# Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century/Chapter 17

​CHAPTER XVII
MANUFACTURED SUPPLIES: DOMESTIC
In describing the influences which led to the colonization of Virginia by the English people, it was pointed out that among the objects sought to be secured by that memorable enterprise were not only the acquisition of a virgin territory in which might be produced those raw materials that England was compelled to purchase at a heavy expense, and with a constant risk of interruption, from the Continental nations, but also the creation of a new market in which she might dispose of an enormous quantity of merchandise of her own manufacture. These two anticipations were closely related to each other. The principles they represented were the corner-stones of the famous mercantile system, which formed the commercial policy of the English Government from the beginning of the sixteenth to the close of the eighteenth century. The planters in Virginia were expected to export their raw materials to England, and in return to receive from the mother country the various supplies required. The exclusive attention given to tobacco from the earliest period in the history of the settlement defeated one of the leading purposes for which it was founded; that is to say, the new Colony failed to furnish England with the commodities which she had been exporting from Russia, Sweden, Holland, France, Spain, and the East. It will be remembered that the exportations in question left the ​balance of trade constantly in favor of these countries. The amount of English goods which they took in exchange was insignificant, and as the difference in the balance in trade was paid in coin, there resulted a condition which in that age appeared full of danger to English interests. The persistence with which the Virginians continued to cultivate tobacco occasioned keen disappointment to English economists in the early part of the seventeenth century, as it destroyed all prospect of the Colony’s furnishing a remedy for this supposedly unfortunate state of trade by presenting a field where England would be able to procure the raw materials which she required in exchange for her manufactures, without the need of passing a single pound sterling in addition.
While Virginia did not fulfil the hope that had been entertained as to its ability to furnish the English people with the supplies exported hitherto from the continent of Europe, the expectation that it would form a valuable market for the sale of English merchandise was soon found to be just. That the Colony was in a position to purchase this merchandise was to be attributed not to shipments of iron, timber, potash, hemp, silk, and the other commodities which English statesmen had at one time so confidently looked forward to obtaining from its soil, but to shipments of tobacco, a product which, in the beginning, the English Government had sought strenuously to discourage, and had afterwards striven hard to monopolize, at first unsuccessfully but successfully later, when, by the terms of the Navigation Act of 1660, it became an enumerated article.
The same commercial principle influencing the English authorities to use every means at their command to prevent the diversion to Holland and other foreign countries of the tobacco produced in Virginia, also impelled them ​to repress all efforts on the part of the colonists to manufacture their own clothing and other supplies equally necessary. The Dutch did not pay for the cargoes which they purchased of the Virginians in coin or bills of exchange, but in merchandise of various sorts. Every coat worn by the planter, every dram of spirits consumed by him, which had been obtained by means of tobacco from traders of Holland, diminished to that extent the value of the Virginian market for English goods; and to an equal extent, the value of that market was diminished whenever the planter substituted for the suit which he was able to buy of the English merchant, a suit woven, cut, and sewn by members of his own family. To promote or allow the growth of the manufacturing spirit in the Colony was as dangerous as to refuse to interfere with the exercise on the part of its people of the right of absolute free trade. In time, they might not only meet their own needs as to manufactured goods, but also export such goods to countries where England now enjoyed a profitable market, a market which might soon grow unprofitable to her by rivalry with Virginian competitors, since the latter would possess the advantage of cheaper raw materials as the basis of their manufactures. For these reasons, it appeared to be of vital importance to the English statesmen of the seventeenth century that the planters should not be allowed to take steps looking to the development of manufacturing interests among them, and it cannot be said that their views were wholly untenable. To permit the colonists to export their agricultural products to any foreign country and at the same time to foster manufactures in Virginia, was to destroy all the ties except those of race uniting England to the population of that territory; upon her would have been imposed the burden of defending the planters in case of ​an attack by a foreign enemy, without any proportionate advantage.
The mercantile system bore less hardly on Virginia than on New England. Her soil was capable of producing a commodity which found a remunerative market in the mother country, whereas New England was thrown back upon her agricultural products, which it was impossible after 1650 to import into England on account of the heavy duties then imposed to protect the English farmer from foreign competition. The inhabitants of New England were, therefore, compelled to exchange their provisions for the rum, sugar, and molasses of the West Indies, as almost their only resource for obtaining the means of paying for the English manufactures needed by her people. Virginia having a direct trade with the mother country in a commodity for which a market was always ready there, a commodity that assured the acquisition of all manufactured articles entering into the general economy of her population, was deprived of one of the strongest motives in which the development of manufactures has its origin. Such development begins with local wants, and growing larger and more extensive in its scope, ends in supplying foreign needs. The Virginian planter was not forced, like the farmer of New England, to transfer his products to Barbadoes and Jamaica to be exchanged for the products of those islands, which in turn were to be conveyed to the English ports, there to be sold to obtain the clothing which he was to wear, the furniture which he was to place in his chamber and hall, the utensils for use in his kitchen and dairy, the tools for handling in his workshop, and the implements which he was to employ in his fields. The English ship that sailed up to his wharf came loaded down with a cargo of these articles, which were offered to him for his tobacco; and he had ​merely to consign his crop to the sailors who manned the vessel by the temporary transfer of the keys of his barns. When he sold, not to the owner of the ship, but to the local merchant who had supplied him with goods, the process of delivery was equally free from complication and indirectness. From this, it will be seen that the Virginian planter of the seventeenth century had but a small inducement to begin or promote a movement in favor of local manufactures on a scale of great importance, even if we suppose that the influence of all the economic interests of the mother country would not have been set against such a movement.
There was no inherent repugnance in the English stock transferred to the valleys of the James and York, to the pursuit of manufactures, although they leaned, like men of their race in the mother country, towards an agricultural life. They became an agricultural people by force of the conditions surrounding them from the foundation of the earliest settlement. The power of the English Government was used to divert their attention from manufactures even in the rudest form; many influences united to discourage the growth of manufacturing interests in the Virginian Colony as in all other colonies, however populous, but even if the English authorities had sought to advance the prosperity of these interests in Virginia in the seventeenth century, and the local conditions had been favorable to a manufacturing spirit, there would doubtless still have been reason to remark upon the disinclination of the people to produce their own manufactured supplies without any assistance from the outside. In the long period between the close of the Revolution and the breaking out of the late war between the sections, when all restrictions upon the growth of manufactures had been removed, the State remained a ​community of plantations, although so much of the fertility of the soil had been exhausted. In the seventeenth century, Virginia was still more distinctly a plantation community, a community of small principalities bound together by social ties, but not economically dependent upon each other. There was always a tendency in each plantation towards still greater concentration of its special interests, because the requirements of tobacco culture exercised an unceasing influence towards the enlargement of the boundaries of each estate, thus increasing its isolation from the community in general. One of the principal effects of the seclusion of plantation life in Virginia resulting from the enlargement of the plantation area, was to discourage the growth of the coöperative spirit among the people in their economic affairs. It is this spirit upon which manufactures in their perfected form must rely in great measure for support. The lack of this spirit explains to some extent the absence of small towns in the Colony in the seventeenth century, but this fact, as will be shown hereafter, was also due to the configuration of the country, which was opposed to a concentration of population. Such a concentration, of course, would have been highly favorable to manufactures. Beverley, who indulged a spirit of exaggeration to some extent, writing towards the end of the seventeenth century, when the English had been in possession of the country for nearly a hundred years, reproached the inhabitants not only for their slovenly and wasteful system of agriculture and their neglect of many products to which the soil was adapted, but also for their strong indisposition to supply themselves by local manufactures with a larger proportion of those articles which they had, from the foundation of the first settlement, been obtaining by importation from abroad. The Virginians, he said, sheared their sheep only to cool ​them. There was little thought of the clothing into which the fleeces could have been converted. The head covering of the Virginians was made of fur which had been sent to England from the Colony for working up, and then returned in the shape of hats to be sold or bartered at a great advance on the cost of the raw material. A large quantity of the hides which were a part of the annual production of every plantation were thrown on the ground to rot, or were used to protect goods from the rain dropping through the leaky roofs. Some of the hides, it is true, were manufactured into shoes, but the process was so carelessly and rudely performed that the planters bought English shoes in preference whenever the opportunity presented itself. Although the forests of Virginia furnished varieties of woods which in delicacy of grain and durability of fibre were peculiarly suitable for the manufacture of every kind of woodenware, nevertheless the inhabitants of the Colony persisted in obtaining from England their chairs, tables, stools, chests, boxes, cart-wheels, and even their bowls and birchen brooms.
Regarded from a general point of view, these criticisms of Beverley were not unjust. Virginia in the seventeenth century was not, in the modern sense of the word, a seat of manufactures, but it would be grossly inaccurate to say that manufactures in the ruder forms were totally unknown. Such a condition of affairs would have been wholly inconsistent with the peculiar spirit of the plantation system, that system which tended to create in each estate its own source of supplies as far as a crude skill could create it. English manufactures began in the home; there were few dwelling-houses in the rural parts of England in the seventeenth century which did not ​contain a spinning-wheel or a weaver’s frame. The busy hum of the one and the measured rattle of the other were heard in nearly every household. How natural then to expect to find in the homes of the Virginians of the same period—men and women, who, in many instances, had been born in the mother country and who clung to the habits its well as to the traditions of their race—rude appliances for the plainest manufactures to cover their simplest material needs. That such appliances were to be found there, will be shown in the proper place.
Let us first inquire into the condition of the mechanical trades in the Colony. The white mechanics of Virginia in the seventeenth century can be divided into two distinct classes. First, there were those who as servants were bound under the terms of their contracts for a certain number of years; secondly, freemen who were skilled in the use of tools and who were prepared to perform any work pertaining to their trade which was given them to do. The class of indented tradesmen was the largest of the two, being recruited from abroad or from among the natives of the soil. There were not, however, as strong motives to influence the handicraftsmen of England to emigrate to Virginia as servants, as existed in the case of its agricultural laborers. The English mechanic belonged to an order enjoying special privileges by the force of legislation; he was carefully trained in his particular craft by an apprenticeship that admitted him into a close corporation, the number of the members of which was not sufficiently great to diminish seriously his chance of obtaining work, by raising up many competitors. If he was skilled in his calling and sober in his conduct, there was little danger of his being thrown upon the parish ​even for a partial support. The great body of the laboring classes of England in the seventeenth century, whatever their grade or pursuit, very naturally preferred to remain in their native country, and when they emigrated to America, they were perhaps moved by a desire to escape from intolerable evils as much as by a hope of securing an independence.
Virginia was well known to be essentially an agricultural community. In seeking a new home there, the English agricultural laborer expected to change his skies but not his employment. On the other hand, to the English mechanic who was able to support his family by following his trade, the advantages offered by the Colony were comparatively small unless he wished to adopt agricultural pursuits. There were mechanics in the mother country, however, who were either discontented with the degree of success which they had won, or who were swayed by a restless disposition or tempted by liberal offers. To such men, Virginia extended the prospect of an improved condition of life and they readily assented to proposals to try their fortunes there, first as handicraftsmen bound to service by indentures, and after the expiration of their terms, as planters and handicraftsmen combined.
The necessity of introducing mechanics into the Colony was recognized from its foundation. Among the hand of men who made the voyage to Virginia in 1607, there were four carpenters, two bricklayers, a blacksmith, and a mason. The persons who were sent over in the First Supply included a cooper and a blacksmith. Fourteen artisans were imported in the Second Supply. From time to time, the Company issued advertisements for the purpose of securing members of the different trades. In one of these public papers, there were enumerated ​brickmakers, bricklayers, masons, weights for water and iron mills, founders, makers of edge tools, shipwrights, carpenters, calkers, coopers, tanners, shoemakers, and tilemakers. Previous to the departure of Gates and Dale from England, a broadside was published, in which special inducements were offered to carpenters, smiths, coopers, tanners, shoemakers, shipwrights, and brickmen, among others, to emigrate to Virginia as a part of the expedition to set out at an early day. In the account of the population in 1616, the only tradesmen referred to were smiths and carpenters, indicating that either the advertisements had not been generally successful in persuading English artisans to settle in the Colony, or if representatives of the different crafts had gone over, a great majority had been absorbed in the body of the agricultural laborers, there being no field for the employment of their skill.
Argoll seems to have been disposed in the early part of his administration to adopt measures to promote the welfare of the trades; all mechanics were relieved by him from the operation of the provision that the tenant should cultivate two acres in grain under penalty of forfeiting their crops, and of being reduced to slavery in the public service. In the instructions received by Yeardley on taking charge of affairs in 1619, he was directed to allot to every tradesman who decided to follow his handicraft in preference to engaging in husbandry, a tract of four acres. This area of ground, upon which a dwelling-house ​was to be erected, was to be conveyed in fee simple, subject to a quit-rent of four pence. In a petition drawn by the First Assembly which met in Virginia, for presentation to the Company in England, it was urged that steps should be taken to dispatch workingmen to the Colony who should be competent to erect the projected college building, an indication that there were few mechanics among its population at this time. In compliance with this request apparently, a committee appointed by a Quarter Court, sitting in London in this year, recommended that smiths, carpenters, bricklayers, brickmakers, and potters should be transported to Virginia to be set down on the lands assigned to the college. That the number of the mechanics still remained unequal to the demand for their services is shown by the letter, addressed to the Company in the winter of 1622 by the Governor and Council, stating that it had been decided to erect an inn at Jamestown for the accommodation of persons who had just arrived, but that it was first necessary to secure from England, carpenters, brickmakers, and bricklayers. There was, the colonial authorities declared, a great lack of such useful tradesmen, although all persons engaged in these pursuits were remunerated at a generous rate. A few months subsequent to the transmission of this letter, Leonard Hudson, a carpenter, accompanied by five ​apprentices was split to Virginia by the East India Company, which had undertaken to establish an English free school at Charles City. These mechanics were placed among the tenants on the college lands, and in a short time, four of them perished from the effect of the change of climate.
The necessity of importing mechanics belonging to a variety of trades did not cease with the existence of the Company. In 1638, many years after the dissolution of that organization, when a levy of tobacco was raised for the purpose of erecting a State House at Jamestown and putting the fort at Point Comfort in good repair, George Menefie, a prominent merchant in the Colony, was instructed to visit England, and, with a part of the tobacco procured by the levy, engage men who were skilful in building such work. It was one of the most serious drawbacks attending the employment of the indented servant, that, save in the case of youths, the term was too brief to admit of education in a mechanical trade. Landowners of wealth sought to overcome this difficulty by instructing their English merchants to forward to Virginia the mechanics whom they needed. Colonel Byrd not infrequently directed his correspondents in England to send him a carpenter, mason, or bricklayer, to take the place of one whose term was rapidly drawing to a close, and he always expressed a willingness under these circumstances to lay a larger sum than was usual in the instance of the ordinary servant. Fitzhugh made similar requests of his English merchants, declaring, like Colonel Byrd, his readiness to go to extraordinary expense to obtain English mechanics, on the ground that he lost heavily ​in employing the tradesmen who were to be obtained in the Colony.
The indentures which the planters and these imported mechanics entered into doubtless differed from each other in some details, although substantially alike. The agreement by which the services of Gerrard Hawthorne were secured was probably a typical one in its principal features. Hawthorne bound himself by covenant to serve Thomas Vause in Virginia for a period of three years, in consideration of which Vause agreed to pay the charges for the transportation of Hawthorne to the Colony, and to allow him after his arrival there sufficient food, lodging, and clothing; to provide him with tools for working in the combined trades of carpenter, joiner, and cooper; and at no time to make an assignment of him to other persons without his own consent. On the expiration of his term, Vause was required to make over to him a full title to the bedding, furniture, and tools which had been in his use in the course of his service, and also to convey to him a tract of land equal to fifty acres in area. Moreover, for the length of twelve months succeeding the close of his period of service, Vause agreed to continue to supply Hawthorne with food, shelter, apparel, and all other necessaries. The ​liberal provisions of this indenture reveal not only the great anxiety of the planters to secure English mechanics, but also the difficulty of obtaining them without extending the most powerful inducements.
The English mechanic emigrating to the Colony under indenture often brought tools with him which had been bought at the request of the planter in Virginia by the merchant acting as intermediary. The constantly recurring necessity of having to supply the place of a white mechanic whose term was drawing to a close by importing a successor, must have had an important influence in causing the planters to have their slaves instructed in trades. The county records of the seventeenth century reveal the presence of many negro mechanics in the Colony during that period, this being especially the case with carpenters and coopers. This was what might be expected. The slave was inferior in skill, but the ordinary mechanical needs of the plantation did not demand the highest aptitude. The fact that the African was a servant for life was an advantage covering many deficiencies; nevertheless, it is significant that large slaveholders like Colonel Byrd and Colonel Fitzhugh should have gone to the inconvenience and expense of importing English handicraftsmen who were skilful in the very trades in which if is certain that several of the negroes belonging to these planters had been specially trained. It shows the low estimate in which the planters held the knowledge of their slaves regarding the higher branches of mechanical work.
​ In the class of mechanics who were serving terms under the provisions of formal indentures, there must be included the numerous orphans and indigent children who were bound out to acquire proficiency in crafts.
In 1656, it was provided that all orphans whose estates were not sufficient to meet the expense of their free education, or whose kinsmen or friends were unable to furnish them support, should be instructed in the mysteries of manual pursuits until they reached their majority. Sixteen years later, the county courts were empowered to apprentice the sons of poor men to tradesmen up to the age of twenty-one, and to bind the daughters over to employment suited to their sex until their eighteenth year. The church wardens of the different parishes were directed to present the names of the children who were thus to be placed with a view to their training in some manual art.
There are many instances in the county records to show that the provisions of these laws were carried into practice. In 1681, Samuel Bond was apprenticed to Benjamin Brock of York, a skilful carpenter, with a view to acquiring a knowledge of the trade of a wheelwright and turner. His term was to continue for five years. The mutual obligations assumed are worthy of enumeration. Bond agreed to keep inviolate the secrets of his master; to obey him with strictness and cheerfulness; to inflict upon him no injury, and to warn him of impending harm if observed; to commit no waste in using his property, and to refrain from lending any portion of it to other persons. Bond ​further agreed not to play cards or dice, or to haunt taverns, or to absent himself by day or night from his employment, or to commit fornication. The master, on the other hand, agreed to instruct his apprentice in the special art of a wheelwright or turner; to furnish him with the quantity of meat and drink which he needed; to supply him with clothing and lodging, and to allow him washing; and finally, the master bound himself not to withdraw the apprentice from the pursuit of the trade in which he wished to become proficient, in order to compel him to take part in any branch of plantation work except the cultivation of maize, and only in this when the demand for his assistance was pressing. At the end of the term prescribed, Brock agreed to give to his former apprentice a full set of wheelwright tools, a coat made of kerseys a serge suit, a new hat, two pairs of shoes and stockings, one shirt of dowlas, and two of blue linen. In the event that the master died before the expiration of the apprenticeship, Bond was to be required to serve only one-half of his time, provided the death of Brock had occurred previous to this point in the course of his term. If this was the case, Bond was to receive only the clothing which he had in his possession when the apprenticeship began. If Brock died after Bond had served more than one-half of his term, the latter was to be allowed not only the same amount of clothing as was in his possession when he came to his master, but also the full set of tools used by wheelwrights. ​It was a notable part of the obligation assumed by Brock, reference to which has been deferred until the last, that he bound himself to instruct Bond in the art of writing, and to teach him the science of arithmetic, a clause in the indenture showing the enlightened interest of the court in the welfare of the apprentice as well as their desire to promote the cause of education.
It is not necessary to give in detail the contents of other indentures. Points of variance alone may be touched upon. In articles of agreement between Mrs. Phœbe Heale and John Keene of York, the son of the former was required to remain in the service of Keene until be reached his twenty-first birthday. Not until he was eighteen years of age, however, was he to begin to learn the mysteries of the trade of cooper, which was followed by Keene. Upon the attainment of his sixteenth birthday, the apprentice was to receive from his master a heifer, the increase of which was to be carefully preserved until his term of service was ended, when delivery was to be made.
Thomas Best of Elizabeth City was assigned by his master in 1694 to a blacksmith for a period of seven years, with a view to his instruction as a smith, at the end of which time he could claim a full set of the tools used in that trade, and the amount of grain and quantity of clothing allowed by the custom of the Colony. In 1694, ​also, a child five years of age was apprenticed in the same county for a period of sixteen years. One of the duties to be performed on the part of the master was to teach his youthful servant so that he should be able to read a chapter in the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. Failure on the part of the master to perform his agreement subjected him to the penalty of a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco. If he was delinquent in delivering the suit of clothing, and the grain which custom required of him, the same fine was imposed.
If cases arose of children of the poorest classes showing vicious propensities which their parents made no effort to restrain or repress, the local courts stepped in and required them to be placed in the care of competent and industrious handicraftsmen. In 1694, there were three children in Elizabeth City County, the offspring of a woman of bad character, who had become notorious for their criminal conduct, the more remarkable as they were still very young. They were inveterate thieves, finding a refuge in the recesses of the woods. One of the three was a girl. The court placed her in the service of a planter and his wife who resided in the county, requiring them to provide her with food, clothing, and lodging and also to instruct her sufficiently to enable her to read a chapter in the Bible, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments. One of the two remaining children was bound at first to a merchant, but on his requesting that he should be transferred to a shoemaker, the court ​{{hwe|sented|consented{{ to conform to his wishes. In some instances, when the apprentice was still of tender years, his master was compelled by the court to put him to school, if a schoolmaster was to be found in the parish.
The class of free mechanics in Virginia was an important one in spite of its small number. As late as 1680, it is stated that a handicraftsman was regarded by the planters with the highest esteem and courted with their utmost art. That the supply of free tradesmen was unequal to the demand for their services was not to be attributed to any lack of encouragement on the part of the colonial administration. All of the early Governors received instructions to promote the welfare of those engaged in the various mechanical pursuits, and to restrain any disposition on their part to abandon these pursuits with a view to producing tobacco. In 1621, Wyatt was directed to take steps to have young men trained as mechanics and to Compel them to devote themselves to their business in preference to tobacco culture. Ten years later, the statute 1 James I, C. 6, which relates especially to mechanics, was declared by the General Assembly to be in force in the Colony, and at the same time, an appeal was made to the Privy Council in England to encourage ​the emigration of tradesmen to Virginia. The evil still remained that after the tradesmen arrived, they persisted in forsaking the pursuits in which they had been educated and expending their labor in the production of tobacco. So injurious were the effects of this irresistible inclination, that in 1633, brickmakers, carpenters, joiners, sawyers, and turners were expressly forbidden to take part in any form of tillage and the commanders were required to enforce the regulation. To encourage the tradesmen to rely upon their business alone for a livelihood, they were to receive remuneration for the work which they had done for the different planters, out of the tobacco that under the Inspection Act of this year was to be brought to the several stores to be erected for its safe-keeping. In the instructions given to Wyatt in 1638-39 and to Berkeley in 1641, all the handicraftsmen in the Colony were to be drawn into towns. The object of this policy was to remove them from temptation to plant on their own account.
No statute passed by the Assembly during the century shows more clearly the public desire to advance the prosperity of those engaged in mechanical pursuits, than the enactment of 1661-62, exempting tradesmen and handicraftsmen from the payment of levies. This provision extended to all in their employment, subject, however, to the one condition that both the master and servant should devote their time to their trades and should not be interested either in or out of the Colony, directly or indirectly, ​in the culture of tobacco. Levies for the support of the Church were not included in the exemption. Relief of any one class in the community from taxation, however important that class might be considered, to encourage its members in their business, was an experiment which could not be carried out without imposing hardships on the individuals of other classes; this was foreseen when the law was passed, for it was ordered that the statute should only remain in operation for three years. This length of time, it was expected, would give ample opportunity to test its merits. It was suspended before the first year had expired, the suspension to continue during five years, this provision having been suggested entirely by the poverty of the times. It would seem that handicraftsmen at the end of this period were again exempted from the payment of levies by the revival of the same law. This is the inference to be drawn from the statute of 1672, passed ten years after the temporary revocation of the original privilege. Only youths below the age of sixteen who were really apprentices were excepted from the operation of this Act, which placed all mechanics upon the footing of the ordinary citizen in the matter of taxation, whatever usage prevailed to the contrary. That it should have been necessary to pass such a law, is an indication that the artisans had previously been relieved from taxation on the ground that the interests of the community demanded that they should be especially encouraged in the pursuit of their trades.
The celebrated Act of Cohabitation, adopted in 1680, provided for the restoration of all the special privileges which in the past had been granted for the encouragement of the mechanical trades. It not only relieved the persons engaged in these trades, who would take up their ​residence in the projected towns and forego tobacco culture altogether, of the burden of the public levies, but also during a period of five years exempted them in the boundaries of their towns from personal arrest and from seizure of their goods for the payment of debts which they had at a previous time contracted elsewhere. The most favorable legislation, however, was unable to create a large and prosperous class of mechanics in Virginia, that is to say, a class of men following the trades, who earned their livelihood and accumulated a competence in these pursuits alone. It was natural that no body of mechanics resembling those to be found in England arose and flourished in the Colony. The most hostile influence was perhaps the lack of a metallic currency. It was stated as early as 1626, that the absence of such a currency was a serious obstruction to the advance in prosperity of the manual trades. A decade later, the same impediment existed to a still more discouraging degree. Harvey declared in a letter to Secretary Windebank that mechanics positively refused to follow their callings because they were compelled, after finishing their work, to wait for their remuneration until the crop of tobacco for the year had been gathered in and cured. In the interval, they complained, and complained justly, that they wanted the means with which to support themselves and their families. To modify this condition, a law was passed prescribing that all pieces of eight should be current as equal in value to five shillings, irrespective of the metal entering into their ​composition. It was soon seen that this provision, which sought to give a fictitious value to coin intrinsically comparatively worthless, was more calculated to injure than to promote the welfare of the tradesmen. It was, therefore, determined that only silver pieces of eight should be accepted as worth five shillings and to pass current at that valuation.
The influences which operated to depress the general condition of the trades remained in force down to 1700, and appeared to be just as strong at the end as in the middle of the century. The free mechanic was still compelled to pass from plantation to plantation in search of work, and a large part of his time was absorbed in these journeys, owing to the great distance intervening between the different estates. He was still remunerated for his services, not in coin, but in the staple of the country, which could be delivered only at one season in the year. In performing his tasks, therefore, he either expected payment to be made many months subsequently, when a crop not yet in the ground or only recently planted had been gathered in, granting that it escaped the numerous casualties to which tobacco was subject while in the hill, or he received his fee in small parcels of that commodity, which it was both inconvenient and expensive to transport to his own home. Having obtained these parcels, there was no market in which he could use them in the purchase of supplies of meal and bread. He could not always rely upon his neighbors to buy them. He was, therefore, almost forced to produce grain and breed live stock, even if he did not cultivate tobacco. This is only one of the many instances in the economic history of Virginia in the seventeenth century, of the obstructive ​influence exercised upon the material prosperity of all classes in the Colony by the enforced use of its staple crop as a substitute for coin. That commodity was not only an agricultural product, but also a currency in which every form of payment was made, public or private. It was not unnatural that many persons who had been trained in the mechanical arts should have preferred to obtain tobacco, not by doing mechanical work, but by tilling the ground, an impulse which was encouraged by the abundance of lands still in a condition of the highest fertility.
In the early history of Virginia, an attempt was made to establish a general tariff of rates, in conformity with which the free mechanics were to receive remuneration for their labor. Thus it was provided by the first Assembly, which met in 1619, that a person engaged in a mechanical pursuit should be paid according to the quality of his trade, and if the amount of his wages was not prescribed by the terms of a contract, its determination was to be left to the officers of the district in which the work was performed. In 1623, the rewards of mechanics varied from three to four pounds of tobacco a day in addition to an allowance of food. This was extraordinary, as each pound of merchantable tobacco at this time was equal in value to two and a half and even to three shillings. It is not surprising that George Sandys should have declared that the compulsory rates of wages in Virginia during the period of his treasurership imposed a burden almost intolerable. Twenty years subsequent to this utterance, the scale of the remuneration received by handicraftsmen employed in the erection of Forts Charles ​and James was, for the work of each day, seven pounds of tobacco. The value of a pound at this time did not exceed two pence. The daily wages of these mechanics were one shilling and a few pence, perhaps equal to about one-fourth of the modern English pound sterling, no insignificant return for the industry of a few hours, even after allowance has been made for the expense incurred in transporting and selling the tobacco. Instances are found about the middle of the century, and they were probably not uncommon in every part of it, of the payment of what was due mechanics for their labor, in the form of goods or live-stock; thus in 1647, the court of York County instructed Joan Trotter to deliver to Edward Grimes, in return for carpentry work, one pair of shoes, a green rug, and eight poultry. How large were the sums in which many of the planters became indebted to mechanics for tasks completed under terms of contracts is illustrated in the instance of Edward Digges, against whom John Mead, a member of that class, brought in an account amounting to three hundred and one pounds sterling, six shillings and eleven pence, representing in value perhaps as much as seven thousand five hundred dollars in our present American currency. The Act passed in 1662 for the purpose of encouraging the erection of towns, fixed the wages of the carpenters to be employed in this work at thirty pounds of tobacco a day, in addition to rations of food; brickmakers and bricklayers were to be paid for each one thousand bricks moulded and laid, while the remuneration of sawyers was to be measured by the number of feet included in the timber they supplied.
​A clear insight into what was considered at this time to be a just reward for the services of free mechanics may be obtained from an order of the General Court with reference to the fort at Point Comfort. The county of Nansemond was commanded to supply forty men to take part in its restoration; Lower Norfolk was to furnish thirty, Warwick twenty-five, and Elizabeth City twenty. It is probable that only a few of them were skilful, as each ship arriving in the river was required to detail one carpenter for the work. Whatever the numerical proportion between the mechanics and ordinary laborers amongst the men impressed into service on this occasion, all received the same wages, amounting in each instance to twenty pounds of tobacco. The carpenter of the sloop of war hired by the authorities of the Colony during the administration of Culpeper was paid monthly at the rate of one pound and fifteen shillings. That this was smaller than the sum generally allowed a mechanic in that situation is shown by the wages of Edward Denerell, who served in the same capacity on board of the Edmond and Elizabeth of Hampton River; in this instance, it was fifty-five shillings a month.
​While it would be erroneous to say that as a general class the free mechanics of Virginia in the seventeenth century enjoyed even a moderate degree of prosperity from the mere pursuit of their trades, there are nevertheless many evidences that numerous individuals belonging to this class were men in possession of considerable wealth, derived, there is reason to think, as much from the cultivation of tobacco on their own account, as from the accumulation of the proceeds of their mechanical work in the service of their neighbors. The trade of the blacksmith was perhaps the least remunerative of all the callings of that general character, since, the roads being level and free from stones, it was the habit of the planters to allow their horses to go unshod. Iron was also in that age a costly metal, and as a rule quite probably was to be found only in small quantities in the smithies. The blacksmith seems to have performed sometimes the functions of a silversmith; he was also often engaged in mending guns which had been broken or injured in barrel or lock, or in restoring the temper of damaged swords. In 1691, a complaint was ​offered to the General Court by the commander of the militia that the men of this craft had refused to put the muskets of the soldiers in condition for use because they were to receive in return tobacco alone.
At times, it was found necessary to regulate the accounts of blacksmiths, owing to their exorbitant charges; in reality, it is probable that they made their fees large in order to insure themselves against the fluctuations in the price of tobacco, the medium in which they were paid. The county records of the period show that persons in this calling were able to acquire small estates. There is an instance in Rappahannock County in 1671 in which a blacksmith appears as a purchaser of a tract of land; in a second instance, another disposed of one part of his plantation for four thousand pounds of tobacco, and at a later time, of a second part for two thousand. Among the blacksmiths of York who were owners of small areas of ground were Owen Davies, James Derbyshire, and William Rice. In 1684, Walter Binford of Lower Norfolk County purchased a tract of land covering seventy acres. Isaac Goding, in 1677, bought a plantation of one hundred acres in Middlesex. Daniel Flaher held one hundred and fifty acres in Lancaster, and Joseph Depre two hundred and sixty. In ​1653, John Williams acquired two hundred acres in Northampton County. Charles Parker was still more prosperous; at his death, he devised not only several extensive tracts of land, but also a water-mill.
The trade of a cooper was far more profitable, the field offered for the exercise of skill being a wider one. In the account which has been given of the agricultural development of the Colony from decade to decade, the importance of this calling appears clearly from the number of regulations adopted by the General Assembly for its government. There were few more important articles connected with the economy of the plantation than the hogsheads in which the tobacco, when cured, was stored for shipment. It was the business of the cooper to manufacture these receptacles, an occupation in which a handsome remuneration was assured owing to the abundance of the work; it is not surprising, therefore, to discover that this class of tradesmen were in possession of considerable tracts of real estate and owned many kinds of personalty. Numerous patents to public lands were obtained by them. In 1657 alone, two were issued, aggregating seven hundred and fifty acres. In the following year, William Strowder, a cooper, obtained a patent to five hundred acres, and in the course of the same year, Richard White, also a cooper, was one of three persons who acquired a grant to a thousand on the basis of the transportation of twenty servants. Additional instances derived from the same source might be offered.
In 1667, Edward Palmer, a cooper, is found in possession of a plantation in York. About the same time, John Dangerfield, who belonged to the same calling, disposed of ​the half interest which he held in a very large tract lying in Rappahannock. There are later instances in the history of this county of sales and purchases of land by men in this pursuit ranging from one hundred to five hundred acres. The record of the trade in Elizabeth City County is substantially the same. In one instance in that county, a cooper paid as much as seventy pounds sterling for a tract of two hundred and fifty acres, a sum equivalent in value to nearly eighteen hundred dollars in our modern currency.
Coopers enjoyed unusual prosperity in Lower Norfolk. Dennis Dalby, in that county, was in 1674 in possession of six hundred acres. In 1689, Henry Snagle owned in one body seven hundred and fifty acquired by patent. Thomas Salley is found in 1685 selling five hundred acres. In 1690, Robert Butt purchased six hundred and fifty. Moses Prescott, Humphrey Smith, Thomas Miller, and George Ballentine were also among the members of the same calling who were owners of land.
The personal property bequeathed by coopers was often of considerable value measured by the accumulations of the seventeenth century. John Keene died in York County in 1693, having left to each of his three sons five head of cattle and fifteen pounds sterling; and the same number of cattle and the same amount of money were bequeathed by him to each of his daughters.
​There are many indications that the estates of men who followed this branch of mechanics were not derived from the pursuit of their calling alone; they were not only engaged in planting tobacco, but also in some cases in selling merchandise in the character of factors. In 1693, Messrs. Perry and Lane, who were deeply interested in the trade of Virginia, made to a cooper a consignment of goods valued at forty-two pounds sterling, representing a great variety of articles, such as ironware, spices, drugs, liquors, hats, stockings, shoes, and cloths.
Persons engaged in the pursuit of carpentry in general combined with it the trades of wheelwright, turner, and joiner. There are numerous evidences that many of these persons were thrifty and prosperous, most probably because they were able to unite other callings with the coordinate branches of mechanics which they followed. Among the first grants recorded in the Colony was one to Richard Tree, to whom fifty acres were in 1623 assigned by patent at Jamestown. Nor was this the only case at this early period in which a tradesman of this kind secured tracts of public land either in fee simple or by lease for a long term of years. Towards the middle of the century, however, the patent books show that but few patents were obtained either by carpenters or any other handicraftsmen. During many years previous to 1648, John Hewitt was the only mechanic who appeared as a patentee. In 1755, John Motley of Wicocomico, a carpenter, acquired a grant in Westmoreland County of six hundred acres on the basis of the transportation of twelve persons. Subsequent ​instances, in which patents to tracts of considerable extent were secured by persons in this pursuit, might be given. Still more numerous were the private conveyances in which a carpenter was either the grantor or the grantee. Only the most important can be mentioned. In 1669, John Waggener purchased a large tract in Rappahannock County in consideration of fifty-five hundred pounds of tobacco, and in a short time he transferred the property to Henry Lucas, who was a member of the same calling. John Williams of the same county was the owner of eighteen hundred acres. The most prominent and prosperous of all the carpenters of Rappahannock was Thomas Madison, whose name appears with great frequency in the records as a seller or purchaser of land; at his death, he had to his credit in England seventy pounds sterling, a proof that the means which he had accumulated had been gained, at least in part, by shipments of tobacco to the mother country.
John Ladd of Lower Norfolk in 1672 disposed of four hundred acres, and, a few years later, Mathew Causwell of the same county, of two hundred. In 1685, Robert Cartwright became the purchaser of five hundred acres.
In the succeeding decade, Augustin Whiddon bequeathed several large tracts to members of his family. Thomas ​Smith, a carpenter of York, on one occasion bought several hundred acres of Joseph Croshaw. On another, William Foster of Northampton sold fifteen hundred, and Robert Wilson of Accomac, twelve hundred.
Powers of attorney to persons who resided at a great distance from the grantors, entry of which in the county records so often occurs in the case of carpenters, indicates that many members of this calling, occasionally at least, traded in tobacco, for such powers were not always conferred for the collection of what was due them for mechanical work. That men of this craft belonged to a class enjoying unusual advantages is shown by the fact that many could sign their names, an accomplishment which was by no means general at that day.
A full set of the tools used by carpenters probably averaged about one pound sterling and ten shillings in value; the appraisement of a combined set of carpenter’s, cooper’s, and joiner’s tools amounted in many cases to four pounds sterling. The number and variety owned by some members of these trades at this time would seem to show that they not uncommonly retained several apprentices and servants in their employment, and that they were often in a position to undertake contracts for building on an important scale. A single instance may be mentioned. An inventory of the personal estate of Mr. John Cumber ​of Henrico was presented in court in 1679. It reveals the fact that his tools were at the time of his death lying at four different places in the county. It will be interesting to enumerate them. At Mr. Cox’s, there were one jack-plane, one smoothing plane, and four small plough planes, two files, two bramble bits, one keyhole saw, a quarter-inch and a one and a half inch gouge, a half-inch and a quarter-inch short auger, a one-half inch and one-quarter inch heading chisel, two mortising chisels, one gimlet, one pair of compasses, one pair of piercers, two hand-irons for a turning lathe, a chalk line, two wooden gauges one-half foot square, and one tool chest.
At Mr. Radford’s, there were one hand-saw, a pocket-roll, a jack and line, one two-inch and one half-inch auger, two smoothing and eight small narrow planes, one hold-fast, one hammer, a bench hook, four small pincer bits, a file for a hand-saw, one inch and one half-inch heading chisel, a broad turning chisel, one paring and one half-inch ordinary chisel, two gimlets, a quarter-inch gouge, and a small pincer bit, two small squares, one gauge, one bow-saw, and one pair of compasses.
At Falling Creek Mill, there were two broad axes, three adzes, four augers, three chisels, one whip and three hand-saws, one foreplane, two hammers, one pair of compasses, one chalk line, and two files. At Mr. John Hudlesy’s, there were two chisels and one small jack-plane.
In a general way, it may be said, that the equipment of the carpenter for his trade comprised hand, cross-cut, and bramble saws, half-inch augers, auger bits, chisels, claw-hammers, files, narrow and broad axes, adzes, hatchets, wedges, smoothing planes, rabbit planes, foreplanes, creasing and half-inch round planes, parting and turning gouges, and nail-boxes. Leather doublets doubtless formed a part ​of the outfit of the carpenter as well as of the blacksmith.
The shipwright was as prominent as the carpenter in the economic system of the Colony. The resources of Virginia for ship-building were recognized at the time of the earliest exploration of the country, the height, girth, and variety of the trees being one of the most remarkable features of the valleys adjacent to the streams. Smith commented on the fine quality of the timber for the construction of vessels, and he referred to it as a source of wealth if properly used. Experienced shipwrights who visited the Colony at an early period in its history, stated that nowhere in the world could more suitable material for ship-building be found than that which abounded everywhere in its forests; this fact was so well known in England by report, that it was proposed that the English Government should draw its supply for the construction of vessels entirely from Virginia, and on account of the inexhaustible quantity obtainable there, that the English navy should be annually increased by the building of two ships of a thousand tons burden for a period of ten years. Not only would the defences of the mother country be strengthened in this way, but its small area of woods would not be further reduced. It was calculated that Holland and England expended one million dollars annually in the purchase of ship timber.
The first vessel of Virginian construction was built previous to 1611, and was equal in weight to twelve or ​thirteen tons. In 1613, the construction of a much heavier ship was ordered at point Comfort by Argoll, who had just returned from a voyage on the tributaries of the Chesapeake, where he had obtained from the Indians a large cargo of grain for the use of the colonists. Leaving the vessel, which was in the course of building, in the hands of his carpenters, he made a second voyage to the Potomac. When he again arrived at Point Comfort, he pressed forward the building of his frigate, and upon its completion, dispatched it under the command of one of his subordinate officers to Cape Charles, where its crew were to engage in catching fish for the people at Jamestown. He also caused a fishing boat to be constructed at the Point as soon as the vessel was finished. The plank which entered into this ship and boat was obtained on the spot, the timber having been cut down and prepared by members of Argoll’s company.
It was claimed by those who condemned the manner in which the Colony’s affairs were managed by Sir Thomas Smyth, that at the end of his term, about 1618, there was in Virginia only one ancient frigate, which really belonged to the Somers Isles, a shallop, a ship-boat, and two small boats which were the property of private individuals. This statement was emphatically denied by members of the Warwick faction, who declared, to the contrary, that in the course of this administration, barges, shallops, pinnaces, and frigates lead been built, an assertion not supported by the facts. In 1620, when the new government had taken a firm hold, and were pursuing a most energetic ​and enlightened policy, John Wood, who, as has been previously stated, had been interested in the transportation of cattle to the Colony, petitioned the Quarter Court that he should be permitted to have the use of a certain shore on Elizabeth River, covered with fine timber, and also abutting on water sufficiently deep to allow the safe launching of vessels. He proposed to build ships for the service of the Company, and his proposal was received with sufficient favor by the latter to be recommended to the consideration of the Governor and Council in Virginia. These authorities are found entreating the Company in the following year to carry out the project which that body now had under advisement, of sending shipwrights to the Colony for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants with vessels of various sorts, the need of which, the Governor and Council urged, prevented the prosecution of further discovery in Virginia or the extension of trade with the Indians, or an easy passage from one settlement to another.
Many members of the Company now consented to advance a sum of money for the purpose of defraying the expense of securing and forwarding skilful workingmen, Lord Southampton and Sir Edwin Sandys contributing for this purpose two hundred pounds apiece. A short time after these subscriptions were obtained, in order to facilitate and hasten the labors of the shipwrights and forty carpenters who were to be sent out from England in the following spring, the Governor and Council in Virginia were directed by a Quarter Court to cut down many white and ​black oaks, and in November and December to strip the bark from others then standing. The Company was under the impression that the ironworks and the saw-mills which had been erected were in full operation, and relied upon both to furnish the shipwrights with the iron and plank which would be required. If the furnaces and mills were still incomplete, then the workmen could accomplish nothing. In conformity with the previous announcement, Captain Barwick and twenty-five ship-carpenters were dispatched to Virginia in the following spring. They were to be employed only in the trade in which they had been educated. The band were commended to the particular care of Treasurer Sandys, who was instructed to seat them upon a tract of land containing twelve hundred acres of fine timber, and to allow them the use of four oxen for dragging the logs from the forest to the spot where they would carry on their work. Captain Barwick and his carpenters established themselves at Jamestown. At first, they were employed in erecting houses to afford shelter for themselves, and afterwards were engaged in building shallops. It was in shallops, rather than in ships, that the tobacco was transported, for the latter were too heavy in draught to make their way into the creeks. It was not long before six or seven of the carpenters had succumbed to the deadly influences of the climate. Captain Barwick also perished. This appears to have caused their mission to end in failure.
The Company had been very solicitous for the erection of saw-mills in Virginia with a view to house and ship building; in the Second Supply, sent to Virginia under ​the command of Newport, Poles and Dutchmen had been included for the purpose, among others, of erecting mills of this character. In 1619, there were forwarded both men and material with the same object in view, and at a later date trained workmen were procured from Hamburg. No saw-mill had been erected in England previous to 1633. In the course of January, 1622, information was received from Virginia of an interview between a prominent citizen of that Colony and a Dutch captain who had proposed to introduce a master-workman from Holland for the construction of saw-mills propelled by the wind. It is not stated that this project was carried out. Wyatt was enjoined to erect mills for sawing, and in doing so, to choose sites immediately adjacent to the Falls of the Powhatan, in order that the lumber might be brought thither by means of water. With these facilities for obtaining planks and with a vast abundance of the finest timber, one or more ships were probably constructed during the treasurership of Sandys for the use of the Colony, as four at that time were in the possession of the settlers, a very small number it is true, but sufficient for the needs of the inhabitants. The number of boats built in the course of the same period is calculated to have been ten times larger than during the administration of Sir Thomas Smyth.
It is probable that some of the most skilful boatwrights ​in the Colony perished in the great massacre of 1622. It would be inferred from a letter of George Sandys to John Ferrer, written after that terrible event, that there were few if any persons then in Virginia who could lay claim to special knowledge of ship-building. It seems that a pinnace had been driven ashore at Elizabeth City, where it was lying in the state of a wreck. Sandys instructed an agent to make an examination of her condition and to proceed with his men to repair the damage which she had suffered. None of these, as well as others who were ordered to give assistance, deserved, in the opinion of Sandys, the name of shipwright. As the Treasurer was a public official who commanded the best resources of the Colony in the way of handicraftsmen, it seems unlikely that he would be content to leave the restoration of the pinnace to its original state in the hands of unskilful mechanics, if it had been in his power to obtain at Jamestown, or at any other settlement in Virginia, men who were thoroughly competent to make the repairs required.
In the interval between the revocation of the charter of the Company and the appointment of Harvey to the governorship, ship-building in Virginia apparently fell into complete decay. In 1632, Harvey informed the Lord Commissioners in England that recently some beginning had been made in this industry in the Colony. Sawmills at least had been erected to furnish the plank. This beginning must have been followed up with little energy, for only three years later, Devries, on arriving at Jamestown and discovering that his ship was in a leaky ​condition, found it necessary to sail to the New Netherlands for repairs. It would seem that there were no facilities or appliances in Virginia for mending his vessel, so that he could not escape the expense of a long voyage. It is interesting to observe that it was at this period that Peter de Licques of Picardie presented his petition to the King. The privilege which he solicited was that of providing, in return for a certain remuneration, sufficient timber from the forests of the Colony during a course of five years, to maintain five of the royal ships in as fine a condition as when they were first completed, and on the termination of the five years, to build annually for the Royal Navy, one vessel of five hundred tons burden. This he was to continue to do until permission was withdrawn. In the interval of fifteen years between the departure of Devries in 1632, and the middle of the century, there are many evidences that numerous barks, pinnaces, and rowboats, both large and small, were built in Virginia. This activity sprang from an absolute necessity, as the plantations, with a few exceptions, were situated on rivers and creeks, and could only be reached by passing from one to the other by means of the water highway. No ships, however, were constructed. This was a cause of serious concern to many persons in the Colony, and as a remedy, Secretary Kemp recommended in a letter to Secretary Windebank in England, that a custom-house should be established in Virginia with a view to encouraging the building of large vessels. The industry required more ​active promotion than was to be obtained through such a plan. In the session of 1656, all ships owned exclusively by persons residing in the Colony were exempted from the payment of castle duties. A still more valuable exception in their favor was granted in 1659. By a law passed in the course of that year, the merchants, shipowners, and masters engaged in the colonial trade were ordered, whenever the cargo was not destined for the English dominions in Europe, to pay upon each hogshead of tobacco a duty of ten shillings in the form of coin, bills of exchange, or commodities at an advance of twenty-five per cent on the original cost. All persons transporting their cargoes in bottoms which were the property of Virginians alone, whether native or resident, were relieved from the burden of this imposition. It was stated in the text of the statute that one of its objects was to induce the planters to purchase an interest in vessels. It is obvious that if it had had this effect, it would also have created to some extent a tendency to build ships in Virginia. In March, 1661, fifty pounds of tobacco a ton were granted to every person in the Colony who should construct a vessel large enough to make a sea voyage. More detailed provisions were subsequently added. If the burden of the ship exceeded fifty tons but fell short of one hundred, the builder was to receive one hundred pounds of tobacco a ton, and if in excess of one hundred tons, the reward was to be two hundred pounds of tobacco a ton. These public encouragements were made conditional upon the assurance by the builder of the vessel that he would not part with his ownership until three years had passed, unless he disposed of his interest to a citizen of Virginia.
​These laws had the effect of promoting ship-building in Virginia, to some extent. In 1655, Secretary Ludwell wrote to Secretary Bennett that there had been recently constructed in the Colony several small vessels which could safely make voyages along the coast, and he expressed the hope that ships able to take part in the carrying trade between Virginia, and England would soon be built. This hope was realized. In 1667, only two years subsequently to Secretary Ludwell’s communication, the King in Council was petitioned by the widow of Captain Whitty, with a view of obtaining a license for the return to Jamestown of the ship America, owned by her and other Virginians, the America having been built in the Colony by her husband. This vessel carried thirty or forty guns, and in workmanship and appearance was so admirable an example of its class, that expectations were raised in England that the Virginians might soon become as skilful in ship-building as the English themselves were. The tonnage of the America was probably very moderate, if any reliance can be placed on the general statement of Berkeley in 1671. In answer to one of the interrogatories of the English Commissioners, sent him in the course of that year, as to the condition of the Colony, he declared that at no time had its people owned more than two vessels, and that the burden of these vessels did not exceed twenty tons. He went so far as to say that no ships, either large or small, were built in Virginia. This sweeping assertion, however, like his famous ​statement as to the absence of free schools, was not supported by fact. For refutation, reference has only to be made to the vessel of Captain Whitty, the manner in which it was constructed having, as we have seen, excited admiration even in England. Berkeley attributed the indifference of the Virginians of his time to ship-building to the discouraging influences of the Navigation Acts. In the opinion of others, it was due to the absence of a school like the Newfoundland fisheries in which the colonists might have been trained in seamanship. It is really to be ascribed to the circumstance that there was produced in Virginia a commodity which attracted to its rivers the vessels, first of England and Holland, the two great maritime nations of that age, and after the passage of the last Navigation Act, of England alone. No necessity was imposed on them, as on the people of New England, to build numerous ships by means of which the products of an unkindly soil and climate having no market in England and Holland, might be exchanged for tobacco, rum, and sugar, commodities which in their turn might elsewhere be exchanged for clothing and other articles of use. The buyers of the only staple of Virginia sought its plantations. The Virginian planter did not, like the New England farmer, have to seek the foreign purchaser. It followed most naturally that even when the population and wealth of the Colony had increased to a remarkable degree, ship-building did not become an important interest.
There was no lack of barges, shallops, and sloops, the only vessels which the planters required for the movement of their crops. Every facility was at hand for the construction of boats of this character at the time that ​Berkeley gave his written testimony in reply to the inquiries of the commission. A statement is to be found in the records of York County for the year 1672, presenting in an itemized form the cost of building a sloop. The total amount was four thousand four hundred and sixty-seven pounds of tobacco, which, at the rate of two pence a pound, represented an expense, perhaps, of about nine hundred and twenty-five dollars. In the construction of this sloop, the various parts were supplied by different persons.
The plank necessary, namely, three hundred and ninety feet, was furnished by Richard Meakins, the rigging by Mr. Newell, the sail by Captain Shepherd, and the rudder irons by Mr. Williams. It seems to have required four months to complete it, the charges for the food furnished the carpenter running over that length of time; a cask of cider was also consumed by him during the same period.
That the desire to promote ship-building in the Colony still remained in spite of the poor results commented upon by Berkeley, appears from the Act passed in the winter of 1677, relieving the owners of a vessel built in Virginia and belonging to Virginians alone, of all duties except those imposed upon shipmasters in making entry, in clearing, and in securing license to trade, or in giving bond to sail directly to England. By this Act, it will be observed that it was not sufficient that the vessel should simply belong to inhabitants of the Colony. It was distinctly ​stated that the privilege of exemption which had been enjoyed by such persons was withdrawn from them. In October of the same year, it was urged by the owners of the Planters’ Adventure, among whom was Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., all of his associates being residents of Virginia, that their ship should continue to be exempt from the castle duty and the duty of two shillings a hogshead, as it would be unjust to apply the repeal of the provision to vessels which had for many years enjoyed its benefit.
So active as well as so judicious were the steps now taken in Virginia to encourage the building of ships, that the apprehensions of the English Government were aroused. In 1680, Culpeper was ordered to annul the laws exempting the Virginian owners of vessels constructed in the Colony from the payment of duty on exported tobacco, together with the duty imposed upon incoming ships for the maintenance of the fort. The ground upon which this command was based was the injustice of granting special privileges to shipowners in Virginia which were not enjoyed by owners of English vessels trailing in Virginian waters. Moreover, the encouragement held out by the Virginian laws to Virginian ship-builders, would, in the judgment of the English authorities, impair the success of the Navigation Acts by creating a Virginian fleet which would be able to transport the tobacco to the mother country without the assistance of English vessels. It would also, it was said at a later date, tempt the owners of ​English ships to enter them as belonging to Virginians. The order in council condemning these laws showed rather premature apprehension, since John Page and others, in a petition presented by them to Lord Culpeper in 1681, stated that there were but two ships in the Colony which were owned by citizens of Virginia and had been built in its confines. The English Government apparently did not oppose the construction in the Colony of sea-going vessels, provided that their cargoes were made subject to the usual duties. In 1697, ships were constructed in Virginia by Bristol merchants who were influenced to build there by a consideration not only of the fine quality of the timber, but also of the comparatively small cost entailed in the performance of the work.
In the course of the same decade, several vessels were built by Virginians for their own use. Among them was a ship of forty-five tons, constructed for John West of Accomac, which was staunch enough to make a sea voyage. John Goddin of the same county also built a vessel, ​which was twenty-five tons in burden. In 1695, a ship known as the Virginian was constructed by Daniel Parke, but on its first passage to England was found to be defective in its steerage.
Among the principal shipwrights in Virginia in the seventeenth century were John Meredith, John and Robert Pritchard of Lancaster, Abraham Elliott, Richard Yates, and John Ealfridge of Lower Norfolk. Meredith was in possession of large tracts of land which he had acquired by purchase or by original grants. The estate of John Pritchard was appraised at four hundred and eighty-two pounds sterling, exclusive of all tobacco due him. This last item amounted to 101,307 pounds. Ealfridge devised a plantation to each of his two sons. The estate of Richard Yates was valuable in personal and real property alike. Elliott was an owner of lands both in Virginia and England.
* ↑ Beverley’s History of Virginia, p. 239.
* ↑ Rogers’ History of Agriculture and Prices in England, Vol. V, pp. 551, 587.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 94.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 108.
* ↑ Tradesmen to be sent to Virginia, Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 469. It is stated that when Smith withdrew from the Colony in 1609, there was but one carpenter left among the settlers. See Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 486.
* ↑ Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 445.
* ↑ Rolfe’s Relation, see Neill’s Virginia Company of London, p. 107. The “etc.” in the text of the Relation may include the other artisans.
* ↑ Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 143.
* ↑ Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. II, p. 160. In 1619, Rolfe expressed regret that there were at that time no carpenters in Virginia to make carts and ploughs. See Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 541.
* ↑ Lawes of Assembly, 1619, Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, 1874, p. 16.
* ↑ Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, vol. I, p. 12.
* ↑ Letter of Governor and Council, January, 1621-22, Neill’s Virginia Company of London, p. 284.
* ↑ Neill’s Virginia Company of London, pp. 309, 374.
* ↑ These instructions will be found in British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 5.
* ↑ Letters of William Byrd, Feb. 25, 1683; May 31, 1686.
* ↑ Letters of William Fitzhugh, June 7, 1681. In 1673, a carpenter, who was under articles of indenture to Samuel Trevillian of York County, was valued at eighteen pounds sterling. See Records of York County, vol. 1671-1694, p. 59, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 366, Va. State Library. The length of the terms for which these imported mechanics were engaged varied widely in different cases. John Graves of Brackley, Northamptonshire, entered into a contract with Richard Kitchener of York County for four years only. At the end of that time, he was to own his working tools. Graves was forty years of age. See Ibid., vol. 1694-1702, p. 238, Va. State Library. William Birch of London bound himself to Mr. Edward Wyrly of the same city, with a view to his transportation to Virginia, for seven years. See Ibid., vol. 1657-1662, p. 356, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Letters of William Fitzhugh, June 7, 1681.
* ↑ Among the slaves of the first Robert Beverley was a negro carpenter valued at thirty pounds sterling (see inventory on file at Middlesex C. H.). John Carter, Jr., of Lancaster owned a negro cooper (see Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1690-1709, p. 24). Ralph Wormeley of Middlesex County owned both a negro cooper and a negro carpenter, each being valued at thirty-five pounds sterling (Records of Middlesex County original vol. 1698-1713, p. 130). In his will, Thomas Wythe of Elizabeth City County directed that his “negro Tom doe tann as many hides yearlely as shall be needfull for both familys, that is, my mother’s and mine.” See Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 35, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 416; vol. II, p. 298.
* ↑ This was the common form of the English indenture for apprentices. The terms of the agreement between Bond and Brock were identical with those of the indenture given in a note in the second chapter on Servants. Beverley, referring to these provisions, states that “besides their trade and schooling, the masters are generally obliged to give them (i.e. the apprentices) at their freedom, cattle, tools or other things, to the value of 5, 6, or 10 £ according to the age of the child when bound, over and above the usual quantity of corn and clothes.” History of Virginia, p. 209.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1684-1687, pp. 60, 61, Va. State Library. In the articles by which Valentine Harvey, who was seven years of age, was bound as an apprentice to Daniel Wyld, the latter agreed to keep Harvey at school three or four years, provided there was a schoolmaster in the parish. See Records of York County, vol. 1664-1672, p. 201, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1675-1684, p. 84, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 30, Va. State Library. For the terms of another apprenticeship to a blacksmith, see Records of Northampton County, original vol. 1680-1692, p. 28.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 30, Va. State Library. This was the usual provision of such an indenture. There is no reason to believe that it was not strictly carried out.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 139; Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, p. 144, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, pp. 38, 42, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1664-1672, p. 202, Va. State Library.
* ↑ The following passage in support of this statement is from the Life of Thomas Hellier, p. 28: “Many who were of mean education and obscure original beggars in their native soil, have by their drudging industry since their arrival in this country attained to something of estate. The gross fancies of such cloudy-pated persons will by reason of their invincible ignorance misplace their esteem on a tailor, smith, shoemaker or the like necessary handicraftsmen, courting such a one with their utmost art and skill, when a scholar shall but be condemned and happily set at nought.”
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 115.
* ↑ General Court Orders, March 6, 1631, Robinson Transcripts, p. 97.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 208.
* ↑ Instructions to Wyatt, Colonial Entry Book, vol. 79, pp. 219-236; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638, p. 48, Va. State Library; Instructions to Berkeley, McDonald Papers, vol. I, p. 386, § 26, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 85; see Ibid., p. 307. This was ten years later.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 179.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 307.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 476.
* ↑ Governor and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IV, No. 19; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1626, p. 143, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Governor Harvey to Secretary Windebank, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 17; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1626, p. 161, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 397.
* ↑ Hartwell, Chilton, and Blair’s Present State of Virginia, 1697, p. 8.
* ↑ Lawes of Assembly, 1619, Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, 1874, p. 22.
* ↑ Letter of George Sandys, Neill’s Virginia Vetusta, p. 123.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, pp. 293, 294.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1638-1648, p. 309, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Palmer’s Calendar of Virginia State Papers, vol. I, p. 4.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 172.
* ↑ General Court Orders, March 29, 1666, Robinson Transcripts, pp. 112, 113.
* ↑ McDonald Papers, vol. VI, p. 198, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 437, Va. State Library. The following bill will give some notion as to the charges made by coopers and carpenters about 1655: “Col. Yardley deb$^t$ for works done for his proper use, viz. for building a dwelling house of 20 foote square with a lodging chamber and a buttery and a chimnye, all necessaries belonging to a dwelling house, 600 lbs. tobo; for settinge up of six tunne of casks, the one halfe coming to me by condition, 300 lbs.; for making too bulke heads in his sloope, 40 lbs.; for the making of a cradle to shale corn, 90 lbs.; mending of one cart putting a new bottome in it and ye sides, 50 lbs.; mending of 5 hogsheads newheaded and hooped and the making of a new hogshead, 65 lbs.; making of one newe churne, 60 lbs.; making of two news milking pailes and a paile for ye sloope, 75 lbs.; for ye hooping of 4 Duty anchors and making new coverlids, 48 lbs.; for the hooping of an English hogshead and making a new coverlid unto it for a powdering tub, 30 lbs.; cutting of an English tearce in two and new hooping of them and putting new eares to them, 24 lbs.; mending of a cheese presse, 25 lbs.; setting up two shelves of plank in the house, 10 lbs.” Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1651-1656, f. p. 180.
* ↑ Joseph Hollowel of Lower Norfolk County, in two deeds of conveyance, refers to himself in one as a planter, in the other, as a carpenter. These deeds will be found together in Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1686-1695, f. p. 182. See, also, an instance in Ibid., original vol. 1675-1686, p. 199. Another instance is that of John Gibson of Lancaster County, original vol. 1666-1682, pp. 340, 433.
* ↑ The following is an enumeration of the contents of one of the blacksmiths’ shops belonging to Ralph Wormeley: “1000 lbs. trash iron, 1 pr. bellowes, 1 anvil, 1 back iron, 4 great vices, 4 hand vices, screwplates, taps, files, hammers, tongs.” Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1698-1713, p. 126.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, pp. 20, 152, Va. State Library. Fitzhugh, writing to a correspondent in Bristol, whom he had instructed to purchase certain pieces of silver, directs him to leave the plate untouched, as he had in his own service in Virginia a man who was “a singular good engraver.” Letters of William Fitzhugh, July 21, 1698. The inventory of the Sheets personal estate included a full set of goldsmith’s tools. See Records of Henrico County, original vol. 1697-1704, p. 208.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, p. 141, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 11.
* ↑ Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1671-1676, p. 232, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1675-1686, f. p. 170.
* ↑ Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1673-1685, p. 109.
* ↑ Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1687-1700, p. 64; Ibid., original vol. 1666-1682, p. 222.
* ↑ Records of Northampton County, original vol. 1657-1666, orders Jan. 27, 1653; Ibid., original vol. 1689-1698, p.270.
* ↑ Va. Land Patents, vol. 1655-1664, pp. 144, 195, 283, 332.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1664-1672, p. 191, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1668-1672, p. 239, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 358, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1666-1675, p. 186.
* ↑ Ibid., original vol. 1686-1695, f. pp. 108, 129; Ibid., original vol. 1675-1686, f. p. 205.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, p. 316, Va. State Library. A cooper’s inventory will be found in Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, p. 358, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, p. 361, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Va. Lard Patents, vol. 1623-1643, Tree, p. 19. For other instances, see Ibid., pp. 11, 98. Thomas Passmore, a carpenter, also held property in Jamestown. See Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. I, p. 89.
* ↑ Va. Land Patents, 1643-1651, p. 138.
* ↑ Ibid., 1652-1655, p. 349.
* ↑ Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1668-1672, pp. 141, 142. See, also, Ibid., pp. 59, 81, 143; Williams, Ibid., vol. 1656-1664, p. 88; also vol. 1656-1664, p. 124; vol. 1680-1688, p. 95; vol. 1677-1682, pp. 146, 364, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Ibid., vol. 1668-1672, pp. 48, 59, 215, Va. State Library; Ibid., original vol. 1656-1664, p. 149.
* ↑ Ibid., vol. 1664-1673, p. 78, Va. State Library. Madison is sometimes referred to as “ship carpenter.”
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, Ladd, original vol. 1666-1675, p. 121; Causwell, original vol. 1675-1686, f. p. 181; Cartwright, Ibid., f. p. 205; Whiddon, original vol. 1686-1695, f. p. 190. See, also, Ibid., original vol. 1651-1656, f. p. 133; original vol. 1695-1703, p. 80; original vol. 1686-1695, f. pp. 87, 116, 164; original vol. 1666-1675, pp. 148, 167, 182. The inventory of a carpenter’s personal estate in this county will be found in original vol. 1651-1656, f. p. 205.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1657-1662, p. 193, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Northampton County, original vol. 1668-1686, p. 1.
* ↑ Records of Accomac County, original vol. 1676-1690, p. 9. See, also, Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1679-1694, pp. 82, 388; Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1687-1700, pp. 10, 76.
* ↑ Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1668-1672, p. 240, Va. State Library; Records of York County, vol. 1684-1687, p. 119, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Henrico County, original vol. 1697-1704, p. 135.
* ↑ Records of Henrico County, vol. 1677-1692, p. 105, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 64.
* ↑ “Relation of the Present State of Virginia by William Perse,” Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 60.
* ↑ Captain Bailey’s Project, Domestic Corr. James I, vol. 189, No. 36; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1623, p. 129, Va. State Library.
* ↑ New Britain, Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 268. See original Nova Britannia, p. 16, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. I.
* ↑ Molina’s Report of the Voyage to Virginia, Spanish Archives, Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 520.
* ↑ Argoll to Hawes, Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 644.
* ↑ Discourse of the Old Company, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 40; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. I, p. 157.
* ↑ Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Eighth Report, Appx., p. 45.
* ↑ Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, vol. I, p. 88.
* ↑ Letter from Governor and Council in Virginia, January, 1621-22, Neill’s Virginia Company of London, p. 285.
* ↑ Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, vol. I, p. 141.
* ↑ Company’s Letter, August, 1621, Neill’s Virginia Company of London, p. 239.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 571.
* ↑ Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Eighth Report, Appx., p. 39.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 434.
* ↑ Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, pp. 67, 75, 84. These Dutchmen were in a short time permitted to return, the scheme having been found impracticable. See Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Eighth Report, Appx., p. 45.
* ↑ Bishop’s History of American Manufactures, vol. I, p. 98.
* ↑ Letter of Governor and Council in Virginia, January, 1621-22, Neill’s Virginia Company of London, p. 286.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 115.
* ↑ Discourse of the Old Company, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. III, No. 40; Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, vol. I, p. 159.
* ↑ See Sandys to Ferrer, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. II, No. 27; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1623, p. 89, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Governor Harvey to Lords Commissioners, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 54; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1632, p. 34, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Fourth Report, Appx., pp. 290, 291.
* ↑ Devries’ Voyages from Holland to America, p. 108.
* ↑ Petition of Peter de Licques, British State Papers, vol. VI, No. 42; McDonald Papers, vol. II, p. 108, Va. State Library.
* ↑ New Description of Virginia, p. 6, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. II.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 9; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1637, p. 154, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 402.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 537; also from the duty of two shillings; see Ibid., vol. II, p. 136.
* ↑ Ibid., vol. II, p. 122.
* ↑ Ibid, p. 178.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial Papers; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1665, p. 72, Va. State Library.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial Papers, April 19, 1667; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1667, p. 112, V a. State Library. A General Court order, June 6, 1666, refers to the building of a ship. See Robinson Transcripts, p. 251. Was this the America?
* ↑ William and Mary College Quarterly, April, 1893, p. 198.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 516.
* ↑ The patentees of Southampton Hundred enjoyed the right to send ships to the Newfoundland fisheries.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1671-1694, p. 25, Va. State Library. Sloops were sufficiently large to hold as many as fifty hogsheads. See Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1690-1709, p. 44. A shallop probably could not with safety carry more than twelve hogsheads. See Ibid., same page. The average cost of such a boat was about twenty-two pounds sterling. Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 489, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 387.
* ↑ Order of General Assembly, British State Papers, Colonial Papers; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1677, p. 68, Va. State Library. This petition was carried to the Committee for Trade and Plantations, but was denied. Colonial Entry Book, No. 106, p. 305; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1681, p. 121, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Letter from Privy Council to Culpeper, Oct. 14, 1680, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. lxxx; McDonald Papers, vol. V, p. 364, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Minute of a Committee for Trade and Plantations, British State Papers, Colonial Entry Book, No. 106, p. 305; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1681, p. 121, Va. State Library.
* ↑ These petitioners meant entirely owned. See petition of the elder Nathaniel Bacon et al., British State Papers, Colonial Papers; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1681, p. 128, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Minutes of a Committee for Trade, British State Papers, Colonial Entry Book, No. 106; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1681, p. 121, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hartwell, Chilton, and Blair’s Present State of Virginia, 1697, p. 4. There is preserved in the records of York County (vol. 1694-1702, p. 272, Va. State Library), a document, to which Philip Popplestone, merchant, Charles Harford, linen draper, Edward Harford and James Peters, soap makers, all of Bristol, were parties, appointing William Jones, of that city, master of a ship in which the signers of the document “were or were to be part owners,” the ship having been “built or to be built in Virginia.”
* ↑ Records of Accomac County, original vol. 1690-1696, f. p. 121.
* ↑ Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 304.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1694-1702, p. 228, Va. State Library.
* ↑ For one tract, 560 acres, obtained by patent, see Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1652-1657, p. 134. A sale of 600 acres by Meredith is recorded in Ibid., original vol. 1655-1702, p. 19. In 1652, he contracts to build a sloop and a small boat in payment of a debt, due by him, for 47,632 lbs. of tobacco. See Ibid., original vol. 1652-1657, p. 25.
* ↑ Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1690-1709, p. 19.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1675-1680, f. pp. 16, 50. Ealfridge was also at one time in possession of a half interest in a mill; see Ibid., original vol. 1666-1675, p. 170.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1666-1675, p. 9. Among other shipwrights residing in Lower Norfolk County, who were owners of land, were Nicholas Wise, John Creekman, Isaac Seaborne, John Tucker, Quintillian Gutterick, Roger Houseden, Edward Wilder; in Rappahannock, Simon Miller, who, on one occasion, bought 625 acres in one tract (Records of Rappahannock County, 1668-1672, p. 139, Va. State Library), John Griffin; in Lancaster, William Edwards; in Northampton, Walter Price, Christopher Stribling; and in Elizabeth City, George and Jacob Walker.