276
CHAPTER V
The
dissolution of the London Company in 1624 brought to a close the
plantation era in the history of the Colony. Although the revocation of
the letters patent was precipitated by the discontent of an
unscrupulous faction, and by the anxiety of the King to suppress a
corporation, the spirit of which was promotive of the growth of popular
rights,1 still the effect of the step was ultimately highly
favorable to the welfare of the planters. At first they were disposed
to look upon the change as an unmixed calamity, anticipating that the
destructive influences which had received a practical illustration in
the administration of the Company during the earlier and greater part
of its existence would again become dominant. So far did this
apprehension extend that some of the planters offered their lands for
sale, and made immediate preparations for abandoning the country,
regarding this as the only means of saving their property from the
rapacious hands of the Argolls, who, it was expected, would be
appointed under the new form of government to the head of affairs in
Virginia. The authorities of the Colony, when they were informed of the
dissolution, drew up a petition to the King imploring him not to suffer
them to be placed under the control of Sir
277
Thomas Smyth and his associates,
and declaring in reply to the royal order commanding them to pay more
attention to the cultivation of the staple commodities, that they only
affected the contemptible weed, tobacco, as a present means of
obtaining a subsistence, and that they hoped in time to substitute for
it in large measure commodities more valuable.1 Before this
petition reached England, James had appointed commissioners to assume
charge of the affairs of the Colony, promising at the same time that
the vested interests of both planters and stockholders should not in
the remotest degree be infringed upon.2 One of the first
acts of these commissioners was to request representatives of the Old
Company to give their views as to what would be the terms of a contract
with the King touching tobacco, which would maintain the volume of
revenue he had been receiving from the amount of that product hitherto
imported from Virginia, and yet not fall too heavily upon the resources
of the planters. It had been recently proposed in Parliament that the
introduction of the Spanish leaf should be prohibited. The
representatives of the former Company recommended strongly that this
proposition should be made a law, that the right to bring tobacco into
the English ports should be confined to the inhabitants of Virginia and
the Somers Isles,3 and that no one should be permitted to
cultivate the plant in England. In return for the benefits which would
result to them from these provisions, it was suggested that the people
of the two Colonies should pay three pence a pound as customs on the
whole quantity which they imported,
278
and that they should contribute
to the royal treasury a round sum of ten thousand pounds sterling to be
obtained from the sale of one-fourth part of the tobacco brought in,
the proceeds from the sale of the remaining portion to be expended in
defraying the charges that would arise in enforcing the terms of the
agreement. The Old Company declared that they were ready to become the
purchasers of the annual crop of the Colony. They proposed that upon
its arrival in England it should be received by officers of the
Company. In the hands of that body they recommended should rest the
sole management of the contract. It alone should decide as to the
volume of the leaf to be imported into the kingdom each year, and it
should also have the power to assign to the King all debts created in
its favor while the arrangement lasted. No licenses should be granted
to the retailers of tobacco.1
The commissioners do not appear to have
restricted their inquiries to the members of the Old Company. A
contract much inure detailed than the one just described was propounded
by Mr. Ditchfield and his associates. This contract required that the
tobacco to be delivered should be made up in rolls, and when presented
in this shape, the contractors were to bind themselves to purchase
during the first two years two hundred thousand pounds of it, at the
rate of two shillings and four pence for the higher grades, and one
shilling and four pence for the lower, to be paid for in part in six
months, and in part in twelve. The King was to receive during the same
period the annual sum of ten thousand pounds. The contractors agreed to
buy in the course of the following five years two hundred and fifty
thousand pounds of the leaf at the
279
rate of three shillings a pound
for that of the best quality, and of two shillings for that of only
moderate excellence. Settlement was to be made at the same intervals as
in the first and second years. The dues of the King were placed at
fifteen thousand pounds. It was further provided by the contractors
that the entire crops of tobacco produced in Virginia and the Somers
Isles, for it was proposed to include the Somers Isles in the
arrangement, should be conveyed to the port of London alone. If, in the
course of either of the first two years, the importation should exceed
two hundred thousand pounds, or two hundred and fifty thousand pounds
during the succeeding five years, the planters were to have the
privilege of transferring to the Turkish market whatever surplus
remained in either case after the contractors had exercised their
choice. Special pains, however, were to be taken that no part of this
surplus should be sold to any purchaser who was likely to return it
upon the English market, to depress the price of the quantity selected
from the whole amount first imported.1
The reply made at a later date in the
interest of the planters to this offer left no room for doubt as to how
they regarded it. It was impossible for the population of the Colony,
it was asserted, to subsist upon the proceeds of the sale of two
hundred thousand pounds of tobacco. The disposal of four hundred
thousand at a fair price would not furnish the whole number of people
with the supplies which they needed for their support. The contract
gave those who propounded it the fullest opportunity to show partiality
to their particular friends, in which event, the great body of the
colonists would suffer a loss on
280
their crops, there being little
if any encouragement to re-export their tobacco to Turkey, because the
additional charges for freight would cut down the margin of profit to a
point where it would hardly be appreciable. The leaf was also certain
to shrink and decay in the course of such a long voyage. The planters
computed the loss in transporting their crop to England, the falling
off in weight entering as an element into the calculation as well as
the freight, at four pence a pound, which amount, deducted from the sum
that the contractors declared themselves willing to pay during the
first two years, that is to say, two shillings and four pence, left a
net profit of two shillings for tobacco of the first grade, and of one
shilling for tobacco of the second. It was well known to the planters,
from their experience in the past, that the disposition of the English
purchaser was to rate very little of the imported leaf as belonging to
the first grade; in consequence of which fact, if the offer of the
contractors was accepted, the far greater proportion of this commodity
that would be bought by them would be put down as belonging to the
second, the division in determining the quality not being suffered to
extend to more than two grades. Small as would be the amount which the
planters would secure, the first instalment would not be payable until
six months had expired. Twelve months, a period so long that a second
crop of tobacco would be ready for market before its close, must pass
before the second instalment fell due. The higher prices offered at the
end of the first two years would be no inducement to enter into the
contract, as in the interval the ruin of the Colony would be complete.
That the apprehensions of the planters, if
they had been compelled to submit to the terms of the Ditchfield
contract, were not exaggerated may be seen from the fact,
281
that if the two hundred thousand
pounds of tobacco, which the contractors proposed to buy during the
first two years, had been apportioned among the three thousand people
who formed the united population of Virginia and Somers Isles at this
time, the allowance to each person would have been only sixty-five
pounds, a return of but three pounds and five shillings sterling for
his labor. This sum, small as it was, would have been reduced one-half
in every case in which the planter was simply a tenant. For him, the
return would have been only thirty-two shillings and six pence, a sum
that would not support one individual, and still more certainly not a
family, even admitting that there were no expenses incurred in the
production of his crop. The proportion of the proceeds of sales which
the planters would receive would be equal to one-sixth, and of the
contractors to four-sixths, a difference that suggested to the minds of
the former, when they came to make their reply, the simile of an infant
having forty ounces of blood drawn from its veins, of which about five
ounces were subsequently restored to its body.1
One of the first acts of Charles on his
accession to the throne in the course of the spring of 1625 was to
adopt as his own the two proclamations of his father with reference to
the exclusion of the Spanish leaf.2 He prohibited the
importation into England of tobacco from the Spanish colonies, and all
Spanish tobacco at that time to be found in the realm was to be carried
out before the end of twenty-five days.3 A second proclamation, issued on the
1 Considerations Touching the New Contract, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 32; McDonald Papers, vol. I, p. 145, Va. State Library.
2 The Second Proclamation was issued in March, 1625.
3 Proclamations of Charles I, No. 6, Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, p. 75, Va. State Library.
282
thirteenth of May, erected a
committee upon which was imposed the duty of regulating the affairs of
the Colonies, its power, however, to be subordinate to that of the
Privy Council. This proclamation announced that the King had resolved
to create in himself a monopoly of the main product of Virginia and the
Somers Isles, but at prices which would be satisfactory to the
planters. The provisions of his first proclamation as to the exclusion
of the foreign leaf were to be rigidly enforced, and the punishment to
be inflicted upon any one who violated it was to be exemplary.1
Before the second proclamation reached
Virginia, the General Assembly had written a letter to the Privy
Council reflecting the feeling of consternation and despair with which
the news of the contract approved by James had been received in the
Colony. This contract was condemned as certain to be pernicious in its
influence, because entirely destructive of the good that might spring
from the grant of the right of sole importation. It was said that
instead of causing this right to operate to the advantage of the people
of Virginia, such an arrangement would really divert it to the profit
of a few individuals. A blow was struck at the welfare of the planters
which would be irremediable, unless prompt redress was afforded.
Already the supplies from England had fallen off and were only to be
obtained at the most exorbitant prices.2
It shows how strong had become the habit of the colonists in the past of suspecting the motives of their
1 Proclamations of Charles I, No. 10, Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, p. 110, Va. State Library.
2 Petition of General Assembly to King, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 42: Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, p. 114, Va. State Library.
283
rulers in England, that in this
letter it was openly charged that some of the commissioners appointed
by James, information as to whose displacement had not yet reached
them, were to be secret participants in the profits of the contract. So
deep was the concern of the people of Virginia that they dispatched Sir
George Yeardley to England to protect their interests.1 In
his petition to the Privy Council after his arrival, he urged upon that
body the necessity of adopting some course that would uphold the price
of tobacco until staple commodities could be set on foot. In order to
bring this about, he recommended that an exemption from the payment of
customs should be granted, and that all the privileges of the freest
trade should be allowed.2 The appeal of Yeardley must have
been successful, for it is stated in a communication from the Governor
and Council to the New Commissioners for Plantations, written in
January, 1626, that the contract had been annulled.3
Before twelve months had passed, the
colonists had occasion to complain of a very serious modification of
that part of the royal proclamation of April, 1625, which prohibited
the importation of the Spanish leaf into England. A proclamation was
issued in February, 1627, prescribing that fifty thousand pounds of
this commodity should thereafter be admitted, but it was to be reserved
for the
1 Petition of General Assembly to King, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 42; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, pp. 114-116, Va. State Library.
2 “Divers Heads wherein the Lords are to be Moved,” British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 47; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, p. 120, Va. State Library.
3 Governor and Council to Lords Commissioners, British State Papers, vol. IV, No. 1, Sainsbury Abstracts for 1626, p. 124, Va. State Library. The petition of Yeardley to the King bears the date of October, 1625. See British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 46; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1625, p. 119, Va. State Library.
284
royal use.1 At the
same time, the King seems to have approved of the terms of the offer
which Mr. Amis and his associates propounded for the tobacco of
Virginia and the Somers Isles. Representatives of the planters of the
two Colonies who were in London in April of the same year, were
summoned to meet at the house of Sir John Wolstenholme, and upon their
assembling, the quantity which the contractors proposed to take and the
price they would give were announced in the form of an order of the
Privy Council. The representatives firmly refused to consent to either,
on the ground that the amount was too small and the price too low to
furnish the population of the Colonies an adequate subsistence.2
It is a striking indication of the feeling
which the people of Virginia entertained towards all schemes for the
purchase of their tobacco in a mass, that on this occasion, before they
had been informed as to the particulars of the Amis contract, they
exclaimed most earnestly against it. The Governor gave voice to this
feeling in a communication which he addressed to the Privy Council, and
which bears the date of the day preceding the meeting at the house of
Sir John Wolstenholme. He declared that the inhabitants of the Colony
would only consent to the arrangement if the quantity of their tobacco
to be taken annually by the contractors was increased to three hundred
thousand pounds, and the price advanced to three shillings a pound,
payable either in bills of exchange when preferred, or in a standing
magazine of necessary merchandise. All of that commodity which remained
in excess of the amount fixed upon was to be disposed of in the open
285
market.1 When the full
details of the Amis contract reached Virginia in private letters, the
planters were thrown into a state of great dissatisfaction. A letter
was dispatched to the Privy Council, begging that no agreement should
be finally ratified unless it had been first approved by the people of
the Colony, and above all, that the Spanish leaf should not be
permitted to be brought into the kingdom even in the smallest
quantities.2 These remonstrances, so earnestly pressed, appear to have been effective for the time being.
In the course of the summer following the
first suggestion of the Amis contract, Charles wrote to the Governor
and Council in Virginia, and represented himself to be much annoyed at
the small progress which had been made, in spite of the many years that
had passed since the establishment of the Colony, in the production of
solid commodities. It was to the dishonor and shame of its people, he
declared, that their plantation was built upon smoke alone, a
foundation which would sink into ruin if permission was granted to
landowners in England to cultivate tobacco, or to English traders to
import the Spanish leaf. He urged them to develop the resources of the
country in tar and pitch, soap and pot ashes, salt, iron, timber, and
lastly in vines. It was not, however, his wish, he asserted, that the
production of tobacco should be abandoned; he desired merely that it
should be carefully ordered and the quantity tended diminished, in
which event, he proposed to become the purchaser of the whole annual
crop, being willing to give for it, when delivered in the port of
London,
1 Governor Yeardley to the Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 21; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627, p. 155, Va. State Library.
2 Governor and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 34; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627, p. 167, Va. State Library.
286
three shillings a pound.1
More particular instructions were dispatched to Virginia in November as
to the methods that should be adopted to improve its quality and to
moderate its volume. The plants were to be set four feet apart, and the
leaves to each plants were not to exceed six in number. The master of a
family was to be allowed to produce only two hundred pounds, and each
servant only one hundred and twenty-five. In preparing the tobacco for
shipment, the stalks were to be carefully excluded. The quality of the
leaf was to be examined by viewers who had been sworn to a strict
performance of their duty, and all found to be of a very mean grade was
to be thrown out.2
The Governor and Council in February, 1628,
expressed their approval of the projected sale of the tobacco of the
Colony to royal commissioners,3 and in the following month
the General Assembly took the same position in replying to the royal
letter of August, 1627, but their consent was subject to certain
conditions. They proposed that, for a period of seven years, the King
should purchase annually five hundred thousand pounds at the rate, of
three shillings and six pence a pound, to be delivered in Virginia, no
charge to be made for freight and duty; or four shillings if it was to
be delivered in London, the planters to bear the expense of
transportation but to be exempt from the payment of customs. They were
to enjoy the right to sell in Holland, Ireland, Turkey, and other
foreign parts, all tobacco produced by them in excess of five hundred
thousand pounds. The leaves to a plant
1 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 82; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627, pp. 163, 164, Va. State Library.
2 Attorney-General Heath to Governor Yeardley, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 33; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627, p. 165, Va. State Library.
3 Governor and Council to Attorney-General Heath, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 40; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627-28, p. 171, Va. State Library.
287
were to be restricted to twelve,
the number now permitted amounting to thirty. As the population of the
Colony at this time was close upon three thousand, the quantity
prescribed by the King for each master of a family and for each
servant, that is to say, two hundred, and one hundred and twenty-five
pounds respectively, was insufficient to maintain the people in comfort
and ease. The number of plants allowed to each head was reduced to the
lowest point consistent with this end, and to ensure the excellence of
the tobacco to be exported, sworn triers were appointed to pass upon
the quality of the leaf produced, and to destroy what was inferior in
character.1
The conditions advanced by the colonists do
not seem to have been acceptable to Charles, as there is nothing to
show that the proposed arrangement was consummated. It is doubtful
whether at heart they were more eager to enter into a contract with him
than they had been with Mr. Ditchfield and Mr. Amis and their
associates. In the letter to the King bearing date March 28, 1628, to
which reference has been made, the General Assembly declared that
during the last six years they had “perpetually labored in the confused
paths of labyrinths” of tobacco contracts.2 In the same
month they had expressed to Lord Delaware their grateful sense of his
earnest and successful efforts to annul the different arrangements
which had been made for the disposition of their only staple.3 Influenced by this feeling, it is not likely that they looked upon an
1 Answer of the General Assembly to Proposition of the King, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 45; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1628, pp. 176-179, Va. State Library.
2 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 45; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1628, p. 176, Va. State Library.
3 Governor and Council to Lord De La Warr, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 47; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1628 [,] p. 181, Va. State Library.
288
agreement with Charles with
unreservedly favorable eyes, although a mingled fear and loyalty
prevented them from giving free utterance to their views beyond stating
firmly what they considered to be the only provisions consistent with
the prosperity of the people, provisions expected quite probably to be
unacceptable to the King.
It was not until near the close of the
fourth decade of the century that another important attempt was made by
private individuals, acting with the countenance of the English
Government, to enter into a contract for the tobacco of Virginia. It
was proposed at that time by Lord Goring and his associates, to
purchase from the planters sixteen hundred thousand pounds at the rate
of six pence a pound, delivered in the Colony, or at the rate of eight
pence, delivered in England, an offer which shows how great had been
the decline in the value of the commodity since 1628, when the prices
had been under the same circumstances three shillings and six pence in
Virginia, and four shillings in London. The terms of the Goring
proposition received the approval of a number of planters who were in
England at the time, including such men as George Sandys, William
Tucker, John West, William Claiborne, Samuel Mathews, and William
Pierce. The grounds upon which their approval rested were, that the
planters would by the terms of this contract secure a profit of four
pence on their tobacco, which would amount in the aggregate to nearly
twenty-seven thousand pounds sterling; that one-half of the usual labor
in the production of a crop would be saved, and finally, that the
quality of the leaf would be so much improved as to make it difficult
to distinguish it from the highest grades of the Spanish.1 In spite of the great weight
1 Humble Remonstrance of Divers of the Principal Planters in Virginia, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 100; Winder Papers, vol. I, [footnote continues on p. 289]
p. 124, Va. State Library. In 1684, Charles appointed commissioners who
were to make an offer to the planters of Virginia for all the tobacco
they should produce for sale. He gave as his reason for this action
that the people being “heavily muleted in their dealings with the
English merchants,” were influenced to enter into trade with foreign
countries, thus depriving the King of the full amount of the customs to
which he was entitled.
289
which the action of men as well
and as favorably known in the Colony as these were, might have been
expected to have under any circumstances, the Goring contract met with
the strongest opposition in Virginia, Secretary Kemp going so far as to
say that if it were carried into effect, the shipping engaged in the
trade between England and the Colony would decline to the small
proportion of the very few vessels which the contractors would require.1
In 1627, the cultivation of tobacco in England was again prohibited.2
It was admitted that at this time large quantities were grown in
several parts of the kingdom, and so determined were many persons
engaged in this branch of agriculture, that in some cases the officers
who were sent out to destroy the plants were, when they attempted to do
so, severely beaten by the owners.3 The efforts to enforce
the law were only partially successful; in 1630, so much tobacco was
produced in England that a memorial was addressed to the English
authorities by the Governor of Virginia, urging the passage of an Act
of Parliament to suppress its cultivation, as the royal proclamation
had proved so ineffective. The amount planted in England was
represented to be increasing, and it was asserted that if this were
permitted to continue, the English settlements in America would fall
into permanent ruin; already the sale of the leaf
1 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 96; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638, p. 7, Va. State Library.
2 Anderson’s History of Commerce, vol. II, p. 321.
3 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 85.
290
imported from Virginia had been seriously obstructed by the volume of the English crop.1
The object which this memorial had in view had the warm approval of the
King. No customs were payable upon the tobacco produced in England; in
discouraging the importation from Virginia and the Bermudas by
weakening the market, the volume of the royal revenue was diminished.
In January, 1631, Charles issued a second proclamation forbidding the
cultivation of the plant in England, and prohibiting the introduction
of the foreign commodity unless the person bringing it in could show a
royal license.2 New duties were now imposed upon all the
tobacco imported. The charge for the Spanish product was two shillings
a pound, for that of Barbadoes and the other English possessions in the
West Indies, twelve pence, while for the product of Virginia and the
Bermudas it was nine pence, three of the nine being levied as customs,
and six as imposts.3 The duty was reduced at a later date to two pence for subsidy, and two pence for impost.4
In spite of the earnest protests and the
prohibitory measures of the English Government, the exportation of
tobacco to Holland continued. As early as 1627, the masters of all
vessels departing from the Colony with cargoes made up of this
commodity were required to deliver to the authorities before weighing
anchor invoices of their loading, and to give security that they would
convey it to the port of London. The necessity of this was strongly
enforced in a letter from the Privy Council to the
1 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 84; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1630, p. 214, Va. State Library.
2 Proclamations of Charles I, No. 138.
3 British State Papers, Sign Manuals, Charles I, vol. XII, No. 44; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1630-31, p. 235, Va. State Library.
4 British State Papers, Sign Manuals Charles I, vol. XIII, No. 86; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1631, p. 29, Va. State Library.
291
Governor of Virginia written in the winter of 1631.1
There was at this time no objection on the part of the English
Government to the exportation of tobacco from the Colony in Dutch
bottoms, provided that it was brought to the mother country and passed
through the custom house previous to its re-exportation. The object
which the Privy Council had in view was to secure the full amount of
the duties.2 The instruction to Harvey to require the
masters of all vessels leaving Virginia to transfer their cargoes to
England, under penalty of a heavy fine if they failed to do so, was
repeated in 1633,3 although he had earnestly requested in
the name of the planters, in the previous year, that entire liberty
should be allowed them in seeking a market. Special orders were given
to Captain John Pennington, who was in command of the English ships in
the Channel, to stop all vessels from the plantations which were making
their way towards the North and to compel the masters to bind
themselves to land their cargoes in some port of the kingdom.4
It will be seen from the tenor of this order that the requirement laid
down in the proclamation of Charles in 1630-31 that all the tobacco
brought from Virginia was to be imported into
1 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. III.
2 The language used
in the letter of the Privy Council was as follows: “You are to give
order that none, either English or stranger, be suffered to take any
tobacco from thence without giving sufficient bond with sureties to
bring it all to the Port of London and to no other port or place within
or without this kingdom.” A royal proclamation, issued in 1624, had
declared that all tobacco imported into England in foreign bottoms
should be confiscated. Rymer, XVII, pp. 623, 624. This provision, it
would seem from the use of the word “stranger,” was disregarded by the
colonists.
3 See Letter of Sir John Wolstenholme to Privy Council, Aug. 14, 1633, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 80; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1633, p. 46, Va. State Library.
4 Proclamations of Charles I, No. 138.
292
London alone, had now been
withdrawn. It seems to have been the common practice for ships arriving
from the Colony to touch at Cowes in the Isle of Wight for the purpose
of making a nominal compliance with the terms of their bonds, and then,
after changing masters, to direct their course towards the Low
Countries. It was these vessels chiefly which Captain Pennington was
instructed to intercept, in some instances, they were detained at Cowes
until they could give good security that they would convey their
cargoes to the port of London and there submit to the imposition of the
regular customs.1 Governor Harvey himself was charged with
permitting Dutch vessels to take tobacco on board in Virginia without
requiring the legal assurance that they would proceed to England, but
this he denied with great earnestness.2 in 1635, the Admiral
in command of the English Channel, the Earl of Lindsay, received the
same orders as Captain Pennington in 1633, with reference to the
stoppage of all ships from the English plantations which sought to
carry their cargoes to Holland without having paid the duties
prescribed.3
In 1636, there was a disposition on the
part of the English Government to prevent the Dutch from becoming
exporters of Virginian tobacco, even though the fullest security as to
the payment of the customs due upon their loading was given, the
encouragement of shipping being alleged as one of the principal reasons
for restricting the
1 Francis Brooke to Farmers of Customs, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 6; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1634, p. 58, Va. State Library.
2 Proceedings of Privy Council, Dec. 11, 1635, Dom. Cor. Charles I, vol. 303, No. 19; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1635, p. 139, Va. State Library.
3 Lords of the Admiralty to Earl of Lindsay, Dom. Cor. Charles I, vol. 264, folio 128; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1635, p. 100, Va. State Library.
293
conveyance of all the commodities of the colonies to English bottoms. The instructions transmitted to both Wyatt and Berkeley,1
whose terms of administration preceded the surrender to Parliament in
1651, directed them to take bonds of the masters of vessels leaving
Virginia which would compel them to land their cargoes in England. It
required special permission to make it legal for shipmasters to stop at
any of the English colonies in the course of their outward voyage; this
was sometimes asked when the planters or merchants did not have a
sufficient number of vessels in which to transfer their tobacco to
England, and in consequence were forced to transport it first to the
North.2 In spite of these precautions, a large quantity
found its way to Holland, thus evading the customs to which it would
have been subject had it been conveyed directly to London.3
In the years immediately following the
publication of the first proclamations which prohibited the bringing of
Spanish tobacco into England, a great quantity of this commodity was
drawn from the Spanish West Indies and secretly carried into the port
of London along with the cargoes from the Bermudas. Just as the
importation of the Virginian leaf into Holland affected the royal
revenues injuriously by diminishing the customs, so the importation of
the Spanish leaf into England lowered the price of the Virginian
product, not only by increasing the quantity of tobacco offered for
sale in the English markets, but also by introducing a grade of better
quality. The opinion was prevalent for a long time after the
dissolution of the
294
Company, that the tobacco of the
Spanish colonies was of a finer texture than that of the English.
Twenty years later, the greatest praise a writer of that date could
pass upon the Virginian product and the improvement that had taken
place in its character, was to say that there were several varieties of
it equal to the most delicate exported from the American possessions of
Spain.1 This was undoubtedly an exaggeration, the
superiority of the tobacco of the West Indies in at least one of its
manufactured forms being maintained to the present day. The record of
the prices of smoking tobacco in England throughout the greater part of
the seventeenth century shows that the Spanish leaf was considered to
be of the finer quality, in 1633, it commanded in England, when sold
for smoking purposes, twelve shillings and three pence a pound; in
1652, seven shillings; in 1657, ten; in 1674, eight; in 1685, six; in
1687, seven. The average price was nine shillings and three and a half
pence. The average price of smoking tobacco manufactured from the leaf
of Virginia was two shillings and two and one quarter pence. This
striking difference was far from being due entirely to the heavier duty
laid on the Spanish product in the English custom houses, amounting to
six pence a pound up to 1685. On Virginian tobacco, the impost was one
penny. Subsequent to this year, it was increased, in the instance of
Spanish, to one shilling, and of Virginian, to four pence.2
1 Leah and Rachel, p. 19, Force’s Historical Tracts,
vol. III. John Bland, in his well-known “Remonstrance on behalf of the
colonists of Virginia and Maryland” against the Navigation Act of 1660,
asks: “Have we not in this Nation by reason of the dearness and
sophistication of Virginia’s tobacco, accustomed ourselves so to
Virginia’s, that little Spanish, though much better, is spent amongst
us at this day?” See Virginia and Act of Navigation, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. I, p. 147.
2 Rogers’ History of Agriculture and Prices in England, vol. V, p.468.
295
The tobacco of Virginia was shipped to
England in general bound up in loose bundles, or packed in casks of
different sizes. It is stated that when Captain Grey in 1629 sold to
the colonists the negroes whom he had seized on board an Angola slaver,
he obtained in return for them eighty-five hogsheads and five butts.1 The roll, however, was not uncommon at this time or a few years later.2
One of the strongest grounds of opposition to contracts was that such
agreements required that the tobacco should be prepared for
transportation in this shape. It would seem that there were several
reasons for objecting to the roll, both on the part of the planter and
of the English or foreign purchaser. To compress the leaf into this
form made necessary a degree of manipulation that prolonged the process
beyond the time to which its shipment was by law restricted; it not
only led to great delay and imposed serious labor, but it also caused
much waste. The interests of the buyer were impaired by the fact that
the shape of the roll allowed worthless leaf to be introduced with it
in a position difficult to detect without breaking the whole mass;
foreign substances could also be inserted with a view to increasing its
weight.3 The wrapper was a recognized term as early as 1625,
tobacco of the finest quality bearing this name being doubtless used
for the outer covering of the roll. It is not strange to find that the
leaf when tied in bundles sold more readily, and at higher prices in
all of the foreign markets than when made up in a more compact form.4
1 Dom. Cor. Charles I, vol. 105, No. 35. See Chapter on Slaves.
2 Records of Lower Norfolk County, Court Orders, May 25, 1640, folio p. 16.
3 Governor Yeardley to the Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 21; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1627, pp. 155, 156, Va. State Library.
4 Considerations Touching new Contract of Tobacco, British State [footnote continues on p. 296] Papers, vol. III, No. 32; McDonald Papers, vol. I, p. 150, Va. State Library.
296
The exclusion of the Indians from the
valley of the lower James, which was complete almost as early as 1627,
by making them more dependent on the chase, led to the destruction of
the numerous droves of hogs that at one time roamed in the forests.1
So scarce had those running wild become by 1631, that a law was passed
prohibiting any one from killing them beyond the boundaries of his own
plantation, but the strictness of this provision was modified in the
instance of a person who could show that he had recently destroyed a
wolf.2 To such a person alone was the right to kill a wild
hog allowed, and it was allowed to him only on account of the great
importance of reducing the number of wolves in the ranges of the
settlements, where they inflicted great damage upon every kind of live
stock. The planters, however, still had a great abundance of tame
swine. No householder at this period was so sunk in poverty as not to
possess a few of these animals.3
Cattle of all kinds in Virginia were now supposed to number from two to five thousand.4
The price of an ox in the Colony at this time was three hundred
shillings, a difference of many shillings as compared with the lower
price of the same animal in England.5 The herd of Governor
Yeardley during his last administration was composed of twenty-four
head, each cow or ox, since so large a herd must have included
individuals of both sexes, being worth fifteen pounds.6 In England at this
1 Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 885. 2 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 190.
3 Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 885.
4 Ibid., p. 887.
5 Rogers’ History of Agriculture and Prices in England, vol. V, p. 349.
6 Certificate of Thomas Gibbes and Samuel Wrote, British State [footnote continues on p. 297] Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 15, I; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1629, p. 197, Va. State Library. This document in full will be found in McDonald Papers,
vol. II, p. 10, Va. State Library. The details given in it throw light
on cattle-raising in the Colony at this time. In 1629, a claim was
entered against the estate of Sir George Yeardley by one Rossingham. It
was referred by the Privy Council to Messrs. Gibbes and Wrote, who
reported, “Whereas the petitioner relyed upon accompt for his stock
then remaining in Sir George Yeardley’s possession, as is testified by
a postscript in a letter under his own hand, March 5th
1621, in these words: ‘My ladie gends you word your stock of cattle
increaseth well, your old having calved this tyme this year &c.,’
and also by the testimonie of Mr. John Martyn, servant to
said George Yeardley, and then resident in Virginia, testifying the
petitioner then to have had lower neate beasts, three of them cowes and
heyfers, and the fourth a calf, of what kind he knows not, the
offspring whereof in seven years (for then they were all sold) in an
ordinary increase allowing some loss for casualties, notwithstanding it
is testified by John Pory and John Martyn that cattle then doth both
increase and prosper exceeding well, would with themselves have well
amounted unto twenty-four, every head being worth in Virginia 15£, and
so bought and sold the whole number amounting to 360£, and we are of
opinion that the said Sir George Yeardley might well allow him a
herdsman to keep his cattle, considering the petitioner was employed by
him most part of said time.”
297
period, the average value of
female horned cattle did not exceed one-half the average value of oxen;
Governor Yeardley himself is represented as having bought in his native
country a cow for seven pounds sterling, eight pounds less than the
valuation at which the same animal would have been held in Virginia.2
Three hundred and seventy-five dollars for fully grown horned cattle,
for such was approximately the purchasing power of fifteen pounds
sterling in the early part of the seventeenth century, was an
extraordinary price, only to be explained by the comparative scarcity
of these beasts, and the usefulness
1 Rogers’ History of Agriculture and Prices in England, vol. V, p. 338.
2 Certificate of Thomas Gibbes and Samuel Wrote, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 15, I; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 14, Va. State Library.
298
of the purposes which they served
in the Colony. There the cow was in as much demand as the ox, and in
consequence its price was as high. The great desire felt among the
settlers that every means should be adopted to promote the increase of
their live stock is shown in the passage of the law, that no female
cattle were to be killed unless they had ceased to breed, or were
stricken with a disease or infirmity that would inevitably end in
death. The term “cattle” was here intended to apply to horses and sheep
as well as to hogs, cows, and oxen.1 Already neat cattle
were occasionally drawn away from the older parts of Virginia. In 1631,
William Claiborne transferred to Kent Island in the Chesapeake Bay a
small herd which had been ranging at Kecoughtan.2 It is
probable that no oxen had as yet been sent from the Colony to
Barbadoes, but in a few years, when the need of draught animals for the
sugar-mills in that island had become urgent, petitions were entered in
the House of Lords asking permission, in order to meet this need, to
export from Virginia as many as a hundred head in a single cargo.3
The number of horses in the Colony at this
time must have been very insignificant. Among the commodities which
Charles the First, in 1627, urged the people of Virginia to produce
were pitch and tar, but the Governor and Council replying in the
following year to the royal communication, declared that the planters
were unable to comply with the King’s commands because they lacked
horses with which to transport the wood to sites where the kilns could
be erected.4 Sheep must have been still fewer in number, not only because the original stock was
1 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 153.
2 Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of Council, 1667-1687, p. 222.
3 Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Sixth Report, Appendix, p. 203.
4 Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 212.
299
small, but also because the
pasturage was limited, and the danger of attack by wolves was always
present. No law had as yet been passed offering a reward for the
destruction of the latter; the only means adopted by the colonists as a
protection against them was to appoint servants to look after all the
cattle in the possession of their masters. The cattle of William Pierce1 and Adam Thoroughgood2
were guarded in this manner, their keepers being men of matured years,
who had the strength and courage to resist the depredations of wild
animals upon the herds in their charge. Many of the planters were
owners also of large numbers of goats. Captain Thoroughgood left to his
heirs one hundred and seven, for the safety of which a man of thirty
years of age and a boy of sixteen had been constantly employed by him.3
In 1637, Joseph Ham, of York County, bequeathed to his children thirty
kids, to be divided equally among them, and to his wife twenty-one
goats.4 The full-grown animal at this time was valued at
ninety-five pounds of tobacco, or fifteen shillings, and the kid at
seventy-five pounds of tobacco, or twelve shillings.
As a barrier against bands of marauding Indians, it had
1 Governor Harvey to Secretary Dorchester, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 11; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 68, Va. State Library.
2 Records of Lower Norfolk County,
original volume for the years 1642 and 1643, folio page 19. The name of
the keeper in the employment of Captain Thoroughgood was Rowland
Morgan, who was twenty-five years of age.
3 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original volume for the years 1642 and 1648, folio page 38.
4 Records of York County,
vol. 1633-1694, pp. 11, 12, Va. State Library. When, in 1633, the Dutch
captain Devries set sail from Jamestown on his return voyage, he was
presented by the Governor of the Colony with six goats and one ram.
Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 52.
300
been suggested, as early as 1623,
that a pale should be built from a point on James River, in the limits
of Martin’s Hundred, to Cheskiack on the Charles, a distance of six
miles; by this means, an area that was three hundred thousand acres in
extent would be enclosed, furnishing a vast body of land, to serve as a
range for cattle. It could also in part be used for supporting a large
population. In 1626, Samuel Mathews and William Claiborne offered to
erect the palisade, and to build houses at a short interval along its
line; they calculated the whole cost of construction at twelve hundred
pounds sterling, and the expense of maintaining the houses and the
palisade in good repair at one hundred pounds sterling a year. They
required, as a condition of their contract to carry out this project,
that a grant should be made to them of the soil along the line of the
palisade to the extent of six score poles on either side. Within these
limits, they were to seat men, who would perform the important service
of guards. The design at the time was to raise a large stock of oxen,
horses, and asses in this protected enclosure, to be used in
expeditions against the Indian tribes inhabiting the surrounding
country.2 The proposition of Mathews and Claiborne, which
was made to the Governor and Council, was reduced to writing, and in
the same year forwarded to the authorities in England for approval.3
In 1630, the price of Virginian tobacco sank to less than one penny a pound.4 The planters had for several years found themselves cultivating this crop at little if any
1 Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 172.
2 A Proposition Concerning the Winning of the Forest, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 10, II; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1626, p. 145, Va. State Library.
3 This communication is printed in the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. II, pp. 50-55.
4 Governor Harvey to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 95; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1630, [footnote continues on p. 301]
p. 221, Va. State Library. This extraordinary decline was said to have
been due to the increase in the area under cultivation in tobacco in
Barbadoes, Mevis, St. Christopher, and Bermudas.
301
profit, and this had the effect
which the numerous proclamations and instructions previously issued to
discourage its production had failed to bring about; there was now for
the first time in the history of the Colony a voluntary disposition
among the people to devote some attention to other commodities that had
hitherto aroused but little interest. There was a considerable extent
of land in Virginia which, from a previous course of tillage, had been
sufficiently deprived of its fertility to be left in an excellent
condition for the growth of wheat; it now occurred to many of the
planters that instead of allowing this land to revert to forest, or
instead of putting it down in a succession of crops of maize until
wholly exhausted, it would be advisable to sow it in English grain.
This course had already for several years been followed by Abraham
Piersey, who in one year alone, 1627, had two hundred acres in wheat
and as many in barley, the product of this area of soil being so great
that he was able to furnish food daily at his own charge to sixty
persons.1 The authorities sought to confirm this disposition
to give less attention to tobacco. In 1628, there was issued a
proclamation that only so much of this commodity should be cultivated
as would not interfere with the production of grain;2 in
1629, the amount to be raised was restricted to three thousand plants a
head, workers in the ground alone being considered, but as this would
have been unjust to families composed in large part of women and
children, who were incapable of laboring in the fields, one thousand
plants additional per poll were allowed in the
302
latter instances. The supreme
importance of tobacco as a means of securing a livelihood was indicated
in the refusal of the Assembly, in 1629, to prohibit new comers from
cultivating it, although at this time the authorities had the strongest
desire to diminish the quantity produced.1 The heaviest
punishment which the Assembly supposed they could inflict upon the
French vine-dressers, who had been brought into Virginia in the time of
the Company, and who had been subsequently accused of concealing their
knowledge, was to refuse to grant them permission to cultivate tobacco,
to which the vine-dressers, who had leased some of the public lands,
had probably turned as the most direct means of earning a subsistence.2
The use of the leaf as a substitute for specie, a use rendered
necessary by the fact that the planters did not receive money for their
products, but articles for consumption, or bills of exchange payable in
England in coin, which rarely found its way back to the Colony, was one
of the most powerful influences leading the Virginians to give such
absorbing attention to the cultivation of this staple. It was not
simply a perishable crop which sold at varying rates in the English and
Dutch markets; it was money with an intrinsic value, like gold and
silver, and as necessary for exchange as any kind of currency.
One of the most notable results of the fact
that an important proportion of the tobacco of the Colony was produced
by planters who had recently arrived in Virginia, was the reduction in
the average quality of each annual crop. The servants of the new
planters were as a rule as ignorant as themselves in the beginning.
While some of the immigrants were prudent enough to wait until they had
acquired by actual observation, or personal experience in the field, a
knowledge of the proper manner
303
of tending tobacco, and of
manipulating it after it had been removed from the hill, the largest
number proceeded immediately after their arrival to cultivate it,
although it was a plant foreign to any agricultural training which they
had previously received in England. This was only one of the many
causes of the production of so much of the commodity belonging to the
lowest grades.
The finest tobacco was spoken of as the
long sort, which the colonists were especially commanded to cultivate,
all ether kinds being strictly prohibited.1 The manner of
curing the leaf was still defective, because the experience of the
oldest planters did not extend over the course of a generation, and the
great body of that class had been engaged in the culture of tobacco
only for a few years. There were as yet no extensive set of rules
founded upon comparative observation, and transmitted with constant
enlargement from decade to decade. Knowledge acquired during a long
course of time has shown, that half the virtue of the plant lies in its
manipulation after the leaves are gathered, and it may be easily seen
that the rude methods of the early Virginian planters would do little
to improve the original quality of the commodity.
It was thought by the English merchants
that the inferiority of the Virginian to the Spanish leaf was due
entirely to the ignorance and carelessness of the planters, and their
repeated complaints led to the passage of a strict inspection law. The
first statutory regulation established in Virginia, looking to the
destruction of the lowest grades, was adopted at the meeting of the
first Assembly in 1619. It was then enacted that all the tobacco
brought to the Cape Merchant, to be exchanged for goods of various
sorts, should be carefully examined by four viewers, two of whom were
to be appointed by
304
the Cape Merchant, and two by
each corporation in whose boundaries a branch magazine was seated. The
leaves found to be worse in quality than those appraised at eighteen
pence a pound, which were the most inferior that the adventurers of the
general magazine were willing to purchase, were to be burnt on the spot.1
This provision, although well adapted to improve the character of the
tobacco exported, does not appear to have been enforced after the
abolition of the general magazine in the following year. In 1621, the
Company urged upon the attention of the authorities in Virginia the
necessity of destroying the meanest grades, and allowing only what was
excellent in quality to be shipped to England.2 No
inspection law, even in a greatly modified form, seems to have been in
operation in the interval of ten years preceding 1630. At the meeting
of the General Assembly in the spring of that year, in order to prevent
the exportation of bad tobacco, it was provided that the commander of
each plantation should summon two or three men, of sound judgment and
extensive experience, to inspect whatever leaf had been offered in
payment of debts, and had been found to be mean by the creditor, and
that if the viewers should reach the same conclusion, it was to be
burnt. The delinquent should be disbarred from planting a second crop
unless his disability was removed by the General Assembly.3
This law contained a number of serious
defects which led to its amendment. It was not to be expected that the
commander would be very rigid in passing upon the quality of his
neighbor’s tobacco. Not only was it always likely that a feeling of
personal kindness and friendship
305
would come in to soften his
judgment, but an impulse of humanity, also, would probably not
infrequently cause him to be extremely lenient, the planter producing
the inferior crop, perhaps from no fault of his own, being absolutely
dependent upon its sale for the necessaries of life for himself and his
family. By the terms of the amended law of 1682, the commander was to
take no direct part in the inspection, his duty extending only to the
appointment of two competent viewers, who were to report to him the
result of their examination. To compel him to make this appointment,
even when his inclinations were strongly averse to doing so, he was, in
case of failure to conform to the statute, to be deprived during the
course of twelve months of all right to hold office.1
The law was amended still more radically at
the session of the General Assembly held in the winter of 1632-33. It
was stated, that the object of the additional change was to raise the
price of the exported tobacco by improving its quality. Inspection was
to be made at five different points in the Colony, that is to say, at
James City, Shirley Hundred Island, Denbigh, Southampton River in
Elizabeth City, and Cheskiack. At each of these places, a store or
warehouse was to be erected. Hither all the tobacco produced was to be
brought by the planters previous to the last day of December in each
year. Here it was to be carefully inspected, and all belonging to the
meanest grade was to be taken from the great mass and burnt. This duty
was to be performed once a week by men who were acting under oath, one
of whom was always to be the member of the Council whose home was
nearest to the particular warehouse. The tobacco judged to be vendible
was to be stored away, the ownership to be recorded in the list of
accounts to be kept for that
306
purpose; and it was only to be
withdrawn to be carried on board ship and transported out of Virginia.
All tobacco found in the barns of the planters, after the thirty-first
day of December, was to be confiscated, unless reserved for the use of
their families, a fact to which they were required to swear before the
proper officers previous to the closing day of the year. The warehouses
appear at this time to have been designed wholly for the storage of
leaf, as by the provisions of the law under the authority of which they
were to be erected, the goods imported into the Colony were to be
landed only at Jamestown, where all the contracts, bargains, and
exchanges for any part of this merchandise were to be made. The right,
however, was granted to the planters to pay their debts at the
warehouses.1
At the session of the General Assembly held
in the course of the summer following the passage of these amendments
of the inspection law, further changes were introduced. The number of
warehouses to be erected was increased from five to seven, the
additional two to be built, one at Warrasquoke, and the other at a
point lying between Wyanoke and the Falls. The viewers to serve at each
warehouse were to include not only the member of the Council whose
residence was situated the nearest to it, but also the commissioners of
the local court, with whom assistants duly appointed were to be joined,
and they were to make an inspection of the leaf brought in as often as
its volume required.2 Each warehouse was to be in charge of
a storekeeper, whose remuneration for his superintendence was to be one
per cent of what was placed in his official care.3
It would appear that the requirements of the inspection
307
law, as to the condemnation to the fire of all unmerchantable tobacco, were to some extent enforced,1
but the proof as to whether the warehouses were erected is not so
positive. In 1638, only a few years after the provision as to the
construction of the seven buildings for storage was adopted, the
burgesses are found objecting to the great inconvenience of
transporting their annual crop to different warehouses, which would
have been necessary if the contract with the King for the purchase of
the whole product of the Colony, at that time under advisement, had
been carried out.2 They proposed that, instead, inspectors
should be named for each neighborhood. The suggestion does not seem to
have been favorably received, for there is evidence that in 1641, a
storekeeper was appointed for the limits of Lynhaven in Lower Norfolk,
and also one for Elizabeth City, and in both instances they were
required to give security that the tobacco placed in their respective
warehouses would be carefully guarded.3
The effort to improve the quality of the
tobacco exported was not confined to regulations making the burning of
the meanest grades compulsory. Not only were the number of plants to be
cultivated to the head prescribed
1 Letter of Governor Harvey to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 82; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1637, p. 216, Va. State Library. The expression used by Harvey is: “He can give many instances of his strictness in that course, (i.e. condemning to the fire) both last year and this.” This letter was written Jan. 29, 1637-38.
2 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 96, II; Winder Papers, vol. I, p. 109, Va. State Library.
3 “Whereas Robert
Smith hath petitioned to this Court to be Storekeeper for the Limits of
Linhaven . . . it is, therefore, ordered that the said
Smith shall supplie ye place of ye said storekeeper according to acts
of Assembly, provided that he puts in security for ye safe keeping of
the tobacco after it is put in the store.” Records of Lower Norfolk County, 1637-1642, folio page 46. This reference is also the authority for the statement as to the appointment of a storekeeper in Elizabeth City.
308
in the inspection law of 1629-30,
but also in the different amendments which from time to time were made
to it. The law itself restricted the number to be raised to two
thousand for every individual in a family, women and children inclusive.1
A subsequent Act prohibited those who were not engaged in the
cultivation of the leaf to transfer to persons who were, their right of
planting. The landholder was required to procure either a neighbor, or
some competent stranger, to count the plants in his fields, and to
certify the result to the commander of the place, and if he was found
to have exceeded the number allowed, the commissioners were to order
the destruction of his whole crop.2 The leaves were to be
limited to nine in the gathering, and under no circumstances were the
suckers springing up from old stalks to be tended. In 1633, the number
of plants to the poll to be cultivated was reduced to fifteen hundred.3
The effect of these various regulations,
whether strictly enforced or not, must have been on the whole very
influential in improving the quality of the tobacco, the need of which,
at the beginning of the fourth decade of the seventeenth century, was
just as urgent as it was in the middle of the third. In a proclamation
issued in 1631, it was stated that an increasing quantity of the
commodity was imported secretly into England from the Brazils and the
Spanish provinces in America, and this was most probably in response to
a continued demand for the highest grades, because Virginia,
independently of the Bermudas, could easily have furnished the whole
amount required by English consumers.
Harvey began his administration of the
affairs of Virginia in the spring of 1630. He had brought over the
usual instructions to promote a diversification of the commodities
309
of the Colony. When he arrived,
he found that the people were suffering from a great dearth of grain,
owing to the excessive attention paid to the culture of tobacco.1
In March, 1629-30, a stringent regulation had been adopted, requiring
that at least two acres of grain for every person who was engaged in
actual work in the ground should be planted. In the interval preceding
the harvest of the crop of 1630, Harvey dispatched a vessel as far as
Cape Fear to procure a supply of Indian corn, and he also sent an agent
on a voyage in the Chesapeake Bay, with a cargo of merchandise of
various sorts to be used in trading for maize with the Indians. Three
hundred bushels were obtained by this means, which were devoted to the
present relief of the colonists, thus assuring the preservation of the
grain in the fields until it had fully ripened. The danger of the
famishing people falling upon the unmatured maize, and thus not only
exposing themselves to the risk of sickness in eating it, but also
exhausting the store which ought to be kept for the following winter,
was in this way entirely removed.2 In consequence of this
prudent management, the crop of Indian corn in Virginia in a short time
amounted to many thousand bushels, furnishing an abundance even for new
comers.3 Maize now commanded two shillings and six
1 Governor Harvey to Secretary Dorchester, April 15, 1630, British State Papers, Colonial, No. V; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 31, Va. State Library.
2 Governor Harvey to Secretary Dorchester, May 29, 1630, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 94; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1630, p. 218, Va. State Library. In McDonald Papers,
vol. II, p. 44, Va. State Library, there will be found a full copy of
Governor Harvey’s letter to the Privy Council, October, 1630 (British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 95), from which some of these details were obtained.
3 Council of Virginia to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 3; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1634, p. 52, Va. State Library.
310
pence a bushel.1 In a
commission which Governor Harvey gave to Nathaniel Basse in 1631, he
was authorized to visit New England, Nova Scotia, and the West Indies,
and to offer to the inhabitants of those plantations, grain at
twenty-five shillings a barrel delivered there, or fifteen shillings
delivered in the Colony. Similar commissions with the same orders were
granted to persons to trade in Canada and the Dutch settlements.2
According to one authority, ten thousand bushels of Indian corn were
shipped to New England alone in 1634. So abundant did grain become in
the Colony, that Governor Harvey described Virginia as bearing the same
relation to the northern provinces as Sicily bore to Rome.3
Special regulations were adopted with respect to the boats employed in
its transportation; they were to be of a burden of ten tons at least,
and to be built with flush decks, unless fitted with grating and
tarpauling.4 It is not probable that wheat formed an
important part in this exportation of grain, in 1632, seed wheat was so
scarce in Virginia that Harvey, who was anxious to show unusual zeal in
enlarging the number of its agricultural products, admitted that he was
dependent on a supply from the mother country if he was to carry out
the instructions of the English authorities with reference to sowing it.5 He had but a short time before expressed a determination to restrict his own
1 Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Fourth Report, Appx., pp. 290, 291.
2 Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 219.
3 Governor Harvey to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, vol. VIII, No. 22; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1634, p. 71, Va. State Library. See also letter of John Winthrop, Jr., in Mass. Hist. Coll., vol. VIII, 5th series, Winthrop Papers, Part IV.
4 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 175.
5 Governor Harvey to Privy Council, Feb. 20, 1632-33, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 73; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1632, p. 41, Va. State Library.
311
agricultural operations to the cultivation of English grain and vines.1
The shipments to the North were not
confined to grain; the commissions granted to Nathaniel Basse and
others, in 1631, instructed them to offer for sale in the countries
with which they were authorized to trade, COWS, oxen, hogs, and goats
at favorable rates.2 Devries has recorded that, in 1633, he
met Captain Stone making his way from Virginia towards New England,
with a cargo of grain and young cattle; a few years later, Samuel
Maverick, of Massachusetts, visited the Colony, and purchased four
heifers and eighty goats, which he conveyed to Boston in two pinnaces.4
So numerous had the hogs, goats, and poultry become by the fourth year
of Governor Harvey’s administration, that the planters were able to
furnish large supplies of meat to the crews of ships lying at anchor in
the river.5 The vessels engaged in the transportation of
tobacco offered, even at this time, an important market, as may be
inferred from the fact that they numbered from thirty to forty, manned
by many sailors, the tonnage ranging from four hundred upwards.6 When Devries arrived in the James, in the autumn of 1635, he found thirty-six sail at Blunt Point alone.7 At this time, pork
1 Governor Harvey to Lords Commissioners, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 54; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1632, p. 35, Va. State Library.
2 Randolph MSS. vol. III, p. 219.
3 Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 64.
4 Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 131.
5 New Description of Virginia, p. 4, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II; Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 127, note.
6 Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 53.
7 Ibid., p. 112. The number of ships leaving James River for the port of London alone in 1636, with cargoes of tobacco, was twenty-one. British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 9; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1636, p. 154, Va. State Library. The author of the New Description [footnote continues on p. 312] of Virginia estimated the number of sailors a few years later at seven or eight hundred. See p. 5 of this tract, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II.
312
was sold for twenty shillings an hundred pounds.1
It illustrates the sudden changes taking place in the condition of the
planters according as their crops for a single year flourished or
failed, that in 1636, two years after the large shipments of grain to
New England, corn was so dear in Virginia, that it was only to be
bought at twenty shillings a bushel, a large number of the poorer
inhabitants being reduced for subsistence to purslane and other garden
vegetables.2 At a somewhat later period, Devries, who was
acquainted by actual experience with these sudden fluctuations in the
annual fortunes of the people, warned one of his countrymen, who
proposed to make a trading voyage to the Colony, that it would be
prudent for him to carry with him ample provisions, as the planters of
Virginia produced supplies sufficient only for themselves.3
During the first part of the term of
Governor Harvey, the palisade, which, a few years before, Mathews and
Claiborne had proposed to erect from Martin’s Hundred to a point on the
York, was built, thus establishing at the lower end of the peninsula
between the two rivers, a secure refuge for live stock, covering ground
almost as extensive as the county of Kent in England.4
Within the boundaries of this range, the cattle wandered at liberty,
finding their food in wood, marsh, and field during every season. If
fed at all in winter, they received only the husks of maize with a few
grains.5 The Indians hardly dared
1 Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Fourth Report, Appx., 290, 291.
2 Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 131.
3 Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 177.
4 Governor Harvey to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 22; Sainsbury, Abstracts for 1634, p. 72, Va. State Library.
5 Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 887.
313
to venture into this area in
sufficient numbers to inflict serious injury. Remnants of the palisade
were in existence a quarter of a century later.1 The country
in the immediate vicinity of Jamestown, however, formed the principal
cattle reserve of the Colony. All the forest in the general
neighborhood had now been removed, and it was converted into pastures
and gardens. But little grain or tobacco was planted there. Here the
greater number of the live stock of the surrounding plantations were
kept throughout the year, being fed on hay in winter, instead of being
suffered to browse at large in the woods, or to devour the refuse of
the cornfields.2 The rate of increase was not extraordinary;
there is a record of a herd in Virginia which numbered fifteen head in
1628, and which had grown to fifty only in 1636, eight years later.
The first legal provision, looking to the
enclosure of land as a barrier against the depredations of cattle, was
adopted in 1626 by the General Court. It was ordered in the course of
this year that in those parts of the Colony where cattle were
preserved, such as Hog and James City Islands, the planters, in seeking
to protect their grain, should be careful not to run fences across
narrow necks of land, as this would deprive the animals of a wide area
in which to browse, but instead to enclose the fields in which their
crops were growing, leaving the live stock to wander at liberty
outside. If in violation of this regulation a fence was erected,
shutting them out of a range not under cultivation, it was to be
destroyed, and the loss which might follow from the entrance of cattle
was not to be made good.3 In February, 1631-32, the General Assembly
314
briefly declared, that every man
should enclose his ground with sufficient fences, and in case of a
failure to do so, should suffer the consequences without legal remedy.1
This regulation as not adopted without opposition. It as urged that to
encourage the owners of swine to dispense with keepers, whose services
had been required to prevent the hogs from roaming in the cornfields,
had the effect of making the latter wild by allowing them to wander
about without any one to watch them, and furthermore, in the absence of
a herder, they were exposed to a great number of casualties.2
In the order of court of 1626, and the statute of 1631-32, there is to
be found the beginning of the provision that, substantially in its
original form, has been transmitted to the present age, and which has
from its very inception been the cause of innumerable personal and
political altercations. The fact that a statute passed in the first
part of the seventeenth century should remain in the local law of
Virginia, with practically no modification in its principle, shows how
little the agricultural conditions of the community have changed in the
course of that extended period.3 While it was in its essence
a regulation that worked for the benefit, of the small planter, and has
continued to operate to his special advantage by throwing open a
boundless range for his cattle, it was in the eyes of the large planter
to be preferred to a measure requiring the enclosure of all land in
each tract, which would have imposed upon him a very heavy burden, as
many tracts included several thousand
1 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 176.
2 Review of the Old Acts of Assembly, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 98; Winder Papers, vol. I, p. 128, Va. State Library.
3 See Report of the State Board of Agriculture of Virginia for 1893, p. 58, for a valuable summary of the different local regulations at the present time.
315
acres, and miles of expensive
fencing would have been necessary to raise a sufficient protection on
every side. Land unenclosed became a common, upon which it was not a
trespass for any person in the neighborhood to permit his cattle to
run. If the owner desired to prevent such incursions, it was in his
power to erect a line of fence, and as long as he failed to do so, it
was argued that he had no right to complain of a damage which his own
live stock was liable at any time to inflict upon the unprotected crops
of his neighbors.
In 1639, however, the fence law was
modified in its application to swine, probably in compliance with the
objections urged against it some years before. Hogs had now grown to be
very numerous, and it was anticipated that they would break into the
grain fields, the barrier raised against their encroachments being only
too frail in many instances. It was decided, in consequence of this
fact, to require that the owners of swine should confine them securely
in pens at night, and provide keepers for them during the day; those
persons who failed to observe these directions were to be held
responsible for the damage inflicted by their hogs upon the property of
their neighbor. The provisions of the Act of 1632, as well as of the
Act of 1636, were still in force with respect to the depredations of
other animals.1 In 1642, only two years later, swine were again placed upon the old footing in their relation to the law as to enclosures.2
The fence law of the seventeenth century
could only have been passed in a country where the soil was valued very
cheaply, and where live stock were not carefully provided for. As the
population of the Colony expanded, and the number of plantations
increased, the original
316
statute was only made more
stringent in its terms, the provision being introduced that in case
hogs, goats, and other cattle were killed, either through wantonness or
carelessness in the effort to drive them from unenclosed land upon
which they were trespassing, the person guilty of the act should pay
double their value as a compensation to the owner. A legal fence was
four and a half feet in height, and closed to the bottom. The owner of
live stock breaking through this fence, and inflicting serious injury
to crops, was compelled to make the amplest satisfaction for the damage
committed.1
It can only be inferred, that the principal
fence in use in Virginia in the seventeenth century was the worm fence.
There are references to rails as early as 1621; in that year, Mr.
Whitaker, a leading planter, is stated to have “railed” in one hundred
acres as a protection to the vines, grain, and other crops which he had
under cultivation in this area of ground.2 An order of the
General Court in 1626, required all who lived in those parts of the
Colony where the cattle ranges were situated, to “rail, pale, or fence”
their tilled lands, a clear recognition of a distinction in the methods
of enclosure. At a much later date, the charge was brought against
Robert Beverley, that instead of using a troop of soldiers under his
command as a guard for the Governor, he had set them to felling trees,
and making and “toating rails.”3 Among the terms
1 Hening’s Statutes,
vol. I, pp. 244, 332. An instance is given in the records of York
County of a man who had failed to fence his land properly, injuring to
such a degree the sow of a neighbor, which had broken into his grain
field, that it was “utterly lost.” He was compelled by order of court
to replace this sow by two sows, each two years of age. Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 281, Va. State Library.
2 Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, vol. I, p. 136.
3 Grievances of Gloster County, 1676, British State Papers, Colonial; Winder Papers, vol. II, pp. 153-156, Va. State Library.
317
which Mr. Reeves of Henrico
inserted in the contract by which he leased a part of his estate to
William Arrington in 1695, was one requiring the latter to maul six
hundred fencing rails.1 The abstraction of such material was a frequent cause of criminal prosecution and civil suit.2
The worm fence, in the construction of
which rails were used, was the invention of the settlers of a new
country where wood was extremely abundant, and sawmills were few in
number. The scarcity and, as a consequence, the costliness of nails in
the early years of colonization were doubtless an element of importance
in its popularity. Whenever it was decided to build an enclosure,
there, in close proximity to the line selected, was a very heavy growth
of timber, only requiring the application of the axe and maul to
convert it into rails for the immediate erection of a fence. No posts
were to be fashioned, no holes to be dug, no nails to be driven in.3
The worm fence is still one of the most familiar features of the
Virginian plantation, a monument, like the fence law itself, of the
perpetuation of agricultural conditions beginning with the very
foundation of the Colony. In spite of its angular character, it is not
devoid of picturesqueness in the plantation landscapes. In the colonial
age, as in the present day, it became, after standing for several
years, a trellis for the vines of the
1 Records of Henrico County, vol. 1688-1697, p. 578, Va. State Library. The references to fence rails in the county records are very numerous. See Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1695-1699, p.176, Va. State Library; Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 123, Va. State Library; Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1694-1705, p. 109.
2 Records of Henrico County, vol. 1682-1701, p. 93, Va. State Library; Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, pp. 123, 125, Va. State Library.
3 The first reference to this fence as the “worm fence,” which I have found, is in Hugh Jones’ Present State of Virginia, p. 39.
318
woods and fields, the grape, the
morning-glory, the honeysuckle and the Virginia creeper, which, with
their vernal or autumnal leaves and blossoms, decorated its ugliness
with their beauty.
Not all of the fences to be found in
Virginia in the seventeenth century were erected in a zigzag shape.
Fitzhugh mentions in one of his letters, that his orchard was protected
by an enclosure of locust wood; this was doubtless a straight fence
constructed of panels, the ends of which were inserted in posts
standing at regular intervals. The durability of locust was already
recognized. Fitzhugh declared that a fence of this material would last
almost for the same length of time as a brick wall.1 There
were also brush fences, which were chiefly used for the protection of
the maize and wheat fields, but which very frequently failed to
accomplish that purpose.2
The year 1684 was a memorable one in the
history of Virginia, as that in which a separate province was formed of
its northern parts.3 The erection of Maryland proved in a
few years to be a fertile source of embarrassment and loss to the
planters of the parent colony. Tobacco was as much the principal crop
of the new province as it was of the old, but as Maryland and Virginia
were now under different administrations, the quantity to be planted
could
1 Letters of William Fitzhugh, April 22, 1686. The following is from the Records of Accomac County,
original vol. 1682-1697, f. p. 129: “Richard Johnson, Mulatto,
doth by these presents forthwith impower you in my name to confess a
judgment unto John Cole to fall, mall, and set up for John Cole upon
his plantation where he shall appoint 400 panels of sufficient post and
rails, every pannell ten foot distance and five rails of pine to every
pannell, and every post to be seven foot and half, one foot and a half
in ye ground, the said post to be all of chestnut and whiteoak.” This
fence was intended to serve as a protection for a cornfield.
2 Records of Henrico County, vol. 1682-1701, p. 14, Va. State Library.
3 Maryland was erected March 27, 1634.
319
not be controlled throughout the
area of cultivation by the establishment of a regulation proceeding
from a single assembly, and in consequence of this inability to enforce
concert of action, the price of the leaf was often depressed by the
amount produced in the two colonies, where it would have been
maintained, if there had been only one, by a compulsory reduction of
that amount. Nothing was to be gained by stinting the crop in Virginia
if the planters north of the Potomac cultivated their usual area in
tobacco the same year; this would only work to the advantage of the
latter, and it was hardly to be expected that the planters south of the
Potomac would be willing to sacrifice themselves for the purpose of
increasing the profits of the planters of Maryland.
When the division took place, it was thought that the population of Virginia did not exceed five thousand.1
It is interesting to note the local distribution of the planters at
this time. In the country situated on both sides of the James River,
between Arrahattock and Shirley Hundred, the census of 1635 disclosed
that there were four hundred and nineteen persons. All of these were
citizens of the county of Henrico. The county of Charles City, also on
both sides of the river, extending from Shirley Hundred Island to
Wyanoke, was inhabited by five hundred and eleven persons; the county
of James City, extending on the south side from Chippoak to Lawnes
Creek, and from the Chickahominy River on the north side to a point
nearly opposite the mouth of the creek, by eight hundred and eighty-six
persons; the county of Warrasquoke, extending
1 Statement of William Pierce, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V; McDonald Papers,
vol. II, p. 21, Va. State Library. The census of 1635 places the
population at 4914. Harvey, in 1630, estimated the number of
inhabitants at 2500 or more. British State Papers, Colonial, vol. V, No. 95; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1630, p. 220, Va. State Library.
320
from the southern limit of the
county of James City to Warrasquoke River, by five hundred and
twenty-two. The counties of Warwick River and Elizabeth City, which
included all the remaining settlements on the James River, contained
sixteen hundred and seventy. The plantations lying on the modern York
formed the county of Charles River, and had a population of five
hundred and ten. The county of Accomac had a population of three
hundred and ninety-six. It will be seen from this brief enumeration,
that the plantations continued to be more thickly grouped in the county
of James City than in any other part of the Colony.1
In spite of the fact, that the enlargement
of the area under cultivation in tobacco in Virginia, in consequence of
the steady encroachment of the cleared estates upon the line of forest,
was rapidly increasing the volume of the English customs, Charles still
persisted in allowing no opportunity to pass without urging upon the
attention of the planters the advisability of diversifying their crops.
In 1636, the addition to the royal revenue from the importation of
tobacco by one ship alone amounted to three thousand three hundred and
thirty-four pounds sterling,2 and yet in the ensuing year
the King addressed a letter to the Governor and Council in which he
declared, that the assertion that the Colony would be ruined, if the
culture of tobacco was abandoned, was false, if any conclusion was to
be drawn from what was to be observed in the English West Indies. The
inhabitants of these islands had ceased to plant it, and had directed
their
1 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 55; Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, 1874, p. 91.
2 Secretary Kemp to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 9; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1636, p. 154, Va. State Library.
321
energies to the production of other commodities.1
The people of Virginia were, however, in a different position from the
people of the English colonies in the tropics. Tobacco was the only
profitable crop which at that time was adapted to the situation as well
as to the agricultural conditions of the Virginian settlements. When
the leaf declined in price to one penny a pound, a depression largely
due to the amount exported from Barbadoes, Mevis, and St. Christopher
to the English market, the planters of these islands directed their
attention to cotton. It was also admitted that the character of the
tobacco produced in their soil was not very good. In a few years, the
cultivation of sugar and indigo, ginger and oranges, was added to that
of cotton. In Barbadoes, the sugar-mills were turned by oxen which had
been imported from Virginia. So great had the prosperity of that Colony
become by 1649, that one hundred vessels were employed in its carrying
trade; a very much larger number than were plying at this time between
England and the Virginian plantations.
The plan of reducing the volume of the
annual crop by restricting the number of plants to the head had, by the
end of 1637, led to some important results which had not at the time of
the establishment of the regulation been foreseen. The limitation
caused many persons to forsake their estates in search of lands
offering the virgin loam in which tobacco attained its largest growth.2 If they
1 King to Governor and Council of Virginia, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 47; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1637, pp. 191-194, Va. State Library.
2 Burgesses to Governor and Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 96, II; Winder Papers,
vol. I, pp. 114, 115, Va. State Library. One effect of the limitation
of planting, it was said, was to discourage the use of the plough,
because, in creating a disposition to desert old estates, it led to the
abandonment of the only soil in which that implement could [footnote continues on p. 322]
be employed, newly cleared lands being obstructed by roots and stumps.
Another effect was to induce the planters to gather the inferior leaves
near the ground, and thus lower the average quality of the tobacco
secured.
322
had remained on the plantations
abandoned, they would have been compelled to cultivate a soil more or
less exhausted, and only capable of producing that commodity in
profitable quantities by the application of manure. This could only
have been obtained from the live stock. In spite of the greater
attention which by 1637 was paid to the increase of the cattle, the
manure to be gotten from them was comparatively small, as they were
suffered to wander very much at large. Even if an abundant supply,
however, could have been secured by penning them, the improvement of
the ground by this means would not have been as satisfactory in its
effect as the natural fertility of the mould of newly cleared land. It
was early observed that tobacco taken from a field enriched by its
conversion into a cow-pen was very rank in its flavor, which diminished
the value that it would otherwise have derived from its bulkiness. The
leaf grown in the bottoms along the streams was to be preferred not
only in point of weight, but also in quality. It was not entirely greed
of land, or even an inordinate desire to raise tobacco, that led to the
rapid extension of the settlements; it was largely the necessity
imposed upon the tiller of the ground to secure, in the restricted
number of plants allowed him by the terms of the law, the heaviest
weight which the soil under the most favorable conditions would impart
to that number. In the absence of such a law, there would have been a
strong disposition among the colonists to sue out patents to new land,
but stimulated by the operation of such a regulation, there were but
two influences likely to restrain that disposition, the expense of
hewing down the forests, and the danger of attack
323
from the lurking savages. So
constant was the apprehension of Indian incursions, that it is stated
that one-third of the laborers were at this time engaged in performing
the duties of guards.
The inclination to abandon old plantations
and to take up new ones, which was promoted by the restrictive laws
referred to, had both a beneficial and an injurious effect; it
encouraged a more active destruction of the woods, but at the same time
it fostered a spirit of indifference in the owners of land as to the
manner in which they used it. They neglected the fencing of their
grounds, they failed to establish pastures for their cattle, or to lay
off orchards and gardens, or even to plant corn. So frail were many of
the dwelling-houses in consequence of the purpose of the occupants to
desert their estates as soon as exhausted by the culture of tobacco,
that special instructions were sent to the Governor to discourage by
every means in his power the erection of such temporary habitations.
The tendency to go elsewhere was, however, not to be rooted out by
instructions or laws. The same motives in a modified form were to be
seen in the disposition of many persons to sue out patents to new lands
without having any intention of abandoning the estates upon which they
were residing. The influences leading to the expansion by purchase of
the boundaries of plantations in subsequent times, when the whole
surface of the country had been appropriated, were at work at this
early period, but it exhibited itself not so much in enlarging single
tracts as a means of securing a virgin soil, as in obtaining patents to
entirely separate lands which remained unreclaimed, and which were
frequently situated at a great distance from the first estate.
In 1639, in spite of the efforts to curtail the production of tobacco with a view to increasing its value, the price
324
of the highest grades declined to
such a point that the planters were hardly able to gain a bare
subsistence. In this emergency a law was passed,1 requiring
that all the mean product should be destroyed and one-half of the good,
the object being to reduce the volume of the crop to one million five
hundred thousand pounds. That amount, as experience had shown, always
commanded a price which left some margin for profit, because the
quantity was not in excess of the demand in the English markets. It was
further provided that during the course of the following two years, the
amount of tobacco to be cultivated to the head should not run over two
hundred and seventy pounds.
The details of this Act are interesting as
showing how carefully considered were the regulations which the
authorities of the Colony adopted to enforce a reduction in the
quantity of the leaf produced as well as an improvement in its quality.
Three viewers were appointed to serve in each district as laid off by
the provisions of the statute, the whole number being two hundred and
thirteen, including many of the most prominent and influential planters
in Virginia. The tobacco belonging to the inspectors themselves,
growing in the limits of their respective jurisdictions, was to be
examined by persons who had been chosen to perform this duty by the
commanders of the different counties. The penalty inflicted upon a
viewer for neglecting to carry out the requirements of the law was the
forfeiture of five pounds sterling. The planter was to be allowed
several days, after the publication of the intention of the inspectors
to examine the tobacco in their districts, to make an assortment of the
different grades of his crop, and if he took advantage of the
opportunity to convey the whole, or a part of it secretly on
325
board ship, or if he had already
done this previous to the public announcement by the viewers that they
would proceed upon their rounds by a designated time, he was, if
detected in this violation of the statute, compelled to pay double the
quantity of leaf which he had sought to remove out of sight, one-half
to be sold for the benefit of the public treasury, and the other to be
appropriated by the viewers in whose limits the fraudulent act was
committed. If the planter had crops in different precincts, he was
permitted to burn on one of his plantations the whole proportion of the
fine grades which he was commanded to destroy, and to reserve the
entire quantity of good leaf on another plantation for sale. The
inspectors were authorized to break down the doors of any building in
which they had reason to think that tobacco was concealed, and in doing
this, they were not compelled to show the ordinary search-warrant in
justification.
While the Acts for curtailing the area
under cultivation in tobacco and improving the quality of the leaf
offered for sale, were doubtless evaded to an important extent,
nevertheless they must have accomplished their object substantially.
Tobacco was constantly fluctuating in value, and not infrequently sank
below the cost of producing it, but in the main, it sold at rates that
promoted the rapid advance of Virginia in all the elements of material
wealth. If the competition of other British possessions had been
removed, and the introduction into England of the Spanish leaf by
illegal methods had been successfully obstructed, the restrictive
statutes passed by the Assembly would have easily kept the supply of
the commodity on an equality with the demand, in spite of the growth of
population in the Colony, and the increase in the number of
plantations. In applying the rigid inspection law, it can be easily
seen that the crops of many
326
persons could not successfully
stand the test except in small part, and thus the labor of the year
would practically go for nothing. It was largely apprehension that
tobacco obtained from the comparatively exhausted soil of the estate
that had been under cultivation for some years would not pass
inspection, which led so many of the planters to show such eagerness in
suing out patents to virgin land that was certain to bring forth the
highest grades of the leaf. The small planter in particular was
absolutely dependent each year upon the proceeds of his crop, and any
cause which destroyed it altogether, or even diminished its volume very
seriously, was a blow from which it was difficult for him to recover.
One of the objections urged against the passage of the inspection law
was, that the transportation of tobacco by boat, the only means which
was then used for moving it (the plantations being situated on
navigable streams), would expose it to a great variety of risks, which
if realized would signify the temporary ruin of the owners who should
happen to suffer the loss that would thus be incurred.
Secretary Kemp declared that the customs
upon the tobacco of Virginia, in 1636, ought to have amounted to twenty
thousand pounds sterling, and he recommended, as a means of showing the
annual volume of the shipments, that a custom house should be
established in the Colony.1 The English authorities approved the suggestion, although they had practically rejected it when offered by Harvey.2 Instructions were sent to the Governor and Council to select some place in Virginia which was fitted to be a port
1 Secretary Kemp to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 9; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1636, p. 154, Va. State Library.
2 Letter of Governor Harvey and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 3; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1633, p. 53, Va. State Library.
327
of entry. Here all the articles
to be sent out were to be carefully scrutinized, and an account of them
kept in detail. A yearly statement was to be transmitted to the Lord
Treasurer in England of the various commodities that had been actually
exported. The officer appointed to supervise the cargoes and keep a
record of them, was to receive as his remuneration two pence upon each
cask of tobacco put on shipboard. This charge was only indirectly a
duty.1
These instructions were, in February, 1637, embodied by the General Assembly into a law, and Kemp was chosen Register;2
to him the fee of two pence on each cask of tobacco, and at the same
rate on other commodities, was to be paid by the masters of the vessels
upon their delivering their invoices into his hands. During the first
year following the formal adoption of this regulation, no fees were
received, because the ships had already taken on board their loading
when the rule went into effect; in the second year, however, payment
was made, and made in the form of tobacco, coin, and bills of exchange.
The Treasurer of the Colony, Jerome Hawley, had now been substituted
for Secretary Kemp as Register, but dying soon after, Kemp was
reappointed to the position. In 1639, instead of settling this tax
either in coin, tobacco, or bills as formerly, the shipmasters were
permitted to give bonds as security for the amount due by them.3
The great depression in the prices of tobacco in 1638 and 1639 had, hike the similar depression in 1629, already
1 King’s Letter, August 4, 1636, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 60, I; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 233, Va. State Library.
2 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 40; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1637, p. 186, Va. State Library.
3 British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 110; vol. X, No. 5 Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638, p. 19, Va. State Library; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 242, Va. State Library.
328
referred to, the effect of
directing the attention of the planters of Virginia to products to
which they had previously given only a small part of their thoughts and
energies. In 1638, the Burgesses forwarded a special communication to
the Privy Council in England, in which they declared that the interest
in the culture of silk had revived very much, and their messenger
presented to the Secretary of that body a considerable quantity of the
Virginian product to show the excellence of its quality.1 On
the other hand, the interest in the culture of the vine had declined so
far, that the law of 1632, requiring that twenty slips to the head
should be annually planted, was expressly repealed, and it was provided
instead that each landholder should produce a certain amount of flax
and hemp.2 Governor Harvey had sowed a large quantity of
rape seed not long after his arrival in the Colony. He also made an
attempt to cultivate olives, lemons, oranges, pomegranates, and figs.3
He was probably only successful with the latter, a fruit which had been
shown already to be adapted to the soil of Virginia; in a garden owned
by Mrs. Pierce at Jamestown, extending over an area of three or four
acres, as much as one hundred bushels of figs had been gathered in one
year.4
Influenced by repeated instructions from
England, Harvey continued to promote by his own example the production
of English grain in Virginia. In the closing year of his
administration, he wrote to the English authorities that four of the
members of the Council
1 Governor Harvey to English Secretary of State, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 5; Winder Papers, vol. I, p. 147, Va. State Library.
2 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 218.
3 Governor Harvey to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VIII, No. 22; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1634, p. 71, Va. State Library.
4 Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 887.
329
would begin to sow wheat as soon
as the proper season arrived to prepare the land for the reception of
the seed, and that there was reason to think that in this step they
would be followed by others.1 When Devries visited Virginia
in 1643, he found that the planters were putting down in English grain
the lands which had been exhausted by successive crops of tobacco.2
The attention paid to wheat led to its production in such large
quantities, that for the first time in the history of the Colony it
became an important part of the commodities exported. For some years,
Indian corn had been sent from Virginia to New England, and also to the
West Indies; now, in addition, both wheat and maize were disposed of to
the traders of Maryland, Manhattan, and Carolina. The obstacles
overcome in cultivating English grain proves that there must have been
a growing market for its sale. It was calculated by Williams, that it
required a month to turn over twelve acres with a single plough,
although, by exercising great industry, a man and boy might accomplish
this work in twelve days; it was, however, safer, in his opinion, to
allow a margin more than equal to this period, the length of time
necessary being due as much to the inefficiency of the plough as to the
roughness of the soil to be broken up. Two able-bodied laborers were
sufficient to sow sixty acres in wheat in the course of one season, and
to reap the grain when it was in a condition to be harvested. Such an
area of land would bring forth a quantity amounting in value to four
hundred
1 Governor Harvey and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 5; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638-39, p. 57, Va. State Library.
2 Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 183.
3 Virginia Richly Valued, p. 13, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. III. See also Rogers’ History of Agriculture and Prices in England, vol. V, p. 54.
330
and eighty pounds sterling. The
fifteenth Act of Assembly, in the session of 1639, permitted “corn,” in
which term both wheat and maize were doubtless included, to be exported
whenever the price sank below twelve shillings a bushel.1
Any one shipping grain from the country had to secure special
permission to do so. In February, 1639, John Stratton was authorized to
transport grain and cattle presumably to New England, and instructions
were given to the Captain of the fort at Point Comfort to grant him
free egress, provided that he bore away no prohibited commodity;
similar commissions were subsequently issued to William Hunt and Edward
Robins, to enable them to export to the same quarter a quantity of
grain and pork.2 Precautions were taken that the ships
carrying these articles to the northern colonies should convey all
tobacco which they had on board to London, as directed in the order of
the Privy Council, bearing the date of July 2, 1634.3 No one
was allowed to purchase maize from the Indians for less than sixteen
shillings a barrel, the contents of a barrel being forty gallons; this
regulation was perhaps designed to prevent the acquisition of Indian
corn at a very reduced price from the aborigines, as this would have
enabled the buyer to dispose of it afterwards at a lower rate than the
planter was willing to sell the grain produced by himself.4
Berkeley, like his predecessors Harvey and
Wyatt, had, upon his appointment as Governor, been specially directed
to encourage a diversification of the agricultural products of
Virginia, and he proceeded soon after his arrival to
1 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 227.
2 General Court Orders, January, 1639, Robinson Transcripts, p. 180.
3 Ibid., May 6, 1640, Robinson Transcripts, p. 183.
4 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 227.
331
carry out his instructions by
urging the passage of the necessary laws, as well as by setting an
example in his own person. He planted at an early day a considerable
area of land in flax, hemp, and cotton. A few years afterwards he began
an experiment with rice, and from half a bushel of seed sown harvested
fifteen bushels; the result was looked upon as being so satisfactory,
that the anticipation was confidently entertained that rice would soon
be cultivated in such abundance in the Colony that it could be bought
for two pence a pound. The notion was prevalent that the climate and
soil were well adapted to the grain, this notion being largely based on
the assertions of the African slaves, who stated that they found the
conditions in Virginia as favorable to the production of rice as in the
country from which they came.1 Subsequent experience has,
however, gone to show that while the deep soil of the river bottoms is
sufficiently fertile for the plant, the climate is not hot enough for
its development in perfection. It was provided by law, that whoever
obtained a patent for an hundred acres of land should be required to
establish a garden and orchard, carefully protected by a fence, ditch,
or hedge.2 In the immediate vicinity of his house at Green
Spring, Governor Berkeley had fifteen hundred apple, peach, apricot,
quince, and other fruit trees.3 It had been observed by
those who had had an opportunity of making the comparison, that the
flavor of Virginian fruit was superior to the flavor of that of
England, this being true in the most marked degree of the peach and
quince, which in Virginia grew on standing
1 New Description of Virginia, p. 14, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II.
2 Instructions to Berkeley, 1641, § 25, Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. II, p. 287. Act of Assembly, 1639, Robinson Transcripts, p. 216.
3 Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 204.
332
trees instead of against walls as
in England. The Menifie plantation was famous in the Colony for the
quantity and variety of its fruits, herbs, and vegetables, the garden
containing rosemary, sage, marjoram, and thyme, the apple, the pear,
and the cherry, while the house itself was surrounded by peach trees.1
A large orchard was owned by Mr. Hough of Nansemond; Richard Bennett
had also planted many apple trees, and from the fruit annually
expressed about twenty butts of cider, while Richard Kinsman obtained
from his pears every year from forty to fifty butts of perry. It was
the habit of some persons at this time to graft upon the indigenous
crabstocks.2
There are many indications that during the
course of Governor Berkeley’s first administration, which began in
1641, and lasted until the surrender of the Colony to the commissioners
of the Commonwealth in 1651, there was a very great increase in the
number of neat cattle in Virginia. In 1640, it was provided that only
the seventh head should be exported.3 At the same time, few
steps seem to have been taken to furnish the live stock with food in
winter, when they were always likely to need it.4 Neat cattle, however, were thought to be so valuable, and
1 Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 50. The first peach trees referred to in the history of Virginia were at Kecoughtan. See Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 887. This was in 1629. The date of Devries’ reference to the peach trees at Menefie’s was 1633.
2 New Description of Virginia, p. 14, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II. This was probably Kingsmill, not Kinsman.
3 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 227.
4 This, however, was not unusual, as time following from the Records of York County,
vol. 1638-1648, p. 278, Va. State Library, will show: “These presents
Witnesseth that I, William Thornton, do bind Myself to look after the
Cattle for the use of John Liptrott until such time that he doth come
to age and carefully provide fodder for them as I do for my own.”
333
in consequence of the fence law
there was so much danger of their going astray, that the branding iron
was used very freely in marking them. The gift or assignment of a cow
or heifer and her future offspring became now very common, and the
transfer was as a rule considered important enough to be placed on
record;1 if the beneficiary of the present was under age, as
was so often the case, overseers were appointed to take charge of the
animal until the minor reached maturity.2
In 1645, cows were sold in New England as
high in some cases as thirty pounds sterling, which explains the
exportation of so large a number from Virginia to the northern colonies.3
The price afterwards fell to five pounds. At this time the value of
horned cattle seems to have varied but little in different parts of
Virginia itself. In 1644, cows were appraised in York at five hundred
pounds of tobacco apiece, which was equivalent to sixty-two shillings.4
In 1647 and 1648, they were appraised in the same county at three
hundred and twenty pounds, and this was maintained on the average until
the close of the century.5 In 1648, a full-grown cow
belonging to the Yates estate in Lower Norfolk was valued at four
hundred pounds, but this was exceptional.6 In 1640, a bull
in Virginia, which had been wantonly killed, was decided by the General
Court to be worth seven hundred pounds, which at three pence a pound
was equivalent to
1 An example will be found in Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 63, Va. State Library.
2 See, for instance, Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 127, Va. State Library.
3 Bishop’s History of American Manufactures, vol. I, p. 431.
4 Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 186, Va. State Library.
5 Ibid., p. 295, Va. State Library.
6 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1681, f. p. 95.
334
eight and a third pounds sterling. This valuation was to some extent punitive.1 In 1644, when tobacco was worth one and a half pence a pound, a bull was appraised in York at four hundred, and fifty pounds.2
In 1648, a stoned calf was appraised in the same county at eighty
pounds. In 1645, a bull was valued in Lower Norfolk at five hundred,
and a few years afterwards at three hundred.3 In 1644, a
steer was appraised in York at three hundred pounds; two years later,
there is an instance, both in York and Lower Norfolk, of the valuation
of an animal of the same kind at six hundred. Heifers in York ranged in
the same interval from two hundred and sixty pounds of tobacco to four
hundred.
The records covering the period immediately
previous to 1649, do not indicate that the number of horned cattle
belonging to individual planters was very large. Edward Perceval of
York owned ten head; John Sakers of the same county, twenty-three;
William Stafford, also of York, twenty-seven.5 Robert Glasseock of Lower Norfolk owned seven head; the May estate in the same county, twelve; and the Yates estate, thirteen.6
These holdings were probably fairly representative of the different
parts of the Colony, although in the aggregate the number of cattle was
very large. In all of these instances, a considerable number of hogs
must be added. There appear
1 Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 232.
2 Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 186, Va. State Library.
3 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1651, f. p. 95.
4 Ibid., f. p. 95; Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 186. Va. State Library.
5 Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, pp. 59, 61, 186, Va. State Library.
6 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1651, f. pp. 46, 95, 140.
335
to have been no sheep in some of
the counties, but very many goats. It was not until the middle of the
century had passed that the records of Lower Norfolk contain references
to sheep, but the listed property in live stock reveals from an earlier
date the presence of a large number of goats in each district of that
county.1
The references to horses in the county
records just previous to 1649 are rare, because at this period there
were still very few in the Colony. The returns from the districts of
the several collectors in Lower Norfolk show, that in 1647 only five
were enumerated in that county for taxation.2 Robert Evelyn,
in mentioning the kinds of live stock which the settlers of New Albion
could export from Virginia, named only cows, goats, and hogs.3
With a view to increasing the number of horses, the Quarter Court
convening at Jamestown in March, 1639, granted to Thomas Stegge and
Jeremy Blackman the right to import these animals into the Colony from
abroad,4 and a few years later the General Assembly, having
the same object in view, permitted, as an exception to the general
regulation, that all debts contracted for horses and, sheep, to be paid
in coin, should be recoverable upon suit.5 in 1645, however, the poll tax, which bore very heavily upon the poorer section of the population,6
was abolished temporarily, and in its place four pounds of tobacco were
levied for every cow the age of which exceeded three years;
1 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1651, f. p. 56.
2 Ibid., p. 56.
3 New Albion, p. 32, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II.
4 Privy Council to Governor and Council in Virginia, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 57; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1639, p. 90, Va. State Library.
5 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 268.
6 Ibid., pp. 305, 306.
336
thirty-two pounds for every
horse, mare, or gelding; four pounds for every breeding sheep; and two
pounds for every breeding goat. This tax, as long as it remained in
force, must have had a discouraging influence on the live stock
interests of the Colony; in 1648, it was repealed, on the ground that
it had been created only to raise funds for carrying on the war with
the Indians then in progress, an emergency which had now passed.1
In 1649, there were about fifteen thousand people in Virginia independently of the slaves, who were three hundred in number.2
There were twenty thousand calves, cows, bulls, and oxen. One authority
calculates that their number at this time was thirty thousand.3
The cheese and butter produced in the Colony was thought to be
excellent. There were only two hundred horses and mares, but many were
sprung from blooded stock. The sheep had increased to three thousand,
and the flocks would have been very much larger had not the wolves
continued so destructive in spite of the prize that was offered for
heads, this having been increased from fifty7 to one hundred
pounds of tobacco, payable by the commissioners of the county courts.
It shows the multitude of these animals, as well as the activity of the
colonists in killing them, that at one meeting of the justices of Lower
Norfolk in 1649, twenty-one heads were presented to secure the reward.5 There were about five thousand
1 Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 356.
2 This statement, and
those that follow, except when a different authority is given, are
taken from the New Description of Virginia, pp. 1-16, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II.
3 Bullock’s Virginia, p. 7. Bullock estimated the number of horses in Virginia at two hundred. See p. 8.
4 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1637-1642, f. p. 12, Order of Court, Oct. 28, 1639.
5 Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1646-1651, f. p. 128.
337
goats and a still larger number
of hogs, both domestic and wild. There were many hundred acres in
wheat, producing from eight to twelve quarters an acre.1
This grain was now sold at the rate of four shillings a bushel. Many
persons also raised oats and barley. A very large quantity of maize was
cultivated, the increase being two hundred and fifty quarters for every
quarter planted.2 The law still remained on the statute-book
requiring that each landholder should put down two acres in grain for
every individual in his service, and in order to enforce this law with
the utmost strictness, it was provided that each constable should
periodically view the fields of all the planters in his bailiwick, and
in case of a shortage in acreage, or inattention to the removal of
weeds, should report the default to the commissioners of the County
Court, who were to impose a heavy fine for each acre that was lacking,
or open to condemnation.3 In the production of tobacco it
was calculated that the labor of one man would ensure twenty or
twenty-five pounds sterling, rating the value of the leaf at three
pence a pound. The hops that had been planted throve well. There was a
great abundance of potatoes, asparagus, carrots, turnips, parsnips,
onions, and artichokes, and a large store of Indian peas and beans. At
this time, rice was cultivated,4 and indigo flourished to
such a degree that the Virginians were anxious to obtain an amount of
seed which might enable them to supply the whole of Christendom, the
supposition being that one laborer could produce two thousand pounds of
the plant in one year. Larger expectations
1 Bullock’s Virginia, p. 9.
2 Ibid.
3 An instance of the enforcement of the law is given in the Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 358, Va. State Library.
4 New Albion, p. 32, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II; New Description of Virginia, p. 14, Ibid., vol. II.
338
than usual were now entertained
as to the advantages to accrue from silk culture, and by some
enthusiasts it was even anticipated that silk would supersede tobacco.1 Wine also was expressed from three varieties of grape;2 it was even proposed to introduce into the Colony highly skilled vine-dressers from Southern Europe.3
As the number of ploughs going in Virginia in 1649 did not exceed one
hundred and fifty, and these were probably in the possession of a few
persons,4 the greater proportion of the soil planted must
have been prepared for culture with the hoe, the probability of which
is increased by the fact, that so large a part of the land under
cultivation had only recently been cleared of forest, leaving the
surface of the ground interspersed with stumps, and the earth beneath
interlaced with enormous roots, which would have destroyed any plough
of that age.
There have been transmitted to us several interesting accounts of what was necessary, about the middle of the
1 Leah and Rachel, p. 19, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. III.
2 Bullock’s Virginia, p. 8.
3 Virginia Richly Valued, pp. 16, 17, Force’s Historical Tracts,
vol. III. “Before the Greek vigneroons go over,” remarks the author of
this treatise, “they shall be consulted as to what ground is proper,
what season fit, what prevention of casualties by bleeding or
splitting, what way to preserve or restore wine when vesseled, what
species of wine is fittest for transportation or retention in the
Country, which for duration, which for present spending; it being in
experience manifest that some wines refine themselves by purge upon the
sea; others by the same means, suffer an evaporation of their spirits,
joyne to this that some wines collect strength and richnesse, others
contract feebleness and sowernes by seniority. These consultations,
drawne to a head by some able person and published, to be sent over in
severall copies to Virginia, by the inspection of which people might
arrive at such competent knowledge in the mystery that the reservation
or jealousies of the vigneroons could not but be presently perceived
and prevented.”
4 James Stone of York County was the owner of three of these implements. Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 391, Va. State Library.
339
seventeenth century, for the
equipment of a person who had decided to remove to Virginia, or the
country adjacent to that Colony, with the intention of becoming a
planter. According to Robert Evelyn,1 he should carry over a
considerable amount of merchandise to be invested on his arrival in
cattle. With six pounds sterling worth of goods he would be able to
purchase a cow, an ox, two goats, and two sows. He should be careful to
take with him provisions to supply the needs of himself and the persons
who accompanied him, until he was in a position to obtain from the
ground the food which he and his companions would require; these
provisions should consist of biscuit, peas, oatmeal, acquavitę, malt,
pork, beef and fish, two bushels of roots, and five pounds of butter.
He should carry over a hogshead of wheat, and also vegetables, hemp,
and flaxseed. The tools which he would want were art axe, spade, and
shovel, together with a considerable quantity of steel and iron to be
used in repairing. Nails should also be taken along. The emigrant
should not forget to carry with him weapons of defence and attack, and
a supply of ammunition. Evelyn computed that the whole cost of the
equipment described would not exceed ten pounds and five shillings.
Williams, the author of Virginia Richly Valued, recommended2
that every emigrant, before setting out for Virginia, should provide
himself with a monmouth cap and waist-coat, bands, shirts, shoes and
stockings, and a suit, canvas to make sheets, blankets and a rug. He
should carry over for household use, a large iron pot, big and small
kettles, skillets, frying-pans, a gridiron and spit, platters, dishes,
spoons, knives, sugar, spice, and fruit; and, also, for plantation
purposes, broad and
340
narrow hoes, axes, hand, whip,
and band saws, hammers, shovels, and spades, augers, piercers, gimlets,
hatchets, bills, frows, pickaxes, nails, grindstones, and ploughs; and
also nets, hooks, and lines. He would need in addition a complete suit
of light armor, a sword, musket or fowling piece, with a sufficient
quantity of shot and powder. The cost of these various articles would
not for each individual exceed eleven pounds sterling.
Bullock declared1 that the
emigrant going over to Virginia with two servants would need a plough,
three spades, three shovels, three mattocks, two axes, two hatchets,
one large and one small hand-saw, all of which could be procured at an
expense of three pounds and eight shillings; three gallons of liquor
and a case, which would cost one pound; a fowling-piece, with powder
and shot, and a casting-net with hooks and lines, which would entail an
outlay of two pounds and twenty shillings; an iron pot and frying-pan,
wooden platters, dishes and porringers, which could be bought for one
pound; and lastly, a miscellaneous collection of linen and woollen
clothing, shoes, ironware, and other articles, not to exceed twenty
pounds in value. An additional expenditure of twenty-four pounds and
eight shillings would be ample for the purchase of the number of cows,
oxen, pigs, and poultry, as well as the quantity of seed of different
sorts, that would be needed.
During the first year following the arrival
of the new comer, in case he did not proceed at once to the culture of
tobacco, which was doubtless the course pursued by the great majority
of the immigrants at this time, the usual plan was for him to secure
lodgings for himself and his servants in the house of a planter who had
long resided in Virginia, and to rent a body of land that had
341
been too much exhausted to
produce tobacco further. Soil of this character was so abundant, that
the owners were generally willing to allow it to be tilled by others
without charge, or to lease it at a rate nearly nominal. After his seed
had been sown, the new colonist had an opportunity to select a place of
permanent settlement, and when he had secured his crops, he was in a
position to remove his servants, tools and implements, utensils and
household goods to the tract which he had decided to take up under
patent. In choosing a plantation, he was governed not only by the
fertility of the ground, but also by its proximity to a navigable
stream, and to neighbors, and by its freedom from ague and fever. The
rule followed by the small farmer, who decided to continue in Virginia
the cultivation of the products with which he had been familiar in
England, was to put down about twenty acres in wheat and three in flax.
At this time the Dutch method of ploughing had been partially
introduced, and wherever it had been adopted, one man was able to break
up the soil, while the master and the other servants erected fences
around the fields as a protection against wandering cows, horses, and
hogs, as well as deer. When the earth had been turned over, the seed
planted and the enclosures completed, there was nothing to be done
until the wheat and flax had ripened. The flax was the first to be
harvested, the seed having been sown in May. It was liberally
calculated that the sowing and the beating out of this crop would cover
the space of three weeks; twenty-five were allowed for the dressing of
nine hundred stone, this being a much more ample provision in point of
time than the same process was permitted to occupy in England. Three
weeks constituted the period allotted for reaping the wheat, the
operation of securing it even from so small an area as twenty acres
342
being extremely slow, because the
implements employed were still the immemorial sickle and hook. Where
the grain was trodden out by oxen, it required a fortnight to finish
the threshing, and as much as ten weeks if other means were used. The
average amount of wheat to be produced to an acre was computed at five
quarters, while for the same area there were expected three hundred
stone of flax, in addition to fifteen bushels of flaxseed. From twenty
acres of wheat one hundred quarters would be reaped, which, at twenty
shillings a quarter, would signify a return of one hundred pounds
sterling. Three acres in flax would yield on an average nine hundred
stone, which, valued at the rate of one shilling and four pence a
stone, the price it commanded at this time in the English market, would
ensure sixty pounds sterling, to which should be added twelve pounds
for the forty-eight bushels of seed that this number of acres sowed in
flax would produce. The twenty acres would thus bring forth crops of a
salable value of one hundred and seventy-two pounds sterling.
Bullock, to whom I am indebted for these
details, believed from his own personal observation at this period,
that there was no country offering more numerous opportunities than
Virginia to a man of industry, to improve his condition in life. He
dwells upon the hypothetical instance of a small planter recently
established in the Colony, who sends to England a cargo of tobacco
valued at one hundred pounds sterling, representing what remains to him
as profit after the payment of all the expenses of his agricultural
operations during the previous twelve months. The sum coming to him
from its sale is disposed of by his agent in the mother country under,
instructions from him as follows: fifty pounds sterling in buying
clothing for six men who had been
343
secured as agricultural servants,
and in paying the charges entailed in their transportation to Virginia;
six pounds sterling in purchasing two guns, and the necessary amount of
powder and shot, and also tips and shares for ploughs, and iron tools
of different sorts; thirty pounds sterling in buying merchandise to be
exchanged in the Colony for cattle; eleven pounds sterling in paying
commissions and the like fees, and the remainder in covering the rates
of insurance. At the end, of the operations of the second year, the
planter, who in the beginning had invested barely fifty pounds
sterling, finds himself in possession of an estate worth six hundred,
in which the value of his live stock is included. Our author compares
the condition of such a man with that of the English farmer, whose only
aim was to secure enough by his exertions to enable him to pay the rent
of his landlord, and to earn a bare subsistence for himself and his
family, his life being made up of an unbroken round of grinding labor,
unrelieved by even a fleeting hope of accumulating a small pecuniary
independence. So great was the confidence of Bullock in the success of
the English farmer who, would emigrate from his native country, to
become a planter in Virginia, that he thought it proper to warn all who
entertained such an intention, against that inflation of mind which
follows the acquisition of riches, and to urge upon them in
anticipation of the certain good fortune to which they would attain in
the Colony, to hold Providence always in remembrance, as the cause of
their happy condition.
Bullock did not restrict to the English
farmer the alluring prospect of the great advantages to be obtained by
removing to Virginia. The yeoman who drew an annual income of ten,
fifteen, or twenty pounds sterling from his fields in England, could
rely upon securing an income of
344
three hundred pounds in the
Colony. To the younger son of the great landowner, whose principal
estate had descended to his eldest, Virginia offered an excellent
opportunity for the investment of what property he had inherited;
instead of remaining in the mother country to eke out support of his
family on fifty, sixty, or a hundred pounds sterling a year, he could
make a settlement in the Colony, and so use his little fortune that in
a few years he would be in as easy circumstances as his eldest brother.
To the eldest brother himself, Bullock suggested the wisdom in those
violent times of not keeping all that he possessed in the kingdom,
where it was subject to diminution or entire destruction at any moment,
but of dividing it into two parts, and investing one in land in
Virginia, in which shape he predicted that in a short time it would
become more valuable than the whole of the remainder in England,
besides offering a safe harbor to which the owner could fly in case he
was overtaken by the storms that the civil distractions of that age
were so constantly creating.