have impaired it (Virginia) much," Bullock declared in 1649,
"for it hath been a constant report among the ordinary sort of people
that all those servants who are sent to Virginia are sold into slavery,
whereas the truth is that the merchants who send servants and have no
plantations of their own doe not only transferre their time over to
others, but the servants serve no longer than the time they themselves
agreed for in England, and this is the ordinary course in England, and
no prejudice or hurt to the servant."[4-2]

The terms of indenture not only took for granted that the servant, upon
completing his contract, would establish himself as a proprietor, but
usually made it obligatory for the master to furnish him with the
equipment necessary for his new life. With rare exceptions he received a
quantity of grain sufficient to maintain him for one year; two suits,
one of Kersey, the other of cotton; a pair of canvas drawers; two
shirts; and one felt hat.[4-3] The historian Beverley states that to
this outfit was added a gun worth twenty shillings.[4-4] Another writer
tells us that the freedman received "a year's provision of corne, double
apparel" and a supply of tools.[4-5]

There existed in England a widespread impression that the servant, upon
securing his freedom, was entitled by law to fifty acres of land. This
appears to have been a mistake arising from a misapprehension of the
nature of the headright, which belonged not to the servant himself, but
to the person who paid for his transportation. In many cases the
indentures do not state the exact rewards to be received by the new
freedman, but only that they are to accord with "the custom of the
country," a very elastic term which could be construed by the master to
suit his own interest.[4-6] John Hammond, in his _Leah and Rachel_,
strongly advised the immigrant before affixing his signature to the
indenture to insist upon the inclusion of a clause specifically
providing for the payment of the fifty acres.[4-7] But the importance
which attaches to this matter lies as much in the servant's expectation
as in its fulfilment. Whether or not he received his little plantation,
he believed that he was to get a tract of land, a very extensive tract
it must have seemed to him, which would assure him a good living and
make it possible for him to rise out of the class to which he
belonged.[4-8]

In 1627 the Virginia General Court issued an order which is significant
of