By
Wally Waits[3]
©2014
Colonial South Carolina Council
Journal entries record passengers requesting both bounty fees and Warrants of
Survey during the second weeks in January, February and March, 1768. Thus, it seems likely that the St. Helena
arrived between the previous January 12th and February 13th when the
Waight names appear in a journal entry.
Here are the passengers
debarking from the St. Helena who are listed as requesting bounty fees:
John Waight 60
Mary Waight 52
John Waight 19
Samuel Waight 15
Benjamin Waight 13
Sarah Waight
8
According to the formula
outlined in the British Public Records Office, the Colony of South Carolina
began granting 100 acres to each “Master or Mistress of a family for himself or
herself.” A Master or Mistress was
whoever was thought to be the “Head of Household.” In most cases, it would be the husband and/or
father. This instruction from the
British government promoting immigration is dated 1 Nov 1755.[4]
More allotments would be
made for each person traveling with this family. After the allotment to the head of household was
made, the wife’s share of 50 acres would be added to the head’s 100 acres. For each additional person over two years of
age, but under age 16, more 50-acre allotments were added in. These 50 acre allotments were made to any
additional person traveling with the “Master or Mistress.”
If a Head of Household was
paying passage for an indentured person over 16, he would have been allowed to
request 100 additional acres for each one.
If the servant was under the age of 16, the amount allotted was 50 acres
just like a family member of the same age.
If the Waight passengers were
a nuclear family, consisting of a father, mother and four children, of the
stated ages given above, the following would be the warrants allotted them:
John Waight, Sr. 300
acres for a head and 4 dependents
John Waight, Jr. 100
acres as an adult
This is because the 300-acre
allotment would have been for the father (100 a.), plus his wife (50 a.) and 50
a. for each of the three younger children (150 acres). Children over 15 were authorized 100 acre
allotments like John Jr. was. This is
all the land the Waight passengers would have been entitled to as a nuclear
family.
The clerk on February 13th
wrote that there were four emigrants over the age of 16 who requested Warrants
of Survey for 100 acres. They were:
John Waight, Sr. 100
acres (out of 250 acres total)
John Waight, Jr. 100
acres
Samuel Waight 100
acres
Sarah Waight 100
acres
The person listed as a
passenger of the St. Helena named Sarah Waight was recorded as being eight
years old. A child of this age would not
have been eligible in her own right for a land bounty for 100 acres. Her father, or “Master” of the family, would
have received 50 acres on her behalf.
So, Sarah’s petition was certainly a mis-named application that was
really Mary’s.
Yet, Mary Waight’s name does
not appear on the list of petitioners who are requesting the Crown government
in Charles Town grant Warrants of Survey.
Because she had land platted in her own name, her request has to be
listed under the name of “Sarah Waight.”
It is clear that the clerk
omitted Benjamin’s name from the list of petitioners requesting Warrants of
Survey for a reason. That reason was his
youthful age. This seems to mean that
the request in the name of “Sarah Waight” was intended for an adult woman,
i.e., one over the age of 15.
The clerk erred a second
time when he reported that Samuel Waight requested a 100-acre allotment. Samuel was not entitled to make that request
in his own name because he was not yet 16 years of age.
I have not found a plat for
Samuel Waight recorded in the South Carolina Council Journals. No plat filed by the Deputy Surveyor in
Charles Town means Samuel’s warrant was not used. His Warrant of Survey must have been
cancelled because he was too young to be eligible. Furthermore, there is no record of Samuel
having obtained “his” 100 acres even years later when he was of age. Samuel did not keep the warrant and use it later.
John Waight, Jr., on the
other hand, was eligible for and did request a Warrant of Survey in his own
name. This was because he was over fifteen
years of age and was thus considered an adult who was permitted to obtain a
land grant independently.
Here is what seems to have
occurred when the land was surveyed.
John
Waight, Sr. granted 100 acres as
John Sr.
Mary
Waight granted 100 acres issued
under Sarah’s
name,
but used under Mary’s name
John Waight, Jr. granted
100 acres as John Jr.
Samuel Waight granted 50 acres with John Sr.
Benjamin Waight granted 50 acres with John Sr.
Sarah Waight granted 50 acres with John Sr.
John Waight, Sr., as a head
of a household, was granted 100 acres as would any other “Master” who was over
the age of 15. Samuel, Benjamin and
young Sarah fall into the under-16 age category. John Waight, Sr. thus had an additional 150
acres added to his own 100 acres.
If Mary was married to John,
she would not have been allowed to petition for a Warrant of Survey independently
as was the case. Only if the couple made
fraudulent statements might both events have occurred. More than likely, confusion caused the clerk
to err while writing the journal entry.
Journal errors aside, here
are the scenarios under which Mary would have been entitled to a 100-acre
bounty land allotment. Colonial South
Carolina followed English law pretty closely.
Under the law she could have been considered a feme sole or a feme sole
trader.[5]
“Feme sole trader” means a
woman was married, but had permission from her husband to transact business or
own property independently. This
practice was a common law practice in Colonial South Carolina, but was limited
in this colony to giving a woman permission to only trade in merchandise.[6]
There are some factors
worthy of consideration. First of all, it
is possible that Mary Waight bought and sold trade goods in South Carolina. However, her actions argues against
this. It was a sparsely populated area
where her land was platted. Commercial
opportunities were limited in the South Carolina Up-Country at this time.
It is believed Mary would
have had some say-so in the matter of where her grant was located. Her choosing to locate her property next to
that of John Sr. and John Jr. also argues that commercial trading was not her
intention.
Her plat was likely surveyed
last because the deputy surveyor would logically have measured the largest
tract first. I believe Mary then chose land
adjacent to the land already chosen by the elder and junior John’s.[7]
After eliminating the
possibility that Mary Waight was a “feme sole trader,” it is time to consider
Mary Waight as a “feme sole.” This phrase
refers to a woman who was widowed or separated from a husband or was an
unmarried woman.[8]
Let us take the case of
separation first. There are two
possibilities in this situation it seems.
Was she separated before her arrival in Charles Town, or afterwards?
When Mary becomes separated
from John Waight, Sr. is not really an important question. The consideration of timing, however, does bring
out several possibilities.
If Mary was ever married to
John Senior, it was before they arrived in South Carolina. If she was already separated from John before
they arrived, why would she travel with him and subsequently locate land
adjacent to her supposed former husband?
Surely she would have known
that her age meant that she was leaving behind, probably forever, any hope of
seeing her family who remained behind.
These points argue that she was not separated before the St. Helena set
sail out of Bristol.
Next, let’s consider if Mary
become separated from John Waight, Sr. after their arrival in Charles Town. If this occurred, it came about pretty quickly. It had to have happened fast because of the short
time between the docking of the St. Helena and the time when Mary applied for a
land warrant in her own name. This could
have happened sometime in late January or early in February, 1768. She might have called upon the assistance
from people like Abraham Waight[9] to help her accomplish a
legal separation. Advice would certainly
be needed.
Even if she should have
simply renounced her marriage to John Sr. upon arrival even without taking
legal action, she would still have faced a new environment in South Carolina.
Upon landing at the Charles
Town pier, she would have faced great insecurity. Separation between a husband and a wife often
meant the wife moved into her own residence, forsaking her husband’s support
thereafter. The uncertainty usually
causes a person to be reluctant in taking such a break.
Since John Waight, Sr., John
Waight, Jr. and Mary Waight all selected adjacent land in the Upcountry, they
logically planned to live collectively. Locating her land adjacent to both John
Waight, Senior and John Waight, Junior, also suggests that Mary had dependent
relationship with these two.
Furthermore, the land they
chose was suitable for farming. This
means that the possibility of Mary being a “feme sole trader” is more unlikely.
Farming requires a lot of land. This
limits commercial enterprise which needs a lot people.
So, how could she have
requested a warrant under her own name without a husband’s direct authority? There are two possible ways. One might be if Mary was John’s sister. One of the ways was if she was an unwed
sister who was bringing an illegitimate son named Benjamin with her. While possible, this statistically is a less
likely probability.
Suppose instead that Mary
Waight was John’s sister-in-law. John
might have been accompanying her and her child to the New World. That would enable her to have applied for a
grant in her own name.
When the clerk was writing
the names of immigrants requesting Warrants of Survey, he seemed to realized he
had not recorded the passengers’ names for requesting bounty fees. At this point, I believe the clerk thought
Mary was the wife of John Waight, Sr.
In reality, I doubt that
Mary Waight was ever the wife of John Waight, Sr. Only as a unmarried or widowed immigrant
would this “Mistress” have been eligible for a grant of 100 acres. It appears that she was considered a feme sole by the officials of the Colony
of South Carolina in 1768.
Unfortunately, the clerk was
having a bad day and, faced with an unusual family cluster, seems to have failed
to properly question the circumstances.
As a consequence, family historians will hereafter question who was the
parent or child of whom.
Mary Waight’s allotment of
land in her own name means researchers may no longer assume standard
relationships. John Waight, Sr. might
have been the father of some or of all four youngsters, or he might not. Mary was old enough to be the mother of all the
young Waight children, but is documented as the mother of only one, Benjamin. She may not have been the mother anyone but
Benjamin.
[1] The “Waight” spelling, an apparent variation of
“weight,” is likely based on the spelling used by Abraham Waight’s family. He was a well-known and prominent low-country
planter. It is doubtful that anyone in
this study was either literate or had a “defined” surname. Even when the surname became simplified to
the “Wait” root, variations continued to blossom among the descendants.
[2] I am indebted for the advice and encouragement of Dick
Waits of San Antonio, Texas, and of Myra Vanderpool Gormley of Seattle,
Washington.
[3] 4404 Fondulac Street, Muskogee, OK 74401-1533,
wwaits@gmail.com.
[4] British Public Records Office, Colony of South
Carolina Council Journals, v. 24, pp. 314-16.
[5] Black’s Law Dictionary, De Luxe Fourth Edition, p. 745. “Feme covert” is generally used to refer to a
married woman who did not possess the privileges of a “feme sole.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] She would subsequently have a connection to
the low country, but that is not a part of the topic under discussion
here. That was nearly a decade later
when she was transferring this property to her son, Benjamin.
[9] Abraham Waight was just one of several of the Waight name
who might have helped Mary.
