ster
until 1646; after 1646 and until 1683 the proprietor provided land for
the servant. If such were intended, it was not followed and the
intentions were far from clear in the later commission to Sir William
Berkeley in 1642. In addition to assigning land for "adventurers of
money" and "transportation of people," the commission authorized the
Governor and Council to grant "fifty acres for every person transported
thither since Midsummer 1625, and ... continue the same course to all
persons transported thither until it shall otherwise be determined by
His Majesty." The loose use of the terminology "to" and "for" recurred
in subsequent years and again reflected the lack of precision in this
matter as well as the seeming misapprehension in England that the
servant was entitled to a fifty-acre grant. Under the articles of the
treaty of 1651 between Virginia and the commissioners of the
Commonwealth, the reversion to the term "for every person" was made and
the policy of no land to servants was implicit in the sixth article of
the agreement: "That the priviledge of haveing fiftie acres of land for
every person transported in the collony shall continue as formerly
granted."

Even though servants were not granted land by the colony at the
expiration of their service, a substantial number soon became
landowners. The exact proportion of servants that became landholders
after 1624 cannot be determined in the absence of a complete census.
However, an examination of the land patents and the list of headrights
makes possible some estimate of the percentage of landholders that had
once been indentured servants. The conclusions cannot be final and are
subject to limitations. Identification presents a problem because of the
frequency of the same name as Smith or Davis and because of the omission
of middle names. The problem is further complicated by the fact that
headrights were often transferred by sale. A person entitled to a
headright claim on the frontier may not have wished to settle there;
rather he may have preferred to sell his headright claim and purchase
land in an established county. As a result of the sale of his headright
claim, his name may have appeared in the headright list as the basis for
the claim for someone else even though he had not been an indentured
servant. Therefore, all persons so listed under the headright claim
cannot be considered indentured servants.

Fully aware of the limitations just suggested and