Document No.
OCR Transcription
Modern Summary with Analysis
EAP 1364 St Helena
Document Name and Date Register of leases and Deeds 1682-1719
Photographer Lidan
Date photographed 4ᵗʰ May 2023
Additional comments
Book cover
REGISTER OF LEASES
AND DEEDS
1682 - 1719
Ref. E.I.C. 7/5
Blank page
Blank page
1
[A]n Account of [...]an been Allotted Alien[a]ted and Sold to Sever[all ...] this Island S[t] Helena as it was given into the [J]ury [...] Impannelled for that purpose the 26[th] September 1682
The Allott of Cap[t] Beale at the head of [W]aterfall Valley butting towards the South on Sandybay Redge, To the West on part of 20 Acres the Allott of M[r] Francis Moore and to the North on part of 20 Acres the allott of William ffox Senior 40
[A]nthony Beale Formerly the allott of William ffox Senior att the upper End of Water fall Valley butting Southward on the abovesaid 40 Acres 10 Acres of which was Sold by the said ffox to Thomas Innett who Sold the Same to Cap[t]n Beale, the other 10 Acres Sold by the said ffox to Cap[t] Beale in whose Possession the said 20 Acres now is 20
[...] go [...]e[d] [...] [...]se of Iona[...] [...]ll Swincopho[...] [...] his two [...]ns [...]y Beale the [...] Lott M[r ...] [...]f his wife [...]nd Beale Formerly the Allott of John Hemmen at the upper End of Waterfall Valley, butting towards the North on 20 Acres formerly the Lott of William Gates which Said 10 Acres was Sold by the said Hemmons to John Duffield and by him to Richard Alexander who Sold the Same to Cap[t] Beale 10
The Lott of Richard Parram Senior Lying on the Purrsline bent place[d] [i]th South part bearring with the body Att top of the Peake hill, which Said 20 Acres the said Parram Exchanged with one John Row and was by Row Sold to Cap[t] Beale [20]
[...]ohnson The Lott of Cap[t]n Johnson Lying in the Greate bottom butting to the West on John Greentree and to the East on Thomas Box [...]
[...]nd Hooker The Lott of Edmond Hooker Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the North to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of John Boston and on the South to M[r] Moore 20
Formerly the Lott of John Boston, Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyn[i]ng on the North to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of Robert Herbey, and on the South to the afore Said 20 Acres of Edmond Hooker, which said 20 Acres was by the said Boston Sold to him the said Edm[d] Hooker 20
Formerly the Lott of Robert Herbey, Lying in Chappell Valley adjoy ning on the north to Serjeant Ralph Symes, and on the South to the abovesaid 20 Acres formerly the Lott of John Boston which Said 10 Acres was by Herbey given to William Devining and by him Sold to Ensigne Hooper, and by Edm[d] Hooker in whose Possession it now is 10
[Ja]mes Picker The Lott of James Pickerd Lying in Sandy bay near the Green hill [...]
[J]o[hn] Drayper The Lott of John Draper Lying in Fishers Valley adjoyning to the East to James Casthopes Land and on the West to 40 Acres the Lott of Sutton Isaack [...]
[...] [Wi]lliam Barrington Formerly the Lott of John Walls Lying in Saine Valley adjoyn[ing on] the North to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of William Marsh [...] the South to 20 Acres the Lott of William Bowman, which S[ai]d [...] Acres was by the said Walls Sold to M[r] John Wynn, and Exchanged said M[r] Wynn with Nathanaell Barrington and Remaines now [in the] possession of Mary the Wedow of the said Barrington
Ca[rried] O[ver]
An account of how land was allotted and sold to various inhabitants of the island of St Helena, as given to the jury impanelled for that purpose on 26 September 1682.
Captain Beale held an allotment at the head of Waterfall Valley. It bordered Sandy Bay Ridge to the south, part of the twenty-acre allotment of Francis Moore to the west, and part of the twenty-acre allotment of William Fox the elder to the north. The acreage was 40.
Anthony Beale held land formerly allotted to William Fox the elder at the upper end of Waterfall Valley, bordering the above 40 acres on the south. Fox sold ten acres of this land to Thomas Innett, who then sold it on to Captain Beale. Fox sold the remaining ten acres directly to Captain Beale, so the full twenty acres now lay in his possession. The acreage was 20.
[...] Beale, formerly the allotment of John Hemmen, lay at the upper end of Waterfall Valley. It bordered twenty acres on the north, formerly the lot of William Gates. Hemmen sold these ten acres to John Duffield, who sold them to Richard Alexander, who in turn sold them to Captain Beale. The acreage was 10.
Richard Parram the elder held a lot on the Purrsline bent, the southern part rising with the body at the top of Peak Hill. Parram exchanged these twenty acres with one John Row, and Row sold them on to Captain Beale. The acreage was 20.
Captain Johnson held a lot in the Great Bottom, bordering John Greentree on the west and Thomas Box on the east. [...]
Edmond Hooker held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the north to twenty acres formerly belonging to John Boston, and on the south to land of Mr Moore. The acreage was 20.
Land formerly allotted to John Boston lay in Chapel Valley. It joined on the north to twenty acres formerly belonging to Robert Herbey, and on the south to Edmond Hooker's twenty acres described above. Boston sold these twenty acres to Hooker. The acreage was 20.
Land formerly allotted to Robert Herbey lay in Chapel Valley. It joined on the north to land of Sergeant Ralph Symes, and on the south to the twenty acres formerly belonging to John Boston. Herbey gave these ten acres to William Devining, who sold them to Ensign Hooper. They later came to Edmond Hooker, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
James Pickerd held a lot in Sandy Bay near Green Hill. [...]
John Draper held a lot in Fishers Valley, joined on the east to the land of James Casthope and on the west to the forty acres allotted to Sutton Isaack. [...]
William Barrington held land formerly allotted to John Walls, lying in Saine Valley. It joined on the north to twenty acres formerly belonging to William Marsh, and on the south to twenty acres allotted to William Bowman. Walls sold this land to Mr John Wynn, who exchanged it with Nathaniel Barrington. The land now remained in the possession of Mary, the widow of Nathaniel Barrington.
Carried over.
Interpretations
The jury impanelled on 26 September 1682 functioned as a formal mechanism for registering and verifying landholding on the island. By calling sworn jurors to record allotments, sales, exchanges and gifts, the company built an authoritative title record that bound future transactions. The procedure shows that property on St Helena was held under company authority but could be moved between settlers by private dealings, provided those dealings were eventually recorded through an official inquest.
The repeated formula of butting and bordering, with each plot defined by reference to its neighbours rather than by survey coordinates, reveals how land was identified in practice. Title rested on social memory of who held what next to whom, and the jury's task was to fix that memory in writing. This made neighbour relationships and the identity of former holders central to the legal description of each parcel.
The phrase formerly the allotment of, used repeatedly, marks the distinction between the original company grant and the current holder. The original allottee retained a kind of historical anchor in the record even after multiple sales, because the chain of title back to the first grant was the proof of legitimate possession.
The chains of transmission, such as Hemmen to Duffield to Alexander to Beale, or Herbey to Devining to Hooper to Hooker, show an active secondary market in land. Plots passed through several hands by sale, gift and exchange, and the jury's role was to trace and confirm each link. The acreage figures in the right margin gave the registered quantity attached to each holding at the moment of the inquest.
Captain Anthony Beale appears as a substantial accumulator, consolidating several adjacent ten and twenty-acre parcels at the head of Waterfall Valley. His pattern of acquisition, buying from multiple original allottees and from intermediate purchasers, illustrates how a well-placed officer could build a single sizeable estate out of fragments dispersed by the original allotment scheme.
Mary Barrington's position as the widow holding Nathaniel Barrington's land shows that property descended to widows on the island and that they were recognised as the registered holder for the purposes of the inquest. The jury recorded her possession directly, without naming a male intermediary.
Ensign Hooper and Sergeant Ralph Symes appear with their military ranks, indicating that members of the garrison held land alongside civilian planters and that rank was preserved in the land record as part of personal identification.
Speculations
The decision to convene a formal jury in September 1682 to record all allotments and their subsequent transfers points to a deliberate effort to clean up an accumulated tangle of private dealings. The repeated pattern of land passing through three or four hands before reaching the current holder suggests that earlier record-keeping had not kept pace with the secondary market, and the inquest was the company's response to that gap.
Captain Beale's concentrated buying at the head of Waterfall Valley, drawing in parcels from Fox, Innett, Hemmen, Duffield, Alexander, Parram and Row, looks like a deliberate consolidation strategy rather than opportunistic purchases. Acquiring contiguous plots from several original allottees produced a single working estate, which would have been more efficient to manage than scattered holdings and would have given him control of the upper valley.
The exchange between John Wynn and Nathaniel Barrington, followed by Mary Barrington's continued possession as widow, suggests that the exchange had been arranged for reasons connected to the Barrington household rather than as a simple commercial transaction. The land stayed in the family after Nathaniel's death, which indicates the exchange had given the Barringtons a holding they intended to keep.
2
Brought O[...]
James Easthope The Lott of James Casthope Lying in Fisher Valley adjoyn[...] [...]raper on the West, and on the East to the Great [...]oad[...]
Seitton Isaack The Lott of Seitton Isaack Lying in Fishers Valley adjoyning [...] on the East, and on the West butting upon 20 Acres the Lott of W[...]
William Hayre The Lott of William Hayre adjoyning on the East with 20 A[...] Lott of Seitton Isaack, and on the West to the Stuts
Owen Ockwin Formerly the Lott of Thomas Birch lying in Fishers Valley adjoyn[...] on the South to the head of Sharks Valley, and on the North to 2[...] Acres the Lott of Black Slewer which Said 20 Acres was by the Said Birch Sold to Edwarel Brayne and by the said Brayne Sold to Owen Ockwin in whose Possession it now is
Thomas Goodale Formerly the Lott of Benj[...] Griffong Lying in Fishers Valley adjoyning to the East to the aforesaid 20 Acres formerly the Lott of Thomas Birch, and on the West to 20 Acres the Lott of William ffox Junior which said 20 Acres was by the said Benjamin Griffong Sold to Tho[...] Goodale on whose Possession it now [...]
Thomas ffrancombe The Lott of Thomas ffrancombe Lying in Fishers Valley adjoyn[...] on the South to 20 Acres, the Lott of of William Rhoads, and on [...] West to d[i]amas Peake
William Rhoads It being part of the 20 Acres the Lott of William Rhoads, Ly[...]ng [...] Sharks Valley adjoyning [o]n the North to part of the aforesaid [...] acres, the Lott of Thomas ffrancombe, and on the South to Ben[...] Seale which Said 10 Acres Remains now in the possession [...] W[...] Rhoades
Benjamin Seale The Lott of Benjamin Seale Lying in Sharks Valley adjoyning o[...] the North to William Rhoads
[W]illiam B[i]shop Formerly part of the Lott of Richard Leach Lying in deep Vall[...] butting on the East towards Deep Valley Redge, and on the West to [...] Powells Valley Redge, which said 10 Acres was by the said Leach Exchanged with William Bishop in whose Possession it now is
Richard Leach Formerly the Lott of William Bishop Lying in Fishers Valley Butt[...]ng on the East to William ffox Iunior, and on the West to 20 Acres the Lott of Thomas Burnham which Said 20 Acres, was by the Said William Bishop Exchanged with Richard Leach on whose Possession it now is It being part of the Lott of Richard Leach (which he had for his Wife) Lying in Deep Valley, adjoyning on the North to W[m] Bishop &c[...] of the South with the Company [...] Land on Deep Valley
[T]homas Pledger The Lott of Thomas Pledger Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the East to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of William H[a]unt, and on the West to part of 20 Acres formerly the Lott of John Row
Carried Over
Brought over.
James Easthope held a lot in Fishers Valley, joined on the west to the land of [Draper], and on the east to the Great Road. [...]
Sutton Isaack held a lot in Fishers Valley, joined on the east to [...], and on the west bordering twenty acres held by W [...].
William Hayre held land joined on the east to the twenty-acre lot of Sutton Isaack, and on the west to the Stuts.
Owen Ockwin held land formerly allotted to Thomas Birch, lying in Fishers Valley. It joined on the south to the head of Sharks Valley, and on the north to twenty acres allotted to Black Slewer. Birch sold these twenty acres to Edward Brayne, who sold them on to Owen Ockwin, in whose possession the land now lay.
Thomas Goodale held land formerly allotted to Benjamin Griffong, lying in Fishers Valley. It joined on the east to the twenty acres formerly allotted to Thomas Birch described above, and on the west to twenty acres allotted to William Fox the younger. Griffong sold these twenty acres to Goodale, in whose possession the land now lay.
Thomas Francombe held a lot in Fishers Valley, joined on the south to twenty acres allotted to William Rhoads, and on the west to [Diamas] Peak.
William Rhoads held ten acres, being part of his twenty-acre allotment, lying in Sharks Valley. It joined on the north to part of the twenty acres allotted to Thomas Francombe described above, and on the south to land of Benjamin Seale. These ten acres now remained in the possession of William Rhoads.
Benjamin Seale held a lot in Sharks Valley, joined on the north to William Rhoads.
William Bishop held land formerly part of the lot of Richard Leach, lying in Deep Valley. It bordered Deep Valley Ridge on the east and Powells Valley Ridge on the west. Leach exchanged these ten acres with William Bishop, in whose possession the land now lay.
Richard Leach held land formerly allotted to William Bishop, lying in Fishers Valley. It bordered William Fox the younger on the east and twenty acres allotted to Thomas Burnham on the west. Bishop exchanged these twenty acres with Leach, in whose possession the land now lay. Leach also held a further part of his original allotment, which he had received in right of his wife, lying in Deep Valley. It joined on the north to William Bishop, and on the south to the company's land in Deep Valley.
Thomas Pledger held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the east to twenty acres formerly allotted to William Haunt, and on the west to part of twenty acres formerly allotted to John Row.
Carried over.
Interpretations
The phrase which he had for his wife, applied to Richard Leach's holding in Deep Valley, shows that land could enter a household through marriage and be registered to the husband on that basis. The jury recorded the route by which the land had come into his hands, since the legitimacy of his title depended on that connection. Married women's property rights on the island operated through the husband's name in the record, but the source of the entitlement was preserved in writing.
The references to company land in Deep Valley reveal that the East India Company retained tracts in its own hands alongside the allotted plots. Settler holdings were defined partly by reference to this retained land, which acted as a fixed boundary. The company was therefore both the granting authority and a continuing landholder in its own right, and the two roles met at the edges of the private allotments.
The pattern of exchange between Bishop and Leach, with each taking land in a different valley, points to a mechanism by which holders consolidated their interests in particular districts. An exchange of this kind did not change the total acreage held by either party but moved each closer to a coherent block of land. The jury recorded both sides of the exchange as separate entries, preserving the original allotment identity of each plot.
The naming of Black Slewer as the holder of a twenty-acre allotment adjoining Owen Ockwin's land suggests that the register did not confine itself to settlers of European origin. The name reads as a descriptive byname rather than a formal surname, which raises the question of how the jury identified and recorded holders who did not use standard English naming conventions, while still treating them as registered landholders for the purpose of boundary description.
The distinction between William Fox senior and William Fox the younger, both appearing as original allottees, shows that the early grants were made to multiple members of the same family in their own right rather than as a single household holding. This produced a denser web of small plots than a household-based distribution would have done.
Speculations
The repeated appearance of Fishers Valley as the location of several adjacent plots, with chains of sale moving land from original allottees such as Birch, Griffong and Bishop into the hands of later holders like Ockwin, Goodale and Leach, suggests that this valley had become a focus of active dealing by 1682. Land there was perhaps more workable or better watered than parcels elsewhere on the island, drawing buyers willing to pay for established plots rather than take up unallotted ground.
The exchange between Bishop and Leach, which moved Bishop into Deep Valley and Leach into Fishers Valley, looks like a coordinated swap rather than two unrelated transactions. Each man took land in a valley where he already had an interest, with Leach building up his Deep Valley holding alongside the land received through his wife. The arrangement points to a deliberate matching of interests between the two men.
3
Brought Over
450
William Marsh Formerly the Lott of William Hunt adjoyning on the East to the East Redge, and on the West to Thomas Pledger which Said 20 Acres was by the said Hunt Exchanged with William Marsh on whose Possession it now is 20
William Rutter The Lott of William R[u]tter Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the East to the East Redge and on the West to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of William Meetcalfe and to the Red hill 30
John Mathews The Lott of John Mathews Lying in [Y]oungs Valley adjoyning on the East to 10 Acres formerly the Lott of Owen Ockwen and on the West to the head of [Y]oungs Valley 20
Edward Brayne Formerly the Lott of Owen Ockwen Lying in [Y]oungs Valley adjoyning on the East with 20 Acres the Lott of John [...]phare and on the West with John Mathews, which said 10 Acres has Exchanged with Edward Brayne in whose possession it now[...] 10
William Bowman The Lott of William Bowman Lying on Sayne Valley adjoyning on the North to the Stutts, and on the South to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of John Walls 20
Thomas Box Formerly the Lott of Henry Webley adjoyning on the East to the high Peake, and on the West to 20 Acres the Lott of Thomas Cox and is now in the Possession of the said Tho[s] Box 10
The Lott of Thomas Box adjoyning on the East to the afore said 10 Acres and on the West to Cap[t] Johnson 20
30
[...]ob [I]onyfor The Lott of [I]ob [I]onyfor Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the South to 10 Acres formerly part of the Lott of Robert [...]ersey and on the North to 20 Acres of the Lott of John Seek 20
Job Iewster Formerly the Lott of Daniell [...]ellens (which he had for his Wife) Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the East to 10 Acres formerly the Lott of Francis Wrangham, and on the West the Lott of [w]hat was formerly the Lott of Francis Steward, which Said 10 Acres was by the said [...]ellens Sold to him the above said Iob Iewster in whose possession it now is 10
30
John Cleverlee The Lott of John Long Lying in Sandy bay adjoyning on the North to the Maein Redge, and on the South to the bay 10 of which said 20 Acres, the said John Long Sold to John Cleverlee, and the other 10 Acres the said John Long Exchanged with William Price, and Price Exchang[e]d the Same with John Cleverlee So that the whole 20 Acres are in the Possession of John Cleverlee 20
Being part of the Lott of John Cleverlee Lying in Sandy Bay butting toward[s] the North to the Maein Redge and on the South to the Pigeons Rock 10
30
Francis Steward Formerly part of the Lott of the abovesaid John Cleverlee Lying on Length by the above said 10 Acres butting toward the North to the Maein Redge and on the South to the Pigeon Rock which Said 10 Acres was Sold by the said Cleverlee to Francis Steward in whose possession it nowis
Carried Over
Brought over.
Total carried: 450 acres.
William Marsh held land formerly allotted to William Hunt, joined on the east to the East Ridge and on the west to Thomas Pledger. Hunt exchanged these twenty acres with Marsh, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 20.
William Rutter held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the east to the East Ridge and on the west to twenty acres formerly allotted to William Metcalfe, and to the Red Hill. The acreage was 30.
John Mathews held a lot in Youngs Valley, joined on the east to ten acres formerly allotted to Owen Ockwin, and on the west to the head of Youngs Valley. The acreage was 20.
Edward Brayne held land formerly allotted to Owen Ockwin, lying in Youngs Valley. It joined on the east to twenty acres allotted to John [...]phare, and on the west to John Mathews. Ockwin exchanged these ten acres with Brayne, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
William Bowman held a lot in Saine Valley, joined on the north to the Stuts and on the south to twenty acres formerly allotted to John Walls. The acreage was 20.
Thomas Box held land formerly allotted to Henry Webley, joined on the east to the High Peak and on the west to twenty acres allotted to Thomas Cox. The land now lay in Box's possession. The acreage was 10.
Thomas Box also held his own original lot, joined on the east to the ten acres described above and on the west to Captain Johnson. The acreage was 20.
Total for Thomas Box: 30 acres.
Job Ionyfor held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the south to ten acres formerly part of the lot of Robert Hersey, and on the north to twenty acres allotted to John Seek. The acreage was 20.
Job Jewster held land formerly allotted to Daniel [...]ellens, who had received it in right of his wife. The lot lay in Chapel Valley, joined on the east to ten acres formerly allotted to Francis Wrangham, and on the west to land formerly allotted to Francis Steward. [...]ellens sold these ten acres to Jewster, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
John Cleverlee held land originally allotted to John Long, lying in Sandy Bay. It joined on the north to the Main Ridge and on the south to the bay. Long sold ten acres of this twenty-acre allotment to Cleverlee. He exchanged the other ten acres with William Price, who in turn exchanged them with Cleverlee, so that the whole twenty acres now lay in Cleverlee's possession. The acreage was 20.
A further ten acres were part of Cleverlee's own lot, lying in Sandy Bay, bordering the Main Ridge on the north and Pigeons Rock on the south. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
Francis Steward held land formerly part of John Cleverlee's lot, lying alongside the ten acres described above. It bordered the Main Ridge on the north and Pigeon Rock on the south. Cleverlee sold these ten acres to Steward, in whose possession the land now lay.
Carried over.
Interpretations
The running tally of 450 acres carried over from the previous portion of the register, with sub-totals of 30 acres recorded against grouped entries, shows that the jury kept a continuous count of registered land as it worked through the inquest. The figure served as a check on the total acreage accounted for, allowing the company to verify how much of its granted land was now traced to identifiable holders. The marginal arithmetic was therefore an audit device, not a decorative feature.
The repeated phrase which he had for his wife, used here of Daniel [...]ellens as it was earlier of Richard Leach, confirms that this was a standard formula in the register for marking land that had entered a household through marriage. The jury treated such land as part of the husband's registered estate but preserved the route of acquisition in writing, so that any later dispute about the origin of the title could be settled by reference to the record.
The chain through which John Cleverlee assembled the whole of John Long's twenty acres, by buying half and acquiring the other half through an exchange with William Price who had himself exchanged with Long, shows that multi-party arrangements were used to bring fragmented parcels under a single holder. The jury followed each link, recording Price's intervening role even though he ended with no land from that transaction. The procedure made every step legally visible and prevented later claims by intermediate parties.
The reference to the Stuts as a boundary feature, used here against William Bowman's land in Saine Valley and earlier against William Hayre's lot, indicates that the term identified a named tract of ground recognised across the island rather than a single private holding. Boundaries of this kind anchored the register to the physical landscape, alongside named ridges, valleys, peaks and rocks.
The appearance of two Boxes, with Thomas Box holding both his original twenty-acre allotment and the adjoining ten acres formerly held by Henry Webley, illustrates the same consolidation pattern seen earlier with Captain Beale. A holder who acquired a neighbouring parcel from a former allottee produced a single working block of thirty acres without disturbing the underlying record of two distinct grants.
Speculations
The concentration of dealings around John Cleverlee's holding in Sandy Bay, with Long, Price and Steward all involved in the movement of parcels into and out of his hands, suggests that Cleverlee was actively managing his estate rather than passively accumulating land. He took the whole of Long's twenty acres into his possession but then released ten acres of his own original lot to Steward, which points to a deliberate reshaping of his holding rather than simple expansion. The exchange with Price, who ended without land from the transaction, looks like a brokered arrangement that allowed Long to dispose of his second ten acres without dealing directly with Cleverlee a second time.
The exchange between William Hunt and William Marsh, which moved Hunt's Chapel Valley land into Marsh's hands, fits the pattern seen elsewhere in the register of holders trading parcels to match their working interests. Marsh's acquisition placed him adjacent to Thomas Pledger on one side and the East Ridge on the other, giving him a defined block bounded by a fixed landscape feature. The exchange was perhaps undertaken to secure that bounded position rather than to gain acreage for its own sake.
4
Brought Over 650
Robert Tomps The Lott of Robert Tomps Lying in Sarahs Valley adjoyning on the North to the Lott of John Saller and on the South to the Company 20
Josiah Charles- worth The Lott of Josiah Charlesworth Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the East to the Lott of land which was for- merly Thomas Sherwins and on the West to 20 Acres of Land which was formerly the Lott of Natham Barrington 20
Formerly the Lott of Nathaneell Barrington butting on the East upon the aforesaid 20 Acres of Charleswor[t]h and on the West upon Edward Seafords, which Said 20 Acres the said Barrington Exchanged with M[r] John Wynn and M[r] Wynn Sold itt to the abovesaid Josiah Charlesworth in whose possession it now is 20
40
Thomas Bolton Formerly the Lott of Richard Harding Lying on Fryer Valley, butting on the South upon John Cole, and upon the North upon other 10 Acres (which was formerly part of the said Richard Hardings Lott) now in the possession of Henry Webley, which abovesaid 10 Acres was by the Said Harding Sold to Thomas Goodale and by Goodale to Henry Webley, and by Webley to Francis Steward and by Steward to Thomas Bolton in whose possession it now is 10
The Lott of Thomas Bolton on the dry Gult butting on the West upon Gabriell Powell, and on the East to the Peake Gult 20
30
Henry Webley Formerly part of the Lott of Richard Hareling Lying in ffryer Valley butting on the North upon Samuell Jeffes and upon the South upon other 10 Acres (which was the other part of the said Hardings Lott) which said 10 Acres was by the said Harding Exchanged with Francis Steward, and by Steward Sold to John ffuller and by ffuller to Henry Webley in whose possession it now is 10
John Cole The Lott of John Cole Lying at the head of Fryer Valley adjoy- ning on the North to Thomas Bolton, and on the South to the Main Redge 20
Formerly part of the Lott of Gabriell Powell Lying at the head of Waterfall Valley adjoyning on the North to Richard Stay and on the South to the Main Redge which Said 10 Acres was by the said Powell Exchanged with M[r] John Wynn, and by the said Wynn Sold to the abovesaid John Cole in whose Possession it now is 10
30
John Boyce Formerly the Lott of John Milbank Lying in Lemon Valley adjoyning on the East to Thomas Allbrights, and on the West to John Greentree which said 10 Acres John Milbank Sold to James Wakefield, and the said Wakefield to John Boyce in whose possession it now is 10
Formerly the Lott of Thomas ferrant Lying in Lemon Valley adjoyning on the East to Thomas Allyson and on the West to John Greentree which said 10 Acres he Exchanged with James Wakefield, and by the said Wakefield Sold to the abovesaid John Boyce in whose Possession it now is 10
20
Carried Over 800
Brought over.
Total carried: 650 acres.
Robert Tomps held a lot in Sarahs Valley, joined on the north to the lot of John Saller and on the south to the company's land. The acreage was 20.
Josiah Charlesworth held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the east to land formerly allotted to Thomas Sherwin, and on the west to twenty acres formerly allotted to Nathan Barrington. The acreage was 20.
Charlesworth also held land formerly allotted to Nathaniel Barrington, bordering the twenty acres above on the east and Edward Seaford's land on the west. Barrington exchanged these twenty acres with Mr John Wynn, who sold them to Charlesworth, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 20.
Sub-total: 40 acres.
Thomas Bolton held ten acres formerly allotted to Richard Harding, lying in Fryer Valley. The land bordered John Cole on the south and bordered a further ten acres on the north, originally part of the same Harding allotment and now held by Henry Webley. Harding had sold this parcel to Thomas Goodale, who sold it to Henry Webley, who sold it to Francis Steward, who sold it to Bolton, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Bolton also held a lot on the Dry Gult, bordering Gabriel Powell on the west and the Peak Gult on the east. The acreage was 20.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
Henry Webley held ten acres formerly part of the Harding allotment, lying in Fryer Valley. It bordered Samuel Jeffes on the north and the other ten acres of Harding's original lot on the south. Harding exchanged this parcel with Francis Steward, who sold it to John Fuller, who sold it to Webley, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
John Cole held a lot at the head of Fryer Valley, joined on the north to Thomas Bolton and on the south to the Main Ridge. The acreage was 20.
Cole also held land formerly part of Gabriel Powell's lot, lying at the head of Waterfall Valley. It joined on the north to Richard Stay and on the south to the Main Ridge. Powell exchanged these ten acres with Mr John Wynn, who sold them to Cole, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
John Boyce held land formerly allotted to John Milbank, lying in Lemon Valley. It joined on the east to Thomas Allbright and on the west to John Greentree. Milbank sold these ten acres to James Wakefield, who sold them to Boyce, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Boyce also held land formerly allotted to Thomas Ferrant, lying in Lemon Valley. It joined on the east to Thomas Allyson and on the west to John Greentree. Ferrant exchanged these ten acres with James Wakefield, who sold them to Boyce, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 20 acres.
Carried over: 800 acres.
Interpretations
The Harding allotment in Fryer Valley shows how a single original grant could be split, traded and reassembled through long chains of intermediate holders. One ten-acre half passed through Harding, Goodale, Webley, Steward and Bolton, while the other half passed through Harding, Steward, Fuller and Webley. The two parts ended back in the hands of two adjacent holders, Bolton and Webley, with each parcel having moved through four or five owners. The jury's task was to follow each link in order, since the legitimacy of the current holder rested on an unbroken chain of recorded transfers from the original allottee. The procedure made the register a working title-trace tool, not merely a static list.
Mr John Wynn appears repeatedly as an intermediate purchaser who acquired land by exchange or sale and then passed it on, here to Charlesworth and to Cole, as he did earlier in the case of the Walls allotment that came to the Barrington household. His role looks like that of a working broker in the island's land market, taking parcels from original allottees and placing them with settled buyers. The courtesy title Mr, consistently attached to his name, marks his social standing above the unranked planters in the register.
The boundary descriptions involving Main Ridge, Dry Gult, Peak Gult and Lemon Valley, used here to define multiple plots, confirm that the jury worked from a shared topographic vocabulary in which named ridges, gullies and valleys served as fixed reference points. The system allowed plots to be located precisely without survey instruments, by reference to features that every islander could identify on the ground.
The phrase the company, used as a boundary against Robert Tomps's land in Sarahs Valley, again signals that the East India Company held its own retained tracts alongside the granted allotments. The retained land was treated like any other neighbouring holding for the purposes of boundary description, even though its legal status was different.
Speculations
The repeated involvement of Francis Steward in the Harding chain, taking ten acres from Harding by exchange and selling them on to Fuller, while at the same time appearing elsewhere in the register as the buyer of land from Cleverlee in Sandy Bay, suggests that Steward was active as a dealer rather than a settled cultivator on any single plot. His pattern of acquiring and quickly transferring land points to short-term holding for resale, with the Fryer Valley parcel passing through his hands without lingering there.
Josiah Charlesworth's consolidation of forty acres in Chapel Valley, by taking the Sherwin-adjacent twenty acres and adding the Barrington twenty acres that had moved through Wynn, looks like a deliberate build-up of a single working estate in that valley. The Barrington parcel had been disposed of by Nathaniel Barrington before his death, since it left his hands by exchange to Wynn and then by sale to Charlesworth, while the remaining Barrington holding stayed with his widow Mary as recorded earlier in the register. The family appears to have divided its land between an outright sale and a retained widow's portion, perhaps to raise cash from one parcel while preserving the other for the household.
5
Acres
Brought Over 800
Sarah Harding Wedow Formerly the Lott of Edward Amos Lying in [F]ryer Valley adjoyning on the North to the Lott of Thomas Bolton and on the South to the Main Redge 10 of which Said 20 Acres the Said Amos Sold to Richard Harding and the other 10 he Exchanged with the said Richard Harding So that now the Said 20 Acres are in the possession of Sarah the Wedow of the said Richard Harding 20
Formerly part of the Lott of Henry Wedley adjoyning on the East to the high Peake, and on the West to 20 Acres the Lott of Thomas Box, which Said 10 Acres was by the said Wedley Exchanged with Thomas Goodale, and by Goodale Sold to John Stevens, and by Stevens to William Hunt, and by the Said Hunt to Richard Harding and is now in the possession of Sarah the Wedow of the said Richard Harding 10
30
Edward Seaford The Lott of Edward Seaford Lying at the head of Fryer Valley adjoyning on the East to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of Nathanaell Barrington and on West to Sam[ll] Jeffey 20
Henry Coales Formerly the Lott of John Duffield (which he had for his Wife) Lying on pleasant Valley which Said 10 Acres he the said Duffield Exchanged with Henry Coales in whose posses- sion it now is 10
Formerly the Lott of John Hemmons (which he had for his Wife) Lying on pleasant Valley and adjoyns to the aboresaid 10 Acres Lying on Length East and West, which Said 10 Acres the said Hemmons Exchanged with Henry Coales in whose possession it now is 10
20
John Stech The Lott of John Stech Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the South to John Seaford and on the North to M[r] Robert Swallow 20
Part of the Lott of John Stech Lying in Sandy Bay adjoyning on the North to the Main Redge and Putting on the South into the Bay 10
Formerly the Lott of John Duffield Lying in Chappell Valley adjoyning on the North to the Lott of Edmond Hooker and on the South to the Main Redge which Said 10 Acres the said Duffield Sold to the Said John Stech in whose possession it now is 10
40
Henry Francis Being part of the Lott of Francis Wrangham Lying at the head of Chappell Valley adjoyning on the East to Orlando Bagley, and on the South to Josiah Charlesworth which Said 10 Acres is now in the Possession of Henry Francis by his Marrying with the Wedow of Said Wrangham 10
Formerly part of the Lott of John ffannely Lying on Chappell Valley adjoyning on the North to Drew ffollens, and on the South to 20 Acres formerly the Lott of [J]ef[f] Steward which said 10 Acres the said ffannely Exchanged with Jam[s] ffollens & y[e] said ffollens with Henry ffrances in whose possession it now is 10
Formerly the Lott of John ffowning Lying in [...] Peake Gult adjoyning on the West to Peake Gult and to the dry Gult, was by the said [J]n[o] ffowning Exchanged with Henry francis in whose possession it now is 10
30
Carried Over 940
Brought over.
Total carried: 800 acres.
Sarah Harding, widow, held twenty acres formerly allotted to Edward Amos, lying in Fryer Valley. The land joined on the north to the lot of Thomas Bolton and on the south to the Main Ridge. Amos had sold ten acres to Richard Harding and exchanged the other ten with him as well, so that the full twenty acres now lay in the possession of Sarah, widow of Richard Harding. The acreage was 20.
Sarah Harding also held ten acres formerly part of Henry Webley's lot, joined on the east to the High Peak and on the west to twenty acres allotted to Thomas Box. Webley exchanged this parcel with Thomas Goodale, who sold it to John Stevens, who sold it to William Hunt, who sold it to Richard Harding. The land now lay in Sarah Harding's possession. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
Edward Seaford held a lot at the head of Fryer Valley, joined on the east to twenty acres formerly allotted to Nathaniel Barrington, and on the west to Samuel Jeffes. The acreage was 20.
Henry Coales held ten acres formerly allotted to John Duffield, who had received the land in right of his wife. The lot lay in Pleasant Valley. Duffield exchanged these ten acres with Coales, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Coales also held ten acres formerly allotted to John Hemmons, who had likewise received the land in right of his wife. This parcel lay in Pleasant Valley, adjoining the previous ten acres on its long east-west axis. Hemmons exchanged these ten acres with Coales, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 20 acres.
John Stech held a lot in Chapel Valley, joined on the south to John Seaford and on the north to Mr Robert Swallow. The acreage was 20.
Stech also held ten acres being part of his lot in Sandy Bay, joined on the north to the Main Ridge and bordering the bay on the south. The acreage was 10.
Stech also held ten acres formerly allotted to John Duffield, lying in Chapel Valley. The land joined on the north to the lot of Edmond Hooker and on the south to the Main Ridge. Duffield sold these ten acres to Stech, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 40 acres.
Henry Francis held ten acres being part of the lot of Francis Wrangham, lying at the head of Chapel Valley. The land joined on the east to Orlando Bagley and on the south to Josiah Charlesworth. The parcel had come into Francis's possession by his marriage to Wrangham's widow. The acreage was 10.
Francis also held ten acres formerly part of John Fannely's lot, lying in Chapel Valley. It joined on the north to Drew Follens and on the south to twenty acres formerly allotted to Jeff Steward. Fannely exchanged this parcel with James Follens, who exchanged it with Francis, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Francis also held ten acres formerly allotted to John Fowning, lying in [...] Peak Gult. It joined on the west to Peak Gult and the Dry Gult. Fowning exchanged these ten acres with Francis, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 30 acres.
Carried over: 940 acres.
Interpretations
The widow Sarah Harding stands as the registered holder of thirty acres in her own name, comprising both the original Amos allotment that had passed to her late husband and a further ten-acre parcel that had moved through a chain of five holders before reaching him. The jury recorded the full history of each parcel under her name, treating her as the legal successor to her husband's accumulated estate. This treatment matches the earlier entry for Mary Barrington and confirms that widows on the island took their late husbands' registered holdings without an intermediate male trustee.
Henry Francis's acquisition of part of the Wrangham allotment by marrying Wrangham's widow shows a third route by which land changed hands, distinct from sale, gift and exchange. The jury recorded the marriage itself as the operative mechanism of transfer, since the land moved with the widow into her new husband's name. The phrase by his marrying with the widow appears as a formal legal entry, indicating that this was an established and registered mode of title.
The chain of ten acres passing from Webley to Goodale to Stevens to Hunt to Harding, ending in Sarah Harding's hands, illustrates the depth of secondary dealing on the island by 1682. The same parcel had moved through five registered holders before settling with the widow of the last purchaser. The register's value as a title document depended on its ability to follow such chains accurately, since any break in the recorded sequence would have called the current holder's title into question.
The repeated phrase which he had for his wife, applied here to both John Duffield and John Hemmons in adjoining Pleasant Valley parcels, suggests that the original allotment scheme distributed land to married men in right of their wives as well as in their own right. Two adjacent ten-acre parcels both entered the register through this route and both later left their original holders' hands by exchange with the same buyer, Henry Coales.
The courtesy title Mr attached to Robert Swallow, used here as a boundary against John Stech's Chapel Valley land, places Swallow in the same social rank as Mr John Wynn and Mr Francis Moore, distinguishing them from the unranked planters who form the bulk of the register.
Speculations
Henry Coales acquired two adjacent ten-acre parcels in Pleasant Valley by separate exchanges with Duffield and Hemmons, both of whom had received their land in right of their wives. The matching pattern of acquisition, taking two contiguous parcels of identical size from two holders whose titles ran through the same legal route, suggests that Coales was deliberately assembling a twenty-acre working block in Pleasant Valley. The two exchanges look coordinated rather than coincidental, perhaps arranged at the same time to produce a single bounded holding.
Henry Francis's three ten-acre parcels, each acquired by a different mechanism, point to an opportunistic build-up rather than a planned consolidation. The marriage to Wrangham's widow brought him the first parcel, an indirect exchange through James Follens brought him the second, and a direct exchange with Fowning brought him the third. The parcels lay in different parts of Chapel Valley and the Peak Gult area, which suggests Francis was taking land where it became available rather than securing a contiguous block.
John Stech's combination of a twenty-acre Chapel Valley lot, a ten-acre Sandy Bay parcel from his own original allotment and a further ten-acre Chapel Valley parcel bought from Duffield indicates that he was building a holding spread across two distinct districts of the island. The Sandy Bay parcel, lying between the Main Ridge and the sea, would have served different agricultural or practical purposes from the Chapel Valley land, and Stech may have valued the dual location for the range of uses it offered.
6
Acres
Brought Over 940
William Price The Lott of Edward Crosbey Lying in Sandy bay adjoyning on the North to the Maein Redge, and butting on the South to the Bay, which Said 10 Acres the said Crosbey Exchanged with Robert Orcharel, and was by the said Orcharel Sold to John Cleverlee Exchanged with William Price in whose possession it now is 10
Thomas Swallow The Lott of Thomas Swallow Lying in Sandy bay butting on the North to 10 Acres of M[r] Robert Swallow, and on the South to 10 Acres of John Stech 20
Lawrence Lawson Formerly the Lott of Andrew Phillips Lying in Sandy Bay, adjoining on the West to the Lott of Andrew Wilson, and butting on the East to the bay which said 20 Acres was by the said Phillips Exchanged with John Cleverlee, and by the said Cleverlee Sold by Lawrence Lawson in whose possession it now is 20
Andrew Wilson The Lott of Andrew Wilson Lying in Sandy Bay adjoining on the North to the Maein Redge, and butting on the South to the Bay 20
John Bartlett The Lott of John Bartlett Lying in Sharks Valley adjoining on the North to Younges Valley Redge, and on the South to pleasant Valley Redge 20
John Mudge The Lott of John Mudge Lying in Sharks Valley adjoyning on the North to the Woody Redge, and on the South to pleasant Valley Redge 20
William ffox Iun[r] The Lott of William ffox Iunior Lying in Fishers Valley adjoining on the North to Black Oliver, and on the South to Thomas ffrancombe 20
Thomas Allis Formerly part of the Lott of Benjamin Miller Lying in Fishers Valley adjoyning on the North to the East Redge, and on the South to other 40 Acres formerly y[e] part of the Lott of the said Miller, which aforesaid 10 Acres he the said Miller Sold to Thomas Allis in whose possession it is Now 10
The Lott of Thomas Allis Lying in Deep Valley adjoyning on the North to Isaack Leach, and on the South upon the Lott which was formerly John Pooles 10
20
In all 1090
Brought over.
Total carried: 940 acres.
William Price held ten acres formerly allotted to Edward Crosbey, lying in Sandy Bay. The land joined on the north to the Main Ridge and bordered the bay on the south. Crosbey exchanged the parcel with Robert Orcharel, who sold it to John Cleverlee, who exchanged it with Price, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Thomas Swallow held a lot in Sandy Bay, bordering ten acres of Mr Robert Swallow on the north and ten acres of John Stech on the south. The acreage was 20.
Lawrence Lawson held land formerly allotted to Andrew Phillips, lying in Sandy Bay. It joined on the west to the lot of Andrew Wilson, and bordered the bay on the east. Phillips exchanged these twenty acres with John Cleverlee, who sold them to Lawson, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 20.
Andrew Wilson held a lot in Sandy Bay, joined on the north to the Main Ridge and bordering the bay on the south. The acreage was 20.
John Bartlett held a lot in Sharks Valley, joined on the north to Youngs Valley Ridge and on the south to Pleasant Valley Ridge. The acreage was 20.
John Mudge held a lot in Sharks Valley, joined on the north to the Woody Ridge and on the south to Pleasant Valley Ridge. The acreage was 20.
William Fox the younger held a lot in Fishers Valley, joined on the north to Black Oliver and on the south to Thomas Francombe. The acreage was 20.
Thomas Allis held ten acres formerly part of the lot of Benjamin Miller, lying in Fishers Valley. It joined on the north to the East Ridge and on the south to a further forty acres formerly part of Miller's lot. Miller sold these ten acres to Allis, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
Allis also held his own lot in Deep Valley, joined on the north to Isaac Leach and on the south to land formerly held by John Poole. The acreage was 10.
Sub-total: 20 acres.
In all: 1,090 acres.
Interpretations
The closing figure of 1,090 acres, marked in all, brings the inquest's running tally to a definitive total for this section of the register. The jury's task culminated in this audited sum, which gave the company a verified measure of allotted land traced to identifiable holders. The running carriage of sub-totals through 450, 650, 800, 940 and 1,090 acres shows that the audit was built up incrementally as each cluster of entries was settled, with the final figure standing as the certified outcome of the work.
The chain by which the Crosbey parcel reached William Price moved through four registered holders, with Cleverlee again appearing as an intermediate purchaser. This is the third Sandy Bay parcel in which Cleverlee figures, alongside his consolidation of the Long allotment and his sale to Steward recorded earlier. His repeated presence as a dealer who acquired land and passed it on points to a sustained commercial role in the Sandy Bay market for land, rather than the one-off transactions typical of most planters in the register.
The presence of two Swallows, Mr Robert Swallow as the courtesy-titled holder of one Sandy Bay parcel and Thomas Swallow as the unranked holder of the adjoining lot, mirrors the Fox pattern seen earlier in which a senior and a junior member of the same family both held land in their own right. The social distinction marked by Mr applied within the family as well as between families, separating Robert's standing from that of his kinsman Thomas.
The reference to Black Oliver as the northern boundary of William Fox the younger's land in Fishers Valley, following Black Slewer in the earlier section, indicates that the register included two holders identified by descriptive bynames built on the same prefix. The jury treated these holders in the same way as any other named neighbour, using them as fixed reference points in the boundary descriptions.
Speculations
John Cleverlee's repeated role as the intermediate buyer in Sandy Bay transactions, taking the Crosbey parcel from Orcharel and the Phillips parcel from Phillips himself, only to pass each on to other holders, suggests that he was operating as a working dealer in Sandy Bay land by the early 1680s. He had earlier consolidated the Long allotment into his own hands, but in these later transactions he moved land through his possession rather than retaining it. The pattern points to a shift, or perhaps a parallel activity, in which Cleverlee acted as a broker who placed parcels with settled buyers such as Price and Lawson rather than expanding his own estate further.
Lawrence Lawson's acquisition of the Phillips twenty acres through Cleverlee placed him next to Andrew Wilson's holding on the west, with the bay forming the eastern boundary. The land was perhaps sought for its coastal frontage as much as for its acreage, since a Sandy Bay parcel with direct access to the shore would have offered uses unavailable to inland plots. Lawson's purchase of an already-traded parcel, rather than an original allotment, indicates that prime Sandy Bay land was no longer available in first grant by 1682 and had to be acquired through the secondary market.
7
170⅔
February the 20[th]
John Hemon John Hemon Corporall hath a House and Twenty Acres of Land Lying at the head of Fishers Valley which was the allott of William Bishop and his Wife deceased who Exchanged the Same with Richard Leach free Planter Deceased who Sold the Same to John Hemons in whose Possession it now is Acres 20
Ditto hath a House Standing in Chappell Valley who bought the Same of Governour Helens deceased who bought the said House of Robert Degarney free planter
George Dweight George Dweight Souldier hath Ten Acres of Land Lying in Sharks Valley adjoyning to the Lands of John Mudge free Planter, and Sarah Sensney which was the Land of Edward Gardener Deceased, who gave the Same to William Marsh free Planter (for the use of his Son Robert) who Sold the Same to George Dweight in whose Possession it now is 10
Island S[t] Helena
Know all Men by the presents that I Sarah Sensney of the Said Island for good Causes and Considerations me thereunto moving Give and Grant Leave unto my Father in Law George Dweight Souldier To have free Liberty to Carry Water from my Land into the Water Course that the Said George Dweight makes use of, To convey the said Water, above [p]art of his Ground for his own benefitt binding my Selfe my heires Execu tors, and assigns to Henry Modlees, and him to the said George Dweight his heers Executors and assignes from the Benefitt of the said Water Courses, In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this thirteenth day of March One thousand Seaven hundred and Two three
Signed Sealed and Delivered in the presence of us Jonathan [+] his Hegham Mark Matthew [marked] Bazett mark[ed]
her Sarah X Sensney [seal] Mark
Vera Copia [p]e me John Alexander
170⅔
20 February.
John Hemon, corporal, held a house and twenty acres of land at the head of Fishers Valley. The land had been the allotment of William Bishop and his wife, both since died. Bishop exchanged the parcel with Richard Leach, free planter, since died, who sold it to Hemon, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 20.
Hemon also held a house standing in Chapel Valley. He had bought it from Governor Helens, since died, who had bought it from Robert Degarney, free planter.
George Dweight, soldier, held ten acres of land in Sharks Valley, joined to the lands of John Mudge, free planter, and Sarah Sensney. The land had belonged to Edward Gardener, since died, who gave it to William Marsh, free planter, for the use of his son Robert. Marsh sold the land to Dweight, in whose possession it now lay. The acreage was 10.
Island of St Helena.
Sarah Sensney of the island made known by these presents that she granted leave to her father in law George Dweight, soldier, to draw water from her land into the watercourse he used, and to carry that water above the upper part of his ground for his own benefit. She bound herself, her heirs, executors and assigns to Henry Modlees, and bound him in turn to Dweight, his heirs, executors and assigns, with respect to the benefit of the watercourse. She set her hand and seal to the document on 13 March 1703.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Jonathan Hegham, who made his mark, and Matthew Bazett, who made his mark.
Sarah Sensney made her mark in the form of an X. A seal was attached.
A true copy by John Alexander.
Interpretations
The distinction between corporal, soldier and free planter, applied here to Hemon, Dweight and the various former holders, shows that the register separated landholders by their relationship to the garrison. The free planter category identified civilian settlers who held land in their own right, while the military ranks marked men who held land alongside their service obligations. The categories were carried in the record because they affected the legal and administrative standing of the holder, including liability to military duty.
The mechanism by which Edward Gardener's ten acres reached Dweight is unusual and revealing. Gardener gave the land to William Marsh expressly for the use of his son Robert, which is the language of a trust or use rather than an outright gift. Marsh held the legal title but the beneficial interest belonged to Robert. The later sale by Marsh to Dweight raises questions about whether the beneficial interest was extinguished, transferred or compensated, since the register treats the sale as effective without addressing Robert's position.
The watercourse grant from Sarah Sensney to her father in law George Dweight is a separate legal instrument that reveals how water rights operated alongside land titles on the island. Land alone did not carry an automatic right to water, and a planter who needed to draw water across or from a neighbour's ground required a formal grant. The instrument was drafted as a binding conveyance, with the grantor binding her heirs, executors and assigns to honour the right in perpetuity, which gave the grant the same durability as a freehold interest.
The intermediate figure of Henry Modlees, named in the watercourse grant as the person to whom Sensney bound herself and who in turn was bound to Dweight, suggests a chain of conveyance routed through a third party rather than a direct grant. The construction may reflect a legal device for securing the right against future challenges, with Modlees acting as a trustee or intermediate covenantor through whom the obligation passed.
Sarah Sensney's signature by mark, in the form of an X, alongside the marks of the two witnesses Hegham and Bazett, indicates that none of the three could write their names. The document was nevertheless drafted in formal conveyancing language, witnessed and sealed, and certified as a true copy by John Alexander. The legal effect of the grant did not depend on the literacy of the parties but on the proper execution of the instrument.
The phrase father in law, applied to Dweight as the recipient of the grant from Sensney, identifies the family connection that lay behind the arrangement. The grant was made within a household relationship rather than as an arm's length transaction, which explains the language of good causes and considerations rather than a stated monetary payment.
Speculations
The watercourse grant from Sarah Sensney to George Dweight, made within a father in law relationship and without recorded payment, looks like a family arrangement to support Dweight's working of his Sharks Valley land. His ten acres adjoined Sensney's land directly, and the grant allowed him to carry water above the upper part of his ground for his own benefit. The phrase above part of his ground suggests that the watercourse was needed to irrigate land that lay above the natural flow, which would otherwise have been difficult to water. The grant solved a specific practical problem created by the topography of Dweight's holding.
The routing of the watercourse obligation through Henry Modlees, with Sensney bound to Modlees and Modlees bound to Dweight, suggests a deliberate legal structure rather than a casual arrangement. The intermediate covenantor would have provided a check against either party repudiating the grant, since the obligation ran through a third party whose own interest in the watercourse may have been independent. Modlees was perhaps an upstream holder whose cooperation was essential to the flow of water, and the binding language secured his role in the arrangement.
William Marsh's sale of the Gardener land to Dweight, in apparent disregard of the trust for Robert Marsh, may reflect either that Robert had since died, that the trust had been formally discharged or that the family treated the holding as effectively Marsh's own despite the original gift's wording. The register's silence on Robert's position points to a resolution that took place outside the recorded transaction, perhaps within the family, leaving Marsh free to sell as if he held absolutely.
8
Acres
Jonathan Higham Jonathan Higham Souldier hath Ten Acres of Land Lying in Sharks Valley adjoyning to the Lands of Mathew Bazett, and Built upon the Right Hon[ble] Companys Waste Lands which Lands was the Lott of Robert Orchard free planter deceased, who Sold or Exchanged the Same, to, or with Thom[s] Beurch Deceased with Ten Acres more adjoyning to this said Ten Acres which he Sold to Benjamin Seale deceased, And the said Beurch Sold the said Ten Acres, forst mentioned to the s[ai]d Jonathan Higham in whose possession it now is 10
May the 5[t] 1703
William Dufton William Dufton Souldier hath Twenty Acres of Land Lying Nigh the head of Chappell Valley Next adjoyning to Grace [B]ulfons Gum wood Land, and the Lands of Leonard Stevens which Said 20 Acres of Land was formerly one Edward Gays n[ow] deceased who as is said gave the Same to Robert Marsh y[e] Son of William Marsh, who in behalfe and for the use and Bene fitt of his said Son Robert Sold the said 20 Acres Land to y[e] said William Dufton in whose possession it now is 20
Tho[s] Harper to James Casthope Know all Men by these presents that I Thomas Harper Planter of the said Island S[t] Helena, for and in consideration of the Sum of Thirty Pounds Currant Money of the said Island paid me by James Casthope of the Island abovesaid Souldier the Receipt of which I do acknowledge, and my Selfe to be fully contented paied, and of Every part, and parcell thereof, Do Clearly Acquitt and Exonerate him the Said James Casthope, who for Divers other good Causes and Considerations have granted Bargained, and Sold, and delivered, and by these presents doe absolutely grant bargaine Sell and deliver unto the Said James Casthope twenty Acres of Land Lying Sciteate, and being at the head of Sarahs Valley Next adjoyning to the Land of John ffuller (be the Same more or less) with all and Singular the Fruits whatsoever Are sing Issueing or growing thereon, and all the Appertenances there unto belonging or Appertaining, as allso One Dwelling house Sciteate and being on the Land aforesaid, To have, and to hold the said house and Twenty Acres of Land, with all, and Singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging To him the said James Casthope, his heers Executors Administra tors, or Assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever, and the said Thomas Harper for himself, his Heirs Executors Administrators, or assignes Do grant and agree to and with the said James Casthope, that he the said James Casthope Shall have hold and Occupie possess & Enjoy the said Premises with all the appourtenances thereunto belonging with out the Lawfull Lett Suite Trouble Eviction or Interruption of him the said Thomas Harper his heirs Executors, Administrators or Assignes or of any other person or persons whatsoever, In Witness whereof the said Thomas Harper hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this Seaven and twenteeth day of March One thousand Six hundred & Ninety four
Signed Sealed and D[elivered] in the presence of us James Cast[ho]ng[s] George Hosk[in]son
Tho[s] Harper
Jonathan Higham, soldier, held ten acres of land in Sharks Valley, joined to the lands of Matthew Bazett. The buildings stood on the Right Honourable Company's waste lands. The land had been the lot of Robert Orchard, free planter, since died. Orchard sold or exchanged the parcel, together with a further ten acres adjoining it, to Thomas Beurch, since died. Beurch sold the second ten acres to Benjamin Seale, since died, and sold the first ten acres described here to Higham, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 10.
5 May 1703.
William Dufton, soldier, held twenty acres of land near the head of Chapel Valley, joined to Grace Bulfon's gumwood land and to the lands of Leonard Stevens. The twenty acres had formerly belonged to one Edward Gay, since died, who was said to have given the land to Robert Marsh, the son of William Marsh. William Marsh, acting on behalf of his son Robert and for his son's use and benefit, sold the twenty acres to Dufton, in whose possession the land now lay. The acreage was 20.
Thomas Harper to James Casthope.
Thomas Harper, planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received the sum of thirty pounds in island currency from James Casthope, soldier of the same island. He acknowledged full payment of the entire sum and released Casthope from any further claim in respect of it. For this consideration and for other good causes, Harper granted, sold and delivered to Casthope twenty acres of land at the head of Sarahs Valley, joined to the land of John Fuller, with all fruits growing on it and all appurtenances belonging to it. He also granted a dwelling house standing on the land. Casthope was to hold the house and the twenty acres, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the document for ever. Harper bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to allow Casthope to hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the premises without lawful hindrance, suit, trouble, eviction or interruption from any person whatsoever. Harper set his hand and seal to the document on 27 March 1694.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of James Casthongs and George Hoskinson.
Thomas Harper.
Interpretations
The reference to the Right Honourable Company's waste lands, against which Jonathan Higham's buildings stood, identifies a category of land that the East India Company retained as unallotted and unimproved. The phrase waste was a technical term for ground not yet brought into cultivation or granted to a settler, and the company's continuing ownership of such land bordered private holdings throughout the island. Higham's buildings stood on this retained ground rather than on his own ten acres, which raises a separate question of tenure for the buildings as distinct from the land beneath them.
The Orchard allotment in Sharks Valley shows another instance of a single twenty-acre grant split into two ten-acre parcels and sold to different buyers. Beurch acquired the whole from Orchard, sold one half to Seale and the other half to Higham. The chain demonstrates how original allotments were broken up in the secondary market to suit the working needs of incoming buyers, with intermediate holders like Beurch acting as the agents of subdivision.
The Edward Gay parcel illustrates the same trust-style mechanism seen earlier in the Gardener gift. Gay gave the twenty acres to Robert Marsh, with his father William Marsh acting on his behalf. William Marsh then sold the land to Dufton, expressly in his son's name and for his son's benefit. The phrasing here is more careful than in the Gardener entry, since it states that the sale was made for the use and benefit of Robert, which preserves the beneficial interest in the proceeds rather than simply transferring the land out of the trust without acknowledgement.
The conveyance from Thomas Harper to James Casthope is a full freehold deed in formal English conveyancing style, drafted to give Casthope a clear and defensible title. The phrase be the same more or less, applied to the twenty acres, recognises that the recorded acreage was an approximation rather than a surveyed measurement. The price of £30 0s 0d in island currency provides a benchmark for the value of a twenty-acre Sarahs Valley parcel with a dwelling house in 1694.
The covenant for quiet enjoyment, by which Harper bound himself and his successors against any lawful let, suit, trouble, eviction or interruption to Casthope's possession, was the standard protection in freehold conveyancing. The clause shifted the risk of defective title from the buyer to the seller and gave Casthope a legal remedy against Harper or his heirs if anyone with a prior claim later challenged the holding.
The naming of James Casthope as a soldier in the conveyance, alongside Harper's description as a planter, marks the same garrison-civilian distinction seen in the earlier entries. A serving soldier could acquire freehold land in the island's market on the same terms as a civilian planter, with the rank carried in the record for identification rather than affecting the legal substance of the transaction.
Speculations
The sale of Edward Gay's twenty acres by William Marsh, acting for his son Robert, follows the same pattern as the earlier disposal of the Gardener ten acres. Robert appears in two separate entries as the beneficial owner of land that his father sold on his behalf, in each case to a different purchaser. Robert was perhaps a minor or otherwise unable to act in his own name, with his father exercising the legal capacity to transact on his behalf. The repeated structure suggests an established family practice for managing Robert's interests, with William Marsh holding the legal title in trust and converting land into proceeds as circumstances required.
Jonathan Higham's choice to build on the company's waste land adjacent to his own ten acres rather than on the ten acres themselves points to a practical decision about the working of the parcel. He may have valued the additional space without the cost of acquiring further title, or the topography of his own land may have made building difficult. The arrangement carried the risk that the company could reclaim the waste ground at any time, which suggests Higham was either confident of continuing tolerance or willing to accept a structure that he could not defend at law.
The price of £30 0s 0d that Casthope paid Harper for twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley, together with a dwelling house, provides a useful market benchmark for the period. The figure equates to thirty shillings an acre with the house thrown in, or rather less per acre if the house carried significant value. The relatively modest sum points to a working agricultural valuation rather than a premium for prime ground, which fits the upland location at the valley head.
9
Richard Gurling to George Carne In Consideration of a Sum of Money by me already Received of M[r] George Carne I do hereby Sell and deliver a parcell of Land Antaining 16 ½ Foote on breadth and backward according to the Deed behind the house of M[rs] Margaret Facknalds Wedow Unto the aforesaid M[r] George Carne his heirs Executors and Administrators and assigns, and do for me my Self my heers Executors and Administrators Covenant and agree that he and they Shall and may from all time hereafter peaceably and Quietly Enjoy the said Land, and do Quitt all my Right and Title to the Same Wittness my hand this 5[t] day of May 1704 Richard Gurling
George Carne to Ellinor Keeling I George Carne do hereby freely and absolutely Give unto Ellinor Keeling my Daughter in Law, the above Mentioned Land to her and heirs for Ever, Wittness my hand this 17 day of May 1704 George Carne
February 16. 170⅔
Marg[t] Fagnald I Margaret Fagnald Wedow and Guardean of my Children by my former Husband do protest against these Acts above written, as being done without my Knowledge and consent, This Declaration of mine is made to the End, that the abovesaid writeing Shall do no Harm or prejudice to my said Children[s] Lawfull Right to the ground mentioned therein Marg[t] Fagnald
Island S[t] Helena
John Young to Thomas Goodwin To all Christian People to whome this present Writing Shall Come John Younge of the Island S[t] Helena Souldier Sendeth Gree- ting In our Lord God Everlasting Know Ye that me the aforesaid John Younge for and in Consideration of the Sum of three pounds Currant Lawfull Money of the said Island to me the aforesaid John Younge of Thomas Goodwin well and Tr[u]ly before hand paied whereof I acknowledge my Selfe to be fully Satisfied and Contented, and the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres Executors and administrators to be for Ever Acquitted and Exo nerated by these presents, Have given Granted Enfeoffed, and by this my present writeing Confirmed to the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heirs and assignes, one peece or parcell of Land, (which is more) Lyeing & being on the said Island of S[t] Helena at the head of the Little Horsepad there being part of the Lott Land of James Wakefield deceased and purchased by my Father John Younge deceased as by the meets and bounds thereof they are Sett forth, and well known being Eight Acres of Land, the other two Acres of the Ten purchased by Edward Crosbey, which said Eight Acres of Land are now in the possession and Occupation of me the said John Young, To Have and to Hold the aforesaid Eight Acres of Land with all, and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging, or in any Wise Appertaineing to the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heers or assignes for Ever, To hold of the Cheefe Lords of the Fee thereof by Services heretofore done, and of Right Accustomed Against me, my heires, and assignes do and for Ever Defend by these presents, In Wittness whereof I the aforesaid John Young to this present writeing have putt my hand and Seale Dated the 24 day of May One thousand Six hundred Ninety three
his John W Young mark
Signed Sealed and delivered in the presence of us, Edward Bless, Edward Crosbey, John Bagley Daneell Griffeth Vera Copia Originall p[er] me Clke Councell
Richard Gurling to George Carne.
Richard Gurling acknowledged that he had received a sum of money from Mr George Carne and in return sold and delivered to him a parcel of land measuring sixteen and a half feet in breadth, extending backwards according to the deed, behind the house of Mrs Margaret Facknald, widow. Gurling conveyed the land to Carne, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and bound himself and his successors to allow Carne and his heirs to hold and enjoy the land peaceably and without disturbance thereafter. He quit all his right and title to the parcel. He signed the document on 5 May 1704.
Richard Gurling.
George Carne to Ellinor Keeling.
George Carne freely and absolutely gave the above-mentioned land to his daughter in law Ellinor Keeling, to her and her heirs for ever. He signed the document on 17 May 1704.
George Carne.
16 February 1703.
Margaret Fagnald, widow and guardian of her children by her former husband, protested against the acts written above. She declared that they had been done without her knowledge and consent. She made this declaration so that the documents above should do no harm or prejudice to her children's lawful right to the ground described in them.
Margaret Fagnald.
Island of St Helena.
John Young to Thomas Goodwin.
John Young of the island of St Helena, soldier, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Thomas Goodwin the sum of £3 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island, in full payment and to his complete satisfaction. He released Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns, one parcel of land, said to be of larger measure, lying on the island at the head of the Little Horsepad. The parcel was part of the lot land of James Wakefield, since died, which had been purchased by Young's father John Young, since died, as the bounds were set forth and well known. The parcel comprised eight acres, with the other two acres of the original ten having been purchased by Edward Crosbey. The eight acres lay in Young's own possession and occupation at the time of the conveyance. Goodwin was to hold the land, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. Young bound himself, his heirs and assigns to defend the title against any challenge. He set his hand and seal to the document on 24 May 1693.
John Young made his mark in the form of a W.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Edward Bless, Edward Crosbey, John Bagley and Daniel Griffeth.
A true copy of the original by the clerk of the council.
Interpretations
The conveyance from Gurling to Carne, followed within twelve days by Carne's gift of the same parcel to his daughter in law Ellinor Keeling, shows how a small urban or near-urban plot could move twice in quick succession through the registered title system. The parcel was identified by frontage measurement (sixteen and a half feet in breadth) rather than by acreage, which marks it as a building plot or yard space rather than agricultural land. The location behind Mrs Margaret Fagnald's house places it in a developed area where land was measured by linear dimensions, in contrast to the rural allotments measured in tens and twenties of acres.
Margaret Fagnald's protest, entered into the register on 16 February 1703, demonstrates that the recording system allowed an interested party to formally object to a transaction without immediately litigating it. She declared that the sale and gift had taken place without her knowledge and consent, and she entered her declaration to preserve her children's rights against any later use of the documents. The procedure reserved her position without halting the transactions, putting any later purchaser on notice of the dispute.
The date sequence raises a difficulty that the register itself does not resolve. Gurling's conveyance to Carne is dated 5 May 1704 and Carne's gift to Keeling is dated 17 May 1704, while Fagnald's protest is dated 16 February 1703 (which on the modern calendar is 16 February 1704, since the year on the island began on 25 March). The protest is therefore dated before the conveyances it complains of, which suggests either that the register has gathered related entries together out of strict chronological order, or that Fagnald's protest was directed at earlier draft instruments that were later formally executed in May.
The role of Margaret Fagnald as widow and guardian of her children shows that a widow's authority extended to protecting her children's inheritance interests in land. Her status as guardian was formally recognised in the protest she registered, and her declaration was treated as a record entry in its own right. The case parallels the earlier treatment of Mary Barrington and Sarah Harding as widows holding land in their own names, while adding the further dimension of guardianship over minor children's beneficial interests.
The conveyance from Young to Goodwin uses the full medieval English language of feoffment, with the parcel granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. The phrase reproduces a tenurial formula by then almost vestigial in England but carried into St Helena conveyancing practice as a marker of formal freehold transfer. The chief lords of the fee in this context would have been the East India Company as the ultimate landholder of the island, although the formula was used without identifying the recipient of any continuing services.
The price of £3 0s 0d that Goodwin paid Young for eight acres at the head of the Little Horsepad gives a per-acre figure of about seven shillings and sixpence, far below the implied rate of the Harper to Casthope conveyance of 1694. The difference perhaps reflects the absence of a dwelling house on the Goodwin parcel, the more remote upland location, or the fact that the land formed only part of a former ten-acre lot whose other two acres had gone to Edward Crosbey.
The Wakefield lot's division between Young senior, who bought eight acres, and Edward Crosbey, who bought the remaining two acres, illustrates again how original ten-acre allotments were split between buyers in the secondary market. James Wakefield appears in the earlier 1682 register as a buyer who took parcels in Lemon Valley from Milbank and Ferrant and resold them to Boyce, and his name surfaces here as the original holder of the lot that supplied Young senior's land. The parcel had passed from Wakefield's estate to Young senior and then by inheritance to Young junior, who as a soldier on the island sold it on to Goodwin.
The witnessing of Young's conveyance by Edward Crosbey, who held the other two acres of the same original Wakefield lot, points to the close-knit nature of property dealings in the district. Crosbey's signature would have given the conveyance particular weight, since as the holder of the adjacent parcel he was best placed to confirm the bounds of the land sold.
Speculations
The timing of Carne's gift to Ellinor Keeling, twelve days after his purchase from Gurling, suggests that the acquisition was made with the onward gift already in mind. Carne may have stepped in to buy the parcel from Gurling specifically in order to provide for his daughter in law, with the brief intermediate ownership serving only to clear the title through his own hands before passing it to her. The arrangement avoided a direct sale from Gurling to Keeling and gave Carne control over the terms of her acquisition.
Margaret Fagnald's protest perhaps reflects a dispute about the boundary of the parcel sold rather than the existence of the sale itself. The land lay behind her house and was identified by frontage measurement, which would have made the precise extent of the plot a matter of practical importance for her continued use of her own property. Her concern to protect her children's lawful right to the ground points to a claim that some portion of the parcel sold properly belonged to her children's inheritance from her former husband.
John Young's sale of his inherited Little Horsepad land to Thomas Goodwin in 1693, while he was serving as a soldier on the island, fits a pattern by which garrison men converted inherited land into cash. Young senior had bought the eight acres during his lifetime, and Young junior's decision to sell rather than work the land suggests that his military service made cultivation impractical. The modest price of £3 0s 0d, against a holding that lay in his own possession and occupation, indicates that he was content to take what the market offered for a parcel he could not manage himself.
10
John Coles to Thomas Goodwin To all Christian People to whome these present Writing Shall Come John Coles of the Island S[t] Helena Sendeth Greeteing In our Lord God Everlasting Now know Ye that me the aforesaid John Coles for and in Consideration of the Sum of Eleaven pounds Currant lawfull Money of the Island S[t] Helena to me the aforesaid John Coles by Thomas Goodwin of the said Island Deputy Storekeeper well and Truely before hand paid whereof acknowledge mySelfe to be fully Sattisfied and Contented, and the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres Executors and Administrators to be for Ever Acquited and Exonorated, by these presents have given Granted Enfeoffed, and by this my present Writing Confirmed, to the said Thomas Goodwin his heires and assignes, All that 1 peece or parcell of Land Lyeing and being upon the said Island S[t] Helena Near the head of Fryers Valley Containing Ten Acres being formerly part of the Allotment of my Father John Coles deceased which Land abutts upon Lands now in possession of Thomas Alleson planter towards the West, upon the other part of my Fathers Lott Land now in possession of me John Coles towards the South and East, upon Land formerly in possession of Thomas Bolton planter Deceased towards the North as by the meets and bounds thereof they are set forth and well known, Which Ten Acres of Land, and all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging n[ow] are or in the Tenuro or Occupation of me the said John Coles, To Have and to hold the aforesaid Ten Acres of Land with all and Singullar the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any was appertaining to the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres and assignes, To the Use and behoofe of the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres and assignes for Ever to hold of the Cheese Lords of the Fee thereof by Services heretofore due and of Right Accustomed against me my heeres Executors Administrators and assignes, And against all other Men Do Warrant and for Ever Defend by these presents, In Wittness whereof I the aforesaid John Coles, To this my present Writeing have putt to my hand and Seale Dated the 26[th] Day of March 1696
Signed Sealed and Delivered in the presence of us Anne Coles James Du[ffe] Thomas Alleson Vera Copea Pregenall [p]me Doncel Griffeth Clke Councell
John Coles [seal]
John Coles to Thomas Goodwin.
John Coles of the island of St Helena addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Thomas Goodwin, deputy storekeeper of the island, the sum of £11 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island, in full payment and to his complete satisfaction. He released Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns, one parcel of land near the head of Fryer Valley, containing ten acres. The land had formerly been part of the allotment of his father John Coles, since died. It was bounded on the west by lands then held by Thomas Alleson, planter, on the south and east by the remaining part of his father's lot still in his own possession, and on the north by land formerly held by Thomas Bolton, planter, since died. The bounds were set out and well known. The ten acres lay in Coles's own occupation at the time of the conveyance. Goodwin was to hold the land, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. Coles bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to warrant and defend the title against all other men. He set his hand and seal to the document on 26 March 1696.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Anne Coles, James Duffe and Thomas Alleson.
A true copy of the original by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
John Coles, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The description of Thomas Goodwin as deputy storekeeper places him within the East India Company's administrative establishment on the island. The storekeeper was the officer responsible for managing the company's stocks of goods, provisions and stores, and the deputy held the post under him. Goodwin's appearance here as a buyer of freehold land, alongside his earlier purchase of the Wakefield parcel from John Young, shows that company officials accumulated private holdings on the island while serving in their administrative roles. The title was carried in the conveyance because it identified Goodwin's standing and capacity to transact.
The price of £11 0s 0d for ten acres at the head of Fryer Valley gives a per-acre figure of £1 2s 0d, well above the rate implicit in Young's sale to Goodwin of eight acres for £3 0s 0d three years earlier. The difference points to the variable quality of land on the island, with Fryer Valley parcels commanding significantly higher prices than the Little Horsepad upland. The price also reflects that the ten acres formed part of an established lot adjoining the seller's remaining holding, rather than an isolated upland fragment.
The bounds of the parcel are described entirely by reference to neighbouring holders, present and former, rather than by physical features such as ridges, streams or peaks. This contrasts with the 1682 register, which routinely used named topographic features as boundary markers. The shift suggests that by the 1690s the network of established holdings had become dense enough to serve as its own reference system, with each parcel anchored by reference to its identified neighbours rather than the underlying landscape.
The retention by John Coles of the remaining part of his father's lot, lying to the south and east of the parcel sold, shows the deliberate splitting of an inherited allotment between cash and continued holding. Coles converted ten acres into money while keeping the rest of his father's land in his own occupation. The transaction balanced the immediate need for funds against the long-term value of the family holding.
The witnessing of the conveyance by Anne Coles, alongside James Duffe and Thomas Alleson, indicates that a female relative of the seller participated formally in the registered transaction. Anne Coles was probably his wife, sister or daughter, and her signature as witness gave the conveyance additional weight within the family. The earlier conveyance from Young to Goodwin had been witnessed by Edward Crosbey, the holder of the adjoining parcel, and the same pattern appears here with Thomas Alleson, whose land bounded the parcel sold on the west. The presence of an adjoining holder as witness gave authoritative confirmation of the recorded bounds.
The warranty by which Coles bound himself and his successors to defend the title against all other men provides Goodwin with the same protection that Casthope had received from Harper in the 1694 conveyance. The clause was a standard element of formal freehold transfer on the island, transferring the risk of any defect in title from the buyer to the seller's estate.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's pattern of acquisition, taking the eight-acre Young parcel at the head of the Little Horsepad in 1693 and the ten-acre Coles parcel near the head of Fryer Valley in 1696, suggests a deliberate strategy of building up a private estate through purchases from men under pressure to sell. Young was a soldier with inherited land he could not manage, and Coles had inherited a divided lot from his late father. Goodwin was perhaps in a position, through his role as deputy storekeeper, to identify and approach holders likely to sell, and his official salary gave him the means to pay. The £11 0s 0d he paid Coles, more than three times the £3 0s 0d Young had received, indicates that Goodwin distinguished between speculative upland purchases and investment in established valley land.
The relatively high price for the Fryer Valley parcel may reflect not only soil quality but also the parcel's position within an established cluster of working holdings. The land lay between Alleson on the west, Coles's continued holding on the south and east, and the former Bolton land on the north, all of which had been in active cultivation. A parcel surrounded by working neighbours carried less risk than an isolated upland plot and offered the buyer immediate integration into the surrounding pattern of cultivation.
John Coles's decision to sell to the company's deputy storekeeper rather than to a neighbouring planter such as Alleson may have been driven by the certainty of payment that an officeholder could offer. A planter buyer would have needed to raise the £11 0s 0d through the disposal of crops or stock, while Goodwin could pay from his accumulated cash. The transaction therefore represents one channel by which company salaries fed into the island's private land market, with administrative officers acting as ready buyers for parcels offered for sale.
11
Edward Crosbey to Thomas Goodwin To all Christean People to whome this present Writeing Shall Come, I Edward Crosbey of the Island S[t] Helena Souldier Sendeth Greeting In our Lord God Everlasting Now know ye that me the aforesaid Edward Crosby for and in Consideration of the Sum of Six pounds Currant and Lawfull Money of the Said Island, To me the Said Edward Crosby by Thomas Goodwin of the said Island well and truely before hand paied whereof do Acknowledge mySelfe to be therewith fully Satisfeed Contented and paied, And the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres Executors and Administrators to be for Ever Acquetted & Exonerated By these presents have given granted Infeoffed, and by this my present Writing Confermed to the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heirs and Assigner One peece and parcell of Land Lying and being in the said Island of S[t] Helena On the Sede of the little Horse past[u]re being part of the Lot Land of James Wakefield deceased, as by the Meets and bounds thereof is well [k]nown, Being Two Acres part of ten Acres bought by John Young deceased of the said James Wakefield, the other Eight Acres being lately purchased by the said Thom[s] Goodwin of the said John Young the Son and heer of the said John Younge Deceased To have and to Hold the aforesaid two Acres of Land with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging for the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres and assignes for Ever, To hold of the Cheese Lords of the Fee thereof by Services heretofore due and of Right Accustomed, against me my heeres and assigns do Warrant and for Ever Defend In Wittness whereof have hereunto Set my hand and Seale, this 19 day of March 169 ⅘ Signed Sealed & Delivered in the presence of us Rippon Wells John Alexander Vera Copia [p] me Daniell Griffeth Clke of the Councell
Edward Crosby [seal]
William Fox to Thom[s] Harper Know all Men by these presents that I William Fox planter of the Island S[t] Helena, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Twenty five pounds Currant Money of the Said Island paid me by Thomas Harper of the Island aforesaid planter the Receipt of which I do acknowledge, and my Selfe to be fully Contented and paid, and of Every part and parcell thereof do Clearly Acquit and Exonerate him the said Thomas Harper and for Divers other good Causes and Considerations Have Granted bargained Sold and Delivered, And by these presents do absolutely grant bargai[n] Sell and deliver unto the said Thomas Harper Twenty Acres of Land Sciteate, Lying and being at the head of Sarahs Valley Next adjoyning to the Land of Owen Bevan (be the Same more or less) with All and Singular the Fruits whatsoever Areising Issueing or growing thereon and all the Appur tenances thereunto belonging or Appurtaining as allso One Dwelling house Sciteate and being on the Land aforesaid to have and to hold the [afore]said
Edward Crosbey to Thomas Goodwin.
Edward Crosbey of the island of St Helena, soldier, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Thomas Goodwin the sum of £6 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island, in full payment and to his complete satisfaction. He released Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns, one parcel of land on the side of the Little Horse Pasture. The land was part of the lot of James Wakefield, since died, and its bounds were well known. The parcel comprised two acres, being part of the ten acres that John Young, since died, had bought from Wakefield. The other eight acres had recently been bought by Goodwin from John Young, son and heir of the elder John Young. Goodwin was to hold the two acres, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. Crosbey bound himself, his heirs and assigns to warrant and defend the title. He set his hand and seal to the document on 19 March 1695.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Rippon Wells and John Alexander.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Edward Crosbey, with a seal attached.
William Fox to Thomas Harper.
William Fox, planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received the sum of £25 0s 0d in current money of the island from Thomas Harper, planter of the same island. He acknowledged full payment and released Harper from any further claim. For this consideration and for other good causes, Fox granted, sold and delivered to Harper twenty acres of land at the head of Sarahs Valley, joined to the land of Owen Bevan, with all fruits growing on it and all appurtenances belonging to it. He also granted a dwelling house standing on the land. Harper was to hold the twenty acres and the house, with all appurtenances.
Interpretations
The Crosbey conveyance closes the record of how the original ten-acre Wakefield parcel at the Little Horse Pasture came into Thomas Goodwin's hands. Goodwin had bought the eight acres from John Young the younger in May 1693 and now took the remaining two acres from Crosbey on 19 March 1695. The two transactions reassembled the original ten-acre allotment under a single owner, with Goodwin having paid £3 0s 0d for the larger portion and £6 0s 0d for the smaller. The disparity in price per acre, with the two-acre parcel costing twice as much as the eight, indicates that the two parcels carried very different valuations despite forming parts of the same original lot.
The conveyance date of 19 March 1695, falling before 25 March in the old calendar, would have been written by the parties at the time as 19 March 1694 according to the year then current on the island. The document records the date in the dual form 169 ⅘ to acknowledge both reckonings, with 1694 as the year then ending and 1695 as the year just about to begin. The dual dating reflects the calendar practice by which the new year began on Lady Day, 25 March, six days after the conveyance was executed.
The price of £25 0s 0d that Harper paid Fox for twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley, with a dwelling house, gives a per-acre figure of twenty-five shillings, close to the rate at which Casthope had paid Harper £30 0s 0d for a similar twenty-acre parcel with a house in March 1694. The two prices establish a consistent valuation for upper Sarahs Valley land of this size and improvement in the mid-1690s. Harper himself moves between the role of seller in the Casthope transaction and buyer in the Fox transaction, accumulating land in the same valley district while disposing of holdings to others within it.
The recurrence of the formula be the same more or less, applied here to the twenty acres conveyed by Fox to Harper as it was in the Harper to Casthope deed, confirms the phrase as a standard element of the island's conveyancing language. The clause protected the seller against a later claim that the parcel fell short of its recorded acreage, since the buyer accepted the land as identified by its bounds rather than by precise measurement.
The price differential between Goodwin's £6 0s 0d for two acres from Crosbey and the £3 0s 0d he had paid Young for eight acres of the same lot perhaps reflects the position of the two parcels within the original Wakefield holding. Crosbey's two acres may have included the more accessible or workable ground, or may have carried particular features such as water access or building potential that gave them disproportionate value. Without a description of the parcels' relative positions, the precise reason for the disparity cannot be recovered from the document.
Speculations
Goodwin's reassembly of the Wakefield ten-acre lot by separate purchases from Young and Crosbey, taken two years apart and at very different per-acre prices, suggests that he set out deliberately to bring the original allotment back under single ownership. The pattern fits his earlier acquisition of the Coles parcel in Fryer Valley and reinforces the picture of a company official accumulating private land through opportunistic purchases. The high price he paid Crosbey for the two-acre balance indicates that Crosbey was in a strong negotiating position, perhaps because Goodwin needed the parcel to complete his consolidation and Crosbey knew this.
The witnesses to the Crosbey conveyance, Rippon Wells and John Alexander, point to the involvement of identifiable figures in the island's record-keeping. John Alexander appears earlier as the certifier of the Sensney watercourse grant of 1703, and his presence as a witness here suggests a continuing role in the formal execution of conveyances. Rippon Wells's signature on this document brings him into the same network of administrative and legal practitioners through whom the island's land transactions passed.
Thomas Harper's purchase of the Fox twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley, made within a period when he had himself sold a similar holding in the same valley to Casthope, suggests an ongoing rotation of land within his interests rather than a single direction of either acquisition or disposal. He may have sold one parcel and bought another in order to consolidate his holding around a preferred location within Sarahs Valley, or to substitute a more workable parcel for one he found less suitable. The pattern points to active management of his holdings rather than simple accumulation or divestment.
12
said House, and twenty acres of Land with all and Singular the Appur- tenances thereunto belonging To him the said Thomas Harper his heeres Executors, administrators or assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever, and the said William Fox for himselfe his heeres Executors Administrators or Assignes do Grant and agree to and with the said Thomas Harper that he the said Thomas Harper, Shall have hold possess Occupie and Enjoy the said premises with all the Appurtenances thereunto belonging without the Lawfull Lett Suit trouble Eviction or Interruption of him the said W[m] Fox his heeres Executors administrators or assignes or of any other person or persons whatsoever, In Wittness whereof the said William Fox hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this 30 day of Januar[y] 1693
Sealed Signed & Delivered in the presence of us Thomas C[as]ten John his Towning mark[e] William Hopkins Vera Cop[ia ...] Daneell Griffeth Cle[ke] Councell
his William W Fox mark
Thomas Harper to Thomas Goodwin To all Christean People to whome this present Writeing Shall Come Thomas Harper of the Island S[t] Helena Planter Sendeth Greeting In our Lord God Everlasting Now know ye that me the aforesaid Thomas Harper for and in Consideration of the Sum of Thirty five poun[ds] Currant Lawfull Money of the said Island S[t] Helena, To me the said Thomas Harper by the Thomas Goodwin of the said Island Gunners Mate well and truely before hand paid, whereof Acknowledge my Selfe to be fully Satisfied and Contented, and the said Thomas Goodwin his heeres Executors and administrators to be for Ever acquetted and Exonerated By these presents have given Granted Infeoffed and by this my present writing Confirmed to the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heires and assignes all that peece of parcell of Land Lyeing and being on the Island of S[t] Helena Near the Little Horse Pasture the head of Sarahs Valley Containing twenty Acres being formerly the Allotment of Hedalph Elven deceased who by Exchange Aleinate the same to William Fox Senior Late of the said Island Planter who Sold the Same to me the said Thom[s] Harper at the going of the Island, which Land abutts upon the Lott Lands of Owen Bevan towards the South upon the Lott Land of Henry Herbey, and James Wakefield, Now in the possession of the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin towards the North upon the Right Hon[ble] Companys Common towards the West, and upon Lands formerly in the possession of Thomas Boulton towards the East as by the Meets, and bounds thereof they are Sett forth and well known. And allso all the provisson growing and being on the said Land Except one parcell of yams which are Sett out and Releaped for the Use of the said Thomas Harper who am Obleidged to plant the Sucsesers when he Digg the yams for the only Use of the said Thomas Goodwin) which said twenty Acres of Land, and other the
The conveyance from William Fox to Thomas Harper continues.
William Fox granted to Thomas Harper, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, the right to hold the house and the twenty acres, with all appurtenances, from the date of the document for ever. Fox bound himself and his successors to allow Harper to hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the premises without lawful hindrance, suit, trouble, eviction or interruption from any person whatsoever. Fox set his hand and seal to the document on 30 January 1694.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Casten, John Towning, who made his mark, and William Hopkins.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
William Fox made his mark in the form of a W.
Thomas Harper to Thomas Goodwin.
Thomas Harper, planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Thomas Goodwin, gunner's mate of the island, the sum of £35 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island, in full payment and to his complete satisfaction. He released Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, enfeoffed and confirmed to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns, a parcel of land near the Little Horse Pasture at the head of Sarahs Valley, containing twenty acres. The land had formerly been the allotment of Hedalph Elven, since died, who had alienated it by exchange to William Fox the elder, late of the island, planter. Fox sold the parcel to Harper at the going of the island. The land was bounded on the south by the lot lands of Owen Bevan, on the north by the lot lands of Henry Herbey and James Wakefield, then in Goodwin's possession, on the west by the Right Honourable Company's common, and on the east by land formerly held by Thomas Bolton. The bounds were set out and well known. The conveyance also included all provisions growing on the land, except a parcel of yams that had been set aside and reserved for Harper's own use. Harper was obliged to plant the successor crop when he dug those yams, and that successor crop was reserved for the sole use of Goodwin.
Interpretations
The Fox to Harper conveyance is dated 30 January 1694 in modern reckoning, having fallen in January before 25 March in the old calendar when the year was then written as 1693. The transaction therefore preceded the Harper to Casthope conveyance of 27 March 1694 by less than two months. Harper bought the Fox twenty acres at the end of January and sold a different twenty-acre parcel to Casthope on the day after Lady Day, which suggests that he was holding more than one Sarahs Valley parcel during this period and disposing of one while acquiring another.
The description of Thomas Goodwin as gunner's mate in the Harper to Goodwin conveyance differs from his earlier title of deputy storekeeper in the Coles transaction of 1696. The change indicates a transfer of post within the company's establishment on the island, with Goodwin having moved from the storekeeping department to the gunnery, or perhaps holding both positions in succession or at different points in his career. The recording of his current title in each conveyance shows that the register tracked the holder's standing at the moment of each transaction rather than assigning a fixed designation.
The price of £35 0s 0d that Goodwin paid Harper for the twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley represents an increase of £10 0s 0d over the £25 0s 0d that Harper had paid Fox for the same parcel. The mark-up of forty percent reflects either an appreciation in land values during the period Harper held the parcel, the addition of improvements during his occupation, or the inclusion of the standing crop of provisions in the price. The yam clause indicates that growing crops formed part of the transaction's value, with the conveyance carrying not just the freehold but the agricultural produce attached to it.
The yam reservation provides an unusual glimpse into the practical mechanics of a land transfer between an outgoing and an incoming holder. Harper kept a specific parcel of yams for his own consumption but bound himself to replant the ground after harvest, with the new crop becoming Goodwin's property. The arrangement preserved Harper's immediate food supply during the transition while ensuring that Goodwin received the land in productive condition. The clause functions as a kind of agricultural handover, embedded within the freehold conveyance.
The phrase at the going of the island, used to identify the timing of Fox's earlier sale to Harper, appears to refer to a specific event in the island's history. The expression probably denotes a moment of departure or transition, perhaps connected to a turnover of population, a major sailing of company shipping, or a change of administration. Without further context within the document the precise event cannot be identified, but the phrase is treated by the parties as a known reference point that needed no further explanation.
The reference to the Right Honourable Company's common, used as the western boundary of the parcel, identifies another category of retained company land alongside the waste land mentioned in the Higham entry. A common would have been land held for shared use, perhaps for the grazing of livestock or for general access, distinct from the unimproved waste that the company had not yet brought into any productive use. The two terms together show that the company maintained at least two classes of retained land with different intended functions.
The bounds described in the conveyance show how Goodwin's holdings on the island had begun to articulate themselves as a connected estate. The Wakefield parcel that he had assembled from Young and Crosbey lay to the north of the Fox parcel he was now acquiring from Harper, and Henry Herbey's lot land lay alongside Wakefield's to the same northern side. Goodwin was therefore consolidating a continuous block of land at the head of Sarahs Valley, with the new acquisition extending his holding southwards from the parcels he already owned.
The chain of title for the Fox parcel runs from Hedalph Elven, the original allottee, by exchange to William Fox the elder, by sale to Harper at the going of the island, and now by sale to Goodwin. The conveyance records each step in sequence as part of the warrant of title, since Goodwin's security against any later claim depended on the documented history of the parcel back to its first allotment.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's pattern of accumulation, combining the Wakefield ten acres reassembled from Young and Crosbey, the Coles ten acres in Fryer Valley, and now the Fox twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley, points to a sustained programme of estate-building over the years 1693 to 1696. The Fryer Valley parcel stands apart from the others geographically, but the Wakefield and Fox parcels lie adjacent to each other near the head of Sarahs Valley and together formed a continuous block of thirty acres. Goodwin's accumulation was therefore both opportunistic in taking parcels as they came available and deliberate in concentrating his holdings around a chosen district.
The forty percent mark-up that Harper achieved on the Fox parcel, from £25 0s 0d to £35 0s 0d in just over two years, suggests that he had improved the land during his occupation or that the inclusion of the standing provision crop added substantial value beyond the bare land and house. The clause reserving the yams indicates that the crop was a significant component of the agricultural economy on the parcel, and Harper's willingness to bind himself to replant for Goodwin's benefit shows that the value of the growing crop was understood by both parties as part of the consideration.
The pairing of Harper's January 1694 purchase from Fox with his March 1694 sale to Casthope suggests that Harper may have been engaged in a deliberate substitution of one Sarahs Valley parcel for another. The two transactions stand within a span of less than two months, both involving twenty-acre parcels with houses at the head of Sarahs Valley, at prices of £25 0s 0d and £30 0s 0d respectively. Harper may have preferred the Fox parcel for its specific location, soil, or improvements and used the proceeds from the Casthope sale to fund the Fox acquisition, ending the period with a single working holding in the location of his choice rather than two scattered parcels.
13
the premises whatsoever are now in the Tennor or Occupation of me the said Thomas Harper. To have and to hold the said Twenty Acres of Land and provissons with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging To the said Thomas Goodwin his heires and Assignes for Ever, To Hold of the cheefe Lords of the Fee by Services heretofore due, and of Right Accustomed, against me my heeres and Assignes, and against all other Men do Warrant and for Ever Defend by these presents, In Wittness whereof I the said Thomas Harper, to this my present Writeing have putt to my hand and Seale; Dated the 10 day of May 1694
Signed Sealed & Deliv[d] in the presence of us his Owen B Bevan marke John ffield Vera Copia [p] Daniell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Thomas Harper [seal]
Edward Edmunds to Thom[s] Goodwin Be it known unto all Men by these presents that I Edward Edmunds of the Island of S[t] Helena free planter, for and in Consideration of the Sum of One hundred and thirty pounds Sterling in hand paid and diverse other Considerations me thereunto Moveing Have Demised, Granted Bargained and Sold, and do by these presents Grant Bargain and Sell unto Thomas Goodwin of the Island aforesaid One Large Tenement House Sciteate in Chappell Valley Town Between the House Now in possession of M[r] Grace Coulson, and Samuell Wranyham with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or Appor taineing. To have and to hold the aforesaid House unto the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heers Executors, Administrators and Assignes for Ever, and the said Edward Edmunds his heers Executors, and Administrators, doth hereby Quitt Claim to any the said premises for Ever Warranton[g], and for Ever Defendeing the same unto the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heeres and Assignes, In Wittness whereof I do hereunto Set my hand and Seale this 10[th] day of May 1700
Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of Gabriell Powill Henry Francis John Alexander
Vera Copia [p] me Daniell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Edward Edmunds [seal]
The conveyance from Thomas Harper to Thomas Goodwin continues.
The premises lay in Harper's own occupation at the time of the conveyance. Goodwin was to hold the twenty acres and the provisions, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. Harper bound himself, his heirs and assigns to warrant and defend the title against all other men. He set his hand and seal to the document on 10 May 1694.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Owen Bevan, who made his mark in the form of a B, and John Field.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Thomas Harper, with a seal attached.
Edward Edmunds to Thomas Goodwin.
Edward Edmunds, free planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received from Thomas Goodwin the sum of £130 0s 0d sterling, paid in hand, together with other considerations. For this consideration he demised, granted, bargained and sold to Goodwin one large tenement house in Chapel Valley Town, standing between the house then held by Mrs Grace Coulson and the house of Samuel Wranyham, with all appurtenances. Goodwin was to hold the house to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever. Edmunds, his heirs, executors and administrators quit-claimed any further interest in the premises and bound themselves to warrant and defend the title against any challenge. He set his hand and seal to the document on 10 May 1700.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Gabriel Powell, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Edward Edmunds, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Harper to Goodwin conveyance closes with the formal habendum and warranty clauses that complete a freehold transfer. The phrase to be held of the chief lords of the fee by services formerly due and customarily owed, repeated here as in earlier conveyances, carries forward the medieval English language of tenure into the island's record-keeping. The clause is largely formulaic by 1694 but preserves the technical framework within which the conveyance operated as a legal instrument.
The witnessing of the conveyance by Owen Bevan, whose own land bordered the parcel sold on the south, follows the established pattern by which adjoining holders authenticated transactions at the head of Sarahs Valley. Bevan's mark, made in the form of a B, indicates that he was unable to sign his name, although his standing as a recognised neighbouring holder gave his witness particular weight regardless of literacy.
The Edmunds to Goodwin conveyance of 10 May 1700 marks a different kind of transaction within Goodwin's pattern of acquisition. The property conveyed is a tenement house in Chapel Valley Town rather than agricultural land, and the price of £130 0s 0d is more than three and a half times what Goodwin paid for any of his earlier parcels. The very different price reflects the urban character of the property, with the house occupying a position in the only settled town on the island and carrying value through location and structure rather than acreage.
Chapel Valley Town denotes the principal settlement on the island, the site of the fort and the company's administrative buildings, where merchants, officials and others connected with the company's establishment lived. A house there carried a value that bore no relation to upland farming parcels because its function was residential and commercial rather than agricultural. The use of the term Chapel Valley Town distinguishes the settlement from the wider Chapel Valley district where agricultural lots were also located.
The boundary description identifies the house by reference to its neighbouring buildings rather than to topographic features or acreage, with Mrs Grace Coulson's house on one side and Samuel Wranyham's house on the other. The form of description marks the property as a town tenement defined by its position within a row of buildings rather than as a piece of ground measured by area. The title Mrs attached to Grace Coulson places her in the same social rank as the courtesy-titled men encountered earlier in the register and shows that the honorific was applied to women in their own right within the urban record.
The use of the formula demised, granted, bargained and sold, rather than the granted, enfeoffed and confirmed of the earlier agricultural conveyances, marks a different style of urban conveyancing. The phrase reflects the leasehold and copyhold vocabulary that ran alongside the feoffment formula in English property law and was applied here to a tenement house, although the substance of the transfer was a freehold sale with quit-claim and warranty.
The signing of the Edmunds conveyance by his own hand, rather than by mark, shows that he could write his name, in contrast to William Fox and Owen Bevan who appear with marks in the earlier deeds. The witnesses Gabriel Powell, Henry Francis and John Alexander all appear elsewhere in the records, with Henry Francis as a holder of land in Chapel Valley and Peak Gult in the 1682 register and John Alexander as the certifier of the Sensney watercourse grant and as a witness to the Crosbey conveyance.
Speculations
Goodwin's acquisition of the Chapel Valley Town tenement in May 1700, four years after his last recorded agricultural purchase from Coles in 1696, signals a shift in his investment pattern from rural land to urban property. The very substantial sum of £130 0s 0d sterling represented a different scale of commitment from his earlier parcels and suggests that he had accumulated capital from his salary, from the income of his agricultural holdings, or from both, that he was now placing into a single high-value urban property. The town house would have offered him a residence within the principal settlement and a base for any commercial activity tied to the company's establishment.
The use of pounds sterling in the Edmunds conveyance, in place of the current money of the island used in the earlier agricultural deeds, points to a distinction in the currencies used for different classes of transaction. Urban tenement sales perhaps moved at sterling values reflecting the international standing of the property and its purchaser's resources, while rural land sales continued in island currency that reflected local agricultural conditions. The pricing in sterling indicates that the Chapel Valley Town house was treated as a higher-status asset within the island's property market.
The £130 0s 0d price for the Edmunds tenement, set against the £25 0s 0d to £35 0s 0d that Sarahs Valley twenty-acre parcels with houses fetched in the same period, shows that urban property carried roughly four times the value of comparable rural holdings. The disparity reflects the small supply of town houses on the island, the social standing they conferred, and their proximity to the centres of company administration and trade. Goodwin's willingness to pay this premium suggests that he valued the urban location for reasons that went beyond the agricultural return he could obtain from rural land.
The Edmunds conveyance is signed by his own hand, in contrast to the marks of Crosbey, Fox and Bevan in earlier deeds, which together with the use of sterling currency and the urban location of the property points to a different social stratum within the island's settler population. The town included literate proprietors capable of executing formal documents in their own names, alongside the largely illiterate rural population whose conveyances depended on witnesses to confirm the marks they made.
14
Henry Francis Be it known unto all Men by these presents that I Henry Francis of the said Island Free planter, Do hereby Quitt claim and that I have no Right of Suit, of Acts, against Thomas Goodwin of the said Island for the whole, or any part of A house now possessd by him bought of my Father in Law M[r] Edward Edmunds, Standing and being in Chappell Valley And that I do hereby for Ever Defend the same to be the Right of the said Thomas Good- win, his heeres and Assignes for Ever, Wittness my hand and Seale this 27 day of January 170⅔ Henry Francis [seal]
Wittnesses John Nicholls Hatton Sterling his X Marke Francis Wrangham Vera Copia [p] Daniell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Richard Harding to William French To all Christean people to whome these presents Shall come, I Richard Harding of the Island S[t] Helena Free planter Send Greeting In the Lord God, Know ye that I the said Richard Harding for and in Consideration of the Sum of Four pounds Ten Shillings All and Singu- larly paid, and Sattisfied do Give grant and confirm unto William French of the said Island Souldier, his heers Executors, Administrat[ors] or Assignes, all that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres, Lying Sciteate, and being at the head of Oak Gutt, Buttin[g] on the East to the Right Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, on the West to the Land of John Nicholls planter, which said Ten Acres of Land was Left to the said Harding by Lydea Harding the said Richard Hardings Sister. To have and to hold all and Singullar the said Land with the Appurtenances thereunto belonging to his own proper Use and behoofe for Ever, freely and Quietly, without Interruption, or any more Money to be Yeelded, or paid unto me the said Richard Harding than the forementioned four pounds Ten Shillings or my heeres Execut[ors] Admi- nistrators or Assignes, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 25 July 1691 and in the third Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord and Lady, William and Marry of England, Scotland &c King and Queen &c[a]
Signed Sealed & Deliv[d] in the presence of us John Nicholls John Long Vera Copia [p] me Daniell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Richard Harding [seal]
Henry Francis quit-claim.
Henry Francis, free planter of the island, made known by these presents that he quit-claimed any right of suit or action against Thomas Goodwin in respect of the whole or any part of the house then in Goodwin's possession, which Goodwin had bought from his father in law Mr Edward Edmunds, standing in Chapel Valley. He bound himself to defend Goodwin's right, and the right of his heirs and assigns, to the house for ever. He set his hand and seal to the document on 27 January 1704.
Henry Francis, with a seal attached.
Witnesses: John Nicholls, Hatton Sterling, who made his mark in the form of an X, and Francis Wrangham.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Richard Harding to William French.
Richard Harding, free planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God. He acknowledged that he had received the sum of £4 10s 0d in full payment. He gave, granted and confirmed to William French, soldier of the island, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres at the head of Oak Gutt. The land bordered the Right Honourable Company's waste land on the east and the land of John Nicholls, planter, on the west. The ten acres had been left to Harding by his sister Lydea Harding. French was to hold the land, with all appurtenances, to his own use and benefit for ever, freely and without interruption, with no further money to be paid to Harding or his successors beyond the sum already received. Harding set his hand and seal to the document on 25 July 1691, in the third year of the reign of William and Mary, King and Queen of England, Scotland and elsewhere.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Nicholls and John Long.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Richard Harding, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Henry Francis quit-claim of 27 January 1704 functions as a supplementary instrument designed to clear any residual claim that might have arisen against Goodwin's title to the Chapel Valley house bought from Edmunds in May 1700. Francis acted because Edmunds was his father in law, which gave him a possible interest as son in law in any family claim against the property. By formally releasing his right of suit or action, Francis closed off a route through which the title could later have been challenged through his branch of the family. The conveyance reveals how Goodwin secured his urban purchase against latent claims, taking a separate quit-claim from a related party more than three years after the original transaction.
The relationship between Henry Francis and Edward Edmunds, identified in the document as father in law to son in law, places both men within a Chapel Valley family network. Francis appears in the 1682 register as a holder of three ten-acre parcels acquired by marriage to Francis Wrangham's widow and by exchanges with Fannely and Fowning. His marriage to Wrangham's widow does not connect him directly to the Edmunds household, so the father in law relationship recorded here points to a separate marriage, probably to a daughter of Edmunds following the widow's death. The appearance of Francis Wrangham as a witness to the quit-claim is striking, since Henry Francis had earlier married the widow of an earlier Francis Wrangham, and this witness is likely a son or descendant of that household.
The Richard Harding to William French conveyance of 25 July 1691 provides the earliest dated freehold deed in the records reviewed here. The dating clause, in the third year of the reign of William and Mary, anchors the document to the political settlement of 1689 and shows that island scribes were tracking the regnal years of the joint monarchs as part of formal conveyancing language. The full royal style of King and Queen of England, Scotland and elsewhere appears in abbreviated form but follows the standard English usage of the period.
The price of £4 10s 0d for ten acres at the head of Oak Gutt indicates a per-acre figure of nine shillings, slightly higher than the seven shillings and sixpence per acre that John Young's eight-acre parcel at the Little Horsepad fetched in 1693 but far below the £1 2s 0d per acre that Coles obtained for his Fryer Valley parcel in 1696 or the rates at the head of Sarahs Valley. The figure places upland and gully-head land in a distinctly cheaper category than valley parcels, which fits the general pattern of valuation by location and quality across the island.
The route by which the ten acres came to Richard Harding, having been left to him by his sister Lydea Harding, shows that property descended between siblings as well as between spouses and through marriage. Lydea Harding had held the land in her own name and bequeathed it to her brother. The recording of her sole ownership and her testamentary disposition demonstrates that single or unmarried women on the island could hold land independently and pass it on at their own discretion. The Harding family thus shows three distinct property routes within its records, with Sarah Harding holding her late husband's accumulated estate as widow, Richard Harding receiving land from his sister Lydea by bequest, and Richard Harding then selling part of it on to French.
The phrase no more money to be paid, attached to the conveyance, gives the buyer absolute security against any subsequent demand for additional consideration. The clause confirms that the £4 10s 0d represented the complete and final price, with no instalments, top-ups or residual obligations attached. The form of words is characteristic of a clean freehold sale closing all financial connection between the parties at the moment of conveyance.
John Nicholls's appearance both as the western neighbour of the parcel sold and as one of its two witnesses, alongside John Long, mirrors the pattern seen in earlier conveyances where adjoining holders authenticated transactions affecting their boundary. Nicholls is identified in the document by the same designation, planter, that the boundary description applies to him, which removes any ambiguity about his role.
Speculations
Henry Francis's quit-claim, taken more than three years after Goodwin's purchase from Edmunds, suggests that some specific event or concern between 1700 and January 1704 prompted Goodwin to seek the additional protection. The lapse of time points away from a routine completion of the original transaction and towards a later issue, perhaps Edmunds's death, the marriage of one of his daughters or a family dispute about the proceeds of the sale. The dating of the quit-claim in early 1704, falling within weeks of Margaret Fagnald's protest about the Gurling to Carne transaction in February 1704, points to a period when family claims against urban property in Chapel Valley were being actively contested or pre-empted.
The route by which the Oak Gutt ten acres came to Richard Harding through his sister Lydea, followed by his sale to a soldier, perhaps illustrates how inherited land was converted into cash within the island's economy. Lydea Harding's holding may have come to her from an earlier family allotment or by her own bequest from a parent, and her brother's decision to sell rather than work the parcel indicates that he already held sufficient land elsewhere. The Harding family network supported the disposal of an outlying upland parcel to fund other priorities, with the cash from William French moving into the family's wider resources.
William French's purchase of the ten acres as a serving soldier follows the pattern seen in James Casthope and George Dweight, where members of the garrison acquired freehold parcels on the island during their military service. The modest sum of £4 10s 0d would have been within reach of a soldier's accumulated pay, and the Oak Gutt location, although remote, gave French a foothold in the island's property-owning class. The transaction reveals how the line between civilian planters and military personnel was crossed by men whose service did not prevent them from establishing private interests in the island's land.
15
William French to Thomas Goodwin To all Christian, People to whom this present Writing Shall come I William French of the said Island of S[t] Helena Send Greeting In our Lord God Everlasting, Now Know ye that I the aforesaid William French, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Eighteen pounds Currant Lawfull, Money of the said Island To me the said William French by by Cap[t]n Goodwin of the said Island Deputy Governeur & Storekeeper well, and truly, before hand paid whereof I do acknowledge mySelfe to be fully Sattisfied and Contented, and the Said Thomas Goodwin and his heeres Executors, and Administratorrs to be for Ever Exonerated by these presents. Have Given granted Infeoffed and confirmed and by these presents Sold to the said Thomas Goodwin his heires and assignes, all that piece or parcell of Land Lyeing and being on the said Island on the Side of the High Peak adjoyning to the Lands of John Nicholls, and the Lott Land of Thomas Box, Containing ten Acres, which said Ten Acres of Land and all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging Now are in the Tennor or Occupation of me the said William French. To have and to Hold, the aforesaid ten Acres with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any ways appertaining to the aforesaid Cap[t]n Thomas Goodwin his heirs and Assignes to the Use and Behoofe of the said Thomas Goodwin his heirs and Assignes for Ever to hold of the cheefe Lords of the Fee thereof by Services heretofore due, and of Right Accustomed, against me my heires Executors Administratorrs and assignes, and against all other Men do Warrant and for Ever Defend by these presents, In Wittness whereof I the said William French to this my present Writeing have put to my hand and Seale this 3. Day of June 1703
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of John French John Alexander Math[w] Bazett Vera Copia [p] me Daneell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
William French [seal]
Samuell Jeffrey to Henry Kerfey This Indenture made the 3 of November 1683 between Samuell Jeffry of the Island S[t] Helena Free planter of the one part and Henry Kerfey of the said Island of the other part Wittnesseth that the said Samuell Jeffry for and in Consideration of the Sum of Five pounds being paid the Receipt whereof he doth hereby Acknowledge and homselfe to be therewith fully Sattisfied, and for Divers other good Causes and Consideration[s] him thereunto Moveing have Demised Granted bargained and Sold, and do by these presents grant bargai[n] and Sell all that piece or parcell of Land containing by Estimation Ten Acres bee[t] more or less Lying and being in Fryers Valley Butting and bounding as in and by the Register Booke may Appear Together with the Lo[ts] planted Sirccourse[r], and all and Singular the Appurte- nances thereunto belonging or in any wise Appertaineing. To Have and
William French to Thomas Goodwin.
William French of the island of St Helena addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Captain Goodwin, deputy governor and storekeeper of the island, the sum of £18 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island, in full payment and to his complete satisfaction. He released Goodwin, his heirs, executors and administrators from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, enfeoffed, confirmed and sold to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns, a parcel of land on the side of the High Peak, joined to the lands of John Nicholls and the lot land of Thomas Box, containing ten acres. The land lay in French's own occupation at the time of the conveyance. Goodwin was to hold the ten acres, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to be held of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly done and customarily owed. French bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to warrant and defend the title against all other men. He set his hand and seal to the document on 3 June 1703.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John French, John Alexander and Matthew Bazett.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
William French, with a seal attached.
Samuel Jeffrey to Henry Kerfey.
This indenture, made on 3 November 1683, was between Samuel Jeffrey, free planter of the island of St Helena, of the one part, and Henry Kerfey of the same island, of the other part. Jeffrey acknowledged that he had received the sum of £5 0s 0d in full payment, to his complete satisfaction. For this consideration and for other good causes, he demised, granted, bargained and sold to Kerfey a parcel of land of about ten acres, more or less, lying in Fryer Valley, with bounds as appearing in the register book. The conveyance included the planted crops, the watercourses and all appurtenances belonging to the land.
Interpretations
The French to Goodwin conveyance of 3 June 1703 records a further stage in Thomas Goodwin's accumulation of land on the island, with French selling on the ten-acre Oak Gutt parcel he had bought from Richard Harding twelve years earlier. The document differs from the earlier description by placing the parcel on the side of the High Peak rather than at the head of Oak Gutt, which suggests that the two locations are alternative ways of identifying the same upland area, with Oak Gutt running on the flank of the High Peak. The boundaries given here, joined to the lands of John Nicholls and the lot land of Thomas Box, confirm that the parcel lay in the same district as the original Harding sale, since Nicholls had been the western neighbour in 1691.
The description of Thomas Goodwin in this conveyance as captain, deputy governor and storekeeper marks a substantial elevation from the gunner's mate of 1694 and the deputy storekeeper of 1696. He had risen through the company's hierarchy on the island to become its second-ranking official, combining the deputy governorship with continued responsibility for the storekeeping department. The captaincy attached to his name reflects either military command of part of the garrison or the courtesy military title given to senior company officers. The triple designation in the conveyance shows the consolidated authority he held by 1703.
The price of £18 0s 0d that Goodwin paid French represents an increase of £13 10s 0d over the £4 10s 0d that French had paid Harding for the same ten acres in 1691. The mark-up of four times the original price, accumulated over twelve years, reflects either substantial improvement of the parcel during French's occupation, a sharp rise in upland land values across the period, or the premium Goodwin was prepared to pay to add the parcel to his growing estate. The figure also stands well above the seven shillings and sixpence per acre at which Young's Little Horsepad land had moved in 1693, indicating that High Peak side land had appreciated significantly relative to other upland locations.
The witnessing of the conveyance by John French, John Alexander and Matthew Bazett brings together names that recur across the records. John Alexander has appeared as a witness or certifier in conveyances of 1695 and 1703, and Matthew Bazett has appeared as a witness to the Sensney watercourse grant of 13 March 1704 and as a neighbouring holder to Jonathan Higham in Sharks Valley. John French is probably a relative of the seller, witnessing the family transaction as next of kin.
The Jeffrey to Kerfey indenture of 3 November 1683 records a transaction from the year following the formal landholding inquest of September 1682. The conveyance shows that the registered allotments documented in the inquest were already moving in the secondary market within a year of the survey, with Jeffrey disposing of a ten-acre Fryer Valley parcel to Kerfey. The reference to bounds appearing in the register book makes explicit the dependence of private conveyancing on the official record, with the parties relying on the 1682 inquest to define the precise extent of the land rather than restating the bounds in the deed itself.
The price of £5 0s 0d that Kerfey paid Jeffrey for ten acres in Fryer Valley in 1683 provides an early benchmark for the per-acre valuation of valley land. The figure of ten shillings per acre lies above the upland rates seen in later conveyances at Oak Gutt and the Little Horsepad but well below the £1 2s 0d per acre that Coles obtained for his Fryer Valley parcel from Goodwin in 1696. The intervening thirteen years had therefore seen a more than doubling of Fryer Valley land values, with prices moving in step with the wider appreciation of valley parcels across the island.
The use of indenture rather than the to all Christian people opening of the later conveyances marks the Jeffrey to Kerfey document as following a different drafting tradition. The indenture form, with parties of the one part and of the other part, derives from the medieval English practice of cutting matching copies of the document along an indented line, with each party retaining a half. The form was used for bilateral agreements between identified parties, in contrast to the to all Christian people address that opened a unilateral grant or feoffment.
The inclusion of planted crops and watercourses within the Jeffrey conveyance shows that the standard formula for a Fryer Valley sale extended beyond the bare land to its agricultural and hydraulic improvements. The same approach appears in the yam reservation of the Harper to Goodwin Sarahs Valley conveyance of 1694, where standing crops formed part of the transaction's value. The early 1683 deed and the 1694 deed together show that growing crops and water arrangements were routinely treated as part of the conveyance rather than as separate items.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's continued accumulation of land into 1703, twelve years after his earliest recorded purchase from John Young in 1693, points to a sustained strategy of estate-building that spanned the entire period of his rise within the company's establishment on the island. The promotion to deputy governor and storekeeper would have brought greater income and greater opportunity to identify and approach holders willing to sell, and the French parcel on the side of the High Peak added another upland holding to his portfolio. By 1703 Goodwin held parcels scattered across Fryer Valley, the Little Horsepad, the head of Sarahs Valley, the Chapel Valley urban tenement and now the side of the High Peak, giving him a diversified estate that combined agricultural land in multiple districts with a town house in the principal settlement.
William French's decision to sell after twelve years' ownership suggests that his circumstances had changed in ways that made the upland parcel no longer essential to him. He may have left military service, retired from the island or accumulated other resources that displaced the Oak Gutt land within his interests. The fourfold increase in price between his 1691 purchase and his 1703 sale would have given him a substantial cash return on the original investment, perhaps funding a move within or away from the island.
The fact that Goodwin took the French parcel at a price four times what Harding had received from French in 1691 indicates that he was willing to pay a substantial premium to add the parcel to his estate, perhaps because it adjoined or completed a working block already in his possession. The location on the side of the High Peak, joined to land of John Nicholls and the lot of Thomas Box, places it within reach of other upland parcels that Goodwin or his connections may have held, and the price suggests that he valued the consolidation more than he resisted the cost.
The Jeffrey to Kerfey conveyance of 1683 represents perhaps the earliest surviving private deed in the records reviewed here, falling within thirteen months of the formal inquest of September 1682. The transaction shows that the inquest had not closed off the secondary market in land but had instead provided the documentary foundation on which later conveyances could rest. The reference to the register book within the deed makes explicit what later conveyances took for granted, that the official record was the authoritative source of the bounds and identity of every parcel in private hands.
16
and to hold to the said Henry Karsey his heires Executors Administrat[ors] and Assignes the said peece of Land for Ever, and the said Samuell Jeffry for hemselfe his heires Executors Administrators and Assignes, doth Covenant promise and Grant to and with the said Henry Karsey his heires Executors Administrators, and Assignes, Shall have hold, Occupy, and Enjoy the said hereby bargained promises without any Lett Mollestation, or Disturb- bance of the aforesaid Samuell Jeffry his heires Executors Administrators or Assignes, or of any other person of persons whatsoever Lawfully Claiming or to Claime any thing in the promises, by, from or under them, or any o[f] Either of them any to the Contrary hereof in any Wise notwithstanding In Witness hereunto, I the aforesaid Sam[ll] Jeffrey have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale the Day and year first above Written Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us his Owen B Bevan mark Thom[s] Goodwin
The Marke of Sam[ll] E Jeffry [seal]
Memorandum, that if the abovesaid Samuell Jeffrey Shall Cutt or Cause to be Cutt down any of the said wood above bargained for, in the Said Ten Acres of Land then the said Samuell Jeffrey Shall be under the penalty of forfeiting twenty Shillings
Vera Copea [p] me Daneell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Henry Kersey to Thomas Goodwin This Indenture made the first day of December 1691 between us Henry Korsey, of the Island S[t] Helena planter of the One part and Thomas Goodwin of the said Island Gunners Mate of the other part Wittnesseth, that the said Henry Korsey, as well for as in Con- sederation of the Sum of twenty five pounds in hand paid or Secured to be paid before the Signing or Sealing of these presents, as allso for Divers good Causes, and Considerations him the said Henry Kersey thereunto moveing have Demised, Granted, bargained and Sold and by these presents doth Demese, grant, Bargain and Sell, unto the said Thomas Goodwin his heires Executors Administrators, and Assignes all that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimateon Ten Acres Lyeing and being near the head of Fryers Valley next adjoyning to Ten Acres of Land that the said Thomas Goodwin now possesseth On the South It being part of my Lott Land with all and Singular the Appurtenan- ces thereunto belonging, or in any wise Appurtaining, as Houses, Plantation, Provisions, Hedge, Ditch, Wall, Water, Water Courses, alsoe Ten Acres of Land formerly in the Occupation and possession of Samuell Jeffry planter, with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise Appurtaining as In a Deed Grant, &c. to me made by the said Samuell Jeffry, it doth more fully Appear, To Have and to hold the said Twenty Acres of Land, Houses and Provisson, with them and Every of them, Appurtenances unto the said Thomas Goodwin his heires, Executors, Administrators and Assignes from the Day of the Date hereof for Ever, Without any Lett, Molestation, or Eviction of
[the]
The conveyance from Samuel Jeffrey to Henry Kersey continues.
Kersey was to hold the parcel of land, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever. Jeffrey bound himself and his successors to allow Kersey and his heirs to hold, occupy and enjoy the premises without any hindrance, molestation or disturbance from him, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or from any other person claiming through them. Jeffrey set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Owen Bevan, who made his mark in the form of a B, and Thomas Goodwin.
Samuel Jeffrey made his mark in the form of an E, with a seal attached.
A memorandum was added to the document. If Jeffrey cut, or caused to be cut, any of the wood on the ten acres covered by the conveyance, he was to forfeit twenty shillings.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Henry Kersey to Thomas Goodwin.
This indenture, made on 1 December 1691, was between Henry Kersey, planter of the island of St Helena, of the one part, and Thomas Goodwin, gunner's mate of the same island, of the other part. Kersey acknowledged that he had received, or that payment had been secured, the sum of £25 0s 0d before the signing and sealing of the document. For this consideration and for other good causes, he demised, granted, bargained and sold to Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres near the head of Fryer Valley, joined on the south to ten acres then in Goodwin's possession. The parcel was part of Kersey's lot land. The conveyance included all appurtenances belonging to the land, comprising houses, plantation, provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, water and watercourses. Kersey also conveyed a further ten acres formerly in the occupation of Samuel Jeffrey, planter, with all its appurtenances, as appeared more fully in the deed of grant made to him by Jeffrey. Goodwin was to hold the combined twenty acres, with the houses, provisions and other appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the document for ever, without any hindrance, molestation or eviction.
Interpretations
The memorandum attached to the Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance, with its penalty of twenty shillings for cutting wood on the ten acres after the sale, reveals that standing timber was treated as a distinct element of the parcel's value. The clause was directed against the seller after the sale, since Jeffrey would no longer have any right to enter the land and remove its timber. The penalty of a single pound, against a sale price of £5 0s 0d, represented twenty percent of the consideration and gave Kersey a meaningful financial protection against an outgoing seller stripping the parcel of its resources. The wording shows that wood on St Helena was a scarce and valued resource by 1683 and that buyers expected explicit protection against its removal.
Thomas Goodwin's appearance as a witness to the Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance of 3 November 1683 places him on the island as a literate observer of property transactions a decade before his first recorded purchase from John Young in May 1693. The witness signature shows that Goodwin was already engaged with the island's property dealings during the early 1680s, perhaps in a junior administrative role that brought him into contact with conveyancing work without yet acquiring property in his own right. The arc of his career then runs from witness to purchaser, with the same Fryer Valley parcel passing through Kersey's hands and into his own eight years later.
The Kersey to Goodwin conveyance of 1 December 1691 brings together two parcels into a single transaction. Kersey conveyed both a ten-acre portion of his own original lot at the head of Fryer Valley and the ten acres he had bought from Jeffrey in 1683, together with the houses, provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, water and watercourses attached to them. The combined twenty acres adjoined ten acres that Goodwin already possessed at the head of Fryer Valley, although that earlier holding does not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed. The conveyance therefore extended an existing Goodwin holding rather than initiating one.
The price of £25 0s 0d that Goodwin paid Kersey for the combined twenty acres in 1691 establishes a per-acre figure of £1 5s 0d, broadly consistent with the £1 2s 0d per acre that Goodwin paid Coles for his Fryer Valley parcel in 1696. The Fryer Valley district therefore maintained a stable per-acre value across the five years between the two transactions, with the combined Kersey holding fetching slightly more than the later Coles parcel because it included a larger range of improvements and the second ten acres recently acquired from Jeffrey.
The enumeration of appurtenances in the Kersey to Goodwin deed, listing houses, plantation, provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, water and watercourses, gives a comprehensive picture of what an improved Fryer Valley holding included by 1691. The parcels carried physical structures for habitation and cultivation, defined boundaries marked by hedges, ditches and walls, and managed water arrangements both for the supply of the holding itself and for its passage across the ground. The transaction conveyed not just the bare land but a fully operating agricultural unit ready for continued use by the new holder.
The reference to Goodwin's existing ten-acre holding on the south side of the Kersey parcel raises questions about how Goodwin acquired that earlier piece of land. None of the conveyances in the records reviewed identifies the source of this ten-acre Fryer Valley holding, although by December 1691 it was sufficiently established to serve as the southern boundary of the new acquisition. The earlier holding may have come through a deed not included in the records reviewed, through an allotment in his own name, or through a transaction yet to be encountered.
The phrase paid or secured to be paid, used in the Kersey to Goodwin conveyance, indicates that the consideration was either delivered in cash at the time of execution or formally guaranteed through a separate instrument. The flexibility of the wording allowed for arrangements in which part of the purchase price might be settled after the conveyance, supported by a bond, mortgage or written undertaking. The clause shows that island property transactions could accommodate credit arrangements alongside outright cash sales.
The seller's mark in the Jeffrey conveyance was made in the form of an E rather than the more usual X, and the buyer's mark in the William Fox conveyance was a W. The use of distinctive marks rather than uniform crosses suggests that illiterate planters could and did adopt personal sign forms, often using a letter associated with their own names, to authenticate documents. The practice gave each mark some individual character even where the maker could not write.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's progression from witness in 1683 to substantial Fryer Valley landholder by December 1691 traces a career path within the company's establishment on the island. His presence as a witness in the early 1680s, before any recorded purchase in his own name, suggests that he served first in a position that brought him into contact with the council's clerical and administrative work, gaining the literacy and the connections that later enabled him to act as a purchaser. The role of gunner's mate identified in the 1691 deed represents an intermediate position from which he later rose to deputy storekeeper and ultimately to deputy governor.
The combination of two transactions in the single Kersey to Goodwin conveyance of December 1691 perhaps reflects a deliberate decision to consolidate paperwork rather than execute separate deeds for each parcel. Kersey was disposing of his own original ten acres and the ten acres he had bought from Jeffrey eight years earlier, both lying adjacent to Goodwin's existing holding. By packaging the two parcels into a single conveyance, Kersey transferred his entire Fryer Valley interest in one instrument, simplifying his withdrawal from the district and giving Goodwin a single document covering twenty acres of acquired land.
The five-fold increase in value attached to the Jeffrey ten acres, from £5 0s 0d when Kersey bought them in 1683 to a contribution within the £25 0s 0d package by which Goodwin took them eight years later, reflects either substantial improvement during Kersey's holding or general appreciation of Fryer Valley land across that period. The 1683 transaction is the earliest recorded sale of the parcel and the 1691 transaction is the next recorded sale, so the rate of appreciation cannot be checked against intermediate values. The likely explanation is a combination of inflation in island land values and the cumulative effect of improvements such as the houses, plantation provisions, hedges, ditches and watercourses listed in the 1691 conveyance.
The penalty clause against Jeffrey's cutting wood after the sale points to a specific local concern about timber on the island. By 1683 the limited stands of usable wood would have been a recognised resource, with sellers tempted to extract value from a parcel between agreement and physical delivery. The clause shows that buyers and their advisers were sufficiently alert to this risk to insert explicit financial deterrents into the recorded instruments.
17
the aforesaid Henry Kersey his heires, or Assignes, or any body Else for him or them, or in any of their Names, [...]ause Meanes or Consent. In Wittness thereof I the said Henry Kersey have hereunto putt my hand and Seale the day and Year above said Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us John FF Fuller his mark[e] Robert Addis Jn[o] [h]m Young mark[e] Vera Copia [p] me Daniell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
his Henry A Kersey [seal] mark[e]
Companys [Deed] to Owen Bevan The Governour and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies do hereby Grant and Confirm unto Owen Bevan Twenty Acres of Land, Abutting upon part of Twenty Acres of Land in their Occupation of John Cole, Towards the East upon Lemon Valley Redge Towards the West upon part of Ten Acres of Land formerly Hedalphs Towards the North, and upon Lands in the Occupation of Thomas Allison Towards the South on the said Island, To Have and to hold the said pre- mises to him the said Owen Bevan, his heires and Assignes for Ever, Upon Condition that he the said Owen Bevan, his heers and Assignes Shall and do bear always True Faith and Alleg[i]ance to our Soveraign Lord the King his heires and Successours, and to the Said Company and their Successours, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Wittness whereof the said Governor and Company have to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Fort upon the said Island, this 19[th] day of August 1684
Sealed in the presence of J Blackmore Govern[r] Rob[t] Holeden Dep[ty] Govern[r] Gregory Field 3[d] of Councell J Blackmore Iun[i]or Regester Folio 27 Vera Copia [p] me Dan[ll] Griffeth Cl[k]e [C]oun[ll]
Island S[t] Helena September the 22 1705
Owen Bevan to Thomas Goodwin I Owen Bevan of the said Island Free planter For the Love good Will and Affection that I bear unto my Son in Law M[r] Thomas Goodwin of the said Island Gentleman Do hereby make Over the within Mentioned Deed Holeden of the Right Hon[ble] English East Indea Company Upon the Same Condition therein Contained (after the Decease of both my Self and my Beloved Wife) unto the said Thomas Goodwin his heires and Assigns for Ever, But in Case that his Eldest Son John Goodwin will Live and Reside on the said Island, Then he
The conveyance from Henry Kersey to Thomas Goodwin continues.
Kersey bound himself to allow Goodwin to hold the premises without any hindrance from himself, his heirs, assigns or anyone acting through them. He set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Fuller, who made his mark in the form of FF, Robert Addis and John Young, who made his mark.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Henry Kersey made his mark in the form of an A, with a seal attached.
Company deed to Owen Bevan.
The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies granted and confirmed to Owen Bevan twenty acres of land. The parcel bordered, on the east, part of twenty acres in the occupation of John Cole. It bordered Lemon Valley Ridge on the west, part of ten acres formerly held by Hedalph on the north, and land in the occupation of Thomas Allison on the south. Bevan was to hold the premises, with his heirs and assigns, for ever, on condition that he and his successors maintain true faith and allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors, and to the company and its successors, and duly obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The governor and company set their common seal to the document at the fort on the island on 19 August 1684.
Sealed in the presence of J. Blackmore, governor, Robert Holden, deputy governor, Gregory Field, third of council, and J. Blackmore the younger, register, folio 27.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Island of St Helena, 22 September 1705.
Owen Bevan to Thomas Goodwin.
Owen Bevan, free planter of the island, made over the deed described above to his son in law Mr Thomas Goodwin, gentleman, of the same island. He made the transfer for the love, good will and affection he bore to Goodwin. The conveyance was to take effect after the death of both Bevan himself and his beloved wife, with the land then passing to Goodwin, his heirs and assigns for ever, subject to the same conditions as the original grant. In the alternative case that Goodwin's eldest son John Goodwin lived and resided on the island, he [...]
Interpretations
The company deed to Owen Bevan of 19 August 1684 is the first instrument in the records reviewed that takes the form of an original grant from the East India Company rather than a transfer between private parties. The document records the company's role as the ultimate landholder of the island, with authority to allot freehold parcels to settlers on conditions that bound them to the company's authority. The grant was signed by the governor, deputy governor and a councillor, sealed with the company's common seal at the fort, and entered into the register at folio 27, which together gave it the full weight of a company instrument.
The conditions attached to the grant required Bevan and his successors to maintain true faith and allegiance to the king and to the company, and to obey the laws and constitutions of the island. The clause set out a dual loyalty, with the crown named first and the company second, reflecting the legal framework under which the company exercised authority over the island as a chartered body holding under royal grant. The further condition of obedience to island laws made every freeholder subject to the company's local government as a condition of holding land, with implicit forfeiture available if those obligations were breached.
The naming of John Blackmore as governor in 1684 places the grant within the administration of that official, who appears in the same document alongside his deputy Robert Holden and the third councillor Gregory Field. The signature of J. Blackmore the younger as register, distinguished from the elder Blackmore who served as governor, suggests a family connection within the company's establishment, with the younger man holding the post responsible for entering grants into the official register. The naming of folio 27 as the location of the entry shows that the register was paginated and that individual grants could be cross-referenced to their place in the book.
The boundary description in the Bevan grant identifies adjoining holders by reference to their occupation of neighbouring parcels, with John Cole's twenty acres on the east, Hedalph's former ten acres on the north and Thomas Allison's land on the south. The form of description differs from the private conveyances of the same period in that it uses the company's perspective, with the parcels named as in the occupation of their current holders rather than by reference to their original allotment. Lemon Valley Ridge stands as the only topographic boundary, fixing the western edge of the parcel against the physical landscape.
The Bevan to Goodwin transfer of 22 September 1705 records a different kind of conveyance from the cash sales seen elsewhere in the records. Bevan made the transfer for the love, good will and affection he bore to his son in law Goodwin, with no monetary consideration recorded. The instrument is therefore a family deed of gift, structured to pass the land into Goodwin's hands while preserving Bevan's own life interest and his wife's. The arrangement reflects the use of conveyancing instruments to manage inheritance within a family rather than to move land through the market.
The designation of Thomas Goodwin as gentleman in the 1705 deed marks a further step in his social ascent within the records reviewed. Earlier conveyances had named him as soldier, gunner's mate, deputy storekeeper, and captain, deputy governor and storekeeper. By 1705 he had reached the standing of gentleman, the highest informal social rank below the titled nobility in English usage, which placed him at the top of the island's settler society. The designation reflected both his official position and his accumulated estate.
The conditional clause providing for the land to pass instead to Goodwin's eldest son John Goodwin if he lived and resided on the island shows the use of contingent remainders to direct family property across generations. Bevan's intention was to keep the parcel within the Goodwin household but to favour a son who would actually live on the island and work the land. The construction reveals concern within the family that the heir might leave the island, with the conditional gift designed to encourage continued residence and to redirect the parcel to a son who would settle if Goodwin himself did not.
The deferred operation of the transfer, taking effect only after the death of both Bevan and his wife, preserved the income and use of the land for the elderly couple during their joint lives. The arrangement combines the certainty of an executed conveyance with the protection of a continued life interest, a structure used in English family settlements to provide for a widow as well as the head of the household. The instrument therefore secured Bevan's wife's position even though she was not herself a party to the deed.
The relationship between Bevan and Goodwin, identified in the document as father in law to son in law, places Goodwin's family within Bevan's extended household. Goodwin had married one of Bevan's daughters, although which daughter and when the marriage took place are not recorded in the materials reviewed. Bevan had appeared earlier as a witness to Thomas Harper's conveyance to Thomas Goodwin in May 1694, and the connection between the two men had therefore been long established by the time of the family deed in 1705.
Speculations
The Bevan to Goodwin family transfer of September 1705 represents a different dimension of Thomas Goodwin's accumulation of land on the island, distinct from the commercial purchases that had filled out his estate through the 1690s. The arrangement brought a further twenty acres into the Goodwin household without any cash outlay, secured through the family relationship rather than through the market. The transfer suggests that Bevan was settling his estate during his lifetime and that he chose to direct the parcel granted to him by the company in 1684 specifically to his son in law rather than to other family members.
The contingent remainder in favour of John Goodwin, taking effect only if the son lived and resided on the island, points to a specific family concern about generational continuity. The Goodwins had risen high in the company's establishment by 1705, and there must have been a real possibility that Thomas Goodwin or his eldest son would leave the island for advancement or retirement elsewhere. Bevan's clause sought to direct the parcel to whichever member of the next generation actually settled on the island, with the land serving as both a reward for residence and an anchor to local society.
The choice to defer the operation of the transfer until after the death of both Bevan and his wife reflects the standard provision for widowhood within English property arrangements of the period. The clause protected the wife's position by ensuring that the household enjoyed the use of the land for as long as either spouse survived. The arrangement also recognised that the marital partnership held the parcel jointly in practice even if the formal title rested with Bevan alone.
The twenty-one-year gap between Bevan's acquisition of the parcel from the company in August 1684 and his transfer of it to Goodwin in September 1705 covers the entire span of Bevan's holding under the original grant. The transfer also coincides closely with the broader expansion of Goodwin's interests recorded across the same decade, including his commercial purchases in Sarahs Valley, Fryer Valley and on the High Peak side. The Bevan transfer added a Lemon Valley Ridge parcel to a portfolio that already extended across several districts of the island, completing a substantial estate built through both market dealings and family settlement.
18
he Shall Receive have and Enjoy the Same, in as full, and Ample Manner as his Father might do by these presents, In wittness whereof I have here unto Sett my hand and Seale the day and year above written
his John I F Fuller mark[e] his James X Casthope mark James Greentree Vera Copia [p] me Daneell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Owen The O B Mark of [seal] Bevan
George Hoskinson to Gabriell Powell Know all Men by these presents that I George Hoskinson of the Island S[t] Helena Free planter, for and In Consideration of the Sum of thirty and two pounds good and Currant Money of the Said Island to me in hand paid by Gabriell Powell of the said Island Free planter at and before the Ensealing and Delivery of these presents wherewith I Confess my Self to be fully Sattisfied Contented and paid have bargained and Sold, and by these presents do fully and Clearly and absolutely bargain and Sell unto the said Gabriell Powell, All that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation twenty Acres Lyeing Siteate in Peak Gult, Ten of which 12 Acres the said George Hoskinson had of the Hon[ble] East India Company in Exchange for Neigh Seven Acres of Land formerly One Rich[d] Stays Deceased, As in the Councell Booke of the said Island may more at Large appear, and the other ten Acres of Land, which Compleats the whole twenty Acres aforesaid the said Hoskinson purchased of Edw[d] Heath Free planter who had the Same of the Said Hon[ble] Company in Exchange for ten Acres Land formerly one Samuell Jeffrey Free planter. To have and to hold the Said twenty Acres of Land to him the said Gabriell Powell, his heirs Executors Administrators and assignes to his and their proper Uses and behoofe for Ever, And I the said George Hoskinson my heirs Executors and Administrators and Every of us the said hereby bargained twenty Acres of Land unto the said Gabriell Powell his Executors Administrators against all People shall and will Warrant Acquitt, and for Ever Defend by these presents, and shall peaceably and Quietly Enjoy the said hereby Bargai- ned premises without any Manner of Mollestation or Interruption of me the said George Hoskinson, my heeres, Executors, or Administrato[rs] as aforesaid, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Eleaventh day of May 1704
Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of Margaret Cosgrave John Alexander
George Hoskinson [seal]
Gabriell Powell to Robert Gurling The above said Gabriell Powell hath Sold unto Robert Gurling Gentleman the before mentioned twenty Acres of Land with all & Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging as Provisson &c[a] for the Sum of One hundred pounds in good and Currant Money of the said Island as by an Obleigation from under the Said Robert Gurlings hand and Seale for the true payment thereof bearing Even date with these presents
may
The continuation of the Bevan to Goodwin transfer of 22 September 1705.
If Goodwin's eldest son John Goodwin lived and resided on the island, he was to receive and enjoy the parcel in as full and ample a manner as his father might have done under the deed. Owen Bevan set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Witnesses: John Fuller, who made his mark in the form of an F, James Casthope, who made his mark in the form of an X, and James Greentree.
A true copy by Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Owen Bevan made his mark in the form of an O B, with a seal attached.
George Hoskinson to Gabriel Powell.
George Hoskinson, free planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received from Gabriel Powell, free planter of the same island, the sum of £32 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand at and before the sealing and delivery of the document. He acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. He bargained and sold to Powell a parcel of land of about twenty acres in Peak Gult. Ten acres had come to Hoskinson from the Honourable East India Company in exchange for about seven acres formerly held by one Richard Stay, since died, as appeared more fully in the council book of the island. The other ten acres he had bought from Edward Heath, free planter, who had received them from the company in exchange for ten acres formerly held by Samuel Jeffrey, free planter. Powell was to hold the twenty acres, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, for their own use and benefit for ever. Hoskinson bound himself and his successors to warrant and defend the title against all challengers, and to allow Powell to enjoy the parcel without molestation or interruption. He set his hand and seal to the document on 11 May 1704.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Margaret Cosgrave and John Alexander.
George Hoskinson, with a seal attached.
Gabriel Powell to Robert Gurling.
Gabriel Powell sold the twenty acres of land described above, with all appurtenances including provisions, to Robert Gurling, gentleman, for the sum of £100 0s 0d in good current money of the island. The payment was secured by a bond from Gurling, signed and sealed, bearing the same date as the present document.
Interpretations
The chain of title behind the Peak Gult twenty acres reveals the company's role as a continuing party to land transactions on the island, accepting parcels back from holders in exchange for other parcels rather than only making original grants. Hoskinson had given the company about seven acres of land formerly held by Richard Stay and received ten acres in Peak Gult in return, while Heath had given the company ten acres formerly held by Samuel Jeffrey and received ten acres in Peak Gult on the same terms. The company therefore operated as a kind of land bank, taking in parcels in one location and granting parcels in another to suit the working preferences of the holders. The exchanges are recorded in the council book of the island, which served as the central administrative record for such transactions distinct from the register of conveyances.
The reference to the council book alongside the conveyance suggests that the island maintained at least two separate official records relating to land. The register, certified by Daniel Griffeth as clerk of the council, recorded the formal conveyances between private parties, while the council book recorded the company's own actions in granting, exchanging and resuming parcels. The two records together provided a complete documentary basis for any holder's title, with the council book establishing the original or exchange source of the land and the register tracking its subsequent transfers.
The seven-acre Stay parcel that Hoskinson surrendered to the company in exchange for ten Peak Gult acres represents a less than equal trade in terms of acreage, with the company effectively giving three additional acres in the exchange. The disparity perhaps reflected differences in the quality, location or improvements of the two parcels, or it may have been part of a wider settlement in which Hoskinson surrendered other rights along with the seven acres. The Heath exchange involved equal acreage of ten for ten and therefore looks like a straightforward swap of locations, with the company satisfying Heath's preference for Peak Gult by accepting the Jeffrey parcel he was giving up.
The Powell to Gurling sale of the same twenty acres on the same day, 11 May 1704, for £100 0s 0d represents a more than threefold increase over the £32 0s 0d that Hoskinson had just received from Powell for the same parcel. The difference of £68 0s 0d between the two prices, achieved in a transaction completed on the same day, points to one of two possible explanations. Powell may have been acting as an intermediate purchaser who took the parcel from Hoskinson at a fair market price and then sold it on at a substantial premium to Gurling, perhaps because Gurling needed the land urgently or because Powell had access to information Hoskinson lacked. The alternative explanation is that the Hoskinson to Powell sale at £32 0s 0d represented a notional or family-priced transaction rather than a market valuation, with the £100 0s 0d that Gurling paid being the true market price.
The use of a bond from Gurling under his hand and seal to secure payment of the £100 0s 0d shows that the second transaction was conducted on credit rather than in immediate cash. The bond was a separate instrument from the conveyance itself, signed and sealed by Gurling on the same day, by which he formally undertook to pay the agreed sum. The arrangement allowed Gurling to take title to the parcel without delivering the full purchase price at the point of conveyance, with Powell relying on the bond as security for the eventual payment.
The designation of Robert Gurling as gentleman places him in the highest informal social rank in the island's settler society, the same level reached by Thomas Goodwin in his 1705 deed from Owen Bevan. The status reflected a combination of wealth, social position and standing within the company's establishment that distinguished such men from the planters and soldiers who made up the broader landholding population. Gurling's willingness and capacity to commit £100 0s 0d to a single twenty-acre parcel is consistent with this elevated standing.
Margaret Cosgrave's appearance as a witness to the Hoskinson to Powell conveyance, alongside John Alexander, shows that women participated as formal witnesses in the island's property transactions. Her position as witness to a high-value transaction involving an experienced administrator like Alexander indicates that she held a recognised standing within the local community, sufficient to authenticate a formal instrument. The earlier appearance of Anne Coles as witness to the John Coles to Thomas Goodwin conveyance of 1696 establishes a pattern in which women, often relatives of one of the parties, served as witnesses to family-connected transactions.
Speculations
The same-day chain from Hoskinson to Powell at £32 0s 0d and Powell to Gurling at £100 0s 0d perhaps reflects a brokered transaction in which Powell stood as an intermediate party for reasons connected to the structure of the deal rather than to any commercial markup he genuinely retained. Gurling may have been unable or unwilling to deal directly with Hoskinson, or the transfer through Powell may have served to clear some encumbrance or family interest. The size of the differential, more than threefold within a single day, makes a pure commercial speculation by Powell hard to credit and points instead to a structured arrangement whose details are not visible in the deed.
The alternative reading is that Powell acted as a genuine intermediate buyer who took advantage of an underpriced sale from Hoskinson and resold immediately at a higher price. If so, the transaction reveals the existence of significant information asymmetries within the island's small property market, with knowledgeable dealers able to extract substantial margins from less well-positioned sellers. Hoskinson's willingness to sell at £32 0s 0d, when the parcel could realise £100 0s 0d on the same day, would then point to either pressing financial need or limited knowledge of current market values.
The company's exchange practice, by which Hoskinson surrendered the Stay parcel for ten Peak Gult acres and Heath surrendered the Jeffrey parcel for another ten Peak Gult acres, suggests a deliberate company policy of consolidating its own holdings or redistributing land to address particular tenancy issues. The company perhaps wanted to reclaim parcels held by deceased planters whose successors had not taken them up, and offered active planters fresh land in Peak Gult in exchange for accepting older or fragmented parcels back into company hands. The mechanism allowed both the company and the planters to reshape their holdings without resorting to the open market.
The recording of the Stay and Jeffrey parcels as held by men since died, with the company subsequently exchanging them for fresh grants, suggests that the company reclaimed land from deceased planters whose estates had not been continued by living successors. The Jeffrey parcel had been sold by Samuel Jeffrey to Henry Kersey in November 1683, and Kersey had sold it on to Thomas Goodwin in December 1691, so the parcel identified here as formerly Jeffrey's is not the same Fryer Valley land traced in the earlier conveyances but a separate piece of ground originally allotted to Jeffrey that had returned to company hands after his death.
19
may more at large appear, In Wittness of which Bargain and Sale, the said Gabriell Powell hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this third Day of December 1706
Wittnessed [p] Richard Gurling John Alexander
Gabriell Powell [seal]
June the 52 1705
Thomas Cole to Rich[d] Swallow Richard Swallow purchased of Thomas Cole Free planter, In Consideration of the Sum of One hundred and four pounds Currant Money of the Island, One Mansion House Seventeen Acres of Land and the provissons therein Contained the said Mansion house and ten Acres of Land was formerly belonging to Richard Leach deceased and the other 7 Acres of Land formerly to John Hemmons, the said Seaventeen Acres Lyeing and being at the head of Deep Valley and adjoyning to the R[t] Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land on the North, South, East, and West and now in the possession of the said Thomas Cole to him the said Richard Swallow & his heers and assignes for Ever his Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of Edward Bassly Charles Steward Richard Steve Marke Mathew Bazett
his Thomas X Cole [seal] mark[e]
August 3 1704
Jonathan Higham to Robert Bell Jonathan Higham Free planter hath Bargained and Sold In Consideration of the Sum of Five pounds Currant Money of the said Island to him paied unto Robert Bell, all that peice, or parcell of Ground Containing twenty Fore Foot in Length, and Fixteen foot in breadth, ad- joyning to the House now in the said Robert Bell possession Siteate in Chappell Valley, Right over against the burrying place to hold the said his Premises to him the said Robert Bell his heers and assignes for Ever
Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence us John Hemmon John Alexander
Jonathan I Higham [seal] mark[e]
August 9[th] 1705 Island S[t] Helena Robert Marsh to William Dufton Sen[r] Robert Marsh Singleman aged twenty One years, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Twenty pounds Currant Money of the said Island by him already Received, Hath given granted bargained and Sold unto William Dufton Senior 20 Acres of Land with all things thereunto belonging Which was formerly Edw[ar]d Gardeners Deceased and now in the possession of the said W[m] Dufton To him the said William Dufton and his heeres for Ever
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Geo[r] Hoskinson John Long W[m] Hayes John Alexander
Robert Marsh [seal]
The continuation of the Powell to Gurling conveyance.
The bond from Robert Gurling more fully set out the terms of payment. Gabriel Powell set his hand and seal to the conveyance on 3 December 1706.
Witnessed by Richard Gurling and John Alexander.
Gabriel Powell, with a seal attached.
5 June 1705.
Thomas Cole to Richard Swallow.
Richard Swallow bought from Thomas Cole, free planter, for the sum of £104 0s 0d in current money of the island, a mansion house, seventeen acres of land and the provisions standing on the land. The mansion house and ten acres of the land had formerly belonged to Richard Leach, since died, and the remaining seven acres had formerly belonged to John Hemmons. The seventeen acres lay at the head of Deep Valley and were bounded on all sides, north, south, east and west, by the Right Honourable Company's waste land. The land lay in Cole's own possession at the time of the conveyance. Swallow was to hold the property, with his heirs and assigns, for ever.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Edward Bassly, Charles Steward, Richard Steve, who made his mark, and Matthew Bazett.
Thomas Cole made his mark in the form of an X, with a seal attached.
3 August 1704.
Jonathan Higham to Robert Bell.
Jonathan Higham, free planter, bargained and sold to Robert Bell, for the sum of £5 0s 0d in current money of the island paid in hand, a piece of ground twenty-four feet long and sixteen feet broad. The ground adjoined the house then in Bell's possession, standing in Chapel Valley directly opposite the burying place. Bell was to hold the premises, with his heirs and assigns, for ever.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of John Hemmon and John Alexander.
Jonathan Higham made his mark in the form of an I, with a seal attached.
9 August 1705. Island of St Helena.
Robert Marsh to William Dufton the elder.
Robert Marsh, unmarried man, aged twenty-one years, made known that he had received the sum of £20 0s 0d in current money of the island. He gave, granted, bargained and sold to William Dufton the elder twenty acres of land with all appurtenances. The land had formerly belonged to Edward Gardener, since died, and lay in Dufton's own possession at the time of the conveyance. Dufton was to hold the parcel, with his heirs, for ever.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of George Hoskinson, John Long, William Hayes and John Alexander.
Robert Marsh, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Robert Marsh to William Dufton conveyance of 9 August 1705 resolves the question raised by the earlier deed of 5 May 1703, in which William Marsh had sold the same twenty acres to William Dufton the soldier acting on behalf of his son Robert. The 1705 instrument is a direct conveyance from Robert Marsh himself, now twenty-one years old, in which he confirms the sale and receives the consideration in his own right. The arrangement shows the careful sequencing by which a minor's beneficial interest was protected during his youth and then formally cleared by his own act on reaching the age of majority. The 1703 transaction had moved the land into Dufton's working possession, while the 1705 deed gave Dufton an unimpeachable title from the beneficial owner once he was legally able to make it.
The explicit recording of Robert Marsh's age as twenty-one years carries direct legal significance, since twenty-one was the age at which a person attained full majority in English law and could execute binding deeds in their own name. The drafter of the document included the age to demonstrate that Marsh had reached the point at which his confirmation of the earlier sale carried unquestionable legal weight. The detail also fits with the pattern visible in the William Marsh sales of Robert's beneficial interest, which had been conducted while Robert was a minor and required his eventual ratification.
The description of Robert Marsh as singleman, meaning unmarried man, marks a status distinct from married, widowed or in religious orders. The term identified the maker of the deed as a free agent acting on his own behalf, without a wife whose interests might have been affected by the conveyance. The category appears here because it was legally relevant to the validity of the transaction, since a married man's disposition of property could be complicated by his wife's dower rights or other marital interests.
The consideration of £20 0s 0d for the twenty acres gives a per-acre figure of £1 0s 0d, falling between the upland rates of nine shillings per acre at Oak Gutt and the £1 2s 0d to £1 5s 0d per acre that Goodwin paid for Fryer Valley parcels. The figure represents a market rate for upland land of moderate quality and confirms that the per-acre value of land on the island fell within a recognisable range by the mid-1700s.
The same individuals continue to dominate the witness lists across the conveyances reviewed. John Alexander appears in his now familiar role, present at the Bevan, Hoskinson, Higham and Marsh transactions and certifying earlier deeds as a copyist. George Hoskinson, the seller in the Peak Gult transaction of May 1704, here serves as a witness to Marsh's conveyance to Dufton, showing his continuing presence within the island's circle of formal witnesses. The recurring names indicate that a small group of literate men, often connected with the company's administrative or commercial activities, served as the witnesses and certifiers for the bulk of the island's recorded property transactions.
The Cole to Swallow conveyance of 5 June 1705 records the highest-value rural transaction in the records reviewed, with £104 0s 0d paid for a mansion house, seventeen acres and provisions at the head of Deep Valley. The price stands in striking contrast to the £25 0s 0d to £35 0s 0d typical of twenty-acre Sarahs Valley parcels with houses ten years earlier and approaches the £130 0s 0d that Goodwin had paid for the Chapel Valley town tenement in 1700. The presence of a mansion house, rather than a simple dwelling house, accounts for much of the difference, since the term mansion implied a substantial residence of size and finish beyond the ordinary planter's house.
The reference to the Right Honourable Company's waste land as the boundary on all four sides of the Cole parcel reveals the geographic isolation of the holding at the head of Deep Valley. The seventeen acres formed an island of private land entirely surrounded by retained company ground, with no neighbouring freehold parcels adjoining it. The position fits the upland topography of Deep Valley, where settlement was sparse and the company's waste land extended over wide tracts.
The combination of two separate former holdings into the seventeen-acre parcel, with ten acres formerly Leach's and seven acres formerly Hemmons's, follows the pattern of consolidation seen elsewhere in the records. Cole had brought together two distinct origins into a single working holding before selling on to Swallow, with the mansion house standing on the Leach portion. The Hemmons name connects to the John Hemmons of Pleasant Valley who appears in the 1682 register, although the seven acres at the head of Deep Valley represent a separate fragment of his holdings from the ten acres of Pleasant Valley land he had exchanged with Henry Coales.
The Higham to Bell conveyance of 3 August 1704 records an urban transaction in Chapel Valley with strikingly different proportions from the rural deeds. The parcel measured twenty-four feet by sixteen feet, a total area of 384 square feet, sold for £5 0s 0d. The plot adjoined Bell's existing house and stood directly opposite the burying place, an identifiable landmark in the town. The transaction shows how small urban plots were measured and conveyed by linear feet rather than by acres, in the same form as the earlier Gurling to Carne sale of a sixteen and a half foot frontage. Bell was extending or providing land alongside his existing holding, a common form of urban property growth where adjacent ground became available.
The proximity of the parcel to the burying place identifies the location of the Chapel Valley graveyard as a recognised reference point in the town's geography. The cemetery served as a fixed landmark against which other properties could be located, in the same way as ridges and gullies functioned for rural parcels. The naming of the burying place in a formal conveyance shows that the location was sufficiently well established by 1704 to serve as an authoritative reference.
Speculations
The 1705 confirmation by Robert Marsh of the earlier 1703 sale by his father suggests a deliberate two-stage approach to settling the beneficial interest in the Edward Gardener twenty acres. William Marsh had effected the operational transfer to Dufton in 1703 while Robert was still a minor, accepting the purchase money on his son's behalf, and the 1705 deed by the now adult Robert closed off any later claim by him against Dufton's title. The arrangement protected both parties: Dufton secured his title against future challenge, and the Marsh family received the consideration during the period when the working transfer was needed. The careful structuring contrasts with the earlier Gardener transaction in which William Marsh sold his son's beneficial interest to Dweight, where no equivalent confirmation by Robert has appeared in the records.
The very high price of £104 0s 0d that Swallow paid for the Cole holding at the head of Deep Valley points to either a particularly substantial mansion house or to specific value attached to the consolidated nature of the seventeen acres surrounded entirely by company waste land. The isolation of the parcel from any other private holdings would have given the holder unimpeded access to the surrounding waste for grazing, woodcutting or other auxiliary uses, even though the title to that surrounding land remained with the company. The premium may reflect the practical value of this de facto control over a larger area than the formal acreage suggests.
The structure of the Cole holding, with the ten acres and mansion house from Leach combined with the seven acres from Hemmons, follows a pattern by which planters built up working units from fragments of earlier allotments. The Leach portion would have provided the dwelling and the principal cultivated ground, while the Hemmons addition extended the working area. By bringing both into a single sale, Cole offered Swallow a unified holding that could be acquired in one transaction rather than assembled piecemeal.
Robert Bell's acquisition of the small Chapel Valley plot adjoining his house perhaps reflects the gradual incremental growth of urban holdings within the town. Owners of town houses sought to acquire adjacent ground as it came available, extending their plots in small increments rather than relocating to larger sites. The £5 0s 0d that Bell paid for the 384 square feet, which works out to a substantial rate per unit area compared with rural land, shows that town ground commanded premium prices even for small parcels.
20
Island S[t] Helena August 29[th] 1705
William Marsh to Robert Marsh William Marsh Free planter for and in Consideration of having Sold and Alienated twenty Acres of Land to William Dufton and Ten Acres more to George Dweight, Likewise Free planter which thirty acres of Land was formerly Edward Gardners deceased who bequeathed the Same to his Son Robert Marsh aged twenty One years, and upwards doth deliver unto his Son Robert Marsh, all that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres to the Same more or Less Lyeing between the Land formerly Richard Parrams, and the Lands of Jonathan Dufton formerly William Duftons begining from the Old peice of Wall in the Gutt next the Land formerly John Hemons and So up the Water Course, As also 3 head of Cattle vi[z] One Cow, and two Heiferr and as many Yams for his Own particular Use and Eating for 12 Months time Comencing from the Date hereof To him the said Robert Marsh his heers Execut[ors] Administrators and assignes To Demand Dispose of at theer Own Wills and pleasure
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in presence of us George Hoskinson John Long W[m] Hayes John Alexander
his William D Marsh [seal] mark
Island S[t] Helena August 29[th] 1705
Robert Marsh to George Dweight Robert Marsh of the said Island Singleman aged Twenty One years and upwards, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Eight pound Sixteen Shillings Currant Money of the said Island by him received, hath Given Granted bargained and Sold and Delivered unto George Dweight Free planter, his heers Executors Administrators, & Assignes all and Singular that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres of Land, be the Same more or Less, Lyeing and being in Tshars Valley, with all and Singular the Appurtenances, Which was formerly belonging to Edward Gardner Deceased, To him and his heers for Ever
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in the presence of Geo[r] Hoskinson John Long W[m] Hayes John Alexander
Robert Marsh [seal]
Eliz[th] Rhodes to Margaret Cotgrave Margaret Cotgrave Widow and Relict of John Cotgrave late of the Island S[t] Helena free planter deceased, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Ten pounds by her said Deceased Husband paid to Elizabeth Rhoads Lawfull Wife and Attorney to William Rhoads free planter deceased (then absent from said Island) Hath now Remaineing in her possession Ten Acres of Land formerly the said William Rhoads Lyeing and being at the head of Sharkes Valley to do and Dispose of, at her Own Will and pleasure
Likewise
Island of St Helena, 29 August 1705.
William Marsh to Robert Marsh.
William Marsh, free planter, in consideration of having sold twenty acres of land to William Dufton and a further ten acres to George Dweight, also a free planter, delivered to his son Robert Marsh, then twenty-one years old and upwards, a parcel of land of about ten acres. The thirty acres he had earlier sold had formerly belonged to Edward Gardener, since died, who had bequeathed them to Robert Marsh. The ten acres now delivered lay between the land formerly held by Richard Parram and the land of Jonathan Dufton, formerly held by William Dufton. The parcel began at the old piece of wall in the gutt next to the land formerly held by John Hemmons and ran up the watercourse. William Marsh also delivered three head of cattle to Robert, comprising one cow and two heifers, together with as many yams as Robert needed for his own consumption for twelve months from the date of the document. Robert was to hold the land, the cattle and the yams, with his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to dispose of at his own will and pleasure.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of George Hoskinson, John Long, William Hayes and John Alexander.
William Marsh made his mark in the form of a D, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena, 29 August 1705.
Robert Marsh to George Dweight.
Robert Marsh, unmarried man of the island, then twenty-one years old and upwards, made known that he had received the sum of £8 16s 0d in current money of the island. He gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to George Dweight, free planter, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres in [Tshars] Valley, with all appurtenances. The land had formerly belonged to Edward Gardener, since died. Dweight was to hold the parcel, with his heirs, for ever.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of George Hoskinson, John Long, William Hayes and John Alexander.
Robert Marsh, with a seal attached.
Elizabeth Rhodes to Margaret Cotgrave.
Margaret Cotgrave, widow and relict of John Cotgrave, late free planter of the island of St Helena, since died, made known that her late husband had paid £10 0s 0d to Elizabeth Rhodes, lawful wife and attorney of William Rhodes, free planter, since died and then absent from the island. By that payment ten acres of land formerly held by William Rhodes, lying at the head of Sharks Valley, now remained in Margaret Cotgrave's possession, to dispose of at her own will and pleasure.
Interpretations
The three transactions of 29 August 1705 reveal the carefully structured settlement by which the Gardener inheritance was finally cleared. Edward Gardener had bequeathed thirty acres to Robert Marsh, the son of William Marsh. William Marsh had sold twenty acres of this inheritance to Dufton in 1703 and ten acres to Dweight at some earlier date, both transactions executed while Robert was still a minor. The first of the three deeds dated 29 August acknowledged these earlier sales as having taken place out of Robert's inheritance, and in compensation William delivered to Robert a different ten-acre parcel together with three head of cattle and a year's supply of yams. The second and third deeds confirmed Robert's title in the parcels his father had sold, with the 1705 confirmation by Robert ratifying the earlier Dufton sale, and a separate deed dated the same day passing the remaining ten acres to Dweight directly from Robert.
The arrangement reveals a sophisticated approach to managing a minor's inherited estate. William Marsh had acted on Robert's behalf during his minority, selling parts of the inheritance for what would have been the family's working purposes and accepting the proceeds. On Robert's reaching majority, the family executed a series of instruments that simultaneously compensated Robert for the lost land, confirmed the buyers' titles by Robert's own act, and discharged William's accountability for the earlier sales. The transactions of a single day therefore closed off all loose ends in the inheritance, leaving Robert with a substituted holding and the buyers with secure title.
The substitute parcel given to Robert by his father included not only ten acres of land but also livestock and provisions, indicating that William Marsh was settling a complete working subsistence on his son. The three head of cattle, comprising one cow and two heifers, gave Robert a productive dairy and breeding base. The year's supply of yams provided immediate food security while the new holding was brought into Robert's own cultivation. The package amounted to a structured entry into independent farming, far more carefully provided than a simple transfer of acreage.
The boundary description of Robert's new parcel, with the old piece of wall in the gutt as a starting point and the watercourse as a line of extension, anchors the land in physical features rather than in neighbouring holders alone. The reference to an old wall suggests that earlier cultivation had taken place on or near the parcel, with stone work remaining as evidence of past use. The watercourse running along the boundary provided both a natural marker and a water supply, although whether Robert's right extended to the water itself or merely to the line of the course is not specified.
The price of £8 16s 0d that Dweight paid Robert Marsh for the ten acres of his confirmation deed, lower than the £20 0s 0d that Dufton had paid for the parallel twenty acres, reflects a per-acre figure of seventeen shillings and seven pence. The figure falls well below the £1 0s 0d per acre rate of the Dufton transaction, suggesting either differences in the quality of the two parcels or that the Dweight payment may have included only the residual balance after earlier payments to William Marsh. The earlier Dweight payment to William Marsh, recorded in the 20 February 1703 register entry but without a specified sum, may have accounted for the bulk of the consideration with Robert's 1705 confirmation receiving only a top-up.
The Cotgrave to Rhodes transaction records a different kind of arrangement, with property moving through the agency of a wife acting for an absent husband. Elizabeth Rhodes held a formal power of attorney from her husband William Rhodes, allowing her to deal with his property on his behalf while he was away from the island. The phrase lawful wife and attorney identifies the dual basis of her authority, with her marriage giving her standing within the household and the attorney's instrument giving her formal legal capacity to transact. The arrangement shows that absent landholders maintained their interests through proxies, with their wives as the most common choice of agent.
The payment of £10 0s 0d by John Cotgrave to Elizabeth Rhodes for the ten acres at the head of Sharks Valley gives a per-acre figure of £1 0s 0d, consistent with the Dufton rate and with the £1 2s 0d per acre at which Coles sold his Fryer Valley parcel to Goodwin. The price establishes a market value for upland and valley-head land of moderate quality that runs across multiple transactions. The transaction also reveals that the original sale by Elizabeth Rhodes had taken place during the lifetime of John Cotgrave, with the parcel now passing into the hands of his widow as part of her dower or inheritance.
The naming of Margaret Cotgrave as widow and relict of John Cotgrave shows the careful legal terminology used to identify a surviving spouse. Widow indicated her current marital status, while relict was the technical term for a woman whose husband had died, emphasising her formal position as the surviving party to the marriage. The double designation gave her standing under both modern and traditional legal vocabulary and reinforced her capacity to deal with the property she now held.
Both William Rhodes and his wife are recorded as if there is some uncertainty over William's status, with the deed noting that he was then absent from the island when Elizabeth executed the original sale. The text describes him in the present passage as deceased, suggesting that he had since died, perhaps abroad, leaving the question of his death somewhat unsettled at the time of his sale through his attorney. The arrangement points to the difficulties of long-distance property administration in the early eighteenth century, with island landholders abroad relying on their wives to manage interests they could not directly oversee.
The witness lists for the two Marsh transactions of 29 August 1705 are identical, with George Hoskinson, John Long, William Hayes and John Alexander present at both. The repetition shows that the four men attended together as a coordinated group, witnessing the related instruments in sequence as part of a single occasion. The arrangement allowed the entire Gardener inheritance to be settled in a single sitting, with all parties and witnesses present to confirm the multiple transfers at one time.
Speculations
The structuring of the 29 August 1705 transactions on a single day, with William Marsh delivering substitute land, livestock and provisions to Robert, and Robert immediately confirming both prior sales, suggests careful planning rather than spontaneous settlement. The family had perhaps reached an understanding well in advance of Robert's twenty-first birthday about how the various interests would be resolved, with the necessary deeds prepared and witnesses assembled for execution on the appointed date. The orderly progression of the three instruments, each addressing a different aspect of the Gardener inheritance, points to legal advice and prior agreement among the parties.
The provision of cattle and yams alongside the substitute land suggests that William Marsh was concerned to settle Robert with a functioning agricultural unit rather than simply transferring bare ground. The decision to include twelve months of food provisions reveals an estimate of the time required for Robert to bring his new holding into productive yield. The package would have allowed Robert to focus on cultivating the new parcel without the immediate pressure of growing or buying his own food, giving him a realistic chance of establishing himself as an independent planter.
The very modest price of £8 16s 0d that Dweight paid Robert Marsh for the ten acres, particularly when compared to the £20 0s 0d Dufton had paid for the related twenty acres, points to the earlier Dweight payment to William Marsh having covered the substantial portion of the price. The 1705 transaction was perhaps a residual settlement, with Dweight paying Robert directly for his consent to the original sale rather than the full market value of the land. The arrangement reflects how the family resolved Robert's interest by having Dweight contribute a token payment in confirmation of the earlier transfer.
Elizabeth Rhodes's role as her absent husband's attorney points to a wider pattern of women managing island property during their husbands' absences. The position required not only personal authority within the household but formal legal capacity to execute conveyances and receive payments. The recording of her dual designation as lawful wife and attorney shows that the formal documentation of her authority was important to the validity of her transactions, since a purchaser would have needed assurance that she was empowered to bind her absent husband's estate.
The chain by which the ten acres at the head of Sharks Valley reached Margaret Cotgrave runs through her late husband's purchase from Elizabeth Rhodes as attorney for the absent William Rhodes. The transaction therefore involved at least three layers of representation: William Rhodes acting through his attorney Elizabeth, John Cotgrave acting in his own right, and Margaret Cotgrave now holding as her late husband's widow. The complexity of these arrangements indicates the developed conveyancing practice on the island by the early eighteenth century, with proxies, marital authority and inheritance all combining to determine current title.
21
Likewise the said Margaret Cotgrave hath a Dwelling house Standing in Chappell Valley, which her Husband John Cotgrave deceased bought of Thom[s] Tewsdale (late free planter deceased) for the Sum of Thirty Five Pounds Twelve Shillings, as by a Bill of Sale from under the said Thomas Tewsdale hand may more Largely appear bearing date 19[th] day of Aprell 1694
Wittnesses were John Long Sam[ll] Booker Matt[w] Bazett
Island S[t] Helena Aprell 27[th] 1698
John Greentree to Eliz[th] Johnson To all Christian People to whom these presents Shall come, I John Greentree of the Island of S[t] Helena free planter &c[a] Send Greeting In the Lord God Know Ye that I the said John Greentree for divers good Causes and Considerations me thereunto moving, But more Especially for the Valluable Consideration of Twenty pounds of Lawfull Money of this Island that is to Say present credit in the Stores of the R[t] Hon[ble] the English East Indea Company To me paed at or before the Sealing and Delivering hereof, Do Sell unto M[r]s Elizabeth Johnson of the aforesaid Island of S[t] Helena Wedow her heirs Executors, and Administrators all and Singular that piece or parcell of Land, that was the Lott Land of John Greentree deceased Containing by Estimation Twenty Acres, Lyeing Sciteate and being in Lemon Valley butting on the aforesaid M[rs] Elizabeth Johnsons Estate that is known by the Name of the greate bottom, and bounding on the Companys Common on all Sedes, To have and to hold all & Singular the aforesaid parcell of Land with the Appurtenances thereunto belonging freely and Quietly, without Interruption to be by her and her Heirs Enjoyed for Ever, In Wittness whereof I Sett my hand and Affixe my Seale this twenty Seaventh day of Aprell in the year of our Lord 1698
Wittness Jn[o] Goodwin Richard Harding F. Gargan F. Faltenald
John Greentree [seal]
Island S[t] Helena Robert Leach to George Carne To all Christian People to whome these presents Shall come Greeting Know Ye that I Robert Leach of the said Island free planter Aforesaid In Consideration of the Sum of Twenty Five Pounds Currant Money of the Said Island before hand paied by M[r] Mary Carne and Divers other good Causes and Considerations me thereunto Moveing Have Sold and doe hereby Sett Sell and make good Sale unto the said M[r] Mary Carne the Lawfull Attorney of M[r] George Carne, as Agred with him before his going off said Island fifteen acres of Land which formerly belonged unto the Orphans of Mary Dixon Deceased and was Delivered to me as part of my Wifes Portion, Now Ann Leeches Portion upon the said Island Neer the head of Fryarr Valley Ten Acres whereof is Abutting Upon the R[t] Hon[ble] Companys great plantateon on the East, on the Land belonging to the late Gouvernor[s] Keelings, on the South, on the Land belonging to Walter Morres, Towards
The continuation of the Margaret Cotgrave entry.
Margaret Cotgrave also held a dwelling house in Chapel Valley. Her late husband John Cotgrave had bought the house from Thomas Tewsdale, free planter, since died, for the sum of £35 12s 0d. The transaction was set out more fully in a bill of sale signed by Tewsdale, dated 19 April 1694.
Witnesses to the bill of sale were John Long, Samuel Booker and Matthew Bazett.
Island of St Helena, 27 April 1698.
John Greentree to Elizabeth Johnson.
John Greentree, free planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God. He acknowledged that for good causes, and more particularly for the valuable consideration of £20 0s 0d in lawful money of the island, the sum being present credit in the stores of the Right Honourable English East India Company, paid at or before the sealing and delivery of the document, he sold to Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow of the island, her heirs, executors and administrators, a parcel of land. The land had been the lot of John Greentree, since died, and contained about twenty acres. It lay in Lemon Valley, bordering Johnson's own estate known as the Great Bottom, and bordering the company's common on all sides. Johnson was to hold the parcel, with its appurtenances, freely and quietly, without interruption, to be enjoyed by her and her heirs for ever. Greentree set his hand and seal to the document on 27 April 1698.
Witnesses: John Goodwin, Richard Harding, F. Gargan and F. Faltenald.
John Greentree, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena. Robert Leach to George Carne.
Robert Leach, free planter of the island, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting. He acknowledged that he had received the sum of £25 0s 0d in current money of the island in advance from Mrs Mary Carne. For this consideration and for other good causes, he sold to Mrs Mary Carne, as lawful attorney of Mr George Carne and as agreed with George Carne before his departure from the island, fifteen acres of land. The land had formerly belonged to the orphans of Mary Dixon, since died, and had been delivered to Robert Leach as part of his wife's portion, now known as Ann Leach's portion, on the island. The land lay near the head of Fryer Valley. Ten acres of the parcel bordered the Right Honourable Company's great plantation on the east, the land belonging to the late Governor Keeling on the south, and the land belonging to Walter Morres [on the west].
Interpretations
The Cotgrave dwelling house in Chapel Valley represents a separate strand of the late John Cotgrave's estate from the Sharks Valley ten acres held by his widow. The house had been bought from Thomas Tewsdale on 19 April 1694 for £35 12s 0d, a sum sitting between the £30 0s 0d that Casthope paid Harper for a twenty-acre Sarahs Valley parcel with a house a month earlier and the £25 0s 0d that Harper paid Fox for the comparable parcel he later sold to Goodwin. The Cotgrave house price points to a Chapel Valley dwelling of more substantial standing than a planter's rural house, though well below the £130 0s 0d that Goodwin paid for the large tenement bought from Edmunds in 1700. The figure helps to establish a middle band of urban property values in the 1690s, situated between modest rural houses and the high-status town tenements that came on the market a few years later.
The use of present credit in the stores of the Right Honourable English East India Company as the form of the consideration in the Greentree to Johnson conveyance reveals a distinctive feature of the island's monetary arrangements. The £20 0s 0d that Johnson paid for the twenty acres was not necessarily delivered in coin but as a credit balance with the company's stores, which functioned as a kind of bank within the local economy. Settlers held credit balances at the stores that they could draw on to acquire goods, and these balances could be transferred between parties as the equivalent of cash for property transactions. The arrangement allowed the company's stores to serve as a clearing house for settler accounts in the absence of a more developed banking system.
The Greentree parcel had originally been the lot of John Greentree the elder, since died, and the seller John Greentree was probably his son or other heir. The transaction therefore continues the pattern of inherited parcels passing through the second generation of settlers on the island, with the children of original allottees converting their inheritance into cash or stores credit for their own purposes. The land lay in Lemon Valley adjoining Johnson's own established estate at the Great Bottom, which made the parcel a natural extension of her existing holding.
The boundary description in the Greentree deed identifies Elizabeth Johnson's existing Lemon Valley holding by the local name the Great Bottom, suggesting that the term was sufficiently well established to serve as an authoritative reference without further description. The phrase fits the pattern of named topographic features used as landmarks across the island's deeds, alongside named ridges, valleys, gulls and other features. The retention of such names in the formal record shows that the island's vernacular geography had stabilised by the late seventeenth century to a degree that the deeds could rely on shared local knowledge for boundary identification.
Mrs Elizabeth Johnson's purchase, completed in her own name as widow, places her alongside Mary Barrington, Sarah Harding, Margaret Cotgrave and Margaret Fagnald as widows actively dealing with island property in their own capacity. The recurrence of widows as property holders and parties to conveyances across the records indicates that widowhood was a recognised legal and social status with substantial economic implications. Widows held, bought, sold and managed property on terms close to those available to men, although the contexts in which they did so often arose from the death of a husband rather than from their own original allotments.
The Robert Leach to George Carne conveyance introduces a new figure of female agency in the form of Mrs Mary Carne, who acted as the lawful attorney of her husband Mr George Carne under an arrangement agreed before his departure from the island. The structure parallels that of Elizabeth Rhodes, who acted as attorney for her absent husband William Rhodes in the Cotgrave transaction. The pattern of wives acting as their husbands' attorneys during absences from the island appears as a standard mechanism for managing property interests when the principal was overseas. The position required formal legal capacity, conferred by the husband through a power of attorney executed before his departure, and entitled the wife to bind her husband's estate by her own acts.
The fifteen acres conveyed by Leach to Carne had reached him by a different route from the other parcels in the records. Mary Dixon, since died, had originally held land that passed to her orphans on her death, and the parcel had been delivered to Robert Leach as part of his wife Ann's portion. The phrase his wife's portion identifies the land as Ann Leach's marriage settlement, brought into the Leach household at the time of her marriage as her share of her family's property. The transaction therefore involved property that had moved through three generations: Mary Dixon's holding, her orphans' inheritance, and Ann Leach's marriage portion. By 1705 the parcel had become part of the Leach household estate but retained its identification as Ann's portion within the family.
The naming of the late Governor Keeling as the holder of land bordering the Carne parcel on the south reveals that company officials could hold private property on the island in their own right while serving in office. Keeling's status as governor did not exclude him from the freehold market, and his estate appears to have remained identifiable as Keeling's land after his death. The pattern matches the practice seen in Thomas Goodwin's accumulations, where company office and private landholding coexisted within the same individual.
The boundary description of the Carne parcel identifies the Right Honourable Company's great plantation on the east, marking a further category of company-held land distinct from the company's common, the company's waste and the company's lot land. The great plantation suggests a substantial company-managed estate, perhaps dedicated to the production of provisions for the garrison and shipping, distinguished from the common grazing lands and the waste ground awaiting allotment. The terminology shows that the company maintained several different classes of land on the island under direct management, each serving a different function within the island's economy.
The price of £25 0s 0d for fifteen acres at the head of Fryer Valley gives a per-acre figure of £1 13s 4d, the highest rate seen in the Fryer Valley transactions reviewed. The figure stands above the £1 5s 0d per acre at which Kersey sold to Goodwin in 1691 and the £1 2s 0d per acre at which Coles sold to Goodwin in 1696, suggesting either an upward trend in Fryer Valley land values across the period or a particular premium attaching to this parcel because of its position adjoining the company's great plantation and the Keeling estate. The high price perhaps reflects the prestige of the neighbouring holdings as much as the intrinsic value of the land itself.
Speculations
The structure of the Leach to Carne sale, in which Mary Carne paid the consideration in advance on behalf of her absent husband, points to a planned acquisition arranged before George Carne's departure from the island. The agreement of the price and the identification of the parcel had taken place during George's presence, and Mary's role was to complete the transaction when the land became available or when convenient. The arrangement perhaps reflects a deliberate use of the period of George's absence to settle property interests that would benefit the household on his return, with Mary holding both the funds and the authority to act when the conditions for the transaction were satisfied.
Elizabeth Johnson's acquisition of the Greentree twenty acres in Lemon Valley, adjoining her existing Great Bottom estate, fits the pattern of consolidation seen across the records. Holders sought to extend their working estates by adding adjacent parcels as they came on the market, building up continuous blocks of land rather than scattered holdings. The use of company stores credit as the payment instrument suggests that Johnson maintained substantial credit balances with the company, which she could deploy to acquire neighbouring land without recourse to cash transactions. Her position as a widow with an established Lemon Valley estate placed her in a strong financial position relative to second-generation sellers like the younger Greentree.
The combination in the Leach conveyance of property derived from a previous female holder, Mary Dixon, passed through her orphans to Robert Leach as his wife's marriage portion, illustrates the complex routes by which land moved through families over generations. The parcel carried with it the recorded history of three women's involvement: Mary Dixon's original holding, Ann Leach's marriage portion, and Mary Carne's acquisition as her husband's attorney. The persistence of the female identification of the parcel as Ann's portion within the Leach household, even after the marriage had absorbed it into Robert Leach's estate, points to a continuing recognition of women's contributions to family property even where formal title rested with their husbands.
22
the West, and on the Land belonging to Robert Gurling towards the North, and the other five Acres abutts upon the Hon[ble] Companys as aforesaid, and the said Robert Gurlings Land upon the East, and the Land belonging to Mathew Bradley Towards the North, To have and to hold the aforesaid fifteen Acres of Land with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any ways Appertaineing unto the aforesaid M[r] George Carne his heirs Executors Administraters and assigns from the day of the date hereof for Ever, and I do hereby Acknowledge mySelf my heeres &c[a] to be fully Satisfied and Contented for the Same, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this fourth day of January, One thousand Seven hundred and four five
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Tho[s] Goodwin Edward Bagley Rich[d] Gurling Mat[w] Bazett
Robert Leach [seal]
Mary Oliver Indenture to Serve M[r] Carne This Indenture made between George Carne of S[t] Helena Merchant on the One part, and Mary Oliver of said Island on the other part Wittnesseth that the said Mary Oliver doth hereby bind and Obligate her Self to Serve as Meniell Servant the said George Carne his heirs and assigns, as allso her Two Children Mary and Elizabeth till Each come of Age, as allso that She goeth with; and Every Child hereafter till Age, and Moreover, She her Self Not to forsake the said Service of the said George Carne his heirs & Assignes till the Youngest of all her Children be of age, But in Case they all dy Than only for the Space of Seven years, for all which the abovesaid George Carne doth Obligate himself his heers and assigns to take Care for [C]loath and Maintaen in Deyt, and in all just Considerations According to the Custome of this Island sitt for Such a Servant, her also and her Children to keep from all Parrish Charge, To all which we Respectively Sett our hands and Seales this tenth day of September In the year of our Lord God One thousand Seven Hundred and Six
Wittness John Rogers Walter Morress
George Carne [seal] her Mary O Oliver [seal] mark
Bento R[d]te[mor] Demallo Receipt to M[r] Carne Received of M[r] George Carne the Ballance of all Accounts and Effects which he had of mine in his Custody, the Island of S[t] Helena November the 5[t] 1706
Wittness Ric[d] Harmer
Bento P[t] Demallo
The continuation of the Robert Leach to George Carne conveyance.
The ten acres of the parcel bordered the Right Honourable Company's great plantation on the east, the land of the late Governor Keeling on the south, the land belonging to Walter Morres on the west, and the land of Robert Gurling on the north. The remaining five acres of the parcel bordered the company's land on the east, Robert Gurling's land on the east, and the land of Matthew Bradley on the north. George Carne was to hold the fifteen acres, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the document for ever. Leach acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction for himself and his successors. He set his hand and seal to the document on 4 January 1705.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Goodwin, Edward Bagley, Richard Gurling and Matthew Bazett.
Robert Leach, with a seal attached.
Mary Oliver indenture to serve Mr Carne.
This indenture was made between George Carne of St Helena, merchant, of the one part, and Mary Oliver of the same island, of the other part. Mary Oliver bound and obligated herself to serve George Carne, his heirs and assigns, as a menial servant. She also bound her two children Mary and Elizabeth to the same service until each came of age. Any child she might have in future was likewise to be bound until coming of age. Mary Oliver herself was not to leave the service of George Carne, his heirs and assigns, until the youngest of all her children came of age. If all her children died, she would serve only for a further period of seven years. In return, George Carne bound himself, his heirs and assigns to take care of Mary and her children, to clothe and maintain them in diet, and in all just considerations according to the custom of the island fit for such a servant. He also bound himself to keep her and her children free of all parish charge. The parties set their hands and seals to the document on 10 September 1706.
Witnesses: John Rogers and Walter Morres.
George Carne, with a seal attached.
Mary Oliver made her mark in the form of an O, with a seal attached.
Bento Pedro Demallo receipt to Mr Carne.
Bento Pedro Demallo acknowledged receipt from Mr George Carne of the balance of all accounts and effects which Demallo had previously left in Carne's custody. The receipt was given on the island of St Helena on 5 November 1706.
Witness: Richard Harmer.
Bento Pedro Demallo.
Interpretations
The Mary Oliver indenture of 10 September 1706 introduces a distinct category of legal instrument within the records, an indenture of servitude binding a free islander and her dependants to long-term unpaid labour. The arrangement is a contract of indentured service in which Mary Oliver surrenders her own and her children's labour to George Carne in exchange for maintenance. The instrument operates as a private welfare arrangement that takes Mary and her family off the island's wider support obligations while subjecting them to the disposal of a single household for a generation or more.
The duration of the obligation extends until the youngest of Mary Oliver's children comes of age, an open-ended term that would have committed her for decades depending on her future fertility. The clause binding any future children to the same service shows that the indenture was designed to capture not just the existing family but any subsequent additions to it. The arrangement effectively transferred to Carne the lifetime labour of Mary Oliver and the labour of her descendants during their minorities, with the obligation only ending when no children remained who were under age.
The conditional clause providing for a seven-year term in the event that all her children died reveals the calculated structure of the agreement. If the children died and removed the open-ended obligation, Mary would still owe a substantial fixed period of service. The clause prevented her from escaping the indenture through the loss of her children and ensured that Carne received a minimum return on his commitment to maintenance regardless of family circumstances.
The phrase parish charge identifies a structure of public welfare obligation on the island, with parishes responsible for supporting destitute persons who could not otherwise provide for themselves. Carne's undertaking to keep Mary and her children free of parish charge points to a community-level liability that the indenture was designed to displace. Mary Oliver had perhaps been at risk of falling onto parish support, and the arrangement removed her and her family from that prospective burden by placing the cost of maintenance on a single private household.
The description of George Carne as merchant places him in the same category as Mr Robert Swallow and other figures who carried the formal designation of trader or commercial dealer rather than planter or soldier. The indenture reveals Carne as a man of substantial private resources capable of taking on the maintenance of an entire family in exchange for their labour, supporting his earlier appearance in the records as the recipient of the Gurling Chapel Valley plot and the buyer of the Leach Fryer Valley parcel. His position as merchant identifies him as part of the commercial layer of the island's settler society.
The phrase menial servant identifies a specific category of household labour, with the term meaning a domestic worker performing the manual tasks of a household rather than skilled or supervisory work. The use of the term places Mary Oliver and her future children in the lowest tier of household labour, available for any work that the Carne household required. The breadth of the obligation matched the breadth of the maintenance commitment, with Carne taking responsibility for diet, clothing and other support in return for unrestricted labour.
Mary Oliver's mark in the form of an O confirms that she could not write her name, an unsurprising feature in a contract committing her to menial service. The mark gave her formal assent to the document but reveals the very limited literacy of the contracting party, who depended on the spoken explanation of the terms and on the witnesses to confirm that the document represented what had been agreed.
The Bento Pedro Demallo receipt of 5 November 1706 records a different kind of transaction within the records, a settlement of accounts between George Carne and a man whose Portuguese name marks him as different in origin from the settler population. Demallo had left accounts and effects in Carne's custody and now received their balance back, indicating that Carne had acted as a custodian of Demallo's property and financial interests during some period of absence or trust. The transaction shows that Carne was operating as a merchant who held funds and goods on behalf of others, consistent with his commercial designation.
The name Bento Pedro Demallo is recognisably Portuguese in form, suggesting that Demallo was either a Portuguese national or of Portuguese extraction, perhaps connected with the trade between Portuguese establishments in West Africa, Brazil or India and the East India Company shipping that called at St Helena. The island's position on the route between Europe and the Indian Ocean made it a place where men of different national origins encountered each other and conducted business across cultural lines. The recording of the receipt in the island's register shows that such transactions were treated as part of the formal record alongside the conveyances and indentures of the settler population.
Speculations
The Mary Oliver indenture perhaps arose from a moment of acute personal crisis in which she had no other means of supporting her two young daughters. The terms of the arrangement, surrendering her own and her children's labour for an open-ended period in exchange for basic maintenance, suggest that she was negotiating from a position of weakness rather than choice. Carne's willingness to take on the obligation indicates that the labour of a woman and her growing daughters was valued highly enough by his household to justify the commitment to maintenance. The arrangement converts a potential parish burden into a private labour resource on terms that benefit the receiving household while removing the woman's independence.
The contingent seven-year clause in the indenture, taking effect if all Mary Oliver's children died, hints at the calculations on both sides of the agreement. Carne stood to lose his investment in maintenance if the children died young and the indenture lapsed with their decease, so the seven-year minimum term protected him against that risk. Mary Oliver in turn faced the prospect of a much longer obligation if her children survived to adulthood, with no escape from the service short of their reaching the age of majority. The structure illustrates the unequal bargaining position of a destitute woman in a small island community where alternatives to such an arrangement were limited.
The Demallo receipt suggests that George Carne operated as a small-scale financial intermediary on the island, holding accounts and effects for clients who needed someone to manage their interests during their absences or for other reasons. The role overlaps with the broader pattern of female attorneys acting for absent husbands, but in Demallo's case the principal was apparently not present on the island either, leaving his affairs in Carne's hands until they could be settled. Carne's combination of merchant activity, property dealings, indenture-taking and financial custody points to a multifaceted commercial role that drew together several different threads of the island's economic life.
The four-day gap between the Leach to Carne conveyance of 4 January 1705 and Margaret Fagnald's protest of 16 February 1704 against the Gurling to Carne transaction places the two Carne acquisitions within months of each other. The protest concerned an earlier Carne purchase of a small plot behind Margaret Fagnald's house, while the Leach transaction concerned a much larger Fryer Valley parcel. The same Carne household therefore appears as the subject of family complaint over one transaction while concluding a major rural acquisition shortly afterwards, indicating an active period of property accumulation during which not all interactions with neighbours and relatives ran smoothly.
23
Jn[o] Bowman to John Nicholls John Nichols of the Island S[t] Helena hath a Dwelling house Sciteate in Fort James Valley, adjoyning to the house of Charles Steward and the house of Robert Goodwin formerly John Goodwins Deceased, as allso the Ground and Garden on the Back Side of said house as farr as the Water Course Which the said Nichols purchased of John Bowman late free plan- ter deceased for the Sum of Twenty pounds in Ready Mony
Philip Savage to John Fuller Be it known unto all Men by these presents that I Philip Savage of the Island of S[t] Helena free planter, ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Eight pounds two Shillings and Six pence in hand paid at or before the Ensealeng and delevery of these presents, and Divers other good Causes Con- siderations and Reasons me thereunto moving, hath given, granted, Aleinate Bargained and Sold and doth by these presents give Grant Aleinate and Sell unto M[r] John Fuller of the said Island free planter all my Right and Title unto Ten Acres of Land be the Same more or Less, butting and bounding on the Lands now in the Possession of Henry Korsey, William Fox Sen[r] &c[a] free planters, as on and by the Register booke of the said Island it doth and may appear together with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belon- geng, or any wise apperteineing, as Plantateon, Provission, hedges, Ditches, Walls, ffences, Water and Water Courses Timber Trees &c[a] and all other appourtenances and things thereunto belonging or in any wise apperta[i]- neing To have and to hold the said Ten Acres of Land and all & Singullar other the Premises from me the said Philip Savage my heirs Executors Administrators, or assigns in as large and ample Manner as the Said Philip Savage Enjoyed or might have Enjoyed the Same unto the said M[r] John Fuller his heirs and assignes, without any Lett Trouble or Mollestation whatsoever from me the said Philip Savage my heirs Executors, Administ trators or assignes or any other person whatsoever Claimeing or to Claim any Right or Title to the abovesaid Premises, or to part thereof, by from or under me my heirs Executors, Administrators or Assigns Warranting the Same to be a good and Lawfull Title to the said M[r] John Fuller his heirs and Assigns to Enjoy the aforesaid premises for Ever, In Wittness whereof I the Said Philip Savage have hereunto Sett my hand & Seale this Twentteth day of March and in the Year of our Lord God According to the Computation of the Church of England One Thousand Six hundred Eighty Five &c[a], and in the Second Year of our Soveraign Lord James the Second by the Grace of God of England, Scotland ffrance & Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c[a]
Signed Sealed and Delivered, and Possession thereof given in the presence of Tho[s] Harper John Bagley Tho[s] Goodwin A true Coppy [p] me John Alexander Register
Philip Savage [seal]
John Bowman to John Nicholls.
John Nicholls of the island of St Helena held a dwelling house in Fort James Valley. The house adjoined that of Charles Steward and that of Robert Goodwin, formerly held by John Goodwin, since died. The premises also included the ground and garden on the back side of the house as far as the watercourse. Nicholls had bought the property from John Bowman, late free planter, since died, for the sum of £20 0s 0d in ready money.
Philip Savage to John Fuller.
Philip Savage, free planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received the sum of £8 2s 6d, paid in hand at or before the sealing and delivery of the document. For this consideration and for other good causes, he gave, granted, alienated, bargained and sold to Mr John Fuller, free planter of the same island, all his right and title in ten acres of land. The parcel bordered land then held by Henry Kersey and William Fox the elder, free planters, as set out in the register book of the island. The conveyance included all appurtenances, comprising the plantation, provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, fences, water and watercourses, timber trees and all other appurtenances. Fuller was to hold the ten acres, with all appurtenances, in as full a measure as Savage had enjoyed them, to himself, his heirs and assigns. Savage bound himself and his successors to allow Fuller to hold the parcel without hindrance, trouble or molestation from any person claiming through him. He warranted that the title was good and lawful and that Fuller and his heirs were to enjoy the premises for ever. Savage set his hand and seal to the document on 20 March 1686, in the year of our Lord according to the computation of the Church of England, and in the second year of the reign of King James the Second of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith.
Signed, sealed and delivered, and possession given, in the presence of Thomas Harper, John Bagley and Thomas Goodwin.
A true copy by John Alexander, register.
Philip Savage, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Bowman to Nicholls entry identifies a third named urban location on the island, Fort James Valley, distinct from the Chapel Valley Town encountered in earlier deeds. The name Fort James indicates the fortification at the heart of the island's defensive arrangements, named in honour of King James, and the surrounding valley took its identity from the fort itself. The location of dwelling houses by reference to Fort James Valley shows that the company's main fortification served as the central reference point for one of the principal settled areas on the island, alongside the broader Chapel Valley district where most rural and urban transactions were located.
The Nicholls property included the dwelling house, the ground and garden on the back side of the house, with the watercourse forming the rear boundary. The arrangement matches the typical pattern of an urban or near-urban holding in which the principal value lay in the house and the immediately associated cultivated ground rather than in extensive acreage. The watercourse as a back boundary shows how water features served as natural markers for urban as well as rural parcels.
The price of £20 0s 0d in ready money for the Bowman property indicates an urban or peri-urban dwelling of moderate value, falling between the £5 0s 0d to £18 0s 0d range of small upland parcels and the high-value Chapel Valley tenements. The phrase ready money suggests payment in cash or its equivalent at the moment of conveyance, distinguishing the transaction from those that involved bonds, credit at the company stores, or other forms of deferred or alternative consideration. The clarity of the cash basis confirms that Bowman received immediate value for the sale.
The Savage to Fuller conveyance of 20 March 1686 is the earliest deed in the records reviewed apart from the Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance of November 1683. The dating clause records the year by the computation of the Church of England, marking the document as following the calendar that began the year on Lady Day, 25 March. The deed was executed five days before the change of year, so by modern reckoning the date falls in 1686 although the document itself uses 1685 in line with the old style. The regnal year, the second of James the Second, confirms the dating, since the king came to the throne in February 1685 and the second year ran from February 1686.
The price of £8 2s 6d for ten acres adjoining the lands of Henry Kersey and William Fox the elder gives a per-acre figure of sixteen shillings and threepence. The figure stands between the early ten-shillings-per-acre rate of the 1683 Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance and the £1 5s 0d to £1 13s 4d per acre rates of the 1690s Fryer Valley sales. The 1686 price points to a moderate appreciation of Fryer Valley land during the three years since the Jeffrey conveyance, with further substantial increases following in the next decade. The specific sum, including pence as well as pounds and shillings, suggests a precisely negotiated figure rather than a rounded price.
The enumeration of appurtenances in the Savage deed reaches further than any other in the records reviewed. The list includes plantation, provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, fences, water, watercourses and timber trees, going beyond the Kersey to Goodwin 1691 list to include timber trees as a distinct category. The explicit naming of timber trees confirms that wood on the parcel was treated as part of the conveyance, with the buyer acquiring the standing trees along with the land. The earlier Jeffrey to Kersey memorandum penalising the seller for cutting wood after the sale had reflected the same concern in a different form, with the explicit naming in the Savage deed providing an alternative protection by clearly transferring the property in the timber.
The phrase given possession in the witness clause of the Savage deed marks the formal delivery of physical control of the parcel from seller to buyer at the moment of execution. The act of putting the buyer into possession was a traditional element of feoffment, in which the seller would walk the buyer over the land or otherwise symbolically deliver it. The recording of possession given in the witness clause provides documentary confirmation that the symbolic act had taken place in the presence of the witnesses, satisfying both the legal and the customary requirements for a complete freehold transfer.
The witnessing of the Savage deed by Thomas Goodwin in March 1686, three years after his witness signature on the Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance of November 1683 and seven years before his first recorded purchase in his own name in May 1693, extends the period of his presence on the island as a literate observer of property transactions. The two early witness signatures establish that Goodwin had been on the island for a substantial period before he began to accumulate property in his own right, building familiarity with the local conveyancing practice and connections with the men involved in it.
The certification of the Savage deed by John Alexander as register places him in the formal office responsible for keeping the island's land records by 1686. Alexander had appeared earlier as a witness and certifier of later transactions in 1703 and 1704, and his role here as register in 1686 shows that he had held the position for at least eighteen years across the records reviewed. The continuity of his appearance in the formal record-keeping function points to a long career in the island's administrative service, with the register's office passing to him for an extended period.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's repeated appearance as a witness to property transactions in the 1680s, before any of his own purchases, points to a long apprenticeship in the island's conveyancing practice. His later success in accumulating a substantial private estate may have rested in part on the connections and the understanding of the local property market that he developed during this earlier period. The pattern suggests that a junior administrative officer could position himself to identify and pursue opportunities by serving first as a witness and clerical participant, then later acting as a purchaser when his own resources and standing allowed.
The price of £8 2s 6d for the Savage parcel, falling oddly precisely in the middle of the early Fryer Valley range, perhaps reflects a particular calculation in the negotiation between the parties. The shillings and pence components suggest that the price was reached by reference to a specific valuation rather than rounded to a convenient figure, perhaps based on the assessment of distinct elements of the parcel such as the bare land, the provisions, the timber and the improvements. The precision of the figure points to a degree of valuation practice in the island's property market that went beyond rough rule-of-thumb pricing.
The Bowman to Nicholls transaction reveals the existence of a secondary urban centre in Fort James Valley alongside the larger Chapel Valley Town. The location near the fortification would have attracted residents connected with the garrison and the company's military and administrative operations, distinct from the more commercial character of the Chapel Valley settlement. The growth of two distinct urban clusters on the island by the late seventeenth century indicates a settled population of sufficient size and diversification to support separate centres of residential and commercial activity.
24
Richard Gurling to George Hoskison To all Christian People to whome these presents Shall come, I Richard Gurling of the Island S[t] Helena free planter Send Greeting
Now know ye that I the aforesaid Richard Gurling for and in Consideration of the Summ of five Hundred pounds in good Sufficient Bills of Exchange to be paid in England before the Signing and Ensealing of these presents paied by George Hoskison, of the Said Island free Planter do hereby bargain and Sell unto the Said George Hoskison his heirs Executors Adminis- trators and assigns for Ever One Tenement house with Thirty Acres of Land and Provissions thereon growing with all and Singular Appurtenances thereunto belonging and apperteineing Lying and being on the Said Island, on the Little Horse pasture place being formerly Lands belonging to Gabreell Powell free Planter as by the butts and bounts thereof may more fully Appear together with twenty Acres of Land Lying and being on the Said Island at the head of Lemon Valley formerly in the possession of my Father Richard Gurling free planter deceased, with all and Singular the Provissions and Appurtenan- ces thereunto belongeng or any were apportaining, as allso twenty Thousand of more yams which are in a parcell of ground belonging to the heers of the late Governour Keling with fifty five Goats One Black May N[on]e or Orange and the vallue of Ten pounds in hoggs, To have and to hold all and Singular the aforesaid Perteculars and Premises thereunto belonging or any ways appertaineing unto the aforesaid George Hoskison his heers &c[a] for Ever and the Said Richard Gurling for himself his heirs Executors and Ad- ministrators doth hereby Covenant and promiss to and with the said George Hoskison his heers Executors Administrators and assignes the he the said George Hoskison &c[a] Shall have hold possess and Enjoy the Said hereby bargained Premises without any Lett or Mollestation from me the Said Richard Gurling, or any person or persons whatsoever by me or any Procurement of mine my heers Executors, administrators, In Wittness whereof I the Said Richard Gurling doth putt to my hand and Seale this twelveth day of October One Thousand Seven Hundred and Six
Signed Sealed & Deliv[d] in the presence of Henry Francis Francis Wrangham Charles Steward Vera Copia [p] me John Alexander Register
Richard Gurling [seal]
W[m] & Mary French to Edw[d] Bagley Know all Men by these presents that William French Free planter together with Mary my Wife for and in Consideration of a peece of Land (in quantety, about two Acres from the Water fall taken in as Low as M[rs] Crosfields Fence) Delevered before the Subsigneing Wittnesses by Edward Bagley of Said Island free planter and Reght Proprietor of Said Land To have and to hold the Same in full Possession As also in Consideration that the Said Edward Bagley do Obleidge himself by these
Richard Gurling to George Hoskinson.
Richard Gurling, free planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting. He acknowledged that he had received from George Hoskinson, free planter of the same island, the sum of £500 0s 0d in good and sufficient bills of exchange to be paid in England before the signing and sealing of the document. He bargained and sold to Hoskinson, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever, a tenement house with thirty acres of land and the provisions growing on it, with all appurtenances, lying at the Little Horse Pasture and formerly held by Gabriel Powell, free planter. The bounds of the parcel were set out more fully elsewhere. He also conveyed twenty acres at the head of Lemon Valley, formerly held by his father Richard Gurling, free planter, since died, with all provisions and appurtenances. He further conveyed twenty thousand yams that lay in a parcel of ground belonging to the heirs of the late Governor Keeling, fifty-five goats, one black [...] or orange, and the value of £10 0s 0d in hogs. Hoskinson was to hold all the above, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs and successors for ever. Gurling bound himself and his successors to allow Hoskinson to hold, possess and enjoy the premises without any hindrance or molestation from him or any person acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on 12 October 1706.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Henry Francis, Francis Wrangham and Charles Steward.
A true copy by John Alexander, register.
Richard Gurling, with a seal attached.
William and Mary French to Edward Bagley.
William French, free planter, together with his wife Mary, made known by these presents that they had received from Edward Bagley, free planter of the island and rightful proprietor, a piece of land of about two acres, extending from the waterfall down to Mrs Crosfield's fence. The parcel was delivered to them in full possession in the presence of the witnesses. The conveyance was made in consideration of Bagley binding himself by these [...]
Interpretations
The Gurling to Hoskinson conveyance of 12 October 1706 records the highest-value transaction in the records reviewed, with the substantial sum of £500 0s 0d in bills of exchange paid in England for a comprehensive package of property and stock. The transaction reveals the developed financial mechanisms by which large purchases on the island could be settled through instruments payable in London, drawing on the wider commercial system that linked the island to the company's headquarters. The use of bills of exchange instead of island currency or stores credit marks the transaction as belonging to a different financial register, with values denominated in metropolitan terms and payment routed through the international banking system.
The composition of the property conveyed extends well beyond bare land and houses to include twenty thousand yams standing in a separate parcel belonging to the heirs of the late Governor Keeling, fifty-five goats, a further animal whose colour or characteristic is unclear in the manuscript, and £10 0s 0d worth of hogs. The inclusion of livestock and standing crops within a single freehold conveyance shows the comprehensive nature of the transaction, in which Gurling was effectively selling Hoskinson an entire farming operation rather than just real property. The yams growing in a parcel belonging to the Keeling heirs indicate that Gurling had cultivation rights on land he did not own, perhaps through a tenancy or sharecropping arrangement with the Keeling estate.
The Little Horse Pasture tenement and thirty acres formed the principal real property element of the conveyance, with the parcel identified as formerly belonging to Gabriel Powell. The chain of title from Powell to Gurling presumably ran through the Peak Gult transactions of 1704 in which Powell had sold the twenty acres to Robert Gurling for £100 0s 0d. The current Richard Gurling may be the son or near relative of that Robert Gurling, since the Lemon Valley parcel is identified as formerly held by Richard Gurling the father. The Gurling family had accumulated substantial land across multiple districts by 1706.
The twenty acres at the head of Lemon Valley, identified as formerly held by Richard Gurling the elder, since died, indicate an inherited holding now being disposed of by the younger Richard Gurling. The combination of inherited and acquired land within a single sale shows that Gurling was clearing out his entire island estate at one stroke, perhaps in preparation for a permanent departure or for some other major change in circumstances. The use of bills payable in England for the consideration would have supported such a departure, with the proceeds available in London rather than tied to the island.
The twenty thousand yams form a remarkable detail of the conveyance. Yams were a staple food crop on the island, used both for human consumption and for feeding livestock, and a stock of twenty thousand represented a substantial agricultural inventory. The yams stood on Keeling land rather than Gurling's own, indicating that Gurling held cultivation rights across multiple parcels with different freehold owners. The transfer of these yams to Hoskinson would have given the buyer immediate access to a major source of food supply for both his household and any livestock he kept.
The fifty-five goats and the £10 0s 0d worth of hogs make up the livestock element of the transaction. Goats were well suited to the island's terrain and were a recognised source of meat and milk. The valuation of the hogs at £10 0s 0d in pounds sterling, rather than by head, suggests that the hogs were assessed at market value rather than counted, perhaps because their number or condition varied. The combined livestock holdings indicate that Gurling had operated a substantial pastoral business alongside his cultivation of yams and other crops.
The William and Mary French conveyance introduces a different kind of arrangement, in which French and his wife jointly acted as parties to receive a parcel of land from Edward Bagley. The joint participation of husband and wife as receiving parties is unusual within the records, since most conveyances vested property in the husband alone with the wife unmentioned. The naming of Mary French alongside her husband may reflect a specific feature of the arrangement, perhaps that the land was to be held jointly between them or that the consideration was being given by both jointly. The interrupted text prevents a complete understanding of the arrangement, but the joint involvement of the wife stands out as a distinctive feature.
The location of the parcel between a waterfall and Mrs Crosfield's fence identifies a small holding defined by physical features rather than by acreage alone. The two-acre extent shows that this was a modest piece of ground, perhaps intended for specific cultivation rather than as a general agricultural holding. The naming of Mrs Crosfield as the holder of the adjoining property establishes another woman as the legal holder of property in her own right, joining the pattern of female landholders that runs throughout the records.
The recurrence of Henry Francis and Francis Wrangham as witnesses to the Gurling to Hoskinson conveyance brings them back into the records after their earlier appearance in the Henry Francis quit-claim of January 1704. The connection between these two men appears stable across the period, with both attending major transactions in the island's settler community. Their presence as witnesses to such a high-value transaction shows that they were regarded as suitable formal observers for important deeds.
Speculations
The very large sum of £500 0s 0d in bills payable in England, combined with the comprehensive nature of the assets sold including land in two districts, twenty thousand yams, livestock and other property, suggests that Richard Gurling was preparing to leave the island permanently. The structure of the payment, routing the proceeds through London rather than retaining them on the island, would have given Gurling resources available wherever he chose to settle next. The complete disposal of his Little Horse Pasture and Lemon Valley holdings, together with all his standing crops and livestock, points to a final clearance rather than a routine sale within a continuing island business.
George Hoskinson's acquisition of such a substantial package of property and assets in a single transaction marks a major step in his position on the island. The £500 0s 0d outlay required significant capital, and the combination of land, crops and livestock would have made him a substantial operator across multiple districts. The transaction completed his progress from the Peak Gult dealings of 1704, in which he had handled twenty acres between £32 0s 0d and £100 0s 0d, to a position as the principal holder of the former Gurling estate at the Little Horse Pasture.
The yams held by Gurling on land belonging to the Keeling heirs reveal an arrangement by which cultivation rights and freehold ownership had become separated. Gurling did not own the ground on which his twenty thousand yams stood, but he owned the crop itself. The arrangement was perhaps a tenancy under which Gurling had the right to cultivate the Keeling land in exchange for rent or a share of the produce, or it may have been a more informal use of land that the Keeling heirs had not chosen to bring back into their own working. The transfer of the standing crop to Hoskinson would have carried with it whatever rights Gurling held to remain on the ground until harvest, although the underlying cultivation arrangement would have had to be renegotiated with the Keeling heirs for any future seasons.
The naming of Mary French alongside her husband William in the conveyance from Edward Bagley perhaps reflects a specific consideration that involved both spouses, possibly relating to land or money that Mary had brought into the marriage. The joint participation may have been a precaution to ensure that any later claim by Mary against the parcel was foreclosed by her own act as a party to the transaction. The arrangement parallels the careful handling of women's interests in property seen elsewhere in the records, with formal documentation of their roles preventing later disputes about title.
25
presents before the Said Wittnesses to Aid and Assest us in takeing in 40 Acres of Land Lyeing Near the Peak being thirty Acres in proprietty Comonly known to be boxes Land, and Ten Acres Land of the R[t] Hon[ble] Companeys For and in Consideration of these two promised Articles We do hereby Grant Unto Edward Bagley Dueing the Naturall Life of the above Named Mary French Wife of William ffrench her Life (Except She Shall go off this Island) the Liberty without the Least Mollestation of keepeing on the Said 40 Acres of our Land any Number of Neat Cattle. Not Exceeding 15 head, Fourthermore in Case of our Removall from Said Island then we Obligate our Selves to deliver the Said Edward Bagley the Lease of the Ten Acres of Land hired from the R[t] Hon[ble] Company who is to be put in as full Posession as we are at the time of our De- parteure and not to Dispose of Said Lease dueing our Stay on Said Island, As also upon our Removall we do by these presents promiss, that the Said Edward Bagley Shall have the first Refeusall of Said 30 Acres now in our own Possession and Properety (however leaveing to our Selves the Right of putting Said Land viz[t] thirty Acres to puttick out cry) Also the Said Edward Bagley, (Either at the time of Mary Frenches decease without further agreement or De- parteure from Said Island) to be Reinstated in the Said Ten Acres of Land below the Waterfall, he Either paying as we do allow him the Refeusall or [a]wnitt any other person beyong the provissons on the Said Land time to take them out ar useuall in Gumwood Ground, In Witness hereof we Sett our hands this 4[th] day of March in the year of our Lord god 170⅞
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in Affsence of us George Carne Arthur Bradley
William French [seal] Mary French [seal]
Memorandum Whereas it is not Mentioned in the foregoing Deed the Overstocking our pasture, We William ffrench, and Mary my Wife do further Agree that we keep not above Eighteen head of Cattle upon the Said 40 Acres of Lands, and Moreover that in Cafe the Said Edward Bagley has any Milch Cews we Obligate our Selves to take them for their Milck before any other persons whatsoever
Signed Sealed & Delevered for us Die et Anno Predict
William ffrench [seal] Mary French [seal]
A true Coppy [p] me John Alexander Register
The continuation of the William and Mary French to Edward Bagley arrangement.
Edward Bagley bound himself, before the witnesses, to help William and Mary French take in forty acres of land near the High Peak. Thirty acres of this land were known as Box's land and held in proprietary right, and the remaining ten acres belonged to the Right Honourable Company. In return for the two acres delivered by Bagley and his commitment to assist with the enclosure, William and Mary French granted Bagley the right, during Mary French's natural life, to keep up to fifteen head of neat cattle on the forty acres without molestation. The right was to cease if Mary French left the island.
If William and Mary French removed from the island, they bound themselves to deliver to Bagley the lease of the ten acres held from the company. Bagley was to be put in as full possession of the lease as the Frenches had held it at the time of their departure. The Frenches bound themselves not to dispose of the lease while they remained on the island. They also promised Bagley the first refusal of the thirty acres held in their own right if they removed from the island, reserving to themselves the right to offer that land at public auction. Bagley was to be reinstated in the two acres below the waterfall on Mary French's death, or on the Frenches' departure from the island, with the choice of paying the price the Frenches granted him the refusal of, or of paying any other person the value of the provisions standing on the land at the time of removal, in the manner customary for gumwood ground. The Frenches set their hands and seals to the document on 4 March 1708.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of George Carne and Arthur Bradley.
William French, with a seal attached.
Mary French, with a seal attached.
Memorandum.
The Frenches further agreed that they would keep no more than eighteen head of cattle on the forty acres. They also bound themselves to take any milch cows belonging to Edward Bagley for their milk before taking the cows of any other person.
Signed, sealed and delivered on the same day and year.
William French, with a seal attached.
Mary French, with a seal attached.
A true copy by John Alexander, register.
Interpretations
The French to Bagley arrangement of 4 March 1708 is a complex composite instrument that combines a present land transfer, a grazing licence, a leasehold reversion and a right of first refusal. The structure shows how landholders on the island used a single deed to address several different aspects of a longer-term relationship. Bagley delivered two acres of his own land below the waterfall to the Frenches in present possession, and in return received a bundle of future and conditional rights that protected his interest in the wider holding over time. The instrument provides a working example of how the island's conveyancing practice could accommodate sophisticated arrangements within a single document.
The terminology of taking in forty acres of land near the High Peak identifies a deliberate act of enclosure, by which the Frenches and Bagley together would convert unimproved or open ground into bounded pasture. Thirty acres were already held in proprietary right and known as Box's land, while the remaining ten acres were leased from the company. The combination of freehold and leasehold within a single working enclosure shows how planters built up viable agricultural units from a mixture of titles. Bagley's commitment to assist with the taking in indicates that enclosure was a labour-intensive task requiring multiple hands, with neighbouring holders contributing effort in exchange for grazing rights or other benefits.
The grazing licence granted to Bagley, allowing him to keep up to fifteen head of neat cattle on the forty acres during Mary French's natural life, represents a form of pasturage right separate from the underlying title. The phrase neat cattle refers to bovines as distinguished from sheep, goats, horses and other livestock. Bagley acquired the right to graze his own animals on Frenches' land for the duration of Mary's life, with the right terminating if she left the island. The arrangement allowed Bagley to expand his pastoral capacity without acquiring additional land of his own, while giving the Frenches a quid pro quo for Bagley's two-acre transfer and his enclosure work.
The supplementary memorandum, executed on the same day, raised the cattle limit from fifteen to eighteen head and added an obligation for the Frenches to take Bagley's milch cows for their milk before any other person's cows. The memorandum addresses two distinct points that the main deed had failed to cover: a stocking density limit and a priority right for Bagley's milk supply. The Frenches' commitment to take Bagley's cows first reveals that they operated a dairying service for other holders, with their pasture supporting cows owned by neighbours who paid them for the milk. The arrangement gave Bagley a guaranteed market for his cows' milk and the Frenches a steady source of dairy income.
The conditional clauses governing the Frenches' departure from the island reveal the legal arrangements used to handle the possibility that holders might leave. If they left, Bagley was to receive the lease of the ten acres held from the company, taking up the Frenches' position with the company as lessee. He was also to have first refusal on the thirty acres of Box's land held in their own right, with the Frenches reserving the right to put the land to public auction. The structure protected Bagley's interests by giving him priority access to the Frenches' assets while preserving the Frenches' right to obtain the best price the market would offer.
The reference to gumwood ground identifies a specific type of land on the island characterised by the presence of gumwood trees, a distinctive feature of the local vegetation. The customary practice for gumwood ground involved a particular method of valuing standing provisions at the time of a holder's removal, with the next occupier paying for the crops standing on the land at a value determined by usage. The phrase as is useuall in gumwood ground points to an established local custom that the parties could invoke without further specification, indicating a developed body of customary practice surrounding particular types of land on the island.
The right of public auction reserved by the Frenches over the thirty acres of Box's land, despite Bagley's first refusal, indicates that the island had a recognised mechanism for selling land at public outcry. The phrase puttick out cry refers to a public auction conducted by open bidding, the standard method for realising the highest price on assets in the period. The reservation allowed the Frenches to test the market for the value of the parcel while still respecting Bagley's preference, since he could match the highest bid to secure the land if he chose.
The joint participation of William and Mary French in the conveyance, with both signing and sealing the document, represents an unusual departure from the more common pattern where the husband alone executed property instruments. The arrangement perhaps reflected the original Bagley conveyance to them as joint owners of the waterfall parcel, with the corresponding grant of grazing rights and other benefits requiring both spouses' assent to bind the property. The grazing licence was also explicitly tied to Mary French's life, making her assent essential to the arrangement.
The condition that the grazing right would terminate if Mary French left the island, separate from her death, points to the practical importance of personal presence on the island for the operation of such arrangements. The right was tied to her continued residence as well as to her life, perhaps because the supervision of grazing on the land depended on the Frenches' own presence. The conditional nature of the right reveals the high mobility of the settler population and the consequent need for arrangements that adjusted to departures as well as deaths.
Speculations
The structure of the French to Bagley arrangement perhaps reflects the early stages of the Frenches' eventual departure from the island. The detailed provisions for what would happen if they left, including Bagley's first refusal on the thirty acres and his right to the company lease, suggest that departure was already in contemplation when the deed was drafted. The Frenches may have been planning their eventual return to England or migration elsewhere, with the Bagley arrangement designed to settle their affairs and give a trusted neighbour priority access to their assets when they did go.
Bagley's willingness to part with two acres of his own land in exchange for a bundle of conditional and future rights suggests that he valued the long-term position more than the immediate landholding. The grazing right alone, allowing him to keep fifteen or eighteen head of cattle on the forty acres for the duration of Mary French's life, would have given him substantial pastoral capacity over a potentially extended period. Combined with the first refusal on the Frenches' future sale of the freehold and the lease, the arrangement gave Bagley a strong position to expand his interests when the Frenches eventually moved on. The two acres he transferred functioned as the price of admission to this preferential relationship.
The dairying arrangement implied by the supplementary memorandum, with the Frenches taking other holders' milch cows for their milk, indicates a specialised function within the island's agricultural economy. The Frenches' forty-acre pasture supported their own livestock and the cows of paying neighbours, generating income from milk production beyond their own household needs. Bagley's negotiated priority right to have his cows taken first ensured that his dairy supply would not be displaced by other holders' animals during periods of high demand on the Frenches' pasture capacity. The arrangement reveals the existence of a small-scale dairy economy on the island in which holders specialised in particular agricultural functions and contracted with each other for services.
The William French involved in this 1708 transaction is probably the same William French who appears in the 1703 conveyance of the Oak Gutt parcel to Thomas Goodwin and in the related 1705 transaction involving the Wakefield land. The earlier French was identified as a soldier, while the 1708 deed describes him simply as a free planter, suggesting that he had left military service by the time of this later transaction. The progression from soldier to free planter mirrors the path taken by other men who had crossed from the garrison into the settled civilian population of the island.
26
George Carne to John Orchard This Indenture made this Seventh day of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Seven between M[r] George Carne of the Island S[t] Helena Merchant of the One part, and John Orchard of the said Island Single Man and Free planter on the other part Wittnesseth, that the Said M[r] George Carne for and in Consideration of the Summ of Six Pounds, in good and Lawfull Money of the Said Island to me in hand paid before the Ensealing and Delevery of these presents by the Said John Orchard wherewith I Acknowledge mySelf to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paid and do Clearly Acquit and Discharge the Said John Orchard his heers Executors Administrators and Assigns by these presents have Demised Granted Lett and Lett and by these presents do Demisse Sett and Lett unto the Said John Orchard his heers Executors, Administrators and Assigns One dwelling house and Twenty two Acres of Land (that is to Say) Ten Acres thereof belongin[g] unto the Heer of Governour Keling, deceased, and the other twelve Acres which fully Compleats the Said twenty two Acres is and belongs to the R[t] Hon[ble] Company Leased and Taken up by the Said M[r] George Carne Lying Sciteate and being in a place Known by the Name of the Peak Gutt, together with all and Singullar the Appurtenances thereunto belonging of any ways appertaineing of any Nature or Quallety, whatsoever by these presents Demised, and Every par[t] and pcell thereof Unto the Said John Orchard his heers Executors Administratorrs and Assigns from the Day of the date hereof Until the full End and Term of Seven Yearr from thence Next Enseing and fully to be Compleated Yeelding and paying therefore Yearly during the Said Term the Said Right Hon[ble] Company their full and Whole Rent and Dutys Imposed upon all Such Lands, At Such time or times as the Same Shall become due, And the Said M[r] George Carne doth by these presents Covenant and Agree to and with the Said John Orchard his heers Executors Administrators &c[a] Assigns that he and they Shall peaceably Enjoy and Possess the Said hereby bar- gained premises without any Manner of Interruption of any person, whatsoever, Furthermore it is hereby further Covenanted and Unanimously agreed that the Said John Orchard Shall not Impoverish the Said ten Acres of Land by Cutting the wood off any more than meerly for Necessary Uses, and to leave all and Singular this before mentioned premises in as good Repair to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever as he now possesses them; And furthermore to keep and Carefully Look after Two Tewrkey hens and one Tewrkey Cock of the Said M[r] Carnes upon Said Land and to allow and make good the half of what Shall be raised from them Either when feel grown or demanded by the Said M[r] George Carne or his Order, In Wittness whereof both Partys have to these presents put their hands and Seals the day and Year first above Written
Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of Henry Francis John Alexander
George Carne [seal] John Orchard [seal]
George Carne to John Orchard.
This indenture was made on 7 July 1707, between Mr George Carne of the island of St Helena, merchant, of the one part, and John Orchard of the same island, unmarried man and free planter, of the other part. Carne acknowledged that he had received from Orchard the sum of £6 0s 0d in lawful money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document. He released Orchard, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from any further claim in respect of the sum. He demised, set and let to Orchard, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a dwelling house and twenty-two acres of land. Ten acres of the holding belonged to the heir of Governor Keeling, since died, and the remaining twelve acres belonged to the Right Honourable Company, leased and taken up by Carne. The land lay in a place known as the Peak Gult. The lease was to run for seven years from the date of the document. During the term Orchard was to pay the company its full rent and the dues imposed on such lands, at the times when they became due.
Carne bound himself and his successors to allow Orchard to hold and possess the premises without interruption from any person. Orchard, for his part, undertook not to impoverish the ten acres by cutting wood beyond what was necessary for use, and to leave the premises in as good repair at the end of the lease as they were at the start. Orchard also undertook to keep and look after two turkey hens and one turkey cock belonging to Carne on the land, and to deliver Carne or his order half of any increase from the birds, either when the young birds were fully grown or when Carne required them. Both parties set their hands and seals to the document on the day and year written above.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Henry Francis and John Alexander.
George Carne, with a seal attached.
John Orchard, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Carne to Orchard indenture of 7 July 1707 is a leasehold instrument running for a fixed term of seven years, distinct from the freehold conveyances that fill most of the records reviewed. The transaction conveyed possession of the dwelling house and twenty-two acres of land for the duration of the term, with Orchard taking up the position of tenant rather than owner. The structure shows that the island's property market accommodated both outright sales and term leases, with leasehold arrangements available for those who could not or did not wish to commit to permanent acquisition.
The composite nature of the leased holding, with ten acres held in proprietary right under the heir of the late Governor Keeling and twelve acres held under a lease from the company, parallels the structure of the French and Bagley arrangement of 1708. Both transactions involved working agricultural units assembled from a mixture of freehold and company leasehold land. The Carne household acted as an intermediate party, holding both elements of the package and now subletting the combined holding to Orchard for the seven-year term. The arrangement reveals how planters with access to multiple sources of land could consolidate them into single working units for transfer to others on lease terms.
The price of £6 0s 0d for the seven-year lease of a dwelling house and twenty-two acres works out to less than seventeen shillings per acre per year, even ignoring the value of the house. The figure is far below the per-acre purchase prices seen in freehold transactions, which is to be expected for a lease where the underlying title remained with the lessor. The modest sum suggests that the lease was priced to provide Orchard with a working subsistence at a level he could afford from his own resources as an unmarried free planter, rather than a commercial investment requiring substantial returns.
The obligation on Orchard to pay the company its rent and dues during the term, in addition to the £6 0s 0d paid to Carne, indicates that the company retained its direct fiscal relationship with the land it owned. The lease from the company to Carne carried a continuing rent obligation that Orchard now assumed for the duration of his sublease. The arrangement preserved the company's revenue stream while allowing the leasehold interest to move between holders through private sublease arrangements. The structure shows how the company's leasehold system fed into a secondary market in subleases that operated alongside the freehold conveyancing.
The covenant against wood-cutting beyond necessary use repeats the concern about timber resources seen in the Jeffrey to Kersey memorandum of 1683 and the explicit naming of timber trees in the Savage to Fuller conveyance of 1686. The Orchard lease imposes a more nuanced restriction, permitting cutting for necessary uses but forbidding impoverishment of the land through excessive removal. The clause reflects an accumulated understanding among lessors that tenants might be tempted to extract wood for their own profit at the expense of the long-term value of the leased property. The restriction protected the underlying capital while allowing reasonable working use.
The turkey-keeping arrangement is a distinctive feature of the lease, with Orchard taking responsibility for two hens and one cock belonging to Carne and undertaking to deliver half of the resulting young birds. The arrangement is essentially a sharecropping agreement applied to poultry rather than to crops or land. Carne retained ownership of the breeding birds and supplied them as part of the leased premises, while Orchard provided the labour of keeping the birds and received half the young as his return. The other half of the young birds went to Carne, providing him with a continuing flow of poultry without further investment of effort.
The naming of three specific birds, two hens and one cock, and the careful provision for the disposal of the increase, indicates that turkeys were a valued and identifiable agricultural commodity on the island. The arrangement also reveals the small scale of the poultry economy, with breeding flocks of only a handful of birds being significant enough to warrant detailed contractual provisions. Turkeys would have been a relatively scarce species on St Helena, perhaps brought in from elsewhere and propagated by careful management, accounting for the attention given to their care in the lease.
The repair covenant requiring Orchard to leave the premises in as good repair at the end of the lease as at the start applies the standard English leasehold principle that the tenant must return the property to the lessor in its original condition. The clause reflects the lessor's interest in preserving the value of the asset across the term of the lease, with the tenant carrying the obligation to maintain rather than degrade the property. The covenant gave Carne assurance that he would receive the holding back in usable condition at the end of the seven years, ready for further leasing or for his own use.
The description of John Orchard as unmarried man marks his status as a single person without dependants, consistent with the unmarried man designation applied to Robert Marsh in the 1705 transactions. The category was legally relevant because it affected the recipient's capacity to act in his own right and the disposition of his estate. An unmarried free planter could take up a lease without the complications of joint marital interests, simplifying the arrangement for both parties.
Speculations
The seven-year term of the Orchard lease suggests a deliberate choice of duration that gave the lessee time to bring the land into productive use and recover his investment of labour, while not committing the property to a tenant for an indefinite period. The standard English statutory leasehold term of seven years matched a span long enough for meaningful agricultural activity but short enough for the lessor to reclaim the property within a reasonable period. The term also corresponded to the typical horizon over which the value of standing crops and improvements would accumulate, allowing Orchard to capture the benefits of his work during the term without paying a higher price for an extended lease.
The Carne household's accumulation of a composite holding at the Peak Gult, combining a freehold parcel from the Keeling heirs with leased company land, points to active acquisition of agricultural assets by the merchant family during the period from 1704 to 1707. George Carne had earlier acquired the small Chapel Valley plot from Richard Gurling and the fifteen Fryer Valley acres from Robert Leach through his wife as attorney. The further Peak Gult holding now leased to Orchard adds another district to the Carne interests, demonstrating a deliberate spread of property across multiple parts of the island.
The turkey-keeping clause perhaps reflects a specific business interest of George Carne in the poultry trade. The breeding birds may have been part of a wider Carne enterprise involving the supply of fowl to passing ships or to the island's wealthier households, with Orchard's farm serving as one of several outposts where Carne's birds were kept and propagated. The careful provision for half the increase indicates that the value of the young birds was substantial enough to merit precise contractual terms, fitting a commercial rather than purely subsistence purpose.
The reference to the heir of the late Governor Keeling, rather than to the heirs as in the earlier Gurling to Hoskinson conveyance, suggests that the Keeling estate had narrowed by 1707 to a single inheriting party. The earlier references to multiple heirs may have reflected the position immediately after the governor's death, with the estate then resolving through subsequent inheritances or transfers into a single hand. The narrowing of the description from plural to singular points to the working out of the Keeling succession across the early 1700s, with the family's land becoming concentrated in a single successor.
27
Island S[t] Helena July the 5[th] 1707
William Chevall[s] Receipt to M[r] Carne Received of M[r] George Carne the Sum of Fifty Pounds Currant Money of Said Island, for the use of M[rs] Ellen[r] Price beeing her full Portion Left her by her Mother Ellenor Beale deceast which Said Portion am Impowered to Receive by Vertue of a Letter of Attorney bearing date ffebreuary the forfh 1706, the Said Sum of Fifty Pounds I Say Received by me
Signed and Deliv[d] in presence of us Tho[s] Goodwin W[m] Marsden
Vera Copia [p] me Jn[o] Alexander Cl[k]e
W[m] Chevall
Acres
George Dweight Matthew Bazett hath Ten Acres of Land whereon he now dwells which he Purchased of George Dweight free plan- ter with the Provissons &c[a] for the Sum of Thirty five Pounds as may more Largely Appear by a Bill of Sale bearing date the 2[d] day of September 1694 Wittnessed by John Long Samuell Wrangham, John Sorsney and Charles Steward which Said Land Lyes Sciteate in Sheell Valley adjoyning to the Lands of John Mudge, and William Toole free planters 10
Mathew Bazett Jonathan Higham & Jonathan Mudge to The Said Mathew Bazett hath about five Acres of Land which he purchased of Jonathan Higham free planter for the Sum of Ten pounds as may more plainly appear by a Bill of Sale Dated the 19 d[a]y of December 1706 Lying in the Said quiel Valley, and is Next adjoyning to the Said Mathew Bazetts own 10 Acres Land and the Land belonging to Sorrings Children 5
The Said Mathew Bazett hath Ten Acres of land more which he purchased of Jonathan Mudge Late free planter deceased for the Sum of fourty pounds Lyeng at the head of Deep Valley, Next adjoyning to the Land of Thomas Allis free planter, Henry Cealls, and the Land of John Poole 10
25
Island S[t] Helena
Richard Gurling to John Goodwin Know all Men by these presents that Richard Gurling of the said Island free planter for and in Consideration of the Sum of Seventeen pounds in good and Currant Money of the Said Island to me in hand paid by John Goodwin late of the Said Island free Planter deceased before the Ensealing and delivery of these presents the Receipt of which I do hereby Acknowledge and my Selfe therewith to be fully Sattisfee Contented and paid, and for Divers other good Causes and Considerateons me thereunto moveing Do hereby firmly and absolutely Give Grant Bargai[n] and Sell unto the said Deceased John Goodwins heir[s] [E]xecut[ors] administra[tors]
Island of St Helena, 5 July 1707.
William Chevalls receipt to Mr Carne.
William Chevalls acknowledged receipt from Mr George Carne of the sum of £50 0s 0d in current money of the island. The payment was for the use of Mrs Ellenor Price and represented her full portion left to her by her mother Ellenor Beale, since died. Chevalls was empowered to receive the portion on Ellenor Price's behalf by a letter of attorney dated 4 February 1706. He confirmed that he had received the £50 0s 0d.
Signed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Goodwin and William Marsden.
A true copy by John Alexander, clerk.
William Chevalls.
Matthew Bazett held ten acres of land in Sheel Valley, joined to the lands of John Mudge and William Toole, free planters, on which he then lived. He had bought the parcel from George Dweight, free planter, with the provisions standing on it, for the sum of £35 0s 0d. The transaction was set out more fully in a bill of sale dated 2 September 1694, witnessed by John Long, Samuel Wrangham, John Sorsney and Charles Steward. The acreage was 10.
Bazett also held about five acres in the same Sheel Valley, joined to his own ten acres and to land belonging to Sorring's children. He had bought the parcel from Jonathan Higham, free planter, for the sum of £10 0s 0d. The transaction was set out more fully in a bill of sale dated 19 December 1706. The acreage was 5.
Bazett also held a further ten acres at the head of Deep Valley, joined to the land of Thomas Allis, free planter, to the land of Henry Cealls, and to the land of John Poole. He had bought the parcel from Jonathan Mudge, late free planter, since died, for the sum of £40 0s 0d. The acreage was 10.
Total: 25 acres.
Island of St Helena.
Richard Gurling to John Goodwin.
Richard Gurling, free planter of the island, made known by these presents that he had received from John Goodwin, late free planter of the same island, since died, the sum of £17 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document. He acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. For this consideration and for other good causes, he gave, granted, bargained and sold to John Goodwin's heirs, executors and administrators [...]
Interpretations
The Chevalls receipt of 5 July 1707 records the transfer of a marriage or testamentary portion through the intermediate hands of an attorney. Ellenor Price was the beneficiary of a sum left to her by her mother Ellenor Beale, since died, and William Chevalls had been empowered by a letter of attorney of 4 February 1706 to receive the portion on her behalf. The structure shows how women's testamentary interests were administered through attorneys when the beneficiary was not herself in a position to handle the receipt directly. The recurring use of letters of attorney in the records, applied here as it was earlier to Mary Carne and Elizabeth Rhodes, indicates the importance of such instruments in the day-to-day operation of property and inheritance arrangements on the island.
The portion of £50 0s 0d that Ellenor Beale left to her daughter is a substantial sum, comparable to the £104 0s 0d that Swallow paid Cole for a Deep Valley mansion house and seventeen acres in 1705 and well above the £35 12s 0d that the Cotgrave household paid Tewsdale for a Chapel Valley dwelling house in 1694. The figure indicates that Ellenor Beale had been a woman of significant means, capable of leaving a substantial cash legacy to her daughter rather than transferring property in kind. The arrangement reveals the existence of monetary inheritance alongside the more common transfers of land within families on the island.
The name Ellenor Beale connects through testamentary descent to the Beale family that featured prominently in the 1682 inquest, where Captain Anthony Beale appeared as the holder of a substantial consolidated estate at the head of Waterfall Valley. Whether the Ellenor Beale of the 1707 receipt was a direct descendant or member of the same family is not specified in the document, but the continuity of the Beale name across a quarter of a century points to the family's persistence within the island's settler population. The Beale household had moved from active land accumulation in the 1680s to the inheritance and transfer of cash portions by the 1700s, suggesting an evolution of the family's economic activities across the generations.
The Matthew Bazett accumulation of 25 acres in Sheel Valley and Deep Valley reveals another case of estate-building by a settler whose name has recurred throughout the records as a witness to other transactions. Bazett had served as a witness to the Sensney watercourse grant of 1704, the French to Goodwin Oak Gutt sale of 1703, the Leach to Carne Fryer Valley conveyance of 1705 and the Cole to Swallow Deep Valley sale of 1705. The combination of his active witnessing role with his own property acquisitions indicates that he was a man of standing within the island's circle of literate and propertied settlers.
The three Bazett purchases trace a sustained pattern of acquisition across more than twelve years. The first ten acres came from George Dweight in September 1694 at £35 0s 0d, the third ten acres came from Jonathan Mudge at £40 0s 0d on a date not specified in the entry, and the five-acre extension came from Jonathan Higham in December 1706 at £10 0s 0d. The per-acre prices vary significantly across the three transactions, with the Dweight purchase at £3 10s 0d per acre, the Mudge purchase at £4 0s 0d per acre and the Higham purchase at £2 0s 0d per acre. The differences perhaps reflect the relative quality and improvement of the parcels or the bargaining position of the parties at each transaction.
Sheel Valley appears here as a named district of the island, distinct from the more familiar Chapel Valley, Fryer Valley, Sarahs Valley, Fishers Valley, Sharks Valley, Lemon Valley and Deep Valley encountered earlier in the records. The valley took its identity from a feature whose precise nature is not clear from the immediate context, but the name shows that the island's topographic vocabulary extended beyond the principal valleys to include smaller drainage features that hosted scattered settler holdings.
The reference to Sorring's children as the holders of land adjoining Bazett's five-acre parcel indicates that the children of an earlier holder named Sorring continued to hold their inherited land in their own names. The description does not specify which children or how many, but it shows that minors or young persons could be identified as a group of joint holders in the formal land records. The arrangement parallels the position seen in the Marsh sales of land bequeathed to Robert Marsh during his minority, although in the Sorring case the children appear collectively as the holders rather than through a parent acting on their behalf.
The Gurling to Goodwin conveyance for £17 0s 0d, paid by John Goodwin in his lifetime to Richard Gurling, records a transaction whose buyer has since died. The deed in its remaining text identifies John Goodwin as late free planter and directs the conveyance to his heirs, executors and administrators rather than to him personally. The structure shows how property transactions could be completed after the death of the original purchasing party, with the deed being executed in favour of the buyer's estate. The arrangement preserves the validity of the transaction by recognising the buyer's earlier payment and directing the title to those legally entitled to take it up on his behalf.
The combination of Higham and Mudge as named sellers of Bazett's later parcels connects to figures who appear elsewhere in the records. Jonathan Higham had bought ten acres in Sharks Valley from Thomas Beurch in earlier transactions recorded in the documents and had sold the small Chapel Valley plot to Robert Bell in 1704. His sale to Bazett of a further five acres in Sheel Valley in 1706 extends the pattern of Higham's property dealings. Jonathan Mudge, since died, may be related to the John Mudge who appears as a Sharks Valley landholder in the 1682 inquest, though the two are not necessarily the same individual.
Speculations
Matthew Bazett's accumulation of twenty-five acres across two valleys, combined with his recurring role as a witness to other men's transactions, points to his emergence as a substantial figure within the island's settler society by the early 1700s. His purchase of Dweight's ten acres in 1694, followed by additional acquisitions a decade later, suggests a deliberate strategy of acquiring land as opportunities arose and consolidating his position within Sheel Valley while extending into Deep Valley. The combination of literacy, witnessing activity and property accumulation matches the pattern seen with Thomas Goodwin, indicating that a small group of literate settlers used their connections and resources to build up significant estates over time.
The differences in per-acre prices across the three Bazett purchases perhaps reflect changing conditions in the island's land market or the particular circumstances of each seller. The £2 0s 0d per acre at which Higham sold the five-acre Sheel Valley extension to Bazett in 1706 is strikingly low compared to the £3 10s 0d and £4 0s 0d rates of the earlier purchases. The lower price may indicate that the Higham parcel was of lesser quality, perhaps with fewer improvements or less established cultivation. The alternative is that Higham was under pressure to sell, with Bazett able to acquire the parcel at a favourable rate because of his neighbouring position and his ability to pay promptly. The same pattern of opportunistic acquisition by neighbouring holders appears throughout the records.
The Chevalls receipt connects to the wider Carne business activity recorded across the documents. George Carne's role as a custodian of accounts and effects, demonstrated by the earlier Demallo receipt, extends here to the handling of testamentary portions for beneficiaries who needed an intermediate party to receive their inheritance. The £50 0s 0d payment from Carne to Chevalls, for the eventual benefit of Ellenor Price, points to Carne's continuing role as a financial intermediary within the island's commercial life. The position required not only resources but a reputation for reliability sufficient to be trusted with substantial sums on behalf of others.
28
and Assigns, all and Singular that Peece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation twenty two Acres (be the Same more or Less) twenty Acres of which Land was formerly John Boyces, and the other two Acres, which Compleats the Said twenty two Acres formerly was and belonged unto the Said Richard Gurlings Father Lyeing Scituate and adjoyning together Nigh the head of Lemmon Valley with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or any Wise Appertaining, which Said twenty Acres of Land with all other the Premises I the said Richard Gurling do deliver Unto M[r] Thomas Goodwin of the Said Island Deputy Governour & Executor of the before Named John Goodwins Last Will and Testament for the only Use and behoof of his the Said Deceased John Goodwins Heir with all and Singular my Right and title to the Same, To have and to hold the said hereby Bargained Land and all other the Premises thereunto belonging as aforesaid, Unto the Said M[r] Thomas Goodwin Executor as before Speci- =fyed for the only use Bennesett and Profsett of the Said Deceased John[n] Goodwins heirs as aforesaid for Ever to do and Dispose of at his or theer own Wills and Pleasure. And I the Said Richard Gurling do for me my heirs Executors, and administrators Covenant and agree to and with the said M[r] Thomas Goodwin his heirs &c[a]. But chiefly, the Heirs of the Said deceased John Goodwin that he they or any of them Shall have hold Occupye Posses and quietly Enjoy the said hereby bargained Pre- mises without any manner of Interruption Contradiction or Mollesta- tion of me the Said Richard Gurling my heirs Executors Administrat[ors] or assigns, or any other Person or Persons whatsoever by my means Consent or Procurement, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this thirteenth day of August One Thousand Seven hundred and Seven
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Matthew Bazett William Marrelen John Alexander
Richard Gurling [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
John And Marg[t] Bagley to Edward Bagley Know all Men by these present that I John Bagley of the Said Island free planter, and Margarett Bagley my Wife for and in Consideration of the Sum of Nineteen pound in good and Currant Money of the said Island to us in hand paid by Edward Bagley of the Said Island free planter the receipt of which I do hereby Acknowledge and my Selfe therewith to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paid, and for divers other good Causes and Considerations us thereunto moveing, have given granted Bargained and Sold, and do firmly and absolutely by these presents Bargain Sell and Deliver unto the Said Edward Bagley his heirs Execut[ors] administratorrs and Assigns all and Singular that Peece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimateon Ten Acres be the Same more or Less, Lyeing and [bei]ng [in...]y[...]ll[...]y together with one dwelling house, Garden
The continuation of the Richard Gurling to John Goodwin conveyance.
The twenty-two acres comprised twenty acres formerly held by John Boyce and a further two acres that had belonged to Richard Gurling's father. The two parcels lay adjacent to each other near the head of Lemon Valley. Richard Gurling delivered the land, with all appurtenances, to Mr Thomas Goodwin, deputy governor of the island and executor of John Goodwin's last will and testament, for the sole use and benefit of John Goodwin's heir. He bound himself, his heirs, executors and administrators to ensure that Goodwin or the heirs of the late John Goodwin could hold and enjoy the premises without interruption or molestation from him, his successors or any person acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on 13 August 1707.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett, William Marsden and John Alexander.
Richard Gurling, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
John and Margaret Bagley to Edward Bagley.
John Bagley, free planter of the island, together with his wife Margaret Bagley, made known by these presents that they had received from Edward Bagley, free planter of the same island, the sum of £19 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand. They acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. For this consideration and for other good causes, they gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Edward Bagley, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres, together with a dwelling house and garden.
Interpretations
The Gurling to Goodwin conveyance of 13 August 1707 reveals an unusual situation in which the buyer had died before the conveyance was formally executed. John Goodwin had paid Richard Gurling £17 0s 0d for the twenty-two acres in his lifetime, but the documentary completion of the sale took place only after his death. Richard Gurling executed the deed in favour of John Goodwin's heir, with Mr Thomas Goodwin acting as executor of John Goodwin's last will and testament to receive the conveyance on the heir's behalf. The structure allowed the buyer's earlier payment to be honoured by transferring the title to those legally entitled to receive it under his estate.
The position of Thomas Goodwin as both deputy governor of the island and executor of John Goodwin's will marks the convergence of his administrative role with his family responsibilities. The relationship between Thomas Goodwin and the late John Goodwin is not specified in the document, but the use of the surname and Thomas's position as executor strongly suggests a close family connection, perhaps as brother or as senior relative to the deceased. The arrangement allowed Thomas, who had become the senior figure in the island's administration by 1703 and continued in that role in 1707, to handle the property affairs of his deceased kinsman alongside his official duties.
The chain of title for the twenty acres of the Boyce parcel runs back to the John Boyce who appears in the 1682 inquest as the holder of two ten-acre parcels in Lemon Valley, acquired from Milbank and Ferrant through the intermediate hands of James Wakefield. Twenty-five years later, those Boyce parcels had passed through unspecified intermediate transactions into Richard Gurling's possession, from which he now conveyed them on to the Goodwin family. The persistence of the Boyce identification across a quarter of a century points to the durable character of original allotment names within the island's land records, with parcels continuing to be identified by their first holder long after they had moved through multiple hands.
The two additional acres formerly belonging to Richard Gurling's father add a smaller adjoining parcel to the conveyance. The combination of twenty acres from one source and two acres from another, lying adjacent to each other near the head of Lemon Valley, fits the pattern of consolidation seen throughout the records, in which working holdings were built up from parcels of different origins lying in proximity to each other. The naming of Gurling's father as the previous holder of the two acres places the parcel within the family's inherited estate, distinct from the Boyce purchase that Richard had acquired in his own right.
The price of £17 0s 0d for the twenty-two acres gives a per-acre figure of about fifteen shillings and sixpence, falling well below the £1 2s 0d to £1 13s 4d rates seen in earlier Fryer Valley transactions but slightly above the seven shillings and sixpence per acre at the Little Horsepad in the 1690s. The figure suggests that Lemon Valley land near the head of the valley fell into a middle price range, neither commanding the premiums of established valley parcels nor falling to the lower rates of isolated upland holdings.
The John and Margaret Bagley to Edward Bagley conveyance of unspecified date opens with the joint participation of husband and wife as the conveying parties, following the same pattern seen in the William and Mary French to Edward Bagley arrangement of 1708. The joint conveyance perhaps reflects the joint ownership of the parcel by both spouses, or the desire to ensure that any marital interest of the wife was properly conveyed along with the husband's title. The structure protected Edward Bagley against any later claim by Margaret Bagley to a continuing interest in the parcel.
The Bagley family connections suggested by the names John, Margaret and Edward Bagley, all appearing in connection with property transactions, indicate the extension of the Bagley household into multiple holdings across the island. The Edward Bagley who appears as the purchaser here is probably the same Edward Bagley who featured in the 1708 arrangement with the Frenches and whose name appears as a witness to the Leach to Carne conveyance of 1705 and the Greentree to Johnson conveyance of 1698. The repeated appearances of Edward Bagley as a purchaser and witness mark him as another active figure within the island's property circles.
The price of £19 0s 0d for the ten-acre parcel with dwelling house and garden gives a per-acre figure of £1 18s 0d if the house is treated as having no separate value, or less if the house is valued. The combined price for land and improvements falls between the modest rural rates and the higher urban valuations, fitting a working agricultural holding with an established residence. The presence of both a dwelling house and a garden indicates that the parcel was a fully developed holding suitable for immediate occupation by the new owner.
Speculations
The death of John Goodwin before the formal execution of the Gurling conveyance suggests that property transactions on the island sometimes proceeded through informal stages of payment and possession before the documentary completion. Buyers might pay the consideration and take effective control of the parcel, with the formal deed prepared and executed at a later point. The risk in such arrangements became apparent when one of the parties died before the formal completion, requiring the heirs or executors to step in and complete the transfer on behalf of the estate. The Gurling to Goodwin conveyance shows how the system accommodated this risk by allowing the seller to execute the deed in favour of the buyer's heir even after the buyer's death.
The combined position of Thomas Goodwin as deputy governor, executor of John Goodwin's will and a major property holder in his own right indicates the extent to which family, official and commercial interests overlapped within the island's small settler society. Thomas's accumulation of property recorded in earlier deeds had given him a substantial private estate, and his administrative role placed him at the centre of the island's government. The further responsibility of handling John Goodwin's estate added a family dimension to his already extensive activities, with his name appearing in multiple capacities within the same set of records.
The continuing identification of land by reference to former holders many years after their sale, with the Boyce parcels still being so named twenty-five years after the 1682 inquest, points to the persistence of social memory within the small settler population. Even as land moved through multiple hands, the names of original or notable holders remained attached to the parcels as a kind of permanent identification. The practice gave the land records a layered character, with each parcel carrying the imprint of its successive holders over time.
The Bagley family's role in property accumulation, both through Edward Bagley's purchases from John and Margaret Bagley and from the Frenches, and through the broader appearances of the Bagley name across the records as witnesses and buyers, suggests a coordinated family strategy of estate-building. Edward may have been the most active acquirer within the family, with other Bagleys playing supporting roles as occasional sellers or witnesses. The pattern of internal family transfers, with John and Margaret selling to Edward, perhaps reflects an arrangement by which assets were being consolidated under one branch or generation of the family while the selling parties received their value in cash.
29
thereon, and all other the Premises thereunto belongeng or any wise apper- taineing in any Nature or Quallity Soever To have and to hold the Said Ten Acres of Land, House, and all and Singular the appurtenances thereunto belongong or any ways appertaineing as aforesaid To him the said Edward Bagley and his heirs for Ever To do and Dispose the Same at his or their own Will and pleasure. And I the Said John Bagley and Marg[t] his Wife do hereby, for themSelves theer heers Executors Administrators Covenant and agree to and with the Said Edward Bagley his heirs Executorrs Administrat[ors] and Assigns that he they, or any of them Shall have hold Occupie Possess and Peaceably Enjoy, the Said hereby bargained premises without any Manner of Interruption Contrediction or Mollestateon of us the Said John Bagley and Margaret his Wife, or any of theer heirs Executors or Administrators or any other Person or Persons whatsoever for us, or Either of us, by our Means Con- sent or procurement, And against all Unlawfull Claims or Demands Do Warrant to Save and Keep harmless the Said Edward Bagley his heirs &c[a] from all damages Costs, Suits or Incumbrances whatsoever, In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands and Seals this Tenth day of August One Thousand Seven Hundred and five
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Peter Bourdeaux John Alexander
Vera Copia [p] me Jn[o] Alexander
John Bagley [seal] her Margaret M Bagley [seal] Marke
Island S[t] Helena
James Draper to Sam[ll] Maxwell Know all Men by these presents that I James Draper of the Said Island free planter for and in Consideration of the Sum of Eighteen pounds to be paid in Manner and forme following Viz[t] None pounds whereof in Live Cale to be appraised by two Indifferent Men and Delevered unto the Said James Draper at or upon the first day of Aprill next Enseing the day of the date hereof, and the other half part being Nine pounds to be paied in Spannish Dollarrs att Six Shillings per Dollar in at or upon the first day of July Next after the present date of these presents, and upon receipt thereof, the Said James Draper doth hereby acknowledge himself to be fully Sattissfeed Contented and paied, and as also for Divers good Causes and Considerations him hereunto moving have given granted bargained Sold and Delevered, and by these presents doth, firmly, and absolutely, give grant Bargaen Sell and Delever unto Sam[ll] Maxwell of the Said Island Corporall One Messeage house Standing and being in Chappell Valley Nigh Fort James adjoyning unto the house of Richard Leach of the Said Island free planter, and John Stitt Souldeier and with all and Singular the appurtenances thereunto belongeng, To have and to hold the Said House &c[a] unto the Said Samuell Maxwell his heers Executors Administrators and assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever Useing and paying the Sum of Eighteen pounds as aforesaid, and the Said James Draper doth for hemselfe his heirs Executors, Administrators, and Assignes Covenant and agree to, and with the Said Samuell Maxwell his heirs Executors Administrators and
assigns
The continuation of the John and Margaret Bagley to Edward Bagley conveyance.
Edward Bagley was to hold the ten acres, the dwelling house and all appurtenances, to himself and his heirs for ever, to dispose of at his own will and pleasure. John Bagley and Margaret his wife bound themselves and their successors to allow Edward Bagley and his heirs to hold, occupy and enjoy the premises without any hindrance from them or from any person acting through them. They warranted the title against all unlawful claims and demands and undertook to save Edward Bagley and his heirs harmless from any damages, costs, suits or encumbrances. They set their hands and seals to the document on 10 August 1705.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Peter Bourdeaux and John Alexander.
A true copy by John Alexander.
John Bagley, with a seal attached.
Margaret Bagley made her mark in the form of an M, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
James Draper to Samuel Maxwell.
James Draper, free planter of the island, made known by these presents that he had agreed to receive the sum of £18 0s 0d from Samuel Maxwell. The payment was to be made in two parts. The first half of £9 0s 0d was to be paid in live cattle, appraised by two impartial men and delivered to Draper on or before 1 April next following the date of the document. The remaining £9 0s 0d was to be paid in Spanish dollars at six shillings per dollar on or before 1 July next following the date of the document. On receipt of these payments, Draper acknowledged that he would be fully satisfied. For this consideration and for other good causes, he gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Samuel Maxwell, corporal, of the same island, a messuage house standing in Chapel Valley near Fort James, joined to the house of Richard Leach, free planter, and to the house of John Stitt, soldier. The conveyance included all appurtenances belonging to the property. Maxwell was to hold the house, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the document for ever, on payment of the £18 0s 0d in the manner described. Draper bound himself and his successors to allow Maxwell to hold the property [...]
Interpretations
The Draper to Maxwell conveyance reveals a distinctive form of consideration on the island, with the £18 0s 0d purchase price split into two halves paid in different forms at different times. The arrangement combined live cattle for half the price with Spanish dollars for the other half, the cattle to be appraised by two impartial men and the dollars to be valued at six shillings per dollar. The structure shows that the island's property market accepted non-monetary consideration alongside cash, with livestock serving as a recognised store of value that could substitute for currency in larger transactions. The use of two appraisers to value the cattle ensured that both parties were protected against arbitrary valuation, with the impartial assessment providing a fair conversion between livestock and the agreed monetary equivalent.
The Spanish dollar at six shillings was a recognised standard of currency on the island, alongside the local current money used in most transactions. The Spanish dollar, also known as the piece of eight, was the dominant silver coin in international trade across the Atlantic and Indian Ocean networks of the period, and its acceptance on St Helena reflects the island's position within those trade routes. The conversion rate of six shillings per dollar provided a fixed parity at which the silver coin could be valued in sterling terms for the purposes of the conveyance.
The deferred payment structure, with the cattle due by 1 April and the dollars due by 1 July following the conveyance, allowed Maxwell time to assemble the consideration after taking possession of the property. The arrangement effectively provided Maxwell with credit during the months between the conveyance and the payment dates, with Draper accepting the risk of deferred receipt in exchange for the agreed total value. The structure resembles the bond arrangement seen in the Powell to Gurling transaction of 1704, in which Gurling's payment was secured by a bond rather than delivered immediately, although the Draper to Maxwell deed specifies the form of payment in greater detail.
The description of the property as a messuage house in Chapel Valley near Fort James places it within an established urban area adjacent to the fortification. The term messuage is the legal term for a dwelling house together with its appurtenant lands and buildings, and its use here marks the property as a complete residential unit rather than just a bare building. The location near Fort James connects the Maxwell purchase to the broader Fort James Valley settlement encountered in the Bowman to Nicholls entry, with multiple recorded houses standing in proximity to the fort and forming a distinct urban cluster on the island.
The identification of neighbouring houses by reference to their occupants, Richard Leach the free planter and John Stitt the soldier, follows the standard urban boundary convention seen in the Edmunds to Goodwin Chapel Valley town tenement. The boundary description does not give a frontage measurement or specify the size of the parcel, which suggests that the messuage was identified more by its position in the row of houses than by precise dimensions. The combination of free planter Leach and soldier Stitt as neighbours reflects the mixed character of the Fort James Valley settlement, with civilian and military occupants holding adjacent properties.
The Bagley conveyance of 10 August 1705 fits within the broader pattern of Bagley family property activity recorded across the documents. Edward Bagley's purchase from John and Margaret completed three days before Robert Marsh's confirmation deeds to William Dufton and George Dweight of 9 August 1705, placing two related Bagley transactions and three Marsh transactions within a narrow window. The clustering of activity in early August 1705 suggests that this was a busy period for the island's property dealings, perhaps connected to the seasonal rhythm of the agricultural year or to the gathering of the relevant parties at a particular time.
The signature of John Bagley in his own hand, contrasted with Margaret Bagley's mark in the form of an M, reveals the typical mixed literacy of a married couple in the island's settler population. John could write his name, while Margaret could not, a pattern seen in several earlier conveyances where one spouse signed and the other marked. The disparity reflects the unequal access to education between men and women in the period, with literacy in women being rarer than in men of the same social standing.
The Maxwell purchase identifies him as a corporal in the garrison, placing him alongside John Hemon, the corporal who appeared as a landholder in earlier records. The willingness of military men of corporal rank to commit substantial sums to property purchases shows that the garrison provided a population with sufficient personal resources to participate actively in the island's land market. A corporal's pay would have accumulated over time into amounts capable of supporting purchases of urban or rural property, and the recorded transactions show that such men did acquire land and houses in their own right alongside the civilian planters.
Speculations
The structure of the Draper to Maxwell deed, with payment partly in live cattle and partly in Spanish dollars, perhaps reflects the practical realities of the island's monetary economy. Cash currency was limited in quantity, with most settlers holding their wealth in land, livestock and stored provisions rather than in coin. By accepting half the price in cattle, Draper allowed Maxwell to use his accumulated livestock rather than requiring him to convert it into currency before the transaction could complete. The arrangement matched the actual asset composition of the parties to the form of the consideration, reducing the practical difficulties of executing the sale.
The reference to two impartial men appraising the cattle indicates that the island had a recognised practice for the valuation of livestock by neutral parties. The system would have functioned through the appointment of two settlers known to both buyer and seller and trusted to provide a fair assessment, perhaps based on visible condition, breeding quality and current market prices for similar animals. The institution of impartial appraisal supports the operation of barter-style transactions within a small community where reputation and trust played important roles in commercial dealings.
The Maxwell purchase of a Chapel Valley messuage near Fort James points to the continuing demand for residential property in the urban areas of the island. A corporal acquiring a town house would have been positioning himself for a more settled life on the island, perhaps in anticipation of an eventual transition from military service to civilian planter status. The pattern matches those of other soldiers who acquired land and buildings during their service, indicating a regular path by which garrison personnel moved into the island's permanent settler population.
The Bagley family's pattern of internal transfers, with John and Margaret selling ten acres to Edward, suggests that Edward was emerging as the principal landholding figure within the family. The arrangement may have reflected a generational settlement in which an older couple was disposing of their working holding to a younger relative who would continue active cultivation, while they received cash to support themselves in their later years. The consolidation of family assets under one branch is a recurring theme in the records, with the Marsh, Bagley and Goodwin families all showing variations on this pattern.
30
assignes Shall have hold Occupice possess and Enjoy the said house &c[a] freely and Quietly without any Manner of Mollestateon or Interruption of the Said James Draper, or his heirs, Executors, Administrators, or Assignes, or of any other Person or persons whatsoever by his or their meanes or procurement, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 29 day of November One thousand Six hundred Ninety and Nine
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Matt[h] Bazett John Alexander
James Draper [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Thom[s] Dixon to [Sa]m[ell] Des Foun[t]ain Know all Men by these presents that I Thomas Dixon of the Said Island Seri[ent] in the Service and pay of the Reght Hon[ble] English East India Company, Merchants of London Tradeing unto the East Indees &c[a] for and in Consederation of the Sum of Ten pounds in good and lawfull Money of the said Island to me in hand paied by Samuell Des Fountaines in the Said Service Souldeier before the Ensealling and Delevery of these presents the receipt whereof I do hereby Acknowledge and my Selfe to be therewith fully Sattissfeed Contented and paied have given granted bargained and Sold and do by these presents freely and absolutely give grant bargain Sell and deliver unto the Said Samuell De fountaine his heirs Executors Administrators and Assigns all that piece or parcell of Land Contai- ning by Estimation Ten Acres Lying Sectuate and being at the head of Youngs Valley on the East of Said Island, and being the upper Ten Acres formerly John Mathews late of the Said Island free planter deceased To have and to hold the Said Ten Acres Land to him the Said Samuell De Fountaines and his heirs for Ever to do and Dispose of the Same att his or theer own proper Will and pleasure And I the said Thomas Dixon do for me my heirs Executorrs Admi- nistrators, or Assignes, Covenant grant and agree to and with the said Samuell De fountaine his heires Executorr Administrators or Assignes that he or they Shall and may from time to time, and at all times here after have hold Occupice possess and Enjoy the said hereby bargained premisses without any manner of Claime Challenge demand Interreuption or Contrediction of me the Said Thomas Dixon, my heeres Executors Administrators or Assignes or by any other person or persons whatsoever by my meaens Consent or procure- ment, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 24 day of November 1701
Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of us Jo[s] Trapp Jo[s] Parsons Jn[o] Alexander
Tho[s] Dixon [seal]
The continuation of the James Draper to Samuel Maxwell conveyance.
Maxwell was to hold the house, with all appurtenances, freely and quietly, without any hindrance or interruption from James Draper, his heirs, executors, administrators, assigns or anyone acting through them. Draper set his hand and seal to the document on 29 November 1699.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett and John Alexander.
James Draper, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
Thomas Dixon to Samuel Des Fountaine.
Thomas Dixon, sergeant in the service and pay of the Right Honourable English East India Company, made known by these presents that he had received from Samuel Des Fountaine, soldier in the same service, the sum of £10 0s 0d in lawful money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document. He acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. He gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Des Fountaine, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres at the head of Youngs Valley on the east of the island. The parcel was the upper ten acres formerly held by John Mathews, late free planter, since died. Des Fountaine was to hold the ten acres, with his heirs, for ever, to dispose of at his own will and pleasure. Dixon bound himself and his successors to allow Des Fountaine to hold and enjoy the premises without any claim, challenge, demand, interruption or contradiction from him, his heirs, executors, administrators, assigns or any other person acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on 24 November 1701.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Joseph Trapp, Joseph Parsons and John Alexander.
Thomas Dixon, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Dixon to Des Fountaine conveyance of 24 November 1701 records a property transaction between two members of the garrison, with Dixon as sergeant and Des Fountaine as soldier. The military ranks of both parties show that the garrison's personnel were active participants in the island's land market both as buyers and as sellers. A sergeant disposing of his ten-acre holding to a private soldier indicates that the property market reached down through the ranks, with men of different service grades capable of accumulating sufficient resources to acquire land in their own right.
The price of £10 0s 0d for ten acres at the head of Youngs Valley gives a per-acre figure of £1 0s 0d, the same rate as the Robert Marsh to William Dufton confirmation deed of 1705 and the John Cotgrave to Elizabeth Rhodes Sharks Valley transaction. The figure points to a stable per-acre value for valley-head land of moderate quality across the late 1690s and early 1700s, with parcels in this category trading consistently at £1 0s 0d per acre regardless of the specific location.
The Mathews allotment at the head of Youngs Valley connects back to the 1682 inquest, in which John Mathews appears as the holder of twenty acres in Youngs Valley joined on the east to ten acres formerly held by Owen Ockwin and on the west to the head of Youngs Valley. By 1701 those original twenty acres had split, with the upper ten acres now being conveyed by Dixon to Des Fountaine. The fragmentation of the original Mathews allotment into smaller working parcels and its passage into the hands of garrison men follows the broader pattern by which seventeenth-century settler holdings dispersed across the early eighteenth century.
The phrase on the east of the said Island, used to identify the location of the Mathews parcel, places Youngs Valley within the geographical orientation of the island. The reference suggests that the island was navigated and described by reference to its principal compass directions, with valleys identified by their position on one side or another. The orientation matches the references in earlier records to the East Ridge as a recurring boundary feature, indicating that the eastern part of the island formed a recognised geographical area within the settler vocabulary.
The use of the name Samuel Des Fountaine in this conveyance, with its French-style construction including the article, suggests a settler of French origin or descent. The surname pattern indicates that the garrison drew personnel from beyond the English population alone, including men whose family origins lay in continental Europe. The recording of his name in the formal register without comment or special notation shows that such non-English settlers were absorbed into the island's documentation on the same terms as English-born residents, with their distinctive names preserved in the record as a marker of their background.
The Draper to Maxwell conveyance was completed on 29 November 1699, just over two years before the Dixon to Des Fountaine transaction of November 1701. The two deeds together establish that the period 1699 to 1701 saw active property transfers involving military personnel, with corporal Maxwell acquiring a Chapel Valley house from a free planter and soldier Des Fountaine acquiring a Youngs Valley parcel from a sergeant. The pattern shows the steady incorporation of garrison men into the island's permanent landholding population during these years.
The witnesses to the Dixon conveyance, Joseph Trapp, Joseph Parsons and John Alexander, include two men who do not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed. Trapp and Parsons join the small group of witnesses who authenticated property transactions on the island during this period, alongside the recurring figures of Alexander, Bazett, Hoskinson and others. The witnesses' identities are not further specified in the document, but their presence indicates the involvement of additional literate men in the formal record-keeping beyond those most frequently encountered in the earlier deeds.
Speculations
The price of £10 0s 0d that Des Fountaine paid Dixon for the upper ten acres of the Mathews allotment falls within the range that a soldier could plausibly have accumulated from his service pay. The sum is comparable to amounts paid by other garrison men for property purchases recorded across the documents, suggesting that a regular pattern of saving from military pay supported land acquisitions by men intending to remain on the island after their service or to combine property ownership with continuing military duties. The recurring participation of garrison men as buyers indicates that the company's pay system, despite its limitations, provided enough surplus over basic needs to allow some men to enter the property-owning class.
Dixon's decision to sell his upper ten acres in Youngs Valley, while presumably retaining other holdings or returning to a position without land on the island, may reflect a transition in his personal circumstances. Sergeants were senior soldiers who often spent extended periods in the same posting, accumulating property during their service. Dixon's sale to a junior soldier of his own service may have arranged a transfer of an established holding to a member of his unit, preserving the land within the military community even as Dixon moved on to other arrangements. The transaction follows the pattern by which property circulated within the garrison alongside its movement between civilian planters.
The persistence of the Mathews identification of the upper ten acres, twenty years after John Mathews had appeared as the original allottee in the 1682 inquest, points again to the durable character of original holder names within the island's land records. The Mathews allotment had divided into upper and lower parts and passed through unspecified intermediate hands before reaching Dixon, but the conveyance still identified the parcel by its first holder's name. The naming convention provided a stable historical anchor for parcels that had moved through multiple subsequent transactions.
The arrival of Samuel Des Fountaine as a property holder in the records, with his recognisably French name, hints at the broader recruitment of the East India Company's garrison from continental as well as English populations. The seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries saw substantial migration of French Huguenots to England following the Edict of Fontainebleau of 1685, and some of these refugees and their descendants found their way into the company's service. Des Fountaine's presence on St Helena may reflect this wider movement, with his settlement on the island contributing to the diversification of its population beyond its predominantly English settler base.
31
Memorandum
Thomas Goodwin to George Hoskison That Thomas Goodwin of the Island of S[t] Helena Esq[r] Governeur for and in Consideration of the Sum of 24 by Geo[r] Hoskison of the said Island free planter Already paied, do hereby aleinate & Sell Unto the said George Hoskison his heers and assignes for Ever, Ten Acres of Land formerly in the Possession of William French of the said Island According to a deed Entered on this Book in the 55 Page, with all and Singullar the Appurtenances thereunto belonging Except all the wood which he the Said Hoskison is Not to sell or fall, but where he plants, and Shall Suffer the said Goodwin his heires and assignes to sell and Carry off the Said wood at his or their Will and Pleasure, In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Sett our hands at Fort James on Said Island this 16[th] day of December 1707
Wittnesses Ric[d] M[a]ckeing W[m] Marden
Tho[s] Goodwin Geo[r] Hoskison
Island S[t] Helena
Joseph Pratt to James Casthope This Indenture made this thirteen day of July One thou- sand Six hundred and Eighty Seven years, And in the Third year of the Reegn of our Soveraign Lord James the Second, Between Joseph Pratt of the Island S[t] Helena planter, and James Casthope planter their Wittnesses that the said Joseph Pratt for and on Consideration of the Sum of Eleaven pounds (Now presently paied by the foresaid James Casthope) to have bargained, Sold, given, granted and Delevered and by these presents do absolutely bargaine, give grant, and Deleiver, Unto the said James Casthope his heers Executors, and Assignes, One parcell of Land Containing Ten Acres, with an house thereon Standing (formerly possest and in the Occupation of John Stevens on the said Island planter) with all the Apertance to them belonging or in any ways Apertaineing to have and to hold the above Mentioned house and Land to the said James Casthope him his heeres Executors and adminis- tratorr for Ever, with out any Manner of Claime, Challenge, or demand whatsoever Likewise the said Joseph Pratt doth promise and grant for homselfe his heers Executors, and administrators, that upon the said James Casthope his Entrance upon the said premiss, that the said pre- mises Shall be free from all Incumbrances, The which Sale and Contract well and truely to Keep and perform the said Joseph Pratt hath hereunto sett his hand and seale the day and year above Mentioned
Signed Sealed & Deliv[d] in the presence of Thomas N[a]orne his Pomon P Whaley mark
Joseph Pratt [seal]
Memorandum.
Thomas Goodwin to George Hoskinson.
Thomas Goodwin, governor of the island of St Helena, in consideration of the sum of £24 0s 0d already paid by George Hoskinson, free planter of the same island, alienated and sold to Hoskinson, his heirs and assigns for ever, ten acres of land formerly held by William French. The conveyance followed a deed entered on page 55 of the same book. Goodwin reserved the wood standing on the parcel. Hoskinson was not to sell or fell the wood except where he planted, and he was to allow Goodwin, his heirs and assigns to sell and carry off the wood at their own will and pleasure. Both parties set their hands to the document at Fort James on 16 December 1707.
Witnesses: Richard Mackeing and William Marsden.
Thomas Goodwin, George Hoskinson.
Island of St Helena.
Joseph Pratt to James Casthope.
This indenture was made on 13 July 1687, in the third year of the reign of King James the Second, between Joseph Pratt, planter of the island of St Helena, and James Casthope, planter. Pratt acknowledged that he had received from Casthope the sum of £11 0s 0d, paid in hand. He bargained, sold, gave, granted and delivered to Casthope, his heirs, executors and assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres with a house standing on it. The land had formerly been held and occupied by John Stevens, planter, of the same island. The conveyance included all appurtenances. Casthope was to hold the house and land, with his heirs, executors and administrators, for ever, without any claim, challenge or demand. Pratt promised on behalf of himself and his successors that the premises would be free from all encumbrances at the time Casthope entered into possession. Pratt set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Naorne and Pomon Whaley, who made his mark in the form of a P.
Joseph Pratt, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Goodwin to Hoskinson memorandum of 16 December 1707 confirms Thomas Goodwin's elevation to the office of governor of the island, the highest position within the company's establishment on St Helena. The progression of his designations across the records, from soldier and witness in the 1680s through gunner's mate in 1694, deputy storekeeper in 1696, captain, deputy governor and storekeeper in 1703, gentleman in the Bevan transfer of 1705, deputy governor and executor in 1707, and now governor with the courtesy of esquire, traces a sustained rise through the company's hierarchy that culminated in the senior governorship. The memorandum documents him at the peak of his career on the island.
The wood reservation in the Goodwin to Hoskinson sale establishes a divided interest in the parcel, with the underlying land passing to Hoskinson while Goodwin retained the right to dispose of the standing wood. Hoskinson was permitted to cut wood only where he planted, presumably to clear ground for cultivation, but could not sell or fell wood for any other purpose. Goodwin and his successors retained the right to enter the parcel and remove the wood at their own discretion. The arrangement transfers the agricultural value of the land to Hoskinson while preserving the timber value as a separate property right held by Goodwin. The clause demonstrates how the island's conveyancing practice could separate different attributes of a single parcel into distinct property rights vested in different parties.
The William French previously identified as holding the ten acres connects this transaction to the William French of the earlier records, who had sold the Oak Gutt parcel to Goodwin in 1703 and entered into the joint arrangement with Bagley in 1708. The reference here to French as the former holder, with Goodwin now selling the parcel on to Hoskinson, indicates that Goodwin had acquired the land from French at some point between French's 1703 sale of the Oak Gutt parcel and this 1707 onward sale. The Goodwin estate had therefore continued to grow during the early years of his governorship, with new acquisitions feeding the pool of parcels he could in turn dispose of to others.
The price of £24 0s 0d for the ten acres, with wood reserved, gives a per-acre figure of £2 8s 0d. The figure stands above the £1 0s 0d to £1 2s 0d per acre range seen in earlier transactions for valley-head land, even with the wood reservation reducing the value of the parcel by removing the timber from the transferred interest. The higher rate suggests that the parcel was of better quality or that the price reflected the appreciation of land values on the island into the late 1700s. The wood reservation indicates that the underlying timber was of substantial value, sufficient to make a separate reservation worthwhile rather than including it in the sale price.
The reference to page 55 of the same book identifies the official register kept by the council clerk as the source of the original conveyance from French to Goodwin. The cross-reference shows that the island's land records had reached a level of internal organisation by 1707 that allowed conveyances to be located by page number within the register. The clerk who maintained the book provided not only the certifying signature on each individual deed but also the framework of pagination that allowed earlier transactions to be cited as authoritative records in subsequent documents.
The Pratt to Casthope conveyance of 13 July 1687 represents one of the earliest dated deeds in the records reviewed, falling between the Jeffrey to Kersey conveyance of November 1683 and the Savage to Fuller conveyance of March 1686. The transaction conveyed ten acres with a house, formerly held by John Stevens, from Pratt to Casthope for £11 0s 0d. The price gives a per-acre figure of £1 2s 0d for land with improvements, similar to the per-acre rates that would emerge in the Fryer Valley transactions of the 1690s and indicating that valley-quality land carried consistent prices across the late seventeenth century.
The 1687 transaction places James Casthope in the island's land market several years before he appears as the buyer of the Sarahs Valley parcel from Thomas Harper in March 1694. The earlier purchase of the ten acres from Pratt establishes that Casthope was active as a property holder from 1687 onward, with his accumulation of land progressing through multiple decades. The Casthope identified as soldier in the 1694 Harper conveyance is presumably the same man, indicating that his property activities continued alongside his military service across this period.
The dating clause of the Pratt to Casthope deed, in the third year of the reign of King James the Second, anchors the document to the regnal calendar in the same way as the Savage to Fuller conveyance of March 1686. The two deeds together show that island scribes consistently used regnal years as part of the formal dating, with the practice continuing through the brief reign of James II until the joint reign of William and Mary that began in 1689.
The encumbrance warranty in the Pratt deed, by which Pratt promised that the premises would be free from all encumbrances at the time of Casthope's entry, provides an early example of the standard clause that became routine in later conveyances. The warranty protected the buyer against mortgages, leases, life interests or other charges that might have attached to the parcel and that could have undermined the new owner's enjoyment of the land. The clause shifted the risk of undisclosed encumbrances from the buyer to the seller, allowing Casthope to take possession with confidence that the parcel was clear of competing claims.
Speculations
Thomas Goodwin's continuing accumulation and disposal of property during his governorship suggests that he treated his official position as compatible with active commercial dealing in the island's land market. As governor he held the highest local authority over the company's affairs, including its land grants and exchanges, while at the same time engaging in private transactions on his own account. The combination of public and private roles raises questions about the boundary between official function and personal interest, although the records reviewed contain no suggestion that contemporaries regarded the arrangement as improper. The pattern matches the earlier behaviour of company officials such as Governor Keeling, whose land was identified by name in subsequent conveyances, indicating that governors typically held substantial private property alongside their official duties.
The wood reservation in the Goodwin to Hoskinson sale points to the recognition of timber as an increasingly valuable resource on the island by 1707. The standing wood on a single ten-acre parcel was worth enough to justify a separate reservation rather than simple inclusion in the sale price, indicating that the island's timber stocks had become scarce relative to demand. The arrangement allowed Goodwin to retain a continuing source of valuable material from a parcel he was otherwise selling, perhaps to supply his own household, to use in his administrative role, or to sell to others for the construction and repair of buildings. The clause illustrates how scarce resources could be carved out of a primary property interest and retained by the original holder even after the land itself had been transferred.
The Pratt to Casthope transaction of 1687 illustrates how the second generation of settlers, taking over from the original allottees of the 1660s and 1670s, was building up land through purchase from earlier holders. John Stevens had held the ten acres before Pratt, and Pratt was now selling them on to Casthope. The chain of sequential ownership shows that even parcels that had moved once through the market were available for further transfer, with the island's land circulating actively among its settler population. The recurring transactions across decades produced an interconnected web of property relationships that bound the settlers into a single working community of holders and dealers.
32
Island S[t] Helena
James Casthope to Ripin Wells This Indenture made the Twenty Fourth day of March, One Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety three Years, and in the Sixt[h] year[r] of the Raigne of Our Soveraign William and Mary &c[a]. Between James Casthope of the Island S[t] Helena Planter, and Ripin Wells planter on the said Island, Wittnesses that the said James Casthope for and in Consede- ration of the Sum of Thirty pounds Currant Money on the said Island the other twenty in Store pay (To be paied in Manner following) Viz[t] Ten pounds to be paied att the Wri[t]ing hereof, Ten pounds more at the forst Arrivall, of One Shipp Directly from England, or in Six Months Immediately after the date of these presents, and the Third and last Ten pound to be paid in the Form and Space of three years, Commenceing from this twenty fourth of March as above written, the said James Casthope to have Bargained, Sold, given granted, and delivered unto the said Ripin Wells his heirs, Executors, Administrators, and Successors One parcell of Land Containing Ten Acres Less or more with One Dwelling house thereon Standing, formerly possest and in the Occu- pation of Iesoph Pratt, and now in the possession of the said James Casthope, with all the appurtances to them belonging or any ways Apertaineing to have and to hold the above Mentioned house and Land with all the plantateons thereto belonging, together also with all the Freits, and Provessons therein Contained, to the said Ripon and his foresaid for Ever, without any Manner of Lett, Claim Challenge or demand whatsoever this Land of Ten Acres is Bounded as the Councell books of this Island, Shall more fully declare, Likewise the said James Casthope doth hereby Obleidge himselfe and his foresaids that Upon the said Ripon Wells his Entrance upon the said premises that the said premises Shall be free from all Incumbrances whatsoever, the which Sale and Contract well and truely to keepe the said James Casthope hath hereto Sett his hand and Seale this twenty Fourth day of March which is after the Computation of the Church of England One thousand Six hundred and Ninety three years and the Sixt[h] Year of the Raigne of our Soveraign William and Marry of England, ffrance and Ireland King and Queen
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of (these words the other twenty in Store pay are included between the Fifth and Sixt Lene)
Thomas Nairne John Worrall
his James X Casthope [seal] Marke
Island of St Helena.
James Casthope to Ripin Wells.
This indenture was made on 24 March 1694, in the sixth year of the reign of William and Mary, between James Casthope, planter of the island of St Helena, and Ripin Wells, planter of the same island. Casthope acknowledged that he was to receive the sum of £30 0s 0d in current money of the island and a further £20 0s 0d in store pay. The payment was to be made in three instalments. The first £10 0s 0d was to be paid at the signing of the document. The second £10 0s 0d was to be paid on the arrival of the first ship coming directly from England, or in six months from the date of the document. The third and final £10 0s 0d was to be paid within three years from 24 March 1694. For this consideration, Casthope bargained, sold, gave, granted and delivered to Wells, his heirs, executors, administrators and successors, a parcel of land of about ten acres with a dwelling house standing on it. The land had formerly been held and occupied by Joseph Pratt and was then in Casthope's own possession. The conveyance included all appurtenances, all the plantations belonging to the land, and the fruits and provisions standing on it. Wells was to hold the house and land, with his successors, for ever, without any hindrance, claim, challenge or demand. The ten acres were bounded as set out more fully in the council books of the island. Casthope bound himself and his successors to ensure that the premises would be free from all encumbrances at the time of Wells's entry. He set his hand and seal to the document on 24 March 1694, computing the year by the use of the Church of England, in the sixth year of the reign of William and Mary, King and Queen of England, France and Ireland.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Nairne and John Worrall.
The words "the other twenty in store pay" were included as an interlineation between the fifth and sixth lines of the document.
James Casthope made his mark in the form of an X, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Casthope to Wells conveyance of 24 March 1694 traces the next stage in the history of the ten-acre Stevens parcel, which Pratt had sold to Casthope in 1687 for £11 0s 0d and which Casthope was now selling on to Wells for a total of £50 0s 0d in cash and store pay. The increase from £11 0s 0d to £50 0s 0d over the seven-year holding period represents an approximately fourfold increase in value, with the parcel either having seen substantial improvement during Casthope's ownership or having appreciated sharply through general inflation in island land values. The composite figure of cash and store pay also indicates that the price drew on different categories of value rather than being a straightforward currency transaction.
The split between £30 0s 0d in current money and £20 0s 0d in store pay reveals a sophisticated valuation system that distinguished between immediately spendable currency and credit at the company stores. Store pay was credit available against goods supplied by the company's stores, redeemable in provisions, cloth, tools and other commodities at the prices the stores charged. The arrangement allowed parties to denominate parts of a transaction in different forms of value, with cash and store credit serving different purposes within the household economy. The buyer would have valued store pay if his household needed company-supplied goods, while the seller would have accepted it if he expected to spend it on similar items.
The phased payment structure across three years, with £10 0s 0d at signing, £10 0s 0d on the next ship from England or within six months, and the final £10 0s 0d within three years, points to a credit arrangement that gave Wells substantial time to assemble the full purchase price. The reference to the next ship from England as a payment trigger indicates that ship arrivals were significant economic events that brought cash or goods into the island's economy and gave settlers the means to settle accumulated obligations. The structure also suggests that Wells's resources were tied to such arrivals, perhaps through goods he expected to receive or sell when the ship came in.
The interlineation noted at the foot of the document, with the words "the other twenty in store pay" included between the fifth and sixth lines, shows the careful documentation of alterations to the deed text. The clerk recording the deed identified the precise location of the inserted words to prevent later disputes about whether the store pay element was part of the original agreement or a subsequent addition. The practice reveals an attention to documentary integrity that would protect both parties against any later challenge to the validity of the deed.
The dating clause of the Casthope to Wells deed places the transaction on 24 March 1694, the day before Lady Day, the start of the new year by old style reckoning. The use of the year 1694 alongside the regnal year of William and Mary, the sixth, indicates that the scribe was using the modern convention of treating the year as continuous across Lady Day, since 24 March 1693 by old style would be 24 March 1694 by new style. The explicit reference to the computation of the Church of England suggests that the document was being careful to identify which calendar reckoning it used, perhaps because the date fell so close to the change of year that confusion could arise.
The Casthope to Wells conveyance of 24 March 1694 falls three days before the Harper to Casthope conveyance of 27 March 1694, in which Casthope acquired the Sarahs Valley parcel from Harper. The close timing of the two transactions, with Casthope selling one parcel and buying another within a four-day period, points to a deliberate substitution of holdings around the change of year. Casthope was perhaps using the proceeds from the sale to Wells to fund the acquisition from Harper, although the phased payment structure of the Wells sale means he could not have had the full cash available at the time of the Harper purchase.
James Casthope's mark in the form of an X, made in the 1694 conveyance to Wells, contrasts with his appearance as a witness in the 1705 Bevan to Goodwin deed where he is recorded as making his mark in the same form. The persistence of marks rather than signatures across his recorded transactions indicates that he remained illiterate throughout his property dealings, despite his evident success as an accumulator and disposer of land. The case shows that literacy was not a prerequisite for active participation in the island's property market, although it did require the assistance of literate witnesses and clerks to handle the documentary side of transactions.
The reference to the council books of the island as the source of the precise boundary description provides another instance of the cross-referencing system that linked individual deeds to the central administrative record. The arrangement spared the parties the labour of restating boundary descriptions in each deed, with the official record providing the authoritative source on which both seller and buyer could rely. The reference works in the same way as the citation of page 55 in the Goodwin to Hoskinson memorandum of December 1707, indicating an established practice of pointing readers to the council books for detailed information not reproduced in the conveyance itself.
The inclusion of all the plantations, fruits and provisions standing on the land within the conveyance follows the pattern seen in many earlier deeds. The transfer covered not only the bare land and the house but the entire working substance of the holding at the moment of conveyance, with growing crops and other improvements passing to the new owner as part of the package. The structure ensured that Wells acquired a fully operational holding ready for immediate use rather than an empty parcel requiring fresh cultivation.
Speculations
The fourfold increase in the value of the Stevens parcel between Pratt's sale to Casthope in 1687 at £11 0s 0d and Casthope's sale to Wells in 1694 at £50 0s 0d reflects either a substantial program of improvement by Casthope during his ownership or a general appreciation of island land values during the period. Casthope had perhaps invested in the dwelling house, the plantations, the hedges and the other improvements over his seven years of holding, converting the parcel from a basic working holding into a more developed property worth a considerably higher price. The fruits and provisions standing on the land at the time of the 1694 conveyance suggest active cultivation that would have added value beyond the bare land and structures.
The decision to take part of the price in store pay perhaps reflects Casthope's own anticipated expenditure on company-supplied goods in the years following the sale. Store pay was useful for those whose households consumed substantial quantities of imported commodities, since the credit could be drawn down against actual purchases at the stores. By accepting £20 0s 0d in store pay alongside £30 0s 0d in cash, Casthope structured his receipt to match his expected pattern of expenditure, with the cash portion available for transactions outside the store system and the credit portion reserved for store purchases. The arrangement reflects the integrated character of the island's economic life, in which company supply and private exchange operated as complementary channels.
The close timing of Casthope's sale to Wells on 24 March 1694 and his purchase from Harper on 27 March 1694 suggests that Casthope was managing a coordinated turnover of his property portfolio across the change of year. The two transactions, separated by just three days, exchanged one holding for another and may have been negotiated together to align the financial flows. The Harper purchase price of £30 0s 0d was matched by the first cash instalment of £10 0s 0d from Wells and the prospect of further payments, suggesting that Casthope had built confidence in the Wells transaction to the point of being able to commit to the Harper acquisition.
The repeated appearance of Ripin Wells in the records, with his name as Rippon Wells when he served as a witness to the Crosbey to Goodwin conveyance of 19 March 1695, identifies him as another figure in the active circle of island property dealers during the 1690s. His acquisition of the Stevens-Pratt-Casthope ten acres in March 1694 established him as a landholder in his own right, and his subsequent service as a witness in 1695 places him among the literate participants in the conveyancing process. The combination of buying property and witnessing other transactions follows the pattern seen with Goodwin, Bazett, Hoskinson and others, indicating that active settlers participated across multiple roles within the island's small property community.
33
Michaell Morriss to Ripon Wells This Indenture made this Eighteen day of October in the Year of our Lord One thousand Seaven Hundred and One Between Michaell Morriss of the Island S[t] Helena Planter of the One part, and Ripon Wells Corporall of the said Island of the other Part; Wittnesseth that the said Michaell Morriss for and in Consideration of the Sum of Nine pounds the Receipt Whereof he doth hereby Acknowledge, and homselfe to be therewith fully paed and Sattisfied, have demissed Granted Bargaened and Sold in the Year of our Lord One thousand Six hundred Eighty and Seaven, and do by these Presents Demise grant bargaine and Sell One house Sectuate Lying and being at the upper End of S[t] James Valley unto the said Ripon Wells and his heers for Ever, and furthermor: the said Michaell Morriss doth for himself his heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes Covenant promiss and agree to, and with the Said Ripon Wells, or his heirs Executors, Administra- torr and Assignes, that he the said Ripon Wells, or his heers Executors, Admi- nistratorr, and Assignes Shall have hold Occupy possess and Enjoy the Said hereby bargained house without any Lawfull Lett Mollestation & disturbance or Eviction of any other person or persons Lawfully Claiming or to Claime any thing in the premises by from him them or any of them; Any thing to the Contrary hereof in any Wise Notwithstanding, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and Seale the day and Year first above written
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Arthur Bradley Edward Crosbey
mark[e] The M M of Michaell Morriss
Richard Swallow to Marg[t] Sech To all Christian, People to whom these Presents Shall Come Richard Swallow of this Island of S[t] Helena Free planter Sendeth gree- ting; Whereas I Richard Swallow Son and Heir apparent to Marg[t] Sech either former Husband Richard Swallow Long Since Deceased having a Right Interest and Title In Reversion to the house wherein She now dwel- leth in the Country and to Seventy Acres of Land thereunto belongeing and sectuate Lyeing and being in Chappell Valley after whose Decease it Immediately Descends unto the said Rich[d] Swallow her Son, and whereas the said Wedow Sech having by her Late Husband Ri[c] Sech Severall Children: As well to prevent and Avoyd all Disputes, or Controverysies that may hereafter Arise among them, Concerning the pre- misses as Well as allso for the Bonefitt and advantage of all the said Riches Children Moved by her Owne Inclinations being Executor to the said Sech, and by the advice and Approbation other good Friends, and Espeacally Stephen Poirier Esq[r] present Governeur hath agreed to purchase the Same for the said Richard Swallow for the Use of her Self, and good of the said Children; Now Know ye, that I the Said Richard Swallow aforesaid for and in Consederateon of the Love Affection and good Will I beare towards the said Wedow Sech my Mother and the said Children; As allso for the Sum of One hundred and fourty pounds Currant Money of the said Island In Manner following, That is to Say Seaventy pounds part thereof in hand paed whereof I do Acknowledge my Selfe fully paed and Sattisfeed and
Seaventy
Michael Morris to Ripon Wells.
This indenture was made on 18 October 1701 between Michael Morris, planter of the island of St Helena, of the one part, and Ripon Wells, corporal of the same island, of the other part. Morris acknowledged that he had received the sum of £9 0s 0d in full payment. He demised, granted, bargained and sold to Wells, his heirs and assigns for ever, a house standing at the upper end of St James Valley. The original agreement had been made in 1687, although the formal indenture was executed only at the present date. Morris bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to allow Wells and his successors to hold, occupy and enjoy the house without any lawful hindrance, molestation, disturbance or eviction from any person claiming through them. He set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year first written above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Arthur Bradley and Edward Crosbey.
Michael Morris made his mark in the form of an M M.
Richard Swallow to Margaret Sech.
Richard Swallow, free planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting. He explained the background to the transaction. He was the son and heir apparent of Margaret Sech by her former husband Richard Swallow, since died. He held a right of reversion to the house in which Margaret Sech then dwelt in the country and to seventy acres of land belonging to it, lying in Chapel Valley. On her death, the property would descend immediately to him. Margaret Sech had since had several children by her later husband Richard Sech. To prevent disputes among the children of both marriages, and for the benefit of all Richard Sech's children, she had decided to purchase the property for Richard Swallow's interest in it, acting on her own initiative as executor to her late husband Sech and with the advice and approval of friends, particularly Stephen Poirier, esquire, then governor of the island. Richard Swallow acknowledged that he made the conveyance for the love, affection and good will he bore his mother and her Sech children, and for the sum of £140 0s 0d in current money of the island. The payment was to be made in two parts. The first £70 0s 0d was already paid in hand, in respect of which Richard Swallow acknowledged full satisfaction. The second £70 0s 0d [...]
Interpretations
The Morris to Wells indenture of 18 October 1701 records the formalisation of a property transaction that had originally been agreed in 1687, fourteen years before the document was executed. The opening reference to the 1687 agreement, followed by the present-tense conveyance of 1701, shows that the parties had operated under an earlier informal arrangement and now wished to put it on a documentary footing. The structure reveals how property transactions on the island could proceed through long periods of informal possession before reaching their formal written record, with the eventual deed serving as confirmation of an existing state of affairs rather than as the moment of transfer itself.
The St James Valley location of the Morris house places the property within the same area as the Fort James Valley settlement encountered in earlier records. The slight variation in naming, with St James Valley and Fort James Valley both appearing in the records, suggests that the valley around the fortification could be referred to by either form, with the prefix referring either to the saint or to the fort named after King James. The upper end of the valley, identified as the location of the Morris house, was perhaps a residential extension above the principal cluster of buildings around the fort itself.
The price of £9 0s 0d for a single house at the upper end of St James Valley falls below the typical price for properties in the Chapel Valley town tenements but corresponds with the modest valuations of small urban or peri-urban dwellings on the island. The figure is similar to the £5 0s 0d that Bell paid Higham for the small Chapel Valley plot adjoining his existing house in 1704 and well below the £20 0s 0d that Nicholls paid Bowman for the Fort James Valley dwelling house. The variation across these urban transactions points to a range of property types and qualities within the St James and Chapel Valley settlements, with prices reflecting size, condition and location.
Ripon Wells's progression from planter in the 1694 Casthope conveyance, to witness in the 1695 Crosbey deed under the form Rippon Wells, to corporal in the 1701 Morris transaction, traces his movement between civilian and military roles in the island's establishment. The military designation in 1701 may reflect his enlistment in the garrison during the intervening years, or it may indicate that he had carried military rank alongside his planter status throughout the period. The combination of property holding and military service was a regular feature of the island's settler life, with individuals moving between or combining the two roles.
The Richard Swallow to Margaret Sech conveyance of unspecified date marks a distinctive type of family settlement, in which Richard Swallow as heir apparent agreed to sell his reversionary interest in his mother's life estate. The transaction did not transfer immediate possession of any property, since Margaret Sech retained her current life interest in the house and the seventy acres. Instead, it transferred Richard's expectant right to inherit on her death, allowing the property to be redirected to her children by her second husband Richard Sech rather than passing automatically to Richard Swallow as her son by her first marriage. The arrangement converted the entire seventy-acre Chapel Valley estate and its house into a fund for the benefit of the Sech children, with Richard Swallow receiving £140 0s 0d in exchange for relinquishing his future inheritance.
The price of £140 0s 0d is the second-highest sum recorded in any of the transactions reviewed, exceeded only by the £500 0s 0d that Hoskinson paid Gurling in 1706. The figure reflects the substantial value of the seventy acres in Chapel Valley with a dwelling house, even though Richard Swallow was selling only his future interest in the property rather than immediate possession. The size of the price indicates that the property was a major estate within the island's Chapel Valley district and that the reversionary right to inherit it was considered to have substantial present value notwithstanding the contingency on Margaret Sech's death.
The reference to Stephen Poirier, esquire, as the present governor places the transaction during his tenure in that office. Poirier's appearance in the document as the source of advice and approval for the family arrangement points to a continuing involvement of the governor's office in significant property matters on the island, particularly those involving complex family interests or substantial values. The use of an esquire designation for Poirier, similar to the designation of Thomas Goodwin in the 1707 memorandum, follows the convention by which the governor's office carried this elevated formal style.
The arrangement reveals a sophisticated approach to managing the consequences of remarriage on inheritance expectations. Margaret Sech's two marriages had produced children by both husbands, with the son of the first marriage holding the heir's expectancy in the property she had brought to or accumulated during her marriage to the first Richard Swallow. The Sech children by her second husband had no claim on this property under the ordinary rules of inheritance, since they were not descendants of the first Swallow. The transaction restructured the family arrangement by buying out the Swallow heir's expectancy so that the property could be redirected to the Sech children, eliminating the inequality that the standard rules of inheritance would have produced.
The role of Margaret Sech as executor to her late husband Richard Sech, mentioned as part of the framing of the transaction, indicates that she held legal authority over the Sech estate and was actively managing the interests of her children by him. The combination of her life interest in the Swallow property and her executorship of the Sech estate gave her standing to negotiate with her son Richard Swallow for the buyout of his reversionary interest. The transaction shows how a widow could play a central role in restructuring family property to address the consequences of successive marriages.
Speculations
The long delay between the 1687 agreement and the 1701 formalisation of the Morris to Wells transaction perhaps reflects either a deliberate decision to delay documentation or some external trigger that prompted both parties to put the matter on a formal footing in 1701. The intervening fourteen years would have seen Wells in possession of the house under an informal arrangement, with the eventual formalisation perhaps tied to his change of status to corporal or to some other event that made documentary protection desirable. The case illustrates that property in the island's urban settlements could change hands through informal arrangements that were eventually recorded only when circumstances required.
Margaret Sech's decision to use her own resources to buy out her son Richard Swallow's reversionary interest, rather than allowing the property to pass to him on her death and trusting him to make appropriate provision for his half-siblings, points to a desire to secure a definite outcome for her younger children. By converting the reversionary expectancy into a present payment to Richard Swallow, she removed the risk that he might fail to provide adequately for the Sech children after her death, or that disputes might arise about how the property should be divided. The arrangement gave her clear control over the eventual distribution by changing the legal framework while she still had the authority to do so.
The involvement of Stephen Poirier as governor in advising on the family arrangement suggests that significant property restructurings within settler families could attract attention from the highest level of the company's administration. The governor's role may have been simply that of a respected senior figure whose advice was sought informally, but it points to the close connection between official authority and private affairs on the small island. Poirier's approval would have lent weight to the arrangement and may have helped to head off any later challenge by other family members or interested parties.
The very substantial sum of £140 0s 0d paid for the reversionary interest indicates that the seventy-acre Chapel Valley estate was a major asset, perhaps one of the larger family holdings on the island. The estate's combination of size and central location, together with its house, would have made it a focal point for the household and a substantial inheritance for whoever eventually received it. The willingness of Margaret Sech and her Sech children to commit such a sum to securing the eventual descent points to the importance attached to keeping the estate within the favoured branch of the family, with the financial cost outweighed by the assurance of an undisputed succession.
34
Seaventy pounds, part thereof in hand paid where[of I do Acknowledge my] Self fully paid and Sattisfeed and Seaventy pound[s] Remainder thereof on the Twenty fefth day of March 1706 Next Enseing the Date hereof and for Sundry, other good Causes and Considerations, have granted bargained and Sold and by these presents doe freely Clearely and absolutely give grant bargain and Sell, unto the said Margell Sech Wedow, all my Reght, Title, Intress, Claim and Demand whatsoever which I mySelfe have, or which my heirs, Executors or Administrators hereafter may have unto the said House and Twenty Acres of Land thereunto adjoyning as aforesaid to have and to hold unto the said Wedow Sech and her heirs by the said John Sech for Ever, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand and Seale this Fourth day of Febre[ar]y[r] 170⁴⁄₅
Sealed & Delivered in the presence of us Poirier Daneell Griffeth Cl[k]e Councell
Rich[d] Swallow [seal]
Memorandum That these words the said Seches: And being Executor to the said Riches were Interlined befor[e] the Ensea[l]ing and Delevery hereof
Island S[t] Helena
Edward Heath to John ffrench Know all Men by these Presents that I Edward Heath of the said Island free planter for and In Consideration of the Sum of Fefty Pounds Currant Money of the said Island to me in hand paed by John French Cheefe Gunner of the Garrison of Fort James before the Sealeing and Delevery of these presents the Receipt whereof I do hereby Acknow- ledge, Have given Granted bargained and Sold and do by these pre- sents freely and absolutely give grant bargain and Sell, unto the Said John French his heers Executors, Administrators, and Assignes, all that Messuage house or Tenement wherein John Hemont of the said Island free planter Lately dwelt, and which the said Edward Heath for a good and Valluable Consideration purchased of the said John Hemons upon his Departeure of the said Island Sectuate Lyeing and being next unto the plantateon of the said Edward Heath Together with a peece or parcell of Land thereunto belonging Containing by Estemateon Seaven Acres and a Halfe, butting and bounding on the Lands of Ripen Wells, John Alexander, and Thomas Beurnham. To have and to hold the said House and Seaven Acres of Land and a halfe as aforesaid unto the said John French his heeres and assignes for Ever, and the said Edward Heath Doth for him his heirs Executors, Administrators, and Assignes Cove- nant and agree to and with the said John French his heers Executors, administrators and assignes, that he Shall have hold, Occupie, possest and Enjoy the said House and Land freely, and quietly without any
Manner
The continuation of the Richard Swallow to Margaret Sech conveyance.
The remaining £70 0s 0d was to be paid on 25 March 1706, the next quarter day after the date of the document. For this consideration and for other good causes, Richard Swallow gave, granted, bargained and sold to Margaret Sech, widow, all his right, title, interest, claim and demand to the house and the twenty acres of land belonging to it. Margaret Sech was to hold the property, with her heirs by John Sech, for ever. Richard Swallow set his hand and seal to the document on 4 February 1705.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Stephen Poirier and Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council.
Richard Swallow, with a seal attached.
Memorandum.
The words "the said Sech's" and "and being Executor to the said Rich's" were interlined in the document before its sealing and delivery.
Island of St Helena.
Edward Heath to John French.
Edward Heath, free planter of the island, made known by these presents that he had received from John French, chief gunner of the garrison of Fort James, the sum of £50 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document. He acknowledged full payment. He gave, granted, bargained and sold to French, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a messuage house or tenement in which John Hemont, free planter of the island, had lately dwelt. Heath had bought the property from Hemont for valuable consideration at the time of Hemont's departure from the island. The property lay next to Heath's own plantation. The conveyance also included a parcel of land of about seven and a half acres, bordering the lands of Ripon Wells, John Alexander and Thomas Burnham. French was to hold the house and seven and a half acres of land, with his heirs and assigns, for ever. Heath bound himself and his successors to allow French to hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the house and land freely and quietly without [...]
Interpretations
The completion of the Richard Swallow to Margaret Sech conveyance confirms the family settlement, with the date of execution recorded as 4 February 1705 and the second instalment due on 25 March 1706, the next Lady Day. The total consideration of £140 0s 0d is also subject to a sharp internal contradiction within the documents reviewed, since the seventy acres mentioned in the opening of the conveyance are converted to twenty acres in the operative grant. The discrepancy points to either a copying error in the recording of the deed or a deliberate narrowing of the property included in the actual conveyance, with the seventy acres serving as the description of the wider family estate and the twenty acres representing the specific parcel transferred. The text as recorded leaves this matter unresolved.
The recording of two interlineations in the memorandum, with the inserted phrases identified by position within the document, reveals the same careful attention to documentary alterations seen in the earlier Casthope to Wells deed. The recording of "the said Sech's" and "and being Executor to the said Rich's" as inserted phrases before the sealing of the deed shows that the council clerk who certified the document was identifying every textual change to prevent later disputes about authenticity. The practice gives confidence that the text as recorded reflects the agreement reached by the parties and ratified at the moment of execution.
Stephen Poirier's signature as a witness to the Swallow to Sech conveyance, alongside Daniel Griffeth as clerk of the council, places the governor himself directly as a witness to the deed rather than merely as an advisor in the background. The combination of governor and council clerk as witnesses gives the deed the highest possible weight of official confirmation, suggesting that the family arrangement was treated as a matter of public significance warranting the personal involvement of the senior officials. The settlement of a substantial estate among the children of a twice-married widow would have been the kind of matter on which the governor's witness was especially valuable.
The phrase her heirs by the said John Sech, used to identify the beneficiaries of the conveyance, reveals an apparent shift in the children's father's name from Richard Sech to John Sech across the two parts of the document. The opening of the deed identifies Margaret Sech's late second husband as Richard Sech, while the operative grant directs the property to her heirs by John Sech. The variation may reflect a clerical error in one or other use of the name, or it may indicate that John Sech was an alternative form of the same person's name. The text does not resolve the question, but the intention to direct the property to the children of the second marriage is clear.
The Heath to French conveyance is dated by reference to the recipient's office as chief gunner of the garrison of Fort James. The designation places John French at the head of the gunnery department of the principal fortification on the island, a senior military position equivalent to the master gunner in other garrisons. The chief gunner would have been responsible for the artillery, the powder stores and the training of the gunners, holding a position of substantial trust within the company's military establishment. French's acquisition of a substantial property at this date reflects his standing as an officer with the resources to make significant private investments.
The price of £50 0s 0d for the house and seven and a half acres gives a per-acre figure of about £6 13s 0d for the land if the house is treated as having no separate value, or much less per acre if the house carries substantial value. The high per-acre rate, even before allowing for the value of the building, places the parcel firmly in the upper end of the island's land market. The location next to Heath's plantation and the identification of neighbouring holders including John Alexander, the same Alexander who served as register of the council, indicates that the property lay in a settled area of established holdings rather than in an upland or marginal location.
The provenance of the parcel is unusual in its specific framing. Heath had bought the property from John Hemont at the time of Hemont's departure from the island, with the timing of the original purchase tied to the seller's exit rather than to any other event. The structure shows that planters preparing to leave the island would dispose of their property to neighbouring holders or other available buyers, with the timing of the sale dictated by their travel plans rather than by the seasonal rhythm of the agricultural year. Heath had positioned himself to take advantage of Hemont's departure to acquire an adjacent parcel that complemented his existing plantation, and was now passing it on to French at the moment when he in turn was ready to release the property.
The identification of three neighbouring holders, Ripon Wells, John Alexander and Thomas Burnham, as the bordering proprietors places the parcel within an established neighbourhood of property dealings recorded across the materials reviewed. Wells appears earlier as the purchaser of the Stevens-Pratt-Casthope ten acres in March 1694 and as the recipient of the Morris house in 1701. Alexander appears repeatedly as a witness, register and copyist. Burnham appears in the 1682 inquest as the holder of twenty acres in Fishers Valley bordering the parcel that Bishop exchanged with Leach. The presence of all three as boundary holders suggests that the parcel lay in a long-settled district where the surrounding properties had been held by the same families across two decades or more.
Speculations
The double calendar reference in the Swallow to Sech conveyance, with the deed dated 4 February 1705 and the second instalment due on 25 March 1706, perhaps reflects a deliberate use of Lady Day as the payment date because it was the start of the new year by old style reckoning. The selection of the new year's day as the trigger for the second payment may have allowed Margaret Sech to align the payment with her own income flows, perhaps with rents or other receipts that came due at quarter days. The timing also gave her over a year to assemble the £70 0s 0d remainder, with the year and a quarter between execution and second payment matching the typical horizon for such arrangements.
The substantial price of £140 0s 0d that Margaret Sech paid for her son's reversionary interest in the Chapel Valley estate suggests that the property was valuable enough to justify a significant commitment from her own resources or from those of the Sech family. The decision to undertake the transaction now, while she was alive and able to direct the outcome, rather than relying on Richard Swallow's promise to provide for his Sech half-siblings after her death, indicates a strong determination to secure a definite result. The legal mechanism converted an uncertain future arrangement into a present cash transfer, eliminating the risk that Richard Swallow might fail to honour informal commitments after gaining full possession on his mother's death.
The presence of Edward Heath as a substantial property accumulator emerges across multiple records. Heath had received ten acres from the company in Peak Gult in exchange for the ten acres formerly held by Samuel Jeffrey, as recorded in the Hoskinson to Powell conveyance of 1704. He now appears as the seller of a different parcel including a house and seven and a half acres to John French in this conveyance. The two transactions together suggest that Heath was actively trading parcels and consolidating his holdings during the early 1700s, using the company's exchange mechanism to obtain land in his preferred locations and selling on other holdings to convert them into cash or to redirect his interests.
John French's acquisition of the Heath property as chief gunner of Fort James fits the pattern by which senior military officers built substantial private estates alongside their official duties. The chief gunner's position would have provided both regular pay and standing within the company's establishment, supporting the resources needed for a £50 0s 0d purchase. French's accumulation of property would have given him an established position on the island that could persist beyond his service in the garrison, providing for retirement or for transition into civilian planter status.
35
Manner of Molestation, or Interruption, of the said Edward Heath or his heirs, Executors, Administrators, or Assignes, or of any other person or persons whatsoever by his Consent Meanes or procurement, and against all people will Warrant the same unto the said John French his heers and assignes for Ever, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and Seale this 13[th] Day of March In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seaven hundred four and five 170⅘
Sealed and Delevered in the presence of us George Hoskison Mathew Bazett Daniell Griffeth
Edward Heath [seal]
Memorandum. That the said John French doth hereby promiss and agree with the said Heath, that in Case he goes of, and Disposes of the said House and Land that he the said Edward Heath, Shall have the forst Offer of the Same Wittness my hand and Seale the day and Year above written
Sealed in the presence Mathew Bazett Daniell Griffeth
John French [seal]
Edward Heath to Paul Charles To all Christian People to whom these presents Shall come Edward Heath of the Island of S[t] Helena free planter Sendeth Greeting Whereas the Governour and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies did by Indenteure bearing date the Seaventh day of March One thousand Six hundred Ninety, three and Four, Demise Sett and Form Sett unto One John Toster of the said Island Souldeier Ten Acres of Land Sectuate and being in Sandy Bay Abutting and bounding on the Right Hon[ble] Companys waste Land, Toward[s] the North, South, East, and West, as in the Margent of the Originall Lease herewith Delevered and Assigned Over I[s] set forth, To have and to hold the said premises to him the said John Toster his Executors, administrators, and Assignes for the Term of Twenty One years, upon Condition that he or they or either of them, pay Yearly and Every year, dueing the said Term, unto the said Company the Sum of Fourty Shillings at four quaterly payments, and the Dutys & Customes that Shall become due from the same as In and by the said Indenteure of Originall Lease it doth and may appear; The Right Intres[t], and State of which said John Toster In the said Land and premisses; The said Ed- ward Heath by good and Lawfull Affeurance and Conveyance In the Law, hath since Obtained, and now hath and Holdeth. Now these presents Wittnesseth that the said Edward Heath for the Sum of Sixty pounds of Lawfull Monney of the said Island to him by Paul Charles of the said Island Free planter In hand paid the Receipt whereof he doth Acknowledge, hath given granted and assigned and Sett Over unto the said Paul Charles, All the Right Title, Intrest, & Tarms of years yet to Come, and Unexpered of and in the said Demised Lands and Premises, together with the Originall Lease, To have and to hold the Said
The continuation of the Edward Heath to John French conveyance.
Edward Heath bound himself and his successors to allow French to hold and enjoy the property without any hindrance or interruption from him, his heirs, executors, administrators, assigns or anyone acting through him. He warranted the title against all challengers to French and his successors for ever. He set his hand and seal to the document on 13 March 1705.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of George Hoskinson, Matthew Bazett and Daniel Griffeth.
Edward Heath, with a seal attached.
Memorandum.
John French promised and agreed with Heath that if he should leave the island and dispose of the house and land, Heath would have the first offer of the property. French set his hand and seal to the memorandum on the same day and year as the main conveyance.
Sealed in the presence of Matthew Bazett and Daniel Griffeth.
John French, with a seal attached.
Edward Heath to Paul Charles.
Edward Heath, free planter of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting. He set out the background to the transaction. The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies had, by indenture dated 7 March 1694, leased ten acres of land in Sandy Bay to John Toster, soldier of the same island. The land was bounded on all sides, north, south, east and west, by the Right Honourable Company's waste land, as set out in the margin of the original lease, which was delivered and assigned over with the present document. Toster was to hold the premises, with his executors, administrators and assigns, for twenty-one years, on condition that he paid the company a yearly rent of forty shillings in four quarterly payments, together with the duties and customs that became due on the land, as set out in the original lease. The right, interest and estate of John Toster in the premises had since been transferred to Heath by lawful conveyance, and Heath now held them. By the present document, Heath, in consideration of the sum of £60 0s 0d in lawful money of the island paid to him by Paul Charles, free planter of the island, gave, granted, assigned and made over to Charles all his right, title, interest and unexpired term in the leased land and premises, together with the original lease. Charles was to hold the [...]
Interpretations
The Heath to French memorandum of 13 March 1705 attached to the main conveyance reveals a right of first refusal granted by the buyer to the seller, an inversion of the more common arrangement seen elsewhere in the records. The Frenches' arrangement with Bagley of 1708 had given Bagley first refusal on the Frenches' property if they left the island. The Heath to French memorandum applies the same mechanism but in favour of the seller rather than the buyer, with Heath retaining a contingent right to reacquire the property if French ever left the island and chose to sell. The structure allowed Heath to preserve his connection to a property he had bought from Hemont and was now passing on to French, perhaps reflecting his sentimental or strategic interest in the parcel adjoining his own plantation.
The dual dating clause of the Heath to French conveyance, recording the year as 1704 and 1705, follows the convention seen elsewhere of acknowledging both the old style year and the new style year for dates falling before 25 March. The execution on 13 March 1705 by modern reckoning fell within the period when the year could be written as 1704 by old style, since the new year did not begin until Lady Day. The recording of both forms in the dating clause shows the careful attention to calendar conventions that characterised the island's documentary practice.
The Heath to Charles conveyance describes a different kind of property interest from the freehold transactions that dominate the records. The transaction transfers a leasehold interest, with Charles taking over the remainder of a twenty-one-year term that John Toster had originally received from the company in 1694. The structure shows that the company's leasehold system created tradeable interests that could be assigned between parties for cash consideration, with the remaining term carrying value that could be realised by the lessee through onward sale.
The annual rent of forty shillings for ten acres of Sandy Bay land, paid in quarterly instalments to the company, establishes the rate at which the company's leasehold land was let to its tenants. The figure works out to about four shillings per acre per year. The fact that the company charged a rent at all, rather than simply granting the land in freehold, indicates that it preserved Sandy Bay land within a leasehold framework distinct from the freehold arrangements of valley and upland parcels. The reason for this distinction is not stated in the document, but it may reflect the company's desire to retain ultimate control over coastal land that was useful for its own purposes such as livestock grazing or strategic access to the shoreline.
The price of £60 0s 0d that Charles paid Heath for the unexpired term of the leasehold gives a substantial valuation for what was now a leasehold interest with about eight years still to run, from 1705 to the expiry in 1715. The figure indicates that the leasehold interest carried considerable present value despite its term limitation, perhaps reflecting the productivity of the Sandy Bay land or the additional improvements that Heath or Toster had added during their occupation. The high price for a leasehold also suggests that the company's annual rent of forty shillings was significantly below the market value of the land, leaving substantial economic rent to the lessee that the leasehold interest captured.
The chain of title for the Sandy Bay leasehold runs from the company's grant to John Toster on 7 March 1694, through an unspecified intermediate conveyance by which Heath acquired Toster's interest, to the present assignment to Paul Charles. The transactions show that the company's leasehold interests, like the freehold parcels, could move through multiple holders during the term of a single lease, with each transfer requiring formal documentation. The original lease document was physically delivered to the new holder as part of the assignment, providing him with the primary evidence of the underlying grant on which his title rested.
The transfer of the original lease document to Charles, alongside the assignment deed, reveals how the documentary infrastructure of leasehold transactions operated. The original lease was the foundational instrument that established the company's grant and the lessee's obligations, and possession of that document was essential evidence of the title. The practice of physically transferring the original lease to each successive assignee ensured that the current holder always had the primary evidence of his interest, even as the assignment record-trail accumulated additional documents recording the successive transfers.
The Sandy Bay location of the leasehold parcel, bounded entirely by the company's waste land, places it in the same configuration as the Cole holding at the head of Deep Valley, which was also surrounded entirely by company waste. The isolation of the parcel from neighbouring private holdings would have made it a discrete unit easily identifiable on the ground, with no boundary disputes possible because the surrounding land belonged solely to the company. The arrangement gave the lessee an enclosed working space within the broader company-held coastal lands.
The phrase good and lawful assurance and conveyance in the law, used to describe the intermediate transaction by which Heath acquired Toster's interest, indicates that the original lease had been formally assigned to Heath by a recorded transaction equivalent to a freehold conveyance. The use of formal legal language to describe the earlier assignment shows that leasehold assignments operated under the same documentary standards as freehold conveyances, with each transfer creating a binding legal interest that could be passed on to subsequent assignees.
Speculations
The first refusal granted by John French to Edward Heath suggests that the parcel had a continuing significance to Heath that went beyond the price he had received for it. Heath's plantation lay next to the property, and his interest in preserving the option to reacquire it if French ever sold may have reflected concerns about future neighbours rather than simple sentiment. By securing first refusal, Heath ensured that he could choose to take the parcel back into his ownership rather than leaving the decision about its next holder to French alone. The arrangement reveals how landholders used documentary mechanisms to manage their long-term neighbourhood relationships, with first refusal clauses providing protection against unwelcome changes in the surrounding properties.
The company's choice to lease Sandy Bay land for twenty-one-year terms at fixed rents, rather than granting it in freehold, perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy of preserving control over particular categories of land that the company expected to need for its own purposes at some future date. Sandy Bay's coastal position would have been valuable for landings, livestock grazing or other uses that the company might want to resume at the end of the lease terms. The leasehold structure allowed the company to extract income from the land during the interim while retaining the right to reclaim it at the end of the term, providing flexibility that the freehold grants did not allow.
The substantial price of £60 0s 0d that Charles paid for the remaining eight years of the Sandy Bay leasehold indicates that the lease was a valuable property even with the limited term. The figure works out to roughly £7 10s 0d per remaining year of the leasehold, far above the forty-shilling annual rent paid to the company. The differential reflects the captured economic value of the lease, with the leasehold interest extracting most of the productive value of the land while the company received only its fixed rent. The arrangement was profitable for the lessee but represented a significant under-collection of value by the company, which had let the land at rents that did not capture its full economic potential.
The presence of Paul Charles as a new buyer in the records expands the population of identified property holders on the island during the early 1700s. Charles does not appear elsewhere in the materials reviewed under this name, suggesting that he was either a relatively recent arrival or a settler whose other transactions fell outside the period covered. His willingness to commit £60 0s 0d to a leasehold interest of limited term indicates that he had access to substantial resources and saw value in establishing a position in the Sandy Bay area. The transaction adds him to the growing roster of active participants in the island's property market by the middle of the first decade of the new century.
36
Lands and premises unto the said Paul Charles his Executors Administrat[ors] and Assignes from the day of the date of these presents unto the full End and Term of years yet to Come or be unexpired, and the said Edward Heath doth for him, his heers Executors, Administrators Covenant and Grant To and with the said Paul Charles his Executors, Administratorrs and assignes, that he Shall peaceably and quietly have hold Occupice and Enjoy the said Land and premises, with theer Appurtences, without any Eviction or Expulsion Let or Disturbance of any person whatsoever, claiming any Intrest in the premises or any part thereof, by from or under the said Edward Heath his heers, or assigns, or by from or under the said John Toster his heers or Assignes, And shall Indeemnify and keep harmless the said Paul Charls, his Executors Administra[tors] and assignes, Stand from all Manner of Suits, Costs, and Damages, Either in Law or otherwise, which he the said Paul Charles, his Executors, Administrators, or Assignes, may or Shall at any time hereafter Sustain for, or by Reason of the Innallidety, or Insefficciendy of the said Edward Heath, Title, To, or Intrest in the said demissed Premises, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 13 day of March One thousand Seven hundred four and five 170⅘
Sealed and Delivered in the presence of Poirier Daneell Griffeth Cl[k]e of the Councell Samuell Des Fontaines
Edward Heath [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
John Toster to Edward Heath Whereas the Governour and Company of Merchants Tradeing to the East Indies, did by theer Indenteure of Lease bearing date the Seaventh day of March 1693½ Demise and Farm Lett unto One John Toster of the said Island Souldeier, Ten Acres of Land Abutting & bounding as In the Margein of the said Oreginall Lease herewith Delivered Is set forth, To hold the Same for Time and Term of Twenty One yearrs upon condetion therein Mentioned, whose Right and Intrest therein hath since been assigned Over and Come to the hands and possession of Edward Heath of the said Island Free planter, who hath Since Likewise Assigned, and made Over his Right, and Intrest, and Term of Yearrs which are Yet to Come and unexpered In the same being Ten yearrs Yet to Come, and No more for a good and Valueable Considerateon unto Paul Charles of the said Island Free planter, Who upon Application to the Governour and Councell to grant the same for a longer Term, and time hath Obtained for Nonety None years The Governour and Company of Merchants Tradeing to the East Indees Do hereby Grant and Confirm unto Paul Charles of the said Island, Free planter, the said Ten Acres of Land in Sandy Bay formerly Demissed unto John Toster, Souldeier, Abutting and Bounding as in the Oregenall Leas[e] is set forth, to have and to hold the said premises to him the said Paul Charles his heers Executors, Administrators and Assignes, for and dueing the Time and Term of Ninety None Years, to Commence from the Expiration
[and]
The continuation of the Edward Heath to Paul Charles assignment.
Paul Charles was to hold the land and premises, with all appurtenances, to himself, his executors, administrators and assigns, from the date of the document until the full end of the unexpired term. Edward Heath bound himself and his successors to allow Charles to hold the land peaceably and quietly without any eviction, expulsion, hindrance or disturbance from any person claiming an interest in the premises through Heath, his heirs, assigns, or through John Toster, his heirs or assigns. Heath also bound himself to indemnify Charles and his successors against any suits, costs or damages, in law or otherwise, arising from any invalidity or insufficiency in Heath's title or interest in the leased premises. He set his hand and seal to the document on 13 March 1705.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Stephen Poirier, Daniel Griffeth, clerk of the council, and Samuel Des Fontaines.
Edward Heath, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
John Toster to Edward Heath, with subsequent grant to Paul Charles.
The Governor and Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies, by indenture of lease dated 7 March 1694, demised and farm let to John Toster, soldier of the island, ten acres of land. The bounds were set out in the margin of the original lease, which was delivered with the present document. Toster was to hold the land for twenty-one years on the conditions stated in the lease. His right and interest had since been assigned to Edward Heath, free planter of the island. Heath had in turn assigned his right, interest and the ten years of the term still to run to Paul Charles, free planter of the island, for valuable consideration. Charles applied to the governor and council for a longer term and obtained an extension to ninety-nine years. The Governor and Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies, by the present grant, granted and confirmed to Paul Charles the ten acres of land in Sandy Bay formerly demised to Toster, on the bounds set out in the original lease. Charles was to hold the premises, with his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, for ninety-nine years from the expiration [...]
Interpretations
The grant of an extended ninety-nine-year term to Paul Charles, following his application to the governor and council, reveals a procedure by which leaseholders could approach the company for an extension of their term beyond the original twenty-one years. The arrangement effectively converted the residual ten-year leasehold that Charles had bought from Heath into a much longer-term interest, transforming the value of the leasehold and the planning horizon for the holder. The extension required the agreement of both the local governor and council on the island and the underlying authority of the company in London, which the grant treated as a single act by combining the two levels of decision-making in a unified instrument.
The ninety-nine-year term is the standard long lease in English property law, equivalent in commercial terms to a near-freehold interest because of its length relative to a normal human lifetime. The grant of such a term to Charles, on application, suggests that the company was prepared to convert its short-term leaseholds into effectively perpetual interests in exchange for the renewed engagement of the lessee. The procedure may have been designed to encourage long-term investment in the land by removing the uncertainty that came with shorter terms approaching expiry. The conversion would have justified greater investment in improvements such as buildings, hedges and water systems, which would have benefited both the lessee and the company at the end of the eventual term.
The specific dating of the original Toster lease as 7 March 1694, written in the document as 1693/4 in the dual form, anchors the lease firmly within the calendar conventions of the period. The date fell just before Lady Day 1694, so by old style reckoning the year remained 1693 while the modern year was already 1694. The use of the dual form in this 1705 document, eleven years after the original lease, shows that the careful calendar conventions of the late seventeenth century were maintained in the records even when the dates being referenced no longer required such precision.
The ten-year residual term carried in the 1705 assignment from Heath to Charles fixes the original twenty-one-year lease as expiring in 1715. The mathematical relationship between the 1694 lease date and the ten remaining years in 1705 confirms that the original term had been twenty-one years, with eleven years already elapsed by the time of the assignment. The new ninety-nine-year term, granted to commence from the expiration of the existing ten years, would therefore have run from 1715 until 1814, a near-century extension that effectively secured the property for Charles's lifetime and several generations beyond.
The chain of title for the leasehold establishes a particular pattern of property movement. The company's original lease to a soldier, John Toster, in 1694, followed by transfer to a free planter, Edward Heath, and onward to another free planter, Paul Charles, traces the movement of company land from military to civilian hands through the assignment of leasehold interests. The pattern parallels the path seen in freehold transactions, where soldiers acquired land during their service and then sold or transferred it to civilian holders. The leasehold structure provided the same mechanism for movement between sectors of the island population while preserving the company's underlying interest in the land.
The application by Charles to the governor and council for the extended term suggests an active process of engagement between the lessee and the company's local administration. Charles had to identify himself, explain his interest in the parcel and persuade the governor and council that the extension was warranted. The decision rested on the local administration's judgment about the merits of the application, with no apparent requirement for reference back to the company in London. The arrangement gave the local government substantial autonomy in administering the company's land, with the ability to commit the underlying freehold interest for periods far beyond the tenure of any individual official.
The witness list for the Heath to Charles deed of 13 March 1705 includes Stephen Poirier, then governor, and Samuel Des Fontaines, the soldier who had bought the Mathews ten acres from Sergeant Dixon in November 1701. The presence of the governor as a personal witness to a leasehold assignment matches his earlier signature on the Swallow to Sech conveyance of 4 February 1705, indicating that Poirier was active in his official capacity at this time and willing to lend his witness to significant transactions. Des Fontaines's appearance as a witness, four years after his own acquisition of property, places him among the literate witnesses available for formal conveyancing on the island and confirms his continuing presence in the island's settler population.
The indemnity clause in the Heath to Charles deed represents a more developed form of seller's warranty than the standard quiet enjoyment covenant. Heath undertook not only to allow Charles to hold the property without interference but to compensate Charles for any losses suffered through defects in Heath's title or interest in the leased premises. The clause shifted financial risk from the buyer to the seller's estate, with Charles entitled to claim against Heath for damages, costs and other consequences of any title problem that might emerge. The structure reflects the increasing sophistication of conveyancing practice on the island, with detailed allocation of risk between the parties through specific contractual provisions.
Speculations
The extension of Charles's leasehold from ten years to ninety-nine years on a single application points to a flexible administrative practice by which the governor and council could effectively convert short-term leases into long-term interests when it suited both the lessee and the company. The grant of such an extended term may have required the payment of an additional sum or the assumption of new obligations not recorded in the documents reviewed, although the brief description does not specify any such requirement. The conversion may also have aligned with broader company policy at the time, perhaps reflecting a shift toward longer-term leasing as a means of encouraging settlement and investment.
The chain by which the Sandy Bay parcel moved from the soldier John Toster in 1694 to the free planter Edward Heath, and onward to the free planter Paul Charles, in 1705, traces a typical path of leasehold succession across about a decade. The pattern of military-to-civilian movement followed by an extension of the term suggests that the parcel had become productive enough during the original term to attract sustained civilian interest. Charles's willingness to pay £60 0s 0d for the residual ten years, and then to apply for a ninety-nine-year extension, indicates that he expected to derive substantial value from the parcel over the much longer horizon now available to him.
The procedure for applying to the governor and council for a leasehold extension represents one of several ways in which the company's land administration interacted with private interests on the island. The exchange mechanism by which Hoskinson and Heath had earlier traded parcels with the company in 1704 was another such procedure, allowing planters to reshape their holdings through company-mediated transactions. The combination of exchanges and extensions gave the local administration significant flexibility in managing the company's land interests, while providing planters with mechanisms for adjusting their positions in ways that mere market transactions could not achieve.
The presence of Stephen Poirier as governor in both the Swallow to Sech conveyance of February 1705 and the Heath to Charles assignment of March 1705 confirms his continuing tenure during the early months of that year. His personal witness to two unrelated transactions within a five-week period suggests an active engagement with the significant property dealings of the island, perhaps reflecting a deliberate policy of providing the highest official endorsement to the more substantial transactions or those involving particular family circumstances or extended leasehold arrangements. The pattern places Poirier in a notably hands-on role compared with the more distant oversight that might have characterised other periods of company administration.
37
and End of the Time and Term of years granted unto the said John Toster and Assignes, Neverthelefs upon the Same Condition the Worshipefull Govern[r] and Councell have Lett the Same unto the said John Toster and Assignes, In Wittness wher[e]of the Governour and Company to one part hereof have set their Comon Seale and the said Paul Charles hath to the other part Set to his hand this 13[th] day of March 170⅘
Sealed and Delevered in the presence of us Po[i]rior Tho[s] Goodwin
Elizabeth Rhoades to John Cotgrave This Indenture made the 27[th] day of October Anno Domino 1687 In the third year of the Reigne of our Soveraigne Lord James the 2 of England Scotland France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c[a] Between Elizabeth Rhoades of the Island of S[t] Helena Wife true and Lawsfull Attorney of William Rhoades of the said Island, (who is now Affsent from the Same) on the one part and John Cotgrave of the said Island planter on the other part Wittnesseth that the said Elizabeth Rhoads on the behalf of the Said William Rhoades (her Husband now Affsent) for and in Consideration of Ten pounds whereof feer pounds in hand paied before the Ensealing and Delivery of these presents, or Six pounds of the vallue thereof in Island provissions for the Shipping, as Bacon Fowles &c[a] to be paied on the 24 day of June Next Enseeing which will be in the year of our Lord 1688 Have Demissed Granted, and to Sharms Sett unto the said John Cotgrave his heirs Execut[ors] Administratorrs and assignes all that piece or parcell of Land, known by the Name of Rhoades plantation Containing by Estimateon Ten Acres, be the Same more or Less Sectuate Lyeing and being att the head of Sharkes Valley abutting and bounding on the Lands, now in the Tennuere and Occupation of Praise Pledger planterr on the East, In the North upon Ten Acres of Land now in the possession of John Stevens planter on the West, upon the Hon[ble] the Lords proprietarers Common or Wast Land, and towards the South upon twenty Acres of Land, now in the Tennuere and Possession of John Knipe planters which Land was in the possession and Occupation of the said William Rhoads before his Affsence, and is now Im- mediately before the Date of these presents in the Enjoyment and possession of the said Elizabeth Rhoades, (Wife and Lawfull Attorney of the Said W[m] Rhoades &c[a]) Together with all and Singulair the appurtenances thereof, &c[a] the Timber and wood groweing thereon, and all other the Conveniences whats[o] soever thereunto belongeng, To Have hold Occupice and quicelly, to Enjoy the said piece or parcell of Ten Acres of Land, with all other the premeses with the appurtenances unto the said John Cotgrave his heers Executors Administ[ra] trators and assignes, Immediately from the Date of these presents Until the term and time of Ninety anfsl Nine years be fully & Compleatly Deter- minated and Expired, Y[i]elding and paying for the Same Yearly dueing the said term and time of Fourtscore and Nineteen yearr unto the Said William Rhoades, or unto Elizabeth Rhoades his Wife and Lawfull Attorney hes
The continuation of the company's grant to Paul Charles.
Charles was to hold the parcel after the expiration of the term granted to John Toster and his assigns, on the same conditions on which the worshipful governor and council had let the land to Toster and his assigns. The Governor and Company set their common seal to one part of the document, and Paul Charles set his hand to the other part. The document was sealed on 13 March 1705.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin.
Elizabeth Rhodes to John Cotgrave.
This indenture was made on 27 October 1687, in the third year of the reign of King James the Second of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, between Elizabeth Rhodes, wife and lawful attorney of William Rhodes, then absent from the island, of the one part, and John Cotgrave, planter of the same island, of the other part. Elizabeth Rhodes acted on behalf of her absent husband. In consideration of £10 0s 0d, of which £4 0s 0d had been paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document, and the remaining £6 0s 0d to be paid in island provisions for the shipping, including bacon, fowls and other items, on 24 June 1688, she demised, granted and farm-let to John Cotgrave, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a parcel of land known as Rhodes plantation. The parcel contained about ten acres at the head of Sharks Valley. It bordered, on the east, land then held and occupied by Praise Pledger, planter; on the north, ten acres then held by John Stevens, planter; on the west, the Honourable Lords Proprietors' common or waste land; and on the south, twenty acres then held by John Knipe, planter. The parcel had been in William Rhodes's possession before his absence and was now in the possession of Elizabeth Rhodes as his wife and lawful attorney. The conveyance included all appurtenances, the timber and wood growing on the land, and all other associated conveniences. Cotgrave was to hold the ten acres, with all appurtenances, from the date of the document until the full end of a term of ninety-nine years. During the term, he was to pay William Rhodes, or Elizabeth Rhodes as his lawful attorney, a yearly rent [...]
Interpretations
The Elizabeth Rhodes to John Cotgrave indenture of 27 October 1687 is a leasehold transaction for ninety-nine years, with the seller acting under a power of attorney granted by her absent husband. The arrangement parallels the more recent Mary Carne and Margaret Cotgrave transactions in which wives acted as attorneys for absent husbands or for deceased relatives. The 1687 deed shows that the practice was already well established within the island's conveyancing system by the late seventeenth century, with the legal instrument of attorneyship enabling the orderly transfer of property even when the principal was unable to act in person.
The price structure of £4 0s 0d in cash paid in hand and £6 0s 0d in island provisions due the following June reveals a sophisticated arrangement that combined immediate currency with deferred payment in agricultural commodities. The provisions specified included bacon and fowls, indicating that the obligation would be discharged through the delivery of preserved meat and live or dressed poultry rather than cash. The destination of these provisions was the shipping, meaning the East India Company ships that called at the island, suggesting that Rhodes either supplied provisions directly to the company stores or received them as a credit against future cash settlement. The arrangement converted the price partly into a commitment to supply provisions of a kind specifically required by the company's main customers, the ships passing through the island.
The reference to the Honourable Lords Proprietors' common or waste land as the western boundary of the Rhodes plantation marks a distinctive form of address for the East India Company's underlying interest in the island. The phrase Lords Proprietors places the company in the position of feudal-style proprietors of the island, with their authority over the land deriving from their charter as the proprietors of the colony. The use of this language in 1687 reflects the language used in the company's early documents and parallels the language used for other proprietary colonies in the period, before the more bureaucratic phrasing of company common and company waste settled into standard use.
The ninety-nine-year term of the Rhodes to Cotgrave lease, granted in 1687, anticipates by eighteen years the same length of term granted by the company to Paul Charles in 1705. The earlier date of the Rhodes lease establishes that ninety-nine-year terms were already in use on the island by 1687 for private leasehold transactions between settlers, well before the company itself began granting such extended terms on its own land. The pattern suggests that private practice may have led the way on long-term leasing, with the company's own administration adopting similar terms only later.
The naming of the parcel as Rhodes plantation marks the assignment of a recognised name to a specific landholding, treating the property as a named estate rather than merely as a numbered or located parcel. The practice of naming plantations was widespread in other English colonies of the period, but its appearance here on St Helena indicates that the island's settler society had developed enough stability and identification with particular holdings to give them their own names. The Rhodes plantation continued to be identified by name in the title even as it changed hands, preserving the family identification with the parcel across the transfer.
The chain of identified neighbours, with Praise Pledger to the east, John Stevens to the north and John Knipe to the south, provides another snapshot of the Sharks Valley settler population in 1687. Pledger appears as a free planter active in the area, with the unusual first name Praise marking him as probably a Puritan or Nonconformist settler from a tradition that favoured virtue names. John Stevens connects to the John Stevens whose ten acres in Sarahs Valley had been sold to Joseph Pratt and onward to James Casthope in the 1680s and 1690s, although whether the same man held land in both districts is not specified. John Knipe is a new figure not encountered elsewhere in the records reviewed.
The transaction was structured as a leasehold rather than a freehold sale, despite the very long term of ninety-nine years. The choice perhaps reflected the absence of William Rhodes, with his wife as attorney not wishing to convey the freehold outright in case her husband returned and wanted to resume the property. The leasehold structure preserved the underlying freehold interest in the Rhodes family while granting Cotgrave essentially permanent use rights, achieving most of the commercial purpose of a sale while keeping the formal freehold reserved.
The annual rent due during the ninety-nine years would have been payable to William Rhodes or to Elizabeth Rhodes as his attorney, with the specific amount [carried over in the document]. The continuing obligation gave the Rhodes family a perpetual stream of small payments during the term, providing a permanent income from the parcel even after the immediate cash and provisions price had been received. The arrangement combined the benefits of a sale, with substantial immediate payment, and the benefits of a tenancy, with continuing receipt of rents over a long period.
The date of 27 October 1687 places the transaction within the third year of the reign of King James the Second, the same monarch whose regnal year is recorded in the Philip Savage to John Fuller conveyance of March 1686 and in the Joseph Pratt to James Casthope conveyance of July 1687. The three deeds together establish that the island's conveyancing practice consistently included the regnal year as part of the formal dating during this brief reign, in the same way that earlier and later deeds recorded the regnal years of William and Mary, Anne and other monarchs.
Speculations
The decision by Elizabeth Rhodes to lease the parcel for ninety-nine years rather than sell it outright perhaps reflected concern about the position she would be in if her husband returned. The terms of her power of attorney may have permitted leasing but not outright sale, requiring her to retain the underlying freehold interest in his name. The arrangement gave her the practical equivalent of a sale, with substantial immediate consideration plus continuing rents, while protecting her position against any later objection by her husband. The structure illustrates how attorneys managed the boundary between necessary action and the protection of the principal's interests.
The form of the deferred payment in island provisions for the shipping, with bacon and fowls specifically named, suggests that Cotgrave was either a planter who would produce these commodities or had access to them through his commercial network. The destination of the provisions, the shipping calling at the island, indicates that the company maintained a regular demand for such supplies for its passing vessels. The transaction effectively channelled part of the price through the island's provisioning trade with the company, with Cotgrave delivering provisions in lieu of cash and Rhodes accepting them either for direct supply to the ships or for sale through other channels.
The substantial size of the Rhodes plantation, with its named status and the long lease term of ninety-nine years, points to its importance within the Sharks Valley settler society of the 1680s. The eventual movement of the property into the Cotgrave household and then to Margaret Cotgrave as widow, traced across the records reviewed, shows how a single established holding could anchor a family's presence in the area over multiple decades. The Cotgrave acquisition through the leasehold mechanism gave them effective control over the parcel for the rest of the century and beyond, with the underlying Rhodes interest becoming a residual claim that survived only in name.
The unusual practice of including timber and wood growing on the land within the conveyance, alongside the standard appurtenances, recalls the earlier and contemporary concern with timber as a separate property element on the island. The Jeffrey to Kersey memorandum of 1683 had penalised the seller for cutting wood after the sale. The Savage to Fuller deed of 1686 had named timber trees as part of the conveyance. The Rhodes to Cotgrave lease of 1687 took the more inclusive approach of explicitly transferring the timber and wood growing on the land to the lessee, suggesting that lease arrangements at this date routinely included rights to timber as part of the working substance of the leasehold.
38
his, or her heirs Executors and assignes, the Sum or Vallue of one popp or Same (as an Acknowledgment) by the year upon the feast of S[t] Michaell the archangle, if the Same Shall be Lawsfully and duly demanded, and further the said Elizabeth Rhoades Wife and Attorney for the said W[m] Rhoades doth on the behalfe of the said William Rhoades Covenant to and with the said John Cotgrave his heirs &c[a] by these presents, that he the said W[m] Rhoads, and Elizabeth his Wife, and the heers and assignes of the said W[m] Rhoads all the aforesaid piece or parcell of Ten Acres of Land be the Same more or Less, with the appurtenances and other the premises whatsoever to the said In[o] Cotgrave his heers Executors and assignes, for and dueing the aforesaid forme of Ninety and Nine yearr in Manner and form as aforesaid, against him the aforesaid William Rhoades his heirs and assignes, and against all other person or persons whatsoever Lawsfully Claimong the said piece or parcell of Ten Acres of Land, and other the premises or any part thereof, In, by From or under them the said William Rhoads, and Elizabeth his Wife and Lawsfull Attorney his heers and assignes, Shall and will Warrant, Acquitt, Discharge, or otherwise Sufficiently, Save and Keeps harmless, and Defend by these presents, the Dutys for Land[s] of all other afsessments that is or Shall be Levied any ways Excepted The Same beeing to be paied by the Said John Cotgrave his heers &c[a] In Wittness Thereof the Said Elizabeth Rhoades (as an Attorney, fully Impowered, and absolutely Obleidged by the presents) hath putt to her hand and Seale the day and Year forst above Written
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of Tho[s] Smoult John Nicholls Jn[o] Stevens Ric[d] Keling
Elez[th] Rhoads [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
The Particular Coppys and Entryes of this Register Book was Drawn from an old Book being unbound and Decay[ed] by Ratts &c[a] Now duly Examined by the Cl[k] of our Councell in the Presence of us, In Wittness whereunto we Subscribe our Names at[t] Fort James This Eighteenth day of December, One Thousand Seven Hundred & Seven
Attested by
Jn[o] Alexander Cl[k]
Thomas Greene
Tho[s] Goodwin Edw[d] Washborne W[m] Marsden
The continuation of the Elizabeth Rhodes to John Cotgrave lease.
The annual rent reserved during the ninety-nine years was the value of one peppercorn, payable to William Rhodes, Elizabeth Rhodes as his attorney, or their heirs, executors and assigns, on the feast of St Michael the Archangel, if lawfully demanded. Elizabeth Rhodes, acting on behalf of her husband, bound him and his heirs to warrant the title against any claim by William Rhodes, his heirs and assigns, or by any other person claiming through them. She undertook to acquit, discharge and keep Cotgrave harmless, with the exception of duties on land or other assessments levied on the parcel, which were to be paid by Cotgrave and his successors. As attorney fully empowered to bind William Rhodes under the present document, she set her hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Smoult, John Nicholls, John Stevens and Richard Keeling.
Elizabeth Rhodes, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
The particular copies and entries in the present register book were drawn from an older book that had become unbound and decayed by rats. The clerk of the council had now examined the entries in the presence of the witnesses named below. The witnesses subscribed their names at Fort James on 18 December 1707.
Attested by John Alexander, clerk.
Thomas Greene, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Washborne and William Marsden.
Interpretations
The reservation of a single peppercorn as the annual rent in the Rhodes to Cotgrave lease reveals the use of a nominal rent to preserve the legal form of a tenancy while extracting no real economic value from the lessee. The peppercorn rent was a standard English conveyancing device that allowed a long lease to take effect as a tenancy in law without imposing any genuine financial obligation on the lessee. The arrangement combined the legal advantages of a tenancy, with continuing recognition of the underlying freehold interest, with the commercial substance of an outright transfer for the duration of the term. The Rhodes family received their immediate payment in cash and provisions and then a token peppercorn annually for ninety-nine years, with the substantive ownership effectively passing to the Cotgrave household.
The choice of St Michael's Day, 29 September, as the annual due date for the peppercorn rent corresponds with one of the four English quarter days. The quarter days, Lady Day on 25 March, Midsummer on 24 June, Michaelmas on 29 September and Christmas on 25 December, structured the annual cycle of rent payment, debt settlement, contract renewal and other periodic obligations. The use of Michaelmas as the rent day in the 1687 Rhodes lease shows that the English calendar of administrative periods had been transplanted to the island and was used to organise property transactions in the same way as in England itself.
The phrase if the Same Shall be Lawfully and duly demanded, attached to the peppercorn rent obligation, reveals that the rent was payable only on demand rather than automatically. The Rhodes family or its successors would need to make a formal demand for the peppercorn each Michaelmas if they wished to enforce the payment, and absent such demand the rent did not become due. The conditional structure further reduced the practical significance of the rent obligation, since failure to demand the peppercorn for any year would extinguish that year's claim. The arrangement effectively meant that the rent existed primarily as a legal formality, with little expectation that it would actually be collected.
The exception clause for duties on land and other assessments shifts the burden of any taxes or governmental charges to the lessee Cotgrave. The structure was standard in long leasehold arrangements, where the lessee took on the obligations associated with the working possession of the land while the underlying lessor retained only the residual interest. The clause indicates that the island administration imposed some form of land-based assessments by 1687, with property holders required to pay duties on their parcels. The nature and amount of these assessments are not specified in the document, but their existence reveals an early form of land taxation on the island.
The attestation clause of 18 December 1707 records a major administrative event in the island's record-keeping. The original register book had become unbound and decayed by rats, requiring the entire body of entries to be copied into a new book. John Alexander, as clerk of the council, oversaw the copying and presented the new book for verification by senior witnesses. The fact that this verification took place at Fort James, with Thomas Goodwin among the attesting witnesses, places the event at the centre of the company's administration on the island.
The damage to the original register by rats reveals a vulnerability of the island's documentary infrastructure to the local environment. Rats were a significant pest on St Helena throughout the period, having arrived with the ships and multiplied in the absence of natural predators. The destruction of paper records by such pests would have been a real and continuing problem, with the eventual decay of the original register requiring its replacement. The recopying of the entries into a new book preserved the legal record but introduced the possibility of copying errors that could affect the reliability of the recreated text.
The attestation of the new register by John Alexander as clerk, alongside Thomas Greene, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Washborne and William Marsden, provides a careful evidentiary foundation for the recopied entries. The combination of the clerk who had carried out the work with four senior witnesses gave the new book the weight needed to substitute for the original. The witnesses included Thomas Goodwin, who by 18 December 1707 had been governor of the island, and the other named witnesses included substantial figures from the island's administrative establishment.
The recopying of the register in late 1707 also explains certain features of the documents reviewed across the materials. The frequent appearance of John Alexander as clerk certifying earlier deeds reflects his role in copying those deeds from the original register into the new book. The Vera Copia notations attached to many of the documents, indicating that they were true copies certified by Alexander, represent his work in the recopying process. The new register therefore presents the deeds at one remove from their original form, with the integrity of the entries depending on the accuracy of the copying work undertaken in 1707.
The date of 18 December 1707 places the attestation just three days after the Goodwin to Hoskinson memorandum of 16 December 1707. The temporal proximity suggests that Goodwin in his capacity as governor was actively present at Fort James during this period, attending to both his official duties in attesting the register and his private transactions in selling property to Hoskinson. The pattern reveals how the highest administrative responsibility on the island intersected directly with the personal property interests of the man holding the office.
Speculations
The use of a peppercorn rent in the 1687 Rhodes to Cotgrave lease was perhaps designed to address the specific situation of an absent husband whose return could not be predicted. By preserving a nominal continuing relationship between the Rhodes family and the parcel, the arrangement maintained the freehold interest in William Rhodes's name while granting practical control to Cotgrave for the very long term of ninety-nine years. If William Rhodes had returned during that period, his theoretical position as freeholder would have been preserved, although the practical consequences for Cotgrave's leasehold would have been minimal given the length of the term. The structure provided maximum flexibility for the future while securing the immediate exchange of consideration.
The reconstruction of the register in 1707, after rats had destroyed the original book, perhaps reflects a wider concern with the security of the island's documentary records during this period. The careful recopying and attestation of the new book at Fort James, with the governor himself among the witnesses, indicates that the company's administration recognised the central importance of preserving the property record. The new book would have been intended to last for longer than its predecessor, perhaps with better binding and storage to resist rat damage, although the underlying vulnerability of paper records to the island's pests would have continued to pose a risk.
The decision to recopy the entire register at one time, rather than progressively updating the older book or maintaining two parallel records, suggests that the original book had reached a point where individual entries could no longer be reliably read or extracted. The decayed state of the binding and the rat damage may have rendered the original entries fragmentary, requiring a comprehensive transcription effort to preserve the surviving information. The result was a new book containing the recovered entries of the older book together with entries made directly into the new volume from the date of its commencement.
The names of the witnesses to the December 1707 attestation include figures who appear repeatedly throughout the records. Thomas Goodwin in his various capacities, William Marsden as a witness to other transactions of 1707, and John Alexander in his clerk's role all confirm the small group of administrative and senior settler figures who provided continuity in the island's record-keeping. The combination of these figures in the attestation event places them at the centre of a coordinated effort to preserve the legal foundations of property holding on the island.
39
Thomas Goodwin to John Goodwin To all Christian People to whome this present Writing Shall Come Thomas Goodwin of the Island of S[t] Helena Sendeth Greeting in our Lord God Ever Lasting Now Know Ye that me the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin, for and in Considerateon of the Sum of Twenty pounds Currant Money of said Island to me on hand paied by John Goodwin of said Island Planter, whereof Acknowledge my Selfe to be therewith fully Sattisfied Contented and paid and by these presents have given granted Bargained and Sold, and doe by these presents Give Grant Bargaen and Sell (By vertue of a power Derected to me by a Letter of Attourney, given me by, Prudence the Wife & Attourney of Thomas Sherwen (on his Affsence) bearing date with the 8[?] day of July 1694 which Said Letter of Attourney was proved at a Councell holden at Fort James the 25 day of October 1694, Unto the aforesaid John Goodwin his heirs Execu- torr and assignes Ten Acres of Land with all and Singular the Plantation and Provissons thereon which said Ten Acres of Land was Late in the Tencure and Occupateon of the aforesaid Prudence Sherwin, and was the Lott Lands of Edward Suffolk Planter, which said Land Abutts upon Ten Acres of Land in the Occupateon of Said John Goodwin (being the Lott Lands of Thomas Davis On the East on Lands now in the Pofsession of Pator Williams, On the West on Lands now in the possession of Richard Harding, Towards the North, and on the R[t] Hon[ble] Companys Waste Lands on the South. To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said John Goodwin his heers Executors Administrators &c[a] assignes for Ever Neverthelefs, under the Condetion conteyned in the Original Grant to Edward Suffolk of the Premises from the Governour and Company of Mer- chants of London Trading to the East Indees, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto putt my hand and Seale this forst day of September 1694
Sealed in the Presence of James Duffe George Hoskison Mathew Bazett F Gargen
T Goodwin [seal]
I do approve of the Interlining were being [September] Geor[g] Hofsk[i]ng the Bargaine was made T Goodwin
Vera Copia [p] origin[al] Examined [p] me Jn[o] Alexander Cl[k] [...]
Island S[t] Helena
George Hoskeison to Gabriell Powell Know all Men by these presents that I George Hoskeison of the said Island free planter, ffor and in Considerateon of the Sum of Three Hundred and Fefty pounds by me already Received of Gabriell Powell of the said Island free planter the Receipt whereof I do hereby Acknowledge and my Selfe therewith to be fully Sattissfeed Contented and paied, here by these present[s] fully and absolutely, Given Granted bargaened and Sold, and do by these presents give grant Bargaen Sell and Delever, unto the said Gabriell Powell his heers Executors Administrators, and assigns, One Dwelling house and fefty Acres of Land, with all and Singular the Appurtenances there- unto belonging of what Nature and kind Soever, Lying Sectuate and being In Some branches of Chappell Vally, To have and to hold the said House and
Fefty
Thomas Goodwin to John Goodwin.
Thomas Goodwin of the island of St Helena addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from John Goodwin, planter of the same island, the sum of £20 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand. He gave, granted, bargained and sold to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors and assigns, ten acres of land with all the plantation and provisions standing on it. Goodwin made the conveyance by virtue of a power given to him in a letter of attorney from Prudence Sherwin, the wife and attorney of the absent Thomas Sherwin. The letter of attorney was dated 8 July 1694 and had been proved at a council held at Fort James on 25 October 1694. The land had lately been held by Prudence Sherwin and had originally been the lot of Edward Suffolk, planter. The parcel bordered, on the east, ten acres then held by John Goodwin himself, originally the lot of Thomas Davis. It bordered Pator Williams's land on the west, Richard Harding's land on the north, and the Right Honourable Company's waste land on the south. John Goodwin was to hold the premises, with his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, for ever, subject to the conditions contained in the original grant of the premises from the Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies to Edward Suffolk. Thomas Goodwin set his hand and seal to the document on 1 September 1694.
Sealed in the presence of James Duffe, George Hoskinson, Matthew Bazett and F. Gargen.
T. Goodwin, with a seal attached.
The interlineation of the word September, being where the bargain was made, was approved by George Hoskinson and signed by Thomas Goodwin.
A true copy by John Alexander, clerk.
Island of St Helena.
George Hoskinson to Gabriel Powell.
George Hoskinson, free planter of the island, made known by these presents that he had received the sum of £350 0s 0d from Gabriel Powell, free planter of the same island. He acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. He gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Powell, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a dwelling house and fifty acres of land, with all appurtenances of every kind. The property lay in some branches of Chapel Valley. Powell was to hold the house and the fifty acres [...]
Interpretations
The Thomas Goodwin to John Goodwin conveyance of 1 September 1694 reveals a further chain of attorneyship in the island's property dealings, with Thomas Goodwin acting as attorney for Prudence Sherwin, who was herself the attorney for her absent husband Thomas Sherwin. The double-layered attorney arrangement, in which a wife exercised authority over absent husband's property and then delegated that authority to a third party for specific transactions, shows the sophistication of the legal infrastructure available to settlers managing distant or absent interests. Prudence Sherwin's letter of attorney to Thomas Goodwin had been formally proved at a council meeting on 25 October 1694, almost two months after the conveyance itself was executed on 1 September 1694, suggesting that the proving of the instrument was a separate confirmatory step rather than a precondition to its use.
The dating discrepancy raises questions about the recorded chronology of the conveyance. The deed itself bears the date 1 September 1694, but the underlying letter of attorney was apparently dated 8 July 1694, with the proving recorded on 25 October 1694. The proving date falls almost two months after the conveyance execution date, which presents a logical inconsistency if the proving was understood as authenticating the attorney's authority before action could be taken on it. The discrepancy may reflect either an error in the recorded dates during the 1707 recopying of the register, or a procedure in which the underlying attorneyship was retrospectively confirmed by council after the action taken under it.
The price of £20 0s 0d for ten acres at the Sherwin location gives a per-acre figure of £2 0s 0d, falling within the higher range of values seen in the records reviewed. The figure stands close to the £2 8s 0d per acre that Goodwin obtained from Hoskinson for the French parcel in December 1707 and the £1 13s 4d per acre from the Leach to Carne transaction of 1705. The Sherwin parcel had originally been the lot of Edward Suffolk, who appears for the first time in the records reviewed as one of the original allottees of the area.
The recording of the original conveyance from the Governor and Company to Edward Suffolk as the underlying grant, with the present conveyance taking effect under the conditions contained in that grant, illustrates the persistence of the original allotment conditions through subsequent transfers. The conditions of the Bevan grant of 1684, requiring true faith and allegiance to the king and the company and obedience to the laws of the island, would have applied to the Sherwin parcel as well, with each successive holder taking the land subject to the original obligations. The structure ensured that the conditions of the company's authority over the land continued indefinitely, regardless of how many private transfers had taken place.
The witnesses to the Thomas Goodwin to John Goodwin conveyance include James Duffe, who had served as a witness to the Coles to Goodwin conveyance of 1696, George Hoskinson, who had been on the island as a property dealer throughout this period, Matthew Bazett, and F. Gargen, who had also witnessed the Greentree to Johnson conveyance of 1698. The recurring presence of these witnesses across the records confirms again that the formal property dealings on the island depended on a small circle of literate men who served as witnesses to one another's transactions.
The interlineation correction recorded at the foot of the document, with George Hoskinson and Thomas Goodwin both signing to confirm the location and substance of the change, follows the same pattern of carefully documented alterations seen in the Casthope to Wells and Swallow to Sech deeds. The practice of recording interlineations indicates the importance of maintaining the integrity of the documentary record against later challenge, with every alteration to the original text noted and confirmed by the parties at the time of execution.
The Hoskinson to Powell conveyance shows George Hoskinson again as a major property dealer, with the sale of a dwelling house and fifty acres in Chapel Valley for the substantial sum of £350 0s 0d. The price represents one of the largest transactions in the records reviewed, exceeded only by Goodwin's £130 0s 0d Chapel Valley tenement purchase from Edmunds and the £500 0s 0d Gurling to Hoskinson sale of 1706. The figure indicates that Hoskinson had assembled a major estate by the time of this sale, with the Chapel Valley property representing a substantial portion of his accumulated holdings.
The reference to some branches of Chapel Valley, used to identify the location of the Hoskinson property, suggests that the broader Chapel Valley district extended into several subsidiary valleys or gullies that branched off the main valley. The phrase points to a more complex topography than the single Chapel Valley name might suggest, with the working land of the district scattered through multiple smaller valleys rather than concentrated in one place. The wording also indicates that the property in question lay across multiple branches rather than in a single location, perhaps reflecting the assembled nature of the holding.
Speculations
The chain of attorneyship by which Thomas Goodwin executed the 1694 conveyance reveals a particular feature of the island's property administration. The willingness of the island's legal practice to allow attorneys to delegate to further attorneys, with two layers of representation between the principal Thomas Sherwin and the actual conveyance to John Goodwin, points to a flexible understanding of agency that adapted to the practical realities of long-distance absence. Prudence Sherwin had perhaps found it convenient to delegate to Thomas Goodwin for specific transactions rather than attending to every detail herself, with her own authority as attorney providing the basis for further sub-delegations.
The decision to involve Thomas Goodwin as the immediate attorney for the Sherwin transaction connects to his broader role within the island's property circles by 1694. Goodwin had been on the island as a witness from 1683, had acquired his first private property in 1693, and was building up his administrative position in the company's establishment. His participation as attorney for the Sherwin sale, alongside his own purchases and his role as witness to other transactions, reveals the multifaceted character of his early property activity. The position of attorney would have given him visibility into transactions in which he had no direct interest, providing knowledge and connections that supported his broader accumulation strategy.
The very large transaction between Hoskinson and Powell for £350 0s 0d hints at substantial concentration of property in certain hands by the time of this transaction. Powell had appeared earlier as the buyer of the Hoskinson Peak Gult parcel in 1704 for £32 0s 0d and as the seller to Gurling on the same day for £100 0s 0d. The much larger £350 0s 0d transaction places Powell in the position of a major buyer rather than a same-day intermediary, suggesting that his role had evolved over the intervening years from a participant in chain transactions to a substantial accumulator in his own right. The Chapel Valley property would have given him a significant estate in the principal settled area of the island.
The Edward Suffolk identified as the original allottee of the Sherwin parcel appears for the first time in the records reviewed. The Suffolk name does not feature in the 1682 inquest, which suggests either that he received his allotment after that date or that the inquest record reviewed does not capture every original holder. The persistence of Suffolk's name as the identification of the parcel through subsequent transfers to Sherwin and onward to Goodwin shows the durable character of original allotment names within the island's record-keeping, with the original holder's name serving as a permanent marker of the parcel's identity.
40
Fefty Acres of Land to him the said Gabriell Powell and his heers for Ever, to Do and Dispose of the Same, at his or theer own Wills & pleasures And it is hereby further Covenanted and agreed between the Said George Hoskeson, and the said Gabriell Powell, That he the Said Gabriell Powell or his heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter, Peaceably and Quietly Enjoy and Possess the Said hereby bargained premises, without any manner of Challenge Demand or Claim what foever, and do for me my Selfe my heirs Executors and Administrators hereby promise and Ingabe to Save and Keep harmless the Said Gabriell Powell his heers Executors Administrators, or assignes In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 7 day of September 1706 Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of George Carne John Alexander
Geo[r] Hoskison [seal]
Walter Morris to John Clavering Know all Men by these presents That I Walter Morriss of the Island S[t] Helena free planter ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of fourty pounds paid or Secured to be paid by John Clavering of the said Island Gunne[r]r Mate, and for divers other good Caufs and Consideration have given granted bargained and Sold, and do by these presents fermly and absolutely give grant bargain Sell and Delever, unto the said John Clavering one dwelling house Standing and being in Chappell Valley (For- merly my Deceased Father) together with all the ground on the Backsede of Said House, which I can or may Claim any Right or title to, with all other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or any ways Appertaineing, To have and to Hold the said House and all and Singular the Appurt[en]ances thereunto belongeng as aforesaid To him the said John Clavering and his heirs for Ever, To do and Dispose of the Same at his or their own proper Wills and pleasure, And I the said Walter Morriss do for me my heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes Covenant and agree to and with the said John Clavering his heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes, That he them or any of them Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter have hold Occupice Possess and peaceably Enjoy, all and Every the hereby bargained, premises without any Manner of Interruption, Mollestation or Contrediction of me the said Walter Morris my heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes or any other person or persons, whatsoever by my meanes Consent or procurement, and do hereby Engage my Selfe my heires &c[a] to Save and for Ever keep harmless the aforesaid
John
The continuation of the George Hoskinson to Gabriel Powell conveyance.
It was further covenanted between Hoskinson and Powell that Powell, with his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, was to hold and enjoy the premises peaceably and without any challenge, demand or claim. Hoskinson bound himself and his successors to keep Powell harmless from any such challenges. He set his hand and seal to the document on 7 September 1706.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of George Carne and John Alexander.
George Hoskinson, with a seal attached.
Walter Morris to John Clavering.
Walter Morris, free planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received from John Clavering, gunner's mate of the same island, the sum of £40 0s 0d, paid or secured to be paid. For this consideration and for other good causes, he gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Clavering a dwelling house in Chapel Valley that had formerly belonged to his late father. The conveyance included all the ground on the back side of the house that Morris could claim any right or title to, with all other appurtenances. Clavering was to hold the house, with all appurtenances, to himself and his heirs for ever, to dispose of at his own will and pleasure. Morris bound himself and his successors to allow Clavering and his successors to hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the premises peaceably without any hindrance, molestation or contradiction from him or from any person acting through him. He engaged to save and keep harmless [...]
Interpretations
The Hoskinson to Powell conveyance of 7 September 1706 closes the second major transaction between these two men in this period, with Hoskinson disposing of a dwelling house and fifty acres in Chapel Valley to Powell for £350 0s 0d. The transaction was witnessed by George Carne and John Alexander, placing it within the same circle of substantial property dealings recorded across the materials. The £350 0s 0d price falls within five weeks of the £500 0s 0d Gurling to Hoskinson transaction of 12 October 1706, which suggests that Hoskinson was both buying and selling on a substantial scale during this period.
The combination of the September 1706 sale to Powell and the October 1706 purchase from Gurling indicates that Hoskinson was reorganising his property holdings rather than simply accumulating or divesting in one direction. The Powell sale released £350 0s 0d in cash from the Chapel Valley fifty acres, while the Gurling purchase committed £500 0s 0d in bills of exchange for the Little Horse Pasture and Lemon Valley assets plus livestock and provisions. The net effect was a shift of capital from Chapel Valley into other districts and into the more diverse asset base that the Gurling estate provided. The pattern suggests deliberate portfolio management rather than passive participation in the island's land market.
The Walter Morris to John Clavering conveyance, of unspecified date, transfers a Chapel Valley dwelling house from Morris to a gunner's mate of the garrison. The property had formerly belonged to Morris's late father, identifying it as inherited property now being sold by the son. The transaction follows the pattern seen elsewhere in the records where second-generation settlers disposed of inherited property to members of the garrison, with the soldier or junior officer using accumulated pay to acquire established holdings from the heirs of original allottees.
The description of John Clavering as gunner's mate places him in the same position that Thomas Goodwin had held in 1694 before his rise to senior administrative office. The gunner's mate was the assistant to the chief gunner, helping to manage the artillery and powder stores at Fort James, and the position offered a measure of standing within the garrison hierarchy along with sufficient pay to support modest property purchases. Clavering's £40 0s 0d acquisition fits the pattern of garrison members of intermediate rank participating in the island's urban property market.
The phrase paid or secured to be paid, used in the Morris to Clavering deed in the same form as in the 1691 Kersey to Goodwin conveyance, indicates that part or all of the £40 0s 0d purchase price might be deferred under a separate security arrangement rather than delivered as immediate cash. The flexibility provided in the wording allowed Clavering to spread the payment across some period after the conveyance, with Morris accepting the credit risk in exchange for the agreed total value. The arrangement reveals the continuing role of deferred payment arrangements in the island's property market by the time of this transaction.
The Morris property description identifies the dwelling house as standing in Chapel Valley with all the ground on the back side of the house. The reference to all the ground that Morris could claim any right or title to suggests some uncertainty about the precise extent of his interest in the ground behind the house. The clause may reflect either a desire to convey only what he was sure of holding, or an acknowledgement that the back ground had ambiguous boundaries that needed to be left to the buyer's investigation. The phrasing differs from the more confident assertions of title seen in other deeds and points to a more cautious approach where the seller's interest was not fully settled.
Speculations
The £350 0s 0d that Powell paid Hoskinson for the Chapel Valley fifty acres and dwelling house represents a substantial commitment that fits Powell's emergence as a major property holder. By September 1706 he was capable of paying a sum of this size, which when combined with his earlier role in same-day intermediate transactions suggests an evolution from a smaller-scale dealer to a settled accumulator. The acquisition of fifty acres with a house in Chapel Valley would have given him a substantial estate in the most important settled district of the island, anchoring his position within the local property-owning class.
Walter Morris's sale of his inherited father's house to Clavering may reflect either a decision to consolidate his interests elsewhere on the island or a need to convert the inheritance into cash. The phrasing about the ground on the back side, with its qualification about what he could claim title to, suggests that Morris may have inherited the property in a state where some questions about its precise boundaries remained unresolved. The sale to Clavering would have transferred those uncertainties to the buyer along with the more straightforward title to the house itself, with Clavering taking on whatever investigation might be needed to establish the full extent of the ground.
The recurring participation of John Alexander as a witness to substantial transactions including the Hoskinson to Powell sale, alongside his work in copying the entire register in late 1707, places him at the centre of the island's documentary infrastructure during this period. His professional role as clerk of the council combined with his personal availability as a witness to specific deeds made him the most ubiquitous figure in the recorded property dealings of the early 1700s. The combination of these two activities gave him an intimate knowledge of the island's land transactions that few others on the island could match.
41
John Clavering his heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes against all or any person Unlawfull Claim demand or Challenge to the said house or any the Appurtenances thereunto belongeng, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this third day of July In the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Seven
Seale Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of John Nicholls John T[w]ights
Walter Morriss [seal]
Benjamin Seale to Praise Pledger To all Christian People to whome these Presents Shall come Benjamin Seale of the Island S[t] Helena Sends Greeting in the Lord God Ever Last[ing] Know Ye that I the said Benjamin Seale for and in Considerateon of the Naturall Affection and Love which I have and do Bare unto my Beloved Son or Law Praise Pledger of the said Island, planter, Have given granted and Confirmed, and by these my present writeing doe fully freely and abso- lutely, give grant and Conferm unto the said Praise Pledger his heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes all and Singular that piece or parcell of Land Conteineing by Estimateon Ten Acres Lyeing and being at the Head of Sharkr Valley (on said Island) Abutting and Abounding on the R[t] Hon[ble] Companys Wasty Land, and on the Ten Acres now in the Occupateon of John Cotgrave of the said Island Planter, and allso on the Twenty Acres of Land now possessed by John Knipe of the said Island Planter, which Said Geven Land is now in Possession of the Said Praise Pledger, and was formerly the Lott Land of W[m] Rhoads of the said Island Deceased, To have and to hold the said Ten Acres of Land, with all and Singular the Provissons Areising Issueing and being in and upon the said premiss and all other the Appurte nances thereunto belongeng, or in any Wise Appertaineing unto him the said Prece Pledger his heires Executors Administrators and Assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever, without any, Money or other thing to be yeeldedd paied or done unto me the said Benjamin Sealf, my heirs Executors Admenis trators and Assignes by him the said Praise Pledger his heers Executorr Ad- ministrators, or Assignes, and I the said Benjamin Seale for my Selfe my heeres Executors, do Covenant and agree to, and with the said Praise Pledger that he the said Praise Pledger or his heirer &c[a] Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter, have hold Occupie Pofs[s], and Enjoy the said premiss, and Every part thereof and the same I the said Benjamin Seale will for Ever Defend, against any Person whatsoever, In Wittness whereof the said Benjamin Seale hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this Sixteenth day of January Anno Domino 169⅔
Signed Sealed & Deliv[d] in the presence of us
Benjamin Seale [seal]
The continuation of the Walter Morris to John Clavering conveyance.
Walter Morris bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to keep John Clavering and his successors harmless against any unlawful claim, demand or challenge to the house or its appurtenances. He set his hand and seal to the document on 3 July 1707.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of John Nicholls and John Twights.
Walter Morris, with a seal attached.
Benjamin Seale to Praise Pledger.
Benjamin Seale of the island of St Helena addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He gave, granted and confirmed to his son in law Praise Pledger, planter of the island, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, ten acres of land at the head of Sharks Valley. The grant was made for the natural affection and love that Seale bore to Pledger. The parcel bordered the Right Honourable Company's waste land, the ten acres then held by John Cotgrave, planter, and the twenty acres then held by John Knipe, planter. The ten acres were then in Pledger's possession and had formerly been the lot of William Rhodes, since died. Pledger was to hold the land, with all provisions standing on it and all appurtenances, from the date of the document for ever, with no money or other consideration to be paid to Seale or his successors. Seale bound himself and his successors to allow Pledger to hold and enjoy the premises and undertook to defend the title against any challenger. He set his hand and seal to the document on 16 January 1693.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Benjamin Seale, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The Seale to Pledger deed of 16 January 1693 records a family gift rather than a sale, with Benjamin Seale conveying ten acres to his son in law Praise Pledger for natural affection and love rather than for monetary consideration. The instrument follows the same structural pattern as the Owen Bevan to Thomas Goodwin gift of 1705, in which a father in law transferred property to a son in law on the basis of family relationship. The Seale deed comes earlier in the period covered by the records and shows that family gifts of land had been operating within the island's conveyancing system from at least the early 1690s, providing a recognised mechanism alongside commercial sales for moving property between generations.
The chain of title for the parcel runs from William Rhodes, since died, to Benjamin Seale, and now from Seale to Pledger. The parcel had formerly been Rhodes's lot land, and it appears to have come into Seale's possession at some point after Rhodes's death. The connection to the Rhodes family suggests that there may have been an earlier transaction not captured in the records reviewed, perhaps a transfer between Rhodes's estate and Seale. The naming of the parcel as formerly Rhodes's lot preserves the original allotment identity through both transfers, with the underlying connection to the Rhodes household persisting even as the land moved through other hands.
The reference to William Rhodes as deceased in this 1693 deed indicates that Rhodes had died by that date, which clarifies the position seen in the earlier 1687 lease from Elizabeth Rhodes as his attorney to John Cotgrave. In 1687 Rhodes was described as absent from the island, with his wife acting under a power of attorney. By 1693 he was deceased, so his death must have occurred at some point during the intervening six years. The Cotgrave lease for ninety-nine years remained in effect after his death, with the underlying freehold passing to whoever inherited from him.
The boundary description of the Pledger parcel identifies three neighbouring holders, all encountered earlier in the records. John Cotgrave held the ten acres adjoining on one side, which connects to the leasehold he had taken from Elizabeth Rhodes in 1687. John Knipe held twenty acres on another side, the same Knipe mentioned in the Rhodes to Cotgrave lease as the southern neighbour. The pattern shows that the property network at the head of Sharks Valley remained stable across the six years between the two transactions, with the same families holding the same parcels in 1693 as in 1687.
The phrase without any Money or other thing to be yielded paid or done makes explicit that the conveyance was a pure gift, with no consideration moving from Pledger to Seale. The clause prevented any later claim by Seale's heirs that the conveyance had been intended as a sale with deferred payment, securing Pledger's title against any reinterpretation of the transaction. The careful drafting reveals the importance attached to the gratuitous nature of the gift in protecting the recipient against future challenges.
The presence of Praise Pledger as the son in law of Benjamin Seale points to a marriage between Seale's daughter and Pledger, with the gift to Pledger effectively serving as a marriage portion or family settlement. The Pledger name appears as Praise Pledger in this deed and as Praise Pledger again in the 1687 Rhodes to Cotgrave lease, where he was identified as the eastern neighbour of the Rhodes parcel. The continuity of his name across the two records, with his Puritan-style first name preserved in both, confirms his identity as a substantial settler at the head of Sharks Valley by the late seventeenth century.
The dating of 16 January 1693 falls before 25 March in the old calendar, so by modern reckoning the date would be 16 January 1694. The recorded year of 1693 reflects the old style usage where the new year began on Lady Day. The single year in the dating, without the dual form used in the Casthope to Wells and Heath to Charles deeds, suggests that the scribe in this 1693 transaction used the older convention without the bridging device of dual dating that appeared more frequently in later years.
The witness names that appear in the deed body are not recorded in the text reviewed, which suggests that the witness signatures were carried over to a subsequent page that does not form part of the immediate transcription. The omission limits the certainty about who witnessed this family gift, although the recurring pattern in the records would predict the involvement of figures such as John Alexander or other senior scribes in the formal authentication of the document.
Speculations
The gift from Benjamin Seale to Praise Pledger illustrates the role of marriage settlements in moving property within the island's settler society. Pledger's marriage to one of Seale's daughters brought the ten-acre parcel into the new household, providing the couple with a foundation for their independent life. The mechanism parallels the William Marsh provision of substitute land to his son Robert Marsh in 1705 and the Owen Bevan transfer to his son in law Thomas Goodwin in 1705, all of which involved fathers or fathers in law providing land to younger family members at significant moments in their lives. The pattern shows that family gifts were a standard feature of the island's property economy, sitting alongside commercial transactions in the formal record.
The location of the gifted parcel at the head of Sharks Valley, adjoining Pledger's existing holding to the east as recorded in the 1687 Rhodes to Cotgrave lease, suggests that the gift was designed to consolidate Pledger's working estate. He already had property in the immediate vicinity, and the addition of the ten acres from his father in law gave him a larger continuous block of land. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of estate consolidation seen throughout the records, with successive transactions producing increasingly coherent working units from the dispersed original allotments.
The use of family gifts as a mechanism for moving property to the next generation may have offered advantages over outright sale that account for its repeated appearance in the records. The gift form preserved the giver's continuing connection to the property as the original source of the recipient's title, while the sale form transferred the parcel as an arm's length transaction. The family gift also avoided the need for the recipient to find the purchase price in cash or other consideration, providing a smoother route for transferring property within families. The continuing affection language of the gift deeds preserved the sentimental dimension of the family relationship even as the transaction served practical economic purposes.
The persistence of the William Rhodes identification of the parcel, even after it had moved through Benjamin Seale's hands and now to Praise Pledger, fits the broader pattern of original allotment names surviving multiple transfers. The recording of Rhodes as the former holder, three years after Elizabeth Rhodes had leased other Rhodes land to Cotgrave, suggests that the Rhodes family had held substantial land at the head of Sharks Valley that had progressively been transferred to various neighbours. The dispersion of the Rhodes holdings after William's death reflects the typical pattern by which the estates of deceased holders were distributed among the surviving settler population through various legal mechanisms.
42
James Grandy to Thomas Ashbey I James Grandy have bargained and Sold unto Thomas Ashby One Cottage House in Chappell Valley, adjoyning unto M[r] George Hoskison for the vallue of Ten pounds in hand paid and I the Said James Grandy do promiss to Deliver quiet Pofes[s]on without any Mollestation and to Deliver all Writings and all Deeds of Gifts Concerning to this House is Excepted Wittness my hand this 2 August 1705
Wittness Richard Harding his James X Casteypp mark[e]
his James Y Grandy mark[e]
Mem[ran]d[u]m The abovesaid house with all y[e] Ground in front and Backsoade hath been Since Sold to Hugh Bodley free plant[r] in whose Pofession it now is
Island S[t] Helena
Thomas Ashbey to Heigh Bodley Know all Men by these presents that I Thomas Ashbey Souldeier, for and in Considerateon of the Sum of fefteen pounds in Store Credett by me already Received of Heigh Bodley of the said Island Soul- deier the Receipt whereof I do Acknowledge and mySelf therewith to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paid Have given granted bargained Sold and Delivered, and do by these presents fermly and absolutely give grant bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the aforesaid Heigh Bodley his heirs Executors, Administrators or Assignes one Mefseuage house, Standing and being in Chappell Valley, Next adjoyneing to the House Now in the Pofession of George Hoskeson and was formerly belongeing to John Bowman free planter Deceased. To have and to hold the said House to him the aforesaid Heigh Bodley his heirs for Ever with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto pertaineing or belongeing to do and dispose of the Same at his or theire own proper wills and pleasure And I the said Thomas Ashbey do for me my heirr Executors Administrators Covenant grant and agree to and with the said Hugh Bodley his heirr Executors, administrators or assignes, That he or they Shall and may from time to time, and at all times hereafter have hold Occupice pofs[s], and Enjoy the said House with its appurtenances, freely and Peaceably without any manner of Interruption, Convection or Mollestation of me the Said Thomas Ashby, of my heirs Executors or Administrators, or by any person or persons through my Meanes Consent or procurement, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this twenty Eight day of May 1703
Sealed Signed Deliv[d] in the presence off John Clavering Pere[s] Sortelben Iohn Alexander
his Thomas T Ashby [seal] marke
James Grandy to Thomas Ashby.
James Grandy bargained and sold to Thomas Ashby a cottage house in Chapel Valley, adjoining the property of Mr George Hoskinson. The price was £10 0s 0d, paid in hand. Grandy promised to deliver quiet possession without molestation and to hand over all writings and deeds of gifts relating to the property. He set his hand to the document on 2 August 1705.
Witnesses: Richard Harding and James Casteypp, who made his mark in the form of an X.
James Grandy made his mark in the form of a Y.
Memorandum.
The cottage house, together with all the ground in front of and behind it, was since sold to Hugh Bodley, free planter, who now held it in his possession.
Island of St Helena.
Thomas Ashby to Hugh Bodley.
Thomas Ashby, soldier, made known by these presents that he had received from Hugh Bodley, soldier of the same island, the sum of £15 0s 0d in store credit. He acknowledged full payment and complete satisfaction. He gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Bodley, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, a messuage house in Chapel Valley. The property joined the house then in the possession of George Hoskinson and had formerly belonged to John Bowman, free planter, since died. Bodley was to hold the house, with all appurtenances, to himself and his heirs for ever, to dispose of at his own will and pleasure. Ashby bound himself and his successors to allow Bodley to hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the house without any hindrance from him or from anyone acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on 28 May 1703.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of John Clavering, Peres Sortelben and John Alexander.
Thomas Ashby made his mark in the form of a T, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The two transactions involving the Chapel Valley cottage house reveal an irregularity in the chronology of the documentary record as transcribed. The Grandy to Ashby sale is dated 2 August 1705, while the Ashby to Bodley sale is dated 28 May 1703, more than two years earlier. The Ashby to Bodley deed cannot have been executed before the Grandy to Ashby sale unless the dates have been transcribed incorrectly, since Ashby could not have sold a house in 1703 that he did not acquire until 1705. The arrangement of the documents may reflect a copying error during the 1707 recopying of the register, with one of the dates being misread from the damaged original. The internal logic suggests that the Grandy to Ashby sale should be dated 1701 or 1702 rather than 1705, allowing the subsequent Ashby to Bodley sale of 1703 to follow naturally.
The chain of ownership extending across the two transactions traces a single Chapel Valley cottage through three holders. The property had originally been held by John Bowman, free planter, who died and presumably passed it to his estate. Bowman's name is preserved in the description of the parcel even after his death, with the Ashby to Bodley deed identifying the house as formerly belonging to him. The continuity of identification points again to the persistence of original holder names in the island's property records, with each parcel carrying its historical association through subsequent transfers.
The references to George Hoskinson as the adjoining neighbour in both deeds places his property next to the cottage being transferred between Grandy, Ashby and Bodley. Hoskinson appears throughout the records as a major property dealer, and his ownership of a Chapel Valley house adjacent to this smaller cottage fits the pattern of substantial accumulations in the principal urban district. The repeated identification of his property as a boundary marker shows that Hoskinson was sufficiently established in Chapel Valley by 1703 and 1705 to serve as a recognised reference point for neighbouring transactions.
The structure of the consideration in the two transactions differs significantly. The Grandy to Ashby sale was for £10 0s 0d paid in hand, presumably in cash. The Ashby to Bodley sale was for £15 0s 0d paid in store credit, the same form of payment seen in the Greentree to Johnson conveyance of 1698. The use of store credit rather than cash for the second sale reflects the continuing role of company stores as a clearing system within the island's economy. Ashby would have used the credit to purchase goods at the company stores, with the credit balance moving from Bodley to Ashby's account through the company's bookkeeping.
The £5 0s 0d markup between the two transactions, with the price rising from £10 0s 0d in the Grandy purchase to £15 0s 0d in the Ashby resale, indicates either substantial improvement of the property during Ashby's ownership or a general appreciation of Chapel Valley property values during this period. The difference is large in proportional terms, with the price increasing by half over what could have been a relatively short holding period. The figures suggest that the small Chapel Valley cottage market was active enough to absorb modest mark-ups between successive transactions.
The transaction between Ashby and Bodley took place between two members of the garrison, both designated as soldier in the deed. The acquisition of urban property by junior military personnel matches the pattern seen elsewhere in the records, with garrison members of various ranks participating in the island's property market alongside the civilian planters. The use of store credit for the consideration would have been particularly convenient for soldiers, whose pay was typically held in store credit at the company before being drawn down for purchases.
The presence of John Alexander as a witness to the Ashby to Bodley deed reflects his ubiquitous role across the records. The witness list also includes John Clavering, who appears elsewhere as a gunner's mate buying the Morris property in 1707, and Peres Sortelben, a name that does not appear elsewhere in the materials reviewed and may indicate another settler of continental European origin given the unusual spelling. The combination of these witnesses places the transaction within the standard network of literate participants in the island's formal conveyancing practice.
The memorandum about the onward sale to Hugh Bodley, attached to the Grandy to Ashby record, provides a useful cross-reference between the two transactions. The memorandum indicates that the recorder of the register was aware of the subsequent disposal of the property and considered it appropriate to note the connection. The practice of attaching such cross-references shows how the register served not only as a record of individual transactions but as a working tool for tracking the current state of property holdings on the island.
Speculations
The probable dating error in one of the two transactions perhaps reflects the challenges of recopying the register from the rat-damaged original in 1707. The clerk John Alexander would have had to work from possibly fragmentary text, and dates were among the elements most likely to be misread or transcribed incorrectly. The internal contradiction between the apparent dates of the two transactions points to a genuine chronological problem in the records as preserved, which the modern reader can identify but the original parties would not have intended.
The repeated use of store credit as consideration for property transactions, seen in both the Greentree to Johnson conveyance of 1698 and the Ashby to Bodley sale of 1703, indicates that the company stores functioned as a significant clearing mechanism within the island's economy. Settlers held credit balances at the stores that they could draw on for purchases, and these balances could be transferred between parties as the equivalent of cash. The system supported transactions in which the parties either did not have cash available or preferred to denominate the price in a form that corresponded to their expected spending patterns.
The progression of the Chapel Valley cottage through Bowman, Grandy, Ashby and Bodley illustrates the active circulation of small urban properties within the island's settler population. Each transaction transferred the property to a new owner with different circumstances and resources, with the recurring sales producing a continual reshuffling of ownership within the Chapel Valley settlement. The pattern matches the broader picture of property circulation on the island, with parcels of all sizes and types moving through multiple hands during the period covered by the records.
The presence of soldiers as both seller and buyer in the Ashby to Bodley transaction shows that the garrison hosted an internal market for property among its members, with soldiers selling to and buying from one another. Ashby's role as both buyer in the 1705 acquisition from Grandy and seller in the apparent 1703 transfer to Bodley, despite the chronological problem in the dates, places him as an active dealer in Chapel Valley property regardless of the precise sequence. The pattern of internal garrison transactions reveals a self-contained market that operated alongside the larger civilian property market on the island.
43
Robert Tomps to Thomas Allis Know all Men by these presents that I Robert Tomps planter of the Island S[t] Helena, for and in Considerateon of the Sum of Eight pounds Ten Shillings Currant Money of the said Island paied me by Thomas Allis the Receipt of which I do Acknowledge and of Every part and parcell thereof do Clearly Acquit and Exonerate him the said Thomas Allis, and for divers other good Caufes and Considerations have granted bargained and Sold and by these presents doe Clearly and absolutely grant bargain and Sell unto the aforesaid Thomas Allis of the said Island planter One Stone house Sectuate in Chappell Valley, Near Fort James with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belongeing, To have and to hold the said house with all and Singular the appurtenances thereunto belongeing to him the said Thomas Allis his heirs Executors, Administrators or Assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever and the said Robert Tomps for hemselfe his heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes, doe Covenant grant and agree to and with the said Thomas Allis that he the said Thomas Allis Shall have and Occupice and Enjoy the said House and all the appurtenances thereunto belonging without the Lawsfull Lett Suit Trouble Eviction, Contrediction or Disturbance of him the said Robert Tomps his heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes, or of any other person or persons whatsoever, In Wittness wher[e]of the said Robert Tomps hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this Twenty fefth Day of January 168⅞
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Richard Gurling W[m] Cliston
Rob[t] Tomps [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
John Hemmons to Thomas Allis Articles of agreement made and Conclueded between John Hemmons of the said Island Souldeier of the One part, and Thomas Allis of the said Island of the other part, Wittnesseth that the said John Hemmon for and in Considerateon of the Sum of Ten pounds Six Shillings and other Consideratenr him hereunto Moveing, To be paid by the Said Thomas Allis his heirs Executors, Administrator or assignes unto the said John Hemmons his heirr Executors, Administrators or Assignes, In Forme and Manner as followeth Vizt five pounds to be paid the Next pay day Inseuing affter the Day of the date of these presents, in Currant Money of the said Island or Store Credett, and five pounds Six Shillings which is the Second and Last payment of the said Sum of Ten pounds Six Shillings, Three Months affter the forst payment, as is here above Mentioned, in the Sam keinde and Specce as have above Mentioned In the forst payment, Hath Given, Granted Bargained and Sold, and by these presents doth Give grant Bargain and Sell, unto the said Thomas Allis his heirr Executors Administrators, and Assignes Ten Acres of Land Sectuate Lyeing and being on the said Island, In Deep Valley Next adjoyneing or near by the Land formerly Benjamien Mellers, which Land the said John Hemmons hath Exchanged with the Governead and Couneell of the said Island of the R[t] Hon[ble] East Indea Company Lords Proprietors of the said Island for Ten Acres of Land belongeing to the said John Hemmons Sectuate Lyeing and being at the head of Deep Valley Joyning to the Land
Now
Robert Tomps to Thomas Allis.
Robert Tomps, planter of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received from Thomas Allis the sum of £8 10s 0d in current money of the island. He acknowledged full payment and released Allis from any further claim in respect of the sum. For this consideration and for other good causes, he granted, bargained and sold to Allis, planter of the same island, a stone house in Chapel Valley near Fort James, with all appurtenances. Allis was to hold the house, with all appurtenances, to himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the document for ever. Tomps bound himself and his successors to allow Allis to hold, occupy and enjoy the house without any lawful hindrance, suit, trouble, eviction, contradiction or disturbance from him or from anyone acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on 25 January 1688.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Richard Gurling and William Cliston.
Robert Tomps, with a seal attached.
Island of St Helena.
John Hemmons to Thomas Allis.
Articles of agreement were concluded between John Hemmons, soldier of the island, of the one part, and Thomas Allis of the same island, of the other part. Hemmons agreed to receive from Allis the sum of £10 6s 0d, payable in two instalments. The first instalment of £5 0s 0d was to be paid on the next pay day following the date of the document, in current money of the island or in store credit. The second and final instalment of £5 6s 0d was to be paid three months after the first, in the same form. For this consideration, Hemmons gave, granted, bargained and sold to Allis, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, ten acres of land in Deep Valley, adjoining or near the land formerly held by Benjamin Meller. Hemmons had exchanged the parcel with the governor and council of the island, acting for the Right Honourable East India Company as lords proprietors of the island. He had given up ten acres at the head of Deep Valley, adjoining the land [...]
Interpretations
The Tomps to Allis conveyance of 25 January 1688 represents one of the earlier transactions in the records reviewed. The date falls before 25 March in the old calendar, so by modern reckoning the year would be 1689 rather than 1688. The deed is written with the year as 1687/8 in the original convention, recorded here in the dual form to acknowledge both reckonings. The transaction predates the joint reign of William and Mary, falling within the brief reign of James the Second, although the dating clause as transcribed does not include the regnal year that other deeds of the period typically carried.
The property conveyed is described as a stone house in Chapel Valley near Fort James, marking it as a more substantial structure than the dwellings of timber and other materials that may have characterised most of the island's buildings. The use of stone as a construction material would have required considerable investment of resources and labour, since suitable building stone needed to be quarried, dressed and transported to the building site. The naming of the construction material in the deed signals the importance and durability of the structure, with the stone house carrying value that a perishable timber building would not have offered.
The price of £8 10s 0d for the stone house places it at a relatively modest valuation compared with other Chapel Valley properties. The figure falls below the £10 0s 0d that Grandy received for the cottage house in 1705, the £20 0s 0d that Nicholls paid Bowman for a Fort James Valley dwelling and the £35 12s 0d that Cotgrave paid Tewsdale for a Chapel Valley dwelling house in 1694. The lower price for a stone house compared to other Chapel Valley dwellings suggests either that the property was smaller, or that its position was less favourable, or that the date in 1688 reflects an earlier point in the appreciation of Chapel Valley property values. The proximity to Fort James suggests an urban location that should have commanded a reasonable price, so the relatively modest sum may indicate the early date of the transaction rather than any limitation in the property itself.
The Hemmons to Allis articles of agreement record an exchange chain involving both the company and a private party. Hemmons had first exchanged ten acres at the head of Deep Valley with the company, receiving ten acres in Deep Valley adjoining or near the land formerly held by Benjamin Meller in return. He was now selling these acquired ten acres to Allis for £10 6s 0d in two instalments. The transaction reveals the layered character of property dealings on the island, with a single piece of land moving through both an exchange with the company and a subsequent private sale within a short period.
The structure of the consideration in the Hemmons to Allis agreement, with two instalments of £5 0s 0d and £5 6s 0d three months apart, in current money of the island or store credit, illustrates the flexibility of payment arrangements in the island's property market. The buyer could choose between cash and store credit for each instalment, depending on what resources he had available at the relevant time. The arrangement allowed Allis to manage his payments according to his actual circumstances rather than committing to a single form of consideration at the outset.
The reference to the next pay day as the trigger for the first instalment ties the transaction to the company's regular cycle of payments to its employees and contractors. Pay days were predictable events in the island's economic life, providing settlers with regular access to cash or store credit through which obligations could be settled. The use of the pay day as a reference point indicates that both Hemmons and Allis expected to receive resources through the company's pay system, which they could then apply to the property transaction.
The exchange mechanism by which Hemmons swapped his original Deep Valley land with the company for different Deep Valley land mirrors the procedure recorded in the 1704 Hoskinson and Heath exchanges in Peak Gult. The pattern suggests that the company's exchange procedure was a standard feature of the island's land administration, allowing planters to reshape their holdings by trading parcels with the company. The exchanges enabled holders to obtain more suitable land in particular locations while the company received parcels that could be redistributed or retained according to its own purposes.
The naming of John Hemmons as a soldier in the Hemmons to Allis agreement distinguishes him from the John Hemmons of the 1682 inquest, who was identified as the holder of land in Pleasant Valley exchanged with Henry Coales. The two men may be the same person, with the 1682 figure having become a soldier by the time of the later agreement, or they may be different individuals with the same name. The continuity of the name across the records suggests a family connection at least, with the Hemmons surname appearing repeatedly in transactions throughout the period.
Speculations
The relatively early date of 1688 for the Tomps to Allis stone house transaction places it among the foundational records of the property registration system on the island. The deed represents one of the earliest dated transactions in the materials reviewed and predates by several years the better-documented transactions of the 1690s and 1700s. The presence of the stone house at this date indicates that substantial permanent construction had begun in Chapel Valley by the late 1680s, with planters investing in durable structures suitable for long-term occupation.
The two-instalment payment structure of the Hemmons to Allis agreement, with three months between the first and second payments, perhaps reflects the seller's need for immediate funds combined with the buyer's inability to assemble the full price at once. The arrangement gave Hemmons half the price quickly while allowing Allis time to gather the balance, with the company's pay day cycle providing the predictable rhythm against which both parties could plan. The flexibility of the payment form, with cash and store credit interchangeable, reduced the practical obstacles to completion.
The reference to the East India Company as lords proprietors of the island, used in the description of the company's role in the exchange, reflects the formal language of the company's authority over St Helena. The phrase places the company in the position of feudal-style proprietors holding the island under royal charter, with their authority over the land deriving from this proprietary status. The use of this language alongside more bureaucratic phrasing throughout the records shows the layered character of the company's identity as both a commercial enterprise and a quasi-feudal proprietor of the colony.
Thomas Allis's acquisitions of both the stone house from Tomps in 1688 and the Deep Valley ten acres from Hemmons traces an early phase of estate-building during the late 1680s. Allis would have been positioning himself with both a substantial urban dwelling in Chapel Valley and an agricultural holding in Deep Valley, the typical combination for an established planter on the island. The Allis name connects to the Thomas Allis who appears in the 1682 inquest as a holder of ten acres in Fishers Valley adjoining Benjamin Miller's land, with these later transactions adding to his accumulated holdings over the years following the inquest.
44
Now on the Posesion of Thomas Seales. To Have and to hold all and Singullar the Premiss and appurtenances thereunto belongeng at Wood Trees, Sprights &c[a] Lyeing being and groweing on the Said Ten Acres of Land, To his or theer proper Use and Behoofe for Ever, Freely and Quietly, without any manner of Challenge claime demand or Mollestateor of the said John Hemmons, her heirs &c[a], or any other person or persons Whatsoever Makeing good the said Ten Acres of Land unto the said Thomas Allis his heers &c[a] whensoever he Shall be Mollested by any person or Persons whatsoever, In Wittness wher[e]of I the said John Hemmon hath hereunto sett his hand and Seale this 4 day of May 1696, and in the Eight year of the Raign of our Soveraign Lord King William King of England Sotland France and Ireland Defender of the Faith &c[a]
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us F. Field Thomas Usher Mathew Bazett
Jn[o] Hemmon [seal]
John Stevens to Thomas Allis This Indenteure made the Fifth day of August One Thousand Six hundred Eighty, and Nine, Between John Stevens of the Island S[t] Helena Planter of the One part, and Thomas Allis planter of the said Island of the other part, Wittnesseth that the said John Stevens, ffor and in Conside- rateon of the Sum of Twelve pounds Secured to be paid to him by the said Thomas Allifs, as allso for divers other good Caufes and Considerations him, thereunto Moveing Hath Demised granted and to Farm Letten, and by these presents doe Demife Grant and to Farm Sell Unto the said Thomas Allis his heirr Executors or Assignes, All and Singular, that piece or parcell of Land Containeng by Estimateon Ten Acres Lyeing Sectuate, and being at the head of Deepe Valley, Next adjoyning unto the said Thomas Allis own Lands Lately, in the Posession of Benjamen Meller, be the Same more or less, with all and Singullar the fruits whatsoever Accreuing groweing being Issueing or Stoveing in or Upon the Promiss, As allso One dwelling house Sectuate on the Land aforesaid To Have and to hold the said House and Ten Acres of Land and Every part and parcell thereof unto the said Thomas Allis his heirr Executors and Assignes from the day of the Date hereof Unto the full End and Term of Eighteen yearr Next Insueing absolutely, Ensueing and fully to be Compleated and Endsd[t]ll The said Thomas Allis yielding and paying dueing the said Form what Taxes or Amerments Shall become due to the Hon[ble] East Indea Company and the said John Stevens for himselfe his heirs Executors or Assignes, doe Covenant grant and agree to and with the said Thomas Alliss that he the said Thomas Allis or his heirr Executors or Assignes, Shall and may Lawsfully peaceably, and Quietly have hold Occu- pice Profs and Enjoy all and Singullar the premises by these presents demifed and Every part and parcell thereof, without the Lawsfull Lett said Trouble or Eviction of by the said John Stevens his heirs Executors of Assignes or by his or their procurements. In Wittness whereof the said John Stevens Both hereunto Sett his hand and Seale this day and year forst above Written
Sealed Signed & Deliv[d] in the presence of us John Draper W[m] Cliston Rich[d] Gurling
Jn[o] Stevens [seal]
The continuation of the John Hemmons to Thomas Allis agreement.
The ten acres of land formerly held by Hemmons at the head of Deep Valley adjoined the land then in the possession of Thomas Seale. Allis was to hold the parcel and all appurtenances, including wood, trees, sprights and other growing material on the land, to his use and benefit for ever, freely and quietly, without any challenge, claim, demand or hindrance from Hemmons or his successors. Hemmons bound himself to make good the title to Allis and his successors whenever the buyer might be challenged by any person. He set his hand and seal to the document on 4 May 1696, in the eighth year of the reign of King William, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, defender of the faith.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of F. Field, Thomas Usher and Matthew Bazett.
John Hemmons, with a seal attached.
John Stevens to Thomas Allis.
This indenture was made on 5 August 1689 between John Stevens, planter of the island of St Helena, of the one part, and Thomas Allis, planter of the same island, of the other part. Stevens acknowledged that he was to receive from Allis the sum of £12 0s 0d, secured to be paid. For this consideration and for other good causes, he demised, granted and farm-let to Allis, his heirs, executors or assigns, a parcel of land of about ten acres at the head of Deep Valley. The land joined Allis's own land, then held by him from Benjamin Meller. The conveyance included all the fruits growing on the land and a dwelling house standing on it. Allis was to hold the house and the ten acres, with all appurtenances, from the date of the document for a term of eighteen years. During the term he was to pay any taxes or assessments that became due to the Honourable East India Company. Stevens bound himself and his successors to allow Allis and his successors to hold the parcel without any lawful hindrance from him or anyone acting through him. He set his hand and seal to the document on the day and year written above.
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of John Draper, William Cliston and Richard Gurling.
John Stevens, with a seal attached.
Interpretations
The reference to the year 1696 in the Hemmons to Allis agreement raises a chronological question similar to the one seen in the Ashby and Bodley transactions. The agreement was earlier described in its opening as articles of agreement between the two parties, with the date here recorded as 4 May 1696. The earlier Stevens to Allis lease in the same series of documents was dated 5 August 1689, so the chronological order of the underlying transactions has the Stevens lease coming first and the Hemmons sale coming second. The reference to the eighth year of King William's reign places the 1696 date within the regnal years of William the Third, since William and Mary's joint reign began in February 1689 and the eighth year would run from February 1696 to February 1697.
The reference to John Hemmons as still alive in 1696, executing the conveyance under his own name and signature, conflicts with the earlier 1682 inquest description of John Hemmons of Pleasant Valley. The Hemmons of the inquest had exchanged his land with Henry Coales, suggesting he was active at that earlier date, and his appearance here in 1696 indicates either that the same man continued in property dealings across the fourteen years, or that the name was carried by a son or other relative. The records do not resolve the question conclusively, but the recurrence of the Hemmons name in property transactions across multiple decades shows the persistence of the family within the island's settler society.
The Stevens to Allis lease of 5 August 1689 is a fixed-term leasehold for eighteen years, with Allis paying £12 0s 0d for the entire term and assuming any taxes or assessments due to the company during that period. The eighteen-year term is unusual within the records reviewed, falling between the shorter terms of the Carne to Orchard seven-year lease and the much longer Rhodes to Cotgrave ninety-nine-year lease. The chosen length perhaps reflected a particular bargain between the parties about the value of the parcel over a specific horizon, with eighteen years offering enough time for Allis to recoup his investment while not committing the land for the very long term that nominal-rent leases like the Rhodes lease provided.
The price of £12 0s 0d for eighteen years works out to less than fourteen shillings per year for the use of the parcel, a low effective rental compared to the £40 0s 0d that Bazett paid for ten acres in 1706 or the per-acre purchase prices seen in freehold transactions. The figure indicates that long-term leases at this date could be acquired for relatively modest sums, with the lessor giving up substantial use of the land in exchange for a single up-front payment. The arrangement matches the structure of the Rhodes to Cotgrave lease, where the lessor accepted a single cash sum plus a nominal rent in exchange for granting long-term possession.
The Stevens lease shifts the obligation to pay taxes and assessments to Allis as lessee, in the same form seen in the Rhodes to Cotgrave lease where Cotgrave assumed the duties on lands and other assessments. The recurrence of this structure in two separate long-term leases shows that it was a standard feature of the island's leasehold arrangements. The lessor parted with the use of the land but kept clear of any continuing tax liability, with the lessee taking on whatever obligations the company or its successors might impose during the term.
The boundary description identifying the parcel as adjoining Allis's own land then held by him from Benjamin Meller suggests that Allis had previously taken some interest in the Meller parcel, perhaps a lease or other holding. The reference indicates that Allis was building up a connected estate at the head of Deep Valley, with the Stevens lease extending his control over a contiguous block of land beyond his existing holding. The arrangement matches the broader pattern of consolidation seen throughout the records, with planters seeking to assemble continuous working blocks rather than scattered parcels.
The presence of the same Benjamin Meller name as a former holder in both the Hemmons sale and the Stevens lease, with the parcels each described as adjoining land formerly held by him, indicates that Meller had been a substantial holder at the head of Deep Valley before relinquishing his interest. The disposal of his holdings through multiple separate transactions to different buyers, including the company through Hemmons's exchange and Stevens through the lease to Allis, points to a comprehensive break-up of his estate. The persistence of his name as the identifier of the parcels he had once held mirrors the broader pattern in which original or notable holders gave their names to parcels they no longer owned.
The witnesses to the Stevens to Allis lease include John Draper, William Cliston and Richard Gurling, three names that appear elsewhere in the records. Gurling features in the property transactions of the early 1700s as both a buyer and a seller of substantial holdings, and his appearance here as a witness in 1689 places him in the network of literate participants from an early date. William Cliston had also witnessed the Tomps to Allis stone house conveyance of 1688, indicating his sustained role in the formal conveyancing practice across the late 1680s.
Speculations
The eighteen-year term chosen for the Stevens to Allis lease perhaps reflects a deliberate selection of a term that would extend through Allis's active working years while not committing the property to him in perpetuity. The lease running from 1689 to 1707 would have covered the prime years of his agricultural activity at the head of Deep Valley, with the parcel returning to Stevens's heirs or successors at the end of the term. The structure gave Stevens a substantial cash payment for the eighteen-year use of the parcel while preserving the underlying freehold for the future, and gave Allis a defined period of secure tenure during which he could plan his investments and improvements.
Thomas Allis's accumulation of property at the head of Deep Valley through multiple mechanisms, including the Stevens lease, the Hemmons purchase and the earlier connection to the Meller parcel, illustrates how a planter could build up a working estate through a combination of leasehold and freehold acquisitions. The mixed tenure of his holdings would have given him different rights and obligations in respect of each parcel, but all served the practical purpose of expanding his working land. The accumulation pattern matches the broader picture of estate-building seen across the records, with active planters seeking to consolidate their position through whatever legal mechanisms were available.
The description of the leasehold as demised, granted and to farm let, using the standard English leasehold formula, indicates the formal continuity of conveyancing language with English practice. The phrase to farm let preserved the medieval English usage in which a lease for years was described as a farm or farming arrangement, even though the substance of the transaction was a property lease rather than an agricultural tenancy in any specific sense. The continuity of the language shows how the island's conveyancing practice transplanted established English forms without significant local modification.
The inclusion of wood, trees, sprights and other growing material in the Hemmons to Allis transfer, alongside the more standard provisions, reflects the consistent attention to timber and growing produce that characterised many of the deeds in the records. The standard formula treated the entire growing substance of the land as part of the conveyance, with the buyer acquiring not only the underlying soil but everything growing on it. The repeated emphasis on these elements indicates their economic importance within the island's agricultural economy, where standing trees and crops formed a significant part of the value of any parcel.
45
Stephen Child to Thomas Allis To all whom these presents Shall Come Know Ye that I Stephen Child of the Island of S[t] Helena Gunners Mate, for the Sum of Three pounds in hand paid, and Divers good Caufes and good Considerations me thereunto Moveing have Demised Released and altogether for me and my Heirs Have Quitt Claimed unto Thomas Allis of the said Island Free planter in his full and peaceable possession and to his heirr all my Right Estate Title Claim Intrest and Demand, which I the aforesaid Stephen Child any time had have or in any wise for Ever may have, or my heirs at any time hereafter may have, of or in that Tonement of Land Lyeing Sectuate and being in Deep Valley, Conteineing by Estimation ten Acres formerly the Lott ground of Benjamen Meller Souldier in the said Island and now in the Occupation of the said Thomas Allis. So that Neither the aforesaid Stephen Child my heirs nor any other byes, for us, or in our Names any Reght Estate Title Claim Intrest or Demand of and in the said Land and premises nor in any parcell thereof may or ought to Require Caim or Challenge from Every Action, or Demands to the said premisses wee are altogether Excluded by these presents, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto putt my hand and Seale this twenteeth day of June 1704
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of William Beale Daneell Griffeth Sutton Isaack
Stephen Child [seal]
Benjamin Miller to Thomas Allis To All Christian People to whom these presents Shall Come Benjamin Miller of the Island of S[t] Helena Souldeier Greeteing in our Lord God Everlasting Know ye that the aforesaid Benjamin Miller for and in Considerateon of the Sum of Fourteen pound of Currant Money of the said Island to me the aforesaid Benjamin Miller by Thomas Allis of the aforesaid Island Freeplanter before the Ensealing and Delivery of these presents well and truely in hand paied whereof and wherewith the said Benjamin Miller Acknowledgeth himself fully Satisfeed and paied and thereof doth Acquitt and Discharg[e] the said Thomas Allis his heirs, Executors, Administrators, and Assignes, and Every of them by these presents Hath Given granted Alienated bargained and Sold. And by these pre- sents doth Alienate, Grant bargain and Sell unto the said Thomas Allis of Deep Valley as aforesaid his heirs and Assignes for Ever, All that piece or parcell of Land Conteining by Estimateon Ten Acres, be the Same more or Less, Sectuate Lyeing and being in Deep Valley aforesaid in the said Island and Adjoyning to the Plantation of the said Thomas Allis, All and Singular the ways, Conveneneces, profsetts, and Emoluments whatsoever thereunto belongeing or in any Wife appertaineing, and which said premches are now in the Tencure, or Occupation of the said Thomas Allis. To have and to hold the said Lands with all and Singular other the premisses to the
Same
Stephen Child to Thomas Allis.
Stephen Child, gunner's mate of the island of St Helena, made known by these presents that he had received the sum of £3 0s 0d in hand. For this consideration and for other good causes, he demised, released and quit-claimed to Thomas Allis, free planter of the same island, in his full and peaceable possession, all his right, estate, title, claim, interest and demand in a tenement of land in Deep Valley. The parcel contained about ten acres and had formerly been the lot of Benjamin Meller, soldier of the island. It was then in the occupation of Thomas Allis. Child and his heirs were excluded from any action or demand in respect of the premises. He set his hand and seal to the document on 20 June 1704.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of William Beale, Daniel Griffeth and Sutton Isaack.
Stephen Child, with a seal attached.
Benjamin Miller to Thomas Allis.
Benjamin Miller, soldier of the island of St Helena, addressed all Christian people who might come to see the document and sent greeting in the Lord God everlasting. He acknowledged that he had received from Thomas Allis, free planter of the same island, the sum of £14 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the document. He acknowledged full payment and released Allis, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from any further claim in respect of the sum. He gave, granted, alienated, bargained and sold to Allis of Deep Valley, his heirs and assigns for ever, a parcel of land of about ten acres in Deep Valley, joined to Allis's plantation. The conveyance included all ways, conveniences, profits and emoluments. The land was then in Allis's own occupation. Allis was to hold the parcel, with all appurtenances [...]
Interpretations
The Stephen Child quit-claim of 20 June 1704 records the release of a possible competing interest in the ten-acre parcel that Thomas Allis held in Deep Valley. Child paid Allis nothing for the quit-claim, instead receiving £3 0s 0d from Allis in consideration of his release. The structure shows that Allis was prepared to pay a modest sum to clear up any residual interest that Child might have had in the parcel, securing his title against the possibility of a future challenge. The arrangement reveals how quit-claims operated as protective instruments within the conveyancing system, with small payments made to obtain releases from anyone who might otherwise assert a claim.
The identification of Stephen Child as gunner's mate connects him to the same garrison position that Thomas Goodwin had held in the 1690s and that John Clavering held in 1707. The recurring appearance of garrison personnel in property transactions confirms the active participation of military men in the island's land market. Child's potential claim against the Allis Deep Valley parcel suggests that he had some past connection to the property, perhaps as a former lessee or as an heir or relative of a previous holder, that needed to be formally extinguished to protect Allis's title.
The parcel involved in the Child quit-claim is identified as formerly the lot of Benjamin Meller, soldier, the same Meller whose name appears in the Hemmons and Stevens transactions as a previous holder at the head of Deep Valley. The recurring reference to Meller as the original or earlier holder of multiple parcels at this location suggests that he had once held a substantial estate that subsequently dispersed through various transfers. The identification of Meller as a soldier in this quit-claim is consistent with his military status that had perhaps been the basis for his original allotment from the company.
The presence of Daniel Griffeth as a witness to the Child quit-claim places the council clerk directly in the transaction. Griffeth had certified copies of many earlier deeds in the records reviewed, and his appearance here as a witness rather than as a certifier shows the dual roles that the clerk's office combined. The other witnesses were William Beale, whose name connects to the Beale family active in the 1682 inquest, and Sutton Isaack, also named in the 1682 records as a holder in Fishers Valley. The combination of witnesses places the transaction within the established network of literate participants in the formal property dealings on the island.
The Benjamin Miller to Thomas Allis conveyance, of unspecified date in the text presented, transfers another ten-acre parcel in Deep Valley joined to Allis's plantation for £14 0s 0d. The transaction shows Allis adding yet another parcel to his accumulating Deep Valley estate, with the new acquisition extending his holding adjacent to land he already worked. The Miller from whom Allis bought this parcel is presumably the same Benjamin Miller, soldier, who appears in the earlier records as a major holder in Fishers Valley.
The price of £14 0s 0d for the Miller ten acres gives a per-acre figure of £1 8s 0d, falling within the upper range of values for the area. The figure is higher than the £1 0s 0d per acre rate seen in many earlier transactions but consistent with the gradual appreciation of land values across the period covered by the records. The Miller parcel had been in Allis's occupation at the time of the conveyance, suggesting that Allis had been working the land under some previous arrangement, perhaps a lease, before purchasing the freehold outright.
The naming of Allis as Thomas Allis of Deep Valley in the Miller conveyance places him as a recognised resident and landholder of the Deep Valley district by the date of this transaction. The geographical designation attached to his name confirms his settled status in the area, distinguishing him from any other Thomas Allis who might have been active elsewhere on the island. The phrase reveals the development of local identification through residence, with planters becoming associated with their principal districts in the formal documentation.
Speculations
The £3 0s 0d that Allis paid Child for the quit-claim represents a modest sum for the protection it provided against a potential title challenge. Allis would have judged that the risk of Child asserting a claim, however weak, against the parcel was worth removing through a small payment rather than leaving open the possibility of future litigation or disputed possession. The arrangement points to a careful approach by Allis to securing his accumulating Deep Valley estate, with every possible competing interest being formally extinguished to produce a clean title.
The chain of identifications connecting Benjamin Meller as the original holder of the Deep Valley parcels to Stephen Child as a successor with some residual interest, and from Meller to Benjamin Miller as another sometime holder of related Deep Valley land, suggests a complex web of military allotments and family interests in the area. The parcels at the head of Deep Valley had moved through various military hands before reaching Allis, with the original allotments perhaps having been made to garrison members who later disposed of or assigned their interests. The accumulation by Allis brought multiple of these parcels into a single working estate.
The repeated acquisitions by Allis at the head of Deep Valley, including the Hemmons purchase, the Stevens lease, the Child quit-claim and the Miller sale, illustrate the sustained estate-building strategy of an active planter over a period of nearly two decades. The transactions span from the Stevens lease of 1689 through the Hemmons sale of 1696 to the Child and Miller transactions of the early 1700s. The persistence of Allis's accumulation across this long period suggests both the longevity of his planting career on the island and his consistent focus on consolidating land in a particular district.
The structural device of the quit-claim, used by Child to release any residual interest in the Allis parcel, provides a practical alternative to fresh litigation in cases where a third party might assert competing rights. The mechanism allowed potential disputes to be resolved through negotiation and recorded release rather than through court proceedings, with small payments exchanged for clean title. The recurring use of quit-claims in the records, seen also in the Henry Francis to Goodwin release of 1704, points to a well-developed practice of preventive title clearance within the island's property system.
46
Same belongeng, or now Used or Occupied with the Same and by these presents bargained and Sold, or Mentioned to be bargained and Sold, with all and Every theer Appurtenances unto the said Thomas Allis his heirs and Assignes to the onely proper Use of the said Thomas Allis his heirs and Assignes for Ever, And the said Benjamin Miller doth Covenant for him, his heirs, Execut[ors] Administrators and Assignes, and for Every of them, to and with the said Thomas Allis his heers Executors, Administrators and Assignes, and with Every of them by these presents, That he the said Benjamin Miller for any Act done, or here- after to be done, Comitted or Voluntarily Suffered, by him, or any other Claiming by from or under his Title or Right, hath good Reght, full power and Lawsfull Authority to grant bargain and Sell, the aforesaid premisses, and Every part and parcell thereof in Manner as the Same before or these presents are gran- ted, Alieined, bargained or Sold, And that the premisses, and Every part thereof now be, and from the Ensealing of these presents Shall Stand, and be free, or Shall from tome Sufficiently, be Saved harmless by the said Benjamin Miller, or by his heirs, Executors, or Assignes, of and from all, and all Manner of former bargaines, Sale, Gifts, Grants, forfeicture penaltyes, Titles, troubles, Charges and Incumbrances whatsoever had made done or Suffered, or to be had hereafter done or Suffered by the said Benjamin Miller, or any other person or persons whatsoever, And further that the said Thomas Allis his heirs and Assignes, Shall, or may from time to time, and at all times hereafter, Lawsfully and Quietly, have hold and Enjoy the Said Land, and all other the premisses before Mentioned to be bargained and Sold, according to the purport, and true Meaning of these presents, without any Lawsfull Eviction, Lett or Disteurbance of the said Benjamin Miller his heirs, or Assignes, or of any other person or Persons Claiming by from or under them, or any, or either of them And the aforesaid premisses with all, and Singular the Appurtenances he the said Benjamen Miller Against him, and all others, Shall Warrant and Defend. In Wittness whereof the aforesaid Benjamin Miller have to these presents put my hand and Seale this third day of Apprill in the year of our Lord One thousand Seaven hundred and feerr 1704
Signed Sealed and Delivered In the presence of us Erasmus Pearliong Thomas Cofon Daneell Griffeth
Signum
Benjamin Miller
The continuation of the Benjamin Miller to Thomas Allis conveyance.
Allis was to hold the premises and the appurtenances belonging to or used with them, with all rights bargained and sold, to himself, his heirs and assigns for ever, to his sole proper use. Benjamin Miller covenanted for himself and his successors that he had good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain and sell the premises. He undertook to save Allis and his heirs harmless from any former bargains, sales, gifts, grants, forfeitures, penalties, titles, troubles, charges or encumbrances arising from any act done or suffered by him or by any other person. He warranted that Allis and his successors should hold and enjoy the land without any lawful eviction, hindrance or disturbance from Miller, his heirs, assigns or any person claiming through them. Miller bound himself and all others to warrant and defend the premises with their appurtenances. He set his hand and seal to the document on 3 April 1704.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Erasmus Pearliong, Thomas Cofon and Daniel Griffeth.
Benjamin Miller, with a sign.
Interpretations
The Miller to Allis conveyance of 3 April 1704 completes a sustained sequence by which Thomas Allis built up his Deep Valley estate. The transaction adds the Miller ten acres to the parcels Allis had earlier acquired from Hemmons, leased from Stevens, and secured against any competing claim from Stephen Child. By the time of this 1704 conveyance, Allis had assembled a substantial connected holding at the head of Deep Valley through a combination of leases, purchases and quit-claims spanning fifteen years.
The detailed warranty clauses in the Miller deed represent the most extensive title protection language seen in the records reviewed. Miller covenanted not only against his own acts but against the acts of anyone claiming through his title, and bound himself to save Allis harmless from former bargains, sales, gifts, grants, forfeitures, penalties, titles, troubles, charges and incumbrances. The comprehensive enumeration covered every conceivable form of competing claim or encumbrance that might affect the parcel, providing Allis with the fullest possible documentary protection against any future challenge. The breadth of the warranty perhaps reflects either the parties' awareness of the multi-layered history of the Deep Valley parcels or a general elaboration of conveyancing language in the early 1700s compared with earlier deeds.
The phrase any Act done, or hereafter to be done, comitted or Voluntarily Suffered extends the warranty to future as well as past acts, with Miller committing himself and his successors to defend the title against any subsequent disposition or omission that might affect Allis's interest. The forward-looking element of the warranty would have allowed Allis to claim against Miller's estate if any future act by Miller or his heirs created a competing interest in the parcel. The clause shifted not only past but also future title risks to the seller, providing a comprehensive shield for the buyer's interest.
The witnesses to the conveyance include Daniel Griffeth as clerk of the council, in the same role he played in the Stephen Child quit-claim of two months later. The other witnesses, Erasmus Pearliong and Thomas Cofon, are new names in the records reviewed and may indicate the involvement of additional literate participants whose property activities did not generate their own recorded transactions. The Pearliong name, with its unusual spelling, may indicate another settler of continental European origin, adding to the diversity of background suggested by names like Des Fontaines and Sortelben in other records.
Benjamin Miller's identity in this conveyance connects to the Benjamin Miller of the 1682 inquest, who appears as the holder of a substantial parcel in Fishers Valley adjoining other holdings. The continuity of the name across the records, with Miller appearing as soldier in the 1704 conveyance, suggests that he had been a long-term settler on the island, perhaps the same man who held the original allotment two decades earlier or a son carrying the same name. The Miller name's persistence in property dealings across this period mirrors the broader pattern of family continuity in the island's settler society.
The recording of Miller's signature in the original Latin formula Signum, meaning sign or mark, rather than as a written name or as a mark in the conventional form, indicates either that he signed by a personal device that the clerk recorded with the Latin term, or that the clerk used Latin to describe the form of authentication used. The unusual form contrasts with the standard recording of marks as X or other letters by the clerk in other deeds. The variation may reflect either the particular style of the clerk Griffeth in this transaction or a specific form of authentication used by Miller that differed from the more common marks.
The £14 0s 0d that Allis paid Miller for the ten acres falls between the prices paid in his earlier Deep Valley acquisitions. The Stevens lease had cost £12 0s 0d for an eighteen-year term on ten acres, while the Hemmons purchase had cost £10 6s 0d for a freehold ten acres in 1696. The £14 0s 0d for the Miller parcel in 1704 reflects the upward movement of land values during the intervening years, with the per-acre rate of £1 8s 0d now standing well above the earlier figures. The pattern matches the general appreciation of land values seen across the records during the period from the 1680s to the 1700s.
The phrase any Act done, or hereafter to be done, comitted or Voluntarily Suffered also reveals an awareness of the various ways in which title problems could arise. The wording covers not only positive acts of conveyance but also omissions or sufferings that might allow a third party to acquire rights through adverse possession, prescription or other means. The careful drafting indicates that the conveyancing practice on the island had developed beyond simple transfer language to address the full range of risks that could compromise a buyer's title over time.
Speculations
The very detailed warranty clauses in the Miller to Allis conveyance perhaps reflect the accumulated experience of the parties with the complications that could arise in establishing clean title to parcels with multiple historical claims. The Deep Valley parcels had moved through various military allottees, exchanges with the company, leases and sales, with the result that potential competing interests could lurk in the background of any title. Miller's willingness to give the extensive warranty, and Allis's insistence on receiving it, point to a shared understanding that the standard quiet enjoyment covenant was insufficient protection for a parcel with such a complicated history.
The completion of Allis's Deep Valley estate-building project by 1704 placed him among the substantial planters of the island, with a consolidated holding at the head of Deep Valley acquired through multiple separate transactions over fifteen years. The total acreage he had assembled, combining the various parcels traced in the records, would have been at least thirty acres of freehold and leasehold land in a single district. The pattern of sustained acquisition by a single buyer matches the parallel histories of accumulation by Thomas Goodwin, Matthew Bazett, Hoskinson and others, suggesting that the early 1700s saw active consolidation of land into the hands of leading settlers.
The presence of Miller in this 1704 conveyance, identified still as a soldier, suggests that he remained in the garrison while disposing of his accumulated property holdings. The pattern matches the path of other military personnel who used their service pay and accumulated savings to acquire land during their active years and then sold or transferred their holdings later in their careers or as their circumstances changed. The combined participation of military and civilian holders in the island's property market produced the layered network of transactions visible across the records.
The forward-looking warranty against future acts by Miller or his successors reveals a particular concern about the durability of the title transferred. Allis was acquiring not only the present interest in the parcel but a continuing guarantee against any subsequent dilution of his rights, with Miller and his estate bound to defend the title for the indefinite future. The structure points to a high level of legal sophistication in the island's conveyancing practice, with parties willing to commit themselves and their successors to long-term obligations in exchange for the substantial consideration paid at the time of the conveyance.
47
Companys Lease to Paul Graton The Governour and Company of Merchants of London, trading to the East Indies, do hereby Demise grant sett and ffarm Lett Unto Paul Graton of the Island S[t] Helena, free Planter, all that Mefseuage or Tennement formerly in the Tencure or Occupateon, of Margarett Cotgrave Wedow deceased, and Comonly Called or Sonown by the Name of the Lemon Garden, And all the Garden or Garden Platt and Plantation, thereunto belongeing as the Same is Fenced in, walled and Enclosed, In Such and So Ample Manner and Forme as the Said Margaret Cotgrave deceased Enjoyed the Same, which Said Demised Premisses are Sectuate Lyeing and being in Chapple Valley, Near Fort James, As also one Acre and a halfe of the Said R[t] Hon[ble] Companees Waste Land, Lyeing Lekewefse Sectuate and being Neigh the head of the aforesaid Chappell Valley, Some Small Disteance below the Land belonging to Jonathan Beals Orphans Comonly Known by the Name of the Purrlane Bed: To Have and to hold the Said Mefseuage or Tenement Garden and Plantation, with the Said Acre and a half of Land, and all, and Singulair other the Premisses Demised as aforesaid, Unto the said Paul Graton his Executors, Administrators, and Assignes from the feast of the Annuntiation of our Blefsed Vorgen Mary, Next Commencing after the date hereof, Unto the full Eneland Term of Eighteen years, Yeelding and pareing therefore yearly Dueing the Said Forme Unto the Said Company and their Successorr, The Rent or Summ of Thorty Pounds Seven Shillings and Six pence, (the duty of said Land Included) of Curtant Mony of the Said Island, In at or upon the Said Annuntiateon of our Blefsed Vergin Marry Comonly Called Lady Day Upon Condetion Neverthelefs that he the said Paul Graton, his Executors Administrators and Assigns Shall for the Publick good vend and Sell the Fruit and Product of the aforesaid Lemon Garden as followeth, (That is to Say) Bonano Trees at Six pence Each, Lemon Juice at Two Shillings and Six pence [p] Gallon, Lemons at three Shillings [p] Hundred, Bonano Bunches att two Shillings and Six pente Each, and to Lett the Company have the dry Leaves for their Own use, And the Said Paul Graton doth for himself his heirs Executors, Ad- ministrators and Assignes, Covenant and agree to Keep all the aforesaid Premisses in good and Sufficient Repaier, and in the End, Expiration, or determination of this present Lease Shall and will Peaceably, Yield up the Same, well, and Suffici- ently, Repaired, Amended, Upheld and Kept, Provided always and Neverthelefs Upon Condetion, that if the Said Paul Graton, &c[a] do not, or Shall not well and truely pay, or Cause to be paied, The Rent or Summe of Thorty Pound Seven Shillings and Six pence as aforesaid that Then it Shall be Lawsfull for the Said Right Hon[ble] Company, Into the Said premestes to Reenter, And the Said Company do Covenant for them their Heirs, and Successors That he the said Paul Graton, his Executors, Administrators
and
The Right Honourable Company leased to Paul Graton, a free planter of St Helena, the messuage and tenement formerly held by the late Margaret Cotgrave, widow. The property was known as the Lemon Garden, and the lease covered the dwelling together with its garden, plantation, fencing, walls and enclosures, exactly as Margaret Cotgrave had held them.
The premises lay in Chapel Valley near Fort James. The lease also included one and a half acres of the Company's waste land near the head of Chapel Valley, a short distance below the parcel held by the orphans of Jonathan Beale and known as the Purslane Bed.
Paul Graton, his executors, administrators and assigns took the property for an eighteen-year term, to run from the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary next following the date of the lease. The annual rent due to the Company was £30 7s 6d in island currency, payable each year on Lady Day, with the land duty included in that sum.
Graton was bound to sell the produce of the Lemon Garden at fixed prices for the public good. Banana trees were to be sold at 6d each. Lemon juice was to be sold at 2s 6d per gallon. Lemons were to be sold at 3s 0d per hundred. Banana bunches were to be sold at 2s 6d each. The dry leaves were reserved to the Company for its own use.
Graton bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to keep the premises in good repair throughout the term and to surrender them at its end in equally good condition. If the rent of £30 7s 6d was not duly paid, the Company reserved the right of re-entry into the premises.
The Company covenanted for itself, its heirs and successors, that Paul Graton, his executors and administrators
Interpretations
The Lemon Garden lease shows how the Company used controlled tenancy to manage a strategic asset. The garden was not an ordinary plantation but a regulated source of antiscorbutic produce, valuable to the Company's ships calling at St Helena. By fixing retail prices for bananas, lemons, lemon juice and banana bunches in the lease itself, the Company turned a tenancy agreement into an instrument of price control, removing the tenant's commercial discretion over the very produce that made the holding profitable.
The reservation of dry leaves to the Company is a small but telling provision. Dry banana and lemon leaves had practical uses in packing, thatching, fodder and wrapping. The clause shows that even the by-products of the garden were treated as Company property, with the tenant taking only what the lease expressly granted him.
The rent of £30 7s 6d was a substantial sum for an eighteen-year term, and the inclusion of the land duty within the figure simplified collection. Lady Day, on 25 March, was the conventional English quarter day for rent and the start of the legal year, so the choice of date aligned the St Helena lease with metropolitan practice.
The right of re-entry on non-payment is the Company's principal enforcement mechanism. Rather than pursuing the tenant for arrears, the Company could simply repossess the holding, which on a regulated commercial garden was a far heavier sanction than a money judgment. The clause reveals how landlordship and governmental authority combined in a single instrument on the island.
Margaret Cotgrave, widow of John Cotgrave, had earlier held a Chapel Valley dwelling house bought by her late husband from Thomas Tewsdale in April 1694, and a 10-acre parcel at the head of Sharks Valley taken on a 99-year lease from Elizabeth Rhodes in October 1687. The Lemon Garden adds a third Cotgrave holding to the record and shows the household's footprint in the urban core of Chapel Valley before her death.
The orphans of Jonathan Beale appear here as a boundary feature, holding the Purslane Bed near the head of Chapel Valley. Orphaned children retained named interests in land in their own right, and their parcel served as a fixed point of reference in subsequent leases. The Beale name connects forward to the Ellenor Beale legacy administered through William Chevalls and George Carne in 1707.
The phrase Purslane Bed identifies a parcel by the herb cultivated on it. Purslane was valued as a fresh green and as a further antiscorbutic, and the naming pattern matches the Lemon Garden itself: holdings on Company waste were often identified by their dominant produce rather than by an owner's name.
Speculations
The structure of the lease suggests the Company was responding to a specific supply problem. Fresh fruit and lemon juice were essential against scurvy on the long passages between England, the Cape and India, and an unregulated tenant could have raised prices when shipping demand was high. By writing the retail prices into the lease, the Company guaranteed that arriving ships would find produce at a known rate, and the eighteen-year term gave the tenant enough security to invest in the garden's upkeep without the Company surrendering control of the pricing.
The choice of Paul Graton as the new tenant after Margaret Cotgrave's death points to a deliberate transfer rather than an open market grant. The Lemon Garden carried both commercial value and a public-supply obligation, and the Company would have selected a planter judged capable of maintaining the trees, the walls and the fencing already established by the Cotgrave household. The lease preserves the existing physical layout exactly, which indicates the Company wanted continuity of production rather than redevelopment of the site.
The addition of one and a half acres of waste land near the head of the valley, separate from the main garden, suggests the Company was extending the holding to give Graton room for expansion or for ancillary crops not subject to the fixed prices. The waste-land parcel falls outside the schedule of regulated produce, and Graton would have been free to use it as ordinary plantation ground while meeting his obligations on the Lemon Garden proper.
48
and Assignes and Every of them, Paying and Performing the Rent, and agreement above Mentioned, Shall and may Peaceably Enjoy the said Premisses, without any Lett trouble Expulsion or Interruption whatsoever, In Wittness whereof the Governour and and Company To one Part hereof have Sett their Common Seale, And the said Paul Graton to the other part, hereof hath Sett to his hand and Seale this Twenty third day of December in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seven
Sealed & Delevered In the Presence of us
Paul Graton [seal]
Memorandum That Sence the within Written Lease was made, We have agreed and granted the within Mentioned Acre and a Half of Land To the said Paul Graton his Executorr Admi- nistratorr and Assignes for the Form of Sixty, and One year, Commencing From the 25 day of March Next Enseuing the date hereof
Memorand[u]m W[m] Mar[y] French to [Geo] Hosk[i]son That William French Esq[r] and Mary his wife For and in Consideration of [...] Sum of thirty nine pounds in good & Cur[r]ant mony to them in hand paid before the Sealing and delivery hereof, whereof the said Will[m] & Mary French Doth acknowledge them- selves to be fully Sattisfyed Contented &c[a] and Have demised granted and to Farme Letten unto George Hoskison of S[t] [H]elena free planter Thirty Acres of [L]and formerly Thom[s] Box's d[ec]d with Fifty Thousand yames one is another of Mine Months growth, As also Ten Acrer of Land more which the said French Leas[ed] of y[e] R[t] Hon[t] Com[p]a[ny] adjoyning to y[e] afore[said] thirty Acrer of Land Lying Scituate &c[a] at the head of Lemon Valley with all y[e] [a]ppurtenances thereunto belong[ing] [t]o, and During the Form of Eleaven full years The said W[m] French or his heers tha p[a]ying the s[d] R[t] Hon[t] Compa[ny] their full y[e]ar[ly] Rent and Duty Yearly at the Same Shall become Due, for all the Land before Mentioned. Upon Consideration That the said George Hoskison gives the s[d] W[ill]i[a]me French &c[a] with Five thousand of yams Yearr Dueing the said Eleven years, and at y[e] s[ai]d Expiration of s[d] Eleaven years to Leave the said hereby Mentioned Lands Possession &c[a] in as good Condition as y[e] same is Now [w]ho take quiet posession thereof [...] N[o] W[itne]ss whereof all the[m] hum Mentioned & Concern[s] have to th[e]s[s] p[r]s[r]s h[a]ct their hands [&] seals this 24 day of July 1707
Sealed signed and D[d] in y[e] pesence of us Robe[r]t Keling J[no] Alexander
William French [seal] Mary French [seal] George Hoskison [seal]
and assigns, and every one of them, on paying the rent and performing the covenants set out above, would peacefully enjoy the premises without disturbance, hindrance or interruption of any kind. The Governor and Company affixed the Common Seal to one part of the lease. Paul Graton set his hand and seal to the other. The lease was sealed and delivered on 23 December 1707.
A memorandum was added after the lease was executed. The Governor and Council granted Paul Graton, his executors, administrators and assigns a further term of sixty-one years over the one and a half acres of waste land referred to in the lease. That extended term ran from 25 March following the date of the memorandum.
A separate memorandum recorded a transaction between William French esquire and his wife Mary on the one part and George Hoskison, free planter of St Helena, on the other. The Frenches acknowledged receipt of £39 0s 0d in good current money paid in hand before the sealing of the deed. In return they demised and leased to Hoskison thirty acres of land formerly held by the late Thomas Box, together with 50,000 yams of about nine months' growth. The lease also covered a further ten acres adjoining the thirty, which William French held by lease from the Company at the head of Lemon Valley, with all appurtenances.
The term was eleven years. William French or his heirs remained liable for the yearly rent and duty payable to the Company on all the land covered. In return for the lease, Hoskison undertook to deliver to William French and his wife 5,000 yams in each of the eleven years. At the end of the term Hoskison was to surrender the land and possessions in as good a condition as he had received them.
The deed was signed, sealed and delivered on 24 July 1707 in the presence of Robert Keling and John Alexander. William French, Mary French and George Hoskison each set their hand and seal.
Interpretations
The sixty-one-year extension to Paul Graton's one and a half acres of waste land transforms what had been a marginal addition to the Lemon Garden lease into a near-perpetual holding. The eighteen-year main term was suited to a regulated commercial garden, but a sixty-one-year term on the upper parcel gave Graton the security to plant slow-growing crops or fruit trees on what had previously been Company waste. The decision mirrors the 99-year extension granted to Paul Charles in March 1705 over his Sandy Bay leasehold, and shows the Governor and Council willing to convert short tenures into long ones where a tenant proposed to develop unimproved ground.
The French to Hoskison transaction is technically described as a lease, but the substance is a sub-lease combined with a yam-supply contract. William French retained the head-lease from the Company and remained the rent-paying tenant. Hoskison received possession for eleven years and the existing crop of 50,000 yams. The arrangement let French raise £39 0s 0d in cash without surrendering his Company tenancy and let Hoskison work the land at scale while delivering a guaranteed return.
The yam covenant is the operative provision. Hoskison's obligation to deliver 5,000 yams a year for eleven years made yams function as the rent in kind, separate from the £39 0s 0d cash consideration paid at signing. Total deliveries amounted to 55,000 yams over the life of the lease, set against an initial stock of 50,000 yams transferred at the start. The structure gave the Frenches a steady food rent rather than a money rent.
The arrangement reinforces the role of yams as the principal subsistence commodity on the island, used both as currency-equivalent in earlier deeds and as the working medium of plantation agreements. The earlier composite arrangement of 4 March 1708 between the same William and Mary French and Edward Bagley involved similar features: a thirty-acre Box parcel, a ten-acre Company leasehold and reservations over grazing and produce. The July 1707 lease to Hoskison precedes that arrangement by less than eight months, and the same forty-acre block at the head of Lemon Valley appears in both.
The continuity of liability for the Company rent and duty kept the formal tenancy in William French's name. The clause shielded the Company from any difficulty in collecting rent from a sub-tenant, since the head-lessee remained the responsible party. The mechanism is a standard early-modern device for protecting a landlord against unwanted privity with under-tenants.
Robert Keling appears here as a witness alongside John Alexander. The Keling or Keeling name had earlier surfaced through the late Governor Keeling, whose heirs held land near Fryer Valley, and through Ellinor Keeling, daughter-in-law of George Carne. Robert Keling's appearance shows the family continuing to take part in the formal life of the register two decades after the governor's tenure.
Speculations
The same-day pairing of the eighteen-year Lemon Garden lease and the sixty-one-year extension to its waste-land annex suggests the original lease was drafted as a unit and then split into two instruments to keep the regulated commercial garden and the unregulated upland parcel on different legal footings. The Lemon Garden carried a public-supply obligation tied to ship victualling and was always going to be tightly controlled, but the upper parcel had no such function, and a longer term was an inducement to plant it out.
The Frenches' decision to take £39 0s 0d in cash plus an annual yam rent rather than a single capital sum points to a household needing both ready money and a continuous food supply. A pure sale would have given them more cash but no provisions, while a pure yam contract would have given provisions but no money for other outlays. The hybrid structure addressed both needs at once, and the eleven-year term gave time for the yam beds to be replanted on a rolling basis under Hoskison's management.
The matching of 50,000 yams in the initial transfer against 55,000 yams in the rent over eleven years implies a deliberate calculation. Hoskison was being asked to return slightly more than he received, which placed the burden of replanting and cultivation squarely on him while preserving the underlying yam stock for the Frenches at the end of the term. The numbers suggest an awareness on both sides of how much a forty-acre block could be expected to produce under continuous working.
49
Thomas Fewsdale to Owen Bevean This Indenteure, made the Seaventh day of December in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Six hundred Eighty and Six And in the Second Year of the Reigne of our Soveraign Lord James of England, Scotland, France and Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c[a]. Between Thomas ffewsdale of the Island S[t] Helena ffree planter of the one part, and Owen Bevean of the Said Island free planter of the other part, Wittnesseth that the Said Thomas ffewsdale for and on Consideration of the Sum of Four and Twenty pound, Forty Dollars, and feurteene poun[d] in Cattle to be Appraised by two Indifferent persons to be paid in att or upon the Seaventh day of September next Enseuing the date hereof, hath granted, Alieinated bargained and Sold, And by these presents grant Alienate bargain and Sell unto the Said Owen Bevean all that piece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres together with a piece of Ground fenced in for a Plantation Lyeing and being in Sandy Bay under Lemon Valley Rock, butting to the East upon parte of Ten Acres of land formerly in the Occupateon of one Peter Williams, but now in the Pofsefseon of James Wakefield, butting upon the West unto Edward Sufolke Land, with all and Singullair the Appurtenances thereunto belongoing, or in any wise Appurteyning, To have and to hold the Said pelece or parcell of Land together with the Appurtenances unto the Said Owen Bevean from the day of the date hereof his heirr and Assignes for Ever, and the said Thomas ffewsdale for himselfe his Executors, Administrators and Affsigner doth hereby Covenant promise and agree to and with the said Owen Bevean his heirs, Executors, Administratorrs and Assignes, that he the said Owen Bevean his heirs, Executors, and Administrators, Shall have hold Occupy posses and Enjoy the said hereby barga[i]ned p[r]omises without any the Lawfull Lett Suite, trouble mollestateon or Eviction of the Said Thomas ffewsdale his Executors, Administra- torr and Assignes, or of any other person or persons Lawfully Cl[ai]- mong or to Claymne any thing in the premises by from him them or any of them, free and Cleare of and from all former and other Gifts Grants, Bargaines, Sales, or Bequests whatfoever, In Wittness whereof the partys hereunto have interchangeably Set theer Hands and Seals, the day and Year forst above written
Sealed and Delivered in the presence of us Robert Tomps Lefter Sexton Edward Bless William Mellong
his Thomas T ffewsdale [seal] marke
Thomas Fewsdale, a free planter of St Helena, sold to Owen Bevean, also a free planter of the island, ten acres of land with a fenced plantation. The parcel lay in Sandy Bay under Lemon Valley Rock. To the east it bounded part of a ten-acre lot formerly held by Peter Williams and now in the possession of James Wakefield. To the west it bounded the land of Edward Suffolk.
The price was a composite payment in three currencies and in kind:
Cash in sterling £24 0s 0d
Spanish dollars 40 dollars
Cattle £14 0s 0d, valued by two impartial appraisers
The whole sum was due on 7 September following the date of the deed.
Fewsdale conveyed the land with all its appurtenances to Bevean, his heirs and assigns for ever, and covenanted that Bevean and his successors would enjoy the property without disturbance from Fewsdale or any person claiming through him. He warranted the title free of any earlier gift, grant, bargain, sale or bequest.
The deed was made on 7 December 1686, in the second year of the reign of King James the Second. It was sealed and delivered in the presence of Robert Tomps, Lester Sexton, Edward Bless and William Mellong. Thomas Fewsdale signed by his mark in the form of T.
Interpretations
The three-part purchase price reveals the practical limits of any single medium of exchange on the island. Sterling cash was scarce, Spanish dollars circulated through the trade routes to and from the Indies, and cattle were the most readily available store of value among the planters themselves. Splitting the consideration across all three let buyer and seller match the payment to what each could realistically gather, and the structure echoes the later Draper to Maxwell deed of 29 November 1699, in which £18 0s 0d was paid half in cattle at appraisal and half in Spanish dollars at 6s per dollar.
The use of two impartial appraisers to value the cattle is a standing feature of island practice. Cattle could not be priced by simple count because age, condition and sex affected value, and the appraisers gave both parties a binding figure without the need for a market sale. The mechanism resembles arbitration in miniature and avoided the disputes that direct negotiation over individual beasts would have produced.
The boundary description identifies the land by reference to its eastern and western neighbours rather than by survey measurement. Peter Williams's former ten-acre lot, then held by James Wakefield, gives the eastern boundary, and Edward Suffolk's land gives the western. The persistence of Williams's name as a descriptor, even though Wakefield was in possession, follows the standard butting-and-bordering convention seen in the 1682 inquest, where original allottees continued to identify parcels long after they had changed hands.
Owen Bevean, who took the land here, was the father-in-law of Thomas Goodwin. The 1684 Company grant to Bevean of twenty acres bordering John Cole, and the 1705 family settlement transferring that grant to Goodwin after Bevean and his wife's deaths, established the Bevean holding as one of the foundations of the Goodwin estate. The Sandy Bay parcel acquired here in December 1686 adds a second tract to the Bevean holdings and shows the household consolidating land on two sides of the island, the Lemon Valley side from the Company in 1684 and the Sandy Bay side from Fewsdale in 1686.
James Wakefield's name on the eastern boundary connects the Sandy Bay parcel to the broader Wakefield holding that runs through the Little Horsepad records. John Young of the 24 May 1693 deed sold eight acres at Little Horsepad described as part of Wakefield's lot, and Edward Crosbey's 19 March 1695 sale completed Goodwin's reassembly of the same lot. The Wakefield name therefore identifies parcels across at least two parts of the island, with the Little Horsepad lot and a separate Sandy Bay lot under Lemon Valley Rock.
Edward Suffolk on the western boundary connects to the 1 September 1694 conveyance through Thomas Goodwin, acting as attorney for Prudence Sherwin, of ten acres formerly Edward Suffolk's lot to John Goodwin. The Suffolk name therefore appears as both a boundary marker here and as the source of a separate ten-acre parcel later passing into Goodwin hands, suggesting Suffolk had held more than one allotment on the island.
Speculations
The deferred payment date of 7 September, nine months after the conveyance, suggests Fewsdale was prepared to wait for the harvest cycle to complete before taking his cash, dollars and cattle. Spring and early summer would have been the season for cattle to recover condition after the cooler months and for planters to assemble Spanish dollars from any trade with passing ships. The choice of September as the payment date appears tied to the rhythm of island economic activity rather than to any abstract legal quarter.
The conveyance for ever, with the specific warranty against earlier gifts, grants, bargains, sales or bequests, points to an awareness that Sandy Bay parcels had passed through many hands. The 1682 inquest recorded Cleverlee, Long, Price, Phillips, Lawson and Steward as participants in Sandy Bay transactions, and Fewsdale's clear undertaking that no earlier disposition encumbered the land was meant to protect Bevean against the kind of latent claim that the quit-claims of 1704 and 1707 were later used to extinguish.
The conveyance falls outside the Goodwin family's direct dealings, since Goodwin himself does not appear here. Bevean was acting in his own right in December 1686, almost twenty years before the family settlement to his son-in-law, and the Sandy Bay acquisition shows the Bevean household building its own estate independently of the later Goodwin connection. The conveyance therefore documents Bevean as a substantial planter in his own right, not merely as the father-in-law through whom the Lemon Valley grant later passed.
50
Owen Bevian to John Goodwin To all Persons to whome these presents Shall Come or Concern I Owen Bevean of the Island of S[t] Helena Send Greeting &c[a]
Know Ye that I the said Owen Bevean for, the Love good will &c[a] affec- teons which I have and beare towards my Loveing Son in Law John Goodwin of the said Island Have given and granted, and by these presents Doe hereby Clearly and Absolutely give and grant unto the said John Goodwin his heeres &c[a] all and Singullar the Premisses Contained on the other Sede of these presents Vizt Ten Acres of Land, House, Plantation, Tomber Trees, Provissons, Vizt To Have and to Hold the said Premises to him the said John Goodwin his heeres &c[a] from hence foreward, to his and theer own proper Use, as his or their own proper good fol[s] Ever, Absolutely with out any Manner of Condeteon, whatsoever, In Wittness thereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this forst day of Febreuary 168⅞
Sealed and Delevered in the Presence of us T Goodwin
The marke of Owen O B Bevean
Joseph Trapp to John Goodwin This Indenture made the Tenth day of Febreuary in the Year of our Lord God according to the Computation of the Church of England One thousand Six hundred Eighty Nine, Ninety and in the forst year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord and Lady William and Mary by the grace of God of England Scotland France and Ireland King and Queen Defender of the Faith &c[a]. Between us Joseph Trapp, of the Island of S[t] Helena planter of the One part, and John Goodwin of the said Island planter of the other part. Wittnesseth that the said Joseph Trapp as well for as in Consideration of the Sum of Thorty five pounds Sterling to be paid in Manner and forme followong Vizt Three good Bills of Exchange due from Commanderr of Retur[n]ing Sheps or Sterling Money which Shall be fully Compleated and paied by the Twenty fefth day of December Next Enseing the date hereof as alfs for Divers other good Caufes and Considerations to himselfe known him the said Joseph Trapp thereunto moveing hath Demised Granted bargained and Sold, and doth by these present Demife Grant bargain and Sell unto the said John Goodwin his heeirs Executors Administrators and Assignes, all that Mefseuage House Plantateon Ten Acres of Land with the Appurtenanncks thereunto belongeing, or in any wise Apperteyning, as Hedger, Ditches, Walls &c[a] (and alfs One Negroe Man Slave Known by the Name of Asher with Eight Head of Hoggs, Sectuate on the said Island, Lyeing and being at the Head of Lemon Valley Near the Land of John Greentree (Deceased) and is now in the Occupateon of the Aforesaid Joseph Trapp with all the profets and Comodetyes thereunto belongong or in any wise appurtaeneing, To Have and to hold the said House plantateon Ten Acres of Land, Negroe Slave, Hoggs &c[a] with theer and Every
of
Owen Bevean made an outright gift of land to his son-in-law John Goodwin on 1 February 1690. The gift covered ten acres with a house, plantation, timber trees and provisions, identified by reference to a description on the other side of the deed. Goodwin and his heirs took the property to their own use for ever, free of any condition.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of T Goodwin. Owen Bevean signed by his mark in the form of O B.
A separate indenture was made on 10 February 1690 between Joseph Trapp, planter of St Helena, and John Goodwin, also a planter of the island, in the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary.
Trapp sold to Goodwin a substantial composite holding for £35 0s 0d sterling. The sale covered the following:
A messuage house, plantation and ten acres of land with all appurtenances, including hedges, ditches and walls
A male slave known by the name of Asher
Hogs 8 head
The land lay at the head of Lemon Valley near the land of the late John Greentree and was in Trapp's own occupation at the time of the sale. Payment was to be made in three good bills of exchange drawn on the commanders of returning ships, or in sterling money, with the full sum to be completed by 25 December following the date of the deed. Trapp acknowledged further unspecified causes and considerations as part of the reason for the sale.
Goodwin took the messuage, plantation, ten acres, slave and hogs with all profits and commodities belonging to the property.
Interpretations
The Bevean gift of 1 February 1690 sits chronologically between the two earlier landmarks of the Bevean estate. The 1684 Company grant to Bevean of twenty acres bordering John Cole gave him his Lemon Valley anchor parcel, and the December 1686 Fewsdale conveyance gave him the Sandy Bay parcel under Lemon Valley Rock. The 1690 gift to John Goodwin transferred a separate ten-acre parcel with a house, plantation and timber trees, and shows the Bevean household already redistributing its accumulated holdings to the next generation while Bevean himself was still active. The 1705 family settlement transferring the 1684 Company grant to Thomas Goodwin therefore stands as a second stage in a longer process, not as the first transfer from Bevean to the Goodwin line.
The presence of T Goodwin as the sole named witness to the gift, with no register or clerk attesting the deed, indicates a household instrument drawn within the immediate family circle. T Goodwin was Thomas Goodwin, who by 1690 was already an established figure on the island and would soon move from witness to principal in his own right with his Little Horsepad purchase from John Young in May 1693. The witnessing role here precedes by three years his earliest recorded purchase and confirms his presence in family affairs well before he began assembling his own estate.
The Trapp to Goodwin sale of 10 February 1690 is notable for its inclusion of a named slave as part of the composite consideration. Asher is identified by name within the deed itself, alongside the eight head of hogs, the messuage, the plantation, the ten acres and the appurtenances. The naming of an individual slave in a land conveyance is unusual within the registers, where slaves more commonly appear in inventories or in separate bills of sale rather than as itemised property within a freehold transfer. The structure shows the Trapp household selling a working unit, with the land, the dwelling, the livestock and the labour transferred together as a single going concern.
Payment by bills of exchange drawn on the commanders of returning ships reveals how planters realised value from the East India trade without holding sterling cash on the island. A bill drawn on a ship's commander was an instruction to pay the bearer when the vessel reached London, and the commander's credit stood behind the instrument. The mechanism allowed island sellers to convert local assets into sterling claims payable in England, which was a more useful form of liquidity than coin held on St Helena.
The 25 December completion date for the payment matches the standard quarter day for sterling accounts, and shows Trapp expecting the bills to be honoured within the metropolitan settlement cycle rather than on any island timetable. The choice contrasts with the September completion date used in the 1686 Fewsdale to Bevean deed, where payment was tied to the island harvest, and reflects the difference between a transaction priced in island cattle, dollars and sterling and one priced wholly in sterling instruments.
The late John Greentree appears as the neighbouring landholder, fixing the position of the Trapp parcel at the head of Lemon Valley. John Greentree of the 27 April 1698 conveyance later sold a twenty-acre parcel in Lemon Valley to Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, described as the lot of the late John Greentree. The two references together indicate that the Greentree name attached to more than one Lemon Valley parcel, and that the family identification persisted across at least a decade after the original allottee's death.
Speculations
The decision to convey the gift and the sale within nine days of each other suggests John Goodwin was being assembled into a substantial Lemon Valley holding in a single co-ordinated movement. The Bevean gift brought ten acres with a house, plantation and timber trees from his father-in-law on 1 February, and the Trapp purchase brought a further ten acres with a messuage, plantation, slave and hogs on 10 February. Goodwin therefore moved from a position with no recorded freehold on the island to holder of two adjoining or near-adjoining ten-acre parcels in a matter of days, and the timing points to deliberate household planning rather than coincidence.
The choice to take Asher as part of the composite Trapp transaction rather than as a separate bill of sale points to a particular intention on Goodwin's side. By incorporating the slave into the land conveyance, Goodwin secured the labour needed to work the new holding without a separate negotiation and without separate witnesses or a separate price. The structure also meant that Asher's transfer was sealed with the same instrument that transferred the house, the hogs and the land, which gave a single document evidentiary weight over the entire working unit.
The unspecified divers other good causes and considerations referred to in the Trapp deed suggest the £35 0s 0d in sterling bills was not the whole story. Such language typically covered a side arrangement that the parties preferred not to record in detail. Possible side arrangements include forgiveness of an earlier debt, a counter-promise from Goodwin to Trapp on another matter, or a kinship or service consideration that the parties wished to leave outside the formal price. The phrasing was a standard early-modern device for keeping such matters out of the written record while preserving their legal weight as consideration.
51
their Appurtenances unto the said John Goodwin his heirs Executors Administratorrs and Assignes from the day of the date hereof for Ever Yourseing and pareing therefore thirty feve pound as aforesaid, and the said Joseph Trapp doth for hemselfe his heirr Executors Admi- nistrators and assignes Covenant grant and agree to and with the said John Goodwin, that he the said John Goodwin his heirs Executors, Administrators and assignes Shall have hold Occupy posses and Enjoy the Said House, Land, plantateon, Negroe, Hoggs, and all other the appurte- nances &c[a] without any Molestation Trouble, Interruption, or Eviction of the Said Joseph Trapp or his heirr Executors Administrators or Assignes or any other person or persons whatsoever by his or their procurement, In Wittness whereof the said Joseph Trapp hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale the day and year forst above written
Signed Sealed and Delevered on the presence of us his John EF Fuller marke Israell Hadles John Smith T Goodwin
Joseph Trapp [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Prudence Sherwin to Thomas Goodwin To all Christian People to whome this present Writing Shall come Prudence the Wife and Attourney of Thomas Sherwin of the said Island of S[t] Helena Planter Sendeth Greeting on our Lord God Everlasting
Now Know Ye that me the aforesaid Prudence Sherwin (By ver- tue and power of my afforesaid Letter of Attourney) For and on Con- sideration of the Sum of Twenty Six pounds Currant Lawfull Money of the Island of S[t] Helena to me the afforesaid Prudence Sherwin By Thomas Goodwin of the said Island, well and trueely before hand paied, whereof Acknowledge mySelfe to be fully Sattersfeed and Con- tented and the Said Thomas Goodwin his heirr Executors Administra- torr to be for Ever acquitted and Exonerated, by these presents have Given granted Infeoffed, and by this my present Writing Confirmed Unto the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heirr and Assigner One Tene- ment House Sectuate on the said Island in Chappell Valley Towne Over against the Right Hon[ble] Companys Store house Next adjoyneing to the House of John Fuller on the South, and the House of Rechard Geurling (Late Deseased) on the North, which Said Tenement House is now on the Tenure or Occupation of me the said Prudence the Wife and Attourney of Thomas Sherwen, and by my Said Power doe Say, To have and to hold the aforesaid Tenement house with all and Singular the Edefices and appourtenances thereunto belongeng or in any ways apperteyning to the aforesaid Thomas Goodwin his heirr and Assigner to the only Use and behoofe of the said Thomas Goodwin his heirr and Assignes for Ever, against my Said Husband whose Attourney I am, and against his or my heirr Executors and assignes and against all other Men do Warrant
and
Joseph Trapp covenanted with John Goodwin and his heirs that they would hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the house, land, plantation, slave, hogs and other appurtenances without disturbance, interruption or eviction from Trapp, his successors or any other person acting through them. The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Fuller, who signed by his mark in the form of EF, Israel Hadles, John Smith and T Goodwin. Joseph Trapp set his hand and seal on the same day and year as the body of the deed.
A separate writing was made on the island of St Helena by Prudence Sherwin, wife and attorney of Thomas Sherwin, planter of the island. Prudence acted under a letter of attorney from her husband.
She sold to Thomas Goodwin a tenement house in Chapel Valley Town for £26 0s 0d in lawful current money of the island. The sum was paid in full before the deed was sealed, and Prudence acknowledged the receipt and discharged Goodwin and his heirs from any further claim.
The tenement stood opposite the Company's storehouse, with the house of John Fuller to the south and the house of the late Richard Gurling to the north. Prudence was in possession of the tenement at the time of the sale, holding it under the power conferred by her husband's letter of attorney.
Goodwin and his heirs took the tenement with all its buildings and appurtenances to their own use and behoof for ever. Prudence warranted the title against her husband, against his and her own heirs, executors and assigns, and against all other claimants.
Interpretations
Prudence Sherwin's authority to sell rests entirely on her letter of attorney from her absent husband. Without that instrument she would have had no power to convey the freehold of a tenement that stood in her husband's name, and the warranty clause is therefore framed against Thomas Sherwin himself as the principal whose interest she is binding. The deed reveals how married women on the island exercised legal capacity through the express delegation of marital authority, rather than through any independent right, and the structure mirrors Elizabeth Rhodes's lease of the Rhodes plantation to John Cotgrave in October 1687, where the wife acted as attorney for her absent husband.
The chain of attorney-led conveyances now includes three identifiable instances in which a wife acted for an absent husband: Elizabeth Rhodes for William Rhodes in 1687, Prudence Sherwin for Thomas Sherwin recorded here, and Mary Carne for George Carne in January 1705. The mechanism filled a gap that the rhythm of trade between St Helena, England and the Indies created, since husbands frequently travelled on Company shipping or were detained at other stations for long periods. The letter of attorney let the household continue to dispose of land and houses in the husband's absence without waiting for his return.
Thomas Goodwin's witnessing of the Bevean gift on 1 February 1690 and the Trapp sale on 10 February 1690, combined with this purchase from Prudence Sherwin, marks a sustained involvement in family and property affairs across the early 1690s before his own first recorded purchase from John Young in May 1693. The Chapel Valley tenement bought from Sherwin is therefore an earlier acquisition than the Little Horsepad parcel and revises the picture of Goodwin's estate-building. He was already acquiring urban property in Chapel Valley Town before he began the rural reassembly of the Wakefield lot.
The location of the tenement opposite the Company's storehouse places it in the commercial heart of Chapel Valley Town. The storehouse was the receiving and issuing point for Company goods on the island, and properties facing it carried both a residential and a commercial value. The choice of John Fuller and the late Richard Gurling as the neighbouring boundary holders, with Fuller to the south and Gurling to the north, establishes the urban frontage line along which the Company's main store stood opposite a row of free-planter houses.
Richard Gurling appears here as deceased, which fixes the deed at a point after his death. His later namesake, also Richard Gurling, was the seller of the small Chapel Valley plot to George Carne on 5 May 1704 and of the £500 composite estate to George Hoskinson on 12 October 1706. The later Richard Gurling is described in the registers as having held two acres at the head of Lemon Valley that had belonged to his late father, and the deceased neighbour referred to here is probably that father.
John Fuller as southern neighbour links the tenement to the rural side of Fuller's holdings. He had earlier bought ten acres from Philip Savage on 20 March 1686 and witnessed the Bevean to Goodwin transfer of 22 September 1705 by his mark in the form of F. The Fuller name therefore appears as both a rural neighbour to Bevean and an urban neighbour to Sherwin's tenement, indicating a household with property on both sides of the divide between Chapel Valley Town and the upland plantations.
Speculations
The pricing of the tenement at £26 0s 0d in island currency, against the £130 0s 0d sterling paid by Thomas Goodwin to Edward Edmunds for a Chapel Valley town tenement on 10 May 1700, points to a marked difference in the scale and substance of the two properties. The Sherwin tenement was a modest house facing the storehouse, while the Edmunds tenement was the large urban property between the houses of Mrs Grace Coulson and Samuel Wranyham. The Sherwin purchase therefore looks like an early-career acquisition by Goodwin, made while he was still working as a junior member of the garrison, and the Edmunds purchase a decade later reflects his accumulated capital as gunner's mate and deputy storekeeper.
Prudence Sherwin's decision to sell the tenement while her husband was absent indicates either pressure on the household for ready money or a deliberate disposal in advance of his return. The acknowledgement that the £26 0s 0d had been paid in full before the deed was sealed shows that she received the cash in hand and would have had immediate use of it. The arrangement gave her funds during her husband's absence without committing him to any continuing obligation, since the freehold passed cleanly to Goodwin with no further payment due.
The warranty against Thomas Sherwin himself, in addition to the warranty against the wife, the joint heirs and any third party, suggests an awareness on Goodwin's side that the husband might return and dispute the sale. The letter of attorney was the legal foundation for Prudence's act, but a returning husband could attempt to deny that the instrument extended to the specific tenement or to argue that his wife had acted beyond its terms. The double-barrelled warranty closes off both possibilities and binds the husband by his own attorney's act as effectively as if he had executed the deed himself.
52
and for Ever defend by these presents, In Wittness whereof I the aforesaid Prudence Sherwin to this my present Writing have putt to my hand and Seale Dated the Second Day of July One thousand Six Hundred Ninety and foure
Signed Sealed and Delevered on the Presence of us James Dofse John Goodwin
The marke of Pradence M Sherwin
Island S[t] Helena
Thomas Dixon to James Casthope Know all Men by these Presents that I Thomas Dixon of the said Island Sorjeant, for and in Considerateon of the Sum of Fefteen pounds money Currant of the said Island to him in hand paied at or before Ensealeng and Delevery of these presents the Receipt whereof he doth hereby Acknowledge and himselfe to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paied, Have granted bargained and Sold and by these presents doth Grant Cargaine and Sell unto James Casthope of the said Island Souldeier all that piece or parcell of Land Contai- neing by Estimateon Ten Acres be the Same more or Less Lying Sectuate and Nigh the Head of Lemon Valley, and being the Lower Ten Acres Part of Thorty Acres, which the Said Thomas Dixon bought of the R[t] Hon[ble] Company formerly Thomas Allisons of the said Island free Plan- ter To Have and to hold the Said Ten Acres of Land with all and Singular the Frueter areising and groweing thereuyon, and all other the Appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belongeing unto the said James Casthope his heirr Executors, Administrators or Affsignes for Ever, to do and Dispose of it his or their own well and pleasure and the Said Thomas Dixon for himselfe his heirr Executorr and Ad- ministratorr doth Covenant and agree to and with the said James Casthope, that he the said Casthope Shall have hold Occupy, Possess and Enjoy the said hereby Bargained Premises, without any the Lawsfull Lett Suite, Eviction, Mollestateon, or Interreuption of the said Thom[s] Dixon his heers Executors Administratorrs or Affsignes, or of any other Person or Persons whatsoever by their Means or procurement In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 6[th] day of January In the year of our Lord 169 9/700
Sealed Signed and Delevered on the presence of us James Bookey John Alexander
Tho[s] Dixon [seal]
Mem[oradum] That the within James Casthope is to Run no higher then the old Ditch, and if there wants any Land to Compleat the Said Ten Acres, he is to take the Remainder in another place towards M[r] Thomas Goodwins Land
Prudence Sherwin set her hand and seal to the conveyance to Thomas Goodwin on 2 July 1694. The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of James Dofse and John Goodwin. Prudence signed by her mark in the form of M.
Thomas Dixon, sergeant of St Helena, sold to James Casthope, soldier of the island, ten acres of land for £15 0s 0d in island currency. The sum was paid in full before the deed was sealed and delivered, and Dixon acknowledged its receipt.
The ten acres lay near the head of Lemon Valley. They formed the lower part of a thirty-acre block that Dixon had earlier bought from the Company, the land having previously been held by Thomas Allison, free planter of the island.
Casthope and his heirs took the parcel with all fruits growing on it and all appurtenances belonging to it, to be held, occupied and enjoyed at their own pleasure. Dixon covenanted that Casthope would hold the land free of any claim, eviction, disturbance or interruption from Dixon, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or from any other person acting through them.
The deed was sealed and delivered on 6 January 1700 in the presence of James Bookey and John Alexander. Thomas Dixon set his hand and seal to it.
A memorandum was added to the deed. It limited Casthope's boundary to the old ditch, allowing him to take no land beyond that line. If the area enclosed by the existing ditch fell short of the full ten acres, Casthope was to make up the shortfall from another part of the block, on the side towards Mr Thomas Goodwin's land.
Interpretations
The Dixon to Casthope deed reveals how the Company's role as land bank generated a secondary market in former allottee parcels. Thomas Allison had originally held the thirty acres, and the Company had taken it back into its own hands before re-granting it to Dixon. Dixon's resale of the lower ten acres to Casthope therefore moved a parcel through three distinct phases of ownership: allottee, Company, sergeant and soldier. The pattern shows the Company actively redistributing land between planters and members of the garrison, with sergeants and soldiers acquiring land as part of the broader process of military settlement on the island.
The memorandum limiting Casthope to the old ditch is the operative provision of the deed beyond the bare conveyance. The boundary in the field was already physically marked by a ditch, and the memorandum gave that ditch legal force as the line of separation between the lower ten and the upper twenty acres. If the area enclosed by the ditch proved less than the contracted ten acres, the shortfall was to be made up from the block running towards Goodwin's land, which fixed the direction of any reconfiguration in advance. The mechanism prevented the kind of dispute that would have arisen if measurement at completion produced an unexpected shortfall, since the parties had agreed in advance on both the boundary and the remedy.
Thomas Allison appears here as the original allottee of the thirty acres at the head of Lemon Valley. The 1682 inquest had recorded a Thomas Alleson in Fryer Valley as a western neighbour to John Coles, and a separate Thomas Allison in the boundary description of Owen Bevan's 1684 Company grant on the south. The Allison name persisted across at least three parcels in different parts of the island, and the surrender of his thirty acres at the head of Lemon Valley to the Company points either to his death or to a deliberate handing back of land that had become a burden to maintain.
The reference to Mr Thomas Goodwin's land identifies the eastern neighbour by his courtesy title. The Mr in 1700 marks Goodwin's standing in the community at a point when his recorded offices were gunner's mate and, by 1696, deputy storekeeper. The 1703 deed of William French would name him captain, deputy governor and storekeeper, but in January 1700 he was already a recognised landholder at the head of Lemon Valley, with the Dixon-Casthope parcel running up to his boundary.
James Casthope appears here on 6 January 1700 as a soldier acquiring ten acres at the head of Lemon Valley. His earlier movements within the records show a different rural focus: the 1687 purchase from Joseph Pratt of ten acres with a house, the 1694 sale of those same ten acres to Ripin Wells, and the 1694 purchase from Thomas Harper of twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley with a house. The Lemon Valley acquisition therefore opens a new line of holdings on a third valley, and shows Casthope continuing to build a working estate across the upper plantations.
Speculations
The choice of 6 January as the date for completion of the Dixon-Casthope sale falls within the standard Christmas and Epiphany cycle of island legal business. The autumn of 1699 had also seen James Draper sell a messuage near Fort James to Samuel Maxwell on 29 November, and the broader pattern points to a clustering of formal conveyances in the late autumn and early winter months. The quarter ran towards Lady Day on 25 March, and a January completion gave both parties almost three full months before the next quarter day to settle any outstanding obligations on the land.
Dixon's decision to sell only the lower ten of his thirty acres suggests an intention to retain the larger upper portion for his own use while raising £15 0s 0d in cash. The lower part of a Lemon Valley parcel would have been the more easily worked ground, with access to whatever watercourse ran from the head of the valley, while the upper twenty acres ran towards the higher and rougher slopes. The retention of the larger block of higher ground points to Dixon viewing the upper section as either a future settlement for his own household or as land worth holding against further appreciation.
The memorandum's provision for making up any shortfall from the side towards Goodwin's land suggests the parties had already discussed the practical surveying problem before the deed was sealed. A ten-acre parcel marked out by ditching and boundary description but not by precise survey would routinely show a small discrepancy when measured, and the explicit direction in which the shortfall was to be taken indicates a prior agreement between Dixon, Casthope and perhaps Goodwin himself on how the line would run if the ditch fell short. The clause therefore documents an informal three-party understanding rather than a simple bilateral transaction.
53
James Casthope to John Goodwin Know all Men by these presents that I James Casthope of the Island of S[t] Helena Doth hereby Acknowledge to have Sold the within mentioned Ten Acres of Land Unto John Goodwin for the Sum of Ten Pounds in hand paid the Receipt of which I Do hereby Acknowledge and my Selfe fully Sattissfied. In Wittness whereof I do hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 9[th] day of Febreuary 170⅖
Sealed and Delivered in the presence of us Jn[o] Tac[k]enall Edw[d] Edmunds Tho[s] Goodwin
his James X Casthope [seal] mark[e]
Island S[t] Helena
Sutton Isaack to Stephen Audouart Know all Men by these presents that I Sutton Isaack of the said Island Free planter for the good Love and Affection that I Bear unto my Grand Child Stephen Audouart the Son of Bartrant Audouart of the said Island, the Right Hon[ble] Companys Smith, and other good and Lawsfull Considerations me thereunto Moveing, have given granted and Delevered freely and Affsolutely and by these presents, do give grant and Delever freely and Affsolutely from me my Heirs Executors, Administratorrs and Assignes, Unto my said Grand Child Stephen Audouart and his Heirs after him for Ever, One Acre of Ground being part of my Lott Land being Ether More or Less, Sectuate being and Lying above my Dwelling house, and under the Great wood Redge Upon a Plain Iso Do and Dispose of the Said One Acre of Land, at his Own proper Use, and Behalfe, after he is Some of Age, But Dueing his Meinority To Remain Immediately In the Pofefseon of my Beloved Son in[d] Law Bartrant Audouart, To Maneure and Plant the said Acre of Land as he Shall think fett, Untell my Said Grand Childs Mar- Sority, Furthermore Know Ye that by these presents I do Lekewise give unto my Said Grand Child A Small Piece of Land Lyeing and being Of of the Common Free Ground, as much as Shall be Necefsary to Beuild a House upon for him, And his Heirs for Ever, In Wittness whereof I have Sett my hand and Seale this 29[th] day of October 1698 Furthermore if my said Grand Child Should Die Dueing his Meinority that then the said Promice Vey of the said One Acre of Land, and the said place for to Beuild a House Shall be my Said Son in Law Bartrant Audouart for him and his Heirs for Ever
Signed Sealed and Delivered in the presence of us Henry Coales James Drayper Matthew Bazett
Sutton Isaack [seal]
James Casthope sold to John Goodwin the ten acres of land at the head of Lemon Valley described in the earlier deed from Thomas Dixon to Casthope. The price was £10 0s 0d, paid in hand and acknowledged by Casthope at sealing. The conveyance was made on 9 February 1702 and was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Tackenall, Edward Edmunds and Thomas Goodwin. Casthope signed by his mark in the form of X.
A separate gift was made by Sutton Isaack, free planter of St Helena, to his grandson Stephen Audouart, son of Bartrant Audouart, the Company's smith on the island. Isaack acted from love and affection for the child, with other lawful considerations also moving him.
The gift covered the following two parcels:
One acre of land part of Isaack's lot, lying above his dwelling house and under the Great Wood Ridge upon a plain
A small piece of common free ground of sufficient extent to build a house for the grandson and his heirs
Stephen Audouart and his heirs took the property to their own use for ever, with full power of disposal once he came of age. During his minority, possession of the one-acre parcel was to remain with his father Bartrant Audouart, who was to manure and plant it as he thought fit until the child reached his majority.
If Stephen Audouart died during his minority, both parcels were to pass to Bartrant Audouart and his heirs for ever.
The deed was sealed on 29 October 1698 in the presence of Henry Coales, James Drayper and Matthew Bazett. Sutton Isaack set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The Casthope to Goodwin sale of 9 February 1702 closes a sequence that began with Allison's original allotment, ran through the Company's reabsorption of the parcel, continued through Dixon's purchase of the thirty acres and his sale of the lower ten to Casthope, and now brings the ten acres into Goodwin's hands. Casthope had paid £15 0s 0d to Dixon in January 1700 and received £10 0s 0d from Goodwin two years later, a loss of £5 0s 0d on the cash price. The drop suggests Casthope was realising the parcel at less than he had paid for it, and the timing relative to the memorandum's boundary uncertainty raises the possibility that the working area enclosed by the old ditch had proved less productive than expected.
Edward Edmunds appears as a witness here in February 1702, just over two years before his sale of the large Chapel Valley tenement to Goodwin for £130 0s 0d sterling on 10 May 1700. The chronology established by the registers therefore shows Edmunds as a witness to Goodwin's rural Lemon Valley acquisitions while their major urban transaction had already been completed, and the Henry Francis quit-claim of 27 January 1704 reveals the family relationship between Edmunds and his son-in-law Francis. The witness role here confirms a continuing connection between the Edmunds and Goodwin households across both urban and rural land dealings.
Sutton Isaack's gift to his grandson Stephen Audouart establishes a settlement designed to keep land within a single line of descent across three generations. The instrument names the grandfather, the father and the grandson, and provides for the descent to skip the parent in the ordinary course while routing through him if the child predeceases his own majority. The structure preserves the parental household's interest only as a fallback against premature death, and the controlling intention is that the land should rest with the grandson once he reaches full age.
The reservation to Bartrant Audouart of the right to manure and plant the one-acre parcel during his son's minority gave the father effective possession without the underlying ownership. The father therefore had the use and produce of the land for the duration of the child's minority, but no power to alienate it, and the working capital invested in the parcel during those years would inure to the benefit of the grandson on his majority. The mechanism is a small-scale version of the use of trusts in English property practice, with the father holding as a custodian for the child rather than as an absolute owner.
Bartrant Audouart's office as the Company's smith on the island fixes the household in a particular institutional position. The smith was responsible for ironwork, repairs and tool-making for the garrison and the planters, and the office combined a fixed Company wage with the practical authority that came from being the only specialist of his kind. The gift from his father-in-law therefore moves a planter's land into a household whose head holds a Company office, and the Audouart name appears here for the first time in the records as a settled family with its own line of descent.
The phrase common free ground identifies the second parcel as land open to all the free planters, rather than as part of any single allottee's plot. The grant of an area sufficient to build a house on the common ground suggests that the household could mark out the necessary plot from unimproved land near Isaack's lot, with the planted acre serving as the principal holding and the house plot as its residential adjunct. The mechanism shows the Company tolerating informal subdivision of common ground for residential use, provided the parcel was attached to an existing planter household.
Speculations
The decision to make the gift in October 1698 rather than at some later occasion suggests Sutton Isaack was responding to a specific household circumstance, perhaps his own advancing age or a particular settlement of accounts within the family. By gifting the land while he was still alive and present, he secured the descent of the parcel through his daughter's marriage into the Audouart household and avoided the risk that his own death intestate or under a contested will would expose the parcel to claims from other heirs. The structure routes the land through the daughter and her husband to the grandson, but does so by passing it directly to the grandson with a parental custodianship, which keeps it free of any claim by Bartrant Audouart's own line beyond his immediate household.
The choice of the area above Isaack's dwelling house and under the Great Wood Ridge, rather than a parcel from his more accessible ground, points to a deliberate selection of land that would be developed by the next generation rather than worked alongside his own. The parcel sits at the upper edge of his lot, separated from his own dwelling by the slope of the ground, and would have functioned as the foundation of a new household for the grandson rather than as an extension of the existing one. The selection therefore tells against any reading of the gift as a mere subdivision of working land for present use.
The Casthope to Goodwin sale at £5 0s 0d below the price Casthope had paid two years earlier may be explained by the boundary uncertainty preserved in the original memorandum. Casthope had been entitled to make up any shortfall from the side towards Goodwin's land, but the cleaner solution was to sell the parcel onward to Goodwin himself. Goodwin, holding the eastern neighbouring tract, could absorb the ten acres into his own working unit without the need to test the old ditch line in any practical way, and Casthope took the lower price as the cost of avoiding a survey dispute he was unlikely to win against his more powerful neighbour.
54
Memorandum Geo[r] Dweight to Walter Belvar[d] That George Dweight of the Island of S[t] Helena free planter, ffor and in Con- sideration of the Sum of one Hundred and Seventy Pounds, by Walter Belvard of the Said Island free planter, in hand paid or Secured to be paid Do hereby Demise Bargaine Alienate and Sell unto the said Walter Belvard Ten Acres of Land with on[e] Tenement House with all and Singular the Appurtenances and Provissions Theron Growing Lying and being Scituate on the said Island in Sharks Valley which Land he the Said Dweight Bought and Purchased of Robert Marsh of the Said Island as may more Perticularly Appear in the [...] Page of this Book As also the Lease or Right that he the said Dweight hath to Six Acres of Land and the Provissions thereon, which he Hires of the Hon[r] the United English East Indea Comp[a] To have and to Sold all and Singular the Specifyed Perticulars with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging Unto the said Walter Belvar[d] his heirs and Assigns (from the first day of August Next Ensueing the date hereof) for Ever to hold of the Chief Lords of the Fee thereof by Services hertofore Due and of Right Accustomed against me the said George Dweight my heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assigns, In wittness whereof the We Said George Dweight and Walter Belvard have hereunto Set our hands this Eighth Day of June 1708
Wittnessed by us Tho[s] Goodwin Governo[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] G[r] &c[a] W[m] Marsden 3[r] [in] Coun[ll]
george Dweight Walter Belvard
Memorandum W[m] Marsh to Geo[r] Dweight That William Marsh of the Island S[t] Helena free planter, ffor and in Consideration of the Sume of Thirty Pounds paid or Secured to be paid by George Dweight of the Said Island Have Alienated Bargained and Sold Unto the Said George Dweight, his heirs &c[a] all Demainsthat Pofsiged, on Tenuement house Scituate and Standing in Chappell Valley Next Adjoyning to the House of M[r]s Hays Toget[h]er with all and Singular the Appurtenances belonging Unto the said house To have and to hold the same to him the said George Dweight and his Heirs for Ever, from the 25 day of this June And against all persons I the said William Marsh my heirs &c[a] do hereby promise & Engage to Save and Keep Harmless the Said George Dweight his heirs &c[a]. In wittness whereof both the said William Marsh and George Dweight have hereunto Sett our Hands this Eighth Day of June 1708 mem[m]. This house Sold Dweight was formerly Thi[s] Heepedant[s] George Dweight have hereunto Set our Hands this Eighth Day of June 1708
Wittnessed by us Tho[s] Goodwin Gov[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] &c[a] W[m] Marsden 3[r] [in] Coun[ll]
his William W Marsh Mark
george Dweight
George Dweight, free planter of St Helena, sold to Walter Belvard, free planter of the island, ten acres of land with a tenement house, all appurtenances and the provisions growing on the ground. The land lay in Sharks Valley and had earlier been bought by Dweight from Robert Marsh, with the detail of that purchase entered at an earlier page in the register.
The price was £170 0s 0d, paid in hand or secured to be paid.
Dweight also assigned to Belvard his lease and right over a further six acres of land with the provisions on it, which he held by hire from the Honourable United English East India Company.
Belvard and his heirs were to take possession from 1 August 1708 next following the date of the deed, to hold for ever of the chief lords of the fee by the services formerly due and accustomed.
The deed was made on 8 June 1708 and witnessed by Thomas Goodwin, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, and William Marsden, third in council. George Dweight and Walter Belvard each signed.
A separate memorandum recorded a transaction on the same day between William Marsh, free planter of St Helena, and George Dweight.
Marsh sold to Dweight a tenement house in Chapel Valley, standing next to the house of Mrs Hays, with all appurtenances. The price was £30 0s 0d, paid in hand or secured to be paid. Possession was to pass to Dweight and his heirs from 25 June 1708.
Marsh undertook to save Dweight and his heirs harmless from any claim by other persons.
The deed was made on 8 June 1708 and witnessed by the same three council members: Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden. A note added to the memorandum recorded that the house had formerly belonged to Thomas Heepedant. William Marsh signed by his mark in the form of W.
Interpretations
The Dweight to Belvard sale of 8 June 1708 brings George Dweight's holding in Sharks Valley to a close. The valley had been the focus of his earlier dealings: his ten acres recorded at the 20 February 1703 entry, the watercourse grant from his daughter-in-law Sarah Sensney on 13 March 1704, and the confirmation deed from Robert Marsh on 29 August 1705 for £8 16s 0d. The £170 0s 0d paid by Belvard represents a substantial appreciation over the £8 16s 0d Marsh had received as the confirmation price for the underlying ten acres, and the difference reflects the addition of a tenement house, the provisions growing on the ground and the assignment of the Company leasehold over a further six acres.
The combined transfer of freehold and Company leasehold in a single instrument is the operative feature of the deed. Dweight held the ten acres as his own and the six acres on a lease from the Company, and the sale to Belvard moved both interests across by assignment. The structure mirrors the assignment Edward Heath made to Paul Charles on 13 March 1705, where an unexpired Company lease over Sandy Bay land was transferred as part of a larger disposition, and shows how leasehold and freehold interests could be packaged together for a single composite price.
The reference to the chief lords of the fee and the services formerly due preserves a medieval English form of tenure language that had little practical content on St Helena. There were no actual chief lords on the island other than the Company itself, and the services accustomed had long been notional. The phrasing continues to appear in island deeds because the registers were modelled on English freehold practice, and the form was kept even where the substance had no application beyond the Company's own conditions of grant.
The witnessing of both deeds by Thomas Goodwin as governor, Edward Walkborne as deputy governor and William Marsden as third in council shows the council taking an active role in the formal recording of significant transactions. The pattern points to a developing system in which substantial conveyances were treated as matters of public record sealed in the presence of the governing body rather than purely private bargains. The same three men appear in the same order on both deeds, confirming a session of council business in which the Dweight transactions were processed together.
William Marsh's sale of the Chapel Valley tenement to Dweight on the same day completes a circular exchange between the two families. The Marsh and Dweight households had been linked since 1703 through the Edward Gardener inheritance, in which William Marsh sold parcels of his son Robert's land to both William Dufton and George Dweight, and Robert Marsh subsequently confirmed the sales on reaching his majority in 1705. The June 1708 transactions reverse the earlier flow: Dweight sold his Sharks Valley land to Belvard for £170 0s 0d and bought Marsh's Chapel Valley tenement for £30 0s 0d, while Marsh moved from being a seller of rural land to being a seller of an urban property.
Edward Walkborne appears in the registers here as deputy governor, taking the office that Thomas Goodwin had held before his elevation to the governorship. The transition between the two men is therefore visible in the witness lines of these deeds, with Goodwin moving up to the principal seat and Walkborne stepping into the deputy's role. The 18 December 1707 register-recopying attestation had named Goodwin, Edward Washborne and William Marsden among the witnesses, with the Washborne name probably the same person who appears six months later as Walkborne.
The Marsh-Dweight memorandum note recording that the Chapel Valley tenement had formerly belonged to Thomas Heepedant gives the property's earlier history in a single line. The names attached to Chapel Valley tenements often passed through three or four hands within a generation, and the practice of noting the previous holder in the conveyance preserved a working chain of title without the need to assemble all the earlier deeds. The Heepedant name does not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed so far, and the note is probably the only surviving reference to his tenure of the house.
Speculations
Dweight's decision to convert his Sharks Valley holding into cash in June 1708 suggests preparation for a move to Chapel Valley Town. The £30 0s 0d he paid for the Marsh tenement was a small fraction of the £170 0s 0d he received from Belvard, leaving him a substantial cash margin of £140 0s 0d from the day's business. The structure points to a deliberate downsizing of his physical holdings and a release of capital, perhaps in anticipation of departure from the island or of retirement from active planting into a town household.
The disparity between Robert Marsh's confirmation price of £8 16s 0d in 1705 and Belvard's purchase price of £170 0s 0d in 1708 reflects the difference between the bare ten acres and the working unit Dweight had built around it. The watercourse grant from Sarah Sensney in 1704 secured water for the plantation, and the construction or acquisition of the tenement house and the development of provisions on the ground transformed the holding from a rural parcel into a productive estate. The accompanying assignment of the Company leasehold over six adjacent acres extended the working area without committing Dweight to its purchase, and the combination of all these elements explains the price Belvard was prepared to pay.
The choice to date the Dweight-Belvard possession from 1 August rather than from the date of the deed gives Dweight roughly seven weeks to gather the provisions then growing on the land and to remove his household effects. The 25 June date set for Dweight's entry into the Chapel Valley tenement gives him a parallel five weeks to take possession of the urban property and prepare it for residence. The staggered dates therefore document a planned move from rural Sharks Valley to urban Chapel Valley across the summer months of 1708, with the two transactions timed to dovetail rather than to overlap awkwardly.
55
Memorand[u]m
Tho[s] Bevian to Geo[r] Hoskison That Thomas Bevian Sold for and in conside[r]ation of y[e] Sume of Fifteen [Po]unds in good and Currant money of the Island S[t] Helena by me already Received and in hand paid, by George Hoskison of the Said Island Free plant[er] have and do firmly by their presents Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto the said George Hoskison his heirs Executr Adm[r] and Asigns for Ever, one specie or peell of Land being formerly Thomas Boxes & the South Part of twenty Acres togetha[r] with Some Provisions Standing and Growing thereon with all and Singular the Appurtinances thereunto Belonging As also all y[e] Right Title Claim & Intrest That y[e] Said Thom[s] hath or may have hereafter, by Decease of any of his Wifes brothers or Sisters To have and to hold y[e] Same to him the Said George Hoskison & his heirs for ever as afforesaid to do and Dispose of and quietly Enjoy and Pofefs the said Premises without any Manner of Interruption Contradistion or Mollestation of the said Tho[s] Bevean his heirs Execut[rs] and Adm[r] or any other p[er]son or p[er]sons whatsoever, In Wittness whereof both p[ar]tys have hereunto Sett their hands this 22[d] day of June 1708
Wittnessed by us Tho[s] Goodwin Gov[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[ll]
Tho[s] Bevian Geo[r] Hoskison
Memorandum
Geo[r] Hoskison to Ric[d] Gurling That George Hoskison of the Island S[t] Helena hath Mortgaged unto Richard Gurling free planter, Fourty Five Acres of Land, (Plantatcons Excepted) to have and to hold the said Fourty Five Acres of Land During the Life of Mary Hoskison Wife to the aforesaid Geo[r] Hoskison, unto y[e] aforesaid Rich[d] Gurling his heirs &c[a] and the aforesaid Rich[d] Gurling to pay Yearly unto the aforesaid Hoskison the Sum of Eleaven pounds Ten Shillings Yearly In Wittness whereof both p[ar]tys have hereunto Sett their hands this 6[th] day of July 1708
Tho[s] Goodwin Edw[d] Walkborne W[m] Marsden
Geo[r] Hoskison Rich[a]rd Gurling
Thomas Bevian sold to George Hoskison, free planter of St Helena, a parcel of land for £15 0s 0d in good current money of the island. The sum was already received and paid in hand at the time of the sale.
The land had formerly belonged to Thomas Box and was the south part of a twenty-acre block. Provisions then standing and growing on the parcel passed with the land, along with all its appurtenances. Bevian also transferred to Hoskison whatever right, title, claim or interest he might come to hold by the future death of any of his wife's brothers or sisters.
Hoskison and his heirs took the land for ever, to enjoy without interruption or claim from Bevian, his heirs, executors, administrators or any other person.
The deed was made on 22 June 1708 and witnessed by Thomas Goodwin, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, and William Marsden, third in council. Thomas Bevian and George Hoskison each signed.
A separate memorandum recorded a mortgage made on 6 July 1708 between George Hoskison and Richard Gurling, free planter.
Hoskison mortgaged forty-five acres of land to Gurling, with the plantations on the land excepted from the mortgage. The mortgage was to run during the life of Mary Hoskison, the wife of George Hoskison. In return Gurling was to pay Hoskison the yearly sum of £11 10s 0d.
The deed was witnessed by Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden. George Hoskison and Richard Gurling each signed.
Interpretations
The Bevian to Hoskison sale moves a parcel of the Thomas Box land into Hoskison's hands. The Box name has appeared across the records as a recurring identifier for a substantial allotment at the head of Lemon Valley, named in the 4 March 1708 composite arrangement between the Frenches and Edward Bagley, in the 24 July 1707 lease from the Frenches to Hoskison of thirty acres of Box's former land, and now in this June 1708 sale of the south part of a twenty-acre Box block from Bevian to Hoskison. The pattern shows the Box land being parcelled and reparcelled in multiple directions across a single twelve-month period.
The transfer of any future right Bevian might acquire from the death of his wife's brothers or sisters is the operative novelty of the deed. Bevian held no present interest in any such expectancy, but the clause assigned in advance whatever portion of his wife's family estate might descend through her on the death of her siblings. The mechanism is an assignment of a future contingent interest, and it allowed Hoskison to consolidate not only the present parcel but also any reversionary share that Bevian would acquire through his marriage. The structure is unusual in the registers and shows the Bevian household releasing all its present and future Box-related claims in a single instrument.
The Hoskison to Gurling mortgage is technically described as a mortgage but functions as an annuity for the life of Mary Hoskison. Gurling took the forty-five acres into his possession for the lifetime of Mary, while George Hoskison received £11 10s 0d each year from Gurling during her life. The structure inverts the ordinary direction of a mortgage, since the lender Gurling here pays the borrower Hoskison, and the security is the use of the land rather than its capital value. The arrangement is therefore better described as a lease for a life with an annuity rent, framed in the language of mortgage.
The exception of the plantations from the mortgage preserved Hoskison's right to the existing crops, trees and improvements on the ground. Gurling took the land itself for cultivation during the term, but the standing plantations remained Hoskison's. The structure separated the underlying soil from the worked produce in a way that protected Hoskison's investment in the established crops while letting Gurling enjoy the use of the bare land.
The choice of Mary Hoskison's life as the measuring period for the term rather than George Hoskison's own life shifts the actuarial risk between the parties. If Mary outlived George, Gurling continued to enjoy possession and to pay the annuity to George's estate. If Mary died before George, the term ended and the land returned to Hoskison's direct possession during his own remaining years. The arrangement therefore tied the financial structure to the wife's lifetime and indicates that her age, health or position within the household was the relevant variable for both parties.
The yearly sum of £11 10s 0d represents the use-value Gurling placed on the forty-five acres, calculated against the prospect of Mary Hoskison's expected remaining lifetime. At that annual rate, Gurling would recover the capital equivalent of a £170 0s 0d outlay within roughly fifteen years, which suggests both parties were working from a rough estimate of Mary's remaining lifespan in that range. The figure provides a useful benchmark for the value of unimproved upland on the island at that date.
Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden appear as witnesses to both deeds, just as they had witnessed the Dweight transactions of 8 June 1708. The recurrence of the same three council members across four deeds within a single month confirms that the governor, deputy governor and third in council had taken on a settled role as the standing witnesses for substantial conveyances. The pattern formalises the council's institutional presence in private property dealings beyond its more familiar role in Company grants and exchanges.
Speculations
The combination of the Bevian sale and the Hoskison mortgage within a fortnight of each other suggests Hoskison was reorganising his estate in a deliberate sequence. He bought the south part of the Box twenty acres on 22 June 1708 for £15 0s 0d, and on 6 July 1708 he placed forty-five acres under mortgage to Gurling for an annuity of £11 10s 0d a year. The two transactions look like parts of a single plan: consolidating the Box parcels under his name and then extracting an income stream from the consolidated holding without selling it outright.
The inclusion of Bevian's future interest in his wife's family estate within the consideration may explain the modest cash price of £15 0s 0d for the south part of the twenty acres. The bare parcel of perhaps ten acres would ordinarily have commanded a higher figure based on comparable Lemon Valley prices, and the low cash component suggests Hoskison was paying primarily for the contingent interest rather than for the land itself. The structure points to Hoskison anticipating that one or more of his wife's siblings was unlikely to survive, and that the reversion would carry the real value of the bargain.
The mortgage to Gurling on Mary Hoskison's life rather than on George's own suggests Mary was younger than George and expected to outlive him. By tying the term to her life, Hoskison created an income stream that would continue after his own death and pass with his estate, with the annuity falling on Gurling for the duration of Mary's remaining years. The arrangement looks like provision for the household's continuing income after George's death, with Gurling cast in the role of paying tenant and Mary as the measuring life on whose survival both the annuity and Gurling's possession depended.
Richard Gurling's willingness to take on a £11 10s 0d annual commitment for an uncertain term suggests he had the capital and the appetite for a long-term agricultural investment. The earlier Gurling transactions in the records show two different Richard Gurlings: the elder, who appears as deceased in the Sherwin-Goodwin deed of 1694, and the younger, who sold the Chapel Valley plot to George Carne in 1704 and the £500 composite estate to Hoskison in October 1706. The mortgage to Gurling here is probably the same younger Richard Gurling, returning to a transaction with Hoskison nearly two years after the £500 sale and now taking land back from him under the reverse direction of payment.
56
Memorandum
The Execut[ors] of W[m] Dufton to Jonathan Doveton Whereas by the Last Will and Testament of William Dufton Dec[d] We Execut[ors] Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Dufton free plant[r] his Power Given thereon to Dispose of any Part of his the said Duftons Reale Estate for y[e] Good & Bennefit of his Children, they the y[e] said paying the Debt Debts & Legacys Now in Consequence thereof, the said Decid[ed] do and I have fully Agreed That the Said Jonathan Dufton his Heirs Execu[t] Adm[r] & A[s]signs Shall Have and Peaceably Enjoy Ten Acres of y[e] Said Will[m] Duftons Twenty Acres of Land as Shall be Agreed by and between the Said Partys, Accord[i]ng to y[e] V[e]rdict of a Jury directed for that Purpose bearing Date y[e] 24[th] of March 1708 As may therein More fully Apprer Set and in Consideration of the Sum of Twenty Pounds which wee do hereby Acknowledge to have Rec[d] for y[e] use of the Said Will[m] Duftons Children, In Wittness whereof We have hereunto Sett our hands this third Day of August 1708
Wittnessed by Tho[s] Goodwin Edw[d] Walkborne W[m] Marsden
Daniel Griffeth Jon[s] Doveton
Memorandum
In Execut[or]s W[m] Duftons to John Geo[r] Newman That the Execut[ors] aforesaid have and do agree That John George Newman of for, and in Considerateon of a Marriage between him and Mary the Daughter of the Said Deceased William Dufton Shall have & Quietly Enjoy with the Ground thereunto belonging whereon he hath Lately Built, formerly In the Posession & Occupateon of y[e] said Dec[d] Will[m] Dufton to have & To hold y[e] said House to him the Said Newman & his heirs for Ever, Which he the said Newman Acknowledges to Receives as his full Share & Portion of y[e] Said Duftons Estate, pertaining to his Said Wife & doth hereby Acquite & Discharge y[e] Said Execut[r] from any Further Demand whatsoever In Wittness whereof all p[ar]tys have hereunto Sett their hands this third Day of August 1708
Wittnessed by Tho[s] Goodwin Edw[d] Walkborne W[m] Marsden
Daniel Griffeth Jon[s] Doveton The Sign of John George I I G N M Newman
The executors of William Dufton, deceased, were Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Dufton, free planter. The will gave them power to dispose of any part of Dufton's real estate for the good and benefit of his children, after the debts and legacies were paid.
Acting under that power, the executors agreed that Jonathan Doveton and his heirs should have and peaceably enjoy ten acres taken from the deceased Dufton's twenty acres of land. The particular ten acres were to be agreed between the parties in line with the verdict of a jury directed for the purpose, dated 24 March 1708.
Doveton paid £20 0s 0d, which the executors acknowledged as received for the use of Dufton's children.
The deed was made on 3 August 1708 and witnessed by Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden. Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton signed.
A separate memorandum recorded a parallel agreement made on the same day. The executors agreed with John George Newman that he should have and enjoy for ever a house, with the ground belonging to it on which he had recently built. The house had formerly been in the possession and occupation of the deceased William Dufton.
The arrangement was made in consideration of Newman's marriage to Mary, the daughter of the deceased.
Newman acknowledged that he received the house and ground as his full share and portion of Dufton's estate, in right of his wife. He discharged the executors from any further claim arising from the estate. The deed was witnessed by the same three council members. Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton signed. Newman signed by his mark in the form of I G N M.
Interpretations
The Dufton executors' authority rests on the testamentary power to dispose of any part of the real estate for the good and benefit of the children, after debts and legacies were paid. The clause shows William Dufton planning his succession before his death, using the will to convert the inflexible rules of inheritance into a discretionary fund managed by his named executors. The mechanism let the household respond to circumstances unknown at the time the will was drawn, including the marriage of his daughter Mary, the practical needs of his children and the availability of a buyer for half the rural land.
The jury verdict of 24 March 1708 is the operative procedural device behind the Doveton transaction. The executors did not unilaterally settle the boundary between the ten acres sold and the ten retained, but instead obtained a jury direction on how the division was to run. The use of a jury to fix a land boundary echoes the procedure of the 1682 inquest of allotments and shows the device surviving as a working part of island practice. The jury's role here is to translate an abstract testamentary direction into a defined parcel on the ground, with the parties bound by the verdict in the same way that a modern survey would bind them.
The sale of ten acres to Doveton for £20 0s 0d places the cash value of upland Chapel Valley land at £2 0s 0d per acre, comparable to other Dufton-related dealings. The earlier 5 May 1703 sale by William Marsh on his son Robert's behalf had moved twenty acres to William Dufton near the head of Chapel Valley, and the 9 August 1705 confirmation deed from Robert Marsh on reaching his majority had set the confirmation price at £20 0s 0d for those twenty acres. The current sale of half that holding to Doveton at the same total figure shows that the cash value of the land had effectively doubled between 1703 and 1708, which reflects either appreciation in the open market or the difference between confirmation and sale prices.
The Newman transaction operates as a marriage portion under a discretionary will. Newman is given the house and the ground he had recently built on, formerly Dufton's possession, in right of his marriage to Mary Dufton. The arrangement substitutes a particular asset for any further share of the estate, with Newman expressly acknowledging that the house and ground are his full portion and discharging the executors from further demand. The mechanism therefore settles the daughter's interest in her father's estate by a single defined transfer rather than by a continuing right to share in the residue.
The fact that Newman had recently built on the ground himself, before any formal transfer of title, points to an arrangement that began as informal occupation and was being regularised at the executors' hands. Newman had taken possession with the family's tacit consent and constructed his dwelling there in anticipation of the marriage. The executors' deed of 3 August 1708 converts that informal occupation into a settled freehold in his name, with Mary's interest in the estate extinguished as the consideration for the conveyance.
Daniel Griffeth's appearance as executor under Dufton's will marks a fresh role for him in the records. He had served as clerk of the council from at least 1691, certifying many true copies and acting as a witness to numerous transactions. The role of executor here brings him into a private capacity as the appointed administrator of a planter's estate. The combination of his administrative office and his private trust shows the small literate circle on the island extending its institutional functions into the personal affairs of the planter households.
Jonathan Dufton's role as the other executor places a member of the family in the management of the estate alongside Griffeth. The combination of an outside executor and a family member is a standard early-modern arrangement, designed to balance independent administration against the family's continuing interest in the disposition of the assets. Jonathan would have known the practical details of the holding, while Griffeth's clerical experience supplied the procedural knowledge needed to execute the will properly.
Speculations
The use of a jury verdict to fix the boundary between the ten acres sold to Doveton and the ten retained by the estate suggests the executors anticipated potential disagreement over which half of the land would pass. A simple bisection on the map might have favoured one party or the other depending on access to water, slope, exposure or the position of any improvements. By taking the matter to a jury, the executors removed themselves from any later allegation of favouritism between the children of the estate and the buyer, and produced a binding determination that no party could subsequently contest.
The decision to settle Mary Dufton's share through her husband's pre-existing house rather than through a money portion suggests the household had limited liquidity after the £20 0s 0d sale to Doveton. Newman had already built on Dufton land before the formal arrangement, and the executors' acknowledgement of his prior construction looks like the recognition of a practical fait accompli. The arrangement let the executors satisfy Mary's share without raising further cash from the remaining ten acres, and conserved the estate's funds for the other children's portions.
The same-day execution of both deeds on 3 August 1708 indicates a coordinated settlement of two parts of the Dufton estate. The executors had probably been working towards this date for some months, with the jury direction obtained on 24 March 1708 establishing the boundary line, and the marriage and the buyer's offer concluding the necessary preparatory work. The choice to bring both transactions before the same panel of council witnesses on the same day reflects the practice of clearing related estate business at a single sitting.
The omission of any explicit reference to William Dufton's other children, beyond the daughter Mary whose interest is satisfied by the Newman conveyance, leaves open how the remaining ten acres and the £20 0s 0d cash from Doveton were to be applied. The executors' discharge from any further demand by Newman binds him and Mary, but does not extend to her siblings, whose claims on the estate continued to be managed by Griffeth and Jonathan Dufton. The arrangement therefore deals only with one branch of the inheritance, and the residue of the estate remained subject to the testator's general direction for the good and benefit of his children.
57
Orlando Bagley Sen[r] to Orlando Bagley Jun[r] To all whome these present Writing Shall Concern Know ye that me Orlando Bagley Sen[r] of the Island S[t] Helena Sends Greeting in our Lord God Everlasting, Now know ye that me the aforesaid Orlando Bagley for Divers good Caufes, and Consideratorrs me at these present Moveing as for the Mutuall Love and good Will I have and beareth, unto my Beloved Son Orlando Bagley Jun[r], and for other good Caufes, and motives thereunto moveing, hath for me my heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assignes, and Every One of them, Covenanted, granted, given, Demised, and Sold, and freely and Affsolutely Conveyed, and Delevered, and by these presents doth Covenant grant Demifse, Give and Sell, and freely, and Affsolutely Convey, and deliver unto my Said Son Orlando Bagley Junior his Heirs and Assignes for Ever all that pelece or parcell of Land Containing by Estimateon Ten Acres be the Same more or Less, with the Appurtenances thereunto belon- geing, Sectuate Lyeing and being at the head of Chappell Valley and is known by the Name of Thomas Sherwins late of the Said Island planter his Lott Land, or by whatsoever Names, or Names, the Same at any time heretofore has bin Called or known by, Abutting & bounding as is hereafter Specefeyed, That is to say to the Land of George Hof- keson, planter, To the South, to the Land of John Bowman, plan[ter] Towards the East, to the Land of my Land, formerly Joseph Smith Towards the West, to the Land of Edm[d] Edmunds planter[s] to[w] Towards the North with all and Singular, all and Every of the Appurtenances thereunto belongong, To have and to hold all and Singullair the Ten Acres of Land, with all and Singular, and Every of the premefses properly belonging to the Said Land to him his Said Son Orlando Bagley Sumeor, his Heirs and Assignes for Ever, without yeelding or paying any Money, or Moneyrs to me his Said Father, or any other person, or persons for me, or by my procurement, but the Said Premises my Said Son, his Heirs, and Assignes for Ever, freely, and peaceably to Enjoy and Occupy, from tome to tome and at all Tomer hence forth, without any Lett of Lett, Henderance, Mollestation, or Eviction of me the Said Orlando Bagley Senior, or my Heirs, Executors Administra- torr, and Assignes, or any of them, or any other person, or persons for me, or procurement, In Wittness whereof me the Said Orlando Bagley Senior hath to these presents Sett to his hand and Seale the fifth day of August in the Year of our Lord, One thousand Six hundred, and Ninety five, and in the Seaventh year of our Soveraigne Lord William by the Devine providence, over England, Scotland, France, and Iroland King Defender of the Faith &c[a]
Sealed and Delevered in the presence of us after the words of George Hoskefson put in the Margent J[r] Sneill John Vernon
Orlando Bagley [seal]
Orlando Bagley senior, of St Helena, conveyed to his son Orlando Bagley junior a ten-acre parcel at the head of Chapel Valley. The gift was made for love and good will and for other good causes moving him.
The land had formerly been the lot of Thomas Sherwin, late planter of the island. It was bounded as follows:
South the land of George Hoskison, planter
East the land of John Bowman, planter
West land of Orlando Bagley senior, formerly Joseph Smith's
North the land of Edward Edmunds, planter
Orlando Bagley junior and his heirs took the parcel with all appurtenances, to enjoy peacefully for ever without paying any money to his father or to any other person on his father's behalf. The father covenanted that he would not himself, nor any of his heirs, executors or assigns, nor any other person acting through him, disturb or evict the son or his successors from the land.
The deed was made on 5 August 1695, in the seventh year of the reign of King William. It was sealed and delivered in the presence of J Sneill and John Vernon, after the words of George Hoskeson had been inserted in the margin. Orlando Bagley senior set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The Bagley senior to junior gift of 5 August 1695 introduces a new family line into the records of the head of Chapel Valley. The Orlando Bagley name does not appear in the 1682 inquest of allotments, and the parcel is identified as the late Thomas Sherwin's lot rather than as land originally allotted to a Bagley. The transfer therefore shows the Bagley household acquiring a Sherwin parcel before this date and now passing it directly to the next generation, with the route of acquisition from Sherwin to Bagley unrecorded in the documents reviewed so far.
The Thomas Sherwin identified here as the late planter of the island is the same man whose wife Prudence Sherwin sold the Chapel Valley tenement to Thomas Goodwin on 2 July 1694, acting under his letter of attorney. The 1694 deed described him as absent rather than deceased, and the 1695 deed describes him as late. The interval of just over a year between the two records places Sherwin's death somewhere between July 1694 and August 1695, most probably while he was still absent from the island. The transition from absent husband to deceased planter therefore marks a particular point in the closing of the Sherwin estate, with the Chapel Valley tenement having gone to Goodwin and a ten-acre upland lot having reached the Bagleys before this point.
The boundary description identifies George Hoskison as the southern neighbour, John Bowman as the eastern neighbour, the elder Bagley's own land formerly Joseph Smith's as the western neighbour, and Edward Edmunds as the northern neighbour. The presence of Hoskison, Bowman and Edmunds in 1695 confirms that all three were established holders at the head of Chapel Valley a decade before the more extensive Hoskison transactions of the mid-1700s. The Joseph Smith name marks a further Sherwin-era allotment now in the elder Bagley's hands, and shows that he had built up at least two upland parcels at the head of the valley.
The margin note recording the insertion of the words of George Hoskison is documented at the foot of the deed itself. The boundary description had originally been drafted without naming Hoskison as the southern neighbour, and the addition was made before sealing. The witnesses J Sneill and John Vernon attested the deed after the correction was made, which gave the inserted words the same legal force as the rest of the text. The mechanism shows how boundary descriptions could be amended at the moment of execution to reflect the actual position of the neighbouring holders, with the marginal insertion serving as the formal record of the correction.
The gift was made without any consideration of money. The deed expressly states that the son was to enjoy the property freely without paying any money to his father or to any other person on his father's behalf. The arrangement therefore operates as a pure gift inter vivos rather than as a sale or as an advance against the son's future inheritance. The structure preserves the parent's continuing authority over his other estate while passing one defined parcel directly to the named child during the parent's lifetime.
Orlando Bagley senior is distinct from the John Bagley who appears in the 1682 inquest and from the Edward Bagley who emerges in the 1705 to 1708 records as a major figure at the head of Lemon Valley. The name Orlando is uncommon among the planter households recorded so far, and the appearance of two generations of Orlando Bagleys at the head of Chapel Valley in 1695 confirms a separate Bagley line operating in that part of the island. The relationship of the Orlando Bagleys to the Edward Bagley and the John Bagley of the Lemon Valley records is not clarified by this deed, though the shared surname suggests a wider family network.
Speculations
The decision to make the conveyance as a pure gift, with the express exclusion of any payment, suggests Orlando Bagley senior was making a settlement on his son in advance of his own death rather than waiting to pass the property by will. The mechanism let the son take possession during the father's lifetime and protected the parcel from any claim by other creditors or heirs that might emerge later. The choice of an immediate inter vivos transfer over a testamentary disposition is therefore probably a deliberate response to circumstances within the family or within the elder Bagley's broader estate.
The specification that no payment was to be made even by any other person on the father's behalf points to an awareness of the risk that someone might later attempt to assert a financial claim against the gift. By closing off any possibility of consideration, the elder Bagley placed the transfer on the foundation of natural love and affection alone, which protected the son's title against the kind of latent claim that the quit-claims of 1704 and 1707 were drawn to extinguish. The clause makes the gift unimpeachable as a sale, since no sale was ever made.
The marginal insertion of George Hoskison's name as the southern neighbour, made at the moment of execution and attested by the witnesses, suggests that the original draft was prepared before the parties had finally settled on the description of the southern boundary. Hoskison's identity as the relevant neighbour may have been confirmed only at the meeting at which the deed was sealed, perhaps because he had only recently established his own holding at the head of the valley. The correction therefore preserves a small moment of practical drafting in which the document was brought into line with the position on the ground at the very point of completion.
58
Island S[t] Helena
Orlando Bagley Iun[r] to Edward Edmunds Be it known unto all Men by these presents that I Orlando Bagley, of the said Island, ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Twelve pounds, of good and Lawsfull Money to me in hand paied before the Ensealing and Delevery of these presents by Edward Edmunds of the said Island, whereof I acknowledge my Self fully Sattisfeed and paied and thereof, and of Every part and parcell thereof to clearly Acquitt Exonerate and Discharge, the Said Edward Edmunds his Heirr Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assignes by these presents, Have Granted Bargained and Sold, and by these presents do fully fearly and Affsolutely Grant Bargain Sell and Deliver, unto the said Edward Edmunds, Ten Acres of Land, Sectuate Lyeing and being at the head of Chappell Valley abutting and bounding as followeth Vez[t] Towards the South on Land, former- ly Francis Wrangham, and now in the possession of the Said Edward Edmunds, Toward the North on Land in the Possession of George Hoskefson, Towards the East on Land in the Possession of Orlando Bagley Senior, Toward the West on Land in the Possession of John Bowman, by all and with all the Tomes and other Conveniences belongeing thereunto, to have and to hold all the said Ten Acres of Land be the Same more or Less, by these presents bargained and Sold unto the Said Edward Edmund or his Heirr Executorr, Admi- nistratorr and assignes for Ever, to do and Dispose of as he or they Shall think fitt, without any Lett, or Mollesteteon, from me the said Orlando Bagley Junior, of any other person whatsoever, In Wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seal this Ninth day of January 169⅘
Wittnesses Richard Geurling George Hoskison Henry Frances
Orlando Bagley [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Jasper Jaye to Edward Edmunds To all persons to whome this present Writing Shall Come, I Know ye that I Jasper Jaye of the Said Island have Alienated Bargained and Sold, unto Edward Edmunds of the said Island the Ten Acres of Land on which I now Dwell Lyeing and adjoyneing unto the Ten Acres of Land on which the Said Edward Edmunds now Dwells, with all the Fruits thereon groweing Viz[t] Yams, Potatoes &c[a] for and in the Consideration of Sixteen pounds halfe in Money and the other halfe in goods, Further it is agreed that the Said Jasper Jaye Shall have Yams to Maintain hemselfe and Wife till Same need if they Shall not go off the Said Island before, and that they may keep five Dozen of Fowles at theur Doore, In Wittness whereunto I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 13 day of February 168⅔
Wittnessed Samuell Taylor John Nicholls
the marke of Jasper J Jaye [seal]
Orlando Bagley junior, of St Helena, sold to Edward Edmunds ten acres of land at the head of Chapel Valley for £12 0s 0d in good lawful money. The sum was paid in hand before sealing, and Bagley acknowledged its receipt in full and discharged Edmunds and his heirs from any further claim.
The parcel was bounded as follows:
South land formerly Francis Wrangham's, now in the possession of Edward Edmunds
North land in the possession of George Hoskeson
East land in the possession of Orlando Bagley senior
West land in the possession of John Bowman
Edmunds and his heirs took the ten acres with all timber and other conveniences belonging to the land, to hold and dispose of as they thought fit, free from any disturbance by Orlando Bagley junior or any other person.
The deed was made on 9 January 1695 and witnessed by Richard Gurling, George Hoskison and Henry Francis. Orlando Bagley junior set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing was made by Jasper Jaye, of St Helena, to Edward Edmunds. Jaye sold to Edmunds the ten acres on which he then lived, lying next to the ten acres on which Edmunds also lived, with all the fruits growing on the ground including yams and potatoes.
The price was £16 0s 0d, payable as follows:
In money £8 0s 0d
In goods £8 0s 0d
Two further reservations were agreed in Jaye's favour:
A continuing supply of yams from the land sufficient to maintain Jaye and his wife as long as they remained in need, provided they had not departed from the island
The right to keep poultry at their door five dozen fowls
The deed was made on 13 February 1683 and witnessed by Samuel Taylor and John Nicholls. Jasper Jaye signed by his mark in the form of J.
Interpretations
The Bagley junior to Edmunds sale brings the gift made by Orlando Bagley senior to Orlando Bagley junior on 5 August 1695 onto the open market within five months of its execution. The gift had been made expressly without any consideration of money, with the elder Bagley closing off all possibility of a sale being argued against the son's title. The son's response, in disposing of the parcel for £12 0s 0d to the neighbouring holder, shows the practical effect of the gift's drafting: it gave the son a clean and unencumbered title that he could realise immediately for cash.
The boundary description in the January 1695 deed reverses the orientation given in the August 1695 gift. The earlier gift had described the same parcel with George Hoskison to the south, Edward Edmunds to the north, John Bowman to the east and the elder Bagley's land to the west. The current deed places Edmunds to the south, Hoskison to the north, the elder Bagley to the east and Bowman to the west. The compass references are essentially rotated, and either the original gift or this sale contained an error in the orientation of the boundary. Without a survey on the ground, the discrepancy can be noted but not resolved on the documents alone.
The price of £12 0s 0d for ten acres at the head of Chapel Valley provides a useful comparative figure. The Dixon to Casthope sale of 6 January 1700 had moved ten acres at the head of Lemon Valley at £15 0s 0d, and the Casthope to Goodwin onward sale of 9 February 1702 had moved the same parcel at £10 0s 0d. The Chapel Valley figure here in 1695 falls within the same general range, suggesting that the local market for upland ten-acre parcels at the head of the major valleys stood at roughly £10 0s 0d to £15 0s 0d through the late 1690s and early 1700s, with variations reflecting improvements, access and the particular circumstances of the transaction.
The Jaye to Edmunds sale of 13 February 1683 is the earliest individual conveyance in this set, made within five months of the 26 September 1682 inquest of allotments. The sale shows the planter community moving from initial allotment into active resale within a single agricultural season, with Jaye disposing of his ten acres while continuing to live on them under the reserved supplies of yams and the right to keep poultry. The pattern reflects how quickly the formal allotment system gave way to a working secondary market in land among the free planters.
The structured price of £8 0s 0d in money and £8 0s 0d in goods is the operative feature of the Jaye sale. Cash was scarce on the island in the early 1680s, and a buyer offering half the price in trade goods, perhaps cloth, tools, salt, sugar or other Company-issued stores, would have found the deal more attractive than a buyer demanding the whole sum in coin. The arrangement also gave Jaye a useful stock of goods alongside his cash, which he could employ either in continued residence or in preparations for departure from the island.
The reservation of yams sufficient to maintain Jaye and his wife in need, provided they had not departed from the island, gives the deed the character of a life maintenance contract as much as a sale. Jaye was effectively converting his ownership of the land into a continuing right to draw food from it, with the underlying title passing to Edmunds but the practical sustenance of the household remaining unaffected. The structure reflects the realities of an island where the alternative to remaining on the land was a passage off the island, and where the means of subsistence had to be guaranteed before any sale could be agreed.
The right to keep five dozen fowls at the door extends the maintenance arrangement to a second food source. Sixty fowls represent a working flock for an island household, providing eggs, meat and the occasional surplus for sale. The reservation is unusual in being specified at a precise numerical level, with the figure of five dozen marking the boundary between subsistence and surplus. The provision shows how concretely the parties calculated the practical needs of a continuing household within the terms of a land sale.
Francis Wrangham appears in the January 1695 deed as the former holder of the southern boundary, with the land now in Edmunds's possession. The 1682 inquest recorded Wrangham as an original holder at the head of Chapel Valley, and his death and the remarriage of his widow to Henry Francis are referenced in the records of the Henry Francis quit-claim of 27 January 1704. The land referred to here is therefore probably one of the parcels that passed out of the Wrangham household after his death, with Edmunds acquiring it before the 1695 sale by Bagley junior.
Richard Gurling, George Hoskison and Henry Francis appear together as the witnesses to the January 1695 deed. The presence of Hoskison as a witness, just months before the marginal insertion of his name as southern neighbour in the August 1695 gift from Orlando Bagley senior, points to his active and recognised position at the head of Chapel Valley by early 1695. Henry Francis, married to Wrangham's widow, would have had an interest in the southern boundary description through his wife's connection to the former Wrangham parcel, and his witnessing of the deed brings the Francis household into the transaction as an informal observer.
Speculations
The five-month interval between the gift from father to son in August 1695 and the sale from son to Edmunds in January 1695 is impossible as stated, since January 1695 would precede August 1695. The dating convention of the time, in which the year began on 25 March rather than 1 January, resolves the apparent contradiction. The deed dated 9 January 169 4/5 falls in modern reckoning in January 1695, but the August 1695 gift would have been the seventh year of King William. The January 1695 sale is therefore actually January 1696 in modern reckoning, which restores the chronological order: gift in August 1695, sale in January 1696. The five-month interval reflects the son moving quickly to realise the value of the gift in cash, perhaps in preparation for his own departure from the island or for some other immediate financial purpose.
The Bagley junior's prompt disposal of the parcel to the neighbouring Edmunds suggests the gift from his father may have been understood from the outset as a means of providing him with a transferable asset rather than as a permanent enlargement of his holdings. The elder Bagley would have known that gifting the land freed his son to sell it without paternal interference, and the choice of Edmunds as buyer points to a pre-arranged disposal in which the neighbouring holder absorbed the parcel into his own working estate. The structure looks like a coordinated movement of value from father to son to neighbour, with the cash proceeds reaching the son and the land settling with Edmunds.
The Jaye reservation of yams and poultry, combined with the proviso that the supplies would continue only so long as Jaye and his wife had not departed from the island, suggests Jaye was contemplating a future departure but was not yet committed to going. The arrangement gave him the option of staying on under the maintenance regime or leaving with the cash and goods, with no need to settle the question at the moment of sale. The flexibility built into the deed reflects the uncertain position of garrison-era planters, whose continued presence on the island depended on Company employment, family circumstances and the availability of passage on outbound shipping.
59
Island S[t] Helena
Arthur and Sarah Bradley to Walter Belvard Know all Men by these presents, that we Arthur Bradley of the said Island Souldeier and Sarah Bradley Wife of the said Arthur, for and In Consideration of the Sum of One hundred Dollarrs in hand paied, and two Cows, and two Calfes to be Delevered upon Demand, by Walter Belvard of the said Island Free planter, Have Granted Bargained and Sold, and by these presents do hereby Grant, Bargain, and Sell, All that the Plantation where in he now dwells in the Coentrey, Containing by Estimation Ten Acres of Land and adjoyning to the Land of M[r] Carne, Walter Morres, and Edward Bagley, Unto Walter Belvard his Heirr and Assignes for Ever, To Have and to hold the Said Mefseuage, Plantation and premises, with all the provissions thereon, and all things thereunto belonging unto the Said Walter Belvard his Heirr, and Assignes, for Ever Upon Condi- tion Neverthelefs, and it is the true Intent of these presents, that the Said Arthur Bradley and his Wife Shall Enjoy and Possess the Same for two Years from the Date hereof, or Sooner if he Depart the Island, then the Said Walter Belvard is to Enter, and have quiet Possession, In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Set our hands and Sealer this Eighteen day of October 1705
Sealed and Delevered in the presence of John Nicholls Tegn Will[m] C Owen Daneell Griffeth
Arthur Bradley [seal] Sarah Bradley [seal]
Memorand[u]m
Hugh Bodley Jon[s] Doveton & Hugh Bodley That Hugh Bodley of the said Island free planter, ffor and in Consideration of one Female Negro Slave Knowne By the Name of Sue & formerly Apperteineing & belonging Unto the Estate of Leonard Coulson Late free planter dec[eased] Do hereby Exchange & Make over all my Right and Title that I have or may have to the Male Negro Youth Named Unto Jonath[an] Dufton of Said Isl[d] free plant[r] In other Posefson the Said Sue Now is, And the Said Jonath[an] Dufton Doth for himself his heirs Execut[s] Adm[rs] &c[a] obyge & hereby Make over in Lieu of y[e] Said Male Youth Named as as above[s], the Said Female Named Sue as afsa[id] Unto the Said Hugh Bodley his heirs Execut[s] Adm[rs] & assigns for Ever without any Manner of Claime by any from extosrover Doth promise to Save & keep Harmless The s[d] Hugh Bodley his heirs &c[a] In Wittness whereof We have hereunto Sett our hands this 13[th] day of Aug[t] 1708
Wittnessed by Tho[s] Goodwin W[m] Mar[d]n 3 in Cou[n]
Hugh Bodley Jonal Doveton
Arthur Bradley, soldier of St Helena, and his wife Sarah Bradley sold to Walter Belvard, free planter of the island, a ten-acre plantation on which Arthur then dwelt. The land adjoined the holdings of Mr Carne, Walter Morres and Edward Bagley.
The price was a composite of cash and livestock, paid as follows:
Cash in Spanish dollars 100 dollars, paid in hand
Cattle 2 cows and 2 calves, to be delivered on demand
Belvard and his heirs took the messuage, plantation and premises with all the provisions on the ground and all things belonging to it. The conveyance was subject to a condition that the Bradleys would continue in possession for two years from the date of the deed, or sooner if Arthur departed the island, at which point Belvard would enter into quiet possession.
The deed was made on 18 October 1705 and sealed and delivered in the presence of John Nicholls, William C Owen and Daniel Griffeth. Arthur Bradley and Sarah Bradley each set their hand and seal to it.
A separate memorandum recorded an exchange of slaves between Hugh Bodley, free planter of the island, and Jonathan Doveton, also a free planter.
Bodley transferred to Doveton his right and title to a male slave youth. In return Doveton transferred to Bodley a female slave known as Sue, who had formerly belonged to the estate of the late Leonard Coulson, free planter. Doveton bound himself and his heirs to save Bodley and his heirs harmless from any claim arising from the exchange.
The deed was made on 13 August 1708 and witnessed by Thomas Goodwin and William Marsden, third in council. Hugh Bodley and Jonathan Doveton each signed.
Interpretations
The Bradley to Belvard sale combines an immediate cash payment with a deferred delivery of livestock and a two-year reservation of possession. The 100 Spanish dollars paid in hand gave Belvard a clear receipt and gave the Bradleys their immediate cash. The two cows and two calves remaining to be delivered on demand functioned as a continuing obligation hanging over Belvard until the Bradleys called for them, which kept Belvard tied to the transaction for as long as the cattle remained undelivered. The structure separates the cash and the kind portions of the consideration and gives each its own enforcement mechanism.
The two-year possessory reservation is the operative provision protecting the Bradleys' continued residence. They sold the freehold but retained the right to occupy and work the land for two years from the date of the deed, or until Arthur departed the island if that came sooner. The arrangement converts the sale into something close to a sale subject to a fixed lease back, with the Bradleys remaining as the working occupiers of land they no longer owned. The proviso linking the term to Arthur's departure is the controlling element: if his Company service called him off the island within the two years, the sale would crystallise earlier than the fixed term.
Sarah Bradley's appearance as a co-signatory of the deed, alongside her husband Arthur, brings a married woman directly into the conveyance rather than as the holder of a separate dower or jointure right. The pattern matches the joint conveyance by William French and his wife Mary to Edward Bagley of 4 March 1708, where both spouses signed and sealed. The mechanism shows that married women on the island could be parties to a freehold sale in their own right, and not only through the device of a letter of attorney from an absent husband as in the Rhodes, Sherwin and Carne arrangements.
Walter Belvard appears here on 18 October 1705 as a buyer of ten acres adjoining Carne, Morres and Bagley land. His later appearance on 8 June 1708 as the buyer of George Dweight's ten-acre Sharks Valley parcel and six-acre Company leasehold for £170 0s 0d shows him moving from this initial Chapel Valley purchase to a substantial Sharks Valley estate in less than three years. The pattern indicates Belvard building his holdings across multiple parts of the island during the latter part of the decade.
The Bodley to Doveton exchange of 13 August 1708 records the transfer of two slaves by direct barter rather than by sale. No cash consideration appears in the deed, and the operative consideration on each side is the slave delivered by the other. The structure shows slaves being treated as fully fungible property within the planter community, exchangeable for one another in the same way that cattle, hogs or other livestock were exchanged. The deed preserves the name Sue for the female slave but does not record the name of the male youth, which is unusual within the practice of recording slave identifications in conveyancing.
Sue's prior history is given in the deed: she had formerly belonged to the estate of the late Leonard Coulson, free planter. The Coulson name connects to Mrs Grace Coulson, who appears in the 10 May 1700 Edmunds to Goodwin Chapel Valley tenement deed as one of the boundary holders. The Leonard Coulson identified here is probably the late husband of Grace Coulson, and Sue's passage from the Coulson estate through Doveton to Bodley records the movement of a single slave across at least three planter households after Leonard's death.
The Bodley to Doveton deed is witnessed by Thomas Goodwin and William Marsden, third in council, without the deputy governor Edward Walkborne. The change from the standard three-man witness panel that had appeared on the Dweight transactions of 8 June 1708, the Bevian to Hoskison and Hoskison to Gurling deeds of June and July 1708, and the Dufton executors' deeds of 3 August 1708, indicates that Walkborne was not present on 13 August. The reduced witness list shows that the council's role in attesting private deeds, while institutional, was not strictly fixed at three men, and that two members of the governing body could attest a transfer where the deputy governor was unavailable.
Jonathan Doveton appears in three transactions across the August 1708 records: as the buyer of ten acres from the Dufton executors on 3 August, as a witness to the Newman conveyance on the same day, and as the principal in this slave exchange on 13 August. The pattern shows Doveton actively expanding his estate and his slave holdings within a short period, with the land acquisition of 3 August accompanied or followed by adjustments to his labour force. The 13 August exchange may have been made to give him the male youth he needed to work the newly acquired ten acres of Dufton land at the head of Chapel Valley.
Speculations
The decision to take 100 Spanish dollars in hand and two cows and two calves on demand suggests the Bradleys were calibrating the deal to their immediate and longer-term needs. The cash secured their position for the present, while the deferred cattle would provide them with breeding stock either for use during their two-year occupation or for taking off the island if they departed. The choice to leave the livestock to be delivered on demand rather than at a fixed date kept Belvard responsible for the maintenance of the animals until the Bradleys called for them, which suited a household uncertain whether it would remain on the island long enough to need the cattle on its own ground.
The structure of the Bradley deed, in which the seller retained possession for up to two years, points to Arthur Bradley as a soldier subject to the possibility of recall or redeployment by the Company. By writing the two-year cap and the early termination on departure into the deed, the parties acknowledged that Arthur's Company service controlled the timing of his physical removal from the land. The arrangement let the Bradleys plan around either continued residence or a sudden recall, with the sale already in place and only the date of Belvard's entry remaining contingent.
The exchange of a male slave youth for the female slave Sue, rather than a straightforward sale of either, suggests that Bodley and Doveton each had a specific labour need that the other could meet. Bodley may have wanted a female slave for domestic, agricultural or perhaps reproductive purposes, while Doveton may have wanted a male youth for the heavier work of the ten acres he had acquired ten days earlier from the Dufton estate. The exchange therefore looks like a matching of labour profiles between two households rather than a sale prompted by financial necessity, with each principal getting the slave more suited to his current operations.
The absence of any cash component or balancing payment in the slave exchange implies that the two slaves were treated as roughly equivalent in value at the time of the deed. The mechanism for valuing slaves in island deeds otherwise involved either an explicit price or the kind of cattle appraisal by two impartial persons used for livestock. The decision to forgo any valuation and to treat the two slaves as simply exchangeable suggests an established understanding within the planter community of what a male youth and a young adult female were each worth, with no need to document the calculation.
60
Memorandum
Walter Belvard to Rich[d] Gurling That Walter Belvard, free planter of the Island of S[t] Helena ffor and in Consederation of the Sum of Seaventy pounds by Richard Gurling of the Said Island free planter in hand paied Do hereby Demise Bargai[n] and Sell unto the said Richard Gurling Ten Acrer of Land Lyeing and being on the said Island in Fryer Valley Which he the said Walter Belvar[d] Bought and Purchased of his and Sarah Bradley of the Said Island, To have and to hold the Same to him the said Richard Gurling and his Heirs for Ever to do and Despore of at theer Wells and pleasure In Wittness whereof the Said Walter Belvard and Richard Gurling have hereunto Sett our hand this 17 day of August 1708
Wittnessed by Tho[s] Goodwin Gov[r] Edw[d] Walkborne W[m] Marsden
Walter Belvard Richard Gurling
Jn[o] Bagley Deed of Mortgage to Cap[t] Edw[d] Walkborne This Indenture made the Twentieth day of July, One Thousand Seaven Hundred and Eight Between John Bagley of the Island S[t] Helena Free Plant[er] on the One Part and Liev[t] Edw[d] Walkborne Deputy Governor of the Said Island on the Other Part Witnesseth tha[t] the s[ai]d John Bagley for and in Consideration of the Sum of Thirty Pounds in good and Current Money of the Said Islands in hand paid unto him the Said John Bagley by the Said Lievt[t] Edward Walkborne at and before the Ensealing and Delivery thereof. The Receipt where of the Said John Bagley doth acknowledg[e] and doth hereby alfs[o] Clear Acquitt and Discharge the Said Lievten[t] Edward Walkborne his Heirs and Assigns, and for Divers other Good Causes and Consideratio[n]s him the Said John Bagley thereunto moveing Hath demised, Granted Bargained and to Farm Letten and by these p[r]es[en]ts doth Demife Grant and to Farm Lett unto the Said Liev[ten]anant Edward Walkborne his Executors Adm[i]ni[s]rs and Assigns All that Peice & Parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Tenn acres Known by the name of Smiths Plain next Adjoyning to the Lands of [m] Gabriel Powell and the said Bagleys owne Lands
Walter Belvard, free planter of St Helena, sold to Richard Gurling, free planter of the island, ten acres of land in Fryer Valley. The price was £70 0s 0d, paid in hand by Gurling. Belvard had earlier bought the land from Arthur and Sarah Bradley of the island.
Gurling and his heirs took the parcel for ever, to be held and disposed of at their will and pleasure.
The deed was made on 17 August 1708 and witnessed by Thomas Goodwin, governor, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden. Walter Belvard and Richard Gurling each signed.
A separate indenture was made on 20 July 1708 between John Bagley, free planter of St Helena, and Lieutenant Edward Walkborne, deputy governor of the island.
Bagley received £30 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand at the sealing of the deed. He acknowledged its receipt and discharged Walkborne and his heirs from any further claim. Other good causes and considerations were also recited as moving him to enter into the conveyance.
In return Bagley demised, granted, bargained and farm-let to Walkborne, his executors, administrators and assigns ten acres of land called Smiths Plain. The parcel adjoined the lands of Gabriel Powell and Bagley's own remaining land.
Interpretations
The Belvard to Gurling sale completes the third stage of a chain that began with the Bradleys' sale to Belvard on 18 October 1705. The Bradleys received 100 Spanish dollars and two cows with two calves for ten acres adjoining Carne, Morres and Bagley land. Belvard now realises £70 0s 0d sterling from the same parcel by selling on to Richard Gurling, which represents a substantial appreciation over what he had paid less than three years earlier. The location is here identified as Fryer Valley, which clarifies the position of the original Bradley plantation in the boundary description of 1705.
The same-day involvement of Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and William Marsden as witnesses to the Belvard-Gurling deed of 17 August 1708 returns the standard three-man council panel to the witnessing role that had been interrupted on 13 August. The pattern shows that the council's attendance at significant private conveyances had been resumed in full, and that the absence of Walkborne from the Bodley-Doveton slave exchange of four days earlier had been a particular circumstance rather than a change in practice.
The Bagley to Walkborne deed of 20 July 1708 is technically described in the heading as a deed of mortgage, but the body of the indenture uses the language of demise, grant, bargain and farm-letting that ordinarily denotes a lease for a term of years. The combination of headings and operative wording suggests the parties intended an instrument that functioned commercially as a mortgage but was framed in the form of a lease, which was a standard early-modern device for securing a debt against land while keeping the underlying freehold in the borrower's name.
The cash sum of £30 0s 0d advanced by Walkborne to Bagley fixes the secured loan at that figure. The land called Smiths Plain served as the security for the advance, with Walkborne taking possession of the ten acres until the loan was repaid. The structure inverts the relationship that the Hoskison to Gurling mortgage of 6 July 1708 had documented, where Gurling paid an annuity to Hoskison during Mary Hoskison's life. Here Bagley received the principal in a single payment and pledged the ten acres until the debt was settled.
The reference to divers other good causes and considerations moving John Bagley to enter into the conveyance preserves the standard formula for keeping an additional element of the arrangement out of the written record. The £30 0s 0d in cash is the recited consideration, but the language of further causes suggests there may have been a side agreement on interest, on the term of redemption or on related obligations between Bagley and Walkborne that the parties chose not to commit to writing.
Edward Walkborne's appearance in this deed in his private capacity, as a lender taking land as security, sits alongside his official role as deputy governor of the island. The combination of public office and private financial dealings was characteristic of the small body of council members who served as the principal witnesses, principal officeholders and principal lenders within the planter community. Walkborne's transition from witness in earlier deeds to principal here shows him moving between institutional and personal roles within the same set of records.
Smiths Plain identifies the ten acres by a place name rather than by the name of a previous holder. The pattern parallels the Lemon Garden, the Purslane Bed, the Great Wood Ridge and other named features in the records, and shows that place names attached to particular pieces of ground were used alongside the more common method of identification by reference to an allottee. The Smith name in the place identification probably refers back to the Joseph Smith land mentioned in the August 1695 gift from Orlando Bagley senior to his son, where the elder Bagley's land was described as formerly Joseph Smith's.
Gabriel Powell appears here as the neighbouring holder to Smiths Plain. The Powell name had moved through the 11 May 1704 same-day purchases and sales at Peak Gult, the 7 September 1706 acquisition of fifty acres in Chapel Valley from George Hoskison for £350 0s 0d, and his witness role to several earlier conveyances. The presence of Powell as the named neighbour to Bagley's mortgaged land confirms that he held substantial ground in the same part of the island, and locates Smiths Plain within the broader Powell holdings.
John Bagley distinguishes the parties to this deed from the line of Edward Bagley who features in the larger Lemon Valley transactions, from the Orlando Bagley senior and junior of the Chapel Valley records, and from the John and Margaret Bagley couple who sold to Edward Bagley on 10 August 1705. The proliferation of Bagley households in the records by 1708 confirms that the family had become one of the more numerous planter lines on the island, with property dealings spread across multiple valleys and multiple branches of the kinship network.
Speculations
The appreciation of the Bradley parcel from 100 Spanish dollars plus two cows and two calves in 1705 to £70 0s 0d in 1708 suggests Belvard had either improved the land during his period of ownership or benefited from a general rise in Fryer Valley land prices. The 1705 deed had given the Bradleys a two-year reservation of possession, which means Belvard would have entered into actual occupation only around October 1707. The interval between his entry and his onward sale was therefore less than a year, which makes substantial physical improvement unlikely. The appreciation is more probably explained by an upward movement in the market for upland Fryer Valley parcels in the period when Belvard chose to sell.
Belvard's pattern of acquisition and disposal across 1705 to 1708 suggests an active trader rather than a settled planter. He bought the Bradley parcel in October 1705 with a two-year possessory delay, took Dweight's Sharks Valley holding with a Company leasehold in June 1708 for £170 0s 0d, and sold the Fryer Valley parcel onward to Gurling in August 1708 for £70 0s 0d. The structure of his dealings, taking on extensive holdings while disposing of others, points to a planter using land transactions as a continuing commercial activity rather than as occasional adjustments to a fixed estate.
John Bagley's recourse to a mortgage with the deputy governor rather than with a fellow planter suggests either that Walkborne offered a particular advantage on the terms, or that Bagley had limited alternative sources of credit on the island. The deputy governor's official position gave him both the means to lend and the institutional authority to enforce repayment, which made him a useful lender for any planter willing to give security over land. The choice of Walkborne also brought a higher level of formality and council attestation to the transaction, which protected both parties against later challenge.
61
To Have and to Hold the Said Ten Acres of Land with all and Singuler the Appurtenances thereunto belonging Unto Him the Said Edward Walkborne his Heirs Execut[ors] and Assigns from the Day of the Date hereof till the full End and Term of Six Months from thence next Ensueing Yeilding and paying therefore the Sum of fforty Shillings besides the Said Sum of Thirty Pounds Unto the Said Edw[d] Walkborne &c[a]. And it is hereby Agreed and Concluded by and Between all Parties herein Concern[ed] as well the Said John Bagley's w[i]fe as himselfe their Heirs &c[a] That the Said Lievten[t] Ed[w]d Walkborne, His Heirs &c[a] [deleted text] Shall quietly and Peaceably Possess and Enjoy the Said Land &c[a]. Provided the Said Sum of Thirty Two Pounds is not paid at the time before Mentioned In Witness Whereof the Said John Bagley and Margrett his Wife have hereunto Sett their Hands and Seals the Day and Year first above Written
Sealed Signed & Delived in the Presence of Robert Goodwin William Jesper
John Bagley [seal]
John Lufkins Bill of Sale to the Comp[a]ny
Know All Men by these Presents that I John Lufkin of the Said Island free planter, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Three Hundred and fifty Pounds in Good and Lawfull Money of England to me in hand paid by The Worshipfull Stephen Poiri[c]r Esq[r] Govern[or] and Councell of the Said Island for and on the behalfe of the R[t] Hon[r]ble United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, at and before the Ensueing and Delivery of these p[r]es[en]ts where with I acknowledge my Self to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid Have Given, Granted and Bargained and Sold, and do firmly, absolutely and for ever give grant Bargain Sell and Deliver Unto the Said R[t] Hon[r]ble United Company their Heirs and Successors
Walkborne and his heirs took the ten acres at Smiths Plain with all appurtenances from the date of the deed for a term of six months. The rent was 40s 0d, payable to Walkborne in addition to the £30 0s 0d already advanced.
The deed bound John Bagley, his wife Margaret and their heirs as well as Bagley alone. Walkborne, his heirs and assigns were to hold and enjoy the land peacefully, provided the redemption sum of £32 0s 0d was not paid at the agreed time.
John Bagley and Margaret his wife set their hands and seals to the deed on the day and year first written. It was sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Robert Goodwin and William Jesper. John Bagley signed.
A separate bill of sale was made by John Lufkin, free planter of the island, to the Right Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies. The Company acted through Stephen Poirier, esquire, governor, and the council of the island.
Lufkin received £350 0s 0d in good and lawful money of England, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the bill. He acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full receipt.
Lufkin gave, granted, bargained and sold to the Company, their heirs and successors
Interpretations
The completion of the Bagley to Walkborne mortgage exposes the financial structure of the transaction. Walkborne advanced £30 0s 0d, and the redemption sum was £32 0s 0d, payable within six months. The £2 0s 0d difference represents the cost of borrowing the principal for the period, which at six months on £30 0s 0d works out at an annual rate of about 13 per cent. The figure sits well above the legal English maximum of six per cent under the Usury Acts then in force, and shows how the rate of return on credit secured against island land was set by local conditions rather than by metropolitan law.
The expression of the loan in the form of a six-month farm-letting at 40s 0d rent, with the £30 0s 0d treated as a separate sum advanced by Walkborne to Bagley, is the standard early-modern device for evading the formal language of usury. The lender takes the land into possession as a lessee, with the rent paid by the borrower being the interest in another form. The transaction is therefore not a mortgage in the strict English sense, in which the borrower retains possession and the lender holds only a charge, but an inversion in which the lender enters and the borrower pays for the use of his own land in addition to repaying the principal.
The inclusion of Margaret Bagley as a co-party to the deed brings the joint marital dimension into the mortgage. Without her signature, any reversionary interest she might claim as widow to the land would have remained outside the security. The joinder of the wife, paralleling the joint conveyance of William and Mary French to Edward Bagley of 4 March 1708 and the Bradley sale of 18 October 1705, shows the planter community recognising the need to bind both spouses where the security of a debt depended on the land staying free of competing family claims.
The penalty provision, by which Walkborne would hold the land if the £32 0s 0d was not paid at the agreed time, constitutes the effective forfeiture clause. The structure operates as a strict foreclosure rather than as the modern equity of redemption: if Bagley failed to pay on the due date, Walkborne's possession became permanent. The mechanism is harsh by later standards but standard for the period, and explains why borrowers like Bagley had every incentive to arrange repayment within the term.
The Lufkin bill of sale to the Company on its visible portion shows the United East India Company acting directly through its governor and council to acquire property from a free planter. The Company is identified by its full corporate style, the consideration is in sterling rather than in island currency, and the receipt is given in the language of an English commercial bill of sale. The structure shows the Company moving between its roles as land bank, as overlord and as direct purchaser when its institutional interests required the acquisition of a particular asset.
The price of £350 0s 0d in good and lawful money of England is comparable to the £350 0s 0d that George Hoskison had paid Gabriel Powell for the dwelling house and fifty acres in Chapel Valley on 7 September 1706. The Lufkin transaction therefore stands at the upper end of recorded island prices, and points to a substantial asset of some kind rather than a routine parcel of upland. The Company's willingness to commit £350 0s 0d in sterling, drawn against its central account rather than against island stores, marks the transaction as one of strategic importance to the institution.
Stephen Poirier appears here as governor signing on behalf of the Company. His earlier appearances in the records include witnessing the Swallow to Sech conveyance of 4 February 1705 and the Heath to Charles deed of 13 March 1705, and approving the Company's 99-year extension grant to Paul Charles on the same date. The current bill of sale shows him still in office at the time of the Lufkin transaction, with Thomas Goodwin and Edward Walkborne having succeeded him in the witnessing roles of June, July and August 1708. The chronology indicates that the Lufkin sale falls earlier than the August 1708 council session, since by that date Goodwin had become governor.
Speculations
The choice of a six-month term for the Bagley to Walkborne mortgage suggests an expectation of imminent income from a particular source. Bagley would have needed to find £32 0s 0d in cash within six months of 20 July 1708, which placed the redemption date around 20 January 1709. The timing falls just after the end of the autumn harvest cycle and before the next year's planting, when a successful crop could have produced both the cash and the surplus needed to meet the obligation. The short term therefore points to Bagley borrowing against a specific anticipated payment rather than against the general value of the land.
The Lufkin sale to the Company in the visible portion of the bill, with the £350 0s 0d paid in sterling drawn against the Company's central account, suggests the asset was something the Company specifically needed for its operations. A free planter's ordinary rural parcel would not normally command £350 0s 0d in sterling from the Company, and the figure is more consistent with the acquisition of a tenement, a strategically located piece of ground, or an asset with particular institutional value. The structure of the deed, with the governor and council acting directly on behalf of the Company, indicates a transaction taken at the institutional level rather than at the level of routine plantation business.
Margaret Bagley's joinder in the mortgage deed reflects a deliberate decision to secure the lender's position against any future claim she might bring as widow. The standard form of widow's dower or comparable marital interest could have given her a continuing claim on the land if Bagley died before redemption. By bringing her into the deed as a sealing party, Walkborne extinguished that risk in advance, and the structure points to the deputy governor having sufficient knowledge of the local practice of marital property claims to insist on the wife's signature as a condition of the loan.
62
One Dwelling House Thirty Acres of Land and Provissions Thereon Growing and being together w[i]th and Singular [Beums] [Hedges] [W]oods, ffences, walls, water Courses and All Other the Appurten[an]ces thereunto Belonging, or any ways Appertaining, Lying and being next Adjoyning to the s[a]id Hon[ble] Company main Pas[s]land To Have and to Hold the Said Hereby Bargained and Forementioned Premises to The Aforesaid R[t] Hon[ble] United Company, their Heirs and Successors for Ever and to their now proper U[s]es and Behoofe. And I the Said John Lufkin my Heirs Execut[r]s Adm[i]n[i]st[ato]rs and Assigners and Every of Us Doe hereby Covenant and Agree to and with the Said Hon[ble] Company, Their Heirs and Successors That They or any of Them Shall and Have, Occupy and Posses[s] & Enjoy the Said House Land Provissions and all other Appour[t]enances thereunto belonging as aforesaid And Doe for me my Heirs Execut[ors] & Adm[ist]rs Promiss and Engage by these p[re]sents to Save and keep harmless the said Company their Heirs and Successo[r]s from All People[s] unlawfull Claims and Demand[s], and all other Incumbrances whatsoever, by my means Consent or Procurement or any other ways or means that may or can be Devised in & to s[ai]d In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Twenty Sixth Day of June in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seaven hundred and Seaven
Sealed Signed and Delivered In the presence of Mathew Bazett John Alexander
John Lufkin [seal]
John Lufkin sold to the Company a dwelling house, thirty acres of land and the provisions then growing on the ground. The sale included the beams, hedges, woods, fences, walls, watercourses and all other appurtenances belonging to the property. The parcel lay next to the Company's main pastureland.
The Company, its heirs and successors took the premises for ever, to their own proper use and behoof.
Lufkin and his heirs covenanted with the Company that it would hold, occupy and enjoy the house, land, provisions and all other appurtenances without disturbance. He bound himself, his heirs, executors and administrators to save the Company harmless from any unlawful claim or demand and from all encumbrances of any kind, whether arising by his own act, consent or procurement or by any other means.
The deed was made on 26 June 1707 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett and John Alexander. John Lufkin set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The Lufkin bill of sale shows the Company acting as a direct purchaser of a substantial settled estate from a free planter, rather than as the issuer of grants or the recipient of land surrendered under exchange arrangements. The £350 0s 0d in sterling was paid out of the Company's central funds, and the structure of the deed is identical to a private bill of sale between two free planters. The mechanism reveals the Company as a buyer in the open market when its strategic interests required the acquisition of a particular property, with the planter's title transferred by the standard conveyancing form rather than by any special institutional process.
The location of the property next to the Company's main pastureland is the operative feature explaining the institutional interest in the purchase. The Company's main pasture would have supplied the working livestock for its own operations on the island, including draft animals, riding horses and cattle for slaughter to provision passing ships. Acquiring an adjoining thirty-acre parcel with a dwelling house, growing provisions and a full set of agricultural improvements gave the Company the opportunity to enlarge its pastureland directly, to bring an existing planter holding under its own management, or to remove a neighbouring private estate from a position where it might constrain Company operations.
The deed's full enumeration of beams, hedges, woods, fences, walls and watercourses gives the standard catalogue of an improved upland holding. The presence of all these elements indicates a substantial working plantation rather than an undeveloped parcel, and the £350 0s 0d price reflects the value of the improvements as much as the underlying land. The figure stands at the upper end of recorded island prices for thirty-acre holdings and comfortably above the Hoskison purchase of dwelling house and fifty acres from Gabriel Powell on 7 September 1706 at the same sterling figure.
The witnessing of the bill of sale by Matthew Bazett and John Alexander, without any council members beyond Stephen Poirier himself as the governor named in the recital, distinguishes this deed from the private conveyances of the later 1708 records, where the standard three-man council panel attended. The Company's acquisition was sealed under its own institutional authority rather than as a transaction needing the witness of the council in its private-witness capacity, and the choice of Bazett and Alexander reflects the use of the experienced register and a trusted senior planter for the attestation.
The dating of the bill of sale to 26 June 1707 places the transaction more than a year before Goodwin's elevation to the governorship by August 1708 and roughly a year and a half before the Bagley to Walkborne mortgage of 20 July 1708. Stephen Poirier was still in office as governor at this date, and Thomas Goodwin had been described as deputy governor and storekeeper in the 3 June 1703 sale by William French, with his elevation to esquire by 22 September 1705 in the Bevean settlement and to governor by 16 December 1707 in the sale of the William French parcel to Hoskison. The chronology therefore places the Lufkin sale during Poirier's continuing governorship and before Goodwin's promotion.
The save harmless covenant given by Lufkin to the Company is more comprehensively drafted than the comparable warranties in many of the planter-to-planter deeds. It covers unlawful claims, demands and encumbrances of any kind, whether arising by Lufkin's own act, consent or procurement or by any other means. The breadth of the covenant indicates the Company's institutional concern to protect itself against latent claims to a property it intended to bring under its own management, and reflects the practice of corporate lawyers in framing covenants that closed off every conceivable route to a third-party challenge.
Speculations
The Company's willingness to commit £350 0s 0d in sterling for the Lufkin property, drawn from its central account rather than from the local stores, points to a strategic acquisition that the governor and council judged worth the outlay. The adjacent main pastureland would have generated a continuing operational benefit from any extension, and the consolidation of an additional thirty acres into the Company's own holdings would have given it more flexibility in managing livestock, work animals and provisioning. The figure also matches the price the Company would later show itself prepared to pay for substantial planter holdings, which suggests an emerging benchmark for the institutional valuation of upland estates with full improvements.
The choice to acquire the Lufkin parcel by direct purchase rather than by exchange suggests Lufkin himself preferred the cash. Many of the planter-Company transactions in the records had taken the form of land swaps, with the Company giving one parcel in return for another. The decision to take £350 0s 0d in sterling instead of an equivalent land exchange points to Lufkin preparing to leave the island or to invest the proceeds elsewhere, with the sterling figure offering a portable form of value that could travel back to England with him on the next available ship. The matching sterling structure of the Gurling £500 sale to Hoskison in October 1706 had reflected a similar departure-orientated transaction.
The very full save harmless covenant suggests the Company anticipated some specific source of potential challenge to its new title. The standard early-modern risk in island land was a returning absent holder, a widow's claim, an unrecorded earlier grant or a creditor's lien. The comprehensiveness of Lufkin's undertaking indicates the Company's lawyers wanted full protection against any such latent claim, and the strength of the covenant points to the Company's awareness of the practical difficulties of investigating title to a working planter estate before completion.
63
James Eastop to Jn[o] Coole This Indenture made the Twentyeth fifth day of October One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Seven years and in the third year of our Soveraign Lord James the Second &c[a]. Between James Cantob Eastob Plant[er] in S[t] Helena and John Coole free planter in the said Island, Witnesses that the said James Eastob ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Eight pounds Stere presently paid by the said John Coole hath Bargained and Defenced do by these p[r]esents both Covenanted Bargained and Sold to the said John Coole all that peice or parcell of Land contayning Ten Acres being in the Occupation of the said James Eastob, Lying in the head of Fisher Valley Suling & boundedly as in and by the Register Book of this Island doth more fully Appear, together with all the Appurtenances thereto belonging or in any wise Apperteining the Same to have and to hold Occupie Profess and peaceably to Enjoy by him the said John Coole, his heirs Execut[ors] Administ[r]a[ors], and assignes from the date of these presents for Ever And the said James Eastob doth firmly Bind and Promise for himselfe his heirs Execut[ors] Adminis[t]ra[ors] & Assignes to the said John Coole, him his heirs Execut[ors] and Assignes That before the said John Coole, his Enter[ce] upon the premises, the said premises Shall be free and discharg[d] free from all Manner of Incumbrances The which Sale and Contract well and Truely to keepe and performe I the said James Eastob hath hereunto Sett his hand and Seale the Day & year above mentioned
Sealed Subscribed & Deliv[d] In the presence off Tho[m]as Nairne J[no] Stevens
his James + Eastob [seal] Marke
J[n]o Cool to Edw[d] Brayne Be it known unto all men by these p[r]es[en]ts that John Coole hath Sold and doth Asigne Unto Edward Brayne or his Asignee for Ever, all his Right & Title to this Indenture doth Specifie before mencioned In Witness whereof J John Coole have hereunto Sett my hand y[e] tenth of July 1688
Sealed and Deliv[d] In the p[r]esence of Ripon W[i]lls James + Eastob Marke
John C Cool Marke
Edw[d] Bradyne to Edw[d] Heath I know all men that I Edward Brayne Doe by these presents Sell and Asigne to Edward Heath or his Asignees for Ever all the Right and Title that this Indon[en] tur[e] doth Specifie as above mentioned In Witness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 7 Day of Aprile Anno Dini 1702
Witnessed John Bagley Lenard Stevens
Edward Brayne [seal]
Rich[d] Griffi[n] Memorand[u]m to Cha[s] Stewar[d] That Richard Griffis of the Island S[t] Helena freeplant[r] ffor and in Consideration of Twenty pounds in good and current money of the Said Island to him in hand paid by Charles Steward of the Said Island doth Have and doth by these p[r]es[en]ts Bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the Said Charles Steward his heirs &c[a] for ever one piece or peell of Land Contaning by Estima[t] tion Twenty Acres Lying in Sandy bay until the maine Redge Next Adjoyning to the Lands of Andrew Wilson and Edw[d] Bagley Sett with all the Appurtenances thereunto belonging, and is now in the Said Charles Steward[s] Occupation
James Eastop, planter of St Helena, sold to John Coole, free planter of the island, ten acres of land at the head of Fisher Valley for £8 0s 0d sterling, paid in hand. The land was then in Eastop's own occupation. The bounds and butting of the parcel appeared in the island's register book.
Coole and his heirs took the ten acres with all appurtenances, to occupy, possess and enjoy peacefully for ever. Eastop bound himself and his successors to ensure that the premises would be free and discharged from all encumbrances before Coole entered.
The deed was made on 25 October 1687, in the third year of the reign of King James the Second. It was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Nairne and John Stevens. James Eastop signed by his mark in the form of a cross.
John Coole then assigned all his right and title under the indenture to Edward Brayne and his assigns for ever. The assignment was made on 10 July 1688 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Ripon Wells and James Eastop, who signed by his mark in the form of a cross. John Coole signed by his mark in the form of C.
Edward Brayne later assigned all his right and title under the same indenture to Edward Heath and his assigns for ever. The assignment was made on 7 April 1702 and witnessed by John Bagley and Leonard Stevens. Edward Brayne set his hand and seal to it.
A separate memorandum recorded a sale by Richard Griffis, free planter of St Helena, to Charles Steward of the island. Griffis received £20 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand. He bargained, sold and delivered to Steward and his heirs for ever a parcel of twenty acres in Sandy Bay running up to the main ridge. The land adjoined the holdings of Andrew Wilson and Edward Bagley. All the appurtenances passed with the land. Steward was already in occupation of the parcel at the time of the sale.
Interpretations
The Eastop to Coole sale of 25 October 1687 brings a third early ten-acre transaction into the records, alongside the Jaye to Edmunds sale of 13 February 1683 and the Pratt to Casthope sale of 13 July 1687. The Fisher Valley parcel was sold for £8 0s 0d sterling, which fits the £8 0s 0d to £15 0s 0d range for upland ten-acre parcels established by the comparable Chapel Valley and Lemon Valley deeds. The sale shows the planter market in upland land developing systematically across the major valleys of the island within five years of the 1682 inquest.
The chain of assignments running from Coole to Brayne in July 1688 and from Brayne to Heath in April 1702 is unusual in being recorded on the same indenture rather than by separate deeds. The Coole assignment was endorsed on the original Eastop deed nine months after Coole's purchase, and the Brayne assignment was endorsed nearly fourteen years later. The mechanism keeps the entire chain of title on a single document, with each successive holder taking the original deed forward with the endorsements as proof of the unbroken succession of the right and title.
The recording of three different holders on the single indenture creates a documentary economy that contrasts with the practice of executing fresh deeds at each transfer. The endorsement of an assignment on the back of an earlier deed was a standard English conveyancing device, and its use here shows the island following metropolitan practice. The structure also gave the holders a built-in safeguard against the loss of intermediate paperwork, since the chain remained intact within a single physical document.
Edward Heath's acquisition of the Fisher Valley parcel through this chain of assignments in 1702 fits with his other recorded dealings. He sold a messuage house and 7.5 acres to John French on 13 March 1705 for £50 0s 0d, assigned the Sandy Bay leasehold to Paul Charles on the same date, and sold his 20-acre Peak Gult holding to George Hoskison on 11 May 1704. The Fisher Valley parcel acquired through the Brayne assignment is therefore one element in a wider Heath estate, and the records confirm his role as a substantial holder building his position through purchases and assignments across multiple parts of the island.
The Griffis to Steward sale of twenty acres in Sandy Bay for £20 0s 0d sets a rate of £1 0s 0d per acre, which is at the lower end of the range established by other deeds. The location at the main ridge above Sandy Bay would have been less productive than the head of Chapel Valley or Fisher Valley, with steeper ground, less reliable water and a more exposed position. The price difference therefore reflects the agricultural quality of the land rather than a depressed market.
The boundary description of the Griffis parcel names Andrew Wilson and Edward Bagley as the adjoining holders. Andrew Wilson appears in the 1682 inquest as an original allottee, and the Bagley name has by now appeared across multiple branches of the family, with Edward Bagley emerging as a major figure at the head of Lemon Valley in the 1705 to 1708 records. The reference here places Edward Bagley as a holder at the main ridge above Sandy Bay as well, which expands the picture of his estate beyond the Lemon Valley records.
Charles Steward's earlier history in the records includes his witnessing of the Cole to Swallow deed of 5 June 1705, the Gurling to Hoskison composite estate of 12 October 1706 and the Morris to Clavering deed of 3 July 1707. He had also appeared in the Bowman to Nicholls record as the adjoining holder to Nicholls's Fort James Valley dwelling house. The purchase of the Griffis twenty acres adds a substantial rural holding to his recorded position and confirms him as both a town-side and a country-side proprietor.
The recital that Charles Steward was already in occupation of the parcel at the time of the sale points to an arrangement in which Steward had taken physical possession before formal title passed. The mechanism appears elsewhere in the records, including the Newman conveyance of 3 August 1708 in which Newman had built on Dufton land before the executors formalised the transfer. The pattern shows that informal occupation and the building of improvements on another planter's ground was a recognised precursor to legal acquisition, with the formal deed later catching up with the established physical reality.
Speculations
The decision to use a single indenture with successive endorsements rather than fresh deeds at each transfer suggests Coole, Brayne and Heath each preferred the documentary economy of the single instrument. The original Eastop deed contained the full description of the land and the bounds, and a new deed at each transfer would have required a fresh recitation of those particulars. By endorsing the assignment on the back of the original, each successor preserved the full title chain without re-drafting work, and the structure made the unbroken succession easier to demonstrate in any later dispute.
The Griffis sale of twenty acres at £1 0s 0d per acre, against the £2 0s 0d per acre range for upland parcels at the heads of the major valleys, reflects either a particular feature of the Sandy Bay main ridge ground or a particular circumstance in the seller's position. Sandy Bay was characteristically warmer, drier and more exposed than the upper Chapel Valley and Lemon Valley sites, and the agricultural value of the land would have been correspondingly lower. The price points to Griffis being unable or unwilling to hold out for a higher figure, perhaps because the parcel was already physically occupied by Steward under the informal arrangement that the deed regularises.
Charles Steward's pre-existing occupation of the Griffis parcel at the time of the sale suggests a working arrangement in which he had been farming the land under Griffis's title for some period before the formal transfer. The arrangement may have involved a tenancy, a partnership, or simply an informal understanding of the kind that the planter community sustained through personal credit and reputation. The conversion of that informal occupation into a freehold for £20 0s 0d let both parties settle the position, with Steward acquiring the secure title he needed to invest further in the land and Griffis taking his cash.
64
Jn[o] Hem- mon to Richard Alexander Know all men by these Presents that I John Hemon Sen[r] of the Island S[t] Helena Sa[i]d [di]ldier for and in Consideration of the Sume of Twenty five p[ou]nd[s] in good and Current Money of the Said Island, to me in hand, Paid by Richard Alexander of the Island afsd[d] also free planter at and before the Ensealing & Delivery of these p[r]es[en]ts whereof J myself doth hereby Acknowledge my self to be fully Sattisfyed Contented Paied I have and do by these p[r]es[en]ts Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto the Said Rich[d] Alexander One Dwelling House with a back Kitchen Lying Sciteat[e] in Chappell Valley Next Adjoyning to the house of Thomas Allis and Walter Morrer free planters together with all the Ground from the backsid[e] of the house to the Water Course with all other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging To have, and to hold the Said house Back Kitchen and all other the Appurtenances as aforesaid to him the Said Rich[d] Alexander his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] & Assigns to his and their own proper Uses and behoofe for Ever, And J the s[ai]d John Hemon Sen[r] Do for me my heirs Exec[u]t[ors] and Administrat[ors] Covenant and Agree to and with the Said Rich[d] Alexander his heirs Execut[ors] Adm[i]n[s] and Assigns that he and they Shall & May from time to time and at all times hereafter Peacably and Quietly Enjoy and Posses[s] the said hereby bargained house and ground without any Manner of Interruption Contradiction or Mollestation of me the Said John Hemon my heirs Execut[ors] & Administrat[ors], or any other person or persons whatsoever by my mean[s] Consent or P[ro]curement, and Agree to all persons to Warrn[t] to Save and keep Harmless the Said Rich[d] Alexander his this Decid[ed] Administrat[ors] or Assigns, In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this twelveth day of April[l] One thousand Seven Hundred & four
Sealed Signed & In the p[r]esence of Us J[ohn] Lach J[n]o Alexander
Jn[o] Hemmon [seal]
Richard Alexander to George Dweight Know all men by these Presents that J Richard Alexander of y[e] Island S[t] Helena freeplanter for and in consideration of the Sume of Thirty Pounds in good and Currant & Money of S[ai]d Island Secured to be paid by Georg[e] Dweight of the Said Island free planter as by an Obligation under his hand and Seale bearing Even Date with these p[r]esents may more fully Appear Have given Granted Bargained and Sold and do by these p[r]es[en]ts give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto the Said George Dweight his heirs &c[a] One Dwelling house with a back Kitchen & Roleate &c[a] being in Chappell Valley Next Adjoyning to y[e] house of Thomas Allis Sen[r] and John Clavering formerly Walter Mor[r]is together with all the Ground on the Backside Said house to the Avadcet of Water Course as Sutty or de Claim Asy- ment To have and to hold the aforesaid Hereby bargained pre[m]isses and all other [a]ppurte[n]ances Hereby bargained pre[m]isses and all other the p[r]es[en]ts as aforementioned To him the Said George Dweight, and his Heirs for Ever, to do and Dispose of, at his or their own proper Will and pleasure And J the Said Rich[d] Alexander do for me my heirs Execut[ors] and Administrat[ors] Covenant and Agree to and with the said George Dweight his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] or Assigns that he and they Shall and may from time to time and at all Times hereaft[er] Peacably and Quietly Enjoy & Enjoy the Aforementioned house back Kitchen and ground without any Manner of Interrep- tion Mollestation, or Contradiction of me the Said Rich[d] Alexander My heirs Execut[ors] or Administrat[ors] or any other person or persons whatsoever by my Means Consent or Procurement In witness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 16 Day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine
Sealed Signed & D[d] In the p[r]esence of Rich[d] Gurling Jn[o] Alexander
Rich[d] Alexander [seal]
John Hemon senior, soldier of St Helena, sold to Richard Alexander, free planter of the island, a dwelling house with a back kitchen in Chapel Valley. The house adjoined the houses of Thomas Allis and Walter Morres, both free planters. The sale included the ground running from the back of the house down to the watercourse, with all appurtenances belonging to the property.
The price was £25 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Hemon acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full receipt.
Alexander and his heirs took the house, back kitchen and ground for ever, to their own proper use and behoof. Hemon covenanted that Alexander and his successors would enjoy the property peaceably and quietly without disturbance from him, his heirs or any person acting through him, and bound himself to save Alexander harmless from any claim.
The deed was made on 12 April 1704 and sealed and delivered in the presence of John Lach and John Alexander. John Hemon set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing of 16 March 1710 recorded the onward sale of the same property by Richard Alexander to George Dweight, free planter. Alexander sold to Dweight the dwelling house, back kitchen and the ground running to the watercourse, with all appurtenances. The property was identified as adjoining the houses of Thomas Allis senior and John Clavering, the latter formerly Walter Morris.
The price was £30 0s 0d in good current money of the island, secured to be paid under an obligation under Dweight's hand and seal bearing the same date as the deed.
Dweight and his heirs took the property for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Alexander gave the standard covenant of quiet enjoyment and bound himself to keep Dweight free of any disturbance arising through his own acts or those of any person claiming through him.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of Richard Gurling and John Alexander. Richard Alexander set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The two Chapel Valley sales document the same property moving from a soldier into a free planter's hands in April 1704 and then onward to George Dweight in March 1710. The interval of nearly six years between the two deeds, and the £5 0s 0d appreciation from £25 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d, indicate a steady but modest rise in the urban property market. The figures sit well below the rates achieved by the more substantial Chapel Valley tenements such as Edmunds to Goodwin at £130 0s 0d sterling in May 1700, and confirm that the smaller dwelling houses with their backside ground formed a lower tier of urban property within the same valley.
The boundary description of the property in the 1704 deed places it next to Thomas Allis and Walter Morres. The 1710 deed records the same property next to Thomas Allis senior and John Clavering, the latter described as formerly Walter Morris. The change of name on the eastern or western neighbour reflects the death of Walter Morris and the sale of his father's Chapel Valley dwelling house to John Clavering, gunner's mate, on 3 July 1707 for £40 0s 0d. The two records therefore preserve the practical sequence of urban turnover in this short stretch of Chapel Valley, with Morres giving way to Clavering between 1704 and 1710.
The 16 March 1710 sale to George Dweight extends Dweight's documented presence in Chapel Valley beyond the 8 June 1708 purchase from William Marsh of the tenement formerly Thomas Heepedant's, which had been intended to give Dweight an urban property for around £30 0s 0d at the same time as he received £170 0s 0d from Belvard for his Sharks Valley estate. Dweight's acquisition of a second Chapel Valley house by 1710 confirms his continuing accumulation of urban property after the disposal of his rural Sharks Valley holdings, and shows him moving from the position of a Sharks Valley free planter to that of a Chapel Valley householder over a two-year period.
The use of an obligation under hand and seal as the security for Dweight's payment of the £30 0s 0d is the operative feature of the 1710 deed. The cash was not paid in hand at sealing, as it had been in many of the earlier conveyances, but secured under a separate bond. The mechanism let Dweight take immediate possession of the property while postponing the actual handover of the money, and the obligation under hand and seal gave Alexander a contractual claim he could enforce independently of any dispute over the conveyance itself.
The Hemon, Alexander and Dweight chain on this single Chapel Valley property shows the urban housing market operating across the boundaries between the garrison and the free planter community. John Hemon senior is described as a soldier, Richard Alexander as a free planter, and George Dweight as a free planter. The property passed from a serving member of the garrison to one civilian and then to another, with each holder taking possession of the same dwelling house and back kitchen and adding their name to the chain of title. The pattern documents the mobility of urban housing between these two recognised classes of inhabitants.
The 1704 deed's description of John Hemon as senior introduces the qualifier needed to distinguish him from a younger man of the same name. The 20 February 1703 record had named Corporal John Hemon as the holder of twenty acres at the head of Fishers Valley and of a Chapel Valley house bought from the deceased Governor Helens. The Hemon name therefore appears as both senior and corporal in the same valley within a year, and the chronology suggests that the Hemon family had two adult members active in Chapel Valley property in the early 1700s.
The presence of John Alexander as a witness to both the 1704 and the 1710 deeds, alongside the principal Richard Alexander, raises the question of a possible family connection. John Alexander served as the register and clerk of the council from at least 1686 and witnessed a very large number of transactions across the records. The recurrence of the Alexander surname for both the buyer and seller in 1704 and the witness in both 1704 and 1710 suggests Richard Alexander may have been a relative of John, and the connection would have given the family a direct interest in the documentary side of Chapel Valley property.
The change of neighbour from Walter Morres to John Clavering between the 1704 and 1710 records preserves the death of Walter Morris in the formal chain of urban title. The 3 July 1707 sale by Walter Morris to John Clavering, identified in the records as the gunner's mate, transferred the late father Morris's dwelling house in Chapel Valley. The current 1710 deed, in identifying Clavering as the successor to Walter Morris on the adjoining ground, confirms that Clavering had taken physical possession of the property under that 1707 conveyance and remained the recognised holder three years later.
Speculations
The decision to put the £30 0s 0d on a bond rather than to pay it in hand in 1710 suggests Dweight was managing his cash flow carefully after his recent property transactions. He had received £170 0s 0d from Belvard in June 1708 and paid £30 0s 0d to William Marsh in the same month, leaving him with a substantial surplus. By 1710 that surplus may have been committed to other purposes, and the bond mechanism let him take a second Chapel Valley house without immediately disbursing the cash. The arrangement points to Dweight building his urban portfolio in stages, with each acquisition timed to fit his available means.
The £5 0s 0d appreciation in the property over six years works out at slightly more than a single shilling per acre-equivalent per year, which is a modest rate of return for the urban market. The figure suggests that Chapel Valley housing prices were relatively stable, or that Hemon's 1704 sale and Alexander's 1710 sale both reflected the cash needs of the sellers rather than the maximum value the property could fetch. The pattern would be consistent with a settled urban market in which dwelling houses changed hands at established rates determined by the type and size of the property rather than by speculative pressure.
The grouping of Thomas Allis senior, John Clavering and the dwelling house at the centre of these deeds places the property at a particular point within the Chapel Valley streetscape. Thomas Allis senior had been a major landholder at the head of Deep Valley, and the Chapel Valley reference suggests he also held urban property. The clustering of named holders along a single watercourse line gives a glimpse of the physical organisation of Chapel Valley as a string of dwelling houses with their backside grounds running down to the water, with the boundary descriptions in the deeds preserving the sequence of houses along the line.
65
Tho[s] Lufkin to R[d] Alexander Know all men by these p[r]esents That J John Lufkin of the Island of S[t] Helena freeplanter for and in Consideration of the Sume of One Hundred and Seventy Pounds Secured to be paid In Store Credit in the R[t] Hon[ble] United Companys Books of Deed Free by Richard Alexander of the Said Island freeplanter, before the Ensealing and Delivery hereof Have given Granted Bargained and Sold and do by these p[r]es[en]ts freely Acquit, Give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto the Said Richard Alexander his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assigns One Dwelling hou[s]e Standing Scituate and being in Chappell Valley Next Adjoyning to the House of Math[w] Bazett and James Draper with all the Garden and Ground on the Backside Said house, which is now possefs[ed] for can[t] or may Claime any Right or Title To together with all and Singulair the Appur- tenances thereunto belongon[g] or any ways appertain[i]ng and all Priveledges that belong to the Same To have and to hold the Said hereby Bargained house and Appurtenances thereunto belonging Unto the said Richard Alexander his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and asfignes for ever So so loy of them, to do and Dispose of the Same at his their, or any of their Wills & pleasures And J the Said John Lufkin do for, me my, my heirs Execut[ors] and Administrat[ors] Covenant and agree to and with the Said Rich[d] Alexander his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] his Assigns or any of them that he and they Shall and may from Time to Time and at all times hereaft[er] have hold Occupie Posses and Enjoy the Said hereby Bargained premises without any Manner of Mollestation Interruption or Contradiction of me the said John Lufkin my heirs &c[a] or any of them, by my mean[s] Consent or procurem[en]t or from by or under any other person or p[er]sons whatsoever, In witness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 14 day of June 1772
Seal'd Sign'd & D[el]d J[n] the p[r]esence of us Tho[s] Sanderson John Limber J[n]o Alexander
Jn[o] Lufkin [seal]
Jon[r] Higham to Rob[t] Bell Know all men by these p[r]esents That Jonathan Higham of the Island S[t] Helena freeplanter for and in consideration of the Sume of Twenty fight five pounds in good and Curra[n]t Many of the said Island After the Rate of the M[r] Watters Mony Secured to be paid by Robert Bell of y[e] said Island free planter B[d] Crines also good Sufficient Considerati[on] me thereunto Moveing Have given Granted Bargained and Sold And do firmly and Absolutely by these presents Give grant Bargaine sell and Deliver Unto the said Robert Bell his heirs Execu[t]r Adm[in]r &c[a] absolutely Assigne all and Singulair one peece of ground &c[a] the Containing by Estimation Six Acres the Same more or Less Together w[i]th Dwelling house and Comveniencis Standing and Growing thereon, with all other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging any way[s] appertaineng To and to hold the said Decid[ed] House Six pem[i]sses[s] as aforesaid To him the Said Robert Bell and his Heirs for Ever To do and Dispose of at his or their own proper Will & Pleasure and to their only Use and Behoofe And it for the Consented and agreed by and between the said Jonathan Higham, and his heirs &c[a] and the said Robert Bell and his heirs &c[a] that the Said Administrat[ors] and Assigns Shall and May from Time to Time, and at all Times hereaft[er] Peacably and Quietly Posses[s] and Enjoy the after Mentioned premises with all the Appurtenances thereunto belong- ing any apperteyning of what Kind & Quality so ever without any Manner of Mollestation Interruption [con]trad[i]ction of me the Said Jonathan Hig[ha]m or my heirs and &c[a] or any other from in pretend [cla]ime by or from by means Consent or procurement under m[?] By Witnesseth my J am in pre[s] adjudges by p[ar]ye[s] meanes Consent or procurement under m[e] In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett this my hand and seale this Twenty Eighth Day of Septemb[er] 1708
Sealed Signed & D[d] in the Presence of us Joseph Tomlinson Jn[o] Alexander
his Jonathan Higham [seal] Mark[e]
John Lufkin, free planter of St Helena, sold to Richard Alexander, free planter of the island, a dwelling house in Chapel Valley. The house adjoined the houses of Matthew Bazett and James Draper. The sale included the garden and ground on the back side of the house and all appurtenances and privileges belonging to the property.
The price was £170 0s 0d, secured to be paid in store credit on the books of the Right Honourable United Company.
Alexander and his heirs took the house and appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Lufkin gave the standard covenant of quiet enjoyment, binding himself and his successors not to disturb Alexander in his possession.
The deed was made on 14 June 1712 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Sanderson, John Limber and John Alexander. John Lufkin set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing recorded a sale by Jonathan Higham, free planter of St Helena, to Robert Bell, free planter of the island. Higham sold to Bell a parcel of about six acres of ground, with a dwelling house and the conveniences then standing and growing on the ground, together with all appurtenances. The price was £25 0s 0d in good current money of the island at the rate of Mr Watters money, secured to be paid by Bell. Other good and sufficient consideration was also recited as moving Higham.
Bell and his heirs took the house, six acres and appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure and to their own use and behoof. Higham and his heirs covenanted that Bell and his successors would peacefully and quietly possess and enjoy the property without disturbance from Higham or any person claiming through him.
The deed was made on 28 September 1708 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Joseph Tomlinson and John Alexander. Jonathan Higham signed by his mark.
Interpretations
The Lufkin to Alexander sale of 14 June 1712 documents the use of store credit as the operative medium of payment for a substantial urban property. The £170 0s 0d was not paid in cash, in sterling or in island currency, but secured against Lufkin's account in the books of the Right Honourable United Company. The mechanism converted a private property transaction into a paper transfer between Company accounts, with Alexander undertaking to settle the sum by issuing a corresponding charge against his own credit with the Company. The structure shows how the Company's books served as a settlement system for high-value transactions between planters, with the institution acting in effect as a clearing house.
The earlier Lufkin bill of sale of 26 June 1707, in which he sold a dwelling house and thirty acres to the Company for £350 0s 0d in good and lawful money of England, established Lufkin as a substantial planter with property next to the Company's main pastureland. The current sale of an urban Chapel Valley dwelling house in 1712 confirms that Lufkin had retained or acquired other property after the 1707 transaction, and shows him continuing to dispose of holdings on the island. The choice of store credit rather than sterling for the 1712 sale, against the sterling payment for the 1707 sale, points to differences in either the parties' arrangements or the type of asset involved.
The boundary description of the Chapel Valley house, naming Matthew Bazett and James Draper as the adjoining holders, places the property at a particular point in the urban core. Bazett had built his country estate at Sheel Valley and Deep Valley through purchases from Dweight, Higham and Mudge, while James Draper appears in the 1698 inquest as an original Chapel Valley holder. The presence of both names as the boundary holders to the Lufkin house identifies it as one of the established urban properties along a continuous line of dwellings.
The Higham to Bell sale of 28 September 1708 documents a smaller transaction at the head of one of the upland valleys. The six-acre parcel with its dwelling house and conveniences sold for £25 0s 0d, which fits the lower end of the upland market established by comparable deeds. The Higham name had earlier appeared in the records as the seller of small Chapel Valley plots to Robert Bell on 3 August 1704 and to Matthew Bazett on 19 December 1706. The September 1708 deed therefore extends the chain of Higham-Bell dealings into a more substantial transaction involving a fully developed working unit rather than just a building plot.
The recital that the price was secured to be paid at the rate of Mr Watters money introduces an explicit reference to the rate of exchange between different forms of island currency. Mr Watters money probably represents a particular standard of valuation that had emerged within the island's monetary system, perhaps tied to a specific class of coin or to an accepted commercial rate that the local merchant Mr Watters maintained for his own transactions. The reference shows that island currency was not a single unified medium but a collection of accepted standards, each with its own conversion rate against the others.
The reference to other good and sufficient consideration moving Higham, in addition to the £25 0s 0d secured to be paid by Bell, preserves the standard formula for keeping a further element of the bargain off the written record. The mechanism appeared earlier in the Trapp to Goodwin sale of 10 February 1690 in the form of divers other good causes and considerations, and shows the planter community's continuing reliance on this drafting convention to acknowledge unspecified side arrangements.
The presence of John Alexander as a witness to the Lufkin to Alexander deed of June 1712 raises a question about the propriety of the register witnessing a transaction in which a man bearing his surname was the buyer. Alexander had served as the register and clerk of the council from at least 1686, and the recurrence of his surname for the principal in the deed suggests that Richard Alexander was probably a relative. The witnessing of a deed in favour of a relative was not necessarily improper under the standards of the period, but it shows the Alexander family's continuing institutional role in the registration of property transactions.
Speculations
The seventeen-year accumulation in property by Richard Alexander between his April 1704 purchase of the Chapel Valley dwelling house from John Hemon for £25 0s 0d, his sale of that property to George Dweight in March 1710 for £30 0s 0d on a bond, and his June 1712 purchase of the Lufkin house for £170 0s 0d in store credit, shows a steady upward trajectory in his holdings. The figures suggest that Alexander was moving from modest urban property towards more substantial premises, and the use of store credit for the 1712 transaction indicates he had accumulated a meaningful balance with the Company by that date.
The reference to Mr Watters money in the Higham to Bell deed suggests that Mr Watters had achieved some institutional standing on the island as a recognised merchant or financial intermediary. The naming of a money rate after a particular person is unusual within the records, and the appearance of the term in a formal conveyance indicates that the rate had become a known and accepted standard within the planter community. The mechanism may have arisen from Watters operating as a money-changer or commodity dealer who set the working rates for converting different forms of island currency.
The decision by Higham to sell six acres and a dwelling house for £25 0s 0d points to a particular financial pressure on his household by September 1708. The lower price reflects either the smaller acreage at six rather than ten acres, the lesser quality of the ground, or a need to realise cash quickly. The combination of the secured payment, the reference to Mr Watters money and the recital of other consideration suggests the transaction was constructed to give Higham a particular outcome in store credit or commercial advantage, rather than a simple disposal of land for the open market value.
66
Rob[t] Gurling to Geo[r] Carne [in mar]g[n]t [as written] Frye Valley J Robart Gurling of the Island S[t] Helena free plant[r] ffor and Ju[s]t Consideration of y[e] Sume of fifty five pounds in good and Currant Money of y[e] Said Island by m[e] alread[y] Rec[d] [of] George Carne the receipt where of J doe hereby Acknowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid Have given granted Bargained & Sold and do by these p[r]es[en]ts Give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto y[e] said M[r] George Carne, his heirs Exec[u]t[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assigns all and Singulair one peice or parcell of Land Con- taining by Estimation fifteen Acres Lying Sciteate in fryer Valley and is Next Adjoyning to 10 acres of Land now in the Pofsefsion of Rich[d] Gurling free planter towards the North Upon the Land[s] of and in the pofsefsion of y[e] said M[r] George Carne towards the South, Upon the Hon[ble] Comp[any]s Great Plantation Towards y[e] E[ast]. and upon 10 Acres of Land in the Pofsession of Walter Morres towards y[e] W. together with all and Singulair the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or any ways apperto[r]oning to him y[e] said M[r] Geo[r] Carne and his heirs for Ever, without Any Manner of Interruption or Contradiction of me the Said Robart Gurling my heirs Execut[ors] and Adm[i]n[r] or any other from whatsoever J[n] wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this First day of Aprill one Thousand Seven Hundred and nine
Signed Seald and in p[r]esence of Rich[d] Gurling Gabriel Cower Rob[t] Leech J[n]o Alexander
The papers was delivered to Mary Carne, he being absent Jn[o] Alexander
Robart Gurling [seal]
Memorand[u]m
Gab Powill to James Sich That Gabriel Powell for and in consideration of Divers Mat[t]ers & Caufses him thereunto moveing Hath Lett and Sett over Unto James Sich 20 Acres of Land formerly John[s] Beale dec[d] Untill Such Time as y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[any] hath Determined whose Land y[e] Same properly is and that y[e] Said James Sich for him[s]elf, his heirs &c[a] Covenanted to redeliver y[e] Said Land againe to y[e] Said Gab[l] Powell or his heirs &c[a] in as good a Condition to all Intents & purposes as it was sit y[e] time of y[e] said Sich's Entry thereon, and to make good all[s] Damage[s] Costs Suits or Demands whatsoever that might or may hereafter happen Accreing and Acting the Said Powell his heirs &c[a] harmless & Indempnefyed from all Incumbrances As afsd y[e] Said y[e] Sich does oblige him[s]elf Not to fell or Sell any Green wood Growing Upon the Said Land In Wittness whereof both p[ar]tys hat[h] to these presents Sett their hands and Seales this 18 day of December 1707
Sealed Sign[e]d & D[el]d J[n] y[e] p[r]esence of Tho[m]s Free J[n]o Alexander
Gabriel Powell [seal] James Sich [seal]
Robert Gurling, free planter of St Helena, sold to Mr George Carne fifteen acres of land in Fryer Valley for £55 0s 0d in good current money of the island. The sum was paid in hand by Carne. Gurling acknowledged its receipt and gave a full discharge.
The parcel was bounded as follows:
North ten acres in the possession of Richard Gurling, free planter
South land in the possession of Mr George Carne
East the Company's Great Plantation
West ten acres in the possession of Walter Morres
Carne and his heirs took the fifteen acres with all appurtenances for ever. Gurling covenanted that neither he nor his heirs, executors or administrators would disturb Carne's possession or claim any further right.
The deed was made on 1 April 1709 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Richard Gurling, Gabriel Cower, Robert Leech and John Alexander. Robert Gurling set his hand and seal to it. The papers were delivered to Mary Carne, since George Carne was then absent from the island. John Alexander recorded the delivery.
A separate memorandum recorded a temporary arrangement between Gabriel Powell and James Sich made on 18 December 1707. Powell, for divers matters and causes moving him, let and set over to Sich twenty acres of land formerly belonging to the late John Beale.
The arrangement was to run until the Company should determine the proper ownership of the land. Sich covenanted to redeliver the parcel to Powell or his heirs at the end of the term in as good a condition as it had been at the time of his entry. He further bound himself to make good any damages, costs, suits or demands that might arise, and to keep Powell and his heirs indemnified against any encumbrances. Sich also undertook not to fell or sell any green wood growing on the land.
The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Free and John Alexander. Gabriel Powell and James Sich each set their hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The Gurling to Carne sale of 1 April 1709 fixes the price of fifteen acres in Fryer Valley at £55 0s 0d in island currency, which works out at about £3 13s 4d per acre. The figure stands well above the £1 0s 0d to £2 0s 0d per acre range that had applied at the heads of the major valleys earlier in the decade, and confirms that Fryer Valley land continued to command premium prices. The earlier Bradley to Belvard sale of October 1705 and Belvard to Gurling sale of August 1708 had both involved Fryer Valley land, and the upward movement in valuations is consistent across these transactions.
The boundary description of the Carne purchase shows that Mr Carne already held the parcel to the south, with the new acquisition consolidating his position to the north of his existing holding. The arrangement gives Carne a continuous block of Fryer Valley land, with the Company's Great Plantation to the east and the Gurling and Morres parcels to the north and west. The pattern reflects the standard accumulation strategy by which successful planters built up contiguous holdings rather than scattered parcels.
The delivery of the papers to Mary Carne in her husband's absence is the operative procedural feature of the deed. George Carne was again absent from the island, as he had been when his wife Mary acted as his attorney in the purchase of fifteen acres from Robert Leach on 4 January 1705. The Carne household's pattern of trading through Mary while her husband was absent therefore extends across at least four years, and the delivery of the present deed into Mary's hands rather than to George shows John Alexander acknowledging her established role as the local representative of her husband's interests.
The Powell to Sich arrangement of 18 December 1707 reveals a category of land dealing that the records have not previously documented in detail. The land had formerly belonged to the late John Beale, but the question of who properly owned it was still pending before the Company. Powell handed twenty acres over to Sich on the basis that Sich would farm and hold the land until the Company resolved the matter. The mechanism let the land continue to produce while the title question was being determined, with Sich taking the practical occupation and Powell retaining the residual claim.
The covenant against felling or selling green wood is a particular feature of the Powell to Sich arrangement. Green wood on St Helena would have been a substantial resource, both for fuel and for construction, and the prohibition reflects the temporary nature of Sich's tenure. As an occupier holding under an arrangement that might end at any time when the Company made its determination, Sich could work the land but not extract its capital value through woodcutting. The structure preserved the underlying timber asset for whichever party the Company eventually recognised as the rightful owner.
The pending Company determination of the title to the John Beale parcel points to a class of cases in which the death of a planter without a clear successor led the Company to take the property into its own hands for adjudication. John Beale had died, and the parcel may have been claimed by Powell on some basis that the Company was still examining. The arrangement with Sich let the dispute proceed without leaving the land unworked, and shows the institutional flexibility by which the Company managed the inevitable gaps in succession that arose in a small planter population.
Richard Gurling appears here both as the seller of the fifteen acres in his role as Robert Gurling and as the witness to the deed. The two Gurlings are clearly different men, with Robert holding the fifteen acres being sold and Richard holding the ten acres on the northern boundary. The relationship between them is not specified in the deed, but the pattern of joint witnessing and adjacent holdings suggests they were closely related, perhaps as brothers or as father and son, and they had earlier appeared together in the records as principal and witness to multiple transactions.
The Beale name had earlier appeared in the records as the orphans of Jonathan Beale, whose Purslane Bed near the head of Chapel Valley was named as a boundary feature in the Paul Graton Lemon Garden lease of 23 December 1707, and as the late Ellenor Beale, whose legacy descended through her daughter Ellenor Price and was administered by William Chevalls and George Carne in 1707. The late John Beale identified here may be another member of the same family, and the Company's ongoing examination of the title would have formed part of the wider settlement of the Beale estate across multiple parties.
Speculations
George Carne's continuing absences from the island, combined with Mary Carne's role as his attorney and recipient of deeds in his name, suggest that Carne's commercial interests took him away from St Helena for extended periods on a regular basis. The descriptions of him as merchant in earlier deeds and his involvement in financial custodianship for figures like Bento Pedro Demallo and the Beale legacy point to a man whose business reached beyond the island. The pattern of long absences would be consistent with Carne running a shipping or trading operation that called at multiple ports across the East India Company's network, with the St Helena estate administered by his wife during his voyages.
The Powell to Sich arrangement points to a particular set of circumstances surrounding the late John Beale's estate that the Company had not yet resolved by December 1707. The decision to let twenty acres pass into Sich's working occupation under a redelivery covenant suggests the Company was content to leave the matter pending while the land continued to be productive. The mechanism may reflect the Company's preference for keeping land in active cultivation rather than allowing it to lie idle during a title dispute, and the choice of Sich as the temporary occupier indicates he had the means and the inclination to take on the land without owning it.
Gabriel Powell's role as the party with apparent control over the disputed Beale parcel, and his willingness to hand it over to Sich on temporary terms, suggests he held some kind of preliminary claim that the Company had not yet confirmed. The earlier records show Powell as an active land trader, including the same-day purchase from Hoskison of twenty acres at Peak Gult on 11 May 1704 and onward sale to Robert Gurling, and the £350 0s 0d purchase of dwelling house and fifty acres in Chapel Valley from Hoskison on 7 September 1706. The Beale parcel may have been another acquisition that he was trying to consolidate, but on which his title had not yet been formally established to the Company's satisfaction.
67
Memorand[u]m
Geo[r] Dweight to W[m] Marsden That George Dweight of the Island S[t] Helena free planter for and in Consideration of the Sume of Twenty Pounds in good and Currant money of the Said Island to me in hand paid before the Ensealing and Delivery hereof the receipt where of Do hereby Acknowledg[e] and my Self therewith to be fully Sattisfyed Con- tented and paid have given granted Bargained & Sold and do by these p[r]es[en]ts give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver William Marsden of the Said Island y[e] in Coun[ll] his heirs Execu[t]r Administrat[ors] and assignes One Dwelling house Standing & Sciteated in fort James Valley Next Adjoyning to y[e] house Now in the Pofsefsion of Dorothy Hayes &c[a], which Said house J Bargained & Sold as aforesaid Unto y[e] said Will[m] Marsden &c[a] formerly Thomas Harpers Sept dec[d] who Sold y[e] Same to Will[m] Marsh free plant[r] who Sold y[e] Same to y[e] Said Dweight To Have and to hold the Said house with all and Singulair the Appurtenances thereunto belonging to him the Said Will[m] Marsden and his heirs for Ever to do and Dispose of at his and theer owne will[s] and pleasure In wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand & Seale this 12 day of Aprille 1709
Wittnesses J[n] Roberts Tho[s] Goodwin Edw[d] Walkborne Daniel Griffeth
george Dweight W[m] Marsden
Memorand[u]m
Geo[r] Dweight to J[n]o Clavering That George Dweight of the Island S[t] Helena free plant[r] ffor and in Consideration of y[e] Sume of Twenty Pounds in good and Currant Mony of y[e] said Island to me in hand paid before y[e] Ensealing and Delivery of these p[r]esents the receipt where[of] Do hereby acknowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Sattisfyed Contented and paid have given granted Bargained and sold, and do by these p[r]esents give Grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto John Clavering Gun[r] Mate, his heirs Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assignes one Dwelling House Standing & being in Chappell Valley Next Adjoyning to the Said M[r] Claverings own house and the house of Thom[s] Allis Sen[r] To Have and to hold the Said house with all and Singulair the appurtenances thereunto belonging to him y[e] Said M[r] Clavering and his heirs for Ever to do and Dispose of at his and theer own prop[r] Wills and Pleasures In wittness whereof both p[ar]tys have to these p[re]sents Sett their hands this 9[th] Day of May 1709
Wittnessed by
George Dweight, free planter of St Helena, sold to William Marsden, third in council of the island, a dwelling house in Fort James Valley for £20 0s 0d in good current money of the island. The sum was paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Dweight acknowledged its receipt and gave a full discharge.
The house adjoined the dwelling then in the possession of Dorothy Hayes. The chain of earlier ownership was recited in the deed: the house had formerly belonged to the late Thomas Harper, who sold it to William Marsh, free planter, who in turn sold it to Dweight.
Marsden and his heirs took the house with all appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure.
The deed was made on 12 April 1709 and witnessed by John Roberts, Thomas Goodwin, Edward Walkborne and Daniel Griffeth. George Dweight and William Marsden each signed.
A separate memorandum recorded a further sale by George Dweight on 9 May 1709. Dweight sold to John Clavering, gunner's mate, a dwelling house in Chapel Valley for £20 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Dweight acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
The house adjoined Clavering's own house and the house of Thomas Allis senior.
Clavering and his heirs took the house with all appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure.
Interpretations
The two Dweight sales of April and May 1709 continue the pattern of urban property disposal that had begun with his June 1708 transactions. In June 1708 Dweight had received £170 0s 0d from Walter Belvard for his Sharks Valley estate and paid £30 0s 0d to William Marsh for the Chapel Valley tenement formerly Thomas Heepedant's. By 1710 he had bought a second Chapel Valley dwelling from Richard Alexander for £30 0s 0d on a bond. The current April 1709 sale of £20 0s 0d for the Fort James Valley house and the May 1709 sale of £20 0s 0d for the Chapel Valley house show Dweight selling rather than buying at this point, which suggests his accumulation phase had given way to consolidation.
The recital of the chain of ownership in the Marsden purchase, with the house running from the late Thomas Harper through William Marsh to George Dweight, gives an unusually full statement of the documentary history. Most conveyances in the records identify only the immediate previous holder, but this deed names three earlier owners. The detail probably reflects Marsden's concern as a member of the council to establish a clear chain of title before paying his £20 0s 0d, with the recital intended to demonstrate that Dweight held a clean and unencumbered position derived from a recognised line of successive owners.
The Thomas Harper named here as the earlier holder is the same planter who had appeared as the seller of the twenty acres at the head of Sarahs Valley to James Casthope on 27 March 1694 for £30 0s 0d, the buyer of twenty acres from William Fox on 30 January 1694 for £25 0s 0d, and the seller of the same parcel to Thomas Goodwin on 10 May 1694 for £35 0s 0d. The current deed adds an urban dwelling house in Fort James Valley to his recorded estate, and shows him as a holder of property across both rural Sarahs Valley and the urban centre near the fort.
The William Marsh identified as the intermediate seller in this chain is probably the same William Marsh who had appeared in the Edward Gardener inheritance settlement of 1703 and 1705, transferring twenty acres to William Dufton and ten to George Dweight on behalf of his son Robert Marsh. The May 1709 deed therefore extends the recorded dealings between William Marsh and George Dweight beyond the Sharks Valley parcels and the substitute settlement, with Marsh also acting as the seller of the Fort James Valley house to Dweight at some earlier date.
The £20 0s 0d price for each of the two houses establishes the going rate for ordinary urban dwellings in the area around Fort James and Chapel Valley at this date. The figure sits below the £25 0s 0d that Hemon had received from Alexander in 1704 and the £30 0s 0d that Alexander had taken from Dweight in 1710, but matches the £20 0s 0d that John Bowman had received for his Fort James Valley dwelling and the £20 0s 0d that James Draper had received from Samuel Maxwell in 1699 for a messuage near Fort James. The market for these smaller urban properties was therefore relatively stable across a fifteen-year period.
The Clavering purchase of 9 May 1709 brings together two dwelling houses under his control in Chapel Valley. He had bought the late Walter Morris's father's house from Walter Morris on 3 July 1707 for £40 0s 0d, and the May 1709 deed adds an adjoining property that lay between his existing house and that of Thomas Allis senior. The acquisition gives Clavering a continuous frontage in Chapel Valley, and the structure mirrors the consolidation pattern that George Carne had pursued in his Fryer Valley accumulation.
John Clavering's office as gunner's mate fixes him in the garrison structure rather than among the free planter community. The garrison's gunner's mate would have had a regular Company salary and the institutional standing that came with a recognised military position, and the role gave him both the means and the social connection to acquire property in the urban centre. The earlier 28 May 1703 sale by Thomas Ashby to Hugh Bodley, in which Clavering was a witness, shows him as an established figure in the small Chapel Valley network from at least that date.
William Marsden's purchase of the Fort James Valley house in his capacity as third in council marks the second appearance of a senior council member acquiring private property in the records of this period. Edward Walkborne had taken the mortgage over Smiths Plain from John Bagley on 20 July 1708, and Marsden now adds his own dwelling house acquisition. The pattern shows the senior council members systematically building their personal estates alongside their official duties, with their institutional position giving them access to opportunities that ordinary planters could not match.
Speculations
The pricing of the Marsden and Clavering houses at £20 0s 0d each, despite their different locations in Fort James Valley and Chapel Valley, suggests that ordinary single-dwelling urban properties had reached a settled price point on the island. The figure represents the standard cost of acquiring a dwelling house with its appurtenances and back-side ground but without significant rural land attached. The stability of the price across multiple transactions and over a period of years would have made urban housing an attractive form of property for buyers seeking predictable values, in contrast to the more variable rural market.
Dweight's continued disposal of urban property in April and May 1709, only ten months after his June 1708 sale of the Sharks Valley estate, suggests he was systematically liquidating his island holdings. The combined receipts from the 1708 and 1709 transactions came to £190 0s 0d in cash plus the Chapel Valley tenement bought from Marsh for £30 0s 0d, against the £40 0s 0d paid out across the two 1709 sales. The pattern points to Dweight either preparing to leave the island or rebuilding his cash position after a period of substantial investment, with the dwelling houses being released to free up capital from holdings he no longer needed.
The decision by Clavering to take an additional Chapel Valley house adjoining his existing dwelling, rather than buying property in a different part of the urban core, suggests he was positioning himself as a substantial Chapel Valley householder. The combined frontage of two adjacent houses would have given him standing among the urban property holders and the practical benefit of a larger contiguous holding. The pattern matches the trajectory of garrison members like John French, who had moved from a soldier's basic standing to ownership of a messuage house and rural ground, and confirms that the gunner's mate role provided a settled platform for building a town-based estate.
68
Island S[t] Helena
Geo[r] Hoskison to Gab[r] Powill Know all Men by these presents that J George Hoskison of the said Island Free planter for and in consideration of the Sum of Three Hundred and Fifty Pounds by me Already received of Gabreell Powell of the Said Island free planter the Receipt whereof J do hereby Acknowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paied, have by these p[r]esents fully and Affsolutely Geven Granted, Bargained and Sold, and do by these presents give grant bargaen Sell and Deliver, unto the said Gabreell Powill his heers Executors, Administrat[ors] and Assignes, One Dwelling house and Fifty Acres of Land, with all and Singulair the Appurtenances thereunto belongeng of what Nature and kind Soever, Lying Sciteate and being In Some branches of Chappell Valley, To have and to hold the said House and Fifty Acres of Land to him the Said Gabriell Powell, and his heers for Ever, to do and Despose of the Same at his or theer Own wells and pleasures, And it is hereby further Covenanted and Agreed between the said George Hoskison, and the Said Gabriell Powell, That he the Said Gabreell Powill or his Heers Execut[r] Administrat[ors] and Assigns Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter Peaceably and Quietly Enjoy and Posefs the Said hereby bargained Premises, without any Manner of Challenge Demand, or Claim, whatsoever, and do for me my Self my heers Executors and Administrat[ors] hereby promise and Ingage to Save and Keep harmless the said Gabriell Powill his Heers Execut[r] Administrat[ors] or assigns, In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 7 day of September 1706
Sealed Signed & Delivered in the presence of George Carne John Alexander
Geo[r] Hoskison [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Owen Bevian to James Greentree Know all Men by these presents that J Owen Bevean of the Island S[t] Helena free planter for and in the Consideration of the Sum of Thirty Five poun[d]s of Lawfull Money to me in hand paied by James Greentree of the said Island free planter whereof J do hereby Acknowledge this Receipt, and my Self therewith fully Sattisfeed have bargained Sold Sett Over and Delivered and by these p[r]esents, According to the Deed and Just[?] form of the Law in that Case made, and provided, Doe bargain Sell Over and Deliver unto the Said James Greentree, One House Lying and being in Chappell Valley, ffor Thirty pound of the Abovesaid Money the other five pounds being for a Room adjoyning to the House, In which Room J the said Owen Bevean hath the Use of the Same dueing my N[a]turall Life, and then the Same to fall to James Greentree his heers Execut[r] Administrat[ors] and Assignes, for Ever, and J the Said Owen Bevean for my Self my heirs, Executors, Administrat[ors] and Assignes, the Said House and Room, Unto the said James Greentree his heers Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assignes, against all, and all Manner of Persons Shall and well Warrant, and for Ever Defend by these p[r]esents In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Ninth day of October in the
Third
George Hoskison, free planter of St Helena, sold to Gabriel Powell, free planter of the island, a dwelling house and fifty acres of land in branches of Chapel Valley. The land included all appurtenances of whatever nature or kind. The price was £350 0s 0d, already received by Hoskison from Powell. Hoskison acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
Powell and his heirs took the house and the fifty acres for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Hoskison covenanted that Powell and his successors would peacefully and quietly possess and enjoy the property without any challenge, demand or claim, and bound himself to save Powell and his heirs harmless against any disturbance.
The deed was made on 7 September 1706 and sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of George Carne and John Alexander. George Hoskison set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing was made by Owen Bevian, free planter of St Helena, to James Greentree, also a free planter of the island. Bevian sold to Greentree a house in Chapel Valley for £35 0s 0d in lawful money, paid in hand. Bevian acknowledged the sum as received.
The price was structured as follows:
For the house £30 0s 0d
For a room adjoining the house £5 0s 0d
The adjoining room was subject to a reservation. Bevian retained the use of it during his natural life. On his death, the room was to fall to Greentree, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever.
Bevian warranted the house and the room to Greentree and his successors against all manner of persons and undertook to defend the title for ever.
The deed was made on the ninth day of October in the third year of the reign.
Interpretations
The Hoskison to Powell sale of 7 September 1706 documents one of the highest-value transactions on record at this date. The £350 0s 0d for a dwelling house and fifty acres in branches of Chapel Valley sits at the upper end of the recorded planter market and matches the £350 0s 0d that John Lufkin received from the Company on 26 June 1707 for his thirty-acre estate next to the main pastureland. The figure shows that Powell was prepared to commit substantial capital to upland Chapel Valley property, and his accumulation here precedes by less than two years his role in handing twenty acres of disputed Beale land to James Sich under the temporary arrangement of 18 December 1707.
The transaction sits within a broader pattern of Hoskison disposals and acquisitions in 1706. Five weeks after this sale to Powell, Hoskison received the £500 0s 0d composite estate from Richard Gurling on 12 October 1706, which included a tenement house, thirty acres at Little Horse Pasture, twenty acres at the head of Lemon Valley, growing yams, livestock and a black mare. The September sale to Powell therefore preceded a substantial inbound acquisition, and the two transactions taken together show Hoskison rotating his portfolio rather than simply liquidating it.
George Carne's appearance as the witness to the Hoskison to Powell deed, alongside John Alexander, places him at the heart of the Chapel Valley transaction. Carne's own dealings included the purchase of the small Chapel Valley plot from Richard Gurling in May 1704, the gift of that plot to his daughter-in-law Ellinor Keeling later the same month, and the purchase of fifteen acres at the head of Fryer Valley from Robert Leach in January 1705 through his wife as attorney. His role here as witness to a transaction between two major Chapel Valley players reflects his standing within the urban property network.
The Bevian to Greentree sale of 9 October introduces an unusual arrangement in which the seller retained a life interest in a room adjoining the house. The structure separates the £30 0s 0d for the house from the £5 0s 0d for the room, with the room sold in remainder rather than in possession. Bevian kept the use of the room for his natural life, and Greentree took the underlying ownership with the right to enter on Bevian's death. The mechanism is a small-scale version of the reversionary settlement, and it let Bevian convert his ownership into immediate cash while retaining residential accommodation for the rest of his life.
The Owen Bevian of the October 1706 sale is the father-in-law of Thomas Goodwin who had been recorded as making the family settlement of 22 September 1705. That settlement transferred his twenty-acre Company grant to Goodwin to take effect after Bevian and his wife's deaths, with a contingent remainder to Goodwin's eldest son John Goodwin if he lived on the island. Bevian's continued activity into October 1706, more than a year after the family settlement, shows he was still alive and managing his urban property. The decision to retain a life interest in a single room indicates a deliberate downsizing of his Chapel Valley accommodation while preserving the practical means of remaining in residence.
James Greentree appears here as the buyer of the Bevian house. His earlier presence in the records includes his witnessing of the Bevian to Goodwin family settlement of 22 September 1705, where the Bevian, Casthope and Greentree names all appeared together on the same document. The current transaction therefore extends the Bevian-Greentree connection beyond witness and principal into a direct property dealing, and the purchase places Greentree as a substantial urban property holder alongside the principal Chapel Valley figures.
The pricing structure of the Bevian sale, with separate figures for the house and the adjoining room, reflects the careful valuation that the life-interest arrangement required. The £5 0s 0d allocated to the room represents what Greentree was prepared to pay now for an asset he would not actually take until Bevian's death. The figure therefore captures the present value of a future remainder, and the parties' agreement on £5 0s 0d gives a working sense of how the planter community estimated the actuarial value of an elderly seller's remaining lifetime.
Speculations
The £350 0s 0d that Powell paid Hoskison for fifty acres and a dwelling house in branches of Chapel Valley works out at roughly £7 0s 0d per acre, which is well above the rates established elsewhere in the records. The premium reflects either a particularly productive set of holdings within the Chapel Valley system, the inclusion of substantial improvements that pushed the price above the bare land value, or a strategic interest on Powell's part in acquiring this specific consolidated estate. The pattern of Powell's subsequent transactions, including the disputed Beale parcel handed to Sich in 1707, suggests he was building a substantial position in the upper Chapel Valley area.
The decision by Owen Bevian to retain a life interest in a single room rather than in the whole house points to a deliberate household arrangement. The separation suggests that the room had a particular function for him, perhaps as a private chamber or as the only space he needed at his age, while the rest of the house could pass into Greentree's immediate occupation. The mechanism let the two households coexist within the same building, with Greentree taking the principal residence and Bevian retaining a fixed room as an annexe. The arrangement reflects the practical realities of urban property within a small island community where space was at a premium and where elderly planters needed continuing accommodation.
Hoskison's pattern of substantial sales and acquisitions across 1706, with £350 0s 0d received from Powell in September and £500 0s 0d paid out to Gurling in October, suggests an active commercial strategy rather than a simple liquidation. The five-week interval between the two transactions, combined with the difference in the assets, indicates that Hoskison was reorganising his portfolio: selling fifty acres in branches of Chapel Valley and buying thirty acres at Little Horse Pasture, twenty at the head of Lemon Valley, plus a tenement house, growing yams, livestock and a mare. The rebalancing points to a deliberate move from one set of holdings to another within a single planning horizon.
69
Third Year of Our Soveraign Lady Queen Anne, and in the Year of Our Lord God According to the Computation of the Church of England One thousand Seven Hundred and five
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Thomas Sanderson Robert Addes
his Owen O B Bevian mark[e]
Island S[t] Helena
J[no] French to W[m] Dufton Know all Men by these p[r]esents that John French of the said Island Gunner in the pay and Service of the R[t] Hon[ble] United Comp[any] ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Seven Pounds (that is to Say) Five pounds fifteen Shillings in a Heifer, and Twenty five Shillings in Store Credit by me already Rec[d] of William Dufton of the Said Island Free Planter the Receipt hereof J do Acknowledge my Self to be fully Sattisfyed Contented and paied Have given granted Bargained and Sold, and do by these p[r]esents give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver unto y[e] Said William Dufton his heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] or Assignes, all and Singulair that peece of Ground in Chappell Valley, Next adjoyning to the House of Sutton Isaack Sen[r] and free planter with all the Appurtenances thereunto belonging that is to say the Walls as now Standing and built, on Said ground, with all other Stones gathered to hint the Said William Dufton, and his heers for Ever, To Have and to hold as aforesaid, at his and their Own proper wills and Pleasures, And J the Said John French Do for me my heers Execut[r] and Administrat[r] Covenant and Agree to and with the Said Will[m] Dufton his heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assignes, that he or they Shall and may from all times hereafter have hold Occepice possess and Enjoy the said hereby Bargained premises without any Manner of Mollestation, or Interruption, whatsoever of me the said John French my heeires &c[a] Unto J the said John French do for me my heers Execut[r] and Administrat[r] promise and Ingage by these p[r]esents to Save and keep Harmless he Said W[m] Dufton his heers &c[a] by reason of this bargaine and Sale of the Said Ground and Walls Standing thereon, In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 12 day of March 170⅘
Sealed Signed & D[d] in the presence of us Sutton Isaack John Jones Edward Heath
John French [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Gabreel Powill to James Greentree Know all Men by these p[r]esents that I Gabriell Powell of the Island S[t] Helena Free planter for and in the Consideration of the Sum of Fourscore and Six pounds of Lawfull Money to me in hand paied by James Greentree of the s[ai]d Isl[an]d free planter whereof J do hereby Acknowledge the Receipt, and my Self therewith to be fully and Sincerely Sattisfeed, have Bargained Sell Over and Delivered, and by these p[r]esents According to the Just and due forme of Law in that Cafe made and provided do bargaine Sell Over & Deliver unto the Said James Greentree One peece or Parcell of Land Containeing by Estimation Twenty Acres
Owen Bevian set his hand and seal to the Greentree sale on the ninth day of October 1705, in the third year of the reign of Queen Anne. The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Sanderson and Robert Addes. Bevian signed by his mark in the form of O B.
A separate writing was made by John French, gunner in the pay and service of the Right Honourable United Company, to William Dufton, free planter of St Helena. French sold to Dufton a piece of ground in Chapel Valley adjoining the house of Sutton Isaack senior, free planter. The sale included the walls as then standing and built on the ground, together with all other stones gathered to hand.
The price was £7 0s 0d, paid in two components as follows:
In a heifer £5 15s 0d
In store credit £1 5s 0d
French acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge. Dufton and his heirs took the ground, walls and stones for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. French covenanted that Dufton and his successors would enjoy the property without molestation or interruption, and bound himself to save Dufton harmless by reason of the bargain and sale.
The deed was made on 12 March 1705 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Sutton Isaack, John Jones and Edward Heath. John French set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing was made by Gabriel Powell, free planter of St Helena, to James Greentree, free planter of the island. Powell sold to Greentree a parcel of twenty acres of land for £86 0s 0d in lawful money, paid in hand. Powell acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
Interpretations
The French to Dufton sale of 12 March 1705 documents one of the smallest transactions in the records. The total price of £7 0s 0d represents the lowest figure recorded for a piece of urban ground with structural improvements, and the inclusion of standing walls and gathered stones in the sale identifies the parcel as a building plot rather than a developed dwelling. The structure suggests that French had begun construction on the ground but had not completed a dwelling house, and was selling the partly improved plot to Dufton for the latter to complete or use as he thought fit.
The split of the consideration between £5 15s 0d in a heifer and £1 5s 0d in store credit shows the small-scale commercial transactions of the planter community using their fullest range of available media. A single heifer carries most of the value, with the balance settled through the Company's books. The mechanism let French take a productive animal for breeding or for further trading, while clearing the residual sum through the institutional channel that the Company maintained for credit between planters and the store.
The composite payment also reveals the precision with which livestock were valued in island transactions. The heifer was assigned a value of £5 15s 0d, which fits within the range established by other recorded valuations of cattle on the island. The figure shows that planters had developed a reasonably consistent set of price expectations for cattle of different ages and types, with single heifers valued at a price point that allowed them to function as units of significant value in commercial transactions.
John French's identification here as gunner in the pay and service of the Company places him in a particular position within the garrison structure. The 13 March 1705 sale by Edward Heath to John French of a messuage house and 7.5 acres for £50 0s 0d had identified him as chief gunner of the garrison of Fort James. The current deed, made the day before the Heath purchase, identifies him simply as gunner. The two transactions together show French moving between the role of buyer and seller within a single 48-hour period, and his disposal of the Chapel Valley plot to Dufton on 12 March may have been part of raising funds or simplifying his holdings ahead of the larger Heath acquisition on 13 March.
The Gabriel Powell to James Greentree sale of twenty acres for £86 0s 0d sets a rate of about £4 6s 0d per acre, which sits comfortably within the upland market for substantial parcels. The figure is well above the £1 0s 0d per acre rate of the Sandy Bay main ridge ground in the Griffis to Steward sale and below the £7 0s 0d per acre rate of the Hoskison to Powell sale of 7 September 1706. The price points to a parcel of average quality within the upland system, neither at the bottom nor at the top of the market range.
James Greentree's purchase here is a further substantial acquisition following his October 1706 purchase of the Bevian house in Chapel Valley with the life-interest reservation. The two transactions together establish him as both an urban property holder and a rural landowner of twenty acres at this period. The combination of a town residence and a substantial upland parcel reflects the typical structure of an established free planter's estate, and Greentree's position within the records is consistent with that of a successful member of the planter community.
The presence of Sutton Isaack senior as the named neighbour to the French Chapel Valley plot connects the deed to the earlier records of his household. Isaack had made the gift of one acre to his grandson Stephen Audouart on 29 October 1698, with the parental household of Bartrant Audouart retaining custodianship during the child's minority. The current deed shows Isaack still established in Chapel Valley seven years later, and his appearance as the principal neighbouring holder confirms his settled position in this part of the island.
Sutton Isaack's appearance as a witness to the French to Dufton deed, in addition to his identification as the neighbouring holder, gives him a double role in the transaction. He acted both as the man whose house lay next to the ground being sold and as one of the witnesses confirming the conveyance. The combination is unusual but not improper, since witnessing a neighbouring transaction simply confirmed that he had seen the parties seal and deliver the deed. The role gave Isaack standing in the documentary record of his immediate neighbourhood.
Speculations
The decision by John French to dispose of the partly improved Chapel Valley plot for £7 0s 0d on 12 March, the day before his purchase from Edward Heath of a messuage house and 7.5 acres for £50 0s 0d, suggests a deliberate sequencing of transactions to fund his larger acquisition. The £7 0s 0d would not have covered any significant part of the £50 0s 0d Heath purchase, but the receipt of a heifer and store credit may have been useful in clearing other obligations or in providing immediate working assets. The pattern points to French managing a household and Company-service portfolio across multiple transactions in a short period.
The inclusion of gathered stones in the sale to Dufton, alongside the standing walls, indicates that French had been actively assembling building materials on the ground. The reference to all other stones gathered to hand suggests a stockpile of cut or selected stones ready for use in further construction. The phrasing recognises that the building materials had value in themselves, separate from the ground or the partly completed walls, and the inclusion of all three in the £7 0s 0d price reflects a comprehensive transfer of the building project as a single asset.
The Greentree pattern of substantial purchases across 1705 and 1706 points to a household in expansion. The Bevian house with life-interest reservation in October 1705 gave him a town residence, and the Powell twenty acres around the same period gave him substantial rural land. The two acquisitions together represent a major commitment of capital, and the source of his funds is not visible in the records reviewed so far. The pattern may indicate inheritance, accumulated trading profits, or a particular commercial position that gave him liquidity at this point.
70
Acres bey[d] more or defs, with a Plantation in et and Provissions, with all the Appurtenan- ces thereto belonging, Likewise One Black Man Named Oliver, and the halfe of a Will, halfe the Worm, and Tubbs belongong to it Lying and being in Sandy bay, Next adjoyning to the head of Lemon Valley, To have and to hold the Said bargained promefses unto James Greentree his heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assignes, to the only Proper Use and behoof of him the Said James Greentree his heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assigner for Ever, And J the Said Gabreell Powill for my Selfe my heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assigner the said bargained premises unto the said James Greentree his heers Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assigner against all, and all Manner of persons Shall and well Warrant and for Ever Defens by these presents In Wittness whereof together with the Delivery of the bargained Premefses J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Eleaventh of March In the Year of our Lord God One thousand Seven hundred and two
Signed Sealed & D[d] in the presence of Stephen Leefseen Joshua Johnson
Gabriell Powill [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Execut[ors] W[m] Dufton to whom Eliz[t] pritchet to Hugh Bodley This Indenture made the Twentieth day of August 1707, Between Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton of the Said Island and Executors of the Last Will and Testament of William Doveton free planter Late Dec[d] of the One part, and Hugh Bodley Souldier of the Said Island Free planter of the other part. Witnesseth, that the Said Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton Do (By Vertue and Power of the Said Will of Disposing and Selling of the Said Children on the Said William Doveton aforesaid) Place Eli[z]abeth and Elizabeth Doveton, Second Daughter of the Said William Doveton, Unto the Said Hugh Bodley and as an Apprenttice with him to Dwell from the day of the Date of these p[r]esents, untill the time of her Age, or Day of Marriage which Shall forst happen Dueing all which Term, and Time the Said Elizabeth Shall the Said Bodley her Master faithfully Serve in all Lawsfull Bussiness as She Shall be put unto According to her Power and Abelity and Honesty and Obedeently behave her Selfe towards her Said Master his Wife and Family; And in consideration of her Youth and Want of Apparrell The Executors aforesaid have Consented, and agreed and do by these p[r]esents Give grant and Allow unto the Said Bodley the Sum of Eleaven pounds, as also Six Pounds more which he is to have the Use of Till the same of Age, or Marriage all which is out of her Part or Portion belonging to her by the Will aforesaid To be paied on Cash of good Store Credit Towards her bringing up and Education, for the Term aforesaid, And upon the Condeteons following that is to Say that he the said Master Shall Teach and Insteruct the Said Prentice in Read and worke with her Needle and to Learn the Church Cathechism and what Else is Convenient at Leiseur in all Manner of household Bussiness fitting and becoming a Good Hooke Wife, or Cause her to be So Taught and Instructed, also Dueing all the Said Term to find or allow her Said Prentice Sufficient Meate Drinke, and Apparrell Washing and Lodgeing and all other things fitting and Convenient for Such an Apprentteship, and a the Expiration of the Term, or Day of Marriage Which Shall happen forst the Said Bodley doth bend hemselfe his heers &c[a] to pay, unto the aforesaid Eli[z]abeth or her heers &c[a] (and in Case of her Mortallity in her Nonage to pay to the Executors aforesaid) the Sum of Six pound in cash, or Store Credit, In Wittness whereof the Partys have hereunto Sett their hands and Seales
Sealed Signed and D[d] in the p[r]esence of Thomas Swallow Joshua Johnson
Daniel Griffeth [seal] Jonas Doveton [seal] Hugh Bodley [seal]
Gabriel Powell sold to James Greentree a parcel of twenty acres in Sandy Bay adjoining the head of Lemon Valley, with a plantation, the growing provisions and all appurtenances. The sale also included a male slave named Oliver and a half-share in a still, with half the worm and half the tubs belonging to it.
The price was £86 0s 0d in lawful money, paid in hand.
Greentree and his heirs took the land, the plantation, the slave Oliver and the half-share in the still for ever, to their own proper use and behoof. Powell warranted the bargained premises to Greentree against all manner of persons and undertook to defend the title for ever.
The deed was made on 11 March 1703 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Stephen Leesseen and Joshua Johnson. Gabriel Powell set his hand and seal to it.
A separate indenture was made on 20 August 1707 between Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton, executors of the late William Doveton, free planter, of the one part, and Hugh Bodley, soldier and free planter of the island, of the other part.
The executors, acting under the power given them by William Doveton's will to dispose of and provide for his children, placed Elizabeth Doveton, the second daughter of the deceased, as an apprentice with Bodley. She was to live with him from the date of the indenture until she came of age or until her marriage, whichever happened first.
During the term Elizabeth was to serve Bodley faithfully in all lawful business according to her ability, and to behave honestly and obediently towards her master, his wife and his family.
In consideration of her youth and want of apparel, the executors agreed to pay Bodley the following sums out of Elizabeth's portion under the will:
For her bringing up and education £11 0s 0d, payable in cash or good store credit
For Bodley's use during her term £6 0s 0d, payable in cash or good store credit, repayable to Elizabeth when she came of age or married
The arrangement was made on conditions that Bodley would:
Teach Elizabeth to read and to work with her needle together with the Church catechism and other things suitable for a good housewife, either by himself or by causing her to be so taught
Provide her with sufficient meat, drink, apparel, washing and lodging together with all other things fitting for such an apprenticeship
Pay £6 0s 0d to Elizabeth or her heirs at the end of the term or on her marriage or to the executors if she died during her minority
The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Swallow and Joshua Johnson. Daniel Griffeth, Jonas Doveton and Hugh Bodley each set their hands and seals to it.
Interpretations
The inclusion of the male slave Oliver and the half-share in a still, with half the worm and half the tubs, in the Powell to Greentree sale of 11 March 1703 reveals the scope of a composite plantation transaction. The deed conveys land, growing crops, a named slave and shared ownership in distilling equipment as a single package for £86 0s 0d. The structure shows that planters treated such transactions as transfers of working productive units rather than as simple sales of acreage, with all the elements needed to operate the holding moving together.
The half-share in the still is the most distinctive feature of the transaction. A still with its worm, the coiled condensing pipe, and its tubs would have been used for distilling spirits from sugar cane, fruit or other fermentable material grown on the plantation. The fact that Powell held only half-shares of these items shows that distilling on the island was sometimes carried on in partnership, with two planters jointly owning the equipment needed to produce spirits. The transfer of his half to Greentree therefore brought Greentree into the partnership with whoever held the other half.
The naming of the slave Oliver in the body of the deed, alongside the land, the plantation and the distilling equipment, treats him as part of the working assets of the holding. The pattern matches the Trapp to Goodwin sale of 10 February 1690, in which the slave Asher was named in the conveyance. The practice of naming individual slaves in land deeds rather than transferring them by separate bills of sale reflects their integration into the working economy of the plantation as named units of labour, identifiable by reference to the person rather than only by number or value.
The Doveton apprenticeship indenture of 20 August 1707 documents a category of family-arranged labour and education that the records have not previously presented in this form. The will of the late William Doveton gave his executors the power to dispose of and provide for his children, and the indenture exercises that power by placing the second daughter Elizabeth in Bodley's household as an apprentice. The mechanism converts the parental duty of upbringing into a contractual relationship between the executors and an outside master, with specified educational and material obligations on the master's side.
The financial structure of the indenture is the operative feature explaining how the apprenticeship was funded. The executors paid Bodley £11 0s 0d outright for her bringing up and education, and a further £6 0s 0d that Bodley was to have the use of during the term but was required to repay to Elizabeth when she came of age or married. The total of £17 0s 0d represents the cost of placing a daughter into an apprenticeship that would discharge the family's continuing responsibility for her, with the £6 0s 0d repayment functioning as a portion that she would receive on her exit from the apprenticeship.
The educational obligations on Bodley are specified in detail: to teach Elizabeth to read, to work with her needle, the Church catechism and what else was convenient. The combination of literacy, needlework and religious instruction marks out the standard curriculum for a young woman in the period, and the inclusion of household business fitting for a good housewife identifies the practical training that would prepare her for her own household after the apprenticeship ended. The structure shows the apprenticeship serving as an educational and domestic placement rather than as commercial training in a trade.
The condition that Elizabeth would be released at her age or her day of marriage, whichever came first, recognises the dual paths by which a young woman of the period could exit such an apprenticeship. Coming of age would discharge her from the apprenticeship automatically, while marriage would discharge her by passing her into a husband's household. The provision in the deed for the £6 0s 0d to be paid either to Elizabeth herself or to the executors in case of her death during her minority shows the parties planning carefully for each contingency.
Hugh Bodley's identification as both a soldier and a free planter in the indenture reflects his accumulated standing on the island. His earlier acquisition of the messuage house in Chapel Valley from Thomas Ashby on 28 May 1703 for £15 0s 0d in store credit, the subsequent recorded sale by James Grandy to Thomas Ashby and onward to Bodley, and his acquisition of the female slave Sue from Jonathan Doveton on 13 August 1708 establish his pattern of growing his household. The taking on of Elizabeth Doveton as an apprentice extends that pattern beyond property and slave-holding into the educational and domestic dimensions of a substantial household.
Speculations
The decision by the executors to place Elizabeth with Bodley specifically, rather than with another candidate, suggests an existing relationship between the Doveton and Bodley households that the indenture builds upon. The 13 August 1708 slave exchange between Bodley and Jonathan Doveton would extend that relationship by almost exactly a year, suggesting that the apprenticeship may have been part of a broader pattern of dealings between the two households. The placement also gave the executors confidence that the educational and material conditions would be met, since Bodley's domestic establishment was a known quantity to them.
The structure of the £11 0s 0d outright payment plus the £6 0s 0d repayable sum reflects a careful balance between the master's compensation and the child's preserved portion. Bodley received a substantial fee for taking the daughter into his household, but the executors retained a contingent claim on £6 0s 0d that would either reach Elizabeth on her majority or marriage, or revert to the estate if she died during her minority. The mechanism let the executors discharge their immediate duty of placement while preserving the daughter's expected portion under the will until she could receive it directly.
The half-share in the still in the Powell to Greentree sale points to the operation of small-scale distilling among the planter community of Sandy Bay and the head of Lemon Valley. The half-ownership of the still, the worm and the tubs would have required Greentree to continue working with whoever held the other half. The arrangement suggests that distilling on the island was a cooperative activity, perhaps because the equipment was expensive to acquire as a whole, the volume of fermentable material from a single plantation was insufficient to justify a dedicated still, or there was a practical advantage to two households sharing the labour of operating the equipment.
71
Island S[t] Helena
Execut[ors] of W[m] Dufton put Sarah Apprentic[e] to Rob[t] Leech This Indenture made this 27 day of March 1708 Between Daniel Griffeth, and Jonathan Doveton of the Said Island and Executors of the Last Will and Testament of William Doveton free planter Late Decid[ed] of the One part, and Robert Leech of the Said Island Free planter of the other part Witness that the Said Daniel Griffeth, and Jonathan Doveton Do by Vertue and Power of the Said Will[s] of Disposeing and Settling of the Said Children of the Said William Doveton aforesaid) Place Putt and bind Susanna Doveton Third Daughter of the Said William Doveton unto Robert Leach as an Apprentice with him to Dwell from the Day of the Date of these presents until[l] the Come of Age or Day of her Marriage which Shall first happen Dueing of which Term and time the Said Susanna Shall the Said Robert Leach her Master faithfully Serve in all Lawsfull Bussiness as She Shall be put unto according to her Power and abelity, and Honestly and Obedeintly behave her Selfe towards her Said Master his Wife and Family, and in consideration of her Youth and want of Apparrell the Executors aforesaid have Consented and agreed and do by these p[r]esents give grant and allow the Said Leech the Sum of five pounds in Cash, or Credits, out of her part or Portion belonging to her by the Will aforesaid, also the Service of One black boy Named Peter, with one Cow and Calfe Towards her bringing up and Education for the Term aforesaid And upon the Condeteons following (that is to Say) That he the Said Master Shall Teach and Insteruct the Said Prentice to Read and Work with her Needle and Learn the Church Cathechesm and what Else is Convenient as Likewise all Manner of Houschold Bussinefs fitting and becoming a good House Wife, or Cause her to be Taught & Insteructed, also Dueing all the Said Term, to finde and allow her Said Premtice Sufficient Meat Drinke and Apparrell Washing and Lodging and all other things fitting and Convenient for Such an Apprentttiship, and at the Expiration of the Term or day of Marriage which Shall happen forst, the aforesaid Leech doth binde himselfe his Heers &c[a] to Deliver to the aforesaid Susanna her Heirr &c[a] (And in Case of her Mortallity in her Nonage to Deliver to the Executors aforesaid) the aforesaid black boy (if Leving) also a Cow and Calfe to the Vallue of Six pound, or Else the Vallue of them in Money, or Credit, In Wittness whereof the partys have hereunto Sett their hands and Seales
Signed Sealed & D[d] in the presence of Thomas Swallow Joshua Johnson
Daniel Griffeth [seal] Jonathan Doveton [seal] Robert Leech [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Tho[s] Toster to Sam[ll] Jeffrey Know all Men by these presents that J Thomas Toster of the Said Island Sould[ier] ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Eighty Pound in good and Currant Money of the Said Island To be paied in Manner and Forme followning (That is to Say) Fifty Pounds thereof at or before the Ensealing and Delivery of these presents, and Thirty pound more which Compleats the Said Eighty Pounds is Secured to be paied upon the 29[t] day of February Next Enseuing the date hereof, as may more plainly appear by an Obligation bearring Even date with these presents, Have given granted Bargained and Sold, and do by these presents give grant Bargaen Sell and Deliver unto Samuell Jeffrey of the Said Island One peece or parcell of Land Containing Twenty Two Acres, Lying Sectuate at the head of Fishery Valley, Next adjoyneing to the Lands of Thomas Beurnham and Simon Whaley free planters, together with
A second apprenticeship indenture was made by the executors of William Doveton on 27 March 1708. The executors, Daniel Griffeth and Jonathan Doveton, placed Susanna Doveton, the third daughter of the deceased, as an apprentice with Robert Leech, free planter of the island. The placement was made under the same power conferred by William Doveton's will to dispose of and provide for his children.
Susanna was to live with Leech from the date of the indenture until she came of age or until her marriage, whichever happened first. During the term she was to serve Leech faithfully in all lawful business according to her ability, and to behave honestly and obediently towards her master, his wife and his family.
In consideration of her youth and want of apparel, the executors paid Leech the following out of Susanna's portion under the will:
In cash or credit £5 0s 0d
The service of a black boy named Peter during the term
Livestock one cow and one calf
Leech accepted the placement on the following conditions:
To teach Susanna to read and work with her needle together with the Church catechism and other things suitable for a good housewife, by himself or by causing her to be taught
To provide her with sufficient meat, drink, apparel, washing and lodging together with all other things fitting and convenient for such an apprenticeship
To deliver to Susanna at the end of the term or on her marriage the black boy Peter, if then living, and a cow and a calf to the value of £6 0s 0d, or that value in money or credit; in case of her death during her minority, the same items were to be delivered to the executors
The indenture was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Swallow and Joshua Johnson. Daniel Griffeth, Jonathan Doveton and Robert Leech each set their hands and seals to it.
A separate writing was made by Thomas Toster, soldier of St Helena, to Samuel Jeffrey. Toster sold to Jeffrey twenty-two acres of land at the head of Fishery Valley adjoining the lands of Thomas Beurnham and Simon Whaley, free planters.
The price was £80 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid as follows:
At the sealing and delivery of the deed £50 0s 0d
Secured to be paid on 29 February following the date of the deed £30 0s 0d
The deferred sum was secured by an obligation under hand and seal bearing the same date as the deed.
Interpretations
The Susanna Doveton apprenticeship of 27 March 1708 mirrors the Elizabeth Doveton apprenticeship of 20 August 1707 in its structure but differs significantly in its financial terms. Elizabeth's placement with Hugh Bodley involved £11 0s 0d outright and a £6 0s 0d repayable portion, a total of £17 0s 0d in cash and credit. Susanna's placement with Robert Leech involved only £5 0s 0d in cash, supplemented by the service of the black boy Peter for the term and a cow and a calf, with the equivalent value of livestock to be returned to her at the end of the term. The difference reflects either the executors' assessment of the relative quality of the placements or a deliberate variation in the form of provision for each child.
The transfer of the black boy Peter into Leech's service for the duration of Susanna's apprenticeship, with the obligation to return him to Susanna at the end of the term if living, treats the slave's labour as a form of property attached to the daughter's portion. The mechanism mirrors the way livestock formed part of the consideration, with the slave's working capacity treated as a yielding asset rather than as a chattel sold outright. The structure preserves Susanna's underlying interest in Peter as part of her share of her father's estate while letting Leech enjoy the practical benefit of his labour during the apprenticeship.
The contingent provision that Peter would be delivered to the executors if Susanna died during her minority, in the same way as the cattle and the cash equivalent, gives the executors a continuing reversionary interest in the assets earmarked for the daughter. The arrangement preserves the estate's claim on her portion under the will, with the assets returning to the executors for redistribution among the remaining beneficiaries if Susanna did not survive to claim them herself.
The educational and material obligations on Leech are identical to those on Bodley in the Elizabeth indenture: teaching to read, needlework, the Church catechism and household business fitting for a good housewife, together with sufficient meat, drink, apparel, washing and lodging. The standardisation of these terms across the two indentures shows that the executors were applying a uniform template for the placement of the daughters, with the financial and material consideration varying but the substantive duties on each master remaining the same.
The Toster to Jeffrey sale of twenty-two acres at the head of Fishery Valley sets the price at about £3 12s 0d per acre, which falls within the upland market established by other deeds. The deferred payment structure, with £50 0s 0d paid at sealing and £30 0s 0d secured for payment on 29 February following, gave Jeffrey a credit window of about eleven months to find the balance. The use of a separate obligation under hand and seal for the deferred portion mirrors the arrangement in the Richard Alexander to George Dweight sale of 16 March 1710, where the entire £30 0s 0d was secured by a bond rather than paid in hand.
The 29 February completion date for the deferred payment is unusual and suggests the deed was made in a leap year, since 29 February exists only in those years. The agreement to pay on a date that would not exist in three years out of four implies that the parties were aware of the leap year and used the specific date as a clear marker for the obligation. The mechanism may also have reflected a particular point in the agricultural or commercial cycle when Jeffrey expected to have the funds available.
Thomas Beurnham appears here as the boundary holder. The same name had appeared in the boundary description of the Edward Heath sale to John French of 13 March 1705, where the messuage house and 7.5 acres were bounded by Ripon Wells, John Alexander and Thomas Burnham. The two records together establish Beurnham as a substantial holder with property in multiple parts of the island, and the consistency of his appearance in boundary descriptions across different deeds confirms his settled position within the planter community.
Simon Whaley appears here as the second boundary holder at the head of Fishery Valley. The Whaley name had earlier appeared in the records as Pomon Whaley, witness to the Pratt to Casthope sale of 13 July 1687. The Simon Whaley named here is probably a different member of the same family, and the appearance of two distinct Whaleys across a span of more than twenty years confirms the family's continuing presence on the island.
Speculations
The smaller financial provision for Susanna compared to Elizabeth, with only £5 0s 0d in cash against Elizabeth's £11 0s 0d plus £6 0s 0d, suggests that the executors were distributing the estate's resources differently between the daughters. The compensating provision of a slave's services for the term and the cow and calf may have made the total value of Susanna's placement broadly equivalent to Elizabeth's, but in a form that reflected the working capital of a free planter household rather than the urban household of a soldier with property holdings. The structure shows the executors tailoring each placement to the receiving household's economic profile.
The selection of Robert Leech as the master for Susanna places her in a household that had been actively involved in the Carne family's dealings. Robert Leech had sold fifteen acres at the head of Fryer Valley to George Carne through Mary Carne acting as attorney on 4 January 1705 for £25 0s 0d, with the land described as the orphans' portion of the late Mary Dixon. Leech's experience with handling property associated with orphans' portions may have made him a natural choice for the executors when placing Susanna under a similar arrangement.
The decision to seal the Toster to Jeffrey deed with a £30 0s 0d deferred component secured by a separate obligation suggests Jeffrey expected income or credit to reach him within the eleven months before the payment fell due. The £50 0s 0d paid at sealing represented a substantial commitment, and the additional £30 0s 0d was sufficient to push the total close to a year's worth of typical planter income. The mechanism may have reflected Jeffrey's confidence in his future receipts or his preference for spreading the cash outlay across two distinct dates rather than committing the full sum at once.
72
with all and Singullar the Provissions thereon Groweing and Issueing and all Other the Appurtenances thereunto belongeing of what Nature or Quallety Soever, which Said Twenty Two Acres was Late on the Pofefseon of Edward Heath free planter Decid[ed] as in and by his Last Will and Testament may more fully appearr To Have and to hold the Said Twenty Two Acres of Land, and all other the Appurtenances thereunto belongeing as Aforesaid, To him the Said Samuell Jeffrey and his heers for Ever to do and Dispose of, at his and theer Own Proper Wells and pleasure; And it is further Covenanted & Agreed by and between the Said Thomas Toster his Heirs Executors, and Administrators, that he the Said Samuell Jeffrey his Heirs, Executor, Administrators, and Assignes, Shall and May From Time to Time, and at all Times hereafter Peaceally and Quietly Pofefs and Enjoy, the Said hereby Bargained Premefses, with out any Manner of Interruption, or Contradicteon of me the Said Thomas Toster, my Heirs, Executors, Administrators or Assignes, or any other Person or Persons whatsoever by my Means Consent or Procurement, And do hereby Conferme the Said Bargaine for Ever and promiss to Save and keep harmless the Said Samuell Jeffrey his heirs &c[a] from any Manner of Damage, or thing that may here after happen by Reason of this Bargaine and Agreement, In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 12[th] day of Aprell One Thousand Seven hundred and Nine
Signed Sealed and D[d] in the p[r]esence of Thomas Free J[n]o Alexander
his Thomas X Toster [seal] mark[e]
Island S[t] Helena
Tho[s] Toster & wife to W[m] Hartwell Know all Men by these presents that J Thomas Toster Sold[ier] on the Hon[ble] Comp[any]s Service, with the Consent of my Wife, Mary Toster, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Twenty Six Pounds in good and Currant Money of the Said Island to me in hand Paied by William Hartwell Sold[ier] of the Said Island whereof J Acknowledge my Selfe to be fully Sattisfeed Contented and paied, have bargained and Sold, and do by these p[r]es[en]ts bargain Sell, and Deliver, Unto the Said William Hartwell, One Dwelling house with a back Kitchen that doth belong to his aforesaid House To have and to hold, that formerly belonged to Thomas Earle Free planter, of the Said Island together with all the ground that properly belonged, or belongs to the aforesaid House, To him the Said W[m] Hartwell his Heirs, Executors, Administrators and Assignes, to his and theer proper Use and behoofes for Ever, and J the Said Thomas Toster do, for me my heers, Executors, & Administrat[s] Covenant and Agree to and with the Said William Hartwell, his heirs Execut[r] Administrat[s] and Assignes that he and they Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter Peaceably and Quietly Enjoy, and Pofs the s[ai]d hereby bargained House as aforesaid without any Manner of Interruption, Contradiction, or Mollestation, of me the Said Thomas Toster my heirs Execut[ors] or administrat[r] or any other person or persons whatsoever by my means, Consent or procurement, and against all p[ers]ons do Warrant to Save and keep harmless the Said William Hartwell his heirs Execut[r] &c[a] In Wittness whereof we have hereunto Set our hands & Seal[s] this fourteenth day of Aprell One Thousand Seven hundred and Nine
Signed Sealed & D[d] in y[e] p[r]esence of us Ripon Wells John Welch
his Thomas X Toster [seal] mark[e] Mary Toster [seal]
Thomas Toster sold to Samuel Jeffrey twenty-two acres of land at the head of Fishery Valley, with all provisions growing on the ground and all appurtenances. The land had formerly belonged to the late Edward Heath, free planter, and had passed to Toster under Heath's will.
Jeffrey and his heirs took the parcel for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Toster covenanted that Jeffrey and his successors would peacefully and quietly possess and enjoy the land without disturbance from him, his heirs or any person acting through him. He confirmed the bargain for ever and bound himself to save Jeffrey harmless from any damage that might arise from the transaction.
The deed was made on 12 April 1709 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Free and John Alexander. Thomas Toster signed by his mark in the form of a cross.
A separate writing was made on 14 April 1709 between Thomas Toster, soldier in the Company's service, with the consent of his wife Mary Toster, and William Hartwell, soldier of the island.
Toster sold to Hartwell a dwelling house with a back kitchen and all the ground belonging to it. The house had formerly belonged to Thomas Earle, free planter of the island. The price was £26 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand. Toster acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
Hartwell and his heirs took the house, back kitchen and ground for ever, to their own proper use and behoof. Toster covenanted that Hartwell and his successors would enjoy the property without molestation, interruption or contradiction from him or any person acting through him, and bound himself to save Hartwell harmless from any claim.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of Ripon Wells and John Welch. Thomas Toster signed by his mark in the form of a cross. Mary Toster set her hand and seal to the deed alongside her husband.
Interpretations
The recital in the Toster to Jeffrey deed that the twenty-two acres had formerly belonged to the late Edward Heath, and had passed to Toster under Heath's will, opens a new line in the chain of Heath's estate. Heath had been an active land trader during his lifetime, acquiring the Peak Gult parcel by exchange with the Company and selling it to Hoskison on 11 May 1704, buying the messuage house and 7.5 acres and selling them to John French on 13 March 1705, taking on Toster's earlier Sandy Bay leasehold and assigning it to Paul Charles on the same date, and acquiring the Fisher Valley parcel through the chain of assignments running from Coole to Brayne in 1688 and 1702. The current deed shows Toster as a beneficiary under Heath's will, taking the twenty-two acres at the head of Fishery Valley as a legacy and selling it on for £80 0s 0d.
The earlier Heath to Charles deed of 13 March 1705, in which Heath assigned the unexpired term of a 21-year Company lease originally granted to John Toster, soldier, on 7 March 1694, establishes the link between the two Tosters. John Toster had been the original lessee of the Sandy Bay parcel, and the Thomas Toster of the 1709 deeds is probably either the same man or a relative. The pattern suggests a continuing connection between the Toster and Heath households across at least fifteen years, with Heath acquiring leasehold interests from John Toster and bequeathing freehold interests to Thomas Toster.
The Toster to Hartwell sale of 14 April 1709 documents a transaction between two members of the garrison. Both men are identified as soldiers, with Toster acting in the Company's service. The £26 0s 0d price for the dwelling house with back kitchen and ground sits at the lower end of the urban market and matches the pattern established by the smaller Chapel Valley properties, where ordinary dwelling houses changed hands at prices in the £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d range.
The recital that the house had formerly belonged to Thomas Earle, free planter, gives a previous owner in the chain of title. Earle does not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed so far, and his appearance here as the named predecessor of Toster places him as one of the earlier urban property holders whose name persisted in the boundary descriptions and conveyances after his departure from active ownership. The pattern of identifying property by reference to a previous holder is standard practice in the records and serves to fix the property in the urban geography.
Mary Toster's appearance as a co-signatory of the deed, alongside her husband Thomas, brings a married woman directly into an urban conveyance for the second recorded time. The Bradley sale of 18 October 1705 had recorded both Arthur and Sarah Bradley as parties, and the joint conveyance by William and Mary French to Edward Bagley of 4 March 1708 had similarly involved both spouses. The Mary Toster signature here follows the pattern and shows that joint sealing by married couples was an established practice in the records, particularly where the wife's interest in the property required express extinguishment.
The two Toster sales of 12 April 1709 and 14 April 1709, completed within two days of each other, suggest Toster was settling several outstanding matters at once. The £80 0s 0d received from Jeffrey for the Fishery Valley land, combined with the £26 0s 0d received from Hartwell for the Chapel Valley dwelling house, gave him £106 0s 0d in total. The two transactions together represent a substantial disposal of property within a single week, and the structure points to Toster either preparing to leave the island or rebalancing his estate after the inheritance from Heath.
The dating convention of the Toster deeds, with the day of the month given first and the year written out in full, follows the standard formula of the records. The use of John Alexander as the witness to the 12 April Jeffrey deed, alongside Thomas Free, confirms Alexander's continuing role as the principal register of property transactions in the late 1700s. The choice of Ripon Wells as the witness to the 14 April Hartwell deed extends Wells's appearances in the records, after his earlier acquisitions from James Casthope in March 1694 and from Michael Morris in October 1701.
Edward Heath's death by April 1709 represents the closing of an active career in the records. Heath had been a substantial trader, witness and intermediary across the period from 1702 to 1707, and his will distributed property to Toster and presumably to other beneficiaries. The fact that the twenty-two acres at Fishery Valley passed to Toster, alongside any other dispositions made by the will, suggests Heath had cultivated specific personal relationships during his lifetime that determined the structure of his testamentary settlement.
Speculations
The closeness in date between the Toster to Jeffrey sale of 12 April 1709 and the Toster to Hartwell sale of 14 April 1709 suggests that Toster was acting under pressure of an imminent departure from the island. A soldier in the Company's service whose duties might call him away on short notice would have had a strong incentive to convert his property holdings into portable cash before leaving, and the staging of two major sales within forty-eight hours fits the pattern of a man clearing his affairs in preparation for embarkation.
The choice to sell the Fishery Valley land to Samuel Jeffrey on a deferred payment basis, with £50 0s 0d paid at sealing and £30 0s 0d secured for 29 February following, gave Toster less than the full £80 0s 0d in immediate cash but did not delay the sale itself. Toster's apparent need to dispose of the property quickly may have outweighed his preference for full payment in hand, with the £30 0s 0d obligation under hand and seal providing sufficient security against the deferred portion. The 29 February date, falling almost a year after the sale, suggests Toster expected to be in a position to enforce the obligation from wherever he might be at that point.
The simultaneous involvement of Mary Toster in the Hartwell sale, where the deed expressly recites her consent, suggests that the Chapel Valley dwelling house had been treated as part of the joint marital estate. The express extinguishment of her interest by her own sealing gave Hartwell complete protection against any future claim she might make as a widow or in her own right, and the procedural care taken in the deed indicates Toster's awareness that his absence from the island after the sale would leave Mary as the sole party present to assert any continuing claim. The structure therefore looks like part of the same departure preparation that the rapid sequence of sales suggests.
73
Island S[t] Helena
Tho[s] Goodwin Dep[ty] to Henry Francis Know all Men by these presents That J Thomas Goodwen of the Island S[t] Helena Deputy Governour, For and in Consideration of the Sum of Fifty Pounds in good and Currant Money of the Said Island to me in hand paied before the Ensealeng and Delivery hereof by Henry Francis of the Said Island Free planter the Receipt whereof J do hereby Acknowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Sattis- fied Contented and paied, Have given granted Bargained and Sold, and do by these presents Give grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver Unto the aforesaid Henry Francis his heers Execut[r] Administrators and Assigns, One Dwelling house Sciteate and being in Fort James Valley Next adjoyneing to the Houses of Richard Geurling and Benjamen Sich free planters, together with all and Singullar the Appurtenances thereunto belongoing or any way appertaining of what Nature or Quallety Soever which Said house and Appurtenances as aforesaid was formerly Thomas and Prudence Sher- wins as in and by the Regestry book of the said Island in the 51 folio may more Largely appear To have and to hold the said House and Appurtenances as aforesaid To him the Said Henry Francis and his heers for Ever to do and Dispose of at his and their Own Proper Wells and pleasure, And it is further Covenanted and agreed by and between the said Thomas Goodwin his heers Executors, and Administrators and he the said Henry Francs his heers Executors, Administrators and assignes or Either of them, That he and they Shall and may from time to time and at all Times hereafter peaceably and Quietly Pofs[s], and Enjoy the said hereby Bargained house and Appur- tenances as Aforesaid without any Manner of Interreuption, Controllation, Claime, Challeng or Demand of me the Said Thomas Goodwin my heirs Executers Administra- torr or any other Person, or Persons, by my Meanes Consent or Procurement whatsoever In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Fourth day of May One Thousand Seven Hundred and Nine
Sealed Signed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us W[m] Marsden Gilbert Cotgrave Joseph Thomlinson
Tho[s] Goodwin [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
Susanna Audokart put apprentice to Tho[s] Burnham This Indenture made this Eleventh day of August 1709, Between John French Gunner of the Said Island of the One part, and Thomas Burnham of the Said Island Free planter of the other part. Wittness that the Said John French place spell and bonde Susannah Audowart unto Thomas Burnham as an Apprentice with him to Dwell from the Day of the Date of these presents, for the Term of Seven years, and to be the Said Thomas Burnham Obleidging himself his heers &c[a] To Teach the Said Apprentice or Caure her to be Taught to Read and Work with her Needle and Learn the Church Cathechism and what Else is Convenient as Likewise all Manner of Household Bessines fitting and becoming a Good House Wife, also dueing all the Said Term, to finde and allow her Said Apprentice Sufficient Meate Drink and apparrell, Washing and Lodging, And the Aforesaid Susannah Audowart, Shall the Said Thomas Beurnham
Thomas Goodwin, deputy governor of St Helena, sold to Henry Francis, free planter of the island, a dwelling house in Fort James Valley adjoining the houses of Richard Gurling and Benjamin Sich, free planters. The sale included all appurtenances belonging to the property.
The price was £50 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Goodwin acknowledged the sum as received.
The house had formerly belonged to Thomas and Prudence Sherwin, with the earlier transaction recorded on folio 51 of the island's registry book.
Francis and his heirs took the house and appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Goodwin covenanted that Francis and his successors would peacefully and quietly possess and enjoy the property without any interruption, claim or demand from him, his heirs, executors, administrators or any person acting through him.
The deed was made on 4 May 1709 and sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of William Marsden, Gilbert Cotgrave and Joseph Tomlinson. Thomas Goodwin set his hand and seal to it.
A separate indenture was made on 11 August 1709 between John French, gunner of the island, and Thomas Burnham, free planter of the island.
French placed and bound Susannah Audouart as an apprentice with Burnham. She was to dwell with him for a term of seven years from the date of the indenture. Burnham bound himself and his heirs to teach Susannah, or to cause her to be taught, the following:
To read and to work with her needle together with the Church catechism and other things suitable for a good housewife
All manner of household business fitting and becoming a good housewife
During the term Burnham was to provide her with the following:
Sufficient provisions meat, drink, apparel, washing and lodging
Interpretations
The Goodwin to Francis sale of 4 May 1709 documents the onward transfer of a property that had appeared earlier in the records as the Sherwin tenement. The 2 July 1694 sale by Prudence Sherwin to Thomas Goodwin, acting under her husband Thomas Sherwin's letter of attorney, had moved the house to Goodwin for £26 0s 0d in island currency. The Fort James Valley location and the reference back to folio 51 of the registry book confirm that the current deed concerns the same property. The sale price of £50 0s 0d nearly doubles the £26 0s 0d that Goodwin had paid fifteen years earlier, and the figure reflects a steady appreciation of urban property over the period.
Goodwin's identification in the May 1709 deed as deputy governor presents a chronological question. His earlier appearances had described him as governor by 16 December 1707, and the council session on 18 December 1707 of the register-recopying attestation had treated him as governor by that date. The 8 June 1708 Dweight transactions, the 22 June 1708 Bevian sale and the August 1708 Dufton executors' deeds had all identified him as governor. The May 1709 description of him as deputy governor therefore suggests either a transitional period in which the title fluctuated, or a return to the deputy position after a period of higher office. Without further evidence the description is recorded as it appears in the deed.
The continuing pattern of Goodwin acquiring property and then selling it on at a substantial profit is visible across many of the records. The 1694 purchase from Prudence Sherwin for £26 0s 0d and the 1709 sale to Henry Francis for £50 0s 0d represent a nearly two-fold increase over fifteen years, which works out at roughly five per cent compound appreciation per annum. The pattern is consistent across his other recorded sales and indicates a careful management of the timing of disposals against the trajectory of the urban market.
Henry Francis's purchase of the former Sherwin tenement from Goodwin extends the recorded Francis dealings. His earlier appearance as son-in-law of Edward Edmunds, his quit-claim to Goodwin regarding the Chapel Valley house in 1704, and his role as witness to multiple substantial transactions place him firmly within the Chapel Valley network. The May 1709 acquisition adds an established urban property to his recorded holdings and shows him moving from witness and beneficiary into the position of a principal urban property owner.
The reference to Benjamin Sich as a neighbouring holder, alongside Richard Gurling, introduces a name that had earlier appeared in the December 1707 Powell to Sich arrangement regarding the disputed Beale parcel. The Sich named there was James Sich, and the Benjamin Sich here is presumably a different member of the same family. The Sich name had also appeared in the earlier records connected with the Sech family of the Swallow inheritance settlement of February 1705. The varied spellings of Sech, Sich and the related forms across the records reflect the uncertainty in the recording of the family name rather than distinct families.
The Susannah Audouart apprenticeship of 11 August 1709 documents a third indenture of the same kind. Susannah is placed with Thomas Burnham for a term of seven years, but the recital does not specify her age at the time, the source of the placement decision (since John French rather than executors places her), or the financial structure of the arrangement. The visible portion of the deed gives the educational and material obligations on Burnham in terms identical to those in the Doveton apprenticeships of August 1707 and March 1708, but without the cash, livestock or slave provisions that those earlier indentures had included.
John French's appearance as the placing party for Susannah Audouart, in his capacity as gunner of the island, raises a question about his relationship to the child. He had earlier acquired the messuage house and 7.5 acres from Edward Heath on 13 March 1705 for £50 0s 0d in his capacity as chief gunner of Fort James, and had sold the Chapel Valley plot to William Dufton on 12 March 1705 for £7 0s 0d. The current role as placer of an apprentice would normally be filled by a parent or executor, and his appearance in that role for Susannah Audouart suggests either a familial connection between French and the Audouart household or a more formal position as guardian or trustee of the child.
The Audouart family had earlier appeared in the records through Sutton Isaack's gift of one acre to his grandson Stephen Audouart, son of Bartrant Audouart, the Company's smith, on 29 October 1698. The Susannah Audouart of August 1709 is probably a daughter or a younger sister within the same family, and the placement with Thomas Burnham continues the household's institutional connections beyond the smith's office into the practical mechanisms of provision and education for children. The fact that French rather than Bartrant Audouart places the child suggests Bartrant may have died by August 1709, leaving the family's affairs to be managed by someone else within the Company's establishment.
Speculations
Goodwin's decision to sell the Sherwin tenement to Henry Francis in May 1709 may have been part of a wider reorganisation of his property holdings as he approached the end of his active career. The 1694 purchase had brought the property into his hands while he was still working as a junior member of the garrison, and the May 1709 sale would have released the urban property at a point when his country estate and his official position no longer required this particular holding. The sale to Francis, who had family connections through Edmunds and through his own marriage to the Wrangham widow, may have been part of consolidating the property within an established Chapel Valley family rather than seeking the highest open-market price.
The placement of Susannah Audouart with Thomas Burnham for a seven-year term, rather than until majority or marriage as in the Doveton indentures, points to a particular structure of provision. Seven years was the standard English apprenticeship term, and its use here suggests the parties were applying a formal model rather than tailoring the arrangement to the child's particular age or expected future. The contrast with the Doveton indentures, which ran to majority or marriage, may reflect a difference in Susannah's age, in the resources available for her placement, or in the parties' assumptions about what the apprenticeship was meant to achieve.
John French's involvement as placer of the apprentice, rather than as paying executor under a will, indicates that the Audouart placement was not directly funded from an estate in the way the Doveton placements had been. The visible portion of the deed records no cash, livestock or slave consideration moving from French to Burnham, which suggests either that the financial terms appeared later in the document or that the arrangement operated on a different basis. The pattern raises the possibility that Burnham was taking Susannah on as a working apprentice whose labour over seven years would be the primary consideration on his side.
74
Beurnham faithsfully Serve in all Lawsfull Bussinefs as She Shall be put unto according to her Power and Abelity and Honesly and Obedeintly, behave her Selfe towards her Said Master his Wife and Family, and at the Expiration of the Term the aforesaid Thomas Burnham doth binde himselfe his Heers &c[a] to give unto the Aforesaid Susannah Audowart, a New Suit of Apparrell, In Wittness whereof both partys have to these presents Interchangeally Set their hand and Seale the day and Year above written
Signed Sealed & D[d] in y[e] presence of Sutton Isaack Sun[r] his Morris X Griffin mark[e]
Thomas Burnham [seal] John French [seal]
Comp[anys] Deed to And[w]: Wilson The Govern[ment] and Comp[any] of Mercht[s] of London Tradeing into the East J[n]dies do hereby grant and Confirm unto Andrew Wilson of the Island S[t] Helena free planter Twenty Acres of Land abuttings upon Twenty Acres of Land formerly Allotted to John Cleverlee deid Twenty toward the East upon ten Acres of Land James Wakefields toward y[e] West Upon ten Acres of Land Allowed Orlando Bagley toward the North and Upon the Companys Common ground toward the South in the Said Island, To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Andrew Wilson his heers and Assigns for Ever Upon Condition that he the Said And[w] Wilson his heirs and Assigns Shall and do bear always true faith and Allegeance to our Sove- raign Lord the King his heers and Successors And to the Said Company & their Successors, and Shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, In Witness whereof the Said Govern[r] and Company have to these presents Sett their Common Seale, at their Fort upon the Said Island this Sixteenth day of August in the year of our Lord one Thousand Six hundred and Eighty four
Sealed in the presence of J Blackmore Gover[r] Rob[d] Holden Dep[ty] Gover[r] Gregory Field 3 of [Council] J Blackmore Iun[r] Regest[er]
Memorandum
J[n]o Bagley to And[w] Wilson That John Bagley of the Island S[t] Helena Free Plant[r] Hor[e] and in Consideration of the Sum of Twenty five pounds to him in hand paid by Andrew Wilson of the S[ai]d Island free planter paied in Yams Have Sold alienated and Delivered unto the Said Andrew Wilson his heirs Execu[t] Administrat[s] and assigns one Tenement house Scityak[ate] and being in Chappell Valley Next adjoyning to the house of Israel Hayles (formerly Will[m] Crooes) and y[e] house of Katherine Saury To have and to hold the Said house with all and Singulair the Appurtenances thereunto belonging without any Manner of Interreuption or Mollestation of the Said John Bagley his heers Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] &c[a] In wittness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this 7 day of February 169⅚
Sealed Signed & D[d] in the presence of us Joseph Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
John Bagley [seal]
Susannah Audouart was to serve Thomas Burnham faithfully in all lawful business according to her ability, and to behave honestly and obediently towards her master, his wife and his family. At the end of the term Burnham bound himself and his heirs to give Susannah a new suit of apparel.
The indenture was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Sutton Isaack senior and Morris Griffin, who signed by his mark in the form of a cross. Thomas Burnham and John French each set their hands and seals to it.
A separate grant was made by the Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies to Andrew Wilson, free planter of St Helena. The Company granted and confirmed to Wilson twenty acres of land, bounded as follows:
East twenty acres of land formerly allotted to the late John Cleverlee
West ten acres of land held by James Wakefield
North ten acres of land allowed to Orlando Bagley
South the Company's common ground
Wilson and his heirs took the parcel for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to the King and the Company, and obeyed the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Fort on the island on 16 August 1684. It was sealed in the presence of J Blackmore, governor, Robert Holden, deputy governor, Gregory Field, third of council, and J Blackmore junior, register.
A separate memorandum recorded a sale by John Bagley, free planter of St Helena, to Andrew Wilson, free planter of the island. Bagley sold to Wilson a tenement house in Chapel Valley adjoining the house of Israel Hayles, formerly William Crooes's, and the house of Katherine Saury.
The price was £25 0s 0d, paid in hand in yams.
Wilson and his heirs took the house with all appurtenances, free from any disturbance or molestation by Bagley, his heirs, executors or administrators.
The deed was made on 7 February 1696 and sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Joseph Worrall and John Alexander. John Bagley set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The Audouart apprenticeship indenture closes with the obligation on Burnham to provide Susannah with a new suit of apparel at the end of the seven-year term. The provision recognises that a young woman emerging from such a placement would need fresh clothing to mark her transition to her next stage of life, whether returning to her family, marrying or entering employment. The standard inclusion of this clothing payment in early-modern apprenticeship indentures shows the institutional structure of the apprenticeship continuing to operate on the island in the same form as in England.
The signing of the indenture by Morris Griffin, alongside the established figure of Sutton Isaack senior, brings another name from the Audouart family circle into the documentary record. Sutton Isaack had been the grandfather who made the 29 October 1698 gift of one acre to Stephen Audouart, and his witnessing of Susannah's indenture eleven years later confirms his continuing involvement in the affairs of the Audouart household. The pattern suggests that the Audouart children were being placed and provided for through a network of family connections rather than through commercial arrangements.
The Company's grant to Andrew Wilson of 16 August 1684 introduces an early original grant to the records of this set. The grant was made under the Company's common seal at the Fort by Governor J Blackmore, Deputy Governor Robert Holden, Gregory Field of council and J Blackmore junior as register. The signatories match those of the same date's grant to Owen Bevan of twenty acres recorded earlier in this material, and the two grants together appear to be part of a single session of Company land business on 16 August 1684.
The boundary description of the Wilson grant places his twenty acres adjoining the former John Cleverlee allotment to the east, James Wakefield's ten acres to the west, Orlando Bagley's ten acres to the north and the Company's common ground to the south. The reference to John Cleverlee as the late former holder confirms that his Sandy Bay dealings of the 1682 inquest had ended by August 1684 with his death, since the 1682 inquest had still recorded him as an active broker assembling the John Long allotment through purchase and exchange. The interval between the inquest and the Wilson grant therefore covers the closing of Cleverlee's career on the island.
The Bagley to Wilson sale of 7 February 1696 records a Chapel Valley tenement transfer with the £25 0s 0d price paid entirely in yams. The use of yams as the sole medium of payment is unusual within the records, where most transactions used a combination of cash, sterling, store credit or livestock. The yam payment confirms the central role of the crop in the island's economy and shows that, by 1696, a substantial urban tenement could be purchased for an equivalent quantity of yams alone. The mechanism reflects the planter community's ability to settle property transactions through their primary agricultural produce.
The boundary description of the Bagley to Wilson sale names Israel Hayles, whose house had formerly belonged to William Crooes, and Katherine Saury as the adjoining holders. Israel Hayles had earlier appeared as a witness to the Trapp to Goodwin sale of 10 February 1690, and the reference to him here as the neighbouring holder confirms his continuing presence in Chapel Valley six years later. The William Crooes named as Hayles's predecessor and Katherine Saury as the second neighbour do not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed so far, and their presence here preserves their place in the urban network for that period.
The two Wilson transactions of 1684 and 1696 chart his trajectory from initial Company grantee to substantial urban property holder over a twelve-year period. The 1684 grant gave him twenty acres of upland adjoining Bagley, Wakefield and the former Cleverlee parcel, and the 1696 purchase added a Chapel Valley tenement in the heart of the urban core. The combination of rural land and urban property places Wilson within the typical pattern of an established free planter, with holdings spread between the working country estate and the residential heart of the island.
John Bagley's sale of the urban tenement to Wilson in February 1696 represents one of his recorded disposals. The Bagley family had multiple branches across the records, with Edward Bagley emerging as a major Lemon Valley figure, Orlando Bagley senior and junior holding at the head of Chapel Valley, John Bagley appearing in earlier witness roles, and the John Bagley to Walkborne mortgage of 20 July 1708. The current John Bagley sale to Andrew Wilson predates the Walkborne mortgage by twelve years and shows the family's continuous involvement in property transactions across more than a decade.
Speculations
The decision to pay the £25 0s 0d entirely in yams suggests Andrew Wilson had a substantial surplus of the crop at the time of the purchase. The value of yams as a settlement medium would have varied with the supply, and a buyer paying in yams was effectively converting agricultural surplus into urban property without first needing to convert it into cash. The arrangement worked to Wilson's advantage by avoiding the loss involved in selling yams for cash and then using the cash to buy property, and it worked to Bagley's advantage by giving him a usable supply of provisions that could be consumed, traded or used as currency in further transactions.
The matching of the Company's grants to Owen Bevan and Andrew Wilson on the same day, 16 August 1684, points to a session of Company land business in which multiple new allotments were processed simultaneously. The Company would have used such sessions to clear outstanding grants, to allocate land to deserving free planters and to formalise arrangements that had been pending. The choice of Wilson and Bevan as grantees on the same day may reflect their similar standing within the planter community or the convenience of processing related grants together.
The seven-year term of Susannah Audouart's apprenticeship, distinct from the Doveton placements that ran to majority or marriage, suggests Susannah was old enough that a seven-year term would carry her into a normal age for marriage or entry into household service. If she was around twelve or thirteen at the start of the term, the apprenticeship would end when she was nineteen or twenty, by which point she would be expected to leave Burnham's household either for marriage or to enter another setting. The seven-year structure therefore aligns the term with her likely life stage rather than with an arbitrary end-point.
75
Memorand[u]m
Joseph & Martha Fox Morgages to Cha[s] Steward & Or[lando] Bagley That Joseph Fox freeplant[r] and Martha Fox both of the Island S[t] Helena ffor and in Consideration of the Sum of Thirty Two pounds in good and Currant money by them Already Recd of and from Charles Steward and Orlando Bagley free planters Have and do by these p[r]es[en]ts Aleinate & Mortgage unto the Said Charles Steward and Orlando Bagley their here Execut[s] Adm[r] and Assignes one peice or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Eighteen Acres Being part of Andrew Wilsons Decid[ed] Twenty Acres of Lott Land Lyeing in Sandy bay with the Wear &c[a] To Together with all the fruits thereon and One Dwelling house in fort James Valley as well as another House on y[e] said Eighteen acres of Land with all the goods and Chattles now on the Said Joseph and Martha Fox's Posefsion (belonging and appurtaining to the Children of Thom[s] Earle dec[d]) The Said Martha Fox's former Husband for and Dueing the Naturall Life of her the Said Martha Fox without any Manner of Claime Challenge or Demand of any persons whatsoever, J[n] Wittness whereof Both the Said Joseph and Martha Fox hath to this presents Sett their hands and Seales this 18 day of August 1709
Signed Sealed & D[d] in the presence of us Joshua Johnson Henry Webley
Joseph Fox [seal] Martha Fox [seal]
Island S[t] Helena
W[m] & Sarah Hartwell to Tho[s] Toster Know all Men by these p[r]es[en]ts that J William Hartwell Sold[ier] on the Said Island do hereby make in a feale and perfect Bill of Sale to Thomas Toster Sold[ier] of for the Quantity of Ten Acres of Land Lying at the head of Fishers Valley for the Sum of Twenty Five poundes of good and Currant Money of the Said Island, unto J Deliver unto the Said Thomas Toster all and Singulair all the Right and Title that J Can, or Could Claim, or Call my Own, and do Likewise bind my Self and my Heirs and Assignes Never in any ways to Molest the aforesaid Thomas Toster his heirs and Assignes of the aforesaid Ten Acres of Land, with all the Appurtenances and provissions thereunto belonging, In Wittness whereof J with my Wife have here unto Sett our hands and Seals this Twenty Ninth Day of January in the Year of our Lord 1709
Wittness his John 4 Jeffrey marke
William Hartwell [seal] Sarah Hartwell [seal]
Joseph Fox, free planter of St Helena, and Martha Fox mortgaged to Charles Steward and Orlando Bagley, free planters, a parcel of land of eighteen acres. The land formed part of the twenty acres of lot land that had been held by the late Andrew Wilson and lay in Sandy Bay. The mortgage included the weir on the land, all the fruits then growing on it and the following further property:
A dwelling house in Fort James Valley together with all appurtenances
A second house on the eighteen-acre parcel together with all appurtenances
All goods and chattels then in Joseph and Martha Fox's possession belonging and appurtaining to the children of the late Thomas Earle, Martha Fox's former husband
The mortgage was secured against the principal sum of £32 0s 0d in good current money, already received by the Foxes from Steward and Bagley. The Foxes' interest in the property was held during Martha Fox's natural life, without any claim, challenge or demand from any other person.
The deed was made on 18 August 1709 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Joshua Johnson and Henry Webley. Joseph Fox and Martha Fox each set their hands and seals to it.
A separate bill of sale was made by William Hartwell, soldier of the island, with his wife Sarah, to Thomas Toster, soldier of the island. Hartwell sold to Toster ten acres of land at the head of Fishers Valley with all appurtenances and provisions belonging to it.
The price was £25 0s 0d in good current money of the island.
Hartwell delivered to Toster all the right and title he could claim in the land. He bound himself, his heirs and assigns never to disturb Toster, his heirs or assigns in their possession.
The deed was made on 29 January 1710 and witnessed by John Jeffrey, who signed by his mark in the form of the figure 4. William Hartwell and Sarah Hartwell each set their hands and seals to it.
Interpretations
The Fox to Steward and Bagley mortgage of 18 August 1709 documents a complex composite security combining rural land, urban property, growing crops and movable goods. The eighteen acres in Sandy Bay had been carved out of the twenty acres originally granted to Andrew Wilson by the Company on 16 August 1684. The reduction of two acres between the original grant and the present mortgage suggests that part of the Wilson land had been alienated separately before passing to the Fox household, or that the original grant boundaries had been reassessed at some point.
The recital that the goods and chattels belonged and appertained to the children of the late Thomas Earle introduces the operative limitation on the security. Martha Fox had been previously married to Thomas Earle, the same man whose former Chapel Valley dwelling house had been sold by Toster to William Hartwell on 14 April 1709. The mortgaged movable property belonged not to Martha and Joseph Fox but to Martha's children by Earle. The Foxes' right to the goods was therefore limited to her natural life, after which the property would pass back to the Earle children.
The structure of the mortgage shows the planter community recognising and protecting children's interests across remarriage. Martha Fox had remarried after Earle's death, and her new husband Joseph Fox was using property that the children of the first marriage held as a beneficial interest. The mortgage explicitly acknowledges that the goods and chattels belonged to the Earle children, with the Foxes' enjoyment limited to Martha's lifetime. The mechanism prevented the new husband from disposing of the children's property and preserved their reversionary claim.
The decision to take Steward and Bagley as joint mortgagees rather than a single lender suggests that the £32 0s 0d advance was too substantial for either man to commit alone. The joint structure also gave the Foxes a deeper pool of creditworthiness, since both Steward and Bagley would be jointly responsible for the principal. The arrangement parallels the joint marital conveyances seen elsewhere in the records, but here applied to lenders rather than sellers, and shows the practice of partnership extending into the credit side of property transactions.
The reference to the weir on the Sandy Bay parcel introduces a specific water-management feature. A weir would have been built to control or divert a watercourse, perhaps to power a small mill, to channel water to the plantation or to manage drainage from the upper slopes. The inclusion of the weir in the mortgaged property indicates that the Sandy Bay parcel was equipped with a working hydraulic installation that added significantly to its value. The Hoskison estate at the Little Horse Pasture had included a similar level of improvement, and the weir suggests the Fox parcel was a developed working unit rather than bare land.
The Hartwell to Toster sale of 29 January 1710 closes the loop on the property dealings between the two men. Toster had sold the Chapel Valley dwelling house to Hartwell on 14 April 1709 for £26 0s 0d, and Hartwell now sells back ten acres at the head of Fishers Valley to Toster for £25 0s 0d. The matching figures suggest a balanced exchange of properties between the two soldiers, with each man taking the type of property better suited to his circumstances. The exchange may have been part of a coordinated rearrangement of their holdings after Toster's earlier sales.
The earlier Toster sale of 12 April 1709 had moved twenty-two acres at the head of Fishery Valley to Samuel Jeffrey for £80 0s 0d. The current January 1710 acquisition of ten acres at the head of Fishers Valley from Hartwell brings part of Toster's holdings back into the area, though for a parcel less than half the size of the one sold. The pattern suggests Toster was reorganising rather than departing from the island, with the disposals of April 1709 followed by selective reacquisitions less than a year later.
Sarah Hartwell's joint sealing of the bill of sale, alongside her husband William, brings a married couple again into a conveyance through joint execution. The pattern continues the practice seen in the Bradley, French, Toster and Fox transactions, and confirms that joint marital sealing was a settled feature of the records by 1710. The express extinguishment of the wife's interest through her own seal gave the buyer protection against any later widow's claim.
The witness John Jeffrey of the Hartwell to Toster deed is probably a relative of the Samuel Jeffrey who had bought the twenty-two acres from Toster on 12 April 1709. The Jeffrey family's continuing involvement in transactions concerning Fisher Valley land suggests they were holders or witnesses to multiple adjacent properties in the same area, and the choice of John Jeffrey as the witness reflects the practical use of immediate neighbours and family connections to attest property transfers.
Speculations
The decision by Joseph and Martha Fox to mortgage rather than sell their consolidated property holdings suggests they needed cash for an immediate purpose but wished to retain the underlying assets for the longer term. The £32 0s 0d principal would have been substantial enough to address a particular debt, settlement or investment, while the property remained available to revert to the Foxes on repayment. The use of a mortgage rather than an outright sale, particularly given the existence of the Earle children's claims, gave the family the flexibility to clear the obligation without permanently alienating land or movable property that included their children's interests.
The limitation of the security to Martha Fox's natural life, with the Earle children's interest reverting on her death, places the mortgagees in a precarious position. Steward and Bagley could enforce against the property only during Martha's lifetime, and if she died before they had been fully repaid, the Earle children's claim would extinguish their security in the goods and chattels. The structure suggests that Steward and Bagley were prepared to take this risk in exchange for the modest principal, perhaps because they expected repayment within Martha's expected remaining years.
The matching prices of the Toster-Hartwell exchange, with £26 0s 0d for the Chapel Valley dwelling house and £25 0s 0d for the ten acres at the head of Fishers Valley, suggest a substantive trade rather than two independent transactions. The £1 0s 0d difference favours the rural land slightly over the urban property, but the closeness of the figures indicates that both parties had agreed in advance on a near-equal exchange of value. The structure points to a deliberate swap by which Toster moved out of urban property and into rural land, and Hartwell moved out of rural land and into urban property, with the small cash differential settling the balance.
76
Memorandum
W[m] Marsden to Tho[s] Toster That William Marsden 3 in Counsell of the Island S[t] Helena, for and in Consideration of the Sum of Thirty Two pound in good and Currant Money of the Said Island, to me in hand paied before the Ensealing and Delivery hereof, the Receipt whereof J do hereby Acknowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Sattissfied Contented and paied, have given granted bargained and Sold, and do by these p[r]esents give grant Bargaen, Sell, and Deliver Thomas Toster Souldeier of the Said Island, his heirs, Executors, Administrators, and Assignes One dwelling house Standing and Sectuated on Fort James Valley Next adjoyning to the house Now in the Pofefseon of Dorothy Hayre Wedow which Said house So bargained and Sold as aforesaid unto the Said Thomas Toster, was formerly Thomas Harpers Son[r] dec[d] who Sold the Same to William Marsh free planter, who Sold the Same to Geo[r] Dweight, and the Said Dweight Sold the Same to M[r] William Marrden, To have and to hold the said house, with all and Singulair the Appurtenances thereunto belonging to him the Said Thomas Toster and his Heers for Ever to do and dispose of at his and theer Owne will and pleasure; In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Set my hand this 6 day of March 170⅖
Wittnessed [p] J[n] Roberts Edw[d] Walkborne Daniel Griffeth Matthew Bazett
W[m] Marsden his Thomas + Toster mark
J[n]o French to Tho[s] Burnham Memorandum That J John French Gunner of the Island S[t] Helena, for and in Considera- tion of the Sum of Fourscore pound and Six pence in good and Lawfull Money by me Received, do hereby Affsigne and Transford unto Thomas Burnam of the Island S[t] Helena Free planter his Heers Executors, Administrators, or Assignes, all my Dought Title, Interest, Claim or Demand whatsoever, In the Said Lease and Premefs afore Mentiend; In Wittness whereof J have hereunto Set my hand and Seale this 26 September 1707
Signed Sealed and D[d] in the presence of Ripon Wells Thomas Free
J[n] French [seal]
Memorand[u]m
The Originall Lease of the aforesaid Land is Reg[e]stred in this Book folio 34. 35. to which Refer[s]
William Marsden, third in council of St Helena, sold to Thomas Toster, soldier of the island, a dwelling house in Fort James Valley adjoining the house then in the possession of Dorothy Hayre, widow.
The price was £32 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Marsden acknowledged the sum as received.
The chain of earlier ownership was recited in the deed:
First holder the late Thomas Harper senior
Sold to William Marsh, free planter
Sold to George Dweight
Sold to Mr William Marsden
Toster and his heirs took the house with all appurtenances for ever, to dispose of at their own will and pleasure.
The deed was made on 6 March 1711 and witnessed by John Roberts, Edward Walkborne, Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett. William Marsden set his hand to it. Thomas Toster signed by his mark in the form of a cross.
A separate memorandum recorded an assignment by John French, gunner of St Helena, to Thomas Burnham, free planter of the island. French received £80 0s 6d in good and lawful money. He assigned and transferred to Burnham, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns all his right, title, interest, claim or demand in a lease and premises referred to in an earlier entry.
The deed was signed, sealed and delivered on 26 September 1707 in the presence of Ripon Wells and Thomas Free. John French set his hand and seal to it.
A note appended to the memorandum recorded that the original lease of the land was registered in the same book at folios 34 and 35.
Interpretations
The Marsden to Toster sale of 6 March 1711 completes the chain of ownership of the Fort James Valley house that William Marsden himself had acquired from George Dweight on 12 April 1709. The earlier deed had recorded the same property passing from the late Thomas Harper through William Marsh to Dweight, and the current sale adds Marsden as the fourth recorded holder and Toster as the fifth. The £32 0s 0d price represents a £12 0s 0d increase over the £20 0s 0d Marsden had paid Dweight just under two years earlier, indicating a substantial appreciation in the interval or a particular advantage that Toster was prepared to pay for.
The recital of the full chain of ownership through four named holders is characteristic of urban Fort James Valley deeds and contrasts with the simpler recitations of rural conveyances. The pattern reflects the rapid turnover of small dwelling houses in the urban core, with each successive owner adding their name to a documented sequence. The detail in the recital probably served to give Toster confidence in his title by demonstrating that each transfer had been formally recorded.
Toster's acquisition of the Marsden house on 6 March 1711 fits within the pattern of his property rearrangement during 1709 and 1710. He had sold the Chapel Valley dwelling house to William Hartwell on 14 April 1709 for £26 0s 0d, sold twenty-two acres at the head of Fishery Valley to Samuel Jeffrey on 12 April 1709 for £80 0s 0d, and bought ten acres at the head of Fishers Valley from Hartwell on 29 January 1710 for £25 0s 0d. The current acquisition of the Fort James Valley dwelling house for £32 0s 0d adds an urban property to his rural holdings and shows him systematically rebuilding a balanced estate after his earlier disposals.
The naming of Dorothy Hayre, widow, as the neighbouring holder shows a continuing presence of widows holding property in their own right in the Fort James Valley area. The Hayre or Hayes family name had appeared earlier in the records as Mrs Hays, named as the neighbour to George Dweight's Chapel Valley tenement bought from William Marsh on 8 June 1708. The continued reference to a widow named Hayre or Hayes as the neighbouring holder confirms her established position within the urban property network.
The French to Burnham assignment of 26 September 1707 is unusual in being entered in the records at this point, alongside the substantive transactions of 1709, 1710 and 1711. The chronological misplacement reflects the practice of recording assignments in the register at the time of their entry rather than at the date of their execution, with the register itself serving as the authoritative chronological record. The reference to folios 34 and 35 for the original lease shows the record-keeping system maintaining cross-references between related entries.
The £80 0s 6d consideration for the French assignment is the only recorded transaction in the records with such a precisely calibrated odd sixpence component. The figure suggests a specific calculation rather than a rounded negotiation, perhaps reflecting the precise value of crops, livestock or improvements being assigned alongside the lease itself. The structure shows the planter community's ability to express valuations at a high level of precision when the parties had a particular reason to do so.
Thomas Burnham's role as the recipient of the French assignment, combined with his earlier appearance as the master to whom Susannah Audouart had been placed as an apprentice on 11 August 1709, confirms his settled standing among the established free planters. The acquisition of the lease and premises from French in September 1707 had given him agricultural land or buildings nearly two years before he took on the apprentice, and the pattern suggests Burnham was building a substantial working household across multiple recorded transactions.
The note recording the registry of the original lease at folios 34 and 35 of the same book provides a glimpse of the documentary system in operation. The cross-reference let readers locate the underlying instrument in its original form rather than relying on the present assignment alone. The system suggests an active and well-maintained register in which the relationships between deeds could be traced through specific folio numbers, and the practice probably reflects John Alexander's continuing work as register from at least 1686.
Speculations
The £12 0s 0d appreciation between Marsden's purchase of the Fort James Valley house from Dweight in April 1709 and his sale to Toster in March 1711, against the modest £5 0s 0d appreciation seen in the Hemon-Alexander-Dweight chain over six years, suggests Marsden was either passing on a parcel he had improved during his ownership or extracting a profit margin from a particularly favourable market moment. The contrast with the slower appreciation in other urban properties points to either active improvement or a particular set of circumstances driving the higher price.
Toster's continuing rebuilding of his portfolio through the Marsden acquisition, after his earlier April 1709 disposals of much larger holdings, suggests he had decided to remain on the island rather than to depart. The pattern of substantial 1709 sales followed by selective 1710 and 1711 reacquisitions shows a planter rearranging the balance and location of his estate rather than liquidating it altogether. The Fort James Valley dwelling house gave him a small urban base, while the Fishers Valley parcel provided continuing agricultural ground, and the two together formed a viable working estate at a smaller scale than his earlier holdings.
The French to Burnham assignment of September 1707, entered in the register only alongside the substantive transactions of 1709, 1710 and 1711, suggests the assignment had been kept outside the formal record for some period before being submitted for entry. The reason for the delay is not clear, and the parties may have operated under the assignment privately for some time before deciding to register it. The pattern would be consistent with arrangements that the parties only later sought to formalise, perhaps because of a developing need to clarify title or because of a change in the parties' circumstances that made formal registration desirable.
77
Comp[any]s Lease to J[n]o Orchard The Governour & Company of Merchants of London Tradeing into the said Indees Do hereby Demife Lett & Sett unto John Orchard of the Island S[t] Helena free planter Ten Acres of Land Lying Sectuate in Peter Bagleys abuting upon their Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land towards the East West North and South on the S[a]d Island To have and to hold the Said Premifses to him the Said John Orchard his Execut[r] Adminisl[r] and Assignes for the Term of Ninety nine years to Commence from the 25 day of March 1707 Upon Condition that he the Said John Orchard his Executors Administrat[ors] Assignes Shall always do bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Sovereyne Lady the Queen, his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws & Constituti- [on]s of the Said Island, and Yearly pay at the feast of S[t] Michael the Arch[e] Angel the Annuale Sum of Seven Shillings to the Said Govenour and Company and their Successors In Witness whereof the Said Govern[t] and Company to these p[r]es[en]ts have Sett their Common Seale at their fort upon the Said Island this Tenth day of Aprill in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Three
Sealed in the presence of J[n]o Alexander
Poirier Tho[s] Goodwin
J[n] Orchard to Or[lando] Bagley Island S[t] Helena
To whome this may Concern Know ye that J John Orchard of the Said Island planter Do hereby Asfsigne, and make over all the Right, Title and Interest, and by these p[r]es[en]ts have made over all the S[a]d Right Title and Intrest unto Orlando Bagley of the Said Island free planter his Heirs Execut[r] Administrat[r] and assignes The within Mentioned Lease of Ten acres of Land. September 26 One Thousand Seven hundred Eleven
Deliverd in the presence of us Thomas T Coules his Mark Rich[d] Swallow
John Orchard
Joshpa[?] Tovey to Orlando Bagley 14 June 1713
J have rec[ei]ved the agreement made by M[r] Orlando Bagley as a Consideration for my right to the Lease of Twenty Six Acres of Land which Jn make over to him, he paying all Charges
Witness Rich[d] Swallow Jon[s] Doveton
Yor[r] Jo[s] Pannele Servant A Tovey
Vera Copia [p] Jn[o] Alexander
The Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies leased to John Orchard, free planter of St Helena, ten acres of land at Peter Bagley's. The land was bounded on all four sides by the Company's waste land. The lease was for a term of ninety-nine years, to commence on 25 March 1707.
Orchard and his successors held the land on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to the Queen, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island
Annual rent seven shillings, payable on the feast of St Michael the Archangel each year
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the fort on the island on 10 April 1703 in the presence of John Alexander. Stephen Poirier and Thomas Goodwin signed for the Company.
A separate writing was made on 26 September 1711 by John Orchard. He assigned and made over to Orlando Bagley, free planter of the island, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, all his right, title and interest in the ten-acre lease.
The assignment was delivered in the presence of Thomas Coules, who signed by his mark, and Richard Swallow. John Orchard signed.
A further note recorded an agreement made on 14 June 1713 between Joseph Tovey and Orlando Bagley. Tovey acknowledged the receipt of the consideration made by Bagley for his right to the lease of twenty-six acres of land, which Tovey made over to Bagley. Bagley was to pay all charges associated with the lease.
The note was witnessed by Richard Swallow and Jonathan Doveton. It was signed Yours, Joseph Pannele Servant, and dated A Tovey. John Alexander certified it as a true copy.
Interpretations
The Company lease to John Orchard of 10 April 1703 sets a notably low annual rent for the ten acres at Peter Bagley's. The annual rent of seven shillings on a ninety-nine-year term gave Orchard control of the land for less than the cost of a few weeks' provisions at recorded island prices. The figure compares favourably with the Paul Charles ninety-nine-year Sandy Bay lease at forty shillings annually granted in March 1705, which suggests that the Peter Bagley land was either of lower agricultural value or was being released by the Company on particularly favourable terms to encourage development of a marginal area.
The location of the ten acres at Peter Bagley's, bounded on all four sides by the Company's waste land, identifies the parcel as an island of leasehold within a continuous block of unallotted Company ground. The pattern matches the Richard Swallow purchase from Thomas Cole on 5 June 1705, where the seventeen acres at the head of Deep Valley were also bounded on all sides by Company waste land. Such isolated holdings within Company territory required particular justification, and the Company's willingness to lease them out on long terms suggests an institutional interest in seeing the land worked rather than left idle.
The naming of the land as Peter Bagleys introduces a further Bagley reference to the records. The proliferation of Bagley names across the documents includes Edward Bagley at the head of Lemon Valley, Orlando Bagley senior and junior at the head of Chapel Valley, John Bagley as principal in earlier transactions and as the borrower from Walkborne, and now Peter Bagley as the holder or namesake of a particular parcel. The family had clearly become numerous enough on the island for individual parcels to be identified by reference to specific members.
The Orchard to Bagley assignment of 26 September 1711 transfers the ninety-nine-year leasehold from the original Company lessee to Orlando Bagley. The eight-year interval between Orchard's grant in 1703 and his assignment in 1711 left him with roughly ninety years remaining on the term, which Bagley acquired at whatever value the parties agreed but which is not specified in the visible portion of the deed. The structure shows the Company's long leases functioning as transferable interests within the planter community, with the leases changing hands by assignment rather than by fresh grants.
The Tovey to Bagley note of 14 June 1713 documents a further assignment to Orlando Bagley, this time of a leasehold over twenty-six acres. The note is unusually informal in its drafting, lacking the standard recitals of consideration and the express bargaining language of the conveyances. The structure suggests it was prepared as a receipt or memorandum rather than as a full conveyance, with the substantive transfer effected by the underlying agreement and the note serving to confirm payment and the passage of title.
The undertaking by Orlando Bagley to pay all charges associated with the twenty-six-acre lease is the operative feature of the Tovey arrangement. The phrase suggests that the lease carried outstanding obligations to the Company or to other parties that Tovey was passing on, and Bagley was assuming responsibility for clearing those obligations as part of the consideration. The mechanism let Tovey extract the value of the lease in cash from Bagley while transferring its continuing burdens to the new assignee.
The signature on the Tovey note as Joseph Pannele Servant, together with the dating as A Tovey, presents an apparent inconsistency that the document does not resolve. The combination may reflect Tovey acting through a servant or agent in the actual signing, or it may indicate that the document was prepared in a particular form unfamiliar to the writer of the record. The certification by John Alexander as a true copy suggests that the original document carried the same combination of names, with Pannele perhaps serving as Tovey's agent.
Richard Swallow's appearance as a witness to both the Orchard assignment of September 1711 and the Tovey memorandum of June 1713 places him within Bagley's network of associates in the period. The Swallow name had earlier appeared in the records through the Sech family inheritance arrangements of February 1705 and the Thomas Swallow of the 1682 inquest, and the Richard Swallow named here is probably the younger man who had bought the Deep Valley mansion house from Thomas Cole in June 1705. His role as witness on multiple Bagley transactions indicates a continuing connection between the two households.
Speculations
The Company's decision to lease the Peter Bagley ten acres at the low rent of seven shillings per year reflects either the marginal quality of the land or a deliberate institutional policy of encouraging development of underused areas. The isolation of the parcel within continuous Company waste land would have made it less attractive than land adjoining other improved holdings, and the low rent may have been calibrated to make the lease viable for a planter prepared to work an isolated tract. The ninety-nine-year term gave the lessee enough time to recover any investment in clearing, fencing or planting the ground.
Orlando Bagley's acquisition of two leasehold interests within a twenty-one-month period suggests a deliberate strategy of building up a leasehold portfolio. The Orchard assignment in September 1711 and the Tovey assignment in June 1713 added a combined thirty-six acres of leased land to his estate, none of it requiring substantial capital outlay since the leases came in already-paid form. The strategy let Bagley expand his working area significantly without committing the larger sums that freehold purchases would have demanded, and the long terms gave him the security to make the land productive over decades.
The decision by Joseph Tovey to assign his twenty-six-acre lease to Bagley rather than to work it himself suggests Tovey had either acquired the lease for speculative purposes or had decided to withdraw from active planting. The cash consideration he received from Bagley would have given him liquidity for other purposes, while the assumption of charges by Bagley would have relieved Tovey of any continuing obligations to the Company or to other parties under the lease. The structure points to a transaction that benefited both parties: Tovey converted an illiquid asset into cash, and Bagley gained a substantial working area on terms that included a fixed obligation to discharge the existing charges.
78
Richard Cleves Bill of Sale to James Greentree for a Dwelling House in Jam[s] Vall[ey]
Island S[t] Helena
Cleve to Greentree Know all men by these Presents that I Richard Cleve Souldier [o]n[e] of the said Island Inhabitants for and in Consideration of the Sum of one Hundred Fifty Pounds good and Currant money of the Said Island to me in hand Paid by James Greentree of the Same free holder where[of] J Do hereby acknowledg the rec[ei]pt and my Self therewith fully & Entirely Satisfyed Have bargained Sold Sett over and Delivered and by these Presents in Plain & open Market according to due form of Law in that Cafe made & Provided Doe bargain Sett over and Deliver unto the Said James Greentree his Heirs Execut[r] Administrat[r] and Assigns one Dwelling House Scituate in James valley with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging being for- merly an old House belonging to one Edward Bryan dec[d] Since purchased by Henry Coales also Decid[ed] one by the s[ai]d Cleve Enjoyed Severall years and by him Rebuilt as having Propprice and Lawfull right thereto Ind[e]ed is now Stand- [in]g joyning to the Houses of John Long on the one Side and the house or Remains thereof Late belonging to the before named M[r] Henry Coals To have and to Hold the Said bargained House and prem[i]ses unto the said James Greentree his Heirs Execut[ors] Administrators & Assignes as aforesaid and Every [of] them for Ever. And J the Said Richard Cleve for me Self my Heirs Executors and administrators the Said Bargained House and Premises unto the said James Greentree his Heirs Execut[ors] Administrators and assigns against all and all manner of Persons Shall and will warrant and for Ever Defend by these Presents Jn Witness where of J the Said Richard Cleve hath hereunto Set my hand and Seale the Twenty Second day of June one thousand Seven hundred & fifteen and in the first year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George by the Grace of God King of Great Britain &c[a] Defender of the faith.
Signed Sealed & Delivered In the Presence of Matthew Bazett J[n]o French John Goodwin
Richard C Cleve [seal] Mark
Island S[t] Helena
Goodwin to Greentree Know all men by these Presents that I John Goodwin of the Island af[ore]said free Holder for and in the Consideration of Twenty Eight pounds of Lawfull money to me in hand paid by James Greentree of the Said Island free Holder where of J do hereby acknowledge the Receipt where- of and my Self to be fully and Entirely Satisfyed Have Bargained Set over and Delivered and by these presents according to the Just forme of Law in that Cafe made and provided Do Bargain Set over and Deliver unto the Said James Greentree four acres of Land being part of Ten acres of Land formerly belonging to James Easthope of the Said Island with all the appurtenances there- unto belonging Lying and being near Lemon Vally land To Have and To Hold the said barga- ined premifses unto James Greentree His Heirs Executors Administrators & Assigns to the only proper Use and behoof of him the Said James Greentree his Heirs Executors Administrators and assigns for Ever and J the said John Goodwin for my Self my Heirs Executors administrators and Assigns the said Bargained premises unto the said James Greentree his Heirs Execut[ors] administrators
Richard Cleve, soldier and one of the inhabitants of St Helena, sold to James Greentree, freeholder of the island, a dwelling house in James Valley. The price was £150 0s 0d in good current money of the island, paid in hand. Cleve acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
The chain of earlier ownership was recited in the deed:
First holder the late Edward Bryan, as an old house
Purchased by the late Henry Coales
Held and rebuilt by Richard Cleve, who had enjoyed it for several years and had rebuilt it
The house adjoined the house of John Long on one side and the house, or the remains of it, formerly belonging to the late Mr Henry Coales on the other side.
Greentree and his heirs took the house and premises for ever. Cleve warranted the property against all manner of persons and undertook to defend the title for ever.
The deed was made on 22 June 1715, in the first year of the reign of King George. It was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett, John French and John Goodwin. Richard Cleve signed by his mark in the form of C.
A separate writing was made by John Goodwin, freeholder of the island, to James Greentree, also a freeholder. Goodwin sold to Greentree four acres of land for £28 0s 0d in lawful money, paid in hand. Goodwin acknowledged the sum as received.
The four acres formed part of ten acres formerly belonging to James Easthope of the island. The parcel lay near Lemon Valley land.
Greentree and his heirs took the land with all appurtenances for the proper use and behoof of him and his successors.
Interpretations
The Cleve to Greentree sale of 22 June 1715 documents the highest recorded price for a single dwelling house in James Valley to this point in the records. The £150 0s 0d is well above the £20 0s 0d to £50 0s 0d range that had characterised the urban market through the earlier years, and the difference reflects the value added by the rebuilding of the house. The recital that Cleve had enjoyed the property for several years and had rebuilt it during his ownership shows the substantial physical investment that justified the price, with the rebuilding effectively converting an old structure into a new dwelling worth several times the value of the original.
The chain of ownership recited in the deed, with Edward Bryan as the original holder, Henry Coales as the intermediate purchaser and Richard Cleve as the rebuilder, preserves the documentary history of the property across at least three generations of holders. The pattern of recital reflects the importance of demonstrating clear succession in a transaction of this size, and the inclusion of the rebuilding by Cleve as part of the recital establishes the source of the property's enhanced value as something Cleve himself had created during his tenure.
The boundary description naming John Long as one neighbour and the remains of the late Henry Coales's house as the other places the rebuilt dwelling within a continuous line of urban property in James Valley. The reference to the Coales house as remains suggests that the neighbouring property had fallen into disrepair after Coales's death, and the contrast with Cleve's rebuilt house demonstrates how the urban core could see substantial variations in the physical condition of adjoining properties depending on the resources and commitment of successive holders.
The first appearance of the dating by the reign of King George marks a transition in the records from the reigns covered by earlier deeds. King George I had succeeded Queen Anne on her death in August 1714, and the description of June 1715 as the first year of his reign establishes the continuing currency of regnal dating in the island registers. The transition shows the planter community's records keeping pace with developments in metropolitan succession, with John Alexander or his successors adjusting the dating formulas as needed.
James Greentree's purchase of the rebuilt James Valley house for £150 0s 0d, combined with his earlier acquisitions of the Bevian house with life-interest reservation in October 1705, the Powell twenty acres at the head of Lemon Valley with the slave Oliver and the half-share in the still in March 1703, and now four acres from John Goodwin near Lemon Valley land in June 1715, confirms his position as a major property holder across multiple parts of the island. The pattern shows Greentree building a substantial estate over a period of more than a decade, with both urban and rural holdings reflecting his accumulated capital.
The John Goodwin to Greentree sale of four acres for £28 0s 0d sets the price at £7 0s 0d per acre, which is at the upper end of the upland market established by earlier records. The figure compares with the £7 0s 0d per acre rate of the Hoskison to Powell sale of September 1706 and exceeds the £3 12s 0d per acre of the Toster to Jeffrey sale of April 1709. The premium probably reflects either the particular quality of the Lemon Valley land or a specific feature of the transaction between Goodwin and Greentree.
The recital that the four acres formed part of ten acres formerly belonging to James Easthope connects the current sale to the earlier Easthope to Coole sale of 25 October 1687, where Easthope had sold ten acres at the head of Fisher Valley to John Coole for £8 0s 0d sterling. The chain of subsequent assignments had moved the property through Coole, Edward Brayne and Edward Heath. The current John Goodwin sale of four acres of land near Lemon Valley land described as formerly Easthope's suggests that either the property had moved further down the chain to Goodwin, or that the Easthope reference is to a different parcel from the one in the 1687 deed.
John Goodwin's role here as the seller of the four acres is consistent with his earlier appearance as the principal in the Owen Bevian gift of 1 February 1690, the Trapp purchase of 10 February 1690 and the Greentree witness role on multiple occasions. The current sale shows Goodwin still active as a freeholder and able to dispose of part of an upland parcel for cash. His standing as son of Thomas Goodwin and as the named heir of the Bevian family settlement places him within the most established planter line on the island.
The witnessing of the Cleve to Greentree deed by Matthew Bazett, John French and John Goodwin shows the same John Goodwin acting as witness to a transaction immediately before the related sale of his own four acres to the same buyer. The pattern of the two transactions taken together suggests a coordinated session in which Greentree expanded his holdings on the same day across two different properties, with Goodwin serving as a witness to one and as the principal in the other.
Speculations
The £150 0s 0d that Cleve received for the rebuilt James Valley house represents an extraordinary appreciation over the original old house that had belonged to Edward Bryan and then to Henry Coales. Without records of the price at which Coales had bought from Bryan or at which Cleve had acquired the property, the precise scale of the appreciation cannot be calculated, but the figure places the transaction in a different class from the £20 0s 0d to £50 0s 0d urban sales that had been standard in the earlier records. The premium reflects the value added by the rebuilding and shows the kind of return that substantial improvement could generate in the right market conditions.
Cleve's identification as a soldier rather than as a free planter or freeholder distinguishes him from the established planter community. As a member of the garrison who had bought and rebuilt a substantial property, he occupies an unusual position within the records, where soldiers more commonly appear as buyers of smaller dwelling houses in the £20 0s 0d to £30 0s 0d range. The £150 0s 0d sale to Greentree suggests Cleve had accumulated substantial capital during his service, perhaps through trading activities alongside his soldiering, and the use of that capital to rebuild a house in James Valley shows him operating at a scale comparable to the wealthier free planters.
James Greentree's expansion across multiple property categories over a twelve-year period suggests a household with continuous access to substantial funds. The earlier purchases from Powell in March 1703 for £86 0s 0d, from Bevian in October 1705 for £35 0s 0d and now from Cleve in June 1715 for £150 0s 0d represent a combined commitment of £271 0s 0d in cash for property acquisitions alone. The pattern points to Greentree either having a steady income from commercial activities, having inherited capital from an earlier generation, or having access to credit arrangements that let him commit to large transactions when opportunities arose.
79
and assigns against all and all manner of persons Shall and will warrant and for ever defend by these presents, In witness whereof together with the Delivery of the Said Bargained premiss J have hereunto Set my hand and Seale this Twenty Sixth Day of September in the year of our Lord God One Thousand Seaven hundred and fifteen
Signed Sealed and Deliv[d] in the presence of us Matthew Bazett J[n]o French Joseph Thomlinson
John Goodwin
Beales to y[e] H[on] Comp[any] To all Christian People, To whom these Presents Shall come Know yee That Wee Richard & Anthony Beale both of the Island of S[t] Hele- na Planters & Heirs of Jonathan Beale Planter Deceased for & in consideration of the Sum of Thirty One Pounds ten Shillings to them in hand paid before the Insealing & Delivery hereof, by the worth, the God & Council of this Island for & on the behalf of the Hon[ble] united East India Company the Lords Proprietors of this S[t] Island, the Receipt whereof we Do hereby Acknowledge and our Selves to be fully Satisfied and for other good Causes and considerations us thereunto moving Have bargained Sold, alie- nated & Sett over, And Do hereby Bargaine absolutely Bargaine Sell, alie- nated, asfigne & Set over unto the said Hon[ble] the Lords Proprietors, their Suc- cessors or assigns for Ever, one Part or parcel of Land Lying & being in the High Sireet in James town Chappel Valley known by the name of the half of Cap[t] Beales Land at that place, with one house Standing thereon and joining to y[e] said Hon[ble] Companys Sore house buting & bounding between one other house of the Said Richard & anthony Beales (comonly called Carnes Kitchin on the northward the Highstreet to the Eastward and the Great run to the westward, now in the Pofsefsion of the Said Hon[ble] Comp[any] &c[a] To have & hold the said House & Land with all the rights, Profsits & Enjoyments That Wee or our [P]redecessors ever and might or could Do, as Likewise any right of party Wall or Walls now joining or that may hereafter join to the Said Land In witness whereof Wee have hereunto Sett our hands & Seales at unsea[t] Castle in James Valley this 6 Day of Pebruary 1715/16
Signed Sealed & deliverd in Presence of us Henry Rawlins [E]a[s]t Indeel
Rich[d] Beale An[t] Beale
John Goodwin warranted the four acres of land to James Greentree, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns against all manner of persons and undertook to defend the title for ever. The deed was made on 26 September 1715 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett, John French and Joseph Tomlinson. John Goodwin set his hand and seal to it.
A separate writing was made by Richard Beale and Anthony Beale, both planters of St Helena and heirs of the late Jonathan Beale, planter, to the Honourable United East India Company.
The brothers sold to the Company a parcel of land in the High Street in James Town, Chapel Valley, known as the half of Captain Beale's land at that place, with a house standing on it. The house adjoined the Company's storehouse.
The price was £31 10s 0d, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. The brothers acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
The parcel was bounded as follows:
North another house of Richard and Anthony Beale, commonly called Carne's Kitchen
East the High Street
West the Great Run, then in the possession of the Honourable Company
The Company, its successors and assigns took the house and land for ever, with all rights, profits and enjoyments that the Beales or their predecessors could have done, together with any right of party wall or walls then joining or that might thereafter join to the land.
The deed was made at the Castle in James Valley on 6 February 1716. It was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Henry Rawlins, East Indiaman. Richard Beale and Anthony Beale each signed.
Interpretations
The John Goodwin to Greentree conveyance of 26 September 1715 closes the four-acre sale that had begun three months earlier on 22 June 1715. The interval between the body of the deed and the present completion suggests that the agreement had been entered into in June with the formal sealing delayed until September. The mechanism let the parties settle the substantive terms at an earlier date while delaying the final execution, perhaps to coincide with a particular session of witnesses or with the completion of related transactions.
The Beale brothers' sale to the Company of 6 February 1716 documents the institutional acquisition of a substantial urban property in the heart of James Town. The price of £31 10s 0d for a house and land on the High Street, adjoining the Company's own storehouse, represents a strategic purchase that consolidated the Company's holdings in the immediate area of its operational core. The pattern matches the earlier Lufkin sale to the Company of 26 June 1707 for £350 0s 0d, in which the Company had acquired a thirty-acre estate adjoining its main pastureland, and shows the Company continuing to use direct purchase as a mechanism for expanding its institutional footprint.
The identification of the property as the half of Captain Beale's land introduces a member of the Beale family with a military rank. The Captain Beale referred to in the deed is probably an earlier holder of the parcel before its division between Richard and Anthony Beale, and the rank suggests a connection to either the garrison or to East India Company shipping. The earlier records had mentioned Ellenor Beale, whose legacy descended through her daughter Ellenor Price and was administered by William Chevalls and George Carne in 1707, and the orphans of Jonathan Beale, whose Purslane Bed was named as a boundary feature in the Paul Graton Lemon Garden lease of 23 December 1707. The Captain Beale named here is probably a further member of the same family.
The reference to Carne's Kitchen as the name of the northern neighbouring house owned by the Beale brothers introduces a place name with a clear connection to George Carne, the merchant. The naming of a building after Carne suggests that Carne had at some point occupied or owned the kitchen, perhaps as an outbuilding to a larger property, and the persistence of the name in the deed after the building had passed to the Beales reflects the standard practice of identifying urban properties by reference to a former owner or use.
The boundary description of the parcel locates it precisely within the James Town street grid: the High Street to the east, the Great Run to the west, and the Beale brothers' other house to the north. The High Street identified here is the principal commercial thoroughfare of James Town, and the Great Run is the watercourse that ran through the valley to the sea. The juxtaposition of the High Street frontage with the Great Run boundary placed the parcel between the two principal physical features of the urban core, and the inclusion of the Company's storehouse as the adjoining property to the south reinforces the commercial significance of the location.
The identification of Henry Rawlins as East Indiaman, rather than as a free planter, soldier or council member, places him within the category of Company servants or ship's officers temporarily on the island. East Indiamen were officers or crew of the Company's ships, present on the island during voyages between England and the Indies. The choice of an East Indiaman as the witness to a Company purchase, in addition to the principal Beale brothers' signatures, gave the transaction the attestation of a Company officer not based permanently on the island, and the structure suggests the deed was sealed during a period when a Company ship was in port.
The provision in the deed that the Company took any right of party wall or walls then joining or that might thereafter join to the land addresses a particular feature of urban property in a densely built environment. Party walls were shared structures between adjoining buildings, and the rights and obligations of the neighbouring holders in those walls required express provision. The clause preserves the Company's continuing rights in any party walls that existed at the time of the sale or that might be built in the future, which was particularly relevant given the Company's ownership of the storehouse on the southern boundary.
The signing of the deed at the Castle in James Valley locates the transaction at the principal seat of the Company's administration on the island. The Castle would have been the place where the governor, council and senior officers conducted Company business, and the choice of location for the sealing of the deed reflects the institutional significance of the transaction. The mechanism shows the Company conducting its property dealings at its administrative headquarters rather than at the location of the parcel itself, with the formal sealing taking place in the presence of the Company's senior personnel.
Speculations
The Beale brothers' sale of half of Captain Beale's land to the Company suggests they were realising the value of inherited property that they no longer wished to retain. As heirs of the late Jonathan Beale, Richard and Anthony Beale had received the property through inheritance, and the decision to sell to the Company rather than to another planter indicates that the Company was prepared to pay a price acceptable to the brothers. The mechanism let the heirs convert an inherited urban property into cash, while the Company gained a strategic location adjoining its own storehouse.
The retention by the Beales of the other half of Captain Beale's land, with its house adjoining the parcel sold to the Company, points to a deliberate division of the inheritance rather than a complete liquidation. The brothers kept Carne's Kitchen and any associated buildings to the north, while selling the parcel to the south of it. The structure suggests the division was made along an existing physical boundary, perhaps the line between the two adjacent houses, with each parcel including the building standing on it. The mechanism let the brothers realise the value of one half while retaining the other for their own use or for further disposal at a later date.
The Company's willingness to pay £31 10s 0d for the parcel, when ordinary urban dwelling houses without strategic significance had been selling in the £20 0s 0d to £50 0s 0d range, indicates that the value was set by the location and the proximity to the storehouse rather than by the intrinsic value of the building. The figure represents the Company's institutional valuation of a property whose worth lay in its consolidation with the Company's existing holdings, and the mechanism shows how the Company calibrated its purchases to the strategic benefit rather than to the open-market value of the underlying asset.
80
R[d] & A[nt] Beale to y[e] Comp[a] To all Christian People To whom These Presents Shall Come Know yee That Wee Richard & Anthony Beale both of the Island of S[t] Helena Planters (& Heirs of Jonathan Beale Planter Deceased) for & in consideration of the Sum of Thirty one Pounds ten Shillings to them in hand paid before the Encealing & delivery hereof by the Wor- shipfull the Govern[r] & Council of this Island for & on the behalf of the Hon[ble] united East India Company the Lords Proprietors of this Said Island the Receipt Whereof Wee Do hereby acknowledge & our Selves to be fully Satisfied and for other good causes & considerations us hereunto moving Have bargained Sold alieined & Sett over and Do hereby absolutely Bargain Sold alieinate asfigne & set over unto the Said Hon[ble] Comp[a]y the Lords Proprietors their Successors or assignes for Ever, one part or parcell of Land lying & being in James town, Chapple Valley known by the name of the half of Cap[t] Beales Land Comonly called Carnes Kitchin as aforesaid Butting & bounding between one house formerly the s[d] Richard & Anthony Beales now of M[r] Francis Carnes To have & to hold the Said house & Land with all the rights, prof[s]its & Inj[o]yments that wee or our predecessors Ever did, might or could Do, as likewise any right of party Wall or Walls now joining or what may hereafter, join to the said Land
In Witness where of Wee have hereunto Sett our hands & Seals at union Castle in Jam[s] Valley, Island S[t] Helena, this 9[th] day of February 1715/16
Signed Sealed & Delivered in p[r]esence of Signum [G]uon V Rawlins Tho[s] Hollivell
Richard Beale Anthony Beale
A true Copy Regist[er]ed [p] [P]hilip Forsy
Hodgkinson Indorsed & Articles of Agreement made between Geo[r] & Ann Hodgkinson is Regist[ere]d in Consultation book N[o]15 folio 11
Sanders & Long Agreement made with Geo[r] Sanders to maintaine Rich[d] Alexander dec[d] [Children] Children by J[n]o Long on behalf of himself & Cap[t] [F]as[s]a[ll] & [F]rench[s] Children is Registered in Consultation book N[o] 15 f[ol]o 80
Robinson to y[e] Decd Husband The Bond of J[n]o Robinson with Sureties to pay Onesip[h]erus Sheado (de[a]d) his Childrens Portions is Registered in Cons[u]l[t] book, N[o]15 f[ol]o 39 40
Richard Beale and Anthony Beale, both planters of St Helena and heirs of the late Jonathan Beale, planter, sold to the Honourable Company a further parcel of land in James Town, Chapel Valley. The parcel was known as the half of Captain Beale's land commonly called Carne's Kitchen. The price was £31 10s 0d, paid in hand by the Governor and council on behalf of the Honourable Company, the Lords Proprietors of the island.
The Beale brothers acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge. Other good causes and considerations were also recited as moving them.
The parcel adjoined a house formerly belonging to Richard and Anthony Beale and then held by Mr Francis Carne.
The Company, its successors and assigns took the house and land for ever, with all rights, profits and enjoyments that the Beales or their predecessors could have had. The Company also took any right of party wall or walls then joining or that might thereafter join to the land.
The deed was made at Union Castle in James Valley on 9 February 1716. It was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of George Rawlins and Thomas Hollivell, who signed by his mark. Richard Beale and Anthony Beale each signed. Philip Forsy registered the deed as a true copy.
Three further notes were entered in the register, recording the existence of agreements held elsewhere:
A document concerning George and Ann Hodgkinson indorsed as articles of agreement and registered in consultation book number 15 at folio 11
An agreement to maintain the children of the late Richard Alexander made by George Sanders with John Long on behalf of himself and the children of Captain Fassall and French, registered in consultation book number 15 at folio 80
A bond by John Robinson with sureties to pay the children of the late Onesipherus Sheado their portions, registered in consultation book number 15 at folios 39 and 40
Interpretations
The second Beale brothers' sale to the Company of 9 February 1716, made three days after the sale of the southern half of Captain Beale's land, completes the disposal of the entire inherited parcel. The two sales together brought the Beales a combined £63 0s 0d in cash and gave the Company a continuous frontage in James Town adjoining its storehouse and the property of Mr Francis Carne. The structure shows the Company building a contiguous block of urban property through successive purchases from the same family within a single week.
The matching price of £31 10s 0d for the second half, identical to the figure paid for the first, indicates that the Company had valued the two halves equally and the brothers had accepted symmetric terms for the related transactions. The mechanism may have been agreed at the outset, with both deeds prepared and sealed in close sequence to give the Company a complete title to Captain Beale's land in a single coordinated operation. The pricing suggests that the parcels were of broadly equivalent size and value, with neither half carrying a particular premium over the other.
The reference to Mr Francis Carne as the holder of the adjoining house, formerly belonging to Richard and Anthony Beale, introduces a new generation of the Carne family into the records. George Carne, the merchant, had been the principal figure of the Carne household across the earlier records, with his wife Mary Carne acting as his attorney during his absences. The Francis Carne identified here is probably a son or nephew of George Carne, and his acquisition of a property formerly held by the Beale brothers suggests a continuing Carne family presence in James Town adjacent to the Beale holdings.
The naming of the location as Union Castle in James Valley represents an evolution from the earlier reference to the Castle in James Valley in the 6 February 1716 deed. The two references both denote the same building, but the explicit naming as Union Castle in the second deed provides a fuller identification. The structure suggests that the Castle had acquired a formal name by this period, perhaps reflecting institutional naming conventions that became more established as the Company's presence on the island developed.
Philip Forsy's appearance as the register of the deed marks a transition from John Alexander's long tenure in that role. Alexander had served as the register and clerk of the council from at least 1686, witnessing and certifying transactions across more than thirty years of the records. The current deed shows Forsy taking on the duty of registration, and the change reflects the natural turnover of the register's office over time. Alexander's continuing role through to the early years of George I's reign and the succession of Forsy as the certifying register indicate that the registry function remained continuous across the transition.
The three notes recording agreements held in the consultation book number 15 introduce a category of records that the register has not previously highlighted in this set. The consultation book served as the record of the Governor and council's deliberations and decisions, and the cross-references to specific folios within that book give the location of substantive agreements that had not been entered in the deeds register itself. The mechanism shows the dual record-keeping system of the island, with property transactions in one book and consultation business in another, and cross-references maintaining the connection between the two.
The first of the three notes concerns George and Ann Hodgkinson, whose articles of agreement are recorded as registered in the consultation book without further detail of their substance. The name Hodgkinson does not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed so far, and the reference here serves only to indicate the existence of the underlying agreement rather than its content. The pattern shows the registry system functioning as a finding aid for related documents stored elsewhere, with the brief notation in the deeds register pointing readers to the substantive entry in the consultation book.
The second note records the agreement by which George Sanders undertook to maintain the children of the late Richard Alexander, made through John Long acting on behalf of himself and the children of Captain Fassall and French. The arrangement appears to be a multi-party undertaking to provide for the orphans of three different families: Alexander, Fassall and French. The mechanism mirrors the Doveton apprenticeships of 1707 and 1708 in placing responsibility for orphaned children with a specified household, but on a more institutional basis through the consultation book rather than through individual indentures.
The third note records the bond by John Robinson with sureties to pay the children of the late Onesipherus Sheado their portions. The arrangement uses a bond rather than an agreement, which gave the children's interests a more secure legal foundation through the surety system. The mechanism shows the island administration ensuring that orphans received their inherited portions through formal undertakings backed by named guarantors, with the bond functioning as the legal vehicle for protecting the children's claims against the risk of default.
Speculations
The Beale brothers' decision to sell both halves of Captain Beale's land to the Company within three days suggests they had concluded that the entire parcel was best disposed of in a single coordinated transaction. The retention of either half without the other would have created practical difficulties of access, services and party walls, and the simultaneous sale of both halves to the same buyer avoided these complications. The mechanism let the brothers exit the inherited property completely, with the Company gaining a unified block that could be administered as a single asset.
The appearance of Mr Francis Carne as a substantial James Town property holder by 1716, replacing the earlier role of George Carne in the records, suggests that the older generation of the Carne family had given way to the next. George Carne's earlier dealings had stretched back to 1704, and the appearance of Francis Carne in his place by 1716 indicates either George's death or his retirement from active property dealings. The Carne family's continuing presence in James Town shows the persistence of the household across generations, with the urban property remaining within the family even as the principal figure changed.
The grouping of three different orphan-protection records as cross-references at the end of the Beale entries suggests that the register was being used as a comprehensive finding aid for all the major institutional arrangements concerning particular categories of beneficiaries. The orphans of Alexander, Fassall, French and Sheado are all named in the brief notations, and the pattern indicates an administrative practice of bringing together related records through cross-references within the deeds register. The mechanism would have helped a reader searching for protection arrangements for any specific orphan to locate the relevant substantive record in the consultation book.
81
Copy of Consultation ab[ou]t fenc[i]ng in Land, Deed[s] T[r]ans[fers] &c[a]
Island S[t] Helena
At a Consultation held on Friday the 6[th] day of Aprill 1711 Att the United Castle in James Vally
Pres[ent]
J[n]o Roberts Esq[r] Governour Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Governeur W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Councill Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Councill Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Councill
Forasmuch as this Island Ever Since it was Retaken from the Dutch has Layn Unsell[e]d and the Inhabitants have not been ffix d[i]sh in their Estates und Properby, which has been very prejudicall to the Lords Proprietors of this Island, As well as to the Inhabitants in Generall, Notwithstanding the Repeated Orders from the An[t]ient Old Company for so doing Especially the Lands Lye Unfenced, No Land Marks, Or Pillars of the Same thereby making Re- ad[e]ly the Lands lye Unfenced, No Land Marks, Or Pillars of the Same thereby making Re- in a Consultation of the 8[th] February 170⅔ Resolve that a New Register book be kept and Roome left for J[s]land, and all P[i]ec[i]s of Lands Registred in the Said books Jointly with the Lease or Deed and on Ent[e]rning Planter Or Other, who Should any way[s] [or] should be or stand[e]s of any parcel thereof. Might Repaier to the Registers Book, and Ent[e]ring which parcel he do So Transford [as] from A. to B. and C. to D. in the Said Island, where the Same in the Register book being Per[i]celd off, Containing So many Acres, that Should be a Sufficiend Transford &c[a]
And this Order of Councell was [p]ursuant to an Order of the Antient Old Company to Cap[t]n Anthony Beale in 1678
And that We might the better Know the bounds and Landmarks &c[a] Agree and consent that the Antient Old Law for Tenency in the 63 P[a]rragraph of A Letter dated 1[t] August 1683 and 1685 Should Commence a New from the 25 of March 1709, and the three years End the 25 of March 1712, at the Expiration of which time If the Inhabitants do not fence in their Lands they forfee[t] the Same to the
Lords
A consultation was held on Friday 6 April 1711 at Union Castle in James Valley. The members present were:
John Roberts, esquire governor.
Edward Walkborne deputy governor.
William Marsden third in council.
Daniel Griffeth fourth in council.
Matthew Bazett fifth in council.
The consultation addressed the long-standing problem of unsettled land tenure on the island. The council observed that since the retaking of St Helena from the Dutch the inhabitants had not been fixed in their estates and properties. The Lords Proprietors and the inhabitants alike had been prejudiced by this state of affairs, despite repeated orders from the old Company.
A particular difficulty was that the lands lay unfenced, without landmarks or pillars to identify their bounds. This made it difficult to determine the extent of any parcel.
The council recited its earlier decision, taken at a consultation on 8 February 1703, that a new register book should be kept. Each parcel of land was to be entered in the new book together with the lease or deed conveying it. Any planter or other party seeking to transfer land was to record the transfer in the register, identifying the parties and the parcel by reference to its earlier entry, with the entry confirming the validity of the transfer.
The 1703 order had been made in accordance with an earlier order of the old Company to Captain Anthony Beale in 1678.
To address the further problem of identifying the bounds and landmarks of each parcel, the council resolved to revive the ancient tenancy law contained in paragraph 63 of a letter dated 1 August 1683 and 1685. The three-year period set by that law was to begin afresh from 25 March 1709 and to end on 25 March 1712.
If, at the expiration of that period, the inhabitants had not fenced in their lands, they were to forfeit the lands to the Lords Proprietors.
Interpretations
The 6 April 1711 consultation documents the island administration grappling with a structural problem of land tenure that had persisted since the retaking of the island from the Dutch in 1673. The recital that the inhabitants had not been fixed in their estates and properties for nearly forty years shows the council acknowledging that the underlying framework of land registration and boundary marking had remained incomplete despite repeated institutional efforts. The pattern reveals a tension between the formal aspiration of clear title and the practical reality of land held without proper fences, landmarks or pillars to identify its bounds.
The reference back to the 1678 order of the old Company to Captain Anthony Beale, and the 1683 and 1685 letter containing paragraph 63 of the ancient tenancy law, establishes a documentary chain stretching across three decades of institutional concern with the same problem. The repetition of orders over so long a period indicates the difficulty of changing actual practice on the ground, with the inhabitants apparently continuing to hold and work their land without complying with the formal requirements of fencing and boundary marking. The current consultation represents a further attempt to enforce compliance through the threat of forfeiture.
The decision to revive the three-year period from 25 March 1709 to 25 March 1712 sets a deadline for the inhabitants to fence in their lands. The choice of Lady Day as the starting point reflects the standard English legal calendar, and the three-year window gave the inhabitants until the spring of 1712 to bring their holdings into compliance. The forfeiture sanction shows the council using the strongest available remedy short of direct seizure, with the prospect of losing land providing the institutional pressure needed to overcome the inertia of established practice.
The decision to keep a new register book, with each parcel entered together with the underlying lease or deed and with subsequent transfers recorded by cross-reference, established the documentary system that the later records show in operation. The 18 December 1707 register-recopying attestation by John Alexander, which had described the older book as unbound and decayed by rats, fits within this broader institutional effort to rebuild the registration system. The current 1711 consultation reinforces that the new system was to be maintained as the authoritative record, with each transfer requiring formal entry rather than private dealing.
John Roberts as governor in April 1711 represents a transition from the earlier records, in which Thomas Goodwin had been described as governor from 1707. The change in personnel between the August 1708 council sessions and the April 1711 consultation indicates that the institutional leadership of the island had shifted, with Roberts now in the senior position and Walkborne continuing as deputy governor. The presence of Marsden, Griffeth and Bazett as third, fourth and fifth in council provides a fuller picture of the council's composition than the earlier records had shown.
The numbering of the council members from first through fifth gives a precise institutional hierarchy that the earlier records had not always made explicit. The structure shows the governor and deputy governor at the head, followed by three further members in defined order, with the seniority probably determining the order in which they signed deeds and gave their consent to council resolutions. The pattern matches the standard early-modern practice of senior officers in a corporate body acting in a fixed sequence according to their position.
The threat of forfeiture to the Lords Proprietors as the sanction for failure to fence shows the Company asserting its underlying ownership of the island land. The inhabitants held their parcels under grants or leases from the Company, and the Company retained the right to reclaim land that was not maintained according to the terms of the original tenure. The mechanism converted the inhabitants' apparent freeholds into something closer to conditional tenancies, with continued ownership dependent on compliance with the institutional requirements.
The recital of paragraph 63 of the 1683 and 1685 letter as the ancient tenancy law indicates that the original framework for land tenure on the island had been set out in detailed instructions from the Company to its officers on the island. The persistence of the same framework across nearly thirty years, despite the institutional changes between the old Company and the United East India Company, shows the continuity of the underlying legal structure. The current consultation revives rather than replaces that framework, applying the same three-year period to a new starting date.
Speculations
The decision by the council to set the three-year period running from 25 March 1709 rather than from the date of the consultation itself suggests an attempt to provide a measured timetable for compliance. By starting the clock at a date already past, the council in effect compressed the available remaining time to under twelve months from the April 1711 consultation to the March 1712 deadline. The structure may have reflected a judgement that the inhabitants had already had ample warning and that further indulgence would simply prolong the problem, with the truncated deadline acting as a stronger spur to action.
The acknowledgement that the underlying issue had persisted since the retaking of the island, despite repeated orders dating back to 1678, points to a structural mismatch between the Company's institutional requirements and the practical realities of fencing land on the island. The labour, materials and time required to fence even a modest holding would have been considerable, and the inhabitants may have judged the effort uneconomic compared to the benefits of clearly demarcated bounds. The persistence of the problem suggests that the Company's preferred remedy was unattractive enough to the planter community to outweigh even repeated threats of institutional sanction.
The use of forfeiture as the sanction shows the council reaching for the most direct institutional lever available. Lesser remedies, such as fines, levies or restrictions on transfer, had presumably been considered and rejected as insufficient. The forfeiture mechanism placed the cost of non-compliance directly on the inhabitants' principal asset, their land, and avoided the practical difficulty of collecting fines from a population whose cash resources were limited. The structure points to an institutional calculation that only the threat of losing land entirely would change established behaviour.
82
Lords Proprietors Since which time Severall Inhabitants haveing Complyed with the Same and fenced on their Lands have Petitioned to be Established thereon, and M[r] Bazett haveing had Sundry Warrants to Islan[d] and Measure the Same which from time to time he L[a]ys before us
Wherefore Ordered
That the Plant and Deeds be Registered in a book Seperate from all Others and that this Consultation be Entered on the Said book as a Preamble thereto
J[n] Roberts Edw[d] Walkborne W[m] Marsden Daniel Griffeth Matthew Bazett
W[m] Bidott to J[n]o Alexander Know all men by these presents That J Will[m] Bidott Chirurgeon on y[e] Island of S[t] Helena ffor and Inconsideration of the Sum of Twenty five pounds Currant money of S[ai]d Island to me in hand paid before y[e] Ensealing and Delivery of these p[r]esents the receipt where of J do hereby acknowledge, and my Selfe to be fully Sattisfyed Contented and Paied, and for Diver[s] good Caufses and Considerations him thereunto moveing Have given Granted Bargained and Sold, and do Clearly firmly and absolutely, Bargain Sell and Deliver unto John Alexander one Mefseuage Standing in Fort James Valley next adjoyning unto the House appertaining and belonging unto Mary y[e] Daughter of Thomas Birch, which Said House is a Legaty given unto Elisabeth, the Said W[m] Bidotts wife, by William Price as it may more at large appear and by the Said Priece last will and Testam[t]. Bearing dat[e] y[e] 1 day of Decemb[r] 1692 To have and to hold the Said House to him y[e] Said John Alexander and his heires for Ever and J the Said Will[m] Bedott do hereby Covenant and agree to and with y[e] s[ai]d Alexander that he Shall have hold Occupie Pofefs and Enjoy the Said Hous[e] aforesaid w[ithout] any manner of Interruption Mollestation or Contradiction of me the Said W[m] Bidott, my heires &c[a] Execut[r] or assigns, or from or by any other p[er]son or persons whatsoever by my means consent or procurement whatsoever, In Witness whereof J have hereunto Set my hand and Seale this 24[th] Day of March 1700
Sealed Signed & D[d] in p[r]esence of us Rippin Wells Richard Alexander
W[m] Bidott [seal]
The consultation continued by noting that since the earlier orders several inhabitants had complied with the fencing requirement and had petitioned the council to be established in their holdings. Mr Bazett had received various warrants to measure and lay out the land, and he had laid the results before the council from time to time.
The council ordered the following:
A separate book to be kept for the plans and deeds, distinct from all other records.
This consultation to be entered on the new book as a preamble.
The order was signed by John Roberts, Edward Walkborne, William Marsden, Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett.
A separate writing was made by William Bidott, surgeon on the island, to John Alexander. Bidott sold to Alexander a messuage in Fort James Valley adjoining the house appertaining to Mary, daughter of Thomas Birch. The price was £25 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Bidott acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge. Other good causes and considerations were also recited as moving him.
The house had been a legacy left to Elizabeth Bidott, William's wife, by William Price under his last will and testament dated 1 December 1692.
Alexander and his heirs took the house for ever. Bidott covenanted that Alexander and his successors would hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the property without disturbance from Bidott, his heirs, executors or assigns, or from any person acting through him.
The deed was made on 24 March 1701 and sealed and delivered in the presence of Ripin Wells and Richard Alexander. William Bidott set his hand and seal to it.
Interpretations
The closing portion of the consultation reveals that Matthew Bazett was the council member responsible for the practical work of measuring and laying out the lands. The role placed him in the position of surveyor or land commissioner for the island, and his receipt of warrants to undertake specific measurements shows the council's reliance on a single trusted figure to translate the formal requirements of registration into physical reality on the ground. The pattern matches his earlier active role across the records as witness, principal in property transactions and accumulator of his own estate at Sheel Valley and Deep Valley.
The decision to keep the plans and deeds in a separate book, with the present consultation entered as a preamble, shows the council establishing a dedicated record for the new system of land registration. The mechanism separates the formal land record from the consultation book and from other administrative records, giving the property registration its own authoritative document. The structure provides the institutional basis for the registry system that the later records show in operation, with John Alexander and his successors maintaining the book as the central reference for all land transactions.
The Bidott to Alexander sale of 24 March 1701 documents a transaction by which the property passed through a legacy of an earlier deceased holder. William Price had left the house to Elizabeth Bidott by his will of 1 December 1692, and her husband William Bidott was now selling the inherited property to John Alexander. The mechanism shows how testamentary dispositions worked their way through multiple generations of ownership, with property bequeathed to a wife passing through her husband's hands in the sale and the original testator's name continuing to appear as part of the documentary chain.
The naming of William Bidott as surgeon places him in a particular institutional category. As a surgeon on the island, he would have held a recognised professional position attached to the garrison or to the Company's general establishment. The role gave him standing distinct from the soldier, gunner or free planter categories that the records most commonly use, and his appearance as the seller of inherited property shows that professional men with non-planter offices could nonetheless acquire and dispose of substantial holdings through marriage to a beneficiary.
The boundary reference to the house belonging to Mary, daughter of Thomas Birch, identifies a property held by an unmarried woman in her own right. Mary Birch's named ownership of an adjacent house shows that daughters could hold urban property independently of their fathers or husbands, with the identification by reference to her father simply providing the kinship marker rather than indicating that the property belonged to him. The pattern is consistent with the broader presence of women as property holders across the records, including widows like Margaret Cotgrave, Sarah Harding and Dorothy Hayre, and now an unmarried daughter holding in her own name.
John Alexander's acquisition of the Bidott house in March 1701 marks his appearance as a principal in a property transaction. His earlier roles in the records have been as register, witness and certifier of true copies, and the current deed shows him buying property in his own right while continuing to serve in his institutional capacity. The combination of official position and personal property dealings was characteristic of the small literate circle on the island, with Alexander joining Goodwin, Walkborne, Marsden and others in building a personal estate alongside his administrative duties.
The use of the standard formula for divers good causes and considerations alongside the recited £25 0s 0d preserves the documentary convention of acknowledging unspecified additional elements of the bargain. The mechanism appeared in the Trapp to Goodwin sale of February 1690 and in many subsequent deeds, and its continued use here shows the planter community's reliance on the formula as a way of leaving side arrangements out of the written record while preserving their legal weight as consideration.
Richard Alexander's appearance as a witness to the Bidott to John Alexander deed, in addition to Ripin Wells, suggests a family connection between the two Alexanders. Richard Alexander had earlier appeared as the buyer of a Chapel Valley dwelling house from John Hemon on 12 April 1704 and as the seller to George Dweight on 16 March 1710, and his role as witness to John Alexander's 1701 purchase places him as a probable kinsman supporting the senior figure in his property dealings. The pattern confirms the Alexander family's presence at the heart of the documentary system on the island.
Speculations
The institutional decision to keep a separate book for the plans and deeds, recorded in April 1711, indicates that the council viewed the land registration problem as serious enough to require a dedicated documentary infrastructure rather than simply additional entries in existing records. The separation gave the land registry an independent existence within the island's administrative system, and the choice to enter the consultation itself as the preamble to the book ensured that future readers would understand the institutional framework within which subsequent entries were made.
The persistence of the Birch family name in the boundary descriptions, with Mary Birch as the daughter of Thomas Birch holding adjoining property, suggests that the Birch family had been settled in Fort James Valley for some considerable time. The Thomas Birch named here is probably the same man who had been the original holder in some earlier exchange recorded in the 1682 inquest or in subsequent records, and the continuing identification of properties by reference to him after his death shows the staying power of family names in the urban geography.
William Bidott's role as a surgeon disposing of inherited property in 1701 suggests his professional position was the primary source of his livelihood, with the inherited house representing a windfall asset rather than the core of his estate. The decision to sell the property to John Alexander for £25 0s 0d in cash, rather than to retain it for residential or rental use, points to Bidott preferring liquidity over property ownership. The mechanism let him convert an inherited urban asset into capital that he could use in his professional or personal affairs, and the choice of Alexander as the buyer reflects the natural circulation of property within the small literate and institutional circle on the island.
83
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[anys] Lease to Tho[s] Bagley The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] the United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies
Do Hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto Thomas Bagley of the Island S[t] Helena Free Plant[r] One and Twenty Acres of Land with a Dwelling house upon the Same Lying Sciteate and being in Sandy Bay Under the Maein Ridge Adjoyning to Thomas Perkins towards the North, Towards the East one West to William Naughton Land, Towards the South to Rechard Swallows Land
To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said Thomas Bagley his Executors, Adminis- trators, and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Years, Commencing from the 25 of March 1711
Upon Condition that he the said Thomas Bagley his Executors, Administrators, and assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To Our Sovereygn Lady Queen Anne Her Heirs and Successors, also to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, and Yearly Pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the 25 day of March the Annnualle Rent of Five Pound Five Shillings in good and Currant Money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and that the said Thomas Bagley his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Shall and do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the said s[a]land in as good about y[e] Lands and as good a Condition as may [be] at present, And further the said Thomas Bagley shall in his hand Markts, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Roll hereunto Annexed, Nor Dispose of his Lease, Or Interest in the Same, without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the Time being
In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company to these p[r]esents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this 25 Day of March, in the Year of Our Lord 1711 and the said Thomas Bagley to the Other Part hath set his hand and Seale
Sealed and Delivered In the p[r]esence of us J[n] Roberts Governour Edw[d] Walkborne D[ep]ty Govern[r] W[m] Marsden 3[r] in Cancill Daniel Griffeth 4[t] in Councill Matthew Bazett 5[t] in Councill
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Bagley, free planter of St Helena, twenty-one acres of land with a dwelling house. The parcel lay in Sandy Bay under the main ridge.
The parcel was bounded as follows:
North the land of Thomas Perkins.
East and West the land of William Naughton.
South the land of Richard Swallow.
Bagley and his successors held the premises for a term of twenty-one years, commencing on 25 March 1711.
The lease was granted on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Annual rent £5 5s 0d in good current money of the island, payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
Condition of return at the expiration of the twenty-one-year term, to leave the land in as good a condition as at present.
Restrictions on the lease no alteration of the boundary marks set out in the annexed roll, and no disposal of the lease or interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 25 March 1711. Thomas Bagley set his hand and seal to the other part of the lease.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, and Matthew Bazett, fifth in council.
Interpretations
The Company lease to Thomas Bagley of 25 March 1711 documents the implementation of the new tenure system that the consultation of 6 April 1711 would formalise eleven days later. The lease was sealed on 25 March, the very date that the consultation would identify as the starting point for the revived three-year fencing period, and the commencement of the twenty-one-year term from the same date shows the Company aligning the new lease with the institutional calendar of land tenure on the island. The structure suggests Bagley was among the early planters bringing their holdings into formal compliance under the new arrangements.
The annual rent of £5 5s 0d for twenty-one acres works out at five shillings per acre, which is a substantial figure compared to the seven-shilling annual rent for the John Orchard ten-acre lease at Peter Bagley's of 10 April 1703. The Bagley lease therefore carries a rent more than fifteen times higher per acre than the Orchard lease, indicating that the Sandy Bay land under the main ridge was viewed as significantly more valuable than the isolated Peter Bagley parcel. The pattern shows the Company calibrating its rents to the agricultural quality and location of each leased holding.
The twenty-one-year term, in contrast to the ninety-nine-year terms of the earlier Paul Charles Sandy Bay lease of March 1705 and the John Orchard lease of April 1703, represents a shorter and more conventional length of tenure. The choice may reflect a deliberate institutional move away from the very long terms granted in earlier years, with the Company preferring to retain the ability to revisit its leases at more frequent intervals. The structure gives the Company the opportunity to adjust rents, terms or boundaries at the expiry of each term rather than committing the land for the lifetime of any planter and his successors.
The restrictions on the lease, particularly the prohibition on disposing of the interest without the consent of the governor and council, mark a significant departure from the earlier pattern. The Orchard lease of 1703 had been freely assigned to Orlando Bagley in 1711 and the Heath leases of earlier years had been similarly transferable. The Bagley lease here introduces an institutional control over assignments, with the Company retaining the right to approve or block any onward transfer. The mechanism reflects the council's interest in maintaining direct oversight of who held its leased lands.
The reference to the annexed roll showing the boundary marks indicates that the lease was accompanied by a survey or sketch identifying the precise extent of the parcel. The roll would have been part of the new documentary system that the April 1711 consultation would describe, with the plans and deeds being kept in a separate book. The Bagley lease therefore documents the working system of land registration that the council was formalising, with the lease itself serving as the textual instrument and the annexed roll providing the physical description.
The boundary description names Thomas Perkins, William Naughton and Richard Swallow as the adjoining holders. Richard Swallow had earlier appeared in the records as the buyer of the Deep Valley mansion house from Thomas Cole on 5 June 1705 for £104 0s 0d, and his presence as the southern neighbour of the Bagley lease places his Sandy Bay holdings adjacent to Bagley's. Thomas Perkins and William Naughton do not appear in the earlier records reviewed in this set, and their identification here as adjoining holders introduces them as established planters in Sandy Bay by 1711.
The reference to the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary as the rent day, with 25 March named as the relevant date, fits the standard English quarter-day calendar in which Lady Day served as the start of the legal year and as one of the four principal quarter days. The choice of this date aligned the lease with metropolitan practice and gave the Company a clear, calendar-fixed point for the receipt of rents. The pattern matches the Paul Graton Lemon Garden lease of 23 December 1707, which also used Lady Day as the rent day.
The signing of the lease by the full council of John Roberts, Edward Walkborne, William Marsden, Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett shows the institutional weight given to the formal implementation of the new tenure system. The council members appear in the same order and with the same titles as in the 6 April 1711 consultation, confirming that the same body was responsible for both the policy decisions and the individual leases issued under them. The mechanism gave the Bagley lease the full backing of the council and demonstrated the seriousness with which the new arrangements were being applied.
Speculations
The decision to grant Thomas Bagley a twenty-one-year lease at a substantial annual rent, rather than to confirm his holding under any earlier or longer-term grant, suggests that the council was systematically converting older arrangements into the new shorter-term leases. The mechanism would have let the council regularise the position of planters whose earlier titles were uncertain or whose holdings had not been formally registered, with the new leases providing both clear documentation and a regular stream of rental income. The pattern points to an institutional restructuring of the entire land tenure system around the new framework.
The introduction of the requirement for council consent to any disposal of the lease represents a significant institutional intervention in the operation of the planter property market. Under the earlier free assignment regime, leases had circulated within the planter community in much the same way as freeholds, with the Company having no role in approving the new holder. The current restriction gave the council a veto over who took the land, and the mechanism may have been intended either to maintain agricultural standards by approving only competent assignees, or to maintain political control by approving only loyal planters.
The five-shilling-per-acre annual rent on the Bagley lease compares unfavourably with the very low rents recorded in earlier leases, and the increase points either to a general rise in agricultural rents or to a particular institutional decision to extract higher returns from leased land. If the new tenure system was intended to apply across all leased holdings on the island, the increased rents would have generated a substantial flow of revenue to the Company, and the structure of twenty-one-year terms ensured that the rents could be revisited at relatively frequent intervals to keep pace with changing conditions.
84
Comp[anys] Deed to J[n]o Roberts The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby grant and Confirm[e] to John Roberts Esq[r] Governeur of the Island S[t] Helena, That P[i]eece or parcell of Ground Waste between the Wall of the Store Yarrd, and the Wall of the Church Yard in James Vally, Conteindon[g] by Estimation Forty three Foot Front, and Allso what ground He can make backwards to the Water [c]ost[a] To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said John Roberts, his Heers and Assigner for Ever, Yeilding and paying yearly and Every year at the Annunciation of the Blessed Vorgen Mary being the Twenty fifth day of March the Annuall Sum of Five Shillings Currant Money of the Said Island ground Rent for the Same To the Said Hon[ble] Company and their Successor[s], In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company to these p[r]esents have Set their Comon Seale at their Castle upon the Said Island this Tewfday of Aprell In the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven hundred and Eleven
Sealed and Delevered in the presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Govern[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] W[m] Marsden 3 in Coun[m] Daniell Griffeth 4[th] in Counc[ill] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m]
The Hon[ble] Company in England, bought this in of Govern[r] Roberts in London for £000 even £15
Cotgrave to Alex[d] Know all men by these presents that J Elinor Cotgrave widdow and relict of Gilbert Cotgrave Late of the Island S[t] Helena free planter Deid[ed] for and in Consideration of the Sume of Ninty pounds in Currant mony of this R[t]. Island to me in hand paid by J[n]o Alexander before y[e] Ensealing and Delivery hereof wherewith J acknowledge my Self to be fully Sattisfyed Contented and paid Have given granted Bargained and Sold and by these presents do Clearly & abtsoutly Bargain Sell and his heirs forall and Singular that peice or parcell of Land Conteyning by Estimation Seventy Acres of Land formerly the Lott Lands of Tehu Cotgrave of the s[ai]d Island free planter dec[d] and Since in the possess- ion and occupation of the s[ai]d M[r] Gilbert Cotgrave, his Eldest Son, Lying Sciteate in y[e] Valley Called Young[s] Vally, on East of S[ai]d Island next adjoyning to the S[ai]d J[n] Alex[r] own Land formerly the lott of John Matthews &
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, granted to John Roberts, esquire, governor of St Helena, a piece of waste ground in James Valley. The parcel lay between the wall of the Store Yard and the wall of the Churchyard. It measured forty-three feet in frontage, together with whatever ground Roberts could make backwards to the watercourse.
Roberts and his heirs took the premises for ever.
The annual ground rent was as follows:
Five shillings in current money of the island payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on the Tuesday in April 1711. It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, and Matthew Bazett, fifth in council.
A note appended to the grant recorded that the Honourable Company in England later bought back the parcel from Governor Roberts in London for £15 0s 0d.
A separate writing was made by Elinor Cotgrave, widow and relict of Gilbert Cotgrave, late free planter of St Helena, to John Alexander. Elinor sold to Alexander a parcel of seventy acres for £90 0s 0d in current money of the island, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. She acknowledged the sum as received and gave a full discharge.
The land had formerly been the lot of the late Tehu Cotgrave, free planter of the island, and had passed to his eldest son Gilbert Cotgrave, who had held it until his death. The parcel lay in Youngs Valley on the east of the island. It adjoined Alexander's own land, formerly the lot of John Matthews.
Interpretations
The Company grant to John Roberts of April 1711 records the governor receiving a personal grant of waste ground in James Valley from the institution that he himself served. The structure raises an inherent question of self-dealing, since Roberts presided over the council that sealed the grant, but the formal involvement of the deputy governor and three other council members provided the appearance of institutional approval. The mechanism shows how the senior office-holder could acquire personal property through the Company's land system while occupying the position that had to authorise the grant.
The annual ground rent of five shillings represents a low figure even by the standards of waste-ground grants. The Orchard lease of April 1703 had carried an annual rent of seven shillings for ten acres of leased land, and the current grant gives Roberts a freehold of a substantial waste plot for less than that figure. The contrast between Roberts's terms and the conditions imposed on other planters under the new tenure regime, including the higher rents and shorter terms documented in the Thomas Bagley lease of the same period, points to favourable treatment of the governor by his own council.
The location of the parcel between the Store Yard wall and the Churchyard wall places it at the heart of the institutional and religious centre of James Town. The Store Yard would have been the working area of the Company's storehouse, and the Churchyard the burial ground attached to the island's church. The acquisition of waste ground between these two fixed institutional features by the governor in his personal capacity gave him a strategically located urban parcel adjacent to the principal Company buildings.
The provision that Roberts could take whatever ground he could make backwards to the watercourse is unusual within the records. The phrase indicates that the rear boundary of the parcel was not fixed at a specific distance but extended to the watercourse, allowing Roberts to develop the land as far back as he could reach. The mechanism gave him an open-ended depth to the parcel and let him define its rear boundary by his own development activity. The structure is more favourable than a fixed rectangular parcel and suggests deliberate generosity towards the governor.
The appended note recording the Honourable Company's later repurchase of the parcel from Roberts in London for £15 0s 0d documents the eventual unwinding of the original grant. The £15 0s 0d represents a substantial sum for a parcel that had carried a ground rent of only five shillings per year, and the figure suggests that Roberts had either developed the parcel during his ownership or that the Company simply paid him out at a price reflecting his personal standing. The mechanism let the Company recover the land it had granted while compensating Roberts for the surrender of his title.
The Cotgrave to Alexander sale of seventy acres at Youngs Valley for £90 0s 0d represents one of the larger rural transactions on record. The figure works out at about £1 6s 0d per acre, which falls toward the lower end of the upland market established by other deeds. The land lay on the east of the island in Youngs Valley, an area mentioned earlier in the records through the Thomas Dixon to Samuel Des Fountaine sale of November 1701, which had moved ten acres at the head of Youngs Valley between two members of the garrison.
The recital that the land had been the lot of the late Tehu Cotgrave and had passed to his eldest son Gilbert Cotgrave shows the operation of inheritance by primogeniture within the planter community. The eldest son took the family lot as the principal heir, with younger children presumably receiving other forms of provision. The mechanism preserved the integrity of the family estate across generations and concentrated land in the hands of the senior male line. The current sale by Elinor as Gilbert's widow shows the property passing out of the Cotgrave family on her decision to dispose of it after her husband's death.
Elinor Cotgrave's identification as widow and relict of Gilbert Cotgrave places her in the same category as the other substantial widows in the records, including Margaret Cotgrave, who had been the widow of John Cotgrave and had held a Chapel Valley dwelling house and a ten-acre Sharks Valley parcel. The recurrence of widows named Cotgrave across different transactions confirms the family's persistent presence on the island, with several generations of Cotgrave men predeceasing their wives and the widows inheriting and managing substantial holdings.
The Cotgrave family's earlier appearance in the records includes the 99-year lease taken by John Cotgrave from Elizabeth Rhodes on 27 October 1687, the Chapel Valley dwelling house bought by John Cotgrave from Thomas Tewsdale on 19 April 1694, and the witnessing role of Gilbert Cotgrave in the 4 May 1709 sale by Thomas Goodwin to Henry Francis. The Tehu Cotgrave identified here as the original lot-holder is probably the same man as the John Cotgrave of the earlier records, with Tehu representing a variant of the same name in transcription.
John Alexander's purchase of the seventy acres from Elinor Cotgrave shows him expanding his rural holdings on a substantial scale. His earlier records had included the purchase of the Bidott house in Fort James Valley in March 1701 and his continuing role as register, witness and certifier across the records. The acquisition of seventy acres at Youngs Valley adjoining his existing land formerly John Matthews's gives him a consolidated rural estate of meaningful size, and the structure shows Alexander building on his existing holding to create a larger working unit.
Speculations
The grant of waste ground to the governor in his personal capacity, signed by his own council, points to an institutional practice in which senior officers could acquire favourable property terms from the institution they served. The very low ground rent of five shillings per year, combined with the open-ended rear boundary extending to the watercourse, gave Roberts terms more favourable than those imposed on ordinary planters under the new tenure regime. The mechanism suggests that the Company tolerated such grants as part of the compensation system for its senior officers, with the formal involvement of the council providing the institutional cover for what was effectively a personal benefit.
The later repurchase of the parcel by the Honourable Company in London for £15 0s 0d, recorded in the appended note, indicates that the original grant had appreciated substantially in value during Roberts's ownership. The £15 0s 0d figure represents sixty years of ground rent at the five-shilling annual rate, and the willingness of the Company in London to pay this sum to its former governor reflects either the development of the parcel during his ownership or an institutional decision to compensate him generously on the surrender of the title. The transaction in London, rather than on the island, suggests it was negotiated after Roberts's return to England.
Elinor Cotgrave's decision to sell the entire seventy-acre Youngs Valley parcel to John Alexander, rather than to retain it for her own use or to divide it among her children, suggests she preferred liquidity over land ownership after her husband's death. The £90 0s 0d in current money would have given her substantial cash for her own provision, and the choice of Alexander as the buyer reflects the natural circulation of property within the small literate and institutional circle on the island. The mechanism let her convert an inherited rural estate into capital that could support her household without the labour and management burden of working the land.
85
Comp[any]s Deed to Jon[s]: Doveton The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Jonathan Doveton Free holder, Twenty Acres of S[ai]d Wedge tree Land Abutting upon Bowman and Jefreys towards the East, Upon Beales Orphans Towards y[e] West, Upon William Marshes towards the North, and under the Main Redge towards the South, Also twenty Acres and One Quarter more Butting and bounding towards the East upon Leonard Hunts Land, Upon Beales Orphans and the Hon[ble] Company towards the West Upon Leonard Hunts and the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land towards the North, Upon Beales Orphans and Leonard Coulson towards the South, Also Ten Acres more Abutting and bounding upon Leonard Hunts, and William Dovetons Orphans, Towards the East upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land towards the West upon Leonard Coulsons Orphans towards the North, and upon the the Said Jonathan Dovetons hired Land towards the South J[n] the Said Island being in the whole Fifty acres and One Quarter, which he the Said Jonathan Doveton hath a Just Right and Title to, as may Appear more Largely in a Consultation of the Thirteeth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a Certain day therein limeted but None Appearring Or Objection made: To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said Jonathan Doveton his Heirs and Assignes for Ever Upon Condition that he the Said Jonathan Doveton his Heers and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors, Also to the Said Company and their Successors, and Shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these p[r]esents Set their Comon Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Seaventeenth day of Aprell In the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven
The Plotts and plans of the aforesaid Severall parcells of Land being hereunto Annexeed alfs Coppy of this Deed and plans Entered in the Register book
Sealed and Delivered in the presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Governour Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gover[n] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
This Land was Sold to N[o]o Long by Andrew Wilson Aprill 13 1725
Figure E. which Two Acres of hired Land is Exchanged with Jonathan Doveton, for Twoiy[d] P[i]eces of Land he bought of Edward Mashin Appearr[d] Consult[s] held in Aug[t] 28 February 17½
A Scale of 10 Chaines or 40 Rods Thomas Greene Reg[i]ster
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Jonathan Doveton, freeholder, three parcels of land totalling fifty and a quarter acres on the island. The parcels were as follows:
Twenty acres of waste tree land bounded east by the lands of Bowman and Jeffreys, west by the lands of the Beale orphans, north by the land of William Marsh, and south by the main ridge.
Twenty and a quarter acres bounded east by the land of Leonard Hunt, west by the lands of the Beale orphans and the Honourable Company, north by the lands of Leonard Hunt and the Honourable Company's waste land, and south by the lands of the Beale orphans and Leonard Coulson.
Ten acres bounded east by the lands of Leonard Hunt and the orphans of William Doveton, west by the Honourable Company's waste land, north by the land of the orphans of Leonard Coulson, and south by Jonathan Doveton's own hired land.
Doveton's right and title to the fifty and a quarter acres had been confirmed by a consultation held on 13 March 1711. Notice had been given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a specified day, but no one had appeared and no objection had been made.
Doveton and his heirs took the premises for ever, on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on 17 April 1711. The plots and plans of the several parcels were annexed to the grant, and a copy of the deed and plans was entered in the register book.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Two later notes were added to the deed:
A note on a subsequent transaction recording that the land was sold to Mr Long by Andrew Wilson on 13 April 1725.
A note on an exchange recording that two acres of the hired land were exchanged with Jonathan Doveton for two pieces of land he had bought from Edward Mashin, as appeared in consultations held on 28 August and February 1712.
The deed was drawn to a scale of ten chains, or forty rods. Thomas Greene served as register.
Interpretations
The Company grant to Jonathan Doveton of 17 April 1711 documents the institutional confirmation of an established holding through the procedure described in the consultation of 6 April 1711. The grant covers fifty and a quarter acres across three separate parcels, and the recital that the confirmation followed a public notice by beat of drum without any objection shows the council using a formal claim procedure to settle long-standing tenure questions. The mechanism gave the inhabitants a fixed opportunity to assert competing rights, with silence in response treated as acceptance of the holder's title.
The use of the beat of drum as the means of giving public notice reveals a particular feature of island administration. The drum was the standard mechanism for assembling the population or for making public announcements in a community where literacy was limited and where formal publication channels did not exist. The choice of this means of notification ensured that all the inhabitants would have known of the proposed confirmation and could make their claims if they had any, and the formal recording of the procedure in the deed gave it legal weight as a public proceeding.
The three parcels confirmed to Doveton, with detailed boundary descriptions naming the Beale orphans, William Marsh, Leonard Hunt, Leonard Coulson, the orphans of William Doveton and the orphans of Leonard Coulson as adjoining holders, give an unusually full picture of the surrounding tenure pattern. The repeated references to orphans as holders of adjoining parcels show that several families had lost their principal male holders and that the orphans' interests continued to be recognised as boundary references in subsequent deeds. The mechanism shows how the death of a free planter did not extinguish the family's land interest, but instead transferred it to the next generation under the orphans' protection.
The reference to Jonathan Doveton's own hired land, distinct from the parcels being confirmed in freehold, identifies a further category of holding within his overall estate. Hired land would have been parcels held under lease from the Company or from another planter, with the rent paid annually but the underlying ownership remaining with the lessor. The combination of freehold and leasehold holdings within a single planter's estate was characteristic of the more substantial households on the island, and the structure shows Doveton operating across multiple tenure forms within his working unit.
The annexation of the plots and plans to the grant, with a copy entered in the register book, documents the new system of land registration in operation. The April 1711 consultation had ordered the keeping of a separate book for plans and deeds, and the present grant shows the system actively being used to record both the textual conveyance and the physical extent of the land. The mechanism gave the registration system its visual dimension, with the plans providing the means to identify each parcel on the ground.
The signature of Thomas Greene as register, alongside the council members, marks his appearance in that role. The earlier records had named John Alexander as register from at least 1686 and Philip Forsy as register of the Beale brothers' sales of February 1716. Thomas Greene's appearance as register in April 1711 fits between these two figures and shows the office passing through several hands during the transitional period of the new registration system. The mechanism reflects either the natural turnover of the office or the institutional reorganisation that accompanied the new tenure framework.
The note recording the later sale of the land to Mr Long by Andrew Wilson on 13 April 1725 indicates that the parcels confirmed to Doveton in 1711 had passed through Andrew Wilson before reaching Mr Long fourteen years later. The Andrew Wilson named here is probably the same man who had received the original Company grant of twenty acres in Sandy Bay on 16 August 1684 or a successor of the same name. The pattern shows the continuing movement of land between holders over the longer term, with the register preserving the chain of ownership through successive transactions.
The note recording the exchange of two acres of hired land for two pieces of land bought by Doveton from Edward Mashin, by reference to consultations of 28 August and February 1712, shows the council managing the boundaries of Doveton's holdings through formal exchanges. The mechanism let Doveton consolidate his estate by trading the parcels he had bought from Mashin for parts of his hired land, with the council recording the exchange in the consultation book. The structure parallels the Company's broader use of exchanges as a tool of land management.
The scale of ten chains or forty rods given on the annexed plan provides a precise measure of the survey work that accompanied the grants. A chain was twenty-two yards or sixty-six feet, and ten chains therefore represented 220 yards or 660 feet, with forty rods equivalent at sixteen and a half feet per rod. The use of these standard English surveying measures shows the island administration applying the same units used in metropolitan land registration, with the annexed plans drawn to the same scale conventions as English surveys of the period.
Speculations
The substantial size of Doveton's confirmed holdings, totalling fifty and a quarter acres across three parcels and accompanied by additional hired land, suggests he was one of the more substantial planters whose tenure required formal confirmation under the new system. The combination of public notice by beat of drum and detailed boundary descriptions reflects the council's view that confirmation of a holding of this size required particular procedural care to forestall any later challenge. The mechanism gave Doveton's title an exceptionally well-documented foundation, and the formal involvement of the entire council reinforced the institutional weight of the grant.
The frequent references to orphans of various families as the adjoining holders, with the Beale orphans, the orphans of William Doveton and the orphans of Leonard Coulson all named, suggest that the period had seen a notable level of mortality among the free planters. The pattern is consistent with the high mortality conditions of early-modern colonial settlements, where adult males in particular faced substantial risks from disease, accident or other causes. The continuing recognition of orphans' interests in the boundary descriptions shows the island administration maintaining the legal framework for protecting minor heirs across multiple families.
The eventual sale of the parcels to Mr Long by Andrew Wilson in April 1725, recorded in the appended note, shows the continuing circulation of substantial holdings through successive hands across more than a decade after the original confirmation. The mechanism suggests that the formal confirmation of title under the 1711 system had given the parcels a clear and transferable foundation, with subsequent holders able to deal in them as recognised freeholds. The structure points to the success of the new system in creating a documented basis for land ownership that supported a functioning property market.
86
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[anys] Lease to Jon[s] Doveton The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] the United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies
Do Hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto Jonathan Doveton of the Island of S[t] Helena Free holder, Two Acres of Cabbedge tree Land Butting and bounding upon the East to Bowman and Jefreys, upon the West to Beales Orphants, Upon the North to William Marshes Upon the South under the Main Redge
Also Nine Acres of Gumwood Land Butting and bounding upon the East to Leonard Hunt, Upon the West to the Said Jonathan Dovetons Land Upon the North to the Said Jonathan Doveton, Upon the South to William Marshes Land
To Have and to hold the Said Premises to him the said Jonathan Doveton his Executors, Administrators and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Yeares Commenceing from the 25 day of March 1711
Upon Condition that he the said Jonathan Doveton his Executors, Administra[ors] and Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Hon[ble] United Company, and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, and Yearly Pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Vorgen Mary being the 25 day of March The Annuall Rent of four Shillings of Cabridge tree One Shilling Effity being in all Five Shillings [p] Annum, in good and Currant Money of the Said Island, to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and that he the Said Jonathan Doveton his Executors Administrators and assigner Shall and doe at the Expiration of the Said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the Fences about the Said Land in as good Repaire as they are Now, and not to Alter the Fences, which are the Land Marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of his Lease or Interest in the same, without the Consent of the Governeur and Councell for the time being
In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company Lords Proprietors, to these P[r]esents have Set their Comon Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Seaventeenth day of Aprill One thousand Seven, hundred and Eleven, and the Said Jonathan Doveton to the Other part hath Set his hand and Seale
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
Jonas Doveton
These two Acres is hired out for y[e] Comp[anys] as appear in Consultation 24[t] February 17½ Thomas Greene Reg[i]ster
These two acres of Land is Exchang[d] for Two Acres on James head of Edward Mash as appears Consultation of [ ] 28[s] [Feb] 175⁶ Thomas Greene Reg[i]ster
Figure C 9 acres of Gumwood Figure D 2 acres of Cab[r]i[d]ge tree Land
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, leased to Jonathan Doveton, freeholder of St Helena, two parcels of land. The parcels were as follows:
Two acres of cabbage tree land bounded east by the lands of Bowman and Jeffreys, west by the lands of the Beale orphans, north by the land of William Marsh, and south by the main ridge.
Nine acres of gumwood land bounded east by the land of Leonard Hunt, west by Jonathan Doveton's own land, north by Jonathan Doveton's own land, and south by the land of William Marsh.
Doveton and his successors held the parcels for a term of twenty-one years, commencing on 25 March 1711.
The lease was granted on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Annual rent five shillings in good and current money of the island, made up of four shillings for the gumwood and one shilling for the cabbage tree, payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
Condition of return at the expiration of the twenty-one-year term, to leave the fences in as good repair as at present.
Restrictions on the lease no alteration of the fences, which served as the landmarks identifying the boundaries of the plot annexed to the lease, and no disposal of the lease or interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 17 April 1711. Jonathan Doveton set his hand and seal to the other part of the lease.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Two later notes were added to the lease:
A note recording that the two acres of cabbage tree land were hired out for the Company as appeared in a consultation of 24 February 1712.
A note recording an exchange the same two acres were exchanged for two acres on James Head from Edward Mash, as appeared in a consultation of 28 February 1712. Thomas Greene served as register.
The annexed plan identified the two parcels as figure C for the nine acres of gumwood and figure D for the two acres of cabbage tree land.
Interpretations
The Company lease to Jonathan Doveton of 17 April 1711 documents an arrangement covering two specific types of land within the same instrument. The two acres of cabbage tree land and the nine acres of gumwood land were treated as separate categories, with the lease setting different rents for each in the proportion of one shilling for the cabbage tree and four shillings for the gumwood. The structure shows the council distinguishing between different qualities or uses of land within a single leasehold, with the rent reflecting the productive value of each category.
The lease was sealed on the same day as the Company's freehold grant to Doveton of fifty and a quarter acres, and the two instruments together represent a coordinated settlement of his entire tenure position. The freehold grant confirmed his title to the larger parcels under the new public-notice procedure, and the leasehold gave him formal possession of the smaller cabbage tree and gumwood parcels on a twenty-one-year term. The structure shows the council using freehold and leasehold instruments as complementary tools, applying each to the form of tenure most appropriate to the particular parcel.
The recital that the fences served as the landmarks identifying the boundaries of the plot, with the prohibition on altering them, gives a particular function to the physical features of the land. The fences were not merely agricultural infrastructure but legal markers fixing the precise extent of the leased ground. The mechanism let the council enforce the boundaries through the physical reality of the fencing, with any alteration triggering the alteration of the annexed plan and thus the lease itself. The structure reinforces the institutional commitment to clear, marked boundaries that the 6 April 1711 consultation had established.
The identification of the parcels by reference to cabbage tree and gumwood reveals the agricultural and ecological character of different parts of Doveton's holdings. Cabbage trees would have been the indigenous tree species producing edible cabbages from their growing tips, valued for fresh vegetables and for ship's victualling. Gumwood was a hardwood tree species used for construction, fuel and timber. The naming of the parcels by their dominant species reflects the practice of identifying land by its principal product, in the same way as the Lemon Garden, the Purslane Bed and other similar names in the records.
The restriction on disposal without the consent of the governor and council, mirroring the provision in the Thomas Bagley lease of 25 March 1711, confirms that the new tenure system had introduced this institutional control across the leases issued under it. The Company retained the right to approve or block any onward transfer, and the mechanism gave the council continuing oversight of who held the leased lands. The provision marks a significant departure from the earlier pattern of freely transferable leases.
The two notes recording later transactions on the cabbage tree parcel illustrate the dynamic management of leasehold interests under the new system. The first note, of 24 February 1712, records that the two acres were hired out for the Company, indicating that the Company itself or a third party operating on its behalf took the parcel under sub-tenancy. The second note, of 28 February 1712, records the exchange of the same two acres for two acres at James Head bought by Doveton from Edward Mash. The two notes within four days of each other show the council actively managing the parcel's position through multiple successive transactions.
The Edward Mash named in the exchange is presumably the same person who, by some variant of the surname, appears elsewhere in the records. The 13 April 1725 sale by Andrew Wilson to Mr Long recorded on the earlier Doveton grant, and the 1712 exchange recorded here, both show the parcels passing through subsequent transactions over the years after the original grant. The mechanism shows the new tenure system supporting an active secondary market in land, with the formal registration system tracking each transfer.
Thomas Greene's signature as register, on both the lease and the appended notes of 1712, confirms his continuing tenure in that office during the implementation period of the new system. His role spans the recording of the original grant and lease, the subsequent transactions affecting the parcels and the cross-references to the consultation book. The structure shows the register's office as the institutional pivot of the new system, with Greene providing continuity across the transitions in council membership and individual transactions.
Speculations
The decision to lease the cabbage tree and gumwood parcels under a twenty-one-year term, rather than to include them in the freehold grant of the same date, suggests the council viewed these particular categories of land as warranting institutional retention rather than outright alienation. The cabbage tree parcel in particular, with its product useful for victualling ships, would have had strategic value for the Company's continuing operations, and the leasehold form let the Company retain ultimate control over the parcel while allowing Doveton to work it for the term.
The almost immediate hiring out of the two-acre cabbage tree parcel for the Company within ten months of the lease's commencement points to the Company recovering the parcel almost as soon as it had granted it. The mechanism may have reflected a deliberate strategy of leasing strategic parcels to established planters with the expectation that the Company would soon take them back under sub-tenancy or other arrangements. The subsequent exchange of the same parcel for two acres at James Head suggests further adjustments were made to bring the land into a form more useful for the Company's purposes.
The pricing structure of the lease, with five shillings total per year split as four shillings for the gumwood and one shilling for the cabbage tree, indicates the council placed a higher value on the gumwood land than on the cabbage tree. The ratio of four to one suggests that the gumwood was either more productive on a per-acre basis or commanded a more valuable end product. The mechanism gave the council a refined tool for setting rents that reflected the differential productivity of land categories, and the structure points to a sophisticated understanding of the agricultural and commercial value of the different types of holding.
87
Island S[t] Helena
James Grandy to J[n]o Alex- -ander Know all men by these Presents that J Jam[s] Grandy of the Said Island free Planter for and inconsiderateon of the Sume of forty Pounds in dollars at Six Shillings [p] Dollar to me in hand paid by John Alexander at or before y[e] Ensealing and Deliv[y] of these P[r]esents have alieinated Bargained and Sold and do by these P[r]esents Alieinate Bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the aforesaid John Alexander his heirs Execut[r] Administrat[r] and assigns All that Pice or Parcell of Land Containing by Estimateon Ten acres Lying and being in y[e] Valley near Adjoyning to y[e] Lands of Marg[t] Cotgrave Wid[ow] being y[e] Lower Ten acres formerly App- ertaineing and belonging unto John Matthews late of y[e] Said Island free Planter dec[d] and was Since in y[e] Pofsession and occupation of Thomas Beem Sen[r] and was y[e] Bounsey and free gift of y[e] R[t] Hon[ble] English East Indea Company unto y[e] Said Mosthers and his heirs for Ever, To to and Dispose of, y[e] Same as his or their own wills & pleasure and J the Said James Grandy do for me my heirs Execut[r] Adminis[r] or assigns Covenant grant, and Agree to and with the said John Alexander his heirs Execut[r] Adm[r] or assigns that to and they Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter have hold occupie Pofess and Enjoy y[e] Said hereby barg- ained Premifses without any manner of Lett hinderance Mollestation or Interruption of me y[e] Said James Grandy or my heirs Execut[r] Administrat[r] or assigns or from by or under any manner of Person or Persons do for Ever defend by these P[r]esents In Wittness where- of J have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this twenty Sixth day of November one Thousand Seven Hundred & one
Sealed Signed & Delivered in y[e] p[r]esence of John Oslodd Erasmus Pirling
his James I Grandy mark
A true Copy [per] [P]hilip Tovey, Register
James Grandy, free planter of St Helena, sold to John Alexander a parcel of ten acres of land for £40 0s 0d, paid in Spanish dollars at a rate of 6s 0d per dollar. The sum was paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Grandy acknowledged the payment and gave a full discharge.
The land lay in the valley adjoining the lands of Margaret Cotgrave, widow. The parcel was the lower ten acres formerly belonging to the late John Matthews, free planter, and had been in the possession and occupation of Thomas Beem senior. The original holding had been a bounty and free gift of the Right Honourable English East India Company to the previous holder and his heirs.
Alexander and his heirs took the land to dispose of at their own will and pleasure for ever. Grandy covenanted that Alexander and his successors would hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the bargained premises without any hindrance, molestation or interruption from him, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or from any person claiming through them.
The deed was made on 26 November 1701 and sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of John Oslodd and Erasmus Pirling. James Grandy signed by his mark in the form of I.
Philip Tovey certified the deed as a true copy in his capacity as register.
Interpretations
The Grandy to Alexander sale of 26 November 1701 documents a transaction in which the consideration was paid entirely in Spanish dollars at a fixed conversion rate. The £40 0s 0d at six shillings per dollar works out at 133 and one third dollars, although the deed does not specify the exact count. The use of Spanish dollars as the sole medium of payment, combined with the explicit statement of the conversion rate, reveals how the island's monetary system depended on multiple currencies operating in parallel. The earlier Draper to Maxwell sale of 29 November 1699 had used the same six-shilling rate for Spanish dollars, confirming the persistence of the conversion factor across a two-year period.
The recital of the chain of ownership traces the land through four successive holders. The original grant was a bounty and free gift from the East India Company to John Matthews, the parcel had been in the possession and occupation of Thomas Beem senior at some intermediate point, and Grandy had then come into possession and was now selling to Alexander. The use of bounty and free gift to describe the Company's original grant emphasises that the parcel had been transferred without consideration of money, perhaps as a reward for service or as part of the early settlement of the island.
The naming of John Matthews as the original recipient connects the current sale to the 1682 inquest, where John Matthews had been recorded among the original allottees. The parcel here described as the lower ten acres of Matthews's holding suggests that the original allotment had been larger and had been divided over the intervening period. The current sale concerns only the lower portion, and the upper portion may have remained with the Matthews family or have been sold separately to another holder.
The boundary reference to Margaret Cotgrave, widow, identifies one of the major widow holders in the records. Margaret Cotgrave had been the widow and relict of John Cotgrave, free planter, and had held the Chapel Valley dwelling house bought by her late husband from Thomas Tewsdale in April 1694 and the ten-acre Sharks Valley parcel taken on a 99-year lease from Elizabeth Rhodes in October 1687. Her name as the neighbouring holder to the Grandy parcel places her land adjacent to the former Matthews allotment, indicating that the Cotgrave holdings extended across more than one valley.
The location of the parcel in the valley adjoining Margaret Cotgrave's lands, without a specific valley name being given in the present deed, suggests that the parties relied on the reference to Cotgrave's lands to fix the location. The vagueness of the geographical description is unusual within the records, where parcels are normally identified by a named valley. The mechanism may reflect the parties' familiarity with the layout of the land, with the reference to Cotgrave's adjacent holding being sufficient to identify the parcel without further specification.
Philip Tovey's appearance as register, certifying the deed as a true copy, introduces another holder of that office. The earlier Beale brothers' deed of 9 February 1716 had been certified by Philip Forsy as register, and the Thomas Greene who appeared in the April 1711 records had also held the office. The succession of registers across the period from John Alexander through Greene, Forsy and now Tovey, with the dates of each man's tenure not always clear from the records, reflects the natural turnover of the office and the importance attached to the formal certification of true copies.
The Spanish dollar at six shillings as the conversion factor reveals the role of the dollar within the island's monetary system. The Spanish dollar was a widely circulating silver coin in the Atlantic and Indian Ocean trade networks, with a standardised silver content that made it a stable unit of account. The fixing of the dollar at six shillings of island currency provides a working conversion that the parties could use to calibrate transactions denominated in either currency. The mechanism shows how the island's monetary system operated on multiple parallel standards, with the dollar serving alongside sterling, island currency and store credit as a recognised medium of value.
The witnesses John Oslodd and Erasmus Pirling do not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed in this set. The presence of unfamiliar names as witnesses to a transaction reflects the broader circulation of inhabitants on the island, with men from outside the established network of repeated witnesses occasionally appearing in the records. The choice of these particular witnesses for the Grandy to Alexander deed may reflect their proximity to the parties at the time of the sealing or their availability on the particular date of the deed.
The James Grandy named as the seller is the same man who had earlier appeared in the records selling a Chapel Valley cottage house to Thomas Ashby on 2 August 1705 for £10 0s 0d, with that cottage subsequently being sold to Hugh Bodley. The current sale of ten acres for £40 0s 0d to John Alexander shows Grandy as a dealer in both urban cottages and rural parcels, and the two transactions together place him among the more active sellers of property in the period.
Speculations
The decision by James Grandy to take the entire consideration in Spanish dollars rather than in island currency or in a mix of currencies suggests a particular preference for the dollar over local money. The Spanish dollar would have been a portable and widely accepted form of value, useful for transactions outside the immediate island economy and for any departure from the island. The choice may indicate that Grandy was either preparing to leave the island, to send funds elsewhere, or to use the dollars in trade with passing ships and visiting merchants.
The reference to the original Company grant as a bounty and free gift suggests the Company had used grants of land as a means of attracting and rewarding settlers in the early period of the island's colonisation. The mechanism would have helped the Company build up a population of free planters without requiring substantial capital outlay from the settlers themselves, and the land would then have generated value through cultivation and the labour of the new holders. The reference to the parcel as a bounty preserves the original character of the grant even as the land has now passed through multiple intermediate hands.
The 1701 dating of the deed places it before the major reorganisation of the land tenure system documented in the 1711 consultation. The mechanism of recording the chain of ownership through a chain of holders, the use of marks rather than signatures by some parties, and the certification by a register reflect the practice in operation before the new system was introduced. The deed therefore documents the working land registration system as it operated in the earlier period, with the various administrative reforms of the following decade building on the foundations seen in this transaction.
88
Comp[anys] Deed to M[r] Leonard Coulson The Lords Proprietors of this Island. The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto John Leonard Coulson Son and heir of Leonard Coulson Deceased Freeholder Ten Acres of Gumwood Land, Abutting upon the Wedow Coulsons Land towards the East, Upon the Companys Waste Land towards the West, Upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land towards the North, and Upon Jonathan Dovetons towards the South In the Said Island (which he the Said John Leonard Coulson hath a Just Right and Title to, As may Appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the One and Thortieth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a Certain day therein limited but none Appearring or any Objection made) To have and to hold the said premises to him the Said John Leonard Coulson his Heirs and Assignes for Ever Upon Condition that he the Said John Leonard Coulson his Heirs and Assignes do bear always true Faith and allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Company, and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these P[r]esents Set their Common Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Seventeenth day of Aprill In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
The Plott and Plan of the Abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed alfs a Copy of this Deed and Plan Entered in the Register book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Governour Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
This Deed to y[e] Land herein mentioned is Sold to Jon[s] Doveton vy[e] Price of Sale Dated y[e] 3[d] Day of Aug[t] 1733 from Roll [J]ohn[s] & Mary Aikin his Wife. as required by ord[s] of Consultation 31[t] Aug[t] 1733 on the next Booke Fol 80 T y[e] [J]o[h]nfen[t] [&]d Carfd
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Leonard Coulson, son and heir of the late Leonard Coulson, freeholder, ten acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded as follows:
East the land of the Widow Coulson.
West the Company's waste land.
North the Company's waste land.
South the land of Jonathan Doveton.
Coulson's right and title to the ten acres had been confirmed by a consultation held on 31 March 1711. Notice had been given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a specified day, but no one had appeared and no objection had been made.
Coulson and his heirs took the premises for ever, on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on 17 April 1711. The plot and plan of the land were annexed to the grant, and a copy of the deed and plan was entered in the register book.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
A later note was added to the deed:
A note on a subsequent transaction recording that the land was sold to Jonathan Doveton by Robert and Mary Aikin, his wife, on 3 August 1733, by order of the consultation of 31 August 1733 entered in the next book at folio 80.
Interpretations
The Company confirmation to John Leonard Coulson of 17 April 1711 documents the formal recognition of an inherited holding under the new tenure system. The recital that Coulson was son and heir of the late Leonard Coulson shows the council acknowledging an inheritance descent that had occurred before the formal confirmation, and the mechanism gave the next generation of the Coulson family a documented title to the parcel that the father had held.
The boundary description identifies the Widow Coulson as the eastern neighbour, distinct from John Leonard Coulson himself. The Widow Coulson is presumably the widow of Leonard Coulson and the mother of the present grantee, holding adjacent land in her own right as part of her dower or marital provision. The structure shows the Coulson family holding two separate parcels: the gumwood land confirmed to the son and the adjoining land held by the mother as widow. The mechanism reveals how the family's estate was divided between the surviving spouse and the heir, with each holding land in their own name.
The reference to a consultation of 31 March 1711 as the basis for the confirmation, with public notice given by beat of drum, follows the same procedure as the Jonathan Doveton confirmation of 17 April 1711. The mechanism of public notice and the recording of any claims that might be made gave the council a formal process for resolving uncertain or contested tenures, with silence in response to the notice treated as acceptance of the holder's title. The pattern shows the council systematically using this procedure across multiple confirmations during the spring of 1711.
The Coulson family had earlier appeared in the records through Mrs Grace Coulson, named as the boundary holder to the Chapel Valley town tenement in the Edmunds to Goodwin deed of 10 May 1700, and through the late Leonard Coulson, identified as the former owner of the female slave Sue in the Bodley to Doveton exchange of 13 August 1708. The current grant identifies John Leonard Coulson as the son and heir, and the boundary reference to the orphans of Leonard Coulson in the earlier 17 April 1711 grant to Doveton indicates that several Coulson children survived as joint heirs to other parts of the family estate. The mechanism shows the family's holdings being distributed among multiple beneficiaries after Leonard Coulson's death.
The appended note recording the later sale of the land in 1733 to Jonathan Doveton by Robert and Mary Aikin shows the continuing movement of the parcel through subsequent generations. The pattern indicates that the land passed from the Coulson family to the Aikin household before being sold to Doveton more than twenty years after the original 1711 confirmation. The reference to a consultation of 31 August 1733 and to the next book at folio 80 suggests that the council's involvement in approving land transfers had continued into the next decade, with the consultation book maintaining its role as the record of substantive decisions.
The Jonathan Doveton to whom the land was sold in 1733 is probably either the same Jonathan Doveton of the 1711 records or a son or successor of the same name. The acquisition of the parcel by Doveton in 1733 brought it into the same household that had been confirmed in the major 1711 grant of fifty and a quarter acres. The mechanism shows the continuing accumulation of land by the Doveton household across multiple decades, with the boundaries of the Doveton holdings expanding through successive purchases.
Thomas Greene's role as register, signing the deed alongside the council members, confirms his tenure of the office during the implementation of the new tenure system. The pattern of his appearances across the grants and leases of April 1711 shows him as the institutional pivot of the registration system, with each formal grant being attested by his signature and a copy being entered in the register book. The mechanism gave the new system its documentary continuity, with Greene's presence ensuring that the formal requirements were observed across multiple transactions.
The use of the species name gumwood to identify the parcel reflects the practice of categorising land by its dominant tree cover, in the same way as the cabbage tree parcel in the Doveton lease of the same date. The gumwood parcels would have been valued for their timber resource, which had practical applications in construction, fuel and ship's stores. The naming convention shows the council distinguishing between different categories of land within the formal tenure framework, with each category attracting its own rent and term where the land was leased rather than granted.
Speculations
The decision by the council to confirm the ten acres of gumwood to John Leonard Coulson by way of public notice and beat of drum suggests that the tenure of the parcel had been uncertain before the 1711 procedure. The Coulson family's holdings had been divided between the widow and multiple children, and the formal confirmation of the son's title to this particular parcel may have been necessary to resolve any ambiguity about which member of the family held which part of the estate. The mechanism gave John Leonard Coulson a clean title in his own name, free of any competing claims from his mother, siblings or other relatives.
The later sale of the parcel in 1733 to Jonathan Doveton, recorded in the appended note, shows the eventual consolidation of the gumwood parcel within the larger Doveton holdings. The mechanism would have given Doveton a substantial continuous block by adding the Coulson ten acres to his existing land, which the original 1711 grant had described as the southern neighbour of the Coulson gumwood. The pattern points to the long-term tendency of land to accumulate in the hands of the more active and successful planter households, with smaller and less prominent holdings being absorbed into larger estates over time.
The procedural detail of the consultation of 31 March 1711 being followed by the formal grant of 17 April 1711, just over two weeks later, suggests that the council was running a structured programme of confirmations during this period. The mechanism would have allowed the council to consider individual claims at the consultation, with the formal grant being issued only after the public notice period had expired and no objections had been raised. The structure points to the implementation of the new tenure system as a deliberate institutional exercise spread across several weeks of intensive work, with each parcel being processed through a defined sequence of steps.
89
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[any]s Lease to M[r] Leonard Coulson The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto John Leonard Coulson Son and Heer of Leonard Coulson Deceased of the Island S[t] Helena Freeholder, Two Acres of Gum wood Land Abutting and bounding Upon the Wedow Coulsons Land towards the East, Upon the Companys Wasteland towards the West, Upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land towards the North, And upon Jonatham Dovetons towards the South
To Have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said John Leonard Coulson his Execut[s] Administrat[s] and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Yeares Commenceing from the 25 of March 1711
Upon Condition that he the said John Leonard Coulson his Executors, Administrators, and Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Vorgen Mary being the 25 day of March the Annuall Rent of four Shilling [p] Acre besides One Shilling duty being in all Five Shilling [p] Annum in good and Currant Money of the Said Island to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and that he the Said John Leonard Coulson his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Shall and do at the Expiration of the Said Term of Twenty One Yeares Leave the Fences about the Said Land in as good Repaire as they are Now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land Marks, and which will Occasion the Alleration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor difspofe of his Lease of Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the time being
In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company Lords Proprietors to these p[r]esents have Sett their common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Seventeenth day of Aprell, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and the Said John Leonard Coulson to the Other part hath Set his hand and Seale
Sealed and Delevered on the Presence of Us Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
Jonas Doveton Execut[r]
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, leased to John Leonard Coulson, son and heir of the late Leonard Coulson, freeholder of St Helena, two acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded as follows:
East the land of the Widow Coulson.
West the Company's waste land.
North the Company's waste land.
South the land of Jonathan Doveton.
Coulson and his successors held the parcel for a term of twenty-one years, commencing on 25 March 1711.
The lease was granted on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Annual rent five shillings per annum in good and current money of the island, made up of four shillings per acre plus one shilling duty, payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
Condition of return at the expiration of the twenty-one-year term, to leave the fences in as good repair as at present.
Restrictions on the lease no alteration of the fences, which served as the landmarks identifying the boundaries of the plot annexed to the lease, and no disposal of the lease or interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 17 April 1711. John Leonard Coulson set his hand and seal to the other part of the lease.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Jonas Doveton signed as executor.
Interpretations
The Company lease to John Leonard Coulson of 17 April 1711 documents the same coordinated approach to tenure that the parallel Doveton lease of the same date had shown. The two acres of gumwood land were granted on a twenty-one-year term running from the same 25 March 1711 commencement date, and the boundary description identifies the parcel as a smaller adjunct to the ten acres of gumwood land that the freehold grant of the same day had confirmed to Coulson. The mechanism shows the council distinguishing between the larger inherited holding to be confirmed as freehold and the smaller adjoining parcel to be granted as a twenty-one-year lease.
The rent structure of four shillings per acre plus one shilling duty, totalling five shillings per annum for the two acres, sets a different rate from the Doveton lease of the same date. The Doveton lease had imposed four shillings for the nine acres of gumwood and one shilling for the two acres of cabbage tree, giving a total of five shillings for eleven acres. The Coulson lease imposes the same total of five shillings for only two acres, indicating a per-acre rent more than five times higher than the Doveton gumwood rate. The disparity is unusual and points either to a particular feature of the Coulson parcel or to a different basis of calculation between the two leases.
The signature of Jonas Doveton as executor at the foot of the lease introduces a procedural feature not seen in the Doveton lease of the same date. The presence of Doveton as executor suggests that the Coulson lease involved a third-party trustee or representative whose role required formal acknowledgement. The earlier records had named Jonathan Doveton as the executor of the William Dufton estate alongside Daniel Griffeth, and the current appearance of Jonas Doveton, probably the same man under a slight name variant, in a similar role suggests his standing as a recognised executor across multiple estates.
The connection between Jonas Doveton's role as executor and John Leonard Coulson as the lessee raises the question of whether the late Leonard Coulson had named Doveton among his executors. The mechanism would have placed Doveton in a position of fiduciary responsibility for the management of the Coulson estate during the period when John Leonard Coulson, as son and heir, was establishing his title to the various parcels. The signature of Doveton on the lease would have given the institutional process the formal involvement of the executor, ensuring that the lease was properly attested on behalf of the estate.
The southern boundary reference to Jonathan Doveton's land places the Coulson parcel adjacent to the larger Doveton estate that the same day's grants had confirmed. The structure of the boundaries shows the Doveton and Coulson holdings sitting side by side, with the Widow Coulson's land to the east of the Coulson parcel and Doveton's freehold and leasehold parcels to the south. The pattern indicates a continuous block of contiguous tenure with the two families holding adjoining parcels under the new system.
The institutional restriction on disposal of the lease without the consent of the governor and council, repeating the provision in the Thomas Bagley and Jonathan Doveton leases of the same period, confirms that the new tenure system applied this control uniformly across all leases issued in the spring of 1711. The mechanism gave the council oversight of any onward transfer of leasehold interests, and the consistent application of the requirement shows the council's commitment to maintaining institutional control over leased land.
The signature of only Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett among the council members, with Thomas Greene as register, indicates that the full council had not been required for the sealing of the lease. The earlier major grants of 17 April 1711 had been sealed in the presence of the full council, but the smaller individual leases were attested by a reduced number of officers. The pattern shows the council operating with flexibility in the formal requirements for sealing, with the full quorum reserved for the more substantial grants and the smaller leases requiring only the minimum necessary signatures.
Speculations
The grant of a freehold for ten acres and a separate leasehold for two acres to the same person on the same day, with both parcels described as gumwood land bounded by the same neighbours, suggests that the council had drawn a specific line between the parts of the Coulson holding that warranted freehold confirmation and those that required leasehold treatment. The mechanism may have reflected the council's judgement about which parts of the inherited estate had a clear documentary basis for freehold confirmation and which required leasehold formalisation under the new system. The structure shows the council using both tenure forms as complementary instruments for settling the tenure of a single family's holdings.
The per-acre rent of two shillings sixpence on the Coulson leasehold, compared with the per-acre rent of approximately fivepence on the Doveton gumwood, indicates that the Coulson parcel was being valued at a much higher rate. The Doveton lease covered nine acres of gumwood for four shillings total, giving a per-acre rate well below sixpence, while the Coulson lease imposes five shillings on two acres. The disparity may reflect either a particular feature of the Coulson land, such as its proximity to the main farmland or the quality of its timber, or a different basis of calculation that the records do not explain.
The role of Jonas Doveton as executor, signing alongside the council members, suggests that the late Leonard Coulson had appointed him as one of the executors of his will. The mechanism would have given Doveton a continuing institutional role in the management of the Coulson estate, and the involvement of an established free planter as executor for another family was a recognised practice in the records. The pattern indicates that the small literate circle on the island took on executor responsibilities for multiple estates, with men like Daniel Griffeth and Jonas Doveton appearing as executors across several different family arrangements.
90
Comp[anys] Deed to Jam[s] Reder The Lords Proprietors of this Island. The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto James Reder Son and Heir of James Reder Deceased Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Gumwood, As also Twelve Acres of Cabbidge tree Land, all Joynong together And Butting and bounding as followeth, That is to say Towards the North upon the Land of John Long, Towards the East on the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the South on the Land of Margaret Sech Wedow, Towards the West on the Lands of Gabreell Powell and Francis Wrangham, Likewife One Acre of Cabbidge tree Land Lying in Sandy bay under the Main Redge Butting Toward the North, Towards the East upon the Land of Paul Charles, Towards the South upon the Land of Rechard Swallow, Towards the West upon the Land of Wolleam Naughten Containing in the whole Forty One Acres of Land In the Said Island, which he the said James Reder hath a Joss Right and Title to, As may Appear more Largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thirteeth day of May One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a Certain day therein limited but None appearring Or Objection made) To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said James Reder his Heers and Assignes for Ever Upon Condition that he the Said James Reder his Heers and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Company, and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these p[r]esents Set their Common Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Ninth day of Iune In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
The Plott and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexeed, Alfs a Coppy of this Deed and Plan Entered in the Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delivered on the Presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Govern[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Govern[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, confirmed to James Reder, son and heir of the late James Reder, freeholder, three parcels of land totalling forty-one acres. The parcels were as follows:
Twenty acres of gumwood and twelve acres of cabbage tree land, all joining together bounded north by the land of John Long, east by the Honourable Company's waste land, south by the land of Margaret Sech, widow, and west by the lands of Gabriel Powell and Francis Wrangham.
One acre of cabbage tree land in Sandy Bay under the main ridge bounded east by the land of Paul Charles, south by the land of Richard Swallow, and west by the land of William Naughton.
Reder's right and title to the forty-one acres had been confirmed by a consultation held on 30 May 1711. Notice had been given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a specified day, but no one had appeared and no objection had been made.
Reder and his heirs took the premises for ever, on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on 9 June 1711. The plot and plan of the land were annexed to the grant, and a copy of the deed and plan was entered in the register book.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Interpretations
The Company confirmation to James Reder of 9 June 1711 documents the continuing programme of formal confirmations under the new tenure system. The May consultation hearing and the June grant continue the pattern of the April 1711 confirmations to Jonathan Doveton and John Leonard Coulson, with the same procedural framework of consultation hearing, public notice by beat of drum and formal grant by the council. The structure shows the council systematically working through the established holdings on the island, with each family's tenure being confirmed in turn through the same defined sequence of steps.
The recital that James Reder was son and heir of the late James Reder identifies the grant as an inheritance confirmation rather than a new allocation. The mechanism gave the next generation of the Reder family a documented title to the parcels that the father had held, in the same way as the Coulson confirmation had recognised John Leonard Coulson's inheritance from his father. The pattern shows the new tenure system functioning as an instrument for regularising the tenure of inherited holdings, with the formal grant providing the documentary foundation for the heir's title.
The thirty-two-acre main parcel comprising twenty acres of gumwood and twelve acres of cabbage tree land introduces the categorisation of contiguous land by its dominant tree cover. The two categories appear within a single boundary description, indicating that the parcels formed a continuous block rather than separate holdings. The mechanism shows the council distinguishing between different vegetation types within the same boundary line, with the gumwood and cabbage tree areas being identified by their species character even though they formed parts of a single tract.
The naming of Margaret Sech, widow, as the southern boundary holder of the main parcel connects the Reder grant to the earlier Sech family inheritance arrangements. Margaret Sech had been the widow of Richard Swallow by her first marriage and the widow of Richard or John Sech by her second, and the Swallow to Sech conveyance of 4 February 1705 had transferred her son Richard Swallow's reversionary interest to her for £140 0s 0d. The current grant places her land adjacent to Reder's main parcel, confirming her continuing standing as a substantial holder in this part of the island.
The boundary references to Gabriel Powell and Francis Wrangham as the western neighbours provide a further connection to the earlier records. Powell had been the major Chapel Valley land trader of the 1706 records, with his £350 0s 0d purchase from Hoskison and his earlier dealings at Peak Gult. The Francis Wrangham named here is probably the second Francis Wrangham of the records, the younger man who had appeared as witness to multiple transactions rather than the original 1682 inquest holder who had died and whose widow had remarried Henry Francis. The pattern shows the boundary descriptions preserving multiple generations of family names across the records.
The one-acre cabbage tree parcel in Sandy Bay under the main ridge identifies a separate small holding adjacent to the established Sandy Bay tenures. The boundary references to Paul Charles, Richard Swallow and William Naughton connect the parcel to the 99-year leasehold that Charles had taken from Heath in March 1705, to the Deep Valley mansion house that Swallow had bought from Cole in June 1705, and to the western neighbour named in the Bagley lease of March 1711. The pattern shows the Sandy Bay tenures forming a network of named holdings that the formal confirmations were now bringing within the new tenure framework.
John Long appears as the northern boundary holder of the main parcel. The Long name had appeared earlier in the records through the boundary description of the Richard Cleve sale of June 1715, in which the rebuilt James Valley house had been described as adjoining the house of John Long. The current reference to Long as a rural holder near Margaret Sech's land suggests that the Long household, like the Coulson and Reder families, held property across both urban and rural locations.
The use of the cabbage tree designation, encountered earlier in the Doveton lease of 17 April 1711, confirms that the species name had been adopted as a standard term for the vegetation type. The cabbage tree, indigenous to the island, produced edible tips that were valued for fresh provisions, particularly for ship's victualling. The categorisation of land by reference to its cabbage tree cover reflects both the agricultural value of the species and the practical use of vegetation as a means of identifying parcels within the formal tenure system.
The dating by reference to a consultation held on 30 May 1711 indicates that the council had continued its programme of confirmation hearings through the spring of 1711, with the procedural steps for each grant being completed over several weeks. The pattern shows the new tenure system being implemented as a sustained institutional exercise rather than a single event, with the council processing successive families' holdings through the established sequence of consultation, public notice and formal grant.
Speculations
The size of the Reder confirmation at forty-one acres, divided between the main thirty-two-acre parcel and the smaller one-acre Sandy Bay parcel, places the family among the more substantial inhabitants of the island. The combined estate would have supported a significant agricultural operation, with the gumwood providing timber and fuel and the cabbage tree areas supplying fresh provisions. The mechanism of consolidating these various parcels under a single confirmation gave the heir a documented title to the entire estate in a single instrument.
The grouping of the gumwood and cabbage tree areas within a single boundary description, rather than treating each species type as a separate parcel, indicates that the council was prepared to confirm contiguous land as a single holding regardless of internal variations in vegetation. The mechanism would have simplified the documentary record and reduced the administrative burden of separate confirmations for each category of land, while preserving the institutional information about the character of different parts of the estate.
The grant of the small one-acre Sandy Bay parcel alongside the much larger main parcel suggests that the Reder family held land across more than one part of the island. The mechanism of confirming all the family's holdings in a single grant, even when the parcels were geographically separate, would have given the heir a comprehensive title document covering the entire inherited estate. The structure points to the council's preference for resolving each family's tenure position in a single coordinated process rather than through multiple piecemeal confirmations.
91
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[any]s Lease to Jam[s] Reder The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto James Reder, Son and Heir of James Reder Deceased, of the Island of S[t] Helena Freeholder Five Acres of Gumwood Land Butting and bounding Upon the Hon[ble] to the Hon[ble] Companys Wasteland, Upon the East and South to her Own Land, Upon the West to Margaret Sich Wedow Land
To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said James Reder his Executors, Admi- nistrators, and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Years Commencing from the Twenty Fifth day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
Upon Condition that he the Said James Reder his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegeance to Our Sovereign Lady Queen Anne Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, and Yearly Pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgen Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March, the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings [p] Acre Besides One Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings [p] Annum In good and Currant Money of the said Island, to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and that he the Said James Reder his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and do at the Expiration of the Said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the Fences about the Said Land in as good Repair as they are Now, and not to Alter the Fences which are the Land Marks, and will Occasion the Alleration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor difspose of his Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the time being
In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company Lords Proprietors to these p[r]esents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Ninth day of June One thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven and the Said James Reder to the Other Part hath Set his hand
Signed in the Presence of Us Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
Matthew Bazett Execut[r]
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, leased to James Reder, son and heir of the late James Reder, freeholder of St Helena, five acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded as follows:
North the Honourable Company's waste land.
East and South Reder's own land.
West the land of Margaret Sich, widow.
Reder and his successors held the parcel for a term of twenty-one years, commencing on 25 March 1711.
The lease was granted on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Annual rent five shillings per annum in good and current money of the island, made up of four shillings per acre plus one shilling duty, payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
Condition of return at the expiration of the twenty-one-year term, to leave the fences in as good repair as at present.
Restrictions on the lease no alteration of the fences, which served as the landmarks identifying the boundaries of the plot annexed to the lease, and no disposal of the lease or interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 9 June 1711. James Reder set his hand to the other part of the lease.
It was signed in the presence of Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Matthew Bazett signed as executor.
Interpretations
The Company lease to James Reder of 9 June 1711 documents the now established practice of pairing a freehold confirmation with a separate leasehold over adjoining land. The forty-one-acre freehold confirmation sealed on the same day had covered the main inherited Reder estate, and the present five-acre leasehold of gumwood land adds a further parcel under the twenty-one-year tenure regime. The mechanism follows the precise pattern of the Doveton and Coulson grants of 17 April 1711, with the council using both freehold and leasehold instruments to settle a single family's combined tenure position.
The rent structure of four shillings per acre plus one shilling duty applied to the five-acre Reder leasehold gives a total annual rent of twenty-one shillings, calculated as twenty shillings for the five acres at four shillings each plus one shilling duty. The figure stands well above the five shillings total imposed on the two-acre Coulson leasehold and on the eleven-acre Doveton leasehold. The per-acre rent of four shillings is uniform across the Coulson and Reder leases, while the Doveton lease had applied a much lower rate of approximately fivepence per acre on the gumwood. The disparity suggests that the Doveton rate was an exception or that the calculation basis differed between the leases.
The boundary description identifies Reder's own land on the east and south, indicating that the five-acre leasehold parcel adjoined his confirmed freehold holding on two sides. The mechanism shows the leasehold filling out the borders of the freehold estate, with the additional parcel adding to the working area of the family's overall holding. The structure parallels the relationship between the Doveton freehold and leasehold parcels of April 1711, where the leasehold ground sat adjacent to the freehold confirmation.
The signature of Matthew Bazett as executor at the foot of the lease introduces a procedural feature parallel to the role of Jonas Doveton as executor of the late Leonard Coulson's estate in the Coulson lease of 17 April 1711. Bazett's appearance as executor for the late James Reder shows him taking on a similar fiduciary responsibility for another planter family's estate. The pattern indicates that the small group of senior planters and council members served as executors for multiple estates, with men like Daniel Griffeth, Jonathan Doveton and Matthew Bazett appearing in this role across several different family arrangements.
Bazett's combined role as fifth in council and executor of the Reder estate places him in a dual institutional and private capacity at the sealing of the lease. He attended the lease both as a council member confirming the formal grant and as the executor binding the estate on the lessee side. The structure raises an inherent question of conflict of interest, but the formal involvement of the other council members and the register provided the institutional cover for the arrangement. The mechanism shows the small literate circle on the island operating across multiple roles within a single transaction.
The reduced council attendance at the lease, with only Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett among the council members and Thomas Greene as register, follows the pattern of the Coulson lease of 17 April 1711. The formal grants under the new tenure system required the attestation of the senior council members, while the smaller leases were sealed in the presence of a minimum quorum. The structure shows the council distinguishing between the procedural requirements for the principal freehold grants and the supplementary leases, with the larger institutional weight reserved for the more substantial transactions.
The repetition of the prohibition on disposal without consent of the governor and council, identical in form to the provision in the Bagley, Doveton and Coulson leases, confirms that the new tenure system consistently applied this institutional control to leasehold interests. The mechanism preserves the council's continuing oversight of who held the leased lands across all the families brought within the new framework. The structure shows the council systematically applying the same restrictions across the entire programme of leases issued under the new system.
Speculations
The granting of a five-acre leasehold to James Reder alongside his forty-one-acre freehold confirmation suggests that the council was distinguishing between the parcels that had a documented inheritance basis and those that required formal leasehold confirmation under the new system. The five acres may have been ground that the late James Reder had held under an informal arrangement or under an earlier leasehold that had now expired or required renewal. The mechanism gave the heir a comprehensive title across the entire working unit, with the freehold and leasehold instruments together covering forty-six acres of contiguous and adjacent land.
The role of Matthew Bazett as executor of the late James Reder's estate provides additional context for his earlier appearances in the records. His accumulation of land at Sheel Valley and Deep Valley, his role as surveyor under warrants for the council, and his continuing presence as a witness across multiple transactions all fit within the picture of a senior figure trusted by other planter families with substantial fiduciary responsibilities. The mechanism shows how Bazett's standing as fifth in council was reinforced by his role as executor for at least one of the major free planter estates on the island.
The uniform application of the four-shilling per-acre rent across the Coulson and Reder leases, in contrast to the much lower rate on the Doveton gumwood lease, suggests that the council had moved towards a standard per-acre rent for leasehold parcels of certain categories. The Doveton lease may have reflected an earlier or different calculation, perhaps tied to the particular history of the parcels or to specific arrangements between the council and Doveton. The mechanism points to the new tenure system developing more standardised rent structures as the programme of leases progressed, with the later leases applying more uniform rates than the earlier ones.
92
Elinor Cotgrave to John Alexander
Know all men by these presents that J Elinor Cotgrave widdow and relict of Gilbert Cotgrave Late of the Island S[t] Helena free planter Deceased for and in Consideration of the Sume of ninty pounds in Currant mony of the s[ai]d Island to me in hand paid by John Alexander before y[e] Insealing and deliv- ery hereof wherewith J acknowledge my Self to be fully Sattisfyed Contented and paid Have given granted Bargained and Sold and by these p[r]esents do Clearly & absolutly Bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the before named John Alexander and his Heirs for ever all and Singular that peice or parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Seventy acres of Land formerly the Lott Lands of John Cotgrave of the S[ai]d Island free plant[r] dec[d] and Since in the Possession and occupation of the s[ai]d Gilbert Cotgrave his Eldest Son Lying Sciteate in a Small Valley Called Youngs Valley, on the East of said Island next adjoyning to the s[ai]d J[n]o Alexanders owne Land formerly the lott of John Matthews & Onesiphorus Quinney both deceased Together with all and Singular the Provissons Growing and being thereon To have and to hold the said Land and Provissions to him the s[ai]d John Alexander his heirs Execut[r] Adm[r] or assigns to do and Dispose of at his and their own propper Wells and pleasure And it is further Covenanted and agreed by and between both partys herein Concerned that he the Said John Alexander his heirs &c[a] that and may from time to time and at all times hereafter Peacably & Quietly without any manner of Lett hinderance Mollestation Contradiction or Interruption of me the Said Elin[r] Cotgrave or my Heirs Execut[r] or Adm[r] or any other person or persons whatsoever by my means Consent or procurem[t] and do hereby warrent to Defend & Keep harmless & Indempnifyed the John Alexander & his Heirs from any Incumberance whatsoever according to y[e] true meaning & Intent hereof J[n] wittness whereof J have hereunto Set my hand & Seale this 23 day of May 1712
Signed Sealed & D[d] in the p[r]esence of John Coles Isaac Wood
Elinor Cotgrave
A true Copy R[e]gisterd [p] Philipas Tovey
Elinor Cotgrave, widow and relict of the late Gilbert Cotgrave, free planter of St Helena, sold to John Alexander a parcel of seventy acres of land for £90 0s 0d in current money of the island. The sum was paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed. Elinor acknowledged the payment and gave a full discharge.
The land had formerly been the lot of the late John Cotgrave, free planter, and had passed to his eldest son Gilbert Cotgrave, who had held it in possession and occupation until his death. The parcel lay in a small valley called Youngs Valley, on the east of the island. It adjoined John Alexander's own land, formerly the lot of the late John Matthews and the late Onesiphorus Quinney. All the provisions then growing on the land passed with the parcel.
Alexander and his heirs took the land and provisions to dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Elinor covenanted that Alexander and his successors would hold the parcel peacefully and quietly without hindrance, molestation, contradiction or interruption from her, her heirs, executors or administrators, or from any person acting through her. She bound herself to defend and keep Alexander and his heirs harmless from any encumbrance.
The deed was made on 23 May 1712 and signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Coles and Isaac Wood. Elinor Cotgrave signed.
Philipas Tovey certified the deed as a true copy in his capacity as register.
Interpretations
The Cotgrave to Alexander sale of 23 May 1712 documents the same transaction recorded in the earlier deed of similar substance, with this version providing additional details that the earlier rendering had not preserved. The recital here names the original holder as John Cotgrave rather than Tehu Cotgrave, confirming that the Tehu in the earlier deed was a transcription variant of the same name. The current deed therefore corrects the documentary record and identifies the original lot-holder definitively as John Cotgrave, the same man whose dealings appear elsewhere in the records.
The identification of John Cotgrave as the original holder connects the Youngs Valley parcel to the earlier records of his other dealings. John Cotgrave had taken the 99-year lease of the Rhodes plantation from Elizabeth Rhodes on 27 October 1687 and had bought a Chapel Valley dwelling house from Thomas Tewsdale on 19 April 1694 for £35 12s 0d. The current deed adds the seventy-acre Youngs Valley lot to the recorded inventory of his holdings, and the structure shows John Cotgrave as one of the more substantial free planters of the late seventeenth century with property across multiple parts of the island.
The descent of the parcel from John Cotgrave to his eldest son Gilbert Cotgrave shows the operation of primogeniture in the inheritance of the family estate. The lot land passed to the eldest son as the principal heir, with the mother Margaret Cotgrave receiving other parts of the estate as widow and the younger children presumably being provided for in other ways. The mechanism gave the eldest son the core of the family's rural land, with the urban and leasehold holdings being distributed separately.
The boundary description identifies John Alexander's own adjoining land as formerly the lot of the late John Matthews and the late Onesiphorus Quinney. The reference to two former holders for the adjoining parcel indicates that Alexander's land had been assembled from two separate original allotments, perhaps by purchase from successive owners or by inheritance through different lines. The 1682 inquest had recorded a John Mathews among the original allottees, and the current deed confirms that his lot had eventually come into Alexander's possession alongside the former Quinney parcel.
The name Onesiphorus Quinney introduces a previously unrecorded original holder. The unusual first name Onesiphorus, taken from the New Testament, was a distinctive Puritan choice that places Quinney within the religious milieu of the early settlers. The earlier records had named a different Onesiphorus, Onesipherus Sheado, in the context of the John Robinson bond to pay the Sheado children their portions. The recurrence of the name across two separate families confirms its currency among the planter community of the late seventeenth century.
Philipas Tovey's certification as register, with the spelling of his first name given here as Philipas, matches the Philip Tovey of the earlier Grandy to Alexander deed of November 1701 and the Philip Forsy of the Beale brothers' sales of February 1716. The succession of registers across the records reflects the transitions in the office during the period, with multiple men holding the position at different times. Tovey's appearance here in 1712 confirms his continuing role as register through the second decade of the eighteenth century.
The witnesses John Coles and Isaac Wood do not appear elsewhere in the records reviewed so far. The John Coles named here is presumably the same as the John Coles who had appeared in earlier deeds as a free planter at the head of Fryer Valley, with his sale of ten acres to Thomas Goodwin in March 1696. The recurrence of the name across more than fifteen years would be consistent with the same man continuing as an established planter, and the choice of Coles as a witness to the Cotgrave to Alexander deed places him within the network of established figures supporting the transaction.
The cash price of £90 0s 0d for the seventy acres works out at about £1 6s 0d per acre, which falls towards the lower end of the upland market established by the earlier deeds. The figure is consistent with the rate for substantial rural parcels on the east of the island, and the relative modesty of the price compared to the £7 0s 0d per acre rate of the Hoskison to Powell sale of September 1706 or the £4 6s 0d per acre rate of the Powell to Greentree sale of March 1703 suggests that the Youngs Valley land was viewed as less productive than the more central holdings.
Speculations
The 23 May 1712 dating of the deed places it about a year before the implementation of the new tenure system documented in the April 1711 consultation. The mechanism of recording the chain of ownership through specific predecessors, the warranty against encumbrances and the formal involvement of the register in certifying a true copy fit the pattern of property dealings under the new system. The structure suggests that the new tenure framework had introduced more rigorous documentary requirements that the earlier deeds of 1701 and earlier years had not always observed.
Elinor Cotgrave's decision to sell the entire seventy-acre Youngs Valley parcel to John Alexander, rather than to retain it for her own use or to pass it on to any further heirs, suggests that the Cotgrave line through Gilbert had ended without a male heir who could take the land. The mechanism would have left Elinor as the sole holder of the rural estate, and her decision to convert it into cash through the sale to Alexander reflects either a desire for liquidity or the absence of any continuing family interest in maintaining the rural holding. The £90 0s 0d would have given her substantial provision for her own remaining years.
The acquisition by John Alexander of the seventy-acre Youngs Valley parcel, adjoining his existing land formed from the former Matthews and Quinney lots, gave him a consolidated rural estate of considerable size. The combined holdings would have totalled well over a hundred acres of upland on the east of the island, and the mechanism shows Alexander building a substantial personal estate alongside his institutional duties as register and clerk of the council. The structure reflects the pattern across the records of senior office-holders accumulating land through purchases at favourable prices, with their position within the registration system giving them both the information and the connections needed to identify and complete such acquisitions.
93
Comp[anys] Deed to Gabriel Powell The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Mer- chants of London Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Gabriell Powell Freeholder, Fifty Acres and a halfe of Cabbidge tree Land, Butting and bounding Towards the North upon Frances Wrangham Land, Towards the East upon James Reders Land, Towards the South upon John Bowmans Land, Towards the West upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste land, formerly John Lufkin in the Said Island (which he the Said Gabreell Powell hath a Just Right and Title to, As may appear more Largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thortieth day of May One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a Certain day therein Limeted, but None apprearring or any Objection made) To have and to hold the Said premises to him the Said Gabriell Powell his Heirs and Assignes for Ever, Upon Condition that he the Said Gabreell Powell his Heirs and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen Her Heirs and Successor, and to the Said Company, and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these p[r]esents Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Ninth day of June In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
The Plott and Plan of the above said Land being hereunto Annexeed alfs Coppy of this Deed and Plan Entered in the Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delivered on the Presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Govern[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Gabriel Powell, freeholder, fifty and a half acres of cabbage tree land. The parcel was bounded as follows:
North the land of Francis Wrangham.
East the land of James Reder.
South the land of John Bowman.
West the Honourable Company's waste land, formerly held by John Lufkin.
Powell's right and title to the fifty and a half acres had been confirmed by a consultation held on 30 May 1711. Notice had been given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a specified day, but no one had appeared and no objection had been made.
Powell and his heirs took the premises for ever, on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on 9 June 1711. The plot and plan of the land were annexed to the grant, and a copy of the deed and plan was entered in the register book.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Interpretations
The Company confirmation to Gabriel Powell of 9 June 1711 documents one of the larger individual grants under the new tenure system. The fifty and a half acres of cabbage tree land form a substantial single holding, and the absence of any inheritance recital indicates that Powell held the land in his own right rather than as heir to a deceased predecessor. The mechanism shows the new tenure system being used to confirm the title of an established holder, with the formal grant giving documentary substance to an existing position.
The boundary description connects the Powell parcel to several of the other holders confirmed in the spring 1711 programme. James Reder, who had received his own confirmation on the same day, appears as the eastern neighbour. Francis Wrangham appears as the northern neighbour, John Bowman as the southern, and the Company's waste land formerly held by John Lufkin as the western. The recital that the western boundary was formerly held by Lufkin connects the parcel to the 26 June 1707 bill of sale by which Lufkin had sold a dwelling house and thirty acres to the Company for £350 0s 0d in sterling. The mechanism shows the council preserving the documentary chain of earlier holdings even where the land had reverted to the Company.
The fact that Powell received only a freehold confirmation, without an accompanying leasehold of adjoining cabbage tree or gumwood ground, distinguishes his treatment from the parallel Doveton, Coulson and Reder grants. The structure suggests that the Powell estate consisted entirely of land suitable for freehold confirmation under the new system, with no smaller adjoining parcels requiring leasehold treatment. The mechanism reflects the council's flexibility in applying the new tenure framework to the particular circumstances of each holder's estate.
The reference to fifty and a half acres of cabbage tree land identifies the parcel as a single category of vegetation. The earlier grants to Doveton and Reder had split their holdings between cabbage tree and gumwood areas, with the council distinguishing between the two species in the documentary record. The Powell parcel as wholly cabbage tree land indicates either that the entire fifty and a half acres bore that vegetation type or that the council was applying the dominant category as a single descriptor regardless of any minor internal variations.
Gabriel Powell's earlier dealings across the records establish him as a major land trader and substantial holder. His same-day purchase from George Hoskison on 11 May 1704 of twenty acres at Peak Gult for £32 0s 0d and onward sale to Robert Gurling for £100 0s 0d, his £350 0s 0d acquisition of dwelling house and fifty acres from Hoskison on 7 September 1706, his sale of twenty acres to James Greentree on 11 March 1703 for £86 0s 0d, his arrangement with James Sich over the disputed Beale parcel in December 1707, and his appearance as witness to multiple transactions all confirm his position as one of the more active figures in the records.
The fifty and a half acres confirmed here in June 1711 may include or overlap with the fifty acres bought from Hoskison in September 1706, although the precise relationship between the parcels cannot be established without further documentary evidence. The mechanism of the new tenure system was to confirm existing holdings rather than to create new ones, and the Powell confirmation here represents the council giving formal effect to a holding that the family had assembled through earlier transactions. The continuity between Powell's documented purchases and the present confirmation shows how the new tenure system worked to formalise the existing pattern of land ownership.
The naming of John Bowman as the southern neighbour connects the parcel to the Bowman family that had appeared in the earlier records through the boundary description of the Orlando Bagley senior gift of August 1695, where Bowman had been identified as the eastern neighbour at the head of Chapel Valley. The John Bowman of the present 1711 grant is presumably the same family, perhaps the same man or a successor of the same name, and the recurrence of the surname across more than fifteen years confirms the family's continuing presence as a substantial holder.
Francis Wrangham as the northern neighbour identifies the second-generation Wrangham of the records. The original Francis Wrangham of the 1682 inquest had died and his widow had remarried Henry Francis, and the present Francis Wrangham is probably his son or grandson who had appeared as witness to multiple later transactions. The pattern shows the Wrangham name persisting as a recognised holder across two or more generations, with the boundary descriptions in the deeds preserving the family identification.
Speculations
The lack of an accompanying leasehold for Powell, in contrast to the Doveton, Coulson and Reder grants of the same period, suggests that the entirety of his holding had a clear documentary basis under the freehold confirmation framework. The mechanism would have been to confirm only the parcels with established title, leaving any informally held adjoining ground to be regularised under separate leasehold arrangements if necessary. The Powell estate may therefore have had a more straightforward documentary history than the inherited estates of the other freeholders, with fewer informal or contested margins requiring leasehold formalisation.
The size of the Powell confirmation at fifty and a half acres in a single parcel places his holding among the largest individual grants under the 1711 programme. The Doveton fifty and a quarter acres had been divided across three separate parcels, and the Reder forty-one acres had been split between a main thirty-two-acre block and a small one-acre Sandy Bay parcel. The Powell parcel as a single fifty-and-a-half-acre block represents a more compact and continuous holding, which would have been more efficient to manage as a single agricultural unit and more straightforward to demarcate by the fencing required under the new tenure regime.
The continuing presence of the Wrangham, Bowman and Reder names as the boundaries of the Powell parcel illustrates how the new tenure system mapped existing patterns of land ownership rather than imposing a new geography. The mechanism preserved the established arrangement of holdings, with the council documenting the position rather than reorganising it. The structure points to the new tenure system as an exercise in formalisation rather than in redistribution, with the council's role being to give institutional form to the patterns of ownership that had already developed on the ground.
94
Island S[t] Helena
H[ono]ble Comp[any] Lease to Cap[t] Geo[r] Haswell The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[any] of Merchants of England traieing to the East Indies
Do hereby demise Lett & Sett unto Cap[t] George Haswell of the Said Island Deputy Governe[r] Six Acres of Gumwood Land lying & being in Sandy bay, toward the North upon the Said Cap[t] Haswells own ten Acres free land, and upon the South, East and West upon the Hon[ble] Comp[anys] Waste Land, To have and to hold the Said Six Acres of Land to him the Said Cap[t] George Haswell his Execut[r] Adminisrat[r] & Assigns for the Term and time of twenty one years Commencing from the 25 day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen Upon Condition that he the said Cap[t] Geo[r] Haswell his Execut[r] Adminisrat[r] & Assigns Shall always do & bear true faith, & Allegiance to our Sovereygne Lord King George His Heirs & Successors and to the Hon[ble] United Comp[any] and their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of y[e] Said Island, & Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blefsed Virgin Mary being y[e] 25 Day of March, the Annuall Rent of four Shillings [p] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings [p] annum, in good & Currant money of the Said Island to the Said Hon[ble] United Comp[any] & their Successors. And that he y[e] Said Cap[t] Geo[r] Haswell & his Execut[r] &c[a] Shall be obliged to keep up the Same Number of trees, as there is at this Present, in the room of those that Shall hereafter be Cutt Down, or used, or that fall by high winds, or age, and Shall plant besides round the inside of the Fences, ten Fruit trees to every Acre before Mentioned, but plantans &c[a] [p]igy trees to be reckoned in that Number of trees to be So planted. And that the Said Cap[t] Geo[r] Haswell his Execut[r] Adm[r] & Assigns, Shall and do at the Expiration of the Said Term of twenty one Years, leave the fences about the Said Land in good repair, and after the S[ai]d Land is Sufficiently fenced & Secured they are not to be Altered without leave forst obtained, they being the Land Marks, and that will Occasion the Alteration of the plott hereunto, to be Annexed after measurem[t] nor to Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same without the Consent of the Gov[r] & Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Comp[any] & Lords Proprietors of the Said Island have to these P[r]es[en]ts Sett their Comon Seale at their Castle in James Valley, this Seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord One thousand Seven hundred & Seventeen, And the Said Cap[t] Geo[r] Haswell to the other part hath Sett his hand and Seale
Signed & Delivered in the presence of us W[m] Alexander
Geo[r] Haswell [seal]
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Captain George Haswell, deputy governor of St Helena, six acres of gumwood land. The parcel lay in Sandy Bay and was bounded as follows:
North Haswell's own ten acres of free land.
East, West and South the Honourable Company's waste land.
Haswell and his successors held the parcel for a term of twenty-one years, commencing on 25 March 1717.
The lease was granted on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Annual rent five shillings per annum in good and current money of the island, made up of four shillings per acre plus one shilling duty, payable on the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is 25 March, each year.
Maintenance of trees to keep up the same number of trees as then existed on the land, replacing those cut down, used or lost to wind or age.
Planting of fruit trees to plant ten fruit trees per acre inside the fences, with plantains and papaya trees counted in that number.
Condition of return at the expiration of the twenty-one-year term, to leave the fences in good repair.
Restrictions on fences after the land was sufficiently fenced and secured, the fences were not to be altered without leave first obtained, since they served as the landmarks identifying the boundaries of the plot annexed to the lease.
Restrictions on the lease no disposal of the lease or interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The lease was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 7 May 1717. Haswell set his hand and seal to the other part of the lease.
It was signed and delivered in the presence of William Alexander. Captain George Haswell signed and sealed.
Interpretations
The Company lease to Captain George Haswell of 7 May 1717 documents the operation of the new tenure system six years after its initial implementation in the spring of 1711. The same twenty-one-year term, the four-shilling per-acre rent plus one-shilling duty, the fencing requirement and the restriction on disposal all appear in the same form as in the earlier Doveton, Coulson and Reder leases. The mechanism shows the institutional framework continuing to function unchanged across the intervening years, with the same standard provisions being applied to successive grants.
The new feature of the Haswell lease is the explicit requirement to plant ten fruit trees per acre inside the fences, with plantains and papaya trees counted within that total. The provision sets a minimum density of sixty fruit trees across the six-acre parcel, and the inclusion of plantains and papayas indicates the council's acceptance of these large herbaceous plants as functional equivalents to true fruit trees for the purposes of the requirement. The mechanism shows the council using the lease as a tool of agricultural policy, directing the lessee to develop the parcel in a particular productive direction rather than leaving the choice of land use entirely to the lessee.
The associated requirement to maintain the existing tree population, replacing those cut down, used or lost to natural causes, gives the lease an active conservation component. The council was concerned not merely with the present condition of the land but with its long-term productive capacity, and the obligation to replace lost trees ensures that the woodland resource is preserved across the term of the lease. The mechanism reflects an institutional awareness of the dependence of the island's economy on its tree cover and a concern to protect that cover against the cumulative depletion that uncontrolled cutting could cause.
Captain George Haswell's identification as deputy governor places him in a senior institutional position. The earlier records had named Edward Walkborne as deputy governor, with his appearance across the 1708, 1709 and 1711 transactions. The current lease shows that Haswell had succeeded to the office by May 1717, and the structure indicates the natural turnover of senior offices on the island. The presence of the deputy governor as a lessee of Company land, in the same institutional pattern as Goodwin and Roberts before him, confirms that senior officers continued to acquire personal interests in island land alongside their official roles.
The reference to Haswell's own ten acres of free land as the northern neighbour of the leased six acres shows that he held a freehold parcel in Sandy Bay before taking the leasehold. The combination of freehold and leasehold land within a single estate, with the lease adjoining and extending the freehold, follows the pattern seen in the earlier Doveton and Coulson grants. The mechanism gave Haswell a consolidated holding of sixteen acres in Sandy Bay, combining the security of the freehold with the additional area of the leasehold.
The witnessing of the lease by William Alexander, with no other witnesses named, marks a departure from the standard pattern of multiple council members attending the sealing. The earlier leases had been witnessed by at least Daniel Griffeth, Matthew Bazett and the register Thomas Greene. The current lease has only William Alexander, who may be the same man who appeared in the records as Richard Alexander's witness role or as a relative of the principal John Alexander. The reduced formal attestation may reflect changes in the council's procedures by 1717 or particular circumstances on the day of the sealing.
The reference to the regnal year of King George places the lease in the reign that had begun on the death of Queen Anne in August 1714. The 1717 dating sits about three years into George's reign, and the substitution of his name for that of Queen Anne in the allegiance clause follows the established practice of updating the formula on each accession. The structure shows the registry continuing to track the metropolitan succession.
The provision that plantains and papayas were to be counted within the ten fruit trees per acre, but not in addition to them, indicates that the council was willing to accept the cultivation of these species as fulfilling the planting requirement. Plantains and papayas grow quickly and produce fruit within a few years, and their inclusion as eligible plantings would have made the requirement easier for the lessee to fulfil. The mechanism reflects an institutional balance between the desire to promote tree planting and the practical reality of what could be grown effectively on the island.
The institutional concern with maintaining tree cover, expressed both in the maintenance requirement and in the fruit tree planting obligation, reflects a particular feature of the island's environment. The relatively limited area of St Helena, combined with the demands of ship's victualling, construction and fuel, would have made forest depletion a real risk. The mechanism of using leases to require both maintenance and planting shows the council using its tenure system as an active tool for forest management, with the planters serving as the practical custodians of the woodland resource under institutional supervision.
Speculations
The introduction of the fruit tree planting requirement, not present in the earlier 1711 leases, suggests that the council had identified the need to encourage agricultural development on leased parcels through the formal mechanism of the lease itself. The mechanism would have been a response either to general concerns about food supply on the island or to particular pressure from the Company's central administration to increase the productive output of leased land. The structure shows the new tenure system evolving over time, with the council adding new requirements to the standard framework as institutional priorities developed.
The inclusion of plantains and papayas as eligible plantings, alongside true fruit trees, may reflect a particular institutional preference for the rapid establishment of productive vegetation on the leased land. Plantains and papayas could be planted as cuttings or seedlings and would begin producing within a couple of years, in contrast to the longer establishment time of fruit trees grown from seed. The mechanism would have allowed the lessee to meet the planting requirement quickly and to begin generating produce from the land sooner than a strict requirement for fruit trees alone would have allowed.
Haswell's combination of a six-acre leasehold with his existing ten-acre freehold in Sandy Bay points to a deliberate strategy of building a consolidated working estate in that part of the island. The mechanism follows the pattern of earlier senior officers, including Goodwin's accumulation across Fryer Valley, Little Horsepad and Chapel Valley, and Walkborne's mortgage taking over Smiths Plain. The structure reflects the consistent pattern of senior council members using their position to assemble substantial personal estates alongside their institutional duties.
95
Comp[any]s Deed to Sam[ll] Jefry The Lords Proprietors of this Island. The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto Sam[ll] Jefry, Freeholder, Twenty Two Acres of Cabbedge tree Land, Lying at the Head of Fishers Vally abutting upon the North to Thomas Burnam Land, towards the East upon Thomas Burnams Land, Towards the West upon the Hon[ble] Companys Wasteland, and under the Maen Redge and John Alexander, towards the South In the Said Island (which he the said Samuell Jefry hath a Just Right and Title to As may Appear more Largely upon Examination on a Consultation of the Twenty Second day of February One Thousand Seven Hundred, Eight Nine, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim On a Certain day therein Limeted, but None Appearring Or any Objection made) To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Samuell Jefry his Heers and Assignes for Ever, Upon Condition that he the Said Samuell Jefry his Heirs and Assignes do bear Always true Faith and Allegeance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Company and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these P[r]esents Set their Common Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Ninth day of June In the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Seven
The Plott and Plan of the Abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexeed Also Coppy of this Deed and Plan Entered in the Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Govern[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Samuel Jeffrey, freeholder, twenty-two acres of cabbage tree land at the head of Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded as follows:
North the land of Thomas Burnham.
East the land of Thomas Burnham.
West the Honourable Company's waste land.
South the main ridge and the land of John Alexander.
Jeffrey's right and title to the twenty-two acres had been confirmed by a consultation held on 22 February 1709. Notice had been given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a specified day, but no one had appeared and no objection had been made.
Jeffrey and his heirs took the premises for ever, on the following conditions:
Allegiance to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and its successors.
Obedience to law to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The grant was sealed under the Company's common seal at the Castle on the island on 9 June 1711. The plot and plan of the land were annexed to the grant, and a copy of the deed and plan was entered in the register book.
It was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Roberts, governor, Edward Walkborne, deputy governor, William Marsden, third in council, Daniel Griffeth, fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, fifth in council, and Thomas Greene, register.
Interpretations
The Company confirmation to Samuel Jeffrey of 9 June 1711 documents the twenty-two acres at the head of Fishers Valley that Jeffrey had bought from Thomas Toster on 12 April 1709 for £80 0s 0d. The mechanism of the new tenure system was to confirm existing holdings through the consultation procedure, and the present grant gives Jeffrey a documented freehold title to the parcel he had acquired by purchase a little over two years earlier. The structure shows the new system formalising recent acquisitions in the same way as it formalised inherited holdings.
The 1709 Toster sale had identified the parcel as twenty-two acres at the head of Fishery Valley adjoining the lands of Thomas Beurnham and Simon Whaley, with the recital that it had formerly belonged to the late Edward Heath and had passed to Toster under Heath's will. The current confirmation identifies Thomas Burnham as both the northern and eastern neighbour, which is consistent with the Beurnham of the 1709 deed under a variant spelling of the surname. The Simon Whaley of the 1709 deed does not appear in the present boundary description, suggesting either that the Whaley land had passed to another holder or that the boundary line had been adjusted between the two transactions.
The southern boundary of the main ridge and John Alexander's land introduces Alexander as a neighbouring holder at Fishers Valley. Alexander's accumulation of rural land across the records includes his 26 November 1701 purchase from James Grandy of ten acres adjoining Margaret Cotgrave, his 23 May 1712 purchase from Elinor Cotgrave of seventy acres at Youngs Valley, and now this appearance as the southern neighbour to Jeffrey's twenty-two acres at the head of Fishers Valley. The mechanism shows Alexander holding land across multiple valleys on the east of the island, with the Fishers Valley parcel forming part of a broader rural estate.
The consultation date of 22 February 1709 stands earlier than the date of any other recorded confirmation hearing in this set. The Doveton and Coulson confirmations of April 1711 had been based on consultations of 13 and 31 March 1711, and the Powell, Reder and Jeffrey confirmations of June 1711 had relied on consultations of 30 May 1711. The Jeffrey confirmation, however, references a consultation more than two years earlier, in February 1709. The discrepancy suggests either that the Jeffrey claim had been heard at an early stage of the tenure regularisation process and had then been held in abeyance until the formal grants of June 1711, or that the 1709 date was an error in the recording of the deed.
The size of the Jeffrey holding at twenty-two acres places him among the substantial planters confirmed in the June 1711 programme. His acquisition by purchase from Toster, rather than by inheritance, distinguishes him from Doveton, Coulson and Reder, who had all received confirmations of inherited holdings. The mechanism shows the new tenure system applying the same procedural framework to both purchased and inherited holdings, with the consultation hearing and public notice procedure being used to confirm the title regardless of how the land had come into the holder's hands.
The identification of the parcel as wholly cabbage tree land, without any gumwood designation, indicates that the Fishers Valley land at this point bore a single vegetation category. The earlier Powell confirmation of fifty and a half acres had also been identified as wholly cabbage tree land, in contrast to the Reder and Doveton confirmations that had split their holdings between cabbage tree and gumwood designations. The mechanism shows the council applying the vegetation category to each parcel based on its actual cover, with single-category designations used where the parcel was uniform in its tree composition.
The pattern of senior officers from the council attending the sealing of the Jeffrey grant, with John Roberts as governor, Edward Walkborne as deputy governor, William Marsden, Daniel Griffeth and Matthew Bazett as the third, fourth and fifth in council, and Thomas Greene as register, matches the attestation of the other major freehold confirmations of April and June 1711. The mechanism shows the council giving full institutional weight to each freehold confirmation, with the formal involvement of the entire governing body underscoring the seriousness of the new tenure system.
The recital that no claim had been made in response to the public notice by beat of drum follows the standard procedure across the 1711 confirmations. The mechanism gave the proceedings a formal evidentiary basis, with the absence of any objection treated as institutional acceptance of the holder's title. The structure shows the council using the public notice procedure as a means of resolving potential challenges before issuing the formal grant, with the documentary record of the notice and the absence of objections serving as a defence against any later attempt to dispute the holder's title.
Speculations
The Jeffrey confirmation based on a consultation of February 1709 suggests that the regularisation programme for tenure on the island may have begun on an ad hoc basis some time before its formal systematisation in the April 1711 consultation. The mechanism would have involved early hearings of particular claims as they arose, with the formal framework being put in place later to systematise what had previously been a more episodic process. The structure points to the new tenure system as a development of existing practice rather than a wholly new institutional creation.
The acquisition of the Fishers Valley parcel by purchase rather than by inheritance, and its confirmation under the same procedural framework as the inherited holdings, indicates that the new tenure system was designed to handle all forms of land title rather than only inheritance cases. The mechanism gave purchasers the same institutional protection as inheritors, and the structure shows the council applying a uniform standard of documentary confirmation regardless of how the holder had come into possession of the land.
Samuel Jeffrey's acquisition of the twenty-two acres from Toster in April 1709, followed by the formal confirmation in June 1711, gave him a settled position as a major freeholder at the head of Fishers Valley. The £80 0s 0d he had paid for the parcel reflected a substantial commitment to the area, and the confirmation gave his investment the documentary security needed to support further development. The mechanism shows the new tenure system creating the institutional conditions under which capital invested in land could be protected and made productive over the longer term.
96
Comp[anys] Deed to Henry Francis The Lords Proprietors of this Island. The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Henry Francis Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Gumwood Land, Butting and Bounding Towards the North upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the East upon the Land for- herer of the Hon[ble] Company Towards the South upon the Land of Francis Wrangham Towards the West on the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Also Ten Acres of Cabbedge Tree Land Butting Towards the North upon Margaret Sech Wedow Land, Towards the East upon Francis Wrangham[s] Land Towards the South upon the Hon[ble] Companys Land formerly John Lufsens, and upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Also Ten Acres of Cabbidge tree Land more Butting Towards the North upon Gabreell Powell Land, Towards the East upon John Bagleys Land, Towards the South upon Francis Wranghams Land, Towards the West upon John Bowmans Orphants Land, Containing in the whole, Forty Acres of Land in the Said Island (which he the Said Henry Francis hath a Just Right and Title to As may Appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Tewrteoth day of May The Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven and Notice being given by Beal of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a Certain day therein limited but None Appearing Or any Objection made) To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Henry Francis his Heir and Assigner for Ever Upon Condition that he the Said Henry Francis his Heirs and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegeance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen Her Heirs and Successors and to the Said Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Wittness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company have to these p[r]esents Set their Common Seale At their Castle in Said Island this Ninth day of June In the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
The Plott and Plan of the Abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed also Coppy of this Deed Entered in the Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us J[n]o Roberts Govern[r] Edw[d] Walkborne Dep[ty] Gov[r] W[m] Marsden 3[d] in Coun[m] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
Company grant to Henry Francis, 9 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Henry Francis, freeholder, three parcels totalling 40 acres.
The first parcel, of 20 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east by the former land of the Honourable Company, to the south by the land of Francis Wrangham, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of Margaret Sech widow, to the east by the land of Francis Wrangham, to the south by the Company's land formerly held by John Lufsens and by Company waste land, and on the remaining side by Company waste.
The third parcel, of a further 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of Gabriel Powell, to the east by the land of John Bagley, to the south by the land of Francis Wrangham, and to the west by the land of John Bowman's orphans.
Francis's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 30 May 1711. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Henry Francis and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy was entered in the register book.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in the island on 9 June 1711, in the presence of John Roberts governor, Edward Walkborne deputy governor, William Marsden third in council, Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett fifth in council, and Thomas Greene register.
Interpretations
The phrase Lords Proprietors identifies the Company in its capacity as territorial overlord of the island rather than as a commercial enterprise. The same body confirmed grants, took rents and adjudicated title, fusing landlord and government into a single institution.
Confirmation rather than fresh grant suggests Francis already held the land in practice. The instrument of 9 June 1711 regularised existing occupation by routing it through the formal procedure put in place under the consultation of 6 April 1711, which required all inhabitants to secure documented title within a fixed period. Francis's confirmation belongs to the same series as the Doveton, Coulson and Reder confirmations of April and June 1711.
Beat of drum notice operated as the public claim procedure. Silence on the appointed day extinguished any rival interest and rendered title indefeasible against undisclosed claimants. The mechanism transferred the cost of asserting competing rights onto rival claimants while leaving the holder protected by inaction.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to island laws made tenure contingent on political loyalty. Forfeiture for disobedience remained available to the Company as the underlying sanction, giving the grant the character of a political instrument as well as a property title.
The annexed plan and the register entry created a triple record (deed, plan, register), reducing dependence on a single document and making the title verifiable across institutional sources. Thomas Greene's signature as register confirms the succession to John Alexander in that office.
The graduated council signatures, numbered third, fourth and fifth in council, reproduce the formal hierarchy of the governing body and place the instrument among those treated as sufficiently substantial to require the full quorum rather than the reduced panel used for ordinary leases.
The boundary description draws on neighbouring holders already established in earlier records: Francis Wrangham (on three of the parcels), Margaret Sech widow, Gabriel Powell, John Bagley and John Bowman's orphans. Francis Wrangham reappearing as a boundary holder on three sides of Henry Francis's land reinforces the longstanding territorial link between the two families, Francis having earlier married the widow of an earlier Francis Wrangham.
John Bowman's orphans as a named boundary holder records adult mortality among free planters of the previous generation and the persistence of children's interests as recognisable units of tenure even before any new grant in their own names.
Distinction between gumwood land and cabbage tree land reflects the differentiated classification of upland parcels by dominant tree cover, which carried implications for both rental value and permitted use under the 1711 framework.
Speculations
The concentration of three contiguous or near-contiguous parcels in Henry Francis's hands, all bordered by Francis Wrangham, suggests deliberate consolidation around the Wrangham connection acquired through marriage. Routing the confirmation through the new 1711 procedure converted what had probably begun as informal occupation derived from the marriage portion into a secured freehold defensible against any later challenge by Wrangham heirs.
The absence of an accompanying leasehold grant, in contrast to the same-day pairings given to Doveton, Coulson and Reder, points to Francis already holding sufficient land for his purposes and seeking only confirmation of existing parcels rather than expansion. The 1711 programme treated each holder's portfolio individually, calibrating freehold confirmation and new leasehold to particular household circumstances rather than applying a uniform package.
97
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[anys] Lease to Henry Francis The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[any] of Merchants of London tradeing to the East Indies
Do hereby Demiss Lett and Sett unto Henry Francis of the Island of S[t] Helena Freeholder, Twenty Five Acres of Gumwood Land, Butting and Bounding Upon the North to the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Upon the East to his Own Gumwood land, Upon the South to Francis Wranghams Land, Upon the West on the Hon[ble] Companys Wasteland
To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Henry Francis his Executors, Administrators and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Years Commenceing from the Twenty Fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven
Upon Condition that he the Said Henry Francis his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegeance to Our Sovereygne Lady Queen Anne Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, and Yearly Pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Vorgen Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March, the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings [p] Acre besides One Shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings [p] Annum In good and Currant Money of the Said Island, to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and that he the Said Henry Francis his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Shall and do at the Expiration of the Said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the Fences about the Said Land in As good Repair as they are Now, and not to alter the Fences, which are the Land Marks, and which will Occasion the Alleration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor difspose of his Lease, Or Interest in the Same without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the time being
In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] United Company Lords Proprietors to these P[r]esents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Ninth day of June One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and the Said Henry Francis to the Other Part hath Set his hand
Signed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[m] Matthew Bazett 5[th] in Coun[m] Thomas Greene Register
Henry Francis
Company lease to Henry Francis, 9 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Henry Francis of St Helena, freeholder, 25 acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east by Francis's own gumwood land, to the south by the land of Francis Wrangham, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to Henry Francis and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Francis and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the term Francis was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the legal landmarks of the parcel and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 9 June 1711, and Henry Francis set his hand to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett fifth in council and Thomas Greene register.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Francis's same-day freehold confirmation places him within the same April to June 1711 cohort as Jonathan Doveton, John Leonard Coulson and James Reder, each of whom received freehold and leasehold instruments together. The combined package extended a holder's working estate beyond the freehold core through Company leasehold, while keeping the leasehold subject to closer institutional control.
The rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty matches the standard rate fixed by the 1711 framework for the leasing of gumwood land. The 1s 0d duty was a flat administrative charge separated from the per-acre rent, distinguishing the price of use from the cost of recording and oversight.
Payment on Lady Day, 25 March, aligned the island rent year with the metropolitan quarter day. The chosen rendering of the date as the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary preserved the older ecclesiastical formula even though the substance was secular rent collection.
The covenant to leave the fences as found and the prohibition on altering them gave the fences the status of legal landmarks. Their function went beyond physical enclosure: they fixed the boundary against which the annexed plan could be verified at any time during the term, and any alteration would have undermined the documentary basis of the lease.
The prohibition on disposing of the lease without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time marks a substantial departure from earlier 99-year leases, such as the 1687 Rhodes plantation lease, which had been freely assignable. The 1711 framework retained institutional control over the identity of the tenant and prevented unsupervised circulation of leasehold interests through informal sale, marriage or inheritance.
The witness panel, reduced to the fourth and fifth in council with the register, matches the practice that smaller leases required only a partial quorum, while the matching freehold confirmation of the same day carried the full governor and council signatures. The instrument hierarchy was thus reflected in the witnessing hierarchy.
The 25-acre parcel adjoined Francis's own gumwood land on the east, attaching the new leasehold directly to his existing freehold and producing a continuous working block. The arrangement minimised access and fencing problems and consolidated his northern frontier against Company waste.
Francis's signature in his own hand, set to the counterpart of the lease, marks him as among the literate free planters whose signatures rather than marks appear on the instruments. The contrast with the many marks recorded across earlier deeds places him within the small literate circle that included Goodwin, Alexander, Griffeth, Bazett and Greene.
Speculations
Securing the 25-acre leasehold immediately east of his confirmed freehold, on the same day as the confirmation itself, suggests a coordinated strategy to lock in both the title to existing land and the right to a further block of uncultivated gumwood before the 1711 programme moved on to other holders. Treating freehold and leasehold as a single transaction maximised the area Francis could draw within his fenced perimeter at one administrative pass.
The choice of gumwood land for the leasehold extension, rather than the cabbage tree land that featured in two of his three confirmed freehold parcels, points to a deliberate split between higher-value land held in freehold and timber or pasture ground taken on the 21-year term. Land carrying long-term tree value was kept under freehold for stability, while gumwood ground useful for present grazing or wood-cutting was acquired on the shorter institutional tenure.
98
Island S[t] Helena
Comp[any]s Lease to W[m] Alexander The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Comp[any] of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto William Alexander Single- man and Inhabitant of the Said Island, Fifteen Acres of Gumwood Land, Lying Scituate on the East part of this Island, at or near the head of Woody ridge Comonly known by the name of Sextons Ground, Buting & bounding toward the North upon Thirty Acres of Gum- wood Land, belongin[g], appertaining & in the Posession & Occupation of John Alexander (his Father) towards the South and East upon the Severall parcells of Land now in y[e] Posession of Robert Bell planter & Mason, and toward the West upon the Land of Isaac Wood Coop[er] To have and to hold the Said fifteen Acres of Land to him the Said William Alexander his Execut[r] Administrators and assigns for the term and time of twenty one years Commencing from the 25 Day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Seventeen Upon Condition That he the Said William Alexander his Heirs Execut[r] Administrators & Assignes, Shall always do & bear true faith and Alleg[i]ance to Our Sovereign Lord King George his Heirs & Success[r] and to y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[any] and their Success[r] and Should duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the S[ai]d Island and yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being the 25 day of March the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings [p] Acre, besides one Shilling Duty being in all five Shillings [p] annum, in good & Currant money of the Said Island, unto the said Hon[ble] Comp[any] and their Success[r] And that he the Said William Alexander his Execut[r] Adminisrat[r] & Assigns Shall and doth hereby Oblige himself &c[a] to keep up, Standing & Growing the Same Number of Trees as there is at this present time, in the place & Stead of those that Shall hereafter Cutt Down, or used, or that fall by age or high winds, and Shall Likewise plant trees round all and every the Inside of the Fences, besides ten fruit trees to every Acre of Land, but plantains nor figg trees to be reckoned in that Number to be So planted. And that he the Said William Alexander his Heirs Execut[r] Administrat[r] & Assignes Shall & Do at the Expiration of the Said Term of twenty one years, leave the fences about this S[ai]d Land in good repair, and after the said Land is Sufficiently Fenced in and Sec[ur]ed they are not to be Altered (untill by leave first obtained) they being the Land marks, & which will Occasion the Alleration of the Plott or plan of S[ai]d Land hereunto to be Annexed after measurement thereof, nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same without y[e] Consent of the Governe[r] & Councill for the time being In witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company and Lords Propriet[ors] of the Said Island heave to These Presents Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Seventh day of May in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred & Seventeen, and the Said William Alexander to the Other part hath Sett his hand & Seale
Signed & Delivered in the presence of us Jn[o] Alexander
William Alexander [seal]
Company lease to William Alexander, 7 May 1717.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to William Alexander, single man and inhabitant of the island, 15 acres of gumwood land. The parcel lay on the east part of the island, at or near the head of Woody Ridge, commonly known as Sexton's Ground.
The land was bounded to the north by 30 acres of gumwood land in the possession and occupation of John Alexander, his father, to the south and east by several parcels in the possession of Robert Bell, planter and mason, and to the west by the land of Isaac Wood, cooper.
The lease ran to William Alexander and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1717.
Alexander and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
Alexander bound himself to maintain the existing tree population on the parcel, replacing any trees cut down, used, or lost by age or high winds, so that the number of standing and growing trees was preserved. He was also to plant trees along the inside of every fence, and a further 10 fruit trees per acre of land, with plantains and fig trees not counted within that number.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in good repair. Once the land was sufficiently fenced and secured, no fence was to be altered without prior leave, as the fences served as the legal landmarks of the parcel and as the basis of the plan annexed to the lease after measurement. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 7 May 1717, and William Alexander set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by John Alexander.
Interpretations
The description of the lessee as single man and inhabitant fixed his civil status for the purpose of the grant. Marital status carried administrative weight because it determined whether a wife's joinder or future widow's claim could affect the tenure. Recording Alexander as unmarried at execution closed off any later assertion of a marital interest predating the lease.
The location at the head of Woody Ridge, identified by the local name Sexton's Ground, illustrates the persistence of working bynames for parcels alongside the formal surveying terminology of the 1711 framework. Such names preserved institutional memory of earlier occupiers or uses even after the formal title had passed.
The boundary description places William's leasehold directly south of his father John Alexander's 30 acres of gumwood. The placement extended the Alexander household holding southward by 15 acres without breaking the continuity of the family block, while keeping the new ground on the more restricted institutional tenure of the 21-year lease.
Robert Bell's status as planter and mason and Isaac Wood's status as cooper are recorded in the boundary clause, an unusual departure from the simpler boundary references in most earlier instruments. The notation captures the artisanal layer within the free planter category and shows how skilled trades operated alongside cultivation on the same parcels.
The reign of King George marks the metropolitan succession after the death of Queen Anne in August 1714. Allegiance clauses were updated with each new reign, and the change in formula carried legal weight because forfeiture for breach of allegiance remained the residual sanction underpinning Company tenure.
The conservation covenant goes well beyond the standard 1711 fence-maintenance clause. Alexander was bound to keep the existing tree population intact by replacement, to plant trees along all internal fence lines, and to plant 10 fruit trees per acre. The express exclusion of plantains and figs from the fruit-tree count tightened the obligation. The Company treated the parcel as a productive asset whose tree cover was to be expanded under contractual obligation, not merely preserved.
The same conservation framework had been imposed three weeks earlier on Captain George Haswell's Sandy Bay gumwood lease of 7 May 1717. Application of the same terms to William Alexander on the same day indicates a system-wide tightening of the leasehold framework in 1717, beyond the original 1711 standard.
The fences again carried dual legal and physical function. Their role as landmarks tied them to the annexed plan, while the requirement to plant trees along their inside line gave them an additional ecological function as windbreaks and as boundaries within which young fruit trees would be sheltered.
The disposal restriction reproduced the standard 1711 clause requiring the consent of the governor and council to any assignment. The provision kept the identity of the tenant under institutional control and prevented the leasehold from circulating through informal sale or inheritance.
John Alexander's appearance as sole witness is striking given his earlier role as register from 1686 and the long succession to Thomas Greene, Philip Forsy and Philipas Tovey. Acting in his personal capacity as father of the lessee, rather than as register, John Alexander used the form of attestation to lend the family stature to the boundary description that named him as the adjoining holder.
Speculations
Taking the lease as a single man, immediately south of his father's existing 30 acres, suggests William Alexander was being launched as an independent householder while the family block remained intact. The 21-year term gave him a sufficient horizon to establish himself, while leaving the underlying land in the Company's hands rather than transferring freehold to a young man not yet married.
The high specificity of the tree planting requirement on William's parcel, with plantains and figs expressly excluded from the fruit-tree count, points to an institutional concern that lessees would otherwise satisfy the requirement with fast-growing or low-value species. The exclusion forced the lessee to plant durable fruit trees of the kind required for ship victualling, and shows the Company actively shaping the agricultural mix on its leased ground rather than simply collecting rent.
Setting John Alexander's name as the sole witness to his son's lease, in place of the usual council or register attestation, performed a dual function. It strengthened the documentary record of the father-son boundary by placing the father's signature on the very instrument that defined it, while sparing the council the routine attendance required for a single-parcel lease of moderate size.
99
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto Grace Coulson Wid[ow] Freeholder Twenty Acres of Gumwood Land Lying Towards the North upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the East under the Two Gunn Ridge Towards the South upon the Land of Benoney Coulson and Towards the West upon the Land of Leonard Coulsons Orphans, And Ten Acres of Cabbage tree Land Lying towards the North upon the Land of Robert Marsh Towards the East upon the Land of William Marsh, Towards the South upon the Land of Jonathan Beales Children, and upon the West upon the Land of Beales Childr[en] the whole being in all Thirty Acres of Land Lying in the Said Island, [w]hich She the Said Grace Coulson hath a Just and Reg[u]ll Title too, As may Appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thirtieth of March One Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Nine, and Notice being given by Beat of D[r]um for any Person to make their Claim On a Sett Said day therein Limited but None Appearing or any Objection made; To Have and to hold the Said Premises to her the Said Grace Coulson her Heirs and Assignes for Ever Upon Condition that She the Said Grace Coulson her Heirs and Assignes do bear allwayes true Faith and Allegiance To Our Sovereigne Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors, And Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the Said Island this T[w]enty Third day of June One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven. The Plot and Plan of the above sa[i]d Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Coppy of this Deed Entered in the Reg[i]ster Book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Jn[o] Roberts Govern[o]r Edw[d] Mashborne Dep[t] Govern[r] W[m] M[a]urden 2[d] in Coun[n] Daniel Gr[i]ffeth 4[th] in Coun[n] Matthew Bazett 5 in Coun[n] Thomas [...]reev[..] Register
Margin Notes:
Comp[a] Deed to Grace Coulson
T[..]K
Company grant to Grace Coulson, 23 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Grace Coulson, widow and freeholder, two parcels totalling 30 acres.
The first parcel, of 20 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east by Two Gun Ridge, to the south by the land of Benoney Coulson, and to the west by the land of Leonard Coulson's orphans.
The second parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of Robert Marsh, to the east by the land of William Marsh, to the south by the land of Jonathan Beale's children, and to the west by the land of Beale's children.
Coulson's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 30 March 1699. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Grace Coulson and her heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 23 June 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, Edward Mashborne deputy governor, William Maurden second in council, Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett fifth in council, and Thomas [...]reev[..] as register, with the surname of the register partly illegible in the manuscript.
Interpretations
Confirmation of a freehold to a widow in her own name marks her capacity to hold land independently rather than through a male trustee or remarriage. Grace Coulson's standing under the 1711 framework places her alongside Margaret Cotgrave, Elinor Cotgrave, Margaret Sech and the widow of Francis Wrangham as substantial widows whose tenure was secured in the same series of confirmations.
The consultation date of 30 March 1699 stands more than 12 years earlier than the date of the confirmation itself. The 1711 programme reached back to existing administrative determinations from the 1690s and brought them within the new documentary regime, rather than re-adjudicating title from scratch. The beat of drum notice operated as the public claim procedure used across the 1711 confirmations.
The boundary description of the gumwood parcel includes both Benoney Coulson and the orphans of Leonard Coulson as adjoining holders. Grace Coulson, Benoney Coulson and the late Leonard Coulson's children together represent at least three branches or generations of the Coulson family holding contiguous ground on the east side of the island. The family had previously appeared in connection with Mrs Grace Coulson as a boundary holder in the 1700 Edmunds-Goodwin Chapel Valley deed, with late Leonard Coulson as the earlier owner of the slave Sue, and with the orphans of Leonard Coulson as a boundary in the 1711 Doveton grant. The Two Gun Ridge boundary is a working byname tied to defensive emplacement and reinforces the survival of military topographical markers in civilian land descriptions.
The boundaries of the cabbage tree parcel place Grace Coulson's land between Robert Marsh and William Marsh on the north and east sides and the children of Jonathan Beale on the south and west. The same Marsh father and son who had earlier passed the Edward Gardener inheritance through Dufton and Dweight here appear as neighbours within a confirmed framework rather than as parties to onward sale. The Beale children's appearance as boundary holders on two sides reproduces the orphan presence noted in the 1707 Lemon Garden lease (the Beale orphans' Purslane Bed) and the 1707 disputed Beale parcel let to James Sich.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to island laws gave the Company the residual sanction of forfeiture for disobedience and preserved the political character of the tenure alongside its property character.
The witness panel records William Maurden as second in council, an elevation from the third in council position attached to him in the records of 1708 and 1709. The promotion places him in the senior tier alongside Walkborne, who appears here as Mashborne in a clear variant of Walkborne, the deputy governor. The graduated council signatures together represent the full senior quorum normally reserved for freehold confirmations rather than the reduced panel attached to leases.
The annexed plan and the register copy together create the triple record of deed, plan and register entry that was characteristic of the 1711 documentation regime, designed to make the title verifiable across independent institutional sources.
Speculations
The reach-back to a 1699 consultation rather than to a fresh hearing under the 1711 programme suggests Grace Coulson's title was treated as well-established and uncontested, with the formal confirmation acting principally to bring an older administrative finding within the new documentary framework. The 12-year gap between determination and confirmation indicates an order of business in 1711 that prioritised regularisation of long-standing holdings before turning to newer or disputed parcels.
The contiguity of three Coulson holdings (Grace, Benoney and the orphans of Leonard) within a single boundary description points to a deliberate family pattern of clustered tenure on the east side, perhaps maintained through deliberate disposition by an earlier Coulson generation to keep the working block within close kin. Routing each parcel through individual confirmation in 1711 preserved the cluster while assigning the separate titles needed to protect each share against future remarriages, inheritance disputes and orphan claims.
The cabbage tree parcel placed between the Marsh and Beale families positioned Grace Coulson at the meeting point of two further established east-side households. Confirmation of her title within that crowded boundary fixed the precise lines between three families' holdings at one administrative pass, removing the latent risk of dispute that would otherwise have grown as each family's next generation came of age.
100
Comp[a] Deed to Grace Coulson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Grace Coulson Widow Freeholder Ten Acres of Gumwood Land Lying towards the North upon the Lott Land of the Said Grace Coulson Upon the East under the two Gun Ridge Towards the South and West upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land Lying in the Said Island [w]hich She the Said Grace Coulson hath a Just Right and Title too As may Appear more Largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thirtieth of March, One Thousand Six hundred Ninety Nine and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim On a Certain day therein Limeted but None Appearing or any Objection made: To Have and to hold the Said Premises to her the Said Grace Coulson her Heirs and Assignes for Ever, Upon Condition that She the Said Grace Coulson her Heirs and Assignes Do bear allways true Faith and Allegiance To Our Sovereign Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors, and to the Said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors, and Shall alwayes Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale At their Castle on the Said Island this Twenty Third day of June One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
The Plott and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed Also Coppy of this Deed and Plan Entered in [t]he Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delovered in the Presence of Us Jn[o] Roberts Govern[o]r Edw[d] Mashborne Dep[t] Gov[r] W[m] M[a]urden 3 in Coun[n] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[n] Matthew Bazett 5 in Coun[n] Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to Grace Coulson, 23 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Grace Coulson, widow and freeholder, a further parcel of 10 acres of gumwood land in addition to the 30 acres confirmed to her by separate deed of the same date.
The parcel was bounded to the north by Grace Coulson's own lot land, to the east under Two Gun Ridge, and to the south and west by the Company's waste land.
Coulson's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 30 March 1699. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Grace Coulson and her heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 23 June 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, Edward Mashborne deputy governor, William Maurden third in council, Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett fifth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The issue of two separate confirmation deeds to Grace Coulson on the same day, with the same witnesses, treated each parcel as a distinct unit of title rather than consolidating the whole 40-acre holding into a single document. The choice preserves the integrity of the individual plans annexed to each deed and keeps the documentary record tied to the boundaries on the ground rather than to the holder's overall estate.
The northern boundary of the present parcel against Grace Coulson's own lot land, a parcel previously confirmed in the earlier deed of the same day, fixes a continuous block of Coulson freehold running northward from Two Gun Ridge. The configuration extends the family's east-side concentration beyond the cluster of Coulson, Benoney Coulson and the late Leonard Coulson's orphans noted in the earlier deed.
The reference to lot land identifies the adjoining parcel as Coulson's own freehold within the original allotment system, distinguishing it from later acquisitions or leasehold ground. The term carries documentary weight because it ties the present parcel to the earlier confirmed block through an identifiable category of tenure rather than by mere physical adjacency.
Two Gun Ridge reappears as the eastern boundary, fixing the same defensive emplacement as the marker for both Coulson parcels. The repeated use of the byname across two separate deeds anchors the entire Coulson holding against a single topographical feature with military significance.
The placement of the present 10 acres between Coulson's existing lot land on the north and Company waste on the south and west marks the holding as a salient extending into uncultivated Company ground. The configuration suggests progressive expansion of Coulson tenure outward from an established core, with each new parcel sanctioned through formal confirmation rather than informal occupation.
The witness panel reproduces the senior council quorum used in the earlier same-day confirmation, with the single substantive change being the position of William Maurden as third in council rather than second. The variation between the two deeds, both signed in the same sitting, points to a working hierarchy within the council that was not rigidly fixed at every signature but was recorded according to the order in which members signed each instrument. Such fluidity in numbering is consistent with the practice that the order of seniority below the deputy governor was understood by those present but not invariably set down with strict numerical consistency.
The 1699 consultation date again precedes the 1711 confirmation by more than 12 years, placing this parcel within the same body of administrative determinations brought forward into the new documentary regime under the post-1711 reform.
Speculations
The decision to recognise the further 10 acres as a separate confirmation rather than as part of the existing 30-acre grant suggests the parcel was administratively distinct, perhaps acquired or determined at a later stage even though both stemmed from the same 1699 consultation. The separate plan annexed to each deed kept the surveying record neat and avoided the cartographic complication of representing one freehold composed of disjoint pieces under a single instrument.
The position of the parcel against Company waste on two sides marks it as a frontier of cultivation, with Coulson's freehold acting as the line beyond which Company ground remained unenclosed. Securing freehold confirmation at that boundary in 1711 protected against any later Company decision to lease the adjoining waste to a different holder whose use might encroach on the established Coulson block.
101
Comp[a] Lease to Grace Coulson
Island St Helena The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies
Do Hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Grace Coulson Widow Five Acres of Gumwood Land lying towards the North upon the Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land Towards the East and South upon the aforesaid Hon[ble] Companys Land, And towards the West upon the Land of Benony Coulson deceased.
To have and to hold The said Five Acres of Land to her the said Grace Coulson her Executors Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme of One and Twenty years Commencing from the Twenty Fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That she the said Grace Coulson her Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To our Sovereigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors, And to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March, The Annual Rent of Four Shillings [u]per Acre (and besides one Shilling Duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre) in good and Currant Money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors. And that she the said Grace Coulson her Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good Repair as they are now, and up to the the Fences which are her Land marks, and which will occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexeed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the consent of the Gov[er]nour and Council for the time being.
In Witness Whereof The said Hon[ble] United Company L[or]ds Pr[op]rietors to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley The Twenty Third day of June in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven. And She the said Grace Coulson, To the other part hath Sett her Hand and Seale. her
Signed and Delivered in Grace Coulson the Presence of Us marke
Daniel G[ri]ffeth 4[th] in Council Matthew Ba[z]ett Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company lease to Grace Coulson, 23 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Grace Coulson, widow, 5 acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east and south by further Company land, and to the west by the land of the late Benony Coulson.
The lease ran to Grace Coulson and her executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Coulson and her successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term she was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as her legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. She was not to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 23 June 1711, and Grace Coulson set her mark and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Coulson's two same-day freehold confirmations completes the institutional pattern of the 1711 framework, by which a holder's title to existing parcels was confirmed in freehold while further expansion was channelled through 21-year leasehold subject to Company oversight. Coulson's combined portfolio thus reached 45 acres on a single day: 40 acres of confirmed freehold and 5 acres of leasehold.
The boundary description records Benony Coulson as deceased, fixing his death between the earlier same-day freehold deed (in which his land was named without that qualification) and the issue of this lease. The reading is more probably explained by the leased parcel adjoining a different stretch of Benony Coulson's former holding now treated as part of the unallocated ground, since separate clerks copying separate instruments in close succession would not vary the form unless the underlying status of the boundary holder differed.
The mark rather than a signature places Grace Coulson among the unlettered holders whose tenure was nonetheless secured by the same institutional apparatus that protected literate freeholders. Her ability to assert and defend an estate of 45 acres through the formal process, without herself being able to write, illustrates the reach of the documentary regime beyond the literate circle.
The witness panel is reduced from the senior council quorum that attended the same-day freehold confirmations. The full governor and deputy governor signatures present on the freehold deeds drop away, leaving the fourth in council, the fifth in council and the register. The pattern matches the practice that leases required only a partial attendance while freehold confirmations carried the full senior quorum, even where both were executed in the same sitting.
The rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty matches the standard rate applied to gumwood land under the 1711 framework. Coulson's 5 acres at 5s 0d per annum bring the rent to a flat sum equal to the per-acre rate, demonstrating how the duty was structured to produce a meaningful charge even on small parcels.
The disposal restriction requiring the consent of the governor and council reproduces the standard 1711 clause and keeps the leasehold under institutional supervision. For a widow holding land in her own right, the restriction also operates as protection against pressure to assign the lease in connection with any future remarriage, since the council's consent would interpose between her household and any new husband's attempt to consolidate the family estate.
The fences again function as legal landmarks rather than mere physical enclosure, tying the lease to the annexed plan and giving the documentary record a verifiable reference on the ground at any point during the 21-year term.
Speculations
Taking the leasehold extension on the same day as the freehold confirmations completed a single coordinated transaction that maximised Coulson's recorded holding at one administrative pass. The choice to seek both confirmation and new leasehold together avoided the cost and delay of a second appearance before the council and used the senior quorum already assembled for the freehold business.
The placement of the leasehold parcel adjacent to land formerly held by Benony Coulson suggests Grace Coulson was extending the family block into ground that had recently fallen out of Coulson hands, perhaps on Benony's death without an immediate male heir in possession. Securing the parcel on a 21-year lease preserved the family's effective control of the area without requiring a freehold grant the Company might have been less ready to make on disputed family ground.
102
Comp[a] Deed to [Grace?] Cou[l]son Math[ew] Bazett
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Matthew Bazell Freeholder Fifteen Acres of Gumwood Land Lying Towards the North upon the Land of Robert Bell, Towards the East upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the South upon the Land of William Seale, and John Mudge Towards the West upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, and Ten Acres of Cabbage Tree Land Lying Towards the North upon the Land of Henry Coales, Towards the East upon the Land [of] Thomas Allis Senior, Towards the South upon the Land of John Welch and Towards the West upon the Land of the Said John Welch the whole being in all Twenty Five Acres in the Said Island [w]hich he the Said Matthew Bazell hath a Just Right and Title too, as may Appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thirteen of June One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim On a Certain day therein Limited but none appearing Or any Objection made; To Have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Matthew Bazell his Heirs and Assignes for Ever; Upon Condition that he the Said Matthew Bazell his Heirs and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegeance to Our Sovereign Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island. In Witness whereof the Said Hon[ble] Company to these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the Said Island this Twenty Third of June One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven.
The Plott and Plan of the Abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Coppy of this Deed and Plan Entered in [t]he Reg[i]ster book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Jn[o] Roberts Govern[o]r Edw[d] Mashborne Dep[t] Gov[r] W[m] M[a]urden 3 in Coun[n] Daniel Griffeth 4[th] in Coun[n] Matthew Bazell 5 in Coun[n] Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to Matthew Bazett, 23 June 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Matthew Bazett, freeholder, two parcels totalling 25 acres.
The first parcel, of 15 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the land of Robert Bell, to the east by the Company's waste land, to the south by the land of William Seale and John Mudge, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of Henry Coales, to the east by the land of Thomas Allis senior, to the south by the land of John Welch, and to the west by the land of the same John Welch.
Bazett's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 13 June 1711. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Matthew Bazett and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 23 June 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, Edward Mashborne deputy governor, William Maurden third in council, Daniel Griffeth fourth in council, Matthew Bazett fifth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The grantee Matthew Bazett also signed in his capacity as fifth in council, attesting to his own deed alongside the rest of the senior quorum. The double role illustrates the small literate circle on which the 1711 framework depended and the unavoidable overlap between those who administered the system and those whose holdings it confirmed. The signature served not as a check on Bazett's own grant, which was already certified by the consultation procedure, but as part of the witnessing routine that lent the instrument its public character.
The consultation date of 13 June 1711 stands only 10 days before the confirmation itself. Bazett's case moved through the procedure on a tight timetable, in contrast to the 12-year reach-back used for the Grace Coulson confirmations of the same day, which rested on a 1699 finding. The compressed schedule fits a holding determined and confirmed within the 1711 programme itself rather than imported from earlier administrative records.
Bazett's known role as practical surveyor receiving warrants to measure and lay out land places him at the centre of the 1711 measurement operation. His own parcels passing through the same procedure he administered exposes the institutional tension between officer and beneficiary, and the council resolved it by routing his claim through the standard beat of drum notice rather than by special exemption.
The 25-acre confirmation forms part of Bazett's broader accumulation. He had previously acquired 10 acres at Sheel Valley from George Dweight on a bill of sale of 2 September 1694, 5 acres adjoining from Jonathan Higham on a bill of sale of 19 December 1706, and 10 acres at the head of Deep Valley from Jonathan Mudge. The present 25-acre confirmation enlarges his recorded holding while preserving the boundary relationships fixed in those earlier deeds.
The southern boundary of the gumwood parcel against William Seale and John Mudge places the new parcel adjacent to or near Bazett's earlier acquisition from Jonathan Mudge. The Mudge family name persists across two generations as an east-side boundary holder, indicating the durable territorial presence of the household around Bazett's growing estate.
The cabbage tree parcel sits between Henry Coales on the north, Thomas Allis senior on the east, and John Welch on the south and west. Thomas Allis senior reappears as a substantial east-side holder, with the qualifier senior distinguishing him from a younger Thomas Allis already in the field. Henry Coales as the northern boundary preserves the family name first noted in the 1682 inquest holdings in Pleasant Valley and later in the chain of the James Valley dwelling at Cleve's resale to Greentree.
The witness panel reproduces the senior council quorum used in the Coulson confirmations of the same day, with the deputy governor styled Edward Mashborne in a variant of Walkborne. The continuity of the signing panel across multiple confirmations executed in a single sitting indicates that 23 June 1711 was a working day of grant business at the Castle, with the council moving through several holders in sequence.
The conditional clause requiring allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to the laws of the island reproduces the standard tenure formula and preserves the residual sanction of forfeiture for disobedience.
Speculations
Routing Bazett's confirmation through the standard procedure, with full beat of drum notice and council attestation, rather than relying on his administrative position to record the holding informally, protected the system itself against any later allegation that his role as surveyor had been used to secure unearned grants. The procedural formality answered the structural conflict of interest by ensuring that the documentary record of his title could not be distinguished from that of any other freeholder.
The same-day execution of the Coulson freehold confirmations, the Coulson lease and the Bazett freehold confirmation suggests the council scheduled clusters of holders together to economise on the assembly of the senior quorum. Bringing the surveyor's own confirmation within the same sitting as those of other holders he had measured for placed the documentary verification of his parcels alongside his administrative work, reducing the gap between fieldwork and recording.
The clean separation of the 25 acres confirmed here from Bazett's earlier purchased parcels at Sheel Valley and Deep Valley indicates that the 1711 programme treated his portfolio as a series of distinct units secured under different documentary regimes, rather than consolidating his estate into a single instrument. Each parcel retained the institutional history of its acquisition, with confirmation operating only on holdings drawn into the new procedure.
103
Carne to H[en]r[y] Francis
Island St Helena.
To all Christian People To whom These presents Shall Come Know Yee, That George Carne G[entleman] and Frances his wife the Widdow of Thomas Goodwin Gentleman deceased & his Sole Executrix of this Island for and in Consideration of the Sume of Two Hundred Eighty and Five pounds good and Currant payment of this Island to us in hand paid before the Ensealing & Delivery hereof by Henry Francis Alive of Said Island planter (where[o]f Wee do hereby Acknowledge & our Selves fully Satisfied, And for other good Causes & Considerations us there =unto moveing, Have Bargained Sold Alienated and Sett over And do by these p[re]sents absolutely Bargain, Sell, alienat Assign and Sett over Unto the Said Henry Francis his Heirs or Assigns for ever, one House with all the out House or Houses thereunto belonging Lying and being in the High Street in James Town, Chapple valley, known by the name of Capt[n] Goodwins House formerly purchased of Edward Edmonds Gentlem[a]n deceased adjoyn- =ing unto George Coulsons House on the West, unto the high Street and the House and Land formerly Capt[n] Hark[ins] on the South, Unto the Hon[ble] Comp[a]ny[s] Waste Land that the Hill on the East and also next the Said Companys Wast Land and Cock Hill on the South (there being a Passage or Alley in the Said Land and lower part of the Said House or House[s] leading to Rock Hill) To have and to hold The aforesaid House or Houses & part or parcells of Land with all the rights, profitts, & Injoyments that Wee our predec[essor]s. or Heirs did mig[h]t or could do, And soe do also for our Selves, our Heirs Executors or Administrat[ors] Warrant that at the Ensealing and Delivery hereof, Wee had full Power and Lawfull Authority to dispose of and make Sale of the afor[e]said Premises, Obliging our Selves, our Heirs &[c]. to keep Harmless the Said Henry Francis his Heirs or Assigns from all and all maner of Claims, Suites, troubles, Charges or Taxations that may happen unto him hereby. In witness whereof Wee have hereunto Sett our hands & Seals this 25 day of May Anno Domini 1715. and in the first year of His Maj[e]sties reigne of
Signed Sealed & George Carne Deliv[r]ed in p[re]sence of. Francis [...] A True Copy Registred G[od]fr[e]d S[harles] [...] H Joseph Tho[m]son E[d] [...] Toveh[y]
Carne to Henry Francis, 25 May 1715.
George Carne, gentleman, and his wife Frances, widow of the late Thomas Goodwin gentleman and his sole executrix, sold to Henry Francis, planter of the island, a house with all the outhouses belonging to it. The property lay in the High Street of James Town in Chapel Valley, and was known as Captain Goodwin's House, having been purchased earlier by Goodwin from the late Edward Edmunds gentleman.
The house adjoined the house of George Coulson on the west; the High Street and the house and land formerly held by Captain Hark[ins] on the south; the Company's waste land at the foot of the hill on the east; and further Company waste land and Cock Hill on the south. A passage or alley ran through the lower part of the property leading to Rock Hill.
The consideration was £285 0s 0d in good and current island money, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed.
Carne and his wife conveyed to Francis and his heirs or assigns the house, the outhouses, the parcels of land and all rights, profits and enjoyments that they, their predecessors or heirs had held or might have held in respect of the property. They warranted that at the sealing and delivery of the deed they had full power and lawful authority to make the sale. They bound themselves, their heirs, executors and administrators to keep Francis and his heirs and assigns free from all claims, suits, troubles, charges or taxations that might arise against him in respect of the property.
The deed was sealed on 25 May 1715, the first year of the reign of King George.
It was signed and sealed in the presence of Francis [...], with a true copy registered by Godfred Sharles [...], Joseph Thomson and Ed[...] Tovehy.
George Carne signed in his own hand.
Interpretations
The identification of Frances Carne as widow of the late Thomas Goodwin and his sole executrix establishes the route by which the property reached her present husband. Goodwin had bought the house from Edward Edmunds on 10 May 1700 for £130 0s 0d sterling, and his death by 1715 left the estate with Frances, who retained executorial control on remarriage. The marriage to George Carne brought the most prominent urban property in the Goodwin estate into the Carne household without disturbing the underlying executorial title.
Carne's new wife brought Goodwin's principal urban tenement into the marriage, but it was George Carne who signed the conveyance as the dominant party, with the consideration receipted in joint names. The form preserves the proprietary interest of Frances in her capacity as executrix while routing the actual transaction through her husband, reflecting the legal subordination of a married woman's property to her husband even where the underlying title rested in her own right.
The property's working byname Captain Goodwin's House preserves the institutional memory of the former governor's tenure across the change of ownership. The chain of named occupiers (Edmunds, Goodwin, now Francis) reproduces the standard practice of identifying urban property by the previous holder's name rather than by a street number or fixed designation.
The boundary description records George Coulson on the west, distinct from the Grace Coulson and Benony Coulson of the June 1711 freehold confirmations, and extends the Coulson family presence into the urban core of James Town. Captain Hark[ins] is named with the manuscript partly obscured, with the reading uncertain; his title of captain indicates a further military rank holder within the urban property circle alongside the earlier Captain Beale.
The passage or alley running through the lower part of the property to Rock Hill records a public or semi-public right of way across private ground. The reservation of the passage within the conveyance preserves the access route as a feature of the property rather than something the new owner could close off, and reflects the dense urban configuration in which adjoining holders depended on shared passages to reach the surrounding ground.
The price of £285 0s 0d in island currency stands well above the £130 0s 0d sterling Goodwin had paid Edmunds in 1700. The increase reflects both the addition of outhouses and improvements during the Goodwin tenure, and the difference between island and sterling currency, but it also marks the considerable appreciation of the High Street frontage during 15 years of growth in James Town. The price stands as the highest single urban transaction in the present series after the £350 0s 0d figures recorded for the Hoskison-Powell sale and the Lufkin-Company sale.
The save-harmless covenant binding Carne and his wife and their heirs, executors and administrators to protect Francis against all claims, suits, troubles, charges or taxations gave the buyer the maximum available indemnity. The breadth of the wording answered the structural risk that an executorial sale might later be challenged by Goodwin heirs not party to the deed, by creditors of the late Thomas Goodwin or by holders of competing executorial interests.
The reign year, given as the first of King George, fixes the deed within the early Hanoverian succession after the death of Queen Anne in August 1714, and matches the metropolitan succession formula already noted in the June 1715 Cleve to Greentree deed.
Carne's signature in his own hand and the certified true copy by three named registrants confirms the deed's status as a formal urban conveyance recorded in the register, with multiple attestation reflecting the high value of the transaction.
Speculations
The sale of Goodwin's principal urban tenement to Henry Francis within the first year of the Carne remarriage suggests Frances and George Carne treated the property as a realisable asset rather than as a family residence to be preserved across the marriage. The decision to convert the holding into cash through a substantial single transaction released £285 0s 0d into the Carne household's working capital while the executorial period was still open, allowing the proceeds to be applied to Carne's mercantile activities or to the discharge of Goodwin's residual obligations.
The choice of Henry Francis as buyer fits the documented pattern of Francis's accumulation in the same area, evidenced by his contemporary 1711 freehold confirmations of upland parcels and by his earlier 1709 purchase of the former Sherwin Fort James Valley dwelling from Thomas Goodwin for £50 0s 0d. The 1715 sale extended the relationship between Francis and the Goodwin estate into the most valuable single property in the Goodwin portfolio, with the prior dealings probably establishing the trust and familiarity that allowed the transaction to be brought to terms at a high price without external brokerage.
The preservation of the passage to Rock Hill within the conveyance, rather than its quiet absorption into the property, points to the council's underlying interest in maintaining access routes across James Town as the urban fabric became increasingly built up. The express recording of the alley as a feature of the property protected the public access against any later attempt by Francis or his successors to close it off, and reflects the institutional priority of through-routes within the narrow valley setting of the town.
104
Comp[a] Deed to Tho[mas] Swallow Sen[ior]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto Thomas Swallow Senior Freeholder Forty Acres of Land Lying towards the North under the Main Ridge towards the East upon the Land of Paul Charles Children Towards the South upon the land he hires of the Hon[ble] Company and Towards the West upon the Land of James Ve[ss]y formerly John [Caverley?] on the Said Island, which he the Said Thomas Swallow hath a Just Right and Title to[o] As may Appear more largely upon Exami nation in a consultation of the Twentieth day of July One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, And notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limited but none appearing or any Objection made; To have and to hold The said premised to him the said Thomas Swallow his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That he the said Thomas Swallow his Heires and Assignes do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness Whereof the said Hon[ble] Company to these presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island this Twentieth day of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
The Plot and Plan of the above said Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Copy of this Deed and Plan Entered in the Register Book
Sealed and Delivered in p[rese]nce of us John Roberts Gov[r] W[m] M[a]rsden 2 in Council Daniel Griffith 3 in Council Matthew Bazett 4 in Council Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to Thomas Swallow senior, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Thomas Swallow senior, freeholder, 40 acres of land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the Main Ridge, to the east by the land of Paul Charles's children, to the south by land that Swallow hired from the Company, and to the west by the land of James Ve[ss]y, formerly held by John [Caverley?].
Swallow's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 20 July 1711. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Thomas Swallow senior and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 20 July 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The consultation date and the date of confirmation coincide, marking the same-day determination and execution of Swallow's title. Unlike the Grace Coulson confirmations, which reached back to a 1699 consultation, and unlike the Bazett confirmation, which followed a 13 June 1711 consultation by 10 days, Swallow's case was determined and confirmed in a single sitting. The compressed procedure indicates uncontested title proved on the spot before the council without the need for a separate confirmation date.
The qualifier senior identifies a younger Thomas Swallow already in the field, distinguishing the present grantee from his son or namesake. The use of the term within the formal grant fixes the elder Swallow's identity for the documentary record at a point when generational succession had become a recurring source of confusion in island land holding.
The Swallow family had previously appeared in the records as Thomas Swallow holding a parcel adjoining Mr Robert Swallow in the 1682 inquest, and the present grantee was very probably the same man confirmed in his original allotment more than 29 years after the inquest. The 1711 confirmation thus converts a 1682 working possession into a documented freehold under the new framework.
The southern boundary against land that Swallow hired from the Company introduces the term hires as a working description of leasehold tenure. The boundary description thus records the combined freehold and leasehold composition of Swallow's working estate, with both interests held by the same person but tied to different institutional regimes.
Paul Charles's children appear as the eastern boundary holders, indicating that the substantial Sandy Bay leasehold extended to Paul Charles in March 1705 under the 99-year extension had passed on his death to his children, and that the household had developed sufficient territorial presence by 1711 to serve as a recognised boundary reference.
James Ve[ss]y is named with the manuscript partly obscured at the surname, with the reading uncertain. The recital that his land was formerly held by John [Caverley?] preserves the chain of earlier holding across at least two named occupiers, though both names are imperfectly legible. Carrying forward the earlier owner's name reproduces the standard practice of fixing parcels by reference to their documented history.
The witness panel records William Marsden as second in council and Daniel Griffeth as third in council, marking a further upward movement within the council hierarchy. Edward Walkborne, who had appeared as deputy governor on the freehold confirmations of 9 June 1711 and 23 June 1711, does not feature on the panel for the 20 July sitting, and Marsden has moved up from third to second. The absence of the deputy governor and the upward shift in council numbering point to changes in council attendance over the summer of 1711 rather than to a single fixed quorum.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to the laws of the island gave the Company the residual sanction of forfeiture for disobedience, preserving the political dimension of the tenure alongside the property interest.
The Main Ridge as northern boundary places the parcel along the principal topographical spine of the island, fixing the holding by reference to a permanent feature that needed no further description and required no surveying to identify on the ground.
Speculations
The same-day determination and confirmation of Swallow's title suggests the council was working through clear cases on the spot, with the procedure compressed for holders whose title was uncontested and whose physical occupation had been long established. The decision to use the senior council quorum even for such streamlined business reflects the institutional weight attached to freehold confirmation under the 1711 framework, regardless of the procedural simplicity of the individual case.
The juxtaposition of Swallow's confirmed freehold against his own hired land on the southern boundary indicates a deliberately staggered approach to securing his estate. The freehold confirmation locked in the core block under the most secure tenure, while the adjoining hired ground remained on the 21-year terms that the 1711 framework imposed on new leases. The configuration preserves the option of converting the hired ground to freehold at a future hearing if circumstances permitted, while ensuring that the long-occupied core was already protected.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument on the same day, in contrast to the Coulson freehold-plus-lease package executed on 23 June 1711, suggests Swallow had already secured his leasehold position separately and was using the present sitting only to convert his existing core holding into confirmed freehold. The staggered treatment of the two tenures within his estate indicates that the 1711 programme accommodated holders whose dealings with the Company had developed over time, rather than imposing a uniform single-day package on every case.
105
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Tho[mas] Swallow Sen[ior]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do Hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Thomas Swallow Sen[ior] of y[e] Island of St Hellena Freeholder, Twenty one Acres of Cabbage Tree Land Lyinge[ing] being in Sandy Bay Tow[a]rds the North, East upon his own Land Towards the South upon the Land of Thomas G[u]rgens, and towards the West upon the Land of John Robinson, Also one other parcel of Cabbage Tree Land Containing Ten Acres Towards the North under the Main Ridge Towards the East and South upon his own Land, And Towards the West upon the Land of Onesiphorus Steward deceased, The whole being Thirty one Acres of Land.
To have and to hold The said Thirty one Acres of Land to him the said Thomas Swallow his Executors Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme of One and Twenty years Commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That he the said Thomas Swallow his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To our Sovereigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors And to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, And Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth day of March, The Annual Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (besides one Shilling duty being in all Five [Sh]illings p[er] acre) in good and Currant money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors And that he the said Thomas Swallow his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the Said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are his Land Marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same: without the Consent of the Govern[o]r and Councel for the time being.
In Witness Whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors To these presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle at James Valley this Twentieth day of July in the Yeare of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, and he the said Thomas Swallow to the other hath Set his hand and Seale. Tho[mas] Swallow
Signed and Delivered in the Presence of us Dan[ie]ll Griffith 3 in Councill Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Coun[n] Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company lease to Thomas Swallow senior, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Swallow senior of St Helena, freeholder, two parcels of cabbage tree land totalling 31 acres.
The first parcel, of 21 acres, lay in Sandy Bay. It was bounded to the north and east by Swallow's own land, to the south by the land of Thomas Gurgens, and to the west by the land of John Robinson.
The second parcel, of 10 acres, was bounded to the north by the Main Ridge, to the east and south by Swallow's own land, and to the west by the land of the late Onesiphorus Steward.
The lease ran to Thomas Swallow senior and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Swallow and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per acre, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 20 July 1711, and Thomas Swallow set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The same-day pairing of this lease with Swallow's freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which a holder's confirmed freehold core was supplemented by 21 years of leasehold on adjoining ground. The southern boundary of Swallow's freehold parcel had recorded land that he hired from the Company, and the present instrument formalises that hired ground within the 1711 leasehold framework. The two instruments together convert Swallow's previously composite tenure into two clearly documented interests under different institutional regimes.
The rent formula expressed as 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, with the bracketed parenthesis treating the duty as additional to the per-acre rate, produces an apparent total of 5s 0d per acre rather than the flat 5s 0d per annum that smaller leases such as Grace Coulson's 5-acre parcel had attracted. Swallow's 31 acres at 5s 0d per acre would generate £7 15s 0d per annum, a substantial rent that places his leasehold among the more valuable in the 1711 series.
The first parcel adjoins Swallow's freehold land on two of its four sides, and the second parcel does so on three. The configuration produces a continuous block of confirmed freehold and leasehold tenure, allowing Swallow to work the combined estate as a single agricultural unit while the underlying titles remained separate. The arrangement minimises duplication of fencing, access and cultivation arrangements across the combined holding.
The boundary description records Onesiphorus Steward as deceased, fixing his death before 20 July 1711. The Puritan first name Onesiphorus parallels the late Onesipherus Sheado mentioned in the consultation book cross-references of February 1716 and the late Onesiphorus Quinney recorded as an earlier holder adjoining John Matthews. The recurrence of the unusual given name across three families indicates the persistence of Puritan naming traditions within sections of the island population, perhaps reflecting common origin or shared religious background.
The boundary holders Thomas Gurgens and John Robinson on the Sandy Bay parcel place Swallow's holding within a substantial Sandy Bay cluster that also included the Paul Charles family, James Vessy and the holdings recorded in Reder's grant. John Robinson here is probably the same John Robinson recorded in the cross-references to consultation book 15 folios 39 and 40 as having given bond with sureties for the children of the late Onesipherus Sheado.
The witness panel further compresses from the freehold confirmation of the same day, dropping the governor and the second in council and retaining only the third, fourth and register. The matched pairing of senior quorum for freehold confirmation and reduced quorum for leasehold within the same sitting confirms the deliberate hierarchical distinction between the two instrument types under the 1711 framework.
Swallow signed in his own hand and set his seal to the counterpart. The signature places him within the literate class of free planters whose direct signatures appear on the documentary record, distinguishing him from the many holders whose attestation was by mark.
The disposal restriction requiring the consent of the governor and council reproduces the standard 1711 clause and keeps the leasehold under continuing institutional supervision throughout its 21-year term.
Speculations
The fact that the leased ground had previously been described in Swallow's own freehold confirmation as land he hired from the Company suggests his leasehold occupation predated the 1711 framework and was now being brought within the new documentary regime. The 21-year term commencing from 25 March 1711 thus does not mark the start of his physical occupation but the formalisation of an established working arrangement under the standard rate and conditions.
The substantial size of the leasehold relative to the freehold (31 acres against 40) indicates that Swallow's working estate was weighted toward leasehold rather than confirmed freehold, in contrast to holders such as Henry Francis whose confirmed freehold of 40 acres dominated a smaller 25-acre leasehold. The composition reflects the relative cost of acquiring the two tenures and the apparent willingness of the council to extend leasehold quickly while reserving freehold confirmation for ground with longer established title.
The substantial rent burden of 31 acres at 5s 0d per acre, generating £7 15s 0d per annum, points to a holding whose productive output sustained a significant ongoing cash obligation to the Company. The leasehold thus served not only as a private acquisition of cultivable ground but also as a source of regular institutional revenue, and the combined freehold-leasehold structure aligned the Company's collection interest with the holder's working capacity to pay.
106
To all to whom these presents shall Come Wee Antipas Tovey of y[e] Island of St Helena and Margarett his Wife, Send greeting in our Lord God everlasting Know ye, That wee y[e] said Antipas Tovey and Margarett Tovey, his Wife, for y[e] Love & affection that wee y[e] said Antipass & Margarett Tovey, Do bear unto Mary Maxwell of y[e] Island aforesaid Spinster, Have Given Granted and Confirm[e]d and by these presents Do fully Freely and absolutely Give Grant and Confirm unto y[e] Said Mary Maxwell, One piece or parcell of Land containing about four Acres, Scituate Lying and being in Sandy Bay under y[e] Main Ridge and is part of Twenty acres of Land form[er] ly the Lott of Joseph Church Minister deceased: To have and to hold The aforem[en] said peice or parcell of Land with all and Singular y[e] Right Title Interest Claim or Demand, Unto y[e] said Mary Maxwell her Heirs Executors [Adm] nistrators or Assignes for ever, or to any other part or parcell thereof in [no?] [w]y[s] possession of Mary y[e] wife of John Orchard or any other person whatsoeve[r] We by these presents Give and Grant as aforesaid all our Right Tit[le] Claim or demand or which I or my Wife, have or may have thereunto[?] by any manner of Ways or me[a]ns that is or may be devised, And we y[e] said Antipas Tovey and Margarett his Wife, Have and by this Present D[eed?] Do put and Give full power & possession, To y[e] aforesaid Mary Maxwell all and y[e] y[e] premises with every part and parcel thereof, To her whole and [Sole?] use and behoof for ever by these presents, In Witness whereof wee have here[unto?] unto Sett our Hands and Seales, This Eighteenth day of June in y[e] Year of our Lord 1713. Antipas Tovey.
Sealed and Delivered Margarett Tovey and quit Possession given by y[e] delivery of a peice of [w]ax according to y[e] Effect of this presents Writing Witness to this were in y[e] presence of Thomas Allis but by accident part of th[e]ir Tho[s] Alles Jun[r] Henry Francis names are torn off, yet two of Henry Francis [Sam Green] the Witnesses are now Liveing the
T[h]is 26[t]h Nov[r] 17[1]7
A True Copy by [Antipas?] Tovey Reg[iste]r
Antipas and Margaret Tovey to Mary Maxwell, 18 June 1713.
Antipas Tovey of St Helena and his wife Margaret gave to Mary Maxwell, spinster of the island, about 4 acres of land in Sandy Bay, lying under the Main Ridge. The parcel formed part of 20 acres formerly the lot of the late Joseph Church, minister.
The transfer was made for love and affection, with no monetary consideration recited.
The Toveys conveyed to Mary Maxwell and her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever all right, title, interest, claim or demand they held in the parcel. The conveyance covered any part or parcel of the ground, including any portion in the possession of Mary, the wife of John Orchard, or any other person, with the manuscript imperfectly legible at the qualifying phrase. They granted to her full power and possession, to her sole use and benefit for ever.
The Toveys set their hands and seals on 18 June 1713. The deed was sealed and delivered with quit possession given by the delivery of a piece of wax in accordance with the effect of the writing.
The original witnesses were Thomas Allis senior, Thomas Allis junior, Henry Francis and Sam Green, with the manuscript torn at the lower edge so that part of their names had been damaged. A note records that two of the witnesses (Thomas Allis senior and Henry Francis) were still living when the copy was attested.
A true copy was registered by Antipas Tovey as register on 26 November 1717, four years after execution.
Interpretations
The deed operates as a pure gift for love and affection, without monetary consideration. The form converts the transaction into a family or personal disposition rather than a commercial sale, and the absence of any price closes off the ordinary contractual remedies available to a buyer for failure of title. The lifelong nature of the gift to Mary Maxwell and her heirs and assigns nevertheless gives her the same documentary security against future claims as a purchased freehold would have provided.
The qualifier spinster identifies Mary Maxwell as an unmarried woman holding land in her own name. Her standing places her alongside the substantial widows recorded across the present series, but also adds the further category of the unmarried adult woman receiving land in fee. The institutional protection thus extended to women across the full range of marital status: spinster, wife (through joint conveyances), widow, executrix and attorney for an absent husband.
The recital that the parcel formed part of 20 acres formerly the lot of the late Joseph Church, minister, identifies an earlier ecclesiastical holder. The minister category records the presence of a settled chaplain or clergyman holding lot land within the same allotment framework that applied to lay free planters. Joseph Church's death and the subsequent fragmentation of his 20-acre lot indicate that ministerial holdings were treated as ordinary inheritable estates rather than as institutional benefices reserved for successors in the office.
The reference to land in the possession of Mary, the wife of John Orchard, within the original 20-acre Church lot suggests the lot had been partitioned across several recipients after Church's death. The Toveys' present 4-acre share represented one fragment of the original block, and Mary Orchard held another. The arrangement points to the parcel having reached the Tovey household through inheritance or earlier disposition from Church's estate, with the present deed transferring forward the portion held by the Toveys.
The quit possession formality recorded by the delivery of a piece of wax preserves a symbolic ritual of livery of seisin within the documentary conveyance. The act fixed the moment of transfer at the physical handing over of an object representing the land, and the formal record of the symbolic act gave the deed its character as a completed grant rather than a mere promise to convey. The use of wax rather than the older medieval forms of turf, twig or key indicates a localised adaptation of the English ceremonial tradition, perhaps tied to the documentary materials immediately to hand.
The damage to the lower edge of the original deed, with part of the witness names torn off, prompted the certified true copy to record that two of the witnesses were still living. The note preserved the deed's evidential value by establishing that the attestation could be confirmed through surviving witnesses, even though the original signatures could no longer be read in full. The 1717 registration thus served not only to copy the instrument forward into the register but also to authenticate it against the risk of future challenge based on the damaged original.
The witness panel includes Thomas Allis senior and Thomas Allis junior together, fixing the generational succession within the Allis household at execution. Thomas Allis senior had earlier built up a substantial Deep Valley estate through purchases from Tomps, Stevens, Hemmons, Miller and Child between 1689 and 1704, and his appearance alongside his son here records the household at a moment of generational continuity. Henry Francis, also a witness, was the same holder whose freehold and leasehold had been confirmed and leased on 9 June 1711.
The four-year gap between execution in June 1713 and registration in November 1717 indicates that the parcel may have remained unregistered during the period of the Toveys' continued informal recognition of the transfer, with formal registration sought only when the damaged original threatened the future security of the title. Antipas Tovey appearing as register at the certification confirms his succession within the register office, building on the Tovey family connection to that role recorded in earlier instruments.
Speculations
The choice to convey the 4 acres outright by gift rather than to settle the parcel by will reflects a desire to fix Mary Maxwell's title during the Toveys' lifetimes rather than to leave her interest contingent on testamentary administration. The form gave her an immediate, vested freehold that could not be challenged or diminished by any later change in the Toveys' circumstances, by debts of their estate, or by claims of other family members on either of their deaths.
The decision to register the deed four years after execution, prompted apparently by physical damage to the original, indicates that the Toveys and Mary Maxwell had relied on the unregistered deed for some years and turned to formal registration only when the deteriorating document raised the risk that the title might become unprovable. The 1717 attestation preserving the names of two surviving witnesses converted the register entry into a documentary substitute for the damaged original, securing the gift against future challenge.
The express reservation against any part or parcel held by Mary, the wife of John Orchard, suggests an existing or potential boundary issue within the fragmented former Church lot. The Toveys conveyed only their own portion and disclaimed any interest in the ground held by Mary Orchard, anticipating dispute that might otherwise arise as the boundaries between the several fragments became indistinct. The wording protected Mary Maxwell against later allegation that her gift had encroached on the Orchard share, while leaving the existing Orchard interest undisturbed.
107
Comp[a] Deed to Tho[mas] G[u]rgen
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Thomas G[u]rgen Freeholder Ten Acres of Land Lying Towards the North upon the Land of Thomas Swallow Sen[r] Towards the East upon the Lands of Thomas P[ar]kins that the Hires of the Hon[ble] Company Towards the South upon the Land of James Vesey and Towards the West upon the Land he Hires of the Hon[ble] Company in the said Island Which he the said Thomas G[u]rgen hath a Just Right and Title to[o], as may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Twentieth day of July One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, And Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limitted but none [of?] appearing or any Objection made; To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Thomas G[u]rgen his Heirs and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Thomas G[u]rgen his Heires and Assignes Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to Our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Company and that Successors Cle[ar]k will duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness Whereof the said Hon[ble] Company to these presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island this Twentieth[ye] day of July, in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
The Plott and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed, Also a Copy of the Deed and Plan Entered in the Register Book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of us John Roberts Govern[r] W[m] M[a]rsden 2 in Council Daniel Griffith 3 in Council Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Council Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to Thomas Gurgen, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Thomas Gurgen, freeholder, 10 acres of land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Thomas Swallow senior, to the east by the lands of Thomas Parkins held on hire from the Company, to the south by the land of James Vesey, and to the west by land that Gurgen himself hired from the Company.
Gurgen's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 20 July 1711. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Thomas Gurgen and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 20 July 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The consultation date and the date of confirmation again coincide, matching the same-day procedure used for Thomas Swallow senior on the same day. The 20 July 1711 sitting at the Castle thus processed at least the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Swallow lease and the present Gurgen confirmation, with the council quorum carried through across the multiple instruments executed in sequence.
Gurgen had already appeared as the southern boundary holder on Swallow's 21-acre Sandy Bay leasehold parcel under the lease of the same day. The confirmation of his own 10 acres on the same date fixes the bilateral boundary at one administrative pass, with both adjoining holders documented to the same line. The procedural coordination removed any later dispute between Swallow and Gurgen at the precise moment of mutual recognition.
The boundary description records two distinct categories of leasehold ground adjoining the confirmed freehold. To the east lies land hired from the Company by Thomas Parkins, and to the west lies land hired from the Company by Gurgen himself. The dual reference to hired ground on both flanks of the confirmed freehold places the 10-acre core within a larger working block of mixed tenure. Gurgen's combined working estate thus included confirmed freehold at the centre and adjoining leasehold to the west, with neighbouring Company leasehold held by Parkins to the east.
The term hires reappears as the standard working description of leasehold ground under the 1711 framework, consistent with its use in the Swallow freehold confirmation of the same day. The terminology distinguished active leasehold occupation from the formal confirmed freehold without requiring the more legalistic term demised.
James Vesey appears again as the southern boundary holder, having featured on the western boundary of Swallow's freehold parcel. His presence around both Swallow and Gurgen indicates an established Vesey holding at the meeting point of several smaller estates in the area below the Main Ridge. The earlier holder of the Vesey ground, recorded in the Swallow confirmation as John Caverley with the surname imperfectly legible, is not repeated in the present description.
The witness panel reproduces exactly the senior council quorum used for Swallow's freehold confirmation of the same day: the governor, the second in council, the third in council, the fourth in council and the register. The continuity of the panel across the day's confirmations confirms the stable composition of the senior quorum throughout the sitting.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to the laws of the island reproduces the standard tenure formula. The clause preserved the residual sanction of forfeiture for disobedience and maintained the political dimension of the tenure alongside the property interest.
The relatively modest 10-acre size of the confirmed freehold contrasts with the 40-acre confirmation issued to Swallow on the same day. The 1711 framework operated across holdings of substantially different scales, with the same procedural apparatus and council quorum applied to confirmations whether the underlying acreage was 10 or 40 or more. The institutional cost of confirmation did not scale with the size of the holding, indicating the council's interest in bringing all freeholders within the documentary regime regardless of individual scale.
Speculations
Routing Gurgen's confirmation through the same sitting as Swallow's, and fixing their mutual boundary on the same day, suggests deliberate co-location of adjoining holders within the council's business schedule. Bringing neighbours forward together allowed the boundary line dividing their parcels to be confirmed by reference to a single set of plans annexed to two complementary deeds, rather than to plans drawn separately and potentially inconsistently at different sittings.
The smaller 10-acre size of Gurgen's confirmed freehold, set against his adjoining leasehold to the west and his neighbour's leasehold to the east, suggests his working estate had been built up principally through Company leasehold with only a small core protected by confirmed freehold. The proportion reverses the pattern seen in Henry Francis's case, where 40 acres of confirmed freehold dominated 25 acres of leasehold, and points to differential household strategies for combining the two tenures under the 1711 framework.
The simultaneous treatment of Swallow's 40-acre freehold and Gurgen's adjoining 10-acre freehold within a single sitting also offered the council an efficient means of clearing the bounded ground between two recognised holdings. With both adjoining holders confirmed in their respective freeholds on the same date, the remaining Company waste and Company leasehold ground around them could be administered without ambiguity about which parcels were already in private hands. The procedure thus served both the immediate interests of the holders and the longer-term cartographic clarity of the Company's land register.
108
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Tho[mas] G[u]rgen
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies.
Do Hereby Demise Lett and Set Unto Thomas Gargen of the Island of St Hellena Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Gumwood Land Lyeing and being in Sandy Bay Towards the North upon the Land of Thomas Swallow Sen[r], upon the Land of Paul Charles Children Towards the East upon his Own Free Land and Toward the West upon the Land of John Robinson.
To have and to hold The said Twenty Acres of Land to him the said Thomas Gargen his Executors Administrators and Assignes For the Term of One and Twenty Years Commenceing from the Twenty Fifth day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition that he the said Thomas Gargen his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To Our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors and to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Suc[c]essors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, And Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March, the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (Besides One Shillen[g] duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] annum in good and Currant Money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors. And that he the said Thomas Gargen his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty One Years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good Repair as they are Now, and not to Alter the Fences which are his Land Marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Govern[r] and Councill for the time being.
In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on James Vally, this Twentieth day of July, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, and he the said Thomas Gargen to the Other part hath Set his hand and Seale.
J[?] Gargen
Signed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of Us
Dan[ie]ll Griffith 3 in Councill
Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Coun[n]
Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company lease to Thomas Gargen, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Gargen of St Helena, freeholder, 20 acres of gumwood land in Sandy Bay.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Thomas Swallow senior and the land of Paul Charles's children, to the east by Gargen's own freehold land, and to the west by the land of John Robinson.
The lease ran to Thomas Gargen and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Gargen and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 20 July 1711, and Thomas Gargen set his hand and seal to the counterpart with the initial of his given name imperfectly legible in the manuscript.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The lease pairs with Gargen's same-day freehold confirmation of 10 acres, producing a combined working estate of 30 acres made up of 10 acres of confirmed freehold and 20 acres of 21-year leasehold. The structure replicates the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging used for Henry Francis on 9 June 1711, for Grace Coulson on 23 June 1711 and for Thomas Swallow senior earlier on 20 July 1711.
The boundary description records the leased parcel adjoining Gargen's own freehold land on the east. The configuration places the confirmed core and the leased extension as a continuous block, allowing the combined ground to be worked as a single agricultural unit while the underlying titles remained separate. The same arrangement was used in the Swallow lease, in the Henry Francis lease and in the Grace Coulson lease, indicating a deliberate institutional preference for placing new leasehold parcels in physical continuity with confirmed freehold rather than scattered across distant ground.
The northern boundary against the land of Paul Charles's children fixes the limits of the Charles household holding at the date of the lease, with the children rather than the parent named as the boundary holders. Paul Charles had taken the original 99-year extension on his Sandy Bay leasehold from the Company on 13 March 1705, and his children appear as the successors in tenure by July 1711, indicating his death or retirement from active holding within the intervening six years.
The rent computation expressed in the manuscript as 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, parenthesised as in all 5s 0d per annum, produces an internal inconsistency on the 20-acre parcel. Read literally, the per-acre rate would yield £4 0s 0d per annum on the 20 acres, plus 1s 0d duty, for a total of £4 1s 0d per annum, but the parenthesis treats the combined rate as 5s 0d per annum in total. The same inconsistency appears in the Henry Francis lease and the Grace Coulson lease but resolves cleanly on a 5-acre or 5-acre type holding. On Gargen's 20 acres the literal reading of 5s 0d per acre would produce £5 0s 0d per annum and is the more probable institutional construction, since the standard 4s 0d plus 1s 0d duty applied per acre across the 1711 leasehold framework.
The witness panel matches that used for Swallow's lease of the same day, dropping the governor and the second in council and retaining only the third in council, the fourth in council and the register. The matched pairing of senior quorum for freehold confirmation and reduced quorum for leasehold within the same sitting confirms the deliberate hierarchical distinction between the two instrument types.
The signatory line records the lessee's name as J[?] Gargen with the initial of the given name imperfectly legible, alongside the body of the document which records him as Thomas Gargen and the freehold confirmation of the same day which records him as Thomas Gurgen. The variant spellings within a single sitting fall within the normal range of scribal variation in the 1711 register and do not affect the substantive identity of the holder.
The disposal restriction requiring the consent of the governor and council reproduces the standard 1711 clause and keeps the leasehold under continuing institutional supervision throughout its 21-year term.
Speculations
The fact that the 20 acres of leased gumwood land sat directly against Gargen's confirmed freehold on the east, with the freehold itself bounded on its west by land that Gargen already hired from the Company, suggests the present lease formalised existing leasehold occupation that adjoined his core holding. The 21-year term commencing from 25 March 1711 thus probably did not mark the start of his physical occupation of the parcel but the regularisation of an established working arrangement under the 1711 framework.
The proportion of leasehold to freehold (20 acres to 10) places Gargen among holders whose working estate was weighted toward leasehold rather than confirmed freehold. The reversed balance, compared with Henry Francis's 25 acres of leasehold against 40 acres of confirmed freehold, points to differential household strategies under the 1711 programme. Some holders sought principally to lock in long-established freehold cores, while others, including Gargen, used the new framework primarily to bring substantial leasehold ground under documented tenure.
The smaller 10-acre size of Gargen's confirmed freehold, combined with the 20-acre leasehold and the further hired ground noted in the freehold confirmation, suggests his household relied heavily on Company tenure to assemble a viable working estate. The Company's willingness to extend such substantial leasehold beside a small confirmed freehold indicates an institutional preference for keeping marginal or recently cleared ground under shorter-term tenure rather than transferring it outright through freehold grant.
109
Comp[a] Deed to Walter Belward
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies. Do hereby Confirm unto Walter Belward Freeholder Ten Acres of Gumwood Land Butting and Bounding Towards the North upon the Land he hires of the Hon[ble] Company, Towards the East and South upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the West upon the Land of John Penney, (which he the Said Walter Belward hath a Just Right and Title to[o], as may Appear more largely upon Examination on a Consultation of the Twentieth day of July, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a sertain day therein Limited, but none Appearing or any Objection made;) To have and to hold the Said Premises to him the Said Walter Belward his Heirs and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition that he the said Walter Belward his Heirs and Assignes Do bear alwayes true Faith and allegeance To Our Soveraign Lady the Queen her Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors, and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, In Witness whereof the Said Honourable Company to these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the Said Island this Twentieth day of July, In the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven.
The Plot and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed also a Copy of this Deed and Plan entered in the Reg[is]ter book
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Jn[o] Roberts Govern[r] W[m] M[a]rsden 2 in Coun[c] Daniel Griffeth 3 in Coun[c] Matthew Bazell 4 in Coun[c] Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to Walter Belward, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Walter Belward, freeholder, 10 acres of gumwood land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by land that Belward hired from the Company, to the east and south by the Company's waste land, and to the west by the land of John Penney.
Belward's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 20 July 1711. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Walter Belward and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 20 July 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The grantee Walter Belward is the same active trader who had bought a 10-acre plantation from Arthur and Sarah Bradley on 18 October 1705 for 100 Spanish dollars and four head of cattle, who had then acquired the Sharks Valley estate and the associated 6-acre Company leasehold from George Dweight on 8 June 1708 for £170 0s 0d, and who had then sold 10 acres in Fryer Valley to Richard Gurling on 17 August 1708 for £70 0s 0d. The present confirmation brings him within the documentary regime of the 1711 framework after a series of substantial purchases and sales spanning the preceding six years.
The consultation date and the date of confirmation coincide, matching the same-day procedure used for Swallow and Gargen on the same day. The 20 July 1711 sitting at the Castle thus processed at least four documented confirmations and two leases in sequence, with the council quorum maintained across the day's business.
The northern boundary against land that Belward himself hired from the Company places his confirmed freehold core directly against his own leasehold ground. The configuration repeats the pattern noted in Swallow's and Gargen's confirmations, in which holders held adjoining hired ground that fell within the 1711 framework. The continuity of confirmed freehold and leasehold within a single working estate appears as a consistent institutional feature of the present sitting's grants.
The bounded ground against the Company's waste on two sides (east and south) places Belward's freehold core on the edge of unenclosed Company ground, with cultivation extending only to the western and northern flanks where it met John Penney's land and Belward's own leasehold respectively. The configuration marks the freehold as a frontier holding rather than a parcel embedded within an established cluster of private estates.
John Penney appears as a new holder in the present sequence, recorded only by name and as the western boundary. The absence of earlier reference to Penney in the preceding records indicates either a recent arrival or a smaller holder whose tenure had not previously generated a documented transaction. The 1711 confirmations are useful for identifying such peripheral holders, since adjacent freeholders had to be named even where their own titles were not under review.
The witness panel reproduces the senior council quorum used in the Swallow and Gargen freehold confirmations of the same day: the governor, the second in council, the third in council, the fourth in council and the register. The continuity of attendance across multiple confirmations executed in sequence confirms the stable composition of the senior quorum throughout the 20 July 1711 sitting.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Belward on the same day, in contrast to the freehold-plus-lease packaging used for Swallow and Gargen, indicates that his hired ground to the north was either already covered by a separate existing leasehold arrangement or was being deferred to a later sitting. The omission suggests the 1711 programme accommodated holders whose dealings with the Company had developed at different paces, rather than imposing a uniform package on every case.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne and obedience to the laws of the island reproduces the standard tenure formula, preserving the residual sanction of forfeiture for disobedience.
Speculations
Belward's appearance before the council in July 1711 for confirmation of just 10 acres, after a documented six-year pattern of buying and selling much larger parcels, suggests this small core represented his personal residential or family holding rather than a commercial parcel intended for resale. His earlier transactions had cycled estates of 10 to 18 acres through his hands at high prices, but the present 10-acre confirmation came forward through the 1711 framework as a long-term home base secured under the most stable tenure available, separated from his trading activities.
The presence of adjoining hired ground to the north, recorded but not separately leased at the present sitting, suggests Belward had already brought that parcel under leasehold before the 1711 programme commenced or was in the process of negotiating its terms outside the immediate freehold business. The decoupling of freehold confirmation from leasehold execution in his case contrasts with the same-day packaging arranged for Swallow and Gargen, and indicates that the 1711 procedure was administered case by case rather than as a single uniform process.
The placement of the confirmed freehold against unenclosed Company waste on two sides points to the value Belward placed on securing the boundary line at the outer edge of cultivation. By converting the inner boundary of his working estate into confirmed freehold protected by formal plan and register entry, he locked the Company out of any future decision to lease or grant the adjoining waste in ways that might encroach on his established cultivation. The strategic placement of the confirmed core thus served not only to protect existing use but also to anchor a defensible line against future institutional decisions about the surrounding ground.
110
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease Walter Belward
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Let and Set unto Walter Belward of the Island St Helena Freeholder, Six A[c]res of Gumwood Land, Bounding Towards the North and West upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, Towards the East and South upon his Own Land.
To have and to hold the said Six A[c]res of Gumwood Land to him the said Walter Belward, his Executors Administrators, and Assignes for the Term of One and Twenty Years, Commencing from the Twenty Fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That he the said Walter Belward his Successors, Administrators and Assignes shall always do and bear true Faith and allegeance to Our Sovereigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors, And to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Suc- cessors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island and Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (Besides[s] One Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings) p[er] Annum, in good and Currant Money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, And that he the said Walter Belward his Executors, Adminis- trators and Assignes shall and do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty One Years, leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are Now, and not to Alter the Fences which are his Land marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being.
In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lord[s] Proprietors to these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley, this Twentieth day of July, In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, and he the said Walter Belward to the other part hath Set his hand and Seale. Walter Belward
Signed and Delivered in the Presence of Us Island St Helena. Wee the Govern[r] and Councell of the Said Island [be?] ing on behalf and in the Manag[em]t of y[e] Hon[ble] United Daniel Griffeth 3[d] in Council Comp[a] of Merch[t]s of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Council The Proprietors of this Island, Doe hereby [Assigne?] Thomas [...]ree[...] Register and Set unto Robert Bell of y[e] Said Island the [Plott?] The above Mentioned Six Acres of Gumwood [Land?] on the Same Terms and Conditions then com[pact?] Witness our hands this first day of August 1712.
B[en]j[ami]n Bouchet [Govr?]
Jn[o] [B]lack
M[atthew] Ba[z]ett
Registered Septemb[r] y[e] 15 1712
p[er] me Jno Alexander [Reg]ister
Company lease to Walter Belward, 20 July 1711, with assignment to Robert Bell, 1 August 1712.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Walter Belward of St Helena, freeholder, 6 acres of gumwood land. The parcel was bounded to the north and west by the Company's waste land, and to the east and south by Belward's own land.
The lease ran to Walter Belward and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Belward and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 20 July 1711, and Walter Belward set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
On 1 August 1712 the governor and council, acting on behalf of and in the management of the Company, assigned the 6 acres of gumwood land to Robert Bell of the island on the same terms and conditions. The assignment was signed by Benjamin Bouchet as governor, with the office reading uncertain in the manuscript, John Black and Matthew Bazett, and was registered on 15 September 1712 by John Alexander as register.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Belward's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold core of 10 acres was supplemented by 6 acres of leasehold extension. The bounded ground against the Company waste on two sides (north and west) and against Belward's own freehold land on the other two (east and south) places the leasehold parcel as a frontier extension projecting from his confirmed core into otherwise unenclosed Company ground. The arrangement matches the configuration noted in the Henry Francis lease and the Grace Coulson lease, with leasehold acting as the outer ring beyond the confirmed freehold centre.
The freehold confirmation issued earlier the same day had referred to land that Belward hired from the Company on its northern boundary, with no separate lease instrument executed at that earlier point in the sitting. The present lease may therefore record either a fresh leasehold arrangement executed later in the day or the formalisation of the existing hired ground noted in the freehold confirmation. The bounded direction of the leasehold (north and west of his freehold), set against the earlier reference to hired ground on the freehold's northern boundary only, indicates that at least one side of the present lease covers ground beyond the parcel referenced in the freehold confirmation.
The 1 August 1712 assignment to Robert Bell, executed only just over a year after the original grant of the lease, marks a significant institutional development. The disposal clause of the original lease had required the consent of the governor and council to any assignment, and the present transfer satisfies that requirement through an instrument executed by the governor and council themselves on behalf of the Company. The form of the assignment, with the council acting in the Company's management capacity rather than simply granting consent to a private assignment by Belward, suggests the council took the parcel back from Belward and re-issued it to Bell rather than approving a transfer between the two private parties.
The assignment signatories include Benjamin Bouchet, recorded as governor in the manuscript with the office partly unclear. The appearance of Bouchet replaces the John Roberts who had held the office at the freehold confirmations of June and July 1711, indicating a change in the chief office during the intervening 13 months. John Black appears alongside Bazett on the panel as another council member, while Bazett continues from the original 1711 lease. The continuity of Bazett across both instruments preserved institutional knowledge of the parcel through the transition.
The registration of the assignment on 15 September 1712 by John Alexander as register marks his apparent return to the office after Thomas Greene had served as register through the June and July 1711 confirmations. The succession of registers across this period thus runs Alexander to Greene to Alexander, suggesting that Greene's tenure was either short or interleaved with continued service by Alexander.
The transfer of the parcel from Belward's hands to Bell's within 16 months of the original lease, with no recorded compensation to Belward, suggests either a private agreement between Belward and Bell preceded the institutional reassignment, or the council exercised its supervisory powers to redirect the leasehold for institutional reasons. The absence of any consideration figure within the assignment instrument distinguishes it from the private leasehold assignments recorded in earlier deeds such as the Heath to Charles transfer of March 1705, which had carried £60 0s 0d.
The recital of the same terms and conditions in the assignment preserves the rent, duty, fencing covenants and disposal restrictions of the original lease. Bell thus took on the parcel under exactly the obligations originally accepted by Belward, with no variation in price, term length or covenant content. The institutional framework remained constant across the change of tenant.
Speculations
The decision of the governor and council to assign the lease themselves, rather than merely consenting to a private transfer, points to active institutional supervision of the leasehold's onward circulation. Belward's pattern of buying and selling at considerable profit across 1705 to 1708 may have prompted the council to keep the present parcel under direct institutional control rather than allowing it to enter Belward's trading portfolio. The form of the assignment subordinates the leasehold's commercial value to the Company's interest in the identity of the tenant.
The reassignment to Robert Bell, named as planter and mason in the William Alexander lease of 7 May 1717, suggests the parcel passed to a holder whose artisanal trade complemented its agricultural use. The Company's preference for transferring the leasehold to a working planter rather than allowing it to be sublet or sold on by Belward indicates a policy of matching tenants to ground based on their capacity to develop it under the standard 1711 obligations. Bell's combined planting and masonry skills would have fitted him to satisfy the fence-maintenance and improvement covenants of the lease.
The short period between original grant and reassignment, coupled with the absence of a recorded purchase price in the assignment, raises the possibility that Belward surrendered the lease to the Company without immediate consideration in exchange for some other accommodation not recorded in the present instrument. The reassignment of the same ground to Bell on the same terms, executed by the council in the Company's name, would then represent a fresh grant rather than a transfer, with the institutional record presenting the transaction in continuity with the original lease for documentary convenience.
111
Giles Hayes to Isaac Wood
Island St Helena.
Know all men by These Presents That I Giles Hayes of y[e] s[ai]d Island Montross for & in Conside- ration of y[e] sum of Thirty and Pounds in good & C[u]rrant money of y[e] Island by me already received of & from Isaac Wood Cooper & Free Planter the receipt whereof I do hereby Acknowledge & my Self therewith to be fully Satisfied contented & paid Have & Do by these Presents give Grant Bargain Sell & Deliver unto the said Isaac Wood his Heirs Exe[c]u[to]rs Adm[inistrato]rs & Assignes all & Singular [the?] Piece or Parcel of Land containing by Estimation Five Acres be the same more or Less Lying Scituate & being in Fishers Valley & is of One Moiety of Ten Acres being y[e] One half or Moiety of Twenty A[c]res which was the Lott Land of W[m] Hayes And [the] said work the said Five acres is next Adjoyning to the Land of Saton Isaac & who purchased the other Five A[c]res of & from Tho[s] Hayes & The[?] D Ja[s] Woods Own Land To Have & to hold The s[ai]d Five Acres of Land together with all & Singular the Appertenances thereunto belonging or in any Wise appe[r]taining as Walls, Hedges, Ditches Banks Party Fences Water or Water Courses with all other rights Liberty[s] Priviledges & Proffits What soever unto the said Isaac Wood & his Heirs for ever to do and despose of at his or their Wills & Pleasure AND I the said Giles Hayes do for me my heirs Ex[ecuto]rs Adm[inistrato]rs & Assigns Covenant Promise & agree to & with the s[ai]d Isaac Wood his Heirs Ex[ecuto]rs Adm[inistrato]rs & Assignes that He they or either of them shall & may from time to time & at all times h[e]r[e]after have hold occupy & possess & quietly enjoy the aforesaid five acres of Land & all other the appurtenances thereunto belonging. - As aforesaid without any manner of mollestation interrupt[ion] contradiction or troubles of me & Giles Hayes or my Heirs &c. or from by or under any other Person or Persons by my means Consent or procurement and against persons claiming or to claim any right in or to y[e] Premises & & Do hereby Warrant to Defend & keep harmless & indemnify y[e] s[ai]d Wood & his heirs to any thing to y[e] contrary herof in any wise Notwithstanding In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seal this Fifth day of September One thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Giles Hayes Sealed Signed & Delivered in the presence of Jno Alexander Antipas Tovey Rich[d] Alexander [...]ne 1714 [...]ealed
Giles Hayes to Isaac Wood, 5 September 1712.
Giles Hayes of St Helena, montross, sold to Isaac Wood, cooper and free planter, 5 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel represented half of a 10-acre moiety, which itself was half of a 20-acre tract that had been the lot land of William Hayes. The 5 acres lay adjacent to the land of Sutton Isaack, who had purchased the other 5 acres from Thomas Hayes, and to Isaac Wood's own land.
The consideration was £30 0s 0d in good and current island money, received in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed.
Hayes conveyed to Wood and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns the 5 acres together with all appurtenances, including walls, hedges, ditches, banks, party fences, water and watercourses, with all other rights, liberties, privileges and profits. The land was to be held by Wood and his heirs for ever, to use and dispose of at their will and pleasure.
Hayes covenanted that Wood and his heirs would hold, occupy, possess and quietly enjoy the parcel without molestation, interruption, contradiction or trouble from Hayes, his heirs, or anyone claiming under him. He warranted the title against any person claiming any right in the premises and bound himself to defend, keep harmless and indemnify Wood and his heirs.
Hayes set his hand and seal on 5 September 1712, signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Alexander, Antipas Tovey and Richard Alexander.
A further notation reads in part [...]ne 1714 [...]ealed, with the manuscript imperfectly legible at that point.
Interpretations
The grantor's status of montross identifies Hayes as a junior member of the artillery establishment, a soldier assisting the gunner in handling and maintaining the cannon. The category placed him within the garrison hierarchy below the gunner and gunner's mate, and his appearance as a seller of inherited lot land marks the continuing pattern by which garrison personnel disposed of inherited or acquired private estates while remaining in service.
Isaac Wood's status as cooper and free planter reproduces the dual artisanal-agricultural classification noted in the 7 May 1717 William Alexander lease, in which Wood was named as a boundary holder under the same dual title. The combination of cooperage and planting placed him among the artisans whose trade skills supplemented their cultivation of free planter land. His presence as both buyer in 1712 and boundary holder in 1717 demonstrates the consolidation of his Fishers Valley estate over the intervening five years.
The parcel's chain of fragmentation traces a 20-acre lot originally held by William Hayes, divided into two moieties of 10 acres each. One moiety was further divided into two 5-acre parcels, with Sutton Isaack acquiring the first 5 acres from Thomas Hayes and Isaac Wood now acquiring the second from Giles Hayes. The successive division illustrates how original 20-acre allotments fragmented across one or two generations into smaller parcels passed between holders by sale or inheritance.
The buyers and sellers in the chain of fragmentation are linked by family ties not made explicit in the deed but identifiable through naming patterns. Giles Hayes, Thomas Hayes and the late William Hayes share a surname that points to a common family origin for the 20-acre lot, with Giles and Thomas probably brothers or cousins disposing of inherited fragments of the family estate to outside buyers Isaac Wood and Sutton Isaack.
The price of £30 0s 0d for 5 acres of Fishers Valley ground produces a rate of £6 0s 0d per acre, well above the upland rate of £1 0s 0d to £2 0s 0d per acre recorded across the upland transactions of the present series. The premium reflects either the cultivated condition of the parcel, the inclusion of significant improvements among the appurtenances, or the higher market value of Fishers Valley ground relative to gumwood and cabbage tree uplands.
The enumeration of appurtenances includes walls, hedges, ditches, banks and party fences alongside water and watercourses. The express inclusion of party fences identifies shared boundary structures between Wood's new acreage and adjoining holders, with the maintenance obligation passing to Wood through the conveyance. The watercourse reference recalls the 13 March 1704 Sensney watercourse grant and the established practice of treating water rights as separate appurtenances within Fishers Valley conveyances.
The save-harmless covenant given by Hayes binds him, his heirs, executors and administrators to protect Wood against any claim arising from his own dealings or those of persons claiming under him. The wording falls short of the comprehensive covenant given by Benjamin Miller in his 1704 sale to Thomas Allis, which had covered past and future acts by any person, but reaches further than the standard quiet enjoyment covenant of earlier garrison sales.
The witness panel records John Alexander, Antipas Tovey and Richard Alexander. John Alexander's appearance here confirms his continuing presence in the field after the apparent succession of Thomas Greene as register through the June and July 1711 confirmations, and consistent with his re-emergence as register at the 15 September 1712 registration of the Belward-Bell assignment recorded only 10 days after the present deed. Antipas Tovey is the same grantor of the 18 June 1713 gift to Mary Maxwell, and Richard Alexander reproduces the family connection to John Alexander already established in earlier records.
The partly illegible notation in 1714 may record either a later endorsement, an attestation by additional parties, or a registration entry made some 21 months after the original execution. The form is uncertain on the present reading and offers no clear institutional information without further access to the manuscript.
Speculations
The 5-acre size of the present parcel, identical to the 5-acre piece earlier acquired by Sutton Isaack from Thomas Hayes, suggests the Hayes family adopted a deliberate strategy of dividing inherited ground into uniform smaller units for separate sale. The pattern would have allowed each Hayes heir to realise cash from a discrete portion while leaving the wider family ground available for further partition or consolidation by outside buyers. The division into 5-acre fragments, rather than the more usual 10-acre or 20-acre units of the 1682 inquest, indicates a market for smaller plots that had developed by the early 1710s.
The choice of Isaac Wood as buyer, given his existing land adjoining the parcel, points to a deliberate consolidation strategy on his side as well. Acquiring the 5 acres directly adjoining his existing holding allowed him to enlarge his Fishers Valley estate as a single working block, while leaving the adjoining 5-acre parcel already held by Sutton Isaack as a fixed external boundary. The transaction thus simultaneously served Hayes's interest in realising the value of inherited ground and Wood's interest in expanding his cultivated estate without disturbing established neighbours.
The 1714 endorsement, although partly illegible, suggests the deed remained active within the documentary record beyond the original transaction. The most probable institutional purpose of such a later notation, in the absence of a clear price or party named, would have been confirmation of registration or a later attestation supporting the title against challenge. The pattern aligns with the Antipas Tovey practice noted in the 1713 gift to Mary Maxwell, where formal registration followed execution by some interval to secure the title under the registrar's authority.
112
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease to Tho[mas] Cason
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise lett and sett unto Thomas Cason Ensign and Free Islander a House and Forty Acres of Gumwood Land Lying Towards the North upon the Land of Thomas Coales deceased, and John Robinsons, Towards the East upon the Land of the Said John Robinsons, Towards the South upon the Land of Charles Steward and Towards the West upon the Land of Charles Steward and John Coles, Lying and being in Sandy Bay Commonly known by the Name of Welleys Land.
To have and to hold the said house and Forty Acres of Gumwood Land to him the said Thomas Cason his Executors Administrators and Assignes For the Term of One and Twenty years Commencing from the day of the date hereof.
Upon Condition that he the said Thomas Cason his Executors Administra- tors and Assignes shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To Our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors and to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty Fifth day of March the Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (Besides[s] One Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings) p[er] Annum in good and Currant Money of the said Island To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors. And that he the said Thomas Cason his Executors Admi- nistrators and Assignes shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty One Years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good Repair as they are Now and not to alter the Fences which are his Land Marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot here- unto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being.
In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Twenty Seventh day of July in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven and he the said Thomas Cason to the other part hath Set his hand and Seale. Tho[mas] Cason
Signed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of Us Daniel Griffeth 3 in Coun[c]ill Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Coun[c]ill Thomas [...]ree[...] Reg[i]ster
Company lease to Thomas Cason, 27 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Cason, ensign and free islander, a house and 40 acres of gumwood land. The parcel lay in Sandy Bay and was commonly known as Welley's Land.
The land was bounded to the north by the land of the late Thomas Coales and the land of John Robinson, to the east by the land of John Robinson, to the south by the land of Charles Steward, and to the west by the land of Charles Steward and John Coles.
The lease ran to Thomas Cason and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from the date of the deed.
Cason and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 27 July 1711, and Thomas Cason set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The grantee's status as ensign and free islander marks a dual classification combining military rank with civilian inhabitant status. The ensign was the most junior commissioned officer in the garrison, ranking below lieutenant and captain. The pairing of the military title with the free islander designation reproduces the practice noted across the 1700s records by which garrison officers held private estates alongside their commissions, with the leasehold framed by their civilian rather than military identity.
The free islander designation, used here rather than the more usual free planter recorded across the present series, may reflect a deliberate distinction or simply scribal variation. The term islander emphasises inhabitant status without the agricultural connotation of planter, which would fit a holder whose military duties limited his direct cultivation of the land. The arrangement included a house with the leasehold, suggesting Cason would occupy the property as a residence as well as managing the cultivated ground.
The substantial 40-acre size of the leasehold places Cason's tenure among the larger arrangements made under the 1711 framework. The combined annual rent at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty on 40 acres produces a meaningful institutional revenue, with the standard institutional construction yielding £10 1s 0d per annum on the parcel.
The working byname Welley's Land identifies the parcel by reference to an earlier holder not otherwise documented in the present records. The persistence of the byname across the change of tenure, alongside the formal Company description, preserved institutional memory of the earlier occupation under a name that probably reflected the family that had cultivated the ground before its reversion to Company tenure.
The northern boundary against the land of the late Thomas Coales fixes Coales's death before 27 July 1711. The Coales family had earlier appeared in the records as Henry Coales of Pleasant Valley in the 1682 inquest and as Henry Coales the late, the intermediate holder of the James Valley house between Edward Bryan and Richard Cleve. The present Thomas Coales as a Sandy Bay boundary holder may represent a separate branch of the family or a further generation.
John Robinson appears on both the northern and eastern boundaries, indicating a substantial holding adjoining Welley's Land on two sides. The same John Robinson had earlier appeared as the western boundary of the Swallow lease and as the western boundary of the Gargen lease, both of 20 July 1711. The recurrence of Robinson across multiple boundary descriptions within a week of administrative business places him as a significant Sandy Bay holder whose estate touched several of the parcels being processed through the 1711 framework.
Charles Steward as the southern and partially western boundary holder reproduces his earlier appearance as buyer of 20 acres in Sandy Bay from Richard Griffis (already in occupation) and as joint mortgagee with Orlando Bagley on the Joseph and Martha Fox mortgage of 18 August 1709. The 1711 boundary references confirm his territorial position across the western and southern sides of Welley's Land.
John Coles on the western boundary may be the son and successor of John Coles who in 1696 sold 10 acres at the head of Fryer Valley to Thomas Goodwin, or a separate holder of the same name. The Sandy Bay location of the present boundary, set against the Fryer Valley location of the 1696 sale, suggests these are different parcels of the same family rather than a single holder spanning the island.
The same-day pairing of freehold confirmation and leasehold execution noted in earlier 1711 transactions does not appear for Cason. The present lease stands alone without an accompanying freehold confirmation, indicating that Cason's interest in the parcel rested entirely on leasehold rather than on a confirmed core. The omission distinguishes his position from holders such as Swallow, Gargen, Belward and the Coulson household, all of whom received freehold confirmations alongside their leases.
The witness panel of third in council, fourth in council and register matches the reduced quorum used across the 1711 leases. The continuity of Griffeth, Bazett and the register Thomas [...]ree[...] across the leases of 9 June, 23 June, 20 July and 27 July 1711 confirms the stable composition of the leasehold quorum throughout the summer of 1711.
The commencement clause runs the term from the day of the date hereof, rather than from the standard 25 March 1711 used in earlier leases of the present series. The variation produces an awkward overlap with the Lady Day rent date, since the first rent payment would have fallen due eight months after the lease commenced.
Speculations
The grant of a leasehold of 40 acres together with a house, without any accompanying freehold confirmation, suggests Cason was being installed as a new tenant on ground that had reverted to the Company. The combination of named land (Welley's Land), an existing house and a 40-acre parcel points to the acquisition of a complete working unit rather than the formalisation of established private occupation. The 1711 procedure here served not merely to bring existing tenure within the new documentary framework but also to redistribute reverted Company ground to a newly installed tenant.
The dating of the lease from the day of execution rather than from the standard 25 March commencement used elsewhere in the 1711 framework indicates that Cason's tenure was treated as starting on physical entry rather than being back-dated to the institutional year. The variation reinforces the impression of a fresh allocation distinct from the regularisation of established holdings, since back-dating would have given retrospective effect to a tenure that did not exist before the date of execution.
The choice of a junior commissioned officer of the garrison as tenant of a substantial 40-acre Sandy Bay estate suggests the Company was using leasehold to compensate or reward military personnel by giving them productive private ground under institutional control. Granting the parcel as a leasehold rather than as a freehold preserved the Company's reversionary interest at the end of the 21-year term and kept the disposal restriction in force, allowing the council to redirect the estate if Cason were posted elsewhere or left the service.
The substantial rent obligation of around £10 1s 0d per annum on the 40-acre parcel imposed a significant ongoing cash burden on a junior officer, requiring him either to draw income from the cultivated ground itself or to maintain rent payments from his military pay. The arrangement thus integrated the cultivated economy of the leasehold with the institutional revenue stream of the Company, making the lessee's productive success directly relevant to the Company's annual receipts on the parcel.
113
Comp[a] Deed to W[m] Charles
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto William Charles Son and Heire of Paul Charles deceased, Ten Acres of Cabbage tree Land Lying and being in Sandy Bay Butting Towards the North under y[e] Main Ridge before James Pack, Towards y[e] East upon the Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land, Towards y[e] South upon Richard Swallows Land and Towards the West upon James Anders Land and William Slaughters, Which he y[e] said William Charles hath a Just Right and Title too, as may appear more Largely upon Examination on a Consultation of the Fifteenth of December, One Thousand Six hundred Ninety and Nine and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted but none appearing or any Objection made; To have and to hold The said Premises to him y[e] said William Charles his Heires and Assigns for ever Upon Condition That he y[e] said William Charles his Heires and Assignes Do bear alway true Faith and Allegeance To our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness Whereof The said Hon[ble] Companys to these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island, This Twentieth day of July in y[e] Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Eleven.
The Plott and Plan of [the] aforesaid Land being hereunto Annexed, also a Copy of the Deed and Plan entered in y[e] Register Book
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] Presence of us John Roberts Gov[r] William M[a]rsden 2 in Council Daniel Griffeth 3 in Council Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Council Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company grant to William Charles, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, confirmed to William Charles, son and heir of the late Paul Charles, 10 acres of cabbage tree land in Sandy Bay.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the Main Ridge before the land of James Pack, to the east by the Company's waste land, to the south by the land of Richard Swallow, and to the west by the lands of James Anders and William Slaughter.
Charles's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 December 1699. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to William Charles and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 20 July 1711. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The identification of William Charles as son and heir of the late Paul Charles fixes the route by which the parcel reached the present holder. Paul Charles had taken the substantial Sandy Bay 99-year leasehold extension from the Company on 13 March 1705, and the present confirmation marks a further dimension of the family's tenure beyond that leasehold. The boundary description of the Thomas Gargen lease of 20 July 1711 had referred to Paul Charles's children as the northern boundary, indicating that the Charles household had developed into a multi-generation cluster by July 1711.
The reach-back to a 1699 consultation as the documentary foundation places this confirmation alongside the Grace Coulson confirmations of 23 June 1711, both of which rested on 1699 findings. The 1711 framework systematically brought forward administrative determinations from the late 1690s into the new documentary regime, rather than re-adjudicating earlier titles. The 12-year gap between the 1699 determination and the 1711 confirmation indicates the depth of the institutional backlog that the new programme was clearing.
The reference to William Charles as son and heir, rather than to the children of Paul Charles collectively as named in Gargen's lease, suggests the primogeniture rule of inheritance had operated to vest the parcel in the eldest son alone. The pattern matches earlier instances in the present series, including the John Cotgrave to Gilbert Cotgrave succession in Youngs Valley and the Leonard Coulson to John Leonard Coulson succession in the gumwood holdings. The 1711 framework recognised primogeniture as the default rule for confirming inherited title.
The boundary description identifies several Sandy Bay holders not otherwise documented in the present series. James Pack to the north, James Anders to the west, William Slaughter to the west, and Richard Swallow to the south together form an established cluster of holders around the Charles family parcel. Richard Swallow as the southern boundary may be the same Richard Swallow who had bought the Deep Valley mansion from Thomas Cole on 5 June 1705, or a different holder of the same name in Sandy Bay. The recurrence of the name across the records, with Richard Swallow also appearing as a witness to leasehold assignments and as a boundary holder in Sandy Bay leases of 1711, suggests a single substantial holder rather than two distinct individuals.
The cabbage tree classification of the parcel places it within the same category as several other Sandy Bay holdings noted in the present series, including the second parcel in James Reder's grant, the Swallow lease parcels and the Thomas Bagley lease. The cabbage tree designation reflected the dominant tree cover of the area below the Main Ridge.
The boundary phrase before James Pack describes the position of the parcel relative to Pack's land, indicating that Pack's holding lay further north under the Main Ridge while Charles's parcel sat between Pack's ground and the higher Sandy Bay floor. The form of the description, fixing position relative to a known holder rather than to a topographical feature alone, illustrates the way the 1711 surveying captured the relative positions of clustered holdings within the broader landscape.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for William Charles on the same day, in contrast to the freehold-plus-lease packaging used for Swallow and Gargen earlier on 20 July 1711, indicates that the Charles family's main leasehold interest already rested in the 99-year extension taken by Paul Charles in 1705. The present confirmation extended the family's documented tenure into freehold without adding new leasehold ground.
The witness panel reproduces the senior council quorum used in the other freehold confirmations of 20 July 1711, with the governor, the second in council, the third in council, the fourth in council and the register all present. The stable composition of the panel across the day's business indicates a sustained working session at the Castle, with at least four freehold confirmations and several leases processed in sequence.
Speculations
The decision to channel the freehold confirmation through William Charles as son and heir rather than through Paul Charles's children jointly, even though the Gargen lease of the same day had described the family interest as the children, suggests an active determination of inheritance rights was made between the lease and the present confirmation. The same-day procedure separated the freehold interest as vested in the eldest son under primogeniture from any wider family interest, potentially leaving room for younger children to hold separate parcels or to take leasehold extensions in their own names.
The reach-back to a 1699 consultation indicates that Paul Charles's title to the present 10-acre parcel had been determined nearly six years before his 1705 acquisition of the Sandy Bay 99-year leasehold from Heath. The earlier 1699 determination may have established his original freehold core, with the 1705 leasehold then extending the family holding into the larger 10-acre parcel covered by the John Toster lease. The combined estate by 1711 thus consisted of an inherited freehold core plus an active leasehold extension, mirroring the freehold-plus-lease structure being formalised across the 1711 framework.
The continued use of the Charles family name as a Sandy Bay reference point, with the Thomas Gargen lease describing his northern boundary as Paul Charles's children, the present grant confirming William Charles in his own name, and the 1717 records continuing to track Charles family holdings, indicates the household had become an established Sandy Bay institution. The succession from Paul Charles to William Charles preserved the family's territorial position across the generational transition and through the documentary reorganisation of 1711.
114
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Tho[s] Perkins
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Let and Set unto Thomas Perkins Sen[r] and Free Planter, Thirty Acres of Cabbage Tree and Gumwood Land Buting and Bounding Towards the North upon the Land of Thomas Swallow Sen[r], Towards the East upon the Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land, Towards the South upon the Land of James Vesey and Thomas G[u]rgen and Towards the West upon the Land of his free and Thomas Perkins.
To have and to hold Thes[ai]d Thirty Acres of Cabbage Tree and Gumwood Land To him the said Thomas Perkins his Executors Administrators and Assignes For y[e] Terme of Twenty one Years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That he the said Thomas Perkins his Executors Administrators and his Assignes Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors and to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, The Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] acre (besides one Shilling duty being in all Five shillings p[er] Acre) in good and Currant money of the Said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors, And that he y[e] said Thomas Perkins his Executors Administrators and his Assignes Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter y[e] Fences which are his Land marks, and which will Occasion the alteration of y[e] Plot hereunto Annexed Nor dispose of the Lease or Interest in y[e] Same withouw[t] the Consent of the Governour and Councel for y[e] time being.
In Witness Whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors To these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Twentieth day of July in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, And he y[e] said Thomas Perkins to y[e] other part hath Set his Hand and Seale. Tho[s] Perkins
Signed and Delivered in y[e] Presence of us
Dan[ie]ll Griffith 3[d] in Councill
Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Co[un]
Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Figure A 4[ths?] 30 Acres m[en]tioned in this Lease
Figure B of 20 Acres of Free Land formerly Mary [Pe?] Beach
Figure C of 30 Acres belonging to Paul Charles Children as[?] y[e] Deed may appear[?]
Company lease to Thomas Perkins senior, 20 July 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Perkins senior, free planter, 30 acres of cabbage tree and gumwood land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Thomas Swallow senior, to the east by the Company's waste land, to the south by the land of James Vesey and Thomas Gurgen, and to the west by Perkins's own freehold land and the land of Thomas Perkins.
The lease ran to Thomas Perkins senior and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Perkins and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per acre, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 20 July 1711, and Thomas Perkins set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
The annexed plan distinguished three figures:
Figure A, representing the 30 acres covered by the present lease.
Figure B, representing 20 acres of free land formerly held by Mary [...] Beach, with the surname imperfectly legible in the manuscript.
Figure C, representing 30 acres belonging to Paul Charles's children, as recorded in their separate deed.
Interpretations
The lease pairs Thomas Perkins senior with the same Sandy Bay cluster of holders processed through the 20 July 1711 sitting at the Castle, including Thomas Swallow senior, Thomas Gargen, Walter Belward and William Charles. The cross-referencing of boundary holders across these instruments converts the day's business into a coordinated mapping of contiguous parcels under unified council attention.
Perkins had already appeared as a boundary holder in the Thomas Gargen freehold confirmation of 20 July 1711, where his hired land from the Company was named on Gargen's eastern boundary. The present lease formalises Perkins's leasehold occupation of that ground, and the description here records Gargen on Perkins's southern boundary in the reciprocal direction. The same-day execution of both instruments fixes the mutual boundary line at a single administrative pass.
The qualifier senior identifies a younger Thomas Perkins already in the field, with the parallel use of generational distinction noted in the Thomas Swallow senior confirmation of the same day. The western boundary description of the present lease, referring to land of Thomas Perkins without the senior qualifier, may identify the younger Perkins as an adjoining holder in his own right, reinforcing the impression of a multi-generation family cluster.
The reference to his own free land on the western boundary indicates that Perkins held confirmed freehold ground adjoining the present leasehold, although no separate freehold confirmation appears in the present documentation for him. The configuration matches the pattern noted across the 1711 framework, where leasehold parcels typically adjoined a freehold core under the same holder's tenure.
The combined classification of the parcel as cabbage tree and gumwood land marks it as covering mixed tree cover, in contrast to the single-category designations applied to most parcels in the 1711 series. The mixed designation may reflect the parcel's position straddling the boundary between two vegetation zones along the Main Ridge, or the council's recognition that the 30 acres included sections of differing character.
The substantial 30-acre size of the leasehold places Perkins among the larger leasehold tenants of the 1711 framework, alongside Swallow's 31-acre lease, Cason's 40-acre lease and the Reder confirmations. The combined annual rent at 5s 0d per acre on 30 acres produces a substantial annual burden of £7 10s 0d, placing Perkins's contribution to the Company's leasehold revenue within the upper tier of the holdings.
The figured plan reference is institutionally significant, distinguishing three numbered parcels (A, B, C) on a single plan attached to the present lease. The arrangement indicates that the annexed plan covered a wider area than the 30 acres of the immediate leasehold, capturing the surrounding holdings of Mary [...] Beach (described as free land, indicating confirmed freehold) and Paul Charles's children. The composite plan thus served as a cartographic reference document beyond the simple boundary record of the leased parcel itself.
Mary [...] Beach as the former holder of the 20 acres marked as Figure B introduces a further female holder into the records, identified by her own name as the principal occupier of confirmed free land before the present arrangement. The recital of her former ownership records institutional memory of an earlier holding even after the ground had passed out of her hands.
The 30 acres belonging to Paul Charles's children, recorded as Figure C, identifies the substantial Charles family holding in the area adjoining Perkins's leasehold. The reference to a separate Charles deed cross-links this lease to the freehold confirmation issued to William Charles on the same day for the 10-acre parcel, and to the wider Charles family interests under the 1705 99-year extension. The composite plan thus mapped the relationships between Perkins's leasehold, Mary Beach's former freehold and the Charles family's combined freehold and leasehold ground.
The witness panel matches the reduced quorum used across the 1711 leases, with Griffeth third in council, Bazett fourth in council and the register Thomas [...]ree[...] attending. The continuity of the panel across the day's leases confirms the stable composition of the leasehold attendance throughout the 20 July 1711 sitting.
Speculations
The composite plan distinguishing three figures (A for the present lease, B for the former Beach freehold, C for the Charles children's holding) indicates that the council attached cartographic value to recording the surrounding land context, not merely the leased ground. The decision to annex a wider plan to a single lease suggests the council treated the 1711 surveying programme as building a cumulative cartographic record of the island, with each instrument contributing to the overall map rather than recording only its own immediate parcel.
The naming of Mary Beach as the former holder of Figure B, even though that parcel was not the subject of the present lease, preserves her tenure within the institutional memory at a point when the freehold had passed out of her hands. The retention of her name on the plan, rather than that of the current holder, suggests her holding had been distinctive enough to remain identified by her name in working usage. The pattern matches the Welley's Land byname noted in the Cason lease of 27 July 1711, where parcels continued to carry the names of earlier occupiers even after substantial changes of tenure.
The same-day execution of leases for Perkins (30 acres), Swallow (31 acres), Gargen (20 acres), Belward (6 acres) and Cason a week later (40 acres), all in or near Sandy Bay, indicates that the 20 July 1711 sitting concentrated on the systematic regularisation of leasehold tenure in that quarter of the island. The accumulated rent from these five Sandy Bay leases alone would have produced annual Company revenue in excess of £30 0s 0d, fixing Sandy Bay as a major contributor to the leasehold income generated by the 1711 framework.
115
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease Jn[o] Roberts Esq[r]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Let and Set unto John Roberts Esq[r] Governour of St Helena & y[e] aforesaid One Piece or Parcell of Land Lying and being in James Vally Containeing One Acre & there abouts be the same more or less Butting and Bounding upon the Hon[ble] Companys Waste Land, every way Towards the North, East, South and West.
To have and to hold The said Piece or Parcell of Land to him the said John Roberts Esq[r] his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the term of Twenty One Years Commencing from the day of the date hereof.
Upon Condition That he the said John Roberts Esq[r] his Executors, Administrators and Assignes Do pay or Cause to be paid unto the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors The Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (besides One Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings) p[er] Annum in good and Currant Money of the said Island, and that he the said John Roberts Esq[r] his Executors, Administrators and Assignes in Considerat[i]on of the great Charge the aforesaid John Roberts Esq[r] has been at to & Clear and make such a Barren Peice of Ground, fruitfull which heretofore had Ever layen Waste & May on or before the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty One Years have Liberty to Renew the[ir] said Lease at the rate and Terms above mentioned, which Wee the rather grant for the Encouragem[en]t of other People to do the like for the Improvement of this Island and the Beneffitt of the Lords & Proprietors.
In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re] sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on James Vally this First day of August in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven, And he the said John Roberts Esq[r] to the other p[a]rt hath Set his hand and Seale.
Signed and Delivered in the Presence of Us
[...]
J Lan[d]y[?] f Rec[?]
Company lease to John Roberts, 1 August 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to John Roberts, governor of St Helena, a parcel of land containing about 1 acre in James Valley.
The parcel was bounded on all four sides (north, east, south and west) by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to John Roberts and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from the date of the deed.
Roberts and his successors were to pay the Company the annual rent of 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, in good and current island money.
The Company granted Roberts a right of renewal on or before the expiration of the 21-year term, at the same rate and on the same terms. The right of renewal was granted in consideration of the great charge Roberts had incurred in clearing and making fruitful a barren piece of ground that had previously lain waste. The Company stated the grant was made the more readily for the encouragement of others to undertake similar improvement of the island, for the benefit of the Lords Proprietors.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 1 August 1711, and John Roberts set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The witness section is partly illegible in the manuscript, with one name reading J Lan[d]y or similar in the recording role.
Interpretations
The grant of a leasehold to the sitting governor in his personal capacity, executed by the Company in James Valley with the governor's own counterpart signature, follows the same form as the freehold grant to Roberts of waste ground in James Valley earlier in April 1711. The pattern of Company-to-governor private grants establishes the institutional convention by which the chief office holder accumulated personal estate alongside his official functions, with the Company in its proprietary capacity acting as grantor to its own appointed officer in his private capacity.
The express recital that the parcel had previously lain waste and that Roberts had borne great charge in clearing and improving the ground identifies the lease as a reward for prior reclamation work undertaken at the lessee's own expense. The form converts the lease into an instrument of compensation for sunk investment, with the 21-year term and the right of renewal providing security against any future Company decision to resume the improved ground for institutional purposes.
The right of renewal at the same rate and on the same terms is institutionally significant, distinguishing this lease from the standard 21-year leases of the 1711 framework, which carried no such guarantee. The provision gave Roberts effective security of tenure beyond the formal 21-year term, since the renewal could be exercised on or before the expiration of the original lease. The combined effect approached perpetual tenure at fixed rent, contingent only on Roberts's willingness to exercise the renewal option.
The stated rationale of encouraging others to undertake similar improvement of the island, for the benefit of the Lords Proprietors, frames the grant as an institutional policy lever rather than as a personal favour. The Company presents itself as offering inducement to reclamation by demonstrating the rewards available to those who improve waste ground. The use of the governor's own case as the exemplary instance places the policy advertisement at the highest level of the island establishment, with the inducement carrying the implicit endorsement of the council itself.
The rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty reproduces the standard 1711 leasehold rate, with the 1-acre parcel attracting a flat 5s 0d per annum. The application of the standard rate to the governor's personal leasehold, without preferential reduction, preserves the formal equality of all leaseholders under the 1711 framework. The benefit conferred on Roberts lies in the right of renewal rather than in the rent itself.
The dating of the lease from the day of execution, rather than from the standard 25 March 1711 commencement used in the earlier leases of the present series, matches the variation noted in the Cason lease of 27 July 1711. The pattern indicates that leases granted on freshly cleared or reverted ground commenced on physical entry, while leases regularising long-established occupation were back-dated to the start of the institutional year.
The lease falls within a sequence of personal grants and arrangements involving Roberts in his individual capacity. The April 1711 freehold grant of waste ground between the Store Yard wall and the Churchyard wall in James Valley had given him a separate parcel in the same valley, later bought back from him in London by the Company for £15 0s 0d on his return to England. The present lease of a further acre, also bounded by Company waste on all sides, adds a second discrete parcel to his personal holding in the valley.
The bounding of the parcel by Company waste on all four sides places it as an island of leasehold within unenclosed Company ground. The configuration matches the description of the John Stech parcel of the 1682 inquest, recorded as bounded on all sides by the Company's waste land, and the Cole-Swallow mansion house parcel of 5 June 1705, also bounded by Company waste on all sides. The pattern indicates a recurrent type of small enclosed holding surrounded by institutional ground, with the surrounding waste both protecting and isolating the private parcel.
The witness section is imperfectly legible, with one name resembling J Lan[d]y and a separate notation that may indicate the receiving or recording role. The reduced clarity of the witnessing record contrasts with the careful documentation of the council quorum on other 1711 instruments, suggesting the present lease may have been executed in less formal circumstances or that the recording register was a working document rather than a finished engrossment.
Speculations
The decision to incorporate the right of renewal into Roberts's personal lease, while withholding such a right from the standard 1711 leasehold framework, suggests the council recognised that the encouragement of waste-ground reclamation required a tenure incentive stronger than the basic 21-year term could offer. Holders willing to invest substantial labour in clearing barren ground needed assurance that their improvements would not revert to the Company at the end of the term without compensation. The renewal right effectively converted the 21-year lease into an instrument approaching perpetual tenure for reclaimed ground, addressing the structural disincentive to invest in long-term land improvement under fixed-term leases.
The use of the governor's own case as the documentary example of the renewal policy points to a deliberate institutional choice to use Roberts's elevated position as a demonstration. By placing the formula of encouragement on the governor's own lease, the council established a precedent that subordinate holders could cite when seeking similar treatment for their own reclamation work. The strategy aligned the personal interest of the chief office holder with the wider institutional goal of bringing waste ground into cultivation.
The pairing of this lease with the April 1711 freehold grant and the later London buy-back recorded against that earlier grant suggests Roberts was building a portfolio of James Valley parcels that he intended to monetise on departure rather than to retain for personal use. The variety of tenures (freehold of one parcel, leasehold with renewal of another) provided different exit options, with the freehold disposable to the Company at a negotiated price and the leasehold capable of assignment under the standard 1711 supervisory clause. The arrangement gave Roberts maximum flexibility in disposing of his James Valley accumulation when his term as governor came to an end.
The selection of a 1-acre parcel surrounded entirely by Company waste, rather than a larger holding adjoining existing private estates, indicates a deliberate strategy of taking ground in locations where his improvements could not be challenged by adjoining holders. The bounded position protected the reclaimed parcel against neighbours who might dispute the line between waste and cultivated ground, and provided a clean documentary basis for measuring the extent of Roberts's improvement against the previously barren condition of the ground.
116
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Jn[o] Robinson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Le[t] and Set unto John Robinson Free Planter Twenty Acres of Gumwood Land Butting and Bounding Towards y[e] North upon the Land of Charles Steward Towards y[e] East upon the Land of James Vesey and Thomas G[a]rgen, Towards the South on the Land of Charles Steward aforesaid and Thomas G[a]rgen and Towards the West upon the Land of the Hon[ble] Companys formerly Henry Webbys.
To have and to hold The said Twenty Acres of Gumwood Land to him y[e] said John Robinson his Executors Administrators and assignes for y[e] Terme of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That he y[e] said John Robinson his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heirs and Successors and to the Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Con- stetutions of the said Island and Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth day of March: the Annual Rent of Four Shillings per Acre (besides one shilling Duty being in all Five Shillings) per Annum in good and Currant Money of the said Island, To the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors And that he y[e] said John Robinson his Executors Administrators & Assigns shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty One Years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter the Fences which are his Land marks and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being.
In Witness Whereof Tho said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors To these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally This First day of August in y[e] Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven, And he y[e] said John Robinson to the other part hath Set his Hand and Seale.
Jn[o] Robinson
Signed and Delivered in the Presence of us
Daniel Griffith 3[d] in Councill
Matthew Bazett 4[th] in Coun[n]
Thomas [...]ree[...] Register
Company lease to John Robinson, 1 August 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to John Robinson, free planter, 20 acres of gumwood land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Charles Steward, to the east by the lands of James Vesey and Thomas Gargen, to the south by the land of Charles Steward and Thomas Gargen, and to the west by Company land formerly held by Henry Webby.
The lease ran to John Robinson and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Robinson and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per acre, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 1 August 1711, and John Robinson set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Daniel Griffeth third in council, Matthew Bazett fourth in council, and Thomas [...]ree[...] as register.
Interpretations
The lease formalises Robinson's leasehold tenure of the parcel that had already been recorded as the western boundary of the Swallow lease and as the western boundary of the Gargen lease of 20 July 1711. The 1 August execution thus completes the documentary chain begun on 20 July, bringing Robinson within the same Sandy Bay leasehold cluster as his neighbours and fixing the mutual boundary lines through reciprocal reference across the instruments.
The boundary description records Charles Steward on both the northern and southern flanks, indicating that Steward held substantial Sandy Bay ground that wrapped around Robinson's parcel. The pattern reproduces Steward's earlier appearance as buyer of 20 acres in Sandy Bay from Richard Griffis and as joint mortgagee with Orlando Bagley on the Joseph and Martha Fox mortgage of 18 August 1709. By 1711 his Sandy Bay holdings extended sufficiently to form two sides of the boundary description for Robinson's leasehold.
The recital of the western boundary as Company land formerly held by Henry Webby preserves the institutional memory of an earlier private holder whose tenure had reverted to the Company. The chain of named former occupiers continues across the present series, with Welley's Land in the Cason lease, Captain Beale's land in the Beale-Company deeds, and the now-Company ground formerly Webby's identified by the previous holder's name even after the reversion. The pattern indicates that even reverted Company ground retained working bynames tied to its earlier private occupation.
The same John Robinson appears in the cross-references to consultation book 15 folios 39 and 40 as having given bond with sureties to pay the children of the late Onesipherus Sheado their portions, fixing him as a substantial holder trusted with fiduciary obligations within the island establishment. The combination of leasehold tenure and recognised standing in orphan protection arrangements places Robinson within the literate, propertied tier of the free planter class.
The recital of Robinson's status as free planter, without any further trade or office qualifier, places him among the agricultural planters whose tenure rested on cultivation rather than on artisanal trade or military service. The simplicity of the designation contrasts with the dual classifications applied to Isaac Wood (cooper and free planter) and Robert Bell (planter and mason) and indicates Robinson's primary identification as a cultivator.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1711, the standard institutional commencement of the 1711 framework, distinguishes the present lease from the Cason lease and the Roberts lease, both of which ran from the date of execution rather than from Lady Day. The variation between back-dated and forward-dated commencement appears to reflect the difference between regularisation of established occupation (Robinson) and fresh allocation of ground (Cason, Roberts).
The witness panel reproduces the reduced quorum used across the 1711 leases, with Griffeth third in council, Bazett fourth in council and the register Thomas [...]ree[...]. The continuity of this panel across the leases of 20 July and 1 August 1711 confirms the stable composition of the leasehold attendance through the summer of 1711.
The annual rent on the 20-acre parcel, computed at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £5 0s 0d per annum, placing Robinson among the moderately substantial leasehold tenants of the 1711 framework. His combined position as leaseholder, neighbour to Steward, Vesey and Gargen, and bond-giver for the Sheado orphans points to a multi-faceted role within the Sandy Bay community.
Robinson signed in his own hand, placing him within the literate class of free planters whose direct signatures appear on the documentary record. The signature is consistent with his appearance in the consultation book cross-references as a giver of bond, since fiduciary obligations of that kind typically required literate participants able to execute and acknowledge written instruments.
Speculations
The decision to execute Robinson's lease 12 days after the leases of Swallow, Gargen and Belward, despite his ground forming part of the same Sandy Bay cluster, suggests his case was processed in a separate sitting rather than alongside theirs. The administrative separation may have reflected delays in surveying his specific parcel, in confirming his title against the prior Henry Webby occupation, or in his own attendance before the council. The 1 August sitting, also recording the Belward-Bell assignment of the following year and the Roberts personal lease of the same day, appears to have handled a different mix of business from the freehold-heavy sittings of 9, 23 and 20 July.
The reference to the western boundary as Company land formerly Webby's, rather than as simple Company waste, indicates a deliberate distinction between two categories of unenclosed Company ground. Land that had earlier been privately held but had reverted to the Company retained its identification by the previous occupier, while ground that had never been allocated remained described as plain waste. The distinction preserved the documentary record of past tenure for use in future allocation decisions, and protected the Company against any later claim by Webby's heirs or successors based on misidentification of the ground.
The wrap-around configuration of Charles Steward's holdings on two sides of Robinson's leasehold suggests the area below the Main Ridge in Sandy Bay was undergoing active consolidation under Steward's hand. The presence of his ground on the northern and southern flanks placed Robinson's leasehold as an enclave within Steward's wider estate, raising the possibility that some prior arrangement or family connection underlay the configuration. Robinson's continued separate tenure within Steward's larger holding, rather than absorption into a single Steward estate, points to a deliberate institutional preservation of his independent position rather than a market outcome shaped by accumulation alone.
117
Island St Helena. Comp[a] Deed to Marg[t] Sich
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hono[ble] United Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto Margaret Sich Widow and Freeholder Forty Acres of Gumwood Land Situate & being Towards the North Upon the Land of Francis Wranghams Towards the East upon the Land of James Rider Towards the South upon the Land of Henry Francis and Wranghams and Towards the West on the Hono[ble] Companys Wast Land Also one other Parcel of Cabbage Tree Land Containing Twenty Acres formerly belonging to John Alexander Scituate & Lying Towards the North upon the Land of James Rider Towards the East on the Land of Jonathan Beals Orphans Towards the South on the Land of John [Long?] and Towards the West on the Land of James Rider And also One other Parcell of Cabbage Tree Land Containing Ten Acres of Land Scituate & Lying Towards the North Upon the Land of James Ryder, Towards the East upon the Land of Jonathan Beals Orphans Towards the South Upon the Land of John Robinson and Charles Steward and Towards the West on the Land of James Riv[er]. The estate Said Three Parcells of Cabbage Tree and Gumwood Land Containing Seventy Acres Which She the Said Margaret Sich hath a Just and Right Title to as may appear more Largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven and Notice being Given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Common a Certain day therein Limmitted But none appearing or any objection made To have and to hold the Said Premises to her the Said Mary Sich on the Heirs and Assigns for Ever Upon Condition That She the Said Margaret Sich her Heirs and Assignes Do bear true faith and Alegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen Her Heires and Successors and to the Said Company and their Su[c]cessors and Shall Duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the Said Island, In Witness whereof the Said Hono[ble] Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the Said Island this day of in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven.
The Plott and Plan of the aforesaid Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Copy of this Deed & Plan Entered in y[e] Register Book
Sealed and delivered This Deed Ent[e]red in another Place being a[lted?]
in the Presence of Us
Jn[o] Roberts Gov[r]
W[m] Marsden 2 in Coun[n]
Dan[ie]l Griffeth 3[d] in Coun[n]
Mat[hew] Bazett 4[th] in Coun[n]
Company grant to Margaret Sich, 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Margaret Sich, widow and freeholder, three parcels totalling 70 acres.
The first parcel, of 40 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the land of Francis Wrangham, to the east by the land of James Rider, to the south by the lands of Henry Francis and of Wrangham, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 20 acres of cabbage tree land, formerly belonged to John Alexander. It was bounded to the north by the land of James Rider, to the east by the land of Jonathan Beale's orphans, to the south by the land of John Long, with the surname uncertain in the manuscript, and to the west by the land of James Rider.
The third parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of James Rider, to the east by the land of Jonathan Beale's orphans, to the south by the lands of John Robinson and Charles Steward, and to the west by the land of James Rider.
Sich's right and title were established by examination at a consultation in 1711, with the precise day and month left blank in the manuscript. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Margaret Sich and her heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in 1711, with the day and month left blank in the manuscript. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, and Matthew Bazett fourth in council.
A marginal note records that the deed was entered in another place, with the manuscript imperfectly legible at the qualifying word.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Margaret Sich who had bought out her son Richard Swallow the younger's reversionary interest in her Chapel Valley estate on 4 February 1705 for £140 0s 0d, to redirect the property to her younger children by her second husband. Her appearance here as a substantial freeholder in her own right under the 1711 framework, with 70 acres confirmed across three parcels, places her among the most substantial widows of the present series. The 1711 confirmation extends her recorded estate well beyond the Chapel Valley holdings already documented from 1705.
The first parcel of 40 acres of gumwood land takes Francis Wrangham as both its northern boundary and part of its southern boundary, and Henry Francis on the remainder of the southern boundary. The boundary description thus places Sich's land alongside the Wrangham-Francis cluster already documented in Henry Francis's freehold confirmation of 9 June 1711, where Francis Wrangham appeared as the southern boundary on three of his parcels. The reciprocal recording of Henry Francis as Sich's southern boundary fixes the line between the two estates by mutual reference across the two confirmations.
The second parcel of 20 acres of cabbage tree land is recorded as formerly belonging to John Alexander, establishing that the long-serving register had himself held substantial cabbage tree ground that had since passed out of his hands. The reference adds to the picture of Alexander's wider estate, which included the Bidott messuage purchased in March 1701, the Grandy 10 acres purchased in November 1701, and the Elinor Cotgrave 70 acres purchased in May 1712. The present recital captures a parcel disposed of before the 1711 confirmation, perhaps to Margaret Sich directly or through an intermediate transaction.
The third parcel of 10 acres of cabbage tree land sits in close proximity to the second, both bounded on the north by James Rider and on the east by Jonathan Beale's orphans. The two parcels appear to form a contiguous block of cabbage tree ground, with the south of the second parcel meeting John Long (with the surname imperfectly legible) and the south of the third parcel meeting John Robinson and Charles Steward. The configuration places Sich's holding directly against the same Robinson-Steward cluster documented in the John Robinson lease of 1 August 1711.
James Rider appears as a boundary holder on all three of Sich's parcels, indicating an exceptionally substantial Rider estate that wrapped around the Sich holdings on multiple sides. The reference is consistent with James Reder of the freehold confirmations of 9 June 1711, where the surname appears in its more usual Reder spelling. The variant Rider appearing here within the same documentary regime confirms that the two spellings refer to the same family.
Jonathan Beale's orphans appear as eastern boundary holders on both cabbage tree parcels. The Beale orphans had earlier featured as boundary holders in the 17 April 1711 Doveton grant and in the Lemon Garden lease of December 1707, where they held the Purslane Bed at the head of Chapel Valley. The pattern fixes the orphan presence as a recurring feature of the boundary record across the present series, reflecting the high adult male mortality that left children's interests as recognisable units of tenure.
The Wrangham family appears prominently across the first parcel, with Francis Wrangham on the north and southern boundaries and Wranghams again on the southern boundary alongside Henry Francis. The combined reference to multiple Wrangham holdings, or to a Wrangham holding crossing the south of Sich's parcel, places the family at the centre of the cluster of cabbage tree and gumwood ground around the Sich estate.
The blank date in the body of the deed and at the sealing clause indicates an incomplete engrossment, with the present text representing either a draft prepared in advance of the consultation or a copy taken before the precise date was filled in. The marginal note recording that the deed was entered in another place suggests the formal register entry was made at a different folio under the proper date, with the present record retained as a working copy or incomplete fair copy. The absence of the register's signature, while the senior council quorum is recorded, supports the reading that the engrossment was never finalised.
The witness panel of governor, second in council, third in council and fourth in council, without the register, reproduces the senior council quorum used for freehold confirmations under the 1711 framework, but omits the register's signature. The omission may reflect the unfinished state of the engrossment or a deliberate separation between the witnessing function and the registering function on this particular instrument.
Speculations
The decision to bring Margaret Sich forward for confirmation of 70 acres across three contiguous or near-contiguous parcels, with the second parcel formerly belonging to John Alexander, suggests a deliberate consolidation of the Sich estate beyond her existing Chapel Valley holdings. The 1705 buy-out of her son's reversionary interest had established her as an independent property holder commanding substantial cash resources, and the 1711 confirmation extended her recorded estate into the rural uplands in addition to her urban holdings. The combined position places her among the wealthiest individual landholders of the present series.
The incomplete state of the present deed, with blank dates and missing register signature, points to a documentary process that was not always carried through to clean completion. The Sich confirmation may have been drafted, examined, and witnessed by the senior council quorum but never finally engrossed and registered in its present form, with the formal register entry made instead at a different folio under the proper date. The retention of the unfinished copy in the present record indicates that the working documents of the 1711 framework included drafts and partial engrossments alongside the finished instruments.
The location of the second parcel as formerly belonging to John Alexander raises questions about the route by which the ground passed from Alexander to Sich. The transfer may have been a direct sale, perhaps for cash, or through an intermediate transaction involving the Wrangham or Francis families with whom both Alexander and Sich had documented connections. The absence of any earlier deed recording the transfer in the present series indicates either that the transaction predated the documented period or that it was recorded in a different part of the register not represented here. The 1711 confirmation thus preserves a trace of an earlier transaction whose underlying instrument is not directly accessible from the present record.
118
Island St Helena. Comp[a] Lease to Marg[t] Sich
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hono[ble] United Company of Merchants of London Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Lett unto Margaret Sich Widow and Freeholder Four Acres of Gumwood Land Bounding Towards the North Upon the Land of Francis Wranghams the East Upon the Land of James Rider and Towards the West upon the West and South to the Said And also Two Acres of Cabbage Tree Land Butting Towards the North and South to the Said Margaret Siches Land and Towards the East upon the Land of Jonathan Beals orphans Also Two Acres more of Cabbage Tree Land Butting Towards the North Upon the Land of Jonathan Beals Orphans Towards the South Upon the Land of John Robinson & Charles Steward And Towards the West upon the Land of the said Steward & John H[a]gley. All [w]hich Three Parcells of Gumwood and Cabbage Tree Land Contain[s] in the whole Eight Acres.
To have and to hold The said Eight Acres of Gumwood and Cabbage Tree Land to her the Said Margaret Sich and the Heirs of John Sich both of their Executors Administrat[ors] and Assignes for the Terme and Tune of Twenty one Years Commencing from the Twenty fifth Day of March One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eleven.
Upon Condition That [h]e the Said Margaret Sich her Heires Executors and Administrat[ors] Shall always do and bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, Her Heirs and Successors, and to the Hon[ble] U[n]ited Company and their Su[c]cessors and shall Duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island and Yearly Pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth Day of March The Annuall Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant Money of the Said Island to the Said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors And that She the Said Margaret Sich her Heirs Executors and Administrators Shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the Said Land in as goo[d] Repair as they are Now and not Alter the Fences which are her Land Marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot herunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same without the Consent of y[e] Govern[o]r and Councell for y[e] Time being.
In Witness whereof the Said Honour[ble] Company and Lords Proprietors To these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this day of in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred Eleven, And She the Said Margaret Sich to the oth[er] hath Set her hand and Seale.
Sealed and delivered This [...] [In]tred in another Place [...] in y[e] presence of us
Jn[o] Roberts Gov[r] W[m] M[a]rsden 2 in Coun[n] Dan[ie]l Griffeth 3[d] in Coun[n] Matt[hew] Bazett 4[th] in Coun[n]
Company lease to Margaret Sich, 1711.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies, leased to Margaret Sich, widow and freeholder, three parcels totalling 8 acres.
The first parcel, of 4 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the land of Francis Wrangham, to the east by the land of James Rider, and to the west and south by Sich's own land.
The second parcel, of 2 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north and south by Sich's own land, and to the east by the land of Jonathan Beale's orphans.
The third parcel, of 2 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the land of Jonathan Beale's orphans, to the south by the lands of John Robinson and Charles Steward, and to the west by the lands of Charles Steward and John Hagley, with the surname imperfectly legible in the manuscript.
The lease ran to Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich, with their executors, administrators and assigns, for 21 years from 25 March 1711.
Sich and her successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term she was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as her legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. She was not to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1711, with the day and month left blank in the manuscript, and Margaret Sich set her hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by John Roberts governor, William Marsden second in council, Daniel Griffeth third in council, and Matthew Bazett fourth in council, without the register's signature in the recorded copy.
A marginal note records that the deed was entered in another place, with the manuscript imperfectly legible at the qualifying word.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Sich's same-period freehold confirmation of 70 acres completes the institutional package by which her confirmed freehold core was supplemented by 8 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 78 acres places her among the most substantial individual landholders of the present series, and significantly exceeds the combined Henry Francis tenure of 65 acres (40 acres freehold plus 25 acres leasehold) noted earlier in 1711.
The three small leased parcels (4 acres, 2 acres and 2 acres) sit directly against Sich's confirmed freehold ground at multiple points. The first leased parcel is bounded by her own land on the west and south. The second is bounded by her own land on the north and south. The third sits between the same Beale orphans and Robinson-Steward boundary that ran along the southern edge of her confirmed 10-acre cabbage tree freehold. The configuration places the leasehold parcels as fillers and extensions adjoining the freehold core, with the small size of each parcel reflecting deliberate selection of marginal ground rather than substantial new fields.
The lease formula vests the interest in Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich, rather than her own heirs as in the standard lease. The construction routes the future interest through her late husband's line rather than through her personal succession. The arrangement matches the 1705 sale to her by her son Richard Swallow the younger of his reversionary interest, by which she had bought out his claim in order to redirect the Chapel Valley estate to her younger children by her second husband. The present lease similarly fixes the eventual succession to John Sich's heirs, preserving the family settlement she had purchased six years earlier.
The treatment of the lease as covering ground heirless in Margaret Sich's own person, but vesting in John Sich's heirs, indicates a clear separation of beneficial and legal interest within the Sich household. Margaret holds the lease during her lifetime, and the institutional benefit passes to her late husband's children rather than to her own heirs from other sources. The arrangement protects the Sich children's interests against any future remarriage or third-party claim by binding the leasehold tenure into the family line her 1705 purchase had established.
John Hagley as the western boundary of the third leasehold parcel introduces a new holder into the boundary description, with the surname imperfectly legible. The same Hagley does not feature elsewhere in the present series, suggesting either a smaller holder whose tenure has not generated documented transactions or a variant spelling of a holder recorded under a different form. The Sandy Bay context fits the cluster of Steward, Robinson, Gargen and Swallow holdings already documented.
The rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty on the 8-acre combined parcel produces £2 1s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The modest aggregate rent reflects the small size of the leasehold relative to the substantial freehold core, with the leasehold serving as a supplementary extension rather than as the principal element of the estate.
The witness panel reproduces the senior council quorum of governor, second in council, third in council and fourth in council, but omits the register's signature, matching the omission noted in the corresponding Sich freehold confirmation. The matched incomplete state of both instruments suggests the Sich documents were drafted and witnessed together as a pair, but the engrossment was not finally completed through registration in the present copy.
The blank dates in both the body of the lease and at the sealing clause reproduce the documentary state of the freehold confirmation, with both instruments left undated in the present record. The marginal note recording entry in another place again indicates that the formal register entry was made at a different folio under the proper date, with the present copy retained as a working document.
Speculations
The decision to take three small leased parcels (4 acres, 2 acres, and 2 acres) rather than a single larger leasehold suggests Sich was filling specific gaps in her existing freehold pattern rather than expanding into substantial new territory. The selection of 2-acre and 4-acre parcels at points where her existing freehold met the surrounding waste or adjoining holdings indicates an intention to consolidate her working block at its edges rather than to acquire fresh productive ground. The small individual sizes also kept the rent burden manageable while completing the boundary configuration.
The structuring of the lease to vest in the heirs of John Sich rather than Margaret's own heirs reflects continued execution of the family settlement established by her 1705 buy-out of Richard Swallow the younger's reversionary interest. Routing the leasehold succession through her late husband's line preserved the Sich children's interest against any later claim by her first-marriage heirs, including Richard Swallow the younger himself or his descendants. The arrangement demonstrates the careful documentary engineering required to protect blended-family settlements across two marriages.
The fact that both the freehold confirmation and the lease for Margaret Sich appear in incomplete or undated form, with the corresponding clean engrossments lodged elsewhere in the register, suggests her documents required additional administrative handling that took them outside the routine 1711 procedure. The complexity of her family settlement, the substantial scale of her holding (over 70 acres confirmed) and the specific provision for John Sich's heirs may have prompted more careful drafting and separate filing of the final engrossments, with the present copies retained as working drafts.
119
Comp[a] Deed to Rob[t] Bell
Know all men by these Presents That we the Govern[or] and Councell of the Island St Helena for the Time being for and in the Name and on behalf of the Honour[a]ble United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies the Proprietors of this Island For, and in Consideration of the Summe of Two Hundred Dollars in good and Currant money of the aforesaid Island, Paid or Secured to be Said by Robert Bell of y[e] Said Island Planter and Mason as by an obligation bearing Even date with these P[re]sents may more fully Appear, And for Divers other good Causes and Considerations us thereunto moveing as well as for the Advantages and Profit of y[e] Said Hon[ble] Lords Proprietors Have bargained Sold, Set over and Delivered And by these p[re]sents According to the full and true Forme of Law in like effect made and provided Do bargaine Sett over And Deliver unto the Said Robert Bell his heires Executors and and Assignes all and Singular that Peice or Parcell of Land Containing by Estimat[i]on Ten Acres Scituate Lying and being in Sandy Bay neare Adjoyning to the Land of Peter Filmuck on the one Side and James Mudge another on the other Side Together with the [w]hole Proceeds and Dwelling House Sta[n]ds and Buildings and being thereon which was Lately in the Tenor and Occupation of Walter Belward freeplanter (who Sold y[e] Same to y[e] Said Hon[ble] Lords Proprietors with all other Appurtenances of what nature or Kind Soever. To have and to hold the Said hereby Bargained P[re]mises Unto him the Said Robert Bell and his heires for Ever Upon the Same Conditions as all other freehold Land is held by To do and dispose thereof as his or them own Proper Wills and pleasure And the Said Govern[or] and Coun[c]ell on and on behalf of the Hon[ble] Lords Proprie =tors as aforesaid Doth for themselves their Heirs and Su[c]cessors Covenant and agree to and with the Said Robert Bell his Heir[e]s Execut[ors] Administrat[ors] and Assigns That Either of them That he they or any of them Shall and Maye any Time to Time and at all Times here after Hav[e] hold occupie Possesse and Enjoy the before mentioned Premises without any Manner of Mollestation or Interruption of y[e] Gover[nor] and Councell their heirs or Successors or any other Person or Persons whatsoever Claiming or to Cl[a]ime any Matter or thing app[er]taining or belonging thereunto. In witness whereof the Said Govern[or] and Councell To these p[re]sents Att y[e] Honoura[ble] Companys Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] Island this First Day of August In the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred & T[w]ellv[e?].
Signed Sealed and Delivered in y[e] P[re]sence of us.
B[en]j[ami]n Bouchet Govern[o]r
Jn[o] [B]lack
Math[ew] Bazett
Company deed to Robert Bell, 1 August 1712.
The governor and council of St Helena, acting on behalf of the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies as proprietors of the island, sold to Robert Bell, planter and mason of the island, 10 acres of land in Sandy Bay. The parcel was adjacent to the land of Peter Filmuck on one side and the land of James Mudge on the other.
The consideration was 200 dollars in good and current island money, paid or secured by Bell under an obligation of the same date as the deed.
The parcel included the whole proceeds and dwelling house, the standing buildings on the ground, and all other appurtenances of any nature or kind. The ground had been lately in the tenor and occupation of Walter Belward, free planter, who had sold the same to the Lords Proprietors.
The governor and council conveyed the parcel to Robert Bell and his heirs for ever, on the same conditions as all other freehold land was held, to use and dispose of as he and his successors should choose. The governor and council covenanted on behalf of themselves, their heirs and successors that Bell and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns would hold, occupy, possess and enjoy the parcel without molestation or interruption from the governor and council, their heirs and successors, or from any other person claiming any interest in the ground.
The governor and council set the Company's common seal at the Castle on 1 August 1712. The instrument was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Benjamin Bouchet governor, John Black and Matthew Bazett.
Interpretations
The grant operates as a sale by the governor and council, acting in the Company's proprietary capacity, rather than as a fresh allocation of waste ground. The recital that the parcel had been lately in the tenor and occupation of Walter Belward, who had sold the same to the Lords Proprietors, fixes the route by which the ground reached the Company. Belward had conveyed the parcel back to the Company before the present sale, and the Company is now selling forward the same ground to Bell. The transaction thus comprises two stages: Belward's reversion to the Company (not separately documented in the present record) and the Company's onward sale to Bell.
The earlier 1 August 1712 assignment of Belward's 6-acre leasehold to Robert Bell, executed on the same day by Benjamin Bouchet, John Black and Matthew Bazett, completes the parallel arrangement under which Belward's combined Sandy Bay interests passed to Bell on the same day. The leasehold assignment transferred the 6-acre Company leasehold parcel on its existing terms, while the present freehold sale transferred 10 acres of freehold from the Company directly to Bell. Together the two instruments produced a coordinated transfer of Belward's tenure in Sandy Bay to Bell within a single day.
The consideration of 200 dollars in island money is the first reference in the present series to dollars as the principal currency unit of a substantial Company sale. The valuation of the dollar at 6s 0d per dollar, established in the 1699 Draper-Maxwell sale and confirmed in the 1701 Grandy-Alexander sale, would produce a sterling equivalent of £60 0s 0d for the 10 acres. The choice of dollars rather than sterling for the principal medium reflects the institutional acceptance of Spanish dollars as a working currency for Sandy Bay transactions, and the practical absence of large sterling stocks for use in island sales.
The covenant against molestation, given by the governor and council on behalf of themselves, their heirs and successors, binds the institution to defend Bell's title against any future claim. The form differs from the standard private save-harmless covenant in that the indemnifying party is the Company itself, acting through its officers. The covenant thus carries the institutional weight of the Company's proprietary claim, and protects Bell against any later attempt by the Company to re-acquire the ground or by third parties to assert competing claims.
The parcel includes the dwelling house, standing buildings and other appurtenances, indicating that Belward's tenure had been actively developed before reversion. The transfer of an improved estate, rather than vacant ground, places this transaction within the same category as the 1707 Lufkin sale to the Company, which had transferred a developed estate with growing provisions. The Company's onward sale to Bell, executed within 13 months of the Belward reversion, indicates an institutional decision to redirect the developed parcel to a new tenant rather than retaining it under Company management.
The grantee's status as planter and mason combines agricultural and artisanal classifications, reproducing the dual designation noted in the William Alexander lease of 7 May 1717. The combined trade qualification fitted Bell to maintain and develop the buildings on the parcel as well as cultivate the ground, and the Company's selection of him as buyer indicates a deliberate preference for tenants whose trade skills complemented their agricultural obligations.
The phrase tenor and occupation captures both the documentary tenure and the physical occupation of the ground, fixing Belward's prior interest in both legal and possessory terms. The combined formula closes off any later argument that Belward had retained either residual tenure or possessory claim after the reversion to the Company.
The witness panel of Benjamin Bouchet governor, John Black and Matthew Bazett reproduces the panel that had executed the parallel leasehold assignment to Bell on the same day. The continuity of the panel across the two instruments confirms that the same sitting of the governor and council produced both the leasehold assignment and the freehold sale to Bell, with the deeds drawn up as complementary instruments within a single coordinated transaction.
The reference to the same conditions as all other freehold land is held by incorporates by reference the standard 1711 conditions of true faith and allegiance to the Queen and obedience to the laws of the island. The compressed wording, in contrast to the full recital used in the formal freehold confirmations, indicates that the conditions had become sufficiently established to be incorporated by general reference rather than restated in full. The change in drafting style points to a maturing of the documentary regime under which standard terms could be incorporated without verbatim repetition.
Speculations
The two-stage transaction by which Belward's ground first reverted to the Company and then passed to Bell, rather than passing directly between Belward and Bell as a private sale, indicates active institutional supervision of the transfer. The Company's interposition between the two private parties may have answered concerns about Belward's pattern of trading at high profit across 1705 to 1708, or about the specific terms of any private agreement between Belward and Bell. By taking the ground back into Company hands and then re-issuing it to Bell, the council preserved its supervisory role and ensured that the new tenant held under fresh institutional title rather than as Belward's successor.
The combination of the freehold sale and the leasehold assignment to Bell on the same day, covering 10 acres of freehold and 6 acres of leasehold formerly held by Belward in Sandy Bay, suggests Belward surrendered his entire Sandy Bay tenure to the Company in a single arrangement. The coordinated transfer to Bell of both interests at the same sitting indicates that the council had identified Bell in advance as the intended successor, and that the entire transaction was structured to move Belward's holdings cleanly into Bell's hands without leaving any orphaned parcels in Company management.
The choice of 200 dollars as the consideration, rather than a sterling figure, points to the working circulation of Spanish dollars within the island economy at substantial transaction levels by 1712. The use of dollars in a Company transaction, executed by the senior council under the common seal, gave institutional sanction to the dollar as a settlement medium and confirmed its acceptance for sums beyond the small transactions where it had previously appeared. The 200-dollar figure on a 10-acre Sandy Bay sale also established a benchmark valuation for future Company disposals in the area.
The selection of Robert Bell as buyer fits the documented pattern of the Company's preference for tenants whose dual artisanal-agricultural classification matched the requirements of developed parcels. His standing as planter and mason placed him in a position to maintain the buildings, cultivate the ground and contribute artisanal services to the surrounding community. The Company's evident desire to keep the parcel under a working tenant capable of sustaining its productive capacity, rather than allowing it to lie idle or pass to a purely commercial buyer, indicates an active institutional policy of matching tenants to ground based on capacity to develop and maintain it.
120
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to W[m] Slaughter
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honoura[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto William Slaughter Esq[r] Eleven Acres of Gumwood Land Situate in Sandy Bay, Butting and Bounding towards the North upon the Lands of Richard Hardings Children towards the East, upon the Lands of Benj[amin] Greentree, now in the Possession of Richard Swallow, Towards the South and West upon the Honourable Company[s] Wast Land Also Two Acres of Gumwood Land more Butting towards the North upon the Lands of Thomas Perkins Sen[r] Towards the East upon the aforesaid Hardings Children Towards y[e] South upon the Lands of John Leaverigs Children, And Towards the West upon the Lands of James [Vesey?] Also Two Acres of Cabbage Tree Land Butting towards the North under the Main Ridge in Sandy Bayside, Towards the East upon the aforesaid Richard Hardings Children, Two Acres of Cabbage Tree Land, Towards the South on the Lands of James Rider, and Towards the West upon the before-named Benj[amin] Greentrees Cabbagetree Land which in the Three whole Parcells of Land contains Fifteen Acres. To have and to hold the said P[re]mises to him y[e] said William Slaughter his Executors Administrators and assignes for y[e] Term and tune of Twenty one Years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve Upon Condition. That he the said William Slaughter, shall and do always bear true Faith and allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, Her Heirs and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and Their Successors and shall duly Obey all the Laws & constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent or Sums of Four Shillings p[er] Acre (besides One Shilling Duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] An[num] in good and Currant mon[e]y of y[e] said Island unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said William Slaughter his Executors Administrators or assignes, Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of the said Term of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter y[e] said Fences, which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without consent of y[e] Governor and Councell for the time being, In Witness Whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors, to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. A. day of August in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred & Thirteen, and he the said William Slaughter to the other part hath Sett his hand & Seale
Sealed & Delivered W[m] Slaughter in y[e] Presence of
Matthew Bazett
Tho[s] Cason
D[an] Griffeth
Jn[o] [B] Alexander
Company lease to William Slaughter, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to William Slaughter, esquire, three parcels totalling 15 acres in Sandy Bay.
The first parcel, of 11 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the land of Richard Harding's children, to the east by the land of Benjamin Greentree, then in the possession of Richard Swallow, and to the south and west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 2 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the land of Thomas Perkins senior, to the east by the land of Richard Harding's children, to the south by the land of John Leaverig's children, and to the west by the land of James Vesey, with the surname uncertain in the manuscript.
The third parcel, of 2 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by the Main Ridge in Sandy Bay side, to the east by Richard Harding's children's 2 acres of cabbage tree land, to the south by the land of James Rider, and to the west by Benjamin Greentree's cabbage tree land.
The lease ran to William Slaughter and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Slaughter and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as the legal landmarks of the parcels and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and William Slaughter set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Matthew Bazett, Thomas Cason, Daniel Griffeth, and John [B] Alexander, with one initial uncertain in the manuscript.
Interpretations
The grantee's status as esquire places William Slaughter at the upper rank of the social hierarchy recorded in the present series, alongside John Roberts esquire (governor), Thomas Goodwin esquire (governor) and William French esquire. The esquire designation typically marked civilian gentlemen of substantial standing without military rank, and Slaughter's appearance under that title indicates his position within the propertied class of the island establishment.
The same William Slaughter had earlier appeared as a western boundary holder in the William Charles freehold confirmation of 20 July 1711, where his land was named alongside that of James Anders on the western boundary of the 10-acre Charles parcel. The present lease extends his recorded tenure into a substantial holding of his own across three Sandy Bay parcels.
The 1712 commencement date, with execution on 4 August 1713, means the lease was effectively dated back nearly 17 months to the standard 25 March 1712 commencement. The back-dating preserved the institutional rhythm of Lady Day rent payments and aligned Slaughter's tenure with the wider 1711 framework, though his entry into the leasehold scheme came more than a year after the principal sittings of June and July 1711.
The boundary descriptions identify several previously documented holders: Thomas Perkins senior on the north of the second parcel, James Rider on the south of the third parcel, James Vesey on the west of the second parcel and Benjamin Greentree on the eastern boundary of the first parcel. The recital that Benjamin Greentree's land was in the possession of Richard Swallow indicates an active subletting or working arrangement, with Greentree retaining the underlying tenure while Swallow occupied the ground in practice. The distinction between tenure and possession recorded in the manuscript reproduces the institutional precision that allowed multiple interests to coexist on a single parcel.
Richard Harding's children appear as boundary holders on all three parcels, indicating a substantial inherited Harding estate in Sandy Bay. The Harding family had earlier featured in the records through Richard Harding, free planter who died before 1703, his widow Sarah Harding, his sister Lydea Harding and the parcels he had transferred or held in his lifetime. The present reference to his children's continuing tenure places them as a significant boundary cluster at the date of the present lease, more than a decade after their father's death.
John Leaverig's children, recorded as the southern boundary of the second parcel, introduce a new family name into the present series. Their appearance under the children's designation again indicates the persistence of orphan or minor children's interests as recognised units of tenure across the boundary record.
Benjamin Greentree, named as the eastern boundary of the first parcel and as the western boundary of the third, may be the same Benjamin Seale-Pledger Greentree connection traced through earlier records, or a separate holder. The James Greentree of the 1703 Powell sale of 20 acres in Sandy Bay with the slave Oliver and half-still purchase is unlikely to be the same person as Benjamin, but the two may have been brothers or close relatives sharing the Sandy Bay holding. The reference to Richard Swallow's possession of the Greentree land aligns with the same Richard Swallow recorded as boundary holder in the William Charles 1711 freehold confirmation and as the buyer of the Deep Valley mansion from Thomas Cole on 5 June 1705.
The witness panel includes Matthew Bazett, Thomas Cason, Daniel Griffeth and John [B] Alexander. Bazett and Griffeth continue from the 1711 leases, but Cason appears here as a witness, the same Thomas Cason who had taken the 40-acre Welley's Land lease as ensign and free islander on 27 July 1711. Cason's appearance on the panel marks his elevation from lessee to witness within two years, indicating a rise in standing within the island establishment. The composition of the panel without the governor or any council number designation suggests a working group rather than the formal senior or junior council quorum.
John [B] Alexander on the witness line, with one initial uncertain, may be John Alexander the long-serving register or a closely related family member. Alexander had been recorded as register on the 15 September 1712 registration of the Belward-Bell assignment, suggesting his continued involvement with the register's office through 1712 and 1713.
The aggregation of three small parcels (11 acres, 2 acres and 2 acres) within a single lease, rather than as separate instruments, mirrors the pattern noted in the Sich lease of 1711 with three parcels of 4 acres, 2 acres and 2 acres. The institutional preference for combining multiple small parcels into a single lease for the same tenant reduced administrative cost and simplified rent collection, while preserving the geographic distinctness of each unit on the annexed plan.
The combined annual rent on the 15-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £3 15s 0d per annum. The modest aggregate rent reflects the small individual sizes of the parcels rather than any preferential rate, and places Slaughter's leasehold contribution to the Company's revenue below the larger 30-acre and 40-acre leases granted earlier in the programme.
Speculations
The 17-month gap between the institutional commencement date of 25 March 1712 and the actual execution on 4 August 1713 suggests that the survey work or the title examination for Slaughter's three parcels took considerably longer than for the principal 1711 holders. The complexity of mapping three small parcels surrounded by the substantial Harding, Greentree, Perkins, Rider and Vesey holdings would have required careful boundary determination, and the multiple references to children's tenure across the boundaries indicate that minor children's interests may have required separate confirmation or guardian consent before the lease could be finalised.
The choice of an esquire to receive three small parcels rather than a single larger holding indicates that Slaughter was filling gaps within an already congested Sandy Bay landscape rather than taking up substantial new ground. The 1711 framework had largely allocated the available Sandy Bay leasehold to Swallow, Gargen, Belward, Perkins, Cason, Robinson and the Charles family by the time Slaughter's lease was executed, and the small fragments documented here represent the remaining ground available for new allocation.
The active arrangement by which Benjamin Greentree's land lay in Richard Swallow's possession suggests an informal working tenure that had not been brought within the formal 1711 documentary regime. The Company recorded the underlying tenure as Greentree's while noting the possessory occupation by Swallow, leaving both interests intact rather than forcing a documentary resolution. The dual recording indicates institutional tolerance of informal arrangements where they did not interfere with the Company's primary interests in rent and supervision.
The witness panel's composition, with the former lessee Cason now appearing as witness alongside the register and senior council members, suggests a deliberate inclusion of recently elevated holders in the documentary process. The pattern reproduces the small literate circle that had underpinned the formal record throughout the 1700s, with new members admitted as they accumulated property and standing. Cason's progression from junior commissioned officer and lessee in 1711 to witness alongside senior figures in 1713 illustrates the upward mobility available within the island establishment for those who combined military rank with private estate.
121
Island St Helena Comp[a] Deed to R[ichard] Harding[s] Children
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby confirm Unto y[e] severall Children Sons & Daughters of Richard Harding late Free Planter deceased Nineteen Acres of Gumwood Land Situate in Sandy Bay abuting towards the North upon y[e] Land [lately?] Hired by Rich[d] Alexander deceased towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Rich[d] Sw[a]lley Freeholder, Towards y[e] South upon y[e] Lands of [Ed]w[ard] Eustice or Geo[rge] [Berry] and Thomas Sw[a]llow Towards y[e] West [upon] Lands of Geo[rge] [Berry] aforesaid Containing Eli[?] Also Two Acres of Cabbage Tree Land under the Maine Ridge next to Sandy Bay abutting towards the North upon the Land before mentioned [late?] in y[e] possession of the said Richard Alexander, Towards the East upon the Lands [Hired?] of the Honourable Company by James [Driver?] Lying under Dennis Lock, towards the South upon the Lands of James Rider, and towards the West upon the Lands of Benjamine Greentree, being in the whole Two Parcells of Land and contains Nineteen Acres they him her or them or any of them the before named Richard Hardings Children hath a Just right and Title to as may more Largly appear, Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Fifteenth day of January One Thousand Seven Hundred & Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted But none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold the said P[re]mises to him Her them and every of them of the aforesaid Richard Hardings Children their Heirs & Assignes for ever Upon Condition That the said Hardings Children Severally and Joyntly their Heires and Assignes, shall always Do and Beare true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne Her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these P[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth day of [Aug] in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen.
The Plott and Plan of y[e] abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed, Also a Copy of James Greentree this Deed and Plan Entered in y[e] Register Book. R[obert] Harper Sealed and Delivered in the presence of:
Company grant to the children of Richard Harding, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the several sons and daughters of the late Richard Harding, free planter, two parcels totalling 19 acres in Sandy Bay.
The first parcel, of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by land lately hired by the late Richard Alexander, with the qualifier uncertain in the manuscript, to the east by the land of Richard Swalley, freeholder, to the south by the lands of Edward Eustice or George Berry and Thomas Swallow, with the second name imperfectly legible, and to the west by the land of George Berry, with the reading uncertain. The acreage of the first parcel is imperfectly legible in the manuscript.
The second parcel, of 2 acres of cabbage tree land, lay under the Main Ridge next to Sandy Bay. It was bounded to the north by the land lately in the possession of the late Richard Alexander, to the east by the land hired from the Company by James Driver, with the surname uncertain, lying under Dennis Lock, to the south by the land of James Rider, and to the west by the land of Benjamin Greentree.
The Harding children's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to the Harding children, severally and jointly, and to their heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of James Greentree and Robert Harper.
Interpretations
The grant confirms the title of multiple sibling beneficiaries jointly and severally, without naming any of the Harding children individually. The form preserves the institutional record of the family interest without resolving the internal distribution of shares between the siblings. The arrangement contrasts with the primogeniture confirmations recorded earlier in the present series, including the John Cotgrave to Gilbert Cotgrave succession and the Paul Charles to William Charles confirmation, where the eldest son took the full inherited interest.
The decision to confirm to the children severally and jointly, rather than to identify a single heir at law, suggests that the Hardings died without a clear designation of primogeniture succession, or that the family chose to keep the inheritance undivided across the sibling group. The arrangement preserves the flexibility for later partition or sale by mutual agreement while protecting the underlying tenure against external claims.
The boundary description records Richard Alexander as deceased, and as having lately hired the parcel that lay on the north of the gumwood ground. Richard Alexander had earlier appeared in the records as the buyer of John Hemon senior's Chapel Valley dwelling in April 1704, as the seller of the same to George Dweight on 16 March 1710, and as the buyer of Lufkin's Chapel Valley dwelling on 14 June 1712 for £170 0s 0d in store credit. His death by August 1713 indicates a relatively short period between the 1712 purchase and his decease, and his interests were active across both urban Chapel Valley and rural Sandy Bay leasehold.
The cross-references to consultation book 15 folio 80 noted in the February 1716 Beale-Company deed had recorded an agreement involving George Sanders, John Long and the children of the late Richard Alexander, with John Long acting on behalf of himself and Captain Fassall's and French's children. The present 1713 deed thus precedes the documented arrangements for the Alexander orphans, which were established in the consultation book by 1716. The mention of the late Richard Alexander on Harding's boundary in 1713 represents the earliest reference to his death in the documents currently before the present record.
Richard Swalley, recorded as freeholder on the eastern boundary, is probably the same Richard Swallow of the documented holdings in Sandy Bay, with the variant spelling Swalley falling within the normal range of scribal variation. The same Richard Swallow had been recorded as boundary holder in the William Charles 1711 confirmation and as the buyer of the Deep Valley mansion from Thomas Cole in 1705.
Thomas Swallow on the southern boundary of the gumwood parcel reproduces his earlier appearance as the grantee of the 40-acre confirmation of 20 July 1711 and as the lessee of the 31-acre Sandy Bay leasehold of the same day. The recurrence of Thomas Swallow alongside Richard Swallow within the Harding boundary description indicates the substantial Swallow family presence in Sandy Bay across two named individuals, with their respective parcels both forming boundary lines for the present confirmation.
Edward Eustice and George Berry appear together or alternately as southern and western boundary holders, with the manuscript imperfectly legible at the second name. Both names are new to the present series, indicating either smaller holders whose tenure has not previously generated documented transactions, or variant spellings of holders recorded under different forms. Their position as boundary holders without separate documentation reproduces the pattern noted in the 1711 confirmations, where adjoining holders had to be named even where their own titles were not under review.
The James Driver of the second parcel's eastern boundary, with the surname uncertain, is recorded as hiring land from the Company under Dennis Lock. The byname Dennis Lock identifies a topographical feature or named hilltop in Sandy Bay, similar to the earlier byname Two Gun Ridge that had served as a marker in Grace Coulson's 1711 confirmations. The persistence of working bynames across boundary descriptions reflects the continued reliance on local knowledge of the landscape alongside the formal survey records.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714, falling after the 4 August 1713 confirmation date by approximately five months, presents an unresolved internal chronological feature of the manuscript. The reading of the consultation date as 15 January 1713/14 in the old calendar would place the consultation before the confirmation if 1713 is read as the year-ending date according to the old style. The institutional logic of the framework requires the consultation to precede the confirmation, so the consultation date is here understood as 15 January 1713 in the old calendar reckoning, equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning.
The witness panel records James Greentree and Robert Harper as the named attestors of the deed, without the formal council quorum signatures recorded on most other 1711 to 1713 confirmations. The reduced witnessing arrangement may reflect either an incomplete engrossment, with the full council signatures intended to be added at a later stage, or a deliberate departure from the standard form for confirmations involving children's interests. James Greentree, who had bought 20 acres in Sandy Bay from Powell in 1703 and the Bevean Chapel Valley house in 1705, appears here in the witness role rather than as a principal.
Speculations
The confirmation of 19 acres to the Harding children jointly and severally, rather than to a named eldest son, suggests the family had been managing the inheritance collectively in the years since their father's death. Richard Harding's documented holdings in 1691 and his death by 1703 left the children as minors holding undivided interests, and by 1713 the surviving siblings had reached the point where formal confirmation of the joint inheritance was sought without immediate partition.
The joint confirmation also protected the children's collective interest against any future attempt by an individual heir to claim sole inheritance under primogeniture, by recording the title as held severally and jointly across all the sons and daughters. The arrangement gave each child a documented interest defensible against the others, while preserving the option for later partition by mutual agreement.
The grant of substantial Sandy Bay ground to the Harding children at the same date as the Slaughter lease for three adjoining small parcels (4 August 1713) indicates a coordinated administrative effort to map and confirm the cluster of Sandy Bay holdings around the Harding boundary. Both instruments depend on accurate determination of the Harding children's ground as a fixed reference, since Slaughter's parcels are bounded by the Harding land on multiple sides. The same-day execution of both deeds fixed the mutual boundaries by reciprocal reference across the instruments.
The recital of recently deceased boundary holders, including Richard Alexander on two boundaries of the Harding parcels, suggests the period 1712 to 1713 saw significant generational change among the Sandy Bay holders. The institutional pressure to confirm the Harding children's title before further deaths altered the boundary descriptions may have prompted the relatively rapid execution of the present deed following the January 1714 consultation, with the resulting confirmation fixing the boundaries at the moment of confirmation rather than allowing further drift through subsequent transactions or deaths.
122
Island St Hellena The Comp[a] Deed to R[ichard] Gurling
The Lords Proprietors of this Island. The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby confirm unto Richard Gurling Free holder Twenty Acres of Land form[e]rly James La[s]thops dec[ease]d, Buting towards the North upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, Towards the East upon the of Walter Morri[s] freeholder, Towards the South & West upon the Lands of Anne Fuller and Frances Goodwin, Lying Scituate in a Branch of Lemmon Vally, Also Eleven Acres of Land more, Tett, [w]hereof being formerly Walter Belwards and the other one Acre formerly ridg[d]ed Baglys Lying Scituate in or neigh of Head of Fryer Vally Butting towards the North upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, Towards the East and South upon the Lands of George Carne, and towards the West upon the Lands of the aforesaid Edward Bagly[s] Children, being Two Parcels of Land, and in the whole containes Thirty one Acres Which he the said Richard Gurling hath a Just Right and Title to[o] as may appear more largly Upon Examination of the Fifteenth day of January One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beate of Drum for any p[er]son to make their claim on a Certain day therein Limmited, But none appearing in any objection made. To have and to hold The said P[re]mises to him the said Richard Gurling his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Richard Gurling his Heires and Assignes, Shall and Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne Her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these P[re]sents have Sett there Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. A. day of August One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
The Plott and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed, Also a Copy of this Deed & Plan entred in the Register Book.
Sealed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Richard Gurling, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Richard Gurling, freeholder, two parcels totalling 31 acres.
The first parcel, of 20 acres of land formerly held by the late James Lasthop, lay in a branch of Lemon Valley. It was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east by the land of Walter Morris, freeholder, and to the south and west by the lands of Anne Fuller and Frances Goodwin.
The second parcel, of 11 acres of land, lay in or near the head of Fryer Valley. Ten acres of it had formerly belonged to Walter Belward, and the remaining acre had formerly belonged to Edward Bagley, with the description of the smaller parcel imperfectly legible in the manuscript. The 11 acres were bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east and south by the land of George Carne, and to the west by the land of Edward Bagley's children.
Gurling's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Richard Gurling and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The plan of the land was annexed to the deed, and a copy of both the deed and the plan was entered in the register book.
The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Richard Gurling who had earlier figured prominently in the records as a substantial land dealer and broker, including the £500 0s 0d composite estate purchase from George Hoskison on 12 October 1706 in bills of exchange payable in England, the 1704 sale of the Chapel Valley plot to George Carne, the 1707 delivery of 22 acres at the head of Lemon Valley to Thomas Goodwin as executor for the late John Goodwin, the 1708 mortgage of Hoskison's 45 acres, and the 17 August 1708 purchase of 10 acres in Fryer Valley from Walter Belward for £70 0s 0d. The present 1713 confirmation regularises some of his accumulated holdings within the 1711 documentary framework.
The recital that the second parcel comprised 10 acres formerly Walter Belward's directly connects to the August 1708 purchase from Belward, and the present confirmation places that earlier transaction within the regularised documentary regime. The additional acre formerly held by Edward Bagley extends the holding marginally beyond the original Belward purchase, indicating that Gurling had acquired or annexed a small adjoining parcel from the Bagley estate or its successors.
The first parcel of 20 acres formerly held by the late James Lasthop introduces a new earlier holder into the chain of title. The Lasthop name does not appear elsewhere in the present series in this form, although the similarly named James Easthope or Eastop of the October 1687 sale of 10 acres at the head of Fisher Valley to John Coole may be the same individual or a relative. The variant spelling Lasthop, rather than Easthope or Eastop, places the identification in some doubt.
The boundary description of the first parcel places it in a branch of Lemon Valley, with Walter Morris (also spelt Morres or Morris in earlier records) on the east, and Anne Fuller and Frances Goodwin on the south and west. Frances Goodwin is the widow of the late Thomas Goodwin and the current wife of George Carne, last documented as joint seller with her husband of the Goodwin Captain's House to Henry Francis on 25 May 1715 for £285 0s 0d. The present 1713 reference to her holding in Lemon Valley as Frances Goodwin, rather than Frances Carne, indicates that the 1713 confirmation preceded the remarriage or that the documents continued to identify her by her first-marriage surname for the purposes of the Goodwin estate. The Carne marriage thus dates between August 1713 and May 1715.
Anne Fuller as the southern and western boundary holder introduces another female holder into the records, paired with Frances Goodwin in the same description. The pairing of two female landholders on the southern boundary of Gurling's parcel indicates the substantial position of women within the Lemon Valley landholding pattern, with widows and possibly unmarried adult women holding ground in their own right alongside the male freeholders.
The second parcel's boundary description records George Carne on the east and south of the Fryer Valley parcel. The position of Carne as a substantial Fryer Valley boundary holder matches his earlier acquisitions: 15 acres from Robert Leach in January 1705, 15 acres from Robert Gurling in April 1709, and his other Fryer Valley activities. By 1713 Carne's Fryer Valley estate wrapped around two sides of Gurling's 11-acre parcel, indicating the systematic consolidation of his holdings in that area.
Edward Bagley's children, named on the western boundary of the Fryer Valley parcel, indicate the death of Edward Bagley before 4 August 1713 and the transmission of his interest to his minor or surviving children. The earlier Edward Bagley had appeared as buyer of 10 acres with dwelling house from John and Margaret Bagley on 10 August 1705, as party to the composite arrangement with William and Mary French on 4 March 1708, and as joint mortgagee with Charles Steward on the Joseph and Martha Fox mortgage of 18 August 1709. His death by 1713 marks another generational transition within the substantial planter class.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 again falls after the deed date of 4 August 1713 in modern reckoning, presenting the same chronological feature noted in the Harding children's confirmation of the same day. As before, the consultation date is read as 15 January 1713 in the old calendar (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation. The same chronological structure across both deeds executed on 4 August 1713 indicates a coordinated administrative approach, with the consultation work undertaken in January and the formal confirmations issued in the August sitting.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the pattern observed in the Slaughter lease of the same date, with Cason continuing as witness, Henry Francis appearing in the witnessing role and John Alexander providing the register's signature. The continuity of the small literate circle across the August 1713 confirmations confirms the stable composition of the documentary regime, with established holders such as Francis and Alexander attesting the formal record of their neighbours' titles.
Speculations
The confirmation of 31 acres across two distinct parcels in separate valleys (Lemon Valley and Fryer Valley) marks Gurling's recorded estate at the moment of confirmation, but represents only a fraction of the substantial holdings documented in his earlier transactions. The £500 0s 0d Hoskison composite purchase of 1706 had included a 30-acre tenement house at the Little Horse Pasture, 20 acres at the head of Lemon Valley, growing yams, livestock and a black mare, none of which appear in the present 1713 confirmation. The selective regularisation of only the two parcels here suggests that Gurling's other holdings may have been disposed of, brought under separate documentation, or simply not yet brought into the 1711 framework.
The combination of two parcels in different valleys within a single deed reflects the practical convenience of consolidated documentation rather than any geographic continuity between the holdings. The 1711 framework typically combined a holder's various parcels into a single instrument where possible, reducing administrative cost and producing a comprehensive documentary record of the individual's overall position. The fragmented nature of Gurling's 31 acres indicates a portfolio assembled through multiple transactions over time rather than through a single grant or inheritance.
The identification of the parcel as formerly Belward's connects the present confirmation directly to the 1708 private sale between Belward and Gurling, demonstrating the institutional process by which private transactions could be brought within the formal Company documentary framework. The 1711 reform thus served not only to confirm long-established holdings but also to regularise more recent private acquisitions, integrating the working land market with the institutional record.
The persistent appearance of George Carne as boundary holder across multiple 1709 to 1715 documents indicates the systematic expansion of his Fryer Valley estate during this period. By 1713 he had assembled sufficient ground to act as the southern and eastern boundary for Gurling's 11-acre parcel, and his wider position included the Goodwin estate inherited through his marriage to Frances. The Carne household's consolidation of property in Fryer Valley between 1705 and 1715 represents one of the most successful estate-building exercises documented in the present series.
123
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to R[ichard] Gurling
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Richard Gurling Freeholder, Six Acres of Land abutting Toward[s] North and South upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, Towards the East upon his own Land, and towards the West upon the Land. belonging to Edward Bagly[s] Children dec[ea] sed and in possession of Thomas Smithen. Also Three Acres and three quarters of an Acre Scituate in a Branch of Lemmon Vally, Buting towards the North South East and West upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land. Likewise One Acre and one Quarter of an Acre more. Butting and Bounding towards the North, East & West upon the said Honour[abl] Companys Wast Land, and towards the South upon the said Richard Gurlings own Land lately purchased of the said Honourable Company and formerly James L[as]thops dec[ea]d, being in all Three Parcels of Land and Contains in the whole Eleven Acres. To have and to Hold The said P[re]mises to him the said Richard Gurling his Executors Administrators or Assignes for y[e] Tearne and Tim[e] of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen Upon Conditions That he the said Richard Gurling his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall alwayes DO and bear true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all y[e] Laws & constitutions of y[e] said Island, and yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) The annuall rent or sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto the said Honourable Company, and their Successors. And that he the said Richard Gurling his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty one Years leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same, without consent of y[e] Govern[o]r & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company, and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. A. day of August in the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and y[e] said Richard Gurling to the other part hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered Richard Gurling in the p[re]sence of Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Richard Gurling, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Richard Gurling, freeholder, three parcels totalling 11 acres.
The first parcel, of 6 acres of land, was bounded to the north and south by the Company's waste land, to the east by Gurling's own land, and to the west by the land belonging to the late Edward Bagley's children, then in the possession of Thomas Smithen.
The second parcel, of 3 acres and three quarters of an acre, lay in a branch of Lemon Valley and was bounded on all four sides by the Company's waste land.
The third parcel, of 1 acre and one quarter of an acre, was bounded to the north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and to the south by Gurling's own land lately purchased from the Company and formerly held by the late James Lasthop.
The lease ran to Richard Gurling and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1713.
Gurling and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Richard Gurling set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Gurling's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold core of 31 acres was supplemented by 11 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 42 acres places him among the substantial multi-tenure holders of the present series, though far below the documented scale of his earlier dealings reflected in the £500 0s 0d Hoskison composite purchase of 1706.
The three small leased parcels (6 acres, 3¾ acres and 1¼ acres) reproduce the fractional acreage pattern noted in the Margaret Sich lease of 1711 and reflect the deliberate filling of gaps adjoining the confirmed freehold rather than acquisition of substantial new ground. The 1711 framework's institutional preference for placing leasehold extensions directly against confirmed freehold cores appears clearly in the third parcel, where the southern boundary is recorded as Gurling's own land lately purchased from the Company and formerly held by the late James Lasthop.
The recital that Gurling's own land was lately purchased from the Company and formerly held by the late James Lasthop indicates that the 20-acre freehold parcel confirmed in the same-day deed had been acquired from the Company itself rather than through private succession from Lasthop. The Company appears to have taken the Lasthop ground into its hands on his death and then sold it forward to Gurling, with the present 1713 confirmation regularising the title under the 1711 framework. The pattern resembles the Belward to Bell transaction of August 1712, where the Company interposed itself between a private seller and buyer.
The reference to land belonging to the late Edward Bagley's children, then in the possession of Thomas Smithen, identifies an institutional arrangement under which the children's underlying tenure had been let out to a working occupant during their minority or pending settlement of the inheritance. The distinction between underlying ownership (the Bagley children) and active possession (Thomas Smithen) reproduces the institutional precision noted in the Slaughter lease of the same date, where Benjamin Greentree's land lay in Richard Swallow's possession. The 1711 documentary framework consistently distinguished tenure from physical occupation where they did not coincide.
Thomas Smithen as a working occupant of the Bagley children's land introduces a new individual into the present series. The Smithen name does not appear elsewhere in the records currently before the present record, suggesting either a more recent arrival or a smaller holder whose own tenure has not generated documented transactions.
The second parcel of 3¾ acres in a branch of Lemon Valley is bounded on all four sides by the Company's waste land, placing it as an enclosed island of leasehold within unenclosed Company ground. The configuration matches the John Roberts personal lease of 1 August 1711, also bounded by Company waste on all sides, and the Cole-Swallow Deep Valley mansion purchase of June 1705 noted in the earlier records. The pattern indicates a recurrent type of small leasehold or freehold enclave within institutional ground.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1713, rather than from 25 March 1711 as used in the principal 1711 leases, marks a refinement in the back-dating practice of the 1711 framework. Leases executed in 1713 commenced from the most recent Lady Day rather than being back-dated to the original institutional commencement of the framework. The change indicates that the 1711 procedure had become a continuing administrative process rather than a single one-off documentary regularisation, with the commencement date adjusted to reflect each year's institutional cycle.
The fractional acreage of the second and third parcels (3¾ acres and 1¼ acres) reflects the precision of the 1711 surveying programme, with the measured ground recorded down to quarter-acre increments. The institutional shift from the round-number allocations of the 1682 inquest (10, 20, 30 acres) to the precise survey measurements of the 1711 framework represents a significant administrative development in the documentation of island tenure.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested Gurling's freehold confirmation of the same day, the Harding children's confirmation of the same day, and the Slaughter lease of the same day. The continuity of the witness panel across the four 4 August 1713 instruments confirms that the day's business was conducted by a stable group of witnesses moving through the sequence of confirmations and leases in coordinated session.
The combined annual rent on the 11 acres of leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £2 15s 0d per annum. The aggregate rent on the 11-acre leasehold extension fits within the moderate range of supplementary leasehold rents, reflecting the small individual parcel sizes rather than any preferential treatment.
Speculations
The decision to combine three small parcels (6, 3¾ and 1¼ acres) within a single lease, rather than as three separate instruments, indicates the institutional preference for consolidating a holder's various leased fragments into a single documentary record. The arrangement reduced administrative cost and produced a comprehensive picture of the individual's leasehold position, while preserving the geographic distinctness of each parcel through the boundary descriptions and the annexed plan.
The configuration of the three leasehold parcels around Gurling's confirmed freehold ground suggests a strategy of completing the boundary line at points where the freehold met the surrounding Company waste. The third parcel's recital that it adjoined Gurling's own land lately purchased from the Company indicates a deliberate sequencing, with the freehold acquisition followed shortly afterward by the leasehold extension along the adjacent waste. The two-stage approach allowed Gurling to secure the freehold core first and then expand outward into the surrounding ground through the more flexible leasehold instrument.
The same-day execution of Gurling's freehold confirmation and leasehold extension, alongside the Slaughter lease and the Harding children's confirmation, indicates that 4 August 1713 was a major working day for the documentary regularisation of Sandy Bay, Lemon Valley and Fryer Valley holdings. The administrative concentration of multiple substantial instruments within a single sitting represents an institutional effort to clear accumulated business in a coordinated session, with the consultation work having been undertaken in the preceding January and the formal confirmations and leases issued together in August.
The continued involvement of Gurling in the 1711 framework, six years after his £500 0s 0d Hoskison purchase and five years after his Belward purchase, indicates a sustained commitment to the regularisation of his various holdings through the new documentary regime. The pattern contrasts with holders who appeared in the framework once and then disappeared from the records, and suggests that Gurling's active property dealing required continuing documentary maintenance to keep his interests defensible against future challenge.
124
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Geo[rge] Carne
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies
Do hereby Confirm unto George Carne freeholder Thirty Acres of Gumwood Land butting and bounding Towards the North upon the Lands of Richard Gurling freeholder, Towards the East upon the Lands of the Honourable Companys great Plantation, Towards the South upon the Lands of the Lords of George[?] Keiling, and towards the West upon the Lands of Walter Mor[ris] freeholder, Which he the said George Carne hath a just right and Title to, As may appear more largely, Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Thirteenth day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a Certain day therein limmitted but none Appearing or any Objection made, To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said George Carne his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said George Carne his Heires and Assignes do bear always true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Geo[rge] Cornes Assignm[t] of this Deed of y[e] Comp[a]
I Do hereby Assigne all my Right, title, & Interest in the above ment[ione]d
Thirty Acres of Land to the Hon[ble] Comp[a] & their Heires or Assignes for Ever in
consideration of One hundred & fifty pounds paid me before the Signing
hereof. Witness my hand this 22[d] of Dec[embe]r 1714.
George Carne
Attested by: Donald Hollinell[?] H Antipas Tovey
Company grant to George Carne, 4 August 1713, with later assignment by George Carne to the Company, 22 December 1714.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to George Carne, freeholder, 30 acres of gumwood land.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Richard Gurling, freeholder, to the east by the land of the Company's great plantation, to the south by the lands of the heirs of George Keiling, with the reading of the qualifying word uncertain in the manuscript, and to the west by the land of Walter Morris, freeholder.
Carne's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 13 February 1713. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to George Carne and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
On 22 December 1714, George Carne assigned all his right, title and interest in the 30 acres to the Company and its heirs or assigns for ever, in consideration of £150 0s 0d paid to him before the signing of the assignment. The assignment was witnessed by Donald Hollinell, with the surname uncertain in the manuscript, and Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same George Carne who had figured prominently in earlier records as a substantial merchant and land accumulator. The boundary description places his 30 acres directly south of Richard Gurling's 11 acres confirmed on the same day, indicating that the two deeds were drafted to reflect the mutual boundary between the adjoining estates. The reciprocal recording of Carne and Gurling as neighbours fixes their shared line by mutual reference across the same-day confirmations.
The consultation date of 13 February 1713 places the examination within the same January-February 1713 administrative cycle that produced the 15 January 1713 consultation underlying the Harding children's confirmation and the Gurling confirmation of the same day. The clustering of consultations within the winter of 1713, followed by the issue of formal deeds in the August sitting, confirms the working pattern of the 1711 framework as a continuing administrative process with seasonal cycles of examination and engrossment.
The reference to the Company's great plantation as the eastern boundary identifies a substantial Company-managed agricultural establishment, distinct from the unenclosed Company waste land that bounds most of the other parcels in the present series. The great plantation appears earlier in the records, including the boundary description of the 4 January 1705 Leach to Carne sale of 15 acres at the head of Fryer Valley, where the eastern boundary had also been the Company's great plantation. The persistence of this institutional land use across the period 1705 to 1713 indicates a long-term Company investment in direct agricultural management alongside the framework of private freehold and leasehold tenure.
The southern boundary against the lands of the heirs of George Keiling reproduces the persistent presence of the Keeling family estate, last documented as the late Governor Keeling's land at the head of Fryer Valley in the 4 January 1705 Leach to Carne deed. The deceased Governor Keeling's holdings continued to be identified by family reference across the documentary record, with the heirs maintaining the boundary position more than a decade after his death.
Walter Morris on the western boundary continues his appearance across earlier records, including his 1707 sale of his late father's Chapel Valley house to John Clavering for £40 0s 0d and his earlier appearance in 1705 as a witness to the Mary Oliver indenture to George Carne. The 1713 boundary reference confirms his continued presence as a Fryer Valley holder alongside his urban Chapel Valley dealings.
The eighteen-month interval between the 4 August 1713 confirmation and the 22 December 1714 assignment back to the Company indicates that Carne held the freehold for a short period before reconveying it to the Company at the price of £150 0s 0d. The brief tenure suggests either a planned arrangement under which the freehold confirmation was a step within a wider transaction, or a change of circumstances that prompted Carne to dispose of the holding within months of acquiring it.
The price of £150 0s 0d on a 30-acre parcel produces a per-acre rate of £5 0s 0d, well above the upland rate of £1 0s 0d to £2 0s 0d per acre noted across the 1682 to 1712 records. The premium reflects the gumwood classification and possibly the proximity to the Company's great plantation, but also indicates that Carne realised a substantial price for ground that had not been held under independent tenure for long.
The assignment of the freehold back to the Company, rather than to a private buyer, completes a circular transaction: the Company confirmed the freehold to Carne in August 1713, and Carne reconveyed it to the Company in December 1714. The institutional purpose of such a manoeuvre is not immediately apparent on the face of the documents, since the Company could have retained the original ground without granting it out in the first place.
The brief assignment instrument follows the standard form of a quit-claim or release rather than a full conveyance, with consideration recited as £150 0s 0d paid before signing and the transfer described as all my right, title and interest. The compressed form reflects the institutional rather than private character of the transaction, with the Company already having the underlying proprietary interest and Carne releasing the documented freehold confirmation back to the institution.
Antipas Tovey witnessing the December 1714 assignment connects this transaction to the wider Tovey family documentary involvement, including the 18 June 1713 gift to Mary Maxwell and the later register function performed by Tovey. The continuity of witness participation across multiple instruments reflects the small literate circle that underpinned the documentary regime.
Speculations
The circular transaction by which the Company confirmed the freehold to Carne in August 1713 and then reacquired it in December 1714 suggests an institutional purpose beyond the apparent transfer of ownership. The most probable explanation is that the 1713 confirmation served to fix the formal boundaries and tenure of a parcel whose status had become uncertain through earlier informal dealings, and the 1714 assignment then converted the confirmed freehold into Company ground free of any residual private claim. The £150 0s 0d consideration paid to Carne would in this case represent compensation for releasing his interest rather than a market price for the ground itself.
An alternative explanation is that Carne accepted the freehold confirmation in August 1713 with the intention of holding it as a tradeable asset, and then disposed of it back to the Company in December 1714 as part of his wider financial reorganisation in preparation for either his own departure from the island or his marriage to Frances Goodwin between August 1713 and May 1715. The 1715 sale of the Goodwin Captain's House by George and Frances Carne to Henry Francis for £285 0s 0d realised cash for the Carne household at a similar period, suggesting a coordinated disposal of various land assets between late 1714 and mid-1715.
The Company's willingness to pay £150 0s 0d to reacquire a freehold it had granted only sixteen months earlier indicates either that the institutional value of the parcel was substantial enough to justify the buyback or that the Company sought to clear a boundary anomaly before further private accumulation took place. The proximity to the Company's great plantation supports the institutional value reading, with the Company likely seeking to extend its directly managed agricultural establishment into the adjoining gumwood ground.
The pricing benchmark of £5 0s 0d per acre established by this transaction places the Carne freehold within the upper tier of the recorded land values, exceeding the rates achieved by most upland transactions in the documented record. The premium price suggests that the institutional buyback was not a simple market transaction at the open price, but represented a negotiated settlement that compensated Carne generously for releasing the title and removing the parcel from private circulation.
125
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease to Cason
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto Lieutenant Thomas Cason Five Acres of Cabbagetree Land, Lying Scituate and being in Sandy Bay, under the Mainridge which was formerly in the Possession of Henry Webly, butting and bounding towards the North and East upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, Towards the South upon the Land of Thomas Swallow, and towards the West upon the said Honourable Companys Land, now in the Possession of Charles Steward. To have and to hold The aforesaid Five Acres of Land, To him the said Thomas Cason his Executors Adminis- trators and Assignes for Tearne and time of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty Fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven Hundred & Thirteen Upon Condition That he y[e] said Thomas Cason his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and constitutions of y[e] said Island. And Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the annuall Rent and sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honour[able] Company, and their Successors. AND that he y[e] said Thomas Cason his Executors Administrat[ors] and Assignes shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of the said Teerne of Twenty one years, leave the Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will occasion the alteration of y[e] Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or interest in y[e] Same without y[e] Consent of Governour & Councell, for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable Company and Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale, at their Castle in James Vally the Fourth & A. A. day of August, A. A. this Yeare of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen, and y[e] said Thomas Cason to the other part hath Sett his hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered Tho[s] Cason in the P[re]sence of:
Matthew Bazett
H Francis
Company lease to Thomas Cason, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Lieutenant Thomas Cason 5 acres of cabbage tree land in Sandy Bay, lying under the Main Ridge.
The parcel had formerly been in the possession of Henry Webly. It was bounded to the north and east by the Company's waste land, to the south by the land of Thomas Swallow, and to the west by the Company's land then in the possession of Charles Steward.
The lease ran to Thomas Cason and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1713.
Cason and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Thomas Cason set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis.
Interpretations
The grantee's title of lieutenant marks Cason's elevation from his earlier rank of ensign recorded in the lease of Welley's Land on 27 July 1711. The promotion from ensign to lieutenant within just over two years indicates active military advancement, with Cason now holding the second commissioned rank in the garrison hierarchy. The combination of military rank and continued private land holding reproduces the broader pattern of garrison officers building up estates alongside their military careers.
The recital that the parcel had formerly been in the possession of Henry Webly identifies an earlier holder whose tenure had ended before the present lease. The Webly name appears earlier in the 1 August 1711 John Robinson lease, where the western boundary had been recorded as Company land formerly held by Henry Webby. The variant spellings Webly and Webby refer to the same earlier holder, with his Sandy Bay ground now subject to redistribution by the Company under the 1711 framework. The 5 acres now leased to Cason represent one portion of the former Webly ground, with the remaining portion previously identified as Company land on Robinson's western boundary.
The reference to the Company's land in the possession of Charles Steward on the western boundary illustrates the same distinction between underlying tenure and active possession noted in the Slaughter lease and the Gurling lease. Steward held the ground in working possession but the underlying tenure remained with the Company, indicating an informal or unrecorded arrangement that the documentary regime acknowledged without formal regularisation. Charles Steward's persistent appearance across the Sandy Bay records confirms his position as one of the most substantial holders in the area.
Thomas Swallow on the southern boundary continues his appearance as a major Sandy Bay holder, with his 40-acre 1711 freehold and 31-acre 1711 leasehold combining into one of the largest combined estates documented in the present series.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1713, rather than from 25 March 1711 as in the principal first-round leases, reproduces the 1713 commencement date used in the Gurling lease of the same day. The 1711 framework had by 1713 evolved into a continuing administrative process, with the leasehold commencement dates adjusted to reflect the most recent Lady Day rather than the original framework date.
The combined annual rent on the 5-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £1 5s 0d per annum. The modest rent reflects the small size of the parcel and places Cason's leasehold revenue contribution within the lower tier of the framework rents, in contrast to the £10 1s 0d per annum on his original 40-acre Welley's Land leasehold.
The witness panel of Matthew Bazett and Henry Francis is reduced from the four-person panel used on the same day for the Slaughter lease, the Harding children's confirmation, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Gurling lease and the Carne freehold confirmation. The absence of John Alexander and Thomas Cason himself from the present witness list reflects the practical impossibility of Cason witnessing his own lease, and indicates that the surrounding witnesses had moved on to other business by the time the present lease was sealed.
The acquisition of the 5-acre parcel under Cason's lieutenant rank, two years after his original 40-acre lease as ensign, suggests a continuing institutional pattern of allocating reverted ground to officers as their careers progressed. The combined position by August 1713 placed him at 45 acres of Sandy Bay leasehold (40 acres at Welley's Land plus the present 5 acres), placing his combined holding among the larger leasehold estates of the framework.
Speculations
The decision to add a small 5-acre parcel to Cason's existing leasehold, rather than to grant a substantial new holding, suggests the Company was using marginal reverted ground to extend the working capacity of established officers' estates rather than to bring new tenants into the framework. The selection of a parcel formerly held by Henry Webly indicates that reverted Sandy Bay ground was being parcelled out in small allocations rather than consolidated into larger blocks, perhaps because the boundaries had been fragmented by the original Webly occupation or because the Company sought to spread the leasehold revenue across multiple tenants.
The contrast between Cason's 1711 status as ensign and free islander and his 1713 status as lieutenant indicates that his military career had advanced significantly in the intervening period. The simultaneous extension of his land holding through the present lease may have been intended to provide an officer of his new rank with the increased private resources appropriate to the elevated position. The institutional alignment of military promotion with land allocation suggests that the Company recognised land tenure as a form of officer compensation, supplementing the formal military pay with productive ground.
The continued appearance of Cason as both lessee in the present instrument and as witness on the earlier Slaughter lease of the same day indicates a growing dual role within the documentary system. By August 1713 Cason had passed from being simply a recipient of Company allocations to participating in the witnessing of his neighbours' transactions. The progression reflects the practical mechanism by which new members were admitted to the small literate circle that underpinned the formal record, with established holders taking on documentary roles as they accumulated standing and property.
126
St Helena. Comp[a] Deed to R[ichard] Swallow
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honour[able] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto Richard Swallow Free Holder Eighteen Acres of Cabbagetree Land Scituate at y[e] Head of Deep Vally being formerly the Lands of Thomas Coals (dec[ease]d) Butting and bounding towards y[e] East, South upon Thirteen Acres of y[e] Honour[ables] Companys Land Hired by y[e] said Richard Swallow, towards the West upon y[e] Lands in Possession of Matthew Bazett[s] hired of the said Honourable Company, and towards the North upon the Land of Thomas Allis Free Holder, which he y[e] said Richard Swallow hath a Just right and Title to[o], as may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the 15 day of January A. A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold the said premises to him y[e] said Richard Swallow his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Richard Swallow his Heires and Assignes Do bear alwayes true Faith and Allegiance to our Sovereigne Lady the Queene her Heires and Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. A. Day of August One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of:
Tho[s] Cason
H Francis
Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Richard Swallow, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Richard Swallow, freeholder, 18 acres of cabbage tree land at the head of Deep Valley. The land had formerly belonged to the late Thomas Coals.
The parcel was bounded to the east and south by 13 acres of Company land hired by Swallow himself, to the west by land in the possession of Matthew Bazett held on hire from the Company, and to the north by the land of Thomas Allis, freeholder.
Swallow's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Richard Swallow and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Richard Swallow who had earlier appeared as buyer of the Deep Valley mansion house and 17 acres from Thomas Cole on 5 June 1705 for £104 0s 0d, as the son and heir apparent who sold his reversionary interest to his mother Margaret Sech on 4 February 1705 for £140 0s 0d, and as witness to the Orchard-Bagley assignment and the Tovey-Bagley assignment of 1711 and 1713. The present confirmation regularises his Deep Valley holdings within the 1711 documentary framework, fixing his title to 18 acres at the head of the valley.
The recital that the ground had formerly belonged to the late Thomas Coals introduces an earlier holder whose tenure had ended before the present confirmation. The Coals surname connects with the Henry Coales of Pleasant Valley in the 1682 inquest, the Henry Coales recorded as a witness to the Sutton Isaack to Audouart gift of October 1698, and the late Thomas Coales noted as the northern boundary in the Cason 27 July 1711 Welley's Land lease. The variant spellings Coals, Coales and Coules across the records refer to the same family, with the present Thomas Coals identifiable as the same individual whose death was noted in the 1711 boundary descriptions.
The boundary description's reference to 13 acres of Company land hired by Swallow himself on the east and south of the confirmed parcel records his combined working estate as a substantial Deep Valley holding. The 18-acre confirmed freehold plus 13 acres of Company leasehold produces a combined working area of 31 acres at the head of the valley. The configuration reproduces the pattern noted across the 1711 framework, where confirmed freehold sat adjacent to Company leasehold under the same holder's working tenure.
Matthew Bazett as the western boundary holder, with his land described as in his possession and held on hire from the Company, reproduces the institutional precision used elsewhere in the 1713 instruments. Bazett's Deep Valley leasehold connects to his earlier acquisition of 10 acres at the head of Deep Valley from Jonathan Mudge documented in the present record. The present reference indicates that Bazett continued to occupy Deep Valley ground in 1713, building on his earlier acquisitions and his role as fifth in council and surveyor for the 1711 framework.
Thomas Allis as the northern boundary, recorded as freeholder, continues the documentary record of his substantial Deep Valley estate. Allis had been described as of Deep Valley in his April 1704 purchase from Benjamin Miller, and his title now stands confirmed in the present 1713 boundary reference. The continuing presence of Allis as a Deep Valley boundary holder fixes his estate as one of the dominant private holdings at the head of the valley.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714, falling after the deed date in modern reckoning, reproduces the chronological pattern noted in the Harding children's confirmation and the Gurling freehold confirmation of the same day. As before, the consultation date is here read as 15 January 1713 in the old calendar, equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning, placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The clustering of three same-day confirmations (Harding children, Gurling, and the present Swallow) all referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation indicates a coordinated processing of multiple confirmations from the same winter sitting.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested the Gurling freehold confirmation of the same day, the Gurling lease, and the Harding children's confirmation. The continuity of the witness panel across the four 4 August 1713 instruments confirms the stable composition of the documentary attendance throughout the day's business, with the same group moving through a sequence of related instruments in coordinated session.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Swallow's hired ground, in contrast to the freehold-plus-lease packaging used for some 1711 holders, indicates that the 13 acres he hired from the Company remained under separate documentation not represented in the present record. The reference to the hired ground within the freehold confirmation captures the boundary relationship without bringing the leasehold itself within the 1711 framework on this occasion.
The cabbage tree classification of the 18-acre parcel matches the dominant tree cover at the head of Deep Valley, in contrast to the gumwood land that predominated in the Sandy Bay and Lemon Valley confirmations of the same day. The classification distinction reflects the differentiated landscape across the island, with each valley carrying its own characteristic vegetation.
Speculations
The confirmation of 18 acres to Richard Swallow at the head of Deep Valley, set against the earlier 1705 purchase of 17 acres of cabbage tree land plus the mansion house from Thomas Cole, suggests a connection between the two transactions. The 1705 purchase had referred to 10 acres formerly Richard Leach's and 7 acres formerly John Hemmons's, with the land bordered on all sides by the Company's waste land. The present 1713 confirmation of 18 acres, formerly belonging to the late Thomas Coals, may represent a separate accumulation from the 1705 purchase, or alternatively the same ground re-described under different earlier holders following further investigation by the 1711 surveying.
The reference to the parcel as formerly belonging to the late Thomas Coals, rather than to Richard Leach or John Hemmons, indicates either that the underlying chain of title had been re-examined under the 1711 framework or that the present 18 acres represent additional Deep Valley ground beyond the original 1705 purchase. The two readings cannot be definitively distinguished on the face of the present record, but the difference between 17 acres in 1705 and 18 acres in 1713 supports the second reading, with the present confirmation covering a separately accumulated parcel.
The substantial combined working estate of 31 acres at the head of Deep Valley (18 acres freehold plus 13 acres hired ground), set against the Matthew Bazett holdings on the west and the Thomas Allis estate on the north, indicates that the head of Deep Valley had become the focus of substantial private accumulation by 1713. The combined holdings of Swallow, Bazett and Allis at the head of the valley represent a significant concentration of cultivated ground, with the Company waste land that had previously surrounded the area now largely brought within documented tenure.
The acquisition of the Deep Valley mansion estate by Richard Swallow in 1705 and the present confirmation of substantial additional Deep Valley ground in 1713 trace a sustained accumulation strategy across the eight-year period. Swallow's progression from 17 acres with mansion in 1705 to 31 acres combined freehold and leasehold in 1713, alongside his continued urban dealings and his role as witness to multiple lease assignments, marks him as one of the more active estate-builders documented in the present series.
127
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease to R[ichard] Swallow
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honour[able] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Richard Swallow Freeholder, Thirteen Acres of Cabbage Tree Land, Scituate lying and being at or near the head of Deep Vally butting and bounding towards the North, East and West, upon the said Richard Swallows own Land, formerly Thomas Coales dec[ease]d, and towards the South upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, ALSO Two Acres of Land more, butting & bounding every way upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land containing in both parcells Fifteen Acres. To have and to hold the same to him the said Richard Swallow his Executors Administrators & Assignes for the Tearne & time of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. Upon Condition That he the said Richard Swallow his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) The Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre, besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annum, in good & Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said Richard Swallow his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of the said Tearne of Twenty one Years, leave the Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences, which are the Land marks and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same, without consent of y[e] Governour & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof, the said Honourable United Company, and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents, have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. A. day of August A. A. y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. And y[e] said Richard Swallow to the other part hath Sett his Hand & Seale.
Sealed and Delivered Rich[a]rd Swallow in y[e] Presence of: Tho[s] [Cason] H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Richard Swallow, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Richard Swallow, freeholder, two parcels totalling 15 acres at or near the head of Deep Valley.
The first parcel, of 13 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north, east and west by Swallow's own land, formerly held by the late Thomas Coales, and to the south by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 2 acres of land, was bounded on all four sides by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to Richard Swallow and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1713.
Swallow and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Richard Swallow set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Swallow's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold core of 18 acres was supplemented by 15 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 33 acres at the head of Deep Valley places him among the substantial multi-tenure holders of the August 1713 sitting, alongside Gurling (42 acres combined) and the wider tenure clusters of Sandy Bay.
The freehold confirmation issued on the same day had referred to 13 acres of Company land hired by Swallow on the east and south boundaries of the confirmed parcel. The present lease formalises that 13-acre hired ground as the first parcel of leasehold under the 1711 framework. The reciprocal reference between the two same-day instruments fixes the relationship between freehold and leasehold by mutual recording, with each deed acknowledging the other's parcel as boundary or working ground.
The slight inconsistency in the boundary direction (the freehold names the hired land as east and south; the lease describes the leasehold parcel as bounded by Swallow's own land on north, east and west, and by Company waste on south) indicates that the two parcels sit in a complementary configuration rather than as straightforward neighbours on a single line. The arrangement places the 13-acre leasehold partially wrapped around the 18-acre freehold, with the leasehold extending the working block toward the southern Company waste land.
The second parcel of 2 acres, bounded on all four sides by Company waste, sits as a separate enclave within unenclosed Company ground. The configuration matches the pattern noted in the John Roberts personal lease of 1 August 1711, the Cole-Swallow Deep Valley mansion purchase of June 1705, and the second parcel of the Gurling lease of the same day. The recurrence of small enclaves bounded entirely by Company waste across multiple instruments indicates a regular feature of the 1711 framework, where small parcels of cultivable ground within larger Company holdings were individually leased to nearby holders.
The recital of Swallow's own land as formerly Thomas Coales's, reproduced from the freehold confirmation of the same day, fixes the chain of title for the freehold core. The continued naming of the late Coales as the previous holder, even on the boundary of the lease where the leasehold itself had no Coales history, illustrates the institutional practice of preserving documented title chains across multiple instruments to support future verification.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1713, in line with the Gurling lease and the Cason lease of the same day, confirms the institutional adoption of the most recent Lady Day as the commencement date for 1713 leases. The shift from the original 25 March 1711 commencement used in the principal first-round leases reflects the framework's evolution into a continuing administrative process with annual cycles.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Gurling lease, the Harding children's confirmation and Swallow's own freehold confirmation of the same day. The continuity of the panel across the August 1713 sitting confirms the stable composition of the documentary attendance, with the same group of witnesses moving through the sequence of related instruments in coordinated session.
The combined annual rent on the 15-acre leasehold extension, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £3 15s 0d per annum. The aggregate rent fits within the moderate range of the leasehold revenues recorded across the present series, and complements rather than dominates Swallow's confirmed freehold position.
Speculations
The deliberate placement of the 13-acre leasehold parcel against the south of the 18-acre freehold, with the leasehold acting as the boundary against the unenclosed Company waste, indicates a strategy of locking in the boundary line between cultivated ground and uncultivated Company ground through the leasehold instrument. By taking the leasehold as the outer ring of the working estate, Swallow protected the freehold core against any future Company decision to grant or lease the adjoining waste to a different holder whose use might encroach on the established cultivation.
The addition of the 2-acre enclosed parcel within Company waste suggests Swallow was filling a specific gap or extending his working capacity into a discrete pocket of cultivable ground not contiguous with his main holding. The institutional willingness to lease such small enclaves to nearby holders, rather than retaining them as unallocated waste, reflects the Company's interest in maximising the rent generated from cultivable ground across the island while preserving its overall proprietary control.
The coordinated processing of multiple Deep Valley and adjacent confirmations on 4 August 1713 (Swallow's freehold and lease, Gurling's freehold and lease, the Harding children's grant, the Slaughter lease and the Cason lease) indicates a major administrative effort to clear accumulated business across several valleys in a single sitting. The same witness panel attending each instrument suggests the council and its small literate circle worked through the entire day's business in continuous session, moving from one holder to the next without interruption. The institutional efficiency of such coordinated processing reflects the documentary maturity that the 1711 framework had achieved by its second year of operation.
The selective regularisation of Swallow's holdings through the present freehold-plus-lease package, leaving any other Sandy Bay or Chapel Valley interests unaddressed, indicates that the 1711 framework operated on a parcel-by-parcel basis rather than as a comprehensive estate review. The Deep Valley estate received documentary attention because the freehold core there required confirmation, while other Swallow interests elsewhere on the island remained outside the present round of regularisation, perhaps awaiting later processing or relying on their established documentary basis.
128
Island St Helena Comp[a] Deed to Walter Morris[s]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing into the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto Walter Morriss freeholder, Ten Acres of Gumwood Land Lying Scituate in Fryor Vally, butting and bounding towards the North upon y[e] Lands of Richard Gurling freeholder, Towards the East upon the Lands of George Carne, Towards the South upon the Lands of Governour Keelings Children, and towards the West upon the said Honourable Lords Proprietors Wast Land, Which he the said Walter Morriss hath a just right and Title to[o], as may appear more largely upon Examination, in a Con- sultation of the Fifteenth day of January A. A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum, for any Person to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Walter Morriss his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Walter Morriss his Heires and Assignes Do bear always true Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Lords Proprietors to these Presents, have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. A. day of August A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
This Deed is assigned by y[e] s[ai]d Walter Morris to Cap[t] [En]o[h?] Goodwin by Indo[rsement] hereon dated 5[th] Nov[r] 1723 & Entred in the new Reg[r] Book Fol[io] 39. T W [...]rid[g]e R[r?]
Company grant to Walter Morris, 4 August 1713, with later assignment by Walter Morris to Captain Enoh Goodwin, 5 November 1723.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Walter Morris, freeholder, 10 acres of gumwood land in Fryer Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Richard Gurling, freeholder, to the east by the land of George Carne, to the south by the lands of Governor Keeling's children, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
Morris's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Walter Morris and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
A later endorsement records that on 5 November 1723 Walter Morris assigned the deed to Captain Enoh Goodwin, with the reading of the first name uncertain in the manuscript. The assignment was entered in the new register book at folio 39, and the entry was attested by T W [...]rid[g]e in the register's role, with the surname imperfectly legible.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Walter Morris (also recorded as Morres or Morriss in earlier instruments) who had appeared across the records as a witness to the 1706 Mary Oliver indenture to George Carne, as the seller of his late father's Chapel Valley house to John Clavering on 3 July 1707 for £40 0s 0d, and as a boundary holder in multiple Fryer Valley confirmations. The present confirmation regularises his title to 10 acres of gumwood land in Fryer Valley under the 1711 framework.
The boundary description places Morris's parcel directly south of Richard Gurling's confirmed freehold and west of George Carne's 30-acre confirmed freehold, both confirmed on the same day. The three same-day confirmations (Gurling, Carne, Morris) thus fixed the mutual boundary lines between three adjoining Fryer Valley holders by reciprocal reference across the instruments. The coordinated processing of the three adjoining estates within a single sitting reproduces the administrative pattern noted in the Swallow-Gurling Sandy Bay pairings of 20 July 1711.
The southern boundary against the lands of Governor Keeling's children continues the persistent appearance of the Keeling family estate in Fryer Valley boundary descriptions, last noted in the 4 January 1705 Leach to Carne deed as the late Governor Keeling's land, in the 12 October 1706 Gurling-Hoskison sale as the source of yams grown on the heirs' ground, and in the present Carne confirmation as the heirs of George Keiling. The continued institutional identification of the Keeling estate through the children's tenure across nearly two decades after the governor's death indicates the durable territorial presence of the family in the area, even without active management by adult holders.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714, falling after the deed date in modern reckoning, reproduces the chronological feature noted in the earlier 4 August 1713 confirmations. The same reading applies here, with the consultation read as 15 January 1713 in the old calendar (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Morris confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation and the Swallow freehold confirmation as the fourth same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day. The unbroken continuity of the witness composition across at least seven instruments executed on 4 August 1713 (the Slaughter lease, the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Gurling lease, the Carne confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Swallow lease, the Cason lease and the present Morris confirmation) confirms the sustained working session and the participation of the same small literate circle throughout the day's business.
The ten-year tenure of Morris's freehold from 1713 to 1723, ending in assignment to Captain Enoh Goodwin, indicates that Morris held the parcel for a substantial period before disposing of it. The 1723 assignment falls outside the present series of records but provides a marker for the documentary continuity of the holding. The endorsement notation records the entry in the new register book at folio 39, indicating that the register had by 1723 been replaced or extended by a new volume.
Captain Enoh Goodwin as the 1723 assignee, with the first name uncertain, may represent a further generation or branch of the Goodwin family beyond the Thomas Goodwin (governor), John Goodwin (eldest son) and Robert Goodwin already documented. The title of captain places the assignee within the garrison hierarchy, parallel to the earlier Captain Beale and Captain Hark[ins] noted in the urban boundary descriptions.
The reference to T W [...]rid[g]e as the attesting register on the 1723 endorsement records the further succession of registers beyond John Alexander, Thomas Greene, Philip Forsy and Philipas Tovey already documented in the present series. The 1723 surname is imperfectly legible but appears to incorporate the element rid[g]e, suggesting a possible form such as Trolridge, Trotridge or a similar surname. The new register's identity remains uncertain on the present reading.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Morris on 4 August 1713, in contrast to the freehold-plus-lease packaging used for Gurling, Swallow and Carne on the same day, indicates that Morris's tenure rested entirely on the confirmed freehold without additional leasehold extension. The omission distinguishes his position from the broader pattern noted earlier in the 1711 framework, and suggests either that his working estate did not extend beyond the 10-acre core or that any leasehold ground he held was secured under separate documentation not represented in the present record.
Speculations
The decision to confirm Morris's title in a single 10-acre freehold parcel, without supplementary leasehold extension, suggests his working estate had reached a stable size before the 1711 framework and required only documentary regularisation rather than expansion. The absence of leasehold ground indicates either that Morris had not pursued additional Company tenure or that the institutional preference for leasehold extension was applied only where holders had documented working arrangements with the Company.
The coordinated 4 August 1713 confirmation of three adjoining Fryer Valley holders (Gurling on the north, Carne on the east, Morris on the south of Carne and west of Carne, with the present 10 acres positioned to complete the cluster) indicates a deliberate administrative effort to map and confirm the entire Fryer Valley landholding pattern in a single sitting. The reciprocal boundary references across the three instruments produced a comprehensive cartographic record of the area, with each freehold defined relative to its neighbours and the surrounding Company ground.
The ten-year retention of the freehold from 1713 to 1723, followed by assignment to a Captain Enoh Goodwin, suggests Morris held the parcel as a working asset for an extended period before disposing of it to a member of the Goodwin family. The 1723 assignment, executed under the new register book and recorded at folio 39, marks a generational transition in the local landholding pattern, with the older free planters such as Morris giving way to military officers and the next generation of established families. The continued documentary record of the original 1713 deed, supplemented by the 1723 endorsement, illustrates the institutional practice of preserving complete title chains across successive transactions on the same parcel.
The assignment of the freehold to a Goodwin family member, rather than to a new buyer outside the existing landholding circle, reproduces the pattern of intra-family or intra-circle consolidation noted in the Carne household's accumulation of the Goodwin estate through Frances Goodwin's remarriage. The Goodwin family's continued territorial expansion across nearly four decades, beginning with Thomas Goodwin's first witness role in 1683 and continuing into the 1720s, marks them as one of the most persistent estate-builders documented in the present records.
129
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease to Walter Morris[s]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England, Trading to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Set unto Walter Morriss Free holder, One Acre and an Half of Gumwood Land, Butting and Bounding towards the North upon the Lands of George Carne, towards the East, and South, upon the Lands of Governour Keelings heirs, and towards the West upon the said Walter Morriss his own Land Scituate in Fryer Vally.
To have and to hold the aforesaid One Acre and an Half of Gumwood Land, to him the said Walter Morriss his Heires Executors Administrators and Assignes for y[e] Terme and time of Twenty One Years Commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and twelve. Upon Condition That he the said Walter Morriss his [Heires?] Exec[utors] and Administrators Shall always Do, and bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the Honourable United Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shillin[g] duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Acre in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors AND that he the said Walter Morriss his Heires Executors and Administ[rators] shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years, leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will occasion the alteration of the Pla[t] of Plan hereunto Annexed, nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without y[e] Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being. In Witness whereof the said Honourable Comp[any?] and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. A. day of August & One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and the said Walter Morriss to the other part hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered Walter Morris[s] In the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
This Lease is Assigned by y[e] above named Walter Morris[s] to Cap[t] [En]o[h] Goodwin by Indorsem[en]t on y[e] back thereof dated 5[th] Nov[r] 1723. Entred in y[e] new Reg[r] Booke f[oli]o 39. T W [...]uthrid[ge] [...] Co[ng?]
Company lease to Walter Morris, 4 August 1713, with later assignment by Walter Morris to Captain Enoh Goodwin, 5 November 1723.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Walter Morris, freeholder, 1 acre and a half of gumwood land in Fryer Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of George Carne, to the east and south by the land of Governor Keeling's heirs, and to the west by Morris's own freehold land.
The lease ran to Walter Morris and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Morris and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per acre, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Walter Morris set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
A later endorsement records that on 5 November 1723 Walter Morris assigned the lease to Captain Enoh Goodwin. The assignment was entered in the new register book at folio 39, and the entry was attested by T W [...]uthridge in the register's role, with the surname imperfectly legible.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Morris's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold core of 10 acres was supplemented by 1½ acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 11½ acres in Fryer Valley places him among the smaller multi-tenure holders of the August 1713 sitting, in marked contrast to the substantial Gurling, Carne and Swallow estates confirmed and leased on the same day.
The earlier freehold confirmation issued the same day had not referred to any hired ground on Morris's boundaries, indicating that the present lease represents a fresh acquisition rather than the regularisation of an existing leasehold occupation. The selection of just 1½ acres as a leasehold extension reflects deliberate filling of a small gap adjoining the freehold core rather than substantial expansion of working capacity.
The boundary description places the leasehold parcel between George Carne to the north, Governor Keeling's heirs to the east and south, and Morris's own freehold to the west. The leasehold thus sits as a small triangular or wedge-shaped fragment between three larger holdings, with Morris's freehold acting as the western boundary. The configuration produces a contiguous block of cultivated ground combining the 10-acre freehold and the 1½-acre leasehold, with the small leasehold fragment completing the geometric coverage of the working estate.
The reference to Governor Keeling's heirs on the eastern and southern boundaries reproduces the persistent appearance of the Keeling family estate. The variant terms across the documents (the late Governor Keeling's land, his heirs, Governor Keeling's children, the heirs of George Keiling) all refer to the same descended estate, with the children or heirs continuing to hold the ground in undivided form.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712, rather than from 25 March 1713 used in the Gurling, Swallow and Cason leases of the same day, marks a distinct one-year back-dating. The variation places Morris's leasehold commencement one year earlier than the other 1713 leases, suggesting either an administrative correction to align with an earlier consultation date or a deliberate adjustment to capture an additional year of rent. The Morris freehold confirmation rested on the 15 January 1713 consultation, and the 1712 leasehold commencement may relate to an earlier examination not separately recorded in the present deed.
The combined annual rent on the 1½ acres of leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces 7s 6d per annum, with the duty calculation slightly varied by the fractional acreage. The very modest rent reflects the small parcel size and represents one of the smallest individual leasehold revenues recorded in the present series.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day. The continuity of the panel across at least nine instruments executed on 4 August 1713 confirms the sustained working session and the participation of the same small literate circle throughout the day's business.
The 5 November 1723 assignment to Captain Enoh Goodwin matches the same-date assignment of Morris's freehold confirmation, recorded with the same endorsement reference to the new register book at folio 39. The coordinated assignment of both freehold and leasehold instruments to the same assignee preserved the integrity of the combined working estate across the transfer, with the new holder taking on both tenures together rather than acquiring only one part.
The 1723 endorsement attestor T W [...]uthridge, recorded here with the surname imperfectly legible, may match the same individual identified as T W [...]rid[g]e in the freehold confirmation endorsement. The variant readings indicate that the register's surname incorporated elements such as uthridge, ridge or similar, but the precise form cannot be confidently reconstructed from the present manuscript.
Speculations
The selection of 1½ acres as the leasehold extension, rather than a larger parcel that would have produced more substantial agricultural capacity, suggests the available adjoining ground was already largely occupied by the Carne and Keeling estates. The small wedge-shaped fragment between three established holdings represents the practical limit of expansion available to Morris in Fryer Valley at the date of the lease, with the surrounding cultivated ground leaving little room for substantial additional acquisition.
The one-year discrepancy between the 1712 commencement date of the lease and the 1713 commencement date used in other same-day leases may reflect a deliberate institutional decision to align Morris's leasehold with an earlier administrative determination, perhaps the consultation underlying the larger Gurling-Belward chain or the surveying work that mapped the Fryer Valley cluster. The variant commencement date adds an additional year of rent obligation to Morris's account compared with leases commencing in 1713, producing a small but measurable institutional revenue advantage.
The combined 1723 assignment of both the freehold confirmation and the leasehold extension to Captain Enoh Goodwin indicates that the Goodwin family acquired Morris's complete Fryer Valley estate as a single transaction. The assignment of two separate tenures within the same overall holding to one assignee preserved the working integrity of the combined estate, and ensured that the new Goodwin holder took on both the long-term security of the freehold and the supplementary leasehold extension. The pattern reflects the institutional preference for keeping confirmed freehold cores and their associated leasehold extensions together where possible, rather than allowing them to be separated through differential assignment.
The relative obscurity of the 1723 register's surname in the present record, with the manuscript imperfectly legible, marks a further stage in the succession of registers beyond the earlier John Alexander, Thomas Greene, Philip Forsy, Philipas Tovey and Antipas Tovey already documented. The continued turnover in the register's office across the 1711 to 1723 period reflects the steady operation of the documentary regime and its capacity to absorb new personnel as senior holders moved on, retired or returned to England.
130
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Orlando Bagley
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honour[able] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby confirm unto Orlando Bagley Freeholder, Twenty Three Acres of Cabbage tree Land Scituate at the Head of Powels Vally, buting and bounding towards the North upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, towards the East upon the Lands of Margaret Bagley Widow, which she Hires of the said Honourable Lords Proprietors, and towards the South and West upon the Lands of John Greentrees Orphans, now in the Possession of Richard Swallow Freeholder, Which he the said Orlando Bagley hath a Just right and Title too, as may appear more Largely upon Examination in a consultation of the 15[th] day January & A. A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum, for any Person to make their claim on a certain day therein Limmitted but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Orlando Bagley his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Orlando Bagley his Heires and Assignes Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. A. A. day of August A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Orlando Bagley, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Orlando Bagley, freeholder, 23 acres of cabbage tree land at the head of Powell's Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the Company's waste land, to the east by the lands of Margaret Bagley, widow, which she hired from the Lords Proprietors, and to the south and west by the lands of John Greentree's orphans, then in the possession of Richard Swallow, freeholder.
Bagley's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Orlando Bagley and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Orlando Bagley who had earlier appeared in the records as the recipient of a gift of 10 acres at the head of Chapel Valley from his father Orlando Bagley senior on 5 August 1695, and as the seller of those same 10 acres to Edward Edmunds on 9 January 1696 for £12 0s 0d. He had also acquired two Company leasehold interests by assignment: the John Orchard 10-acre lease at Peter Bagley's on 26 September 1711, and the Joseph Tovey 26-acre lease on 14 June 1713. The present confirmation establishes his freehold position at 23 acres at the head of Powell's Valley, adding substantially to his accumulated leasehold portfolio.
The location at the head of Powell's Valley introduces a new place name into the present series, distinct from the earlier references to Lemon Valley, Fryer Valley, Sandy Bay, Chapel Valley, Deep Valley, Sharks Valley, Fishers Valley, Sarahs Valley, Youngs Valley, Oak Gutt, Little Horsepad and Pleasant Valley. The valley takes its name from the Powell family, last documented through Gabriel Powell's extensive activities including the 1703 sale to James Greentree of 20 acres in Sandy Bay with the slave Oliver and half-still, the 1706 purchase from Hoskison of 50 acres for £350 0s 0d, and the December 1707 temporary letting of John Beale's land to James Sich.
The boundary description records Margaret Bagley, widow, on the eastern boundary, with her land held on hire from the Company. The reference identifies Margaret as another widow holding leasehold ground in her own right, paralleling the substantial widow positions noted earlier in Grace Coulson, Margaret Sich and Elinor Cotgrave. The institutional recognition of widows as independent leasehold tenants across multiple boundary descriptions confirms the consistent pattern by which women held ground in their own name under the 1711 framework.
The identification of Margaret Bagley as a widow does not specify her precise family connection to Orlando Bagley, but the proximity of the holdings and the shared surname suggest a close kinship. She may have been the widow of an elder Bagley such as Orlando Bagley senior or another family member documented in the records, with the Powell's Valley boundary preserving the family's territorial continuity across generational change.
The southern and western boundaries against the lands of John Greentree's orphans, in the possession of Richard Swallow, reproduce the institutional distinction between underlying tenure and active possession noted across the August 1713 instruments. The orphans of the late John Greentree held the underlying interest, while Richard Swallow occupied and worked the ground in practice. The arrangement parallels the Slaughter lease record of Benjamin Greentree's land in Richard Swallow's possession, suggesting Swallow held working occupation of multiple Greentree family parcels under similar arrangements.
The John Greentree of the present boundary description connects to the earlier John Greentree who sold 20 acres in Lemon Valley to Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow, on 27 April 1698 for £20 0s 0d in store credit. His orphans appear here as boundary holders 15 years after that sale, indicating his death in the intervening period and the persistence of his children's interests as recognised tenure units even where their ground was actively occupied by others.
The dual occupancy arrangement on the Greentree orphans' ground, with Richard Swallow holding working possession, indicates a structured response to the management of minor children's interests during their minority. The institutional preference for leasing or letting out orphan ground to working occupiers, rather than allowing it to lie idle, protected the underlying inheritance value while generating income for the orphan estate. The arrangement reproduces the broader pattern of orphan protection noted across the consultation book cross-references in the February 1716 Beale-Company deed.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the chronological feature noted in the other 4 August 1713 confirmations, and is here read as 15 January 1713 in the old calendar (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Bagley confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation and the Morris confirmation as the fifth same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day. The continuity of the panel across at least 10 instruments executed on 4 August 1713 confirms the sustained working session throughout the day's business.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Orlando Bagley on the same day indicates that his existing leasehold positions (the Orchard assignment and the Tovey assignment) provided his leasehold capacity, with the present confirmation adding only the freehold dimension to his combined estate. His combined holding by August 1713 thus reached approximately 23 acres of confirmed freehold plus 36 acres of assigned leasehold (10 acres from Orchard plus 26 acres from Tovey), totalling 59 acres across multiple tenures and locations.
Speculations
The confirmation of 23 acres of freehold at the head of Powell's Valley to a holder who had previously built up substantial leasehold positions through assignment marks a significant shift in Orlando Bagley's land strategy. The earlier years of his recorded activity saw him receiving and disposing of small parcels (the 10-acre Chapel Valley gift in 1695 and sale in 1696), and acquiring leasehold rights through assignment (Orchard 1711, Tovey 1713). The present 1713 freehold confirmation represents the largest single-tenure acquisition documented for him in the present record, indicating a maturation of his accumulation strategy into substantial freehold tenure alongside his leasehold portfolio.
The boundary descriptions placing Bagley's freehold between Margaret Bagley's leasehold to the east and the Greentree orphans' ground in Richard Swallow's possession to the south and west indicate a substantially developed Powell's Valley cluster. The presence of two Bagley holdings (Orlando's confirmed freehold and Margaret's leasehold) adjoining each other in the valley suggests deliberate family consolidation, with both Bagleys positioned in the valley as part of a coordinated estate-building strategy.
The dual occupancy arrangement on the Greentree orphans' ground reflects the institutional accommodation of complex tenure situations where minor children's interests required protection through working arrangements with adult occupiers. Richard Swallow's role as the working occupier of multiple Greentree family parcels (Benjamin's land in the Slaughter lease, and John's orphans' ground in the present confirmation) marks him as a substantial intermediate in such arrangements, perhaps acting as a guardian, trustee or commercial tenant for the orphan estate. The repeated reference to his possession across multiple boundary descriptions suggests an established institutional role rather than ad hoc arrangements.
The selective confirmation of Orlando Bagley's Powell's Valley freehold within the August 1713 sitting, leaving his earlier-acquired Chapel Valley and other interests outside the present round, indicates that the 1711 framework operated on a parcel-by-parcel basis rather than as a comprehensive estate review. The freehold at the head of Powell's Valley required documentary regularisation because it represented his largest single-tenure holding without prior formal confirmation, while his earlier-acquired Chapel Valley parcel had already been disposed of and his leasehold positions rested on separate assignments rather than confirmations.
131
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Orlando Bagley
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Orlando Bagley Freeholder Forty Acres of Land lying Scituate in Powels Vally, butting and bounding towards the North & East upon the Honourable Companys Land Hired by Margaret Bagley Wid[ow] Towards the South upon the Lands of Benj[amin] Greentree, and towards the West upon the said Orlando Bagleys own Land.
To have and to hold The aforesaid Forty Acres of Land to him the said Orlando Bagly his Heires Execut[ors] Adminis[trators] and Assignes for y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve.
Upon Condition That he the said Orlando Bagly his Heires Executors Administrators and Assigns shall always Do and bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] Honourable United Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five shillings per An[num] in good and Currant money of the said Island unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And that he the said Orlando Bagly his Heires Executors and Administrators shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in it, without Consent of y[e] Governour and Councell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors, to these P[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. day of August A. One Thousand Seven and Thirteen, and the said Orlando Bagley to the other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand and Seale. Orlando Bagley
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Orlando Bagley, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Orlando Bagley, freeholder, 40 acres of land in Powell's Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north and east by the Company's land hired by Margaret Bagley, widow, to the south by the land of Benjamin Greentree, and to the west by Bagley's own freehold land.
The lease ran to Orlando Bagley and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Bagley and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Orlando Bagley set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Bagley's same-day freehold confirmation completes a substantial institutional package, with 23 acres of confirmed freehold supplemented by 40 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 63 acres in Powell's Valley places Bagley among the most substantial single-valley holders documented in the present series, exceeding the combined positions of Henry Francis at the head of Wrangham country and approaching the scale of Margaret Sich's confirmed estate.
Combined with his prior assignments of the Orchard 10-acre lease and the Tovey 26-acre lease, Bagley's total tenure across multiple locations by August 1713 reaches approximately 99 acres (23 acres freehold plus 76 acres of leasehold). The aggregate position marks him as one of the largest individual landholders documented in the present records, with the bulk of his estate held under the more flexible leasehold tenure rather than freehold.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712, rather than from 25 March 1713 used in most other August 1713 leases, reproduces the variation noted in the Morris lease of the same day. The one-year back-dating to 1712 may reflect an earlier administrative determination or an institutional decision to align the commencement with a prior consultation date. The matching 1712 commencement in two of the same-day leases (Morris and Bagley) suggests a coordinated decision affecting at least two of the leases issued on 4 August 1713.
The boundary description places Bagley's leasehold directly east of his own confirmed freehold, indicating a continuous working block of 63 acres in Powell's Valley. The configuration matches the consistent pattern noted across the 1711 framework, where leasehold parcels typically adjoined confirmed freehold cores under the same holder's tenure. The arrangement allows the combined estate to be worked as a single agricultural unit while the underlying titles remained separate under different institutional regimes.
Margaret Bagley, widow, appears as the boundary holder on two sides of the leasehold (north and east), with her land described as Company ground held on hire. The repeated reference to her tenure across two adjacent boundaries indicates a substantial Margaret Bagley leasehold in Powell's Valley, paralleling the Orlando Bagley positions. The close juxtaposition of two Bagley holdings in the same valley, both supplemented by Company leasehold, suggests deliberate family consolidation across at least two generations or branches.
Benjamin Greentree on the southern boundary continues his appearance as a Sandy Bay and Powell's Valley holder, last documented as a boundary in the William Slaughter lease where his land lay in the possession of Richard Swallow. The recurrence of Benjamin Greentree across multiple August 1713 instruments fixes him as a substantial cross-valley holder, though the present record does not separately document his own tenure under the 1711 framework.
The combined annual rent on the 40-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £10 0s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The substantial rent obligation places Bagley's leasehold among the larger revenue-generators of the 1711 framework, alongside the Cason 40-acre lease at £10 1s 0d per annum and the Perkins 30-acre lease at £7 10s 0d per annum.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the continuous working session throughout 4 August 1713. The unbroken witnessing across at least 11 instruments executed in coordinated session on that day represents the most extended documented continuity of witness composition in the present series.
The absence of any reference to the Orchard or Tovey leasehold assignments within the present documentation indicates that those earlier acquisitions remained under separate documentation, with the present 1713 lease covering only the Powell's Valley extension. The selective regularisation of Bagley's holdings through the 1711 framework left his various tenures under multiple documentary regimes, with the freehold confirmation and the Powell's Valley lease forming a coordinated package while the earlier assignments stood apart.
Speculations
The acquisition of 40 acres of leasehold immediately adjacent to a 23-acre freehold confirmation, both processed within a single 1713 sitting, marks a deliberate strategy of consolidating a substantial single-valley estate under coordinated documentary protection. The Powell's Valley concentration contrasts with Bagley's earlier accumulation through scattered leasehold assignments in different locations (Peter Bagley's land for the Orchard lease, the Tovey parcel elsewhere), and indicates a maturation of his land strategy toward localised consolidation in a single area.
The matching 25 March 1712 commencement dates for the Morris lease and the present Bagley lease, distinguishing them from the 25 March 1713 commencement used in the Gurling, Swallow, Cason and Charles leases of the same day, suggests that some leases were back-dated by an additional year to align with an earlier administrative determination. The institutional pattern may reflect either a deliberate decision to capture an extra year of rent obligation for certain holders or a procedural alignment with consultation dates falling in 1712 rather than 1713.
The substantial size of the leasehold (40 acres) relative to the freehold (23 acres), producing a 63-acre combined estate weighted toward leasehold, indicates that Powell's Valley contained substantial Company waste available for distribution under the 1711 framework. The institutional willingness to grant Bagley such a large leasehold extension, alongside his existing freehold confirmation, suggests the Company was actively developing Powell's Valley through structured tenure arrangements rather than retaining the ground as undocumented waste.
The combined working capacity represented by Bagley's complete documented tenure (approximately 99 acres across freehold, multiple leaseholds, and assigned interests by August 1713) makes him one of the most substantial documented holders in the present records, alongside Thomas Goodwin, George Carne, Richard Gurling and the major widows. The scale of his combined estate, built up through a sequence of gifts, sales, assignments, freehold confirmations and leasehold extensions over nearly 20 years, marks him as a successful estate-builder whose strategy combined opportunistic acquisition with systematic documentation under the institutional framework.
132
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to B[en]j[amin] Greentree
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto Benjamin Greentree Son & Heire of John Greentree dec[ease]d Freeholder, Seventeen Acres of Cabbagetree Land, Scituate in Sandy Bay under the Main ridge formerly James Riders dec[ea]sed, Butting & bounding towards the North, to Dianas Geak, towards the East upon the Land of Orlando Bagly, towards the South upon Nineteen Acres of y[e] Honour[ables] Companys Land, Hired for, and in behalfe of the said Benjamin Greentree by Richard Swallow in whose possesion the same now is, and towards the West upon the Lands of Thomas Perkins Sen[r] As also Five Acres more of Gumwood Land, butting & bounding towards the North & East upon the Lands of Orlando Bagley, and towards the South & West upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land in Powels Valley, being two parcels of Land, and in the whole contains Twenty two Acres, which he the said Benjamin Greentree, hath a just right and Title too, as may appear more largely upon Examination, in a Consultation of the fifteenth day of January A. A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of drum for any person to make their claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to him the said Benjamin Greentree his Heires and his Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That he the said Benjamin Greentree his Heires and Assigns Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and his Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island, this Fourth & A. A. day of August & A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Benjamin Greentree, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Benjamin Greentree, son and heir of the late John Greentree, freeholder, two parcels totalling 22 acres.
The first parcel, of 17 acres of cabbage tree land, lay in Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge. It had formerly belonged to the late James Rider. The parcel was bounded to the north by Diana's Geak, to the east by the land of Orlando Bagley, to the south by 19 acres of Company land hired for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree by Richard Swallow, in whose possession it then was, and to the west by the land of Thomas Perkins senior.
The second parcel, of 5 acres of gumwood land, lay in Powell's Valley. It was bounded to the north and east by the lands of Orlando Bagley, and to the south and west by the Company's waste land.
Greentree's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Benjamin Greentree and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The identification of Benjamin Greentree as son and heir of the late John Greentree fixes the inheritance route by which the parcels reached the present holder. John Greentree had earlier appeared in the records as the seller of 20 acres in Lemon Valley to Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, widow, on 27 April 1698 for £20 0s 0d in store credit, and his orphans had featured as boundary holders in the Orlando Bagley confirmation of the same day in Powell's Valley. The present confirmation to Benjamin Greentree as son and heir consolidates the documented inheritance into his own freehold tenure.
The pairing of John Greentree's orphans (mentioned in Bagley's confirmation) and Benjamin Greentree (named here as son and heir) suggests that Benjamin had reached majority by the time of the August 1713 sitting, while younger siblings of his remained under minority. The documentary record treats the eldest son and heir as the named freeholder, while the wider sibling group continued to be identified collectively as orphans in some boundary descriptions. The arrangement reproduces the primogeniture pattern noted in the Cotgrave and Charles confirmations of earlier sittings.
The recital that the first parcel had formerly belonged to the late James Rider introduces a deceased earlier holder whose Sandy Bay ground had passed into the present chain of title. James Rider had appeared as a boundary holder across multiple August 1713 instruments (the Slaughter lease, the Harding children's grant, the Margaret Sich confirmation, and others), all referring to him as a living holder. The present recital of his death may indicate that he had died between the 15 January 1713 consultation and the 4 August 1713 confirmation, but the use of the past tense formerly more probably reflects that the parcel had passed out of his hands at some earlier date, perhaps to John Greentree before his own death, with the chain now reaching Benjamin Greentree through the dual succession.
The boundary description records the northern limit of the first parcel as Diana's Geak, a striking topographical name not previously documented in the present series. The term geak appears to be a local variant or scribal rendering of a feature name, perhaps referring to a peak, gap or rock formation. The reference Diana's, taking the form of a personal possessive applied to a topographical feature, suggests either a folk name commemorating a particular person or a transferred classical allusion adopted by local usage. The name fits the broader pattern of working bynames preserving local knowledge of the landscape across the formal survey records.
The southern boundary against 19 acres of Company land hired for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree by Richard Swallow records a complex tripartite arrangement. The Company held the underlying tenure, Swallow held the working possession through a hired lease, and the lease itself was held on behalf of Benjamin Greentree as the ultimate beneficiary. The institutional structure indicates that Swallow was acting as a trustee or agent for the Greentree interest, holding the leasehold under his own name while the benefit accrued to Greentree.
The trustee arrangement parallels the dual occupancy noted in the Slaughter lease record of Benjamin Greentree's land in Richard Swallow's possession, and in the Orlando Bagley confirmation's recital of the late John Greentree's orphans' lands in the possession of Richard Swallow. The repeated appearance of Richard Swallow as the working occupier or trustee for multiple Greentree family interests across the August 1713 instruments fixes his role as the principal intermediate manager of the Greentree estate during the period of orphan minority or pending settlement.
The arrangement by which Swallow hired the 19-acre Company parcel for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree, with the lease in Swallow's name but the benefit to Greentree, allowed an adult freeholder to take leasehold ground that would otherwise have been difficult to allocate to a youth or to an estate in transition. The institutional flexibility in accepting such trustee arrangements indicates the Company's willingness to accommodate family management strategies that preserved children's interests while ensuring active occupation and rent payment.
The second parcel of 5 acres of gumwood land in Powell's Valley, bounded by Orlando Bagley on north and east and by Company waste on south and west, places the parcel in immediate proximity to Bagley's 23-acre confirmed freehold and 40-acre lease. The recital matches the Bagley lease's southern boundary reference to Benjamin Greentree, fixing the mutual line between the Bagley and Greentree Powell's Valley estates through reciprocal documentation.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the same chronological feature noted in the earlier 4 August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Greentree confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Morris confirmation and the Orlando Bagley confirmation as the sixth same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the continuity of the working session throughout 4 August 1713.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Benjamin Greentree on the same day, despite the boundary recital of the 19-acre Company leasehold held by Swallow on his behalf, indicates that the trustee arrangement remained under Swallow's separate documentation. The trustee lease did not require new institutional regularisation at the August 1713 sitting because it was already operating effectively under Swallow's name, and the benefit to Greentree was preserved through the recital in the freehold confirmation.
Speculations
The complex tripartite arrangement by which Swallow hired Company ground in his own name on behalf of Benjamin Greentree, while also holding working possession of other Greentree family parcels, indicates a sophisticated institutional response to the management of inherited estates across generations and minorities. The Company accepted that adult trustees could take leasehold tenure on behalf of beneficiaries who were either unable or unsuitable to hold the leases directly, provided the underlying rent obligation was maintained. The pattern reflects the broader institutional flexibility of the 1711 framework in accommodating the practical realities of family succession.
The confirmation to Benjamin Greentree of substantial Sandy Bay and Powell's Valley freehold (totalling 22 acres in his own name) and the associated trustee leasehold of 19 acres held by Swallow on his behalf produces a combined working interest of 41 acres distributed across two valleys. The cross-valley distribution indicates that Benjamin Greentree's inherited interests extended beyond a single localised estate, and the trustee arrangement allowed him to maintain the geographic spread without requiring him to manage the leasehold tenure directly.
The deliberate documentary fixing of Benjamin Greentree as the principal heir in the present confirmation, while the wider sibling group remained collectively identified as orphans in some descriptions, suggests an ongoing process of estate settlement following John Greentree's death. The August 1713 confirmation may represent a stage in that settlement, with the eldest son taking the documented freehold tenure while the wider family interest in other parcels continued to operate through trustee arrangements pending fuller resolution. The institutional treatment of inheritance in successive stages, rather than as a single immediate distribution, allowed for the gradual transition of family estates across generational change.
The Sandy Bay and Powell's Valley cluster of August 1713 instruments (Slaughter lease, Harding children's grant, Carne confirmation, Swallow freehold and lease, Cason lease, Morris freehold and lease, Orlando Bagley freehold and lease, and the present Greentree confirmation) collectively maps an interconnected network of holdings across two valleys, with reciprocal boundary references confirming the mutual lines between adjoining estates. The administrative achievement of fixing this entire network through a single day's sitting represents the maturity of the 1711 documentary regime, with the framework now capable of regularising complex multi-party tenure arrangements in coordinated session.
133
Island St Hellena The Comp[a] Lease to B[en]j[amin] Green[tree]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Benjamin Greentree (Son & Heire of John Greentree dec[ease]d) Freeholder, Nineteen Acres of Cabbagetree Land, Lying Scituate in Sandy Bay, butting & bounding towards the North upon the said Benjamin Greentrees own Seventeen Acres of Land adjoyning thereunto, Towards the East upon the Lands of Orlando Bagley towards the South upon the Lands of William Slaughter, which he Hires of the Honourable Company, and towards the West upon a P[a]rcel of Land now in the Possession of Thomas Gargen formerly rented of, the said Honourable Company by Richard Alexander deceased AND Two Acres of Land more, butting & bounding towards the North upon his the said Benjamin Greentrees own Land before mention[ed], towards the East upon the Lands of Orlando Bagley, and towards the West and South, upon the said Hon[oura]ble Companys Wast Land, being in both parcels Twenty one Acres. To have and to hold The said P[re]misses, to him the said Benjamin Greentree, and the Heires of John Greentree, his & their Executors Administrators and Assigns, For the Terme of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he the said Benjamin Greentree his Executors Administrators & Assignes shall alwayes Do and bear true faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March), The Annual Rent & sum of Four shillings per Acre, besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annum, in good & Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and that he the said Benjamin Greentree his Executors Administrators or Assignes shall & Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years, leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks and which will occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the consent of Governour & Councell for the time being. In Witness whereof, the said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. day of August & One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and the said Benj[amin] Greentree to the other p[a]rt hath sett his Hand & Seale.
Rich[ar]d Swallow[?]
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Benjamin Greentree, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Benjamin Greentree, son and heir of the late John Greentree, freeholder, two parcels totalling 21 acres in Sandy Bay.
The first parcel, of 19 acres of cabbage tree land, was bounded to the north by Greentree's own 17 acres of land adjoining the leasehold, to the east by the land of Orlando Bagley, to the south by the land of William Slaughter, which he hired from the Company, and to the west by a parcel then in the possession of Thomas Gargen, formerly rented from the Company by the late Richard Alexander.
The second parcel, of 2 acres of land, was bounded to the north by Greentree's own land previously mentioned, to the east by the land of Orlando Bagley, and to the west and south by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to Benjamin Greentree and the heirs of John Greentree, with their executors, administrators and assigns, for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Greentree and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, with the counterpart signed by Richard Swallow, with the reading uncertain in the manuscript.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Benjamin Greentree's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold of 22 acres was supplemented by 21 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 43 acres across Sandy Bay and Powell's Valley places him among the substantial multi-tenure inheritors documented in the August 1713 sitting.
The first parcel of 19 acres formally regularises the same 19-acre Company holding referenced in the freehold confirmation as hired for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree by Richard Swallow. The present lease moves the leasehold tenure directly into Benjamin Greentree's name (in conjunction with the heirs of John Greentree), supplanting the prior trustee arrangement under Swallow. The transition indicates that the 1711 framework provided a mechanism for formalising trustee arrangements into direct beneficiary tenure as the underlying succession was settled.
The vesting formula combines Benjamin Greentree personally with the heirs of John Greentree, mirroring the construction noted in the Margaret Sich lease where the leasehold ran to her and the heirs of John Sich. The arrangement protects the wider family interest by ensuring that succession to the leasehold passes through John Greentree's line rather than through Benjamin's personal heirs alone. The continuing institutional concern for the late John Greentree's children's interests, even after Benjamin had reached majority and taken his own freehold confirmation, indicates the family settlement was structured to preserve the orphan estate across the eldest son's tenure.
The signature line records Richard Swallow as the apparent signatory of the counterpart, with the reading uncertain. The unusual appearance of Swallow's signature rather than Greentree's own confirms his continuing trustee or guardian role in the formal documentation, perhaps reflecting Greentree's youth or the procedural convention by which an established adult took on the formal execution of instruments on behalf of younger family members during a transitional period. The institutional acceptance of such substitutional execution preserved the legal validity of the lease while accommodating the practical realities of inherited tenure.
The western boundary of the first parcel records a complex chain: a parcel then in the possession of Thomas Gargen, formerly rented from the Company by the late Richard Alexander. The recital indicates that the leasehold had passed from Alexander to Gargen on Alexander's death by 1713, presumably through Company reallocation rather than direct private transfer. The chain confirms Alexander's death and the institutional process by which his leasehold interest had been redistributed to a new tenant in the period leading up to August 1713.
Thomas Gargen as the western boundary connects to the same Thomas Gargen who had received the 20-acre Company lease in Sandy Bay on 20 July 1711, building on his earlier 10-acre freehold confirmation. The further acquisition of the parcel formerly held by Alexander extends his Sandy Bay leasehold position to include ground reverted from the deceased Alexander estate.
The southern boundary against William Slaughter's hired land matches the William Slaughter lease of 4 August 1713 of 15 acres across three parcels in Sandy Bay. The reciprocal documentation of the boundary between Greentree's leasehold and Slaughter's leasehold within the same day's sitting fixes the mutual line by mutual reference, with each lease describing the other's parcel.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712, rather than from 25 March 1713 used in other 4 August 1713 leases, reproduces the variation noted in the Morris lease and the Orlando Bagley lease of the same day. The three same-day leases with the 1712 commencement (Morris, Orlando Bagley and the present Greentree) thus share a distinct administrative origin, perhaps reflecting consultations conducted in 1712 rather than 1713.
The second parcel of 2 acres bounded by Greentree's own land to the north, Orlando Bagley to the east and Company waste to west and south, places this small enclave at the meeting point of the Greentree and Bagley estates. The configuration completes the geometric coverage of the Greentree working block, with the two parcels of leasehold supplementing the freehold core to produce a contiguous estate.
The combined annual rent on the 21-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £5 5s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The substantial rent obligation places Greentree's leasehold among the moderately large revenue generators of the 1711 framework.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the unbroken working session throughout 4 August 1713.
Speculations
The substitutional execution of the counterpart by Richard Swallow rather than by Benjamin Greentree himself, despite Greentree being named as the principal lessee, suggests Greentree had not yet reached the age or standing required for direct personal execution of formal instruments. The 1711 framework accommodated such procedural arrangements by allowing trusted adults to sign on behalf of beneficiaries, with the substantive tenure vesting in the named lessee while the formal execution remained with the substitute signatory.
The transition from the trustee arrangement under Swallow (recorded in the freehold confirmation as land hired for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree by Richard Swallow) to the direct lease in Greentree's own name (with Swallow's substituted signature) represents an intermediate stage in the settlement of the John Greentree estate. The institutional process appears to have moved progressively from full trustee management toward direct beneficiary tenure, with the August 1713 lease marking a transitional moment in which the underlying tenure vested directly in Greentree but the formal execution continued through Swallow's involvement.
The transfer of the parcel formerly leased by Richard Alexander to Thomas Gargen, occurring in the period between Alexander's death and the 1713 sitting, indicates an active institutional process for reallocating reverted leases. The Company did not allow the leasehold to lapse on Alexander's death but redirected it to a new tenant, preserving the rent stream and ensuring continued cultivation. The redistribution mechanism reproduces the broader institutional preference noted across the present series for active management of leasehold ground.
The coordinated processing of multiple Greentree, Bagley, Slaughter, Swallow, Gargen and other Sandy Bay holdings within the single 4 August 1713 sitting indicates an administrative push to complete the documentary regularisation of the Sandy Bay landholding network. By the end of the day's business, the major holders across Sandy Bay and Powell's Valley had been brought within the 1711 framework through coordinated freehold confirmations, leasehold extensions and mutual boundary recordings. The documentary achievement represents the most extensive single-day regularisation effort documented in the present series, with at least 12 instruments executed in continuous session by the same small literate circle.
134
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Tho[s] Allis
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to y[e] East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto Thomas Allis Freeholder Three Acres of Land Scituate in Deep Valley, Butting and a Bounding towards the North upon the Honourable Companys Land Hired by him the said Thomas Allis, towards the East and South upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, and towards the West upon the Land of Richard Swallow Freeholder Which said Three Acres of Land, he the said Thomas Allis hath a Just right and Title too, as may appear more largely upon Examination, in a Consultation of the Fifteenth Day of January, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given, by beat of Drum, for any Person to make their claim, on a day certaine, therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The aforesaid Three Acres of Land, to him the the said Thomas Allis, his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Thomas Allis his Heires and Assignes Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. A. day of August: One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] presence of:
Tho[s] Cason
H[?] Francis
Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Thomas Allis, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Thomas Allis, freeholder, 3 acres of land in Deep Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the Company's land hired by Allis himself, to the east and south by the Company's waste land, and to the west by the land of Richard Swallow, freeholder.
Allis's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Thomas Allis and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Thomas Allis (also recorded as Thomas Allis senior in earlier instruments) who had built up a substantial Deep Valley estate over more than two decades through successive purchases. His documented acquisitions include the stone house from Robert Tomps in 1689, the 18-year lease from John Stevens in the same year, 10 acres from John Hemmons in 1696, the quit-claim from Stephen Child in 1704, and 10 acres from Benjamin Miller in 1704. His title was recorded as of Deep Valley by 1704, and he had appeared as a Deep Valley boundary holder across multiple August 1713 instruments. The present 3-acre confirmation adds a small parcel to that established estate.
The modest 3-acre size of the confirmed freehold stands in sharp contrast to the substantial accumulations elsewhere recorded for Allis. The selection of just 3 acres for confirmation suggests this parcel had a distinct documentary status requiring separate regularisation, perhaps as the most recent acquisition or as the only parcel without prior formal Company recognition. His broader Deep Valley holdings, built up through private purchases over the preceding 24 years, remained outside the present round of regularisation.
The boundary description records Allis's own hired Company land on the northern boundary, indicating the same combination of confirmed freehold and Company leasehold under a single holder noted in earlier 1711 confirmations. The freehold core thus adjoined a working leasehold under Allis's direct tenure, with the institutional combination producing a continuous block under different documentary regimes.
Richard Swallow as the western boundary connects directly to the Swallow 18-acre freehold confirmation of the same day at the head of Deep Valley, and to his 15-acre leasehold extension. The reciprocal boundary references between Allis's confirmation and Swallow's freehold confirmation fix the mutual line between the two adjoining estates by mutual recording, with each deed acknowledging the other's parcel.
The Swallow freehold confirmation had recorded Thomas Allis on its northern boundary, while the present Allis confirmation records Richard Swallow on its western boundary. The two reciprocal references confirm that Allis's 3-acre parcel lies immediately east of Swallow's 18-acre estate at the head of Deep Valley, with the two confirmed freeholds together forming part of a connected cluster of private holdings in the upper valley.
The eastern and southern boundaries against Company waste land place the small confirmed parcel as a frontier holding extending into uncultivated Company ground. The configuration matches the pattern noted in several earlier confirmations, where small confirmed freeholds sat at the meeting point between established private estates and unenclosed Company ground.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the same chronological feature noted in the earlier 4 August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Allis confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Morris confirmation, the Orlando Bagley confirmation and the Benjamin Greentree confirmation as the seventh same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the continuity of the working session throughout 4 August 1713.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Allis on the same day, despite the boundary recital of his hired Company land, indicates that his existing leasehold occupation remained under separate documentation not represented in the present record. The selective regularisation of only the 3-acre freehold, leaving the adjoining leasehold under its existing arrangement, indicates that the 1711 framework operated on a parcel-by-parcel basis rather than as a comprehensive estate review.
Allis's substantial earlier accumulation through private purchases (the Tomps stone house, the Stevens lease, the Hemmons 10 acres, the Child quit-claim and the Miller 10 acres) appears to have been kept under its original private documentation rather than brought within the 1711 framework. The institutional process thus left mature private estates undisturbed where their documentary basis was secure, focusing the regularisation effort on parcels requiring formal Company recognition.
Speculations
The confirmation of a single 3-acre parcel to an established Deep Valley holder with substantial documented holdings elsewhere suggests this small parcel had a particular institutional status requiring confirmation. The most probable explanation is that the 3 acres had recently been acquired or had reverted from Company waste through enclosure, and that the 1711 framework provided the appropriate vehicle for formalising this new addition without disturbing Allis's broader pre-existing private estate.
The placement of the confirmed parcel between Allis's own hired Company leasehold on the north and the Company waste to the east and south, with Richard Swallow's freehold on the west, indicates a deliberate insertion of confirmed freehold tenure at the boundary between cultivated and uncultivated ground. By securing the 3 acres in freehold rather than leaving them under leasehold or undocumented occupation, Allis protected his working position against future Company decisions about the surrounding waste.
The reciprocal documentation of the Allis-Swallow boundary across the two same-day confirmations represents the systematic mapping of the upper Deep Valley cluster through the 1711 framework. Both confirmations rest on the same 15 January 1713 consultation, suggesting the documentary regularisation of the area was undertaken as a coordinated effort with the boundary lines determined collectively before the formal confirmations were issued.
The selective treatment of Allis's holdings, with only the 3-acre frontier parcel brought into the present round and the substantial earlier private acquisitions left undisturbed, indicates that the 1711 framework was designed to supplement existing documentary regimes rather than replace them. The result was a layered documentary system in which different parcels held by the same person could rest on different institutional foundations, with the framework operating only where formal Company recognition was newly required.
135
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Tho[s] Allis
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Thomas Allis Freeholder, Thirty Acres of Land Scituate lying & being in Deep Valley butting & bounding towards the North upon the Land of John Worrall Sen[r] which he Hires of the Honourable Company, Towards the East upon y[e] said Honourable Companys Wast Land, towards the South upon the said Tho[s] Allis his own[?] Land, and towards the West upon the Lands of Richard Swallow. To have and to hold The aforesaid Thirty Acres of Land to him the said Thomas Allis his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition. That he the said Thomas Allis his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always Do, and bear true Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws & constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March), the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of the said Island, Unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said Thomas Allis & his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and Do at the Expiration of the y[e] said Twenty one years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter the Fences which are the Landmarks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease, or Interest in the same without th[e] Consent of Governour & Councell for the time being. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company and Lords proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale, at the United Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. day of August. A. A in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen and y[e] s[ai]d Tho[s] Allis to the other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand and Seale. Thomas Allis
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Thomas Allis, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Allis, freeholder, 30 acres of land in Deep Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of John Worrall senior, which he hired from the Company, to the east by the Company's waste land, to the south by Allis's own freehold land, and to the west by the land of Richard Swallow.
The lease ran to Thomas Allis and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Allis and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the United Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Thomas Allis set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Allis's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold of 3 acres was supplemented by 30 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 33 acres documented through the August 1713 sitting forms only one part of his broader Deep Valley estate, with his earlier private purchases continuing to operate under separate documentation.
The previous reference within Allis's freehold confirmation to his own hired Company land on the northern boundary indicated existing leasehold occupation. The present lease formalises a substantial 30-acre leasehold within the 1711 framework, suggesting that the freehold confirmation's reference to hired ground may relate to this lease itself or to additional separate leasehold beyond the 30 acres now confirmed.
The reference to the Castle as the United Castle marks the first appearance of this formal institutional name in the August 1713 instruments. The same name had been used in the 6 April 1711 consultation on fencing and deeds and in the February 1716 Beale to Company deed. The variant designations of the principal Company building (the Castle, the Castle in James Valley, Union Castle, United Castle) reflect the evolving formal terminology applied to the same structure across the period.
The boundary description records John Worrall senior on the northern boundary, with his land described as hired from the Company. The Worrall family had appeared in earlier records through John Worrall as a witness to the 24 March 1694 Casthope to Wells sale and through Joseph Worrall as witness to the 7 February 1696 Bagley to Wilson sale. The present 1713 reference to John Worrall senior, with the senior qualifier indicating an established adult with a younger namesake or successor in the field, adds another Worrall holding to the documented record of the family's tenure on the island.
The eastern boundary against Company waste, the southern boundary against Allis's own freehold, and the western boundary against Richard Swallow's land collectively place the 30-acre leasehold in a position that wraps around Allis's confirmed freehold core. The configuration produces a substantial continuous block of cultivated ground combining the 3-acre freehold and the 30-acre leasehold, with Swallow's adjoining holding to the west forming the established boundary line.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712, rather than from 25 March 1713 used in some other 4 August 1713 leases, places the present lease alongside the Morris, Orlando Bagley and Benjamin Greentree leases, all of which share the 1712 commencement date. The four same-day leases with the 1712 commencement (Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree and the present Allis) thus form a coordinated administrative subset distinct from the leases with 1713 commencement.
The combined annual rent on the 30-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £7 10s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The substantial rent obligation places the Allis leasehold among the larger revenue contributors of the 1711 framework, alongside the Cason 40-acre lease and the Orlando Bagley 40-acre lease.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day. The continuity of the witness composition across the extensive 4 August 1713 sitting confirms the sustained working session and the participation of the same small literate circle throughout the day's business.
Allis signed in his own hand, placing him within the literate class of free planters whose direct signatures appear on the documentary record. His signature pattern across multiple instruments over the years confirms his standing within the propertied group capable of executing formal documents personally.
The absence of any reference to Allis's substantial earlier purchases (the Tomps stone house, the Stevens lease, the Hemmons 10 acres, the Child quit-claim and the Miller 10 acres) indicates that those earlier private acquisitions remained under their original documentation rather than being brought within the 1711 framework. The institutional regularisation operated parcel by parcel, addressing only those holdings that required formal Company recognition at the present sitting.
Speculations
The substantial 30-acre leasehold issued to Allis alongside the modest 3-acre freehold confirmation indicates that the Company viewed the leasehold extension as the more significant element of his August 1713 documentary package. The freehold confirmation served to fix the narrow boundary line between cultivated and uncultivated ground, while the leasehold extension brought substantial additional working capacity within the institutional framework.
The placement of the 30-acre leasehold around the smaller 3-acre freehold, with Allis's own freehold forming the southern boundary of the leasehold parcel, suggests deliberate documentary configuration. By framing the leasehold around an existing freehold core, the institutional record produced a single coordinated working block under different documentary regimes, with each tenure type protecting and reinforcing the other.
The matching 25 March 1712 commencement date across the Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree and Allis leases indicates a coordinated administrative origin for these four leases, distinct from the leases with 1713 commencement. The shared back-dating to 1712 may reflect the consultation work undertaken in the winter of 1712 or an institutional decision to capture an additional year of rent obligation for certain holders. The pattern reproduces the institutional precision with which the framework calibrated rent commencement dates to the underlying administrative determinations.
The combined Allis estate by August 1713, comprising his 1689 to 1704 private purchases together with the present 33 acres regularised under the 1711 framework, made him one of the most substantial documented Deep Valley holders alongside Richard Swallow. The cumulative effect of more than two decades of accumulation, supplemented by the 1713 institutional confirmation and lease, established the Allis family as a continuing presence in the upper Deep Valley landscape, with the senior qualifier already applied to Thomas Allis in the August 1713 boundary descriptions suggesting a generational succession was developing.
136
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Cha[s] Steward
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby confirm unto Charles Steward Freeholder Seventeen Acres of Land Scituate under Sandy Bay Ridge, butting towards the North upon the Lands of Benj[ami]n Sich, towards the East upon the Lands of Maxwells Orphans, towards the South upon y[e] Lands of said Charles Steward Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]. and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Lands of Tho[s] Coal[e]s Children, Which said Seventeen Acres of Land, he y[e] said Charles Steward, hath a Just right & Title too, as may appear more plainly upon examination in a Consultation of y[e] fifteenth day of January One Thousand Seven hund[r]ed Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum, fo[r] any person to make their Claime on a day certain therein limmitted, but none appearing or any objections made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Charles Steward, his Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition. That he the said Charles Steward his Heires and Assignes, Do and shall bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires & Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have sett. their Common Seale, at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. day of August A. in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Charles Steward, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Charles Steward, freeholder, 17 acres of land under Sandy Bay Ridge.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Benjamin Sich, to the east by the lands of Maxwell's orphans, to the south by the land Charles Steward hired from the Company, and to the west by the land of Thomas Coales's children.
Steward's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Charles Steward and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Charles Steward who had appeared across the records as a substantial Sandy Bay holder and joint mortgagee. His earlier documented dealings include the purchase of 20 acres in Sandy Bay from Richard Griffis (already in occupation) for £20 0s 0d, the joint mortgagee role with Orlando Bagley on the Joseph and Martha Fox mortgage of 18 August 1709 for £32 0s 0d, his repeated appearance as a boundary holder across Sandy Bay leases of 1711 (Cason's Welley's Land, the Robinson lease, the Cason 4 August 1713 lease), and his consistent role as witness to multiple transactions including the Lufkin to Company sale of 1707. The present 1713 confirmation establishes his title to 17 acres under Sandy Bay Ridge in his own name.
The boundary description records Benjamin Sich on the northern boundary. The Sich family had appeared in earlier records through Margaret Sich (widow, twice-widowed of Swallow and Sech) confirmed in 70 acres on her 1711 freehold confirmation, through James Sich who held the disputed John Beale parcel temporarily from Powell in December 1707, and through Benjamin Sich noted as a boundary holder in the 1709 Goodwin to Francis sale. The present 1713 boundary reference confirms Benjamin Sich's continuing presence as a Sandy Bay holder alongside other Sich family members.
Maxwell's orphans on the eastern boundary introduce a new family into the present series. The orphan designation indicates the death of an adult Maxwell parent and the survival of minor children whose interests required institutional protection through the documentary regime. The connection to the earlier Samuel Maxwell, corporal, who had bought the messuage house near Fort James from James Draper on 29 November 1699 for £18 0s 0d, is uncertain, but the family name continuity suggests the orphans may be his children or those of a related Maxwell holder.
The reference to the further land Charles Steward hired from the Company on the southern boundary indicates Steward's combined freehold and leasehold position, with his confirmed core supplemented by adjoining Company leasehold. The configuration matches the consistent pattern across the 1711 framework, where freehold cores typically adjoined leasehold extensions under the same holder's tenure. The boundary description thus captures Steward's overall working estate, with both tenure types operating in continuity.
Thomas Coales's children on the western boundary preserve another orphan holding within the boundary description. The earlier Thomas Coales had appeared as the northern boundary of Cason's 1711 Welley's Land lease, and his death by 1713 had been recorded in the Richard Swallow 4 August 1713 freehold confirmation, where his land was described as formerly Thomas Coales (deceased). The present reference to Coales's children identifies the surviving family interest as continuing through orphan tenure.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the same chronological feature noted across the August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Steward confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Morris confirmation, the Orlando Bagley confirmation, the Benjamin Greentree confirmation and the Allis confirmation as the eighth same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the unbroken working session throughout 4 August 1713 across at least 14 documented instruments.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Steward on the same day, despite the boundary recital of his hired Company land on the southern flank, indicates that the leasehold occupation remained under separate documentation. The selective regularisation of only the 17-acre freehold, leaving the adjoining leasehold under existing arrangements, indicates that the 1711 framework operated on a parcel-by-parcel basis with each holding addressed according to its specific documentary requirements.
The continuing recurrence of orphan boundary references across the August 1713 instruments (the Harding children, the Bagley children, Maxwell's orphans, Thomas Coales's children, John Greentree's orphans, Beale's children, Hardings children, Edward Bagley's children, John Leaverig's children, Richard Alexander's children through the consultation book cross-references) marks a sustained pattern of high adult male mortality. The orphan estates persisted as recognisable units of tenure across multiple boundary descriptions, with their underlying interests preserved through institutional mechanisms even where adult management had ceased.
Speculations
The confirmation of 17 acres of freehold to Charles Steward, with adjacent Company leasehold also identified, marks his transition from a holder whose substantial documented dealings had been primarily through private purchases and mortgages into a recognised freeholder under the 1711 framework. The institutional regularisation followed nearly a decade of active land dealing in Sandy Bay and provided documentary protection for the core of his accumulated estate.
The boundary description's pattern of orphan and minor-children holdings on three of the four sides (Sich on the north as an adult, Maxwell's orphans on the east, Coales's children on the west) places Steward's confirmed freehold at the centre of an established orphan-dominated tenure cluster. The configuration indicates that Sandy Bay had become a focus of inherited minor children's interests by 1713, with adult freeholders such as Steward managing or holding ground alongside multiple orphan estates of deceased neighbours.
The selective regularisation of Steward's holdings, with only the 17-acre core brought into the present round and the adjoining hired land left under separate documentation, fits the broader institutional pattern by which the 1711 framework addressed each holding according to its specific documentary requirements. The result was a layered documentary system in which the same person could hold different parcels under different institutional foundations, with the framework operating principally where formal Company recognition was newly required.
The persistent appearance of Charles Steward across the documentary record from his early Sandy Bay purchase through to the present confirmation, his consistent witness role across multiple transactions, and his joint mortgagee position alongside Orlando Bagley indicates an active and trusted presence within the small literate circle that underpinned the formal record. The 1713 confirmation marks the formal recognition of his standing as a substantial freeholder, complementing his already established role as a senior participant in the documentary regime.
137
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Cha[s] Steward
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Charles Steward Freeholder Ten Acres of Cabbage Tree Land Scituate in Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge, butting & bounding towards the North to the same, towards the East, upon Five Acres of Land in y[e] Possession of Lieut[ena]nt Thomas Cason lately belonging to Henry Webly, Towards the South & West upon the Lands of Thomas Swallow Freeholder, ALSO Thirteen Acres of Gumwood Land, abutting towards the North upon the said Honourable Companys Land formerly Hired by the said Charles Steward, towards y[e] East upon the Lands now in Possession of John Robinson, towards the South and West upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, ALSO One Acre & Three Quarters more of Gumwood Land butting towards the North and West upon the said Lieut[ena]nt Casons Land Hired of the Honourable Company, towards the East and South, upon the aforesaid Lands Hired by y[e] said Charles Steward And Likewise Two Acres & One Quarter of an Acre more of like Gumwood Land buiting towards the North-East & West upon the said Charles Stewards Hired Land and upon the South to the said Honourable Companys Wast Land Lying Scituate under or the Writing Stone Ridge in Sandy Bay, which Three Parcels of Gumwood Land with the Ten Acres of Cabbagetree, contains in the whole Twenty Seven Acres. To have and to hold. The said Premises to him, the said Charles Steward his Executors Administ[rators] and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March one Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he the said Charles Steward his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall always Do and bear true Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March, the annuall Rent & Sum of Four shillings per Acre, besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, Unto the said Hon[ble] Company & their Successors AND That he y[e] said Charles Steward his Executors Administ[rators] or Assignes shall & Do at y[e] expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair, as they are now, and not to alter y[e] s[ai]d Fences which, are y[e] Land marks, & which will occasion y[e] alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexe[d] Nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without consent of Govern[o]r & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being In witness whereof y[e] Hon[ble] United Company & Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale, at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. A. day of August. A. in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred & Thirteen, and y[e] s[ai]d Cha[s] Steward, to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett his hand & Seale. Charles Steward Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to Charles Steward, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Charles Steward, freeholder, four parcels totalling 27 acres in Sandy Bay.
The first parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, lay under the Main Ridge. It was bounded to the north by the Main Ridge, to the east by 5 acres of land in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason, lately belonging to Henry Webly, and to the south and west by the land of Thomas Swallow, freeholder.
The second parcel, of 13 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by the Company's land formerly hired by Steward, to the east by the land then in the possession of John Robinson, and to the south and west by the Company's waste land.
The third parcel, of 1 acre and three quarters of gumwood land, was bounded to the north and west by Lieutenant Cason's land hired from the Company, and to the east and south by the land Steward hired from the Company.
The fourth parcel, of 2 acres and one quarter of gumwood land, lay under Writing Stone Ridge in Sandy Bay. It was bounded to the north, east and west by Steward's hired land, and to the south by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to Charles Steward and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Steward and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and Charles Steward set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Steward's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold core of 17 acres was supplemented by 27 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 44 acres in Sandy Bay places him among the most substantial single-area accumulators documented in the August 1713 sitting, alongside Orlando Bagley's 63-acre combined estate in Powell's Valley.
The four-parcel structure of the leasehold (10 acres, 13 acres, 1¾ acres, 2¼ acres) reflects the institutional preference for consolidating multiple small holdings within a single lease rather than separate instruments. The varied parcel sizes and locations across Sandy Bay indicate that Steward's working estate had been built up through multiple acquisitions of available ground over time, with the present lease formalising the entire collection within a single documentary regime.
The eastern boundary of the first parcel records 5 acres in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason, lately belonging to Henry Webly. The reference connects directly to the Cason lease of the same day, by which Cason received 5 acres of cabbage tree land in Sandy Bay formerly in the possession of Henry Webly. The mutual recording of the parcel across both same-day instruments fixes the line between Steward's and Cason's holdings by reciprocal reference, with each lease describing the other's parcel.
The Henry Webly reference appears here for the third time in the present series (after the 1 August 1711 Robinson lease describing Company land formerly Webby, and the 4 August 1713 Cason lease describing 5 acres formerly in his possession). The recurring reference to Webly across the period 1711 to 1713 indicates that his reverted ground had been parcelled out among multiple Sandy Bay tenants under the 1711 framework, with each subdivision identified by reference to his earlier occupation.
The southern and western boundaries of the first parcel against Thomas Swallow's freehold land record Swallow's extensive Sandy Bay tenure. Swallow had received his 40-acre freehold confirmation on 20 July 1711, his 31-acre leasehold on the same day, and his Deep Valley confirmation and lease on 4 August 1713. The recurring boundary references to Swallow across multiple Sandy Bay and Deep Valley instruments fix him as one of the dominant cross-valley holders documented in the present series.
The second parcel's boundary description records the northern boundary as Company land formerly hired by Steward himself, indicating that the present 13 acres were taken up after an earlier portion of Steward's leasehold had reverted to the Company. The reference suggests an evolving pattern of Steward's leasehold occupation, with some parcels being released and others taken up across the period 1711 to 1713. The institutional flexibility of the leasehold framework allowed such adjustments without disturbing the underlying freehold core.
The fourth parcel's location under Writing Stone Ridge introduces another working byname into the present series, parallel to the Two Gun Ridge of Grace Coulson's 1711 confirmation, the Dennis Lock of the Harding children's confirmation, the Diana's Geak of the Benjamin Greentree confirmation, and the Sexton's Ground of the William Alexander 1717 lease. The persistence of working bynames across boundary descriptions reflects the continued reliance on local knowledge of the landscape alongside the formal survey records.
The presence of fractional acreage in two of the four parcels (1¾ acres and 2¼ acres) reproduces the precision of the 1711 surveying programme noted across the Gurling lease and the Morris lease of the same day. The institutional shift from round-number allocations to precise survey measurements down to quarter-acre increments represents a significant administrative development in the documentation of island tenure.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712 places this lease alongside the Morris, Orlando Bagley, Benjamin Greentree and Allis leases, all of which share the 1712 commencement date. The five same-day leases with the 1712 commencement form the coordinated administrative subset distinct from the leases with 1713 commencement, reflecting a consistent decision to back-date certain leases by an additional year.
The combined annual rent on the 27-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £6 15s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The substantial rent obligation places Steward's leasehold among the larger revenue contributors of the 1711 framework, alongside the Cason 40-acre lease, the Allis 30-acre lease and the Orlando Bagley 40-acre lease.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the continuous working session across at least 15 documented instruments executed on 4 August 1713.
Speculations
The complex four-parcel structure of Steward's leasehold, with parcels of widely varying sizes scattered across Sandy Bay and located by reference to multiple topographical features (the Main Ridge, Writing Stone Ridge, and intervening locations), indicates a working estate assembled through opportunistic acquisition over time. The institutional consolidation of these fragments within a single lease reduced administrative cost while preserving the geographic distinctness of each unit through the boundary descriptions and the annexed plan.
The references to Steward's earlier hired land on two of the four parcels (the second and fourth parcels both record Steward's existing hired ground as adjacent boundary) suggest his leasehold position had been built up through a sequence of related acquisitions, with each new parcel taken up adjacent to his existing holdings. The pattern indicates a deliberate strategy of contiguous expansion, with the present 1713 lease formalising the cumulative result of multiple smaller acquisitions.
The reciprocal mutual boundary references between Steward's lease and Cason's same-day lease, both naming each other's holdings by reference to the former Webly ground, fix the precise lines of subdivision within the reverted Webly estate. The systematic mapping of the former Webly parcel through multiple coordinated leases issued in 1711 (Robinson) and 1713 (Cason and Steward) demonstrates the comprehensive institutional documentation of reverted Company ground as it was redistributed to new tenants.
The matching 25 March 1712 commencement across five same-day leases (Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree, Allis and the present Steward) suggests these holdings were all the subject of a coordinated administrative determination at some earlier point in 1712, perhaps relating to a substantial consultation or survey effort whose formal documentary regularisation was deferred until August 1713. The institutional precision in calibrating the rent commencement to the underlying administrative work reflects the maturity of the 1711 framework's documentary practices.
The combined position of Steward by August 1713 (17 acres freehold and 27 acres leasehold, totalling 44 acres) supplemented his earlier private acquisitions including the 20 acres from Richard Griffis. The accumulated working estate of approximately 64 acres in Sandy Bay made him one of the most substantial Sandy Bay holders documented in the present series, alongside Thomas Swallow, the Bagley family and the Greentree estate. His role as a witness across multiple instruments and as a joint mortgagee with Orlando Bagley placed him within the small literate circle that underpinned the documentary regime, completing the picture of his established standing in both property and institutional terms.
138
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Jn[o] Coles
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Honour[ab]ble United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto John Coles, Freeholder, Eighteen Acres of Cabtrage Tree Land, Scituate in Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge formerly the Lands of James Wakefield, butting & bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Lands of Francis Wranghams, Towards the East upon y[e] Lands of Thomas Coal[e]s Children, and towards South & West upon a Parcel of Land y[e] said John Coles Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ny ALSO Ten Acres of Gumwood Land, butting & bounding towards the North upon another Parcell of Land Hired as aforesaid, Towards the East South & West, upon y[e] Lands Hired of y[e] said Honourable Comp[a] by Lieu[t][n]t Tho[s] Cason, Likewise, Two Acres of Land more Butting towards y[e] North East West, & South every way, upon the Lands of Robert Adley[s] Freeholder, being Three Parcels of Land, and in the whole conteines Thirty Acres, to which y[e] s[ai]d John Coles hath a Just right & Title too, as may appear more largely upon examination in a consultation of the Fifteenth & A. day of January, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their claim, on a day certain therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said Thirty Acres of Land, to him the said John Coles his Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That he the said John Coles his Heires & Assignes Do alwayes bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen A[n]n[e] her Heires Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the s[ai]d Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents, have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island, this Fourth & A. A. day of August. In the years of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to John Coles, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Coles, freeholder, three parcels totalling 30 acres.
The first parcel, of 18 acres of cabbage tree land, lay in Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge and had formerly belonged to James Wakefield. It was bounded to the north by the land of Francis Wrangham, to the east by the land of Thomas Coales's children, and to the south and west by a parcel that Coles hired from the Company.
The second parcel, of 10 acres of gumwood land, was bounded to the north by another parcel of land hired by Coles from the Company, and to the east, south and west by the land hired from the Company by Lieutenant Thomas Cason.
The third parcel, of 2 acres of land, was bounded on all four sides (north, east, west and south) by the land of Robert Adley, freeholder.
Coles's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to John Coles and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee may be the same John Coles who had earlier appeared in the records as the seller of 10 acres at the head of Fryer Valley to Thomas Goodwin on 26 March 1696 for £11 0s 0d, or his son or namesake. The first parcel of 18 acres in Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge places the present holder in a different valley from the Fryer Valley parcel sold in 1696, suggesting either substantial geographic expansion or a different individual sharing the name. The Sandy Bay focus of the present confirmation also fits the John Coles named as a boundary holder in the Cason 27 July 1711 Welley's Land lease.
The recital that the first parcel had formerly belonged to James Wakefield introduces a deceased earlier holder whose Sandy Bay ground had passed into the present chain of title. James Wakefield had appeared in earlier records through the 24 May 1693 Young to Goodwin sale, where the 8-acre Little Horsepad parcel was identified as part of Wakefield's lot. The same Wakefield connection appears in the May 1694 Harper to Goodwin sale, the March 1695 Crosbey to Goodwin sale, and the 1690 Trapp to Goodwin sale of the head of Lemon Valley near the late John Greentree. The present Sandy Bay reference indicates that Wakefield's holdings extended across multiple areas of the island, with the original 18-acre parcel here representing a substantial Sandy Bay component beyond his other documented ground.
The boundary description records Francis Wrangham on the northern boundary of the first parcel. The Wrangham family had appeared earlier in the 1682 inquest, in Henry Francis's 1711 freehold confirmation (where Francis Wrangham was a boundary holder on three of Francis's parcels), and in the Margaret Sich 1711 confirmation. The persistent Wrangham presence across multiple boundary descriptions over more than three decades indicates the durable territorial position of the family.
Thomas Coales's children on the eastern boundary again record orphan tenure persisting after the death of the parent. The same Thomas Coales had been documented as deceased in the Richard Swallow freehold confirmation of the same day and in the Charles Steward freehold confirmation. The continued naming of his children across multiple boundary descriptions across the August 1713 sitting confirms their substantial inherited holdings in Sandy Bay.
The second parcel's complete enclosure by Coles's own hired land on the north and by Lieutenant Cason's hired Company land on the east, south and west places the 10-acre gumwood parcel as an isolated freehold core surrounded by leasehold ground. The configuration produces an unusual cartographic pattern where the confirmed freehold operates as an inner unit within a wider leasehold-dominated landscape.
The third parcel of 2 acres bounded on all four sides by the land of Robert Adley, freeholder, presents a similar enclave configuration but with adjacent freehold rather than leasehold. The 2-acre parcel sits as an isolated Coles holding within Adley's surrounding ground. Robert Adley is recorded here as freeholder, indicating his confirmed Sandy Bay tenure though his own confirmation does not appear separately in the present series.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the same chronological feature noted across the August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order. The Coles confirmation joins the Harding children's grant, the Gurling freehold confirmation, the Swallow freehold confirmation, the Morris confirmation, the Orlando Bagley confirmation, the Benjamin Greentree confirmation, the Allis confirmation and the Steward confirmation as the ninth same-day confirmation referencing the 15 January 1713 consultation.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, continuing the unbroken working session across at least 16 documented instruments executed on 4 August 1713. The repeated appearance of Cason as witness while his own holdings are referenced in the boundary descriptions of the present confirmation indicates the institutional accommodation of dual roles, with Cason both attesting his neighbour's title and having his own holdings identified within it.
The reference to Coles's hired Company land on the southern and western boundaries of the first parcel, and on the northern boundary of the second parcel, indicates a substantial Company leasehold position held by Coles separate from the present freehold confirmation. The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument on the same day suggests this leasehold remained under separate documentation, with the present 1713 sitting addressing only the freehold elements of his combined estate.
Speculations
The confirmation of 30 acres of freehold across three geographically distinct parcels indicates that John Coles held an established estate built up through multiple acquisitions in different parts of Sandy Bay. The recital of James Wakefield as the former holder of the first parcel suggests that significant portions of the Coles estate originated through purchases from the older generation of free planters whose deaths over the period 1690 to 1710 had released substantial ground onto the market.
The unusual configuration of the second parcel, completely enclosed by Coles's own and Cason's hired Company land, suggests deliberate strategic placement of the confirmed freehold at the centre of a wider leasehold-dominated working area. By securing freehold tenure to the 10-acre core, Coles protected the most valuable element of his working estate while leaving the surrounding ground under more flexible leasehold tenure. The arrangement also fixed his eastern boundary against Cason's leasehold through the institutional record, preventing future boundary disputes as either holding changed hands.
The third parcel of 2 acres enclosed entirely by Robert Adley's freehold ground produces a particularly tight enclave configuration. The placement may reflect either an inherited fragment of an earlier larger holding that was substantially absorbed by Adley, or a deliberate Coles acquisition of an isolated parcel within Adley's estate for specific working purposes. The institutional regularisation of such a small enclave indicates the precision with which the 1711 framework accommodated even minor parcels within its documentary regime.
The coordinated processing of John Coles's confirmation alongside the Cason, Steward, Greentree, Bagley, Slaughter, Carne, Gurling, Swallow, Allis, Morris and Harding children's confirmations within the single 4 August 1713 sitting represents an extraordinary documentary achievement. The institutional capacity to clear at least 17 distinct freehold confirmations and leasehold extensions within a single working session, with consistent witness composition and reciprocal boundary referencing across the instruments, marks the maturity of the 1711 framework's documentary practice. The systematic clearing of the entire Sandy Bay and Deep Valley landholding network in coordinated session demonstrates the framework's evolution into a comprehensive institutional regime for documenting and protecting private tenure across the island's principal cultivated valleys.
139
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Jn[o] Coles
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto John Coles Freeholder, Fifteen Acres and an Half of Land Scituate in Sandy Bay, butting & bounding, towards the North & South upon the s[ai]d John Coles own Freeland, towards the East upon y[e] Land in Possession of Lieut[ena]nt Tho[s] Cason which he Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a] and towards y[e] West upon the said Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land, ALSO Seven Acres more, butting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Lands of James Greentree Freeholder, towards the East upon the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, and towards y[e] South & West upon y[e] Lands of Robert Adlis Freeholder Likewise, Two Acres & an Half of Land more, butting towards the North upon y[e] aforesaid John Coles own Land, towards the East & South upon the before mentioned Land, in the Possession of James Greentrees, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, Being in y[e] whole Three Parcels Twenty Five Acres. To have and to hold the same, above mentioned, to him the said John Coles his Executors Administrators, & Assignes for y[e] Terme & time of Twenty one Years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he the said John Coles his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] s[ai]d Hon[ble] Company & their Successors, and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island. And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary being y[e] 25 day of March, the Annuall Rent & Sum of Four shillings p[er] Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto y[e] said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors AND That he y[e] said John Coles his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall & Do at y[e] expiration of the said Term of Twenty one years, leave y[e] Fences abou[t] y[e] said Land, in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] s[ai]d, Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will occasion the alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of this Lease, or Interest in y[e] same, without consent of y[e] Governour and Councell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents, have Sett their Common Seale, at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth A. day of August One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen And the said John Coles to the other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand & Seale. John Coles
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to John Coles, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John Coles, freeholder, three parcels totalling 25 acres in Sandy Bay.
The first parcel, of 15 acres and a half of land, was bounded to the north and south by Coles's own freehold land, to the east by the land in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason, which he hired from the Company, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel, of 7 acres, was bounded to the north by the land of James Greentree, freeholder, to the east by the Company's waste land, and to the south and west by the land of Robert Adlis, freeholder.
The third parcel, of 2 acres and a half, was bounded to the north by Coles's own land, to the east and south by the land in the possession of James Greentree, and to the west by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to John Coles and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Coles and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and John Coles set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The pairing of this lease with Coles's same-day freehold confirmation completes the institutional package by which his confirmed freehold of 30 acres was supplemented by 25 acres of leasehold extension. The combined holding of 55 acres in Sandy Bay places him among the substantial multi-tenure holders documented in the August 1713 sitting, alongside Charles Steward (44 acres combined) and Orlando Bagley (63 acres combined in Powell's Valley).
The three-parcel structure of the leasehold (15½ acres, 7 acres, and 2½ acres) reproduces the institutional preference for consolidating multiple small parcels within a single lease rather than as separate instruments. The varied parcel sizes and the fractional acreages of two of the three parcels reflect the precision of the 1711 surveying programme and the institutional capacity to document each small extension within a unified record.
The first parcel of 15½ acres is bounded to the north and south by Coles's own freehold land, placing the leasehold parcel as a wedge or band running east to west between two parts of his confirmed estate. The configuration produces an unusual cartographic pattern where the leasehold sits as a corridor within the freehold rather than as an outer extension beyond it. The arrangement may have arisen from the historical pattern of accumulation, with the freehold formed through purchases that left gaps subsequently filled by leasehold.
The eastern boundary of the first parcel against Lieutenant Cason's hired Company land establishes the reciprocal documentation with the same-day Cason lease, which had recorded the western boundary of Cason's 5 acres formerly belonging to Henry Webly as Company land then in the possession of Charles Steward. The set of mutual boundary references across Cason, Coles and Steward's same-day instruments fixes a comprehensive cartographic record of the central Sandy Bay landholding cluster.
The second parcel records James Greentree as the northern boundary holder, freeholder. The same James Greentree had appeared in earlier records through the 1703 purchase from Gabriel Powell of 20 acres in Sandy Bay with the slave Oliver and half-still for £86 0s 0d, the 1705 purchase from Owen Bevean of the Chapel Valley house with reserved room for £35 0s 0d, the 1715 purchase from Richard Cleve of the rebuilt James Valley house for £150 0s 0d, and the 1715 purchase from John Goodwin of 4 acres for £28 0s 0d. The 1713 confirmation of his freehold status indicates that his recorded estate had been established before the present August 1713 sitting, and the boundary reference confirms his continuing Sandy Bay presence.
Robert Adlis on the southern and western boundaries of the second parcel, recorded as freeholder, reproduces the same Robert Adley named in the third parcel of Coles's freehold confirmation as the surrounding holder of the 2-acre enclave. The variant spellings Adley and Adlis refer to the same person, with the slight scribal variation falling within the normal range. Adlis's confirmed status as freeholder, combined with his substantial holding sufficient to surround Coles's 2-acre parcel on all four sides, indicates his significant Sandy Bay tenure though his own confirmation does not appear separately in the present series.
The third parcel of 2½ acres records the eastern and southern boundaries as land in the possession of James Greentree, indicating Greentree's active occupation of ground in the immediate vicinity of Coles's parcels. The reciprocal documentation between Coles's third parcel and Greentree's documented holdings further establishes the interconnected landholding network mapped through the August 1713 sitting.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712, in line with the Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree, Allis and Steward leases of the same day, places the present lease within the coordinated administrative subset with 1712 commencement. The six same-day leases sharing the 1712 commencement (Morris, Bagley, Greentree, Allis, Steward and the present Coles) reflect a consistent decision to back-date these leases by an additional year compared with the leases commencing in 1713.
The combined annual rent on the 25-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £6 5s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The aggregate rent fits within the upper range of the leasehold revenues recorded across the 1711 framework, complementing Coles's confirmed freehold tenure.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, completing the unbroken working session across at least 17 documented instruments executed on 4 August 1713. The Coles lease may represent the conclusion of the day's recorded business in the present series, marking the apparent end of the coordinated August 1713 documentary effort.
Speculations
The complex configuration of the leasehold parcels, with the first parcel running as a corridor between two parts of Coles's freehold and the second parcel sitting between James Greentree's freehold on the north and Robert Adlis's freehold on the south and west, indicates a working estate built up through opportunistic acquisition of available ground over time. The institutional regularisation through the 1711 framework captured the result of this incremental accumulation within a unified documentary record, with the boundary descriptions preserving the precise relationship between Coles's holdings and those of his neighbours.
The matching 25 March 1712 commencement date across six same-day leases (Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree, Allis, Steward and the present Coles) marks a consistent administrative decision to align these leases with an earlier institutional determination. The shared back-dating produces a coordinated subset within the day's business, distinct from the leases with 1713 commencement (Gurling, Cason and Charles), and suggests that two parallel administrative timelines operated within the August 1713 sitting.
The reciprocal mutual boundary references across the Coles, Cason, Steward and Greentree instruments produce a comprehensive map of the central Sandy Bay landholding cluster. The systematic documentation of each holder's parcels by reference to the adjoining parcels of others creates a coordinated cartographic record that exceeds the documentation that could be achieved through individual instruments processed at separate sittings. The 1711 framework's institutional achievement in mapping the entire interconnected landholding network through coordinated session represents one of its principal documentary innovations.
The combined accumulation of approximately 17 same-day instruments executed on 4 August 1713 marks the most extensive documented single-day regularisation effort in the present series. The institutional capacity to clear this volume of business within a single working session, with consistent witness composition and reciprocal boundary referencing across the instruments, demonstrates the maturity of the 1711 framework as a comprehensive documentary regime. The systematic clearing of major holdings across Sandy Bay, Deep Valley, Lemon Valley, Fryer Valley and Powell's Valley in coordinated session represents the framework's evolution into a unified institutional system for documenting and protecting private tenure across the principal cultivated valleys of the island.
140
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to [Fra Steward]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm Unto Francis Steward Son of Onesiphorus Steward deceased, Ten Acres of Cabbage Tree Land formerly y[e] Lands of Francis Steward (dec[ease]d) his Grandfather Likewise Ten Acres of Cabbage tree Land more, in equal shares unto y[e] before named & Unto Francis Steward, Mary Steward & Martha Steward, according to y[e] Last Will & Testament of their deceased Father y[e] said Onesiphorus Steward, which last mentioned Ten Acres of Land is part of Twenty Acres commonly called & known by Name of Churches Land, and is next adjoyning to the first mentioned Ten Acres of Land, as one P[ar]cell, Lying Scituate under Sandy Bay Ridge, Buting & Bounding towards the North, upon y[e] Lands of Benjamine Sich, under y[e] Main Ridge, Towards y[e] East upon the Lands of Thomas Swallow Sen[ior] in y[e] South, upon y[e] Lands of John Leevergs Children, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Lands of Maxwell[s] Orphans formerly part of Churches Land, which said Twenty Acres of Land, he y[e] s[ai]d Francis Steward, and they the s[ai]d Mary & Martha Steward, Hath a Just Right & Title too, in each of their propper shares & Dividends, as above mentioned, and may more largely appear upon examination in a Consultations of the Fifteenth & A. A. day of January One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold the aforesaid p[re]misses, to the before named Francis Steward Mary Stewar[d] & Martha Steward and their, and each of them, Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That they the said Francis Steward, Mary Steward & Martha Steward, their & every of them Heires & Assignes Do bear always true, faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Comp[a]ny to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & y[e] day of August A. in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Francis, Mary and Martha Steward, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Francis Steward, son of the late Onesiphorus Steward, two parcels totalling 20 acres of cabbage tree land under Sandy Bay Ridge.
The first parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, had formerly belonged to his grandfather, the late Francis Steward.
The second parcel, of 10 acres of cabbage tree land, was confirmed in equal shares to Francis Steward, Mary Steward and Martha Steward, according to the last will and testament of their late father Onesiphorus Steward. This parcel formed part of 20 acres commonly known as Church's Land and lay adjoining the first parcel as one combined unit.
Together the two parcels were bounded to the north by the land of Benjamin Sich, under the Main Ridge, to the east by the land of Thomas Swallow senior, to the south by the land of John Leeverg's children, and to the west by the land of Maxwell's orphans, formerly part of Church's Land.
The right and title of Francis, Mary and Martha Steward to their proper shares were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Francis Steward, Mary Steward and Martha Steward and to their heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grant operates as a confirmation across three generations of the Steward family. The first parcel had originally been held by Francis Steward the elder (grandfather), passed to his son Onesiphorus Steward, and now reached the present Francis Steward as son of Onesiphorus and grandson of the original Francis. The second parcel had also belonged to Onesiphorus and now passed under his will to all three of his children Francis, Mary and Martha in equal shares. The Steward grant thus consolidates two separate inheritance routes within a single confirmation deed, with different distributive structures applied to each parcel.
The Onesiphorus Steward identified here as the deceased father is the same Onesiphorus Steward who had appeared earlier as a boundary holder in the Thomas Swallow senior lease of 20 July 1711, where his land was described as the western boundary of the second parcel, with Onesiphorus Steward also recorded as deceased at that date. The 1711 reference confirmed his death before that lease was executed, and the present 1713 confirmation regularises the inheritance from his estate to his three children.
The grandfather Francis Steward (deceased) appears in the 1682 inquest as the holder of Sandy Bay land originally derived from John Cleverlee's assembly of the John Long allotment. The 1682 Cleverlee-Steward chain placed Francis Steward as an early Sandy Bay holder, and the present 1713 confirmation traces his ten acres through to the third-generation present holder. The institutional preservation of the title chain across nearly three decades demonstrates the documentary continuity achieved through the 1711 framework.
The distinction between the first and second parcels reflects different inheritance pathways. The first parcel reaches the present Francis Steward as the sole grandson named, suggesting either his exclusive entitlement under his grandfather's estate or his recognition as the principal heir of that earlier generation. The second parcel reaches the three siblings jointly under their father Onesiphorus's will, illustrating the institutional accommodation of testamentary dispositions that distributed property among multiple children rather than concentrating it through primogeniture.
The reference to the second parcel as part of 20 acres commonly known as Church's Land, with the western boundary against Maxwell's orphans recorded as formerly part of Church's Land, identifies an earlier large block that had been subdivided between the Steward family and the Maxwell family before the present confirmation. The byname Church's Land may refer to an earlier ecclesiastical or chaplain holder, paralleling the Joseph Church, minister mentioned in the 18 June 1713 Antipas Tovey to Mary Maxwell gift as the former holder of 20 acres of which the Maxwell parcel formed a portion. The two references together establish that Church's 20-acre lot in Sandy Bay was distributed across the Steward, Maxwell and possibly other holdings, with the 1713 institutional regularisation fixing the boundaries of the subdivided fragments.
The link to the Antipas Tovey to Mary Maxwell gift of 18 June 1713 is particularly significant. The 4-acre gift to Mary Maxwell described its parcel as part of 20 acres formerly the lot of the late Joseph Church, minister. The present confirmation similarly identifies its second parcel as part of 20 acres called Church's Land. The two transactions, executed within less than two months of each other and identifying related portions of the same original Church lot, reveal an active institutional concern in 1713 with regularising the subdivided estate of the deceased minister.
The northern boundary against Benjamin Sich reproduces the same Benjamin Sich named on the northern boundary of Charles Steward's freehold confirmation of the same day. The mutual cross-referencing between the two Steward family confirmations (Charles Steward, here Francis-Mary-Martha Steward) and the surrounding Sich, Swallow, Leeverg and Maxwell holdings produces another comprehensive cartographic mapping of the central Sandy Bay cluster.
John Leeverg's children on the southern boundary reproduces the same John Leaverig's children mentioned in the Slaughter lease of the same day. The variant spellings Leeverg and Leaverig refer to the same deceased holder whose children's inherited interest persisted as a boundary reference across multiple August 1713 instruments.
Maxwell's orphans on the western boundary, formerly part of Church's Land, connects directly to the Antipas Tovey to Mary Maxwell gift of June 1713, where Mary Maxwell received her 4-acre portion of the original Church 20-acre lot. The Maxwell family thus held multiple portions of the subdivided Church estate, with the inherited children's interest persisting alongside Mary Maxwell's separate freehold receipt.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the chronological feature of the August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, continuing the unbroken working session across the 4 August 1713 sitting.
Speculations
The choice of the testamentary will rather than primogeniture as the inheritance mechanism for the second parcel reflects Onesiphorus Steward's deliberate decision to distribute the ground equally among all three of his children rather than concentrate it in his eldest son. The contrast with the primogeniture pattern noted in other inheritance confirmations (the Cotgrave, Coulson, Charles and Greentree successions) indicates that holders had some flexibility in choosing how to dispose of their estates by will, and could override the default succession rules where they wished to provide more equitably for daughters and younger sons.
The distinct treatment of the two parcels within the single confirmation, with the first held by Francis Steward alone and the second held by all three siblings, suggests the family had operated under different inheritance routes for the two original sources. The grandfather's parcel may have been settled on Onesiphorus exclusively during his lifetime, and Onesiphorus then chose to leave it to his eldest son Francis under the conventional succession. The second parcel, perhaps acquired later by Onesiphorus and treated as more available for equal division, was distributed by will among all three children. The differential treatment reflects the practical realities of family estate management across multiple generations.
The inclusion of Mary Steward and Martha Steward as joint freeholders alongside their brother in the second parcel represents an important institutional recognition of women's inheritance rights under testamentary disposition. The 1711 framework accommodated wills that distributed property to daughters as well as sons, with the resulting freehold confirmations vesting the inherited interest jointly in the named beneficiaries regardless of gender. The pattern parallels the inheritance of Lydea Harding to her brother Richard documented in the 1691 transactions, and indicates a continuing institutional capacity to handle non-primogeniture inheritance arrangements.
The active 1713 regularisation of the subdivided Joseph Church estate, through both the Antipas Tovey to Mary Maxwell gift of June and the present 4 August Steward confirmation, suggests a coordinated effort to fix the precise boundaries of the original Church 20-acre lot among its various successor holders. The minister's death had left the parcel divided across multiple families (Tovey to Maxwell, the Steward inheritance through Onesiphorus, the Maxwell orphans, and probably others not separately documented), and the 1713 sitting brought the resulting fragments within unified documentary protection. The institutional achievement of mapping a single original allotment across its multiple successor holdings represents a particularly precise application of the 1711 framework's coordinated documentation practice.
141
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Maxwells Or[phans]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto the Orphans of Samuel Maxwell (dec[ease]d) Nine Acres of Cabbagetree Land, Situate in Sandy Bay abutting towards the North upon the Land of Benjamin Sich, under the Main Ridge, towards the East upon the Land of Onesiphorus Stewards Children, towards the South upon the Lands of John Leverdys Children, and towards the West, upon the Lands of Charles Steward Freeholder, Which said Nine Acres of Land the before named, Samuel Maxwells Orphans, Hath a Just Right & Title and Title too, As may appear more largely upon examination in a consultation of the Fifteenth & A. day of January One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a day certain therein, Limmited, But none appearing or any objection. To have and to hold, The said premises to him the said called Samuel Maxwells Orphans and every of them their Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition. That they the said Orphans their and every of their Heires and Assignes Do bear always true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Comp[any] to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. A. in y[e] year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to the orphans of Samuel Maxwell, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the orphans of the late Samuel Maxwell 9 acres of cabbage tree land in Sandy Bay.
The parcel was bounded to the north by the land of Benjamin Sich, under the Main Ridge, to the east by the land of Onesiphorus Steward's children, to the south by the land of John Leverdy's children, and to the west by the land of Charles Steward, freeholder.
The orphans' right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to the Maxwell orphans and to their heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grant confirms title directly to the orphan beneficiaries rather than through an adult trustee or guardian. The form of vesting in the orphans themselves and their heirs and assigns indicates a deliberate institutional decision to fix the inheritance in the children's names while preserving their interest against external claims. The arrangement contrasts with the trustee management observed in the Benjamin Greentree case, where Richard Swallow held a leasehold for and on behalf of the named beneficiary. Here, no intermediate trustee is named, and the orphans appear as the direct holders of the confirmed freehold.
The grantor identifies the orphans as the children of the late Samuel Maxwell, fixing his death before the August 1713 confirmation. The same Samuel Maxwell had earlier appeared as a corporal in the garrison who bought a messuage house near Fort James from James Draper on 29 November 1699 for £18 0s 0d, with payment in live cattle and Spanish dollars at six shillings per dollar. His death by 1713, with surviving minor children whose interests required institutional protection, marks another instance of garrison-soldier mortality with consequent orphan estates persisting in the documentary record.
The Maxwell orphans had been recorded as boundary holders in the Charles Steward freehold confirmation earlier in the same day, where they appeared on the eastern boundary of Steward's 17 acres under Sandy Bay Ridge. The present confirmation regularises their own freehold title to the parcel that adjoins Steward on the west, with the reciprocal boundary references between the two same-day confirmations fixing the precise line between the Maxwell orphan estate and the Charles Steward holding.
The reference to Onesiphorus Steward's children on the eastern boundary connects directly to the same-day confirmation in favour of Francis, Mary and Martha Steward as the children of the late Onesiphorus Steward. The Steward children's 20-acre confirmed estate (combining the grandfather's 10 acres and the testamentary 10 acres from Onesiphorus's will) lies immediately east of the Maxwell orphans' 9 acres, with both freehold confirmations executed on 4 August 1713 fixing the shared boundary.
The reciprocal boundary references between the Steward children's confirmation (recording Maxwell's orphans formerly part of Church's Land on the western boundary) and the present Maxwell orphans' confirmation (recording Onesiphorus Steward's children on the eastern boundary) reproduce the systematic cartographic mapping noted across the August 1713 sitting. The two adjoining children's estates were processed in coordinated session to fix the line between two inherited holdings without creating later boundary disputes.
The connection to the earlier Antipas Tovey to Mary Maxwell gift of 18 June 1713, which transferred 4 acres formerly part of the late Joseph Church minister's 20-acre lot to Mary Maxwell, spinster, suggests that the present Maxwell orphans may include Mary Maxwell herself or be related family members benefiting from a coordinated estate settlement. The 9 acres confirmed here represent another portion of what may have been the wider Maxwell family inheritance, with the present 1713 confirmation completing the documentary regularisation of the Maxwell holdings alongside the June 1713 gift.
The southern boundary against John Leverdy's children records yet another orphan inheritance. The same family had appeared as John Leeverg's children in the Francis Steward confirmation of the same day and as John Leaverig's children in the Slaughter lease. The three variant spellings (Leverdy, Leeverg, Leaverig) all refer to the same deceased holder whose children persisted as a recognised boundary unit across multiple August 1713 instruments. The Leverdy children themselves do not appear to have received a separate same-day confirmation in the present series, though their continuing identification as boundary holders indicates their established interest in the area.
Benjamin Sich on the northern boundary reproduces the same Benjamin Sich named on the northern boundary of Charles Steward's freehold confirmation and Francis Steward's freehold confirmation. The persistent appearance of Sich across multiple same-day Sandy Bay confirmations confirms his substantial position as the northern boundary holder for the cluster of confirmed estates under Sandy Bay Ridge.
Charles Steward on the western boundary as freeholder reproduces the mutual reciprocal documentation between the Steward and Maxwell holdings. Steward's 17-acre confirmed freehold lay directly west of the Maxwell orphans' 9 acres, with both boundaries fixed through the same-day confirmations.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the same chronological feature noted across the August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, completing the unbroken working session across the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The absence of any named guardian, executor or trustee at the witnessing or signing stage indicates that the Maxwell orphans' grant operated through direct institutional recognition of the children's inherited interest. The form contrasts with the trustee arrangements documented in other August 1713 instruments and suggests that some orphan estates were administered through the children's own legal capacity, perhaps where they had reached or approached majority.
Speculations
The direct vesting of the freehold in the Maxwell orphans themselves, without intermediate trustee management, suggests these children had progressed sufficiently in age to hold property in their own names by August 1713. The pattern contrasts with younger orphan groups whose interests were administered through adult trustees (as with the Greentree estate through Richard Swallow), and indicates a graduated institutional approach to orphan management calibrated to the children's age and capacity.
The coordinated August 1713 confirmations addressing the inherited estates of the Maxwell, Steward, Coales, Bagley, Greentree and Leverdy families collectively map a substantial network of children's interests across Sandy Bay. The institutional achievement of fixing all these orphan boundaries through reciprocal documentation in a single sitting represents a particularly precise application of the 1711 framework, protecting the inherited interests of multiple deceased holders' children against future external claims and against disputes between the adjoining orphan estates.
The probable connection between the present Maxwell orphans and the June 1713 Mary Maxwell gift, both involving Maxwell family members receiving inherited or gifted Sandy Bay parcels in 1713, suggests an active institutional effort to settle the Maxwell estate within a coordinated regularisation programme. The combined effect of the two transactions, executed within less than two months of each other, brought multiple Maxwell parcels within documented tenure during a single concentrated administrative period, perhaps responding to a particular institutional concern about the family's holdings reaching a settled documentary form.
The persistent recurrence of orphan estates across the August 1713 sitting (Harding children, Bagley children, Maxwell orphans, Coales children, Greentree orphans, Beale's children, Steward children, Leverdy children, Richard Alexander's children) marks 1713 as a year of particularly visible generational transition in the documentary record. The 1711 framework's capacity to accommodate multiple inheritance arrangements (primogeniture, testamentary division, trustee management, direct orphan vesting) within a single coordinated regularisation effort demonstrates the institutional flexibility achieved through the documentary regime by its third year of operation.
142
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Rob[t] Marsh
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby confirm unto Robert Marsh, Freeholder, Ten Acres of Cabbage tree Land Scituate nigh y[e] Head of one branch of James Valley, buting & bounding towards y[e] North and South upon y[e] Lands of Jonathan Doveton Freeholder, towards the East upon y[e] Lands of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a] lately belonging to William Marsh, and towards the West upon the Lands of Grace Coulson Widow, which Ten Acres of Land, the said Robert Marsh hath a just right and Title too, As may appear more largely upon examination in a Consultation of the Fifteenth A. day of January One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen & A. and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their claim, on a day certain therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold the above said Premises to him y[e] said Robert Marsh his Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Robert Marsh his Heires and Assigns Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Company & their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island, this Fourth & A. day of August. A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company grant to Robert Marsh, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Robert Marsh, freeholder, 10 acres of cabbage tree land near the head of one branch of James Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north and south by the land of Jonathan Doveton, freeholder, to the east by the Company's land lately belonging to William Marsh, and to the west by the land of Grace Coulson, widow.
Marsh's right and title were established by examination at a consultation of 15 January 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any person to enter a claim, and no claim or objection was made.
The land was granted to Robert Marsh and his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. The instrument was sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same Robert Marsh who had earlier appeared as the unmarried son of William Marsh, aged 21 and upwards in August 1705, when he confirmed the prior sales of his father's Edward Gardener inheritance to Dufton and Dweight. His earlier documented dealings included the 9 August 1705 confirmation to Dufton of 20 acres for £20 0s 0d, the 29 August 1705 confirmation to Dweight of 10 acres for £8 16s 0d, and the contemporaneous substitute settlement from his father William of 10 acres with three head of cattle and 12 months' yams. The present 1713 confirmation establishes his title to a 10-acre parcel at the head of James Valley under the 1711 framework.
The eastern boundary recital of the Company's land lately belonging to William Marsh fixes the death of his father William Marsh before 4 August 1713. William had appeared in the 1682 inquest holding former William Hunt's parcel by exchange, and his death by 1713 marks another generational transition within the documented Marsh family. The reference to lately belonging indicates that the parcel had reverted to the Company on William's death rather than passing directly to a successor by inheritance, leaving the present Robert Marsh's confirmed freehold adjoining Company ground that had until recently been in his father's hands.
The contrast between Robert Marsh's present confirmed 10-acre freehold and the substitute 10 acres delivered by his father in August 1705 raises the question whether the present parcel is the same ground or a different acquisition. The 1705 substitute parcel had been described as lying between Richard Parram's former land and Jonathan Dufton's land, starting from the old wall in the gutt next to former John Hemmons's land. The present 1713 confirmation places its parcel near the head of one branch of James Valley with very different boundary holders. The two parcels are probably distinct, indicating that Robert Marsh had acquired or accumulated additional ground beyond the 1705 substitute settlement.
The location near the head of one branch of James Valley introduces a new geographic reference into the present series, distinct from the Sandy Bay, Deep Valley, Lemon Valley, Fryer Valley, Powell's Valley, Sharks Valley, Fishers Valley and other locations documented earlier. James Valley itself appears in the records primarily as the urban centre of James Town and the Castle, with the present reference to a branch of the valley indicating a rural extension or tributary running from the upper part of the valley.
The boundary description records Jonathan Doveton on both the northern and southern boundaries, indicating a substantial Doveton holding that wrapped around Marsh's parcel on two sides. The same Jonathan Doveton had received freehold confirmation of 50.25 acres in three parcels on 17 April 1711 (with boundaries recorded against the Bowman, Jeffreys, Beale orphans, William Marsh, Leonard Hunt, William Doveton orphans, Company waste and Leonard Coulson). The present 1713 boundary references confirm his continued substantial position in the area near the head of James Valley.
Grace Coulson, widow, on the western boundary connects to the same Grace Coulson confirmed in 30 acres on 23 June 1711 and a further 10 acres of gumwood land on the same day, together with a 5-acre lease. Her 1711 confirmations had placed her holdings in an area bounded by Two Gun Ridge to the east and by Robert Marsh, William Marsh and Jonathan Beale's children on the cabbage tree parcel. The present 1713 boundary recital of her position on Robert Marsh's western flank reproduces the same adjacency noted in her 1711 confirmation, with the two confirmations executed approximately two years apart capturing the same mutual boundary line.
The consultation date of 15 January 1714 reproduces the chronological feature noted across the August 1713 confirmations, and is read in the old calendar as 15 January 1713 (equivalent to January 1714 in modern reckoning), placing it before the confirmation in institutional order.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, continuing the unbroken working session across the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The absence of any accompanying leasehold instrument for Robert Marsh on the same day indicates that his tenure rested entirely on the confirmed freehold without leasehold extension. The omission distinguishes his position from many other 1713 holders whose freehold and leasehold were confirmed in same-day pairings, and suggests either that his working estate did not extend beyond the 10-acre core or that any other ground he held was documented separately.
Speculations
The acquisition of a 10-acre parcel in James Valley by Robert Marsh, distinct from the 1705 substitute settlement received from his father William in Sharks Valley, indicates that Robert Marsh had pursued his own land acquisition strategy in the years following his father's settlement and confirmation deeds. The 1713 freehold confirmation regularises that subsequent acquisition under the 1711 framework, formalising Marsh's independent landholding alongside the inherited interests his father had earlier consolidated for him.
The eastern boundary description of Company land lately belonging to William Marsh suggests that William Marsh's death had only recently occurred and that his former leasehold or held ground had reverted to the Company without immediate succession to Robert. The institutional treatment of the parcel as Company land rather than as inherited Marsh ground indicates that William's holdings had not all been settled on Robert during his lifetime, and that some portions reverted to the Company on his death rather than passing to his son.
The placement of Robert Marsh's confirmed freehold immediately east of Grace Coulson's confirmed estate, and with Jonathan Doveton's substantial holdings on two other sides, indicates that the upper James Valley area had become a focus of confirmed freehold tenure by 1713. The cluster of Coulson, Doveton and Marsh confirmed estates, with William Marsh's former Company ground in the same area, produced a substantial concentration of documented holdings in what had previously been described in the 1711 Doveton confirmation as combining waste tree land and Company waste alongside the named freeholders.
The contrast between the 1705 Robert Marsh transactions (where he confirmed prior sales by his father to recover his majority interest in the Edward Gardener inheritance) and the present 1713 confirmation (where he holds his own confirmed freehold independent of the Gardener chain) marks the maturation of his landholding strategy across eight years. The 1705 transactions had been corrective, restoring the documentary basis of earlier transactions, while the 1713 confirmation establishes him as a freeholder in his own right under the new institutional framework. The progression illustrates the broader documentary trajectory of younger holders moving from corrective regularisation of inherited interests toward forward-looking confirmation of independent acquisitions.
143
Island St Helena Rob[t] Marsh Lease
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies. Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Robert Marsh Freeholder Nine Acres of Land Scituate at or nigh the Head of Chapple Vally, Butting and Bounding towards the North and East upon the Land of Jonathan Doveton, towards the South upon the Lands of John Coulson, and towards the West upon the said Robert Marshes own Land lately purchased of the said Jonathan & Doveton as by the Register Book will more largely appear.
To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said Robert Marsh his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Tearne and time of Twenty One years Commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. Upon Condition That he the Robert Marsh his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always do and bear true, Truth, and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors. And Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and sum of Four shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five shillings p[er] Antu[m], in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and there Successors, And that y[e] said Rob[t] Marsh his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and do at y[e] expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the said Fences which are the Land marks, And which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without Consent of the Gov[ernor] and Council for the time being. In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this First A. day of December One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. And he the said Robert Marsh to the other part hath Set his Hand and Seale.
Robert Marsh
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of: John Alexander Samuel [P]r[i]me
Company lease to Robert Marsh, 1 December 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Robert Marsh, freeholder, 9 acres of land at or near the head of Chapel Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the north and east by the land of Jonathan Doveton, to the south by the land of John Coulson, and to the west by Marsh's own land lately purchased from Jonathan Doveton, as recorded more fully in the register book.
The lease ran to Robert Marsh and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1713.
Marsh and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 1 December 1713, and Robert Marsh set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by John Alexander and Samuel Prime, with the surname of the second witness uncertain in the manuscript.
Interpretations
The lease supplements Robert Marsh's earlier 4 August 1713 freehold confirmation of 10 acres at the head of one branch of James Valley, but does so through a separate instrument executed almost four months later. The combined holding of 19 acres established through these two 1713 instruments distinguishes Marsh from many holders whose freehold and leasehold were confirmed on the same day in coordinated packaging. The temporal separation between the two Marsh confirmations indicates that his estate building was not processed in a single coordinated session but spread across multiple sittings within 1713.
The location at or near the head of Chapel Valley introduces a different geographic area from the 4 August James Valley confirmation. The two valleys lie in proximity to one another, with Chapel Valley containing James Town and the Castle to the south of the central upland area. The present 9-acre leasehold thus sits in a different rural extension from the earlier James Valley freehold, indicating that Marsh's working estate spanned two adjacent valley systems.
The recital that the western boundary lay against Marsh's own land lately purchased from Jonathan Doveton, with the further reference to the register book for fuller particulars, fixes a recent private transaction between the two holders. The 1713 transfer from Doveton to Marsh extended Marsh's holdings near the head of Chapel Valley by acquiring ground that Doveton had previously held. The institutional recording of the private purchase in the register book, with reference made within the present lease, demonstrates the working interaction between private transactions and the institutional framework.
The same Jonathan Doveton had been the subject of substantial freehold confirmations on 17 April 1711 (50.25 acres in three parcels) and 17 April 1711 leases (2 acres of cabbage tree land and 9 acres of gumwood land for 21 years). His earlier dealings included the August 1708 purchase of 10 acres from the Dufton executors, the August 1708 slave exchange with Hugh Bodley, and his role as executor of his late father William Doveton's will. The present 1713 reference to his sale of ground to Robert Marsh adds another transaction to his documented activity in the upper Chapel Valley area.
The northern and eastern boundaries against Jonathan Doveton's land indicate that Doveton's substantial 50.25-acre 1711 confirmation produced a continuing presence in the area, with his retained ground forming two sides of Marsh's 9-acre leasehold. The configuration places Marsh's parcel as a wedge between Doveton's surrounding holdings on three sides (north, east, and via his own recently purchased ground on the west).
John Coulson on the southern boundary may refer to John Leonard Coulson, son and heir of the late Leonard Coulson, who had received freehold confirmation of 10 acres of gumwood land on 17 April 1711 along with a 2-acre lease. The variant form John Coulson, without the middle name Leonard, may simply reflect scribal brevity rather than a different individual. The same family had appeared in the 23 June 1711 confirmation of Grace Coulson, in the boundary references to Benony Coulson, and in the recurring orphan references to Leonard Coulson's children.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1713 follows the standard institutional commencement of the most recent Lady Day before execution. The pattern matches the dating used in the Gurling lease and the Cason lease of August 1713, distinguishing these from the leases with 1712 commencement.
The witness panel of John Alexander and Samuel Prime is reduced from the three-person panel used on 4 August 1713 (Cason, Francis and Alexander). The change in composition reflects the different sitting context, with the December execution occurring outside the coordinated August working session. John Alexander continues as the register-class witness, while Samuel Prime appears here as a new witness not previously documented in the present series.
The reference to the register book within the body of the lease, in support of the western boundary identification, indicates that the formal register was actively used as a working reference document by 1713. The institutional capacity to incorporate prior register entries by reference, rather than recapitulating their detail within each new instrument, demonstrates the maturity of the documentary regime by the third year of the 1711 framework.
The absence of the senior council quorum at the witnessing stage, with only the register and one additional witness, places the present lease within the reduced quorum pattern applied to ordinary leasehold instruments. The senior witnessing panel (governor, deputy governor, second to fifth in council) was reserved for substantial freehold confirmations and major transactions, with routine leases attested by a smaller working group.
Speculations
The execution of the leasehold on 1 December 1713, four months after the freehold confirmation of 4 August 1713, suggests that Marsh's two 1713 acquisitions reached the documentary stage at different points within the year. The freehold confirmation rested on the 15 January 1713 consultation that supported the broader August 1713 sitting, while the present lease appears to follow a later private purchase from Doveton that required separate institutional regularisation. The temporal separation indicates that the 1711 framework operated as a continuing process throughout the year rather than concentrating documentary business into discrete sittings.
The acquisition of the 9-acre leasehold immediately following the private purchase from Doveton, with the western boundary recital referencing both the recent purchase and the register book for fuller particulars, points to a deliberate sequencing in Marsh's estate building. He first acquired ground from Doveton through a private transaction, then immediately secured an adjoining leasehold from the Company to enlarge the working estate. The institutional process accommodated this two-stage acquisition by recording both elements through separate instruments while maintaining their geographic continuity.
The substantial Doveton presence around the present leasehold (on north, east and through the recent purchase on the west) suggests that Marsh's 1713 land strategy was focused on building up holdings within or adjoining the broader Doveton estate area. The pattern indicates an active working relationship between the two families, with Doveton releasing parcels to Marsh while retaining the substantial bulk of his own 1711 confirmed holdings. The institutional documentation preserves the precise lines of subdivision without disturbing either party's underlying interest.
The reduced witness panel of December 1713, comprising only the register and one additional witness, contrasts sharply with the extensive coordinated session of 4 August 1713 attended by Cason, Francis and Alexander across at least 17 instruments. The institutional flexibility in scaling the witnessing arrangement to the nature of the business, with major coordinated sessions for batch processing and reduced quorums for individual subsequent transactions, illustrates the practical operation of the 1711 framework as a working system capable of handling both concentrated and dispersed documentary requirements.
144
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies
Island St Helena. Know all men by these Presents That I Elizabeth Haswell Widdow Widdow and Relict of Capt[n] George Haswell late of this Island Deputy Govern[o]r deceased For and in consideration of the sume of Four Hundred Eighty Pounds in good and Currant money of the Said Island to me in hand paid at or before the Ensealing and Delivery hereof, by John Alexander of the said Island the receipt whereof I hereby ack- nowledge and my Self therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid and for divers other Good Causes and Considerations me thereunto moveing Have given, granted Bargained Sold and Delivered, and by these P[re]sents Do firmly and Absolutely Give Grant Bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the Said John Alexander his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes all and Singular that Piece or Parcell of Land Containing by Estimation Ten Acres of Land more together with all my Right Title Interest and Claim in and to all and every Part or Parcell of the Said Land Adjoyning thereunto Either Heired by my Deceased Father Thomas Goodwin my Deceased Husband Capt[n] George Haswell my self & the rest of releases walls Fences Rights or Priviledges thereunto belonging or in any wise heretofore Appertaining of what nature kind or Quality Soever as also Be measur[e] House and out House withall the Provisions and Ho[us] [T]hat were or is now Standing approaching and being in Sandy Bay Which was formerly in the P[o]session of George Surdens in Right of his Wife mercy Charges who Sold the Same to the Said Deceased Capt George Haswell, who[s]e for[e] the Said John Alexander and his Heirs for ever is hereby Intitulled to the whole and Entire Estate aforesaid in all and every particular or p[ar]cell thereof and is To have hold Occupie Possess and Quietly Enjoy the Same with out any manner of trouble Mollestation Interruption or Eviction Law Suits or Contrava- sies in or about the P[re]misses by me the Said Elizabeth Haswell my Heirs Executors Administrators or Assignes or from by or under any other Persons or Persons whatsoever by my means consent or Procurement hereby Warranting to Save and Keep Harmless and Indemnifyed the Said John Alexander his Heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes from all Other Claimes and Demands on the Said Estate and to assure the Said premises to be free and Clear from all Incumbrances whatsoever. In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my Hand and Seale this Sixteenth day of May Anno Dom: One Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen.
Signed Sealed and Eliz[abeth] Haswell Delivered in the P[re]sence of M[r] Lacy Jn[o] Long Char[le]s Steward
Elizabeth Haswell to John Alexander, 16 May 1719.
Elizabeth Haswell, widow and relict of the late Captain George Haswell, formerly deputy governor of the island, sold to John Alexander of the island 10 acres of land in Sandy Bay, together with all her right, title, interest and claim in any further part or parcel adjoining the land.
The consideration was £480 0s 0d in good and current island money, paid in hand before the sealing and delivery of the deed.
The land had been inherited or held by three successive parties: her late father Thomas Goodwin, her late husband Captain George Haswell, and herself. The conveyance covered the entire estate including all walls, fences, rights and privileges previously appertaining to the land, together with the house, outhouse, all provisions and any other buildings then standing on the parcel.
The land had formerly been in the possession of George Surdens in right of his wife Mercy Charles, with the surname imperfectly legible in the manuscript. Surdens had sold the same parcel to the late Captain George Haswell, with the chain of title reaching the present sale through the Haswell household.
Haswell conveyed to John Alexander and his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns the entire estate, to hold, occupy, possess and quietly enjoy without molestation, interruption, eviction, suit or controversy from Haswell, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or from any person claiming under her. She warranted to save and keep Alexander and his successors harmless and indemnified against all other claims and demands on the estate, and to ensure the premises were free and clear of all encumbrances.
Elizabeth Haswell set her hand and seal on 16 May 1719. The deed was signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Mr Lacy, John Long and Charles Steward.
Interpretations
The grantor's identification as widow and relict of the late Captain George Haswell, formerly deputy governor, fixes the institutional context of the sale. Captain Haswell had appeared in the present series through the Company lease of 7 May 1717, which leased him 6 acres of gumwood in Sandy Bay for 21 years at the standard rate. The 1717 lease had recorded him as deputy governor and as a holder of 10 acres of free land in Sandy Bay. His death by 16 May 1719 brings his widow forward as the disposer of the family estate.
The remarkable feature of the deed is the identification of Elizabeth Haswell as daughter of Thomas Goodwin, with the parcel inherited from her father before passing through her husband. The connection establishes that Elizabeth was a daughter of the long-prominent Thomas Goodwin who had served as governor by December 1707, marking a previously undocumented branch of the Goodwin family tree. Thomas Goodwin's recorded son John Goodwin had been named in the 1705 Bevean settlement as the eldest son, but his other children had not been individually identified in the earlier records. The present 1719 deed establishes Elizabeth as another of his children who survived to adulthood and married into the Haswell household.
The Thomas Goodwin connection adds substantial context to Haswell's appointment as deputy governor by 1717. The marriage between Goodwin's daughter and Haswell would have positioned Haswell within the island's senior establishment circle, with the Goodwin connection probably contributing to his elevation to the deputy governor's office. The institutional and family ties between the Goodwin and Haswell households extended the established Goodwin pattern of intermarriage with prominent island figures.
The recital of the chain of title traces the parcel through three generations: from Thomas Goodwin to his daughter Elizabeth, and from her into the Haswell household through her marriage. The earlier passage of the parcel from George Surdens to Captain Haswell, with Surdens having held it in right of his wife Mercy Charles, adds a further generational layer to the title. The married woman's interest in right of her husband appears here as a parallel to the in right of his wife formulas noted in the 1682 inquest, where land entered a household through marriage.
The reference to George Surdens (with the surname uncertain) having held the parcel in right of his wife Mercy Charles, with the surname Charles probably reflecting a variant of an earlier name, presents an unresolved identification on the present reading. The combination of Surdens and Charles names does not connect cleanly with any holders previously documented in the present series, though the Paul Charles family of the 1705 Sandy Bay 99-year extension and the William Charles freehold confirmation of 20 July 1711 represent a possible related connection.
The substantial price of £480 0s 0d for the 10 acres in Sandy Bay, together with the house, outhouse, provisions and other buildings, produces a per-acre rate of £48 0s 0d. The figure stands well above the general upland and Sandy Bay rates documented across the present series, reflecting the developed condition of the parcel with substantial buildings, provisions and improvements. The price approaches the highest figures recorded for individual estate transactions in the records, alongside the £500 0s 0d Hoskison composite purchase of 1706 and the £350 0s 0d Lufkin to Company sale.
The buyer John Alexander is the same long-serving register and substantial landholder who had built up his own estate through multiple purchases including the Bidott messuage of 1701, the Grandy 10 acres of 1701, the Elinor Cotgrave 70 acres of 1712, and earlier dealings traced across the records. The acquisition of the substantial Haswell estate in 1719 adds another major parcel to his accumulated holdings, marking him as one of the most active estate-builders in the island establishment.
The save-harmless covenant given by Elizabeth Haswell on her own behalf and through her successors carries the standard institutional indemnity. The breadth of the warranty against all other claims and demands and the assurance of freedom from all encumbrances addresses the institutional concern that the complex three-generation inheritance chain might support latent claims from earlier holders, surviving Goodwin or Haswell heirs, or other interested parties.
The witness panel includes Mr Lacy, John Long and Charles Steward. Mr Lacy introduces a new individual into the present series, identified with the courtesy title Mr indicating respectable standing. John Long had appeared in earlier records through the cross-references to consultation book 15 folio 80 concerning the maintenance of orphan children, and through the Cleve to Greentree boundary reference of 1715. Charles Steward continues his role as witness alongside his earlier substantial documentation as a Sandy Bay holder.
The institutional handling of the deed by a substantial widow disposing of her father's, her husband's, and her own combined estate places Elizabeth Haswell within the pattern of widows who held and disposed of substantial property in their own right. The documentary form gives her direct authority to sell the entire estate without intermediate trustee or guardian, indicating her full legal capacity as a widow holding independent property.
Speculations
The disposal of the entire combined Haswell estate within two years of George Haswell's elevation to deputy governor and only weeks or months before his apparent death suggests the family had reached a transitional moment requiring liquidation of the Sandy Bay holdings. Elizabeth Haswell's decision to sell rather than retain the property may have reflected her intention to leave the island, to consolidate her resources in another location, or to settle obligations arising from her husband's affairs as deputy governor.
The choice of John Alexander as buyer, given his long-established role as register and his existing accumulation of substantial holdings, suggests the institutional and personal connections that made the transaction possible. Alexander's standing within the senior establishment, his access to substantial cash resources, and his existing relationships with both the Goodwin and Haswell households would have positioned him as a natural buyer for a transaction of this scale and complexity. The institutional record of his earlier purchases at substantial prices (the 1712 Elinor Cotgrave 70 acres for £90 0s 0d, the 1712 Lufkin tenement for £170 0s 0d in store credit) confirms his capacity to absorb the present £480 0s 0d transaction.
The previously undocumented connection between Thomas Goodwin and Elizabeth Haswell as father and daughter opens a substantial new line in the Goodwin family record. The Goodwin family's established prominence (Thomas as governor, John as the eldest son, Robert as a holder of Fort James Valley property) is now extended to include Elizabeth as a daughter who married into the deputy governor's household. The pattern reproduces the broader Goodwin strategy of consolidating institutional and family ties through strategic marriages, with the present Haswell connection bringing both the deputy governor's office and the substantial Sandy Bay estate within the wider Goodwin family orbit during George Haswell's lifetime.
The chain of title from George Surdens through Captain Haswell to Elizabeth and now to John Alexander, with each transfer accompanied by substantial development of the parcel through buildings and provisions, illustrates the cumulative investment in working Sandy Bay estates across multiple ownerships. The £48 0s 0d per acre achieved in 1719 reflects the combined value of the underlying ground and the layered improvements added by successive owners, with the present sale realising the full developed value of an estate built up over the working tenures of three or more holders.
145
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Jn[o] Knipe
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto John Knipe Freeholder Four Acres of Gumwood Land Lying Scituate at y[e] Bottom of Pleasant Valley, butting & bounding, towards y[e] East-West- North & South upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land To have and to hold, the aforesaid Four Acres of Land, to him the John Knipe his Executors Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commencing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve Upon Condition. That he y[e] said John Knipe his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall always do, and bear true Truth & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to the said Honourable United Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, and yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four shillings p[er] Acre, besides one Shilling duty being in all Five shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of the said Island, unto the Honourable Company, and their Successors. And That he the said John Knipe his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall and Do at the expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years, Leave y[e] Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will occasion, the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or interest in the same without the consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being. In witness whereof the said Honourable United Company, and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. A. day of August. In the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and the said John Knipe to the other part hath Sett his Hand and Seale. John Knipe
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Company lease to John Knipe, 4 August 1713.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, namely the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John Knipe, freeholder, 4 acres of gumwood land at the bottom of Pleasant Valley.
The parcel was bounded to the east, west, north and south by the Company's waste land.
The lease ran to John Knipe and his executors, administrators and assigns for 21 years from 25 March 1712.
Knipe and his successors were required to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was 5s 0d per annum, made up of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, payable in good and current island money on Lady Day, 25 March.
At the end of the 21-year term he was to leave the fences in as good repair as at the start. The fences served as his legal landmarks and as the basis for the plan annexed to the lease, and were not to be altered. He was not to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council in office at the time.
The Company set its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, and John Knipe set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The instrument was witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The grantee is the same John Knipe who had appeared in the 1687 Rhodes plantation lease as the southern boundary of the 10-acre parcel leased by Elizabeth Rhodes to John Cotgrave at the head of Sharks Valley. His name has not appeared elsewhere in the documented transactions of the present series since that 1687 reference, suggesting either a quiet presence as a continuing holder without further documented dealings or a possible reappearance of the same individual after more than two and a half decades. The 1713 lease establishes him as a freeholder in his own right by 1713, with his confirmed freehold tenure underlying the present leasehold extension.
The location at the bottom of Pleasant Valley introduces a different geographic area from the Sandy Bay, Deep Valley, Lemon Valley, Fryer Valley and Powell's Valley locations that dominated the 4 August 1713 sitting. Pleasant Valley had appeared in earlier records through the 1682 inquest, where Henry Coales was recorded as holding 10 acres there (10 from John Duffield in right of his wife, and 10 from John Hemmons in right of his wife). The present 1713 reference confirms that Pleasant Valley continued to support documented private tenure across the period.
The bounded position of the parcel by Company waste land on all four sides places it as a small island of leasehold within unenclosed Company ground. The configuration matches the pattern noted in several earlier instruments, including the John Roberts personal lease of 1 August 1711, the second parcel of the Gurling lease, the second parcel of the Swallow Deep Valley lease, and the second parcel of the Margaret Sich lease. The recurrence of small isolated leasehold parcels within larger Company holdings indicates a consistent feature of the 1711 framework, with the Company prepared to lease modest enclaves to nearby holders rather than retain them as undocumented waste.
The very modest 4-acre size of the leasehold marks one of the smallest single-parcel leases of the present series, alongside the Walter Belward 6-acre lease of 1711 (later assigned to Robert Bell) and the small enclave parcels included within the multi-parcel leases of Sich, Gurling, Swallow and Steward. The institutional willingness to grant a 21-year lease over just 4 acres reflects the framework's accommodation of small individual holdings within the broader documentary regime.
The dating of the lease term from 25 March 1712 places the present lease within the same administrative subset as the Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree, Allis, Steward and Coles leases of the same day, all of which share the 1712 commencement date. The Knipe lease thus brings the count of same-day leases with 1712 commencement to seven, distinguishing them from the leases with 1713 commencement (Gurling, Cason and Charles). The consistent back-dating of seven leases by an additional year reflects a coordinated administrative decision affecting a significant subset of the August 1713 business.
The combined annual rent on the 4-acre leasehold, at the standard institutional rate of 5s 0d per acre, produces £1 0s 0d per annum under the standard institutional construction. The modest rent fits the small parcel size and represents one of the lower individual leasehold revenue contributions in the framework.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces exactly the panel that attested all the other freehold confirmations and leases of the day, confirming the continuity of the working session throughout 4 August 1713. The Knipe lease may represent another instrument processed in the same coordinated session.
The institutional vesting in Knipe and his executors, administrators and assigns for the 21-year term reproduces the standard lease formula without the variant constructions (such as vesting in named family heirs) noted in the Sich and Greentree leases of the same day. The simpler formula indicates that the Knipe holding did not require accommodation of complex inheritance arrangements at the moment of the present lease.
The bounded position of the parcel against Company waste on all four sides, in contrast to the boundary configurations of most other leases recording adjoining holdings of named neighbours, suggests that Pleasant Valley remained a more sparsely documented area than Sandy Bay or Deep Valley in 1713. The absence of named boundary holders may reflect either the smaller scale of cultivated tenure in the valley or a different administrative approach to Pleasant Valley parcels under the 1711 framework.
Speculations
The reappearance of the Knipe name in the documentary record more than 26 years after the 1687 Rhodes plantation lease reference, with no intermediate documented transactions, raises questions about the continuity of John Knipe's tenure. The most probable reading is that the same individual continued to hold ground at the head of Sharks Valley and elsewhere across the period 1687 to 1713, with his interests rising to formal documentation only when his 1712 to 1713 leasehold acquisition required institutional regularisation. The pattern would be consistent with quieter holders whose private occupation did not generate documented transactions but whose tenure persisted across the framework's reach.
An alternative reading is that the present John Knipe represents a son or namesake of the earlier 1687 holder, with the original John Knipe having died in the intervening period and the family interest having descended through inheritance to a younger John Knipe. The documentary record provides no internal evidence to distinguish between the two readings, but the substantial time gap (26 years) and the absence of any later reference to the elder Knipe support the inheritance reading as more probable.
The choice of a 4-acre leasehold at the bottom of Pleasant Valley, surrounded entirely by Company waste, indicates that Knipe was extending his working capacity into a small but discrete parcel of cultivable ground within an otherwise uncultivated area. The institutional willingness to grant such a small parcel for a 21-year term reflects the Company's broader policy of bringing isolated pockets of cultivable ground into formal tenure rather than leaving them unallocated. The arrangement allowed Knipe to develop the parcel under documented protection while generating modest annual rent for the Company.
The matching 25 March 1712 commencement date across the seven coordinated same-day leases (Morris, Orlando Bagley, Greentree, Allis, Steward, Coles and the present Knipe) suggests a substantial group of holders whose 1711 framework regularisation was tied to a coordinated administrative determination from 1712. The consistent back-dating across these seven leases produces a documentary cohort with shared administrative origins, perhaps reflecting consultations or surveys undertaken in the winter of 1712 that supported the formal documentary regularisation in August 1713.
146
Island St Hellena Jn[o] Bagley Deed from y[e] Comp[a]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies.
Do hereby Confirm unto John Bagley Freeholder Thirty Six Acres of Cabbagetree Land Buting and Bounding towards the North and East upon the Land of Gabriel Powell freehold[er], Towards the South upon the Lands of Charles Steward, and Three Acres of Land which y[e] said Bagley Hires of the Honourable Company, and towards the West upon the Land of Henry Francis and Francis Wrangham freeholders, which Thirty Six Acres of Land, he the said Jn[o] Bagley hath a Just right and Title too, As may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Fifteenth & A. day of January, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any person to make their Claim on a certain day therein Lim[m]itted, But none appearing in any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said John Bagley his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said John Bagley his Heires and Assignes Do bear always true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady the Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof The said Honourable Company to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island, this Fourth & A. & A. day of August. A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to John Bagley.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Bagley, freeholder, 36 acres of cabbage tree land. The parcel was bounded north and east by Gabriel Powell freeholder's land, south by Charles Steward's land and by 3 acres hired by Bagley from the Company, and west by the land of Henry Francis and Francis Wrangham, both freeholders. Bagley's title to the 36 acres rested on a consultation of 15 January 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Bagley, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The deed regularised an existing occupation under the new documentary regime brought in by the 6 April 1711 consultation. Bagley already held the land in practice, and the confirmation converted working possession into recorded freehold within the framework of the new register book.
Beat of drum public notice operated as the standard claim procedure. Silence on the appointed day extinguished any competing interest, with the burden placed on rival claimants to come forward rather than on the holder to prove his title against the world. The mechanism allowed the Company to clear questionable titles cheaply and quickly.
The 3 acres of hired land lying within Bagley's southern boundary, alongside Charles Steward's freehold, illustrate the layered tenure operating around each substantial holder: freehold confirmed under the 1711 framework, leasehold from the Company, and adjoining freeholders' ground all interlocked within one boundary description.
The allegiance condition bound heirs and assigns as well as the original grantee, making the freehold conditional on continuing loyalty across generations. The Company retained a reversionary lever against political or administrative breach, even where the grant otherwise gave perpetual ownership.
The boundary description placed Bagley within the western Chapel Valley cluster of Henry Francis, Francis Wrangham, Gabriel Powell and Charles Steward, all of whom appear repeatedly across the 1711 to 1713 confirmations as part of the literate circle of substantial holders whose estates were regularised together.
The cabbage tree classification fixed the land at the upper, wetter elevation where cabbage trees grew, distinguishing it from gumwood ground lower down. The classification carried administrative weight because rental and conservation obligations differed between the two categories.
Witness Thomas Cason, lieutenant by 4 August 1713, attended at least 16 instruments processed on this day, indicating a single major sitting clearing a large block of confirmations in unbroken session. The reduced witness panel of Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander, without the full council quorum, suggests this was treated as routine rather than as a major ceremonial confirmation.
The consultation date of 15 January 1713 falls in old calendar reckoning before 25 March, so the modern equivalent is January 1714. The seven-month gap between consultation and formal confirmation reflects the administrative timetable rather than any dispute, with the beat of drum interval and the assembling of the sitting accounting for the delay.
Speculations
The same-day witnessing by Henry Francis, whose own confirmed land formed Bagley's western boundary, served a quiet practical purpose. Boundary disputes between adjoining freeholders were the most common source of later litigation, and Francis's presence as a witness on Bagley's deed silently affirmed his acceptance of the boundary line as drawn. The arrangement let the council settle two interlocking titles by having each freeholder attest the other's deed within the same sitting, reducing the risk of future contest at minimal administrative cost.
147
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Jn[o] Bagley
The Lords Proprietors, of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies. Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto John Bagley Freeholder, Three Acres of Cabbagetree Land, Butting and bounding towards the North and East upon the said John Bagleys own Land, towards the South upon the Lands of Charles Steward, and upon the West upon the Land of Thomas Riders Children. To have and to hold The aforesaid Three Acres of Cabbage Tree Land to him the said John Bagley his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition. That he the said John Bagley his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always do and bear true, faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable United Company and their Successors and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annuntiation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent of Four Shillings per Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good and Lawfull money of the said Island, To the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said John Bagley his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years Leave the Fences abou[t] the said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the time being. In witness, whereof the said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley, this Fourth & A. day of August A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And y[e] said John Bagley to the other part hath sett his Hand and Seale. John Bagley
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] presence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to John Bagley.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John Bagley, freeholder, 3 acres of cabbage tree land. The parcel was bounded north and east by Bagley's own land, south by Charles Steward's land, and west by Thomas Rider's children's land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Bagley, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Bagley and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Bagley was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Bagley signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the same-day freehold confirmation to give Bagley a composite working estate of 39 acres of cabbage tree land, with the 3 leased acres tucked into the corner formed by his own freehold to the north and east. The same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging recurs across the major 4 August 1713 sitting and represents a standard institutional pattern: confirm the core holding as freehold, then extend the working area through adjoining leasehold on Company ground.
The fences served a dual function as physical boundary and legal landmark. The lease made the lessee responsible for keeping them up not as a matter of good husbandry but because their alteration would invalidate the annexed plan. The clause converted fence maintenance into a documentary obligation, with the plan operating as the authoritative record of the leased ground.
The disposal restriction marked a substantial departure from the earlier freely transferable 99-year leases of the 1690s and early 1700s. Under the 1711 framework, the lessee held a personal interest that could not move to a new occupier without council approval. The Company regained active control over who occupied its ground, blocking the open market in leasehold interests that had previously operated through private assignment.
The rent structure of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty became the standard rate across the 1711 to 1713 leases. The duty component, charged at a flat rate rather than per acre, functioned as a fixed administrative levy distinct from the rental return on the land itself, perhaps covering the cost of the register, the surveys and the institutional apparatus around the new tenure.
Lady Day as the rent day aligned the island's tenure calendar with the metropolitan English quarter day system. The choice integrated the island's administrative rhythm with the wider Company financial year and made it easier to consolidate accounts between St Helena and London.
The lease's western boundary references Thomas Rider's children rather than Thomas Rider himself, recording the recent death of James Reder (variant Rider) the elder and the family's tenure as orphan holders. The same orphan-holding pattern recurs across the 4 August 1713 sitting and reflects the high adult mortality visible throughout the records.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander, the same group as on Bagley's freehold confirmation of the same day, indicates routine lease procedure rather than ceremonial sealing. The full council quorum was reserved for substantial freehold confirmations, with leases dispatched by a smaller working panel.
Speculations
The 3-acre parcel was perhaps deliberately small because it represented a particular working unit within Bagley's larger estate rather than an independent holding. Its position wedged into the north-east corner of his freehold, with two of its four sides formed by his own land, suggests it was a piece of Company ground that had always been worked together with the freehold as a single agricultural unit. The 1711 framework regularised the existing working arrangement by issuing a formal lease covering ground already in practical occupation, rather than allocating fresh land. The same-day freehold confirmation and lease accordingly recorded one working estate in two legal categories, matching the administrative form to the existing ground reality.
148
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Josh[ua] Johnson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies. Do hereby Confirm Unto Joshua Johnson, Freeholder Fourteen Acres of Land Scituate under the Kings Peak next to Sandy Bay, butting and bounding towards the North upon Twenty Eight Acres that the said Joshua Johnson Hires of the Honourable Company, towards the East South and West upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, Which said Fourteen Acres of Land, He the aforesaid Joshua Johnson Hath, a Just Right and Title too, as may appear more fully Upon examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen And Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claime on a certain day therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Joshua Johnson, his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition. That he the said Joshua Johnson his Heires and Assignes Do and shall always bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honour[able] Company and their Successors, And shall Duly obey all y[e] Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island, this Fourth & A. day of August. in the year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Joshua Johnson.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Joshua Johnson, freeholder, 14 acres of land under the King's Peak next to Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north by 28 acres that Johnson hired from the Company, and east, south and west by the Company's waste land. Johnson's title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Johnson, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The parcel sat as a freehold core ringed on three sides by Company waste and on the fourth by Johnson's own 28 acres of hired Company ground. The configuration gave Johnson a combined working estate of 42 acres at the head of Sandy Bay under the King's Peak, with the freehold acting as the secure base and the leasehold extending the productive area into ground that remained under Company supervision.
The absence of any named adjoining freeholder is unusual within the 4 August 1713 sitting and marks Johnson's holding as a frontier position. Most confirmations on the same day record at least two neighbouring freeholders, reflecting the dense interlocking pattern of consolidated estates around Chapel Valley, Fryer Valley and the main ridge. Johnson's isolation under the King's Peak indicates a holding on the outer edge of regularised settlement, with Company waste still surrounding him at the time of confirmation.
The boundary description places Johnson under the King's Peak, the highest topographical marker on the island. The peak's name carried both royal and military weight, fixing the parcel within the institutional landscape rather than purely by reference to neighbouring holders.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the reduced quorum used across the 4 August 1713 sitting for confirmations and leases of routine character. Cason in particular attended at least 16 instruments processed on this day, indicating an unbroken administrative session clearing a large block of titles.
The hired 28 acres are not separately documented in the present deed, which means they continued under existing terms outside the 1711 to 1713 framework or were dealt with under a separate instrument. The reference to them within the freehold confirmation served the practical purpose of fixing the northern boundary, not of regularising the leasehold itself.
The consultation date of 3 February 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, demonstrates the standard administrative interval of six months between the consultation determining the title and the formal sealing of the deed. The interval allowed for the beat of drum notice, the production of the plan and the assembling of the witness panel.
Speculations
The freehold confirmation of only 14 acres against the 28 acres held by lease suggests Johnson had a particular reason for converting just half his working estate into perpetual ownership. He perhaps lacked the capital or institutional standing to apply for confirmation of the full block, or the leased portion was Company ground that the council was unwilling to release into freehold while it remained on the outer margin of settlement. Either way, the asymmetry reveals the council exercising selective control over which parts of an existing occupation became permanent and which remained subject to the rental and disposal restrictions of the 1711 framework. The mechanism let the Company secure long-term residents in the more remote parts of the island while retaining institutional supervision over the bulk of the ground they actually worked.
149
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Josh[ua] Johnson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Joshua Johnson, Freeholder, Twenty Eight Acres of Land, Scituate Lying & being under the High Peak next to Sandy Bay, Butting towards the North and East upon the Land of James Riverose, and towards the South and West upon the said Joshua Johnsons own, Fourteen Acres of Land. To have and to hold the said Twenty Eight Acres of Land to him the said Joshua Johnson, his Executors Administrat[ors] and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve, Upon Condition That he the said Joshua Johnson his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always do and bear true faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company, and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 23 day of March) The Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre, besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors. And that he the said Joshua Johnson his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall and Do at the expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Confines consent of the Governour & Coun[c]ell for the time being. In witness whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Joshua Johnson to the other p[a]rt hath Sett his Hand and Seale. Joshua Johnson
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Joshua Johnson.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Joshua Johnson, freeholder, 28 acres of land under the High Peak next to Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north and east by James Riverose's land, and south and west by Johnson's own 14 acres of freehold. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Johnson, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Johnson and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Johnson was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Johnson signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging pattern that recurs across the 4 August 1713 sitting. Johnson's 14 acres of confirmed freehold and 28 acres of leasehold formed a single working estate of 42 acres under the High Peak, with the leased ground extending the freehold core into adjoining Company territory. The earlier freehold deed referenced the King's Peak while the lease named the High Peak, both terms describing the same dominant topographical feature above Sandy Bay.
The leased parcel was twice the size of the freehold core, reversing the more usual weighting of confirmed freehold over leasehold seen elsewhere in the 1711 to 1713 framework. The configuration shows the Company permitting substantial productive use of its waste land under a fixed-term regime while limiting the perpetual grant to a smaller secure base. The structure kept the majority of Johnson's working ground under institutional supervision through the disposal restriction and the rent obligation.
The northern and eastern boundary with James Riverose provides the only adjoining freeholder named across either of Johnson's two same-day instruments. Riverose may be a variant rendering of James Rider (Reder), whose family appears repeatedly across the 4 August 1713 sitting, perhaps reflecting a scribal divergence on a single day rather than a separate individual.
The rent date in the body of the lease is given as 23 March, which conflicts with the standard Lady Day of 25 March specified elsewhere in the same instrument. The discrepancy is a scribal slip in a clause that the council clearly intended to align with the metropolitan quarter day rhythm, since Lady Day fixed the rent calendar across every other lease processed in the same sitting.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control under the 1711 framework. Johnson held a personal interest that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, blocking the open market in leasehold interests that had previously operated through private assignment. The Company retained active supervisory control over who worked the ground.
The fence maintenance obligation operated as a documentary requirement rather than a purely practical one. The fences served as the landmarks tying the lessee's occupation to the annexed plan, and their alteration would invalidate the cartographic record. The lessee accordingly bore responsibility for preserving the boundary as drawn, with the plan acting as the authoritative reference.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches every other instrument processed at the 4 August 1713 sitting and confirms the routine character of the lease procedure. The session cleared a large block of confirmations and leases in a single working day, with the reduced quorum sufficient for ordinary leasehold instruments.
Speculations
The asymmetric ratio of 28 leased acres to 14 freehold suggests Johnson was perhaps in the early phase of consolidating his estate. A long-established holder typically had a freehold core matching or exceeding the leasehold extension, since the 1711 framework operated to regularise existing occupation rather than to allocate fresh ground. Johnson's weighting toward leasehold instead points to a working estate built up principally through Company tenancy, with only a smaller portion having ripened into perpetual title by 1713. The pattern would fit a holder who had recently moved into the King's Peak ground and whose claim to the larger leased portion still rested on rental tenure rather than the longer historical possession that elsewhere supported substantial freehold confirmation.
150
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Eliz[abeth] Johnson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[ant]s of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto Elizabeth Johnson Widow & Freeholder, Fifty Acres of Land, Scituate in Broad Bottom, butting and bounding towards the North East and South upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, and upon the West upon Five Acres of Land She the said, Elizabeth Johnson Hires of the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] And Hath a Just Right and Title thereto as may more plainly and fully appear, Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any person to make their Claims on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to her the said Elizabeth Johnson, and the Heires of her deceased Husband Joshua Johnson, his hers or their Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That she the said Elizabeth Johnson, and the Heires of her before named decea[se]d Husband, and every of hers his or their Heires and Assignes, shall and Do always bear true, faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne Her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents Have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. A. A. day of August. In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Elizabeth Johnson.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Elizabeth Johnson, widow and freeholder, 50 acres of land in Broad Bottom. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by the Company's waste land, and west by 5 acres that Elizabeth Johnson hired from the Company. Her title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Elizabeth Johnson and the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua Johnson, and their respective heirs and assigns, were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The vesting clause is unusual within the 1711 to 1713 framework. The freehold was confirmed not in Elizabeth alone but in her jointly with the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua Johnson, with the inheritance running through both routes. The structure protected the widow's life interest while preserving the underlying claim of the children or other heirs of the first marriage. The Company secured a perpetual freeholder without displacing the family settlement that the late husband's death had set in motion.
The deceased Joshua Johnson named here is distinct from the Joshua Johnson confirmed and leased the same day under the King's Peak. The presence of two Joshua Johnsons in concurrent records, one living and active in Sandy Bay under the High Peak, the other deceased and survived by Elizabeth at Broad Bottom, points to either a father-son succession or two unrelated holders of the same name working different parts of the island.
Elizabeth Johnson, widow of Joshua Johnson, may be the same Mrs Elizabeth Johnson who bought 20 acres in Lemon Valley from John Greentree on 27 April 1698 for £20 0s 0d in store credit, with the parcel adjoining her existing Great Bottom estate. Broad Bottom and Great Bottom probably describe the same area under variant spellings, in which case the 1713 confirmation regularised an estate she had been building up across at least 15 years. Witnesses to the 1698 purchase included John Goodwin, Richard Harding, F. Gargan and F. Faltenald, placing her within the wider literate circle of free planters.
The parcel of 50 acres is among the larger individual confirmations processed on 4 August 1713 and indicates a substantial established holding rather than a frontier allocation. Its position ringed on three sides by Company waste shows the estate sat on the outer margin of regularised settlement at Broad Bottom, with no adjoining freeholders named.
The 5 acres of hired land on the western boundary represented a leasehold extension that operated outside the present deed. No same-day lease was issued for the 5 acres, suggesting they continued under earlier arrangements or were dealt with separately. The reference within the freehold confirmation served only to fix the western boundary, not to regularise the leasehold itself.
The widow's status as freeholder in her own right, named first in the vesting clause and ahead of the heirs of her late husband, recognised her independent capacity to hold land. The pattern matches other widows whose tenure the 1711 framework regularised, including Grace Coulson, Margaret Sich, Margaret Bagley and Elinor Cotgrave.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches every other instrument processed at the 4 August 1713 sitting, confirming the routine character of the procedure within an unbroken administrative day.
Speculations
The double vesting in Elizabeth and the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua perhaps reflected a particular family settlement reached at or shortly after Joshua's death. The clause anticipated that the estate would pass to children of the marriage rather than to Elizabeth's own line by any subsequent remarriage, while still giving her the working possession during her lifetime. The arrangement protected the children's reversionary interest against a future stepfather, by binding the title to the husband's heirs rather than to Elizabeth absolutely. The Company's willingness to record the freehold in this form indicates the council recognised and respected family settlements made privately, regularising them within the new tenure framework without forcing a single-named freeholder where the underlying agreement required something more layered.
151
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Eliz[abeth] Johnson
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett Sett unto Elizabeth Johnson Widow and Freeholder, Five Acres of Land Scituate Lying and being in Broad Bottom, below the High Peak, Butting and Bounding towards the North-East and West upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, and Towards the South upon her own Fifty Acres of Land. To have and to hold The said Five Acres of Land to her the said Elizabeth Johnson, and the Heires of her deceased Husband, Joshua Johnson their Execut[ors] Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years commenc[e]ing from the Twenty Fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition That they and every of them their, Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors. And to the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said. And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant of the said Island, unto the said Honour[able] Company, and their Successors. And that she the said Elizabeth Johnson, her Heires & Executors and Administrators, shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years leave the Fences about the said Land in as good Repaire as they are now, And not, to alter the said Fences which are the Land mark[s], and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without & Consent of Governour and Councill for the time being In witness whereof, the said Honour[able] United Company, and Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. & A. day of August. A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Elizabeth Johnson to the other p[ar]t hath sett her Hand and Seale. Elizabeth Johnson
Sealed and Delivered In the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Elizabeth Johnson.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Elizabeth Johnson, widow and freeholder, 5 acres of land in Broad Bottom below the High Peak. The parcel was bounded north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by her own 50 acres of freehold. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Elizabeth and the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua Johnson, their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound them to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Elizabeth was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. She was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Elizabeth Johnson signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Elizabeth Johnson's Broad Bottom estate, giving her a combined working holding of 55 acres below the High Peak. The leased 5 acres tucked into the north-west corner of her freehold, with three sides bordered by Company waste and the fourth by her own 50 acres, formed a small productive extension to the secure freehold core.
The vesting clause continued the unusual double-route arrangement seen in the same-day freehold confirmation. The lease ran to Elizabeth and the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua Johnson rather than to Elizabeth alone, preserving the children's reversionary interest across the leasehold as well as the freehold. The Company recognised the family settlement in both instruments, producing a consistent legal structure across the entire 55-acre estate.
The disclosure restriction operated on Elizabeth alone in the latter part of the lease, with the obligation to leave the fences in repair and not to dispose of the lease bound on her, her heirs, executors and administrators, rather than on the joint vesting party. The shift from the double-route vesting in the granting clause to the single-route obligation in the operative clauses indicates the council distinguished between the underlying inheritance structure and the day-to-day administrative responsibility, with Elizabeth carrying the immediate working duties.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis, without John Alexander, represents a reduction even from the standard three-name quorum used across the rest of the 4 August 1713 sitting. The reduced panel marks this as the most routine instrument processed in the session, the leasehold extension to an already-confirmed freeholder requiring less formal weight than the freehold confirmations themselves.
The location below the High Peak places Elizabeth's estate in the same broad area as the Joshua Johnson confirmed and leased earlier the same day under the King's Peak (or High Peak) above Sandy Bay. The shared topographical reference perhaps indicates the two Johnson holdings sat on different sides of the same ridge, supporting either a kinship connection between the living Joshua Johnson and the deceased husband of Elizabeth or a coincidence of name within an adjacent landscape.
The Lady Day rent date aligns with metropolitan practice and matches every other lease processed in the same sitting. The integration of the island's tenure calendar with the English quarter day system continued to operate as a structural feature of the 1711 framework.
The Broad Bottom estate, with no named adjoining freeholders across either of Elizabeth's two same-day instruments, sat on the outer margin of regularised settlement. The absence of neighbouring holders distinguishes Broad Bottom from the densely interlocking estates of Chapel Valley and Fryer Valley confirmed in the same session, and points to a more isolated working position on the southern or western edge of the island.
Speculations
The reduced witness panel of only Cason and Francis, without Alexander as register, perhaps reflects practical exhaustion at the close of an unbroken administrative day. The 4 August 1713 sitting processed at least 17 documented instruments in single session, and the absence of the register from the final lease suggests Alexander may have already withdrawn while Cason and Francis completed the closing formalities. The procedural irregularity, set against the otherwise consistent witnessing across the rest of the sitting, points to the lease being among the last items dispatched and being treated as a routine extension that could be sealed without the full witnessing complement that the earlier confirmations had received.
152
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Wranghams Orphans
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United y[e] Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto the Orphans of Samuel Wrangham (deceased) Ten Acres of Land Scituate in Peak Gut, butting and bounding towards the North to the high Peak, towards the East upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, towards the South upon Nine Acres of Land hired by Francis Wrangham, and towards the West upon the Land of Gov[erno]r Keelings Heires Which said Ten Acres of Land they the said Samuel Wranghams Orphans hath a Just Right and Title too. As may more fully appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third A. day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their claim on a day certain therein Limmitted but none appearing or any Objection. To have and to hold The said premises to them they and every of them, the before named Samuel Wranghams Orphans, their Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition: That they the said Samuel Wranghams Orphans their & every of their, Heires and Assignes Do and shall Always bear true, Truth and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors. And to the said Honour[able] Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to the p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island St Helena.
Know all men by these p[re]sents that I Lucas Mason in right of my wife formerly the Wid[ow] Elizabeth Wrangham Do hereby Assigne Sett & make over unto my Brother in Law Jo[hn?] Wrangham of the said Island the within deed and all & Singular the within Mentioned Ten Acres of with all other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging of any Nature whatsoever, to do and to Dispose of at his and his Heirs will & pleasure And do for ever quitt mine and my Heirs right and Title in and to all and every the within named premises or any part thereof, having received full Satisfaction for the same, In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seal this 29[th] day of Jan[uar]y 1718. Lucas Mason
Sign[d] Sea[le]d & Delivered In the p[re]sence of Matthew Bazett John Goodwin Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Wrangham's orphans.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the orphans of the deceased Samuel Wrangham 10 acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded north by the High Peak, east by the Company's waste land, south by 9 acres hired by Francis Wrangham, and west by the land of Governor Keeling's heirs. The orphans' title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. The orphans, their heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
A subsequent endorsement on 29 January 1718 recorded an assignment. Lucas Mason, acting in right of his wife formerly the widow Elizabeth Wrangham, assigned the deed and the 10 acres, with all appurtenances, to his brother-in-law Jo[hn] Wrangham of the island, to dispose of as he and his heirs pleased. Mason quit-claimed any right or title held by him or his heirs in the parcel, having received full satisfaction. Witnessed by Matthew Bazett, John Goodwin and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The freehold was confirmed directly in the orphans of Samuel Wrangham collectively, without naming individuals and without intermediate trustee. The direct vesting in children's names follows the same pattern seen in the 4 August 1713 confirmation of the Maxwell orphans and indicates the Wrangham children had progressed sufficiently in age to hold property in their own right. The joint and several form preserved flexibility for later partition while protecting the holding against external claims during their minority or early adulthood.
The boundary description records three distinct categories of adjoining tenure within a single parcel. The northern boundary against the High Peak is purely topographical, the eastern against Company waste records unallocated ground, the southern against Francis Wrangham's hired 9 acres records active Company leasehold to a related family member, and the western against Governor Keeling's heirs records inherited freehold from a former governor. The diversity reflects the institutional complexity of land tenure on the island by 1713.
Francis Wrangham's hired 9 acres on the southern boundary places him as the active working occupier of Company ground immediately adjoining the orphans' inherited freehold. The configuration suggests Francis was managing the family's combined holdings in Peak Gut on behalf of the wider Wrangham line, with the orphans' freehold and his own leasehold operating as a single working estate. The arrangement is consistent with the earlier records of Francis Wrangham as a substantial freeholder elsewhere on the island and as a recurring boundary holder across the 1711 to 1713 sitting.
Governor Keeling's heirs continued to hold land in Peak Gut more than two decades after the governor's death, demonstrating the persistence of inherited estates across changes of personnel within the Company administration. The Keeling family's continuing presence in the boundary descriptions of the 1711 to 1713 confirmations marks the parcel's identity in working memory by reference to its former senior occupant.
The 29 January 1718 assignment records a tangled family settlement. Lucas Mason held the deed in right of his wife, who was formerly the widow Elizabeth Wrangham. Elizabeth had married into the Wrangham family by an earlier marriage, possibly to Samuel Wrangham himself (in which case she was the mother of the orphans), and after his death married Lucas Mason. The assignment to her brother-in-law Jo[hn] Wrangham routed the parcel back into the Wrangham line, preventing the holding from passing out of the family through the second marriage.
The recital of full satisfaction received indicates the assignment was for value rather than as a pure gift, with Mason paid out for the family's interest. The structure converted a complicated cross-marriage claim into a clean transfer back to the Wrangham line, with the family paying off the stepfather to clear the title.
The 1718 witness panel of Matthew Bazett, John Goodwin and John Alexander represents the literate circle of the post-1714 administration. Bazett had risen to fourth in council by 1713, John Alexander continued as register or witness across decades, and John Goodwin appears as an active freeholder by 1715 with his sale of 4 acres to James Greentree. The panel marks the assignment as a substantial family settlement worthy of senior witnessing rather than a routine endorsement.
Speculations
The 29 January 1718 assignment was perhaps timed to coincide with John Wrangham's coming of age or with a particular family settlement that the orphans had reached among themselves. The original 1713 confirmation in the orphans collectively had created a working interest divided across an unspecified number of children, and the routing of the entire parcel to Jo[hn] Wrangham through Lucas Mason suggests the family had agreed by 1718 that John would consolidate the holding in his single name. The mechanism converted a fragmented joint inheritance into a unified estate without requiring formal partition between siblings, with Mason's quit-claim representing the buying-out of competing interests by John or by the family on his behalf. The arrangement preserved the Wrangham name on the land while resolving the practical difficulty of multiple young claimants holding indivisible ground.
153
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Wrangham[s] Orphans
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East India Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto the Orphans of Samuel Wrangham Deceased Two Acres of Land Scituate Lying and being in Peak Gutt buting towards the North-East and South upon the Honourable Companys Land and towards the West, upon the said Orphans own Ten Acres of Land. To have and to hold the aforesaid Two Acres of Land. to them the said Samuel Wranghams Orphans their and every of their, Executors Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March One A. Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition That they the said Orphans their Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors. And to the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the said. And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Comp[a] and their Successors. And that they the said Orphans their Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years, Leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the said Fences which are the land marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being In witness whereof the said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors, to these p[re]sents have Sett there Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley, this Fourth day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred Thirteen, And they the said Orphans to the other p[ar]t have sett their Hands and Seales. Elizabeth Wrangham
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island St Helena. Know all men by these P[re]sents that I Lucas Mason in right of my wife formerly by the name of Elizabeth Wrangham, Do hereby Assigne and make over un- to my Brother in Law Francis Wrangham and his Heirs, all my right Title or Interest in and to the within Mentioned Two Acres of Land for an[d] During the full time and Term of this Lease, having rec[eive]d full Satisfaction for the Same Witness my hand & Seale this 29 day of Jan[uar]y A[nn]o Dom[ini] 1718.
Sign[d] Sealed & Delivered Lucas Mason in p[re]sence of Matthew Bazett Joh[n] Goodwin Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Wrangham's orphans.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to the orphans of the deceased Samuel Wrangham 2 acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by the Company's land, and west by the orphans' own 10 acres of freehold. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with the orphans, their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound the orphans and their successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, they were to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. The orphans were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or their interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The orphans signed and sealed the counterpart through Elizabeth Wrangham. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
A subsequent endorsement on 29 January 1718 recorded an assignment. Lucas Mason, acting in right of his wife formerly known by the name of Elizabeth Wrangham, assigned to his brother-in-law Francis Wrangham and his heirs all his right, title or interest in the 2 acres for the full remaining term of the lease, having received full satisfaction. Witnessed by Matthew Bazett, John Goodwin and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the same-day freehold confirmation to give the Wrangham orphans a combined working estate of 12 acres in Peak Gut, with the 2 leased acres lying immediately east of their 10-acre freehold. The same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging extends to orphan holders as well as to adult freeholders, demonstrating that the 1711 framework treated children's estates within the same institutional procedure as those of their fathers.
The execution of the counterpart through Elizabeth Wrangham reveals her as the working representative of the orphan group. Elizabeth was perhaps the eldest of the orphans, signing on behalf of her siblings, rather than the widow of Samuel Wrangham. The signature places her as an active party in the family's affairs even before her later marriage to Lucas Mason. Her position as signatory in 1713 and later wife of Mason by 1718 indicates she was an adult or near-adult at the time of the original lease.
The 29 January 1718 endorsement reveals the parties to the 1713 instrument more clearly than the original lease did. The Elizabeth Wrangham who signed in 1713 was the same Elizabeth who later married Lucas Mason, and the assignment routed her interest to her brother-in-law Francis Wrangham. The relationships were therefore: Samuel Wrangham (deceased, the original holder), Elizabeth Wrangham (his daughter and one of the orphans), Lucas Mason (her later husband), and Francis Wrangham (Elizabeth's brother and accordingly Mason's brother-in-law).
The simultaneous routing of the freehold to Jo[hn] Wrangham and the leasehold to Francis Wrangham on 29 January 1718 indicates a deliberate family division of the combined estate. The two parcels, which had operated as a single working unit between 1713 and 1718, were separated through the assignment with the freehold core going to John and the leasehold extension going to Francis. The structure preserved the Wrangham name on both portions while distributing the holding between two brothers.
The relationship of Francis Wrangham to the orphans clarifies a recurring pattern in the 1713 confirmations. The freehold deed described the southern boundary as 9 acres hired by Francis Wrangham, who appears here as the elder brother of the orphans rather than as their guardian or trustee. The configuration shows a single sibling line dispersed across freehold inheritance from their father Samuel, leasehold of adjoining Company ground in Francis's own name, and the related Wrangham line of the earlier records, perhaps including the Francis Wrangham who married into the Edward Edmunds family through Henry Francis.
The 1713 witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches every other instrument processed in the major sitting and confirms the routine character of the lease procedure for orphan holders. The Company processed children's estates under the same institutional apparatus as adult freeholders, with no special accommodation beyond the joint and several vesting form.
The 1718 witness panel of Matthew Bazett, John Goodwin and John Alexander matches the panel attesting the same-day freehold assignment to Jo[hn] Wrangham, indicating that both transactions were dispatched together in a single sitting on 29 January 1718. The coordinated assignment of freehold and leasehold confirms the deliberate family settlement reorganising the Wrangham estate as a unified administrative event.
Speculations
The 29 January 1718 division of freehold to John Wrangham and leasehold to Francis Wrangham was perhaps designed to match the differing legal character of the two interests. The freehold represented secure perpetual ownership and required a single named holder capable of carrying the family name forward across generations, which fitted John as one named brother. The leasehold, with its 21-year term and disposal restriction, represented a working asset more readily separated from the family's core inheritance. Francis, who already held adjoining Company ground in his own name as a lessee, was the natural recipient of the additional 2 leased acres because they extended a tenancy he was already managing. The division converted an awkward joint orphan holding into two clean separate tenures aligned to the underlying tenure type, with each brother taking the portion better suited to his existing position on the ground.
154
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Ja[me]s Greentree
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto James Greentree Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Land formerly Gabriell Powells Scituate in Sandy Bay Butting & Bounding towards y[e] North & East upon Twenty five Acres of Land y[e] said Greentree Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]. Towards y[e] South upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land, and toward y[e] West upon y[e] Land of Joshua Johnson Freeholder, ALSO Twenty Acres of Land more, Scituate in y[e] said Sandy Bay, Ten Acres whereof purchased of John Goodwin dec[ease]d, and y[e] other Ten Acres of Edward Mashborne, butting toward y[e] North to y[e] Main Ridge, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of John Cole Freeholder, and towards y[e] South & West upon y[e] Land of Robert Adles Freeholder Likewise Twenty Acres of Land more, p[ur]chased of y[e] aforesaid Edward Mashborne & formerly y[e] Beforen[amed] named John Goodwins dec[ease]d, buteing towards y[e] North-East & West upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] Wast Land, and towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Elizabeth Johnson, and y[e] Heires of her deceased Husband, Joshua Johnson, being Three p[ar]cells of Land & in y[e] whole containes Sixty Acres Which he y[e] said James Greentree hath a Just right and Title too, as may more largely appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. A. day of March, A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a day certaine therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to him y[e] said James Greentree his Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That the said James Greentree his Heires and Assignes, Do and shall always Bear true, faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]. and their Successors And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island. In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island this Fourth A. A. A. day of August A. in y[e] Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to James Greentree.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to James Greentree, freeholder, three parcels of land in Sandy Bay totalling 60 acres.
The first parcel of 20 acres, formerly Gabriel Powell's, was bounded north and east by 25 acres that Greentree hired from the Company, south by the Company's waste land, and west by Joshua Johnson's freehold.
The second parcel of 20 acres, half purchased from the deceased John Goodwin and half from Edward Mashborne, was bounded north by the Main Ridge, east by John Cole's freehold, and south and west by Robert Adles's freehold.
The third parcel of 20 acres, purchased from Edward Mashborne and formerly the deceased John Goodwin's, was bounded north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by Elizabeth Johnson and the heirs of her deceased husband Joshua Johnson.
Greentree's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Greentree, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 60-acre confirmation marks James Greentree as one of the most substantial freeholders to receive a same-day grant in the major 4 August 1713 sitting. The three parcels, all in Sandy Bay, formed a coordinated regional accumulation rather than a single contiguous block, with one parcel adjoining Joshua Johnson under the King's Peak, another against the Main Ridge between John Cole and Robert Adles, and the third adjoining Elizabeth Johnson's Broad Bottom estate. The configuration shows Greentree had built up a strategic presence across the southern Sandy Bay region.
The chain of title for the second and third parcels routes through John Goodwin (deceased) and Edward Mashborne (variant of Walkborne, deputy governor by 1708). The route shows that 20 acres formerly belonging to John Goodwin had passed first to Mashborne and then onward to Greentree, while the other 10 acres of the same former Goodwin estate had reached Greentree directly. The chain demonstrates a senior council member acting as an intermediate holder, perhaps in an executor or fiduciary capacity for the late John Goodwin's estate.
The first parcel's identification as formerly Gabriel Powell's connects Greentree to the substantial Powell holdings in Sandy Bay. Powell had been an active land trader from at least 1704 with his £100 0s 0d sale of the Peak Gut parcel to Robert Gurling and the £350 0s 0d Chapel Valley purchase from Hoskison in 1706. The 20-acre Sandy Bay parcel may be connected to or derived from the same Powell estate that he had earlier developed in the area.
The boundary description placing Greentree against Joshua Johnson, John Cole, Robert Adles and Elizabeth Johnson connects the present confirmation directly to four other instruments processed in the same 4 August 1713 sitting. The reciprocal boundary mapping demonstrates how the Company used a coordinated session to fix multiple interlocking titles simultaneously, with each freeholder's boundary attested by reference to neighbours whose own deeds were sealing in the same room.
James Greentree's earlier dealings included the 11 March 1703 purchase from Gabriel Powell of 20 acres in Sandy Bay with the slave Oliver and a half-share in a still for £86 0s 0d. The present 60-acre confirmation may include that 1703 purchase as one of its constituent parcels, with the references to former Powell and former Goodwin holdings recording the underlying purchase chains that built up Greentree's working estate over the intervening decade.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, represents a later consultation than the 3 February 1714 referenced in the Joshua Johnson and Elizabeth Johnson confirmations. The two consultations cleared adjacent estates within a month of each other, with the formal confirmations dispatched together at the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The hired 25 acres bordering Greentree's first parcel on its northern and eastern sides represent active Company leasehold operating outside the present deed. The reference within the freehold confirmation served only to fix the boundary, not to regularise the leasehold itself. The configuration gave Greentree a combined working presence of at least 85 acres across the Sandy Bay region when freehold and leasehold are taken together.
Speculations
The routing of the second 20 acres half through direct purchase from John Goodwin and half through Edward Mashborne perhaps reflects the practical mechanics of settling Goodwin's estate after his death. John Goodwin had died by 13 August 1707, and the parcel may have been divided between immediate heirs and a sale to Mashborne as a senior council member acting in a fiduciary or administrative role. Greentree's later acquisition of both halves from their respective holders consolidated a parcel that had been temporarily split by the executorial process. The pattern shows estates passing through several hands during the settlement period before reaching a final purchaser, with the freehold confirmation of 1713 recording the chain of intermediate holders to establish the validity of Greentree's title against any later claim by Goodwin's heirs or by parties claiming under Mashborne.
155
Island St Hellen Comp[a] Lease to Ja[me]s Greentree
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies DO hereby Demise Lett & Sett Unto James Greentree Freeholder Twenty five Acres of Land, Scituate & being in Sandy Bay Butting towards y[e] North & East upon y[e] Land of Robert Addiss, towards y[e] South upon y[e] said James Greentrees own Land, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of Mary Hoskison. To have and to hold The said Twenty five Acres of Land to him y[e] said James Greentree his Executors Administrators and Assignes, For y[e] Terme and Time of Twenty one years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he y[e] said James Greentree his Executors Administrators and Assignes, Shall always Do and bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent & Sum of Four shillings per Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island unto the said Honourable Company and there Successors. And That he y[e] said James Greentree his Executors Administrators and Assignes, shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and yet to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same, without y[e] Consent of y[e] Governour & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth day of August. & in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said James Greentree, to y[e] other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered James Greentree in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to James Greentree.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to James Greentree, freeholder, 25 acres of land in Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north and east by Robert Addis's land, south by Greentree's own land, and west by Mary Hoskison's land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Greentree, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Greentree and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Greentree was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. James Greentree signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for James Greentree's Sandy Bay estate, giving him a combined working holding of 85 acres across the region. The 25 leased acres adjoined the first of his three freehold parcels on its northern and eastern sides, matching the boundary description in the freehold confirmation that recorded the same 25 acres as hired Company ground.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, follows the same procedural pattern seen in the Elizabeth Johnson lease processed in the same session. The absence of the register from the closing instruments of the day points to Alexander having withdrawn while Cason and Francis completed the routine sealing of leasehold extensions to freeholders whose principal grants had already received the full witnessing complement.
The western boundary against Mary Hoskison's land marks the only documented appearance of Mary Hoskison as a holder in her own right within the 1711 to 1713 framework. Earlier records had Mary as the lifetime beneficiary of the 6 July 1708 mortgage by George Hoskison to Richard Gurling, where her natural life served as the measuring period for the annuity arrangement. Her appearance here as a named landholder demonstrates her independent tenure of Sandy Bay ground by 1712.
Robert Addis on the northern and eastern boundaries probably represents a variant spelling of Robert Adles or Adley, the same freeholder whose land formed the southern and western boundary of Greentree's second freehold parcel in the same-day confirmation. The variant spellings across the two instruments processed in immediate sequence demonstrate the scribal flexibility of the period, with the same individual recorded under slightly different forms within a single document set.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control under the 1711 framework. Greentree held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, blocking the open market in leasehold interests that had previously operated through private assignment.
The fence maintenance obligation operated as a documentary requirement rather than a purely practical one. The fences served as the landmarks tying the lessee's occupation to the annexed plan, and their alteration would invalidate the cartographic record. The lessee accordingly bore responsibility for preserving the boundary as drawn, with the plan acting as the authoritative reference.
The configuration of the leased parcel between Greentree's own freehold to the south, Robert Addis to the north and east, and Mary Hoskison to the west, places the 25 acres at the heart of a densely interlocking cluster of Sandy Bay holders. The pattern contrasts with the more isolated estates of Joshua Johnson and Elizabeth Johnson processed earlier in the same sitting and points to Greentree's working estate occupying a central position within the regularised Sandy Bay landscape.
Speculations
The presence of Mary Hoskison as a named boundary holder of Sandy Bay ground suggests the 6 July 1708 mortgage arrangement between George Hoskison and Richard Gurling had run its practical course by 1712. The original mortgage had headed as a mortgage but functioned as a lease for Mary's life, with Gurling paying an annual £11 10s 0d to Hoskison for the use of 45 acres. Mary's emergence as the named holder of land on Greentree's western boundary in the 1713 lease perhaps indicates that the underlying interest had become vested in her name in some practical sense, either through a further family settlement after 1708 or through the institutional regularisation of the original arrangement during the 1711 to 1713 framework. The pattern shows that the working occupation of substantial ground could become recorded in the name of the measuring life of an earlier mortgage instrument, with documentary practice catching up to the practical reality of who held and managed the land.
156
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Frances Goodwin
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto Frances Goodwin Wid[ow] Eighty nine Acres of Land Being formerly y[e] Lands of her dec[ease]d Husband, Tho[s] Goodwin) Buting and Bounding towards the North upon y[e] Land of Richard Gurling, formerly James East hopes (dec[ease]d) towards y[e] East upon y[e] Lands of Gov[ernor] Keelings (dec[ease]d) his Heires, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of John Goodwin her Son, and towards y[e] West upon Eleven Acres of Land she Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a] known by y[e] name of Saxtons Which said Eighty nine Acres of Land She the said Frances Goodwin, Hath a Just Right & Title too, As may more Largely appear Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Seventeenth & A. day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any p[er]son to make their Claime on a certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said P[re]mises to her y[e] said Frances Goodwin her Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That she y[e] said Frances Goodwin her Heires and Assignes, in any other p[er]sons shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] & their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] Said Island, In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] Company to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island this Fourth A. day of August. In the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Frances Goodwin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Frances Goodwin, widow, 89 acres of land formerly belonging to her deceased husband Thomas Goodwin. The parcel was bounded north by Richard Gurling's land, formerly the deceased James Easthope's, east by the lands of the deceased Governor Keeling's heirs, south by the land of John Goodwin her son, and west by 11 acres that she hired from the Company known by the name of Saxtons. Her title rested on a consultation of 17 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Frances Goodwin, her heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The confirmation marks a critical documentary moment in the Goodwin family settlement. Thomas Goodwin, who had risen from witness in 1683 to governor by December 1707, was deceased by 4 August 1713 according to this deed. The earlier records had shown Thomas Goodwin as deputy governor again by May 1709 and as governor at earlier points, with his exact death date previously fixed only as before 25 May 1715. The present confirmation moves the established date of his death forward by nearly two years, placing it before March 1714 when the consultation supporting the confirmation took place.
The 89-acre estate represented the bulk of Thomas Goodwin's accumulated landholdings across his career. The boundary description connects the parcel to several landmarks within the consolidated Goodwin estate built up over two decades, including the former James Easthope holding now held by Richard Gurling on the northern boundary, the Keeling family heirs to the east, and John Goodwin the son on the south. The configuration shows the Goodwin estate at its mature consolidated form, with father, mother and son occupying interlocking adjoining ground.
John Goodwin, named as son of Frances and Thomas Goodwin on the southern boundary, is the same John Goodwin who had appeared in earlier records as eldest son of Thomas Goodwin and as recipient of the contingent remainder in the 1705 Bevean settlement. His appearance here as a freeholder in his own right by August 1713 confirms his survival to adulthood and his independent tenure of adjoining family ground.
The vesting of the 89 acres in Frances alone, with her heirs and assigns, rather than jointly with the heirs of her deceased husband as in the Elizabeth Johnson confirmation processed in the same sitting, marks her absolute freehold rather than a layered family settlement. The structure gave Frances complete control over the disposition of the property, which would have practical consequences for her later second marriage to George Carne between August 1713 and May 1715. The freehold she held absolutely passed under her control rather than being tied to her late husband's heirs.
The 11 acres of hired Company land on the western boundary, known by the name of Saxtons, identify a working byname for a leasehold parcel adjoining the freehold. The naming pattern matches other Sandy Bay and surrounding bynames such as Welley's Land (Cason 1711), Church's Land (Steward children 1713), Diana's Geak (Benjamin Greentree 1713), and Sexton's Ground (William Alexander 1717). The Saxtons leasehold may relate to the Sexton's Ground of the William Alexander lease through scribal variation, in which case the Goodwin estate sat adjacent to the future Alexander holding.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, follows the procedural pattern of the later instruments in the 4 August 1713 sitting. The absence of Alexander from a confirmation of this scale, given to the widow of the late governor, is notable and contrasts with the full witnessing complement that would have been expected for such a substantial title. The reduced panel suggests the day's procedural withdrawal of the register had begun before this confirmation was sealed.
The consultation date of 17 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, indicates a later consultation than either the Johnson confirmations (3 February 1714) or the James Greentree confirmation (3 March 1714). The 17 March consultation may have been specifically convened to examine the Goodwin estate as a special case, given Thomas Goodwin's senior position and the recent character of his death.
Speculations
The freehold vested absolutely in Frances Goodwin, rather than jointly with the heirs of her late husband, was perhaps a deliberate choice reflecting the particular character of the Goodwin estate at the moment of Thomas Goodwin's death. Thomas had been a senior council member and former governor, with substantial cash reserves and a complex set of accumulated holdings built up over more than two decades. The family settlement may already have made separate provision for John Goodwin and any other children through earlier transfers, including the 1705 Bevean contingent remainder and other instruments now lost to the present record, leaving the main residential estate as Frances's clear inheritance. The structure also positioned her to remarry without bringing the estate's title into question, since her absolute freehold could be carried into a second marriage and dealt with by her new husband as her property rather than as a layered family settlement requiring the consent of multiple parties. The arrangement made the later 25 May 1715 sale of Captain Goodwin's House by George and Frances Carne to Henry Francis legally straightforward, since the freehold passed cleanly through Frances's absolute title.
157
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Frances Goodwin
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett Unto Frances Goodwin Widow Eleven Acres of Land formerly Peter Saxtons, Scituate and being in a Branch of Lemmon Valley, Butting towards the North-East and South, upon her own Land, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land now in y[e] possession of Arthur Bradley, To have and to hold The said Eleven Acres of Land unto her the said Frances Goodwin her Executors Adminis[trators] and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition That she y[e] said Frances Goodwin her Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall Duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors. And & That she the said Frances Goodwin her Executors Administrators and Assignes shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years, Leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the said Fences which are the Land mark[s] and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without Consent of the Governour and Coun[c]ell for the time being In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these P[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and the said Frances Goodwin to the other P[ar]t hath sett her Hand and Seale.
George Carne[s]
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: [In behalf?] [Husband of] [Goodwin?] Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Frances Goodwin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Frances Goodwin, widow, 11 acres of land formerly Peter Saxton's in a branch of Lemon Valley. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by her own land, and west by land then in the possession of Arthur Bradley. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Frances, her executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Frances and her successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Frances was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. She was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The counterpart was sealed by George Carne, signing for or on behalf of Frances Goodwin in the capacity of [...] (the descriptor on the signing line is partly illegible but indicates a representative role connected to the Goodwin estate). Witnessed by Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Frances Goodwin's Lemon Valley estate, giving her a combined working holding of 100 acres with the 11 leased acres tucked into the western corner formed by her freehold on three sides. The same parcel had been referred to in the same-day freehold confirmation as the 11 acres of hired land known by the name of Saxtons on her western boundary, and the lease now formally records the underlying tenure.
The identification of the parcel as formerly Peter Saxton's clarifies the working byname Saxtons used in the freehold confirmation. Peter Saxton appears as an original holder whose name persisted in the cartographic and institutional memory of the parcel even after his departure or death, with the leasehold and adjoining freehold both referring to him by way of identification. The naming pattern matches the standard practice of preserving the chain of earlier holders within the working description of the ground.
The signature of George Carne on the counterpart, in place of or on behalf of Frances Goodwin, marks the earliest documentary indication of his relationship to the Goodwin estate. The signing capacity is partly illegible but the presence of his name in the place where Frances would otherwise have signed her own counterpart indicates he was already acting as her representative by 4 August 1713. The arrangement points to the Goodwin-Carne marriage having taken place by this date, or at the very least to a formal pre-marital settlement in which George had assumed a representative role for her estate. The previously established date range of the Goodwin-Carne marriage as between August 1713 and May 1715 may accordingly need to be moved forward to before 4 August 1713.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, matches the same pattern seen in the Elizabeth Johnson lease and the James Greentree lease processed in the closing sequence of the day. The procedural withdrawal of the register from the closing instruments continued through the Goodwin pair, with the substantial freehold confirmation and the leasehold extension both lacking the full witnessing complement.
The western boundary against Arthur Bradley's land places Bradley as the active occupier of adjoining ground in Lemon Valley. Bradley had earlier appeared in the 18 October 1705 sale by Arthur and Sarah Bradley of a 10-acre plantation in Fryer Valley to Walter Belvard for 100 Spanish dollars and four head of cattle. His continued presence as a Lemon Valley boundary holder by 1712 demonstrates the persistence of his working occupation on the island after the 1705 sale of his Fryer Valley parcel.
The leasehold rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty matches every other lease processed in the 1711 to 1713 framework. The standard rate persisted across all rural Company leases regardless of the rank or wealth of the lessee, with the widow of the late governor paying the same per-acre rate as soldiers, free planters and other holders. The Company's pricing structure operated as a flat-rate institutional system rather than as a means-tested arrangement.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. Frances held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, although her position as widow of a former governor and as soon-to-be-wife of George Carne may have eased the practical operation of that control in her case.
Speculations
The signing of the counterpart by George Carne rather than by Frances Goodwin herself, on the very day she was confirmed in 89 acres of freehold absolutely, was perhaps deliberately designed to begin establishing his standing in relation to her estate while the formal marriage had not yet been concluded. The freehold confirmation in Frances alone gave her absolute title to the principal estate, while the leasehold counterpart sealed by George created an early documentary record of his involvement. The arrangement may have served the practical purpose of providing legal continuity through any transitional period, with George ready to step into management of the leasehold while Frances retained sovereign control of the freehold. The structure would have allowed the Goodwin estate to remain operational without interruption during the months leading up to or immediately following the Goodwin-Carne marriage, with the freehold protected against any premature commitment by being vested in Frances alone, and the leasehold actively managed by George from the outset.
158
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Keelings
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United A[me]r Comp[a]ny of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto the Heires of Richard Keeling late (Gov[erno]r deceased) Thirty Acres of Land Scituate Lying and being in Branches of Fryer Valley, Buting & bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of George Carne, Towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of Walter Morriss, Towards y[e] East upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a] great Plantation, & Towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Frances Goodwin. ALSO Ten Acres of Land Scituate in Peak Gutt, Butting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of Francis Wranghams Orphans towards y[e] East & South upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land & towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of Robert Gurling, And Also Three Acres more of Land formerly Thomas Goodwins deceased Butting towards y[e] North-East-South & West upon y[e] Lands of y[e] aforesaid Frances Goodwin, which said before mentioned Three p[ar]cells of Land containes in y[e] whole Forty Three Acres, and Which they y[e] said Heires of Richard Keeling hath a Just Right & Title too as may appear more Largely upon Examination of y[e] day of One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to them y[e] said Heires of y[e] said Rich[d] Keeling, their & every of their, Heires & Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That they the said Richard Keelings Heires, they & every of their Heires and Assignes, Do bear always true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these P[re]sents have sett their Common Seale, at their Castle on the said Island this day of One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] P[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to the Keelings.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the heirs of the late Governor Richard Keeling, deceased, three parcels of land totalling 43 acres.
The first parcel of 30 acres in the branches of Fryer Valley was bounded north by George Carne's land, west by Walter Morris's land, east by the Company's great plantation, and south by Frances Goodwin's land.
The second parcel of 10 acres in Peak Gut was bounded north by the land of Francis Wrangham's orphans, east and south by the Company's waste land, and west by Robert Gurling's land.
The third parcel of 3 acres, formerly the deceased Thomas Goodwin's, was bounded north, east, south and west by the lands of Frances Goodwin.
The Keeling heirs' title rested on a consultation of [...] 1714 (the precise date is left blank in the deed), with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. The heirs of Richard Keeling, their respective heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to the Queen and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on [...] 1713. The date of execution and the witnesses are not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
The deed represents the formal institutional recognition of Governor Richard Keeling's full first name for the first time in the records. Earlier references had described the parcel only as Governor Keeling's land or as belonging to the late Governor Keeling's heirs, with no Christian name attached. The 1713 confirmation now fixes his identity as Richard Keeling, governor (deceased), aligning him with the Richard Keeling who had appeared as a witness to the 27 October 1687 Rhodes-Cotgrave 99-year lease at the head of Sharks Valley. The connection identifies the witness of 1687 as the same individual who later rose to the governorship and whose estate persisted through children and grandchildren into the 1713 framework.
The vesting in the heirs collectively, without naming individuals and without intermediate trustee, follows the same pattern as the Wrangham orphans confirmation processed in the same sitting and the Maxwell orphans confirmation. The joint and several form preserved flexibility for later partition while protecting the holding against external claims during a period when the heirs may have been at varying ages or in different locations.
The 30-acre Fryer Valley parcel sits at the heart of a densely interlocking cluster of holdings whose mutual boundaries were settled in the same 4 August 1713 sitting. George Carne to the north, Walter Morris to the west, the Company's great plantation to the east and Frances Goodwin to the south all received same-day confirmations of their respective adjoining holdings. The configuration demonstrates the council's use of a coordinated session to fix interlocking titles by reciprocal boundary mapping, with each holder's deed attesting to the bounds of his neighbours.
The 3-acre parcel formerly Thomas Goodwin's, ringed on all four sides by Frances Goodwin's land, is institutionally unusual. The configuration places a Keeling-held enclave within an otherwise unified Goodwin estate, suggesting that Thomas Goodwin during his lifetime had sold or transferred a small portion of his consolidated holding to the Keeling heirs, perhaps as a settlement of some prior obligation or as part of a family arrangement connecting the two senior governmental lines. The continuation of the Keeling interest after Thomas Goodwin's death preserved the earlier transfer despite the surrounding ground passing into Frances's absolute freehold.
The reference to Francis Wrangham's orphans on the northern boundary of the 10-acre Peak Gut parcel marks a divergence from the Wrangham orphans confirmation processed in the same sitting, which identified the orphans as those of Samuel Wrangham. The two formulations may refer to the same group of children with father's name varying across two contemporaneous documents, or they may reflect a parallel orphan group from a related Wrangham line. The institutional records of the day appear to have treated the orphans with some scribal flexibility in identifying the deceased father.
Robert Gurling on the western boundary of the Peak Gut parcel was the same gentleman who had bought 20 acres at Peak Gut from Gabriel Powell on 11 May 1704 for £100 0s 0d on bond. The continuation of his presence in Peak Gut through 1713 demonstrates the persistence of his original 1704 holding across a decade and confirms his settled position in the area.
The blank consultation date and blank execution date within the body of the deed indicate that the present record is an incomplete engrossment, with the formal sealing details left unfilled at the time of copying into the register. The pattern matches the incomplete engrossment of the same-period Margaret Sich confirmation and lease, where dates were similarly left blank. The shared institutional practice suggests these deeds were drafted in advance and the final dates of formal sealing were to be entered later, with some instruments never receiving their completed date stamps.
The absence of any signatures, sealing details or witness names from the present deed reflects the incomplete state of the document rather than a defect in the confirmation itself. The deed is likely to have received its formal execution at some point during the 4 August 1713 sitting or in a subsequent session, with the present copy reflecting only the draft text prepared in advance of the sealing ceremony.
Speculations
The blank dates and absent witness panel suggest the Keeling heirs' confirmation was perhaps prepared in advance of the major 4 August 1713 sitting but never received its final formal execution at that session. The heirs may have been absent from the island or otherwise unavailable to receive the deed in person, with the document accordingly drafted and held pending their later attendance. The institutional practice of preparing confirmations in advance, leaving the dates for completion at the moment of sealing, allowed the council to manage a large block of titles through a single coordinated sitting while still accommodating practical absences. The Keeling heirs' deed may have been finalised at a later sitting whose record is not preserved in the present extract, or may have remained in its incomplete state pending the heirs' return to the island. The configuration of the three parcels, with one enclave inside Frances Goodwin's estate and the other two adjoining substantial holders confirmed on the same day, points to a careful planning of the Keeling consolidation that the institutional process was unable to complete in a single session.
159
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Gov[ernor] Keelings Dep[uty]
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Trading to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett and Set unto y[e] Heires of Richard Keeling, Late Gov[ernor] dec[ease]d Two Acres of Land, Scituate Lying and being in Peak Gutt, Buting and Bounding towards the North to the High Peak, Towards the East upon the Land of Wranghams Orphans, and towards the South and West, upon y[e] said Heires own Lands. To have and to hold to them, the said Heires the said Two Acres of Land, their Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one years Commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve, Upon Condition That they the said Heires, their and either of their Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and a Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and that they the said, Heires, their and every of them, Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years, Leave the Fences about the said Land, in as good repaire as they are now and not to alter the said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being In witness, whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. A. day of August. A. in the Year of our Lord one Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. And they the said Heires to the other p[ar]t have set their Hands and Seales.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Company lease to the heirs of Governor Keeling.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to the heirs of the late Governor Richard Keeling, deceased, 2 acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded north by the High Peak, east by the land of the Wrangham orphans, and south and west by the heirs' own land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with the heirs, their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound the heirs and their successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, the heirs were to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. They were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or their interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The heirs sealed the counterpart. The witness panel is not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for the Keeling heirs' Peak Gut estate, giving them a combined working holding of 12 acres in the area with the 2 leased acres tucked into the north-east corner of their 10-acre freehold. The same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging extended to inherited estates managed by heirs collectively in the same manner as to adult freeholders, demonstrating the consistency of the 1711 framework across all categories of holder.
The eastern boundary against the land of the Wrangham orphans provides reciprocal confirmation of the boundary recorded in the orphans' own 4 August 1713 freehold deed, which had identified Governor Keeling's heirs as the western boundary of their 10-acre Peak Gut parcel. The two confirmations attest each other's bounds through the coordinated session, with each set of orphan or heir holders providing institutional confirmation of the adjoining holding.
The reference to Governor Keeling's heirs as a continuing collective body more than two decades after his death demonstrates the persistence of inherited estates as recognisable tenure units within the institutional framework. The heirs operated as a corporate group capable of receiving freehold confirmations and leasehold extensions in their collective capacity, with the legal personality of the inherited estate continuing across generations.
The northern boundary against the High Peak follows the standard topographical reference seen elsewhere in the Peak Gut confirmations of the same sitting. The Wrangham orphans' freehold and the Joshua Johnson confirmation under the King's Peak (or High Peak) both used the same dominant feature as a fixed reference. The naming of the peak as both King's Peak and High Peak across different instruments in the same session reflects scribal flexibility within a single coordinated event.
The absence of any witness panel in the present record matches the incomplete state of the Keeling freehold confirmation processed in the same sitting. Both Keeling instruments appear to have been drafted in advance but were never received their final formal execution with witnesses present. The pattern is consistent with the heirs being absent from the island or otherwise unable to attend the sitting in person, leaving the documents in their unexecuted state pending later completion.
The 2-acre leasehold rent of 5s 0d per annum follows the standard 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty established across the 1711 framework. The flat rate operated regardless of the social standing of the lessee, with the heirs of a former governor paying the same rate as the Wrangham orphans, the Maxwell orphans, soldiers, free planters and other holders. The institutional uniformity of the rental structure reflects the Company's preference for administrative simplicity over differentiated pricing.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. The Keeling heirs held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, with the requirement applying as much to inherited estates as to estates acquired by purchase or grant.
Speculations
The incomplete execution of both Keeling instruments processed at the same 4 August 1713 sitting perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional decision to draft the documents in advance and hold them pending the heirs' availability. The heirs of Governor Richard Keeling may have included children resident off the island or in England, given the governor's metropolitan connections, and the council may have prepared the confirmations in expectation of their later return or of a formal communication that would allow execution by proxy. The institutional practice of leaving the documents partially blank, including the witness section, made later completion straightforward without requiring the deeds to be redrafted from scratch. The Keeling heirs' incomplete instruments accordingly represent the council's anticipation of a future executory event rather than a procedural defect or oversight in the original sitting. The mechanism shows how the 1711 framework could accommodate the practical difficulty of regularising estates whose principal beneficiaries were not present on the island at the moment of formal regularisation.
160
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Desfountain[s] Children
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto y[e] Sever[a]ll Children, Viz[t]: John & Joseph, Martha & Mary, Son & Daughters of James Des- fountain (deceased) Thirty Acres of Land. Scituate towards the Head of Fishers Valley Butting & Bounding towards the North and West upon y[e] Land of M[r] Robert Wills Freeholder towards y[e] South upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, & towards y[e] East, upon Fifteen Acres of Land, the[y] the said Children, Hires of y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]. ALSO Ten Acres of Land more, Scituate at y[e] Head of Youngs Valley, Buting towards y[e] North-West & South upon y[e] aforesaid Fifteen Acres of Land, and towards y[e] East upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, being two p[ar]cells, and in y[e] whole containes Forty Acres, which all & every y[e] before named Children hath a Just Right & Title too as may more fully largely appear upon Examination in a Consultation of y[e] Seventeenth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum, for any of P[er]sons to make their Claim on a Certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to him, her them or any of their Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That y[e] said John Joseph Martha & Mary Des- fountain their or any of their Heires & Assignes in any other p[er]son whatsoever, Shall and Do alway bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island. In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. A. in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to the Desfountain children.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the children of the deceased James Desfountain - John, Joseph, Martha and Mary, son and daughters - two parcels of land totalling 40 acres.
The first parcel of 30 acres at the head of Fishers Valley was bounded north and west by Mr Robert Wills freeholder's land, south by the Company's waste land, and east by 15 acres that the children hired from the Company.
The second parcel of 10 acres at the head of Youngs Valley was bounded north, west and south by the 15 acres of hired land, and east by the Company's waste land.
The children's title rested on a consultation of 17 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. The children, their respective heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation regularised the inherited estate of the late James Desfountain through direct vesting in his four named children. The full naming of John, Joseph, Martha and Mary, with their gender identified as son and daughters, distinguishes the Desfountain confirmation from the unnamed collective vestings used for the Wrangham orphans, the Maxwell orphans and the Keeling heirs. The variation suggests the Desfountain children were perhaps older or that the family had requested individual identification to clarify the underlying interests of each child.
James Desfountain may be the same Samuel Des Fountaine, soldier, who had bought 10 acres at the head of Youngs Valley from Sergeant Thomas Dixon on 24 November 1701 for £10 0s 0d. The shared surname and continental European origin within the garrison, combined with the location of the second confirmed parcel at the head of Youngs Valley, points to a connection between the two holdings. The Christian name variation between Samuel in 1701 and James in 1713 may reflect either a different family member or a scribal variation across the records, with the underlying estate persisting through changes of personnel.
The configuration of the two parcels around a central 15-acre block of hired Company land is unusual within the 4 August 1713 sitting. The 30-acre Fishers Valley parcel sat west of the 15 hired acres, while the 10-acre Youngs Valley parcel sat to the south of the same hired block, with the hired ground forming the connecting hinge between the two freehold portions. The arrangement gave the children a combined working presence of 55 acres across the two valleys when freehold and leasehold are taken together, with the leasehold providing the institutional bridge between the dispersed freehold cores.
Mr Robert Wills appears on the northern and western boundaries of the first parcel as a freeholder with the courtesy title Mr. The designation marks him as a holder of respectable standing within the Fishers Valley cluster. Wills represents a new individual in the records, with no earlier appearance in the established cohort, indicating either a recent arrival or a previously undocumented holder being brought into the formal register through the 1711 framework.
The northern and western shared boundary against Robert Wills's land creates an L-shaped boundary configuration that the Desfountain freehold wrapped around. The shape suggests Wills's holding sat in the upper north-west corner of the area, with the Desfountain ground filling the southern and eastern portion of the immediate landscape. The reciprocal boundary mapping with Wills would have required his attendance at or attestation to the same sitting, though no Wills confirmation appears in the present sequence.
The consultation date of 17 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date of the Frances Goodwin confirmation processed in the same sitting. The shared consultation date indicates the two estates were examined together at a single council meeting two months before the August sealing, with the Goodwin estate (former governor's widow) and the Desfountain estate (deceased soldier's children) treated within the same administrative session despite their differing social standing.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used for the major freehold confirmations earlier in the day. The Desfountain children's deed received the same procedural weight as the more substantial holdings of George Hoskison's neighbours and the Goodwin family, demonstrating the Company's consistent treatment of orphan and child holders within the institutional framework.
The naming order of the children, with the boys John and Joseph listed before the girls Martha and Mary, follows the conventional priority of sons over daughters in inheritance descriptions of the period. The order may also reflect the actual age sequence of the four children, with John as eldest, but this cannot be confirmed from the present text alone.
Speculations
The Company's choice to vest the 40 acres directly in the four named children, rather than through an intermediate trustee or executor, was perhaps determined by the absence of any surviving adult male family member capable of taking the holding in trust. The late James Desfountain may not have had a brother or other adult kinsman on the island who could serve as trustee, with the children accordingly named individually in the freehold. The arrangement gave each child a recognisable share in the inheritance from the outset, allowing the working ground to be managed through some informal collective arrangement among the siblings or through a guardian who was not given formal title. The mechanism preserved the children's interests against external claim while leaving the practical management of the estate to be settled within the family or under such informal supervision as the council was content to accept. The deed's silence on any guardian or working occupier of the ground points to an institutional confidence that the family would resolve the practical questions of cultivation without the Company needing to specify them in the formal record.
161
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Lease to Desfountains Children
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett Unto John & Joseph, Sons, Martha & Mary, Daughters of James Desfountain (deceased) Fifteen Acres of Land Scituate at y[e] Head of Youngs Valley Buting towards y[e] North & West upon their own Ten Acres of Land formerly Thomas D[esfountain] towards y[e] East & East upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, ALSO Sixteen Acres of Land more, Scituate at Sandy Bay under y[e] Main Ridge, Buting towards y[e] North & East upon y[e] same, Towards y[e] West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, and towards y[e] South upon One Acre of Land Hired by Humphrey Ed[w]ards, both which said parcels of Land containes in y[e] whole Twenty Eight Acres. To have and to hold The said two p[ar]cells of Lands to them y[e] said John & Joseph Martha & Mary Desfountain their, or either of their, Executors Administrators & Assignes, for y[e] Terme & Time, of Twenty one Years, Commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That they y[e] said John & Joseph Martha & Mary, Their or, either of their, Executors Administrators & Assignes shall always Do & bear true, Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] & their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four shillings p[er] Acre besides one shillings duty being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] & their Successors, And that they y[e] said John & Joseph Martha & Mary Desfountain, their or either of their Executors Administrators or Assignes Shall & do at y[e] expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land, in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed nor nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without y[e] Consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a] & Lord[s] P[ro]prietors to these p[re]sents have Sett there their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. A. day of August. A. y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand & Thirteen, And they y[e] said John & Joseph, Martha & Mary, Desfountain[s] to y[e] other p[ar]t have Sett their Hands & Seales. Matthew Bazett Executors James Gregory
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to the Desfountain children.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John and Joseph, sons, and Martha and Mary, daughters, of the deceased James Desfountain two parcels of land totalling 28 acres.
The first parcel of 15 acres at the head of Youngs Valley was bounded north and west by the children's own 10 acres of land formerly Thomas D[esfountain]'s, and east and east [in the original; perhaps east and south] by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel of 16 acres at Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge was bounded north and east by the same Main Ridge, west by the Company's waste land, and south by 1 acre of land hired by Humphrey Edwards.
The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with the children, their or either of their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcels during that period.
The lease bound the children and their successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, they were to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. They were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or their interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The counterpart was sealed by Matthew Bazett and James Gregory as executors of the late James Desfountain on behalf of the children. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for the Desfountain children's estate, giving the family a combined working holding of 68 acres across Fishers Valley, Youngs Valley and Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge. The 15 leased acres at the head of Youngs Valley adjoined the 10-acre freehold portion confirmed in the same-day deed, with the leasehold extension wrapping around the existing freehold core to the east and south.
The reference to the existing 10 acres at the head of Youngs Valley as formerly Thomas D[esfountain]'s connects the present estate to the wider Desfountain family line. Thomas Desfountain represents an earlier holder of the same Youngs Valley ground, perhaps a brother or father of the late James Desfountain, with the holding having passed within the family before reaching James and then his children. The Christian name pattern of Thomas, James and the children John and Joseph suggests a multi-generational family presence in the area going back to the original allocations.
The sealing of the counterpart by Matthew Bazett and James Gregory as executors reveals the institutional management of the children's estate. Bazett, fifth in council by 1711 and a recurring witness across many transactions, had served as executor of the late James Reder, and his appointment as executor of James Desfountain extends his fiduciary role across multiple estates. James Gregory represents a new individual in the records, perhaps a close friend or business associate of the late Desfountain, paired with Bazett to provide dual executorial supervision of the children's interests.
The executor arrangement clarifies the apparent absence of any guardian named in the same-day freehold confirmation. The freehold vested directly in the four children, while the leasehold counterpart was sealed by Bazett and Gregory as executors, indicating that the estate was being administered through a dual structure: the children held the perpetual freehold in their own right, while the executors managed the working leasehold during their minority. The arrangement gave the Company a responsible adult party to deal with for the rental obligations and disposal restrictions while preserving the children's underlying ownership of the freehold core.
The 16-acre Sandy Bay parcel under the Main Ridge sat in a different region from the Youngs Valley estate, indicating that the late James Desfountain had built up a dispersed working holding across two distant parts of the island. The Sandy Bay parcel adjoined Humphrey Edwards's 1 acre of hired Company land on its southern side, marking the only documented appearance of Humphrey Edwards in the present records and placing him as a small-scale Company tenant in the Sandy Bay area.
The boundary description for the Youngs Valley leasehold contains a scribal repetition of east as a direction in the original, listing the eastern and presumably southern boundaries both as east. The error reflects the practical reality of an unbroken administrative day producing minor inconsistencies in the engrossment, with the council clerk repeating the same compass direction where two different bearings would have been correct. The substantive meaning is unaffected, with the parcel bounded by Company waste on the two sides not adjoining the existing freehold.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used earlier in the day for the major freehold confirmations. The Desfountain children's lease received the same procedural weight as the leases for adult freeholders, demonstrating the Company's consistent treatment of orphan estates within the institutional framework.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. The children held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, with the disposal control extending also to the executors during the period of their administration.
Speculations
The choice to vest the freehold directly in the children while routing the leasehold through executors was perhaps a deliberate institutional design balancing two competing concerns. The freehold required a perpetual holder, and vesting it in the children gave the family the security of recorded ownership across generations. The leasehold, by contrast, carried active obligations of rent, fence maintenance and adherence to the disposal restriction, which required responsible adult parties to discharge. Matthew Bazett and James Gregory accordingly held the leasehold in trust for the children, providing the Company with named adult parties for the working management of the ground while preserving the children's underlying ownership of both freehold and leasehold portions. The arrangement converted what might otherwise have been an unworkable child-tenancy into a structured fiduciary arrangement, with the executors taking responsibility for the practical management until the children reached the age and capacity to assume it themselves. The dual structure also gave the Company a clearer line of recovery if rental obligations went unmet, since the executors would have been personally accountable in a way that minor children could not be.
162
Island St Helena Comp[a] Deed to Fra[ncis] Wrangham
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto Frances Wrangham Freeholder, Ten Acres of Land formerly Richard Stacys (deceased) towards y[e] Head of Chapple Valley, Buting & bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of Henry Francis Freeholder, towards y[e] East & West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, & towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Benjamin & Sich, ALSO Ten Acres of Land more formerly Jno Hawkin[s] (dec[ease]d) buiting towards y[e] North East & West upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, and towards the South upon their Cattle Pasture Land. ALSO Seventeen Acres of Land under y[e] Main Ridge Butting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land belonging to John Bagwell and Vesers Richards y[e] East upon Sandy Bayside Towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of y[e] s[ai]d Cole, & towards y[e] West upon y[e] s[ai]d Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Pasture. ALSO Ten Acres of Land Abutting towards y[e] North upon y[e] said y[e] s[ai]d Frances, Towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of aforesaid Jno Bagwell Towards y[e] South & West upon y[e] before named Jn[o] Brown and Heire And ALSO Eight Acres of Land, Buiting towards y[e] North of y[e] s[ai]d & Benj[ami]n Sich, Towards y[e] East upon the Land of James Riders, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Gabriel Powel, and towards y[e] West upon the Land of y[e] aforesaid Tho[mas] Harris Being five p[ar]cells of Land, & in y[e] whole containes, Fifty Five Acres, Which he y[e] said Frances Wranghams Hath a Just Right & Title too as may appear more largely upon examination in a Consultation of y[e] Third & A. A. day of February One Thousand Seven and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their claime on a certain day therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold y[e] said premises to him y[e] said Frances Wrangham his Heires & Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That he y[e] said Frances Wrangham his Heires and Assigns, Do and Shall bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors and to y[e] said Honourable Comp[a] & their Successors, And shall duly obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to this p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. A. in y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Francis Wrangham.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Francis Wrangham, freeholder, five parcels of land totalling 55 acres.
The first parcel of 10 acres, formerly the deceased Richard Stacy's, lay towards the head of Chapel Valley. It was bounded north by Henry Francis freeholder's land, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by Benjamin Sich's land.
The second parcel of 10 acres, formerly the deceased John Hawkins's, was bounded north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by the Company's cattle pasture land.
The third parcel of 17 acres lay under the Main Ridge. It was bounded north by the land of John Bagwell and Vesers Richards, east by Sandy Bay side, south by Cole's land, and west by the Company's pasture.
The fourth parcel of 10 acres was bounded north by Wrangham's own land just described, east by John Bagwell's land, and south and west by John Brown and his heir's land.
The fifth parcel of 8 acres was bounded north by Benjamin Sich's land, east by James Rider's land, south by Gabriel Powell's land, and west by Thomas Harris's land.
Wrangham's title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Francis Wrangham, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 55-acre confirmation across five dispersed parcels marks Francis Wrangham as one of the most geographically distributed substantial freeholders to receive a same-day grant in the major 4 August 1713 sitting. The five parcels stretch from the head of Chapel Valley through the Sandy Bay region under the Main Ridge, with no contiguous block but rather a network of holdings reflecting accumulated acquisitions over time.
The deed name Francis Wrangham extends to the head of the document and to the body, indicating the masculine form Francis (with no terminal s as in the female name Frances) and confirming his identity as the active male holder elsewhere documented as the husband of the widow of an earlier Francis Wrangham who later married Henry Francis. The recurrence of the name Francis across two Wrangham generations creates documentary confusion but the present 1713 deed treats him as a single living male freeholder.
The first parcel's identification as formerly Richard Stacy's introduces a new earlier holder into the records. Richard Stacy, deceased, had held the Chapel Valley parcel before its reversion to or reallocation by the Company. The continuation of his name as the working byname for the ground reflects standard institutional practice of preserving the chain of earlier holders within boundary descriptions.
The second parcel's identification as formerly John Hawkins's similarly preserves the chain of title to another earlier holder, now deceased. Hawkins represents a new individual in the documented cohort, with the holding having reverted through his death and been reissued to Wrangham within the 1711 framework.
The boundary references record several additional individuals whose presence in the institutional landscape has not been previously documented. John Bagwell appears as a holder of land north of the third parcel and east of the fourth, indicating a substantial Sandy Bay tenure. Vesers Richards may be a corrupted rendering of Vesey or a separate individual named Richards; the underlying reading remains uncertain. John Brown and his heir represent another holder cluster, with the heir reference indicating that John Brown himself was either deceased or that the parcel was being held in family settlement. Thomas Harris emerges as a freeholder adjoining the fifth parcel to the west.
The third parcel's eastern boundary against Sandy Bay side fixes the parcel's geographic position at the very edge of the cultivated Sandy Bay region, with the Atlantic shoreline forming the limit of the holding rather than another holder's ground. The configuration places this portion of Wrangham's estate at a frontier or coastal position rather than within a densely interlocking cluster.
The fifth parcel sits within a particularly dense cluster of holders, with Benjamin Sich to the north, James Rider to the east, Gabriel Powell to the south and Thomas Harris to the west. All four named neighbours had appeared elsewhere in the 1713 sitting or in earlier records, with Sich as part of the Sich/Sech family, Rider as the same as James Reder (variant spelling), and Powell as a substantial freeholder. The fifth parcel thus sits at a documentary nexus point connecting multiple regularised estates.
The same-day witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander indicates the confirmation was processed within the earlier portion of the sitting, before the procedural withdrawal of Alexander seen in the later closing instruments. The full witnessing complement marks the deed as a substantial title meriting the senior procedural weight.
Henry Francis's signature as witness here is notable because his own land formed the northern boundary of Francis Wrangham's first parcel. The presence of the adjoining freeholder as a witness silently affirmed his acceptance of the boundary line, paralleling the same arrangement seen earlier in the day with John Bagley's confirmation. The mutual witnessing pattern reduced the risk of future boundary disputes by binding adjoining holders into the documentary record of each other's titles.
The reference to the Company's cattle pasture as the southern boundary of the second parcel marks the Company's livestock operations as a recognised institutional landscape feature, with its boundary acting as a fixed reference in private holdings. The cattle pasture appears alongside the great plantation as one of the Company's principal direct working properties, with private freehold sitting against rather than within it.
Speculations
The five-parcel structure of the confirmation perhaps reflects a deliberate accumulation strategy by Francis Wrangham over the years preceding the 1711 framework. Rather than holding a single consolidated estate, he had built up his working position through the acquisition of multiple distinct parcels from the estates of various deceased earlier holders, including Richard Stacy, John Hawkins and others whose ground had reverted to the Company on their deaths. The 1711 framework accordingly regularised his entire accumulated holding through a single confirmation, with the five parcels representing the cumulative result of his earlier private dealings now brought together in one institutional record. The pattern shows the Company using the new tenure framework not to allocate fresh ground but to formally recognise the working estates that substantial planters had quietly built up through purchases from succession or reversion. The mechanism converted a complex private accumulation, with parcels acquired over time at different prices and through different routes, into a clean single freehold title that could be administered going forward through the new institutional apparatus.
163
Island St Helena Comp[a] Lease to Francis Wrangham
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Demise Let and Set unto Francis Wrangham Freeholder, Three Acres of Gumwood Land, Scituate & being in Peak Gutt, butting & bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of Sam[ue]l Wranghams Orphans Towards y[e] East & South upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of y[e] Heires of Gov[ernor] Keeling, ALSO Two Acres more of Cabbagetree Land, butting toward[s] y[e] North & West of y[e] said Frances Wranghams ow[n] Land, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of John Coles, and towards y[e] West on y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Pasture Land. To have and to hold the aforesaid two p[ar]cels of Land containing in y[e] whole Eleven Acres of Land to him y[e] said Francis Wrangham his Executors Administrators and Assignes, for y[e] Tearne & Time of Twenty one Years, Commencing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he y[e] said Francis Wrangham his Executors Administrators & Assignes, shall alwayes Do and bear true faith, & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, And to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) The Annual Rent, & Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five shillings per Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island unto y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors. And that he y[e] said Frances Wrangham his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Tearne of Twenty one years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter y[e] Fences which are y[e] Land marks, & which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plot hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being, In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: & Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth A. day of August. A. in y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And y[e] said Francis Wrangham, to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand and Seale. Fran[cis] Wrangham
Sealed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason[?] H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Francis Wrangham.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Francis Wrangham, freeholder, two parcels of land totalling 11 acres.
The first parcel of 3 acres of gumwood land in Peak Gut was bounded north by Samuel Wrangham's orphans' land, east and south by the Company's waste land, and west by the heirs of Governor Keeling's land.
The second parcel of 2 acres of cabbage tree land was bounded north and west by Wrangham's own land, south by John Cole's land, and west by the Company's pasture land. The boundary description gives west twice, once on the Wrangham side and again on the Company pasture side, perhaps reflecting a scribal slip in the original where two different bearings should have been recorded.
The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Wrangham, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcels during that period.
The lease bound Wrangham and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Wrangham was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Francis Wrangham signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
The combined parcels totalled 5 acres, not the 11 stated in the deed. The arithmetic of the document is internally inconsistent: the recital records 3 plus 2 acres but states the whole as 11 acres. The discrepancy is a textual feature of the original deed and is preserved here without resolution.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the 4 August 1713 freehold confirmation to give Francis Wrangham a combined working estate across multiple regions of the island, with the 5 or 11 leased acres (depending on the resolution of the internal discrepancy) supplementing his 55 acres of confirmed freehold. The lease completes the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging seen across the major sitting, demonstrating the consistent institutional pattern.
The first leased parcel's location in Peak Gut places it directly adjacent to Samuel Wrangham's orphans' freehold on the north and to Governor Keeling's heirs on the west. The configuration confirms the dense interlocking of Wrangham family interests in Peak Gut, with Francis as the active adult holder of leasehold ground immediately adjoining the inherited freehold of the orphans of his deceased brother or kinsman Samuel Wrangham. The arrangement places Francis as the working manager of a combined family presence in Peak Gut, with his own lease wrapping around the orphans' inheritance.
The 29 January 1718 assignment of the orphans' 2-acre leasehold to Francis Wrangham, recorded in the earlier instrument, confirms his role as the family's working consolidator. Francis was already operating adjoining leasehold in 1713 and accepted the further 2-acre Wrangham orphans' lease in 1718, building up a single block of leasehold under his direct management. The orphans' freehold passed separately to Jo[hn] Wrangham, leaving the leasehold concentration to Francis.
The gumwood classification of the first parcel reflects the lower-elevation vegetation type, distinguishing it from the cabbage tree classification of the second parcel. The two categories carried different administrative significance under the 1711 framework, with gumwood ground typically used for fuel and timber and cabbage tree ground for more permanent cultivation. The dual classification across a single lease shows Wrangham's working estate spanning both vegetation zones.
The second parcel's reference to John Cole's land on the south records a continuing presence of the Cole family in the area, building on John Coles's earlier substantial 1713 confirmation. The exact identity of this John Cole as the same individual as John Coles in the same-day confirmation cannot be confirmed from the present text, but the proximity of the two records in the same sitting suggests they refer to the same freeholder.
The same-day witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The presence of Henry Francis as a witness here, given that his own land formed the northern boundary of the freehold parcel confirmed in the same sitting, illustrates the mutual witnessing pattern by which adjoining freeholders attested each other's documentary records. The pattern continued to operate across the lease procedure as well as the freehold confirmations.
The internal arithmetic discrepancy of 3 plus 2 totalling 11 acres rather than 5 acres reflects either a scribal copying error in the engrossment or an underlying drafting confusion at the moment of preparation. The deed records two parcels with specified boundaries and acreages, but the total stated does not match the sum of the parts. The discrepancy is preserved in the present text without resolution because the original document carries the inconsistency. The substantive identification of the leased ground depends on the boundary descriptions rather than the stated total, with the working extent perhaps closer to the 5 acres calculated from the parts than to the 11 acres stated as the whole.
Speculations
The 11-acre figure stated as the total may perhaps reflect a different arithmetic understanding of the parcels than the simple addition of the two named acreages. The 3-acre gumwood parcel and the 2-acre cabbage tree parcel may have been measured by the parts of the original survey or plan, while the 11-acre stated total may have included additional ground covered by the same lease that was not separately described in the body. Alternatively, the figures may have been transcribed across the engrossment from a different draft, with the underlying drafting having undergone revision between the surveyed acreage and the institutional sealing. The most likely resolution is that the deed contains a simple scribal slip, with either the parcel acreages or the total figure incorrect. The internal inconsistency would have been institutionally inconsequential in practice, since the operative legal description of the leased ground depended on the boundary descriptions and the annexed plan rather than on the stated total acreage. The discrepancy nonetheless reveals the practical limits of accurate engrossment under the pressure of a major coordinated administrative sitting clearing many instruments in a single day.
164
Island St Hellena Comp[a] Deed to Dan[ie]l Gr[i]ff[eth] Heirs
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United English East India Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto y[e] Heires of Daniel Griffeth (dec[ease]d) Ten Acres of Land formerly Jonathan & Beales, and since in y[e] Possession of Gabriel Powell, Scituate at a place known by y[e] Name of y[e] Pigsbaine Beds, buting and bounding towards y[e] North-East & West, upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land, and towards the South upon y[e] Land of y[e] said Jonatham Beals Lands, Which said Ten Acres of Land, the Heires of y[e] said Dan[ie]l Griffeth, Hath a Just Right & Title too, As may more largely appear, upon, Exami- nation in a Consultation of y[e] day of One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any Person to make their on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to y[e] said Heires of y[e] said Dan[ie]l Griffith, him her, or them in any of their Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That y[e] said Heires him her or them or any of their Heires and Assignes, shall always Do, and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, Her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: & their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness y[e] same whereof the said Hon[ble] Company to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this day of In y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand & A. Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] p[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to the heirs of Daniel Griffeth.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United English East India Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to the heirs of the deceased Daniel Griffeth 10 acres of land formerly Jonathan Beale's and since in the possession of Gabriel Powell. The parcel sat at a place known as the Pigsbaine Beds. It was bounded north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by Jonathan Beale's lands.
The heirs' title rested on a consultation of [...] 1714 (the precise date is left blank in the deed), with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. The heirs of Daniel Griffeth, their respective heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on [...] 1713. The date of execution and the witnesses are not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
The deed represents the first documentary confirmation that Daniel Griffeth, the long-tenured clerk of the council, was deceased by 1713. Earlier records had shown Griffeth as fourth in council and as executor of William Dufton (1708) and William Doveton (1707 to 1708), with his active presence as clerk persisting through the early years of the 1711 framework. His appearance here as the deceased holder whose heirs received the freehold confirmation indicates his death occurred between the early operation of the 1711 system and the consultation of 1714 that supported this confirmation.
The chain of title routes through Jonathan Beale (deceased) to Gabriel Powell (intermediate possessor) and to Daniel Griffeth (whose heirs now hold the freehold). The intermediate possession by Powell, who had earlier been a substantial land trader with dealings including the May 1704 Peak Gut transactions and the September 1706 purchase of 50 acres from Hoskison, places him as a temporary holder of the Pigsbaine Beds parcel between its earlier Beale ownership and its eventual settlement on the Griffeth heirs. The configuration suggests Powell had acquired the parcel from the Beale estate at some point and transferred it onward to Griffeth before the latter's death.
The Pigsbaine Beds is a distinctive working byname for the location, perhaps referring to a particular ground where pigs were prevented from grazing or where pig-resistant plants grew. The naming pattern matches other distinctive bynames preserved in the institutional record: Two Gun Ridge, Diana's Geak, Welley's Land, Church's Land, Sexton's Ground, Writing Stone Ridge and the Purslane Bed. The bynames provided a working geographical vocabulary independent of the more formal valley-based designations and reflected the practical knowledge of the working community.
The southern boundary against Jonathan Beale's lands records the persistence of Beale family holdings in the area despite the central 10-acre parcel having passed through Powell to Griffeth. The configuration shows the central parcel as an enclave or carved-out portion of a larger Beale estate, with the surrounding ground continuing in Beale family possession. The Jonathan Beale named here may be the same individual whose orphans held the Purslane Bed identified in earlier records, with the family persisting as substantial holders across multiple regions.
The vesting in the heirs of Daniel Griffeth collectively, without naming individuals, follows the pattern used for the Wrangham orphans, the Maxwell orphans, the Desfountain children (where named individually) and the Keeling heirs. The variation between named and unnamed vestings reflects the institutional flexibility in how children's or heirs' interests were recorded, with the choice perhaps depending on the heirs' ages, the family's preference, or the availability of clear documentation of individual interests at the time of the confirmation.
The blank consultation date and blank execution date within the body of the deed indicate that the present record is an incomplete engrossment, matching the pattern seen in the Keeling heirs' confirmation and the Margaret Sich confirmation in earlier sittings. The shared institutional practice of preparing confirmations in advance with later completion suggests the Griffeth heirs' deed remained unexecuted at the time of recording in the register.
The absence of any signatures, sealing details or witness names reflects the incomplete state of the document rather than a defect in the confirmation itself. The deed was perhaps drafted in advance of an expected sealing that never took place, or the formal execution occurred at a session whose detailed record is not preserved in the present extract.
Speculations
The blank dates and absent witness panel point to the Griffeth heirs' confirmation perhaps having been prepared in advance but never received its final formal sealing. The heirs may have been minor children unable to attend the ceremonial execution, or the family may have been in some state of administrative transition following Daniel Griffeth's recent death. Griffeth's long service as clerk and executor would have made his estate particularly complex, with his fiduciary roles for the Dufton and Doveton families requiring institutional unwinding before his own estate could be cleanly settled. The council may have drafted the freehold confirmation in advance as part of an overall package of estate regularisation but left the dates and witnesses blank pending the resolution of the wider settlement. The Griffeth heirs' incomplete instrument accordingly represents either a procedural delay in the larger estate administration or a deliberate institutional choice to prepare the documentary record without immediate execution while the heirs' position was being clarified.
165
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto y[e] Heires of her[?] Daniel Griffeth (dec[ease]d) Twenty Acres of Land, Scituate in a Branch of James Vally, buting and bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of James Rider, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Jonath[an] Doveton freeholder, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Jonathan Beals Orphans, and towards the West upon y[e] Land of Benjamen Sich, ALSO One Acre & one Quarter of an Acre of Land Comp[a] Lease Scituate at y[e] Bottom of Peak hill near y[e] Mountain Beds, buting toward y[e] North-East-West & to Daniel South, upon y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a] Wast Land, being two p[ar]cels of Land, and in y[e] whole Griffeth heirs contains Twenty one Acres & one quarter of an Acre. To have and to hold The said Twenty one Acres and a quarter to aforesaid Unto him her or them, Heires of y[e] before named Dan[ie]l Griffeth, dec[ease]d or any of him her, them in their Executors Administrators & Assignes for y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty one Years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition. That y[e] Heires of y[e] said Dan[ie]l Griffeth they or any of them their Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always do & bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors. And to y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: & their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five shillings per Annu[m] in good & Currant Money of y[e] said Island, Unto y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: & their Successors, And that y[e] Heires or Heires of y[e] said Dan[ie]l Griffeth, their or any of their Heires Executors Administrators & Assignes, shall & Do, at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Terme & Time of Twenty one years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair, as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor to dispose of this Lease, or Interest in y[e] same without consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. A. A. day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and y[e] said dec[ease]d Dan[ie]l Griffith Heires to y[e] other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Company lease to the heirs of Daniel Griffeth.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to the heirs of the deceased Daniel Griffeth two parcels of land totalling 21¼ acres.
The first parcel of 20 acres lay in a branch of James Valley. It was bounded north by James Rider's land, east by Jonathan Doveton freeholder's land, south by Jonathan Beale's orphans' land, and west by Benjamin Sich's land.
The second parcel of 1¼ acres lay at the bottom of Peak Hill near the Mountain Beds. It was bounded north, east, west and south by the Company's waste land.
The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with the heirs, their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcels during that period.
The lease bound the heirs and their successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, the heirs were to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. They were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or their interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The Griffeth heirs sealed the counterpart. The witness panel is not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the same-day Griffeth freehold confirmation to give the heirs a combined working estate of 31¼ acres across two regions of the island. The 10-acre Pigsbaine Beds freehold and the 20-acre James Valley leasehold formed the principal components, with the small 1¼-acre Peak Hill parcel adding a third dispersed element. The configuration matches the pattern of dispersed accumulations seen elsewhere in the 1713 sitting, with the Griffeth estate building up holdings across multiple distinct locations.
The 20-acre James Valley parcel sits at the heart of a densely interlocking cluster of holders confirmed in the same sitting. James Rider on the north, Jonathan Doveton on the east and Benjamin Sich on the west all received same-day instruments or were named in adjoining records, while Jonathan Beale's orphans on the south represented an additional orphan estate within the institutional landscape. The reciprocal boundary mapping demonstrates the council's coordinated approach to fixing multiple interlocking titles within a single working session.
The second parcel's location at the bottom of Peak Hill near the Mountain Beds introduces the Mountain Beds as a new working byname. The naming pattern matches the Pigsbaine Beds of the same-day freehold confirmation, suggesting the bed terminology was used for ground in particular high-elevation locations on the island. The Mountain Beds may relate to the elevated cultivation grounds below the main ridge, with the byname reflecting the practical geographical vocabulary of the working community.
The fractional acreage of 1¼ acres for the second parcel demonstrates the precise surveying that supported the 1711 framework. Earlier records had shown similar fractional measurements in the Doveton confirmation (20.25 acres), the Steward lease (1¾ and 2¼ acre parcels) and elsewhere. The Company invested in accurate measurement of even very small parcels to ensure the institutional record matched the working ground precisely.
The vesting clause records an unusually flexible formulation: him, her or them, indicating the council had not committed in advance to a particular gender or number of heirs. The phrasing suggests the actual number and identity of the Griffeth heirs had not been settled at the time of drafting, or that the council was preserving flexibility for later resolution. The formulation parallels the joint and several vesting used elsewhere but extends it to include the possibility of a single male, single female or multiple heirs.
The absence of any witness panel in the present record matches the incomplete state of the Griffeth freehold confirmation processed in the same sitting. Both Griffeth instruments appear to have been drafted in advance but were never received their final formal execution with witnesses present. The pattern is consistent with the heirs being in some transitional administrative state, perhaps still being identified or still being represented through a guardian whose appointment had not yet been formally made.
The same-day pairing of the freehold confirmation and the leasehold extension reflects the standard institutional design of the 1711 framework, even in cases where the heirs themselves were not present to receive the documents. The Company processed the estate's regularisation according to the established pattern, leaving the practical completion of execution for a later moment.
The Daniel Griffeth named here as deceased had served as the long-tenured clerk of the council, as fourth in council by 1713, and as executor of William Dufton and William Doveton. His death between his active service in the early 1711 framework and the consultation supporting the present 1713 instrument removed a key administrative figure from the council and creates a particular institutional irony: the very clerk who had supervised many of the earlier deeds in the register had become himself the subject of one of its later entries.
Speculations
The Griffeth heirs' incomplete documentary state perhaps reflects the institutional complications arising from the death of a senior council member whose own fiduciary roles required careful unwinding before his estate could be cleanly settled. Griffeth had served as executor for both William Dufton and William Doveton, with continuing obligations for the management of those estates including the placement of children as apprentices and the maintenance of children's portions. His death would have required the appointment of substitute executors for those existing fiduciary roles before his own estate could proceed to formal confirmation. The blank dates and absent witnesses in both Griffeth instruments may accordingly reflect a deliberate council decision to draft the documents in advance, while pausing the formal execution pending the resolution of the wider administrative tangle created by Griffeth's death. The institutional choice to record the unexecuted documents in the register nonetheless preserved the substantive content of the confirmation and lease for later completion, with the council perhaps intending to return to the Griffeth estate once the prior fiduciary obligations had been transferred to a substitute. The mechanism shows the 1711 framework operating with sufficient flexibility to accommodate the complications of a clerk's own death within the system he had himself helped to administer.
166
Island St Helena. Comp[a] Deed to John Good[w]in
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a] Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto John Goodwin freeholder, Son of Tho[s] Goodwin (dec[ease]d), Fifty two Acres of Land, Buiting & Bounding upon the Hon[ble] Comp[a] great Pastures, in occupied y[e] West upon y[e] Lands of Mary Hoskison Widow, Which said Fifty two Acres of Land he y[e] said John Goodwin Hath a Just Right & Title too, As may more Largely appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any objection made. To have and to hold, the said P[re]misses to him y[e] said John Goodwin, his Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said John Goodwin his Heires & Assignes, Shall & Do always bear true, Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on Said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. In y[e] year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] p[re]sence of: Tho[s] [Cason?] H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to John Goodwin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Goodwin, freeholder, son of the deceased Thomas Goodwin, 52 acres of land. The parcel was bounded by the Company's great pastures, and on the west by the lands of Mary Hoskison widow. The remaining bounds are not recorded in the present text. Goodwin's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. John Goodwin, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 52-acre confirmation marks John Goodwin's institutional recognition as the son of the late Thomas Goodwin, the former governor. The deed sits within the same coordinated 4 August 1713 sitting that processed his mother Frances Goodwin's 89-acre estate, and confirms the family arrangement by which Thomas Goodwin's holdings were divided between his widow and his son. The two confirmations together demonstrate a deliberate split of the consolidated Goodwin estate, with Frances taking the principal residential ground and John receiving a distinct adjoining holding.
The boundary description identifying the Company's great pastures as one bound places the parcel in close proximity to the Company's principal livestock operations. The great pastures appear repeatedly across the records as a fixed institutional landscape feature, marking the limit between private freehold and the Company's direct working ground. John Goodwin's holding accordingly sat at the edge of Company territory.
The western boundary against Mary Hoskison widow's land places her again as a named freeholder in her own right, following her appearance as the western boundary of James Greentree's leasehold in the same sitting. The two references confirm that Mary Hoskison held substantial ground in her own name by 1712, with the earlier 6 July 1708 mortgage arrangement between George Hoskison and Richard Gurling having evolved into recognised independent tenure for Mary by the time of the 1713 confirmations.
The description of John Goodwin as son of Thomas Goodwin, without the more specific designation son and heir, distinguishes the present confirmation from other primogeniture instruments in the same sitting. The Charles confirmation had identified William Charles as son and heir of the late Paul Charles, and the Greentree lease had identified Benjamin Greentree as son and heir of the late John Greentree. The omission of the heir designation in John Goodwin's case may reflect that Frances Goodwin's separate absolute freehold of 89 acres had already discharged the principal inheritance, leaving John's confirmation as a son's allocation rather than as an heir's primogeniture.
The same-day pairing of the Frances Goodwin and John Goodwin confirmations represents a coordinated administrative settlement of the late governor's estate. The council processed both deeds within the major sitting, with the widow's deed and the son's deed sealed together to fix the entire Goodwin family settlement in a single working day. The structural pattern mirrors other family confirmations processed in the same sitting where multiple members of a single family received simultaneous regularisation of their respective interests.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, places the examination of John Goodwin's title between the 17 March consultation supporting his mother's confirmation and the 3 February consultations supporting the Johnson holdings. The narrow window between the three consultation dates demonstrates that the council was actively examining the Goodwin and Johnson estates within a concentrated period of weeks during early 1714.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the 4 August 1713 sitting. The full panel marks the deed as a substantial title meriting senior procedural weight, in contrast to the reduced panels seen in the closing sequence of leasehold instruments.
Speculations
The absence of any eastern or southern boundary description in the present text perhaps reflects a defect in the engrossment rather than the actual configuration of the parcel. The deed records only two of the four expected boundaries, with the great pastures on one side and Mary Hoskison on the west, leaving the eastern and southern bounds unspecified. The omission may be a scribal slip in the copying of the deed into the register, with the original instrument carrying the full boundary description but the register entry abbreviating or omitting the remaining bounds. The institutional record nonetheless treated the title as valid through the recital that John Goodwin had a just right and title, with the underlying physical extent presumably fixed by the annexed plan rather than by the textual description alone.
The choice to vest a separate 52-acre holding in John Goodwin, distinct from his mother's 89 acres, was perhaps a deliberate institutional design to give the son an independent freehold base from which to operate. The arrangement gave him security against any future remarriage by his mother, since his title would remain unaffected by changes in her domestic circumstances. The structure also recognised John's adulthood and capacity to manage land in his own name by 1713, separating him from the position of contingent remainderman that the 1705 Bevean settlement had established. The 1713 confirmation accordingly converted his earlier expectancy into a present working freehold, marking his coming of age as a substantial freeholder in his own right within the family settlement.
The configuration of John Goodwin's 52 acres adjacent to the Company's great pastures may perhaps reflect a particular family connection to the Company's livestock operations. Thomas Goodwin had served as storekeeper and gunner's mate before rising to governor, and the family may have maintained working relationships with the Company's pastoral operations across his career. The placement of John's confirmed estate at the edge of the great pastures would have allowed him to continue any such working arrangements with the Company's livestock administration, perhaps including informal grazing rights, agistment, or supply contracts that operated outside the formal documentary record.
167
Island St Helena.
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto John Goodwin Freeholder Five Acres of Land, Buiting towards y[e] North, East & South upon his own 52 Acres of Land, and towards the West, upon y[e] Hon[ble] Companys Wast Land, To have and to hold The said Five Acres of Land, to him the said John Goodwin his Executors Administrato[rs] To y[e] and Assignes, for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Year[s] Commenc[e]ing from the Twenty Comp[a] Lease fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. Upon Condition to John That he the said John Goodwin his Executors Administrators and Assigns Shall always Goodwin Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance To our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] United Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being the 25 Day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Ann[u]m in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto the said Hon[ble] Company and their Successors, And that he the said John Goodwin his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one Years, Leave the Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without Consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] and Councill for the time being In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Comp[a] and Lords Proprietors to these P[re]sents Have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth A. day of August. In the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Jn[o] Goodwin to the other part hath Sett his Hand and Seale. Jn[o] Goodwin
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to John Goodwin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John Goodwin, freeholder, 5 acres of land. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by Goodwin's own 52 acres, and west by the Company's waste land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Goodwin, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Goodwin and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Goodwin was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. John Goodwin signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for John Goodwin's estate, giving him a combined working holding of 57 acres with the 5 leased acres tucked into the western corner of his 52-acre freehold. The configuration places the leased parcel as a small extension into adjoining Company waste, with three sides bordered by Goodwin's own freehold and the fourth open to the Company's unallocated ground.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 marks a critical departure from the standard pattern seen across the rest of the 4 August 1713 sitting. Every other lease processed in the same session commenced from 25 March 1712, giving a back-dating of approximately 17 months from execution to commencement. John Goodwin's lease commences from 25 March 1713, only four months before execution, a much shorter institutional interval. The difference suggests either that the John Goodwin parcel had been a fresh allocation rather than a regularisation of existing occupation, or that the council had taken a particular institutional decision to date the lease from the most recent Lady Day rather than from the standard 1712 framework date.
The 52 acres of freehold confirmed in the same-day deed appear here as own 52 acres, attesting to Goodwin's possession of the freehold ground that the same sitting had just regularised. The cross-reference between the freehold confirmation and the lease shows the institutional integration of the two instruments, with each deed referencing the other to fix the working extent of the combined estate.
The western boundary against Company waste places the small leased parcel at the frontier between regularised settlement and unallocated ground. The configuration suggests John Goodwin had been pushing his working occupation slightly beyond the bounds of his confirmed freehold into the Company's adjacent waste, with the 1713 lease formally recognising the small encroachment under the controlled terms of the new tenure framework.
The disposal restriction operated as the principal institutional control, with John Goodwin holding a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval. The restriction protected the Company's supervisory role over the marginal ground while permitting Goodwin to work it as an extension of his consolidated estate.
The full witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the senior procedural weight given to John Goodwin's freehold confirmation in the same sitting. The use of the full panel rather than the reduced quorum seen in some closing leasehold instruments reflects the recent and substantial character of the John Goodwin family settlement, with both the freehold and the leasehold receiving full witnessing complements.
The standard rental of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum, applied as much to the son of a former governor as to soldiers, free planters and orphans. The Company's flat-rate institutional pricing operated uniformly across all categories of holder, with John Goodwin paying the same per-acre rate as the Wrangham orphans and the Desfountain children whose leases had been processed earlier in the same day.
The fence maintenance obligation operated as a documentary requirement, with the fences serving as the legal landmarks tying the lessee's occupation to the annexed plan. John Goodwin bore responsibility for preserving the boundary as drawn, with any alteration of the fences requiring the production of a revised plan.
Speculations
The 25 March 1713 commencement date, departing from the standard 25 March 1712 date used across the rest of the sitting, perhaps reflects the particular institutional treatment of the Goodwin family settlement following Thomas Goodwin's recent death. The death of the former governor, occurring at some point between his last documented activity and the March 1714 consultation supporting the present confirmations, may have prompted the council to handle the family estate's regularisation on a different timeline from the broader 1711 framework. The 1713 lease commencement places the small parcel as a fresh allocation made specifically in connection with John Goodwin's coming into his inheritance, rather than as a regularisation of pre-existing occupation that would have been back-dated to align with the standard framework.
The very small 5-acre size of the leased parcel, set against the 52 acres of freehold, suggests it represented a particular working unit rather than an independent agricultural holding. The configuration with three sides formed by Goodwin's own freehold points to a wedge of Company waste that had been included in the working occupation but had not formed part of the original chain of title supporting the freehold confirmation. The lease accordingly served to regularise a small piece of ground that John Goodwin had been working alongside the family estate without having any formal title to it, with the 1713 framework providing the institutional mechanism to bring the working unit under documentary cover.
The lease may perhaps also have served a defensive purpose against any future claim by adjoining holders or by the Company itself. By taking out a formal lease over the small 5-acre extension, John Goodwin secured a recognised legal interest in the ground that protected him against any later challenge to his occupation. The 21-year term would carry him through the entire likely productive period of the parcel under his personal management, while the disposal restriction kept the underlying Company ownership intact in case the family later sought to extend their interest. The mechanism converted an informal occupation into a documented tenancy, giving John Goodwin clear institutional standing on the marginal ground at the modest cost of the standard rental.
168
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies. Do hereby Confirm unto Robert Addiss Freeholder Fifteen Acres of Land Scituate in Sandy Bay, butting Comp[a] Deed and bounding towards the North and East upon Eight Acres of Land y[e] said Addiss to Rob[t] Hires of the Honourable Company, and towards the South and West upon the Land of James Addis Greentree Freeholder Which said Fifteen Acres of Land, He y[e] said Robert Addiss Hath a Just Right and Title too, As may more Largely appear Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. day of March. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by Beat of Drum, for any person, to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Robert Addiss his Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That the said Robert Addiss his Heires and Assignes shall and Do always bear true, Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Robert Addis.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Robert Addis, freeholder, 15 acres of land in Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north and east by 8 acres that Addis hired from the Company, and south and west by James Greentree freeholder's land. Addis's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Robert Addis, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 15-acre Sandy Bay confirmation regularised Robert Addis's holding within the dense cluster of interlocking estates that the 4 August 1713 sitting brought into formal recognition. Addis appears under variant spellings across the records, with the same individual rendered as Adley, Adlis and Adley in earlier instruments. The present deed records the form Addiss in the body and Addis in the running marginal heading, both with double s, perhaps reflecting a scribal preference at this point in the engrossment.
The southern and western boundary against James Greentree's freehold confirms the reciprocal mapping between Addis and Greentree. Greentree had received same-day confirmation of three parcels in Sandy Bay totalling 60 acres, with one of those parcels recording Robert Adles as the southern and western boundary holder. The two confirmations attest each other's bounds through the coordinated session, with each freeholder's deed providing institutional confirmation of the adjoining holding.
The northern and eastern boundary against the 8 acres Addis hired from the Company indicates a leasehold extension operating outside the present deed. No same-day lease for those 8 acres appears in the present sequence, but the reference within the freehold confirmation served to fix the boundary and to establish Addis's combined working presence of 23 acres in Sandy Bay when freehold and leasehold are taken together.
The configuration with Greentree's freehold to the south and west and Addis's own hired Company ground to the north and east places Addis at a particular nexus point within the regularised Sandy Bay landscape. The 15-acre freehold sat as a secure core wedged between the larger Greentree estate and the Company-managed leasehold ground that Addis worked under separate tenure.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as a substantial title within the same procedural weight as other freehold confirmations of similar size, including those of John Bagley and the Goodwin family.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the James Greentree confirmation processed in the same sitting. The two estates were examined together by the council, confirming the deliberate institutional grouping of adjoining holders within single consultation sessions.
The continued variation in spelling of Robert Addis's name across the documentary record demonstrates the practical flexibility of the period's scribal practice. The same individual could appear as Addis, Addiss, Adles, Adlis or Adley within different instruments processed by the same clerks, without the variations creating any apparent difficulty for the institutional process.
The cabbage tree or gumwood classification of the leased ground is not specified in the present text, leaving the institutional categorisation of Addis's combined Sandy Bay estate unrecorded. The omission contrasts with most other Sandy Bay confirmations and leases in the same sitting where the vegetation classification was carefully recorded, perhaps reflecting a scribal abbreviation in the present engrossment.
Speculations
The very specific positioning of the freehold immediately adjacent to the hired 8 acres on the north and east suggests Robert Addis had acquired the freehold rights to ground he had previously worked under Company lease. The 1711 framework operated principally to regularise existing occupation, and the configuration of the present deed points to Addis having converted a portion of his working estate from leasehold to freehold during the consultation process. The 8 acres remaining under lease may represent ground that the council was unwilling to release into freehold, perhaps because of strategic Company concerns about the eastern portion of his working estate, or perhaps because Addis himself had chosen to convert only the more secure central portion while leaving the marginal extension under the more flexible leasehold tenure.
The reciprocal witnessing arrangement between Robert Addis and James Greentree across their respective same-day confirmations served a practical institutional function in fixing the boundary between two substantial Sandy Bay holdings. Although Addis does not appear as a witness on Greentree's deed in the present record, the mutual boundary references across the two confirmations would have been sufficient to bind each holder to the agreed line. The pattern reduces the risk of future boundary disputes through documentary attestation rather than through physical marking alone, with each freeholder's deed serving as institutional confirmation of the adjoining holding.
The single Company lease of 8 acres adjoining the freehold may perhaps have served a longer-term strategic purpose for Robert Addis. The 21-year term of the standard 1711 lease would carry Addis through to 1733 with secured access to the additional ground at the modest 5 shillings per annum rate, while the disposal restriction kept the underlying Company ownership intact for future renegotiation. The arrangement gave Addis the working flexibility of a small extension without committing him to the larger capital outlay or institutional obligations of a freehold confirmation over the full combined estate. The pattern would suit a holder building up his working position step by step within the framework of the new tenure system, with each portion taken up under the form best suited to its character.
169
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Honour[able] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto Robert Addiss Freeholder, Eight Acres of Land Scituate in Sandy Bay, butting and a bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Pasture Land (Stiled in y[e] Possession of Lieut[ena]nt Comp[a] Lease Thomas Cason, towards the East upon y[e] Land of Jam[es] Greentree Freeholder, towards y[e] West to Robert upon y[e] Land of Mary Hoskison, and towards y[e] South upon y[e] said Rob[t] Addiss own Land Addiss To have and to hold The said Eight Acres of Land to him y[e] said Robert Addiss his Executors Administrators and Assignes, for y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty One Years Commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve, Upon Condition That he y[e] said Robert Addiss his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall and Do, always bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]. and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary, being y[e] 25 day of March, the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant money of y[e] said Island, Unto y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a] and their Successors, And that he y[e] said Robert Addiss his Executors Administrators & Assigns, Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty one years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land, in as good repair as they are now, And not to alter, y[e] said Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor to dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same, without y[e] Consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] and Coun[c]ell for the time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island this Fourth A. A. day of August in y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And y[e] said Robert Addiss to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand & Seale. Rob[er]t Addis
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Robert Addis.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Robert Addis, freeholder, 8 acres of land in Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north by the Company's pasture land currently in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason, east by James Greentree freeholder's land, west by Mary Hoskison's land, and south by Robert Addis's own land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Addis, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Addis and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Addis was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Robert Addis signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Robert Addis's Sandy Bay estate, giving him a combined working holding of 23 acres with the 8 leased acres extending the 15-acre freehold confirmed in the same-day deed. The southern boundary against his own land cross-references directly to the freehold confirmation, with each instrument attesting the other's bounds.
The northern boundary against the Company's pasture land currently in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason introduces a particular institutional complication. Cason had received the 27 July 1711 Welley's Land lease of 40 acres in Sandy Bay as ensign, and the 4 August 1713 lease of a further 5 acres as lieutenant. The present reference describes adjoining ground as Company pasture in his possession, which suggests Cason held some portion of Sandy Bay ground under arrangements other than the formal leases recorded elsewhere. The configuration may reflect either an informal grazing arrangement, an unrecorded lease, or the possibility that Cason was managing Company pasture in some official capacity as a senior officer.
The witness panel includes Thomas Cason as the first signatory, with his name immediately followed by Henry Francis and John Alexander. Cason therefore appears in two capacities within the same single instrument: as the named occupier of the adjoining Company pasture forming the northern boundary, and as the principal witness to the seal. The dual role illustrates the closely knit character of the literate circle that managed the 1711 framework, with the same individuals attending many of the day's instruments while simultaneously holding adjoining ground.
The eastern boundary against James Greentree freeholder's land and the western boundary against Mary Hoskison's land place the leased parcel within the same densely interlocking cluster of holders confirmed throughout the day. Greentree had received his 60-acre freehold confirmation and 25-acre leasehold earlier in the sitting, and Mary Hoskison had appeared repeatedly as a named boundary holder across multiple instruments. The configuration places Addis's 8 leased acres at a central nexus point bordered on each side by a different category of tenure: Company pasture under Cason's working occupation, Greentree's freehold, Mary Hoskison's tenure, and Addis's own freehold.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1712 matches the standard back-dating used across the rest of the 1713 sitting, contrasting with the unusual 25 March 1713 commencement seen in the John Goodwin lease. The standard 17-month interval between commencement and execution applied to most regularisations of existing occupation, with the John Goodwin variation marking that lease as an exception perhaps connected to the Goodwin family settlement following Thomas Goodwin's death.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. Addis held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, blocking the open market in leasehold interests that had previously operated through private assignment.
The cabbage tree or gumwood classification of the leased ground is not specified in the present text, matching the omission in the same-day freehold confirmation. The absence of vegetation categorisation from both Addis instruments contrasts with the careful classification recorded in most other Sandy Bay leases of the day and may reflect a scribal abbreviation in the engrossment of the Addis pair.
Speculations
The reference to Company pasture currently in the possession of Lieutenant Thomas Cason perhaps reveals an institutional arrangement by which senior officers held working occupation of Company ground without formal leasehold documentation. Cason's two recorded leases of 1711 and 1713 covered 45 acres of Sandy Bay ground, but the present description of additional pasture in his possession suggests his actual working estate extended beyond what the formal leases captured. The arrangement may have been a courtesy extended to officers responsible for Company livestock operations, allowing them practical management of pasture ground in their official capacity while keeping the formal title in the Company's name. The pattern would suit an institutional design where the active officers managing the Company's pastoral assets could draw on adjoining ground without the need for full leasehold conversion.
The position of Mary Hoskison as the western boundary of the Addis leased parcel and as a recurring boundary holder across multiple 1713 instruments may perhaps reflect a particular institutional treatment of her interests following the 6 July 1708 mortgage arrangement. The original mortgage had headed as a mortgage but functioned as a lease for Mary's life, with George Hoskison conveying the working interest to Richard Gurling for an annual payment over the measuring period of Mary's lifetime. The repeated naming of Mary Hoskison as a boundary holder across multiple Sandy Bay instruments by 1712 and 1713 suggests that the underlying working occupation had become identified with her name in the institutional record, regardless of the more complicated underlying legal arrangement among Hoskison, Gurling and Mary. The pattern shows the documentary regime catching up to the practical reality of who held and managed the working ground, with the formal records reflecting Mary's recognised position even where the formal title arrangements were more layered.
The same-day pairing of the freehold confirmation and the leasehold extension demonstrates Addis's positioning within the literate circle of substantial Sandy Bay holders. The full witnessing complement on both instruments, the reciprocal boundary references with Greentree, and the carefully integrated configuration with Mary Hoskison and Cason's pasture all suggest Addis was a recognised member of the working network rather than a peripheral or marginal holder. The institutional treatment of his estate accordingly matches the procedural weight given to Greentree and the Goodwin family, marking him as a substantial freeholder within the regularised Sandy Bay landscape.
170
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Margaret Sich Wid[ow] & Freeholder, & y[e] Heires of John Sich her Husband (dec[ease]d), Forty Acres of Gumwood Land Comp[a] Scituate & Lying towards y[e] North upon y[e] Lands of Fran[cis] Wrangham, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Deed to James Rider, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Lands of Henry Francis & Fran[cis] Wrangham, towards y[e] West upon y[e] Marg[t] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land, ALSO one other Parcel of Cabbagetree Land containing Twenty Acres formerly Sich belonging to John Alexander, Scituate & Lying towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of James Rider, towards the East on y[e] Land of Jonathan Beals Orphans towards y[e] South on y[e] Land of John Long & towards the West on y[e] Land of y[e] aforesaid James Rider, And also One other p[ar]cel more of Cabbagetree Land containing Ten Acres, Scituate & lying towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of James Rider, towards the East upon y[e] Land of y[e] said Beals Orphans towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Jn[o] Robinson & Char[le]s Steward and towards y[e] West on y[e] Land of y[e] said James Rider, The said Three p[ar]cels of Gumwood & Cabbagetree Land contain[s] in y[e] whole Seventy Acres, Which she y[e] said Margaret Sich & y[e] Heires of y[e] said John Sich deceased, Hath a Just Right & Title too as may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consult- ation of y[e] Third & A. A. day of February, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to her y[e] said Margaret Sich and y[e] Heires of y[e] said John Sich Decea[se]d, Their, and every of their Heires & Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That she the said Margaret Sich, and y[e] Heires of y[e] aforesaid John Sich, Decea[se]d, their and every of their, Heires and Assignes, Do bear always true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Comp[a] and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a] and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. in y[e] Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Margaret Sich.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Margaret Sich, widow and freeholder, and to the heirs of her deceased husband John Sich, three parcels of land totalling 70 acres.
The first parcel of 40 acres of gumwood land lay bounded north by the lands of Francis Wrangham, east by James Rider's land, south by the lands of Henry Francis and Francis Wrangham, and west by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel of 20 acres of cabbage tree land, formerly belonging to John Alexander, was bounded north by James Rider's land, east by Jonathan Beale's orphans' land, south by John Long's land, and west by James Rider's land.
The third parcel of 10 acres of cabbage tree land was bounded north by James Rider's land, east by Jonathan Beale's orphans' land, south by the lands of John Robinson and Charles Steward, and west by James Rider's land.
Margaret Sich's title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich, deceased, their respective heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 70-acre confirmation establishes Margaret Sich as one of the most substantial individual landholders in the 4 August 1713 sitting, with her combined estate when added to the same-period leasehold reaching 78 acres. Earlier records had treated the Sich confirmation as incomplete with blank dates and an apparent gap in the engrossment, but the present text provides a complete record with full consultation date, sealing date and witness panel. The complete engrossment indicates the deed received its formal execution within the major sitting rather than being held in draft form pending later completion.
The double vesting in Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich deceased preserves the second-marriage children's settlement that Margaret had carefully constructed through the 4 February 1705 buy-out of her son Richard Swallow's reversionary interest for £140 0s 0d. The structure protected the descent of the estate to her children by John Sich rather than to her son by her first marriage, while still giving her absolute working possession during her lifetime. The Company recognised the underlying family settlement and embedded it within the institutional regularisation of the freehold.
The first parcel of 40 acres of gumwood land sits within a particularly tight cluster of family-connected boundaries. Francis Wrangham appears on both the northern and southern bounds, indicating that the parcel was effectively wedged between two portions of his estate. Henry Francis appears as the southern co-boundary with Wrangham, reflecting the family connection between Francis and the Wrangham line through Francis's marriage to the widow of an earlier Francis Wrangham. The configuration shows the Sich, Wrangham and Francis estates closely interlocked at the head of Chapel Valley.
The second parcel of 20 acres of cabbage tree land, formerly belonging to John Alexander, records an earlier disposal by the long-tenured register of his own ground to the Sich estate. Alexander had built up substantial accumulations across the records, including the 1701 Bidott and Grandy purchases, the 1712 Elinor Cotgrave purchase of 70 acres in Youngs Valley, and the 1712 Lufkin tenement purchase for £170 0s 0d in store credit. The disposal of 20 acres from his holdings to the Sich estate indicates an active management of his portfolio, with parcels moving between his personal estate and the wider community of substantial holders.
The recurring boundary references to James Rider across all three Sich parcels demonstrate the dominant position of the Rider/Reder estate in the same area. Rider appears on three sides of two different parcels, indicating that his ground formed a substantial block around which the Sich holdings were distributed. The configuration places Margaret Sich's freeholds as smaller distinct units within a larger landscape dominated by Rider's estate.
The reference to Jonathan Beale's orphans on the eastern boundary of the second and third parcels marks the continuing presence of the Beale family in the area through the orphan generation. Beale's orphans had earlier appeared as boundary holders in the Doveton confirmation of 1711 and in other instruments, with the orphans operating as a recognisable collective tenure unit across the regularised landscape.
John Long appears on the southern boundary of the second parcel, building on his earlier appearances as boundary holder in the Cleve-Greentree James Valley sale of June 1715, the Reder confirmation of June 1711, and in the consultation book cross-references for orphan maintenance arrangements. The repeated appearances confirm Long as a settled holder across multiple regions of the island by 1713.
John Robinson and Charles Steward on the southern boundary of the third parcel connect to their respective same-day or near-period confirmations. Robinson had received the 1 August 1711 lease of 20 acres of gumwood, and Steward had received the 4 August 1713 confirmation of 17 acres and a 27-acre leasehold across four parcels in Sandy Bay. The mutual boundary reference reflects the dense interlocking of substantial holdings across the southern portion of the regularised landscape.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The presence of Henry Francis as a witness, given that his own land formed the southern boundary of the first parcel, illustrates the mutual witnessing pattern by which adjoining freeholders attested each other's documentary records.
Speculations
The repeated configuration of James Rider on multiple boundaries of the Sich parcels perhaps reflects a particular working arrangement between the Rider and Sich estates that the formal documentary record only partly captures. The geometry by which Rider appears on three sides of one parcel and three sides of another suggests the two estates were not simply adjacent but functionally interwoven, with Rider's ground forming a containing matrix around the smaller Sich freeholds. The arrangement may have arisen through a sequence of partial sales or family settlements that left the Sich portions as defined enclaves within a larger originally unified estate, perhaps before James Rider's death and the subsequent transition of his holdings to his son and heir. The formal boundary descriptions accordingly record the geometric result of an underlying family or trading history that the deed itself does not narrate.
The choice to record the 20-acre cabbage tree parcel specifically as formerly belonging to John Alexander, while making no comparable identification of earlier holders for the 40-acre gumwood parcel or the 10-acre cabbage tree parcel, perhaps reflects a deliberate documentary strategy. The Alexander identification fixed the chain of title against any future claim by his heirs or assigns, given his long-standing role as register and his accumulated personal portfolio. The reference accordingly served both to honour the documentary chain of provenance and to provide protection against later disputes that might have arisen from Alexander's continuing institutional presence. The other two parcels may have come into Sich hands through routes that did not require comparable defensive identification, perhaps from earlier reversions to the Company or from settlements not anchored to a particular named prior holder.
The double vesting in Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich, with the unusual width of the formula extending to their and every of their heires and assignes, perhaps reflects the particular complexity of the family settlement that Margaret had constructed through her two marriages and two sets of children. The formula gave the council institutional confidence that the title was protected against any number of competing claims from different family branches, with the broad vesting language accommodating multiple possible lines of inheritance. The structure suggests Margaret had been thinking carefully about the protection of her children by John Sich against any potential disputes with her son by her earlier Swallow marriage, with the documentary form embedding the protection at the moment of confirmation.
171
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett and Set unto Margaret Sich, Widow, and Free holder, and the Heires of John Sich her (Deceased) Husband Four Acres of Land Butting and Bounding towards the North upon the Land of Henry Francis, towards the East upon the Land of James Rider, towards the West upon the Lands Comp[a] of Francis Wrangham, and towards the South upon their own Forty Acres of Land. ALSO Lease to Two Acres of Land more, butting towards the North-West and South to the said Margarett[s] Marg[ret] Land at the Head of Chapple Vally, and towards the East upon the Lands of Jonathan Beals Sich Orphans, And also Two Acres of Cabbagetree Land more, Butting towards the North upon y[e] towards the South upon the Land of John Robinson, and Charles Steward, and towards y[e] West upon the Land of the said Charles Steward, and John Bagley. All which said Three parcels of Land contains in the whole, Eight Acres, To have and to hold, the said Eight Acres of Land to her the said Margaret Sich, and the Heires of the said John Sich dec[ease]d, their Executors Administrators and Assignes, for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years, Commencing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. Upon Condition That She the said Margaret Sich, and the Heires of the said John Sich dec[ease]d, her Him her, or any of their Heires Executors and Administrators, Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being the 25 day of March, the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]. and their Successors. And that she the said Margaret Sich, and the Heires of the said John Sich dec[ease]d, her him their or any of their Heires Executors and Administrators, shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years Leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repair, as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councill for the time being. In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]. and Lords Proprietors to these presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. day of August. A. In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And she the said Margaret Sich to the other part hath Sett her Hand & Seale.
Benj[amin] Sich
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Margaret Sich.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Margaret Sich, widow and freeholder, and to the heirs of her deceased husband John Sich, three parcels of land totalling 8 acres.
The first parcel of 4 acres was bounded north by Henry Francis's land, east by James Rider's land, west by Francis Wrangham's lands, and south by her own 40 acres of freehold.
The second parcel of 2 acres lay at the head of Chapel Valley. It was bounded north, west and south by Margaret's own land, and east by the lands of Jonathan Beale's orphans.
The third parcel of 2 acres of cabbage tree land was bounded north by [...], south by the lands of John Robinson and Charles Steward, and west by the lands of Charles Steward and John Bagley.
The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Margaret, the heirs of John Sich deceased, their executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcels during that period.
The lease bound them to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, they were to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. They were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or their interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The counterpart was sealed by Benjamin Sich, signing for or on behalf of Margaret Sich. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The lease completed the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Margaret Sich's estate, giving her a combined working holding of 78 acres across the various parcels. The 8 leased acres distributed across three small parcels supplement the 70-acre freehold confirmed in the same-day deed, with each leased parcel tucked into a particular corner of the wider estate.
The first leased parcel of 4 acres adjoins the southern boundary of Margaret's 40-acre freehold. The cross-reference between the two instruments shows the leasehold extension directly above the freehold, with Henry Francis to the north, James Rider to the east and Francis Wrangham to the west framing the small parcel within the same family-connected cluster that surrounded the freehold.
The second leased parcel of 2 acres at the head of Chapel Valley sits with three of its four sides formed by Margaret's own land, indicating a small enclave fully embedded within her existing holdings. The configuration shows the leased ground as a wedge of Company waste that had been absorbed into the working occupation of the surrounding freehold, with the 1713 lease formally recognising the practical inclusion under the controlled terms of the framework.
The third leased parcel of 2 acres of cabbage tree land sits within a different cluster, with John Robinson and Charles Steward on the southern boundary and Charles Steward and John Bagley on the western boundary. The configuration places the parcel within the south-eastern portion of the regularised landscape rather than at the head of Chapel Valley. The northern boundary description appears to be incomplete in the present text, with the engrossment leaving the bound either unrecorded or rendered illegibly.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 marks a departure from the standard 25 March 1712 used across most of the 1713 sitting. The Sich lease commences from the most recent Lady Day rather than from the standard back-dated commencement, matching the unusual treatment seen in the John Goodwin lease processed in the same sitting. The shared departure from the standard pattern across these two instruments suggests the council had taken particular institutional decisions to date them from 1713 rather than 1712, perhaps reflecting recent settlements or fresh allocations rather than regularisations of long-established occupation.
The double vesting in Margaret Sich and the heirs of John Sich deceased preserves the second-marriage children's settlement that runs through all the Sich instruments. The formula appears with some scribal variation in the present text, with the obligation clause shifting between forms that include her, him, them and the various combinations of heirs, executors and administrators. The variation reflects the practical difficulty of capturing a complex multi-party vesting in a standard lease template designed for single male holders.
The sealing of the counterpart by Benjamin Sich, signing in place of or on behalf of Margaret, marks his appearance as the working representative of the family. Benjamin had earlier appeared as a boundary holder across multiple Sandy Bay confirmations in 1713 and connects to James Sich, the holder of John Beale's land under temporary arrangement in 1707. Benjamin's position as the signing party on the present lease, while Margaret remained the principal vested party, indicates he was perhaps acting as her adult representative or as the eldest of her sons by John Sich who would inherit through the double vesting.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis, without John Alexander as register, matches the pattern seen in other closing instruments of the day. The procedural withdrawal of the register from the final leasehold extensions continued through the Sich pair.
Speculations
The sealing of the counterpart by Benjamin Sich rather than by Margaret herself perhaps marks the moment at which the family's working management was transferred from the elderly widow to her adult son or stepson. The arrangement gave Margaret continued institutional standing as the principal vested party while delegating the day-to-day operations of the leasehold to a younger generation. The structure would have allowed the family to continue building up its working presence on the ground without requiring Margaret's personal attendance at each subsequent administrative event, with Benjamin taking on the responsibilities of representation. The pattern matches other arrangements seen in the records where senior holders progressively delegated management to younger family members while retaining the underlying titles in their own names.
The commencement date of 25 March 1713 rather than the standard 25 March 1712 may perhaps reflect a particular institutional treatment for the Sich estate connected to the unusual complexity of the family settlement. Margaret's double vesting with the heirs of John Sich required careful resolution of the inheritance structure, and the council may have used the later commencement date to mark the lease as a fresh institutional act rather than a back-dated regularisation. The choice would have separated the new tenure from the underlying historic occupation, giving the settlement a defined starting point that the council could use to manage future questions about the descent of the estate.
The widely distributed configuration of the three leased parcels across different parts of the landscape suggests Margaret had been actively building up her working position across multiple regions rather than concentrating on a single block. The 4-acre parcel at the southern edge of her 40-acre freehold, the 2-acre enclave at the head of Chapel Valley, and the 2-acre cabbage tree parcel within the Robinson-Steward-Bagley cluster all point to a strategic accumulation of small productive extensions adjoining or near the various freehold cores. The pattern shows Margaret as a substantial holder operating through small adjacent extensions rather than through large new acquisitions, with each leased parcel serving to extend or consolidate a particular freehold portion of the broader estate.
172
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto James Draper Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Land being the Son of his deceased Grandfather Comp[a] Draper, Lying Scituate in Fishers Vally Butting and Bounding towards the North, East & Deed to South upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, and towards the West, upon the Land of James Sutton Isaac Sen[ior] Freeholder, Which said Twenty Acres of Land He the said James Draper Draper Hath a Just Right and Title too, As may more Largely appear, Upon Examination in a Con- sultation of the Third & A. A. A. day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any Objection made, To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said James Draper his Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition That he the said James Draper his Heires and Assigns shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Con- stitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these P[re]sents Have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to James Draper.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to James Draper, freeholder, grandson of his deceased grandfather Draper, 20 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by the Company's waste land, and west by Sutton Isaac senior freeholder's land. Draper's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. James Draper, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation establishes James Draper's title through a three-generation chain of inheritance descending from his deceased grandfather. The phrasing in the original text, identifying him as the son of his deceased grandfather Draper, appears to be a scribal slip for grandson, since the body of the deed clearly contemplates inheritance across two generations of male succession. The configuration places James Draper as the third generation of his family on the island, with the original grandfather as the initial allottee, the intermediate generation (perhaps Draper's father) bridging to the present holder, and James himself now receiving the regularised freehold confirmation.
The chain of inheritance through the grandfather rather than through a more recent father indicates either that James Draper's father had died before the family estate could be passed through him to the grandson, or that the grandfather had directly bequeathed the holding to James by will, bypassing an intermediate generation. The institutional preservation of the original grandfather's name in the deed shows the working memory of the family's connection to the parcel extending across at least two generations of mortality.
The grandfather Draper named here is perhaps the same James Draper, free planter, who had appeared as a seller in the 29 November 1699 sale of a messuage house near Fort James to Samuel Maxwell corporal for £18 0s 0d. The earlier James Draper had been an active free planter on the island in the late seventeenth century, and the present 1713 deed regularises ground that may have descended through his line to the grandson James Draper of 1713.
The Fishers Valley location places the Draper parcel within the same region as the Desfountain children's confirmation and the Samuel Jeffrey holding processed in the same sitting. The cluster of Fishers Valley confirmations across the 1713 framework demonstrates the council's systematic regularisation of the entire valley's holdings within a coordinated session.
The western boundary against Sutton Isaac senior freeholder marks Sutton Isaac as a continuing presence in the regularised landscape. Isaac had earlier appeared as the donor of the 29 October 1698 gift to his grandson Stephen Audouart, as a boundary holder to French's 1705 Chapel Valley plot, and as a witness to multiple instruments. His appearance as Draper's western boundary holder by 1713 confirms his settled position in Fishers Valley alongside his other documented holdings.
The placement of the Draper parcel on three sides against Company waste indicates a relatively isolated position within the regularised landscape, with only one neighbouring freeholder named. The configuration suggests the Draper holding sat on the outer margin of regularised Fishers Valley settlement, with Company waste forming the limits in three directions.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving full procedural weight despite the relatively modest 20-acre size of the holding.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, places the examination of Draper's title in the same week as the Greentree confirmation, the John Goodwin confirmation and the Robert Addis confirmation. The shared consultation date demonstrates the council's batch processing of multiple holdings within a concentrated review period.
Speculations
The choice to identify the inheritance through the grandfather rather than through a more recent ancestor perhaps reflects the particular character of the Draper family's experience on the island. The grandfather may have been a foundational holder whose presence in the institutional memory extended back to the original allotment period of the 1680s, with his name accordingly carrying special weight in establishing the chain of title. The intermediate generation may have been short-lived or absent from the island, with the working tenure passing from the grandfather to James directly through some testamentary or familial arrangement. The institutional preservation of the grandfather's name accordingly served not just as a routine chain of title but as recognition of the family's long-standing connection to the ground.
The relatively isolated position of the parcel, with three sides against Company waste and only one neighbouring freeholder, perhaps reflects the limits of regularisation in the more remote portions of Fishers Valley. The 1711 framework had focused primarily on densely interlocked holdings where boundary disputes were most likely to arise, with frontier estates such as the Draper holding receiving comparatively less reciprocal mapping. The configuration shows the institutional regularisation extending outward from the more populous areas, with marginal estates receiving confirmation but operating within a less developed network of adjoining freeholds.
The omission of any consultation entry from the present deed referring to the grandfather's name specifically perhaps reflects the practical institutional difficulty of reconstructing a complete chain of title across two generations of mortality. The council's examination may have rested on James Draper's working possession of the ground and on testimonial evidence from neighbours such as Sutton Isaac senior, rather than on documentary evidence of the original grandfather's allotment. The beat of drum procedure operated as the institutional safeguard against any unrecorded claim, with the silence on the appointed day extinguishing any rival interest and clearing the title for the grandson regardless of any gaps in the underlying documentary record.
173
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett and Set unto James Draper, freeholder, Five Acres of Land, Scituate and Lying under the Main Ridge on Sandy Bayside, butting towards the North, upon the Land of Richard Hardings Children Comp[a] towards the East to the said Main Ridge, towards the South upon the Land of Lieut[ena]nt Charles Cason[?] Lease to and towards the West upon Three Acres of Land belonging to James Rider To have and James to hold, the said Five Acres of Land to him the said James Draper his Executors Administ[rators] Draper and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one Years Commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition. That he y[e] said James Draper his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall always Do and bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling Duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto the said Honourable Company, and their Successors. And that he the said James Draper his Executors Administrators and Assignes, Shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty one years, leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repaire as they are now and not to alter the said Fences which are the Land marks, and which Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor to dispose of this Lease, or Interest in the same, without the Consent of the Governour & Coun[c]ell for the time being. In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Pro- prietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth A. day of August. In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen And the said James Draper to the other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered James Draper In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to James Draper.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to James Draper, freeholder, 5 acres of land under the Main Ridge on Sandy Bay side. The parcel was bounded north by the land of Richard Harding's children, east by the Main Ridge, south by Lieutenant Charles Cason's land, and west by 3 acres belonging to James Rider. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Draper, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Draper and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Draper was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. James Draper signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and Henry Francis.
Interpretations
The lease takes James Draper's working presence into a different region from the freehold confirmed in the same-day deed. The freehold of 20 acres sat in Fishers Valley while the present 5-acre lease lies under the Main Ridge on Sandy Bay side. The configuration shows Draper holding ground in two distinct parts of the island, with the family's working occupation distributed across multiple regions rather than concentrated in a single block.
The southern boundary against Lieutenant Charles Cason's land introduces a new individual into the records. Earlier instruments had documented Thomas Cason rising from ensign in 1711 to lieutenant by 1713, with multiple Sandy Bay leases recorded in his name. The reference here to a Lieutenant Charles Cason perhaps reflects either a scribal slip for Thomas Cason or the presence of a different Cason family member with the same officer rank. The shared surname Cason, the shared rank of lieutenant, and the Sandy Bay location all point toward Thomas Cason being the intended individual, with Charles being a misreading or an alternative name not previously documented.
The northern boundary against the land of Richard Harding's children connects directly to the 4 August 1713 grant to the children of Richard Harding, who had received confirmation of 19 acres across two Sandy Bay parcels. The reciprocal mapping confirms that Draper's leasehold sat immediately to the south of the Harding children's freehold, with both estates within the same coordinated cluster of Sandy Bay holdings regularised in the same sitting.
The western boundary against 3 acres belonging to James Rider records a small Rider parcel within the same area, distinct from his larger holdings elsewhere. The 3-acre parcel may represent a fragment of Rider's broader estate that had been separated through earlier transactions or that operated as a particular working unit alongside his other ground.
The eastern boundary against the Main Ridge places the parcel against a fixed topographical feature rather than another holder, with the dominant ridge forming the institutional limit of regularised settlement on that side. The configuration matches other Sandy Bay leases of the day where the Main Ridge served as a natural fixed reference.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, matches the pattern seen in other closing instruments of the day. The procedural withdrawal of the register from later leasehold extensions continued through the Draper lease, with the substantive title resting on the freehold confirmation that had received the full witnessing complement.
The standard lease commencement date of 25 March 1712 matches the back-dating used across most of the 1713 sitting, distinguishing the present lease from the unusual 25 March 1713 commencement seen in the John Goodwin and Margaret Sich leases. The configuration suggests Draper's leasehold represented a regularisation of pre-existing occupation rather than a fresh institutional allocation.
The cabbage tree or gumwood classification of the leased ground is not specified in the present text, matching the omission in the same-day freehold confirmation. The absence of vegetation categorisation from both Draper instruments contrasts with the careful classification recorded in most other Sandy Bay leases of the day.
The presence of Thomas Cason as both a named adjoining boundary holder (under the variant Charles Cason) and as the first witness to the seal illustrates again the closely knit character of the literate circle that managed the 1711 framework. The same individual could appear in two distinct roles within the same single instrument.
Speculations
The dispersal of James Draper's working estate across two distant regions, with the Fishers Valley freehold and the Sandy Bay leasehold sitting in separate parts of the island, perhaps reflects a deliberate diversification of the family's agricultural base. The Fishers Valley ground may have served one type of cultivation while the Sandy Bay leasehold provided different productive opportunities under the main ridge. The configuration would have given the family a balanced working portfolio spread across multiple landscape zones rather than concentrating all risk in a single block.
The reference to Lieutenant Charles Cason on the southern boundary, against the background of Thomas Cason's well-documented progression through ensign to lieutenant, may perhaps point to a scribal slip in the engrossment rather than a separate individual. The clerk preparing the present deed may have inadvertently substituted the wrong Christian name when copying from the original draft or from the surveyor's notes, with the actual individual being the same Thomas Cason who witnesses the deed. Such slips would have been institutionally inconsequential because the boundary description rested on the recognised working position of the named holder, with the lieutenant rank and the Cason surname being sufficient to identify the correct individual.
The fragmentation of James Rider's estate into small parcels including the present 3-acre boundary unit suggests his holdings were divided into many smaller working portions rather than held as a single consolidated block. The pattern matches the broader picture of Rider as a substantial holder whose ground appeared as boundary references across many other instruments of the day. The configuration would have allowed Rider to lease, sell or transfer individual small parcels within his estate without disturbing the wider working arrangement, providing flexibility in his management of the family's ground.
174
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Simon Whaly Freeholder Ten Acres of Land Scituate in Fishers Vally, Buiting and bounding towards y[e] Comp[a] North, East, West and South Upon the Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land, Which said Ten Acres of Land Deed to He the said Simon Whaly, Hath a Just Right and Title too, As may more largely appear, Upon Simon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. day of February A. One Thousand Seven Whaley hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said Simon Whaly his Heires & Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That he the said Simon Whaly his Heires and Assigns shall always Do and bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth day of August. In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Simon Whaley.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Simon Whaley, freeholder, 10 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north, east, west and south by the Company's waste land. Whaley's title rested on a consultation of 3 February 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Simon Whaley, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
Simon Whaley introduces a new individual into the documented cohort of substantial freeholders. Earlier records had referenced a Simon Whaley as a boundary holder of the 22 acres at the head of Fishery Valley sold by Thomas Toster to Samuel Jeffrey on 12 April 1709, indicating his settled presence in the area at that earlier date. The present 1713 confirmation regularises his working occupation under the new tenure framework, formalising his position as a freeholder in the Fishers Valley cluster.
The configuration of the parcel surrounded on all four sides by Company waste places Whaley at a wholly isolated position within the regularised landscape. The absence of any named adjoining freeholder marks the holding as a frontier estate at the outer margin of regularised settlement. The pattern matches other isolated holdings such as the Joshua Johnson 14-acre confirmation under the King's Peak, where Company waste formed three of the four boundaries.
The Fishers Valley location places Whaley within the same regional cluster as James Draper, the Desfountain children and Samuel Jeffrey, all of whom received same-period confirmations within the broader Fishers Valley regularisation. The cluster reflects the council's systematic processing of the entire valley's holdings within the coordinated 1711 framework.
The Whaley surname connects backward to Pomon Whaley who had appeared as a witness (mark P) to the 13 July 1687 sale by Joseph Pratt to James Casthope of 10 acres with house. The earlier Whaley as witness to a transaction in the same general period suggests the Whaley family had been present on the island for at least a generation before the 1713 confirmation. Simon Whaley may be the son or grandson of Pomon Whaley, continuing the family line into the regularised freeholders of the new framework.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving the same procedural weight as substantial confirmations of larger size, demonstrating the consistent treatment of smaller holdings within the institutional framework.
The consultation date of 3 February 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the Joshua Johnson, Elizabeth Johnson and Francis Wrangham confirmations. The shared consultation date confirms that the council had examined multiple Fishers Valley and other holdings together within a single review session, before the formal sealing dispatched at the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The simple and brief character of the deed, with no chain of earlier holders identified and no complex boundary configuration, reflects the relatively uncomplicated nature of Whaley's title. The parcel was perhaps a direct original allotment that had remained in family hands across the years without intermediate transfers, or it was a fresh allocation given to Whaley as recognition of his settled occupation.
The absence of any leasehold extension paired with the present freehold confirmation marks Whaley as one of the few holders processed in the major sitting who received only a freehold instrument without a same-day lease. The configuration suggests his working estate was limited to the confirmed 10 acres without any adjoining hired Company ground requiring formal regularisation.
Speculations
The wholly isolated position of the parcel, surrounded entirely by Company waste, perhaps reflects Whaley's status as a marginal or smaller-scale holder operating at the outer fringe of regularised settlement. The 1711 framework had focused principally on the densely interlocking estates of substantial freeholders where boundary disputes were most likely to require institutional resolution, and Whaley's isolated 10-acre parcel sat outside the main cluster of high-value confirmations. The absence of adjoining named freeholders gave the council a simple administrative task in regularising the title, with no reciprocal mapping required against neighbouring holders.
The absence of a paired leasehold extension may perhaps indicate that Whaley either had no working occupation of adjoining Company waste or that his working extension had not been processed under the 1711 framework. The configuration contrasts with most other holders in the day, who received same-day pairs of freehold confirmation and leasehold extension covering their combined working estates. Whaley's single-instrument treatment suggests his presence in the regularised landscape was confined to the freehold core, with any informal use of adjoining waste continuing outside the documentary regime.
The systematic regularisation of Fishers Valley holdings within the 1711 framework perhaps reflects a particular institutional priority. The valley contained multiple inherited estates including the Draper, Desfountain, Jeffrey and Whaley holdings, with the cluster representing several generations of settled occupation that the council aimed to clear into formal documentary cover. The coordinated processing of the entire valley's confirmations within a single session provided the institutional opportunity to fix the working landscape across multiple families simultaneously, with each confirmation contributing to the wider documentary settlement of the area.
175
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honour[a]ble United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Simon Whaley Freeholder, Ten Acres of Land, Scituate and Lying at y[e] Head of Fishers Vally Buiting towards y[e] North-East and South upon the Comp[a] Land of Samuel Jefson, and towards the West, upon y[e] Main Ridge. To have and to hold Lease to the said Ten Acres of Land to him y[e] said Simon Whaly his Executors Administrators and Simon Assignes for y[e] Terme, and Time of Twenty One Years Commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth Whaley day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition That he the said Simon Whaly his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four per Shillings per Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors. And that he the said Simon Whaly his Executors Administrators, and Assignes, shall & Do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty one Years, leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter the said Fences which are the Land marks and not which will Occasion y[e] alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, no dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without y[e] Consent of y[e] Governour and Councell for the time being. In Witness whereof the said Honour[a]ble United Company and Lords Proprietors to these P[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth A. day of August. A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Simon Whaley to the other part hath Set his Hand and Seale. his Simon Whaley Mark Sealed and Delivered In Presence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Simon Whaley.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Simon Whaley, freeholder, 10 acres of land at the head of Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by the land of Samuel Jefson, and west by the Main Ridge. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Whaley, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Whaley and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Whaley was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Simon Whaley sealed the counterpart with his mark. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completes the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Simon Whaley's Fishers Valley estate, correcting the earlier impression that he had received only a freehold instrument. The 10 leased acres at the head of Fishers Valley together with the 10 freehold acres of the same-day deed give Whaley a combined working holding of 20 acres in the valley. The configuration places his estate within the established pattern of paired freehold and leasehold extensions seen across the day.
The northern, eastern and southern boundary against the land of Samuel Jefson introduces a new individual into the records under that name. Samuel Jefson is perhaps a variant rendering or scribal slip for Samuel Jeffrey, who had received the 9 June 1711 freehold confirmation of 22 acres at the head of Fishers Valley and who had earlier bought 22 acres from Thomas Toster on 12 April 1709 for £80 0s 0d. The shared first name, the shared location at the head of Fishers Valley, and the broadly similar surnames all point to Jefson being the same individual as Jeffrey under a divergent spelling in the present engrossment. The configuration places Whaley's leasehold ground wedged into the surrounding Jeffrey estate, with the Main Ridge forming the western limit.
The western boundary against the Main Ridge places the leasehold parcel against a fixed topographical feature rather than another holder. The Main Ridge served repeatedly across the records as a natural fixed reference at the upper elevation of cultivated ground, marking the limit beyond which the landscape rose into uncultivable terrain.
Simon Whaley's signature by mark rather than by his own hand places him among the unlettered holders of the regularised landscape. Earlier records had shown a wide range of literacy across the documented cohort, with substantial holders such as Robert Bell signing in their own hand while many others, including soldiers, free planters and orphans, sealed with marks. Whaley's mark indicates he belonged to the latter group despite his confirmed status as freeholder.
The configuration of the leasehold ground wedged within Jeffrey's larger estate creates a particular institutional dependence between the two holders. Whaley's working access to and from his leased ground would have run through or near Jeffrey's surrounding holding, requiring some practical arrangement between the two for movement, drainage, fencing and shared resources. The 1711 framework regularised both holdings under formal tenure but did not capture the working arrangements that would have underpinned their day-to-day coexistence.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly to both Whaley instruments despite the smaller scale of his holding, demonstrating the consistent procedural treatment given to all confirmations and leases regardless of the holder's status.
The same-day pairing reverses the earlier interpretive position that Whaley had received only a freehold instrument without a same-day lease. The present lease shows that even relatively isolated frontier estates received the standard packaging treatment under the 1711 framework, with the institutional commitment to comprehensive regularisation extending across the full range of holders.
The standard lease commencement date of 25 March 1712 matches the back-dating used across most of the 1713 sitting, distinguishing the present lease from the unusual 25 March 1713 commencement seen in the John Goodwin and Margaret Sich leases. The configuration suggests Whaley's leasehold represented a regularisation of pre-existing occupation rather than a fresh allocation.
Speculations
The configuration with Whaley's leasehold wedged within Jeffrey's larger estate perhaps reflects an earlier informal arrangement between the two families that the 1711 framework now formalised. Jeffrey had purchased 22 acres from Thomas Toster in 1709 and received Company confirmation of the same in 1711. The smaller Whaley parcel of 10 acres at the head of the valley may represent ground that Jeffrey had not himself worked, perhaps because the steep upper portion of the valley was less suited to his cultivation patterns. The Company's allocation of the leased ground to Whaley would have served both parties: Jeffrey was relieved of unworked ground at the upper margin of his estate, while Whaley gained working access to a productive parcel at modest rental cost.
The placement of Whaley's freehold of 10 acres lower in Fishers Valley and his leasehold of 10 acres at the head of the valley perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy of working both the lower and upper portions of the valley. The freehold core sat in the more developed lower part of the valley with no adjoining freeholders documented, while the leasehold extension reached up to the head of the valley against the Main Ridge. The configuration would have allowed Whaley to draw on different cultivation conditions at different elevations within a single working operation, with the freehold providing the secure residential base and the leasehold extending the productive reach into the upper terrain.
The mark signature of Simon Whaley, set against the substantial 20-acre combined estate he held by 1713, perhaps indicates that working capacity and accumulated land could readily exceed literacy in the regularised landscape. The 1711 framework regularised the holdings of all settled occupiers regardless of their lettered status, with the documentary apparatus serving to protect their interests on terms the Company controlled rather than requiring the holders themselves to manage written records. Whaley's mark accordingly placed him within a substantial portion of the documented community who relied on the institutional system without participating in its literate operations.
176
Island St Hellena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Giles Smith Freeholder, Ten Acres of Land, Scituate nigh y[e] Head of Pleasant Valley, Buting & Bounding Comp[a] towards y[e] North & East upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land, towards y[e] South upon Deed to Eighteen A[c]res of Land y[e] said Giles Smith Hires of y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land Giles of Daniel Leech, Which said Ten Acres of Land, He the said Giles Smith hath a Just right and Smith Title too, As may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the day of One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any objection made, To have and to hold, the said premises to him y[e] said Giles Smith his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Giles Smith his Heires and Assignes Do bear, always true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this day of in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Giles Smith.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Giles Smith, freeholder, 10 acres of land near the head of Pleasant Valley. The parcel was bounded north and east by the Company's waste land, south by 18 acres that Smith hired from the Company, and west by Daniel Leech's land. Smith's title rested on a consultation of [...] 1714 (the precise date is left blank in the deed), with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Giles Smith, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on [...] 1713. The date of execution and the witnesses are not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
Giles Smith introduces a new individual into the documented cohort of substantial Pleasant Valley freeholders. Earlier records had documented only John Knipe in Pleasant Valley, receiving the 4 August 1713 lease of 4 acres of gumwood at the bottom of the valley. Smith's emergence as a holder near the head of the same valley extends the documented presence into the upper portion of the area, suggesting Pleasant Valley supported multiple holders across its length even where only some received same-day instruments at the major sitting.
The configuration with the 18 acres of hired Company land on the southern boundary creates a combined working presence of 28 acres for Smith when freehold and leasehold are taken together. The pattern matches the standard 1711 framework where freeholders held a confirmed core supplemented by adjoining leasehold ground, with both portions integrated into a single working estate. The relative size of the leasehold at 18 acres against the freehold at only 10 acres reverses the more usual weighting, with Smith's working position depending more heavily on the leased portion than on the confirmed freehold.
The western boundary against Daniel Leech's land introduces another new individual into the records. Daniel Leech is perhaps connected to the Robert Leech who had taken Susanna Doveton as apprentice on 27 March 1708 and who had been involved in the Mary Dixon orphans' portion through the 4 January 1705 sale to George Carne. The shared surname and the broadly similar period of activity may indicate a kinship between the two Leeches, with Daniel as a brother, son or other relative of Robert.
The Pleasant Valley location places the parcel in a region that had been described in earlier records as a quieter area than Sandy Bay and Deep Valley, with absent named boundary holders. The present 1713 confirmation breaks that pattern by recording a named adjoining freeholder, demonstrating that the regularised landscape was extending more comprehensively into Pleasant Valley by the 1713 sitting.
The blank consultation date and blank execution date within the body of the deed indicate that the present record is an incomplete engrossment, matching the pattern seen in the Keeling heirs' confirmation, the Daniel Griffeth heirs' confirmation and certain other instruments from the same period. The shared institutional practice of preparing confirmations in advance with later completion suggests Smith's deed remained unexecuted at the time of recording in the register.
The absence of any signatures, sealing details or witness names reflects the incomplete state of the document rather than a defect in the confirmation itself. The deed may have been drafted in advance of an expected sealing that never took place, or the formal execution occurred at a session whose detailed record is not preserved in the present extract.
The omission of any classification of the ground as gumwood, cabbage tree or other vegetation category leaves the institutional categorisation of Smith's estate unrecorded. The omission matches the incomplete character of the overall engrossment.
Speculations
The blank dates and absent witness panel point to Smith's confirmation perhaps having been prepared in advance but never received its final formal sealing. Smith may have been temporarily absent from the island, or in some transitional administrative state that prevented the formal execution from being completed at the expected sitting. The institutional practice of preparing the documents in draft form and leaving the execution details for later completion gave the council flexibility to handle delays without requiring complete redrafting.
The configuration with the leasehold portion exceeding the freehold portion in size perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional decision about the allocation of perpetual title. The council may have been willing to confirm only a smaller portion of Smith's working occupation as freehold, perhaps because his claim to the larger leased portion rested on weaker historical possession or because Pleasant Valley was being treated as a marginal area where freehold conversion was more cautiously approved. The structure kept the bulk of his working ground under the controlled terms of the 1711 leasehold framework while giving him a secure smaller freehold core.
The naming of Daniel Leech as the western boundary holder, against the established pattern of Robert Leech in earlier records, perhaps reveals a generational transition within the Leech family. Robert Leech as the elder member of the family may have transferred ground to Daniel as a son or younger relative, or Daniel may have established himself as an independent holder alongside Robert. The 1711 framework's regularisation of family holdings often captured such generational transitions, with the new tenure system providing the institutional opportunity to formalise the working arrangements that families had developed informally over time.
177
Island St Hellena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett Unto Giles Smith, Freeholder, Eighteen Acres of Gumwood Land, Buiting towards y[e] North Comp[a] upon y[e] Land that Richard Leave hires of the Honourable Company, and towards y[e] Lease to the East-West and South upon y[e] said Giles Smiths own Ten Acres of Land, ALSO Two Acres Giles more buting towards the North upon the Land of William Coles, and towards the East & Smith West, and South, upon the Companys Wast Land, both which said above mentioned p[ar]cels of Land are Scituate Lying and being in Pleasant Valley, and Do contain in the whole Twenty Acres, To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Giles Smith his Executors Administrators and Assignes, For the Terme and Time of Twenty one years Commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve Upon Condition. That he the said Giles Smith his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And Yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said & Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said Giles Smith his Executors Administrators and Assignes, Shall and Do at the Expiration of the said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repaire as they are now and not to alter the said Fences which are the Land marks, and which will occasion to[?] the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Councell for the time being. In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these P[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth & A. day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred & and Thirteen. And the said Giles Smith to the other parte hath A. Sett his hand and Seale.
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of:
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Giles Smith.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Giles Smith, freeholder, two parcels of land in Pleasant Valley totalling 20 acres.
The first parcel of 18 acres of gumwood land was bounded north by the land that Richard Leave hired from the Company, and east, west and south by Smith's own 10 acres of freehold.
The second parcel of 2 acres was bounded north by William Cole's land, and east, west and south by the Company's waste land.
The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Smith, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcels during that period.
The lease bound Smith and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Smith was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The witness panel is not recorded in the present document.
Interpretations
The lease completes the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Giles Smith's Pleasant Valley estate, giving him a combined working holding of 30 acres distributed across multiple parcels. The 18 acres of gumwood adjoining the freehold and the 2 acres of separate ground supplement the 10-acre freehold confirmed in the same-day deed.
The first leased parcel of 18 acres adjoins three sides of Smith's freehold core, with the freehold itself wrapping around the larger leased portion. The configuration shows the freehold as a containing shape surrounding the bulk of the working leasehold, indicating an underlying estate developed as a single integrated unit even though the perpetual and term tenures were separately documented. The gumwood classification places the parcel at the lower or middle elevation of Pleasant Valley where gumwood vegetation predominated.
The northern boundary of the first parcel against the land hired by Richard Leave from the Company records another Leech family connection in the area. Richard Leave is likely the same individual as Robert Leech or as a kinsman of Daniel Leech (who appeared as Smith's freehold western boundary), with the scribal variation in surname rendering capturing a single family through several spellings. The Leech family thus appears across multiple boundaries of the Smith estate.
The second parcel of 2 acres sits separately from the main combined estate, with William Cole on the northern boundary and Company waste on the other three sides. William Cole introduces a new individual into the records, perhaps related to the John Cole or John Coles of earlier instruments through family connection. The isolated configuration of the second parcel suggests Smith had built up a small additional working unit independent of his main combined estate.
The unusual configuration of the freehold ringing the leasehold parcel on three sides reverses the more common pattern seen elsewhere in the 1713 sitting, where the freehold sat as a core and the leasehold extended outward. Smith's arrangement places the freehold as the wrapping boundary while the leasehold occupies the central portion, with the same-day pairing locking the two together as a single working unit.
The standard lease commencement date of 25 March 1712 matches the back-dating used across most of the 1713 sitting and contrasts with the unusual 25 March 1713 commencement seen in the John Goodwin and Margaret Sich leases. The configuration suggests Smith's leasehold represented a regularisation of pre-existing occupation rather than a fresh allocation.
The absence of any witness panel in the present record matches the incomplete state of the Smith freehold confirmation processed in the same sitting. Both Smith instruments appear to have been drafted in advance but were never received their final formal execution with witnesses present. The pattern is consistent with Smith being temporarily absent from the island or in some other transitional administrative state that prevented the formal completion of the documents.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. Smith held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, blocking the open market in leasehold interests that had previously operated through private assignment.
Speculations
The geometric configuration of the freehold wrapping around the larger leasehold perhaps reflects a particular history of the parcel's development. Smith may have first taken up the leased ground as Company tenant and later acquired the surrounding portions as freehold, gradually building outward from a central leasehold core. The 1711 framework then regularised the entire combined estate at a single moment, capturing both the original leasehold occupation and the later freehold acquisitions within a single documentary settlement. The configuration would have given Smith strong protection against any disturbance of his working ground, since the surrounding freehold buffered the leasehold core from external boundary disputes.
The blank dates and absent witnesses across both Smith instruments perhaps point to a particular administrative complication that delayed the formal sealing. Smith may have been engaged in disputed proceedings about the chain of title, or some family or commercial matter may have prevented his attendance at the major sitting. The council's preparation of the documents in draft form allowed for later completion when the practical obstacles were resolved, with the institutional record carrying the documents in their incomplete state until that time.
The separation of the second 2-acre parcel from the main combined estate, with William Cole rather than the Leech family or the Smith ground as adjoining boundary, perhaps reflects a different chain of acquisition. The small parcel may have been added to Smith's working portfolio through a separate route from the principal Pleasant Valley estate, perhaps through a purchase, exchange or particular arrangement with the Company that operated independently of the consolidation of his main ground. The 1711 framework regularised both portions under a single lease while preserving the underlying distinction between the two acquisitions.
178
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Hon[ble] United United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Stephen Lufkin, Freeholder, Ten Acres of Land, Lying Scituate near Black Egea, Buting Comp[a] and bounding, towards the North-East and South upon the said Honourable Companys Deed to Wast Land, and towards the West upon, one Acre of Land that the said Stephen Lufkin Stephen hires of the said Honourable Company, Which said Ten Acres of Land, He the aforesaid Lufkin Stephen Lufkin hath a Just Right and Title too, As may appear more Largely upon, Examination in a Consultation of the Seventeenth & A. day of March. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claime on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Stephen Lufkin his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Stephen Lufkin, his Heires and Assignes, shall always bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. A. A. day of August. In the Year of our Lord, One Thousand & Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Stephen Lufkin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Stephen Lufkin, freeholder, 10 acres of land near Black Egea. The parcel was bounded north, east and south by the Company's waste land, and west by 1 acre of land that Lufkin hired from the Company. Lufkin's title rested on a consultation of 17 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Stephen Lufkin, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
Stephen Lufkin introduces a new individual into the documented cohort under the Lufkin family name. Earlier records had identified John Lufkin as the principal Lufkin holder, with his 26 June 1707 sale to the Company of a dwelling house, 30 acres and growing provisions for £350 0s 0d sterling, and his 14 June 1712 sale to Richard Alexander of a Chapel Valley dwelling for £170 0s 0d in store credit. Stephen Lufkin appears as a related but distinct individual, perhaps a son, brother or other kinsman of John, with his own holding regularised under the 1711 framework.
The location near Black Egea introduces a distinctive working byname not previously recorded. The naming pattern matches other working bynames preserved in the institutional record such as Diana's Geak, Two Gun Ridge, Welley's Land, Writing Stone Ridge and Sexton's Ground. Black Egea may refer to a particular topographical feature, perhaps a black rocky outcrop or a black-coloured ridge, with the name capturing local geographical knowledge that does not appear in the more formal valley designations.
The configuration of the parcel surrounded on three sides by Company waste, with only a small 1-acre leasehold extension on the western side, places Lufkin at the outer margin of regularised settlement. The configuration matches other isolated holdings such as the Joshua Johnson confirmation under the King's Peak and the Simon Whaley confirmation in Fishers Valley, where Company waste formed the dominant boundary.
The hired 1 acre on the western boundary represents a very small leasehold extension that the present deed records as a boundary feature without separately documenting it as a paired lease. The configuration suggests Lufkin's working estate was effectively a 10-acre freehold core with a minimal 1-acre supplement, far smaller than the substantial leasehold extensions of holders such as James Greentree (25 acres) or Joshua Johnson (28 acres).
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly to even the smaller and more isolated confirmations, demonstrating the consistent procedural treatment given to all holdings regardless of size.
The consultation date of 17 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the Frances Goodwin confirmation and the Desfountain children's confirmation. The shared consultation date demonstrates the council's batch processing of multiple holdings within a concentrated review period during early 1714, with the formal sealing dispatched together at the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The absence of any paired leasehold instrument for the 1 acre referenced as the western boundary marks Stephen Lufkin as one of the holders whose 1711 regularisation took the form of a freehold-only treatment. The pattern matches Simon Whaley's initial appearance (later corrected by the present discovery of his lease) and other smaller holders whose institutional regularisation depended primarily on the freehold confirmation without a substantial paired leasehold.
The Stephen Lufkin holding is unrelated to John Lufkin's earlier dealings with the Company. The 30 acres John Lufkin sold to the Company in 1707 had been described as next to the Company's main pastureland, while Stephen's 10 acres lay near Black Egea. The two estates appear to have been distinct working units even within the same family.
Speculations
The very small 1-acre leasehold extension perhaps reflects Stephen Lufkin's limited need for additional working ground beyond his confirmed freehold core. Most holders in the 1713 sitting received substantial paired leases of 5 to 30 acres or more, indicating active working extensions into adjoining Company waste. Stephen's minimal 1-acre supplement suggests his cultivation pattern required only a small additional unit, perhaps for a specific working purpose such as a vegetable garden, a small enclosure for livestock, or a particular water-related feature. The configuration shows him as a holder with a focused working area rather than as one seeking to expand his estate.
The shared family name Lufkin between Stephen and John, against the differing locations and dealings of the two holders, perhaps points to a family that had spread out across the island's regularised settlement rather than concentrating in a single area. John Lufkin had operated principally near the main pastures and in Chapel Valley town, with substantial cash dealings totalling several hundred pounds. Stephen Lufkin's smaller 10-acre upland holding near Black Egea places him in a different working environment, suggesting the family had diversified into multiple territorial niches and economic patterns.
The location near Black Egea, with the distinctive byname preserved in the institutional record, perhaps marks the parcel as a particular working position whose value rested more on local knowledge than on any formal valley designation. The 1711 framework's preservation of such bynames demonstrates the council's reliance on the practical geographical vocabulary of the working community in fixing boundary descriptions. The Black Egea name accordingly carried institutional weight that no formal toponym alone could have provided, anchoring the regularised title within the lived experience of the island's working population.
179
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United A. Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto Stephen Lufkin Freeholder, One Acre of Land Scituate and Lying near Peak Comp[a] Gutt, Buting towards South-East and South upon his own Ten Acres of Land & towards Lease to the West upon the Hon[ble] Comp[a]nys Wast Land. To have and to hold The said One Stephen Acre of Land unto him y[e] said Stephen Lufkin his Executors Administrators and Assignes Lufkin for y[e] Term & Time of Twenty one years, Commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, Upon Condition. That he y[e] said Stephen Lufkin his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island. And Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary, being y[e] 25 day of March, the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides One Shilling Duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto y[e] said Honourable Company & their Successors. And that he y[e] said Stephen Lufkin his Executors Administrators & Assigns, Shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one Years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, & which will Occasion y[e] alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed nor to dispose of this Lease for interest in y[e] same without y[e] Consent of y[e] Governour & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors to these Presents have sett there Common Seale this Fourth & A. A. day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And y[e] said Stephen Lufkin to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand and Seale. Stephen Lufkin Sealed and Delivered In the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Stephen Lufkin.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Stephen Lufkin, freeholder, 1 acre of land near Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded south-east and south by Lufkin's own 10 acres, and west by the Company's waste land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Lufkin, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Lufkin and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Lufkin was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on 4 August 1713. Stephen Lufkin signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease completes the same-day freehold-plus-lease packaging for Stephen Lufkin's estate, giving him a combined working holding of 11 acres with the single leased acre tucked into the south-eastern and southern corner formed by his 10-acre freehold. The configuration shows the leased ground as a small extension into adjoining Company waste, with the freehold providing the dominant working core and the lease adding only a minimal supplement.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 marks a departure from the standard 25 March 1712 used across most of the 1713 sitting, matching the unusual pattern seen in the John Goodwin lease and the Margaret Sich lease. The shared departure from the standard back-dating across these three instruments suggests the council had taken particular institutional decisions to date them from the most recent Lady Day rather than from the standard framework commencement. The pattern may reflect that these specific leases regularised more recent arrangements rather than long-established occupation.
The reference to the freehold's location at Peak Gut, set against the same-day freehold confirmation which placed the 10 acres near Black Egea, creates a geographical discrepancy that the present text does not resolve. The two locations may refer to different parts of the same broader area, with Black Egea identifying a particular topographical feature within or near the Peak Gut region, or the two designations may reflect alternative ways of identifying the same working ground. The relationship between the two bynames cannot be determined from the present text alone.
The reference to the freehold as his own Ten Acres of Land directly cross-references the same-day freehold confirmation, confirming the integration of the two instruments into a single working estate. The cross-reference matches the standard institutional practice across the 1711 framework.
The lease's text contains a scribal repetition where the obligation to obey all the laws and constitutions of the said Island appears twice in quick succession, indicating a copying slip in the engrossment. Such repetitions are institutionally inconsequential because the substantive obligation rests on its single substantive statement, but the duplication illustrates the practical limits of accurate engrossment under the pressure of the major coordinated sitting clearing many instruments in a single day.
The standard rental of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum for the single acre, applied as much to the smallest leasehold extensions as to the larger leases of substantial holders. The Company's flat-rate institutional pricing operated uniformly regardless of the size of the leased parcel, with Lufkin paying the same per-acre rate as any other lessee.
The full witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the senior procedural weight given to Lufkin's freehold confirmation in the same sitting. The use of the full panel rather than the reduced quorum seen in some closing leasehold instruments suggests that the Lufkin instruments were processed at a point in the day when the register and the other senior witnesses were still present in full attendance.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. Stephen Lufkin held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, applying the same supervisory control to the smallest leasehold as to the largest.
Speculations
The 25 March 1713 commencement date, departing from the standard back-dating of the 1713 sitting, perhaps reflects the particular character of Stephen Lufkin's institutional position. The shared pattern with John Goodwin and Margaret Sich, all three of whom received leases dated from 1713 rather than 1712, may point to these instruments regularising particularly recent arrangements that the council had brought into formal cover only through the present 1713 procedure. The shorter institutional interval between commencement and execution suggests these were fresh allocations or recent settlements rather than long-established occupations being back-dated to align with the broader framework.
The very small 1-acre leasehold extension, set against the 10-acre freehold core, perhaps marks the absolute lower limit of the 1711 framework's regularisation activity. The single-acre lease at the standard 5s 0d annual rent provided the council with a minimal but documented institutional control over a tiny piece of Company waste that Lufkin had incorporated into his working occupation. The configuration shows the framework operating with precision down to single acres, with no parcel apparently too small to receive its own formal documentary cover under the new tenure system.
The geographical discrepancy between Black Egea and Peak Gut in the two Lufkin instruments perhaps reflects a wider scribal flexibility in how the same area was identified across the records. The clerks preparing the deeds may have drawn on different sources of geographical reference, with one drawing on the formal valley designation while another preserved a more local working byname. The institutional process accommodated the variation without apparent difficulty because the boundary descriptions and the annexed plans provided more precise documentation than the place names alone, with the location identifiers serving as broad geographical markers rather than as definitive coordinates.
180
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Unto Dorothy Hayse Widdow of Wiltshire deceased Husband, William Hayse Comp[a] Deed according to his Last Will and Testament Twenty Acres of Land Lying Scituate in Fishers to Valley, being his Lott Land Buiting and Bounding towards the North upon y[e] Land that Thom[as] Dorothy Hayse hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Sutton Isaac Sen[r] towards y[e] Hayse South upon y[e] Land of Samuel Desfountains Children, and towards the West upon y[e] Land of Cap[t]n Wills Freeholder, Which said Twenty Acres of Land they y[e] said Dorothy Hayse & the Heires of William Hayse (dec[ease]d) hath a Just Right and Title too. As may more fully appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. day of March. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any P[er]son to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted Buit none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to them y[e] said Dorothy Hayse and y[e] Heires of her Deced Husband William Hayse, their and every of their, Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That they the said Dorothy Hayse, and y[e] Heires of William Hayse dec[ease]d & every of them their Heires and Assignes Do and shall always bear true, faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and constitutions of y[e] said Island. In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the said y[e] Island this Fourth day of August. In y[e] Yeare of our Lord. One Thousand A. Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Dorothy Hayes.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Dorothy Hayes, widow of the deceased William Hayes of Wiltshire, in accordance with his last will and testament, 20 acres of land in Fishers Valley, being his lot land. The parcel was bounded north by land that Thomas Hayes hired from the Company, east by Sutton Isaac senior's land, south by Samuel Desfountain's children's land, and west by Captain Wills freeholder's land. Dorothy Hayes and the heirs of William Hayes deceased held a just right and title, established by a consultation of 3 March 1714. Public notice was given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Dorothy Hayes and the heirs of her deceased husband William Hayes, their respective heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The identification of William Hayes as of Wiltshire marks one of the rare instances in the records where a holder's English county of origin is explicitly recorded. The reference establishes Hayes as a settler whose connection to a particular English locality persisted in the institutional memory of the island, perhaps because his estate had been recently regularised under will or because his identity needed to be distinguished from other Hayes family members of different origins. The metropolitan connection adds a documentary layer typically absent from confirmations of long-settled families.
The vesting clause routes the freehold through William Hayes's last will and testament, with Dorothy Hayes and the heirs receiving the inheritance under his testamentary disposition rather than through automatic widow's right. The structure indicates William had prepared a formal will before his death, with the institutional process of regularisation depending on the written testamentary instrument rather than on default rules of succession. The arrangement matches other will-based vestings seen in the records, including the Doveton apprenticeships managed by executors and the Steward children's confirmation distributing equally under Onesiphorus Steward's will.
The double vesting in Dorothy and the heirs of William Hayes, with each holding their respective heirs and assigns interest, preserves the testamentary intention while securing the widow's practical occupation. The structure parallels the same arrangement seen in the Elizabeth Johnson confirmation of the same day and the Margaret Sich confirmation, demonstrating a consistent institutional approach to estates where a widow held alongside the named heirs of her deceased husband.
The northern boundary against land hired by Thomas Hayes records another family member in the area. Thomas Hayes had earlier appeared as a holder of 5 acres adjoining Sutton Isaack senior in the 5 September 1712 sale by Giles Hayes to Isaac Wood. The Hayes family thus appears as a multi-generation presence in Fishers Valley, with William as the original holder (deceased), Dorothy as the widow, Thomas as a continuing relative holding adjoining ground under lease, and Giles (montross) as a younger member who had sold his portion in 1712.
The eastern boundary against Sutton Isaack senior repeats his appearance as the western boundary of James Draper's 4 August 1713 freehold confirmation. Isaack thus appears as boundary holder for multiple Fishers Valley confirmations of the same day, demonstrating his settled position at the centre of the regularised cluster.
The southern boundary against Samuel Desfountain's children's land creates a reciprocal mapping with the same-day Desfountain confirmation. The children of the late James Desfountain had received their 30-acre confirmation at the head of Fishers Valley, and the present reference confirms that the Desfountain estate adjoined the Hayes ground to the south. The two deeds attest each other's bounds. The Christian name discrepancy between James Desfountain in the Desfountain deed and Samuel Desfountain in the Hayes deed may reflect a scribal slip in one or other document, with the underlying father being the same individual whose children received the inheritance, or alternatively may indicate two separate Desfountain holders of different first names.
The western boundary against Captain Wills freeholder records the same individual previously identified as Mr Robert Wills in the Desfountain confirmation. The shift from Mr Robert Wills to Captain Wills indicates Wills holding a military rank as captain by 1713, distinguishing him from the civilian merchant designations used for some other holders. The captain designation places him among the senior officers of the garrison or shipping community.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving the same procedural weight as substantial confirmations of larger size, demonstrating the consistent treatment given to widow and heir confirmations within the institutional framework.
Speculations
The explicit recording of William Hayes as of Wiltshire perhaps reflects the recent character of his death and the consequent need to identify him precisely against any other Hayes individuals whose claims might have arisen. The metropolitan origin would have been particularly relevant if William had retained property or family connections in Wiltshire that could have generated competing claims from English heirs not present on the island. The institutional record's preservation of the county designation accordingly served as a defensive marker, fixing the testator's identity for the avoidance of any future doubt about which Hayes had owned the regularised ground.
The will-based vesting may have served to overcome a particular practical difficulty in the inheritance. Dorothy Hayes as widow might not have automatically inherited the full freehold under default rules, particularly where children or other heirs had competing claims. William's testamentary disposition specifically named her alongside the heirs, securing her institutional position in the regularised estate. The structure suggests William had given careful thought to the protection of his widow's interest, recognising that without explicit testamentary provision she might have been left in a vulnerable position relative to the male inheritance line.
The clustering of Hayes family members across multiple boundaries of the regularised landscape, with William's estate at the centre and Thomas, Giles and Dorothy distributed around it, perhaps reflects the family's strategy of building up a coordinated working presence in Fishers Valley over the years. The 1711 framework captured the consolidated family position at a moment when the founder William had recently died, with the various Hayes parcels still in family hands but operating under different forms of tenure. The structure shows the institutional regularisation reaching the family at a critical generational moment, with the documentary regime fixing the configuration of the inheritance before any potential fragmentation through later sales or settlements.
181
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Thomas Hayse, Carrier, Fifteen Acres of Land, Scituate Lying and Being in Fishers Comp[a] Vally, Butting towards the North and West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast Land towards y[e] East Lease to upon y[e] Lands of William Hayse, deceased, and towards y[e] South upon y[e] Lands of Cap[ta]in Wills Freeholder. Thomas To have and to hold The above mentioned Fifteen Acres of Land to him y[e] said Thomas Hays Hayse his Executors Administrators and Assignes for y[e] Term and Time of Twenty one years commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. Upon Condition That he y[e] said Thomas Hayse his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always Do, and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors, And Shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four shillings per Acre besides one shillings duty being in all Five shillings per Annu[m] in good and Currant money of y[e] said Island, that y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: and their Successors, And that he y[e] said Thomas Hayse his Executors Administrators and Assignes, Shall and do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter y[e] Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without y[e] Consent of y[e] Governour and Council for y[e] time being In witness Whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth A. A. A. day of August. in y[e] year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. And y[e] said Thomas Hayse, to the other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand and Seale. his Thomas Hayse Mark Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Thomas Hayes.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Hayes, carrier, 15 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north and west by the Company's waste land, east by the lands of the deceased William Hayes, and south by Captain Wills freeholder's land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Hayes, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Hayes and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Hayes was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Thomas Hayes sealed the counterpart with his mark. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The designation of Thomas Hayes as carrier introduces an occupational category not previously documented in the institutional records. A carrier was someone engaged in the transport of goods, perhaps with cart, mule or pack-animal, providing the logistics that connected the island's dispersed plantations, the storehouse, the wharf and the shipping in James Valley. The recording of the occupation alongside the leasehold confirmation places Hayes among the artisanal layer of the free planter community, paralleling Robert Bell as planter and mason, Isaac Wood as cooper, and Bartrant Audouart as Company smith.
The eastern boundary against the lands of the deceased William Hayes connects directly to the same-day freehold confirmation in favour of Dorothy Hayes and the heirs of William. The two instruments operated as paired regularisations of the Hayes family's working presence in Fishers Valley, with the 20-acre freehold passing through William's will to his widow and heirs while the adjoining 15-acre leasehold extended Thomas's separate working occupation. The configuration shows the family operating as a coordinated unit across the regularised landscape, with different members holding different categories of tenure within the same broader estate.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 places Thomas Hayes's lease within the small group of 1713 sitting instruments that depart from the standard 25 March 1712 back-dating. The shared pattern with John Goodwin, Margaret Sich and Stephen Lufkin suggests these leases regularised recently established arrangements rather than long-standing occupation, with the council using the most recent Lady Day commencement to mark the institutional moment at which the leases took effect.
The southern boundary against Captain Wills freeholder records the same individual previously identified as Mr Robert Wills in the Desfountain confirmation and as Captain Wills in the Dorothy Hayes deed. The captain designation places him as a senior military or shipping officer in the Fishers Valley cluster.
Thomas Hayes's signature by mark places him among the unlettered holders of the regularised landscape, consistent with his occupational classification as carrier. The mark signature indicates that his standing as a substantial 15-acre leasehold tenant did not depend on lettered status, with the institutional framework accommodating literate and unlettered holders within the same documentary apparatus.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly across all categories of holder, demonstrating the consistent procedural treatment given to artisans and unlettered tenants within the institutional framework.
The configuration with three sides against Company waste and only the eastern side against the William Hayes freehold places Thomas's leasehold at the outer frontier of the regularised Hayes family estate. The leased ground extended the family's working position outward from the freehold core into Company territory.
The standard rental of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty applied uniformly across all categories of holder, with Thomas Hayes paying the same per-acre rate as the substantial widows, freeholders and orphans of the regularised landscape. The Company's flat-rate pricing operated independently of the lessee's social standing or literate status.
Speculations
The carrier designation may have been institutionally significant beyond a simple occupational label. The Company depended on internal transport for moving stores, provisions, plantation produce and ships' supplies between the dispersed working centres of the island, and a carrier with a substantial 15-acre working base in Fishers Valley would have been well placed to provide that logistical capacity. The grant of leasehold ground at standard rate may have rested on an understanding, perhaps unwritten, that Thomas Hayes's carrying services were available to the Company when required. The institutional framework accordingly extended beyond formal lease obligations to embrace working relationships of mutual dependence, with the Company supplying the ground from which the artisan could service its broader operational needs. The pattern would explain why a carrier with no apparent capital or literate standing received treatment equivalent to substantial planters.
The simultaneous regularisation of the William Hayes inheritance and Thomas Hayes's adjoining leasehold within the same sitting suggests the council was using the 1711 framework to lock in a particular family configuration at the moment of generational transition. William's death had opened the prospect of estate fragmentation, with various Hayes relatives potentially competing for portions of the underlying ground. By processing both the widow's testamentary inheritance and Thomas's separate leasehold within a single coordinated sitting, the council fixed the working arrangement in documentary form before any contest could emerge. The institutional design captured a window of family cooperation that might otherwise have collapsed under the pressures of inheritance disputes, converting a transitional family moment into a permanent documentary settlement that no individual member could subsequently disturb without council intervention.
The disposal restriction took on particular weight in the case of an unlettered carrier holding institutionally valuable ground. Without the restriction, Hayes might have come under pressure from creditors, family members or other parties to assign his leasehold interest under terms he could not properly read or comprehend. The council's requirement of formal consent to any disposal accordingly protected him from exploitation while protecting the Company from disorderly transfers of the leasehold to unsuitable parties. The mechanism functioned both as supervisory control and as practical safeguard for vulnerable holders, with the formal restriction translating into a defensive instrument for those least able to protect themselves through documentary literacy.
182
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island, the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Jonathan Doveton Freeholder, Ninty Acres of Land, whereof Thirty Acres was formerly Comp[a] Deed Leonard Hunts, and the other Sixty Acres the Land of William Marsh both purchased by to the said Hon[ble] Company, and since sold to the said Jonathan Doveton, for a Valuable Jon Dove- Consideration and Lies Scituate under Halleys Mount at the upper end or Head of Chapple ton Vally, Buting and Bounding upon the North-South and West upon the said Jonathan Dovetons own Fifty Acres of Land, and towards the East upon the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Enclosed Land Known by the Name of Halls Plain, Which said Ninty Acres of Land. He the before named Jonathan Doveton hath a Just right, and Title too, As may appeare more largely in a Consultation of the Sixth & A. day of January, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by Beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said Premises, to him the said Jonathan Doveton his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition. That he the said Jonathan Doveton his Heires and Assignes Shall always Do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale this Fourth day of August. A. In y[e] year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Jonathan Doveton.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Jonathan Doveton, freeholder, 90 acres of land. Of this, 30 acres had formerly been Leonard Hunt's and the remaining 60 acres had been the land of William Marsh, both portions purchased by the Company and since sold to Doveton for a valuable consideration. The parcel lay under Halley's Mount at the upper end of Chapel Valley. It was bounded north, south and west by Doveton's own 50 acres of land, and east by the Company's enclosed land known as Halls Plain. Doveton's title rested on a consultation of 6 January 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Jonathan Doveton, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 90-acre confirmation marks one of the most substantial individual grants in the 4 August 1713 sitting, building Jonathan Doveton's already significant estate to a total of 140 acres when combined with his 50 acres of existing freehold. The earlier 17 April 1711 confirmation of 50.25 acres in three parcels and the 11-acre paired lease had established him as a major holder, and the present 1713 deed roughly doubles that earlier institutional position.
The chain of title routes through two intermediate Company purchases. The 30 acres formerly Leonard Hunt's and the 60 acres formerly William Marsh's had both passed to the Company before being onward-sold to Doveton. The structure shows the Company operating as an active land market intermediary, acquiring estates from one holder or his heirs and reselling them to another holder for a valuable consideration. The mechanism allowed the Company to manage the transition of substantial estates between unrelated parties through its own institutional balance sheet, capturing the value of the underlying ground while controlling the destination of the parcels.
Leonard Hunt had appeared in earlier records principally as a boundary holder, with his ground forming the north-east of the 4 August 1713 Doveton confirmation. The present transfer of his 30 acres to Doveton consolidates the Hunt parcel into the Doveton estate, removing Hunt as a separate holder from the area. The Hunt estate may have come into Company hands through his death or departure, with the Company acting as institutional collector of reverted ground.
William Marsh had been documented as the father of Robert Marsh and as deceased by 1713, with his death recorded in the 4 August 1713 Robert Marsh confirmation referring to Company land lately belonging to William Marsh. The present 60-acre transfer accordingly represents the institutional disposal of the bulk of William Marsh's reverted estate, with the Company channelling the ground to Doveton rather than to Robert Marsh as William's son. The choice favoured the substantial established holder Doveton over the recently-confirmed son and heir Marsh, perhaps because Robert had already received his own family settlement and the surplus Marsh ground was now available for redistribution.
The location under Halley's Mount introduces a distinctive topographical reference into the records. The name Halley likely connects to the astronomer Edmond Halley, who had visited the island in 1677 to 1678 to compile a southern star catalogue at the Company's behest. The mount perhaps acquired his name in commemoration of his work, with the byname preserved in the institutional record as a recognised landscape feature. The reference shows how a temporary visitor's presence could leave a permanent mark on the working geographical vocabulary of the island.
The eastern boundary against the Company's enclosed land known as Halls Plain introduces a further byname into the records. Halls Plain may relate to Joseph Smith's earlier land referenced as Smiths Plain in the 1708 John Bagley mortgage, with the working bynames preserving the names of earlier holders even after the ground passed into Company hands. The institutional naming of enclosed Company ground by reference to its prior holder created a documentary geography of remembered tenure that ran parallel to the formal valley designations.
The configuration with three sides bounded by Doveton's own existing 50 acres places the 90-acre confirmation as the larger outer ring around his earlier holding. The Doveton estate had grown from 50 acres in 1711 to 140 acres by 1713 through the acquisition of the surrounding Hunt and Marsh portions, with the new ground completely enveloping the older core. The structure shows a deliberate strategy of building outward from an established centre, with the institutional regularisation following and confirming the working consolidation.
The consultation date of 6 January 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, represents an earlier consultation than the dates supporting most other 4 August 1713 confirmations. The seven-month interval between consultation and sealing suggests the substantial transfer had required extended institutional preparation, perhaps including the formal valuation of the Hunt and Marsh estates and the negotiation of the purchase price between the Company and Doveton.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving the senior procedural weight appropriate to its substantial size and complex chain of title.
Speculations
The Company's role as institutional purchaser of the Hunt and Marsh estates and onward seller to Doveton served a particular structural function in managing succession in the regularised landscape. Without the Company's intervention, the Hunt and Marsh ground would have descended either through whatever testamentary disposition or default inheritance rules applied, potentially fragmenting the estates among multiple heirs or creating uncertain title that could have generated future disputes. By acquiring the entire estates and reselling them to a single substantial holder, the Company concentrated the ground in stable hands and extracted the difference between acquisition and resale value as institutional profit. The mechanism converted the inheritance question from a private family matter into an institutional transaction, with the Company controlling who occupied the principal portions of the regularised landscape and at what price.
The choice of Doveton as the destination for both the Hunt and Marsh transfers reveals the Company's preference for consolidating substantial estates rather than distributing reverted ground among many smaller holders. The 90-acre transfer to a single existing freeholder, set against the alternative of allocating the parcels to several different settlers, reflects an institutional commitment to large-scale agricultural production over distributed smallholding. The Company's interest in efficient ship-victualling, in stable rent collection and in manageable administration all favoured the concentration of working ground in the hands of established holders capable of large-scale operations. The 1711 framework's apparent egalitarianism of standard rentals and uniform procedural treatment accordingly masked an underlying institutional preference for hierarchy in landholding, with substantial estates receiving the benefit of consolidation while smaller holders remained in their existing configurations.
The Marsh estate's reversion to the Company rather than its descent through Robert Marsh as William's son reveals an important institutional limit on family inheritance under the 1711 framework. Robert had received his own substantial confirmation on 4 August 1713, but the bulk of his father's working ground passed not to him but to Doveton through Company purchase. The arrangement suggests William Marsh's estate had been managed through a will or settlement that did not vest his principal holdings in his son automatically, with the Company taking the opportunity to acquire and redistribute the ground. The institutional regularisation accordingly did not protect family continuity of working occupation, with even the heir of a substantial holder facing the loss of his father's main estate to consolidation in different hands. The pattern points to a divergence between formal family settlement structures and the actual destinies of the underlying ground, with the Company's purchase power overriding what might have been the natural family expectation.
183
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Comp[a] Lease Lett and Sett unto Sutton Isaac Jun[r] Five Acres of Land Buiting towards the North upon to Honourable Companys Wast Land towards the East upon y[e] Land of his Father Sutton Isaac Sutton Isaac Sen[r] and towards y[e] South and West upon Fifteen Acres of Land, hired of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a] by y[e] Junior Tenant Thomas Hayse Sould[i]er, Scituate Lying and Being in Fishers Vally. To have and to hold The said Five Acres of Land to him y[e] said Sutton Isaac Jun[r] his Executors Administ[rators] and Assignes For y[e] Term & Time of Twenty one Years commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve. Upon Condition That he y[e] said Sutton Isaac Jun[r] his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall always Do & bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]. and there Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary, (being the 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre, besides One Shilling Duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: & their Successors. And that he y[e] said Sutton Isaac Jun[r] his Executors Administrato[rs] and Assignes Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one Years, leave the Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed Nor dispose of this Lease or interest in y[e] same without y[e] Consent of y[e] Gov[ernor] & Coun[c]ell for y[e] time being. In witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: & Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth day of August. A. in the Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And y[e] said Sutton Isaac Junior to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett his Hand and Seale. Sutton Isaac
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Sutton Isaac junior.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Sutton Isaac junior 5 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north by the Company's waste land, east by his father Sutton Isaac senior's land, and south and west by 15 acres hired from the Company by Thomas Hayes, soldier. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Sutton Isaac junior, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Sutton Isaac junior and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, he was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Sutton Isaac junior signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease establishes Sutton Isaac junior as a new generational holder distinct from his father Sutton Isaac senior, who had appeared across multiple earlier records as a substantial Fishers Valley freeholder and witness. The same-day pairing of leases connected to both father and son reflects a deliberate family arrangement to launch the junior into independent institutional standing while keeping the family ground integrated as a single working unit.
The reference to Thomas Hayes as soldier in the present lease creates a sharp variance with the same-day Thomas Hayes leasehold instrument, which identified him as carrier. The two designations refer to the same individual, with the variant occupational descriptions captured in different documents processed in the same sitting. The discrepancy reveals that occupational categories were not fixed within the institutional record but could shift between alternative descriptions of the same person, perhaps reflecting different aspects of his actual working life or the scribal preferences of different clerks engrossing different deeds.
The 5-acre size matches the small-scale leasehold extensions seen elsewhere in the day, with Sutton Isaac junior receiving a modest working portion rather than a substantial estate. The pattern suggests the younger generation entered the regularised landscape through small initial allocations adjacent to the established family core, with the expectation of building outward over time.
The eastern boundary against Sutton Isaac senior's land places the junior's leasehold immediately against the father's freehold, allowing the family's working ground to function as an integrated unit despite the formal separation of titles. The configuration mirrors the William Alexander 1717 lease, which similarly launched a son's independent tenure adjoining his father's existing holdings.
The southern and western boundaries against Thomas Hayes's 15-acre leasehold place Sutton Isaac junior at the centre of an interlocking cluster of Fishers Valley leaseholds. The Hayes leasehold itself had appeared in the same-day Dorothy Hayes freehold confirmation as the northern boundary, demonstrating that the Hayes ground operated as a working hinge between multiple adjoining estates. The dense interlocking of leaseholds and freeholds in the Fishers Valley cluster reflects the systematic regularisation of the area within the 1711 framework.
The Sutton Isaac junior signature in his own hand places him among the lettered holders despite his recent entry into independent tenure. The literate signature distinguishes him from his fellow Fishers Valley holder Simon Whaley, who sealed with a mark, and from Thomas Hayes the carrier or soldier, who also marked rather than signed. The variation across the same sitting demonstrates how literacy operated as an individual rather than a categorical attribute within the regularised landscape.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied to the launch of a younger generation just as to the regularisation of substantial estates, demonstrating the consistent procedural weight given by the council to family transitions within the framework.
The standard 25 March 1712 commencement date places the lease within the main pattern of the 1713 sitting, indicating regularisation of pre-existing occupation rather than fresh allocation. Sutton Isaac junior had perhaps been working the 5 acres for some time before the formal lease, with the 1711 framework now formalising the arrangement.
Speculations
The systematic launching of younger family members into independent leasehold positions adjoining their fathers' freeholds reveals a deliberate institutional strategy for managing generational succession in the regularised landscape. The 1711 framework provided the council with a mechanism for distributing portions of Company waste to next-generation holders before the older generation died, avoiding the disruption that would otherwise occur when an entire substantial estate had to be redistributed at the moment of the father's death. The pattern shows the institutional regime treating succession as a gradual process to be managed through staged allocations rather than as a sudden event requiring lump-sum resolution. The council accordingly used standard rentals and modest initial leases to ease younger holders into the documented community at low cost, securing their loyalty and their institutional standing in the framework long before they would inherit their fathers' substantial freeholds.
The variant designation of Thomas Hayes as soldier in the Sutton Isaac junior lease and as carrier in his own same-day lease may reveal something deeper than scribal flexibility. The two occupational categories carried different institutional weights, with soldier signalling military discipline and Company service while carrier signalled artisanal independence. The capacity of the same individual to be described under both terms within the same sitting suggests Hayes may have held a dual position, perhaps as a soldier whose military obligations had been partially commuted into carrying duties, or as a carrier who continued to perform military service as required. The institutional record's tolerance of the variance points to working arrangements that operated outside the rigid occupational categories of the documentary regime, with the same person fulfilling multiple roles that the records sometimes attempted to fix into discrete labels.
The placement of Sutton Isaac junior's modest 5-acre lease at the centre of a cluster framed by his father on one side and a soldier-carrier holder on the other reveals the social architecture that the 1711 framework was reproducing. The institutional landscape organised itself around established family patriarchs supported by adult sons learning to manage independent tenure and working alongside artisanal or military holders providing the practical capacities the agricultural estates needed. The arrangement reproduced in documentary form the actual working hierarchy of the island's free planter community, with each holder occupying a position calibrated to his generational standing and occupational function. The framework's apparent uniformity of standard rentals and standard 21-year terms accordingly concealed a carefully differentiated social geography, with the senior freeholders, their adult sons, the artisanal layer and the unlettered tenants all woven into a structured working community that the council had quietly engineered through its allocation of the regularised ground.
184
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Comp[a] Deed unto Elizabeth Allis Widow, and the Heires of her deceased Husband, Thomas Allis as in to Eliz[abeth] his Last Will & Testament is Expressed, Twenty Seven Acres of Land Lying Scituate in Deep Allis Valley, buiting & bounding towards the North & West upon y[e] Lands of Matthew Bazett Free- holder, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land that y[e] said Matthew Bazett hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: and towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land that John Worrall hires of y[e] said Comp[a]: Which said Twenty Seven Acres of Land, She the said Elizabeth Allis and the Heires of her dec[ease]d Husband Thomas Allis hath a Just right & Title too as may more Largely appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none Appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to her the said Elizabeth Allis and the Heires of her deceased Husband aforesaid his hers or their Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That she the said Elizabeth Allis, and the Heires of the said Thomas Allis dec[ease]d and every of them their Heires and Assignes, shall always do and bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: to these P[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. day of August. In y[e] Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in y[e] p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Elizabeth Allis.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Elizabeth Allis, widow, and the heirs of her deceased husband Thomas Allis as expressed in his last will and testament, 27 acres of land in Deep Valley. The parcel was bounded north and west by Matthew Bazett freeholder's lands, south by land that Bazett hired from the Company, and east by land that John Worrall hired from the Company. The title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Elizabeth Allis and the heirs of Thomas Allis, with their respective heirs and assigns, were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and Henry Francis.
Interpretations
The confirmation marks the first documentary record of Thomas Allis as deceased. Earlier records had documented Allis as a substantial Deep Valley estate-builder from at least 1689 onwards, with multiple acquisitions including the Tomps stone house, the Stevens lease, the Hemmons 10 acres, the Child quit-claim, the Miller 10 acres, and the 4 August 1713 confirmation and lease totalling 33 acres. The present 4 August 1713 deed in favour of his widow and heirs would, if Allis had indeed died, place his death between the morning instruments of the day (which named him as living holder) and the present afternoon deed. The chronological impossibility points to the present confirmation being processed at a different moment from the earlier Allis instruments, or to a clerical compression of events that the institutional record has flattened into a single date.
The vesting through Thomas Allis's last will and testament places the inheritance under formal testamentary disposition rather than under default rules of succession. The structure parallels the William Hayes confirmation in favour of Dorothy Hayes on the same day, with both deeds operating under explicit testamentary provision. The pattern shows the council treating wills as the governing instrument for the descent of substantial estates, with the Company's regularisation following the testator's expressed wishes rather than imposing standard inheritance patterns.
The 27-acre parcel in Deep Valley represents a portion of Thomas Allis's accumulated working estate, although the precise relationship between the 27 acres confirmed here and the earlier 33 acres confirmed and leased in his name remains unclear from the present text. The 27 acres may represent a particular portion of the broader estate that the will directed to Elizabeth, with other portions perhaps passing to named heirs under separate provisions, or the entire 27 acres may be a fresh allocation distinct from the earlier holdings.
The boundary description places the parcel within a tight cluster of holdings managed or held by Matthew Bazett and John Worrall. Bazett appears on three sides of the parcel: as freeholder to the north and west, and as Company lessee to the south. Worrall appears as Company lessee to the east. The configuration shows the Allis estate effectively wedged between holdings entirely controlled by two of the council's senior administrative figures, with Bazett's combined freehold and leasehold dominating the immediate landscape.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, matches the pattern seen in other closing instruments of the day. The procedural withdrawal of Alexander from later instruments continued through the Elizabeth Allis confirmation, despite the deed's substantive importance in marking the institutional succession of one of the most established Deep Valley families.
The double vesting in Elizabeth and the heirs of Thomas Allis preserves the testamentary structure that Thomas had established for the descent of his estate. The widow holds alongside the heirs rather than absolutely, with both parties' interests embedded in the institutional record. The structure protects against any disturbance of the testamentary intention by either branch acting alone.
The deceased Thomas Allis named here is the same individual who had earlier appeared with Thomas Allis junior at the 18 June 1713 Tovey-Maxwell gift, marking a generational pair within the family. The senior died sometime between June 1713 and the present confirmation, with the junior continuing as the named adult Allis on the island.
Speculations
The choice to vest the freehold in Elizabeth alongside the heirs, rather than directly in the heirs alone, reflects a particular protective strategy that Thomas Allis appears to have constructed through his will. The structure secured the widow's institutional standing against any pressure from the heirs or from outside parties who might have sought to displace her from the working occupation of the estate. Without the explicit vesting, Elizabeth might have been left as a mere life tenant or as a beneficiary of the heirs' goodwill, exposed to disputes about her rights to the working ground she occupied. The testamentary provision converting her into a co-vested party gave her documented institutional standing that no later challenge could easily disturb. The pattern suggests Thomas had given careful thought to the protection of his widow against the typical vulnerabilities of women in the inheritance system, using the formal documentary regime as a defensive instrument on her behalf.
The dominance of Matthew Bazett's holdings around the Elizabeth Allis parcel raises a question about how the substantial Allis estate had come to be reduced to a 27-acre core surrounded by Bazett ground. Thomas Allis had built up his Deep Valley estate through purchases stretching back to 1689, but by the time of his death the regularised configuration showed Bazett rather than Allis as the dominant landholder of the area. The pattern may indicate that Bazett, in his role as surveyor and as council member, had used his institutional position to acquire portions of the Allis estate or adjoining ground as opportunities arose. The 1711 framework operated through consultations and beat of drum notices that Bazett himself oversaw, and the configuration suggests he may have used his administrative knowledge to position himself advantageously within the regularised landscape. The Elizabeth Allis confirmation accordingly captures a moment when one substantial family's working estate had been effectively encircled by the holdings of a council member whose institutional access gave him systematic advantage over the redistribution of available ground.
The clerical date discrepancy, with Thomas Allis appearing as both living holder and deceased testator within instruments dated 4 August 1713, may reveal something about how the institutional record managed the complications of mortality during the major sitting. The council may have processed multiple Allis-related instruments in advance, drafting them according to the working assumption that Thomas was still alive, and then issued additional confirmations after his death without recalling and redating the earlier documents. The resulting record gives a flattened chronological impression that conceals the actual sequence of events. The pattern shows the institutional framework adapting to real-world mortality through documentary fictions that preserved the appearance of orderly processing, with the formal records carrying forward arrangements that no longer reflected the actual state of the holders they described.
185
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indyes, Do hereby Demise Lett and Set unto Humphrey Edwards Freeplanter One Acre of Land Scituate Lying & being under y[e] Main Ridge near Sandy Bay, Buiting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Lands of Samuel Comp[a] Lease Desfountain dec[ease]d his Orphans which they Hires of y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: towards y[e] West & South upon to the Lands of Paul Charles dec[ease]d his Orphans, and towards y[e] East upon y[e] said Main Ridge Humphrey To have and to hold the Aforesaid One Acre of Land to him y[e] said Humphrey Edwards Edwards his Executors Administrators and Assignes, For y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty one Years Com- menc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition That he y[e] s[ai]d Humphrey Edwards his Executors Administrators & Assignes shall always Do and bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] & their Successors. And shall duly Obey all all y[e] Laws & constitutions of y[e] said Island, And Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides One Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] An[nu]m in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island Unto y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors. And that he y[e] said Humphrey Edwards his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty One Years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, and which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease or interest in y[e] same without Consent of y[e] Governour and Council for y[e] time being. In Witness Whereof this said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Set there Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Fourth day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. And y[e] said Humphrey Edwards to y[e] other p[ar]t hath Set his Hand and Seale.
Humphrey Edwards
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Humphrey Edwards.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Humphrey Edwards, free planter, 1 acre of land under the Main Ridge near Sandy Bay. The parcel was bounded north by the lands of Samuel Desfountain's orphans, which they hired from the Company, west and south by the lands of the late Paul Charles's orphans, and east by the Main Ridge. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Edwards, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Edwards and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Edwards was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Humphrey Edwards signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease records Humphrey Edwards's first appearance as a documented holder in his own right, after his earlier mention as a boundary holder in the Desfountain children's lease. The present 1-acre lease formalises his minimal institutional standing within the regularised landscape, with his working presence reduced to a single acre between two orphan-held adjoining parcels.
The northern boundary against Samuel Desfountain's orphans' hired Company land cross-references directly to the same-day Desfountain children's lease, which identified the 1 acre held by Humphrey Edwards on its southern boundary. The two instruments reciprocally attest each other's bounds, with the Desfountain ground on one side and the Edwards parcel on the other forming a continuous working unit within the Sandy Bay cluster.
The naming variation between James Desfountain (in the Desfountain freehold and lease) and Samuel Desfountain (in the present Edwards lease) introduces a discrepancy about the deceased father's Christian name. Earlier interpretations had treated James Desfountain as the deceased father across the family records, but the present reference to Samuel Desfountain suggests either an alternate name for the same individual or a separate Desfountain father whose orphans held adjoining ground. The Samuel Desfountaine of the 1701 Dixon sale at Youngs Valley provides an earlier reference to a Samuel Desfountain on the island, who may be the actual father of the orphans rather than James as previously assumed.
The western and southern boundary against the late Paul Charles's orphans connects to the broader Charles family settlement seen in the 20 July 1711 William Charles confirmation. Paul Charles had died by 1711, and his children held the inherited estate, with the orphans continuing as boundary holders across multiple Sandy Bay instruments. The configuration places Edwards's single acre wedged between two orphan estates, with both adjoining holdings managed under family settlements.
The eastern boundary against the Main Ridge places the parcel at the upper edge of cultivated ground in the Sandy Bay region. The Main Ridge served as a fixed topographical reference across many Sandy Bay confirmations and leases, marking the natural limit beyond which the landscape rose into uncultivable terrain.
The minimal 1-acre size of the lease places Edwards as the smallest documented leasehold tenant in the 4 August 1713 sitting. Most other leases ran to between 5 and 30 acres, with even the smallest holders typically receiving more than a single acre. The single-acre extent suggests Edwards's working ground had a particular focused purpose, perhaps as a specific cultivation unit or as a small enclosed plot for a defined activity.
Edwards's signature in his own hand places him among the lettered holders despite his minimal working ground. The literate signature distinguishes him from unlettered tenants such as Thomas Hayes and Simon Whaley who sealed with marks, and indicates that literacy and substantial estate were not necessarily correlated within the regularised landscape.
The free planter designation places Edwards among the established settler community rather than among soldiers, garrison members or other categories. The classification carried particular institutional weight by 1713, distinguishing settled civilian holders from military or transient personnel.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly across all sizes of holding, with the smallest single-acre lease receiving the same procedural weight as the largest substantial estates.
Speculations
The placement of Humphrey Edwards's single acre between two orphan estates may reveal a specific protective function that the council had assigned to him within the regularised Sandy Bay landscape. The two orphan groups, Desfountain children and Paul Charles's orphans, both required adult oversight of their working ground during their minorities, and the presence of an established lettered free planter between them gave the council a recognisable adult party to whom practical questions about the orphan estates could be referred. Edwards's small holding accordingly may have functioned not principally as an agricultural unit but as a documented presence supporting the institutional management of vulnerable adjoining estates, with his rent at standard rate covering the use of a minimal parcel while his actual role extended to informal supervision of the surrounding orphan ground. The mechanism would have given the council a practical agent on the spot without requiring formal guardianship or trusteeship documentation.
The Christian name variation between James and Samuel Desfountain across the records of the same sitting points to a deeper problem in the documentary identification of the deceased Desfountain father. The 1701 records had clearly identified Samuel Des Fountaine as the buyer at Youngs Valley, but the 1713 confirmation in favour of the children identified the deceased father as James. The discrepancy may reflect two distinct generations of the family, with Samuel as the older holder of the 1701 records and James as his son who had subsequently died, leaving his own children as the orphans confirmed in 1713. Alternatively, the variance may reflect different names by which the same individual had been known at different times, perhaps Samuel as a baptismal name and James as a working alternative. The institutional record's tolerance of the discrepancy suggests the council was confident about the identity of the orphans and the location of the ground regardless of which Christian name appeared in any particular instrument, with the substantive title resting on the working family identification rather than on documentary precision about the father's name.
The institutional decision to record a free planter on a single-acre lease, with full witnessing complement and standard rental, reflects a particular commitment to comprehensive documentary cover that operated independently of economic significance. The rent of 5 shillings per annum could not have justified the institutional cost of preparing, sealing and witnessing the formal lease, with the clerical labour, the common seal application and the senior officers' time all consumed for an instrument generating minimal revenue. The pattern shows the council treating the 1711 framework as a comprehensive documentary regime in which every working occupation, however small, required formal institutional cover. The framework's value to the Company accordingly lay not in the rental income from individual small leases but in the systematic creation of a documentary regime within which every holder, regardless of size, owed institutional recognition of Company authority. The 1-acre Edwards lease thus served the broader purpose of locking the entire working population into the documentary system, with the modest revenue subordinated to the larger institutional goal of establishing universal documented tenure under Company supervision.
186
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies. Do hereby Confirm unto Sutton Isaac Sen[r] Freeholder, Twenty Acres of Land Scituate in Fishers Valley being his former Allotment Comp[a] Deed Butting & Bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land, towards y[e] East upon the Lands of to of James Drapers Freeholder, towards y[e] South upon y[e] Lands of Samuel Desfountain (dec[ease]d). & towards y[e] Sutton West on y[e] Land of Dorothy Hayse, Widow her Children, Which he y[e] said Sutton Isaac, hath a Just right Isaack and Title too, As may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Sen[ior] Third day of March & A. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold the said premises to him y[e] said Sutton Isaac Sen[r] his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he y[e] said Sutton Isaac his Heires & Assignes shall and do always bear true, Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors and to y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island. In Witness Whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. In y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the p[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Sutton Isaac senior.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Sutton Isaac senior, freeholder, 20 acres of land in Fishers Valley, being his former allotment. The parcel was bounded north by the Company's waste land, east by James Draper freeholder's lands, south by the lands of the deceased Samuel Desfountain, and west by Dorothy Hayes widow and her children's lands. Isaac's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Sutton Isaac senior, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation regularises Sutton Isaac senior's 20-acre Fishers Valley holding as his former allotment, recording the institutional recognition of an estate that predated the 1711 framework by many years. The phrase former allotment locates the original grant within the foundational distributions of the late seventeenth century, with Isaac's tenure extending back perhaps to the original allocations of the period. His persistence across decades of records, from his earliest documented appearance through to the present 1713 confirmation, marks him as one of the senior survivors of the foundational settler generation.
The deed resolves the earlier discrepancy about the Desfountain father's Christian name. The present deed identifies the deceased father as Samuel Desfountain, matching the Edwards lease of the same sitting and confirming that Samuel rather than James was the actual name of the father of the orphans. The James name appearing in the Desfountain confirmation and lease earlier in the day must accordingly be regarded as a scribal error or alternate name, with the present deed providing the corrective evidence from an adjoining holder's confirmation. The resolution shows the documentary regime self-correcting through the cross-referenced boundary descriptions of multiple instruments processed in the same sitting.
The eastern boundary against James Draper freeholder's land cross-references the same-day Draper confirmation, which had identified Sutton Isaac senior as the western boundary of Draper's 20 acres. The reciprocal mapping confirms the two estates as adjoining cores within the Fishers Valley cluster, with each freeholder's deed attesting the other's bounds.
The western boundary against Dorothy Hayes widow and her children's lands creates a reciprocal mapping with the same-day Hayes confirmation, which had identified Sutton Isaac senior as the eastern boundary of the Hayes ground. The two deeds attest each other's bounds across the same sitting.
The southern boundary against the late Samuel Desfountain's lands completes the surrounding boundary description, placing Isaac's 20-acre core at the centre of a cluster framed by Draper to the east, Hayes to the west and the Desfountain orphans to the south. The configuration shows Isaac as the central holder of the Fishers Valley regularised landscape, with the surrounding holdings of younger, deceased or widow-held estates clustered around his established core.
Sutton Isaac senior also appears in the same sitting as the father of Sutton Isaac junior, whose 5-acre lease adjoined the senior's land on its western side. The launch of the junior into independent leasehold tenure on the same day as the confirmation of the senior's freehold demonstrates the deliberate coordination of generational succession within the institutional regularisation. The family's combined working presence reached 25 acres across freehold and adjoining leasehold by the end of the day.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The senior's confirmation received the same procedural weight as the largest substantial estates, reflecting the council's recognition of his foundational status in the Fishers Valley landscape.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the Draper and Hayes confirmations and other Fishers Valley instruments of the day. The shared consultation date confirms the systematic batch processing of the entire valley's holdings within a single council review.
The free planter designation that Sutton Isaac senior holds across the records, alongside his confirmed freehold status and his settled position at the centre of the Fishers Valley cluster, places him among the most institutionally established holders of the regularised landscape. His position parallels other senior holders such as Thomas Allis senior in Deep Valley and Thomas Swallow senior in the broader cluster.
Speculations
The institutional decision to identify the parcel as Sutton Isaac senior's former allotment, rather than describing it through any intermediate chain of title or transaction, reveals the particular weight that the 1711 framework gave to foundational settlement claims. Most other confirmations in the sitting recited the recent history of the ground through references to deceased prior holders, purchases from the Company, exchanges or family settlements. The Isaac senior deed bypasses any such chain and reaches directly back to the original allotment of the estate, marking him as a holder whose title rested on the original distribution of the island rather than on any subsequent transaction. The structure secured his tenure against any challenge that might have arisen from intermediate dealings, since the institutional record now formally attested that his current possession derived directly from the founding act of allocation. The framework accordingly used the language of former allotment as a defensive instrument for the most senior holders, locking their estates against any challenge by anchoring the title to a foundational moment beyond which no contest could reach.
The coordination of the senior's freehold confirmation with the junior's leasehold launch on the same day, combined with the placement of Sutton Isaac senior at the centre of multiple adjoining confirmations involving widows, orphans and a second-generation freeholder, reveals a deliberate institutional strategy of using the senior to anchor the broader Fishers Valley cluster. The council's regularisation of the entire valley appears to have rested on Isaac's documented presence as the central reliable reference point, with the surrounding holdings drawing their boundary descriptions from his confirmed core. Without a senior surviving foundational holder at the centre, the cluster of widow, orphan and recent-inheritance estates would have lacked any settled adjoining reference against which their bounds could be fixed. Isaac's continued presence accordingly served not only his own institutional regularisation but the broader feasibility of the entire valley's documentary settlement, with his deed functioning as the anchor stone around which the surrounding confirmations could be assembled.
The progression visible across the day, with the senior's foundational allotment confirmed, his son launched into independent tenure, and his daughters or further heirs implicit in the broader Audouart connection through his earlier 1698 gift to grandson Stephen Audouart, captures a family operating within a deliberate multi-generational strategy. The institutional framework provided the documentary architecture for that strategy, with the regularisation of the senior's freehold securing the foundational tenure while the parallel issuance of leases to younger generations spread the family's working presence outward without fragmenting the core estate. The pattern shows the 1711 framework working not as a neutral administrative regime but as an active instrument by which substantial families could engineer continuity across generations, using the documentary cover the Company provided to lock their working position into the regularised landscape on terms that protected against later disruption.
187
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Comp[a] of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto Thomas Harper Free Planter, Twelve Acres of Land, Scituate and Lying under the Comp[a] Lease Main Ridge that leads from high Peak towards Manatee Bay head, Buiting towards y[e] to North-East-West & South upon the Honourable Company Wast Land. To have and to Tho[mas] Harper hold The said Twelve Acres of Land to him y[e] said Thomas Harper his Executors Administrato[rs] and Assignes For y[e] Term and Tyne of Twenty one Years commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Fourteen. Upon Condition. That he y[e] said Thomas Harper his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always Do & bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Company & their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent and Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And that he y[e] said Thomas Harper his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty One Years Leave the Fences about the said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to Alter the said Fences which are the Land marks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without consent of the Governour and Council, for the time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seal at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. A. day of August. in the Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And he the said Thomas Harper to the other p[ar]t hath Sett his Hand and Seale.
Tho[ma]s Harper
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Thomas Harper.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Harper, free planter, 12 acres of land under the Main Ridge that leads from High Peak towards Manatee Bay head. The parcel was bounded north, east, west and south by the Company's waste land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1714, with Harper, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Harper and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Harper was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Thomas Harper signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease introduces a new Thomas Harper into the records, distinct from the earlier Thomas Harper senior who had died by April 1709 and whose death had been recorded in the Marsden-Toster Fort James Valley chain of title. The present Thomas Harper as free planter and lessee in 1713 represents either a son, grandson or other relative of the deceased senior, continuing the family name in a new generation. The records do not establish the precise relationship, but the shared surname and the persistence of the Harper family across multiple decades suggests an ongoing presence on the island.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1714 marks a unique departure from any other lease processed in the 4 August 1713 sitting. Where most other leases commenced from 25 March 1712 and a small minority from 25 March 1713, the present Harper lease alone commences from 25 March 1714, dating the institutional effect forward by approximately seven months rather than back. The forward-dating indicates that the lease takes effect from the Lady Day following the sealing, marking it as a fresh allocation of ground that Harper had not previously occupied rather than a regularisation of existing occupation.
The location under the Main Ridge that leads from High Peak towards Manatee Bay head places the parcel in a geographically specific corridor running along the upper ridge. The route from High Peak to Manatee Bay head describes a particular topographical line that the institutional record uses to identify the leased ground. Manatee Bay introduces a new place name into the documented landscape, perhaps relating to marine mammals observed in the area at an earlier date. The Main Ridge as the descriptive feature places the parcel at the upper limit of cultivable ground.
The configuration with all four sides bounded by Company waste places Harper at a wholly isolated position within the regularised landscape. The absence of any named adjoining freeholder or leaseholder marks the holding as a frontier estate at the outer margin of regularised settlement, beyond the main clusters of Fishers Valley, Sandy Bay and Chapel Valley. The pattern matches other isolated holdings such as the Joshua Johnson 14-acre confirmation, the Simon Whaley 10-acre confirmation, and the Stephen Lufkin 10-acre confirmation, where Company waste formed the dominant or sole boundary.
The 12-acre size of the lease places Harper as a modest but not minimal lessee, with his single parcel exceeding many of the small parcels that supplemented freehold cores elsewhere in the day. The lease's character as the sole institutional documentation of his working presence, without any paired freehold confirmation, marks him as a leasehold-only holder.
Harper's signature in his own hand places him among the lettered holders despite his isolated frontier position. The literate signature distinguishes him from unlettered tenants and indicates that the documentary regime captured holders across the literacy spectrum at the outer margins as well as the central clusters.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly to the frontier allocation just as to the regularisation of substantial established estates, demonstrating the consistent procedural treatment given to all holders within the institutional framework.
The absence of any paired freehold confirmation for Harper marks him as one of the holders whose 1711 regularisation took the form of a leasehold-only treatment. The pattern matches Thomas Hayes the carrier or soldier, John Robinson, and certain other holders whose institutional regularisation depended on leasehold tenure alone, without any underlying freehold core.
Speculations
The unique forward-dating of the lease commencement to 25 March 1714 reveals a particular institutional treatment that distinguishes the Harper allocation from every other lease processed in the sitting. The council appears to have used the standard back-dating to 1712 for regularisations of established occupation, the alternative 1713 dating for recently settled arrangements, and the forward-dating to 1714 specifically for fresh allocations of ground that the lessee had not previously worked. The graduation across three commencement dates within a single sitting accordingly reveals an underlying institutional taxonomy of leasehold types: established tenures regularised, recent arrangements confirmed and entirely new allocations granted, each receiving a different commencement date to mark the institutional moment at which the relationship took its formal effect. The Harper lease's forward-dating thus categorises him not as a holder receiving documentary cover for existing occupation but as a fresh tenant granted access to previously unallocated ground.
The fresh allocation of ground to Thomas Harper at a frontier position under the Main Ridge raises a question about why the council was extending the regularised landscape into previously unoccupied territory at the same sitting that consolidated existing tenures. The institutional decision to add a new working presence in such a remote location suggests the council was actively expanding the documented agricultural reach of the island rather than merely fixing what was already there. The 1711 framework accordingly served not only as an instrument of regularisation but as a mechanism of controlled expansion, with the council granting new leases at the margins to extend the productive surface of the island while keeping the new allocations under the same institutional supervision as the established estates. The pattern reveals a Company strategy of using the documentary regime to push settled cultivation outward into formerly waste ground, with each new lease both generating standard rental income and incorporating additional productive capacity into the regularised system.
The choice of Thomas Harper as recipient of a frontier allocation may have rested on calculations about which holders could best be entrusted with marginal ground. A new lessee at a remote position required certain qualities: capital sufficient to develop unbroken waste, working capacity to bring the parcel into production within the term, and standing within the documented community sufficient to be trusted with the institutional relationship. Harper's lettered status and his connection to an established island family name perhaps marked him as suitable for the institutional risk of a frontier allocation. The council's grant of the marginal parcel accordingly represents not only a fresh allocation of ground but an investment of institutional trust in a holder whose family connections and personal qualities justified placing him at the outer edge of the regularised landscape, where his success or failure would depend on his own resources rather than on integration into an established cluster of adjoining estates.
188
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Comp[a] Deed John Nichols Sen[r] Freeholder Twenty five Acres of Land Scituate at y[e] Head of the contai[n]s Vally, Buiting to and bounding toward the North-East and South upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land. Also Jn[o] Nichols Fifteen Acres of Land more Scituate under the High Peak Buting towards the North and East upon Sen[r] the Land of Henry Harrison towards the South upon the Land of Benjamin Sich & A. and towards the West upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, Being two parcels of Land containeing, in the whole Forty Acres, Which he the said John Nichols Hath a Just Right and Title too. As they more largely appear, upon examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. A. day of March. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said John Nichols his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said John Nichols his Heires and Assignes shall and Do always bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island. In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable Company to these P[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to John Nichols senior.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Nichols senior, freeholder, two parcels of land totalling 40 acres.
The first parcel of 25 acres lay at the head of the valley. It was bounded north, east and south by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel of 15 acres lay under the High Peak. It was bounded north and east by Henry Harrison's land, south by Benjamin Sich's land, and west by the Company's waste land.
Nichols's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. John Nichols senior, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 40-acre confirmation regularises John Nichols senior's working presence across two distinct locations within the regularised landscape. The first parcel at the head of a valley (the specific valley name is not recorded in the present text, leaving the precise location ambiguous) and the second parcel under the High Peak place his holdings in different parts of the island. The configuration shows the typical pattern of dispersed accumulation seen across the 1713 sitting, with substantial holders building up working presence in multiple regions rather than concentrating in a single contiguous block.
John Nichols senior appears across the earlier records as a recurring boundary holder and witness. He had witnessed the 25 July 1691 Harding-French sale at the head of Oak Gutt, the Tomps-Allis sale of January 1689, and the Bradley-Belvard sale of October 1705. His own holdings had been referenced as boundary in multiple instruments, with the 1691 Harding deed identifying him as adjoining holder to the 10 acres at the head of Oak Gutt. The present 1713 confirmation accordingly regularises a working estate that the records show extending back at least 22 years.
The senior designation distinguishes him from a younger John Nichols within the family, suggesting a generational pair similar to those documented for Sutton Isaac (senior and junior), Thomas Allis (senior and junior) and Thomas Swallow (senior and junior). The present text does not confirm the existence of a Nichols junior in the documented sitting, but the senior designation by itself implies the institutional recognition of multiple Nichols generations.
The first parcel's isolation, with three sides against Company waste, places it as a relatively detached holding at the head of a valley. The configuration suggests the parcel sat at the upper reach of a valley system, where cultivable ground gave way to higher terrain that remained as Company waste.
The second parcel under the High Peak introduces a new individual into the records as the eastern boundary holder: Henry Harrison. Harrison emerges here as a documented landholder without any earlier reference, suggesting either a recent arrival or a previously undocumented holder being brought into the institutional record through the broader regularisation of the area.
The southern boundary against Benjamin Sich's land places Sich again as a recurring boundary holder across the 1713 sitting. Sich had appeared as the northern boundary of multiple Sandy Bay confirmations and connects to the broader Sich/Sech family network through James Sich (the 1707 occupier of John Beale's land) and through Margaret Sich (the substantial widow holder of the same day).
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving substantial procedural weight.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning matches the consultation date supporting the Draper, Hayes, Robert Addis and other 4 August 1713 confirmations, demonstrating the systematic batch processing of multiple holdings within a single council review session.
The absence of any same-day paired leasehold marks Nichols as one of the holders whose 1711 regularisation took the form of a freehold-only treatment. The pattern matches Simon Whaley's initial appearance (later corrected) and other smaller holders whose institutional regularisation rested primarily on the freehold confirmation.
The absence of any classification of the ground as gumwood, cabbage tree or other vegetation category leaves the institutional categorisation of Nichols's estate unrecorded in the present text, contrasting with the careful classification recorded in most other deeds of the day.
Speculations
The absence of the specific valley name from the deed, leaving the location of the first parcel described only as at the head of the valley, suggests a particular institutional shorthand that the council used for certain established holders whose location was so familiar that no further designation was required. The clerks preparing the deed evidently relied on the surveyor's plan and on the local knowledge of the council itself to fix the precise location, with the textual description abbreviated to a mere reference that would have been comprehensible to anyone working within the institutional system. The pattern reveals the limits of the documentary regime as a stand-alone record: while the framework treated comprehensive documentation as its institutional foundation, in practice the operative meaning of any individual deed depended on the surrounding knowledge held by the council members who oversaw the system. The textual record accordingly served as a marker pointing toward the underlying working knowledge rather than as a complete self-contained description, with the deed's substantive force depending on the institutional context that gave it meaning.
The emergence of Henry Harrison as a previously undocumented boundary holder under the High Peak raises a question about the depth of the documentary regime's coverage. The 1711 framework had aimed at comprehensive regularisation of the working landscape, yet Harrison appears here as an apparently established holder of sufficient standing to form a recognised boundary against Nichols's confirmation, while having no earlier documented presence in any of the records. The pattern suggests that a significant population of holders operated within the working landscape without ever appearing in the formal documentary record, either because their holdings were below the threshold of regular regularisation, or because they had remained outside the institutional framework through whatever combination of choice and circumstance. The 1711 framework accordingly captured only those holders who interacted directly with the regularisation process, while a parallel population of working occupiers continued in informal tenure that the records noticed only when their ground became a boundary of someone else's regularised estate. The institutional regime thus produced a documentary geography that systematically privileged the participating holders, leaving the non-participating occupiers visible only through indirect reference, with no formal protection or recognition of their working presence.
The placement of John Nichols senior's two parcels in different parts of the island, combined with his recurring role as witness across decades of records, suggests his actual significance within the institutional landscape extended well beyond what the present confirmation captures. As a long-standing witness to others' transactions, Nichols belonged to the literate circle that underpinned the documentary regime, and the council's confidence in his judgment about boundaries, family relationships and chains of title made him a routine party to the regularisation activities of his neighbours. The 1713 confirmation of his own 40 acres accordingly registers only the formal aspect of a much wider institutional role, with the deed serving as the documentary anchor for a working presence whose practical influence operated principally through the unrecorded acts of witness, attestation and informal mediation that he had performed across many years. The pattern reveals how the framework's apparent equality of treatment concealed the differential institutional weight that holders carried within the documented community, with established witnesses such as Nichols functioning as quiet supports of the entire regularisation apparatus while receiving only standard procedural recognition for their own confirmed estates.
189
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett Comp[a] Lease unto Margaret Daughter of Thomas Bagley dec[ease]d, Twenty Six Acres of Land Scituate and to being in Powells Vally Buting and y[e] North & East upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land, toward y[e] Mary Bagley West & South upon y[e] Land of Orlando Bagley Freeholder, To have and to hold The said Twenty Six Acres of Land to her y[e] said Margaret Bagley her Executors Administrators & Assignes for y[e] Term & Time of Twenty one years Commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. Upon Condition That she the said Margaret Bagley her Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall & Do alwayes bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March), the Annuall Rent and sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, Unto y[e] said Honourable Company & their Successors And that she y[e] said Margaret Bagley her Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall & Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one years Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now and not to alter y[e] said fences which are y[e] Land marks, & which will Occasion the Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed, Nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without Consent of y[e] Governour & Council for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. day of August. In y[e] Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. And she y[e] said Margaret to her Executors for her have hereunto Set their Hands and Seales.
Orlando Bagley Executor
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Margaret Bagley.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Margaret, daughter of the deceased Thomas Bagley, 26 acres of land in Powell's Valley. The parcel was bounded north and east by the Company's waste land, and west and south by Orlando Bagley freeholder's land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Margaret, her executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Margaret and her successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, she was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. She was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The counterpart was sealed by Orlando Bagley as executor on Margaret's behalf. Witnessed by Thomas Cason and Henry Francis.
Interpretations
The lease establishes Margaret Bagley as a documented holder in her own right, identified through her relationship to the deceased Thomas Bagley as his daughter. Thomas Bagley had received the 25 March 1711 Company lease of 21 acres in Sandy Bay, and his death by 1713 has now generated a fresh institutional arrangement for the continuation of the family's working ground through his daughter. The present 26-acre lease in Powell's Valley sits in a different region from her father's earlier Sandy Bay tenure, indicating that the family's working presence had expanded across multiple regions during Thomas's lifetime.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 places this instrument within the small group of 1713 sitting leases that depart from the standard 25 March 1712 back-dating. The shared pattern with the John Goodwin, Margaret Sich, Stephen Lufkin and Thomas Hayes leases suggests these instruments regularised more recent arrangements rather than long-established occupation.
The reference to Margaret Bagley as daughter rather than as widow distinguishes her from the substantial widow holders documented elsewhere in the sitting such as Frances Goodwin, Elizabeth Johnson, Margaret Sich and Dorothy Hayes. The documented inheritance from father to unmarried adult daughter, or to a daughter whose marital status is left unstated, represents a different pattern from the widow-and-heirs vestings seen in most other female-held instruments.
The earlier records had documented Margaret Bagley as a widow holding ground at the head of Powell's Valley adjoining Orlando Bagley's confirmed estate on the 4 August 1713 confirmation. The present lease refers to her as daughter of Thomas Bagley, creating an apparent discrepancy with her earlier characterisation as widow. The two descriptions may refer to two distinct women named Margaret Bagley, or alternatively the earlier widow reading may have been incorrect, with the present deed providing the corrective evidence that she was in fact an unmarried daughter rather than a widow.
The sealing of the counterpart by Orlando Bagley as executor on Margaret's behalf reveals the institutional arrangement under which her holding was managed. Orlando, identified in the same-day records as a substantial freeholder of 23 acres at the head of Powell's Valley with a paired 40-acre lease, served as executor (perhaps of her late father Thomas Bagley's estate, or as guardian of her own interests). The configuration places Margaret as the named lessee with the working management exercised through Orlando's adult administration.
The placement of the 26-acre leasehold against Orlando Bagley's freehold on the south and west creates a closely integrated family working unit. Orlando's freehold of 23 acres, his 40-acre lease and Margaret's 26-acre lease together total 89 acres in Powell's Valley under Bagley family control. The configuration shows the family operating as a consolidated working presence across the valley, with the institutional structure preserving the family's collective hold through multiple instruments to different named parties.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, matches the pattern seen in other closing instruments of the day. The procedural withdrawal of Alexander continued through the Margaret Bagley lease.
The Powell's Valley location places Margaret Bagley within the same regional cluster as the substantial Orlando Bagley estate. The valley's name preserved the working presence of an earlier Gabriel Powell or Powell family member, with the byname continuing to identify the area even where the underlying ground had passed to the Bagley family.
The disposal restriction operated as the principal institutional control, with Margaret holding a personal interest that could not move to a new occupier without council approval. The restriction would have applied during her possible marriage as well as during any later transfer of the interest, with a potential future husband requiring council consent before any disposal could be effected.
Speculations
The institutional arrangement of vesting the leasehold in Margaret while having Orlando seal as executor reveals an underlying strategy for managing the inheritance of an unmarried adult daughter. The leasehold in Margaret's name preserved her recognised institutional interest in the family's ground, giving her documented standing that could not be displaced by male relatives or by any future husband without her consent. The sealing by Orlando as executor provided the practical adult management necessary for the working operation of the parcel, with the rental obligations and the disposal restriction administered by the senior Bagley man on her behalf. The structure allowed the family to protect a daughter's economic interest within an institutional framework that otherwise privileged male holders, with the documentary regime accommodating the gender-specific vulnerability of an unmarried woman through the executor mechanism. The 1711 framework accordingly served as an instrument by which substantial families could engineer protection for female members against the structural risks of dependence on male relatives or future husbands, with the institutional record preserving her interest even where the day-to-day management was exercised by others.
The reference to Margaret as daughter rather than as widow, against the earlier interpretation of her as a widow holding adjoining ground to Orlando, may resolve a longer-running ambiguity in the records about her marital status. If the earlier widow characterisation was indeed incorrect, the institutional record itself shows that even the documentary regime could carry forward erroneous descriptions of holders' personal status, with the correct identification emerging only through later instruments. The pattern suggests that the apparent precision of the framework concealed considerable scope for misdescription of holders whose actual personal circumstances might not be fully known to the clerks preparing each instrument. The institutional regime relied on the cumulative weight of multiple cross-referenced documents to construct an accurate picture of any holder, with single instruments potentially carrying significant errors that only the broader cross-referenced documentary record could correct.
The placement of an unmarried daughter as named lessee of a substantial 26-acre parcel, set within the broader Bagley consolidation of 89 acres in Powell's Valley, points to a deliberate institutional strategy of dispersing the family's working ground across multiple documented holders to spread risk and to maximise institutional standing. By holding the 23-acre freehold under Orlando, the 40-acre lease under Orlando, and the 26-acre lease under Margaret, the family avoided any single concentration of ground that might attract Company attention or generate competing claims at the moment of inheritance. The diversified portfolio preserved the family's collective working presence while distributing the formal institutional exposure across multiple parties, with each individual member's holdings remaining below the threshold that might have prompted closer institutional scrutiny. The arrangement reveals how substantial families could use the documentary regime not merely to record their working position but to engineer protective arrangements that the framework's standard instruments could not have produced through a single concentrated tenure.
190
Island St Helena.
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Mary Hoskison Widow, Thirty Acres of Land Scituate Lying & being at Horse Pasture Plain Buiting towards the North-East-West & South upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land, Also Twenty five Comp[a] Deed Acres of Land Scituate & being under y[e] high Peak Buiting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land to of William Frenches Orphans towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of James Greentree, Towards Mary Hos- the South upon y[e] Land of Wranghams Orphans, & towards y[e] West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]ys Wast kison Land. And also Twenty Eight Acres of Land more, Scituate & Lying at y[e] Head of Lemmon Vally, Widow Buiting towards y[e] North upon y[e] said Honourable Companys great Pasture, Towards y[e] East upon the Land of Robert Addiss, Towards y[e] South upon y[e] aforesaid Frenches Orphans Land and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of John Goodwin, the aforesaid above mentioned Three parcels of Land, do contain in y[e] whole, Eighty Six Acres, Which she y[e] said Mary Hoskison hath a Just Right & Title too, as may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third A. day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum, for any p[er]son to make their, on a certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said p[re]misses to her y[e] said Mary Hoskison her Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition That she the said Mary Hoskison her Heires and Assignes, Do bear always true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Comp[a] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In Witness Whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company & Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on y[e] said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. in y[e] Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Mary Hoskison.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Mary Hoskison, widow, three parcels of land totalling 86 acres.
The first parcel of 30 acres at Horse Pasture Plain was bounded north, east, west and south by the Company's waste land.
The second parcel of 25 acres under the High Peak was bounded north by William French's orphans' land, east by James Greentree's land, south by Wrangham's orphans' land, and west by the Company's waste land.
The third parcel of 28 acres at the head of Lemon Valley was bounded north by the Company's great pasture, east by Robert Addis's land, south by William French's orphans' land, and west by John Goodwin's land.
Mary Hoskison's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Mary Hoskison, her heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 86-acre confirmation transforms Mary Hoskison from a recurring boundary holder into one of the most substantial documented widow freeholders in the 4 August 1713 sitting. Earlier records had shown her primarily as the measuring life under the 6 July 1708 mortgage by George Hoskison to Richard Gurling, with the annuity arrangement using her natural life as the actuarial measure. Her subsequent emergence as a named boundary holder across multiple instruments in 1712 and 1713 had pointed toward growing institutional recognition of her tenure in her own right, but the present confirmation establishes her on a scale comparable with the most substantial widow holders such as Frances Goodwin (89 acres) and Margaret Sich (70 acres).
The reference to Mary as widow without any further identification of her deceased husband leaves the question of her marital history open in the present text. George Hoskison had been the active land trader of earlier records, with his £350 0s 0d sale to Powell in 1706 and his £500 0s 0d purchase from Gurling in the same period. His subsequent fate after the 1708 mortgage to Gurling is not directly documented in the earlier records, but the present 1713 confirmation in favour of Mary as widow suggests his death had occurred at some point between 1708 and 1713. The absence of any reference to him as her husband in the present deed reflects the absolute character of her freehold rather than a layered family settlement.
The first parcel at Horse Pasture Plain introduces a new place name into the records. The naming pattern reflects the working geographical vocabulary of the island, with Horse Pasture indicating ground used for grazing horses and Plain identifying an open or relatively level area. The complete isolation of the parcel, with all four sides against Company waste, marks it as a frontier position at the outer margin of regularised settlement.
The second parcel under the High Peak places Mary's holding in a densely interlocking cluster of orphan and family estates. William French's orphans on the north and Wrangham's orphans on the south reveal the same area as the location of multiple orphan-held parcels confirmed across the 1713 sitting. James Greentree on the east connects to his substantial 60-acre confirmation processed in the same sitting, with the reciprocal mapping showing Mary's ground forming the western boundary of Greentree's estate.
The third parcel at the head of Lemon Valley places her against the Company's great pasture to the north, Robert Addis to the east, William French's orphans to the south, and John Goodwin to the west. The configuration creates extensive reciprocal mapping with multiple other 4 August 1713 instruments processed in the same sitting, including the Addis and Goodwin confirmations.
The introduction of William French's orphans as boundary holders against two of Mary's parcels marks a new family settlement within the documented landscape. William French, the gunner or chief gunner of the earlier records, appears here as deceased, with his orphans continuing as recognisable collective tenure unit. The institutional landscape accordingly accommodates multiple orphan groups across the regularised holdings: Wrangham orphans, French orphans, Desfountain children, Maxwell orphans, Coulson orphans, Beale orphans and others.
The vesting in Mary alone, with her heirs and assigns absolutely rather than jointly with the heirs of her deceased husband, parallels the absolute vesting in Frances Goodwin of the same day. The structure marks Mary as the sole institutional owner of the freehold, with no layered settlement constraining her absolute disposition of the ground.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving the senior procedural weight appropriate to one of the most substantial confirmations in the sitting.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the Greentree, Addis, John Goodwin, Draper, Hayes and other 4 August 1713 confirmations. The shared consultation date confirms the systematic batch processing of the entire Sandy Bay and Lemon Valley cluster within a single council review.
Speculations
The transformation of Mary Hoskison from measuring life under a 1708 mortgage into the absolute freeholder of 86 acres by 1713 reveals an extraordinary trajectory that the institutional record only partly explains. The original 1708 arrangement had Hoskison granting 45 acres to Gurling for Mary's lifetime in exchange for an annuity of £11 10s 0d per annum, with Mary as the actuarial measure rather than the holder of any underlying interest. The present 1713 confirmation in her name as absolute freeholder of 86 acres across three substantial parcels suggests her position had been radically reconstructed during the intervening five years. The mechanism may have involved the death of George Hoskison transferring his entire estate to her as widow, the formal acquisition of additional parcels in her name through some unrecorded purchase, or a deliberate institutional restructuring of the family's holdings during the 1711 framework. The configuration reveals how the documentary regime could be used to fundamentally alter the underlying allocation of substantial estates, with the formal records preserving the appearance of orderly succession while the actual transformation went far beyond what any single deed could have recorded directly.
The strategic placement of Mary's three parcels at Horse Pasture Plain, under the High Peak, and at the head of Lemon Valley reveals a deliberate geographic diversification across the regularised landscape. The 86 acres spread across three regions provided protection against the failure of any single area, with cultivation conditions, water availability and topographical exposure differing significantly between the three locations. The pattern shows Mary or whoever managed her affairs operating with sophisticated awareness of the agricultural risk profile of the island, building a portfolio that minimised exposure to localised problems while maintaining substantial working presence in each of the major productive regions. The institutional regularisation accordingly captured not a randomly accumulated estate but the result of careful strategic planning that had selected each parcel for its particular position within the working landscape.
The presence of Mary Hoskison as the dominant western boundary holder of James Greentree's leasehold (recorded in the same sitting) and as a recurring named boundary across multiple Sandy Bay and Lemon Valley instruments raises the question of how the Hoskison interests had become so widely distributed. George Hoskison's earlier dealings had concentrated on substantial individual transactions such as the £500 0s 0d Gurling purchase and the £350 0s 0d Powell sale, but the present configuration shows Mary's name attached to ground across many different regional clusters. The pattern suggests the Hoskison family had been systematically acquiring small to medium parcels across the island over an extended period, building a distributed portfolio rather than concentrating in a single area. The 1711 framework's regularisation moment then captured this dispersed accumulation in a single substantial confirmation, with the institutional record showing the geographic scope of the family's working presence in a way that the earlier individual transactions had only partially revealed. The pattern reveals how the documentary regime made visible the cumulative results of decades of acquisitive activity that the individual records of each transaction had concealed from any single institutional view.
191
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Lett & Sett unto Mary Hoskison Widow, Thirty Eight Acres of Land Scituate & Lying as y[e] head of Lemmon Vally, Comp[a] Lease Buiting towards y[e] North upon Twenty Eight Acres of y[e] said Mary Hoskisons own Land, towards y[e] to the East upon y[e] Land of Robert Addiss towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of William Frenches Mary Hos- Orphans, and towards y[e] West upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land. To have and to kison Wid[ow] hold, The above mentioned Thirty Eight Acres of Land to her y[e] said Mary Hoskison her Executors Administrators & Assignes For y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty one years commenc[e]ing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, Upon Condition That she the said Mary Hoskison her Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always Do & bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable Company & their Successors, And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, And yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & Sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island, unto y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: & their Successors And that she y[e] said Mary Hoskison her Executors Administrators & Assignes shall & do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one Years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, & which will occasion the Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed & No dispose of this Lease or interest in y[e] same without the consent of y[e] Governour & Council for y[e] time being. In witness whereof y[e] said Honourable Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents hav[e]e set them Common Seale & their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. day of August. & in the Year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And she y[e] said Mary Hoskison to y[e] other p[ar]t hath sett her Hand and Seale. Gabriel Powell
Sealed and Delivered in the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Mary Hoskison.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Mary Hoskison, widow, 38 acres of land at the head of Lemon Valley. The parcel was bounded north by Mary Hoskison's own 28 acres of freehold, east by Robert Addis's land, south by William French's orphans' land, and west by the Company's waste land. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1713, with Mary, her executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Mary and her successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, she was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. She was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or her interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. The counterpart was sealed by Gabriel Powell on Mary Hoskison's behalf. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease extends Mary Hoskison's substantial working presence at the head of Lemon Valley by adding 38 acres of leasehold to the 28-acre freehold confirmed in the same-day deed. Her combined holding at the head of Lemon Valley alone now reaches 66 acres, and when added to the 30-acre Horse Pasture Plain freehold and the 25-acre High Peak freehold from the same-day confirmation, her total documented estate reaches 121 acres across the island. The figure places her among the most substantial documented holders in the regularised landscape.
The lease commencement date of 25 March 1713 places this instrument within the small group of 1713 sitting leases that depart from the standard 25 March 1712 back-dating. The shared pattern with John Goodwin, Margaret Sich, Stephen Lufkin, Thomas Hayes and Margaret Bagley suggests these instruments regularised more recent arrangements rather than long-established occupation.
The northern boundary cross-references directly to Mary's own freehold of 28 acres confirmed in the same-day deed, demonstrating the integration of the two instruments into a single working unit at the head of Lemon Valley. The leased ground forms the southern extension of the freehold core, with the combined estate reaching a substantial 66-acre working presence in the valley.
The eastern boundary against Robert Addis's land confirms the dense interlocking of holdings in the area, with Addis having received his own confirmation and lease in the same sitting. The reciprocal mapping between Mary's lease and the surrounding Addis holdings demonstrates the systematic boundary clarification across the coordinated regularisation.
The southern boundary against William French's orphans' land places French's orphans as a continuing collective tenure unit. The recurring appearance of the French orphans across the 1713 sitting marks them as a recognised institutional fixture within the regularised landscape.
The sealing of the counterpart by Gabriel Powell on Mary Hoskison's behalf introduces a critical institutional fact. Powell does not appear as her executor or her formal representative in any earlier 1713 record, yet here he seals her lease counterpart in place of her own signature. Powell had been a substantial land trader from the 1704 dealings onward, with the 1706 £350 0s 0d purchase from Hoskison and the 1711 confirmation of 50.5 acres in Chapel Valley. His sealing of Mary's lease without an explicit executor designation suggests an institutional relationship between the two estates that the documentary record does not openly explain.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander applies the standard procedural treatment to the lease, despite the unusual signing arrangement.
The Lemon Valley location at the head of the valley places Mary's working presence in the same general area as Frances Goodwin's 89-acre freehold and her 11-acre Saxtons leasehold, and as the John Goodwin family settlement. The cluster of substantial estates at the head of Lemon Valley demonstrates the council's coordinated regularisation of one of the principal cultivation regions of the island.
The standard 4 shillings per acre plus 1 shilling duty produces an annual rent of £9 10s 0d for the 38-acre parcel, a substantial sum that places this lease among the more significant rental obligations within the 1713 framework. The annual rent income reflects the scale of Mary's working operation.
The disposal restriction continued to operate as the principal institutional control. Mary held a personal interest in the leasehold that could not move to a new occupier without council approval, with the restriction operating particularly strongly given the substantial scale of her combined estate.
Speculations
The sealing of Mary Hoskison's lease counterpart by Gabriel Powell rather than by Mary herself reveals an institutional arrangement of considerable significance. Powell had been the buyer of the £350 0s 0d purchase from George Hoskison in 1706 and a major land trader in the same circles as the Hoskison family. His sealing of Mary's lease on her behalf in 1713 suggests either that he was acting under some formal authority such as attorney or guardian that the present text does not record explicitly, or that he held an underlying financial or contractual interest in her estate that gave him the institutional standing to act on her behalf. The arrangement may parallel the George Carne sealing of Frances Goodwin's lease counterpart on the same day, where Carne acted as her representative ahead of their marriage. The pattern suggests a marriage or formal arrangement between Mary Hoskison and Gabriel Powell may have been imminent, or already concluded but not yet reflected in the institutional record. The documentary regime accordingly captures a moment of transition in the management of a substantial widow's estate, with the actual personal relationship between the parties underpinning the institutional arrangement remaining obscured behind the formal language of the lease.
The strategic configuration of Mary's 121-acre documented estate, spread across three regions with the head of Lemon Valley as the principal concentration, reveals an underlying coordination of estate-building that no single transaction record could have captured. The Horse Pasture Plain isolated holding, the under-High-Peak interlocking parcel, and the substantial Lemon Valley concentration each served different functions within a coordinated portfolio. The frontier Horse Pasture Plain provided potentially expansive future development, the High Peak parcel anchored her presence within the interlocking Sandy Bay and Wrangham orphan cluster, and the Lemon Valley concentration created her dominant working centre. The systematic distribution shows decision-making oriented toward long-term portfolio construction rather than opportunistic acquisition. The pattern suggests that the underlying management of the Hoskison estate, whether by Mary herself, by Gabriel Powell acting on her behalf, or by some combination of family and external advisors, operated with sophisticated awareness of the strategic geography of the regularised landscape.
The continuing institutional centrality of widow holdings across the 1713 sitting, with Mary Hoskison, Frances Goodwin, Margaret Sich, Dorothy Hayes and Elizabeth Allis all receiving substantial confirmations, reveals an important structural feature of the regularised landscape. The 1711 framework operated at a moment of significant generational mortality among the senior male holders who had built up the working estates of the previous decades, with their widows emerging as the institutional inheritors of the consolidated ground. The Company's recognition of widow holdings through absolute freehold vestings, rather than confining them to life interests or layered settlements, accordingly registered a deliberate institutional choice to accept female ownership of substantial estates rather than to channel the ground forward through male relatives. The arrangement may have served the Company's interest by securing institutional continuity with established holders who knew the local landscape and working arrangements, even where those holders were widows whose long-term ability to manage the ground was uncertain. The pattern shows the documentary regime making practical accommodations to the realities of mortality and gender within the regularised landscape, with the formal records adapting to the actual circumstances of who could hold and work the substantial estates that the Company sought to keep productive.
192
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honour[a]ble United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Gabriel Powel Freeholder, Twenty Comp[a] Deed Acres of Land formerly Jonathan Beals & part of the Lott Land of Anthony Beals to both deceased Lying Scituate under y[e] Main ridge buting & bounding towards y[e] North Gabriel upon y[e] Land of John Long Freeholder, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Lands of y[e] said Jonath[an] Powell Beals Orphans towards y[e] South to y[e] Main Ridge, and towards y[e] West upon the Lands of Benjamin Sich, Which said Twenty Acres is part of Thirty Acres that the said Powel hath in right of his Wife the before named Jonathan Beals Widow, And hath a Just right and Title too as may more fully appear upon Tryall at a Court of Judicature[?] held for that Purpose on Thursday y[e] 11 day of October 1711. And Notice thereof being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold y[e] said Premises to him y[e] said Gabriel Powell his Heires and Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That he y[e] said Gabriel Powel his Heires and Assignes Do always bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In witness whereof y[e] said Honourable Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. in the Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to Gabriel Powell.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to Gabriel Powell, freeholder, 20 acres of land formerly Jonathan Beale's and part of the lot land of the deceased Anthony Beale. The parcel lay under the Main Ridge. It was bounded north by John Long freeholder's land, east by Jonathan Beale's orphans' lands, south by the Main Ridge, and west by Benjamin Sich's lands. The 20 acres formed part of 30 acres that Powell held in right of his wife, the widow of Jonathan Beale. Powell's title rested on a trial at a court of judicature held for that purpose on Thursday 11 October 1711, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. Gabriel Powell, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The deed introduces a critical institutional procedure previously undocumented in the records: a trial at a court of judicature, held on 11 October 1711, that established Powell's title to the ground. The court of judicature represents a formal adjudicative body distinct from the council's consultation procedure, with the judicial mechanism resolving questions of title through trial rather than through the standard beat of drum procedure alone. The reference reveals a layered institutional system in which the 1711 framework operated through both consultative confirmation and judicial determination, with the choice of mechanism depending on the contested or uncontested character of the underlying claim.
The chain of title routes the 20 acres through Jonathan Beale (deceased) and ultimately back to Anthony Beale (also deceased) as the original lot holder. Anthony Beale appears in the records as Captain Anthony Beale of the 1682 inquest, the substantial 40-acre allottee at the head of Waterfall Valley and a major foundational holder of the island. The institutional preservation of his name across more than three decades, with the ground now reaching the third or fourth generation through Jonathan Beale's widow's remarriage to Gabriel Powell, demonstrates the persistence of original allotment chains in institutional memory.
The acquisition route through right of his wife marks Gabriel Powell as the husband of Jonathan Beale's widow. The mechanism by which she had brought the 30 acres into his hands operated through the standard early modern principle of jure uxoris, which gave a husband the right to manage and benefit from his wife's lands during the marriage. Powell's institutional standing in the 20-acre confirmation accordingly rested not on his own foundational title but on his marital connection to the Beale line, with his confirmation regularising a working occupation that derived from his wife's inheritance.
The reference to the 20 acres as part of 30 acres held in right of his wife indicates that the broader Beale widow's estate amounted to 30 acres, of which the present deed confirms only 20. The remaining 10 acres of the wife's portion are not addressed in the present text, suggesting they may have been the subject of a separate confirmation, may have remained in dispute, or may have been settled under a different institutional arrangement.
The court of judicature on 11 October 1711 falls within the early operation of the 1711 framework, immediately after the 6 April 1711 consultation that had instituted the new register. The judicial determination of Powell's title represents one of the earliest documented uses of formal adjudication under the new tenure regime, with the council clearly distinguishing between cases where simple beat of drum notice was sufficient and cases where contested or complex inheritance routes required formal trial.
The eastern boundary against Jonathan Beale's orphans' lands creates an institutional configuration in which Powell's confirmation through right of his wife sits immediately adjacent to the orphans' own inherited holdings from the same deceased Jonathan Beale. The arrangement reflects the division of the deceased's estate between his widow (whose portion passed through marriage to Powell) and his children (whose portions remained with them as orphans). The configuration shows the operation of early modern inheritance principles in which the widow's share and the children's shares coexisted as adjoining recognised tenures.
The southern boundary against the Main Ridge places the parcel at the upper limit of cultivable ground, with the ridge providing the natural topographical edge. The north and west boundaries against John Long freeholder and Benjamin Sich's lands integrate the holding into the regularised cluster of Powell's wider working estate.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel reflects the substantive importance of the confirmation, which not only secured Powell's institutional standing on the 20 acres but also validated the underlying court of judicature determination.
Speculations
The 11 October 1711 court of judicature reveals the institutional architecture that the 1711 framework had constructed beyond the consultation procedure. The framework had created not just a documentary regime of registers and confirmations but a parallel adjudicative system capable of resolving contested questions of title through formal trial. The court's operation reveals an underlying recognition that beat of drum notice alone could not resolve cases where competing claims, complex chains of title or particular legal questions required adjudication. The system accordingly graded the institutional response to title questions: simple beat of drum for uncontested cases, judicial trial for contested or complex cases, and Company purchase for cases where the council wished to redirect ground between holders. The 1711 framework thus combined administrative regularisation, judicial determination and active market intervention into a single integrated apparatus, with the Company operating simultaneously as register, judge and purchaser according to the institutional needs of each case.
The marital acquisition route through right of his wife reveals a particular institutional mechanism by which substantial estates could be transferred between male holders across generational and family lines. The widow of Jonathan Beale brought her 30-acre portion to Powell upon their marriage, with the institutional record now formalising his control of 20 acres of that portion as his own freehold rather than as merely the right of management during her lifetime. The mechanism converted what had been her inheritance from Jonathan into Powell's perpetual title, effectively absorbing her estate into his absolute ownership through the marital connection. The pattern shows how the institutional framework recognised marriage as a route for the consolidation of estates across family lines, with the underlying jure uxoris principle permitting Powell to claim freehold of ground that had reached him only through his wife's prior marriage. The configuration reveals the structural vulnerability of widow inheritance under the framework: a widow's portion could be effectively converted into her new husband's absolute property, with her own institutional standing dissolving into his upon remarriage. The contrast with the absolute vestings in Mary Hoskison and Frances Goodwin processed elsewhere in the same sitting becomes significant, as their freeholds in their own names depended on their not having remarried or on their second marriages not yet having generated the same kind of absorption.
The geographic placement of the Beale orphans' lands immediately adjacent to Powell's confirmed parcel through right of his wife creates an ongoing institutional tension. The orphans held one portion of the deceased Jonathan Beale's estate while Powell held another portion through his wife. Any decline in the orphans' working capacity, any failure of their lines, or any opportunity for institutional acquisition would have positioned Powell to extend his holding into the orphan ground through his existing position as the adult adjoining male holder connected to the same family through marriage. The Company's institutional treatment of the Beale family settlement accordingly created the conditions for further consolidation under Powell's hand over time, with the orphans' separate tenure offering a future target for absorption either through purchase, marriage of the orphans into the Powell family, or institutional reallocation by the council. The 1711 framework, while regularising the immediate post-mortem distribution of the Beale estate, set up the institutional conditions for its eventual consolidation back into a single working unit under Powell's control, with the documentary regime preserving the appearance of orderly distribution while the underlying institutional dynamics worked toward concentration.
193
Island St Helena.
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honour[a]ble United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Demise Comp[a] Lease Lett & Sett unto Isaac Wood Corporal, Two Acres of Land Scituate, in Fishers Valley, to Buting & Bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of Cap[ta]in Wills Freeholder, towards Isaac Wood the East upon Five Acres of Land, the said Isaac Wood bought of Giles Hayes & towards y[e] South & West upon Thirty Acres of Land belonging & appertaining to y[e] Orphans of Samuel Desfountain. To have and to hold The said Two Acres of Land to him y[e] said Isaac Wood his Heires Administrators & Assignes for y[e] Term & Time of Twenty one Years commenc[e]ing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred & Twelve. Upon Condition. That he y[e] said Isaac Wood, his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall always Do & bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company & their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island. And Yearly pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (Being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annual Rent & sum of Four Shillings p[er] Acre, besides One Shilling duty, being in all Five Shillings p[er] Annu[m] in good & Currant money of y[e] said Island unto y[e] said Hon[ble] United Company & their Successors. And that he y[e] said Isaac Wood his Executors Administrators & Assignes Shall and Do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty One Years, Leave y[e] Fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] said Fences which are y[e] Land marks, & which will Occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed Nor dispose of this Lease or interest in y[e] same, without consent of y[e] Governour and & Council for y[e] time being. In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: and Lords Proprietors to these p[re]sents have set their Common Seale at their Castle in James Vally this Fourth & A. day of August. In y[e] year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen. And y[e] said Isaac Wood to y[e] other part hath set his Hand & Seale
Isaac Wood
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Company lease to Isaac Wood.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to Isaac Wood, corporal, 2 acres of land in Fishers Valley. The parcel was bounded north by Captain Wills freeholder's land, east by 5 acres that Wood bought from Giles Hayes, and south and west by 30 acres belonging to the orphans of Samuel Desfountain. The term ran for 21 years from 25 March 1712, with Wood, his executors, administrators and assigns holding the parcel during that period.
The lease bound Wood and his successors to maintain allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and to obey the laws of the island. Annual rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, amounting to 5s 0d per annum in current island money, fell due on 25 March each year. At expiration of the 21 years, Wood was to leave the fences in the same repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would also alter the plan annexed to the lease, nor to dispose of the lease or his interest in it without the consent of the governor and council.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Isaac Wood signed and sealed the counterpart. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease records Isaac Wood under a new occupational designation that differs from his earlier appearances. Previous records had identified him as cooper and free planter, particularly in the 5 September 1712 sale where he bought 5 acres from Giles Hayes for £30 0s 0d. The present 1713 lease styles him as corporal, indicating a military rank that he held alongside or in place of his civilian classifications. The variation reveals Wood as a holder with multiple identities operating simultaneously, with the institutional record selecting different designations across different instruments.
The eastern boundary against the 5 acres Wood bought from Giles Hayes cross-references the September 1712 sale directly. The configuration places Wood's new 2-acre leasehold adjoining his earlier private purchase, with the regularisation extending his combined working position to 7 acres in Fishers Valley when freehold purchase and leasehold are taken together.
The northern boundary against Captain Wills freeholder's land confirms Wills as a settled boundary holder of substantial standing across multiple Fishers Valley instruments. The captain designation places him among the senior officers of the cluster.
The southern and western boundaries against 30 acres belonging to the orphans of Samuel Desfountain create reciprocal mapping with the Desfountain children's same-day confirmation. The earlier interpretive uncertainty about whether the deceased father's name was James or Samuel Desfountain receives further confirmation here as Samuel, the same naming as in the Edwards lease and the Sutton Isaac senior confirmation of the same sitting. The institutional record consistently uses Samuel for the deceased father across multiple instruments, with the James appearing in the Desfountain confirmation and lease as an isolated variant rather than the correct identification.
The standard 25 March 1712 commencement date places the lease within the main pattern of the 1713 sitting, indicating regularisation of pre-existing occupation rather than fresh allocation. Wood had perhaps been working the 2 acres for some time before the formal lease, with the 1711 framework now formalising the arrangement.
Wood's signature in his own hand places him among the lettered holders, consistent with his earlier appearances in the records. The literate signature reflects his standing as both an artisan (cooper) and a Company officer (corporal) of sufficient education to participate directly in the documentary regime.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel applied uniformly to small-acre leases just as to substantial confirmations.
The placement of the modest 2-acre leasehold adjoining the 5-acre purchase from Giles Hayes shows the typical pattern of artisanal holders building up working ground through multiple small acquisitions rather than through single substantial transactions. Wood's accumulation of land through purchase, lease and informal connections reflects a deliberate strategy of incremental expansion.
The Fishers Valley location places Wood within the same cluster as the Desfountain orphans, Sutton Isaac senior, James Draper, Captain Wills, Dorothy Hayes and Simon Whaley, all of whom received same-day instruments. The cluster represents the council's systematic regularisation of the entire valley's working population within the coordinated 1713 sitting.
Speculations
The variant designation of Isaac Wood as corporal in the present lease, against his earlier identifications as cooper and free planter, may reveal the multilayered character of identity within the 1711 framework. The same individual could simultaneously hold a military rank in the garrison, an artisanal occupation that supported the island's working life, and a status as free planter that connected him to the settled civilian community. The institutional record's selection of one designation over another in any particular instrument perhaps reflected the specific role the holder was performing in relation to the transaction rather than any fixed primary identity. In the present case, the corporal designation may have been selected because the lease involved the Company directly as lessor, with the military rank emphasising Wood's institutional connection to the Company rather than his independent artisanal or civilian standing. The pattern shows the documentary regime adapting its identifications to suit the institutional context of each transaction, with holders carrying multiple simultaneous identities that the records selected from according to administrative purpose.
The institutional decision to issue Isaac Wood a tiny 2-acre lease wedged between his existing 5-acre purchase and the Desfountain orphan estate reveals the council's deliberate use of small parcels to bind artisan-soldiers into the documented landscape at multiple points of attachment. Wood now held documented ground through three institutional routes simultaneously: as freehold purchaser from Giles Hayes, as Company leaseholder of the present 2 acres, and through his earlier appearance as boundary holder in the William Alexander 1717 lease. The cumulative effect was to lock him into the regularised system through multiple documentary connections, with each instrument generating renewed institutional obligation, recognition and dependence. The pattern suggests the council valued the integration of useful artisans and lower-ranking military personnel into the documented community above any economic significance of the individual transactions. The institutional regime's apparently uniform treatment of holders thus concealed an underlying strategy of binding indispensable functional categories of the working population into the framework through whatever small instruments could secure their continued participation.
The systematic adjacency of Isaac Wood's small landholdings to the Desfountain orphans' estate raises the question of whether his presence served a particular institutional function in relation to the orphan ground. The Desfountain children held a substantial 30-acre estate that required adult management during their minority, with their formal executors Matthew Bazett and James Gregory holding the leasehold portion on their behalf. The adjacent placement of an experienced artisan and military officer of literate standing perhaps provided informal day-to-day oversight of the orphan ground at the working level, with Wood's continued presence on the immediately adjoining parcels serving as a practical safeguard for the orphans' interests. The institutional arrangement would have used the artisan's everyday working relationship with the surrounding ground as an informal supervisory mechanism, complementing the formal executor structure with practical neighbourly vigilance. The framework accordingly used the configuration of adjoining holdings not merely as a documentary geography of independent estates but as an active institutional design in which the placement of certain holders next to certain others created mutual supervision and informal protection that the formal records did not need to describe.
194
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[ble] United Comp[a]: of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to y[e] East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto John Long Freeholder, For[ty?] Acres of Land Twenty Acres whereof being formerly Comp[a] Deed the Allotment of Francis Moor dec[ease]d, Buting & Bounding towards y[e] North upon to the Land of Benj[ami]n Sich towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Jonathan Beals Children Jn[o] Long towards y[e] South upon y[e] Land of Gabriel Powel and towards y[e] West upon the Land of James Rider, As also y[e] other Twenty Acres being Gumwood Land Scituate in a Branch of Chapple Vally being y[e] Lott Lands of one James Estings dec[ease]d, Buiting and bounding towards y[e] North-East & West upon y[e] Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Wast Land & towards the South upon y[e] before named James Riders Gumwood Land. Which said Forty Acres of Land He y[e] said John Long Hath a Just Right & Title too, As may more fully appear Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. day of March & A. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said Premises to him John Long his Heires & Assignes for ever. Upon Condition. That he y[e] said John Long his Heires & Assignes Shall & Do bear always true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: & their Successors and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these p[re]sents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth A. day of August. in y[e] Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen. & A. & A.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to John Long.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Long, freeholder, 40 acres of land in two parcels.
The first parcel of 20 acres had formerly been the allotment of the deceased Francis Moor. It was bounded north by Benjamin Sich's land, east by Jonathan Beale's children's land, south by Gabriel Powell's land, and west by James Rider's land.
The second parcel of 20 acres of gumwood land in a branch of Chapel Valley had been the lot land of the deceased James Estings. It was bounded north, east and west by the Company's waste land, and south by James Rider's gumwood land.
Long's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. John Long, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcels for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 40-acre confirmation regularises John Long's working presence across two parcels with distinct historical origins. The first parcel had been the original allotment of the deceased Francis Moor, while the second had been the lot land of the deceased James Estings. The dual chain of title shows Long accumulating his estate through the reversion of two separate foundational allotments, both of which had passed through their original holders' deaths before reaching him.
Francis Moor introduces a new individual into the documented chain. The reference to his ground as his allotment indicates an original foundational holding, with Moor having been one of the early allottees of the island whose ground reverted on his death. The institutional preservation of his name in the chain of title across the years to 1713 demonstrates the long memory of original allocation that the framework relied upon.
James Estings represents another deceased original holder, with his lot land in a branch of Chapel Valley having reverted before reaching Long. The Estings name does not appear elsewhere in the records, suggesting either a previously undocumented original allottee or a variant spelling of a more familiar name such as James Easthope or James Easton.
The first parcel sits within a particularly dense interlocking cluster of holders confirmed in the same sitting. Benjamin Sich to the north, Jonathan Beale's children to the east, Gabriel Powell to the south, and James Rider to the west all received same-day or near-period regularisations. The reciprocal mapping shows Long's parcel as a defined enclave within the wider regularised landscape, with each boundary attested through the contemporaneous confirmations of the neighbouring estates.
The eastern boundary against Jonathan Beale's children's land creates a particularly significant institutional configuration. Gabriel Powell's same-day confirmation of 20 acres formerly Jonathan Beale's had identified the orphans of the same Jonathan Beale as the eastern boundary of Powell's parcel. The present Long confirmation places his ground immediately adjoining the Beale children's portion from a different direction. The configuration shows the deceased Jonathan Beale's children's collective holding bordered on one side by Powell, who held through marriage to their widowed mother, and on another side by Long, who held the Francis Moor allotment.
The southern boundary of the first parcel against Gabriel Powell's land creates further reciprocal mapping with Powell's same-day confirmation. The two confirmations attest each other's bounds across the coordinated session.
The second parcel of gumwood land in a branch of Chapel Valley places Long with a second working presence in a different region from his first parcel. The gumwood classification fixes the parcel at the lower or middle elevation where gumwood vegetation predominated, distinguishing it from the cabbage tree classification used elsewhere in the sitting.
The southern boundary of the second parcel against James Rider's gumwood land creates a distinctive cross-reference to a portion of Rider's estate not separately documented in the present text. The reference confirms that Rider held substantial ground across both Chapel Valley and the other regions where his name appears as boundary throughout the 1713 sitting.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day. The full panel marks the deed as receiving substantial procedural weight.
John Long's appearance across the earlier records as a witness and as a boundary holder identifies him as a settled established member of the regularised cluster. He had witnessed the Tomps-Allis sale of 1689, the Harding-French sale of 1691, the Cleve-Greentree sale of 1715, and other instruments stretching across decades. The present 1713 confirmation regularises his own substantial working estate against the background of his long-standing institutional role as witness and trusted local figure.
Speculations
The institutional decision to consolidate the Francis Moor and James Estings allotments into a single confirmation in favour of John Long reveals the Company's preference for active accumulation by trusted established holders over the dispersed inheritance of original allotments through family lines. Both Moor and Estings had been foundational allottees of the island, but their estates had not descended to family heirs within their own lines, instead reaching Long through whatever routes of purchase, reversion or institutional reallocation the records do not explicitly recite. The pattern shows the 1711 framework using the inheritance question to redirect foundational allotments toward holders the council considered most capable of sustained productive working occupation. Long's recurring role as witness and boundary holder across decades had perhaps earned him preferential treatment in the redistribution of available ground, with the Company favouring those whose presence in the institutional record demonstrated their reliability and integration. The configuration reveals how the framework's apparent neutrality concealed an underlying merit-based allocation system that rewarded long-standing participation in the documentary regime with access to reverted ground from less successful or less integrated original allottees.
The juxtaposition of John Long's confirmation immediately adjacent to both Gabriel Powell's right-of-his-wife confirmation and Jonathan Beale's children's estate creates a documentary geography that reveals the institutional engineering of the area around the deceased Jonathan Beale's holdings. Three parties now held substantial ground adjacent to the Beale children: Powell to the west through marriage to their mother, Long to the south of Powell's parcel through purchase of the Moor allotment, and Benjamin Sich to the north through unrecorded route. The placement of three substantial adult holders directly around the orphan estate created a documentary perimeter that limited the children's working autonomy while simultaneously providing them with adult supervision through neighbouring institutional presences. The pattern suggests the council had deliberately structured the surrounding holdings to contain and watch over the orphan estate, with each adjoining holder bound to his own confirmation while collectively providing the institutional cordon around the vulnerable children's inheritance. The framework accordingly used the geometry of adjoining tenures as an instrument of indirect institutional control over orphan estates, with the formal independence of each holder concealing the systematic effect of their collective positioning.
The recurring presence of James Rider as boundary holder against multiple Long parcels, alongside his appearances as boundary against Margaret Sich's confirmations, the Beale orphans' lands, and other major estates of the day, reveals Rider as a particularly important documentary geographical reference point in the regularised landscape. His estate evidently sprawled across both Chapel Valley regions and other areas, with portions of his ground forming boundaries to many of the day's principal confirmations. Yet the records of the 1713 sitting examined do not preserve a substantive Rider confirmation comparable to those of Long, Powell or Sich. The pattern suggests Rider may have died before the present sitting, with the institutional record using his name as a working byname for ground that had passed to his heirs but continued to be identified by the deceased father's name. Alternatively, his confirmation may simply not have been preserved in the available extract while the surrounding deeds that referenced his bounds did survive. Either way, the institutional landscape constructed around references to Rider's ground operated as a documentary fiction in which a deceased or absent holder continued to define the geography of his surviving neighbours' confirmations, with the framework relying on the durability of the working byname even where the underlying holder no longer participated in the regularised system.
195
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Comp[a] Deed unto William Seale Freeholder Twenty Acres of Land Scituate nigh y[e] Head of Sharks to Vally being y[e] Son of his dec[ease]d Father Beer Seale, Buiting & Bounding towards the W[m] Seale North upon y[e] Land of Jane Mudge Widow, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Mathy Bazett, towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of John Knipe, and towards y[e] South upon y[e] Honour[able] Companys Wast Land, Which said Twenty Acres of Land he y[e] said William Seale hath a Just Right & Title too, As may more largely appear, Upon Examination in a Consideration of the Third & A. day of March. One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any P[er]son to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said Premises to him y[e] said William Seale his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition. That he the said William his Heires & Assignes, Shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors. And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. day of August. in y[e] Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena. Deed from the Company to William Seale.
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to William Seale, freeholder, son of his deceased father Beer Seale, 20 acres of land near the head of Sharks Valley. The parcel was bounded north by Jane Mudge widow's land, east by Matthew Bazett's land, west by John Knipe's land, and south by the Company's waste land. Seale's title rested on a consultation of 3 March 1714, with public notice given by beat of drum on a fixed day for any rival to come forward, none doing so. William Seale, his heirs and assigns were to hold the parcel for ever, on condition of allegiance to Queen Anne and her successors and to the Company, and obedience to the laws of the island.
The Company affixed its common seal at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713. Witnessed by Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation introduces William Seale as the son and heir of the deceased Beer Seale, regularising his inherited holding through paternal succession. The phrasing son of his deceased father Beer Seale establishes the chain of title through a single generation of male inheritance, with William taking the parcel that had originally been held in his father's name. The pattern matches other son-and-heir confirmations of the same sitting, including those of William Charles, Benjamin Greentree and James Reder.
The name Beer Seale represents a previously undocumented holder, perhaps a member of the wider Seale family that had included Benjamin Seale, the father-in-law of Praise Pledger from the 1694 Sharks Valley gift. The Sharks Valley location of the present confirmation places William Seale's inherited estate in the same general area as the earlier Seale-Pledger ground, suggesting a connection between the two branches of the family.
The northern boundary against Jane Mudge widow's land introduces another new individual into the documented landscape. Jane Mudge as widow may be connected to the Jonathan Mudge of earlier records, who had been the seller of 10 acres at the head of Deep Valley to Matthew Bazett. The Mudge name persists across the records but the present reference identifies a specific widow holder previously unrecorded in the documented sitting.
The eastern boundary against Matthew Bazett's land connects to Bazett's substantial documented presence across the records, including his 23 June 1711 confirmation of 25 acres in two parcels, his earlier private accumulations of 10 acres from Dweight (1694), 5 acres from Higham (1706), and 10 acres from Mudge. The present Seale boundary reference confirms Bazett's continued working presence in or near Sharks Valley alongside his other documented holdings.
The western boundary against John Knipe's land connects to Knipe's earlier appearance as the 1687 Rhodes plantation lease's southern boundary at the head of Sharks Valley, and to his 4 August 1713 leasehold confirmation of 4 acres at the bottom of Pleasant Valley. The configuration shows Knipe maintaining his Sharks Valley presence across more than 25 years of records, with his ground continuing to form a recognised boundary alongside his more recent Pleasant Valley extension.
The southern boundary against the Company's waste land places the parcel at the upper edge of regularised settlement in Sharks Valley. The configuration shows the foundational Seale estate as a defined enclave within the developed cluster of family holdings around the head of the valley.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander matches the full witnessing complement used across the principal instruments of the day.
The consultation date of 3 March 1714 in modern reckoning, which falls in old calendar 1713, matches the consultation date supporting the Draper, Hayes, Sutton Isaac senior, Robert Addis, James Greentree, John Goodwin, Mary Hoskison, Long and other 4 August 1713 confirmations. The shared consultation date confirms the systematic batch processing of multiple holdings within a single council review.
The absence of any same-day paired leasehold marks Seale as one of the holders whose 1711 regularisation took the form of a freehold-only treatment.
Speculations
The pairing of an inherited Sharks Valley freehold with the recurring presence of Matthew Bazett as eastern boundary holder reveals an institutional dynamic worth examining. Bazett operated as the council's principal surveyor and as fifth in council during the 1711 framework, with his administrative position giving him unique access to information about available ground, surveying decisions and the institutional reallocation of reverted holdings. The placement of his confirmed estate immediately against William Seale's inherited ground may have positioned him to monitor or eventually acquire portions of the Seale estate, particularly if any subsequent failure of the male line or family difficulty created opportunities for institutional acquisition. The institutional design of the regularised landscape thus systematically placed council members and their personal interests adjacent to vulnerable family estates inherited by younger or less established heirs. The pattern shows the framework not as a neutral administrative apparatus but as one that systematically advantaged council members through the geography of confirmed estates, with the Bazett-Seale boundary representing one example of a broader phenomenon in which institutional position translated into strategic positioning within the regularised landscape.
The institutional preservation of Beer Seale's unusual first name through the chain of title to William reveals the framework's commitment to documenting the foundational moment of each estate's origin within the recognised allotment system. Beer is not a common first name in the early modern English settler population, and its preservation in the institutional record creates a documentary signature that uniquely identified the parcel and the inheritance route. Such distinctive first names served the framework's needs by providing unambiguous identification of original allottees in cases where surnames alone might have proved insufficient. The record's careful preservation of unusual names accordingly performed an institutional function beyond mere historical curiosity, with each distinctive identifier helping to fix the legal chain of title against any future challenge or dispute. The pattern reveals how the 1711 framework relied on the durability of distinctive personal names within its documentary architecture, with each unusual identifier strengthening the institutional record's capacity to anchor titles against ambiguity.
The reference to Jane Mudge widow as the northern boundary holder, set against the absence of any earlier documented appearance for her in the regularised cluster, suggests another instance of the documentary regime's selective visibility. The Mudge family had been documented through Jonathan Mudge as a deceased Sharks Valley holder, but the female line of the family appears only at the moment when an adjoining estate's confirmation captured Jane's working presence as a boundary. The pattern shows widow holdings becoming institutionally visible primarily through the documentary needs of male holders' confirmations rather than through any independent regularisation of the widow's own interests. The framework accordingly captured female estates principally as boundary references serving male holders' titles, with the widow's institutional standing established as a side effect of her neighbour's confirmation rather than through her own direct participation in the registration process. The result was a documentary landscape in which female holders appeared sporadically as the documentary needs of others required, with their actual working presence and institutional position systematically under-recorded by the framework's apparent comprehensiveness.
196
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies, Do hereby Confirm Comp[a] Deed unto Samuel Jesey of Freeholder, Ten Acres of Land, Scituate under the Two Gun Ridge, to lately purchased of Jonathan Doveton, Buiting and Bounding towards the North Sam[ue]l Jesey upon the Land of Grace Coulson towards the East upon the Honourable Comp[a]ys Hutts Pasture next to the said Two Gun Ridge, and towards the South and West upon the Land of the said Jonathan Dovetons p[re]sently Leo Hunts, Which said Ten Acres of Land he the said Samuel Jesey hath a Just Right and Title too, As may more fully appear upon Examination in a Consultation of the Seventeenth A. day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any P[er]son to make their Claim on a certain day therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Sam[ue]l Jessey his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That he the said Sam[ue]l Jessey his Heires & Assignes Do and shall always bear true, Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, & In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these p[re]sents have Set their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island this Fourth A. A. A. day of August. in the Year of our Lord. One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In the P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to Samuel Jesey, freeholder, ten acres of land lying under the Two Gun Ridge, lately bought from Jonathan Doveton. The parcel was bounded northwards by the land of Grace Coulson, eastwards by the Honourable Company's hut pasture next to the Two Gun Ridge, and southwards and westwards by the land of Jonathan Doveton, formerly Leo Hunt's. Jesey's right and title to the ten acres rested on examination in a consultation of 17 March 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to Jesey, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The phrase Lords Proprietors marks the East India Company's status as the institutional landlord of St Helena, holding the island under royal charter and granting tenure to settlers as a sub-feudal superior rather than as a mere commercial owner.
The beat of drum procedure operated as the standard public notice mechanism under the 1711 framework for confirming title. Silence on the appointed day extinguished any rival claim, shifting onto the would-be claimant the burden of asserting a competing interest. The Company used this device to convert long working possession into documented freehold without the cost of formal litigation.
The conditional clause requiring true faith and allegiance to the Crown and to the Company, and obedience to island laws, embedded political and institutional loyalty as a continuing rent on the land. The freehold was perpetual in form but contingent in substance, with forfeiture available as a sanction against disloyalty or disorder.
The recital that the ten acres had been lately bought from Jonathan Doveton, with the southern and western bounds still described as Doveton's land formerly Leo Hunt's, shows how the institutional record preserved chains of prior tenure within boundary descriptions. Leo Hunt is probably the Leonard Hunt whose thirty acres the Company had earlier acquired and onward-sold to Jonathan Doveton in the 4 August 1713 sitting, the parcel now reaching Samuel Jesey through Doveton as the intermediate freeholder.
The Two Gun Ridge appears as a working byname carrying a military topographical marker into civilian land description. Grace Coulson, the widow confirmed in her own substantial estate on 23 June 1711, supplies the northern boundary and anchors the parcel within the wider Coulson cluster.
The consultation date of 17 March 1713 falls under the old calendar reckoning. Read forward, the hearing took place in March 1714, with the deed sealed at the Castle on 4 August 1713 in the same regnal and institutional sequence as the major coordinated sitting of that date.
The witness panel of Thomas Cason, Henry Francis and John Alexander reproduces the standard literate trio attending the 4 August 1713 sitting, with the register Alexander attesting alongside the lieutenant and the free planter who recur across nearly every instrument of that day.
Speculations
The two-stage acquisition route, with Jesey first buying the ten acres privately from Doveton and then securing Company confirmation, perhaps reflects a deliberate sequencing that used the 1711 framework to convert a recent private purchase into documented freehold under the perpetual tenure formula. The private sale moved the parcel into Jesey's hands; the Company deed gave him the institutional title and the protection of the beat of drum extinguishment.
The timing of the 17 March 1713 (old style) consultation, falling within the cluster of confirmations supporting the 4 August 1713 sitting, suggests that Jesey's hearing was treated as one of the late-arriving items processed alongside the major coordinated session rather than as a separate event. The Company used the sitting to clear residual confirmations that depended on consultations held earlier in the same administrative cycle.
197
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Comp[a] Deed Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Ripin Wills Freeholder, Fifty Acres of Land. Thirty of A. to whereof being the Lott Land of one William Foxx, Twenty Acres more being the Lott Lands of Ripin Wills of Black Oliver, and the other Tenth [Acres?] which compleats the whole Fifty Acres was y[e] Lott Land of Thomas Frankham since purchased of y[e] said Ripin Wills of James Easthopes deceased Scituate in or nigh y[e] Head of Fishers Vally, & is adjoyning y[e] other Forty A. Acres lying in another branch of y[e] said Vally Buiting & Bounding towards the North on y[e] Honourable Company Hutts Plantation towards y[e] East upon y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]s Land held by Thomas Hayse Sould[ie]r Towards y[e] South, upon y[e] Land of Sam[uel] Desfountains Children, & towards y[e] West upon y[e] Lands of John Alexander & Samuel Jessey. Which said Fifty Acres of Land he y[e] said Ripin Wills Hath a Just Right & Title too as may more largely appear upon examination in a Consultation of the Third & A. day of February One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claim on a day certain therein Limmitted, But none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said premises to him the said Ripin Wills his Heires & Assignes for ever, Upon Condition. That he the said Ripin Wills his Heires & Assignes Do bear always true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] and their Successors and shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island In Witness whereof y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a] to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this Fourth & A. A. day of August. in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to Ripin Wills, freeholder, fifty acres of land in three parcels. Thirty acres had formerly been the lot land of William Foxx. A further twenty acres were the lot lands of Ripin Wills of Black Oliver. The remaining ten acres, completing the fifty, had been the lot land of Thomas Frankham, since bought by Ripin Wills from the deceased James Easthopes. The land lay in or near the head of Fishers Valley and adjoined Wills's other forty acres in another branch of the valley. The fifty acres were bounded northwards by the Honourable Company's hut plantation, eastwards by Company land held by Thomas Hayse, soldier, southwards by the land of Samuel Desfountain's children, and westwards by the lands of John Alexander and Samuel Jessey. Wills's right and title to the fifty acres rested on examination in a consultation of 3 February 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to Wills, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason and H[...] Francis.
Interpretations
The fifty-acre confirmation drew together three separate parcels under a single freehold instrument, with the lot lands of William Foxx, the lot lands of Ripin Wills of Black Oliver and the former Thomas Frankham parcel (bought from the deceased James Easthopes) consolidated within one boundary line. The mechanism allowed the Company to regularise multiple earlier holdings of distinct provenance in a single perpetual title, simplifying later transfer and inheritance.
The recital of three former holders within the confirmation preserved chains of prior tenure as institutional memory. William Foxx connects to the wider Fox family already documented in the Fishers Valley and Sarahs Valley records, with William Fox the elder and William Fox the younger among the original 1682 allottees. Thomas Frankham is probably a scribal rendering of Thomas Francombe, the 1682 inquest allottee in Sandy Bay adjoining Owen Ockwin. James Easthopes connects to the James Easthope or Eastop of the 1687 Fisher Valley sale to John Coole and to the later James Reder confirmation under variant rendering, his death now fixed before 4 August 1713.
Ripin Wills of Black Oliver supplies a working byname for one of the two Ripin Wills figures, distinguishing him from the Ripin (or Ripon) Wells documented in earlier records as buyer of the Casthope parcel for fifty pounds in 1694 and of the Michael Morris house at the upper end of St James Valley in 1701. The Black Oliver designation perhaps preserves a connection with the slave Oliver named in the 1703 Powell-Greentree sale, with the parcel taking its name from the labour history of the ground.
Samuel Desfountain's children appear as southern boundary holders, confirming the regularised tenure of the Desfountain orphans (John, Joseph, Martha and Mary) under their late father's estate. John Alexander and Samuel Jessey as western neighbours place Wills's consolidated estate within the eastern Fishers Valley cluster anchored by Alexander's long-standing accumulation and the same Samuel Jessey confirmed in his own ten acres under the Two Gun Ridge.
Thomas Hayse, soldier, holding Company land on the east, appears here with the soldier designation that recurs in the 4 August 1713 Sutton Isaac junior lease, against the carrier designation in his own same-day instrument. The institutional record adapted his classification to the specific transaction.
The consultation date of 3 February 1713 falls under the old calendar reckoning, read forward to February 1714, with the deed sealed at the Castle on 4 August 1713 in the same administrative cycle as the wider sitting of that date.
The reduced witness panel of Thomas Cason and Henry Francis, without John Alexander as register, places this instrument among the closing items of the 4 August 1713 sitting where Alexander had withdrawn in the procedural pattern of late-afternoon retirement.
Speculations
The 1714 consultation date (read forward from 3 February 1713 old style) suggests that Wills's hearing was held only six months before the deed sealing, indicating a recent regularisation rather than confirmation of long-established occupation. The combination of three distinct lot lands within a single boundary line perhaps reflects an opportunity Wills had taken to assemble adjoining parcels at the head of Fishers Valley and to secure them under one perpetual title at the moment the Company was processing the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The forty acres of adjoining Wills land in another branch of the valley, named in the boundary description but not included in the confirmation, suggests a deliberate decision to regularise only part of his holding under the 1711 framework. The adjoining forty acres perhaps remained under earlier Company leasehold or under documented freehold from a separate prior instrument, with Wills selectively converting the newly assembled fifty acres while leaving the established forty under their original tenure.
198
Island St Helena.
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[ble] United Company of Merch[an]ts of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do Hereby Comp[a] Deed Confirm unto John Thomas and Mary Sons & Daughters of Thomas Earle dec[ease]d & Re[lic]t Beck- to Acres of Land being formerly Andrew Wilsons dec[ease]d Scituate Lying & being in Sandy Bay Earles Comp[a] Buiting & Bounding towards y[e] North upon y[e] Main Ridge & John Bagleys Land, towards the East upon y[e] Land of Charles Steward, towards y[e] South & A. & West upon Nineteen Acres of Land y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle Hires of y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: Which they y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle hath a Just Right & Title too, as may appear more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of y[e] Seventeenth & A. day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any p[er]son to make their claim on a certain day therein Limmitted, but none appearing or any Objection made. To have and to hold The said Premises to them y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle their & every of their Heires & Assignes for ever Upon Condition. That they y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle their & every of their Heires & Assignes Do bear always true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires & Successors, and to y[e] said Hon[ble] Comp[a]: & their Successors And shall duly Obey all y[e] Laws & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company an[d] Lords proprietors to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on the said Island this Fourth A. A. day of August. in y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen.
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] P[re]sence of: Tho[s] Cason H[?] Francis Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to John, Thomas and Mary Earle, sons and daughter of the deceased Thomas Earle and his relict Beck[...], two acres of land formerly belonging to the deceased Andrew Wilson. The parcel lay in Sandy Bay and was bounded northwards by the Main Ridge and John Bagley's land, eastwards by the land of Charles Steward, and southwards and westwards by nineteen acres of land that the Earle children hired from the Honourable Company. Their right and title to the two acres rested on examination in a consultation of 17 March 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to John, Thomas and Mary Earle, their heirs and assigns severally for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Cason, H[...] Francis and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation vested two acres directly in three named Earle children, John, Thomas and Mary, jointly and severally, without the intermediate trusteeship that often accompanied orphan estates. Direct vesting suggests the children had progressed in age sufficiently to hold property in their own names, following the pattern of the Maxwell orphans confirmed earlier in the 4 August 1713 sitting. The their and every of their Heires and Assignes formula preserved flexibility for later partition while protecting against external claims.
Thomas Earle, deceased, had previously appeared in the records as the former husband of Martha Fox, with the goods and chattels of his children by Martha included in the August 1709 Fox mortgage to Charles Steward and Orlando Bagley. He also reappeared as the former owner of the Chapel Valley dwelling that Thomas Toster sold to William Hartwell in April 1709. His relict here, named partially as Beck[...] with the manuscript unclear at that point, is a previously undocumented widow distinct from Martha Fox, raising the possibility that Earle had two marriages or that the manuscript records a name fragment of his only known widow.
The two-acre freehold sat enclosed on the south and west by nineteen acres that the Earle children hired from the Company under separate leasehold. The configuration combined a perpetual core with a leasehold extension, giving the children a documented base within a larger working unit they did not own outright. The arrangement parallels other 1713 estates where freehold confirmation was paired with adjoining leasehold under the 1711 framework.
The two acres had formerly belonged to the deceased Andrew Wilson, the same free planter who received a twenty-acre Company grant on 16 August 1684. His estate had been fragmenting across multiple successor holders, with eighteen acres of his Sandy Bay ground reaching Joseph and Martha Fox by 1709 and now two more acres reaching the Earle children. The pattern reveals the Wilson grant subdivided in pieces across the deaths and inheritances of two generations.
John Bagley's northern boundary on the Main Ridge places his holdings beside the Earle parcel, extending his recorded position beyond the head of Chapel Valley. Charles Steward's eastern boundary continues his wrap-around presence across the Sandy Bay confirmations of the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The consultation date of 17 March 1713 falls under the old calendar reckoning, read forward to March 1714. The two acres were processed in the same consultation cycle that produced Samuel Jesey's confirmation earlier in the present record.
Speculations
The vesting of the two-acre freehold directly in three named children, rather than in their mother as widow with the heirs as joint vestees, suggests that Beck[...] Earle was perhaps not the mother of John, Thomas and Mary, but a later wife of Thomas Earle whose interest the Company did not extend into the freehold. The earlier Fox mortgage of August 1709 had recognised the goods of the children of late Thomas Earle as held during Martha Fox's natural life only, indicating that the children's interest in their father's estate was preserved against their mother's remarriage. The 1713 confirmation routed the small freehold around the widow to the children directly, perhaps continuing the same protective pattern.
The pairing of two acres of freehold with nineteen acres of adjoining leasehold may reflect a deliberate institutional choice to give the Earle children a perpetual foothold of recognised tenure while keeping the bulk of their working estate under the Company's reversionary control. Such a structure secured the children's identity as Sandy Bay holders without committing the Company to perpetual alienation of the larger parcel, leaving the leasehold open to renegotiation or non-renewal once the children reached majority.
199
Island St Helena 199
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[...] United Comp[any] of Merch[ants] of England Trading to the East Indies, Do hereby Demisse [Comp[any]s Lease] Lett & Sett unto John Thomas & Mary Earle Sons & Daughter of Thomas Earle dec[eased] [to] Nineteen Acres of Land Scituate Lying & being in Rupert's Bay under the Maine Ridge [Earles Cop[ies]] butting towards y[e] North upon y[e] Land of Francis Wrangh[a]m towards y[e] East upon their own Eighteen Acres of Land towards y[e] West upon y[e] Land of John Cole, and towards the South upon y[e] Land in [...]enure & Occupation of John Robinson, To have and to hold The said Nineteen Acres of Land to them y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle their or any of their Executors Administrators and Assignes, for y[e] Terme & Time of Twenty one Years commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and thirteen, Upon Condition, That they y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle their own either of their Executors Administrators and Assignees shall alwayes Do, & beare true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queene Anne her Heires & Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly obey all y[e] Lawes & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, The Yearly Pay or y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent & Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides any Lading duty being usually five Shillings per Anr[um] in good & Curr[en]t money of the said Island, unto y[e] said Hon[oura]ble Comp[any] and their Successors, And that they y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle their or any of their Executors Administrators & Assignes shall and do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Term of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter y[e] Fences which are y[e] Land marks and which will occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott thereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in y[e] same without consent of y[e] Governour & Councell for y[e] time being. We for Witness whereof y[e] said Honourable United Company y[e] Lords Proprietors to these Pres[en]ts have set their comm[on] Seale at their Castle in James Valley this fourth [...] day of [...]nu[a]ry in y[e] Year of o[u]r Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, and they y[e] said John Thomas & Mary Earle to the other part have set their Hands & Seals
Orlando Bridg[man] [...] [...]
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of Tho[mas] [...]ome Jn[o] Fr[en]ch Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to John, Thomas and Mary Earle, sons and daughter of the deceased Thomas Earle, nineteen acres of land in Rupert's Bay under the Main Ridge. The parcel was bounded northwards by the land of Francis Wrangham, eastwards by the Earle children's own eighteen acres, westwards by the land of John Cole, and southwards by land in the tenure and occupation of John Robinson. The lease ran for twenty-one years from 25 March 1713. The Earle children, their executors, administrators and assigns were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. Rent was payable yearly on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at four shillings per acre, with an additional loading duty of five shillings per annum, all in good and current island money. At the end of the term the lessees were to leave the fences in as good repair as they then stood. They were not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. They were not to dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 4 [...] 1713. John, Thomas and Mary Earle set their hands and seals to the counterpart.
Orlando Bridg[man] [...] [...]
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas [...]ome, John French and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the freehold confirmation of two acres given to the same three Earle children earlier in the present record. Together the two instruments created a composite working estate of twenty-one acres at Rupert's Bay under the Main Ridge, with the small freehold core anchored within the larger leasehold extension. The same institutional pattern of perpetual freehold tied to twenty-one-year leasehold appeared repeatedly across the 4 August 1713 sitting and parallel processings.
The annual rent of four shillings per acre plus a five-shilling loading duty placed the Earle children's leasehold at the standard rate established under the 1711 framework. The total annual burden of four pounds one shilling represented a substantial commitment for an orphan estate, indicating that the Company expected the children to draw real productive value from the Sandy Bay ground.
The covenant against altering the fences gave physical features the status of legal landmarks. Any change in the fence line would compel redrawing of the plan annexed to the deed, which the Company treated as the operative description of the parcel. The provision preserved the institutional cartographic record against unilateral adjustment by the tenant.
The restriction on disposal of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council represented a substantial departure from the freely assignable ninety-nine-year leases of the earlier period, such as the Heath-Charles Sandy Bay assignment of 13 March 1705. Under the 1711 regime, leasehold tenure remained subject to active institutional supervision, with each transfer requiring governmental sanction.
Rupert's Bay appears here as the location of the Earle leasehold, although the same parcel is described as lying in Sandy Bay in the companion freehold confirmation. The two descriptions probably refer to adjoining or overlapping areas under the Main Ridge that the institutional record treated as a single working zone.
Francis Wrangham as the northern neighbour, John Cole as the western boundary, and John Robinson as the southern occupier of Company land place the Earle children's estate within the cluster of substantial 1711-1713 holders along the Main Ridge.
The witness panel of Thomas [...]ome, John French and John Alexander, with the register Alexander attesting, places this instrument among the lease counterparts attended by John French, gunner of the island, rather than the Cason-Francis trio that attended most of the day's freehold confirmations. The variation in witness composition reflects the procedural distinction between confirmation and lease.
The reference to Orlando Bridgman in the executorial or sealing line, with the manuscript unclear at that point, perhaps indicates that an adult was sealing the counterpart on the children's behalf during their minority. The role parallels the Orlando Bagley sealing for Margaret Bagley and Gabriel Powell sealing for Mary Hoskison observed earlier in the 4 August 1713 sequence.
Speculations
The discrepancy between Sandy Bay in the freehold confirmation and Rupert's Bay in the present lease suggests that the institutional record had not yet settled on a single name for the area under the Main Ridge where the Earle children's working estate lay. Rupert's Bay perhaps appears in the lease because the southern parcel reached the coast on the bay side, while the freehold core was identified by reference to the Sandy Bay region as a whole.
The pairing of nineteen acres of leasehold around a two-acre freehold, with the freehold confirmation processed the day before sealing of the lease (or in close sequence), points to a deliberate institutional strategy of limiting the children's perpetual entitlement to a small protective core while keeping the bulk of their working ground under twenty-one-year terms. The Company retained the option to recover the larger parcel in 1734 while leaving the children with their small freehold anchor regardless of how the leasehold renewal might be resolved.
200
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England [Comp[any] Deed] Trading to y[e] East Indies, Do hereby Confirm unto Robert Girling Free-Mason Twenty [to] Acres of Land lying Scituate in Peak Gut Abutting & Bounding towards y[e] North & South [Rob[er]t Girling] upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land, towards y[e] East upon y[e] Land of Cap[tain] [...]allings Heires, and towards y[e] West upon Six Acres of Land y[e] said Rob[er]t Girling Kins[man] of the said Hon[oura]ble Comp[any] Which said Twenty Acres of Land he y[e] said Rob[er]t Girling Hath a just Right and Title too as may more largely appeare upon Examination in a Consultation of the Seventeenth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred & Thirteen, And Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their claim on a certain day therein Limmited, but none appearing or any objection made, To have and to hold The said Premises to him y[e] said Robert Girling his Heires & Assignes for ever, Upon Cond[ition] y[a]t he y[e] said Robert Girling his Heires & Assignes shall alwayes Do & beare true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queene Anne her Heires & Successors and to y[e] said Honourable Company and their Successors And shall duly Obey all y[e] Lawes & Constitutions of y[e] said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have sett their Comm[on] Seale at their Castle on said Island this [...] day of August In the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] Pres[en]ce of Tho[mas] [...]ason Jn[o] Fr[en]ch Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to Robert Girling, freemason, twenty acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded northwards and southwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, eastwards by the land of Captain [...]allings's heirs, and westwards by six acres of land that Girling hired from the Honourable Company. Girling's right and title to the twenty acres rested on examination in a consultation of 17 March 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to Girling, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on [...] August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander.
Interpretations
Robert Girling appears here with the artisanal designation of freemason, placing him in the same skilled-trade category as Robert Bell the planter and mason and Isaac Wood the cooper. The Company favoured tenants with construction and maintenance skills who could meet the fencing and improvement covenants attached to the 1711 framework. The freemason classification gave Girling institutional standing as an artisan-holder, distinct from the free planter and soldier categories that dominated the earlier records.
The Girling surname here may represent a variant rendering of Gurling, the family name carried by Richard Gurling (the younger), Robert Gurling, and the earlier deceased Richard Gurling the elder, all documented across the Chapel Valley, Fryer Valley and Lemon Valley records. The shift to a freemason designation perhaps points to a distinct branch of the family, or to a different reading of the name applied to one of the active Gurlings as the institutional record adjusted its terminology.
The twenty acres lay in Peak Gut, the same upland zone where the Hoskinson-Powell-Gurling parcel of May 1704 had passed through three hands in a single day for substantial mark-ups, where the Wrangham orphans held their ten acres confirmed earlier in the 4 August 1713 sitting, and where the heirs of Governor Keeling held adjoining ground. Girling's twenty acres place him within a documented cluster of substantial Peak Gut holders.
The eastern boundary against Captain [...]allings's heirs, with the manuscript unclear at that point, perhaps reads as Captain Wallings, Stallings or a similar name. Captain Wills, the senior Fishers Valley holder, appears as a possible reading though his estates lay elsewhere. The captain designation places the deceased neighbour among the senior military or shipping officers whose estates persisted through their heirs after their deaths.
The six acres of adjoining hired Company land on the west places Girling's perpetual freehold within a larger working estate of twenty-six acres, with the smaller leasehold extension following the standard 1711 pattern of paired tenure. The lack of a separate same-day leasehold instrument for the six acres in the present record suggests that the leasehold may have been processed under a different sitting or remained outside the 1711 framework.
The consultation date of 17 March 1713, falling under the old calendar reckoning and read forward to March 1714, matches the same hearing that supported the Samuel Jesey and Earle children's confirmations processed in close sequence at the Castle.
The witness panel of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander matches the composition that attended the Earle children's lease, with John French serving as gunner-witness alongside the register. The variation between the Cason-Francis-Alexander trio of the major confirmations and the Cason-French-Alexander trio here perhaps marks a procedural sub-cluster within the long 4 August 1713 sitting, with French attending instruments processed at a particular point in the day.
Speculations
The reference to six acres of adjoining hired Company land, without an accompanying lease instrument in the present record, suggests that Girling already held the leasehold under an earlier or separate arrangement and that the present confirmation regularised only the freehold core. The artisanal freemason classification points to Girling as a working tradesman whose Peak Gut estate served as a personal residential and productive base rather than as a substantial accumulating portfolio of the kind built up by figures such as Hoskinson, Powell or the Gurlings of the merchant line.
The proximity of Girling's twenty acres to the heirs of Captain [...]allings and to the broader Peak Gut cluster, including the Wrangham orphans and the Keeling heirs, points to the area as a zone where multiple substantial estates passed into the hands of widows, children and successor purchasers during the 1711-1713 regularisation. Girling's confirmation perhaps marks the artisanal layer entering the Peak Gut cluster alongside the senior officer and gentleman holdings already established there.
201
St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[...] United Company of Merch[ants] of England Trading to the East Indies, Do [Comp[any]s Lease] hereby Demisse Lett & Sea unto Robert Girling Freeholder Six Acres of Land Scituate [to] and being in Peak Gutt butting towards y[e] North & East upon his own Property Acres [Rob[er]t Girling] of Land, and towards y[e] South & West upon y[e] Honourable Companys Wast Land To have and to hold The said Six Acres of Land to him y[e] said Robert Girling his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme & Time of Twenty One years commenceing from y[e] Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, Upon Condition That he y[e] said Robert Girling his Executors Administrators and Assignes Shall & always Do beare true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne, her Heires and Successors, and to y[e] said Honourable United Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Lawes and constitutions of the said Island And the Year[ly] Pay at y[e] Annunciation of y[e] Blessed Virgin Mary (being y[e] 25 day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides any Lading duty being u[su] all Five Shillings per Ann[um] of good & Currant money of the said Island, unto y[e] said Hon[oura]ble Company and their Successors, And that he the said Robert Girling his Executors Admi nistrators and Assignes Shall and do at y[e] Expiration of y[e] said Terme of Twenty one Years Leave y[e] fences about y[e] said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the Fences which are the Landmarks, and which will occasion y[e] Alteration of y[e] Plott hereunto Annexed nor dispose of this Lease, or interest in y[e] same, without consent of y[e] Governour and Councell for y[e] time being, In witness whereof the said Honourable United Company [Lords] Proprietors to these presents have set their Common Seale, at their Castle in James Valley this fourth [...] day of August In the Year of o[u]r Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Robert Girling to the other part hath sett his Hand and Seal
Rob[er]t Girling
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of Tho[mas] Ea[s]on Jn[o] Fr[en]ch Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Robert Girling, freeholder, six acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded northwards and eastwards by his own freehold land and southwards and westwards by the Honourable Company's waste land. The lease ran for twenty-one years from 25 March 1713. Girling, his executors, administrators and assigns were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and their successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. Rent was payable yearly on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at four shillings per acre, with an additional loading duty of five shillings per annum, all in good and current island money. At the end of the term Girling was to leave the fences in as good repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. He was not to dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713. Robert Girling set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Robert Girling
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas Eason, John French and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The lease paired with the earlier same-day freehold confirmation of twenty acres to Robert Girling, completing the standard 1711 pattern of perpetual freehold tied to twenty-one-year leasehold. Together the two instruments gave Girling a working estate of twenty-six acres in Peak Gut, with the leasehold extension surrounded on the north and east by his own freehold and opening onto Company waste on the south and west.
The shift in Girling's classification from freemason in the freehold confirmation to freeholder in the present lease reveals the institutional record adapting designations to the procedural moment. The freemason term identified him by trade for the confirmation; the freeholder term identified him by tenure for the leasehold extension, marking the perpetual confirmation as the qualifying basis for the additional twenty-one-year grant.
The annual rent of four shillings per acre plus a five-shilling loading duty produced a total annual burden of one pound nine shillings on the six acres, placing Girling's leasehold at the standard 1711 rate. The modest sum reflected the marginal Peak Gut location away from the more developed Sandy Bay and Chapel Valley zones.
The covenants against altering fences and disposing of the lease without governor and council consent reproduced the standard 1711 framework restrictions. The fence-as-landmark provision tied the operative description to the annexed plan, while the disposal restriction kept the leasehold under continuing institutional supervision.
The lease was sealed at the Castle in James Valley on 4 August 1713, the same major sitting that processed the freehold confirmation. The pairing of confirmation and lease within a single day's processing matches the coordinated administrative cohort observed across the wider sitting.
Girling signed in his own hand, placing him within the literate circle of free planters and artisans who could attest their own instruments. The signature contrasts with the marks made by less literate holders such as William Marsh, John Bagley's wife Margaret, or Owen Bevean.
The witness panel of Thomas Eason, John French and John Alexander reproduces the Cason-French-Alexander trio of the freehold confirmation. The reading of Eason here, against Cason in the earlier instrument, perhaps reflects a scribal variation across the two deeds rather than a different witness, since the long 4 August 1713 sitting drew on a stable rotation of attending witnesses.
Speculations
The signing of the leasehold counterpart in Girling's own hand, despite his trade designation as freemason rather than as a member of the merchant or planter elite, points to the spread of literacy across the skilled artisan layer by 1713. The pairing of an own-hand signature with an artisanal classification places Girling among the lettered tradesmen who participated directly in the documentary regime, rather than relying on a substitute sealer as Margaret Bagley or Mary Hoskison did in their leasehold counterparts.
202
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies Do hereby confirme unto Elizabeth Bowman [Comp[any]s Deed] (daughter of John Bowman deceas'd) Forty five Acres of Land lying Scituate at [to] the Head of one branch of Chappell Valy under the Maine Ridge, butting & bounding [Eliz[abeth] Bowman] towards the North upon the Land of George Powell Freeholder, towards the East upon the Land of Henry Francis, towards the South upon the Land of Francis Wrangham and John Bagley, and towards the West upon the Honourable Companys great Pasture, Also Thirty Acres of Land more Scituate at y[e] Head of Swine Gully being formerly the Land of William Bowman deceas'd Butting and Bounding towards y[e] North upon the Land of Edward Bryan dec[eas]'d his Heires, Towards the East upon y[e] said Honourable Companys Wast Land, Towards the South and West upon there Hutts Pasture being two parcells of Land and in the whole contains Seventy five Acres, Which Hs the said Elizabeth Bowman hath a just Right and Title too As may appear more largely Upon Examination in a Consulteation of the Third [...] day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their clayme on a certain day therein Limmited, But none appearing or any Objection made, To have and to hold The said premises to her the aforesaid Elizabeth Bowman her Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That she y[e] said Elizabeth Bowman her Heires and Assignes shall and Do alwayes beare true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors And shall duly Obey all the Lawes and constitutions of the said Island In Witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this fourth [...] day of August in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of Tho[mas] [...]ason Jn[o] French Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to Elizabeth Bowman, daughter of the deceased John Bowman, two parcels totalling seventy-five acres. The first parcel of forty-five acres lay at the head of one branch of Chapel Valley under the Main Ridge. It was bounded northwards by the land of George Powell, freeholder, eastwards by the land of Henry Francis, southwards by the land of Francis Wrangham and John Bagley, and westwards by the Honourable Company's great pasture. The second parcel of thirty acres lay at the head of Swine Gully and had formerly belonged to the deceased William Bowman. It was bounded northwards by the land of the heirs of the deceased Edward Bryan, eastwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, and southwards and westwards by their hut pasture. Elizabeth Bowman's right and title to the seventy-five acres rested on examination in a consultation of 3 March 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to Elizabeth Bowman, her heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation vested seventy-five acres directly in Elizabeth Bowman as an unmarried adult daughter, without joint vesting with brothers, sisters or any wider sibling group. The direct vesting in a single named female holder gave her institutional standing equivalent to a male freeholder, departing from the joint-and-several vesting that the Company had used for other orphan estates such as the Harding children, the Maxwell orphans or the Earle children. Elizabeth held the perpetual title in her own name with full power of inheritance and assignment.
The seventy-five-acre estate placed Elizabeth among the substantial individual landholders of the 4 August 1713 sitting, on a scale comparable to Mary Hoskison's eighty-six acres and Frances Goodwin's eighty-nine acres of confirmed freehold. The Bowman confirmation marks the third substantial female holding of the major sitting, indicating that the Company recognised significant female tenure across widows, widow-with-heirs and unmarried daughters within the 1711 framework.
The two parcels traced two distinct chains of prior tenure. The forty-five acres at the head of Chapel Valley arrived through Elizabeth's father, the deceased John Bowman, who had earlier appeared in the records as the seller of a Fort James Valley dwelling house to John Nicholls and as the eastern boundary of the Orlando Bagley senior gift of August 1695. The thirty acres at the head of Swine Gully had formerly belonged to the deceased William Bowman, perhaps a brother, uncle or other kinsman of John Bowman, indicating that two Bowmans had held substantial original allotments that now reached Elizabeth as the surviving family beneficiary.
Swine Gully appears here as a previously undocumented working byname, joining Diana's Geak, Two Gun Ridge, Black Egea, Writing Stone Ridge, Sexton's Ground and the other topographical names recorded across the 4 August 1713 sitting. The byname identifies the parcel by reference to its working use rather than by a formal place name.
George Powell, freeholder, on the northern boundary of the Chapel Valley parcel, is probably Gabriel Powell under a variant first name, given his confirmed substantial Chapel Valley holdings and the boundary configuration. The Powell-Francis-Wrangham-Bagley clockwise sweep around the forty-five acres places Elizabeth's largest parcel at the centre of the most active Chapel Valley cluster.
Edward Bryan as the deceased northern neighbour of the Swine Gully parcel connects to the earlier holder of the James Valley house later rebuilt by Richard Cleve and sold to James Greentree in June 1715. Bryan's heirs appear here as a boundary unit, indicating that his estate had passed into family hands by 1713.
The consultation date of 3 March 1713, falling under the old calendar reckoning and read forward to March 1714, matches the same hearing cycle that supported the John Goodwin, James Greentree, Robert Addis, James Draper, Simon Whaley, Dorothy Hayes and several other confirmations of the same 4 August 1713 sitting.
The witness panel of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander reproduces the Cason-French-Alexander trio attending the present sub-cluster of confirmations, distinct from the Cason-Francis-Alexander trio that attended the morning instruments. The procedural variation places Elizabeth's confirmation within the later sequence of the long sitting.
Speculations
The direct vesting of seventy-five acres in an unmarried daughter, with no recorded brother or co-heir, suggests that Elizabeth Bowman was the sole surviving child of John Bowman and the institutional successor to William Bowman as well. The configuration perhaps reflects a strategic family settlement under which two Bowman estates were consolidated into a single female line on the assumption that the perpetual title would later reach a husband through marriage. The Company's willingness to confirm the full estate in Elizabeth's name, rather than holding part in trust against future male heirs, indicates that female inheritance of substantial freehold had become institutionally established by 1713.
The two-parcel configuration, with the larger forty-five acres at the head of Chapel Valley and the smaller thirty acres at the head of Swine Gully, perhaps points to two separate inheritances drawn together in the 1713 regularisation. Elizabeth's father John Bowman had probably held the Chapel Valley parcel during his lifetime, while the Swine Gully parcel came through William Bowman by separate succession. The Company's consolidation of both parcels under a single Elizabeth Bowman confirmation gave her institutional recognition as the focal heir of the wider Bowman family, with the perpetual title providing the basis for any future marriage settlement or estate disposition.
203
Island St Helena 203
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm Unto John Bryan Uldest Son and Heire of Edward Bryan deceas'd [Comp[any] Deed] Thirty Acres of Land being formerly the Land of William Bowman also dec[eas]'d) Lying [to] Scituate at or n[i]gh the Head of Swine Valley, Butting and Bounding towards y[e] North [J[oh]n Bryan] East and West upon the Honourable Companys Wast Land, and towards the South upon the Land of Elizabeth Bowman Spinster, Which said Thirty Acres of Land He the said John Bryan (now absent off the said Island) Hath a just Right and Title Too as may more largely appear Upon Examination in a Consultation of the Third day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any Person to make their Claym on a day certayn therein Limmited, But none appearing or any Objection made, To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said John Bryan, or any other, the Heire of the said dec[eas]'d Edward Bryan his or their or any of their Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said John Bryan his Heires and Assignes or any other, the Heire of the said Edward Bryan now living on said Island or any of them shall always Do and bear true faith and Alle giance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors and shall duly Obey all the Lawes & Consti tutions of the said Island, In witness whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this fourth day of August In the year of our Lord, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
Sealed and Delivered in the Presence of Tho[mas] [...]ason Jn[o] French Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to John Bryan, eldest son and heir of the deceased Edward Bryan, thirty acres of land formerly belonging to the deceased William Bowman. The parcel lay at or near the head of Swine Valley and was bounded northwards, eastwards and westwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, and southwards by the land of Elizabeth Bowman, spinster. John Bryan was absent from the island. His right and title to the thirty acres rested on examination in a consultation of 3 March 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to John Bryan, or to any other heir of the deceased Edward Bryan, and to his or their heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that John Bryan, his heirs and assigns, or any other heir of Edward Bryan then living on the island, bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on 4 August 1713.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The confirmation regularised the inheritance of Edward Bryan's estate in his eldest son John Bryan under the rule of primogeniture, despite John's absence from the island. The Company processed the deed in his name with a flexible substitutional clause allowing for the alternative vesting in any other heir of Edward Bryan then resident on the island. The mechanism kept the title open against the contingency of John's death overseas or his permanent failure to return, while still recording the primary inheritance line in the eldest son.
The thirty acres at the head of Swine Valley had previously belonged to the deceased William Bowman, the same prior holder named in the Elizabeth Bowman confirmation earlier in the present record. Two distinct Bowman parcels at the head of Swine Gully or Swine Valley were therefore divided in 1713 between the Bryan and Bowman lines, with John Bryan receiving the thirty acres confirmed here and Elizabeth Bowman retaining the matching thirty acres confirmed in her own name. The configuration reveals that the William Bowman estate had been split between two heirs through inheritance routes that the Company recognised under its regularisation.
The boundary clause records the same parcel as bounded southwards by Elizabeth Bowman, spinster, confirming her status as an unmarried adult and providing institutional reciprocal mapping between the two same-day Bowman-derived confirmations. The phrase Swine Valley appears here against Swine Gully in the Elizabeth Bowman deed, with both names referring to the same upland zone under variant scribal renderings.
Edward Bryan, the deceased holder whose estate passed to John Bryan, connects to the earlier holder of the James Valley house later rebuilt by Richard Cleve and sold to James Greentree in June 1715. Bryan's death therefore predates the 1715 sale, with his estate moving into the hands of his heirs through inheritance and disposition. The 1713 confirmation also names him as the northern boundary holder in the Elizabeth Bowman deed of the same day, indicating that Edward Bryan held adjoining land at the head of Swine Gully in his own right alongside the William Bowman parcel now confirmed to his son.
The substitutional clause covering any other heir of Edward Bryan represents a procedural departure from the standard sole-heir vesting used in most primogeniture confirmations of the 1711 framework. The flexibility perhaps reflects the Company's recognition that absent overseas heirs created institutional risk and that the deed should provide for transmission to a resident family member if the eldest son did not return.
The consultation date of 3 March 1713, falling under the old calendar reckoning and read forward to March 1714, matches the same hearing that supported Elizabeth Bowman's confirmation and several other instruments processed on 4 August 1713.
The witness panel of Thomas [...]ason, John French and John Alexander reproduces the trio attending the Bowman and Earle confirmations and the Girling instruments earlier in the sequence.
Speculations
The absence of John Bryan from the island at the moment of confirmation, with the deed processed in his name and with a substitutional clause for any resident heir of Edward Bryan, points to the Company's deliberate use of the 1711 framework to keep estates within recognised family lines even when the principal heir was overseas. The procedure perhaps anticipated the possibility that John would not return, with the substitutional clause acting as a fallback to a resident sibling or cousin without the need for a fresh consultation.
The division of the William Bowman estate between Elizabeth Bowman and John Bryan, with thirty acres confirmed to each on the same day, perhaps reflects an earlier family settlement under which the Bowman ground had been partitioned between the Bowman and Bryan lines through marriage, inheritance or testamentary arrangement. The Company's 1713 regularisation gave institutional form to the partition by issuing two parallel confirmations rather than treating the William Bowman ground as a single block descending to one heir. Elizabeth's confirmation as spinster and John's confirmation in absentia together secured the family settlement against the risks of unmarried life and overseas residence.
204
[St] Helena 204
[Island St Helena] To all Christian People To whom these presents shall come I Mary Jewister of y[e] Island of S[t] Helena Widdow sendeth Greeting in our Lord God everlasting Know yee, That I [Mary Jewister] the said Mary Jewister for y[e] naturall Love & Affection, that I the said Mary Jewister have and [to] do beare unto Francis Wrangham my Grandson and Plantor of this Island being in perfect [Fra[ncis] Wrangham] Mind and Memory Have Given Granted and for divers good & other my present writing fully Freely and Absolutely Give Grant and Confirm unto y[e] said Francis Wrangham all my Right Title Claim and Demand to one Black Man comonly called or knowne by y[e] name of Ned To have and to hold To him y[e] said Francis Wrangham his Heires and Assignes for ever to his own proper Use or & behoof without any manner of Claim or Demand whatsoever, of or by any person or persons, Provided and it is promised and agreed to by y[e] said Francis Wrangham That he y[e] said Francis Wrangham Doth Covenant promise and Agree to give to y[e] said Black Coat in Sicke and Cloches for and dureing y[e] Terme of y[e] naturall Life of her y[e] said Mary Jewister, with y[e] use and benefit of y[e] work of y[e] said Black, both for y[e] [...] Decease of y[e] said Mary Jewister, then y[e] said Black to go to and be for ever to y[e] use and behoof of y[e] said Francis Wrangham his Heires Executors Administrators and Assignes for ever, In full and peaceable Possession by y[e] gift and delivery of y[e] said Black which to y[e] said Francis Wrangham I have given the [...] Day of y[e] date of these p[rese]nts I do give and deliver in Presence of y[e] said Black Have and possession of him In Witness whereof I have hereunto sett my Hand & Seale the Twenty sixth day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Eleven Twelve
Her Mary + Jewister mark
Sealed and Delivered and Quiett Possession given and delivered by y[e] said Mary Jewister in token of y[e] delivery of y[e] said Black, have according to y[e] Effect of y[e] said Pres[en]t Writing in y[e] Presence of us (no Stampt paper on y[e] Island)
John Coulson James Vesey Samuel Pittman
Island St Helena
Know all men by these presents that I Lucas mason do hereby Acknow ledge to have received off and from Mr Francis Wrangham, the whole full and Entire Portion belonging to my wife formerly by the name of Elizabeth Wrangham and Do Discharge the Said Francis Wrangham and his Heirs for ever from any further Claim Challenge or Demand to or for the said Elizabeth Wrangham's Portion or any Part thereof either by Dividend of her deceased Father Mr Samuel Wranghams Estate or any Legacie otherwise Since Left or given her by any person whatsoever And De he by Wither Acknowledge to have received of Mr aforesaid Mr Francis Wrangham the full Sume of Eighty Nine pounds in good and Curr[en]t money and is in full payment for Ten Acres of Free Land and two Acres of Wood Land that did belong to my Said wife The Witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand & Seale this [...] Day of March 17[12]
Witness hereto John Goodwin Lucas mason James Vesey
Island of St Helena
To all Christian people to whom these presents come, Mary Jewister of the island of St Helena, widow, sent greeting in our Lord God everlasting. For the natural love and affection she bore towards Francis Wrangham, her grandson and a planter of the island, and being of perfect mind and memory, Mary Jewister freely and absolutely gave, granted and confirmed to Francis Wrangham all her right, title, claim and demand to one black man commonly called or known by the name of Ned. The grant was to Francis Wrangham, his heirs and assigns for ever, to his own proper use and benefit, without any claim or demand from any person. Francis Wrangham covenanted, promised and agreed to provide the said black with coat, shirt and clothes during the natural life of Mary Jewister, with the use and benefit of the black's work going to her during her lifetime. On Mary Jewister's death, the black was to pass to Francis Wrangham, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever. Mary Jewister gave full and peaceable possession by the gift and delivery of the black to Francis Wrangham on the day of the present writing, in the black's presence. Mary Jewister set her hand and seal to the deed on 26 February 1712.
Her mark + Mary Jewister
Sealed and delivered, and quiet possession given and delivered by Mary Jewister in token of the delivery of the black, according to the effect of the present writing, in the presence of John Coulson, James Vesey and Samuel Pittman. No stamped paper was available on the island.
Island of St Helena
Lucas Mason acknowledged that he had received from Mr Francis Wrangham the whole, full and entire portion belonging to his wife, formerly named Elizabeth Wrangham. He discharged Francis Wrangham and his heirs for ever from any further claim, challenge or demand to Elizabeth Wrangham's portion or any part of it, whether by dividend of her deceased father Mr Samuel Wrangham's estate or any legacy since left or given to her by any person whatsoever. Mason further acknowledged the receipt of eighty-nine pounds in good and current money from Francis Wrangham, in full payment for ten acres of free land and two acres of wood land that had belonged to his wife. Mason set his hand and seal to the deed on [...] March 1712.
Witnessed by John Goodwin, Lucas Mason and James Vesey.
Interpretations
The first instrument constructed a life-interest arrangement over the slave Ned, with Mary Jewister retaining the use and benefit of his work during her lifetime while immediately vesting the perpetual ownership in her grandson Francis Wrangham. The structure parallels the reserved-room and reserved-yam arrangements seen in earlier conveyances, such as Owen Bevean's reservation of a single room when selling the Chapel Valley house to James Greentree in October 1705 or Jasper Jaye's reservation of yams and fowls when selling to Edward Edmunds in 1683. The Company recognised reversionary structures applied to slave labour in the same form as those applied to land and provisions.
The clothing covenant required Francis Wrangham to provide coat, shirt and clothes to Ned during Mary Jewister's lifetime. The obligation transferred maintenance of the slave's basic upkeep onto the perpetual owner during the life-interest period, separating the labour value (which Mary retained) from the maintenance burden (which Francis assumed). The arrangement gave Mary the benefit of Ned's work without the cost of his keep.
Mary Jewister's identification as widow, combined with the gift to her grandson, places her at the head of a three-generation family line ending in Francis Wrangham. The arrangement preserves slave property within the family by routing the gift through a generation rather than by sale, demonstrating that slaves were treated as inheritable family assets to be retained across kinship transfers.
The phrase no stamped paper on the island, recorded after the witness list, marks the absence of the formal taxed paper required for legal instruments in metropolitan England. The notation gave institutional recognition to the practical reality of overseas administration, where the documentary regime operated on whatever paper was available. The phrase appears as standard procedural protection against later challenge based on technical paper-stamping requirements.
The second instrument records a financial settlement between Lucas Mason and his brother-in-law Francis Wrangham, closing off any further claim by Mason or his wife Elizabeth (formerly Wrangham) against the estate of the deceased Samuel Wrangham. The eighty-nine pounds in full payment of ten acres of free land and two acres of wood land released to Francis Wrangham the consolidated freehold and wood land that had passed through the family settlement.
The settlement parallels the 29 January 1718 endorsement on the Samuel Wrangham orphans' confirmation and lease, where Lucas Mason assigned his interest (in right of his wife Elizabeth) in the freehold to John Wrangham and in the leasehold to Francis Wrangham. The present March 1712 instrument predates the 1718 endorsement by nearly six years, indicating that the family settlement between the Mason-Wrangham line and the Wrangham siblings unfolded across multiple stages of cash payment and formal assignment.
John Coulson appears here as a witness to the slave gift, joining the wider Coulson family cluster that included Grace Coulson, Benoney Coulson, the late Leonard Coulson and Widow Coulson. James Vesey appears as a witness to both instruments, placing him within the literate circle of the period alongside John Goodwin and Samuel Pittman.
The 26 February 1712 date for the slave gift falls under the old calendar reckoning and converts forward to 26 February 1712 in modern style. The March 1712 date for the Mason settlement, with the day uncertain in the manuscript, falls within the same calendar period before the 25 March year change.
Speculations
The reservation of Ned's work to Mary Jewister during her lifetime, with the perpetual title vesting in Francis Wrangham, perhaps reflects an elderly widow's decision to secure her labour supply during her remaining years while ensuring that the slave would not be sold off after her death by an executor under pressure from creditors or other heirs. By making the gift immediately and reserving only a life interest in the work, Mary fixed the ownership against any post-mortem challenge from rival family members or institutional claimants. The arrangement converted what might otherwise have been a testamentary disposition (subject to probate and challenge) into an inter vivos gift with reserved life enjoyment.
The eighty-nine pounds paid by Francis Wrangham to Lucas Mason in March 1712 perhaps represents the working price of Elizabeth Wrangham's portion under her father Samuel Wrangham's estate, with the ten acres of free land and two acres of wood land identified as the underlying assets. The settlement enabled Francis to consolidate the Wrangham freehold and wood land in his own hands before the formal 1718 endorsement assigned the residual leasehold interest as well. The two-stage process, with cash settlement in 1712 and formal assignment in 1718, perhaps reflects the time required to secure each tranche of the divided family estate against the various Wrangham siblings and their spouses.
205
Island St Helena 205
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies [Comp[any]s Lease] Do hereby Demisse Lett and Sea unto Mary Conaway Widow Thirty Acres of Land Scituate [to] at the Head of Doggwood Valley Butting and Bounding towards the North Sou[t]h and Eas[t] [Mary Conaway] upon the said Hon[oura]ble Comp[any] Wast Land and towards the West upon the lands of Eliz[abeth] Smith p[ar] [Wido[w]] hen and towards the East to the Land of Will[iam] Worrall formaly in the Pos[s]es[s]ion of Phill Cleeve To have and to hold the said Premisses to her the said Mary Conaway her Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commenceing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, Upon Condition That she the said Mary Conaway her Executors administrators and Assignees shall always Do and bare true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[oura]ble Comp[any] and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Lawes and Constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annuntiation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25th day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of fower Shillings per Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings per Acre in good and Currant money of the said Island, Unto the Hon[oura]ble Comp[any] and their Success[ors] And that she the said Mary Conaway her Executors Administrators and Assignees shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years Leave the fences about the said Land in as good repaire as they are now, and not to alter the said Fences which are the Landmarks, and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annexed, nor dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without Consent of y[e] Gov[ernou]r and Councell for the time being, In witness whereof the said Hon[oura]ble United Comp[any] and Lords Proprietors to these Pre[se]nts have sett their Common Seale, at their Castle in James Valley this first [...] day of December One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
The Mark of Mary M Conaway
Sealed and Delivered In y[e] Pres[en]ce of
Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Mary Conaway, widow, thirty acres of land at the head of Dogwood Valley. The parcel was bounded northwards, southwards and eastwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, westwards by the lands of Elizabeth Smith, and to the east by the land of William Worrall, formerly in the possession of Phil Cleeve. The lease ran for twenty-one years from 25 March 1713. Mary Conaway, her executors, administrators and assigns were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. Rent was payable yearly on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, in good and current island money. At the end of the term Mary Conaway was to leave the fences in as good repair as they then stood. She was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. She was not to dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 1 December 1713.
The mark of Mary M Conaway
Sealed and delivered in the presence of John Alexander.
Interpretations
The leasehold confirmation extended a thirty-acre frontier estate at the head of Dogwood Valley to Mary Conaway as a widow, recognising her independent tenure of substantial Company ground in her own name. The pattern of widow leasehold tenure parallels the documented holdings of Margaret Cotgrave, Margaret Bagley, Margaret Sich and Grace Coulson, indicating that the 1711 framework provided institutional recognition for widows holding leased Company land outside the freehold confirmation pattern.
The annual rent of four shillings per acre plus a one-shilling duty produced a per-acre rate of five shillings, generating a total annual burden of seven pounds ten shillings on the thirty acres. The duty here is rendered as a per-acre charge rather than the flat-sum loading duty of five shillings per annum applied to other 1713 leases such as the Earle children's and Robert Girling's. The variation reveals two distinct duty structures operating side by side within the 1711-1713 framework, with the per-acre formulation appearing on substantial larger holdings.
Dogwood Valley appears here as a new working byname, joining Swine Gully, Swine Valley, Diana's Geak, Black Egea, Writing Stone Ridge and the other topographical names recorded across the 1711-1713 regularisation. The valley name carries no documented earlier use, indicating that Mary Conaway's leasehold is the first institutional record of the location.
The triple boundary against Company waste on the north, south and east, with only a single neighbour on the west, places the parcel at the outer margin of regularised settlement, similar to John Knipe's frontier four-acre leasehold at the bottom of Pleasant Valley and the Joshua Johnson estate under the King's Peak. The Company used the 1711 framework to extend documented tenure into previously unenclosed ground, drawing institutional perimeters around marginal estates.
The boundary description records two distinct east-facing references, with Elizabeth Smith on the west (correcting the apparent mistranscription that places her on the west while another east boundary appears to William Worrall). The internal inconsistency reflects the institutional record's tolerance of variances within a single deed, with the operative description resting on the annexed plan rather than on textual precision.
William Worrall as an adjoining holder connects to John Worrall senior named as a boundary holder in the 4 August 1713 Thomas Allis lease at Deep Valley. The Worrall family persisted across multiple parts of the island, with William perhaps a son or kinsman of John Worrall.
Phil Cleeve as the earlier holder of the Worrall parcel connects to Richard Cleve, the soldier who rebuilt the James Valley house sold to James Greentree for one hundred and fifty pounds in June 1715. Phil Cleeve perhaps represents a kinsman of Richard Cleve, with the family carrying surname into the Dogwood Valley area before the 1713 lease.
Mary Conaway's mark, set as M, places her among the unlettered female holders whose institutional standing rested on the documentary regime rather than on personal literacy. The pattern parallels Grace Coulson's mark, Margaret Bagley's M, and Owen Bevean's O B.
The witness panel reduced to John Alexander alone places this lease at the closing margin of the institutional process, with the register attesting in his sole capacity. The reduction from the standard council quorum of three witnesses to the register alone marks the leasehold as a routine extension rather than a substantive confirmation requiring senior council attendance.
The 1 December 1713 sealing date places this lease in the closing months of the year, several months after the major 4 August 1713 sitting. The continued processing of leases across the following months indicates that the 1711 framework operated as a continuing administrative regime rather than as discrete annual events.
Speculations
The processing of Mary Conaway's lease on 1 December 1713 with only John Alexander attending as witness perhaps reflects the institutional pattern of holding routine leasehold extensions at smaller administrative gatherings outside the major coordinated sittings. The Company used the major sittings such as 4 August 1713 to clear coordinated reciprocal-boundary instruments, while leases on outlying frontier estates were processed individually when the holder's situation permitted attendance at the Castle.
The grant of thirty acres at a frontier location to a widow holding only by mark, without recorded previous ownership in her own name or documented kinship to a substantial freeholder, perhaps points to a widow's resettlement or a fresh allocation of marginal ground rather than the regularisation of long-established occupation. The Company's willingness to extend a substantial leasehold to a widow on these terms indicates that frontier development took priority over the social profile of the tenant, with the documented covenants on fences and disposal providing institutional protection against the risk of poor management on outlying ground.
206
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietor of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of Merchants of England tradeing to the [Comp[any] Deed] East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto William Seale Freeholder Twenty Acres of [to] Land Lying Scituate in Stocks Valley being formerly the Lott Land of one J[o]s Bartlett [W[illia]m Seale] Deceased, Butting and Bounding towards the North and South upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land, upon the East and West upon the Land of Robert Bell late Walter Edwards, Which said Twenty Acres of Land he the said William Seale hath a Just Right and Title to as may appear more largly upon Examination in a Consultation of the [...] day of [...] One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by Beat of Drum For any Person to make their Claim on a Day certaine therein limmited But none appearing or any objection made To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said William Seale his Heires and Assignes for ever, Upon Condition That he the said William Seale his Heires and Assignes Do bear allwayes true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne Her Heires and Successors, and to the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors, And shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island In Witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island, this [...] day of [...] In the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
The Platt and Plan of the abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Coy of this Deed and Plan enter'd in the Register Book
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to William Seale, freeholder, twenty acres of land in Stocks Valley, formerly the lot land of the deceased Jos Bartlett. The parcel was bounded northwards and southwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, and eastwards and westwards by the land of Robert Bell, late Walter Edwards. William Seale's right and title to the twenty acres rested on examination in a consultation of [...] [...] 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to William Seale, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on [...] [...] 1713. The plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, and a copy of the deed and plan were entered in the register book.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The confirmation regularised William Seale's tenure of twenty acres in Stocks Valley under the 1711 framework, drawing on a prior allotment held by the deceased Jos Bartlett. The recital of Jos Bartlett as the former holder preserves an earlier name within the institutional memory, with Bartlett perhaps representing the John Bartlett in Sharks Valley named in the 1682 inquest, although Stocks Valley as the location here does not match the inquest's Sharks Valley reference. The variation may reflect either a different Bartlett holding or a later relocation of the lot land under intermediate transfers.
Stocks Valley appears here as a working byname, joining Dogwood Valley, Swine Gully, Swine Valley, Diana's Geak, Black Egea, Writing Stone Ridge and the other topographical names that the 1711-1713 regularisation drew into the institutional record. The valley name carries no documented earlier use and is not recorded elsewhere in the 4 August 1713 sitting, indicating that William Seale's confirmation is the first institutional record of the location.
Robert Bell's holdings as the eastern and western neighbour reproduce his Sandy Bay accumulation built through the 1 August 1712 Company sale of ten acres for two hundred dollars and the same-day leasehold assignment of Walter Belward's six acres. The Stocks Valley confirmation extends his recorded position beyond Sandy Bay, indicating that his planter-and-mason classification supported a wider working estate by 1713. The land was identified as late Walter Edwards's, with Edwards as the earlier holder before Robert Bell. Walter Edwards perhaps connects to Humphrey Edwards, the single-acre Sandy Bay lessee from the 4 August 1713 sitting who signed in his own hand, or to a separate family member of the same surname.
William Seale connects to the wider Seale family. His own 4 August 1713 confirmation in twenty acres near the head of Sharks Valley placed him as the son of the deceased Beer Seale, with adjoining boundaries against Jane Mudge widow, Matthew Bazett and John Knipe. The present Stocks Valley confirmation gives him a second separate twenty-acre freehold, expanding his documented holdings to forty acres across two valleys.
The Beer Seale identification in the Sharks Valley confirmation is distinct from the Benjamin Seale of the 1682 inquest and the 1694 gift to Praise Pledger, although the Seale surname runs through the wider family network. William Seale's accumulation of two separate twenty-acre freeholds within a single year places him among the rising second-generation holders consolidating their position under the 1711 framework.
The deed is incompletely engrossed, with the consultation date, the sealing date and the witness panel all left blank in the manuscript. The pattern matches the other incompletely engrossed instruments of the 1713 sitting, including the Keeling heirs' confirmation, the Daniel Griffeth heirs' confirmation, the Giles Smith confirmation and the Margaret Sich instruments. The blanks reflect documents drafted in advance and held pending later proxy or family completion when practical obstacles such as absent witnesses or unresolved title questions were resolved.
The closing note records that the plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, with a copy of the deed and plan entered in the register book. The notation gives institutional recognition to the cartographic record as the operative description of the parcel, alongside the textual deed. The annexation of the plan reproduces the standard 1711 framework requirement that physical landmarks tied to surveyed plans gave the boundary description its legal force.
Speculations
The incomplete engrossment of the deed, with the consultation date, sealing date and witness panel all left blank, suggests that William Seale's Stocks Valley confirmation was drafted in anticipation of later completion at a moment when the documentary obstacles could be resolved. The Company perhaps held the deed in suspended form pending verification of the boundary against Robert Bell's adjoining estate, the location of Stocks Valley relative to neighbouring areas, or the identification of the deceased Jos Bartlett as the original allottee. The institutional pattern of preparing regularised records in advance and finalising them as practical circumstances permitted operated across multiple confirmations of the 1713 period.
William Seale's accumulation of forty acres across two separate freeholds in the same regularisation year, in addition to his Sharks Valley confirmation under his father Beer Seale's name, points to a deliberate consolidation of family ground at the moment of the 1711 framework's full operation. By regularising both inherited and newly acquired parcels under perpetual title within a single year, William fixed his institutional position as a substantial second-generation freeholder, with the documented forty-acre base providing the foundation for any later marriage settlement, inheritance disposition or further accumulation.
207
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto John Crosby Eldest Son of [Comp[any] deed] Edward Crosby deceased (since Decease of his Mother Sarah & now Wife of Christopher Hall) [to] Ten Acres Land Lying Scituate in Plyers Valley butting and bounding towards the [John Crosby] North East and West upon the said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] Wast Land, and upon the South upon the Lands of Edward Bayleys Children now in y[e] Pos[s]es[s]ion of Thomas Southern Which said Ten Acres of Land he the said John Crosby hath (at the decease of his Mother aforesaid) a just Right and Title to as may appeare more largely upon Examination in a Consultation of the [...] day of [...] One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, and Notice being given by beat of Drum for any person to make their Claim on a day certaine therein limmited, but none appearing to any Objection made, To have and to hold the said Premises to him the said John Crosby his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said John Crosby his Heires and Assignes, do bear always true faith and allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at there Castle on the said Island, this [...] day of [...] In the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
The Platt and Plan of y[e] abovesaid Land being hereunto Annexed Also a Copy of this Deed and Plan entered in y[e] Register Book
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to John Crosby, eldest son of the deceased Edward Crosby (the confirmation taking effect on the death of his mother Sarah, now the wife of Christopher Hall), ten acres of land in Plyers Valley. The parcel was bounded northwards, eastwards and westwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, and southwards by the lands of Edward Bagley's children, then in the possession of Thomas Southern. John Crosby's right and title to the ten acres, taking effect on the death of his mother, rested on examination in a consultation of [...] [...] 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to John Crosby, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on [...] [...] 1713. The plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, and a copy of the deed and plan were entered in the register book.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The confirmation vested ten acres in John Crosby as the eldest son of the deceased Edward Crosby, but the operative grant was conditional on the death of his mother Sarah, who had since remarried Christopher Hall. The construction reproduces the standard widow's-life-interest pattern, with Sarah retaining the present use and benefit of the ground during her natural life while the perpetual title was institutionally fixed in her eldest son. The Company's recognition of the reversionary structure prevented Sarah's remarriage from transferring the Crosby family ground out of the family line into the hands of her new husband.
The interposition of Christopher Hall as Sarah's second husband created the institutional risk that the Crosby family ground might pass into Hall's hands through his marital rights over Sarah's interest. The deed's express vesting of the perpetual title in John Crosby on his mother's death closed off that risk, preserving the original Crosby line against the consequences of remarriage. The mechanism parallels the protective structures used in the Earle children's freehold confirmation, where the children's interests were preserved against their stepmother Beck[...] Earle's claims.
Edward Crosby connects to the earlier records as the soldier who sold two acres at the side of the Little Horse Pasture to Thomas Goodwin on 19 March 1695 for six pounds, completing Goodwin's reassembly of the James Wakefield parcel. The Edward Crosby of the 1695 sale also appeared as a witness to the John Young sale to Thomas Goodwin in May 1693. His death now reaches the institutional record through the 1713 confirmation of his son's inheritance.
Plyers Valley appears here as a new working byname, joining Dogwood Valley, Stocks Valley, Swine Gully, Swine Valley and the other topographical names entering the institutional record through the 1711-1713 regularisation. The valley name carries no documented earlier use.
Edward Bagley's children as the southern neighbour reproduce the orphan estate already documented in the 4 August 1713 Richard Gurling confirmation. The children's land was then in the possession of Thomas Southern, the same Thomas Smithen named in the Gurling lease (with the surname appearing under variant scribal rendering). The institutional pattern of letting orphan ground to an adult tenant during minority continued across multiple boundary references.
The deed is incompletely engrossed, with the consultation date, the sealing date and the witness panel all left blank in the manuscript. The pattern matches the William Seale Stocks Valley confirmation processed in close sequence, along with the Keeling heirs, Daniel Griffeth heirs, Giles Smith and Margaret Sich instruments of the earlier sitting. The Company prepared regularised records in advance and finalised them as practical circumstances permitted.
The closing note records that the plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, with a copy of the deed and plan entered in the register book. The institutional cartographic record gave the boundary description its operative force, consistent with the standard 1711 framework requirement.
Speculations
The express conditioning of John Crosby's freehold on the death of his mother Sarah, with her remarriage to Christopher Hall named in the deed, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional choice to formalise the protective structure within the perpetual title itself rather than relying on later challenge or family settlement to defeat any rival claim by Hall. By recording the reversionary structure in the freehold confirmation, the Company gave John Crosby an immediate institutional foothold against any attempt by Hall to assert marital rights over the Crosby family ground.
The pattern of substitutional or contingent vesting clauses across multiple 1713 confirmations, including the John Bryan substitutional clause for any other heir of Edward Bryan, the protective construction around the Earle children against their stepmother, and the present conditional vesting around Sarah Crosby's life interest, points to the Company's active use of the 1711 framework to manage inheritance risks created by remarriage, overseas residence and minority. The documented confirmations operated as instruments of family settlement as well as land regularisation, fixing property lines against the contingencies of generational transition.
208
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England [Comp[any] Deed] Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Confirm unto Isaac Leach Freeholder [to] Ten Acres of Land Lying Scituate at the Head of Pleasant Valley Butting towards [Isaac Leach] the North upon the Land of William Seale, towards the West upon the Land of W[illia]m Cales, towards the East and South upon the Lands of Giles Smith, Which said Ten Acres of Land he the said Isaac Leach hath a just right and Title too, As may appear more largly upon Examination in a Consultation of the [...] day of [...] One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And Notice being given by Beate of drum for any person to make their claim on a Day certaine therein Limmited but none appearing or any Objection made, To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said Isaac Leach his Heires and Assignes for ever Upon Condition That he the said Isaac Leach his Heires and Assignes Do bear alwayes true faith and allegiances to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, In Witness Whereof the said Honourable Company to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle on said Island this [...] day [...] In the year of our Lord one Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
The Platt and Plan of the above said Land being hereunto Annexed, Also a Copy of this Deed and Plan entered in the Register Book
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, confirmed by Company deed to Isaac Leach, freeholder, ten acres of land at the head of Pleasant Valley. The parcel was bounded northwards by the land of William Seale, westwards by the land of William Cales, and eastwards and southwards by the lands of Giles Smith. Isaac Leach's right and title to the ten acres rested on examination in a consultation of [...] [...] 1713, with public notice given by beat of drum for any person to make a claim on a fixed day. No one came forward and no objection was raised. The land was granted to Isaac Leach, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that they bore true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The Honourable Company set its common seal to the deed at the Castle on the island on [...] [...] 1713. The plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, and a copy of the deed and plan were entered in the register book.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The confirmation regularised Isaac Leach's tenure of ten acres at the head of Pleasant Valley under the 1711 framework, adding a further documented Leach freeholder to the wider family network already evident in the records. The Leach family appears across the registers in multiple branches and renderings, including Richard Leach the free planter of the early Sharks Valley exchange with William Bishop, Robert Leach who sold fifteen acres in Fryer Valley to Mr George Carne in January 1705 and later took Susanna Doveton as apprentice in March 1708, Daniel Leach as boundary holder to the Giles Smith Pleasant Valley parcel, and the variant rendering Leech used for the same family. Isaac Leach extends the documented family presence into Pleasant Valley as an institutional freeholder in his own right.
Pleasant Valley as the location of the ten acres places Isaac Leach within the same upland cluster that included John Knipe's four-acre leasehold at the bottom of the valley and Giles Smith's combined freehold and leasehold at the head of the valley, both confirmed earlier in the 4 August 1713 sitting. The Leach confirmation completes the documented Pleasant Valley cluster of three small adjoining holders.
William Seale's northern boundary places his Pleasant Valley holding adjacent to Isaac Leach's parcel, extending Seale's documented position beyond his earlier confirmed Sharks Valley and Stocks Valley freeholds. The accumulation of three separate twenty-acre and ten-acre holdings under the Seale name across the 1713 regularisation places him among the active second-generation accumulators consolidating land under the 1711 framework. The ten-acre adjoining position here perhaps represents a further parcel held by William Seale under a separate prior tenure not regularised in the records already documented.
William Cales as the western neighbour perhaps represents a variant rendering of Henry Cales or Henry Coales, the long-standing holder named in earlier records including the deceased Henry Coales as intermediate owner of the James Valley house in the 1715 Cleve-Greentree sale. The William Cales identification may indicate a son or kinsman of the wider Cales/Coales family who had taken over part of the family ground by 1713.
Giles Smith on the eastern and southern boundaries reproduces the same Giles Smith confirmed in ten acres of freehold and twenty acres of leasehold near the head of Pleasant Valley on the 4 August 1713 sitting. The reciprocal boundary mapping with Isaac Leach's parcel places the two confirmations within a coordinated administrative cluster, with each holder appearing in the other's boundary description.
The deed is incompletely engrossed, with the consultation date, the sealing date and the witness panel all left blank in the manuscript. The pattern matches the William Seale Stocks Valley confirmation and the John Crosby Plyers Valley confirmation processed in close sequence. The Company prepared regularised records in advance and finalised them as practical circumstances permitted.
The closing note records that the plat and plan of the land were annexed to the deed, with a copy of the deed and plan entered in the register book. The annexation of the cartographic record gave the boundary description its operative force.
Speculations
The reciprocal boundary mapping between Isaac Leach and Giles Smith, with each holder appearing on adjoining sides of the other's freehold, points to a coordinated regularisation of the Pleasant Valley cluster within a single administrative pass. The Company processed the Leach and Smith confirmations together to fix the working boundaries between the two adjoining freeholders, drawing on common surveying work and on the same beat of drum notice to extinguish any rival claim against either parcel. The pattern of clustered same-area confirmations operated as an efficient institutional mechanism for settling multiple titles in parallel.
The incomplete engrossment of the deed with blanks for the consultation date, the sealing date and the witnesses perhaps reflects the Company's tolerance of suspended documents pending the resolution of practical obstacles such as Isaac Leach's availability to attend sealing or the verification of the William Seale northern boundary. The institutional regime treated the documentary regularisation as a continuing process rather than as a one-off event, with blanks held open for later completion as circumstances permitted.
209
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Tradeing to the [Comp[any]s Lease] East Indies Do hereby Demisse Lett and Sett unto Isaac Leach Ten Acres of Land [to] Scituate at the Head of Pleasant Valley Butting towards the North upon the said Hon[oura]ble [Isaac Leach] Companys Wast Land, towards the West upon the Land of William Cales, towards the East upon the Land of Giles Smith, and towards the South upon the said Isaac Leaches own Ten Acres of Land To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said Isaac Leach his Executors Administrators and Assignes, for the Term and Time of Twenty on Years commencing from the Twenty fifth day of March, One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, Upon condition That he the said Isaac Leach his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall alwayes do and bear true faith and Allegiance to our Sovereigne Lady Queen Anne her heires and Successors, and to the said Honourable Comp[any] and their Successors, and shall duly obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, and Yearly Pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25th day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one shilling Duty being in all five Shillings per Ann[um] in good and Currant money of the said Island, unto the said Honourable Company and their Successors, And that he the said Isaac Leach his Executors Administrators and Assignes shall and do at the expiration of the Said Terme of Twenty one years Leave the fences about the said Land in as good repair as they are now, and not to alter the said fences w[hi]ch are the Land marks and which will occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annex'd or not dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the consent of the Gov[ernor] and Councel for the time being, In Witness Whereof The said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this [...] day of [...] One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen, And the said Isaac Leach to the other part hath sett his Hand and Seale
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Isaac Leach ten acres of land at the head of Pleasant Valley. The parcel was bounded northwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, westwards by the land of William Cales, eastwards by the land of Giles Smith, and southwards by Isaac Leach's own ten acres of land. The lease ran for twenty-one years from 25 March 1713. Isaac Leach, his executors, administrators and assigns were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. Rent was payable yearly on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per annum in all, in good and current island money. At the end of the term Isaac Leach was to leave the fences in as good repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. He was not to dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being. The Honourable Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on [...] [...] 1713. Isaac Leach set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The lease paired with the earlier same-period freehold confirmation of ten acres to Isaac Leach, completing the standard 1711 pattern of perpetual freehold tied to twenty-one-year leasehold. Together the two instruments gave Leach a combined working estate of twenty acres at the head of Pleasant Valley, with the leasehold extension positioned directly north of his freehold and opening onto Company waste on that side.
The boundary description records Isaac Leach's own ten acres as the southern neighbour of the leased parcel, providing reciprocal cross-reference to the freehold confirmation. The Company used the matching boundary references between paired freehold and leasehold instruments to fix the spatial relationship between the two components of the same holder's estate, with each instrument anchoring the other through cartographic correspondence.
The annual rent of four shillings per acre plus a one-shilling duty produced a per-acre rate of five shillings, generating a total annual burden of two pounds ten shillings on the ten acres. The duty here is rendered as a per-acre charge, matching the structure of Mary Conaway's Dogwood Valley leasehold but differing from the flat-sum loading duty of five shillings per annum applied to the Earle children's and Robert Girling's leases of the same regularisation. The two duty structures continued to operate in parallel.
The covenants against altering fences and disposing of the lease without governor and council consent reproduced the standard 1711 framework restrictions. The fence-as-landmark provision tied the operative description to the annexed plan, and the disposal restriction kept the leasehold under continuing institutional supervision.
William Cales as the western boundary holder reproduces the same boundary identification used in the freehold confirmation. The continued use of Cales here against the wider Coales family network indicates that the rendering held institutional standing within the Leach instruments specifically.
Giles Smith as the eastern boundary holder reproduces the reciprocal mapping with Leach observed in the freehold confirmation. The matching boundary descriptions between the Leach freehold and Leach leasehold instruments, together with the cross-references to Giles Smith's own 4 August 1713 confirmation and leasehold at the head of Pleasant Valley, place all three holders within a tightly coordinated administrative cluster.
The deed is incompletely engrossed, with the sealing date and the witness panel left blank in the manuscript. The pattern matches the matching incomplete state of the freehold confirmation processed in close sequence and the wider 1713 sitting's tolerance of suspended documents pending later completion.
Speculations
The pairing of the leasehold extension immediately north of the freehold core, with the leasehold opening onto Company waste on the same side, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional strategy of giving Isaac Leach a foothold for outward expansion at the boundary between regularised settlement and unenclosed Company ground. The leasehold operated as a buffer zone that the Company could recover at the end of the twenty-one-year term if frontier conditions changed, while preserving the perpetual freehold as the operative residential and productive core.
The incomplete engrossment of both the freehold confirmation and the leasehold extension, with sealing dates and witnesses left blank in matching fashion, points to a coordinated suspended-document treatment of the Isaac Leach holdings. The Company perhaps held both instruments open for completion at a single later sealing event when Leach could attend in person and the witnesses could be assembled. The institutional pattern of suspended pairing across confirmation and leasehold of the same holder operated as a procedural efficiency rather than as a sign of any defect in title.
210
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Hon[oura]b[le] United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies [Comp[any]s Lease] Do hereby Demise Lett and Sett unto Thomas Harper Free Planter one [to] Parcel of Land Scituate and being in S[wa]nleys Valley and doth contain Ten Acres More less [Tho[mas] Harper] Butting & bounding upon y[e] North East South and West, upon the said Honourable Companys Wast Land To have and to hold The said Premises to him the said Thomas Harper, his Executors Administrators and Assignes for the Terme and Time of Twenty one years commen cing from the Twenty fifth day of March One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen Upon Condition That he the said Thomas Harper his Executors Administ[rators] and Assignees shall always do and bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lady Queen Anne her Heires and Successors and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws and constitutions of the said Island, And yearly pay at the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25th day of March) the Annuall Rent and Sum of Four Shillings per Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings per Shill[ing] in good and Currant money of the said Island unto the said Honourable Comp[any] and their Successors, And that he the said Thomas Harper his Executors Administ[rators] and Assignes shall and do at the Expiration of the said Terme of Twenty one years Leave the fences about the said Land in as good repaire as they are now and not to alter the said sfences which are the Land marks and which will occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexxed, nor dispose of this Lease or interest in the same without consent of the Governour and Councel for the time being In witnesse whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lord Proprietors to these Presents have sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this First [...] day of December One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
Tho[mas] Harper
Sealed and Delivered In the Presence of
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Harper, free planter, a parcel of land in Swanleys Valley containing ten acres more or less. The parcel was bounded northwards, eastwards, southwards and westwards by the Honourable Company's waste land. The lease ran for twenty-one years from 25 March 1713. Thomas Harper, his executors, administrators and assigns were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to Queen Anne, her heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. Rent was payable yearly on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, at four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, in good and current island money. At the end of the term Thomas Harper was to leave the fences in as good repair as they then stood. He was not to alter the fences, which served as the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. He was not to dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the governor and council for the time being. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 1 December 1713.
Thomas Harper
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The lease extended a fully isolated ten-acre parcel in Swanleys Valley to Thomas Harper, free planter, with all four boundaries against Company waste land. The parcel sat as a documented enclave within unenclosed Company ground, similar to John Knipe's four-acre frontier leasehold at the bottom of Pleasant Valley and to the small isolated parcels confirmed under the 1711 framework at the outer margins of regularised settlement.
Swanleys Valley appears here as a working byname, joining the topographical names recorded across the 1711-1713 regularisation. The valley name carries no documented earlier use and may represent a previously unrecorded location or a variant rendering of an established place name. The phrase ten acres more or less attached to the area description gave the survey a small margin of variation, recognising that the cartographic record might not exactly match the operative ground.
The annual rent of four shillings per acre plus a one-shilling duty produced a per-acre rate of five shillings, generating a total annual burden of two pounds ten shillings on the ten acres. The duty here is rendered as a per-acre charge, matching the structures of Mary Conaway's Dogwood Valley leasehold and Isaac Leach's Pleasant Valley leasehold processed in the same regularisation cycle. The per-acre duty operated as the dominant pattern across the December 1713 leases.
The covenants against altering fences and disposing of the lease without governor and council consent reproduced the standard 1711 framework restrictions, with the fence-as-landmark provision tying the operative description to the annexed plan and the disposal restriction keeping the leasehold under continuing institutional supervision.
Thomas Harper appears here with the free planter classification. The Harper surname connects to several earlier holders, including the deceased Thomas Harper senior named in the chain-of-title recital for the Fort James Valley dwelling sold by George Dweight to William Marsden in April 1709 and by Marsden to Thomas Toster in March 1711. The 1709 sale established Thomas Harper senior as a substantial urban Fort James Valley property holder before his death. The present Thomas Harper is distinct from Thomas Harper senior and from the earlier Thomas Harper, planter, who appeared as the seller of twenty acres at Sarahs Valley to James Casthope in March 1694 and to Thomas Goodwin in May 1694.
A previous Thomas Harper had also taken a forward-dated twelve-acre leasehold on 4 August 1713 under the Main Ridge towards Manatee Bay head, commencing 25 March 1714. The present Swanleys Valley leasehold, commencing 25 March 1713 and sealed on 1 December 1713, represents a separate same-name allocation back-dated to the standard 1712-1713 commencement window. Two leasehold parcels held by Thomas Harper may indicate that the institutional record drew distinct grants under variant locations to the same holder or that two Harper free planters operated under similar identification within the regularisation.
The lease was sealed at the Castle in James Valley on 1 December 1713, the same date that produced Mary Conaway's Dogwood Valley leasehold. Both leases share the December processing window, indicating that a sub-sitting at the close of the calendar year produced a coordinated cohort of frontier leasehold extensions on outlying ground.
Thomas Harper signed in his own hand, placing him within the literate circle of free planters and artisans who could attest their own instruments. The absence of any recorded witness panel and the lack of a visible council quorum point to the reduced institutional procedure used for routine leasehold extensions at small administrative gatherings outside the major coordinated sittings.
Speculations
The sealing of the Thomas Harper Swanleys Valley leasehold on 1 December 1713, alongside Mary Conaway's Dogwood Valley leasehold processed on the same day, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional pattern of clearing routine frontier extensions at end-of-year smaller sittings. The Company used the December window to process individual leases that did not require the reciprocal-boundary coordination of the major 4 August 1713 sitting, with the modest witness requirements and the smaller administrative footprint enabling efficient processing of outlying allocations.
The fully isolated configuration of the parcel within Company waste on all four sides, combined with the back-dated 25 March 1713 commencement, perhaps points to a regularisation of established working occupation rather than a fresh allocation. Thomas Harper may have been cultivating or improving the ten acres for some months before the December 1713 sealing, with the back-dated lease bringing his existing operations within the documentary regime. The Company's tolerance of such retrospective formalisation operated as a flexible mechanism for drawing frontier activity into the 1711 framework as practical circumstances permitted.
211
Know all Men by these presents that I George Earne of the Island of S[t] Helena Merchant, Do hereby acknowledge and bind my Self my Heirs Executors Administrators and Assignes to stand justly Indebted to John Goodwin the Surv[ivor] [Geo[rge] Earne] [Exec[uto]r] of the True payment thereof to be made to the aforenamed John Goodwin his Heires Executors and Administr[ato]rs [to Cap[tain]] [I have hereby tied of my Heire] Executors Administrators or assigns formly by these presents appeared the Hundred [Goodwin Cap[tai]n] Whereof I have hereunto sett my hand and Seal this Fourteenth [...] day of February One Thousand Seven hundred and Thirteen
[Comp[any]] The Condition of this Obligation is such that whereas Cap[tai]n Thomas Goodwin of the Island of by his Last Will and Testament constitute Frances Goodwin of his Wife his Sole Heir and Executrix leaving in [...] of [...]parsell that she might to enableth the Better to provide for her Children as well all the real as personall Estate, She the said Frances Goodwin having resolved to alter her Condition and out of her affection to the above bound George Earne to receive him in Mariage on this this presents agree to the Articles of Marriage following
[Imp[rimi]s] That the said George Earne shall well and truly Pay or cause to be paid to each of the Children viz Thomas Goodwin Sarah Goodwin Richard George Frances Goodwin Elizabeth Goodwin the Sum of one Hundred [...] Currant pound Sterling either at their day of mariage of age and in case of Mortality the Survivor [...] Shall be equally [...]ed Sealed amongst her Brethren
[2[d]ly] That the above bound George Earne shall for and in Consideration of the said Sum of [...] pounds reposed in his Inrust bring up the said Children above named in such Education and necessary as his owne Children leaving to the abovenamed Frances Goodwin a full and ample Powe[r] to act therein as she shall think most Expedient
[3[d]ly] The above bound George Earne doth further Obligate himself beyond what the abovemention[ed] bond Expressed in all the Plate Linn[en] in the possession of the above said Frances Goodwin to make good to the Children of her Children being for the Sum of [...] Hundred pounds
[4[t]hly] The said George Earne doth by these presents bind himself and his owne Goods Real and Personall that if any Children for the said Frances of Frances Goodwins Children being for the Sum of five hundred pounds and by any willfull Action in the said Earne up more fall to the [...] and proceeds above mentioned to agree thereto after the said George Earne Marriage with the said Frances Goodwin
Sealed Signd and Delivered George Earne in the Pres[en]ce of us no Stampt paper being upon the Island
Richard Garling Joshua Johnson
To all Christian People To whome these presents shall come I Frances Goodwin the Relict of Thomas Goodwin of the Island of S[t] Helena Widdow send greeting in our Lord God Everlasting Know yee that [Frances Goodwin] I the said Frances Goodwin for and in consideration of the Love good Will and affection which I have and doe bear [to] towards my well beloved Son John Goodwin, the Son of Thomas Goodwin aforesaid have given and granted [John Goodwin] and by these p[rese]nts Doe freely and absolutely give and grant to the said John Goodwin his heire Executors Administrators and Assignes all the Right Title and interest that I have or may have to or stand assigned the real Estate belonging unto John Goodwin the Brother of the abovenam'd Thomas Goodwin willed by his last will and testament & T[e]queath part of his Real Estate to his Son Robert Goodwin who is Lately deceased in his Minority, with the whole Lands and Tens of cropping and arrecicing from the same since this S[ai]d Robert Goodwin's Death by any meanes of mortality whatsoever to his or their own proper use and behoofe, for ever To have and to Hold all and Singullar the said Frances Goodwin real Estate as aforesaid unto the Said John Goodwin his Heire Executors Administrators and assignes from henceforth as his or their proper Goods for ever absolutely without any meaner of Claim Vexation or contridiction of y[e] said Frances Goodwin have absolutely and of my own free will and accord put the said John Goodwin in Possession thereof without any further Ceremony In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale the fourteenth day of February in the Year of our Lord one Thousand Seven hundred and Twelve
The Frances F G Goodwin mark of
Sealed Signd and Delivered in the Pres[en]ce of us no Stampt paper being upon y[e] Island
Richard Garling Both the above written Comp[any] Joshua Johnson of y[e] Origin[al] attested by Jn[o] Alexander
Island of St Helena
George Earne, merchant of the island of St Helena, acknowledged himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns bound to John Goodwin, the surviving executor of Captain Thomas Goodwin, for the true payment of the sums to be made to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns under the present obligation. George Earne set his hand and seal to the bond on 14 February 1713.
The condition of the obligation was that Captain Thomas Goodwin of the island, by his last will and testament, had constituted his wife Frances Goodwin his sole heir and executrix, leaving her in [...] of [...] so that she might be the better enabled to provide for her children, with all the real and personal estate. Frances Goodwin, having resolved to alter her condition and out of her affection towards George Earne, agreed to receive him in marriage on the terms of the articles of marriage following.
First, George Earne was to pay, or cause to be paid, to each of the children Thomas Goodwin, Sarah Goodwin, Richard George Frances Goodwin, and Elizabeth Goodwin, the sum of one hundred [...] current pounds sterling, either on the child's day of marriage or on coming of age. In case of the death of any child, the survivor's share was to be equally divided among the remaining brothers and sisters.
Secondly, George Earne, in consideration of the sum of [...] pounds reposed in his trust, was to bring up the named children in such education and necessaries as his own children, leaving to Frances Goodwin full and ample power to act in the matter as she thought most expedient.
Thirdly, George Earne further obligated himself beyond the bond expressed above in respect of all the plate and linen in the possession of Frances Goodwin, to make good to her children the sum of [...] hundred pounds.
Fourthly, George Earne bound himself and his own goods, real and personal, that if any of Frances Goodwin's children should be entitled to the sum of five hundred pounds, and by any wilful action of Earne should fall short of the sums and proceeds above mentioned, he agreed to make good the shortfall after his marriage with Frances Goodwin.
Sealed, signed and delivered by George Earne in the presence of Richard Garling and Joshua Johnson. No stamped paper was available on the island.
To all Christian people to whom these presents come, Frances Goodwin, the relict of Thomas Goodwin of the island of St Helena, widow, sent greeting in our Lord God everlasting. For the love, good will and affection that she bore towards her well-beloved son John Goodwin, the son of Thomas Goodwin, Frances Goodwin freely and absolutely gave and granted to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns all the right, title and interest that she had or might have to the real estate belonging to John Goodwin, the brother of Thomas Goodwin. That brother had, by his last will and testament, bequeathed part of his real estate to his son Robert Goodwin, who had lately died in his minority. The gift included all the lands and the income from cropping and use of those lands since Robert Goodwin's death by whatever means of mortality. The grant was to John Goodwin's own proper use and benefit for ever.
The gift was to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from then on as his proper goods for ever absolutely, without any claim, vexation or contradiction from Frances Goodwin. Frances Goodwin, of her own free will and accord, put John Goodwin in possession of the property without any further ceremony. Frances Goodwin set her hand and seal to the deed on 14 February 1713.
The mark of Frances F G Goodwin
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Richard Garling and Joshua Johnson. No stamped paper was available on the island.
Both of the above-written Company deeds were attested as true copies of the originals by John Alexander.
Interpretations
The two instruments together formed a coordinated family settlement on the eve of Frances Goodwin's remarriage to George Earne. The bond of obligation secured the position of her children by Thomas Goodwin against the institutional risk that her new husband might absorb the family estate through his marital rights over her interest. The companion deed of gift redirected a separate inheritance line, derived through her late brother-in-law John Goodwin and his deceased minor son Robert Goodwin, to her eldest son John Goodwin before any marital incidents could attach.
The bond of obligation operated as a pre-marital articles-of-marriage agreement. George Earne bound himself in advance of the marriage to pay each named child of Frances and Thomas Goodwin a fixed sum of one hundred pounds sterling on their marriage or coming of age, with survivorship provisions equalising the share among the remaining siblings on any death. The mechanism converted parental responsibility into contractual obligation, fixing the children's portions before the marriage altered the legal position of the maternal estate.
The four named Goodwin children Thomas, Sarah, Richard George Frances and Elizabeth represent a previously undocumented broader family beyond the John Goodwin (the younger) confirmed in his own fifty-two-acre freehold on 4 August 1713. The Richard George Frances compound name suggests a single child carrying multiple given names rather than two separate children, reflecting the family practice of recording the father, the previous king and the family name within a single child's identification.
The third clause extended Earne's obligations to the plate and linen in Frances's possession, marking out a separate category of movable household assets distinct from the cash portions. The structure preserved both the cash inheritance and the movable family goods against any future creditor claim or marital disposition by Earne.
The fourth clause covered a contingent five-hundred-pound liability, with Earne agreeing to make good any shortfall arising from his own wilful action after the marriage. The contingent guarantee gave the children institutional protection against any deliberate dissipation of the estate by their stepfather.
The companion deed of gift restructured a separate inheritance chain. John Goodwin, the brother of Thomas Goodwin, had died and bequeathed part of his real estate to his own son Robert Goodwin. Robert had since died in his minority, with the lands and the income from cropping since his death falling open. Frances Goodwin, as the surviving party with a claim through her late husband, transferred her entire interest in this chain to her son John Goodwin. The gift consolidated the wider Goodwin family ground in the eldest son's hands before the Earne marriage closed the matter.
The Richard Garling and Joshua Johnson witness pair appears on both instruments, sealed on the same day. The coordinated processing through a single witness panel reinforces that both deeds were part of a single pre-marital settlement event held privately rather than at a major Castle sitting.
The phrase no stamped paper being upon the island appears on both instruments, reproducing the institutional notation observed earlier on the Mary Jewister slave gift of February 1712. The repeated notation gave continuing institutional recognition to the absence of formal taxed paper, protecting the deeds against any later technical challenge based on paper-stamping requirements.
The 14 February 1713 dating falls under the old calendar reckoning and converts forward to 14 February 1714 in modern style. The marriage articles therefore predate the Earne-Goodwin marriage of 25 May 1715, when George Carne (the same merchant under variant rendering) and his wife Frances sold Captain Goodwin's House to Henry Francis for two hundred and eighty-five pounds. The bond appears in the records under the rendering George Earne, while the May 1715 sale used George Carne.
Frances Goodwin's marking F G as her signature, rather than signing in her own hand, places her among the unlettered female holders who relied on the documentary regime rather than on personal literacy. The mark contrasts with the in-own-hand signatures of George Earne and the witnesses, reflecting the unevenness of literacy across the elite circle.
John Alexander's attestation closes both deeds as true copies of the original, continuing his long-standing register role and his certification of documentary authenticity.
Speculations
The construction of a four-tier obligation in the bond, ascending from individual children's portions, through education and maintenance, to plate and linen, and finally to a contingent five-hundred-pound guarantee, perhaps reflects a deliberately layered approach to securing the children's position against the unknown consequences of their mother's remarriage. By committing Earne to escalating tiers of obligation, the settlement provided cascading institutional protection against different categories of risk: economic dissipation, neglect of education, alienation of household property, and wilful misconduct. The layered structure converted the marriage from a private family decision into a formal financial arrangement enforceable against Earne's own estate.
The simultaneous execution of the Robert Goodwin inheritance redirection alongside the marriage articles points to a deliberate strategy of removing the John Goodwin (Thomas's brother) ground from Frances's marital estate before the Earne wedding. By transferring the inheritance to her son John on the same day as the bond, Frances perhaps closed off any future claim by Earne against the wider Goodwin family ground that had reached her through her late brother-in-law's line. The two-track settlement preserved the principal Goodwin estate within the existing family while opening the marriage to Earne on terms protective of the children's specific portions.
The contingent five-hundred-pound guarantee in the fourth clause, predicated on wilful action by Earne to defeat the children's portions, perhaps reflects an institutional acknowledgement that pre-marital settlements alone were not sufficient to prevent misconduct by a remarried stepfather. The wilful action language gave the children's interest a remedy specifically targeted at deliberate misdealing, distinct from ordinary commercial misfortune or honest failure. The construction provided a long-term hedge against the most likely sources of family conflict arising from a remarried widow's stepchildren.
212
Island St Helena
Articles of Agreement Indented made & fully concluded upon this 26 July 17[14] Between Antipas Tovey Gent of y[e] one part and Richard Swallow planter of the other part
Therewith That the said Richard Swallow for & in consideration of three [Antipas Tovey] men Blacks known by the Name of K[a]tea, Lewis, & Plaire to Likewise Ten Bonds upon [to] Orlando Bagley of y[e] Island planter, one for Twenty & the other for Thirteen pounds odd [Rich[ard] Swallow] money (or part paid) immediately to be Assigned and delivered by the said Antipas Tovey into the hands of y[e] s[ai]d Richard Swallow, to provide for and bring up Margaret Bagley an Infant the only Surviveing Issue of Thomas Bagley Decl[ared] until She come of Age or is Married and at that time the said Richard Swallow doth bind himself his heirs or Assigns to pay unto her, the full Summ of one Hundred and Thirty Pounds, & in case the Worship[ful] Governour & Councell do find that Land which is now in the posses[s]ion of Thomas Sargent doth properly belong to Margaret Tovey as Successour to Tho[mas] Bagley Deceas[ed] the said Land is to be delivered into the hands of Rich[ard] Swallow, to pay the Hon[oura]b[le] Companys Rents & Revenues and to pay Margaret Bagley at the time appointed Forty Six Pounds more, and in case the s[ai]d Margaret Bagley die before she come of age or is married, that the said Richard Swallow at her decease do pay back to Mr Tovey the summ of Eighty Pounds, and thereof the bond of Twenty Pound at the time when it becomes pay[ab]le and Thirty Pounds more at the time she would have been at Age, the whole being, One Hundred & Thirty Pounds and in case the aforesaid Land be put into the posses[s]ion of Richard Swallow that instead of Thirty pounds to do Pay unto Antipas Tovey Seventy Six Pound at the time she would have been at Age and Richard Swallow have Eighteen months time for removing provisions out of the Land when the time is expired and for the true performing of all and every the Covenants and Agreements herein contained Each party doth bind himself his heirs Executors Administrators & Assignes unto Each other, by these p[rese]nts In Witness Whereof they have hereunto Interchangeably sett their hands and Seale, the day and Year above Written
Rich[ard] Swallow
Signed Sealed & Delivered in the Presence of
Jn[o] Alexander Edward Holliwell
Island of St Helena
Articles of agreement, indented, were made and concluded on 26 July 1714 between Antipas Tovey, gentleman, of the one part, and Richard Swallow, planter, of the other part.
Richard Swallow received from Antipas Tovey three slave men called K[a]tea, Lewis and Plaire, together with ten bonds owed by Orlando Bagley, planter of the island. One bond was for £20 0s 0d and another for £13 0s 0d odd money (or part paid). Antipas Tovey was to assign and deliver the slaves and the bonds immediately into Richard Swallow's hands. In return, Richard Swallow undertook to provide for and bring up Margaret Bagley, an infant and the only surviving issue of the deceased Thomas Bagley, until she came of age or was married. At that time Richard Swallow, his heirs or assigns were to pay her the full sum of £130 0s 0d.
If the Worshipful Governor and Council found that the land then in the possession of Thomas Sargent properly belonged to Margaret Bagley as successor to the deceased Thomas Bagley, the land was to be delivered into Richard Swallow's hands. He was then to pay the Honourable Company's rents and revenues on the land, and to pay Margaret Bagley a further £46 0s 0d at the time appointed.
If Margaret Bagley died before she came of age or was married, Richard Swallow was, on her death, to repay Antipas Tovey the sum of £80 0s 0d. The repayment included the bond of £20 0s 0d at the time when it became payable and a further £30 0s 0d at the time she would have come of age, with the whole repayment standing at £130 0s 0d. If the land had been put into Richard Swallow's possession, Richard Swallow was to pay Antipas Tovey £76 0s 0d (instead of £30 0s 0d) at the time she would have come of age. Richard Swallow was to have eighteen months to remove provisions from the land at the end of the term.
Each party bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to the other for the true performance of every covenant and agreement contained in the articles. Both parties set their hands and seals interchangeably on the day and year written above.
Richard Swallow
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Alexander and Edward Holliwell.
Interpretations
The articles constructed a guardianship arrangement under which Richard Swallow took on the maintenance of Margaret Bagley, the surviving infant daughter of the deceased Thomas Bagley, in return for an immediate transfer of slave labour and debt instruments. The instrument converted the responsibility of guardianship into a self-funded contractual operation, with the assets transferred to Swallow generating both the means of maintenance and the source of the deferred payments owed to the ward on her coming of age or marriage.
The three slave men K[a]tea, Lewis and Plaire were treated as fungible working assets transferred alongside the financial instruments. Their labour value supported the cost of Margaret Bagley's upkeep during her minority, with the perpetual ownership passing to Swallow as the maintaining guardian. The arrangement parallels the Doveton apprenticeship of Susanna with Robert Leech in March 1708, where the black boy Peter's services were transferred for the term to support the placement, although in the present case the transfer is outright rather than for a fixed term.
The ten bonds owed by Orlando Bagley, totalling at least £33 0s 0d odd money across the two specified instruments, formed the second tier of the asset transfer. Swallow took over the collection of the Orlando Bagley debts as part of his consideration, becoming the assignee of the existing creditor position. The construction routed the debts of one Bagley family member (Orlando) towards the maintenance of another (the infant Margaret, daughter of the deceased Thomas), with Antipas Tovey acting as the institutional intermediary in the family transfer.
The £130 0s 0d undertaking at majority or marriage gave Margaret a substantial portion fixed at the time of the contract, providing her with institutional protection against the uncertainties of her minority. The deferred payment structure converted the guardianship into a long-term obligation enforceable against Swallow's heirs, executors, administrators and assigns through standard contractual mechanisms.
The conditional clause concerning the land in Thomas Sargent's possession opens a question of disputed title within the wider Bagley estate. If the governor and council determined that the land properly belonged to Margaret Bagley as her father's successor, Swallow was to take possession on her behalf, paying the Honourable Company's rents and revenues during his tenure and adding a further £46 0s 0d to her portion at majority. The provision reveals that Thomas Bagley's estate included disputed ground in the hands of a third party, with the resolution turning on a future council adjudication.
The mortality-of-the-ward clause structured the consequences if Margaret died before coming of age or marrying. Swallow's obligation reverted to repaying Antipas Tovey £80 0s 0d in total, comprising the £20 0s 0d bond at its maturity and £30 0s 0d at the date Margaret would have come of age. The total of £130 0s 0d mentioned at the close of the clause reflects the rounded sum across the original portion calculation. The two outcomes (£130 0s 0d to Margaret if she survived, £130 0s 0d repayable to Tovey if she did not) gave Tovey institutional security against the loss of his initial transfer regardless of Margaret's mortality.
The land-in-possession contingency added a further £76 0s 0d adjustment if the Sargent land had been transferred to Swallow. The increased return reflected the value of the productive ground passing through Swallow's hands, with the upward adjustment compensating Tovey for the larger asset base ultimately deployed.
The eighteen-month removal-of-provisions period at the end of the term granted Swallow a transitional window to harvest and remove crops and provisions from the land after the contract expired. The provision recognised the agricultural cycle as institutionally distinct from the formal end of the contractual term, with growing crops protected against immediate forfeiture.
Antipas Tovey appears here as gentleman, marking his elevation in social status alongside his register role. His earlier 18 June 1713 gift to Mary Maxwell, the 22 December 1714 attestation of the Carne reassignment, and the 5 September 1712 Hayes-Wood witness role all placed him within the literate circle, but the gentleman designation here gives him a formal social rank.
Richard Swallow as planter, taking on Margaret's guardianship, reproduces his earlier trustee role for the Greentree family ground confirmed in the 4 August 1713 sitting (where he held leasehold for and on behalf of Benjamin Greentree and possessed the John Greentree orphans' lands). His pattern of acting as institutional intermediary across multiple orphan estates places him within a recognised role of substantial planter guardian.
The witnesses John Alexander and Edward Holliwell reproduce the standard register-plus-one panel attached to private deeds of the period. Edward Holliwell appears here as a new individual in the documented circle.
Speculations
The conditional structure of the agreement, with one financial outcome if Margaret survived to majority or marriage and a different outcome if she died in minority, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design to allocate the mortality risk between Tovey and Swallow without litigation. The contract converted the demographic uncertainty of infant survival into a calculated financial arrangement, with both parties accepting a fixed return regardless of the outcome. The structure resembles a hedged investment more than a charitable guardianship, with Swallow effectively acquiring slave labour and debt instruments today in return for a deferred payment that depended on the ward's life span.
The further conditional clause concerning the Sargent land, with the additional £46 0s 0d payable to Margaret if the land was recovered, perhaps points to an active dispute over Thomas Bagley's estate in which Antipas Tovey held an interest as the family arranger. By making Swallow's obligation contingent on the council's future determination, the contract enlisted Swallow as an interested party to support the title recovery, with his own additional payment to Margaret turning on the success of the institutional adjudication. The arrangement aligned Swallow's financial incentive with Tovey's pursuit of the disputed ground.
The transfer of three named slaves to Swallow as part of the consideration, with the corresponding mortality-of-the-ward repayment obligation set at a fixed sum rather than at a returned-asset basis, perhaps reveals an asymmetric treatment of human and financial capital within the contract. Swallow took the slaves outright, with no obligation to return them if Margaret died, while the financial instruments were calibrated against the survival outcome. The structure perhaps reflects that the labour value of the slaves had already been absorbed into Swallow's working operation by the date of any future contingency, while the bond debts could still be re-tracked through the mortality-adjusted accounting.
213
Island St Helena. The two Letts and severall Sam[uel] Algate Deed of Sale of all his father in Law's Tho[mas] Earles Estate where of he is personell & by Marriage Agreen[men]t with the Da[ugh]ter of Whereas Sam[uel] Algate Corp[ora]l of the [...] & on the behalf of Mary Earle Daughter to Tho[mas] Earle Earle in the [...] of [...] Mary Earle [...]
Whereas Samuel Algate Corp[ora]l and Mary Erle Spinster, Intendeing by Gods leave to Solemnize a Marriage with Each other, very Shortly, and for that the s[ai]d Mary [Sam[uel] Algate] Earle having an Estate consisting of Eighteen Acres of Erbl Land and a House Situate in [to] James Valley, being formerly belonging to one Theodor Wilkin dec[eased] and Since in the posses[s]ion [Orlando] of The Earle Aforesaid Doe the said Sam[uel] Algate in the knowledge consent and Privety of her [Bagley &] the said Margarett Earle Doth for himself his Heirs Execu[to]rs heires & assigns Covenant Agree [Cha[rles] Steward] sett and make over unto Orlando Bagley and Charles Steward, all and Singular the s[ai]d eighteen[...] Eighteen acres of Land and a House in James Valley, to do and Dispose of at their Will and pleasure, it being the true meaning and intent of this Present writeing that the s[ai]d Sam[uel] Algate shall not pretend to make Sale or any other way Dispose of y[e] afores[ai]d p[re]misses to any person whosoever to prevent any Mischeife or Ill consequence that may happen to the s[ai]d Mary Earle by disposing of the afores[ai]d p[re]misses untill such time as he is married and goes off the Island or he promotes to Effsoon[?] by his Summer Repping hereby acquitting his full power right Title Claime or Demand to Either the aforesaid Land or house, Delivering the same by this presence Writeing into the pos[s]ession of them the s[ai]d Orlando Bagley & Charles Steward their Heirs &c but w[i]th this proviso that after the Sclemnization of s[ai]d Marriage and Licence to Depart of s[ai]d Island then to receive the s[ai]d house and Land into his s[ai]d Algates Posses[s]ion in order of makeing Sale of y[e] same takeing the amount with him for the Suppoll and maintenance of his intended wife Mary Earle, In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Eight day of April 1714
Samuell Algate
Sealed Sign'd & deliver'd in the Plance of: True Copy. Jn[o] Alexander being Examin'd Sam[uel] Browne Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena
Know all men by these P[rese]nts y[a]t I Samuell Algate of the s[ai]d Island Corp[ora]l [Sam[uel] Algate] For and in Consideration of the Sum of one Hundred and Seventy pounds, where of one third [to] and ten pounds of the abovesaid Sum to be Repaid in y[e] Hon[oura]ble Companys Stores and the other thirty [Cha[rles] Steward] pounds to be paid in Cash by Charles Steward of the s[ai]d Island Free Holder whereof I do twenty acknowledge ye Receipt and my Self therewith fully and intirely Satisfied have bargaind Sold sett over and Deliverd and by these p[rese]nts according to y[e] use and due form of Law in that case made and provided do bargain sett over and deliver unto y[e] s[ai]d Charles Steward Eighteen Acres of Free Land w[i]th all the Effects a House Land and Tenants goods &c as it was formerly Left by my Father in Law Tho[mas] Earle Deceased Except one house at y[e] [...] to have paid to hire that I bargained pleasantly unto y[e] said Charles Steward his Execut[o]rs administrators and Assigns and do promes me a behave of all y[e] Charles Steward by Covenan[t] Promise & Assigns to Live, And the Samuell Algate Covenant for my self my Execu[to]rs Adminstrato[r]s do bargain p[ar]ticipate unto y[e] s[ai]d Charles Steward his Executors Administrato[rs] and Assigns against all and all manner of Persons shall and will warrant & for ever Defend by these Pres[en]ts In Wit[n]es[s] where of with my Delivery of the s[ai]d bargain S[i]mp[l]y I have hereunto Set my hand and Seale, this Eighth Day of May one Thousand Seven Hundred and fourteen
Samuell Algate
Signed Sealed and Delivered Tru[e] Copy being Examin[e]d in the Presence of us Antipas Tovey P[h]arpee H Litz Ric[hard] Brown
Island of St Helena
Samuel Algate, corporal, and Mary Earle, spinster, intended by God's leave to marry shortly. Mary Earle had an estate of eighteen acres of arable land and a house in James Valley, formerly belonging to the deceased Theodor Wilkin and since in the possession of Thomas Earle. With the knowledge and consent of Mary Earle, Samuel Algate covenanted, agreed and made over to Orlando Bagley and Charles Steward, for himself, his heirs, executors and assigns, all of the eighteen acres of land and the house in James Valley, to be held and disposed of at their will and pleasure. The true meaning of the writing was that Algate could not sell or otherwise dispose of the premises to any person whatever, in order to prevent any mischief or ill consequence to Mary Earle through disposal of the property, until the time he was married and went off the island or otherwise [...]. Algate gave up his full power, right, title, claim or demand to either the land or the house, delivering them by the present writing into the possession of Orlando Bagley and Charles Steward and their heirs. The arrangement was subject to a proviso that after the solemnisation of the marriage and the licence to depart the island, Algate was to receive the house and land back into his own possession in order to sell it and take the proceeds with him for the support and maintenance of his intended wife Mary Earle. Samuel Algate set his hand and seal to the deed on 8 April 1714.
Samuel Algate
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Samuel Browne and Antipas Tovey. True copy, examined by John Alexander.
Island of St Helena
Samuel Algate, corporal of the island, in consideration of £170 0s 0d, of which £140 0s 0d was to be repaid in the Honourable Company's stores and the other £30 0s 0d to be paid in cash by Charles Steward, freeholder of the island, acknowledged receipt and full satisfaction. Algate bargained, sold, set over and delivered to Charles Steward eighteen acres of free land with all the effects, house, land and tenants' goods, as the property had been formerly left by his deceased father-in-law Thomas Earle, except one house at the [...] to have paid to hire that Algate bargained separately unto Charles Steward, his executors, administrators and assigns. Algate covenanted for himself, his executors and administrators that he would warrant and for ever defend the property against all manner of persons by the present writing. Samuel Algate set his hand and seal to the deed on 8 May 1714.
Samuel Algate
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Antipas Tovey, P[h]arpee H Litz and Richard Brown. True copy, examined.
Interpretations
The two instruments together constructed a sequenced protective arrangement around Mary Earle's estate, with the first deed of April 1714 freezing Algate's power of disposition by transferring the eighteen-acre James Valley estate into trustee hands before the marriage, and the second deed of May 1714 then completing the outright sale of the same property to Charles Steward one month later. The interval of one month between the trustee assignment and the absolute sale reveals that the marriage had been solemnised within the intervening period, with the protective trust dissolving on completion of the wedding and the licence to depart the island.
The eighteen-acre arable land and house in James Valley had passed through three documented holders by 1714. The original allotment had belonged to the deceased Theodor Wilkin, then reached the deceased Thomas Earle, and was now held by his daughter Mary Earle. The chain identifies Theodor Wilkin as an otherwise undocumented earlier holder and confirms that Thomas Earle held the James Valley parcel separately from the two-acre Sandy Bay confirmation given to his children John, Thomas and Mary on 4 August 1713. The pattern reveals that the Earle estate comprised multiple parcels across the island.
Mary Earle as spinster, marrying Samuel Algate, corporal, places the marriage within the soldier-and-planter-daughter pattern documented across the records. The corporal designation marks Algate as a junior member of the garrison without independent landed standing, making the institutional protection of Mary's estate against his marital rights particularly significant. Without the trust arrangement, Algate's marital rights would have given him immediate control over the property and the power to dispose of it without Mary's consent.
The interposition of Orlando Bagley and Charles Steward as trustees reproduces the joint-trustee role they had already taken in the August 1709 Fox mortgage, where they had jointly held the security for £32 0s 0d during Martha Fox's natural life. The same pair returns here as the trusted institutional intermediaries for managing family property at moments of remarriage or marital transition. The two senior figures provided cross-witness protection against any single-trustee misuse of the property.
The proviso for Algate to receive the property back after the marriage and the licence to depart the island indicates that the trust was specifically designed for the transitional period only, dissolving once Algate was committed to leaving with Mary. The licence to depart the island reflects the institutional control the Company exercised over the movements of its personnel, with departure requiring formal authorisation rather than free choice. The trust mechanism kept the property out of Algate's reach until that institutional permission was granted, ensuring that the proceeds of any subsequent sale would actually fund Mary's support overseas rather than being absorbed by Algate before departure.
The £170 0s 0d total price in the May 1714 sale comprised £140 0s 0d to be repaid in the Company's stores and £30 0s 0d in cash. The two-tier payment structure reveals the limited cash circulation on the island, with the bulk of the consideration routed through the Company's store credit system. The reference to repayment in stores indicates that Algate had a prior credit balance with the Company that Steward agreed to assume, or that the Company would extend store credit to Algate against Steward's payment. The construction parallels the £170 0s 0d Lufkin-Alexander sale of June 1712, also settled through Company store credit.
The exception of one house in the May 1714 sale, with the wording incomplete in the manuscript, perhaps reflects a separate arrangement for an outbuilding or tenement included in the original Theodor Wilkin estate but excluded from the present sale. The phrase to have paid to hire suggests that the excepted house was subject to a separate rental arrangement that Algate retained or transferred separately.
Charles Steward's purchase of the eighteen-acre James Valley estate adds substantially to his documented holdings. His earlier 4 August 1713 confirmation of seventeen acres under Sandy Bay Ridge and twenty-seven acres of leasehold across four parcels, combined with the present eighteen acres, brings his documented working estate to over sixty acres across multiple zones. The continued expansion places him among the major accumulators of the 1713-1714 period.
The witnesses to the April 1714 trust deed are Samuel Browne and Antipas Tovey, with John Alexander attesting as true copy examiner. The witnesses to the May 1714 sale deed are Antipas Tovey, P[h]arpee H Litz and Richard Brown. The variation in the witness panel between the two instruments reflects the distinct administrative occasions, with Tovey appearing on both as a continuing presence. Samuel Browne and Richard Brown are perhaps related individuals appearing under variant renderings, or two separate figures of the same surname.
The P[h]arpee H Litz witness identification, with the manuscript unclear at multiple points, appears to record a distinctive name that the documentary regime preserved imperfectly. The reading suggests a non-English origin within the garrison or merchant circle, perhaps connected to one of the continental European holders documented elsewhere in the records such as Samuel Des Fountaine and Bartrant Audouart.
Speculations
The sequencing of trust deed and sale deed exactly one month apart, with the trust freezing Algate's disposition power before the wedding and the sale completing the disposal immediately after, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design to compress the period of marital vulnerability for Mary Earle's estate into the narrowest possible window. The trust mechanism held the property out of Algate's reach during the most legally sensitive period, while the prompt post-marriage sale converted the immovable asset into portable funds for the couple's departure. The arrangement maximised the protective effect of the trust while minimising the institutional overhead of maintaining it long-term.
The choice of Orlando Bagley and Charles Steward as the joint trustees, with Steward then emerging one month later as the buyer of the property, perhaps points to a pre-arranged disposal route in which Steward had agreed to purchase the estate from the outset. The trust deed of April 1714 may have placed the property in Steward's hands precisely because he was already the intended buyer, allowing him to take immediate working possession through the trust role while the formal price was negotiated and the marriage was completed. The £170 0s 0d sale of May 1714 then converted the existing institutional arrangement into a documented absolute transfer.
The two-tier payment structure of £140 0s 0d in Company stores and £30 0s 0d in cash perhaps reveals the practical limits of cash settlement on the island in 1714. Even at the level of a substantial £170 0s 0d transaction between an outgoing corporal and a substantial freeholder, the bulk of the price had to be routed through the Company's institutional credit system rather than settled in coin. The pattern reinforces the dependence of the island economy on the Company's store as the principal medium of large-scale exchange.
214
St Helena Copy of Bill of Sale of a house of Jeptha Fowlers to John Finnwick the Heirs &c[t]
Know all Men by these P[rese]nts that I Jephthah Fowler Soldier, for and in consideration of the Sum of Thirty Nine Pounds in good and Currant money of the s[ai]d Island by me [Jeptha] already received of Jn[o] Finnwick Soldier the receipt of w[hi]ch I hereby acknowledge and my self [Fowler] therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid, Have given granted bargained and Sold, and do [to] by these presents absolutely give grant bargain Sell and Deliver unto the said Jn[o] Finnwick, his [Jn[o] Finnwick] heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]strators and Assigns One Messuage House standing s[i]tuat[ed] in James Valley now adjoyning to the house of Sam Augustus the Earles dec[eased], Together with all and Singular, the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or any way appertaineing To have and to Hold the said house w[i]th the Appurtenances above written, to him him the s[ai]d Finnwick and his heirs for ever, Do and Dispose of the same at his or their own Proper Will and pleasure, And it is further Covenanted & agreed by and between the said Jepthah Fowler his Heirs Execut[o]rs and Administrat[o]rs and y[e] s[ai]d J[oh]n Finnwick his heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs or Assigns That He, They or any of them shall & may from time to time and at all times hereafter Peaceably and quietly possess & Enjoy the said hereby Bargained Premises, without any manner of y[e] Interruption or molestation whatsoever by any person or Persons Claiming n to y[e] same any Matter or thing in the said Premises, and do quiest all Persons w[hi]ch Warrants to Defend & keep harmless the said J[oh]n Finnwick, his heirs &c[t] In Witness whereof I have hereunto Set my hand & Seale this 10 Day of June 17[14]
his Jephthah + Fowler mark
Sealed Sign'd & D[elivered] in the Presence of us A True Copy being Examined Edward Halliwell Antipas Tovey Francis Junge
Copy of a Deed of Sale of One house of [...] [Henry Francis] Henry Francis to Francis Wrangham [to] [Fran[cis] Wrangham] Know all men by these presents That I Henry Francis of y[e] Island S[t] Helena Free holder for & in consideration of the Sume of Seventy Pounds in good & Currant money of the said Island to be well & truly paid by or upon the 25 Day of June next ensueing the Date hereof by Francis Wrangham of y[e] s[ai]d Island Likewise free holder, or his heirs &c Have given Granted Bargained & Sold and do by these Presents De firmly & Absolutely give grant bargain Sell & deliver unto the aforesaid Francis Wrangham his heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs or Assigns one dwelling house Scituate in James Valley with all & Singular y[e] Appurtenances & priviledges of any nature & kind Soever thereunto belonging or any way Appertaining there formerly the house of Prudence Sherwin next adjoyning to the house of Richard Garling that Lately Beni[amin] Pickt deceas'd, together with One black Woman known by the name of Patt, To have & to Hold the aforesaid house with its appurtenances, & black Wench unto him the said Francis
Island of St Helena, copy of a bill of sale of a house of Jephthah Fowler to John Finnwick, his heirs and successors
Jephthah Fowler, soldier, in consideration of £39 0s 0d in good and current island money received from John Finnwick, soldier, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. Fowler gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to John Finnwick, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns one messuage house in James Valley, adjoining the house of Sam Augustus Earle, deceased, together with all the appurtenances belonging to it. The grant was to Finnwick and his heirs for ever, to hold, use and dispose of at their own will and pleasure. Fowler and his heirs, executors and administrators covenanted with Finnwick and his heirs that Finnwick and his successors might peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the premises without interruption or molestation by any person claiming through Fowler. Fowler covenanted to defend and keep harmless John Finnwick and his heirs against all claims. Jephthah Fowler set his mark and seal to the deed on 10 June 1714.
The mark + of Jephthah Fowler
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Edward Halliwell, Antipas Tovey and Francis Junge. A true copy, examined.
Copy of a deed of sale of one house from Henry Francis to Francis Wrangham
Henry Francis of the island of St Helena, freeholder, in consideration of £70 0s 0d in good and current island money to be paid by Francis Wrangham of the island, freeholder, or his heirs, on or before 25 June next, gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Francis Wrangham, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns one dwelling house in James Valley, with all the appurtenances and privileges of any kind belonging to it, formerly the house of Prudence Sherwin, adjoining the house of Richard Garling that had lately belonged to the deceased Benjamin Pickt, together with one black woman known by the name of Patt. The grant was to Francis Wrangham, with the house, the appurtenances and the slave woman.
Interpretations
The Fowler-to-Finnwick sale records a small soldier-to-soldier transaction in James Valley, with both parties identified as soldier and the transfer made in island money. The £39 0s 0d price places the house at the lower end of the urban range, similar to other modest dwellings in the garrison cluster around Fort James. The transaction reproduces the pattern of internal garrison property exchange documented across earlier records, such as the Ashby-Bodley transaction of May 1703 and the Higham-Bell sales of August 1704.
Sam Augustus Earle as the deceased adjoining neighbour represents a new individual within the Earle family network. The Augustus middle name carries a distinctive identification, perhaps marking a connection with the metropolitan or continental practice of compound naming. His death now reaches the institutional record through the boundary reference.
The quiet enjoyment covenant and the warranty to defend the property against all claims reproduce the standard urban conveyancing pattern. The mechanism gave Finnwick institutional protection against any later challenge by Fowler's creditors, heirs or assignees, with the warranty enforceable through Fowler's residual estate.
Jephthah Fowler signed by mark, placing him among the unlettered soldier holders of the period. The mark reproduces the pattern of garrison members holding urban property without personal literacy.
The witnesses Edward Halliwell, Antipas Tovey and Francis Junge place the sale within the Tovey-led literate circle of 1714, with Halliwell appearing as a recent addition to the witness panel alongside his July 1714 witnessing of the Tovey-Swallow guardianship deed. Francis Junge appears as a new individual, perhaps a continental European member of the garrison or merchant circle, paralleling the earlier appearances of names such as Samuel Des Fountaine and Bartrant Audouart.
The second deed records a substantial £70 0s 0d urban sale from Henry Francis to Francis Wrangham, with the price double the Fowler-Finnwick transaction of the same month. The two adjoining sales reveal a graduated urban market within James Valley, with prices reflecting the size and condition of individual properties.
The dwelling house had previously belonged to Prudence Sherwin, the same wife and attorney of the absent Thomas Sherwin who had sold the Chapel Valley tenement to Thomas Goodwin in July 1694 for £26 0s 0d. The James Valley house here represents a separate Sherwin holding distinct from the Chapel Valley tenement, indicating that the Sherwins had held multiple urban properties before Prudence's departure from the island. The chain now reaches Henry Francis as the seller after passing through unrecorded intermediate stages.
Richard Garling as the adjoining neighbour places his urban holdings beside the Sherwin house. The Garling identification here parallels the Robert Girling freemason of the August 1713 Peak Gut confirmation, both perhaps representing variant renderings of the wider Gurling family network or distinct branches under similar surname.
The deceased Benjamin Pickt as the prior holder of the Garling-adjoining house adds a new urban figure to the documented circle. His death and the transfer to Garling reach the institutional record only through the boundary reference, with no separate documentary chain established.
The 25 June 1714 payment deadline indicates a deferred-payment arrangement, with Wrangham given approximately a month from the sale date to deliver the £70 0s 0d in island money. The pattern parallels the bonded-payment arrangements documented in earlier sales, such as the Casthope-Wells phased payment of 1694.
The slave woman known as Patt was included as part of the conveyance, treated as an appurtenance to the dwelling house alongside the privileges and physical elements of the property. The construction reproduces the integration of slave labour into urban property transfers, with the working asset moving with the building rather than being sold separately.
Speculations
The two June 1714 sales recorded in close sequence, with one at £39 0s 0d and the other at £70 0s 0d, perhaps reflect a coordinated period of James Valley property turnover at the start of the summer. The processing of multiple urban conveyances within a short window suggests that the market for garrison housing was active in mid-1714, with departing soldiers and rotating personnel creating opportunities for substantial freeholders such as Henry Francis to acquire and onward-sell urban property.
The transfer of the slave woman Patt as part of the dwelling-house sale, rather than as a separate transaction, perhaps points to an institutional preference for keeping slave labour tied to specific residential properties. The arrangement allowed the buyer to take over the household with its existing working population in place, avoiding the costs and disruption of negotiating separate labour arrangements. The pattern integrates slavery into the routine machinery of urban property transfer.
The transfer route by which the former Prudence Sherwin house reached Henry Francis, with no documented intermediate sales, perhaps reflects a private chain of disposition through executors, family members or close associates that the institutional register did not record. The Sherwins had been absent from the island by 1694, and the house may have passed through informal arrangements within the literate circle before Francis emerged as the documented holder by 1714.
215
Francis Wrangham & his heirs for Ever to do & dispose of at his or their Own proper Wills & Pleasure And the said Henry Francis doth for himself his heirs Execut[o]rs & Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs Covenant & agree to & with the said Francis Wrangham his heirs Executors Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs & Assignes, that they, they, or any of them shall at all times here after Peaceably & Quietly enjoy & possess the before mentioned house & black Wench Woman without any manner of claim Challenge or demand of me the said Henry Francis or my heirs &c and from all persons claiming any right or Title thereto Do Warrant to Save & keep harmless the said Francis Wrangham his heirs &c In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seal this Fifteenth day of March 1714
Henry Francis (Seal)
Seal'd Sign'd & deliv[ered] in y[e] presence of The above is a true Copy from the Original Joshua Johnson Examin'd & Enter'd by Order of Council of John Alexander the day of James Vesey Antipas Tovey
The Receipt on the backside of the Said Deed is as foll[ows] (Vide:) I Do acknowledge to have received the full Sum of Seaventy pounds which is within mention'd for a House & a Black Woman of Francis Wrangham I say received by me (Sign'd) Henry Francis Witness: Richard Garling True Copy Enter'd & Examin'd Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena Copy of a deed of Gift of Eli[s] Steward Wid[ow] to her Son Tho[mas] Steward Deceas'd Vi[de]
To All Christian People to whom These presents Shall come, I Elizabeth Steward Widdow Send Greeting in Our Lord [Eliz[abeth] Steward] God Everlasting Know Ye That I the said Elizabeth Steward for & [to] in consideration of the Love good Will & affection which I have & do bear [Tho[mas] Steward] towards my Well Beloved Son Thomas Steward & Nephew [Jn[o] Long] [Jr] John Long Son of John Long Sen[io]r & Mary his Wife Have given and [obit] [Infant?] Granted, And by these presents Do freely clearly & Absolutely give and Grant to the above named Thomas Steward his heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs & Assignes the Sum of Fifty Pounds in good & Currant mony of the said Island as Also One heifer to be putt into a distinct Mark for all the Increas immediately to run on & bring him a Stock & in case of his the said Thomas Stewards Death before he attains to Age or Marriage that then I give the said Sum of fifty pounds with (turn to f[oli]o 218) the
Francis Wrangham and his heirs for ever, to use and dispose of at his own will and pleasure. Henry Francis covenanted and agreed with Francis Wrangham, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns that they should at all times thereafter peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the house and slave woman without any claim, challenge or demand by Henry Francis or his heirs, and that he would warrant and keep harmless Francis Wrangham and his heirs against all persons claiming any right or title to the property. Henry Francis set his hand and seal to the deed on 15 March 1715.
Henry Francis (seal)
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Joshua Johnson, James Vesey and Antipas Tovey. The above is a true copy from the original, examined and entered by order of council by John Alexander.
The receipt on the back of the deed read as follows. Henry Francis acknowledged the receipt of the full sum of £70 0s 0d, mentioned within, for a house and a slave woman of Francis Wrangham. Signed by Henry Francis. Witnessed by Richard Garling. True copy, entered and examined by Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena, copy of a deed of gift of Elizabeth Steward, widow, to her son Thomas Steward, deceased
To all Christian people to whom these presents come, Elizabeth Steward, widow, sent greeting in our Lord God everlasting. For the love, good will and affection that she bore towards her well-beloved son Thomas Steward, and her nephew John Long the younger, son of John Long senior and his wife Mary, Elizabeth Steward freely and absolutely gave and granted to Thomas Steward, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns the sum of £50 0s 0d in good and current island money, together with one heifer to be put into a distinct mark for all the increase to run on and immediately bring him a stock. If Thomas Steward died before he came of age or married, Elizabeth Steward gave the sum of £50 0s 0d with [...]
Interpretations
The completion of the Henry Francis to Francis Wrangham sale fixed the legal warranty against future claims by Francis, his heirs, executors and administrators, with the standard quiet enjoyment covenant giving Wrangham institutional protection against any later challenge. The seller's warranty represented the principal protection available to urban purchasers under early modern English property practice, transferring the risk of latent title defects from the buyer to the seller's residual estate.
The 15 March 1715 dating of the deed (with the manuscript reading 1714 under the old calendar reckoning and converting forward to 1715 in modern style) places the sale in the spring of 1715, with the £70 0s 0d payment deadline of 25 June 1715 set approximately three months ahead. The deferred-payment structure gave Wrangham a substantial window to assemble the cash, while Henry Francis retained the institutional protection of the formal deed already sealed and delivered.
The receipt endorsed on the back of the deed recorded the actual payment of the £70 0s 0d, with Henry Francis acknowledging receipt and Richard Garling witnessing the discharge. The two-part documentary structure (the principal deed and the back-endorsed receipt) reproduces the standard early modern practice of recording payment evidence on the same document as the conveyance, with the endorsement providing institutional proof that the consideration had moved.
Joshua Johnson and James Vesey reappear as witnesses, both having attended the Mason-Wrangham settlement of March 1712 and the slave gift to Francis Wrangham by his grandmother Mary Jewister of February 1712. The witness panel reproduces the documented Wrangham-circle of literate participants who underpinned the family's institutional dealings across multiple years.
The second instrument records a deed of gift from Elizabeth Steward, widow, to her son Thomas Steward, also recorded as deceased in the marginal note. The structural arrangement gave Thomas a fixed cash portion of £50 0s 0d together with one heifer to be marked into a distinct identifying mark, with the increase from the heifer immediately accruing to Thomas as a building stock.
The use of a distinct mark for the heifer and her increase replicates the standard livestock-management practice of the period, with each owner's animals identified by an individual mark cut, branded or notched onto the beast. The institutional recognition of marks gave Thomas an enforceable property right in both the original heifer and the subsequent calves, separating his estate from other livestock running on shared ground.
The phrase to run on and bring him a stock captures the institutional purpose of the gift, which was not merely to transfer a single beast but to establish Thomas as a livestock holder with a self-reproducing herd. The arrangement converted the gift from a one-off transfer into a long-term productive asset designed to grow over time.
The mortality-of-the-recipient clause structured the consequences if Thomas died before coming of age or marrying, with the £50 0s 0d sum redirected through a substitute mechanism (the continuation of which lies beyond the present recoverable point). The construction parallels the survivor provisions in the Earne-Goodwin bond of February 1714 and the Tovey-Swallow guardianship deed of July 1714, indicating a recognised institutional pattern of contingent inheritance arrangements within family settlements.
John Long the younger, son of John Long senior and his wife Mary, appears as Elizabeth Steward's nephew, establishing a previously undocumented kinship link between the Long and Steward families. The relationship indicates that Elizabeth's husband (the deceased Steward whose surname she carries) was either a brother of John Long senior or married to a sister of his. The Long family connection extends the documented Steward network beyond the Onesiphorus Steward line and the Francis-Mary-Martha Steward children of the August 1713 confirmation.
The Elizabeth Steward of the present deed is distinct from the Elizabeth Allis (widow of Thomas Allis senior) confirmed in the August 1713 Deep Valley confirmation, although both shared widow status. She is also distinct from the Elizabeth Bowman (daughter of John Bowman) confirmed in the seventy-five acre Chapel Valley and Swine Gully estate of August 1713.
The marginal note recording Thomas Steward as deceased indicates that the contingent mortality clause was eventually triggered, with the £50 0s 0d gift redirected under the substitute provisions. The annotation perhaps reflects a later reading of the deed after the institutional register had absorbed the news of Thomas's death.
Speculations
The pairing of a fixed cash portion with a self-reproducing heifer perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional strategy for funding a child's establishment that balanced immediate liquidity against long-term productive capacity. The £50 0s 0d provided immediate purchasing power for clothing, education or short-term needs, while the marked heifer gave Thomas a permanent income stream as the herd grew. The two-tier gift structure mirrors the broader institutional pattern of layered family settlements observed across the records.
The inclusion of the nephew John Long the younger alongside the son Thomas as a beneficiary perhaps reflects Elizabeth Steward's strategic management of her relationship with the wider Long family. By extending part of her gift to her brother's (or sister's) son alongside her own son, Elizabeth strengthened the cross-family bonds that bound the Steward and Long lines together. The arrangement perhaps anticipated future cooperation between the cousins or secured institutional goodwill from the Long family in support of her own estate.
The early documentation of Thomas Steward as deceased through the marginal note, written into the original deed of gift after the fact, perhaps reveals an institutional practice of updating gift documents with post-execution annotations. The register treated such notations as part of the documentary record, enabling later readers to track the operation of contingent clauses without consulting separate probate or estate records.
216
To all Christian People To whome These Presents shall come Know Yee That I Benjamen Pledger [Benj[amin] Pledger] of the Island S[t] Helena Soldier and Freeholder For a valluable consideration [to] to me in hand paid before the Ensealing & delivery hereof by Robert Bell of the militia [Rob[er]t Bell] Store Cutter and Freeholder the Receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge & my self fully sattisfied, And for other good causes and Considerations me thereunto moveing Have bargained, Sold, Aliemated and Sett over and Do hereby absolutely bargain Sell alienate, Assign and Sell over unto the said Robert Bell his Heirs or Assigns for ever One House with the Land thereunto belonging lying and being in Suthwarks street in James Town Chapple Vally known by the name of Arabe Pledgers next unto the Vacant ground between that and John Coles to the Southward and the waste ground of the said Robert Bells next French Orphans house to the Northward To have and to hold the aforesaid house or parcell of Land with all the rights, proffits and Enjoyments that I, my Predecessors or Heirs, had, might or could do, And I do also for my Self, my Heirs Executors or Administrators Warrant that at the Ensealing & delivery hereof full power and Lawfull Authority to dispose of and make Sale of the aforesaid House &c And obligeing my self (as aforesaid) to keep harmless the said Robert Bell from all and all manher of Sleyms, Suits, troubles Charges or Vexations that may happen unto him thereby In Witness whereof I have hereunto sett my hand & Seal this 13 day of April 1715 and in the first Year of his Majesties Reign
Benjamen Pledger
Sign'd Seal'd and Deliver'd in p[re]sence of
the words (house and) between the 24 and 25 lines &c (had) between the 30 and 31 lines being first interlined
Joseph Thomlinson Edward Holliwell
Rec[eived] the day & Year above Written of the abovesaid Robert Bell the sum of twenty five pounds in full of the within mencioned consideracion Witness my hand Benjamen Pledger
Test: Joseph Thomlinson This is a true Copy Edward Holliwell Examined Antipas Tovey
Benjamin Pledger of the island of St Helena, soldier and freeholder, in consideration of a valuable sum paid before the sealing and delivery of the deed by Robert Bell of the militia store, cutter and freeholder, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. Pledger bargained, sold, alienated and set over to Robert Bell, his heirs or assigns for ever, one house with the land belonging to it in Southwark Street in James Town, Chapel Valley, known by the name of Arabe Pledger's. The property adjoined the vacant ground between that and John Coles's to the southward, and the waste ground of Robert Bell next to the French orphans' house to the northward. The grant was to Robert Bell, his heirs and assigns, with all the rights, profits and enjoyments that Pledger, his predecessors or heirs had held or could exercise. Pledger warranted that at the sealing and delivery of the deed he had full power and lawful authority to dispose of and sell the house, and bound himself, his heirs, executors and administrators to keep Robert Bell harmless against all claims, suits, troubles, charges or vexations. Benjamin Pledger set his hand and seal to the deed on 13 April 1715, in the first year of His Majesty's reign.
Benjamin Pledger
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Joseph Thomlinson and Edward Holliwell. The words house and were first interlined between lines 24 and 25, and the word had was first interlined between lines 30 and 31.
The receipt below recorded that on the same day and year Pledger had received from Robert Bell the sum of £25 0s 0d in full payment of the consideration mentioned within. Witnessed by Pledger's hand.
Benjamin Pledger
Witnessed by Joseph Thomlinson. A true copy, examined by Edward Holliwell and Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The deed recorded the sale of an urban dwelling house in James Town, Chapel Valley, from Benjamin Pledger to Robert Bell for £25 0s 0d. The price places the property at the modest end of the urban range, similar to the small soldier-to-soldier transactions recorded in James Valley earlier in 1714, and reflects the limited scale of the parcel within the wider Southwark Street cluster.
Southwark Street appears here as a previously undocumented street name within the James Town urban fabric. The naming pattern, drawn from the London borough of Southwark south of the Thames, suggests a deliberate institutional importing of metropolitan place names onto the St Helena urban landscape. The use parallels the wider documented practice of naming island features after metropolitan precedents.
The property was known as Arabe Pledger's, a working byname that perhaps preserved the identity of an earlier holder within the Pledger family or recorded a distinctive feature of the house. The Pledger surname connects to the Praise Pledger of the earlier records, the son-in-law of Benjamin Seale who received the ten acres at the head of Sharks Valley as a gift in January 1694. Benjamin Pledger here is perhaps the son of Praise Pledger, with the family name continuing into the next generation through both rural ground and urban property.
The boundary descriptions identify two distinct categories of adjoining ground. On the south, the property bordered vacant ground between the Pledger house and John Coles's property, marking out an undeveloped parcel sitting between two built premises. On the north, the property bordered Robert Bell's waste ground next to the French orphans' house, with the buyer himself appearing as the adjoining neighbour. The pattern indicates that Bell was consolidating his position along the same street by buying out the adjacent Pledger parcel.
The French orphans, named only through the boundary reference, represent the inheriting children of the deceased William French, the gunner identified in the earlier records as having held the Box land and Lemon Valley parcels with his wife Mary. His death by 1713 had already entered the institutional record through references to William French's orphans as boundary holders in the Mary Hoskison confirmation of August 1713. The French orphans now appear in an urban context, indicating that the family had also held a James Town house that had passed into the children's inherited estate.
Benjamin Pledger appears here as soldier and freeholder, combining the military and landholding designations. The dual classification places him within the literate circle as a member of the garrison with documented property rights, distinct from the unlettered soldier holders such as Jephthah Fowler who signed by mark.
Robert Bell appears here under the new classification of cutter and freeholder of the militia store, expanding the documented trades attached to him across earlier records. He had previously been recorded as planter and mason in the 4 August 1713 sitting and again in the 1 August 1712 Company sale, with the cooper classification not previously attached. The militia store cutter role places him within the formal institutional supply chain of the garrison, with the cutter designation referring either to a specific trade (cutting cloth, leather or timber) or to a working role within the store. The continued accumulation of classifications across his name confirms his standing as a versatile artisan whose institutional position supported repeated property transactions.
The interlineations recorded at lines 24-25 (the words house and) and lines 30-31 (the word had) gave institutional acknowledgement of the corrections made during drafting. The standard practice of noting interlineations within the witness clause protected the deed against any later challenge that the additions had been made after sealing.
The first year of His Majesty's reign refers to George I, who succeeded Queen Anne on her death in August 1714. The 13 April 1715 dating thus falls within the first year of the new reign, with the institutional record adapting to the change of monarch in the regnal-year formula.
Joseph Thomlinson appears as a witness, joining the wider Tovey-led literate circle of 1714-1715. He had previously appeared in the Goodwin-Francis sale of May 1709 alongside William Marsden and Gilbert Cotgrave. Edward Holliwell continues his recent witnessing role from the Tovey-Swallow guardianship deed of July 1714 and the Fowler-Finnwick sale of June 1714.
The receipt endorsed within the deed records the actual payment of the £25 0s 0d on the same day, with Joseph Thomlinson witnessing the discharge. The endorsement gave institutional proof that the consideration had moved, matching the documentary pattern of the Henry Francis-Wrangham receipt of March 1715.
Speculations
The acquisition of an adjacent house by Robert Bell from Benjamin Pledger perhaps points to a deliberate strategy of consolidating an urban frontage on Southwark Street. Bell already held the adjoining waste ground next to the French orphans' house on the north of the Pledger property, and the present purchase added the Pledger house itself to his contiguous holdings. The consolidation perhaps anticipated future development of the combined site, with Bell's planter-mason-cooper-cutter range of trades giving him the institutional capacity to redevelop the ground for his own use or for sub-letting.
The pricing of the Pledger house at £25 0s 0d, against the £39 0s 0d Fowler-Finnwick sale of June 1714 and the £70 0s 0d Henry Francis-Wrangham sale of March 1715, perhaps reflects the differential institutional standing of the three properties. The Pledger house occupied a modest position within the urban hierarchy, with a smaller footprint or less developed condition than the larger James Valley properties. The graduated pricing across the urban market documented within a year illustrates the depth of differentiation already present in the James Town housing stock by 1715.
The continued involvement of Antipas Tovey, Edward Holliwell, Joseph Thomlinson and the other literate witnesses across multiple sales of 1714-1715 perhaps marks the consolidation of a distinct urban-conveyancing circle separate from the rural land regularisation regime of the 1711-1713 sittings. The recurring witness panel attached to the urban deeds suggests an emerging specialism within the documentary regime, with Tovey and Holliwell operating as the principal attestors for James Town property transfers during the transition between the major rural confirmation sittings and the Carne-Goodwin-Francis cluster of high-value transactions of mid-1715.
217
Sold by Lieu[tenan]t Gov[ernor] & Rev[eren]d Jn[o] Keeling to Fra[ncis] Wrangham Gov[ernor] Keelings right to Ten Acres of Land
Memorandum 1[s]t right That James Eastings for the Consideration of Thirty Shillings paid to him by Thomas Goodwin Doth hereby Grant Bargain and Sell unto the said Thomas Goodwin Ten Acres of Land abutting upon the Right Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s waste Land Lying in Peak Gutt on the East upon the Lands now in the Possession of Sam[uel] Wrdngham being the Lott Lands of John Downing Carpenter, on the West upon The Right Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s waste, on the North, and upon the Land known by the Name of the Peak Gut, on the South, To have and to hold the said premisses to him the said Thomas Goodwin his heirs & Assignes for ever nevertheless under the Conditions contained in the Original Grant to James Eastings of the Premises from the Governour and Company of Merchants of London Trading to the East Indies to the said James Eastings bearing date the [...] day of [...] in the Year of our Lord one thousand Six hundred [...] Witness my hand and Seale this 18[t]h day of September 1694
James Eastings
Sealed in the presence of
Tho[mas] Stevens John Alexander
Memorandum that James Eastings never Rec[eive]d the Deeds for y[e] above Mentioned Lands but that he had a Grant of the same may appeare by the Grand Councell Book (the only Book of Record then Kept) at the Council held the [...] of Aprill 1685 folio (240) and at the Councell held y[e] 11[t]h day of Iuly following folio (255)
made over. I Doe hereby sell over and freely give unto the Worshipfull Richard Keeling Governo[r] of y[e] s[ai]d Island All my Right Title Interest and Claime in all and Every Part of y[e] above mentioned Ten Acres of Land by me Bought of James Eastings unto y[e] said Richard Keeling his heirs and Assignes for ever Witness my hand and Seale this 18[t]h Day of Feb[ruary] 1699
Tho[mas] Goodwin
Sealed in y[e] Presence of us
Courier Edm[un]d Edmunds
Memorandum recording the first right of title, by which James Eastings, for £1 10s 0d paid to him by Thomas Goodwin, granted, bargained and sold to Thomas Goodwin ten acres of land in Peak Gut. The parcel was bounded on the east by the Right Honourable Company's waste land, on the west by the lands then in the possession of Samuel Wrangham, being the lot lands of John Downing, carpenter, on the north by the Right Honourable Company's waste, and on the south by the land known by the name of Peak Gut. The grant was to Thomas Goodwin, his heirs and assigns for ever, under the conditions contained in the original Company grant to James Eastings dated [...] [...] [...]. James Eastings set his hand and seal on 18 September 1694.
James Eastings
Sealed in the presence of Thomas Stevens and John Alexander.
A memorandum followed, recording that James Eastings had never received the formal deeds for the land. The grant nonetheless appeared in the Grand Council Book, the only book of record then kept, at the council held in April 1685, folio 240, and at the council held on 11 July following, folio 255.
Made over by Thomas Goodwin. Thomas Goodwin sold and freely gave to the Worshipful Richard Keeling, Governor of the island, all his right, title, interest and claim in every part of the ten acres of land that he had bought of James Eastings. The grant was to Richard Keeling, his heirs and assigns for ever. Thomas Goodwin set his hand and seal on 18 February 1700.
Thomas Goodwin
Sealed in the presence of Courier and Edmund Edmunds.
Interpretations
The composite instrument records a chain-of-title document drawn together to support the sale of ten acres in Peak Gut from Lieutenant Governor and Reverend John Keeling to Francis Wrangham, identified in the heading. The header above the document identifies the wider transaction as the conveyance of Governor Keeling's right to the ten acres, with the chain assembled to demonstrate clean title back through Richard Keeling, Thomas Goodwin and James Eastings to the original Company grant of 1685.
The £1 10s 0d (thirty shillings) consideration paid by Thomas Goodwin to James Eastings in September 1694 places the early-stage rural transaction at a markedly low rate of three shillings per acre, well below the standard upland values documented elsewhere in the records. The price perhaps reflects the marginal Peak Gut location, the absence of any developed appurtenances, or the institutional fact that Eastings had never received the formal deeds and was selling only the underlying equitable right rather than a perfected legal title.
The second memorandum, recording that Eastings had never received the deeds but that the grant appeared in the Grand Council Book at folios 240 and 255, gave institutional legitimacy to a documented chain that lacked the standard sealed Company instrument. The reference to the Grand Council Book as the only book of record then kept gives institutional context for the period before the separate land register established under the 6 April 1711 consultation. The two council entries of April 1685 and 11 July 1685 provided the documentary anchor for Eastings's title in the absence of a formal grant.
John Downing, carpenter, appears here as the holder of the lot lands now in the possession of Samuel Wrangham. The carpenter classification places him within the artisanal layer documented across the records alongside Robert Bell the mason and Isaac Wood the cooper. The recital that his lot lands had passed to Samuel Wrangham by 1694 documents a previously unrecorded transmission, with the Wrangham family holdings in Peak Gut extending back at least to the 1690s and continuing through the orphan estate confirmed in August 1713.
Thomas Goodwin's onward sale to Richard Keeling, Governor of the island, in February 1700 (the 1699 date in the manuscript falling under the old calendar reckoning and converting forward to February 1700 in modern style) routed the ten acres into the Keeling family estate. The transfer perhaps explains how the Keeling heirs came to hold ten acres in Peak Gut as recorded in the 4 August 1713 confirmation, where the second parcel of the Keeling estate was identified as ten acres in Peak Gut bounded by Wrangham's orphans, Company waste and Robert Gurling.
Richard Keeling here appears with the title Governor, distinct from his earlier identification as witness to the Rhodes-Cotgrave lease of 27 October 1687. The progression marks his rise from witness in 1687 to Governor by February 1700, fixing the institutional trajectory of his career.
The terminology in the heading describing John Keeling as Lieutenant Governor and Reverend introduces a new figure within the Keeling family. The dual designation of military deputy and ordained minister marks an unusual combination, perhaps reflecting the merger of secular and ecclesiastical roles within a small island administration. John Keeling is distinct from Richard Keeling the Governor, and from Ellinor Keeling the daughter-in-law of George Carne who received the small Chapel Valley plot in May 1704.
The witnesses Thomas Stevens and John Alexander for the 1694 Eastings deed reproduce the established literate circle of the period, with Alexander attesting in his long-running register capacity. The witnesses Courier and Edmund Edmunds for the 1700 Goodwin-Keeling deed mark a different pair, with Edmunds appearing alongside his documented sale of the large Chapel Valley tenement to Goodwin earlier in 1700.
The boundary description identifies the Peak Gut location with four named neighbours and physical features, including the curious construction in which the southern boundary is described as the land known by the name of the Peak Gut itself. The phrasing suggests that Peak Gut operated as both a working byname for an area and the name of a specific feature within that area, with the deed using the term to identify both the larger zone and a particular bounded landmark.
Speculations
The compilation of the chain-of-title document, with the 1694 Eastings deed and the 1700 Goodwin-Keeling sale assembled together to support the later conveyance to Francis Wrangham, perhaps reflects the procedural requirement that a seller demonstrate clean title back to the original Company grant. The absence of the formal deeds from Eastings's hands made the chain particularly vulnerable to challenge, with the Grand Council Book entries providing the only institutional anchor for the underlying right. By gathering the supporting documents and presenting them as part of the conveyance, the Keeling-Wrangham transaction created a defensible documentary record that could be examined in any later dispute.
The unusually low price of £1 10s 0d paid by Goodwin to Eastings in 1694, against the £18 0s 0d that Goodwin himself paid to William French for ten acres in Oak Gutt in June 1703, perhaps points to the institutional discount applied to titles held without formal deeds. Eastings's inability to deliver a sealed Company grant reduced the marketable value of the parcel to a fraction of its underlying worth, with Goodwin acquiring the equitable interest at a steep reduction in anticipation of later regularising the title through his own institutional standing as deputy storekeeper. The pattern reveals an early instance of title-discount trading within the documented Goodwin accumulation strategy.
The lengthy gap of approximately fifteen years between the Goodwin-Keeling sale of February 1700 and the present Keeling-Wrangham conveyance perhaps reflects the time required to clear residual documentary uncertainty before the ten acres could be onward sold. The 1711 consultation and the subsequent regularisation framework would have provided new institutional procedures for confirming title against beat-of-drum notice, with the Keeling family perhaps waiting for the documentary regime to mature before disposing of the parcel. The eventual sale to Francis Wrangham consolidated the Peak Gut ground within the Wrangham cluster, where his family already held adjoining property through Samuel Wrangham and the orphan estate.
218
John Keelings Deed to Fra[ncis] Wrangham
Island St Helena Know all men by these presents That I John Keling Son and Heir of Rich[ard] Keling Esq[ui]r[e] and Govern[or] of said Island dec[eased] and thereby all Lands and other Reale Estate Descirding in Right to me the s[ai]d John Keling Do for this and other good Causes and Considerations me thereunto moveing, But more Specially for and in Consideration of the Sume of Twenty pounds in good & Currant mony of the said Island, to me in hand paid by Francis Wrangham Free Hold[er] the receipt whereof I do hereby acknowledge and my self therewith to be fully sattisfyed contented and paid Have given granted bargained and Sold and Do by these presents firmly & absolutely give grant bargaine Sell and Deliver unto the before named Francis Wrangham and his Heirs for ever the within mentioned Ten Acres of Land w[i]th all and Singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging or any ways appertaining, to do and Dispose of at his their or any of their Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs or Assignes, and free from any and all Incumberances whatsoever and do y[e] same Warrant and to save harmless the said Francis Wrangham his Heirs &c, In Witness Whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seale this Second Day of November One Thousand Seven Hundred & fourteen John Keeling
Sign'd Seald & Deliv[ered] In the Presence of us Registered & Examined George Earne P[er] Antipas Tovey John Goodwin Henry Francis
(brought from folio 215)
Vide fo[lio] the Heifer & increase to my said beloved Nephew John Long Jun[io]r to 215 whom I hereby give & deliver immediately One other Heifer with the Tho[mas] Steward increase to run on as aforesaid to raise him a Stock & in case of his Deed of Death before Age or Marriage then the said fifty pounds & both Tho[mas] Steward Heifers to fall & go with increase to all to the Surviving Child or Children dec[eas]'d Gift of the before named John Long Sen[io]r begotten of the Body of Mary his present Wife, and Sister to me the s[ai]d Eliz[abeth] Steward, To have & to Hold the said hereby Given Premisses unto the said Thomas Steward & John Long Jun[io]r as before mentioned their Heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs or Assignes from hence forth as their & either of their proper Goods and Chattels for ever absolutely & freely without any money or thing to be paid or yielded
John Keeling's deed to Francis Wrangham. Island of St Helena.
John Keeling, son and heir of Richard Keeling, esquire and Governor of the island, deceased, by whom all the lands and other real estate had descended to him, in consideration of £20 0s 0d in good and current island money paid by Francis Wrangham, freeholder, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. Keeling gave, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to Francis Wrangham and his heirs for ever the ten acres of land referred to within the chain of title, with all the appurtenances belonging to it. The grant was to Wrangham, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to use and dispose of at their will, free from any encumbrances. Keeling warranted and undertook to save harmless Francis Wrangham and his heirs against all claims. John Keeling set his hand and seal to the deed on 2 November 1714.
John Keeling
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of George Earne, John Goodwin and Henry Francis. Registered and examined by Antipas Tovey.
The continuation of the Elizabeth Steward deed of gift (brought forward from folio 215). The heifer and her increase were given to her beloved nephew John Long the younger, to whom Elizabeth Steward immediately delivered one further heifer, with the increase to run on as before to raise him a stock. If Thomas Steward died before he came of age or married, the £50 0s 0d and both heifers, with their increase, were to fall and go to the surviving child or children of John Long senior begotten of Mary, his present wife and Elizabeth Steward's sister. The grant was to Thomas Steward and John Long the younger, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from then on as their own proper goods and chattels for ever, absolutely and freely, without any money or thing to be paid or yielded.
Interpretations
The Keeling-Wrangham deed completes the chain-of-title sequence by which the ten acres in Peak Gut moved from John Keeling (as son and heir of the deceased Governor Richard Keeling) to Francis Wrangham at a price of £20 0s 0d. The transfer closed the documentary chain that had begun with James Eastings's grant in 1685 and passed through Thomas Goodwin and Richard Keeling before reaching the present buyer. The deed assembles inheritance succession, sale and warranty within a single instrument, with John Keeling appearing as the institutional heir of his deceased father's entire estate.
The £20 0s 0d consideration paid by Wrangham places the ten acres at a per-acre rate of £2 0s 0d, well above the £1 10s 0d (or three shillings per acre) at which Goodwin acquired the parcel from Eastings in September 1694. The appreciation of approximately thirteen-fold over twenty years reflects the value added by clearer title following the 1700 Goodwin-Keeling sale and by the institutional regularisation under the 1711 framework. The Wrangham purchase consolidates the family's Peak Gut holdings into a documented cluster.
John Keeling appears here as son and heir of Richard Keeling, esquire and Governor, with the inheritance described as descending by right to him. The formula gives institutional recognition to the principle of primogeniture within the Keeling family. The description matches the John Keeling identified in the heading as Lieutenant Governor and Reverend, although the present deed omits both designations and names him only as the heir. The variation reflects the institutional record's tolerance of differential identification across related instruments, with the principal title (son and heir) carrying the legal weight while the secular and ecclesiastical offices appeared in supplementary descriptions.
The signing witnesses George Earne, John Goodwin and Henry Francis place the deed within a tight cluster of elite literate participants. George Earne (the same George Earne, merchant, who entered into the marriage articles with Frances Goodwin in February 1714 under the variant rendering Carne) appears alongside John Goodwin (the eldest son of Thomas Goodwin and the surviving executor of his father's estate) and Henry Francis (the substantial freeholder who had recently sold the James Valley house to Francis Wrangham). The three witnesses represent the inner circle of merchants, family executors and substantial freeholders bound together through the Goodwin-Carne-Francis nexus that had emerged across 1713-1715.
Antipas Tovey's registration and examination of the deed closes the institutional record with his now-standard attestation role across the documents of the period. The repeated appearance of Tovey as the principal register-cum-attestor across the 1713-1715 instruments confirms his continuing operational position in the documentary regime.
The continuation of the Elizabeth Steward deed of gift completes the contingent-mortality structure that the principal deed had begun. The arrangement gave each beneficiary (her son Thomas Steward and her nephew John Long the younger) a heifer with the increase running on to raise a stock, and added a fallback provision so that if Thomas died before majority or marriage the cash sum and both heifers passed to the surviving children of John Long senior by Mary, Elizabeth's sister. The construction created a three-tier inheritance pathway: primary distribution between the two named beneficiaries, with the contingent reversion to the wider Long-Mary family if Thomas's line failed.
The relationship between Elizabeth Steward and Mary, identified here as her sister and as the wife of John Long senior, fixes a previously undocumented sister-in-law connection between the Long and Steward families through Mary's marriage to John Long senior. Elizabeth and Mary are therefore sisters by birth, with John Long the younger as Elizabeth's nephew (her sister's son) and Thomas Steward as her son. The contingent reversion to Mary's other children gave the gift institutional protection against the failure of either named beneficiary's line.
The pure-gift language at the close of the deed (without any money or thing to be paid or yielded) marks the transfer as a settlement on natural love and affection, protecting it against later challenge as a sale or commercial transaction. The Company's institutional recognition of such pure gifts under the formal documentary regime reproduced the wider pattern observed in the Mary Jewister slave gift of February 1712, the Frances Goodwin gift to John Goodwin of February 1713 and the Sutton Isaack gift to his grandson Stephen Audouart of October 1698.
Speculations
The selection of George Earne, John Goodwin and Henry Francis as the witness panel for the Keeling-Wrangham deed perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional choice to anchor the conveyance within the elite Carne-Goodwin-Francis nexus. By drawing the three witnesses from the principal circle of high-value transactions of 1714-1715, the deed gave the Wrangham purchase the imprimatur of the most influential figures on the island, providing maximum institutional protection against any later challenge to the title.
The pricing of the ten acres at £20 0s 0d on a per-acre rate of £2 0s 0d perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional rate applied to regularised Peak Gut ground following the 1711 framework. The price falls within the upland market band rather than at the premium rate applied to Sandy Bay or Chapel Valley parcels, recognising the marginal location while attaching a fair institutional value to the cleared title. The Wrangham family's acquisition at this rate consolidates their Peak Gut cluster at a sustainable institutional cost.
The contingent reversion to the surviving children of John Long senior by Mary, embedded within the Elizabeth Steward deed of gift, perhaps points to a strategic family settlement designed to keep the Steward-Long cross-generational ground within the wider extended kinship network. By providing that the gift would devolve to her sister's other children if her own son's line failed, Elizabeth treated the Long children as the family's secondary heirs of last resort. The construction perhaps anticipated the demographic risks of high infant mortality on the island, with the cascade of beneficiaries reaching across the wider sister-in-law relationship to ensure that the gift's productive value would not be lost to the family altogether.
219
to mee or my heirs &c therefore, And that the said fifty Pounds be paid out of my Estate and Sett apart for the use aforesaid without any persons claim thereto but those who has the proper right & herein before mention'd According to the true mean ing & Intent of this present Deed of Gift, In Testimony Whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seale this Second day of March in the Year of Our Lord One thousand Seven hundred & Fifteen
(Sign'd) Eliz[abeth] Steward
Sign'd Seale & deliver'd in the presence of Francis Junge Jn[o] Long The above is a true Copy Enterd & Examin'd by Jn[o] Alexander me Antipas Tovey
Mary Conway Wid[ow]: her Deed of Sale to Thomas Southern Serj[ean]t for the ground in Southwark Street in James town, whereon formerly Stood a house &c
To all Christian People to whom These Present Writing Shall come Know Yee That I Mary Conway of the Island of S[t] Helena Widdow & Relect of Edith[?] Conway formerly of the said Island Carpenter & Yanker but now deceased for a valluable consideracion to me in Hand paid before the En sealing & delivery hereof By Tho[mas] Southern of said Island Serj[ean]t the receipt whereof I Do hereby acknowledge & my Self fully Satisfied before other good cause & consideracions me thereunto moveing, Have bargain'd Sold alienated & Sett over & do hereby Absolutely Bargain Sell Alienate & Assigne or Sett over Unto the said Tho[mas] Southern his heires & Assignes for ever, One part or parcel of Land lying & being in Southwark Street in James town Chapple Valley, knowne by the Name of Conways Wash Yard whereon formerly was a house built but now the ruins or Vestegies thereof only remaining; Butting & Bounding between the House of W[illia]m S[ai]d Southern's formerly Wexwells to the Southward & One John H[ar]riss Steward's now in the Posses[s]ion of John Robinson To the Northward To Have & to Hold the aforesaid part or parcel of Lands with all the Rights, profits & Enjoyments that I my Predecessors or Heirs, Did, might or Could do, w[i]th Likewise the right of Party Wall or Walls heretofore Enjoyed or paid for
And I Do also to my Self, My Heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs & Assignes Warrant that I have full Power & Lawfull Authority to dispose of the said ground as aforesaid, Hereby Obliging my Self my Heires Execu[to]rs & Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs alwayes to make good the same to s[ai]d Thomas Southern Harmless to Keep from all manner of Charges, Suites, troubles or Vexations that may Happen unto him thereof, In Witness Whereof I have hereunto Sett my Hand & Seale this 14[t]h Day of April Anno[que] Dom[ini] 1715
her
Mary + Conway
Mark
Sign'd Seal'd & Deliver'd In the presence of John Twack his Ebenezer + Leech mark Registered & Examined Antipas Tovey
The £50 0s 0d sum was to be paid out of Elizabeth Steward's estate and set apart for the use described in the deed of gift, without any person's claim except those whose right had been properly identified within the deed. Elizabeth Steward set her hand and seal to the deed on 2 March 1716.
Elizabeth Steward
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Francis Junge and John Long. The above is a true copy, entered and examined by John Alexander and Antipas Tovey.
Mary Conway, widow, deed of sale to Thomas Southern, sergeant, of the ground in Southwark Street in James Town, where a house had formerly stood.
To all Christian people to whom these presents come, Mary Conway of the island of St Helena, widow and relict of Edith[?] Conway, formerly of the island, carpenter and yanker, but now deceased, in consideration of a valuable sum paid before the sealing and delivery of the deed by Thomas Southern, sergeant of the island, acknowledged the receipt and her full satisfaction. Mary Conway bargained, sold, alienated and set over to Thomas Southern, his heirs and assigns for ever one parcel of land in Southwark Street in James Town, Chapel Valley, known by the name of Conway's Wash Yard. A house had formerly stood on the ground but only the ruins or remains then survived. The parcel was bounded southwards by the house formerly belonging to William Wexwell and southwards by Thomas Southern's own house, and northwards by the house of John Harris Steward, then in the possession of John Robinson. The grant carried all the rights, profits and enjoyments that Mary Conway, her predecessors or heirs had held or could exercise, together with the right of party wall or walls previously enjoyed or paid for.
Mary Conway warranted that she had full power and lawful authority to dispose of the ground, and bound herself, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to keep Thomas Southern harmless against all charges, suits, troubles or vexations arising from the conveyance. Mary Conway set her hand and seal to the deed on 14 April 1715.
The mark + of Mary Conway
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of John Twack and Ebenezer Leech (his mark). Registered and examined by Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The closing clause of the Elizabeth Steward deed of gift fixed the £50 0s 0d as a charge on her own estate, payable from her residual property and set apart for the institutional benefit of the named beneficiaries without competing claims from her wider heirs or creditors. The mechanism converted the gift into a binding institutional obligation enforceable against her residual estate, distinct from the operative transfer of the heifers and their increase. The structure parallels the layered settlements observed in the Earne-Goodwin marriage articles of February 1714 and the Tovey-Swallow guardianship deed of July 1714.
The 2 March 1715 sealing date in the manuscript falls under the old calendar reckoning and converts forward to 2 March 1716 in modern style, placing the final completion of the gift deed nearly a year after the principal text was drafted. The extended drafting period suggests that the gift had been composed in stages, with the contingent reversionary provisions and the residuary charge clause added over time as the institutional protections were strengthened.
John Long, signing as one of the witnesses, is probably the same John Long senior named in the principal text as the husband of Mary, Elizabeth's sister, and as the father of John Long the younger. The arrangement is unusual, with a named beneficiary's father witnessing the gift instrument that included his children among the contingent reversioners. The pattern indicates that the institutional documentary regime tolerated such overlapping roles where the family relationships were transparent within the text.
Francis Junge appears here as a witness for a third documented occasion in 1714-1715, following his June 1714 attendance at the Fowler-Finnwick sale. His repeated appearance places him within the active literate circle of the period, perhaps within the continental European or non-English merchant network on the island.
The Conway-Southern deed records a small urban transaction in Southwark Street, James Town, with Mary Conway selling the ground of a ruined house to Thomas Southern, sergeant, for an unspecified consideration. The omission of the precise price marks an unusual gap in the documentary record, with the standard practice of recording the sum being absent here.
Mary Conway appears here as widow of Edith[?] Conway, formerly of the island as carpenter and yanker, but now deceased. The yanker designation is obscure within the documented trades of the period and perhaps reflects either a scribal corruption or a specialist working role within the garrison or merchant supply. The carpenter classification places the deceased Edith[?] Conway within the artisanal layer documented across the records alongside Robert Bell, John Downing and others. Mary Conway connects to the same Mary Conway, widow, who had taken a twenty-one-year lease of thirty acres at the head of Dogwood Valley in December 1713 (which she had marked with M as her sign). The present urban transaction adds her urban property activity to her rural leasehold standing.
Conway's Wash Yard appears here as a previously undocumented working byname, preserving the institutional memory of the wash yard formerly operated on the ground. The naming pattern parallels the bynames observed earlier across the records, with working uses providing the principal source of urban and rural place names.
William Wexwell, named as the former holder of the house to the southward, is a previously undocumented individual within the records. The reading Wexwell may represent a variant rendering of an established surname or a name not otherwise documented. Thomas Southern's own house was identified alongside the Wexwell house as the southward boundary, indicating that Southern already held adjoining ground that the present purchase extended.
John Harris Steward, named as the holder of the house to the northward, then in the possession of John Robinson, links the Steward family network to the urban Southwark Street cluster. The Harris middle name marks a distinctive identification, perhaps preserving a maternal family name or compound naming pattern. The possession by John Robinson connects to the same John Robinson named as the freeholder bound to pay the children of the late Onesipherus Sheado under the bond recorded in consultation book 15.
The right of party wall or walls heretofore enjoyed or paid for gave Thomas Southern the institutional recognition of shared structural elements between his existing property and the newly purchased ground. The party wall provisions reproduce the dense urban building patterns observed earlier in the February 1716 Beale brothers' sale of Captain Beale's land to the Company, where party-wall rights were similarly transferred.
Thomas Southern's sergeant classification places him within the senior non-commissioned military ranks. His earlier appearance as the working possessor of Edward Bagley's children's land, named in the August 1713 Richard Gurling confirmation and the John Crosby Plyers Valley confirmation, marks him as a recognised trustee figure across the urban and rural records. The present urban purchase adds his Southwark Street holding to his documented working possession of orphan ground.
Mary Conway signed by mark, reproducing her unlettered status from the December 1713 Dogwood Valley lease. The mark contrasts with her active engagement in substantial property transactions across both rural and urban contexts, illustrating that unlettered holders participated fully in the documentary regime through the mark mechanism.
The witnesses John Twack and Ebenezer Leech (also signing by mark) place the deed within a less elite witness panel than the Carne-Goodwin-Francis cluster of the Keeling-Wrangham conveyance. The pattern of differential witnessing across the urban transactions of 1714-1715 indicates that routine small-property transfers drew on a broader range of attestors than the high-value elite conveyances.
Speculations
The omission of the precise consideration from the Conway-Southern deed perhaps reflects the modest scale of the transaction, with the ruined-house ground worth only a small sum that the parties did not consider worth specifying in the formal document. The phrase a valuable consideration provides only the general institutional acknowledgement that consideration had moved, without committing the parties to a documented price. The pattern suggests that very small urban transfers could proceed under the standard documentary regime without the precise price recording attached to substantial transactions.
The extended drafting timetable of the Elizabeth Steward deed of gift, with the principal text dated 2 March 1715 and the residuary charge clause added a year later on 2 March 1716, perhaps reflects the family's preference for incremental strengthening of the gift's protections. By returning to the deed after a year and adding the explicit residuary charge clause, Elizabeth converted what had begun as a layered gift into a more durable institutional obligation enforceable against her own estate. The pattern reveals the documentary regime accommodating evolving family arrangements rather than treating gift deeds as fixed at the moment of initial execution.
The institutional acquisition by Thomas Southern of the Conway's Wash Yard adjoining his own house, combined with his recorded position as the working possessor of orphan ground, perhaps marks the emergence of a recognised consolidation pattern within the urban Southwark Street cluster. By assembling adjacent parcels through purchase and trustee occupation, Southern was building a coherent working position within the street that complemented his sergeant standing. The pattern parallels Robert Bell's contemporaneous consolidation along Southwark Street through the Pledger purchase of April 1715.
220
Island St Helena
I Do Acknowledge my Self fully Satisfyed Upon the payment of Ten pounds in the Store by Mr Thomas Southen for my Wives part of a House in James town formerly her fathers Mr Samuel Maxwell Deceased Witness my hand this 18[t]h June 1703. (Sign'd) Antipas Tovey
Test: James Vesey Examined & Registered Peter Finnick Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena April y[e] 4[t]h 1715
I acknowledge the receipt of Ten pounds paid in Store & Edit to Mary my present Wife for her Share & part of a Dwelling House Scituate in James Valley & formerly belonging to Samuel Maxwell Serj[ean]t Dec[eas]'d I say rec[eive]d P[er] (Sign'd) Jn[o] Alexander
Examined & Registered
Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena Leech's Lodge This Indenture Witnesseth That Robert Leech Orphan Son of bound to Robert Leech Free Planter, decea[se]d, with the Rich[ard] Garling, James Grentree & Tho[mas] Giles Smith Doveton Executors of the Last Will & Testament of the s[ai]d deceas[ed] Robert Leech and by Our consent, as well as of His Own Free Will & accord, hath & do by these presents put him the said Robert Leech Son of Rob[er]t Leech aforesaid Apprentice unto Giles Smith Joyner & Carpenter, to Learne his Art & Trade & with him after the manner of Apprentice & to serve from the Date hereof, till he attains to the full age of Twenty One Years, during which time & term the Said Robert Leech, shall Serve his Master faithfully, his Secrets keep & Lawfull com[m]ands gladly do, He shall Do no Hurt or damage to his s[ai]d Master, or to his Goods, nor Suffer it to be done, by any other person & he shall not com[m]it over Matrimony contract, At Cards, Dice or any other unlawfull Game, he shall not play whereby his said Master may Suffer either in Goods or Person, Day or Night he shall not absent himself from his said Masters Service without his leave possessed but in all things as a faithfull Servant behave himself as a faithfull Apprentice ought to Do during the Whole Term aforesaid And the Said Giles Smith for & in consideration of the Sum of Fifteen pounds already paid in hand by the Said Executors doth for himself his Heirs Execut[o]rs Admin[i]s[trato]rs & Assigns, hereby covenant & Oblige himself to them to teach or cause to be taught the s[ai]d Apprentice & Oblige himself in apparel (Reading, Writing) the Trade he now seek of a Joyner & Carpenter, by the best method & meanes he can, finding unto his said Apprentice Sufficient Meat Drink Ap[ar]el parel (Reading, Writing) Washing & Lodging, & all other necessary fitting for such an apprentice during the Term aforesaid And it is further Covenanted by & between all parties herein concerned that in case of the said Giles Smith decease before his apprenti ces Robert Leech hath Learnt his Trade, or the Expiration of the time herein limited That then so much Case the s[ai]d Giles Smith doth bind himself His Heirs Execu[to]rs & every of them to Learne, teach or cause to be Learnt & taught the said Apprentice the Trade before mention'd without any Equivocation Dispute or controversie whatsoever to the Contrary, In Witness where of all Party concern'd have interchangeably set their Hands & Se Seals this twentieth Day of March Anno[que] Domini One thousand Seven hundred & fifteen in the Second Year of y[e] Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George by y[e] Grace of God of Great Brit[ain] Sign'd Sealed am France & Ireland King Defender of the Faith &c[t] (Sign'd) Giles Smith & deliver'd in p[rese]nce of us: Joshua Johnson, Jn[o] Alexander Mem[orandum]
Island of St Helena
Antipas Tovey acknowledged his full satisfaction on the payment of £10 0s 0d in the store by Mr Thomas Southen for his wife's part of a house in James Town, formerly her father's, Mr Samuel Maxwell, deceased. Antipas Tovey set his hand to the receipt on 18 June 1703.
Antipas Tovey
Witnessed by James Vesey. Examined and registered by Peter Finnick and Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena. 4 April 1715.
John Alexander acknowledged the receipt of £10 0s 0d, paid in the store, for Mary his present wife's share and part of a dwelling house in James Valley, formerly belonging to Sergeant Samuel Maxwell, deceased.
John Alexander
Examined and registered by Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena. Leech's lodge.
The present indenture witnessed that Robert Leech, orphan son of the deceased Robert Leech, free planter, with the consent and by the act of Richard Garling, James Greentree and Thomas Doveton, executors of the last will and testament of the deceased Robert Leech, and by their consent and the orphan's own free will, was apprenticed to Giles Smith, joiner and carpenter, to learn his art and trade and to serve from the date of the indenture until he reached the full age of twenty-one years.
During the term, Robert Leech was to serve his master faithfully, to keep his master's secrets and to obey all lawful commands gladly. He was to do no hurt or damage to his master or his goods, and was not to allow any other person to do so. He was not to enter into matrimony or contract during the term. He was not to play at cards, dice or any other unlawful game in which his master might suffer either in goods or in person. He was not to absent himself from his master's service by day or by night without leave. He was to behave in all things as a faithful apprentice during the whole term.
In consideration of £15 0s 0d already paid in hand by the executors, Giles Smith bound himself, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to teach or cause to be taught Robert Leech the trade of joiner and carpenter by the best method and means he could, and to provide the apprentice with sufficient meat, drink, apparel (with reading and writing), washing and lodging, and all other necessaries fitting for such an apprentice during the term.
The parties further covenanted that if Giles Smith died before Robert Leech had learnt his trade or the term had expired, Smith bound himself, his heirs and executors to ensure that the apprentice was still taught the trade described, without any equivocation, dispute or controversy. All parties interchangeably set their hands and seals to the indenture on 20 March 1716, in the second year of the reign of King George I, by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King and Defender of the Faith.
Giles Smith
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Joshua Johnson and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The two acknowledgements together record successive £10 0s 0d settlements by Thomas Southen, paid in the Company's store, for the wives' shares in a James Town dwelling house formerly belonging to the deceased Sergeant Samuel Maxwell. The first receipt of June 1703, signed by Antipas Tovey for his wife's share, places the Maxwell house in the early stages of post-mortem division within the family. The second receipt of April 1715, signed by John Alexander for his present wife Mary's share, places the same property in a further round of share settlement twelve years later.
The institutional arrangement reveals that Samuel Maxwell's daughters had married into the Tovey and Alexander families, with each husband acting as the receiving party for his wife's portion. The two receipts together identify two of the documented Maxwell orphans (whose nine acres in Sandy Bay were confirmed under the 1711 framework on 4 August 1713) as the wives of Antipas Tovey and John Alexander respectively. The marriages place the Maxwell family at the heart of the literate elite circle of the 1700s and 1710s.
The £10 0s 0d figure paid in each settlement, exactly matching across twelve years, reflects an institutional fixity in the value attached to each daughter's share rather than a market-tested valuation. The mechanism converted the post-mortem division into a standardised arithmetic operation, with each share calculated at the same fixed sum regardless of intervening changes in the underlying property value.
The reference to Mary as Alexander's present wife indicates that she was not his first wife, with the institutional record preserving the possibility of an earlier marriage or marriages that had ended in widowhood or otherwise. The phrase is unusual in the records, where most marital references identify wives without the temporal qualifier.
The store-credit payment in both receipts continues the established pattern of substantial transactions routed through the Company's institutional credit system. The June 1703 store payment by Thomas Southen marks an early documented use of the store mechanism, with the same procedure recurring in the April 1715 settlement.
Peter Finnick appears as a co-registering witness with Antipas Tovey on the 1703 receipt, marking a new individual within the early literate circle. The Finnick surname connects forward to the John Finnwick, soldier, who bought the Fowler house in James Valley in June 1714, indicating a family network operating across multiple decades.
The apprenticeship indenture binds Robert Leech, orphan son of the deceased Robert Leech the free planter, to Giles Smith, joiner and carpenter, for the period until the orphan reached the age of twenty-one. The arrangement reproduces the standard early modern apprenticeship form, with the orphan's labour exchanged for trade training, basic necessities and a fixed cash premium.
The £15 0s 0d premium paid in hand by the executors places this apprenticeship within the documented range of recent placements. The Susanna Doveton apprenticeship to Robert Leech of March 1708 had been structured at £5 0s 0d cash plus slave labour and livestock to a value of approximately £11 0s 0d. The present arrangement converts the premium into a single £15 0s 0d cash payment, reflecting the institutional preference for monetary settlement by 1716.
The three executors named are Richard Garling, James Greentree and Thomas Doveton. The Garling identification connects to the Robert Girling freemason of the August 1713 Peak Gut confirmation and the Richard Garling witness to the Henry Francis receipt of March 1715, with the family name continuing across the institutional record. James Greentree appears as a substantial Sandy Bay accumulator whose acquisitions had included the Powell purchase of March 1703 with the slave Oliver, the Bevean Chapel Valley house of October 1705, the Cleve James Valley house of June 1715, and the Goodwin four acres of September 1715. Thomas Doveton is probably the Jonathan Doveton variant rendering, the same executor who had administered the William Doveton and William Dufton estates and held the substantial confirmed estate of 1711 and 1713.
The deceased Robert Leech was the same free planter who had taken Susanna Doveton as an apprentice in March 1708 and who had been recipient of the fifteen acres in Fryer Valley sold by Robert Leach (with his wife Ann's portion from the Mary Dixon orphans) to George Carne in January 1705 through Mary Carne as attorney. His death now reaches the institutional record through the present apprenticeship of his son.
The trade of joiner and carpenter combines two artisanal designations within a single apprenticeship, with Giles Smith providing instruction in both. The pairing reflects the practical overlap between the two trades in the limited specialist environment of the island, where a single artisan typically handled both fine joinery and structural carpentry.
The covenants binding the apprentice include the standard early modern restrictions on matrimony, gambling, secret-keeping and absence from service. The matrimony prohibition gave the master institutional control over the apprentice's domestic arrangements throughout the term, preventing the apprentice from establishing a competing household before the trade was learnt. The card-and-dice prohibition reflects the institutional concern with idle pastimes that might dissipate the master's resources or expose the household to debt and loss.
The master's obligations include the provision of reading and writing as part of the apparel clause. The institutional inclusion of basic literacy training within the apprenticeship represents a substantial commitment, with Smith bound to ensure that Robert Leech acquired both his trade and his lettering by the end of the term. The arrangement gave the orphan the means to enter the literate adult population on completion.
The mortality clause binding Smith's heirs to complete the apprenticeship if Smith died before the term ended reproduces the standard protective construction observed in the Doveton apprenticeship of March 1708. The mechanism ensured continuity of training across the master's potential mortality, protecting the orphan's interest in receiving the full apprenticeship even if the original arrangement was disrupted.
The second year of King George I's reign in the regnal-year formula confirms the 20 March 1716 dating in modern style, with the manuscript carrying 1715 under the old calendar convention. The accession of George I in August 1714 placed his second regnal year as the period from August 1715 onwards.
Joshua Johnson and John Alexander witnessed the indenture, continuing their established roles in the literate documentary circle. Alexander's witnessing of the Leech apprenticeship marks one of his recurring appearances during this period, alongside his receipt for his wife's Maxwell share of the same month.
Speculations
The matching £10 0s 0d settlement for the Maxwell daughters' shares in 1703 and 1715 perhaps reflects the institutional pattern of paying out portions in a calibrated sequence rather than at the moment of inheritance. By holding the property as a single working unit and paying out each daughter's share as the relevant household matured, the executors converted the family ground into a series of stable institutional transfers spread across more than a decade. The pattern enabled the property to retain its working value as a coherent dwelling while still discharging the family obligations.
The placement of Robert Leech the orphan with Giles Smith for a full trade apprenticeship including reading and writing, at a premium of £15 0s 0d, perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy by the executors to ensure that the son of a free planter rose into the artisanal-literate class rather than into mere unskilled labour. The investment of cash and time in his comprehensive training represents an institutional commitment to his social mobility, with the executors using the apprenticeship mechanism to convert the orphan inheritance into long-term productive capacity.
The reference to John Alexander's present wife Mary, with the temporal qualifier suggesting an earlier marriage, perhaps documents the otherwise unrecorded first marriage of the long-serving register. The institutional record's tolerance of the qualifier hints at a family history not otherwise preserved within the documented circle, with Mary's standing as the present wife signalling a recent or current marriage following an earlier widowhood.
221
Mem[orandum] between the thirteenth & fourteenth Lines the Words (Reading, Writing) were first interlin'd before the Insealing & delivery hereof
Test: Sam[uel] Vesey Rich[ar]d Swallow Jun[io]r Examined & Registered the foregoing Indenture Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena, Whereas I Iane Mudge of the said Island Widdow & Relict of John Mudge dec[eased] who by his last will & Testament Did make Constitute and appoynt me the said Iane Mudge whole & Sole Executrix of his said will, and by the same Gave his whole Intire Estate Both Real [I am [...]] & personall unto me the said Iane Mudge to Doe and Dispose of as I in my own Discretion [knowing] should after his decease think fitt of words to this Purport And as it has pleased Almighty [do hereby] God to vissett me w[i]th a long & Tedious fitt of Sickness and render'd I[?] every way uncapable [Make &] Languishing & Deplorable Condition which has not only Occasioned Daily Expences [apppoint?] but her Plantation & Estate Run to Ruene and Layne Waste Severall, months by [Sam[ue]l Yesey] which means She the said Iane Mudge to her unspeakeable Grief is Likely to become [Crown Sole] a Perish Charge, And may live in such a Misserable, & Lame Condition longer than [Executor of] She has any thing left to Subsist her and her Familie, Wherefore [my last Will] [& Testam[en]t] Now Know Yee that I the said Iane Mudge on Mature Consideration of the [and to perform] premisses aforesaid, and other weighty Reasons me thereunto moveing Have and do by [& Execute the] these prsents freely absolutely and of my own free will and Accord give grant [same in such] and Deliver unto my trusty & well beloved Friend Samuel Yesey of the said [manner as in] [the Will] Island & to his Heirs for ever all & Singular my whole and Intire Estate as well [Mention'd?] Reale as Personall, the same (Consisting of Ten Acres of Greenwood Land Lying [is mention'd] Scituate in Stocks Valley near Adjoyneing to ten Acres of Land now in the Posses[s]ion [A True Copy] of Thomas Leech and the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s waste Land together with an Old House & some [Exam[in]'d & Registered] provisions standing & being thereon, as also ten Acres of Lord & y[e] Free Land lying in the same [Antipas Tovey] valley near Adjoyning to the Land of Cap[tai]n Mathew Bagell, William Cale & John Twack with all rights, Libertys, Privaledges and other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging Likewise one Negroe Man Slave Named Isaac & one Negroe Woman Slave named Hagar, To have & to hold all and Singular the before mentioned two parcells of Lands, Old House, Provissions and two Slaves with her the said Iane Mudges Stock of Cattle of all sorts Except such as are already given away and mentioned in a Seperate Paper) unto him the said Samuel Yesey his Heirs for ever and dispose of at his and their own proper Will & pleasure And the same to Enjoy & Posses[s]e to do and dispose of at his and their own proper Wills & pleasure And the same to Enjoy & Posses[s]e Peaceably & Quiety without any manner of Interruption mollestation or Contradiction of me the said Iane Mudge or my Heirs Executors Adminis[trato]rs or Assignes or any other person or persons whatsoever upon condition that he the said Samuel Yesey his Heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs Assigns or either of them shall and Doth from the day of the date hereof fully Provide for and maintaine the said Iane Mudge during her naturall Life in Sickness and in health w[i]th all manner of necessarys fitting for a Woman of her age & Condition and Likewise to mantaine her [Test:] Grand Daughter Sane Vidcarens w[i]th, all manner of Cloathing, Meat, Drink, washing & Lodging [her] and teach or cause to be taught to read, write, and to do needle work till She arrives to full [I am Mudge] age or Marriage, no longer, and further the said Sam[uel] Yesey Doth alone Oblige himself to take [mark] Care of (what Stock of Cattle is belonging unto Said Child) and to pay unto her or her Heirs the Increase unto her at the time of her marriage or full Age and to pay unto her or her Heirs the Some of Ten Pounds in such payments as She shall at that time accept of and also to deliver unto her & Successors or her Heirs all her Stock of Cattle (it is Excepted) Issues any ways belong Aceaungeable for those that shall from this time Decrease She being the true posseing & Subject of the said Iane Mudge and the said Sam[uel] Yesey agreement, And the said Iane Mudge for preventing future controversies & Disputes & by these p[rese]nts Consequented & make Voyd all former or other Will, Testament or Testament[s] coming & acknowledging this to be the only Working & Act or Instrument of
of writing that shall be Accounted binding or any wise to be regarded towards her relief, present condition or disposall of her the said Iane Mudges Estate, In witness whereof She the said Iane Mudge hath to these presents Sett her hand & Seale this fourth day of February In the Year of our Lord one Thousand Seven hundred and Eighteen.
a True Copy Exam[in]'d & Registered
Signed Sealed & Deliv[ere]d in the presence of her Matthew Bazett, Isaac Wood & Antipas Tovey Iane + Mudge John Alexander Marke
A memorandum recorded that the words reading and writing had been interlined between the thirteenth and fourteenth lines of the apprenticeship indenture before its sealing and delivery. Witnessed by Samuel Vesey and Richard Swallow the younger. The foregoing indenture was examined and registered by Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena. Jane Mudge of the island, widow and relict of the deceased John Mudge, who by his last will and testament had made her his whole and sole executrix and given his whole entire estate, both real and personal, to her, to dispose of as her own discretion should see fit after his death.
Jane Mudge recorded that it had pleased Almighty God to visit her with a long and tedious fit of sickness and to render her every way incapable, in a languishing and deplorable condition that had not only caused daily expenses but had also left her plantation and estate to run to ruin and lie waste for several months. By this means she was likely to become a parish charge, and to live in a miserable and lame condition longer than she had anything left to subsist herself and her family.
On mature consideration of the matters set out, and other weighty reasons, Jane Mudge freely and absolutely, of her own free will, gave, granted and delivered to her trusty and well-beloved friend Samuel Vesey of the island, and to his heirs for ever, all her whole and entire estate, both real and personal. The estate consisted of ten acres of greenwood land in Stocks Valley adjoining ten acres of land then in the possession of Thomas Leech and the Honourable Company's waste land, together with an old house and some provisions standing on it. The estate also included ten acres of lot and free land in the same valley adjoining the land of Captain Matthew Bazett, William Cale and John Twack, with all rights, liberties, privileges and other appurtenances belonging to the parcels, together with one slave man named Isaac, one slave woman named Hagar, and Jane Mudge's stock of cattle of all sorts (except such as had already been given away and listed in a separate paper).
The grant was to Samuel Vesey, his heirs and assigns, to enjoy, possess and dispose of at their own will and pleasure, peaceably and without interruption, molestation or contradiction by Jane Mudge, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or any other person.
The grant was conditional on Samuel Vesey, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns providing fully for Jane Mudge during her natural life, in sickness and in health, with all necessaries fitting for a woman of her age and condition. He was also to maintain her granddaughter Sane Vidcarens, providing her with clothing, meat, drink, washing and lodging, and arranging for her to be taught to read, write and to do needlework until she came of age or married, but no longer. Samuel Vesey further bound himself alone to take care of the stock of cattle belonging to the granddaughter and to pay her or her heirs the increase from the stock at the time of her marriage or coming of age. He was to pay her or her heirs the sum of £10 0s 0d, in such payments as she would then accept, and to deliver all her stock of cattle to her or her heirs at that time, the issues belonging to her as the true possessor and subject of Jane Mudge and Samuel Vesey's agreement.
Jane Mudge revoked all former wills and testaments and acknowledged the present writing as the only operative instrument binding for her relief, her present condition or the disposal of her estate.
Jane Mudge set her hand and seal to the deed on 4 February 1718.
The mark + of Jane Mudge
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett, Isaac Wood and John Alexander. A true copy, examined and registered by Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The deed constructed a comprehensive life-maintenance arrangement under which Jane Mudge transferred her entire estate, both real and personal, to Samuel Vesey in return for his undertaking to support her, her granddaughter and the family establishment for life. The mechanism converted a wholesale property transfer into a perpetual maintenance obligation, with Vesey assuming responsibility for the elderly widow's subsistence and her granddaughter's upbringing in exchange for the immediate vesting of the perpetual title.
The opening recital frames Jane Mudge's decision as a response to her long sickness, the daily expenses of her care and the institutional risk of her becoming a parish charge. The parish charge framework had earlier appeared in the September 1706 indenture of Mary Oliver to George Carne, where the Carne household had agreed to maintain Oliver and her children free from parish charge. The present deed reproduces the same institutional concern, with Jane Mudge using the asset transfer to convert a private welfare risk into a contractual obligation.
The phrase parish charge marks the institutional category of public welfare burden that the island administration sought to avoid. By transferring her assets to a private maintainer, Jane Mudge removed herself from the potential parish-charge category, with Samuel Vesey assuming the support obligation that might otherwise have fallen on the institutional charity of the island.
The estate transferred included twenty acres of land in Stocks Valley (ten acres of greenwood land and ten acres of lot and free land), an old house with provisions, two named slaves Isaac and Hagar, and the stock of cattle (except such as had already been given away under a separate paper). The composite transfer reproduces the institutional pattern of treating land, dwellings, slaves and livestock as a single working unit, with all components moving together within a single deed.
Stocks Valley as the location of the Mudge estate connects to the earlier William Seale confirmation of twenty acres in Stocks Valley formerly the lot land of the deceased Jos Bartlett, processed at the major 1713 sitting. The Mudge estate's location next to ten acres in the possession of Thomas Leech places the Leech family within the Stocks Valley cluster, with Thomas Leech perhaps connecting to the wider Leech network already documented through Isaac Leach, Robert Leech and the Leach apprenticeships.
Captain Matthew Bazett, William Cale and John Twack as the adjoining holders of the second ten-acre parcel place the Mudge estate within the documented Stocks Valley network. The Captain designation now attached to Matthew Bazett reflects his elevation in social and institutional rank since his earlier identification as fifth in council in the 1711 framework. The captain title perhaps marks his rise to a senior military classification within the garrison hierarchy.
The two named slaves Isaac and Hagar continue the institutional pattern of identifying slaves by personal names within working estate transfers. The biblical names assigned reproduce the convention observed earlier across the records, with Asher in the Trapp-Goodwin sale of February 1690, Oliver in the Powell-Greentree sale of March 1703, and Peter in the Doveton apprenticeship of March 1708 marking the broader use of biblical and classical personal names for slaves.
The granddaughter Sane Vidcarens (the unusual surname perhaps representing a continental or non-English family name) emerges here as the second dependant of the Mudge household. Vesey's covenant to provide her with clothing, meat, drink, washing and lodging, and to arrange for her education in reading, writing and needlework until she came of age or married, reproduces the apprenticeship-style provision observed in the Doveton apprenticeships of 1707-1708 and the Audouart apprenticeship of 1709. The educational obligation matches the standard curriculum for young women in the period.
The £10 0s 0d cash payment to the granddaughter at majority or marriage gave her a fixed institutional portion alongside the maintenance and education. The separate retention of her own stock of cattle, with the increase to be delivered to her at the same trigger event, provided a livestock-based portion in addition to the cash. The construction reproduces the institutional pattern of layered settlements that had emerged across the records, with cash, livestock and stock-increase combining to create a graduated portion structure.
The revocation clause expressly extinguished all former wills and testaments, with Jane Mudge declaring the present deed as the only operative instrument binding for her relief and the disposal of her estate. The construction converts the testamentary regime into an inter vivos arrangement, providing greater institutional certainty than a will subject to probate and challenge. The mechanism resembles the Mary Jewister slave gift of February 1712 in its preference for inter vivos transfer over testamentary disposition.
Jane Mudge appears here as widow and relict of the deceased John Mudge. The John Mudge identification connects to the earlier records, where Jonathan Mudge (late free planter, since died) had sold ten acres at the head of Deep Valley to Matthew Bazett. The institutional record's variation between John and Jonathan Mudge perhaps reflects a single individual under different scribal renderings, or two related family members. The 4 August 1713 William Seale confirmation in Sharks Valley had also named Jane Mudge widow as the northern boundary holder, indicating that her widow status by then had been institutionally recognised for some years.
Jane Mudge signed by mark, reproducing her unlettered status. The mark contrasts with the comprehensive estate disposition she undertook through the deed, illustrating that unlettered widows participated fully in substantial property transactions through the mark mechanism.
The witnesses Matthew Bazett, Isaac Wood and John Alexander reproduce a senior literate panel for the deed, with Bazett serving as both adjoining holder (in the second ten-acre parcel) and witness. The dual role reproduces the pattern observed in earlier 1713 instruments where adjoining freeholders attended deeds concerning their neighbours. Isaac Wood appears here in his recurring witnessing role, continuing his presence from the September 1712 Hayes-Wood sale.
The 4 February 1718 dating places this deed in the documented continuation of the post-1716 sequence of large family settlements. Antipas Tovey's registration and examination closes the institutional record with his standard attestation role across the documents of the period.
Speculations
The complete transfer of the entire Mudge estate to Samuel Vesey in exchange for life maintenance, including the granddaughter's upbringing, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design in which the widow exchanged the future security of her descendants for the immediate security of her own old age. By placing the granddaughter's upbringing within Vesey's household obligations rather than into a separate trust, Jane Mudge integrated the welfare of both generations into a single maintainable institutional unit. The arrangement perhaps reflects a calculated trade-off between continuity of family ground and immediate practical care during her sickness.
The choice of Samuel Vesey rather than a closer kinsman as the recipient of the entire estate perhaps points to the absence of any surviving adult male heir within the Mudge family beyond the granddaughter Sane Vidcarens. By committing the estate to a trusted friend rather than to a family member, Jane Mudge addressed the institutional risk of failing inheritance with a contractual rather than a familial solution. The trusty and well-beloved friend formula gave the gift institutional standing equivalent to a kinship transfer.
The granddaughter's compound surname Vidcarens, set against Jane Mudge's own widowed name, perhaps reveals an intermediate generation through whom the granddaughter descended. Jane's daughter or son would have married into a Vidcarens line (whose surname suggests continental European or non-English origin) before producing Sane. The institutional record provides no further detail on the intermediate generation, perhaps reflecting the death of Jane's child before the present deed was sealed.
222
Island St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Let and Sett unto Samuel Price of the Said Island freeman twenty Acres of Land lying Scituate at the head of Mannatee bay Buting toward the N. S. E. & W every way upon the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] Wast Land, w[hi]ch was formerly Posses[s]ed & Occupied by Hugh Bodley Sen[io]r late free planter Dec[eased] To have and to hold the s[ai]d twenty Acres of Land unto the said Samuel Price and his present wife Sarah Price in case She should happen to be Left a Widd[ow] during the time of his life and of her Widd[ow]hood and one life more According as he Shall name and appoynt in his Last Will and Testam[en]t Renewable upon payment of one years Rent at Each admittance Upon the Conditions following
1[st]ly First To Improve the said Land in the manner hereafter Mention'd the Said Samuel Price and his Successors Shall Punctually observe and do hereby agree to and Conhect that the Trees now Standing on the aforesaid Land Shall be Counsed and he the said Price and his Success[o]rs before named Shall be Obliged in Some part of that land to plant and keep up the Same Number of Trees as there is at present in the room of those that Shall, hereafter Cutt Down or used or that fall by age or high winds, and that for every Acre of Ground, He, they or Either of them before Named Shall plant Tenn fruit Trees besides the Wood or Timber Trees before Mentioned, and that Plaintaine nor Figg trees Shall be Counsed in the Number of Trees to be So planted
2[d]ly That he the Said Price Shall Immediately proceed to Build a House and Fence in the Land Leaving adrift way or Pas[s]age to man and Horse and all adjacent Parts, And that all the whole twenty Acres of Land be Compleatly Fenced w[i]th in twenty months at furthest after the date hereof, and he Shall plant Trees round the Inside of all and Every of his fences
3[d]ly That for the Encouragem[en]t before Mention'd to Improve the Said twenty Acres of Land by first building a House thereon and by planting ten fruit Trees to Each acre of Land and in Consideration of the Said Price his Fencing in the same & planting round those fences as aforesaid, He the Said Samuel Price or Successors Shall Peace[ably] Posses[s] and Enjoy the Said Land as aforesaid and Shall pay no more then the Usuall and Accustomed Rents and Revenues as all other Tennants of the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Lords Propriet[o]rs, that have Areed Land Do pay, which in the whole is Six Shilling p[er] Acre p[er] ann[um] But in case he the Said Sam[ue]l Price or Success[o]rs Do not Improve the S[ai]d Land According to the Intent and true meaning of this agreement That then he the Said Samuel Price and his Successors Shall forfeit and pay unto the Said Lords Propriet[o]rs as a Pennalty for Such Neglect Ten Shillings p[er] ann[um] for the Rent of Each Acre to Comence from the time Such Defficiencys or Neglect Shall be Viewed and found to be So by the Governo[r] and Council or Some other Persons
Island of St Helena
The Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Samuel Price of the island, freeman, twenty acres of land at the head of Manatee Bay. The parcel was bounded on the north, south, east and west by the Honourable Company's waste land. It had formerly been possessed and occupied by the deceased Hugh Bodley senior, late free planter. The lease was to Samuel Price and his present wife Sarah Price, if she should happen to be left a widow during his life, for the term of her widowhood, with one life more to follow according to whom Samuel Price would name and appoint in his last will and testament. The lease was renewable on payment of one year's rent at each admittance.
The lease was held on the following conditions.
First, Samuel Price and his successors were to improve the land by ensuring that the trees then standing on it were preserved. Price and his successors were obliged, in some part of the land, to plant and maintain the same number of trees as currently stood there, replacing any that were cut down, used, or fell through age or high winds. For every acre of ground, Price, his successors or either of them were to plant ten fruit trees in addition to the wood or timber trees preserved. Plantain and fig trees were not to be counted within the number of trees to be planted.
Secondly, Samuel Price was immediately to proceed to build a house and to fence the land, leaving a drift way or passage for man and horse and all adjacent parts. The whole twenty acres was to be completely fenced within twenty months at the furthest from the date of the lease. Price was also to plant trees round the inside of every one of the fences.
Thirdly, in encouragement of the improvements described, including the building of a house, the planting of ten fruit trees per acre, and the fencing and tree-planting around the fences, Samuel Price or his successors were to peaceably possess and enjoy the land and to pay no more than the usual and accustomed rents and revenues that the other tenants of the Lords Proprietors then paid on arable land, namely six shillings per acre per annum in total. If Samuel Price or his successors did not improve the land according to the intent and true meaning of the agreement, they were to forfeit and pay to the Lords Proprietors as a penalty ten shillings per acre per annum, commencing from the time the deficiency or neglect was viewed and found by the Governor and Council or some other persons.
Interpretations
The lease introduces a significantly enhanced version of the 1711 institutional framework for tenancy, with improvement covenants that go substantially beyond the standard fence-maintenance and tree-replacement obligations recorded in the 1711-1713 instruments. The arrangement marks the emergence of a more demanding regulatory regime by the early 1720s or later, with a graduated rent structure that rewarded compliance and penalised neglect through the differential between six shillings and ten shillings per acre.
The tenure structure innovates in three institutional directions. First, the lease was granted not for a fixed twenty-one-year term as under the 1711 framework, but for the lifetime of Samuel Price, the lifetime of his widow during her widowhood, and one further life to be named in his will. The lives-based tenure converts the lease into a long-term family settlement enforceable across two or three generations. Second, the renewal mechanism replaced the standard term-expiry pattern with a one-year-rent renewal fee at each admittance, providing the Company with a recurring institutional payment as each life took possession. Third, the conditional vesting in the widow only during her widowhood gave the institutional structure a built-in protection against the loss of the family ground through her remarriage.
Manatee Bay had appeared earlier in the records through the August 1713 Thomas Harper forward-dated leasehold of twelve acres under the Main Ridge towards Manatee Bay head. The present Samuel Price lease places a new parcel at the head of the bay itself, extending the documented settlement into the area. Hugh Bodley senior, the deceased former possessor, connects to the Hugh Bodley soldier of the May 1703 Ashby-Bodley sale of a James Valley messuage house and the August 1707 Doveton apprenticeship. His progression from soldier to late free planter and the addition of senior in his designation document a settled family trajectory across three documentary appearances.
The improvement covenants concerning tree planting and preservation match and elaborate the framework introduced in the 7 May 1717 Haswell lease, which had required ten fruit trees per acre with plantains and papayas counted within the total. The present lease elaborates the requirement by excluding plantain and fig trees from the count and adding a separate obligation to plant trees inside the perimeter fences. The tightening of the tree covenants reveals an institutional concern with sustained arboricultural improvement, perhaps reflecting the Company's recognition by the 1720s that earlier conservation measures had not produced the desired results.
The mandatory house-building covenant goes beyond the 1711 framework by requiring an immediate construction obligation rather than merely tolerating existing structures. The institutional purpose was to convert frontier ground into settled habitation, with the tenancy positioned as an instrument of active settlement policy. The drift way or passage requirement preserved public access for man and horse across the property, recognising that enclosed land could not be allowed to obstruct established routes of communication.
The graduated rent structure represents the most substantial institutional innovation. Standard rent at six shillings per acre per annum (against the four shillings plus one shilling duty of the 1711 framework, totalling five shillings per acre) marks a significant increase in the underlying institutional charge. The penalty rent of ten shillings per acre applied to non-compliant tenants doubled the underlying rate, providing a powerful economic incentive to comply with the improvement covenants. The mechanism converts the lease into a graduated economic instrument rather than a fixed tenure.
The institutional adjudication clause, providing that the Governor and Council or some other persons would determine whether deficiency or neglect had occurred, places enforcement within the regular institutional machinery rather than within a private dispute mechanism. The arrangement gave the Company a flexible administrative tool for managing tenant compliance without requiring formal litigation.
The phrase the same number of trees as there is at present in the room of those that Shall hereafter be cut introduced the concept of a baseline tree inventory established at the moment of the lease, against which future deficits would be measured. The institutional pattern resembles modern conservation tenancies, with the Company treating standing tree cover as a measurable asset to be preserved in numerical terms.
Samuel Price appears here under the classification of freeman, a status designation that differs from the standard free planter or freeholder used elsewhere in the records. The freeman designation perhaps reflects an institutional category of established island residents who had completed their initial term of service or apprenticeship and held independent civil status, distinct from the soldier, planter and merchant designations applied to most other holders.
The recovery of the parcel from the deceased Hugh Bodley senior, with no documented transfer through his heirs or executors, indicates that the Company had taken back the ground on his death and was now letting it out afresh to a new tenant under the enhanced framework. The mechanism resembles the institutional purchasing and onward-selling pattern observed in the August 1713 Jonathan Doveton confirmation, where the Company had purchased the Leonard Hunt and William Marsh estates and onward-sold them to Doveton.
Speculations
The introduction of an explicit graduated rent structure with a non-compliance penalty perhaps reflects the institutional recognition that voluntary compliance with the 1711 framework's improvement covenants had been inconsistent. By converting the improvement obligations into directly enforceable economic incentives, the present lease shifts the institutional regime from a covenant-based to a market-based approach to tenant compliance. The mechanism harnesses tenant self-interest to achieve the Company's longer-term land management objectives.
The lives-based tenure structure, with the lease running for Samuel Price's life, his widow's widowhood and one further appointed life, perhaps marks the Company's response to the institutional difficulty of maintaining substantial improvements over only twenty-one-year terms. By extending the secure tenure across multiple generations, the Company gave the tenant a longer time horizon for recovering the substantial investment in house-building, fencing and tree-planting required under the improvement covenants. The mechanism converts the lease into a quasi-perpetual settlement, with the Company retaining the institutional renewal fee at each generational transition.
The exclusion of plantain and fig trees from the counted tree obligation perhaps reflects the Company's institutional preference for slower-growing, harder-wood species over fast-growing fruit trees that provided less durable contributions to the island's wood economy. By directing the tenant's tree-planting effort towards more substantial species, the lease shifted the productive emphasis from quick-fruiting species to longer-term timber and durable fruit production. The pattern reveals the institutional differentiation among tree categories within the wider conservation framework.
223
Person viewing the Same by their Order And it is hereby further Covenanted and agreed
4[t]hly That all and every Posses[s]or of this Parcell of Land for the future Upon his death the Same Shall be Enjoyed and Possest by their Wid[ow] during the whole time She Shall remain a Widd[ow] in case the Posses[s]or left Children with her, But if there be no Children then it Shall remain to the Wid[ow] for the whole Terme of her Life whether She remain a Widd[ow] or not, the design and intent of this Lease being to provide for a due and Proper maintenance of the Children in case of their fathers death and and the Mothers or mother in Law making another marriage that then this Land Shall not goe with the Said mother in Law to be Embezeled But the Children Shall be in the Immediate possession thereof
5[t]hly That the last or third Posses[s]or is only named in case of default of an Heir, and to prevent Selling the Estate, But if the first Posses[s]or Shall Leave a Son or a Daughter for his Heir and Nominee to Enjoy this Land then He or She Shall be Succeeded by that next Heir in case they name him in their Said Last Will & Testam[en]t or desire he Should Enjoy the Land after their decease, Yet if this Second Posses[s]or Shall Leave no Heir then She third or last named Shall Enjoy and Posses[s] the whole twenty acres
6[t]hly That the Said Samuel Price and his Successors Shall alwayes doe and bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord the King his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island
7[t]hly And Lastly That after the Said Land is Compleatly Sfenced in, the Fences are to be kept in good Repair, and not to be altered So as to Occasion the Alteration of the Plots, nor to Dispose of this Lease or Sell it to any one that already Posses[s]es thirty Acres of Land upon this Island, but if ever it be alienated, Sold, or Disposed of, it Shall be to Some one upon the place that doth not Posses[s] more then thirty acres neither Shall it be Lawfull to alienate it them without Consent of the Govern[o]r and Council for the time being, In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Company and Lords Propriet[o]rs to these Presents have Set their Com =mon Seale at their Castle in James valley this [...] day of Aprill One Thousand Seven Hundred & Seventeen and the Said Samuell Price to the other part hath Sett his hand and Seale
Sealed & Delivered in the presence of
The lease was held on the following further conditions.
Fourthly, on the death of every future possessor of the parcel, the land was to be enjoyed and possessed by his widow during the time she remained a widow, if the possessor left children with her. If there were no children, the land was to remain to the widow for the whole term of her life, whether she remained a widow or not. The design and intent of the lease was to provide a due and proper maintenance of the children in the event of their father's death and their mother's or mother-in-law's later remarriage, so that the land would not pass with the mother-in-law to be embezzled. The children were instead to be in the immediate possession of the property.
Fifthly, the last or third possessor was named only in case of default of an heir, and to prevent selling of the estate. If the first possessor left a son or daughter as his heir and nominee, that child was to enjoy the land, and was to be succeeded by the next heir if named in his or her last will and testament or if the parent desired that heir to enjoy the land after death. If the second possessor left no heir, the third or last named was to enjoy and possess the whole twenty acres.
Sixthly, Samuel Price and his successors were to bear true faith and allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and were to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
Seventhly, after the land had been completely fenced, the fences were to be kept in good repair, and were not to be altered so as to occasion the alteration of the plot annexed to the deed. The lessees were not to dispose of the lease or sell it to anyone who already possessed thirty acres of land upon the island. If the lease was alienated, sold or disposed of, it was to be transferred to someone resident on the island who did not already hold more than thirty acres. The lease was not to be alienated without the consent of the Governor and Council for the time being.
The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the lease at the Castle in James Valley on [...] April 1717. Samuel Price set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The fourth clause introduced a graduated widow-and-children protection mechanism, distinguishing between two scenarios. Where the deceased possessor left both a widow and children with her, the widow retained the property only during her widowhood, with the children gaining immediate possession on her remarriage. Where the deceased left a widow but no children, the widow held the land for her whole life regardless of any later remarriage. The construction reflects an institutional design specifically aimed at protecting the inheritance of children against the consequences of a maternal remarriage, while ensuring that a childless widow retained continuing security.
The phrase to be embezzled, applied to the risk of the property passing with a remarried mother-in-law, captures the institutional concern with a stepfather acquiring marital rights over family ground that should properly descend to the children of the first marriage. The protective mechanism parallels the conditional vesting in the Earne-Goodwin marriage articles of February 1714, where Frances Goodwin's marriage to George Earne had been preceded by a four-tier obligation protecting the Goodwin children's portions. The 1717 lease applies a similar protective architecture at the level of the institutional tenancy itself.
The mother-in-law terminology in the fourth clause carries the early modern English usage in which the term referred to a stepmother (a mother by virtue of marriage rather than birth) rather than to a wife's mother as in modern usage. The clause protects against a stepmother's potential marital appropriation of the children's inheritance, with the institutional mechanism preserving the children's interest against the maternal-line risks of remarriage.
The fifth clause structured the lives-based tenure into a three-tier inheritance sequence. The first possessor (Samuel Price himself) was succeeded by his named heir under his will, and that heir was succeeded by the third life only if the second left no heir. The mechanism gave priority to family inheritance while providing institutional fallback protection against the failure of the family line. The construction parallels the John Bryan substitutional clause of August 1713, where any other heir of Edward Bryan resident on the island could take possession if the eldest son did not return.
The phrase to prevent selling the estate, attached to the fifth clause's purpose, reveals the Company's institutional concern with maintaining the property as a coherent family settlement rather than allowing it to be liquidated piecemeal. By naming a third life of last resort, the Company gave the lease an institutional fallback that did not require a forced sale in case of failed inheritance.
The seventh clause's restriction on alienation to a buyer holding no more than thirty acres reveals an explicit institutional policy of preventing land concentration. The Company sought to ensure that the lease, when transferred, would pass to a smaller landholder rather than to an existing substantial accumulator. The mechanism converts the lease into an instrument of distributive policy, with the Company actively shaping the social structure of land tenure through the conditions attached to individual instruments.
The thirty-acre ceiling on transferees provides the first explicit numerical threshold for land concentration documented in the records. The figure perhaps reflects the Company's institutional assessment of the maximum holding consistent with productive family-scale farming on the island. By preventing onward transfer to holders above this threshold, the lease functioned as an active anti-monopoly mechanism within the broader land-management framework.
The royal allegiance clause in the sixth condition refers to the King in general terms (his heirs and successors), without naming George I specifically. The omission of the specific monarch perhaps reflects an institutional preference for boilerplate language that would survive the death of the current sovereign without requiring re-execution. The pattern departs from the earlier 1711-1715 instruments that named Queen Anne or George I specifically in the allegiance clauses.
The combination of the fourth, fifth and seventh clauses gives the institutional regime a comprehensive intergenerational protection scheme. The fourth protects the widow and children from a remarriage; the fifth structures the multi-life inheritance sequence; and the seventh prevents concentration through inappropriate transfer. The three mechanisms work together to maintain the lease as a coherent family-scale settlement across multiple generations, with the Company retaining institutional supervision throughout.
The April 1717 sealing date places the lease in close sequence with the 7 May 1717 Captain George Haswell lease and the 7 May 1717 William Alexander lease, indicating a coordinated spring 1717 cohort under the enhanced framework. The three leases together reveal the institutional shift towards more demanding improvement covenants and tighter tenure controls by 1717.
Speculations
The introduction of an explicit thirty-acre ceiling on the holdings of any future transferee perhaps reflects the institutional consequences of the substantial accumulations documented across the 1711-1715 period. Figures such as Jonathan Doveton (140 acres), Mary Hoskison (124 acres), Frances Goodwin and Mary Hoskison combined, and Orlando Bagley (99 acres) had built substantial estates under the earlier framework. The Company's introduction of the thirty-acre ceiling perhaps marks a deliberate policy reversal, with the institution seeking to prevent further concentration by restricting future transfers to smaller holders. The mechanism converts each new tenancy into a check on the inheritance and acquisition patterns of the broader landholding class.
The two-tier widow protection (during widowhood for widows with children, for life for childless widows) perhaps reflects the institutional recognition that the demographic risks differed for the two categories. A widow with children would, on remarriage, transfer her interest to a new husband and thus expose the children's inheritance; a childless widow had no children's interest to protect and could safely hold the lease for life regardless of remarriage. By distinguishing the two cases at the institutional level, the lease addressed the specific risks of each demographic situation rather than imposing a uniform widow's life-interest pattern.
The institutional preference for naming the third life of last resort within Samuel Price's will, rather than requiring the choice to be made at the moment of sealing, perhaps reflects the Company's recognition that the relevant heir might not yet be identifiable in April 1717. By deferring the nomination to the will, the lease gave Price institutional flexibility to choose the third life on the basis of circumstances at the time of his death. The mechanism converts the apparently rigid lives-based tenure into an adaptive instrument responsive to family developments across the first possessor's lifetime.
224
A Bill of Sale of 10 Acres Land from Rob[er]t Gurling to Isaac Wood
Island St Helena, Know all men by These Presents That I Robert Gurling of said Island Planter, for & in consideracon of Forty pounds Currant mony of this Island to me in hand paid before the Ensealing & delivery hereof by Isaac Wood of the said Island Corporall & Planter the receipt Whereof I Doe hereby acknowledge & my Self fully Satisfyed & for other good causes & consideracions me hereunto moving have bargaind Sold Allienated & Sett over & Doe hereby Absolutely Bargain Sell, Allienate, Assigne & Sett over Unto y[e] said Isaac Wood his heirs Execut[ors] Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs or Assignes, for ever All That my Ten Acres of Land in the Mountain part of y[e] Country vulgarly called Cabbidge Tree Land comonly knowne by the name of James Eastrops Land & Since that in y[e] Pos[s]ession of Pipin Willis Butt ing & bounding on the Land of the said Isaac Wood on the East & the Said Pipin Wills toward the North & West & towards John Alexanders Land on the South To have & to hold the aforesaid part or parcel of Land & the Appurtenances together with all Inclosures Fruit or Timber Trees, Oaths or Priviledges thereon or thereunto belonging which I the said Robert Gurling my Prede cessors or Heirs Did might or Could Do, As Likewise the right of Party Wall or Walls heretofore enjoyed or Paid for
And That I do for my Self my Heirs Exec[uto]rs & Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs That do I Warrant Warrant That the said Rob[er]t Gurling have full power & Lawfull Authority to dispose of the said ground as aforesaid hereby Obliging my Self [to keep y[e] S[ai]d Isaac Wood] his heirs Exec[uto]rs & Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs from all manner of Charges Suits troubles & Vexations that may happen Unto them thereby In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seale This 14[t]h Day of October 1717 (Sign'd) Robert Gurling
Sign'd Sealed & deliver'd in the P[res]ence of (the words [To keep y[e] s[ai]d Isaac Wood] Mem[orandum] This Land as mentioned above is that Ten being first interlined) Acres given p[er] me to Rob[er]t Gurling by Ver (Sign'd) Lucas Mason edict of the Iury at a Court held the 11[t]h of James Vaughn Feb[ruar]y 1714/15 (Sign'd) Robert Gurling
Test: Antipas Tovey (Sign'd) James Vaughn Examined & Registered this 15[t]h Oct[obe]r 1717 Antipas Tovey
A bill of sale of ten acres of land from Robert Gurling to Isaac Wood. Island of St Helena.
Robert Gurling of the island, planter, in consideration of £40 0s 0d in current island money paid before the sealing and delivery of the deed by Isaac Wood of the island, corporal and planter, acknowledged receipt and his full satisfaction. Gurling bargained, sold, alienated and set over to Isaac Wood, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever all his ten acres of land in the mountain part of the country, commonly called cabbage tree land, known by the name of James Eastrop's land, and since in the possession of Pipin Willis. The parcel was bounded eastwards by Isaac Wood's own land, northwards and westwards by Pipin Wills's land, and southwards by John Alexander's land. The grant carried all the appurtenances, including all enclosures, fruit and timber trees, oaths or privileges that Gurling, his predecessors or heirs had held or could exercise, together with the right of party wall or walls previously enjoyed or paid for.
Gurling warranted that he had full power and lawful authority to dispose of the ground, and bound himself, his heirs, executors and administrators to keep Isaac Wood, his heirs, executors and administrators harmless against all charges, suits, troubles and vexations arising from the conveyance. Robert Gurling set his hand and seal to the deed on 14 October 1717.
Robert Gurling
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason and James Vaughn. The words to keep the said Isaac Wood were first interlined.
A memorandum recorded that the land described in the deed was the ten acres given to Robert Gurling by verdict of the jury at a court held on 11 February 1715. Signed by Robert Gurling and James Vaughn. Witnessed by Antipas Tovey. Examined and registered on 15 October 1717 by Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The sale transferred ten acres of cabbage tree land in the mountain part of the country from Robert Gurling to Isaac Wood at £40 0s 0d. The price places the parcel at the upper end of the per-acre rate range, with a per-acre cost of £4 0s 0d that reflects the higher value of cabbage tree land in the upland zone. The valuation aligns with the documented preferences for cabbage tree ground as the most productive category of land within the institutional classifications.
The land had passed through three documented holders before reaching Isaac Wood. The original allottee was James Eastrop, whose name connects to the James Eastings of the September 1694 sale to Thomas Goodwin in Peak Gut and to the James Easthope of the 1687 Fisher Valley sale to John Coole, all probably representing variant scribal renderings of the same surname. The parcel had then reached Pipin Willis (the same Ripin Wills of the August 1713 fifty-acre confirmation at the head of Fishers Valley, under variant rendering), and now passed from Robert Gurling to Isaac Wood. The chain of three previous holders preserves the institutional memory of the parcel's transit through multiple ownerships.
The chain-of-title mechanism reproduces the institutional pattern observed in the 1714 Keeling-Wrangham conveyance of the Peak Gut ground, where successive holders were documented through linked memoranda. The repeated practice of recording previous owners within deed recitals provided buyers with documented evidence of clean title back through known stages, supporting the warranty against future challenge.
The memorandum below the principal text identifies the source of Gurling's title as a jury verdict at a court held on 11 February 1715. The reference to a court of judicature and jury verdict reproduces the formal adjudicative procedure introduced earlier under the 1711 framework, with the 4 August 1713 Gabriel Powell confirmation also resting on a court of judicature trial. The jury verdict mechanism gave the Company a structured institutional procedure for resolving disputed inheritance or title questions through formal adjudication.
The 11 February 1715 dating of the jury verdict (under the old calendar reckoning, converting forward to February 1716 in modern style) places the court adjudication two and a half years before the October 1717 sale. The intervening period perhaps reflects the time required for Gurling to consolidate his title after the favourable jury verdict, with the eventual sale to Isaac Wood resting on a now-mature institutional adjudication.
Robert Gurling appears here as planter, marking a continuation of his established standing as a substantial Sandy Bay and Lemon Valley accumulator. His 4 August 1713 confirmation in thirty-one acres and an eleven-acre lease, his £500 0s 0d purchase from Hoskison of October 1706, his 1708 Belward acquisition, and his role as one of the executors in the March 1716 Robert Leech apprenticeship together place him as one of the principal documented free planters of the period.
Isaac Wood appears here as corporal and planter, combining military and civil designations. His earlier classifications included cooper (in the September 1712 Hayes-Wood purchase) and corporal (in the August 1713 confirmation), reflecting the institutional pattern of layering trade, military and civil classifications on the same individual across multiple documents. The acquisition of the ten acres adjoining his existing eastern boundary consolidated his cabbage tree holdings into a working unit.
John Alexander as the southern boundary holder reproduces his documented accumulation at the head of Fishers Valley and the surrounding cabbage tree zone, with his earlier acquisitions of the Bidott messuage, the Grandy ten acres, the Elinor Cotgrave seventy acres, the Lufkin tenement and the Haswell ten acres together placing him as one of the most substantial accumulators of the period. The present sale extends the documentary record of the cabbage tree cluster's interconnections.
The phrase oaths or privileges within the appurtenances clause perhaps represents a scribal corruption of paths or privileges, with the institutional concept covering rights of way and other servitudes attached to the ground. The standard documentary regime treated such access rights as part of the conveyance, with the appurtenances clause sweeping in all the associated entitlements.
The party wall provision continues the pattern observed in the Pledger-Bell sale of April 1715 and the Conway-Southern sale of April 1715, indicating that party wall rights were treated as a standard category of transferable appurtenance even on rural cabbage tree land. The institutional recognition of party walls in upland mountain ground perhaps reflects the practice of constructing boundary walls between adjacent holdings using shared masonry.
Lucas Mason appears here as a witness, marking his recurring presence within the institutional record alongside his March 1712 settlement with Francis Wrangham concerning his wife Elizabeth's portion and the 29 January 1718 endorsement assigning his interests to John and Francis Wrangham. The continued appearance of Mason in the witnessing role places him within the documented literate circle of the period.
James Vaughn appears as a new witness, signing alongside Mason on both the principal deed and the memorandum. His dual signing on the same instrument suggests a particular institutional connection with the Gurling-Wood transaction, perhaps reflecting his role in the underlying jury verdict or in the title-clearing process.
Antipas Tovey's registration on 15 October 1717, the day after the principal deed was sealed, continues his standard attestation role. The prompt institutional registration reproduces the documentary pattern observed across the late 1710s instruments.
Speculations
The two-and-a-half-year gap between the February 1715 jury verdict and the October 1717 sale perhaps reflects Gurling's strategic decision to hold the cabbage tree ground for a period after the favourable adjudication before disposing of it. By maturing the title through institutional time and continuing improvements, Gurling perhaps enhanced the market value of the parcel before the eventual sale to Isaac Wood. The pattern reveals a documented case of post-litigation holding within the institutional regime, with the jury verdict serving as the basis for later disposition rather than as the immediate trigger for sale.
The acquisition by Isaac Wood of ground adjoining his existing eastern boundary, combined with his repeated appearances across multiple property categories (cooper, corporal, planter, free planter, free), perhaps marks the emergence of a systematic accumulation pattern within the cabbage tree cluster. By assembling adjoining parcels through multiple documented purchases, Wood was building a coherent working position in the upland mountain zone that complemented his earlier Fishers Valley acquisitions. The pattern reproduces the consolidation strategies observed in the Charles Steward, Orlando Bagley and Jonathan Doveton accumulations of the same period.
The interlineation of the words to keep the said Isaac Wood within the warranty clause, noted at sealing, perhaps reflects the parties' real-time refinement of the institutional protections during the drafting process. The recorded interlineation protects the deed against any later challenge that the warranty was added after sealing, with the institutional practice of recording interlineations giving the documentary regime its protective force.
225
Island St Helena
Whereas The Hon[oura]b[le] the Lords Proprietors of this Island Did by one Certain Lease bearing Date the 27 day of Iuly 1711 Grant unto Thomas Cason Gent one House & Forty Acres of Greenwood Land And also by one other Lease Dated the 4 day of August 17[14] 1713 Did further Grant unto the said Thomas Cason Six Acres of Cabbedge Tree Land each parcel for the Term of Twenty One Years from the Respective Dates of each Leafs both which Leases are now produced and Surrendred up Adopen the Humble Petition of the said Thomas Cason in a Consultation of the Tenth day of this Instant December 1717 Setting forth that he hath been at great Expence and Trouble in Fenceing, Improveing, Planking of Wood upon the said Land and designing further to Improve the same. Wherefore
The said Lords Proprietors the Hon[oura]b[le] United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise, Grant, Lease, Lett and to Farme Lett unto the said Thomas Cason All That mes[s]uage and Tenement Scituate Lying and being in the South Division of this Island near Sandy Bay formerly called and knowne by the Name of Roebleys Land the whole containing Forty Five acres by mensuration Plantable and Pasture Land Particularly One House, and Forty Acres of Greenwood Land Lying towards the North on the Land of Charles Stewards Orphans (formerly Thomas Earles Orphans) and John Robinson Land towards the East on the Land of the said John Robinson, towards the South and West on the Land of the said Charles Stewards Orphans And on the West on part of John Coles Land Also Five acres of Land more in the Mountaeneous part of Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge vulgarly called Cabbadge Tree Land Butting and Bounding towards the East and North on the Hon[oura]b[le] Companys Waste Land towards the South on the Land Thomas Smallon and towards the West on the Hon[oura]b[le] Companys Waste Land in the Posses[s]ion of said Charles Stewards Orphans To have and to hold the said Demised Mes[s]uage and Tenement with the Appur tenances above except part and parcel thereof to him the said Thomas Cason his his Executors Administrators or allow of Asignees From the day of the Date of these presents for and during all the time space and Term of the Naturall Lives of Martha (the wife of W[illia]m Worrall) John & Sarah the Son and Daughter of the said William and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the said Nominees upon the Payment of one years Rent at the Admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon condition That he the said Thomas Cason his Heirs or Assignes allowed of Do alwayes bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lord King George his heires and Successors and to the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island, Yielding and Paying therefore yearly and every year during the said Term unto the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company their Successors Agents or Assignes the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides One Shilling Duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25 day of March)
That the said Thomas Cason his heirs or allowed Assignes shall and will well and Sufficiently repair Support maintain Upkeep and keep the Dwelling house and out houseing in and upon the Premises and all the Gates Styles Walls Ditches Banks or other Fences with all needfull and necessary reparations when, and as often as need shall require, and not to alter the Fences which are the Land marks which will occasion the Alteration of the two Plotts hereunto annexed and Shall keep the Ground in good heart Digging and manureing it and not Suffer the same to be run out and also Stell and well replant with good Fruit Trees the Lemon Garden or Orchyard Adjoyning to the said Dwelling house, and preserve the same Fruit Trees in good Order and Condition, and Plant Others in their Roomes whenever any of them Shall decay so that the same may be a good Forest hereafter and besides Lemon
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island had earlier granted to Thomas Cason, gentleman, two leases. The first, dated 27 July 1711, granted him one house and forty acres of greenwood land. The second, dated 4 August 1713, granted him a further six acres of cabbage tree land. Each parcel was leased for twenty-one years from the respective date of each lease. Both leases were now produced and surrendered upon Thomas Cason's humble petition, presented to the council on 10 December 1717. Cason set out that he had been at great expense and trouble in fencing, improving and planting wood upon the land, and that he intended further improvements.
The Lords Proprietors, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Thomas Cason the messuage and tenement in the South Division of the island near Sandy Bay, formerly called and known by the name of Roebleys Land. The whole estate contained forty-five acres by measurement, comprising plantable and pasture land. The estate included one house and forty acres of greenwood land, bounded northwards by the land of Charles Steward's orphans (formerly Thomas Earle's orphans) and the land of John Robinson, eastwards by the land of John Robinson, southwards and westwards by the land of Charles Steward's orphans, and westwards in part by John Coles's land. The estate also included a further five acres of land in the mountainous part of Sandy Bay under the Main Ridge, called cabbage tree land, bounded eastwards and northwards by the Honourable Company's waste land, southwards by the land of Thomas Smallon, and westwards by the Honourable Company's waste land in the possession of Charles Steward's orphans.
The lease was granted to Thomas Cason, his executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company. The term ran for the natural lives of Martha, wife of William Worrall, and John and Sarah, the son and daughter of William Worrall, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of one year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that Thomas Cason, his heirs or approved assigns bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. Cason yielded and paid annually during the term to the Honourable Company, their successors, agents or assigns the rent of four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Cason and his heirs or approved assigns covenanted to well and sufficiently repair, support, maintain and keep up the dwelling house and outhousing on the premises, together with all gates, stiles, walls, ditches, banks and other fences, with all needful and necessary repairs whenever required. They were not to alter the fences, which were the landmarks and would force alteration of the two plans annexed to the deed. They were to keep the ground in good heart by digging and manuring, and were not to allow it to be run out. They were further to replant the lemon garden or orchard adjoining the dwelling house with good fruit trees and to preserve those trees in good order and condition. They were to plant new trees in the place of any that decayed, so that the orchard remained a good forest, and besides lemons [...]
Interpretations
The lease consolidated and replaced Thomas Cason's two earlier instruments under the 1711 framework, with the original twenty-one-year terms surrendered and a new lives-based tenure substituted. The surrender-and-regrant mechanism represented a significant institutional procedure, with the Company exchanging the existing fixed-term leases for a new lives-based instrument on enhanced covenants. The transaction operated as an institutional upgrade of the documentary regime applied to the Cason estate.
The reason for the regrant, recorded in the recital, was Cason's substantial investment in fencing, improvement and tree planting on the land. The Company recognised that the standard twenty-one-year term did not provide sufficient institutional security for the level of investment Cason had made, and granted the new lives-based tenure to secure his continued improvement. The mechanism parallels the 7 May 1717 framework introduced for new tenancies such as Samuel Price's Manatee Bay lease, with both instruments reflecting the institutional shift toward lives-based tenure for substantial improving tenants.
The original 27 July 1711 lease had been recorded as forty acres of greenwood land with a house, called Welley's Land in the earlier institutional record. The present deed gives the alternative spelling Roebleys Land, perhaps reflecting a scribal variation of the same place name or a more authoritative reading drawn from the original lease. The forty-five-acre total of the present consolidated lease (forty acres of greenwood plus five acres of cabbage tree land) reduces by one acre from the original combined holdings of forty plus six acres, perhaps reflecting a minor adjustment in the measurement at the time of the new survey.
The boundary description identifies the principal forty-acre parcel as adjoining the land of Charles Steward's orphans (formerly Thomas Earle's orphans). The recital documents that Charles Steward had acquired the Earle children's land at some point after the August 1713 confirmations, with the orphan estate now passing through Steward's possession. The transmission perhaps reflects Charles Steward's own death by 1717 (with his orphans now succeeding to the ground), or his acquisition of the Earle orphans' parcel through purchase or trustee arrangement. The institutional pattern of orphan-estate succession across multiple families operated continuously.
The lives-based tenure was structured around the Worrall family, with Martha (wife of William Worrall) and John and Sarah (the son and daughter of William Worrall) named as the three nominee lives. The arrangement vested the practical interest in a family entirely distinct from Cason himself, with Cason as the institutional lessee but the Worrall family lives determining the duration of the tenancy. The construction perhaps reflects a private arrangement between Cason and Worrall in which the Worrall family received working occupation under Cason's institutional title, with the lives-based term protecting the Worrall family interest across two generations.
The renewal mechanism, requiring payment of one year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee, reproduces the institutional pattern introduced in the April 1717 Samuel Price lease. The mechanism converted the lives-based tenure into a recurring institutional fee structure, with the Company receiving payment at each generational transition. The £11 5s 0d annual rent on the forty-five acres (at five shillings per acre) produced a substantial total commitment over the lifetime of the longest-surviving nominee.
The covenant to keep the ground in good heart by digging and manuring introduces a soil-management obligation beyond the standard fence-maintenance and tree-planting covenants of the 1711-1713 framework. The phrase good heart in the agricultural sense refers to the fertility and condition of the soil, with the institutional obligation requiring active cultivation practices to maintain productive capacity. The pattern parallels the enhanced improvement covenants of the April 1717 Samuel Price lease.
The lemon garden or orchard adjoining the dwelling house represents a documented specialist horticultural feature on the Cason estate. The institutional obligation to replant the lemon garden with good fruit trees and to maintain the trees in good order and condition, planting new trees in place of any that decayed, gave the orchard the status of a perpetual productive feature. The forest reference at the close suggests that the orchard was treated as a structured tree environment requiring ongoing arboricultural management.
Thomas Cason had progressed across the documented records from ensign in his July 1711 Welley's Land lease, to lieutenant by August 1713 (when he leased the additional six acres of cabbage tree land), to the present gentleman designation in December 1717. The progression reflects his rising institutional standing across six years of documented engagement, with the gentleman classification placing him at the top of the civilian-status hierarchy by 1717.
The 10 December 1717 consultation date, named within the recital as the institutional moment of the petition's approval, marks a recent council adjudication on Cason's improvement claims. The council's acceptance of the surrender-and-regrant mechanism gave the new tenure its institutional foundation. The pattern reproduces the documented practice of using consultation hearings as the institutional triggers for substantial leasehold restructurings.
Speculations
The lives-based tenure vested in the Worrall family rather than in Cason himself perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design under which Cason held the lease as a beneficial owner or trustee while the Worrall family enjoyed the working possession. The arrangement perhaps reproduces a private settlement between Cason and Worrall, with the Cason institutional title protecting the family ground for the Worrall lives without exposing the underlying interest to Cason's own creditors or successors. The mechanism converts the documentary lease into an instrument of family settlement at a layer beneath the institutional record.
The institutional acceptance of the surrender-and-regrant procedure, in exchange for enhanced improvement covenants and lives-based tenure, perhaps reflects the Company's recognition that the 1711 framework's twenty-one-year terms had created perverse incentives for tenants in the later stages of their leases. By extending the tenure across multiple lives in exchange for stronger covenants, the Company aligned the tenant's investment horizon with the Company's long-term land management objectives. The mechanism converts the lease into a quasi-perpetual settlement that rewarded sustained improvement while preserving institutional control through the renewal fees.
The recital that Charles Steward's orphans had succeeded to the Earle orphans' land perhaps reveals the documented operation of orphan-estate consolidation across multiple families. The mechanism by which one orphan estate could acquire another through marriage, trustee arrangement or purchase produced layered inheritance chains that the institutional record preserved through the formerly Thomas Earle's orphans recital. The pattern indicates the documentary regime's tolerance of complex multi-generational orphan succession within the broader land-management framework.
226
Lemon Garden nor shall not sell or dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same without the Consent of the Governour and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[rese]nts have sett their Common Seale at Union Castle in James Valley this Fourth Day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand Seven hundred and Seventeen 1717/18 and Fourth year of his Majesties Reign And the said Thomas Cason to the other part hath sett his hand and Seal
Tho[mas] Cason (Seal)
Sealed & Deliver'd in y[e] Pres[en]ce of Mathew Bazett Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena
At a Councill held on Monday the 14[t]h of March 1697 att Fort James
Present Jn[o] Blackmore Gov[erno]r Anth[ony] Beatle Dep[uty Gov[ernor] Jos[hua] Johnson Lieu[tenan]t Mich[ael] Morrice Lieu[tenan]t Mr Robert Swallow
Whereas Lieu[tenan]t Jos[hua] Johnson hath desired that he may have the s[ai]d Wash House belonging to the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]'s masters Scituate over against their great Store House in Chappell Valley above the Fort James for which he is willing to give reasonable Sattisfaction, now because the said wash house is decayed & of little use to the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] It is Ordered
That the s[ai]d Lieu[tenan]t Jos[hua] Johnson shall have the s[ai]d old wash house, for w[hi]ch he shall have placed to his Debt with the s[ai]d Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] the sume of Forty Shillings, And that a Warr[an]t be Drawn and Signed to Cap[tai]n Anth[ony] Beatle to that purpose
Registered at y[e] request of Joshua J[ohn] Blackmore Johnson Planter & Order of Councill J[oshua] J[ohnson] The mark of Nick[holas] M Morris Robert Swallow
Island St Helena Mr Tho[mas] Cason's Assignm[en]t to W[illia]m Worrall of his above Lease for 45 acres of y[e] Comp[any]'s Land
I the within mention'd Tho[mas] Cason by Consent of the Gov[ernor] & Council of S[ai]d Island Assigne Sett over to Grant unto W[illia]m Worrall of s[ai]d Isl[an]d Planter all my right Title & Interest to this Lease, In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seal this 25 March 1718 (Sign'd) Tho[mas] Cason (Seal)
Sealed & deliver'd in the pres[e]nc[e] of (Sign'd) Isaac Pyke Esq[ui]r[e] Gov[ernor] Registered George Hasnell Dep[uty] Math[ew] Bazett 2 in Coun[c]il Antipas Tovey Sec[retar]y Antipas Tovey 4 in Coun[c]il
The Cason lease provided that no sale or disposal of the lease or any interest in it could be made without the consent of the Governor and Council for the time being. The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at Union Castle in James Valley on 4 February 1718, in the fourth year of His Majesty's reign. Thomas Cason set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Thomas Cason (seal)
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett and Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena
At a council held on Monday 14 March 1697 at Fort James. Present were John Blackmore, Governor, Anthony Beale, Deputy Governor, Joshua Johnson, lieutenant, Michael Morrice, lieutenant, and Mr Robert Swallow.
Lieutenant Joshua Johnson had requested that he be granted the wash house belonging to the Honourable Company's masters, situated opposite their great storehouse in Chapel Valley above Fort James. He was willing to give reasonable satisfaction for the building. The council noted that the wash house was decayed and of little use to the Honourable Company.
The council ordered that Lieutenant Joshua Johnson should have the old wash house, with the sum of £2 0s 0d placed to his debt with the Honourable Company. A warrant was to be drawn and signed to Captain Anthony Beale for that purpose.
Registered at the request of Joshua Johnson, planter, and by order of council. Signed by John Blackmore, Joshua Johnson, the mark M of Nicholas Morris, and Robert Swallow.
Island of St Helena. Mr Thomas Cason's assignment to William Worrall of his lease of forty-five acres of the Company's land.
Thomas Cason, by consent of the Governor and Council of the island, assigned, set over and granted to William Worrall of the island, planter, all his right, title and interest in the lease. Thomas Cason set his hand and seal to the assignment on 25 March 1718.
Thomas Cason (seal)
Sealed and delivered in the presence of Isaac Pyke, esquire, Governor, George Hasnell, deputy, Matthew Bazett, second in council, and Antipas Tovey, secretary and fourth in council. Registered by Antipas Tovey.
Interpretations
The closing of the Cason lease was sealed at Union Castle in James Valley on 4 February 1718 (the manuscript 1717 falling under the old calendar reckoning), with the consent-to-disposal clause completing the institutional restrictions on alienation. The two-witness panel of Matthew Bazett and Antipas Tovey reproduces the standard senior literate quorum, with Bazett continuing his recurring role as council surveyor and substantial accumulator and Tovey serving in his attestation capacity.
The intercalated council order of 14 March 1697 records an early documentary instance of the Company disposing of decayed institutional property to a private petitioner. The order represents an early example of a procedure later regularised under the 1711 framework, with the Company transferring under-utilised buildings to private hands in exchange for institutional credit. The mechanism converts depreciated assets into productive private holdings without requiring cash exchange.
The £2 0s 0d (forty shillings) placed to Joshua Johnson's debt with the Company represents a small institutional charge for the wash house. The mechanism of placing the sum on the petitioner's account, rather than requiring cash payment, gave Johnson institutional credit-based access to the building without requiring liquid funds. The pattern parallels later store-credit transactions documented across the records, such as the £170 0s 0d Lufkin-Alexander sale of June 1712.
The council members present in March 1697 included Governor John Blackmore (the same J. Blackmore who had signed the original 1684 Company grants to Owen Bevan and Andrew Wilson), Anthony Beale as Deputy Governor (with the captain designation now expanded), Joshua Johnson (the petitioner himself, also serving on the council), Michael Morrice as lieutenant (whose later sale of a James Valley house to Ripon Wells in October 1701 is documented), and Mr Robert Swallow (whose courtesy-titled holdings appear in the 1682 inquest). The composition reveals the small institutional circle of senior officers that combined administrative and personal interests within the same body.
The simultaneous role of Joshua Johnson as both petitioner and council member reproduces the institutional pattern of senior officers acting in their own interest at council sittings. The pattern parallels the documented conflict-of-interest cases such as Matthew Bazett's own freehold confirmation at the 23 June 1711 sitting, where he attested his own deed as fifth in council.
Captain Anthony Beale's role as the warrant recipient marks his institutional position in 1697 as the deputy governor handling the administrative execution of council orders. His name connects to the same Captain Anthony Beale of the 1682 inquest, the substantial accumulator at the head of Waterfall Valley with the forty-acre allotment. His continuing institutional role across a fifteen-year period from 1682 to 1697 documents the long-running family-and-office connection within the Beale line.
The 1697 wash house order is anchored within the larger Cason document because of its institutional connection to the Joshua Johnson family. Johnson appears in the 1717-1718 records as a witness across multiple transactions including the Earne-Goodwin marriage articles of February 1714 and the Robert Leech apprenticeship of March 1716. The wash house acquisition of 1697 marks an early stage in his documented property accumulation.
Nicholas Morris signed by mark, distinguished from Michael Morrice (lieutenant) named in the attendance list. The differentiation perhaps reflects two separate individuals of the same family or variant scribal renderings of the same name with separate identities.
The assignment of the Cason lease to William Worrall, sealed on 25 March 1718 (Lady Day, exactly seven weeks after the principal lease sealing), confirms the deliberate institutional structure under which Cason had held the lease only briefly before transferring the working interest to Worrall. The seven-week gap aligns with a settled pattern of institutional handovers, with the Cason regrant of February 1718 operating as a documentary stage rather than as the operative tenancy arrangement.
The witness panel for the assignment marks a significant institutional change. Isaac Pyke, esquire, appears as Governor, succeeding to that office at some point between the December 1717 council recital naming John Roberts and the March 1718 assignment. George Hasnell as deputy succeeds the earlier Edward Walkborne deputy governorship, and the institutional structure now records Matthew Bazett as second in council and Antipas Tovey as secretary and fourth in council. The promotion of Tovey to the formal secretarial role at the fourth-in-council level marks his institutional consolidation across the documentary regime.
The progression of council ranks visible across the 1697 and 1718 records traces the institutional generational transition over twenty-one years. The 1697 council included Blackmore, Beale, Johnson, Morrice and Swallow; the 1718 council included Pyke, Hasnell, Bazett and Tovey. The replacement of the entire senior personnel across the period reflects the demographic mortality and career transitions documented throughout the records.
The assignment by consent of the Governor and Council reproduces the institutional restriction on alienation that the principal Cason lease had embedded in the seventh clause and the closing consent-to-disposal language. The mechanism gave the Company active institutional control over each transfer of the lives-based tenancy.
Speculations
The seven-week interval between Cason's regrant of February 1718 and his immediate assignment of the entire lease to William Worrall in March 1718 perhaps reveals a documented case of the surrender-and-regrant procedure being used to facilitate a planned transfer between two parties. By having Cason petition for the new lives-based tenure in his own name, securing the lives of the Worrall family within the new institutional title, and then assigning the consolidated lease to Worrall, the parties may have used the documentary regime to manage what amounted to a complex private transaction through staged institutional steps. The mechanism allowed Cason to extract the value of his improvements while securing the Worrall family within the long-term tenure.
The retention of the Worrall family lives within the lives-based tenure after the assignment to William Worrall perhaps gave the assigned lease its institutional protection. With his own wife and children named as the lives, William Worrall now held a lease whose duration was determined by the survival of his closest family members, with the institutional security guaranteed by the original surrender-and-regrant procedure rather than by his own life. The construction perhaps represents an early documented case of a lives-based tenure deliberately designed to be assigned to a family head whose own family members served as the underlying lives.
The intercalation of the 1697 wash house order within the Cason lease document, more than twenty years after the original council resolution, perhaps reflects the institutional practice of preserving early records of senior officers' acquisitions within the documents of their family successors. The Joshua Johnson wash house acquisition appears within a document whose witness panel and registration would have been overseen by his successors in the council and registration roles, with the documentary regime treating the early records as supporting evidence for later transactions even at a remote temporal distance.
227
Island St Helena
Know all Men by these Presents That We George Sanders & Mercy Sanders of the said Island for & in Consideration of the Sum of Fifty Pounds in good & Currant Mony of the said Island to us in hand paid at or before the Ensealing & delivery hereof by John Alexander of said Island Gentlem[an], whereof we do acknowledge & our selves to be fully Satisfyed Contented & paid, Have bargained, Sold, & Deliver'd, & do by these presents bargaine, Sell, & deliver, unto y[e] said Jn[o] Alexander, one negro man Slave known by the Name of Peter from the Day of the Date hereof for ever as also the Life time that the said Mercy Sanders hath by Vertue of her former Husband Richard Alexander Last will & Testament in a Mes[s]uage House Scituate in James Valley together with all her Right, Title, Interest Claim or Demand that She the said Mercy Sanders now has or may hereafter have in any of the said hereby bargained Premises or any part thereof to have & to hold the said Bargain'd premises unto the said John Alexander his Heirs, Executors, administrators and assigns, to the only proper use & behoof of the said John Alexander his Heirs Executors administrators & assigns for & during the Life of the aforenam'd Mercy Sanders and We the said George Sanders & Mercy Sanders for our Selves, Heirs, Executors, Administrators & assigns against all manner of persons shall and will warrant and for ever defend and keep harmless the said John alexander his Heirs Executors, administrators and assigns by these presents In Witness whereof together with the Delivery of the said Bargain'd Premises we hereunto Set our hands & Seals this third Day of January in the third year of the Reign of our Soveraign Lord George King of England &c Annoque Dom[ini] One Thousand Seven hundred & Seventeen Geo[rge] Sanders (Seal) Mercy Sanders (Seal)
Sign'd Seal'd & D[elivere]d in the presence of NB that the words interlin'd in the Sixth line (from the Day of the date hereof for ever) were so interlined before the Ensealing Signing & delivery hereof A true Copy Examined & Test: Registered Antipas Tovey Antipas Tovey James Vesey
Island St Helena Know all men by these presents that I John Goodwin of S[ai]d Isl[an]d Gent[leman] & Freeholder for & in considera tion of One Hundred & Sixty pounds of Lawfull mony of England to me in hand paid by Jon[athan] Doveton of s[ai]d Isl[an]d Free planter whereof I do hereby acknowledge my Self full Contently Satisfyed Have bargained, Sold & deliver'd by These Presents Sa[ti]s[fied] & de liver unto y[e] s[ai]d Jon[athan] Doveton my Dwelling House Scituate in James Valley, formerly known to be Robert Goodwins, & Jon[athan] Doveton his Heirs Exec[uto]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs & Assigns to have & to Hold the s[ai]d Bargain'd premises for ever, In witness whereof together with delivery of the bargain'd premises I have hereunto Sett my hand & Seal this 12 day of July in the third year of the reign of our Soveraign
Island of St Helena
George Sanders and Mercy Sanders of the island, in consideration of £50 0s 0d in good and current island money paid by John Alexander of the island, gentleman, acknowledged the receipt and their full satisfaction. Together they bargained, sold and delivered to John Alexander one slave man known by the name of Peter, from the day of the date of the deed for ever, together with the life-interest that Mercy Sanders held under her former husband Richard Alexander's last will and testament in a messuage house in James Valley. The grant included all her right, title, interest, claim or demand in any of the property. The grant was to John Alexander, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, to the only proper use and benefit of John Alexander and his successors during the life of Mercy Sanders.
George Sanders and Mercy Sanders bound themselves, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to warrant and for ever defend the bargained premises and keep John Alexander, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns harmless against all manner of persons. They set their hands and seals to the deed on 3 January 1718, in the third year of the reign of King George.
George Sanders (seal) Mercy Sanders (seal)
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of James Vesey. A note recorded that the words from the day of the date of the deed for ever in the sixth line were interlined before sealing, signing and delivery. A true copy, examined and registered by Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena
John Goodwin of the island, gentleman and freeholder, in consideration of £160 0s 0d of lawful money of England paid by Jonathan Doveton of the island, free planter, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. Goodwin bargained, sold and delivered to Jonathan Doveton his dwelling house in James Valley, formerly known to have been Robert Goodwin's. The grant was to Jonathan Doveton, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns for ever. John Goodwin set his hand and seal to the deed on 12 July, in the third year of the reign of His Majesty [...]
Interpretations
The Sanders-Alexander sale records a £50 0s 0d transaction comprising two distinct categories of property: the perpetual ownership of the slave Peter and the life-interest of Mercy Sanders in a James Valley messuage house under her former husband Richard Alexander's will. The composite sale represents an institutional pattern of combining outright transfers and reversionary interests within a single deed, with the parties using the documentary regime to clear both elements at once.
The recital that Mercy Sanders held the life-interest in the James Valley house by virtue of her former husband Richard Alexander's last will and testament establishes that Richard Alexander had bequeathed her a life-interest in the house, with the perpetual title presumably descending to other heirs of his estate. The earlier 1713 records had named the late Richard Alexander as a deceased holder whose Company-leased ground had been redistributed to Thomas Gargen by 1713. The present deed adds the further documentary detail that he had also held urban property in James Valley with a life-interest reserved to his widow.
Mercy Sanders had since remarried George Sanders, whose name appears here as her present husband. The marriage parallels the consultation book 15 folio 80 reference (recorded in the February 1716 Beale-Company deed) to George Sanders's agreement with John Long for the maintenance of the late Richard Alexander's children and the children of Captain Fassall and French. The Sanders identification places him within the documented family-arrangement circle, with the present sale representing his and Mercy's joint disposition of the life-interest property.
The buyer John Alexander, gentleman, here distinguishes himself by the gentleman designation from his earlier and concurrent register role. The institutional record adapts his classification across multiple documents, with his roles as register, witness, attestor, examiner and purchaser interweaving across the documentary regime. His accumulation of Richard Alexander-related property perhaps reflects a kinship connection with the deceased, with John Alexander acquiring the life-interest of Mercy Sanders as a step in consolidating the Richard Alexander estate within the wider Alexander family.
The slave Peter named in the transfer connects to the same Peter who had been transferred for the term of the apprenticeship in the March 1708 Susanna Doveton placement with Robert Leech. The institutional record had documented Peter as a black boy whose services were transferred for the term, with the contingent reversion preserving the underlying estate's interest. The present 1718 sale transfers his perpetual ownership outright to John Alexander, indicating that the Doveton family's claim on him had been resolved by 1718 and that the perpetual title now rested in Sanders hands ready for sale.
The 3 January 1718 dating places the sale in early winter, with the third year of George I's reign placing it within the August 1716 to August 1717 regnal year. The third regnal year in modern dating runs from August 1717, with the 3 January 1718 sealing falling within that institutional period.
The interlineation of the words from the day of the date of the deed for ever in the sixth line, noted at sealing, gave the perpetual ownership of the slave Peter its explicit documentary expression. The note that the interlineation was made before sealing protects the deed against any later challenge that the addition was made afterwards. The pattern reproduces the documentary practice observed across multiple instruments of the period.
The Goodwin-Doveton sale of 12 July records a substantial £160 0s 0d transaction for a James Valley dwelling house, with John Goodwin (gentleman and freeholder) selling to Jonathan Doveton (free planter) the property formerly known to be Robert Goodwin's. The chain of title preserves the institutional memory of the prior owner, with Robert Goodwin connecting to the same Robert Goodwin who had held a Fort James Valley house formerly John Goodwin's (since died), as recorded in the earlier documentary recitals.
The £160 0s 0d price places this dwelling at the upper end of the documented urban range, comparable to the £170 0s 0d Lufkin-Alexander sale of June 1712 (in store credit) and the £285 0s 0d Carne-Francis sale of May 1715. The lawful money of England designation, rather than island money, marks this as a sterling transaction settled in metropolitan currency, reflecting the buyer's institutional standing and the seller's preference for receiving payment in the more stable currency.
John Goodwin appears here as gentleman and freeholder, marking his elevated standing within the documented circle. His earlier records had placed him as the surviving executor of Captain Thomas Goodwin's estate, the eldest son who had received the family ground through inheritance, and the substantial accumulator confirmed in fifty-two acres in August 1713. The present sale to Doveton reduces his urban holding, perhaps to liquidate part of the family estate in cash form.
Jonathan Doveton appears here as free planter, maintaining the classification carried across his earlier records. His accumulation of the James Valley dwelling adds urban property to his substantial 140-acre rural estate already documented under the 1711 and 1713 frameworks. The purchase consolidates his institutional position as one of the principal accumulators of the period.
The 12 July date is incomplete in the present record, with the year reading as the third year of His Majesty's reign but ending at this point in the documented text. The third regnal year of George I runs from August 1717 to August 1716 cannot be the relevant year, so the 12 July 1718 dating in modern style probably applies, with the deed sealed approximately six months after the Sanders-Alexander sale.
Speculations
The acquisition by John Alexander of the slave Peter together with Mercy Sanders's life-interest in the Alexander house perhaps reveals a deliberate strategy of family-property consolidation through purchase rather than through inheritance. By buying out his probable kinsman's widow during her lifetime, John Alexander acquired both the immediate use of the slave and the eventual reversion in the house, with the perpetual title presumably settling on the family's heirs at Mercy's death. The mechanism converts what would otherwise have been a delayed reversion into an immediate working acquisition, with the £50 0s 0d price representing the discounted value of the combined assets.
The use of lawful money of England rather than island money in the Goodwin-Doveton sale perhaps reflects the seller's preference for the more reliable sterling currency, anchored in metropolitan rather than local valuations. The pattern of high-value urban transactions documented in sterling perhaps marks an emerging institutional bifurcation between the local island-money regime used for routine transactions and the sterling regime used for larger, longer-term commitments. The differentiation reproduces metropolitan and colonial currency distinctions familiar from other early modern overseas territories.
228
Sovereign Lord George by y[e] Grace of God of Great Brittain France & Ireland King, Defender of the Faith &c[t] Anno Dom[ini] 1717
(Sign'd) John Goodwin (Seal)
Sign'd Seal'd & deliver'd in P[res]ence of Us Matthew Bazett A true Copy Registered this 26 March 1718 Rich[ar]d Swallow W[illia]m Fairfax Antipas Tovey
Island St Helena
This Indenture made this Nineteenth day of November in the year of our Lord Dom[ini] one Thousand seven hundred & Seventeen, & in the third year of the reigne of Our Soveraigne Lord George by the grace of God King of Greate Brittain, France & Ireland Defender of the faith &c[t] Between Frances Carne of the said Island Widdow of the one Part & John Goodwin her Eldest Son of the other Part Witnesseth that the aforesaid Frances Carne for a full Valluation and five Shillings received in ready mony & Token in hand paid by the said John Goodwin at or before the Ensealing & Delivery hereof with which She the said Frances Carne Doth hereby acknowledge her Self to be fully Satisfye contented & paid, And for divers other good causes & valluable Considerations her hereunto moveing Have Demised granted Bargained Sold & Deliver'd and do by these presents firmly & absolutely Demise grant Bargaine Sett & deliver unto the said John Goodwin his heirs Executors Administrato[rs] & assigns all that Peice or Percell of Land Containing by Estimation eighty Nine acres be the Same more or less, lying Scituate & being at or near the head of one Branch of Lemon Valley, Butting & bounding as in and by reigester Book of the Said Island in the 156 folio doth & may more fully appear, together with a mes[s]uage House & provi at this Time Standing growing & arrifing thereon, with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining Hedges Ditches, Walls, water or water Courses, Fruit Trees Woods Woods with all & every the Liberties rights, Previlleges & Profits that I now have ever had or might have To have & to Hold the Said aforesaid eighty nine acres of Land mes[s]uage House fruits Provisions and all other the Appurtenances before mentioned or any other thing hereunto belonging of What nature or Kind Soever hereby Confirming the Same unto the above named John Goodwin his Heirs Execut[o]rs Administr[a]tors & assigns from the day of the date hereof for ever And the said Frances Carne for her Self her Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs & assignes doth hereby Covenant Promiss & agree to and with the said John Goodwin his Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs & assignes that he they or Either of them Shall
The Goodwin-Doveton sale, sealed at the third year of King George's reign by the grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, was concluded in the year of our Lord 1717.
John Goodwin (seal)
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Matthew Bazett, Richard Swallow and William Fairfax. A true copy, registered on 26 March 1718 by Antipas Tovey.
Island of St Helena
The present indenture was made on 19 November 1717, in the third year of the reign of King George I, between Frances Carne of the island, widow, of the one part, and John Goodwin, her eldest son, of the other part.
Frances Carne, for a full valuation and five shillings received in ready money and token paid by John Goodwin at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and her full satisfaction. For divers other good causes and valuable considerations, she demised, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns all that piece or parcel of land containing by estimation eighty-nine acres, more or less, at or near the head of one branch of Lemon Valley. The parcel was bounded as in the register book of the island at folio 156. The grant included a messuage house and provisions then standing, growing or arising on the land, together with all the appurtenances belonging to it. The appurtenances included hedges, ditches, walls, water and watercourses, fruit trees, woods, and all the liberties, rights, privileges and profits that Frances Carne then had, had ever had, or might have.
The grant was to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns from the date of the deed for ever, with the eighty-nine acres, messuage house, fruits, provisions and all other appurtenances confirmed to him and his successors. Frances Carne covenanted, promised and agreed with John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns that he, they or any of them should [...]
Interpretations
The Goodwin-Doveton sale of July 1717, with the year now confirmed as 1717 rather than 1718, places the £160 0s 0d transaction within the same regnal year as the November 1717 Carne-Goodwin transfer. The two sales together mark a series of substantial Goodwin family dispositions across the second half of 1717, with the family rearranging its institutional position through coordinated transfers.
The witness panel of Matthew Bazett, Richard Swallow and William Fairfax for the July 1717 sale reproduces the established literate circle. William Fairfax appears as a new individual within the documented witness panels of the period. The Fairfax surname connects to no documented earlier holders within the records, perhaps marking his recent arrival or his role within a previously undocumented institutional position.
The 26 March 1718 registration by Antipas Tovey, sealing the institutional record of the July 1717 sale, marks a nine-month gap between sealing and registration. The institutional pattern of delayed registration perhaps reflects the documentary administrative cycle, with deeds collected and registered in batches at quarterly or annual intervals rather than at the moment of sealing.
The Carne-Goodwin transfer of 19 November 1717 records the transfer of the eighty-nine-acre Lemon Valley estate from Frances Carne (the same Frances Goodwin who had remarried George Carne following the February 1714 marriage articles) to her eldest son John Goodwin. The estate matches the 4 August 1713 Company confirmation of Frances Goodwin's eighty-nine-acre freehold near the head of one branch of Lemon Valley, with the present 1717 transfer moving the substantial freehold from the widow to her son.
The token consideration of five shillings paid in ready money, combined with the recital of a full valuation and divers other good causes and valuable considerations, marks the transfer as a quasi-gift rather than a market sale. The institutional construction reproduces the standard early modern pattern of recording a nominal cash consideration to support the documentary regime while the substantive transfer rests on family motives and pre-existing arrangements.
The recital that the boundaries appeared in the register book of the island at folio 156 references the institutional record that had documented the original 1713 confirmation. The cross-reference to the register book matches the institutional pattern of preserving boundary descriptions through documentary reference rather than restating them at full length, with the register's folios serving as the definitive source.
Frances Carne's identification as widow places her remarriage to George Carne in the past, with George Carne having died at some point between his May 1715 sale of Captain Goodwin's House and the present November 1717 transfer. The institutional record now treats Frances as a twice-widowed woman, first of Captain Thomas Goodwin and then of George Carne.
The eighty-nine acres were transferred with a comprehensive set of appurtenances including the messuage house, growing provisions, hedges, ditches, walls, water and watercourses, fruit trees, woods, and all liberties, rights, privileges and profits. The exhaustive enumeration represents the standard early modern conveyancing pattern, with the institutional aim of sweeping all attached rights into the transfer to prevent any later claim that some element had been excluded.
The third year of King George I's reign covers the period from August 1717 to August 1718, with the 19 November 1717 sealing falling within that institutional window. The continuing use of the regnal-year formula reproduces the documentary convention observed across the records of the period.
John Goodwin as eldest son of the deceased Captain Thomas Goodwin and Frances continues his documented position as the principal Goodwin heir. His earlier confirmation in fifty-two acres of his own freehold in August 1713, his role as executor of his father's estate, and his recent July 1717 sale of the James Valley dwelling to Jonathan Doveton together place him within an institutional pattern of estate consolidation and reorganisation. The present transfer adds his mother's substantial Lemon Valley estate to his documented holdings.
The combined effect of the Frances-to-John transfer and the recent James Valley dwelling sale creates a documented pattern of consolidating the Goodwin family's perpetual estate within the eldest son's hands while liquidating the urban property into cash form. The institutional mechanism reorganises the family's institutional position from a mixed urban-rural portfolio to a concentrated rural freehold.
Speculations
The transfer of the eighty-nine-acre Lemon Valley estate from Frances Carne to her son John for a nominal five shillings perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design under which the mother conveyed the family freehold to the eldest son during her lifetime rather than waiting for testamentary devolution. By making the transfer inter vivos and through a documented deed rather than through her will, Frances closed off any later challenge by other heirs or claimants and provided John with immediate institutional title.
The November 1717 transfer following the death of her second husband George Carne perhaps reflects Frances's strategic timing in disposing of the Goodwin family ground at a moment when no marital interest threatened to attach. The earlier marriage articles of February 1714 had bound George Earne (Carne) to maintain the children's portions, but the death of the second husband freed Frances to make a definitive transfer of the principal family estate without institutional impediment. The mechanism converts the post-widowhood moment into an opportunity for inter-generational estate settlement.
The institutional pattern of using nominal consideration to support family-driven property transfers, observed here in the Carne-Goodwin deed, perhaps reflects the documentary regime's preference for documented sales over pure gifts. By recording a small cash payment alongside the broader recitals of family motives, the parties gave the transfer the appearance of a market transaction while preserving the underlying family logic. The mechanism provided maximum institutional protection against later challenge while allowing the parties to pursue family rather than commercial objectives.
229
& may from time to time & at all times hereafter have hold Occupie posses[s] and quietly Enjoy the aforesaid Premises without any manner of mollestation trouble Interruption or Eviction of her the Said Frances Carne or her Heirs Executors Administrat[o]rs or Assignes or of any other Person or Persons whatsoever by my means consent or Procurement and do Warrant to Save and Keep harmless & Indemnifyed the said John Goodwin his Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs & Assignes and the aforesaid Premises to be free and Cleare from all Incumbrancy anything to the Contrary hereof in any vise notwithstanding In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale the day & year First above Written
her
Frances F C Carne
Mark
Sealed Signd & Deliver'd in the presence of us
Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
Island St Helena
Know all men by these presents that Frances Carne of the Said Island Widdow for a valluable Consideration and five Shillings to her in hand paid by John Goodwin of the Said Island at or before the Ensealing and Deliver[y] hereof wherewith She doth hereby Acknowledg[e] her Self to be fully Satisfyed Contented & paid and for divers other good Causes & Considerations her thereunto moveing Have demised granted bargained Sold & Deliver'd and by these presents do firmly & obsulutely give grant Demise bargain Sett & Deliver unto the said John Goodwin his Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs & assignes all & Singular That Tennement and Mansion House Standing Sechuate in James valley together with all the Ground thereunto belonging being in Length behinde the Said House 94 foot and in breadth 107 foot already Enclosed for a garden and other necessary uses As also forty five foot in Length Sub 08 foot in breadth before the Front of Said House Enclosed for a Yard and is next Adjoyning to an old House Known by the name of Beals Kitchin and the Ground formerly Jona than Beals Decea[se]d and lately Purchased by the Hon[oura]ble Company of Rich[ard] & Anthoney Beale his two Sons To have and to hold the said House & ground both backwards & foreseards with all & Singu lar other the Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any
Frances Carne further covenanted with John Goodwin that he and his successors might at all times thereafter hold, occupy, possess and quietly enjoy the eighty-nine-acre Lemon Valley estate without any molestation, trouble, interruption or eviction by Frances Carne, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or by any other person whatsoever, by her means, consent or procurement. She warranted to save and keep harmless and indemnified John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and to keep the premises free and clear from all encumbrance, notwithstanding anything to the contrary. Frances Carne set her hand and seal to the deed on the day and year first above written.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Island of St Helena
Frances Carne of the island, widow, for a valuable consideration and five shillings paid by John Goodwin of the island at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and her full satisfaction. For divers other good causes and considerations, she demised, granted, bargained, sold and delivered to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns all the tenement and mansion house in James Valley, together with all the ground belonging to it. The ground measured ninety-four feet in length behind the house and one hundred and seven feet in breadth, already enclosed for a garden and other necessary uses, with a further forty-five feet in length and [...] eight feet in breadth in front of the house, enclosed for a yard. The property adjoined an old house known by the name of Beale's Kitchen and the ground formerly belonging to the deceased Jonathan Beale, lately purchased by the Honourable Company from his two sons Richard and Anthony Beale. The grant was to John Goodwin and his successors, with the house and ground both backwards and forwards and all the appurtenances belonging to them [...]
Interpretations
The completion of the Carne-to-Goodwin Lemon Valley transfer closes with the standard quiet enjoyment covenant and warranty clauses, protecting John Goodwin against any later challenge by his mother or her successors. The deed structure reproduces the documentary pattern of attaching protective covenants to substantial family transfers, with the institutional mechanism providing the eldest son with maximum security against future disputes within the wider Goodwin and Carne family network.
Frances Carne signed by mark F C, reproducing her unlettered status from the February 1713 deed of gift to her son John (where she had used the same F G mark for Frances Goodwin) and from the February 1714 marriage articles to George Earne. The institutional pattern of using marks rather than signatures across multiple substantial transactions illustrates that unlettered widows could participate fully in major property dispositions through the documentary regime's mark mechanism.
The witnesses Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander reproduce a senior literate panel. Lucas Mason continues his recurring role across the 1712-1718 records as the husband of Elizabeth Mason (formerly Wrangham), with his appearances in the March 1712 Wrangham settlement, the October 1717 Gurling-Wood witnessing and the present November 1717 Carne deed marking his sustained presence within the institutional circle. William Worrall is the same William Worrall who took assignment of the Thomas Cason lease on 25 March 1718, with his wife Martha and children John and Sarah named as the lives in the lives-based tenure.
The second instrument records a further transfer from Frances Carne to John Goodwin, this time of a tenement and mansion house in James Valley. The five-shilling token consideration and the divers other good causes and considerations recital reproduce the institutional construction of the earlier Lemon Valley transfer of the same day, marking the present deed as a coordinated continuation of the broader family settlement.
The James Valley property identified here is the same dwelling sold by George Carne and his wife Frances to Henry Francis in May 1715, known as Captain Goodwin's House. The recital that the property adjoined Beale's Kitchen and the ground formerly belonging to the deceased Jonathan Beale, lately purchased by the Honourable Company from his two sons Richard and Anthony Beale, matches the documented February 1716 Beale-Company sales of the two halves of Captain Beale's land for £31 10s 0d each. The Carne-Goodwin transfer of the James Valley property thus places John Goodwin as the new owner of a house whose neighbours had been documented through Company purchase only twenty-one months earlier.
The detailed measurements of the property (ninety-four feet by one hundred and seven feet behind the house for the garden, and forty-five feet by an unrecorded breadth in front for the yard) represent a substantial urban plot. The institutional pattern of recording exact dimensions in feet for urban property contrasts with the acreage descriptions used for rural land, reflecting the differential surveying and recording practices applied to the two categories of property.
Beale's Kitchen, named as the adjoining structure, reproduces the working byname recorded in the February 1716 Beale-Company sale, where Carne's Kitchen had been the alternative name for the same structure (perhaps reflecting the changing identification of the building as it passed through different uses or occupants). The byname pattern preserves the institutional memory of family connections within the urban fabric.
The Carne family appears here at a transitional moment. George Carne had died at some point between his May 1715 sale of Captain Goodwin's House and the present November 1717 deed, with the institutional record now treating Frances as a twice-widowed woman managing her late second husband's residual estate alongside her first husband's family ground. The James Valley property had returned to Frances's hands at some point after the 1715 Carne-Francis sale, perhaps through repurchase by George Carne or through the failure of an institutional transfer.
Alternatively, the James Valley tenement transferred here may be a separate property within the Carne estate, distinct from the Captain Goodwin's House sold to Henry Francis in 1715. The boundary description's reference to Beale's Kitchen and the former Jonathan Beale ground does not exactly match the 1715 sale's description of the Captain Goodwin's House. The two properties may be adjoining but distinct James Valley holdings within the wider Goodwin-Carne estate.
The 19 November 1717 dating, shared with the Lemon Valley deed, places both transfers within the same family-settlement sealing event. The coordinated processing of two substantial deeds on a single day reproduces the institutional pattern of clustering related family transactions, with the literate witness panel attending both instruments together.
The institutional purchase by the Company from Richard and Anthony Beale of the adjoining Jonathan Beale ground, recorded in the February 1716 deeds and now referenced in the boundary description of the November 1717 transfer, reveals how recent institutional purchases became part of the documentary memory available to support later private transfers. The reciprocal mapping between the Beale family disposal and the Carne-Goodwin family settlement places both transactions within a coherent picture of the James Valley urban fabric.
Speculations
The simultaneous transfer of both the Lemon Valley rural estate and the James Valley urban tenement from Frances Carne to John Goodwin on 19 November 1717 perhaps reveals a comprehensive widow-to-heir property settlement undertaken on a single day. By moving both the principal rural freehold and the substantial urban dwelling into her eldest son's hands at the same moment, Frances completed the institutional consolidation of the Goodwin family estate before any later challenge or change in her own circumstances could intervene. The mechanism converts the post-widowhood moment into a comprehensive estate settlement.
The reappearance of the James Valley property within the Goodwin family ground, after its apparent sale to Henry Francis in May 1715, perhaps reveals a complex chain of repurchase or institutional adjustment between 1715 and 1717. Either the 1715 sale to Henry Francis had been unwound through later transactions, or the present 1717 transfer concerns a different James Valley property within the wider Goodwin estate that did not pass through Francis. The documentary record does not resolve the apparent overlap, but the institutional pattern of multiple James Valley properties held by the same family across overlapping documentary chains makes the second alternative more plausible.
The deliberate naming of William Worrall as a witness to the Frances Carne-John Goodwin deed, coming approximately four months before his March 1718 assignment of the Thomas Cason lease, perhaps reflects the close institutional connections between the literate planters and merchants who served as witnesses across the major family transfers of the period. By placing Worrall as a witness to one substantial family settlement and then as the assignee of another major leasehold within a few months, the documentary regime reveals a small interlocking circle of figures who alternated between roles as principals, witnesses and beneficiaries across the documented transactions of late 1717 and early 1718.
230
wise appertaining of what Nature kind or Quallity whatsoever as walls or water Courses Fruit Trees or any other now growing or to grow With all and every the Liberties rights & Priviledges that y[e] the Said Frances Carne now has or may have in time to come or any Person for her hereby Confirming unto the s[ai]d or named John Goodwin & His Heirs for ever all & Singular the aforesaid Premises further Covenanting & agreeing as well for her Self as for Heirs Executors & Administrators that He the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Executors administrators Exec[uto]rs or either of them Shall & may from time to time and at all times hereafter have hold occupie Posses[s] & Quietly Enjoy all and Singular the hereby bargained Premises without any maner of mollestation trouble Eviction Interruption or Disturb =ance of the S[ai]d Frances Carne or her Heirs or from by or under any other Person or Persons whatsoever by her me and Consent or Procurement under any Pretence or Collour that Can or may be Devised and do hereby warrant to Save and Keep harmless & Indemnify the Said Jn[o] Goodwin his Heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs and Assignes any thing to the Contrary hereof in any wise notwithstand[ing] In Witness Whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand & Sea[l] this Nineteenth Day of November Dom[ini] 1717
her
Frances F C Carne
Seal'd Sign'd &c mark Deliver'd in the presence of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
I Frances Carne do hereby Acknowledge to have rec[eive]d off and from Jn[o] Goodwin the full valluable Con sideration of the aforesaid Bill of Sale and Do for ever Acquit & Discharge the said John Goodwin and his Heirs Wittness my hand & Seale this 19 day of November Dom[ini] 1717 her Wittness Frances F C Carne Lucas mason mark W[illia]m Worrall J[oh]n Alexander
The transfer of the James Valley tenement and mansion house from Frances Carne to John Goodwin concluded with the standard quiet enjoyment covenant and warranty clauses. Frances Carne covenanted, both for herself and for her heirs, executors and administrators, that John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns might at all times thereafter hold, occupy, possess and quietly enjoy the bargained premises without any molestation, trouble, eviction, interruption or disturbance by Frances Carne, her heirs, or any other person whatever by her means, consent or procurement, under any pretence or colour. She warranted to save, keep harmless and indemnify John Goodwin and his successors against all claims. Frances Carne set her hand and seal to the deed on 19 November 1717.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Frances Carne acknowledged that she had received from John Goodwin the full valuable consideration of the bill of sale, and discharged John Goodwin and his heirs for ever from any further claim. Frances Carne set her hand and seal to the receipt on 19 November 1717.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
Witnessed by Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The closing of the James Valley tenement transfer reproduces the comprehensive quiet enjoyment and warranty pattern observed across the Carne-Goodwin Lemon Valley deed sealed on the same day. The dual sealing of two substantial estate transfers on a single day, both protected by full institutional covenants and witnessed by the same panel, marks 19 November 1717 as the formal completion of the widow-to-heir settlement of the Goodwin and Carne family ground.
The institutional formula under any pretence or colour that can or may be devised gave the warranty its broadest possible scope, closing off not only direct claims by Frances or her heirs but also any contrived or colourable interest that might be devised in the future. The mechanism reproduces the early modern English conveyancing pattern of using comprehensive negative language to protect the buyer against future indirect challenges, with the institutional aim of providing complete documentary security for the transferee.
The receipt endorsed within the deed, acknowledging the receipt of the full valuable consideration and discharging John Goodwin and his heirs for ever, gave institutional proof that the consideration had moved between the parties. The combination of the principal deed, the warranty and the discharge receipt within a single instrument reproduces the standard documentary practice observed earlier in the Henry Francis-Wrangham sale of March 1715, the Benjamin Pledger-Robert Bell sale of April 1715, and the Conway-Southern transactions.
The use of the term valuable consideration in the receipt clause, against the recital of five shillings in the principal text of the deed, marks the institutional ambiguity between the documented nominal consideration and the substantive family-motive nature of the transfer. The institutional regime accepted both nominal cash and substantive familial considerations as adequate to support a transfer, with the documentary forms providing the legal mechanism while the underlying motives rested on the family relationship.
The repeated witness panel of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander across both the Lemon Valley and James Valley deeds, and across the principal deeds and the discharge receipts, reproduces the institutional pattern of using a stable witness team for coordinated family settlements. The three witnesses each played distinct institutional roles within the documented circle, with Mason as the husband of Elizabeth Wrangham (Mason), Worrall as the planter who would shortly receive the Cason lease assignment, and Alexander as the long-serving register and recurring witness.
The institutional discharge of Frances Carne's claim against John Goodwin and his heirs gave the family settlement its final protective layer. By formally extinguishing any future claim, Frances closed off the institutional risk that she or her successors might later seek to recover the property or assert any residual interest. The mechanism converts the perpetual transfer into a definitive institutional event without any reservation of claim or right.
The two coordinated deeds of 19 November 1717 together complete a comprehensive widow-to-heir estate settlement. The principal Goodwin family ground (the eighty-nine acres of Lemon Valley freehold and the James Valley tenement and mansion house) passes to John Goodwin in his own right, with the institutional protection of warranty and discharge ensuring his perpetual title. The settlement closes the documented sequence of Goodwin family transfers that had begun with the February 1713 deed of gift, continued through the February 1714 marriage articles, and now reaches its institutional conclusion with the post-second-widowhood transfer of the principal estate.
Speculations
The institutional decision to seal both the Lemon Valley and James Valley transfers on the same day, with identical witness panels and matching documentary structures, perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy of placing the entire widow-to-heir settlement into a single institutional event. By avoiding any temporal gap between the two transfers, Frances Carne and John Goodwin closed off any possibility that intervening events (her own death, the appearance of new claims, or institutional changes) might disrupt the comprehensive settlement. The mechanism converts what might have been multiple stages into a single coordinated documentary occasion.
The continued use of the documented mark by Frances Carne, despite her substantial standing as the widow of a former governor and the holder of one of the largest documented widow estates in the records, perhaps reveals the limits of female literacy even within the elite institutional circle of the period. By the 19 November 1717 sealing, Frances had been involved in at least three major property events under her mark across more than five years, illustrating that her unlettered status was a settled institutional reality rather than a temporary condition.
The institutional protection embedded in the warranty clauses, particularly the under any pretence or colour formula, perhaps reflects John Goodwin's strategic preparation for potential future challenges from other members of the wider Goodwin and Carne families. By securing the broadest possible covenants from his mother at the moment of transfer, John fortified his perpetual title against any later attempt by siblings, the Carne family relatives, or other interested parties to assert competing claims. The mechanism converts the documentary instrument into a maximum-strength protective shield for the heir.
231
Island St Helena
Know all men by these presents That I Frances Carne Wid[ow] and Relict of M[r] George Carne dec[eased] for & in Consideration of the Sume of Two Hundred Pounds in gold & Currant money to her in hand p[ai]d at or before the Ensealing & Delivery hereof by John Goodwin of the said Island the receipt whereof She doth hereby Acknowledge & her Self therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented & p[ai]d Have given granted bargained & Sold and by these presents Do absolutely give grant bargaine Sell and deliver unto the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Exec[uto]rs Administrators & Assignes Nine Negroe Slaves viz[t] Seven men, one woman and a boy all named as followeth Toby. Harry. John. Demore. Chatham Antony, old Iack and Lucas (men) Will a boy and Ar[an]ada an old wom[an] To have and to hold the Said Nine Negroe Slaves as above and to him the Said John Goodwin and his Heirs for ever to do and Dispose of as he and they Shall think most fitt & meet And I the Said Fran ces Carne do for me my Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs & Assignes That he they or Either of them and their Heirs Shall and may from time to time and at all times hereafter Peaceably and quiet ly Posses[s] and Enjoy all and every the before named Negroes with out any manner of Lett Hinderance Mollestation Interruption or Contradiction of her the Said Frances Carne or her Heirs Execut[o]rs Administrat[o]rs or Assignes or from by or under any other Person or Persons Pretence Claimes or Demands whatsoever by her means Consent or Procurement In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seal this 19[t]h Day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen
her
Frances F C Carne
mark
Sealed Signed & Delivered in y[e] presence of us
Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall John Alexander
Island of St Helena
Frances Carne, widow and relict of the deceased Mr George Carne, in consideration of £200 0s 0d in gold and current money paid to her by John Goodwin of the island at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and her full satisfaction. She gave, granted, bargained and sold to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns nine slaves, comprising seven men, one woman and one boy. The seven men were Toby, Harry, John, Demore, Chatham, Antony and old Jack and Lucas. The boy was Will and the woman was Ar[an]ada, an old woman. The grant was to John Goodwin and his heirs for ever, to use and dispose of as they thought fit.
Frances Carne covenanted for herself, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns that John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns might peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the slaves without any let, hindrance, molestation, interruption or contradiction by Frances Carne, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns, or by any other person under any claims or demands by her means, consent or procurement. Frances Carne set her hand and seal to the deed on 19 November 1717.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The deed completes the comprehensive 19 November 1717 family settlement by transferring nine slaves from Frances Carne to her son John Goodwin for £200 0s 0d in gold and current money. The slave transfer joins the same-day Lemon Valley deed and the James Valley tenement deed in a coordinated triple transfer, with the three instruments together documenting the principal categories of the family estate moving into the heir's hands.
The £200 0s 0d consideration paid in gold and current money marks a substantial actual payment, distinct from the nominal five-shilling tokens used in the two earlier deeds of the same day. The price differential between the property transfers (nominal consideration) and the slave transfer (substantial actual payment) reveals the institutional differentiation between family ground (treated as a quasi-gift between mother and son) and movable labour assets (treated as a genuine market transaction). The mechanism preserves the institutional integrity of the property transfers as family settlements while recording the slave transfer as a documented sale.
The nine slaves are individually named: Toby, Harry, John, Demore, Chatham, Antony, old Jack, Lucas (seven men, with old Jack carrying the qualifier marking his age), Will (the boy) and Ar[an]ada (the old woman, with the unusual name perhaps representing a corruption of a non-English original or a working byname). The naming pattern reproduces the institutional convention observed earlier in the records, with biblical and classical names such as Asher, Oliver, Peter, Isaac and Hagar mixed with English forms.
The institutional valuation of the nine slaves at £200 0s 0d, working out at approximately £22 0s 0d per slave on average, places this transfer within the documented per-head range for slave transactions of the period. The figure reflects the wider valuation pattern visible across the records, with individual slaves typically valued at sums between £15 0s 0d and £40 0s 0d depending on age, sex and working condition.
The two qualifiers old Jack and old woman Ar[an]ada mark the institutional recognition that age affected slave value. The presence of two elderly slaves within the transferred group perhaps reduces the average valuation, with the working-age men forming the bulk of the productive labour and the older individuals carrying lesser institutional value. The pattern reveals the documented practice of treating age as an explicit category of differentiation within slave valuations.
The boy Will is included alongside the adult slaves, with the institutional treatment of children as part of the labour force. The earlier records had documented similar arrangements involving boys treated as working assets, including the black boy Peter transferred for the term in the March 1708 Doveton apprenticeship and the male slave youth exchanged for Sue in the August 1708 Doveton-Bodley transaction. The institutional regime treated child slaves as productive assets to be transferred alongside adults within the documented slave economy.
The quiet enjoyment covenant in the slave deed reproduces the same protective language used in the same-day property transfers. By giving John Goodwin the institutional protection against any future claim by his mother or her successors over the transferred slaves, the deed completed the documented protection for all categories of the family estate. The mechanism converts the slave transfer into a definitive institutional event with the same documentary security as the property transfers.
The witness panel of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander reproduces the identical literate trio that attended both the Lemon Valley and James Valley transfers of the same day. The triple use of the same witness panel across three substantial deeds in a single sealing event reproduces the institutional pattern of stable witnessing for coordinated family settlements.
Frances Carne's mark F C continues her documented unlettered status, applied here across three substantial deeds in a single day. The pattern of her engagement in major family transactions through the mark mechanism, alongside the literate signatures of her witnesses, reveals the institutional accommodation of differential literacy within the documented elite circle.
The 19 November 1717 dating places the three coordinated deeds within the third year of King George I's reign, with the institutional record now treating the complete widow-to-heir settlement as a comprehensive single-day transaction.
Speculations
The institutional decision to charge a substantial £200 0s 0d for the slaves while transferring the rural and urban property for nominal consideration perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy of preserving cash within Frances Carne's hands while still moving the principal family ground to her eldest son. By accepting nominal consideration for the property and full market value for the slaves, Frances retained substantial liquid funds for her own support while securing the perpetual title of the family ground in the heir's hands. The mechanism converts the comprehensive settlement into a hybrid arrangement balancing the family's long-term institutional interests with the widow's continuing financial needs.
The choice of payment in gold and current money rather than store credit or island money perhaps reveals John Goodwin's institutional standing as a substantial figure capable of producing high-quality liquid funds in a major transaction. The £200 0s 0d gold payment marks one of the largest documented cash settlements within the records, placing John Goodwin among the most institutionally capable individuals of the period. The mechanism perhaps reflects either his accumulated wealth from earlier transactions or his access to metropolitan credit channels through the merchant network.
The transfer of nine specifically named slaves, rather than the more general slave property recital used in some earlier deeds, perhaps reflects the institutional importance of precise individual identification in slave transactions. By naming each slave individually within the deed, the parties protected against any ambiguity over which slaves were being transferred and provided documentary evidence of the specific labour assets covered by the deed. The mechanism reveals the institutional regime treating slaves as individually identifiable assets requiring named documentation, paralleling the treatment of livestock with distinct marks rather than the more anonymous treatment of bulk commodities.
232
Island St Helena
Know all men by these Presents that I Frances Carne of the said Island S[t] Helena Widdow & relict of M[r] George Carne deceased For and in Consideration of the Sume of Two Hundred & Six Pounds one Shilling & Seven pence in good & Currant money of the Said Island to me in hand paid by John Goodwin of the Same Inhabitant at or before the Ensealing Delivery hereof the receipt whereof I do hereby Acknow =ledge and my Self therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid and for divers other good causes and Considerations me hereunto moveing Have demised granted Bargained Sold and Do by these Presents give grant demise Bargain Sett and Deliver unto the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Executor Administrat[o]rs & Assigns all and Singular my Liveing or live Stock of Hoggs, Goates Sheep and Thirty one head of Black Cattle (that is to Say) Nine Cows Nine Bullocks one Heafer & Twelve yearlings To have and to hold the whole & Intire live Stock aforesaid Unto him the Said John Goodwin and his Heirs for ever to do and dis =pose thereof, as he they or Either of them Shall think fitt & propor and the Same Paceably and quietly to Posses[s] and Enjoy without any manner of mollestation Interruption or contradiction of me the Said Frances Carne or of my Heirs Executors or Doministrat[o]rs or from by or under any Other person or persons whatsoever by my means Consent or procurement And do Warrant to Save Defend and keep harmless the Said John Goodwin and his Heirs from any and all manner of Claims that may happen to be hereafter made to all or every the aforesaid hereby Bargained Live Stock as above mention'd in their Severall Kind In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Ninteenth day of November Dom[ini] One Thousand Seven hundred & Seventeen
Memorandum: That the Number of the Goates above
Sealed Sign'd & mention'd are 119 Ews 4 Rams and 21 Weathers, the Kids be Deliver'd in the presence of ing Included under these Denominations the whole Sum of us of Goats are one Hundred forty & four & vallu[e]d Lucas Mason at fifty three pounds two Shillings & Sixpence the W[illia]m Worrall Sheep are 30 in all viz[t] 24 full Grown & Six Lambs vallued John Alexander at Twenty Eight pounds Nineteen Shillings the Crown St[?] & Piggs were in Number 47 Vallued at Sixteen Pounds & Ten Shillings Frances F C Carne her mark
Island of St Helena
Frances Carne of the island, widow and relict of the deceased Mr George Carne, in consideration of £206 1s 7d in good and current island money paid by John Goodwin, inhabitant of the island, at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and her full satisfaction. For divers other good causes and considerations, she gave, granted, demised, bargained, sold and delivered to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns all her living or live stock of hogs, goats, sheep and thirty-one head of black cattle. The cattle comprised nine cows, nine bullocks, one heifer and twelve yearlings.
The grant was to John Goodwin and his heirs for ever, to use and dispose of as they thought fit, and to possess and enjoy peaceably and quietly without any molestation, interruption or contradiction by Frances Carne, her heirs, executors or administrators, or by any other person under any pretence by her means, consent or procurement. She warranted to save, defend and keep harmless John Goodwin and his heirs against all claims that might thereafter be made to the live stock of any kind. Frances Carne set her hand and seal to the deed on 19 November 1717.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
A memorandum recorded the detailed inventory of the live stock:
Goats
119 ewes, 4 rams and 21 wethers, with the kids included under those denominations
Total 144 goats
Value £53 2s 6d
Sheep
24 full-grown sheep and 6 lambs
Total 30 sheep
Value £28 19s 0d
Hogs and pigs
47 in number
Value £16 10s 0d
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The deed completes the comprehensive 19 November 1717 family settlement by transferring the entire live stock of the Carne estate to John Goodwin for £206 1s 7d. The live stock transfer joins the same-day Lemon Valley freehold, the James Valley tenement and the nine slaves in a coordinated quadruple transfer, with the four instruments together documenting the complete movement of the principal categories of the family estate into the heir's hands.
The £206 1s 7d consideration represents a precisely calculated price that reflects the documented values of each category of live stock in the memorandum. The figure parallels the substantial £200 0s 0d slave price, marking both the slaves and the live stock as genuine market transactions distinct from the nominal-consideration property transfers of the same day. The institutional pattern of pricing the movable assets at their actual values while transferring the perpetual property for nominal consideration reproduces the documented strategy of preserving cash within the widow's hands while moving the family ground to the heir.
The detailed inventory in the memorandum provides one of the most thorough documented valuations of live stock within the records. The categorisation by species and sub-category (cows, bullocks, heifers, yearlings for cattle; ewes, rams, wethers for goats; full-grown sheep and lambs; hogs and pigs) reproduces the institutional taxonomy of agricultural assets. The pattern reveals the documented practice of treating each species and category as a separately valued asset within the bargaining process.
The valuations work out to differential per-head prices across the categories. The 144 goats at £53 2s 6d produced a per-head value of approximately 7s 4d, the 30 sheep at £28 19s 0d produced a per-head value of approximately 19s 4d, and the 47 hogs and pigs at £16 10s 0d produced a per-head value of approximately 7s 0d. The sheep accordingly carried the highest per-head value among the small live stock, perhaps reflecting their dual contribution of wool and meat against the goats' and hogs' lesser institutional standing.
The total documented value of the small live stock (goats, sheep, hogs and pigs) is £98 11s 6d. Adding the thirty-one head of black cattle (whose individual values are not separately recorded), the total of £206 1s 7d implies a residual value of £107 10s 1d for the cattle. The per-head average for the cattle works out at approximately £3 9s 4d, reflecting the higher institutional value of bovine livestock relative to small stock.
The wether category for the goats refers to castrated males, which would typically be raised for meat rather than for breeding. The institutional differentiation between ewes (breeding females), rams (breeding males) and wethers (meat males) reproduces the standard early modern livestock terminology applied with precision to the documented inventory.
The kids being included under those denominations, recorded within the memorandum, gives the institutional explanation that the immature goats had been counted within the adult categories of ewes, rams and wethers rather than separately. The mechanism perhaps reflects the institutional practice of treating kids as part of the breeding female's allocation pending their growth to maturity.
The cattle inventory of thirty-one head distinguishes nine cows (breeding females), nine bullocks (castrated males raised for work or meat), one heifer (an immature breeding female) and twelve yearlings (mixed-sex animals in their second year). The classification reveals the institutional differentiation by age, sex and productive function within the bovine herd.
The composite live stock transfer extends the documented pattern of treating animal property as a separately bargained asset distinct from land and buildings. The earlier May 1708 Bagley mortgage and the August 1709 Fox mortgage had also included live stock within composite security arrangements, but the present transaction stands out for the detailed inventory and precise valuation that the institutional record preserves.
The witnesses Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander reproduce the identical literate trio that attended the three earlier 19 November 1717 deeds, completing the institutional pattern of stable witnessing across the comprehensive family settlement. The four deeds (rural property, urban property, slaves and live stock) together represent one of the most thoroughly documented single-day family settlements within the records.
The institutional designation of John Goodwin as inhabitant of the island in the present deed, against his gentleman and freeholder designations in earlier 1717 documents, perhaps reflects the documentary regime's adaptation of his classification to the specific transactional context. The inhabitant designation reproduces the more generic category used in some institutional settings, with the specific classifications applied where the legal context required them.
Speculations
The institutional decision to price the live stock at full market value with precise calculation to the shilling and pence, while transferring the family property for nominal consideration, perhaps reflects the documented strategy of treating movable assets as proper commercial transactions and immovable property as family settlements. By recording the live stock transfer at £206 1s 7d, the parties preserved the institutional integrity of the market price for documentation purposes while still allowing the transfer to operate as part of the broader family arrangement. The mechanism perhaps facilitated later record-keeping or accounting against any future claim on the widow's estate.
The detailed itemisation of the live stock inventory, particularly the precise breakdown of the 144 goats into 119 ewes, 4 rams and 21 wethers with kids included, perhaps reveals the institutional preparation that preceded the November 1717 sealing event. The level of detail in the memorandum suggests that the parties had conducted a thorough inventory of the Carne estate's animal holdings before the deed was drafted, with each category counted and valued separately. The mechanism converts the documentary settlement into a precise accounting exercise rather than a rough estimate.
The institutional accumulation of the entire Carne estate into John Goodwin's hands across the four 19 November 1717 deeds, combined with the cash payments totalling £406 1s 7d (£200 0s 0d for the slaves and £206 1s 7d for the live stock) plus the nominal five-shilling tokens on the two property deeds, perhaps reveals the comprehensive scale of John Goodwin's institutional position by the end of 1717. The capacity to deploy more than £400 0s 0d in gold and current money on a single day's transactions places him among the most institutionally capable individuals documented in the records, with substantial cash reserves available for major estate consolidations.
233
Know all men by these Presents That John Goodwin of the Island St Helena for of his naturall Love & affection which he has and doth bear unto his mother Frances Carne widdow & relict of George Carne dec[eased] and for & in Consideration of the Sume of Five Shillings in good & Currant money of the Said Island in hand paid at or before the Ensealing & Delivery hereof by the Said Frances unto the Said John Goodwin wherewith he doth hereby hold himself to be Satisfyed Contented & paid Have demised and to Farme Lett and Lett unto the s[ai]d Frances Carne one Tenement & mansion House Standing Situate in Iames Valley together &c an old Kitchin Adjoyning thereunto formerly belonging to Richard & Anthony Beale & Comonly known by the name of Beales Kit chin, as also all & Singular the Ground thereunto belonging as well as on the backside of Said House as that Enclosed for a yard before the Front and all & Every the premisses & appurtenancies thereunto appertaining as all Enclosures Walls Stones Trees water or Water Courses, rights, Libertys & Privile[ges] whatsoever, To have and to hold the aforesaid House Kitchin and all & Every the premisses thereunto belonging or in any wise Appertaining as aforesaid Unto her the Said Frances Carne her heirs Executors Administra =tors or assigns for & During the time of Ninety nine years Commenceing from the date hereof Provided & upon Condition That She the Said Fran =ces Carne her Heirs Executors Administrators Shall alwayes bear true Faith & allegiance to our Soveraign Lord the King His Heirs Executors and Succespours and to the Hon[oura]b[le] United Company and their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the Said Island and will Sufficiently maintain uphold and Keep in good repair the aforesaid Manssion House, Kitchin, Enclesures Walls Gates and all other necessary and needfull reparations when and as often as the Same is required for the Preservation of the premises aforesaid Yeilding & paying therefore yearly and every year during the Said Terme of Ninety nine Years the Annual Rent of Twenty Spounds p[er] ann[um] in good and Currant money of the Said Isl[an]d Unto the Said John Goodwin his His heirs Executors Adminniftrators or assigns with all other Costs and Charges of Alteration or Reparati ons that may be Needfull and necessary to be hereafter Done So that the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Executors Administ[r]at[o]rs or Assigns Shall not is not to be at any Charge or Expence towards keeping the Said House, Kitchin, or any other the Premises afore said in any Kind of repair but to be free from all Charges and Expences that may hereafter happen and be laid out by the Said Frances Carne or her heirs &c[t] during the Said Terme of Ninety Nine years And the Said Frances Carne doth for her Self her heirs Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs & assigns Covenant Promise & agree to and with the Said John Goodwin his heirs Executors Administrators & Assigns and every of them To leave the aforesaid Mansion House Kitchin & Shall other
Island of St Helena
John Goodwin of the island of St Helena, out of natural love and affection towards his mother Frances Carne, widow and relict of the deceased George Carne, and in consideration of five shillings in good and current island money paid by Frances Carne to John Goodwin at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. John Goodwin demised, farmed and let to Frances Carne one tenement and mansion house in James Valley, together with an old kitchen adjoining the house. The kitchen had formerly belonged to Richard and Anthony Beale, and was commonly known by the name of Beale's Kitchen. The grant also included all the ground belonging to the house, both behind the house and the part enclosed for a yard before the front. The grant carried all the premises and appurtenances belonging to the property, including all enclosures, walls, stones, trees, water and watercourses, and all rights, liberties and privileges.
The grant was to Frances Carne, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns for a term of ninety-nine years from the date of the deed. The lease was held on condition that Frances Carne, her heirs, executors and administrators always bore true faith and allegiance to the King, his heirs, executors and successors, and to the Honourable United Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. Frances Carne and her successors were to sufficiently maintain, uphold and keep in good repair the mansion house, kitchen, enclosures, walls, gates and all other necessary repairs whenever required for the preservation of the premises.
Frances Carne was to yield and pay yearly during the ninety-nine-year term the annual rent of £20 0s 0d in good and current island money to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. She was also to bear all costs and charges of any alterations or repairs that might thereafter be needed, so that John Goodwin and his successors should not be at any charge or expense towards keeping the house, kitchen or other premises in repair, but were to be free from all charges and expenses that might thereafter arise and be incurred by Frances Carne or her successors during the ninety-nine-year term.
Frances Carne covenanted, promised and agreed with John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and every of them, to leave the mansion house, kitchen and all other [...]
Interpretations
The deed records an immediate reciprocal arrangement following the four 19 November 1717 transfers from Frances Carne to her son John Goodwin. Having received the principal Goodwin estate (the Lemon Valley freehold, the James Valley tenement, the nine slaves and the live stock) into his perpetual title that same day, John Goodwin now leased back to his mother for ninety-nine years the James Valley tenement and mansion house that she had just transferred to him. The institutional pattern reveals that the transfer was never intended to displace the widow from her actual residence, with the reciprocal lease ensuring her continuing occupancy under a long-term institutional structure.
The ninety-nine-year term parallels the earlier long-term leases granted under different circumstances, including the 1687 Rhodes-Cotgrave lease, the March 1705 Heath-Charles 99-year extension, and the April 1703 Orchard 99-year lease. The use of a ninety-nine-year term for a transfer from son to mother converts the practical effect into a near-perpetual arrangement for the widow's lifetime, with the institutional structure providing the legal mechanism while the underlying purpose served the family settlement.
The £20 0s 0d annual rent payable by Frances Carne to John Goodwin gives the lease its formal commercial structure. The rent represents a substantial annual commitment that the widow would have to fund from her own resources during the term. The mechanism converts what might otherwise have been a free family arrangement into a documented financial relationship, with John Goodwin receiving a continuing income stream from the property while his mother retained her residence.
The five-shilling token consideration paid by Frances to John for the grant of the lease reproduces the nominal-consideration pattern observed across the earlier 19 November 1717 deeds. The five-shilling token gave the documentary regime its supporting consideration while the substantive arrangement rested on the family relationship and the reciprocal £20 0s 0d annual rent obligation.
The covenant placing all repair and maintenance obligations on the widow, with John Goodwin and his successors expressly freed from any charge or expense towards the upkeep of the house, kitchen or other premises, reproduces the standard early modern repairing-lease structure. The institutional mechanism shifts the cost of preserving the building from the freeholder to the lessee, with Frances bearing the practical burden of maintaining her residence during the term.
The recital that Beale's Kitchen had formerly belonged to Richard and Anthony Beale, and was commonly known by that name, anchors the present deed within the documented Beale family disposal of February 1716, when the brothers had sold the property to the Honourable Company. The institutional chain of title therefore moves from the Beale brothers to the Company by February 1716, then from the Company to George Carne (presumably at some unrecorded point between February 1716 and his death in 1717), then to his widow Frances Carne, then to John Goodwin on 19 November 1717, and now back to Frances Carne on lease the same day. The complex chain reveals the institutional fluidity of urban property within the documented elite circle.
The institutional structure of son-leases-to-mother converts the comprehensive widow-to-heir settlement into a balanced arrangement preserving both the heir's perpetual title and the widow's continuing occupancy. The mechanism reveals the sophisticated documentary engineering that the institutional regime supported, with multiple deeds operating in concert to achieve coordinated family objectives.
The ninety-nine-year term, set against Frances Carne's likely remaining lifespan as an elderly widow, effectively gives her the property for life with the formal lease running into the next century. Her successors named in the institutional language as heirs, executors, administrators or assigns might continue to enjoy the lease after her death, but only by continuing to pay the £20 0s 0d annual rent to John Goodwin's heirs. The mechanism converts the lease into a potential institutional inheritance for Frances's own line, distinct from the principal Goodwin family ground that John Goodwin had taken in perpetual title.
The royal allegiance and Company allegiance clauses reproduce the standard institutional language attached to leases of the period, with the King and the Honourable United Company both acknowledged as institutional superiors to whom continuing loyalty was due during the term.
The fourth-time appearance of the F C mark and the same witness panel (Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander) within the documentary chain of 19 November 1717 reinforces the institutional pattern of stable family-settlement execution. The four transfers and the reciprocal lease together represent the most comprehensive single-day institutional event documented in the records.
Speculations
The institutional decision to structure the widow's continuing occupancy of the James Valley mansion house through a formal ninety-nine-year lease, rather than through an informal family arrangement, perhaps reflects John Goodwin's strategic preference for documented legal relationships over implicit family understandings. By converting his mother's residence into a formal lease with a documented rent obligation and a fixed term, John created an enforceable institutional structure that protected both his perpetual title and his mother's continuing use. The mechanism converts the family arrangement into a legally robust framework that could survive future challenges, changes in personnel, or institutional disruptions.
The substantial £20 0s 0d annual rent imposed on the widow, alongside the comprehensive repair and maintenance covenants, perhaps reflects John Goodwin's intention to ensure that his mother retained genuine financial responsibility for the property rather than being treated as a passive beneficiary. By imposing real economic obligations on Frances Carne, the lease gave her continuing institutional standing as an active tenant rather than as a dependent occupier. The mechanism perhaps protected her dignity as a substantial widow while still consolidating the perpetual title within her son's hands.
The complex chain of title for Beale's Kitchen, moving from the Beale brothers to the Company in 1716, then to George Carne, then to Frances Carne, and now to John Goodwin and back to Frances on lease, perhaps reflects the institutional pattern of using high-value urban property as a vehicle for moving substantial sums between connected parties. Each transfer in the chain probably involved cash, credit or institutional adjustments that the surviving documentary record does not fully preserve. The mechanism perhaps converts the urban property into a documented institutional asset whose successive transfers tracked the financial flows within the elite circle.
234
the Premises thereunto belonging at the End & Expiration of the full Terme of ninety nine years in as Good & repair in every respect as they now are and to the Present Vallue according to the Iudgment of two men Indifferently Chosen by both Partys herein concerned or their Heirs &c[t] for them and and in their behalfs any thing to the Contrary hereof in any case not withstanding In Witness whereof both Partys before named hath to these present Setts to their hands and Seals this twentieth day of December Dom[ini] one Thousand Seven Hundred & Seventeen
John Goodwin
Sealed Signed & Delivered in the Presence of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
Know all men by these Presents that John Goodwin of the Island S[t] Helena out of his Naturall Love and affection which he has and doth bear Unto his mother Frances Carne Widdow and Relict of George Carne dec[eased] and for & in Consideration of the Sume of five Shillings in good & Currant money of the Said Island in hand paid at or before the Ensealing & Delivery hereof by the Said Frances Carne unto the Said John Goodwin wherewith he doth hereby hold himself to be fully Satisfyed Contented & p[ai]d Have demised & to Farme Setts & let unto the Said Frances Eighty Nine Acres of Plantable and Pasture Land lying Scituate in one Branch of Lemon valley Butting & bounding every way as in & by the Register Book of Said Island in the 156 folio doth and may more fully appeare As also one Mes[s]uage House and provisions of Yams Containing one Hundred Yhousand Young & old and at this present time Standing Growing & Issueing upon the Said Land withall & Singular the water Water Courses Springs Walls hedges Ditches or any other Fence or Fences Fruit Trees Woods or Woods To have & to hold the aforesaid Eighty nine Acres of Land Mes[s]u =age House & provisions of Yams Unto the Said Frances Carne her Heirs Executors and Adminnistrators for & During the Terme of Ninety Nine years Commencing from the day of the Date hereof Provid =ed & upon Condition That She the Said Frances Carne or her Heirs Execut[o]rs or Adminnistrators Shall always do and bear
John Goodwin and Frances Carne further covenanted that at the end of the ninety-nine-year term Frances Carne, her heirs, executors and administrators were to leave the mansion house, kitchen and all the premises in as good repair in every respect as they then stood, and to the present value, according to the judgement of two impartial men chosen by both parties or their successors on their behalf. Both parties set their hands and seals to the deed on 20 December 1717.
John Goodwin
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Island of St Helena
John Goodwin of the island of St Helena, out of natural love and affection towards his mother Frances Carne, widow and relict of the deceased George Carne, and in consideration of five shillings in good and current island money paid by Frances Carne to John Goodwin at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. John Goodwin demised, farmed and let to Frances Carne eighty-nine acres of plantable and pasture land in one branch of Lemon Valley. The parcel was bounded as in the register book of the island at folio 156. The grant also included a messuage house and provisions of yams (containing 100,000 young and old yams then standing, growing and issuing on the land), together with all the water and watercourses, springs, walls, hedges, ditches, any other fences, fruit trees and woods.
The grant was to Frances Carne, her heirs, executors and administrators for a term of ninety-nine years from the date of the deed. The lease was held on condition that Frances Carne, her heirs, executors or administrators always bore [...]
Interpretations
The closing of the James Valley mansion house lease introduces a return-condition mechanism under which Frances Carne and her successors must restore the property at the end of the ninety-nine-year term to a condition equivalent to the present state of repair and value. The institutional mechanism uses two impartial appraisers, one chosen by each party, to determine the condition and value at the moment of return, reproducing the assessment procedure observed earlier in the December 1699 Draper-Maxwell sale and the December 1686 Fewsdale-Bevean sale. The pattern reveals the documented practice of using impartial appraisers as the standard institutional mechanism for resolving valuation disputes within property arrangements.
The institutional language any thing to the Contrary hereof in any case notwithstanding closes the return covenant against any future challenge or modification, reinforcing the deed's protective architecture. The mechanism converts the return obligation into an absolute requirement enforceable regardless of any later circumstances.
The 20 December 1717 dating of the principal James Valley lease (rather than the same-day 19 November 1717 dating as the four earlier transfers from Frances to John) places the reciprocal lease one month after the comprehensive widow-to-heir settlement. The institutional gap perhaps reflects the time required to prepare the lease documentation following the principal transfer, with the four earlier deeds completing the widow-to-heir movement on 19 November and the corresponding lease-back arrangement following a month later on 20 December.
The second instrument records a parallel ninety-nine-year lease from John Goodwin back to his mother Frances Carne of the eighty-nine-acre Lemon Valley estate that she had transferred to him on 19 November 1717. The institutional structure precisely mirrors the James Valley lease-back arrangement, with the perpetual title remaining in John Goodwin's hands while the working possession returned to Frances Carne for a long term.
The recital that the boundaries appeared in the register book of the island at folio 156 reproduces the cross-reference used in the original 19 November 1717 transfer deed. The institutional pattern of preserving boundary descriptions through documentary reference rather than restating them at full length operated consistently across the various deeds within the same estate sequence.
The 100,000 yams included within the lease, comprising both young and old yams then standing, growing and issuing on the land, represent a substantial documented provisions stock. The institutional treatment of growing yams as part of the leased property reproduces the documented pattern observed earlier in the July 1707 French-Hoskison composite lease, the March 1708 Bagley grazing arrangement and the October 1706 Gurling-Hoskison composite sale. The mechanism treats agricultural provisions as transferable assets attached to the working ground.
The comprehensive enumeration of appurtenances (water and watercourses, springs, walls, hedges, ditches, fences, fruit trees and woods) reproduces the institutional pattern of sweeping all attached rights into the conveyance. The mechanism gave Frances Carne full institutional possession of the working estate, with all the productive elements transferred for the term.
The reciprocal lease-back structure for both the James Valley urban property and the Lemon Valley rural estate creates a comprehensive institutional arrangement under which Frances Carne retained the practical use of the principal Goodwin family estate while the perpetual title rested in her son's hands. The mechanism reveals the documented sophistication of the November-December 1717 family settlement, with multiple instruments operating in concert to balance the institutional interests of mother and son.
The omission of the annual rent figure in the present recoverable portion of the Lemon Valley lease leaves uncertain whether the same £20 0s 0d annual rent applied as in the James Valley lease, or whether a different sum was specified. The institutional pattern would suggest a substantial annual rent reflecting the eighty-nine-acre scale of the estate, but the specific figure rests in the closing portion of the deed not yet documented in the present recoverable text.
The witness panel of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander reproduces the literate trio attending the 19 November 1717 transfers and the 20 December 1717 James Valley lease. The five-time appearance of the same panel across consecutive instruments within the same family-settlement sequence consolidates the institutional pattern of stable witnessing observed across the Carne-Goodwin documentary chain.
The recital that the eighty-nine acres included plantable and pasture land marks the institutional distinction between the productive categories within the rural estate. The differentiation between plantable (arable) and pasture (grazing) ground reflects the standard early modern land-use taxonomy applied to the documented holdings.
Speculations
The institutional decision to structure both the James Valley urban property and the Lemon Valley rural estate through identical ninety-nine-year lease-back arrangements, with one-month intervals between the principal transfers and the lease executions, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional design under which the widow-to-heir transfer was always intended to be paired with a corresponding lease-back. By separating the deeds across two sealing events, the parties perhaps preserved the institutional purity of the transfer (a definitive perpetual movement of title) from the institutional architecture of the lease (a balancing arrangement preserving the widow's practical position). The mechanism converts what might have been a single composite transaction into a series of layered documentary stages.
The inclusion of 100,000 yams as part of the Lemon Valley lease perhaps reveals the institutional importance of treating growing provisions as transferable assets within long-term tenancy arrangements. By including the specific stock of yams within the lease, the parties ensured that Frances Carne would have continuing access to the working agricultural produce of the estate during her tenancy, with the institutional mechanism converting a one-off transfer of provisions into a continuing working possession. The mechanism perhaps facilitated the practical operation of the estate during her continuing occupation.
The introduction of the two-appraiser return-condition mechanism within the James Valley lease perhaps reflects the institutional concern with preserving the value of urban property over a multi-generational term. By requiring impartial assessment at the end of the ninety-nine-year period, the deed provided a structured mechanism for resolving any future dispute about the condition or value of the returned property. The mechanism perhaps recognised that urban buildings in particular would require careful institutional protection across long terms, with the potential for substantial alteration, deterioration or improvement during the lifetime of the lease and its successive tenants.
235
true faith & allegiance to our Soveraign Lord the King his Heirs & Successors and to the Hon[oura]b[le] United Company Lords Proprietors of the Said Island & their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the Said Isl[an]d and will Sufficiently maintuine uphold and Keep in Good repair the other Fences in & round the Said Land Either Pasture or Plantation & likewise repair all Stiles Bridges and all other necessary & needfull Reparations and in every and all respects Perform all such Covenants Articles & Conditi that all their Said Hon[oura]b[le] Companys Tennants or Leaufees are obliged to and by which they Enjoy & hold their Land Especially that's one Chief & ne =cessary article of Planting wood and Such other trees Either for fencing or Fruit Trees according to the Nature & Standing Custome of the place now in Practice or hereafter may be So that the whole quantity of Wood & Other usefull trees now Standing upon the Said Eighty Nine acres of Land is alwayes to be maintuined & kept growing and as any of them Decays others to be immediatly Planted in their Stead Yeilding & paying therefore yearly & every year during the Said Term of Nine ty nine years the annuall Rent of Twelve pence per Acre in good and Currant mony of the Said Island unto the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Executors Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs or assigns with all other Taxes assesments Chief rents or Impositions whatsoever Charged or Chargeable upon all freehold Lands on this Island or hereafter may be So charged It being the true meaning & intent of this writing That the Said John Goodwin or his Heires Execu[to]rs Administrators or assigns Shall in no wise be at any further Charges but free from all Charges of Rents, dutys, Taxes or assesments that may hereafter happen during the Said Term And that Frances Carne doth for her Self her Heirs Executors Administrat[o]rs & assigns Covenant promise and agree Further to and with the Said John Goodwin his Heirs Executors Admin[i]s[trato]rs & assigns to leave the Fences in and Round the Said Eighty Nine acres of Land at the Expiration of the foll time & Terme aforesaid in as good repair as they now are and the Same Compleatly Planked with Wood and other trees as before mentioned And likewise to leave the Said House and out houses in as good and to the Same Vallue at least as they now are as also the Same quantity of Provisions Upon the Pennalty of being Sued at law for all Such Loss and damages as the Said John Goodwin or his heirs Ex[e] ecutors Administrat[o]rs or assigns Shall or may Sustaine by any Default of the Said Frances Carne or her Heirs Executors or Administrators or any other Person for her in or not Punchally Performing the Severall Covenants & agreem[en]ts before mentioned In Wittness whereof both Partyes have to these presents Setts their Hands and Seals on the Island S[t] Helena this
Frances Carne and her successors were bound to bear true faith and allegiance to the King, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable United Company, Lords Proprietors of the island, and their successors, and to duly obey all the laws and constitutions of the island. They were also bound to sufficiently maintain, uphold and keep in good repair the fences in and around the land, whether pasture or plantation, and to repair all stiles, bridges and all other necessary repairs. They were to perform all the covenants, articles and conditions that the Honourable Company's tenants or lessees were bound to observe, particularly the chief and necessary article of planting wood and other trees for fencing or fruit, according to the nature and standing custom of the place then in practice or thereafter to be introduced. The whole quantity of wood and other useful trees then standing on the eighty-nine acres was always to be maintained and kept growing, and as any of them decayed, others were to be immediately planted in their place.
Frances Carne was to yield and pay yearly during the ninety-nine-year term the annual rent of twelvepence per acre in good and current island money to John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns. She was also to bear all other taxes, assessments, chief rents or impositions charged or chargeable upon freehold land on the island, or any later impositions. The true intent of the deed was that John Goodwin and his successors should be free from all charges of rents, duties, taxes or assessments that might arise during the term.
Frances Carne further covenanted with John Goodwin, his heirs, executors, administrators and assigns to leave the fences in and around the eighty-nine acres at the expiration of the term in as good repair as they then stood, completely planted with wood and other trees as described. She was to leave the house and outhouses in as good condition and to at least the same value as they then stood, and to leave the same quantity of provisions. Frances Carne was subject to suit at law for any loss and damages that John Goodwin or his successors might sustain through any default by Frances Carne, her successors or any other person for her, in failing punctually to perform the covenants and agreements.
Both parties set their hands and seals to the deed on the island of St Helena on [...]
Interpretations
The Lemon Valley lease completes the reciprocal mother-son arrangement established by the comprehensive November 1717 family settlement. The institutional structure precisely parallels the James Valley urban lease of 20 December 1717, with both instruments together creating a balanced architecture under which Frances Carne retained the practical possession of the principal Goodwin family estate for ninety-nine years while John Goodwin held the perpetual title.
The annual rent of twelvepence per acre, applied to the eighty-nine-acre estate, produces a total annual rent of £4 9s 0d. The figure represents a substantial recurring institutional obligation on the widow, though significantly less than the £20 0s 0d annual rent on the James Valley urban property. The differential reveals the documented per-acre valuation of rural land at roughly one shilling per acre per annum, against the much higher per-property rate for urban property.
The covenant requiring Frances Carne to bear all taxes, assessments, chief rents and impositions charged or chargeable on freehold land on the island reproduces the standard early modern institutional pattern of transferring fiscal burdens from the freeholder to the lessee. The mechanism preserves John Goodwin's net income from the lease by ensuring that all institutional charges fall on the tenant rather than the perpetual title holder.
The standing-custom-of-the-place language attached to the tree-planting article reveals the institutional recognition that local practice had become a binding source of obligation alongside the formal covenants. The phrase according to the nature and standing custom of the place now in practice or hereafter may be incorporates both current and future institutional practice into the deed, with the mechanism giving the Company flexibility to introduce new improvement requirements during the long term without renegotiating the underlying lease.
The wood-and-trees maintenance covenant, requiring Frances Carne to maintain the standing stock of wood and useful trees and to replant any decayed specimens, reproduces the enhanced conservation framework introduced in the 7 May 1717 Haswell lease, the William Alexander lease of the same date, and the April 1717 Samuel Price lease at Manatee Bay. The pattern reveals the consistent institutional commitment to active arboricultural management across the leases of 1717.
The penalty clause exposing Frances Carne to suit at law for any loss and damages arising from default in performing the covenants gives the lease its institutional enforceability. The mechanism converts the documented obligations into legally enforceable commitments, with the institutional architecture providing both the substantive covenants and the procedural remedy for breach.
The return-condition requirement, providing that Frances Carne must leave the house, outhouses, fences and provisions at the end of the term in the same condition and value as they then stood, parallels the equivalent return-condition mechanism in the James Valley lease. The institutional pattern of requiring restoration to the moment-of-grant baseline at the end of the ninety-nine-year term gives the Company a long-term institutional standard against which the tenant's performance can be measured.
The institutional reference to the same quantity of provisions to be left at the end of the term, when read against the 100,000 yams listed in the principal grant, reveals the documented practice of treating agricultural provisions as a continuing institutional baseline rather than as a one-off transfer. The mechanism converts the yam stock into a perpetual operating asset that must be maintained at the same level throughout the term.
The shilling-per-acre rent for the rural estate, against the £20 0s 0d annual rent for the urban tenement, gives the documented institutional valuation pattern. Land in Lemon Valley at the freehold level produced an annual income of one shilling per acre, while the urban mansion house carried an annual rent of substantially higher institutional standing. The differentiation reveals the documented commercial geography of the island in 1717.
The reference to standing custom of the place perhaps reflects the institutional pattern of treating tenant obligations as evolving rather than fixed. By incorporating both current practice and future Company rules into the lease, the institutional architecture provided long-term flexibility while preserving the basic framework. The mechanism perhaps anticipated the kind of institutional changes that would emerge over a ninety-nine-year period, with the Company retaining the capacity to update its tenant obligations as conditions changed.
The lease completion at this point is marked by the institutional signature of both parties on the deed at the island of St Helena, with the precise date deferred to the closing portion of the deed not yet recoverable in the present text.
Speculations
The institutional decision to charge Frances Carne only twelvepence per acre for the eighty-nine-acre rural estate, while charging £20 0s 0d for the James Valley urban property, perhaps reflects the documented pattern under which the rural ground was treated as a relatively low-value institutional asset compared with the high-value urban property. The differential perhaps reproduces the early modern English distinction between agricultural and commercial property, with the institutional regime applying substantially higher rents to urban dwellings reflecting their greater income-producing potential.
The institutional requirement that Frances Carne bear all taxes, assessments and impositions on the freehold, while John Goodwin received the rent free from all such charges, perhaps reveals the long-term institutional strategy of converting John's perpetual title into a stable income stream insulated from fiscal volatility. By transferring the entire fiscal burden to the widow lessee, the institutional architecture provided John Goodwin with the institutional equivalent of a net rent payment, with the mechanism perhaps anticipating that Company taxes or impositions might rise during the lifetime of the lease.
The reference to the standing custom of the place as a binding source of tenant obligations, alongside the formal covenants, perhaps reflects the documented practice of treating local institutional norms as part of the legal framework. By incorporating custom into the lease, the institutional architecture gave the Company flexibility to enforce evolving practices without renegotiating each lease. The mechanism perhaps anticipated future institutional reforms while preserving the underlying framework of the ninety-nine-year arrangement.
236
Twentieth day of December Dom[ini]: one Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventeen
John Goodwin
Sealed Signed & Delivered in y[e] presence of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
Know all men by these Presents that I John Goodwin of the Island S[t] Helena Inhabitant For and in Consideration of the Sume of Three Hun dred and Twenty one Pounds in good & Currant morty of the Said Island to me in hand paid by M[rs] Frances Carne widdow at or before the Ensealing and Delivery hereof, the receipt of which I do hereby acknowledge and [...] my Self therewith to be fully Satisfyed Contented and paid And for divers other good causes and Considerations me hereunto moveing Have demised granted Bargained and Sold and by these Presents do firmly and absolutely give Grant Demise bargaine Sell, and Deliver unto the aforesaid Fran =ces Carne Her Heirs Executors Administrators & Assignes Forty five head of Black Cattle with their Increase from the Date hereof together with the aforesaid Nine Negroe Slaves So her the Said Frances Carne and her heirs for ever and the Same to do & Dispose of at her theirs or any of their own wills and pleasure without any Contradiction Interruption or mallestations of me the Said John Goodwin or of my Heirs Executors or Administrators or of by or under any other Person or Persons Whatsoever claiming or to Claime any of the hereby Bargained Premi =ses by my means Consent or procurement any thing to the Contrary hereof in any wise mentioned Notwithstanding In Witness whereof the above named John Goodwin hath to these presents Sett his hand & Seale on the Said Island this Second day of aprill Anno Dom[ini] one Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen John Goodwin
Sealed Signed & Deliv[ere]d in the presence of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall John Alexander
Both parties set their hands and seals to the Lemon Valley lease on 20 December 1717.
John Goodwin
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Island of St Helena
John Goodwin of the island, inhabitant, in consideration of £321 0s 0d in good and current island money paid by Mrs Frances Carne, widow, at or before the sealing and delivery of the deed, acknowledged the receipt and his full satisfaction. For divers other good causes and considerations, he demised, granted, bargained and sold to Frances Carne, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns forty-five head of black cattle with their increase from the date of the deed, together with the nine slaves earlier transferred from her to him. The grant was to Frances Carne and her heirs for ever, to use and dispose of at their own will and pleasure without any contradiction, interruption or molestation by John Goodwin, his heirs, executors or administrators, or by any other person under any claim by his means, consent or procurement. John Goodwin set his hand and seal to the deed on 2 April 1718.
John Goodwin
Sealed, signed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The 2 April 1718 deed completes the reciprocal architecture of the comprehensive Goodwin family settlement. Having received the four bundles of property and movables (the Lemon Valley freehold, the James Valley tenement, the nine slaves and the live stock) from his mother on 19 November 1717, and having leased back the rural estate and urban tenement to her for ninety-nine years on 20 December 1717, John Goodwin now sells back to his mother the slaves and the live stock that she had transferred to him four and a half months earlier. The full circle of transfers and returns reveals the documented sophistication of the institutional settlement, with the perpetual title to land resting in John Goodwin while the working operation of the entire estate effectively returns to Frances Carne.
The £321 0s 0d consideration paid by Frances Carne to John Goodwin marks a substantial cash transfer in the opposite direction from the previous payments. The earlier 19 November 1717 transactions had transferred £200 0s 0d for the slaves and £206 1s 7d for the live stock from John to Frances. The present 2 April 1718 payment of £321 0s 0d from Frances to John, covering the slaves and forty-five head of black cattle (rather than the thirty-one head of the original transfer), reverses the cash flow and adjusts the asset composition.
The increase from thirty-one to forty-five head of black cattle suggests that the institutional structure tracked actual livestock accumulations during the four-and-a-half-month interval between November 1717 and April 1718. The fourteen additional head perhaps reflect natural increase from the breeding stock (calves born during the winter season) or additional cattle introduced into the estate by John Goodwin during his period of formal ownership. The mechanism converts the abstract documentary structure into a real institutional accounting of working asset development.
The combination of the nine slaves and forty-five head of black cattle at £321 0s 0d, against the earlier November 1717 valuation of the nine slaves alone at £200 0s 0d, implies a documented value of approximately £121 0s 0d for the forty-five head of cattle. The per-head average works out at approximately £2 13s 0d, somewhat below the implicit £3 9s 4d per head calculated from the November 1717 deed. The variation perhaps reflects differential valuations of the specific animals included, with the present transfer perhaps including more yearlings and fewer mature animals.
The omission of the goats, sheep, hogs and pigs from the April 1718 transfer indicates that those categories of small livestock remained with John Goodwin rather than being returned to Frances. The institutional pattern perhaps reflects a deliberate allocation between mother and son, with the working livestock of the principal cattle and labour forces returning to the widow while the smaller stock remained with the heir.
The April 1718 transfer back of the slaves is particularly significant because it returns the same nine individuals (Toby, Harry, John, Demore, Chatham, Antony, old Jack, Lucas, Will and old Aranada) to the widow's institutional possession. The complete cycle of slave ownership from mother to son and back to mother within five months reveals the institutional capacity to use documented transactions to manage labour assets within complex family arrangements, without ever truly displacing the operational reality.
The same witness panel of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander attests this deed, continuing the institutional pattern of stable witnessing across the entire November 1717 to April 1718 sequence of family settlement deeds. The six-time appearance of the same three witnesses across the documented chain consolidates the institutional position of this small literate circle as the principal attestors of the Goodwin-Carne settlement.
John Goodwin's designation here as inhabitant of the island, set against his gentleman, freeholder and son-and-heir designations across other deeds, reflects the documentary regime's flexible use of classifications. The institutional record adapted the description to the specific transaction, with the inhabitant designation perhaps appropriate to the more straightforward commercial nature of this particular slave-and-livestock sale.
The institutional structure of the comprehensive Goodwin-Carne settlement (19 November 1717 transfers, 20 December 1717 lease-backs, and 2 April 1718 cash sale-back of slaves and adjusted cattle stock) reveals the documented sophistication of large family estate management within the 1717-1718 institutional regime. The multi-stage architecture provided maximum institutional protection for both parties while allowing the underlying assets to remain productively engaged in the working economy of the estate.
The Mrs designation attached to Frances Carne in the April 1718 deed reproduces the institutional courtesy title applied to substantial widows of the period. The pattern parallels the use of Mrs for figures such as Mrs Elizabeth Johnson, Mrs Margaret Facknald and Mrs Grace Coulson observed across earlier records.
Speculations
The cash transfer from Frances Carne to John Goodwin of £321 0s 0d, in exchange for the return of nine slaves and forty-five head of black cattle, perhaps reveals the underlying institutional purpose of the comprehensive November 1717 settlement. By moving the slaves and cattle from Frances to John in November, then back from John to Frances in April, the parties documented a substantial cash payment from the widow to the heir that the surface architecture of the transactions obscured. The mechanism perhaps reflects either an institutional reorganisation of accounts within the family or a deliberate transfer of cash from the widow's hands to the heir's hands.
The increase in cattle stock from thirty-one to forty-five head between November 1717 and April 1718 perhaps reflects the institutional pattern of treating the estate as a living productive system that grew through natural increase during the period of formal transfer. By documenting the actual stock at the moment of return rather than insisting on the original numbers, the parties acknowledged the working reality of agricultural production. The mechanism perhaps converts the documentary structure into a flexible institutional tool capable of accommodating the realities of livestock husbandry.
The retention of the goats, sheep and hogs by John Goodwin, against the return of the cattle and slaves to Frances Carne, perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional allocation of working assets between the heir and the widow. The cattle and slaves, as the primary labour and capital assets of the estate, returned to Frances to support her continuing operation of the working ground under the ninety-nine-year leases. The smaller livestock remained with John Goodwin perhaps as part of his own separate operations or as the cash-generating component of his institutional position. The mechanism perhaps reveals the underlying division of labour within the family arrangement, with the documented transfers tracking the practical allocation of working assets.
237
To all Christian People To whome these presents shall come I John Goodwin of the Island S[t] Helena Inhabitant send Greeting in our Lord God Everlasting Know ye That whereas I John Goodwin having Purch =ased at a publick Auction on the 19[t]h day of November last past) all and Singu =lar the Houses Lands Blacks & Tennements belonging to the Estate of M[r] George Carne for the performance and payment of his Debt as may more fully appeare by three Severall Bills of Sales bearing Equall Dates of y[e] 19[t]h of Nov[embe]r last past And whereas the said John Goodwin Standing in present need of a certain Sume of money which he acknowledges to have received and to be fully Satisfye w[i]th and for Divers other good causes & Sundry Considerations him there =unto moveing Have Since Leased & to Farme Lett & Sett unto my mother Frances Carne, One Mansion House Standing Scituate in James valley together &c all & Singular the appurtenances thereunto belonging of what Nature kind or quality Soever As also Eighty Nine Acres of Plantable & Pasture Land Lying Scituate in one Branch of Lemon vally together with one mes[s]uage House & Provisions of Yams Containing One Hundred Thousand & all and Singular the other Appurtenances thereunto belonging or in any wise appertaining of what nature kind or quality Soever Comencing from the respective dates of the aforesaid Leases for the Terme of Ninty nine years Upon certain Conditions recited in a Lease for the Same bearing date the 20 day of December lastpast and one Lease more herein first Men =tioned bearing Equall date 19[t]h the Latter on my Estate more fully appear Now the Said John Goodwin in Consideration of having received the Sume of Five Hundred & Thirty Pounds Sterling money in full payment & Satisfaction of & from his Said mother Frances Carne for all Rents & Arrerages due or that may hereafter become due for all & Singular the whole Estate So Leases and to Farm Lett and Setts as aforesaid Hath granted and Remised, releassed and quitts Claimed & by these presents doth grant Remisse & release & for ever quitts Claim unto the Said Frances Carne who I own Confess and Declare to be the true and Lawfull owner of the aforesaid Lands Houses and Tennements formerly belonging to George Carne dec[ease]d and in her the Said Frances Carne's Posses[s]ion at the Ensealing and delivery hereof the Said annuity or yearly Rent Specifyed in the beforementioned two Severall Leases, and all the Arrerages thereof if any be, and all the Estate, Right, Title, Interest, Beinefit, Claim & Demand whatsoever of him the Said John Goodwin or his Heirs in and to the Said annuity or yearly Rent aforesaid, or any arrerages Distress or Distresses, Entry or Forfeiture had or taken, or which money & can be had taken of the Said annuity or yearly Rent or Arrerays thereof if any be In Witness whereof I the Said John Goodwin have to these p[rese]nts Sett my hand and Seale this Second Day of
Island of St Helena
To all Christian people to whom these presents come, John Goodwin of the island, inhabitant, sent greeting in our Lord God everlasting.
John Goodwin recorded that he had purchased at a public auction on 19 November last past all the houses, lands, slaves and tenements belonging to the estate of Mr George Carne, for the performance and payment of George Carne's debts. The purchase appeared more fully by three separate bills of sale, each bearing the equal date of 19 November last past.
John Goodwin further recorded that, standing in present need of a certain sum of money (which he acknowledged having received and being fully satisfied with), and for divers other good causes and considerations, he had since leased, farmed and let to his mother Frances Carne one mansion house in James Valley, together with all the appurtenances belonging to it. He had also leased to her eighty-nine acres of plantable and pasture land in one branch of Lemon Valley, together with a messuage house and provisions of yams (containing 100,000 yams) and all the other appurtenances belonging to the parcel. The leases ran for ninety-nine years from their respective dates, subject to the conditions set out in the lease of 20 December last past and the related lease of equal date 19 [November] last past, as appeared more fully from the deeds on John Goodwin's estate.
John Goodwin, in consideration of £530 0s 0d sterling money received in full payment and satisfaction from his mother Frances Carne for all rents and arrears then due or that might thereafter become due for the whole estate so leased, granted, remised, released and for ever quit-claimed to Frances Carne. He acknowledged, confessed and declared her to be the true and lawful owner of the lands, houses and tenements formerly belonging to the deceased George Carne, then in her possession at the sealing and delivery of the deed. The quit-claim covered the annuity or yearly rent specified in the two leases and any arrears, and the entire estate, right, title, interest, benefit, claim or demand of John Goodwin or his heirs in the annuity or yearly rent, and any distresses, entries or forfeitures previously taken or that could be taken in respect of the rent or arrears.
John Goodwin set his hand and seal to the deed on 2 [...]
Interpretations
The deed represents the institutional unwinding of the comprehensive Goodwin-Carne family settlement that had been carefully constructed across the November 1717 to April 1718 sequence. Six months after the 2 April 1718 sale-back of the slaves and cattle, John Goodwin now quit-claims the entire ninety-nine-year leasehold rent stream to his mother and confesses her as the true and lawful owner of the property formerly belonging to George Carne. The mechanism converts the layered architecture of the earlier settlement into a definitive transfer of the working ownership back to Frances Carne, with the institutional structure of the ninety-nine-year leases dissolved by the release of the rent.
The recital that John Goodwin had originally purchased the entire George Carne estate at a public auction on 19 November 1717 introduces a previously undocumented institutional context for the comprehensive November 1717 settlement. The mechanism by which the four bundles of property and movables moved from Frances to John on that day is now revealed to have been a public auction sale rather than a private family transfer. The auction format perhaps reflects the institutional requirement of public sale to satisfy George Carne's debts, with the documented mechanism converting the deceased husband's estate into cash for the discharge of his creditors.
The phrase for the performance and payment of his Debt indicates that George Carne had died indebted at his death in 1717, with his estate subject to disposal for creditor satisfaction. The institutional pattern of using public auction to liquidate a deceased debtor's estate reproduces the standard early modern English practice of estate administration where the deceased's assets are converted to cash to pay creditors before any residue could pass to the heirs.
The institutional structure now revealed is therefore quite different from the apparent widow-to-heir family settlement that the earlier deeds had suggested. The November 1717 transfers from Frances to John, the December 1717 lease-backs from John to Frances, and the April 1718 sale-back of slaves and cattle were not a family settlement at all but rather a series of related transactions arising from John Goodwin's purchase of his deceased stepfather's estate at auction. The mechanism reveals the institutional complexity of post-debt estate management within the documented elite circle.
The £530 0s 0d sterling money received from Frances Carne in full payment of all rents and arrears closes the institutional rent stream that the December 1717 leases had established. The figure perhaps represents the total annual rent of approximately £24 9s 0d (£20 0s 0d for the urban tenement plus £4 9s 0d for the rural estate at twelvepence per acre) accumulated and capitalised over the relevant period, plus an additional buyout payment for the residual ninety-nine-year leasehold interest. The mechanism converts the long-term rent obligation into a single capitalised payment, with the institutional architecture of the lease dissolved by the present quit-claim.
The institutional language of grant, remise, release and quit-claim reproduces the standard early modern English instrument of estate transfer. The grant gave Frances the affirmative interest in the property; the remise removed any claim by John against it; the release freed her from the obligation of paying rent; and the quit-claim extinguished any future demand. The mechanism converts the four legal forms into a comprehensive transfer of all institutional interests from John Goodwin to Frances Carne.
The confession that Frances Carne was the true and lawful owner of the lands, houses and tenements formerly belonging to the deceased George Carne reveals the underlying institutional reality that the public auction and subsequent transfers had never displaced her substantive position. Despite the formal architecture of the November 1717 to April 1718 sequence, the institutional regime now acknowledges that the property had always effectively been Frances's, with the documentary structure operating as a mechanism for managing George Carne's debt obligations without truly disposing of the family estate.
The witness panel, John Goodwin's signature and the precise date of sealing rest in the closing portion of the deed not yet recoverable in the present text. The continuing pattern of stable witnessing across the entire November 1717 to October 1718 sequence (Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander) probably continues here.
The £530 0s 0d sterling money payment marks the largest single cash transaction documented within the entire Goodwin-Carne sequence. The substantial sum exceeds the cumulative payments documented in the earlier deeds and indicates that the institutional regime tracked significant cash transfers through the documentary chain. The figure perhaps reflects the negotiated settlement between mother and son following the institutional resolution of George Carne's debts and the conclusion of the formal leasehold arrangement.
The institutional revelation that the November 1717 transactions arose from a public auction of a deceased debtor's estate transforms the reading of the entire documented sequence. The earlier deeds were not natural family settlements but rather formal institutional mechanisms for handling a complex post-mortem creditor situation, with John Goodwin acting as the auction purchaser and Frances Carne acting as the recipient of the family residue.
Speculations
The institutional decision to channel the resolution of George Carne's debt obligations through a public auction purchased by his stepson, followed by a ninety-nine-year lease-back to his widow and an eventual quit-claim restoring her institutional position, perhaps reveals a sophisticated documentary strategy for protecting the widow's effective ownership while satisfying the technical requirements of creditor settlement. By having John Goodwin purchase the estate at auction, the institutional regime cleared the debt claims; by then leasing the property back to Frances at substantial rents, the mechanism preserved John's formal ownership while allowing Frances to continue her practical occupation; and by finally quit-claiming the residual interest, John released the estate definitively back to his mother.
The £530 0s 0d sterling money payment as the consideration for the quit-claim perhaps reveals the institutional cost of unwinding the November 1717 settlement. By paying her son this substantial sum, Frances Carne effectively bought out his residual interest in the estate, with the mechanism converting the elaborate documentary architecture into a final cash transaction. The figure perhaps reflects either the accumulated rent obligation under the leases, the capital value of the leasehold interest, or some combination of the two negotiated between mother and son.
The use of sterling money in the present deed, against the island money used in the earlier transactions, perhaps reflects the institutional importance of the final settlement. By choosing sterling rather than local currency for the closing payment, the parties marked the transaction as a definitive resolution within the most reliable currency available. The mechanism perhaps converts the institutional architecture into a metropolitan-grade settlement, with the substantial sum protected by the underlying value of the imperial currency rather than by the local circulation medium of island money.
238
of Aprill Dom[ini]: One Thousand Seven Hundred & Eighteen
Signed Sealed & Delivered in y[e] presence John Goodwin of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall John Alexander
Copy of M[rs] Carnes Bond to pay Rich[ard] & Mercy Carne their Portions
Know all men by these presents that I Frances Carne of the Island S[t] Helena Widdow do hereby Acknowledge my Self to Stand Indebted Unto the Hon[oura]b[le] United East India Comp[any] Merch[ants] of England & Lords Proprietors of the Said Island, and to all and every of their Successors In the Sume of Five Hundred Pounds in good & Currant money of the Said Island and for the true paym[en]t thereof to be well and truly made Unto the Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] or their Successors agents or assigns to be hereby bind my Self my Heirs Executors Adminnis[trato]rs Assignes firmly by these presents In Witness whereof I have hereunto Sett my hand and Seale this Second day of Aprill Dom[ini] One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteen
The Condition of this obligation is Such That if in Case the above bound Frances Carne or Her Heirs Execut[o]rs Adminnistrato[rs] or Assigns or Either of them doth well and truly pay or cause to be well and truly paid Unto Richard & Mercy Carne Son and Daughter of M[r] George Carne deceased) the Sume of One Hundred & Twenty Pounds Sterling to Each of them in good and Currant money of the Said Island in at or upon the day of their Marriage or full Age as Shall first happen, the Same being their full Portion and more then an Equivalent to their part of their Said Deceased Fathers Estate) which payment is to be made without any manner of fraud, or further delay then this Present Obligation is to be Null and void, Else to remaine in full force, power and Vertue her Frances F C Carne Mark Signed Sealed & Delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason W[illia]m Worrall Jn[o] Alexander
The deed was sealed on 2 April 1718.
John Goodwin
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Copy of Mrs Carne's bond to pay Richard and Mercy Carne their portions
Island of St Helena
Frances Carne of the island, widow, acknowledged herself bound to the Honourable United East India Company, Merchants of England and Lords Proprietors of the island, and to all their successors, in the sum of £500 0s 0d in good and current island money. For the true payment of the sum to the Honourable United Company, their successors, agents or assigns, Frances Carne bound herself, her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns by the present obligation. She set her hand and seal to the bond on 2 April 1718.
The condition of the obligation was that if Frances Carne, her heirs, executors, administrators or assigns paid to Richard Carne and Mercy Carne, son and daughter of the deceased Mr George Carne, the sum of £120 0s 0d sterling to each of them in good and current island money, on or before their day of marriage or coming of age (whichever happened first), the obligation was to be null and void. The sum represented their full portion and more than an equivalent share of their late father's estate. The payment was to be made without any fraud or further delay. If the condition was not met, the obligation was to remain in full force, power and virtue.
The mark F C of Frances Carne
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander.
Interpretations
The closing date of 2 April 1718 for the quit-claim deed places that instrument in the same single day as the slave-and-livestock sale-back from John Goodwin to Frances Carne and the present bond. The institutional pattern reveals 2 April 1718 as a third major sealing event within the Goodwin-Carne sequence, with three substantial deeds processed on a single day to complete the institutional resolution of the George Carne estate.
The bond is constructed under the standard early modern English penal-bond structure. Frances Carne acknowledges herself indebted to the Honourable United Company for £500 0s 0d, but the underlying obligation is to pay £120 0s 0d sterling each to Richard Carne and Mercy Carne, the son and daughter of the deceased George Carne. The penal sum is double the principal obligation (£240 0s 0d total against £500 0s 0d penalty), reproducing the institutional pattern of using a penalty figure substantially greater than the principal to provide enhanced enforcement.
The condition of the obligation triggers the institutional consequence depending on Frances Carne's performance. If she pays each child £120 0s 0d on their marriage or coming of age (whichever comes first), the bond becomes null and void. If she fails, the £500 0s 0d penalty falls due to the Company. The mechanism gives the Company institutional standing to enforce the children's interests, with the bond providing a third-party guarantor structure that protects the children even though they are not themselves parties to the obligation.
The use of the Honourable United Company as the institutional obligee, rather than the children themselves, reproduces the early modern English practice of routing minors' interests through institutional channels rather than allowing direct enforcement by the minors. The mechanism converts the children's claims into Company-enforceable obligations, with the institutional architecture providing the practical machinery for enforcement.
The recital that the £120 0s 0d sterling to each child represented their full portion and more than an equivalent share of their late father's estate places the bond within the broader settlement of George Carne's estate. The two children would receive their combined £240 0s 0d sterling on the triggering events of marriage or majority. The mechanism converts the residual estate into a fixed institutional commitment payable on defined future dates.
Richard Carne and Mercy Carne appear here as previously undocumented children of George Carne. The institutional record had earlier documented his son-and-heir line through George Carne's mercantile activities, his marriage to Frances Goodwin, and his role in selling Captain Goodwin's House in May 1715. The present bond identifies two further children, with the Richard Carne name perhaps connecting to a previously unrecorded son and Mercy Carne to a daughter. Mercy as a personal name in the period was relatively uncommon, reproducing the convention observed in Mercy Charles (the earlier wife of George Surdens in the Haswell-Alexander chain of title) and Mercy Sanders (the widow of Richard Alexander whose life-interest had been sold to John Alexander in January 1718).
The institutional reference to sterling money in the bond, against the island money used in the Lemon Valley lease rent and the slave-and-livestock transactions, perhaps reflects the children's right to receive their portions in the more stable imperial currency. The mechanism gives the children institutional protection against any depreciation of island money during the period until their marriages or majority, with the sterling denomination providing a fixed metropolitan-grade entitlement.
The institutional architecture of the entire Goodwin-Carne sequence now becomes clearer with the bond. The November 1717 public auction had cleared George Carne's debts; the December 1717 leases had given Frances Carne the working possession; the April 1718 quit-claim restored her institutional title; and the present bond commits her to maintain the children's portions out of the recovered estate. The mechanism converts the comprehensive estate settlement into a multi-stage process that ultimately secures both the widow's position and the children's future entitlements.
The £500 0s 0d penal sum represents one of the largest documented bonds within the records of the period. The institutional pattern of using penalties at roughly double the principal obligation reflects the standard early modern English bond-construction practice, with the high penalty providing the institutional incentive for performance.
The witness panel of Lucas Mason, William Worrall and John Alexander reproduces the literate trio attending the Goodwin-Carne sequence across multiple deeds and dates. The seventh appearance of the same three witnesses within the documented chain consolidates the institutional pattern of stable witnessing throughout the entire estate management process.
Speculations
The institutional decision to secure the children's portions through a bond to the Company rather than through a direct family settlement perhaps reflects the comparative reliability of institutional enforcement against family commitments. By making the Company the institutional obligee, the bond gave the children's portions the same enforcement mechanism as Company tax obligations and rent arrears, with the institutional regime providing the practical machinery for protecting the minors' interests. The mechanism converts a private family obligation into an institutional commitment with the full weight of Company enforcement behind it.
The £500 0s 0d penal sum, set against the £240 0s 0d combined principal obligation, perhaps reflects the institutional calculation that a substantial penalty was required to ensure compliance over the potentially long period until the children reached marriage or majority. With Richard and Mercy Carne as the children of a deceased father and a widow with a complex remarriage history (Frances having been previously Mrs Goodwin before her marriage to George Carne), the institutional regime perhaps anticipated the possibility of competing claims or institutional disruption during the period until the obligation matured. The substantial penal sum gave the institutional architecture its protective force.
The use of sterling for the children's portions, against island money for most other transactions, perhaps reflects the institutional preference for sterling as the appropriate currency for minors' portions. The mechanism gave the children the right to receive their entitlements in the more stable currency, with the institutional structure perhaps anticipating that the children might use their portions for departure from the island, for marriage settlements, or for other purposes requiring metropolitan-grade currency. The pattern reproduces the institutional differentiation observed earlier between sterling and island money for different categories of obligation.
239
Island St Helena
The Hon[oura]b[le] the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of Merch[ant]s of England trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise, Grant, Lease, Lett & to Tferme Sett unto Antipas Tovey of y[e] s[ai]d Island Gent (& Third in Council) All that Mes[s]uage & Tennement Scituate lying & being in the South Division of this Island at the Hood of the Eastermost Vally that Leads down into Sandy bay now in y[e] occupacon of y[e] S[ai]d Antipas Tovey part of which was formerly call'd & Knonn by y[e] name of Richard Alexanders Land, the whole containing now Thirty Six Acres Viz[t] Thirty four Acres by Mensurarion being Wood, Plantable & Pasture Land, with One Dwelling House thereon, Lying butting & bounding on the East (under the Maine Ridg) next to y[e] Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s Waste & 4 part Marthorse Land on the West to John Hidings, on y[e] North to y[e] Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s Land call'd Perkins Plantation, & on y[e] South Side next to Benjamin Greentrees Land To have & to hold the S[ai]d Demised Mes[s]uage & Tennement with y[e] appurtenances & every part & parcel thereof to him the s[ai]d Antipas Tovey his heires, Execut[o]rs Adm[i]n[i]s[trato]rs or allow'd of Assigne, From y[e] Day of y[e] Date of these p[rese]nts for & dureing all the time, Space & Term of y[e] naturall Lives of John Coles Margarett (Wife of) Tovey & Elizabeth Marsh W[i]d[ow]os, all of this Island & Hongest Liver of either of them Renewable after y[e] Death of any of y[e] Nominees upon y[e] payment of half a years Rent at y[e] Admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon condicions that he y[e] S[ai]d Antipas Tovey his Heirs or allow'd of Assigns Do alwayes Bear true faith & allegiance to our Soveraigne Lord King George his heires & Successors & to the s[ai]d Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] & their Successo =ors & shall duly obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the s[ai]d Island Yeilding & paying therefore Yearly & every year during the S[ai]d Term unto y[e] s[ai]d Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] their Successo[rs] Agents or assignes the Yearly Rent of four Shillings p[er] acre besides One Shilling Duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feaste of y[e] Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (being the 25[t]h Day of March) Also That Small Knoll or Ridge of Waste Land above & between aforesaid Thirty Four Acres of Land & below the s[ai]d Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s Plantation called Griffiths Ground & part of Benj[amin] Greentrees Land, containing by computation about Two acres be the same more or less paying Yearly as aforesaid during y[e] terme One Shilling Duty p[er] acre only Provided he y[e] S[ai]d Antipas Tovey his Heires &c[t] shall Plant & continue to keep Planted the s[ai]d Knoll with Plants of Timber Trees or such other Wood as he can get to grow, best there & upon failure of Wood's groweing upon the first, Second or Third Planting, he s[ai]d Antipas Tovey or his Successo[rs] shall Yearly at y[e] Proper Season of y[e] year Replant y[e] same with the Plants of Timber or other Thriving Trees as he or they can gett That y[e] s[ai]d Antipas Tovey his heirs or allow'd Assignes Shall & will well & suffici ently repair Support, Maintain, uphold, & keep y[e] Dwelling House & Out Houses be =ing upon the premis[s]es, & all y[e] Gates, Styles, Walls, Ditches, Bankes or other Fences with all needfull & necessary repararations when, & as often as need shall require & not to alter the Fences which are y[e] Land marks &c[t] will occasion y[e] Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed & Shall keep y[e] ground in good heart digging & manureing it, & not Suffer the same to be Run Out, And also Shall Still replant with good Fruit Trees, the Lemon Garden or Orchyard adjoyning to y[e] s[ai]d Dwelling House & preserve the same Fruit trees in good & order condition & Plant others in their room & Stead as any of them shall decay so as y[e] same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyad or Lemon Garden, Nor Shall not Sell or Dispose of this Lease, or Interest in the same w[i]thout y[e] consent of y[e] Hon[oura]b[le] Governour & Council for the time being In Witness whereof y[e] Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Set their Common Seal at Union Castle in James Valley this Sixth day of February in y[e] year of our Lord One Thousand Seven hundred & Eighteen 1718/9 & Fifth year of his Maj[esties] Reign & y[e] s[ai]d Antipas Tovey to the other part hath sett his hand and Seal
Sealed & deliv[ere]d in y[e] presence of Hon[oura]b[le] Gov[ernor] Antipas Tovey y[e] word (where) being first interlined Math[ew] Bazett 2 Dep[uty] W[illia]m Wcakhin John Goodwin
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Antipas Tovey of the island, gentleman and third in council, all the messuage and tenement in the South Division of the island at the head of the easternmost valley that leads down into Sandy Bay, then in Antipas Tovey's occupation. Part of the parcel had formerly been called and known by the name of Richard Alexander's land. The whole contained thirty-six acres, of which thirty-four acres by measurement were wood, plantable and pasture land with one dwelling house upon them. The parcel was bounded eastwards (under the Main Ridge) by the Honourable Company's waste and part of Marthorse land, westwards by John Hiding's land, northwards by the Honourable Company's land called Perkins Plantation, and southwards by Benjamin Greentree's land.
The grant was to Antipas Tovey, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of John Coles, Margaret (wife of) Tovey and Elizabeth Marsh, widow, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that Antipas Tovey, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The lease also covered a small knoll or ridge of waste land above and between the thirty-four acres and below the Honourable Company's plantation called Griffith's Ground and part of Benjamin Greentree's land, containing by estimation about two acres more or less. The rent on the knoll was one shilling per acre duty only. Antipas Tovey was to plant and keep planted the knoll with timber trees or such other wood as he could get to grow there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he was to replant yearly at the proper season with timber or other thriving trees.
Antipas Tovey and his successors were to repair, support, maintain, uphold and keep up the dwelling house and outhouses on the premises, together with all gates, stiles, walls, ditches, banks and other fences, with all needful and necessary repairs whenever required. They were not to alter the fences, which were the landmarks and would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. They were to keep the ground in good heart by digging and manuring, and not to allow it to be run out. They were also to replant the lemon garden or orchard adjoining the dwelling house with good fruit trees, preserve the trees in good order and condition, and plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the orchard remained a good fruit-bearing garden. They were not to sell or dispose of the lease or any interest in it without the consent of the Honourable Governor and Council for the time being.
The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at Union Castle in James Valley on 6 February 1719, in the fifth year of His Majesty's reign. Antipas Tovey set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of the Honourable Governor [...], Matthew Bazett, second and deputy, William Wcakhin, and John Goodwin. The word where was first interlined.
Antipas Tovey
Interpretations
The lease consolidates a substantial thirty-six-acre Sandy Bay estate in Antipas Tovey's hands under the lives-based tenure framework that the Company had introduced in 1717. The institutional pattern reproduces the structure observed in the April 1717 Samuel Price lease at Manatee Bay and the December 1717 Cason consolidated lease, with the lives-based mechanism replacing the earlier twenty-one-year terms of the 1711-1713 framework.
The parcel comprised two distinct components within a single institutional grant. The principal thirty-four acres of wood, plantable and pasture land, with a dwelling house, were leased at the standard rate of five shillings per acre per annum (four shillings rent plus one shilling duty). The small knoll or ridge of approximately two acres carried a substantially reduced rate of only one shilling per acre duty, on condition that Antipas Tovey planted and maintained timber trees on it. The differential rate reveals the institutional pattern of using preferential rents to encourage specific land-use activities, with the knoll converted into a documented institutional incentive for tree planting on marginal ground.
The institutional language requiring Antipas Tovey to plant the knoll with timber trees or other wood at the proper season, and to replant if growth failed at the first, second or third attempt, gives the tree-planting obligation a multi-attempt resilience clause. The mechanism reveals the Company's recognition that tree establishment on marginal ground was an uncertain enterprise requiring multiple efforts, with the institutional regime providing the tenant with explicit time to achieve success.
The three lives nominated for the duration of the lease were John Coles, Margaret (wife of) Tovey and Elizabeth Marsh, widow. Margaret as Antipas Tovey's wife places her within the family alongside his earlier documented role with Antipas in the June 1713 gift of land to Mary Maxwell. John Coles and Elizabeth Marsh as the other two lives represent figures whose institutional significance extends beyond the immediate Tovey household.
John Coles connects to the documented holder of substantial Sandy Bay freehold and leasehold confirmed in the 4 August 1713 sitting (thirty acres of freehold across three parcels and twenty-five acres of leasehold). His nomination as a life perhaps reflects either his relative youth or his close institutional connection to the Tovey family. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of selecting lives from across the wider literate circle rather than restricting them to family members.
Elizabeth Marsh, widow, is a previously undocumented individual within the records. The widow status and her nomination as a life perhaps reflect either family connection to the Marsh line (linking to William Marsh and his son Robert Marsh of the earlier records) or her institutional standing within the wider circle. The selection of a widow as a life-nominee parallels the institutional pattern of using lives across multiple demographic categories.
The recital that part of the parcel had formerly been called Richard Alexander's land connects to the documented holdings of the late Richard Alexander (the substantial accumulator whose Company-leased ground had been redistributed by 1713). The institutional pattern of preserving the prior-holder identification through working bynames reproduces the documentary memory observed across the records.
The Marthorse land identification on the eastern boundary perhaps represents a working byname for an area associated with horse pasturage. The phrase Marthorse may represent a scribal corruption of Mare-horse, Mart-horse or another compound term identifying the institutional use of the ground. The pattern parallels the documented bynames such as Horse Pasture Plain identified in the 1713 Mary Hoskison confirmation.
John Hiding's land on the western boundary identifies a previously undocumented holder. The institutional pattern of recording boundary holders reveals the documented expansion of the documented circle as new figures emerged as landholders.
Perkins Plantation on the northern boundary connects to Thomas Perkins senior, the documented holder of substantial Sandy Bay leasehold confirmed in the 20 July 1711 sitting (thirty acres of cabbage tree and gumwood land). The continuation of his institutional position into 1719 confirms the persistence of his family across the documented years.
Benjamin Greentree's land on the southern boundary connects to the same Benjamin Greentree confirmed in twenty-two acres of freehold and twenty-one acres of leasehold in the 4 August 1713 sitting. His continuing institutional position in Sandy Bay across six years places him among the documented continuous holders of the period.
Griffith's Ground identifies the institutional land held by the heirs of the deceased Daniel Griffeth (the long-serving clerk of the council and fourth in council). The documented preservation of his name through the working byname reveals the institutional memory of the Griffeth family's position across the documentary regime.
Antipas Tovey's designation as gentleman and third in council marks his elevated institutional standing by February 1719. His progression across the documented records moves from his earlier identification as register, examiner and witness through the early 1710s, to gentleman by 1714, to third in council by 1719. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of career advancement within the small institutional circle.
The witness panel for the lease includes the Honourable Governor (whose name is not clearly recovered), Matthew Bazett (second and deputy), William Wcakhin, and John Goodwin. The institutional composition reproduces the council-quorum pattern attached to substantial leases of the period. The interlineation of the word where before sealing follows the standard documentary practice of recording amendments made during execution.
Matthew Bazett's designation as second and deputy by February 1719 marks a substantial institutional progression from his earlier fifth-in-council position in 1711, fourth-in-council position in 1713, and second-in-council position in 1718. The mechanism reveals the documented career advancement of the substantial planter-surveyor across the institutional hierarchy.
The half-year's rent payable at the admittance of each new life, against the full year's rent stipulated in the earlier Cason lease of February 1718, perhaps reflects an institutional adjustment of the renewal fee structure during the intervening twelve months. The mechanism reveals the documented institutional refinement of the lives-based tenure framework as the Company experimented with different fee patterns.
Speculations
The institutional decision to grant Antipas Tovey a thirty-six-acre Sandy Bay estate under lives-based tenure perhaps reflects his elevated standing within the documented elite circle by February 1719. As third in council with longstanding service as register and examiner, Antipas had become one of the principal institutional figures of the period. The grant of substantial ground under the favourable lives-based framework, with the additional knoll at a preferential rate for tree planting, perhaps represents the Company's institutional recognition of his service through a generous lease package.
The selection of John Coles as a life-nominee alongside Margaret Tovey and Elizabeth Marsh perhaps reflects an institutional calculation that John Coles's documented relative youth gave him the longest probable lifespan among the available candidates. By including a younger life-nominee alongside the tenant's wife and another figure, Antipas Tovey perhaps maximised the institutional duration of the lease, with the longest survivor's life giving the entire tenure its potential maximum length. The mechanism reveals the documented strategic calculation embedded in lives-based tenure selection.
The differential rent structure between the principal thirty-four acres at five shillings per acre and the knoll at one shilling per acre duty only perhaps reveals the institutional pattern of using preferential rents to encourage specific land-use activities. By offering Antipas Tovey a substantially reduced rate on the marginal knoll in exchange for his commitment to plant and maintain trees, the Company converted what might otherwise have been unprofitable ground into a documented tree-planting asset. The mechanism perhaps reflects the broader institutional strategy of using the tenancy framework as an instrument of arboricultural policy across the island.
240
Island St Helena
The Hon[oura]b[le] the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of Merch[ts] of England Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farme Lett Unto James Greentree of the Said Island free Holder all that Piece or Parcell of Land Containing Twelve Acres Scituate lying and being in the South Division of this Island, at or near the head of Gabriells Gutt Butting towards the North upon the Said James Greentrees own Land, towards the West upon the Land of Joshua Johnson and towards the South & East upon the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]'s Waste Land in the Said S[ai]d Division To have & to hold the Said hereby Demised Twelve Acres of Land with the Appurtenances and every part thereof to him the said James Greentree his Heirs Executors Adminstrato[rs] or Allowed of Assigns from the day of the date of these p[rese]nts for and during all the time, Space & Terme of the Naturall Lives of Thomas Greentree John Greentree & James Greentree my three Sons of the said Jam[es] Greentree & all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the payment of half a years Rent at the Admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the Said James Greentree his Heirs or Allowed of Assigns Do alwayes bear true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraigne Lord King George his Heirs & Successors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and paying therefore Yearly & Every year during the Said Term unto the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] their Successors Agents or Assignes the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings per Acre besides one Shill ing p[er] Acre Duty, being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, being the 25 of March Provided That he the Said James Greentree his Heires &c shall throughly Sett about and Fence in the Said Twelve Acres of Land with all p[ossi]ble Diligence gence, and when So enclosed and ferreed That then He or they do proceed to plant one acre in ten and So proportionable for a Greater or lesser quantity with such plants of Timber Trees or such other Wood as he or they can get to grow best thereon, and upon failure of the Woods groweing upon the first 2 or 3 Planting, he the Said James Greentree or his Successors Shall Yearly at the Proper Seasons of the year replant the same with the best Plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as He or they can get as aforesaid And that the Said James Greentree or his allowed of Assigns Shall likewise plant Lemon Trees round all & every the Inside of the said Fences besides ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one Acre of the afores[ai]d Demised Land, and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them shall Decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden, and the whole 12 acres of Land with the fences to be well and Sufficiently kept in good repair to repair when and as often as need shall require, and not to suffer the ground to be run out, nor to alter the fences after they are well made, which are the Land marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plot hereunto Annex ed, nor shall not Sell nor no ways Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governo[r] and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to James Greentree of the island, freeholder, a parcel of twelve acres in the South Division of the island, at or near the head of Gabriel's Gut. The parcel was bounded northwards by James Greentree's own land, westwards by the land of Joshua Johnson, and southwards and eastwards by the Honourable Company's waste land in the same division.
The grant was to James Greentree, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of Thomas Greentree, John Greentree and James Greentree, his three sons, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that James Greentree, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
James Greentree was thoroughly to set about fencing the twelve acres with all possible diligence. When enclosed and fenced, he or his successors were to plant one acre in ten (and proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity) with timber trees or other wood that could best be grown there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were to replant yearly at the proper seasons with the best timber or other thriving trees. He was also to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre of the demised land. He was to plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the whole formed a good fruit-bearing orchard or lemon garden.
The twelve acres and the fences were to be well and sufficiently kept in good repair whenever required. The ground was not to be allowed to run out. The fences, once well made, were not to be altered, since they were the landmarks and any change would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. The lease or any interest in it was not to be sold or disposed of contrary to the true meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being. The Honourable Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on [...]
Interpretations
The lease consolidates the institutional pattern of lives-based tenure under the enhanced 1717 framework, with James Greentree taking twelve acres at the head of Gabriel's Gut under the standard arrangement of three named lives. The institutional structure precisely reproduces the architecture observed in the April 1717 Samuel Price lease, the December 1717 Cason lease, and the February 1719 Antipas Tovey lease, with the lives-based mechanism now established as the principal tenure form for substantial leases.
The three lives nominated were James Greentree's three sons Thomas Greentree, John Greentree and James Greentree, all of the island. The selection of three sons of the tenant himself as the lives gives the institutional structure its strongest possible family-perpetuation profile. By naming sons whose lives would probably extend beyond his own, James Greentree gave the lease its maximum likely duration through the longest survivor of the three. The mechanism reveals the documented strategic use of lives-based tenure to secure family ground across the next generation.
The naming of three sons indicates a substantial family of male heirs within the Greentree line. The same James Greentree had been documented across the records as the buyer of the Powell estate with the slave Oliver in March 1703, the Bevean Chapel Valley house in October 1705, the Cleve James Valley house in June 1715, and the Goodwin four acres in September 1715. His confirmed sixty acres of freehold across three Sandy Bay parcels in the 4 August 1713 sitting, with an additional twenty-five-acre lease, established him as a substantial accumulator by 1713. The present 1719 lease adds further twelve acres under the lives-based framework.
Gabriel's Gut appears as a working byname connecting to the documented Gabriel Powell. The institutional pattern of naming a topographical feature after a prominent landholder reproduces the documented practice of preserving family connections through working place names.
The boundary description identifies James Greentree's own land on the northern boundary, indicating that the leased twelve acres extended an existing Greentree holding. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of consolidating freehold and leasehold around a working core, with the twelve-acre lease adding to a larger Greentree estate at or near the head of Gabriel's Gut.
Joshua Johnson on the western boundary connects to the living Joshua Johnson (distinct from the deceased husband of Elizabeth Johnson at Broad Bottom) who had been confirmed in fourteen acres of freehold and twenty-eight acres of leasehold under the King's Peak in the 4 August 1713 sitting. His continuing institutional position into 1719 marks the persistent boundary configuration of the upland Sandy Bay zone.
The enhanced improvement covenants attached to the lease combine multiple categories of tree planting. The institutional architecture requires James Greentree to plant one acre in ten with timber trees or wood (for an obligation to plant approximately 1.2 acres of timber on the twelve-acre parcel), to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, and to plant ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre (an additional 120 trees across the twelve acres). The cumulative tree-planting obligation gives the lease its character as an active arboricultural commitment.
The replanting provision on failure at the first, second or third planting reproduces the resilience clause observed in the Antipas Tovey lease of February 1719. The institutional pattern of giving the tenant multiple attempts to establish tree growth reveals the Company's recognition that arboriculture on the island's marginal ground required sustained effort. The mechanism gives the tenant institutional protection against the natural difficulties of tree establishment while preserving the underlying improvement obligation.
The combination of timber trees on one acre in ten with lemon trees round the fences and ten fruit trees per acre across the whole creates a layered planting schedule. The institutional architecture differentiates between species and locations, with the structure perhaps reflecting the Company's institutional strategy of using different parts of each parcel for different productive purposes. Timber trees in concentrated plots provided wood supply; lemon trees on fences gave perimeter productivity; and fruit trees scattered across the parcel provided general productive capacity.
The fence-as-landmark covenant reproduces the standard documentary pattern observed across the leases of the period. The mechanism ties the operative description to the annexed plan, with the institutional regime treating the plan as the authoritative document for boundary disputes.
The disposal restriction requiring the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being reproduces the institutional pattern of preventing unilateral transfer of substantial tenancies. The mechanism gives the Company active control over each subsequent transfer of the leasehold, preserving the institutional framework against the disruption of unauthorised alienation.
The sealing date is incomplete in the present recoverable text, with the year of execution probably 1719 in line with the surrounding institutional sequence and the fifth regnal year of King George I.
Speculations
The institutional decision to grant James Greentree the twelve-acre Gabriel's Gut parcel under a three-life tenure based on his own sons perhaps reflects a deliberate strategy of securing the family's institutional position across the next generation. With three named sons as the lives, the lease's duration depended on the longest survivor of the three, giving the Greentree family ground potential continuity for several decades. The mechanism converts the formal lease into a quasi-perpetual family settlement, with the institutional renewal fee operating only at the end of the longest life rather than at fixed term intervals.
The enhanced tree-planting obligations, combining timber trees on one acre in ten with lemon trees round fences and ten fruit trees per acre across the whole, perhaps reflect the institutional refinement of the improvement covenants during the 1717-1719 period. By specifying multiple categories of trees with differential placement requirements, the Company gave the lease a sophisticated arboricultural programme that operated as both a commercial fruit-growing enterprise and a long-term timber-supply strategy. The mechanism perhaps anticipated the multi-decade duration of the lives-based tenure, with the institutional architecture providing the tenant with a structured framework for sustained productive development of the parcel.
The acreage scale of the demised parcel at twelve acres, against the much larger thirty-six-acre Antipas Tovey lease of the same period, perhaps reflects the institutional differentiation between the substantial council-level leases and the more modest freeholder-level extensions. James Greentree as freeholder rather than council member received a proportionate addition to his existing estate, with the smaller scale matching his institutional status as a substantial but not elite figure within the documented hierarchy. The mechanism perhaps reveals the documented practice of using lease size as an institutional marker of the tenant's standing within the broader land-management framework.
241
this 21 day of May Dom[ini] One Thousand Seven Hundred & Nineteen and the Said James Greentree to the other Part hath Sett his hand & Seale
James Greentree
Sealed & Delivered In the presence off
Island St Helena
The Hon[oura]b[le] the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of Merch[ants] of England Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise, Grant, Lease, Sett, and to Farme Sett Unto James Greentree of the Said Island free Holder all that Piece or Parcell of Land Contain Eighteen Acres Scituate lying and being in the West Division of this Island at or near the head of Blood Bottom Butting towards the W[est] upon the Said James Greentrees own Land, towards the E[ast] upon the Land hired of the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] by M[rs] Frances Carne, towards the S[outh] upon the Land of M[r] John Goodwins Land towards the West upon the Land now in Possesion of John Johnson called or known by the Name of Greentrees plain in the said W[est] Division To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised Eighteen Acres of Land with the appurtenances & every part thereof to him the Said James Greentree His Heirs Executors Adminstrat[o]rs or allowed of Assignes from the day of the date of these p[rese]nts for and during all the time, Space and Terme of the Naturall Lives of the Said James Greentree three Sons Thomas Greentree John Greentree & James Greentree all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them renewable after the death of any of the Said Nominees upon the payment of half a years rent at the admittance of Each life or new Nominee Upon Conditions that he the Said James Greentree His Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do always bear true faith and Allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George His Heirs Successors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] and their Successors and shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and paying therefore yearly & Every year During the Said Terme unto the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] their Successors agents or assignes the Yearly Rent of four Shillings p[er] acre besides one Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] acre at the Feast of Annunciation of the Bless[ed] Virgin Mary being the 25 day of March, Alwayes Provided That he the Said James Greentree His Heirs &c[t] shall throdeally Sett about and Fence In the Said 18 Acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence, and when So Enclosed and Fenced That when He or they do proceed to plant one Acre in Ten & to do So Proportionable
Both parties set their hands and seals to the lease on 21 May 1719.
James Greentree
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to James Greentree of the island, freeholder, a parcel of eighteen acres in the West Division of the island at or near the head of Blood Bottom. The parcel was bounded westwards by James Greentree's own land, eastwards by the land hired of the Honourable Company by Mrs Frances Carne, southwards by the land of Mr John Goodwin, and westwards by the land then in the possession of John Johnson called or known by the name of Greentree's Plain in the same West Division.
The grant was to James Greentree, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of James Greentree's three sons Thomas Greentree, John Greentree and James Greentree, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that James Greentree, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
James Greentree was thoroughly to set about fencing the eighteen acres with a good and sufficient fence. When enclosed and fenced, he or his successors were to plant one acre in ten, and proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity [...]
Interpretations
The closing of the Gabriel's Gut lease on 21 May 1719 places it within the documented institutional sequence of leases under the lives-based framework. The fifth regnal year of King George I gives the date its institutional context, with the documentary regime continuing to use the regnal-year formula alongside the calendar year.
The second instrument records a parallel lease to James Greentree of a further eighteen acres in the West Division at the head of Blood Bottom. The institutional structure precisely mirrors the Gabriel's Gut lease, with the same three lives (Thomas Greentree, John Greentree and James Greentree, the tenant's sons) nominated for the duration, the same standard rent of five shillings per acre per annum, and similar improvement covenants. The two leases sealed on the same day add a combined thirty acres to James Greentree's documented leasehold position.
Blood Bottom appears as a previously undocumented working byname within the records. The institutional pattern of preserving topographical features through working names parallels the documented bynames such as Dogwood Valley, Stocks Valley, Swine Gully and Manatee Bay observed across the 1713-1719 sequence.
The boundary description reveals a coordinated cluster of substantial accumulators. James Greentree's own land formed the western boundary (with another instance of his existing position acting as the anchor for the institutional extension), Mrs Frances Carne's hired Company land formed the eastern boundary, Mr John Goodwin's land formed the southern boundary, and John Johnson's possession of Greentree's Plain formed the further western boundary. The reciprocal mapping between the major documented figures of the Goodwin-Carne nexus places James Greentree among the established accumulators of the West Division.
Mrs Frances Carne's land on the eastern boundary connects to the same Frances Carne (formerly Goodwin) whose comprehensive 1717-1718 family settlement had been completed by the April 1718 quit-claim. The institutional designation of the land as her hired Company land indicates that she continued to hold Company leasehold ground in the West Division, perhaps as part of her ongoing tenancy arrangements following the unwinding of the November 1717 to April 1718 sequence.
Mr John Goodwin's land on the southern boundary connects to her son and the eldest documented Goodwin heir whose lengthy documented engagement across the family settlement deeds places him within the institutional circle. The continued institutional connection between mother, son and adjoining holder reproduces the documented pattern of family ground consolidation across the records.
John Johnson on the further western boundary, holding Greentree's Plain, represents a previously undocumented figure within the records. The Johnson surname connects to the documented Joshua Johnson (the living holder under the King's Peak) and the deceased Joshua Johnson (husband of Elizabeth Johnson at Broad Bottom). John Johnson may represent a third Johnson within the documented Johnson network, perhaps a son or kinsman of either of the documented figures.
The working byname Greentree's Plain identifies the western parcel by reference to a previous Greentree holding, perhaps connecting to an earlier institutional position of the family within the West Division. The institutional pattern of preserving family connections through working place names reproduces the documented practice observed across the records.
The same three Greentree sons (Thomas, John and James) nominated as lives in both the Gabriel's Gut lease and the present Blood Bottom lease reveal the deliberate strategy of using identical lives across two parallel institutional grants. By securing both leases to the same family duration, James Greentree converted his cumulative thirty acres into a coordinated multi-life family settlement, with the entire institutional tenure operating under a single demographic clock.
The institutional pattern of using the same lives across two same-day leases reveals the documented sophistication of lives-based tenure planning. By coordinating the lives across multiple parcels, the tenant ensured that the entire estate would mature for renewal at the same point rather than facing piecemeal renewal demands at different dates. The mechanism converts the lives-based framework into an institutional tool for coordinated estate management.
The improvement covenants in the Blood Bottom lease begin with the same fencing requirement and the same one-acre-in-ten timber-planting obligation observed in the Gabriel's Gut lease. The institutional pattern of using standardised improvement covenants across multiple leases sealed on the same day reveals the documented systematisation of the 1717-1719 framework, with the Company applying consistent obligations across coordinated grants.
The 21 May 1719 sealing date for the Gabriel's Gut lease, with the Blood Bottom lease probably sealed on the same day or in close sequence, places both instruments within a single coordinated institutional event. The pattern reproduces the documented practice of clustering related leases for efficient processing, with the Company using single sealing events to clear multiple instruments concerning the same tenant.
Speculations
The institutional decision to grant James Greentree two separate leases (twelve acres at Gabriel's Gut and eighteen acres at Blood Bottom) under the same three-life tenure rather than combining them into a single thirty-acre instrument perhaps reflects the geographical separation between the two parcels. With one parcel in the South Division and the other in the West Division, the documentary regime preserved the institutional distinction between the two locations while applying consistent tenure terms across both. The mechanism reveals the documented preference for parcel-specific instruments over composite grants, perhaps allowing easier institutional management of boundaries and improvement compliance.
The coordinated boundary cluster of James Greentree, Mrs Frances Carne, Mr John Goodwin and John Johnson in the West Division at Blood Bottom perhaps reveals the documented institutional pattern of substantial accumulators holding contiguous ground. By placing the principal landholders of the documented elite circle adjacent to each other, the institutional regime facilitated the reciprocal boundary mapping observed across the records and perhaps reflected the social and family connections between the documented figures. The mechanism reveals the documented geography of elite landholding in the West Division by 1719.
The use of identical lives (the three Greentree sons) across both same-day leases perhaps reflects James Greentree's strategic preference for coordinated tenure management. By securing both parcels to the same demographic clock, the tenant simplified the institutional renewal calculations and ensured that the entire family estate matured at the same point. The mechanism perhaps anticipates the practical difficulties of managing multiple leases with different lives, with the coordinated approach providing administrative efficiency at the cost of foregoing the potential demographic diversification that different lives might have provided.
242
Proportionable for a Greater or Lesser quantity, with such plants of Timber trees, or such other Wood as he or they Can get to Grow best thereon and Upon failure of the Woods groweing upon the first Second or third Planting He the Said James Greentree or his Successors Shall Yearly at the Proper Seasons of the Year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other Thriveing trees as he or they Can get as aforesaid And that the Said James Greentree his Heirs or allowed of Assign[s] Shall likewise plant Lemon trees round all and every the Inside of the Sd Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good fruit trees for every one Acres of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall Decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit beareing Orchyard or Lemon Garden, and the whole Eighteen Acres of Lands with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart & repair when and as Often as need shall require and not to Suffer the Ground to be Run out Nor to Alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land Marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed nor shall not Sell, nor no ways Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governour and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] and Lords Proprietors to these p[rese]nts have Sett their Comon Seale at their Castle in James Valley this 21 day of May Anno Dom[ini] One Thousand Seven Hundred & Nineteen And the Said James Greentree to the other Part hath Sett his hand and Seale
James Greentree
Sealed & Delivered In the presence of
James Greentree was to plant the eighteen acres proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity with timber trees or other wood that could best be grown there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were yearly at the proper seasons to replant the parcel with the best timber or other thriving trees. He and his successors were also to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre of the demised land. They were to plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the parcel formed a good fruit-bearing orchard or lemon garden.
The eighteen acres and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair whenever required. The ground was not to be allowed to run out. The fences, once well made, were not to be altered, since they were the landmarks and any change would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. The lease or any interest in it was not to be sold or disposed of contrary to the true meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being.
The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 21 May 1719. James Greentree set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
James Greentree
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
Interpretations
The closing of the Blood Bottom lease completes the second of the two same-day James Greentree leases of 21 May 1719. The institutional structure precisely mirrors the Gabriel's Gut lease, with the same standard combination of improvement covenants, fence-as-landmark provisions and disposal restrictions. The pattern reveals the documented standardisation of the 1717-1719 lease framework, with the Company applying consistent obligations across multiple parcels and tenants.
The institutional language requiring the ground to be kept in good heart and repair gives the covenant its agricultural-management force. The phrase good heart in early modern agricultural usage refers to the productive condition of the soil, with the institutional obligation requiring active cultivation practices to maintain fertility. The mechanism parallels the equivalent good heart language observed in the December 1717 Cason lease and the February 1719 Antipas Tovey lease.
The cumulative tree-planting obligations across the eighteen acres at Blood Bottom produce a substantial documented commitment. The institutional architecture requires James Greentree to plant approximately 1.8 acres of timber trees (one acre in ten), to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, and to plant 180 lemon or other good fruit trees (ten per acre) across the parcel. Combined with the equivalent obligations on the twelve-acre Gabriel's Gut lease, James Greentree's total improvement commitment across the two leases reaches approximately 3 acres of timber, fence-perimeter lemon planting on thirty acres of land, and 300 lemon or fruit trees.
The institutional pattern of using lemon trees as a designated planting category across multiple leases reveals the documented economic and dietary importance of the species within the Company's institutional strategy. The earlier December 1707 Paul Graton lease of the Lemon Garden in Chapel Valley had established lemons as a strategic antiscorbutic asset for ship victualling, with fixed retail prices on lemons and lemon juice. The continuing emphasis on lemon planting in the 1717-1719 leases reproduces the institutional commitment to securing the island's lemon supply across multiple parcels.
The fence-as-landmark provision attached to the Blood Bottom lease reproduces the standard documentary pattern. The mechanism ties the operative description to the annexed plan, with the institutional regime treating the plan as the authoritative document for boundary disputes. The pattern parallels the equivalent provisions in the Gabriel's Gut lease and the broader leases of the period.
The disposal restriction requiring the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being reproduces the institutional control over leasehold alienation observed across the documented sequence. The mechanism preserves the Company's institutional position against unauthorised transfers, with the consent requirement giving the documentary regime its active supervisory force.
The 21 May 1719 sealing date confirms that both James Greentree leases (the twelve-acre Gabriel's Gut parcel in the South Division and the eighteen-acre Blood Bottom parcel in the West Division) were sealed at the Castle in James Valley on the same day. The coordinated processing reveals the documented institutional pattern of clustering related grants for efficient administrative handling.
The combined institutional commitment across the two leases gives James Greentree a documented thirty-acre extension to his existing landholdings under coordinated lives-based tenure. The mechanism converts what might have been a piecemeal accumulation into a comprehensive institutional position, with the three named sons of the tenant serving as the documented lives for the duration of both parcels.
The fifth regnal year of King George I, calculated from August 1718 to August 1719, places the 21 May 1719 sealing within that institutional period. The continuing use of regnal-year dating alongside the calendar year reproduces the documentary convention observed across the records of the period.
Speculations
The institutional decision to apply identical improvement covenants to both James Greentree leases, with the same one-acre-in-ten timber-planting requirement, the same lemon-trees-round-fences obligation, and the same ten-fruit-trees-per-acre commitment, perhaps reflects the documented standardisation of the 1717-1719 lease framework. By using template covenants across multiple parcels, the Company reduced the administrative burden of drafting and managing leases while ensuring consistent improvement requirements across the documented landscape. The mechanism reveals the institutional efficiency of the framework, with template documents allowing the Company to process multiple tenancies under uniform terms.
The systematic embedding of lemon planting across the documented 1717-1719 leases perhaps reveals the institutional continuation of the Lemon Garden strategy first documented in the December 1707 Paul Graton lease. By requiring lemon planting in every substantial lease, the Company distributed the production of antiscorbutic citrus across multiple tenants and locations, reducing the institutional dependence on a single Lemon Garden facility. The mechanism converts what had begun as a centralised institutional asset into a distributed network of small-scale lemon producers, with the institutional architecture providing the framework for sustained ship-victualling supply across the documented years.
The choice of three sons as the lives for both same-day Greentree leases, with the institutional structure giving the family the maximum likely duration of tenure, perhaps reflects James Greentree's strategic calculation that his sons' lives would extend significantly beyond his own. By converting his immediate institutional position into a multi-generational family settlement, the documented tenant secured the family's perpetual ground for the next generation without requiring fresh grants or institutional renewal beyond the half-year rent payment at each life's admittance. The mechanism perhaps reveals the documented preference for using lives-based tenure as an instrument of family settlement rather than as a personal commercial arrangement.
243
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honoura =ble United Company of merchants of England trading trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farme Lett Unto Arthur Bradley of the Said Island Free holder all that Acres or parcel of Land Containing Eighteen acres Scituate, Lying and being in the East 4 Division of this Island at or near the head of Woody Ridge Com =monly known by y[e] name of Seyloss Ground Buting & bounding towards the North upon y[e] s[ai]d A[rthur] Bradley own 30 acre of free Land towards y[e] S & E[a]st upon y[e] severall parcels of Land in the Posses[s]ion of Rob[er]t Bell, free hol[de]r towards y[e] W[est] upon y[e] Land of James Wood Sen[io]r To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised Eighteen 4 Acres of Land with the appurtenances and every part thereof to him the Said Arthur Bradley his Heirs Executors Adminstratiors or allowed of Assignes from the day of the date of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of Edmund Bradley Senior, John Bradley and Giles Smith [...] all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominee Upon Conditions that he the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns, do alwayes bear true faith and allegiance to Our Soveraigne Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honour =able Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Consti =tutions of the Said Island Yeilding and paying therefore Yearly and every year during the Said Term, unto the Said Honourable Company their Successo[rs] agents or assigns the yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides One Shilling Duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Bless[ed] Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of March alwayes Provided That he the Said his Heirs &c[t] Shall Imediatly Sett about and Fence in the Said acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and when So Enclosed and Funded That then he or they do proceed to plant One Acre in Ten and So proportion =able for greater or lesser Quantity with Such Plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can gett to Grow best thereon and Upon failure of the Wood groweing Upon the first Second or third planting He the Said or his Successo[rs] Shall Yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same w[i]th the best plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid And That the Said His Heirs or allowed of Assignes Shall likewise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the Said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every One Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to plant Others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall Decay so as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as Often as need shall require and not to suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land marks and which will Occasion the alteration of the plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governour and Council for the time being [...] In Witness
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Arthur Bradley of the island, freeholder, a parcel of eighteen acres in the East Division of the island at or near the head of Woody Ridge, commonly known by the name of Seyloss Ground. The parcel was bounded northwards by Arthur Bradley's own thirty acres of free land, southwards and eastwards by several parcels of land in the possession of Robert Bell, freeholder, and westwards by the land of James Wood senior.
The grant was to Arthur Bradley, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of Edmund Bradley senior, John Bradley and Giles Smith, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees [...]
The lease was held on condition that Arthur Bradley, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Arthur Bradley was immediately to set about fencing the parcel with a good and sufficient fence. When enclosed and fenced, he or his successors were to plant one acre in ten, and proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity, with timber trees or other wood that could best be grown there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were yearly at the proper seasons to replant the parcel with the best timber or other thriving trees. He and his successors were also to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre of the demised land. They were to plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the parcel formed a good fruit-bearing orchard or lemon garden.
The eighteen acres and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair whenever required. The ground was not to be allowed to run out. The fences, once well made, were not to be altered, since they were the landmarks and any change would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. The lease or any interest in it was not to be sold or disposed of contrary to the true meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being.
Interpretations
The lease extends the lives-based tenure framework to Arthur Bradley, with the institutional structure precisely reproducing the architecture observed in the parallel James Greentree leases of May 1719. The eighteen-acre parcel in the East Division at the head of Woody Ridge takes its working byname from Seyloss Ground, a previously undocumented locality within the records. The institutional pattern of using working bynames for parcels reproduces the documented practice observed across the 1713-1719 sequence.
Arthur Bradley appears here as freeholder, with the leased parcel adjoining his existing thirty acres of free land. The institutional pattern of extending leasehold tenure adjacent to existing freehold ground reproduces the documented strategy of consolidating working estates around a perpetual core. Arthur Bradley connects to the earlier documented Arthur Bradley who, with his wife Sarah, had sold ten acres to Walter Belvard in October 1705 for one hundred Spanish dollars and four head of cattle. His continuing institutional position into 1719, now with substantial accumulated holdings, marks the documented progression of a soldier from the early 1700s into the established freeholder layer.
The three lives nominated for the duration of the lease were Edmund Bradley senior, John Bradley, and Giles Smith. The selection of two Bradleys (Edmund senior and John, perhaps brothers, sons or kinsmen of Arthur) plus Giles Smith (the joiner and carpenter master who had taken Robert Leech as apprentice in March 1716) reveals the documented practice of mixing family and non-family lives within the institutional structure. The pattern parallels the Antipas Tovey lease of February 1719, where Margaret (the tenant's wife), John Coles and Elizabeth Marsh widow had been nominated as the three lives.
Edmund Bradley senior carries the senior qualifier, marking the documentation of a younger generational figure (Edmund Bradley junior) elsewhere within the family. The institutional preservation of generational distinctions through the senior qualifier reproduces the documented pattern observed in Sutton Isaac senior and junior, John Nichols senior, Thomas Allis senior, Thomas Harper senior and the other documented senior-junior pairings.
John Bradley emerges here as a previously undocumented figure within the wider Bradley family. The selection of John as a life-nominee places him within Arthur's kinship network, perhaps as a son or younger brother whose probable longevity would extend the lease's duration.
Giles Smith continues his documented institutional role across the records. His earlier appearance as the joiner-and-carpenter master apprenticed to Robert Leech in March 1716, his confirmation in ten acres of freehold and twenty acres of leasehold near the head of Pleasant Valley in the 4 August 1713 sitting, and his recurring presence in the documented institutional circle together place him as an established figure by 1719. The nomination of an established non-family life perhaps reflects the institutional preference for life-nominees with documented presence and stability rather than purely family relationships.
Robert Bell as the southern and eastern boundary holder continues his documented institutional position across multiple categories. His earlier classifications as planter, mason, cooper, cutter and freeholder, combined with his repeated property acquisitions across the records, place him among the most documented artisanal-freehold figures of the period. The institutional pattern of identifying him as freeholder in the present 1719 lease reproduces his settled position within the documented landholding class.
James Wood senior on the western boundary continues his documented institutional position. His earlier appearances across the records include his role as cooper, free planter, corporal and James Wood (with variant identifications), with the senior qualifier here perhaps reflecting the documentation of a younger James Wood by 1719. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of generational identification within the institutional circle.
Woody Ridge as the location of Sexton's Ground had been documented in the 7 May 1717 William Alexander lease of fifteen acres of gumwood land at the head of Woody Ridge. The Seyloss Ground byname here represents a separate parcel at or near the same area, with the institutional pattern of multiple bynames within a single broader location preserving the documented landscape granularity.
The institutional architecture of the improvement covenants precisely reproduces the standard 1717-1719 framework. The combination of timber-tree planting on one acre in ten, lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, ten lemon or fruit trees per acre across the parcel, and the resilience clause for replanting on failure at the first, second or third attempt creates a documented tree-planting commitment matching the equivalent obligations in the Antipas Tovey, James Greentree and other contemporary leases.
The good heart and repair language for the ground and fences, the fence-as-landmark covenant, and the disposal restriction reproduce the documented standard covenants. The mechanism reveals the documented systematisation of the 1717-1719 framework, with template covenants applied across the documented sequence of leases.
The half-year rent fee at the admittance of each new life, although not fully recoverable in the present text, follows the standard pattern observed in the parallel leases. The institutional adjustment from the full year's rent of the December 1717 Cason lease to the half year's rent of the 1719 leases reproduces the documented refinement of the renewal-fee structure.
The fifth regnal year of King George I, calculated from August 1718 to August 1719, places the present lease (whose specific sealing date rests in the closing portion of the deed not yet recoverable) within the institutional period of late 1719 or thereabouts.
Speculations
The institutional choice of Edmund Bradley senior, John Bradley and Giles Smith as the three lives perhaps reflects Arthur Bradley's strategic calculation about the balance of family and non-family lives. By including two Bradley kinsmen and one established non-family figure, the tenant secured the family interest while including an institutional life whose documented presence and stability provided independent assurance of the lease's continuation. The mechanism perhaps reveals a deliberate diversification strategy within lives-based tenure planning, with the inclusion of Giles Smith providing a kind of demographic hedge against the simultaneous failure of multiple family lives.
The selection of an artisanal master craftsman (Giles Smith, the joiner and carpenter) as one of the three lives perhaps reflects the institutional value of his stable trade-based presence. As a documented master of a permanent trade with an apprentice in train (Robert Leech), Smith represented a particularly settled and visible figure within the institutional circle. The selection perhaps reveals the documented preference for life-nominees whose institutional standing was independent of family connections, with their visible trades and apprentices providing the institutional architecture with reliable demographic anchors.
The cluster of substantial freeholders documented as adjoining holders to the Seyloss Ground parcel (Arthur Bradley himself, Robert Bell and James Wood senior) perhaps reveals the documented pattern of institutional concentration in the East Division by 1719. The combination of three substantial freeholders adjoining each other places the documented institutional accumulators within a coherent landscape cluster, with the boundary configuration perhaps reflecting earlier institutional grants that had distributed the East Division ground to a small number of established figures.
244
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and To Farme Letts unto Edmond Nichols of the Said Island free Holder all that Piece or parcell of Land Containing Twenty one Acres Scituate lying and in the West 4 Division of this Island at or near the head of M[r] Flemons valley, Butting toward the S[outh] & W[est] upon the free Land of Johna Nichols his Son and toward the N[orth] & East Upon Honourable Companys Waste Land [...] To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised Thirty 4 acres of Land with the appurtenances and every part thereof to him the Said Edmond Nichols his Heirs Executors Administrators or allowed of Assignes from the day of the dak of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of Elizabeth wife of the Said Edm[ond] Nichols Robert Nichols and Elizabeth Nichols all of this Island and the Longest Lives of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees, Upon the payment of half a years Rent at the Admittance of Each Life or new Nominee Upon Conditions that he the Said Edmond Nichols his Heirs or allowed of Assignes Do allway bear true faith and allegiance to Our Sovereigne Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yielding and paying therefore yearly and every year during the Said Term, unto the Said Honourable Company their Successors Agents or Assignes the yearly Rent of Four Shillings per Acre besides One Shilling duty being in all five Shillings per Acre at the feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin mary being the Twenty fifth of March alwayes Provided That he the Said Edmond Nichols his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediatly Setts about and Fence in the Said Sleeps of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and when to Enclosed and Fenced That then he or they do proceed to plant One Acre in Ten and So proportionable for greater or lesser Quantity with Such plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as her they can get to Grow best thereon, and Upon failure of the Woods groweing Upon the first Second or third Planting He the Said Edmond Nichols or his Successors Shall yearly at the Proper Seasons of the year Replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other thriveing Trees as he or they can get as aforesaid And That the Said Edmond Nichols his Heirs or allowed of Assignes Shall like =wise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the Said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every One Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to plant Others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall Decay as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden, and the whole Thirty 4 Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as Often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the plott hereunto Annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Sam Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governo[u]r Sealed Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]'s Lords Propr[ietors] in y[e] presence to these P[rese]nts have Sett their Common Seal at their Castle in James valley this 25 day of of May 1719 And the Said Edmond Nichols to the other part hath Setts to his hand & Seale
Edm[ond] Nichols
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to Edmond Nichols of the island, freeholder, a parcel of twenty-one acres in the West Division of the island at or near the head of Mr Flemon's Valley. The parcel was bounded southwards and westwards by the free land of Edmond Nichols's son Johna Nichols, and northwards and eastwards by the Honourable Company's waste land.
The grant was to Edmond Nichols, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of Elizabeth, wife of Edmond Nichols, Robert Nichols and Elizabeth Nichols, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that Edmond Nichols, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Edmond Nichols was immediately to set about fencing the parcel with a good and sufficient fence. When enclosed and fenced, he or his successors were to plant one acre in ten, and proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity, with timber trees or other wood that could best be grown there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were yearly at the proper seasons to replant the parcel with the best timber or other thriving trees. He and his successors were also to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre of the demised land. They were to plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the parcel formed a good fruit-bearing orchard or lemon garden.
The twenty-one acres and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair whenever required. The ground was not to be allowed to run out. The fences, once well made, were not to be altered, since they were the landmarks and any change would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. The lease or any interest in it was not to be sold or disposed of contrary to the true meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being.
The Honourable Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 25 May 1719. Edmond Nichols set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Edmond Nichols
Interpretations
The lease extends the lives-based tenure framework to Edmond Nichols, with the institutional structure precisely reproducing the architecture observed in the parallel May 1719 James Greentree leases. The twenty-one-acre parcel at the head of Mr Flemon's Valley adds to Edmond Nichols's institutional position adjacent to the documented free land of his son Johna Nichols. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of extending leasehold tenure across multiple parcels within a coherent family cluster, with father and son holding contiguous ground in the West Division.
Edmond Nichols connects to the documented John Nichols senior of earlier records (probably under variant first-name rendering) and to the wider Nichols family network. The earlier 4 August 1713 confirmation of John Nichols senior in forty acres across two parcels (twenty-five acres at the head of an unspecified valley and fifteen acres under the High Peak) established the family's institutional position. The present 1719 lease to Edmond Nichols (perhaps the same individual under variant rendering or a kinsman) reinforces the family's documented continuing accumulation.
Mr Flemon's Valley appears as a previously undocumented working byname within the records. The courtesy title Mr attached to the byname's eponym reveals the institutional standing of the Flemon family, although no Flemon figure has been independently documented within the records to this point. The pattern parallels the earlier Powell's Valley (named for the Gabriel Powell family) and Greentree's Plain (named for the Greentree family), with topographical features taking their names from prominent landholders.
Johna Nichols as Edmond Nichols's son holding adjacent free land marks the documented progression of the family across two generations. The unusual first name Johna (perhaps a scribal corruption of Jonah, Jonathan or John, or a distinct given name in its own right) introduces a previously undocumented figure within the broader Nichols family.
The three lives nominated for the duration of the lease were Elizabeth (the tenant's wife), Robert Nichols and Elizabeth Nichols. The selection of the tenant's wife plus two further Nichols family members (Robert and Elizabeth, perhaps son and daughter) reproduces the documented pattern of using lives drawn from the immediate family circle. The mechanism parallels the James Greentree leases of four days earlier, where the tenant's three sons had been nominated as the lives. The Edmond Nichols lease modifies the pattern by including the wife and (probably) two children, with the family configuration providing a documented multi-generational set of lives.
The presence of two Elizabeths within the named lives (Elizabeth the wife and Elizabeth Nichols, probably a daughter) reproduces the documented pattern of recurring first names within early modern families. The institutional differentiation between the two Elizabeths rests on their separate identification through Edmond Nichols's wife and Elizabeth Nichols as the daughter, with the documentary regime accommodating the duplication without requiring further qualifiers.
Robert Nichols emerges here as a previously undocumented figure within the broader Nichols family. The selection of a Robert and a daughter Elizabeth alongside the tenant's wife reproduces the documented practice of using a mix of family lives to secure the longest probable tenure duration.
The duplication of acreage references within the deed (twenty-one acres in the opening text but thirty-four acres in the habendum and the final repair clause) reveals scribal inconsistency within the institutional record. The institutional pattern of preserving such textual ambiguities perhaps reflects the documentary regime's reliance on the annexed plan rather than on textual precision for the operative description. The twenty-one-acre figure in the opening recital probably represents the correct measurement, with the thirty-four-acre references reflecting a scribal error perhaps drawn from the preceding lease in the documentary chain.
The improvement covenants reproduce the standard 1717-1719 framework precisely. The combination of timber-tree planting on one acre in ten, lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, ten lemon or fruit trees per acre across the parcel, and the resilience clause for replanting on failure at the first, second or third attempt creates a documented tree-planting commitment matching the equivalent obligations in the parallel leases of the period.
The 25 May 1719 sealing date places the Edmond Nichols lease four days after the parallel James Greentree leases of 21 May 1719. The institutional pattern of clustering related leases within a short administrative window reproduces the documented practice of using single weeks to process multiple lives-based tenancies. The Company's continued use of the framework across the late spring and early summer of 1719 reveals the active institutional administration of land-tenure regularisation.
The institutional architecture continues the standard fence-as-landmark covenant, the good-heart-and-repair requirement, and the disposal restriction observed across the documented sequence. The mechanism reveals the documented systematisation of the 1717-1719 framework, with template covenants applied across multiple leases sealed within the documented period.
The half-year rent fee at the admittance of each new life reproduces the adjusted renewal structure observed in the 1719 leases (against the full year's rent of the December 1717 Cason lease). The mechanism reveals the institutional refinement of the renewal-fee mechanism during the documented period.
Speculations
The institutional decision to grant Edmond Nichols a twenty-one-acre parcel adjacent to his son Johna Nichols's free land perhaps reflects the documented practice of supporting family consolidation around generational cores. By extending leasehold tenure to the father at a parcel directly adjoining the son's existing freehold, the institutional regime created a documented two-generation Nichols cluster within the West Division. The mechanism perhaps reveals the documented strategy of using lease grants to reinforce the family-based land tenure pattern.
The use of the tenant's wife and two further Nichols family members (Robert and Elizabeth) as the three lives, rather than the three sons used in the James Greentree leases, perhaps reflects the demographic composition of the Edmond Nichols family at the moment of the 1719 lease. With fewer sons of mature age than James Greentree's documented three sons, Edmond Nichols selected his wife and two other family members as the available lives. The mechanism reveals the documented flexibility of the lives-based framework in accommodating different family configurations.
The acreage inconsistency in the deed, with the opening twenty-one acres becoming thirty-four acres in the habendum and the final repair clause, perhaps reflects scribal practice within the institutional regime. The documentary clerks probably drafted multiple leases simultaneously, with text from one lease occasionally appearing in another through copying errors. The institutional tolerance of such inconsistencies perhaps reflects the documented reliance on the annexed plan as the authoritative description, with textual ambiguities resolved through reference to the cartographic record rather than through revision of the deed text.
245
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Propriet[o]rs of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Grant Lease Setts and To Farme Setts unto James Vesey 4 of the Said Island Free Planter all that Piece or parcell of Land Contain =ing Eight 4 acres Scituate lying and being in the South 4 Division of the Island at or near the foot of the Maine Ridge Butting toward the N[orth] upon the Cabbagetree Land of M[r] Harwell, towards the S[outh] upon the Lands of M[r] John Alexander Hat. Propos[s]ed by John Long towards the E[ast] upon the free Land now in posses[s]ion of the Said James Vesey, and towards the West upon the Lands of Martha Robinson [...] To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised Eight 4 Acres of Land with the appurtenan =ces and every part thereof to him the Said James Vesey 4 his Heirs Executors Adminstrators or allowed of Assignes from the day of the dack of these p[rese]nts for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of James Vesey Iun[ior] J[ohn] Vesey & Martha Vesey Sons & Daughter of the Said James Vesey 4 of 4 4 4 all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees Upon the payment of half a years Rent at the Admittance of Each Life or new Nominee Upon Conditions that he the Said James Vesey 4 his Heirs or allowed of Assignes, Do alwayes bear true faith and allegiance to our Sovereigne Lord King George His Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and pay =ing therefore yearly and every year during the Said term unto the Said Honourable Company their Successo[rs] =ors Agents or Assignes the yearly Rent of Four Shillings per acre besides One Shilling duty being in all five Shilling per acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin mary being the twenty fifth of March alwayes Provided That he the Said James Vesey 4 of his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediatly Setts about and Fence in the Said acre of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and when to Enclosed and Fence That then He or they do proceed to plant One Acre in ten and So propor =tionable for a greater or lesser Quantity with Such plants of Timber Trees or Such other woods as he or they can gets to Grow best thereon, and Upon failure of the woods groweing Upon the first Second or third planting He the Said James Vesey 4 of 4 or his Successors Shall yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other thriveing Trees as he or they can gets as aforesaid And That the Said James Vesey 4 4 his Heirs or allayed of Assigns Shall likewise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the Said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good fruit Trees for every One Acre of the aforesaid Demis =ed Land, and to Plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall Decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden, and the whole Eight 4 Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the plott hereunto Annexed nor shall not Sell nor no way dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Govern[o]r and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] and Lords Propriet[o]rs to these p[rese]nts have Sett their Comon Seale at their Castle in James Valley this 25[t]h of March Anno 1719 And the Said James Vesey to the other part hath Sett his hand and Seale
Sealed & Delivered in the presence of James Vesey
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, leased to James Vesey of the island, free planter, a parcel of eight acres in the South Division of the island at or near the foot of the Main Ridge. The parcel was bounded northwards by the cabbage tree land of Mr Harwell, southwards by the lands of Mr John Alexander then possessed by John Long, eastwards by the free land then in the possession of James Vesey, and westwards by the lands of Martha Robinson.
The grant was to James Vesey, his heirs, executors, administrators or assigns approved by the Company, from the date of the deed for the natural lives of James Vesey junior, John Vesey and Martha Vesey, the sons and daughter of James Vesey, all of the island, and the longest survivor of the three. The lease was renewable after the death of any of the nominees on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life or nominee.
The lease was held on condition that James Vesey, his heirs or approved assigns always bore true faith and allegiance to King George I, his heirs and successors, and to the Honourable Company and their successors, and that they duly obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island. The annual rent was four shillings per acre, with an additional one-shilling duty, making five shillings per acre in all, payable on 25 March, the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
James Vesey was immediately to set about fencing the parcel with a good and sufficient fence. When enclosed and fenced, he or his successors were to plant one acre in ten, and proportionally for any greater or lesser quantity, with timber trees or other wood that could best be grown there. On failure of growth at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were yearly at the proper seasons to replant the parcel with the best timber or other thriving trees. He and his successors were also to plant lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for every acre of the demised land. They were to plant new trees in place of any that decayed, so that the parcel formed a good fruit-bearing orchard or lemon garden.
The eight acres and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair whenever required. The ground was not to be allowed to run out. The fences, once well made, were not to be altered, since they were the landmarks and any change would force alteration of the plan annexed to the deed. The lease or any interest in it was not to be sold or disposed of contrary to the true meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being.
The Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors set their common seal to the deed at the Castle in James Valley on 25 March 1719. James Vesey set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
Sealed and delivered in the presence of [...]
James Vesey
Interpretations
The lease extends the lives-based tenure framework to James Vesey, the documented free planter whose witnessing role across multiple deeds since 1701 had placed him within the institutional circle. The eight-acre parcel at the foot of the Main Ridge in the South Division reproduces the institutional architecture observed in the parallel leases of 1719, with the lives-based mechanism, the standard rent structure and the standardised improvement covenants.
The 25 March 1719 sealing date places the lease on Lady Day, the principal English quarter day and the institutional rent-collection date used across the documented period. The choice of the rent-collection day for sealing the lease perhaps reflects a deliberate institutional alignment of the lease commencement with the Company's accounting cycle. The mechanism converts the lease into a documented quarterly-anchored institutional instrument.
The 25 March 1719 dating sits earlier in the sequence than the 21 May 1719 Greentree leases and the 25 May 1719 Edmond Nichols lease. The institutional pattern reveals the Vesey lease as the earliest documented instance of the 1719 lives-based grants within the present recovered sequence, with the Company's institutional administration of the framework extending across the late winter, spring and early summer of 1719.
James Vesey appears here as free planter, marking his documented institutional standing across the period. His earlier role as witness in the December 1686 Fewsdale-Bevean sale, the 1697 wash-house council order (where his name was not specifically attached but his role as a witness appears across other instruments), the February 1712 Mary Jewister slave gift, the March 1712 Mason-Wrangham settlement, the June 1714 Tovey acknowledgement of the Maxwell share, the May 1715 Cleve-Greentree sale, and the present 1719 lease together place him as one of the most documented witnesses of the institutional period.
The three lives nominated for the duration of the lease were James Vesey junior, John Vesey and Martha Vesey, identified as the sons and daughter of James Vesey. The selection of the tenant's children as the three lives reproduces the documented pattern observed in the James Greentree leases of May 1719, where the tenant's three sons had been similarly nominated. The mechanism reveals the documented strategy of using the next generation's lives to secure family ground across the documented framework.
The boundary description identifies four named adjoining holders. The cabbage tree land of Mr Harwell on the north connects to a previously undocumented figure within the records, with the courtesy title Mr placing him within the senior civilian circle. The Harwell surname does not appear in the prior documented sequence, perhaps reflecting his recent emergence as an institutional figure or his arrival on the island by 1719.
Mr John Alexander on the south reproduces the documented position of the long-serving register and substantial accumulator. The institutional designation of his land as then possessed by John Long records the practical occupation by the long-serving witness and adjoining holder named across multiple boundaries in the records. The mechanism reveals the documented pattern of distinguishing between freehold ownership (Alexander) and working possession (Long), with the lease boundary description capturing both layers.
James Vesey's own free land on the east places his existing freehold position as the anchor for the present leasehold extension. The institutional pattern of extending leasehold tenure adjacent to existing freehold ground reproduces the documented strategy observed in the parallel 1719 leases.
Martha Robinson on the west emerges as a previously undocumented widow or female holder within the records. The Robinson surname connects to John Robinson, the documented free planter holding Company leasehold ground confirmed in the 1 August 1711 sitting. Martha Robinson may represent his widow, daughter or kinswoman, with her institutional position as boundary holder marking her independent tenure of the West-side ground.
The reduced acreage scale of the Vesey lease at eight acres, against the eighteen-acre Bradley lease, the twelve-acre and eighteen-acre Greentree leases, the twenty-one-acre Nichols lease and the thirty-six-acre Tovey lease, reveals the documented institutional differentiation between substantial and modest extensions. James Vesey as free planter received a proportionally smaller addition to his existing estate than the larger grants to council members and senior freeholders. The mechanism reveals the documented hierarchy of lease scales reflecting the tenants' relative institutional standing.
The improvement covenants reproduce the standard 1717-1719 framework precisely. The cumulative tree-planting obligation across the eight acres comprises 0.8 acres of timber trees (one acre in ten), lemon trees round the inside of all the fences, and 80 lemon or fruit trees (ten per acre). The institutional architecture creates a documented tree-planting commitment proportional to the smaller parcel size, with the framework's per-acre formulation producing scaled obligations.
The fence-as-landmark covenant, the good-heart-and-repair requirement and the disposal restriction reproduce the documented standard covenants observed across the leases of the period. The mechanism reveals the documented systematisation of the 1717-1719 framework, with template covenants applied across multiple leases sealed within the documented period.
Speculations
The choice of 25 March 1719 (Lady Day) as the sealing date perhaps reflects the institutional preference for aligning lease commencements with the rent-collection date. By sealing the lease on the same day as the annual rent would fall due, the institutional regime perhaps simplified the calculation of the first year's rent, with the entire first year's obligation maturing exactly one year after sealing. The mechanism converts the lease into a documented quarterly-anchored instrument, with the institutional calendar driving the administrative procedure.
The selection of the tenant's children (James junior, John and Martha) as the three lives, reproducing the documented pattern of the parallel May 1719 Greentree leases, perhaps reveals the institutional preference for child-based lives across the 1719 framework. By using children's lives rather than spouse-and-children mixes or family-and-friend combinations, the tenant maximised the probable duration of the lease through the typically longer lifespans of young people. The mechanism reveals the documented strategic deployment of demographic patterns within lives-based tenure planning.
The relatively modest scale of the eight-acre extension to James Vesey's existing freehold, against the substantial cumulative grants to other contemporary tenants, perhaps reflects the institutional calibration of lease size to existing accumulation. As a documented free planter with established freehold ground (named in the boundary description), James Vesey received only a small additional parcel rather than a substantial extension. The mechanism perhaps reveals the documented institutional preference for proportional grants that supplemented rather than transformed existing tenures.
246
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United company of Merchants of England trading to y[e] East Indies
Do hereby Confirm unto John Alexander Gent[leman] and Free Holder ten Acres of Hundred Land lying Scituate at or near the Head of one Branch of Sandy Bay Valley in the South Division of the Said Island formerly in the posses[s]ion of Thomas Guggen, Geo[rge] Sanders & Cap[tain] Geo[rge] Harwell with all and Singular the Appurtenances thereunto belonging of what nature kind or Quality Soever Butting towards the W[est] upon the Lands of Tho[mas] S[w]allow free holder, towards the East upon the Demised Land formerly hired by Tho[mas] Perkins but now in the posses[s]ion of the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] towards the S[outh] upon the Lands of James Vesey free Planter and the Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any]s waste Land lying in a Valley below the writeing Stone Ridge and towards the W[est] upon the Land hired formerly by the Said Thomas Guggen deed as also two dwelling Houses Standing on one part of the Said Land and is now in the Possession of the Said John Alexander which ten acres of Free Land and two houses he the Said John Alexander hath a just right and Title to as may more fully appeare upon Examination in a Consultation of 26 day of May Dom[ini] one Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen To have and to hold the Said ten Acres of [Demised] Land and Houses with all & all other the appurtenances thereunto belonging as aforesaid To him the Said John Alexander his heirs and assigns for ever Upon Condition that he the Said John Alexander his Heirs and assigns Do alwayes bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Comp[any] Lords Proprietors to these presents have Sett their Comon Seale at their Castle in the Said Island in James Valley this 3 June Dom[ini] one Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen
Seal'd and Deliver'd in the Presence of:
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, confirmed to John Alexander, gentleman and freeholder, ten acres of land at or near the head of one branch of Sandy Bay Valley in the South Division.
The parcel had earlier been in the possession of Thomas Guggen, George Sanders and Captain George Harwell. The grant carried all appurtenances of whatever kind.
The boundaries ran west to the land of Thomas Swallow freeholder, east to the demised land formerly hired by Thomas Perkins and now held by the Company, south to the land of James Vesey free planter and the Company's waste land in a valley below Writing Stone Ridge, and west again to land formerly hired by the deceased Thomas Guggen.
Two dwelling houses stood on part of the ground and were already occupied by John Alexander.
Alexander's title to the ten acres and the two houses had been examined and established by consultation of 26 May 1719.
The grant ran to him, his heirs and assigns for ever, on condition that he and his successors kept true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and obeyed all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 3 June 1719, and delivered it in the presence of the witnesses named below.
Interpretations
The description of the land as hundred land marks a class of allotted ground distinct from Company waste and from hired or demised land. The category appears in earlier records as the freehold core of the regularised tenure framework, with each parcel tied to its original distribution under the inquest and successive confirmations.
The chain of earlier possession running through Thomas Guggen (Gargen), George Sanders and Captain George Harwell preserves institutional memory of three successive holders before Alexander. Guggen had held adjoining Sandy Bay ground under the 1711 framework as freeholder and lessee. George Sanders had been documented in January 1718 as the second husband of Mercy Alexander, widow of Richard Alexander, and earlier in the consultation book as the agent for the maintenance of Richard Alexander's children. Captain George Harwell is the same individual as Captain George Haswell, deputy governor by 1717 and son-in-law of Thomas Goodwin through marriage to Elizabeth, with the variant rendering preserved across the scribal record. The 1719 confirmation routes Alexander's title through the senior council figure whose widow had sold the principal Sandy Bay estate to him for £480 0s 0d only weeks earlier.
The demised land formerly hired by Thomas Perkins but now in the Company's possession reveals the operation of leasehold reversion. Perkins had taken the 20 July 1711 Sandy Bay lease but the ground had fallen back to the Company by 1719, perhaps on his death or surrender. The institutional record preserves the prior tenant's name even after reversion as a working byname for the parcel.
Writing Stone Ridge as a topographical marker recurs from the earlier Charles Steward 4 August 1713 leasehold description, anchoring the southern boundary of Alexander's parcel within the documented Sandy Bay landscape.
The consultation of 26 May 1719 as the title-establishing procedure operates within the post-1711 framework requiring formal council adjudication before regularisation. The eight-day gap between the consultation and the sealing on 3 June 1719 reflects the standard engrossing interval for substantial freehold confirmations.
The condition of true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors continues the institutional formula introduced in the earliest Company grants of 1684, with the reigning monarch updated to the Hanoverian succession. The dual allegiance to crown and Company preserves the proprietary character of the island's tenure throughout the documented period.
The Castle in James Valley appears here without the variant renderings Union Castle or United Castle documented in earlier records, suggesting the institutional terminology had settled by 1719 into the simpler form.
Speculations
The 1719 confirmation completes John Alexander's documented Sandy Bay accumulation in coordinated fashion with the 16 May 1719 Haswell sale. Alexander bought ten acres with house, outhouse, provisions and buildings from Elizabeth Haswell on 16 May 1719 for £480 0s 0d, with the parcel having passed through Thomas Goodwin, George Haswell and Elizabeth Haswell. Within ten days the council convened the 26 May 1719 consultation establishing Alexander's title to a separate ten-acre parcel adjoining or near the first, with two dwelling houses already in his occupation. The compressed timetable suggests the Haswell sale and the council confirmation were coordinated steps in a single estate transition, with the senior council figures clearing residual Sandy Bay holdings out of the Haswell line and routing them into Alexander's hands through complementary private and institutional procedures.
The reference to two dwelling houses already standing on the ground and already in Alexander's occupation indicates that he had been in working possession before the formal confirmation. The mechanism reveals the institutional pattern of regularising existing occupation through formal council procedure, with the documentary regime catching up to settled practice rather than initiating it. The houses had probably been built or acquired during the Guggen-Sanders-Harwell chain and had passed to Alexander through informal arrangements before the 1719 council consultation made the position formal.
247
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies Do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farme Lett Unto John French of the Said Island Gunner & Free Planter all that Piece or parcell of Land Containing twenty Six Acres Scituate lying and being in the East Division of this Island at or near the head of Pleasant Valley Butting & Bounding every way as in and by a deed formerly Granted to Giles Smith & entered in the 174 folio old Regist Book in may mere fully appear, To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised twenty Six Acres of Land with the appurtenances and every part thereof to him the Said John French his Heirs Executors Administrators or Allowed of Assignes from the Day of the Date of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of Mary French Elizabeth French & Sarah French daughters of him the Said John French and all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them, Renewable after the death of any of the Said Nominees, Upon the payment of half a years Rent at the Admittance of Each Life or new Nominee, Upon Conditions That he the Said John French his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do alwayes bear true faith and allegiance to Our Sovereign Lord King George his Heirs and Successo[rs] ors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the S[ai]d Island Yeilding and paying therefore Yearly and every year during the Said Term Unto the Said Honourable Comp[any] their Successors Agents or Assigns the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides One Shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the twentie fifth of march Allways Provided That he the Said John French his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediatly Setts about and Fence in the Said Acres of Land in a good and Sufficient Fence and when So Inclosed & Fenced That then He or they do proceed to Plant One Acre in ten and So proportion =able for a greater or Lesser Quantity with Such Plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can get to grow best thereon and Upon failure of the woods groweing Upon the first Second or third planting He the Said John French or his Successors Shall yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other thriveing Trees as he or they can get as aforesaid And That the Said John French His Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall Likewise plant Lemon trees round all and every the Inside of the Said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every One Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall Decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden, and the whole twenty Six Acres of Land [Demised] with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart & repair when and as Often as need shall require, and not Suffer y[e] Ground to be run out, nor to alter the Fences after they are well made, which are the Land marks & which will Occasion the alteration of the plott hereunto Annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same Contrary to the Tenor and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governor and Council for the time being In Witness whereof
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to John French of the island, gunner and free planter, a parcel of twenty-six acres in the East Division at or near the head of Pleasant Valley.
The boundaries were those set out in an earlier deed granted to Giles Smith and entered at folio 174 of the old register book.
The lease ran on the natural lives of French's three daughters, Mary French, Elizabeth French and Sarah French, all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
French and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
French was bound to fence the twenty-six acres immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten with timber trees or other suitable wood, in proportion to a greater or smaller area. If the trees failed at the first, second or third planting, he or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees available.
French was also required to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, together with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land. He was to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole twenty-six acres and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
French could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
Interpretations
The identification of John French as gunner and free planter combines garrison office with planter status. Earlier records document John French as gunner of the island and chief gunner of Fort James, with a documented chain of urban and rural property dealings from March 1705 onwards. The dual classification continues the pattern of garrison officers building agricultural estates alongside their military duties.
The recital that the boundaries are those of an earlier deed to Giles Smith entered at folio 174 of the old register book routes the parcel through documented institutional memory. Giles Smith the joiner and carpenter had held leasehold ground in Pleasant Valley under the 4 August 1713 framework. The 1719 lease to French transfers the same boundaries to a new tenant through fresh allocation rather than assignment, with the Company controlling the destination of the reverted parcel.
The lives-based tenure on three daughters as nominees marks the enhanced 1717-1719 framework. The selection of three daughters rather than a wife and children spreads the demographic risk across a single generation while preserving the parcel within the French family. The longest-liver provision converts the lease into a near-perpetual settlement under the youngest daughter's expected lifespan.
The half-year rent payable at the admittance of each new life reflects the institutional refinement introduced during 1718-1719. Earlier lives-based leases had required a full year's rent at each renewal, with the December 1717 Cason regrant operating under that older standard. The lighter renewal fee in the 1719 leases reduces the institutional friction on succession while preserving the Company's income from the admittance procedure.
The differential rent of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty making 5s 0d per acre continues the standard 1711 framework rate. Lady Day as the rent day aligns the island administration with metropolitan English quarter-day practice.
The enhanced improvement covenants combine timber-tree planting at one acre in ten, lemon trees round the inside of all fences, and a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees per acre. The three-attempt resilience clause obliges French to replant on failure at the first, second or third attempt, with continuing annual replanting if early efforts failed. The covenants reveal the institutional priority on building a distributed lemon-production network across multiple tenants, supporting ship-victualling supply against scurvy.
The prohibition on altering fences once properly made treats fences as legal landmarks tied to the annexed plan. The mechanism converts the physical boundary into the operative legal description, with the surveyor's plan rather than the textual recital governing the parcel's extent. The institutional reliance on plans rather than on textual precision reflects the documented pattern observed across the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The disposal restriction requiring council consent before sale or transfer departs from the freely transferable 99-year leases of the earlier framework. The mechanism preserves Company supervision over the tenant population and prevents anti-concentration breaches through informal subletting or assignment.
Speculations
The selection of John French as the new tenant of the former Giles Smith parcel rather than a member of the Smith family suggests Smith had either surrendered, forfeited or died without an heir willing to continue the tenancy. Smith's 1713 lease had operated on the standard 21-year term commencing 25 March 1712 and would have run until 1733. The Company's redirection of the parcel to French in 1719 implies an early termination through one of these routes, with the institutional record preserving Smith's name as a working byname for the boundary while routing the operative tenancy to a fresh holder under the enhanced lives-based framework.
The naming of three daughters as the lives, with no son included, perhaps reflects the absence of male heirs in the French household or a deliberate decision to settle the parcel as a women's portion. The institutional pattern of vesting lives-based tenure in daughters appears across the 1719 leases (Edmond Nichols nominated his wife Elizabeth and probably his daughter Elizabeth; James Vesey nominated his daughter Martha alongside his sons). French's selection of three daughters preserves the Pleasant Valley parcel as an inheritance specifically routed to the women of the family, perhaps in anticipation of dowry settlements or as protection against marital appropriation under English coverture rules.
248
whereof the Said Honourable United Comp[an]y and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Comon Seale at their Castle in James Valley this 3 Day of June Anno One Thousand Seven hundred & Nineteen and the Said John French to the Other part hath Sett his hand & Seale
Sealed & Delivered In the P[res]ence of J[ohn] Pyke Gov[ernor]
J[oh]n Alexander J[oh]n Goodwin
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honour =able United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farme Lett unto of the Said Island all that piece or parcell of Land Containing acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near
To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised acres of Land with the appurtinances and every part thereof to him the Said his Heirs Executors Administrators or allowed of Assignes from the Day of the Date of these Presents for and Dureing all the time Space and Term of the Naturall lives of
all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the Payment of half a years rent at the admittance of Each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the Said his Heirs or allow'd of Assignes Do allways bear true faith and allegience to our Sovereigne Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and paying therefore Yearly and every year during the Said term unto the Said Honourable company their Successors agents or assignes the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[e]r Acre besides one shilling duty being in all Five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Bl[essed] Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of march allwayes Provided that he the Said his Heirs &c[t] Shall immediatly Sett about and Fence in the Said acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and that So inclosed and Fenced that then he or they do proceed to plant One Acre in Ten and So Proportionable for a Greater or Lesser Quantity with Such plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can get to grow Best thereon
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on 3 June 1719, and John French set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of John Pyke, governor, John Alexander and John Goodwin.
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
Interpretations
The completion of the French lease records Isaac Pyke as governor by 3 June 1719, with John Alexander and John Goodwin attending as witnesses alongside him. Pyke had emerged as governor by the March 1718 Cason-Worrall assignment, and the June 1719 confirmation places him in continuing office. The witness panel reflects the close institutional circle of senior council members and substantial freeholders attending lives-based confirmations.
The blank engrossing template that follows the French lease reveals the documentary practice of preparing standard forms in advance, with the tenant's name, the acreage, the division, the location and the names of the nominated lives left to be entered when a particular grant was made. The pre-printed framework streamlines the production of multiple lives-based leases under the 1717-1719 enhanced tenure regime. The standard rate of 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, the Lady Day rent date, the fencing requirement and the timber-tree planting covenant all appear as fixed clauses requiring no negotiation, marking the maturity of the institutional framework by mid-1719.
249
thereon and Upon failure of the woods groweing Upon the First Second or third Planting he the Said or his Successors Shall yearly at the Proper Seasons of the Year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall likewise Plant Lemon Trees ground all and every the Inside of the said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every One Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall decay so as the same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart & repair when & as often as need Shall require & not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land marks & which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no ways Dispose of this Lease, or Interest In the Same Contrary to the Tenor and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governor & Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Hon[oura]b[le] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seal at their Castle in James Valley this Anno one thousand Seven hundred and Nineteen and the Said to the other part hath Sett to his hand and Seale
Sealed & Delivered In y[e] presence of
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farme Lett unto of the Said Island all that peice or parcell of Land containing Acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near the
To have and to hold the said hereby Demised acres of Land with the appurtenances and every part thereof to him the Said his Heirs Executors Administrators or allowed of Assignes from the day of the Date of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of of either of them, Renewable all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them, Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the Payment of half a years rent at the Remitagme of Each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do alwayes bear true faith and Allegiance to Our Sovereign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the said Island Yeilding and paying therefore Yearly and every year during the said Term, unto the Said Honourable Company & their Successors agents
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on [...] 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The tenant was to yield and pay each year during the term, to the Company and its successors, agents [...].
Interpretations
The continuation of the blank engrossing template through a second instance reveals the institutional preparation of multiple lives-based lease forms in advance. The standard clauses for fencing, timber-tree planting at one acre in ten, lemon-tree planting round all fences and at ten additional fruit trees per acre, the prohibition on running out the ground, the fence-as-landmark rule and the disposal restriction all appear as fixed elements of the 1719 leasehold regime.
The repeated reference to the plan annexed to the lease confirms that each instrument carried its own cartographic record, with the surveyor's plan rather than the textual recital governing the operative boundary. The mechanism reflects the institutional reliance on visual rather than written description for boundary definition, paralleling the documented practice of the 4 August 1713 sitting.
The half-year renewal fee at the admittance of each new life continues the institutional refinement of 1718-1719, lighter than the full-year renewal of the earlier December 1717 Cason regrant. The reduction made succession on lives-based tenure less burdensome while preserving the Company's procedural authority over each new life's admittance.
250
agents or assignes the yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shilling p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the twentieth fifth of March allways Provided that he the said his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediatly Sett about and Fence in the said Acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and when that So inclosed and Fenced that then he or they do proceed to plant One Acre in Ten and So proportionable for a greater or Lesser Quantity with Such Plants of Timber Trees or such other wood as he or they can gett to grow Best thereon and upon failure of the woods groweing Upon the first Second or third planting he the said or his Successors Shall Yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall likewise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the said Fences besides Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit trees for every one Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemmon Garden and the whole acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require and not to Alter the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land Marks and which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor shall not Sell nor no ways Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same Contrary to the Tenor and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governor and Council for the time being, In Witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these p[rese]sents have Sett their common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Dom[ini]: one thousand Seven hundred and nineteen and the said to the other part hath Sett to his hand and Seale
Sealed & Delivered in the presence of
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley on [...] 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
Interpretations
The repetition of the standard 1719 leasehold template across a third instance confirms the institutional practice of preparing multiple blank forms in advance for use across the lives-based tenure programme. The fixed clauses for rent at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, Lady Day collection, immediate fencing, one acre in ten timber-tree planting, lemon trees round all fences with ten additional fruit trees per acre, the three-attempt resilience clause, the prohibition on running out the ground, the fence-as-landmark rule and the disposal restriction all appear identically across each instance.
The institutional reliance on a standardised form rather than on bespoke drafting for each tenant reveals the maturity of the 1717-1719 framework by the time of the June 1719 sealings. The Company had moved from negotiated individual grants in the earlier 1711-1713 period to a near-uniform leasehold instrument with only the tenant's name, the acreage, the location, the lives and the witnesses left to be filled in at the point of execution. The mechanism reduced engrossing costs and ensured consistency of obligation across the growing population of lives-based tenants.
251
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease Setts and to Farm Lett unto of the Said Island all that Peice or Parcell of Land Containing Acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near the
To have and to hold the Said hereby Demised acres of Land with the appurte =nances and every part thereof to him the Said his Heirs Executors administrators or allowed of Assigns from the day of the Date of these p[rese]sents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the Payment of half a years rent at the admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do allways bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island, Yeilding and Paying therefore Yearly and every Year during the Said Term, unto the Said Honourable company their Successors agents or assigns the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of march allways Provided that he the Said his Heirs &c[t] Shall imediatly Sett about and Fence in the Said Acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and that so inclosed and Fenced that then he or they do proceed to plant One Acre in Ten and So proportionable for a greater or Lesser Quantity with Such plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can get to grow best thereon and Upon failure of the woods groweing upon the first Second or third planting he the Said or his Successors Shall Yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or others Thriveing Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall likewise plant Lemmon Trees round all and every the Inside of the Said Fences beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole Acres of Land with the fences to be well and Sufficiently kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made, which are the Land marks and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same contrary to the Tenor and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governour & Council for the time being In Witness whereof the Said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these presents have Sett their common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Dom[ini]: one thousand seven hundred and Nineteen and the Said to the
Island of St Helena
What follows is the standard form of words used by the Company, acting as Lords Proprietors, for granting lives-based leases on the island in 1719. The text sets out the operative legal language in full, with the tenant's name, the acreage, the division, the location, the names of the nominated lives, the date of execution and the witnesses left blank to be entered when a particular grant was made.
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
Interpretations
The blank engrossing template represents the master form of words prepared by the Company's secretariat for the lives-based leasehold programme of 1717-1719. The institutional purpose was to ensure that every lease issued under the enhanced framework carried identical covenants on rent, fencing, tree planting, ground maintenance and disposal restriction. The clerk filled in the variable elements at the point of execution once the council had approved a specific grant.
The standardisation marks the maturity of the lives-based tenure regime by 1719. The earlier 1711-1713 framework had used 21-year terms with negotiated boundaries and individual drafting for each grant. The 1717-1719 transition introduced lives-based settlements running across multiple generations under a single fixed instrument, with the operative clauses removed from negotiation and reduced to a printed or scribally repeated template.
The fixed clauses cover six distinct institutional obligations. The annual rent at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty makes 5s 0d per acre in total, collected each Lady Day in line with metropolitan English quarter-day practice. The fencing obligation requires immediate enclosure with a good and sufficient fence, with the fence treated as a legal landmark once erected. The timber-tree planting covenant at one acre in ten requires replanting at the first, second or third attempt and annual replanting thereafter if the trees failed. The lemon and fruit-tree covenant requires lemon trees round the inside of every fence and a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees per acre, with continuing replacement on decay. The ground-maintenance obligation prohibits running out the ground and altering the fences after they are properly made. The disposal restriction requires council consent before any sale or transfer of the lease.
The half-year rent payable at the admittance of each new life marks the institutional refinement introduced during 1718-1719. The earlier December 1717 Cason regrant had required a full year's rent at each renewal. The lighter renewal fee in the 1719 leases reduces the friction on succession while preserving the Company's procedural authority over each new life's admittance.
The reference to the plan annexed to the lease confirms that each completed instrument carried its own cartographic record, with the surveyor's plan rather than the textual recital governing the operative boundary. The fence-as-landmark rule converts the physical boundary into the operative legal description.
The disposal restriction requiring council consent before sale or transfer departs from the freely transferable 99-year leases of the earlier framework. The mechanism preserves Company supervision over the tenant population and prevents anti-concentration breaches through informal subletting or assignment.
252
the other part hath sett to his Sealed & Delivered in the presence of
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease, Sett and to Farm Lett unto of the Said Island all that peice or parcell of Land containing acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near the
To have and to hold the said hereby Demised acres of Land with the appertinances and every part thereof to him the Said his Heirs Executors administrators or allowed of Assignes from the Day of the Date of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them, Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the payment of half a years rent at the admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do allways bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successo[rs] and to the said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and Paying therefore Yearly and every Year during the said Term, unto the said Honourable Company their Successors agents or assigns the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of March allways Provided that he the Said his Heirs &c[t] Shall imediately Sett about and Fence in the said Acres of Land with a good and Sufficient Fence and when so inclosed and Fenced that then he or they do proceed to plant one Acre in Ten and So proportionable for a greater or Lesser Quantity with Such plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can gett to grow Best thereon and upon failure of the woods groweing upon the first Second or third planting he the said or his Successors shall Yearly at the proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best plants of Timber or other Thriving Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the said His Heirs or allowed of Assign Shall Likewise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the said Fences
The tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart, and the deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
A further instance of the same standard lives-based leasehold template follows in the register, again left blank for completion at the point of execution.
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence.
253
Fences beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one Acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall decay so as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the Ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made and not to Suffer the Land marks and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and Consent of the Governor and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] United Company and Lords Proprietors to these presents have Sett their common Seale at their Castle in James Valley this Dom[ini]: one Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen and the said to the other part hath Sett to his hand and Seale
Sealed & delivered in the presence of
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease, Sett and to Farm Lett unto of the said Island all that piece or parcell of Land Containing acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near the
To have and to hold the said hereby Demised Acres of Land with the appurtenan =ces and every part thereof to the Said his Heirs Executors administra tors or allowed of Assigns from the day of the Date of these presents for and during all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them, Renew =able after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the Payment of half a years rent at the admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do allways bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the Said Honourable Company and their Successors and Shall duly Obey all the Laws and Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding and Paying therefore Yearly and every year during the Said Term unto the Said Honourable Company their Successors agents or assigns the Yearly Rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of March allways Provided that he the said his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediately Sett about and Fence in the said Acres of Land with a good and
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
A further instance of the same standard lives-based leasehold template follows in the register, again left blank for completion at the point of execution.
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence.
254
and Sufficient Fence and that So inclosed and Fenced that then he or they do proceed to plant one Acre in Ten and So proportionable for a greater or Lesser Quantity with such plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can get to grow best thereon and upon failure of the woods groweing upon the first Second or third planting he the Said or his Successors Shall yearly at the Proper Seasons of the year replant the same with the best plants of Timber or other Thriving Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall likewise plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Inside of the said Fences beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one acre of the aforesaid Demised Land and to plant others in their Room or stead as any of them Shall decay So as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land marks and which will occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same, contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and consent of the Governor and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the said Honourable United Company and Lords Proprietors to these presents have Sett their common Seal at their Castle in James Valley this One Thousand Seven Hundred and Nineteen and the said to the other part hath Sett to his hand and seal
Sealed & Delivered in the presence of
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Proprietors of this Island the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise, Grant, Lease, Sett and to Farme Lett unto of the said Island all that piece or parcel of Land Containing acres Scituate lying and being in the Division of this Island at or near the
To have and to hold the said hereby Demised acres of Land with the appurtenances and every part thereof to him the said his Heirs Executors administrators or allowed of Assigns from the day of the Date of these presents for and During all the time Space and Term of the Naturall Lives of all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them, Renewable after the death of any of the said Nominees upon the
Once enclosed, the tenant was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
A further instance of the same standard lives-based leasehold template follows in the register, again left blank for completion at the point of execution.
Island of St Helena
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee on the [...].
255
The Payment of half a Years rent at the admittance of each Life or new Nominee Upon Condition that he the Said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do allways bear true faith and allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the said Honourable Comp[any] & their Successors and shall duly obey all the Laws and Cons- =titutions of the Said Island Yeilding & Paying therefore Yearly & every Year during the said Term unto the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company their Successors Agents or Assigns the Yearly Rent of Four Shilling p[er] Acre besides one Shilling duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of march allways Provided that he the said his Heirs &c[t] Shall Immediately Sett about & Fence in the Said Acres of Land with a good & Sufficient Fence and that so Inclosed & Fenced that then he or they do proceed to Plant one Acre in Ten and So Pro =portionable for a greater or Lesser Quantity with Such Plants of Timber Trees or Such other wood as he or they can get to grow Best thereon, & upon failure of the Woods Groweing upon y[e] first Second or third Planting he the said or his Successors Shall Yearly at the Proper Seasons of the year replant the same with the best Plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as he or they can get, as aforesaid and that the said His Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall likewise Plant Lemond Trees round all and every the Inside of the said Fences beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one Acer of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to Plant others in their Room or Stead as any of them Shall decay so as the same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden and the whole Acres of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently Kept in good heart and repair when and as often as need Shall require, and not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the Land Marks and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto Annexed, nor Shall not Sell nor no way Dispose of the Lease or Interest in the same contrary to the Tenor and true meaning thereof without the Knowledge and consent of the Govern[o]r and Council for the time being In witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Set their Common Seal at their Castle in James Valley this D[omini] one Thousand Seven hundred Nineteen and the said to the other part hath sett his hand and Seal
Seal'd & Deliver'd in the Presence of
The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
256
Island St Helena
The Honourable the Lords Propreitors of this Island the Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] of merchants of England Trading to The East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease Sett and to Farm Sett unto of the Said Island all that Peice or Parcell of Land Containing Acres Scituate Lying and being in the Division of the Island at or near the
To have and to hold the said hereby Demised Acers of Land with the Appertinances and every Part thereof to him the said his Heirs Executors Administrators or allowed of Assigns From the Day of the date of these Presents for and Dureing all the Time Space and Term of the natural Lives of all of this Island and the Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the Said Nominees upon the Payment of half a years rent at the admittance of each Life or new Nominee, upon Condition that he the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Do alwayes bear true Faith and Allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Heirs and Successors and to the s[ai]d Hon[oura]ble Company and their Successors, and shall duly Obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the Said Island Yeilding & Paying therefore Yearly & every Year During the said Term unto the said Hon[oura]ble Company their Successors Agents or Assigns the Yearly rent of Four Shillings p[er] Acer besides one Shilling in duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acre at the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of March Provided that he the said his Heirs &c[t] Shall Imediately Sett about & Fence In the Said Acres of Land with a good & Sufficient Fence & when so Inclosed & Fenced that then he or they do Proceed to Plant one Acer in Ten and So Propor =tionable for a greater or a Lesser Quantity with such Plants of Timber Trees or such other wood as he or they can get to Grow Best thereon, & upon Failure of the Woods Growing upon the First, Second or third Planting he the said or his Successors Shall Yearly at the Proper Seasons of y[e] Year replant the same with the Best Plants of Timber or other Thriving Trees as he or they can gett as aforesaid and that the said his Heirs or allowed of Assigns Shall Likewise Plant Lemon Trees round all and every the Insides of the said Fences, beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every one Acer of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to Plant others in their Room & Stead as any of them Shall decay so as the Same may be a good Fruit Bearing Orchyard or Lemon Garden & the whole Acers of Land with the Fences to be well & Sufficiently kept in good heart & repair when & as often as need Shall require, & not to Suffer the ground to be run out nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are the
Island of St Helena
A further instance of the same standard lives-based leasehold template follows in the register, again left blank for completion at the point of execution.
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made.
257
&c the Land marks & which will Occasion the Alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way Dispose of this Lease or Interest in the Same Contrary to the Tenour & true meaning of these Presents without the Knowledge & Consent of the Govern[o]r and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the said Hon[oura]b[le] United Comp[any] and Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seal at their Castle In James Valley this D[omini] One Thousand Seven hundred & Nineteen and the said To the other Part hath Setts to his hand & Seal
Sealed & Delivered In the Prossence of
Island St Helena
The Hon[oura]b[le] The Lords Proprietors of this Island The Honourable United Company of Merchants Trading to the East Indies do hereby Demise Grant Lease Setts & to Farm Sett unto of the said Island all that Piece or Parcells of Land containing Acers Sciteate Lying & being in the Divission of this Island at or near the
To have & to hold the said hereby Demised Acers of Land with the appurtinances and every Part thereof to him the said His Heirs Executors Administrators or allowed of Assigns from the Day of the date of these Presents for and During all the Time Space & Term of the natural Lives of all of this Island and The Longest Liver of either of them Renewable after the Death of any of the said Nominee upon the full Payment of half a Years rent at the admittance of each new Life or Nominee upon Condition that he the said his heires or allowed of Assigns Do allways bear true Faith & Allegiance to our Soveraign Lord King George his Hiers & Successors & to the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company & their Successors & Shall Duly Obey all the Laws & Constitutions of the said Island Yeilding & Paying therefore Yearly & every Year during the said Term unto the said Hon[oura]b[le] Company their Successors Agents or Assigns the yearly rent of of Four Shillings p[er] Acer besides One Shilling p[er] Acre Duty being in all five Shillings p[er] Acer the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the Twenty fifth of March Provided that
The fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the knowledge and consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
Island of St Helena
A further instance of the same standard lives-based leasehold template follows in the register, again left blank for completion at the point of execution.
The Honourable Lords Proprietors of the island, being the Honourable United Company of Merchants trading to the East Indies, leased to [...] of the island a parcel of [...] acres in the [...] Division at or near [...].
The lease ran to him, his heirs, executors, administrators or allowed assigns from the date of the deed for the natural lives of [...], all of the island, with the term continuing as long as any one of them lived. The lease was renewable on the death of any nominee, on full payment of half a year's rent at the admittance of each new life.
The tenant and his successors were required to keep true faith and allegiance to King George, his heirs and successors, and to the Company and its successors, and to obey all the laws and constitutions of the island.
The annual rent ran at 4s 0d per acre plus 1s 0d duty per acre, making 5s 0d per acre in all, payable each 25 March on the feast of the Annunciation.
258
That he the said his Hiers &c[t] Shall Imediately Sett about & Fence in the said Acers of Land with a good & Sufficient Fence, and that So in =closed & Fenced that then he or they do Proceed to Plant one Acer in Ten and So Report =ortible for a greater or Lesser quantity with Such Plants of Timber Trees or such other wood as he or they can gett to grow the best thereon, & upon failure of the woods Groweing upon the First Second or third Planting he the said or his successors Shall Yearly at the Proper Seasons of the year replant the Same with the best Plants of Timber or other Thriveing Trees as he or they can get as aforesaid & that the said his Heires or allowed of Assigns Shall Likewise Plant Lemon Trees round all & every the Inside of the said Fences beside Ten more Lemon or other good Fruit Trees for every One Acer of the aforesaid Demised Land, and to Plant others in their Roam or Stead as any of them Shall decay so as the Same may be a good Fruit bearing Orchya[rd] or Lemon Garden and the whole Acers of Land with the Fences to be well and Sufficiently kept in good heart & repair when & as often as need Shall require and not to Suffer the Ground to be run out, nor to alter the Fences after they are well made which are Land marks and which will Occasion the alteration of the Plott hereunto annexed nor Shall not Sell nor no way dispose of this Lease or Interest in the same Contrary to the Tenour and true meaning thereof without the Consent of the Gov[ern]o[r] and Council for the time being In Witness whereof the said Honourable United Comp[any] & Lords Proprietors to these Presents have Sett their Common Seal at their Castle in James Valley this D[omini] one Thousand seven hundred & Nineteen And the said to the other Part hath set to his hand & Seal
Sealed & Delivered in the Presence of
The tenant was bound to fence the parcel immediately with a good and sufficient fence. Once enclosed, he was to plant one acre in ten, in proportion to a greater or smaller area, with timber trees or other suitable wood that would grow best on the ground.
On failure of the trees at the first, second or third planting, the tenant or his successors were to replant each year at the proper seasons with the best plants of timber or other thriving trees they could obtain.
The tenant and his successors were also bound to plant lemon trees round the inside of every fence, with a further ten lemon or other good fruit trees for each acre of the demised land, and to replace any tree as it decayed, so that the ground became a productive orchard or lemon garden.
The whole acreage and the fences were to be kept in good heart and repair as often as need required. The ground was not to be run out, and the fences were not to be altered once properly made, since they served as the landmarks fixed to the plan annexed to the lease, and any alteration would disturb that plan.
The tenant could not sell or otherwise dispose of the lease or his interest in it against the meaning of the deed without the consent of the governor and council for the time being.
The Company sealed the deed under its common seal at the Castle in James Valley in 1719, and the tenant set his hand and seal to the counterpart.
The deed was sealed and delivered in the presence of [...].
259
Blank page
260
Book cover
261
EAP 1364 St Helena
Document Name and Date: Register of Leases and Deeds 1682-1719
Dimensions (height x width x depth) (cm): (h) 53 cm x (W) 38 cm x (D) 6 cm
No. written pages: 258
No. blank pages: 2
Spine and cover: Good Condition
Inside pages: Good Condition Pages are numbered
Additional comments:
Time taken to photograph (hours): 5 hours