nal", p. 3, shows among the delegates listed, "Thomas Lewis, Samuel McDowell and John Harvie Esqrs. for Augusta", and Lewis's "Report of the Department of Archives and History of the State of West Virginia", 1908, p. 153, shows that Nevill and Harvie were delegates from the "District of West Augusta; and also (p. 154) that John Harvie and George Rootes delegates from the same district in the Convention of July, 1775, while the "Journal of the Convention of May, 1776" (1816 re-print), p. 3, contains this in the list of delegates,-"West Augusta, John Harvie and Charles Simms, Esquires". were the There is every reason to believe that the District of West Augusta was represented in the House of Delegates of October, 1776, which session passed the act "for ascertaining the boundary, etc", as this bill was "committed to Mr. Treasurer, Mr. Simms, and the members for Augusta, Frederick, Dunmore, Hampshire, Botetourt and Fincastle, as can be seen by referring to pp. 31, 33, of the 1828 re-print of this "Journal",-Mr. Simms being the last delegate from the District of West Augusta whose name we have. On the other hand, West Augusta does not seem to have been represented in the Convention of August, 1774, although after its abolition by the formation of Monongalia, Ohio and Yohogania in 1776 (H. ix, p. 262) it appears to have been represented in the Virginia Assemblies of May, 1777, May, 1778, October, 1778, May, 1779, and October, 1779, by David Rogers as Senator from the "District of West Augusta" (see Lewis, above, pp. 103-4),—though a careful analysis will show that this "District of West Augusta" was evidently the senatorial district composed of Monongalia, Ohio and Yohogania Counties, simply retaining its old and popular designation, for at the session of May, 1780, we find that the "District of West Augusta" has disappeared, while the senatorial district of "Monongalia, Yohogania and Ohio" appears for the first time,-such a district not appearing at the same time as the "District of West Augusta", although there were delegates from these individual counties. The title in Hening (vi, p. 381) is not the same as the title used in the "Journal of the House of Burgesses", under the date indicated. The "Journal of the House of Delegates", 1861, p. 252, carries these data under an obviously incorrect date-line of "1860". See note 17. 10 The date of passage here given is taken from Shepherd, ii, p. 54, but has not been checked against the "Journal" of the date indicated, as we have been unable to locate a copy for the session of 1796-7. 11 "which land from and after the time that it shall be laid off and bounded, shall become a county by the name of Brunswick county". (H. iv, p. 77). And certain it is that the county was not fully organized until 1732 (see also note 11, a, below),-nearly twelve years after the passage of the Act of Assembly authorizing its formation, as will be seen by the following copy of the proceedings of the first court (now destroyed: formerly in Order Book 1, page 1),—this copy having been made "about four years" prior to May, 1916, and now generously contributed for use in this connection by Mrs. J. O. James, of Petersburg, Va.: "Meeting of the Justices for Brunswick County at the Court House of the said County II [Second] day of May in the fifth year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George II. by the grace of God of Great Britain France and Ireland King Defender of the faith in the year of our Lord Christ M. D. CC. XXXII, Henry Fox A Commission from the Honorable Gooch Esq. His Majestys said Gov and Commander in Chief of the Colony and Dominion of Va Directs to Henry Fox, Henry Embry, John Wall, John Irby George Walton, Richard Burth, Nathaniel Edwards Wm. Wyns, Charles, King & Wm. Marking, Assigning the Kings Justices for the County of Brunswick, Situated You the said Justices administer the same to George Walton & Wm. (Rest, torn away) Upon the suggestion of the late Mr. William H. Hill of Lawrenceville, Va., and through the generous co-operation of the Hon. Robert Turnbull, of the same address, we are able to offer the following letter in regard to the escape of the records of Brunswick County, during the War between the States: "Mr. Morgan P. Robinson, Archivist, Virginia State Library, Richmond, Va. Dear Sir: Lawrenceville, Va., Mr. W. T. Sledge, who is at present Clerk of the County, has handed me your letter of the 15th inst. for reply. My father, Edward Randolph Turnbull, was County Clerk at the time Kautz's [1864] raid came through this section. I was a small boy at the time, about twelve or thirteen years old, and was in the office of my father when he left it just before the raiders came into our town, and he took a Masonic flag that was in the office and spread it out on the office table before he left. I helped do this. About twenty minutes after the raiders came into town a guard was sent to my father's house, who gave him the flag. After the raiders left we went back to the office and it looked as if all the records were destroyed, or a great part of them, as the floor of the office was about a foot deep in papers, but upon careful examination we found nothing was injured that was of any value. We had a case in the office that was filled with old blanks and they threw these all over the floor. They tore the leaves out of the old register of births and deaths and the leaves out of a lot of blank books, and scattered these over the floor and then put ink over the top of this stuff they had thrown on the floor; otherwise nothing was injured, and the records are still intact beginning with 1732, and down to the present time. With kind regards, I am, Yours very truly, R. Turnbull." To Mr. William Clayton Torrence, Secretary of the Valentine Museum, Richmond, Va., we are indebted for the following invaluable note which establishes beyond question that the area of the initial Brunswick County was taken out of Prince George: 11, The genesis of the County of Brunswick seems heretofore to have been enveloped in a maze of tradition. The statement made by Howe in his "Virginia", p. 205, that Brunswick was erected from Surry and Isle of Wight Counties has been accepted without critical examination. The statement by Howe is in all probability based on the fact that small portions of Surry and Isle of Wight were added to Brunswick in 1732 (Hening iv, p. 355). The following facts have been brought together to prove that Brunswick County (while it unquestionably received later accessions of territory from Isle of Wight and Surry Counties) was in its original formation created from part of the territory of Prince George County. By Act of Assembly, November 1720, the counties of Spotsylvania and Brunswick were created. "Brunswick County, begins on the south side the river Roanoke, at the place where the line lately run for ascertaining the uncontroverted bounds of this colony toward North Carolina, intersects the said River Roanoke, and to be bounded by the direction of the governour with consent of council, so as to include the southern pass; which land from and after the time that it shall be laid off and bounded shall become a county by the name of Brunswick county". (Hening, iv, p. 77, et seq.) After directing the erection of public buildings and the distribution of arms, reciting the privileges of inhabitants and declaring the jurisdiction for Spotsylvania County to reside in the justices of Essex, King and Queen and King William Counties, the act further recites, "And the court of Prince George county has the same power in Brunswick:" It will be noticed that the act does not state from what counties Spotsylvania and Brunswick Counties were erected but the settling of jurisdiction in the magistracy of specifically named counties is very good circumstantial evidence that Spotsylvania and Brunswick were erected from parts of the territory of the counties whose magistrates were invested with jurisdiction until a final organization should be effected. Therefore from the provisional jurisdiction given the magistracy of Prince George County in the new county of Brunswick we infer that the first territory laid off into Brunswick was taken from Prince George. The Land Patents seem, however, to settle definitely that Brunswick County was set off from Prince George. Reference to any map of Virginia will show that the dividing line between the present Dinwiddie County (which was until 1752 a part of Prince George) and the present counties of Greensville (which was until 1781 a part of Brunswick) and Brunswick is the Nottoway River. Now, in the year 1720, when the act establishing Brunswick County was passed, there were no Dinwiddie and Greensville Counties; therefore the Nottoway River was in Prince George County, as is also well established by the following patents: in August 1720 John King was granted 97 acres in Prince George County on south side of the Nottoway River beginning at the first falls above Sturgeon Run; at the same time John Wall was granted 185 acres in Prince George County on south side Nottoway River above the mouth of Waquiyoah (at present Waqua) Creek (Register of the Land Office, Patent Book, no. 11, pp. 39, 40). All maps show that the territory to the south of Nottoway River is in either Brunswick or Greensville County. The Sturgeon Run (now Creek) and Waquiyoah (now Waqua) Creek are today in the county of Brunswick. Though the act creating Brunswick County was passed in 1720 there was apparently no court held for that county until 1732, when on May 2, 1732, by commission from the governor, dated April 22, 1732, a court met and organized. No records of proceedings in Brunswick County prior to this date have ever been found. From the evidence adduced it seems quite clearly to have been the case that in 1720 Brunswick County was created from Prince George, and that on account of the sparseness of population no court was held until May 1732, and that at that time territory was added to Brunswick from the Counties of Isle of Wight and Surry, thereby adding more tithables and by the increase in population warranting the establishment of a regular court and forever removing jurisdiction over Brunswick affairs from the hands of the Prince George magistracy. 12 The "Journal of the House of Delegates" (1857-8), p. 323, gives the date as Feb. 16, 1858, but A (1857-8), p. 108, gives the date as Feb. 13, 1858, the former, of course, being the correct one. 18 The "Act for erecting a new County on the heads of Essex, King and Queen and King William Counties; and for calling the same Caroline County" appears in Hening (iv, p. 240) by title only; but reference to Part VI, chapter vii, below, will show the full text of this Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Caroline County,—although authorized by an Act passed in 1727,-came into actual existence in 1728,-the former date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. 14 See note 62. 14, a "It took in the portion of Wallingford Parish west of the Chickahominy River (the Sandy Point region previously in James City County)"-Lyon G. Tyler. 15 Charles River County was formed in 1634 (H. i, p. 224), but the name was changed to York in 1642/3 (H. i, pp. 224, 249). 16 The "Act for dividing the County of Henrico into two distinct Counties" does not appear in Hening (1748,-vols 5 and 6) either by title or in full text; but reference to Part VI, chapter xi, below, will show the full text of this Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Chesterfield County,-although authorized by an Act passed in 1749, and coming into actual existence in that year, is usually credited to the year 1748, this latter date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. 17 The enrolled bills and the Acts (1850-1, p. 21) give this order as "Botetourt, Roanoke, Giles and Monroe", while a typographical error makes Williams's "Index to Enrolled Bills" (p. 104, 1. 30), under the caption "Craig County", give the order as "Roanoke, Giles, Monroe and Botetourt". 18 The "Act for dividing the County of Orange" does not appear in Hening (1748, vols. 5 and 6) either by title or in full text; but reference to Part VI, chapter ix, below, will show the full text of this Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Culpeper County,-although authorized by an Act passed in 1748,-came into actual existence in 1749,the former date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. 19 The "Act for dividing the County of Goochland" does not appear in Hening (1748,-vols. 5 and 6) either by title or in full text; but reference to Part VI, chapter viii, below, will show the full text of this Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Cumberland County, although authorized by an Act passed in 1748,-came into actual existence in 1749,-the former date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. 20 The "Journal of the House of Delegates", 1879-80, p. 376, gives this date as February 27, 1880, while A (1879-'80), p. 125, gives the date as March 3, 1880, the former, of course, being the correct one. 21 Dunmore County was formed in 1772 (H. viii, p. 397), but the name was changed to Shenando[ah] in 1778 (H. ix, p. 424). 22 Through the generous co-operation of the Hon. H. H. Holt, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Elizabeth City County, we are able to offer the following letter in regard to the destruction of the records of that County: In reply to your communication of the 10th, I have the honor to say that I am not sure whether the records of this office which have been lost or destroyed were so lost or destroyed during the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, or the Civil War, or during all of them. The Town of Hampton was burned during each of these wars, but whether or not the records were preserved through any of them I do not know. I do know, however, that our records are very much broken from 1634, the date of the organization of this County, up to 1861, the date of the Civil War. During this period there are only a few scattering books concerning deeds, wills and in some instances Court proceedings and bonds. The beginning of our records which are now complete is 1865, after the end of the Civil War. The others prior to that time, as I said before, are scattering and there are lapses of fifty or sixty years between some of the books. Regretting that I cannot give you definite information as to the destruction of these records, I am Very respectfully, 23 See note 13. H. H. Holt, Clerk. 24 See note 35. 25 Fincastle County was formed in 1772 (H. viii, p. 600), but became extinct in 1777, when its territory was divided into Kentucky, Montgomery and Washington Counties (H. ix, p. 257). 26 See note 6; but "Owing to some delay of the population in these parts, not being able to support a sufficient number of competent men able to officer the new County', the Courts for all this section were held at Orange C. H., until Nov. [11th], 1743, when the first Court was held for Frederick County". (Cartmell's "A History of Frederick County, Virginia", p. 18). 27 See note 17. 28 We are indebted to Doctor Lyon G. Tyler, of Williamsburg, Va., for the following data concerning the early history of Gloucester County: "Lands in Gloucester are shown by the Land Grants previous to 1651 to have been in York. As its first delegates appeared in April, 1652 (H. i, p. 371), it must have been formed in 1651". The "Act for dividing the County of Henrico" appears in Hening (iv, p. 240) by title only; but reference to Part VI, chapter vi, below, will show the full text of the Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Goochland County,-although authorized by an Act passed in 1727,-came into actual existence in 1728,-the former date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. 30 The "Act for dividing New Kent County" appears in Hening (iv, p. 95) by title only, but reference to Part VI, chapter v, below, will show the full text of this Act, a copy of which was recently secured by the Library from the Public Record Office in London, for use in this connection. It will be noted that Hanover County,-although authorized by an Act passed in 1720,came into actual existence in 1721,-the former date being the general and more popular interpretation of the earliest actual existence of this county. |