The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Planters of Colonial Virginia

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: The Planters of Colonial Virginia

Author: Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker

Release date: May 24, 2010 [eBook #32507]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton, Christine Aldridge and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLANTERS OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA ***

Transcriber's Notes:

1. 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.

The Planters of Colonial Virginia

The PLANTERS OF
COLONIAL VIRGINIA

By THOMAS J. WERTENBAKER

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

Henrico | Warwick | Glocester-Kingston
Prince George | York | Glocester-Ware
Surry | James City | Hlocester-Abbington
Isle Wighte | New Kent | Middlesex
Nansemond | Charles City | Essex
Norfolk | King William | Accomack
Princess Anne | King & Queen | Northampton
Elizabeth City | Glocester-Petso |

A True and Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Majtie 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 Senr | 200
Asbrook Peter Senr | 200
Akins James Junr | 218
Allin Widdo | 99
| ———
| 4106
B
Byrd Esqr | 19500
Bolling Robt | 500
Bolling John | 831
Bevill John | 495
Branch Xto | 646
Blackman Wm | 175
Bridgwater Sam | 280
Bowman John Junr | 300
Bowman Edwd | 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 Junr | 300
Burton Robt | 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 Robt | 100
Broadnax Jno Jr | 725
Beverley Robt | 988
| ———
| 33590
C
Cheatham Tho | 300
Cox Batt | 100
Cox John | 150
Cox George | 200
Chamberlaine Maj. Tho | 1000
Childers Abr. Senr | 368
Cannon John | 108
Cox Wm | 300
Childers Abr Junr | 100
Clark Wm | 333
Clark John | 300
Cox Richd | 300
Cardwell Tho | 350
Crozdall Roger | 200
Cock Wm | 1535
Cock Richd Senr | 2180
Childers Philip Senr | 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 Edwd | 600
Cock Richd | 476
Cock Jno | 98
| ———
| 15171-1/2
D
Dixon Nicholas | 150
Dodson Wm | 100
Douglas Charles | 63
| ———
| 313
E
Edwd Tho | 676
Entroughty Derby | 200
Ealam Robt | 400
Ellis John | 217
East Tho Sen | 475
East Tho | 554
East Edwd | 150
Epes Capt Fras | 2145
Evans Charles | 225
Ealam Martin | 130
Epes Isham, Epes Fra. Junt 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 Richd 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 Saml | 50
Garthwaite Ephriam | 163
Granger John | 472
Gill John | 235
Good Saml | 588
Gower James Grigs Land | 500
| ———
| 5571
H
Hill James | 795
Holmes Rich | 100
Harris Thomas | 357
Harris Timo | 250
Hill Rosamd | 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 Nicho | 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 Bartho | 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

Majr 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 tobo
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 Majtie 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 Majtys Qt 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 the last year list which may be supposed to be held by persons that have not made both | 13850
| ———
| 131074
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 Trevillian248
Holman Orphans200 | 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 Majtie 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

A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M
N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

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;

ration 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:

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;)

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,)

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.

Footnotes without anchor points are not hyper-linked.

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. 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.

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;

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. However this name is referenced on page 153.

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. However reference to both Smelting and Falling Creek appear on page 18.

Word variations:

"Perfect Discription" and "Perfect Description"

"pre-eminence" and "preëminently"

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE PLANTERS OF COLONIAL VIRGINIA ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law 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™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. 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™ 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™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ 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™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law 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™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than 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™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ 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 in the United States and most other parts of the world 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. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (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™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

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™ 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™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (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™ 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™ 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™ electronic works provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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™ 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™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ 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 works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ 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™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ 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 1.F.3. 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 MERCHANTABILITY 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™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ 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™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ 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™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ 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™ 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 information page at www.gutenberg.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. 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 business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread 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 www.gutenberg.org/donate.

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: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright 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 website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, 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.