terms of indenture, either
under the Company or with private individuals. Perhaps it would not be
unfair to estimate this proportion at from thirty to forty per cent, but
it must be distinctly understood that the matter cannot be determined
with any degree of accuracy or finality. Some years later Governor
Berkeley in an address before the Assembly, stated that hundreds of
examples testified to the fact that no man in Virginia was denied the
opportunity to rise and to acquire both property and honor.[4-53]
Careful research tends to corroborate this assertion but it does not and
cannot show whether the bulk of the early planters came to the colony as
freemen or as indentured servants.
During the years from 1635 to 1660 the process of building up a class of
small farmers in large part from freedmen continued unabated. But the
difficulties of the investigator in studying this period are also very
great. Yet it is possible, by examining the names that appear in the
land patents and wills, and comparing them with the list of headrights,
to arrive at fairly satisfactory results. We find that of the 131
persons listed in the York county wills from 1646 to 1659 no less than
twenty-five appear as headrights for others. Of these the major part
became landowners, some of them men of influence in Virginia.[4-54] The
Rappahannock wills for the years from 1656 to 1664 show a like result.
Thirty-nine persons appear in the records, of whom seven came in as
headrights.[4-55]
There is always the possibility of error in identifying these persons
for the recurrence of such names as Smith, Jones, Turner, Davis, Hall,
the monotonous repetition of a few common given names, and the universal
omission of middle names add greatly to our difficulties. Moreover,
mistakes are apt to occur because of the transfer of headrights by sale.
The free immigrant to whom was due fifty acres for his "personal
adventure" might not care to settle on the frontier where alone
unpatented land could usually be found. At times he sold his right and
purchased a plantation in some one of the older and more advanced
counties. It is not conclusively proved, then, that a certain person
came as a servant merely because he is listed as a headright. On the
other hand, the fact that it was the custom to set forth such transfers
clearly in the patent itself, justifies the conclusion that in the cases
where no statement of the kind is made, the headright for which the land
was granted usually came in under terms of indenture.
In Volume III of the land patents are listed in the years from 1635 to
1653 patents to fifty-seven persons in James City county.[4-56] Of these
no less than thirty-one are found also as headrights belonging to
others, although a duplication of names in several cases makes
identification uncertain. One person only claimed the fifty acres for
having paid his own passage to Virginia. When all possible allowance is
made for transfers of rights it is obvious that at this time freedmen
were still entering freely into the class of landowners.
An examination of the James City county patents in Volume IV, covering
the years from 1653 to 1663, leads to similar results, for of the
eighty-five names which appear there, forty-five are listed as
headrights belonging to others. And although the tracts granted these
men were usually small in size, in certain cases they were far in excess
of the average plantation. Thus Edward Cole, who appears as a headright
in 1642, patented 900 acres in 1655;[4-57] Thomas Warburton patented
1,664 acres;[4-58] George Gilbert 1,000 acres; Francis Burwell 1,000 and
John Underwood 2,000 acres.[4-59] The number of years which elapsed
between the listing of the headrights and the granting of the patents
varied from two to twenty-eight. The average for the thirty-five cases
in which the dates are given is twelve years. As the claims for
headrights were often made long after the actual arrival of the servant,
it may be assumed that the average was even greater than this. Once
more, however, it must be remembered that these lists do not record
personal transfers of land, while it is quite certain that many
freedmen, instead of patenting unoccupied tracts, secured their little
farms by purchase. Some probably became proprietors in the very first
year of their freedom and set to work with hoe and plow to wrest their
living from the soil.
In the patent rolls the bulk of the headrights are alluded to simply as
"persons," leaving it undecided whether those included in the various
lists are freemen or servants. But occasionally the newcomers are
specifically described as "servants," in which case, of course, there
can be no doubt whatever as to their status. By selecting at random a
number of names from those so termed, avoiding for convenience sake all
Smiths, Joneses and others the frequent recurrence of whose names would
make identification difficult, it is possible to arrive at definite
conclusions by following, as best we can, their careers in after life.
With this in view we have made up the following list of servants: Henry
Arnetrading, George Archer, Silvester Atkins, Nicholas Atwell, Edward
Ames, John Aram, Robert Arnall, Peter Asheley, William Baldwin, Edward
Burt, Francis Baile, John Bauchees, John Bishop, John Blackstone,
Anthony Box, Michael Brichley, Peter Buck, William Burcher, John Causey,
Robert Chesheire, Thomas Chilcott, Thomas Clayton, Annanias Coplestone,
James Courtney, Thomas Cropp, Thomas Connagrave, John Day, John Dodman,
Jonathan Ellison, Edward Eastwood, James Fletcher, Thomas Foanes, John
Fouke, Francis Francklin, Armstrong Foster, Robert Fossett, John Farr,
Robert Garsell, George Gilbert, Henry Giles, Hector Godbear, Francis
Gray, Reginald Griffin, Thomas Halcock, Thomas Hand, Henry Hartwell,
Hugh Hayes, John Hedler, Richard Huett, John Hodgbins, John Holdin,
William Hankinson, John Hether, Lazarus Manning, Thomas Pattison, John
Pullapin, Sampson Robins, George Walton, Francis Withers, Robert Webstie
and Thomas Warden. A search through the patent rolls, wills, tithable
lists and other data found in the records of the period, has led to the
more or less positive identification of fifteen of these persons.
John Bishop, who was transported by Thomas Gray, became a man of
influence and means. He represented Charles City county in the House of
Burgesses in the sessions of 1644, 1652 and 1653, and was variously
known as Captain Bishop or Mr. Bishop.[4-60] Although he became a
landowner so early as 1638,[4-61] his family arrived from England only
in 1651. Francis Gray, brought to Virginia at the age of fifteen by
Joseph Johnson, also became prominent, securing a seat in the Assembly
and acquiring a fair estate. In 1653 he took up 750 acres in Charles
City county, while ten years later he is credited with 374 acres more in
Westmoreland.[4-62] His will was recorded in 1667.[4-63]
George Archer became an extensive landowner, patenting 250 acres in
1663, 550 acres in 1665, 784 acres in 1671 and 1,395 acres in
1673.[4-64] In 1691 he received, in conjunction with others, title to a
tract of 2,827 acres in Henrico.[4-65] John Holding patented in York
county 850 acres in 1649 and 389 acres in 1653.[4-66] William Baldwin,
who came in the Plaine Joan when he was twenty-four years of age,
received three grants of land, one for 600 acres in York county, one for
67 acres in Isle of Wight, and one, in conjunction with Richard
Lawrence, for 300 in Rappahannock.[4-67]
Thomas Pattison, transported by Francis Epes in 1635, took up in
Lancaster two tracts, one for 200 acres and one for 400.[4-68] He also
became part owner of two more tracts, one for 220 acres and the other
for 504.[4-69] John Dodman secured a patent for 350 acres in
Westmoreland in the year 1662.[4-70] Thomas Warden is mentioned as a
landowner in James City county in 1643.[4-71] George Gilbert,
transported in 1635 by Joseph Johnson, took up fifty acres in James City
county in 1643.[4-72] In 1663, in partnership with Richard Scruely, he
patented 1,000 acres in the same county north of the Chickahominy
river.[4-73] John Blackstone acquired two tracts, one for 100 acres and
the other for 151 acres,[4-74] while William Burcher received a grant
for 300 acres.[4-75]
Several of these men who came as servants to the Eastern Shore are found
in succeeding years among the yeomanry of Accomac and Northampton. Henry
Arnetrading, Armstrong Foster, William Burcher and Sampson Robins were
signers of the Northampton submission to the Commonwealth in 1652.[4-76]
Henry Arnetrading was the owner of 300 acres of land.[4-77] Armstrong
Foster was the official tobacco viewer for Hungers, a position entailing
no little responsibility.[4-78] Sampson Robins received a patent for a
tract of land in Northampton in 1655.[4-79] Thomas Clayton is listed
among the Northampton tithables of 1666.[4-80]
In the case of John Day some uncertainty arises. Apparently there were
two men of this name in the colony, one transported by John Slaughter,
and the other not only paying for his own passage, but for that of a
servant as well.[4-81] A John Day later secured 400 acres in Gloucester
county,[4-82] but whether it was the one who had come as a servant or
the one who had entered the colony as a freeman, apparently there is no
way of ascertaining.
All in all the story of these men tends to confirm the conclusions
hitherto arrived at. It must be remembered that the mortality among the
servants in the tobacco fields in the early days of the colony was
extremely heavy. It is not improbable that of our sixty-one servants,
twenty or more succumbed before the completion of their first year. That
of the remaining forty-one, fourteen or fifteen established themselves
as solid farmers, while several became men of influence in the colony,
is a striking proof that at this period many freedmen had the
opportunity to advance. Taking it for granted that the records of some
of the sixty-one have been lost, or that our research has failed to
reveal them, we once more come to the conclusion that a full thirty or
forty per cent of the landowners of the period from 1635 to 1666 came to
the colony under terms of indenture.
On the other hand, it is equally positive that the class of poor
planters was recruited in part from free immigrants, men who paid their
own passage across the ocean and at once established themselves as
freeholders. Of this too, the records furnish ample testimony. Thus in
1636 we find that Richard Young was granted 100 acres in Warwick "due
him for his personal adventure and for the transportation of his wife
Dorothy Young."[4-83] A year later Roger Symonds received 100 acres in
Charles City "due him for the transportation of his wife, Alice, and one
servant, Richard Key."[4-84] Similarly in May 1636, Thomas Wray was
allowed 50 acres for his "personal adventure." Such cases could be
multiplied indefinitely.[4-85]
A careful analysis of the patent rolls from 1623 to July 14, 1637,
published in the _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_ for April,
1901, shows conclusively that the lists contain the names of many
persons who at no time were under terms of indenture. Of the 2,675 names
appearing in the records, the editor states that 336 are positively
known to have come over as freemen, many of them being heads of
families. "There are 245 persons whose names do not occur as headrights
and yet of whom it is not positively shown that they were freemen,
though the probability seems to be that by far the greater number were.
And there were 2,094 persons whose transportation charges were paid by
others. This last number includes some negroes, all those specifically
termed 'servants' and all others.... It would probably be a fair
estimate to say that of the names represented in the patents cited,
there were about 675 free men, women and children who came to Virginia
and about 2000 servants and slaves."[4-86] Similarly in the issue of the
magazine for January, 1902, the editor says that "for some years, about
this period, it is probable (from the best calculations which can be
made) that seventy-five per cent of the emigrants to Virginia were
indentured servants."[4-87]
There seems to be no reason to doubt the accuracy of these conclusions.
Certainly any study of immigration to Virginia in the Seventeenth
century is woefully incomplete if it fails to take into consideration
the very considerable proportion of free settlers. On the other hand,
it is probable that a similar study of the lists for a later date would
show a smaller percentage of freemen. However this may be, it is evident
that by far the larger part of the newcomers at all periods must have
been indentured servants intended for service in the tobacco fields. In
1638 Richard Kemp wrote Secretary Windebanke that "of hundreds which are
yearly transported, scarce any but are brought in as merchandise to make
sale of."[4-88]
Yet it must not be forgotten that any immigration of poor freemen,
however small, would have a very marked influence upon the formation of
the small farmer class. Of the host of servants a certain proportion
only, a proportion probably less than fifty per cent, could hope even in
the most favorable times to become freeholders. If they survived the
hardships and dangers of the service with their masters, it still
remained for them to acquire property and win for themselves a place in
the life of the colony. And to accomplish this they must display
determination, intelligence, industry and thrift, qualities by no means
universal among the classes in England from which the servants were
chiefly drawn. But for the free immigrant there need be no period of
probation. He might at once purchase his farm, erect his home, secure
all necessary tools and put out his crop of tobacco. And whereas the
servant usually found it possible to maintain a family only after many
years of hard work, perhaps not at all, the free settler often married
before leaving England and brought his wife and children with him.
In conclusion it may be said that in the first fifty years of the
colony's existence conditions were very favorable for the graduation of
the servant into the class of small freeholders, that the records amply
prove that many succeeded in doing so, but that at this period a fair
proportion of free immigrants also came to the colony. Before the
expiration of the Commonwealth period was formed from these two
sources, perhaps in not unequal proportions, a vigorous, intelligent,
independent yeomanry, comprising fully 90 percent of all the
landowners.
_CHAPTER V_
THE RESTORATION PERIOD
The people of Virginia hailed the Restoration with unaffected joy. Not
only did they anticipate that the termination of the long period of
civil war and unrest in England would react favorably upon their own
prosperity, but they felt that Sir William Berkeley's well known loyalty
and his action in proclaiming Charles II immediately after the execution
of his father, might assure them the King's especial favor now that he
at last had come into undisputed possession of his throne. They were
doomed to bitter disappointment, however, for the Restoration brought
them only hardship and suffering, discontent and rebellion.
No sooner had the royal Government been safely installed than it set to
work to perfect and to enforce the colonial policy which in principle
had been accepted from the first. The ties which united the colonies
with the mother country were strengthened, those which gave them a
common interest with foreign nations in so far as possible were snapped.
The British empire was to become a unit, closely knit by economic bonds
and presenting to all other nations a hostile front. With this in view
Parliament passed a series of Navigation Acts, under which the trade of
the colonies was regulated for many years to come.
It is necessary for us to enquire, therefore, into the effects of these
laws upon the tobacco trade, for tobacco, as we have seen, was the key
to the prosperity of the colony, and favorable economic conditions alone
could make it possible for the newcomer to establish himself as a member
of the Virginia yeomanry. If the strict enforcement of the Navigation
Acts should bring low prices for tobacco and wipe out the margin of
profit for the man who tilled the soil with his own hands, not only
would the small planter class not expand, but might actually decline in
numbers.
There were three main features of the colonial legislation of Parliament
during this period, all of them interrelated and all tending toward the
one great object of keeping the English plantations for the English. It
was provided that the chief colonial products such as tobacco and sugar
should be sent only to England or to English colonies, that the colonies
should with few exceptions import goods only from British territory,
that all products taken to or from any colony should be conveyed only in
English vessels manned by crews composed mainly of Englishmen.
In committing itself to this policy the royal Government felt that the
plantations would play a useful and necessary part in the great system
which was planned, and in so doing would find prosperity. It had been
the hope of the English people that their colonies would produce the
articles which were so badly needed by the mother country to revive her
waning industry and permit a greater measure of economic independence.
Although more than half a century had passed since the first foothold
had been gained upon the American continent, this expectation was as far
from realization as ever. The colonies, from Massachusetts to Barbados
were producing, not the articles which England especially needed, but
those for which they had the greatest natural aptitude, especially
tobacco and sugar. And these staples they sent, not to England alone,
but to various foreign countries as well.
In short the vision of a closely knit, self-sustaining empire, the
vision which had been in men's minds for many decades before the
founding of Jamestown, seemed to have proved delusive. The colonies
were developing interests and commercial connections hostile to those of
the mother country, were nourishing the manufactures and shipping of
foreign nations almost as much as those of England. And this the
Government at London would not tolerate. The colonial trade with
strangers must come to an end. If Virginia and Maryland produced more
tobacco than the English market could absorb, they could find ready
relief by turning their energies into other channels. Let them furnish
the old country with pig iron or potash or silk or ship-stores and they
would find ready and eager purchasers. So reasoned the English, and as
their views were backed by the mandates of Crown and Parliament, the
colonists were forced to submit. If they could fit themselves into the
system prescribed for them, all would be well and good; if they found
this impossible, they would have to suffer without hope of redress.
And suffer Virginia did for a full quarter of a century. The tobacco of
the Chesapeake bay colonies had long since reached the point where it
required a world market. If confined to England alone, only a fraction
of the output could be consumed and disaster was certain. It was well
enough for the Government to restrict the importation of Spanish leaf
and to prohibit the planting of tobacco in England, these regulations
could do no more than give the colonists undisputed possession of the
home market, and the home market was not enough. This point seems to
have been ignored by those writers who have contended that the strict
enforcement of the British colonial system in itself entailed no
hardship upon the tobacco colonies.
"It is obvious that any criticism of England's regulation of the
colonial tobacco trade, which is based on a laissez-faire social
philosophy," says George Lewis Beer, in _The Old Colonial System_, "is
equally applicable to the arrangement by means of which the tobacco
planter secured exclusive privileges in the home market."[5-1] Yet it is
certain that the tobacco growers of England could never have competed
with Maryland and Virginia had there been free trade. The prohibition of
planting in the old country was necessary only because of the tariff,
varying from 200 per cent in 1660 to 600 per cent in 1705, upon the
colonial product. And though the exclusion of Spanish tobacco was a more
real benefit, for the Spaniard produced varieties unknown in Virginia,
there is exaggeration here also. This is clearly shown by the fact that
at the end of the Seventeenth century England was sending millions of
pounds of her colonial tobacco to Spain itself.[5-2] The leaf was
brought from Virginia and Maryland, forced to pay a duty of about fifty
per cent, and re-exported to the Spanish ports, where it found a ready
sale. Had there been free exchange of commodities, the English colonies
would have sold to Spain more tobacco than the Spanish colonies to
England.
In truth the loss of the foreign market was a terrible disaster. In
framing the Navigation Acts it was not the intention of the Government
to stop entirely the flow of tobacco to the continent of Europe, but to
divert it from the old channels and make it pass through England. It was
therefore provided that in case the leaf was shipped out again to
foreign ports, all the duties, except one half of the Old Subsidy,
should be withdrawn.[5-7] The remaining half penny, however, amounted to
forty or fifty per cent of the original cost of the goods, and proved at
first an almost insuperable barrier to the European trade. Moreover, the
shortage of ships which resulted from the exclusion of the Dutch
merchants, the expense of putting in at the English ports, the long and
troublesome procedure of reshipping, all tended to discourage the
merchants and hamper re-exportation.
We may take for granted also that the resentment of Holland at the
Navigation Acts, which struck a telling blow at her maritime prestige,
played an important part in blocking foreign trade. The Dutch had been
the chief European distributors of the Virginia and Maryland tobacco,
and if they refused to take it, now that it could be secured only in
England, it would pile up uselessly in the London warehouses. They
understood well enough that the half penny a pound duty was a tribute
levied upon them by their most dangerous rival. It is not surprising
that instead of bowing to the new restrictions, they sought to free
their trade entirely from dependence on British tobacco, by fostering
the cultivation of the plant in their own country.
The colonists found an able defender in the merchant John Bland. In a
Remonstrance addressed to the King this man set forth with remarkable
clearness the evils which would result from the Navigation Acts, and
pleaded for their repeal. The Hollander was already beginning to plant
tobacco, he said, and would soon be able to supply all his needs at
home. "Will he, after accustomed to the tobacco of his own growth," he
asked, "ever regard that which is in Virginia? Will he ever afterwards
be induced to fetch it thence, when he finds his profit higher at home?
Will he ever buy that of us, when by passing so many hands, and so much
charge contracted thereon, is made so dear, that he can have it cheaper
in his own territories? (Surely no.) Therefore it clearly appears, that
being so, of necessity we must lose that Trade and Commerce."
"If the Hollanders must not trade to Virginia, how shall the Planters
dispose of their Tobacco? The English will not buy it, for what the
Hollander carried thence was a sort of tobacco not desired by any other
people, nor used by us in England but merely to transport for Holland.
Will it not then perish on the Planters hands?... Can it be believed
that from England more ships will be sent than are able to bring thence
what tobacco England will spent? If they do bring more, must they not
lose thereby both stock and Block, principle and charges? The tobacco
will not vend in England, the Hollanders will not fetch it from England;
what must become thereof?... Is not this a destruction to the commerce?
For if men lose their Estates, certainly trade cannot be
encreased."[5-8]
The enforcement of the trade laws was indirectly the cause of still
another misfortune to the colonies, for the two wars with Holland which
grew out of it reacted disastrously upon their trade. In fact, on each
occasion the small stream of tobacco which had trickled over the dam of
restrictions into foreign countries was for a time almost entirely cut
off. Not only did the tobacco exports to Holland itself come to an end,
but the Dutch war vessels played havoc with the trade between England
and other countries and even between England and her colonies.
The loss of their foreign exports was calamitous to the planters. Had
the demand for tobacco been more elastic, the consequences might not
have been so fatal, for declining prices would have stimulated
consumption and made it possible for England to absorb most of the
output. But the duty kept up the price and the result was a ruinous glut
in the English market. Tobacco sufficient for a continent poured into
the kingdom, where since the normal outlet was blocked by the half penny
a pound on re-exported leaf, it piled up uselessly.
The effect upon prices was immediate. The planters were forced to take
for their crops half of what they had formerly received and had reason
for rejoicing if they could dispose of it at all. In 1662 Governor
Berkeley and other leading citizens stated that the price of tobacco had
fallen so low that it would not "bear the charge of freight and customs,
answer the adventure, give encouragement to the traders and subsistence
to the inhabitants."[5-9] In 1666 Secretary Thomas Ludwell told Lord
Arlington that tobacco was "worth nothing."[5-10] Later in the same year
the planters complained that the price was so low that they were not
able to live by it.[5-11] "For the merchants, knowing both our
necessities and the unconsumable quantities of tobacco we had by us,"
they said, "gave us not the twentieth part of what they sold it for in
England."[5-12] Tobacco had so glutted the markets, it was declared, and
brought the planter so small a return, that he could "live but poorly
upon it." In fact, the merchants in 1666 had left the greater part of
the two preceding crops upon their hands.[5-13]
"Twelve hundred pounds of tobacco is the medium of men's crops," wrote
Secretary Ludwell to Lord John Berkeley in 1667, "and half a penny per
pound is certainly the full medium of the price given for it, which is
fifty shillings out of which when the taxes ... shall be deducted, is
very little to a poor man who hath perhaps a wife and children to cloath
and other necessities to buy. Truly so much too little that I can
attribute it to nothing but the great mercy of God ... that keeps them
from mutiny and confusion."[5-14] The following year he wrote in similar
vein. The market was glutted; a third of the planters' tobacco was left
on their hands; the rest sold for nothing.[5-15]
The Governor and Council declared that the merchant "allows not much
above a farthing a pound for that which the planter brings to his door.
And if there shall be any amongst us who shall be able to ship his
tobacco on his own account, it will be at such a rate as the tobacco
will never repay him, since they are inforced to pay from £12 to £17 per
ton freight, which usually was but at seven pounds."[5-16] "A large part
of the people are so desperately poor," wrote Berkeley in 1673, "that
they may reasonably be expected upon any small advantage of the enemy
to revolt to them in hopes of bettering their condition by sharing the
plunder of the colony with them."[5-17] That matters had not changed in
1681 is attested by the statement of the Council that the impossibility
of disposing of their tobacco without a heavy loss overwhelmed both
Virginia and Maryland, and brought upon them a "vast poverty and
infinite necessity."[5-18] "The low price of tobacco staggers the
imagination," Lord Culpeper wrote to Secretary Coventry, "and the
continuance of it will be the speedy and fatal ruin of this noble
Colony."[5-19]
These distressing conditions bore with telling weight upon the small
planters. The margin of profit which formerly had made it possible for
the freedman to advance rapidly was now wiped out entirely and the poor
man found it impossible to keep out of debt. In 1668 Secretary Ludwell
declared that no one could longer hope to better himself by planting
tobacco.[5-20] Eight years later Nathaniel Bacon, in justifying his
rebellion declared that the small farmers were deeply in debt and that
it was "not in the power of labor or industry" to extricate them.[5-21]
"The poverty of Virginia is such," said a certain John Good in 1676,
"that the major part of the inhabitants can scarce supply their wants
from hand to mouth, and many there are besides can hardly shift without
supply one year."[5-22] In 1673 the Governor and Council reported that
of the planters, "at least one third are single persons (whose labor
will hardly maintain them) or men much in debt," who might reasonably be
expected to revolt to the Dutch upon any small advantage gained by
them.[5-23] In 1680 they again reported that "the indigency of the
Inhabitants is such that they are in noe manner capacitated to support
themselves."[5-24] Three years later they wrote that "the people of
Virginia are generally, some few excepted, extremely poor, not being
able to provide against the pressing necessities of their
families."[5-25]
Despite this repeated and explicit testimony of the misery and poverty
of the colony during this period, which resulted from the stagnation of
the tobacco market after the passage of the Navigation Acts, the
surprising statement is made by Mr. George Lewis Beer, in _The Old
Colonial System_, that England's trade restrictions had nothing to do
with Bacon's Rebellion. "It has been at various times contended," he
says, "that the uprising was, in part at least, one against the laws of
trade and navigation. If there had existed in Virginia any widespread
and well defined feeling of antagonism to these laws, it would
unquestionably have found expression in the county grievances. Most of
these reports were drawn up in a number of articles, and in all there
were nearly two hundred of such separate subdivisions, yet only three of
this number refer in any way to these statutes. There is no valid reason
for assuming that the commercial system played any part whatsoever, or
was in any degree, an issue, in the upheaval of 1676."[5-26]
If by this statement it is meant that Bacon and his men did not rebel in
order to force the repeal of the Navigation Acts, or even that they did
not have the acts in mind at the time, there are many students of
Virginia history who will agree with it. But if Mr. Beer means that
these laws, with their baleful effect upon the prosperity of Virginia,
did not produce the conditions fundamental to the rising, he is
certainly wrong. The evidence is overwhelming.
Surely no one will deny that misery, poverty and nakedness are breeders
of sedition. Had it not been for the Navigation Acts there would not
have been so many desperate persons in Virginia ready at any excuse to
fly in the face of the Government. Bacon's men were just the type of
miserably poor freemen that Berkeley several years before had feared
would rebel. He himself, in his proclamation of Feb. 10, 1677, spoke of
them as "men of mean and desperate fortunes."[5-27] William Sherwood
called the rebels rude and indigent persons, alluding to them as "tag,
rag and bobtayle."[5-28] Over and over again they are described as the
multitude, the rabble, the skum.
Exception must be taken also to the statement that had there existed in
Virginia any well-defined feeling of antagonism to the Navigation Acts
it would have found expression in the county grievances. It should be
remembered that these reports had been called for by the commissioners
sent over by Charles II to investigate the troubles. The men who drew
them up occupied the position of defeated rebels, and the grievances
were primarily a list of excuses for their treason. They all stood
trembling for their property, if they had any, and for their miserable
lives. The memory of the fate of Drummond and Bland and Arnold and many
others of their fellow rebels was fresh in their minds. It is not
reasonable to suppose that they would tell the King that they had risen
in arms against his authority in order to secure the overthrow of laws
which his Majesty considered of such vital importance, laws which
concerned intimately the royal revenue. Such a declaration would not
have seconded successfully their plea for mercy. This is made amply
clear by the reception accorded one of the few complaints which did
actually touch the Navigation Acts. The commissioners report it to the
King as "an extravagant request for liberty to transport their tobacco
to any of his Majesty's plantations without paying the imposts, payable
by act of Parliament, etc. This head is wholly mutinous--to desire a
thing contrary to his Majesty's royal pleasure and benefit and also
against an act of Parliament."[5-29]
Despite the obviously ruinous effects of the Navigation Acts upon
Virginia, Mr. Beer makes the assertion that there was no very serious
and general opposition to them in Virginia. "Apart from the criticisms
of Bland and Berkeley," he says, "there was virtually no complaint
against the system of trade enjoined by the Navigation Acts. While the
Barbados Assembly and that colony's governors were vociferous in their
protests, the Virginia legislature remained strangely mute."[5-30]
This silence on the part of the Virginia Assembly can by no means be
interpreted as an indication that the people of the colony felt the
Navigation Acts to be equitable and not injurious to their interests. It
meant only that no Assembly under Sir William Berkeley would dare
protest against an act which had received the royal sanction. That would
have seemed the veriest treason to the fiery old loyalist. And the
Assembly was entirely under Sir William's control. The members of both
Houses were his creatures and his henchmen. Over and over again it is
testified that the Assembly did nothing more than register his
will.[5-31] If then it did not protest, it was because Sir William did
not wish it to protest.
But this does not prove that the planters were not angered and alarmed
at the stringent acts. That they considered them baleful is amply proved
by their continuous complaints of the economic ruin which had overtaken
the colony. The method they chose of combatting the trade laws, a method
apt to be far more effective than the angry protests of the Barbados
Assembly, was to send the Governor to England to use his influence at
Court to have the acts modified or repealed. And Berkeley did what he
could. While in England he wrote a paper called _A Discourse and View of
Virginia_, which he hoped would induce the Government to change its
policy in regard to the colonies. "Wee cannot but resent," he said,
"that 40,000 people should be impoverished to enrich little more than 40
merchants, who being the whole buyers of our tobacco, give us what they
please for it. And after it is here sell as they please, and indeed have
40,000 servants in us at cheaper rates, than other men have slaves, for
they find them meat and drink and clothes. We furnish ourselves and
their seamen with meat and drink, and all our sweat and labor as they
order us, will hardly procure us coarse clothes to keep us from the
extremities of heat and cold."[5-32] That Sir William was but the
mouthpiece of the colony in this protest there can be no doubt.
But his pleadings were in vain. England would not change the laws which
were the expression of her settled colonial policy. The planters must
adjust themselves to changed conditions no matter how bitter was the
experience. Sir William was told to go home to report to the Virginians
that they need not kick against the pricks, but that England would be
most pleased could they turn from the all-absorbing culture of tobacco
to the production of the raw materials she so greatly desired. And
Berkeley did return determined to exert every effort to lead the
colonists into new prosperity by inducing them to devote a part of their
energies to basic commodities. In fact he promised that in seven years
he would flood the British market with new Virginia goods.[5-33]
Although he set to work with his accustomed vigor to make good this
boast, he met with but scant success. Lack of efficient and skilled
labor, high wages, and not very favorable natural conditions, made it
impossible for him to compete with the long-established industries of
Europe. After a few years all attempts to make silk and potash and naval
stores were abandoned, and the planters continued to put their trust in
tobacco.
That Berkeley was never persuaded that the Navigation Acts were just or
beneficial is shown by his answer to the query of the Lords of Trade in
1671, when they asked him what impediments there were to the colony's
trade. "Mighty and destructive," he replied, "by that severe act of
Parliament which excludes us from having any commerce with any nation
in Europe but our own, so that we cannot add to our plantation any
commodity that grows out of it ... for it is not lawful for us to carry
a pipe-staff or a bushel of corn to any place in Europe out of the
King's dominions. If this were for his Majesty's service or the good of
his subjects we should not repine, whatever our sufferings are for it.
But on my soul it is the contrary of both."[5-35]
Nor is this the only direct testimony that the colonists were filled
with bitterness against the Navigation Acts. In 1673, during the war
with Holland, Sir John Knight declared that "the planters there do
generally desire a trade with the Dutch and all other nations, and speak
openly there that they are in the nature of slaves, so that the hearts
of the greatest part of them are taken away from his Majesty and
consequently his Majesty's best, greatest and richest plantation is in
danger, with the planters' consent, to fall into the enemy's hands, if
not timely prevented."[5-36] This is corroborated by the Council itself,
in an official letter to the King. "For in this very conjuncture had the
people had a distasteful Governor," they wrote, "they would have
hazarded the loss of this Country, and the rather because they doe
believe their Condicon would not be soe bad under the Dutch in Point of
Traffique as it is under the Merchants who now use them hardly, even to
extremity."[5-37]
It is evident, then, that throughout the entire reign of Charles II the
unhappy effects of the trade restrictions made of Virginia, which
formerly had been the land of opportunity for the poor man, a place of
suffering, poverty and discontent. The indentured servant who came over
after 1660 found conditions in the colony hardly more favorable for his
advancement than in England. The price of tobacco was now so low that it
was not possible for a man, by his unassisted efforts, to make a profit
by its cultivation. If Thomas Ludewell is correct in estimating the
return from the average crop at fifty shillings, the lot of the poor
man must have been hard indeed. Hungry he need not be, for food
continued to be abundant and easy to obtain, but of all that the
merchants gave him in return for his tobacco--clothing, farm implements,
household furnishings--he had to content himself with the scantiest
supply. And only too often his pressing needs brought him into hopeless
debt. As for imitating his predecessors of the earlier period in saving
money, purchasing land and servants and becoming a substantial citizen,
the task was well nigh impossible of accomplishment.
It would be expected, then, that even the most exhaustive investigation
could reveal but a few indentured servants, coming over after 1660, who
succeeded in establishing themselves in the Virginia yeomanry. And such,
indeed, is the case. Fortunately we have at hand for the period in
question the means of determining this matter with an exactness
impossible for the first half of the century. Nicholson's rent roll of
1704 supplies a complete list, with the exception of those in the
Northern Neck, of every landowner in Virginia. At the same time we have
in the Land Office at Richmond, the names of many thousands of persons
listed as headrights, constituting almost all the immigrants who came in
during the years from 1666 to the end of the century. Thus by comparing
the two lists and trying to identify on the rent roll the names found in
the patents, it is possible to fix the proportion of servants who won
for themselves at this time places among the landowning class.
Selecting the year 1672 as typical of the Restoration period, we find
that an examination of 672 of the names which are listed as headrights,
eleven only can be identified with any degree of certainty upon the rent
roll. Of 1116 names examined in the years from 1671 to 1674 inclusive,
only 26 are positively those of persons listed as landowners in 1704.
After making due allowance for the fact that uncertainty exists in a
number of other cases, and that some who prospered must have died in the
intervening years, it is safe to say that not more than five or six per
cent of the indentured servants of this period succeeded in establishing
themselves as independent planters.
These conclusions are borne out by the slowness with which the
population increased during the years following the passage of the
Navigation Acts. In the Commonwealth period the colony had advanced by
leaps and bounds, and the inhabitants, estimated at 15,000 in
1649,[5-38] were placed by Berkeley thirteen years later at
40,000.[5-39] Under the system which existed during these years, when
the colonists enjoyed a comparatively free trade, the population had
tripled. But after 1660, while the Virginia tobacco was dumped upon the
restricted English market and prices fell lower and lower, no such rapid
growth is noted. In 1671, nine years after his first estimate, Governor
Berkeley still placed the population at 40,000.[5-40] And even if we
accept the statement of the Virginia agents sent to England to secure a
charter for the colony that in 1675 the number of inhabitants was
50,000, it is evident that some pernicious influence was at work to
retard the development of England's most important American
province.[5-41] A drop in the rate of increase from 200 per cent during
the thirteen years prior to 1662, to 25 per cent in the thirteen years
following, is a clear index to the startling change brought about in the
colony by the British trade regulations.
These figures are the more significant in that there was no appreciable
slackening of the stream of servants. It is probable that in the period
from 1662 to 1675, which marked this estimated increase of 10,000
persons, fully 20,000 immigrants had come to the colony.[5-42] The
patent rolls for 1674 alone give the names of 1931 headrights, and this
year is by no means exceptional. No wonder Edward Randolph was
surprised at the smallness of the population and wrote to the Board of
Trade that it should be investigated why Virginia had not grown more,
"considering what vast numbers of servants and others had been
transported thither."[5-43]
But Randolph failed to realize that it is not the volume of immigration
but the number of people a country will support which in the end
determines the size of the population. It was not enough to pour into
the colony tens of thousands of poor settlers; opportunity had also to
be afforded them for earning an adequate living. And this opportunity,
because of the enforcement of the Navigation Acts and the consequent
ruin of trade, they did not have in Virginia. Throughout the Restoration
period not more than forty or fifty thousand people could exist upon the
returns from the tobacco crop, and beyond that the population could
hardly rise. If more poured in, they must of necessity live in misery
and rags, or migrate to other colonies where more favorable conditions
existed.
We are not at present concerned with what become of this surplus
population, but only with the fact that the Navigation Acts brought to a
dead halt the process of moulding freedmen and other poor settlers into
a prosperous yeomanry. By the year 1660 this class seems to have reached
its highest development, and had a rent roll of land owners been drawn
up at that date it would doubtless have shown almost as many names as
that of 1704. In fact it is fortunate that in the bitter years from 1660
to 1685 it did not succumb entirely. With the price of tobacco so low
that no profit was to be derived from it, with his family in rags, the
small planter might well have sold his land to his more wealthy neighbor
and joined the newly freed servants in moving on to western Carolina or
to the northern colonies.
In fact it is an indication of the solid character of the Virginia
yeomanry that it survived to enter the Eighteenth century, that under
Andros and Nicholson as well as under Sir William Berkeley it was the
soundest element in the life of the colony. Had it not been for the
crowning misfortune of the introduction of great swarms of negro slaves,
sooner or later it would have come once more into its own, would have
carved out for itself a new prosperity, would have filled Virginia from
the Atlantic to the Alleghanies.
_CHAPTER VI_
THE YEOMAN IN VIRGINIA HISTORY
Perhaps it would have been impossible for the Virginia yeoman to survive
the dark days of the Restoration period had it not been for the fact
that in the matter of his food supply he was independent of England and
her vexatious trade restrictions. He might be in rags, but there was no
reason why he should ever feel the pangs of hunger. Seldom in any
climate, in any age has food existed in such extraordinary variety and
in such lavish abundance.
Almost every planter, even the poorest, was possessed of cattle. The
_Perfect Discription_ states that in 1649 there were in the colony "of
Kine, Oxen, Bulls, Calves, twenty thousand, large and good."[6-1]
Fifteen years later the number had increased to 100,000.[6-2] Many a
little farmer, too poor to afford the help of a servant or a slave, had
cattle more than sufficient for his every need. John Splitimber, a
planter of meagre means, died in 1677 owning eight cows and one
bull.[6-3] John Gray, whose entire personal estate was valued only at
9,340 pounds of tobacco, possessed at his death six cows, six calves,
two steers and one heifer.[6-4] The inventory of the goods of Richard
Avery, another poor planter, shows three steers, one heifer, three small
cattle and one calf.[6-5] The yeoman not only secured from these animals
a goodly supply of beef, but milk in abundance from which he made butter
and cheese. The steers he used as beasts of burden.
The meat which most frequently appeared upon the table of the poor man
was that of swine. The planter marked his hogs and turned them loose in
the woods to feed upon roots and acorns. On the other hand, sheep did
not multiply in the colony, for the woods were not suited for their
maintenance, and those areas which had been cleared of trees could more
profitably be utilized for agriculture than for pasture lands. Mutton
was a rare delicacy even with the well-to-do.[6-6]
Poultry were exceedingly numerous. At the time of the Company it was
stated that the planter who failed to breed one hundred a year was
considered a poor manager. The _Perfect Discription_ says that the
poultry--"Hens, Turkies, Ducks, Geece"--were without number.[6-7]
Moreover, the wild fowls of the inland waterways were so numerous that
even the least skilful of huntsmen could readily bring down enough for
the needs of his family, and the mallard, the goose, the canvasback
appeared regularly in season upon every table.[6-8]
The planter always devoted a part of his land to the production of the
grain which was needed for his personal requirements. "They yearly plow
and sow many hundred acres of Wheat," it was said, "as good and faire as
any in the world."[6-9] At the same time maize grew so readily and its
cultivation proved so cheap, that cornbread formed a part of the diet
not only of the planters themselves, but of their servants and slaves.
From his garden, an inevitable accompaniment of every plantation, the
farmer secured a large variety of vegetables--potatoes, asparagus,
carrots, turnips, onions, parsnips, besides such fruits as strawberries,
gooseberries, raspberries; from his orchard he had apples, pears,
quinces, apricots, peaches.[6-10] Honey was abundant, and there were few
householders who did not have hives under the eaves of their
outbuildings. One planter, a Mr. George Pelton, is said to have made a
profit of £30 from his bees.[6-11] There were also many wild swarms in
the woods, which yielded a delicious return to the colonial
bee-hunters.[6-12]
It is easy to understand, then, why there were no complaints of hunger
even in the days when poverty was almost universal. The Virginia yeoman
spread always an abundant table. "He that is lazy and will not work,"
said the author of _New Albion_, "needs not fear starving, but may live
as an Indian, sometimes Oysters, Cockles, Wilkes, Clams, Scollons two
moneths together; sometimes wilde Pease and Vetches, and Long Oates,
sometimes Tuckaho, Cuttenoman ground, Nuts, Marhonions, sometimes small
nuts, Filbirds, Wallnuts, Pokeberries, ten sorts of Berries, Egs of
Foul, small Fish in Coves at low water will teach him to live idly." "It
must needs follow then that diet cannot be scarce, since both rivers and
woods afford it, and that such plenty of Cattle and Hogs are every
where, which yield beef, veal, milk, butter, cheese and other made
dishes, porke, bacon and pigs, and that as sweet and savoury meat as the
world affords, these with the help of Orchards and Gardens, Oysters,
Fish, Fowle and Venison, certainly cannot but be sufficient for a good
diet and wholsom accommodation, considering how plentifully they are,
and how easie with industry to be had."[6-13]
But the little planter, with the advent of the Navigation Acts, often
suffered keenly from a lack of adequate clothing. Again and again the
letters of the period state that the poor man was reduced to rags, that
he could not protect his family from the winter's cold. There was some
manufacture of cloth in the home, but the planter usually trusted to the
foreign trader to bring him every article of clothing. He had neither
the implements nor the skill to supply his own needs. During the
Restoration period, and again at the time of the war of the Spanish
Succession, when the price of tobacco fell so very low, many families
succeeded in producing enough homespun to supply their most pressing
needs.[6-14] But with the return of better conditions they laid aside
the loom and the wheel, and resumed their purchase of English cloth.
In normal times the poor planter was comfortably clad. Edward Williams,
in _Virginia Richly Valued_, advised every new immigrant to bring a
monmouth cap, a waistcoat, a suit of canvas, with bands, shirts,
stockings and shoes.[6-15] The author of _New Albion_ thought that each
adventurer should provide himself with canvas or linen clothes, with
shoes and a hat.[6-16]
The houses of the small planters were small but comfortable. "Pleasant
in their building," says John Hammond, "which although for most part
they are but one story besides the loft, and built of wood, yet
contrived so delightfully that your ordinary houses in England are not
so handsome, for usually the rooms are large, daubed and whitelimed,
glazed and flowered, and if not glazed windows, shutters which are made
very pritty and convenient."[6-17] _The New Description of Virginia_,
published in 1649, says: "They have Lime in abundance for their houses,
store of bricks made, and House and Chimnies built of Brick, and some of
Wood high and fair, covered with Shingell for Tyle."[6-18]
In the days of the Company most of the houses seem to have been made of
logs, and Butler, in his _Virginia Unmasked_, declared that they were
the "worst in the world," and that the most wretched cottages in England
were superior to them.[6-19] But the period of which Butler wrote was
exceptional, and before long the growing prosperity of the colony made
possible a great improvement in the dwellings of the people. The rough
log cabin gave way to the little framed cottage with chimneys at each
end.
A residence erected in one of the parishes of the Eastern Shore in 1635
to serve as a parsonage may be accepted as typical of the better class
of houses in Virginia at this time. It was made of wood, was forty feet
wide, eighteen deep and had a chimney at each end. On either side was an
additional apartment, one used as a study, the other as a
buttery.[6-20] For the poor man this was far too pretentious, and he had
to content himself with a home perhaps thirty by twenty feet, containing
at times two or three apartments, at times only one.
But such as it was it gave him ample protection against the heat of
summer and the cold of winter. Fuel he never lacked. When the frosts of
December and January came upon him, he had only to repair to the nearest
forest, axe in hand, to supply himself with wood in abundance. In this
way, not only would he keep a roaring blaze in his open fireplace, but
would widen the space available for the next summer's tobacco crop.
The surroundings of the planter's residence were severely plain. In the
yard, which usually was uninclosed, towered a cluster of trees, a
survival of the primeval forest. Nearby was the garden, with its flowers
and vegetables, the dove-cote, the barn, the hen house, perhaps a milk
house or even a detached kitchen. In some cases wells were sunk, but the
use of natural springs was more common.[6-21]
Of the plantation itself, only a fraction was under cultivation at one
time. Tobacco was exceedingly exhausting to the soil, but the cheapness
of land led the planters to neglect the most ordinary precautions to
preserve its fertility. They sowed year after year upon the same spot,
until the diminishing yield warned them of approaching sterility, and
then would desert it to clear a new field. This system made it necessary
for them to provide for the future by securing farms far larger in
extent than was dictated by their immediate requirements. They had to
look forward to the day when their land would become useless, and if
they were provident, would purchase ten times more than they could
cultivate at any one time. Thomas Whitlock, in his will dated 1659,
says: "I give to my son Thomas Whitlock the land I live on, 600 acres,
when he is of the age 21, and during his minority to my wife. The land
not to be further made use of or by planting or seating than the first
deep branch that is commonly rid over, that my son may have some fresh
land when he attains to age."[6-22]
One may gain an idea of the condition of the very poorest class of
freemen by an examination of the inventory of the estate of Walter
Dorch, drawn up in 1684. This man possessed two pairs of woollen cards,
and one spinning wheel, valued at 100 pounds of tobacco, one chest at
eighty pounds, four old trays at twenty pounds, two runletts at forty
pounds, one pail and one skillet at sixty pounds, one bowl at two
pounds, one feather bed, two pillows and three old blankets at 120
pounds of tobacco, three glass bottles at twenty pounds, one couch frame
at forty pounds, one pair of pot-hooks at forty, 800 tenpenny nails at
forty-five, and one old table and one sifter at twenty pounds. In all
the estate was valued at 587 pounds of tobacco.[6-23]
John Gray, who died in 1685, left personal property worth 9,340 pounds
of tobacco, consisting in part of six cows and six calves, four
yearlings, two steers, one heifer, one barrel of corn, one bull, ten
hogs and one horse. He had no servants and no slaves.[6-24] In better
circumstances was Richard Avery, who seems to have been a tanner by
profession. The inventory of his estate, recorded in 1686, includes one
horse with bridle and saddle, a cart and a yoke of steers, eight head of
cattle, 25 hogs, 118 hides, various kinds of tools, lumber to the value
of 400 pounds of tobacco, four pieces of earthenware, four beds with
mattresses and covers, poultry to the value of 180 pounds of tobacco,
some wheat in the ground and a batch of wearing linen. The entire
personal estate was valued at 14,050 pounds of tobacco. It included no
servants or slaves.[6-25]
John Splitimber, who is entered as a headright to Thomas Harwood in
1635, is typical of the planter who rose from small beginnings to a
state of comparative prosperity. This man, at his death in 1677,
possessed eight cows, one bull, four yearlings, four mares, 35 hogs, two
horses, two bolsters, a pillow, two blankets, a mattress, two bedsteads,
two guns, fifty-six pounds of pewter, two rugs, a table, three chests,
one old couch, two iron pots, two kettles, two stilyards, shovel and
tongs, two smothering irons, two axes, a few carpenter's tools, a saddle
and bridle, four casks, clothing to the value of 1,100 pounds of
tobacco, a frying pan, a butter pat, a jar, a looking glass, two milk
pans, one table cloth, nine spoons, a churn, a bible. The appraisers
placed the total value at 18,277 pounds of tobacco.[6-26] The inventory
records no servants or slaves, but it is probable that Splitimber at
times made use of indentured labor, as in November 1648 and again in
1652, we find him taking up land due for the transportation of certain
persons to the colony.[6-27]
Of similar estate was Christopher Pearson, of York county. His personal
property included bedding valued at £7, linen at 18 shillings, pewter at
£1.18.0, brass at six shillings, wooden ware at £4.13.6 comprising three
chairs and one table, a couch, four old chests, a cask, two ten gallon
rundletts, a cheese press, a box of drawers, an old table, three pails,
a spinning wheel with cards, two sifting trays, a corn barrel, three
bedsteads, four sives, a funnel; iron ware valued at £2.12.0, including
three pots, two pot-rocks, a pestal, a frying pan, a looking glass;
three cows appraised at £6.5.0, a yearling at ten shillings, a colt at
two pounds sterling. The entire estate was valued at £25.19.6.[6-28]
It must not be imagined, however, that Virginia, even in the early years
of its settlement, contained no men of wealth or rank. Industry and
intelligence bore their inevitable fruit in the little colony, with the
result that here and there certain planters acquired an enviable
pre-eminence among their fellows. The _New Description_ mentions several
such cases. Captain Matthews "hath a fine house," it says, "and all
things answerable to it; he sowes yeerly store of Hempe and Flax, and
causes it to be spun; he keeps Weavers, and hath a Tanhouse, causes
Leather to be dressed, hath eight Shoemakers employed in their trade,
hath forty Negro servants, brings them up to Trades in his house. He
yeerly sowes abundance of Wheat, Barley, &c. The Wheat he selleth at
four shillings the bushell; kills store of Beeves, and sells them to
victuall the Ships when they come thither; hath abundance of Kine, a
brave Dairy, Swine great store, and Poltery; he married a Daughter of
Sir Thomas Hinton, and in a word, keeps a good house, lives bravely, and
a true lover of Virginia; he is worthy of much honor."[6-29]
This description is interesting because it shows not only the extent of
the holdings of certain planters at this early date, but that their
prosperity had the same foundation as that of the more numerous class of
wealthy men of the Eighteenth century. In both cases slavery and
plantation manufacture would seem to have been the open sesame to
success. It is notable that of the very limited number of men in
Virginia prior to 1700 who stand out above their fellows in the
readiness with which they acquired property, almost all gathered around
them a goodly number of negroes.
Among the prominent planters of the first half of the Seventeenth
century was George Menefie, famous for his orchard which abounded in
apple, pear and cherry trees, and for his garden which yielded all kinds
of fruits, vegetables, and flowers; Richard Bennett, a man of large
property who had in one year "out of his Orchard as many Apples as he
made 20 Butts of Excellent Cider"; Richard Kinsman, who for three or
four years in succession secured "forty or fifty Butts of Perry made out
of his Orchard, pure and good."[6-30]
In the second half of the century the class of the well-to-do, although
somewhat more numerous, was still restricted to a small group of
prominent families, many of them connected by marriage. Among the best
known men are Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., Thomas Ballard, Robert Severely,
Giles Brent, Joseph Bridger, William Byrd I, John Carter, John Custis I,
Dudley Digges, William Fitzhugh, Lewis Burwell, Philip Ludwell I,
William Moseley, Daniel Parke, Ralph Wormeley, Benjamin Harrison, Edward
Hill, Edmund Jennings and Matthew Page. But so few were their numbers
that the Governors more than once complained that they could not find
men for the Council of State qualified for that post by their wealth and
influence.
The depository of power for the Virginia yeomanry was the House of
Burgesses. This important body was elected by the votes of the
freeholders, and faithfully represented their interests. Here they would
bring their grievances, here express their wishes, here defend
themselves against injustice, here demand the enactment of legislation
favorable to their class. The hope of the people lay always in the
Burgesses, Bacon the rebel tells us, "as their Trusts, and Sanctuary to
fly to."[6-31] And though the commons usually elected to this body the
leading men of each county, men of education and wealth if such were to
be found, they held them to a strict accountability for their every
action.[6-32] Many of the best known members of the Council of State
served their apprenticeship in the Burgesses. But whatever the social
status of the Burgess, he felt always that he was the representative of
the poor planter, the defender of his interests, and seldom indeed did
he betray his trust.[6-33] This no doubt was with him in part a matter
of honor, but it also was the result of a consciousness that unless he
obeyed the behests of his constituency he would be defeated if he came
up for re-election.
The House of Burgesses, even in the days when the colony was but an
infant settlement stretching along the banks of the James, did not
hesitate to oppose the wishes of the King himself. In 1627 Charles I
sent instructions for an election of Burgesses that he might gain the
assent of the planters through their representatives to an offer which
he made to buy their tobacco.[6-34] Although the Assembly must have
realized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance with
the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposal.[6-35] In 1634
Charles again made an offer for the tobacco, but again he encountered
stubborn opposition. The Secretary of the colony forwarded a report in
which he frankly told the British Government that in his opinion the
matter would never go through if it depended upon the yielding of the
Assembly.[6-36]
In 1635 the people again showed their independent spirit by ejecting Sir
John Harvey from the Government and sending him back to England. It is
true that the Council members took the lead in this bold step, but they
would hardly have gone to such lengths had they not been supported by
the mass of small planters.[6-37] In fact, one of the chief grievances
against the Governor was his refusal to send to the King a petition of
the Burgesses, which he considered offensive because they had made it "a
popular business, by subscribing a multitude of hands thereto." And some
days before the actual expulsion Dr. John Pott, Harvey's chief enemy,
was going from plantation to plantation, inciting the people to
resistance and securing their signatures to a paper demanding a redress
of grievances.[6-38]
The attitude of the small planters during the English civil war and
Commonwealth period is equally instructive. Certain writers have
maintained that the people of Virginia were a unit for the King, that
upon the execution of Charles I his son was proclaimed with the
unanimous consent of the planters, that the colony became a refuge for
English cavaliers, that it surrendered to Parliament only when
conquered by an armed expedition and that it restored Charles II as King
of Virginia even before he had regained his power in England.
All of this is either misleading or entirely false. It is true that the
Assembly proclaimed Charles II King in 1649 and passed laws making it
high treason for any person to uphold the legality of the dethronement
and execution of his father.[6-39] But this was largely the work of Sir
William Berkeley and the small group of well-to-do men who were
dependent upon him for their welfare. The very fact that it was felt
necessary to threaten with dire punishment all who spread abroad reports
"tending to a change of government," shows that there existed a fear
that such a change might be effected.[6-40] How many of the small
planters were at heart friendly to Parliament it is impossible to say,
but the number was large enough to cause Sir William Berkeley such
serious misgivings as to his own personal safety that he obtained from
the Assembly a guard of ten men to protect him from assassination.[6-41]
Nor can it be said that Virginia was forced into an unwilling submission
to Parliament. It is true that an expedition was sent to conquer the
colony, which entered the capes, sailed up to the forts at Jamestown and
there received the formal surrender of the colony.[6-42] But this
surrender was forced upon the Governor as much by the wishes of the
people as by the guns of the British fleet. In fact, the expedition had
been sent at the request of certain representatives of the Parliamentary
faction in Virginia, who made it clear to the Commonwealth leaders that
the colony was by no means unanimous for the King, and that it was held
to its allegiance only by the authority and firm will of the
Governor.[6-43] That the British Council of State expected to receive
active assistance from their friends in Virginia is evident, for they
gave directions for raising troops there and for appointing
officers.[6-44] And there can be no doubt that the imposing military
force which had been gathered to defend Jamestown was not called into
action chiefly because Berkeley became convinced that it could not be
relied upon to fight against the Commonwealth soldiers.
The new regime which was introduced with the articles of surrender made
of Virginia virtually a little republic. In England the long cherished
hope of the patriots for self-government was disappointed by the
usurpation of Oliver Cromwell. But the commons of Virginia reaped the
reward which was denied their brothers of the old country. For a period
of eight years all power resided in the House of Burgesses. This body,
so truly representative of the small planter class, elected the Governor
and specified his duties. If his administration proved unsatisfactory
they could remove him from office. The Burgesses also chose the members
of the Council. Even the appointing of officials was largely theirs,
although this function they usually felt it wise to delegate to the
Governor.[6-45] In fact, Virginia was governed during this period, the
happiest and most prosperous of its early history, by the small
proprietor class which constituted the bulk of the population.
Nor is it true that the people voluntarily surrendered this power by
acknowledging the authority of Charles II before the actual restoration
in England. After the death of Cromwell, when the affairs of the mother
country were in chaos and no man knew which faction would secure
possession of the government, the Virginia Assembly asked Sir William
Berkeley to act again as their chief executive. But it was specifically
stipulated that he was to hold his authority, not from Charles, but from
themselves alone.[6-46] In this step the people were doubtless actuated
by an apprehension that the monarchy might be restored, in which case it
would be much to their advantage to have as the chief executive of the
colony the former royal Governor; but they expressly stated that they
held themselves in readiness to acknowledge the authority of any
Government, whatever it might be, which succeeded in establishing itself
in England. So far was Sir William from considering himself a royal
Governor, that when the King actually regained his throne, he wrote with
no little apprehension, begging forgiveness for having accepted a
commission from any other source than himself.[6-47]
It was the small farmer class which suffered most from the despotic
methods of Berkeley during the Restoration period--the corrupting of the
House of Burgesses, the heavy taxes, the usurpation of power in local
government, the distribution of lucrative offices--and it was this class
which rose in insurrection in 1676. It is notable that in the course of
Bacon's Rebellion the great mass of the people turned against the
Governor, either approving passively of his expulsion, or actually
aiding his enemies. When Sir William appealed for volunteers in
Gloucester county while Bacon was upon the Pamunkey expedition, he could
hardly muster a man.[6-48] And the forces which eventually he gathered
around him seem to have included only a handful of leading citizens,
such men as Philip Ludwell, Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., Giles Brent and Robert
Beverley, together with a mass of indentured servants and others who had
been forced into service. It is this which explains the apparent
cowardice of the loyal forces, who almost invariably took to their heels
at the first approach of the rebels, for men will not risk their lives
for a cause in which their hearts are not enlisted.
And though the small farmers lost their desperate fight, though their
leaders died upon the scaffold, though the oppressive Navigation Acts
remained in force, though taxes were heavier than ever, though the
governors continued to encroach upon their liberties, they were by no
means crushed and they continued in their legislative halls the conflict
that had gone against them upon the field of battle. But the political
struggle too was severe. It was in the decade from 1678 to 1688 that the
Stuart monarchs made their second attempt to crush Anglo-Saxon liberty,
an attempt fully as dangerous for the colonies as for England. The
dissolving of the three Whig Parliaments, and the acceptance of a
pension from Louis XIV were followed not only by the execution of
liberal leaders and the withdrawal of town charters in the mother
country, but by a deliberate attempt to suppress popular government in
America. It was not a mere coincidence that the attack upon the
Massachusetts charter, the misrule of Nicholson in New York, the
oppressions of the proprietor in Maryland and the tyranny of Culpeper
and Effingham in Virginia occurred simultaneously. They were all part
and parcel of the policy of Charles II and James II.
These attempts met with failure in Virginia because of the stubborn
resistance they encountered from the small farmer class and their
representatives in the House of Burgesses. The annulling of statutes by
proclamation they denounced as illegal; they protested bitterly against
the appointment of their clerk by the Governor; they fought long to
retain their ancient judicial privileges; they defeated all attempts of
the King and his representatives in Virginia to deprive them of the
right to initiate legislation and to control taxation. And with the
Glorious Revolution of 1688-89, which put an end forever to Stuart
aggressions, they could feel that their efforts alone had preserved
liberty in Virginia, that they might now look forward to long years of
happiness and prosperity. The Virginia yeoman reckoned not with slavery,
however, and slavery was to prove, in part at least, his undoing.
_CHAPTER VII_
WORLD TRADE
In 1682 the depression which for nearly a quarter of a century had
gripped the tobacco trade, somewhat abruptly came to an end. "Our only
commodity, tobacco, having the last winter a pretty quick market, hath
encouraged ye planters," wrote Secretary Spencer to the Board of Trade
in May, 1683.[7-1] Apparently the tide had turned. From this time until
the beginning of the War of the Spanish Succession more than two decades
later we hear little complaint from Virginia, while there are excellent
reasons to suppose that the colony was experiencing a period of growth
and prosperity.
In truth the tobacco trade, upon which the planters staked their all,
now expanded with startling rapidity, and each year the merchants were
forced to add more bottoms to the fleet which sailed for England from
the Chesapeake. During the early years of the Restoration period tobacco
exports from Virginia and Maryland had made but little advance. In 1663
they amounted to 7,367,140 pounds, six years later they were 9,026,046
pounds.[7-2] In 1698, however, the output of Virginia and Maryland was
estimated by the merchant John Linton to be from 70,000 to 80,000
hogsheads.[7-4] Since the hogshead usually contained from 500 to 600
pounds, these figures mean that the planters were then raising from
35,000,000 to 48,000,000 pounds of tobacco. And this conclusion is
supported by the fact that the crop of 1699 is valued at £198,115, which
at a penny a pound would indicate about 47,000,000 pounds.[7-5] In fact,
the production of tobacco in the ten years from 1689 to 1699 seems to
have tripled, in the years from 1669 to 1699 to have quadrupled. In 1669
the planters considered themselves fortunate if their industry yielded
them a return of £30,000; at the end of the century they could count
with a fair degree of certainty upon six times that amount.
For Virginia this startling development was all-important. During the
darkest days of the Restoration period her share of the total returns
from the tobacco crop could hardly have exceeded £10,000; in 1699 it was
estimated at £100,000. Even if we accept the conservative statement that
the average number of hogsheads exported from Virginia in the last
decade of the century varied from 35,000 to 40,000,[7-6] the planters
still would have received £75,000 or £80,000. From dire poverty and
distress the colony, almost in the twinkling of an eye, found itself in
comparative ease and plenty.
Nor is the reason difficult to discover. It had never been the intention
of the British Government to destroy the foreign trade of the colonies,
the Navigation Acts having been designed only to force that trade
through English channels. The planters were still at liberty to send
their tobacco where they would, provided it went by way of England and
paid the duty of a half penny a pound. That these restrictions so nearly
put an end to shipments to the continent of Europe was an unfortunate
consequence which to some extent had been foreseen, but which for the
time being it was impossible to avoid.
It was undoubtedly the hope of the Government that the foreign market
would eventually be regained and that the colonial tobacco would flow
from the colonies into England and from England to all the countries of
Europe. Prior to 1660 Holland had been the distributing centre for the
tobacco of Virginia and Maryland; now England insisted upon taking this
rôle upon herself. But the authorities at London were hardly less
concerned than the planters themselves at the difficulties encountered
in effecting this change and the unfortunate glut in the home markets
which followed.
None the less they persisted in the policy they had adopted, even
clinging stubbornly to the half penny a pound re-export duty, and
trusting that in time they could succeed in conquering for their tobacco
the lost continental markets. In this they were bitterly opposed by the
Dutch with whom it became necessary to fight two wars within the short
space of seven years. Yet steadily, although at first slowly, they made
headway. In 1681 the commissioners of the customs refused the request
for a cessation of tobacco planting in the colonies, on the ground that
to lessen the crop would but stimulate production in foreign countries
and so restrict the sale abroad of the Virginia and Maryland leaf.[7-7]
This argument has been denounced by some as both specious and selfish,
yet it was fully justified by the situation then existing. After all,
the only hope for the planters lay in conquering the European market and
the way to do this was to flood England with tobacco until it overflowed
all artificial barriers and poured across the Channel. And eventually
this is just what happened. Since tobacco was piling up uselessly in the
warehouses and much of it could not be disposed of at any price, it was
inevitable that it should be dumped upon the other nations of Europe.
There is in this development a close parallel with the commercial policy
of Germany in the years prior to the world war, when no effort was
spared to produce a margin of all kinds of wares over the home needs,
which was to be exported at excessively low prices. This margin was a
weapon of conquest, a means of ousting the merchants of other nations
from this market or that. And when once this conquest had been effected,
the price could be raised again in order to assure a profit to the
German manufacturers.
It is improbable that the English economists of the Seventeenth century,
like those of modern Germany, had foreseen exactly what would happen,
but the results were none the less similar. When once the English leaf
had secured a strong hold upon the Baltic and upon France and Spain, it
was a matter of the greatest difficulty to oust it, especially as the
ever increasing influx of slaves made it possible for the planters to
meet the lower prices of foreign competitors and still clear a profit.
Thus it was that during the years from 1680 to 1708 the Chesapeake
tobacco succeeded in surmounting all the difficulties placed in its way
by the Navigation Acts, the necessity of the double voyage, the
re-export duty of a half penny a pound, and so gradually flooded the
continental market.
It is unfortunate that figures for re-exported tobacco during the
earlier years of the Restoration period are lacking. In 1688, however,
it is stated that the duty of a half penny a pound was yielding the
Crown an annual revenue of £15,000, which would indicate that about
7,200,000 pounds were leaving for foreign ports.[7-8] Ten years later,
if we may believe the testimony of John Linton, exports of tobacco
totalled 50,000 or 60,000 hogsheads, or from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000
pounds. Not more than a fourth of the colonial leaf, he tells us, was
consumed in England itself.[7-9] Once more Virginia and Maryland were
producing tobacco for all Europe, once more they enjoyed a world market.
This trade was extended from one end of the continent to the other.
Vessels laden with American tobacco found their way not only to the
ports of France and Holland and Spain, but even to the distant cities of
Sweden and Russia.[7-10] The Baltic trade alone amounted to from 5,000
to 10,000 hogsheads, and added from £10,000 to £24,000 to the income of
the planters. The chief Russian port of entry was Narva, which took
annually some 500 hogsheads, but large quantities were shipped also to
Riga and Raval.[7-11] The northern nations bought the cheaper varieties,
for no tobacco could be too strong for the hardy men of Sweden and
Russia.
The trade was of great importance to England, as the leaf, after it had
gone through the process of manufacture, sold for about six pence a
pound, yielding to the nation in all from £60,000 to £130,000.[7-12] As
the English were still largely dependent upon the Baltic for potash and
ship stores, this constituted a most welcome addition to the balance of
trade. To the colonies also it was vital, carrying off a large part of
the annual crop, and so tending to sustain prices.
France, too, proved a good customer for English tobacco, and in the
years prior to the War of the Spanish Succession took annually from
8,000 to 10,000 hogsheads, or from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 pounds.[7-13]
Micajah Perry reported to the Lords of Trade that from 6,000 to 10,000
hogsheads went to France from London alone, while a very considerable
amount was sent also from other ports.[7-14]
Far more surprising is the fact that even Spain consumed millions of
pounds of English leaf. With her own colonies producing the best tobacco
in the world and in the face of its practical exclusion from the English
market, it is strange that the Government at Madrid should have
permitted this commerce to continue. The obvious course for the
Spaniards under the economic theories of the day would have been to
exclude English tobacco, both in order to protect their own planters and
to retaliate for the restrictions upon their product. Yet it is
estimated that from 6,000 to 10,000 hogsheads entered Spain each
year.[7-15] A pamphlet published in 1708 entitled _The Present State of
Tobacco Plantations in America_ stated that before the outbreak of the
war then raging, France and Spain together had taken annually about
20,000 hogsheads.[7-16]
The Dutch, too, despite their bitter rivalry with the British, found it
impossible to do without Virginia tobacco. Purchasing the finest bright
Orinoco, they mixed it with leaf of their own growth in the proportion
of one to four, and sold it to other European nations. In this way they
sought to retain their position as a distributing center for the trade
and to give employment to hundreds of poor workers. In all the Dutch
seem to have purchased from England about 5,000 hogsheads a year.[7-17]
The enhanced importance of the tobacco trade is reflected in a steady
increase of British exports to Virginia and Maryland. The planters, now
that they found it possible to market their leaf, laid out the proceeds
in the manufactured products of England. At the end of the Seventeenth
century the two colonies were importing goods to the value of £200,000
annually. In 1698, which was an exceptionally good year, their purchases
were no less than £310,133.[7-18]
In short the tobacco colonies had at last found their proper place in
the British colonial system. Both they and the mother country, after
long years of experimentation, years of misfortune and recrimination,
had reached a common ground upon which to stand. Although Maryland and
Virginia still fell short of the ideal set for the British colonies,
although they failed to furnish the raw stuffs so urgently needed by the
home industries, at least they yielded a product which added materially
to shipping, weighed heavily in the balance of trade and brought a
welcome revenue to the royal Exchequer.
The Crown reaped a rich return from tobacco, a return which grew not
only with the expansion of the trade, but by the imposition from time to
time of heavier duties. In the period from 1660 to 1685, when the tariff
remained at two pence a pound, the yield must have varied from £75,000
to £100,000. If we assume that the average consumption in England was
9,000,000 pounds and the average exports 3,000,000 the total revenue
would have been £81,250. In 1685, however, an additional duty of three
pence a pound was placed upon tobacco upon its arrival in England, all
of which was refunded when the product was re-exported. In 1688, when
the tobacco consumed in England was 8,328,800 pounds, the old and new
duties, amounting in all to five pence, must have yielded £173,515. When
to this is added £15,000 from the half penny a pound on the 7,200,000
pounds of leaf sent abroad, the total reaches £188,515.
In 1698 still another penny a pound was added to the tax, making a grand
total of six pence on colonial tobacco disposed of in England. This new
duty, together with the rapid increase in the foreign trade, enriched
the Exchequer by another £100,000. In 1699, if we assume that 12,000,000
pounds were consumed in England, the return would have been £300,000;
while half a penny a pound on 36,000,000 pounds of re-exported leaf,
would have brought the total to £375,000. That this figure was
approximately correct we have evidence in the statement of the author of
_The Present State of the Tobacco Plantations_, written in 1705, that
the revenue yielded by the tobacco of Virginia and Maryland amounted
annually to £400,000.[7-19] This sum constituted a very appreciable
proportion of the royal income, so appreciable in fact as to make the
tobacco trade a matter of vital importance in the eyes of the King's
ministers. They were charged at all times to avoid any contingency which
might lessen the imports and reduce the customs.
The increase in the tobacco trade stimulated industry, not only by
increasing exports to Virginia and Maryland, but also by creating a new
English industry. For most of the tobacco, before it was sent abroad,
was subjected to a process of manufacture, by which the leaf was cut and
rolled and otherwise prepared for the consumer. This industry gave
employment to hundreds of poor persons in England and required a
considerable outlay of capital.[7-20]
To British navigation the trade was vital. Each year scores of
merchantmen crossed to the Chesapeake and swarmed in every river and
creek, delivering their English goods to the planters and taking in
return the hogsheads of tobacco. In 1690 the tobacco fleet numbered
about 100 ships, aggregating 13,715 tons; in 1706 it counted no less
than 300 sails.[7-21] Nor must it be forgotten that re-exported tobacco
also added many a goodly merchantman to the navy and gave employment to
many a seaman. Altogether Virginia and Maryland constituted an
invaluable asset, an asset which ranked in importance secondly only to
the sugar plantations.
It would naturally be supposed that the fortunate turn of events which
restored to the tobacco colonies their European market would have
reacted favorably upon the small planters of Virginia, not only insuring
plenty to those already established, but adding new recruits from the
ranks of the indentured servants; that the process of making prosperous
freemen from the poor immigrants who flocked to the colony, the process
interrupted by the passage of the Navigation Acts, would have been
resumed now that these laws no longer prevented the flow of tobacco into
the continental countries.
Such was not the case, however. A comparison of the lists of immigrants
with the rent roll of 1704 shows that but an insignificant proportion of
the newcomers succeeded in establishing themselves as landowners. In
four lists examined for the year 1689, comprising 332 names, but seven
persons can be positively identified upon the rent roll. In 1690, eight
lists of 933 names, reveal but twenty-eight persons who were landowners
in 1704. Of 274 immigrants listed in 1691, six only appear on the Roll.
In 1695, seven lists comprising 711 names, show but ten who possessed
farms nine years later. Of 74 headrights appearing in 1696, but two are
listed on the roll; of 119 in 1697 only nine; of 169 in 1698 one only;
of 454 in 1699, only seven; of 223 in 1700 but six.[7-22] All in all not
more than five per cent. of the newcomers during this period prospered
and became independent planters. Apparently, then, the restored
prosperity of the colony was not shared by the poorer classes, the
increased market for tobacco did not better materially the chances of
the incoming flood of indentured servants.
The explanation of this state of affairs is found in the fact that
tobacco, despite its widened market, experienced no very pronounced rise
in price. The average return to the planters during the good years seems
to have been one penny a pound.[7-23] This, it is true, constituted an
advance over the worst days of the Restoration period, but it was far
from approaching the prices of the Civil war and Commonwealth periods.
For the poor freedman, it was not sufficient to provide for his support
and at the same time make it possible to accumulate a working capital.
He could not, as he had done a half century earlier, lay aside enough to
purchase a farm, stock it with cattle, hogs and poultry, perhaps even
secure a servant or two. Now, although no longer reduced to misery and
rags as in the years from 1660 to 1682, he could consider himself
fortunate if his labor sufficed to provide wholesome food and warm
clothing. How, it may be asked, could Virginia and Maryland produce the
vast crops now required by the foreign trade, if the price was still so
low? Prior to and just after Bacon's Rebellion the planters repeatedly
asserted that their labors only served to bring them into debt, that to
produce an extensive crop was the surest way for one to ruin himself.
Why was it that twenty years later, although prices were still far below
the old level, they could flood the markets of the world?
The answer can be summed up in one word--slavery. The first cargo of
negroes arrived in the colony in 1619 upon a Dutch privateer. Presumably
they were landed at Jamestown, and sold there to the planters.[7-24] The
vessel which won fame for itself by this ill-starred action, was sailing
under letters of marque from the Prince of Orange and had been scouring
the seas in search of Spanish prizes. Although the Dutch master could
have had no information that slaves were wanted in the colony, he seems
to have taken it for granted that he would not be forbidden to dispose
of his human freight.
The introduction of this handful of negroes--there were but twenty in
all--was not the real beginning of the slave system in the colonies. For
many years the institution which was to play so sinister a part in
American history did not flourish, and the slaves grew in numbers but
slowly. In the Muster Roll of Settlers in Virginia, taken in 1624, there
were listed only 22 negroes.[7-25] Sixteen years later the black
population probably did not exceed 150.[7-26] In 1649, when Virginia was
growing rapidly and the whites numbered 15,000, there were but 300
negroes in the colony.[7-27] A sporadic importation of slaves continued
during the Commonwealth period, but still the number was insignificant,
still the bulk of the labor in the tobacco fields was done by indentured
servants and poor freeholders.
In 1670 Governor Berkeley reported to the Board of Trade that out of a
total population of 40,000, but five per cent were slaves.[7-28] Eleven
years later the number of blacks was estimated at 3,000.[7-29] In 1635
twenty-six negroes were brought in, the largest purchaser being Charles
Harmar.[7-30] In 1636 the importations were but seven, in 1637 they
were 28, in 1638 thirty, in 1639 forty-six, in 1642 seven only, in 1643
eighteen, in 1649 seventeen.[7-31] But with the passage of the years
somewhat larger cargoes began to arrive. In 1662 Richard Lee claimed
among his headrights no less than 80 negroes, in 1665 the Scarboroughs
imported thirty-nine. In 1670, however, Berkeley declared that "not
above two or three ships of Negroes" had arrived in the province in the
previous seven years.[7-32]
It is evident, then, that during the larger part of the Seventeenth
century slavery played but an unimportant rôle in the economic and
social life of the colony. The planters were exceedingly anxious to make
use of slave labor, which they considered the foundation of the
prosperity of their rivals of the Spanish tobacco colonies, but slave
labor was most difficult to obtain. The trade had for many years been
chiefly in the hands of the Dutch, and these enterprising navigators
sold most of their negroes to the Spanish plantations. Ever since the
days of Henry VIII the English had made efforts to secure a share of
this profitable traffic, but with very meagre success.[7-33]
The Dutch had established trading stations along the African coast,
guarded by forts and war vessels. Any attempts of outsiders to intrude
upon the commerce was regarded by them as an act of open aggression to
be resisted by force of arms. To enter the trade with any hope of
success it became necessary for the English to organize a company rich
enough to furnish armed protection to their merchantmen. But no such
organization could be established during the Civil War and Commonwealth
periods, and it was not until 1660 that the African Company, under the
leadership of the Duke of York entered the field.[7-34]
This was but the beginning of the struggle, however. The Dutch resisted
strenuously, stirring up the native chieftains against the English,
seizing their vessels and breaking up their stations. Not until two wars
had been fought was England able to wring from the stubborn
Netherlanders an acknowledgment of her right to a share in the trade.
Even then the Virginians were not adequately supplied, for the sugar
islands were clamoring for slaves, and as they occupied so important a
place in the colonial system they were the first to be served.
Throughout the last quarter of the Seventeenth century negroes in fairly
large numbers began to arrive in the Chesapeake, but it was only in the
years from 1700 to 1720 that they actually accomplished the overthrow of
the old system of labor and laid the foundations of a new social
structure. Throughout the Seventeenth century the economic system of the
tobacco colonies depended upon the labor of the poor white man, whether
free or under terms of indenture; in the Eighteenth century it rested
chiefly upon the black shoulders of the African slave.
There could be no manner of doubt as to the desirability of the slaves
from an economic standpoint, apparently the only standpoint that
received serious consideration. The indentured servant could be held
usually for but a few years. Hardly had he reached his greatest
usefulness for his master than he demanded his freedom. Thus for the man
of large means to keep his fields always in cultivation it was necessary
constantly to renew his supply of laborers. If he required twenty hands,
he must import each year some five or six servants, or run the risk of
finding himself running behind. But the slave served for life. The
planter who had purchased a full supply of negroes could feel that his
labor problems were settled once and for all. Not only could he hold the
slaves themselves for life, but their children also became his property
and took their places in the tobacco fields as soon as they approached
maturity.
Thus in the end the slave was far cheaper. The price of a servant
depended largely upon the cost of his passage across the ocean. We find
that William Matthews, having three years and nine months to serve, was
rated in the inventory of his master, John Thomas, at £12.[7-35] A
servant of Robert Leightenhouse, having two years to serve, was put at
£9;[7-36] while on the other hand we find another listed in the estate
of Colonel Francis Epes, also having two years to serve, at only
£5.[7-37] A white lad under indenture for seven years to Mr. Ralph
Graves was valued at £10.[7-38] On the whole it would seem that the
price of a sturdy man servant varied from £2 to £4 for each year of his
service. On the other hand a vigorous slave could be had at from £18 to
£30. Assuming that he gave his master twenty-five years of service, the
cost for each year would be but one pound sterling. There could be no
doubt, then, that in the mere matter of cost he was much cheaper than
the indentured white man.
It is true that the negro was none too efficient as a laborer. Born in
savagery, unacquainted with the English tongue, knowing little of
agriculture, it was a matter of some difficulty for him to accustom
himself to his task in the tobacco fields. Yet when his lesson had been
learned, when a few years of experience had taught him what his master
expected him to do, the slave showed himself quite adequate to the
requirements of the one staple crop. The culture of tobacco is not
essentially difficult, especially when pursued in the unscientific
manner of the colonial period. It required many, but not skilled hands.
The slave, untutored and unintelligent, proved inadequate to the
industrial needs of the northern colonies. The niceties of shipbuilding
were beyond his capacities, he was not needed as a fisherman, he was not
a good sailor, he was useless in the system of intensive agriculture in
vogue north of Maryland. But in the tobacco field he would do. He could
not at first tend so many plants as his white rival, he could not
produce tobacco of such fine quality, but what he lacked in efficiency
he more than made up for in cheapness.
The African seems to have withstood remarkably well the diseases
indigenous to eastern Virginia. There are occasional reports of
epidemics among the slaves, but usually they were fairly immune both to
malaria and dysentery. A census taken in 1714, when there were perhaps
15,000 negroes in the colony, records burials for sixty-two slaves
only.[7-39] The births of slaves for the same year totalled 253.[7-40]
These figures indicate not only the excellent physical condition in
which these black workers were kept by their masters, but the rapidity
with which they were multiplying. The low death rate is in part
explained by the fact that only strong men and women were transported to
the colonies, but it is none the less clearly indicative of the ease
with which the African accustomed himself to the climate of tidewater
Virginia.
As a rule the negro was more docile than the white servant, especially
if the latter happened to be from the ruder elements of English society.
He was not so apt to resist his master or to run away to the mountains.
Yet plots among the blacks were not unknown. In 1710 a conspiracy was
discovered among the slaves of Surry and James City counties which was
to have been put into execution on Easter day. The negroes planned to
rise simultaneously, destroy any who stood in their way, and make good
their escape out of the colony. Among the chief conspirators were Jamy,
belonging to Mr. John Broadnax, Mr. Samuel Thompson's Peter, Tom and
Cato of Mr. William Edwards, Great Jack and Little Jack of Mr. John
Edwards, and Will belonging to Mr. Henry Hart. "Two or three of these
were tried this general court," wrote Colonel Jennings, "found guilty
and will be executed. And I hope their fate will strike such a terror
in the other Negroes as will keep them from forming such designs for the
future."[7-41] The lesson did not prove lasting, however, for in 1730 a
number of slaves from Norfolk and Princess Anne counties assembled while
the whites were at church, and chose officers to command them in a bold
stroke for freedom. As in the previous attempt they were discovered,
many arrested and several of the ringleaders executed.[7-42]
Neither the merchants nor the planters seem to have been conscious of
any wrong in the seizure and sale of negroes. They regarded the native
Africans as hardly human, mere savages that were no more deserving of
consideration than oxen or horses. And as it was right and proper to
hitch the ox or the horse to the plow, so it was equally legitimate to
put the negro to work in the fields of sugar cane or tobacco. Whatever
hardships he had to endure upon the voyage to America or by reason of
his enforced labor, they considered amply compensated by his conversion
to Christianity.
It is true that the colony of Virginia early in the Eighteenth century
imposed a heavy duty upon the importation of slaves, but it did so
neither from any consciousness of wrong in slavery itself or a
perception of the social problems which were to grow out of it. At the
time the price of tobacco was declining rapidly and many planters were
losing money. Feeling that their misfortunes arose from overproduction,
which in turn was the result of the recent purchases of negroes, the
colonial legislators decided to check the trade. "The great number of
negroes imported here and solely employed in making tobacco," wrote
Governor Spotswood in 1711, "hath produced for some years past an
increase in tobacco far disproportionate to the consumption of it ...
and consequently lowered the price of it."[7-43] "The people of Virginia
will not now be so fond of purchasing negroes as of late," declared
President Jennings of the Virginia Council in 1708, "being sensibly
convinced of their error, which has in a manner ruined the credit of the
country."[7-44]
During the years from 1680 to 1700 slaves arrived in the colony in
increasing numbers. In 1681 William Fitzhugh, in a letter to Ralph
Wormeley, refers to the fact that several slave ships were expected that
year in the York river.[7-45] At this period, for the first time in
Virginia history, we find negroes in large numbers entered as headrights
upon the patent rolls. In 1693 Captain John Storey received a grant of
land for the importation of 79 negroes, in 1694 Robert Beverley brought
in seventy, in 1695 William Randolph twenty-five.[7-46] Before the end
of the century it is probable that the slaves in Virginia numbered
nearly 6,000, and had already become more important to the economic life
of the colony than the indentured servants.[7-47]
The chief purchasers at this time were men of large estates. The
advantages of slave labor were manifest to planters of the type of
William Byrd or William Fitzhugh, men who had built up fortunes by their
business ability. It is but natural that they should have turned early
from the indentured servant to stock their plantations with the cheaper
and more remunerative African workers.
As the English secured a stronger hold upon the African trade slaves
arrived in ever increasing numbers. During the years from 1699 to 1708
no less than 6,843 came in, a number perhaps exceeding the entire
importations of the Seventeenth century.[7-48] In the summer of 1705
alone 1,800 negroes arrived.[7-49] With what rapidity the black man was
taking the place of the indentured servant and the poor freeman as the
chief laborer of the colony is shown by the fact that in 1708, in a
total tithable list of 30,000, no less than 12,000 were slaves.
President Jennings at the same time reported that the number of
servants was inconsiderable.[7-50] "Before the year 1680 what negroes
came to Virginia were usually from Barbadoes," Jennings told the Board
of Trade in 1708. "Between 1680 and 1698 the negro trade become more
frequent, tho not in any proportion to what it hath been of late, during
which the African Company have sent several ships and others by their
licence having bought their slaves of the Company brought them here for
sale, among which lately Alderman Jeffreys and Sir Jeffry Jeffreys were
principally concerned."[7-51]
The wars of Charles XII, however, which proved disastrous to the Baltic
trade, and the War of the Spanish Succession which cut off exports of
tobacco to France and Spain, caused a serious decline in prices and made
it impossible for the planters to continue the large purchases of
slaves. This fact, together with the duty which had been imposed with
the express purpose of keeping them out, reduced the importations to a
minimum during the years from 1710 to 1718.[7-52] But with the reopening
of the tobacco market and the return of prosperity to Virginia, the
black stream set in again with redoubled force. In 1730, out of a total
population of 114,000, no less than 30,000 were negroes.[7-53] In other
words the slaves, who in 1670 had constituted but five per cent of the
people, now comprised twenty-six per cent. Slavery, from being an
insignificant factor in the economic life of the colony, had become the
very foundation upon which it was established.
As we have seen it was not slavery but the protracted accumulation of
surplus stocks of tobacco in England which had broken the long continued
deadlock of the tobacco trade during the Restoration period and caused
the overflow into continental markets. That the labor of blacks at first
played no essential part in the movement is evident from the fact that
in 1682 when it first became pronounced, the slave population of
Virginia and Maryland was still insignificant. But that the trade not
only continued after the glut in England had been cleared up, but
increased with startling rapidity, was unquestionably the result of more
universal use of negroes in the years immediately preceding the War of
the Spanish Succession. Slavery so cheapened the cost of production that
it was now quite possible for those who used them to pay the half penny
a pound duty on reëxported tobacco in England, and still undersell all
rivals in the European market. Before many years had passed the tobacco
trade, with all that it meant both to England and to the colonies,
rested almost entirely upon the labor of the savage black man so
recently brought from the African wilds.
That this fact was fully understood at the time is attested by various
persons interested in the colony and the trade. In 1728 Francis Fane, in
protesting against the imposition of a new tax in Virginia on the
importation of slaves declared "that Laying a Duty on Negroes can only
tend to make them scarcer and dearer, the two things that for the good
of our Trade and for the Benefit of Virginia ought chiefly to be guarded
against, since it is well known that the cheepness of Virginia tobacco
in European Marketts is the true Cause of the great Consumption thereof
in Europe, and one would have therefore Expected rather to have seen an
Act allowing a premium on the Importation of Negroes to have Encouraged
the bringing them in, than an Act laying so large a Duty to discourage
their Importation."[7-54] Similarly Colonel Spencer wrote to the Board
of Trade. "The low price of tobacco requires it should be made as cheap
as possible. The Blacks can make it cheaper than Whites, so I conceive
it is for his Majesty's interest full as much as the Country's or rather
much more, to have Blacks as cheap as possible in Virginia."[7-55]
It is evident, then, that the opening of the European market and the
vast expansion of the tobacco trade, while bringing prosperity to the
larger planters, was no great boon to the man who tilled his fields with
his own hands. It assured him a ready sale for his crop, it is true, but
at prices so low as to leave him a very narrow margin of profit. The new
era which was opening, the so-called golden era of Virginia history, was
not for him. Virginia in the Eighteenth century was to be the land of
the slave holder, not of the little planter.
_CHAPTER VIII_
BENEATH THE BLACK TIDE
The importation of slaves in large numbers reacted almost immediately
upon the migration of whites to Virginia. As we have seen, the stream of
indentured servants that poured across the Atlantic remained remarkably
constant throughout almost all of the Seventeenth century. The larger
planters were always in need of laborers, and they looked to the surplus
population of England to supply them. But with the coming of the blacks
all was changed. The Virginians saw in the slave ships which now so
frequently entered their rivers the solution of all their problems. And
so the influx of white men and women from the mother country dwindled
and almost died out, while in its place came a still greater stream from
the coast of Africa.
At the time of Bacon's Rebellion the annual importation of servants was
between 1,500 and 2,000. The headrights for 1674 show 1931 names.[8-1]
Seven years later the whites were still arriving in large numbers, the
rolls for 1682 having 1,565 names. As the century drew to a close,
however, the effect of the slave trade upon white immigration is
reflected in the dwindling number of headrights. The change that was
taking place is illustrated by a patent of 13,500 acres to Ralph
Wormleley for the transportation of 249 persons, 149 of whom were white
and 100 black.[8-2] Yet so late as 1704 the servants were still coming
in appreciable numbers. In 1708 however, the number of servants at work
in the colony had dwindled away almost entirely.[8-3] In 1715 the names
of white persons listed as headrights was but ninety-one; in 1718 but
101.[8-4] In other words, the first great migration of Englishmen to
continental America, a migration extending over a century and comprising
from 100,000 to 150,000 men, women and children, had practically come to
an end.
English statesmen at the time looked upon this event as an unalloyed
blessing. The day had passed when they felt that there existed a surplus
of labor at home and that the country was in need of blood letting. The
proper policy was to keep Englishmen in England, to devote their
energies to local industries and so strengthen the economic and military
sinews of the nation. And if unemployment existed, it was the correct
policy to bring work to the idle rather than send the idle out of the
country in quest of work.[8-5] And the colonies were to be utilized, no
longer as outlets for the population, but as a means to the upbuilding
of local industry. They were to supply a market for English goods, keep
employed English mariners and furnish the tobacco and sugar which when
re-exported weighed so heavily in the balance of trade. And since these
great staple crops could be produced by the work of slaves, it was
thought highly advantageous for all concerned that the negro should
replace the white servant in both the tobacco and the sugar fields. The
planters would profit by the lowered cost of production, English
industry would gain by the increased volume of traffic, the Crown
revenues would be enhanced and English laborers would be kept at
home.[8-6]
Apparently the deeper significance of this great movement was entirely
lost upon the British economists and ministers. They had no conception
of the advantage of having their colonies inhabited by one race alone
and that race their own. From the first their vision was too restricted
to embrace the idea of a new and greater Britain in its fullest sense.
They could not bring themselves to look upon the soil of Virginia and
Maryland as a part of the soil of an extended England, upon the
Virginians and Marylanders as Englishmen, enjoying privileges equal to
their own. They could not realize the strength that would come from such
an empire as this, the mighty future it would insure to the Anglo-Saxon
race.
Their conception was different. The British empire must consist of two
distinct parts--mother country and colonies. And in any clash of
interest between the two, the former must prevail. It was not their
intent that the colonies should be purposely sacrificed, that they
should be made to pay tribute to a tyrannical parent. In fact, they
earnestly desired that the plantations should prosper, for when they
languished English industry suffered. But in their eyes the colonies
existed primarily for the benefit of England. England had given them
birth, had defended them, had nurtured them; she was amply justified,
therefore, in subordinating them to her own industrial needs.
Thus they viewed the substitution of the importation of slaves to the
tobacco colonies for the importation of white men purely from an
English, not an Anglo-Saxon, point of view. Had it been a question of
bringing thousands of negroes to England itself to drive the white
laborers from the fields, they would have interposed an emphatic veto.
But with the structure of colonial life they were not greatly concerned.
In 1693, when James Blair secured from the King and Queen a gift for his
new college at Williamsburg, Attorney-General Seymour objected
vigorously, stating that there was not the least occasion for such an
institution in Virginia. Blair reminded him that the chief purpose of
the college was to educate young men for the ministry and begged him to
consider that the people of the colony had souls to be saved as well as
the people of England. "Souls! Damn your souls," snapped the
Attorney-General, "make tobacco."[8-7] It would be unfair to say that
the British Government took just the same view of the colonists as did
Seymour, but there can be no doubt that their chief concern in the
plantations was centered upon the size of their exports to England and
of their purchases of English goods. And as the slaves could make more
tobacco than the indentured servants, it became the settled policy of
the Crown to encourage the African trade in every possible way.
The influx of slaves not only put almost a complete end to the
importation of white servants, but it reacted disastrously upon the
Virginia yeomanry. In this respect we find a close parallel with the
experience of ancient Rome with slave labor. In the third and second
centuries before Christ the glory of the republic lay in its peasantry.
The self-reliant, sturdy, liberty-loving yeoman formed the backbone of
the conquering legion and added to the life of the republic that rugged
strength that made it so irresistible. "To say that a citizen is a good
farmer is to reach the extreme limit of praise," said Cato. Some of the
ablest of the early Roman generals were recruited from the small farmer
class. Fabius Maximus, the Dictator, in need of money, sent his son to
Rome to sell his sole possession, a little farm of seven jugera.
Regulus, while in Africa, asked that he be recalled from his command
because the hired man he had left to cultivate his fields had fled with
all his farm implements, and he feared his wife and children would
starve.[8-8]
This vigorous peasantry was destroyed by the importation of hordes of
slaves and the purchase of cheap foreign grain. So long as the wars of
Rome were limited to Italy the number of slaves was comparatively small,
but as her armies swept over the Mediterranean countries one after
another and even subdued the wild Gauls and Britains, an unending stream
of captives poured into the city and filled to overflowing the slave
markets. Cicero, during his short campaign against the Parthians wrote
to Atticus that the sale of his prisoners had netted no less than
12,000,000 sestercias. In Epirus 100,000 men were captured; 60,000
Cimbries and 100,000 Germans graced the triumph of Marius; Caesar is
said to have taken in Gaul another 100,000 prisoners. Soon the slave
became the cheapest of commodities, and he who possessed even the most
extensive lands could readily supply himself with the labor requisite
for their cultivation.
Thus thrown into competition with slave labor the peasant proprietor
found it impossible to sustain himself. The grain which he produced with
his own hands had to compete in the same market with that made by
slaves. It must, therefore, sell for the same price, a price so low that
it did not suffice to feed and clothe him and his family. So he was
forced to give up his little estate, an estate perhaps handed down to
him by generations of farmers, and migrate to the city of Rome, to swell
the idle and plebeian population. And once there he demanded bread, a
demand which the authorities dared not refuse. So the public treasury
laid out the funds for the purchase of wheat from all parts of the
world, from Spain, from Africa, from Sicily, wheat which was given away
or sold for a song. This in turn reacted unfavorably upon the peasants
who still clung to the soil in a desperate effort to wring from it a
bare subsistence, and accelerated the movement to the city.
Thus Italy was transformed from the land of the little farmer into the
land of big estates cultivated by slaves. A sad development surely, a
development which had much to do with the decay and final overthrow of
the mighty structure of the Roman Empire. In former times, Titus Livius
tells us, "there was a multitude of free men in this country where today
we can hardly find a handful of soldiers, and which would be a
wilderness were it not for our slaves." "The plough is everywhere
bereft of honor," wrote Virgil, while Lucian bewailed the departed
peasants whose places were taken by fettered slaves.[8-9]
The importation of slaves to Virginia had somewhat similar results.
While not destroying entirely the little farmer class, it exerted a
baleful influence upon it, driving many families out of the colony,
making the rich man richer, reducing the poor man to dire poverty.
Against this unfortunate development the Virginia yeoman was helpless.
Instinctively he must have felt that the slave was his enemy, and the
hatred and rivalry which even today exists between the negro and the
lowest class of whites, the so-called "poor white trash," dates back to
the Seventeenth century.
The emigration of poor persons, usually servants just freed, from
Virginia to neighboring colonies was well under way even at the time of
Bacon's Rebellion. In 1677 complaint was made of "the inconvenience
which arose from the neighborhood of Maryland and North Carolina," in
that Virginia was daily deprived of its inhabitants by the removal of
poor men hither. Runaway servants were welcomed in both places, it was
asserted, while the debtor was accorded protection against
prosecution.[8-10] This early emigration was caused, of course, not by
the importation of slaves, for that movement had not yet assumed
important proportions, but by the evil consequences of the Navigation
Acts. The Virginia yeoman moved on to other colonies because he found it
impossible to maintain himself at the current price of tobacco.
The continuance of the movement, for it persisted for a full half
century, must be ascribed to the competition of negro labor. Like the
Roman peasant, the Virginia yeoman, to an extent at least, found it
impossible to maintain himself in the face of slave competition. The
servant, upon the expiration of his term, no longer staked off his
little farm and settled down to a life of usefulness and industry. The
poor planter who had not yet fully established himself, sold or deserted
his fields and moved away in search of better opportunities and higher
returns.
This migration was not the first of its kind in the English colonies,
for the movement of Massachusetts congregations into the valley of the
Connecticut antedated it by several decades. Yet it furnishes an
interesting illustration of the lack of permanency in American life, of
the facility with which populations urged on by economic pressure of one
kind or another change localities. The great movement westward over the
Appalachian range which followed the War of 1812, the pilgrimages of
homesteaders to the northwest and the Pacific coast, find their
precedent in the exodus of these poor families from the tobacco fields
of Virginia.
In the last decade of the Seventeenth century the migration assumed such
large proportions that the Board of Trade became alarmed and directed
Francis Nicholson to enquire into its cause in order that steps might be
taken to stop it. The emigrant stream that directed itself northward did
not halt in eastern Maryland, for conditions there differed little from
those in Virginia itself. The settlers went on to the unoccupied lands
in the western part of the colony, or made their way into Delaware or
Pennsylvania. "The reason why inhabitants leave this province," wrote
Nicholson, while Governor of Maryland, "is, I think, the encouragement
which they receive from the Carolinas, the Jerseys, and above all from
Pennsylvania, which is so nigh that it is easy to remove thither. There
handicraft tradesmen have encouragement when they endeavor to set up
woolen manufactures."[8-11]
Although this explanation does not go to the root of the matter, it was
in part correct. The northern colonies held out far greater
opportunities for the poor man than the slave choked fields of
tidewater Maryland and Virginia. The industries of Pennsylvania and
Delaware and the Jerseys demanded a certain degree of skill and yielded
in return a very fair living. In other words, the poor settlers in
Virginia, finding that tobacco culture was now based upon the cheap
labor of African slaves, moved away to other localities where
intelligence still brought an adequate reward.
The Maryland House of Delegates, when asked to give their opinion in
this matter, thought that it was a desire to escape the payment of debts
which made some of the "meaner inhabitants" seek shelter in Delaware Bay
and the Carolinas. They came nearer the real cause when they added that
the low price paid by the merchants for tobacco obliged many to
leave.[8-12] Nicholson was not satisfied with this answer. "They will
not directly own," he wrote, "that setting up manufactures and
handicraft-trades in Pennsylvania, the large tracts of land held by some
persons here and the encouragement given to illegal traders are the
causes that make people leave this province. They would have it that
they wish to avoid the persecution of their creditors, which causes them
to shelter themselves among the inhabitants of the Lower Counties of
Delaware Bay and of Carolina. The low price of tobacco has obliged many
of the planters to try their fortune elsewhere, and the currency of
money in Pennsylvania, which here is not, draws them to that province
from this."[8-13]
In Virginia the difficulty of securing desirable land because of the
large tracts patented by rich planters was usually assigned as the
reason for the migration of poor families. This view of the matter was
taken by Edward Randolph, the man who had won the undying hatred of the
people of Massachusetts by his attempts to enforce the Navigation Acts
there and by his attacks upon their charter. In 1696 Randolph did
Virginia the honor of a visit, and although encountering there none of
the opposition which had so angered him in New England, he sent to the
Board of Trade a memorial concerning the colony, criticising the
government severely. "It should be inquired into," he said, "how it
comes to pass that the colony (the first English settlement on the
continent of America, begun above 80 years ago) is not better inhabited,
considering what vast numbers of servants and others have yearly been
transported thither.... The chief and only reason is the Inhabitants and
Planters have been and at this time are discouraged and hindered from
planting tobacco in that colony, and servants are not so willing to go
there as formerly, because the members of the Council and others, who
make an interest in the Government, have from time to time procured
grants of very large Tracts of land, so that there has not for many
years been any waste land to be taken up by those who bring with them
servants, or by such Servants, who have served their time faithfully
with their Masters, but it is taken up and ingrossed beforehand, whereby
they are forced to hyer and pay a yearly rent for some of those Lands,
or go to the utmost bounds of the Colony for Land, exposed to danger and
often times proves the Occasion of Warr with the Indians."[8-14]
For their large holdings the wealthy men paid not one penny of quit
rents, Randolph said, and failed to comply with the regulations for
seating new lands. The law demanded that upon receipt of a patent one
must build a house upon the ground, improve and plant the soil and keep
a good stock of cattle or hogs. But in their frontier holdings the
wealthy men merely erected a little bark hut and turned two or three
hogs into the woods by it. Or else they would clear one acre of land and
plant a little Indian corn for one year, trusting that this evasion
would square them with the letter of the law. By such means, Randolph
adds, vast tracts were held, all of which had been procured on easy
terms and much by means of false certificates of rights. "Which drives
away the inhabitants and servants, brought up only to planting, to seek
their fortunes in Carolina or other places."[8-15]
Randolph suggested that the evil might be remedied by requiring a strict
survey of lands in every county, by demanding all arrears of quit rents,
by giving strict orders that in the future no grant should exceed 500
acres. These measures, he believed, would cause 100,000 acres to revert
to the Crown, and "invite home those who for want of Land left
Virginia." It would encourage other persons to come from neighboring
colonies to take up holdings and "mightily increase the number of
Planters." This would augment the production of tobacco by many
thousands of hogsheads, stimulate trade and industry in England, and aid
his Majesty's revenue.
The Board of Trade was deeply impressed. They wrote to Governor Andros
explaining to him the substance of Randolph's report and asking what
steps should be taken to remedy the evils he had pointed out. "But this
seeming to us a matter of very great consequence," they added, "we have
not been willing to meddle in it without your advice, which we now
desire you to give fully and plainly." But Andros knew full well that it
was no easy matter to make the large landowners disgorge. The thing had
been attempted by Nicholson several years earlier, when suit was
instituted against Colonel Lawrence Smith for arrears of quit rents upon
tracts of land which had never been under cultivation.[8-16] But before
the case came to trial Nicholson had been recalled and it was afterward
compounded for a nominal sum. The proceedings had caused great
resentment among the powerful clique which centered around the Council
of State, and Andros was reluctant to reopen the matter. He knew of no
frauds in granting patents of land, he wrote the Board, and could
suggest no remedy for what was past, "being a matter of Property." He
agreed, however, that to limit the size of future patents would tend to
"the more regular planting and thicker seating of the frontier
lands."[8-17]
Consequently when Francis Nicholson was commissioned as Governor in
1698, he received strict instructions to advise with the Council and the
Assembly upon this matter and to report back to the Board.[8-18] That
nothing was accomplished, however, may clearly be inferred from a letter
of a certain George Larkin written December 22, 1701. "There is no
encouragement for anyone to come to the Plantation," he declared, "most
of the land lying at all convenient being taken up. Some have 20,000,
30,000 or 40,000 acres, the greater part of which is unimployed."[8-19]
Two years later Nicholson himself wrote that certain recent grants were
for ten or twenty thousand acres each, so that privileged persons had
engrossed all the good land in those parts, by which means they kept
others from settling it or else made them pay for it.[8-20]
Despite all the concern which this matter created, it is doubtful
whether it was to any appreciable extent responsible for the continued
emigration of poor families. The mere granting of patents for large
tracts of land could not of itself fix the economic structure of the
colony, could not, if all other conditions were favorable, prevent the
establishment of small freeholds. Rather than have their fields lie idle
while the poor men who should have been cultivating them trooped out of
the colony, the rich would gladly have sold them in small parcels at
nominal prices. In the first half century after the settlement at
Jamestown, as we have seen, such a breakup of extensive holdings into
little farms actually occurred. Had similar conditions prevailed in the
later period a like development would have followed. But in 1630 or
1650, when slaves were seldom employed and when tobacco was high, the
poor man's toil yielded a return so large that he could well afford to
purchase a little farm and make himself independent. In 1680 or 1700, in
the face of the competition of slave labor, he was almost helpless. Even
had he found a bit of unoccupied ground to which he could secure a
title, he could not make it yield enough to sustain him and his
family.[8-21]
In 1728 Governor Gooch wrote the Board of Trade that the former belief
that large holdings of frontier land had been an impediment to
settlement was entirely erroneous. It was his opinion, in fact, that
extensive grants made it to the interest of the owners to bring in
settlers and so populate the country. In confirmation of this he pointed
to the fact that Spotsylvania country, where many large patents had been
issued, had filled up more rapidly than Brunswick, where they had been
restricted in size.[8-22]
In the first decade of the new century the emigration out of the tobacco
colonies continued without abatement. With another disastrous decline in
the price of tobacco following the outbreak of the wars of Charles XII
and Louis XIV, so many families moved over the border that the Board of
Trade, once more becoming seriously alarmed, questioned the Council as
to the causes of the evil and what steps should be taken to remedy it.
In their reply the Councillors repeated the old arguments, declaring
that the lack of land in Virginia and the immunity of debtors from
prosecution in the proprietory colonies were responsible for the
movement. But they touched the heart of the matter in their further
statement that the great stream of negroes that was pouring into the
colony had so increased the size of the tobacco crop that prices had
declined and the poor found it difficult to subsist. Not only "servants
just free go to North Carolina," they wrote, "but old planters whose
farms are worn out."[8-23]
A year later President Jennings stated that the migration was
continuing and that during the summer of 1709 "many entire families" had
moved out of the colony.[8-24] In fact, although but few indentured
servants arrived from England after the first decade of the century,
poor whites were still departing for the north or for western Carolina
so late as 1730. William Byrd II tells us that in 1728, when he was
running the dividing line between Virginia and North Carolina, he was
entertained by a man who "was lately removed, Bag and Baggage from
Maryland, thro a strong Antipathy he had to work and paying his Debts."
Indeed he thought it a "thorough Aversion to Labor" which made "People
file off to North Carolina."[8-25]
It is impossible to estimate the numbers involved in this movement, but
they must have run into the thousands. For a full half century a large
proportion of the white immigrants to Virginia seem to have remained
there for a comparatively short time only, then to pass on to other
settlements. And the migration to Virginia during these years we know to
have comprised not less than thirty or thirty-five thousand persons. In
fact, it would seem that this movement out of the older colony must have
been a very important factor in the peopling of its neighbors, not only
western Carolina and western Maryland, but Delaware and Pennsylvania.
Though many thus fled before the stream of negroes which poured in from
Africa, others remained behind to fight for their little plantations.
Yet they waged a losing battle. Those who found it possible to purchase
slaves, even one or two, could ride upon the black tide, but the others
slowly sank beneath it.
During the first half of the Eighteenth century the poor whites sought
to offset the cheapness of slave made tobacco by producing themselves
only the highest grades. The traders who dealt in the finest Orinoco,
which brought the best prices, found it not upon the plantations of the
wealthy, but of those who tended their plants with their own hands. "I
must beg you to remember that the common people make the best," wrote
Governor Gooch to the Lords of Trade in 1731.[8-26]
In fact, the wealthy planter, with his newly acquired gangs of slaves,
found it difficult at this time to produce any save the lower grades of
tobacco. The African was yet too savage, too untutored in the ways of
civilization to be utilized for anything like intensive cultivation.
"Though they may plant more in quantity," wrote Gooch, "yet it
frequently proves very mean stuff, different from the Tobacco produced
from well improved and well tended Grounds." "Yet the rich Man's trash
will always damp the Market," he adds, "and spoil the poor Man's good
Tobacco which has been carefully managed."[8-27] Thus the small farmer
made one last desperate effort to save himself by pitting his superior
intelligence against the cheapness of slave labor.
But his case was hopeless. As slavery became more and more fixed upon
the colony, the negro gradually increased in efficiency. He learned to
speak his master's language, brokenly of course, but well enough for all
practical purposes. He was placed under the tutelage of overseers, who
taught him the details of his work and saw that he did it. He became a
civilized being, thoroughly drilled in the one task required of him, the
task of producing tobacco. Thus the rich planter soon found it possible
to cultivate successfully the higher grades, and so to drive from his
last rampart the white freeholder whose crop was tended by himself
alone.
Placed at so great a disadvantage, the poor man, at all times in very
difficult circumstances, found it almost impossible to exist whenever
conditions in Europe sent the price of tobacco down. In the years from
1706 to 1714, when the tobacco trade was interrupted by the wars of
Charles XII in the Baltic region and the protracted struggle known as
the War of the Spanish Succession, he was reduced to the utmost
extremities.
Virginia and Maryland were learning that a prosperity founded upon one
crop which commanded a world market was in unsettled times subject to
serious setbacks. It was a long cry from the James and the Potomac to
the Baltic ports, yet the welfare of the Virginia and Maryland planters
was in no small degree dependent upon the maintenance of peaceful
conditions in Poland and Sweden and Russia. A war which seriously
curtailed the exportation of English leaf to the northern countries
would inevitably react on the price and so bring misfortune to the
colonial planters. When called before the Board of Trade to testify as
to the decay of the tobacco trade, the manufacturer John Linton declared
that the Baltic countries, which formerly had purchased thousands of
hogsheads a year, now took comparatively few. "The Russian trade is
ruined," he said.[8-28]
The war against France and Spain, coming at this unfortunate juncture,
still further restricted the market, sent prices down to new depths and
filled to overflowing the planters' cup of misfortune. "The war has
stopped the trade with Spain, France, Flanders and part of the Baltic,"
Colonel Quary reported in a memorial to the Board of Trade, "which took
off yearly 20,000 hogsheads of tobacco. Now our best foreign market is
Holland."[8-29] The pamphlet entitled _The Present State of the Tobacco
Plantations in America_ stated, in 1708, that France and Spain alone had
imported 20,000 hogsheads, but that both were now otherwise supplied.
"The troubles in Sweden, Poland, Russia, etc., have prevented the usual
exportation of great quantities to those ports. Virginia and Maryland
have severely felt the loss of such exportation, having so far reduced
the planters that for several years past the whole product of their
tobacco would hardly clothe the servants that made it."[8-30]
Their misfortunes were accentuated by the fact that the Dutch took
advantage of the European upheavals to gain control of a part of the
tobacco trade. Upon the outbreak of the war with Louis XIV, England
prohibited the exportation of tobacco either to France or to Spain, but
Holland, despite her participation in the struggle, apparently took no
such action. On the contrary she strained every nerve to entrench
herself in the markets of her ally before peace should once more open
the flood gates to Virginia and Maryland tobacco. With this in view the
acreage in Holland devoted to the cultivation of the leaf was rapidly
extended. "The Dutch are improving and increasing their tobacco
plantations," wrote John Linton in 1706. "In 1701 they produced only
18,000 hogsheads. Last year it was 33,500 hogsheads." Plantations at
Nimwegen, Rhenen, Amersfoort and Nijkerk turned out 13,400,000 pounds,
while great quantities were raised on the Main, in Higher Germany and in
Prussia.[8-31]
The Dutch mixed their own leaf with that of Virginia and Maryland in the
proportion of four to one, subjected it to a process of manufacture and
sent it out to all the European markets.[8-32] In 1707 a letter to John
Linton stated that they had from thirty to forty houses for "making up
tobacco in rolls," employing 4,000 men, besides great numbers of women
and girls. Their Baltic exports were estimated at 12,350,000 pounds;
2,500,000 pounds to Norway, 1,500,000 to Jutland and Denmark, 4,000,000
to Sweden, 2,350,000 to Lapland, 2,000,000 to Danzig and
Königsberg.[8-33]
With the continuation of the war on the continent Dutch competition
became stronger and stronger. In 1714, when peace was at last in
prospect, they seemed thoroughly entrenched in many of the markets
formerly supplied by the English. "The planting of tobacco in Holland,
Germany, Etc.," it was reported to the Board of Trade, "is increased to
above four times what it was 20 years ago, and amounts now to as much as
is made in both Virginia and Maryland." The tobacco trade, which had
formerly produced some £250,000 in the balance of trade, had declined to
about half that figure, exports of manufactured goods to the Chesapeake
were rapidly dwindling, the number of ships engaged in carrying tobacco
was greatly reduced, the merchants were impoverished, the planters were
ruined.[8-34]
"It is hardly possible to imagine a more miserable spectacle than the
poorer sort of inhabitants in this colony," the Council wrote in 1713,
"whose labour in tobacco has not for several years afforded them
clothing to shelter them from the violent colds as well as heats to both
which this climate is subject in the several seasons. The importation of
British and other European commodities by the merchants, whereby the
planters were formerly well supplied with clothing, is now in a manner
wholly left off and the small supplies still ventured sold at such
prodigeous rates as they please. Many families formerly well clothed and
their houses well furnished are now reduced to rags and all the visible
marks of poverty."[8-35]
This unfortunate period was but temporary. With the conclusion of peace
English tobacco was dumped upon the European market at a figure so low
as to defy competition. And when once the hogsheads began to move, the
reaction on Virginia and Maryland was rapid and pronounced. Soon prices
rose again to the old levels, and the colony entered upon a period, for
the larger planters at least, of unprecedented prosperity.[8-36] But the
eight years of hardship and poverty made a lasting imprint upon the
poorest class of whites. Coming as they did upon the heels of the first
great wave of negro immigration, they accelerated the movement of the
disrupting forces already at work. It was not by accident that the
largest migration of whites to other settlements occurred just at this
time and that the inquiries as to its cause are most frequent. The
little planter class never fully recovered from the blow dealt it by the
temporary loss of the larger part of the European tobacco trade.
The small freeholders who possessed neither servants nor slaves did not
disappear entirely, but they gradually declined in numbers and sank into
abject poverty. During the period of Spotswood's administration they
still constituted a large part of the population. The tax list for 1716
in Lancaster, one of the older counties, shows that of 314 persons
listed as tithables, 202 paid for themselves only.[8-37] Making ample
deductions for persons not owning land it would appear that more than
half the planters at this date still tilled their fields only with their
own labor. At the time of the American Revolution, however, the
situation had changed materially, and a decided dwindling of the poor
farmer class is noticeable. In Gloucester county the tax lists for
1782-83 show 490 white families, of which 320 were in possession of
slaves. Of the 170 heads of families who possessed no negroes, since no
doubt some were overseers, some artisans, some professional men, it is
probable that not more than eighty or ninety were proprietors.[8-38] In
Spotsylvania county similar conditions are noted. Of 704 tithable whites
listed in 1783 all save 199 possessed slaves.[8-39] In Dinwiddie county,
in the year 1782, of 843 tithable whites, 210 only were not slave
holders.[8-40] Apparently the Virginia yeoman, the sturdy, independent
farmer of the Seventeenth century, who tilled his little holding with
his own hands, had become an insignificant factor in the life of the
colony. The glorious promises which the country had held out to him in
the first fifty years of its existence had been belied. The Virginia
which had formerly been so largely the land of the little farmer, had
become the land of masters and slaves. For aught else there was no
room.
Before the end of the Eighteenth century the condition of the poorest
class had become pitiable. The French philosopher Chastellux who spent
much time in Virginia during the American Revolution testifies to their
extreme misery. "It is there that I saw poor persons for the first time
since crossing the ocean," he says. "In truth, near these rich
plantations, in which the negro alone is unhappy, are often found
miserable huts inhabited by whites whose wan faces and ragged garments
give testimony to their poverty."[8-41]
Philip Fithian, in his _Journal_, describes the habits of this class and
is vigorous in his condemnation of the brutal fights which were so
common among them. "In my opinion animals which seek after and relish
such odius and filthy amusements are not of the human species," he says,
"they are destitute of the remotest pretension of humanity."[8-42] Even
the negroes of the wealthy regarded these persons with contempt, a
contempt which they were at no pains to conceal.
The traveller Smyth thought them "kind, hospitable and generous," but
"illiberal, noisy and rude," and much "addicted to inebriety and averse
to labor." This class, he says, "who ever compose the bulk of mankind,
are in Virginia more few in numbers, in proportion to the rest of the
inhabitants, than perhaps in any other country in the universe."[8-43]
But it must not be imagined that slavery drove out or ruined the entire
class of small farmers, leaving Virginia alone to the wealthy. In fact,
most of those who were firmly established remained, finding their
salvation in themselves purchasing slaves. Few indeed had been able to
avail themselves of the labor of indentured servants; the cost of
transportation was too heavy, the term too short, the chances of
sickness or desertion too great. But with the influx of thousands of
negroes, the more enterprising and industrious of the poor planters
quite frequently made purchases. Although the initial outlay was
greater, they could secure credit by pledging their farms and their
crops, and in the end the investment usually paid handsome dividends and
many who could not raise the money to buy a full grown negro, often
found it possible to secure a child, which in time would become a
valuable asset.
This movement may readily be traced by an examination of the tax lists
and county records of the Eighteenth century. In Lancaster even so early
as 1716 we find that the bulk of the slaves were in the hands, not of
wealthy proprietors, but of comparatively poor persons. Of the 314
taxpayers listed, 113 paid for themselves alone, 94 for two only, 37 for
three, 22 for four, thirteen for five, while thirty-five paid for more
than five. As there were but few servants in the colony at this time it
may be taken for granted that the larger part of the tithables paid for
by others were negro slaves. It would seem, then, that of some 200 slave
owners in this country, about 165 possessed from one to four negroes
only. There were but four persons listed as having more than twenty
slaves, William Ball with 22, Madam Fox with 23, William Fox with 25 and
Robert Carter with 126.[8-44]
Nor did the class of little slave holders melt away as time passed. In
fact they continued to constitute the bulk of the white population of
Virginia for a century and a half, from the beginning of the Eighteenth
century until the conquest of the State by Federal troops in 1865. Thus
we find that of 633 slave owners in Dinwiddie county in 1782, 95 had one
only, 66 had two, 71 three, 45 four, 50 five, making an aggregate of
327, or more than half of all the slave holders, who possessed from one
to five negroes.[8-45] In Spotsylvania there were, in 1783, 505 slave
owners, of whom 78 possessed one each, 54 two, 44 three, 41 four, and 30
five each. Thus 247, or nearly 49 per cent of the slave holders, had
from one to five slaves only. One hundred and sixteen, or 23 per cent,
had from six to ten inclusive.[8-46] The Gloucester lists for 1783 show
similar conditions. There were in this country 320 slave holders, having
3,314 negroes, an average of about 10-1/3 for each owner. Fifty had one
each, 41 had two each, 9 had three, 30 had four and twenty-six had five.
Thus 156, or about half of all the owners, had from one to five
slaves.[8-47] In Princess Anne county, of a total of 388 slave owners,
100 had one each, 56 had two each and forty-five had three each.[8-48]
Records of transfers of land tend to substantiate this testimony, by
showing that the average holdings at all times in the Eighteenth century
were comparatively small. In the years from 1722 to 1729 Spotsylvania
was a new county, just opened to settlers, and a large part of its area
had been granted in large tracts to wealthy patentees. Yet the deed book
for these years shows that it was actually settled, not by these men
themselves, but by a large number of poor planters. Of the 197 transfers
of land recorded, 44 were for 100 acres or less and 110 for 300 acres or
less. The average deed was for 487 acres. As some of the transfers were
obviously made for speculative purposes and not with the intent of
putting the land under cultivation, even this figure is misleading. The
average farm during the period was probably not in excess of 400 acres.
One of the most extensive dealers in land in Spotsylvania was Larkin
Chew who secured a patent for a large tract and later broke it up into
many small holdings which were sold to new settlers.[8-49]
This substitution of the small slave holder for the man who used only
his own labor in the cultivation of his land unquestionably saved the
class of small proprietors from destruction. Without it all would have
been compelled to give up their holdings in order to seek their fortunes
elsewhere, or sink to the condition of "poor white trash." Yet the
movement was in many ways unfortunate. It made the poor man less
industrious and thrifty. Formerly he had known that he could win
nothing except by the sweat of his brow, but now he was inclined to let
the negro do the work. Slavery cast a stigma upon labor which proved
almost as harmful to the poor white man as did negro competition. Work
in the tobacco fields was recognized as distinctly the task of an
inferior race, a task not in keeping with the dignity of freemen.
Jefferson states that few indeed of the slave owners were ever seen to
work. "For in a warm climate," he adds, "no man will labour for himself
who can make another labour for him."[8-50] Chastellux noted the same
tendency, declaring "that the indolence and dissipation of the middling
and lower classes of white inhabitants of Virginia is such as to give
pain to every reflecting mind."[8-51]
Slavery developed in the small farmers a spirit of pride and haughtiness
that was unknown to them in the Seventeenth century. Every man, no
matter how poor, was surrounded by those to whom he felt himself
superior, and this gave him a certain self-esteem. Smyth spoke of the
middle class as generous, friendly and hospitable in the extreme, but
possessing a rudeness and haughtiness which was the result of their
"general intercourse with slaves."[8-52] Beverley described them as
haughty and jealous of their liberties, and so impatient of restraint
that they could hardly bear the thought of being controlled by any
superior power. Hugh Jones, Anbury, Fithian and other Eighteenth century
writers all confirm this testimony.
Despite the persistence of the small slave holder it is obvious that
there were certain forces at work tending to increase the number of
well-to-do and wealthy planters. Now that the labor problem, which in
the Seventeenth century had proved so perplexing, had finally been
solved, there was no limit to the riches that might be acquired by
business acumen, industry and good management. And as in the modern
industrial world the large corporation has many advantages over the
smaller firms, so in colonial Virginia the most economical way of
producing tobacco was upon the large plantations.
The wealthy man had the advantage of buying and selling in bulk, he
enjoyed excellent credit and could thus often afford to withhold his
crop from the market when prices were momentarily unfavorable, he could
secure the best agricultural instruments. Most important of all,
however, was the fact that he could utilize the resources of his
plantation for the production of crude manufactured supplies, thus to a
certain extent freeing himself from dependence upon British imports and
keeping his slaves at work during all seasons of the year. Before the
Eighteenth century had reached its fifth decade every large plantation
had become to a remarkable degree self-sustaining. Each numbered among
its working force various kinds of mechanics--coopers, blacksmiths,
tanners, carpenters, shoemakers, distillers. These men could be set to
work whenever the claims of the tobacco crop upon their time were not
imperative producing many of the coarser articles required upon the
plantation, articles which the poor farmer had to import from England.
For this work white men were at first almost universally made use of,
but in time their places were taken by slaves. "Several of them are
taught to be sawyers, carpenters, smiths, coopers, &c.," says the
historian Hugh Jones, "though for the most part they be none of the
aptest or nicest."[8-53]
The carpenter was kept busy constructing barns and servants' quarters,
or repairing stables, fences, gates and wagons. The blacksmith was
called upon to shoe horses, to keep in order ploughs, hinges, sickles,
saws, perhaps even to forge outright such rough iron ware as nails,
chains and hoes. The cooper made casks in which to ship the tobacco
crop, barrels for flour and vats for brandy and cider. The tanner
prepared leather for the plantation and the cobbler fashioned it into
shoes for the slaves. Sometimes there were spinners, weavers and
knitters who made coarse cloth both for clothing and for bedding. The
distiller every season made an abundant supply of cider, as well as
apple, peach and persimmon brandy.
And the plantation itself provided the materials for this varied
manufacture. The woods of pine, chestnut and oak yielded timber for
houses and fuel for the smithy. The herd of cattle supplied hides for
the tanner. The cloth makers got cotton, flax and hemp from the
planter's own fields, and wool from his sheep. His orchard furnished
apples, grapes, peaches in quantities ample for all the needs of the
distiller. In other words, the large planter could utilize
advantageously the resources at hand in a manner impossible for his
neighbor who could boast of but a small farm and half a score of
slaves.[8-54]
It was inevitable, then, that the widespread use of slave labor would
result in the gradual multiplication of well-to-do and wealthy men. In
the Seventeenth century not one planter in fifty could be classed as a
man of wealth, and even so late as 1704 the number of the well-to-do was
very narrowly limited. In a report to the Lords of Trade written in that
year Colonel Quary stated that upon each of the four great rivers of
Virginia there resided from "ten to thirty men who by trade and industry
had gotten very competent estates."[8-55] Fifty years later the number
had multiplied several times over.
Thus in Gloucester county in 1783, of 320 slave holders no less than 57
had sixteen or more. Of these one possessed 162, one 138, one 93, one
86, one 63, one 58, two 57, one 56, one 43 and one 40.[8-56] In
Spotsylvania, of 505 owners, 76 had sixteen or more. Of these Mann Page,
Esq., had 157, Mrs. Mary Daingerfield had 71, William Daingerfield 61,
Alexander Spotswood 60, William Jackson 49, George Stubblefield 42,
Frances Marewither 40, William Jones 39.[8-57]
The Dinwiddie tax lists for 1783 show that of 633 slave holders, no less
than 60 had twenty-one or more negroes. Among the more important of
these were Robert Turnbull with 81, Colonel John Banister with 88,
Colonel William Diggs with 72, John Jones with 69, Mrs. Mary Bolling
with 51, Robert Walker with 52, Winfield Mason with 40, John Burwell
with 42, Gray Briggs with 43, William Yates with 55, Richard Taliaferro
with 43, Major Thomas Scott with 57, Francis Muir with 47.[8-58] The
wealth of the larger planters is also shown by the large number of
coaches recorded in these lists, which including phaetons, chariots and
chairs, aggregated 180 wheels.
Thus it was that the doors of opportunity opened wide to the
enterprising and industrious of the middle class, and many availed
themselves of it to acquire both wealth and influence. Smyth tells us
that at the close of the colonial period there were many planters whose
fortunes were "superior to some of the first rank," but whose families
were "not so ancient nor respectable."[8-59] It was the observation of
Anbury that gentlemen of good estates were more numerous in Virginia
than in any other province of America.[8-60]
In fact the Eighteenth century was the golden age of the Virginia slave
holders. It was then that they built the handsome homes once so numerous
in the older counties, many of which still remain as interesting
monuments of former days; it was then that they surrounded themselves
with graceful furniture and costly silverware, in large part imported
from Great Britain; it was then that they collected paintings and filled
their libraries with the works of standard writers; it was then that
they purchased coaches and berlins; it was then that men and women
alike wore rich and expensive clothing.
This movement tended to widen the influence of the aristocracy and at
the same time to eliminate any sharp line of demarkation between it and
the small slave holders. There was now only a gradual descent from the
wealthiest to the poor man who had but one slave. The Spotsylvania tax
lists for 1783 show 247 slaveholders owning from one to five negroes,
116 owning from six to ten inclusive, 66 owning from eleven to fifteen
inclusive, and seventy-six owning more than fifteen.[8-61] In Gloucester
156 had from one to five slaves, 66 from five to ten inclusive, 41 from
eleven to fifteen inclusive, and fifty-seven over fifteen. Thus in a
very true sense the old servant holding aristocracy had given way to a
vastly larger slave holding aristocracy.
It is this fact which explains the decline in power and influence of the
Council in Virginia, which was so notable in the Eighteenth century.
This body had formerly been representative of a small clique of families
so distinct from the other planters and possessed of such power in the
government as to rival the nobility of England itself. Now, however, as
this distinction disappeared, the Council sank in prestige because it
represented nothing, while the House of Burgesses became the mouthpiece
of the entire slave holding class, and thus the real power in the
colonial Government.
Historians have often expressed surprise at the small number of Tories
in Virginia during the American Revolution. The aristocratic type of
society would naturally lead one to suppose that a large proportion of
the leading families would have remained loyal to the Crown. Yet with
very few exceptions all supported the cause of freedom and independence,
even though conscious of the fact that by so doing they were
jeopardizing not only the tobacco trade which was the basis of their
wealth, but the remnants of their social and political privileges in the
colony. When the British Ministry tried to wring from the hands of the
Assembly the all-important control over taxation which all knew to be
the very foundation of colonial self-government, every planter, the
largest as well as the smallest, felt himself aggrieved, for this body
was the depository of his power and the guardian of his interests. A
hundred years before, when the commons rose against the oppression and
tyranny of the Government, the wealthy men rallied to the support of Sir
William Berkeley and remained loyal to him throughout all his troubles.
In 1775 there was no such division of the people; the planters were
almost a unit in the defense of rights which all held in common.
It is obvious, then, that slavery worked a profound revolution in the
social, economic and political life of the colony. It practically
destroyed the Virginia yeomanry, the class of small planters who used
neither negroes nor servants in the cultivation of their fields, the
class which produced the bulk of the tobacco during the Seventeenth
century and constituted the chief strength of the colony. Some it drove
into exile, either to the remote frontiers or to other colonies; some it
reduced to extreme poverty; some it caused to purchase slaves and so at
one step to enter the exclusive class of those who had others to labor
for them. Thus it transformed Virginia from a land of hardworking,
independent peasants, to a land of slaves and slave holders. The small
freeholder was not destroyed, as was his prototype of ancient Rome, but
he was subjected to a change which was by no means fortunate or
wholesome. The wealthy class, which had formerly consisted of a narrow
clique closely knit together by family ties, was transformed into a
numerous body, while all sharp line of demarkation between it and the
poorer slave holders was wiped out. In short, the Virginia of the
Eighteenth century, the Virginia of Gooch and Dinwiddie and Washington
and Jefferson, was fundamentally different from the Virginia of the
Seventeenth century, the Virginia of Sir William Berkeley and Nathaniel
Bacon. Slavery had wrought within the borders of the Old Dominion a
profound and far reaching revolution.
NOTES TO CHAPTERS
NOTES TO CHAPTER I
[1-1] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, A True
Declaration, p. 25.
[1-2] Purchas, Vol. XVIII, pp. 437-438.
[1-3] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, A True
Declaration, p. 23.
[1-4] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p. 37.
[1-5] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brittania, pp.
21-22.
[1-6] Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 89-90.
[1-7] Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 105.
[1-8] Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 31.
[1-9] Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 14-15.
[1-10] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 49.
[1-11] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.
349; Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brittania, pp.
16-17.
[1-12] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.
239.
[1-13] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.
202.
[1-14] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 445.
[1-15] Neill, The Virginia Company of London, p. 338.
[1-16] Randolph Manuscript, p. 212.
[1-17] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 440;
Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p. 239.
[1-18] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 441.
[1-19] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 443.
NOTES TO CHAPTER II
[2-1] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 161;
Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 232.
[2-2] William Strachey, Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia, p.
121; P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 162.
[2-3] Ralph Hamor, True Discourse, pp. 24, 34.
[2-4] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 79.
[2-5] Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 535.
[2-6] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.
[2-7] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 87.
[2-8] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 81.
[2-9] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.
[2-10] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 40-41.
[2-11] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 176-177.
[2-12] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 416.
[2-13] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, pp.
355-356.
[2-14] The lack of towns in Virginia was a source of great regret to the
English Government, and more than once attempts were made to create them
by artificial means.
[2-15] Even at the end of the Seventeenth century the average price for
land in the older counties was about thirty pounds of tobacco an acre.
[2-16] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 578; Vol.
II, p. 48.
[2-17] It was Chanco, an Indian boy living with a Mr. Pace, who revealed
the plot to massacre the whites in 1622, and so saved the colony from
destruction. Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 578.
[2-18] P. A. Bruce, The Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 70.
[2-19] For a full discussion of this matter see p.--.
[2-20] Hakluyt, Vol. VII, p. 286.
[2-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 582.
[2-22] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. I,
pp. 28, 172; Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 609.
[2-23] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510.
[2-24] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 603.
[2-25] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 605.
[2-26] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, Register of Land Office, Virginia
State Capitol.
[2-27] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510.
[2-28] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 611.
[2-29] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of
Trade.
[2-30] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Orders and
Constitutions, 1619, 1620, p. 22.
[2-31] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[2-32] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660, p. 208.
[2-33] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton
University Library.
[2-34] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
NOTES TO CHAPTER III
[3-1] L. G. Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia, pp. 21-22.
[3-2] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. II,
p. 171.
[3-3] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of
Trade.
[3-4] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 257.
[3-5] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 411.
[3-6] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 539.
[3-7] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of
Trade.
[3-8] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[3-9] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 595.
[3-10] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America (1600-1700).
[3-11] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 3.
[3-12] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of
Trade.
[3-13] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 119, Colonial Entry
Book, Governor Andros to the Lords of Trade.
[3-14] E. D. Neill, Virginia Vetusta, p. 123.
[3-15] Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia, p. 61.
[3-16] Surry County Records, 1684-1686, Virginia State Library.
[3-17] York County Records, 1696-1701, Virginia State Library.
[3-18] Rappahannock County Deeds, 1680-1688, Virginia State Library.
[3-19] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State
Library.
[3-20] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.
266-275.
[3-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 529-532.
[3-22] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[3-23] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 30.
[3-24] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 387.
[3-25] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[3-26] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[3-27] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State
Library.
[3-28] Surry County Records, 1645-1672, p. 17.
[3-29] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, p. 348, Virginia
State Library.
[3-30] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol, Vol. V.
[3-31] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, pp. 199, 202, 205,
209, 216, 348, 394, 407, 413, Virginia State Library.
[3-32] H. R. McIlwaine, Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1686, p. 37.
[3-33] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial Entry
Book.
[3-34] British Public Record Office, CO5-1306, Document 116,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[3-35] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 361, Colonial Entry
Book.
[3-36] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial Entry
Book.
[3-37] British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, p. 460, Council Minutes,
1680-1695.
[3-38] British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, pp. 544-545, Council
Minutes, 1680-1695.
[3-39] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 345, Colonial Entry
Book, 1696-1700.
[3-40] British Public Record Office, CO5-1339, Document 33V.
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[3-41] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63VIII,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade. A copy of this interesting
document is published as an appendix to this volume.
[3-42] See appendix.
[3-43] See appendix.
[3-44] Of this land 15 acres belonged to Thomas Jefferson, probably the
grandfather of President Jefferson.
[3-45] In the opening years of the Eighteenth century the increased
importation of slaves brought about an immediate decline in the
migration of whites to Virginia from England.
[3-46] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 480. The laws governing
the tithables were altered slightly from time to time.
[3-47] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138,
Virginia State Library.
[3-48] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138,
Virginia State Library.
[3-49] Surry County, Deeds, Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, pp. 59-63, Virginia
State Library.
[3-50] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 364-373.
[3-51] Prince George county was formed out of Charles City in 1703.
[3-52] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684; Surry County, Deeds,
Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, Virginia State Library.
[3-53] Elizabeth City County Records, 1684-1699, Virginia State Library.
NOTES TO CHAPTER IV
[4-1] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273.
[4-2] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273.
[4-3] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 42.
[4-4] Robert Beverley, History of Virginia, p. 221.
[4-5] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,
p. 11.
[4-6] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, p. 31.
[4-7] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,
p. 11.
[4-8] In fact, it was stated by John Hammond in 1656 that many servants
acquired considerable property even before the expiration of their
indentures. "Those servants that will be industrious may in their time
of service gain a competent estate before their Freedomes," he says,
"which is usually done by many, and they gaine esteeme and assistance
that appear so industrious: There is no master almost but will allow
his Servant a parcell of clear ground to plant some tobacco in for
himselfe, which he may husband at those many idle times he hath allowed
him and not prejudice, but rejoyce his Master to see it, which in time
of Shipping he may lay out for commodities, and in Summer sell them
again with advantage, and get a Sow-Pig or two, which any body almost
will give him, and his Master suffer him to keep them with his own,
which will be no charge to his Master, and with one year's increase of
them may purchase a Cow calf or two, and by that time he is for himself;
he may have Cattle, Hogs and Tobacco of his own, and come to live
gallantly; but this must be gained (as I said) by Industry and
affability, not by sloth nor churlish behaviour." Peter Force, Tracts
and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel, p. 14.
[4-9] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, p. 157.
[4-10] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 262.
[4-11] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 261.
[4-12] R. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 154.
[4-13] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 160.
[4-14] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XIII, p. 381.
[4-15] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, pp. 4-6.
[4-16] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Secretary Ludwell to Lord
John Berkeley.
[4-17] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.
[4-18] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 267,
King Charles I to the Governor and Council of Virginia.
[4-19] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 293.
[4-20] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 376.
[4-21] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 53.
[4-22] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 394.
[4-23] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 260.
[4-24] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 382.
[4-25] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 149.
[4-26] Governor Yeardley's Instructions of 1626 contain the statement
that "tobacco falleth every day more and more to a baser price."
[4-27] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 376.
[4-28] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 159.
[4-29] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p. 177.
[4-30] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 425.
[4-31] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 159.
[4-32] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 4.
[4-33] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 150.
[4-34] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 288. In
Feb. 1627, orders were issued once more that all colonial tobacco,
whether of Virginia or of the West Indies, should be shipped only to
London. Calendar of State Papers, 1574-1660, p. 84.
[4-35] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, pp. 149,
155.
[4-36] British Public Record Office, CO1-12, Petition of Jan. 2, 1655.
[4-37] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 349-356.
[4-38] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, pp. 203-204.
[4-39] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 216.
[4-40] The author of A New Description of Virginia, published in 1649,
states that "in Tobacco they can make L20 sterling a man, at 3d a pound
per annum." Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New
Description of Virginia, p. 6.
[4-41] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 382.
[4-42] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 149,
Vol. II, p. 53, Vol. VII, p. 259.
[4-43] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 260.
[4-44] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 158.
[4-45] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. I,
pp. 41-42.
[4-46] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.
201-265.
[4-47] Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 54-55.
[4-48] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, p. 16.
[4-49] Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 68-69.
[4-50] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[4-51] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 420.
[4-52] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 421; Vol.
IV, p. 75.
[4-53] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 77.
[4-54] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 15-18.
[4-55] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 56.
[4-56] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[4-57] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 271.
[4-58] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276.
[4-59] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, pp. 271-276.
[4-60] Virginia Colonial Register, pp. 64, 68, 70.
[4-61] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 72.
[4-62] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, p. 224, Register of Land Office,
Virginia State Capitol.
[4-63] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, New Series Vol. I, p. 4.
[4-64] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 83, 84, 125,
126.
[4-65] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 5.
[4-66] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 78.
[4-67] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 77, 191,
281.
[4-68] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 122.
[4-69] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 192.
[4-70] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 76.
[4-71] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144.
[4-72] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144.
[4-73] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276.
[4-74] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. III, Register of Land Office,
Virginia State Capitol. The name is here spelled John Blackborne.
[4-75] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. III, Register of Land Office,
Virginia State Capitol. On the lists the name is spelled William
Butcher.
[4-76] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,
pp. 135-137.
[4-77] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. IV, Register of Land Office, Virginia
State Capitol.
[4-78] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,
p. 95.
[4-79] G. C. Greer, Early Virginia Immigrants, p. 68.
[4-80] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,
p. 376.
[4-81] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 101.
[4-82] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 177.
[4-83] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 92.
[4-84] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 298.
[4-85] In 1656 John Hammond declared that though it cost six pounds
sterling to go to Virginia, those who decided to make the venture could
be sure that their money was well spent. He advised "any that goes over
free, but in a mean condition, to hire himself for reasonable wages of
Tobacco and Provision, the first year," for by that means he could live
free of disbursement, and "have something to help him the next year."
Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel, p. 14.
[4-86] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 441.
[4-87] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p. 27.
[4-88] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271.
NOTES TO CHAPTER V
[5-1] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 109.
[5-2] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
?[5-3] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p.
401.
?[5-4] R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 160.
?[5-5] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Perry and Hyde to
the Lords of Trade, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
?[5-6] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, The Present State
of the Tobacco Plantations in America, Correspondence of the Board of
Trade.
[5-7] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade; Statutes of the Realm, Vol. IX, p. 917.
[5-8] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 141-155.
[5-9] British Public Record Office, CO1-16, Petition of Berkeley and
Others, Aug. 26, 1662.
[5-10] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Thomas Ludwell to Secretary
Arlington, May 1, 1666.
[5-11] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley and
others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666.
[5-12] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley and
others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666.
[5-13] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to Lord
Arlington, Feb. 12, 1667.
[5-14] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to Lord John
Berkeley.
[5-15] British Public Record Office, CO1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to Lord
Arlington.
[5-16] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Governor and Council to the
King.
[5-17] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the
Governor and Council.
[5-18] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 408, Report of the
Council to the King.
[5-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 385, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-20] British Public Record Office, CO1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to Lord
Arlington, July 20, 1665.
[5-21] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 246, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-22] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, pp. 232-240, Dialogue
Between John Good and Nathaniel Bacon, Colonial Entry Book, 1677.
[5-23] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the
Governor and Council to the King, July 1673.
[5-24] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 410, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-25] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 179, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-26] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 147.
[5-27] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-28] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial Entry
Book.
[5-29] This view of the matter has the support of the dean of Virginia
historians, Dr. Philip Alexander Bruce. Dr. Bruce writes: "No less an
authority than Robert Beverley, the historian, states that the
Navigation Acts had a sensible influence in precipitating Bacon's
Rebellion. In the early life of this writer he must have been closely
associated with hundreds of people who had been through the uprising,
and knew much, by direct observation, of the currents that governed it.
The elder Beverley was thoroughly informed and thus, in his own home,
the son had the best of opportunities of learning the truth. Beverley
himself declared that the Acts were causing discontent among the people,
long before the Rebellion actually occurred, and so did John Bland in
his memorable petition. There is no doubt that the Acts, by keeping
alive a sense of friction, left the people in just the state of mind to
seize with eagerness on the more palpable wrongs which were specifically
brought forward as the justification for resistance. It was really the
groundwork of the movement, though if it had been the only cause, might
not have precipitated open resistance to the Government."
[5-30] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 115.
[5-31] Secretary Thomas Ludwell in a long report to the British
Government spoke of the Virginia Government as Berkeley's own, "Which I
so term," he explains, "because he is the sole author of the most
substantial parts of it, either for Lawes or other inferior
institutions." British Public Record Office, CO1-20.
[5-32] British Museum, Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b.
[5-33] British Public Record Office, CO1-19, Berkeley to Lord Arlington,
Aug. 1, 1665.
?[5-34] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp.
399-400.
[5-35] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of
Trade.
[5-36] British Public Record Office, CO1-30-78, Memorial of John Knight,
Oct. 29, 1673.
[5-37] British Public Record Office, CO1-30-71, Council of Virginia to
the King, 1673.
[5-38] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, pp. 1-16.
[5-39] British Museum, Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b, A Discourse
and View of Virginia.
[5-40] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of
Trade.
[5-41] British Public Record Office, CO1-34-95, Petition of Francis
Moryson, Thomas Ludwell and Robert Smith.
[5-42] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[5-43] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22, Colonial
Entry Book.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VI
[6-1] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 3.
[6-2] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, pp. 17, 51.
[6-3] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1624, Virginia State Library.
[6-4] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Virginia
State Library.
[6-5] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 86-87, Virginia
State Library.
[6-6] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 199.
[6-7] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 3.
[6-8] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 200.
[6-9] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 3.
[6-10] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 18.
[6-11] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 15.
[6-12] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 201.
[6-13] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,
p. 13.
[6-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Statement of Mr. Perry
and Captain Hyde, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[6-15] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Virginia Richly
Valued, p. 10.
[6-16] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Albion, p. 32.
[6-17] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,
p. 18.
[6-18] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 7.
[6-19] Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, Vol.
II, p. 171.
[6-20] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 153.
[6-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, pp. 160-161.
[6-22] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 285.
[6-23] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, p. 7, Virginia State
Library.
[6-24] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Virginia
State Library.
[6-25] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 86-87, Virginia
State Library.
[6-26] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1684, Virginia State
Library.
[6-27] John Splitimber paid for himself alone in the tithable lists of
1675.
[6-28] York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library.
[6-29] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 15.
[6-30] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 14.
[6-31] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 241.
[6-32] "I would have all men consider how meanly we are provided of men
of learning, ability and courage, nay indeed of honesty, to stand up in
the people's behalf and oppose the oppressing party," said Nathaniel
Bacon in 1676. British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 246.
[6-33] The most notable case of betrayal is that of Isaac Allerton, who
sold himself to the Governor for the promise of a seat in the Council of
State. British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, pp. 125-126, Colonial
Entry Book.
[6-34] British Public Record Office, CO1-4.
[6-35] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 287-288.
[6-36] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271.
[6-37] British Public Record Office, CO1-8, p. 48.
[6-38] British Public Record Office, CO1-8.
[6-39] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 360-361.
[6-40] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 361.
[6-41] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 355.
[6-42] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 363.
[6-43] Sixth Report of Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Part
I, Instructions to Sir George Ayscue, Sept. 26, 1651.
[6-44] The commissioners were Capt. Robert Dennis, Richard Bennett,
Thomas Stegge and Captain William Claiborne, all of whom with the
exception of Dennis were Virginians.
[6-45] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 371, 373.
[6-46] Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845; Charles Campbell, History
of Virginia, p. 74.
[6-47] Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845.
[6-48] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 387, Colonial Entry
Book.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VII
[7-1] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 104, Colonial Entry
Book.
[7-2] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 40.
?[7-3] British Public Record Office, CO5-1305, Document 23,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[7-4] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16,
Correspondence of the Secretary of State.
[7-5] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42.
[7-6] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1702.
[7-7] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, pp. 381-385, Colonial
Entry Book.
[7-8] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 168.
[7-9] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[7-10] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91.
[7-11] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16, John Linton
to the Board of Trade, Correspondence of the Secretary of State.
[7-12] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Report of John Linton on
the Tobacco Trade, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[7-13] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16,
Correspondence of the Secretary of State.
[7-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[7-15] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[7-16] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[7-17] British Public Record Office, CO5-1340, Document 91, Col. Quary's
Memorial.
[7-18] R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42.
[7-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade; CO5-1360, p. 233, Governor Nicholson to the Lords of
Trade.
[7-20] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91, Col. Quary's
Memorial.
[7-21] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade, Letter of Col. Quary Sept. 1, 1706.
[7-22] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton
University Library.
[7-23] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 107-108, Colonial
Entry Book. In 1699 Gov. Nicholson stated that Orinoco was bringing 20
shillings the hundredweight and Sweetscented 25 shillings and up, which
he considered an unusually good return. British Public Record Office,
CO5-1359, p. 322.
[7-24] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 66.
[7-25] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.
202-265.
[7-26] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 89.
[7-27] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of
Virginia, p. 3.
[7-28] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of
Trade.
[7-29] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 345, Lord Culpeper's
account of his compliance with the King's instructions, Dec. 1681.
[7-30] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75.
[7-31] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75.
[7-32] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of
Trade.
[7-33] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 323.
[7-34] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 324-325.
[7-35] York County Records, 1664-1672, Virginia State Library.
[7-36] York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library.
[7-37] Henrico Records, 1677-1692, Virginia State Library.
[7-38] York County Records, 1694-1697, Virginia State Library.
[7-39] British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[7-40] British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[7-41] British Public Record Office, CO5-1406, Minutes of the Council
March 21, 1710, CO5-1363, pp. 189-191, Colonial Entry Book.
[7-42] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Governor Gooch to the
Lords of Trade, Sept. 14, 1730; Feb. 12, 1731.
[7-43] British Public Record Office, CO5-1363, pp. 317-324, Colonial
Entry Book.
[7-44] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 369-373, Colonial
Entry Book.
[7-45] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 83.
[7-46] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton
University Library.
[7-47] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 108.
[7-48] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[7-49] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 66, Governor
Nott to the Board of Trade.
[7-50] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial
Entry Book.
[7-51] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial
Entry Book.
[7-52] During these years the planters were too impoverished to purchase
slaves. The decline in the tobacco trade produced a feeling among the
people that the colony had been overstocked with blacks.
[7-53] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade, Report of Governor Gooch.
[7-54] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Francis Fane to the Lords
of Trade, Dec. 10, 1728.
[7-55] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 139, Colonial Entry
Book.
NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII
[8-1] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton University
Library.
[8-2] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton University
Library.
[8-3] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial
Entry Book.
[8-4] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State
Capitol.
[8-5] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 28.
[8-6] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 320-321.
[8-7] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. X, iii.
[8-8] Maurice Vanlaer, La Fin d'un Peuple, pp. 38-39.
[8-9] Maurice Vanlaer, La Fin d'un Peuple, pp. 112-117.
[8-10] British Public Record Office, CO1-39-38.
[8-11] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 420.
[8-12] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 500.
[8-13] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 546.
[8-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22.
[8-15] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22.
[8-16] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 23, Colonial Entry
Book.
[8-17] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 113, Andros to the
Lords of Trade, July 1, 1697.
[8-18] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 266-303, Colonial
Entry Book.
[8-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1312, p. 4O9A, Correspondence
of the Board of Trade.
[8-20] British Public Record Office, CO5-1360, p. 441, Colonial Entry
Book.
[8-21] Rent Roll of 1704, p. 46.
[8-22] British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade, Gooch to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 6, 1728.
[8-23] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 374-382, Colonial
Entry Book.
[8-24] British Public Record Office, CO5-1364, p. 27, Colonial Entry
Book.
[8-25] J. S. Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, p. 31.
[8-26] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Gooch to the Lords of
Trade, Feb. 27, 1731.
[8-27] British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Gooch to the Lords of
Trade, Aug. 9, 1728.
[8-28] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[8-29] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[8-30] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[8-31] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16.
[8-32] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[8-33] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of the
Board of Trade.
[8-34] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Account of the tobacco
trade by Perry and Hyde, June 2, 1714.
[8-35] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Petition of the Council,
Correspondence of the Board of Trade.
[8-36] British Public Record Office, CO5-1318, Address of King and Queen
county inhabitants to Spotswood; address of Westmoreland inhabitants;
letter of Spotswood to Lords of Trade, Dec. 22, 1718.
[8-37] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122.
[8-38] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, pp.
414-416.
[8-39] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 297-299.
[8-40] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,
250-258.
[8-41] Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 291.
[8-42] Philip Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 243.
[8-43] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 58.
[8-44] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122.
[8-45] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,
250-258.
[8-46] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 297-299.
[8-47] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.
[8-48] Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, Vol. IV, p. 144.
[8-49] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. I, pp. 88-110.
[8-50] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Edition of 1801, p. 321.
[8-51] Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 292 note.
[8-52] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 66.
[8-53] Hugh Jones, History of Virginia, p. 36.
[8-54] Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, pp. 101, 102; Philip
Fithian, Journal and Letters, pp. 67, 104, 130, 130, 138, 217, 259; P.
A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, pp. 411, 418.
[8-55] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63IV.
[8-56] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.
[8-57] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp.
292-299.
[8-58] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,
250-258.
[8-59] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, p. 67.
[8-60] Anbury, Travels Through America, Vol. II, p. 330.
[8-61] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.
_APPENDIX_
RENT ROLL OF VIRGINIA
1704-1705
A True and Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj^tie in
Henrico County, Aprill 1705
A
Andrews Thomas 396
Ascoutch Mary 633
Archer Jno 335
Adkins Jno 125
Archer Geo 1738
Aldy John 162
Akins James Sen^r 200
Asbrook Peter Sen^r 200
Akins James Jun^r 218
Allin Widd^o 99
-----
4106
B
Byrd Esq^r 19500
Bolling Rob^t 500
Bolling John 831
Bevill John 495
Branch X^to 646
Blackman Wm 175
Bridgwater Sam 280
Bowman John Jun^r 300
Bowman Edw^d 300
Branch Benj 550
Brown Martha 893
Bullington Benj 100
Bowman Lew 65
Bullington 144
Bevell Essex 200
Baugh John 448
Baugh James 458
Burton Isaac 100
Bottom John 100
Bayley Abr 542
Brooks Jane belonging to
Wm Walker New Kent 550
Braseal Henry 200
Brazeal Henry Jun^r 300
Burton Rob^t 1350
Burgony John 100
Branch James 555
Burrows Wm. Wm. Blackwell
New Kent 63
Branch Thomas 540
Bailey Thomas 251
Branch Matthew 947
Burton Wm 294
Bullington Rob^t 100
Broadnax Jno Jr 725
Beverley Rob^t 988
-----
33590
C
Cheatham Tho 300
Cox Batt 100
Cox John 150
Cox George 200
Chamberlaine Maj. Tho 1000
Childers Abr. Sen^r 368
Cannon John 108
Cox Wm 300
Childers Ab^r Jun^r 100
Clark Wm 333
Clark John 300
Cox Rich^d 300
Cardwell Tho 350
Crozdall Roger 200
Cock Wm 1535
Cock Rich^d Sen^r 2180
Childers Philip Sen^r 50
Childers Philip 300
Childers Tho 300
Carter Theod 75
Cock Capt Thomas 2976-1/2
Couzins Charles 362
Clerk Alonson 604
Cock James 1506
Curd Edw^d 600
Cock Rich^d 476
Cock Jno 98
-----
15171-1/2
D
Dixon Nicholas 150
Dodson Wm 100
Douglas Charles 63
-----
313
E
Edw^d Tho 676
Entroughty Derby 200
Ealam Rob^t 400
Ellis John 217
East Tho Sen 475
East Tho 554
East Edw^d 150
Epes Capt Fra^s 2145
Evans Charles 225
Ealam Martin 130
Epes Isham, Epes Fra. Jun^t
each 444-1/2 acres 889
-----
6061
F
Field Peter Major 2185
Farrar Capt Wm 700
Farrar Tho 1444
Farrar Jno 600
Fowler Godfrey 250
Ferguson Robert 230
Ferris Wm 50
Franklin James Sen 250
Franklin James Jun 786
Ferris Rich^d Sen 550
Farmer Henry 100
Forrest James 138
Forrest John 150
Fetherstone Henry 700
Farloe John Sen 100
Farloe John Jun 551
Faile John 240
-----
9024
G
Gilley Grewin Arrian 2528
Gee Henry 435
Good John Sen 600
Garthwaite Sam^l 50
Garthwaite Ephriam 163
Granger John 472
Gill John 235
Good Sam^l 588
Gower James Grigs Land 500
-----
5571
H
Hill James 795
Holmes Rich 100
Harris Thomas 357
Harris Tim^o 250
Hill Rosam^d 1633
Hobby Lawrence 500
Hatcher John 215
Haskins Edward 225
Hatcher Edward Sen 150
Hunt Geo 200
Hughs Edward 100
Hancock Samuel 100
Holmes Thomas 50
Hambleton James 100
Hutchins Nich^o 240
Hatcher Benj Sen 250
Hatcher Wm Jun 50
Hobson Wm 150
Hatcher Wm Sen 298
Hatcher Henry 650
Hancock Robert 860
Harris Mary 94
Hall Edward 184
Herbert Mrs 1360
Hudson Robert 281
-----
9242
J
Jones Hugh 934
Jefferson Thomas 492
Jones Philip 1153
Jorden Henry 100
Jamson John 225
Jackson Ralph 250
-----
3154
K
Kennon Elizabeth 1900
Knibb Samuel 209
Knibb Solomon 833
Kendall Richard 400
-----
3342
L
Liptroll Edward 150
Lewis Wm 350
Lester Darens 100
Ladd Wm 70
Ligon Elizabeth Widdow}
Ligon Mary Widdow } 1341
Laforce Reu 100
Lochett James 50
Lownd Henry 516
Lockitt Benj 104
Ligon Richard 1028
Ligon Hugh 150
-----
3959
M
Mann Robert 100
Matthews Edward 330
Moseby Edward 150
Moseby Arthur 450
-----
1030
N
Nunnally Richard 70
O
Osbourn Thomas 288
Owen Thomas 68
-----
356
P
Perkinson John 622
Perrin Ann 500
Pleasants John 9669
Parker Wm 100
Parker Nich Sen 500
Pledge Jno. 100
Powell Robert 150
Peice John 130
Pleasants Jos 1709
Porter Wm 305
Peirce Wm 175
Peirce Francis 312
Paine Thomas 300
Portlock Elizabeth 1000
Pero Henry 350
Pattram Ira 778
Pride Wm Sen. 1280
Pollard Thomas Sen 130
Perkinson Seth 50
Pinkitt Wm 192
Pinkitt Thomas 300
Pattison Joseph 500
Porter John 100
Pollard Thomas Jun 235
Pollard Henry 235
Pinkitt John 215
-----
19937
R
Robertson Geo 1445
Ragsdaile Godfrey 450
Rawlett Peter 164
Russell Charles 200
Rowlett Wm 200
Rowen Francis 148
Robertson John 415
Rouch Rachell 300
Robertson Thomas 200
Russell John 93
Royall Joseph 783
Redford John 775
Randolph Col Wm including
1185 acres swamp 9465
-----
14648
S
Steward Jno Jun 902
Scott Walter 550
Soane Capt Wm 3841
Stanley Edward 300
Snuggs Charles 400
Sewell Wm 59
Smith Humphrey 40
Sharp Robert 500
Stovoll Barth^o 100
Skerin Widdow 75
Steward Daniell 270
Smith Obadiah 200
Stowers Widdow 200
Sarrazin Stephen 120
-----
7557
T
Tancocks Orphans 1230
Trent Henry 224
Turpin Thomas 491
Turpin Philip 444
Turpin Thomas 100
Turner Henry 200
Taylor Thomas 475
Tanner Edward 217
Traylor Edward 100
Totty Thomas 260
Traylor Wm 730
-----
4471
V
Veden Henry 100
W
Woodson John 4060
Williams Robert 300
Woodson Robert Jun 1157
Ward Richard 300
Watson John Sen 1603
Walthall Wm 500
Walthall Henry 832
Whitby Wm 215
Watkins Henry Sen 100
Webb John 100
Watkins Thomas 200
Woodson Rich 180
Woodson Widdow 650
Williamson Thomas 1077
Webb Giles 7260
Wood Thomas 50
Watkins Wm 120
Watkins Jos 120
Watkins Edward 120
Ward Seth 700
Wood Moses 100
Wilkinson Jos 75-1/2
Wilkinson John 130
Worsham John 1104
Womack Abr 560
Willson Jno Sen 1686
Willson Jno Jun 100
Walthall Richard 500
Wortham Geo 400
Wortham Charles 90
Womack Wm 100
-----
24489-1/2
W 24489-1/2
V 100
T 4471
S 7557
R 14648
P 19937
O 396
N 70
M 1030
L 3959
K 3342
J 3154
H 9242
G 5571
F 9024
E 6061
D 313
C 15171-1/2
B 33590
A 4106
------
165814
Out of which must be deducted these several quantities of land
following Viz:
Tancocks Orphans Land 1230
Allens Orphans Land 99
-----
1329
An account of Land that hath been concealed
John Steward Jun 2
Thomas Jefferson 15
Thomas Turpin 10
Henry Gee 10
Stephen Sarrzen 10
Mr. Lownd 1
James Atkin Sen 32
Matthew Branch 10
James Franklin 360
James Hill 50
Rosemond Hill 33
John Bullington 44
Benjamin Lockett 4
John Russell 23
Charles Douglas 13
Col Randolph Carless Land 1049
-----
1669
The Quit Rent being 162719 acres.
A Rent Roll of all the Lands held in the County of Prince George for the
Year 1704
A
Thomas Anderson 450
Wm Aldridge 160
Mr. Charles Anderson 505
Richard Adkinson 200
Thomas Adams 250
Matthem Anderson 349
Henry Ally 390
Wm Anderson 235
Jno Anderson 228
Henry Anderson 250
Robert Abernathy 100
Jno Avery 100
-----
3217
B
Richard Bland 1000
Robert Birchett 375
Arthur Biggins 200
James Benford 461
Jno Barloe 50
Charles Bartholomew 600
Philip Burlowe 350
Nicholas Brewer 100
Jno Bishop Sen 100
Jno Bishop Jun 100
Isaac Baites 360
Thomas Busby Capt 300
Thomas Busby 200
Wm Batt 750
Coll Byrd Esq 100
Edward Birchett 886
Coll Bolling 3402
Edmund Browder 100
Matus Brittler 510
Jno Butler 1385
Andrew Beck 300
Henry Batt 790
Wm Butler 283
Thomas Blitchodin 284
-----
12986
C
Thomas Curiton 150
Henry Chammins 300
Capt Clements 1920
Wm. Claunton 100
Robert Catte 100
Bartho Crowder 75
Thomas Clay 70
Jno Coleman 200
George Crook 489
Francis Coleman 150
Jno Clay 350
Wm Coleman Jun 100
George Croohet 30
James Cocke 750
Robert Carlill 100
Jno Clerk 83
Richarl Claunton 100
Stephen Cock for Jones Orphans 2405
-----
7622
D
Thomas Daniell 150
Roger Drayton 270
Joseph Daniell 50
Jno Doby 500
George Dowing 100
Wm Davis 100
Jno Duglas 300
Richard Darding 500
Christopher Davis 50
Thomas Dunkin 136
-----
2156
E
Robert Ellis 50
Jno Epes Sen 530
Wm Epes Sen 750
Jno Epes 300
Wm Epes 633-1/2
Edward Epes 500
Littlebury Epes 833-1/2
Benj Evans 700
Thomas Edwards 250
Dan Epes 200
Jno Evans 800
Jno. Ellis Jun 400
John Ellis Sen 400
Mary Evans 400
Peter Evans 270
Capt Francis Epes 226
-----
7243
F
Jno Freeman 300
Wm Frost 50
Jno Fountaine 350
Robert Fellows 418
Elizabeth Flood 100
Benj Foster 923
Jno Field 100
-----
2241
G
Jno Green 125
Richard Gord 100
David Goodgamd 479
James Greithian 363
Major Goodrich 900
Thomas Goodwin 150
Hubert Gibson 250
Richard Griffith 335
James Griffin 100
Charles Gee 484
Charles Gillam 200
Hugh Goelightly 500
Lewis Green 149
Wm Grigg 200
John Gillam 1000
John Goelightly 100
-----
5435
H
Coll Hill 1000
Daniell Hickdon 280
Robert Harthorn 243
Jno Hamlin 1484-1/2
Coll Harrison Esq 150
Ralph Hill 175
Wm Harrison 1930
Wm Heath 320
Edward Holloway 100
Robert Hobbs 100
Jno Hobbs Sen 250
Edward Holloway Sen 620
Jno Hobbs 100
James Harrison 200
Gilbert Haye 200
Richard Hudson 75
Gabriell Harrison 150
Robert Hix 1000
Joseph Holycross 84
Charles Howell 125
Sam Harwell 125
Isaac Hall 450
Jno Howell 183
Thomas Howell 25
Mrs. Herbert 3925
Jno Hixs 216
Richard Hamlin 240
Thomas Harnison 1077
Elizabeth Hamlin 250
Wm Hulme 100
Jeffrey Hawkes 125
Adam Heath 300
Jno Hill 160
Jno Hardiman 872
Justance Hall 614
-----
17366
J
Wm Jones Jun 230
Wm Jones Sen 600
Henry Jones 200
Robert Jones 241
Edmund Irby 800
Nich. Jarrett 700
James Jackson 80
Adam Ivie 200
Thomas Jackson 60
James Jones Sen 1100
Henry Ivye 450
Peter Jones 621
Ricard Jones 600
Ralph Jacskon 110
Joshua Irby 200
John Jones 350
-----
6542
K
Richard Kirkland 300
John King 50
Henry King 650
Arthur Kavanah 60
Ensobius King 100
-----
1160
L
John Livesley 300
Samuel Lewey 100
Jno Lumbady 400
Jno Leeneir 100
Mrs Low 70
Sam Lewey for Netherland Orphans 498
Thomas Lewis Sen 200
Hugh Liegh 762
Francis Leadbeatter 100
Jno Leadbeatter 400
Wm Low 1584
-----
3114
M
Wm Madox 190
Robert Munford 339
James Mingo Sen 500
Matt Marks 1500
Samuell Moody 328
Francis Mallory 100
Daniell Mallone 100
Jno Mayes 365
Richard More 472
Henry Mitchell Sen 100
Jno Mitchell 170
Wm Mayes 763
Edward Murrell 100
Thomas Mitchell Jun 100
Peter Mitchell 305
Henry Mitchell Jun 200
Francis Maberry 347
James Matthews 100
Jno Martin 200
-----
6839
N
Richard Newman 120
Walter Nannaley 299
-----
419
O
Nicholas Overburry 809
Jno Owen 25
-----
834
P
George Pasmore 330
Francis Poythwes Sen 1283
Joseph Pattison 200
George Pail 246
Nathaniel Phillips 150
Jno Price 50
Wm Peoples 150
Elizabeth Peoples 235
Joseph Perry 275
Richard Pigeon 524
Thomas Potts 200
Joseph Pritchett 50
Jno Petterson 373
George Pace 1000
Ephram Parkam 300
Thomas Poythres 616
Dand Peoples 60
Grace Perry 100
Jno Poythres Jun 916
Jno Petterson 420
Mr Micajah Perry 600
-----
9203
R
Jno Roberts 316
Nath. Robinson 100
Roger Reace Jun 100
Henry Read 75
Roger Reace Sen 100
Wm Reanes 250
Frances Raye 300
Jno Reeks 50
Wm Rachell 100
Timothy Reading Sen 460
Jno Riners 200
Edward Richardson 300
Coll Randolph 226
-----
2677
S
Matthew Smart 100
Wm Standback 150
Thomas Symmons 566
James Salmen 477
Wm Savage 150
Wm Sandborne 40
Jno Scott 300
Martin Shieffield 150
James Smith 67
John Stroud 60
Richard Seeking 100
Wm Sexton 50
James Leveaker 710
Chichester Sturdivant 214
Daniell Sturdivant 850
Richard Smith 550
Jno Spaine 118
Matthew Sturdivant 150
Capt Stith 470-1/2
-----
8272-1/2
T
Major Henry Tooker for the
Merchants in London 4600
Ricard Jones 600
George Tilliman 446
Jno Tilliman 530
Wm Tomlinson 400
Adam Tapley 977
Capt Jno Taylor 1700
Mich. Taburd 150
Maj^r Tooker 181
Robert Tooker 400
Robert Tester 170
Joseph Tooker 200
Wm Tempel 100
Jno Thornhill 350
Jno Taylor 100
Nath. Tatham Jun 200
Samuel Tatham Sen 100
Samuel Tatham Jun 195
Henry Talley 639
Richard Turberfield 140
Francis Tucker 100
Nath. Tatham Sen 501
Jno Thrower 250
Thomas Thrower 150
James Taylor 306
Sanders Tapley 300
Thomas Tapley 300
James Thweat Sen 715
James Thweat Jun 100
Elizabeth Tucker 212
Thomas Taylor 400
Edward Thrower 150
-----
14462
V
Jno Vaughan 169
Samuel Vaugham 169
Nath. Vrooin 150
Daniell Vaughan 169
James Vaughan 169
Richard Vaughan 309
Wm Vaughan 309
Thomas Vinson 550
Nicholas Vaughan 169
-----
2163
W
John Woodlife Sen 644
Wm Wallis 200
Jno Wickett 250
Capt. James Wynn 860
Jno Woodlife Jun 750
Jno Winningham Jun 200
Richard Wallpoole 625
Jno Womack 550
Capt Thomas Wynn 400
Jno Wall 233
Thomas Winningham 100
Elizabeth Woodlife 844
Richard Worthern 1600
Richard Winkles 450
Capt Nicholas Wyatt 700
Antho Wyatt 250
Valentine Wiliamson 250
Hurldy Wick 600
Wm Wilkins 900
Francis Wilkins 150
Robert Winkfield 107
Jarvis Winkfield 100
Henry Wall 275
Jno Wilkins 150
James Williams 1436
George Williams 216
Jno White 150
Edward Winningham 100
Samuel Woodward 600
-----
13684
Y
Dannell Young 283
John Young 200
-----
583
A 3217
B 12986
C 7622
D 2156
E 7243
F 2241
G 5435
H 17366-1/2
J 6542
K 1160
L 5114
M 6839
N 419
O 834
P 9203
R 2677
S 8272
T 14462
V 2163
W 13684
Y 583
------
127218-1/2
Deduct the new discovered Land 10000
Accounted for 117218-1/2
Orphans Land which is refulld paying Quit Rents for viz:
Mr. John Bannister Orphans
per Stephen Cock 1970
Capt Henry Batesorph and
their Mother Mrs Mary Bates 1200
Capt Henry Randolph Orphans
per Capt Giles Webb 129
Morris Halliham Orphans
per Robert Rivers 200
Crockson Land formerly
& who it belongs to now I
cannot find 750
-----
4245
117218-1/2 acres at 24 lb tob^o per
100 is 28132 lb tobacco
at 5s per lb is 70 6 6
Sallary 10 per cent 7 0 10-1/2
---------
63 5 7-1/2
per William Epes Sheriff
Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj^tie In Surry County Anno
Domini 1704
A
Allin Arthur Major 6780
Andrews Bartho 375
Avery Jno 150
Atkins Thomas 80
Averett Jno 120
Atkinson Richard 100
Andrews Thomas 190
Andrews Robert 130
Andrews David 225
-----
8150
B
Baker Henry Coll 850
Bruton James 500
Bennett James 200
Bland Sarah 1455
Browne Jno 600
Benbridge George 200
Bighton Richard 590
John Bell 180
Berham Robert 650
Blake Wm 200
Browne Edward 200
Bincham Jno 100
Bennett Richard 200
Baker Sarah 50
Briggs Sarah 300
Baxter Joell 100
Briggs Samuel 300
Blico Christopher 50
Brigs Charles 331
Brigs Henry 100
Bentley 180
Blackbun Wm 150
Blunt Thomas 1355
Bookey, Edward 180
Browne Wm Coll 2510
Browne Wm Capt 398
Bineham James 157
Bullock Mary 100
Barker Jno 1160
Bagley Peter 100
Barker Jery 420
Bunell Hezichiah 150
Bougher Phill 100
Baile Jno 250
Bagley Edward 350
-----
14716
C
Chapman Benjamin 500
Cockin Wm 100
Cocker Jno 900
Crafort Robert 1000
Crafort Carter 100
Chambers Wm 50
Clark Jno 100
Cook Elizabeth 200
Carriell Thomas 100
Clements Jno 387
Clarke Jno 100
Cook Elizabeth 200
Carriell Thomas 100
Clements Jno 387
Clark Robert 400
Checett James 50
Cotten Walter 257
Cotten Thomas 257
Collier Jno 350
Collier Joseph 40
Cock Wm 630
Cock Walter 875
Cooper James 100
Cleaments Francis 600
Collier Thomas 550
Candenscaine Obedience 200
-----
7746
D
Dicks James 400
Davis Arthur 460
Drew Thomas 800
Drew Edward 600
Delk Roger 790
David Arthur 50
Dean Richard 100
Davis Nath. 157
-----
3357
E
Edward Wm Mr. 2755
Evans Antho 100
Edward John 470
Ellitt Wm 250
Edmund Howell 300
Ellis James 180
Edmund Wm 100
Ellis Edward 30
Ellis James 170
Ezell Geirge 150
Ellis Jere 50
Evans Abrah. 150
-----
4705
F
Flake Robert 200
Foster Anne 200
Ford George 100
Flood Walter 820
Flood Thomas 150
Ford Elias 200
Flemin Lawrence 360
Foster Christo 500
Foster Wm 100
Ferieby Benj 170
-----
2800
G
Gray Wm Capt 1750
Gray Wm Jun 1050
Grines Austis 100
Gwalney Wm 400
Gray Jno 200
Gwalney Wm 225
Goodman Wm 200
Gillham Hinche 658
Griffin John 200
Gully Richard 50
Gray Wm 100
Green Edward 200
Green Richard 260
-----
5393
H
Harrison Benj Coll 2750
Harrison Nath. Capt 2177
Hunt Wm 4042
Holt Elizabeth 1450
Holt John 150
Holt Thomas Capt 538
Holt Wm 630
Harris Wm 150
Hart Henry 725
Humfort Hugh 150
Hancock John 60
Hart Robert 600
Humphrey Evan 70
Hollyman Mary 290
Harde Thomas 900
Hill Robert 200
Holloman Richard 480
Hargrove Bryan 100
Humfort Wm 50
Hill Lyon 300
Holloman Thomas 450
Heath Adam 200
Harrison Daniell 70
Ham Richard 75
Heart Thomas 750
Hyerd Thomas 50
Hunt Wm 696
Horne Richard 100
Hollingsworth Henry 60
Howell Wm 50
-----
18413
J
Jackman Jos John Mr. 2980
Jones James 1000
Jarrell Thomas 115
Jarrett Charles 615
Judkins Samuell 100
Judkins Wm 100
Jurdan George 620
Jarrett Fardo 630
Johnson Wm 360
Johnson John 350
Jurdan Richard 350
-----
7220
K
Kigan Mary 200
Killingworth Wm 60
Knott Wm 300
-----
560
L
Ludwell Philip Coll 1100
Lancaster Robert 100
Lacey Mary 100
Lang Mary 77
Lane Thomas 200
Lane Thomas Jun 200
Laughter Jno 300
Laneere George 300
Lasley Patrick 520
Lucas Wm 315
-----
3212
M
Matthew Edmund 50
Merriell George 250
Moorland Edward 225
Mason Elizabeth 300
Mallory Francis 147
Merrett Matt. 60
Middleton Thomas 100
Moss Wm 100
Moreing John 695
Mierick Owen 250
-----
2177
N
Newton Wm 225
Newton Robert 250
Newitt Wm 330
Norwood Richard 80
Nicholl George 150
Nichols Robert 230
Noeway Barefoot 150
Norwood George 330
-----
1745
P
Park Mary 100
Pittman Thomas Jun 100
Phillips, John 270
Price John 340
Pettoway Elizabeth 650
Pulystone Jno 1400
Parker Richard 269
Phelps Humphrey 100
Pully Wm 300
Procter Joshua 660
Persons John 830
Phillips Wm 300
Pettfort Jno 200
Pettfort Wm 50
-----
5569
R
Randolph Wm Coll 1655
Ruffice Elizabeth 3001
Reynolds Robert 150
Richardson Joseph 300
Reynolds Elizabeth 150
Reagon Frances 200
Roads Wm 150
Rolling George 106
Road Wm 450
Rose Richard 100
Raehell George 70
Rowling Jno 476
Rohings Wm 596
Roger Wm 450
-----
7854
S
Scat Joseph 295
Sims George 200
Secoms Nicholas 800
Savage Charles 358
Stringfellow Richard 75
Suger Jno 250
Sewurds Anne 300
Sharp Thomas 70
Sewins Thomas 400
Steward John 200
Smith Richard 200
Savage Mary 263
Smith Thomas 750
Swann Wm 1800
Shrowsbury Joseph 260
Shrowsbury Francis 820
Savage Henry 200
Short Wm 400
Scarbro Edw 150
Scagin Jno 100
Simmons Jno 1300
Shrowsbury Thomas 566
Stockly Richard 100
Smith Thomas 380
-----
10237
T
Thompson Samuell 3104
Tooker Henry Major 700
Taylor Ethelred 538
Thorp Joseph 250
Tyous Thomas 400
Taylor Richard 77
-----
5069
V
Vincent Mary 187
W
Wright Thomas 100
Williams Charles 100
Wall Joseph 150
Williams Wm 300
Ward Thomas 100
Wall Joseph Jun 150
Warren Allen 300
Warren Thomas 1040
Watkins Richard 1345
Williams Roger 150
Webb Robert 340
Wattkins John 1160
Warren Robert 150
Welch Henry 100
Warrick John 80
Wilkinson Matthew 200
Wiggins Thomas 300
Waple Jno 300
Witherington Nicholas 100
Will Roger 78
White Charles 136
-----
6679
Y
Young John 300
A 8150
B 14716
C 7746
D 3357
E 4705
F 2800
G 5393
H 18413
J 7220
K 560
L 3212
M 2177
N 1745
P 5569
R 7854
S 10237
T 5069
V 187
W 6679
Y 300
------
116089
New Land allowed per order 3841
------
112248
Aprill 19th 1705
Errors excepted per Jos Jno. Jackman Sheriff.
Persons denying payment for Lands
held in this County (viz) Capt
Tho Holt as belonging to Mr. Tho
Benules Orphans 950
Mrs. Mary White 200
-----
1150
Lands held by persons living out of the Country
Capt Jno Taylor 850
Mrs. Sarah Low 500
Mr. Jno Hamlin 100
Capt Thomas Harrison 530
1150
-----
3130
Bartho Clement one tract of Land he living in England the quantity
unknowne
Jno Davis one Tract Living in Isle of Wight
Geo & River Jorden one Tract & denys to pay Qt Rents for it & no
persons living thereon, there is one Bray Living in Warwick has
a small tract Land
A List of her Maj^tys Q^t Rents For the Isle Wighte County in the Year
1704
Jno Atkins 200
James Atkinson 400
Wm Exam 1440
Wm Brown 150
Francis Exam 200
Richard Bennett 70
James Briggs 100
Ph. Bratley 200
Abr. Drawler 200
Jno Branch 45
Francis Branch 50
Edward Brantley 175
John Brantley 364
Edward Boykin 1100
George Barloe 80
Jno Geoge 200
Thomas Carter 700
Reubin Cooke 250
Jno Clarke 850
Thomas Cook 300
Wm Clark 600
Edward Champion 600
Jno Dowles 150
Peter Deberry 100
Thomas Davis 100
Jno Davis 250
Peter Hayes 600
Christo. Hollyman 400
Richard Hardy 700
Thomas Holyman 150
Jno Harris 365
Silvester Hill 925
Roger Hodge 300
Arthur Jones 900
Edward Jones 250
Richard Jones 250
Jno Johnson 890
Roger Ingram 300
Matt. Jorden 1950
Thomas Newman 360
George Readich 790
Francis Lee 100
Ph. Pardoe 100
Jno Parsons 155
George Moore 400
Jno Mangann 100
Robert Mongo 400
Henry Martin 200
Jno Murray 650
Francis Rayner 80
Jno Richardson 150
James Sampson 1200
Jno Stevenson 150
Thomas Sherrer 200
Jno Sherrer 200
Wm Thomas 250
Thomas Tooke 1228
Thomas Throp 350
Baleaby Terrell 100
Peter Vasser 230
Jno Williams 600
George Williamson 2735
Fra. Williamson 2035
Thomas Wood 50
James Lupe 45
Elizabeth Reynolds 100
Jno Sojourner 240
Robert Hoge 60
Andrew Woodley 770
Arthur Allen 1800
Henry Baker 750
Rubin Prochter 250
Thomas Howell 100
Nath Whitby 170
Jane Atkins 600
Jno Mongo 100
Natt Ridley 200
Jno Bell 200
Wm West 250
Charles Goodrich 80
Jno Britt 350
Jno Barnes 200
Henry Goldham 1000
Jno Waltham 450
Charles Edwards 400
Wm Exam 150
Major Lewis Burwell 7000
Henry Applewaite 1500
Thomas Pitt 300
Jno Pitt 3400
Mary Benn 675
Robert Clark 450
Antho Holliday 860
Wm Westrah 450
Elizabeth Gardner 100
Jno Gardner 246
Jno Turner 950
Antho Foulgham 100
Anne Williams 150
Edward Harris 240
Jno Cotton 200
Thomas Joyner 1400
Jno Lawrence 400
Thomas Mandue 200
Wm Mayo 300
Jno Garcand 100
James Bryan 1200
Wm Keate 200
Jno Browne 100
Francis Sanders 100
John Rogers 200
Hodges Councie 420
Hardy Councie 900
Jno Councie 760
Thomas Reeves 600
Wm Crumpler 580
Bridgeman Joyner 1100
Elizabeth Swan 600
Thomas Jones 700
Arthur Whitehead 250
Thomas Allen 150
Jerimiah Exam 300
Nicholas Casey 550
Jno Giles 1150
Alexander Camoll 200
Jno Rutter 300
Godfrey Hunt 600
Wm Trygell 100
Benj Jorden 150
Thomas Jorden 207
Jno King 300
Wm Wilkinson 200
Thomas Grace 160
Wm West 50
Jno Penny 300
Robert Richards 100
Thomas Northworthy 600
Fra Parker 210
Widdo Long 104
Trustram Northworthy 1000
George Green 250
Jno Druer 100
Philip Peerce 500
Wm Best 100
Humphrey Marshall 600
Thomas Brewer 200
Wm Smith 2100
Samuel & Wm Bridger 12900
Wm Williams 100
Richard Ratcliffe 380
Joshua Jordan 150
Daniall Sandbourne 180
Nicholas Houghan 780
Mary Marshall 200
Joseph Godwin 250
Joseph Bridger 580
Henry Pitt 700
James Baron 300
Arthur Smith 3607
Robert Broch 400
Wm Godwin 400
Hugh Bracey 1000
Henry Turner 350
Thomas Wootten 963
Richard Reynolds Esq 853
Richard Reynolds 746
Jno Parnell 400
Benj Deall 467
Thdo. Joyner 595
Jno Jordan 100
Henry Wiggs 506
Wm Body 1375
Arthur Purcell 750
Jno Porteus 100
Wm West 690
Simon Everett 1100
Walter Waters 150
John Jordan 150
John Nevill 433
Robert Colman 1500
Wm Green 150
Mary Cobb 150
Robert Edwards 150
Anne Jones 100
Abraham Jones 600
John Jones 200
Richard Lewis 100
Henry Dullard 100
Thomas Williams 100
James Mercer 100
Poole Hall 350
Jno Howell 100
Thomas Lovett 100
George Anderson 150
Daniell Nottiboy 100
Henry Wilkinson 350
Jno Watkins 200
Thomas English 100
Thomas Page 203
Francis Davis 100
Richard Braswell 100
Robert Johnson 2450
Jno Minshea 300
Wm Pryan 200
Wm Dawes 400
Nicholas Tyner 300
Isaac Ricks 700
Robert Scott 300
Jno Roberts 950
Wm Duck 180
Robert Lawrence 400
Jno Denson 200
Robert Smelly 600
Francis Bridle 250
Roger Fearlton 237
Thomas Bullock 100
Wm. Marfry 600
Thomas Powell 100
Widdo Glyn 390
Jno Pope 250
Thomas Gayle 200
Wm Powell 200
Richard Hutchins 300
Henry Boseman 100
Henry Pope 557
John Williams 971
Henry Sanders 700
Jno Selloway 900
Jno Bardin 100
Phill Rayford 650
Phill Pearse 500
Jno Terseley 150
Geo Northworthy 1176
Robert Richards 450
Thomas Bevan 100
Wm Hunter 150
Madison Street 150
Thomas Wheatley 400
Richard Wilkinson 150
James Bragg 500
Jno Portous 300
Thomas Harris 350
Edward Harris 100
Nicholas Askew 80
Ambrose Hadley 100
Widdo Powell 480
Thomas Jones 100
Thomas Underwood 100
Robert King 300
Thomas Giles 880
Lewis Smelly 550
Wm Smelly 280
Godfrey Hunt 600
Edmund Godwin 400
Wm Williams 1000
John Wilson 1200
John Bryan 200
John Askew 100
Samuell Bridger 200
Roger Nevill 200
Coll Godwin 600
Jacob Durden 500
------
138533
Wm Bridger.
A Compleat List of the Rent Roll of the Land in Nansemond County In Anno
1704
John Murdaugh 300
Jno Duke 113
Thomas Duke Jun 930
Edward Roberts 250
Paul Pender 240
Thomas Duke 400
James Fowler 440
Robert Baker 50
Isaac Sketto 100
Edward Sketto 200
Antho Gumms 50
Francis Sketto. 100
Wm Parker 100
Francis Parker 170
Thomas Parker 300
Jno Small 100
Moses Hall 95
Edward Beamond 550
Richard Parker 514
Capt James Jessey 550
Wm Sanders 200
Jno Sanders 165
Thomas Mansfield 60
Wm Woodley 350
Andrew Bourne 200
Gilbert Owen 120
Wm Sanders Jun 165
Capt John Speir 500
Capt James Reddick 943
James Griffin 500
Nicholas Stallings 965
John Stallings 250
Richard Stallings 165
Elias Stallings Jun 250
Joseph Baker 740
Wm Jones 500
Robert Roundtree 245
John Roundtree 475
George Spivey 200
James Spivey 600
James Knight 300
Jno Gorden 330
Edward Arnold 80
James Mulleny 500
Thomas Docton 200
Wm Britt 400
Nath Newby 850
Elias Stalling 470
Robert Lassiter 850
Patrick Wood 200
Wm Thompson 133
Jonathan Kitterell 300
Adam Rabey 586
Jno Powell 758
John Reddick 300
Henry Copeland 150
Thomas Davis 250
Jno Smith 100
Thomas Harrald 652
Richard Baker 40
Samuell Smith 230
Wm Hood 200
Thomas Roundtree 350
Henry Hill 175
Jno Larkhum 500
Wm Vann 100
Joseph Cooper 267
John Harris 600
Francis Copeland 513
Elizabeth Price 150
Wm Hill 150
Thomas Spivey 200
Jno Campbell 400
Jno Morley 100
Jos Rogers 15
Jno Cole 814
Thomas Harrald 100
Christopher Gawin Jun 20
Daniell Horton 200
Wm Bruin 300
Peter Eason 400
Anne Pugh 2300
Benj Blanchard 130
Thomas Norfleet 500
John Odum 50
Thomas Gough 150
Hugh Gough 150
Epapap Boyne 100
Henry Baker 375
Christopher Gwin 1010
James Speirs 200
Epaphra Benton 250
Wm Eason 180
Andrew Brown 25
Wm Horne 100
Robert Reddick 200
Henry Hackley 210
Thomas Roberts 30
Abr Reddick 400
Jno Parker 240
Richard Barefield 900
John Benton 660
Jno Pipkin 100
Jos Brady 250
Christopher Dudley 200
Thomas Norris 100
Thomas Wiggins 100
Patrick Lawley 50
Robert Warren 100
Richard Odium 50
Thomas Davis 340
Thomas Barefield 100
John Eason 150
Jerimiah Arlin 250
Jno Perry 870
Jno Drury 87
Joseph Booth 987
Cresham Cofield 350
Richard Sumner 600
Edward Norfleet 200
Jno Norfleet 600
Edward Moore 250
Thomas Moore 200
James Lawry 40
James Daughtie 400
John Wallis 150
Richard Sanders Jun 100
Wm Byrd 300
James Howard 700
John Brinkley 430
Robert Horning 80
Wm Speirs 200
Sarah Exum 150
Jno Larrence 175
Nicholas Perry 200
Sampson Merridith 400
Coll Thomas Milner 1484
Joseph Merridith 250
Thomas Kinder 160
Henry King 300
Joseph Hine 150
Wm King 140
Julian King 700
Mich King 80
Capt Tho Godwin Jun 697
Henry Lawrence 200
Jno King 1000
Richard Hyne 200
Capt Francis Milner 479
Benj Nevill 475
Elizabeth Marler 80
Wm Keene 200
Jno Symmons 678
Hen: Johnson 150
Jno Darden 500
Wm Everett 150
Wm Pope 890
Joseph Worrell 270
Thomas Jemegan Jun 135
Richard Lawerence 200
Jonathan Robinson 400
Robert Yates 150
Thomas Odium 20
John Barefield 300
John Raules 600
Thomas Boyt 400
Thomas Vaughan 200
Jno Parker 300
Richard Green 200
Elizabeth Ballard 300
Samuell Watson 200
Francis Spight 400
Joseph Ballard 200
John Oxley 100
Benj Rogers 600
Robert Rogers 300
Henry Jerregan 200
Jno Hansell 500
Henry Jenkins 400
Capt William Hunter 800
Jno Moore 200
Richard Moore 250
Edward Homes 300
Fra Cambridge 100
Wm Ward 200
Jno Rice 140
Wm Battaile 800
Wm Spite 500
Abr Oadham 20
Jacob Oadam 20
Jno Lee 100
Wm Macklenny 200
Robert Coleman 1400
Jno Bryan 200
Wm Daughtree 100
Jno Copeland 600
Jno Butler 200
James Butler 75
Thomas Roads 75
Wm Collins 1220
Jno Hedgpath 700
Jno Holland 700
Robert Carr 200
Wm Waters 600
Robert Lawrence 400
Wm Bryon 350
Lewis Bryon 400
James Lawrence 100
Wm Gatlin 100
Joseph Gutchins 250
George Lawrence 400
Lewis Daughtree 100
Thomas Rogers 50
Jno Rogers 200
Henry Core 50
Edward Cobb 100
Richard Taylor 300
Robert Brewer 200
Wm Osburne 200
Thomas Biswell 400
Jno Gatlin 200
Richard Folk 100
Thomas Parker 100
Peter Parker 140
Wm Parker 140
Richard Hine Jun 200
Stephen Archer 200
Charles Roades 800
Henry Roades 100
James Collings 300
Henry Holland 400
Wm Kerle 325
Joseph Holland 100
Jno Thomas Jun 100
Jno Thomas 275
Thomas Mason 350
Edward Mason 150
Jno Sanders 150
Mich Brinkley 200
James Moore 400
Henry Blumpton 1500
Jno Symmons 100
Jeremiah Edmunds 70
John Gay 200
Philip Aylsberry 100
James Copeland 390
Jno Brothers 460
Richard Creech 200
Richard Bond 90
Thomas Handcock 30
James Knott 1050
Wm Edwards 150
Robert Elkes 175
Edward Price 140
Jane Belson 100
Wm Staples 210
Robert Mountgomery 150
John Moore 100
Capt Edmund Godwin 800
Thomas Wakefield 150
Godfrey Hunt 360
Henery Wilkinson 250
Nicholas Dixon 200
George Keeley 650
Richard Taylor 300
Anne Coefield 300
Joseph Hollyday 1000
Mr Jno Braisseur 400
Thomas Best 160
Alexander Campbell 500
Capt Charles Drury 570
Thomas Drury 75
Luke Shea 650
John Babb 500
Abraham Edwards 400
Richard Sanders 500
Antho Wallis 80
Daniell Sullivan 100
Joseph Ellis 290
Nicholas Hunter 190
Richard Webb 200
John Hare 190
Christopher Norfleet 400
Jno Heslop 148
Francis Benton 200
Capt Wm Sumner 275
Elizabeth Syrte 100
Anne Hare 600
Jno Porter 450
Edward Welsh 100
Jno Winbourne 400
Paul Pender 200
Mich Cowling 100
John Cowling 100
Rowland Gwyn 75
Andrew Ross 150
Jno Ballard 400
Benjamin Montgomery 910
Thomas Corbell 200
Jno Yates 400
Jno White 150
George White 50
Jno Bond 150
Wm Hay 100
Henry Bowes 600
Wm Sevill 85
Jno Hambleton 200
Robert Jordan 850
James Howard 25
Ruth Coefield 110
Jno Chilcott 100
Jno Rutter 80
Thomas Rutter 75
Wm Rutter 75
Capt Barnaby Kerney 460
Thomas Cutchins 150
Robert Lawrence 130
Samuell Cahoone 240
Jno Iles 220
Thomas Sawyer 180
Wm Outland 400
Coll George Northworthy 650
Coll Thomas Godwin 810
Caleb Taylor 200
Thomas Carnell 320
Richard Bradley 250
Jno Corbin 300
Wm Sykes 150
Major Thomas Jorden 700
Richard Lovegrove 150
Thomas Davis 144
Samuell Farmer 160
Henry Bradley 500
Jno Clarke 25
Margarett Jorden 200
Wm Elkes 100
Humphrey Mires 150
James Ward 100
Widdow Hudnell 45
Wm Grandberry 300
Israell Shepherd 200
Benj. Small 100
Anne Crandberry 75
Charles Roberts 50
Richard Sclator 300
Robert Murrow 320
Elizabeth Peters 334
Thomas Jones 200
Elizabeth Butler 200
Coll Samuell Bridger 500
Jno Lawrence 100
Thomas Jarregan 165
Thomas Jarregan Jun 600
Wm Drury 80
Wm Butler 120
Henry Jenkins 860
Edward Bathurst 250
Thomas Houffler 200
Edward Streater 200
Wm Duffield 50
Charles Thomas Jun 50
Jno Blessington 150
Ursula Goodwin 100
Thomas Acwell 440
Wm Peale 180
John Lambkin 50
James Murphice 160
Robert Peale 275
John Peters 368
James Peters 340
John Wakefield 50
Richard Wynn 890
James Lockhart 800
John Keeton 2000
------
117024
Jno Murrow 200
------
117224
Added to make up equll 13850
the last year list ------
which may be supposed 131074
to be held by persons
that have not made both
Persons living out of the County and other that will not pay or give
account. Viz:
Capt Thomas Lovett
Capt Jno Wright
Fra Parker Jun
Tho Martin
Jno Wright
Wm Lapiter
Jno Lapiter
Capt Luke Haffield
Mrs Elizabeth Swann
Errors excepted per me Henry Jenkins
An Alphabetical List of the Quit Rents of Norfolk County 1704
Ashley Dennis 150
Avis Widdow 50
Adam Wm 100
Alexander John 300
Barington Wm 100
Bartee Robert 150
Bull Robert Sen 1050
Blanch Wm 100
Bond Wm 200
Brown Widdow 270
Bruce Abraham 1010
Brown Wm 100
Bowers Jno 166
Bolton Wm 212
Byron Roger 200
Bayley Walter 290
Bruce Jno 300
Bishop Wm 100
Bull Henry 1500
Bucken Wm 410
Babington Thomas 150
Babington Jno 150
Babington Rich 50
Burges George 200
Burges Robert 535
Butt Richard 1840
Brown Edward 300
Bigg Thomas 100
Balingtine Alexander 300
Balengtine George 510
Bull Thomas 2200
Bramble Henry 100
Blake Arthur 200
Bolton Richard 700
Branton John 330
Bacheldon Joseph 300
Bush Samuell Major 1628
Balingtine Wm 60
Bowles Henry 330
Cartwright Peter 1050
Cooper Wm 150
Cooper Jno 150
Cramore George 100
Carling Walton 50
Carling Joseph 200
Curch Richard 1050
Churey Widdow 600
Cuthrell Going 470
Crekmore Edward 800
Cartwright Widdow 800
Corprew Jno 650
Corprew Thomas 650
Crekmore Jno 750
Caswell Widdow 350
Colley Jno 100
Cottell Thomas 200
Conden Thomas 390
Conner Lewis 2200
Carney Jno 100
Carney Richard 100
Collins Wm 100
Crekmore Edmund 690
Charleton Jno 50
Cutrell Thomas 150
Chapman Richard 50
Churey Thomas 100
Churey Jno 150
Dixon Jno 300
Davis Wm Sen 250
Davis Wm 158
Dresdall Robert 318
Davis Thomas 332
Desnall Wm 100
Davis Edward 300
Dalley Henry 1524
Dalley Wm 156
Davis Thomas 340
Denby Edward 100
Daniell Hugh 100
Etherdge Thomas Cooper 75
Etherdge Thomas B R 50
Etherdge Thomas Sen 34
Etherdge Thomas Jun 33
Etherdge Edward 66
Etherdge Wm 250
Etherdge Wm Jun 80
Etherdge Marmaduke 525
Edmonds John 50
Ellis Wm 200
Etherdge Edward Cooper 200
Estwood Thomas 170
Estwood John 75
Etherdge Edward Sen 33
Edwards John 250
Etherdge Charles 75
Evans Abrigall 100
Furgison Thomas 100
Freeman Jno 190
Foreman Alexander 750
Foster Henry 1000
Ferbey Jno 500
Fulsher Jno 1396
Godfry Waren 350
Godfry John 1470
Godfry Matthew 450
Grefen Jno 200
Garen Daniell 50
Guy John 110
Gwin Wm 350
Gilhgun Ferdinando 182
Gilhgan John 200
Gresnes James 150
Gaines John 50
Guy James 100
Herbert Thomas 150
Hayes Wm 200
Harris John 110
Holyday Jno 440
Hodges Joseph 50
Hoges Thomas 407
Hoges John 520
Hollowell Jno Sen 524
Hollygood Thomas 100
Hollowell Jno 200
Holsted Henry 633
Hollowell Joseph 1280
Holsted John 350
Hues Edward 1304
Hullett Jno 300
Hodges Roger 109
Hodges Thomas 50
Hodges Richard 375
Harvey Richard 265
Handberry 300
Hollowell Elener 1550
Herbert Jno 400
Hargrave Benjamin 250
Hartwell Richard 150
Henland Jno 800
Ivey George 496
Jackson Symon 720
Ives Timothy 400
Ives Timothy Jun 100
Ives John 434
Johnston John 275
Johnston Mercey 275
Joles Thomas 200
Joyce Jno 200
Jolef Jno Jun 300
Jenings Henry 100
Jolef Jno Sen 840
Kaine Richard 50
Langley Wm 1487
Langley Thomas 878
Loveney James 100
Luelling Edward 315
Luelling Richard 200
Lovell Widdow 740
Low Henry 191
Lane Robert 460
Ludgall Matthew 250
Levima John 510
Lenton Wm 150
Mercer Thomas 600
Maning Thomas 97
Maning Nicholas 260
Mones Joseph 73
Matthias Matthew 100
Miller Wm 1090
Miller Jno 200
Miller Widdow 100
Murden Widdow 2000
Miller Thomas 1050
Maund Wm 200
Maning Jno Sen 300
Miller Joseph 882
Mocey Dennis Sen & Jun 160
Mohan James 100
Murfrey Alexander 800
Maning Jno Jun 100
Moseley Widdow 300
Miller Widdow Sen 200
Mason Thomas 125
Masom Lemuell 400
Mason Thomas 653
Mason George 300
Mockey Adam 400
Newton George 1119
Nicholson Jno 160
Nash Thomas 50
Nicholson Henry 320
Nash Richard 100
Nicholson Wm 300
Norcote Thomas 273
Outlaw Edward 208
Owens Wm 650
Odyam Wm 200
Pearce Wm 100
Peters Widdow 698
Portlock 360
Porter Samuell 100
Prescot Moses 1200
Philpot Richard 200
Powell Richard 100
Powell Lemuell 246
Powell Wm 624
Perkins Wm 50
Patison Robert 350
Roberts Jos 100
Robert Samuell 800
Rose Robert 385
Rose Jno 60
Randall Giles 150
Richardson Thomas 379
Spring Robert 98
Spivey Matt 600
Smith John 127
Scoll Thomas 400
Smith Richard 600
Smith John 200
Silvester Richard 1280
John Smith Sen 1200
Sickes Walter Sen 550
Sickes John 200
Sugg George 408
Sugg Wm 200
Sayer Francis 600
Smith Humphrey 100
Standbro Jno 40
Standley Richard 200
Sharples Henry 100
Sugg Joseph 300
Symons Thomas 166
Symon James 200
Sparrow Wm 350
Tuker Wm 100
Thornton Francis 200
Thurston Matthew 100
Theobald James 140
Thellaball Widdow 600
Tuker Richard 100
Tuker Thomas 280
Taylor Jno 100
Taylor Richard 75
Tully Jno 165
Tarte Elezar Sen 300
Taylor Andrew 222
Tuker Jno 400
Tart Alice 300
Tarte Elezar Jun 595
Taylor Wm 265
Trigoney Henry 200
Velle Moriss 335
Walice Thomas 150
Weston Edward 100
Willoughby Thomas Coll 3200
Weshart John 150
Woodly Robert 350
Williams John 125
Wilder Mich 200
Watkins Thomas 190
Williamson Jno 750
Whedon Jno Jun 100
Willoughby Thomas Capt 660
Whedon Wm 200
West John 500
Watson Robert 80
Wallis Richard 250
Wallis Jno 135
Wallis Wm 450
Whithurst Richard 150
Whithurst Wm 150
Wilkins Wm 200
Williams John 200
Whedbey George 200
Worden James 400
Wilson James Jun 200
Wilson Lemuell 300
Wilson James Coll 2800
Woodward Henry 280
Whedon Jno Jun 320
White Patrick 500
Willis John 470
Weldey Dorothy 25
Ward Jno 320
Wakfield Thomas 40
Wilden Nath 100
Wooding Thomas 170
Wood Edward 100
Watford Joseph 97
Wate John 400
Wright Wm 574
Wright James 216
Wadborn Mich 500
Williams Jane 400
Webb Mary 100
Worminton John 200
Wilden Francis 100
Widdick Henry 343
------
113684
New discovered Land 1615
------
112069
An Account of the Land belonging to such persons out of the County and
also others out of the County.
Coll Cary
Tully Robinson
James Daves
Robert Berrey 95
Jno Bennett 33
Coll Nasareth 400
Cornelius Tullery 150
James Wilson Sherriff
Princess Anne County Rent Roll 1704
John Carraway 180
Thomas More 100
Henry Chapman 250
George Poole 1085
James Whithurst 600
Thomas Morris 63
Thomas Joy 600
Thomas Scott 100
George Smith 250
Thomas Hife 200
Richard Smith 200
Thomas Hattersley 90
Thomas Jolley 150
Mich Ventres 450
Capt Blomer Bray 270
James Mecoy 200
Francis Bond 264
Edward Wood 50
Jno Morrah 200
Alexander Morrah 200
Ruth Woodhouse 450
Horatia Woodhouse 525
Joseph White 330
Jon Basnett 250
Owen Wilbe 100
Mr. Wm. Corneck 1974
Jno Oakham 390
David Scott 600
Jno Keeling 2000
Adam Keeling 500
Humphrey Smith 50
Jno Halise 130
Capt Wm Crawford 2650
Richard Williamson 450
Edward Tranter 180
Jno. Sherland 800
Robert Rany 70
Edward Old 450
Coll Lemuell Mason 650
Mr. Francis Emperor 400
James Kemp 681
Bartho: Williamson 400
Symon Hancock Jun 200
George Batten 150
Matth: Brinson 250
Mr. Edward Mosseley Sen 1000
Wm Martin 200
James Joslin 100
Alexander Lilburn 500
James William 100
Mr. Henry Spratt 1736
Symon Hancock Sen 300
Thomas Walk 298
Jno Kemp 340
Randolph Lovett 100
Edward Davis 200
Jno Sammons 150
Elizabeth Edwards 50
Mr. Benj. Burroughs 800
Jno Muncreef 140
Matt: Pallett 600
Mrs. Thurston 290
Lancaster Lovett 1850
Robert Cartwright 260
Jno. Cartwright 100
Nath: Macklakan 100
Adam Thorowgood 700
Henry Walstone 800
Edward Land 400
Thomas Hall 400
Wm. Catherill 150
Doctor Browne 600
John Richardson 1000
Robert Richmond 1000
Thomas Benson 225
Lewis Pervine 800
Edward Attwood 400
Wm. Moore 414
Mr. Henry Woodhouse 3000
Tully Emperor 300
Jno. Godfrey 170
Wm Dyer 700
Edward Cooper 200
Wm Ship 300
Jno Buck 250
Peter Mallbourn 280
Benjamin Roberts 100
Capt Jno Gibbs 3100
Sarah Sanford 1200
Henry Harrison 300
James Lemon 1500
Wm Wallsworth 100
Wm Capps 1050
Jacob Taylor 80
Stephen Pace 50
Adam Hayes 1360
Wm Chichester 400
Robert Dearemore 514
Capt. Francis Morse 1300
Patrick Anguish 150
Thomas Brock 400
Wm Brock 100
Jno Sullivant 200
Francis Sheene 300
Jno Acksted 400
Charles Hendley 100
Duke Hill 70
Job Brooks 150
Jno Brooks 100
Thomas Turton 110
Peter Crosby 250
Jno Pisburn 314
James Sherwood 200
Edward Cannon 550
Richard Capps 100
John Doley 640
Matthew Mathias 80
Mr. James Peters 889
Jno Owens 190
Josvas Morris 900
Thomas Mason 140
Wm. Wishart 200
Jno Russell 300
Stephen Sall 250
Timothy Dennis 100
George Walker 425
Wm. Ashby 100
Charles Griffin 216
Symon Franklin 100
Alice Thrower 125
James Wishart 225
Richard Draught 500
Doctor Wm. Hunter 80
Mr. Jon Sanders 203
Wm Grinto 650
Henry Fithgerreld 200
Coll. H. Lawson 3100
Capt. John Thorowgood 1000
Robert Thorowgood 940
Henry Southern 640
John Wharton 850
Joseph Doller 150
Jno Briggs 600
Francis Jones 100
Thomas Lurrey 100
Thomas Walker 820
Steph Swaine 450
Edward Mulsin 100
George Bullock 300
Jno Leggett 400
Mark Tully 300
Wm. Walstone 400
Mark Powell 550
Elizabeth Nicholls 500
Hugh Hoskins 50
Wm. Burrough 50
Wm. Warren 100
Capt. Hugh Campble 800
George Worrinton 400
James Tully 400
Wm. Lovett 1300
Wm. Grant 150
Thomas More 100
Richard Whithurst 350
Capt. Thomas Cocke 800
John Comins 175
Thomas Griffin 200
Thomas Spratt 600
Jno Russell 150
James Heath 550
David Duncon 100
Daniell Lane 350
George Fowler 600
Jno Booth 350
Giles Collier 500
Jacob Johnson 1700
Alexander Willis 150
Richard Bonny 2000
Mr. James Doage 784
Antho: Barnes 200
Jno. Macklalin 120
Thomas Etherington 108
Jno James 328
Wm. Woodhouse 300
John Mayho 160
Joseph Perry 35
Thomas Perry 650
Mr. Argoll Thorowgood 1000
Capt. Wm. Moseley 600
Jno Moseley 325
Wm. Smith 180
Wm. Symmons 400
Adam Forguson 120
Banj. Commins 200
Jno Elkes 500
Patrick White 1250
Richard Jones 200
Evan Jones 600
Mich. Jones 200
Richard Wicker 300
Henry Snaile 250
Mr. Samiel Bush 550
Mr. Tully Robinson 500
Jno Briberry 50
Wm. Moseley 50
Capt. Christ. Merchant 400
Richard Cox 50
Matt. Godfrey 150
Thomas Tully 600
Hector Denby 600
Thomas Keeling 700
Wm. More 100
Thomas Cason 550
Sarah Jackson 600
Jacob More 200
-----
98728
Henry Spratt
A True and Perfect Rent Roll of the Lands In Elizabeth City County for
the Year 1704
Coll. Wm. Wilson 1024
Mr. Wm. Smelt 150
Mr. Pasquo Curle 300
Mr. Nicho. Curle 950
Coll. Dudley Diggs 216
Samuell Pearce 100
Mary Jenings 250
Mark Powell 184
Wm. Davis 42
Jno Skinner 50
Thomas Baines 50
Wm Latham 90
Thomas Tucker 60
Matthew Smell 100
Charles Cooley 200
Jno Chandler 150
Wm. Umpleet 25
Charles Tucker 240
Thomas Allin 227
Wm. Williams per the School 600
Wm Williams per himself 260
Mrs. Bridgett Jenkins 100
Christopher Davis 25
Wm. Spicer 60
Thomas Hawkins 270
Jno Bowles 260
Jno Theodam 100
Bartho. Wetherby 300
Jos: White 200
Capt. Henry Royall 750
Robert Bright Sen. 100
Thomas Naylor 100
George Cooper Sen 100
Thomas Needham 100
Cha: Cooper 100
Wm. Dunn 100
Charles Jenings 225
Samuell Davill 100
Paltey Davill 100
Francis Rogers 200
Thomas Babb per Selden 300
Richard Horsley 90
Sarah Nagleer 230
Henry Dunn 50
Peter Pearce 50
Moses Davis 150
Mich: Breltuen 100
Henry Robinson 200
Christo. Copeland 340
Thomas Faulkner 50
Mr. James Wallace 1300
Mr. Berthram Servant 418
Robert Taylor 50
Joseph Harris 50
Wm. Robinson 50
Wm. Boswell 220
Wm. Winter 70
John Lowry per Selden 110
Edward Roe 100
Henry James 100
Richard Roatton 50
Thomas Poole 1200
John Wheat Land 66
George Bell 80
Widdow Ballis 350
George Walker 325
Mr. Robert Beverley 777
Jno House 157
Jno Bushell Jun 150
Roger Masinbred 50
John Shepherd 210
Wm. Minsor 150
Edward Lattimore 190
James Baker 225
Thomas Tucker 60
Jno. Cotton 50
Mark Johnson 400
Major Wm. Armistead 460
Coll. Antho. Armistead 2140
Daniell Preeday 50
Matthew Watts 454
Bryan Penny 50
Giles Dupra 150
Jno Bayley 415
Mary Simmons 200
Jno Parish 50
Antho. Griggs 50
Abr: Parish 100
Mark Parish 200
Benj. Smith 650
Thomas Nobling per Archer 212
Wm. Mallory 200
Widdow Croashell 100
Charles Powers 400
Robert Charwill per Jno Young 440
Samuell Fingall 333
Francis Savoy 50
Mr. Edward Mihills 600
Jane Nichols 50
John Francis 25
James Priest 50
Simon Hollier 200
Mr. Thomas Gebb 630
Mr. Richard Booker 526
Mr. Wm. Lowry 526
Mr. Merry or Mrs Dunn 500
Wm. Haslyitt 100
Capt. Augustine More 285
John More 250
John Passones 780
Rebeckha Morgan 50
Thomas Roberts 250
Mr. John Turner 50
Henry Lais 50
Capt. Henry Jenkins 300
Mr. Francis Ballard per Selden 460
-----
29560
Henry Royall Sheriff
A True & Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands that is held in Warwick
County 1704
Major Wm. Cary 300
Mr. Nedler Plantacon 80
Rober Hubbert 101
Wm. Harwood 625
Richard Glanvills Orphans 165
Wm. Hubbert 200
Henry Gibbs 315
Wm. Hewitt 150
James Hill 135
John Golden 50
Thomas Harwood 575
Jno. Harwood 704
Capt. Thomas Charles 100
Hump: Harwood 400
Matthew Wood 300
Edward Joyner 60
Coll. Dudley Diggs 4626
Elizabeth Lucas 800
John Hillard 74
Edward Loftes 60
Wm. Rowles Orphans 150
Samuell Hatton 225
Isaac Goodwin 225
George Robinson 70
Seymon Powell 250
John Dawson 300
Wades Orphans 100
Henry Dawson 200
John Bowger 100
Joseph Cooper 200
Robert Roberts 60
George Burton 330
Capt. Mills Wells 425
Roger Daniell Orphans 196
Jno Hansell 100
Emanuell Wells 325
Elizabeth Wells Widdow 155
Widdow Lewelling 100
Wm. Wells 615
Elias Wells 50
Widdow Pierce 155
Thomas Haynes 850
John Scarsbrook 850
Francis Jones 150
Matthew Jones 750
Jno. Read 875
Mr. Brewer Land 1350
Mr. Henry Cary 670
Langhorne Orphans 602
Coll. Coles Orphans 1350
Peter Jones 150
Samuell Crew Orphans 150
Samuell Symons 173
Mrs. Elizabeth Whitaker 600
Capt. Miles Cary 600
John Cannon 75
John Linton 75
Richard Gough 60
Coll. Miles Cary 1960
Mr. Jno. Mallnote 61
Rowlands Williams 170
Robert Chapell 150
James Chapell 100
Edward Powers 200
James White 40
Peter Sawers Orphans 95
Wm. Cotton 143
James Cotton 70
John Croley 100
Stephen Burgess 128
Widdow Yorgen 60
George Jackson 193
Sarah Ranshaw 125
Richard Wootton 243
Samuell Hoggard 120
James Floyd 100
Fr: Rice Orphans 200
Mr. Math Hoggard 270
Widdow Chapell 321
Thomas Ascow 50
Garrett Ridley 300
Samuell Ranshaw 238
Charle Stuckey 86
Jos Naylor 100
Jos Russell 150
Charles Allen 295
Wm. Newberrey 100
John Turmer 100
Wm. Smith 150
Elizabeth Holt 150
James Browne 150
Henry Royall 246
Edward Rice 375
Thomas Blackistone 75
Mark Noble 215
James Reynolds 75
John Holmes 200
Samuell Duberry 200
Edward Powers 200
Jno Hatton Orphans 93
Wm. Lowland 25
Thomas Morey 363
Wm. Bracey 150
Cope Doyley 500
Nath Edwards 100
Samuel Groves 490
Croncher Orphans 50
Henry Whitaker 60
Woodman Land 200
Wm Cook 29
Jno Tignall 392
Thomas Mountfort 890
Joseph Mountfort 558
James Priest 50
Abr: Cawley 80
Wm. Jones 70
Edward Davis 200
The County Land 150
Denbigh per Gleab 130
Mulberry Island Gleab 50
Thomas Hansford 75
Mr. Rascows Orphans 1195
-----
37685
Thomas Hansford never before paid 75
-----
37610
Persons out of the County
Jno Trevillian 248
Holman Orphans 200 448
Robert Hubberd Sherriff
A Rent Roll of all the Land In York County 1704
Wm. Jackson 200
Matt: Pierce 100
Jno. Latin 150
Robert Cobbs 100
Francis Sharp 100
Geo: Baskewyle 350
Richard Gilford 100
Jos: Frith 50
Wm. Jones 70
Nath: Crawley 384
Thomas Crips 750
Wm. Davis 200
Lewis Barnoe 80
Arthur Lun 50
Jno. Bates 669
Jno Serginton 150
Wm. Taylor 100
Richard Page 150
Wm. Jorden 580
Jno. Lynes 150
Alex: Banyman 50
Wm. Cobbs 50
Mary Whaley 550
Henry Tyler 180
Richard Kendall 150
Wm. Hansford 300
Nicholas Sebrell 150
David Stoner 50
Ralph Hubberd 50
Wm. Harrison 50
Jno. Wyth 100
Thomas Hill 930
Thomas Vines 200
Morgan Baptist 100
Phil. Deadman 75
Bazill Wagstaff 127
Wm. Allen 117
Robert Read 750
Jos: Mountford 307
Roger Boult 100
Edward Fuller 70
Thomas Jefferson 100
Henry Duke 25
Jno. Hansford 100
Robert Peters 160
Jno. Morland 100
Wm. Lee 350
Richard Burt 200
John Eaton 170
Rob: Starke 250
Robt. Harrison 200
Jno. Morris 125
James Bates 117
Elizabeth Jones 94
Edward Young 100
Robert Green 200
Tho: Fear 100
Edward Thomas 223
John Loyall 100
Stephen Pond 200
Wm. Wise 850
Cornelius Shoohorn 100
Joseph White 750
Daniell Park Esq. 2750
Thomas Fear Jun 130
Orlando Jones 450
Ambrose Cobbs 163
Henry Dyer 50
Wm. Davis 100
Wm. Buckner 302-1/2
Tho. Barber 600
Elizb. Tindall 60
Dudley Diggs 1350
Wm. Hewitt 150
Mary Collier 433
Charles Collier 684
Tho. Hansford 75
Geo. Browne 150
Wm. Gibbs 50
Wm. Pekithman 650
Jno. Smith 150
Baldwin Matthews 1300
Jno Daniell 200
Seamor Powell 130
Jno. Lewis Esq. 300
Wm. Timson 1000
Jno. Page 490
Jos. Benjafield 80
Tho. Stear 60
Stephen Fouace 565
Edmund Jenings Esq. 850
Elizb. Archer 370
Wm. Coman 50
Elizb. Hansford 100
Samll: Hill 25
Jno. Anderson 50
Tho Buck 250
Lewis Burwell 2100
Robt. Crawley 400
Robt. Hyde 200
Robt. Harrison 250
Jeffry Overstreet 50
Tho. Overstreet 50
John Myhill 52
Mary Roberts 25
Benja. Stogsdall 50
Tho Wade 375
Jos: Walker 615
Jno. Sanders 100
Mongo Inglis 400
Tho Holyday 100
Jno. Williams 100
Antho: Sebrell 50
Robt. Jones 100
James Cansebee 200
Richd. Booker 200
James Morris 100
Henry Adkinson 82
Robt. Jackson 150
Anthoney Robinson 183
Hannah Lamb 50
James Calthorp 900
Tho Boulmer 265
Peter Pasque 12
Jno. Chapman 70
Jno. Pond 112
Sarah Tomkins 250
Robt. Kirby 200
Tho. Kirby 270
Edward Curtis 200
Jno. Forgison 200
Wm. Row 902
Jno. Hunt 550
Wm. Taverner 100
Armiger Wade 424
Richard Dixon 450
Edmund Jennings Esq. 1650
Jno. Persons 300
Tho. Nutting 375
Peter Manson 150
Richard Slaughter 275
James Persons 350
Tho. Roberts 450
Jno. Toomer 335
Daniell Taylor 225
Robert Hayes 220
Henry Andros 274
Jno. Wells 750
Robert Curtis 250
Tho. Cheesman Sen. 1800
Jos Potter 25
Hen: Heywood 1300
David Holyday 600
John Northern 130
Jno. Doswell 367
Isaac Powell 100
Symon Staice 200
Jno. Drewet 200
Robert Topladie 100
Jno. Potter 93
Lewis Vernum 150
James Slaughter 250
Tho: Burnham 50
Jno: Doswell Jun 100
Robert Shields 400
Wm. Wilson 50
Owen Davis 247
Tho. Walker 100
Richard Nixon 150
Henry Clerk 100
Elias Love 25
Wm. Howard 100
Jno. Sanderver 100
Jno. Cox 50
Tho. Gibbins 100
Tho. Hind 100
Tho Cheesman Jun 600
Wm. Browne 200
Jno. Rogers 650
Jno. Moss 150
Jno. Lawson 100
Nicho. Philips 150
Wm. Sheldon 750
Jno. Wayman 100
Tho Edmonds 150
Lawrence Smith 1700
James Paulmer 150
Wm. Gurrow 150
Peter Goodwin 400
Robt. Snead 50
Edward Cawley 150
Wm. Gorden 150
Jno. Hilsman 75
Jno. Wright 100
Jno. Gibons 50
Elizb. Goodwin 1200
Samuell Cooper 150
Jno. Fips 150
Tho Wooton 150
Edward Moss 759
Rebecka Watkins 100
Wm. Whitaker 1800
Hampton Parish 200
Bruton parish Gleabe 300
Robt. Ivy he living in
James City County &
no Tennt. on ye Land 100
-----
61132-1/2
Added to make up the old Roll 168
-----
61300-1/2
Wm. Barbar S Y C
The Rent Roll of the Land in James City County 1704
A
Adkinson Tho 50
Adkinson Henry 250
Armestone Joshua 50
Adams Anne 150
Argo James 200
Abbitt Francis 100
Apercon Wm. 80
Allen Richard 540
-----
1420
B
Baker Jno. 100
Bentley Jno 125
Bess Edmund 75
Burwell Lewis 1350
Beckitt Tho 60
Bray James 3500
Bryon Jno. 100
Bingley James 100
Benham Jno. 50
Brown James 250
Bowers Wm. 50
Broadnax Wm. 1683
Bayley Wm 100
Black Geo 200
Bush Jno 800
Ballard Tho 100
Bray David 5758
Burton Ralph 200
Blankitt Henry 100
Brand Richard 125
Breeding Jno. 100
Bruer Thackfield 350
Blackley Wm 142
Barratt Wm. 305
Barron Tho 100
Blankes Henry 650
Bagby Tho 180
Barnes Francis 200
Brackitt Tho 150
Browne Wm. 1070
Buxton Samuell 300
Bimms Christo. 300
Ballard Wm. 300
Boman 90
Benge Robert 60
-----
19123
C
Center Jno 100
Clerk Wm. 1100
Charles Phill 200
Capell Tho. 200
Cearley Wm. 450
Clerk Robert 300
Clerk Sarah 200
Cole Richard 80
Cooper Tho 60
Cook Richard 75
Cosby Charles 250
Crawley Robert 460
Cryer George 100
Cobbs Ambrose 350
Cock Jonathan 250
Cowles Thomas 675
-----
4850
D
Dormar Jno. 100
Drummond Wm 150
Deane Jno 150
Duckitt Abraham 290
Danzee Jno Jacob Coignan 4111
Deane Tho 80
Deane Wm 100
Drummond Jno 700
Deane Tho 150
Duke Tho 750
Davey Francis 778
Doby Jno. 300
Duke Henry Jun 50
Duke Henry Esq. 2986
-----
11695
E
Elerby Elizabeth 600
Edmunds Elizabeth 175
Eggleston Joseph 550
Eglestone Benj. 1375
-----
2700
F
Fearecloth Tho 277
Farthing Wm. 50
Frayser Jno 250
Fox Wm. 50
Fouace Stephen 150
Fish Jno. 100
Freeman George 197
Furrbush Wm. 400
Flanders Francis 350
-----
1824
G
Goodrich Benj. 1650
Gwin Jno. 100
Garey Tho. 60
Guilsby Tho. 300
Graves Joseph 250
Goss Charles 171
Goodall Jno. 400
Geddes 476
Gill Jno. 100
Green Tho. 50
Gregory Nicho. 50
Green Wm. 100
Ginnings Phill. 400
Gibson Gibey 150
Goodman John 275
Goodwin Robert 150
Grice Aristotle 700
Greene Tho 500
-----
5882
H
Hudson Wm 50
Herd Leph. 100
Hadley Dyonitia 100
Hall Jno. 50
Harvey George 1425
Howard Jno. 25
Hughes Geo. 250
Harfield Mich 50
Hudson George 100
Hudson Leonard 170
Hood Jno. 250
Harris Wm. 140
Hamner Nicho. 500
Henley Leonard 360
Hooker Edward 1067
Higgins Jno. 75
Henley Jno. 100
Holiday Tho. 250
Hitchcock John 100
Holeman James 150
Hubert Matt 1834
Handcock Robt. 300
Haley James 310
Hook Mick 260
Hill Tho. 310
Hatfield Richard 100
Hilliard Jerimiah 225
Hilliard John 200
Hopkins John 120
Hunt Wm. 1300
Hix John 115
Harrison Wm. 150
Hawkins John 200
Hix Joseph 100
Harrison Benj. Jun 100
-----
10936
J
Inch Jno. 30
Jone Fred 300
Inglis Mingo 1300
Jenings Edmund Esq. 200
Jaquelin Edward 400
Jeffrys Tho 60
Jackson Elizabeth 200
Jackson Richard 150
Jeffrys Matt. 100
Johnson Antho 100
Jones Wm. 50
Johnson Jno 260
Jones Wm. 150
Jordan John 1000
-----
4265
K
Knowstarp 150
L
Lawrence Richard 250
Ludwell Phil Esq 6626
Lattoon John 75
Lund Thomas 100
Lillingtone Benj. 100
Lidie Robt. 500
Loftin Comeles 200
Lightfoot Phil 1650
Lightfoot Jno. Esq 250
Love Jno. 100
Loftin Comeles Jun 200
Liney Wm. 55
-----
10106
M
Mookins Roger 160
Macklin Wm 300
Marston Wm 150
Morris Edward Jun 100
Manningaren 150
Marston Tho 1000
Martin Richard 150
Maples Tho 300
Muttlow Jno 170
Morris James 800
Moris David 170
Myers Wm Jun 100
Mountfort Tho 600
Morris John 195
Marble Geo 135
Mallard Poynes 100
Merryman James 300
Morecock Tho 700
Meekings Tho 175
Marraw Dennis 30
Major John 100
-----
5885
N
Norrell Hugh 328
Nicholson Jno 144
Nicholls Henry 100
Nailer Wm 300
O'Mooney Mary 126
-----
998
P
Prince George 50
Page John 1700
Page Mary 900
Pigot Benj. 90
Pall Wm 450
Parker Tho 1650
Peper Stephen 100
Phillips Jno 300
Pattison Alex 100
Perkins Charles 320
Philips Edward 100
Philips Wm 300
Pearman Wm 270
Pearman Jno 200
Pendexter Tho 550
Parish Tho 100
Pattisson Tho 200
Parke Daniell Esq 1800
Pattison Catherine 150
-----
9330
R
Rhodes Randall 50
Ryder Mary 350
Rhodes Francis 100
Rovell Jno 50
Revis Wm. 150
Russell Samuell 350
-----
1050
S
Stafford Mary 210
Sanders Jno. 50
Sewell Jno. 75
Sprattley Jno. 350
Smith Christo. 450
Short Jno. 90
Smallpage Robt. 190
Santo Robt. 100
Smith Jno. 114
Slade Wm. 80
Soane Henry 750
Sykes Barnard 1012
Selvey Jacob 50
Sharp Jno. 800
Shaley Jno. 150
Simes Wm. 650
Sorrell Mary 500
Sherman Elizb. 500
-----
6121
T
Tinsley Edward 100
Tinsley Richard 100
Tomson James 100
Thackson John 289
Tyery Wm. 1590
Thurston John 500
Thomas Wm. 150
Tyler Henry 730
Tullett John 625
Thomas Hanah 100
Thomson Henry 150
Twine Tho. 100
Thomas Jno. 250
-----
4784
V
Vaughn Henry 1900
Udall Matthew 50
Verney Wm. 50
Vaiding Isaac 300
-----
2300
W
Weathers Tho. 130
Wood Richard 130
Whitaker Wm. 320
Ward Tho. 100
Weldon Sarah 100
Whaley Mary 200
Winter Timo. 250
Wilkins Samll. 170
Wright Samll. 100
Winter Wm. 100
Williams Matt. 75
Walker Alex. 500
Williamson John 120
Walker David 150
Walker Alex. Jun. 2025
Warberton Tho. 190
Weldey Geo. 317
Wragg Tho. 500
Wooton Jno. 150
Willson Jno. 140
Wilkins Tho. 600
Wood Edward 300
Wood Tho. 200
Walker David 100
Ward Robt. 800
Wright Mary 175
Woodward Lanslett 650
Woodward John 650
Woodward Geo. 350
Woodward Samll. 350
Ward Henry 150
Ward Edward 150
-----
10662
Y
Young Robt. 350
Young Thomas 350
-----
700
114780
Benj. Shottwater of York County 300
Tho. Sorrell 300
Mary Nosham at the Blackwater 168
-----
768
Henry Soane Junr. Sher.
The Totall of the Acres
in James City County
114780
Discovered of this for which
the Sheriff is to be allowed
the Qt. Rts. according to
his Ex.cy odrs in Council
6000
------
108780
108780 acres at 24 tob per
100 is 26107 tob
------
Whereof pd in Aronoco at
6 per Ct. 4000
12.0.0
In Sweet Scented at 3s " 4d
per Ct. 22107
92.2.3
104.2.3
New Kent County Rent Roll
A Rent Roll of the Lands held of her Maj^tie in the Parish of St. Peters
and St. Paulls. Anno 1704.
A
Alford John 240
Allen Richard 550
Alex Abraham 100
Allen Robt. 100
Austin 245
Austin James 700
Amos Fran 100
Ashcroft Tho 180
Aldridge Jno 250
Atkinson Jno 300
Anthony Mark 190
Anderson Jno 100
Anderson Robt 900
Arise Margt 200
Austin Rich 50
Anderson Robt. 700
Anderson David 300
Anderson Rich 200
Allen Reynold 205
Allvis George 325
Aron Josiah 200
Amos Nocho 50
Allen Daniell 250
Allen Samll 150
Anderson John 100
Ashley Charles 100
-----
6785
B
Bourn Wm 140
Bray Sarah 790
Bradbury Geo 100
Brothers Jno 200
Bayley Jno 80
Beck Wm Mr. 200
Butts Alice 150
Burnell Mary Mrs. 2750
Bassett Wm. 550
Ball David 200
Baughan Jno Junr 300
Bassett Tho 350
Blackburn Rowland 700
Baker Christo 100
Beer Peter 100
Brooks Richd 85
Burnell Edwd 200
Brown Jno 100
Bullock Richd 450
Blackwell James Junr 200
Brooks Robt 45
Bulkley Benj 200
Blackwell 950
Baughan Jno 100
Baughan Joseph 100
Bostock Jno 100
Bostock Wm 80
Bumpus Robt. 100
Burwell Lewis 200
Bryan Charles 100
Bullock Edwd 450
Blalock Jno 492
Baker Jno 130
Bearne Henry 50
Buhly Jno 225
Bow Henry 200
Bradley Tho 255
Barker Cha 100
Bugg Samll 60
Baskett Wm. Esq. 1250
Beck Wm. 433
Beare Joseph 150
Barrett Christo 60
Baughtwright Jno 250
Bad Samll 150
Banks Andrew 50
Baker Richd 80
Bowles John 500
Bunch John 100
Burnett Jno 150
Barnhowes Richd 1600
Barbar Tho 500
Burkett Tho 41
Bates Edwd 50
Breeding John 300
Brewer Mary 100
Bassett Wm. Esq. 4100
Bradingham Robt. 150
Baxter James 90
-----
21786
C
Cotrell Richd 200
Clarkson David 200
Crump Stephen 60
Crump Wm. 330
Clopton Wm. 454
Chandler Robt. 160
Crump Richd. 60
Cambo Richd. 80
Crawford David Junr 400
Crawford David Mr. 300
Chambers Edwd 235
Clerk Edwd 282
Collett Tho 100
Clerk Christo 300
Cocker Wm. 1000
Case Hugh 100
Carley Richd 80
Chiles Henry 700
Cook Abraham 200
Crump Elizb 80
Colum Richd 130
Crump James 150
Crump Robt 150
Clough Capt. 80
Chandler Wm. 300
Chandler Francis 150
Cordey Tho. 150
Currell Andrew 30
Croome Joell 600
Crutchfield Peter 400
Chesley Wm. 500
Crutchfield Junr 400
Carlton Wm. 140
Chambers George 100
Cox Wm. 350
-----
9251
D
Dolerd Wm 50
Dennett John 350
Durham James 100
Dumas Jerimiah 250
Deprest Robt 350
Dodd John 300
Dabony James 320
Davis Elizar 375
Duke Henry Esq. 325
Dibdall Jno 800
Darnell Rachell 100
Duke Henry Esq. 170
Davis John 80
Davenport Mest 125
Daniell John 150
-----
3845
E
Eperson John 120
Elmore Tho 300
Elmore Tho Junr 100
Ellicon Garratt Robt 520
England Wm. 490
Elderkin John 300
Elmore Peter 100
English Mungo 500
Ellis Wm. 100
-----
2530
F
Finch Edwd 300
Foster Joseph 800
Forgeson Wm 507
Fleming Charles 920
Francis Tho 150
Freeman Wm. 200
Fenton Widdo 270
Feare Edmd 200
Fisher Wm. 100
-----
3447
G
Goodger Jno 200
Green Edwd 200
Gibson Tho 370
Garrat James 375
Gonton Jno 250
Glass Tho 150
Graham Tho 250
Gleam Jno 300
Giles Jno 120
Gentry Nicho 250
Garland Edwd 2600
Glass Anne 150
Granchaw Tho 480
Greenfield Fran. 80
Gillmett Jno 160
Gawsen Phillip 50
Gillmett Richd 150
Glassbrook Robt 400
Gadberry Tho 200
Gill Nicho 222
Gosling Wm 460
Goodring Alexander 100
Gills John 100
Grindge Richd 225
-----
7442
H
Herlock John 320
Hilton Jno 300
Hughs Jno 180
Huberd Jno 827
Howie Jno 150
Howie Jno Junr 100
Hughs Robt 966
Harris Edmd 100
Harris Tho 100
Hawes Haugton 850
Harris John 146
Hill Jno 250
Hester Fra 300
Horsley Rowland 250
Herman Robt 300
Hughes Rees 400
Hill Samll 300
Holled Samll 100
Harrelston Paul 360
Hatfield Wm 318
Harris Wm 125
Harris Benj 100
Horkeey John 800
Hairy John 280
Haiselwood Jno 200
Haiselwood Tho 150
Hockiday Wm 300
Holdcroft Henry 95
Hogg Mary 140
Harmon Wm 350
Hogg Jno. Junr 260
Harris Wm 100
Hopkins Wm 200
Howes Job 300
Hight John 100
Hankins Charles 340
Harris Wm 150
Harris Robt 75
Handey Wm 150
Hogg Wm 200
Haselwood Richd 100
Harlow Tho 230
Hutton Geo 150
-----
11312
J
Jackson Tho 500
Izard Fran 1233
Jarratt Robt 1600
Johnson Mich 40
Jones John 100
Johnson Wm 265
Jones Jane 200
Johnson John 100
Johnson Edwd 150
Jennings Robt 100
Jones Fredirick 500
Johes John 100
Jeeves Tho 100
Jones Francis 200
Jones John 100
Jones Evan 500
-----
5838
K
King Elizb 300
Kembro Jno 540
Kembro Jno Junr 150
Keeling Geo 1500
-----
2490
L
Lightfoot John Esq. 3600
Littlepage Richd 2160
Losplah Peter 100
Lestrange Tho 200
Liddall Geo 100
Lawson Nicho 200
Levermore Phill 1000
Lewis John Esq 2600
Lawson John 50
Lewis John 375
Lovell Geo 920
Lovell Charles 250
Leak Wm 280
Logwod Tho 100
Lacey Wm 500
Lacey Tho 100
Lacey Emanuell 180
Luke Jno 150
Lochester Robt 80
Lewis Tho 115
Lee Edwd 120
Lochester Edwd 80
Law James 100
Laton Reubin 100
Linsey Joseph 1150
Linsey Wm 50
Lane Tho 100
-----
14760
M
Millington Wm Junr 450
Mitchell Stephen Junr 75
Millington Wm 200
Moss Samll 200
Mitchell Tho 300
Meanley Wm 100
Minis Tho 200
Mitchell Stephen 200
Moor Pelham 125
Martin Tho 100
Martin Martin 150
Morris Robt 245
Moss Tho 430
Morgan Edwd 50
Moon Stephen 70
Major Wm 456
Murroho Jno 100
Moor Jno 250
Masey Tho 300
Martin John 400
Masey Peter 100
Madox John 300
Martin Wm 230
Martin James 100
Moss James 720
Moon Tho 65
McKing Alexander 170
McKoy Jno 300
Merridith Geo 400
Melton Richd 290
Morreigh John 110
Merfield John 210
Mills Nicho 300
Mask Jno 411
Medlock John 350
Moor Edwd 65
McKgene Wm 13-1/2
Merriweather Nicho 3327
Mage Peter 450
Mitchell Wm 512
Marr Geo 100
Moor Anne 75
Mutray Tho 382
Mirideth James 270
Mohan Warwick 850
Muttlow James 150
Morgan Matthew 210
Morris John 450
Markham Tho 100
Moxon Wm 100
Mackony Elizb 250
Meacon Gideon 270
-----
16149-1/2
N
Nucholl James 300
Neaves James 150
Nonia Richd 100
Norris Wm 100
-----
650
O
Osling John 150
Otey John 290
Oudton Matt 190
-----
630
P
Page John Junr 400
Pendexter Geo 1490
Pattison David 300
Park Jno Junr 300
Park John 200
Pease John 100
Philip Geo 100
Penix Edwd 200
Plantine Peter 240
Pendexter Tho 1000
Pyraul James 150
Pullam Wm 575
Purdy Nicho 200
Page Mary Madm 3450
Perkins John 120
Paite Jerim 220
Pasley Robt 300
Perkins Wm 305
Pait John 1500
Petever Tho 100
Pittlader Wm 147
Pickley Tho 281
Pittlader Tho 295
Petty Stephen 200
Porter John 100
Petty John 2190
Park Coll 7000
Purly John 100
-----
21573
R
Raglin Evan 300
Raglin Evan Junr 100
Raglin Tho 100
Ross Wm 150
Richardson Henry 300
Raymond James 80
Reynold Tho 255
Reyley Jno 100
Reynolds Jonah 50
Rhoads Charles 175
Reynolds Samll 820
Rice Tho 300
Redwood John 1078
Rule Widdo 50
Richardson Richard 890
Russell John 550
Richardson John 1450
Richard Eman 1250
Round Free Wm 100
Randolph Widdo 100
-----
8928
S
Styles John 200
Smith Nathll 82
Sanders Wm 40
Spear Robt 450
Sanders James 60
Scott John 300
Scrugg Richd 100
Strange Alexander 450
Smith Wm 110
Scrugg Jno 50
Snead Tho 200
Sunter Stephen 478
Symons Josiah 100
Sanders John 130
Stephens Wm 100
Stanley Tho 150
Sandidge Jno 100
Sprattlin Andrew 654
Snead John 75
Smith James 80
Sexton Wm 80
Sims Jno 1000
Smith Roger 300
Sherritt Henry 100
Salmon Thomas 50
Sanders Tho 25
Symons George 125
Stamp Ralph 625
Stanop Capt 1024
Stanup Richd 325
Shears Paul 200
Stepping Tho 350
Slater James 700
-----
9813
T
Tony Alexandr 170
Tovis Edmd 100
Turner Henry 250
Turner Wm 250
Turner Geo 400
Thorp Tho 200
Thurmond Richd 131-1/2
Tucker Tho 700
Turner James 50
Thompson James 100
Tully Wm 200
Turner Geo Junr 200
Tate James 160
Town Elizb 100
Thomasses Orphans 500
Tinsley Cournelius 220
Tyler 100
Tinsley Tho 150
Tirrell Wm 400
Taylor Tho 25
Tinsley Jno 130
Tapp Jno 110
Tyrrey James 150
Tyrrey Alexandr 210
Thompson Capt. 2600
Tyrey Thom 190
Taylor Joseph 150
Taylor Lemuell 212
Taylor Thomas 350
Twitty Thomas 200
-----
8708-1/2
V
Upsherd Jon 60
Vaughan Wm 300
Via Amer 50
Venables Abr. 100
Venables John 200
Vaughan John 250
Vaughan Vincent 410
-----
1370
W
Wintby Jacob 250
Winfry Charles 100
Waddill Jno 40
Walker Wm 650
Walton Edwd 150
Wilson Jno 200
Waddill Wm 375
Warring Peter 88
Wingfield Tho 150
Weaver Sam 100
Wyatt Alice 1300
West Nath 6370
Webb Mary 200
Wilmore Jno 100
Webster Joseph 80
West Giles 200
Wharton Tho 270
Willis Fran 134
Waddy Samll 150
Willford Charles 100
Waid James 150
White Jno 320
Wood Henry 100
Woody Symon 50
Woody Jno 100
Winstone Antho 310
Winstone Isaac 850
Woody James 130
Winstone Sarah 275
Watson Theophilus 325
Woodson Jno 600
Walton Edwd 450
Wood Walter 100
Watkins Wm 50
Wilkes Joseph 250
Williams Clerk 300
Willis Stephen 500
Williams Tho 100
Worrin Robt 300
Woodull James 200
Walker Capt 400
Wilson James 60
Wheeler John 75
Williams Wm. 100
White John 190
-----
17292
Y
Yeoman John 50
Yeoell Judith 150
-----
200
Quit Rents that hath not been paid this 7 year viz.
Richarson Matt 200
Wm Wheeler 150
Coll Parkes 300
-----
650
Lands that the Persons lives out of the County viz.
Coll Lemuell Batthurst 800
Robt Valkes 500
The Heirs of Bray 500
-----
1800
A 6785
B 21786
C 9251
D 3845
E 2530
F 3447
G 7442
H 11312
J 5838
K 2490
L 14760
M 16149-1/2
N 650
O 630
P 21573
R 8298
S 9813
T 8708-1/2
V 1370
W 17292
Y 200
------
173870
James Mosse Sherriff
A full & Perfect Rent Roll of all the Land held of her Majtie in Charles
City County this Present Year 1704 by Patents &c.
A
Aliat John 100
B
Bradley Joseph 200
Baxter John 250
Bishop Robt 200
Bedingfield Theo 110
Botman Harman 100
Burton Henry 100
Burwell Lewis 8000
Brooks Robt 150
Blanks Richard Senr 250
Blanks Richd Junr 125
Blanks Tho 125
Bradford Richd 1397
Brown Marmaduke 100
Bray David 230
-----
11337
C
Cole Robt 80
Codell Richd 100
Clark Edwd 962-1/4
Clark Daniell 250
Clark Joseph 230
Christian Tho 1273
Cock Edwd 350
Cock Richd 975
-----
3258
D
Davis Thomas 200
Davis Richd 118
-----
318
E
Edwards John 287-1/2
Epes Littlebury 400
Epes John 500
Ele Samll 682
Evans John 800
-----
2669-1/2
F
Floyd Geo 243
Fowler Richd 150
Flowers Samll 200
-----
593
G
Gunn James 250
Grosse Edwd 100
-----
350
H
Hamlin Jno 143-1/2
Hill Edwd 2100
Haynes Nicho 125
Harwood John 100
Howood James 200
Hattle Shard 112
Harwood Joseph 659
Harwood Samll 350
Harwood Robt 312-1/2
Hunt Wm 3130
Hunt John 1500
Harmon Elizb 479
Hyde Wm 120
Hamlin Stephen 80
Hamlin Tho 264
-----
16015
J
Irby Wm 103
Javox James 100
Jordin Edwd 100
Justis Justinian 200
-----
503
L
Lowlin Danll 600
Lawrence James 100
-----
700
M
Manders James 100
Minge James 1086
Mountford Jeffry 100
Marvell Tho 1238
Moodie Samll 82
Muschamp John 80
-----
2686
N
New Edwd 100
New Robt 300
-----
400
O
Owen Wm 100
Owen David 100
-----
200
P
Parker Tho 1667
Parish Wm 100
Parish Charles 100
Parker James 160
Parish Edwd 100
Parish John 100
-----
2227
R
Roach Jno Senr 630
Renthall Joseph 270
Russell Samll 253
Roper John 220
Royall Joseph 262
-----
1635
S
Smith Obidiah 100
Sampson Widdo 211
Stith Drewry 1240
Stith John 1395
Stockes John 476
Stockes Silvanus Senr 250
Stokes Silvanus Junr 550
Speares Geo 225
-----
4447
T
Tanner Tho 2000
Tarendine John 150
Turner Edwd 195
Trotman Anne 120
-----
2465
V
Vernon Walter 240
W
Wyatt Widdo 800
Woodam Tho 100
Waren John 54
-----
954
A 100
B 11337
C 3258
D 318
E 2669-1/2
F 593
G 350
H 16015
J 503
L 700
M 2686
N 400
O 200
P 2227
R 1635
S 4447
T 2465
V 240
W 954
-----
52059-1/2
An account of what Land that I cannot get the Quit Rents the Persons
living out of the County
Josep Parish at Kiquotan 100
Richd Smith James City Cty 350
Danll Hayley 200
Wm Lagg Henrico Cty 100
-----
750
Tho Parker Sheriff
The Quit Rent Roll of King William County
Armsby John 200
Alvey Robt 400
Andrew Wm 100
Abbott Robt 100
Arnold Anthony 100
Arnold Benj 1000
Alcock John 190
Adam James 400
Anderson Wm Capt 150
Burwell Majr 4700
Bunch Paul 150
Baker John 250
Burges Edwd 150
Buttris Robt 400
Bibb Benj 100
Browne Joseph 270
Bell Edwds 580
Burch Henry 200
Burrel Suprian 350
Baker Tho 100
Bobo Elizb 200
Bird Wm Maj Qr 1200
Burrus John 60
Butler Thomas 150
Burrus Thomas 60
Bassett Coll Qr 1550
Bray James Qr 1400
Browne Abraham 250
Brightwell Elizb 300
Bickley Joseph 150
Claibourne Wm Coll 3000
Claibourne Tho Capt 1000
Claibourne John 50
Coakes Robert 100
Cradock Samll 600
Cockram Wm 200
Cockram Joseph 600
Celar John 100
Chadwick Wm 150
Cathern John 180
Carr Thomas 500
Chiles Henry Qr 700
Craushaw Thomas 150
Clark Margarett 100
Coates Wm 50
Douglas Wm 200
Davis Lewis 200
Davis Wm 200
Downer John 300
Downes Elias 300
Davenport Davis 200
Dorrell Sampson Qr 5000
Davenport Martin 100
Davis Robert 200
Dickason Wm 100
Dickason Thomas 100
Dillon Henry 150
Dabney James 200
Dabney George 290
Dabney Benj 200
Davis John 200
Elly Richd 100
Egny Elizb 100
Elliot Thomas 480
Edward James 350
Elliott James 1700
Fox John Capt. 600
Fox Henry 2000
Finton Francis 100
Fuller Anthony 150
Foord John Junr 300
Foord Wm 800
Fullalove Thomas 100
Fleming Charles Qr 1700
Graves John Qr 100
Garratt Thomas 200
Geeres Thomas 100
Green John 100
Gravatt Henry 150
Goodin Majr Qr 200
Glover Wm 100
Herriott George 200
Hollins John 200
Higgason John 350
Holderbee Wm 100
Holliday Wm 100
Hayfield Wm 100
Hampton John 50
Huckstep Edwd 150
Hurt Wm Junr 90
Hurt Wm Senr 250
Hurt John 500
Hendrick Hans 700
Handcock Thomas 200
Hayden John 150
Hobday Edwd 150
Hill Thomas 150
Hutchinson Wm 600
Hill Francis 300
Hill Gabriell 250
Hill Edwd Coll Qr 3000
Hayle Joseph 200
Johns Jane 240
Johnson Wm 300
Johnson Coll Qr 600
Johns Wm 100
Isabell Wm 150
James Jonathan 300
Inge Vincent 100
Jones Frederick Qr 2850
Jenings Coll Qr 4000
King Robert Qr 300
Kettlerise Symon 200
Lee John 20
Lypscomb Ambrose 600
Lasy Wm 100
Lypscomb Wm 300
Littlepage Richd Capt Qr 2600
Lypscomb John 200
Mallory Thomas 150
Mallory Roger 100
Miles Daniell 350
Mr Gehee Thomas 250
Marr John 200
Morris Wm 440
Maybank Wm 100
Mr Donnell John 150
Maddison Henry 650
Merriweather Nicho Qr 600
Mullene Matthew 150
Madison John Qr 300
Norment Joseph 800
Norment Samll 100
Noyce Wm 650
Napier Robert 100
Owens Hugh 300
Oustin John 350
Oakes John 350
Oliver John 140
Palmer Martin 1200
Peek John 100
Pynes Nathaniell 1400
Pee Thomas 400
Purlevant Arthur 100
Powers David 200
Pollard Wm Qr 500
Pemberton Geo 180
Page John Qr 1000
Pickrell Gabriell 100
Parks Coll Qr 4500
Quarles John 100
Reynolds Wm 100
Robert Maurice 200
Randall John 100
Ray James 100
Rhodes Nicholas 150
Sandlan Nicholas 700
Strutton Thomas 150
Streett Wm 350
Shilling George 300
Satterwhite Charles 150
Slaughter Geo 100
Slaughter Martin 130
Stark John 500
Sanders Jushua 100
See Mathew 200
Sellers Jacob 350
Spruse Jeremy 150
Smith Edmd 150
Spencer Thomas 600
Slaughter John 90
Smith Christo Qr 800
Slaughter Henry 100
Toms Wm 150
Towler Matthew 150
Terry Thomas 300
Terry Stephen 330
Tomason Thomas 150
Terry James 400
Traneer John 100
Vickrey Henry 450
West John Coll 1800
Winfree Henry 300
West Tho Capt 1000
Whitworth John 200
Whitlock John 200
Willeroy Abraham 550
Williams Phillip 100
Williams Griffith 240
Wood Thomas 300
Whitehead John 100
Woolsey Jacob 130
Williams John 150
Williams Samll 600
Wright Thomas 150
Whitbee Robert 800
West Nathanll Capt 2000
Waller John Majr 800
Willis Wm 250
Wheelis Joseph 130
Wormley Madam Qr 3000
Winston William 170
Whitehead Phillip 3000
Yancey Charles 100
Yarborough John 150
Yarborough Richard 300
------
100950
Wm Stanard M.S. 1000
James Wood K.Q. 500
Zachary Lewis K.Q. 450
Peter Kemp G.C. 600
Wm Beck N.K. 1600
Tho. Hickman K.Q. 550
Benj Clement G.C. 600
David Bray J.C.C. 1000
Job House N.K. 2000
Harry Beverley M.S. 600
Chillian White G.C. 300
A True Account of the Lands in King & Queen County as it was taken by
Robt. Bird Sherriff in the year 1704.
A
Alford John 200
Austin Danll 80
Asque John 320
Adams Johns 200
Arnold Edwd 150
Allin Thomas 100
Adkinson John 250
Austin Thomas 100
Adamson David 100
Anderson Richd 650
Allcock Dorothy 150
-----
2300
B
Baker Wm 350
Beverley Robt. Qr. 3000
Bennett Alexander 200
Breeding Geo 200
Bennett Wm 150
Bowles Robt 100
Bennett Sawyer 150
Baylor John 3000
Bell Roger 150
Burford Wm 150
Bray John 230
Blake Wm 290
Boisseau James Quart 900
Blake Wm Junr 210
Brown Lancelet 385
Burch Jno 100
Burch Wm 100
Brown Tho. Blakes Land 300
Bridgeforth James 355
Bagby Robt 550
Banks Wm 1079
Bullock John 200
Bird Wm 572
Broach Jno 1200
Braxton Geo 2825
Blanchet John 125
Bowker Ralph 330
Bine Edmd 111
Barber James 750
Burgess Wm 100
Bond Jno 100
Breemer John 1100
Bland Henry 150
Breemer John Junr 200
Bowden Tho. 150
Barton Andrew 150
Barlow Henry 200
Baskett John 150
Batterton Tho. 100
Baker James 322
Bill Robt. 150
Bocus Reynold 150
Bourne George 200
Bird Robt. 1324
-----
22535
C
Cane Jno 300
Chessum Alexandr 150
Cook Benjamin 200
Cook Thomas Junr 50
Cook Thomas Senr 100
Cook Jno 50
Cleyton John 400
Chapman Mary 200
Cleyton Jeremy 325
Crane Wm 120
Camp Thomas 250
Carleton Christo 200
Carleton Jno. 300
Carter Timo. 350
Coleman Tho. 300
Coleman Daniell 470
Cleyton Susannah Widdo 700
Collier Robt. 100
Crane Wm. 300
Crane Tho. 320
Chapman John 200
Caughlane James 100
Cotton Catherine 50
Collier Charles 450
Collier John 400
Collins Wm. 350
Cammell Alexandr. 200
Chin Hugh 100
Conner Timo. 1410
Collins James Yard Qr 300
Corbin Gowin 2000
Crisp Tobias 100
Carters Qr 300
Carlton Tho. 200
Carlton Anne 300
Clough George Qr 390
-----
12235
Clerk and Cordell both in
Glocester 1000
D
Widdo Durrat 200
Day Alexander Maj. Beverley Qr 300
Doe Wm. 300
Dilliard Nicho. 150
Dilliard Edwd. 150
Dimmock Tho. 150
Dismukes Wm. 200
Duett Charles 900
Didlake James 200
Durham John 100
Dunkley John 380
Duson Tho. 448
Davis Nathll. 300
Deshazo Peter 450
Davis Jno 90
Davis Edwd 100
Dillard Thomas 170
Davis Richd 250
Dillard Geo 325
Duglas James 275
Dayley Owen 180
-----
5618
E
Eachols John 220
Ellis John 400
Eastham George 300
Ewbank Wm 350
Eastham Edwd Junr 800
Edwds John 100
Eastham Edwd 100
Eastes Abraham 200
Eyes Cornelius 100
Emory Ralph 100
Ellis Timothy 350
-----
3020
F
Forsigh Thomas 150
Farquson James 300
Flipp John 80
Farish Robt 1400
Fielding Henry 1000
Farmer John 50
Fothergill Richd 675
Fortcon Charles 400
Forgett Charles 150
Robt Fothergill 150
-----
4355
Farmer John not paid for 200
Fox Margarett not pd for 100
G
Gadberry Edwd 100
Griffin Edwd 100
George Richd 100
Griffin David 100
Graves Robt 150
Graves Jno 150
Gardner Ringing 200
Gray Joseph 200
Gilby John 300
Gray Samll 40
Gresham Jno 200
Gresham Edwd 175
Good John 200
Gresham George 150
Garrett Danll 200
Gamble Tho. Majors Land 450
Gresham Tho 225
Graves Jno 150
Guttery Jno 230
Greogory Frances Widdo 700
Gough Alice Widdo 800
Griggs Francis 250
Garrett John 330
Garrett Humphrey 200
Gibson Widdo 200
Garrett Robt 200
-----
6100
H
Hand Thomas 150
Hayle John Qr 685
Honey James 200
Holloway Wm 100
Herndon James 100
Hoomos George 725
Hodges Thomas 250
Hayle Joseph 250
Hayes John 100
Haynes Wm 494
Holcomb Wm Bradfords Land 700
Henderson John Thackers Land 200
Hodgson Widdo 200
Henderson Widdo 300
Henderson Wm 162
Housburrough Morris, Harts Land 200
Hesterley John 200
Hill John 200
Hordon Wm 70
Harris Wm 250
Hart Tho 200
Hockley Robt 100
Howard Peter 300
Hardgrove Wm 100
Herring Arthur 50
Hickman Thomas 700
Hunt Wm 312
Hobs Wm 250
Hicks Richd 250
Howden Wm 100
Howerton Thomas 300
-----
8098
Holt Joseph lives in Maryland 321
Mayward Tho in Glocester 600
J
Jones Tho 150
Jones Robt 200
Jeffrys Richd 337
Jones Robt Junr 130
Johnson James 200
Jones Wm 900
-----
1917
K
King John 150
Kallander Timo 100
Kink Anne 275
King Edwd 200
Knowles Dorothy Qr 150
King Robt 100
Kenniff Danby 100
King Daniell 200
-----
1335
L
Loveing John 100
Lyon Peter 250
Leigh John 6200
Lumpkin Robt 400
Lee Wm 230
Loob Wm 100
Loft Richd 320
Lewis Tachary 350
Lumpkin Jacob 950
Lewis David 120
Lewis John Esq 10100
Lewis Edwd 1400
Lemon Elizb 100
Lynes Rebecca 405
Levingstone John 600
Levingstone Samll 100
Lawrence Matthew 210
Letts Arthur 475
Langford John 150
Levingstone Jno Sowels Land 750
-----
23310
Leftwich Thomas in Essex 75
M
May John 300
Musick George 100
Major Jno 250
Martin John 300
More Austines Qr 200
May Tho 300
Moore Samll 100
Maddison Jno 500
Morris Wm 130
Martin Elizb 400
Mackay Sarah 177
May John Piggs Land 200
Major Francis 700
Mansfield Thomas 60
Morris Henry 100
Major John 400
Melo Nicho 200
Marcartee Daniell 200
Morris Wm 300
Mead Wm 100
Matthews Edwd 160
Martin Cordelia Wido 200
-----
5377
N
Nelson Henry 440
Neal John 50
Nason Joshua 200
Norman Wm 300
Norris James 100
-----
1090
O
Owen Ralph 120
Ogilvie Wm 300
Orrill Lawrence 290
Orrill Wm 500
Orsbourn Michaell 90
Overstreet James Qr 180
ditto at home 50
-----
1530
P
Powell Robt 500
Prewitt Wm 200
Paine Bernard 130
Pomea Francis 100
Philip Charles 250
Pettitt Thomas 548
Pollard Robt 500
Pollard Wm 100
Phinkett Elizb 500
Pemberton Tho. 115
Pickles Tho 93
Potters Francis Wido Neals Land 100
Parks James 200
Purchase Geo Qr 580
Page Jno 100
Pritchett David 225
Pigg Henry 61
Page John Junr 300
Pigg Edwd 250
Phelps Tho 400
Pendleton Philip 300
Pendleto Henry 700
Pann John 200
Paytons quarts 500
Pigg John 100
Pamplin Robt 150
Pryor Christo 175
Paulin Elizb 175
-----
7552
Pate John in Glocester 1000
Q
Quarles James 300
Quarles Dyley Zacha: Lewis Land 300
-----
600
R
Richard Robt 300
Rings Quarter 1000
Robinson Daniel 100
Roger Giles 475
Rice Michaell 200
Richeson Tho 460
Richeson Elias 180
Read Elizb 550
Russell Alexandr Wyatts Land 400
Robinson Robt 980
Rowe John 100
Richards John 914
Richards Wm 400
Richards Oliver 250
Riddle Tho Reads Land 700
Roy Richd 1000
Ryley Elias 200
Rollings Peter 150
-----
8359
John the son of Robt Robinson hold,
which nobody pays for 750
S
Sebrill John 130
Stone Mary 100
Smiths in Bristoll Qr 2800
Stone Jno 295
Stubbelfield Geo Qr 400
Scandland Denis 1470
Swinson Richd 170
Smith Christo 200
Smith Jno Cooper 273
Smith Alexander 275
Seamour Wm 268
Sones Tho 150
Shepard Jane 100
Southerland Danll 200
Shoot Tho 100
Shepheard Joseph 100
Shea Patrick 200
Southerland Danll 200
Smith Nicho 700
Sanders Nathll 200
Smith John Sawyer 80
Shuckelford Roger 250
Skelton John 100
Snell John 150
Simpio Charles 100
Sawrey John 113
Stringer Margt 175
Spencer Tho 300
Sykes Stephen 50
Smith Francis 100
Smith Richd 150
Sparks John 200
Surly Tho 100
Stapleton Tho 200
Story John 3000
Spencer Katherine 600
-----
14599
Shippath Sr Wm Which is
not paid for 700
Stark Tho of London which
is not paid for 920
Stubblefield Geo in Glocester 400
Smith Austin in Glocester 4000
T
Turner Richard 200
Todd Thomas Quarts 2300
Taylor James 4000
Toy Thomas 175
Taylor Danll 70
Thomas Rowland 610
Tunstall Tho 550
Todd Richd 1050
Towley John 200
Trice James 350
Tureman Ignatius 100
Turner Thomas 267
Thacker C. C. 1000
-----
10872
U
Vaughan Cornelius 500
Vize Nathll 100
Uttley John 200
-----
800
W
Wood James 800
Wilkinson John 100
Wright Tho 300
Watkins Wm 137
Wiltshier Joseph 60
Watkins Edwd 98
Watkins Philip 203
White Thomas 200
Walker John 6000
Wilson Benj Wyats Land 420
Wyat Richd 1843
Walton Thomas 200
Wyat John 530
Withy Thomas 50
Williams Thomas 200
Watts Tho 235
Ward Samll 160
Watkins Benj 60
Watkins Tho Junr 125
Williams Elizb 900
Waldin Samll 275
Ware Edwd 735
William John 125
Ware Vallentine 487
Willbourn Tho 250
Wildbore Wm 100
Ware Nicho 718
White Jerimiah 200
Whorein John 200
Wise Richd quarts 209
Walker John, Johnsons Land 1000
-----
16920
Wadlington Paul not paid
for being 150
Y
York Matthew 100
A 2300
B 22535
C 12235
D 5618
E 3020
F 4355
G 6100
H 8098
J 1917
K 1335
L 23310
M 5377
N 1090
O 1530
P 7552
Q 600
R 8359
S 14599
T 10872
U 800
W 16920
Y 100
------
158522
Lands returned not paid for
C 1000
F 300
H 920
L 75
P 1000
R 750
S 6020
W 150
-----
10215
Glocester Rent Roll
A Rent Roll in Petso Parish
Capt David Alexander 1050
James Amis 250
John Acre 100
Wm Armistead 430
Ralph Baker 150
Martha Brooken 600
Thomas Buckner 850
Samll Bernard 550
Wm Barnard 810
Richd Bailey 600
Mary Booker 100
Thomas Cook 350
Wm Crymes 400
Jno Cobson 100
Robt. Carter 1102
Wm Collone 400
Hannah Camell 100
Benj Clements 400
Jno Cleake 100
Wm Cook 135
Jno Coleman 200
Jno Day 400
Jerim Darnell 150
Jno Darnell 60
James Dudley 780
Richd Dudley 400
Thomas Dudley 200
Thomas Dixon 300
Jno Drument 80
Samll Fowler 150
Wm Fleming 600
Wido Forginson 150
Wm Fockner 180
Jno Grymes 1400
Susannah Grinley 200
Darcas Green 400
Jno Grout 300
Jno Harper 100
Wm Howard 300
Richd Hubard 100
Wm Hasford 500
Jno Hanes 150
Alextnder How 120
Richd Hill 70
Robt Hall 100
Richd Hull 250
Sanll Hawes 200
Stephen Johnson 150
Wm Jones for Northington 530
Glebe Land 127
Jno Kingson 400
Capt Edwd Lewis 1000
Richd Lee Esq 1140
Nicho Lewis orphen 350
Wm Milner 900
Richd Minor 250
Edwd Musgrove 100
Hayes an orphan 60
Elizb Mastin 360
Jno Mackwilliams 50
Robt Nettles 300
Wm Norman 150
Isaac Oliver 100
Dorothy Oliver 130
Jno Pritchett 850
Jno Pate 1100
Richd Price 600
Madm Porteus 500
Madm Page 550
Pobt Porteus 892
Guy Parish 100
Wm Roane 500
James Reynolls 200
George Robinson 300
John Royston 570
Thomas Read 2000
Wm Richards in Pamunkey 150
Jno Shackelford 280
Edward Symons 500
Nicho Smith 280
John Stubs 300
Thomas Sivepson 280
John Smith 1300
Augustin Smith 200
Augustin Smith Junr 500
Wm Starbridge 159
Wm Thornton Senr 525
Wm Thornton Junr 800
Wm Thurston 200
Wm Upshaw 490
Francis Wisdom 150
Thomas West 112
Thomas Whiting 450
George Williams 100
Conquest Wyatt 2200
Seth Wickins 50
Walter Waters 200
Jane Wothem 60
Robt Yard 450
Robt Hall 250
Wm Whittmore Desarted 150
Wm Parsons Orphen 100
Edwd Stephens 70
John Kelley Orphen 150
-----
41132
Tho Neale
Glocester Rent Roll
A Rent Roll of Kingston Parish
Rose Curtis 400
Robt Peyton 680
Richd Perrott 35
Henry Preston 1500
Sarah Green 200
Robt Cully 200
Thomas Hayes 140
Andrew Bell 128
Humphry Toy 1100
Anne Aldred 350
Dunkin Bahannah 113-1/2
Richd Hunley 50
Capt Gayle 164
Math. Gayle Junr 250
James Hundley 100
John Hundley 130
Philip Hundley 660
Tho Cray 200
Hen. Knight 240
John Williams 50
Richd Beard 380
Timothy Hundley 300
Thomas Bedford 50
Jno Floyd 250
John Bohannah 113-1/2
Capt Armistead 3675
Christopher Dixon 300
Robt Bristow Esqr 900
Edwd Gowing 100
Tho Ryland 272
John Nevill 100
Lawrence Parrott 340
Wm Brooks 720
Joseph Bohannah 148
Wm Hampton 348
Widdo Green 150
Capt Dudley 650
Capt. Knowles 575
Capt. Tho. Todd 775
Wm Beard 100
Wm. Tomkins 100
Henry Bolton 50
Wm Eliott 1060
Humphrey Tompkins 100
Daniel Hunter 200
Thomas Peyton 684
Richd Dudley 350
James Ransom Junr 310
Tho. Peters 30
Robt. Elliott 1247
Mich. Parriett 100
Jno. Meachen Junr 600
Caleb Linsey 140
Alexandr Ofield 23
Mark Thomas 300
Jno. Garnet 250
Wm. Plumer 510
Wm. Brumley 750
Wm. Credle 50
Charles Jones 225
Robt. Sadler 50
Edwd Sadler 20
Geo Roberts 170
Richd Longest 600
Tho. Fliping 300
Charles Watters 100
Wm. Grundy 200
Thomas Kemp 200
Tho. Allaman 842
Coll Kemp 200
Ralph Shipley 430
George Turner 50
Coll. James Ransom 1400
Thomas Putman 300
Richd Marchant 180
Widdo Sinoh 300
Christopher Rispue 200
Benj. Read 550
Walter Keble 550
Joseph Brooks 500
Capt. Gwin 1100
Lindseys Land 390
Thomas Garwood 77
John Callie 1000
Tho. Miggs 100
Richd Glascock 500
Jno Lylley 584
Geo. Billups 1200
Robt. Singleton 650
James Foster 225
John Andrews 50
Thomas Rice 34
John Martin 200
Capt. Smith 550
Capt. Sterling 1100
John Diggs 1200
Wm. Howlett 300
Jno. Miller 100
Andrew Ripley 40
Francis Jarvis 460
Wm. Armistead 300
John Banister 650
Tho. Plumer 400
Isaac Plumer 200
James Taylor 50
Edwd Borum 360
Widdo Davis 300
Sam. Singleton 300
Wm. Morgan Senr 50
Wm. Morgan Junr 200
John Bacon 825
Henry Singleton 600
John Edwards 534
Patrick Berry 250
Anne Forest 500
-----
46537
Ambrose Dudley
1705
Glocester Rent Roll
A Rent Roll in Ware Parish
Thomas Poole 600
Anne Croxson 300
Thomas Purnell 163
Nocholas Pamplin 210
Simon Stubelfield 200
Jno. Price 600
Saml. Vadrey 400
Samll Dawson 350
Nathan: Burwell 600
John Dawson 780
Tho. Bacop 200
Robt. Francis 400
Walter Greswell 50
Tho. Read 400
James Shackelfield 35
Robt. Freeman 135
Jno. Marinex 100
Isaac Valine 100
Tho. Haywood 70
Hugh Marinex 50
Leonard Ambrose 200
Philip Grady 200
Capt. Wm. Debnam 1250
James Burton 100
Jno. Spinks 300
Wm. Hurst 200
Sarah More 67
John Ray 100
Robt. Pryor 300
Christo. Greenaway 270
Capt. Throgmorton 500
James Clark 250
Philip Cooper 200
Jno. Kindrick 100
Samll. Simons 120
Wm. Radford 200
John Robins 900
Alice Bates 200
Jno. Easter 350
James Davison 100
Robt. Morrin 200
Anne Bray 100
Grace Easter 200
Sampson Dorrell 300
Capt. Francis Willis 3000
Thomas Powell 460
Wm. Holland 300
Capt. Cook 1500
Giles Cook 140
Wm. Jones 120
Tho. Collis 100
Philip Smith 700
Tho. Cheesman 650
Geo. More 40
James Morris 250
Abraham Iveson Senr. 1000
Robert Bristow Esqr. 2050
Anthony Gregory 700
Richd. Bailey 800
Wm. Foulcher 100
Widdo. Jeffes 216
Richd. Dudley Junr. 300
John Buckner 900
Thomas Todd 884
John and Peter Waterfield 143
Henry Whiting 800
Madm. Whiting 950
Jno. Goodson 150
Wm. Morris 350
Mary Lassells 200
Peter Ransone 220
Charles Waters 200
Dorothy Kertch 220
Dorothy Boswell 1600
Richd. Cretendon 280
Elizb. Anniers 250
Elizb. Snelling 250
Joseph Boswell 230
John Bullard 100
Anthony Elliot 100
Wm. Armistead 100
Peter Kemp 650
Majr. Peter Beverley 800
Ditto per Tillids Lands 150
Dudley Jolley 100
Robt. Couch 100
-----
31603
Glocester Rent Roll
A Rent Roll of Abbington Parish
Mr. Guy Smith 30
James Cary 50
Wm. Sawyer 150
Edwd. Cary 100
Robt. Barlow 62
Tho. Cleaver Sworne 200
Edwd. Stevens 80
Henry Stevens 60
Chillion White 100
Jerimah Holt 350
of Ditto for the Widdo Babb 150
Robt. Yarbborrow 100
Robt. Starkey 100
Henry Seaton 170
Hugh Howard 200
Capt. Booker 1000
Jno. Stoakes 300
Jno. Dobson 400
Wm. Dobson 950
Edmd. Dobson 350
Hugh Allen 1250
George Jackson 117
Jno. Teagle 30
Widdo Jones 45
Mary Thomas 100
Thomas Seawell 200
Benj. Lane 50
Valentine Lane 80
Jeffry Garves 33
Thomas Coleman 250
Johanna Austin 40
Majr. Burwell 3300
Jno. Satterwight 50
Jerimiah Holt Junr 150
Charles Stevens 75
Richd. Roberts for wife 300
Jno. Sadler 125
James Steavens 100
Susannah Stubbs 300
Richd. Foster 150
Henry Mitchell 50
Nathanll. Russell 550
Elizb. Richardson 500
Wm. Camp 175
James Row 300
John Butler 100
John Smith Esqr. 2000
Ditto for Robt. Byron 400
Capt. Blackbourne 550
Peter Richeson 250
Benja Clements 500
Thomas Graves 70
Robt. Page 75
Joseph More 150
Richard Dixon 200
Elizb. Turner 150
Owen Grathmee 250
Richd. Woodfolk 125
Jno. Waters 50
Wm. Hilliard 80
Richd. Heywood 100
Mary Hemingway 150
Wm. Kemp 75
Robt. Francis 104
Joshua Broadbent 200
Joseph Coleman 200
Grustam Clent 100
Philip Grady 150
Jno. Hall 125
Tho. Walker 300
Jno. Mixon 400
Tho. Sanders 450
Wm. Smith for Kittson 50
John Banister 2750
Madm. Mary Page 3000
Jno. Lewis Esq. 2000
-----
28426
Richd. Cordell
Ware 31603
Petso 41123
Kingston 46537
------
147698
A Perfect Role of the Land in Middlesex County Anno Dom. 1704
Richard Atwood 100
Richard Allin 150
Tho. Blewford 100
Mrs. Blaiss 300
John Bristow 140
Robt. Blackley 100
Coll Corbin 2260
Coll Carter 1150
John Cheedle 50
Wm. Carter 170
Widdo Chaney 800
Nath. Cranke 50
Tho. Dyatt 200
John Davie 75
Wm. Daniell 150
Robt. Daniell 225
Henry Freeman 200
John Goodrich 50
Geo. Goodloe 50
Geo. Guest 50
Richd. Gabriell 30
Wm. Finley 50
Wm. Gardner 100
Robt. George 180
David George 150
Widdo. Hazellwodd 200
John Hoare 100
Richd. Reynolds 50
Jno. Southerne 100
Richd. Shurly 200
Tho. Hapleton 200
Wm. Southworth 50
Wm. Jones 300
Evan Jones 50
Esqr. Wormley Estate 5200
Wm Churchhill 1950
Jacob Briston 100
Jno. Pace 200
John Logie 300
John Price 519
Henry Perrott 1100
Richd Kemp 1100
Tho Kidd 250
Francis Weeks 225
Widdo Weeks 225
Henry Webb 100
Tho Wood 70
Robt. Williamson 200
Tho Lee 100
Edmd. Mickleburrough 200
Valentine Mayo 100
Wm. Mountague 500
Garrett Minor 225
Marvill Mosseley 225
Joseph Mitcham 75
Minie Minor 225
Humphrey Jones 150
Jno. North 200
Henry Tugill 200
Henry Thacker 1875
Thomas Tozeley 500
Charles Moderas 100
Wm. Mullins 150
John Smith 700
James Smith 400
Harry Beverley 1000
George Wortham 400
Capt. Grimes 900
Sarah Mickleborough 1000
Christo. Robinson 4000
John Vibson 100
James Daniell 150
James Curtis 300
Tho. Cranke 54
Phil. Calvert 200
John Hipkins 100
Richd. Daniell 210
Geo. Blake 100
Edwd Williams 100
Pat Mammon 100
Alexander Murray 250
Poplar Smith 550
Olixer Seager 380
Edwd Gobbee 90
Henry Barnes 200
John Davis 100
Paul Thilman 300
Hugh Watts 80
Edwd Clark 300
Charles Williams 100
Edwin Thacker Estate 2500
Thomas Dudly 200
Thomas Mackhan 200
Richd. Paffitt 200
Tho. Hiff 100
Peter Bromell 100
Tho Blakey 100
John Robinson 1350
Roger Jones 100
John Nicholls 200
George Berwick 100
Widdo Hurford 50
Widdo Hackney 300
Wm. Kilbee 600
Ezikiah Rhodes 300
John Handiford 100
John Miller 200
Wm. Scarborow 200
Wm. Herne 75
Robt. Dudley 300
Widdo Mason 100
Peter Chilton 100
Francis Dobson 150
James Dudley 200
Capt. Berkley 750
Wm. Sutton 150
Sr. Wm. Skipwith 350
Coll Kemp 900
Wm. Barbee 150
Wm. Wallis 300
Adam Curtin 200
Capt. Wm Armistead 2325
-----
49008
A True & Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands held in Essex County this
present year 1704
Abbott Wm. 150
Andrews Geo 200
Adcock Edwd 230
Adcock Henry 250
Acres James 100
Arving Wm. 100
Allin Erasmus 100
Allin Wm. 100
Ayres Wm. 200
Acres Wm. 200
-----
1630
Baulwar James 800
Bendall John 135
Butler John 125
Bowers Arthur 600
Baulwar James 200
Beesley Wm. 100
Barron Andrew 50
Bartlett Tho. 100
Brown Buskinghan 400
Beeswell Robt. 100
Beeswell Robt. Junr. 150
Brown Wm. 420
Brown Charles 1000
Buckner Richd. 1200
Buckner Tho. 1000
Brice Henry 400
Bourn Jno. 100
Beverly Harry 1000
Battail John 1100
Baulwar John 50
Booth Widdo 800
Butler Jno. 100
Butcher Jno. 150
Bendrey Widdo 700
Bird Widdo 100
Beckham Symon 100
Brutnall Richd. 100
Brook Robt. 400
Ball Jno. 150
Brooks James 100
Billington Mary 200
Brooks Peter 275
Bowman Peter 400
Brooks Robt. 150
Brasur Jno. 300
Brush Richd. 250
Baker Henry 350
Bradburn Richd. 100
Brown Francis 150
Brown Danll. Junr. 150
Bryom Henry 100
Burnett Tho. Junr. 1000
Baughan James Senr. 600
Baughan James 150
Baughan Henry 100
Brown Danll. Senr. 450
Brown Tho. 50
Blackiston Argail 200
Burnett John 365
Burnett Tho. Junr. 130
Bailer Jno. 800
Brakins Qrtr. 250
Bell Thomas 100
-----
19980
Condute Nathll. 20
Cary Hugh 50
Connoly Edwd. 200
Cogwell Fredirick 250
Copland Nicho. 300
Cattlett Jno. 1800
Covengton Richd. 1000
Cook John 112
Chew Larkin 300
Crow Tho. 300
Covington Wm. 400
Cheney John 200
Cole Wm. 200
Cheney Wm. 700
Corbin Tho. Qr 440
Cockin Tho. 120
Coates Samll 300
Cooper Richd. 100
Cooper Tho. 100
Copland Jno. 175
Crow Jno. 440
Chew Larkin 550
Cooper Wm. 50
Compton Wm. 50
Cox Wm. 500
Callaway Jos. 87
Coleman Robt. 450
Cobnall Symon 100
Chamberlain Leond. 350
-----
9764
Daniell James 100
Devillard Jacob 80
David Tho. 150
Dudding Andrew 230
Davis Evans 150
Dobbins Danll. 550
Dressall Timo. 175
Daughty John 200
Dyer Wm. 100
Daingerfield Jno. 270
Daingerfield Wm. 270
Dunn Wm. 220
Dyer Jeffrey 100
Day Richd. 100
Dicks Thomas 500
-----
12959
Evans Rice 200
Edmondson James 500
Elliott Alice 75
Evitt Tho. 100
Emondson Tho. 700
Flowers Isaac 250
Faulkner Nicho. 100
Farrell Charles 50
Franklin Nicho. 130
Foster Robt. 200
Foster Jno. 200
Fisher Jonathan 250
Fisher Benja. 150
Frank Tho. 175
Fullerton James 400
Fossett Wm. 100
Ferguson Jno. 150
Faulkner Edwd. 530
-----
17219
Green George 300
Gray Abner 350
Goulding Wm. 200
Gannock Wm. 2100
Gaines Barnerd 450
Griffin Tho. 200
Gibson Jonathan 700
Grigson Tho. 300
Gouldman Francis 300
Goulding John 200
Goulding Edwd. 380
Good Richd. 200
Garnett John 150
Glover John 100
Hawkins John 1066
Hinshaw Samll. 200
Hutson Tho. 100
Harrison James 400
Harrison Andrew 300
Hilliard Thomas 100
Harper Wm. 240
Harmon Henry 75
Hoult Richd. 100
Humphrie Joe 100
Hail Jno. 900
Harper John 748
Harper Tho. 350
Hould David 100
Hudson Wm. 100
Hinds Thomas 100
Howerton Thomas 175
Hodges Arth 100
Hows Qrtr 300
Harwood Peter 125
Harway Tho. 1000
Hudson Tho. 50
Hudson Wm. 300
Hill Leond. 300
Harwar Samll. 300
Jamison David 250
Jones Wm. 165
Jenkins David 50
Jewell Tho. 100
Johnson Widdo. 300
Jones Walter 100
Johnson Richd. 50
Johnson Wm. 650
Jones John 300
Jones Richd. 350
Jenkins John 93
Jones Wm. 300
Journey Wm. 243
Johnson Thomas 500
Jones Rice 500
Key Robt. 209
Kerby Henry 60
Landrum John 300
Landrum James 100
Long Richd. 300
Lomax John 2000
Loyd George 800
Lawson Claudy 100
Little Abraham 60
Lacy John 100
Law John 300
Lattaine Lewis 250
Leveritt Robt. 100
Micou Paul 15
Martin John 400
Morgain John 100
Miller John 150
Medor Tho. 300
Moseley Benja. 1100
Mottley John 100
Morris John 200
Moss Robt. 180
Merritt Tho. 124
Merritt John 100
Munday Tho. 500
Magcon David 400
Mice Hno. 200
Mosseley Robt. 100
Mayfield Robt. 100
Matthews Richd. 250
Moseley Edwd. 550
Merriweather Francis 3200
Mefflin Zach 400
Michaell Jno. 200
Merriweather Tho. 2100
Mefflin Lath 400
Medor John 100
Morse John 400
Matthews Benja. 200
Mountegue Wm. 850
Newbury Nathll. 200
Nixson Henry 500
North Wm 900
Newton Nicho. 100
Nightingall John 100
Osman James 300
Presser John 450
Poe Samll. 800
Pley Widdo. 800
Parker Jno. 250
Pitts Jon. 200
Piskell Jno. 300
Pain Jno. 135
Price Wm. 100
Peteras Tho. 200
Powell Honor 72
Powell Wm. 72
Powell Place 72
Powell Tho. 72
Payne Widdow 1000
Perkin Henry 300
Prichett Roger 167
Paggett Edmd. 700
Price John 1100
Pickett John 800
Perry Samll. 225
Price Wm. 100
Quarter Xtpher Robinson 2200
Quartr Tho. Corbin 4000
Qrtr Robt. Thomas 200
Quartr John Hay 1000
Quartr Wm. Smith 3000
Quartr Gawen Corbin 2000
Quartr Peter Ransom 300
Quartr David Gwin 950
Quartr Wm. Upshaw 1000
Quartr Leversons 600
Quartr Tho Todd 550
Ridgdall John 300
Ramsey Tho. 550
Rowze Ralph 610
Rucker Peter 500
Rowze Edwd. 300
Royston John 1000
Roberts Edmd. 300
Rebs Henry 400
Reeves Joseph 200
Reeves James 200
Roberts John 50
Richardson Robt. 200
Reynolds James Senr. 500
Reynolds James 500
Ransom Peter 1200
Strange Jno. 100
Stepp Abra. 390
Samll. Antho. 300
Sail Cornelius 73
Salmon John 60
Spiers Jno. 160
Smith Wm. 150
Stokes Richd. 500
Smith Charles 3000
Sullenger Peter 400
Sales Widdo 1150
Shipley Jno. 200
Spearman Job 300
Smith Francis 500
Stallard Samll. 100
Ship Jos 350
Short Tho. 150
Scott Wm. 1100
Stogell Jno. 100
Stephens Jno. 100
Slaughter Phebe 352
Smith Jno. 75
Smith Jonas 100
Sanders John 300
Stanton Jno. 95
Shepherd Jeremiah 300
Smith Tho. 50
Shackelford Francis 300
Sthrashley Tho 200
Staners Tho 500
Snead Tho 950
Shackelford Henry 50
Thorp Widdo 400
Tinsley Tho. 111
Thacker Samll. 110
Tomlin Widdo 400
Taliaferro Francis 1300
Thornton Fran. 700
Tomlin Wm. 1600
Thomas John 100
Taliaferro Charles 300
Thomas Wm. 200
Taliaferro John 2000
Turner George 200
Tomlin Wm 950
Trible Peter 100
Taylor Richd. 650
Tilley Matthew 200
Vanters Bartho 400
Virget Job 50
Vincent Vaus 450
Wakeland Wm. 100
Wood Tho. 50
Winslow Tho. 150
Winslow Henry 100
Williams John 450
Williams Wm. 100
Wilson David 50
Wilton Richd. 150
Wheeden Edwd. 50
Ward Widdo. 200
Whitehorn Widdo. 260
Wms. Emanuell 100
Watkins Thomas 400
Waters John 150
Webb James 200
Webb John 200
Wead Wm. 200
Wood Tho 300
Williamson Tho 100
Williamson Wm. 100
Williamson John 100
Webb Robert 375
Webb Isaac 200
Woodnatt Henry 300
Waginer John 400
Ward Geo. 350
Wheeler Tho 250
Young Wm. 1000
Young Giles 100
Muscoe Salvator 100
Moody John 150
Maguffe John 100
Brookins Quartr. 250
Smith Jno. Quartr 1000
Newton Henry 100
Newton Henry 175
Nowell Dall 400
Nowell Widdo 300
Garrett Tho 1000
Gould Price 200
Green Samll. 97
Gouldman Fran. 300
Gawdin Wm. 100
Grimmall Wm. 100
Gaitwood John 400
Games John 475
Samll. Thompson 1000
------
140580
Lands held in the above said County the Rents not paid and held by
the severall Gentlemen as followth vizt.
John Smith Esqr. of Glocester
County 800
Wm. Buckner of Glocester
by information 1500
Jno. Lightfoot Esqr. New
Kent County 900
Jno. Bridgate in Engld 700
Richd. Wyatt & Jno. Pettus
of King & Queen Cty 800
Wm. Berry of Richmond County 400
Richard Covington
Accomack Rent Roll
A
Alexander Richards 150
Arthur Upshot 2020
Antho. West 700
Ann Simkins 1000
Arthur Donas 100
Arnoll Harrison 630
Alex. Harrison 400
Alex. Bagwell 413
Anne Chase 200
Arthur Frame 500
Alexdr West 550
Abraham Lambedson 100
Alex Benstone 270
Anne Blake Widdo. 120
Anne Bruxe 180
Ar. Arcade Welburn 1854
-----
9187
B
Burnell Niblett 100
Majr. Bennit Scarbrough 521
-----
621
C
Corneline Hermon 321
Christo Stokly 200
Charles Scarbrough 1000
Charles Leatherbeny 1100
Charles Bally 959-1/2
Charles Pywell 150
Churchhil Darby 125
Charles Evill 550
Charles Champison 270
Christo Hodey 500
Cornelius Lofton 166
Charles Stockley 170
Charles Taylor 580
Catherine Gland 217
-----
6312-1/2
D
Dorman Derby 225
Daniell Derby Senr. 300
Dorothy Littlehouse 250
David Watson 200
Delight Shield 300
Daniel Derby Junr. 125
Daniel Harwood 100
Dennis Mores 200
Daniel Gore 3976
-----
5676
E
Coll Edmd Scarbrough 2000
Edwd Hitchins 170
Edwd Turner 750
Edwd Killam 720
Edmd Allin 200
Edwd Bagwell for Coll Wm. Custis 200
Edmd. Jones 800
Elizb. Tinley 200
Edwd Taylor 300
Edmd Tatham 200
Edmd Bally 800
Edmd Ayres 1000
Edwd. Miles 413
Elizb. Mellchop 210
Edwd. Bell 101
Edwd. More 500
Edwd. Gunter 600
Edwd Brotherton 600
Elias Blake 430
Edwd Robins 782
Edwd Bally 300
Elias Taylor 1500
Elizb. Wharton 200
Mrs. Elizb Scarbrough 4205
-----
17181
F
Mr. Francis Mackenny 5109
Francis Robts. 200
Francis Wainhouse 700
Francis Crofton 200
Francis Young 100
Finley MackWm 100
Francis Ayres 300
Francis Jester 200
Francis Benstone 400
Francis Wharton 600
-----
7909
G
Geo. Anthony 100
Geo. Hastup 300
Coll Geo Nicho Halk 2700
Capt. Geo Parker 2609
Gervis Baggally 700
Garrat Hictlims 170
Geo Parker Sco. Side 1200
Griffin Savage 650
Geo Middleton Senr. 588
Geo Trevit 400
Geo. Pounce 400
Geo Middleton Junr. 150
Geo Johnson 200
Capt. Geo Hope 900
-----
11067
H
Henry Armtrading 175
Henry Chance 445
Henry Selman 180
Henry Ubankes 400
Henry Lurton 363
Henry Stokes 208
Henry Custis 774
Henry Bagwell 412
Henry Read 350
Henry Ayres 250
Hill Drummond 483
Henry Toules 300
Henry Hickman 135
Henry Gibbins 250
Henry Truett 240
-----
4965
J
John Tounson 200
Joseph Stokley 664
Jno. Read 200
Jno. Blake 310
Joseph Ames 375
Joseph Clark 200
Jno. Fisher 200
James Gray 900
Jno. Huffington 240
Jno. Legatt 300
James Lary 100
James Longoe 200
Jno. Merrey 350
Jno Milloy 500
Jno. Pratt 50
Jno. Revell 1450
Jno Road 110
Jno. Rowles 650
Jno. Savage Senr 350
Jno Charles 480
Jno Willis Senr 430
Jno Willis Junr 350
James Fairfax 900
Joseph Milby 830
John West Junr 500
Jno Jenkins 400
Jonathan James 150
John Rodgers 100
Jno Collins 100
Jno Sincocke 125
Jno Metcalfe,
Isaac Metcalfe
and Samll. Metcalfe 600
Joseph Touser 200
Jno Stanton 200
Jno Bally 1000
-----
13715
Jno Melson 180
Jno Bernes Senr 657
Jno Littletone 200
John Nock 300
Jno Killy 100
Jacob Morris 200
Jno Morris 640
Jona. Aylworth 200
James Davis 1000
Jno Parkes 200
Jno Evans 200
Jno Hull 100
Jno Blocksom 700
Jno Abbott 1170
Jno Arew 234
Jno Grey 116
Jno Baker 400
Jno Wharton 150
James Taylor 100
Jno Glading 207
Jno Loftland 167
James Smith 756
Majr Jno Robins 2700
Jno Collins for Asban 1666
James Walker 525
Jno Whelton 90
Jno Marshall 1666
Jona Owen 230
Jacob Wagaman 150
Capt John Broadhurst 1100
Jno Dyer 200
Mr. John Watts 2450
Jno Booth 300
John Bradford 364
Ingold Cobb 150
Jno Griffin 150
Jno Mitchell 400
John Parker 970
James Alexander 1250
Jno Burocke 200
James Sterferar 50
Jno Perry 217
Jno Drummond 1550
Jno Carter on Foxs Island 203
Jno Warington 100
Jno Bagwell 465
Jno Wise Senr 800
Jno Wise Junr 400
Jno Dix 500
Isaac Dix 500
Jno Hickman 454
Jno Onians 200
Coll Jno Custis Esqr 5950
John Coslin 50
-----
46692
M
Michaell Recetts 300
Mrs. Mattilda West 3600
Marke Evell 250
Mary Wright 200
-----
4350
N
Nicholas Mellchops 285
Nathaniel, Williams 64
Nathaniell Rattcliff 300
-----
649
O
Owen Collonell 500
Overton Mackwilliams 200
Obedience Pettman 115
-----
815
P
Peter Major 113
Philip Parker 150
Peter Rogers 167
Perry Leatherbury 1750
Peter Turlington 79
Peter Ease 250
Philip Fisher 433
Peter Chawell 250
-----
3192
R
Robt. Bell 650
Richd Bally Senr. 2100
Richd Bally Junr 180
Richd Garrison 468
Roules Major 157
Rouland Savage Senr 950
Robt. Taylor 95
Richd. Rodgers 450
Richd Killam 1900
Robt. Wattson 425
Richd Jones 500
Robt. Hutchinson 934
Reynold Badger 150
Robt. West 400
Richd Cuttler 450
Robt. Cole 125
Richd Drummond 600
Robt. Stocomb 300
Robt Norton 1050
Richd Grindall 350
Roger Hickman 135
Robt Lewis 200
Roger Abbott 450
Richard Hill 350
Ralph Justice 1050
Richd Hinman 1800
Robt Davis 384
Ragnall Aryes 300
Roger Miles 200
Richd Bundike 773
Richd Kittson 1300
Robt. Bally 100
Richd Starlin 150
Richd Flowers 200
Richd Price 100
Robt. Pitts 2300
Robt Adkins 200
Rebeckha Benstone 270
Richd Hillayres 300
-----
22816
S
Samuell Benstone 300
Sarah Beach 300
Sillvanus Cole 250
Symon Sosque 325
South Littleton Widdo 2870
Stephen Woltham 244
Steph. Warrington 400
Symon Mitchell 300
Stephen Drummond 300
Selby Harrison 50
Sollomon Evell 125
Samll Young 50
Sarah Reyley 150
Sebastian Dellistations Senr 500
Sebastian Dellistations Junr 400
Skinner Wollope 2485
Samll. Sandford 3250
Sebastian Silverthorn 150
Symon Smith 200
Sarah Coe 900
Samll Taylor 1232
Sarah Evins 150
Sebastian Croper 600
Samuell Jester 200
-----
15731
T
Tho Burton 600
Tho Bud 500
Tho Boules 300
Tho Clark 100
Tho Middleton 350
Tho Stringer 600
Tho Haule 500
Tho Taylor 100
Tho Fockes 300
Tho Bagwell 465
Madm Tabitha Hill 3600
Tho Rose 7
Tho Webb 50
Tho Savage 450
Tho Jones 100
Tho Scott 100
Tho Reyley 225
Tho Ternall 150
Tho Simpson 520
Tho Coper 711
Tho Miles 202
Thomas Bonwell 300
Tho Bell Senr. 100
The Bell Junr 100
Tho Touson Kiquotan 800
Tho Stockley 363
Tho Jester 100
Tho Smith 300
Thomas Crippin 648
Tho Wilkinson 50
Tho Jenkinson 374
Tho Moore 166
Tho Allen 700
Tho Smith Savannah 200
Tho Perry 232
Tho Tonnson 400
Tho Smith Gingateague 693
Lieut Coll Robinson 600
-----
15956
W
Wm. Robins 200
Wm Patterson 200
Wm Bevens 400
Wm Matthews 400
Wm Shepherd 200
Wm Whett 400
Winfred Woodland 333
Wm Andrews 300
Wm Custis 1500
Wm Darby 83
Wm Fletcher 200
Wm Killam 450
Wm Lingoe 300
Wm Major 130
Wm Meeres 150
Wm Mack Sear 800
Wm Savage 150
Wm Waite 110
Wm Sill 200
Wm Waite Junr 600
Wm Bradford 3500
Wm Rogers 200
Wm Wise 400
Wm Finey 800
Wm Consalvins 100
Wm Phillips 200
Wm Parker 362
Wm Cole 375
Wm Merill 150
Wm Johnson 150
Wm Lewis 150
Walter Hayes 130
Wm Chance 450
Wm Milby 250
Wm Nicholson 600
Wm Burton 500
Wm Willett 842
Wm Hudson 270
Wm Lewis 300
Wm Young 144
Wm Liechfield 154
Wm Bunting 150
Wm Nock Junr 400
Wm Lucas 300
Mary Mellechop 498
Wm Daniell 200
Wm Silverthorn 160
Wm Garman 475
Wm White 600
Wm Broadwater 500
Wm Taylor 100
Wm Williamson 600
Wm Brittingham 538
Wm. Benstone Jun. 270
Wm Dickson for Mr. Littleton 1050
Wm Waite Senr 225
Wm Taylor 1400
-----
24599
196899-1/2
Added to this Rent Roll the following Lands of which the Quit Rents
may possibly be recovered tho the Owners live out of the Country
Viz.
Jonas Jackson 500
Robt. Andrews 500
Joseph Morris 200
Robt. Meros 200
Hillory Stringer 950
Tho Fisher 133
Jno Fisher 133
Timo Coe 4100
David Hagard 130
-----
6846
An Account of what Land in Accomack County the owners whereof are not
dwellers.
Tho Preson of Northampton 200
Geo Corbin Ditto 150
Joshua Fichett Ditto 200
Alexdr Merey Maryld 200
Tho Dent 500
Mr. Wm Kendalls orphans
of Northampton County 2850
Mr Hancock Lee dividing Creeks 4050
Richd Watters in Maryland 1057
Francis Lailor Northamp 100
Obedience Johnson Qtrs 300
Henry Smith at the Southerd 1000
Grattiance Michell North 200
Matt. Tyson Southerd 300
Teagle Woltham Maryld 200
Peter Waltham New Engld 200
Jno Waltham Maryld 200
-----
11707
Jno Wise Sheriff
The Rent Roll of Northampton County for the Year of our Lord God 1704
A
Andrews Robt. 300
Andrews Andrew 100
Addison John 350
Abdell Tho 125
Abdell Jno 200
Abdell Wm 125
Alligood John 300
Angell James 100
Alligood Henry 100
B
Bullock Geo 100
Boner Geo 150
Brown Tho 1862
Benthall Joseph Senr 793
Benthall Joseph Junr 150
Branson Francis 100
Bateson 200
Billot Jno 400
Bell Geo 400
Billott Wm 100
Brewer Jno 50
Blackson Jno 100
Brooks Jeane 100
Beadwine Jno 200
Berthall Danll 258
Baker John 400
Brickhouse Geo 2100
C
Cob Samll 130
Coape Wm 200
Custis Jno Coll 3400
Collier Bartho. 150
Carpenter Charles 240
Cox Jno 500
Church Samll 143
Cleg Jno. Senr 204
Clog Henry 204
Carvy Richd 100
Cowdry Josiah 167
Cormeck Mich 100
Clerk Jno 100
Corban Geo 250
Clerk Geo 833
Caple Nath 100
Callinett Jno 100
Crew John 300
Costin Francis 275
Custis Majr John 3250
Custis Hancock 50
Chick Tho. 100
D
Downing Jno. 70
Dewy Geo 300
Dewy Jacob 100
Delby Margery 450
Dowty Rowland 150
Dunton John 170
Dunton Tho 400
Dowman John 100
Dullock John 100
Denton Tho 400
Dunton Tho Junr 120
Dunton Wm 420
Dunton Benj 220
Duparks Tho 90
Davis Jno 850
Dunton Joseph 120
Dixon Michaell 460
E
Eshon Jno 600
Evans John 200
Edmunds David 500
Evans Tho 300
Esdoll Geo 100
Eyres Tho 1133
Eyres Nich 325
Eyres Capt Jno 774
Eyres Anne Wido. 733
Esdoll Edwd. 100
F
Fisher John 637-1/2
Francisco Dan 150
Fisher Tho 637-1/2
Foster Robt. 150
Fabin Paul 60
Frost Tho 100
Frank Jno 500
Floyd Charles 378
Freshwater Geo 200
Frizell Geo 140
Freshwater Wm 200
Fitchett Joshua 100
Floyd Berry & Matthew 555
G
Gogni David 150
Gill Robt. 200
Gascoyne Robt. 125
Gascoyne Wm 525
Greene Jno Senr 2200
Giddens Tho 227
Grice Peter 200
Godwin Devorix 600
Goffogan Tho 100
Guelding Charles 200
Griffith Jerimiah 345
Griffith Benja 200
H
Hill Francis 100
Henderson John 250
Haggaman Isaac 750
Harmonson Jno 1600
Harmonson Henry 1250
Hanby Charles 25
Hanby Richd 75
Hanby Danll 50
Hanby John 150
Harmonson Capt Wm 308
Harmonson Geo 1586
Harmonson Tho 400
Hawkins Jno Senr 66
Hawkins Jno Junr 66
Hawkins Gideon 66
Hunto Groton 485
Hunt John 440
Hunt Tho 290
Hall Francis Widdo 340
J
Johnson John Senr 250
Johnson John Junr 100
Johnson Jacob 350
Isaacs John Jnr 100
Joynes Major 150
James Joan Widdo 250
Johnson Obedience Capt 400
Johnson Tho Junr 75
Johnson Thomas Senr 400
Jackson Jonah & John 625
Joynes Edmd 200
Joynes Edwd 200
Johnson Jeptha Senr 50
Jacob Phillip Senr 350
Johnson Jepha Junr 200
Johnson Obedience & Jepha Sen 250
Johnson Edmd 400
Jacob Richd 200
Jacob Abraham 50
K
Kendall Wm 2410
Knight John 100
L
Lawrence John 120
Lailler Luke 100
Lucas Tho 100
Lewis Robt 100
Littleton Susannah Wido 4050
Luke John 400
M
Marshall Geo 250
Farshall Jno 250
Maddox Tho 1500
Michaell Yeardly 400
Matthews John 275
Major John 390
Map John 50
Moore Matthew 175
Mackmellion Tho 300
More Gilbert 225
Morraine John 119-1/2
More Jno 545
More Eliner 175
N
Nicholson Wm 600
Nottingham Wm 150
Nottingham Joseph 150
Nottingham Richd 350
Nottingham Benja 300
Nelson John 100
O
Only Clement 200
Odear John 100
P
Parramore Tho 400
Preson Tho 610
Powell Frances Widdo 1225
Palmer Samll 1562
Pyke Henry 150
Powell John 636-1/3
Pittett Tho 300
Pittet Justian 200
Pittett John 275
Powell Samll 200
Paine Daniell 150
Piggott Ralph 1368
R
Read Thomas 150
Rascow Arthur 100
Ronan Wm 150
Roberts Jno 200
Richards Lettis 150
Robins Jno Majr 1180
Robins Littleton 1000
Rabishaw Wm 55
Roberts Obedience 260
Robinson Benjamin 250
S
Shepherd Jno 200
Smith Joseph 250
Smith Samll 150
Smith Jno 200
Savage Tho 450
Smith Tho 400
Smith Abrah 300
Seady Antho 120
Sott Widdo 750
Smith Richd minor 300
Scot Geo 100
Smith Richd 99
Scot Jno 100
Scott Henry 800
Scot David 300
Smith Peter 450
Sanders Richd 100
Smaro John 800
Shepherd Tho 140
Sanders Eustick 100
Sanderson John 636
Savidge John 410
Stringer Hillary 1250
Savidge Capt Tho 1600
Savidge Elkington 750
Scot Wm Senr 153
Straton Benja 745
Smith Geo 133
Stockley Jno Senr 370
Shepheard Widdo 830
Seamore John 200
T
Tilney John 350
Tryfort Barth 147
Teague Simeon 100
Turner Richd 50
Teague Tho 200
Tankard Wm 450
Tanner Paul 148
W
Webb Henry 100
Wills Thorn 300
White John 400
Wilson Tho 250
Westerhouse Adryan Senr 200
Walker John 300
Ward Tho 120
Walter John 400
Waterfield Wm 200
Warren John 525
Warren Argoll 350
Widgeon Robt 100
Wilkins Jno 150
Webb Edwd 200
Wilcock Jno 200
Warren James 50
Waterson Wm 855
Warren Robt. 190
Water Lieut-Coll Wm 700
Webb Charles 133-1/4
Willett Wms 2650
Waterson Richd 150
Wilkins Argoll 150
Walter Elizb Widdo 100
Warren Joseph 50
-----
99671
Lands not paid for vizt
Gleab formerly Capt Foxcrofts 1500
John Majr at Occahannock 200
Hogbin not being in Virginia 100
Tho Smith 300
Tho Marshall orphan 75
Jno Rews not in Virginia 100
-----
2275
The total on the other side is 99671 acres
Added to it ye Glebe land 1500
------
101171 acres
The preceding Sheets are true copys of the Rentrolls for the year 1704
given in and accounted for by the several Sherifs in April 1705 and
sworne to before his Excellcy according to which they made up their
accounts of the Quitrents with
Will Robertson Clerk.
_INDEX_
INDEX
Accomac,
farms and tithables of, 58; 79.
Allen, Arthur,
six tithables, 57.
Allen, William,
_Burgess_ in 1629, 73.
Allerton, Isaac,
deals in servants, 48.
Ambrose, Robert,
deals in servants, 49.
Anbury, Major,
describes Virginia upper class, 158.
Andros, Sir Edmund, 29; 35; 52;
hesitates to deprive wealthy of land holdings, 143-144.
Archer, George,
deals in servants, 49;
extensive landowner, 79.
Armetrading, Henry, 79.
Artisans,
became planters in Virginia, 27;
called for in broadside of 1610, 28;
on the plantations, 156-157.
Ashton, Peter,
deals in servants, 48.
Austin, James,
deals in servants, 48.
Avery, Richard,
his cattle, 101;
inventory of, 106.
Bacon Nathaniel, Sr., 109; 110.
Bacon, Nathaniel, Jr.,
describes poverty in Virginia, 91;
rebellion of and _Navigation Acts_, 92-93;
says peoples hoped in _Burgesses_, 109; 113.
Baker, John,
buys _Button's Ridge_, 49.
Baldwin, William,
landowner, 79.
Ballard, Thomas, 109.
Ball, William,
has 22 slaves.
Baltic,
English trade of, 8;
Denmark controls entrance to, 9;
wars endanger trade to, 9;
cheap labor of, 16; 17;
tobacco trade to, 118-119;
trade to injured by wars, 131, 148.
Banister, John,
has 88 slaves, 158.
Barbadoes,
complain of _Navigation Acts_, 94.
Barnett, Thomas,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1629, 74.
Bassett, William,
deals in servants, 48.
Beer, George Lewis,
defends _Navigation Acts_, 86-87;
says trade restrictions did not cause _Bacon's Rebellion_, 92;
statement of concerning county grievances, 93;
denies that serious opposition existed to _Navigation Acts_, 93-94.
Bell, Richard,
landowning freedman, 74.
Bennett, Richard,
estate of described, 108.
Bennett, Samuel,
landowning freedman, 74.
Berkeley, John,
conducts iron works in Virginia, 18.
Berkeley, Lord John, 90.
Berkeley, Sir William,
describes servants, 34;
describes early mortality among servants, 39;
estimates servants at 6,000 in 1671, 41;
instructed to prohibit foreign trade, 69;
permits foreign trade during _Civil War_, 69;
calls Virginia land of opportunity, 75;
proclaims Charles II, 84, 111; 89;
describes poverty of Virginia, 90, 91, 92, 93;
controls Assembly, 94;
goes to England to combat _Navigation Acts_, 94-95;
plans to establish manufactures, 95;
denounces _Navigation Acts_, 95-96; 98;
secures body guard, 111;
elected Governor prior to Restoration, 112;
fears King's resentment, 113;
small planters turn against in _Bacon's Rebellion_, 113;
estimates slaves at 2,000 in 1670, 124; 125; 160.
Beverley, Robert, Sr.,
extensive dealer in servants, 48, 109; 113.
Beverley, Robert, Jr., 61;
imports slaves, 130;
describes pride of poor whites, 155.
Bibbie, Edmund,
deals in servants, 49.
Binns, Thomas,
eight tithables, 57.
Bishop, John,
_Burgess_ and landowner, 78.
Blackstone, John,
patents land, 74.
Bland, John,
remonstrates against _Navigation Acts_, 88-89; 93.
Blair, Rev. John,
asks funds for college, 50, 136.
Blewit, Capt.,
sets up iron works in Virginia, dies, 181.
Board of Trade,
arrears of quit rents reported to, 51;
_Nicholson_ writes to concerning rent roll, 52;
says servants not slaves, 60;
_Berkeley_ protests to, 95, 119;
asks reasons for emigration of _Virginia_ whites, 140;
seeks to limit size of land grants, 143;
again alarmed at emigration from Virginia, 145, 147, 157.
Bolling, Mrs. Mary,
has 51 slaves, 158.
Brent, Giles,
deals in servants, 48; 109; 113.
Bridger, Joseph,
deals in servants, 48; 109.
Briggs, Gray,
has 43 slaves, 158.
British Empire,
beginnings of misunderstood, 14;
begun, 19;
important rôle of tobacco in, 27.
Broadnat, John, 128.
Broadside,
in 1610 calls for settlers for Virginia, 28.
Browne, Robert,
landowning freedman, 74.
Browne, William,
nine tithables, 57.
Bruce, Philip Alexander,
describes small planters, 54.
Brunswick,
land patents in small, 145.
Bullock, William,
denies that servants are slaves, 60.
Burgesses, 54,
petition King, 65;
complain of high freight rates, 72;
freedmen among, 73-75;
_Navigation Acts_ and, 94-95;
represent interest of small planters, 109;
defy the king, 110;
petition of, 110;
rule Virginia, 1652-1660, 112;
growing influence of, 109.
Burwell, Francis,
patents land in _James City_, 77.
Burwell, John,
has 42 slaves, 158.
Burwell, Lewis,
deals in servants, 48; 109.
Burcher, William,
patents land, 79.
Bushood, John,
sells land, 49.
Butt, Thomas,
deals in servants, 48.
Button, Robert,
receives estate, 49.
Button, Thomas,
owner of _Button's Ridge_, 49.
Byrd, William I,
says rent rolls inaccurate, 52; 109;
uses slaves, 130.
Byrd, William II,
gives reasons for emigration to _Carolina_, 146.
Carter, John, 109.
Carter, Robert,
has 126 slaves, 153.
Carleill, Capt. Christopher,
urges trade with America, 11.
Carolina,
emigration to from Virginia, 99-100; 139-146.
Cattle,
plentiful in Virginia, 101.
Chambers, William,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Chandler, John,
landowning freedman, 74.
Charles I,
considers smoking harmful, 26;
tries to limit tobacco planting in Virginia, 27;
tries to limit English tobacco crop, 63;
limits price of tobacco, 65;
regulates tobacco trade, 67-69; 70;
defied by _Assembly_, 110; 111.
Charles II, 33;
proclaimed in Virginia, 84; 111; 93; 96;
not restored in Virginia before Restoration in England, 112;
tyranny of, 114.
Charles City,
plantations small, 53; 54;
farms and tithables of, 58; 79; 81.
Chastellux,
describes poor whites of Virginia, 152;
notes indolence of poor whites, 155.
Chew, Larkin,
dealer in _Spotsylvania_ land, 154.
Claiborne, William,
deals in servants, 48.
Clayton, Thomas, 80.
Clergy,
many plant tobacco, 28.
Clothing,
want of felt in Virginia, 103.
Cloyse, Pettyplace,
landowning freedman, 74.
Cole, Edward,
patents land in _James City_, 77.
Colonial expansion,
sought as remedy for British economic dependence, 10;
urged by economists, 11; 12; 13.
Colonial system, 68;
imperfectly enforced prior to 1660, 67-69; 85-86;
embodied in _Navigation Acts_, 85;
colonies to supplement England, 86;
workings of at end of 17th century, 120;
British conception of, 136.
Commerce,
of England with Baltic, 8;
principles of long known, 11;
of England with Europe and East, 12;
of England with France declines, 13;
affords key to history, 22;
in reëxported tobacco, 70;
in tobacco revives after 1683, 114-115;
in reëxported tobacco, 116-120;
importance of in tobacco for England, 119, 122.
Commonwealth,
tobacco high under, 66;
Virginians trade abroad under, 69; 98;
attitude of Virginia under, 110-11.
Constable, John,
trades illegally, 69.
Cooke, John,
landowning freedman, 74.
Cornell, Samuel,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Council, 65;
complains of high freight rates, 72; 90;
describes poverty in Virginia, 91;
says Virginia ready to revolt to Dutch, 96; 109; 110;
members of hold land illegally, 143;
gives reasons for immigration out of Virginia, 145;
describes misery in Virginia, 150;
declining influence of, 159.
Creighton, Henry,
sells 100 acres, 50.
Criminals,
few sent to Virginia, 32, 33;
make no imprint on social fabric, 33.
Crocker, Wm.,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Cromwell, Oliver,
sends Irish servants to Virginia, 33.
Crump, Thomas,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1632, 74;
landowner, 75.
Culpeper, Lord,
fears ruin of Virginia, 91, 114.
Custis, John, 109.
Daingerfield, William,
has 61 slaves, 157.
Dawson, William,
landowning freedman, 74.
Day, John, 80.
Delaware,
manufactures of lure poor Virginia whites, 141;
migration to, 139-146.
Delk, Roger,
landowning freedman, 74.
Dicks, John,
purchases land, 49.
Digges, Dudley, 109.
Diggs, William,
has 72 slaves, 158.
Dinwiddie county,
poor whites in, 151;
small slave holders of, 153;
large slave holders of, 158.
Dodman, John,
landowner, 79.
Dorch, Walter,
inventory of, 106.
Duties,
French put on English woolens, 13;
on reëxported tobacco partly refunded, 70;
on reëxported tobacco, 117;
on tobacco yield grown large revenue, 120.
Edwards, John,
slaves of in plot, 128.
Edwards, William,
has six tithables, 57;
slaves of in plot, 128.
Effingham, Lord,
tyranny of in Virginia, 114.
Elizabeth City,
plantations of small, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58;
servants and slaves in, 59.
Emigration,
from Virginia in years from 1660 to 1725, 40, 62, 139-146;
not caused by large land grants, 144-145;
extent of, 146.
England,
colonial expansion necessary for, 7;
forests depleted, 7;
industry declining, 8;
Baltic trade of, 8;
future depends on colonies, 13; 14;
joy of at founding of Virginia, 15;
disappointed in Virginia, 19;
tobacco bill of, 26;
supplies Virginia with labor, 31;
poverty in, 31;
cannot consume entire colonial tobacco crop, 86;
tobacco planting in prohibited, 87;
glut of tobacco in, 68-89;
adheres to colonial policy, 95.
Epes, Francis, 79, 127.
Essex,
land transfers in, 46;
plantations of small, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58.
Falling Creek,
iron works at, 17;
destroyed in 1622, 18.
Fane, Francis,
says slave labor cheapens tobacco, 132.
Fish,
plentiful in Virginia, 15.
Fithian, Philip,
describes poor whites of Virginia, 152, 155.
Fitzhugh, William, 109;
refers to slave imports, 130.
Flax,
in Virginia, 15.
Fleet, tobacco,
brings servants, 35;
size of in 1690 and 1706, 122.
Foster, Armstrong, 79, 80.
Foster, Robert,
buys 200 acres, 50.
Fowl, wild,
abundant in colonial Virginia, 102.
Fox, William,
has 25 slaves, 153.
France,
exports wine and silk, 12;
British trade with declines, 13;
tobacco trade to, 119;
trade to injured by war, 131.
Freedmen,
80 per cent of servants become, 40;
prior to 1660 remained in Virginia, 40;
form large part of population, 41;
annual recruits of, 41;
usually young, 42;
might acquire property, 43;
perform bulk of work, 43;
what became of, 43;
become small planters, 60;
outfit of, 61;
not entitled to land, 61;
prosperity of hinges on tobacco, 62;
Virginia land of opportunity for, 71;
profits of from tobacco, 71-72;
in _Burgesses_, 73-74;
prosperous, 74-80;
little hope of advancement for after 1660, 97-100;
few in rent roll of 1704, 122-123.
Freemen,
entitled to headrights, 35;
many come to Virginia, 36;
become small planters, 60-75;
many pay own passage, 81-82.
Freight rates,
high from England, 71-72;
excessive, 90.
Fruit, 12,
abundant in Virginia, 102.
Fuel,
abundant in Virginia, 105.
Gardens,
common in Virginia, 102, 105.
Garnet, John,
buys 600 acres, 50.
George, The,
takes cargo of tobacco to England, 25; 64.
Gilbert, George,
patents land in _James City_, 77, 79.
Gilbert, Sir Humphrey,
voyage to America, 11.
Glass,
possibilities for in Virginia, 15;
beginning made of in Virginia, 17;
early history of in Virginia, 18-19.
Gloucester,
average plantation in, 54;
farms and tithables of, 58; 80; 113;
poor whites of, 151;
small slave holders in, 154;
large slave holders in, 157; 159.
Good, John,
describes poverty in Virginia, 91.
Gooch, Governor,
says large holdings no impediment to settlement, 145;
says poor whites make best tobacco, 147.
Governor,
plants tobacco, 28;
appoints sheriffs, 51;
makes efforts to collect quit rents, 51; 65;
neglects servants, 73; 90; 109;
elected by burgesses, 1652-1660, 112.
Goring, John,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Grain,
abundance of in Virginia, 102.
Graves, Ralph,
his servant valued at £10, 127.
Grey, James,
buys 200 acres, 49.
Grey, John,
his cattle, 101;
inventory of, 106.
Grey, Francis,
Burgess and landowner, 78-79.
Grey, Thomas, 78.
Hakluyt, Richard,
advises colonial expansion, 11;
shows British dependence on Spain, 12;
expects surplus of population in England to emigrate to America,
16; 19.
Hammond, John,
advice to servants, 61;
describes Virginia residences, 104.
Harmar, Charles,
imports slaves, 124.
Harris, John,
_Burgess_ in 1629, 73.
Harrison, Benjamin, 109.
Hart, Henry,
his slave in plot, 128.
Hartwell, Henry,
deals in servants, 48.
Harvey, Sir John,
complains of low prices for tobacco, 65;
asks freedom of trade for Virginia, 68;
testifies to illegal foreign trade, 68-69;
complains of high freight rates, 72;
ejected by people, 110.
Hatfield, James,
landowning freedman, 75.
Headrights,
described, 34; 35;
averaged about 1750 a year, 41;
determine size of land grants, 47;
brought in by well known planters, 48;
do not belong to servant, 61;
appear in wills, 76;
transfer of by sale, 76;
become landowners, 77;
not all servants, 77;
compared with rent roll, 97-99.
Hemp,
in Virginia, 15.
Henrico,
false returns in, 55;
farms and tithables of, 58;
servants and slaves in, 59; 79.
Hill, Edward, 109.
Hill, John,
landowning freedman, 75;
book binder at _Oxford_, 75.
Hodge, John,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Holding, John,
landowner, 79.
Holland,
exports fish, 12;
trade of declines, 13;
controls slave trade, 31; 125;
tobacco exports to, 86-89;
_Navigation Acts_ cut exports to, 87;
distributor of English colonial tobacco, 88;
plants own tobacco, 88;
wars with, 89;
Virginians threaten to revolt to, 91, 96; 116;
tobacco exports to, 120;
fights to preserve her monopoly of slave trade, 126;
seeks to control tobacco trade on continent, 149-150.
Honey,
produced in Virginia, 102.
Hotten's Emigrants to America,
gives lists of servants, 42; 73.
Houses,
comfortable in Virginia, 103-104.
Howlett, William,
buy 200 acres, 50.
Immigration,
volume of in 17th century, 35-36;
fixes character of eastern Virginia, 36;
not restricted to servants, 36.
Indentures,
system of, 32;
terms of, 61.
Indians,
desire to convert, 14;
revere tobacco, 24;
unsuited for laborers, 30.
Industry, 22;
pictured in Virginia, 28;
Virginia not suited for, 29.
Inventories,
throw light on distribution of servants and slaves, 59; 73;
typical examples of, 106-107.
Iron,
smelting of exhausts forests, 8;
could be smelted in Virginia, 15;
early manufacture of in Virginia, 17-18.
Isle of Wight county,
farms and tithables of, 58; 79.
Jackson, William,
has 49 slaves, 158.
James I,
forced to use tobacco, 25;
considers smoking harmful, 26;
regulates tobacco trade, 67.
James II,
tyranny of, 114.
James City county,
plantations and tithables of, 58;
landowners listed as headrights in, 76-77; 79;
slave plot in, 128.
James River,
iron works on, 17; 39; 70; 148.
Jamestown, 14;
glass furnace at, 18;
streets of planted with tobacco, 25; 86; 111; 112.
Jefferson, Thomas,
says slavery made whites lazy, 155.
Jeffreys, Jeffrey,
imports slaves, 131.
Jennings, Edmund, 109;
describes slave plot, 128-129;
says slaves injure credit of Virginia, 130;
says few servants in 1708, 130-131;
describes slave trade, 130-131;
describes migration of poor whites, 145-146.
Johnson, John,
sells land, 49.
Johnson, Joseph,
transports servants, 78-79.
Jones, Anthony,
servant, becomes landowner, 74.
Jones, Hugh,
says tenants small part of population, 45; 155;
says negroes make poor artisans, 156.
Jordan, Lt. Col.,
pays taxes on seven tithables, 56.
Kemp, Richard,
says immigrants mostly servants, 82.
King William county,
farms and tithables of, 58.
King and Queen county,
farms and tithables of, 58.
Kinsman, Richard,
makes _perry_, 108.
Knight, Sir John,
says Virginia ready to revolt to Holland, 96.
Labor,
lack of in Virginia, 16;
foreign at Jamestown, 18;
lack of handicaps industry, 19; 20;
in Virginia determined by tobacco, 23;
cheap needed in Virginia, 29;
serious problem, 29;
Indians unsuited for, 30;
slave, 30;
England supplies, 31;
indenture system to supply, 32;
influx of, 35.
Lancaster, 79;
poor planters in, 151;
small slave holders of, 153.
Land,
cheap in Virginia, 29; 45;
transfers of in Surry county, 46;
in York, 46;
in _Rappahannock_, 46;
listed in rent roll of 1704-5, 53;
monopoly of said to cause migration from Virginia, 141-143;
large tracts granted, 142-144.
Land grants,
average extent of, 47;
determined by method of transporting immigrants, 47;
vary greatly in size, 47;
not index to size of plantations, 49.
Landowners,
few large in 17th century, 43;
glad to sell in small parcels, 45;
chiefly small proprietors, 46;
in census of 1626, 46;
in York county, 46;
in Essex, 46;
often avoid quit rents, 51;
listed in rent roll of 1704-5, 53;
small proprietors neglected in history, 54;
often poor men, 55;
many work farms with own hands, 57;
_Government_ expects servants to become, 62;
profits of from tobacco, 71-72.
Larkin, George,
describes large land holdings, 144.
Lawrence, Richard,
landowner, 79.
_Leah and Rachel_, 61.
Lee, Richard,
imports 80 slaves, 125.
Leightenhouse, Thomas, 127.
Linton, John,
estimates colonial tobacco, 115;
estimates amount of reëxported tobacco, 118;
declares Baltic tobacco trade ruined, 148;
describes tobacco raising in Holland, 149.
London Company,
national character of, 13;
plans manufactures for Virginia, 15;
cannot secure laborers for Virginia, 16;
sets up iron works at Falling Creek, 17-18;
displeased at tobacco culture in Virginia, 25;
tobacco only hope of, 26;
expects Virginia to duplicate England, 28;
high price of tobacco pleases, 64; 73; 75.
Ludwell, Philip, 109; 113.
Ludwell, Thomas,
places average tobacco crop at 1200 pounds, 64; 90;
says tobacco worth nothing, 90; 91; 96.
Manufactures,
attempts to establish in Virginia, 15-19;
cause of failure, 19;
purchased from Dutch, 68-69;
colonial system based on expectation of, 86;
Berkeley tries to establish, 95;
local in Virginia, 103;
of tobacco in England, 119, 122;
exports of to tobacco colonies, 120;
in northern colonies lure Virginia whites, 140; 141;
on plantations, 108; 156-157.
Market,
not free for tobacco, 66;
tobacco sent to foreign, 67-70;
Navigation Acts cut of foreign, 87;
tobacco reëxported to continental, 116-120;
Virginia and Maryland furnish for England, 120.
Maryland,
emigration of whites from, 140;
House of Delegates of explains migration, 191.
Mason, Francis,
seven tithables, 57.
Mason, Winfield,
has 40 slaves, 158.
Massacre,
iron works destroyed during, 18.
Matthews, Samuel,
his estate described, 108.
Merchant marine,
threatened in England by lack of shipbuilding materials, 9;
part of sea defense, 10;
depleted at end of 16th century, 10;
tobacco exports aid British, 26, 119, 122.
Menefie, George,
his estate described, 108.
Middlesex,
plantations small, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58.
Milner, Thomas,
deals in servants, 48.
Moseley, Capt. William,
buys part of _Button's Ridge_, 50, 109.
Muir, Francis,
has 47 slaves, 158.
Muscovy Company,
Baltic trade of, 8;
not exempt from customs, 9;
urged to trade with America, 11.
Nansemond,
plantations of small, 53;
plantations and tithables in, 58.
Navigation Acts, 69;
described, 84-86;
resented in Holland, 88-89;
_Bland's_ remonstrance against, 88;
cause of war with Holland, 89;
cause extreme poverty in Virginia, 90-92;
connected with _Bacon's Rebellion_, 92-93;
why Virginia _Assembly_ did not protest against, 94-95;
_Berkeley_ protests against, 94-95; 98;
retard growth of population, 98-99;
design of, 116.
_New Albion_,
describes abundance of food in Virginia, 103;
advises settlers in Virginia as to clothing, 104.
_New Description of Virginia_,
presents optimistic picture of Virginia, 63;
puts price of tobacco at 3d a pound, 66;
describes foreign tobacco trade, 69;
describes Virginia houses, 104;
cites cases of wealth in Virginia, 107.
New Kent,
farms and tithables of, 58.
Newport, Capt. Christopher,
returns to England in 1607, 15;
brings iron ore to England in 1607, 17.
New Jersey,
manufactures of lure Virginia whites, 141.
Nicholson, Sir Francis, 29; 50;
orders accurate rent roll in 1690, 51;
again attempts rent roll in 1699, 52;
completes rent roll, 52; 54;
makes rent roll accurate, 55, 97; 114;
gives reason for migration from Virginia and Maryland, 140, 141;
sues Col. Lawrence Smith for arrears of quit rents, 143;
testifies to large land grants, 144.
Norfolk,
plantations of small, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58;
slave plot in, 129.
Northampton,
farms and tithables of, 58; 79.
North Carolina,
servants flee to, 83.
Northern Neck,
omitted in rent roll, 50; 54; 55.
Norton, Capt. Wm.,
brings glass workers to Virginia, 19;
dies, 19.
Page, Matthew, 109.
Page, Mann,
has 157 slaves, 157.
Pagett, Anthony,
_Burgess_ in 1629, 73.
Parke, Daniel, 109.
Patent Rolls,
in Virginia Land Office, 34;
average grants in, 47;
show large dealers in servants, 48; 73;
reveal names of freedmen, 74-75.
Pattison, Thomas,
landowner, 79.
Pearson, Christopher,
inventory of, 107.
Pelton, George, 102.
Pennsylvania,
manufactures of lure Virginia whites, 191;
migration to, 139-146.
_Perfect Description_,
numbers cattle in Virginia, 101.
Perry Micajah,
reports on tobacco trade, 119.
Plantations,
Virginia made up of, 29;
cheap in Virginia, 29;
labor for, 29-37;
unhealthful sites for, 39;
few large, 43;
small hold own with large, 44;
small outnumber large, 45; 46;
transfers of in Surry county, 46;
patents not index to size of, 49;
tendency to break up large into small, 49;
listed in rent roll of 1704-5, 53;
largest in various counties, 53;
average size of, 53;
accurately listed in rent roll, 55;
comparison of number of with workers, 55;
number in each county, 58;
settlers buy on frontier, 76;
part only of each cultivated, 105.
Popleton, William,
_Burgess_ in 1629, 73.
Population, 28; 29;
growth of from 1649 to 1675, 98;
growth of slow, 99, 142.
Potash,
England's need for, 8;
found in Virginia, 15;
first efforts to produce in Virginia, 17.
Pott, Dr. John,
incites people against _Sir John Harvey_, 110.
Poultry,
plentiful in Virginia, 102.
Poverty,
in England, 31;
Navigation Acts cause in Virginia, 91;
one cause of _Bacon's Rebellion_, 92-93.
_Present State of Tobacco Plantations_,
describes tobacco trade to France and Spain, 119;
puts tobacco duties at £400,000, 121;
describes ill effects of wars on tobacco trade, 148.
Prince George county,
plantations and tithables of, 58.
Princess Anne county,
plantations of small, 53; 54;
farms and tithables of, 58;
slave plot in, 129;
small slave holders in, 154.
Public Record Office,
has copy of rent roll of 1704, 52.
Quary, Colonel,
says wars ruin tobacco trade, 148; 157.
Quit rents,
collected by Crown on land, 50;
revenue from considerable, 50; 51;
often in arrears, 51;
roll of in 1704, 51-55.
Ramshaw, William,
landowning freedman, 75.
Randall, Robert,
seven tithables, 57.
Randolph, Edward,
remarks on slow growth of Virginia population, 99;
says holdings of large tracts of land causes migration from
Virginia, 141-143;
says quit rents avoided, 142;
suggests limiting size of grants, 143.
Randolph, William,
imports slaves, 130.
Rappahannock county,
land transfers in, 46;
landowners of listed as headrights, 76; 79.
Rent Roll,
Nickolson orders, 51;
attempted in 1699, 52;
completed in 1704-5, 52;
shows small plantations, 53;
accuracy of, 54-55;
5,500 farms listed in, 55;
compared with tithables of 1702, 57-58;
compared with headrights, 97-99;
contains names of few freedmen, 122-123.
Restoration Period,
brings suffering to Virginia, 84; 97; 104; 115; 116.
Rich, Nathaniel,
buys tobacco at 2s a pound, 64.
Roberts, Robert,
buys land, 49.
Robertson, William,
makes copy of rent roll of 1704, 52.
Robins, Sampson, 79;
patents land, 80.
Robinson, John,
landowning freedman, 75.
Rolfe, Capt. John,
first to cure Virginia tobacco, 24; 25.
Rooking, William,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Rowlston, Lionell,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1629, 73;
_Burgess_ in 1632, 74;
landowner, 74.
Russell, John,
landowning freedman, 75.
Russia,
tobacco trade to, 118-119; 148.
Samuel, Anthony,
buys 300 acres, 50.
Sandys, George,
selects site for iron works, 17;
describes failure of glass works in Virginia, 19;
writes for servants, 30;
gives wages of laborers, 44.
Sandys, Sir Edwin,
expects Virginia to duplicate England, 28.
Savadge, Thomas,
landowning freedman, 74.
Scotchmon, Robert,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1632, 74.
Scott, Thomas,
has 57 slaves, 158.
Scruely, Richard,
patents land, 79.
Servants,
_London Company_ sends to Virginia, 16;
Indian children as, 30;
system of indentures for, 32;
not criminals, 32;
political prisoners among, 33;
Irish among, 33;
_Oliverian_ soldiers among, 33;
they plot against _Government_, 33;
Scotchmen among, 33;
_Sedgemour_ prisoners among, 33;
chiefly Englishmen, 34, 36;
list of preserved, 34;
headrights from, 35;
influx of, 35;
four or five years of service for, 38;
become part of Virginia social fabric, 39;
hardship and perils encountered by, 39;
80 per cent. become freedmen, 40;
prior to 1660 remained in Virginia, 40;
length of service for, 40;
usually young when freed, 41, 42;
estimated at 6,000 in 1671, 41;
"seasoned," 42;
become small part of population, 43;
merchants bring to complete cargoes, 47;
individual orders for, 48;
in immigrant ships, 48;
dealers in, 48;
numbers in 1704, 56;
listed as tithables, 56;
distribution of, 58-59;
not slaves, 60;
like English apprentices, 60;
outfit of on expiration of term, 61;
not entitled to land, 61;
hope to become landowners, 61-62;
Virginia land of opportunity for, 71;
freedmen often purchase, 72;
of early period become prosperous, 73-80;
list of, 78;
proportion of among immigrants, 81-82;
little hope for advancement of after 1660, 96-100;
importation of in Restoration period, 98-99;
inventories which show none, 106-107;
many freed to fight in _Bacon's Rebellion_, 113;
few become landowners at end of 17th century, 112-113;
usefulness of as compared with slaves, 126;
price of, 127;
not always docile, 128;
slave labor curtails importation of, 134;
England opposes migration of, 135;
vast numbers imported, 142.
Seymour, Attorney-General,
tells Virginians to make tobacco, 136.
Sheep,
scarce in Virginia, 102.
Sheriff,
collects quit rents, 51;
draws up rent roll, 52;
unearths false returns, 54-55.
Sherwood, William,
calls _Bacon's_ men rabble, 93.
Shipbuilding,
materials for needed in England, 8;
lack of injures merchant marine, 9;
materials for found in Virginia, 15;
_Capt. Smith_ explains why Virginia cannot produce materials for, 17.
Shurley, Daniel,
landowning freedman, 74.
Sickness, The Virginia,
_Capt. Blewit_ dies of, 18;
glass workers die of, 19;
servants die of, 33;
described, 39;
terrible mortality from, 39, 80;
abates before end of 17th century, 40;
not fatal to slaves, 128.
Silk,
from South Europe, 12;
in Virginia, 15.
Slaughter, John, 80.
Slave trade,
in hands of Dutch, 31;
restrictions on, 45.
Slaves,
adequate for tobacco raising, 29;
first cargo of in Virginia, 30;
few in Virginia prior to 1680, 31;
influx of, 40;
numbers in 1704, 56;
listed as tithables, 56;
distribution of, 58-59;
inventories show that many planters had none, 106-107;
used by wealthy men in 17th century, 108;
first cargo of, 124;
few prior to 1680, 124;
importations of, 124-125;
Dutch control trade in, 125-126;
fitness of for tobacco culture, 126;
price of, 127;
labor of crude, 127-128;
health of good, 128;
docile, 128;
plots among, 128-129;
no wrong seen in, 129;
duty on importation of, 129;
large importations of, 1680-1708, 130-131;
6,000 by 1700, 130;
12,000 in 1708, 130;
30,000 in 1730, 131;
use of cheapens tobacco, 132;
use of curtails importation of servants, 134;
England favors use of in Virginia, 135-136;
pernicious effect of in ancient Rome, 137-139;
effect of on Virginia yeomanry, 139-155;
causes migration of whites, 139-146;
at first produce only lower grades of tobacco, 147;
become more efficient, 147;
contempt of for poor whites, 152;
small holders of, 152-159;
cast stigma on labor, 155;
large holders of increase in numbers, 155-159.
Smelting,
wood needed for, 8;
in Virginia, 15;
machinery for sent to Virginia, 17;
begun at _Falling Creek_.
Smith, Capt. John,
describes Baltic trade, 8;
explains difficulty of building up manufacturers in Virginia, 17.
Smither, William,
buys 200 acres, 50.
Smyth,
describes poor whites of Virginia, 152, 155.
Spain,
commerce with, 12;
growing domains of, 14;
tobacco of used in England, 25, 26;
tobacco of excluded from England, 67, 68, 86, 87;
tobacco trade to, 119;
trade to injured by war, 131.
Spanish Succession, War of, 103; 115; 119;
cuts off tobacco trade to France and Spain, 131; 148.
Sparshott, Edward,
landowning freedman, 74.
Smith, Lawrence,
sued for arrears of quit rents, 143.
Sparkes, John,
landowning freedman, 74.
Spencer, Capt. Robt.,
servants and slaves of, 59.
Spencer, Secretary,
writes of reviving tobacco trade, 115;
says slaves cheaper labor than whites, 132.
Splitimber, John,
his cattle, 101;
inventory of, 106-107.
Spotsylvania,
large grants in, 145;
poor whites in, 151;
small slave holders of, 153-154;
land transfers in, 154;
large slave holders in, 157; 159.
Spotswood, Alexander,
says slaves cause over production of tobacco, 129; 151;
has 60 slaves, 158.
Storey, John,
imports negroes, 130.
Stuarts, second despotism of,
affects Virginia, 114.
Stublefield, George,
has 42 slaves, 158.
Surry,
land transfers in, 46;
tithables in, 56, 58;
inventories and wills in, 59;
negroes plot in, 128.
Sweden,
tobacco trade to, 118-119.
Symonds, Roger,
granted 100 acres, 81.
Taliaferro, Richard,
has 43 slaves, 158.
Tenants,
few in Virginia, 44, 45, 62.
Thoroughgood, Adam,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1629, 73;
_Burgess_ in 1632, 74;
landowner, 75;
brother of _Sir John Thoroughgood_, 75.
Tithables,
those listed as, 56;
in Surry, 56-57;
number of in various counties, 58.
Tobacco,
history of Virginia built on, 20, 23;
Indians revere, 24;
first cured in Virginia by Rolfe, 24;
Virginia suited for, 24;
ready market for, 24;
extensively used in England, 24;
used by James I, 25;
Virginians turn eagerly to culture of, 25;
send first cargo of to England, 25;
London Company displeased at culture of, 25;
England reconciled to, 26;
Virginia's only hope, 26;
Crown tries to divert Virginia from, 27;
cultivation in Virginia universal, 27;
shapes immigration, 29;
requires unskilled labor, 29;
prosperity of freedmen hinges on, 62;
amount of one man could produce, 63-64;
over production of in 1640, 63;
price of prior to 1660, 64-67;
account for migration of 1618-1623, 64;
rich returns from, 64;
restrictions on trade of, 67-69;
growing of in England prohibited, 67;
tax on, 67;
illegal foreign trade in, 68-69;
reëxported from England, 70;
Virginia underbids world in, 70;
returns from, 71-72;
freight on high, 72;
effect of Navigation Acts on, 85-96;
foreign trade in prohibited, 85;
requires world market, 86;
planting in England prohibited, 87;
exports of to Spain, 87;
reëxported, 87;
planted in Holland, 88;
glut in England causes price of to drop, 89-91;
exhausts soil, 105;
Charles I makes offer for, 110;
trade of revives, 115-116;
production of increases, 115-116;
returns from, 116;
reëxports of, 116-120;
production of abroad, 117;
duty on yields crown large revenue, 121;
price of still low at end of 17th century, 123;
slaves adequate to its cultivation, 127-128;
wars interfere with trade in, 131;
slaves cheapen production of, 132;
poor whites produce the best, 146-147;
foreign trade in ruined by war, 148-150;
advantages of large plantations for, 156-157.
Towns,
few in Virginia, 29.
Townsend, Richard,
Burgess in 1629, 73.
Trussell, John,
landowning freedman, 74.
Turnbull, Robert,
has 81 slaves, 158.
Underwood, John,
patents land in _James City_, 77.
Upton, John,
landowning freedman, 75.
Vegetables,
abundant in Virginia, 102.
_Virginia's Cure_,
says Burgesses mostly freedmen, 74.
_Virginia Unmasked_,
describes Virginia houses, 104.
_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_,
shows that many freedmen migrated to Virginia, 81.
_Virginia Richly Valued_,
advises emigrants as to outfit, 104.
Wages,
high in Virginia, 16; 29; 30;
low in England, 31.
Wage earners,
few in Virginia, 44;
mostly recently freed servants, 44.
Walker, Robert,
has 52 slaves, 158.
Warburton, Thomas,
patents land in James City, 77.
Warden, Thomas,
landowner, 79.
Warwick,
average plantation of, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58; 81.
Washington, Richard,
deals in servants, 48.
Watson, John,
landowning freedman, 75.
Weaver, Samuel,
landowning freedman, 75.
Webster, Roger,
servant, _Burgess_ in 1632, 74.
Whitlock, Thomas,
will of, 105-106.
Williamsburg, 35; 54.
Williams, William,
buys 200 acres, 50.
Wills,
throw light on distribution of servants and slaves, 59; 73;
headrights mentioned in, 76.
Wine,
prospect for in Virginia, 15.
Woolens,
need of potash for, 8;
French duty on, 13.
Woolritch, William,
landowning freedman, 74.
Wormsley, Ralph, 109;
letter to from _Fitzhugh_, 130.
Wray, Thomas,
granted 50 acres, 81.
Yates, William,
has 55 slaves, 158.
Yeomanry,
largest class in Virginia, 59, 62;
freedmen in, 72-82; 85;
desperately poor, 90-91;
driven to revolt by poverty, 92-93;
no advancement for after 1660, 97-100;
enjoy plentiful food, 101-103;
often suffer for proper clothing, 103-105;
_Burgesses_ represented interests of, 109;
aid in ejecting Harvey, 110;
many favor _Parliament in Civil War_, 110-111;
in control from 1652 to 1660, 112;
chief sufferers from _Navigation Acts_, 113;
support Bacon in rebellion, 113;
struggle for political rights, 114;
few recruits to at end of 17th century, 122;
condition of at end of 17th century, 123;
effect of slavery on in ancient Rome, 137-139;
migration of from Virginia 139-146;
produce higher grades of tobacco, 146-147;
misery of in 1713, 150;
many sink into poverty, 151-154;
many become slave holders, 152-159;
slaves make less industrious, 155; 160.
Yeardley, Sir George, 29;
instructed to enforce free exchange of goods, 65.
York,
land transfers in, 46;
plantations of small, 53;
farms and tithables of, 58;
servants and slaves in, 59;
landowners of who had been headrights, 76; 79; 107; 130.
Young, Richard,
granted 100 acres, 81.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes:
1. Passages in italics are surrounded by _underscores_.
2. Punctuation corrections:
Pg. 3 - added closing quotes (" ... not even beggars;")
Pg. 142 - added quotes ("It should be inquired into," he said, "how
it comes to pass ...")
Pg. 151 - added period (for themselves only. Making)
Pg. 152 - added opening quote ("illiberal, noisy and rude,")
Pg. 172 - Footnote [5-29], added closing quote (" ... to the
Government.")
Pg. 251 - added comma after "George" (Archer, George,)
Pg. 252 - changed "." to ";" (Carolina ... 99-100; 139-146.)
Pg. 254 - added comma after "Benjamin" (Harrison, Benjamin,)
Pg. 254 - added comma in Freedmen (what became of, 43;)
Pg. 257 - changed comma to semi-colon (Plantations ... listed in rent
roll of 1704-5, 53;)
3. Spelling Corrections:
Pg. 87 - "exlusive" to "exclusive" (1) (secured exclusive
privileges)
Pg. 88 - "nigher" to "higher" (profit higher at home?)
Pg. 124 - "butt wenty" to "but twenty" (there were but twenty)
Pg. 125 - "chieftians" to "chieftains" (the native chieftains)
Pg. 156 - "Birtish" to "British" (upon British imports)
Pg. 162 - added Chapter Title "Notes to Chapters" as shown in the
Contents.
Pg. 176 - "Britain" to "British" (in Footnote [7-23] ... British
Public Record Office)
Pg. 191 - "ped" to "per" (per Robert Rivers)
Pg. 208 - "Sgeriff" to "Sheriff" (Henry Royall Sheriff)
Pg. 215 - "Shreiff" to "Sheriff" (the Sheriff is to be allowed)
Pg. 215 - added "A" at head of alphabetical list of names.
Pg. 223 - "Sherif" to "Sheriff" (Tho Parker Sheriff)
Pg. 245 - added "D" at head of alphabetical listing of names.
Pg. 252 - "Spotsvylvania" to "Spotsylvania" (Chew, Larkin ... dealer
in _Spotsylvania_)
Pg. 255 - "gratned" to "granted" (Land, ... large tracts granted,)
Pg. 257 - "Eir" to "Sir" (Sandys, Sir Edwin,)
Pg. 258 - "centry" to "century" (Sickness ... abates before end of
17th century,)
Pg. 259 - "Thorouhggood" to "Thoroughgood" (Thoroughgood, Adam, ...
brother of _Sir John Thoroughgood_,)
4. Footnote and Anchor Corrections/Notations:
Footnotes and their anchors have been renumbered to include the
chapter number, thus the Chapter 3 Footnote #5 becomes [3-5] in this
e-text.
Pg. 19 - A second anchor to Footnote [1-18] has been corrected to
anchor Footnote [1-19].
Pg. 87 - Chapter 5, Footnote anchors skip from [5-2] to [5-7], and
again from [5-33] to [5-35]. No anchor points for Footnotes 3 through
6 or 34 appear in the original text though the footnotes are included
in the "Notes to Chapters" beginning on pg. 162. These footnotes have
been marked with a ? "question mark". (ex; ?[5-3]) Also;
Pg. 115 - Chapter 7, Footnotes skip from [7-2] to [7-4]. No reference
point for Footnote 3.
Pg. 163 - Footnote [2-19], no page number was given, (p.--.)
Pg. 179 - Footnote [8-54], in reference to Philip Fithian, Journal
and letters, p. 130 appears twice in original text and has been
retained.
5. Appendix - Information contained in the Rent Rolls appears to have been
set out verbatim for each VA county or Parish. Inconsistencies appearing
in the original text, which have been retained include:
a. Inconsistent punctuation of abbreviations;
b. Inconsistent representation of abbreviations;
c. Missing end of line punctuation;
d. Inconsistent alphabetization of proper names;
e. Inconsistent spelling of proper names;
f. Inconsistent mathmatical calculations;
6. Other notes and corrections:
Printer or Author regularly used "country" in place of what are VA.
counties.
Pg. 251 - Index listing for Ball, William, no page reference given.
Pg. 253 - "558" to "58" (Index listing for Essex, ... farms and
tithables of, 58.)
Pg. 258 - Index listing for Smelting ... begun at _Falling Creek_.
No page reference given.
7. Word variations:
"_Perfect Discription_" and "_Perfect Description_"
"pre-eminence" and "preëminently"
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Planters of Colonial Virginia, by
Thomas J. Wertenbaker
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLANTERS OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA ***
***** This file should be named 32507-8.txt or 32507-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
http://www.gutenberg.org/3/2/5/0/32507/
Produced by Mark C. Orton, Christine Aldridge and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
http://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at http://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit http://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
http://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
