CHAPTER XIX

MONEY

The history of Virginia in the seventeenth century furnishes perhaps the most interesting instance in modern times of a country established upon the footing of an organized and civilized community, with an ever-growing number of inhabitants and an ever-enlarging volume of trade, yet compelled to have recourse to a method of exchange which seems especially characteristic of peoples still lingering in the barbarous or semi-barbarous state. From 1607 to 1700, the period upon which I am dwelling, a period covering an interval of ninety-three years, in the course of which the small band of colonists who disembarked at Jamestown in the spring of 1607 increased from a few hundred persons to many thousands, a period in which the unbroken forest east of the falls in the rivers flowing into the Chesapeake Bay was in large part cut down and the soil dug up and planted in tobacco, wheat, and maize, the financial system of Virginia was in principal measure based upon exchange in its crudest and simplest form. An agricultural product was given for a manufactured, or a manufactured product for an agricultural. Coin, which is just as much of a commodity as an agricultural or manufactured article, circulated in Virginia only in small quantities, even after nine decades had passed since the foundation of the Colony. Tobacco was the standard of value at the very

time that the whole community was engaged in planting it. It was the money in which all the supplies, both domestic and imported, were purchased; in which the tax imposed by the public levy was settled; in which the tithables of the minister, the fees of the attorney and the physician, the debts due the merchant, the remuneration of the free mechanic, the wages of the servant, the charges of the midwife and the grave-digger were paid. In no similar instance has an agricultural product entered so deeply and so extensively into the spirit and framework of any modern community. It was to the Colony what the potato has been to Ireland, the coffee-berry to Brazil, the grape to France, and corn to Egypt; and it was also something more. It was, as it were, at once an agricultural and a metallic commodity, which, owing to the perverse taste of mankind, was as valuable in itself as the potato, the coffee-berry, the grape, the grain of wheat, and at the same moment as precious as gold or silver and more precious than iron. It was as if men had substituted the barns in their yards for purses in their pockets. The universal use into which tobacco came as currency, arose, not from the preference of the settlers, but by the force of circumstances which they could not have controlled even if they had wished to. In the beginning, there was no need for a medium of exchange. It was the exchange only which was wanted. Virginia raised tobacco to barter for English clothing, tools, utensils, and implements that were indispensable to the people, and which they themselves could not at that early period manufacture. The Magazine established in 1616, the contents of which were delivered by the Cape Merchant to the planters in return for tobacco, could only have maintained its existence in a country in which the original principle of trade was operating

on account of the poverty of that country or its infancy as an organized community. The buyer and seller simply exchanged articles. The buyer was a seller and the seller a buyer at the same moment. There was no occasion for the passage of a single coin from one to the other. As the population enlarged, and the volume of exported tobacco and imported merchandise increased, the demand for coin in the transfer of the great agricultural product of Virginia for the manufactured goods of England remained in proportion to the extent of the transaction almost as small. The principle governing it continued to be in its essence the same. The Virginians still desired to procure English commodities, the English merchants were still anxious to obtain the staple of the Colony. It was not necessary for the Virginian landowner to transport his crops to the West Indies to secure articles to be disposed of in England for coin to be used in the purchase of English goods, as was the case with the farmer of New England in selling his grain and other provisions. The Magazine set up at Jamestown during the administration of the Company was in later periods practically established upon each estate by an English or native merchant when he exchanged his imported goods for the planter’s tobacco, still without the intervention of a single coin. The inconveniences of such a system were felt not in the operation of external trade, that is to say, in the barter of Virginian for English products or the reverse, but in the working of internal affairs, in the transactions of local business, for instance, in the sale of the commodity of labor and professional knowledge and the like.

The peculiar character of the commercial relations existing in the seventeenth century between Virginia and England was precisely what had been desired as well as

anticipated by English statesmen and merchants at the time of the foundation of the Colony. It was approved by the public men of England throughout the century not only because it increased the volume of English manufactures, but also because it created no balance of trade against the English people, involving, as in the case of their dealings with the countries of Continental Europe, a withdrawal of large quantities of coin each year from the kingdom to cover this balance. It was approved by the merchants during the same period because it gave them an opportunity to secure a double profit, first, a profit on the goods which they imported into Virginia, and secondly, a profit on the tobacco which they exported from the Colony. Had they been compelled to pay in coin for every pound of that commodity purchased from the planters, they would not only have secured no gain on the outward voyage, since in that instance they would have carried over no cargo, but they would have lost irretrievably the large amount expended in meeting the cost of navigating their ships in passing from England to Virginia.

In one of the petitions drawn up by the first Assembly which convened in the Colony, it is stated that there was at this time “no money at all” in Virginia. The true explanation of this condition was recognized by the Burgesses when they declared that they had no mint, the only means in the circumstances of trade existing then by which coin could have been obtained. Under the provisions of the charter of 1606, the right to make money of metal was granted to the Company, but this privilege was not renewed in the second charter. It does not appear to have been exercised in the brief interval to which it was confined. The Assembly of 1619 was very earnest in urging that the Treasurer who was to be appointed to

collect the quit-rents, which ought properly to have been paid in coin, should accept tobacco in its stead, in order to avoid the deadlock which would result from demanding rents in the metals, at a time when the latter were not to be found in the Colony.¹

When Sir George Yeardley in 1628 came to draw up his will, he inserted among its provisions, strict directions that the portion of his estate in Virginia, including lands, cattle, and servants, should be sold for tobacco, and that this should be transported to England and there disposed of at the highest price. These instructions show how impossible it was, a generation after the foundation of the Colony, to convert an estate into coin or even bills of exchange for transmission to the mother country, although this method, of course, would have been far preferable to one which involved the shipment of an agricultural product with the heavy freight charges attendant.² For a number of years previous to 1632, it seems to have been the habit to value all articles in tobacco, an indication not only of the supreme importance of the commodity in the financial system of the Colony, but also of the comparative stability of its price in the market. As soon as this price began to fluctuate with more or less suddenness, it became highly advisable to use the figures of English currency in all ordinary appraisements; it is not, therefore, surprising to find that in 1632 an Act of Assembly was passed requiring that in calculating the amount of estates of deceased persons, coin alone should be used as the expression of value.³ It is probable that this regulation

had been adopted in relation to salaries some years before. A decline in the price of tobacco would have inflicted special loss on the class of office-holders if the rule had been different. No class in the Colony were more careful in maintaining every condition that was favorable to their welfare. Although their salaries were rated in 1638 in English currency, it is known that they contented themselves with receiving tobacco instead of money sterling, either because there was no coin in Virginia or because this course was more in accord with their interests.¹

At this time, a certain amount of money sterling was introduced by means of masters of ships, who, in some cases, paid in this form the tax of two pence, imposed for the benefit of the Register upon every hogshead exported from Virginia.² So small, however, was the volume of the metals in circulation in 1636, that Governor Harvey, in a letter to Secretary Windebank, stated that there was in the country “little or no money” sterling, and so much inconvenience and damage did this fact occasion, that he was prompted to beg that a large quantity of farthings should be dispatched to the Colony to facilitate transactions in local business.³ Among the persons to whom a patent lead been granted by the King to make and to place in general use in England coin equal in value to a farthing was Lord Maltravers, and upon him was conferred the right of supplying the people in Virginia with the same coins in exchange for such commodities as were readily salable in the English markets.⁴ Their face value was

higher than the intrinsic value of the copper entering into their composition. This fact was well known to the inhabitants of the Colony. As soon as the royal intention of exporting these coins to Virginia was announced, the House of Burgesses called the attention of the Governor and Council to the deficiency; they declared that mechanics would be unwilling to receive such money in remuneration for their labor, hired servants for their wages, and merchants for their debts. The Burgesses suggested that a petition should be presented to the King, begging him to import into Virginia five thousand pounds sterling annually to meet the constant need of coin, and that this money should be in the form of silver, with an allowance of ten per cent to such merchants as should bind themselves to satisfy the exchanges.¹ A few years before, it had been calculated that the Colony would require annually as much as twenty thousand pounds sterling, but in this estimate, there were included not only the salaries of the public officers, but also the expenses to be incurred in destroying the forest, in stocking the new plantations with cattle, in raising fortifications at the mouths of the large rivers, in maintaining an army which should be kept in active service, and in extending the exploration of Virginia both by land and sea.²

No fact illustrates in a more impressive manner, the absolute dearth at this time of the metals in the Colony than the Act of Assembly passed in January, 1611, which provided that no debts contracted in Virginia to be settled in money sterling should be pleadable in a court of law.

The only exception allowed by this regulation was when the debt to be paid in coin had been incurred in the purchase of horses, mares, and sheep.¹ Only three years subsequent to the passage of this Act, the General Assembly, in the preamble of a new law bearing upon the problem of introducing money sterling, referred to the great wants and miseries which arose day after day from the general use of tobacco as currency. In their anxiety to promote the influx of Spanish money, which appears at this time to have been flowing in in small quantities, probably from the Spanish and English islands in the West Indies, they determined to establish an arbitrary rate at which it was to be received in payment of all forms of indebtedness; the result of their deliberations was that the piece of eight should pass as equal in value to six shillings, and all other coins of the same origin be estimated in proportion. In the event that Spanish money sterling could be drawn into Virginia, the General Assembly were apprehensive lest it might soon be drained away, and to provide against this possibility, they resolved to import ten thousand pounds avoirdupois of copper, to be purchased at eighteen pence a pound, and to be paid for in tobacco. To secure such a large quantity of the latter commodity, amounting to one hundred and twenty thousand pounds weight, a levy of twenty-four pounds a head was to be laid on the inhabitants of the Colony. It was decided that twenty shillings should be manufactured from each pound of copper, making, after a liberal deduction for the costs of mintage, a difference between the intrinsic value of the bullion and the face value of the coin amounting to eight thousand seven hundred and fifty pounds sterling, an enormous sum in that age. This copper was to be moulded into two, three, six, and nine penny pieces. Two rings were to be impressed

on each coin, in one of which a motto was to be inscribed and to remain permanently. There was to be annually stamped on the other a new figure, and an officer to perform this duty was to be appointed in each county. Captain John Upton was named as the general master of the mint. The Assembly, in order to give this money a steady value, declared that if at any time it was called in, and in consequence ceased to have currency, the public treasury would pay to the holders, to each one in proportion to the amount in his possession, the sum of ten thousand pounds sterling, as represented in tobacco, this large quantity of the commodity in question to be obtained by a general levy. Death was to be the penalty for counterfeiting this copper coin.¹

It is interesting to note the arbitrary means employed by the General Assembly not only to give a fixed value to the piece of eight, but also to compel the inhabitants of the Colony to accept this form of money at the rate prescribed. This, it is almost unnecessary to say, has been the logical consequence in all ages of all attempts to govern the value of money by an act of legislation, instead of leaving that value to be controlled by the preciousness of the metal as governed by the price in the market. As has been seen, the Assembly proclaimed that the piece of eight should pass current as equal in value to six shillings. This was in 1645. It is evident that in the opinion of the people the piece of eight was not intrinsically worth so many shillings, and they, therefore, declined to use this coin in exchange at this rate although fixed by law. The Assembly, in consequence, decided in 1655 to lower the legal value to five shillings, proclaiming that all who refused to accept a piece of eight as thus valued were to be summoned before the court of the county in which

they resided to answer for their disregard of the provisions of the statute.¹ This Act failed to accomplish the purpose which it had in view. It was announced that it had been passed in the interest of mechanics especially, and yet the mechanics, as soon as they had had some experience of its practical operation, appear to have been the first to protest against it, on the ground that, after laboring for a subsistence, “they had only so many counters instead of sterling money for the sweat of their brows.” It is obvious that advantage was taken of the regulation, to pass, not only upon members of that class but also upon others, a quantity of spurious coin.²

All debts which by the terms of the contract were to be paid in money sterling could now be enforced in court, provided that these debts had not been incurred in the interval between 1643 and 1649. In that case they were held to be unpleadable.³

The continued anxiety of the Assembly to promote an influx of money sterling is shown in the acknowledgment introduced into the preamble of the celebrated regulation imposing a tax of two shillings upon every hogshead exported from Virginia. It is there stated that one motive for the adoption of the regulation was that it would perhaps be conducive to the increase of the volume of coin in the Colony, an anticipation based upon the fact that when the duty of one penny for the benefit of the Register was placed on each cask, a regulation which was in operation only during a brief period, the shipmasters in many cases

had preferred to pay this duty in money sterling to subserve their own convenience.¹ The author of Public Good without Private Interest, writing during the time of the protectorate, complained of the serious obstruction caused in the transaction of all business by the bulkiness of tobacco, the only money then in general use in Virginia, and he urged the expediency of sending over a supply of coin to be made current there.²

The prevailing notion in the seventeenth century that legislation was able to create any condition in the public wealth which lawgivers thought proper to bring about, again led the General Assembly in 1658 to play a trick of jugglery with the piece of eight. It was formerly provided that not only should this coin pass as equal in value to five shillings, but also that no person could refuse to receive it at that figure without rendering himself liable to a penalty. It was soon found, as we have seen, that this gave an opportunity to pass metal of inferior quality, and the law was repealed. In 1658, the original statute was reënacted, but with the clause that a refusal of sound silver pieces of eight alone should be punished by a fine of twenty shillings.³ It would be inferred from this that in the popular opinion a piece of eight, although made of silver and of unquestionable soundness, was not equal in value even to five shillings; there would otherwise have been no necessity for adopting a rule to compel the colonists to take it at that rate, unless the object of the law was really to protect the planters against the extortions of the merchants and shipmasters, a supposition which appears improbable, as tobacco was in universal use when goods lead to be bought of the importers, who were as anxious to

secure that commodity as they were to sell their merchandise. This view seems to be sustained by the fact that in the same statute it was provided that no money sterling in excess of forty shillings should be exported from Virginia, under a penalty for a violation of the regulation in double that amount.¹

That the right to sue for debts contracted in money sterling retrained unimpaired after the middle of the century is revealed in the conclusion reached by the county court of York in 1669, in the suit of Captain Samuel Cooper, as attorney of Edward Smith, against John Page and others in their character of executors. The sum in dispute was twenty-six pounds, twelve shillings and six pence. They were ordered to deliver this amount in coin. It is safe to say that this decision would not have been arrived at if the court had thought that it would impose a special hardship to require the defendants to pay in money sterling, and we may accept the fact as an indication that English currency was now somewhat more abundant in Virginia than twenty years earlier.² When Colonel Norwood, who had been spending several months at Green Spring, left Jamestown to go to Holland with the view of securing from Charles the Second the position of Treasurer of the Colony, it is stated that he was furnished with a sum of money by Governor Berkeley.³ Whatever coin

was to be found in Virginia at this time was most probably in possession of men who held official positions, positions which gave them an opportunity of acquiring whatever money sterling had been paid by the merchants and shipmasters. It is remarkable how small is the amount of coin appearing among the items of inventories even as late as 1670. Even where an estate was equal in value to several thousand dollars, it is exceptional if we find a few shillings. Among the few instances preserved in the records of the county courts were those of Robert Glascock of Lower Norfolk, whose inventory included two pounds and a half in coin;¹ Mrs. Elizabeth Bushrod of York, who left at her death seven pounds sterling in the same form,² and John Nilkson of the same county, who left only two pounds.³ Francis Wheeler, whose personal property when he died was valued at £1123, bequeathed in coin only four pounds and a few shillings.⁴ By 1670, it had become extremely common to draw specialties in money sterling, but it is doubtful whether on maturing they were paid in this medium, the wording being only a precaution against the fluctuations in the value of tobacco.

Again, in 1680, the General Assembly were careful to prescribe the legal rates of the money sterling in circulation in Virginia. The French coin was estimated at six dollars; the piece of eight at six shillings, an advance of one shilling on its value as legal tender previous to the middle of the century; half-pieces of eight at three shillings, and one-quarter pieces at eighteen pence. The New England coin was to be held at one shilling. As no reference is made in this table to Virginian coins, it is to

be presumed that the provisions of the law of 1644 for striking off a local metallic currency¹ had not been carried into effect.² We find at this time that the General Assembly petitioned the King for permission to enhance the value of all the coins imported into the Colony to an extent represented by one-fourth of their face value; in other words, that body desired to obtain authority to rate a coin equal, let us say, to one dollar in our modern currency, at one dollar and a quarter, and having by the mere stroke of the pen given this arbitrary value, to compel all persons to whom it was offered, to receive it under threat of severe punishment.³

Two years later, Lord Culpeper, for his own private profit, began to claim the right as the representative of the King to fix the value of money sterling by proclamation. He was accused of leaving obtained a great quantity of pieces of eight at a low figure and of then compelling the soldiers who still remained in the Colony after the suppression of Bacon’s Insurrection, to receive their wages in this coin, which he had raised to the value of six shillings apiece. The prescription worked both ways. Culpeper finding that he was losing heavily, inasmuch as his perquisites were settled in money sterling at this rate, issued a second proclamation restoring the former standard of five shillings.⁴

How small was the quantity of money sterling in the Colony as late as 1685 is shown in the memorable reply of the Burgesses in that year when called upon by Howard, who was acting under instructions from England, to

pay their quit-rents in coin instead of in tobacco, according to the rule which had prevailed for so great a length of time. They boldly declared that it was impossible to obey such an order. Not only was money sterling entirely lacking, but it could not be procured from England, the laws of that kingdom prohibiting its exportation.¹ The people of Virginia, although they had been enduring the evil condition springing from a dearth of coin for so long a period, seemed unable to accustom themselves to the inconveniences it caused in such a variety of ways. In 1686, the Governor and Council drew up a petition to the King, in which he was asked with great earnestness to grant the authorities of the Colony the right to advance pieces of eight, French crowns, and other foreign money beyond their intrinsic worth. It was anticipated that the merchants engaged in the tobacco trade would be tempted by this increase in rating to import large quantities of coin in order to secure the margin of profit which would thus be created between the arbitrary and the real value of the metal.

The proposition of the Council was submitted to the Commissioners of Customs in England for an opinion as to the expediency of accepting it. Their reply was in many respects a memorable one, and deserves perhaps to be pondered even in the present age. They took the ground that “no rate ought to be set upon money sterling other than according to its real intrinsic value and worth;” and they further declared, “that the proposition, if carried out, would be a great hindrance to trade, and instead of a general advantage, conduce only to the advantage of some particular persons, who, being in debt,

would by this means gain an opportunity of defrauding their creditors.”¹ This was striking language to hold in the seventeenth century, when, on account of the failure to recognize money sterling as a simple commodity like iron and wheat, a general belief prevailed that it was perfectly consistent with, economic laws to disregard the intrinsic worth of coin and to place upon it any value that mistaken notions as to the true interests of the people suggested. The proposition of the Council, which the Commissioners passed upon so justly, was doubtless made at the instigation of Howard, who had been specially instructed by the English Government to refrain from altering the metallic currency of Virginia unless he should receive distinct authority to do so from the King.²

The authors of the Present State of Virginia, 1697, have thrown important light on the condition of the Colony in the last decade of the century with reference to money sterling. From this pamphlet, it is learned that the piece of eight was valued at this time at five shillings by law. No weight for the coin was prescribed, and in consequence frequent occasion was taken by private persons to reject it on the ground that it was so light that it could not be good silver, or if good silver, that it had been clipped. From this fact, it is to be inferred that the intrinsic worth of the piece of eight was not generally considered equal to five shillings. No attempt was made to ascertain by legislative enactment the current value of other coins of foreign as distinguished from English origin. The quantity of English money in circulation

was extremely small, which would seem to indicate that the pieces of eight, the Peruvian pieces, and the crowns had been imported almost wholly from the West Indies. Even these coins did not remain very long in the Colony, if the testimony of the authors of the Present State of Virginia, 1697, can be accepted. Pennsylvania had adopted an order that pieces of eight of twelve pennyweight should pass current as equal to five shillings, and in the same proportion, pieces of eight of an increased weight. As the most valuable piece of eight was ascertained in Virginia at five shillings, and in Maryland at four shillings and six pence, there was created a tendency in this coin to flow from the two Colonies just mentioned to Pennsylvania, where it could be disposed of as an ordinary commodity at a profit, in one instance of a shilling and in another of a shilling and a half.¹

The lack of coin in Virginia at this time was by some attributed to the action of the Governor, who found it to his interest, it was said, to encourage the use of tobacco as money because it enabled him to receive his salary in the form of bills of exchange which could be transmitted to England with more facility and safety than the metals. He objected quite naturally to the payment of what was due him in pieces of eight, at the wholly arbitrary valuation of five shillings. As soon as he forwarded them to England, these coins would have been credited to him at their true worth, to his very serious damage. The Governor was probably in large part paid in tobacco received for quit-rents, this being delivered to him at a more reasonable rate than he could have secured it in the open market. He was also a purchaser of the same commodity procured from the same source on terms equally to his

advantage. For one hundred pounds of it, for instance, he was required to pay only four shillings and sixpence; he could not only dispose of it at a handsome profit, but, obtained at so low a price, he was enabled to buy all of his supplies practically at half rates. The example set by the Governor in discouraging the use of money sterling was followed by the Auditor-General in receiving from the collectors the amount which they were called upon to turn over to him, and by the collectors in receiving the duties which were paid by the merchants on tobacco exported by them and on certain articles which they imported. The authors of the Present State of Virginia, 1697, declare that the influence of the example of these officials extended to the people in their mutual transactions in business, but this statement is open to serious doubt, since to follow their example did not coincide with the popular interests. The expressed sentiment of the colonists is, moreover, in conflict with it.¹

In a series of proposals drawn in the autumn of 1697 for submission to the House of Burgesses by leading citizens of Accomac, it was asserted emphatically that money sterling was the most convenient agency in carrying on trade and commerce, and that its absence discouraged men in every walls of life because it compelled them to wait or sell upon credit, which frequently terminated in a total loss. For this reason, it was stated to be of the highest importance that all coins should bear a fixed value. The petitioners, therefore, urged upon the attention of the Burgesses the necessity of laying down the rates at which all money sterling except that of English mintage should pass as current in Virginia. Unless steps were taken to put this suggestion into practical operation, the small amount in circulation in the Colony, the petitioners predicted,

would be drawn away to the provinces where the coins had an ascertained value.¹ The suggestion seems to have been adopted either immediately or at a later date, for when Beverley wrote his History, the value of all money sterling in use in Virginia had been fixed by law. Besides coins of English origin, there were coins which had come from the mints of Arabia, France, Portugal, Spain, and Spanish America. Both gold and silver were represented. The silver coin hearing the stamp of France, Spain, or Portugal was appraised at three pence and three farthings a pennyweight. The gold coin of these countries and also of Arabia was valued at five shillings a pennyweight. The English guinea passed current at twenty-six shillings and English silver at an advance of two pence in every shilling. Old English coin was rated in proportion to its weight.²

It is significant to find that among the different kinds of money sterling in circulation in the counties on the Eastern Shore was the lion or dog dollar, as it was called, from the device on its face. This was perhaps a Dutch coin which had obtained a furtive admission into the Colony by the smuggling traffic, which, in spite of the Navigation laws, was carried on between the people of those countries and the merchants of Holland Its presence in Virginia as late as 1696 was the strongest evidence of the continuation of this illicit commerce. In the course of that year, a petition was presented by the planters of Accomac to their representatives in the House of Burgesses, to be delivered to that body when it assembled, asking that a legal value be set upon the lion or dog dollar, in order that it might be used to advantage in current business transactions.³

The instances in which coin formed a part of a testator’s estate were more frequent in the last decade of the century than they had been previously. Mrs. Katherine Thorp of York, who died in the course of this period, left six pounds sterling in gold and thirteen pounds in silver.¹ The estate of Nathaniel Branker of Lower Norfolk included four pounds sterling in silver and one pound in gold.² It is stated in the inventory of William Porteus of Lower Norfolk that he had among his effects nineteen pounds sterling, a large sum when it is remembered that his personal estate did not exceed six hundred and sixty-six pounds;³ the only instance comparable with this was that of William Knibbe of Henrico, who had collected enough coin to fill one-half of a small cabinet, his object, however, being to meet the cost of a trip to England.⁴ Robert Lightenhouse of York, whose personalty was appraised at seventy-two pounds sterling, bequeathed fourteen pounds in metallic money.⁵

A large quantity of the money sterling that was now left at the deaths of planters was of foreign origin. Thus in the personalty of William Knott of Lower Norfolk there were fourteen pounds sterling in Spanish money and three Arabian gold pieces.⁶ John Morrah bequeathed eleven shillings in English money, two shillings in New

England, and five pieces of eight;¹ Thomas Teackle of Accomac, four pounds sterling in Spanish coin;² Thomas Tomson of Lancaster, five pounds;³ and Jacob Walker of Elizabeth City, twenty-one.⁴ The inventory of Peter Cartwright included twenty-three pounds sterling in Spanish coin, an Arabian gold piece, and half a gold pistole. Among the effects of William Chichester of the same county were eight pounds sterling and four lion dollars.⁵

The increase in the volume of coin in circulation by the end of the century is shown in the vast number of specialties which at this time were made payable in money sterling, a precaution which meant, in many cases, that only the amount of tobacco representing the figures named should be delivered, but more frequently that the specialties were to be carried out as they stood, the person under bond being required to meet his obligation in specie. The only preference allowed him was the alternative of settling in English or Spanish money.⁶ It was directed

that personal estates should be sold for tobacco or coin as convenience should dictate to the executor.¹ Contracts for work to be paid for in money sterling alone were now drawn and strictly enforced by courts of law when appeal was made to them.² Coin was also the consideration in the sales of land.³

No financial device played a more important rule in the internal and external trade of the Colony than the bill of exchange. This instrument was only used when the party who gave it had a balance to his credit in the hands of some merchant, the drawee being generally a person of this calling who resided in England, New England, Barbadoes, or in one of the other English Colonies. Illustrations of the ordinary circumstances under which bills of exchange were passed may be offered. A foreign or native trader who was engaged in buying and selling Virginian tobacco purchased a large quantity of this commodity; instead of making payment in some form of merchandise or in money sterling, he delivered a bill of exchange drawn on a merchant who lived in England or in one of the Colonies, as the case might be. This manner of settling indebtedness was peculiarly agreeable to the planters who had direct dealings with these outside countries, as it placed a large sum to their credit in the very place where they were in the habit of buying goods. The person receiving the bill transmitted it to his own correspondent in England, New England, or Barbadoes, with instructions to collect it and devote the sum of money sterling thus

obtained to the purchase of such commodities as he might designate, or he directed that his correspondent should hold it subject to future orders. The correspondent thus became his banker. It was also common for a planter, in forwarding his hogsheads of tobacco, to accompany them with bills equal in value to his interest in the cargo, drawn on the consignee, who was ordered to return in the form of goods the sum represented. If the price of the articles as a whole exceeded the aggregate amount of the bills, an abatement was made in the order, or the deficiency was covered by a second shipment of tobacco. The planter would not infrequently draw a bill of exchange on the merchant in England in whose hands a balance remained to his credit, for the purpose of settling a difference in his account with a second English merchant. It happened very often that the Virginian, instead of sending wheat or tobacco to the Northern Provinces, forwarded to a correspondent residing there, bills of exchange made payable in England or the West Indies, these bills having been delivered to him by merchants or planters in the Colony with whom he had had business transactions, or having been drawn by himself; they were honored by their exchange for what he needed, the correspondent relying upon their soundness when presented to the persons named as drawees. This was an ordinary illustration of the part which a bill of exchange played in the economic life of Virginia. It may have passed through a dozen hands in the Colony, like a piece of coin, before coming into the possession of the last holder. It then made the long voyage to New England. There it may have gone through many additional hands in succession before it was transmitted to England or the West Indies for acceptance by the merchant who was the drawee from the beginning.

The bill of exchange was drawn in general in the form of three duplicates, one of which, the first, second, or third, apparently without discrimination, was very often entered on record in the county in which the bill itself was given. It was to be met twenty, thirty, or forty days or even longer after presentation to the drawee. It could be transferred, being made payable to order.¹ As the risk of protest was always present, it is not surprising to find that precautions were taken to ensure the payment of the amounts represented in bills of exchange by requiring the delivery of collateral security. The local government, when it first imposed a duty of two shillings on each hogshead exported, was careful to provide that if paid for in bills of exchange, these bills should be fully protected. In private transactions, the security most frequently consisted of a bond in which the person delivering the bill bound himself to pay double the amount set down in it in the event that the document was protested. In some cases, the security was a recorded assignment of the servants, slaves, cattle, and tobacco in the possession of the drawer, and this was to be made final if the bill was dishonored.²

There is much evidence to show that the bills of exchange were in many instances protested. The cargo on which they were based sometimes miscarried or after its arrival in England remained unsalable, or perhaps the consignee proved bankrupt or was unscrupulous in his business life. The return of such documents occasioned such serious damage even in some cases in which they had been

secured by the conditional assignment of property in the Colony to the persons in whose favor they were drawn, that the General Assembly determined to impose a heavy penalty upon the drawer of a bill, although he might be able to show that the default of the drawee in England or whatever country the latter might reside in was altogether unjustified. He was required to pay the creditor not only the amount of the protested bill, but also thirty per cent in excess of it. He was, however, allowed, whenever the drawee had ample funds in his hands to meet the call upon him, to secure from any property in Virginia belonging to the drawee the amount which he, the drawer, had been compelled to pay both in principal and damages to the creditor.¹ It was found that the interests of the Colony suffered from the high percentage at which the losses resulting from protested bills were rated, and the proportion once recoverable on this account was lowered to fifteen per cent. This penalty was strictly enforced and no alteration was suffered to be made in it by private agreement, even for the advantage of the creditor. In 1670, John Hungerford of York delivered to Mrs. Elizabeth Napier bills of exchange amounting to nine pounds sterling which he had drawn on an English merchant and bound himself in damages to the extent of thirty per cent in case they were returned rejected. Under the law, his responsibility was restricted to fifteen per cent;² the court, therefore, decided that Hungerford was only answerable in this degree when the bills were sent back dishonored. He had, however, to pay the charges of protest and the costs of the suit.³

If the drawer of the protested bill was not to be found when he was sought in order to enforce his liability for its

amount and the damages, process of attachment was issued against his estate in case he owned any property in the Colony.¹ In order to avoid the possibility of a bill which lead been paid being presented for payment the second time, when the receipt perhaps had been lost, or the original parties to the document or the witness of the transaction which it represented had died, it was provided that suit upon such a bill must be brought before three years had expired since its passage, unless it had been renewed within that interval, or had been placed on record in the books of the General Court at Jamestown or in the county in which the debtor had resided or still lived.² At a session of the General Assembly held several years later, it was enacted that the right of suit on a bill should not extend beyond five years beyond its date unless the debtor had left Virginia, thus rendering it impossible to renew the document. The validity of a judgment obtained upon a protested note was not to last longer than five years, unless the debtor by departing from the Colony had put it out of the power of the holder of the bill to enforce it against him.³

The only forms of money which it still remains to touch upon are roanoke and wampumpeke. These had a legal circulation in the Colony, having come down from the aborigines.⁴ The references to roanoke are most frequent in the records of such outlying counties as Accomac and Rappahannock. It seems to have been measured by an arm’s length, and was not infrequently paid out to the Indians along with match-coats for services performed by them for the public good.⁵ It was occasionally found

constituting a part of an estate.¹ The references to wampumpeke are comparatively few.² The use of beaver as a currency appears to have been most common on the Eastern Shore, where eight pounds in 1687 was valued at one hundred and sixty pounds of tobacco. It was also the subject of specialty.³