# Economic History of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century/Chapter 20

CHAPTER XX
THE TOWN
In the account which I have given so far of the economic condition of the people of Virginia in the seventeenth century, it will have been seen that the general system of colonial life rested upon the plantation as the centre, and not, as in New England, upon the township. A just conception of its whole economic framework may be acquired by an investigation of the character of a single large plantation, whether that plantation was situated on the Potomac or the York, the Rappahannock or the James. Each component part of the community, that is, each plantation, was in itself a complete reflection of the entire community, whether bounded by the lines of one neighborhood or the whole Colony. The community was a series of plantations which were only locally distinguished from each other. In all essential particulars, they were practically the same. The plantation is of the first and highest importance in the study of the general system. As tobacco culture tended irresistibly to promote the constant expansion of the area of each plantation, by compelling the appropriation of virgin lands either by patent or purchase, the economic dependence of plantation on plantation was always growing weaker until, as the logical conclusion of the process, the owners were finally able to rely exclusively on the supplies, natural and manufactured, furnished by their own land, or by the foreign merchant. This local ​isolation, this economic freedom, was thoroughly antagonistic to the concentration of population at different places in the Colony in the form of towns. The plantation was a small principality, the number of inhabitants of which was not in proportion to the extent of the property to which they were attached. The dependence of the servants and slaves upon their master was increased by the distance which lay between them and the settlements of the adjacent plantations, and the same fact increased the importance of the planter himself. It is easily perceived that the independence of his life, an independence extending to every branch of his affairs, social and economic, would have cultivated in him a strong distaste for the confined existence of residents in cities, which he had either observed when visiting England, or had been informed of through books or by travellers. Accustomed to the freedom of his own fields, woods, and streams, assured of the absolute subservience of the whole population of his plantation, with no neighbors of his own class sufficiently near to disturb his sense of local supremacy, with a firm conviction derived from practical experience that the main product of his soil compelled him to be always widening the area which he cultivated, with an inclination, moreover, for agricultural pursuits inherited from his English forefathers, confirmed and strengthened by all the conditions of his situation, it is natural that he should have exhibited no disposition to drift towards the life of towns. Indeed, it would have been remarkable if the gravitation had not been in the other direction.
I have already dwelt upon the effect of this tendency in discouraging the growth of the coöperative spirit among the planters. As the sense of personal independence increased, an inevitable result of the plantation life, the disinclination of the individual to combine with other individuals of the ​same class for the accomplishment of common economic purposes became more marked. This spirit not only obstructed the systematic advance of manufactures, but it also prevented the erection of towns. So powerful was the tendency towards the concentration of all economic interests in the plantation, and so weak was the disposition of the planters to cooperate in their economic affairs, that even had Virginia in the seventeenth century possessed but one harbor to which all vessels engaged in transporting to the other Colonies and to Europe the tobacco produced in its soil had been compelled to resort in order to secure their cargoes, it is doubtful whether even then the absence of towns would have been less marked. There would have been a small concentration of population at that point, but not in proportion to the economic importance of the spot. Instead of there being one harbor, as suggested hypothetically, there were almost as many harbors as plantations. In the seventeenth century, as has been observed already, the area included in the patents was confined principally to the lands which were situated immediately on the navigable streams. The number of these streams was extraordinary. Beginning with the Powhatan, York, Rappahannock, and Potomac, there were, at comparatively short intervals, rivers, creeks, or estuaries deep enough to float the largest ships employed in the carrying trade between Virginia and England. At that early period, every planter owned a wharf; indeed the strongest season after fertility of soil which influenced him in selecting a tract of land was that it fronted on a water highway. Even if the stream was not sufficiently deep to afford room for the keel of a large vessel, it gave free passage to the shallops in which the planter’s tobacco could be conveyed to the place where the ship was lying at anchor. With these facilities at his own door for moving his crop to market, there was nothing to ​be gained by transporting it either across country or by water to some far-off point which might have been fixed upon by law as a port of entry. There was not the slightest justification for such a course of action in any advantage which it might secure. On the contrary, every interest of the planter was opposed to it. There was a risk attending the shipment for a long distance in the shallop to be incurred, as well as the increased freight charges to be paid. By rolling his hogsheads directly on board of a seagoing vessel which had dropped anchor at his own wharf, or only a few miles away, he not only escaped all the perils to which his crop would have been exposed if conveyed for a distance in a frail boat heavily loaded, but he also retained the amount which he would otherwise have been compelled to expend in freight. The charge for transportation from his own wharf to England was the same as the charge from Jamestown or any other authorized port of entry. The cost of hiring a shallop was saved, or the inconvenience and loss of valuable time entailed in sending his servants and slaves in his own boats avoided.
The presence of a navigable stream near every plantation not only furnished its owner with a convenient highway for the removal of his tobacco to market, but it also enabled him to secure his imported supplies without the expense, inconvenience, or delay of sending for them beyond the bounds of his own estate. The ship could unload its cargo at his wharf, and there, too, he made his purchases or received the articles consigned to him by his English merchant.
The only place in Virginia previous to 1700 to which the name of a town could, with any degree of appropriateness, be applied, was Jamestown, and even this settlement never rose to a dignity superior to that of a village. The first structure bearing a resemblance to a house erected on ​that site was the wooden fort which the adventurers began to build as soon as they had established themselves on land. The earliest dwellings were merely thatched cabins constructed with extraordinary rapidity under the energetic direction of Smith. It is most probable that in deciding upon the relative situations of houses, the instructions of the Council brought over by the colonists were strictly followed. These instructions required that the dwellings should be set evenly upon a line on either side of the street, and that each street was to debouch into one central market square. The Council gave this direction in order that from one point all the streets might be commanded by field ordnance. As soon as Captain Newport arrived with the First Supply, in the winter of 1607, he employed his men in erecting a storehouse and a church. The entire group of houses appears to have been surrounded by a stockade. It was not long before a great fire broke out in the town, and as the dwellings were thatched with reeds, they soon fell a prey to the flames, which raged so fiercely that even the palisades standing a little distance away were entirely consumed. The arms, apparel, bedding, and a large quantity of provisions held in private ownership were destroyed. Mr. Hunt, the minister, also lost his collection, of books. The rebuilding of the town did not begin until the spring, at which time the work was undertaken under the supervision of Smith and Scrivener. The erection of the second church and storehouse does not seem to have been completed before September. The church was like a barn in appearance, the base being ​supported by crotchets, while the top was composed of rafts, sedge, and earth. The walls were made of the same rude materials. The houses were also of similar composition and afforded only a frail protection against the wind and rain. Water was procured from a well which had been dug in one of the forts. The whole town was defended by twenty-four pieces of ordnance mounted on platforms and commanding an unobstructed view. In the early part of 1609, twenty additional houses were built at Jamestown. When Smith withdrew from Virginia in the fall of 1609, the town contained sixty houses.
On Delaware’s arrival in the Colony in the following year he found the dwellings in the extreme of decay. The town was described as having the appearance of a fortification which the action of time had overthrown. The palisades were prostrate on the ground, the gates were fallen from their hinges, and the church was sunk in ruin. The buildings, it would seem, had been very unsubstantial in their construction, or the dampness of the climate had rotted the material of which they were made. Both influences were doubtless at work to produce the transformation, a transformation, we may remark, which was again frequently noted in the character of the town in its subsequent history. The structures put up in one year were in a state of decay before barely twelve months had elapsed, and in a few years were in a condition of complete ruin. This was illustrated in the most marked degree in the early history of Jamestown, but continued to be true of the place until the site of the town was abandoned. One of the first steps taken by Delaware on assuming ​control of the affairs of Jamestown, was to build a number of houses which are described as well protected against the encroachments of the severest weather. Their roofs were covered with boards and the sides of some were defended by Indian mats; and yet in spite of the apparently substantial character of these dwellings, Sir Thomas Dale, when he reached Jamestown in the following year, after Delaware had been forced by bad health to withdraw from the Colony, was compelled to order the inhabitants to repair the church and storehouse at once, for fear that if this was longer deferred, the roofs and walls would tumble down on their heads. He was not content with rebuilding the old structures at Jamestown and adding to their number a munition house, a house in which to cure sturgeon, a cattle-barn, and stable; after some time devoted to a search for a site, he decided besides to establish a town on the neck of land which has in a more recent period been changed into an island by the digging of the Dutch Gap Canal. Here he first enclosed a plat of seven acres, raising at each corner a watch-tower. He then built a wooden church and several storehouses and laid off three streets, on the line of which framed dwellings were erected, with the first story of brick. Five houses were also built upon the verge of the river, and these were occupied by tenants who acted as sentinels for the approaches to the town by water. The erection of a hospital to contain four score rooms and beds seems to have been begun. According to Hamor, Henricopolis, the name given to the new town in honor of Prince Henry, presented at the end of four months ​a more substantial aspect than Jamestown. Nevertheless, the new settlement soon showed the same symptoms of decline as the earlier one; the buildings began to decay, and during the five years that followed were only preserved by constant repairing. At the end of that time they appeared to have fallen into hopeless ruin. The brick church which Dale proposed to erect at Henrico never rose above its foundations, and even the foundations remained unfinished. It was designed to be one hundred feet in length and fifty in width. In the meanwhile, Sir Thomas Gates, who had returned to Virginia, had expended much time and labor in increasing the number of the houses at Jamestown. Under his direction and supervision, two rows of framed buildings were constructed on either side of a regular street, these buildings being two stories in height, with a loft in which corn should be deposited. There were also three storehouses, which really formed one structure, with a breadth of forty feet and a length of one hundred and twenty. The whole town was enclosed in a paling. At the East End there was a platform for ordnance. A bridge was also built to connect the island with the mainland. There were situated outside of the fenced area several houses which Hamor described as pleasant and beautiful, but which were probably only so by contrast with the dwellings within. To these are to be added two block and a number of farm houses.
The passage of a few years produced the same changes previously observed; indeed, it was now admitted that unless the houses and cabins were annually repaired they ​would fall into ruin. In spite of the substantial condition of Jamestown in 1614, it had been reduced by the time of Argoll’s arrival, in 1617, to five or six buildings. The church had tumbled to the ground, the palisade had been broken, the bridge had gone to decay. One of the few structures remaining intact was the residence of the Governor. Argoll took possession of this dwelling and afterwards enlarged it. A church fifty feet in length and twenty feet in breadth was built during the course of his brief administration, the inhabitants of Jamestown assuming the entire expense entailed by its erection. No other house was constructed during the period of his control. The bounds of the corporation of Jamestown at this time, in addition to the whole of the island, included that part of the mainland situated on the east side of Argolltown, which probably lay opposite to Jamestown immediately on the back river; the neck of land on the north point, moreover, as far as the end of Archer’s Hope; Hog Island, and the country to the south as far as Tappahannock.
When Yeardley arrived in Virginia in 1619, not only was Jamestown in a state of great decay, but Henrico also and the adjacent settlements. There were at Henrico a few houses, all of which had gone to ruin. The church was in the last stage of dilapidation. The condition of the dwellings at Coxendale and Arrahattock resembled that of the houses at Henrico and Jamestown. There were also six houses at Charles City in ruin. The activity displayed by Yeardley under the guidance of the ​persons who were now administering the affairs of the Company soon produced an improvement in the aspect of Jamestown; so many houses were erected, that by 1623 the number to be found there was quadruple the number in existence only five years earlier, and these houses were far superior to the latter in the character of their material and construction. It would appear that an inn had not yet been built, although sawyers had been engaged a short time before the massacre in preparing plank for such a structure. Sawyers had also been employed in securing timber for the construction of a palisade and Court of Guard.
There have survived a number of deeds, recorded during the administration of Governor Wyatt, conveying title to plats of ground in the Corporation of Jamestown, which afford us a glimpse of the different ownerships at that time in the ground on which the town was situated. The residence of Governor Yeardley stood in the most extensive lot, the area within his enclosure being seven acres. There were four acres in the lot of Captain Roger Smith. The lot of Ralph Warnet, a prominent merchant, covered an acre and a half. The immediate neighbors of Warnet were George Menefie, Richard Stevens, and John Chew, who were also engaged in mercantile pursuits. The lot of Captain Ralph Hamor lay some distance from these properties. The houses occupied by these citizens were built entirely of wood. The population of the town and corporation in February, 1623, was calculated at one hundred and eighty-two.
​Among the rules adopted in 1623 for the improvement of affairs in Virginia, was one requiring that all towns to be erected in future in the Colony should be built in the neighborhood of each other, this provision being suggested by the massacre of the previous year, which had been rendered more deadly in consequence of the fact that the different settlements were situated far apart, and so, in that terrible emergency, unable to afford any assistance to each other. The towns referred to were to be collections of farm-houses rather than towns in the ordinary sense of the word. The great mortality prevailing in Virginia in 1623 perhaps occasioned the further provision, that in choosing sites for towns and dwelling-houses only spots remarkable for their healthfulness should be chosen. The same year was rendered still more notable as the date of the earliest of the orders passed to compel every ship arriving in Virginian waters to proceed to Jamestown without breaking the bulk of its cargo before reaching that place. The Governors of the Colony after the revocation of the charter of the Company were for many years successively instructed to enforce this regulation. The effect anticipated was not only that an end would be put to the habit of forestalling imported supplies, but also that the population of that place would be increased owing to the extension of the opportunities for employment.
The practical operation of these laws in time excited great discontent, and the committee in England in charge of the affairs of the Plantations was in 1638 earnestly petitioned to express disapproval of them. One of the principal grounds upon which they were opposed was that there were no houses at Jamestown in which either tobacco or goods could be stored. The subcommittee, in ​its report on these objections, which were submitted for a decision, expressed the warmest approval of the regulation itself, but recommended its temporary suspension for the reason that the public storehouse at Jamestown had fallen into ruin and the private storehouses were too few in number to furnish room for the goods landed by the merchants. It was recommended in addition that the Governor should encourage citizens of the Colony to build warehouses for the purpose of renting them to members of this class. The authorities in Virginia appear to have disregarded this order suspending the law, because they were irritated, partly by the insolence of the shipmasters, who openly boasted of their power to do away with any regulation which obstructed their freedom in trading, and partly by a desire to prevent forestalling. Commenting on the report of the sub-committee, the Governor and Council declared that there was but one way of encouraging the building of towns, namely, by confining the local trade to certain points, as this would compel merchants and mechanics to establish themselves there in pursuit of their special branches of business. The order of the Lords Commissioners suspending the requirement that all ships should proceed to Jamestown until store-houses had been erected at that place, had, it was claimed by the Governor and Council, a disheartening effect upon many persons who had determined to build there. The order was wholly unnecessary, inasmuch as there was a sufficient number of stores for the protection and shelter of all goods brought in.
​Under an Act of the General Assembly passed in 1636 a lot sufficiently extensive in area to furnish room for a house and garden was granted, at an annual rental to the King of one copper, to every person settling at Jamestown. This Act, which was renewed in 1638, seems to have accomplished in a measure its object. For the length of half a mile along the river bank, not a foot of ground remained unappropriated as a site for a private residence. Nevertheless, only twelve houses and stores were erected. The number included a residence of brick for Secretary Kemp, of such solid and uniform construction that it was pronounced to be the finest house, public or private, as yet built in the Colony. His example led others to erect framed houses. It was at this time that a large amount of tobacco was contributed for the building of a brick church. It appears that the design aroused very general interest, for the contributors to it included masters of ships and planters who lived in other parts of the Colony, as well as residents of Jamestown. A levy was also ordered for the purpose of erecting a state-house and repairing the fort at Point Comfort, and it was to secure mechanics for these public works that Menefie’s visit to England in 1638 was undertaken. The state-house when completed was forty feet in length and twenty feet in width. It was constructed of brick. There is no evidence that at this time ​there was an inn at Jamestown; only a few years before, Governor Harvey had complained that he could with as much justice be called the host as the Governor of Virginia from the number of people entertained by him in the absence of a public house.
Berkeley arrived in Virginia in 1642. The seventeenth clause of his instructions as Governor of the Colony conferred upon him and his Council the power to lay off the site of Jamestown in such a manner as should appear to them most advisable. Every person to whom a lot was granted was required to construct a residence of brick sixteen feet in breadth and twenty-four feet in length. There was to be a cellar under each house. The Governor was authorized to erect a building in which the Council and himself might convene and consult on affairs of public interest and decide cases. It was perhaps the most notable feature of Berkeley’s instructions that the Governor and Council, with the advice of the Assembly, could remove the capital of the Colony if the dilapidation of the houses at Jamestown and the unwholesomeness of the spot were sufficiently great to justify it; the new town, if the determination were favorable to its erection, should still be known by the old name.
There still remained at Jamestown many lots unused as building sites, and as they were eligibly situated and their practical abandonment interfered very seriously with the extension of the town, it was provided by law that whoever should erect a residence on one of these lots should be protected in his occupation whether his title to the ground was valid or not, the only condition imposed being that he ​should pay the regular quit-rent. If the original owner insisted upon his proprietorship in the lot, his claim was not to be allowed, but another lot as near to it as could be obtained was to be assigned him.
The regulation establishing market days in Jamestown, Wednesdays and Saturdays being selected, seemed calculated to increase the importance of the town, but in practical operation it accomplished nothing, and in consequence was repealed in 1655.
The wild character of many of the schemes agitated about the middle of the century, with a view to the promotion of town building, is illustrated by the suggestion advanced by the author of the pamphlet Virginia’s Cure. He proposed that every person in the Colony who had a large number of servants in his employment, should build a house in the town situated nearest to his plantation. Here he and his family should dwell, the planter visiting his estate as often as he considered that his interests demanded it. On Saturday afternoon, when, according to the custom prevalent in Virginia, the servants were relieved of work, the author recommended that they should be ordered to leave the plantations, a few only being instructed to remain, the rest to go to the towns in which their masters had taken up their residence, and there in their masters’ houses to spend the Sabbath. This would give them an opportunity to attend divine service, a privilege from which they were debarred, at the date of this pamphlet, by the remoteness of the plantations and the sparseness of the population, both of which circumstances were hostile to the prosperity of the church in the Colony. This notion was probably suggested to the ​author by the system prevailing in several continental countries, in which the village was the centre of each agricultural community. It only shows how ignorant were the Englishmen of that day of the economic conditions in operation in Virginia as a consequence of the peculiar character of their staple product. This product, as already pointed out, promoted irresistibly the constant enlargement of the plantation, dispersed the population, and sank the importance of the community, while it raised the importance of the separate estate. The proposition that the owners of the land should reside in towns might have been practicable had they been able to rent their plantations to tenants after the English fashion, but, as has already been observed, there was no marked disposition among the inhabitants of the Colony to lease lands on account of the vast extent of the virgin soil which remained unappropriated. The average planter was compelled to give his personal attention to the management of his property, whether he had an overseer in his employment or not. If all the landowners of a large neighborhood had lived together in a single village, it would have been necessary for each one to spend a considerable portion of his time each day in making the journey to and from his plantation. This plan of life was not possible in a country where the estates, owing to their extent, were remote from a common centre. Such a physical obstacle would have been insurmountable even if the natural leaning of the people of the Colony had been towards urban life. But this was not their inclination, and all the influences of tobacco culture tended to confirm their disposition in the opposite direction.
If there really existed any desire among the planters at large to promote the building of towns, it would have taken no practical shape but for the periodical instructions ​by the authorities in England to the Governors of Virginia to see to the passage of laws having that object in view. For a long series of years, the anxiety of the English Government was confined to the extension of Jamestown, the effort towards which appears to have inflicted only a burden on the people, but in 1662, Berkeley, who had been restored to his old position at the head of the Colony, after the return of the Stuarts to power, was commanded to use his influence to induce the planters to erect a town upon every important river. It is a significant commentary on the effect of the numerous laws which had been missed with a view to enlarging Jamestown, that Berkeley was specially directed to begin at this place the new attempt at town-building in Virginia. Such was the recommendation which was necessary after all the carefully considered undertakings of fifty years. Jamestown was still to be seated; the Governor had, practically, still to lay its foundations and to promote its growth with the most vigilant solicitude. Berkeley himself was commanded by the English Government to build several houses in the town, presumably at his own expense, and he was told to inform the members of the Council that the authorities in England would be highly pleased if each one would erect a residence at Jamestown. To such expedients was the English Government driven to breathe life into that languishing corporation! It might have been supposed that the Committee for Foreign Plantations in England would, by this time, have plainly understood that if the local conditions in Virginia had failed to promote the growth of towns there, all the legislation which might be enacted in the ​future, like all that had been enacted in the past, would accomplish nothing whatever, but the belief was still too widespread that a statute had power to effect any purpose, however opposed to the spirit of the economic system of the people upon whose interests it was designed to operate.
The General Assembly showed great willingness to conform to the wishes of the English Government, although its members must have perceived very clearly the impracticability of all schemes to promote the building of towns in the Colony. In the session of 1661-62, the law requiring that every ship which arrived in James River should sail to Jamestown and there obtain a license to trade was reënacted, in spite of the fact that such a measure would add nothing to the growth of that place, as had been already proved by previous experience, and must enhance to an appreciable extent the cost of all imported articles in consequence of the longer voyage and unavoidable delay in delivering them, the expenses of the vessel being recouped by the higher prices demanded from the purchaser of the goods. There was now but one justification for the action of the Assembly in taking steps to compel all vessels bringing cargoes of goods into the Colony to go to Jamestown and there obtain a license to sell, namely, the endeavor to keep the volume of revenue undiminished, since all liquors, if landed elsewhere, escaped the burden of the import tax. But if this was the motive governing the Assembly, it was soon seen that the regulation was impracticable. A determined effort was now made to carry out the instruction that a town should be built upon every river to serve as a port of entry. In the session of 1662 there was passed the most detailed and carefully considered measure which had as yet been brought forward. ​This law constitutes one of the most interesting acts of legislation in colonial history, and might be regarded as a remarkable triumph of legislative hope over practical experience were it not for the statement of the preamble that the Assembly had undertaken to encourage the building of towns because they looked upon it as their duty to conform to the wishes of their sovereign in England. There is a brief reference to the probable economic advantages to accrue to themselves. The determination to establish these towns had its origin almost exclusively in a feeling of loyalty, a poor justification for so momentous a step. The hand of Berkeley is detected in the whole framework of the statute and his preference is evidently consulted.
A full synopsis of this Act will be found interesting as revealing the procedure of the General Assembly in the seventeenth century when it sought to build up a town in the face of a powerful combination of hostile influences. The best means to promote the growth of the capital was the problem which was to occupy the attention of the Colony during the first year after the passage of the statute, and at the end of that time, the public energies were to be devoted to establishing a town on the York, Rappahannock, and Potomac respectively, and on the Eastern Shore. Under the terms of this statute, it was provided that Jamestown should consist of thirty-two houses, a number which indicated that the General Assembly was disposed to be moderate and prudent in its requirements. Each house was to be forty feet from end to end, twenty feet in width in the interior, and eighteen feet in height. Each was to be constructed of brick. The walls were to be two bricks in thickness as far as the water table, and one and a half the remaining distance. The roof was to be covered with slate or tile, and was to be fifteen feet in pitch. The manner of the relative arrangement of the ​houses, whether in a square or line, was left to be decided by the Governor.
Although the Colony had prospered in a fair measure for a period of fifty years without having a large settlement at Jamestown, nevertheless, it had now been determined in earnest to establish one there. It was thought advisable to proceed with great dispatch. To accomplish this, each of the seventeen counties into which Virginia was divided at this time, was ordered to build a house at Jamestown at its own expense. The authority was conferred on all to impress into service the mechanics needed for the work, such as bricklayers, carpenters, sawyers, and other tradesmen. The strictest regulations were laid down to prevent every kind of exaction. The bricks were to be manufactured in the most careful manner and were in size to represent statute measure; the price was not to exceed one hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco for every one thousand. In addition to receiving his food without charge, the ordinary laborer engaged in erecting a house was to be paid at the rate of two thousand pounds of tobacco a year. The brickmakers and bricklayers were to be remunerated according to the number of bricks moulded and laid, while the wages of each carpenter were not to exceed thirty pounds of tobacco a day. Each sawyer was to receive half a pound of tobacco for every foot of plank and timber for joices which he fashioned into shape. The workmen furnished by each county were ordered to report themselves twenty days after the Governor had forwarded to the commissioners of the county the notice to send them. The keepers of the taverns at Jamestown were required to supply the ordinary laborer with food at the rate of one thousand pounds of tobacco a year, and the most skilled workmen at the rate of fifteen hundred.
There was not a landowner in the Colony upon whom ​the enforcement of this law would not impose a more or less onerous burden. Thus it directed that a levy of thirty pounds of tobacco a head should be raised by the counties, and that each county should use ten thousand pounds of the amount thus collected, in paying for the construction of the house which it was required to build at Jamestown, in case the structure was completed in the course of two years after the original subscription. Ten thousand pounds of tobacco were also granted to every person who finished, at that place, a dwelling of the prescribed size before the termination of the same time. The surplusage of the general levy was to be distributed by the Governor and Council among those who had undertaken to erect houses, in the order of time in which these houses were completed. If any one who had bound himself to build at Jamestown in accord with the provisions of the law, should fail to carry out his agreement within the period allowed, he exposed himself to a fine of fifteen hundred pounds of tobacco. In order to induce persons to erect brick houses on the lots assigned them, they were granted a fee simple title to ground adjacent to their property sufficient in extent to afford room for a store.
Having taken measures which seemed adapted to ensure the erection of a large number of houses and stores, the General Assembly, recognizing that unless a steady volume of trade could be secured for the inhabitants, the corporation would have no reason for existence, established the regulation that from the year Jamestown was completed, the tobacco crops of James City, Charles City, and Surry should be transported thither in sloops and shallops, and there put on board ships. If a planter refused to conform to this regulation, he was to be mulcted one thousand pounds of tobacco. The remuneration of each person who should convey the tobacco of others in his sloop or ​shallop to Jamestown was fixed at ten pounds of that commodity per thousand, and the owner of the storehouse in which it was deposited was to receive six pounds in the same proportion. None of these charges prevailed under the system in force at the time this statute became a law; the planter rolled his tobacco on board the merchantman at his wharf, or transported it in a sloop of his own to a point where the vessel was lying. No expense, as a rule, was incurred in this course, for the work was generally performed by his own men. The charges entailed by the proposed law would have been borne with impatience even during periods of high prices for tobacco, but when this product was selling at a low rate the burden was intolerable, and was in itself sufficient to render the statute in operation altogether hopeless of a good effect. To ensure the transfer of a still larger quantity of tobacco to Jamestown, it was further provided that no vessel should take on board a cargo between that place and Mulberry Island. All tobacco ready for shipment above the latter point was to be conveyed to Jamestown first, and there loaded for transportation abroad. Whatever merchandise was consigned to planters or merchants residing between the capital and Mulberry Island was to be landed at the former place, and, if a vessel was loaded or unloaded elsewhere, its cargo was to be forfeited. To promote the growth of population at Jamestown, it was provided that during the first two years following the inauguration of the work of building houses there, the person and property of every man who resided in the town, and passed to and from it in the course of his daily business, should for two years be exempted from every form of legal process unless it was issued for debt contracted within the bounds of the corporation, or for the commission of a capital crime. An important provision of the law was that after its passage ​no wooden house was to be erected in Jamestown, and all such houses then standing in the Colony should not be repaired with the same material, but should be replaced by structures of brick. The levy of thirty pounds of tobacco a head was for the period of one year to be devoted to the extension of Jamestown, but after the expiration of that time, the annual levy for building was to be expended in establishing towns in Accomac, and on the York, Rappahannock, and Potomac.
This brief synopsis of the law of 1662 shows how elaborate were the provisions of that measure for the enlargement more especially of Jamestown. As far as legislation, independently of favorable local conditions, could create a town where none existed, it might be supposed that this law would have been successful in accomplishing its object, so far, at least, as the capital was concerned. It provided in detail for the erection of a number of houses at a cost which was distributed among the people of the seventeen counties. The mechanics to be employed in the work were to be provided for properly, and to be fully ​remunerated for their labor. Title in fee simple to a lot was to be given, without charge, to every one who erected a house in the town, and finally, trade was to be secured for it by staking it the only port on the James above Mulberry Island where a cargo could be legally loaded and unloaded. Necessarily, if this regulation was strictly enforced, Jamestown would become the residence of all the principal merchants in that part of the Colony. What was the practical result of all these carefully considered provisions? Three years after their adoption, Secretary Ludwell, writing to Secretary Bennett in England, stated that enough of the proposed town had been built to accommodate the officers employed in the civil administration of Virginia, but this, it may be inferred from a remark contained in a letter from Morryson to Lord Clarendon, amounted only to the construction of four or five houses. He declared that the erection of this scanty number of buildings had entailed the loss of hundreds of people, apprehension of impressment having driven many mechanics from the Colony.
In 1670, Jamestown consisted of only twelve or fourteen families, who obtained a living chiefly by keeping houses of entertainment. This would signify a population of about seventy-five. There were twelve new brick houses and a number of framed houses with brick chimneys attached, the value of the whole number, it was ​calculated, being 1,500,000 pounds of tobacco. All the houses were not inhabited. The two most substantial residences in the town at this time were owned by Mr. Lawrence and Mr. Drummond, men who figured very prominently in the popular uprising in the following year. The town extended about three-quarters of a mile from east to west. When Jamestown was laid in ashes by the soldiers of Bacon, Drummond and Lawrence applied the torch each to his own home. The church and state-house were both destroyed in the conflagration. When the English regiments dispatched to the Colony to suppress the insurrection arrived, there was not a house left standing in the town to furnish them shelter from the weather. The commissioners sent to Virginia to inquire into the causes which led to the uprising of the people reported in favor of continuing the capital at Jamestown, and this recommendation received the approval of the Privy Council. The General Assembly had proposed to move the chief seat to Tyndall’s Point in Gloucester. When Culpeper was appointed to the head of affairs in Virginia, he was instructed to rebuild Jamestown and to reëstablish there the executive residence, the principal courts of justice and the other public offices. It was ​further declared that it would give the King much satisfaction if the members of the Council and the leading citizens of the Colony should build houses at Jamestown and dwell there. A state-house was soon erected to accommodate the Burgesses, the Secretary, and the Clerk. A prison was also built. The population of Virginia was now spread over such a wide area that the necessity of increasing the number of ports of entry as each successive statute for the encouragement of the growth of towns was enacted, was clearly recognized. It was impossible even for the English authorities, who had shown so much blindness in the past to the physical conditions of the country, to entertain the belief that Jamestown could still be made the only port of entry and that all efforts should be restricted to enlarging that place; they therefore recommended that a town should be built in the valley of each of the principal rivers. The need of this, in case ports of entry were to be established by law, had been known as early as 1662, and this need had only grown in force with the expansion in the volume of population and the extension of the area of the plantations.
Culpeper arrived in the Colony in May, 1650, and in the following month an elaborate measure for the encouragement of Cohabitation was passed by the General Assembly. In this statute, no special preference was shown to Jamestown, as had been the case in all previous Acts relating to the subject. Virginia had not yet recovered from the confusion caused by the insurrection of ​a few years before; the people were in a state of poverty in consequence of the turmoil through which they had passed and the continued low price of tobacco, and they were, therefore, prepared to adopt any suggestion which seemed likely to afford them relief. They were disposed to countenance a new Act of Cohabitation, in the hope that it would raise up occupations for the inhabitants of the Colony and probably diminish their dependence upon England for manufactures, the cost of which fell very heavily upon the people when their main commodity was depressed in value. The new statute made no reference to this anticipation, nor did it contain, like the statute of 1662, the expression of a loyal desire to conform to the wishes of the King; it merely declared that the reasons prompting its passage were the low prices of tobacco and the great advantages which would accrue from the establishment of storehouses at convenient places for the reception of all merchandise to be imported into the country and all tobacco to be exported. Under the terms of this statute, it was provided that fifty acres should be purchased by the authorities of each county in its own boundaries, to be held by duly appointed feoffees in trust. The price to be paid for this land was set at ten thousand pounds of tobacco, against which appraisement the owner of each fifty acres was without right of appeal, nor could he make a legal resistance to the appropriation itself. He was required to pass an absolute deed of conveyance, and in case he refused to do so, mere entry by the feoffees dispossessed him of his legal title. The following places were selected as sites for new towns: Varina in Henrico, Fleur de Hundred in Charles City, Smith’s Fort in Surry, Jamestown in James City, Patesfield in Isle of Wight, Huff’s Point in Nansemond, mouth of Deep Creek in Warwick, the Jervise plantation in Elizabeth City, ​the Wise plantation in Lower Norfolk, the Read plantation in York, the Brick House in New Kent, Tyndall’s Point in Gloucester, the Wormeley plantation in Middlesex, Hobb’s Hole in Rappahannock, Peace Point in Stafford, Calvert’s Neck in Accomac, the Secretary’s plantation on Kings Creek in Northampton, Corotoman in Lancaster, and Chickacony in Northumberland.
As an inducement to build on these sites, a lot, half an acre in extent, was granted in fee simple to any one on condition of erecting a residence and store on it, this conveyance to be subject to the additional condition that the beneficiary should pay one hundred pounds to the county. The failure in the course of three months to build operated as a forfeiture of the lot. If half an acre appeared insufficient for his purpose to any settler who wished to establish himself in any one of these towns, he might secure an acre on condition that he should erect on it two residences and two warehouses, and should pay to the county an additional one hundred pounds of tobacco. The tobacco was forfeited if in the course of three months he neglected to erect the houses agreed upon. The surveyors who determined the boundaries were to receive, on the delivery of the plats, twenty pounds of tobacco for every half-acre laid off. If a surveyor refused when requested to make a survey of a lot, he subjected himself to the forfeiture of five hundred pounds of the same commodity to the person seeking his services. All the products of native growth and manufacture were to be brought to these towns, there to be sold, and then to be carried on board for exportation abroad. The penalty imposed for a failure to comply with this order was the forfeiture of the articles. All forms of merchandise, all English servants and negro slaves imported into the Colony, were to be landed and to be disposed of only in these ​towns, under the pain of confiscation if the regulation was violated. Cattle and provisions were excepted from the operation of this rule. The cost of hiring a sloop, the only means of transporting the tobacco from the plantations, was fixed at twenty pounds of that commodity for each hogshead, provided the distance to be traversed did not exceed thirty miles; if it was greater than this, the charge was to be forty pounds, and should the owner of the sloop demand more, he was to be punished by the forfeiture of one hundred pounds for each hogshead conveyed by him at the illegal rate. The expense of storage in a warehouse was to be the same for a single day and a single month, namely, ten pounds of tobacco a hogshead. If the period ran beyond a month, the additional charge for each month was fixed at six pounds. In order to facilitate the transportation of the tobacco belonging to persons whose plantations were situated at a distance from the nearest site chosen for a town, these persons were permitted to appropriate land at the most convenient point for the dispatch of vessels, on which a rolling-house was to be erected to furnish accommodation for all the producers in their neighborhood. When the planter had prepared his crop for shipment, he could convey his hogsheads to this house for safe-keeping until a sloop or shallop arrived to transport them to the nearest port of entry. If he had a sloop or shallop of his own, he could either carry his tobacco to the rolling-house by water or directly to the legal port and there have it deposited in the public warehouse. The rolling-house was expected to be a shelter not only for the tobacco in the course of transportation to the port of entry, but also for the goods which had been unloaded at the latter place and had afterwards been brought to the rolling-house for distribution among the planters residing in the neighborhood.
​It can be seen how seriously a provision of this kind, if carried fully into effect, would have added to the expenses of the planter. Instead of dropping its anchor at his wharf and there discharging a cargo of goods and taking on a cargo of tobacco, the trading vessel would have stopped at a point ten, twenty, or even fifty miles away. Whether the planter was compelled to reach this vessel by transporting his tobacco in a hired shallop or sloop, or in a vessel of his own, he would have been put to an expense for which he could expect no return. The intervention of a rolling-house would have been favorable to his convenience, but would not have diminished the charge imposed by the system of ports of entry. Under the terms of this law, the tobacco conveyed thither was to be exempted in the course of transportation, and after it reached its destination, from the process of law for any debt which might have been contracted previous to the passage of the statute, and the same privilege was extended to the bodies and estates of the citizens of the new town. In neither case, however, was it to continue for a longer period than five years. At the end of that time, the creditors of such persons might bring suit without apprehension lest the statute of limitations should be offered in bar. To enjoy this protection, it was necessary that the debt should not have been contracted within the bounds of one of the proposed corporations. After the publication of the Act, all mechanics residing in the new communities were to be exempted for a period of five years from the payment of levies, on condition that they neither planted nor tended tobacco. In order to diminish the expense entailed in establishing a town, it was provided that two counties might unite and erect it upon a site equally convenient to the inhabitants of both.
This Act was as judicious and as far-seeing in its details ​as any law with so impracticable an object in view could have been. No influence was omitted that was likely to impress the minds of persons who were in a position to build in the towns projected. The offer of a lot for a small amount of tobacco and the exemption within the boundaries of each town of the person and property of its citizens from the process of law for the recovery of debts which had been contracted previously elsewhere, were in themselves inducements of the highest importance. The law of 1680 was not open to the objection which could be very justly urged against the statute of 1671, for it did not seek to establish one port on each of the four large rivers of the Colony; on the contrary, a port of entry was appointed for each county on a site admitted to be the most convenient for a majority of its inhabitants.
In accord with the provisions of the Act of Cohabitation, steps were taken by the authorities of all the counties to lay off sites for towns at the different places designated by law. Records of this fact have come down to us in a few instances only. In the levy entered in court in Lancaster in January, 1683, five hundred and fifty pounds of tobacco were allowed George Heale for defining the boundaries of the proposed port of entry at Corotoman. In 1681, Robert Beverley and Abraham Weeks were appointed to serve as trustees of the town to be built in Middlesex. The feoffees empowered to act in Norfolk County were William Robinson and Antony Lawson, and among the first purchasers of lots were such prominent citizens as Peter Smith, Richard Whitby, Henry Spratt, and William Porteus. The feoffees who conveyed ​title to property in New Plymouth, in Rappahannock, were John Stone, William Lloyd, Henry Awbrey, and Thomas Gouldman.
Jamestown, instead of deriving any practical benefit from the passage of the Cohabitation Act, suffered a positive disadvantage. The opinion had for some time prevailed in the Colony that the capital was far less favorably situated than many spots which might have been chosen for the same purpose. When the statute of 1680 became a law, there was a general impression that one of the towns to be established under its terms would be selected as the metropolis of Virginia, and in consequence many persons who would have otherwise felt differently and probably acted accordingly, were indisposed to build residences at Jamestown. The expressed wish of the King that the members of the Council and other citizens of prominence and influence should set an example to the population at large by establishing homes at that place, failed to have a general effect. Colonel Bacon built two houses in the town, and Colonel Bridger and Mr. Sherwood laid the foundation of others.
Many of the shipmasters appear to have disregarded the statute of 1680 as if it had no existence, while many discontinued their commercial intercourse with the Colony. ​To such an extent did the Act curtail the revenue which the English Government annually derived from Virginia, and so much did it interfere with the profits of the English merchants who found a market in the Colony, that it was at length suspended, but not until it had become thoroughly odious to the people, more especially in consequence of the prosecutions arising under the provisions of the law for the payment of forfeitures for violation of its terms. The whole question as to establishing a number of towns was referred back to the General Assembly. This was the first practical admission on the part of the English Government that the policy of promoting town building in the Colony, which it had so long urged upon the attention of the people of Virginia, had ended in failure. The conflict of opinion as to the causes of this failure was very marked. Secretary Spencer was inclined to ascribe it to the fact that the erection of too many towns was undertaken. It would have been far wiser, he thought, to have attempted to build only one on each river. In the opinion of others, the whole scheme was impracticable, whether it was sought to erect only one town on each of the important streams or a town in each county, and this opinion seems to have been fully confirmed by the practical effect of the Cohabitation Act of 1662, and also by that of 1680, the latter providing for the erection of a town in each county, the former for the erection of a town in the valley of each of the principal rivers.
​It would have been supposed that the result of the Act of 1680 would have discouraged all further efforts to revive this class of laws. Eleven years later, however, what was known as the Act for Ports was passed. This measure, like the majority of similar ones in the past, became a law at the suggestion of the man who was at that time at the head of affairs in Virginia. In this instance, it was Governor Nicholson. The people at large were adverse to the passage of such a statute, as we know from records left by contemporaneous observers. It was not always an easy matter, they argued, for the inhabitants of the Colony to earn a livelihood, though dwelling dispersed, as they were then doing, in a manner to leave ground for each individual to cultivate. How much more difficult for a hundred families to obtain subsistence when they should be confined to an area not more than half a mile in extent! Now, this was an entirely valid inference to draw in the light of the peculiar economic system prevailing in Virginia; there was no substantial interest demanding the presence of a hundred families upon any one contracted site in the Colony, and in the absence of such an interest, they must necessarily lack the means of support and in consequence suffer severely. It was pointed out at the time of the passage of the Act for Ports that the greater number of Burgesses were entirely ignorant of the conveniences and advantages of towns, having never in their lives enjoyed an opportunity of visiting one. The authors of the Present State of Virginia, 1697, writing in the closing years of the seventeenth century, agreed with Secretary Spencer in thinking that the mistake committed in the Acts establishing towns and ports of entry was in the appointment of too ​many sites, a mistake which, they asserted, was to be laid at the door of the Burgesses, each of whom desired to have a town in his own immediate neighborhood, if not on his own plantation. It is much more probable, however, that the Burgesses clearly recognized the impracticable character of the schemes for the building of towns, and wished to diminish the inconvenience which the law entailed in requiring one at least to be erected in each county or one port of entry to be laid off there. They had their eyes, perhaps, not so much upon an advantage to be gained as upon an injury to be avoided.
The Act for Ports, in 1691, provided for the erection of a greater number of towns than the Cohabitation Act of 1680. For the counties of Charles City, Gloucester, Nansemond, Elizabeth City, York, James City, Middlesex, Northumberland, Rappahannock, and Accomac, the sites chosen were the same under both measures. The port for Lower Norfolk was again placed at the mouth of the eastern branch of Elizabeth River, for Stafford on Potomac Creek, for Northampton on Cherrystone Creek, and for Lancaster on the west side of the mouth of the Corotoman. In addition to these ports of entry and clearing, there were a number of points selected as places for selling and buying goods, namely, at Bermuda Hundred in Henrico, at the month of Pagan Creek in the Isle of Wight, at the mouth of Deep Creek in Warwick, at the mouth of Gray’s Creek in Surry, and at the mouth of Nominy in Westmoreland. Several of these spots had been surveyed under the terms of the law of 1680, and contained a number of residences as well as prisons and court-houses built of brick. The justices of the peace in each county decided upon the fifty acres which were to be set apart as the site for the county port; ​this area was carefully surveyed, and lots determined for the stores and warehouses in which imported goods and tobacco for exportation were to be deposited. If the owner of the land appropriated refused to give it up, a jury of twelve men, summoned by the sheriff, were to assess its value, and the amount thus named was to be satisfied by a levy upon every tithable in the county. When the owner of the site of a port had transferred his title to the feoffees, or that title had passed to them by his refusal to make a deed, they were authorized to grant half an acre or mere to any person who should agree to erect on it in the course of four months a house twenty feet square. After October, 1692, all merchandise brought into the Colony and all the products sent out were to pass through one of these ports, and if they were conveyed into or out of the county elsewhere, their forfeiture was to be the penalty.
The support which this measure had in popular favor was shown in the action of many of the leading citizens of the Colony with reference to building a town at York. A plat of ground owned by Benjamin Read was laid off into eighty-five lots, covering an area of fifty acres. Only two appear to have remained without a purchaser. Among the persons who invested in them were such well-known men as Colonel William Digges, John Buckner, Thomas Jefferson, Colonel Edmund Jennings, Colonel William Cole, Dudley Digges, Thomas Chisman, Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., Charles Hansford, Edward Hill, and Governor Francis Nicholson.
It is a fact worthy of note that a number of mechanics purchased lots at York, for the purpose, doubtless, of carrying on their trades in the town. Among them were ​William Simson, a tailor, James Derbyshire, a smith, and Robert Harrison, a carpenter. Several innkeepers also acquired holdings there. The trustees were Joseph King and Thomas Ballard. The feoffees for the town laid off in Middlesex County were Mathew Kemp, Christopher Robinson, and William Churchill. The site had been the property of Ralph Wormeley, who refused to convey it upon order of the court, and in consequence it was forfeited ipso facto. Wormeley was anxious to retain a remainder interest in the property, very probably because he anticipated the failure of the objects of the law, but the authorities refused to consent to this. Among the purchasers of lots were Edwin and John Thacker, Cristopher Robinson, James Curtis, Robert Dudley, John Head, William Daniel, Maurice Cocke, and John Smith. The feoffees for the town in Lancaster were David Fox and Robert Carter, and the site was purchased from William Ball for thirteen thousand pounds of tobacco. The owners of the lots included such men as Edwin Conway and Richard Willis. In Henrico, the feoffees for Bermuda Hundred were William Randolph and Francis Eppes, the consideration in the purchase of the land being twelve thousand pounds of tobacco. Among those who acquired lots were Thomas Cocke, Edward Stratton, Thomas Jefferson, and Edward Hatcher. The feoffees for Lower Norfolk under ​the statute of 1691 were the same as under the Cohabitation Act of 1680; William Hislett succeeded William Robinson, who was in his turn succeeded by Samuel Boush. Among those who owned property in the town were such prominent citizens as Malachi Thruston, who built a residence and other houses on the six lots which he purchased, William Knott, who also erected three buildings, Peter Hobson, who lived in the town, Bryant Cahill, Thomas Nash, Thomas Walke, and Francis Simpson. Several lots were purchased by mechanics. A lot having on it a house and garden was in 1695 sold for nine pounds sterling. The records of 1699 show that Norfolk at that time had at least one wharf. The inhabitants in the previous year had been visited by an epidemic. Although the Act for Ports, which was as carefully considered as the Cohabitation Act of 1680, the policies of the two being practically identical, had been passed at the urgent suggestion of Nicholson, nevertheless, in the following year he openly expressed his dislike of the law, and sought, by increasing its unpopularity, to secure its repeal. This inconsistent conduct was attributed at the time to the influence of the English merchants, with whose trade in Virginia the Act for Ports interfered as much as the former Cohabitation Acts had done. In the session of 1692-93, the statute was suspended by the ​Assembly, after having been in operation during several months. The ostensible reason offered for this course was that the consent of the Government in England had not yet been obtained to its becoming a law. It was well known at the time, however, that the true explanation of the suspension was to be found in the complaints which the English merchants engaged in trade with Virginia had made as to the practical working of the statute, as well as in the inconvenience it entailed upon the people of the Colony at large. In spite of this inconvenience, there was a marked disposition on the part of many citizens, in the interval during which the Act for Ports was in operation, to purchase lots from the feoffees of the different towns. This disposition continued even while the Act was supposed to be in a state of suspension. In Hampton, in 1694, for instance, one of the lots which had been laid off was transferred to a purchaser for seven pounds sterling. The site of the new town at this place consisted of twenty-six half-acres, all of which appear to have been sold. Two years later, one of these lots was conveyed by Henry Royall to John Walker in consideration of six pounds sterling. Royall was bound under the terms of sale to build a house twenty feet in length; Walker claimed that this condition had not been fulfilled properly, and on this account, the amount of purchase money was cut down to five pounds and fifteen shillings. In 1698, Hampton was a place of sufficient importance to require the appointment of a special constable. Upon many of the lots, houses were erected and other ​improvements established by the owners. In order to protect the interests of persons whose titles to property had been affected by the Act of Suspension and also to promote building, it was provided in 1699, eight years after the Act for Ports and six years after the Act of Suspension had been passed, that the trustees should confirm titles to lands bought previous to the latter Act or afterwards, just as if that measure had never been adopted. All vacancies in the board of feoffees were to be filled and all other powers conferred on these officers were to be exercised as if the Act for Ports had remained in force. So far, therefore, as this part of that law was involved, it continued to operate. In sustaining the right of the trustees to dispose of lots in spite of the suspension of the Act, it would appear that there was a desire among the members of the Assembly to encourage the growth of towns in the Colony as long as the movement did not affect the custom prevailing among the planters of exporting tobacco from their own wharves or receiving there all their imported merchandise. A still more striking evidence of the same desire was the grant of an extension of time to all who had ceased to build after the passage of the Act of Suspension. The Act for Ports was embodied in the code of 1705, the statement appearing in its preamble that the consent of the Government in England to its being put in operation had been obtained, but it was not long before it was again suspended through the influence of the English merchants trading in Virginia.
After the restoration of Jamestown, the settlement does not seem to have numbered more than twenty houses. ​It had, however, a representative in the Assembly. In the last decade of the century, what remained of the town was destroyed by fire, and it never recovered from the effect of the conflagration. In the period of its highest prosperity, which had always been small, it had hardly amounted to more than a geographical name, a name celebrated in history as designating a locality associated with thrilling and romantic events rather than the languishing hamlet that it was. It never rose to the dignity of a town in the modern sense of the word, and yet there are few deserted sites on the face of the globe which call up to the mind of the visitor, scenes more interesting in themselves or more far-reaching in their historical significance. It was here that the English-speaking people made their first permanent settlement on the North American Continent; this fact alone has given the spot an undying fame, a fame that will increase as the power of the Anglo-Saxon race in the Western Hemisphere expands. A quarter of a century after the conflagration, Jamestown consisted of three or four substantial inhabited houses and a great mass of brick rubbish. To-day, hardly a trace of the rubbish remains.
When the town was laid in ashes towards the close of the seventeenth century, it was decided to remove the capital o£ the Colony to the Middle Plantation, as it was known, a place offering the advantages of a healthy and ​temperate situation, a large number of wholesome springs, and the proximity of two creeks, one of which emptied into the James, the other into the York. As has been seen, the plan of abandoning Jamestown as the site of the capital had been contemplated on several occasions. It was always supposed, however, that the new seat of the colonial government would be one of the towns designated in the text of the Cohabitation Acts. The measure for incorporating the new capital was not introduced into the Assembly until 1699, and it was embodied in the code of 1705. The details of this statute illustrate the practical manner in which a new town was laid off in Virginia in the seventeenth century. The first provision was for the appropriation of four hundred and seventy-five square feet of land as a site for the state-house. An area of two hundred feet in its immediate neighborhood was to remain unobstructed in every direction. Two hundred and eighty-three acres and thirty half-poles of land were reserved for the general uses of the town. Of this, two hundred and twenty acres were designed as sites for houses, and fifteen acres and forty-four poles and a quarter were set apart for a roadbed to lead from the town to Queen’s Creek, a stream flowing into York River. At the point where the road reached the creek, fourteen acres, seventy-one poles and a quarter of land were to be laid off for a port, and for a similar purpose, twenty-three acres, thirty-seven poles and a half of land were reserved on Archer’s Hope Creek, the name of which was changed to Princess. This second port was connected with Williamsburg by a road for which ten acres and forty-two poles were allowed by statute. The appropriation of the ground upon which the town was built was made by a jury of twelve men drawn from the counties of York, New Kent, and James City, freeholders who were not related by blood or ​marriage to the owners of the proposed site. Their appraisement was returned to the office of the Secretary, and immediately upon its reception the feoffees whom the Assembly had appointed, a Burwell, a Ludwell, a Harrison, and later a Byrd, being included among the number, were authorized to enter upon the land, their title to it becoming at once an absolute estate for inheritance in fee in trust for the object defined in the statute. This ownership, however, did not extend to any lot upon which a house was standing at the time the new town was incorporated. In such an instance the proprietorship remained with the original owner. The general plat was divided into lots half an acre in extent. One of the most important duties of the feoffees was to convey a title to the purchasers of these lots, who were to pay an advance of fifty per cent on the original cost to the Government, of each one. It was also provided that every buyer should in the space of twenty-four months erect on his property a dwelling twenty feet in width and thirty feet in length. Every house on the main street was to be built within six feet of the roadway and was required to be at least ten feet in pitch. If any person purchased two adjoining lots on the main street, and before the termination of a period of twenty-four months erected a house fifty-four feet long and twenty feet broad, or a brick or wooden house, having two stacks of brick chimneys and also cellars, forty feet in length and twenty in breadth, he was considered to have complied with the condition and could claim an absolute title to his property. He could claim the same title if he purchased an entire acre on the main street and one or more lots in the immediate rear, and erected in the course of twelve months, on the acre fronting on the main street, as much housing as would amount to five hundred square feet superficial measure on the ground plat for every lot ​which he had bought. He was also considered to have fulfilled the condition of ownership if in the same length of time he completed in brick or framework, with brick cellars and chimneys, as much housing as would make four hundred square feet superficial measure on the ground plat for every lot included in his purchase. Six months after a building had been finished, the owner was required to enclose the lot or lots with a wall or paling, or with post and rails, and if he failed to comply with this order, he forfeited five shillings a month for every lot that remained open. The power of incorporating the town was reserved to the chief executive of the Colony. At any time he could issue his letters patent under seal, and unite all who had an interest in property in Williamsburg into one corporation, to be known as the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the city of Williamsburg, with the right to exercise full municipal authority.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 392.
* ↑ Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 84.
* ↑ Wingfield’s Discourse, Works of Capt. John Smith, Introduction, p. lxxxvi.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, p. 407
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 408, 409.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, pp. 471, 957.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 471, 486, 612.
* ↑ Council in Virginia to the London Company, Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 405.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, pp. 502, 503.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 507 ; Ralph Hamor’s True Discourse, p. 26; Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 492.
* ↑ Brown’s Genesis of the United States, p. 492; Neill’s Virginia Vetusta, p. 81.
* ↑ For these details, see Ralph Hamor’s True Discourse, p. 30; New Life of Virginia, p.14, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. I; Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, p. 75.
* ↑ Hamor’s True Discourse, p. 33; Royal Hist. MSS. Commission, Eighth Report, p. 42.
* ↑ Works of Capt. John Smith, pp. 535, 536.
* ↑ Briefe Declaration of the Plantation of Virginia, Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, p. 80.
* ↑ This was Tappahannock on the Powhatan; Abstracts of Proceedings of the Virginia Company of London, vol. II, p. 37.
* ↑ Briefe Declaration of the Plantation of Virginia, Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, p. 80.
* ↑ Governor Wyatt to John Ferrer, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. II, No. 26; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1623, p. 86, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Va. Land Patents, vol. 1623-1643, p. 5.
* ↑ List of the Living and Dead in Virginia, 1623, Colonial Records of Virginia, State Senate Doct., Extra, p. 41.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial, vol. II, No. 35.
* ↑ Report of Sub-Committee for Foreign Plantations, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. IX, No. 122; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1688, p. 29, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Governor Harvey and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 5; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638, pp. 50-57, Va. State Library.
* ↑ See Va. Land Patents, vol. 1623-1643, p. 689.
* ↑ Governor Harvey and Council to Privy Council, British State Papers, Colonial, vol. X, No. 5; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1638, p. 54, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 57.
* ↑ On each side of the state-house there was a building of the same length and width. The three structures came into possession of Henry Randolph, who in 1671 conveyed the middle one to Nathaniel Bacon, Sr.; the second to Colonel Thomas Swann; and the third to Thomas Ludwell. See General Court Rule Book, No. 2, pp. 155, 617, Robinson Transcripts, p. 258.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial, vol. VI, No. 54; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1632, p. 35, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Instructions to Berkeley, 1641, § 17, McDonald Papers, vol. I, p. 382, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. I, p. 252.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 362, 397.
* ↑ Virginia’s Cure, p. 10, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. III.
* ↑ Grievances of Surry County, 1676-1677, British State Papers, Colonial, Virginia, No. 62; Winder Papers, vol. II, p. 160, Va. State Library
* ↑ Instructions to Berkeley, 1663, § l, McDonald Papers, vol. 1, p. 414, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 135.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 172-176.
* ↑ “Whereas by act of last session (1662) of the Hon$^{ble}$ Grand Assembly, a towne is appointed to be builded at James Citty, and in order thereto each County is to build one house of bricks. It is ordered that a house be there built for this County (York) and as the county house, of the length, height and wideness appointed by ye said Act, and Maj. Joseph Croshaw who hath undertaken the same is by ye court nominated and impowered to have the whole management and ordering thereof, and of all things relating thereunto, viz, hyre and agree with or if occasion be, to presse workmen, labourers and others in the county, according to Act, and at ye prizes thereby set, and to take care that all timber works and other things convenient be fitted and caned in place, and the said house built and finished with what speed may be, and to doe and procure to be done all other necessary thing or things concerning ye same where agreements and disbursements to be sattisfied in ye county to ye persons employed, and said Maj. Croshaw’s pains and trouble in ye management thereof to be considered and allowed by ye County.” Records of York County, vol. 1657-1662, p. 475, Va. State Library.
* ↑ British State Papers, Colonial Papers, April 10, 1665; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1665, p. 72, Va. State Library.
* ↑ This letter is given in Neill’s Virginia Carolorum, p. 205. The following is taken from the Grievances of Surry County, drawn up in response to the special request of the English commissioners sent to inquire into the causes of Bacon’s Insurrection: “That great quantityes of tobacco were levied upon ye pore inhabitants of this Collony for the building of houses att James Citty, which were not inhabitable by reason they were not finished.” British State Papers, Colonial, Virginia, no. 62; Winder Papers, vol. II, p. 160, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Bacon’s Proceedings, p. 25, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. I.
* ↑ Final Report of the English Commissioners on Bacon’s Rebellion, Winder Papers, vol. II, p. 503, Va. State Library. The destruction of several of the chief residences alone involved the loss of £1000. Ibid., p. 446.
* ↑ Bacon’s Proceedings, p. 25, Force’s Historical Tracts, vol. I.
* ↑ By the provisions of a law passed during the supremacy of Bacon, the corporation of Jamestown was made to include the whole island as far as Sandy Bay. See Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 302.
* ↑ Colonial Entry Book, No. 80, pp. 90, 94.
* ↑ Order of King in Council, March 14, 1678-79, Colonial Entry Book, No. 80, pp. 266, 273; Sainsbury Abstracts for 1678, p. 212, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, p. 405.
* ↑ See Address of Burgesses to Howard, Oct. 4, 1685. See order of same, British State Papers, Colonial Entry Book, Virginian Assembly No. 86; McDonald Papers, vol. VII, pp. 365, 367, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. II, pp. 471, 478. Fitzhugh, writing to Captain Francis Partis, July 1, 1680, said: “We are going to make towns; if you can meet with any tradesmen that will come in and live at the town, they may have large privileges and immunities.” Letters, July 1, 1680.
* ↑ Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1680-1686, orders Jan. 10, 1682-83.
* ↑ Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1680-1694, p. 41.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1675-1686, f. p. 126.
* ↑ Records of Rappahannock County, vol. 1680-1688, p. 2, Va. State library. A plat of the town will be found on p. 1 of this volume of Rappahannock records.
* ↑ Instructions to Culpeper, 1681-82. His reply to § 68, British State Papers, Colonial, Virginia, vol. 65; McDonald Papers, vol. VI, p. 165, Va. State Library.
* ↑ In some cases, the shipmasters who treated the Act with contempt were arrested, and their cargoes of tobacco seized. See information against the Recovery and the Baltimore, Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1680-1694, p. 60. See appeal of the captains of these two vessels from the warrants issued to enforce the forfeiture of the tobacco which they had taken on board. Ibid., p. 64.
* ↑ Randolph MSS., vol. III, p. 400.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. III, p. 541.
* ↑ Order on the Act of Cohabitation, Privy Council, Dec. 21, 1681, British State Papers, Virginia, No. 82; McDonald Papers, vol. VI, p. 7, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Letter of Nicholas Spencer, Aug. 20, 1680, British State Papers, Virginia, No. 80; McDonald Papers, vol. V, p. 373, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Beverley’s History of Virginia, p. 81.
* ↑ Hartwell, Chilton, and Blair’s Present State of V$^i$rginia, 1697, § 1, p. 3.
* ↑ Hartwell, Chilton, and Blair’s Present State of Virginia, 1697, p. 10.
* ↑ The name given to this port was Marlborough.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. III, p. 53.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1690-1694, pp. 55, 84, Va. State Library. A fall plat of the town is given on p. 84 of this volume of York records.
* ↑ Records of York County, vol. 1691-1701, pp. 195, 211, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Ibid., vol. 1690-1694, p. 56.
* ↑ Records of Middlesex County, original vol. 1680-1694, orders April 10, 1690.
* ↑ Ibid., orders Sept. 7, 1691.
* ↑ Ibid., original vols. 1680-1694 and 1674-1694.
* ↑ Records of Lancaster County, original vol. 1687-1700, p. 66.
* ↑ Ibid., original vol. 1686-1696, levy for the year 1691.
* ↑ Records of Henrico County, vol. 1688-1697, p. 236, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1675-1703, f. p. 170.
* ↑ Ibid., original vol. 1686-1695, p. 187.
* ↑ Records of Norfolk County, original vol. 1695-1703, f. p. 107.
* ↑ Records of Lower Norfolk County, original vol. 1686-1695, f. p. 233.
* ↑ Records of Norfolk County, original vol. 1695-1703, f. pp. 122, 154. The land on which Marlborough in Stafford County was laid off belonged to Captain Malachi Peale, with reversion to Giles Brent. The first feoffees were John Withers and Mathew Thompson, who conveyed twenty-three lots to different purchasers. See Case and Petition of John Mercer, Ludwell Papers, Va. Hist. Soc. Mss. Coll.
* ↑ Beverley’s History of Virginia, p. 81.
* ↑ Records of Elizabeth City County, vol. 1684-1699, p. 458, Va. State Library.
* ↑ Ibid., p. 119.
* ↑ Ibid., orders of court for 1698.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. III, p. 186.
* ↑ Beverley’s History of Virginia, p. 88. It was repealed by Proclamation, July 5, 1710.
* ↑ Documents Relating to Colonial History of New York, vol. IV, p. 609.
* ↑ Hugh Jones’ Present State of Virginia, p. 25. That the entire site of the town will not finally sink beneath the waves of the river will be due to the measures of protection which the National Government have adopted at the earnest solicitation of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities. This organization is performing a noble and sacred work in rescuing so many of the ancient landmarks of the State from ruin, a work into which it has thrown a zeal, energy, and intelligence entitling it to the honor and gratitude of all who are interested in the history, not merely of Virginia, but of America itself.
* ↑ Hening’s Statutes, vol. III, pp. 197, 419.