holding to Henry Creighton, for we
find the latter, in 1695, transferring to William Moseley 100 acres,
formerly a part of Button's Ridge.[3-31]

Important as are these gleanings from the county records, we have at our
disposal even better and more conclusive evidence that colonial Virginia
was divided, not into baronial estates of vast proportions, but into a
large number of comparatively small farms. Governor Nicholson's rent
roll, which is published as an appendix to this volume, for the early
years of the Eighteenth century at least, places the matter beyond
doubt. Here we have before us an official inventory of all Virginia save
the Northern Neck, giving the name of every proprietor and the number of
acres in his possession.

It will be remembered that in the Crown colonies there was a perpetual
obligation imposed upon all land when first granted known as the
quit-rent. In Virginia this duty amounted to one shilling for every
fifty acres, payable in tobacco at the rate of a penny per pound.[3-32]
Despite the fact that some 27 per cent of the returns was consumed by
the cost of collection, and that there were frequent frauds in disposing
of the tobacco, the revenue derived from this source was of considerable
importance.[3-33] The amount collected in 1705 was L1,841. 1. 6-3/4.
When James Blair, the Virginia Commissary of the Bishop of London,
petitioned William and Mary for a fund from the accumulated quit-rents
for his proposed college at Williamsburg, some of the British
governmental officials objected strenuously. "This sum is perhaps the
only ready cash in all the plantations," it was declared, "which happens
to be by good husbandry and is a stock for answering any emergency that
may happen in Virginia."[3-34]

Throughout the entire Seventeenth century, however, the Governors had
experienced great difficulty in collecting this tax. Over and over again
they reported in their letters to the Board of Trade that there were
large arrears of quit-rents which it was impossible to make the
landowners pay.[3-35] The reason for this was obvious enough. In each
county the tax collector was the sheriff. Although this officer was
appointed by the Governor, he usually had a wholesome respect for the
larger proprietors and in consequence was wary of giving offense by
holding them to too strict an account of their estates.[3-36] At times
the sheriffs themselves were the sufferers by this state of affairs, for
they were held