GROCPTII The GROCER: Part II by Linda Sparks Starr OCT 1996 My previous paper on Thomas MOORMAN "the grocer" of Warwickshire, England and Virginia has elicited more comments than any of my other files, and the "snails" haven't had a chance to weigh in yet. Therefore, I've decided to write a follow-up while interest is high. I want to thank every one for their contributions. I posted a query on va-roots asking about the specific occupation of grocer, but included butcher and husbandman in the body of the query. Nancy Bradley of T.L.C. Genealogy Books sent me the Middle English definition of "grocer" from _Webster's New Univer sal Unabridged Dictionary_: "grocere, a corruption of grosser, a grocer, a wholesale dealer ... [and the Low or Late Latin] gros sarius, a wholesale dealer, from grossus, great, gross." Chuck Hamrick wrote more, quoting from Oxford English Dictionary: "One who buys and sells in the gross, i.e. in large quantities, a wholesale dealer or merchant; also with mention of the article dealt in, e.g. fish. (The company of Grocers, said to have been incorporated in 1344, consisted of wholesale dealers in spices and foreign produce: hence prob. the later sense.) 2.) Obs. A trader who deals in spices, dried fruits, sugar and, in general, all articles of domestic consumption except those that are con sidered the distinctive wares of some other class of tradesmen. In 18-19th c. tea, coffee, and cocoa became characteristic ar ticles of the grocer's trade. After 1860 many grocers held licences to sell beer, wines and spirits, in bottles." Martin Roberts expounded on this theme more: "the definitions today would almost be the same: grocer--sells fresh vegetables and fruits; butcher--butchers and sells meats; husbandman--raises animals to sell to butchers or other breeders. Any of these people could be proprietors or in bondage to others. The title is a function, not a position. But at that time, grocers were most likely to be independent, butchers next (every estate had one), and husbandmen would be more likely to be serfs." Martin continued that if we didn't have the advance technology we do today, our lives would differ little from those who lived in previous centuries. Amory Hale continued in this vein. "When I was stationed in England ... back in 1952-54, we lived in a trailer court just off the RAF Station. We had a Green Grocer (who sold veggies and fruit), a butcher (who sold fresh meat), and an ice man (who sold block ice). They had a regular route that they followed to sell their products. I suspect that their occcupations were the same as back in 1619." Warwickshire is so far removed from the port cities London and Bristol, I personally have a hard time thinking that Thomas Moor man had much to do with selling spices or other foreign produce, including fish. I think Thomas Moorman dealt with "local" vegetables and fruit, but this may be a personal hang-up of mine. The most interesting response to my query came from "Randwulf" who has a grocer from Cheshire, England in his lineage. He passed along the information that Grocers were one of the 12 major guilds and were regulated by law. He added that the term as he understood it, was to a person engaged in moving "wholesale merchandise". Guilds are housed in buildings on the central downtown plaza of larger European cities; they often have beauti ful flags hanging from the top windows. I would think they have "papers" on their members, and papers mean information, possibly of a "genealogical" nature. Anyone want to volunteer to search for the archives of the Grocer's guild? One person told me he had downloaded information on guilds and promised to forward the web address; he hasn't and I lost his name and address. Back to specifics on Thomas Moorman. Richard Hopper wondered if he had something to do with provisioning the Bona Nova, filling the job of an Army Quartermaster or Navy Storekeeper. I THINK he may have worked for the VA Company longer than we've thought, but doubt he had anything to do specifically with the Bona Nova's provisions. But this falls into the category of speculation when what we really need is facts. I can't offer "specific facts" on this Thomas Moorman, but I have turned up some interesting, and relevant I think, data on the VA Company itself. Since this file is about Thos Moorman, I'll re late only what pertains to him; until further notice, page num bers with quotation marked entries come from: _American Slavery American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia_, by Edmund S. Morgan, Norton & Co:NY, paperback edition reissued 1995. Morgan cites his sources; I'll copy the pertinent information from his footnotes within brackets. Morgan doesn't have a bibliography page as such, so getting publishing data requires a bit more ef fort; if anyone wants to check a specific source, I'll search his "A Note of the Sources" for it and send. Morgan says the authoritative work on the VA Company is W. F. Craven _The Dissolu- tion of the VA Co._, NY 1932; he also suggests _The VA Co. of Lon- don 1606-1624_, Jamestown 350th Anniversary Historical booklet, No. 5, Williamsburg 1957. [Mary adds _The VA Adventure_ by Ivor Noel Hume, NY:Alfred A. Knopf, 1994.] According to Morgan, the VA Co. was formed in 1606; the original intent was to use the money from sales of shares in the company to "send over shiploads of England's unemployed laborers as well as skilled specialists. Such men would be servants of the com pany and not entitled to a share in the proceeds. They would work for the company for seven years in return for their transporta tion and then be free to work as they chose, taking advantage of the limitless opportunities of the New World ..." [pages 45-46] Morgan has a long discussion of problems in England at the begin ning of the 17th century. The population was growing by leaps and bounds and there just wasn't enough jobs to go around. Parlia ment adopted a policy that Morgan calls "conservation of employ ment" [page 65] which [page 66] "made it illegal for a man to practice a trade until he had become a master through seven years of apprenticeship. Even then, until he was thirty years old or married, he was supposed to serve some other master of the trade." He provides examples proving the courts did enforce these provisions. [p 66] "Employers in most trades were required to hire labor only by the year, not by the day or hour." [Tawney and Power, _Tudor Economic Documents_, I, page 335]. Morgan explains the result of this policy "tended to depress wages and to diminish the amount of work expected ... A man was supposed to have only one skill and was not supposed to impinge on the jobs of others by undertak- ing any task outside his province ... Plowing, for example, seems to have been a special skill--a plowman was paid at a higher rate than ordinary farm workers." [p 67] Rightly or wrongly, Morgan makes the case for this being the reason the early colonists didn't produce enough food to feed themselves, even after ten years in VA. According to Morgan page 82: "The communal production of food seems to have been somewhat modified after the reorganization of 1609 by the assignment of small amounts of land to individuals for private gardens. [He offers three citations if anyone is in terested] It is not clear who received such allotments, perhaps only those who came at their own expense. Men who came at com pany expense may have been expected to continue working ex clusively for the common stock until their seven-year terms ex pired. At any rate, in 1614, the year when the first shipment of company men concluded their service, Governor Dale apparently as signed private allotments to them and to other independent 'farmers.' Each man got three acres, or twelve acres if he had a family. He was responsible for growing his own food plus two and a half barrels of corn annually for the company as a supply for newcomers to tide them over the first year. And henceforth each 'farmer' would work for the company only one month a year." [Hamor, _True Discourse, p17-19; John Rolfe, "Virginia in 1616.", VA Historical Register & Literary Advertiser, I (July 1848), pps 101-13, at 107.] Before others jump to any conclusions about Thomas Moorman based on the above statement (as I admit I did), this only shows that some indentured servants did get land after completing their service to the company, but only under Governor Dale in 1614. The VA Co. appears to have changed its "rules" every few months. The VA Co. reorganized again in 1618. The four factions agreed only to Sir Edwin Sandys as Treasurer and that men in VA needed more incentive; land was the obvious choice. [page 94] "In order to make settlement more attractive to England's impoverished laborers, he [Sandys] offered an alternative to servitude: per sons sent at company expense would be assigned land to work as sharecropping tenants under the direction of a company agent. They would turn over half of their earnings to the company for seven years, and then each would get fifty acres of his own." [_Records of the VA Co._, III, page 99-100. "Though the records do not say how the tenants were to be supported until they were able to raise a crop for themselves, the company evidently ex pected to furnish them with provisions for the first months."] "Sandy's managed to send several hundred such tenants to work lands set aside for the company. And in order to speed up settle ment, he induced various members of the company to join in sub corporations or associations to found 'particular plantations' peopled by tenants on the same terms. Investors in these associa tions obtained a hundred acres for every share of stock in the company plus fifty acres for every tenant they sent to occupy their lands. The lands of each association would form a separate little community within the colony." [page 94] Morgan's later example was iron works; Thomas and the other passengers were specifically brought over to work the College Lands. Were they part of this scheme? I don't think so, for Morgan mentions an "earlier project" to establish a college for Indian youth page 98: "Ten thousand acres had been set aside at Henrico for its en dowment, and Sandys sent a hundred tenants to begin producing for it. [RVC III, p102, 115] To take charge of them in 1621 went George Thorpe ..." Page 106-7: "...servants who wanted to go to Virginia were will ing to pledge several years' work, usually four to seven years, in return for transportation and maintenance." The cost to an individual for a servant's passage was "about six pounds ster ling; his provision and clothes for the voyage and to start him out in the New World might run another four to six pounds." [RVC III, pp499-500; Neill, _Virginia Carolorum_, p109-11; VMHB, XIII (1905-6), p387; Bruce, _Economic History_, I, p629; Bullock, _Virginia Impartially Examined_, p49.] This is the last from Morgan's book for this particular file; I'll turn now to comments generated by my grocer.asc. file; you might want to refer to it for citations and particulars. Mary Stewart sent a transcription of the article on the Bona Nova which appeared in _Magazine of VA Genealogy_, vol 33, no. 1 (1995), p. 3-11. The passengers were a bit older than I had suspected -- 25.35 being the norm for this particular ship. Passenger Thomas Moreman on the Bona Nova in 1619 listed his age as 30, his occupation as grocer, and "from" Warwickshire. [It isn't clear if this is birthplace or residence.] My husband as sures me "assumptions" are the roots of most later problems; with this in mind, I raise the following points: Thomas was one of three grocers, but the only one from Warwickshire. Can we SURMISE that he was not recruited IN Warwickshire? Does this mean he was living / working elsewhere? Or, was he wandering around England looking for work? That brings us to why? he chose manual labor in VA over a job in England he spent seven years training for. Can we assume he didn't have a job? He had apparently finished his apprenticeship as grocer; according to Morgan, he couldn't legally hold a "regular" job in his field until he was 30 years old or married. Thomas was 30. Was he married? We'd all like to know the answer to that question! If he didn't have a job, would he have taken a wife? I'm inclined to say "no" to both of these questions; I don't think, in this era, men took wives without ways (jobs) to provide for them; if he had a future in England, I don't see him heading off to VA. But that's a personal OPINION; we don't have any specific facts. Back to the MVG article. The assortment of occupations are inter- esting. Morgan says the earlier investors in the VA Co. had envi- sioned a diverse colony with many different "labor" activities; they actively encouraged people of certain occupations to re settle in VA. But like Mary, I can't see why VA needed a draper, glover, embroiderer or even three grocers. VA certainly didn't need the "impoverished" 7 gentlemen and 1 esquire who also are on the list. According to his petition, Thomas Moorman went to Capt. Mathews when the group of servants were split up. Thus we know specifi cally where Thomas Moorman spent the winter of 1619/20. Citing a letter by John Rolfe [per MVG] those who were "seated wth one Capt Mathewes 3. myles beyond Henrico for his owne securytie, and to his great content." 97 servants were accounted for in VA, but only 92 appear on the list. After much explanatory discussion, the author says he didn't find anything to prove all 92 were company servants, but neither did he find anything to show any of these individuals were "planters" before 1625, and none "received land as a headright for paying his own passage." The author explored other records for names of other passengers--interesting for some of us: Robert ADAMS was brought as a "personal" servant of Capt. Wil- liam Weldon on this voyage. He [Adams], however, is listed as a freeman in the early 1620s. [Before anyone jumps to conclusions, the link between this Robert Adams and the husband of Mourning has not, and probably cannot, be proven.] Of the 92 passengers, these are the ones we MIGHT be interested in following up on in the future -- based on surnames only: #21 John JOHNSON, 32 husbandman from Nottinghamsheir (sic) #30 John RENNOLDS, 20 husbandman from Hartfordsheir #55 John CLARKE, 33 bucher (sic) from Oxffordsheir #76 Robert SIMPSON, 34 husbandman from Buckinghamsheir #89 Thomas MOREMAN, 30 grocer from Warwicksheir Mary Stewart warns we may be reading more "into" these petitions than are there. She suggests reading very carefully this paragraph from the MVG article: "Although the list does not name the vessel or give a date, it certainly concerns the 1619 Bona Nova [discussion of men appearing on 1625 census Henrico and Elizabeth City follows] ... The year 1619 is proved by petitions submitted to the Virginia Company court in London on 3 April 1620 and 12 July 1620 seeking freedom for Bartholomew Lawton (#85) and Thomas Moreman (#89), who had been sent as company servants on the Bona Nova. The second Virginia voyage of the Bona Nova did not leave England until August 1620." Mary "reads" this as the "two petitions were cited to prove the 1619 date for the Bona Nova, not for what they reveal about Law ton & Moreman. I think it is certainly possible that there were more petitions which we haven't seen. I'd like to see the actual petition if it exists -- perhaps it has more info. As far as I know, we don't know what the terms were for these men who signed on with the VA Company. I think the information we have is too scant at this point to create much of a scenario." I agree with Mary Stewart -- finding the specific petition sub mitted by Thomas Moorman (and any others not mentioned in Kingsbury's transcription of the VA Co. records) is high on our "most wanted" list. The most likely location for the petition is the Ferrar Papers; some of these can be searched on the net through the VA Library I THINK although I've never managed to get in to them. The MVG article gives the specific microfilm info for the passenger's list -- MS 1583d Ferrar Papers, reel 2, microfilm doc. 295; cover page as folded, with indorsement -- Thomas' peti tion might be on that reel or at least in the same group. To my suggestion in grocer.asc about looking at other surnames similar to MOORMAN for possible clerk's error in transcribing, Mary wrote: "I'm very leery of the idea of Moore, Morlan(d) etc. as a misspelled version of MOORMAN in the land Office ... the patent itself was the last step in a long process requiring lots of paperwork. I have a lot of trouble thinking that such a gross error would be repeated without being caught somewhere in the process." However, Elizabeth Harris did check Nugent vol. 1 for similarities to MOORMAN. She wrote "There are a zillion Moores, and quite a few Moreland, Morton, and other not-too-distant names, but nothing that looked likely to me." Two of our group are officers/past officers of Colonial Dames chapters--Kay Hudson and Mary Stewart; both replied to my ques tion about a reference in a Colonial Dames book. Kay found two references to Thomas Moorman in the Colonial Dames Library in DC: The one citing Tillman [Stephen not Spencer as I have it] has "Thomas Moorman b. c1665 m. Elizabeth CLARK or Elizabeth SIMPSON, probably a second marriage for Elizabeth Clark, and settled in Nansemond Co., VA, formerly Louisa Co., and finally in New Kent Co., VA. The records of St. Peter's Episcopal Church of New Kent, shows "Elizabeth Moorman, dau of Thomas and Elizabeth Moor man, bapt 29 AUG 1686." Children: Mary Elizabeth b. 27 AUG 1686, Andrew born circa 1689, and Charles b. 16 Aug 1688 who d.y." The second reference is from "The Second Boat", vol. 3, No. 3, November 1982, Second Boat Lineage #49: "(1.) Thomas Moorman, born ca.1593, lived in Hampshire, England. He visited Virginia in 1619 aboard the Bona Nova. Thomas died ca.1640. (2.) Zachariah Moorman, b. 1620. Isle of Wight, Hampshire, England; m. ca.1641 Belfast, Ireland, Mary Ann (Elizabeth) Candler; came to America aboard the Glasgow in 1690 (his son already here); d.1702, Nan semond Co., VA. (3.) Thomas Moorman, b. 1649, Isle of Wight; d. Virginia; m. Elizabeth SIMPSON. The book I cited gave 1647 as a date for Thomas Moorman; Mary Stewart says that is his date of birth, not death; and he is Zachariah's son, not Thomas Moorman the grocer. She has the Tillman records; he does not cite his source for the above dates. In conclusion, I must say we know a great deal about one year in the life of Thomas Moorman, grocer -- his age, thus specific bir thyear of c1589; probable place of birth or residence in 1619; and his occupation. We also know he came to VA in 1619 as an in dentured servant for the VA Company. He "wintered" with other servants north of the Henrico settlement under the "command" of Capt. Mathews. He received his freedom and a "portion of land" in 1620; he was still in VA at the time. He was not on the list of those killed by Indians in 1622 or on the list of survivors; nor is he found on any later lists of VA residents. I think we can safely conclude, he either returned to VA shortly after getting word from London that he was free or he died before the 1622 massacre. His land is never mentioned in extant records; he could have sold it. It likely reverted to the Com pany if he died intestate. Morgan page 94 offers another pos sibility: Gov. Dale didn't pass "permanent title to the property" he gave away in 1614; perhaps Thomas' land fell under this rule.