Though the law was intended to prevent the misuse you have described, the folks of that day - including the Council, Clerks and Judges - soon learned that the rule could be ignored quite usually with impunity.  In no small measure the rules were so ignored because there was an unimaginable quantity of land that was to be settled whenever and ASAP.  Every transported person (almost) provided some effort to the exploding communities and businessmen.  Then too, those new "servants" provided all measure of sustenance for other folks already here, brought tobacco, rum and rice (and indigo) to the hands of the traders and exporters.  That trading plus the taxes was an enormous advantage to all - the Crown, the counties, the merchants and the settlers.    

The reason?  The clause in the law that provided for 50 acres for those who supplied transportation to here for every single servant did not consider or speak to the fact that more than one person might have provided such a trip.  Said another way, the law did not make mention of what happened when, for example, you paid me part of the fare at the outset or you "reimbursed" me for some portion of the expense. 

That uncertainty, plus the fact that the law provided that headrights were personal property within the law and, thus, had value.  Further the law did not forbid such transfer of headrights by anyone who might own such, for whatever price the owner might demand, from whatever buyer he had at hand.  Indeed, I found one working seaman who claimed 700 acres for transportation of a person 14 times.  That person was himself !!!!  Each time he served as a seamen on any vessel, it could be said that by providing work on the ship, he had contributed part of the money for the fare of all, and thereby had earned such headrights for himself.

In my own family Owen Griffith, of Isle of Wight who arrived in 1658, is a good example.  His name was claimed as a headright by three (3) men over the following 35 years.  The last time his headright was used to obtain 50 acres was in 1703 - 5 years AFTER his death.

There are myriad instances of trading or selling headrights, each of which earned 50 acres for each new "owner".  It is for this and several more reasons that the headrights, dates of arrivals, names of family members, and the named owners of the patents are quite nearly useless to us, except that we can say that the named likely arrived in these colonies some years before the date of the resulting patent.  


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Davidson 
  To: [log in to unmask] 
  Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 7:49 AM
  Subject: [VA-ROOTS] 50 acres per Person-"Transportation" Rules


  It is my understanding that it was "technically illegal" for someone to obtain 
  the standard 50 acres of land in the 1600s for "transporting" a person who had 
  ALREADY been "transported" by someone previously (i.e., a 
  single "transportee" could not "generate" more than 50 acres).  Is that correct 
  (or was it only illegal if the SAME land owner obtained a second 50 acres for 
  HIMSELF for the "transportation" of the same person)?

  Note: I understand that such "double (or more) transportations" happened 
  with some regularity, and that it was very difficult for the government to 
  prevent such "fraud."

  I have a case where a Francis Brown was transported twice into/within the 
  same county in VA by two different men about a month apart in 1650 (this 
  was in the area that eventually became Middlesex Co., VA in the 1670s).  To 
  make this situation particularly interesting, some researchers believe that this 
  was the SAME Francis Brown who had obtained 500 acres for himself a year 
  earlier (for transporting 10 persons).

  Based on the above, is it likely that we are dealing with two (at least) Francis 
  Browns, or should I not be so sceptical that this was possibly the same man in 
  all three cases?  I can accept the "double transporting" of a single man, but it 
  seems strange to me that a person who obtained and owned 500 acres in 
  1649 would then be "transported" himself a year later (and as I recall, a 
  person had three years to "make it or break it" as far as making the land 
  profitable was concerned).  Comments?  Thanks!

  To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
  http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html