University of Virginia Library

METHODS OF PROCEDURE

In order to secure legality of action, the "Orders and Constitutions" were
read at one quarter court each year, since in those meetings the measures of great
importance were determined.[164] That the forms and usages followed in other com-
mercial companies, in other corporate bodies, and in Parliament greatly influenced
the decisions of the company is seen in the following illustrations: The question
as to the entry in the minutes of the names of dissenters or of reasons disallowed
by the court except by special order was thus settled according to the practice
in Parliament; to prove that individual adventurers would not be liable for the
debts of the company in the management of the tobacco magazine, decisions were
cited both in a case involving the corporation of Norwich, and in the insolvency
of the Muscovy Company; when the question arose as to salaries in the tobacco
business involving £100,000, the precedent furnished by all joint stocks of no greater
capital than £7,000 was brought forward; the custom of private corporations as
well as of judicial bodies of imposing a fine upon any man who spoke against the
judge or the court was urged by Lord Brooke as a proper action to be taken
against Samuel Wroth.[165] Elections were conducted by ballot, except for the council,
in which case, as in all other matters, the will of the court was determined by an
"erection of hands."

The reward for services rendered by the officers was determined by the court
and set down in the Orders and Constitutions. The annual payment to the secre-
tary was £20, to the beadle £40, to the husband £50, and to the bookkeeper
£50. Although the chief officials and committees received no salary, at the expira-
tion of the year's term of office it was customary to award 20 acres of land in
Virginia to each individual, with the provision that such land should not be sold.
The company similarly rewarded individuals who had rendered great service, but
sometimes it granted shares of stock instead, or agreed to transport for the indi-
vidual a certain number of men free of charge. Shares thus given could not be sold
below par value of £12 10s.[166] Each share carried with it the privilege of a vote in

the courts and the receipt of 100 acres of land in Virginia on the first division, with a
similar amount on the second division providing the first section had been peopled.
In addition, the sending of a man to the plantation before midsummer of 1625
entitled the adventurer to 50 acres of land on each division. If a planter had
adventured his person only, after three years' residence in the colony the company
gave him one share of stock; or if a resident in England had sent a man to the
colony who had remained there three years, the one who bore the charge was simi-
larly rewarded. Through reward or by purchase an individual might thus own land
and not possess stock, but he might secure the latter within three years by "plant-
ing" or peopling his land. The result was that there were five classes of individuals
connected with the company.

(1)

• The old adventurer who had paid at least £12 10s. for a share of stock,
  and who thus owned, rent free, at least 100 acres of land after the first division
  which took place in 1616.

(2)

• The new adventurer who had exactly the same privileges, except that after
  seven years he must pay 12d. to the company for each 50 acres gained by trans
  portation of settlers.

(3)

• The adventurer who received a share of stock for service or for adventure
  of person and who would have the privileges of an old or of a new adventurer
  according to whether he received the award before or after 1619.

(4)

• The individual who had received a grant of land for service or who had
  purchased land and had not yet gained the grant of shares of stock by adventure
  of his person or by sending out planters.

(5)

• The individual who had purchased land of a debtor of the company and
  could not become free of the courts until the debts were paid.

It will thus be seen that ownership of land and possession of freedom of the
company were not always coexistent, but that each involved the possibility of the
other.[167] No assessments were ever levied upon the shareholders, the first sugges-
tion of such a course coming from the Privy Council in July, 1623.[168]