Skip to main content

Full text of "Planters of colonial Virginia"

See other formats

The Planters of Colonial Virginia 





i1 9 





Copyrighted and Published 1922. by Princeton University Press 


FEB -9 '23 Q^ 














INDEX 249 


England in the New World 

At the beginning of the Seventeenth century colonial ex- 
pansion had become for England an economic necessity. Be- 
cause of the depletion of her forests, which constituted per- 
haps 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 ex- 
pansion 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 lack- 
ing, not only do the building, furniture, paper and other in- 
dustries 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 


tor 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 declin- 
ing 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 

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 coun- 
tries 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 neces- 
sary 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." 2 

But this solution of her problem was obviously unsatisfac- 
tory 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 en- 
joyed exemption from customs in Prussia, Denmark and Rus- 
sia. In case war should break out among the northern na- 
tions this trade might for a time be cut off entirely, resulting 
in strangulation for England's basic industries. "The mer- 
chant 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." 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, Eng- 
land 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 main- 
tain 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 imquantity by England itself, and could be had 
"only by the favor of forraigne potency." 4 Already, it was 
stated, the decay of shipping was manifest, while large num- 
bers of able mariners were forced to seek employment in other 
countries. "You know how many men for want of imploi- 
ment, betake themselves to Tunis, Spaine and Florence," de- 
clared one observer, "and to serve in courses not warrantable, 
which would better beseeme our own walks 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." 5 

It must be remembered that the merchant vessel three hun- 
dred 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 ma- 
rine 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 ioo tons belonging to 
the whole city of Bristol, and few or none along the Severn 
trom Gloucester to Land's End on one side, and to Mil ford 
Haven on the other. 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, return- 
ing 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. 7 Why, it was asked, should Eng- 
lishmen 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 limit- 
less 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 Hak- 
luyt pointed out that the recent voyage of Sir Humphrey Gil- 
bert 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." 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 na- 
tions 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 sup- 
posed. In fact, they acted upon sound economic principles a 
century and a half before Adam Smith formulated and ex- 
pounded 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 bar- 
barous. 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 mak- 
ing 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 

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 re- 
ligious wars proved a tremendous obstacle, but the govern- 
ment 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 destruc- 
tion and had so ruined industry that all foreign commerce had 
greatly declined. 9 

There can be no surprise, then, that many English econo- 
mists 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 sub- 
scribed 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 singu- 


lar 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. r . he settle- 
ment at Jamestown was not the product of a selfish, private 
venture, but the fruition of long years of thought and en- 
deavor, 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 right- 
fully was hers. 

In addition to, but closely associated with, the economic 
causes of Anglo-Saxon expansion was the realization in Eng- 
land 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 institu- 
tions expanded to embrace the garden spots of the world. 10 

There were still other motives for this great movement. 
The English felt the prime necessity of discovering and con- 
trolling 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 in- 
dustrial life, restoring the merchant marine and securing eco- 
nomic 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 expecta- 
tion. 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. 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." 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 ex- 
pected 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 


For this failure the reason is apparent. All the able econ- 
omists and statesmen who had predicted that the colony would 
become an industrial center had overlooked one vitally im- 
portant 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 through- 
out Europe. Thus the London Company, from the very out- 
set, 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 ex- 
pensive than that of Poland or Sweden or Russia. It mat- 
tered 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 in- 
finite 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." 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 en- 
thusiastically 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 * 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 difficul- 
ties proved too great and ere long the attempt had to be 

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. 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, accom- 
panied 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 exclama- 
tions 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 work- 
men 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. 16 

The history of the attempts to establish glass works in Vir- 
ginia 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, 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. 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 un- 
feasable, that they might by that means be dismissed for Eng- 
land. 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. 18 

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 col- 
ony with natural resources, however dense her forests, how- 
ever rich her mines, however wide and deep her waterways, 
she could not become an industrial community. Fate had de- 
creed 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 Com- 
pany had passed to their rest, we find the royal ministers urg- 
ing upon the colony the necessity of producing pig iron and 
silk and potash, and promising every possible encourage- 
ment in the work. But the causes which operated to bring 
failure in 1 610 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 dec- 
ades, perhaps for centuries, could not hope to attain it. Her 
future lay in the discovery and exploitation of one staple com- 
modity for which she was so preeminently 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. 


The Indian Weed 

History is baffling in its complexity. The human mind in- 
stinctively 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 under- 
lying the movements of the planets, of various chemical re- 
actions, 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 dis- 
order 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 abso- 
lute rule of the Caesars followed the anarchy of the later Ro- 
man 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, cer- 
tain 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 stu- 
dents, while not agreeing that the solution of the problem is 
quite so simple, yet believe that underlying all social develop- 
ment 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 ad- 
ventures of this great man or that, in dwelling upon the de- 
tails 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 eco- 
nomic developments. 

But this interpretation of history is by no means universally 
accepted. While admitting readily that the conditions sur- 
rounding 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 Amer- 
ican 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 

Thus it would be folly in the study of colonial Virginia to 
blind ourselves to the importance of various non-economic fac- 
tors, the love of freedom which the settlers brought with them 
from England, their affection for the mother country, the in- 
fluence 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 eco- 
nomic 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 them- 
selves 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 funda- 
mental. 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 in- 


fancy, its development, its days of misfortune, its era of pros- 
perity, 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 impor- 
tance, 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. 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 

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 to- 
bacco as it came from the hands of the savages, decidedly in- 
ferior to that of the West Indies. The leaf itself was small, 
and although the flavor was weak it was biting to the tongue. 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." 3 

Thus, early in its history, Virginia had found a commodity 
for which she was preeminently 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. 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 cultiva- 
tion. The fortified areas within the palisades were crowded 
with tobacco plants, while even the streets of Jamestown were 
utilized by the eager planters. 5 In 161 7 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. 6 By 1627, the tobacco exports amounted to no less 
than half a million pounds. 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." 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. Ap- 
parently 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 ob- 

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 5 s. 3d. a pound, a price which 
promised a rich return to the planters on the James and their 
backers in England. 9 And they much preferred to have a 
prosperous colony, even when prosperity was founded on to- 
bacco, 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 en- 
couragement 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 commodi- 
ties. 10 "The King cannot but take notice," he reiterated the 
next year, "how little that colony hath advanced in Staple com- 
modities 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. 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 

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 pur- 
chased 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, 12 while even the poor minister sought to 
make ends meet by planting his glebe with Orinoco or Sweet- 
scented. 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 Com- 
pany, even Sir Edwin Sandys himself, ever attempted to vis- 
ualize 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 in- 
dustry and centers of trade. The population would be di- 
vided 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. 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 use- 
ful 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. 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 ser- 
vant, a few slaves. Virginia in the Seventeenth century, de- 
spite 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, 15 but it would be of little service to him 
unless he could find hands for clearing away the forests, break- 
ing 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 abun- 
dance, the second could readily be secured, but the last re- 
mained 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 work- 
ers. Of this there can be no better evidence than the remark- 
ably 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 him- 
self fortunate if he could earn so much in a week. 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. 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 Vir- 
ginia landowner was forced to turn elsewhere for his helpers. 

In 1 619 a Dutch privateer put into the James river and dis- 
embarked 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 satisfac- 
tory 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 hand- 
some 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 ex- 
cluded other nations. Thus while the demand for negro 
slaves remained active in the colony, they increased in num- 
bers very slowly. The muster of 1624-25 shows only 22. 18 
During the following half century there was a small influx of 
negroes, but their numbers were still too small to affect seri- 
ously the economic life of the colony. 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 states- 
men, feeling that there was need for blood letting, welcomed 
an opportunity to divert the surplus population to the new 
colony in America. 20 The decline in English foreign trade 
and the stagnation of home industry had brought unemploy- 
ment 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. 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 

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 ster- 


ling, a sum far beyond the means of the thriftiest laborer. 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 ad- 
vancing the passage money to the immigrant and of placing 
him under strict legal bonds to work it out after reaching the 

This system, around which the economic life of Virginia 
centered for a full century, proved satisfactory to all con- 
cerned. The credit advanced to the immigrant made it pos- 
sible 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 servi- 
tude or slavery. It simply made it obligatory for the new- 
comer, 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 Govern- 
ment from time to time sought to lessen the expense of pro- 
viding for convicted felons by sending some of them to the 
colonies, among them on rare occasions a few decidedly ob- 
jectionable characters. More than once the Virginians pro- 
tested vigorously against this policy as dangerous to the peace 
and prosperity of the colony. 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 merci- 


ful judges in order that they might not feel the full weight 
of the harsh laws of that day. 2 * 

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 Caro- 
lina. Many others succumbed to the epidemics which proved 
so deadly to the newcomers from England. In fact the crimi- 
nal servant was but a passing incident in the life and develop- 
ment of England's greatest and most promising colony. 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 repre- 
sented 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. 26 

When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 it be- 
came the turn of the Puritans to suffer, and many non-con- 
formists 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. 27 In 1678, after the suppression of the 
Scottish Covenanters by the Highland Host, a new batch of 
prisoners were sent to the plantations. 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 po- 
litical prisoners, but poor persons seeking to better their con- 
dition in the land of promise across the Atlantic. They con- 
stituted 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 cen- 
tury, 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 re- 
turn. 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." 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. 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 transporta- 
tion 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 informa- 
tion concerning the colony and the people who came to its 
shores. 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 an- 
nual influx was between 1500 and 2000. Even during the 
Civil War and Commonwealth periods this average seems to 
have been maintained with surprising consistency. Appar- 
ently the only limit which could be set upon it was the avail- 
able 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, 32 while in 
1674 and again in 1682 the same average was maintained. 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. 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 mo- 
notonous 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 

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 role 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 free- 
holder, making of Virginia, like Rome in the early days of 
the republic, the land of the small proprietor? 


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 em- 
ployment seemed most lucrative. And of tremendous impor- 
tance 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 introduc- 
tion 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 revo- 
lutionizing 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 de- 

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 am- 
bition has been reached, that the land of opportunity lies be- 
fore him. But to the indentured settler of the Seventeenth 
century, his arrival in the James or the York was but the be- 
ginning 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 him- 
self 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 unend- 
ing epidemic of dysentery and malaria. And at frequent inter- 
vals, especially in the early years, yellow fever, scurvy and 
plague swept over the infant colony, leaving behind a ghastly 
train of suffering and death. 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 na- 
tion to secure a foothold upon the American continent must 
end in failure. 2 

But as the years wore on better conditions prevailed. Gov- 
ernor 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 This improvement 


was brought about by the use of Peruvian bark, a clearer un- 
derstanding of sanitary matters and the selection of more 
healthful sites for plantations. At the time when Sir Wil- 
liam wrote it is probable that 80 per cent or more of the in- 
dentured 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 Re- 
storation there was no extensive movement from Virginia to 
other colonies. The servant, upon attaining his freedom, usu- 
ally remained in the colony and sought to establish himself 

Although it is impossible to determine accurately the aver- 
age length of service required by the indentures, there is rea- 
son 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 ex- 
pire, it was at first required by law that the period be fixed 
at five years if the age was in excess of twenty-one. 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. 5 This was found to work to the dis- 
advantage 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. 6 
Since the Assembly, which was so largely made up of per- 
sons 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 dura- 
tion 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 sta- 
tionary, the size of the freedman class grew larger with the 
passing of the years. 

Placing the average term at five years, then, and the aver- 
age 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. 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 cor- 
rect, 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, how- 
ever, 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. More- 
over, 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 con- 
ditions, more capable of resisting the Virginia climate, 
stronger and more vigorous, but they proved more tractable 
and entered upon the adventure more eagerly. 9 These con- 
clusions 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. 10 And as many of these persons 
were brought over as skilled artisans to take part in the in- 
dustrial 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, per- 
haps 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 dis- 
play 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," 6,000 servants 
might well have performed most of the manual labor of the 
tobacco fields, but in 1670, when the inhabitants numbered 
40,ooo, 12 or in 1697 when they were 70,000," 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 cen- 
tury Virginia in which the land was divided into large plan- 
tations owned by rich proprietors and tilled chiefly by inden- 
tured servants is entirely erroneous. Such a state of affairs 
was made impossible by the very nature of the system of in- 
dentures itself. 

It becomes a matter of prime interest, then, to determine 
what became of the mass of freedmen, what role 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 labor- 
ers received one pound of tobacco a day in addition to their 
food. 1 * 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 employ- 
ment 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 indepen- 
dent 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 pro- 
duction of tobacco the large plantation, so long as it was culti- 
vated only by expensive white labor, offered no marked ad- 
vantage 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 preempted, as was the case on the 
banks of the Hudson, the poor man might have been com- 
pelled 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 pre- 
sented themselves. Apparently they made no attempts to estab- 
lish themselves in a position similar to that of the great land- 
lords of England. 

The records afford ample evidence that the leasing of prop- 
erty 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 frac- 
tion of the population, a fact which he explained by the unusual 
facilities for acquiring property in fee simple. 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 va- 
rious factors which made it impossible to secure an adequate 
labor supply^ — the restrictions upon the slave trade, the in- 
sufficient 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, inven- 
tories — 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 hun- 
dred acres in extent. 

The land transfers of Surry county afford an interesting il- 
lustration. 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. 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. 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. 18 Of the forty- 
eight transfers mentioned in the Essex county books for the 
years from 1692 to 1695, tne 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. 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. 20 

It has been assumed by certain writers that the land grants 


preserved in the Registrar's Office in Richmond tend to con- 
tradict 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 li was 333' m : ^48 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 J 666 six hundred and seventy-one, from 1666 to 1679 
eight hundred and ninety acres, from 1679 to 1689 six hun- 
dred and seven acres, from 1689 to 1695 six hundred and one 
acres, from 1695 to l 700 six hundred and eighty-eight acres. 21 
Tn 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 eco- 
nomical method of transporting immigrants which would de- 
termine 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. 22 Be- 
yond 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 accommoda- 
tion 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 Vir- 


ginia to send orders to their agents in England to procure and 
ship one or more servants as need for them arose. 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. 24 Undoubtedly in cases of this kind the servants 
usually sailed in small parties upon the regular merchant 

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 ex- 
tensive 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 Bev- 
erley. 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. 25 

Often partnerships were formed for the importation of ser- 
vants, 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, Rob- 
ert Ambrose and others with 6,000, George Archer and others 
with 4,ooo. 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 re- 
gardless 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 ne- 
cessity 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 origi- 
nally 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." 27 Similarly we find John Johnson in 1653 sell- 
ing to Robert Roberts half of 900 acres which he had received 
by patent. 28 In 1693 John Brushood sold to James Grey 200 
acres, a part of 5,100 acres originally granted to Mr. Henry 
Awbrey. 29 Such cases could be multiplied indefinitely. 

Perhaps the most instructive instance left us of this de- 
velopment 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. 30 The 
original patentee transferred the entire tract to his brother 
Robert Button, who in turn sold it to John Baker. The lat- 


ter, 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 for- 
tunately, a fairly complete record. To Captain William Mose- 
ley 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 prob- 
able 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. 31 

Important as are these gleanings from the county records, 
we have at our disposal even better and more conclusive evi- 
dence that colonial Virginia was divided, not into baronial 
estates of vast proportions, but into a large number of com- 
paratively 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 be- 
yond 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. 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 to- 
bacco, the revenue derived from this source was of consider- 
able importance. 33 The amount collected in 1705 was £1,841. 
1. 6^4. 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 ob- 


jected 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 emer- 
gency that may^ happen in Virginia." 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. 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 of- 
fense by holding them to too strict an account of their estates. 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 mat- 
ter, 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 inhabi- 
tants, 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 exami- 
nation of the patent lists and the records of land transfers. 37 
May 15, 1 69 1, he took up the matter again, warning the sheriffs 


that he expected more accurate returns than they had yet 
made. 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. 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." 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 per- 
haps 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 Govern- 
ment has been more careful of its priceless historical manu- 
scripts 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.* 1 

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 plan- 
tations he is struck by the number of little holdings, the com- 
plete absence of huge estates, the comparative scarcity even of 
those that for a newly settled country might be termed ex- 
tensive. 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, no 
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. 42 

Although the average size of the plantations varied con- 
siderably 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 stu- 
dents of the period. For Nansemond the rolls reveal the aver- 
age 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. 43 

In the past few decades much has been written of the social 
life and customs of the people of colonial Virginia. But ex- 
cept 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 li- 
braries, 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 writ- 
ers of fiction. The mention of colonial Virginia brings in- 
stantly to mind a picture of gay cavaliers, of state.'y ladies, of 
baronial estates, of noble manors. And the sturdy, indepen- 
dent 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 be- 
tween the Potomac and the Rappahannock is called. This ter- 
ritory, although acknowledging the jurisdiction of the Gov- 
ernment at Williamsburg in most matters and sending repre- 
sentatives 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 funda- 
mentally 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." 44 Yet it must be remembered 
that the Governor brought to bear all the pressure at his dis- 
posal 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 in- 
sisted upon reports as accurate as the records or actual sur- 
veying 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 unimpeach- 
able 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 Gov- 
ernor 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, 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 

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. 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 

In one district of Surry county we find in the year 1675 tnat 
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. 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 tax- 
payers, 63 tithables, fourteen who had no servants or slaves; 
in a fifth 25 taxpayers, 45 tithables, 12 who paid only for 


themselves. 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 per- 
sons 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. 49 

Here again is proof that the popular conception of the Vir- 
ginia 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, ser- 
vants 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. 50 Thus in 


Nansemond there were 375 plantations and 1,030 tithables, 
Henrico with 102 plantations had 863 tithables, Middlesex 
with [22 plantations had 814 tithables. Gloucester with 38 1 
plantations had 2,626, James City with 2S7 plantations had 
[,193, York with 205 plantations had 1.1S0, Warwick with 
[22 plantations had 505. Elizabeth City with 116 plantations 
had 47S. Princess Anne with 215 plantations had J2j, Surry 
with 2j$ plantations had 739. Isle of Wight with 262 plan- 
tations had S90. Norfolk with 303 plantations had 693, New 
Kent with 497 plantations had 1.245. King William with 217 
plantations had S03. King- and Queen with 403 plantations 
had 1.S48. Essex with 370 plantations had 1.034, Accomac 
with 392 plantations had 1,041. Northampton with 258 plan- 
tations had 693. Charles City and Prince George together with 
420 plantations had 1.327 

In Nansemond the average number of tithables as compared 
with the number of plantations was 2~. in Henrico 5.1. in 
Middlesex 0.7. in Gloucester 6.9. in James City 4.2, in York 
>~. 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.^, in New 
Kent 2.5, in King William ^.y, in King and Queen 4.6, in 
Essex 2.8. in Accomac 2.6. in Northampton 2.^, in Charles 
City and Prince George combined 3.1. In all Virginia, with 
the exclusion of the Northern Neck, there were 19,715 tith- 
ables 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 landhold- 
ers over 16 years of age. 

Another invaluable source of information concerning the 
distribution of servants and slaves is provided bv the numer- 


ous 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. 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. 53 It is true that these inventories 
and wills, since they would usually pertain to persons of ad- 
vanced 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 propor- 
tion 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. 


Freemen and Freedmen 

I t 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 propor- 
tion of each is a matter of great difficulty. Had all the rec- 
ords of Seventeenth century Virginia been preserved, it would 
have been possible, by means of long and laborious investiga- 
tion, 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 dis- 
satisfaction 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." 1 "Malitious tongues have im- 
paired it (Virginia) much," Bullock declared in 1649, "for it 
hath been a constant report among the ordinary sort of peo- 
ple 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." 2 



The terms of indenture not only took for granted that the 
servant, upon completing his contract, would establish him- 
self 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. 3 The historian Beverley states that 
to this outfit was added a gun worth twenty shillings. 4 An- 
other writer tells us that the f reedman received "a year's pro- 
vision of corne, double apparel" and a supply of tools. 6 

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 aris- 
ing 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 f reed- 
man, 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. 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. 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. 8 

In 1627 the Virginia General Court issued an order which 
is significant of the attitude of the colony itself to the freed- 
men. "The Court, taking into consideration that the next en- 


sueing 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." 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. To- 
bacco 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 accord- 
ingly. 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 free- 
holder, in the end the result would be the same. If the re- 
turns from his labor greatly exceeded his expenses, his sav- 
ings would make it possible for him to establish himself firm- 
ly in the class of the colonial yeomanry. On the other hand, 
if he could wring from the soil no more than a bare subsis- 
tence, 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 de- 
termine 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. 10 
To this, however, the planters entered a vigorous protest, 
claiming that the quantity was "not sufficient for their main- 
tenance." 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. 11 Again in 1634 it was pro- 
posed that the Crown purchase yearly 600,000 pounds of Vir- 
ginia tobacco. 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 vigor- 
ously. 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 Gov- 
ernor 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 Govern- 
ment was "forced to a strict way of destroying the bad and 
halfe the goode." 1 * 

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. 15 As the pamphlet presents a somewhat opti- 
mistic 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." 16 

At all events, it is evident that the planter, even when en- 
tirely 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 cen- 
tury the price of tobacco was very high. The first cargo, con- 
sisting of 20,000 pounds consigned in the George, sold for no 
less than £5,250, or 5s. 3d. a pound. 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 
1 618 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 bar- 
gain." 22 

Apparently not discouraged by this rebuff, in 1628 the Gov- 
ernor, 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 shill- 
ings." 23 This valuation undoubtedly was far in advance of 
the current prices, and King Charles, considering it unreason- 
able would not come to terms with the planters. In fact, it 
appears that for some years the price of tobacco had been de- 
clining 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, 24 and 
two years later, in a statement sent the Virginia Commission- 
ers, he claimed that the price still remained at that figure. 25 

It may be taken for granted, however, that this estimate 
was far below the actual price. The planters showed a de- 
cided 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. 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. 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. 28 Later 
the King wrote to the Governor and Council that the rate had 
recently "doubly or trebly advanced." 20 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. 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. 31 In 1649 tne 
author of A Nezv Description of Virginia stated that tobacco 
sold in Virginia for three pence a pound. 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 

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 per- 
mitted 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 com- 
mand as ready a sale throughout Europe, the trade was sub- 


jected to various regulations and restrictions which proved 
most vexatious to the colony and elicited frequent and vigor- 
ous protests. Neither James nor Charles had any idea of per- 
mitting free trade. In their prolonged struggle with the lib- 
eral 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 settle- 
ment upon the James, which they looked upon as the begin- 
ning 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 con- 
sisted 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 unneces- 
sary it would have been under conditions of free trade, was 
felt by the planters to be a real concession, while the restric- 
tions upon foreign importations saved them from dangerous 
competition at the very time when they were least able to com- 
bat 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 de- 
rived 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 

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 Commission- 
ers 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." 33 

But Harvey was attacking what already had become a fixed 
policy of the Crown, a policy which was to remain the corner- 
stone of the British colonial system for centuries. The Gov- 
ernment had, therefore, not the slightest intention of yielding, 
and from time to time issued strict orders that all colonial to- 
bacco, whether of Virginia or the West Indies, be brought only 
to England or to English colonies. When Sir William Berke- 
ley 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 se- 
curities be taken to his Majesty's use, to bring the same di- 
rectly into his Majesty's Dominions and not elsewhere." 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." 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 con- 
tending armies of King and Parliament. And so the mer- 
chantmen 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 tne statement was 
made that "there was usually found intruding upon the plan- 
tation divers ships, surruptitiously carrying away the growth 
thereof to foreign ports to the prejudice of this Common- 
wealth." 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. 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 re- 


strictions of this period alone saved the colony from the pov- 
erty and distress of later days and made possible the pros- 
perity 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 conse- 
quence 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 re- 
funded 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. 38 Although this consti- 
tuted 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 qualifica- 
tions 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, re- 
ship it to the continent and sell it there at a profit. 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 coun- 
try 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 inden- 
ture or as a freeman, found it quite possible to establish him- 
self 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 ap- 
plied 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. 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 off- 
set by larger crops. If our freedman in 1635 could raise 
800 pounds of leaf and dispose of it for four pence, his in- 
come 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 let- 
ters 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." 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." 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 uncon- 
scionable and cruel merchants by the excessive rates of their 
commodities." 43 Six years later Governor Harvey stated that 
all things which "come hither" are sold at "thrice the value 
they cost in England." 44 

It is obvious, however, that after all expenses had been paid, 
a goodly margin of profit was left, a margin perhaps averag- 
ing 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 ad- 
vance 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, per- 
haps 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 la- 
borers who were imported by the London Company to culti- 
vate 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 re- 
ceived 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. 45 

The guiding hand of the Company was missed by the f reed- 
men 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 dis- 
tinguished from freemen. 46 By following, as well as the im- 
perfect records of the period permit, the after careers of the 
former, it is possible to determine with a fair degree of ac- 
curacy 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, Wil- 
liam Popleton, Anthony Pagett, Richard Townsend, Adam 
Thoroughgood and Lionell Rowlston — were listed as servants 
in the muster of 1624. 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 work- 


ing 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 ob- 
tained competent estates, yet by reason of their poor and mean 
condition, were unskilful in judging of a good estate, either 
of church or Commonwealth." 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, be- 
came 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. 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 be- 
came landowners. Some light is thrown on the matter by a 
search through the patent books. Here are found a surpris- 
ingly 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. 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 uni- 
versity, and his father had been a fletcher. 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. 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 indi- 
viduals. Perhaps it would not be unfair to estimate this pro- 
portion at from thirty to forty per cent, but it must be dis- 
tinctly 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 hun- 
dreds of examples testified to the fact that no man in Vir- 
ginia was denied the opportunity to rise and to acquire both 
property and honor. 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 con- 
tinued unabated. But the difficulties of the investigator in 


studying this period arc 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 i(>.i6 to i(>5<) no less than 
twenty five appear as headrights for others. Of these the 
major part became landowners, some of them men of influ- 
ence in Virginia." The Rappahannock wills for the years 
from [656 to 1664 show a like result. Thirty-nine persons 
appear in the records, of whom seven came in as headrights. 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 
arc apt to occur because of the transfer of headrights by sale. 
The free immigrant to whom was due fifty acres for his "per- 
sonal 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 be is listed as a headlight. 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 hcadright for 
which the land was granted usually came in under terms of 

Tn Volume ITT of the land patents are listed in the years 
from [635 to [653 patents to fifty-seven persons in James 
City county. 88 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 Vol- 
ume IV, covering the years from [653 to 1663, leads to simi- 
lar results, for of the eighty-five names which appear there, 
forty-five are listed as headlights 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;" Thomas Warburton 
patented 1,664 acres;" George Gilbert 1,000 acres; Francis 
Burwell 1,000 and John Underwood 2,000 acres/' The num- 
ber 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, se- 
cured 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 in- 
cluded in the various lists are freemen or servants. But oc- 
casionally the newcomers are specifically described as "ser- 
vants," in which case, of course, there can be no doubt what- 
ever 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 Court- 
ney, 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, be- 
came 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. 60 Although he became a landowner 
so early as 1638, 61 his family arrived from England only in 
165 1. Francis Gray, brought to Virginia at the age of fif- 
teen 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. 62 His 
will was recorded in 1667. 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. 6 * In 1691 he received, in conjunction 
with others, title to a tract of 2,827 acres in Henrico. 65 John 
Holding patented in York county 850 acres in 1649 and 389 
acres in 1653. 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. 67 

Thomas Pattison, transported by Francis Epes in 1635, 
took up in Lancaster two tracts, one for 200 acres and one 
for 400. 68 He also became part owner of two more tracts, 
one for 220 acres and the other for 504. 69 John Dodman se- 
cured a patent for 350 acres in Westmoreland in the year 
1662. 70 Thomas Warden is mentioned as a landowner in 
James City county in 1643. 71 George Gilbert, transported in 
io 35 by Joseph Johnson, took up fifty acres in James City 
county in 1643. 72 I* 1 J 663, in partnership with Richard 
Scruely, he patented 1,000 acres in the same county north of 
the Chickahominy river. 73 John Blackstone acquired two 
tracts, one for ioo acres and the other for 151 acres, 74 while 
William Burcher received a grant for 300 acres. 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. 76 
Henry Arnetrading was the owner of 300 acres of land. 77 


Armstrong Foster was the official tobacco viewer for Hungers, 
a position entailing no little responsibility. 78 Sampson Robins 
received a patent for a tract of land in Northampton in 1655. 79 
Thomas Clayton is listed among the Northampton tithables 
of 1666. 80 

In the case of John Day some uncertainty arises. Appar- 
ently 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. 81 A 
John Day later secured 400 acres in Gloucester county, 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 con- 
clusions 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 farm- 
ers, 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 rec- 
ords of some of the sixty-one have been lost, or that our re- 
search has failed to reveal them, we once more come to the 
conclusion that a full thirty or forty per cent of the land- 
owners of the period from 1635 to J 666 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 rec- 
ords furnish ample testimony. Thus in 1636 we find that 


Richard Young was granted ioo acres in Warwick "due him 
for his personal adventure and for the transportation of his 
wife Dorothy Young." 83 A year later Roger Symonds re- 
ceived ioo acres in Charles City "due him for the transporta- 
tion of his wife, Alice, and one servant, Richard Key." 84 
Similarly in May 1636, Thomas Wray was allowed 50 acres 
for his "personal adventure." Such cases could be multiplied 
indefinitely. 85 

A careful analysis of the patent rolls from 1623 to July 14, 
1637, published in the Virginia Magazine of History and Bi- 
ography for April, 1901, shows conclusively that the lists con- 
tain 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 head- 
rights 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." 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." 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 per- 
centage oi 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 to- 
bacco fields. In 163S Richard Kemp wrote Secretary Winde- 
banke that "of hundreds which are yearly transported, scarce 
any but are brought in as merchandise to make sale of." 88 

Yet it must not be forgotten that any immigration of poor 
treemen, 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, quali- 
ties by no means universal among the classes in England from 
which the sen-ants were chiefly drawn. But for the free im- 
migrant 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 ser- 
vant 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 Com- 


monwealth 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. 


The Restoration Period 

The people of Virginia hailed the Restoration with unaf- 
fected 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, dis- 
content 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 favor- 
able 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 con- 
veyed 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 produc- 
ing, not the articles which England especially needed, but 
those for which they had the greatest natural aptitude, espe- 
cially 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 com- 
mercial connections hostile to those of the mother country, 
were nourishing the manufactures and shipping of foreign na- 
tions almost as much as those of England. And this the Gov- 
ernment at London would not tolerate. The colonial trade 
with strangers must come to an end. If Virginia and Mary- 
land 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 Parlia- 
ment, 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 con- 
sumed 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 regula- 
tions 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 Co- 
lonial System, "is equally applicable to the arrangement by 


means of which the tobacco planter secured exlusive privileges 
in the home market." 1 Yet it is certain that the tobacco grow- 
ers of England could never have competed with Maryland and 
Virginia had there been free trade. The prohibition of plant- 
ing 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 exaggera- 
tion 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. 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 ex- 
change 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 dis- 
aster. 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 with- 
drawn. 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 Hoi- 


land 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 dis- 
tributors of the Virginia and Maryland tobacco, and if they 
refused to take it, now that it could be secured only in Eng- 
land, 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 de- 
pendence 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 re- 
sult 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 nigher 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 Com- 

"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, prin- 
ciple 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." 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 citi- 
zens 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 sub- 


sistence to the inhabitants." 1 ' In 1666 Secretary Thomas 
Ludwell told Lord Arlington that tobacco was "worth noth- 
ing." 10 Later in the same year the planters complained that 
the price was so low that they were not able to live by it. 11 
"For the merchants, knowing both our necessities and the un- 
consumable quantities of tobacco we had by us," they said, 
"gave us not the twentieth part of what they sold it for in 
England." 12 Tobacco had so glutted the markets, it was de- 
clared, 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. 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 at- 
tribute it to nothing but the great mercy of God . . . that 
keeps them from mutiny and confusion." 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. 15 

The Governor and Council declared that the merchant "al- 
lows 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." 10 "A large part of 
the people are so desperately poor," wrote Berkeley in 1673, 
"that they may reasonably be expected upon any small ad- 


vantage of the enemy to revolt to them in hopes of bettering 
their condition by sharing the plunder of the colony with 
them." 17 That matters had not changed in 1681 is attested 
by the statement of the Council that the impossibility of dis- 
posing of their tobacco without a heavy loss overwhelmed 
both Virginia and Maryland, and brought upon them a "vast 
poverty and infinite necessity." 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." 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 to- 
bacco. 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. 21 "The poverty of Virginia is such," said a 
certain John Good in 1676, "that the major part of the in- 
habitants can scarce supply their wants from hand to mouth, 
and many there are besides can hardly shift without supply 
one year." 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. 23 In 1680 they again re- 
ported that "the indigency of the Inhabitants is such that they 
are in noe manner capacitated to support themselves." 2 * 
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." 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." 28 

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 Govern- 
ment. Bacon's men were just the type of miserably poor free- 
men 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." 27 William 
Sherwood called the rebels rude and indigent persons, allud- 
ing to them as "tag, rag and bobtayle." 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 antagon- 
ism 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 Navi- 
gation 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 muti- 
nous — to desire a thing contrary to his Majesty's royal pleas- 
ure and benefit and also against an act of Parliament." 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 As- 
sembly and that colony's governors were vociferous in their 
protests, the Virginia legislature remained strangely mute." 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 in- 
jurious 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 mem- 
bers of both Houses were his creatures and his henchmen. 
Over and over again it is testified that the Assembly did noth- 
ing more than register his will. 31 If then it did not pro- 
test, 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." 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 con- 
ditions no matter how bitter was the experience. Sir Wil- 
liam 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. 33 

Although he set to work with his accustomed vigor to make 
good this boast, he met with but scant success. Lack of effi- 
cient 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 

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 na- 


tion 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." 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." 36 This is corroborated by the Council 
itself, in an official letter to the King. "For in this very con- 
juncture 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." 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 con- 
ditions in the colony hardly more favorable for his advance- 
ment 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 cor- 
rect 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 re- 
turn for his tobacco — clothing, farm implements, household 
furnishings — he had to content himself with the scantiest sup- 
ply. 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 impos- 
sible of accomplishment. 

It would be expected, then, that even the most exhaustive 
investigation could reveal but a few indentured servants, com- 
ing 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 impos- 
sible 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 

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 de- 
gree of certainty upon the rent roll. Of 11 16 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 pas- 
sage of the Navigation Acts. In the Commonwealth period 
the colony had advanced by leaps and bounds, and the inhabi- 
tants, estimated at 15,000 in 1649, 38 were P laced b y Berkeley 
thirteen years later at 40,ooo. 39 Under the system which ex- 
isted during these years, when the colonists enjoyed a compar- 
atively 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.*° 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. 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 fol- 
lowing, 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 prob- 
able 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. 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 sur- 


prised 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 ser- 
vants and others had been transported thither." 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 earn- 
ing 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 

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 develop- 
ment, 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 Vir- 


ginia yeomanry that it survived to enter the Eighteenth cen- 
tury, 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 Vir- 
ginia from the Atlantic to the Alleghanies. 


The Yeoman in Virginia History 

Perhaps it would have been impossible for the Virginia yeo- 
man 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 restric- 
tions. 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." 1 Fifteen years later the number had in- 
creased to 1 00,000. 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. 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. 4 The inventory of the goods of 
Richard Avery, another poor planter, shows three steers, one 
heifer, three small cattle and one calf. 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 

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 Per- 
fect Discription says that the poultry — "Hens, Turkies, Ducks, 
Geece" — were without number. 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 canvas- 
back appeared regularly in season upon every table. 8 

The planter always devoted a part of his land to the pro- 
duction of the grain which was needed for his personal require- 
ments. "They yearly plow and sow many hundred acres of 
Wheat," it was said, "as good and faire as any in the world." 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 

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. 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. 11 There were also many wild swarms 
in the woods, which yielded a delicious return to the colonial 
bee-hunters. 12 


It is easy to understand, then, why there were no complaints 
of hunger even in the days when poverty was almost uni- 
versal. 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." 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. 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. 15 The 
author of New Albion thought that each adventurer should 
provide himself with canvas or linen clothes, with shoes and 
a hat. 16 

The houses of the small planters were small but comfortable. 
"Pleasant in their building," says John Hammond, "which al- 
though 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 flow- 
ered, and if not glazed windows, shutters which are made very 
pritty and convenient." 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." 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. 19 
But the period of which Butler wrote was exceptional, and 
before long the growing prosperity of the colony made pos- 
sible 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. 20 For 
the poor man this was far too pretentious, and he had to con- 
tent himself with a home perhaps thirty by twenty feet, con- 
taining 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 de- 
tached kitchen. In some cases wells were sunk, but the use of 
natural springs was more common. 21 

Of the plantation itself, only a fraction was under cultiva- 
tion 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 diminish- 
ing 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 require- 
ments. They had to look forward to the day when their land 
would become useless, and if they were provident, would pur- 
chase 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." 2 

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 pos- 
sessed 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. 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. 24 In better circumstances was Richard Avery, 
who seems to have been a tanner by profession. The inven- 
tory 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, 1 18 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. 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 year- 
lings, 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 to- 
bacco. 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. 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 shill- 
ings, a colt at two pounds sterling. The entire estate was 
valued at £25.icj.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 fel- 
lows. 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 Tan- 
house, 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." 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 readi- 
ness 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 Sev- 
enteenth 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 flow- 
ers; 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." 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 Beverely, Giles Brent, 
Joseph Bridger, William Byrd I, John Carter, John Custis I, 
Dudley Digges, William Fitzhugh, Lewis Burwell, Philip Lud- 
well I, William Moseley, Daniel Parke, Ralph Wormeley, 
Benjamin Harrison, Edward Hill, Edmund Jennings and 
Matthew Page. But so few were their numbers that the Gov- 
ernors 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 ex- 
press 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." 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. 32 Many of the best 
known members of the Council of State served their appren- 
ticeship 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 in- 
deed did he betray his trust. 33 This no doubt was with him 
in part a matter of honor, but it also was the result of a con- 
sciousness 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. 34 Although the Assembly must have real- 
ized that its very existence might depend upon its compliance 
with the King's wishes, it refused to accept his proposal. 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. 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. 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 plan- 
tation to plantation, inciting the people to resistance and se- 
curing their signatures to a paper demanding a redress of 
grievances. 38 

The attitude of the small planters during the English civil 
war and Commonwealth period is equally instructive. Cer- 
tain 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 plant- 
ers, 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 an< ^ 
passed laws making it high treason for any person to uphold 
the legality of the dethronement and execution of his father. 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 neces- 
sary 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. 40 How 
many of the small planters were at heart friendly to Parlia- 
ment 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.* 1 

Nor can it be said that Virginia was forced into an unwill- 
ing 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. 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 Parlia- 
mentary faction in Virginia, who made it clear to the Com- 
monwealth 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. 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. 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-gov- 
ernment was disappointed by the usurpation of Oliver Crom- 
well. 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 func- 
tion they usually felt it wise to delegate to the Governor. 45 
In fact, Virginia was governed during this period, the hap- 
piest 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 be- 
fore 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. 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. 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 in- 
surrection in 1676. It is notable that in the course of Bacon's 
Rebellion the great mass of the people turned against the Gov- 
ernor, either approving passively of his expulsion, or actually 
aiding his enemies. When Sir William appealed for volun- 
teers in Gloucester county while Bacon was upon the Pamun- 
key expedition, he could hardly muster a man. 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 Bev- 
erley, 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 in- 
variably 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 op- 
pressive Navigation Acts remained in force, though taxes 
were heavier than ever, though the governors continued to en- 
croach 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 at : 
tempt to crush Anglo-Saxon liberty, an attempt fully as dan- 
gerous 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 gov- 
ernment in America. It was not a mere coincidence that the 
attack upon the Massachusetts charter, the misrule of Nichol- 
son in New York, the oppressions of the proprietor in Mary- 
land 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 il- 
legal; 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 Vir- 
ginia yeoman reckoned not with slavery, however, and slavery 
was to prove, in part at least, his undoing. 


World Trade 

I n 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 plant- 
ers," wrote Secretary Spencer to the Board of Trade in May, 
1683. 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. 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.* 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. 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 them- 
selves 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 aver- 
age number of hogsheads exported from Virginia in the last 
decade of the century varied from 35,000 to 40,000/ 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 de- 
signed 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 un- 
fortunate consequence which to some extent had been fore- 
seen, 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 Eng- 
land and from England to all the countries of Europe. Prior 
to 1660 Holland had been the distributing centre for the to- 
bacco of Virginia and Maryland; now England insisted upon 
taking this role 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 un- 
fortunate 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 conquer- 
ing 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 re- 
fused 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 This argu- 
ment 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 Euro- 
pean 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 hap- 
pened. Since tobacco was piling up uselessly in the warehouses 
and much of it could not be disposed of at any price, it was in- 
evitable 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 ex- 
ported at excessively low prices. This margin was a weapon 
of conquest, a means of ousting the merchants of other na- 
tions 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 Seven- 
teenth 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 plant- 
ers 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 

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 leav- 
ing for foreign ports. 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. 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. 10 The 
Baltic trade alone amounted to from 5,000 to 10,000 hogs- 
heads, 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. 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 
f 60,000 to £i30,ooo. 12 As the English were still largely de- 
pendent upon the Baltic for potash and ship stores, this con- 
stituted 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. 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. 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 com- 
merce to continue. The obvious course for the Spaniards un- 
der the economic theories of the day would have been to ex- 
clude 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 en- 
tered Spain each year. 15 A pamphlet published in 1708 en- 
titled 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. 16 


The Dutch, too, despite their bitter rivalry with the British, 
found it impossible to do without Virginia tobacco. Purchas- 
ing 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 em- 
ployment to hundreds of poor workers. In all the Dutch 
seem to have purchased from England about 5,000 hogsheads 
a year. 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 an- 
nually. In 1698, which was an exceptionally good year, their 
purchases were no less than £310,133. 1S 

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 Ex- 

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 in- 
crease 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,ooo. 19 This sum constituted a very appreciable pro- 
portion 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 

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 manu- 
facture, 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 con- 
siderable outlay of capital. 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. 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 consti- 
tuted 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 estab- 
lished, but adding new recruits from the ranks of the inden- 
tured 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 pre- 
vented 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 estab- 
lishing 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. 22 All in all 
not more than five per cent, of the newcomers during this 
period prospered and became independent planters. Appar- 
ently, 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, d^pite 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. 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, al- 
though 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 James- 
town, and sold there to the planters. 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 
butt wenty in all — was not the real beginning of the slave sys- 
tem 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. 25 Sixteen years later the black population 
probably did not exceed 150. 26 In 1649, when Virginia was 
growing rapidly and the whites numbered 15,000, there were 
but 300 negroes in the colony. 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 free- 

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. 28 Eleven years later the number of blacks was esti- 
mated at 3,ooo. 29 In 1635 twenty-six negroes were brought 
in, the largest purchaser being Charles Harmar. 80 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. 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. 32 

It is evident, then, that during the larger part of the Sev-j 
enteenth century slavery played but an unimportant role inl 
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. 33 

The Dutch had established trading stations along the Afri- 
can 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 neces- 
sary 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. 34 

This was but the beginning of the struggle, however. The 
Dutch resisted strenuously, stirring up the native chieftians 


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 Netherlander an acknowl- 
edgment 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 ne- 
groes 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 Eight- 
eenth 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 inden- 
tured 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 ser- 
vants, 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 £i2. 35 A servant of Robert 
Leightenhouse, having two years to serve, was put at £gf 6 
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." A white lad under indenture for seven years to Mr. 
Ralph Graves was valued at £io. 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 vigor- 
ous 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 require- 
ments 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 1 714, when there were perhaps 15,000 negroes in the col- 
ony, records burials for sixty-two slaves only. 39 The births 
of slaves for the same year totalled 253. *° These figures indi- 
cate 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 in- 
dicative of the ease with which the African accustomed him- 
self 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." 41 
The lesson did not prove lasting, however, for in 1 730 a num- 
ber of slaves from Norfolk and Princess Anne counties as- 
sembled 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. 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 turri was the result of the recent purchases of ne- 
groes, 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 171 1, 
"hath produced for some years past an increase in tobacco far 
disproportionate to the consumption of it . . . and conse- 
quently lowered the price of it." 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 man- 
ner ruined the credit of the country." 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 Wormcley, refers to the fact that several slave 
ships were expected that year in the York river. 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. 46 Before 
the end of the century it is probable that the slaves in Virginia 
numbered nearly 6,000, and had already become more impor- 
tant to the economic life of the colony than the indentured 
servants. 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 ser- 
vant 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 I 7°^ no less than 6,843 came in, a num- 
ber perhaps exceeding the entire importations of the Seven- 
teenth century. 48 In the summer of 1705 alone 1,800 negroes 
arrived. 40 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. 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 fre- 
quent, 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 princi- 
pally concerned." 51 

The wars of Charles XII, however, which proved disas- 
trous to the Baltic trade, and the War of the Spanish Succes- 
sion 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. 52 But 
with the reopening of the tobacco market and the return of 
prosperity to Virginia, the black stream set in again with re- 
doubled force. In 1730, out of a total population of 114,000, 
no less than 30,000 were negroes. 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 ac- 
cumulation 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 popula- 


tion 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 reexported 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." 54 Similarly Colonel Spencer 
wrote to the Board of Trade. "The low price of tobacco re- 
quires 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." 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 his- 
tory, was not for him. Virginia in the Eighteenth century 
was to be the land of the slave holder, not of the little planter. 


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 al- 
most 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 1 93 1 names. 1 Seven years later the whites .were 
still arriving in large nurnbers, 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. 2 Yet so late as 1704 the servants 
were still coming in appreciable numbers. In 1 708 however, the 
number of servants at work in the colony had dwindled away 
almost entirely. 3 In 171 5 the names of white persons listed as 
headrights was but ninety-one; in 171 8 but 101.* 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 practi- 
cally 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 in- 
dustries and so strengthen the economic and military sinews 
of the nation. And if unemployment existed, it was the cor- 
rect policy to bring work to the idle rather than send the idle 
out of the country in quest of work. 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. 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 English- 
men, 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 

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 pri- 
marily 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 indus- 
trial 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 struc- 
ture 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 Sey- 
mour 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 Attor- 
ney-General, "make tobacco." 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 con- 
cern in the plantations was centered upon the size of their ex- 
ports 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 conquer- 
ing 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 N 

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 move- 
ment 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 be- 
wailed the departed peasants whose places were taken by fet- 
tered slaves. 9 

The importation of slaves to Virginia had somewhat simi- 
lar 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, re- 
ducing the poor man to dire poverty. Against this unfor- 
tunate development the Virginia yeoman was helpless. In- 
stinctively 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 neighbor- 
hood 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. 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 conse- 
quences of the Navigation Acts. The Virginia yeoman moved 
on to other colonies because he found it impossible to main- 
tain 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 


clown 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 dec- 
ades. 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 be- 
came 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 unoc- 
cupied lands in the western part of the colony, or made their 
way into Delaware or Pennsylvania. "The reason why in- 
habitants leave this province," wrote Nicholson, while Gover- 
nor 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." 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 in- 
dustries of Pennsylvania and Delaware and the Jerseys de- 
manded 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. 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 prov- 
ince. They would have it that they wish to avoid the persecu- 
tion 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 cur- 
rency of money in Pennsylvania, which here is not, draws 
them to that province from this." 13 

In Virginia the difficulty of securing desirable land because 
of the large tracts patented by rich planters was usually as- 
signed 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 Massachus- 
etts 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 concern- 
ing 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, be- 
gun 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 dis- 
couraged and hindered from planting tobacco in that colony, 
and servants are not so willing to go there as formerly, be- 
cause 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 In- 
dians." 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 in- 
habitants and servants, brought up only to planting, to seek 
their fortunes in Carolina or other places." 15 

Randolph suggested that the evil might be remedied by re- 
quiring 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 num- 
ber of Planters." This would augment the production of to- 
bacco 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 Ran- 
dolph's report and asking what steps should be taken to remedy 
the evils he had pointed out. "But this seeming to us a mat- 
ter 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 Law- 
rence Smith for arrears of quit rents upon tracts of land which 
had never been under cultivation. 16 But before the case came 
to trial Nicholson had been recalled and it was afterward com- 
pounded 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 re- 
open 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." 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. 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 en- 
couragement for anyone to come to the Plantation," he de- 
clared, "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." 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. 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 develop- 
ment 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. 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 re- 
stricted in size. 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 in- 
creased 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." 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. 24 In fact, al- 
though 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 "thor- 
ough Aversion to Labor" which made "People file off to North 
Carolina." 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 Mary- 
land, 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. 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 im- 
proved 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." 27 
Thus the small farmer made one last desperate effort to save 
himself by pitting his superior intelligence against the cheap- 
ness 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, broken- 
ly 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 free- 
holder 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 con- 
ditions 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 hogs- 
heads a year, now took comparatively few. "The Russian 
trade is ruined," he said. 28 

The war against France and Spain, coming at this unfor- 
tunate 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." 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 ex- 
portation of great quantities to those ports. Virginia and 
Maryland have severely felt the loss of such exportation, hav- 
ing so far reduced the planters that for several years past the 
whole product of their tobacco would hardly clothe the ser- 
vants that made it." 30 


Their misfortunes were accentuated by the fact that the 
Dutch took advantage of the European upheavals to gain con- 
trol 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 1 70 1 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. 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. 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 Konigsberg. 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 en- 
trenched 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. 3 * 

"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 w r hich 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." 35 

This unfortunate period was but temporary. With the con- 
clusion of peace English tobacco was dumped upon the Euro- 
pean market at a figure so low as to defy competition. And 
when once the hogsheads began to move, the reaction on Vir- 
ginia 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 pros- 
perity. 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 Euro- 
pean 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 37 Making ample de- 
ductions 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 Revolu- 
tion, however, the situation had changed materially, and a de- 
cided 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. 38 In Spotsylvania county similar conditions are 
noted. Of 704 tithable whites listed in 1783 all save 199 
possessed slaves. 39 In Dinwiddie county, in the year 1782, of 
843 tithable whites, 210 only were not slave holders. 40 Ap- 
parently 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 Ameri- 
can 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 gar- 
ments give testimony to their poverty." 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." 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." 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 deser- 
tion 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. 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 pos- 
sessed from one to five negroes. 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. 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 io^S 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. 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. 48 

Records of transfers of land tend to substantiate this testi- 
mony, 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 no 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. 49 

This substitution of the small slave holder for the man who 
used only his own labor in the cultivation of his land unques- 
tionably 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 in- 


dustrious 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." 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." 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 gen- 
erous, friendly and hospitable in the extreme, but possessing 
a rudeness and haughtiness which was the result of their 
"general intercourse with slaves." 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 con- 
trolled by any superior power. Hugh Jones, Anbury, Fithian 
and other Eighteenth century writers all confirm this testi- 

Despite the persistence of the small slave holder it is ob- 
vious that there were certain forces at work tending to in- 
crease 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 in- 
dustrial world the large corporation has many advantages 
over the smaller firms, so in colonial Virginia the most eco- 
nomical way of producing tobacco was upon the large planta- 

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 mo- 
mentarily unfavorable, he could secure the best agricultural in- 
struments. Most important of all, however, was the fact that 
he could utilize the resources of his plantation for the pro- 
duction of crude manufactured supplies, thus to a certain ex- 
tent freeing himself from dependence upon Birtish 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 when- 
ever 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 im- 
port 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." 53 

The carpenter was kept busy constructing barns and ser- 
vants' 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, weav- 
ers 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 re- 
sources at hand in a manner impossible for his neighbor who 
could boast of but a small farm and half a score of slaves. 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 lim- 
ited. 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." 5 
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. 56 In Spotsylvania, of 505 owners, j6 had six- 
teen 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." 

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 Boiling 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. 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, ag- 
gregated 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." 59 It was the observation of Anbury that 
gentlemen of good estates were more numerous in Virginia 
than in any other province of America. 60 

In fact the Eighteenth century was the golden age of the 
Virginia slave holders. It was then that they built the hand- 
some 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 grace- 
ful 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 

This movement tended to widen the influence of the aristoc- 
racy and at the same time to eliminate any sharp line of de- 
markation 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. 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 in- 
fluence of the Council in Virginia, which was so notable in 
the Eighteenth century. This body had formerly been repre- 
sentative of a small clique of families so distinct from the 
other planters and possessed of such power in the govern- 
ment as to rival the nobility of England itself. Now, how- 
ever, as this distinction disappeared, the Council sank in pres- 
tige because it represented nothing, while the House of Bur- 
gesses 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 num- 
ber 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 excep- 
tions 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 con- 
trol 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 revolu- 
tion 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 re- 
duced 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 de- 
markation 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 Jeffer- 
son, 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. 


1 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, A True Dec- 
laration, p. 25. 

2 Purchas, Vol. XVIII, pp. 437-438. 

3 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, A True Dec- 
laration, p. 23. 

4 Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. 

I, P- 37- 

5 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brittania, 

pp. 21-22. 

6 Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 89-90. 

7 Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 105. 

8 Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 31. 

9 Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 14-15. 

10 Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 49. 

11 Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I. 
p. 349; Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brit- 
tania, pp. 16-17. 

12 Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, 

P- 239- 

13 Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, 

p. 202. 

14 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p, 445. 

15 Neill, The Virginia Company of London, p. 338. 

16 Randolph Manuscript, p. 212. 

17 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 440; 
Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p. 

2 39- 

18 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 441. 

19 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 443. 


1 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 161 ; 
Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 232. 

2 William Strachey, Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britan- 
nia, p. 121 ; P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. 
I, p. 162. 


NOTES 163 

3 Ralph Hamor, True Discourse, pp. 24, 34. 

4 G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 79. 

5 Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 535. 

6 Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268. 

7 G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 87. 

8 G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 81. 

9 Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268. 

10 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 

11 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 

12 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 416. 

13 Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, 

PP- 355-356. 

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. 

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. 

16 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 578; 
Vol. II, p. 48. 

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. 

18 P. A. Bruce, The Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, 

P- 7°. . hyt/^ I ? 1 

19 For a full discussion of this matter see p. ^ 3 -. ' 

20 Hakluyt, Vol. VII, p. 286. 

21 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 582. 

22 Abstracts N of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, 
Vol. I, pp. 28, 172; Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John 
Smith, p. 609. 

23 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510. 

24 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 603. 

25 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 605. 

26 Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, Register of Land Office, Vir- 
ginia State Capitol. 

27 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510. 

28 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 611. 

1 64 NOTES 

29 British Public Record Office, CO 1-26-77, Berkeley to the 
Board of Trade. 

80 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Orders and 
Constitutions, 1619, 1620, p. 22. 

31 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

82 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660, p. 208. 

83 Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton 
University Library. 

34 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 


1 L. G. Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia, pp. 21-22. 

2 Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, 
Vol. II, p. 171. 

3 British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board 
of Trade. 

4 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 257. 

5 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 411. 

6 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 539. 

7 British Public Record Office, CO 1-26-77, Berkeley to Board 
of Trade. 

8 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

9 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 595. 

10 J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America (1600- 

11 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, p. 3. 

12 British Public Record Office, CO 1-26-77, Berkeley to Board 
of Trade. 

13 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 119, Colonial 
Entry Book, Governor Andros to the Lords of Trade. 

14 E. D. Neill, Virginia Vetusta, p. 123. 

15 Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia, p. 61. 

16 Surry County Records, 1684-1686, Virginia State Library. 

17 York County Records, 1696-1701, Virginia State Library. 

18 Rappahannock County Deeds, 1680- 1688, Virginia State 

19 Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State 

NOTES 165 

20 J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp. 

21 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 529- 

53 2 - 

22 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 

State Capitol. 

23 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 30. 

24 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 


25 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

26 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

27 Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State 

28 Surry County Records, 1645-1672, p. 17. 

29 Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, p. 348, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

30 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol, Vol. V. 

31 Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, pp. 199, 202, 
205, 209, 216, 348, 394, 407, 413, Virginia State Library. 

32 H. R. Mcllwaine, Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1686, 

P- 37- 

33 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

34 British Public Record Office, CO5-1306, Document 116, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

35 British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 361, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

36 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial 
Entry Book. n 

37 British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, p. 460, Council 
Minutes, 1680-1695. 

38 British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, pp. 544-545, Coun- 
cil Minutes, 1680-1695. 

39 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 345, Colonial 
Entry Book, 1696- 1700. 

40 British Public Record Office, CO5-1339, Document 33V. 
Correspondence of the Board of Trade. 

41 British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63 VIII, 
Correspondence of the Board of Trade. A copy of this interest- 

1 66 NOTES 

ing document is published as an appendix to this volume. 

42 See appendix. 

43 See appendix. 

44 Of this land 15 acres belonged to Thomas Jefferson, probably 
the grandfather of President Jefferson. 

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. 

46 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 480. The laws gov- 
erning the tithables were altered slightly from time to time. 

47 Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138, 
Virginia State Library. 

48 Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138, 
Virginia State Library. 

49 Surry County, Deeds, Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, pp. 59-63, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

50 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 


51 Prince George county was formed out of Charles City in 

62 Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684; Surry County, 
Deeds, Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, Virginia State Library. 

53 Elizabeth City County Records, 1684-1699, Virginia State Li- 


1 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273. 

2 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273. 

3 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 42. 

4 Robert Beverley, History of Virginia, p. 221. 

5 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Leah and 
Rachel, p. 11. 

6 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, p. 31. 

7 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Leah and 
Rachel, p. 11. 

8 In fact, it was stated by John Hammond in 1656 that many 
servants acquired considerable property even before the expira- 
tion of their indentures. "Those servants that will be indus- 
trious may in their time of service gain a competent estate be- 
fore their Freedomes," he says, "which is usually done by many, 
and they gaine esteeme and assistance that appear so industrious : 

NOTES 167 

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. Ill, Leah and Rachel, p. 14. 

9 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, p. 

I 57- 

10 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 


11 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, 
p. 261. 

12 R. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 154. 

13 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 

14 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XIII, p. 


15 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, pp. 4-6. 

16 British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Secretary Ludwell to 
Lord John Berkeley. 

17 Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268. 

18 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 
267, King Charles I to the Governor and Council of Virginia. 

19 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 293 

20 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 376 

21 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 53 

22 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 394 

23 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 260 

24 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p 

25 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, 
p. 149. 

1 68 NOTES 

26 Governor Yeardley's Instructions of 1626 contain the state- 
ment that "tobacco falleth every day more and more to a baser 

27 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p, 


28 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII 

29 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p 

30 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 425 

31 G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 159 

32 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 4. 

33 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII 

p. 150-. 

34 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 288 
In Feb. 1627, orders were issued once more that all colonial to- 
bacco, whether of Virginia or of the West Indies, should be 
shipped only to London. Calendar of State Papers, 1574-1660 
p. 84. 

35 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII 
pp. 149, 155. 

36 British Public Record Office, CO1-12, Petition of Jan. 2 

37 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 349- 

88 G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, pp. 203- 

39 G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 216. 

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. 

41 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 

42 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 
149, Vol. II, p. 53, Vol. VII, p. 259. 

43 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 

44 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 

NOTES 169 

45 Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, 
Vol. I, pp. 41-42. 

46 J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp. 

47 Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 54-55. 

48 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, p. 16. 

49 Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 68-69. 

50 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

51 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 420. 

52 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 
421 ; Vol. IV, p. 75. 

53 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 77. 

54 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 15-18. 

55 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 56. 

56 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

57 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 271. 

58 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276. 

59 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, pp. 271-276. 

60 Virginia Colonial Register, pp. 64, 68, 70. 

61 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 72. 

62 Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, p. 224, Register of Land Of- 
fice, Virginia State Capitol. 

63 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, New Series Vol. I, 
p. 4. 

64 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 83, 
84, 125, 126. 

65 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 5. 

66 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 78. 

67 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. yy, 
191, 281. 

68 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 122. 

69 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 192. 

70 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 76. 

71 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144. 

72 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144. 

73 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276. 

74 Virginia Land Patents, Vol. Ill, Register of Land Office, 
Virginia State Capitol. The name is here spelled John Black- 

"Virginia Land Patents, Vol. Ill, Register of Land Office, 

i ;o NOTES 

Virginia State Capitol. On the lists the name is spelled Wil- 
liam Butcher. 

70 J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Vir- 
ginia, pp. 135-137. 

77 Virginia Land Patents, Vol. IV, Register of Land Office, 
Virginia State Capitol. 

78 J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Vir- 
ginia, p. 95. 

79 G. C. Greer, Early Virginia Immigrants, p. 68. 

80 J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Vir- 
ginia, p. 376. 

81 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 101. 

82 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 177. 

83 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 92. 

84 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 298. 

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 ad- 
vised "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. Ill, Leah and Rachel, p. 14. 

86 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 

87 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p. 27. 

88 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271. 


1 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 109. 

2 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

3 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 401. 

4 R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 160. 

5 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Perry and Hyde to 
the Lords of Trade, Correspondence of the Board of Trade. 

6 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, The Present State 
of the Tobacco Plantations in America, Correspondence of the 
Board of Trade. 

7 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade; Statutes of the Realm, Vol. IX, p. 917. 

NOTES 171 

8 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 

9 British Public Record Office, CO1-16, Petition of Berkeley 
and Others, Aug. 26, 1662. 

10 British Public Record Office, CO 1-20, Thomas Ludwell to 
Secretary Arlington, May 1, 1666. 

11 British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley 
and others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666. 

12 British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley 
and others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666. 

13 British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to 
Lord Arlington, Feb. 12, 1667. 

14 British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to 
Lord John Berkeley. 

15 British Public Record Office, CO 1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to Lord 

16 British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Governor and Council 
to the King. 

17 British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the 
Governor and Council. 

18 British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 408, Report of 
the Council to the King. 

19 British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 385, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

20 British Public Record Office, CO1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to 
Lord Arlington, July 20, 1665. 

21 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 246, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

22 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, pp. 232-240, Dia- 
logue Between John Good and Nathaniel Bacon, Colonial Entry 
Book, 1677. 

23 British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the 
Governor and Council to the King, July 1673. 

24 British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 410, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

25 British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 179, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

26 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 147. 

27 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

28 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

172 NOTES 

29 This view of the matter has the support of the dean of Vir- 
ginia 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 thor- 
oughly 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 be- 
fore 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. 

30 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 115. 

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. 

32 British Museum, Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b. 

33 British Public Record Office, CO1-19, Berkeley to Lord Ar- 
lington, Aug. 1, 1665. 

84 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 399- 

35 British Public Record Office, CO 1-26-77, Berkeley to the 
Board of Trade. 

36 British Public Record Office, CO 1-30-78, Memorial of John 
Knight, Oct. 29, 1673. 

37 British Public Record Office, CO1-30-71, Council of Vir- 
ginia to the King, 1673. 

38 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, pp. 1-16. 

39 British Museum. Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b, A Dis- 
course and View of Virginia. 

40 British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the 
Board of Trade. 

NOTES 173 

41 British Public Record Office, CO1-34-95, Petition of Francis 
Moryson, Thomas Ludwell and Robert Smith. 

42 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

43 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 


1 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 3. 

2 British Public Record Office, CO1-30, pp. 17, 51. 

3 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1624, Virginia State 

4 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

5 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 86-87, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

6 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 199. 

7 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, p. 3. 

8 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 200. 

9 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, p. 3. 

10 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 18. 

11 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 15. 

12 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 201. 

13 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Leah and 
Rachel, p. 13. 

"British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Statement of Mr. 
Perry and Captain Hyde, Correspondence of the Board of Trade. 

15 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Virginia 
Richly Valued, p. 10. 

16 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Albion, 
P- 32. 

17 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. Ill, Leah and 
Rachel, p. 18. 

18 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 7. 

19 Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of Lon- 
don, Vol. II, p. 171. 

174 NOTES 

20 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 153. 

21 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, pp. 

22 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 285. 

23 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, p. 7, Virginia 
State Library. 

24 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

25 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684- 1686, pp. 86-87, Vir- 
ginia State Library. 

26 Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1684, Virginia State 

27 John Splitimber paid for himself alone in the tithable lists of 


28 York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library. 

29 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 15. 

30 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New De- 
scription of Virginia, p. 14. 

31 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 241. 

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. 

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. 

34 British Public Record Office, CO1-4. 

35 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia. Vol. I, pp. 287- 

36 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271. 
"British Public Record Office, CO1-8, p. 48. 

38 British Public Record Office, CO1-8. 

39 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 360-361. 

40 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 361. 

41 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 355. 

42 Hening. Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 363. 

43 Sixth Report of Royal Commission on Historical Manu- 
scripts, Part I, Instructions to Sir George Ayscue, Sept. 26, 165 1. 

44 The commissioners were Capt. Robert Dennis, Richard Ben- 

NOTES 175 

nett, Thomas Stegge and Captain William Claiborne, all of whom 
with the exception of Dennis were Virginians. 

45 Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 371, 373. 

46 Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845 ; Charles Campbell, 
History of Virginia, p. 74. 

47 Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845. 

48 British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 387, Colonial 
Entry Book. 


1 British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 104, Colonial En- 
try Book. 

2 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 40. 

3 British Public Record Office, CO5-1305, Document 23, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

4 British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16, Cor- 
respondence of the Secretary of State. 

5 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42. 

6 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1702. 

7 British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, pp. 381-385, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

8 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 168. 

9 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

10 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91. 

11 British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16, John 
Linton to the Board of Trade, Correspondence of the Secretary 
of State. 

12 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Report of John Lin- 
ton on the Tobacco Trade, Correspondence of the Board of 

"British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16, Cor- 
respondence of the Secretary of State. 

14 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

"British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

16 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

17 British Public Record Office, CO5-1340, Document 91, Col. 
Quary's Memorial. 

1 76 NOTES 

18 R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42. 

"British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade; CO5-1360, p. 233, Governor Nicholson to 
the Lords of Trade. 

20 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91, Col. 
Quary's Memorial. 

21 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade, Letter of Col. Quary Sept. I, 1706. 

22 Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton 
University Library. 

"Britain Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 107-108, Co- 
lonial 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. 

24 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 66. 

25 J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp. 

26 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 89. 

27 Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Descrip- 
tion of Virginia, p. 3. 

28 British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the 
Board of Trade. 

29 British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 345, Lord Cul- 
peper's account of his compliance with the King's instructions, 
Dec. 1 68 1. 

30 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75. 

31 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75. 
"British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the 

Board of Trade. 

33 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 323, 

34 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 324-325. 

35 York County Records, 1664- 1672, Virginia State Library. 

36 York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library. 

37 Henrico Records, 1677-1692, Virginia State Library. 

38 York County Records, 1694-1697, Virginia State Library. 

89 British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

40 British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

41 British Public Record Office, CO5-1406, Minutes of the 

NOTES 177 

Council March 21, 1710, CO5-1363, pp. 189-191, Colonial Entry 

42 British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Governor Gooch to 
the Lords of Trade, Sept. 14, 1730; Feb. 12, 1731. 

43 British Public Record Office, CO5-1363, pp. 317-324, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

"British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 369-373, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

45 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 83. 

46 Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton 
University Library. 

47 P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 108. 

48 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

49 British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 66, 
Governor Nott to the Board of Trade. 

50 British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

51 British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

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. 

53 British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade, Report of Governor Gooch. 

54 British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Francis Fane to the 
Lords of Trade, Dec. 10, 1728. 

55 British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 139, Colonial 
Entry Book. 


1 Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton Uni- 
versity Library. 

2 Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton Uni- 
versity Library. 

3 British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

4 Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia 
State Capitol. 

5 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 28. 

178 NOTES 

6 G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 320-321. 

7 Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. X, iii. 

8 Maurice Vanlaer, La Fin d'un Peuple, pp. 38-39. 

9 Maurice Vanlaer, La Fin d'un Peuple, pp. 112-117. 

10 British Public Record Office, CO1-39-38. 

11 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 420. 

12 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 500. 

13 Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696- 1697, p. 546. 

14 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22. 

15 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22. 

16 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 23, Colonial Entry 

17 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 113, Andros to 
the Lords of Trade, July 1, 1697. 

18 British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 266-303, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

19 British Public Record Office, CO5-1312, p. 409A, Corre- 
spondence of the Board of Trade. 

20 British Public Record Office, CO5-1360, p. 441, Colonial 
Entry Book. 

21 Rent Roll of 1704, p. 46. 

22 British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade, Gooch to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 6, 1728. 

23 British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 374-382, Co- 
lonial Entry Book. 

24 British Public Record Office, CO5-1364, p. 27, Colonial Entry 

25 J. S. Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, p. 31. 

26 British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Gooch to the Lords 
of Trade, Feb. 27, 1731. 

27 British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Gooch to the Lords 
of Trade, Aug. 9, 1728. 

28 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

29 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

30 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

81 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16. 
32 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91, Cor- 
respondence of the Board of Trade. 

NOTES 179 

33 British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of 
the Board of Trade. 

34 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Account of the to- 
bacco trade by Perry and Hyde, June 2, 1714. 

35 British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Petition of the 
Council, Correspondence of the Board of Trade. 

36 British Public Record Office, CO5-1318, Address of King 
and Queen county inhabitants to Spotswood; address of West- 
moreland inhabitants ; letter of Spotswood to Lords of Trade, 
Dec. 22, 1718. 

37 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122. 

38 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, pp. 

39 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 

40 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196- 
201, 250-258. 

41 Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 291. 

42 Philip Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 243. 

43 Smyth, A Tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 58. 

44 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122. 

45 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196- 
201, 250-258. 

46 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 

47 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 


48 Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, Vol. IV, p. 144. 

49 W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. I, pp. 88-110. 

50 Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Edition of 1801, p. 321. 

51 Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 292 note. 
62 Smyth, A tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 66. 

53 Hugh Jones, History of Virginia, p. 36. 

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. 

55 British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63IV. 

56 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 

4I 5- 

57 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 


180 NOTES 

58 William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196- 
201, 250-258. 

59 Smyth, A Tour of the United States, p. 67. 

60 Anbury, Travels Through America, Vol. II, p. 330. 

61 Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 




A True and Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj u * 
Henrico County, Aprill 1705 

Andrews Thomas 396 

Ascoutch Mary 633 

Archer Jno 335 

Adkins Jno 125 

Archer Geo 1738 

Aldy John 162 

Akins James Sen 1 " 200 

Asbrook Peter Sen r 200 

Akins James Jun r 218 

Allin Widd 99 



Byrd Esq r 19500 

Boiling Rob 1 500 

Boiling John 831 

Bevill John 495 

Branch X t0 646 

Blackman Wm 175 

Bridgwater Sam 280 

Bowman John Jun r 300 

Bowman Edw d 300 

Branch Benj 550 

Brown Martha . . .- 893 

Bullington Benj 100 

Bowman Lew 65 

Bullington 144 

Bevell Essex 200 

Baugh John 448 

Baugh James 458 

Burton Isaac 100 

Bottom John 100 

Bayley Abr 542 

Brooks Jane belonging to 

Wm Walker New Kent.. 550 

Braseal Henry 200 

Brazeal Henry Jun r 300 

Burton Rob 1 1350 

Burgony John 100 

Branch James 555 

Burrows Wm. Wm. Black- 
well New Kent 63 

Branch Thomas 540 

Bailey Thomas 251 

Branch Matthew 947 

Burton Wm 294 

Bullington Rob' 100 

Broadnax Jno Jr 725 

Beverley Rob 1 988 


Cheatham Tho 300 

Cox Batt 100 

Cox John 150 

Cox George 200 

Chamberlaine Maj. Tho . . . 1000 

Childers Abr. Sen r 368 

Cannon John 108 

Cox Wm 300 

Childers Ab r Jun r 100 

Clark Wm 333 

Clark John 300 

Cox Rich" 300 

Cardwell Tho 350 

Crozdall Roger 200 

Cock Wm 1535 

Cock Rich" 5 Sen r 2180 

Childers Philip Sen r 50 

Childers Philip 300 

Childers Tho 300 

Carter Theod 75 

Cock Capt Thomas 2976^ 

Couzins Charles 362 

Clerk Alonson 604 


1 84 


Cock James 1506 

Curd Edw d 600 

Cock Rich d 476 

Cock Jno 98 


Dixon Nicholas 150 

Dodson Wm 100 

Douglas Charles 63 


Edw d Tho 676 

Entroughty Derby 200 

Ealam Rob 1 400 

Ellis John 217 

East Tho Sen 475 

East Tho 554 

East Edw d 150 

Epes Capt Fra" 2145 

Evans Charles 225 

Ealam Martin 130 

Epes Isham, Epes Fra. Jun 1 

each 444^ acres 889 



Field Peter Major 2185 

Farrar Capt Wm 700 

Farrar Tho 1444 

Farrar Jno 600 

Fowler Godfrey 250 

Ferguson Robert 230 

Ferris Wm 50 

Franklin James Sen 250 

Franklin James Jun 786 

Ferris Rich d Sen 550 

Farmer Henry 100 

Forrest James 138 

Forrest John 150 

Fetherstone Henry 700 

Farloe John Sen 100 

Farloe John Jun 551 

Faile John 240 



Gilley Grewin Arrian 2528 

Gee Henry 435 

Good John Sen 600 

Garthwaite Sam 1 50 

Garthwaite Ephriam 163 

Granger John 472 

Gill John 235 

Good Sam 1 588 

Gower James Grigs Land . . 500 



Hill James 795 

Holmes Rich 100 

Harris Thomas 357 

Harris Tim 250 

Hill Rosam d 1633 

Hobby Lawrence 500 

Hatcher John 215 

Haskins Edward 225 

Hatcher Edward Sen 150 

Hunt Geo 200 

Hughs Edward 100 

Hancock Samuel 100 

Holmes Thomas 50 

Hambleton James 100 

Hutchins Nich° 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 


Jones Hugh 934 

Jefferson Thomas 492 

Jones Philip 1 153 

Jorden Henry 100 

Jamson John 225 

Jackson Ralph 250 


Kennon Elizabeth 1900 

Knibb Samuel 209 

Knibb Solomon 833 

Kendall Richard 400 





Liptroll Edward 150 

Lewis Wm 350 

Lester Darens 100 

Ladd Wm 70 

Ligon Elizabeth Widdow [ 

Ligon Mary Widdow ) •" 

Laforce Reu 100 

Lochett James 50 

Lownd Henry 5 J 6 

Lockitt Benj 104 

Ligon Richard 1028 

Ligon Hugh 150 



Mann Robert 100 

Matthews Edward 33© 

Moseby Edward 150 

Moseby Arthur 450 


Nunnally Richard 7° 


Osbourn Thomas 288 

Owen Thomas 68 



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 



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 includ- 
ing 1 185 acres swamp ... 9465 



Steward Jno Jun 902 

Scott Walter 550 

Soane Capt Wm 3841 

Stanley Edward 300 

Snuggs Charles 400 

Sewell Wm 59 

Smith Humphrey 40 

Sharp Robert 500 

Stovoll Barth 100 

Skerin Widdow 75 

Steward Daniell 270 

Smith Obadiah 200 

Stowers Widdow 200 

Sarrazin Stephen 120 



Tancocks Orphans 1230 

Trent Henry 224 

Turpin Thomas 491 

Turpin Philip 444 

Turpin Thomas 100 

1 86 


Turner Henry 200 

Taylor Thomas 475 

Tanner Edward 217 

Traylor Edward 100 

Totty Thomas 260 

Traylor Wm 730 



Veden Henry 100 


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 75J/2 

Wilkinson John 130 

Worsham John 1 104 

Womack Abr 560 

Willson Jno Sen 1686 

Willson Jno Jun 100 

Walthall Richard 500 

Wortham Geo 400 

Wortham Charles 90 

Womack Wm 100 


W 24489H 

V 100 

T 44/1 

S 7557 

R 14648 

P 19937 

O 396 

N 70 

M 1030 

L 3959 

K 3342 

J 3154 

H 9242 

G 557i 

F 9024 

E 6061 

D 313 

c 1517154 

B 33590 

A 4106 

Out of which must be deducted 

these several quantities of land 

following Viz : 
Tancocks Orphans Land . . 1230 
Aliens Orphans Land 99 

An account of Land that hath been 

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 

The Quit Rent being 162719 acres. 



A Rent Roll of all the Lands held in the County of Prince George for 

the Year 1704 

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 



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 Boiling 3402 

Edmund Browder 100 

Matus Brittler 510 

Jno Butler . . . . . s 1385 

Andrew Beck 300 

Henry Batt 700 

Wm Butler 283 

Thomas Blitchodin 284 


Thomas Curiton 150 

Henry Chammins 300 

Capt Clements 1920 

Wm. Claunton 100 

Robert Catte 100 

Bartho Crowder 75 

Thomas Clay 70 

Jno Coleman 2CKX- -"' 

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 



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 


Robert Ellis 50 

Jno Epes Sen 530 

Wm Epes Sen 750 

Jno Epes 300 

Wm Epes 633^ 

Edward Epes 500 

Littlebury Epes 833J/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 





Jno Freeman 300 

Wm Frost 50 

Jno Fountaine 350 

Robert Fellows 418 

Elizabeth Flood 100 

Benj Foster 923 

Jno Field 100 



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 



Coll Hill 1000 

Daniell Hickdon 280 

Robert Harthorn 243 

Jno Hamlin 1484^2 

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 



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 no 

Joshua Irby 200 

John Jones 350 



Richard Kirkland 300 

John King 50 

Henry King 650 

Arthur Kavanah 60 

Ensobius King 100. 

1 160 


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 



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 IOO 

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 



Richard Newman 120 

Walter Nannaley 299 


Nicholas Overburry 809 

Jno Owen / 25 



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 



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 



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 n8 

Matthew Sturdivant 150 

Capt Stith 470J/2 




Major Henry Tooker for the 

Merchants in London . . . 4600 

George Tilliman 446 

Jno Tilliman 530 

Wm Tomlinson 400 

Adam Tapley 977 

Capt Jno Taylor 1700 

Mich. Taburd 150 

Maj r Tooker 181 

Robert Tooker 400 

Robert Tester 170 

Joseph Tooker 200 

Wm Tempel 100 

Jno Thornhill 350 

Jno Taylor 100 

Nath. Tatham Jun 200 

Samuel Tatham Sen 100 

Samuel Tatham Jun 195 

Henry Talley 639 

Richard Turberfield 140 

Francis Tucker 100 

Xath. 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 



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 


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 v 

Antho Wyatt 250 1/ 

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 


John Woodlife Sen 644 

Wm Wallis 200 



Dannell Young 283 

John Young 200 


A 3217 

B 12986 

C 7622 

D 2156 

g 7243 

£ 2241 

£ 5435 

** 17366^ 

J 6542 

K 1 160 

L 51 14 

JJ 6839 

J? 419 

£ 9203 

g 2^7? 

-> 8272 



T 14462 

V 2163 

W 13684 

Y 583 

Deduct the new discovered 
Land 10000 

Accounted for 1 17218J4 

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 Or- 
phans per Capt Giles 
Webb 129 

Morris Halliham Orphans 
ped Robert Rivers 200 

Crockson Land formerly 
& who it belongs to now I 
cannot find 750 


1 1 72 18H acres at 24 lb tob° per 

100 is 28132 lb tobacco 

at 5s per lb is 70 6 6 

Sallary 10 per cent 7 10^ 

63 5 
per William Epes Sheriff 


Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj tle In Surry County 
Anno Domini 1704 

Allin Arthur Major 6780 

Andrews Bartho 375 

Avery Jno 150 

Atkins Thomas 


Averett Jno 120 

Atkinson Richard 

Andrews Thomas 

Andrews Robert 




Andrews David 225 



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 1 160 

Bagley Peter 100 

Barker Jery 420 

Bunell Hezichiah 150 

Bougher Phill 100 

Baile Jno 250 

Bagley Edward 350 


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 55° 

Candenscaine Obedience . . 200 



Dicks James 400 

Davis Arthur 460 

Drew Thomas 800 

Drew Edward 600 

Delk Roger 790 

David Arthur 50 

Dean Richard 100 

Davis Nath 157 



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 


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 


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 


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 Wra 696 

Home Richard 100 

Hollingsworth Henry 60 

Howell Wm 50 



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 



Kigan Mary 200 

Killingworth Wm 60 

Knott Wm 300 



Ludwell Philip Coll 1 100 

Lancaster Robert 100 

Lacey Mary 100 

Lang Mary yy 

Lane Thomas 200 

Lane Thomas Jun 200 

Laughter Jno 300 

Laneere George 300 

Lasley Patrick 520 

Lucas Wm 315 



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 



Newton Wm 225 

Newton Robert 250 

Newitt Wm 330 

Norwood Richard 80 

Nicholl George 150 

Nichols Robert 230 

Noeway Barefoot 150 

Norwood George 330 



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 



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 





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 1S00 

Shrowsbury Joseph 260 

Shrowsbury Francis 820 

Savage Henry 200 

Short Wm 400 

Scarbro Edw 15° 

Scagin Jno 100 

Simmons Jno 1300 

Shrowsbury Thomas 566 

Stockly Richard 100 

Smith Thomas 380 



Thompson Samuell 3104 

Tooker Henry Major 700 

Taylor Ethelrcd 538 

Thorp Joseph 250 

Tyous Thomas 400 

Taylor Richard 77 



Vincent Mary 187 


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 1 160 

Warren Robert 150 

Welch Henry 100 

Warrick John 80 

Wilkinson Matthew 200 

W iggins Thomas 300 

Waple Jno 300 

Witherington Nicholas . . . 100 

Will Roger 78 

White Charles 136 



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 

1 16089 
New Land allowed per order 3841 

1 12248 

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 

Bennies Orphans 950 

Mrs. Mary White 200 

1 150 



Lands held by persons living out of 
the Country 

Capt Jno Taylor 850 

M rs. Sarah Low 500 

Mr. Jno Hamlin IOO 

Capt Thomas Harrison .... 530 

1 150 


Bartho Clement one tract of Land 
he living in England the quantity 

Jno Davis one Tract Living in Isle 
of Wight 

Geo & River Jorden one Tract & 
denys to pay Qt Rents for it & 
no persons living thereon, there is 
one Bray Living in Warwick has 
a small tract Land 

A List of her Maj tya Q l Rents For the Isle Wighte County in 

Year 1704 


Jno Atkins 

James Atkinson , 

Win Exam 

Win Brown 

Francis Exam 

Richard Bennett 

James Briggs 

Ph. Bratley 

Abr. Drawler 

Jno Branch 

Francis Branch 

Edward Brantley 

John Brantley 

Edward Boykin 1 

George Barloe 

Jno Geoge 

Thomas Carter 

Reubin Cooke 

Jno Clarke 

Thomas Cook 

Wm Clark 

Edward Champion 

Jno Dowles 

Peter Deberry 

Thomas Davis N 

Jno Davis 

Peter Hayes 

Christo. Hollyman 

Richard Hardy 

Thomas Holyman 

Jno Harris 

Silvester Hill 

Roger Hodge 

Arthur Jones 

Edward Jones 

Richard Jones 

Jno Johnson 

Rosier Ingram 

200 Matt. Jorden 1950 

400 Thomas Newman 360 

440 George Readich 790 

150 Francis Lee 100 

200 Ph. Pardoe 100 

70 Jno Parsons 155 

100 George Moore 400 

200 Jno Mangann 100 

200 Robert Mongo 400 

45 Henry Martin 200 

50 Jno Murray 650 

175 Francis Rayner 80 

364 Jno Richardson 150 

100 James Sampson 1200 

80 Jno Stevenson 150 

200 Thomas Sherrer 200 

700 Jno Sherrer 200 

250 Wm Thomas 250 

850 Thomas Tooke 1228 

300 Thomas Throp 350 

600 Baleaby Terrell 100 

600 Peter Vasser 230 

150 Jno Williams 600 

100 George Williamson 2735 

100 Fra. Williamson 2035 

250 Thomas Wood 50 

600 James Lupe 45 

400 Elizabeth Reynolds 100 

700 Jno Sojourner 240 

150 Robert Hoge 60 

365 Andrew Woodley 770 

925 Arthur Allen 1800 

300 Henry Baker 750 

900 Rubin Prochter 250 

250 Thomas Howell 100 

250 Nath Whitby 170 

890 Jane Atkins 600 

300 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 4SO 

Charles Edwards 40° 

Wm Exam 150 

Major Lewis Burwell 7000 

Henry Applewaite 1500 

Thomas Pitt 300 

Jno Pitt 340O 

Mary Benn 675 

Robert Clark 45<> 

Antho Holliday 860 

Wm Westrah 450 

Elizabeth Gardner 100 

Jno Gardner 246 

Jno Turner v 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 Ratclifre 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 1 100 

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 j , 100 

Robert Johnson i 2450 

Jno Minshea '. 300 

Wm Pryan i . . 200 

Wm Dawes 400 

Nicholas Tyner 300 

Isaac Ricks 700 

Robert Scott i. .. 300 

Jno Roberts < . . . 950 

Wm Duck I . . . 180 

Robert Lawrence 400 

Jno Denson 200 

Robert Smelly 600 

Francis Bridle 250 

Roger Fearlton . ... 237 

Thomas Bullock 100 

Wm. Marf ry '. . . . 600 

Thomas Powell 100 

Widdo Glyn 300 

Jno Pope 250 

Thomas Gayle 200 

Wm Powell 200 

Richard Hutchins 300 

Henry Boseman ... . .. 100 

Henry Pope 557 

John Williams 97 1 

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 

Wm Bridger. 


A Compleat List of the Rent Roll of the Land in Nansemond County 

In Anno 1704 

John Murdaugh 300 Robert Baker 

Jno Duke 1 13 Isaac Sketto 

Thomas Duke Jun 930 Edward Sketto 

Edward Roberts 250 Antho Gumms 

Paul Pender 240 Francis Sketto 

Thomas Duke 400 Wm Parker 

James Fowler 440 Francis Parker 





Thomas Parker 3°o 

Jno Small 100 

Moses Hall 95 

Edward Beamond 550 

Richard Parker 514 

Capt James Jessey 550 

\\ m Sanders 200 

Jno Sanders 165 

Thomas Mansfield 60 

Win 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 J un 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 Home 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 §70 

Jno Drury gj 

Jpseph Booth q8j 

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 J un 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 Jim 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 

Era. Cambridge 100 

Wm Waf d 200 

J no 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 IO o 

Thomas Parker TO o 

Peter Parker ^q 

Wm Parker I40 

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 35<> 

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 00 

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 200 

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 no 

Jno Chilcott 100 

Jno Rutter 80 

Thomas Rutter 75 

Wm. Rutter 75 

Capt Barnaby Kemey 460 

Thomas Cutchins 150 

Robert Lawrence 130 

Samuell Cahoone 240 

Jno lies 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 ISO 

James Ward 100 

Widdow Hudnell 45 

Wm Grandberry 300 

Israeli 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 34° 

John Wakefield 50 

Richard Wynn 890 

James Lockhart 800 

John Keeton 2000 

1 1 7024 
Jno Murrow 200 

1 17224 
Added to make up equll 13850 

the last year list 

which may be supposed I3 J 074 
to be held by persons 
that have not made both 

Persons living out of the County 
and other that will not pay or give 
account. Viz : 

Capt Thomas Lovett 

Capt Jno Wright 

Fra Parker Jun 

Tho Martin 

Jno Wright 

Wm Lapiter 

Jno Lapiter 

Capt Luke Haffield 

Mrs Elizabeth Swann 

Errors excepted per me 

Henry Jenkins 

An Alphabetical List of the Quit Rents of Norfolk County 1704 

Ashley Dennis . .\ 150 

Avis Widdow 50 

Adam Wm 100 

Alexander John 300 

Barington Wm 100 

Bartee Robert 150 

Bull Robert Sen 1050 

Blanch Wm 100 

Bond Wm 200 

Brown Widdow 270 

Bruce Abraham 1010 

Brown Wm 100 

Bowers Jno 166 

Bolton Wm 212 

Byron Roger 200 

Bayley Walter 290 

Bruce Jno 300 

Bishop Wm 100 

Bull Henry 1500 

Bucken Wm 410 

Babington Thomas 150 

Babington Jno 150 

Babington Rich 50 

Burges George 200 

Burges Robert 535 

Butt Richard 1840 

Brown Edward 300 

Bigg Thomas 100 

Balingtine Alexander 300 

Balengtine George 510 



Bull Thomas 2200 

Bramble Henry 100 

Blake Arthur 200 

Bolton Richard 700 

Branton John 330 

Bacheldon Joseph 300 

Bush Samuell Major 1628 

Balingtine Wm 60 

Bowles Henry 330 

Cartwright Peter 1050 

Cooper Wm 150 

Cooper Jno 150 

Cramore George 100 

Carling Walton 50 

Carling Joseph 200 

Curch Richard 1050 

Churey Widdow 600 

Cuthrell Going 470 

Crekmore Edward too 

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 W r m 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 BR 50 

Etherdge Thomas Sen 34 

Etherdge Thomas Jun 33 

Etherdge Edward 66 

Etherdge Wm 250 

Etherdge Wm Jun 80 

Etherdge Marmadukc 525 

Edmonds John 50 

Ellis Wm 200 

Htherdge 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 

God fry John 1470 

Godfry Matthew 450 

Gref en Jno 200 

Garen Daniell 50 

Guy John no 

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 no 

Holyday Jno 440 

Hodges Joseph 50 

Hoges Thomas 407 

Hoges John 520 

Hollowell Jno Sen 524 

Hollygood Thomas 100 

Hollowell Jno 200 

Hoisted Henry 633 

Hollowell Joseph 1280 

Hoisted John 350 

Hues Edward 1304 

TTullett Jno 300 

Hodges Roger 109 

Hodges Thomas 50 

Hodges Richard 375 

Harvey Richard 265 

Handberry ^00 

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 y-^ 

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 6^3 

Mason George 300 

Mockey Adam 400 

Newton George ing 

Nicholson Jno 160 

Nash Thomas 5° 

Nicholson Henry 320 

Nash Richard 100 

Nicholson Wm 300 

Norcote Thomas 2J2> 

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 

Sharpies 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 ioo 

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 

W^atkins 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 

Weight James 216 

W^adborn Mich 500 

Williams Jane 400 

Webb Mary 100 

Worminton John 200 

Wilden Francis 100 

Widdick Henry 343 

1 13684 

New discovered Land 1615 

1 12069 

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 


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 

Mr. Wm. Corneck 

Jno Oakham 

David Scott 

Jno Keeling 

Adam Keeling 

Humphrey Smith 

Jno Halise 

Capt Wm Crawford 

Richard Williamson 

Edward Tranter 

Jno. Sherland 

Robert Rany 

Edward Old 

Coll Lemuell Mason 

Mr. Francis Emperor 

James Kemp 

Bartho : Williamson 

Symon Hancock Jun .... 

George Batten 

Matth : Brinson 

Mr. Edward Mosseley Sen 

Wm Martin 

James Joslin 

Alexander Lilburn 

James William 

Mr. Henry Spratt 

Symon Hancock Sen 

Thomas Walk 

Jno Kemp 

Randolph Lovett 

Edward Davis 

Jno Sammons 

Elizabeth Edwards , 

Mr. Benj. Burroughs 

Jno Muncreef 

Matt: Pallett ..[', 

Mrs. Thurston 

Lancaster Lovett 

Robert Cartwright 

Jno. Cartwright 

Nath : Macklakan 

Adam Thorowgood 

Henry Walstone . ; 

Edward Land 

Thomas Hall 

Wm. Catherill '.'..'..'. 

Doctor Browne 

John Richardson 

Robert Richmond 

Thomas Benson 

Lewis Pervine 

Edward Attwood 


100 Wm. Moore 414 

1974 Mr. Henry Woodhouse 3000 

390 Tully Emperor 300 

600 Jno. Godfrey 170 

2000 Wm Dyer 700 

500 Edward Cooper 200 

SO Wm Ship 300 

130 Jno Buck 250 

2650 Peter Mallbourn 280 

45° Benjamin Roberts 100 

180 Capt Jno Gibbs 3100 

800 Sarah Sanford 1200 

70 Henry Harrison 300 

450 James Lemon 1500 

650 Wm Wallsworth 100 

400 Wm Capps 1050 

681 Jacob Taylor 80 

400 Stephen Pace 50 

200 Adam Hayes 1360 

150 Wm Chichester 400 

250 Robert Dearemore 514 

1000 Capt. Francis Morse 1300 

200 Patrick Anguish 150 

100 Thomas Brock 400 

500 Wm Brock 100 

100 Jno Sullivant 200 

1736 Francis Sheene 300 

300 Jno Acksted 400 

298 Charles Hendley 100 

340 Duke Hill 70 

100 Job Brooks 150 

200 Jno Brooks 100 

150 Thomas Turton no 

50 Peter Crosby 250 

800 Jno Pisburn 314 

140 James Sherwood 200 

600 Edward Cannon 550 

290 Richard Capps I00 

1850 John Doley 640 

260 Matthew Mathias 80 

100 Mr. James Peters 889 

100 Jno Owens IQ0 

700 Josvas Morris goo 

800 Thomas Mason 140 

400 Wm. Wishart 200 

400 Jno Russell 300 

150 Stephen Sail 2 =;o 

600 Timothy Dennis 100 

1000 George Walker 425 

1000 Wm. Ashby IO o 

225 Charles Griffin 2 i6 

800 Symon Franklin 100 

400 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 94° 

Henry Southern 640 

John Wharton 850 

Joseph Doller 150 

Jno Briggs 600 

Francis Jones 100 

Thomas Lurrey 100 

Thomas Walker 820 

Steph Swaine 45° 

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 

Danicll Lane 350 

George Fowler 600 

Jno Booth 350 

Giles Collier 500 

Jacob Johnson 1700 

Alexander Willis 150 

Richard Bonny 2000 

M r. lames Doage 784 

Antho: Barnes 200 

I n< 1. Macklalin 120 

Thomas Etherington 108 

Jno J ames 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 Denbv 600 

Thomas Keeling 700 

Wm. More 100 

Thomas Cason 550 

Sarah Jackson 600 

Jacob More 200 

I tenry 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 Curie 300 

M r. Nicho. Curie 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 ... no 

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 

1 no 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 ^33 

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 2=;o 

John Passones 780 

Rebeckha Morgan ep 

Thomas Roberts 250 



Mr. John Turner 50 

Henry Lais 5° 

Capt. Henry Jenkins 300 

Mr. Francis Ballard per 
Selden 460 


Henry Royall Sgeriff 

A True & Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands that is held in Warwick 

County 1704 

Major Wm. Cary 

Mr. Nedler Plantacon 

Rober Hubbert 

Wm. Harwood 

Richard Glanvills Orphans. 

Wm. Hubbert 

Henry Gibbs 

Wm. Hewitt 

James Hill 

John Golden 

Thomas Harwood 

Jno. Harwood 

Capt. Thomas Charles 

Hump: Harwood 

Matthew Wood 

Edward Joyner 

Coll. Dudley Diggs 

Elizabeth Lucas 

John Hillard 

Edward Lof tes 

Wm. Rowles Orphans 

Samuell Hatton 

Isaac Goodwin 

George Robinson 

Seymon Powell 

John Dawson 

Wades Orphans 

Henry Dawson 

John Bowger 

Joseph Cooper 

Robert Roberts 

George Burton 

Capt. Mills Wells 

Roger Daniell Orphans 

Jno Hansell 

Emanuell Wells 

Elizabeth Wells Widdow . . 

Widdow Lewelling 

Wm. Wells 

Elias Wells 

Widdow Pierce 

Thomas Haynes 

Jojin Scarsbrook 

300 Francis Jones l 5° 

80 Matthew Jones 75° 

101 Jno. Read 875 

625 Mr. Brewer Land 135° 

165 Mr. Henry Cary 670 

200 Langhorne Orphans 602 

315 Coll. Coles Orphans 1350 

150 Peter Jones 150 

135 Samuell Crew Orphans 150 

50 Samuell Symons 173 

575 Mrs. Elizabeth Whitaker. . 600 

704 Capt. Miles Cary 600 

100 John Cannon 75 

400 John Linton 75 

300 Richard Gough 60 

60 'Coll. Miles Cary i960 

4626 Mr. Jno. Mallnote 61 

800 Rowlands Williams 170 

74 Robert Chapell 150 

60 James Chapell 100 

150 Edward Powers 200 

225 James White 40 

225 Peter Sawers Orphans 95 

70 Wm. Cotton 143 

250 James Cotton 70 

300 John Croley 100 

100 Stephen Burgess 128 

200 Widdow Yorgen 60 

100 George Jackson 193 

200 Sarah Ranshaw 125 

60 Richard Wootton 243 

330 Samuell Hoggard 120 

425 James Floyd 100 

196 Fr : Rice Orphans 200 

100 Mr. Math Hoggard 270 

325 Widdow Chapell 321 

155 Thomas Ascow 50 

100 Garrett Ridley 300 

615 Samuell Ranshaw 238 

50 Charle Stuckey 86 

155 Jos Naylor 100 

850 Jos Russell 150 

850 Charles Allen 295 



Wm. Newberrey 100 

John Turmer 100 

Wm. Smith 150 

Elizabeth Holt 150 

James Browne 15° 

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 1 195 

Thomas Hansford never 
before paid 



Persons out of the County 

Jno Trevillian 248 

Holman Orphans . . 200 448 

Robert Hubberd Sherriff 

A Rent Roll of all the Land In York County 1704 

Wm. Jackson 200 

Matt : Pierce 100 

Jno. Latin 150 

Robert Cobbs 100 

Francis Sharp 100 

Geo : Baskewyle 350 

Richard Gilford 100 

Jos : Frith 50 

Wm. Jones 70 

Nath : Crawley 384 

Thomas Crips 750 

Wm. Davis 200 

Lewis Barnoe . . .*> 80 

Arthur Lun 50 

Jno. Bates 669 

Jno Serginton 150 

Wm. Taylor 100 

Richard Page 150 

Wm. Jorden 580 

Jno. Lynes 150 

Alex : Banyman 50 

Wm. Cobbs 50 

Mary Whaley 550 

Henry Tyler 180 

Richard Kendall 150 

Wm. Hansford 300 

Nicholas Sebrell 150 

David Stoner 50 

Ralph Hubberd 50 

Wm. Harrison 5° 

Jno. Wyth 100 

Thomas Hill 93<> 

Thomas Vines 200 

Morgan Baptist 100 

Phil. Deadman 75 

Bazill Wagstaff 127 

Wm. Allen 117 

Robert Read 750 

Jos : Mountf ord 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 ioo 

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 5° 

Wm. Davis 100 

Wm. Buckner 302^ 

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. Benj afield 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 

Win. 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 IO o 

Jno. Gibons 50 

Elizb. Goodwin 1200 

Samuell Cooper 150 

Jno. Fips i 50 

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 

Added to make up the 
old Roll 

Wm. Barbar S Y C 

6ii32 l / 2 


The Rent Roll of the Land 


Adkinson Tho 50 

Adkinson Henry 250 

Armestone Joshua . . . . 50 

Adams Anne 150 

Argo James 200 

Abbitt Francis 100 

Apercon Wm 80 

Allen Richard 540 



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 

in James City County 1704 

Bowers Wm so 

Broadnax Wm '. 1683 

Bayley Wm IOO 

Black Geo 200 

Bush Jno " 800 

Ballard Tho ..'.[ IOO 

Bray David 575 8 

Burton Ralph ,[ 2 oo 

Blankitt Henry [ I00 

Brand Richard ,. j 25 

Breeding Jno '' IOO 

Bruer Thackfield ?=r 

Blackley Wm {L 

Barratt Wm o c 

Barron Tho *. I( ^ 

Blankes Henry A K n 

BagbyTho.... .'.',] °J& 

Barnes Francis 200 

Brackitt Tho .' ISO 

Browne Wm \ I0 y o 

Buxton Samuell .' 300 

Bimms Christo '" 300 

Ballard Wm ][[ ^qq 



Boman 9° 

Benge Robert 6° 



Center Jno I0 ° 

Clerk Wm "00 

Charles Phill 200 

Capell Tho 200 

Cearley Wm 450 

Clerk Robert 3<x> 

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 



Dormar Jno 100 

Drummond Wm 150 

Deane Jno *5° 

Duckitt Abraham 290 

Danzee Jno Jacob Coignan 411 1 

Deane Tho 80 

Deane Wm 100 

Drummond Jno 7°o 

Deane Tho 150 

Duke Tho 75<> 

Davey Francis 778 

Doby Jno 300 

Duke Henry Jun 50 

Duke Henry Esq 2986 

1 1695 


Elerby Elizabeth 600 

Edmunds Elizabeth 175 

Eggleston Joseph 55<> 

Eglestone Benj 1375 

Frayser Jno 250 

Fox Wm 50 

Fouace Stephen 150 

Fish Jno 100 

Freeman George 197 

Furrbush Wm. 400 

Flanders Francis 35° 



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 

Fearecloth Tho 
Farthing Wm. , 





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 



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 



Knowstarp 150 


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 



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 



Norrell Hugh 328 

Nicholson Jno 144 

Nicholls Henry 100 

Nailer Wm 300 

O'Mooney Mary 126 



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 



Rhodes Randall 50 

Ryder Mary 35° 

Rhodes Francis 100 

Rovell Jno 50 

Revis Wm 150 

Russell Samuell 350 



Stafford Mary 210 

Sanders Jno 50 

Sewell Jno 75 

Sprattley Jno 350 

Smith Christo 450 

Short Jno 00 

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 


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 



Vaughn Henry 1900 

Udall Matthew 50 

Verney Wm 50 

Vaiding Isaac 300 



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 


Young Robt 350 

Young Thomas 350 

1 14780 



Benj. Shottwater of York 

County 300 

Tho. Sorrell 300 

Mary Nosham at the 
Blackwater 168 


Henry Soane Junr. Sher. 

The Totall of the Acres 

in James City County 

1 14780 
Discovered of this for which 

the Shreiff is to be allowed 

the Qt. Rts. according to 
his odrs in Council 


108780 acres at 24 tob per 
100 is 26107 tob 

Whereof pd in Aronoco at 

6 per Ct 4000 

In Sweet Scented at 3s " 4d 

per Ct 22107 


New Kent County Rent Roll 

A Rent Roll of the Lands held of her Miaj tu in the Parish of St. Peters 
and St. Paulls. Anno 1704. 

Alford John 240 

Allen Richard 55<> 

Alex Abraham 100 

Allen Robt 100 

Austin 245 

Austin James 700 

Amos Fran lOO 

Ashcroft Tho 180 

Aldridge Jno 250 

Atkinson Jno 300 

Anthony Mark 190 

Anderson Jno 100 

Anderson Robt 900 

Arise Margt 200 

Austin Rich SO 

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 ioo 

Ashley Charles 100 


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 IOO 

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 



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 



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 



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 



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 W'm 100 



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 Xicho 250 

Garland Edwd 2600 

Glass Anne 150 

Granchaw Tho 4S0 

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 



Herlock John 320 

Hilton Jno 300 

Hughs Jno 180 

Huberd Jno . . . , 827 

Howie Jno 1^0 

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 

Horsier Rowland 250 

Horman Robt 300 

Hughes Rees 400 

Hill Samll 300 

Holled Samll 100 

Harrelston Paul 360 

Hatfield W'm 318 

Harris Wm 125 

Harris Benj 100 

Horkeey John 800 

Hairy John 2S0 

Haiselwood Jno 200 

Haiselwood Tho 150 

Hockiday W'm 300 

Holdcroft Henry 95 

Hogg Mary 140 

Harmon W'm 350 

Hogg Jno. Junr 260 

Harris W r m 100 

Hopkins W'm 200 

Howes Job 300 

Hight John 100 

Hankins Charles 340 

Harris W'm 150 

Harris Robt 75 

Handey W'm 150 

Hogg W T m 200 

Ha^elwood Richd 100 

Hariow Tho 230 

Hulton Geo 150 



Jackson Tho 500 

Izard Fran 1233 

Jarratt Robt 1600 

Johnson Mich 40 

Jones John 100 

Johnson W'm 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 



King Elizb 300 

Kembro Jno 540 

Kembro Jno Junr 150 

Keeling Geo 1500 





Lightfoot John Esq 3600 

Littlepage Richtl 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 VVm 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 1 150 

Linsey Wm 50 

Lane Tho 100 



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 

Maj or 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 no 

Merfield John 210 

Mills Nicho 300 

Mask Jno 41 1 

Medlock John 350 

Moor Edwd 65 

McKgene Wm 13^ 

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 



Nucholl James 300 

Neaves James 150 

Nonia Richd 100 

Norris Wm 100 



Osling John 150 

Otey John 290 

Oudton Matt 190 



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 15° 

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 



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 



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 no 

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 



Tony Alexandr 170 

Tovis Edmd 100 

Turner Henry 250 

Turner Wm 2 -,o 

Turner Geo 4^0 

Thorp Tho 200 

Thurmond Richd 131^ 

Tucker Tho -jqq 

Turner James e 

Thompson James 100 

Tully Wm 200 

Turner Geo Junr 200 

Tate James IO o 

Town Elizb IOO 

Thomasses Orphans 500 

Tinsle}' Cournelius 220 

T y ler .' 100 



Tinsley Tho 150 

Tirrell Wm 400 

Taylor Tho 25 

Tinsley Jno 130 

Tapp Jno 1 10 

Tyrrey James 150 

Tyrrey Alexandr 210 

Thompson Capt 2600 

Tyrey Thorn 190 

Taylor Joseph 150 

Taylor Lemuell 212 

Taylor Thomas 350 

Twitty Thomas 200 



Upsherd Jon 60 

Vaughan Wm 300 

Via Amer 50 

Venables Abr 100 

Venables John 200 

Vaughan John 250 

Vaughan Vincent 410 



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 -J 

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 ioo 

White John 190 


Yeoman John 
Yeoell Judith . 



Quit Rents that hath not been 
paid this 7 year viz. 

Richarson Matt 200 

Wm Wheeler 150 

Coll Parkes 300 


Lands that the Persons lives 
out of the County viz. 

Coll Lemuell Batthurst 800 

Robt Valkes 500 

The Heirs of Bray 500 


A 6785 

B 21786 

c 9251 

D 3845 

E 2530 

£ 3447 

£ 7442 

H 11312 



J 5838 

K 2490 

L 14760 

M i6i4r9 l A 

N 650 

O 630 

P 21573 

R 8298 

S 9813 

T 8708^ 

V 1370 

W 17292 

Y 200 

James Mosse Sherriff 


A full & Perfect Rent Rail of all the Land held of hsr Majtie in Charles 
City County this Present Year 1704 by Patents &c. 


Aliat John 100 


Bradley Joseph 200 

Baxter John 250 

Bishop Robt 200 

Bedingfield Theo : no 

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 

1 1337 

Cole Robt 80 

Codell Richd 100 

Clark Edwd 962% 

Clark Daniell 250 

Clark Joseph 230 

Christian Tho . . > 1273 

Cock Edwd 350 

Cock Richd 975 

Davis Thomas 
Davis Richd . . 





Epes John 500 

Ele Samll 682 

Evans John 800 


Floyd Geo 243 

Fowler Richd 150 

Flowers Samll 200 


Gunn James 250 

Grosse Edwd 100 



Hamlin Jno 143^ 

Hill Edwd 2100 

Haynes Nicho 125 

Harwood John 100 

Howood James 200 

Hattle Shard 112 

Harwood Joseph 659 

Harwood Samll 350 

Harwood Robt 312^2 

Hunt Wm 3130 

Hunt John 1500 

Harmon Elizb 479 

Hyde Wm 120 

Hamlin Stephen 80 

Hamlin Tho 264 


Edwards John 287^2 

Epes Littlebury 400 

Irby Wm 103 

Javox James 100 



Jordin Edwd ioo 

Justis Justinian 200 


Lowlin Danll 600 

Lawrence James 100 



Manders James 100 

Minge James I0 86' 

Mountford Jeffry 100 

Marvell Tho 1238 

Moodie Samll 8 2 

Muschamp John 80 


New Edwd 
New Robt . 

Owen Wm . . 
Owen David 






Parker Tho l66r 

Parish Wm IOO 

Parish Charles ..... 100 

Parker James ] IO q 

Parish Edwd IOO 

Parish John /... 100 



Roach Jno Senr A 2n 

Renthall Joseph ' 070 

Russell Samll .... £. 

Roper John ' 2 ™ 

Royall Joseph * 2 g 2 



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 



Tanner Tho 2000 

Tarendine John 150 

Turner Edwd 195 

Trotman Anne 120 



Vernon Walter 240 


Wyatt Widdo 800 J 

Woodam Tho IOO 

Waren John 54 



£ 100 

r ll 337 

n 3258 

p 3i8 

P 2669H 

r 593 

H 350 

Y 16015 

L 503 

M 7oo 

N 2686 

o 400 

p 200 

R 2227 

c l6 35 

T 4447 

V 2465 

w'::::::::" if 





An account of what Land that 
I cannot get the Quit Rents 
the Persons living out of the 

Josep Parish at Kiquotan. . . 1 

Richd Smith James City Cty 350 

Danll Hayley 200 

Wm Lagg Henrico Cty 100 

Tho Parker Sherif 


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 .1 250 

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 15° 

Hurt Wm Junr go 

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 Gabricll 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 

Xoyce Wm 650 

\apier Robert 100 

Owens Hugh 300 

Oustin John 350 

Oakes John 350 

Oliver John 140 

Palmer Martin 1200 

Peek Tohn 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 Gabricll 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 00 

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 


Wm Stanard M.S 1000 

James Wood K.Q 500 

Zachary Lewis K.Q 45° 

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 
by Robt. Bird Sherriff in the year 1704. 


Alford John 

Austin Danll 

Asque John 

Adams Johns . . . 
Arnold Edwd . . 
Allin Thomas . . . 
Adkinson John . . 
Austin Thomas . . 
Adamson David 
Anderson Richd 
Allcock Dorothy 


Baker Wm 

Beverley Robt. Qr 

Bennett Alexander 

Breeding Geo 

Bennett Wm N . 

Bowles Robt 

Bennett Sawyer 

Baylor John 

Bell Roger 

Burford Wm 

Bray John 

Blake Wm 

Boisseau James Quart 

Blake Wm Junr 

Brown Lancelet 

Burch Jno 

Burch Wm 

Brown Tho. Blakes Land 
Bridgeforth James 





Bagby Robt 

Banks Wm 

Bullock John 

Bird Wm 

Broach Jno 

Braxton Geo 

Blanchet John 

Bowker Ralph 

Bine Edmd 

Barber James 

Burgess Wm 

Bond Jno 

Breemer John 

Bland Henry 

Breemer John Junr 

Bowden Tho 

Barton Andrew . . 
Barlow Henry 

Baskett John 

Batterton Tho. 

Baker James 

Bill Robt 

Bocus Reynold . . . 
Bourne George . . . 
Bird Robt. 


Cane Jno 

Chessum Alexandr . 
Cook Benjamin 
Cook Thomas Junr . 
Cook Thomas Senr 

Cook Jno 

Cleyton John 

























Chapman Mary 200 

Clcyton Jeremy 3^5 

Crane Wm I2 ° 

Camp Thomas 2 ^° 

Carlcton Christo 20 ° 

Carleton Jno 3<x> 

Carter Timo ^° 

Coleman Tho 300 

Coleman Darnell .......... 4/<> 

Cleyton Susannah Widdo . . 700 

Collier Robt I0 ° 

Crane Wm 3W 

Crane Tho 320 

Chapman John 200 

Caughlane James I0 ° 

Cotton Catherine 50 

Collier Charles 45© 

Collier John 400 

Collins Wm 35° 

Cammell Alexandr 200 

Chin Hugh I0 ° 

Conner Timo 1410 

Collins James Yard Qr . . . . 300 

Corbin Gowin 20O ° 

Crisp Tobias IO ° 

Carters Qr 3O0 

Carlton Tho 200 

Carlton Anne 300 

Clough George Qr 390 


Clerk and Cordell both 

in Glocester 1000 


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 9°° 

Didlakc James 200 

Durham John 1 00 

Dunkley John 380 

Duson Tho 448 

Davis Nathll 3<x> 

Deshazo Peter 450 

Davis Jno 00 

Davis Edwd 100 

Dillard Thomas 170 

Davis Richd 250 

Dillard Geo 325 

Duglas James 275 

Dayley Owen 180 


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 


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 

Farmer John not paid for. 
Fox Margarett not pd for. 




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 Geofgc 150 



Garrett Danll 200 

Gamble Tho. Majors Land 450 

Gresham Tho 22 5 

Graves Jno J 50 

Guttery Jno 230 

Greogory Frances Widdo . . 700 

Gotigh Alice Widdo 800 

Griggs Francis 250 

Garrett John 330 

Garrett Humphrey 200 

Gibson Widdo 200 

Garrett Robt 200 



Hand Thomas 150 

Hayle John Qr o°5 

Honey James 200 

Holloway Wm I( x> 

Herndon James IO ° 

Hoomos George 7 2 5 

Hodges Thomas 250 

Hayle Joseph 250 

Hayes John IO ° 

Haynes Wm 494 

Holcomb Wm Bradfords 

Land 7°° 

Henderson John Thackers 

Land 200 

Hodgson Widdo 200 

Henderson Widdo 3°° 

Henderson Wm 162 

Housburrough Morris, Harts 

Land 200 

Hesterley John 200 

Hill John 200 

Hordon Wm 70 

Harris Wm 250 

Hart Tho 2°° 

Hockley Robt 100 

Howard Peter 300 

Hardgrove Wm 100 

Herring Arthur 50 

Hickman Thomas 700 

Hunt Wm 3" 

Hobs Wm 250 

Hicks Richd 250 

Howden Wm 100 

Howerton Thomas 300 

Holt Joseph lives in 

Maryland 3 21 

Mayward Tho in Glocester. . 000 


Jones Tho l 5P 

Jones Robt 200 

Jeffrys Richd 337 

Jones Robt Junr 130 

Johnson James 200 

Jones Wm °oo 



King John *50 

Kallander Timo IO ° 

Kink Anne 2 75 

King Edwd 200 

Knowles Dorothy Qr 150 

King Robt 100 

Kenniff Danby I0 ° 

King Daniell 200 



Loveing John I0 ° 

Lyon Peter 25° 

Leigh John 6200 

Lumpkin Robt 400 

Lee Wm 2 3° 

Loob Wm IO ° 

Loft Richd 320 

Lewis Tachary 350 

Lumpkin Jacob 95° 

Lewis David I2 ° 

Lewis John Esq 10100 

Lewis Edwd Moo 

Lemon Elizb I0 ° 

Lynes Rebecea 405 

Levingstone John 000 

Levingstone Samll *oo 

Lawrence Matthew 210 

Letts Arthur 475 

Langford John J 50 

Levingstone Jno Sowels 

Land 750 


Leftwich Thomas in Essex 75 




May John 300 

M usick George ioo 

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 IOO 

Major John 400 

Melo Nicho 200 

Marcartee Daniell 200 

Morris Wm 300 

Mead Wm 100 

Matthews Edwd 160 

Martin Cordelia Wido .... 200 



Xelson Henry 440 

Neal John 50 

Nason Joshua 200 

Norman Wm 300 

Xorris James IOO 



Owen Ralph 120 

Ogilvie Wm 300 

Orrill Lawrence 290 

Orrill Wm 500 

Orsbourn Michaell 90 

Overstreet James Qr 180 

ditto at home 50 



Powell Robt 500 

Prewitt Wm 200 

Paine Bernard 130 

Pomea Francis 100 

Philip Charles 250 

Pettitt Thomas 548 

Pollard Robt 500 

Pollard Wm 100 

Pliinkett Elizb 500 

Pemberton Tho 115 

Pickles Tho gj 

Potters Francis Wido 

Meals 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 


Pate John in Glocester 1000 


Quarles James 300 

Quarles Dyley Zacha : 

Lewis Land 300 



Richard Robt 300 

Rings Quarter 1000 

Robinson Daniel IOO 

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 

John the son of Robt 
Robinson hold, which 

nobody pays for 750 


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 

Shepai d 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 


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 


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 



Vaughan Cornelius 500 

Vize Nathll 100 

Uttley John 200 



Wood James 800 

Wilkinson John 100 

Wright Tho 300- 

Watkins Wm 137 

Wiltshier Toseph 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 53° K 

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 



\\ herein John 200 

Wise Richd quarts 209 

Walker John, Johnsons 

Land 1000 

Wadlington Paul not paid 

for being 150 


York Matthew 100 

A 2300 

B 22535 

^ 12235 

D 5618 

E 3020 

F 4355 

G 6100 

H 8098 

J 191/ 

f- J 335 

t- r 23310 

M 5377 

N 1090 

Q 600 

R 8359 

5. r 4599 

1 10872 

U 800 

W 16920 

Y 100 


Lands returned not paid for 

C 1000 

£ 300 

n 920 

p 75 

r 1000 

5 "50 

^ 6020 

W iso 


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 j I02 

W m Collone 400 

Hannah Camell 100 

Benj Clements 400 

Jno Cleake IOO 

Wm Cook X or 

Jno Coleman 200 

Jno Day 400 

Jerim Darnell x^o 

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 

\K xtnder How 120 

Richd Hill -0 

Robt Hall IO0 

Richd Hull 250 

San 11 Hawes 200 

Stephen Johnson 150 



Wm Jones for Northington 530 

Glebe Land 127 

Jno Kingson 400 

Capt Edwd Lewis 1000 

Richd Lee Esq 1 140 

Nicho Lewis orphen 350 

Wm Milner 900 

Richd Minor 250 

Edwd Musgrove 100 

Hayes an orphan 60 

Elizb Mastin 360 

Jno Mackwilliams 50 

Robt Kettles 300 

Wm Norman 150 

Isaac Oliver 100 

Dorothy Oliver 130 

Jno Pritchett 850 

Jno Pate 1 100 

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 


Tho Xeale 

Glocester Rent Roll 
A Rent Roll of Kingston Parish 

Rose Curtis 400 

Robt Peyton 680 

Richd Perrott 35 

Henry Preston . . v 1500 

Sarah Green 200 

Robt Cully 200 

Thomas Hayes 140 

Andrew Bell 128 

Humphry Toy 1 100 

Anne Aldred 350 

Dunkin Bahannah H3/4 

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 1 13^ 

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 1.48 



Win Hampton 348 

Widdo Green 150 

Capt Dudley 650 

Capt. Knowles S75 

Capt. Tho. Todd 775 

Win I Ward IOO 

Win. Tomkins 100 

Henry Bolton 50 

W m Fliott 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 22, 

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 43© 

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 1 100 

Lindseys Land 390 

Thomas Garwood "jy 

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 1 100 

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 

Ambrose Dudley 



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 Shackellield 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 N . 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 


Glocester Rent Roll 
A Rent Roll of Abbington Parish 

Mr. Guy Smith 

James Cary 

Wm. Sawyer 

Edwd. Cary 

Robt. Barlow 

Tho. Cleaver Sworne 
Edwd. Stevens 

30 Henry Stevens 60 

50 Chillion White 100 

150 Jerimah Holt 350 

100 of Ditto for the Widdo Babb 150 

62 Robt. Yarbborrow 100 

200 Robt. Starkey 100 

80 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 

1 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 

Benj a 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 

VVm. 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 

Richd. Cordell 

Ware 31603 

Petso 41 123 

Kingston 46537 


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 1 100 

Richd Kemp 1 100 

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 7°° 

James Smith 400 

Harry Beverley s IOOO 

George Wortham 400 

Capt. Grimes 900 

Sarah Mickleborough 1000 

Christo. Robinson 4000 

John Vibson 100 

James Daniell 150 

Tames 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 Xicholls 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. Heme 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 

Cull Kemp 900 

Wm. Barbee 150 

Wm. Wallis 300 

Adam Curtin 200 

Capt. Wm Armistead 2325 




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 IOO 

Allin Wm 100 

Ayres Wm 200 

Acres Wm 200 


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 noo 

Baulwar John 50 

Booth Widdo 800 

Butler Jno 100 

Butcher Jno 150 

Bendrev 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 35<> 

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 


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. Or 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 




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 Wra 100 

Daingerfield Jno 270 

Daingerfield Wm 270 

Dunn Wm 220 

Dyer Jeffrey 100 

Day Richd 100 

Dicks Thomas 500 


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 


Green George . . N 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 IOO 

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 150 

2 3 8 


Martin John 400 

Morgain John 100 

Miller John 150 

Medor Tho 3°o 

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 7- 

Powell Wm 72 

Powell Place 72 

Powell Tho 72 

Payne Widdow 1000 

Perkin Henry 300 

Prichett Roger 167 

Paggett Edmd 7°o 

Price John 1 100 

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. Uipshaw 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 7^ 

Salmon John 60 

Spiers Jno 160 

Smith Wm 150 

Stokes Richd 500 

Smith Charles 3000 

Sullenger Peter 400 

Sales Widdo 1 150 

Shipley Jno 200 

Spearman Job 300 

Smith Francis 500 

Stallard Samll 100 

Ship Jos 350 

Short Tho 150 

Scott Wm 1 100 

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 ill 

Thacker Samll no 

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 IOO 

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 

Lands held in the above said County 

the Rents not paid and held by 

the severall Gentlemen as followth 

John Smith Esqr. of Glo- 

cester County 800 

Wm. Buckner of Glocester 

by information 1500 

Jno. Light foot Esqr. New 

Kent County 900 

Jno. Bridgate in Engld 700 

Richd. Wyatt & Jno. Pettus 

of King & Queen Cty. . . . 800 
Wm. Berry of Richmond 

Comity 400 

Richard Covington 

Accomack Rent Roll 

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 

Burnell Niblett 

Majr. Bennit Scarbrough 






Corneline Hermon 321 

Christo Stokly 200 

Charles Scarbrough 1000 

Charles Leatherbeny 1 100 

Charles Bally 959/^ 

Charles Pywell 150 

Churchhil Darby 125 

Charles Evill 55° 

Charles Champison 270 

Christo Hodey 50° 

Cornelius Lofton 166 

Charles Stockley 170 

Charles Taylor" 580 

Catherine Gland 217 



Dorman Derby 225 

Daniell Derby Senr 300 

Dorothy Littlchouse 250 

David Watson 200 

Delight Shield 300 

Daniel Derby Junr 125 

Daniel Harwood 100 

Dennis Mores 200 

Daniel Gore 397^ 



(nil Edmd Scarbrough ... 2000 

Edwd Hitchins 170 

Edwd Turner 75° 

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 



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 



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 

1 1067 











Hill D 






Armtrading 175 

Chance 445 

Selman 180 

Ubankes 400 

Lurton 363 

Stokes 208 

Custis 774 

Bagwell 412 

Read 350 

Ayres 250 

rummond 483 

Toules 300 

Hickman 135 

Gibbins 250 

Truett 240 



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 no 

Jno. Rowles 650 

Jno. Savage Senr 350 

Jno Charles 480 

Jno Willis Senr 430 

Jno Willis Junr 350 

James Fairfax 000 

Joseph Milby 830 

John West Junr 5,00 

J no 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 


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 1 170 

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 ioo 

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 



Michaell Recetts 300 

Mrs. Mattilda West 3600 

M arke Evcll 250 

Mary Wright 200 



Nicholas Mellchops 285 

Nathaniel Williams 64 

Xathaniell Rattcliff 300 



Owen Collonell 500 

Overton Mackwilliams .... 200 
Obedience Pettman 1 15 



Peter Major 113 

Philip Parker 150 

Peter Rogers 167 

Perry Leatherbury 1750 

Peter Turlington 79 

Peter Ease 250 

Philip Fisher 433 

Peter Chawell 250 



Roht. Pell 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 



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 



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 



Wm. Robins 200 

Wra 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 Maj or 130 

Wm Meeres 150 

Wm Mack Sear 800 

Wm Savage 150 

Wm Waite no 

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 



Win. Benstone Jun 270 

Win Dickson for Mr. Lit- 
tleton 1050 

Win Waite Senr 225 

Win Taylor 1400 



Added to this Rent Roll the 
following Lands of which 
the Quit Rents may pos- 
sibly 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 I Iagard 130 


An Account of what Land 
in Accomack County the 
owners whereof are not 
Tho Preson of Northamp- 
ton 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 South- 

erd 1000 

Grattiance Michell North.. 200 

Matt. Tyson Southerd 3°o 

Teagle Woltham Maryld.. 200 

Peter Waltham New Engld 200 

Jno Waltham Maryld 200 

1 1707 

Jno Wise Sheriff 

The Rent Roll of Northampton County for the Year of our Lord God 1704 


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 


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 


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 2=50 

Clerk Geo 833 

Caple Nath 100 

Callinett J no ico 

Crew John 300 

Costin Francis 275 

Custis Majr John 3250 

Custis Hancock c;o 

Chick Tho 100 

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 Wra _|20 

Dunton Benj 220 

Duparks Tho 90 

Davis Jno 850 

Dunton Joseph 120 

Dixon Michaell 460 

Eshon Jno 600 

Evans John 200 

Edmunds David 500 

Evans Tho 300 

Esdoll Geo 100 

Eyres Tho 1 133 

Eyres Nich 325 

Eyres Capt Jno 774 

Eyres Anne Wido, J2>i 

Esdoll Edwd 100 

Fisher John 6371/' 

Francisco Dan 150 

Fisher Tho 637^2 

Foster Robt 1 50 

Fabin Paul 60 

Frost Tho 100 

Frank Jno 500 

Floyd Charles 378 

Freshwater Geo 200 

Frizell Geo i_jo 

Freshwater Win 200 

Fitchett Joshua 100 

Floyd Berry & Matthew .. 555 


Gogui David 150 

Gill Robt 200 

Gascoyne Robt 125 

Gascoyne Wm 525 

Greene Jno Senr 2200 

Giddens Tho 227 

Grice Peter j o 

Godwin Devorix 600 

Goffogan Tho 100 

Guelding Charles 200 

Griffith Jerimiah ' 345 

Griffith Benja 200 


Hill Francis 100 

Henderson John 250 

Haggaman Isaac 750 

Harmonson Jno 1600 

Harmonson Henry 1250 

Han by Charles 25 

Hanby Richd 75 

Hanby Danll 50 

Hanby John 1 c; 

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 

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 


Kendall Wm 2410 

Knight John 100 


Lawrence John 120 

Lailler Luke 100 

Lucas Tho 100 

Lewis Robt 100 

Littleton Susannah Wido. . 4050 

Luke John 400 


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 119H 

More Jno 545 

More Eliner 175 


Nicholson Wm 600 

Nottingham Wm 150 

Nottingham Joseph 150 

Nottingham Richd 350 

Nottingham Benja 300 

Nelson John 100 


Only Clement 200 

Odear John 100 


Parramore Tho 400 

Preson Tho 610 

Powell Frances Widdo ... 1225 

Palmer Samll 1502 

Pvke Henry 150 

Powell John 636^ 

Pittett Tho 300 

Pittet Justian 200 

Pittett John 275 

Powell Samll 200 

Paine Daniell 150 

Piggott Ralph 1368 


Read Thomas 150 

Rascow Arthur 100 

Ronan Wm 150 

Roberts Jno 200 

Richards Lettis 150 

Robins Jno Majr 1180 

Rollins Littleton 1000 

Rabishaw Wm 55 

Roberts Obedience 200 

Robinson Benjamin 250 


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 



Tilnev Jolm . . . 
Tryfort Barth . 
Teague Simeon 
Turner Richd . 
Teague Tho . . 
Tankard Wm . 
Tanner Paul . . 


Webb Henrv 

Wills Thorn 

White John 

Wilson Tho 

Westerhouse Adryan Senr. 

Walker John 

Ward Tho 

Walter John 

Waterfield Wm 

Warren John , 

Warren Argoll 

Widgeon Robt 

Wilkins Jno 

Webb Edwd 

Wilcock Jno 

Warren James 

Waterson Wm 



Warren Robt 190 

Water Lieut-Coll Wm 700 

Webb Charles I33 T 4 

Willett Wins 2650 

Waterson Richd 150 

Wilkins Argoll 150 

Walter Elizb Widdo 100 

Warren Joseph 50 


Lands not paid for vizt 
Gleab formerly Capt Fox- 
crofts 1500 

John Majr at Occahannock 200 

Hogbin not being in Virginia ICO 

Tho Smith 300 

Tho Marshall orphan 75 

Jno Rews not in Virginia . . 100 


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 

Will Robertson Clerk. 






farms and tithablcs of, 58; 79. 
Allen, Arthur, 

six tithables, 57. 
Allen, William, 

Burgess in 1629, 73. 
Allcrton, Jsaac, 

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 land- 
owner, 79. 
Armetrading, Henry, 


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. 


acon, Nathaniel, Sr., 
109; 110. 

Bacon, Nathaniel, Jr., 

describes poverty in Virginia, 91; re- 
bellion of and Navigation Acts, 92-93; 
says peoples hoped in Burgesses, 109; 

Baker, John, 

buys Button's Ridge, 49. 

Baldwin, William, 
landowner, 79. 

Ballard, Thomas, 

Ball, William, 
has 22 slav' 


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. 


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 ser- 
ious 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, 

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, (,'i ; 
calls Virginia land of opportunity, 75; 
proclaims Charles II, 84, 111; 89; de- 
scribes poverty of Virginia, 90, 91, 92, 
93; controls Assembly, 94; goes to Eng- 
land to combat Navigation Acts, 94-95; 
plans to establish manufactures, 95; 
denounces Navigation Acts, 95-96; 98; 
secures body guard. 111; elected Gover- 
nor 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; 

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, 18f. 

Board of Trade, 

arrears of quit rents reported to, 51; 
Nicholson writes to concerning rent roll, 
52; says servants not slaves, 60; Berke- 
ley 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 Vir- 
ginia, 145, 147, 157. 

Boiling, 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 role of tobacco in, 27. 

Broadnat, John, 


in 1610 calls for settlers for Virginia, 

Browne, Robert, 

landowning freedman, 74. 

Browne, William, 

nine tithables, 57. 

Bruce, Philip Alexander, 

desoribes small planters, 54. 


land patents in small, 145. 

Bullock, William, 

denies that servants are slaves, 60. 


54, petition King, 65; complain of high 
freight rates, 72; freedmen among, 73- 
75; Navigation Acts and, 94-95; repre- 
sent interest of small planters, 109; defy 
the king, 110; petition of, 110; rule Vir- 
ginia. 1652-1660, 112; growing influence 
of, 109. 

Burwcll, Francis, 

patents land in James City, 77. 

Burwell, John, 

has 42 slaves, 158. 

Burwell, Lewis, 

deals in servants, 48; 109. 

Burchcr, 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, A0. 

Byrd, William 1. 

says rent rolls inaccurate, 52; 109; uses 
slaves, 130. 

Byrd, William II, 

gives reasons for emigration to Carolina, 

V^/ARTER, John, 


Carter, Robert, 

has 126 slaves, 153. 

Carleill, Capt. Christopher, 

urges trade with America, 11. 


emigration to from Virginia, 99-100. 


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 As- 
sembly 110; 111. 

Charles II, 

33; proclaimed in Virginia, 84; 111; 93; 
96; not restored in Virginia before 
Restoration in England, 112; tyranny of 

Charles City, 

plantations small, 53; 54; farms and 
tithables of, 58; 79; 81. 


describes poor whites of Virginia, 152; 
notes indolence of poor whites, 155. 

Chew. Larkin, 

dealer in Spots vylvonia land, 154. 

Claiborne, William, 

deals in servants, 48. 

Clayton, Thomas, 


many plant tobacco, 28. 


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; colonics to supplement Eng- 
land, 86; workings of at end of 17th 
century, 120; British conception of, 136. 


of England with Baltic, 8; principles of 
long known, 11; of England with Eu- 
rope and East, 12; of England with 
France declines. 13; affords key to his- 
tory, 22; in reexported tobacco, 70; in 



tobacco revives after 1683, 114-115; in 
reexported tobacco, 116-120; importance 
of in tobacco for England, 119, 122. 


tobacco high under, 66; Virginians trade 
abroad under, 69; 98; attitude of Vir- 
ginia under, 110-11. 

Constable, John, 

trades illegally, 69. 

Cooke, John, 

landowning freedman, 74. 

Cornell, Samuel, 

servants and slaves of, 59. 


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 il- 
legally, 143; gives reasons for immigra- 
tion out of Virginia, 145; describes 
misery in Virginia, 150; declining in- 
fluence of, 159. 

Creighton, 'Henry, 

sells 100 acres, 50. 


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, 

Culpeper, Lord, 

fears ruin of Virginia, 91, 114. 

Custis, John, 




'aingerfield, William, 

has 61 slaves, 157. 
Dawson, William, 

landowning freedman, 74. 
Day, Tohn, 


manufactures of lure poor Virginia 

whites, 141; migration to, 139-146. 
Delk, Roger, 

landowning freedman, 74. 
Dicks, John, 

purchases land, x 49. 
Digges. Dudley, 

Diggs, William, 

has 72 slaves, 158. 
Dinwiddie county. 

poor whites in, 151; small slave holders 

of, 153; large slave holders in. 158. 
Dodman. John, 

landowner, 79. 
Dorch. Walter, 

inventory of, 106. 

French put on English woolens, 13; on 

reexported tobacco partly refunded, 70; 

on reexported tobacco. 117; on tobacco 

yield grown large revenue, 120. 

dwards, John, 
slaves of in plot, 128. 

Edwards, William, 

has six tithables, 57; slaves of in plot, 

Effingham, Lord, 

tyranny of in Virginia, 114. 

Elizabeth City, 

plantations of small, 53; farms and 
tithables of, 58; servants and slaves in, 


from Virginia in years from 1660 to 
1725, 40, 62, 139-146; not caused by 
large land grants, 144-145; extent of, 


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. 


land transfers in. 46; plantations of 
small, 53; farms and tithables of, 558. 

-T alling Creek, 

iron works at, 17; destroved in 16 32, 

Fane, Francis, 

says slave labor cheapens tobacco, 132. 

plentiful in Virginia, 15. 
Fithian, Philip. 

describes poor whites of Virginia, 152, 

Fitzhugh, William, 

109; refers to slave imports, 130. 

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. 

exports wine and silk, 12; Rrilish trade 

with declines, 13; tobacco trade to, L19; 

trade to injured hy war, 131. 

80 per cent of servants become. 40; 

prior to 1660 remained in Virginia, 40; 



form large part of population, 41; an- 
nual 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 to- 
bacco, 71-72; in Burgesses, 73-74; pros- 
perous, 74-80; little hope of advance- 
ment for after 1660, 97-100; few in rent 
roll of 1704, 122-123. 


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, 


12, abundant in Virginia, 102. 


abundant in Virginia, 105. 


common in Virginia, 102, 105. 

Garnet, John, 

buys 600 acres, 50. 

George, The, 

takes cargo of tobacco to England, 25; 

Gilbert, George, 

patents land in James City, 77, 79. 

Gilbert, Sir ^Humphrey, 

voyage to Americaj 11. 


possibilities for in Virginia, 15; begin- 
ning made of in Virginia. 17; early his- 
tory of in Virginia, 18-19. 


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. 


plants tobacco, 28; appoints sheriffs, 51; 
makes efforts to collect quit rents, 51; 
65; neglects servants, 73; 90; 109; elect- 
ed by burgesses, 1652-1660, 112. 

Goring, John, 

servants and slaves of, 59. 


abundance of in Virginia, in_\ 

Graves, Ralph, 

his servant valued at £10, 127. 

Grey, lames, 

buys 200 acres, 49. 

Grey, John, 

his cattle, 101; inventory of, 106. 

Grey. Francis, 

Burgess and landowner, 78-79. 

Grey, Thomas, 


Laki.uyt, Richard, 
advises colonial expansion, 11; shows 
British dependence on Spain, 12; ex- 
pects surplus of population in England 
to emigrate to America, 16; 19. 
'Hammond, John, 

[ advice to servants, 61; describes Vir- 

ginia residences, 104. 

Harmar, Charles, 

imports slaves, 124. 

Harris, John, 

Burgess in 1629, 73. 

Harrison, Benjamin 

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. 


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, 


in Virginia, 15. 


false returns in, 55; farms and tithables 
of, 58; servants and slaves in, 59; 79. 

Hill, Edward, 

Hill, John, 

landowning freedman, 75; book binder 
at Oxford, 75. 

Hodge, John, 

servants and slaves of, 59. 

Holding, John, 

landowner, 79. 


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 ex- 
ports to, 120; fights to preserve her 
monopoly of slave trade, 126; seeks to 
control tobacco trade on continent, 149- 


produced in Virginia, 102. 



/Hotten's Emigrants to America, 

gives lists of servants, 42; 73. 


comfortable in Virginia, 103-104. f 

Howlett, William, 

buy 200 acres, 50. 


volume of in 17th century, 35-36; fixes 
character of eastern Virginia, 36; not 
restricted to servants, 36. 


system of, 32; terms of, 61. 

Indians, desire to convert, 14; revere to- 
bacco, 24; unsuited for laborers, 30. 


22; pictured in Virginia, 28; Virginia 
not suited for, 29. 


throw light on distribution of servants 
and slaves, 59; 73; typical examples of, 


smelting of exhausts forests, 8; could 
be smelted in Virginia, 15; early manu- 
facture of in Virginia, 17-18. 

Isle of Wight county, 

farms and tithables of, 58; 79. 

J ackson. William, 

has 49 slaves, 158. 

Tames I. 

forced to use tobacco, 25; considers 
smoking harmful, 26; regulates tobacco 
trade, 67. 

Tames II, 

tyranny of, 1 14. 

James City county, 

plantations and tithables of, 58; land- 
owners listed as headrights in, 76-77; 
79; slave plot in, 128. 

James River. 

iron works on, 17; 39; 70; 148. 


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; de- 
scribes 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 arti- 
sans, 156. 

Jordan, Lt. Col., 

pays taxes on seven tithables, 56. 

JVemp, 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, 



lack of in Virginia, 16; foreign at 
Jamestown, 18; lack of handicaps indus- 
try, 19; 20; in Virginia determined by 
tobacco, 23; cheap needed in Virginia, 
29; serious problem, 29; Indians un- 
suited for, 30; slave, 30; England sup- 
plies, 31; indenture system to supply, 
32; influx of, 35. 


79; poor planters in, 151; small slave 
holders of, 153. 


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 gratned, 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. 


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 neg- 
lected in history', 54; often poor men, 
55; many work farms with own hand?, 
57; Government expects servants to be- 
come, 62; profits of from tobacco, 71-72. 

Larkin, George, 

describes large land holdings, 144. 

Lawrence, Richard, 
landowner, 79. 

Leah and, Rachel, 

Lee, Richard, 

imports 80 slaves, 125. 

Leightenhouse, Thomas, 

Linton, John, 

estimates colonial tobacco, 115; esti- 
mates amount of reexported tobacco, 
118; declares Baltic tobacco trade 
ruined, 148; describes tobacco raising 
in Holland, 149. 



London Company, 

national character of, 13; plans manu- 
factures for Virginia, IS; cannot se- 
cure laborers for Virginia, 16; sets up 
iron works at Falling Creek, 17-18; dis- 
pleased 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. 




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. 


not free for tobacco, 66; tobacco sent to 
foreign, 67-70; Navigation Acts cut of 
foreign, 87; tobacco reexported to con- 
tinental, 116-120; Virginia and Maryland 
furnish for England, 120. 


emigration of whites from, 140; House 
of Delegates of explains migration, 191. 

Mason, Francis, 

seven tithables, 57. 

Mason, Winfield, 
has 40 slaves, 158. 


iron works destroyed during, 18. 

Matthews, Samuel. 

his estate described, 108. 

Merchant marine, 

threatened in England by lack of ship- 
building materials, 9; part of sea de- 
fense, 10; depleted at end of 16th cen- 
tury, 10; tobacco exports aid British, 
26, 119, 122. 

Mcnefie, George, 

his estate described, 


plantations small, 53; 
bles 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 cus- 
toms, 9; urged to trade with America, 

farms and titha- 


plantations of small, 53; plantations and 
tithables in, 58. 

Xavigation 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 Rebel- 
lion, 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, 

Neve Albion, 

describes abundance of food in Vir- 
ginia, 103; advises settlers in Virginia 
as to clothing, 104. 

Neva 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, 

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 Vir- 
ginia and Maryland, 140, 141; sues Col. 
Lawrence Smith for arrears of quit 
rents, 143; testifies to large land grants, 


plantations of small, 53; farms and tith- 
ables of, 58; slave plot in, 129. 


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. 

1 age, Matthew, 

Page, Mann, 

has 157 slaves, 157. 
Pagett, Anthony, 

Burgess in 1629, 73. 
Parke, Daniel, 

Patent Rolls, 

in Virginia Land Office, 34; average 

grants in, 47; show large dealers in 



servants, 48; 7.5; reveal names of 
freedmen, 74-75. 
Pattison, Thomas, 

landowner, 79. 
Pearson, Christopher, 
inventory of, 107. 
Pelton, George, 


manufactures of lure Virginia whites. 
191; migration to, 139-146. 
Perfect Discription, 

numbers cattle in Virginia. 101. 
Perry Micajah, 

reports on tobacco trade, 119. 

Virginia made up of, 29; cheap in Vir- 
ginia, 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. 

28; 29; growth of from 1649 to 1675, 
98; growth of slow, 99, 142. 

England's need for, 8; found in Vir- 
ginia, 15; first efforts to produce in Vir- 
ginia, 17. 
Pott. Dr. John, 

incites people against Sir John Harvey, 

plentiful in Virginia, 102. 

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. 

C^uarY, Colonel, 

says wars ruin tobacco trade, 148; 157. 

Quit rents, 

collected by Crown on land, 50; revenue 
from considerable, 50; 51; often in ar- 
rears, 51; roll of in 1704, 51-55. 

Kamshaw, 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 avoid- 
ed, 142; suggests limiting size of grants, 

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. 


tobacco trade to, 118-119; 148. 

Oamuel, 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, Eir Edwin, 

expects Virginia to duplicate England, 

Savadge, Thomas, 

landowning freedman, 74. 
Scotchmon, Robert, 

servant, Burgess in 1632, 74. 
Scott, Thomas, 

has 57 slaves, 158. 
Scruely, Richard, 

patents land, 79. 




London Company sends to Virginia, 16; 
Indian children as, 30; system of in- 
dentures 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 pris- 
oners 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 re- 
mained in Virginia, 40; length of ser- 
vice 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 com- 
plete cargoes, 47; individual orders for, 
48; in immigrant ships, 48; dealers in, 
48; numbers in 1704, 56; listed as tith- 
ables, 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 op- 
portunity for, 71; freedmen often pur- 
chase, 72; of early period become pros- 
perous, 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 Baco-n's 
Rebellion, 113; few become landowners 
at end of 17th century, 112-113; useful- 
ness 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. 


scarce in Virginia, 102. 


collects quit rents, 51; draws up rent 
roll, 52; unearths false returns, 54-55. 

Sherwood, William, 

calls Bacon's men rabble, 93. 


materials for needed in England, 8; 
lack of injures merchant marine, 9; ma- 
terials for found in Virginia, 15; Capt. 
Smith explains why Virginia cannot pro- 
duce 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 centry, 40: 
not fatal to slaves, 128. 


from South Europe, 12; in Virginia, 15. 

Slaughter, John, 

Slave trade, 

in hands of Dutch, 31; restrictions on, 


adequate for tobacco raising, 29; first 
cargo of in Virginia, 30; few in Vir- 
ginia 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 cen- 
tury, 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 importa- 
tion 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. 


wood needed for, 8; in Virginia, 15; 
machinery for sent to Virginia, 17; be- 
gun at Falling Creek. 

Smith, Capt. John, 

describes Baltic trade, 8; explains diffi- 
culty of building up manufacturers in 
Virginia, 17. 

Smither, William, 

buys 200 acres, 50. 


describes poor whites of Virginia, 152, 


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, 

Splitimber, John, 

his cattle, 101; inventory of, 106-107. 

large grants in, 145; poor whites in, 

151; small slave holders of, 153-154; 

land transfers in, 154; large slave hold- 
ers 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. 

land transfers in, 46; tithables in, 56. 

58; inventories and wills in, 59; negroes 

plot in, 128. 

tobacco trade to, 118-119. 
Symonds, Roger, 

granted 100 acres, 81. 

1 aliaferro, Richard, 
has 43 slaves, 158. 


few in Virginia, 44, 45, 62. 

Thoroughgood, Adam, 

servant, Burgess in 1629, 73; Burgess 
in 1632, 74; landowner, 75; brother of 
Sir John Thorouhggood, 75. 


those listed as, 56; in Surry, 56-57; 
number of in various counties, 58. 


history of Virginia built on, 20, 23; 
Indians revere, 24; first cured in Vir- 
ginia 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 cul- 
ture of, 25; England reconciled to, 26; 
Virginia's only hope, 26; Crown tries to 
divert Virginia from, 27; cultivation in 
Virginia universal, 27; shapes immigra- 
tion, 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 re- 
turns from, 64; restrictions on trade 
of, 67-69; growing of in England pro- 
hibited, 67; tax on, 67; illegal foreign 
trade in, 68-69; reexported from Eng- 
land, 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; 
reexported, 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; reexports 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 pro- 
duction of, 132; poor whites produce the 
best, 146-147; foreign trade in ruined by 
war, 148-150; advantages of large plan 
tations for, 156-157. 


few in Virginia, 29. 

Townsend, Richard, 

Burgess in 1629, 73. 

Trussell, John, 

landowning freedman, 74. 

Turnbull, Robert, 

has 81 slaves, 158. 

U ndervvood, John, 

patents land in James City, 77. 
Upton, John, 

landowning freedman, 75. 


abundant in Virginia, 102. 
/ 'irginia'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. 
/ 'irginia Richly Valued, 

advises emigrants as to outfit, 104. 


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. 

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, Bury ess in 1632. 7-4. 
Whitlock, Thomas, 

will of, 105-106. 

35; 54. 
Williams, William, 

buys 200 acres, 50. 

throw light on distribution of servants 

and slaves, 59; 73; headrights mentioned 

in, 76. 

prospect for in Virginia, 15. 

need of potash for, 8; French dutv on, 

Woolritch, William, 

landowning freedman, 74. 
Wormsley, Ralph, 

109; letter to from Fitshugh, 130. 
Wray, Thomas, 

granted 50 acres, 81. 

I ates, 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. 


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. 





0002771^* # 

l\\w\ IkBiiImhh vfwlttuuuu