Few details were given either in the charter or "Instruction

Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed

Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net

Transcriber's Note: Extensive research indicates the copyright on this

book was not renewed.

_Mother Earth_--

LAND GRANTS IN VIRGINIA

1607-1699

By

W. STITT ROBINSON, JR.

Associate Professor of History

University of Kansas

VIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION CORPORATION

WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

1957

COPYRIGHT©, 1957 BY

VIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION

CORPORATION, WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

Jamestown 350th Anniversary

Historical Booklet, Number 12

CHAPTER ONE

The Land and the Indian

Among the motives for English colonization of America in the seventeenth

century, the desire for free land occupied a prominent place. The

availability of land in the New World appealed to all classes and ranks

in Europe, particularly to the small landholder who sought to increase

his landed estate and to the artisans and tenants who longed to enter

the ranks of the freeholder.

The desire for land and the opportunity to provide a home for one's

family, according to Professor C. M. Andrews, "probably influenced the

largest number of those who settled in North America." Land also had its

appeal as the gateway to freedom, contributing substantially to the

shaping of the American character. When analyzing the factors that

helped make this "new man, who acts upon new principles," De Crèvecoeur

in 1782 emphasized the opportunity to "become a free man, invested with

lands, to which every municipal blessing is annexed!"

Formulation of a land policy confronted the officials of all the

colonies in early America. Its importance is reflected in the statement

by C. L. Raper in his study of English colonial government that the

"System and policy concerning land determine to a very considerable

extent the economic, social, and political life of the colonists." The

existence of the American frontier with unoccupied land was a potent

force in America, and Frederick Jackson Turner stated in his famous

essay in 1893 that the "Most significant thing about the American

frontier is, that it lies at the hither edge of free land."

Before analyzing the nature of landholding and the land policy that was

adopted in early Virginia, let us examine first the problem that arose

by virtue of the presence of the Indians in North America.

At the time of the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 the area of

present-day Virginia was occupied by Indians of three linguistic stocks:

Algonquin, Siouan, and Iroquoian. Generally speaking, the Algonquins

which included the Powhatan Confederacy inhabited the Tidewater,

reaching from the Potomac to the James River and extending to the

Eastern Shore. The Siouan tribes, including the Monacans and the

Manahoacs, occupied the Piedmont; while the Iroquoian group, containing

the independent Nottoways and Meherrins, partially surrounded the others

in a rough semicircle reaching from the headwaters of the Chesapeake

through the western mountains and back to the coast in the region south

of the James River.

The presence of these tribes in the areas of proposed colonization

confronted the colonizers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries

with the same problem that has faced imperialists of a later date, the

question of "right and title" to land. The British, like other European

nations, did not recognize the sovereign right of the heathen natives

but claimed a general title to the area by the prevailing doctrine of

right by discovery and later by the generally accepted doctrine of

effective occupation. As stated in the charter to Sir Walter Raleigh in

1584 with essentially the same provision included in the first charter

of Virginia in 1606, the colonizers were authorized to occupy land "not

actually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by Christian

People." Over the Indians the British maintained a "limited

sovereignty"; and when acknowledging any claim, they recognized only the

Indian's right of occupation and asserted the "exclusive right" to

extinguish this title which occupancy gave them.

In the first years of the colony not even these tenure rights were

recognized by the British. While a few gifts of land had been made by

the natives and one of these confirmed by the London Company, there was

no admission, either direct or by inference, that the Indians possessed

a superior claim to the land. When such an implication was made in a

land grant to Barkham in 1621, the company reacted with bitter

resentment. Governor Yeardley, striving to maintain peace with the

natives, made the grant conditional upon the consent of the Indian chief

Opechancanough. According to stated practice under the company, the

grant then had to be approved in England by a quarter court of the

company's stockholders. When Barkham's petition was presented for

ratification, the members of the court held the provision concerning the

Indian chief to be "verie dishonorable and prejudiciall" for it

infringed upon the company's title by acknowledging sovereignty in that

"heathen infidell."

Disregard for the aboriginal occupants of Virginia called forth anew the

question of "right and title," a problem subject to discussion in

England even before Jamestown. To allay these attacks, several

proponents of colonial expansion attempted to justify the policy of the

crown and the London Company.

Sir George Peckham in _A true reporte of the late discoveries_ pointed

out as early as 1583, relating to the discoveries of Sir Humphrey

Gilbert, that it was "lawfull and necessary to trade and traficke with

the savages." In a series of subsequent arguments, he then expounded

the right of settlement among the natives and the mutual benefit to

them and to England. This theme was later extended by the author of

_Nova Britannia_, who maintained that the object of the English was to

settle in the Indian's country, "yet not to supplant and roote them

out, but to bring them from their base condition to a farre better" by

teaching them the "arts of civility." The author of _Good Speed to

Virginia_ added that the "Savages have no particular propertie in any

part or parcell of that countrey, but only a generall residencie there,

as wild beasts have in the forests." This last opinion, according to

Philip A. Bruce, prevailed to a great extent and was held by a majority

of the members of the London Company in regard to the appropriations of

lands.

In spite of these views entertained by the company, there were several

instances in which the natives were compensated for their territory.

This was done primarily through the initiative of local authorities, for

they were usually better informed concerning Indian affairs. They were

in much closer contact with the natives than the company's Council in

London and realized that the goodwill of the aborigines could be

cultivated by giving only minor considerations for the land occupied by

the English. On other occasions the Indians voluntarily gave up their

land such as the present from Opechancanough in 1617 of a large body of

land at Weyanoke. At still other times land was seized by force. When

any attempt was made to justify the seizure, it was done on the basis of

an indemnity for damage inflicted upon the colony or for violations of

agreements by the natives. By 1622 settlements had been made along the

banks of the lower James River and in Accomac on the Eastern Shore, the

land having been obtained by direct purchase, by gifts from the natives,

or by conquest.

Any attempt to determine the extent of the areas acquired by purchase in

Virginia is hindered by the indefinite nature of the Indian holdings and

by the lack of complete records for the early periods. Thomas Jefferson

thought much of the land had been purchased. Writing to St. George

Tucker in 1798, Jefferson stated:

At an early part of my life, from 1762 to 1775, I passed much time

in going through the public records in Virginia, then in the

secretary's office, and especially those of a very early date of our

settlement. In these are abundant instances of purchases made by our

first assemblies of the indi[ans] around them. The opinion I formed

at the time was that if the records were complete & thoroughly

searched, it would be found that nearly the whole of the lower

country was covered by these contracts.

Jefferson overestimated the amount of land that was purchased by

Virginia during the early years. While the records now extant show that

the colony often purchased lands, they likewise indicate that frequently

land was appropriated without compensation. Especially during the years

following the first massacre of 1622, "The Indians were stripped of

their inheritance without the shadow of justice." The greater part of

the Peninsula between the York and James rivers was taken by conquest;

the right of possession was later confirmed by a treaty with Necotowance

in 1646, without, however, any stipulation for compensating the natives

for the land they relinquished.

The treaty of 1646 with the successor of Opechancanough inaugurated the

policy of major historical significance of either setting aside areas

reserved for Indian tribes, or establishing a general boundary line

between white and Indian settlements. Influenced by the desire of

individual settlers to fortify their claims and by the opposition of the

natives to white encroachment, the colony designated definite lands for

the Virginia Indians and began to follow more closely the custom of

purchasing all territory received from the natives. To see that this was

done, the Assembly passed numerous laws, pertaining in most cases only

to the specific tribes of Indians mentioned in each act.

In 1653 the Assembly ordered that the commissioners of York County

remove any persons then seated upon the territory of the Pamunkey or

Chickahominy Indians. At the same time both lands and hunting grounds

were assigned to the red men of Gloucester and Lancaster counties. The

following year the Indian tribes of Northampton County on the Eastern

Shore were granted the right to sell their land to the English provided

a majority of the inhabitants of the Indian town consented and provided

the Governor and Council of the colony ratified the procedure. Soon

other tribes were given the same privilege. So anxious were they to

dispose of their land when allowed to convey a legal title, that it

became necessary for the colony to forbid further land transfers without

the Assembly's stamp of approval. Such a step was taken in order to

prevent the continual necessity of apportioning new lands to keep the

natives satisfied.

By 1658 the Assembly had received from several Indian tribes so many

complaints of being deprived of their land, either by force or fraud,

that measures were again adopted to protect the natives in their rights.

No member of the colony was allowed to occupy lands claimed by the

natives without consent from the Governor and Council or from the

commissioners of the territory where the settlement was intended. To

decrease the chances for cheating the Indians, all sales were to be

consummated at quarter courts where unfair purchases could be prevented.

Efforts to protect the Indians in the possession of their lands were

subject to modification from time to time. The treaty of 1646 designated

the York River as the line to separate the settlements of the English

and the natives. But the colony at that time was on the eve of a great

period of expansion. With an estimated population of 15,000 in 1650, the

colony increased by 1666 to approximately 40,000, and by 1681 to

approximately 80,000. To stem the tide of the advancing English

settlement was apparently an impossibility. Therefore, Governor William

Berkeley and the Council, upon representation from the Burgesses,

consented to the opening of the land north of the York and Rappahannock

rivers after 1649. At the same time the provision making it a felony for

the English to go north of the York was repealed. This turn in policy,

based upon the assumption that some intermingling of the white and red

men was inevitable, led to the effort to provide for an "equitable

division" of land supplemented by attempts to modify the Indian economy

which had previously demanded vast areas of the country.

Endeavoring to provide for this "equitable division" of land, the

Assembly in 1658 forbade further grants of lands to any Englishmen

whatsoever until the Indians had been allotted a proportion of fifty

acres for each bowman. The land for each Indian town was to lie together

and to include all waste and unfenced land for the purpose of hunting.

This provision did not relieve all pressure on Indians' lands, partly

because some of the natives never received their full proportion and

partly because some had been accustomed to even larger areas. But it did

serve as a basis for reservation of land for different tribes.

[Illustration: From a portrait reproduced in J. H. Claiborne, _William

Claiborne of Virginia_.

Photo by Flournoy, Virginia State Chamber of Commerce.

William Claiborne, Surveyor for Virginia, Secretary of the Colony of

Virginia]

[Illustration: _How to reduce all sorts of grounds into a square for

the better measuring of it._

From John Norden's "Surveior's Dialogue"

Photo by T. L. Williams]

Two years later the Assembly in 1660 took definite steps to relieve the

pressure of English encroachments upon the territory of the Accomac

Indians on the Eastern Shore. Enough land was assigned to the natives of

Accomac to afford ample provisions for subsistence over and above the

supplies that might be obtained through hunting and fishing. To insure a

fair and just distribution of these lands, the Assembly passed over

surveyors of the Eastern Shore and required that the work be done by a

resident of the mainland, who obviously would be less prejudiced against

the aborigines because of personal interest. When once assigned to the

natives, the land could not be alienated.

By 1662 this last provision, forbidding the Accomacs to alienate their

lands, was extended to all Indians in Virginia. The Assembly had

realized that the chief cause of trouble was the encroachment by the

whites upon Indian territory. Efforts, therefore, had been made to

remove this cause of friction by permitting purchases from the natives

provided each sale was publicly announced before a quarter court or the

Assembly. But the plan had not been a complete success. Various members

of the colony had employed all kinds of ingenious devices to persuade

the natives to announce in public their willingness to part with their

land. Dishonest interpreters had rendered "them willing to surrender

when indeed they intended to have received a confirmation of their owne

rights." In view of these evil practices the Assembly declared all

future sales to be null and void.

Twenty-eight years later in 1690 the Governor and Council in accord with

this restriction nullified several purchases made from the Chickahominy

Indians. By order of the Assembly in 1660 this tribe had received lands

in Pamunkey Neck. Since that time several colonists had either purchased

a part of their land or encroached upon their territory without regard

for compensation. In neither case were the white settlers allowed to

remain. All leases, sales, and other exchanges were declared void by the

Governor and Council, and all intruders were ordered to withdraw and

burn the buildings that had been constructed. George Pagitor, being one

of the settlers affected by this order, had obtained about 1,200 acres

in Pamunkey Neck from the natives. He had built a forty-foot tobacco

barn and kept two workers there most of the year. When his purchase was

declared void, he was ordered to return the land to the natives and to

burn the barn that had been constructed. Accompanying this executive

decree was an order to the sheriff of New Kent County authorizing him to

carry out the will of the officials of the colony and to burn the barn

himself, if necessary.

Commissioners were also employed for the supervision of Indian lands.

Upon the recommendation of the committee appointed for Indian affairs,

the Assembly in 1662 authorized the Governor to appoint a commission "to

enquire into and examine the severall claimes made to any part of our

neighboring Indian land, and confirme such persons who have justly

invested themselves, and cause all others to remove." The English with

rights to land within three miles of the natives were to assist in

fencing the Indian corn fields. This was done to prevent harm to the

Indian crops by hogs and cattle of the colony. Commissioners appointed

were to designate the time and number of English to aid in the

construction. Other commissioners were to view annually the boundaries

separating the two people.

The commissioners diligently enforced the provisions of these laws which

underwent few changes until the outburst of hostilities in Bacon's

Rebellion. In 1678 the additional expense of the Indian war led the

colony to modify temporarily its former provisions in order to obtain

more revenue from land. All territory recently assigned to the Indians

but then abandoned and any land then occupied that should later be

deserted were to be sold. The proceeds from the sale were to be used in

the public interest to defray the expense of the war.

This regulation applied only to land abandoned by the Indians. The

colony continued to protect the natives in other lands assigned them as

is exemplified in the region south of the James River. In 1665 the

Indian boundary line for the area was designated to run from the

southern branches of the Blackwater River to the Appomattox Indian town,

and from there to Manakin Town located only a few miles above the Fall

Line. By 1674 some of the colonists had crossed this line and were

settling on the territory of the Nottoway Indians. When the encroachment

was called to the attention of the Governor and Council, they ordered

the English to withdraw immediately, and in the next instructions to the

surveyor of the colony they again forbade the location of new grants in

the region designated as Indian land.

The number of the aborigines gradually dwindled in this section as in

other parts of the colony, due mainly to wars, smallpox epidemics,

spirituous liquors, migration, and the abridgement of territory of a

people who lived principally on the "spontaneous productions of nature."

Because of the decrease the Burgesses in 1685 appealed to Governor

Howard for permission to allow grants to some of the land in the area.

The Governor failed to comply with their requests. Later, in 1690, an

order was issued for the immediate removal of several persons who had

obtained illegal patents to land south of the main Blackwater Swamp. All

members of the colony were again forbidden to settle beyond the boundary

line, and any who had already constructed houses were ordered not to

repair them nor to finish any other uncompleted buildings. The sheriffs

and justices of the peace of Charles City, Surry, Isle of Wight, and

Nansemond counties were instructed to be on the alert for violators of

the order.

However, the Indians themselves, residing in the region on the south

side of the Blackwater River and in Pamunkey Neck had requested in 1688

that colonists be allowed to settle across the boundary line in the area

now made vacant by the gradual dying out of their tribes. The basis for

the request seems to have been a desire for relief in their precarious

economic condition and the fear of invasion by hostile Indians, whom

they regarded with more apprehension than they did the English. By 1705,

the colony, influenced by the request from the natives revoked its

former law regarding the Indian boundary, permitting a limited number of

white settlements in Pamunkey Neck and in the region south of the

Blackwater Swamp and Nottoway River.

Thus in the seventeenth century the pendulum moved from a position of

the colony ignoring any Indian rights in the land to a gradual

recognition of the Indian right of occupation. This sweep of the

pendulum brought the establishment of boundary lines between the whites

and the Indians with reservations being designated for certain tribes.

By the end of the century the diminution of the tribes found the

pendulum swinging back to open the area to white settlement which had

once been reserved to the natives, yet still retaining the recognition

of the Indian's right of occupation where tribes survived. With this

survey of the problem of the red man's title to land, let us now turn to

a consideration of the white man's title and how it was obtained in

seventeenth-century Virginia.

CHAPTER TWO

The London Company

General boundaries for English settlement were designated in the charter

of 1606 creating the London Company and the Plymouth Company to settle

the area in America known as Virginia. The London Company was authorized

to settle a tract of land 100 miles square in the southern part of the

area extending from the thirty-fourth to the forty-first degrees north

latitude, or from the Cape Fear River in present North Carolina to New

York City. The boundaries for the Plymouth Company were from the

thirty-eighth to the forty-fifth degrees north latitude, or from

approximately the mouth of the Potomac River to a line just north of

present Bangor, Maine. In the overlapping area between the thirty-eighth

and forty-first degrees, which in effect created a neutral zone between

the present location of Washington, D.C., and New York City, provision

was made for a distance of at least 100 miles to separate the sites that

might be selected by the two companies.

As stated in the charter of 1606, "all the lands, tenements, and

hereditaments" were to be held "as of our Manor at East-Greenwich in the

County of Kent, in free and common soccage only, and not in capite." The

"Manor at East-Greenwich" refers to the residence of King James I at the

royal palace of Greenwich and was used as a descriptive term in many

grants to indicate that the land in America was also considered a part

of the demesne of the King. The land was held not "in fee simple" with

absolute ownership, a concept which was not a part of English law at the

time; but it was granted "in free and common soccage" with the holder a

tenant of the King with obligations of fealty and of the payment of a

quitrent. The fixed rent replaced the service, military or personal,

required under feudal law; and the socage tenure in effect did not

subject the land to the rules of escheat or return of the land to the

King if inherited by minors or widows. For Englishmen in America, the

"Instructions for the government of the colonies" in 1606 were explicit

in showing that their legal and tenurial rights were the same as

residents of the mother country by stating that "All the lands,

tenements, and hereditaments ... shal be had and inherited and enjoyed,

according as in the like estates they be had and enjoyed by the lawes

within this realme of England."

Government by the charter of 1606 provided for a strong exercise of

control by the crown over the colonies of both companies. This was

achieved through the establishment of the Council for Virginia that was

appointed by the King, was resident in England, and answered to the King

through the Privy Council for its actions. For local control of each

company, authorization was made for a Council in America with its

initial membership determined by the Council for Virginia and with a

president selected by the local group.

Few details were given either in the charter or "Instructions" of 1606

about distribution of land. Provisions did state that grants of land in

the colony would be made in the name of the King to persons whom the

local Council "nominate and assign"; but no details were given of the

method of land distribution. From the scant records that survive, it is

evident that promises of land were made to individuals who were willing

to hazard the dangers of the new country. From a bill of adventure that

goes back to 1608, the nature of the promise of land is revealed in the

agreement between Henry Dawkes and Richard Atkinson, clerk of the

Virginia Company. Fortunately the bill of adventure of 1608 was recorded

with the patent by Governor John Harvey in 1632 to William Dawkes, son

and heir of Henry Dawkes. The commitments in the bill of adventure were

as follows:

_Whereas_ Henry Dawkes now bound on the intended voyage to Virginia

hath paid, in ready money, to Sr. Thomas Smith Kt. treasurer for

Virginia the some of twelve pounds tenn shillings for his adventure

in the voyage to Virginia.

_It is agreed_ that for the same the said Henry Dawkes his heires,

executors, admrs. and assignes shall have rateably according to his

adventure his full pte. of all such lands tenemts and hereditamts.

as shall from time to time bee there planted and inhabited, and of

all such mines and minneralls of gould, silver, and other mettalls

or treasures, pearles, pretious stoanes or any kinds of wares or

merchandize, comodities or pfitts. whatsoever, which shal bee

obtained or gotten in the said voyage, according to the portion of

money by him imployed to that use, In as large and ample manner as

any other adventurer therein shall receave for the like some.

Written this fowerteenth of July one thousand six hundred and eight.

Richard Atkinson

[Clerk of the Virginia Company].

The first two years at Jamestown brought disappointments, but the

adventurers of the London Company found grounds for new hope in the

enlarged and expanded program that was inaugurated in 1609. A new

charter was sought from the King to make possible reforms in

governmental organization both in England and Virginia; and a broader

base for financial support was laid by inviting the public to subscribe

to a joint-stock fund. By the charter of 1609 the new organization was

incorporated as the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters of

the City of London for the First Colony in Virginia. In England the head

of the reorganized company was designated as treasurer, and the major

change in control was the transfer of authority over the colony from the

crown to the company with the powers of government in the hands of the

treasurer and Council. This Council in England, which continued for some

time to be called the Council for Virginia, had its jurisdiction limited

to the exploits of the London Company; its membership came entirely from

the company; and its members were in effect selected by the leading

promoters of the company. One major governmental change occurred in the

colony by the president and Council being eliminated in favor of a

strong Governor to be advised by a Council. The former provision for

title to an area of land 100 miles square was changed to give title to

"all that space and circuit of land" lying 200 miles north and 200 miles

south of Point Comfort from the sea coast "up into the land, throughout

from sea to sea, west, and northwest" plus islands within 100 miles of

the coast.

Provisions relative to distribution of land were more specific in the

1609 charter and provided that land should be conveyed by majority vote

of the company under its common seal. Consideration in distribution of

land was to be given both to the amount invested by adventurer as well

as "special service, hazard, exploit, or merit of any person."

In the third charter of 1612 no major changes were included relative to

land. Boundaries of the colony were extended from 100 miles to 300

leagues to include the newly discovered Bermuda Islands. And greater

governmental authority was placed in the generality of the company by

providing for quarterly court meetings of the company to handle "matters

and affairs of greater weight and importance" than were resolved by

lesser courts of a smaller portion of the company.

No immediate grants of land to individuals were forthcoming with these

charters. Only promises were made to those who subscribed to the

joint-stock undertaking. The adventurer invested only his money and

remained in England with each unit of investment set at £12 10s. per

share. The term planter was applied to one who went to the colony, and

his personal adventure was equated to one unit of investment at the

same rate as above. Both adventurer and planter were promised a

proportionate share of any dividends distributed, whether in land or in

money. The joint-stock arrangement was originally set to continue seven

years from its inception in 1609, thus making 1616 as the terminal

date. During this period monetary dividends might be declared, and at

the end of the period the land suitable for cultivation was to be

divided with at least 100 acres to be given for each share of stock.

The tract _Nova Britannia_ of 1609, written by Robert Johnson as a part

of the promotional campaign of the London Company, outlined these major

provisions concerning land and included the optimistic prediction that

each share of £12 10s. would be worth 500 acres at least. But an

attempt fourteen years later by Captain Martin to justify a patent

based on this figure of 500 acres per share failed because the promise

was held to be the work of a private individual and not a commitment by

the court of the company.

In the absence of private title to land in the early years of the

Virginia colony, the company relied upon a corporate form of management

with the pooling of community effort to clear the land, construct

buildings, develop agriculture, and engage in trade with the Indians.

This was not an experiment based on a theory of communism for the

joint-stock claims were limited in time. Most of the settlers were more

in a position of contract laborers performing services for the company,

and plans were devised for monetary dividends even before 1616 if the

colony prospered. Inadequate supplies from England, severe weather

conditions, hostility of the Indians, and the lack of willingness for

industrious labor on the part of the early settlers depleted the common

storehouse upon which the colonists were forced to rely, leading to the

exercise of stern and autocratic measures by John Smith and some of his

successors as leaders in the colony. Among the factors that contributed

to the lack of zeal among the settlers was the absence of private

ownership of land.

Prior to the promised distribution of land in 1616, there was granted

private use of land under a tenant-farm policy which most probably was

first inaugurated in 1614 under Sir Thomas Dale, although there is some

uncertainty about the date. Three acres of "cleare ground" were allotted

to men of the old settlement. In effect they became tenants of the

company and were obligated to render only one month's service to the

colony at some period other than the planting and harvesting time and to

contribute annually to the common magazine two barrels and a half of

corn on the ear. This tenant-farm policy worked well and better

conditions resulted with increased production of crops and stock.

According to one account in 1616:

They sow and reape their corne in sufficient proportion, without

want or impeachment; their kine multiply already to some hundreds,

their swine to many thousands, their goates and poultry in great

numbers, every man hath house and ground to his owne use....

In the same year this policy was extended to include eighty-one farmers

or tenants in the colony's total population of 351.

Despite improvement in the supply of provisions, the company still had

to face the harsh facts that in 1616 there were only 351 persons alive

in the colony, and funds were low in the treasury. There had been only a

limited number of new subscribers; some of the earlier subscribers had

defaulted on their second or third payments; and the use of lotteries

had failed to provide adequate money. This was the year set for the end

of the joint ownership of land with the declaration of land dividends.

But the company could not provide the necessary funds to defray the

administrative costs for the land divisions; and furthermore, many were

of the opinion that not enough land in possession had been cleared of

trees and surveyed. The arbitrary conduct of the Deputy Governor Captain

Samuel Argall, who arrived in Virginia in May, 1617, also contributed to

the delay in carrying out the plan for land distribution.

_In A Briefe Declaration of the present state of things in Virginia_,

adventurers were told that "this course of sending a Governor with

commissioners and a survayor, with men, ships, and sundry provisions"

would be expensive, and plans were announced for only a preliminary or

"first divident" of fifty acres with the expressed hope that a later

division would bring at least 200 acres for every share. But even for

the preliminary division, more money was needed and shareholders were

asked to subscribe another £12 10s. to help pay for the administrative

cost. For each additional subscription of £12 10s., a fifty-acre grant

would be made. Here we have provisions for obtaining land by "treasury

right," a method remaining in effect only until dissolution of the

company in 1624 and not reappearing until 1699. Planters in the colony

were also to receive a fifty-acre grant for their personal adventure.

Even new adventurers were invited to buy shares at £12 10s. and were

promised fifty-acre grants with the same privileges of the old

adventurers. But the response was poor. Most of the grants that were

made were either irregular in form or contained unreasonable provisions

dictated by the exigency of the situation, thereby being later

repudiated by the company.

The financial embarrassment of the company and the need for further

colonization led to grants of land in return for service to the company

by officials or for promoting the transportation of colonists. For the

services of Sir Thomas Dale to the colony, the Council for Virginia

awarded him the value of 700 pounds sterling to be received in land

distribution; to Sir Thomas Smith for his noteworthy efforts as

treasurer or chief official of the company, 2,000 acres; and to Captain

Daniel Tucker for his aiding the colony with his pinnace and for his

service as vice-admiral, fifteen shares of land. Similar rewards could

be made under the company to ministers, physicians, and other government

officials.

As a further stimulus to expand the population of the colony and to

enhance agricultural production, the company beginning in 1617

encouraged private or voluntary associations, organized on a joint-stock

basis, to establish settlements in the area of the company's patent.

These "societies of adventurers" were to send to Virginia at their own

expense, tenants, servants, and supplies; and the associates were given

certain governmental powers over the settlement that approached the

position of an independent colony. They were authorized "till a form of

government is here settled over them" to issue orders and ordinances

provided they were not contrary to the laws of England. In relation to

the four original boroughs of James City, Charles City, Henrico, and

Kecoughtan (later Elizabeth City), the hundreds or particular

plantations in government were "co-ordinate and not subordinate"; and

some of them sent representatives to the first Assembly held in 1619

under Governor Yeardley.

The amount of land in these sub-patents depended upon the number of

shares of stock of the associates, and in effect the grants served as

dividends to the shareholders. One hundred acres were granted for each

share with the first division of land, and the promise was made for an

equal amount upon a second division of land provided the first was

"sufficiently peopled." There was to be some choice in location by the

associates, although certain restrictions were imposed. No grant was to

be located within five miles of the four original boroughs, and the

plantation should be ten miles from other settlements unless on opposite

sides of an important river. These provisions were designed to provide

for expansion and at the same time avoid conflict among plantations, yet

they tended to disperse the colony and complicate efforts to maintain

adequate protection from the imminent threat of hostile natives.

The term hundred was applied to some, but not all, of these particular

plantations. The origin of this designation has sometimes been explained

as a derivation from the English administrative system, but this seems

valid only as it pertains to the name. There was no attempt to establish

a system based on English counties and hundreds, rather the Virginia

hundreds were closer to the feudal manor with a degree of economic and

political independence. In the light of these conditions, Professor

Wesley Frank Craven suggested the possibility that the term might have

been a "colloquial designation" applied to plantations with no definite

name and related to the units of 100 acres included in the grants or by

the requirement to seat 100 settlers on the land.

There were three general types of particular plantations. The first of

these represented the voluntary pooling of land and resources by several

adventurers of the company, since few had adequate land or financial

support to go it alone. The company granted a patent to contiguous areas

of land according to the number of shares of stock possessed by the

group. Examples of this type include the Society of Smith's Hundred and

Martin's Hundred. Smith's Hundred, later called Southampton Hundred, was

organized in 1617 and included among its adventurers Sir Thomas Smith,

Sir Edwin Sandys, and the Earl of Southampton. The grant included 80,000

acres and was located on the north side of the James River in the area

between "Tanks Weyanoke" and the Chickahominy River. The society was

administered by a treasurer and committees selected by a meeting of the

adventurers. The associates settled at least 300 colonists within their

boundaries and reported in 1635 the expenditure of £6,000 on the

settlement. Martin's Hundred, organized in 1618, was named for Richard

Martin and should be distinguished from (John) Martin's Brandon

organized the previous year. The Society of Martin's Hundred held patent

to 80,000 acres and dispatched over 250 colonists, but only a part of

the tract was ever occupied.

The second type of particular plantation involved an adventurer who

combined with persons outside the company to obtain a grant. The title

usually resided in the original adventurer, and the nature of government

and special privileges was similar to grants of the first kind discussed

above. The grant made to Captain Samuel Argall was of this type. So was

the grant of John Martin's Brandon in 1617, a plantation of 7,000 acres

situated seven miles upstream from Jamestown.

The third type of grant involved new adventurers whose major purpose in

buying stock in the company was to organize a particular plantation.

Illustrative of this category was the plantation of Christopher Lawne,

who transported 100 settlers in 1619 to Warrosquoik and established

Lawne's Hundred. During the following year the hundred was dissolved and

thereafter called Isle of Wight Plantation.

Beginning with the election of Sir Edwin Sandys as treasurer in 1619 and

including the next four years, there were forty-four grants made for

particular plantations; and the company declared six others to have been

made prior to this time under Sir Thomas Smith. All of the projected

plantations, however, were never located; and few were settled to the

extent planned by the company. Historical records are scarce for these

projects and this paucity of material has left much of the story

incomplete. It is certain that the following additional plantations were

actually established in Virginia: Archer's Hope on the James River,

Bargrave's Settlement, Bennett's Welcome, Society of Truelove's

Plantation, Persey's or Flowerdieu Hundred, and Berkeley Town or

Hundred. For the last of these, Berkeley Hundred, there is an extensive

set of records in the Smyth of Nibley Papers that gives considerable

insight into the organization and activities of the adventurers under

the leadership of Richard Berkeley, George Thorpe, William Throckmorton,

and John Smyth of Nibley.

Resembling its larger prototype, the London Company, the Berkeley

Hundred group had a governor and council. The adventurers were granted

100 acres of land for each share of stock with the promise of an equal

amount when the first grant was settled; likewise they were promised

fifty acres without quitrent for every person transported at their

expense who remained for three years or died within this period. For

promoting both a church and school, the adventurers were also granted

1,500 acres. With these grants and with exemptions from both the

company's trade rules and from taxation except by consent, the leaders

of Berkeley Hundred inaugurated a vigorous campaign to provide the

necessary provisions and personnel, including farmers, artisans,

overseers, a minister, and a doctor. Over ninety people were dispatched

to the colony in 1619 and 1620 at a cost of approximately £2,000. This

settlement, however, did not thrive. Many of the settlers died of

disease and eleven were killed in the Indian massacre of 1622. By 1636

the adventurers had abandoned their plans to continue the settlement and

sold their interests to London merchants.

In addition to the stimulus to migration by the three foregoing types

of grants for particular plantations, the company took steps in 1618

toward reorganization of its administration. Sir Thomas Smith was still

in control of the company as treasurer and contributed to the reforms,

but the major contribution came from Sir Edwin Sandys who succeeded to

the position of treasurer in the spring of the following year. Rules

and by-laws were restated in the "Orders and Constitutions," which were

largely prepared in 1618 although not formally adopted until June,

1619. One additional document of 1618 was very significant because it

outlined a uniform land policy. Identified by the term "the greate

charter," it is listed in the _Records_ of the London Company as

"Instructions to Governor Yeardly" under the date November 18, 1618.

This "charter" outlined plans for distribution of the land dividend and

contained provisions for the headright system which became a basic

feature of the colony's land policy. One hundred acres were promised as

a first dividend to all adventurers for each paid-up share of stock at

£12 10s., another 100 acres as a second dividend when the first had been

settled ("sufficiently peopled"). "Ancient planters," that is, those who

had come to the colony prior to the departure of Sir Thomas Dale in

1616, were to receive similar grants if they had come to the colony at

their own expense. These foregoing grants were to be free of quitrent.

"Ancient planters" who came to the colony at the company's expense would

receive the same amount of land after a seven-year term of service but

would be required to pay a quitrent of two shillings for every 100

acres.

For settlers arriving after the departure of Dale in 1616 or those

migrating during the seven-year period following Midsummer Day of 1618,

separate regulations applied. If transported at company expense, the

colonist was to serve as a half-share tenant for seven years with no

promise of a land grant; if at his own expense, he was to receive as a

headright fifty acres on the first dividend and the same amount on the

second dividend. This provision for the fifty-acre headright was set up

for the seven-year period prior to Midsummer Day of 1625, but it

continued beyond this date as the essential key to Virginia's land

policy of the seventeenth century.

Out of the number of people who purchased a share in the company and

thereby received a bill of adventure, Alexander Brown in his _Genesis

of the United States_ estimated that about one-third came to Virginia

and took up their land claim; approximately one-third sent over agents,

or in some cases heirs, to benefit by the grants; and the remaining

one-third disposed of their shares to others who occupied the lands.

Provisions for special lands were also stated in "the greate charter."

At each of the four focal points of settlement--James City, Charles

City, Henrico, and Kecoughtan, 3,000 acres were to be set aside as the

company's land. Half-share tenants were to cultivate the lands and half

of the company's profits was to be used to support several of the

colonial officials. For the Governor, a special plot known as the

Governor's land was to be designated at Jamestown, and half of the

proceeds of the tenants was to go to the Governor. For local government,

additional provisions were made for support by setting aside 1,500 acres

as "burroughs land" at the four points of settlement listed above.

Support of cultural activities, as well as governmental, was also

provided by land. Glebe lands were authorized at each borough, including

100 acres for the minister with a supplement from church members to pay

a total of £200 per annum. For the promotion of education, "the greate

charter" set aside 10,000 acres at Henrico as an endowment for a

"university and college." The primary aim of the college in 1618 was to

serve as an Indian mission, although the training of English students

was probably a part of the plan. Tenants were dispatched to Virginia to

work at Henrico as "tenants at halves," one-half of the proceeds of

their labor to go to the tenant, the other half to be used for the

building of the college and for support of its tutors and students. One

hundred and fifty tenants were sent over for the college land; and to

improve the returns from this enterprise, Sir Edwin Sandys engaged that

"worthy religious gentleman" George Thorpe as deputy to supervise the

investment in the college land. Patrick Copland, projector of the first

English free school in North America, was designated president-elect of

the Indian college; and Richard Downes, a scholar in England, came to

Virginia in 1619 with plans to work in the proposed college. All of

these hopeful plans were suddenly blasted by the eruption of the Indian

massacre of 1622. For all practical purposes the project was ended,

although some efforts were made after 1622 by the company to have the

remaining tenants cultivate the land and to hold the bricklayers to the

obligations of their contract.

The trace of these grants, including the company land, the Governor's

land, and the "burroughs land" fades out in the absence of complete

records for this period of the colony. Use of the glebe land as partial

support for the minister was continued in later years, although details

of the disposition of these early plots are missing. And the

appropriation of lands for support of education and other public

purposes was a recognized concept in later American history.

The issuing of patents in fee simple to land promised under the general

land dividend did not reach the extent planned by the company until the

arrival of Governor George Yeardley in 1619. There seems to be adequate

evidence to prove, as Bruce contended, that a few grants had been made

prior to this time, even prior to 1617; but no record has been preserved

in the Virginia Land Office. However, even if such grants were

authorized, it is unlikely that the proper surveys were made for many of

them.

As early as 1616 there were references by the company to send to

Virginia a surveyor who could lay out the lands to be distributed to the

adventurers. It is probable that a surveyor accompanied Captain Samuel

Argall to the colony in 1617, but the first name on record in this

position seems to be that of Richard Norwood who had previously engaged

in surveying in the Somer Isles. There is little to indicate that much

was done by Norwood. In 1621 William Claiborne accompanied Governor

Francis Wyatt to Virginia, and the arrival of these two men actuated the

granting of many tracts.

Mother Earth: Land Grants in Virginia, 1607-1699 · 第 1 / 6 段