Transcriber's Note: Extensive research indicates the copyright on thisbook was not renewed. 

_Mother Earth_--

LAND GRANTS IN VIRGINIA

1607-1699

By

W. STITT ROBINSON, JR. Associate Professor of HistoryUniversity of Kansas

VIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION CORPORATIONWILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA1957

COPYRIGHT©, 1957 BYVIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATIONCORPORATION, WILLIAMSBURG, VIRGINIA

Jamestown 350th AnniversaryHistorical Booklet, Number 12

CHAPTER ONE

The Land and the Indian

Among the motives for English colonization of America in the seventeenthcentury, the desire for free land occupied a prominent place. Theavailability of land in the New World appealed to all classes and ranksin Europe, particularly to the small landholder who sought to increasehis landed estate and to the artisans and tenants who longed to enterthe ranks of the freeholder. 

The desire for land and the opportunity to provide a home for one'sfamily, according to Professor C. M. Andrews, "probably influenced thelargest number of those who settled in North America. " Land also had itsappeal as the gateway to freedom, contributing substantially to theshaping of the American character. When analyzing the factors thathelped make this "new man, who acts upon new principles, " De Crèvecoeurin 1782 emphasized the opportunity to "become a free man, invested withlands, to which every municipal blessing is annexed!"

Formulation of a land policy confronted the officials of all thecolonies in early America. Its importance is reflected in the statementby C. L. Raper in his study of English colonial government that the"System and policy concerning land determine to a very considerableextent the economic, social, and political life of the colonists. " Theexistence of the American frontier with unoccupied land was a potentforce in America, and Frederick Jackson Turner stated in his famousessay in 1893 that the "Most significant thing about the Americanfrontier is, that it lies at the hither edge of free land. "

Before analyzing the nature of landholding and the land policy that wasadopted in early Virginia, let us examine first the problem that aroseby virtue of the presence of the Indians in North America. 

At the time of the settlement of Jamestown in 1607 the area ofpresent-day Virginia was occupied by Indians of three linguistic stocks:Algonquin, Siouan, and Iroquoian. Generally speaking, the Algonquinswhich included the Powhatan Confederacy inhabited the Tidewater, reaching from the Potomac to the James River and extending to theEastern Shore. The Siouan tribes, including the Monacans and theManahoacs, occupied the Piedmont; while the Iroquoian group, containingthe independent Nottoways and Meherrins, partially surrounded the othersin a rough semicircle reaching from the headwaters of the Chesapeakethrough the western mountains and back to the coast in the region southof the James River. 

The presence of these tribes in the areas of proposed colonizationconfronted the colonizers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centurieswith the same problem that has faced imperialists of a later date, thequestion of "right and title" to land. The British, like other Europeannations, did not recognize the sovereign right of the heathen nativesbut claimed a general title to the area by the prevailing doctrine ofright by discovery and later by the generally accepted doctrine ofeffective occupation. As stated in the charter to Sir Walter Raleigh in1584 with essentially the same provision included in the first charterof Virginia in 1606, the colonizers were authorized to occupy land "notactually possessed of any Christian Prince, nor inhabited by ChristianPeople. " Over the Indians the British maintained a "limitedsovereignty"; and when acknowledging any claim, they recognized only theIndian's right of occupation and asserted the "exclusive right" toextinguish this title which occupancy gave them. 

In the first years of the colony not even these tenure rights wererecognized by the British. While a few gifts of land had been made bythe natives and one of these confirmed by the London Company, there wasno admission, either direct or by inference, that the Indians possesseda superior claim to the land. When such an implication was made in aland grant to Barkham in 1621, the company reacted with bitterresentment. Governor Yeardley, striving to maintain peace with thenatives, made the grant conditional upon the consent of the Indian chiefOpechancanough. According to stated practice under the company, thegrant then had to be approved in England by a quarter court of thecompany's stockholders. When Barkham's petition was presented forratification, the members of the court held the provision concerning theIndian chief to be "verie dishonorable and prejudiciall" for itinfringed upon the company's title by acknowledging sovereignty in that"heathen infidell. "

Disregard for the aboriginal occupants of Virginia called forth anew thequestion of "right and title, " a problem subject to discussion inEngland even before Jamestown. To allay these attacks, severalproponents of colonial expansion attempted to justify the policy of thecrown and the London Company. 

Sir George Peckham in _A true reporte of the late discoveries_ pointedout as early as 1583, relating to the discoveries of Sir HumphreyGilbert, that it was "lawfull and necessary to trade and traficke withthe savages. " In a series of subsequent arguments, he then expoundedthe right of settlement among the natives and the mutual benefit tothem and to England. This theme was later extended by the author of_Nova Britannia_, who maintained that the object of the English was tosettle in the Indian's country, "yet not to supplant and roote themout, but to bring them from their base condition to a farre better" byteaching them the "arts of civility. " The author of _Good Speed toVirginia_ added that the "Savages have no particular propertie in anypart or parcell of that countrey, but only a generall residencie there, as wild beasts have in the forests. " This last opinion, according toPhilip A. Bruce, prevailed to a great extent and was held by a majorityof the members of the London Company in regard to the appropriations oflands. 

In spite of these views entertained by the company, there were severalinstances in which the natives were compensated for their territory. This was done primarily through the initiative of local authorities, forthey were usually better informed concerning Indian affairs. They werein much closer contact with the natives than the company's Council inLondon and realized that the goodwill of the aborigines could becultivated by giving only minor considerations for the land occupied bythe English. On other occasions the Indians voluntarily gave up theirland such as the present from Opechancanough in 1617 of a large body ofland at Weyanoke. At still other times land was seized by force. Whenany attempt was made to justify the seizure, it was done on the basis ofan indemnity for damage inflicted upon the colony or for violations ofagreements by the natives. By 1622 settlements had been made along thebanks of the lower James River and in Accomac on the Eastern Shore, theland having been obtained by direct purchase, by gifts from the natives, or by conquest. 

Any attempt to determine the extent of the areas acquired by purchase inVirginia is hindered by the indefinite nature of the Indian holdings andby the lack of complete records for the early periods. Thomas Jeffersonthought much of the land had been purchased. Writing to St. GeorgeTucker in 1798, Jefferson stated:

 At an early part of my life, from 1762 to 1775, I passed much time in going through the public records in Virginia, then in the secretary's office, and especially those of a very early date of our settlement. In these are abundant instances of purchases made by our first assemblies of the indi[ans] around them. The opinion I formed at the time was that if the records were complete & thoroughly searched, it would be found that nearly the whole of the lower country was covered by these contracts. 

Jefferson overestimated the amount of land that was purchased byVirginia during the early years. While the records now extant show thatthe colony often purchased lands, they likewise indicate that frequentlyland was appropriated without compensation. Especially during the yearsfollowing the first massacre of 1622, "The Indians were stripped oftheir inheritance without the shadow of justice. " The greater part ofthe Peninsula between the York and James rivers was taken by conquest;the right of possession was later confirmed by a treaty with Necotowancein 1646, without, however, any stipulation for compensating the nativesfor the land they relinquished. 

The treaty of 1646 with the successor of Opechancanough inaugurated thepolicy of major historical significance of either setting aside areasreserved for Indian tribes, or establishing a general boundary linebetween white and Indian settlements. Influenced by the desire ofindividual settlers to fortify their claims and by the opposition of thenatives to white encroachment, the colony designated definite lands forthe Virginia Indians and began to follow more closely the custom ofpurchasing all territory received from the natives. To see that this wasdone, the Assembly passed numerous laws, pertaining in most cases onlyto the specific tribes of Indians mentioned in each act. 

In 1653 the Assembly ordered that the commissioners of York Countyremove any persons then seated upon the territory of the Pamunkey orChickahominy Indians. At the same time both lands and hunting groundswere assigned to the red men of Gloucester and Lancaster counties. Thefollowing year the Indian tribes of Northampton County on the EasternShore were granted the right to sell their land to the English provideda majority of the inhabitants of the Indian town consented and providedthe Governor and Council of the colony ratified the procedure. Soonother tribes were given the same privilege. So anxious were they todispose of their land when allowed to convey a legal title, that itbecame necessary for the colony to forbid further land transfers withoutthe Assembly's stamp of approval. Such a step was taken in order toprevent the continual necessity of apportioning new lands to keep thenatives satisfied. 

By 1658 the Assembly had received from several Indian tribes so manycomplaints of being deprived of their land, either by force or fraud, that measures were again adopted to protect the natives in their rights. No member of the colony was allowed to occupy lands claimed by thenatives without consent from the Governor and Council or from thecommissioners of the territory where the settlement was intended. Todecrease the chances for cheating the Indians, all sales were to beconsummated at quarter courts where unfair purchases could be prevented. 

Efforts to protect the Indians in the possession of their lands weresubject to modification from time to time. The treaty of 1646 designatedthe York River as the line to separate the settlements of the Englishand the natives. But the colony at that time was on the eve of a greatperiod of expansion. With an estimated population of 15, 000 in 1650, thecolony increased by 1666 to approximately 40, 000, and by 1681 toapproximately 80, 000. To stem the tide of the advancing Englishsettlement was apparently an impossibility. Therefore, Governor WilliamBerkeley and the Council, upon representation from the Burgesses, consented to the opening of the land north of the York and Rappahannockrivers after 1649. At the same time the provision making it a felony forthe English to go north of the York was repealed. This turn in policy, based upon the assumption that some intermingling of the white and redmen was inevitable, led to the effort to provide for an "equitabledivision" of land supplemented by attempts to modify the Indian economywhich had previously demanded vast areas of the country. 

Endeavoring to provide for this "equitable division" of land, theAssembly in 1658 forbade further grants of lands to any Englishmenwhatsoever until the Indians had been allotted a proportion of fiftyacres for each bowman. The land for each Indian town was to lie togetherand to include all waste and unfenced land for the purpose of hunting. This provision did not relieve all pressure on Indians' lands, partlybecause some of the natives never received their full proportion andpartly because some had been accustomed to even larger areas. But it didserve as a basis for reservation of land for different tribes. 

[Illustration: From a portrait reproduced in J. H. Claiborne, _WilliamClaiborne of Virginia_. Photo by Flournoy, Virginia State Chamber of Commerce. 

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

[Illustration: _How to reduce all sorts of grounds into a square forthe better measuring of it. _

From John Norden's "Surveior's Dialogue"Photo by T. L. Williams]

Two years later the Assembly in 1660 took definite steps to relieve thepressure of English encroachments upon the territory of the AccomacIndians on the Eastern Shore. Enough land was assigned to the natives ofAccomac to afford ample provisions for subsistence over and above thesupplies that might be obtained through hunting and fishing. To insure afair and just distribution of these lands, the Assembly passed oversurveyors of the Eastern Shore and required that the work be done by aresident of the mainland, who obviously would be less prejudiced againstthe aborigines because of personal interest. When once assigned to thenatives, the land could not be alienated. 

By 1662 this last provision, forbidding the Accomacs to alienate theirlands, was extended to all Indians in Virginia. The Assembly hadrealized that the chief cause of trouble was the encroachment by thewhites upon Indian territory. Efforts, therefore, had been made toremove this cause of friction by permitting purchases from the nativesprovided each sale was publicly announced before a quarter court or theAssembly. But the plan had not been a complete success. Various membersof the colony had employed all kinds of ingenious devices to persuadethe natives to announce in public their willingness to part with theirland. Dishonest interpreters had rendered "them willing to surrenderwhen indeed they intended to have received a confirmation of their ownerights. " In view of these evil practices the Assembly declared allfuture sales to be null and void. 

Twenty-eight years later in 1690 the Governor and Council in accord withthis restriction nullified several purchases made from the ChickahominyIndians. By order of the Assembly in 1660 this tribe had received landsin Pamunkey Neck. Since that time several colonists had either purchaseda part of their land or encroached upon their territory without regardfor compensation. In neither case were the white settlers allowed toremain. All leases, sales, and other exchanges were declared void by theGovernor and Council, and all intruders were ordered to withdraw andburn the buildings that had been constructed. George Pagitor, being oneof the settlers affected by this order, had obtained about 1, 200 acresin Pamunkey Neck from the natives. He had built a forty-foot tobaccobarn and kept two workers there most of the year. When his purchase wasdeclared void, he was ordered to return the land to the natives and toburn the barn that had been constructed. Accompanying this executivedecree was an order to the sheriff of New Kent County authorizing him tocarry out the will of the officials of the colony and to burn the barnhimself, if necessary. 

Commissioners were also employed for the supervision of Indian lands. Upon the recommendation of the committee appointed for Indian affairs, the Assembly in 1662 authorized the Governor to appoint a commission "toenquire into and examine the severall claimes made to any part of ourneighboring Indian land, and confirme such persons who have justlyinvested themselves, and cause all others to remove. " The English withrights to land within three miles of the natives were to assist infencing the Indian corn fields. This was done to prevent harm to theIndian crops by hogs and cattle of the colony. Commissioners appointedwere to designate the time and number of English to aid in theconstruction. Other commissioners were to view annually the boundariesseparating the two people. 

The commissioners diligently enforced the provisions of these laws whichunderwent few changes until the outburst of hostilities in Bacon'sRebellion. In 1678 the additional expense of the Indian war led thecolony to modify temporarily its former provisions in order to obtainmore revenue from land. All territory recently assigned to the Indiansbut then abandoned and any land then occupied that should later bedeserted were to be sold. The proceeds from the sale were to be used inthe public interest to defray the expense of the war. 

This regulation applied only to land abandoned by the Indians. Thecolony continued to protect the natives in other lands assigned them asis exemplified in the region south of the James River. In 1665 theIndian boundary line for the area was designated to run from thesouthern branches of the Blackwater River to the Appomattox Indian town, and from there to Manakin Town located only a few miles above the FallLine. By 1674 some of the colonists had crossed this line and weresettling on the territory of the Nottoway Indians. When the encroachmentwas called to the attention of the Governor and Council, they orderedthe English to withdraw immediately, and in the next instructions to thesurveyor of the colony they again forbade the location of new grants inthe region designated as Indian land. 

The number of the aborigines gradually dwindled in this section as inother parts of the colony, due mainly to wars, smallpox epidemics, spirituous liquors, migration, and the abridgement of territory of apeople who lived principally on the "spontaneous productions of nature. "Because of the decrease the Burgesses in 1685 appealed to GovernorHoward for permission to allow grants to some of the land in the area. The Governor failed to comply with their requests. Later, in 1690, anorder was issued for the immediate removal of several persons who hadobtained illegal patents to land south of the main Blackwater Swamp. Allmembers of the colony were again forbidden to settle beyond the boundaryline, and any who had already constructed houses were ordered not torepair them nor to finish any other uncompleted buildings. The sheriffsand justices of the peace of Charles City, Surry, Isle of Wight, andNansemond counties were instructed to be on the alert for violators ofthe order. 

However, the Indians themselves, residing in the region on the southside of the Blackwater River and in Pamunkey Neck had requested in 1688that colonists be allowed to settle across the boundary line in the areanow made vacant by the gradual dying out of their tribes. The basis forthe request seems to have been a desire for relief in their precariouseconomic condition and the fear of invasion by hostile Indians, whomthey regarded with more apprehension than they did the English. By 1705, the colony, influenced by the request from the natives revoked itsformer law regarding the Indian boundary, permitting a limited number ofwhite settlements in Pamunkey Neck and in the region south of theBlackwater Swamp and Nottoway River. 

Thus in the seventeenth century the pendulum moved from a position ofthe colony ignoring any Indian rights in the land to a gradualrecognition of the Indian right of occupation. This sweep of thependulum brought the establishment of boundary lines between the whitesand the Indians with reservations being designated for certain tribes. By the end of the century the diminution of the tribes found thependulum swinging back to open the area to white settlement which hadonce been reserved to the natives, yet still retaining the recognitionof the Indian's right of occupation where tribes survived. With thissurvey of the problem of the red man's title to land, let us now turn toa consideration of the white man's title and how it was obtained inseventeenth-century Virginia. 

CHAPTER TWO

The London Company

General boundaries for English settlement were designated in the charterof 1606 creating the London Company and the Plymouth Company to settlethe area in America known as Virginia. The London Company was authorizedto settle a tract of land 100 miles square in the southern part of thearea extending from the thirty-fourth to the forty-first degrees northlatitude, or from the Cape Fear River in present North Carolina to NewYork City. The boundaries for the Plymouth Company were from thethirty-eighth to the forty-fifth degrees north latitude, or fromapproximately the mouth of the Potomac River to a line just north ofpresent Bangor, Maine. In the overlapping area between the thirty-eighthand forty-first degrees, which in effect created a neutral zone betweenthe present location of Washington, D. C. , and New York City, provisionwas made for a distance of at least 100 miles to separate the sites thatmight be selected by the two companies. 

As stated in the charter of 1606, "all the lands, tenements, andhereditaments" were to be held "as of our Manor at East-Greenwich in theCounty of Kent, in free and common soccage only, and not in capite. " The"Manor at East-Greenwich" refers to the residence of King James I at theroyal palace of Greenwich and was used as a descriptive term in manygrants to indicate that the land in America was also considered a partof the demesne of the King. The land was held not "in fee simple" withabsolute ownership, a concept which was not a part of English law at thetime; but it was granted "in free and common soccage" with the holder atenant of the King with obligations of fealty and of the payment of aquitrent. The fixed rent replaced the service, military or personal, required under feudal law; and the socage tenure in effect did notsubject the land to the rules of escheat or return of the land to theKing if inherited by minors or widows. For Englishmen in America, the"Instructions for the government of the colonies" in 1606 were explicitin showing that their legal and tenurial rights were the same asresidents of the mother country by stating that "All the lands, tenements, and hereditaments ... Shal be had and inherited and enjoyed, according as in the like estates they be had and enjoyed by the laweswithin this realme of England. "

Government by the charter of 1606 provided for a strong exercise ofcontrol by the crown over the colonies of both companies. This wasachieved through the establishment of the Council for Virginia that wasappointed by the King, was resident in England, and answered to the Kingthrough the Privy Council for its actions. For local control of eachcompany, authorization was made for a Council in America with itsinitial membership determined by the Council for Virginia and with apresident selected by the local group. 

Few details were given either in the charter or "Instructions" of 1606about distribution of land. Provisions did state that grants of land inthe colony would be made in the name of the King to persons whom thelocal Council "nominate and assign"; but no details were given of themethod of land distribution. From the scant records that survive, it isevident that promises of land were made to individuals who were willingto hazard the dangers of the new country. From a bill of adventure thatgoes back to 1608, the nature of the promise of land is revealed in theagreement between Henry Dawkes and Richard Atkinson, clerk of theVirginia Company. Fortunately the bill of adventure of 1608 was recordedwith the patent by Governor John Harvey in 1632 to William Dawkes, sonand heir of Henry Dawkes. The commitments in the bill of adventure wereas follows:

 _Whereas_ Henry Dawkes now bound on the intended voyage to Virginia hath paid, in ready money, to Sr. Thomas Smith Kt. Treasurer for Virginia the some of twelve pounds tenn shillings for his adventure in the voyage to Virginia. 

 _It is agreed_ that for the same the said Henry Dawkes his heires, executors, admrs. And assignes shall have rateably according to his adventure his full pte. Of all such lands tenemts and hereditamts. As shall from time to time bee there planted and inhabited, and of all such mines and minneralls of gould, silver, and other mettalls or treasures, pearles, pretious stoanes or any kinds of wares or merchandize, comodities or pfitts. Whatsoever, which shal bee obtained or gotten in the said voyage, according to the portion of money by him imployed to that use, In as large and ample manner as any other adventurer therein shall receave for the like some. 

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

 Richard Atkinson [Clerk of the Virginia Company]. 

The first two years at Jamestown brought disappointments, but theadventurers of the London Company found grounds for new hope in theenlarged and expanded program that was inaugurated in 1609. A newcharter was sought from the King to make possible reforms ingovernmental organization both in England and Virginia; and a broaderbase for financial support was laid by inviting the public to subscribeto a joint-stock fund. By the charter of 1609 the new organization wasincorporated as the Treasurer and Company of Adventurers and Planters ofthe City of London for the First Colony in Virginia. In England the headof the reorganized company was designated as treasurer, and the majorchange in control was the transfer of authority over the colony from thecrown to the company with the powers of government in the hands of thetreasurer and Council. This Council in England, which continued for sometime to be called the Council for Virginia, had its jurisdiction limitedto the exploits of the London Company; its membership came entirely fromthe company; and its members were in effect selected by the leadingpromoters of the company. One major governmental change occurred in thecolony by the president and Council being eliminated in favor of astrong Governor to be advised by a Council. The former provision fortitle to an area of land 100 miles square was changed to give title to"all that space and circuit of land" lying 200 miles north and 200 milessouth of Point Comfort from the sea coast "up into the land, throughoutfrom sea to sea, west, and northwest" plus islands within 100 miles ofthe coast. 

Provisions relative to distribution of land were more specific in the1609 charter and provided that land should be conveyed by majority voteof the company under its common seal. Consideration in distribution ofland was to be given both to the amount invested by adventurer as wellas "special service, hazard, exploit, or merit of any person. "

In the third charter of 1612 no major changes were included relative toland. Boundaries of the colony were extended from 100 miles to 300leagues to include the newly discovered Bermuda Islands. And greatergovernmental authority was placed in the generality of the company byproviding for quarterly court meetings of the company to handle "mattersand affairs of greater weight and importance" than were resolved bylesser courts of a smaller portion of the company. 

No immediate grants of land to individuals were forthcoming with thesecharters. Only promises were made to those who subscribed to thejoint-stock undertaking. The adventurer invested only his money andremained in England with each unit of investment set at £12 10s. Pershare. The term planter was applied to one who went to the colony, andhis personal adventure was equated to one unit of investment at thesame rate as above. Both adventurer and planter were promised aproportionate share of any dividends distributed, whether in land or inmoney. The joint-stock arrangement was originally set to continue sevenyears from its inception in 1609, thus making 1616 as the terminaldate. During this period monetary dividends might be declared, and atthe end of the period the land suitable for cultivation was to bedivided with at least 100 acres to be given for each share of stock. The tract _Nova Britannia_ of 1609, written by Robert Johnson as a partof the promotional campaign of the London Company, outlined these majorprovisions concerning land and included the optimistic prediction thateach share of £12 10s. Would be worth 500 acres at least. But anattempt fourteen years later by Captain Martin to justify a patentbased on this figure of 500 acres per share failed because the promisewas held to be the work of a private individual and not a commitment bythe court of the company. 

In the absence of private title to land in the early years of theVirginia colony, the company relied upon a corporate form of managementwith the pooling of community effort to clear the land, constructbuildings, develop agriculture, and engage in trade with the Indians. This was not an experiment based on a theory of communism for thejoint-stock claims were limited in time. Most of the settlers were morein a position of contract laborers performing services for the company, and plans were devised for monetary dividends even before 1616 if thecolony prospered. Inadequate supplies from England, severe weatherconditions, hostility of the Indians, and the lack of willingness forindustrious labor on the part of the early settlers depleted the commonstorehouse upon which the colonists were forced to rely, leading to theexercise of stern and autocratic measures by John Smith and some of hissuccessors as leaders in the colony. Among the factors that contributedto the lack of zeal among the settlers was the absence of privateownership of land. 

Prior to the promised distribution of land in 1616, there was grantedprivate use of land under a tenant-farm policy which most probably wasfirst inaugurated in 1614 under Sir Thomas Dale, although there is someuncertainty about the date. Three acres of "cleare ground" were allottedto men of the old settlement. In effect they became tenants of thecompany and were obligated to render only one month's service to thecolony at some period other than the planting and harvesting time and tocontribute annually to the common magazine two barrels and a half ofcorn on the ear. This tenant-farm policy worked well and betterconditions resulted with increased production of crops and stock. According to one account in 1616:

 They sow and reape their corne in sufficient proportion, without want or impeachment; their kine multiply already to some hundreds, their swine to many thousands, their goates and poultry in great numbers, every man hath house and ground to his owne use.... 

In the same year this policy was extended to include eighty-one farmersor tenants in the colony's total population of 351. 

Despite improvement in the supply of provisions, the company still hadto face the harsh facts that in 1616 there were only 351 persons alivein the colony, and funds were low in the treasury. There had been only alimited number of new subscribers; some of the earlier subscribers haddefaulted on their second or third payments; and the use of lotterieshad failed to provide adequate money. This was the year set for the endof the joint ownership of land with the declaration of land dividends. But the company could not provide the necessary funds to defray theadministrative costs for the land divisions; and furthermore, many wereof the opinion that not enough land in possession had been cleared oftrees and surveyed. The arbitrary conduct of the Deputy Governor CaptainSamuel Argall, who arrived in Virginia in May, 1617, also contributed tothe delay in carrying out the plan for land distribution. 

_In A Briefe Declaration of the present state of things in Virginia_, adventurers were told that "this course of sending a Governor withcommissioners and a survayor, with men, ships, and sundry provisions"would be expensive, and plans were announced for only a preliminary or"first divident" of fifty acres with the expressed hope that a laterdivision would bring at least 200 acres for every share. But even forthe preliminary division, more money was needed and shareholders wereasked to subscribe another £12 10s. To help pay for the administrativecost. For each additional subscription of £12 10s. , a fifty-acre grantwould be made. Here we have provisions for obtaining land by "treasuryright, " a method remaining in effect only until dissolution of thecompany in 1624 and not reappearing until 1699. Planters in the colonywere also to receive a fifty-acre grant for their personal adventure. Even new adventurers were invited to buy shares at £12 10s. And werepromised fifty-acre grants with the same privileges of the oldadventurers. But the response was poor. Most of the grants that weremade were either irregular in form or contained unreasonable provisionsdictated by the exigency of the situation, thereby being laterrepudiated by the company. 

The financial embarrassment of the company and the need for furthercolonization led to grants of land in return for service to the companyby officials or for promoting the transportation of colonists. For theservices of Sir Thomas Dale to the colony, the Council for Virginiaawarded him the value of 700 pounds sterling to be received in landdistribution; to Sir Thomas Smith for his noteworthy efforts astreasurer or chief official of the company, 2, 000 acres; and to CaptainDaniel Tucker for his aiding the colony with his pinnace and for hisservice as vice-admiral, fifteen shares of land. Similar rewards couldbe made under the company to ministers, physicians, and other governmentofficials. 

As a further stimulus to expand the population of the colony and toenhance agricultural production, the company beginning in 1617encouraged private or voluntary associations, organized on a joint-stockbasis, to establish settlements in the area of the company's patent. These "societies of adventurers" were to send to Virginia at their ownexpense, tenants, servants, and supplies; and the associates were givencertain governmental powers over the settlement that approached theposition of an independent colony. They were authorized "till a form ofgovernment is here settled over them" to issue orders and ordinancesprovided they were not contrary to the laws of England. In relation tothe four original boroughs of James City, Charles City, Henrico, andKecoughtan (later Elizabeth City), the hundreds or particularplantations in government were "co-ordinate and not subordinate"; andsome of them sent representatives to the first Assembly held in 1619under Governor Yeardley. 

The amount of land in these sub-patents depended upon the number ofshares of stock of the associates, and in effect the grants served asdividends to the shareholders. One hundred acres were granted for eachshare with the first division of land, and the promise was made for anequal amount upon a second division of land provided the first was"sufficiently peopled. " There was to be some choice in location by theassociates, although certain restrictions were imposed. No grant was tobe located within five miles of the four original boroughs, and theplantation should be ten miles from other settlements unless on oppositesides of an important river. These provisions were designed to providefor expansion and at the same time avoid conflict among plantations, yetthey tended to disperse the colony and complicate efforts to maintainadequate protection from the imminent threat of hostile natives. 

The term hundred was applied to some, but not all, of these particularplantations. The origin of this designation has sometimes been explainedas a derivation from the English administrative system, but this seemsvalid only as it pertains to the name. There was no attempt to establisha system based on English counties and hundreds, rather the Virginiahundreds were closer to the feudal manor with a degree of economic andpolitical independence. In the light of these conditions, ProfessorWesley Frank Craven suggested the possibility that the term might havebeen a "colloquial designation" applied to plantations with no definitename and related to the units of 100 acres included in the grants or bythe requirement to seat 100 settlers on the land. 

There were three general types of particular plantations. The first ofthese represented the voluntary pooling of land and resources by severaladventurers of the company, since few had adequate land or financialsupport to go it alone. The company granted a patent to contiguous areasof land according to the number of shares of stock possessed by thegroup. Examples of this type include the Society of Smith's Hundred andMartin's Hundred. Smith's Hundred, later called Southampton Hundred, wasorganized in 1617 and included among its adventurers Sir Thomas Smith, Sir Edwin Sandys, and the Earl of Southampton. The grant included 80, 000acres and was located on the north side of the James River in the areabetween "Tanks Weyanoke" and the Chickahominy River. The society wasadministered by a treasurer and committees selected by a meeting of theadventurers. The associates settled at least 300 colonists within theirboundaries and reported in 1635 the expenditure of £6, 000 on thesettlement. Martin's Hundred, organized in 1618, was named for RichardMartin and should be distinguished from (John) Martin's Brandonorganized the previous year. The Society of Martin's Hundred held patentto 80, 000 acres and dispatched over 250 colonists, but only a part ofthe tract was ever occupied. 

The second type of particular plantation involved an adventurer whocombined with persons outside the company to obtain a grant. The titleusually resided in the original adventurer, and the nature of governmentand special privileges was similar to grants of the first kind discussedabove. The grant made to Captain Samuel Argall was of this type. So wasthe grant of John Martin's Brandon in 1617, a plantation of 7, 000 acressituated seven miles upstream from Jamestown. 

The third type of grant involved new adventurers whose major purpose inbuying stock in the company was to organize a particular plantation. Illustrative of this category was the plantation of Christopher Lawne, who transported 100 settlers in 1619 to Warrosquoik and establishedLawne's Hundred. During the following year the hundred was dissolved andthereafter called Isle of Wight Plantation. 

Beginning with the election of Sir Edwin Sandys as treasurer in 1619 andincluding the next four years, there were forty-four grants made forparticular plantations; and the company declared six others to have beenmade prior to this time under Sir Thomas Smith. All of the projectedplantations, however, were never located; and few were settled to theextent planned by the company. Historical records are scarce for theseprojects and this paucity of material has left much of the storyincomplete. It is certain that the following additional plantations wereactually established in Virginia: Archer's Hope on the James River, Bargrave's Settlement, Bennett's Welcome, Society of Truelove'sPlantation, Persey's or Flowerdieu Hundred, and Berkeley Town orHundred. For the last of these, Berkeley Hundred, there is an extensiveset of records in the Smyth of Nibley Papers that gives considerableinsight into the organization and activities of the adventurers underthe leadership of Richard Berkeley, George Thorpe, William Throckmorton, and John Smyth of Nibley. 

Resembling its larger prototype, the London Company, the BerkeleyHundred group had a governor and council. The adventurers were granted100 acres of land for each share of stock with the promise of an equalamount when the first grant was settled; likewise they were promisedfifty acres without quitrent for every person transported at theirexpense who remained for three years or died within this period. Forpromoting both a church and school, the adventurers were also granted1, 500 acres. With these grants and with exemptions from both thecompany's trade rules and from taxation except by consent, the leadersof Berkeley Hundred inaugurated a vigorous campaign to provide thenecessary provisions and personnel, including farmers, artisans, overseers, a minister, and a doctor. Over ninety people were dispatchedto the colony in 1619 and 1620 at a cost of approximately £2, 000. Thissettlement, however, did not thrive. Many of the settlers died ofdisease and eleven were killed in the Indian massacre of 1622. By 1636the adventurers had abandoned their plans to continue the settlement andsold their interests to London merchants. 

In addition to the stimulus to migration by the three foregoing typesof grants for particular plantations, the company took steps in 1618toward reorganization of its administration. Sir Thomas Smith was stillin control of the company as treasurer and contributed to the reforms, but the major contribution came from Sir Edwin Sandys who succeeded tothe position of treasurer in the spring of the following year. Rulesand by-laws were restated in the "Orders and Constitutions, " which werelargely prepared in 1618 although not formally adopted until June, 1619. One additional document of 1618 was very significant because itoutlined a uniform land policy. Identified by the term "the greatecharter, " it is listed in the _Records_ of the London Company as"Instructions to Governor Yeardly" under the date November 18, 1618. 

This "charter" outlined plans for distribution of the land dividend andcontained provisions for the headright system which became a basicfeature of the colony's land policy. One hundred acres were promised asa first dividend to all adventurers for each paid-up share of stock at£12 10s. , another 100 acres as a second dividend when the first had beensettled ("sufficiently peopled"). "Ancient planters, " that is, those whohad come to the colony prior to the departure of Sir Thomas Dale in1616, were to receive similar grants if they had come to the colony attheir own expense. These foregoing grants were to be free of quitrent. "Ancient planters" who came to the colony at the company's expense wouldreceive the same amount of land after a seven-year term of service butwould be required to pay a quitrent of two shillings for every 100acres. 

For settlers arriving after the departure of Dale in 1616 or thosemigrating during the seven-year period following Midsummer Day of 1618, separate regulations applied. If transported at company expense, thecolonist was to serve as a half-share tenant for seven years with nopromise of a land grant; if at his own expense, he was to receive as aheadright fifty acres on the first dividend and the same amount on thesecond dividend. This provision for the fifty-acre headright was set upfor the seven-year period prior to Midsummer Day of 1625, but itcontinued beyond this date as the essential key to Virginia's landpolicy of the seventeenth century. 

Out of the number of people who purchased a share in the company andthereby received a bill of adventure, Alexander Brown in his _Genesisof the United States_ estimated that about one-third came to Virginiaand took up their land claim; approximately one-third sent over agents, or in some cases heirs, to benefit by the grants; and the remainingone-third disposed of their shares to others who occupied the lands. 

Provisions for special lands were also stated in "the greate charter. "At each of the four focal points of settlement--James City, CharlesCity, Henrico, and Kecoughtan, 3, 000 acres were to be set aside as thecompany's land. Half-share tenants were to cultivate the lands and halfof the company's profits was to be used to support several of thecolonial officials. For the Governor, a special plot known as theGovernor's land was to be designated at Jamestown, and half of theproceeds of the tenants was to go to the Governor. For local government, additional provisions were made for support by setting aside 1, 500 acresas "burroughs land" at the four points of settlement listed above. 

Support of cultural activities, as well as governmental, was alsoprovided by land. Glebe lands were authorized at each borough, including100 acres for the minister with a supplement from church members to paya total of £200 per annum. For the promotion of education, "the greatecharter" set aside 10, 000 acres at Henrico as an endowment for a"university and college. " The primary aim of the college in 1618 was toserve as an Indian mission, although the training of English studentswas probably a part of the plan. Tenants were dispatched to Virginia towork at Henrico as "tenants at halves, " one-half of the proceeds oftheir labor to go to the tenant, the other half to be used for thebuilding of the college and for support of its tutors and students. Onehundred and fifty tenants were sent over for the college land; and toimprove the returns from this enterprise, Sir Edwin Sandys engaged that"worthy religious gentleman" George Thorpe as deputy to supervise theinvestment in the college land. Patrick Copland, projector of the firstEnglish free school in North America, was designated president-elect ofthe Indian college; and Richard Downes, a scholar in England, came toVirginia in 1619 with plans to work in the proposed college. All ofthese hopeful plans were suddenly blasted by the eruption of the Indianmassacre of 1622. For all practical purposes the project was ended, although some efforts were made after 1622 by the company to have theremaining tenants cultivate the land and to hold the bricklayers to theobligations of their contract. 

The trace of these grants, including the company land, the Governor'sland, and the "burroughs land" fades out in the absence of completerecords for this period of the colony. Use of the glebe land as partialsupport for the minister was continued in later years, although detailsof the disposition of these early plots are missing. And theappropriation of lands for support of education and other publicpurposes was a recognized concept in later American history. 

The issuing of patents in fee simple to land promised under the generalland dividend did not reach the extent planned by the company until thearrival of Governor George Yeardley in 1619. There seems to be adequateevidence to prove, as Bruce contended, that a few grants had been madeprior to this time, even prior to 1617; but no record has been preservedin the Virginia Land Office. However, even if such grants wereauthorized, it is unlikely that the proper surveys were made for many ofthem. 

As early as 1616 there were references by the company to send toVirginia a surveyor who could lay out the lands to be distributed to theadventurers. It is probable that a surveyor accompanied Captain SamuelArgall to the colony in 1617, but the first name on record in thisposition seems to be that of Richard Norwood who had previously engagedin surveying in the Somer Isles. There is little to indicate that muchwas done by Norwood. In 1621 William Claiborne accompanied GovernorFrancis Wyatt to Virginia, and the arrival of these two men actuated thegranting of many tracts. 

One of these grants by Governor Wyatt is the earliest extant form of theheadright franchise. Dated January 26, 1621/22, it conveyed to ThomasHothersall 200 acres of land at Blunt Point located in later WarwickCounty. The grant read as follows:

 _By the Governr and Capt: Generll: of Virginia_

 _To all to whome these prsents shall come_ greeting in our Lord God Everlasting. 

 _Know Yee_ that I sr Francis Wyatt Kt, Governr and Capt: Generall of Virginia, by vertue of the great charter of orders and lawes concluded on and dated at London in a generall quarter court the eighteenth day of November one thousand six hundred and eighteene by the treasurer Counseil and company of adventurers for the first southerne colony of Virginia, according to the authority graunted them from his Matie under his great seale, the said charter being directed to the Governr and Counseil of State here resident, and by the rules of justice, equity & reason, doe wth the approbation and consent of the same Counseil who are joyned in commission with mee, give and graunt unto Mr. Thomas Hothersall of Paspehay gent. , and to his heires and assignes for ever, for his first generll: devident, to bee augumented and doubled by the said company to him and his said heires and assignes when hee or they shall once sufficiently have planted and peopled the same. 

 Two hundred acres of land scituate and being at Blunt Point, confining on the east the land of Cornelius May, on the south upon the great river, on the north upon the maine land and on the west runing towards a small creek one hundred rod (at sixteene foote and a half the rod);

 Fifty acres whereof is his owne psonall right and fifty acres is the psonall right of Frances Hothersall his wife, the other hundred acres in consideration of his transportacon of twoe of his children out of England at his owne cost & charges, Viz: Richard Hothersall and Mary Hothersall, _To Have and to Hold_ the said twoe hundred acres of land with all and singular the apptennces, and with his due share of all mines & minneralls therein conteyned, and wth all rights and privileges of hunting, hawking and fowling and others within the prcincts and upon the borders of the said land, To the only pper use benifitt and behoofe of the said Thomas Hothersall, his heires and assignes for ever, In as large and ample manner to all intents and purposes as is specified in the said great charter or by consequences may justly bee collected out of the same, or out of his Ma'ties letters patents whereon it is grounded. 

 _Yeilding and paying_ to the treasurer and company and to their successors for ever, yearely at the feast of St. Michael the Archangell [September 29], for every fifty acres, the fee rent of one shilling. 

 _In witness whereof_ I have to these presents sett my hand and the great seale of the colony, given at James Citty the six and twentieth day of January one thousand six hundred twenty one [o. S. ] and in the yeares of the raigne, of our Soveraigne Lord, James by the Grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the faith &c. , Vizt: of England, France and Ireland the nineteenth and of Scotland the five and fiftieth, and in the fifteenth yeare of this plantacon. 

Claiborne supervised most of the surveys included on the list of patentsthat was drawn up by Governor Wyatt in 1625. Out of 184 patents thatwere issued to individual planters, over seventy-five per cent includedonly 200 acres or less with the most frequent grant being the 100-acregrant to the "ancient planter. " For the remaining individual grants, approximately one-sixth were between 201 and 600 acres; four werebetween 601 and 1, 000 acres; and four exceeded 1, 000 acres. 

In an analysis of the status of the Virginia population with regard tolandholding at the time of the dissolution of the company in 1624, Professor Manning C. Voorhis concluded that only about one-seventh ofthe 1, 240 population obtained land from the company. This would leavethe remainder of the settlers as indentured servants or tenant farmerswho worked out their maintenance or transportation either for thecompany or for private individuals who financed their trip to America. The tenant farmers constituted the larger group. In the chapter thatfollows, some attention will be given to the status of these immigrantsand the extent to which they were able to become independent landownersin the colony. 

CHAPTER THREE

Virginia as a Royal Colony

The Nature and Size of Land Grants

A variety of reasons led the King to dissolve the London Company and toassume royal control over the first experiment in colonization under anincorporated company. Failure of the colony to thrive economically, thepoor financial condition of the company, political differences betweenSir Edwin Sandys and the King, internal dissensions between the Sandysfaction and the Smith-Warwick group, the extremely high death rate inthe colony, and the impact of the Indian massacre of 1622--allcontributed in varying degrees of importance to the dissolution. Thecompany rejected efforts of the crown to substitute a new charter drawnup in 1623 providing for the King to resume control of the colony byestablishing a royal Council in England and a Governor and Council inVirginia. Consequently the Privy Council obtained a writ of _quowarranto_ which terminated with a decision by the court of King's Benchin May, 1624, annulling the charter of the company. 

With the advent of royal control there was a significant continuity inpractice in the colony, and the political framework was little changed. The Governor and Council were then appointed by the King, but the Houseof Burgesses continued without major revision. In order to assurecontinued respect for public authority, a royal commission wasdispatched to Governor Wyatt and an eleven-man Council empowering themto act "as fully and ampley as anie Governor and Councell resident thereat anie tyme within the space of five yeares now last past. " A similarcommission was issued to Sir George Yeardley in 1626, and for the nextsixteen years royal instructions to the Governors reflected a strikingresemblance. 

A similar continuity was evident in economic affairs as revealed in landpolicy. The London Company as a corporate body in charge of the colonyterminated in 1624 after eighteen years, and the following year afterthe death of King James I the colony of Virginia by proclamation wasmade a part of the royal demesne. The landholder in Virginia became thenin effect a freehold tenant of the King. The rights and property of thecompany were taken over by the crown, but recognition was made of theprivate property right of the planter and of individual claims of thosewho had invested in the company. Even land rights to planters andadventurers that had not been taken up were recognized, but fewproceeded to effect settlement or to exercise the right of taking up 100acres per share of stock. 

The land rights of the private joint-stock associations also continuedto be recognized, but there was less enthusiasm on the part ofindividual adventurers to promote the projects started some yearsearlier. This development was indicative of the major change in theeconomic life of the colony that resulted in the decline, if notdisappearance, of absentee ownership. As previously noted, BerkeleyHundred had suffered the loss of many of its settlers in the massacre of1622; and upon expiration of term of service of the few remainingservants, only the land and a few cattle were left in the settlement. By1636 the adventurers had sold their claims to London merchants. In thecase of Martin's Hundred located about seven miles from Jamestown, themassacre doomed the active settlement and only the title to the landcontinued. Eventually the title to this hundred was withdrawn to permitnatural expansion of the colony, and the associates or adventurers wereawarded claims to land allotments commensurate with the number of sharesheld in the joint stock. 

The tracts known as company land were maintained for a while under royalcontrol. The role of the public estate, however, never assumed greatsignificance, yet there is evidence of the continued practice during theseventeenth century of endowing an office such as Governor or secretarywith the proceeds of a land grant. 

Theoretically tenants and contract laborers who were still alive at thetime of the dissolution of the company were to continue their laboreither on the public land or on private associations. In practice, however, it is likely that lax enforcement of the contracts resulted ina substantial diminution of the obligations of many workers. Thescarcity of records for this period makes it impossible to trace all ofthis group, but there is enough evidence to indicate that some continuedto serve out their term of labor. The General Court in 1627 expressedconcern about the approaching expiration of leases and indentures ofpersons for whom there were no provisions for lands; and action wastaken to permit them to lease land for a period of ten to twenty-oneyears in return for which they were to render a stipulated amount oftobacco or corn for each acre, usually one pound of tobacco per acre. This lenient provision notwithstanding, only about sixty persons availedthemselves of the opportunity, the remainder presumably either squattingon frontier land, working as laborers, or eventually obtaining title toland by purchase from an original patentee. 

With the dissolution of the company the issuing of land patentscontinued in the hands of the Governor and Council. The King and PrivyCouncil assumed power over land distribution but apparently left theissuing of patents as it had been before. Up until January, 1625, Governor Wyatt issued patents in the name of the company. At that timenews reached Virginia that the writ of _quo warranto_ of June, 1624, had dissolved the company and that King James I upon assumption ofcontrol of the colony had issued on August 26, 1624, the firstcommission of a royal Governor to Wyatt. But the commission made noreference to land grants, and Governor Wyatt issued none after January, 1625. 

Charles I succeeded to the throne following the death of James I onMarch 27, 1625. His proclamation stating policy relative to Virginiaprofessed protection of the interests of private planters andadventurers but made no direct reference to land grants. GovernorYeardley replaced Wyatt by a commission of March 14, 1625/26 and arrivedin Virginia in May, 1626. There is no record extant to show thatYeardley received direct instructions to start issuing grants; but it iscertain that he did begin in February, 1626/27, interpreting hisinstructions and commission as authorizing the action. 

Land patents during this period were to be issued on four mainconditions: (1) as a dividend in return for investment in the foundingof the colony; (2) as a reward for special service to the colony; (3) asa stimulus to fortify the frontier by using land to induce settlement;and (4) as a method of encouraging immigration by the headright. 

The first of these was simply an assurance by the King that the formerstockholders in the company still had the right to take up land at therate of 100 acres for each share of stock owned. As late as 1642 thisprivilege was still being confirmed in instructions to the Governor; butthe stockholders appeared to be little interested at this time in comingto Virginia, for very few took up their claim and apparently the sharesbearing the holder's name could not be transferred after thedissolution. The plan for the distribution of the first dividend in 1619also provided for a second allotment. As late as 1632 patents stillincluded authorization for a second dividend when the first had beencultivated. But no second allotment was ever made. There are, however, examples to indicate that claims for the first dividend were upheldafter the company was dissolved. In 1628 Thomas Graies obtained a patentas a dividend for his subscription of twenty-five pounds sterling; in1636 Captain John Hobson was issued a patent covering a bill ofadventure that went back to 1621; and on another occasion the landdividend due a deceased father was awarded to his son. 

The next condition of awarding patents for meritorious service to thecolony was of long standing. Used to award ministers, politicalofficials, physicians, sea captains, and various other individuals underthe company, the practice continued under royal control after 1624. Governor Wyatt in 1638 was instructed to issue land patents formeritorious service according to provisions previously adopted for suchcases. And a few years later Charles II awarded lands in Virginia toservants or others who aided him, although it is not certain whetherthese individuals were ever able to take up the claim bestowed uponthem. 

The third condition for a patent was practically a corollary to thesecond, for it involved rendering service to the colony by settling andfortifying the frontier. One example during this period may be found insecuring the Peninsula. Following the massacre of 1622 Governor Wyattand his Council wrote to the Earl of Southampton about a plan for"winning the forest" by running a pale between Martin's Hundred on theJames River and Cheskiack on the York. Again in 1624 the suggestion wasmade to the royal commissioners who were sent over by the King todetermine the most suitable places for fortification. To effect theconstruction of this palisade, the General Assembly in 1633 offered landas an inducement to settle between Queen's Creek and Archer's HopeCreek, promising fifty acres and a period of tax exemption to freemenwho would occupy the area of Middle Plantation, later Williamsburg. InFebruary, 1633, the order was issued for a fortieth part of the men inthe "compasse of the forest" between the two previously mentioned creeksand Chesapeake Bay to meet at Dr. John Pott's plantation at the head ofArcher's Hope Creek for the purpose of erecting houses to secure theneck of land known as the Peninsula. With this encouragement by theAssembly, a palisade six miles in length was completed, running fromQueen's Creek to Archer's Hope Creek and passing through MiddlePlantation. Houses were constructed at convenient distances, and asufficient number of men were assigned to patrol the line of defenseduring times of imminent danger. By setting off a little less than300, 000 acres of land, this palisade provided defense for the newplantations between the York and James rivers and served as arestraining barrier for the cattle of the colony. 

Granting of land was again used on a large scale for the establishmentof forts after the Indian massacre of 1644. By order of the Assembly in1645 blockhouses or forts were established at strategic points: FortCharles at the falls of the James River, Fort Royal at Pamunkey, FortJames on the ridge of Chickahominy on the north side of the James, andin the next year Fort Henry at the falls of the Appomattox River. Themaintenance of these forts involved considerable expense, more than theofficials of the colony wished to drain from the public treasury. Therefore, they decided to grant the forts with adjoining lands toindividuals who would accept the responsibility of their upkeep as wellas the maintenance of an adequate force for defense. Fort Henry, locatedat present-day Petersburg, was granted to Captain Abraham Wood with 600acres of land plus all houses, edifices, boats, and ammunition belongingto the fort. Wood was required to maintain and keep ten personscontinuously at the fort for three years. During this time he wasexempted from all public taxes for himself and the ten persons. Uponsimilar terms Lieutenant Thomas Rolfe, son of Pocahontas and John Rolfe, received Fort James and 400 acres of land; Captain Roger Marshall, FortRoyal and 600 acres. Since there was no arable land adjoining FortCharles at present-day Richmond, other inducements were made for itsmaintenance. These forts served as the first line of defense againstpossible attacks by the natives. Being the center of the variedactivities of the frontier, they also were the starting point forexpeditions against the Indians and became the center of trade for theoutlying regions. 

The fourth condition for granting of land--the headright--was by far themost important and became the principal basis for title to land in theseventeenth century. Its origin goes back to "the greate charter" of1618 in which the following provision was included:

 That for all persons ... Which during the next seven years after Midsummer Day 1618 shall go into Virginia with intent there to inhabite If they continue there three years or dye after they are shiped there shall be a grant made of fifty acres for every person upon a first division and as many more upon a second division (the first being peopled) which grants to be made respectively to such persons and their heirs at whose charges the said persons going to inhabite in Virginia shall be transported with reservation of twelve pence yearly rent for every fifty acres to be answered to the said treasurer and company and their successors for ever after the first seven years of every such grant. 

Under these provisions of "the greate charter, " it is evident that notonly was the headright grant of fifty acres per person open toshareholders who brought settlers to the colony, but also to anyone whohad migrated to the colony at his own expense or who had financed theexpedition of other persons. Individuals paying their own transportationwere entitled to fifty acres for themselves and for every member of thefamily, providing they fulfilled the residence requirement of threeyears. 

Governors under the company issued patents based on the headright untildissolution by the crown in 1624. Beyond that time the status of theheadright was uncertain. The "charter" of 1618 had specified a term forthis right for seven years ending on Midsummer Day of 1625. After thisterm expired, royal governors continued to honor headright claims basedon immigration, although no direct authorization for such action hadcome from the crown. Therefore, the issuance of these claims after 1625was based primarily on custom, brief as it was, until more directinstructions were issued to Governor John Harvey in 1634 following theproprietary grant of Maryland in 1632. 

The Maryland grant enhanced the concern of the Virginia inhabitantsabout their title to land, and correspondence conducted by GovernorHarvey finally brought forth a statement from the Privy Council. Apprehension over Maryland led to assurance of the headright forVirginia as the Privy Council issued the following dispatch of July 22, 1634, to the Governor:

 We have thought fit to certify you that his Majesty of his royal favor, and for the better encouragement of the planters there doth let you knowe that it is not intended that the interestes which men had settled when you were a corporation should be impeached; that for the present they may enjoy their estates and trades with the same freedom and privileges as they did before the recalling of their patents: To which purpose also in pursuance of his Majesty's gracious intention, wee doe hereby authorize you to dispose of such proportions of lands to all those planters beeing freemen as you had power to doe before the yeare 1625. 

With this explicit royal endorsement of land patent principles followedunder the company and confirmation of the headright, Governor Harveymodified the wording in the patents and adopted the following formillustrated in a grant of 2, 500 acres to Captain Hugh Bullocke:

 _To all to whome these prsents. Shall come_, I Sr. John Harvey Kt. Governr. And Capt. Generll. Of Virginia send greeting in our Lord God Everlasting. 

 _Whereas_ by letters pattents bearing date the twoe and twentieth of July one thousand six hundred thirtie fower from the Rt. Honble. The Lords of his Majties. Most Honoble. Privie Councell their lordshipps did authorize the Governr. And Councell of Virginia to dispose of such pportions of land to all planters being freemen as they had power to doe before the yeare 1625, whene according to divers orders & constitutions in that case provided and appointed all devidents of lands any waies due or belonging to any adventurers or planters of what condicon soever were to bee laid out and assigned unto them according to the severall condicons in the same menconed. 

 _Now Know Yee_ therefore that I the said Sr. John Harvey doe, with the consent of the Councell of State give and graunt unto Capt. Hugh Bullocke and to his heires and assignes for ever by these prsents

 Twoe thousand five hundred and fiftie acres of land, scituate, lying & being from the runn that falleth downe by the eastern side of a peece of land knowne by the name of the Woodyard and soe from that runn along the side of the Pocoson (or great Otter pond soe called) northwest and about the head of the said Otter pond back southeast leaveing the Otter pond in the middle. 

 _To have and to Hold_ the said twoe thousand five hundred and fiftie acres of land with his due share of all mines and minneralls therein conteyned and with all rights and priviledges of hunting, hawking, fishing and fowling, wth in the prcincts of the same to the sole and pper use benifitt and behoofe of him the said Capt. Bullocke his heires and assignes for ever. 

 In as large and ample manner to all intents and purposes as is expressed in the said orders and constitutions, or by consequence may bee justly collected out of the same or out of his Majties. Letters pattents whereon they are grounded. 

 _Yielding and paying_ for every fiftie acres of land herein by these presents given and graunted yearely at the feast of St. Michaell the Archangell [September 29], the fee rent of one shilling to his Majties. Use. 

 _Provided always_ that [if] the said Capt. Hugh Bullock, his heires or assignes shall not plant or seate or cause to bee planted on the said twoe thousand five hundred & fiftie acres of land wth in the time and terms of three yeares now next ensuing the date hereof, that then it shall and may bee lawfull for any adventurer or planter to make choice and seate upon the same. 

 _Given_ at James Citty under my hand and sealed with the seale of the colony the twelfth day of March one thousand six hundred thirtie fower [o. S. ] & in the tenth year of our Soveraigne Lord King Charles &c. 

Use of the headright had been adopted by the company as an expedient toincrease population of the colony and to encourage immigration withoutfurther expenditure from the company treasury. The practice continuedwith the fifty acres of land granted to the persons who financed thetransportation of the immigrant, but the grant itself was not valuableenough to compensate for the expense involved. Therefore, withincreasing frequency the system of indentured servitude was used wherebythe immigrant agreed to an indenture or contract to work a certainnumber of years as additional payment for his transportation. Thissystem, in general, proved advantageous to both the master and theservant, to the colony by providing additional immigrants, and toEngland by serving as a vent for surplus population. 

Indentured servants were not slaves but were servants during thespecified period of the contract. While the laws of the time did make adistinction in the severity of the penal code as applied to servants andto freemen, still indentured servitude did not have the stigma ofbondage or slavery; and many servants upon completion of their term ofservice rose to positions of social and political prominence in thehistory of the colony. In 1676 the Lords of Trade and Plantationsexpressed concern over the use of the word "servitude" because of theimplications of slavery, and they preferred "to use the word service, since those servants are only apprentices for years. "

At the expiration of the term of service, the servants usually receivedequipment and supplies necessary to start them as freemen. Theyreceived grain enough for one year, clothes, and in some cases a gunand a supply of tools. As to receipt of land, the policy varied fromone colony to another, and at times there was uncertainty within onecolony about obligations to freedmen. In Virginia the indenturedservant did not usually receive land at the end of service unless hehad insisted, as John Hammond in _Leah and Rachel_ had advised, that aspecific provision be included in the contract to include the award offifty acres as "freedom's dues. " There are some cases in which theprovision for land was included as illustrated in one of the earliestindentures known to exist for Virginia. This indenture of September 7, 1619, was made between Robert Coopy of North Nibley in Gloucestershirewith the associates of Berkeley Hundred. Coopy agreed to work threeyears in Virginia and submit to the government of the hundred in returnfor which the owners were to transport him to Virginia and "There tomaintayne him with convenient diet and apparell meet for such aservant, and in the end of the said terme to make him a free man of thesaid cuntry theirby to enjoy all the liberties, freedomes, andpriviledges of a freeman there, and to grant to the said Robert thirtyacres of land within their territory or hundred of Barkley.... "

The confusion over the question whether the indentured servant wasentitled to fifty acres of land upon expiration of his service extendedto the mother country. There was a widespread belief in England thatsuch was the case, and there were indefinite statements in commissionsand instructions to the Governors that left the matter in doubt. Inpractice in Virginia, however, it is certain that the fifty acres underthe headright claim went to the person transporting indentured servants, not to the servants themselves. Only where the contract specificallystated that the servant was to receive fifty acres was he assured ofthis grant. 

Under the company there had been definite provisions that the fiftyacres went to the persons transporting servants, not to the servantsthemselves. After its dissolution, Governors were instructed to followthe rules of the "late company, " and this continued until there was avariation in Sir Francis Wyatt's commission of 1639 authorizing theGovernor and the Council to issue grants to adventurers and planters"According to the orders of the late company ... And likewise 50 acresof land to every person transported thither ... Until otherwisedetermined by His Majesty. " Did "to every person" mean that the servantwas entitled to land? Such was the case across the Potomac in Marylandwhere the servant could claim fifty acres from his employer or masteruntil 1646; after 1646 and until 1683 the proprietor provided land forthe servant. If such were intended, it was not followed and theintentions were far from clear in the later commission to Sir WilliamBerkeley in 1642. In addition to assigning land for "adventurers ofmoney" and "transportation of people, " the commission authorized theGovernor and Council to grant "fifty acres for every person transportedthither since Midsummer 1625, and ... Continue the same course to allpersons transported thither until it shall otherwise be determined byHis Majesty. " The loose use of the terminology "to" and "for" recurredin subsequent years and again reflected the lack of precision in thismatter as well as the seeming misapprehension in England that theservant was entitled to a fifty-acre grant. Under the articles of thetreaty of 1651 between Virginia and the commissioners of theCommonwealth, the reversion to the term "for every person" was made andthe policy of no land to servants was implicit in the sixth article ofthe agreement: "That the priviledge of haveing fiftie acres of land forevery person transported in the collony shall continue as formerlygranted. "

Even though servants were not granted land by the colony at theexpiration of their service, a substantial number soon becamelandowners. The exact proportion of servants that became landholdersafter 1624 cannot be determined in the absence of a complete census. However, an examination of the land patents and the list of headrightsmakes possible some estimate of the percentage of landholders that hadonce been indentured servants. The conclusions cannot be final and aresubject to limitations. Identification presents a problem because of thefrequency of the same name as Smith or Davis and because of the omissionof middle names. The problem is further complicated by the fact thatheadrights were often transferred by sale. A person entitled to aheadright claim on the frontier may not have wished to settle there;rather he may have preferred to sell his headright claim and purchaseland in an established county. As a result of the sale of his headrightclaim, his name may have appeared in the headright list as the basis forthe claim for someone else even though he had not been an indenturedservant. Therefore, all persons so listed under the headright claimcannot be considered indentured servants. 

Fully aware of the limitations just suggested and equally consciousthat estimates in the absence of more complete records cannot be final, Professor Thomas J. Wertenbaker in his _Planters of Colonial Virginia_summarized his analysis of patents and concluded that both before 1635and in the following two or three decades, thirty to forty per cent ofthe landholders of Virginia came to the colony as indentured servants. 

Professor Wertenbaker also indicated general agreement with conclusionsdrawn by William G. Stanard about the proportion of immigrants thatwere indentured servants. From an analysis of the patent rolls from1623 to July 14, 1637, printed in the April, 1901, issue of the_Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, Stanard estimated thatseventy-five per cent of immigrants from 1623 to 1637 were importedunder term of the indenture. Out of 2, 675 names on the rolls, 336entered as freemen at their own cost and an additional 245 persons werebelieved for the most part to be of the same status although there wassome uncertainty about this group. Transportation expenses were paid byothers for 2, 094. From these numbers, the conclusion was reached that675 persons on the patent rolls were freemen, including women andchildren; the remaining 2, 000 were servants and slaves, the latter invery small number at this time. Thus the analysis roughly confirms theconclusion that three-fourths of the immigrants during this period wereindentured servants. 

Use of the headright system for distribution of land had a closecorrelation with expanding population, for it was hoped that theincrease of population would keep pace with the acquisition of privatetitle in the soil. As the seventeenth century progressed, there weremany abuses and evasions of the system; and by the end of the period itssignificance declined in favor of acquisition of title by purchase, orthe "treasury right. " To understand the various deviations from thesystem, it will be helpful to review the steps by which title to land byheadright was obtained. 

The first step involved the proving of the headright by the claimantappearing before either a county court or the Governor and Council andstating under oath that he had imported a certain number of personswhose names were listed. The clerk of the court issued a certificatewhich was validated in the secretary's office. Authorization for theheadright was then passed on to a commissioned surveyor who ran offfifty acres for each person imported and located the grant in the areaselected by the claimant as long as the land had not already beenpatented and had not been barred for white settlement in order tomaintain peace with the Indians. Upon completion of the survey and ofmarking the boundaries, a copy of the record along with the headrightcertificate was presented to the secretary's office where a patent wasprepared and a notation made of those imported. The final step was thesigning of the patent by the Governor in the presence of, and with theapproval of, the Council. 

One deviation from the spirit of the law of the headright involvedclaims based upon the person being imported into the colony more thanonce. For example, John Chew in 1637 received 700 acres, using his owntransportation in 1622 and 1623 as the basis for the claim to 100 acresin the grant. Carrying this practice to a greater extreme, Sarah Lawreceived a grant for 300 acres of land based upon the fact that she hadimported John Good, probably a sailor, six times. 

On a larger scale, ship masters submitted lists for headright claimswhich in actuality contained the roster of both the sailors of the shipand the passengers. In neither case should the right have beenacknowledged, for the sailors were under agreement to continue serviceat sea and the passengers had paid their own transportation to thecolony. But the lax administration of the system usually permittedapproval of such applications, and the ship master therefore foundhimself with headright certificates which he could sell to others forwhatever price he could wangle. This practice was sometimes repeated bythe same unscrupulous ship master who was aided in the irregularprocedure by the failure of the clerks of the secretary's office to makecareful checks of lists submitted, and also by the fact that he couldpresent his lists to a different county court when importing the samesailors for the third or fourth time. 

Like the ship master, the sailor engaged in falsifying the record byswearing that he had imported himself and sometimes others at his ownexpense. Patents were obtained on the basis of the headright. Philip A. Bruce concluded that the land obtained in Virginia by mariners was "veryextensive. " To substantiate this general statement, he referred topowers of attorney found in the county court records, authorizing anagent in Virginia to handle the estates of the mariner. In the recordsof Rappahannock County for 1668 is an example of the practice, in whichThomas Sheppard of Plymouth, England, designated William Moseley tohandle his interest in 150 headrights which he claimed for importing 150people to Virginia. It was likely in this case that duplicate claimswere issued, either to the individual if he paid his own transportationor to some master if the immigrant became an indentured servant. In someinstances, as many as three or four claims were made for oneimportation: one for the ship master, one for the merchant who acted asmiddle-man in purchasing the service of the immigrant, one for theplanter who eventually purchased the indentured servant, and less oftenone for a second planter who may have joined with the first in obtainingthe services of the imported person. 

As abuse of the system increased, headright lists sometimes includedfictitious names or in some cases names copied from old record books. The final stage in irregular procedure was reached when the clerks inthe office of the secretary of the colony sold the headright claim topersons who would simply pay from one to five shillings. The exact dateat which this practice began has not been determined, but it wasprevalent sometime before 1692. Francis Nicholson reported to the Boardof Trade that while serving as Governor of Virginia from 1690 to 1692, he had "heard" that the sale of rights by the clerks in the secretary'soffice was "common practice. " Another report to the Board in 1697described the clerks as being "a constant mint of those rights. "

The combined variations in the operation of the headright systemresulted in the distortion, if not destruction, of its originalconcepts. The system continued to bring immigrants into the colony whichhad been a very important purpose when inaugurated. But the abuses threwout of balance the relation between patented land and the number ofpeople in the colony; and furthermore through perversion of the system, speculation in land was not prevented and there resulted large areas ofwholly uncultivated and uninhabited lands to which title had beengranted. The headright was also originally intended to apply toinhabitants of the British Isles, but by the middle of the seventeenthcentury the names of persons imported from Africa appeared occasionallyas the basis for headright, and by the last decade of the century theywere frequently found. 

The distortion of the headright system was done with considerable publicapproval and in some ways reflected the evolution of economicdevelopment that seemed to demand a more convenient and less expensivemethod for obtaining title to large areas of unoccupied land. As thepopulation of the colony increased and as the labor supply became moreplentiful, there was a rather widespread demand to be able to obtainadditional land, particularly adjacent undeveloped tracts, withouthaving to import an additional person for every fifty acres. Partlythrough this demand, impetus was given to the custom, which was not atfirst sanctioned by law, to permit the granting of patents by simplypaying a fee in the secretary's office. 

While the headright system was designed to maintain some proportionbetween the population of the colony and the amount of land patented, itwas also designed to stimulate the migration of immigrants to thecolony. Therefore, under the system it was possible for individuals whowould engage in transporting or financing the transportation ofimmigrants to obtain large areas of land. This trend was started underthe company; and in the four years prior to 1623, forty-four patents of5, 000 acres each were awarded to persons who were to transport at least100 immigrants to the colony. In 1621, for example, 5, 000 acres weregranted to Arthur Swain and Nathaniel Basse and a similar grant toRowland Truelove and "divers other patentees" each grant to be based onthe transportation of 100 persons; 15, 000 acres were to go to Sir GeorgeYeardley for engaging to transport 300 persons. 

For the years following the dissolution of the company, valuableinformation of the nature and size of land grants can be found in the"Virginia Land Patents" which fortunately have survived the usualhazards of fire and carelessness. The two following tables (Tables Iand II) have been compiled from the analysis of the land patents byPhilip A. Bruce and summarized in his _Economic History of Virginia_(volume I, pages 528-532). 

 I. TABLE SHOWING SIZE OF LAND GRANTS FROM 1626 TO 1650 BASED ON THE RECORD OF VIRGINIA LAND PATENTS

 Year or years Average grant for Largest grant for the period the period

 1626-1632 100-300 acres 1, 000 acres 1634 719 acres 5, 350 acres 1635 380 acres 2, 000 acres 1636 351 acres 2, 000 acres 1637 445 acres 5, 350 acres 1638 423 acres 3, 000 acres 1640 405 acres 1, 300 acres 1641 343 acres 872 acres 1642 559 acres 3, 000 acres 1643 595 acres 4, 000 acres 1644 370 acres 670 acres 1645 333 acres 1, 090 acres 1646 360 acres 1, 200 acres 1647 361 acres 650 acres 1648 412 acres 1, 800 acres 1649 522 acres 3, 500 acres 1650 677 acres 5, 350 acres

II. TABLE SHOWING SIZE OF LAND GRANTS FROM 1650 TO 1700 BASED ON THE RECORD OF VIRGINIA LAND PATENTS

 Period of years Average grant for Number of largest grants the period for the period

 1650-1655 591 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres ( 92) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres ( 41) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 3) 1655-1666 671 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres (252) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres (147) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 20) 1666-1679 890 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres (220) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres (154) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 25) 10, 000-20, 000 acres ( 12) 1679-1689 607 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres (143) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres ( 66) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 17) 10, 000-20, 000 acres ( 2) 1689-1695 601 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres ( 63) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres ( 23) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 7) 1695-1700 688 acres 1, 000- 2, 000 acres ( 14) 2, 000- 5, 000 acres ( 13) 5, 000-10, 000 acres ( 7) 13, 400 acres ( 1)

 [Note: In compiling this table, two changes have been made to correct what seems clearly to be errors in Bruce's description. Forty-one grants were listed for 2, 000-5, 000 acres from 1650-1655 rather than forty-one grants of 1, 000-5, 000 acres as noted by Bruce. The date 1685 listed in Bruce has been changed to 1689 to give the proper time period of 1689-1695. ]

For the period from 1634 to 1650 included in Table I, there wereoccasional grants of 5, 000 acres, but the average size of the patentsfor the period was not over 446 acres. It was possible, of course, forone individual to build up a large landed estate by putting togetherseveral smaller grants; and this was done by a limited number of personsduring the seventeenth century in Virginia as will be discussed later. There was also the possibility that grants of considerable size in theoriginal patent might be broken up and distributed to others in smalleramounts. In any case, the second half of the century as reflected in theland patents saw a moderate increase in the size and number of largegrants as the population increased, and the average size for the landpatent of this period was 674 acres, an increase of 228 acres over theperiod prior to 1650. 

While the second half of the century witnessed this increase, much of itcame during the third quarter of the period. Near the end of the centurythere was a definite trend to break up some of the larger patents intosmaller landholdings by sales to servants completing their indenture, bydistribution of land to children, or by sale because of an inadequatelabor supply either of slaves, indentured servants, tenant farmers, orwage earners. 

The existence of the small farm and the small farmer as a major part ofthe socio-economic system of Virginia at the end of the seventeenthcentury has been well established. Professor Wertenbaker suggested that"a full 90 per cent of the freeholders" at the time the rent roll wascompiled in 1704/05 included the "sturdy, independent class of smallfarmers. " Through examination of land patents, land transfers, taxrolls, and a sampling of other county records, he found substantialevidence to corroborate the suggested trend of the breakup of a numberof large patents and their distribution to small freeholders. Illustrative of this development was the land known as Button's Ridge inEssex County. Originally including 3, 650 acres, the tract was patentedto Thomas Button in 1666. The estate then passed first to the brother ofButton and later was sold to John Baker. Baker divided the large tractand sold small amounts to the following people: 200 acres to CaptainWilliam Moseley, 600 to John Garnet, 200 to Robert Foster, 200 toWilliam Smither, 200 to William Howlett, 300 to Anthony Samuell, and 200to William Williams. 

Professor Susie M. Ames in _Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore inthe Seventeenth Century_ found evidence of the same trend by whichoriginal land grants increased in size by the middle of the century andreached its peak in the third quarter of the century. Near the end ofthe period many of the larger tracts were being divided by willsdistributing them among children or by sales in smaller units. Much ofthe land obtained by the first two generations on the Eastern Shore wasbroken up into small holdings by the third. As stated by ProfessorAmes, "It is the subtraction and division of acres, with onlyoccasionally any marked addition, that seems to be the chiefdevelopment in land tenure during the last quarter of the seventeenthcentury. "

Even with the trend of dividing some of the large estates on the EasternShore, a small per cent of the population held a considerable part ofthe land. In 1703/04 the average size of landholding in NorthamptonCounty was 389 acres, in Accomack 520 acres. When analyzed by use of thelist of tithables, Northampton County had twenty-one persons, only threeper cent of the tithables, holding thirty-nine per cent of the land;Accomack County had a total of forty-six persons, only four per cent ofthe tithables, holding forty-three per cent of the land. 

Considering all of Virginia of the seventeenth century, one cannot saythat it was primarily a land of large plantations, of cavaliers, and ofnoble manors which have been romanticized by some writers. Yet there wasa significant number of prominent planters who took an active part inthe social and political life of the colony and exerted an influencedisproportionate to their ratio of the population. Professor Wertenbakerlisted the following men among the prominent planters of the first halfof seventeenth-century Virginia--George Menefie, Richard Bennett, andRichard Kinsman; for the second half of the century, a more extensivelist--Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. , Thomas Ballard, Robert Beverley, GilesBrent, Joseph Bridger, William Byrd I, John Carter, John Custis I, Dudley Digges, William Fitzhugh, Lewis Burwell, Philip Ludwell I, William Moseley, Daniel Parke, Ralph Wormeley, Benjamin Harrison, EdwardHill, Edmund Jennings, and Matthew Page. Members of this groupaccumulated large landholdings, mostly by original patent through theheadright system or by private purchase from holders of originalpatents. For example, William Byrd I had obtained 26, 231 acres of landat the time of his death; and William Fitzhugh acquired during hislifetime 96, 000 acres of land and left at the time of his death in 1701a little over 54, 000 acres in family "seats" to five sons. 

The land system and its administration that permitted the accumulationof a few of these substantial plantations came under detailed discussionby crown officials near the end of the seventeenth century. Beforeexamining this analysis of Virginia land policy, it will be helpful tosurvey in the following chapter the major laws and the officialsresponsible for their administration. 

CHAPTER FOUR

Royal Administration of Land Policy

Attempts at Reform

The issuing of land patents and the administration of laws concerningland involved a variety of officials during the seventeenth century. Under the company the authority to convey title to land rested after1609 with the treasurer, the Council in London, and the association ofadventurers in England. The Governor and Council in the colony wereauthorized as ministerial agents of the company to make grants, butfinal approval was to be made at sessions of the quarter court of thecompany in England. This last step, as previously noted, was seldomcompleted. After dissolution of the company, the process of issuingpatents was simplified. Most grants were made under the headright claimand followed the steps outlined in chapter three, involving the countycourt, the secretary of the colony, the Governor and Council, and thecommissioned surveyors. 

The office of surveyor existed under the company and William Claiborne, who came to the colony in 1621, was the first to fill the positioneffectively. As surveyor, Claiborne received the annual wage of thirtypounds sterling which was to be paid either in tobacco or some othercomparable commodity with a good price on the English market. SurveyorClaiborne also had the use of a house constructed by the company as wellas receiving the necessary equipment and books needed for his work. 

Following the dissolution of the company in 1624, the office ofsurveyor-general was established with a royal appointee who was chargedwith the responsibility of maintaining the survey records and issuingcommissions to the surveyors of the colony. Some difficulty wasencountered in securing qualified and reliable men. This led during theinterregnum to a law in March, 1654/55, calling for the dismissal ofunqualified surveyors and placing the power of appointment in the handsof the county court. After the restoration of Charles II to the throne, the appointment of surveyors returned to the system of commissions fromthe surveyor-general. 

The amount for surveyors' fees was designated by the legislature atvarious times. Ten pounds of tobacco for every 100 acres was specifiedin 1624; in 1642 and again in 1646 the fee limit was raised to twentypounds of tobacco for measuring 100 acres of land with an additionalallowance of twelve pounds of tobacco for each day that the taskrequired the surveyor to be away from his home. If his transportationcould be only by water, the person employing him was required to assumethe expense of travel both to and from the location of the survey. In1661/62 the allowance for each day away from home was increased tothirty pounds of tobacco; and by the same law the surveyor wasauthorized the same limit of twenty pounds of tobacco for running off100 acres if the total was greater than 500, otherwise he was to receivea minimum of 100 pounds of tobacco. Efforts to obtain capable, honest, and conscientious appointees continued to be a problem. The need forbetter surveyors and the decline of the tobacco prices led the Assemblyto double the previous fees. In 1666 forty pounds of tobacco wasstipulated for surveying 100 acres if the total was for 1, 000 acres. Ifless than 1, 000, the allowance was 400 pounds of tobacco. 

Commissioned surveyors were not at liberty to refuse reasonable requestsfor surveys to be made, except in cases involving sickness or some otherimpediment recognized as legal. The law of 1666 provided that anyoneviolating this requirement was subject to a fine of 4, 000 pounds oftobacco; for charging excessive fees, the fine was 200 pounds of tobaccothat could be recovered in the Virginia courts. 

Gabriel Hawley, Robert Evelyn, Thomas Loving, Edmund Scarborough, andAlexander Culpeper served as surveyor-general with the last named havingPhilip Ludwell as his deputy. Upon the chartering of the College ofWilliam and Mary surveyors were appointed by the institution, and theappointees were required to contribute to the trustees of the collegeone-sixth of the fees of the office. The trustees were permitted todelegate the appointments. Consequently in 1692 they designated MilesCary as surveyor-general, who was instructed to make the selection ofsurveyors with the aid of a committee named by the trustees. 

In addition to the fees of the surveyor, there were other charges thatwere made from time to time in obtaining a patent in Virginia. Under thecompany without a legal guide for the fees to be charged, the secretaryof the colony apparently demanded at times as much as twenty pounds oftobacco or three pounds sterling when issuing a title for the individualdividends of fifty or 100 acres. Leaders of the company considered thisfee unreasonable and took steps to prevent its collection. 

Following the dissolution of the company, the Assembly set the fees ofthe secretary regarding land patents along with other authorizedcharges. In 1632 the secretary collected thirty pounds of tobacco forissuing a patent plus two pounds for each sheet required to record thedocument. In 1633 the fee for patents by the secretary was designated asfifteen shillings which could be collected either in tobacco or cornaccording to current price. Ten years later in 1643 the fee for a patentwas again listed in terms of tobacco at fifty pounds with six poundsallowed for each recorded sheet. In lieu of four pounds of tobacco, thesecretary was authorized to receive money at the rate of twelve pencefor every four pounds of tobacco. At the March session of thelegislature in 1657/58, the secretary's fees were further raised toeighty pounds of tobacco for issuing and recording a patent; thirtypounds was set as the fee for supplying a copy of the patent later; andfifteen pounds of tobacco was authorized for providing a certificate forland. These same fees of 1657/58 were repeated by law in 1661/62. 

The stamp of the seal of the colony was required during much of theseventeenth century as the final step of approval for a patent, andduring most of the time no fee was charged for this. However, under thegovernorship of Lord Howard which began in April, 1684, a charge of 200pounds of tobacco was ordered for use of the seal for patents as well asall public documents such as commissions and proclamations. The proceedsfrom this fee were used by the Governor and were estimated by WilliamFitzhugh to equal 100, 000 pounds of tobacco each year. However, suchstrong opposition was raised to the charge that it was dropped after1689. 

In addition to controversies over fees, there were many problems thatarose in seventeenth-century Virginia over surveys and theidentification of boundaries. Surveyors usually took the edge of astream, either a river or creek, as the base line of the survey and thenran the boundaries for a specified distance along a line at right angleto the base. Terminal points were laid out and witnessed by neighboringowners with some distinguishing mark as a large stone or a tree withthree or four chops. In 1679 a question was called to the attention ofthe Assembly as to the extent of the owner's rights along the water'sedge. The case arose over the complaint of Robert Liny that part of hispatent along the river had been cleared for fishing but the exercise ofhis fishing rights had been hampered by trespassing individuals whodragged their seines upon the river's edge, claiming that "The water wasthe kings majesties ... And therefore equally free to all his majestiessubjects to fish in and hale their sceanes on shore.... " In answer tothis complaint, the Assembly declared that the rights of the patentholder extended into the stream as far as the low water mark, and anyperson fishing or seining without permission within these bounds wasguilty of trespass. 

More frequently problems arose as a result of defective surveys eitherin the first line along the edge of the stream or in a second and thirdline of patents that were laid out when all land along the streams hadbeen occupied. Some of the surveys were inaccurate because of the lackof graduation on the compass; others were distorted by carelesssurveyors selecting convenient terminal points such as a tree, a road, or another stream and ignoring the accurate measurement of the line. Asearly as 1623/24, the Assembly ordered that individual land dividends besurveyed and the bounds recorded; and in case serious disputes aroseover conflicting boundaries, appeal could be made to the Governor andCouncil. In an effort to prevent the holder of patents from having topay for more than one survey of the same grant, the Assembly in 1642/43stated that surveys made by commissioned surveyors were considered validand bestowed full right of ownership without the necessity and expenseof new surveys. Such a provision did not, however, resolve the problemthat arose over errors made by commissioned surveyors, errors that mayhave led a person in good faith to construct buildings on a plot thatwas later determined to be a part of the patent of his neighbor. Severalcases having arisen over this situation, the Assembly in 1642/43 andagain in 1657/58 and 1661/62 provided that when one person hadunknowingly erected constructions on another person's land, the originalowner as shown by survey was to have the right to purchase theimprovements at a price fixed by a twelve-man jury. If the amount provedtoo great for the original owner, then the person seating the land bymistake was to have the option of purchasing the land at a price set bythe jury for its value before seating occurred. Beginning with the1657/58 statement of the law, no consideration was to be given ifconstruction had been made after legal warning had been given to desist. 

Other legislation was designed to minimize the number of cases of thistype that would arise. One provision made in 1646 required the personclaiming to be the original owner of the land to file suit against hisencroaching neighbor within five years for removal; otherwise possessionof the land for five years without contest would prevent recovery by theoriginal claimant. The law exempted orphans from the above provision andpermitted them a five-year period after coming of age. A later enactmentin 1657/58 repeated the provision on orphans and added to the exemptionmarried women and persons of unsound mind. A second provision designedto prevent quarrels among neighbors required a person holding patent toland adjacent to a proposed grant to show the boundaries of his propertywithin twelve months; otherwise the latest grant as surveyed would bevalid and would take precedence over the old patent. 

But these various laws did not prevent "contentious suites" from arisingbecause of defective surveys when the lines were first run or becausethe restriction against resurveys did not resolve the boundary disputes. Conflicts continued if the surveyor had been negligent in markingclearly the boundaries, or if lines had become indistinct by the chopsin trees filling out, by piles of stones being scattered, or by treesbeing removed. To prevent "the inconvenience of clandestine surveigh, "the Assembly in 1661/62 enacted the law of processioning. By thisprovision the members of each community were to "goe in procession" onceevery four years to examine and renew, if necessary, the boundary lines. Boundaries acknowledged by the procession as correct were conclusive andprohibited later claims to change them. If controversy arose over theline, the two surveyors accompanying the party were to run the lineanew, disputes were to be equitably settled, and the line so laid out tobe final. For administration of processioning, the county court was toorder the vestry to divide each parish into as many precincts asnecessary, and the time set in 1661/62 for processioning was betweenEaster and Whitsunday (seventh Sunday or fiftieth day after Easter). Thetime was changed in 1691 to the months from September to March as a moreconvenient period. To assure enforcement of the law, provisions forpenalties were included--1, 200 pounds of tobacco for any vestry notordering the processioning and 350 pounds of tobacco for individuals whofailed to participate without good reason. 

Still other problems concerning land patents related to two importantconditions stipulated for perfection of the title to land--the first, "seating and planting, " and the second, the collection of a quitrent. With the exception of some of the early grants, the patents ofseventeenth-century Virginia required "seating and planting" of thetract within three years. As shown in the form used by Governor WilliamBerkeley during the 1660's, if the patentee "His heirs or assignes doenot seate or plant or cause to be planted or seated on the sayd landwithin three years next ensueing, then it shall be lawful for anyadventurer or planter to make choyse or seate thereupon. " The time limitwas extended as the exigency demanded. Because of losses from the Indianmassacre of 1644, of the shortage of corn, and of the need foradditional servants, the Assembly ruled that persons affected by themassacre were permitted three additional years to comply with therequirement for "seating and planting. " Following the Indiandisturbances of Bacon's Rebellion, the time period for plantations thatwere attacked was extended to seven years from the date the Assemblypassed the act in 1676/77. 

Generally speaking, however, the requirement for "seating and planting"was not carried out effectively, and there was little forfeiture becauseof noncompliance. In 1657/58 the Assembly recognized the right forpatents to be issued on order of the Governor and Council for land"deserted for want of planting within the time of three yeeres. " Buteven if such forfeiture did occur, the original patent holder wasauthorized to take up additional land elsewhere in the colony withoutcomplying with the headright requirement. And it was not until 1666 thatthe Assembly gave a definition for "seating and planting" in thedeclaration that "Building an house and keeping a stock one whole yeareupon the land shall be accounted seating; and that cleering, tending andplanting an acre of ground shall be accounted planting. " Either one orthe other fulfilled the condition for the patent, and throughout theseventeenth century there was no relation between the size of the tractand the amount of improvement required. The minimum performancesatisfied the law. Therefore, either the building of a small cabin, putting a few cattle or a few hogs on the tract for a year, or plantingas little as an acre of ground--any one of the three protected thegrant. 

For most of the patents issued, this requirement presented littleproblem because the owner was interested in settling and improving hisholdings. Violation of the provision was most likely to come in the caseof land speculators who had taken up large tracts or in the case oflandholders who were interested in acquiring adjacent tracts for thepurpose of grazing or for forest supply. In the case of the latter, there was some question whether the requirement applied to adjacenttracts; but the Assembly in 1692 declared that tracts added to anoriginal patent must be seated and planted as the law provided for othergrants. 

To a considerable extent there was the same attitude toward therequirement for "seating and planting" as has been noted previously forobtaining patent by headright. Light regard for the spirit of the lawand at times the letter of the law came in part as a result of theunlimited expanse of land that tempted the established settler as wellas the newcomer. Evasion of the law cast no stigma upon the offender, and some who were aware of their neighbor's dereliction winked at theaction, thinking perhaps that they too might sometime engage in the samepractice. Furthermore, the necessity of the provision for "seating andplanting" which was well founded for the early years of the colonydecreased in significance as the population and occupied areas ofVirginia increased. 

The second condition for perfection of title to land--payment of aquitrent--likewise had a checkered career in the seventeenth century. Under the company there is some question whether quitrents were due. Itis clear that "the greate charter" of 1618 in order to encourageimmigration exempted for seven years settlers who were taking up land byheadright. For planters settled before 1616 at the expense of thecompany, it seems that they would have been free of paying the quitrentonly for a seven-year period which would have required compliance beforedissolution of the company. Settlers who arrived in Virginia afterDale's departure in 1616 and before 1618 would most probably have beensubject to the quitrent under the company since they were exempt foronly seven years. Whatever the case, there were rents to be collectedbefore 1624 as shown by the duties of George Sandys, younger brother ofSir Edwin Sandys and first appointee to the office of treasurer inVirginia. Sandys was instructed to collect some £1, 000 owed the companyeither as rent or as dues. 

When Virginia became a royal colony in 1624, the quitrents were thenpayable at the rate of one shilling for every fifty acres patented. For1631 the estimate was made by the Assembly that the quitrents wouldbring in as much as 2, 000 pounds sterling, if paid. But little effortwas being made to collect the rent and it was not until 1636 that JeromeHawley was appointed treasurer. His arrival in the colony the followingyear initiated plans for collection. Proceeds from this source ofrevenue were to be used for the treasurer's salary; any surplus amountwas to be used at the discretion of the Assembly. In order to determinewho owed the rent, instructions were issued to landholders in Virginiato show their land titles to the treasurer in order that he couldcompute the rents that were due. But little action was taken and itseems certain that not enough was collected to pay the salary of thetreasurer. In 1639 additional provisions were stipulated by the Assemblyto tighten the quitrent collection by requiring landholders upon summonby warrant to reveal their title and the size of their estates tocommissioners of the county courts. Following the precedent of "thegreate charter" of 1618, no rents were to be paid until the expirationof seven years. This provision continued in effect under Charles I andduring the interregnum, but the time limit was retracted in theinstructions to Governor William Berkeley under Charles II. Theretraction was confirmed under James II, the major reason being that itencouraged individuals to take up larger areas of land than they wereable to cultivate. 

Collection of quitrents, however, continued to lag and around 1646 nomore than 500 pounds sterling was being collected. The treasurerappealed to the Assembly which acknowledged that "There is and hath beengreat neglect in the payment of the quitt rent. " Consequently theAssembly in 1647 authorized the treasurer to levy a distress upon theproperty of delinquent taxpayers. The delinquent was permitted, ifproviding security, to retain his goods under replevin and to have ahearing before either a county court or the Governor and Council forfinal disposition of the case. Such a measure, however, was noteffective against land not seated and planted, for the land itself wasnot to be seized; and a similar handicap prevailed against absenteeowners as far as action by the treasurer was concerned. 

Assistance in collection of quitrents was provided by the sheriff whowas designated as the recipient of payments for each county with the feeof ten per cent of the collections being allowed him. Using the patentrolls of his office, both past and current, as a guide, the sheriffcollected the rent and turned it over to the auditor of the colony. Therent was received either in coin or in tobacco as the law provided fromtime to time. In 1661, for example, persons unable to pay in coin werepermitted by law to pay in tobacco at the rate of two pence per pound. But there was considerable controversy over the nature of the payment, and King James II ordered the repeal of the earlier act because of thepoor quality of tobacco being submitted. After the overthrow of the Kingin 1688/89, the collection of quitrents continued for the most part intobacco at the rate of one penny per pound. 

In 1671 the privilege of collecting and using the quitrents was grantedto Colonel Henry Norwood, who had supported faithfully the King and theroyal cause during the civil war. Two years later the quitrents weregiven to Lords Arlington and Culpeper, including collections that mightbe made of rents in arrears. Protests from Virginia of these grantsforced the revocation of the special gifts in 1684, although Culpeperretained the right to the quitrents in the Northern Neck. 

Collection of quitrents at various times was farmed out to members ofthe Council and to the Governor, with the Councilor concerned usuallytaking the counties near his own residence. In 1665, for example, Governor William Berkeley assumed the collection in James City and Surrycounties; Colonel Miles Cary, in Warwick and Elizabeth City counties;Nathaniel Bacon, Sr. , for York County, the Isle of Wight, and thesouthern part of New Kent; and similar designations for other members ofthe Council. In 1699, however, the Council ordered William Byrd, auditorof the colony, to sell the quitrents of each county to any individual atthe price of one penny per pound of tobacco and on the condition thatthe usual payment would be made to the sheriff for receiving the rent. 

While some improvement was made in the last half of the seventeenthcentury in the collection of quitrents, the sum was never very great;and according to one report in 1696 no land had been taken over by thecolony because of failure to pay the rent. As to the amount beingcollected near the end of the century, the figure was not impressive. For the period of six years between 1684 and 1690, the estimate has beenmade that receipts totalled £4, 375 13s. 9d. Or a little over £700 as anaverage for each year during this period. The figure was little changednear the end of the century, for it was reported in 1697 that the amountcollected from quitrents did not total more than £800. 

These weaknesses and abuses of the Virginia land system underwent adetailed analysis near the end of the seventeenth century by the newlycreated agency--the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations whichwas commonly known as the Board of Trade. During the first year of itsorganization in 1696 the Board received a report from Edward Randolph, sent from England to be surveyor-general of customs in America. Randolphpondered the question as to why the colony of Virginia was not moredensely populated with all of the migration that had occurred. Heattributed little importance to the imputation of "the unhealthiness ofthe place" and to the assertion that tobacco sales yielded little returnin England after all fees were paid. In an incisive statement heconcluded that

 ... The chief and only reason is that the inhabitants have been and still 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 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 for many years there has been no waste land to be taken up by those who bring with them servants, or by servants who have served their time. But the land has been taken up and engrossed beforehand, whereby such people are forced to hire and pay rent for lands or to go to the utmost bounds of the colony for land exposed to danger.... 

Randolph then reviewed the steps by which a land patent was obtained andanalyzed the conditions which a person was supposed to fulfill in orderto obtain the land title in fee simple. The first of these was therequirement for the annual quitrent of one shilling for fifty acres; butaccording to Randolph, the colonists "never pay a penny of quit-rent tothe King for it, by which in strictness of law their land is forfeited. "The second requirement was for seating the land within three years toprevent it from being relinquished as deserted land. The followingdescription was given of this condition:

 By seating land is meant that they build a house upon and keep a good stock of hogs and cattle, and servants to take care of them and to improve and plant the land. But instead thereof, they cut down a few trees and make thereof a hut, covering it with the bark, and turn two or three hogs into the woods by it. Or else they are to clear one acre of that land and plant and tend it for one year. But they fell twenty or thirty trees and put a little Indian corn into the ground among them as they lie and sometimes make a beginning to serve it, but take no care of their crop, nor make any further use of the land. 

The third condition pertained to the keeping of "four able men wellarmed" on land that was situated on the frontier of the colony. AgainRandolph reported that

 ... This law is never observed. These grants are procured upon such easy terms and very often upon false certificates of rights. Many hold twenty or thirty thousand acres of land apiece, very largely surveyed, without paying one penny of quit-rent for it. In many patents there is double the quantity of land expressed in the patent, whereby some hundred thousand acres of land are taken up but not planted, which drives away the inhabitants and servants brought up only to planting to seek their fortunes in Carolina and other places, which depopulates the country and prevents the making of many thousand hogsheads of tobacco, to the great diminution of the revenue. 

Three proposals were submitted to the Board of Trade by Randolph tocorrect the evils of the land system: first, order a survey in everyVirginia county of the lands in question; second, demand full payment ofall quitrents in arrears and use legal compulsion to collect them; andthird, limit grants to 500 acres for one man and have them issued on"more certain terms. " Such requirements would produce threefoldadvantages to the crown and the colony. They would either bring inadditional revenue by collection of the quitrent; or if payment were notmade, approximately 100, 000 acres of land would revert to the King andcould be granted to new settlers. Limitation of grants to 500 acreswould increase the number of planters, make settlements more compact, and produce more tobacco. And finally, both trade and the customscollection on tobacco would be enhanced. 

Before concluding his report, Randolph acknowledged both the awarenessof the problem and the efforts of correction initiated by FrancisNicholson while Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia from 1690 to 1692. Nicholson was

 ... Very sensible of the damage and injustice done to the crown by their using and conniving at such unwarrantable practices in granting away the King's lands, and was resolved to reform them by suing some of the claimers for arrears of quit-rents; but finding that the Council and many of the Burgesses, among others, were concerned, and being uncertain of his continuing in the government, he ordered to begin with Laurence Smyth, who was seised of many thousand acres of land in different counties, and for one particular tract of land was indebted £80 for arrears of quit-rents, which sum after the cause was ripe for judgment, was compounded for less than one half. 

Before the year was out, the Board of Trade sought more information onthis problem and directed a series of searching questions in October, 1696, to Randolph who had then returned to England. Both the questionsand the answers are recorded in the _Calendar of State Papers, ColonialSeries, America and West Indies_, 1696-1697 (pages 172, 188-89). Out ofthe ten questions asked, the following seem most significant inrevealing Randolph's evaluation of the Virginia land system. 

 What proportion of land in Virginia already taken up is now cultivated as near as you can judge?

 There is in Virginia, at a moderate computation, about 500, 000 acres granted by patents, of which not above 40, 000 acres are cultivated and improved; besides many thousand acres of waste land high up in the country. 

 Why have not the prosecutions, neglected in Colonel Nicholson's time, been continued since?

 Colonel Nicholson was the first Governor of Virginia who directed prosecutions for arrears of quit-rents, beginning with Colonel Laurence Smith. The case was ready for trial but the Governor came to England, and the case was afterwards compounded for a small matter. 

 Have any parcels of land been seized for the King's use, for want of planting or failure to pay quit-rents?

 Small parcels of land are granted away every court for not being planted or seated according to law, but no land has at any time been seized to the King's use for not paying of quit-rents. 

 Are negro servants included in the persons who, if imported, make "rights" to grant of land. [?]

 Negro servants give a right to land to those who import them, who thereupon take up land, contrary to the true intention of seating the country; but the practice being general, to the advantage of certain persons, no notice is taken of it. 

 Have you ever known of false certificates of rights, and how have the parties guilty thereof been punished?

 I have heard of many false certificates of rights; the practice is common but little regarded, being of no prejudice to any private person. 

 If your methods be followed, in what county should a beginning be made?

 ... If my proposals were adopted, I answer that the members of Council have large tracts of land in most of the counties, for which they are in great arrears of quit-rent. It is advisable to make a beginning with some of them and to empower a person uninterested in the county to demand the arrears due to the King. These will amount to a considerable sum and will increase the King's revenue in Virginia yearly. If the patentees refuse to pay the arrears, some hundred thousand acres of land will revert to the crown, to be more carefully disposed of in future. 

The Board of Trade continued the search for additional opinions aboutthe land system in Virginia. Questions were asked individually of HenryHartwell, a Councilor of Virginia, and Edward Chilton, Attorney-Generalin Virginia from 1691 to 1694. Then Hartwell and Chilton collaboratedwith James Blair, Councilor and Commissary of the Anglican Church inVirginia, in preparing a report that was received by the Board inOctober, 1697, under the title _An Account of the Present State &Government of Virginia_. The three authors of the report were Englishor Scottish born and represented essentially the same point of view ofroyal appointees who became residents of the colony and who favored anextensive use of royal authority. All three had married into Virginiafamilies and had had numerous occasions for observation. The reportreflected a greater concern for royal revenue than for the internaldevelopment of the colony, and it definitely displayed the bias of thethree men, particularly Blair, against Governor Andros. 

Their comments on the land system confirmed some of the conditions asset forth by Randolph's report. Stating that the country was "illpeopled" despite the headright system, they explained that "The firstgreat abuse of this design arose from the ignorance and knavery ofsurveyors, who often gave out drafts of surveys without even coming onthe land. They gave their descripton [sic] by some natural bounds andwere sure to allow large measure, that so the persons for whom theysurveyed should enjoy much larger tracts than they paid quit-rentsfor. " The issuing of certificates for rights by the courts andsecretary's office had been abused, especially the latter "which wasand still is a constant mint of those rights, where they may bepurchased at from one shilling to five shillings _per_ right. " And inanother criticism of the land system, the authors concluded that the"Fundamental error of letting the King's land run away to lie waste, together with another of not seating in townships, is the cause thatVirginia to-day is so ill peopled. "

The Board of Trade considered reforms to correct the existing evils ofthe land system. Questions about these evils were posed to Sir EdmundAndros, Governor of Virginia from 1692 to 1698; but his answers wereeither evasive or otherwise unsatisfactory. Francis Nicholson was thenreturned to the colony as Governor in 1698 with instructions for a "newmethod of granting land in Virginia. " To prevent land from beingpatented without being cultivated, to encourage trade, and to increaseroyal revenue, land title was not to be obtained "by merely importing orbuying of servants"; rather anyone who would seat and plant vacant landswas to receive 100 acres for himself and the same amount for eachlaborer that was brought in or for whom arrangements were made forimportation within three years. The annual quitrent was to be twoshillings for 100 acres provided the full number of laborers werebrought in within the three-year period; if, however, full compliancehad not been made, ten shillings was to be paid annually for each 100acres for which there was no worker or the size of the grant was to bereduced proportionally. On the other hand, if the number of laborers, including members of the family, was increased beyond the originalnumber proposed, the owner was entitled to an additional 100 acres foreach extra worker. 

Governor Nicholson was instructed to "consider and advise with theCouncil and Assembly" about putting these proposals into effect andabout overcoming any difficulties that might exist because of thecurrent laws of the colony. But instructions to the royal Governor wasone thing; putting these instructions into effect was quite another. Neither the Council nor the Burgesses were willing to grapple directlywith land reform and no action was taken by the two bodies to implementthe recommendations of the Board of Trade. Governor Nicholson on his ownordered that no more headrights be issued for the importation ofNegroes. As to the sale of headrights by the secretary's office whichNicholson found to be still prevalent, the practice was not eliminatedcompletely. As a substitute measure which arose over the problem of landtaken up in Pamunkey Neck and on the south side of Blackwater Swamp, theGovernor and Council in 1699 authorized the acquisition of land by"treasury right, " stating that title to fifty acres of land would begranted for the payment of five shillings sterling to the auditor. Thusduring the terminal year of this study, we find the significantreappearance of sale of land by "treasury right" which increased inimportance as the eighteenth century progressed. Grant by headrightcontinued immediately to account for the great majority of land patentsissued, but after the first quarter of the eighteenth century itgradually fell into disuse. 

Being unable to inaugurate the proposed plan for land reform of theBoard of Trade, Nicholson turned to the improvement of collection ofquitrents as the most feasible means of achieving the approximate goal. Payment of rent was an acknowledged requirement, even though frequentlyevaded in the seventeenth century; and Nicholson proposed a stringentcollection of quitrents in arrears in order to force the return ofunused land to be patented by others who would actually occupy andcultivate the vacant areas. Improvements were made in the sale oftobacco received as quitrents, and the rent roll of 1704/05 was animprovement over previous ones. Yet many loopholes still existed in thesystem, and Nicholson's attempts to make further reforms were hinderedby the arguments that ensued with leading Councilors. His second term asexecutive for Virginia came to an end in 1705. 

CHAPTER FIVE

The Northern Neck

Before completing this study of seventeenth-century land grants, a briefanalysis will be made of the nature of the land system in the NorthernNeck with some attention given to the major ways in which it differedfrom the remainder of Virginia. The included area reached from thePotomac River south to the Rappahannock River and from the headwaters ofthese two streams in the western part of the colony to Chesapeake Bay. 

The separate provision for the area went back to the days of exile inFrance of Charles II following the execution of Charles I in 1649. As areward to those cavaliers who had been faithful to the Stuart regime, Charles II exercised his royal prerogative by making a grant of theportions of tidewater Virginia that were not seated. In the year of theexecution the Northern Neck was granted to the following sevensupporters of the King: Lord John Culpeper, Lord Ralph Horton, LordHenry Jermyn, Sir John Berkeley, Sir William Morton, Sir Dudley Wyatt, and Thomas Culpeper. Efforts of the representatives of this group werefrustrated in Virginia by the suspension of royal government, andtherefore the proprietary charter was ineffective for a time. It had, however, been recorded in chancery in 1649 and was revived after therestoration of Charles II to the throne. In 1662 and again in 1663Charles II ordered the Governor and Council of Virginia to assist theproprietors in "settling the plantations and receiving the rents andprofits thereof. " But portions of the area had been seated since 1645, and legal obstructions were brought forth by Virginia planters and theCouncil to defeat the efforts of the proprietors. 

A second appeal to the King led to a solution maneuvered in part by theVirginia resident agent in London, Francis Moryson. The original patentof 1649 was surrendered and a new charter was issued on May 8, 1669, tothe Earl of St. Albans, Lord John Berkeley, Sir William Morton, and JohnTrethewy. The new document required the recognition of grants in theNorthern Neck made by the Governor and Council prior to September 29, 1661, and it limited the title of the proprietors to that land whichwould be planted and inhabited within twenty-one years. The politicaljurisdiction of the area was still under the Virginia government. Thelaws of the colony were to remain operative, and in effect the grant was"to create a subordinate fief or proprietorship within Virginia. " Butconsiderable confusion prevailed over the retroactive recognition ofgrants, and many landholders sought confirmation of their ownership. "Besides there are many other grants, " stated Governor William Berkeley, "in that patent inconsistent with the settlednesse of this governmentwhich hath no barr to its prosperitie but proprieties on both hands, andtherefore is it mightily wounded in this last, nor have I ever observedanything so much move the peoples' griefe or passion, or which doth moreput a stop to theire industry than their uncertainty whether they shouldmake a country for the King or other proprietors. "

The confusion that existed was further confounded by the grant ofCharles II on February 25, 1672/73, of all of Virginia for thirty-oneyears to Lord Arlington and to Lord Thomas Culpeper, son of one of theoriginal patentees of the Northern Neck by the same name. These twoproprietors of the whole colony were to control all lands, collectrents, including all rents and profits in arrears since 1669, andexercise authority that sprang from grants previously made. Up until1669 amid all the controversy over control of the Northern Neck, grantswere regularly made by the local government on the basis of headrightsas revealed in the land patent books. After that date the numberdecreased; and in March, 1674/75, the first land grant of 5, 000 acres, later George Washington's Mount Vernon, was issued to Nicholas Spencerand John Washington of Westmoreland in the name of the proprietors withthe common seal being affixed to the grant by Thomas Culpeper andAnthony Trethewy. By this date Thomas Culpeper had obtained from theproprietors of 1669 recognition of one-sixth interest in the NorthernNeck for him and his cousin on the basis of their fathers having beenoriginal patentees. 

Opposition to the proprietary grant of the Northern Neck in Virginia ledto efforts of the Assembly, encouraged by Governor William Berkeley, tobuy out the rights of the proprietors. Apparently the proprietors werewilling to sell and set the price of £400 each for the six shares thenheld in the charter. Negotiations to complete the transaction wereinterrupted by the outbreak of Bacon's Rebellion, and the status of theproprietary grant hung in suspension. Meanwhile, Thomas, Lord Culpeperwas appointed Governor of Virginia but did not arrive in the colonyuntil 1680. The next year Culpeper bought up the proprietary rights inVirginia, both the rights of the other proprietors in the Northern Neckand the rights of Lord Arlington for all of Virginia. In 1684, however, he gave up the Arlington charter of 1673 to the crown in return for anannual pension of £600 for twenty-one years. 

Lord Culpeper retained the Northern Neck charter and made efforts toencourage settlement of the area. But the terminal date of thetwenty-one year period stipulated in the charter of 1669 wasapproaching, and he appealed for a renewal of the grant on the basisthat the amount of land intended by Charles II had not been taken up. Considering the restriction an impracticable one, King James II issued anew charter in 1688 with Lord Culpeper as the sole proprietor and withno time limit specified. Through changes and additions prompted byCulpeper's knowledge of Virginia's geography, the area of the grantincluded in the Northern Neck was substantially enlarged over theboundaries stated in the previous charters of 1649 and 1669, theadditions later being interpreted as extending Culpeper's claim beyondthe Blue Ridge Mountains to the foot of the Alleghenies. The area asoutlined in 1688 was as follows with the additions to the formerdescriptions shown in italics:

 All that entire tract, territory or parcel of land situate, lying and being _in Virginia_ in America and bounded by and within the _first_ heads or _springs_ of the rivers of Tappanhannocke alias Rappahanocke and Quiriough alias Patawomacke Rivers, the courses of the said rivers, _from their said first heads or springs_, as they are commonly called and known by the inhabitants and descriptions of those parts, and the Bay of Chesapoyocke, together with the said rivers themselves and all the islands within the _outermost_ banks thereof, _and the soil of all and singular the premisses_. 

Soon after receiving this third charter, Lord Culpeper died on January27, 1688/89. Despite efforts that were again made by the colony toeliminate the proprietary grant, it was confirmed to Culpeper'ssurvivors and passed by marriage to the Fairfax family. 

After the 1669 charter, the proprietors opened an office in the colonyand an agent was designated to handle land grants and collect fees. Thescant records that survive indicate that from 1670 to 1673, ThomasKirton was agent in the land office in Northumberland; from 1673 to1677, William Aretkin was appointed the proprietor's "agent inVirginia"; and from 1677 to 1689, Daniel Parke and Nicholas Spencer wereagents in the land office in Westmoreland. 

Beginning in 1690 land patents in the Northern Neck were enteredseparately and the grant books that have survived give a good account ofthe land policy under the proprietors. Philip Ludwell served as agentfrom 1690 to 1693 and began an orderly handling of the proprietor'sinterest at the land office in Westmoreland. Throughout his term asagent he used a form for land grants in establishing his authority whichreviewed a part of the checkered history of the Northern Neck. Theintroductory portion of this form was as follows:

 _Whereas_ King Charles the Seacond of ever blessed memory by his letters pattents under the broad seale of England beareing date at Westminister the eighth day of May in the one and twentyeth yeare of his reigne Annoqe Dom. 1669, His Matie was gratiously pleased to give graunt and confirme unto Henry then Earle of St. Albons, John Lord Berkley, Sir William Morton, Knt. , & John Trethewy, Esqr. , there heires & assignes all that intire tract territory or parcell of land lyinge & being betweene the two rivers of Rapah. And Patomack and the courses of the said rivers and the Bay of Chesapeake, as by the said graunts, recourse beinge had there unto, will more at large appeare, and

 _Whereas_ all the rite and title of in and to the said lands & premisses is by deed enrold and other suffentient conveyance in law conveyed and made over to Thomas Lord Culpeper, eldest sonn & heire of John late Lord Culpeper, his heires & assignes for ever, who is thereby become sole owner and propriator of the said land in fee symple, and

 _Whereas_ Kinge James the Seacond hath beene gratiously pleased by his letters pattents bearinge date at Westminister the 27th day of September 1688, and in the fourth yeare of his Maties. Reigne, to confirme the said graunt for the said tract or parcell of land to the said Thomas Lord Culpeper his heires & assignes for ever, as by the said graunt, relation beinge there unto had, will more at large appeare

 _And_ the said Thomas Lord Culpeper he beinge since deceased all the rite title and interest of in and to the said tract of land lawfully desendinge on the Honorble. Mrs. Katherine Culpeper sole daughter and heire of the said Thomas late Lord Culpeper, and Allexander Culpeper Esqr. Who cometh in part propriator by lawfull conveyance from Thomas late Lord Culpeper, and confirmed by the said Mrs. Katherine Culpeper, who are thereby now become the true and lawfull propriators of the said tract or territory, and

 _Whereas_ the said propriators have thought fitt under there hands & seales to depute me Phillip Ludwell Esqr. With full power and authority to act in the prmisses. Persuant to the powers granted by there said Maties. As fully & amply to all intents & purposes as they the said propriators them selves might or could doe if they were personally present, NOW KNOW YEE therefore.... 

 The provisions in the fourth paragraph above designating Mrs. Katherine Culpeper and Alexander Culpeper as "the true and lawfull propriators" were obsolete after the former married Lord Fairfax while Ludwell was still agent. By law the husband also became a proprietor and should have been added to the list. This omission was corrected by George Brent and William Fitzhugh, the two agents who succeeded Ludwell in 1693 and continued to serve during the 1690's in the land office at Woodstock in Stafford County. In a much simplified form, Brent and Fitzhugh merely listed the proprietors including the husband as follows:

 Margarett Lady Culpeper, Thomas Lord Fairfax, Katherine his wife and Alexander Culpeper Esquire, proprietors of the Northern Neck of Virginia.... 

The grants made by the various agents of the proprietors in the NorthernNeck were not substantially different in nature from those held under aVirginia land patent. Both tenures reflected the feudal law of themanor. The proprietors held their land in free and common socage, andthe planters in the Northern Neck paid quitrents and fees to theproprietors rather than to the crown. 

While the nature of the tenure was similar, there was a markeddifference in the methods of obtaining a grant. Instead of the headrightwhich we have seen was the basis for Virginia land grants during most ofthe seventeenth century, the proprietors turned to what they consideredthe more practical procedure--acquisition of title by purchase, or the"treasury right. " To obtain title to land the individual paid a"composition" which was established at a uniform rate. For each 100acres in grants less than 600, the price was five shillings; for 100acres in grants more than 600, the price was increased to ten shillings. Payment was permitted in tobacco which was valued at the rate of sixshillings for every 100 pounds in 1690. Such a provision could permitthe acquisition of large holdings without the manipulations that werepracticed under the headright system. 

In the provision for quitrents, the two areas were similar. The amountof the quitrent in the Northern Neck was the same as elsewhere inVirginia--two shillings annually for 100 acres. Under agents Brent andFitzhugh one exception occurred with the attempt in 1694 to double thequitrent and thereby maintain the same scale as was customary inMaryland at the time. But few grants have been found to indicate theagents succeeded to any extent in establishing the higher rate. 

Relative to requirements for seating to validate the claim, the twoareas followed a different course as the seventeenth century progressed. We have previously noted the three-year "seating and planting"requirement for other Virginia patents. Similar provisions were includedin the first proprietary grants as revealed in the earliest patent in1675. But beginning with the grant for Brent Town in 1687, the seatingrequirement was omitted and this precedent was followed for allsubsequent proprietary grants in the Northern Neck in the seventeenthand eighteenth centuries. 

For the seventeenth century under consideration in this study, there wasconsiderable private and public animosity displayed toward theprinciples of the proprietary system. There was a distrust of the grantsthat were issued, and there was criticism of the proprietary system asit differed from the remainder of Virginia. Demand for land in the areawas not as great; and with the exception of large holdings such as thatof William Fitzhugh, most of the patents were small. It was not untilthe eighteenth century that public antipathy toward the proprietors wasfor the most part dispelled and that demands on the Northern Neck landoffices increased to equal other areas in Virginia. 

RETROSPECT

The availability of land was a leading motive in the Europeancolonization of America. Although much of the country was inhabited byIndians, European nations claimed sovereignty over the area and deniedsuperior claims by the non-Christian aborigines. The London Company heldessentially to this position, although gradually the colony of Virginia, like other English colonies, recognized the Indian's right of occupationand provided some compensation for relinquishment of territory. By themiddle of the seventeenth century Virginia had initiated the policy oflaying out Indian boundaries or creating reservations for neighboringtribes that were not open to white settlement. 

Under the London Company land was held in common until the provision fordistribution to individual stockholders was carried out after 1616. Inaddition to grants according to the number of shares of stock owned, thecompany rewarded individuals with land for special services rendered tothe colony. And to stimulate immigration, grants were offered asdividends to voluntary associations or "societies of adventurers" fororganizing and financing settlements such as the hundred or particularplantations. It was also possible to obtain patents by purchase or by"treasury right" under the company, but the most significant developmentwas the provision for acquisition by headright as outlined in theInstructions to Governor George Yeardley in 1618. 

With the dissolution of the company in 1624, the "treasury right" wasdiscontinued in Virginia and did not reappear other than in the NorthernNeck until 1699. The major method of obtaining title to land was theheadright which attempted to maintain an appropriate balance between thesize of the population and the area patented. However, its basic conceptwas distorted by irregular practices and fraudulent acts. Otherconditions for obtaining patents after 1624 were as a dividend for eachshare of stock invested in the company, as remuneration for specialservices, and as a means of encouraging frontier fortification. 

The size of land patents gradually increased during the seventeenthcentury with the peak being reached in the third quarter. During thelast quarter of the period there was a definite trend toward the breakupof large estates by distribution to heirs and by sale of small segmentsof the larger patent. Whatever the variation in size, the smalllandholder constituted the major group in seventeenth-century Virginiaand assumed a more important role in the socio-economic pattern of thecolony than is evident from the descriptions of plantation life byromantic writers. 

By the end of the seventeenth century the use of the headright as themajor means of land distribution began to give way to acquisition oftitle by purchase in all of Virginia other than the Northern Neck. Forthe Northern Neck which was granted to various proprietors who werefaithful to the King during the civil war, the headright never served asthe basis of the land system. Rather the distribution of land by the"treasury right" was employed in the seventeenth as well as theeighteenth century. 

The abuses of the land system and lax enforcement of its majorprinciples brought forth a detailed discussion of its many facets by theBoard of Trade near the end of the century. Reforms were proposed thatwould enhance the royal revenue by collection of the quitrent and wouldprevent the accumulation of large estates. But the existence of vastareas of unoccupied land on the frontier militated against therestriction, and there was considerable opposition to feudal tenures andto the payment of rents to the crown. The proposed reforms did notprevent the acquisition of large landholdings; the few large estates ofthe seventeenth century increased both in number and size in theeighteenth century and from them were developed the large plantations ofsome of the well-known Virginia leaders of the American Revolution. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. MANUSCRIPTS

 Virginia Land Patents. Forty-two volumes. Records of the Virginia State Land Office now in the custody of the Virginia State Library, Richmond. Indispensable source for the study of land grants in Colonial Virginia. Nine volumes cover the period to 1706 with two additional volumes for the Northern Neck beginning in 1690: Northern Neck Grants No. 1, 1690-1692 and Northern Neck Grants No. 2, 1694-1700. 

 Thomas Jefferson Papers. Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. 

II. PRINTED PRIMARY SOURCES

 Brown, Alexander, ed. , _The Genesis of the United States_, New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1890. 2 vols. 

 Force, Peter, ed. , _Tracts and Other Papers Relating Principally to the Origin Settlement and Progress of the Colonies in North America, from the Discovery of the Country to the Year 1776_, Washington, D. C. , 1836-1846. 4 vols. 

 Grant, William, Munro (James) and Fitzroy (A. W. ), eds. , _Acts of the Privy Council of England, Colonial Series, 1613-1783_, London, 1908-1912. 6 vols. 

 Hartwell, Henry, Blair (James) and Chilton (Edward), _The Present State of Virginia and the College_. Edited by H. D. Farish, Williamsburg: Colonial Williamsburg, Inc. , 1940. 

 Hening, W. W. , ed. , _Statutes at Large: being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature in the Year 1619_ [to 1792]. Richmond, 1809. 13 vols. 

 Kennedy, J. P. And McIlwaine, H. R. , eds. , _Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1619-1776_, Richmond: The Colonial Press, 1905-1915. 13 vols. 

 Kingsbury, S. M. , ed. , _The Records of the Virginia Company of London_, Washington, D. C. : Government Printing Office, 1906 and 1933. 4 vols. 

 Labaree, L. W. , ed. , _Royal Instructions to British Colonial Governors_, 1670-1776, New York: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1935. 2 vols. 

 McIlwaine, H. R. And Hall, W. L. , eds. , _Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia_, Richmond: Virginia State Library, 1925. 

 McIlwaine, H. R. , ed. , _Legislative Journals of the Council of Colonial_ _Virginia, 1680-1775_, Richmond: The Colonial Press, 1918-1919. 3 vols. 

 ----, _Minutes of the Council and General Court of Colonial Virginia, 1622-1632, 1670-1676_, Richmond: The Colonial Press, 1924. 

 Nugent, Nell M. , ed. , _Cavaliers and Pioneers: Abstracts of Virginia Land Patents and Grants_, Richmond: The Dietz Printing Company, 1934. Only volume I published covering the period from 1623 to 1666. Excellent source for study of seventeenth-century land grants. 

 Sainsbury, W. N. And others, eds. , _Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies_, London, 1860-. 

III. INDEX AND PERIODICALS

 Swem, E. G. , comp. , _Virginia Historical Index_, Roanoke: Stone Printing Company, 1934-1936. 2 vols. 

 Valuable guide to material found in Hening's _Statutes_, _Virginia Magazine of History and Biography_, _Tyler's Quarterly Historical and Genealogical Magazine_, _William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine_--first and second series, _Calendar of Virginia State Papers ... Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond_, _Virginia Historical Register and Literary Adviser_, and _Lower Norfolk County Virginia Antiquary_. 

IV. SECONDARY SOURCES--BOOKS

 Ames, Susie M. , _Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century_, Richmond: The Dietz Press, 1940. 

 Andrews, C, M. , _The Colonial Period of American History_, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1934-1938. 4 vols. 

 Beverley, Robert, _The History of Virginia in Four Parts_. Reprinted from the author's second revised edition, 1722. Richmond, 1855. 

 Brown, Alexander, _The First Republic in America_, New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1898. 

 Bruce, P. A. , _The Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_, New York: Macmillan and Company, 1896. 2 vols. 

 ----, _Institutional History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century_, New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1910. 2 vols. 

 ----, _Social Life of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century: An Inquiry into the Origin of the Higher Planting Class, together with an Account of the Habits, Customs, and Diversions of the People_, Richmond: Whittet & Shepperson, 1907. 

 Craven, W. F. , _Dissolution of the Virginia Company: The failure of a Colonial Experiment_, New York: Oxford University Press, 1932. 

 ----, _The Southern Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, 1607-1689_. Volume I of _A History of the South_, Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1949. 

 Harrison, _Fairfax, Virginia Land Grants: A Study of Conveyancing in Relation to Colonial Politics_, Richmond: The Old Dominion Press, 1925. Valuable for its emphasis upon the Northern Neck. 

 Osgood, H. L. , _The American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century_, New York: Macmillan Company, 1904-1907. 3 vols. 

 Voorhis, M. C. , The Land Grant Policy of Colonial Virginia, 1607-1774, Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Virginia. 

 Valuable study with emphasis upon analysis of land policy. Does not include the Northern Neck. 

 Wertenbaker, T. J. , _Patrician and Plebeian in Virginia; or, The Origin and Development of the Social Classes of the Old Dominion_, Charlottesville, 1910. 

 ----, _The Planters of Colonial Virginia_, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1922. 

 ----, _Virginia under the Stuarts, 1607-1688_, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1914. 

 Wright, L. B. , _The First Gentlemen of Virginia: Intellectual Qualities of the Early Colonial Ruling Class_, San Marino: The Huntington Library, 1940. 

VIRGINIA 350TH ANNIVERSARY COMMISSION

_Honorary Chairman_

THOMAS B. STANLEY, Governor

LEWIS A. MCMURRAN, JR. , _Chairman of the Commission_

_Members of Senate appointed by President of the Senate_:

LLOYD C. BIRD, Vice Chairman HARRY F. BYRD, JR. EDWARD L. BREEDEN, JR. W. MARVIN MINTER

_Members of the House of Delegates appointed by the Speaker of the House_:

RUSSELL M. CARNEAL FELIX E. EDMUNDSHALE COLLINS LEWIS A. MCMURRAN, JR. JOHN W. COOKE W. TAYLOE MURPHYEDMUND T. DEJARNETTE FRED G. POLLARD

_Members appointed by the Governor_:

MISS ELLEN BAGBY CARLISLE H. HUMELSINEALVIN D. CHANDLER VERBON E. KEMP ALLEN R. MATTHEWS

 PARKE ROUSE, JR. , _Executive Director_

 * * * * *

THE JAMESTOWN-WILLIAMSBURG-YORKTOWNCELEBRATION COMMISSION

_Appointed by the President of the United States_

ROBERT V. HATCHER, Chairman SAMUEL M. BEMISS, Vice ChairmanFRANK L. BOYDEN BENTLEY HITEDAVID E. FINLEY WINTHROP ROCKEFELLER CONRAD L. WIRTH

_Appointed by the Vice President of the United States_

HARRY F. BYRD A. WILLIS ROBERTSON

_Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives_

EDWARD J. ROBESON, JR. RICHARD H. POFF

 H. K. ROBERTS, _Administrative Director_

_FEVDIGRAPHIA. _

THE SYNOPSISOR EPITOME OFSVRVEYING METHODIZED. 

Anatomizing the whole Corps of theFacultie; _Viz. _

_The Materiall, Mathematicall, Mechanicall andLegall Parts_, Intimating all the Incidents to Fees and Possessions, andwhatsoeuer may be comprized vnder their Matter, Forme, Proprietie, and Valuation. 

_Very pertinent to be perused of all those, whom the Right, Reuenewe, Estimation, Farming, Occupation, Manurance, Subduing, Preparing and Imploying of Arable, Medow, Pasture, and allother plots doe concerne. _

And no lesse remarkable for all Vnder-takers in the Plantationof Ireland or Virginia, for all Trauailers for Discoueries of_forraine Countries, and for Purchasers, Exchangers, or Sellers_of Land, and for euery other Interessee in the Profitsor Practise deriued from the compleateSVRVEY

_Of Manours, Lands, Tenements, Edifices, Woods, Waters, Titles, Tenures, Euidences, &c. _

Composed in a compendious Digest byW. FOLKINGHAM. G. 

QUA PROSUNT SINGULA, MULTAIUVANT. 

LONDON

Printed for _Richard Moore_, and are to be solde at his shop in Saint_Dunstanes_ Church-yard in Fleete-streete, 1610. 

[Photograph by T. L. Williams]

THESVRVEIORSDIALOGVE, Very profitable for all men to pervse, but_especially for Gentlemen, Farmers, and Husbandmen_, that shall either haue occasion, or be willingto buy, hire, or sell Lands: As in the ready and perfectSurueying of them, with the manner and Method ofkeeping a Court of Suruey with many necessary rules, and familiar Tables to that purpose. 

 * * * * *

_As also_, The vse of the Manuring of some Grounds, fit as well_for_ LORDS, _as for_ TENNANTS. 

 * * * * *

Now the third time Imprinted. 

 * * * * *

_And by the same Author inlarged, and a sixt Booke newly_added, of a familiar conference, betweene a PVRCHASER, and a SVRVEYOR of Lands; of the true vse of both beingvery needfull for all such as are to purchase Land, whether it be in Fee simple, or by Lease. 

_Diuided into sixe Bookes by_ I. N. 

 * * * * *

PROV. 17. 2. 

_A discreate Seruant shall haue rule ouer an vnthriftie Sonne, and he shalldeuide the heritage among the brethren. _

Voluntas pro facultate. 

 * * * * *

LONDON:

Printed by THOMAS SNODHAM. 1618. 

[Photograph by T. L. Williams]