Page:Economic History of Virginia Vol 1.djvu/561

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

whether they had acted justly and faithfully.[1] The first person who held the surveyor-generalship was Gabriel Hawley, who had unusual claims upon the royal favor. Hawley was succeeded by Robert Evelyn, who was appointed by the Governor and Council in 1637, their action being afterwards confirmed in England.[2] The position was subsequently filled by Thomas Loving, and later still by Edmund Scarborough, who held it in the early part of the period following the Restoration. In 1671, Alexander Culpeper received the appointment to this office from the King, and Philip Ludwell served as his deputy, after 1676. In time, the transfer of the duties of the office to a deputy led to so much discontent, that in 1690 the Governor and Council entered a petition with the Board of Trade and Plantations, urging that the Surveyor-General should be required to reside in the Colony.[3]

When the charter of William and Mary College was granted, among the powers conferred on this institution was one to appoint surveyors after the manner laid down for the guidance of the former Surveyor-General, whose functions in this particular were merged in the college. Before the institution was actually founded, the right to commission resided in its trustees, who, if they considered it advisable, had the authority to delegate this right to a substitute. Acting upon this authority, the trustees in 1692 appointed Miles Cary, Surveyor-General, who was to execute the duties of the position with the advice and consent of a committee named by the governing body of the institution. The surveyors commissioned by the col-

  1. Letter of Secretary Ludwell to English Secretary of State, British State Papers, Colonial Papers, vol. XX, No. 125, I; Winder Papers, vol. I, p. 208, Va. State Library.
  2. The statement in Neill’s English Colonization of America, p. 263, is incorrect.
  3. British State Papers, Va. B. T., vol. XXIX, pp. 41-45.