Chapter 6 – William Atterbury in America

Transported Prisoner Route from Newgate Prison to Black Friars Stairs, Agas’ Map, Circa 1560.

Chapter 6 – William Atterbury in America

In the pursuit of this research into the William Atterbury family in America the author has found only two other published works to exist on this subject.  In 1984 Voncille Attebery Winter, PhD. and Wilma Attebery Mitchell, self published their work entitled The Descendants of William Atterbury, 1733 Emigrant.[1]  The Winter-Mitchell book culminated many years of research by these Attebery ancestors, and was the single, most comprehensive document found by the author to have been written on this family.  In 1998 Wayne Attebury published his work entitled Atterbury Family, which is available online at the LDS Family Search Library[2].  It is not the intent of this present work to replicate the previous efforts by Winter-Mitchell and Wayne Attebury, but to expand upon it, and to provide greater focus on the author’s particular branch of this family, which flows from Richard Atterbury Sr. and Rebecca Bennett to Richard Atterbury Jr. and Martha Patsy Moore, thence to Richard Atterbury III and Eliza Close, and finally to Alexander Atterbury and Martha Emaline Wyatt.  The exact kinship between Richard Atterbury Sr. and William Atterbury Sr., the family progenitor, is somewhat muddled.  Most researchers report Richard Sr. to have been a son of William Atterbury and Sarah Mitchell, whereas the colonial records do not definitively support such direct kinship.  The author believes that Richard Sr. may have been a grandson of William and Sarah, and will endeavor during the course of this research to establish the actual kinship connection between William and Sarah Atterbury and Richard Atterbury Sr.

William Atterbury was not the first of that surname to immigrate to colonial America, but he appears to have been the originator of most of the Atteberry’s found in the United States today.  The earlier known Atterbury immigrants are documented as follows:

  1. On 24Jul1637 (probated 28Jun1638) Richard Atteberry, London fishmonger (apparently residing in Virginia) wrote his Last Will and Testament (hereinafter LWT) which named brothers: Stephen Atterbury and William Atterbury, London Merchant; and three sisters: Mary Toone, Dorothie Atterbury, and Elizabeth Atterbury, married to Francis Atterbury (possibly her 1st cousin).  He named John Robins of Back River, Elizabeth City County, Virginia, as overseer of his estate.  He also made reference to a Mr. Neale who took a ring to Accomack County for mending.  This Mr. Neale, undoubtedly was John Neale, who lived at Accomack, and also had property near Back River in Elizabeth City County.  From these references to John Robins and John Neale it seems clear that Richard Atterbury had visited at some point in time in Virginia, possibly in the vicinity of Back River, Elizabeth City County, and that he had established a mercantile trade in that colony.[3]

NOTE:  According to the genealogy compiled by the Reverend H. Isham Longden, M.A., H.C.F., F.S.A., F.S.G., of Northampton, this Richard Atterbury is identified as the ninth child of Lewis Atterbury and Mary Harvey, baptized on 24Aug1609 at Great Houghton, Northamptonshire.[4]  Reportedly, both Richard and his next older brother, William Atterbury, moved to London, probably as very young men around 1625-30, where they established themselves in business: Richard becoming a fishmonger and William becoming a merchant.  Their eldest brother, Stephen Atterbury (bap. 10Feb1591/2), matriculated to St. John’s College, Cambridge, was admitted to Middle Temple on 17Nov1610, and became an Attorney at Law.  Another older brother, Francis Atterbury (bap. 8Nov1601), matriculated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford where he received both his B.A. and M.A.  Francis became rector of Milton Malsor in 1627 and rector of Maid’s Morton, Buckinghamshire in 1666.  Francis married three times and fathered sixteen children.  Lewis Atterbury, a son of Francis Atterbury and his first wife, Elizabeth [lnu], was the father of the renowned cleric, Francis Atterbury, Bishop of Rochester.

Since Richard Atterbury made no mention of either a wife or children in his LWT, it might be assumed that he never married, nor left any immediate heirs.  It seems very likely that Richard’s brother, William Atterbury, merchant, did marry and had children.  It is possible (but not likely) that William Atterbury, the immigrant, was descended from this Northamptonshire Atterbury family, through William Atterbury, the merchant.  There is a marriage recorded in St. Andrews Undershaft, London on 28May1633 between William Atterbury and Joise [Joyce] Combolton [Gumbleton?], which some genealogists report to have been William Atterbury, Merchant.  This William Atterbury and Joyce, his wife, are recorded as having had five children in St. Andrews Undershaft between 1635 and 1643.  This included a son named Richard, born 9Jun1640.  There is no further record found in London for this Richard Atterbury, but he would have been of about the right age to have been the father of William Atterbury, the blacksmith of St. Giles Cripplegate.

  1. There is evidence of a Captain William Atterbury residing in Lower New Norfolk County, Virginia between 1640 and 1660.  He appeared in a few court records as a deponent and witness.  On a deposition sworn on 16Jan1653/4 he described himself as being 47 years old.  He seems to have been a yeoman planter and does not appear to have left any descendents in the colony.[5]

Based on the information provided in these records, this William Atterbury would have been born in about 1607.  Such a birth year fits closely with the brother of Richard Atterbury, Fishmonger, discussed hereinabove.  That William Atterbury, son of Lewis Atterbury and Mary Harvey was baptized in Aug1709.  The age proximity aside, it must be acknowledged that there were very likely several William Atterbury’s from England around this time period whose ages might also be an equally close match.  Some genealogical researchers have assumed that this Captain William Atterbury was the same person as William Atterbury, Merchant, and brother of Richard Atterbury, Fishmonger.  Absent any better proof, such connection seems mere speculation, but possible.

  1. There was also a Thomas Atterbury who appeared in Maryland records between 1698 and 1712.  On 30Jan1707/8 Thomas Atterbury, Innkeeper, Calvert County, Maryland, made his LWT.  He made bequests to son and daughter John and Whinnifred, to wife, Martha, Executrix, and an unborn child.  Wit: John Smith, Thomas Taylor, Robert Hall.  (Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. III).  There is a record of his widow, Martha Atterbury, marrying Jeremiah Sheredine on 25May1709.  Thomas Atterbury’s estate administration record was recorded in Queen Anne’s County in 1711.  There are two later records for a Thomas Atterbury in Calvert County: one is for accounts filed in 1735, and the other is for his LWT filed in 1749.  Presumably, this Thomas Atterbury was the unborn child referenced in Thomas Atterbury Sr.s’ LWT.  There is no direct evidence that John Atterbury or Thomas Atterbury Jr. left any male heirs.  However, there are records of Atterbury’s having served in the militia in Maryland leading up to and during the Revolutionary War, who may have been descended from Thomas Atterbury Sr.[6]

There is no evidence that any of these Atterbury’s were near kinsmen of our William Atterbury.  The contemporaneous residencies of our William Atterbury and Thomas Atterbury Jr. in Queen Anne’s Parish, Prince George’s County, Maryland is probably pure coincidence, since William Atterbury, a convicted transportee, probably had absolutely no choice in his initial place of residency in the American colonies. 

William, The Emigrant

To call William Atterbury an emigrant is something of a misnomer.  The word “emigrant” is suggestive of a person making a conscious and voluntary decision to change their place of habitation.  But, does a person ever truly willingly leave the familiarity and comfort of their homeland and set out for an unknown and foreign land?  Usually, economic hardship or political uncertainty are the real cause for relocation.  Certainly, for William Atterbury, the decision to travel to the American colonies does not appear to have been one of overt or conscious choice on his part.  Some writers have suggested that William purposefully stole the bolt of cloth, knowing full well that conviction of such a felonious act would likely result in his being sentenced to “transportation”.  The author knows not what may have motivated William Atterbury to steal another person’s property, but it is known that being caught and convicted for that act of thievery did result in his being exiled to Maryland in the Spring of 1733 as evidenced in the following account:

William Atterbury was committed to prison by O.L. Lambert, Esq., on the oath of Frederick Humble for stealing five yards of linsey-woolsey, worth about three shillings, from the shop of George Cole on January 30, 1732/3.  His trial was held on January 31, 1732/3.  He pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and was sentenced to “transportation.”  He was held in Newgate Prison until April 1733, when he was sent to America on the ship Patapsco Merchant under the command of Capt. Darby Lux.  They landed in Annapolis, Maryland in November 1733.  A landing certificate was issued for the group of transportees that included William Atterbury.  This certificate was issued in England, brought by Capt. Lux to America where it was signed by officials in Annapolis, and then was taken back to England as proof that delivery was made, and to collect his commission.

English law passed by Parliament in 1717 stated, in part, that when “any person or persons shall be hereafter convicted of grand or petit larceny, or any felonious stealing,” it should be lawful for the court to order the convicts sent to the colonies for seven years.  The service of the term was to have the effect of a pardon. 

Other researchers, on reading this account of William Atterbury’s conviction and sentencing, have opined the notion that William’s act may have been willful and purposeful and intended to secure his transport out of England and into the colonies.  What these researchers fail to reconcile is the fact that William Atterbury’s initial sentence may have been death, which was only later commuted to transport.  In the journals maintained by James Guthrie, Chaplain of the Court of Ordinary Newgate Prison from 1732-1744, a quite different and harsher reality was recorded for William Atterbury as follows:

“At the King’s Commission of Oyer and Terminer, and Gaol Delivery of Newgate, held (before the Right Honourable John Barber, Lord Mayor of the City of London; the Honourable Mr. Baron Thomson; the Honourable Mr. Justice Lee; the Worshipful Mr. Serjeant Urlin, Deputy Recorder of the City of London; and others his Majesty’s Justices of Oyer and Terminer, for the City of London; and Justices of the Goal-Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City and County of Middlesex) at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bailey, on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, being the 21st, 22d, 23d and 24th, of February, 1732 [1733 n.s.], in the Sixth year of his Majesty’s Reign.

Nine Men, viz. Rowland Turner, Edward Delay, George Dawson, William West, Jonathan Curd, Joseph Fretwell, William Atterbury, Richard Norman and William Chamberlain, alias Cockey Chambers; and one Woman, viz. Sarah Malcolm, were convicted of capital Crimes, and received Sentence of Death.”[7]

It is reasonable to question whether the William Atterbury, reported by Chaplain Guthrie as being sentenced to death, was the same person as the subject of this research, who was later transported to Maryland.  Given the immediacy of the timing, location and name of these persons, the author feels there can be no doubt but that these William Atterburys were one and the same.  According to the traditional account, William Atterbury was found guilty of stealing “five yards of linsey-woolsey, worth about three shillings…on January 30, 1732/3” and was “sentenced to “transportation.””  Yet according to Chaplain Guthrie’s account of hearings of the King’s Commission “his Majesty’s Justices of Oyer and Terminer, for the City of London; and Justices of the Gaol-Delivery of Newgate, holden for the said City and County of Middlesex) at Justice-Hall in the Old-Bailey, on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, being the 21st, 22d, 23d and 24th, of February, 1732/3 William Atterbury was one of nine men and one woman sentenced to death.  On reviewing the records of the Old Bailey for persons commanded to confinement at Newgate Prison during the 18th Century there were only two persons found having the name of William Atterbury, that being the William Atterbury who is the subject of this investigation, and another William Atterbury who was sentenced in 1774.

Assuming that the author is correct, and that the William Atterbury whom Chaplain Guthrie reported as being sentenced to death was the same William Atterbury who was loaded aboard the Patapsco Merchant in Apr1733 for transport to Annapolis Maryland, then it must be assumed that William Atterbury’s initial sentence of death was somehow later commuted to transport.  Unfortunately, although Chaplain Guthrie’s journals appear to be quite detailed, they contain no further reference to William Atterbury.  Later on in Guthrie’s journal he provided a fairly detailed account of his ministering to these condemned prisoners, and of their confessions, demeanor and behaviour during the few remaining days of their lives leading up to the execution of their sentences on 5Mar1732/3.  In fact, Guthrie provided a further listing of those persons thus executed, but there were differences in the names of the men thus listed as compared to the original listing of the nine men sentenced to death.  In the final listing two new names had been added (Leonard Budley, alias Butler, and William Harrison) and three of the original names were omitted (William Atterbury, Richard Norman and George Dawson).  It should be noted that William Harrison was an accomplice to William Atterbury in the theft of Linsey-Woolsey, and that Leonard Budley was an accomplice to William Harrison in an earlier offense involving armed robbery.

Only for George Dawson did Guthrie provide an explanation for the sentence of death not having been carried out:

“Upon Saturday, the 24th of February, Report was made to his Majesty in Councel, of these ten Malefactors, under Sentence of Death, in the Cells of Newgate; when George Dawson, for privately stealing sixty Yards of Printed Lawn, value 4.l.6 s. the Goods of Thomas Hodges, and Jane Turner, in their Shop, December 29th, received his Majesty’s most Gracious Reprieve.  The remaining eight Men, viz. Rowland Turner, David Delly William West, Edward Curd, Joseph Fretwell, Leonard Budley alias Butler, William Harrison, and William Chamblelain, alias Cockey Chambers, were order’d for Execution.”[8]

Take note that the offenses for which George Dawson and William Atterbury were presumably each tried and sentenced to death were very similar in nature, i.e., the stealing of fabric valued between 3 and 4 schillings.  Given the fact that the Court saw fit to grant George Dawson a reprieve for the theft of cloth valued at “4 l. 6 s”, it seems entirely plausible that William Atterbury’s sentence might also have been commuted for the theft of cloth valued at “about three schillings”.  The author knows nothing of the offense of Richard Norman, so the probability of his sentence also having been commuted for similar cause cannot not be assessed.  It is entirely possible that Richard Norman may have died before his execution date.  The above reported discrepancies in Guthrie’s journal cannot be wholly reconciled, but it seems probable that the initial listing of the names of nine men sentenced to death (including William Atterbury) was an accurate accounting, and that three of those men must have received commutation of their death sentences, resulting in William Atterbury’s sentence being commuted from death to “transport”.

On further reflection and in view of the probable death sentence, it seems highly unlikely that William Atterbury had willfully and purposefully undertaken his act of theft.  It seems that only through the generosity and good judgment of the Court did William Atterbury escape the gallows for his crime.  One can only imagine the sobering effect that such experience must have had on William’s actions and behavior in his later life.

A further inspection of the offenses and brief biographical sketches of the other men listed by Guthrie as actually having been executed on 5Mar1732/3 provides some important insight into the class and character of the persons with whom William Atterbury was incarcerated:

  1. “Rowland Turner, was Indicted, together with David Delly, for assaulting Francis Turner, in a Field or Place not far from the King’s Highway, putting him in fear and danger of his Life, and taking from him a Bundle, wherein was a quantity of Rice, Indigo and several other Goods, and Nineteen-pence Half-penny, the Goods and Money of the said Francis Turner.”  By his own admission: Rowland Turner was about 21 years of age, of honest parents of St. Anne’s Parish, Westminster, given good education in reading and writing, deceived his parents by turning to a wastrel lifestyle in the streets of London before enlistment for a brief stint in the British Navy, including the siege at Gibraltar, then returned to London where he worked intermittently as a brick layer, fell into bad company and was arrested for highway robbery.  Turner claimed that this was the only offense he had ever committed.  Turner blamed in part his social decline upon having contracted disease (presumably syphilis) in the company of bad women, which injured and disabled him.
  2. “David Delly, about 22 Years of Age, of honest but mean Parents, his Father having been a Journeyman Shoemaker in the Parish of St. Ann’s Westminster, educated him at School, but he was so careless, that he had forgot all. When young, he stay’d with an Uncle, but applying to no Business, he was careless of every thing. Turner and he being born in the same Neighbourhood, were acquainted from their Infancy, and continued inseparable Companions to the last. He was never put to any Trade, but serv’d in Alehouses , and about Taverns, and at other Times went of Errands ; and as he affirm’d, he was always honest, and never blam’d for any criminal Action. By Means of Turner, he got Acquaintance with Symonds, who enticed them both, after they had frequently convers’d and drunk too liberally of Geneva…”
  3. “Leonard Budley, alias Butler, and William Harrison, of St. Giles’s in the Fields, were indicted for assaulting John Hand, upon the Highway, putting him in Fear, and taking from him a silver Watch, val. 40 s. and 4 Shillings and 2 Sixpences in Money, the Property of John Hand.”  By his own admission: “Leonard Budley was 22 years of age of honest Parents in Stepney Parish, who gave him good Education at School, in Reading, Writing and Arithmetick, to fit him for Business; and had him instructed in Christian Principles. When of Age, he was put Apprentice to a Master Currier , whom he serv’d honestly for the Space of four Years; but not agreeing well with his Mistress, he left him about that Time, and then he serv’d an Uncle of his own for some Time, who giving up Business, he went to a Master in Fetterlane, where being in Company with his Father of the same Business, he had very good Encouragement for a young Man of his Standing: Yet not satisfy’d with his Lot, and desirous of a licencious Freedom, he left his Master, and the good Company of his Father, who always readily gave him the best of Advice, counselling him to live as becomes a Christian.”
  4. “William Harrison, 22 Years of Age, of honest Parents in the Parish of St. Andrew’s Holbourn, who took care of his Education at School, to prepare him for Business, and instructed him in the Principles of our Holy Religion. When of Age he went Apprentice to a Founder , but did not serve out his time, being the most disobedient, cross and obstinate Boy to his Parents and Master in the World; who gave him a good Example, and were willing and desirous of affording him the best of instructions. Being wearied of confinement in an honest Way, at last Bartholomew-tide, he renounced all Business, took his last fair well of his Parents, Master and all that was good and vertuous and took on the Profession of a notorious Thief, Robber and Pick-Pocket, joyning himself to the most villanous Gangs about the Town…”
  5. “William Chamberlain, alias Cockey Chambers, was indicted for assaulting (with Joseph Lambert, not taken) Richard Hull on the Highway, and taking from him a Silver hilted Sword, value 30 s. and 12 s. in Money.  William Chamberlain, alias Cockey Chambers, of honest Parents in the Parish of St. Mary Overs in Southwark, who gave him good Education at School in Reading, Writing and Arithmetick for Business; and had him instructed in Christian Principles. When of Age, he did not go out Apprentice, but living with a Plaisterer , of him he learn’d the Business, and serv’d honestly ’till wearied of close Confinement to Business, he Ship’d himself on board a Man of War, and went to Lisbon, Gibraltar, and some Places in the Mediterranean: When he return’d, and had spent his Money, he was willing to do nothing, but took himself to the most abandon’d Life imaginable, and chose for his Companions the wickedest Thieves, Robbers and Whores…”
  6. “Edward Curd, and William West, of St. Martin’s in the Fields, were indicted for breaking and entering the House of Richard Greener, and stealing 2 Gowns, val. 20 s. 2 Petticoats, val. 2 s. 6 d. 2 pair of Sheets, val 15 s. 2 Pieces of Silk, val. 10 s. a gold Ring, a Trunk, 3 Shirts, 2 Shifts, 2 Girdles, 3 Caps, a silk Mantle, 24 Clouts, 2 Aprons, a Coat, and a Pair of leather Breeches, the Goods of William Walker.  Edward Curd, 18 Years of Age, born of honest creditable Parents, in Newport market, who gave him good Education at School, in Reading, Writing, Cyphering, and such Things as were needful to accomplish him for Business; and instructed him in our Holy Religion. When of Age, he was bound Apprentice to a Goldsmith , who was a good Master, and he no less an insufficient Servant; for soon wearying of Confinement to close Business, he left his Master, after two Years, and went to Sea in a Merchantman , which went to Lisbon, Gibraltar, Barbadoes, and some other Places. He thus employ’d his Time at Sea, in this, and another Voyage, about 2 Years; and coming home with the same wicked Dispositions which he carried out with him, he took to no Business, but turn’d a profess’d Thief, left his Parents, Relations and Friends, and joyn’d to a Set of the most notorious Thieves and Robbers in or about the Town…”
  7. William West, of St. Martins’s in the Fields, was indicted for the same Burglary with Edward Curd, and found Guilty of the same.  William West, 16 Years and 6 Months old, of mean Parents in St. Giles’s Parish, his Father drove a Cart, and his Mother went a Scouring, put him to School a little, when he was very young; but he was naturally of such a wicked Disposition, that he was not willing to keep the School, or to be learn’d any Thing that’s Good; so that from his Infancy he became a meer Blackguard. Booth, and some others of his Companions, taught him to pick Pockets and steal, as soon as he was able to go about or do any Thing, when he was but 10 or 11 Years old…”
  8. “Joseph Fretwell, was indicted for assaulting Henry Madding, on the Highway, putting him in fear, and taking from him 3 d. Half-penny.  He was a second Time indicted, for assaulting Mary Child, on the Highway, putting her in fear, and taking from her 6 d.  Joseph Fretwell, 21 years of Age, of honest Parents in Westminster, who gave him good Education at School, in Reading, Writing and Arithmetick, to accomplish him for Business; and caus’d him to be instructed in the Christian Faith: But this he made no right Improvement of, being from his Childhood a most disobedient, untractable, foolish and unadviseable Boy; so that he had almost forgot all he learn’d in his younger Years, and knew little of Religion, having reduc’d himself in some manner, into a State of insensible Stupidity; as to every thing that’s virtuous or praiseworthy. When of Age, his Father being a Pipe maker , he wrought with him for some Years, but lov’d the Streets and black-guarding ways so well, that he could never keep himself to close Work, and in disobedience to the express commands of his Parents…”[9]

These men were aged between 16 and 22 years, and almost without exception described themselves as being of good, honest working class parentage, educated to a degree in reading, writing and ciphering, and having been apprenticed in respectable trades “when they came of age”.  Some left their apprenticeships to join in the service of the Navy.  Almost all found their apprenticeships or occupations too confining and matriculated to lives of crime, often joining with others in the conduct of their criminal activities.  A few of these men reported having been married and having families of their own.  From these accounts of his fellow prisoners, it might be inferred that William Atterbury probably was: (1) from a working class family living in or near London, (2) afforded the opportunity of an education in reading, writing and ciphering, (3) served some time in an apprenticeship, (4) aged between 20 and 22 years, (5) became dissatisfied with his lot in life, and (6) may have been married.  William Atterbury was in the company of William Harrison when they committed their crime of petty larceny.  There is no indication that William Atterbury had any prior history of crime, but William Harrison did confess to Chaplain Guthrie of having committed several crimes of petty thievery in the six months prior to his arrest, including the armed robbery of John Hand in the company of Leonard Budley and Thomas Essex.

Was William Atterbury sufficiently savvy of the laws of his day to be aware of the possible consequence of his actions when he stole the property of another person?  Was he aware that detection and conviction for such action might ultimately result in a sentence of death?  If we assume that he was aware of such potential consequence, then we must ponder the depths of deprivation and despair he must have felt that led him to commit such an act.  The apparent fact that William Atterbury’s sentence was commuted from death to transport suggests that his offense was borderline, giving rise to the possibility that he may have thought transportation to the colonies might be the probable outcome.  Given the brutal and repulsive conditions of life in and around London in the 18th Century, it does seem entirely possible that a young, unattached man from the lower end of the economic spectrum might risk undertaking a petty crime, if he thought transportation to the American colonies might be the resulting sentence.  The following excerpts provide some insight into the everyday life of a Londoner around 1730:

After the Great Fire of 1666, which destroyed more than 85 percent of the city, London was rebuilt in a hasty and haphazard manner. Then rapid surge in population – from 675,000 in 1750 to 900,000 just 50 years later – caused enormous pressure on city planners to get buildings up quickly. Houses and tenements were thrown together in a slapdash manner, with little attention to plans or codes. Buildings were patched up, subdivided, and subdivided again to cram as many people into as little square footage as possible, which left a jumble of narrow, unlit passageways between residences and shops. Walking through one of these stinking, airless alleyways – especially after dark – was terribly risky, since the convoluted pattern of streets provided excellent cover for lurking criminals.

The city had become honeycombed with what were intended to be temporary dwellings but which grew to be permanent ones. The scarce available land was continually subdivided. Courts were built upon. Business establishments were cut up into tenements. Hovels and shacks were commonplace. Many of the poor crowded into deserted houses. A sizeable number of the city’s inhabitants both lived and worked below ground level.

London was filled with the smell of wet horses and the waste materials associated with them. Sanitation was unheard of, water was unpurified, and raw sewage ran down city streets in open drains. It was common practice for people to empty their chamber pots out of their windows, and to leave garbage out in the street to rot. C.P. Moritz wrote in 1782, “Nothing in London makes a more detestable sight than the butchers’ stalls, especially in the neighborhood of the Tower. The guts and other refuse are all thrown on the street and set up an unbearable stink.”

An amazing variety of filth slopped down London’s cobblestone streets. Along with dirt, dust and animal manure, there was the ever-falling London rain to add to the mess. Cesspools of human waste collected in puddles everywhere. Dead animals (dogs, cats, rodents, even horses) were left to decay in the streets. In darker corners of the city, an occasional human corpse might even be found. To add to all this, horse-drawn carriages with heavy metal wheels often splashed through puddles, slopping the street’s putrid muck all over strolling pedestrians.

Of every 1,000 children born in early 18th-century London, almost half died before the age of 2. Malnutrition, maternal ignorance, bad water, dirty food, poor hygiene and overcrowding all contributed to this extremely high mortality rate. And if an infant did survive, it then faced the perils of childhood – namely malnourishment and ongoing abuse. Many poor children were dispatched to crowded, backbreaking “workhouses” or were apprenticed to tradesmen who used them as unpaid laborers.  Workhouse ‘apprentices’ swept London’s chimneys, hawked milk and fruit round its streets, and labored unpaid in the worst branches of tailoring, shoemaking, stocking making, baking, river work and domestic service.

But it was the spectacle surrounding the punishment of criminals that was perhaps the most anticipated and popular form of mass entertainment. Whippings, floggings, being paraded through the streets in chains and enduring the “pillory” – an open forum for mockery and verbal abuse – were common punishments for petty crimes.  Dark, circuitous alleys coupled with tall, shadowy buildings and the ever-present shroud of fog made London a criminal’s paradise. Outrageous murders, robberies and assaults of all kinds were commonplace.  In an age virtually without police, the machinery of law was uncompromising and brutal. In total, 240 offenses were punishable by death, and hanging was prescribed for accessories as well. Punishments ranged from standing in the pillory to branding and whipping to burning (for particularly shameful crimes, like treason).[10]

By comparison, as a convicted felon sentenced to transport, William Atterbury may have felt that he was taking control of his destiny.  However, the author is not inclined to think so highly of William Atterbury’s motives, but rather believe he undertook his crime purely for personal gain born out of necessity.  Such necessity probably being born of bad judgment and an unwillingness to apply himself in a respectable line of work.  Although an arduous and uncertain journey lay before him, William may have viewed transportation to the colonies as an opportunity for a new beginning in a place away from the decay and stench of London; a place where one might take a breath of fresh air, a quaff of clean water, and the prospect of owning his own land.  It is possible that the horrors of Newgate Prison, the inconceivable hardship of months of confinement in the hold of a transport ship, and the years of forced servitude may actually have been preferable to the future William faced in London.  Let’s travel with William as he embarked on this bleak journey into the unknown:

Newgate Prison – 31Jan1733 to Apr1733: Convicted criminals who were tried at the Old Bailey in London and received a sentence of transportation began their journey to the American colonies in the notorious Newgate Prison, depicted in Figure 6-1.  Like those sentenced to transportation at other prisons, they waited for the next convict ship to leave port, which sometimes could be several months after sentencing.  Given prison conditions at the time, it wasn’t unusual for convicts waiting to be transported to die before they even left prison.  Newgate Prison was originally constructed in 1188, and its conditions were little changed at the start of the 18th Century.[11]  In 1724, it was observed that most of the prisoners who inhabited the Common Felons Side were generally those that lie for Transportation; and they knowing their Time to be short here, rather than bestow one Minute towards cleaning the same, suffer themselves to live far worse than Swine; and, to speak the Truth, the Augean [sic] Stable could bear no Comparison to it, for they are almost poisoned with their own Filth, and their Conversation is nothing but one continued Course of Swearing, Cursing and Debauchery, insomuch that it surpasses all Description and Belief.[12]

From Newgate Prison to the Quay:  Prisoners sentenced to transportation were paraded through the streets of London along a route approximating that shown in Figure 6-2.  One description of the walk from the prison to the quay is given as follows:  “The populous of London and the provincial towns accounted it no small diversion to see the convicts leave for America.  Three and sometimes four times a year a procession of these unfortunates would emerge from Newgate and wend its way with clanking irons through the narrow streets to Blackfriars, where a lighter waited to furnish conveyance to the ship.  During this march it was the privilege of bystanders to hoot at the convicts, and even on occasion to throw mud and stones at them, while the departing reprobates replied with whatever abuse their wits could invent.”[13]  Other convicts with the means to purchase there own transport were afforded a bit more freedom described as follows:  “Several days after Justice [Henry Justice] received sentencing, one hundred convicts [William Atterbury among them] were paraded early in the morning from Newgate Prison to Blackfriars to board the Patapsco Merchant, a convict ship, but Henry Justice and several other convicts found guilty of robbery were not among them. William Wreathock, an attorney; James Ruffet, alias Ruf-head, a butcher; George Bird, a bailiff; and George Vaughan, otherwise known as Lord Vaughan instead rode in two hackney coaches down to the shore to board the boat. Henry Justice traveled in a separate hackney coach and enjoyed the company of none other than Jonathan Forward, the official Contractor for Transports to the Government and owner of the Patapsco Merchant.”[14]

William Arterbury and his fellow prisoners would have been paraded from Newgate Prison downhill along Warwick Street, thence Ave Maria Lane to the Black Friars Precinct, thence westerly to Water Lane, and finally due south to the quay at Black Friars Stair.  This winding course of narrow streets and passageways would have produced redolent memories of William’s not so distant past.  He would leave behind forever Fleet Prison where just 18 months earlier he had been united in marriage to Susannah Shrimpton and Elizabeth Gould.  He would pass by the western edge of St. Paul’s Cathedral, the edifice on which construction his father, Edward, had toiled as a young mason apprentice to Thomas Wise II.  Next he would pass by the entrance to New Street and the home where he spent the first four years of his childhood.  Next he would pass within a short block of St. Andrews by the Wardrobe Church where he was christened on 15Jul1711.  Next he would emerge through the portal at Black Friars Stair on the north bank of the Thames, a stair where he had on many occasions loaded and unloaded passengers from his Wherry while working as a waterman apprentice to John Filce.  And, finally he would be loaded onto a Lighter and rowed down river under the London Bridge (which his father had helped maintain as a mason to Bridge House Estate) and placed aboard the Patapsco Merchant, anchored in the pool immediately opposite St. Olaves Church, Southwark, where young William had lived and attended grammar school as a lad.  Whether either of his recently acquired wives or his mother or siblings were among the crowds lining the streets observing this woeful procession is not known, but possible.  Any personal farewells, if they occurred, would have taken place in the vile confines of Newgate.

Patapsco Merchant Voyage – Apr1733 to Nov1733:  Once placed onboard the Patapsco Merchant, William Atterbury and his fellow convict transportees were chained together in groups of six, presumably the women convicts segregated from the men.  On the Apr1733 voyage the manifest shows a total of 131 convicts having boarded in London.  Eighteen were not listed on the Landing Certificate, presumably dying in transit.[15]  The number of convicts who survived this voyage was typical of the time, as statistics from the first half of the 18th Century suggests that 15% to 20% died at sea.  Of the 51 convicts listed as being from Middlesex, 22 were female.  Other records suggest that women made up roughly one-third of the almost 50,000 convicts transported prior to the Revolutionary War.  Captain Darby Lux commanded convict/merchant ships for over 20 years before retiring to a gentleman’s life in Baltimore, Maryland.  Captain Lux worked primarily for the Forward brothers, who were major convict transporters during the first half of the 18th Century.  Their ships, including the Patapsco Merchant, typically hauled loads of raw materials from the colonies to England, returning to the colonies with their cargoes of convicts and manufactured goods.  Although the government contracts specified minimum daily provisions to be served convicts while in transit, conditions were deplorable as illustrated by the following account: 

“It was customary to keep all ordinary felons below decks and chained during the entire voyage.  Like other cargoes of servants they were divided into groups of six and fed with stated amounts for each group of bread, cheese, meat, oatmeal and molasses.  On Saturdays two gills of gin were allotted each group.  The diet was probably better balanced than most of them had been used to; certainly the allowance of gin was uncommonly scanty.  Conditions below decks were nevertheless very bad, especially in the earlier ships of the [18th] century.  “I went on board,” wrote a visitor to one of contractor Stewart’s ships, “and, to be sure, all the states of horror I ever had an idea of are much short of what I saw this poor man in; chained to a board in a hole not above sixteen feet long, more than fifty with him; collar and padlock about his neck, and chained to five of the most dreadful creatures I ever looked on”.  Under such circumstances jail fever and smallpox carried off generally at least fifteen percent of the convicts before they reached America.”

The total elapsed time between boarding the Patapsco Merchant at London in Apr1733 and debarking at Annapolis in Nov1733 amounted to seven months, yet the typical crossing of the Atlantic during the colonial period seldom exceeded four months.  This suggests that the Patapsco Merchant must have put into port for a layover of several months enroute to its destination.  There is no record of such layover, but the calendar is strongly suggestive of that.  It is probable that the Patapsco Merchant laid over at Bermuda, Boston or New York, probably to discharge part of its cargo and take on fresh provisions.

Seven-Year Indenture:  Having survived the horrors of Newgate Prison and the cramped, pestilent hold of the Patapsco Merchant, William Atterbury would then have been sold into service within days of his arrival in the Colony of Maryland, probably at the docks in Annapolis.  By law he was bound to a seven-year indenture.  There is no guarantee that his contract was not resold one or more times during that seven years.  The average price for an able-bodied convict at that time was ₤15 to ₤25.  His service could have been of virtually any shape or form, but most probably consisted of physical labor, i.e., farming, mining, forestry, milling, manufacturing.  The terms and conditions of service were regulated to a degree by provincial laws, and almost always rendered to writing.  An indented servant was treated as chattel; an indentured convict typically ranked at the bottom of the colonial social structure, beneath enslaved blacks, native Americans or other non-free whites.  They labored for free during the first half of their service, but typically were paid a salary during the last few years so that they would have the means to start their own life following service.  Such “earned” salary would be held in trust by their owner until their release from service.  Even after completion of their service, convicts carried a stigma for the remainder of their lives, possibly including branding.  If mistreated, a servant was provided redress through the Courts, but few ever dared take such action against their owner.

Fortunately for Atterbury researchers, a copy of a 1749 promissory note between William Artherbury and Richard Snowden survives in the records of the Loudoun County Clerk’s Office which provides a brief glimpse into William Atterbury’s indentured life in Maryland.  In that note William was identified with the occupation of “sawyer” (much more on this note to follow).  Prior to his arrival at Annapolis docks in 1733, William is known to have spent several years as an apprentice to John Filce, Thames Waterman.  It is unlikely that William completed that apprenticeship, but it is probable that he worked as a waterman’s apprentice for at least five years during which time he would have been exposed to relatively hard physical labor.  At the youthful age of 22 years and physically hardened by the labor of boat rowing, William would have appeared on the Annapolis dock as physically fit and prime for employment as a sawyer.

As a growing seaport town on the upper Severn River, and recently elevated to the status of Maryland’s seat of government, Annapolis would have been a bustle of newly emerging industries, shipbuilding being at the fore.  Freshly sawn timbers would have been much in demand amidst the building boom that was afoot all around: 

“Shipbuilding: As early as 1651 Thomas Todd established a shipyard at “Todd’s Harbor,” now Annapolis. The Ship Carpenter’s Lot, near the City Dock, was the center of local shipbuilding from 1719 through the Revolution…

Logging and Sawmilling: Logging was a necessary activity from the earliest days, although most of the original forest was not used productively. Instead, it was burned to make room for tobacco. Because the area lacked adequate water power, timbers were usually squared by broadaxe and then pit-sawed to the desired dimension.”[16]

It seems highly likely that William Atterbury spent his seven-year Maryland indenture in the employee of a lumberman, learning new skills that entailed converting raw timber into marketable lumber.  The arduous work of felling and trimming trees, cutting to length, transporting logs from forest to mill, stripping and squaring a flat cutting surface with a broadaxe, maneuvering a prepared log over a sawpit, and wielding a ripsaw to form dimensioned sheet lumber and beams could only further strengthen and harden William’s body.  Figure 6-3 provides an all-encompassing view of the various stages of timber harvesting in colonial times.  As a “sawyer”, William very likely would have had an opportunity to develop the knowledge and skills associated with each phase of this industry, including the more refined elements of grading, curing, scaling, estimating and valuing the finished products.

Given his involvement with Richard Snowden III, it seems possible that William may actually have been employed at some point by Snowden near his ironworks on the upper Patuxent River.  Something must have drawn William away from Annapolis to the region near Bowie.  Snowden’s ironworks were the main industry in that area between Laurel and Bowie.  Whatever the attraction, it seems fairly certain that William was located near Bowie when he ended his Maryland indenture in 1740, for it was in that area that he met and married Sarah Yacksley [aka Yaxley] Mitchell in 1740/1.

Prince George‘s CountyMaryland

Upon William Atterbury’s arrival in Maryland in Nov1733, he appears to have been bound to a seven-year indenture, which would have expired sometime in the winter of 1740/1.  Assuming that he was about 22 years old on his arrival, he would have been about 29 years old when his indenture elapsed and would have had a birth year of about 1711.  Given the reference to Sarah Atterbary [sic] in the LWT of John Mitchell, it is clear that William Atterbury Sr. had married the widow, Sarah Mitchell Yaxley sometime before 1748.  It is probable that William and Sarah married around 1740/1, since their eldest son, Michael, was reported as an adult on the Loudoun County tithable list in Feb1761 (aged 16-18).[17] 

Just where William and Sarah lived between the time of their marriage around 1740/1 and the plat map filing for Prince Spring Plantation in Dec1746 is unknown to the author, but William may have lived somewhere in the vicinity of Bowie, Maryland in order to have incurred his debt to Richard Snowden in 1749 (more to follow). 

If William Atterbury started working his indenture right after his arrival at Annapolis, he could have become a free man by November 1740. [18]  The following quotation taken from an Atteberry website includes quite a lot of information about William Atterbury’s life in Maryland: 

“In 1746, William was residing in Maryland with his family on the land he owned.  The plantation was called “Prince Spring Plantation”, it consisted of 50 acres and was located “on the north side of the White Marsh, being a draught of the Eastern Branch of Potomack River.”  William sold his land on 16 August 1754 to John Riddle Jr. for the sum of three thousand pounds of tobacco.  At the same time that he sold his land, William’s wife, Sarah, relinquished her right of dower to the land.” [19] 

William Attaberry [sic] filed a patent in Prince George’s County on 9Dec1746 for fifty acres, called “Prince Spring” and situated on the northeast side of White Marsh, a draft of the Eastern Branch of Potomack [sic] River, for which a plat map was recorded on 25Apr1747.  A certificate was issued for this patent in the Maryland Land Office on 8Aug1753 (No. S1203-1848) described as follows: Prince Spring, William Attaberry [sic], 50 acres, Location 01/26/01/015.  Refer to Figure 6-4 for an image of the original plat map filed for the Prince Spring tract.  Given that William Atterbury filed the patent for Prince Spring Plantation in Dec1746, it seems reasonable to assume that he settled on that tract with his wife and children, and that they remained in residence on that tract until its sale to John Riddle Jr. in Aug1754.  The description of the Prince Spring Tract as transcribed from the plat map is as follows:

“Prince George’s County, Maryland:  By virtue of a warrant granted out of his Lordships Land Office of this province to William Attaberry for fifty acres of land bearing date of 9Dec1746.  I therefore certify as Deputy Surveyor under his Excellency, Samuel Ogle, Esq., Governor of Maryland, I have carefully laid out for and in the name of him, the said Attaberry, all that tract of land called Prince Spring, beginning at a bounded White Oak standing on the North East side of the White Marsh, being a draught of the Eastern Branch of Potomack River [thence through 10 defined courses] to the point of beginning, containing and now laid out for fifty acres of land to be held of Calverton Manor.  Surveyed 25Apr1747 by Peter Dout, Deputy Surveyor.”

The process for filing this patent would have consisted of several distinct steps:

  1. Based on his entitlement as a “new” arrival in the Colony, William Atterbury could have filed a petition for a 50 acre grant from the Proprietor, Lord Baltimore after completion of his indenture in 1740.  Such entitlement typically inured to the person, who paid for the transport of the “headright” claimed in the patent request.  However, since it is known that William Atterbury was a transported convict, he clearly had not paid for his own transport into the Colony.  Consequently, it must be assumed that there were provisions made in the colonial laws of Maryland that entitled a transported convict to claim a “headright” upon satisfactory completion of their sentence.
  2. After receiving a “bona fide” claim for a grant, the Surveyor General of the colony would issue a warrant for the undertaking of a survey.  Up to this point in the process the location and shape of the tract to be surveyed was unknown.  The petitioner could request that a tract be granted in a general locality, but it was up to the surveyor to make the final decision as to the precise location and dimensions of the tract based upon availability of open lands within the requested area.
  3. Following the issuance of the warrant for the conduct of a survey, the request would be placed in the hands of the Deputy Surveyor of the County to perform the actual survey and to prepare and file the plat map.
  4. The actual granting of title to the tract and its recordation sometimes did not occur for several years following the filing of the plat map.  It was common for persons to take possession of a tract of land immediately upon the filing of the plat map, in fact it was preferred that such immediate possession should take place so that improvement of that tract would not be delayed.  Typically, the patentee was given some grace period before the obligation of “quit rents” became enforced.  The practice of assessing “quit rents” was institutionalized as a mechanism for raising the treasury needed to operate the “government”, and to reimburse the proprietor(s) for their initial capital investment for the formation and settlement of the colony.

Based on the foregoing description of the patenting process, it seems probable that William Atterbury was able to take possession of the Prince Spring tract shortly after the plat map filing on 25Apr1747.  The delay in filing the patent certification until 8Aug1753 seems an inordinately long period, but apparently did not affect William Atterbury’s title to that tract as evidenced by its legal conveyance to John Riddle Jr.[20] in Aug1754.  William Atterbury must have been legally permitted to defer the filing of the patent certificate.  There may have been a deadline within law which promulgated his filing the certificate at that particular time.  The fact that he sold the tract within a year of having recorded the patent certificate suggests that he may have been contemplating its sale and took the legal step necessary to obtain its clear title.

The plat map description made no mention of adjacent land ownership.  This is somewhat peculiar in that plat maps typically referenced adjacent ownerships, or stated that the adjacent lands were vacant.  The shape of the tract is also peculiar in that it was quite irregular and elongated in shape.  Such odd shape typically would suggest some geographic constraint or the existence of other abutting titled properties. 

The reference to the “Eastern Branch of the Potomac” is believed by the author to have been a misnomer.  The only geographic feature called White Marsh that the author was able to identify in Prince George’s County is actually situated on the Patuxent River.  The confluences of the Potomac River and the Patuxent River with Chesapeake Bay are separated by almost 15 miles.  It is difficult to imagine how the Patuxent River might have been referred to as an “eastern branch” of the Potomac in this plat map, but that seems to be exactly what occurred in this case.  To better illustrate the probable location of Prince Spring plantation and other geographic features referenced in this Maryland phase of William’s life, two maps are presented as follows:  Prince George’s County circa 1879 in Figure 6-5, and Prince George’s County circa 2016 in Figure 6-6.  The 1879 map of Prince George’s County is subdivided into 14 distinct electoral districts, including Queen Anne District No. 7.  The boundary of Queen Anne Electoral District has continued virtually unchanged to present day.  However, the boundary of Queen Anne Parish was considerably larger than Electoral District No. 7 as illustrated in Figure 6-6. 

Prince George’s County was established in 1696, and its boundaries have remained virtually unchanged to the present day, except for the segregation of its northwestern portion in 1748 to erect Frederick County, and the establishment of the District of Columbia in 1791, which annexed its northeast corner from Prince George’s.  At its formation in 1696 Prince George’s County was generally coterminous with the boundary of St. Paul’s Parish.  In 1704 the parishioners petitioned the General Assembly to divide St. Paul’s Parish due to its excessive size.  By an act of the Assembly in Dec1704 Queen Anne Parish was created as follows:

“And be it further enacted by the authority advise and consent of the said St. Paul’s Parish be it further bounded and divided by the ridge between the Putuxent and Potomac, and the eastern side of the said ridge and the Northernmost of the Western Branch and Cabben Branch be adjudged to be a new and distinct Parish to be called by the name of Queen Anne Parish and may elect and choose proper officials and have and enjoy all the advantages, privileges and benefits of a complete and entire parish.”

The author has delineated the newly created boundary of Queen Anne Parish as shown by the blue dashed line on Figure 8-6.  Also shown on Fig. 8-6 is the approximate location of St. Barnabas Church relative to White Marsh Branch about ten miles to the north.  The plat map describes Prince Spring as being on the northeast side of White Marsh.  The author has created a scaled replica of the Prince Spring Plantation tract based on the bearings and azimuths contained in the plat map and overlaid that replica onto a Google map base of the White Marsh Branch area as presented in Figure 6-7.  As illustrated by Figure 6-7 White Marsh Branch was a relatively short tributary of the Patuxent, which arcs in a southwesterly direction away from the Patuxent River.  Because of its abbreviated length and trajectory, there is only a very small zone that could be considered as situated to the northeast of White Marsh.  That zone is immediately adjacent to the confluence of White Marsh with the Patuxent River.  It is the author’s belief that it was in this area at the confluence of White Marsh and the Patuxent that Prince Spring was situated.  The author believes this to be a fairly accurate portrayal of the location of Prince Spring, probably within about 1/4-mile of its actual placement.

The second record found in Maryland for William Atterbury is believed to have been in connection with the LWT of John Mitchell abstracted as follows:

“LWT of John Mitchell

Liber 28, folio 385

4 June 1748

MITCHEL, JOHN, Sr., Prince George’s Co., planter.

     To dau. Mary Lee, sons John & David Mitchel, & dau. Sarah Atterbary, 1 sh. apiece.

     To son John Mitchel, Jr., 55 apple trees, the 5 rows next the marsh.

     To sons John Mitchel, Jr. , & David Mitchel, equ. div. on my wife d., my pr. of hand millstones & irons, crosscut saw, & wedges.

     To grddau. Elizabeth Yaxley, on my wife d. or age 16, a heifer, a sow & pigs, & the bed she lies on, but if she d. before age 16 or my wife d., to my dau. Elizabeth Mitchel, Jr.

     To wife & extrx., Elizabeth, for life, the plntn. where I live & all my p. e., & on her d., s[aid] p. e. to dau. Eliz. Mitchel, Jr., but if she d. before s wife or before she is mar., to grddau. Elizabeth Yaxley.

     To son David Mitchel, (on s wife d.) the 59a I live on, not disturbing my s dau. Eliz. during the time of her celibacy.

     Witn: Joseph Peach, Mary Peach, John Varney.

     26 Aug. 1752, sworn to by Joseph & Mary Peach.”

Based on the recording of this LWT having been in Prince George’s County, its timing having overlapped with the presumed residency of William Atterbury in Prince George’s County, and a later reference to Sarah Atterbury, wife of William Atterbury, relinquishing her dower right to Prince Spring Plantation in 1754; it seems very likely that Sarah Mitchell Yaxley Atterbury was the wife of William Atterbury.  The author finds no fault in this interpretation and agrees that it is a reasonable and logical conclusion to be drawn, given the aforementioned connections.  Having reached that conclusion, it is equally sound to conclude that Sarah Atterbury was the daughter of John Mitchell and Elizabeth [lnu, possibly Riley], whose birth was recorded in St. Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince George’s County, Maryland on 31Aug1720[21], and whose marriage to Robert Yaxley was also recorded in Prince George’s County on 3Jun1735.  Sarah Mitchell would not quite have reached her 15th birthday when she married Robert Yaxley.  From the combination of the reported birth and marriage records for Sarah Mitchell, and from her father’s LWT, it can be deduced that sometime before 4Jun1748 Robert Yaxley and Sarah Mitchell had a daughter named Elizabeth, and that in the interim Robert Yaxely had died and Sarah had intermarried with William Atterbury Sr.  No birth record was found for Sarah and Robert’s daughter, Elizabeth, and no death record was found for Robert, so it cannot be stated with any more specificity just when William Arterbury married the widow, Sarah Mitchell Yaxley [aka Yacksley].  Note that there was a birth record for a son named John born to Robert and Sarah Yacksley dated 23Jan1735 [1736 N.S.]  Since John Yacksley was not mentioned in the LWT of John Mitchell, it might be assumed that he, too had died sometime before 4Jun1748.

The reason that Elizabeth Yaxley’s birth is not on record, nor any of the birth records of the children of Sarah and William Atterbury may lie in the fact that a new chapel of ease had been established in upper Queen Anne Parish around 1715.  It is conceivable that records of marriages and christenings for parishioners in the northern part of the Parish may have been kept at that new chapel, rather than at St. Barnabas Church.  Unfortunately, any register that may have been maintained by this chapel has not survived. 

In order to better understand the neighborhood within which William and Sarah lived, it is helpful to have a better understanding of this northern chapel of ease, which later came to be known as Holy Trinity Episcopal Church of Bowie.  The original estate on which the chapel of ease was erected was a 500 acre grant called Catton which was patented on 26Aug1681 to Robert Carville.  Carville sold the land to Henry Ridgely in 1698, to which was added 100 acres in 1700 called Enfield Chase.  Upon Ridgely’s death in 1699 the land descended to his widow, Mary Duvall Stanton Ridgely.  In 1712 Mary Ridgley [nee Duvall] married the Reverend Jacob Henderson, then rector of Queen Anne Parish.  In 1718 Rev. Henderson requested a resurvey of his wife’s property, which concluded that her holdings at Catton actually comprised 1,410 acres, for which a new map was filed and renamed Belair.  An ancestor of Mary Henderson, Mareen Duvall, had emigrated from France a century earlier, acquired a significant land grant in what became Prince George’s County, Maryland, and established a chapel of ease on the Duvall family property which became St. Barnabas Church on the formation of Queen Anne Parish in 1704.  Then, about ten years later, Rev. Henderson took steps to build another chapel of ease at Belair to better serve the parishioners in the northern part of the parish, which we will refer to as Henderson’s Chapel.  Mary Henderson died on 19Jan1735 and was buried in Henderson’s Chapel.  In 1737 Reverend Henderson deeded four acres of the Belair properties back to the Lord Proprietor which he described as “the Glebe whereon there is a Chapple now standing.”  That same year Henderson sold the remainder of Belair to Governor Samuel Ogle and Benjamin Tasker.

Henderson’s Chapel was situated along “Annapolis Road” about four miles west of Prince Spring and very likely would have become the chosen place of worship by William and Sarah Atterbury after their marriage, because of its greater convenience compared to St. Barnabas Church which was almost 10 miles distant from Prince Spring.  It seems entirely possible that the John Mitchell family also resided in the upper part of Queen Anne Parish.  This likelihood is given weight by the connection between Joseph and Mary Peach and Henderson’s Chapel.

Note that Joseph [schoolmaster] and Mary [Isaac] Peach were witnesses to the LWT of John Mitchell Sr. written 4Jun1748.  A petition was made to the Maryland General Council on 11Oct1742 by the parishioners of Henderson’s Chapel registering their objections to the Vestry of Queen Anne Parish having acted to install pews at their Chapel.  In this petition (Copy attached as APPENDIX B) the parishoners set forth the history of the creation of their chapel, and registered their objections to the “unnecessary” interference by the vestry in their affairs.  They argued that their chapel had been established substantially through the largesse of Mary and Jacob Henderson, and that they had installed seating within their chapel at their own expense and to their own satisfaction.  The Counsel ruled in the Vestry’s favor, and the pew assignments determined by the Vestry were to stand.  Noteworthy among the arguments presented during this contest between parishioners and vestry is the fact that pew No 7 fell (by lot) to Mr. Richard Isaac, Mr. Joseph Peach and Mr. William Ducker.  This was the same Joseph Peach, Schoolmaster, who witnessed the LWT of John Mitchell Sr.; and Richard Isaac was Joseph Peach’s father-in-law.

It stands to reason that, if Joseph Peach’s family was a member of Henderson’s Chapel, the John Mitchell family was very likely near neighbors of Joseph in the northern part of Queen Anne Parish, and members of that same chapel.  Neither any Mitchells nor Atterburys were listed among those reported drawing pews in Henderson’s Chapel in 1742, but it seems highly likely that Henderson’s Chapel would have been their preferred place of worship, given its more convenient proximity to their presumed places of residence.

To give the reader a sense of the prominence of William Atterbury’s neighbors in Queen Anne Parish, the following history of Belair is offered:

“Samuel Ogle (portrait in Figure 6-8), son of Samuel Ogle of Northumberland was appointed by Charles Calvert, 5th Baron Baltimore to be Governor of Maryland in Annapolis in 1732. As part of his remuneration, Ogle was given £3,000 to build a residence but Ogle, who was then a bachelor, was in no hurry to build a residence.

[Jacob] Henderson sold the (Belair) land along with two other parcels known as Woodcock’s Range and Enfield Chase to two partners, Ogle, and Benjamin Tasker, Sr. on March 30, 1737 for the sum of £500.  In August, that same year, Ogle bought Tasker’s half of the property.  In 1739, the 47-year-old Ogle married his former partner’s 18-year-old daughter, Anne Tasker.  In 1740, Ogle was dispatched to England following England’s declaration of war against Spain and left Tasker with power of attorney and “the task of supervising the construction of a new house at Belair.”  In 1747, Ogle returned to Maryland with his new bride to occupy his new home which was “the grandest in the region” visible from much of the surrounding area and “affording its owners a magnificent, all-encompassing view of their plantation.”  [See Figure 6-9]  Ogle brought with him, two famous English horses and the first English-bred Thoroughbreds imported into Maryland, Queen Mab and Spark, both gifts of Lord Baltimore, establishing the Belair Stud.  The Ogle family maintained two residences upon return, one in town at the intersection of King George Street and College Avenue in Annapolis (now referred to as Ogle Hall, which houses the US Naval Academy’s Alumni Hall) (see Figure 6-10) and Belair, the Governor’s country seat.”

So, when William Atterbury received his 50-acre grant of Prince Spring in 1746, the elegant country house of Governor Samuel Ogle was nearing completion just two miles up White Marsh to the west.  Whether that fact had any bearing on William’s choice for his grant is not known, but it certainly may have influenced his decision. 

The next chronological record found for William Atterbury originating from Maryland was a promissory note between William Artherbury and Richard Snowden dated 18Jul1749, for the sum of 1997 pounds of tobacco plus interest.  A copy of the original note is presented in Figure 6-11 and a letter-size copy is contained in Appendix C.  A transcription of this note is as follows:

KNOW all Men by these Presents, That  I William Artherbury of Prince Georges County, Sawyer am  held and firmly bound unto  Richard Snowden of Ann Arundell County  in the full and just Sum of  three thousand nine hundred and ninety-four pounds of tobacco  to be paid unto the said  Richard Snowden or  his certain Attorney, Executors, Administrators, or Assigns: To the which Payment well and truly to be made and done,  bind  my self  my  Heirs, Executors, and Administrators, firmly by these Presents.  Sealed with  my  Seal, and Dated this  Eighteenth  Day of   July  Anno Domini One thousand seven hundred and  forty nine.

THE CONDITION of the above Obligation is such, That if the above-bound  William Artherbury, himself or his heirs, executors or administrators  do, and shall well and truly pay, or cause to be paid unto the said  Richard Snowden  his certain Attorney, Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, the just and full sum of  one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven pounds of tobacco at a convenient Wharehouse in said County  at or upon the first  Day of  May  next ensuing the Date hereof, with legal Interest for the same; then the above Obligation to be void, else to remain in full Force and Virtue in Law.

Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of  William Atterbury (his signature)

Witnesses:  John Waters and Richard Thomas (their signatures)[22]

There are several important facts to be gleaned from this remarkable document:

  1. The obligee in the note was identified as William Artherbury.  The reader should be aware that the surname of Artherbury or Arthurbury was extremely rare in England at that time, and was traced by the author to have been used primarily by only one family during the 17th century, namely the family of William Arthurbury of Morden Parish, Surrey County, England.  The fact that William Atterbury, the immigrant, is shown to have used that surname spelling is particularly significant to the identification of William Atterbury’s (the Immigrant) ancestors in England.  Moreover, it should be noted that several of William’s presumed sons were also recorded using this surname spelling in Chester County, SC in the latter part of the 18th century.  All other factors notwithstanding, the author is of the opinion that this usage of the Arthurbury surname by William Attebury almost without doubt connects the immigrant with the family of Edward Arterbury (mason) and Elizabeth Young.
  2. The fact that William Atterbury signed his own name on this promissory note (see Figure 6-12) speaks volumes about William’s background and upbringing.  The majority of the colonial immigrants were functionally illiterate, incapable of reading or writing prose, let alone writing their own name.  Most colonialists resorted to signing documents with their “mark”, as opposed to their written signature.  The ability of William Atterbury to write his own signature, and with such remarkable flare and style is a clear indication that he had received at least a grammar school education, probably at St. Olave’s Grammar School in Southwark.
  3. The size of this loan is noteworthy, since William Atterbury received only 3,000 lbs. of tobacco for the sale of Prince Spring Plantation.  A loan of 1,997 lbs. (₤20 10s) of tobacco is suggestive of a person of some fair means.  Since William Atterbury is not known to have owned any land in Maryland other than the 50 acres on White Marsh Draught, it is reasonable to assume that he may have been engaged in some other form of business beyond a small-scale tobacco farmer in order to induce Richard Snowden to make such a large unsecured loan.
  4. This note identified William Artherbury as having been of Prince George’s County, and with the occupation of Sawyer.  From this fact it clearly places William Atterbury as a resident of Prince George’s County in 1749.  The fact that he was identified as a Sawyer as contrasted to a Planter, Yeoman or Farmer is a clear indication that William was gainfully employed (either by himself or some other person) in the business of producing sawn lumber.  In Jul1749 William had been in possession of Prince Spring Plantation for slightly more than two years, probably not sufficient time to cultivate more than a few acres.  William is not known to have owned any slaves or indentured servants, and his sons would have been less than 10 years old.  Any crop production from Prince Spring would have relied almost entirely on the labor of William and his wife, Sarah.  He may have taken out this loan with Richard Snowden to allow him to purchase or hire resources necessary to more rapidly establish tobacco production on his small acreage.
  5. By borrowing money or establishing credit with Richard Snowden, William Atterbury became indebted to one of the wealthiest men of his region.  Richard Snowden was a wealthy industrialist from Ann Arundel and Prince George’s Counties, Maryland, who was a co-owner of a large Iron Works located along the upper Patuxent River.  In an indenture recorded in Maryland on 27Mar1749 Richard Snowden was identified as an “Iron Master of Ann Arundel County”, who by an agreement dating from 5Jul1736 had joined in a partnership with Edmund Jennings [Maryland Secretary of State, son of Edmund Jennings, Attorney General and Acting Governor of Virginia], John Galloway, Joseph Cowman and John Pritchard for carrying on an Iron Work including a Furnace and Forge erected on the headwaters of the Patuxent River.  In that partnership agreement Snowden conveyed in fee simple 10,100 acres of land along with several other tracts, slaves, horses, wagons and other implements to establish his equity in the conduct of the Iron Work business.  It is noteworthy that the location of this business and some of the lands were on the headwaters of the Patuxent River, as that is believed by the author to have been the same general location of William Atterbury’s Prince Spring Plantation as discussed hereinabove.
  6. The witnesses to this promissory note are believed to have been as follows:
  7. Richard Thomas – very likely was a son of John Thomas and Elizabeth Snowden (daughter of Richard Snowden), born about 1728.  At the time that Richard Thomas signed this note he would have only recently reached the age of 21 years.  It is probable that he witnessed this note because of his kinship connection as Richard Snowden’s grandson.
  8. John Waters – the John Waters, who witnessed this note, is believed to have been the son of John Waters Sr. and Elizabeth Giles, born 30May1696 probably in Anne Arundel County.  John Waters married Charity Ijams [aka Liams] on 28Jan1724 in Anne Arundel.  John and Charity at some point before 1733 settled across the Patuxent River in Prince George’s County, where several of their children were recorded born in the register of St. Barnabas Church, Queen Ann Parish.  It seems possible that John Waters may have been a near neighbor of William Atterbury, when he witnessed this note in 1749 in either Prince George’s County or Anne Arundel County.

The final record found pertaining to William Atterbury in Maryland was the sale of Prince Spring Plantation to John Riddle Jr. on 16Aug1754 for the sum of 3,000 pounds of tobacco, with his wife, Sarah, relinquishing her dower right in that land.  The fact that Sarah relinquished her dower right would seem to be proof that she and William had actually contracted a legal marriage.  Absent an actual marriage record, there might have been a question as to the legitimacy of their union.  Not wishing to belabor the point, let us simply remind the reader that William probably had married two times previous to his arrest for theft.  Through those Fleet marriages, William had already displayed a somewhat careless disregard for the institution of marriage.  In fact, it is the author’s belief that William committed bigamy when he married Sarah Mitchell Yaxley.

Before leaving Prince George’s County Maryland, the author will present records pertaining to Sarah Mitchell’s siblings, abstracted as follows:

Mary Mitchell – In his LWT John Mitchell identified a daughter named Mary Mitchell Lee.  Mary Mitchell was an older sister of Sarah Mitchell.  Some researchers have placed Mary’s birth at around 1690-5 in Prince George’s County, Maryland.  These same researchers have reported Mary to have married James Lee in about 1715 in Prince George’s County.  The true identity of James Lee’s wife as having been Mary Mitchell, daughter of John Mitchell and Elizabeth [lnu], has not been established with any certainty, but has been assumed by researchers based on the matching married name reported in John Mitchell’s LWT, the general consistency of age, and the known geographic proximity of James and Mary Lee in Prince George’s County.  To the author this assumption of Mary Lee’s ancestry as a Mitchell seems possible, but based on the assumed birth year of James and Mary Lee’s youngest daughter, Rachel, as having been about 1730; this places an extraordinary gap of almost 30 years between Mary’s presumed birth year and that of her sister Sarah.  For what it’s worth there was a marriage in Prince George’s County on 26Jan1724/5 between a Mary Mitchell and William Callender.  This could have been the 1st marriage of Mary Mitchell, sister of Sarah Mitchell, in which case Mary may have been born around 1710, but no birth record has been found.  Further, the author brings forward another marriage, this one in Anne Arundel County on 8Nov1702 between John Mitchell and Mary Sonson.  This could have been the 1st marriage of John Mitchell, and Mary Sonson could have been the mother of Mary Mitchell, sister [perhaps half-sister] of Sarah Mitchell.  The names, dates and locations fit well for such kinships.

If Mary Lee (wife of James Lee) and Sarah Mitchell Yackley Atterbury were both daughters of John Mitchell, it seems more likely that they were half-sisters, with Mary having been the product of an earlier marriage.  

James Lee made his LWT sometime before 1762 in Frederick County, Maryland, naming his wife, Mary, as the sole Executrix.  However, it would appear that Mary Lee predeceased her husband, as a daughter, Rachel Lee, was named Administratrix of James Lee’s estate on 15Feb1764 when the surety bond was filed by Thomas Thrasher and John Lee [presumed brother of Rachel].  On 1Aug1764 the appraisement of James Lee’s estate was recorded with the value of ₤60.12.10.

James Lee and Mary Lee are reported to have had as many as twelve children, with the two youngest having been Rachel Lee and John Lee.  The names of these other children are unknown to the author, but may have been named in James Lee’s LWT.  James Lee had a patent for 100 acres known as Chestnut Ridge, 50 acres of which he transferred to his youngest daughter, Rachel, by indenture dated 8May1753.  The other 50 acres was deeded as a gift to the youngest son, John Lee.  In 1762 Rachel received two patents abutting Chestnut Ridge which she named Maiden’s Folly.  Sometime after Sep1762 and before 1767 Rachel Lee married John Lashley.  Rachel is believed to have died around 1783, as her husband was recorded in that year paying taxes on Rachel’s lands.  Chestnut Ridge and Maiden’s Folly were situated in present day Silver Springs, Maryland at approximately 10900 Inwood Avenue.  The lands were originally part of a grant to the Beall family.

The author cannot state with certainty whether the Mary Lee described in the foregoing biographical sketch was in fact a daughter of John Mitchell, but concedes that that is a possibility.  Because of the significant gap in their ages, the author feels it likely that Mary Mitchell and Sarah Mitchell were born of different mothers.

David Mitchell – There were two sons named in the LWT of John Mitchell: John Mitchell Jr. and David Mitchell.  Very little information seems to exist for either of these brothers of Sarah Mitchell.  There are birth records for children of David and Mary Mitchel as follows:

  1. Sep1741 – Sarah Mitchel, daughter of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  2. 3Jun1741 – John Mitchel, son of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  3. 9Dec1744 – Elizabeth Mitchel, daughter of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  4. 1745 – Mary Mitchel, daughter of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  5. Mar1753 – Keziah Mitchel, daughter of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  6. 28Feb1753 – James Mitchel, son of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  7. 12Mar1761 – Elias Mitchel, son of David and Mary was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.

From these birth records it can be surmised that David Mitchell married a woman named Mary at least eight years before his father wrote his LWT in 1748, and that he continued to live in the vicinity of Queen Anne Parish for at least the next 20 years where they recorded the births of seven children.

It should be noted that a David Mitchell was recorded as an adjacent land owner to James Atterbury on Brushy Fork of Sandy River in Chester County, South Carolina in 1787.[23]  A David Mitchell and Isaiah Mitchell were also recorded as adjacent land owners to Edward Arterbury on Brushy Fork, Chester County, South Carolina in 1795.[24]  Also, David Mitchell filed a Lease and Release to John Mitchell for an unspecified property in South Carolina in 1773/4.  Whether any of these Mitchell’s were kinsmen of William Atterbury Sr. is not known with any certainty, but it seems highly possible that there was kinship given the close proximity of Isaiah and David Mitchell’s land to those of Atterburys in Chester County in the 1780’s and 90’s.  The possible kinship connections between these Atterburys and these Mitchells will be explored in greater detail in the chapter on the 2nd generation Atterburys.

John Mitchell – As stated above there were virtually no records found in Maryland for John Mitchell, brother of Sarah Mitchell, save the following birth record:

  1. 12Apr1746 – Hugh Mitchel, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.  Naming the first born son “Hugh”, may suggest that John’s wife’s surname may have been Riley, a descendant of Hugh Riley, who lived in the same neighborhood as the Mitchells.
  2. 6Jun1749 – Elizabeth Mitchel, daughter of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  3. 9Feb1752 – David Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  4. 29Jan1754 – Margaret Mitchel, daughter of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  5. 5Jun1756 – Sarah Mitchel, daughter of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.

From the foregoing birth records it can be surmised that just prior to his father having written his LWT in 1748, John Mitchell Jr. had married a woman named Elizabeth (no marriage record found), and that they lived in the vicinity of Queen Anne Parish for the next decade or more, where they recorded the births of five children.  It seems conceivable to the author that it may have been the son, David Mitchell, born on 9Feb1752, who appeared in the records of South Carolina in the 1770’s and later.

One final observation on William and Sarah Atterbury in Maryland pertains to the records that were not found, and any implication that might be drawn from their absence.  No marriage record nor birth records for William and Sarah or their children were located.  The absence of their marriage record might not be particularly significant as no records were found for the marriages of her siblings: Mary, David and John Jr.  However, as already presented hereinbefore, birth records for the children of Sarah’s brothers, John Jr. and David were found in St. Barnabas Church.  Birth records were also found for Sarah and her siblings as follows:

  1. 28Feb1717 – John Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  2. 31Aug1720 – Sarah Mitchell, daughter of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  3. 14Feb1722 – David Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  4. 12Aug1726 – Michael Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  5. 7Feb1728 – George Mitchell, son of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.
  6. 10Jan1731 – Elizabeth Mitchell. daughter of John and Elizabeth was born in Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.

Also, note that the marriage of Sarah Mitchell and Robert Yaxley, and the birth of their son, John Yaxley, were also recorded in the register of St. Barnabas Church.  Clearly, William Atterbury’s Prince Spring Plantation was located within Queen Anne Parish and within easy access to St. Barnabas Church.  This begs the question, why weren’t the births of William and Sarah’s children (of which there were likely between 6 and 8 born in that parish (assuming there to also have been daughters)) also recorded at St. Barnabas Church?  The answer to this question may have its foundation in the religious affiliation of this couple. 

Persons who were adherents to a dissenting religious beliefs were unlikely to take their children to the Anglican church for their baptism.  In the 18th century in Maryland such dissenting religions could have included Catholics, Quakers, Puritans, Baptists, Presbyterians and Congregationalists.  England had passed the Toleration Act of 1689 which had granted the right of worship to almost all protestant denominations, so long as the followers of those sects were willing to swear an oath of allegiance and supremacy to the crown.  Ironically, some of the American colonies were not quite as tolerant.  In Maryland and Virginia, for example, the Anglican Church was established in law as the only recognized church, and not until after the Revolutionary War was true freedom of religion tolerated.  During most of the 18th century people of non-Anglican faith in Maryland and Virginia were permitted to establish meeting houses and to participate in their own particular form of religious service, but were required to pay tithes in support of the Anglican church.

William Atterbury’s great-great-grandfather had been an activist in the Brownist movement in London, the forerunner of the Congregational Church, and had been arrested for not attending his parish church.  His great-grandfather is believed to have been the person who published in 1646 the Brownist tract written by John Wilkinson entitled The Sealed Fount which argued against infant baptisms.  Whether these non-conformist leanings in earlier Atterbury generations were passed along to the immigrant cannot be known with certainty, but it seems entirely possible.  If William Atterbury were a follower of one of these dissenting religious groups, that could explain the reason none of his children were recorded christened at St. Barnabas.  It seems doubtful to the author that William Atterbury had become a Quaker, as there are no records of his family within the Quaker community of either Maryland, Virginia or South Carolina.  However, there are associations in both Virginia and South Carolina suggesting that this family at some point in the 18th century may have been affiliated with the Baptist Church.

The final record found pertaining to William Atterbury in Maryland was the sale of Prince Spring Plantation to John Riddle Jr. on 16Aug1754 for the sum of 3,000 pounds of tobacco, with his wife, Sarah, relinquishing her dower right in that land.  The fact that Sarah relinquished her dower right would seem to be proof that she and William had actually contracted a legal marriage.  Absent an actual marriage record, there might have been a question as to the legitimacy of their union.  Not wishing to belabor the point, let us simply remind the reader that William probably had married two times previous to his arrest for theft.  Through those Fleet marriages, William had already displayed a somewhat careless regard for the institution of matrimony.  In fact, it is the author’s belief that William committed bigamy when he married Sarah Mitchell Yaxley.

Loudoun County, Virginia

It is reported by others that William and Sarah Atterbury relocated to Loudoun County, Virginia shortly after selling Prince Spring Plantation in Aug1754.  The author has not been able to verify exactly when this relocation occurred since the earliest record of William Atterbury in Loudoun County isn’t until the 1758 tithable list.[25]  William also appeared in a Loudon County Order Book entry on 11mar1760 for a debt owed Craven Peyton which dated from 17Jul1758.  Both the tithable record and the order book record suggest that William Atterbury likely had established a presence in the Loudoun County region at least as early as 1756.  This still leaves about a two-year gap in the record trail of William Atterbury (between 1754 and 1756). 

However, the author believes it perfectly reasonable to assume that his removal to Loudoun County had occurred at around the time his selling of Prince Spring Plantation.  Loudoun County wasn’t organized until 1757, prior to which records for the area that became Loudoun County would have been recorded in Fairfax County from whence Loudoun was partitioned.  The author has searched the land records for Fairfax County in the decade prior to the formation of Loudoun County and has found no reference to anyone named Arterbury, or close facsimile.  It is conceivable that earlier records for William Atterbury may have been recorded in Fairfax County, but have not yet been discovered by researchers.  Just based on human nature alone, a person would rarely sell their only known piece of real estate without first having identified a place for relocation.  It seems highly probable that William Arterbury, like so many other small-scale tobacco farmers in Maryland during the mid-18th century, was experiencing a radical decline in crop yield from his small 50 acre tract and was forced to migrate westward in search of more productive soils.  Other factors that may have influenced this relocation were a severe drought in 1754-5 resulting in a substantially reduced tobacco crop yield and the outbreak of the French-Indian War.

In order to understand the possible attraction that drew William Atterbury to move his family to Loudoun County, it is important to understand the general history of the area known as the Northern Neck Proprietary, and particularly the history of the area that became Loudoun County.  This proprietary was established by order of King Charles II upon his restoration to the throne in 1660, at which time he made proprietary grants in the Americas to several English lords.  Some of these lands eventually passed, through marriage, to the Fairfax family.  This particular grant comprised much of the area bounded by the Potomac River on the east and the Rappahannock River on the west extending from the Chesapeake Bay to beyond the Shenandoah Valley, an area of approximately five million acres.  By 1719 these lands had been inherited by Thomas Fairfax, the 6th Lord Fairfax.  Although the extent of the boundaries of the Fairfax Grant were seemingly in a perpetual state of contention, that area which became constituted as Fairfax County in 1742 was generally held undisputed by the representatives of Lord Fairfax.  By extension, on its formation in 1757, all of Loudoun County fell within the proprietary. 

Figure 6-13 shows the approximate boundaries of Loudoun County (dashed red line) overlaid onto an inset of the Joshua Frye-Peter Jefferson Map created in about 1755.  In truth, the map from which this excerpt was taken was actually the map created by Thomas Jefferson in about 1785, but the author believes that the region of this map containing Loudoun County area was redrawn by Thomas Jefferson virtually as represented by his father, Peter, 30 years earlier.  This belief is predicated in large part from the virtually identical replication of features shown on the Frye-Jefferson map, and the fact that the later map does not reflect the newly established county boundary for Loudoun County nor the site of its newly established seat, Leesburg.  The overlaid county boundary was taken from another map created by John Thomas Phillips II, author of The Historian’s Guide to Loudoun County, Virginia: Colonial laws of Virginia and county court orders, 1757-1766 presented hereinafter as Figure 6-14.

One very important feature shown on the Phillips’ map is the boundary adjustment that occurred by an act of the Virginia State Assembly in 1798 and illustrated by the dashed green line on Figure 6-13.  The original eastern boundary of Loudoun County extended from the mouth of Difficult Run on the Potomac to Rocky Run on Bull Run. 

From a geopolitical point of view Loudoun County was basically bifurcated into two zones east and west along the line of the Bull Run and Catoctin Mountains.  The eastern part of the county was settled primarily by tidewater Virginians, whereas the western part of the county was settled primarily by eastern immigrants from Maryland, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  These divergent settlement patterns resulted in distinctly different social groups on each side of the Catoctin Range. 

The settlers in the western portion of the county were primarily of mixed European blood and religious heritage including Scots-Irish (Presbyterian), German (Calvinists) and Quaker (Reformed Protestant).  Although linguistically, culturally and theologically divergent, this “melting pot” society beyond the Catoctins quickly adapted to their new and somewhat primitive agrarian lifestyle.  Many of these early settlers were trained artisans; skilled in a wide range of crafts, thus enabling them to become self-sufficient.  There were blackmiths, potters, masons, leatherdressers, curriers, saddlers, weavers, glassmakers, woodcarvers, butchers, bakers, shoemakers, tailors, masons, carpenters, millers and cheesemakers.  They found the climate and soils of the Catoctin Valley well-suited for the production of grain crops, primarily wheat, which became the principal cash crop of the region in the 18th and 19th centuries.  The production of grains quickly led to the establishment of grist mills at strategic locations along the main waterways.  An abundant supply of grain also led to the establishment of all forms of animal husbandry, including swine, sheep, goats, cattle (meat and dairy), waterfowl and poultry.  The first European settlers to this region found an abundance of game and wildlife in the Catoctin Valley as well as on the slopes of the nearby Blue Ridge.  The land was forested, thus requiring clearing and harvesting the timber.  The buildings were mainly constructed of logs, but it was not uncommon to find more permanent stone edifices, particularly among the German and Quaker communities.  By the start of the American Revolution several small villages had begun to emerge along the valley floor between the Potomac and the Fauquier County line including: Waterford (mainly Quaker), Lincoln, Taylorstown and Lovettsville (mainly German).  The typical pioneer settler to the Catoctin Valley could be characterized by the absence of slave labor, small farms ranging between 100 and 250 acres, economic conservatives, hard-working, inured to hardship, industrious, strong religious faith and satisfied with a simpler lifestyle.

East of the Catoctin Range the land was initially settled by tidewater planters, who descended from several generations of successful and wealthy tobacco growers.  Many of these early “settlers” received relatively large grants from Lord Fairfax, typically ranging between 1,000 and 5,000 acres in size.  Few of these planters ever established residency within the County, but relied on overseers and large numbers of slaves to plant, cultivate, harvest and market their crops.  In the main, they perpetuated much the same style of living as that of their forebears.  Scattered across this region were “Quarters” bearing the names of Lee, Burwell, Peyton, Tankersville, Hamilton, Hancock, Berkeley, Fairfax, Mason, Bull, Berryman, West, Tayloe, Clapham, Mercer, Grayson, Fitzhugh, Barnes, Trammel, McCarty and Adams.  Several members of the Lee family actually established residency within the County and possessed some of the larger landholdings and numbers of slave.  They also tended toward the larger, multi-level manor houses typical of their ancestors, oftentimes constructed of brick masonry.

With this wide social and economic disparity between east and west Loundon County, it was inevitable that the moneyed interests east of the Catoctin would garner the bulk of political clout, and would hold most of the high offices in the courts, church, financial institutions and government.  Following the Revolution the residents of the western region, feeling they were not being fairly represented, petitioned for Loudoun County to be split into two: with each new county assuming the boundaries of Cameron Parish and Shelburne Parish.  The Legislature declined to further divide Loudoun, but in order to redress the resident’s concerns, did move to adjust the eastern boundary.  This boundary change shifted approximately one-fifth of the county’s territory back to Fairfax County, thus significantly reducing the area of the eastern part of the county, and presumably reducing the political imbalance (if in fact such imbalance actually existed).

The Frye-Jefferson Map contains three locations of importance to this investigation:

  1. Arobury – Lest the intrepid Atterbury researcher be misled (as was the author) by a notation on the Frye-Jefferson map of 1755, an excerpt of which is contained in Figure 8-13, the reference to “Arobury” on the west bank of the Potomac River a few miles upstream from the future site of Leesburg was not a reference to our Arterbury ancestor.  The Arobury notation was actually in reference to the former plantation of Francis Aubrey, who had acquired a 962 acre tract from Lord Fairfax near Big Spring in about 1724.  Francis Aubrey continued to reside at that location until his death in 1741.  When Truro Parish was formed in 1731 it was determined to establish a “chapel of ease” in the upper part of the parish to better serve the more distant inhabitants.  Francis Aubrey was commissioned to select the site and to build the new chapel in 1735, a commission which he duly executed, choosing a location either on or near his plantation at Big Spring.  Francis Aubrey is believed to have established and operated a ferry across the Potomac about 10 miles further upstream at Point of Rocks around 1739.
  2. Minor – Just below and west of the Arobury notation was the Minor Plantation, which denotes the location of Nicholas Minor’s 326 acre tract.  This tract was originally part of a grant to Francis Aubrey of 4054 acres in 1730.  On Francis Aubrey’s death in 1741 326 acres of his 1730 grant was bequeathed to his son, John Aubrey.  Three years later on John Aubrey’s death, this tract was sold by his widow, Mary Aubrey, to John Carlyle, one of the founders of Alexandria (more on Carlyle later).  Sometime in the 1750’s Carlyle sold the tract to his cousin-in-law, Nicholas Minor.  Nicholas Minor proceeded almost immediately to construct an Ordinary on his newly acquired land.  According to Harrison Williams, author of Legends of Loudoun, “for sometime prior to the organization of the county there had been a small backwoods settlement, perhaps only a few scattered log houses, near the intersection of the Carolina and old Ridge (Vestals or Keys Gap) Roads… with the name of George Town…”[26]  This primary road intersection and the fledgling village of George Town were situated on Nicholas Minor’s tract.  Apparently recognizing the potential commercial worth of his property, particularly in the wake of the formation of Loudoun County in early 1757, Nicholas Minor advanced a proposal before the Virginia General Assembly in 1758 to set aside 60 acres of his land to establish a new county seat to be dubbed Leesburg (named for the former Governor, Thomas Lee).  The founding trustees of Leesburg (identified in the Act of Establishment) included the following: Philip Ludwell Lee, Esq., Thomas Mason, Esq., Francis Lightfoot Lee, James Hamilton,  Nicholas Minor, Josias Clapham, Aeneas Campbell, John Hugh [Hough?], Francis Hague and William West, Gtl.  At Minor’s initiation, John Hough [a Quaker] conducted a survey and produced the first plat map of the new town sometime in 1758-9.  At a meeting of the new county court in the summer of 1758 it was ordered that the Sheriff [presumed to have been Aeneas Campbell] proceed with awarding a contract for the construction of a new courthouse [presumably the previous courts were being held at a home(s) of the trustees].  At the Sep1758 court it was further ordered that Lot No’s. 27 and 28 be conveyed by Nicholas Minor to William West and James Hamilton, trustees, for the use of the county (i.e., courthouse, jail, stocks, etc.).
  3. West’s Ordinary – Near the western central border of the county is a site identified as West’s Ordinary.  This ordinary was owned and operated by William West Sr. and was situated on the Carolina Road at its junction with the Mountain Road [aka Snickers Gap or Williams Gap Road] about one mile south of the present day town of Aldie.  This was the same William West, who was a founding member of the board of trustees of Leesburg and also served as a Sheriff and Justice of Peace.  Prior to the formation of Loudoun County, William West had also been a surveyor for Fairfax County in the 1740’s.  The West family from which William descended held a long history of high standing in the development of the Virginia Colony, originating from before former Governor John West of West Point on the Pamunkey Neck.  William West had several brothers, perhaps the most prominent having been Hugh West, the recognized founder of Alexandria, VA.  Within Loudon County William West had numerous kinsmen, including his brothers: George West, John West and Thomas West; his uncle, John West Jr.; several sons, including William West Jr., whose LWT was witnessed by William Arterbury and John Lane on 15Nov1762[27]; his nephew, Hugh West Jr. [King’s Counsel], who went security for William Atterbury on a judgment debt on 16Oct1765; and his son-in-law, Craven Peyton, to whom William Atterbury became indebted on 17Jul1758 in the sum of ₤3.19.4. (much more on this West family to follow).

Where did William Arterbury Live in LoudounCounty?

The Aroberry map notation aside, it may be possible to more accurately fix the location of the William Arterbury family after 1758 using information contained in land deeds, court orders and tithable records from Loudoun County.  We will begin this analysis by using information contained in the Tithable Lists.  First, it should be understood that the tithable lists for Loudoun County are fragmented, and are lacking data from randomly varying time periods and regions within the County.  Only the records from 1761 and 1765 are believed to contain nearly complete returns.  Further, it is useful to understand the manner and guidelines under which the tithable lists were created.  The intent was that every “free” white male above age 16 and every other “non-free” person (regardless of sex or age) should be charged a tax for working the land, such revenue being directed to the maintenance of the poor and needy, support of County governement, and support of the Anglican Parish Church.  Because of this connection of tithing to the established church, payment of tithes was resisted by members of dissenting faiths, i.e., Quakers, Presbyterians, Anabaptists, Methodists and Papists (Catholics).  In theory, payment of tithes was not discretionary, but rather a legal requirement under existing colonial law.  Stiff fines were enforced against anyone found attempting to circumvent or avoid (conceal) tithe payments (i.e., triple the normal rate, if found out of compliance).  Consequently, there was a strong incentive for proper and complete reporting.  

The parish was divided into precincts (possibly the same precincts that were established for land processioning), and a responsible person (usually a justice of the court) from each precinct was designated to compile the tithable lists each year and to make their report to the Trustees in July.  The number of precincts reported in the presumed “complete” years of 1761 and 1765 totaled 10, with the collectors in each of these years are listed as follows:

  • 1761 – James Hamilton, George West, James Lane, Landon Carter, John McIlhaney, Fielding Turner, William West, Josias Clapham, Francis Peyton and Richard Coleman.
  • 1765 – Nicholas Minor, John McIlhaney, Levin Powell, Francis Peyton, John Pearce, Captain [Aeneas] Campbell, James Hamilton, Phil Noland, Turner Fielding and Will Carr Lane.

Although the number of collectors (i.e., precincts) remained unchanged between 1761 and 1765, the names of most of the collectors did change.  Those that remained unchanged included James Hamilton, John McIlhaney and Fielding Turner.  According to Marty Hiatt and Craig Roberts Scott, the compilers of LoudounCountyVirginia Tithables 1758-1786, the collectors are believed to have resided in the precincts to which they were appointed as collectors, but the persons reported by those collectors did not necessarily reside in the collector’s precinct.  Apparently, the law permitted persons to report to any of the appointed collectors, regardless of place of residence.  Consequently, the tithable lists cannot, themselves, be used as an absolute “proof” of a person’s area of residence.  However, an analysis of the tithable lists does display some degree of continuity among the persons reported, which very likely does reflect a certain degree of geographic proximity. 

Before launching into an analysis of these apparent tithable list “geographic continuities”, we will first perform a simple kinship/age analysis of those household records reported for persons named Arterbury (or near facsimile) assembled as shown in Table 1.  No Arterburys are found in the tithable lists from 1762 to 1766, even though 1765 is purported to have contained a complete return of the entire county.  William Arterbury incurred a string of financial setbacks around this time period, starting with the court calling in a bond in the case of James Rogers, whom William Arterbury and John Morris had underwritten in early 1764.  This loss was followed by judgments for indebtedness won against William in 1765 by the heirs of Richard Snowden, by William Winn, by James Lowes, James Lane and Wm. Carr Lane, and finally by Fielder Gaunt in the fall of 1765.  At one point, William Arterbury was ordered to surrender to the custody of the Sheriff unless he could post bail.  During this period William sold two separate pieces of real estate, presumably to cover his debts.  No further record of William Arterbury Sr. was found after Oct1765, suggesting that he may have had a failing of health and died sometime in either late-1765 or 1766.

Analysis of the tithable lists spanning the years for which Arterburys were recorded in Loudoun County in chronological order is as follows:

  1. 1758 – The County was divided into two main regions: (1) above Goose Creek (James Hamilton, Nicholas Minor and John Mucklehaney [aka McIlhaney], and (2) below Goose Creek (Richard Coleman, Francis Peyton, James Lane and Benjamin Grayson).  Only Francis Peyton’s list survives showing 191 tithables.  William Arterbury Sr. was reported in Francis Peyton’s precinct with only one tithable, a strong suggestion that none of his sons had yet attained the age of 16 years, and also suggesting that William resided below Goose Creek.
  2. 1759 – Eight collectors were appointed (Francis Peyton, Richard Coleman, James Lane John McIlhaney, Fielding Turner, William West, George West and Josias Clapham), but only the lists from Francis Peyton and Richard Coleman survive.  A total of 1113 tithables were reported (according to Hiatt and Scott), which would average about 140 tithable per collector.  Francis Peyton’s list showed only 71 tithables, whereas Richard Coleman’s showed 162.  Peyton’s return was drastically reduced in number compared to his list from the previous year, and only about half of the individuals reported by Peyton in 1759 were also reported by him in 1758, suggesting that Peyton’s return in 1759 was not complete or that his precinct had been reduced in size.  Richard Coleman’s list is remarkable for the relatively high number of Quarters, including those of several of the Lee families, suggesting that his precinct probably was in the area between Broad Run and Difficult Run in the southeast part of the County.  Strangely, Coleman, himself, was not reported on his own list.  The fact that the number of collectors increased from seven in 1758 to eight in 1759 suggests that there must have been an additional precinct inserted somewhere within the county.  Even the insertion of one new precinct cannot account for the dramatic decrease in the tithables reported by Francis Peyton in 1759 (120 less than in 1758), suggesting that Peyton’s 1759 filing was not a complete listing, possibly accounting for the absence of William Arterbury from that list.  It is also conceivable that Francis Peyton’s precinct may have been the one that was divided to make room for the added precinct, as his return of 191 tithables in 1758 seems inordinately high for a single precinct.
  3. 1760 – Nine collectors were appointed in 1760 (George West, William West, James Hamilton, Fielding Turner, Francis Peyton, Richard Coleman, James Lane, Josias Clapham John McIlhaney).  All but John McIlhaney’s list survive.  William Sr. and his eldest son, Michael, were reported in William West’s precinct, which reported a total of 120 tithables.  The fact that Michael was reported for the first time suggests that he had reached his 16th birthday sometime between Jul1758 and Jul1760, indicating a birth year of about 1742/3.
  4. 1761 – Ten collectors were reported for 1761 (James Hamilton, George West, James Lane, Landon Carter, John McIlhaney, Fielding Turner, William West, Josias Clapham, Francis Peyton and Richard Coleman) and all of their returns have survived.  William Sr. and Michael were reported separately, as if the heads of two different households, both in Fielding Turner’s precinct.  In theory, Michael would have been at least 21 years old to have been recognized as a separate head of household.  This is at variance with a birth year of 1742/3, which would make him only about 18 years old in 1761.  The author cannot account for this seeming discrepancy in Michael’s age/birth, but is inclined to lean toward 1742/3 as his year of birth.  However, recognizing that William Arterbury entered a seven-year indenture in Maryland in late-1733, he would not have completed that indenture until after about Oct1740, thus making his marriage to Sarah Mitchell sometime after about early-1741.  Such reckoning fits with 1742/3 as the probable birth year for Michael.
  5. 1762 to 1766 – there was no further reporting of William or Michael Arterbury (nor any other Arterbury, for that matter) during the next five years.  In fact, by the author’s reckoning, 1761 was the last year in which either William Atterbury Sr. or his eldest son, Michael, appeared in the Loudon County tithable lists.  It seems probable that William Atterbury Sr. continued to reside in the county as a land owner until after late-1765, but very likely his specific precinct tithable records during that period did not survive.  It should be noted that 1762 returns appear to be substantially missing, 1763 is missing in its entirety and 1764 was almost completely missing.  Consequently, the absence of any records for William Arterbury Sr. or any sons in those three years is understandable.  1765 is the puzzling year, as it was purported to have been a complete return for the entire county, yet no Arterburys were reported.  Again, 1766 also appears to have been missing about 35% of the returns.  As for Michael Arterbury, if he were living in the county, it seems probable that he would have been captured in the tithable lists sometime after 1766.  His absence from these later tithable listings is strong indication that he had moved out of Loudoun County sometime after 1761, perhaps shortly after his father’s presumed death around 1765/6.
  6. 1767 – William Arterbury was reported living in the household of Charles Morehead in Nicholas Minor’s precinct.  The author is inclined to believe that this record was of William Arterbury Jr., 2nd eldest son of William Arterbury Sr. and Sarah Mitchell.  [Nicholas MINOR, Gent. is appointed and desired to take a list of the tithables lands and wheel carriagesfrom the Limestone to Goose Creek, Potomack River and Kittocton Creek for the ensueing year.  NOTE:  This was the description of Nicholas Minor’s tithable precinct taken from pp. 273-4 of Order Book C.]  The fact that William Jr. was no longer living in his parents household suggests that he had probably reached age 21, giving him a birth year of about 1745.  It is the author’s belief that William Arterbury Sr. had died sometime before 1767, but it seems likely that his widow, Sarah Arterbury, might have appeared in this tithable list for 1767, unless perhaps her other sons still living at home had not yet reached their 16 birthday.  [Even if Sarah were a widowed head of household, her household would be exempt from taxation, unless she had sons aged 16 years or older.]
  7. 1768 – Hiatt and Scott report that only six men were appointed to collect tithables in this year, which does comport with the Order Book record of that year.  Yet every other year for which there was a relatively complete record, the number of collectors was significantly higher, ranging from eight to upwards of thirteen.  Even though the lists reported for this year appear to be fairly extensive in terms of the numbers of pages, there appear to have been several duplicate sets.  Given these circumstances, it is the author’s belief that about half of the returns are missing in 1768, which could account for no report of an Arterbury.
  8. 1769 – According to Hiatt and Scott ten collectors were appointed in this year, with possibly only nine actually returning lists.  Regardless, the household of Sarah Arterbury was listed, along with her son, Edward Arterbury, in Levin Powell’s precinct.  This was the first time Edward appeared in the tithable records.  Given the absence of his parent’s household from the tithable lists since 1761, it is difficult to place an approximate age for Edward, except to state that he was more than 15 years old in 1769, possibly born around 1751.  Sarah would have been 49 years old in 1769.  The fact that Sarah was reported by herself as head of household is strong indication that she was widowed.
  9. 1770 – Hiatt and Scott claim that there were only two collector’s lists missing in 1770, yet only six lists were returned, thus providing a total of eight collectors.  In 1771 there were 12 collectors, and in most of the previous years that had representative returns showed between 8 and 12 collectors.  It seems highly probable that at least half of the returns are missing from 1770.  In any case, there were no reports of any Arterburys in that year.
  10. 1771 to 1774 – William Arterbury [Jr.] was reported in each of these years as head of his own household with a single tithable reported in each year.  Simon Triplett was the reporting collector of William Arterbury in each year, so it might be assumed that William’s place of residence remained substantially unchanged in those years.  Neither Sarah nor Edward Arterbury were reported in any further tithable reports beyond 1769.  Either they were in missing reports, or they had moved out of the county.  In 1773 there was a record for a Thomas Aulberry amidst several members of the Muirhead family [same family in which William Arterbury [Jr.] had been reported in 1767].  It is the author’s opinion that this Thomas Aulbury was actually the 4th or 5th born son of William Arterbury Sr. and Sarah Mitchell.  If so, it would appear that Thomas Arterbury was an adult in 1771, giving him a birth year of around 1750.  In view of this probable age of Thomas Arterbury, the author is inclined to shift the birth year of Edward Arterbury back about two years to 1748/9.
  11. 1777 – The last record found for anyone named Arterbury in Loudoun County was a tithable listing for Thomas Arterbury, living as an employee on Capt. William Douglas’s Quarter.  This Thomas is believed to have been the same person as Thomas Aulberry reported in 1771 in the vicinity of the Muirhead’s. 

This concludes the analysis of kinship/age utilizing the tithable lists.  We now turn our attention to geographic connections implicit in these same lists.  Working on the assumption that the collectors were residents of the precincts to which they were appointed and that the boundaries of the precincts did not substantially alter between 1757 and 1766, it is reasonable to assume that the William Arterbury Sr. family would have resided within relatively close geographic proximity to their tithable collector.  In 1758 Hiatt and Scott reported that the county was divided into two main regions for tithable reporting purposes: (1) above Goose Creek, and (2) below Goose Creek.  They further reported that Francis Peyton was appointed as one of the collectors for the area below Goose Creek.  Since William Arterbury appeared on the list compiled by Francis Peyton in 1758, it is reasonable to assume that William Arterbury resided somewhere below Goose Creek in that year.  As earlier described in this chapter, the main settlers of the southern part of the county were from the tidewater region.  In this geopolitical context, William Arterbury’s neighbors, in the main, can be distinguished from the other ethnic and religious groups of German, Scots/Irish, Welsh and Quaker settled above Goose Creek.

In 1760 William Arterbury Sr. was reported on William West’s tithable list.  If it is assumed that William Arterbury actually resided in the same precinct for which William West was the appointed collector, then it is possible to further refine the geographic location of the William Arterbury family.  William West’s place of residence for most of the time that he resided in Loundoun County is well established in records as having been at his ordinary near the junction of the Carolina Road and the Mountain Road [Snicker’s Gap Road], about a mile south of the present day town of Aldie. 

John Thomas Phillips II in his book, The Historian’s Guide to Loudoun County, produced a map which separated the county into fourteen tithable zones, which he labeled {A} thru {Q} (excepting {I} and {O}) as illustrated in Figure 6-15.  Phillips then proceeded to associate these zones to each of the collectors reported in the court records for the years 1758 thru 1766.  It should be noted that Phillips’ tithable zones were purely of his creation, and not representative of any documented precinct boundaries.  From his extensive knowledge of the general geographic locations of many of these colonial residents, Phillips was able to discern the approximate tithable areas assigned to the various collectors from year-to-year, and thusly approximate each collector’s assigned territory each year.  Of course, since several of these years have only partial extant returns, Phillips’ tithable territorial assignments must be considered gross extrapolations in many instances.  The foregoing described short-comings aside, the author is inclined to give some credence to Phillips’ tithable zone assignments for the purpose of approximating the geographic location of the William Atterbury family within Loudoun County. 

For example, in 1758, the first year in which William Atterbury Sr. appeared in the tithable records, he appeared on the list returned by Francis Peyton.  In that year Phillips ascribed zones {G-H-L-P} to Francis Peyton.  This territory encompassed the northwestern part of the county from Ashby’s Gap down to below the Carolina Road, and easterly along Goose Creek to Broad Run Church.  This area would have included West’s Ordinary.  In 1760 William Atterbury Sr. appeared on the return submitted by William West [Sr.].  In 1760 Phillips identified William West’s tithable territory to include zones {H-L-P}, essentially the same area previously ascribed to Francis Peyton in 1758, excepting the extreme northwest corner near Ashby’s Gap {G}.  So, assuming some degree of accuracy in Phillips’ tithable zone designations, William Atterbury appears to have remained within the same general region between 1758 and 1760.  In 1761 William Atterbury Sr. appeared on the tithable list submitted by Fielding Turner.  According to Phillips, Fielding Turner reported on zones {D-F-L} in 1761.  Zone {L} was the only zone common to all three years in which William Atterbury was recorded in the tithable lists. As noted on Figure 6-15, zone {L} encompassed the area between West’s Ordinary and Broad Run Church, centered along the alignment of Church Road.

Other indicators of geographic location contained in the tithable lists are the observed continuity with other landowners consistently appearing on the same collector lists with William Arterbury:

  • Robert Burwell Quarter – 1758, 1760 and 1761
  • Minor Winn’s Quarter – 1758, 1760 and 1761
  • John Johnson – 1758, 1760 and 1761
  • William West – 1758 and 1760
  • John Hall – 1760 and 1761

Although Hiatt and Scott caution that tithables were not bound to report within the precinct in which they resided, the fact that several land owners were repeatedly reported on the same tithable lists with William Arterbury is strong indication that they must have resided within the same precinct, i.e. Zone {L}, or some slight variation thereof.  Armed with the possibility of close geographic proximity between these parties, the author then proceeded to search for other, more refining geographic indicators.  Since William Arterbury was recorded selling part of his real property to John Hall in 1765, and since there was no evidence that William was indebted financially to John Hall, it can reasonably be assumed that William Arterbury and John Hall were very near neighbors in 1765.  Since we are unable to locate any records which directly linked William Arterbury to any specific geographic locale, we will resort to the presumed secondary association between William Arterbury and John Hall. 

Road Orders are perhaps the best geographic linkage available in the colonial records of Loudoun County.  Citizens associated with Road Orders generally can be assumed to own land abutting upon the specific road, or to utilize that road to ingress and egress their property.  In Jun1763 John Hall was appointed the surveyor of the road between Capt. William West (his ordinary) and John Keen’s Spring, abstracted as follows:

  • 14 June 1763, Loudoun Order Book B, p. 160 – Ordered that John Hall be appointed Surveyor of the Road from Capt. William West’s to John Keen’s Spring in the room of Sylvester Gardner who is discharged from that Office.

Although the reference to “Capt. William West’s” provides a relatively precise location for the beginning point of this road (namely, West’s Ordinary at the junction of Carolina and Mountain Roads), it is difficult to pinpoint the terminus end at Keen’s Spring.  Therefore, it is necessary to review other similar and adjoining road orders:

  • 11 July 1758, Loudoun Order Book A, p. 129 – Richard Keen is appointed Surveyor of the Highwaies from John Keen’s Spring to broad run church in the room of John Smarr who is discharged from that Office.

The foregoing road order appointed Richard Keen (son of John Keen) as surveyor of the road between John Keen’s Spring and Broad Run Church.  Presumably, this road joined the eastern end of the road earlier assigned to John Hall as surveyor, between West’s Ordinary and Keen’s Spring.  For further delineation of the identification and location of this road (as shown on the Phillips’ Map, Figure 6-16) refer to the following road order: 

  • 14 April 1766, Loudoun Order Book C, p. 74 – William Smith Thomas Shore William Musgrove and Nathaniel Smith or any three thereof being first sworn before a Justice of this County do view the most convenient way for a Road from the Ford of Little River on Carolina Road to Capt. West’s Church Road at John Keen’s Spring and make a Report of the Conveniency and Inconveniency that may attend the same to the Court.

The foregoing road order was for the survey of a new road to connect between the Carolina Road ford over Little River and Keen’s Spring.  Moreover, this order describes the road connecting between West’s Ordinary and Broad Run Church as “Capt. West’s Church Road”.  Phillips identified this road as “Church Road” on his 1757 map (see Fig. 6-14).  Assuming “Church Road” and the two road segments described in the road orders above: (1) West’s Ordinary to Keen’s Spring, and (2) Keen’s Spring to Broad Run Church, as being the same road, the author has highlighted this road in green on Figure 6-16.  The author has also inferred the general location of Keen’s Spring (which could not be found on any other map or description) by delineating the probable course of the new road from Carolina Road ford on Little River (black dashed line).  Ergo, assuming this location for the road on which John Hall was appointed surveyor in Jun1763, and assuming that John Hall would have been an important abutting land owner along that road segment, and assuming that William Arterbury would have been a near neighbor of John Hall; it seems highly probable that the location of the William Arterbury family within Loudoun County between 1758 and 1765 (perhaps as late as 1772) would have been within the red oval shown on Figure 6-16. 

Now, having identified a fairly precise location for William Arterbury Sr. within Loudoun County, let’s take a brief excursus into a few of the near neighbors of our Arterbury family: 

Riddles – First, we will revisit the Riddles, the family to whom William Arterbury sold his Prince Springs Plantation in 1754.  We will reconnect to this Riddle family via Sylvester Garner [aka Gardner], another near neighbor of William Arterbury.  It was Sylvester Garner whom John Hall replaced as surveyor of the road connecting between West’s Ordinary and Keen’s Spring in Jun1763.  Lo and behold Zachariah Riddle, younger brother of John Riddle Jr., presumed purchaser of Prince Spring Plantation, married Eleanor Garner, daughter of Sylvester Garner in about 1765 in Loudoun County.  Truly a small world!  But, Zachariah Riddle was not the only member of this Riddle family to appear in Loudoun County at around the same time as the Arterbury family.  There are records of Zachariah’s presumed brother: George Riddle and even of a John Riddle [Jr.?].  To place these Riddle brothers into familial context the following somewhat flawed genealogical sketch is offered:

John Riddle [Riddell] Jr. and his wife, Elizabeth Lentall [aka Linton] are believed to have had nine or perhaps ten children, all born in Prince George’s County, Maryland: George (b. ~1729), Jeremiah (b. ~1731), Sarah (b. ~1732), John (b 16Nov1734), Samuel (b. 7May1736), Zachariah (b. 20Sep1737), Basil (b. 20Sep1737), Richard Jacob (b. 15Aug1739), James (b. 15Aug1739), Susannah (b. ~1743), and possibly James Clinton (b. 10Dec1740).

The foregoing genealogy of the children of John Riddle and Elizabeth Linton does not comport with the church register records of St. Barnabas Parish Church, which contains the marriage and christening records summarized as follows:

  1. 9Feb1729 – John Riddle Jr. married Elizabeth Lentall [Linton] in Prince George’s County, MD.
  2. 31May1735 – John Riddle married Eleanor Lee at Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland.  [This is believed to have been the 3rd marriage of John Riddle Sr., father of John Riddle Jr., who married Elizabeth Lintall (Linton?)]
  3. 16 Nov 1734 – John Riddle [Jr.], Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle, Elizth [Believed to have been the purchaser of Prince Spring Plantation]
  4. Jan 1735 – George Riddle, Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, Jno Riddle, Elizh
  5. 7May1737 – Samuel Riddle [shown as “Niddle” in transcript on Ancestry], Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, Jno Riddle, Elizh
  6. 15 Aug 1738 – Unknown [prob. Jacob] Riddle Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle, Elizh
  7. 10 Dec 1740 – Unknown [prob. James] Riddle, Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle, Elizh
  8. 1741 – Elizabeth Riddle Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland          John Riddle, Elizh
  9. 1743 – Unknown [prob. Zachariah] Riddle, Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle, Elizh

As noted in the foregoing compilation John and Elizabeth were recorded with only three named sons: John [Jr.] (1734), George (1735) and Samuel (1737), and one daughter: Elizabeth (1741).  There are records for three other unnamed children born in 1738, 1740 and 1743.  In the estate administration papers filed for John Riddle [Sr.] in 1794 only three sons were mentioned: Jacob (oldest), James (2nd oldest) and Zachariah (3rd oldest of Loudoun County).  The fact that this administration record made specific reference to Zachariah Riddle of Loudoun County, we can be quite certain that we are dealing with the same family.

John Jr., George and Zachariah are believed to have migrated to Loudoun County and to have resided in the southwest part of the county in the general vicinity of William Arterbury Sr.  No records were found showing any direct interaction between the Riddles and the Arterburys in Loudoun, but it seems remarkable that Zachariah Riddle would marry into the Sylvester Garner family, who lived only a few farms removed from William Arterbury.  Records found in Loudoun County of these Riddle brothers and other Riddles are summarized as follows:

  1. 15Nov1759 Andrew Riddel served on jury in case of William Digges against Francis Vineyard for debt.  [Andrew’s indentity is unknown, but may have been a kinsman of the Riddle brothers.]
  2. 15Apr1763 Daniel Stephenson against George Riddle.
  3. 8Apr1765 Ashford Dowden against George Riddle for debt, John Hutchison and Robert Bland came forward in support of defendant.  [NOTE: The fact that John Hutchison and Robert Bland came forward and testified in George Riddle’s behalf suggests a close connection between these men.  The Hutchison’s were near neighbors of William Arterbury and several were members of the Baptist church in that neighborhood.]
  4. Feb1765 Zachariah Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  5. Feb1765 George Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  6. Feb1766 Zachariah Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  7. Feb1766 George Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  8. 13Aug1766 Francis Herronimus, assignee of Jasper Wirt against George Riddle for debt, Zachariah Riddle went security. (Note: there were several more entries for George Riddle around this same time for same suit).
  9. Feb1767 George Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  10. 16Apr1767 Henry Riddle petitioned against William Hatcher for overdue note.  Judgment for plaintiff.  [The identity of Henry Riddle is unknown to the author, but very possibly kinsmen of the Riddle brothers.] (Note: there continued to be Court cases for George, Zachariah and Henry Riddle through end of 1769).
  11. Feb1768 Zachariah Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  12. Feb1768 George Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  13. Feb1769 Zachariah Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  14. Feb1769 George Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  15. Feb1770 George Riddle, head of household with two tithables, including John Riddle.
  16. Feb1770 Zachariah Riddle, head of household with one tithable.
  17. 14Aug1770 Sheriff to pay John Riddle ₤11.8.0 for import of bell by William Grayson.  [The identity of this John Riddle is not known with certainty, but he may have been the older brother of George Riddle and Zachariah Riddle, and the same person who purchased Prince Spring Plantation from William Arterbury.]  Apparently purchasing and mounting a new bell on the Leesburg Court House was a complicated affair as evidenced by the following records:
    1. 11Aug1768 – William GRAYSON, Gent. is appointed and desired to agree with some person to import a bell for the use of the court house of this county and bring in the charge at laying the levy.
    1. 14Aug1769 – Ordered that the Sheriff pay William GRAYSON, Gent. 5,000 lbs. (₤31 5s) of tobacco in part for a bell by him imported for the use of the Court, and the residue thereof to be accounted for at laying the next County Levy, to be discharged at £0.12.6 per centum.
    1. 15Aug1769 – Ordered that James HAMILTON and William DOUGLASS, Gent. agree with workmen to erect a bellfry at the Courthouse of this county wherein to hang a bell imported by William GRAYSON, Gent. for the use of the Court.
    1. 14Aug1770 – Sheriff to pay unto John RIDDELL £11.8.0 out of the depositum in his hands being the ballance of his account for a bell imported by William GRAYSON, Gent. for the use of the Court.
    1. 22Mar1773 – George JOHNSTON and John THORNTON, Gent. are appointed and desired to agree with some person to erect a belfry and hand the bell imported for the use of the county and bring in their account at the laying of the next Levy.
  18. 10Jun1771 John Glasford against Bazil [Basil] Riddle, suit dismissed.  [The fact that Basil Riddle and Jeremiah Riddle began to appear in Loudoun records the year after John Riddle appear is strong indication that John Riddle Jr. had relocated from Prince George’s County, MD to Loudoun County, VA sometime before Aug1770.  More hereinafter.]
  19. 30Jun1771 Jeremiah Riddle witnessed sale of slaves and horses from Samuel Precher of Prince George’s County, Maryland to Thomas Drake of Loudoun County, Virginia.  [Almost certainly Jeremiah was the son of John Riddle and Elizabeth (lnu), born in Prince George’s County, MD in 1761.
  20. Feb1772 Bassell [sic] Riddle, head of household with one tithable.  [Ditto, Item 19, above.]
  21. 11Mar1772 Dempsey Carroll against Samuel Prather and Bazil Riddle for assault and hog stealing, ordered dismissed and plaintiff to pay costs.  (George, Henry and Zachariah each had court records during this period up to end of 1772.)
  22. 1772
  23. 1773 to May1776 Zachariah, George and John Riddle continued to have cases before the Court.
  24. Aug1776 to Mar1783 George and Zachariah Riddle each had one case pending before the Court.
  25. 1783 to end of 1786 Bazil and Zachariah Riddle had cases pending before the Court.
  26. To end of 1786 Zachariah Riddle had cases pending before the Court.

In the estate administration record for John Riddle Sr., dated 4Jul1794, Zachariah Riddle (of Loudoun County) petitioned Prince George’s County, MD for a valuation of his father’s estate.  Apparently John Sr. had recently died, without leaving a Will.  The administration record only made reference to three children: Jacob Riddle (eldest son), James Riddle (2nd oldest son) and Zachariah Riddle (3rd oldest son).  The author believes it likely that these three sons named in their father’s estate administration were the same persons as the three unnamed children in the St. Barnabas Church register listed above.  If so, then Zachariah Riddle would have been the youngest known child of John Riddle Sr. and Elizabeth Lintall.  Further, the absence of any mention of the known sons: John Jr., George and Samuel might suggest that they had predeceased their father. 

This brings us the identity of Basil Riddle and Jeremiah Riddle, who appeared in Loudoun County records between 1771 and 1786.  The answer to that question is likely to be found in the following christening records from St. Barnabas Church: 

  1. 1759 – Basil Riddle Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle [prob. Jr.], Elizabeth
  2. 1761 – Jeremiah Riddle, Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland, John Riddle, Elizabeth

These are believed to have been records of the births of sons born to John Riddle Jr. and his wife, Elizabeth (lnu).  These are also believed to have been the same persons, who later appeared in Loudoun County records between 1771 and 1786.  Assuming these connections of Basil and Jeremiah Riddle to be correct, then it would appear that the children of John Riddle Jr., the same person who purchased Prince Spring Plantation from William Atterbury, were living in the same neighborhood as the Atterbury family in Loudoun County.  Was such close geographic and contemporaneous proximity between the William Atterbury family, and George and Zachariah Riddle and their nephews, Basil and Jeremiah Riddle, a mere coincidence? 

In an effort to answer the foregoing question, the author propounds the following hypothesis: John Riddle Jr. was married to Elizabeth Yackley, daughter of Sarah Mitchell and Robert Yackley.  For the record, the author has found absolutely no written evidence directly linking a marriage between these two parties.  However, there are several facts in evidence which would support this marriage having taken place:

  1. Sale of Prince Spring Plantation – If the author is correct in his belief that William Atterbury sold Prince Spring Plantation to John Riddle Jr., son of John Riddle Sr. and Elizabeth Lintall, then John Riddle Jr. was only 19 years old when he purchased that tract.  The fact that John Riddle Sr.’s estate administration made no mention of Prince Spring being property in his possession at the time of death makes it highly likely that it was his son, who made that purchase.  Why would William Atterbury sell his land to such a young person, with whom he had no known connections?  Given its location being less than two miles from the Governor’s mansion, its sale to a seemingly more eligible buyer should not have been a problem.  This suggests that there probably was some other motivating factor that led to the sale to John Riddle Jr.  That motivating factor very likely was that John Riddle Jr. and Elizabeth Yackley were either already married or soon to be married.  Sale of Prince Spring to his wife’s daughter makes good sense.
  2. John Riddle Jr.’s brothers: George and Zachariah Riddle as William Atterbury’s Loudoun County neighbors – Although it is known that Marylander’s were migrating westward in the 18th century, it is hard to reconcile that the brothers of the purchaser of William Atterbury’s property in Prince George’s County would, by mere coincidence, become his near neighbors in Loudoun County.  Not only were George and Zachariah Riddle close neighbors of the William Atterbury family, Zachariah actually married a daughter of Sylvester Garner.  Further, there is one Court Order record which suggests that John Riddle Jr., himself, may have moved to Loudoun County at around the same time as George and Zachariah:
  3. 14Aug1770 Sheriff to pay John Riddle ₤11.8.0 for import of bell by William Grayson. 

Since this record appeared almost contemporaneously with newly emerging records for Basil and Jeremiah Riddle, it seems entirely possible that the John Riddle being paid for the import of a bell for the Loudoun courthouse may have been Basil and Jeremiah’s father, John Riddle Jr.  If so, it would appear that John Riddle Jr. had sold Prince Spring and had himself moved over to Loudoun County, probably to be near to his wife’s family, as well as to his own brothers.

  1. Basil and Jeremiah Riddle in Loudoun County – Basil and Jeremiah Riddle each appeared in separate records in Loudoun County court in Jun1771.  Basil would have been about 22 years old and Jeremiah about 20 years old in 1771.  It seems probable that they had been in Loudoun County for several years prior to these court records, but having recently attained their majority, they could legally interact with the court.  The fact that their presumed father, John Riddle Jr. appeared in the court records the previous year fits with them having been part of a family unit that had migrated from Prince George’s County, MD to Loudoun County, VA, probably to be near to their mother’s family, the Atterburys.

Wests – There are several records in Loudoun County directly connecting between the William Atterbury family and the West family abstracted as follows:

  • 11Mar1760 Order Book Judgment Entry – Craven Peyton (son-in-law of William West) against William Atterbary – in debt – Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff’s action for ₤3.19.4.  Plaintiff to recover against Defendant ₤3.19.4 with interest from 17Jul1758 plus costs.[28]
  • 11Jun1760 Order Book Entry – William Atterbury an evidence for Robert Wood at the suit of Craven Peyton, having attended Court one day ordered that Wood pay him 25 lbs. of tobacco for the same.[29]
  • On 15Nov1762 LWT of William West [Jr.] entered April Court, 1762 in Loudoun County, Virginia with bequests to sons: Cato West and Charles West.  Executors: Charles West and Craven Peyton [Payton].  Witnesses: [unknown, prob. William Sr.]West, John Hall and William Atterbury. (p. 73)
  • 16Oct1765 Order Book Entry – Fielder Gaunt [aka Gantt] against William Atterbury – in case – Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff’s action for ₤9.2.1 and costs.  Defendant committed to custody of the Sheriff to remain in common gaol for debtors until he satisfies the judgment.  Hugh West became security to pay the Clerk’s and Sheriff’s fee.[30]
  • 28May1772 Order Book Entry – The following hands are allotted to work on the road whereof Henry Lander is Surveyor from Bull Run to Little River, vitz. Phineas Skinner’s hands, Charles Pullen’s hands, Charles Sutton’s hands, Nicholas Wyckoff’s hands, Richard Skinner’s hands, Aaron Swort’s hands, William Evan’s hands, John Robert’s hands, Abraham Acburd’s hands, Jacob Bodine’s hands, Richard Reed’s hands, Simon Simonson’s hands, Jacob Falconer, Thomas Clayton, Mary West’s hands, Alexander Beavers and Edward Arterbury.[31]

The West family had been one of the more influential families of Tidewater Virginia since its founding, and descend from Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware.  John West and his brother, Thomas West, 3rd Lord Delaware, immigrated to Virginia in 1618.  John West, a graduate of Magdalen College, Oxford, was one of the first investors in the Virginia Company, and established Westover Plantation on the James River around 1620.  He later served as a Burgess and Justice from York County.  John West was married to Ann Claibourne, very likely a kinsman (perhaps sister) of William Claibourne, Surveyor to the Virginia Company, owner/settler of Kent Island in upper Chesapeake Bay, and later the Secretary and Treasurer of the Colony.  John West and William Claibourne each received large tracts of land on the lower Pamunkey Neck totaling several thousands of acres and abutting one another a West Point, in recognition for their service to the Colony during the Indian uprisings.  It was from this solid foundation that the Wests of Fairfax and Loudoun County sprung. 

The connection between the Fairfax (formerly Stafford) County Wests and the Pamunkey Neck Wests is not of the traditional [English] nature.  Major John West (1657-1716), the grandfather of Hugh West, William West (Ordinary Keeper) and Thomas West, and husband of (1) Sarah Pearson and (2) Elizabeth Semmes, was the son of John West Jr. of West Point and Cockacoeske, Queen of Pamunkey, a (grand) niece of Pocahontas.  [This is the point at which most reader’s eyes will roll back into their heads and exclaim: “Oh sure!  Here we go again with the mixed-blood child of an Indian Princess”.]  Well, in this instance it just happens to be a fact.  There is substantial evidence in the colonial record to establish the identity of Major John West as the half-blood son of Cockacoeske.  The fact that he bequeathed land on the Pamunkey Neck (at West Point) in his Will almost irrefutably links him to the Wests of West Point.  But, this is just the beginning of the story. 

Before her union with John West Jr., Cockacoeske had been “married” to Toby West, John Jr.’s first cousin.  Toby [Totopotomoi] West, “King of the Pamunkey” (killed at the Battle of Bloody Run near Richmond in 1656) was the son of Thomas West, 3rd Lord Delaware, and “Rachel” Powhattan Crowshaw.  When Pocahontas and her entourage visited England in 1616, Rachel Powhattan was among her retinue.  While in England the Rolfe Party lived at the country estate of Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware, Blackhurst Park in Essex.  It is believed that while in residence at Blackhurst Park Rachel Powhattan met and entered a relationship with Thomas West, 3rd Lord Delaware, from which union Tody West was born.  Toby may have been born in England and remained behind in the care of the West family.  In any event, Capt John West [presumably John West Jr.] and Toby West recorded grants in Gloucester County on the northeast side of the Mattapony River on 27May1654 abstracted as follows:

  1. 27May1654 – Captain John West received patent for 1000 acres in Gloucester County on northeast side of Mattapony River, beginning at upper westermost corner of Ralph Greens, bounded by Thomas Bell and Captain Robert Abrahall [Abrall] due for transport of 20 persons, including George Lydall, Susan Barlow, etal. On 2Jun1657 Colonel John West received patent for 1000 acres in Goucester County on northeast side of Mattaponi River beginning at westernmost corner of Ralph Greene, bounded by Thomas Bell and Captain Robert Abrall, renewal of patent dated 27May1654 (assigned by Captain John West Jr. to Thomas Ramsey on 10Mar1662).
  2. 27May1654 – Toby West received a patent of 500 acres on Mattaponi River for the transport of 10 persons.  After Toby West’s death, this 500 acre tract passed through Cockacoeske to her son, Major John West of Stafford County.

Joseph Croshaw, son of Jamestown pioneer and adventurer, Raleigh Croshaw, took Rachel Powhattan as his wife with whom he had several children, who would have been half-siblings of Toby West.  Joseph Croshaw, William Claibourne and John West all owned large tracts of land in Pamunkey Neck.  Toby West and Cockacoeske had a daughter, who is reported to have married Thomas Harrison.  Hugh West is reported to have married Sybil Harrison, daughter of Thomas Harrison.  Although the exact kinship it not known with certainty, it seems highly likely that Hugh West married either his 1st or 2nd cousin, who probably was also of mixed Indian blood.  Thus, we have the genealogical connection between Thomas West, 2nd Lord Delaware, and the Wests of Fairfax County.

Now, back to William Atterbury’s neighbors in Loudoun County. 

  1. 11Mar1760 Order Book Judgment Entry – Craven Peyton (son-in-law of William West) against William Atterbary – in debt – Defendant acknowledged the Plaintiff’s action for ₤3.19.4.  The basis for this debt between William Atterbury and Craven Peyton is not known with certainty, but since it dates from Jul1758, it probably was associated with the purchase of merchandise from Craven Peyton’s Ordinary in Leesburg.  Craven Peyton was the son-in-law of William West, having married Anne West, William’s daughter.  Craven Peyton was a son of Valentine Peyton and Frances Linton [Harrison], reputed a daughter of Thomas Harrison.  Craven Peyton operated an Ordinary in Leesburg at the corner of King and Loudoun Streets for many years.
  2. 11Jun1760 Order Book Entry – William Atterbury an evidence for Robert Wood at the suit of Craven Peyton, having attended Court one day ordered that Wood pay him 25 lbs. of tobacco for the same.  William Atterbury gave testimony in support of a suit against Robert Wood brought by Craven Peyton for debt. 
  3. On 15Nov1762 LWT of William West [Jr.] entered April Court, 1762 in Loudoun County, Virginia with bequests to sons: Cato West and Charles West.  Executors: Charles West and Craven Peyton.  Witnesses: [William Sr.] West, John Hall and William Atterbury.  William West Jr. was a son of William West, inn-keeper.  William Jr.’s LWT was witnessed by John Hall and William Atterbury in Apr1762.  William West Jr. and William West Sr. were near neighbors of John Hall and William Atterbury from the lower Little River area.  Being asked to witness a Will bespeaks a fairly close relationship between these parties, and a position of respect and trust.  Note also that Charles West, presumed brother of William West Jr. and Craven Peyton (brother-in-law) were appointed executors.
  4. 16Oct1765 Order Book Entry – Fielder Gaunt [aka Gantt] against William Atterbury – in case – Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff’s action for ₤9.2.1 and costs.  Defendant committed to custody of the Sheriff to remain in common gaol for debtors until he satisfies the judgment.  Hugh West became security to pay the Clerk’s and Sheriff’s fee.  This was one of the last records to be found for William Atterbury.  In this suit William Atterbury acknowledged a debt in the amount of ₤9.2.1 owed to Fielder Guant [Gantt], for which he was committed to the custody of the Sheriff and jailed until he satisfied his debt.  Bond was posted for William Atterbury by Hugh West [Jr.], son of Hugh West Sr. and Sybil Harrison, who was at that time serving as the King’s Deputy Attorney for Loudoun County.  Fielding Gantt was a Marylander, the youngest son of Dr. Thomas Gantt of Annapolis.  Fielding was reported on the tax rolls of Prince George‘s County in 1758 as a single male above 25 years.  In 1665 Fielding inherited Park Hall from his father’s estate, and begun to amass a huge real estate empire, mostly situated in Frederick County across the Potomac from Loudoun.  He mortgaged most of his properties to raise funding for a partnership with James Hunter of Virginia to establish an iron furnace on his 8,151 (10,481 acres after 1772 resurvey) acre Fielderia grant in Frederick County.  It is not known how William Atterbury came to be indebted to Fielding Gantt, but apparently Gantt was engaged in some sort of commerce or business enterprise in Loudoun, as there were other suits brought by Gantt around this same time against John Wilcoxon, and Michael Murphy.
  5. 1769 – Last Will and Testament of William West Sr.  Even though William Atterbury is believed to have been dead, himself, by 1769, it should be noted that his near neighbor, John Hall and his wife, Betty Hall, along with Robert Hamilton and William Baker were witnesses.  Given the apparent close kindred-ship between the West family and John Hall and William Atterbury, it seems likely that William Atterbury would have witnessed this Will, were he still living.  A full transcript of this Will is attached hereto in Appendix D.
  6. 28May1772 Order Book Entry – The following hands are allotted to work on the road whereof Henry Lander is Surveyor from Bull Run to Little River, vitz. Phineas Skinner’s hands, Charles Pullen’s hands, Charles Sutton’s hands, Nicholas Wyckoff’s hands, Richard Skinner’s hands, Aaron Swort’s hands, William Evan’s hands, John Robert’s hands, Abraham Acburd’s hands, Jacob Bodine’s hands, Richard Reed’s hands, Simon Simonson’s hands, Jacob Falconer, Thomas Clayton, Mary West’s hands, Alexander Beavers and Edward Arterbury.  Although this Road Order was recorded almost six years after the presumed death of William Atterbury Sr., it is included in this discussion of the West family by virtue of Edward Arterbury, the presumed 3rd born son of William Atterbury and Sarah Mitchell was reported in near proximity to Mary [Elzley] West, widow of William West Sr.  From this record it would appear that some members of William Atterbury’s family were still in residence in close geographic proximity to West’s Ordinary, near the intersection of Carolina Road and Mountain Road. Since Edward Atterbury and his mother, Sarah, were reported in the same household in the 1769 tithables, it seems probable that Sarah had been able to retain ownership of at least part of her husband’s land in this area following his death.  By Oct1773 Edward Arterbury [Artherbury] and his brothers, Michael and Charles were recorded in a land record on Little River in Craven County [later Fairfield County], SC.  So, it would appear that sometime within the following year, Edward Arterbury had relocated to South Carolina.  Whether Sarah Atterbury was still alive in May1772 is not known.  It is certain that Edward had attained the age of at least 21 years by 1772.

From the foregoing discussion of connections between the William Atterbury family and the William West family, it would seem that they may have had connections beyond that of having been near neighbors.  The nature of any more personal connection can only be surmised, not proven.  However, the following discussion of Sylvester Gardner may offer some added clues.

Sylvester Gardner

From the foregoing presentation on the “whereabouts of the William Atterbury family” it has already been established that Sylvester Gardner was a near neighbor of both John Hall, William West (both Sr. and Jr.) and William Atterbury in the area south of Little River (see Figure 6-16).  The identity of Sylvester Gardner is not known with any certainty.  However, there are records from both Fairfax County and Loudoun County which suggest that Sylvester Gardner, whoever he may have been, married the widow of William Hall, father of John Hall, such records abstracted as follows:

  1. Northern Neck Land Grants, Vol. 1, 1694-1742, p. 101 (C-34) – 22Feb1729 – Andrew Smarr, Burdett Harrison and Thomas Harrison of Stafford County, 501 acres in Stafford Co., on Pohick Creek adjacent Hancock Lee, Col. Carter on Sandy Run.  Note that John Smarr, son of Andrew Smarr was a near neighbor of Sylvester Gardner, etal.  Also note that a Thomas Harrison was supposedly the husband  of the daughter of Toby West and Cockacoeske. 
  2. Fairfax County Tithable Lists – 1749: Sil Gardner w/ 1 tithable, and William Hall w/ 1 tithable and 2 slaves.  From this 1749 tithable listing from Fairfax County, it would appear that William Hall was still alive, and that Sylvester Gardner was also living within the County.
  3. Fairfax DB C-116-118 29 January 1750 [1751 N.S.], John Smarr, Sylvester Gardener and Mary, his wife, in county of Fairfax and parish of Cameron and William West of same… for 40 pds… sold land in parish of Truro, it being the land and inheritance fallent to the said John Smarr by the death of his Father, Andrew Smarr, being part of a Tract of land taken up by Andrew Smarr, Burdet Harrison and Thomas Harrison and granted by deed to them … bearing date 22nd February 1729…John x Smarr, Sylvester x Gardner, Mary x Gardner Presence of William Robinson, Jer. Hutchison, Benja. Hutchison, Joseph Hutchison, Philip Langfit, JAMES OLDHAM, John x Henwood.  Deed of Feoffment recorded 26th March 1751.  This is one of the earliest records found for Sylvester Gardner.  His wife is identified as Mary, possibly Mary Hall, widow of William Hall.  (more to follow below)  It is interesting to note that the original grant was taken out by Thomas Harrison, Burdit [Burdett] Harrison and Andrew Smarr.  Remember that a Thomas Harrison was supposedly the husband of the daughter of Toby West and Cockacoeske, and that Hugh West Sr. (brother of William West Sr.) married Sybil Harrison, daughter of Thomas Harrison.  [NOTE to Reader: Exploration of Andrew Smarr may shed further light on the identity of Sylvester Gardner.]
  4. Fairfax County Deed Book C, page 348 – Joseph Stevans and Robert Stevans of Fairfax County are bound unto Selvester Gardner of same county in 200 pounds current money of Virginia 13 Jun 1752. Above bound Joseph Stevans has received from said Silvester Gardner all the estate due to John Hall, William Hall, Edwd. Hall, Mary Hall, Susanna Hall, Ann Hall and Joseph Hall … to be paid (those named) when they arrive at proper age being due them from the estate of their father, William Hall dec’d. Witnesses Benja. Grayson, Ebenezer Mors. Bond recorded 21 Jul 1752.  Although this record does not specifically state that Sylvester Gardner had married the widow of William Hall, it is implied that he had somehow come into possession of the estate of William Hall (probably through marriage to the widow), deceased, which was due to the minor children of William Hall, including John Hall.  So, if Sylvester Gardner had married the widow of William Hall, then Sylvester would have been the step-father of John Hall, who purchased land from William Atterbury in Jun1765.  This provides us with a probable direct linkage between Sylvester Gardner and John Hall, and indirectly with William Atterbury, but it does not, by itself, provide any linkage between these parties and William West Sr.  However, there was an earlier record from Fairfax County which provides a linkage between William Hall and William West, abstracted as follows:
  5. Fairfax County Deed Book B, page 137-39: – Indenture 13th Oct 1746 between William Hall of county of Fairfax, planter & William West of same, for 5 shillings old land beginning in the line of Carter where it intersects or crosses the line of William West … north side of the mountain road … to a red oak back of said Halls plantation … to line of William West’s other land which he bought from William Hall some years before.  Mark of William Hall. Witnesses John Middleton, Thos. Owsley, Moses Hall, Thos. Hall, George Robburts. Recorded 21 Oct 1746.  From this 1746 deed we have the recordation of a land sale from William Hall to William West.  Also, contained in this deed abstract was reference to an earlier tract purchased by West from Hall, which abutted this tract.  These tracts were located along the north side of the Mountain Road, which probably puts them in the vicinity of the future West’s Ordinary at Fruit Hill, if not actually having been the land on which William West established his ordinary.  So, while this record does not establish any kinship connection between William Hall and William West, it certainly establishes a close business connection.
  6. 10May1784 – Bk:Pg O:53 – John Hall of Loudoun County to Sylvester Gardner of Loudoun.  Deed of slaves – Mary Gardner (wife of Sylvester, widow of William Hall) dower, slaves: Sarah, Herculus, Frank, Lydia and Suck; slaves Frank and Suck returned to John Hall, others permanently given to Gardner.  Witness: James Leith and Thomas Warman.[32]  This record would appear to provide documentation of a marriage between Sylvester Gardner and Mary (lnu), widow of William Hall.  In this deed record, John Hall appears to have been transferring ownership of several slaves to his mother and step-father.
  7. “Loudoun County Deed Book U, 1792-1793, pages 315-316 –  In a deposition from a Mary Gardner age sixty, she states, “that she was a near neighbor to Mr. William West, Father to the Complainant [Charles West], and was very conversant in the Family and was informed as well by said William West as by Elizabeth Gardner [William West’s wife prior to about 1765] that they were not intermarried to each other until about the year One thousand seven hundred and Forty one or two [1741/2] which was also some short time before the birth of Ann West [wife of Craven Peyton], and about two or three years before the birth of Charles West their son [the Complainant].  And this deponent further saith that William West [Jr.], father of Deft. Cato West and John West, the other defendant with sundry other Children of said Elizabeth Gardner were born before the solemnization of the said marriage between William West and Elizabeth.”  It appears that the Mary Gardner that gave this deposition was a sister or sister-in-law to Elizabeth Gardner whom eventually married William West.”[33]

                Also,

“Bk:Pg, U:315 – Date: 4May1772 [1792?] RcCt: 15Mar1793 – Mary Gardner.  Deposition of Mary Gardner, aged about 60 years, taken in a suit between Charles West, and John West and Cato West.  She was a near neighbor of William West, the father of Charles.  She was told by William West and Elizabeth Gardner that they were not married until 1741/2, which was shortly before the birth of Ann West, and about 2 to 3 years before the birth of Charles West.  John and Cato were born before the marriage.”[34]  These two foregoing extracts/abstracts provide us with the probable kinship linkage between William West, Sylvester Gardner and John Hall.  In this affidavit given by Mary Gardner she identifies the 1st wife of William West as having been Elizabeth Gardner.  The affiant, Mary Gardner, is believed to have been the widow of William Hall and wife of Sylvester Gardner.  Since she gave her age as about 60 years old in 1792 [or was it 1772?], then she would have been born in about 1732 [or perhaps 1712].  She is believed to have been the mother of the seven Hall children named in Item 4, hereinabove, recorded in Jun1752, at which time William Hall was deceased, and his widow, Mary Hall, had already married Sylvester Gardner.  John Hall is believed to have been the eldest son of William and Mary Hall.  On 14May1760 John Hall was chosen as the guardian of his minor sisters: Mary and Susanna Hall, as abstracted in Item 8, herein below.  In order to be appointed a guardian, John Hall would have been at least 21 years old in May1760, giving him a birth year of 1739 or earlier.  This date of birth for her oldest son does not comport with a birth year of 1732 for the mother, Mary Hall.  Consequently, Mary Gardner either was not the mother of John Hall, or she was several years older than she reported in 1792, or the actual date of the affidavit should have been 1772.  The author is inclined to believe that Mary Gardner was born around 1712 and that she was the mother of all seven children named in the deed filing in Jun1752 (Item 4, above).  It should be noted that the abstract of this affidavit as reported by Patricia Duncan in her Index to Loudoun County Land Deed books, gives the actual date of the affidavit as 4May1772, and its recording date as 15Mar1792.  The author is inclined to believe that the affidavit was actually sworn in 1772.  If Mary Gardner were born about 1712, then she would have been about 35 years old when she married Sylvester Gardner, and about 58 years old when she gave her affidavit [assuming it was sworn in 1772 and not 1792].  This brings us to the identity of Elizabeth Gardner, 1st wife of William West.  Some researchers attribute Elizabeth Gardner’s father as having been Sylvester Gardner, who married the widow, Mary Hall.  Again, using the children as a gauge of the probable age of the mother, William West and Elizabeth Gardner are purported to have had at least four children before they married in 1741/2.  William West is believed to have been born about 1709, so it is reasonable to assume that Elizabeth Gardner was his 1st wife, and probably only a few years his junior, giving her a probable birth year of about 1710 to 1715.  Such birth year would comport with their oldest child having been born about 1732 to 1735.  Assuming a birth year of about 1712 for Elizabeth Gardner, she clearly could not have been a daughter of Sylvester Gardner.  If Elizabeth Gardner and Syslvester were kinsmen, it seems more likely that they would have been siblings or cousins.

  1. 14May1760 – Mary HALL orphan of William HALL dec’d made choice of John HALL for her Guardian with William WEST his security and bond.  Susanna HALL orphan of William HALL dec’d made choice of John HALL for her Guardian with William WEST his security and bond.[35]  John Hall probably was at least 21 years old in May1760, in order to have qualified as the guardian of his orphaned sisters.  Since Sylvester Gardner and Mary Hall had been married for more than 8 years in 1760, it is curious that Sylvester Gardner did not apply for guardianship of his wife’s children.  The fact that Mary and Susanna “made the choice” of their brother, suggests that they had each reached the age of consent (12 years or older).  With John Hall having been the eldest son, he would have received a substantial share of his father’s estate upon reaching adulthood, which was valued at about ₤200 in 1752.  John may have married at around this time and may have been in a better position to care for his sisters than were perhaps his mother and step-father.  It is noteworthy that William West went surety on the orphan bonds, a further suggestion of a kinship between William West and Sylvester Gardner (probably Sylvester’s brother-in-law).
  2. 13Mar1770 – Charles WEST appointed Guardian to Cato WEST and Charles WEST the younger orphans of William WEST Junr. deceased with bond of £200 and Thomas LEWIS, Gent. as security.[36]
  3. 12Nov1771 – Charles WEST son and heir at law of William WEST against John WEST and Cato WEST – in chancery – dedimus issued Plaintiff to examine witnesses in this cause de bene esse, and Thomas WEST is by the Court appointed Guardian for the Defendants who are infants.[37]
  4. 29Sep1772 – Charles WEST Guardian of Cato WEST and Charles WEST exhibited an account against his said wards, approved and ordered to be recorded.[38]  The author believes that it was this series of filings relative to the orphans of William West Jr., which triggered the lawsuit by Charles West for which the affidavit of Mary Gardner was sworn.  Clearly, in Item 10 the court gave Charles West permission to “examine witnesses”.  Although the author has not seen the actual filing by Charles West, it would appear that he was challenging any entitlements inuring to the sons of his deceased brother, William West Jr., on the grounds that William West Jr. was an illegitimate heir to the estate of William West Sr., and therefore, William Jr.’s sons’ claims against their grandfather’s estate would also have to be considered illegitimate. 
  1. 16Nov1761 – Archibald CRAWFORD against Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER – in tresp’s ass’t & battery – Hugh WEST in Court undertakes for the Plaintiff that in case the Plaintiff shall be case in this suit he shall pay and satisfy all such damages costs and charges as shall be awarded against him or that Hugh will pay them for him; Defendant saving to himself all advantages of exceptions as well to the Plaintiff’s writ as to his declaration prays and has leave to imparl till the next Court and then to plead.[39]   It should be noted that during the first 20 years after the formation of Loudoun County there were court records for several different persons with the surname of Gardner, but that most of those records pertained to only four individuals: Sylvester Gardner, Jacob Gardner, Joseph Gardner and William Gardner.  Further, note that Sylvester and Jacob Gardner appeared jointly in connection with a few of these records, suggesting that they shared some form of kinship.  Also, note that Joseph Gardner and William Gardner occasionally appeared jointly in a few of these records, but never in joint connection with either Sylvester or Jacob Gardner.  This suggests that Joseph Gardner and William Gardner may have shared some form of kinship connection, but no evidence was found to suggest any connection between William and Joseph Gardner, and Sylvester and Jacob Gardner.  That is not to say that such kinship did not exist, simply that it was not supported by the records.
  2. 12May1762 – Silvester GARDNER for swearing two prophane oaths within two months last past to the knowledge of two of us…  Jacob GARDNER for swearing two oaths within two months last past to the knowledge of two of us.[40]
  3. 15Sep1762 – Ordered that Sylvester GARDNER be appointed Constable in room of William HUTCHISON who is discharged from that office.[41]
  4. 14Jun1763 – Ordered that John HALL be appointed surveyor of the road from Capt. William WEST’s to John KEEN’s Spring in the room of Sylvester GARDNER who is discharged from that office.[42]  This record appears to be appointing John Hall as surveyor of road in place of his step-father, Sylvester Gardner.
  5. 17Jun1763 – Benjamin HUTCHISON an evidence for Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER at the suit of Archibald CRAWFORD having attended Court twenty daies ordered that Sylvester & Jacob pay him 500 lbs. of tobacco for the same. [43]  This joint suit suggests a kinship connection between Sylvester and Jacob Gardner.
  6. 17Jun1763 – John HALL an evidence for Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER at the suit of Archibald CRAWFORD having attended Court twenty daies ordered that Sylvester & Jacob pay him 500 lbs. of tobacco for the same.[44]  The fact that John Hall appeared as a witness in behalf of Sylvester and Jacob Gardner lends further credence to their presumed kinship through marriage.
  7. 17Jun1763 – William HALL an evidence for Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER at the suit of Archibald CRAWFORD having attended Court eighteen daies ordered that Sylvester & Jacob pay him 450 lbs. of tobacco for the same. [45]  William Hall [Jr.] is believed to have been a younger brother of John Hall, and step-son of Sylvester Gardner.  The fact that William Hall appeared as a witness in behalf of Sylvester and Jacob Gardner lends further credence to their presumed kinship through marriage.
  1. 13Sep1763 – Craven PEYTON against John HOLDEN – in case – Sylvester GARDNER of this County came into Court and undertakes for the Defendant that in case he shall be cast in this suit he shall pay and satisfy the condemnation of the Court or render his body to prison in execution for the same or that Sylvester will do it for him. Defendant saving to himself all advantages of exceptions as well to the Plaintiff’s writ as to his declaration prays and has leave to imparl till the next Court and then to plead.[46]
  2. 11Apr1764 – Eleanor GARDNER wife of Silvester GARDNER an evidence for Kitchen PRIM against William WEST having attended Court six daies ordered that Kitchen pay Silvester 150 lbs. of tobacco for the same said Eleanor being discharged by the said Kitchen’s orders.[47]  The identity of this Sylvester Gardner is not known with certainty, but he almost certainly was not the husband of Mary Hall, given his wife’s name recorded as Eleanor.  Given the rarity of the given name of Sylvester, he almost certainly was a kinsman of Sylvester Gardner, who married Mary Hall, possibly a son of Sylvester by an earlier wife, before he married the widow of William Hall.

This concludes our presentation of records and analysis of Sylvester Gardner.  It has been a very illuminating excursus, in deed.  We have established the likelihood that William West and Sylvester Gardner were brothers-in-law, with William West possibly having married Sylvester Gardner’s sister, Elizabeth Gardner.  We have also established that Sylvester Gardner was the step-father of John Hall, the person who witnessed the LWT of William West Jr. along with William Atterbury, and the same person, who entered a bill of sale for property from William Atterbury in 1765.  The ancestry of Sylvester Gardner could not be established with certainty, but he may have descended from the Garner family which was seated just across the Bull Run Mountains in Fauquier County, about 10 miles removed from West’s Ordinary.  In fact, depending on just where the Halls and Gardners were located within the area south of Little River, Sylvester Gardner’s home could have been as close as five miles of the Fauquier County Garners.  In the 1740’s there was a Bradley, John, Thomas and James Garner living in that region.  It is possible that Sylvester and Elizabeth Gardner could have been kinsmen of these Fauquier County Gardners.  This investigation into the William Atterbury family does not warrant the effort needed to establish the precise ancestry of Sylvester Gardner.  Suffice it to say that Sylvester Gardner, William West and John Hall were all interconnected through marriage.  William Atterbury may also have been indirectly interconnected through the marriage of his step-daughter, Elizabeth Yackley with John Riddle Jr., and Zachariah Riddle’s presumed marriage to Sylvester Gardner’s daughter.  One further intermarriage connection to William Atterbury may have existed through the Hall family.

Hall Family

John Hall will be the final leg of our excursus into allied families connected with the William Atterbury family in Loudoun County.  We have already discussed the more direct connections between John Hall and William Atterbury, but in developing this story of the Hall family, we will integrate these previous intersections with other related connections.  As detailed under the discussion of Sylvester Gardner it was discovered that John Hall was the eldest son of William Hall, probably born about 1739 somewhere in Fairfax County.  William Hall is believed to have died sometime between 1749 when he appeared in the Fairfax tithable list and perhaps as early as 29Jan1750-1 when John Smarr, Sylverster Gardener and his wife, Mary Gardener sold a tract of land in Truro Parish to William West.  It seems possible to the author that this Mary Gardner may have been the widow of William Hall.  It is also possible (but not likely) that Sylvester Gardner’s 1st wife may also have been named Mary, and that he coincidentally married another woman named Mary [Hall], following the death of his first wife.  The author is of the opinion that the Mary Gardner in this Jan1750-1 deed was the widow of William Hall, and that William Hall had died sometime in the latter part of 1749.  At a minimum, we can say with some certainty that Sylvester and Mary [Hall] were married sometime before Sylvester Gardner took out a ₤200 bond on the estate of William Hall on 13Jun1752.  In that transaction the orphans of William Hall (deceased) were listed (possibly in chronological order) as: “John Hall, William Hall, Edwd. Hall, Mary Hall, Susanna Hall, Ann Hall and Joseph Hall”.

Before it fades from memory, it might also be suggested that Mary Hall Gardner may have been born a Smarr, sister of John Smarr and daughter of Andrew Smarr.  Such kinship connection might explain the apparent joint ownership of the tract of land conveyed by John Smarr, Sylvester Gardner and Mary Gardner to William West on 29Jan1750-1.  Although the deed abstract only makes reference to “inheritance fallent to the said John Smarr by the death of his Father, Andrew Smarr”, it would appear that Sylvester and Mary Gardner must also have had some legal interest in that tract.  Such interest might also have “fallent” to Mary Smarr Hall as an heir to her father’s property, and by her marriage, also to her husband, Sylvester Gardner.  Such familial connection as brothers-in-law might explain the frequent joint appearance of John Smarr and Sylvester Gardner in Loudoun County records.

And, finally, before launching into the records of the John Hall family, the author will posit yet another kinship hypothesis: John Hall married a daughter of William Atterbury and Sarah Mitchell named Elizabeth [aka Betty] Atterbury.  The name of John Hall’s wife appears twice in the records of Loudoun in which she is identified as Betty Hall; once in 1769 as a witness to the LWT of William West Sr., and again in a land sale record in Jun1782.  It is the author’s belief that Betty Hall very likely was christened Elizabeth Atterbury, as a tribute to the mother’s of both William Atterbury [Elizabeth Young] and Sarah Mitchell [Elizabeth, possibly Riley].  Be advised that the author has found absolutely no direct evidence to support this hypothesis, but as in the case of the posited intermarriage of John Riddle Jr. and Elizabeth Yackley, there will be considerable circumstantial evidence presented.

The records for John Hall are listed in chronological order as follows:

  1. Nov1759 – James ROGERS against John HALL – in tresp’s. – Defendant prays oyer of the writ and declaration and also leave to imparl till the next Court and then to plead which is granted him.[48]  This was the earliest record found for our presumed John Hall in the Loudoun records.  From this record is might be presumed that John Hall was at least 21 years old in Nov1759, giving him an adjusted birth year of about 1737/8.
  1. 14May1760 – Mary HALL orphan of William HALL dec’d made choice of John HALL for her Guardian with William WEST his security and bond.  Susanna HALL orphan of William HALL dec’d made choice of John HALL for her Guardian with William WEST his security and bond.[49]  This record was already introduced under the section on Sylvester Gardner, but it is reintroduced here for its possible relevance to the postulated intermarriage with Elizabeth Atterbury.  It seems probable to the author that the younger sisters of John Hall would not have selected him as their guardian unless there was an adult female presence in his household, as John would have been only 22/3 years old.  Ergo, it seems likely that John Hall was married at the time of this guardianship assignment.  William and Sarah Atterbury are believed to have been married by about 1740/1, and could have had a daughter named Elizabeth born in about 1741/2, who could have married John Hall in about 1759.
  2. 11Nov1760 – Indenture of feofment between Thomas HAIL [possibly Hill] and William WEST and memorandum of livery of seisin proved by witnesses Joseph HUTCHISON, Benjamin HUTCHISON and John HALL and ordered to be recorded.[50]  From this record it can be established that John Hall had a close living proximity to members of the Hutchison family.  This association was established 10 years earlier in the 29Jan1750-1 land sale by John Smarr and Sylvester and Mary Gardner, which was witnessed by Joseph and Benjamin Hutchison.  Also, note that Thomas Hail [probably Hill] appeared in other records directly involving William Atterbury, including the “bill of sale” of William’s property to John Hall in 1765.
  3. 8Sep1761 – Churchwardens of Cameron Parish bind out John Winn HAYS being three years old the first day of May last past to John HALL.[51]  In addition to the responsibility of his two sisters, John Hall took on the added responsibility of another (presumably unrelated) ward.  Apparently John Winn Hays was the bastard child of Ann Hays as evidenced by the following record:

“Ann HAYS for having a base born child within six months last past. 9May1758, Order Book A, Duncan,  p. 32.”  The child’s christened name of “John Winn” might suggest that John Winn was the father.  Such connection was also attested by Ann Hays as follows:

“Ann HAYS being presented by the Grand Jury for having a base born child came before the court to answer the same and declared that John WINN is the father of said child.”[52]

  1. 10Sep1761 – James Ingoe DOZER against James GOULDING – in case – jury: John TRAMMELL, John SHEPHERD, Joseph HUTCHISON, Hugh CALDWELL, James SAUNDERS, Charles CHELTON, George CHELTON, John HALL, Henry TAYLOR, Thomas LEWIS, John ELLIOTT and Abraham WEAVER; find the Defendant…[53]  This was the first of many records over the next decade in which John Hall served as a petit or grand juror.
  2. 11Nov1761 – Sheriff having returned a panel of the Grand Jury: Vincent LEWIS, John CARLYLE, Thomas OWSLEY, Benjamin MASON, Joshua GORE Junr., Jacob REMEY, Henry WISHEART, Thomas SORRELL, John MOSS, Henry MOORE, Henry TAYLOR, Owen ROBERTS, John HALL, John SMARR, Elijah CHINN, Thomas CONNELL, Francis SUMMERS, George HEADEN, and William TRAMELL Freeholders of the County of Loudoun to serve as a Grand Jury…[54]  Just one of many instances where John Hall and John Smarr served jointly on juries.  If the author’s assumed kinship between John Smarr and Mary Hall Gardner is correct, John Smarr would have been John Hall’s uncle.
  3. 12Nov1761 – John HALL Guardian of Susanna HALL and Mary HALL having been duly summoned to render accounts of the profits of their estate to the Court and failing to do the same, ordered that an attachment issue against him for his contempt returnable here at the next Court.[55]
  4. 13Aug1762 – John HALL Guardian of Mary HALL and Jemima [Susanna?] HALL is discharged from rendering any further account of their estates to this Court.[56]
  5. 15Dec1762 – John ORR against Moses HALL otherwise called Moses HALL of Loudoun County – in debt – Defendant being arrested and not appearing; ordered that unless the Defendant shall appear here at the next Court and answer the Plaintiff’s action judgment shall then be given for the Plaintiff against Defendant and John HALL who is returned security for his appearance for the debt in the declaration and costs.[57]  There were several records found for Moses Hall in Loudoun County.  Moses may have been John Hall’s uncle.
  6. 13Apr1763 – Last will and testament of William WEST Junr. dec’d proved by witnesses William WEST and John HALL [and William Atterbury] and ordered to be recorded.  Craven PEYTON and Charles WEST the executors named refusing to take upon themselves the burthern of the execution thereof. On motion of Mary WEST widow and relict of the decendent who refused to accept of the provision made for her in the will having performed what the law requires certificate is granted her for obtaining Letters of Administration with the will annexed in due form. Benjamin HUTCHISON, Charles TYLER, Gt., John HALL and Simon REEDY to appraise estate.[58]  This was the first record found which directly linked John Hall and William Atterbury.  This is one of the primary records which the author believes to demonstrate a strong linkage between William Atterbury and John Hall, possibly as father-in-law and son-in-law.
  7. 14Jun1763 – Ordered that John HALL be appointed surveyor of the road from Capt. William WEST’s to John KEEN’s Spring in the room of Sylvester GARDNER who is discharged from that office.[59]  This record has already been referenced earlier and was used to establish the more narrowly defined geographic area of residency for John Hall, Sylvester Gardner and William Atterbury.  John Hall replaced his step-father as surveyor of road in their immediate neighborhood.
  8. 17Jun1763 – John ORR against Peter CHAPMAN – in debt – Defendant being arrested and not appearing; ordered that unless the Defendant shall appear here at the next Court and answer the Plaintiff’s action judgment shall then be given for the Plaintiff against Defendant and John HALL and Charles WEST who are returned securities for his appearance for the debt in the declaration and costs.[60]  This record further illustrates the close familial and business connections between John Hall and the West family.  This Charles West is believed to have been a younger son of William West Sr. and Elizabeth Gardner, born after their 1741/2 marriage, the same Charles West, and who legally challenged the legitimacy of his older siblings’ and nephews’ claims upon the estate of William West Sr.
  9. 17Jun1763 – John HALL an evidence for Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER at the suit of Archibald CRAWFORD having attended Court twenty daies ordered that Sylvester & Jacob pay him 500 lbs. of tobacco for the same.  William HALL an evidence for Sylvester GARDNER and Jacob GARDNER at the suit of Archibald CRAWFORD having attended Court eighteen daies ordered that Sylvester & Jacob pay him 450 lbs. of tobacco for the same.[61]  John Hall and William Hall Jr. testified on behalf of their step-father, Sylvester Gardner.  The identity of Jacob Gardner is unknown to the author, but very likely was a brother or son of Sylvester Gardner.
  10. 14Mar1765 – Ordered that John HALL be appointed Constable from the Little River to Cub Run the Ox road and the County Line.[62]  Constable was a position of lesser authority, which supported the County court system by serving warrants, etc.
  11. 13May1765 – Bill of Sale from William ATTERBERY to John HALL proved by witness Thomas HILL and ordered to be recorded.[63]  This same event was abstracted in the Loudoun County Land Deed Books, by Patricia B. Duncan as follows:

“Bk:Pg: D:440, Date 24Apr1764, RcCt: 13May1765: William Artobery/Atterbary of Loudoun County to John Hall of Loudoun County.  Bill of Sale of farm and household items.  14 acre wheat field.  Witness James Leith and Thomas Hill [aka Hail].  This was a bill of sale between William Atterbury and John Hall which was secured by both the real and personal property of William Atterbury, including a 14 acre field of wheat.  First, it should be recognized that “bills of sale” were not in very common usage in colonial Virginia.  For example, in Loudoun County Order Book A, which spanned almost five years from 1757 to 1762 there were only nine bills of sale recorded.  Similarly, there were only 19 recorded in Order Book B, which spanned three years between 1762 and 1765.  Next, it should be understood that “bills of sale” were not intended as an instrument of title transfer (not a deed), but principally as a form of mortgage.  Under a bill of sale the mortgagee was typically permitted to retain possession and usage of the mortgaged property, much in the same manner as a modern-day real estate mortgage.  Eight of the 19 bills of sale recorded in Book B were held by two separate business entities: Hunter Campbell and Company (2), and James Lane and Company (6). 

Bills of sale had a somewhat tarnished history during colonial times, as they were occasionally used to commit fraud.  They could be a means of concealing indebtedness from prospective lenders.  They could also be used to transfer entitlement (not outright title), thereby protecting assets that might otherwise be attached.  In the case of this bill of sale between William Atterbury and John Hall, it is not possible to infer any specific motive other than perhaps as a means of securing a debt, although no monetary value was recorded in the record abstract.  Determination of any attendant monetary consideration will require a review of the original instrument, which may be on file in Loudoun County Clerk’s Office.  John Hall was not recorded anywhere else in the Loudoun records to have entered into a bill of sale, nor was anything found in the record to suggest that William Atterbury owed any financial obligation to John Hall.  Like William Atterbury, John Hall did occasionally provide security in a lawsuit, but usually only to someone known to be a kinsman, i.e., Sylvester and Jacob Gardner.  So, all things considered, the author is inclined to place a special significance on the fact that John Hall accepted a bill of sale from William Atterbury.  This would appear to have been a particularly personal act, one which might be expected between a father-in-law and son-in-law.

  1. 12May1766 – Reubin SUTTLE appointed Constable in the room of John HALL who is discharged from that office.[64]
  2. 11Aug1766 – Indentures of lease and release between William WEST & wife Mary and James HUNTER and Craven PEYTON proved by witnesses John HALL, Charles WEST and Thomas WEST and ordered to be recorded.[65]  This James Hunter may well have been the same James Hunter that went into partnership with Fielding Gantt in the Iron Forge in Frederick County Maryland.  The specific nature of this real estate transaction in unknown to the author, but suggests that Craven Peyton (William West’s son-in-law) may also have had business dealings with James Hunter.
  3. 9Dec1768 – Thomas HILL appointed Constable in the precinct whereof John HALL was lately Constable and now discharged from that office.[66]  Clearly, Thomas Hill was of near equal socio-economic standing and near neighbor with John Hall.
  4. 14Nov1769 – Last will and testament of William WEST deceased proved by witnesses Robert HAMILTON, John HALL [and Betty Hall], and ordered to be recorded. Certificate granted Craven PEYTON, Gent. and Charles WEST named Executors with Leven POWELL, Gent. and William BAKER their securities and £1,500 bond. Liberty is reserved to the widow and Executrix to qualify as such at any time where to her it shall seem convenient. Thomas LEWIS, Elijah CHINN, Gent., Anthony RUSSELL, Thomas OWSLEY, and Jonathan DAVIS to appraise estate.[67]  Refer to Appendix D for a transcription of William West’s LWT.
  5. 13Aug1770 – Upon petition of sundry the inhabitants praying for a road to be cleared from the Loudoun line, in the great mountain road that leads from WEST’s Ordinary to SNICKERS’s; ordered that Jacob REED, John SMARR, John HALL and Silvester GARNER view the way petitioned for and report to the Court.[68]  Just one of several road orders involving John Hall.
  6. 9Sep1771 – Rosanna MONROE came into Court and chose John HALL for her Guardian entering bond with security. Griffith PEARCE the former Guardian is discharged and ordered to deliver the estate of the ward to the present Guardian.[69]  There is no known kinship connection between Rosanna Monroe and John Hall.  It seems possible that Rosanna Monroe was the orphaned daughter of George Monroe, who was deceased by May1769, when the following court filings appeared:
    1. 14Jun1769 – Phillis MONROE widow and relict of George MONROE deceased renounced all benefit that might accrue to her by and under the will of her deceased husband and claims her right thereto according to law.
    1. 11Oct1769 – Upon motion of William ALLEN, ordered that Amos THOMPSON Clerk [cleric or minister] be summoned to appear here at the next Court to answer the complaint relative to some children of George MONROE lately deceased now in his possession.
    1. 14Nov1769 – William ALLEN against Amos THOMPSON – upon a complaint concerning some orphan children of George MONROE deceased – opinion of the Court that the Defendant as the testamentary Guardian of the decedent out to have the care and tuition of the children, and order the complaint to be dismissed.
    1. 11Dec1770 – Upon motion of Amos THOMPSON testamonsary Guardian of Rosanna MONROE, ordered that she be removed and THOMPSON discharged from that trust.
    1. 14Jan1771 – Griffith PEARCE appointed Guardian to Rosanna MONROE with Josias CLAPHAM, Gent. his security and £200 bond.
  7. 10Jun1782 – Indenture of lease and release from John HALL & wife Betty to Joseph LACEY acknowledged and wife privily examined and relinquished her right of dower and ordered to be recorded.[70]  This was the second record found with the name of John Hall’s wife, Betty [Elizabeth] Hall, first having been as a witness to the LWT of William West Sr. in 1769.
  8. 10May1784 – Bk:Pg O:53 – John Hall of Loudoun County to Sylvester Gardner of Loudoun.  Deed of slaves – Mary Gardner (wife of Sylvester, widow of William Hall) dower, slaves: Sarah, Herculus, Frank, Lydia and Suck; slaves Frank and Suck returned to John Hall, others permanently given to Gardner.  Witness: James Leith and Thomas Warman.[71]  This record would appear to provide documentation of a marriage between Sylvester Gardner and Mary (lnu), widow of William Hall.  In this deed record, John Hall appears to have been transferring ownership of several slaves to his mother and step-father.
  9. 10May1784 – John Hall’s property to be added to the list of John Tyler, Gentleman, vitz., himself, Negroes Rose (over 16), Mimey, Nancy, Daniel, Gin, Ben, and Famey [Fanny?] (under 16), 7 horses and 6 cattle.[72]  There was no reference to any male children in John Hall’s household.  Either he and Betty had no sons, or they were already adults and living outside his household.  No tithable sons of John Hall appeared in any of the tithable records.
  10. 11Jun1794 – Loudoun Justices for the benefit of Stacy & Sarah DIAL against Joseph STEPHENS, William SUTHARD [later returned as SUDDOTH], Rich’d STEPHENS, John HALL & John SMARR – in debt – Isaac LAROWE came into Court and undertook for the Defendant Joseph in case he be convict in the action aforesaid he shall satisfy and pay the condemnation of the Court or render his body to prison in execution for the same or on failure thereof that Isaac will do it for him.[73]  There was almost a 10-year gap from the previous court record associated with John Hall.  He would have been about 57 years old in 1794, certainly still of an age to serve on commissions and juries, yet there were no records of such appointments after the end of the Revolutionary War.  FYI: A person named Joseph Stevans [sic?] was the receiver of the estate of William Hall from Sylvester Gardner in Jun1752.  Whether there may have been a connection between this lawsuit and the estate if William Hall is unknown to the author, but possible.  The fact that John Hall and John Smarr were still appearing together in court records in 1794 lends support to the author’s belief that John Smarr was John Hall’s uncle.

In addition to the foregoing Order Book entries, there were also several relevant land deed records involving John Hall abstracted as follows:

  • 4Apr1760 – Book B, Page 50: Thomas Hail [aka Hill] (eldest son of William Hail, deceased) of Chester, PA to William West of Loudoun, ___ acres inherited from his father who left no will.  Witnesses: William West Jr., Thomas Botts, Joanna Grinage, Joseph Hutchison, Benjamin Hutchison, Aaron Botts and John Hall.[74]  This transaction involved the purchase of a tract of land by William West Sr. from Thomas Hill, eldest son of William Hill of Chester County, PA, deceased.  It is interesting to note the inordinate number of witnesses to this transaction (seven in all), including William’s eldest son, William West Jr., Joseph and Benjamin Hutchison, and John Hall.  Does this suggest some sort of religious connection between these parties?
  • 14Apr1764 – Book D, Page 440: William Artobery/Atterbary of Loudoun County to John Hall of Loudoun, bill of sale of farm and household items, 14-acres wheat field.  Witnesses: James Leith and Thomas Hill.[75]  This bill of sale has already been adequately analyzed.  It is interesting to note that Thomas Hill was a witness.
  • 8Aug1766 – Book E, Pages 110-12: William West and wife, Mary of Loudoun to James Hunter of King George County and Craven Peyton of Loudoun, Lease and Release of 644 acres on Bull Run and Little River, adjacent John Evans, William Owsley and John Walker.  Witnesses: John Hall, Charles West and Thomas West.[76]  Already presented above, but included herewith for chronology of John Hall’s associated land records.
  • 2Sep1769 – Book G, Page 240: William West of Loudoun County to Benjamin Hutchison, John Smarr, John Shippey and William Berkley as Trustees of the public good; bill of sale of 1/2 acre lot at forks of roads leading to William’s Gap in the Blue Ridge and to Leesburg, with Baptist Meeting House on lot.  Witnesses: Joseph Hutchison, John Lewis, Ambrose Fox, John Haddocks, John Hall and Richard Major.[77]  This is a particularly important record, as it appears to provide a window into the possible religious affiliations that may have interconnected several of the parties being discussed herein, in addition to their possible kinship connections.  It is interesting to note that this land transfer was executed just months before the probable death of William West Sr. (his LWT was dated Jun1769, probated Dec1769).  Perhaps William West was in failing health and anticipated his imminent death.  Equally important in this document is the specified location of a Baptist Meeting House at the intersection of Mountain Road (road leading to William’s Gap) and the Carolina Road (road leading to Leesburg) within close proximity to West’s Ordinary; and the fact that the church trustees are identified as including Benjamin Hutchison, John Smarr, John Shippey and William Berkley.  The fact that Joseph Hutchison and John Hall witnessed this transaction also suggests that they probably were affiliated with this Baptist Church.  Although William Atterbury is believed to have died about three years before this transaction, it is the author’s belief that the Atterbury family were also affiliated with the Baptist Church, and that that affiliation may have attributed to the migration of William’s sons to Chester County SC in the 1770’s. (more on that migration in the next chapter)
  • 21Jan1772 – Book H, Page 471:  Samuel Wycoff and wife, Charity, of Loudoun County to John Hall of Loudoun, lease and release of 30 acres adjacent George Dowdle.[78]  This was the first record found in which John Hall actually acquired land. 
  • 2Mar1772 – Book H, Page 474: Samuel Wycoff and wife, Charity of Camden Parish, to John Lewis and Joseph Hutchison as Trustees of the Anabaptists of Camden Parish; bill of sale of 1 acre, part of tract where Samuel now lives on the main road opposite Joseph Hutchison’s plantation.  Witnesses: William Barkley [Berkley], John Metcalfe, William Hutchison and Edward Turner.[79]  Although John Hall was not specifically identified in this land record, it has been included because of the connection with Samuel and Charity Wycoff, from whom John Hall purchased the 30-acre tract in the preceding record.  In this record we have trustees of the Anabaptist Church (John Lewis and Joseph Hutchison) acquiring another church site, this site having been on the “Main Road” opposite Joseph Hutchison’s plantation.  This transaction, when coupled with the preceding record (Item 27, above) clearly establishes the strong presence of the Baptist Church in the west Loudoun County region, in the same neighborhood with the Atterbury family members.
  • 1Jan1774 – Book K, Page 2:  Samuel Butcher of Shelborne Parish to Charles Morris of Camden Parish, lease for 21-years of 204 acres where Morris now lives adjacent Robert Bland.  Witnesses: John Hall, John Morris and George Riddle.[80]  This was the first record found in Loudoun County connecting John Hall with a member of the Riddle family.  George Riddle is believed to have been a younger brother of John Riddle Jr., who purchased Prince Spring Plantation from William Atterbury, and the presumed husband of Elizabeth Yackley, step-daughter of William Atterbury.  Now we have John Hall, a well-documented near neighbor of William Atterbury, as a joint witness on a deed with George Riddle, a presumed Atterbury kinsman.
  • 14Mar1774 – Book K, Page 4:  Samuel Butcher of Shelborne Parish to George Riddle of Camden Parish, lease for 21-years of 198 acres on branches of Salisbury Plain Run.  Witnesses: George Summers, John Gist and Francis Keen.[81]  In this transaction we have George Riddle, presumed kinsman of the Atterburys, leasing a tract of land in the near vicinity of Keen’s Spring and Broad Run.
  • 6Apr1774 – Book K, Page 197:  Charles Morris of Camden Parish to John Hall of Camden Parish.  Witnesses: Jeremiah Hutchison, Lewis Hutchison, George Riddle, and Nimrod Morris.[82]  In this transaction John Hall is acquiring an additional tract of land of unspecified size.  Note the Hutchison witnesses, and particularly George Riddle.  By the date of this transaction there were already recordings in Chester County SC establishing the fact that Michael Atterbury, Edward Atterbury and Charles Atterbury had already migrated out of Loudoun County to South Carolina.  Yet we still appear to have affiliations between John Hall and a presumed Atterbury kinsman.  The joint appearance of George Riddle with John Hall and the Hutchisons may suggest that George Riddle was also affiliated with the local Baptist Church.
  • 8Dec1778 – Book M, Page 193: Charles West of Loudoun to John Moore of Loudoun; bill of sale of 465 acres adjacent John Hall.  Witnesses: John Tyler, Nathaniel Skinner and Jacob Moore.[83]  This record was included to demonstrate the close geographic proximity of John Hall to Charles West, the son of William West Sr.
  • 7Jun1782 – Book N, Page 298: John Hall and wife, Betty, of Loudoun to Joseph Lacey of Loudoun, lease and release of 202-1/2 acres adjacent John Smarr and George Dowdle.[84]  Although there are more land records associated with John Hall, this will be the last to be presented in this discussion of the Hall family.  It is an important record since it demonstrates that John Hall had significant land holdings in Loudoun, that his wife was named Betty, and that this tract was abutting John Smarr, the probable uncle of John Hall.  It should be noted that this was not the first record for Betty Hall.  Betty was a joint witness to the LWT of William West Sr., along with her husband, John Hall, Robert Hamilton and William Baker.
  1. 13Apr1802 – Deed between Adam HOUSHOLDER and John HALL acknowledged and ordered to be recorded. (two entries).  Deed of mortgage between John HALL and Adam HOUSHOLDER acknowledged and ordered to be recorded.[85]  This was the final record of any type found for John Hall in Loudoun County Court Orders.  The records accessible to the author ended in Dec1803.  There was no mention of John’s wife, Betty, in this deed, suggesting that she may have died sometime between 1782 and 1802.

This completes the presentation of documents pertaining to John Hall.  From these records we have established several important connections summarized as follows:

  1. John Hall was the eldest son of William Hall and Mary, and that he had six siblings: William Jr., Edward, Mary, Susanna, and Joseph.
  2. William Hall died in about Oct1749, and his widow, Mary Hall, married Sylvester Gardner sometime before Jan1750 [O.S.].
  3. Mary Hall very likely was the daughter of Andrew Smarr and sister of John Smarr, as Mary and Sylvester Gardner and John Smarr sold a tract of land in Truro Parish on Pohick Creek inherited from Andrew Smarr to William West Sr.
  4. William West’s 1st wife was named Elizabeth Gardner, very likely a sister of Sylvester Gardner, and that they had at least four children before they were married in about 1741/2, after which they had additional children, including Charles West.  Elizabeth Gardner West died in about 1765 and William then married his 2nd wife, Mary Ellsey.
  5. John Hall was awarded guardianship of his sisters: Mary Hall and Susanna Hall in May1760.  He was also awarded guardianship of John Winn Hays (bastard child of Ann Hays) in Sep1761, and Rosanna Monroe (orphan daughter of George Monroe) in Sep1771.
  6. John Hall was married to a woman named Betty by Jun1769, whom the author believes was Elizabeth Atterbury, daughter of William Atterbury and Sarah Mitchell.  There is no evidence in the record that John and Betty Hall had any children.
  7. From an early age (about 24 years old) John Hall was appointed to several mid-level civic positions, including petit juror, grand juror, surveyor of roads, and constable.
  8. John Hall appeared frequently in court records in conjunction with members of the West family, the Hutchisons, John Smarr, Sylvester Gardner and William Atterbury.
  9. John Hall probably inherited land and slaves from his father’s estate.  It may have been part of that inheritance that was involved in the slave transfer from John Hall to Sylvester and Mary Gardner in May1784.
  10. John Hall and his uncle, John Smarr appear to have been members of the Baptist Church established in the vicinity of West’s Ordinary sometime prior to 1769, and that they maintained a close relationship with members of the Hutchison family, who are credited with establishing that church.

This completes the presentation of allied families connected with William Atterbury in Loudoun County.  Following will be a presentation of the remaining records associated with the William Atterbury family in Loudoun County and a discussion of the events leading up to William’s presumed death in 1766.

  1. 11Jun1760 Order Book Entry – William Atterbury an evidence for Robert Wood at the suit of Craven Peyton, having attended Court one day ordered that Wood pay him 25 lbs. of tobacco for the same.[86]  William Atterbury appeared as a witness on behalf of Robert Wood in a suit against Craven Peyton, the same person who had received a judgment against William in an earlier Court.  This Court would have been convened at Leesburg, the seat of Loudoun County.  The fact that William Atterbury was not awarded any payment for travel suggests that he lived within a relatively close distance to Leesburg.  The Court found in favor of Robert Wood, and Craven Peyton was ordered to pay his expenses.
  2. 12Mar1762 Order Book Entry – William Atterberry an evidence for Samuel Winn at the suit of Jacob Gardner having attended Court five days ordered that Samuel Winn pay him 125 lbs. of tobacco for same.  This was the second record in which William Atterbury appeared as a witness at Court, in this instance for five days duration.  William’s testimony was in support of Samuel Winn in a suit brought by Jacob Gardner over a debt of 520 lbs. tobacco.  The identity of Samuel Winn is not known with certainty, but it seems highly probable that he was a son of Minor Winn and Elizabeth Withers, and brother of John Winn, the father of the bastard child, John Winn Hays, son of Ann Hays.  There is probably no connection with the Atterburys, but Minor Winn’s brothers, John, Richard and William all migrated to Craven County, SC in the 1760’s.  This Winn family’s seat was just across the Bull Run Mountains in Fauquier County.  Jacob Gardner appeared as a codefendant with Sylvester Gardner in a suit brought in 1763 by Archibald Crawford, in which John Hall was paid 500 pounds of tobacco for 20 days as a witness (25 pounds per day).  It seems probable, because of that connection and others, that Jacob Gardner and Sylvester Gardner were kinsmen, possibly brothers.
  3. 12Aug1762 Order Book Judgment Entry – Leven Powell assignee of Francis Dade against James Rogers – in debt – Defendent being arrested and not appearing; ordered that unless the Defendant shall appear here at the next Court and answer the Plaintiff’s action judgment shall then be given for the Plaintiff against Defendant and William Atterberry and John Morris who is returned securities for his appearance for the debt in the declaration and costs.[87]

William Atterbury and John Morris jointly posted security to insure the appearance of James Rogers.

  1. 11Apr1764 Order Book Judgment Entry – Leven Powell assignee of Francis Dade against James Rogers – in debt – Defendant not appearing; considered that Plaintiff recover against Defendant and William Atterberry and John Morris, who was returned security for the appearance of said Defendant ₤20 the debt in the declaration and costs.  But this judgment to be discharged by payment of ₤10 with 5% interest from 31May1762 and costs.[88]  This item is a continuation of Item 3, above.  It appears that James Rogers failed to appear, and that William Atterbury and John Morris may have forfeited their bond.  In separate actions on 12Jun1761 James Rogers brought suit for trespass against Samuel Winn and John Hall.  Both defendants pled their innocence and were later adjudged not guilty of the charges.  In Dec1761 James Rogers was ordered confined in the “stocks” for a period of four minutes for committing a “misbehaviour”.  In the trespass suit by James Rogers against Samuel Winn the following gave testimony: Elizabeth Morris (wife of Charles Morris), Mary Morris (wife of John Morris), and Susanna Capes evidence for Samuel Winn; and Jacob Gardner and Benjamin Chandler evidence for James Rogers.  In a separate filing on 1Jun1762 Mary Rogers (wife of James Rogers) and Margaret Walker were arraigned on charges of theft of personal property from the home of Clator Smith, bond of ₤50 to be posted for Mary Rogers by her husband, James Rogers.  In a separate suit filed on 12Aug1762 James Rogers accused John Morris of trespass, assault and battery.  10Nov1762 James Rogers and Jacob Gardner posted bond for Mary Rogers re: alleged burglary and theft.  14Sep James Rogers gave “bill of sale” to John Winn.  13Sep1764 James Rogers gave “bill of sale” to James and William Carr Lane, Merchants.  NOTE:  If the reader can make any sense of these filings and counter-filings, good luck!
  2. 10Apr1765 Order Book Judgment Entry – Upon petition of William Winn assignee of John Shirley against William Atterbury for a debt due by a note of hand; Defendant failed to appear; Plaintiff to recover against Defendant ₤2.5.0 and costs.[89]

William Atterbury was sued for default of a personal note, and failed to appear at Court to answer the charge.  The author was unable to establish the identity of John Shirley.  No one with the surname of Shirley was found to be living in Loudoun County in this decade.  The assignee, William Winn, may have been a brother of John and Samuel Winn, presumed sons of Minor Winn Jr.  Aside from its evidence of further indebtedness of William Atterbury, nothing further was gleaned from this record.  It would appear that William Atterbury must have satisfied this debt, as no further filings were found re: this suit.  It does seem possible that it may have been this debt that prompted William Atterbury’s “bill of sale” to John Hall the following month.

  1. 12Aug1765 Order Book Entry – Messrs. James Lowes, James Lane and William Carr Lane, Merchant’s against William Atterberry – in debt – Defendant being ruled to find Special Bail and failing to do, Defendant is committed to the common gaol and ordered that judgment be entered for the Plaintiffs against Defendant for the debt in the declaration and costs unless the Defendant shall give bail and plead to issue at the next Court.[90]

William Atterbury’s financial woes seem to be continuing to mount with yet another suit for unpaid debts to a Merchant.  This time he faced possible incarceration unless he could post the required bail.

  1. 11Sep1765 Order Book Entry – Messrs. James Lowes, James Lane and William Carr Lane, Merchant’s against William Atterbary otherwise called William Atterbury of Loudoun County – in debt – Defendant acknowledged action of Plaintiff, Plaintiff to recover against Defendant ₤21 the debt in the declaration and costs.  But this judgment to be discharged by the payment of ₤10.1.9 with 5% interest from 1May1765 and costs.[91]

This was a continuation of the suit entered above.  Apparently William Atterbury appeared at Court and acknowledged debt.  Debt origination seems to have been from 1May1765, and the Lane brothers filed suit in Sep1765, suggesting a note of a very short term.

  1. Oct1765, Recorded 15Oct1765 William Atterbury of Loudoun County sold to James and William Carr Lane and Company.  BoS of plantation and crops.  Wit.: Simon Triplett, John Tyler.

This was the second of only two records found for land sales involving land owned by William Atterbury in Loudoun County.  James Lane and William Carr Lane, Merchants, appeared together on many land and estate records in Loudoun County.  James and William are believed to have been brothers, William having been a medical doctor and James having achieved the rank of major in the Loudoun County militia.  They were born in Westmoreland County, Virginia to William Lane and Martha Carr.  This record does not indicate the size of the tract being mortgaged by William Atterbury, but from the full description of this bill of sale, it was indicated to have been the land upon which William Atterbury lived.  This transaction is believed to have been a mortgage rather than an outright sale, and was probably executed as security for the judgment against William Atterbury for debt owed to James and William Carr Lane, amounting to ₤10.1.9 with 5% interest from 1May1765.

  1. 16Oct1765 Order Book Entry – Fielder Gaunt [Gantt] against William Atterbury – in case – Defendant acknowledged Plaintiff’s action for ₤9.2.1 and costs.  Defendant committed to custody of the Sheriff to remain in common gaol for debtors until he satisfies the judgment.  Hugh West became security to pay the Clerk’s and Sheriff’s fee.[92]

Again William Atterbury faced incarceration for non-payment of a debt, this time owed to Fielder Gaunt.  It appears that he was able to post bond and avoid going to jail.  This was another instance of William Atterbury’s involvement with a member of the West family.  In 1762 William Atterbury witnessed the LWT of William West.  Hugh West Jr. was the nephew of William West, operator of West’s Ordinary.

  1. 28May1772 Order Book Entry – The following hands are allotted to work on the road whereof Henry Lander is Surveyor from Bull Run to Little River, vitz. Phineas Skinner’s hands, Charles Pullen’s hands, Charles Sutton’s hands, Nicholas Wyckoff’s hands, Richard Skinner’s hands, Aaron Swort’s hands, William Evan’s hands, John Robert’s hands, Abraham Acburd’s hands, Jacob Bodine’s hands, Richard Reed’s hands, Simon Simonson’s hands, Jacob Falconer, Thomas Clayton, Mary West’s [widow of William West Sr.] hands, Alexander Beavers and Edward Arterbury.[93]

Edward Arterbury first appeared in the records of Loudoun County as a tithable in his mother’s (Sarah Atterbury) household in 1769.  It is significant that he was ordered to appear on this Road Order as it denotes that he had reached adulthood.  By Sep1772 Michael Atterbury recorded a plat map for 300 acres on Little River, Camden District, South Carolina.  In Oct1773 Charles Atterbury also filed a plat map on Little River in Camden District, with Edward Atterbury and Michael Atterbury shown as adjacent land owners.  Presumably Edward had migrated from Loudoun County to South Carolina sometime between May1772 and Oct1773. The fact that Mary West’s hands (widow of William West Sr.) were also ordered to participate, clearly places this route somewhere in the vicinity of the Carolina Road/Mountain Road intersection.

  1. 17Sep1773 Order Book Entry – Simon Triplett, Gentleman against William Atterberry – in case – suit is discontinued being agreed by the parties.[94]

This suit almost certainly was for William Atterbury Jr., as there is good reason to believe that his father had died sometime between 1766 and 1769.  William Atterbury Jr. first appeared in records in Loudoun County as a tithable in 1767 living in the household of Charles Morehead [Muirheid], possibly as an adult of 21 years or more and probably working as a hired farmhand.  The William Morehead family is believed to have migrated to Loudoun County from New Jersey in the 1750’s.  Following is the earliest record found for William Muirhead [aka Muirhied], believed to have been the original Muirheid immigrant to Loudoun County.

  1. 13May1765 – Ordered that William MUIRHEAD be appointed surveyor of the road from where the Ox Road crosses the ford of Broad Run to John HOUGH’s Mill in the room of James WHALEY who is discharged from that office.[95]

From the foregoing record it would appear that the Moreheads lived below Goose Creek about five miles east of where the Atterburys are believed to have lived.  John Hough’s Mill is believed to have been on Goose Creek just below Leesburg.[96]  William Atterbury Jr. also appeared in the tithable lists in 1770 thru 1773 in near proximity to John Hall, Sylvester Gardner and John Smarr, etal., suggesting that he had relocated back into the same neighborhood previously occupied by William Atterbury Sr., possibly even upon his father’s old homestead.  In 1771 thru 1773 William Atterbury [Jr.] was reported on Simon Triplett’s tithable lists, suggesting that they were near neighbors.  Simon Triplett is believed to have been the son-in-law of either James Lane or William Carr Lane, the same parties to whom William Atterbury Sr. had been indebted.

  1. 15Apr1774 Order Book Entry – Leven Powell and Peyton Harrison against William Arterberry – in debt – Defendant failed to appear, Plaintiff to recover against Defendant ₤12.16.2 their debt in the declaration and costs.  Judgment to be discharged by payment of ₤6.8.1 with 5% interest from 11May1772 and costs.[97]  This suit almost certainly was against William Atterbury Jr.
  2. 15Apr1774 Order Book Entry – James Lane and Simon Triplett, Executors of William Carr Lane, deceased against William Arterberry – in debt – suit is discontinued being agreed by the parties.[98]  This debt appears to have been part of the estate of William Carr Lane, whose LWT was entered for probate on 10Dec1770.  William Atterbury Jr. did appear as a tithable in 1767, so it is conceivable that he is the party named in this suit.  However, there was no previous court record found for a William Atterbury indebted to William Carr Lane, other than the entry dated 11Sep1765 (Item 7, above), presumed to have been for William Atterbury Sr.  Consequently, it seems possible that this suit involved a residual of the earlier suit attributed to William Atterbury Sr.  The fact that this claim was discontinued “being agreed by the parties”, suggests that the executors of William Carr Lane‘s estate agreed to dismiss the case, probably due to the defendant having been deceased.
  3. 14Nov1774 Order Book Entry – Upon motion of William Arterburry ordered that he be added to the list of tithables for Shelburne Parish.[99]

From this motion it would appear that William Atterbury Jr. had relocated somewhere west of Goose Creek, Goose Creek being the established dividing line between Shelburne Parish (established 1769) and Cameron Parish.  Just where William Jr. may have been living in the area above Goose Creek is unknown to the author.  Prior to this request, the tithable listings for William Jr. clearly seem to place him living in the same area previously occupied by his father and mother below Goose Creek/Little River.

  1. 14May1783 Order Book Entry – William Savage against William Arterbury – upon petition – Defendant failed to appear, Plaintiff to recover ₤4.11.7 and costs.[100]  This clearly was a record of indebtedness of William Atterbury Jr.  William is on record as having served some period of time in the Virginia Militia during the Revolutionary War.  By May1783 the conflict was virtually at an end, and treaties of peace were signed in Sep1783.  The War had taken a severe financial toll on both sides of the Atlantic, and Loudoun County was in desperate straights.  William Jr. lingered on in Loudoun for a few more years before migrating to Chester County, SC where he died sometime in 1793.  From his LWT it can be deduced that he must have married severally years earlier and had several children born in Loudoun.  [For the reader’s interest and further enjoyment, please refer to the suit involving Dr. William Savage, Margaret [Green] Savage, his wife, George Washington and Bryan Fairfax at: http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-08-02-0080

The final record found of William Atterbury’s wife, Sarah Mitchell Yackley was as a witness to a land deed as follows:

Nov1771 (Recorded 12May1772 – John Shippey and wife, Judith of Cameron Parish to Thomas Clayton lease and release 79 acres adjacent  John Tyler, Richard Skinner, Charles Sutton, Robert Cater.  Witnesses: John Tyler, John Chamberlin, John Roberts and Sarah Atterbury.[101]  This record is believed to have been for Sarah Mitchel Yaxley Atterbury, the widow of William Atterbury.  It should be noted that John Shippey was one of the Trustees involved in the transfer of 1/2 acre from William West to the Baptist Church in Sep1769.  This suggests that Sarah Atterbury and her family continued to live in the vicinity nearby to West’s Ordinary after William’s presumed death, probably on the same homestead.  This affiliation to John Shippey also lends credence to the possibility that the Atterbury family had become Baptists.  The fact that Sarah witnessed this land sale involving her neighbors in Cameron Parish suggests that her husband, William Atterbury was dead.  Another suggestion of William’s demise is the fact that Sarah appeared in the 1769 tithable list as the head of household. 

It is interesting to note that the adjacent owner, John Tyler was the son of Charles Tyler and Anne Hereford.  Virtually all of the Tyler children migrated to Kentucky.  One of the brothers of John Tyler, Spencer or Spence Tyler is reported as having died in 1782 at Camden, Kershaw County, South Carolina where he held a patent adjacent to John Winn.  It was to Chester County, South Carolina that the sons of William and Sarah Atterbury migrated between 1772 and 1784, and then later to Kentucky

Richard (Alexander) Skinner was a son of Cornelius Skinner.  The family had moved westward to Loudoun County from Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey in about 1771/2 and were new arrivals to the neighborhood.  They settled on the east side of Bull Run Mountain along Little River, and were referred to as “branch squatters”.  This term is unfamiliar to the author, but the practice of “squatting” on land without obtaining proper title was not uncommon in colonial times, and particularly in the proprietary regions where there existed the original absentee landlords.  Lord Fairfax technically had control of a vast region, including Loudoun County, but in the early to mid-18th Century, Lord Fairfax lacked the means to govern unauthorized settlement upon his lands.  It is likely that the Skinners were initially “squatters” upon their first arrival in Loudoun County, but quickly established themselves in the community and their descendents lived on in the County for several generations as law-abiding citizens.  Also, note that John Shippey was one of the trustee appearing in the deed for 1/2 from William West in Sep1769. 

This substantially completes the history of William Atterbury Sr. up to the last record found for any Atterbury living in Loudoun County through the end of the Revolutionary War.  Just when and where Sarah Mitchell Yaxley Atterbury died is unknown with certainty.  Given her appearance in the foregoing record in Loudoun County as late as 1772, and the fact that three of her sons began appearing in Chester County, SC as early as Sep1772, it seems entirely possible that Sarah and the rest of her children (aside from William Jr. and Thomas) may also have moved to Chester County, SC by 1773.  No further records were found for Sarah Atterbury.

Before closing this chapter on William Atterbury in America, the author feels compelled to present a brief discussion of the records that were not found for William Sr., and the possible implications of their absence:

  1. Land Deeds or Grants – No land deeds were found for William Atterbury nor for any other Atterbury in Loudoun County.  Yet, from the bills of sale involving John Hall, and James and William Carr Lane it can be inferred that William Atterbury did own land probably along West’s Church Road in the area southeast of West’s Ordinary.  Just how much land he may have owned is not known, except that the bill of sale with John Hall did make reference to 14 acres planted in wheat.
  2. Road Orders – William Atterbury never once appeared in connection with a road order, yet several road orders were found in connection with the area of his neighborhood.  Not once was he appointed a surveyor of a road, nor was he or his “hands” ever ordered to work on a road, yet several of his close neighbors and allies were frequently involved with road orders.
  3. Jury Duty – Not one time was William Atterbury, nor any member of his family ever called to serve on a jury, even though most of his close neighbors and allies were ordered to jury duty.
  4. Civic Appointment – William Atterbury was never recorded as being appointed to any civil government position nor involved with any licensing, i.e., constable, vestryman, sales license, road surveyor, tax collector.
  5. Attachment/Garnishment – In spite of William having been sued several times for indebtedness, there is no record of these judgments ever resulting in an attachment or garnishment of his property.
  6. Estate Administration – No records were found relative to the settlement of his estate.  He undoubtedly died intestate, but we might expect to find some record regarding the settlement of his estate, assuming that he died possessed of some worldly goods, property or debt.

The absence of civil records pertaining to William Atterbury might be reflective of the fact that he was an ex-felon.  Although the author was unable to find anything in the prevailing statutes of Virginia regarding restrictions placed on the civil rights of a convicted felon, it might be assumed that some restrictions did appertain.  For example, as an ex-felon William may have been legally estopped from holding a civil position, from serving as a juror, or from voting.  He may even have been precluded from holding title to land in fee, but allowed a lifetime lease.  It is difficult to reconcile the absence of any estate administration record, particularly considering the fact that one of his debts to William Carr Lane was apparently still viable several years after his presumed demise.  The fact that there were no records of attachment or garnishment seems to indicate that William somehow managed to pay his debts shortly after a judgment was entered.

Ruby Voncille Attebery Winter – 30Aug1928 to 14Jan2010

She was born on a farm near Waurika, OK and was the daughter of Oliver Claude and Dovie Pearl Booth Attebery. She attended the Waurika schools and Oklahoma College for Women in Chickasha, where she met and married Bill Winter, a southeastern Oklahoma boy, in 1947. They had one daughter, Patricia Ann. They came to the Del City/Midwest City area in 1948, where she resided at the time of her death, the past few years as a resident of the Arbor House in Midwest City. Voncille was employed with Prudential Insurance Company approximately seventeen years. In 1970 she returned to school to complete her work for a BBA and MBA degree from Central State University in Edmond. She then began teaching at the college level. By 1980 she had completed a PhD at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. She taught business courses, such as Management, Marketing, Real Estate, Statistics and Business Ethics, and later was coordinator of Technical/Occupational Education and director of the Management Training Center and director of Resource Development at Rose State College, Midwest City, before retiring in 1991 to care for her husband, Bill, until his death in 1993. Teaching was a very enjoyable and fulfilling experience for her, and she very much enjoyed the vocation she had chosen. In 1968 she and Bill purchased the Winter homeplace in southeastern Oklahoma, where Bill was born and had lived until adulthood. In 1973 they built a home there in the peaceful McGee Valley and spent most weekends, vacations and holidays there, hosting her sisters and their families each Thanksgiving for many years. In 1984, Voncille, who had always been interested in genealogy, and her cousin, Wilma (Attebery) Mitchell, published a 560-page book, “The Descendants of William Atterbury, 1733 English Emigrant,” that had required approximately 10,000 hours of research and preparatory work — most of which took place within two years. She was a member of the Midwest Boulevard Christian Church in Midwest City, where she had served as an Elder and church treasurer. She was a member of the Zonta Sorority and many civic organizations. Voncille was predeceased by her parents; her daughter, Patricia Ann Winter in 1979; her husband, Bill, in 1993; a sister, Bonnie Karsjen, in 2007; two half-brothers: Oley Edric Attebery and Oliver Rue Attebery; and a half-sister, Lenos Nadine Bass. She is survived by three sisters: Ruth Dunn of Del City; Nell King of Beeville, Texas; and Edna Ward of Douglass, Texas; many nieces and nephews; special nephew on Bill’s side of the family, Walter Winter, his wife, Dorothy, and their children and grandchildren, of Stringtown, Oklahoma; and many friends and co-workers at Rose State College, including Joy Rupp, a faithful friend of many years.Funeral services will be Saturday, January 16, 2010, at the Atoka Funeral Home Chapel in Atoka, OK, with the Reverend Bob Muncy officiating. Burial will be in the Winter family plot in Redden Cemetery beside her beloved husband, Bill, and daughter, “Patt” (Patricia Ann). Voncille was the eldest of five sisters and the one they always turned to when needing comfort or guidance. She will forever be missed and will always live in their hearts. A special thanks to the nurses and staff at D Arbor House in Midwest City, where she had lived since October 2007, and to the nurses at Crossroads Hospice for their compassionate care for the past several months.  Buried Reeden Cemetery[102]

Queen Anne Parish Records  11Oct1742 

Read the Petition of Philip Green and Others against the Vestry of Queen Anns Parish in Prince Georges County, Ordered that a Copy of the said Petition be given to the Vestry, and that all Parties have Notice to attend this Board on Monday next 

Petition:

To His Excellency Thomas Bladen Esqr Governor of Maryland & his Ldps honorable Council of the Province aforesaid:

The Petition of Philip Green of Prince Georges County on behalf of himself and sundry the Inhabitants and Parishioners of the Upper Part of Queen Anns Parish in Prince Georges County Humbly Sheweth That about thirty years ago the late Mrs. Mary Henderson before her Intermarriage with the reverend Mr Jacob Henderson for the Ease of the Parishioners of the Upper End of the said Parish in order to hear the Word of God read & preached, and to joyn in Prayers began to build a Chappel, which was afterwards finished by the said Jacob Henderson;

That thereafter the Minister of the said Parish at first on every third Sunday, and afterwards for many Years every other Sunday did resort to the said Chappel to read the Prayers of the Church and preach;

That your Petitioner and sundry Inhabitants afterward did attend divine Service, and at their own Cost provided themselves with handsome Seats or Benches, and with the Consent of the said Henderson and his Spouse have had the use of the said Seats and Benches for about twenty five Years;

That on the third Day of August 1737 the sd Jacob Hen- derson by Deed of Gift gave the said Chappel with four Acres of Land to his Lordship the right honble the Lord Proprietary for the Use of the said Parish;

That the said Henderson having at his own Expences new shingled the said Chappel acquainted those that had Seats there, that He expected they would thereafter at their own Expence keep it in Repair;

That your Petitioners and several of the remote Inhabitants of the said Parish conceiving it reasonable, as they paid a ratable Part for the Repairs of the Mother Church with those that did attend and had the benefit of Divine Worship in said Church, that the Parishioners attending said Church should likewise joyn with your Petitioner for repairing the said Chappel;

At an Assembly held in May 1741 petitioned the then General Assembly, and therein set forth the before recited praises, and likewise that if the said Chappel should go to Ruin, It would run the Parish to a great Charge, there being a Necessity for a Chappel in that Part of the said Parish;

They therefore prayed that an Act might pass impowering the Justices of the said County to levy on the taxable Persons of said Parish One hundred Pounds Current money to compleat the Repairs of the said Chappel, and that the same might be deemed a Chappel of the said Parish, and thereafter repaired at the parish Charge, whereupon An Act passed agreeable to the Prayer of the Petition Your Petitioner likewise humbly shew that from the time aforesaid Your Petitioners enjoyed their Seats and Benches without any manner of Interruption or Molestation, until about the middle of June last, the Vestry Clerk gave Notice, that the Vestry had resolved to lay the Chappel out into Pews, and that they de-  sired the Parishioners to meet them on the third Tuesday in August following to treat on that Affair At which Day several of the Parishioners that frequent the Chappel met and expostulated with the Vestry in hopes to have prevailed with them not to alter their Seats, or to permit the Parishioners to vote whether the Chappel should be laid into Pews or not, and were told by One of the Vestry, that they would not admit of their Votes, and by another that they (the Vestry) were come there to lay it into Pews, and if they were injured he supposed they knew how to help themselves, and accordingly the Vestry without Consent of the Minister proceeded to lay said Chappel into Pews, as appears by Copy of said Vestry’s Proceedings hereunto annexed;

And your Petitioners likewise shew that some of the Parishioners belonging to the Chappel who were displeased with their Proceedings and who before had Seats and Benches therein, perceiving the Vestry would proceed and draw for Pews, being persuaded that in Case they did not draw they would go without Seats in the said Chappel, under these Circumstances did draw, altho’ they would much rather have kept their former Seats, without being at the unnecessary Charge of building of Pews;

And that the Pews so drawn for, for the most part were by such of the Parishioners who live convenient to the Church & have Seats there Your Petitioners humbly conceive the Proceedings of the said Vestry to be illegal;

That the Intent of the Donors and the Act of Assembly will be thereby defeated, and that your Petitioners and those living convenient to the said Chappel will lose their Seats and Benches, and for the future be debarred the Benefit of divine Service Your Petitioners therefore appeal from the Proceedings of the said Vestry to your Excellency and Honours, and most humbly pray that Notice may be given the said Vestry to appear before Your Excellency and Honours, and a short day appointed them to answer the Premises and in the mean time until your Excellency and Honours have made some Order therein the said Vestry may desist from removing your Petitioners Seats or Benches, or building or erecting Pews in the said Chappel;

And your Petitioners shall ever pray, etc.

Wm Cuming p Petrs At a Meeting of the Vestry 10th June 1742 at the Chappel Present Captn Jerem: Bell, Mr John Cooke Churchwardens, The Revd Mr Jacob Henderson, Major Edwd Sprigg, Mr Benjamin Hall, Mr Thomas Lancaster, Mr Osborn Sprigg, Mr Thomas Grant, Vestrymen.

The Vestry apprehending that the Chappel would more commodiously hold the Inhabitants if the same was divided into Pews resolve that it be done, ordered that the Clerk advertise the Parishioners by setting up Advertisements and giving publick Notice by Word of Mouth at the Parish Church and the Chappel of the said Resolve, and that the Vestry desire them to meet them at the Chappel the first Tuesday in August next on that Affair;

Tuesday the 3d Day of August The Vestry met at the Chappel Present as on 10th of June The Vestry agree that the Chappel be divided into Pews & distributed amongst the Inhabitants in the following Manner Viz. Ordered that the Ground be marked out and numbered 1. 2. 3 &c Ordered that the Clerk make Tickets & number them on the Inside with the same Numbers as the Places for the Pews both which were done: The Families minded to take Parts of Pews Each Pew being intended to hold three Families (except No 4 which being a small Pew was granted to Mr Thomas Grant & Mr Thomas Hillary) joyned themselves together by Threes One of which drew for the Three; the first Lott drawn was No I which Mr Osborn Sprigg drew for himself Mr Jno Cook and Mr Thomas Waring: the second drawn was No 7 which fell to Mr Richard Isaac Mr Joseph Peach and Mr William Ducker the next drawn No 15 to Major Edward Sprigg Mr Joseph Belt & Mr William Hillary; the next No 6 to Mr Robert Wheeler Senr Mr Robt Wheeler junr & Mr Philip Pindle; the next No 3 to Captn Jeremiah Belt Mr Thomas Williams and Mr John Hillary; the next No 16 to Mr Mareen Duval Mr Lewis Duval & Mr John Duval; the next No 8 to Mr George Parker Mr Samuel Farmer and Mr Ninian Maricerte the next No 5 to Mr John Child Mr Samuel Tyler & Mr Edward Tyler; the next No 13 to Mr Benjamin Hall Mr Rignald Odell & Mrs Mary Hall; the next No 14 to Mr Benjamin Jacob to Mr Mordecai Jacob and James Beck; the next No II to Mr Benjamin West Mr Richard Duckett & M™ Eleanor Hillary; the next No 2 to Mr William Gee Mr Benjamin Boyd and Mrs Deborah Boyd; the next No 10 to Mr Richard Symmonds Mrs Elizabeth Turner & Mr Jonr Symmonds the next No 12 to Dr William Denune Mr Wm Fowler & Mr Mark Brown; the next No 9 to Mr Saml Brashears Mr Jno Brashears & Mr William Brashears; The People to build the Pews uniform at their own Expence.

The Answer of the Vestrymen of Queen Ann Parish to the Petition of Philip Green in behalf of himself and Others.  The same Vestrymen say that it is true they had resolved to lay the Chappel mentioned in the Petition aforesaid out into Pews and thereupon gave Notice to the Parishioners as is alledged in the said Petition to meet at an appointed Day to treat on that Affair, which Resolution the said Vestrymen came into as judging it more convenient as well as more decent both for the Parishioners in general and for the Inhabitants near the said Chappel in particular. And they further say that they did accordingly cause the same Chappel to be laid out into Pews, and the same Pews to be drawn or taken up by the Parishioners by Ballott or Tickets as the Petition sets forth, and that they took this Method to prevent any Suspicion of Partiality and that all Parishioners might have equal Chances ; but these Respondrs deny that this was done without Consent of the Minister, but that the Minister was present and consent-  ing to the same at the time It was done, as appears by the Transcript of the Vestry Proceedings brought into this hon-  ourable Court by the Petitioners These Respondents humbly conceive that since by the Act of Assembly afd this Chappel is made a Chappel of the Parish, & that all the Parishioners of the said Parish are subject to be taxed for the Repairs of it, it therefore becomes as much under the Direction & Care of the Vestry as the Parish Church, and that all the said Parishionrs are entituled to the Use and Benefit thereof, and they expressly aver that this was the Intent of the Donor as well as of said Act of Assembly These Respondents deny that by laying out the sd Chappel into Pews the Petitioner or Others will be deprived of Seats or debarred from the Benefit of divine Service, and say, there will be now more Room and Conveniency therein than before, and that there are yet many Pews to be taken up, and more space still left to be laid out, which when built with Pews will afford sufficient Room to the Inhabitants living near the said Chappel and Others to sit in Lib. C. B. These Respondents say that what they have done in this matter is warranted by the Laws of this Province as well as the constant Usage of the Country in such Cases, and what they looked upon as their duty to do And therefore in humble manner submit the same to this honourable Board not doubt-  ing such Order therein as is agreeable to Justice Ja Calder p Vestry This Board having heard Council on both sides and taking the afd Petition and Answer into Consideration is pleased to order that the said Petition be rejected because the Petitioners do not seem to have been injured by any thing which the Vestry have done; And His Excellency the Governor on be-  half of the Right honble the Ld Propry as Ordinary consents that the Vestry go on to complete the Pews in the Chappel mentioned in the Petition and whatever else may be needful for Decency and Order

Will of William West Loudoun County, VA 1769 Will Book A, pg 226-229

In the Name of God Amen. I William West of Loudoun County being in sound mind health and memory and call into the uncertainty of this mortal life I do hereby appoint this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following to Dispose of my worldly goods that God hath blest me with my Just Debts is paid in prims.

I give and Bequeath to my Loving wife MARY WEST the following Negroes (Viz) Pug, Hannah, Tom, Nace, and James and also the use of the land and plantation whereon I now live during her natural life also the Stock and household furniture Except hereafter Excepted as also the use of one Negro Boy named Tom Tomson During her natural life which Negro Boy, land and household furniture and Stock shall after her death return to my Heirs according to the Bequests hereafter mentioned;

Item I give and Bequeath to my son CHARLES WEST all that part of my land Beginning at John Hall’s red oak corner standing on Rogers Spring Branch near the new road then with Straight line to said road and binding therewith to the first fork of Bull Run where the said road Crosses then up the sd Northermost Branch to the Back line Including the house wherein ISAAC BETZELL now lives near the sd branch as also HENRY SANDERS and where the said CHARLES WEST now lives all the land from the first mentioned line to the road and all the land joining JOHN EVINEs, ROBERT CARTER, and JOHN HALL, Being the North part of my tract of land to him and his heirs for ever Provided he the said CHARLES WEST shall pay yearly to his Brother JOHN WEST the sum of ten pounds during the natural life of said JOHN WEST and on failure of the yearly payment of the said Sum by the said CHARLES WEST or his heirs or any claiming the said land my will and desire is that he the said JOHN WEST shall have and hold one half of the said land as my will and Bequeath to him.

Also I give to my son CHARLES WEST one Negro man named Jack, one Negro Woman named Leah, one Negro man named Congo, one Negro Woman named Mariah as also all the household Furniture that he has in his hands (except one bed).

Item I give and Bequeath unto my son CHARLES WEST that tract of land in Loudoun County called Bacon fort (Viz) to him and his heirs forever.

Item I give and Bequeath to my son THOMAS WEST the remainder of my Tract of land joining his Brother CHARLES WEST to the said first branch of Bull Run where the road crosses then down the said run as my bounds now stands Including GARRETT SNEDEKAR and CHARLES MORRIS being the Easterly part of the tract to him and his heirs forever. Provided he the said THOMAS WEST shall pay yearly to his Brother JOHN WEST the sum of five pounds During the natural life of the said JOHN WEST and on Failure of the yearly payment of the said sum by the sd THOMAS WEST or his heirs or any claiming the sd land my will and desire is theay he ye said JOHN WEST shall have and hold one half of the said Land as my will and Bequeah to him; also I bequeah to my son THOMAS WEST one Negro man Named Dick and one Negro man named Melford, also one Feather BED and Furniture in hand of Charles WEST.

Item I give and Bequeath to my two Grand sons CATO WEST and CHARLES WEST [orphan sons of William West Jr.] all my land laying on the South side of the North fork of Bull Run joining my son CHARLES WEST being part in Prince William and part in Loudoun Counties Including the plantations where JOHN ALISON and SIMON SIMOSON and MOSES LASSWELL now live to be equally divided Between them to them And their heirs forever and in default of such heirs then the said to my son CHARLES WEST as also two cows and calves one Feather Bed to Each of them to be paid at the age Eighteen years if required this I leave in full Bar against any claim or claims that they or Either of them shall have or demand or any other person for them against the Estate of their deceased father WILLIAM WEST [Jr.] and if such Claim shall be made by them or any other person for them then in that case I will the said gifts and Bequeaths to be sold or so much as will pay the said legacies and all charges.

Item I give and Bequeath unto my grand Daughter ELIZABETH WEST the daughter of CHARLES WEST and ANNE his Wife one Negro girl named Heinne to her and her heirs forever.

Item I give and Bequeath to my Daughter ANNE PEYTON one Negro woman named Sarah.

Item I give and Bequeath to my Grand Son WILLIAM PEYTON my Lott and house thereon in Leesburgh (Viz) to him and his heirs forever.

Item I give and Bequeath to my grand Daughter MARGARET PEYTON one Negro girl named Sib

Item I give and Bequeath to my Grand Son FRANCIS PEYTON one Negro girl named Phebe.

Item I give and Bequeath to my Grand Son CRAVEN PEYTON one Negro girl named Dalilah.

Item I give and Bequeath to my grand Daughter ELIZABETH WEST the daughter of CHARLES WEST and ANNE his Wife my Land in Fairfax County laying on the Ox Road to her and her heirs forever.

Item I give and Bequeath to my Daughter ANNE PEYTON the aforesaid Negro Boy named Tom Tomson after the Marriage or Decease of my said Wife(But she my said Wife to have the use of all the before mentioned to her during her natural life or widowhood) But at the time she shall marry or Depart this life then all this is Bequeathed unto her shall be equally divided between three of my children (Viz) CHARLES WEST, THOMAS WEST, and ANNE PEYTON Except the first five mentioned Negroes (Viz) Pug, Tom, Hannah, Nace, and James which Negroes I give to her and to her Disposal.

And I do hereby appoint my Wife and CHARLES WEST and CRAVEN PEYTON to be my executors of this my last Will and Testament.

Whereunto I have set my hand fixed my Seal this twenty six day of June Anoq. 1769

In presents of JOHN HALL, BETY HALL, ROBERT HAMILTON, WM BAKER


[1] Available on microfiche from LDS Library, Fiche No. 6049268.

[2] https://www.familysearch.org/search/catalog/show?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fcatalog-search-api%3A8080%2Fwww-catalogapi-webservice%2Fitem%2F957073, accessed 25Jun2010.

[3] Virginia Colonial Records, 1600’s-1700’s, Virginia Gleanings in England, CDROM, p. 35.

[4] The Descendants of Job Atterbury, L. Effingham de Forest, M.A., J.D., F.S.G., F.I.A.G, and Anne Lawrence de Forest, 1933, pp. 10-22.

[5] Ibid., Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Volume I, Accomack County, 1637-1640, p. 92.

[6]http://query.mdarchives.state.md.us/texis/search?dropXSL=html&opts=adv&pr=aom_coll&query=atterberry&x=9&y=10, accessed November 6, 2010.

[7] http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=OA17330305n17-7&div=OA17330305#highlight, accessed December 16, 2010.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/48176-18th-century-london-its-daily.html, accessed November 26, 2010.

[11] Convict Transportation from Great Britain to the American Colonies, Anthony Vaver, 2009, p. 61.

[12] http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convict-transportation/convict-voyages/newgate-prison, accessed November 26, 2010.

[13] Colonists in Bondage: White Servitude and Convict Labor in America, 1607-1776, Abbot Emerson Smith, , p. 124.

[14] http://www.earlyamericancrime.com/convict-transportation/convict-voyages/jenny-diver-henry-justice, accessed November 25, 2010.

[15] The King’s Passengers to Maryland and Virginia, Peter Wilson Coldham, pp. 56 to 58

[16] http://www.aacounty.org/boards-and-commissions/severn-river-commission/history/, accessed 20Sep2016.

[17] Loudoun County, Virginia Tithables, 1758-1786, Volume 1, Marty Hyatt and Craig Roberts Scott, 1995, p. 74.

[18] http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/3213594/person/-1761566510/story/25eee1b5-2354-4fac-91fb-cf9b3901e32c?src=search, accessed November 5, 2010.

[19] http://guide.mdsa.net/series.cfm?action=viewDetails&ID=S1596-3493, accessed November 7, 2010.

[20] John Riddle Jr. is believed by the author to have been the eldest son of John Riddle and Elizabeth Linton.  John Riddle Jr. would have been only 19 years old in 1754, based on the birth record entered at Saint Barnabas Church, Queen Anne Parish, Prince Georges, Maryland on 16Nov1734.  It would appear that John Riddle Jr. predeceased his father, as he was not mentioned in his father’s estate administration in 1795.  Also, there was no mention of Prince Springs Plantation in his father’s estate.  One further note of interest is that John Jr.’s younger brothers, George and Zachariah Riddle were settled in Loudoun County, VA by 1763.  There were also records of a John Riddle, Bazil [Basil] Riddle and Jeremiah Riddle in Loudoun County commencing in 1770.  It is particularly noteworthy that Zachariah Riddle was living within about two miles of William Arterbury in the vicinity of Keen’s Spring and that he had married Eleanor Gardner, daughter of Sylvester Gardner, a near neighbor of the Arterburys.  These associations suggest that there may have been a strong bond between the Arterbury family and the Riddle family.  A more in-depth investigation will be presented later in this chapter.

[21] http://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?_phsrc=IQo2479&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true&indiv=1&db=FSMarylandBirth&gss=angs-d&new=1&rank=1&msT=1&gsln=mi*chel*&gsln_x=0&MSAV=0&uidh=yq3&pcat=34&fh=72&h=162553&recoff=14%2050&fsk=BEFn5CkIgAAKBQABo3Q-61-&bsk=&pgoff=&ml_rpos=73, accessed 3Sep2016.

[22] The foregoing promissory note was transcribed from a copy of the original note by Robert L. Atteberry on 4Oct2016 at Carmichael, California.  The copy of the said note was obtained from the Clerk of Loundoun County on 30Sep2016.  The document was a preprinted form with hand-written elements shown in italics in the transcription.  It appears that William Atterbury and the witnesses thereto signed this note in their own handwriting.

[23] http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/RecordDetail.aspx?RecordId=215166, accessed December 9, 2010.

[24] http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/RecordDetail.aspx?RecordId=199346, accessed December 9, 2010.

[25] Loudoun County, Virginia Tithables, 1758-1786, Volume 1, Mary Hyatt and Craig Roberts Scott, 1995, p. 37.

[26] Legends of Loudoun, Harrison Williams, 1938, pp. 128-9.

[27] Loudoun County Order Book B, p. 15.

[28] Loudoun County Order Book A, p. 109

[29] Ibid., p. 123.

[30] Ibid., p. 25.

[31] Loudoun County Order Book E, p. 129.

[32] Index  to Loudoun County Virginia Land Deed Books A-Z, 1757-1800, Patricia B. Duncan, 2006, p. 180.

[33] http://sherrysharp.com/gentree/getperson.php?personID=I28344&tree=Roots, accessed 28Sep2016.

[34] Index  to Loudoun County Virginia Land Deed Books A-Z, 1757-1800, Patricia B. Duncan, 2006, p. 272.

[35] Loudoun County Order Book A, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 117.

[36] Loudoun County Order Book D, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 127

[37] Loudoun County Order Book E, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 98

[38] Loudoun County Order Book A, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 117

[39] Loudoun County Order Book E, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 163

[40] Loudoun County Order Book A, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 211.

[41] Loudoun County Order Book B, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 21.

[42] Ibid., p. 61.

[43] Ibid., p. 72.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Ibid.

[46] Ibid., p. 88.

[47] Ibid., p. 126

[48] Loudoun County Order Book A, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 105.

[49] Loudoun County Order Book A, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 117.

[50] Ibid., p. 136.

[51] Ibid., p. 170.

[52] Ibid., p. 37.

[53] Ibid., p. 173.

[54] Ibid., p. 184.

[55] Ibid., p. 188.

[56] Loudoun County Order Book B, Patricia B. Duncan, 2007, p. 19.

[57] Ibid., p. 30

[58] Ibid., p. 33.

[59] Ibid., p. 61.

[60] Ibid., p. 69.

[61] Ibid., p. 72.

[62] Ibid., p. 95.

[63] Ibid., p. 208.

[64] Loudoun County Order Book C, p. 29.

[65] Loudoun County Order Book C, p. 53.

[66] Loudoun County Order Book D, p. 64.

[67] Ibid., p. 120.

[68] Loudoun County Order Book E, p. 2.

[69] Ibid., p. 85.

[70] Loudoun County Order Book G, p. 150.

[71] Index  to Loudoun County Virginia Land Deed Books A-Z, 1757-1800, Patricia B. Duncan, 2006, p. 180.

[72] Loudoun County Order Book H, p. 82.

[73] Loudoun County Order Book P, p. 129.

[74] Loudoun Deeds, Duncan, p. 16.

[75] Ibid., p. 54.

[76] Ibid., p. 65.

[77] Ibid., p. 92.

[78] Ibid., p. 112.

[79] Ibid., p. 112.

[80] Ibid., p. 126.

[81] Ibid.

[82] Ibid., p. 131.

[83] Ibid., p. 155.

[84] Ibid., p. 169.

[85] Loudoun County Order Book V, p. 69.

[86] Ibid., p. 123.

[87] Loudoun County Order Book B, p. 15.

[88] Ibid., p. 122.

[89] Ibid., p. 203.

[90] Loudoun County Order Book C., p. 1.

[91] Ibid., p. 15.

[92] Ibid., p. 25.

[93] Loudoun County Order Book E, p. 129.

[94] Loudoun County Order Book F, p. 58.

[95] Loudoun County Order Book B, p. 209.

[96] The Historian’s Guide to Loudoun, Phillips, p. 221.  (No. 24 on Grist Mill map)

[97] Loudoun County Order Book F, p. 109.

[98] Ibid.

[99] Ibid., p. 136.

[100] Loudoun County Order Book H, p. 13.

[101] Index to Loudoun County Virginia Lann Deed Books, Patricia B. Duncan, 2006, p. 151 [Book M: Page 69]

[102] http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=46736302, accessed November 6, 2010.

Leave a Reply