By Dick Waits[1]
©2014
The following persons were among the immigrants at Charles Town,
Colony of South Carolina on February 3, 1768 aboard the ship St. Helena,
George Arthur, master. Their passage had been paid by Messrs English and
Lloyd who were compensated by the colonial government.
John Waight, age 60
Mary Waight, age 52
John Waight, age 19
Samuel
Waight, age 15
Benjamin Waight, age 13
Sarah Waight, age 8
On Saturday, February 13, 1768 petitions for grants on the bounty
were read with the following allotments:
John Waight, Senr 250 acres
Sarah Waight,
100 acres
John Waight, 100 acres
Samuel
Waight, 100 acres
For a total of
550 acres
According to the formula that was applied to most of the
immigrants (the amount authorized by the General Duty Act of 1752)
assuming that this family consisted of a man, his wife, and four of their
natural children and assuming that allotments were authorized under that law
for any male of age 16 or older but not to any male under the age of 16
years:
John Waight, Senr. for himself: 100 acres
John Waight, Senr. for wife Mary: 50 acres
John Waight, Senr for Samuel: 50 acres
John Waight, Senr. for Benjamin: 50 acres
John Waight, Senr. for Sarah: 50 acres
John Waight, Junr. for himself 100 acres
For a total allotment of:
400 acres
It is obviously true that the guidelines written into the General
Duty Act of 1752 as amended in 1761, were not followed in every case by
the authorities who finalized the grants to these immigrants during the
processing of their immigration. This group received 150 acres more
than the law authorized.
(1) Samuel Waight was granted 100 acres even though he was under
the age at which he would have been qualified for such a grant.
(2) John Waight, Senr. did not receive the grant for 50 acres
for Mary if she had been his wife. Mary Waight was granted 100 acres
to which she would not have been entitled if she were his wife.
Thus, there was at least two errors in the grants to this group
and possibly three.
Given that:
First, it appears that mistakes were made in the allotment process
such that these immigrants received 150 acres more than they were entitled
to receive under the General Duty Act if all six of them constituted a
single family unit.
Second, it appears that the immigrants did not call these errors,
if that were what they were, to the attention of the authorities who
signed the grants and authorized the surveys.
Third, it appears that Samuel was allotted 100 acres after 50
acres had been allotted on his behalf to John Waight, the elder. This is
definitely not authorized by the General Duty Act.
Fourth, it appears that Sarah was allotted 100 acres even though
she was only 8 years of age and not in a legal condition to accept the
grant and, in fact, did not receive such a grant.
Fifth, the 100 acres ostensibly allotted to Sarah was actually
surveyed and deeded to Mary Waight on July 25, 1768 and September 12, 1768
respectively. This validates the hypothesis that
mistakes were made in the granting process.
AT ISSUE IS THE KINSHIP
OF EACH IMMIGRANT
TO THE OTHERS
These facts are relevant to two claims that can be made concerning
their kinship:
Hypothesis: John, the elder, and Mary were husband and wife and
parents of all four children.
Null Hypothesis: No definitive statement can be made about their
kinship.
1. The General Duty Act of 1752 authorized grants of 100 acres to
heads of households (males at least 16 years of age) plus 50 acres for
each additional family member.
2. If the six individuals constituted a family unit headed by John
Waight, the elder, and his wife, Mary, and three of their children, then
John, the elder, would have qualified for one grant amounting to 300
acres.
3. John Waight, the younger, would have qualified for one grant of
100 acres.
4. Samuel, Benjamin, and Sarah would not have qualified for any
grant of land on their own behalf.
5. If Mary’s grant of 100 acres was NOT a mistake, then she could
not have been married to John, the elder, and no statement about her
kinship to any of the others is possible.
6. If Mary was, in fact, married to John Waight, Senr. then her
grant of 100 acres was NOT authorized by the General Duty Act and the
grant to John, Senr. would have been 50 acres greater.
7. The grant of 100 acres to Samuel for himself was clearly an
error committed by someone in the process of finalizing the grants.
8. The listing of Sarah’s name in the list of grants was clearly
an error on someone’s part since 100 acres was surveyed for Mary Waight.
Therefore,
Given that obvious mistakes were made in making grants to these
immigrants, and
Given that the identification of the mistakes is not possible in
some respects, and
Given that the nature of those mistakes cannot be known,
Therefore,
The hypothesis that John and Mary were married and the parents of
all four children can neither be confirmed or rejected, and
The Null Hypothesis that John and Mary were not married can
neither be confirmed nor rejected.
The search for additional evidence continues.
ADDENDUM:
DNA evidence might provide additional evidence if one or more
descendants of John, the younger, Samuel, and Benjamin could be identified
and persuaded to authorize a Y-chromosome study.
We know the Y-Chromosome of one confirmed descendant of Samuel
Waight/Waits and the Y-Chromosomes of two others who claim descendency
from Samuel. These male line descendants of John, the younger, have been
identified with some degree of reliability:
Should one of these descendants appear with information for his
Y-Chromosome, then we could have some evidence of the kinship, or lack
thereof, between John, Junr. and Samuel.
