books for the years from 1696 to 1701 tell the same
story. Here we find recorded forty-one transfers and leases. Twenty-two
are for 100 acres or less, 33 for 200 acres or less, and four, one for
1,400, one for 1,210, one for 600 and one for 550, are more than 300
acres in extent. The aggregate is 8,153 acres and the average 199.[3-17]

In the Rappahannock county records from 1680 to 1688 of fifteen land
transfers taken at random from the books, the largest is 400 while the
average is 168 acres.[3-18] Of the forty-eight transfers mentioned in
the Essex county books for the years from 1692 to 1695, the largest is
600 acres and the smallest 50. Twenty are for 100 acres or less, 31 for
200 or less and only four for over 300.[3-19]

That conditions not fundamentally different prevailed in the early days
of the colony is shown by the census taken of the landowners in 1626. Of
the holdings listed no less than 25 were for 50 acres or less, 73 for
100 and most of the others for less than 300 acres. The total number of
proprietors listed is 224 and the total acreage 34,472, giving an
average for each plantation of 154 acres.[3-20]

It has been assumed by certain writers that the land grants preserved
in the Registrar's Office in Richmond tend to contradict this evidence.
Although the average patent is by no means large, it is much more
extensive than the typical land transfer. In 1638 this average was 423
acres, in 1640 it was 405, in 1642 it was 559, in 1645 it was 333, in
1648 it was 412, in 1650 it was 675. During the entire period from 1634
to 1650 inclusive the size of the average land grant was 446 acres. From
1650 to 1655 the average was 591 acres, from 1655 to 1666 six hundred
and seventy-one, from 1666 to 1679 eight hundred and ninety acres, from
1679 to 1689 six hundred and seven acres, from 1689 to 1695 six hundred
and one acres, from 1695 to 1700 six hundred and eighty-eight
acres.[3-21] In the course of the entire second half of the Seventeenth
century the average size of the patent was 674 acres.

Yet these facts have little direct bearing upon the extent of the
plantations themselves. The system of granting land, as we have seen,
was not based upon the individual needs of the planters, but upon the
number of headrights presented to the Government. Obviously it was the
question of the most economical method of transporting immigrants which
would determine the average size of the grant. If it proved best to
bring