1. Nathaniel Bradford of Accomack County, Virginia - Lower ...

Nathaniel as Grand Juror and Representative of the County
In January 1669, Nathaniel was named to the grand jury for Accomack County. 148 Grand jurymen, like
other county officials, held their posts for a year and had specified public duties. Part of the grand jury’s
role was similar to that of today’s grand jury in that the members had the power to determine which
individuals should be presented to the court for trial; but rather than simply being passive instruments of the
court, the grand jurors were tasked with actually seeking out or bringing to the court’s attention those who
broke public laws. In fact, grand jury members could be held liable for being delinquent in making their
presentments and punished with a fine. 149 In the Accomack court by far the most common reasons
individuals were brought before the grand jury were for fornication and breaking the Sabbath, but men and
women could also be presented to the court for a variety of other offenses, including adultery, failing to
attend church, neglecting to clear the highways, breach of public peace and also for slandering the court in
private or even speaking ill in private of any of the Justices who sat on the court.
In the same year that he was appointed to the grand jury, Nathaniel took on another post in service of the
public, an appointment more intriguing than all his others because the nature of the service is unclear.
According to a court order of 17 May 1669, on that date “Mr. Nathaniel Bradford” was appointed a
“representative of the county” along with Mr. Southee Littleton, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Thomas
Leatherberry, Mr. William Custis and Mr. John Parker. 150 Nathaniel was in elite company, since three of
the other representatives (Littleton, Custis & Parker) were related to currently serving Justices of the Peace.
Unfortunately, the record says nothing about the nature of the appointment.
From an initial examination of the record there was no hint as to what these men’s representation entailed.
They were definitely not the county’s representatives for the Virginia Assembly: not only were Nathaniel
and the others appointed, not elected, but Accomack only sent two representatives to the Assembly, not six.
The appointment was out-of-the-ordinary, not like the appointment of constables and surveyors, instances
of which are inevitably found whenever one browses through 17 th century county court records. I sought
possible purposes of Nathaniel’s appointment through data mining of the Accomack Court records. First,
an investigation of the activities of the other appointees during 1669 as revealed by the court records turned
up nothing that suggested they were carrying out the duties of a public official. Widening the search for
clues in the court records of 1669 and surrounding years at first led to a suspicion that Nathaniel and the
others’ appointment might have had something to do with a series of unusual events which unfolded in
Accomack County in 1669. It so happens that 1669 was a very turbulent year in Accomack, replete with a
controversial and scandalous trial, open dissension within the County Commission, and other acts of
turmoil, some described, others only hinted at in the records. But Nathaniel’s appointment probably had
nothing to do with these events.
A thorough scan of Accomack County court records from 1663 to 1690 turned up clues as to what the
nature of Nathaniel’s appointment in 1669 might have been. In December 1681, the Accomack court
ordered that 6 men be chosen as representatives for making laws. 151 (Note that this is the same number of
men as were chosen representatives in 1669.) Further detail about these representatives comes from a court
record of 17 June 1682, in which the court ordered the sheriff to tell “the representatives” to meet the
justices at the court house, where they would “make such laws as shall be thought needful and expedient
for the good and benefit of the county.” 152 These later records seem to mirror the appointment of
representatives in 1669 and may be an example of the Accomack court taking advantage of the right to
enact local by-laws relating to their own jurisdiction. 153 This may have also been the reason for Nathaniel’s
appointment in 1669. If that is the case, there is no record of what, if any, bylaws might have been enacted
by Nathaniel and his fellow representatives.
Page 29 of 74 Copyright 2008 Adam M. Bradford