Paul, Thanks much for the clarification. I gather that "transportation" was a rather general term that did not signify any particular event or occasion or relationship between the person receiving the land patent and the person for whom "transportation" was provided. Other than perhaps the person "transported" , if an indentured servant, may have still owed someone some amount of "time or labor" which could be sold or traded to someone else. If that is not a reasonably fair statement, please let me know. ***Yep, and you could go a step further and state categorically that the only fact that may be established from the appearance of a named person in a list of headrights is that at some date previous to that appearance that person did seek passage OR took the place of someone else who had done so. Nothing further may be proved by such records. Perhaps the most obviously flagrant abuses of the system occurred when seamen claimed a headright for having made the voyage across the ocean. On one instance I found that such a man claimed 16 headrights for his trips as a crewman. Bear in mind, however, that these abuses were for the very most part ignored, since there was plenty of land to be settled, and by permitting such evasion of the "letter" of the law (it was not illegal), the land became productive. Through that increase in commerce the Crown gained additional tax revenue.