These distressing conditions bore with telling weight upon the small planters. The margin of profit which formerly had made it possible for the freedman to advance rapidly was now wiped out entirely and the poor man found it impossible to keep out of debt. In 1668 Secretary Ludwell declared that no one could longer hope to better himself by planting tobacco.[5-20] Eight years later Nathaniel Bacon, in justifying his rebellion declared that the small farmers were deeply in debt and that it was "not in the power of labor or industry" to extricate them.[5-21]
"The poverty of Virginia is such," said a certain John Good in 1676, "that the major part of the inhabitants can scarce supply their wants from hand to mouth, and many there are besides can hardly shift without supply one year."[5-22] In 1673 the Governor and Council reported that of the planters, "at least one third are single persons (whose labor will hardly maintain them) or men much in debt," who might reasonably be expected to revolt to the Dutch upon any small advantage gained by them.[5-23] In 1680 they again reported that "the indigency of the Inhabitants is such that they are in noe manner capacitated to support themselves."[5-24] Three years later they wrote that "the people of Virginia are generally, some few excepted, extremely poor, not being able to provide against the pressing necessities of their families."[5-25]
Despite this repeated and explicit testimony of the misery and poverty of the colony during this period, which resulted from the stagnation of the tobacco market after the pa.s.sage of the Navigation Acts, the surprising statement is made by Mr. George Lewis Beer, in _The Old Colonial System_, that England"s trade restrictions had nothing to do with Bacon"s Rebellion. "It has been at various times contended," he says, "that the uprising was, in part at least, one against the laws of trade and navigation. If there had existed in Virginia any widespread and well defined feeling of antagonism to these laws, it would unquestionably have found expression in the county grievances. Most of these reports were drawn up in a number of articles, and in all there were nearly two hundred of such separate subdivisions, yet only three of this number refer in any way to these statutes. There is no valid reason for a.s.suming that the commercial system played any part whatsoever, or was in any degree, an issue, in the upheaval of 1676."[5-26]
If by this statement it is meant that Bacon and his men did not rebel in order to force the repeal of the Navigation Acts, or even that they did not have the acts in mind at the time, there are many students of Virginia history who will agree with it. But if Mr. Beer means that these laws, with their baleful effect upon the prosperity of Virginia, did not produce the conditions fundamental to the rising, he is certainly wrong. The evidence is overwhelming.
Surely no one will deny that misery, poverty and nakedness are breeders of sedition. Had it not been for the Navigation Acts there would not have been so many desperate persons in Virginia ready at any excuse to fly in the face of the Government. Bacon"s men were just the type of miserably poor freemen that Berkeley several years before had feared would rebel. He himself, in his proclamation of Feb. 10, 1677, spoke of them as "men of mean and desperate fortunes."[5-27] William Sherwood called the rebels rude and indigent persons, alluding to them as "tag, rag and bobtayle."[5-28] Over and over again they are described as the mult.i.tude, the rabble, the sk.u.m.
Exception must be taken also to the statement that had there existed in Virginia any well-defined feeling of antagonism to the Navigation Acts it would have found expression in the county grievances. It should be remembered that these reports had been called for by the commissioners sent over by Charles II to investigate the troubles. The men who drew them up occupied the position of defeated rebels, and the grievances were primarily a list of excuses for their treason. They all stood trembling for their property, if they had any, and for their miserable lives. The memory of the fate of Drummond and Bland and Arnold and many others of their fellow rebels was fresh in their minds. It is not reasonable to suppose that they would tell the King that they had risen in arms against his authority in order to secure the overthrow of laws which his Majesty considered of such vital importance, laws which concerned intimately the royal revenue. Such a declaration would not have seconded successfully their plea for mercy. This is made amply clear by the reception accorded one of the few complaints which did actually touch the Navigation Acts. The commissioners report it to the King as "an extravagant request for liberty to transport their tobacco to any of his Majesty"s plantations without paying the imposts, payable by act of Parliament, etc. This head is wholly mutinous--to desire a thing contrary to his Majesty"s royal pleasure and benefit and also against an act of Parliament."[5-29]
Despite the obviously ruinous effects of the Navigation Acts upon Virginia, Mr. Beer makes the a.s.sertion that there was no very serious and general opposition to them in Virginia. "Apart from the criticisms of Bland and Berkeley," he says, "there was virtually no complaint against the system of trade enjoined by the Navigation Acts. While the Barbados a.s.sembly and that colony"s governors were vociferous in their protests, the Virginia legislature remained strangely mute."[5-30]
This silence on the part of the Virginia a.s.sembly can by no means be interpreted as an indication that the people of the colony felt the Navigation Acts to be equitable and not injurious to their interests. It meant only that no a.s.sembly under Sir William Berkeley would dare protest against an act which had received the royal sanction. That would have seemed the veriest treason to the fiery old loyalist. And the a.s.sembly was entirely under Sir William"s control. The members of both Houses were his creatures and his henchmen. Over and over again it is testified that the a.s.sembly did nothing more than register his will.[5-31] If then it did not protest, it was because Sir William did not wish it to protest.
But this does not prove that the planters were not angered and alarmed at the stringent acts. That they considered them baleful is amply proved by their continuous complaints of the economic ruin which had overtaken the colony. The method they chose of combatting the trade laws, a method apt to be far more effective than the angry protests of the Barbados a.s.sembly, was to send the Governor to England to use his influence at Court to have the acts modified or repealed. And Berkeley did what he could. While in England he wrote a paper called _A Discourse and View of Virginia_, which he hoped would induce the Government to change its policy in regard to the colonies. "Wee cannot but resent," he said, "that 40,000 people should be impoverished to enrich little more than 40 merchants, who being the whole buyers of our tobacco, give us what they please for it. And after it is here sell as they please, and indeed have 40,000 servants in us at cheaper rates, than other men have slaves, for they find them meat and drink and clothes. We furnish ourselves and their seamen with meat and drink, and all our sweat and labor as they order us, will hardly procure us coa.r.s.e clothes to keep us from the extremities of heat and cold."[5-32] That Sir William was but the mouthpiece of the colony in this protest there can be no doubt.
But his pleadings were in vain. England would not change the laws which were the expression of her settled colonial policy. The planters must adjust themselves to changed conditions no matter how bitter was the experience. Sir William was told to go home to report to the Virginians that they need not kick against the p.r.i.c.ks, but that England would be most pleased could they turn from the all-absorbing culture of tobacco to the production of the raw materials she so greatly desired. And Berkeley did return determined to exert every effort to lead the colonists into new prosperity by inducing them to devote a part of their energies to basic commodities. In fact he promised that in seven years he would flood the British market with new Virginia goods.[5-33]
Although he set to work with his accustomed vigor to make good this boast, he met with but scant success. Lack of efficient and skilled labor, high wages, and not very favorable natural conditions, made it impossible for him to compete with the long-established industries of Europe. After a few years all attempts to make silk and potash and naval stores were abandoned, and the planters continued to put their trust in tobacco.
That Berkeley was never persuaded that the Navigation Acts were just or beneficial is shown by his answer to the query of the Lords of Trade in 1671, when they asked him what impediments there were to the colony"s trade. "Mighty and destructive," he replied, "by that severe act of Parliament which excludes us from having any commerce with any nation in Europe but our own, so that we cannot add to our plantation any commodity that grows out of it ... for it is not lawful for us to carry a pipe-staff or a bushel of corn to any place in Europe out of the King"s dominions. If this were for his Majesty"s service or the good of his subjects we should not repine, whatever our sufferings are for it.
But on my soul it is the contrary of both."[5-35]
Nor is this the only direct testimony that the colonists were filled with bitterness against the Navigation Acts. In 1673, during the war with Holland, Sir John Knight declared that "the planters there do generally desire a trade with the Dutch and all other nations, and speak openly there that they are in the nature of slaves, so that the hearts of the greatest part of them are taken away from his Majesty and consequently his Majesty"s best, greatest and richest plantation is in danger, with the planters" consent, to fall into the enemy"s hands, if not timely prevented."[5-36] This is corroborated by the Council itself, in an official letter to the King. "For in this very conjuncture had the people had a distasteful Governor," they wrote, "they would have hazarded the loss of this Country, and the rather because they doe believe their Condicon would not be soe bad under the Dutch in Point of Traffique as it is under the Merchants who now use them hardly, even to extremity."[5-37]
It is evident, then, that throughout the entire reign of Charles II the unhappy effects of the trade restrictions made of Virginia, which formerly had been the land of opportunity for the poor man, a place of suffering, poverty and discontent. The indentured servant who came over after 1660 found conditions in the colony hardly more favorable for his advancement than in England. The price of tobacco was now so low that it was not possible for a man, by his una.s.sisted efforts, to make a profit by its cultivation. If Thomas Ludewell is correct in estimating the return from the average crop at fifty shillings, the lot of the poor man must have been hard indeed. Hungry he need not be, for food continued to be abundant and easy to obtain, but of all that the merchants gave him in return for his tobacco--clothing, farm implements, household furnishings--he had to content himself with the scantiest supply. And only too often his pressing needs brought him into hopeless debt. As for imitating his predecessors of the earlier period in saving money, purchasing land and servants and becoming a substantial citizen, the task was well nigh impossible of accomplishment.
It would be expected, then, that even the most exhaustive investigation could reveal but a few indentured servants, coming over after 1660, who succeeded in establishing themselves in the Virginia yeomanry. And such, indeed, is the case. Fortunately we have at hand for the period in question the means of determining this matter with an exactness impossible for the first half of the century. Nicholson"s rent roll of 1704 supplies a complete list, with the exception of those in the Northern Neck, of every landowner in Virginia. At the same time we have in the Land Office at Richmond, the names of many thousands of persons listed as headrights, const.i.tuting almost all the immigrants who came in during the years from 1666 to the end of the century. Thus by comparing the two lists and trying to identify on the rent roll the names found in the patents, it is possible to fix the proportion of servants who won for themselves at this time places among the landowning cla.s.s.
Selecting the year 1672 as typical of the Restoration period, we find that an examination of 672 of the names which are listed as headrights, eleven only can be identified with any degree of certainty upon the rent roll. Of 1116 names examined in the years from 1671 to 1674 inclusive, only 26 are positively those of persons listed as landowners in 1704.
After making due allowance for the fact that uncertainty exists in a number of other cases, and that some who prospered must have died in the intervening years, it is safe to say that not more than five or six per cent of the indentured servants of this period succeeded in establishing themselves as independent planters.
These conclusions are borne out by the slowness with which the population increased during the years following the pa.s.sage of the Navigation Acts. In the Commonwealth period the colony had advanced by leaps and bounds, and the inhabitants, estimated at 15,000 in 1649,[5-38] were placed by Berkeley thirteen years later at 40,000.[5-39] Under the system which existed during these years, when the colonists enjoyed a comparatively free trade, the population had tripled. But after 1660, while the Virginia tobacco was dumped upon the restricted English market and prices fell lower and lower, no such rapid growth is noted. In 1671, nine years after his first estimate, Governor Berkeley still placed the population at 40,000.[5-40] And even if we accept the statement of the Virginia agents sent to England to secure a charter for the colony that in 1675 the number of inhabitants was 50,000, it is evident that some pernicious influence was at work to r.e.t.a.r.d the development of England"s most important American province.[5-41] A drop in the rate of increase from 200 per cent during the thirteen years prior to 1662, to 25 per cent in the thirteen years following, is a clear index to the startling change brought about in the colony by the British trade regulations.
These figures are the more significant in that there was no appreciable slackening of the stream of servants. It is probable that in the period from 1662 to 1675, which marked this estimated increase of 10,000 persons, fully 20,000 immigrants had come to the colony.[5-42] The patent rolls for 1674 alone give the names of 1931 headrights, and this year is by no means exceptional. No wonder Edward Randolph was surprised at the smallness of the population and wrote to the Board of Trade that it should be investigated why Virginia had not grown more, "considering what vast numbers of servants and others had been transported thither."[5-43]
But Randolph failed to realize that it is not the volume of immigration but the number of people a country will support which in the end determines the size of the population. It was not enough to pour into the colony tens of thousands of poor settlers; opportunity had also to be afforded them for earning an adequate living. And this opportunity, because of the enforcement of the Navigation Acts and the consequent ruin of trade, they did not have in Virginia. Throughout the Restoration period not more than forty or fifty thousand people could exist upon the returns from the tobacco crop, and beyond that the population could hardly rise. If more poured in, they must of necessity live in misery and rags, or migrate to other colonies where more favorable conditions existed.
We are not at present concerned with what become of this surplus population, but only with the fact that the Navigation Acts brought to a dead halt the process of moulding freedmen and other poor settlers into a prosperous yeomanry. By the year 1660 this cla.s.s seems to have reached its highest development, and had a rent roll of land owners been drawn up at that date it would doubtless have shown almost as many names as that of 1704. In fact it is fortunate that in the bitter years from 1660 to 1685 it did not succ.u.mb entirely. With the price of tobacco so low that no profit was to be derived from it, with his family in rags, the small planter might well have sold his land to his more wealthy neighbor and joined the newly freed servants in moving on to western Carolina or to the northern colonies.
In fact it is an indication of the solid character of the Virginia yeomanry that it survived to enter the Eighteenth century, that under Andros and Nicholson as well as under Sir William Berkeley it was the soundest element in the life of the colony. Had it not been for the crowning misfortune of the introduction of great swarms of negro slaves, sooner or later it would have come once more into its own, would have carved out for itself a new prosperity, would have filled Virginia from the Atlantic to the Alleghanies.
_CHAPTER VI_
THE YEOMAN IN VIRGINIA HISTORY
Perhaps it would have been impossible for the Virginia yeoman to survive the dark days of the Restoration period had it not been for the fact that in the matter of his food supply he was independent of England and her vexatious trade restrictions. He might be in rags, but there was no reason why he should ever feel the pangs of hunger. Seldom in any climate, in any age has food existed in such extraordinary variety and in such lavish abundance.
Almost every planter, even the poorest, was possessed of cattle. The _Perfect Discription_ states that in 1649 there were in the colony "of Kine, Oxen, Bulls, Calves, twenty thousand, large and good."[6-1]
Fifteen years later the number had increased to 100,000.[6-2] Many a little farmer, too poor to afford the help of a servant or a slave, had cattle more than sufficient for his every need. John Splitimber, a planter of meagre means, died in 1677 owning eight cows and one bull.[6-3] John Gray, whose entire personal estate was valued only at 9,340 pounds of tobacco, possessed at his death six cows, six calves, two steers and one heifer.[6-4] The inventory of the goods of Richard Avery, another poor planter, shows three steers, one heifer, three small cattle and one calf.[6-5] The yeoman not only secured from these animals a goodly supply of beef, but milk in abundance from which he made b.u.t.ter and cheese. The steers he used as beasts of burden.
The meat which most frequently appeared upon the table of the poor man was that of swine. The planter marked his hogs and turned them loose in the woods to feed upon roots and acorns. On the other hand, sheep did not multiply in the colony, for the woods were not suited for their maintenance, and those areas which had been cleared of trees could more profitably be utilized for agriculture than for pasture lands. Mutton was a rare delicacy even with the well-to-do.[6-6]
Poultry were exceedingly numerous. At the time of the Company it was stated that the planter who failed to breed one hundred a year was considered a poor manager. The _Perfect Discription_ says that the poultry--"Hens, Turkies, Ducks, Geece"--were without number.[6-7]
Moreover, the wild fowls of the inland waterways were so numerous that even the least skilful of huntsmen could readily bring down enough for the needs of his family, and the mallard, the goose, the canvasback appeared regularly in season upon every table.[6-8]
The planter always devoted a part of his land to the production of the grain which was needed for his personal requirements. "They yearly plow and sow many hundred acres of Wheat," it was said, "as good and faire as any in the world."[6-9] At the same time maize grew so readily and its cultivation proved so cheap, that cornbread formed a part of the diet not only of the planters themselves, but of their servants and slaves.
From his garden, an inevitable accompaniment of every plantation, the farmer secured a large variety of vegetables--potatoes, asparagus, carrots, turnips, onions, parsnips, besides such fruits as strawberries, gooseberries, raspberries; from his orchard he had apples, pears, quinces, apricots, peaches.[6-10] Honey was abundant, and there were few householders who did not have hives under the eaves of their outbuildings. One planter, a Mr. George Pelton, is said to have made a profit of 30 from his bees.[6-11] There were also many wild swarms in the woods, which yielded a delicious return to the colonial bee-hunters.[6-12]
It is easy to understand, then, why there were no complaints of hunger even in the days when poverty was almost universal. The Virginia yeoman spread always an abundant table. "He that is lazy and will not work,"
said the author of _New Albion_, "needs not fear starving, but may live as an Indian, sometimes Oysters, c.o.c.kles, Wilkes, Clams, Scollons two moneths together; sometimes wilde Pease and Vetches, and Long Oates, sometimes Tuckaho, Cuttenoman ground, Nuts, Marhonions, sometimes small nuts, Filbirds, Wallnuts, Pokeberries, ten sorts of Berries, Egs of Foul, small Fish in Coves at low water will teach him to live idly." "It must needs follow then that diet cannot be scarce, since both rivers and woods afford it, and that such plenty of Cattle and Hogs are every where, which yield beef, veal, milk, b.u.t.ter, cheese and other made dishes, porke, bacon and pigs, and that as sweet and savoury meat as the world affords, these with the help of Orchards and Gardens, Oysters, Fish, Fowle and Venison, certainly cannot but be sufficient for a good diet and wholsom accommodation, considering how plentifully they are, and how easie with industry to be had."[6-13]
But the little planter, with the advent of the Navigation Acts, often suffered keenly from a lack of adequate clothing. Again and again the letters of the period state that the poor man was reduced to rags, that he could not protect his family from the winter"s cold. There was some manufacture of cloth in the home, but the planter usually trusted to the foreign trader to bring him every article of clothing. He had neither the implements nor the skill to supply his own needs. During the Restoration period, and again at the time of the war of the Spanish Succession, when the price of tobacco fell so very low, many families succeeded in producing enough homespun to supply their most pressing needs.[6-14] But with the return of better conditions they laid aside the loom and the wheel, and resumed their purchase of English cloth.
In normal times the poor planter was comfortably clad. Edward Williams, in _Virginia Richly Valued_, advised every new immigrant to bring a monmouth cap, a waistcoat, a suit of canvas, with bands, shirts, stockings and shoes.[6-15] The author of _New Albion_ thought that each adventurer should provide himself with canvas or linen clothes, with shoes and a hat.[6-16]
The houses of the small planters were small but comfortable. "Pleasant in their building," says John Hammond, "which although for most part they are but one story besides the loft, and built of wood, yet contrived so delightfully that your ordinary houses in England are not so handsome, for usually the rooms are large, daubed and whitelimed, glazed and flowered, and if not glazed windows, shutters which are made very pritty and convenient."[6-17] _The New Description of Virginia_, published in 1649, says: "They have Lime in abundance for their houses, store of bricks made, and House and Chimnies built of Brick, and some of Wood high and fair, covered with Shingell for Tyle."[6-18]
In the days of the Company most of the houses seem to have been made of logs, and Butler, in his _Virginia Unmasked_, declared that they were the "worst in the world," and that the most wretched cottages in England were superior to them.[6-19] But the period of which Butler wrote was exceptional, and before long the growing prosperity of the colony made possible a great improvement in the dwellings of the people. The rough log cabin gave way to the little framed cottage with chimneys at each end.
A residence erected in one of the parishes of the Eastern Sh.o.r.e in 1635 to serve as a parsonage may be accepted as typical of the better cla.s.s of houses in Virginia at this time. It was made of wood, was forty feet wide, eighteen deep and had a chimney at each end. On either side was an additional apartment, one used as a study, the other as a b.u.t.tery.[6-20] For the poor man this was far too pretentious, and he had to content himself with a home perhaps thirty by twenty feet, containing at times two or three apartments, at times only one.
But such as it was it gave him ample protection against the heat of summer and the cold of winter. Fuel he never lacked. When the frosts of December and January came upon him, he had only to repair to the nearest forest, axe in hand, to supply himself with wood in abundance. In this way, not only would he keep a roaring blaze in his open fireplace, but would widen the s.p.a.ce available for the next summer"s tobacco crop.
The surroundings of the planter"s residence were severely plain. In the yard, which usually was uninclosed, towered a cl.u.s.ter of trees, a survival of the primeval forest. Nearby was the garden, with its flowers and vegetables, the dove-cote, the barn, the hen house, perhaps a milk house or even a detached kitchen. In some cases wells were sunk, but the use of natural springs was more common.[6-21]
Of the plantation itself, only a fraction was under cultivation at one time. Tobacco was exceedingly exhausting to the soil, but the cheapness of land led the planters to neglect the most ordinary precautions to preserve its fertility. They sowed year after year upon the same spot, until the diminishing yield warned them of approaching sterility, and then would desert it to clear a new field. This system made it necessary for them to provide for the future by securing farms far larger in extent than was dictated by their immediate requirements. They had to look forward to the day when their land would become useless, and if they were provident, would purchase ten times more than they could cultivate at any one time. Thomas Whitlock, in his will dated 1659, says: "I give to my son Thomas Whitlock the land I live on, 600 acres, when he is of the age 21, and during his minority to my wife. The land not to be further made use of or by planting or seating than the first deep branch that is commonly rid over, that my son may have some fresh land when he attains to age."[6-22]
One may gain an idea of the condition of the very poorest cla.s.s of freemen by an examination of the inventory of the estate of Walter Dorch, drawn up in 1684. This man possessed two pairs of woollen cards, and one spinning wheel, valued at 100 pounds of tobacco, one chest at eighty pounds, four old trays at twenty pounds, two runletts at forty pounds, one pail and one skillet at sixty pounds, one bowl at two pounds, one feather bed, two pillows and three old blankets at 120 pounds of tobacco, three gla.s.s bottles at twenty pounds, one couch frame at forty pounds, one pair of pot-hooks at forty, 800 tenpenny nails at forty-five, and one old table and one sifter at twenty pounds. In all the estate was valued at 587 pounds of tobacco.[6-23]
John Gray, who died in 1685, left personal property worth 9,340 pounds of tobacco, consisting in part of six cows and six calves, four yearlings, two steers, one heifer, one barrel of corn, one bull, ten hogs and one horse. He had no servants and no slaves.[6-24] In better circ.u.mstances was Richard Avery, who seems to have been a tanner by profession. The inventory of his estate, recorded in 1686, includes one horse with bridle and saddle, a cart and a yoke of steers, eight head of cattle, 25 hogs, 118 hides, various kinds of tools, lumber to the value of 400 pounds of tobacco, four pieces of earthenware, four beds with mattresses and covers, poultry to the value of 180 pounds of tobacco, some wheat in the ground and a batch of wearing linen. The entire personal estate was valued at 14,050 pounds of tobacco. It included no servants or slaves.[6-25]
John Splitimber, who is entered as a headright to Thomas Harwood in 1635, is typical of the planter who rose from small beginnings to a state of comparative prosperity. This man, at his death in 1677, possessed eight cows, one bull, four yearlings, four mares, 35 hogs, two horses, two bolsters, a pillow, two blankets, a mattress, two bedsteads, two guns, fifty-six pounds of pewter, two rugs, a table, three chests, one old couch, two iron pots, two kettles, two stilyards, shovel and tongs, two smothering irons, two axes, a few carpenter"s tools, a saddle and bridle, four casks, clothing to the value of 1,100 pounds of tobacco, a frying pan, a b.u.t.ter pat, a jar, a looking gla.s.s, two milk pans, one table cloth, nine spoons, a churn, a bible. The appraisers placed the total value at 18,277 pounds of tobacco.[6-26] The inventory records no servants or slaves, but it is probable that Splitimber at times made use of indentured labor, as in November 1648 and again in 1652, we find him taking up land due for the transportation of certain persons to the colony.[6-27]
Of similar estate was Christopher Pearson, of York county. His personal property included bedding valued at 7, linen at 18 shillings, pewter at 1.18.0, bra.s.s at six shillings, wooden ware at 4.13.6 comprising three chairs and one table, a couch, four old chests, a cask, two ten gallon rundletts, a cheese press, a box of drawers, an old table, three pails, a spinning wheel with cards, two sifting trays, a corn barrel, three bedsteads, four sives, a funnel; iron ware valued at 2.12.0, including three pots, two pot-rocks, a pestal, a frying pan, a looking gla.s.s; three cows appraised at 6.5.0, a yearling at ten shillings, a colt at two pounds sterling. The entire estate was valued at 25.19.6.[6-28]
It must not be imagined, however, that Virginia, even in the early years of its settlement, contained no men of wealth or rank. Industry and intelligence bore their inevitable fruit in the little colony, with the result that here and there certain planters acquired an enviable pre-eminence among their fellows. The _New Description_ mentions several such cases. Captain Matthews "hath a fine house," it says, "and all things answerable to it; he sowes yeerly store of Hempe and Flax, and causes it to be spun; he keeps Weavers, and hath a Tanhouse, causes Leather to be dressed, hath eight Shoemakers employed in their trade, hath forty Negro servants, brings them up to Trades in his house. He yeerly sowes abundance of Wheat, Barley, &c. The Wheat he selleth at four shillings the bush.e.l.l; kills store of Beeves, and sells them to victuall the Ships when they come thither; hath abundance of Kine, a brave Dairy, Swine great store, and Poltery; he married a Daughter of Sir Thomas Hinton, and in a word, keeps a good house, lives bravely, and a true lover of Virginia; he is worthy of much honor."[6-29]
This description is interesting because it shows not only the extent of the holdings of certain planters at this early date, but that their prosperity had the same foundation as that of the more numerous cla.s.s of wealthy men of the Eighteenth century. In both cases slavery and plantation manufacture would seem to have been the open sesame to success. It is notable that of the very limited number of men in Virginia prior to 1700 who stand out above their fellows in the readiness with which they acquired property, almost all gathered around them a goodly number of negroes.
Among the prominent planters of the first half of the Seventeenth century was George Menefie, famous for his orchard which abounded in apple, pear and cherry trees, and for his garden which yielded all kinds of fruits, vegetables, and flowers; Richard Bennett, a man of large property who had in one year "out of his Orchard as many Apples as he made 20 b.u.t.ts of Excellent Cider"; Richard Kinsman, who for three or four years in succession secured "forty or fifty b.u.t.ts of Perry made out of his Orchard, pure and good."[6-30]
In the second half of the century the cla.s.s of the well-to-do, although somewhat more numerous, was still restricted to a small group of prominent families, many of them connected by marriage. Among the best known men are Nathaniel Bacon, Sr., Thomas Ballard, Robert Severely, Giles Brent, Joseph Bridger, William Byrd I, John Carter, John Custis I, Dudley Digges, William Fitzhugh, Lewis Burwell, Philip Ludwell I, William Moseley, Daniel Parke, Ralph Wormeley, Benjamin Harrison, Edward Hill, Edmund Jennings and Matthew Page. But so few were their numbers that the Governors more than once complained that they could not find men for the Council of State qualified for that post by their wealth and influence.