USA > Virginia > New Kent County > New Kent County > Vestry book of Blisland (Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1721-1786 > Part 2
USA > Virginia > James City County > James City County > Vestry book of Blisland (Blissland) Parish, New Kent and James City Counties, Virginia, 1721-1786 > Part 2
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
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
(1) In the year 1680 St. Peter's Parish included terri- tory in Pamunkey Neck, as is evidenced by the following :
Att A Gen™11 Assembly Begunne at James City June the 8th 1680
The Petition of the Inhabitants of Pamunkey Neck pray- ing that they may be made a Parrish and it being Averred to this Affembly that part of that Neck belongs to St Peters parifh soe farre as Johns Creek and to the Ridge of the fª Neck, this Affembly doe declare and Order that they have liberty to make a Parifh downwards from the faid Johns Creek and Soe up the Ridge on Mattaponie Side, if they think Convenient.23
This territory in Pamunkey Neck was, it may be said in passing, retained by St. Peter's Parish until the year 1691, when it was annexed to St. John's Parish.24 Now St. Peter's Parish had been established in 1678-9, the year that Blisland Parish was divided; all the territory therefore in- cluded in St. Peter's at its establishment had before that date presumably been included in Blisland Parish. In other words, that part of Pamunkey Neck which in 1680 (and until 1691) was a part of St. Peter's Parish must presum- ably have been prior to 1678-9 a part of Blisland Parish, for there is otherwise no logical way to account for its connection with St. Peter's. But if the Pamunkey Neck portion of St. Peter's Parish was originally, like the rest of St. Peter's, a part of Blisland, then originally Blisland
23 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1659/60-1693, page 150.
24 Hening, Vol. III, p. 94. There are numerous references (direct as to the inhabitants, indirect as to the territory) to the Pamunkey Neck part of St. Peter's Parish in the MS. Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, between pages 2 and 17. Two very plain references occur on pages 11 (May 4, 1689) and 14 (Feb. 17, 1690).
XX
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
Parish embraced at least all that part of Pamunkey Neck lying south of the ridge between the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey as well as the territory south of the line of the York and the Pamunkey.
(2) The absence of any reference to Pamunkey Neck in the wording of the entries in the manuscript Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish referring to the dividing line between Blisland and St. Peter's parishes proves nothing, for the reason that those entries were made subsequent to the establishment (after June 8, 1680) of St. John's Parish, which at the date of its establishment embraced that part of Pamunkey Neck (later King William County) below John's (or Jack's) Creek, together with territory perhaps above the line of that creek on the Mattaponi side of the Neck.25 But if Blisland Parish originally included a part of Pamunkey Neck as well as the territory south of the line of the York and the Pamunkey, then with the estab- lishment of St. John's Parish (subsequent to June 8, 1680) Blisland, which had already by the establishment of St. Peter's Parish in 1678-9 suffered the loss of that portion of its territory in Pamunkey Neck that lies west of John's (or Jack's) Creek, was deprived of the remaining part of its Pamunkey Neck territory. Accordingly when in the year 1689, and again in the year 1690, there was talk of running the line between Blisland and St. Peter's parishes, there was naturally no reason to mention that part of the original dividing line that ran across the southern half of Pamunkey Neck, for after the establishment of St. John's Parish the dividing line between St. Peter's and Blisland, now con- fined in area to territory south of the York and the Pa- munkey, did actually begin at a point on the south side of Pamunkey River.
(3) In the schedule of parishes in Virginia, in the Pub- lic Record Office in London, dated June 30, 1680, there are
25 See page xix.
xxi
INTRODUCTION
four parishes listed as being in New Kent County. Of these four, St. Stephen's (established prior to Feb. 18, 1674)26 and Stratton Major (established in 1655)27 are listed under the heading "North Side," and St. Peter's and Blisland are listed under the heading "South Side." The question then arises, what was the dividing line between New Kent County, North Side and New Kent County, South Side-was it the Pamunkey or the ridge between the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey? To this question the editor is obliged, in view of the absence of conclusive documentary proof, to answer that he does not know. However, he in- clines to the belief that the ridge between the two rivers was the dividing line. His reasons for so thinking are as follows: (a) From 1654 until 1691 New Kent County ex- tended north and south from the ridge north of the Matta- poni to the ridge south of the Pamunkey, therefore the ridge between these two rivers would be just about the half-way line. (b) In Virginia in the seventeenth century rivers were not commonly the dividing lines between counties or between parishes, but the ridges between rivers were. (c) Between the years 1680 and 1691 St. Peter's Parish, listed as a South Side parish, extended north across the Pamunkey (counted at that time as the upper part of the York and referred to in official documents as the York28) as far as to the ridge between it and the Mattaponi.29 (d) The wording of the Act establishing Stratton Major Parish does not militate against the supposition that the parish ,at its establishment extended south across the Mattaponi as far as to the ridge between it and the Pamunkey, for in accordance with the practice of the period, under which counties and parishes occupied both sides of river valleys,
26 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 6, page 502.
27 Hening, Vol. I, page 404.
28 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 3, p. 93 (patent to Capt. John West, dated July 3, 1652) and p. 290 (patent to Capt. John West, dated March 6, 1653).
29 See page xix.
xxii
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
the words, "from Poropotank to Mattapony upward (vizt) on the north side of York river be a distinct parish by the name of Stratton Major," could properly have meant the land north of the present York River from Poropotank Creek up to the point where the Mattaponi and the Pa- munkey come together, and, from that point, the land north of the ridge between the two rivers.30 Now it is a fair inference that the four parishes listed covered the whole of New Kent County as far as it was inhabited, for in Colonial Virginia wherever there were inhabitants there there was a parish. If then the "North Side" of New Kent County was covered by St. Stephen's and Stratton Major parishes, and St. Peter's Parish covered the western portion of the "South Side," including that part of Pamunkey Neck lying west of John's (or Jack's) Creek and south of the ridge between the Mattaponi and the Pamunkey, then there was but one parish that could have included the eastern portion of Pamunkey Neck south of the ridge, and that was Blisland.
(4) There remains a fourth circumstance to be consid- ered. In the year 1677 certain inhabitants of Blisland Par- ish presented to the Commissioners who had been sent over to Virginia to inquire into the causes of Bacon's Re- bellion a list of "grievances." These "grievances" were signed by some eighty-seven persons, among the signatures being those of Robert Andersone and George Coxe. Now in this connection it is interesting to note (a) that in a patent granted April 22, 1670, to George Chapman for 4150 acres of land in "Pamunkey Necke," the name "Robt. Anderson" occurs in the list given of the names of persons on account of whose transportation into Virginia the tract
30 It is to be noted here that as the earliest continuous records of Strat- ton Major Parish known to be in existence, the records of the vestry meetings, begin in 1721 (long after the establishment of Pamunkey Neck as a parish under the name of St. John's), it is not possible to sub- stantiate by reference to the Stratton Major Parish Vestry Book the theory that that parish did at first actually include territory south of the Mattaponi.
xxiii
INTRODUCTION
had been granted,31 and (b) in the list of "Processioners" for the Pamunkey Neck part of St. Peter's Parish in the year 1689 occurs the name of Geo: Cox.32 If then in 1677 Robt. Andersone and George Coxe were inhabitants of Blisland Parish, and if also a "Robt. Anderson" in 1670 and a "Geo: Cox" in 1689 are found living in Pamunkey Neck, the supposition that Pamunkey Neck, or at least a part of it, was originally included in Blisland Parish is cer- tainly strengthened.
Practically to clinch the matter that at least that part of Pamunkey Neck that lies south of the ridge was included in Blisland Parish at the date of its establishment two pos- sible objections must be met. The first objection is that if there were no English settlers at all, or even if there were very few English settlers, in the eastern portion of Pa- munkey Neck between 1653 and 1680, then there would have been no need of including that territory in any parish be- fore that date. Now, as it happens, this is a very weighty objection, and it is so because of the fact that Pamunkey Neck was not open to settlement at all until about 1653, whereas at that date the land north of the Mattaponi and that south of the Pamunkey, in each case for some distance west of the fork of those two rivers, had already and for some years past been open to settlement. Moreover it is well known that whereas by the year 1678 (or 9) there were two parishes north of the Mattaponi, Stratton Major (est. 1655) and St. Stephen's (est. before Feb. 18, 1674), and two south of the Pamunkey, Blisland (est. 1653 or earlier) and St. Peter's (est. 1678 or 1679), it was not until 1680 or later that by the establishment of St. John's Parish the inhab- itants of Pamunkey Neck were given independent parish life.33
31 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 6, page 78.
32 MS. Vestry Book of St. Peter's Parish, page 11.
33 The delay in the settlement of Pamunkey Neck and the thinness of the population of the "Neck" as compared with that of the lands north and south of it is well brought out by Dr. Malcolm H. Harris in his
xxiv
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
However, granted the above are facts, as they undoubt- edly are, and granted furthermore that a considerable por- tion of the land in the eastern part of Pamunkey Neck was in 1653, as it has been ever since, an Indian Reservation and as such closed to settlement, nevertheless there is an- other side to the story, and it is equally true: (1) that as early as 1653 the extreme eastern tip of the "Neck" was occupied by English settlers;34 (2) that before 1680 there were at least so many settlers in that part of the "Neck" lying west of John's (or Jack's) Creek that there is par- ticular mention of them in the records as being members of St. Peter's Parish; and (3) that in 1680 the inhabitants in the "Neck" living east, or below, John's Creek were numerous enough to obtain the consent of the General Assembly to the formation of a new parish for them- selves.35
The other objection is one based on the wording of the Act of Assembly of 1691 establishing King and Queen County. In that Act occurs the following passage: "That the inhabitants of Pomunkey Necke, that now belong to St. Peters parish be restored and added to St. Johns parish, from which they formerly were taken."36 Here the state- ment is plainly made that the Pamunkey Neck portion of St. Peter's Parish had formerly been a part of St. John's Parish. The answer is simply this, that that part of Pa- munkey Neck that lies above (west of) John's (or Jack's) Creek had been a part of St. Peter's Parish before St.
article, "Delaware Town" and "West Point" in King William County, Va. William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, Second Series, Vol. XIV, No. 4, Oct. 1934, pp. 343-345.
34 Virginia Land Office, Patent Book No. 3, p. 93 (Capt. John West, 850 acres, transportation of 17 persons, dated July 3, 1652), p. 291 (Capt. John West, 3,300 acres, transportation of 49 persons, dated March 6, 1653), p. 34 (Col. William Clayborne, 5,000 acres, transportation of 100 persons, dated Sep. 1, 1653).
35 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1659 /60-1693, page 150.
36 Hening, Vol. III, page 94.
XXV
INTRODUCTION
John's Parish was established.37 Incidentally the apparent discrepancy in the records can be explained by understand- ing the words, "be restored and added to St. Johns parish, from which they formerly were taken" to mean "be annexed to St. John's Parish to which when the whole of Pamunkey Neck was a part of Blisland Parish (i. e., before 1678-9) they may be said formerly to have belonged." However, the best explanation of the wording of the Act of Assembly of 1691 is perhaps that the author of the bill was ignorant of the fact that part of Pamunkey Neck had been included in St. Peter's Parish as early as 1680 (i e., before the estab- lishment of St. John's Parish) and gratuitously embodied in his bill, which in due course was enacted as drawn, a statement which was contrary to fact.
Summing up the matter thus far, the evidence seems to the editor fairly conclusive that Blisland Parish originally included not only all that part of the territory of New Kent County as established in 1654 that lies south of the line of the York and the Pamunkey, but at least the southern half of Pamunkey Neck (the present King William County) as well. There remains to be considered the question whether or not Blisland Parish originally included also all the terri- tory included in New Kent County as established in 1654 that lies north of the line of the York and the ridge be- tween the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi.
Opposed to the supposition that Blisland Parish origi- nally included territory north of the York and the ridge between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi is the reason advanced above38 against the supposition that Blisland Par- ish originally included any of the territory between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi, called Pamunkey Neck, namely the fact that no document has as yet been found linking the name of Blisland Parish with any part at all of
37 Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia 1659/60-1693, page 150, quoted above on page xix.
38 Page xviii.
xxvi
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
the territory of New Kent County as established in 1654 that lies north of the line of the Pamunkey and the York.
In favor of the supposition that Blisland Parish originally (i. e., in 1653 or earlier) included territory north as well as south of the ridge between the Pamunkey and the Matta- poni, in other words that it included all the territory in- cluded in 1654 in the newly created county of New Kent (i. e., the whole water-shed of the Pamunkey-Mattaponi- York River system), are the following facts and considera- tions :
. (1) That as a general rule the parishes in Virginia established during the period from 1643 to 1655 lay on both sides of a river and included from east to west all the territory drained by the river. Some of the parishes that illustrate this rule, with the dates of their establishment, are Bristol (1643), on the Appomattox; Westover (prior to 1652), on the James; Weyanoke (1643), on the James; Wallingford (prior to Oct. 2, 1640), on the Chickahominy ; Wilmington (prior to 1680), on the Chickahominy; and Farnham (1654), on the Rappahannock.
(2) That when in the seventeenth and early part of the eighteenth centuries a new county in Virginia was established shortly after the establishment of a parish in the same general district, it was not unusual to make the county co-terminous with the parish in area. This was, for example, done in the case of (Old) Rappahannock County (est. 1656),39 whose bounds coincided with those of Farnham Parish (est. 1654) and in the case of Middlesex County (est. 1669),40 whose bounds to this day coincide with those of Christ Church Parish (est. 1666), and was probably done in the case of Hanover County (est. 1720),
39 Hening, Vol. I, p. 427.
40 The Vestry Book of Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County, Vir- ginia, 1663-1767, p. XIII; The Virginia Magazine of History and Biog- raphy, Vol. XLII, January, 1934, p. 31-Middlesex County, Virginia: The Date of Its Origin.
xxvii
INTRODUCTION
whose northern, eastern, and southern boundaries coincide with those of St. Paul's Parish (est. 1704).
(3) Chescake (or Chiskiack or Kiskeake) Parish was one of the very early Colonial Virginia parishes, having been established in 1640. It was the most western of the parishes in Charles River County, the name of which was changed to York County in 1643, the same year that the name of the parish was changed from Chescake to Hamp- ton.41 Now just how far to the west Hampton Parish ex- tended between 1650 and 1653 (the most probable date of the establishment of Blisland Parish) is not definitely known. However, since there is no documentary proof whatever that any parish lay between Hampton and Blis- land at the time of the establishment of the latter, and since, as has been shown above,42 the eastern boundary of Blisland at its establishment was Scimino Creek, the infer- ence is clear (a) that Blisland was cut off from Hampton, and (b) that before the establishment of Blisland, Hamp- ton Parish must have extended up York River to a point beyond (i. e., west of) Scimino Creek.
Now in 1654 New Kent County was established, and that same year the upper portion of Hampton Parish was erected into a new parish, Marston, whose eastern and western limits are given, in the order for its establishment, as Queen's Creek and Scimino Creek, respectively.43 The very next year (1655) Stratton Major Parish was established. But if Blisland Parish at its establishment (prior to Oct. 13, 1653) had not included the territory afterwards in- cluded in Stratton Major Parish as established in 1655 (i. e., the present King and Queen County, roughly speaking) then all that territory incorporated in Stratton Major Par- ish in 1655 must between Oct. 13, 1653, and Nov. 20, 1654, (the date of the establishment of Marston Parish) have
41 Hening, Vol. I, pages 249 and 251.
42 Page xvi.
43 Hening, Vol. I, page 388.
xxviii
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
been separated from Hampton Parish (to which it must under those circumstances have belonged, as there was no other parish to which it could have belonged) by that part of Blisland Parish extending from Scimino Creek up to a point on the south side of the York opposite the mouth of Poropotank Creek; and between Nov. 20, 1654, and March 24, 1655, (the date of the establishment of Strat- ton Major Parish) it must have been separated from Hamp- ton Parish not only by the part of Blisland Parish above referred to, but also by the whole extent of Marston Parish -a state of affairs that to any one having even the slightest acquaintance with Colonial Virginia parish history is in- conceivable.
In view then of the above considerations, and in spite of the lack of any direct documentary proof that such was the case, the editor thinks it most probable that Blisland Parish as originally established included just the territory that was included in New Kent County at its establishment in 1654; i. e., the whole water-shed of the Pamunkey-Matta- poni-York River system from Poropotank Creek, on the north, and Scimino Creek, on the south, as far toward the west as there were inhabitants.
Assuming then that Blisland Parish at the date of its establishment included all the territory included in New Kent County in 1654, its first loss of territory was suffered when in 1655 Stratton Major Parish (including practically what is now King and Queen County and also most prob- ably that part of Pamunkey Neck lying north of the ridge) was established. Its next loss of territory occurred when in 1678-9 St. Peter's Parish (including the upper half of the present New Kent County on the Pamunkey River side, the lower part of the present Hanover County, and that part of Pamunkey Neck (King William Couny) lying west of John's (or Jack's) Creek and south of the ridge between the Pamunkey and the Mattaponi) was established. It suf- fered its third and last loss of territory when shortly after
xxix
INTRODUCTION
June 8, 1680, St. John's Parish (including all the lower part of Pamunkey Neck from John's (or Jack's) Creek down- ward, and the northern side of the upper part of the "Neck," between the ridge and Mattaponi River) was established.
In 172544 Blisland Parish underwent still another terri- torial change, this time a change by addition. In that year Wilmington Parish, which lay on both sides of the Chicka- hominy from near the mouth of the river to a point some thirty miles up stream (i. e., to the west) was dissolved, and that part of the parish lying south of the Chickahominy (i. e., in Charles City County) was added to Westover Par- ish, while the part lying north of the river (i. e., in James City County) was divided between James City, Blisland, and St. Peter's parishes, the middle section being annexed to Blisland. After March 1, 1725, then, Blisland Parish lay partly in New Kent County and partly in James City County, the larger portion of the parish being in New Kent.45
The complete wording of the Act for dissolving the par- ish of Wilmington, which has not, it is believed, heretofore appeared in print, is as follows:
An Act for dissolving the parish of Wilmington in the Counties of James City and Charles City and adding the Same to other parishes.
Whereas the parish of Wilmington lying in the Counties of James City and Charles City by reason of its Situation on both Sides of Chicohominy River and the great length thereof is very inconvenient to the far greater part of the parishoners thereof Be it Enacted by the Lieu' Gov'. Coun-
44 In the Act dissolving Wilmington Parish, the date when the provi- sions of the Act were to take effect is given as March 1, 1724. This date is evidently according to the "Old Style" reckoning, for it was not until April 24, 1725, that former vestrymen of Wilmington Parish were sworn in as vestrymen of Blisland Parish. (See page 15.)
45 Hening, Vol. IV, page 141; Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1712-1726, page 387.
XXX
VESTRY BOOK OF BLISLAND PARISH
cil and Burgesses of this present General Assembly and it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the Same That front and after the first Day of March which shall be in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Twenty ffour or within One Month after the Same shall become va- cant by the death resignation or other disability of the pres- ent incumbent which-soever Shall first happen the Said parish of Wilmington and the Vestry of the Said Parish shall be and hereby are intirely dissolved. And that that part of the Said Parish of Wilmington lying below the Mouth of Coles Mill Creek running up the Said Creek and the Lowermost branch thereof to the Head of a Valley a little below the Dwelling House of one George Weldy Be added to the parish of James City And the Said added part & the parish of James City Shall be for Ever One intire parish and be called by the Name of James City Parish And that that part of the Said parish of Wilmington lying above the Mouth of the said Mill Creek to a Line to be run from Chicohominy River a little below the plantation of William Brown Gent running from thence in a direct Line to Diascun Swamp Just below the plantation of John Netherland Gent. from there up the Said Swamp to the Line now dividing the parish of Blisland from the parish of St. peter Be added to the Said Parish of Blisland in the County of New-Kent And that the Said added part and the parish of Blisland shall be for Ever One intire Parish and be called by the name of Blisland Parish And that all that remaining part of the Said Parish of Wilmington lying on the East side of Chicohominy River be added to the Said Parish of St. Peter in the County of New Kent And that the Said added part and the parish of St. peter shall be for ever One intire parish and be called by the Name of the parish of St. Peter And that the remaining part of the Said parish of Wilmington lying on the West side of Chico- hominy River be added to parish of Westover in the County
xxxi
INTRODUCTION
of Charles City and that the Said added part and the parish of Westover shall be for Ever One intire parish and be called by the Name of Westover parish All which Said parts of the Said parish of Wilmington so divided and added as aforesaid shall be liable to the respective depend- encies Offices Charges Contributions and parochial Duties whatsoever payable by and incumbent on the other Inhab- itants of the Said parishes to weh they are So added and be capable to receive and enjoy all privileges and Advan- tages relating thereto And Be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid That from & after the Comencement of this Act the Vestry Men of the Said parish of Wilming- ton who shall reside and dwell in any part of that parish added to any other parish shall be and are by virtue of this Act added to the Vestry of the Parish to which they are so added and Shall and may have and exercise the like power & Authority for ordering and regulating the Affairs of the Said parish as the Vestry of Such parish to which they are hereby added now have and Exercise Provided That None of the Said parish's of James City Blisland St. Peter or Westover shall at any Time hereafter Elect or Choose any Vestry Man in either or any of the Said parishes until there shall be less in Number than Twelve persons in the Vestry of any of the said Parishes.46
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.