Colonial Records of Virginia

Part 1

Transcriber's Note:

Obvious mis-spellings and printing errors have been corrected. Variant spellings of the same word have been retained.

With the exception of Note 263, which was retained to facilitate the numbering of footnotes, corrections indicated on the "Errata" page have been made.

Notes 50 and 287, and pages iii and iv mentioned in "Errata," are notes 59 and 297, and pages 67 and 68 respectively herein.

Superscripts are indicated with by the carat character ^. Superscripts containing more than one letter are enclosed by curly brackets (^{}).

Footnotes, which are numerous, are placed immediately following the paragraph in which they appear.

The word, "negors", is not believed to be a typographical error.

A missing, censored, or omitted word on page 17 has been shown by ----.

"See note p. 37" in Footnote 1 and "see note pp. 48, 49" in Footnote II have been changed to "See note Q" and "see note CC" respectively to conform to the footnote numbering in this document.

SENATE DOCUMENT.--(Extra.)

COLONIAL RECORDS OF VIRGINIA.

Baltimore Genealogical Publishing Co. 1964

Originally Published

Richmond, Va: R.F. Walker, Superintendent Public Printing. 1874.

CONTENTS.

I. The First Assembly of Virginia, held July 30, 1619, 9

II. List of the livinge and the dead in Virginia, Feb'y 16, 1623, 37

III. A briefe declaration of the plantation of Virginia, during the first twelve years, when Sir Thomas Smith was Governor of the Company, 69

IV. A list of the number of men, women and children, inhabitants in the several Counties within the Collony of Virginia, in 1634, 91

V. A letter from Charles II., acknowledging the receipt of a present of Virginia Silk, 1668, 97

VI. A list of the Parishes in Virginia, 1680, 103

VII. Addenda, 105

ERRATA.

Page 13--Note 50.--For McDowell read McDonald.

Page 14.--In last line of notes insert comma after Bancroft.

Page 23.--Omit the whole of note 263.

Page 24.--Note, 287, should read: committees, McDonald.

Page 35.--In second line from bottom for Stith read Smith.

Part 2

Page 41 and 50.--For I, in notes, read we.

Page 61.--In Editor's Note, for Neil read Neill.

Page iii.--In Preface to Brief Declaration, lines fourteen and seventeen, for Smythe read Smith.

Page iii.--Ib., line 29, for Kieth read Keith.

Page iv.--Line twenty-one, for Forcer read Force's.

Page 89.--Preface, line eight, omit "the" before massacre.

THE PROCEEDINGS

OF THE

FIRST ASSEMBLY OF VIRGINIA,

Held July 30th, 1619.

INTRODUCTION.

The documents herewith presented are printed from copies obtained from the Public Record Office of Great Britain. When the question of the boundary line between Maryland and Virginia was before the Legislature of the latter State, in 1860, Colonel Angus W. McDonald was sent to England to obtain the papers necessary to protect the interests of Virginia. He brought back "nine volumes of manuscripts and one book containing forty-eight maps" (see his report, Virginia Legislative Documents, No. 39, 1861,). The volumes of manuscripts contained, upon an average, 425 pages each, and were filled with valuable historical documents, of many of which no copies had ever been seen on this continent since the originals were sent from the Colony of Virginia. In a conversation with the writer, held soon after his return from England, in March, 1861, Colonel McDonald stated that having obtained copies of all the documents relating to the question of the boundary line which could be found, and having more money left of the appropriation made than was needed to pay the expenses of his return home, he decided to devote the surplus to obtaining copies of papers relating to the early history of the State, without reference to the question of the boundary line. This statement will, we presume, satisfactorily account for the presence in his collection of such papers as do not relate to the subject upon which he was engaged. That he was well qualified to select such papers is evident from an examination of the list which he made out.

During the occupation of the State capital building by the Federal troops and officials, after the surrender of the Confederate authorities in April, 1865, a very large quantity of the official documents filed in the archives of the State were removed from that building, and at the same time four of the nine volumes and the portfolio of maps above mentioned. Nothing has been heard from any of them since. In 1870, the question of the boundary line being again before the Legislature of Virginia, the Governor sent the Hon. D.C. De Jarnette upon the same errand that Colonel McDonald had so well performed, and the result was the obtaining of such papers as he could find relating to the subject under consideration, including duplicates of some of those which though useful in this connection, are included in the five volumes remaining of those collected by Col. McDonald; also, charters of great length, but which are to be found in print in the histories and statutes of the State, and many of the miscellaneous papers which Colonel McDonald had copied under the circumstances above named. Among the latter is the account of the first meeting of the Assembly at Jamestown in 1619. When Colonel McDonald visited the State Paper Office (as it was then called) in 1860, this great repository of historical materials had not been thrown open to the public, and he tells us in his report that it was "twenty days after his arrival in London before he could obtain permission to examine the archives of the State Paper Office." A year or two afterwards all of the restrictions which had existed were removed, the papers arranged chronologically, and an index made by which they could be referred to. Farther, W. Noel Sainsbury, Esq., one of the officers of what is now called the Public Record Office, had published a calendar of all the papers relating to the British colonies in North America and the West Indies, from the first discoveries to 1660 (soon be followed by another coming down to the period of the independence of the United States), which contains a brief abstract of every paper included in the above named period, so that enquirers upon subjects embraced in this calendar can by reference see what the office has on file relating to it, and obtain copies of the documents required, at a much less cost than a voyage to England. Acting upon this knowledge, the Library Committee of the Virginia Legislature has made a contract with Mr. Sainsbury for copies of the titles and copious abstracts of every paper in the Public Record Office, and other repositories, which relates to the history of Virginia while a Colony. All of which he proposes to furnish for about L250, being less than one-half the cost of either of the missions sent, which have obtained only a small fraction of the papers which we are to receive. He is performing his work in a most satisfactory manner; so much is he interested in the task that he has greatly exceeded his agreement by furnishing gratuitously full and complete copies of many documents of more than ordinary interest. Yet notwithstanding the known facilities afforded by the British Government and its officials, Mr. De Jarnette complains that he was refused permission to examine the Rolls Office and the State Paper Office (see his report, Senate Documents Session 1871-'2, p. 12); and further, on page 15, he informs us that the papers which he obtained "had to be dug from a mountain of Colonial records with care and labor." His troubles were further increased by the fact that "the Colonial papers are not arranged under heads of respective Colonies, but thrown promiscuously together and constitute an immense mass of ill kept and badly written records," ib. p. 22.

The reader will infer from the preceding remarks that the State has two complete copies of the record of the proceedings of the first Assembly which met at Jamestown, viz: the McDonald and the De Jarnette copies, and also an abstract furnished by Mr. Sainsbury. Bancroft, the historian, obtained a copy of this paper, which was printed in the collections of the New York Historical Society for 1857. We have therefore been enabled to compare three different versions, and in a measure, a fourth. The De Jarnette copy being in loose sheets, written on one side only, was selected as the most convenient for the printer, and the text is printed from it. Where this differs from either of the others the foot notes show the differences, and, when no reference is made it is because all of them correspond.

When these papers were submitted as a part of the report of the Commissioners on the Boundary Line a joint resolution was adopted by both houses of the Legislature authorizing the Committee on the Library to print such of the papers as might be selected, provided the consent of the Commission could be obtained. Application was made to allow the first and second papers in this pamphlet to be printed but it was refused. The Commission having been dissolved the Committee on the Library have assumed the responsibility and herewith submit this instalment of these interesting documents, which were written before the Colony of Maryland was known, and all of which, save the first, were never before printed.

Continue reading Colonial Records of Virginia free in the Wunder reader →