t these laws no longer prevented the flow of tobacco into
the continental countries.

Such was not the case, however. A comparison of the lists of immigrants
with the rent roll of 1704 shows that but an insignificant proportion of
the newcomers succeeded in establishing themselves as landowners. In
four lists examined for the year 1689, comprising 332 names, but seven
persons can be positively identified upon the rent roll. In 1690, eight
lists of 933 names, reveal but twenty-eight persons who were landowners
in 1704. Of 274 immigrants listed in 1691, six only appear on the Roll.
In 1695, seven lists comprising 711 names, show but ten who possessed
farms nine years later. Of 74 headrights appearing in 1696, but two are
listed on the roll; of 119 in 1697 only nine; of 169 in 1698 one only;
of 454 in 1699, only seven; of 223 in 1700 but six.[7-22] All in all not
more than five per cent. of the newcomers during this period prospered
and became independent planters. Apparently, then, the restored
prosperity of the colony was not shared by the poorer classes, the
increased market for tobacco did not better materially the chances of
the incoming flood of indentured servants.

The explanation of this state of affairs is found in the fact that
tobacco, despite its widened market, experienced no very pronounced rise
in price. The average return to the planters during the good years seems
to have been one penny a pound.[7-23] This, it is true, constituted an
advance over the worst days of the Restoration period, but it was far
from approaching the prices of the Civil war and Commonwealth periods.
For the poor freedman, it was not sufficient to provide for his support
and at the same time make it possible to accumulate a working capital.
He could not, as he had done a half century earlier, lay aside enough to
purchase a farm, stock it with cattle, hogs and poultry, perhaps even
secure a servant or two. Now, although no longer reduced to misery and
rags as in the years from 1660 to 1682, he could consider himself
fortunate if his labor sufficed to provide wholesome food and warm
clothing. How, it may be asked, could Virginia and Maryland produce the
vast crops now required by the foreign trade, if the price was still so
low? Prior to and just after Bacon's Rebellion the planters repeatedly
asserted that their labors only served to bring them into debt, that to
produce an extensive crop was the surest way for one to ruin himself.
W