ly concerned. For conditions in the older
parts of the colony, where the slow evolution of economic factors had
been at work for a century, the roll presents unimpeachable evidence
that the bulk of the cultivated land was divided into small plantations.

But it still remains to prove that their owners were men of meagre
fortunes, men who tilled the soil with their own hands. After all a farm
of two or three hundred acres might give scope for large activities, the
employment of many servants and slaves, the acquisition of some degree
of wealth. Might it not be possible that though the acres of the planter
were limited, his estate after all corresponded somewhat with the
popular conception?

This leads us to a study of the distribution of servants and slaves
among the planters. At the outset we are faced with convincing evidence
that at the end of the Seventeenth century the average number for each
farm was very small. This is shown by a comparison of the number of
plantations listed in the rent roll of 1704 with the estimated number of
workers. In the counties for which the sheriffs made returns for
Governor Nicholson there were some 5,500 landholders. When to these is
added the proprietors of the Northern Neck the number must have
approximated 6,500. If at this time the servants numbered 4,000, as
seems probable,[3-45] and the slaves 6,000, together they would have
averaged but 1.5 workers for each plantation. A decade earlier, when the
use of slaves was still comparatively infrequent, the figure must have
been still lower.

Fortunately we have even more direct and detailed evidence. Throughout
almost all of Virginia colonial history one of the chief methods of
raising revenue for the Government was the direct poll tax. This levy
was laid, however, not only on every freeman over sixteen years of age,
but upon male servants over 14, female servants who worked in the
fields, and slaves above 16 of either sex, all of whom were officially
termed tithables.[3-46] The tax rolls in which these persons were
listed, some of which have been preserved among the county records,
throw much light upon social and economic conditions in the colony.

In one district of Surry county we find in the year 1675 that there were
75 taxpayers and only 126 tithables. In other words only 51 persons in
this district had this duty paid for them by others, whether parents,
guardians or masters. And of the taxpayers, forty-two were liable for
the