It is true that the negro was none too efficient as a laborer. Born in

savagery, unacquainted with the English tongue, knowing little of

agriculture, it was a matter of some difficulty for him to accustom

himself to his task in the tobacco fields. Yet when his lesson had been

learned, when a few years of experience had taught him what his master

expected him to do, the slave showed himself quite adequate to the

requirements of the one staple crop. The culture of tobacco is not

essentially difficult, especially when pursued in the unscientific

manner of the colonial period. It required many, but not skilled hands.

The slave, untutored and unintelligent, proved inadequate to the

industrial needs of the northern colonies. The niceties of shipbuilding

were beyond his capacities, he was not needed as a fisherman, he was not

a good sailor, he was useless in the system of intensive agriculture in

vogue north of Maryland. But in the tobacco field he would do. He could

not at first tend so many plants as his white rival, he could not

produce tobacco of such fine quality, but what he lacked in efficiency

he more than made up for in cheapness.

The African seems to have withstood remarkably well the diseases

indigenous to eastern Virginia. There are occasional reports of

epidemics among the slaves, but usually they were fairly immune both to

malaria and dysentery. A census taken in 1714, when there were perhaps

15,000 negroes in the colony, records burials for sixty-two slaves

only.[7-39] The births of slaves for the same year totalled 253.[7-40]

These figures indicate not only the excellent physical condition in

which these black workers were kept by their masters, but the rapidity

with which they were multiplying. The low death rate is in part

explained by the fact that only strong men and women were transported to

the colonies, but it is none the less clearly indicative of the ease

with which the African accustomed himself to the climate of tidewater

Virginia.

As a rule the negro was more docile than the white servant, especially

if the latter happened to be from the ruder elements of English society.

He was not so apt to resist his master or to run away to the mountains.

Yet plots among the blacks were not unknown. In 1710 a conspiracy was

discovered among the slaves of Surry and James City counties which was

to have been put into execution on Easter day. The negroes planned to

rise simultaneously, destroy any who stood in their way, and make good

their escape out of the colony. Among the chief conspirators were Jamy,

belonging to Mr. John Broadnax, Mr. Samuel Thompson's Peter, Tom and

Cato of Mr. William Edwards, Great Jack and Little Jack of Mr. John

Edwards, and Will belonging to Mr. Henry Hart. "Two or three of these

were tried this general court," wrote Colonel Jennings, "found guilty

and will be executed. And I hope their fate will strike such a terror

in the other Negroes as will keep them from forming such designs for the

future."[7-41] The lesson did not prove lasting, however, for in 1730 a

number of slaves from Norfolk and Princess Anne counties assembled while

the whites were at church, and chose officers to command them in a bold

stroke for freedom. As in the previous attempt they were discovered,

many arrested and several of the ringleaders executed.[7-42]

Neither the merchants nor the planters seem to have been conscious of

any wrong in the seizure and sale of negroes. They regarded the native

Africans as hardly human, mere savages that were no more deserving of

consideration than oxen or horses. And as it was right and proper to

hitch the ox or the horse to the plow, so it was equally legitimate to

put the negro to work in the fields of sugar cane or tobacco. Whatever

hardships he had to endure upon the voyage to America or by reason of

his enforced labor, they considered amply compensated by his conversion

to Christianity.

It is true that the colony of Virginia early in the Eighteenth century

imposed a heavy duty upon the importation of slaves, but it did so

neither from any consciousness of wrong in slavery itself or a

perception of the social problems which were to grow out of it. At the

time the price of tobacco was declining rapidly and many planters were

losing money. Feeling that their misfortunes arose from overproduction,

which in turn was the result of the recent purchases of negroes, the

colonial legislators decided to check the trade. "The great number of

negroes imported here and solely employed in making tobacco," wrote

Governor Spotswood in 1711, "hath produced for some years past an

increase in tobacco far disproportionate to the consumption of it ...

and consequently lowered the price of it."[7-43] "The people of Virginia

will not now be so fond of purchasing negroes as of late," declared

President Jennings of the Virginia Council in 1708, "being sensibly

convinced of their error, which has in a manner ruined the credit of the

country."[7-44]

During the years from 1680 to 1700 slaves arrived in the colony in

increasing numbers. In 1681 William Fitzhugh, in a letter to Ralph

Wormeley, refers to the fact that several slave ships were expected that

year in the York river.[7-45] At this period, for the first time in

Virginia history, we find negroes in large numbers entered as headrights

upon the patent rolls. In 1693 Captain John Storey received a grant of

land for the importation of 79 negroes, in 1694 Robert Beverley brought

in seventy, in 1695 William Randolph twenty-five.[7-46] Before the end

of the century it is probable that the slaves in Virginia numbered

nearly 6,000, and had already become more important to the economic life

of the colony than the indentured servants.[7-47]

The chief purchasers at this time were men of large estates. The

advantages of slave labor were manifest to planters of the type of

William Byrd or William Fitzhugh, men who had built up fortunes by their

business ability. It is but natural that they should have turned early

from the indentured servant to stock their plantations with the cheaper

and more remunerative African workers.

As the English secured a stronger hold upon the African trade slaves

arrived in ever increasing numbers. During the years from 1699 to 1708

no less than 6,843 came in, a number perhaps exceeding the entire

importations of the Seventeenth century.[7-48] In the summer of 1705

alone 1,800 negroes arrived.[7-49] With what rapidity the black man was

taking the place of the indentured servant and the poor freeman as the

chief laborer of the colony is shown by the fact that in 1708, in a

total tithable list of 30,000, no less than 12,000 were slaves.

President Jennings at the same time reported that the number of

servants was inconsiderable.[7-50] "Before the year 1680 what negroes

came to Virginia were usually from Barbadoes," Jennings told the Board

of Trade in 1708. "Between 1680 and 1698 the negro trade become more

frequent, tho not in any proportion to what it hath been of late, during

which the African Company have sent several ships and others by their

licence having bought their slaves of the Company brought them here for

sale, among which lately Alderman Jeffreys and Sir Jeffry Jeffreys were

principally concerned."[7-51]

The wars of Charles XII, however, which proved disastrous to the Baltic

trade, and the War of the Spanish Succession which cut off exports of

tobacco to France and Spain, caused a serious decline in prices and made

it impossible for the planters to continue the large purchases of

slaves. This fact, together with the duty which had been imposed with

the express purpose of keeping them out, reduced the importations to a

minimum during the years from 1710 to 1718.[7-52] But with the reopening

of the tobacco market and the return of prosperity to Virginia, the

black stream set in again with redoubled force. In 1730, out of a total

population of 114,000, no less than 30,000 were negroes.[7-53] In other

words the slaves, who in 1670 had constituted but five per cent of the

people, now comprised twenty-six per cent. Slavery, from being an

insignificant factor in the economic life of the colony, had become the

very foundation upon which it was established.

As we have seen it was not slavery but the protracted accumulation of

surplus stocks of tobacco in England which had broken the long continued

deadlock of the tobacco trade during the Restoration period and caused

the overflow into continental markets. That the labor of blacks at first

played no essential part in the movement is evident from the fact that

in 1682 when it first became pronounced, the slave population of

Virginia and Maryland was still insignificant. But that the trade not

only continued after the glut in England had been cleared up, but

increased with startling rapidity, was unquestionably the result of more

universal use of negroes in the years immediately preceding the War of

the Spanish Succession. Slavery so cheapened the cost of production that

it was now quite possible for those who used them to pay the half penny

a pound duty on 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."[7-54] Similarly Colonel Spencer wrote to the Board

of Trade. "The low price of tobacco requires it should be made as cheap

as possible. The Blacks can make it cheaper than Whites, so I conceive

it is for his Majesty's interest full as much as the Country's or rather

much more, to have Blacks as cheap as possible in Virginia."[7-55]

It is evident, then, that the opening of the European market and the

vast expansion of the tobacco trade, while bringing prosperity to the

larger planters, was no great boon to the man who tilled his fields with

his own hands. It assured him a ready sale for his crop, it is true, but

at prices so low as to leave him a very narrow margin of profit. The new

era which was opening, the so-called golden era of Virginia history, was

not for him. Virginia in the Eighteenth century was to be the land of

the slave holder, not of the little planter.

_CHAPTER VIII_

BENEATH THE BLACK TIDE

The importation of slaves in large numbers reacted almost immediately

upon the migration of whites to Virginia. As we have seen, the stream of

indentured servants that poured across the Atlantic remained remarkably

constant throughout almost all of the Seventeenth century. The larger

planters were always in need of laborers, and they looked to the surplus

population of England to supply them. But with the coming of the blacks

all was changed. The Virginians saw in the slave ships which now so

frequently entered their rivers the solution of all their problems. And

so the influx of white men and women from the mother country dwindled

and almost died out, while in its place came a still greater stream from

the coast of Africa.

At the time of Bacon's Rebellion the annual importation of servants was

between 1,500 and 2,000. The headrights for 1674 show 1931 names.[8-1]

Seven years later the whites were still arriving in large numbers, the

rolls for 1682 having 1,565 names. As the century drew to a close,

however, the effect of the slave trade upon white immigration is

reflected in the dwindling number of headrights. The change that was

taking place is illustrated by a patent of 13,500 acres to Ralph

Wormleley for the transportation of 249 persons, 149 of whom were white

and 100 black.[8-2] Yet so late as 1704 the servants were still coming

in appreciable numbers. In 1708 however, the number of servants at work

in the colony had dwindled away almost entirely.[8-3] In 1715 the names

of white persons listed as headrights was but ninety-one; in 1718 but

101.[8-4] In other words, the first great migration of Englishmen to

continental America, a migration extending over a century and comprising

from 100,000 to 150,000 men, women and children, had practically come to

an end.

English statesmen at the time looked upon this event as an unalloyed

blessing. The day had passed when they felt that there existed a surplus

of labor at home and that the country was in need of blood letting. The

proper policy was to keep Englishmen in England, to devote their

energies to local industries and so strengthen the economic and military

sinews of the nation. And if unemployment existed, it was the correct

policy to bring work to the idle rather than send the idle out of the

country in quest of work.[8-5] And the colonies were to be utilized, no

longer as outlets for the population, but as a means to the upbuilding

of local industry. They were to supply a market for English goods, keep

employed English mariners and furnish the tobacco and sugar which when

re-exported weighed so heavily in the balance of trade. And since these

great staple crops could be produced by the work of slaves, it was

thought highly advantageous for all concerned that the negro should

replace the white servant in both the tobacco and the sugar fields. The

planters would profit by the lowered cost of production, English

industry would gain by the increased volume of traffic, the Crown

revenues would be enhanced and English laborers would be kept at

home.[8-6]

Apparently the deeper significance of this great movement was entirely

lost upon the British economists and ministers. They had no conception

of the advantage of having their colonies inhabited by one race alone

and that race their own. From the first their vision was too restricted

to embrace the idea of a new and greater Britain in its fullest sense.

They could not bring themselves to look upon the soil of Virginia and

Maryland as a part of the soil of an extended England, upon the

Virginians and Marylanders as Englishmen, enjoying privileges equal to

their own. They could not realize the strength that would come from such

an empire as this, the mighty future it would insure to the Anglo-Saxon

race.

Their conception was different. The British empire must consist of two

distinct parts--mother country and colonies. And in any clash of

interest between the two, the former must prevail. It was not their

intent that the colonies should be purposely sacrificed, that they

should be made to pay tribute to a tyrannical parent. In fact, they

earnestly desired that the plantations should prosper, for when they

languished English industry suffered. But in their eyes the colonies

existed primarily for the benefit of England. England had given them

birth, had defended them, had nurtured them; she was amply justified,

therefore, in subordinating them to her own industrial needs.

Thus they viewed the substitution of the importation of slaves to the

tobacco colonies for the importation of white men purely from an

English, not an Anglo-Saxon, point of view. Had it been a question of

bringing thousands of negroes to England itself to drive the white

laborers from the fields, they would have interposed an emphatic veto.

But with the structure of colonial life they were not greatly concerned.

In 1693, when James Blair secured from the King and Queen a gift for his

new college at Williamsburg, Attorney-General Seymour objected

vigorously, stating that there was not the least occasion for such an

institution in Virginia. Blair reminded him that the chief purpose of

the college was to educate young men for the ministry and begged him to

consider that the people of the colony had souls to be saved as well as

the people of England. "Souls! Damn your souls," snapped the

Attorney-General, "make tobacco."[8-7] It would be unfair to say that

the British Government took just the same view of the colonists as did

Seymour, but there can be no doubt that their chief concern in the

plantations was centered upon the size of their exports to England and

of their purchases of English goods. And as the slaves could make more

tobacco than the indentured servants, it became the settled policy of

the Crown to encourage the African trade in every possible way.

The influx of slaves not only put almost a complete end to the

importation of white servants, but it reacted disastrously upon the

Virginia yeomanry. In this respect we find a close parallel with the

experience of ancient Rome with slave labor. In the third and second

centuries before Christ the glory of the republic lay in its peasantry.

The self-reliant, sturdy, liberty-loving yeoman formed the backbone of

the conquering legion and added to the life of the republic that rugged

strength that made it so irresistible. "To say that a citizen is a good

farmer is to reach the extreme limit of praise," said Cato. Some of the

ablest of the early Roman generals were recruited from the small farmer

class. Fabius Maximus, the Dictator, in need of money, sent his son to

Rome to sell his sole possession, a little farm of seven jugera.

Regulus, while in Africa, asked that he be recalled from his command

because the hired man he had left to cultivate his fields had fled with

all his farm implements, and he feared his wife and children would

starve.[8-8]

This vigorous peasantry was destroyed by the importation of hordes of

slaves and the purchase of cheap foreign grain. So long as the wars of

Rome were limited to Italy the number of slaves was comparatively small,

but as her armies swept over the Mediterranean countries one after

another and even subdued the wild Gauls and Britains, an unending stream

of captives poured into the city and filled to overflowing the slave

markets. Cicero, during his short campaign against the Parthians wrote

to Atticus that the sale of his prisoners had netted no less than

12,000,000 sestercias. In Epirus 100,000 men were captured; 60,000

Cimbries and 100,000 Germans graced the triumph of Marius; Caesar is

said to have taken in Gaul another 100,000 prisoners. Soon the slave

became the cheapest of commodities, and he who possessed even the most

extensive lands could readily supply himself with the labor requisite

for their cultivation.

Thus thrown into competition with slave labor the peasant proprietor

found it impossible to sustain himself. The grain which he produced with

his own hands had to compete in the same market with that made by

slaves. It must, therefore, sell for the same price, a price so low that

it did not suffice to feed and clothe him and his family. So he was

forced to give up his little estate, an estate perhaps handed down to

him by generations of farmers, and migrate to the city of Rome, to swell

the idle and plebeian population. And once there he demanded bread, a

demand which the authorities dared not refuse. So the public treasury

laid out the funds for the purchase of wheat from all parts of the

world, from Spain, from Africa, from Sicily, wheat which was given away

or sold for a song. This in turn reacted unfavorably upon the peasants

who still clung to the soil in a desperate effort to wring from it a

bare subsistence, and accelerated the movement to the city.

Thus Italy was transformed from the land of the little farmer into the

land of big estates cultivated by slaves. A sad development surely, a

development which had much to do with the decay and final overthrow of

the mighty structure of the Roman Empire. In former times, Titus Livius

tells us, "there was a multitude of free men in this country where today

we can hardly find a handful of soldiers, and which would be a

wilderness were it not for our slaves." "The plough is everywhere

bereft of honor," wrote Virgil, while Lucian bewailed the departed

peasants whose places were taken by fettered slaves.[8-9]

The importation of slaves to Virginia had somewhat similar results.

While not destroying entirely the little farmer class, it exerted a

baleful influence upon it, driving many families out of the colony,

making the rich man richer, reducing the poor man to dire poverty.

Against this unfortunate development the Virginia yeoman was helpless.

Instinctively he must have felt that the slave was his enemy, and the

hatred and rivalry which even today exists between the negro and the

lowest class of whites, the so-called "poor white trash," dates back to

the Seventeenth century.

The emigration of poor persons, usually servants just freed, from

Virginia to neighboring colonies was well under way even at the time of

Bacon's Rebellion. In 1677 complaint was made of "the inconvenience

which arose from the neighborhood of Maryland and North Carolina," in

that Virginia was daily deprived of its inhabitants by the removal of

poor men hither. Runaway servants were welcomed in both places, it was

asserted, while the debtor was accorded protection against

prosecution.[8-10] This early emigration was caused, of course, not by

the importation of slaves, for that movement had not yet assumed

important proportions, but by the evil consequences of the Navigation

Acts. The Virginia yeoman moved on to other colonies because he found it

impossible to maintain himself at the current price of tobacco.

The continuance of the movement, for it persisted for a full half

century, must be ascribed to the competition of negro labor. Like the

Roman peasant, the Virginia yeoman, to an extent at least, found it

impossible to maintain himself in the face of slave competition. The

servant, upon the expiration of his term, no longer staked off his

little farm and settled down to a life of usefulness and industry. The

poor planter who had not yet fully established himself, sold or deserted

his fields and moved away in search of better opportunities and higher

returns.

This migration was not the first of its kind in the English colonies,

for the movement of Massachusetts congregations into the valley of the

Connecticut antedated it by several decades. Yet it furnishes an

interesting illustration of the lack of permanency in American life, of

the facility with which populations urged on by economic pressure of one

kind or another change localities. The great movement westward over the

Appalachian range which followed the War of 1812, the pilgrimages of

homesteaders to the northwest and the Pacific coast, find their

precedent in the exodus of these poor families from the tobacco fields

of Virginia.

In the last decade of the Seventeenth century the migration assumed such

large proportions that the Board of Trade became alarmed and directed

Francis Nicholson to enquire into its cause in order that steps might be

taken to stop it. The emigrant stream that directed itself northward did

not halt in eastern Maryland, for conditions there differed little from

those in Virginia itself. The settlers went on to the unoccupied lands

in the western part of the colony, or made their way into Delaware or

Pennsylvania. "The reason why inhabitants leave this province," wrote

Nicholson, while Governor of Maryland, "is, I think, the encouragement

which they receive from the Carolinas, the Jerseys, and above all from

Pennsylvania, which is so nigh that it is easy to remove thither. There

handicraft tradesmen have encouragement when they endeavor to set up

woolen manufactures."[8-11]

Although this explanation does not go to the root of the matter, it was

in part correct. The northern colonies held out far greater

opportunities for the poor man than the slave choked fields of

tidewater Maryland and Virginia. The industries of Pennsylvania and

Delaware and the Jerseys demanded a certain degree of skill and yielded

in return a very fair living. In other words, the poor settlers in

Virginia, finding that tobacco culture was now based upon the cheap

labor of African slaves, moved away to other localities where

intelligence still brought an adequate reward.

The Maryland House of Delegates, when asked to give their opinion in

this matter, thought that it was a desire to escape the payment of debts

which made some of the "meaner inhabitants" seek shelter in Delaware Bay

and the Carolinas. They came nearer the real cause when they added that

the low price paid by the merchants for tobacco obliged many to

leave.[8-12] Nicholson was not satisfied with this answer. "They will

not directly own," he wrote, "that setting up manufactures and

handicraft-trades in Pennsylvania, the large tracts of land held by some

persons here and the encouragement given to illegal traders are the

causes that make people leave this province. They would have it that

they wish to avoid the persecution of their creditors, which causes them

to shelter themselves among the inhabitants of the Lower Counties of

Delaware Bay and of Carolina. The low price of tobacco has obliged many

of the planters to try their fortune elsewhere, and the currency of

money in Pennsylvania, which here is not, draws them to that province

from this."[8-13]

In Virginia the difficulty of securing desirable land because of the

large tracts patented by rich planters was usually assigned as the

reason for the migration of poor families. This view of the matter was

taken by Edward Randolph, the man who had won the undying hatred of the

people of Massachusetts by his attempts to enforce the Navigation Acts

there and by his attacks upon their charter. In 1696 Randolph did

Virginia the honor of a visit, and although encountering there none of

the opposition which had so angered him in New England, he sent to the

Board of Trade a memorial concerning the colony, criticising the

government severely. "It should be inquired into," he said, "how it

comes to pass that the colony (the first English settlement on the

continent of America, begun above 80 years ago) is not better inhabited,

considering what vast numbers of servants and others have yearly been

transported thither.... The chief and only reason is the Inhabitants and

Planters have been and at this time are discouraged and hindered from

planting tobacco in that colony, and servants are not so willing to go

there as formerly, because the members of the Council and others, who

make an interest in the Government, have from time to time procured

grants of very large Tracts of land, so that there has not for many

years been any waste land to be taken up by those who bring with them

servants, or by such Servants, who have served their time faithfully

with their Masters, but it is taken up and ingrossed beforehand, whereby

they are forced to hyer and pay a yearly rent for some of those Lands,

or go to the utmost bounds of the Colony for Land, exposed to danger and

often times proves the Occasion of Warr with the Indians."[8-14]

For their large holdings the wealthy men paid not one penny of quit

rents, Randolph said, and failed to comply with the regulations for

seating new lands. The law demanded that upon receipt of a patent one

must build a house upon the ground, improve and plant the soil and keep

a good stock of cattle or hogs. But in their frontier holdings the

wealthy men merely erected a little bark hut and turned two or three

hogs into the woods by it. Or else they would clear one acre of land and

plant a little Indian corn for one year, trusting that this evasion

would square them with the letter of the law. By such means, Randolph

adds, vast tracts were held, all of which had been procured on easy

terms and much by means of false certificates of rights. "Which drives

away the inhabitants and servants, brought up only to planting, to seek

their fortunes in Carolina or other places."[8-15]

Randolph suggested that the evil might be remedied by requiring a strict

survey of lands in every county, by demanding all arrears of quit rents,

by giving strict orders that in the future no grant should exceed 500

acres. These measures, he believed, would cause 100,000 acres to revert

to the Crown, and "invite home those who for want of Land left

Virginia." It would encourage other persons to come from neighboring

colonies to take up holdings and "mightily increase the number of

Planters." This would augment the production of tobacco by many

thousands of hogsheads, stimulate trade and industry in England, and aid

his Majesty's revenue.

The Board of Trade was deeply impressed. They wrote to Governor Andros

explaining to him the substance of Randolph's report and asking what

steps should be taken to remedy the evils he had pointed out. "But this

seeming to us a matter of very great consequence," they added, "we have

not been willing to meddle in it without your advice, which we now

desire you to give fully and plainly." But Andros knew full well that it

was no easy matter to make the large landowners disgorge. The thing had

been attempted by Nicholson several years earlier, when suit was

instituted against Colonel Lawrence Smith for arrears of quit rents upon

tracts of land which had never been under cultivation.[8-16] But before

the case came to trial Nicholson had been recalled and it was afterward

compounded for a nominal sum. The proceedings had caused great

resentment among the powerful clique which centered around the Council

of State, and Andros was reluctant to reopen the matter. He knew of no

frauds in granting patents of land, he wrote the Board, and could

suggest no remedy for what was past, "being a matter of Property." He

agreed, however, that to limit the size of future patents would tend to

"the more regular planting and thicker seating of the frontier

lands."[8-17]

Consequently when Francis Nicholson was commissioned as Governor in

1698, he received strict instructions to advise with the Council and the

Assembly upon this matter and to report back to the Board.[8-18] That

nothing was accomplished, however, may clearly be inferred from a letter

of a certain George Larkin written December 22, 1701. "There is no

encouragement for anyone to come to the Plantation," he declared, "most

of the land lying at all convenient being taken up. Some have 20,000,

30,000 or 40,000 acres, the greater part of which is unimployed."[8-19]

Two years later Nicholson himself wrote that certain recent grants were

for ten or twenty thousand acres each, so that privileged persons had

engrossed all the good land in those parts, by which means they kept

others from settling it or else made them pay for it.[8-20]

Despite all the concern which this matter created, it is doubtful

whether it was to any appreciable extent responsible for the continued

emigration of poor families. The mere granting of patents for large

tracts of land could not of itself fix the economic structure of the

colony, could not, if all other conditions were favorable, prevent the

establishment of small freeholds. Rather than have their fields lie idle

while the poor men who should have been cultivating them trooped out of

the colony, the rich would gladly have sold them in small parcels at

nominal prices. In the first half century after the settlement at

Jamestown, as we have seen, such a breakup of extensive holdings into

little farms actually occurred. Had similar conditions prevailed in the

later period a like development would have followed. But in 1630 or

1650, when slaves were seldom employed and when tobacco was high, the

poor man's toil yielded a return so large that he could well afford to

purchase a little farm and make himself independent. In 1680 or 1700, in

the face of the competition of slave labor, he was almost helpless. Even

had he found a bit of unoccupied ground to which he could secure a

title, he could not make it yield enough to sustain him and his

family.[8-21]

In 1728 Governor Gooch wrote the Board of Trade that the former belief

that large holdings of frontier land had been an impediment to

settlement was entirely erroneous. It was his opinion, in fact, that

extensive grants made it to the interest of the owners to bring in

settlers and so populate the country. In confirmation of this he pointed

to the fact that Spotsylvania country, where many large patents had been

issued, had filled up more rapidly than Brunswick, where they had been

restricted in size.[8-22]

In the first decade of the new century the emigration out of the tobacco

colonies continued without abatement. With another disastrous decline in

the price of tobacco following the outbreak of the wars of Charles XII

and Louis XIV, so many families moved over the border that the Board of

Trade, once more becoming seriously alarmed, questioned the Council as

to the causes of the evil and what steps should be taken to remedy it.

In their reply the Councillors repeated the old arguments, declaring

that the lack of land in Virginia and the immunity of debtors from

prosecution in the proprietory colonies were responsible for the

movement. But they touched the heart of the matter in their further

statement that the great stream of negroes that was pouring into the

colony had so increased the size of the tobacco crop that prices had

declined and the poor found it difficult to subsist. Not only "servants

just free go to North Carolina," they wrote, "but old planters whose

farms are worn out."[8-23]

A year later President Jennings stated that the migration was

continuing and that during the summer of 1709 "many entire families" had

moved out of the colony.[8-24] In fact, although but few indentured

servants arrived from England after the first decade of the century,

poor whites were still departing for the north or for western Carolina

so late as 1730. William Byrd II tells us that in 1728, when he was

running the dividing line between Virginia and North Carolina, he was

entertained by a man who "was lately removed, Bag and Baggage from

Maryland, thro a strong Antipathy he had to work and paying his Debts."

Indeed he thought it a "thorough Aversion to Labor" which made "People

file off to North Carolina."[8-25]

It is impossible to estimate the numbers involved in this movement, but

they must have run into the thousands. For a full half century a large

proportion of the white immigrants to Virginia seem to have remained

there for a comparatively short time only, then to pass on to other

settlements. And the migration to Virginia during these years we know to

have comprised not less than thirty or thirty-five thousand persons. In

fact, it would seem that this movement out of the older colony must have

been a very important factor in the peopling of its neighbors, not only

western Carolina and western Maryland, but Delaware and Pennsylvania.

Though many thus fled before the stream of negroes which poured in from

Africa, others remained behind to fight for their little plantations.

Yet they waged a losing battle. Those who found it possible to purchase

slaves, even one or two, could ride upon the black tide, but the others

slowly sank beneath it.

During the first half of the Eighteenth century the poor whites sought

to offset the cheapness of slave made tobacco by producing themselves

only the highest grades. The traders who dealt in the finest Orinoco,

which brought the best prices, found it not upon the plantations of the

wealthy, but of those who tended their plants with their own hands. "I

must beg you to remember that the common people make the best," wrote

Governor Gooch to the Lords of Trade in 1731.[8-26]

In fact, the wealthy planter, with his newly acquired gangs of slaves,

found it difficult at this time to produce any save the lower grades of

tobacco. The African was yet too savage, too untutored in the ways of

civilization to be utilized for anything like intensive cultivation.

"Though they may plant more in quantity," wrote Gooch, "yet it

frequently proves very mean stuff, different from the Tobacco produced

from well improved and well tended Grounds." "Yet the rich Man's trash

will always damp the Market," he adds, "and spoil the poor Man's good

Tobacco which has been carefully managed."[8-27] Thus the small farmer

made one last desperate effort to save himself by pitting his superior

intelligence against the cheapness of slave labor.

But his case was hopeless. As slavery became more and more fixed upon

the colony, the negro gradually increased in efficiency. He learned to

speak his master's language, brokenly of course, but well enough for all

practical purposes. He was placed under the tutelage of overseers, who

taught him the details of his work and saw that he did it. He became a

civilized being, thoroughly drilled in the one task required of him, the

task of producing tobacco. Thus the rich planter soon found it possible

to cultivate successfully the higher grades, and so to drive from his

last rampart the white freeholder whose crop was tended by himself

alone.

Placed at so great a disadvantage, the poor man, at all times in very

difficult circumstances, found it almost impossible to exist whenever

conditions in Europe sent the price of tobacco down. In the years from

1706 to 1714, when the tobacco trade was interrupted by the wars of

Charles XII in the Baltic region and the protracted struggle known as

the War of the Spanish Succession, he was reduced to the utmost

extremities.

Virginia and Maryland were learning that a prosperity founded upon one

crop which commanded a world market was in unsettled times subject to

serious setbacks. It was a long cry from the James and the Potomac to

the Baltic ports, yet the welfare of the Virginia and Maryland planters

was in no small degree dependent upon the maintenance of peaceful

conditions in Poland and Sweden and Russia. A war which seriously

curtailed the exportation of English leaf to the northern countries

would inevitably react on the price and so bring misfortune to the

colonial planters. When called before the Board of Trade to testify as

to the decay of the tobacco trade, the manufacturer John Linton declared

that the Baltic countries, which formerly had purchased thousands of

hogsheads a year, now took comparatively few. "The Russian trade is

ruined," he said.[8-28]

The war against France and Spain, coming at this unfortunate juncture,

still further restricted the market, sent prices down to new depths and

filled to overflowing the planters' cup of misfortune. "The war has

stopped the trade with Spain, France, Flanders and part of the Baltic,"

Colonel Quary reported in a memorial to the Board of Trade, "which took

off yearly 20,000 hogsheads of tobacco. Now our best foreign market is

Holland."[8-29] The pamphlet entitled _The Present State of the Tobacco

Plantations in America_ stated, in 1708, that France and Spain alone had

imported 20,000 hogsheads, but that both were now otherwise supplied.

"The troubles in Sweden, Poland, Russia, etc., have prevented the usual

exportation of great quantities to those ports. Virginia and Maryland

have severely felt the loss of such exportation, having so far reduced

the planters that for several years past the whole product of their

tobacco would hardly clothe the servants that made it."[8-30]

Their misfortunes were accentuated by the fact that the Dutch took

advantage of the European upheavals to gain control of a part of the

tobacco trade. Upon the outbreak of the war with Louis XIV, England

prohibited the exportation of tobacco either to France or to Spain, but

Holland, despite her participation in the struggle, apparently took no

such action. On the contrary she strained every nerve to entrench

herself in the markets of her ally before peace should once more open

the flood gates to Virginia and Maryland tobacco. With this in view the

acreage in Holland devoted to the cultivation of the leaf was rapidly

extended. "The Dutch are improving and increasing their tobacco

plantations," wrote John Linton in 1706. "In 1701 they produced only

18,000 hogsheads. Last year it was 33,500 hogsheads." Plantations at

Nimwegen, Rhenen, Amersfoort and Nijkerk turned out 13,400,000 pounds,

while great quantities were raised on the Main, in Higher Germany and in

Prussia.[8-31]

The Dutch mixed their own leaf with that of Virginia and Maryland in the

proportion of four to one, subjected it to a process of manufacture and

sent it out to all the European markets.[8-32] In 1707 a letter to John

Linton stated that they had from thirty to forty houses for "making up

tobacco in rolls," employing 4,000 men, besides great numbers of women

and girls. Their Baltic exports were estimated at 12,350,000 pounds;

2,500,000 pounds to Norway, 1,500,000 to Jutland and Denmark, 4,000,000

to Sweden, 2,350,000 to Lapland, 2,000,000 to Danzig and

Koenigsberg.[8-33]

With the continuation of the war on the continent Dutch competition

became stronger and stronger. In 1714, when peace was at last in

prospect, they seemed thoroughly entrenched in many of the markets

formerly supplied by the English. "The planting of tobacco in Holland,

Germany, Etc.," it was reported to the Board of Trade, "is increased to

above four times what it was 20 years ago, and amounts now to as much as

is made in both Virginia and Maryland." The tobacco trade, which had

formerly produced some L250,000 in the balance of trade, had declined to

about half that figure, exports of manufactured goods to the Chesapeake

were rapidly dwindling, the number of ships engaged in carrying tobacco

was greatly reduced, the merchants were impoverished, the planters were

ruined.[8-34]

"It is hardly possible to imagine a more miserable spectacle than the

poorer sort of inhabitants in this colony," the Council wrote in 1713,

"whose labour in tobacco has not for several years afforded them

clothing to shelter them from the violent colds as well as heats to both

which this climate is subject in the several seasons. The importation of

British and other European commodities by the merchants, whereby the

planters were formerly well supplied with clothing, is now in a manner

wholly left off and the small supplies still ventured sold at such

prodigeous rates as they please. Many families formerly well clothed and

their houses well furnished are now reduced to rags and all the visible

marks of poverty."[8-35]

This unfortunate period was but temporary. With the conclusion of peace

English tobacco was dumped upon the European market at a figure so low

as to defy competition. And when once the hogsheads began to move, the

reaction on Virginia and Maryland was rapid and pronounced. Soon prices

rose again to the old levels, and the colony entered upon a period, for

the larger planters at least, of unprecedented prosperity.[8-36] But the

eight years of hardship and poverty made a lasting imprint upon the

poorest class of whites. Coming as they did upon the heels of the first

great wave of negro immigration, they accelerated the movement of the

disrupting forces already at work. It was not by accident that the

largest migration of whites to other settlements occurred just at this

time and that the inquiries as to its cause are most frequent. The

little planter class never fully recovered from the blow dealt it by the

temporary loss of the larger part of the European tobacco trade.

The small freeholders who possessed neither servants nor slaves did not

disappear entirely, but they gradually declined in numbers and sank into

abject poverty. During the period of Spotswood's administration they

still constituted a large part of the population. The tax list for 1716

in Lancaster, one of the older counties, shows that of 314 persons

listed as tithables, 202 paid for themselves only.[8-37] Making ample

deductions for persons not owning land it would appear that more than

half the planters at this date still tilled their fields only with their

own labor. At the time of the American Revolution, however, the

situation had changed materially, and a decided dwindling of the poor

farmer class is noticeable. In Gloucester county the tax lists for

1782-83 show 490 white families, of which 320 were in possession of

slaves. Of the 170 heads of families who possessed no negroes, since no

doubt some were overseers, some artisans, some professional men, it is

probable that not more than eighty or ninety were proprietors.[8-38] In

Spotsylvania county similar conditions are noted. Of 704 tithable whites

listed in 1783 all save 199 possessed slaves.[8-39] In Dinwiddie county,

in the year 1782, of 843 tithable whites, 210 only were not slave

holders.[8-40] Apparently the Virginia yeoman, the sturdy, independent

farmer of the Seventeenth century, who tilled his little holding with

his own hands, had become an insignificant factor in the life of the

colony. The glorious promises which the country had held out to him in

the first fifty years of its existence had been belied. The Virginia

which had formerly been so largely the land of the little farmer, had

become the land of masters and slaves. For aught else there was no

room.

Before the end of the Eighteenth century the condition of the poorest

class had become pitiable. The French philosopher Chastellux who spent

much time in Virginia during the American Revolution testifies to their

extreme misery. "It is there that I saw poor persons for the first time

since crossing the ocean," he says. "In truth, near these rich

plantations, in which the negro alone is unhappy, are often found

miserable huts inhabited by whites whose wan faces and ragged garments

give testimony to their poverty."[8-41]

Philip Fithian, in his _Journal_, describes the habits of this class and

is vigorous in his condemnation of the brutal fights which were so

common among them. "In my opinion animals which seek after and relish

such odius and filthy amusements are not of the human species," he says,

"they are destitute of the remotest pretension of humanity."[8-42] Even

the negroes of the wealthy regarded these persons with contempt, a

contempt which they were at no pains to conceal.

The traveller Smyth thought them "kind, hospitable and generous," but

"illiberal, noisy and rude," and much "addicted to inebriety and averse

to labor." This class, he says, "who ever compose the bulk of mankind,

are in Virginia more few in numbers, in proportion to the rest of the

inhabitants, than perhaps in any other country in the universe."[8-43]

But it must not be imagined that slavery drove out or ruined the entire

class of small farmers, leaving Virginia alone to the wealthy. In fact,

most of those who were firmly established remained, finding their

salvation in themselves purchasing slaves. Few indeed had been able to

avail themselves of the labor of indentured servants; the cost of

transportation was too heavy, the term too short, the chances of

sickness or desertion too great. But with the influx of thousands of

negroes, the more enterprising and industrious of the poor planters

quite frequently made purchases. Although the initial outlay was

greater, they could secure credit by pledging their farms and their

crops, and in the end the investment usually paid handsome dividends and

many who could not raise the money to buy a full grown negro, often

found it possible to secure a child, which in time would become a

valuable asset.

This movement may readily be traced by an examination of the tax lists

and county records of the Eighteenth century. In Lancaster even so early

as 1716 we find that the bulk of the slaves were in the hands, not of

wealthy proprietors, but of comparatively poor persons. Of the 314

taxpayers listed, 113 paid for themselves alone, 94 for two only, 37 for

three, 22 for four, thirteen for five, while thirty-five paid for more

than five. As there were but few servants in the colony at this time it

may be taken for granted that the larger part of the tithables paid for

by others were negro slaves. It would seem, then, that of some 200 slave

owners in this country, about 165 possessed from one to four negroes

only. There were but four persons listed as having more than twenty

slaves, William Ball with 22, Madam Fox with 23, William Fox with 25 and

Robert Carter with 126.[8-44]

Nor did the class of little slave holders melt away as time passed. In

fact they continued to constitute the bulk of the white population of

Virginia for a century and a half, from the beginning of the Eighteenth

century until the conquest of the State by Federal troops in 1865. Thus

we find that of 633 slave owners in Dinwiddie county in 1782, 95 had one

only, 66 had two, 71 three, 45 four, 50 five, making an aggregate of

327, or more than half of all the slave holders, who possessed from one

to five negroes.[8-45] In Spotsylvania there were, in 1783, 505 slave

owners, of whom 78 possessed one each, 54 two, 44 three, 41 four, and 30

five each. Thus 247, or nearly 49 per cent of the slave holders, had

from one to five slaves only. One hundred and sixteen, or 23 per cent,

had from six to ten inclusive.[8-46] The Gloucester lists for 1783 show

similar conditions. There were in this country 320 slave holders, having

3,314 negroes, an average of about 10-1/3 for each owner. Fifty had one

each, 41 had two each, 9 had three, 30 had four and twenty-six had five.

Thus 156, or about half of all the owners, had from one to five

slaves.[8-47] In Princess Anne county, of a total of 388 slave owners,

100 had one each, 56 had two each and forty-five had three each.[8-48]

Records of transfers of land tend to substantiate this testimony, by

showing that the average holdings at all times in the Eighteenth century

were comparatively small. In the years from 1722 to 1729 Spotsylvania

was a new county, just opened to settlers, and a large part of its area

had been granted in large tracts to wealthy patentees. Yet the deed book

for these years shows that it was actually settled, not by these men

themselves, but by a large number of poor planters. Of the 197 transfers

of land recorded, 44 were for 100 acres or less and 110 for 300 acres or

less. The average deed was for 487 acres. As some of the transfers were

obviously made for speculative purposes and not with the intent of

putting the land under cultivation, even this figure is misleading. The

average farm during the period was probably not in excess of 400 acres.

One of the most extensive dealers in land in Spotsylvania was Larkin

Chew who secured a patent for a large tract and later broke it up into

many small holdings which were sold to new settlers.[8-49]

This substitution of the small slave holder for the man who used only

his own labor in the cultivation of his land unquestionably saved the

class of small proprietors from destruction. Without it all would have

been compelled to give up their holdings in order to seek their fortunes

elsewhere, or sink to the condition of "poor white trash." Yet the

movement was in many ways unfortunate. It made the poor man less

industrious and thrifty. Formerly he had known that he could win

nothing except by the sweat of his brow, but now he was inclined to let

the negro do the work. Slavery cast a stigma upon labor which proved

almost as harmful to the poor white man as did negro competition. Work

in the tobacco fields was recognized as distinctly the task of an

inferior race, a task not in keeping with the dignity of freemen.

Jefferson states that few indeed of the slave owners were ever seen to

work. "For in a warm climate," he adds, "no man will labour for himself

who can make another labour for him."[8-50] Chastellux noted the same

tendency, declaring "that the indolence and dissipation of the middling

and lower classes of white inhabitants of Virginia is such as to give

pain to every reflecting mind."[8-51]

Slavery developed in the small farmers a spirit of pride and haughtiness

that was unknown to them in the Seventeenth century. Every man, no

matter how poor, was surrounded by those to whom he felt himself

superior, and this gave him a certain self-esteem. Smyth spoke of the

middle class as generous, friendly and hospitable in the extreme, but

possessing a rudeness and haughtiness which was the result of their

"general intercourse with slaves."[8-52] Beverley described them as

haughty and jealous of their liberties, and so impatient of restraint

that they could hardly bear the thought of being controlled by any

superior power. Hugh Jones, Anbury, Fithian and other Eighteenth century

writers all confirm this testimony.

Despite the persistence of the small slave holder it is obvious that

there were certain forces at work tending to increase the number of

well-to-do and wealthy planters. Now that the labor problem, which in

the Seventeenth century had proved so perplexing, had finally been

solved, there was no limit to the riches that might be acquired by

business acumen, industry and good management. And as in the modern

industrial world the large corporation has many advantages over the

smaller firms, so in colonial Virginia the most economical way of

producing tobacco was upon the large plantations.

The wealthy man had the advantage of buying and selling in bulk, he

enjoyed excellent credit and could thus often afford to withhold his

crop from the market when prices were momentarily unfavorable, he could

secure the best agricultural instruments. Most important of all,

however, was the fact that he could utilize the resources of his

plantation for the production of crude manufactured supplies, thus to a

certain extent freeing himself from dependence upon British imports and

keeping his slaves at work during all seasons of the year. Before the

Eighteenth century had reached its fifth decade every large plantation

had become to a remarkable degree self-sustaining. Each numbered among

its working force various kinds of mechanics--coopers, blacksmiths,

tanners, carpenters, shoemakers, distillers. These men could be set to

work whenever the claims of the tobacco crop upon their time were not

imperative producing many of the coarser articles required upon the

plantation, articles which the poor farmer had to import from England.

For this work white men were at first almost universally made use of,

but in time their places were taken by slaves. "Several of them are

taught to be sawyers, carpenters, smiths, coopers, &c.," says the

historian Hugh Jones, "though for the most part they be none of the

aptest or nicest."[8-53]

The carpenter was kept busy constructing barns and servants' quarters,

or repairing stables, fences, gates and wagons. The blacksmith was

called upon to shoe horses, to keep in order ploughs, hinges, sickles,

saws, perhaps even to forge outright such rough iron ware as nails,

chains and hoes. The cooper made casks in which to ship the tobacco

crop, barrels for flour and vats for brandy and cider. The tanner

prepared leather for the plantation and the cobbler fashioned it into

shoes for the slaves. Sometimes there were spinners, weavers and

knitters who made coarse cloth both for clothing and for bedding. The

distiller every season made an abundant supply of cider, as well as

apple, peach and persimmon brandy.

And the plantation itself provided the materials for this varied

manufacture. The woods of pine, chestnut and oak yielded timber for

houses and fuel for the smithy. The herd of cattle supplied hides for

the tanner. The cloth makers got cotton, flax and hemp from the

planter's own fields, and wool from his sheep. His orchard furnished

apples, grapes, peaches in quantities ample for all the needs of the

distiller. In other words, the large planter could utilize

advantageously the resources at hand in a manner impossible for his

neighbor who could boast of but a small farm and half a score of

slaves.[8-54]

It was inevitable, then, that the widespread use of slave labor would

result in the gradual multiplication of well-to-do and wealthy men. In

the Seventeenth century not one planter in fifty could be classed as a

man of wealth, and even so late as 1704 the number of the well-to-do was

very narrowly limited. In a report to the Lords of Trade written in that

year Colonel Quary stated that upon each of the four great rivers of

Virginia there resided from "ten to thirty men who by trade and industry

had gotten very competent estates."[8-55] Fifty years later the number

had multiplied several times over.

Thus in Gloucester county in 1783, of 320 slave holders no less than 57

had sixteen or more. Of these one possessed 162, one 138, one 93, one

86, one 63, one 58, two 57, one 56, one 43 and one 40.[8-56] In

Spotsylvania, of 505 owners, 76 had sixteen or more. Of these Mann Page,

Esq., had 157, Mrs. Mary Daingerfield had 71, William Daingerfield 61,

Alexander Spotswood 60, William Jackson 49, George Stubblefield 42,

Frances Marewither 40, William Jones 39.[8-57]

The Dinwiddie tax lists for 1783 show that of 633 slave holders, no less

than 60 had twenty-one or more negroes. Among the more important of

these were Robert Turnbull with 81, Colonel John Banister with 88,

Colonel William Diggs with 72, John Jones with 69, Mrs. Mary Bolling

with 51, Robert Walker with 52, Winfield Mason with 40, John Burwell

with 42, Gray Briggs with 43, William Yates with 55, Richard Taliaferro

with 43, Major Thomas Scott with 57, Francis Muir with 47.[8-58] The

wealth of the larger planters is also shown by the large number of

coaches recorded in these lists, which including phaetons, chariots and

chairs, aggregated 180 wheels.

Thus it was that the doors of opportunity opened wide to the

enterprising and industrious of the middle class, and many availed

themselves of it to acquire both wealth and influence. Smyth tells us

that at the close of the colonial period there were many planters whose

fortunes were "superior to some of the first rank," but whose families

were "not so ancient nor respectable."[8-59] It was the observation of

Anbury that gentlemen of good estates were more numerous in Virginia

than in any other province of America.[8-60]

In fact the Eighteenth century was the golden age of the Virginia slave

holders. It was then that they built the handsome homes once so numerous

in the older counties, many of which still remain as interesting

monuments of former days; it was then that they surrounded themselves

with graceful furniture and costly silverware, in large part imported

from Great Britain; it was then that they collected paintings and filled

their libraries with the works of standard writers; it was then that

they purchased coaches and berlins; it was then that men and women

alike wore rich and expensive clothing.

This movement tended to widen the influence of the aristocracy and at

the same time to eliminate any sharp line of demarkation between it and

the small slave holders. There was now only a gradual descent from the

wealthiest to the poor man who had but one slave. The Spotsylvania tax

lists for 1783 show 247 slaveholders owning from one to five negroes,

116 owning from six to ten inclusive, 66 owning from eleven to fifteen

inclusive, and seventy-six owning more than fifteen.[8-61] In Gloucester

156 had from one to five slaves, 66 from five to ten inclusive, 41 from

eleven to fifteen inclusive, and fifty-seven over fifteen. Thus in a

very true sense the old servant holding aristocracy had given way to a

vastly larger slave holding aristocracy.

It is this fact which explains the decline in power and influence of the

Council in Virginia, which was so notable in the Eighteenth century.

This body had formerly been representative of a small clique of families

so distinct from the other planters and possessed of such power in the

government as to rival the nobility of England itself. Now, however, as

this distinction disappeared, the Council sank in prestige because it

represented nothing, while the House of Burgesses became the mouthpiece

of the entire slave holding class, and thus the real power in the

colonial Government.

Historians have often expressed surprise at the small number of Tories

in Virginia during the American Revolution. The aristocratic type of

society would naturally lead one to suppose that a large proportion of

the leading families would have remained loyal to the Crown. Yet with

very few exceptions all supported the cause of freedom and independence,

even though conscious of the fact that by so doing they were

jeopardizing not only the tobacco trade which was the basis of their

wealth, but the remnants of their social and political privileges in the

colony. When the British Ministry tried to wring from the hands of the

Assembly the all-important control over taxation which all knew to be

the very foundation of colonial self-government, every planter, the

largest as well as the smallest, felt himself aggrieved, for this body

was the depository of his power and the guardian of his interests. A

hundred years before, when the commons rose against the oppression and

tyranny of the Government, the wealthy men rallied to the support of Sir

William Berkeley and remained loyal to him throughout all his troubles.

In 1775 there was no such division of the people; the planters were

almost a unit in the defense of rights which all held in common.

It is obvious, then, that slavery worked a profound revolution in the

social, economic and political life of the colony. It practically

destroyed the Virginia yeomanry, the class of small planters who used

neither negroes nor servants in the cultivation of their fields, the

class which produced the bulk of the tobacco during the Seventeenth

century and constituted the chief strength of the colony. Some it drove

into exile, either to the remote frontiers or to other colonies; some it

reduced to extreme poverty; some it caused to purchase slaves and so at

one step to enter the exclusive class of those who had others to labor

for them. Thus it transformed Virginia from a land of hardworking,

independent peasants, to a land of slaves and slave holders. The small

freeholder was not destroyed, as was his prototype of ancient Rome, but

he was subjected to a change which was by no means fortunate or

wholesome. The wealthy class, which had formerly consisted of a narrow

clique closely knit together by family ties, was transformed into a

numerous body, while all sharp line of demarkation between it and the

poorer slave holders was wiped out. In short, the Virginia of the

Eighteenth century, the Virginia of Gooch and Dinwiddie and Washington

and Jefferson, was fundamentally different from the Virginia of the

Seventeenth century, the Virginia of Sir William Berkeley and Nathaniel

Bacon. Slavery had wrought within the borders of the Old Dominion a

profound and far reaching revolution.

NOTES TO CHAPTERS

NOTES TO CHAPTER I

[1-1] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, A True

Declaration, p. 25.

[1-2] Purchas, Vol. XVIII, pp. 437-438.

[1-3] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, A True

Declaration, p. 23.

[1-4] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p. 37.

[1-5] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brittania, pp.

21-22.

[1-6] Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 89-90.

[1-7] Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 105.

[1-8] Hakluyt, Discourse, p. 31.

[1-9] Hakluyt, Discourse, pp. 14-15.

[1-10] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 49.

[1-11] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.

349; Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. I, Nova Brittania, pp.

16-17.

[1-12] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.

239.

[1-13] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p.

202.

[1-14] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 445.

[1-15] Neill, The Virginia Company of London, p. 338.

[1-16] Randolph Manuscript, p. 212.

[1-17] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 440;

Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, p. 239.

[1-18] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 441.

[1-19] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 443.

NOTES TO CHAPTER II

[2-1] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 161;

Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 232.

[2-2] William Strachey, Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia, p.

121; P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 162.

[2-3] Ralph Hamor, True Discourse, pp. 24, 34.

[2-4] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 79.

[2-5] Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 535.

[2-6] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.

[2-7] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 87.

[2-8] G. L. Beer, The Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 81.

[2-9] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.

[2-10] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 40-41.

[2-11] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, pp. 176-177.

[2-12] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 416.

[2-13] Alexander Brown, The Genesis of the United States, Vol. I, pp.

355-356.

[2-14] The lack of towns in Virginia was a source of great regret to the

English Government, and more than once attempts were made to create them

by artificial means.

[2-15] Even at the end of the Seventeenth century the average price for

land in the older counties was about thirty pounds of tobacco an acre.

[2-16] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 578; Vol.

II, p. 48.

[2-17] It was Chanco, an Indian boy living with a Mr. Pace, who revealed

the plot to massacre the whites in 1622, and so saved the colony from

destruction. Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 578.

[2-18] P. A. Bruce, The Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 70.

[2-19] For a full discussion of this matter see p.--.

[2-20] Hakluyt, Vol. VII, p. 286.

[2-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 582.

[2-22] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. I,

pp. 28, 172; Edward Arber, The Works of Captain John Smith, p. 609.

[2-23] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510.

[2-24] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 603.

[2-25] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 605.

[2-26] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, Register of Land Office, Virginia

State Capitol.

[2-27] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 510.

[2-28] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 611.

[2-29] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of

Trade.

[2-30] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Orders and

Constitutions, 1619, 1620, p. 22.

[2-31] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[2-32] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1574-1660, p. 208.

[2-33] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton

University Library.

[2-34] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

NOTES TO CHAPTER III

[3-1] L. G. Tyler, Narratives of Early Virginia, pp. 21-22.

[3-2] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. II,

p. 171.

[3-3] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of

Trade.

[3-4] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 257.

[3-5] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 411.

[3-6] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 539.

[3-7] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of

Trade.

[3-8] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[3-9] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p. 595.

[3-10] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America (1600-1700).

[3-11] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 3.

[3-12] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to Board of

Trade.

[3-13] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 119, Colonial Entry

Book, Governor Andros to the Lords of Trade.

[3-14] E. D. Neill, Virginia Vetusta, p. 123.

[3-15] Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia, p. 61.

[3-16] Surry County Records, 1684-1686, Virginia State Library.

[3-17] York County Records, 1696-1701, Virginia State Library.

[3-18] Rappahannock County Deeds, 1680-1688, Virginia State Library.

[3-19] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State

Library.

[3-20] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.

266-275.

[3-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 529-532.

[3-22] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[3-23] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 30.

[3-24] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 387.

[3-25] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[3-26] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[3-27] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, Virginia State

Library.

[3-28] Surry County Records, 1645-1672, p. 17.

[3-29] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, p. 348, Virginia

State Library.

[3-30] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol, Vol. V.

[3-31] Essex County, Orders, Deeds, Etc., 1692-1695, pp. 199, 202, 205,

209, 216, 348, 394, 407, 413, Virginia State Library.

[3-32] H. R. McIlwaine, Journals of the House of Burgesses, 1686, p. 37.

[3-33] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial Entry

Book.

[3-34] British Public Record Office, CO5-1306, Document 116,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[3-35] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 361, Colonial Entry

Book.

[3-36] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 91-92, Colonial Entry

Book.

[3-37] British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, p. 460, Council Minutes,

1680-1695.

[3-38] British Public Record Office, CO5-1405, pp. 544-545, Council

Minutes, 1680-1695.

[3-39] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 345, Colonial Entry

Book, 1696-1700.

[3-40] British Public Record Office, CO5-1339, Document 33V.

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[3-41] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63VIII,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade. A copy of this interesting

document is published as an appendix to this volume.

[3-42] See appendix.

[3-43] See appendix.

[3-44] Of this land 15 acres belonged to Thomas Jefferson, probably the

grandfather of President Jefferson.

[3-45] In the opening years of the Eighteenth century the increased

importation of slaves brought about an immediate decline in the

migration of whites to Virginia from England.

[3-46] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. II, p. 480. The laws governing

the tithables were altered slightly from time to time.

[3-47] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138,

Virginia State Library.

[3-48] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684, pp. 134-138,

Virginia State Library.

[3-49] Surry County, Deeds, Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, pp. 59-63, Virginia

State Library.

[3-50] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 364-373.

[3-51] Prince George county was formed out of Charles City in 1703.

[3-52] Surry County, Wills, Deeds, Etc., 1671-1684; Surry County, Deeds,

Wills, Etc., 1684-1686, Virginia State Library.

[3-53] Elizabeth City County Records, 1684-1699, Virginia State Library.

NOTES TO CHAPTER IV

[4-1] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273.

[4-2] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. VIII, p. 273.

[4-3] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 42.

[4-4] Robert Beverley, History of Virginia, p. 221.

[4-5] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,

p. 11.

[4-6] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, p. 31.

[4-7] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,

p. 11.

[4-8] In fact, it was stated by John Hammond in 1656 that many servants

acquired considerable property even before the expiration of their

indentures. "Those servants that will be industrious may in their time

of service gain a competent estate before their Freedomes," he says,

"which is usually done by many, and they gaine esteeme and assistance

that appear so industrious: There is no master almost but will allow

his Servant a parcell of clear ground to plant some tobacco in for

himselfe, which he may husband at those many idle times he hath allowed

him and not prejudice, but rejoyce his Master to see it, which in time

of Shipping he may lay out for commodities, and in Summer sell them

again with advantage, and get a Sow-Pig or two, which any body almost

will give him, and his Master suffer him to keep them with his own,

which will be no charge to his Master, and with one year's increase of

them may purchase a Cow calf or two, and by that time he is for himself;

he may have Cattle, Hogs and Tobacco of his own, and come to live

gallantly; but this must be gained (as I said) by Industry and

affability, not by sloth nor churlish behaviour." Peter Force, Tracts

and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel, p. 14.

[4-9] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, p. 157.

[4-10] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 262.

[4-11] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 261.

[4-12] R. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 154.

[4-13] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 160.

[4-14] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XIII, p. 381.

[4-15] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, pp. 4-6.

[4-16] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Secretary Ludwell to Lord

John Berkeley.

[4-17] Alexander Brown, The First Republic in America, p. 268.

[4-18] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 267,

King Charles I to the Governor and Council of Virginia.

[4-19] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 293.

[4-20] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 376.

[4-21] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 53.

[4-22] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 394.

[4-23] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 260.

[4-24] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 382.

[4-25] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 149.

[4-26] Governor Yeardley's Instructions of 1626 contain the statement

that "tobacco falleth every day more and more to a baser price."

[4-27] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 376.

[4-28] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 159.

[4-29] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p. 177.

[4-30] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 425.

[4-31] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 159.

[4-32] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 4.

[4-33] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 150.

[4-34] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 288. In

Feb. 1627, orders were issued once more that all colonial tobacco,

whether of Virginia or of the West Indies, should be shipped only to

London. Calendar of State Papers, 1574-1660, p. 84.

[4-35] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, pp. 149,

155.

[4-36] British Public Record Office, CO1-12, Petition of Jan. 2, 1655.

[4-37] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 349-356.

[4-38] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, pp. 203-204.

[4-39] G. L. Beer, Origins of the British Colonial System, p. 216.

[4-40] The author of A New Description of Virginia, published in 1649,

states that "in Tobacco they can make L20 sterling a man, at 3d a pound

per annum." Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New

Description of Virginia, p. 6.

[4-41] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 382.

[4-42] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 149,

Vol. II, p. 53, Vol. VII, p. 259.

[4-43] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VII, p. 260.

[4-44] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 158.

[4-45] Abstracts of Proceedings of Virginia Company of London, Vol. I,

pp. 41-42.

[4-46] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.

201-265.

[4-47] Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 54-55.

[4-48] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, p. 16.

[4-49] Colonial Virginia Register, pp. 68-69.

[4-50] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[4-51] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 420.

[4-52] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. II, p. 421; Vol.

IV, p. 75.

[4-53] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, p. 77.

[4-54] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 15-18.

[4-55] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 56.

[4-56] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[4-57] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 271.

[4-58] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276.

[4-59] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, pp. 271-276.

[4-60] Virginia Colonial Register, pp. 64, 68, 70.

[4-61] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 72.

[4-62] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. V, p. 224, Register of Land Office,

Virginia State Capitol.

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

[4-64] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 83, 84, 125,

126.

[4-65] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 5.

[4-66] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 78.

[4-67] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, pp. 77, 191,

281.

[4-68] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 122.

[4-69] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 192.

[4-70] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VI, p. 76.

[4-71] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144.

[4-72] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. IX, p. 144.

[4-73] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XI, p. 276.

[4-74] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. III, Register of Land Office,

Virginia State Capitol. The name is here spelled John Blackborne.

[4-75] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. III, Register of Land Office,

Virginia State Capitol. On the lists the name is spelled William

Butcher.

[4-76] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,

pp. 135-137.

[4-77] Virginia Land Patents, Vol. IV, Register of Land Office, Virginia

State Capitol.

[4-78] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,

p. 95.

[4-79] G. C. Greer, Early Virginia Immigrants, p. 68.

[4-80] J. C. Wise, The Early History of the Eastern Shore of Virginia,

p. 376.

[4-81] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 101.

[4-82] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. VII, p. 177.

[4-83] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 92.

[4-84] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VI, p. 298.

[4-85] In 1656 John Hammond declared that though it cost six pounds

sterling to go to Virginia, those who decided to make the venture could

be sure that their money was well spent. He advised "any that goes over

free, but in a mean condition, to hire himself for reasonable wages of

Tobacco and Provision, the first year," for by that means he could live

free of disbursement, and "have something to help him the next year."

Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel, p. 14.

[4-86] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. VIII, p. 441.

[4-87] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IX, p. 27.

[4-88] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271.

NOTES TO CHAPTER V

[5-1] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 109.

[5-2] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

?[5-3] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, p.

401.

?[5-4] R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 160.

?[5-5] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Perry and Hyde to

the Lords of Trade, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

?[5-6] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, The Present State

of the Tobacco Plantations in America, Correspondence of the Board of

Trade.

[5-7] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade; Statutes of the Realm, Vol. IX, p. 917.

[5-8] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. I, pp. 141-155.

[5-9] British Public Record Office, CO1-16, Petition of Berkeley and

Others, Aug. 26, 1662.

[5-10] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Thomas Ludwell to Secretary

Arlington, May 1, 1666.

[5-11] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley and

others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666.

[5-12] British Public Record Office, CO1-20, Sir William Berkeley and

others to Secretary Arlington, July 13, 1666.

[5-13] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to Lord

Arlington, Feb. 12, 1667.

[5-14] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Thomas Ludwell to Lord John

Berkeley.

[5-15] British Public Record Office, CO1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to Lord

Arlington.

[5-16] British Public Record Office, CO1-21, Governor and Council to the

King.

[5-17] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the

Governor and Council.

[5-18] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 408, Report of the

Council to the King.

[5-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 385, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-20] British Public Record Office, CO1-23, p. 19, Ludwell to Lord

Arlington, July 20, 1665.

[5-21] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 246, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-22] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, pp. 232-240, Dialogue

Between John Good and Nathaniel Bacon, Colonial Entry Book, 1677.

[5-23] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, p. 51, Petition of the

Governor and Council to the King, July 1673.

[5-24] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 410, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-25] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 179, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-26] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 147.

[5-27] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-28] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 276, Colonial Entry

Book.

[5-29] This view of the matter has the support of the dean of Virginia

historians, Dr. Philip Alexander Bruce. Dr. Bruce writes: "No less an

authority than Robert Beverley, the historian, states that the

Navigation Acts had a sensible influence in precipitating Bacon's

Rebellion. In the early life of this writer he must have been closely

associated with hundreds of people who had been through the uprising,

and knew much, by direct observation, of the currents that governed it.

The elder Beverley was thoroughly informed and thus, in his own home,

the son had the best of opportunities of learning the truth. Beverley

himself declared that the Acts were causing discontent among the people,

long before the Rebellion actually occurred, and so did John Bland in

his memorable petition. There is no doubt that the Acts, by keeping

alive a sense of friction, left the people in just the state of mind to

seize with eagerness on the more palpable wrongs which were specifically

brought forward as the justification for resistance. It was really the

groundwork of the movement, though if it had been the only cause, might

not have precipitated open resistance to the Government."

[5-30] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. II, p. 115.

[5-31] Secretary Thomas Ludwell in a long report to the British

Government spoke of the Virginia Government as Berkeley's own, "Which I

so term," he explains, "because he is the sole author of the most

substantial parts of it, either for Lawes or other inferior

institutions." British Public Record Office, CO1-20.

[5-32] British Museum, Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b.

[5-33] British Public Record Office, CO1-19, Berkeley to Lord Arlington,

Aug. 1, 1665.

?[5-34] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp.

399-400.

[5-35] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of

Trade.

[5-36] British Public Record Office, CO1-30-78, Memorial of John Knight,

Oct. 29, 1673.

[5-37] British Public Record Office, CO1-30-71, Council of Virginia to

the King, 1673.

[5-38] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, pp. 1-16.

[5-39] British Museum, Egerton Manuscript, 2395, f. 356b, A Discourse

and View of Virginia.

[5-40] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of

Trade.

[5-41] British Public Record Office, CO1-34-95, Petition of Francis

Moryson, Thomas Ludwell and Robert Smith.

[5-42] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[5-43] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22, Colonial

Entry Book.

NOTES TO CHAPTER VI

[6-1] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 3.

[6-2] British Public Record Office, CO1-30, pp. 17, 51.

[6-3] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1624, Virginia State Library.

[6-4] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Virginia

State Library.

[6-5] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 86-87, Virginia

State Library.

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

[6-7] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 3.

[6-8] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 200.

[6-9] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 3.

[6-10] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 18.

[6-11] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 15.

[6-12] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 201.

[6-13] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,

p. 13.

[6-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Statement of Mr. Perry

and Captain Hyde, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[6-15] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Virginia Richly

Valued, p. 10.

[6-16] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Albion, p. 32.

[6-17] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. III, Leah and Rachel,

p. 18.

[6-18] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 7.

[6-19] Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, Vol.

II, p. 171.

[6-20] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 153.

[6-21] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, pp. 160-161.

[6-22] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. V, p. 285.

[6-23] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, p. 7, Virginia State

Library.

[6-24] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 34-35, Virginia

State Library.

[6-25] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1684-1686, pp. 86-87, Virginia

State Library.

[6-26] Surry County Wills, Deeds, Etc. 1671-1684, Virginia State

Library.

[6-27] John Splitimber paid for himself alone in the tithable lists of

1675.

[6-28] York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library.

[6-29] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 15.

[6-30] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 14.

[6-31] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 241.

[6-32] "I would have all men consider how meanly we are provided of men

of learning, ability and courage, nay indeed of honesty, to stand up in

the people's behalf and oppose the oppressing party," said Nathaniel

Bacon in 1676. British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 246.

[6-33] The most notable case of betrayal is that of Isaac Allerton, who

sold himself to the Governor for the promise of a seat in the Council of

State. British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, pp. 125-126, Colonial

Entry Book.

[6-34] British Public Record Office, CO1-4.

[6-35] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. I, pp. 287-288.

[6-36] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. X, p. 271.

[6-37] British Public Record Office, CO1-8, p. 48.

[6-38] British Public Record Office, CO1-8.

[6-39] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 360-361.

[6-40] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 361.

[6-41] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 355.

[6-42] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, p. 363.

[6-43] Sixth Report of Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, Part

I, Instructions to Sir George Ayscue, Sept. 26, 1651.

[6-44] The commissioners were Capt. Robert Dennis, Richard Bennett,

Thomas Stegge and Captain William Claiborne, all of whom with the

exception of Dennis were Virginians.

[6-45] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I, pp. 371, 373.

[6-46] Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845; Charles Campbell, History

of Virginia, p. 74.

[6-47] Southern Literary Messanger, Jan. 1845.

[6-48] British Public Record Office, CO5-1371, p. 387, Colonial Entry

Book.

NOTES TO CHAPTER VII

[7-1] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 104, Colonial Entry

Book.

[7-2] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 40.

?[7-3] British Public Record Office, CO5-1305, Document 23,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[7-4] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16,

Correspondence of the Secretary of State.

[7-5] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42.

[7-6] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1702.

[7-7] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, pp. 381-385, Colonial

Entry Book.

[7-8] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 168.

[7-9] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[7-10] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91.

[7-11] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16, John Linton

to the Board of Trade, Correspondence of the Secretary of State.

[7-12] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Report of John Linton on

the Tobacco Trade, Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[7-13] British Public Record Office, CO5-1345, Document 16,

Correspondence of the Secretary of State.

[7-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[7-15] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 26,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[7-16] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[7-17] British Public Record Office, CO5-1340, Document 91, Col. Quary's

Memorial.

[7-18] R. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 42.

[7-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade; CO5-1360, p. 233, Governor Nicholson to the Lords of

Trade.

[7-20] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91, Col. Quary's

Memorial.

[7-21] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade, Letter of Col. Quary Sept. 1, 1706.

[7-22] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton

University Library.

[7-23] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 107-108, Colonial

Entry Book. In 1699 Gov. Nicholson stated that Orinoco was bringing 20

shillings the hundredweight and Sweetscented 25 shillings and up, which

he considered an unusually good return. British Public Record Office,

CO5-1359, p. 322.

[7-24] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 66.

[7-25] J. C. Hotten, Original Lists of Emigrants to America, pp.

202-265.

[7-26] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 89.

[7-27] Peter Force, Tracts and Other Papers, Vol. II, New Description of

Virginia, p. 3.

[7-28] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of

Trade.

[7-29] British Public Record Office, CO5-1355, p. 345, Lord Culpeper's

account of his compliance with the King's instructions, Dec. 1681.

[7-30] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75.

[7-31] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 75.

[7-32] British Public Record Office, CO1-26-77, Berkeley to the Board of

Trade.

[7-33] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 323.

[7-34] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 324-325.

[7-35] York County Records, 1664-1672, Virginia State Library.

[7-36] York County Records, 1694-1702, Virginia State Library.

[7-37] Henrico Records, 1677-1692, Virginia State Library.

[7-38] York County Records, 1694-1697, Virginia State Library.

[7-39] British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[7-40] British Public Record Office, CO5-1317, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[7-41] British Public Record Office, CO5-1406, Minutes of the Council

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

[7-42] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Governor Gooch to the

Lords of Trade, Sept. 14, 1730; Feb. 12, 1731.

[7-43] British Public Record Office, CO5-1363, pp. 317-324, Colonial

Entry Book.

[7-44] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 369-373, Colonial

Entry Book.

[7-45] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 83.

[7-46] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton

University Library.

[7-47] P. A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, p. 108.

[7-48] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[7-49] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 66, Governor

Nott to the Board of Trade.

[7-50] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial

Entry Book.

[7-51] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial

Entry Book.

[7-52] During these years the planters were too impoverished to purchase

slaves. The decline in the tobacco trade produced a feeling among the

people that the colony had been overstocked with blacks.

[7-53] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade, Report of Governor Gooch.

[7-54] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Francis Fane to the Lords

of Trade, Dec. 10, 1728.

[7-55] British Public Record Office, CO5-1356, p. 139, Colonial Entry

Book.

NOTES TO CHAPTER VIII

[8-1] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton University

Library.

[8-2] Princeton Transcripts, Virginia Land Patents, Princeton University

Library.

[8-3] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 365-367, Colonial

Entry Book.

[8-4] Virginia Land Patents, Register of Land Office, Virginia State

Capitol.

[8-5] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, p. 28.

[8-6] G. L. Beer, The Old Colonial System, Vol. I, pp. 320-321.

[8-7] Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Vol. X, iii.

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

[8-9] Maurice Vanlaer, La Fin d'un Peuple, pp. 112-117.

[8-10] British Public Record Office, CO1-39-38.

[8-11] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 420.

[8-12] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 500.

[8-13] Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1696-1697, p. 546.

[8-14] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22.

[8-15] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 20, 21, 22.

[8-16] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 23, Colonial Entry

Book.

[8-17] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, p. 113, Andros to the

Lords of Trade, July 1, 1697.

[8-18] British Public Record Office, CO5-1359, pp. 266-303, Colonial

Entry Book.

[8-19] British Public Record Office, CO5-1312, p. 4O9A, Correspondence

of the Board of Trade.

[8-20] British Public Record Office, CO5-1360, p. 441, Colonial Entry

Book.

[8-21] Rent Roll of 1704, p. 46.

[8-22] British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade, Gooch to the Lords of Trade, Nov. 6, 1728.

[8-23] British Public Record Office, CO5-1362, pp. 374-382, Colonial

Entry Book.

[8-24] British Public Record Office, CO5-1364, p. 27, Colonial Entry

Book.

[8-25] J. S. Bassett, Writings of William Byrd, p. 31.

[8-26] British Public Record Office, CO5-1322, Gooch to the Lords of

Trade, Feb. 27, 1731.

[8-27] British Public Record Office, CO5-1321, Gooch to the Lords of

Trade, Aug. 9, 1728.

[8-28] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[8-29] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[8-30] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[8-31] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 16.

[8-32] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Document 91,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[8-33] British Public Record Office, CO5-1315, Correspondence of the

Board of Trade.

[8-34] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Account of the tobacco

trade by Perry and Hyde, June 2, 1714.

[8-35] British Public Record Office, CO5-1316, Petition of the Council,

Correspondence of the Board of Trade.

[8-36] British Public Record Office, CO5-1318, Address of King and Queen

county inhabitants to Spotswood; address of Westmoreland inhabitants;

letter of Spotswood to Lords of Trade, Dec. 22, 1718.

[8-37] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122.

[8-38] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, pp.

414-416.

[8-39] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 297-299.

[8-40] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,

250-258.

[8-41] Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 291.

[8-42] Philip Fithian, Journal and Letters, p. 243.

[8-43] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 58.

[8-44] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXI, pp. 106-122.

[8-45] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,

250-258.

[8-46] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp. 297-299.

[8-47] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.

[8-48] Lower Norfolk County Antiquary, Vol. IV, p. 144.

[8-49] W. A. Crozier, Virginia County Records, Vol. I, pp. 88-110.

[8-50] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Edition of 1801, p. 321.

[8-51] Chastellux, Travels in North America, p. 292 note.

[8-52] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, Vol. I, p. 66.

[8-53] Hugh Jones, History of Virginia, p. 36.

[8-54] Rowland, Life of George Mason, Vol. I, pp. 101, 102; Philip

Fithian, Journal and Letters, pp. 67, 104, 130, 130, 138, 217, 259; P.

A. Bruce, Economic History of Virginia, Vol. II, pp. 411, 418.

[8-55] British Public Record Office, CO5-1314, Document 63IV.

[8-56] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.

[8-57] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. IV, pp.

292-299.

[8-58] William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. XXVI, pp. 97-106, 196-201,

250-258.

[8-59] Smyth, A Tour of the United States, p. 67.

[8-60] Anbury, Travels Through America, Vol. II, p. 330.

[8-61] Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. XII, p. 415.

_APPENDIX_

RENT ROLL OF VIRGINIA

1704-1705

A True and Perfect Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj^tie in

Henrico County, Aprill 1705

A

Andrews Thomas 396

Ascoutch Mary 633

Archer Jno 335

Adkins Jno 125

Archer Geo 1738

Aldy John 162

Akins James Sen^r 200

Asbrook Peter Sen^r 200

Akins James Jun^r 218

Allin Widd^o 99

-----

4106

B

Byrd Esq^r 19500

Bolling Rob^t 500

Bolling John 831

Bevill John 495

Branch X^to 646

Blackman Wm 175

Bridgwater Sam 280

Bowman John Jun^r 300

Bowman Edw^d 300

Branch Benj 550

Brown Martha 893

Bullington Benj 100

Bowman Lew 65

Bullington 144

Bevell Essex 200

Baugh John 448

Baugh James 458

Burton Isaac 100

Bottom John 100

Bayley Abr 542

Brooks Jane belonging to

Wm Walker New Kent 550

Braseal Henry 200

Brazeal Henry Jun^r 300

Burton Rob^t 1350

Burgony John 100

Branch James 555

Burrows Wm. Wm. Blackwell

New Kent 63

Branch Thomas 540

Bailey Thomas 251

Branch Matthew 947

Burton Wm 294

Bullington Rob^t 100

Broadnax Jno Jr 725

Beverley Rob^t 988

-----

33590

C

Cheatham Tho 300

Cox Batt 100

Cox John 150

Cox George 200

Chamberlaine Maj. Tho 1000

Childers Abr. Sen^r 368

Cannon John 108

Cox Wm 300

Childers Ab^r Jun^r 100

Clark Wm 333

Clark John 300

Cox Rich^d 300

Cardwell Tho 350

Crozdall Roger 200

Cock Wm 1535

Cock Rich^d Sen^r 2180

Childers Philip Sen^r 50

Childers Philip 300

Childers Tho 300

Carter Theod 75

Cock Capt Thomas 2976-1/2

Couzins Charles 362

Clerk Alonson 604

Cock James 1506

Curd Edw^d 600

Cock Rich^d 476

Cock Jno 98

-----

15171-1/2

D

Dixon Nicholas 150

Dodson Wm 100

Douglas Charles 63

-----

313

E

Edw^d Tho 676

Entroughty Derby 200

Ealam Rob^t 400

Ellis John 217

East Tho Sen 475

East Tho 554

East Edw^d 150

Epes Capt Fra^s 2145

Evans Charles 225

Ealam Martin 130

Epes Isham, Epes Fra. Jun^t

each 444-1/2 acres 889

-----

6061

F

Field Peter Major 2185

Farrar Capt Wm 700

Farrar Tho 1444

Farrar Jno 600

Fowler Godfrey 250

Ferguson Robert 230

Ferris Wm 50

Franklin James Sen 250

Franklin James Jun 786

Ferris Rich^d Sen 550

Farmer Henry 100

Forrest James 138

Forrest John 150

Fetherstone Henry 700

Farloe John Sen 100

Farloe John Jun 551

Faile John 240

-----

9024

G

Gilley Grewin Arrian 2528

Gee Henry 435

Good John Sen 600

Garthwaite Sam^l 50

Garthwaite Ephriam 163

Granger John 472

Gill John 235

Good Sam^l 588

Gower James Grigs Land 500

-----

5571

H

Hill James 795

Holmes Rich 100

Harris Thomas 357

Harris Tim^o 250

Hill Rosam^d 1633

Hobby Lawrence 500

Hatcher John 215

Haskins Edward 225

Hatcher Edward Sen 150

Hunt Geo 200

Hughs Edward 100

Hancock Samuel 100

Holmes Thomas 50

Hambleton James 100

Hutchins Nich^o 240

Hatcher Benj Sen 250

Hatcher Wm Jun 50

Hobson Wm 150

Hatcher Wm Sen 298

Hatcher Henry 650

Hancock Robert 860

Harris Mary 94

Hall Edward 184

Herbert Mrs 1360

Hudson Robert 281

-----

9242

J

Jones Hugh 934

Jefferson Thomas 492

Jones Philip 1153

Jorden Henry 100

Jamson John 225

Jackson Ralph 250

-----

3154

K

Kennon Elizabeth 1900

Knibb Samuel 209

Knibb Solomon 833

Kendall Richard 400

-----

3342

L

Liptroll Edward 150

Lewis Wm 350

Lester Darens 100

Ladd Wm 70

Ligon Elizabeth Widdow}

Ligon Mary Widdow } 1341

Laforce Reu 100

Lochett James 50

Lownd Henry 516

Lockitt Benj 104

Ligon Richard 1028

Ligon Hugh 150

-----

3959

M

Mann Robert 100

Matthews Edward 330

Moseby Edward 150

Moseby Arthur 450

-----

1030

N

Nunnally Richard 70

O

Osbourn Thomas 288

Owen Thomas 68

-----

356

P

Perkinson John 622

Perrin Ann 500

Pleasants John 9669

Parker Wm 100

Parker Nich Sen 500

Pledge Jno. 100

Powell Robert 150

Peice John 130

Pleasants Jos 1709

Porter Wm 305

Peirce Wm 175

Peirce Francis 312

Paine Thomas 300

Portlock Elizabeth 1000

Pero Henry 350

Pattram Ira 778

Pride Wm Sen. 1280

Pollard Thomas Sen 130

Perkinson Seth 50

Pinkitt Wm 192

Pinkitt Thomas 300

Pattison Joseph 500

Porter John 100

Pollard Thomas Jun 235

Pollard Henry 235

Pinkitt John 215

-----

19937

R

Robertson Geo 1445

Ragsdaile Godfrey 450

Rawlett Peter 164

Russell Charles 200

Rowlett Wm 200

Rowen Francis 148

Robertson John 415

Rouch Rachell 300

Robertson Thomas 200

Russell John 93

Royall Joseph 783

Redford John 775

Randolph Col Wm including

1185 acres swamp 9465

-----

14648

S

Steward Jno Jun 902

Scott Walter 550

Soane Capt Wm 3841

Stanley Edward 300

Snuggs Charles 400

Sewell Wm 59

Smith Humphrey 40

Sharp Robert 500

Stovoll Barth^o 100

Skerin Widdow 75

Steward Daniell 270

Smith Obadiah 200

Stowers Widdow 200

Sarrazin Stephen 120

-----

7557

T

Tancocks Orphans 1230

Trent Henry 224

Turpin Thomas 491

Turpin Philip 444

Turpin Thomas 100

Turner Henry 200

Taylor Thomas 475

Tanner Edward 217

Traylor Edward 100

Totty Thomas 260

Traylor Wm 730

-----

4471

V

Veden Henry 100

W

Woodson John 4060

Williams Robert 300

Woodson Robert Jun 1157

Ward Richard 300

Watson John Sen 1603

Walthall Wm 500

Walthall Henry 832

Whitby Wm 215

Watkins Henry Sen 100

Webb John 100

Watkins Thomas 200

Woodson Rich 180

Woodson Widdow 650

Williamson Thomas 1077

Webb Giles 7260

Wood Thomas 50

Watkins Wm 120

Watkins Jos 120

Watkins Edward 120

Ward Seth 700

Wood Moses 100

Wilkinson Jos 75-1/2

Wilkinson John 130

Worsham John 1104

Womack Abr 560

Willson Jno Sen 1686

Willson Jno Jun 100

Walthall Richard 500

Wortham Geo 400

Wortham Charles 90

Womack Wm 100

-----

24489-1/2

W 24489-1/2

V 100

T 4471

S 7557

R 14648

P 19937

O 396

N 70

M 1030

L 3959

K 3342

J 3154

H 9242

G 5571

F 9024

E 6061

D 313

C 15171-1/2

B 33590

A 4106

------

165814

Out of which must be deducted these several quantities of land

following Viz:

Tancocks Orphans Land 1230

Allens Orphans Land 99

-----

1329

An account of Land that hath been concealed

John Steward Jun 2

Thomas Jefferson 15

Thomas Turpin 10

Henry Gee 10

Stephen Sarrzen 10

Mr. Lownd 1

James Atkin Sen 32

Matthew Branch 10

James Franklin 360

James Hill 50

Rosemond Hill 33

John Bullington 44

Benjamin Lockett 4

John Russell 23

Charles Douglas 13

Col Randolph Carless Land 1049

-----

1669

The Quit Rent being 162719 acres.

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

Year 1704

A

Thomas Anderson 450

Wm Aldridge 160

Mr. Charles Anderson 505

Richard Adkinson 200

Thomas Adams 250

Matthem Anderson 349

Henry Ally 390

Wm Anderson 235

Jno Anderson 228

Henry Anderson 250

Robert Abernathy 100

Jno Avery 100

-----

3217

B

Richard Bland 1000

Robert Birchett 375

Arthur Biggins 200

James Benford 461

Jno Barloe 50

Charles Bartholomew 600

Philip Burlowe 350

Nicholas Brewer 100

Jno Bishop Sen 100

Jno Bishop Jun 100

Isaac Baites 360

Thomas Busby Capt 300

Thomas Busby 200

Wm Batt 750

Coll Byrd Esq 100

Edward Birchett 886

Coll Bolling 3402

Edmund Browder 100

Matus Brittler 510

Jno Butler 1385

Andrew Beck 300

Henry Batt 790

Wm Butler 283

Thomas Blitchodin 284

-----

12986

C

Thomas Curiton 150

Henry Chammins 300

Capt Clements 1920

Wm. Claunton 100

Robert Catte 100

Bartho Crowder 75

Thomas Clay 70

Jno Coleman 200

George Crook 489

Francis Coleman 150

Jno Clay 350

Wm Coleman Jun 100

George Croohet 30

James Cocke 750

Robert Carlill 100

Jno Clerk 83

Richarl Claunton 100

Stephen Cock for Jones Orphans 2405

-----

7622

D

Thomas Daniell 150

Roger Drayton 270

Joseph Daniell 50

Jno Doby 500

George Dowing 100

Wm Davis 100

Jno Duglas 300

Richard Darding 500

Christopher Davis 50

Thomas Dunkin 136

-----

2156

E

Robert Ellis 50

Jno Epes Sen 530

Wm Epes Sen 750

Jno Epes 300

Wm Epes 633-1/2

Edward Epes 500

Littlebury Epes 833-1/2

Benj Evans 700

Thomas Edwards 250

Dan Epes 200

Jno Evans 800

Jno. Ellis Jun 400

John Ellis Sen 400

Mary Evans 400

Peter Evans 270

Capt Francis Epes 226

-----

7243

F

Jno Freeman 300

Wm Frost 50

Jno Fountaine 350

Robert Fellows 418

Elizabeth Flood 100

Benj Foster 923

Jno Field 100

-----

2241

G

Jno Green 125

Richard Gord 100

David Goodgamd 479

James Greithian 363

Major Goodrich 900

Thomas Goodwin 150

Hubert Gibson 250

Richard Griffith 335

James Griffin 100

Charles Gee 484

Charles Gillam 200

Hugh Goelightly 500

Lewis Green 149

Wm Grigg 200

John Gillam 1000

John Goelightly 100

-----

5435

H

Coll Hill 1000

Daniell Hickdon 280

Robert Harthorn 243

Jno Hamlin 1484-1/2

Coll Harrison Esq 150

Ralph Hill 175

Wm Harrison 1930

Wm Heath 320

Edward Holloway 100

Robert Hobbs 100

Jno Hobbs Sen 250

Edward Holloway Sen 620

Jno Hobbs 100

James Harrison 200

Gilbert Haye 200

Richard Hudson 75

Gabriell Harrison 150

Robert Hix 1000

Joseph Holycross 84

Charles Howell 125

Sam Harwell 125

Isaac Hall 450

Jno Howell 183

Thomas Howell 25

Mrs. Herbert 3925

Jno Hixs 216

Richard Hamlin 240

Thomas Harnison 1077

Elizabeth Hamlin 250

Wm Hulme 100

Jeffrey Hawkes 125

Adam Heath 300

Jno Hill 160

Jno Hardiman 872

Justance Hall 614

-----

17366

J

Wm Jones Jun 230

Wm Jones Sen 600

Henry Jones 200

Robert Jones 241

Edmund Irby 800

Nich. Jarrett 700

James Jackson 80

Adam Ivie 200

Thomas Jackson 60

James Jones Sen 1100

Henry Ivye 450

Peter Jones 621

Ricard Jones 600

Ralph Jacskon 110

Joshua Irby 200

John Jones 350

-----

6542

K

Richard Kirkland 300

John King 50

Henry King 650

Arthur Kavanah 60

Ensobius King 100

-----

1160

L

John Livesley 300

Samuel Lewey 100

Jno Lumbady 400

Jno Leeneir 100

Mrs Low 70

Sam Lewey for Netherland Orphans 498

Thomas Lewis Sen 200

Hugh Liegh 762

Francis Leadbeatter 100

Jno Leadbeatter 400

Wm Low 1584

-----

3114

M

Wm Madox 190

Robert Munford 339

James Mingo Sen 500

Matt Marks 1500

Samuell Moody 328

Francis Mallory 100

Daniell Mallone 100

Jno Mayes 365

Richard More 472

Henry Mitchell Sen 100

Jno Mitchell 170

Wm Mayes 763

Edward Murrell 100

Thomas Mitchell Jun 100

Peter Mitchell 305

Henry Mitchell Jun 200

Francis Maberry 347

James Matthews 100

Jno Martin 200

-----

6839

N

Richard Newman 120

Walter Nannaley 299

-----

419

O

Nicholas Overburry 809

Jno Owen 25

-----

834

P

George Pasmore 330

Francis Poythwes Sen 1283

Joseph Pattison 200

George Pail 246

Nathaniel Phillips 150

Jno Price 50

Wm Peoples 150

Elizabeth Peoples 235

Joseph Perry 275

Richard Pigeon 524

Thomas Potts 200

Joseph Pritchett 50

Jno Petterson 373

George Pace 1000

Ephram Parkam 300

Thomas Poythres 616

Dand Peoples 60

Grace Perry 100

Jno Poythres Jun 916

Jno Petterson 420

Mr Micajah Perry 600

-----

9203

R

Jno Roberts 316

Nath. Robinson 100

Roger Reace Jun 100

Henry Read 75

Roger Reace Sen 100

Wm Reanes 250

Frances Raye 300

Jno Reeks 50

Wm Rachell 100

Timothy Reading Sen 460

Jno Riners 200

Edward Richardson 300

Coll Randolph 226

-----

2677

S

Matthew Smart 100

Wm Standback 150

Thomas Symmons 566

James Salmen 477

Wm Savage 150

Wm Sandborne 40

Jno Scott 300

Martin Shieffield 150

James Smith 67

John Stroud 60

Richard Seeking 100

Wm Sexton 50

James Leveaker 710

Chichester Sturdivant 214

Daniell Sturdivant 850

Richard Smith 550

Jno Spaine 118

Matthew Sturdivant 150

Capt Stith 470-1/2

-----

8272-1/2

T

Major Henry Tooker for the

Merchants in London 4600

Ricard Jones 600

George Tilliman 446

Jno Tilliman 530

Wm Tomlinson 400

Adam Tapley 977

Capt Jno Taylor 1700

Mich. Taburd 150

Maj^r Tooker 181

Robert Tooker 400

Robert Tester 170

Joseph Tooker 200

Wm Tempel 100

Jno Thornhill 350

Jno Taylor 100

Nath. Tatham Jun 200

Samuel Tatham Sen 100

Samuel Tatham Jun 195

Henry Talley 639

Richard Turberfield 140

Francis Tucker 100

Nath. Tatham Sen 501

Jno Thrower 250

Thomas Thrower 150

James Taylor 306

Sanders Tapley 300

Thomas Tapley 300

James Thweat Sen 715

James Thweat Jun 100

Elizabeth Tucker 212

Thomas Taylor 400

Edward Thrower 150

-----

14462

V

Jno Vaughan 169

Samuel Vaugham 169

Nath. Vrooin 150

Daniell Vaughan 169

James Vaughan 169

Richard Vaughan 309

Wm Vaughan 309

Thomas Vinson 550

Nicholas Vaughan 169

-----

2163

W

John Woodlife Sen 644

Wm Wallis 200

Jno Wickett 250

Capt. James Wynn 860

Jno Woodlife Jun 750

Jno Winningham Jun 200

Richard Wallpoole 625

Jno Womack 550

Capt Thomas Wynn 400

Jno Wall 233

Thomas Winningham 100

Elizabeth Woodlife 844

Richard Worthern 1600

Richard Winkles 450

Capt Nicholas Wyatt 700

Antho Wyatt 250

Valentine Wiliamson 250

Hurldy Wick 600

Wm Wilkins 900

Francis Wilkins 150

Robert Winkfield 107

Jarvis Winkfield 100

Henry Wall 275

Jno Wilkins 150

James Williams 1436

George Williams 216

Jno White 150

Edward Winningham 100

Samuel Woodward 600

-----

13684

Y

Dannell Young 283

John Young 200

-----

583

A 3217

B 12986

C 7622

D 2156

E 7243

F 2241

G 5435

H 17366-1/2

J 6542

K 1160

L 5114

M 6839

N 419

O 834

P 9203

R 2677

S 8272

T 14462

V 2163

W 13684

Y 583

------

127218-1/2

Deduct the new discovered Land 10000

Accounted for 117218-1/2

Orphans Land which is refulld paying Quit Rents for viz:

Mr. John Bannister Orphans

per Stephen Cock 1970

Capt Henry Batesorph and

their Mother Mrs Mary Bates 1200

Capt Henry Randolph Orphans

per Capt Giles Webb 129

Morris Halliham Orphans

per Robert Rivers 200

Crockson Land formerly

& who it belongs to now I

cannot find 750

-----

4245

117218-1/2 acres at 24 lb tob^o per

100 is 28132 lb tobacco

at 5s per lb is 70 6 6

Sallary 10 per cent 7 0 10-1/2

---------

63 5 7-1/2

per William Epes Sheriff

Rent Roll of all the Lands held of her Maj^tie In Surry County Anno

Domini 1704

A

Allin Arthur Major 6780

Andrews Bartho 375

Avery Jno 150

Atkins Thomas 80

Averett Jno 120

Atkinson Richard 100

Andrews Thomas 190

Andrews Robert 130

Andrews David 225

-----

8150

B

Baker Henry Coll 850

Bruton James 500

Bennett James 200

Bland Sarah 1455

Browne Jno 600

Benbridge George 200

Bighton Richard 590

John Bell 180

Berham Robert 650

Blake Wm 200

Browne Edward 200

Bincham Jno 100

Bennett Richard 200

Baker Sarah 50

Briggs Sarah 300

Baxter Joell 100

Briggs Samuel 300

Blico Christopher 50

Brigs Charles 331

Brigs Henry 100

Bentley 180

Blackbun Wm 150

Blunt Thomas 1355

Bookey, Edward 180

Browne Wm Coll 2510

Browne Wm Capt 398

Bineham James 157

Bullock Mary 100

Barker Jno 1160

Bagley Peter 100

Barker Jery 420

Bunell Hezichiah 150

Bougher Phill 100

Baile Jno 250

Bagley Edward 350

-----

14716

C

Chapman Benjamin 500

Cockin Wm 100

Cocker Jno 900

Crafort Robert 1000

Crafort Carter 100

Chambers Wm 50

Clark Jno 100

Cook Elizabeth 200

Carriell Thomas 100

Clements Jno 387

Clarke Jno 100

Cook Elizabeth 200

Carriell Thomas 100

Clements Jno 387

Clark Robert 400

Checett James 50

Cotten Walter 257

Cotten Thomas 257

Collier Jno 350

Collier Joseph 40

Cock Wm 630

Cock Walter 875

Cooper James 100

Cleaments Francis 600

Collier Thomas 550

Candenscaine Obedience 200

-----

7746

D

Dicks James 400

Davis Arthur 460

Drew Thomas 800

Drew Edward 600

Delk Roger 790

David Arthur 50

Dean Richard 100

Davis Nath. 157

-----

3357

E

Edward Wm Mr. 2755

Evans Antho 100

Edward John 470

Ellitt Wm 250

Edmund Howell 300

Ellis James 180

Edmund Wm 100

Ellis Edward 30

Ellis James 170

Ezell Geirge 150

Ellis Jere 50

Evans Abrah. 150

-----

4705

F

Flake Robert 200

Foster Anne 200

Ford George 100

Flood Walter 820

Flood Thomas 150

Ford Elias 200

Flemin Lawrence 360

Foster Christo 500

Foster Wm 100

Ferieby Benj 170

-----

2800

G

Gray Wm Capt 1750

Gray Wm Jun 1050

Grines Austis 100

Gwalney Wm 400

Gray Jno 200

Gwalney Wm 225

Goodman Wm 200

Gillham Hinche 658

Griffin John 200

Gully Richard 50

Gray Wm 100

Green Edward 200

Green Richard 260

-----

5393

H

Harrison Benj Coll 2750

Harrison Nath. Capt 2177

Hunt Wm 4042

Holt Elizabeth 1450

Holt John 150

Holt Thomas Capt 538

Holt Wm 630

Harris Wm 150

Hart Henry 725

Humfort Hugh 150

Hancock John 60

Hart Robert 600

Humphrey Evan 70

Hollyman Mary 290

Harde Thomas 900

Hill Robert 200

Holloman Richard 480

Hargrove Bryan 100

Humfort Wm 50

Hill Lyon 300

Holloman Thomas 450

Heath Adam 200

Harrison Daniell 70

Ham Richard 75

Heart Thomas 750

Hyerd Thomas 50

Hunt Wm 696

Horne Richard 100

Hollingsworth Henry 60

Howell Wm 50

-----

18413

J

Jackman Jos John Mr. 2980

Jones James 1000

Jarrell Thomas 115

Jarrett Charles 615

Judkins Samuell 100

Judkins Wm 100

Jurdan George 620

Jarrett Fardo 630

Johnson Wm 360

Johnson John 350

Jurdan Richard 350

-----

7220

K

Kigan Mary 200

Killingworth Wm 60

Knott Wm 300

-----

560

L

Ludwell Philip Coll 1100

Lancaster Robert 100

Lacey Mary 100

Lang Mary 77

Lane Thomas 200

Lane Thomas Jun 200

Laughter Jno 300

Laneere George 300

Lasley Patrick 520

Lucas Wm 315

-----

3212

M

Matthew Edmund 50

Merriell George 250

Moorland Edward 225

Mason Elizabeth 300

Mallory Francis 147

Merrett Matt. 60

Middleton Thomas 100

Moss Wm 100

Moreing John 695

Mierick Owen 250

-----

2177

N

Newton Wm 225

Newton Robert 250

Newitt Wm 330

Norwood Richard 80

Nicholl George 150

Nichols Robert 230

Noeway Barefoot 150

Norwood George 330

-----

1745

P

Park Mary 100

Pittman Thomas Jun 100

Phillips, John 270

Price John 340

Pettoway Elizabeth 650

Pulystone Jno 1400

Parker Richard 269

Phelps Humphrey 100

Pully Wm 300

Procter Joshua 660

Persons John 830

Phillips Wm 300

Pettfort Jno 200

Pettfort Wm 50

-----

5569

R

Randolph Wm Coll 1655

Ruffice Elizabeth 3001

Reynolds Robert 150

Richardson Joseph 300

Reynolds Elizabeth 150

Reagon Frances 200

Roads Wm 150

Rolling George 106

Road Wm 450

Rose Richard 100

Raehell George 70

Rowling Jno 476

Rohings Wm 596

Roger Wm 450

-----

7854

S

Scat Joseph 295

Sims George 200

Secoms Nicholas 800

Savage Charles 358

Stringfellow Richard 75

Suger Jno 250

Sewurds Anne 300

Sharp Thomas 70

Sewins Thomas 400

Steward John 200

Smith Richard 200

Savage Mary 263

Smith Thomas 750

Swann Wm 1800

Shrowsbury Joseph 260

Shrowsbury Francis 820

Savage Henry 200

Short Wm 400

Scarbro Edw 150

Scagin Jno 100

Simmons Jno 1300

Shrowsbury Thomas 566

Stockly Richard 100

Smith Thomas 380

-----

10237

T

Thompson Samuell 3104

Tooker Henry Major 700

Taylor Ethelred 538

Thorp Joseph 250

Tyous Thomas 400

Taylor Richard 77

-----

5069

V

Vincent Mary 187

W

Wright Thomas 100

Williams Charles 100

Wall Joseph 150

Williams Wm 300

Ward Thomas 100

Wall Joseph Jun 150

Warren Allen 300

Warren Thomas 1040

Watkins Richard 1345

Williams Roger 150

Webb Robert 340

Wattkins John 1160

Warren Robert 150

Welch Henry 100

Warrick John 80

Wilkinson Matthew 200

Wiggins Thomas 300

Waple Jno 300

Witherington Nicholas 100

Will Roger 78

White Charles 136

-----

6679

Y

Young John 300

A 8150

B 14716

C 7746

D 3357

E 4705

F 2800

G 5393

H 18413

J 7220

K 560

L 3212

M 2177

N 1745

P 5569

R 7854

S 10237

T 5069

V 187

W 6679

Y 300

------

116089

New Land allowed per order 3841

------

112248

Aprill 19th 1705

Errors excepted per Jos Jno. Jackman Sheriff.

Persons denying payment for Lands

held in this County (viz) Capt

Tho Holt as belonging to Mr. Tho

Benules Orphans 950

Mrs. Mary White 200

-----

1150

Lands held by persons living out of the Country

Capt Jno Taylor 850

Mrs. Sarah Low 500

Mr. Jno Hamlin 100

Capt Thomas Harrison 530

1150

-----

3130

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

unknowne

Jno Davis one Tract Living in Isle of Wight

Geo & River Jorden one Tract & denys to pay Qt Rents for it & no

persons living thereon, there is one Bray Living in Warwick has

a small tract Land

A List of her Maj^tys Q^t Rents For the Isle Wighte County in the Year

1704