Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 1.djvu/455

 decay because they were restricted in their range. These evils, it was asserted, were not confined to a few persons, but touched a considerable number of the inhabitants of the Colony.

The ordinary manner of remunerating the overseers probably had an important influence in hastening the decline of the lands which had been recently cleared. The instance of Thomas Harwood, who in 1698 was employed in Elizabeth City by John George to superintend his laborers at a salary of six hundred pounds of tobacco, was undoubtedly rare. As a rule, the reward was a certain portion of the crop. In some instances this was one-fourth, in others one-tenth. One-half was the proportion agreed upon by Charles Hansford and his overseer, Thomas Sharpe, in York. David Jenkins, a few years later, instituted suit against Archer, a citizen of the same county, on the ground that as overseer of Archer&#8217;s estate he was entitled to an equal share in the grain and tobacco, his claim having been denied. At a still later period, the remuneration of a man of this class was regulated by the number of persons, including himself, in the employment of the planter who had engaged his services, slaves as well as indented and hired servants forming the basis of the calculation. The larger the volume of production on the plantation, the greater the amount he would secure; and this was a powerful