USA > Virginia > New Kent County > New Kent County > Vestry book of Blisland (Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1721-1786 > Part 1
USA > Virginia > James City County > James City County > Vestry book of Blisland (Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1721-1786 > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21
For Reference Do Not Take From the Library
VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION GENERAL REFERTOES DURTAU 936 INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD VIRGINIA REACH. VIRGINIA 23455
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT LEAVE THEFREFERENCE ROOM DO NOT REMOVE FROM LIBRARY
Hofors this or Tapp ahanoch
5
R
S
Sınıtha !!
..
COUNTY
LANCASTER
RAPPAHAN
COUNTY
lugtanış Hay
W'att, 3 d
The Proper
l'amunken
COUNTY
R
-
.
Stingriyrt
1
.
f
o .....
J'enkalash River Cherry IN
HẹnAH
U
-
.
Milloud Inen
.
Parıs
3
....
N. l'unt tomlint
A
Thereter
7
.-
ANTI-J.IAM1
Torst
Lome Hand
Tiry Mand
SI
WARWICK y
PRINCE
.
l'obhasu
Putut Caufurt
T
ISLY. OF WIGHT
umberto pt
d Vorfall
1
RING Y. SS
€
NORFOLK
-
1
COUNTY
H
COUNTY
a
SOUTHAMPTON
BRUNSWICK
COUNTY
*
€
THE
ttow
.
بطسا ان ٧ ٢
DISMAL
T
nell. nullinkage
....
JAMES
COUNTY
1
R
.
Mrkjack May
Appomallox
Rig.e.Y
ELIZABETH
B3
ORTH
inthatich
R
GLOUCESTER
1 .
X
...
RIVKR
0
H
T
Maulapony Rix
A.
In.Ak
NONTHI' VAIKI LA!
RING and QUEEN
1
-
COUNTY
VANOSEMOND
COUNTY
West Hrin.A
k
COUNTY
K
SURREY
SECTION OF A MAP OF THE MOST INHABITED PART OF VIRGINIA . . . BY JOSHUA FRY AND PETER JEFFERSON, 1775 EDITION, TO WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED, AT THE PROPER PLACES, THE NAMES "BLISLAND PARISH" AND "APPOMATTOX RIVER."
-
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation
http://www.archive.org/details/vestrybookofblis00cham
- -
The Vestry Book OF Blisland (Blissland) Parish
1
ʻ
THE VESTRY BOOK OF
BLISLAND (BLISSLAND) PARISH
NEW KENT AND JAMES CITY COUNTIES, VIRGINIA 1721-1786
-
TRANSCRIBED AND EDITED BY C. G. CHAMBERLAYNE
PUBLISHED BY THE LIBRARY BOARD
-
RICHMOND : DIVISION OF PURCHASE AND PRINTING 1935
1
VIRGINIA BEACH PUBLIC LIBRARY SYSTEM - DUP A18230 166818
Prefatory Note
During the colonial period, not only was the Established Church, or Church of England, supreme in the religious life of Virginia but its parishes were also local governmental institutions which affected very closely the people in their secular affairs. Parish records are therefore, in a true sense, official, important and revealing. Extant vestry books and registers supplement the archives of local govern- ments when they do not indeed supply the only existing records. For these reasons the Library Board has pub- lished from time to time certain original parish books, this being the fourth. It is hoped that this work may be con- tinued for, although most of these original records have been lost or destroyed, there are still a number of them in existence, comparatively few of which have been published.
During almost the entire period covered by this vestry book (1721-1786) Blisland Parish was partly in the present New Kent County and partly in the present James City County, the records of both of which, prior to 1865, have been destroyed. This volume and two of those previously published by the Library Board ("The Vestry Book of Stratton Major Parish, King and Queen County, Virginia, 1729-1783" (1931) and "The Vestry Book of Petsworth Parish, Gloucester County, Virginia, 1677-1793" (1933) ) supply a record for a contiguous area of early Virginia whose local archives have been lost. This vestry book, therefore, enables us further to rescue from oblivion much of the life, customs and names of those who helped to create Virginia.
Dr. Churchill Gibson Chamberlayne, who has prepared the present volume, is the editor of the two other publica- tions mentioned above. He had previously published at his own expense three other volumes of parish records. Actu- ated by love for his church and state, he has undertaken
V1
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
this exacting work without remuneration; qualified by scholarship and experience, he has thus made valuable con- tributions to the printed documents of Virginia. This vol- ume maintains his high standards of editorship and his- torical research. Dr. Chamberlayne has the gratitude of the Library Board for this work as he will have that of the people of Virginia.
WILMER L. HALL, State Librarian.
Richmond, May 8, 1935.
List of Illustrations
Section of A Map of the Most Inhabited Part of Vir- ginia, by Fry and Jefferson, 1775. . Frontispiece
The Blisland Parish Grievances of 1677 Between pages xlii and xliii
Page 10 of the Manuscript. .
Between pages 14 and 15
Hickory Neck Church, Blisland Parish, James City
County, Virginia
. Facing page 53
Introduction
The manuscript volume hereinafter reproduced in print embodies the earliest consecutive records of Blisland (or Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City counties, Vir- ginia, known to be in existence. Doubtless there once were manuscript records of Blisland Parish antedating those here given to the public, but even before Bishop Meade's day all trace of them must have been lost, for the Bishop makes no reference to them. Indeed, when his Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia was first published, in part and in tentative form in The Protestant Epis- copal Review, and Church Register (beginning with the issue for April, 1855) and the Southern Churchman (beginning with the issue for April 26, 1855), Bishop Meade was apparently unaware of the existence of any parish record of Blisland; nor evidently did he learn that there was such a record until after the first volume of the Old Churches (1857) was in print, for on page 388 of that volume he says, referring to Blisland Parish, "No vestry-book remains to tells its history." How- ever, before the second volume of the work was released from the press, a vestry-book of Blisland Parish came to light, and the Bishop refers to it in a note on the last page of his book.1 The present publication now for the first time makes accessible to students of Colonial Virginia his- tory these old and for many years lost and forgotten records of Blisland Parish.
The manuscript Vestry Book is a folio, 141/8 by 91/4 inches in size, consisting of 77 leaves (154 pages) of heavy, un- ruled, laid paper, the water marks being two in number: The Roman numeral IV (1/2 inch by 1 inch) ; and a fleur- de-lis on a shield, surmounted by a crown, the whole over the monogram WR (558 inches by 23/4 inches). Whether
1 Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, Vol. II, page 496.
X
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
or not the volume ever contained more leaves than at pres- ent, the editor does not know, but he thinks not; certainly no leaves are missing at the back, and there is little or no indication that any have been torn out in front. The record as it now stands covers the period from the autumn of 1721 to October 11, 1786, or 65 years. This old manuscript volume is one of twenty-five or more Colonial Virginia parish record books belonging to the Protestant Episcopal Church in Virginia, which were formerly kept in the Li- brary of the Theological Seminary at Alexandria, and are now in the custody of the Virginia State Library, in Rich- mond.
With regard to the origin of the name Blisland given to this old Colonial Virginia parish, the present editor is un- happily entirely ignorant. Under the circumstances, there- fore, he can do no better than quote the opinion of the late Hon. Hugh Blair Grigsby, of Norfolk, as given to Bishop Meade in 1857. Mr. Grigsby wrote: "Blisland .- This is a common name in England, and is synonymous with 'happy land'. It is evidently applied from some local inci- dent long lost, or from some place in England connected with some of its parishioners. The word was originally Bliss-land."2
1. ESTABLISHMENT AND TERRITORIAL CHANGES
While the only manuscript vestry book of Blisland Parish known to be in existence begins in the year 1721, the parish itself can be traced back to a date much earlier, namely, to the year 1653, at which period the territory involved was in- cluded in York County.3 Of course, in the absence of posi- tive proof to the contrary, it may be that the parish was established some years prior to 1653; however, all the evi- dence on the subject discovered by the present editor, while
2 Meade, Old Churches, Vol. II, page 426.
3 See page xi.
xi
INTRODUCTION
entirely negative in character, points, as will be seen, to the three and a half months between July 1, 1653, and October 13, 1653, as the period within which Blisland Parish was established.
That Blisland Parish was established prior to October 13, 1653, is evidenced by the following land patent issued on that date :
"To all &c Whereas &c Now Know Yee, That I ye faid Richard Bennet Esq. &c Give and Grant unto Thomas Dunketon fifty acres of land scituated in York County, in Blifland parifh, Beginning from Mr. Barnehoufe his mark'd maple tree in matchemeed [wamp running up Eaft South Eaft by a branch of the faiª Swamp to ye top of ye hill, thence weft by north to ye land of Mr. Barnehoufe, & north north Eaft to ye place where It began, bounded by mark'd trees on all fides; The faid land being due unto ye faid Thomas Dunketon by and for ye transportation of one #fon &c To have and to hold &c Yeilding & Paying &c w :" payment &c Dated ye 13:th of October 1653."4
It might of course be objected that one land patent, it- self a copy made in 1694, or later, of the original record (and so containing possibly a copyist's error as to the name Blisland Parish), is insufficient evidence of the antiquity of the parish. However, there is additional evidence prac- tically to the same effect in the same book, namely the following land patent, which bears a date less than eight months later than that of the patent above:
"To all &c Whereas &c Now Know Yee That I ye faid Richard Bennet Efq &c Give & Grant unto John Pouncey fower hundred and fifty acres of land [cituated on ye fouth fide of ye frefhes of Yorke river, in ye parifh of Blifsland
4 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 3, page 5.
xii
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
between Pounceys Creek & Tanks Creeke & joining to ye land of ye faid Pouncey by and for ye transportation of nine perfons into this Colony &c To have and to hold &c Yeild- ing & Paying &c w :en payment is to be made &c Provided &c Dated ye 7 :th of June 1654."5
It may be noted here in passing that in the Patent Books in the Virginia Land Office there are to be found copies of five land patents (the two immediately above and three others) giving the location of the lands as in Blisland Parish and dated respectively Oct. 13, 1653, June 7, 1654, Oct. 12, 1657, Oct. 30, 1657, and Nov. 18, 1663.
So much for the positive evidence that Blisland Parish was in existence on October 13, 1653. The evidence that the parish was not established many months prior to that date is by no means so conclusive, for it is purely negative in character; however, while each bit of evidence taken by itself is perhaps negligible, the weight of all the evidence when taken together is cumulative and therefore consider- able if not absolutely convincing. That evidence is as fol- lows:
Patent Book No. 2 in the Virginia Land Office contains copies of twenty or more patents to land in York County (or "in York river" or "Up pamunkee river") granted by Governor Sir William Berkeley between 1644 and 1652; but while Hampton Parish6 is mentioned several times, some-
5 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 3, page 13.
·
6 Hampton was one of the very early Virginia parishes. It was estab- lished in 1640. Until March, 1643, when its name was changed to Hamp- ton, it was known as Chescake (or Chiskiack, or Chickyack, or Kiskeake or Kiskiacke, or Kiskyacke, or Kiskyake) Parish. In 1680 it was one of four parishes lying wholly or-as in the case of one of them, Bruton or Brewton-partly in York County. Its eastern boundary was Town- send Creek (later known as Yorktown Creek). Being the farthest west parish of a county which until 1654, when New Kent County was estab- lished, extended indefinitely to the west, Hampton had probably no west- ern boundary line until the year that Blisland Parish was established (probably 1653), when Scimino Creek became its western boundary. With the establishment of Marston Parish in 1654, Queen's Creek (be- tween Scimino and Townsend creeks) became Hampton's western bound- ary.
ʼ
xiii
INTRODUCTION
times under its original name of Kiskeake (or Chickyack), sometimes as Hampton, its new name given in 1643, there is no mention whatever of Blisland Parish. In this connec- tion it is, however, only fair to say that over half the patents in question fail to refer by name to any parish; therefore the absence of the name Blisland from the pages of Patent Book No. 2 is in itself not absolute proof that the parish was not in existence before Governor Berkeley left office.
Patent Book No. 3 begins with patents issued by Governor Richard Bennett, who took office April 30, 1652. In this volume there are copies of ten or more patents to land in York County (or "on york river" or "in york river") granted between November 12, 1652, and June 7, 1654. Of these land patents, five, the latest of which is dated July 1, 1653, are of particular interest. The first of these patents, which is dated Nov. 12, 1652, reads: "grant unto John Rogers Seven hundred and twenty Acres of Land lying on the South Side of york river Near Skimmino Creeke." Now it is to be noted that the patent does not say on which side of "Skimmino Creeke" the land lay, and as that creek was in 1654 made the boundary line of New Kent County and presumably (for reasons to be given later) had been made the eastern boundary line of Blisland Parish at its estab- lishment, it is impossible to state with certainty that this land lay within the bounds of Blisland Parish when estab- lished. The second and third patents, dated respectively Feb. 10 and Feb. 12, 1652,7 are to land granted to Mrs. Hannah Clarke situated "in the County of Yorke and upon the South Side and within the ffreshes of yorke river" (the wording being exactly the same in the two patents). Now it is to be noted above, in the patent to John Pouncey, dated June 7, 1654, that land situated "on ye fouth fide of ye frefhes of York river" was in the parish of Blisland; there- fore if Blisland Parish was in existence on Feb. 10, 1653, the lands mentioned in these two patents to Mrs. Hannah
7 i. e. 1653.
xiv
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
Clarke were in Blisland Parish. The fourth patent that is of special interest in connection with the fixing of the date of the establishment of Blisland Parish is that granted on April 14, 1653, to William Hoccaday. It reads:
that I the Said Richard Bennett Esq". &c give and grant unto m' William Hoccaday one Thousand Acres of Land head of a former devident Neer the head of Ware Creeke on the Side of yorke river beginning in the County of yorke bounded Viz* Northwest by North upon his for- mer devident South Eaft by South upon the ware Creeke and North weft by North towards Waraney Creeke." This patent is interesting for three reasons: (1) its reference to Ware Creek, which is west of Scimino Creek and was therefore well within the bounds of New Kent County as established in 1654.8. Later, in 1767, the line of Ware Creek was made a part of the eastern boundary line of New Kent County ;9 (2) its reference to Waraney Creek, which was in Blisland Parish and from which one of the churches within the bounds of that parish later took its name; and (3) its reference to an earlier patent granted to the same patentee. Now in Patent Book No. 2, page 93, there is to be seen a patent-doubtless the one referred to above- granted Aug. 6, 1646, by Sir William Berkeley to "William Hockaday" for "five hundred Acres of Land and lyeing on the South Side of Charles 10 river Neare the Narrowes being in the County of yorke bounded (Viz*) North weft by weft upon Warrany Creeke North Eaft by Eaft upon the river South Eaft by Eaft toward the ware Creeke." The last of the patents to be noted as of special interest in this con- nection is that granted July 1, 1653, to Robert Priddy for 377 acres of land "scituated in York County in ye Narrows running South West by ye Land of George Chapman . .. East to ye Lands of W" Cox and the Land of Jo" Hope."
8 Hening, Statutes at Large ... of Virginia, Vol. I, page 388.
9 Hening, Vol. VIII, page 209.
10 i. e. York.
XV
INTRODUCTION
In this patent the word to be noted is "Narrows," which in the patent to William Hockaday immediately above is asso- ciated with Ware Creek, which is known to be within the bounds of Blisland Parish.
Here then are five land patents, all of them dated less than one year prior to Oct. 13, 1653 (when Blisland Parish is mentioned by name in a patent to Thomas Dunketon), four of which almost certainly, and the fifth one possibly, refer to land within the known bounds of Blisland Parish, but none of which mentions the parish by name. Under the circumstances it seems most reasonable to suppose that Blisland Parish was not established many months prior to Oct. 13, 1653. However, in view of the fact before stated, that by no means all patents to land within the bounds of a parish refer to the parish by name, it is entirely pos- sible that Blisland Parish may some day be found to have been established a year, or even two or three years, prior to 1653.
In this connection it is of interest to note: (1) that on July 5, 1653, there was convened the third Grand Assembly held subsequent to the surrender of the Colony of Virginia (on March 12, 1652) to the Parliament of the Common- wealth, and (2) that at this Assembly Mr. Wm. Hockaday sat as one of the four Burgesses for York County. It is the belief of the present editor that it was at this session of the Grand Assembly that Blisland Parish was estab- lished, and he thinks it most probable that it was on the motion of Mr. Wm. Hockaday, who was a large landowner in that part of York County that subsequently was included in Blisland Parish11 and who took a somewhat prominent part in the proceedings of this Assembly,12 that the Act establishing Blisland Parish was passed.
11 See page xiv. Note also that there was a Hockaday on the vestry of Blisland Parish in 1703 (page lii) and that the Hockaday family was prominent in the parish through the whole period covered by the extant Vestry Book.
12 Hening, Vol. I, pages 378, 379, and 380.
xvi
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
If from the evidence at hand it is impossible to determine absolutely the year when Blisland Parish was established, it is equally as impossible from the known existing records to say with absolute certainty what was the territorial ex- tent of the parish at the time of its establishment, or even what was its eastern boundary line in its entirety.
With regard to the eastern boundary line of Blisland Parish, it seems to the editor most reasonable to suppose that it was the same as that of the county of New Kent as established in 1654, i. e., on the south side of the York the line of Scimino Creek.13 Whether or not the parish ever included land on the north side of York River is as yet somewhat of an open question; if it did, then most prob- ably the parish line on that side was the line of Poropotank Creek.14 That Scimino Creek constituted a part at least of the eastern boundary line of Blisland Parish at the time of its establishment is witnessed to by three facts: (1) In 1654 the parish of Marston was established, with limits "From the head of the north side of Queen's creeke as high as to the head of Scimino creeke."15 Marston was origi- nally a part of Hampton Parish,16 one of the very early
13 Hening, Vol. I, p. 388.
14 Hening, Vol. I, p. 388.
15 Hening, Vol. I, page 388.
16 The editor's reasons for making this unqualified statement are as fol- lows: 1. Previous to the establishment of New Kent County (Nov. 20, 1654) all the territory afterwards incorporated in that county was a part of York County. 2. From (and presumably for some months before) ·Oct. 13, 1653, until Nov. 20, 1654, York County contained (in whole or- as in the case of one parish, Bruton, or Brewton-in part) five parishes ; namely, New Poquoson (afterwards Charles), York, Bruton, Hampton, and Blisland, of which Blisland lay farthest west, the next most westerly parish being Hampton. 3. If these five parishes covered the county- and arguing from historical analogy one is led to conclude that they must have done so-then at its establishment (in 1653 or earlier) Blisland must have been cut off from the parish which at the moment was the far-west parish; i. e., Hampton. 4. Now Blisland had as its eastern boundary Scimino Creek; therefore in 1653 (after the establishment of Blisland) Scimino Creek was the western boundary of Hampton-for otherwise there would have been an extra-parochial strip of territory extending from the western boundary of Hampton up to the eatsern boundary of
xvii
INTRODUCTION
Virginia parishes, which until 1643 had been known as Chescake (or Chiskiack or Kiskeake) Parish.17 After com- paratively few years of separate existence, Marston must have been reunited to Hampton Parish, for in the 1680 list of the parishes in Virginia the parishes in York County are given as Brewton, Hampton, Yorke, and New Poco- son.18 Later, in 1707, York and Hampton Parishes were "united and consolidated into one parish to be called and known by the name of Yorkhampton."19 (2) When in 1724 Blisland Parish was divided up into four precincts for the purpose of facilitating the counting of tobacco plants, the first precinct was defined as "That from the head of the Northwest branch of Ware Creeke Down the Swamp to Holdcrofts Mill and from thence to the extent of the Parish Downwards";20 in other words at least a fourth, and pos- sibly more, of the parish as it existed in 1724 lay below Ware Creek, and so the parish must have extended down to about as far as Scimino Creek. (3) The mouth of Scimino Creek marks today the beginning of the line separating Blisland Parish (in the Diocese of Southern Virginia) from the parish of York Hampton.
What now was the original area and extent of Blisland Parish? To this interesting question there can be at pres- ent, in view of the lack of sufficient documentary evidence on the subject, no conclusive answer. As far as the records at hand show, Blisland Parish as originally established may have coincided in territory (1) with that part of the original New Kent County that lies south of the line of the York
Blisland, a thing unprecedented in the history of the Colony. Therefore, when on Nov. 20, 1654, both New Kent County and Marston Parish were established, the bounds of Marston being defined as "From the head of the north side of Queen's creeke as high as to the head of Scimino creeke," Marston Parish must have been taken from Hampton Parish.
17 Hening, Vol. I, page 251.
18 Public Record Office, London. C. O. 1, Vol. 45, No. 27.
19 Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial Virginia, Vol. III, page 140.
20 See page 10.
xviii
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
and the Pamunkey, or (2) with that part of the original New Kent County that lies south of the line of the York and the ridge between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi, or (3) with New Kent County as a whole as established in 1654, i. e., the entire water-shed of the Pamunkey-Matta- poni-York River system from Poropotank Creek on the north side of the York, and Scimino Creek on the south side, westward to an indefinite extent.
In favor of the supposition that Blisland Parish was from the beginning confined in area to territory lying south of the York and the Pamunkey is the fact that no document has been found linking the name of Blisland Parish with any part of the territory to the north of the line of those two rivers. Moreover, had Blisland Parish originally in- cluded any territory between the Pamunkey and the Matta- poni (in early Colonial times called Pamunkey Neck) then when in 1678-9 St. Peter's Parish was established, the divid- ing line between the two parishes would have run across Pamunkey Neck as well as across that part of the original New Kent County that lies south of the York and the Pamunkey, roughly speaking the present New Kent Coun- ty. However, whenever in the manuscript Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish there is occasion to mention the starting point of the dividing line between St. Peter's and Blisland, the wording is "begin at ye mouth of a Creek Called Capt: Bafsetts Landing"21 or "Beginning at Pamunkey River side at a Small gutts mouth Known by the name of Bajsetts landing."22 There is nowhere any reference to Pamunkey Neck by name or indeed any reference at all to territory north of the Pamunkey.
Opposed to the supposition that Blisland Parish was from the beginning confined in area to territory lying south of the York and the Pamunkey, and confirming the suppo- sition that it did include also at least a part of the territory
21 MS. Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, page 11.
22 MS. Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, page 15.
xix
INTRODUCTION
between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi, known as Pa- munkey Neck, i. e., as far north as to the ridge between the two rivers, are the following facts and considerations :
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.